StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Apple added the configuration option to add dual quad-core 3 GHz Xeons to the Mac Pro.

I guess that elicts a 'meh, cool' from me. While the Mac Pro is still cheaper than most equivilant machines, it doesn't seem like that big a deal, since it's such an expensive addon. Apple really needs to bump those machines up to 2 GB stock configuration...

But anyway, yeah, if there's any video editors here, that's the machine you want to order. Eight processor goodness.

EDIT: Interestingly, Intel doesn't sell quad-core 3 GHz Xeons; Cloverton is 2.66. Does Apple have early release chips, or are they overclocking?

According to wiki the 3.0 ghz is slated for July. However I wouldn't be surprised if the first new ones are coming off the assembly line and going into apples.

But the price... four grand gets you $150 worth in memory, a single 250gb drive, and a 7300gt. That just makes me cry.

The Ars Technica GodBox is by far fucking better and cheaper.

InnocentBystander wrote:According to wiki the 3.0 ghz is slated for July. However I wouldn't be surprised if the first new ones are coming off the assembly line and going into apples.

But the price... four grand gets you $150 worth in memory, a single 250gb drive, and a 7300gt. That just makes me cry.

As far as I can tell from Google, a single 2.66 GHz quad Xeon costs around $1500. I think most of the price of that system is in the processors. Considering there are four hard drive slots, I'd probably grab a bunch of hard drives after (since Apple always overcharges on accessories).

Actually, I just tried to configure the exact same machine with Dell. It came out to $5,065. Same settings (Dell defaulted to 80 GB hard drive, I upgraded it to 250 GB, it also defaulted to 1 GB of RAM), though the processor is actually slower (dual quad-2.66).

To be fair, we're talking about 2 top of the line server quality processors. Newegg sells the 2.66Xenon version (not C2D, which is cheaper...) for like $1300, and this is two of them on a board which can support two of them. Thats not cheap right there, while I wouldn't say its a worthwhile upgrade from 2.66 to 3ghz, the processors could very easily retails for $1500, so right there you've got three grand in processors.

Now I don't know what the motherboard costs, but its got... maybe $450 in hardware there plus what, $150-200 or so in support and software? I'd say it 'looks' like its a 10% markup. Not terrible, but if apple were to sell the 2.66C2Ds instead, thats a grand less. While I'm not qualified to say how big of a performance impact, I wouldn't jump up and claim a 25% increase in performance. I wouldn't call it overpriced as much as I'd call it a bad decision, as you appear to save significant money by not getting bleeding edge processors.

Ace Pace wrote:The Ars Technica GodBox is by far fucking better and cheaper.

It also "only" has four cores vice eight. For CPU-intensive loads the new Mac Pro is better and nobody in their right mind builds their own computers for production use.

Also, remember, thanks to slOwS X, much of the power of those eight cores is likely to be wasted anyway... Probably the best bet for anyone buying this machine would be to immediately install Linux on it. A major thorny question is of course, whether or not you can run OS X in a VM on Apple hardware (from my reading of the license, I am not convinced that this would be forbidden). However, with its specs, the Mac Pro would certainly be powerful enough. However, for the price, why not get a real professional grade workstation like an IBM Intellistation?

RThurmont wrote:Also, remember, thanks to slOwS X, much of the power of those eight cores is likely to be wasted anyway... Probably the best bet for anyone buying this machine would be to immediately install Linux on it.

The scheduler is not that bad on MacOS X. Yes, it suffers in typical server loads compared to NT and Linux, but this is not designed as a server.

A major thorny question is of course, whether or not you can run OS X in a VM on Apple hardware (from my reading of the license, I am not convinced that this would be forbidden). However, with its specs, the Mac Pro would certainly be powerful enough. However, for the price, why not get a real professional grade workstation like an IBM Intellistation?

Maybe an organization has standardized on Apple and does not wish to pay the nontrivial cost of changing? For that matter, the Intellistation M is not yet available in octuple-core configuration (if one needs that)

RThurmont wrote:Also, remember, thanks to slOwS X, much of the power of those eight cores is likely to be wasted anyway...

Source? Everything I've heard is that Mac OS X is great in multiprocessor usage (from a user standpoint, when using multiple applications; no idea about server usage). Not as good as Linux, perhaps, but better than Windows.

As far as why get the Mac...standardizations and exclusive software (Final Cut Pro comes to mind) are the first two ideas that come to mind.

Ace Pace wrote:The Ars Technica GodBox is by far fucking better and cheaper.

How well does it legally run OS X?

Xisiqomelir wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:The Ars Technica GodBox is by far fucking better and cheaper.

How well does it legally run OS X?

Can it? The OS X EULA (IIRC) prohibits installation on non-Apple-branded hardware, and Apple does not sell Intel Mac OS X CD's (every Intel Mac came with the Tiger CDs, the one on retail shelves is PowerPC) IIRC. So the only way to get an Intel OS X CD is to buy an Intel Mac, or torrent it (not legal).

Unless sticking an Apple sticker counts as Apple-branding. Do I smell a loophole?

How well does it legally run OS X?

But that's my point, who would want to legally run OS X? It's basically BSD, but retarded with layers and layers of unneccessary, poorly designed GUI, no built-in virtualization capability (though this is rumored for Leopard), and proprietary APIs.

BTW, my source for saying OS X is slow is my own experience. However, here is some benchmarking to back it up. In my experience though, whenever I have more than five tabs open in Safari, the system will slow to an absolute crawl.

It's only illegal if that EULA holds up in a court of law; has this been done yet?

I could write some program and write an EULA for it saying that use of the program is prohibited on computers owned by people who haven't given me a blowjob... just because I write it in legal-sounding language doesn't mean it'll hold up.

I for one take pretty steep umbrage at the notion that I can be legally barred from operating a program on hardware that hasn't been approved.

Well, a big risk though, is regardless of whether the EULA is enforceable or not, Apple can still sue you, and then you have to cough up money to hire lawyers and deal with the lawsuit. The threat of inconvenience or hassle is what makes many legally dubious or outright illegal contracts effective (for instance, in California, in spite of it being illegal, a number of companies continue to use non-compete agreements of some sort).

RThurmont wrote:

How well does it legally run OS X?

But that's my point, who would want to legally run OS X? It's basically BSD, but retarded with layers and layers of unneccessary, poorly designed GUI, no built-in virtualization capability (though this is rumored for Leopard), and proprietary APIs.

BTW, my source for saying OS X is slow is my own experience. However, here is some benchmarking to back it up. In my experience though, whenever I have more than five tabs open in Safari, the system will slow to an absolute crawl.

That's cause Safari is a peice of crap when it comes to memory management and Apple under-ships RAM.

I'm running FireFox in a MacBook with 2 GB of RAM and it runs like a dream. WHILE Windows XP is running in a Virtual Machine in the background (heck, I forgot it was running).

The GUI is certainly better than Linux's inconsistency. We're talking about UNIX-like stability coupled with ease of use Linux and most BSD's lack; to the point that I can transfer programs by dragging and dropping their folders to another Mac.

Yes, in it's areas of specialty, Linux wins. Linux will always win for server and multiprocessing. But Linux can't run Photoshop, Premiere, Final Cut, Lightwave, After Effects, Motion, or any of the other major commercial video/image/3D modelling/motion graphics editing applications many professionals need.

It's only illegal if that EULA holds up in a court of law; has this been done yet?

I could write some program and write an EULA for it saying that use of the program is prohibited on computers owned by people who haven't given me a blowjob... just because I write it in legal-sounding language doesn't mean it'll hold up.

I for one take pretty steep umbrage at the notion that I can be legally barred from operating a program on hardware that hasn't been approved.

Cool. I agree, personally.
The problem does arrive, though, that you have no way to actually purchase an Intel copy of Mac OS X, until Leopard arrives. So until June, the only way to get Intel Mac OS X is through illegal means or by purchasing an Intel Mac.

RThurmont wrote:But that's my point, who would want to legally run OS X? It's basically BSD, but retarded with layers and layers of unneccessary, poorly designed GUI, no built-in virtualization capability (though this is rumored for Leopard), and proprietary APIs.

And the average user cares about proprietary APIs (or even native virtualization)? And I've found the OS X GUI better designed than either GNOME or KDE.

What do open APIs and native virtualization give me? How do they help me get my work done?

BTW, my source for saying OS X is slow is my own experience. However, here is some benchmarking to back it up. In my experience though, whenever I have more than five tabs open in Safari, the system will slow to an absolute crawl.

I've personally never experienced any speed issues with Safari (maybe it's the way Flash is handled?) and while that benchmark is interesting a GA is a rather specialized application. I am not convinced that it is good general benchmark or indicative of what most OS X users will be doing.

Is RThurmont *still* moaning about OSX because Safari sucks? No matter how many people tell him similar or WORSE systems to the one he used work fine under much higher loads, so long as you don't use Safari? Oh wait, you can damn an entire OS because it's browser sucks... LIKE WINDOWS AM I RITE LOL.

Pissing on about the OSX GUI is pretty funny when even polished Linux distros like Fedora and Mandriva have appalling, inconsistent, incomplete GUIs and OSX is usable with little-to-no instruction by the computer illiterate. 'Normal People' can even manage their system, something that requires far more knowledge under Linux.

Praxis wrote:

Xisiqomelir wrote:

Ace Pace wrote:The Ars Technica GodBox is by far fucking better and cheaper.

How well does it legally run OS X?

Can it?

I was being facetious.

Yes, in it's areas of specialty, Linux wins. Linux will always win for server and multiprocessing. But Linux can't run Photoshop, Premiere, Final Cut, Lightwave, After Effects, Motion, or any of the other major commercial video/image/3D modelling/motion graphics editing applications many professionals need.

The short term solution to the above problems is to use Linux in tandem Windows XP Pro, which lacks the suckage of Vista and unlike OS X, is availible on a wide range of hardware. Additionally, thanks to the new KVM feature introduced with Linux 2.6.20, Windows can now run via hardware virtualization on computers with certain new Intel and AMD processors, and while this might not be adequete for the needs of graphics users, for users of less resource-demanding proprietary Windows only apps, this is a major breakthrough. Additionally, the open source replacements for expensive proprietary graphics software are getting better all the time.

What do open APIs and native virtualization give me? How do they help me get my work done?

Well, why don't you ask the people who buy Parallels? People are paying $70 for a third party app to deliver for OS X what, as of 2.6.20, Linux can do out of the box (on certain CPUS): allow the use of other operating systems simultaneously. Also, if we assume that OS X can be legally used in a VM running on Apple hardware, this entire question is obviated, since instead of running OS X on bare metal, people can use Linux with 2.6.20 or later, and run both OS X and Windows in virtual machines. In that manner, users would be tapping both the full potential of their hardware, and could still access proprietary OS X and Windows apps.

Regarding open APIs, these also do a lot for business users, in that they ensure continuity in the face of platform shifts. They give business users freedom from having to worry about interoperability of their current applications with whatever they might wish to use as operating systems five or ten years down the road. Indeed, this entire debate is ignoring one of the biggest benefits of using Linux rather than OS X on Apple hardware: that of using Open Source/Free Software. Even if Linux was technically inferior to OS X (which as far as I can tell, its not), I would argue that the added benefits that open source affords in terms of flexibility, security, user control, and cost of ownership would more than outweigh any technical inferiorities.

However, fortunately, I am not forced to argue the benefits of Linux merely on the grounds of it being open source, since it also, as far as I can tell, is a better OS from a technical perspective.

Regarding the issue of the Linux GUIs, I find it amusing that Linux is being bashed for inconsistancy by Mac fanboys, who use an OS that ships with upwards of four different styles of windeco! In Linux, the inconsistency between KDE and GNOME only becomes noticeable when you use the apps of one on the other, and even then, it's an extremely minor thing. The worst trouble its ever given me has been in terms of font size disparity between the two, and only after I had heavily meddled with the default configuration.

However, the most moronic statement I've seen in this thread is Stark's claim that n00bs are somehow more able to use OS X than Linux. I've personally seen total Windows n00bs sit down in front of Linux and thrive in that environment. From the conversations I've had, a lot of Windows users do get stuck using OS X for the first time due to the huge differences between its UI and that of Windows, whereas the high degree of similiarity between KDE and GNOME, and Windows, makes the transition much easier for that demographic. It's also worth noting that the OLPC and Intel's Classmate PC both run Linux (the former selecting Linux in spite of an offer from Jobs to supply OS X free of charge).

Cool. I agree, personally.
The problem does arrive, though, that you have no way to actually purchase an Intel copy of Mac OS X, until Leopard arrives. So until June, the only way to get Intel Mac OS X is through illegal means or by purchasing an Intel Mac.

I would be really suprised if Leopard in fact does not in fact utilize Apple's trusted platform module to ensure that it only is used on Apple hardware.

RThurmont wrote:Regarding the issue of the Linux GUIs, I find it amusing that Linux is being bashed for inconsistancy by Mac fanboys, who use an OS that ships with upwards of four different styles of windeco! In Linux, the inconsistency between KDE and GNOME only becomes noticeable when you use the apps of one on the other, and even then, it's an extremely minor thing. The worst trouble its ever given me has been in terms of font size disparity between the two, and only after I had heavily meddled with the default configuration.

I have not yet used a distro that has full GUI control of the services I use linux for on my server. I always end up having to hunt for documentation and then doing it in commandline. Normal People don't like this sort of thing and give up. Don't even get me started on what they'd do if they had to build anything.

RThurmont wrote:However, the most moronic statement I've seen in this thread is Stark's claim that n00bs are somehow more able to use OS X than Linux. I've personally seen total Windows n00bs sit down in front of Linux and thrive in that environment. From the conversations I've had, a lot of Windows users do get stuck using OS X for the first time due to the huge differences between its UI and that of Windows, whereas the high degree of similiarity between KDE and GNOME, and Windows, makes the transition much easier for that demographic. It's also worth noting that the OLPC and Intel's Classmate PC both run Linux (the former selecting Linux in spite of an offer from Jobs to supply OS X free of charge).

I said 'manage', idiot. Not just use for IM or internet or something - actually manage. Sure people can use Linux to do things they already do - as you say, the menus etc are very similar to that of Windows - but actually managing a Linux system can be a pain in the ass. Maybe it's different with paid support (which I've never used), but I've never seen a free distro used by a Normal Person without hunting around and hitting the limits of the GUI - or being unable to find the one function they want which isn't in the GUI, or being forced to build their own apps for something (like boost.python) using commandline, or whatever. As an aside, my P4 3.0 with a 5500 gets absolutely appalling performance with Mandriva 2007... clearly Linux sucks for everything and nobody should ever use it! I think the Linux GUIs have some good features, but they simply don't have the polish and completeness of Windows or OSX (and all the 3D wankery you can get now doesn't change that).

I'm not a 'Mac fanboy', and I don't hate Linux (I use Linux, OSX and Windows on various systems as seems appropriate). You constantly harping on the two things you don't like about OSX like it damns the entire OS (lol corner drag lol safari) simply shits me to tears. Yes, Linux has a role, and yes many people can use it as a home OS. None of the people I know with Apple laptops would last an hour with Linux before giving up and calling tech support, whereas they're perfectly comfortable with their Apple systems and only needed to be pointed at spotlight. OSX is *not* 'slow lol slow loller slOwSX, it works fine on lower hardware than Vista as far as I can tell. But do keep dragging out your Safari anecdote every time anyone ever mentions OSX even in passing - it's kinda cute.

I have not yet used a distro that has full GUI control of the services I use linux for on my server. I always end up having to hunt for documentation and then doing it in commandline. Normal People don't like this sort of thing and give up. Don't even get me started on what they'd do if they had to build anything.

"Normal People" do not usually admin their own servers (coming no closer than a shared hosting account on GoDaddy or Yahoo!).

Also, regarding the management question, the only distro I've seen that makes any attempt at having a credible GUI, yet was only manageable from the CLI, was Fedora Core 6. It had GUI tools, but the system I installed it to crashed when I attempted to use one of them, and they generally sucked. That said, the CLI tools more than made up for it. Every other distro I've used has either been completely devoid of graphical administration tools, or has had everything I'd need in the default GUI (except ndiswrapper, which is a special case anyway).

Finally to clarify my position on OS X, I do not hate it, but I have a huge number of gripes with it (that run far deeper than the annoying GUI and the slow performance with Safari enabled). In particular, I can't imagine the point of wasting the entire HD capacity of an eight-core workstation on it, unless you really needed certain proprietary Mac-only applications. I do actually enjoy using OS X for certain tasks, however. In general though, I prefer Linux.

However, by far the most annoying thing about OS X, from my perspective, are the Apple fanboys. I think a substantial number of them are n00bs, blinded by Apple's pretty graphic and industrial design, and I resent the fact that they are so actively evangelizing a closed, proprietary platform by a company that has, in many respects, a worse track record than Microsoft in terms of locking customers in and locking their systems down. Mac OS X, for most users, in my opinion, is not a better Windows replacement than Linux, and I think its important that accurate comparisons about the performance and features of the two systems be made availible.

RThurmont wrote:

I have not yet used a distro that has full GUI control of the services I use linux for on my server. I always end up having to hunt for documentation and then doing it in commandline. Normal People don't like this sort of thing and give up. Don't even get me started on what they'd do if they had to build anything.

"Normal People" do not usually admin their own servers (coming no closer than a shared hosting account on GoDaddy or Yahoo!).

I run quite a lightweight server, and even simple tasks not server-related can be fiddly and poorly-documented under Linux. Your experience may be in a corporate setting with training (which I can see working fine) but just sitting people down in front of Linux is not going to work well. I see it all the time in university computer labs.

RThurmont wrote:Also, regarding the management question, the only distro I've seen that makes any attempt at having a credible GUI, yet was only manageable from the CLI, was Fedora Core 6. It had GUI tools, but the system I installed it to crashed when I attempted to use one of them, and they generally sucked. That said, the CLI tools more than made up for it. Every other distro I've used has either been completely devoid of graphical administration tools, or has had everything I'd need in the default GUI (except ndiswrapper, which is a special case anyway).

I've used Fedore Core 4-6 myself, and my experience with the GUI tools is the same. They appear to be maturing (FC4 had several GUI apps that did the same thing, and ie Samba configuration was spread across several different GUI apps) but it still doesn't 'just work'. Mandriva 2007 is 'better', but still not very polished. CLI is always the best way to go, but is a serious obstacle for entry in the mum-and-dad market. I've never used any paid-for distros, however.

RThurmont wrote:Finally to clarify my position on OS X, I do not hate it, but I have a huge number of gripes with it (that run far deeper than the annoying GUI and the slow performance with Safari enabled). In particular, I can't imagine the point of wasting the entire HD capacity of an eight-core workstation on it, unless you really needed certain proprietary Mac-only applications. I do actually enjoy using OS X for certain tasks, however. In general though, I prefer Linux.

While I like OSX for 'light duty' or casual nontechnical use, I couldn't imagine using it for such a high-spec server either... although I've never seen the sort of apps you'd want to be using on such a machine on OSX at all.

RThurmont wrote:However, by far the most annoying thing about OS X, from my perspective, are the Apple fanboys. I think a substantial number of them are n00bs, blinded by Apple's pretty graphic and industrial design, and I resent the fact that they are so actively evangelizing a closed, proprietary platform by a company that has, in many respects, a worse track record than Microsoft in terms of locking customers in and locking their systems down. Mac OS X, for most users, in my opinion, is not a better Windows replacement than Linux, and I think its important that accurate comparisons about the performance and features of the two systems be made availible.

Regardless of what I think of OSX as a product, Apple is certainly not some kind of corporate saint. I think OSX has a niche, but like any OS choice it should be weighed against what you want to use it for and who's going to use it. I don't think OSX is a terrible product, regardless of the foolishness of shipping it with a completely broken browser for years.

RThurmont wrote:Also, remember, thanks to slOwS X, much of the power of those eight cores is likely to be wasted anyway...

Mac OS X is multithreaded to all hell. The kernel will schedule processes on cores as they are available, and it's plenty scalable. But then, not knowing jack-shit about computing or operating systems hasn't stopped you from making idiotic statements in the past.

Probably the best bet for anyone buying this machine would be to immediately install Linux on it.

Yeah great idea. Then you could do ... um, what, with it, exactly?

A major thorny question is of course, whether or not you can run OS X in a VM on Apple hardware (from my reading of the license, I am not convinced that this would be forbidden). However, with its specs, the Mac Pro would certainly be powerful enough. However, for the price, why not get a real professional grade workstation like an IBM Intellistation?

Because it doesn't run Mac OS X.

RThurmont wrote:

Yes, in it's areas of specialty, Linux wins. Linux will always win for server and multiprocessing. But Linux can't run Photoshop, Premiere, Final Cut, Lightwave, After Effects, Motion, or any of the other major commercial video/image/3D modelling/motion graphics editing applications many professionals need.

The short term solution to the above problems is to use Linux in tandem Windows XP Pro, which lacks the suckage of Vista and unlike OS X, is availible on a wide range of hardware. Additionally, thanks to the new KVM feature introduced with Linux 2.6.20, Windows can now run via hardware virtualization on computers with certain new Intel and AMD processors, and while this might not be adequete for the needs of graphics users, for users of less resource-demanding proprietary Windows only apps, this is a major breakthrough. Additionally, the open source replacements for expensive proprietary graphics software are getting better all the time.

So...Mac OS X still does it better, you just want me to install Linux and run everything through a VM (including 3D rendering software and video editting software) because you like Linux better?

No thanks, I'll stick with OS X.

What do open APIs and native virtualization give me? How do they help me get my work done?

Well, why don't you ask the people who buy Parallels? People are paying $70 for a third party app to deliver for OS X what, as of 2.6.20, Linux can do out of the box (on certain CPUS): allow the use of other operating systems simultaneously. Also, if we assume that OS X can be legally used in a VM running on Apple hardware, this entire question is obviated, since instead of running OS X on bare metal, people can use Linux with 2.6.20 or later, and run both OS X and Windows in virtual machines. In that manner, users would be tapping both the full potential of their hardware, and could still access proprietary OS X and Windows apps.

And what's wrong with the other way around? I can run Linux and Windows in a VM on my Mac.

You speak about Linux like it magically unlocks greater performance and we should all be using it for any task, ever, and run everything else under VM. There are some tasks for which it is not yet suited. OS X is not wasting any of the potential of my hardware; the speed difference is minimal and task-dependent.

I would use Linux for a server. I would use OS X for a home machine, or for any sort of creative task (video, 3D, design, etc).

However, the most moronic statement I've seen in this thread is Stark's claim that n00bs are somehow more able to use OS X than Linux. I've personally seen total Windows n00bs sit down in front of Linux and thrive in that environment. From the conversations I've had, a lot of Windows users do get stuck using OS X for the first time due to the huge differences between its UI and that of Windows, whereas the high degree of similiarity between KDE and GNOME, and Windows, makes the transition much easier for that demographic. It's also worth noting that the OLPC and Intel's Classmate PC both run Linux (the former selecting Linux in spite of an offer from Jobs to supply OS X free of charge).

Yeah, if you have a pre-set-up Linux environment, any Windows noob can sit down and run applications; because Linux EMULATES THE WINDOWS ENVIRONMENT, copying even the start menu look.

Have those same Windows noobs try to install and configure applications and watch what happens.

Cool. I agree, personally.
The problem does arrive, though, that you have no way to actually purchase an Intel copy of Mac OS X, until Leopard arrives. So until June, the only way to get Intel Mac OS X is through illegal means or by purchasing an Intel Mac.

I would be really suprised if Leopard in fact does not in fact utilize Apple's trusted platform module to ensure that it only is used on Apple hardware.

Then you're going to be surprised, retard. The current shipping Macs don't even have TPM chips (the first Intel Macs did, the later ones didn't).

http://www.tuaw.com/2006/11/02/apple-dr ... computing/

In particular, I can't imagine the point of wasting the entire HD capacity of an eight-core workstation on it, unless you really needed certain proprietary Mac-only applications.

Dang, the stupidity continues. Where does this even come from?

Mac OS X is about 2 GB. It comes with about 13 GB of extra software (iDVD, iPhoto, iTunes, GarageBand, etc, etc, etc).

That's MINISCULE compared to the stock 250 GB hard drive and the maxed-out 3 TB of space that system can have.

Praxis, I'm certain the lack of TPM chips in newer Macs has already been mentioned to RThurmont by either you or Durandal.