Submitted by “Apple has done something really different with the Mac Pro, and it’s taken a few days to put it all in perspective. Instead of three different models with several build-to-order options, Apple has a single model with a host of build-to-order options. With so many options – Apple says there are millions of possible configurations – it’s not easy to come up with a simple value equation for the Mac Pro.”
Apple has a beautiful server OS, yet they have no “low-end” server options. Where is the Mac Pro Server Option? Single Xeon, on-board graphics or at minimum just a POS add-in card, etc… Yeah, they have the X-Serve, but some people prefer towers for in office and the XServe is still a dual-Xeon option only. For a small office file server, that’s just way too expensive.
I heard from several websites (Robert Cringely being one of them) that the kernel used by OSX is well suited for some server tasks, but really slow for others. Rumor has it that Apple would change kernels (especially because the guy who touted the current kernel left the company). Anybody heard anything else to this effect?
“I heard from several websites (Robert Cringely being one of them) that the kernel used by OSX is well suited for some server tasks, but really slow for others”
1) Same could be said for ANY kernel. 2) Cringely is highly entertaining but very rarely correct. Much smarter than, say, Dvorak or Thurott, though.
IMHO, they are more likely to tweak what they’ve got than change it, but who knows?
What kind of server would fit your purposes? A file server? Network server? Print server? Remote boot server? Depending on your need you’re better off with a (stack of) Mac Mini(s) and (a handful of) external Firewire RAID enclosure(s) (like this one: http://www.granitedigital.com/catalog/pg22a_firewireidehotswapraid_… ).
If you happen to need more than 40MB/s sustained rate, then I guess it makes little sense not to buy the lowest end Mac Pro. Or a Linux box for the matter.
For a small office file server, that’s just way too expensive.
Try a Mac Mini with an external HDD.
Workable…I actually thought about creating a cluster with mini’s but I think that the mini is still at a 10/100 for the network and not a gigabit nic.
Nope, the Intel one at least has 10/100/1000.
http://www.apple.com/macmini/
The Core Duo Mini is 10/100/1000. It’s Gigabit. I have one and it flys when plugged into my iMac G5 isight also with Gigabit.
“For a small office file server, that’s just way too expensive.”
Step 1: Buy a Mac Mini
Step 2: Buy one or more external harddrives e.g. LaCie Mini, iOmega etc.
Done!
http://www.komplett.co.uk/k/ci.asp?sku=10093
Now, obviously the Mac Pro is higher end, dual processor and so on. But still, you have someone who wants to spend under lb1,000. You configure the komplett machine optimally for his budget. There simply is no Mac equivalent in terms of value/performance.
And that wonderful case, by the way. Quiet, cool, a real class act. None of those thick metal resonating panels.
Yes, the Mac Pro is higher end, and it runs OS X too. Your Komplett doesn’t run OS X, and doesn’t have 2 dual core Xeons.
I’m not criticizing the Mac Pro. Certainly not saying that the Komplett is of a similar spec. Not commenting on whether its good or bad value – though it appears from the press coverage that you can’t buy the same spec cheaper anywhere, so it will be good value if you want that spec of machine. That wasn’t the point.
The point is about the range and where it starts, and what you recommend to people for whom money is a real issue, but so is performance, though their needs are at a lower level than the Pro.
There’s a problem. With the range, not with the Pro.
Let’s not forget the market Mac Pro’s are geared to.
Any pro consumer worth their salt will spend for the appropriate tools that get’s the job done and does it well.
Apple is heading in a great direction here. However, I’d like to see a single processor on the market for consumers that would like to stay away from the AIO iMac. I would not be suprised if something like this came about but then again it’s wishful thinking.
Maybe they’ll call it the Mac (Mac Pro)?
Apple PCs aren’t aimed at the average cost conscious PC users.
Sure they are, which is why they have Mac Minis.
I’m sorry but a 1.86GHz Core Duo is not equivalent to two of the latest Xeon’s at 2GHz
.
The graphics are also a generation better on the Mac Pro.
What you found is, no doubt, a nice introductory model computer but it’s not on the same level as a Mac Pro.
I do realise its not on the same level. Carefully trying to avoid suggesting that.
Here’s the issue though when people ask for advice on what to get. You start out at lb650 inc vat with this machine and customize it a bit. Somewhere under lb1,000 you end up with a machine which has an overall performance way over the Mac Minis or all-in-ones. But you don’t want to go up to lb1,700, which is what the base Mac Pro sells for. No, you do not have the processor power that two core duos will give you. But you don’t want it, or not if you have to pay lb1,700 for it.
There is nothing in the product line for you.
What really surprises me is how much money you don’t save by buying from 3rd parties. Obviously if you want 16GB of RAM it makes sense to save 1k by getting 1GB and replacing it but even at that volume you’re spending almost 5k and only saving 1k. Likewise with hardrives, you only save $500 by buying 4x 500GB 3rd party drives.
When you’re talking about spending 11k another 1.5k really isn’t that much. Would Apple see any of that money? I’m kind of interested to know in case I ever have that kind of cash to spend on a new desktop.
Apple doesn’t have good price/performance low end options because they aren’t a low end PC maker. There’s no way they can compete because of their smaller volume. They stick to the high-end and mid-range with a bit of an Apple/Intel tax. They can make cheap machines, but they aren’t going to have the price/performance ratio of competitors because they don’t have the volume.
Edited 2006-08-10 17:53
I dont know what you do for a living, but if I can save 1.5k I will
Also, where I work I need to justify purchases, so if I need to buy a souped-up system, I need to find the cheapest way of doing it so I can use the extra money for other departmental needs,
I agree with the part about the 1.5k, the guy who said that 1.5k makes no difference obviously hasn’t ever made such purchases for a company – that kind of “logic” wouldn’t fly worth a salt!
However, at the same time, I disagree with your second statement. No business in their right mind, who relies on the system you are purchasing, would allow you to go buy ram/drives off newegg and slap them into their server. Even if it saved 1k on an 11k system. The upfront cost of purchasing hardware is nowhere near as expensive as supporting it, and it becomes a nightmare when your ram is from X vendor, drives from Y, and so forth. You have to go all over to get support, and it’s a pain. So in this sense, 1.5k on an 11k system IS worth it, but for entirely different reasoning.
Apple doesn’t have good price/performance low end options because they aren’t a low end PC maker. There’s no way they can compete because of their smaller volume. They stick to the high-end and mid-range with a bit of an Apple/Intel tax. They can make cheap machines, but they aren’t going to have the price/performance ratio of competitors because they don’t have the volume.
The low-end market segment is where Apple is flogging the iMac and Mac Minis, which sell pretty well. It’s not a coincidence that the word “Pro” appears in MacBook Pro and Mac Pro.
Exactly. I can buy comparable Dells for much much less, the only reason Apple charges so much is because of the Marketing and Design. They can act like a boutique and charge like one too, simply because buying a Dell dimension has such a Stigma associated with it.
Really the only people who want to buy a mac because of OS X are those of us who read OS News, Slashdot and Digg. (most of the time anyway)
You’re quite right, the Pro line of stuff that apple produces are for Pros. That’s their entire market. I’d love to get my hands on one, but I know that very soon I can get a dell cheaper. I like OS X enough as a creative (read: adobe) user to buy the Mac Pro instead of the Precision.
Adobe does do a very good job of keeping things highly consistent between Windows and OS X, if I was to choose on price alone I’d know that I’d be able to get my work done regardless. I still would want OS X simply because the desktop experience (ignoring Vista, since it’s still an open question as when it’s coming out) is better.
> can buy comparable Dells for much much less, the only reason Apple > charges so much is because of the Marketing and Design.
Could you point me to the MacPro equivalent on the Dell site? I’m curious how much of a savings there is. Make sure you match the processors too.
I was talking about dimensions versus iMacs and Mac Minis. There aren’t any comparably priced Mac Pros yet, but there will be soon if history repeats itself.
Of course you can get a comparable Dell for a little less then an apple, the difference is that with an Apple you are paying for near perfect integration of components and for the ability to use OSX. I understand that OSX is not the greatest thing since sliced bread but it is pretty nice on the stability and virus front and is by far the easiest *nix to use for the average person (although sometimes harder to use for experienced *nixers).
People buy Mac’s for the stability, ease of use, and more then anything for the applications. When Final Cut Studio is available for pc I will move that direction.
I do own 4 pc’s and 1 Mac, I am no Mac zealot, in fact, I hated it for the first month or so because of how well they hide their Unix underpinnings (I am very used to the Unix way of thinking). I have since come to like the system now that I have forced myself to use it for a while.
Now, back on topic, one thing I noticed is that the factory refurbs of the PowerMac’s are mostly as expensive or more expensive on Apple’s website then comparably equiped Intel models of the Mac Pro. I hope this changes, I want to buy a quad PPC PowerMac for cheap in the near future (maybe 1,900-2,000 USD).
“with an Apple you are paying for near perfect integration of components”
People keep saying this over and over again, and one keeps asking them to tell us what this near perfect integration consists of. Like, take an HP out of the box and turn it on. What exactly is less integrated about it? Or are you paying for near perfect integration of components there too?
Never got an answer yet, and this is because it isn’t true. OSX is no more integrated with the hardware it ships with than Windows is with the hardware it ships with.
> OSX is no more integrated with the hardware it ships
> with than Windows is with the hardware it ships with.
Especially when you consider that Apple also doesn’t _manufacture_ the hardware components, but just puts third party hardware together, and happens to write an operating system for it.
“Really the only people who want to buy a mac because of OS X are those of us who read OS News, Slashdot and Digg. (most of the time anyway)”
You couldn’t be more wrong. I buy a Mac specifically for Mac OS X. The hardware is whipcream on top. I won’t buy Dell because I don’t like Windows (which I support for a living) and Linux just isn’t Mac OS X.
Apple doesn’t have good price/performance low end options because they aren’t a low end PC maker. There’s no way they can compete because of their smaller volume.
CM, your missing it. Apple “is” competing, why would they be in business?
Make note, consumers aren’t just buying into the hardware -or- OSX when purchasing a Mac. Here is one that’s always overlooked. How many of said competitors actually have retail outlets where you can actually squeeze someones neck if needed.
http://www.apple.com/retail/storelist/
Edited 2006-08-10 18:56
Yes Gigabit ethernet runs circles around airport, but sometimes you can’t wire things the way you want them!
case and point: The only places in my house to put my cable “modem” is my living room or my bed room – neither place is suitable for a desktop computer, however I can easily put the desktop in the study area and use airport to connect – I dont need blazing speed and 54kbps is fine with me. In a work environment where 100Mbit ethernet is already wired into the building – then OK
BT is not just useful for mice/keyboard connectivity!
As a matter of fact I’ve never used it for peripherals, most of my connectivity for BT has been for portable devices like phones, PDAs, and so on.
Shouldn’t that be 54mbps ? 54kbps wifi would be sooooooo sloooooooow
Surf like it’s 1999!
oops :p
Then wire up the house! That is what I did… I still have a ton of cat 5 too. nice pretty wall outlets and everything.
By the way, Server software itself is not free, so keep in mind that you’ll have to spend additional $500 to $1000 for the license. To have a “proper” server, that is, not just a dedicated workstation.
OK, so here we have the Mac Pro which, in its recommended configuration, costs here in Italy Eur 2,519.00.
Most of that money goes towards the very powerful CPUs.
Everything else, by comparison, is pretty low end (in my box I have 4GB DDR2 RAM, 2 250GB SATA drives, 2 “SuperDrives”, a Thermaltake Tsunami case…and I didn’t spend Eur 2500.
What do I mean? I believe many of us would prefer a Mac Desktop with less CPU power (Intel Core 2 Duo?), which costs around 1,000 Dollars or Euros less but leaves money in your pocket for the extras.
Edited 2006-08-10 18:54
good for you.
Check yourself in 12 months when you start whining that your purchase doesn’t have enough power and you have to go out and buy a second server.
The TCO equation without accounting for projected needs is pointless. You either target a system for 18 – 24 months of continuous performance or prepare to be upgrading every 9 – 12 months.
Fair enough. All I’ll need to do is to buy a new CPU and, if needed, a new mobo, not a big deal.
They dont have RAID for SCSI…that is a big turn off for me because I was looking I mean with a quad processor set up, the biggest bottleneck would be I/O and so I was thinking of getting 2 146 gb 15k monster SCSI drives in RAID 0 for starters. Unforuntately Mac Pros do not have support for RAID of any kind and I do not even know if there are worthwhile SCSI controllers available for OS X on Intel! It is a big bummer as I was quite looking forward to purchasing a fully specced out machine.
Another minor point is that they should offer the 1900 xtx as another option as well…quite a brilliant piece of work that card.
OS X has software RAID IIRC, and ATTO just announced SCSI, SAS, and FC controllers for the Mac Pro.
Another minor point is that they should offer the 1900 xtx as another option as well
The 1900XT may be as high as ATI is willing to produce for Apple. They’re already slightly underclocked compared to the PC versions, and supposedly it is so they get higher yields since they don’t have the same volume as the PC parts.
Interesting…but why would ATI PC cards not work with Apple machines? Shouldnt it just be a matter of using the correct drivers?
Interesting…but why would ATI PC cards not work with Apple machines? Shouldnt it just be a matter of using the correct drivers?
Maybe EFI bios is still an issue? In the past, the BIOS/Firmware was the stopping point when Apple was PowerPC. I am curious if it would still be an issue now that Apple has gone Intel/EFI.
Unforuntately Mac Pros do not have support for RAID of any kind…
That’s not true. Software Raid is built in (and don’t knock software raid until you’ve seen ZFS outperform hardware raid 5 — not that HSFS+ is as good), and you can hook up to a Fibre Channel interface for ultra high performing external raid systems. So, to say it doesn’t support raid is wrong.
My problem is that with a Mac notebook you don’t have any choices, there are virtually no options. You either get a 13″ one for 1100, or a 15″ for 2000. There’s nothing else, absolutely no options to configure. If I go to Dell, I can get an awesome 15″ notebook for $630 fairly well equiped. By the time I add everything the Mac has, I reach a high price, but I don’t want that. All I need is a 15″ notebook for the price of max. 700, period. The same problem with Apple desktops — you either get that Mac mini for $800, which has such a low performance it’s not worth $400, or you buy their $2500 pro desktop. That’s crazy, when I can get a top of the line PC, put together by myself from pieces, for $1000. I don’t care if the Mac is 5% more capable, when its price/performance ratio is twice as low. I’d love to play around with OS X, but I can’t afford a $1500 operating system.
We just ordered a $13k US MacOS – X server server and its raid for our graphic art, animation, and movie programs on campus.
Define expensive.
Edited 2006-08-11 00:48
I have noticed that a lot of people judge the product only based due to the fact that they want so bad to run OS X and can’t get the top of the line hardware. Apple hardware is not overpriced. You can have a decent media center computer with a Mac Mini, you can play World of Warcraft with an iMac G5 or iMac with core duo. Now if you are hard core FPS gamer or a photoshop/FinalCut professional you might want to go with a Mac Pro, But lets forget the Mac versus everyone else pricing. With a 2 dual core Xeon based on WoodCrest chip what a casual user will accomplish ? Even if you are to serious gamer you can get a macbook pro and play all latest games (via bootcamp).
I am using Macs for 3 years now and I have never even considered building a PC. But thats just me.
Edited 2006-08-11 02:23
> Apple hardware is not overpriced.
Actually Apple herself believes that their hardware is overpriced, so it’s doesnt make sense for you claiming otherwise.
If it were not overpriced, i.e if it were really competitively priced to what other PC vendors offer, Apple would have no reason to cripple OS X to not run on any other hardware. Their fear that, if OS X ran on any “ugly beige box”, nobody would buy Apple hardware any more, is obviously valid.
You saw what happened when they allowed Mac clones, ie. when they licenced Mas OS to other hardware makers: The other hardware sold like cakes, and nobody wanted Apples hardware. Their business went downwards, so they desperately had to stop the clone business.
Apples main product, the product its beloved for, is not its hardware, but its operating system. Apple knows that people want their operating system so badly, that they could be forced to buy the hardware just to run the OS. Hardware, they would buy otherwise, because they could get it cheaper by not buying from Apple.
So did you never ask yourself, if Apples hardware weren’t overpriced, why Apple considers it herself non competitive to such an extent, that they have to crippel OS X to run on their hardware only?
Yes, this is the central point of the strange argument that you hear from Mac opponents of opening the OS. The argument ususally goes, though not in quite this oxymoronic form:
1) The wonderful thing about the mac and what makes it worthwhile, is the integration of hardware and software and this is what the Mac buyer cherishes.
2) Macs are the same price as or cheaper than comparably equipped Windows machines and much better built. So all this integration and quality does not demand any price premium.
3) If the OS were able to run on white box PCs Apple’s hardware business would be destroyed because Mac buyers would ‘know the better and choose the worse’ and stop buying Macs.
You are right. All three things cannot be true at once.
a single model with a host of build-to-order options. With so many options – Apple says there are millions of possible configurations
Good lord, they’ve invented the PC clone!!!
Raise your hands if you were in the industry ten years ago and 32MB RAM SIMM was $1200 for a DEC Pentium 90?
The whining about costs for these quality servers is pathetic. People bitch more today than they did then and what you get today is staggering compared to 1996.
Mac Pro:
Two 3GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
8GB (4 x 2GB)
250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI)
1 x SuperDrive
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse – U.S. English
Mac OS X – U.S. English
Price: $7,649.00
Sun Ultra 40 Workstation:
AMD Opteron Processor 2 Model 280 (Dual Core)
NVIDIA Quadro FX 3500
8 GB (4 @ 2 GB DIMMS)
7200 RPM SATA Disk Drive 1 @ 250 GB
Ethernet Port 2 @ 10/100/1000
USB Port 8
IEEE 1394 Port 2
PCI-Express x16 Slot 2
PCI-Express x4 Slot 2
Conventional PCI Slot 4
Optical Drive DVD Dual
Sun Studio, Sun Java Studio Creator, Sun Java Studio Enterprise & NetBeans
Sun N1 Grid Engine
Solaris 10
Price: $6,995.00
Mac Pro’s pricing in the high-end is getting competetive. Then again, I’m biased, I’ll still go for the Sun Ultra 40 if there’s a budget in our department
(Personal preferences)
If you’re going to add in the Dev Tools don’t forget to do the same for OS X and note that NetBeans runs on OS X as well; and don’t forget XGrid, not to mention the graphics card on the Mac is $500 more than the one on the SUN.
This brings the price difference and options to be on par and down to a showdown between the new Xeons and the AMDs.
318504960 when factorizing all the options from apple store
where HP provide me with 2^26 possibilities for their workstation