Developer IntelliMac Info
Posted 24 June 2005 - 08:51 AM
Posted 24 June 2005 - 10:17 AM
"Home computers are being called upon to perform many new functions, including the consumption of homework formerly eaten by the dog." -Doug Larson
Posted 24 June 2005 - 12:13 PM
Posted 25 June 2005 - 04:47 AM
joefox, on June 25th 2005, 03:17 AM, said:
I suspect you'd have a hard time arguing that Apple's hardware is better than anybody else's, given that they use commodity hardware for almost everything in their machines. Hell, there's a lot of things their hardware doesn't support that other manufacturers do *cough*PCI-E*cough*
Posted 25 June 2005 - 04:58 AM
Posted 25 June 2005 - 05:20 AM
Posted 25 June 2005 - 05:41 AM
Posted 25 June 2005 - 05:49 AM
Be careful about the assumptions you make without evidence: Apple already has a vested interest in putting the best possible hardware they can into the PowerMacs, and yet they don't. Why should they begin to do so with the Intel line?
Posted 25 June 2005 - 05:53 AM
Posted 25 June 2005 - 06:05 AM
Posted 25 June 2005 - 06:29 AM
Eric5h5, on June 25th 2005, 11:05 PM, said:
Ignoring the fact that most next-generation graphics cards will be PCI-E-only cards (just look at the market-leading GeForce 7800 GTX, which doesn't come in an AGP version), the point where we have to deal with such tremendous amounts of data that AGP 8x isn't enough will be coming along very soon. My issue is not that Apple may, in the future, support the new bus architecture - but rather, that there's no evidence they'll be doing it with the first generation of Intel Macs.
Further, the PCI-E example was being used in response to this post...
...which was working on the assumption that Apple's hardware will be, and already is, superior to that of a whitebox PC, when it quite patently isn't. I'm not arguing that it won't be comparable in the future, because I'm still working with reference to that specific post.
Last I checked, they were already competing with these exact same companies.
The PowerMac G5 is aimed at the scientific and video-editing markets. There's a clash right there - when you're dealing with the ridiculous amounts of data that are common when editing video at a professional level, you want far more internal storage than the pathetic 800Gb available without serious internal modification of the machine. Any custom-built PC will easily allow twice that or more, so on what basis can you claim that the internal design of the PowerMac is "the best"?
Further, what workstation-class desktop machine has only one optical drive? Even the PowerMac G4s had two, and the G5's case redesign was supposed to be an upgrade.
Posted 25 June 2005 - 06:33 AM
Posted 25 June 2005 - 06:52 AM
Posted 25 June 2005 - 06:57 AM
HD film= 1Gb/ Minute
Normal film= 250MB/minute
So therefore 800 GB- 80GB for applications.
HD= 12 hours
Posted 25 June 2005 - 07:10 AM
When you're editing - for instance - a feature-length film, you want to be able to have access to huge amounts of data. This includes fast access to hundreds or more 1080p or 720p video clips at sixty frames per second (for an uncompressed datarate not of 1Gbyte per minute, but 3 Gigabits per second), since every scene in a film must be shot a number of times, from half a dozen angles. So we're not talking about simply sticking together a few hours' worth of video, but rather taking hundreds of hours' worth and then selecting absolutely the best from that huge collection of moving images. Even for a relatively short video clip, that's still a huge amount of storage you need - a mere forty minutes of video at the highest possible HD datarate, already in use.
That means you need to have an insane amount of storage, preferably within the PowerMac itself to avoid having to specifically purchase an XServe on which to run XSan. And even after the film has been successfully edited, it still has to be exported into a number of formats for use, taking up still more space on the machine. There is a very real need for huge amounts of storage in the G5 line, and as a result the line is crippled in that market by it's inability to provide without - as I said - major modification of the case.
Posted 25 June 2005 - 07:27 AM
Posted 25 June 2005 - 07:31 AM
Space_Pirate_Killer, on June 26th 2005, 12:27 AM, said:
That's just working around the fact that Apple's hardware is not the best in the industry, which is the case I'm arguing against. I agree with you that they can afford to look at external storage solutions, but the point is that they have to at all - Apple cannot possibly sell "the best hardware" when they can't even provide internal expansion comparable to other manufacturers.
Let's take this further: How can Apple sell "the best" hardware, when they don't even support the latest versions of GeForce and X800 series of graphics cards? I find it hard to believe that a PowerMac is somehow "better" than a machine a much faster graphics card and a greater internal storage capacity. And multiple optical drives. And a considerably faster processor (dual dual-core Opterons, perchance?).
They simply don't compare.
Posted 25 June 2005 - 07:32 AM
Posted 25 June 2005 - 07:35 AM