Buy a basic mac??

[Walter Graff]

Personally I would never suggest an edit system with interior drives. We have installed over 600 such systems and we've had the most problems and failures with internal hard drives. Its simply too much heat. External drives are far more reliable as far as we can see.

[Phil Rhodes]

How much internal storage would be ideal for HD editing? Western Digital recently introduced 2TB drives, that would be 8TB of Mac Pro internal storage. Is more really required?

 

It's not space, it's speed - you still really need six drives for uncompressed HD in RAID-0 (OK for casual work) and eight for RAID-5. You wouldn't necessarily want to put 8 disks in a desktop case, but I've done several with six on systems that just needed some HD-speed scratch space. Further to Mr. Graff's point, you can get adequately cooled cases that will mount six drives, although you wouldn't want to be in the same room as it if you want to be able to hear yourself think. I consider that even four drives in a Mac Pro are dangerously under-cooled, though.

 

Better availability of solid state disks will mitigate a lot of this.

 

As far as Apple's reputation for over charging for similar functionality. Since Apple switched to Intel people have been hard pressed to find cheaper machines for the same functionality from other PC manufacturers. You could build your own for cheaper, but most of us would prefer to have a warranty and guaranteed customer support.

 

The usual issue is that they launch a system at a moderately reasonable price plus say 10% apple tax, but they then don't really reduce the price fast enough as the equipment they're selling becomes less and less up to date. This is probably why there's constant arguments about this, because at any given time there'll be several Mac systems about, which all compare to commodity PC gear differently because they're at different points in their product life cycle. In general I find the mid-end stuff is horribly expensive, whereas the Mac Minis are sort of OK and the Mac Pros are sort of OK.

 

Apple does not actually make much profit from its software. The purpose of OS X, Final Cut Pro, Logic and all the rest are to differentiate Apple as a separate platform from Windows and sell the more profitable hardware.

 

I don't think that's a secret!

 

their is nothing currently viable.

 

Couldn't agree more. I wish Linux was there, but no matter how much the proponents of the thing scream that it is - it just isn't.

 

You are correct that the future growth is in mobile internet devices. Apple recognizes this future growth and why it has heavily invested in iPods and the iPhone. I guess you would look at them as toys if you are a heavy iron snob. But the reality is that the future is in portability. Laptops outsell desktops, mobile internet devices outsell laptops.

 

Oh, absolutely. It's a vastly bigger market and it's no secret why they're interested. It is a bit of a shame, though, that the decent value macs, their serious big iron, which are most competitive in sheer performance with the commodity market, is hamstrung by such a pathetically daft box. I've thought many times about drawing up a replacement enclosure for a Mac Pro, with laser cut panels and so forth - the motherboard would go in a 19" rack - but I don't think there'd really be much of a market for it.

 

Phil

[Tenolian Bell]

This is true. Apple's refresh cycles can be unpredictable and frustrating. The Mac Pro is over a year old, the iMac is nearly a year old, and the mini is going on two years old.

 

The primary reason for Apple's long refresh cycles are the fact that it designs very expensive machines and does not have nearly the volume sales of Dell or HP. Apple cannot compete with the volume business so it has to operate in a different way.

 

Generally when Apple launches a new computer it is using rather expensive components. The case of the latest MacBook is machined from a solid block of aluminum. The advantage of this process is to give the body durability and strength, this process is more expensive than snapping together plastic parts. Apple was the first to use 15" and 17" LED backlit LCD panels in laptops, which are more expensive than CCFL panels.

 

Apple has been able to secure Intel's newest Xeons for the Mac Pro before the general PC market. Apple has been able to get Intel to design special mobile chips that have been used in its MacBook and iMac. Apple got Nvidia to design a special GPU chipset that is currently used in the MacBook line. This is all very expensive.

 

Because Apple does not have the volume of sales of the larger PC makers, Apple has to amortize these costs over a longer period of time. Eventually other PC makers begin to use the same components and bring the prices down below what Apple charges. This cycle generally lasts 6 to 8 months and Apple then updates the machines again with new components.

 

The desktop line has currently gone longer than it normally ever does. Part of the reason is that Intel's newest Xeons are not yet available. Part of the reason could be no rush to launch expensive machines in this economy. My wild guess is that Apple will launch a new version of Final Cut Studio and the new desktop line at NAB.

 

 

 

The usual issue is that they launch a system at a moderately reasonable price plus say 10% apple tax, but they then don't really reduce the price fast enough as the equipment they're selling becomes less and less up to date. This is probably why there's constant arguments about this, because at any given time there'll be several Mac systems about, which all compare to commodity PC gear differently because they're at different points in their product life cycle. In general I find the mid-end stuff is horribly expensive, whereas the Mac Minis are sort of OK and the Mac Pros are sort of OK.