http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/ Engadget Comments for Apple Nehalem-based Mac Pro in-depth impressions http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 1:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 1:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 1:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/action/

You're right... no consumer needs a Mac Pro. But does that mean that a Mac Pro does not need to exist?

In a related story... Caterpillar makes a $100,000 bulldozer. No consumers need that either.]]>Mar 18th 2009 2:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 2:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 2:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 2:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
At work we use the kit for design and animation. While a rig like this SHOULD be perfect, it honestly is appalling. The stability when running CS3 (not tried CS4, sorry) is terrible. Constant beach balls, out of cache errors in After Effects, files dissappearing. Along with the quirks in Leopard (I feel Tiger was far more stable). it is almost unusable sometime. Often the machine will beach ball with multiple apps open yet only 2 cores are operating with any intensity? (we have 8 core models with 16GB of RAM) and not all memory used. The apps can handle multi-processing ok (few problems with AE) yet the OS can't seem to spread the load of CPU and memory, all very odd. None of the apps are 64 bit so all we have here is an overly powerful PC with an OS that cannot keep up with the hardware. This is the same on all of our machines (about 15). Oddly my macbook running 10.4 is ok (beach balls a lot but only have 1gb RAM) hence my conclusion. There are many issues and quirks not mentioned but these machines just irk me. This is a first gen mac pro. Sometimes the OS shows previews of JPGs, sometimes not, never seems to remember my views as I left it.

My machine at home atleast FEELS far quicker just from the fact it has a quicker boot drive setup, so apps load quicker, cache is quicker, temp files etc.

Why is it £500 for a RAID card for one of these? Stick two velociraptors in at home with RAID 0 on the motherboard!]]>Mar 18th 2009 3:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
This is to you, Dell.... uhhh.

:-()...

Let's all build our own high-end Windows machines so we can put Apple out of business. This is the call of the brainless. Everyone put up their hands that can build the equivalent of a Mac Pro for under $500 worth of parts. Unanimous. I dumpster-dived in 200 dumpsters in Silicon Valley and managed to scrounge up everything except the processors for absolutely nothing. Now I just have to wait for someone to throw away a couple of slightly-used Xeon Nehalem processors and I'll be home free.

Most Windows PC users can't even plug-in their keyboards without on-line support.]]>Mar 18th 2009 3:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
"At work we use the kit for design and animation. While a rig like this SHOULD be perfect, it honestly is appalling. The stability when running CS3 (not tried CS4, sorry) is terrible. Constant beach balls, out of cache errors in After Effects, files dissappearing. Along with the quirks in Leopard (I feel Tiger was far more stable). it is almost unusable sometime. Often the machine will beach ball with multiple apps open yet only 2 cores are operating with any intensity? (we have 8 core models with 16GB of RAM) and not all memory used."

So you spend tons of money to run a machine that is running powerpc apps in emulation? See what you are doing there that is wrong? Go and buy current versions of Creative Suite and THEN complain it doesn't do the job.]]>Mar 18th 2009 3:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
I did not buy anything, I merely work on such machines. CS3 is not running in emulation however, it is universal binary. Fair point had I mention CS2.]]>Mar 18th 2009 3:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
You do get equally powerful PCs and frankly, they seem to handle everything much better. In another department I was shown some work, RAM previewing in after effects while at the same time 3ds max was rendering. Doing the same on the mac but with Cinema 4D is a sure way to crash something.

More OS issues: You can see a window but you cannot click on it! Have to hide the app and unhide!
Folders dissappearing and reappearing as you click on them (problem with our fibre share, which we hope is fixed now we have intel server, though I feel they should just work together anyway)]]>Mar 18th 2009 3:46PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/precn_t7400?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04]]>Mar 18th 2009 4:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
Here is the deal; if you paid top whack for this Apple PC then you are a corporation who has a bent towards Graphic dependent activities, or you are an individual ENTHUSIAST. BUT.... you most likely will not be swapping out the components this time next year. (else you have a very unique Finance Director who truly is shagging the IT Director).

On the other hand.... if you built your own PC, with say a Coolermaster Cosmos 1000 case (which seems to be rather pleasing to the eye and receives great reviews), including the same components as found in the Apple PC, then this time next year, you can swap out your chip etc, for the latest offering (remember we are talking about an enthusiast), and still be quite a long way ahead of the game in terms of cost.

Lets not get into the question of OSX vs other OS's (I think we all know that we really are talking about similar products).

Despite all of the enthusiasm provided by some of the posters here, I suspect that there are VERY VERY VERY few who are actually going to splash the cash on this Apple PC.

Coolermaster:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119138]]>Mar 18th 2009 5:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
The thing about not being able to click a window in the background is also not something you can be sure is an OS or app problem.

The 64-bit thing is because Adobe used Apple's Carbon APIs and Apple did not make it possible for developers to make 64-bit Carbon apps. Adobe has to port to Cocoa to make that work. I blame Apple for this as much as Adobe, personally.]]>Mar 18th 2009 8:07PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
i have had a chance to use a friend's original 2.66 Mac Pro and i had a lot of the same issues you described. Weird slowdowns, beachballs, and the like, and that was just in general use. I didnt have that problem though with a newer 2.8 at the office.
]]>Mar 18th 2009 9:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
"There is no way for an average user to tell whether instability is with the OS or an app. If you want a more stable app, maybe the latest offering from Adobe would do better? For starters, CS3 isn't even listed as compatible with Leopard."

You can tell when the system is unstable using finder, more than one app and from multiple developers. I would try CS4 if I could, though I can't. Works choice not mine. My main point about the OS was not even stability, but the fact it cannot seem to spread the load of multiple apps over multiple cores. Memory management is also poor, but nowhere near as bad. I also expect an OS upgrade to work with my software. If I bought CS3, which works perfectly under Vista and it didn't work under Win 7, there would not only be an outcry, but probably a solution at the end of it.

I cannot comment on apple service in other countries, but in the UK they are terrible. I can take a system to a store, but they are not even in every city. Warranties are only a year long, 3 years costs even more. I expect a laptop to last atleast 3 years. I am about to get my third macbook replacement in as many years. Any problems I have with hardware or software, they cannot guarantee a reply, it's really hard to contact them. Still no reply about the fact the latest but one itunes update ruined my NAS itunes share... It now keeps dropping off and I have to close itunes and re-open. Compare this to when I had a problem with MS software I bought OEM, a guy respinded to my email with a phone call to talk me through the issue. Probably from within UK but had an American accent and I emailed their main .com site. Apples stuff is great for net and office, even some media, but want to do anything powerful and they have lost their way. Also peeved that the Airport Extreme has no Airtunes! Other than that it is amazing. Saying that though, the update is another £20 more than the old one. I can buy a good pre N router for £40-£50. Extreme = £140!!!. Express is now £85????? Waaaay over priced. They are good and worth a premium I admit, but not at the new prices.

"The thing about not being able to click a window in the background is also not something you can be sure is an OS or app problem."
I can if I am only in finder!!!

Also, using search, how do I get it to only search in a specific folder?? We have huge shares at work and also targa sequences which we want to avoid searching. I also hate how if you try to scroll down while it is still searching it just pops back up to the top! I want to open a file AND let it continue searching.

"The 64-bit thing is because Adobe used Apple's Carbon APIs and Apple did not make it possible for developers to make 64-bit Carbon apps. Adobe has to port to Cocoa to make that work. I blame Apple for this as much as Adobe, personally."
Fair point, I just feel that touting the power of this machine without the software to make it worthwhile is ridiculous. It really annoys me the blind saying 'it's better for xxx cos it's a mac'. Even if that was true in the past, these systems are anything but solid and mature.These are bought for those reasons, places that already run macs. Come CS5 and snow leopard I imagine things will be very different.

while I am ranting, I hate all ipods... Except the ipod touch. I think it is ace. Only I wish it had either DAB or FM radio built in.]]>Mar 18th 2009 10:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
I challenge anyone to get these machines running at full boar on anything but a compressor run. I even had all 4 drives in a raid-0 config as the system drive in addition to the 12 bay FC RAID the project was based on to feed the xeons with 16GB of ram which was never fully utilized either (even though it should have been)

They really should have just released a version that came with the consumer chips in them. People who need Xeons know they need Xeons and will buy them regardless of cost because usually the software running on them costs way more than the hardware.

I think $1800 would be the sweet spot for a prosumer level tower. But until you know who steps down, it will never happen.]]>Mar 18th 2009 11:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 1:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 1:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 2:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
In related news, I hook my Dell display to my Mac Pro's DVI output (yeah, did you miss that in the pictures?) and my Mathias TactilePro keyboard that I already owned.]]>Mar 18th 2009 2:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
I'm a realistic Apple user. Yes, this thing is expensive, but for those who need it, it really isn't expensive unless you're going for the uber pro, top-of-the-line model.

]]>Mar 18th 2009 3:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
]]>Mar 18th 2009 3:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 1:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 1:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 1:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 1:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 1:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
Apple Defense Force Go!

The apple keyboards seem pretty good/not bad, I used some and they're nice and quiet, felt better too, nothing to complain about

but really man? an idiot like him? don't get defensive just because we aren't all professional photographers or filmmakers

I'm curious to see if these crush AutoCAD processes and their like as well; never seen macs running in more of an engineer's environment]]>Mar 18th 2009 2:05PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/well on my 2x xeon 2.4ghz, 2 gb ram, 74 gb 10000 rpm scsi (all of which is about 5.5 years old now), somewhere between 3 and 5 hours depending on what needed to be changed/what else i was running...so trust me when i say, i'm sure there are a few of us here that could put all that horsepower to good use. :)]]>Mar 18th 2009 2:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
Anyone got $3K to spare? Obama? Care to bail me out?]]>Mar 18th 2009 2:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 2:35PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
And I don’t understand what the outrage is for not having a blueray burner. Its would be a silly option at best on a machine like this. Real output files are delivered uncompressed. And I have never heard anyone around here say “I wish I had a blue ray burner to burn this” ]]>Mar 18th 2009 4:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
What are you talking about? You send uncompressed files to your clients for review?

The blu-ray burner we got has been as useful as cd burners were in the day. We use it as a tape library replacement (Raw P2 footage archived to blu-ray stored off site). Also everyone works in at least 720p these days and blu-ray client reviews are 100% necessary. I had to hook ours up externally (USB) because internally it would just make lots of $10 coasters.

Apple is stupid for not officially supporting it.]]>Mar 18th 2009 11:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/HAHA, and a real keyboard.
Well, I still wouldn't buy it.]]>Mar 18th 2009 1:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 1:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 3:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
Wouldn't CAT6 be better for Gigabit ethernet?

Just wondering...]]>Mar 18th 2009 1:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 2:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 2:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
You can get shielded CAT5 or CAT6 cable but it's not part of the core spec, and it's not needed for Gig-E speeds.]]>Mar 18th 2009 2:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 1:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
ill shut up now.]]>Mar 18th 2009 1:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 1:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/Mar 18th 2009 1:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/

Shame you only get 1 DVI port... .. what a rip off.


]]>Mar 18th 2009 1:56PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
do not try to pretend that u have a good sense of humour.
stop trolling and get some rest.

BTw, 3k$ for a prostitute is really an overkill, better get urself that mac, it will serve u fr more than 1 night. ]]>Mar 18th 2009 1:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
Video card is junk. Shame on Apple.

The jump should have been like the G4 to G5 jump. Jaw dropping design and scale, this thing is a wet paper towel dried out and ironed and re-rolled up. ]]>Mar 18th 2009 3:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/18/apple-nehalem-based-mac-pro-in-depth-impressions/
Unless you are required to use those, you should probably pass. That is a ridiculous price for the hardware.

I know its a tired adage now, but you can build a computer with comparable performance for much less and still do the same things on it.

I've used Macs for video editing, and honestly, if you're concerned with budget, this isn't even a great option for the "clearly defined niche." Right now I'm editing 1080p files from my Canon 5D Mark II using Vegas Pro 8 (converting w/ Cineform), on a custom-built $2,700 machine, and I'm blazing through it.

I've used both platforms, and I still don't understand why people cling to the notion that Mac is the "industry standard." Yeah, well, more people use PCs than anything else and that doesn't make PCs superior (the majority of which are crap-bucket rigs from Best Buy running an OS they can't handle).

Moral of the story is: Don't believe the hype for any brand, Mac, PC, or otherwise. Do your research beforehand, and see which platform offers the best price/performance while meeting the other criteria that may be required. PCs can do a lot of those fancy "niche" things Macs can do -- you just have to do a little work and figure out the right software.

Nice review though. Thanks, Engadget. ]]>Mar 18th 2009 1:41PM