Jump to content


Developer IntelliMac Info


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
161 replies to this topic

#41 monkeyphonix

monkeyphonix

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Sydney what happened to my damn summer?

Posted 26 June 2005 - 11:33 PM

RandyWang, on June 25th 2005, 01:10 PM, said:

Not quite.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the internal ATA bus can not write data fast enough to digitise HD footage. If you're seriously editing and digitising HD then you need FibreChannel. And don't spring for the xSan, its way too expensive. I'd recommend the EonStor from Infortrend. FibreChannel RAID straight to the G5. Who needs an xServe?

http://www.infortrend.com

Costs half as much as the xSan but without the snazzy management tools. We have two and they work a treat.

#42 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 27 June 2005 - 12:34 AM

monkeyphonix, on June 26th 2005, 10:33 PM, said:

internal ATA bus can not write data fast enough to digitise HD footage. If you're seriously editing and digitising HD then you need FibreChannel.

Uhhh.... one SATA2 channel can do 300MB/s, which means two are more than enough. Throw a few drives in a RAID over many channels and FC can go away and die. What do you think you suggested, anyway? That thing is a SATAII RAID with a FC interface. You're basically paying out the nose for something you could do yourself if your motherboard had more connectors and your case had more room.

#43 DaveyJJ

DaveyJJ

    All hail Bastet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3895 posts
  • Steam Name:DaveyJJ
  • Location:Inside Bastet's secret temple preparing for the catpocalypse.

Posted 27 June 2005 - 04:53 AM

zapranoth, on June 26th 2005, 01:57 AM, said:

invective ...

noun ... insulting, abusive, or highly critical language.

I think it's the first time on any of the IMG forums I've seen that one used.  ;)

Raven 27" i3 iMac 3.2GHz | 12GB RAM | 1TB HD | 512MB 5670 ATI Radeon HD
Crow iPad 2 | 32GB WiFi


"Not my circus, not my monkeys." -- Polish folk saying
"In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this." -- Terry Pratchett
"I love cats because I enjoy my home; and little by little, they become its visible soul." -- Jean Cocteau


#44 WSTE_M

WSTE_M

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1159 posts
  • Location:six feet under

Posted 27 June 2005 - 08:51 AM

Dear RandyWang, try reading
http://www.apple.com/uk/pro/video/tvn/

If someone has enouth cash(and need) to shell out for 16x250GB (example) they would better buy a... Xserve RAID!

W
blowing stuff up in the virtual world since 1994

#45 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 27 June 2005 - 09:09 AM

WSTE_M, on June 28th 2005, 01:51 AM, said:

Dear RandyWang, try reading
http://www.apple.com/uk/pro/video/tvn/

If someone has enouth cash(and need) to shell out for 16x250GB (example) they would better buy a... Xserve RAID!

W

View Post


It's nice to know that I can make up for the deficiencies in my PowerMac by investing - at the very minimum - an extra US$5'999 on hardware I shouldn't necessarily require in the first place.

This is a niche example, and I'm surprised it was so heavily taken up upon compared to what I thought would be the killer issue here - that is, that Apple's hardware is always six months or more behind the curve (with the example of the GeForce 7800). It's a funny ole world.
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#46 Siriusfox

Siriusfox

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1148 posts
  • Steam Name:opensiriusfox
  • Location:Washington State

Posted 27 June 2005 - 10:02 AM

RandyWang said:

Suppose you've daisy-chained 16 FireWire drives together (the maximum allowed by the spec). The maximum throughput of each hard drive, then, is 3.25 megabytes per second - well below the minimum standard expected for video editing.
1) Not every one of the 16 drives will be outputting at the same time.
2) Even so on a firewire 800, it transfers at 800MBits per second. 8 bits to the bite. 100MBs. Now 16 drives 100/16 doesn't even mathematically come out to 3.25, but 6.25. This is still blow, but back to my first point.

RandyWang said:

The larger problem here is that by daisychaining that many drives together - a solution you're suggesting is perfectly acceptable - you'll be stuck with 72 metres of FireWire cable. That's a lot of cable, and I'm surprised that you'd be willing to have that much crap on your desk when you could spread the same storage between a few extra G5s, simultaneously used for editing by members of a larger team.
72 meters over 16, or maybe 17 cables. Every cable is NOT over 4 meters. My firewire drive came with a 2 foot cable. I have no doubt, that you can at-least make an even shorter one.

RandyWang said:

You shouldn't have to invest in a RAID when an extra two drive-slots would probably solve, or at least alleviate, the problem.
You're attacking an example I made to support a larger argument. The limited internal expansion of the PowerMacs was an example of how Apple's hardware is not the best in the industry.
Out of the box the G5 is the best. And the point of the Mac is most users really don't want to upgrade it. That is a PC thing. That is why apple made the iMac. Because they know some people just want the computer to stay closed up.
20'' iMac Intel Core Duo 2GHz, 10.6.5, 2GB RAM, 256MB ATI X1600

"Home computers are being called upon to perform many new functions, including the consumption of homework formerly eaten by the dog." -Doug Larson

#47 RandyWang

RandyWang

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 401 posts
  • Location:Canberra, Australia

Posted 27 June 2005 - 10:14 AM

joefox, on June 28th 2005, 03:02 AM, said:

Out of the box the G5 is the best.

The best what, and why? So far, we've seen that it has considerably less internal expansion, far lower graphics horsepower, and performance that's severely limited by the lack of either quad-processor or dual-core machines. That doesn't seem like a particularly great combination, to me, and let's not get started on the ridiculous size of the PowerMac's case.

Quote

And the point of the Mac is most users really don't want to upgrade it. That is a PC thing.

That's all fine and well for consumer computers like the iMac, but the PowerMac is not a consumer computer. Are you seriously suggesting that professionals, such as those that would invest in Apple's top-of-the-line machine, simply aren't interested in upgrading their machine?

Despite the existence of Sonnet motherboard and CPU upgrades, despite ATI's and NVidia's aftermarket graphics upgrades, despite the availability of hacked hardware to make room for the additional two hard drives the G5 should have had to start with - in the face of significant evidence to the contrary, do you really expect me to believe that upgrades are a "PC thing"?

People quite patently are interested in giving major upgrades to their computers from time to time, but sadly it seems that Apple is constantly a long way behind the rest of the industry in terms of performance and hardware availability. There's no way they could possibly sell anything that's the best if I can buy a machine that thrashes it in realworld performance from any one of a dozen other companies.
Why are you looking at my Macintosh?

#48 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 27 June 2005 - 10:57 AM

joefox, on June 27th 2005, 09:02 AM, said:

2) Even so on a firewire 800, it transfers at 800MBits per second.

You would hope so, but Apple's (G5) FW800 controller sucks the big one and constrains one drive alone. 400Mb/s is about all you can get for write speeds, ~650Mb/s with 2 channels. USB2? Apple's is about 2/3 the speed of other chips in the industry. SATA? It's SATA1, and internal unless you shell out for a card and somewhere to house the drives, and the motherboard chip (no surprise) has mysterious performance problems.

Apple won't be much of an option until Apple outsources to someone like Intel to keep up on the motherboard designs.

#49 dj phat 2000

dj phat 2000

    Heroic

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 256 posts

Posted 27 June 2005 - 11:27 AM

I personally have mostly preferred to have HD, and burners as external devices.  It is just something that I like.  Now, while the G5 tower does not coming with the ability to upgrade past 2 HD, and 1 optical drive.  You can add a HD holder to let you put up to 4 more drives in that tower.  It is a hack job, but the benefit is pretty clear and works just fine.  Would you or anyone else be happier if Apple made it like that to begin with?  Most likely not, and I'm sure some others would be happy with it. And as hard as it is to imagine this as being the truth.   The Power Mac is a "Desktop" computer.  It can and does compete with "workstation" computers.  But it is labeled as a desktop computer.  No matter what the price is.  It is a desktop computer.  That just so happens to offer workstation level performance.  

Does Apple offer the best in parts for there computer?  Like graphics and such.  I say they don't offer the best, but they don't offer the lowest end either.  None of the Macs, NONE, come with sub par graphics like an integrated Intel chip or some SIS, or Trident graphics.  Every single Mac comes with either a ATi or Nvidia chip with its own memory.  Nothing is ever memory shared.  Not everyone that buys a Mac will need a 6800 or 7800 level of graphics. While still giving you the ability to upgrade as cards are made available to them to offer you.  I don't run Motion, or Shake.  So, to have a pro level card (which for the most part they are pro level cards with the difference being the drivers of such card).  Not everyone needs this in a desktop class computer.  I read here before that someone hacked a $1000 ATi Fire card to show up on the Mac as a X800 XT card.  So, there you go.  

Personally I don't think you could really get away with a PC on internal storage.  While I am quite sure you can get a big case, with massive drive space and all the internal ports in the world to connect them.  You have to then deal with heat, and any  noise from such a case.  Also, unless you designed the case with easy pop in and out of access to drives in case of failure, and also being able to monitor it.  Hot swappable type setup.  I wouldn't want to work on that kind of computer.  That is just me of course.  Others may enjoy that just fine.  I would MUCH prefer to have it connected via FC, Firewire 800 or over a very high speed network (Gb+).  This is of course gonna cost extra.  And I am sure if Apple could design a case that had 4 Drive bays instead of 2 they would.  But, in the end, stuff like that is better suited for external drives.  Getting that mess out of the box and onto something much easier to manage and deal with, being more dedicated for the task.  Then to have to go into your case to work on.  This would hold true for both PC and Mac.

Graphics upgrades will come, as they always do. Slower and in less quantity then the PC world.  Just the way it is.  Maybe the intel switch will help that.  But, Apple does offer the best they can for there customers.  They would be stupid not to.  And to say that they don't offer the "Best" compared to other companies.  Well, I think that is just a matter of opinion rather then something of pure fact.  For me, they offer the best computer for my needs, and I am sure many others will agree to that.  From basic computing to highend scientific research.  If they don't offer the best for you, and I am sure others as well.  Its option and need.

#50 Siriusfox

Siriusfox

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1148 posts
  • Steam Name:opensiriusfox
  • Location:Washington State

Posted 27 June 2005 - 11:40 AM

RandyWang, on June 27th 2005, 09:14 AM, said:

That's all fine and well for consumer computers like the iMac, but the PowerMac is not a consumer computer. Are you seriously suggesting that professionals, such as those that would invest in Apple's top-of-the-line machine, simply aren't interested in upgrading their machine?

Despite the existence of Sonnet motherboard and CPU upgrades, despite ATI's and NVidia's aftermarket graphics upgrades, despite the availability of hacked hardware to make room for the additional two hard drives the G5 should have had to start with - in the face of significant evidence to the contrary, do you really expect me to believe that upgrades are a "PC thing"?

People quite patently are interested in giving major upgrades to their computers from time to time, but sadly it seems that Apple is constantly a long way behind the rest of the industry in terms of performance and hardware availability. There's no way they could possibly sell anything that's the best if I can buy a machine that thrashes it in realworld performance from any one of a dozen other companies.
You fail to read the sentence that you quoted. Upgrading any computer is a very rare thing in the Mac community. In the existence of my computer, my tower that came with 8.6 on it. I have had 2 memory upgrades, and a USB port card added. And the only one that I did, not my grandfather, was the second memory upgrade from 256 to 768.

Minor upgrades are all around. A little more RAM, maybe a graphics card upgrade or a new internal Hard Drive. However, you are talking about FULL SCALE tare-it-down-and-start-from-scratch upgrades. Outside of the gaming community, I think you a VERY wrong. People don't give major upgrades from time to time. A major upgrade is a once or twice in the life-time of the computer thing for most people.

I know a family that has a Professional Digital photography business. They have 8 Macs. I think 2 are iMacs, the rest are towers of some sort. They have a huge network setup, state of the art tech, for the business. Yet the biggest upgrade for them was like most of the Mac community 9 to X.

Secondly, you continue to say Apple is way behind, they don't provide upgrades, they make it impossible. I have just said why. OUT OF THE BOX, the PowerMac is the best. (You keep saying aftermarket so I thought I would emphasise OUT OF THE BOX). You might be able to modify another computer and make it better, but OUT OF THE BOX, the PowerMac is not surpassed. A huge hard drive for most users, a very nice graphics card, incredible CPU performance, and its a Mac, better than a Windows over and over again.
20'' iMac Intel Core Duo 2GHz, 10.6.5, 2GB RAM, 256MB ATI X1600

"Home computers are being called upon to perform many new functions, including the consumption of homework formerly eaten by the dog." -Doug Larson

#51 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 27 June 2005 - 11:48 AM

dj phat 2000, on June 27th 2005, 10:27 AM, said:

It is a desktop computer.  That just so happens to offer workstation level performance.

The difference being? I'm sorry, but there's none. If you're working on it it's a workstation.

Quote

None of the Macs, NONE, come with sub par graphics like an integrated Intel chip or some SIS, or Trident graphics

Most Macs have poor gaming cards. Most macs are unupgradable. Many PCs with integrated graphics at least have an AGP or PCIex16 slot. Some integrated chips, such as ATI's x200, are half-decent and probably better than Apple's lower-end.

Quote

Personally I don't think you could really get away with a PC on internal storage.  While I am quite sure you can get a big case, with massive drive space and all the internal ports in the world to connect them.  You have to then deal with heat, and any  noise from such a case.

Pick a good case and some good fans and you can have all that. The PowerMac has a couple good bays, and room for a few more, so it's obviously possible. The iMac almost roasts its drives, so it's also obviously possible to get wrong. Out of the box? Both Dell and the local white box store have better options, as I said earlier. It's not rocket science, though, so without an infinite budget it's just plain better to get better stuff yourself rather than settle on Apple's 'value' parts.

#52 Siriusfox

Siriusfox

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1148 posts
  • Steam Name:opensiriusfox
  • Location:Washington State

Posted 27 June 2005 - 12:07 PM

bobbob said:

The difference being? I'm sorry, but there's none. If you're working on it it's a workstation.
A bus station is where a bus stops, a train station is where a train stops, so a work station is where...

That was shrewed and really doesn't say anything. In that context every computer is a workstaton. My little 3Mhz calculator is a a workstation, acording to what you just said.

bobbob said:

Most Macs have poor gaming cards. Most macs are unupgradable. Many PCs with integrated graphics at least have an AGP or PCIex16 slot. Some integrated chips, such as ATI's x200, are half-decent and probably better than Apple's lower-end.
Finish reading next time. He said SUB-PAR, as in below average, or cheep. They may not come with the TOP OF THE LINE, but they do come with a very good card. Consider that most people who get a PC don't know anything about computers. My freind has a house with 3 computers, just down the street. Only one had a graphics card, at all. Think about that.

bobbob said:

Pick a good case and some good fans and you can have all that. The PowerMac has a couple good bays, and room for a few more, so it's obviously possible. The iMac almost roasts its drives, so it's also obviously possible to get wrong. Out of the box? Both Dell and the local white box store have better options, as I said earlier. It's not rocket science, though, so without an infinite budget it's just plain better to get better stuff yourself rather than settle on Apple's 'value' parts.
I fail to see your point. Why would you need all the space in the first place, we have gone over the whole concept of a RAID tower, and daisy-chaning already. You also fail to say why you would need all this in the first place. That is why I say it is a PC thing, you don't upgrade it because you need it, you upgrade it because you can.
20'' iMac Intel Core Duo 2GHz, 10.6.5, 2GB RAM, 256MB ATI X1600

"Home computers are being called upon to perform many new functions, including the consumption of homework formerly eaten by the dog." -Doug Larson

#53 DaveyJJ

DaveyJJ

    All hail Bastet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3895 posts
  • Steam Name:DaveyJJ
  • Location:Inside Bastet's secret temple preparing for the catpocalypse.

Posted 27 June 2005 - 12:29 PM

bobbob, on June 27th 2005, 12:48 PM, said:

Most Macs have poor gaming cards.

You forgot to add "depending on the types of games you play."  :) I've never had a problem running Call of Duty, Rise of Nations, Age of Mythology, Neverwinter Nights, X-Plane 8, Unity (game engine), etc on my measly GeForce FX Go5200 with only 64MB of RAM. All smooth as silk, thanks much. It all depends on the game and the experience you want from it.  ;)

Raven 27" i3 iMac 3.2GHz | 12GB RAM | 1TB HD | 512MB 5670 ATI Radeon HD
Crow iPad 2 | 32GB WiFi


"Not my circus, not my monkeys." -- Polish folk saying
"In ancient times cats were worshipped as gods; they have not forgotten this." -- Terry Pratchett
"I love cats because I enjoy my home; and little by little, they become its visible soul." -- Jean Cocteau


#54 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 27 June 2005 - 02:05 PM

joefox, on June 27th 2005, 11:07 AM, said:

My little 3Mhz calculator is a a workstation, acording to what you just said.

Ever see an old-school accountant at work? If you're a graphics artist, at school you might have an iMac as a workstation. At work you might have a PowerMac filling the role. At home might be a PowerBook. They're all workstations. You can also differentiate between desktops and towers, but that doesn't say squat about what's under the hood.

Quote

Finish reading next time. He said SUB-PAR, as in below average, or cheep.

For Apple's prices it's all very sub-par.

Quote

Consider that most people who get a PC don't know anything about computers

Most people don't care, then. It doesn't affect the specs.

Quote

I fail to see your point. Why would you need all the space in the first place, we have gone over the whole concept of a RAID tower, and daisy-chaning already.

Why spend more on enclosures? Why buy another case?

#55 CG5Addict

CG5Addict

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 27 June 2005 - 04:46 PM

Randywang do you understand what out of the box means?? If not, this means with nothing else to do but connect it and turn  it on.
   Is there a PC out the box that has all these features Hardware & software wise? All with ease of use OS??? I think not.
when it comes to Graphics cards Apple has no control what nVidia & ATI makes for makes for them and the cost to it's customers. The current X800 from ATI and 6800 from NVidia are not cheap cards. plus the newest card the 7800GTX from nVidia shows Mac OSX Compatibility.

#56 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 27 June 2005 - 05:12 PM

CG5Addict, on June 27th 2005, 03:46 PM, said:

this means with nothing else to do but connect it and turn  it on.

So why did someone suggest external drives, then? Those are aftermarket.

Quote

Is there a PC out the box that has all these features Hardware & software wise?

How many times do I have to repeat myself about the hardware?

Quote

when it comes to Graphics cards Apple has no control what nVidia & ATI makes for makes for them and the cost to it's customers.

Apple absolutely has control over what's available for Macs. They could make their AGP slots and drivers compatible with PC cards (they have before), or they could add in PCIe and use PC cards. They want to fleece you for commodity parts instead, but hey.

#57 monkeyphonix

monkeyphonix

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1218 posts
  • Location:Sydney what happened to my damn summer?

Posted 27 June 2005 - 05:40 PM

bobbob, on June 27th 2005, 06:34 AM, said:

Uhhh.... one SATA2 channel can do 300MB/s, which means two are more than enough. Throw a few drives in a RAID over many channels and FC can go away and die. What do you think you suggested, anyway? That thing is a SATAII RAID with a FC interface. You're basically paying out the nose for something you could do yourself if your motherboard had more connectors and your case had more room.

View Post


Fair enough on the throughput issue. So its possible to do it cheaper, but at what cost to reliability and ease of use?

My company is paying for it so I'll take ease of use and reliability over rock bottom prices. I like the built in redundancy of RAID 5 and the ability to hot swap a drive if it fails. Not to mention the backup second power supply and the ability to rack mount and hook it up to our UPS. No need to dick around inside a desktop case.

The only point I was trying to make was that the xSan is about twice as expensive as competitive solutions from other manufacturers. If you need several TB of storage then an external RAID is the only solution.

#58 Siriusfox

Siriusfox

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1148 posts
  • Steam Name:opensiriusfox
  • Location:Washington State

Posted 27 June 2005 - 06:07 PM

bobbob said:

So why did someone suggest external drives, then? Those are aftermarket.
Because you and RandyWang keep saying how the PowerMac MUST have all these extra features and saying it was crap because it didn't. Yet, never why you need it.

bobbob said:

How many times do I have to repeat myself about the hardware?
Until you say something that makes sense, about it.

bobbob said:

For Apple's prices it's all very sub-par.
B.S.

bobbob said:

...Most people don't care, then. It doesn't affect the specs...
------------------------------------------------
...Why spend more on enclosures? Why buy another case?...
Why do you need all these extra upgrades in the first place. You keep saying THEY MUST HAVE THIS!!!!! Yet, never why you need it. Something I would never expect from a Mac user. Upgrading because you need it, is what Mac sits on. Not upgrade because I can, and I want to brag about it.
20'' iMac Intel Core Duo 2GHz, 10.6.5, 2GB RAM, 256MB ATI X1600

"Home computers are being called upon to perform many new functions, including the consumption of homework formerly eaten by the dog." -Doug Larson

#59 CG5Addict

CG5Addict

    Fan

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 20 posts

Posted 27 June 2005 - 06:22 PM

bobbob, on June 27th 2005, 03:12 PM, said:

Apple absolutely has control over what's available for Macs. They could make their AGP slots and drivers compatible with PC cards (they have before), or they could add in PCIe and use PC cards. They want to fleece you for commodity parts instead, but hey.

So Apple should have a Intel processor with drivers to match.... done (MacTel)
Fleece me??
What profit does Apple make from ATI & nVidia that makes them go a differant way?

Apple does not make designs to just piss people off. The make in a way to make a better system.

Because the windows OS is more profitable at the moment is the only reason graphic card companys make more differant cards for PC's.

There is a lot of hardware out there that is/was better then the ones brought by the masses.

Bottom line is you can make a Camaro faster then a lamborghini, but in the end it's still a Camaro.

#60 bobbob

bobbob

    Uberspewer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3367 posts

Posted 27 June 2005 - 06:50 PM

joefox, on June 27th 2005, 05:07 PM, said:

Until you say something that makes sense, about it.

I keep showing that you can buy computers with lots of built-in storage, but people keep saying that you can't. Why the straw man?

Quote

bobbob said:

For Apple's prices it's all very sub-par.
B.S.

If you have a budget and want lots of fast storage or more game performance it's not BS. Macs cost too much to compete with cheaper, faster, often better competitors. For example, one of ATI's budget integrated motherboards has a faster GPU than an iMac, PCIe slots, and SATA, all for $100. Throw it in a $100 case with a $100 processor, $50 hard drive, $50 RAM, and $50 disc drive, then you've got a better gaming rig than an iMac for less than the price of a Mini. It's still not much of a gaming rig, though, but add a $150 6600GT and it'd compete favourably with any PowerMac with less than a 6800 or X800.

bobbob said:

Why do you need all these extra upgrades in the first place.

I want a fast game machine without breaking out the $1000 bills. My friends want terrabytes of cheap storage. It's not so much that I have to show Apple that I want it. I know what I want. They should be more competitive or I won't look at buying a Mac.

CG5Addict, on June 27th 2005, 05:22 PM, said:

So Apple should have a Intel processor with drivers to match.... done (MacTel)

You're missing the fact that an AGP card could (should!) have worked on a Mac with the right drivers, even on PPC.

Quote

Fleece me?? What profit does Apple make from ATI & nVidia that makes them go a differant way?

I have no idea whether they made more profit or not, but the extra money for Mac-branded cards still comes from your pocket.