Apple releases new Penryn-based Mac Pro

[Praxis]

Generally, a good indicator of how jam-packed a MacWorld expo will be is whether or not Apple starts releasing products right before because the schedule is too full.

They just released a new Mac Pro with Intel's new Penryn processors.

The new standard model is $2799, and has eight cores (previous it cost more to get an eight core machine) at 2.8 GHz.

It also has 2 GB of RAM, a Radeon HD2600XT card, a 320 GB hard drive, Bluetooth 2.0 standard w/wireless keyboard and mouse, and PCI Express 2.0.

Now, stripped down, you can drop it to four processors @ $2299, which still leaves it a very capable machine.

But you can max it out with 32 GB of RAM, 4 terabytes of hard drive space and eight 3.2 GHz processors, and either a Geforce 8800GT or FOUR HD2600XT's (to run eight monitors).


I want one of those!

[phongn]

It's about time AAPL finally updated the Mac Pros.

[Seggybop]

I'm most impressed by how they can still charge such a huge price premium on their hardware.

[phongn]

I'm most impressed by how they can still charge such a huge price premium on their hardware.

Go compare it to a Dell or HP workstation and tell me it's a huge premium.

[InnocentBystander]

I find it interesting how Apple, again, is able to offer the new intel processors before everyone else. I'd guess it is because they don't need the kind of volume that Dell requires, but that is only a guess.

[atg]

I'm most impressed by how they can still charge such a huge price premium on their hardware.

Go compare it to a Dell or HP workstation and tell me it's a huge premium.

Workstations (ie MacPro) are pretty competitive.
iMacs and the MacBook(Pro)s have the premium.
Example:

17" MacBook Pro
* 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
* 1680 x 1050 pixels 17" screen
* 2GB memory
* 160GB hard drive
* 8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD)
* NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT graphics with 256MB SDRAM
A$ 3,999.00

Dell 17" XPS M1730
Processor
* 2.4Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
* Vista Home Premium
* 4GB RAM
* 2x200GB hard drives
* 17" 1920x1200 pixel screen
* Dual 256MB GeForce 8700M GT graphics cards in SLI
* Blu-ray BD-R, BD-RE / DVD+/-RW Drive with DVD+R double layer
A$ 3,999.00

Hmmmm.... better res screen, twice the RAM, two hard drive each of which are bigger than the one in the MacBook, twin graphics cards and a Blu-Ray drive? Yeah I think I'd pick the Dell. If you look at a similar priced Dell laptop as the quoted MacBook Pro then you are looking at about half the price.

[MJ12 Commando]

So what exactly do they package into their computers which makes them so superior? Magic Happy Dust?

Especially given now you can probably run MacOS on a Dell or whatever other computer you buy.

I haven't heard of any other company which can survive in a competitive field by charging twice as much as the competition. :p

[phongn]

So what exactly do they package into their computers which makes them so superior? Magic Happy Dust?

Especially given now you can probably run MacOS on a Dell or whatever other computer you buy.

Have fun trying to get OS X to run on anything but a Mac.

I haven't heard of any other company which can survive in a competitive field by charging twice as much as the competition. :p

People like OS X and are willing to pay the premium?

[MJ12 Commando]

OS X doesn't run on non-Macintoshes? I believed that was before they switched to a CISC structure and the Intel CPUs.

Why doesn't it work? Intentional security feature or a side effect of how it's programmed? I'm actually curious about this and the specific reasons. If it doesn't work on non-Macs then it makes sense why they can charge arms and legs for their hardware and people haven't abandoned the company in droves.

[phongn]

OS X doesn't run on non-Macintoshes? I believed that was before they switched to a CISC structure and the Intel CPUs.

What the hell does CISC have anything to do with anything? Hint: x86 hasn't (internally) been CISC in years.

Why doesn't it work? Intentional security feature or a side effect of how it's programmed? I'm actually curious about this and the specific reasons. If it doesn't work on non-Macs then it makes sense why they can charge arms and legs for their hardware and people haven't abandoned the company in droves.

It can run, but it's a pain in the ass to do so. For one, Macs use EFI to boot - not BIOS (something that previously only IA64 systems used). Often there aren't drivers available for one's system, either. Even if you get past all that, then what? Apple is under no requirement to continue supporting your system: kernel updates in point releases can and have broken so-called "hackintosh" systems (not intentionally, likely, but it isn't like Apple cares a whit about that community).

[MJ12 Commando]

What the hell does CISC have anything to do with anything? Hint: x86 hasn't (internally) been CISC in years.

I haven't read up on the precise niceties of processor execution and instruction cycles for quite a while now, and before that it was just for fun. If my statement seemed nonsensical it is almost definitely because my knowledge came from about five years ago from books which were ten years old at the time. :p

It can run, but it's a pain in the ass to do so. For one, Macs use EFI to boot - not BIOS (something that previously only IA64 systems used). Often there aren't drivers available for one's system, either. Even if you get past all that, then what? Apple is under no requirement to continue supporting your system: kernel updates in point releases can and have broken so-called "hackintosh" systems (not intentionally, likely, but it isn't like Apple cares a whit about that community).

Sounds like either the most glorious type of fun or head-pounding frustration.

[Natorgator]

Why doesn't it work? Intentional security feature or a side effect of how it's programmed? I'm actually curious about this and the specific reasons. If it doesn't work on non-Macs then it makes sense why they can charge arms and legs for their hardware and people haven't abandoned the company in droves.

It can run, but it's a pain in the ass to do so. For one, Macs use EFI to boot - not BIOS (something that previously only IA64 systems used). Often there aren't drivers available for one's system, either. Even if you get past all that, then what? Apple is under no requirement to continue supporting your system: kernel updates in point releases can and have broken so-called "hackintosh" systems (not intentionally, likely, but it isn't like Apple cares a whit about that community).

Indeed; there are Hackintosh tutorials out there, but from what I've read, they are pretty unreliable and if you make one wrong move your system is toast. Especially with updates. Definitely not something you'd want to keep essential data on.

[Praxis]

Workstations (ie MacPro) are pretty competitive.
iMacs and the MacBook(Pro)s have the premium.

The iMac premium is actually a lot smaller, when you take into consideration the fact that it has a GPU much more powerful than any stock PC ships.

You'll be able to find much better deals online or custom-built, but the iMac actually IS cheaper than most equivilant HP and Dell machines in stores. I've done price comparisons in-store at CompUSA and Best Buy.

If you walk into such a store the iMac does not compare badly, especially as everyone else gives you crappy integrated chipsets, AND the fact that the iMac uses considerably more expensive low-power small-form-factor chipsets, and has a built in monitor.

If you want to compare apples to apples, so to speak, grab Dell's XPS All-in-One desktop.

20 inch widescreen display with Intel® Core™2 Duo E4500 (2.2 GHz)
Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium.
250GB1 Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
2GB7 Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 DIMMs
Intel Integrated Graphics
Starting Price $1,499
Instant Savings $150

Subtotal $1,349


2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB memory
250GB hard drive1
8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory
Ships: Within 24 hours
Free Shipping
$1,199.00


The Mac is 0.2 GHz slower, has 1 GB less RAM, but has a FAR superior graphics card and is $150 cheaper.

I'd say it's a pretty fair comparison.

So what exactly do they package into their computers which makes them so superior? Magic Happy Dust?

Especially given now you can probably run MacOS on a Dell or whatever other computer you buy.

I haven't heard of any other company which can survive in a competitive field by charging twice as much as the competition. :p

The markup is nowhere near that significant as to be 2x. Apple thrives on the fact that it has some of the best hardware engineering in the industry; the 17" MacBook Pro, for example, has been benchmarked as the fastest notebook a number of times yet is only 1" thick and very light. The iMac has very strong specs yet is only 2" thick (and it's a desktop). The Mac Mini is a desktop smaller than some external hard drives. That's where the markup comes in.

I've known people to actually buy Macs just to run Linux on them because they like the hardware.

[MJ12 Commando]

Well, this is just me, but I'd prefer a bulging wallet and a huge PC rather than a wallet thin enough to match the Macbook I just bought. :p

Then again, I can understand why some people would prefer the price premium and just get a lighter machine, so it does make a lot more sense now, thanks.

[Beowulf]

You missed the TV tuner on the XPS One. Said tuner is around $100 retail. Also, the RAM on the iMac is significantly more expensive than the RAM in the XPS One, simply because the XPS takes desktop RAM, and the iMac takes SO-DIMMs.

Anyways, it's a false comparison. Most PC buyers don't buy an AIO machine. Rather, they usually get the separate tower and monitor. Compare the XPS 420:

Q6600 Processor (2.4 GHz)
3GB RAM
320GB HDD
ATi HD 2400 GPU
DVD DL writer
Price: $900
20" Dell Monitor cost: $280

Comes out cheaper, with much better specs than that iMac.

[Durandal]

OS X doesn't run on non-Macintoshes? I believed that was before they switched to a CISC structure and the Intel CPUs.

Stop talking, please. You obviously don't know what you're babbling on about and are just throwing out whatever acronyms come to mind.

So what exactly do they package into their computers which makes them so superior? Magic Happy Dust?

Yes, that's exactly what happens. Every Apple engineer has to imbibe a special chemical that turns their farts into rainbows, too.

Why doesn't it work? Intentional security feature or a side effect of how it's programmed?

Because the operating system is not designed for or tested on arbitrary hardware configurations. There is a limited set of configurations Mac OS X will boot on, and that allows for a lot more control over the user's experience, requires far fewer testing resources to get a new version out the door and generally just makes things easier.

It's these things that let Apple more rapidly push their installed base forward. Since Apple can basically obsolete machines at will, they can drive things much more easily than Microsoft. That's why I've always thought some of the comparisons of Windows' pace of advancement to Mac OS X were a little unfair. Mac OS X development goes along at a much faster pace, but that's because Apple controls the universe that Mac OS X exists in. Microsoft has a lot more concerns that make life suck for their engineers: backwards compatibility, legacy hardware, etc. Although, Microsoft could do a better job of evangelizing their new development technologies. I can't think of one major app from Microsoft that actually uses .Net. A lot of Apple applications, though, are basically big, flashy demos for new frameworks like CoreImage (Aperture, iPhoto) or CoreVideo (Final Cut Pro, iMovie, iChat).

Hmmmm.... better res screen, twice the RAM, two hard drive each of which are bigger than the one in the MacBook, twin graphics cards and a Blu-Ray drive? Yeah I think I'd pick the Dell. If you look at a similar priced Dell laptop as the quoted MacBook Pro then you are looking at about half the price.

Yes, and it's twice as thick, weighs 4 pounds more, is ugly as fuck and has a pathetic battery life of 56 minutes compared to the almost 6 hours you can get from the MacBook Pro. (The battery life on that laptop is so bad that Dell doesn't even offer an estimate on their page. Battery life isn't even mentioned.) And I don't even want to know how fast the thing fries an egg or how easily the dog confuses it with a vacuum when firing all cylinders.

Now, whether or not those things matter to you is entirely subjective, but if you're going to do a bullet point comparison, at least include all relevant bullets. I'd think that mobility (in terms of size and battery life) would actually factor into a comparison of, you know, laptops, but apparently, you disagree.

The simple fact is that putting a bunch of crap into a large, ugly pizza box is easy. It's what Dell does. But putting powerful hardware into a smaller pizza box while consuming as little power as possible and regulating heat flow is hard. It's a problem that encompasses both hardware and software. Apple works the whole she-bang, which is why they're able to solve these problems.

[Praxis]

Anyways, it's a false comparison. Most PC buyers don't buy an AIO machine. Rather, they usually get the separate tower and monitor. Compare the XPS 420:

Q6600 Processor (2.4 GHz)
3GB RAM
320GB HDD
ATi HD 2400 GPU
DVD DL writer
Price: $900
20" Dell Monitor cost: $280

Comes out cheaper, with much better specs than that iMac.

Right, but now you're comparing an AIO to a tower- definitely different leagues.

Fine, let's compare something more similar. How about the MacBooks?

Well, this is just me, but I'd prefer a bulging wallet and a huge PC rather than a wallet thin enough to match the Macbook I just bought. :p

Then again, I can understand why some people would prefer the price premium and just get a lighter machine, so it does make a lot more sense now, thanks.

You know, the MacBook Pro's a bit marked up (probably due to the extremely thin qualities of it), but the regular MacBook is not as much. $1299 for a dual-core Santa Rosa machine?


If you compare the Dell XPS laptop lineup to the MacBook, at the $1299 price point, Dell gets you a bit more hard drive space and RAM, while the MacBook is significantly faster (1.66 GHz vs 2.2 GHz), has a built in camera, has faster wireless speeds (802.11n), the tilt sensor on the hard drive, and a considerably stronger software package (full iLife and an Office and iWork trial vs a year of free antivirus).

The MacBook at least is probably one of the best values in Apple's lineup, costing no less than an equivilant Dell with much better software, and a little bit thinner to boot. That's why I own one

[Ace Pace]

Microsoft has a lot more concerns that make life suck for their engineers: backwards compatibility, legacy hardware, etc. Although, Microsoft could do a better job of evangelizing their new development technologies. I can't think of one major app from Microsoft that actually uses .Net. A lot of Apple applications, though, are basically big, flashy demos for new frameworks like CoreImage (Aperture, iPhoto) or CoreVideo (Final Cut Pro, iMovie, iChat).

The answer is not really relevent to the consumer world, but as far as I know, Visual Studio is built with .net.

[Durandal]

I'd be surprised if it was, given that VisualStudio has been around since long before .Net came on the scene. Unless Microsoft completely rewrote VisualStudio at one point (which would be necessary to get it into the CLR, based on my understanding), I'm betting that it's still a Win32 application. Though it might have .Net pieces factored out.

[atg]

Now, whether or not those things matter to you is entirely subjective, but if you're going to do a bullet point comparison, at least include all relevant bullets. I'd think that mobility (in terms of size and battery life) would actually factor into a comparison of, you know, laptops, but apparently, you disagree.

Which is why I mentioned that a similar spec'd machine from Dell (or Acer, etc), including in battery life and size, will be roughly half the price. So yeah, we can compare those details if you want.

The simple fact is that putting a bunch of crap into a large, ugly pizza box is easy. It's what Dell does. But putting powerful hardware into a smaller pizza box while consuming as little power as possible and regulating heat flow is hard. It's a problem that encompasses both hardware and software. Apple works the whole she-bang, which is why they're able to solve these problems.

My personal experience has shown that the MacBooks and MacBook Pros run hotter than an equivalent Acer laptop (I compare to Acer here because they're the ones I have most day to day experience with other than Apples). I've had to have my own MacBook repaired twice due to overheating issues and it's pretty well known as far as I'm aware that the first gen Intel MacBooks (the Core Duo based ones as opposed to the Core 2) have had major heat (to the point where the plastic permanently dis-colours) and case cracking problems. So I don't really consider Apple's supposedly infallible designs to be worth double the price either.

The problem with my own MacBook, and as mentioned appears to be common with the MacBooks (though not the Pros as far as I'm aware), was that as the CPU heatsink expands slightly as it heats it burns though an internal wire, shorting the system. Evidence of great design there?

I don't specifically have anything against Apple, as mentioned I personally own a MacBook, but is OSX, the only real difference between a PC-Laptop and an Apple laptop, really worth paying double for on a MacBook Pro as opposed to a similar spec'd Acer/Dell/HP/whatever?

[Beowulf]

Anyways, it's a false comparison. Most PC buyers don't buy an AIO machine. Rather, they usually get the separate tower and monitor. Compare the XPS 420:

Q6600 Processor (2.4 GHz)
3GB RAM
320GB HDD
ATi HD 2400 GPU
DVD DL writer
Price: $900
20" Dell Monitor cost: $280

Comes out cheaper, with much better specs than that iMac.

Right, but now you're comparing an AIO to a tower- definitely different leagues.

The point is, moron, that they aren't different leagues. Anyone who wants a desktop Mac, but wants something faster than a Mac Mini, and doesn't have the cash for a Mac Pro, will buy an iMac. They have no choice. So it's perfectly applicable to do an apples to oranges comparison, because we're comparing fruit, and Apple doesn't make oranges for that price range.

Fine, let's compare something more similar. How about the MacBooks?

Well, this is just me, but I'd prefer a bulging wallet and a huge PC rather than a wallet thin enough to match the Macbook I just bought. :p

Then again, I can understand why some people would prefer the price premium and just get a lighter machine, so it does make a lot more sense now, thanks.

You know, the MacBook Pro's a bit marked up (probably due to the extremely thin qualities of it), but the regular MacBook is not as much. $1299 for a dual-core Santa Rosa machine?


If you compare the Dell XPS laptop lineup to the MacBook, at the $1299 price point, Dell gets you a bit more hard drive space and RAM, while the MacBook is significantly faster (1.66 GHz vs 2.2 GHz), has a built in camera, has faster wireless speeds (802.11n), the tilt sensor on the hard drive, and a considerably stronger software package (full iLife and an Office and iWork trial vs a year of free antivirus).

The MacBook at least is probably one of the best values in Apple's lineup, costing no less than an equivilant Dell with much better software, and a little bit thinner to boot. That's why I own one

Definitely high. An XPS M1330 with same spec processor is generally hardware identical to the Macbook, in terms of specs, and is a good $50 cheaper. It's a little thicker, but it's also kinda wedge shaped. Most of the iLife equivalent software is either generally useless for most people, or is already included with Vista. I think they only thing you actually miss is the tilt sensor. Whoo! Also, you get the option of upgrading parts, like getting a LED backlight for the screen, which makes the entire laptop thinner. Or getting a better video card (which still sucks, but hey).

[phongn]

I'd be surprised if it was, given that VisualStudio has been around since long before .Net came on the scene. Unless Microsoft completely rewrote VisualStudio at one point (which would be necessary to get it into the CLR, based on my understanding), I'm betting that it's still a Win32 application. Though it might have .Net pieces factored out.

Significant portions of VS 2005 were written in .NET, and even more in VS 2008.

Yes, and it's twice as thick, weighs 4 pounds more, is ugly as fuck and has a pathetic battery life of 56 minutes compared to the almost 6 hours you can get from the MacBook Pro. (The battery life on that laptop is so bad that Dell doesn't even offer an estimate on their page. Battery life isn't even mentioned.) And I don't even want to know how fast the thing fries an egg or how easily the dog confuses it with a vacuum when firing all cylinders.

Well, even so, the MBP doesn't compare all that well with either Lenovo or HP's business laptops price-wise.

[InnocentBystander]

Yes, and it's twice as thick, weighs 4 pounds more, is ugly as fuck and has a pathetic battery life of 56 minutes compared to the almost 6 hours you can get from the MacBook Pro. (The battery life on that laptop is so bad that Dell doesn't even offer an estimate on their page. Battery life isn't even mentioned.)

This isn't a fair comparison. The M1730 has two, better, graphics cards and two, faster, hard drives. It is an absurdly powerful gaming machine. The MBP is decidedly average and will not be playing modern games at native resolutions with the whiz-bang turned up.

The dell that compares most closely with the MBP 17" is the vostro 1700. Its a bit thicker, not quite a pound heavier, and doesn't have quite as good a battery (unless you opt for a 9 cell battery), and is nearly half the cost. It also has a better native resolution (why doesn't apple use 1680x1050 screens on its 15.4" laptops and 1920 x 1200 on its 17" laptops?).

[Beowulf]

The higher res screen is an option on the 17" MBP. It is not, however, an option on the 15" MBP.

Speaking of MBPs, a Thinkpad T61p can also be configured as similarly as possible to a MBP 15", and have equal or better specs, for US$200-700 cheaper, depending on which version of the MBP you're comparing against.

[InnocentBystander]

I like how Lenovo's "Help Me Decide" thing for the graphics card is out of date and only shows ATI graphics solutions. Its very classy.