Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #50329 > unrolled thread

Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-10-22 18:46 +0200
    Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco bj <address_is@invalid.invalid> - 2013-10-22 13:36 -0500
      Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-22 14:40 -0400
        Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-22 17:17 -0400
          Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-22 17:43 -0400
            Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-22 18:23 -0400
              Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-22 18:37 -0400
                Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-22 18:54 -0400
                  Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-22 19:37 -0400
                  Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-22 18:49 -0700
                  Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Michael Eyd <invalid@eyd.de> - 2013-10-23 13:33 +0200
                    Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-10-23 14:52 -0400
                      Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-23 18:00 -0400
                        Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-24 04:26 +0000
                          Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-25 16:40 -0400
                            Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-10-26 08:41 -0500
              Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-22 21:01 -0400
                Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-23 18:13 +1300
              Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-22 18:48 -0700
                Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-23 02:20 +0000
                  Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-23 08:33 -0700
                    Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2013-10-24 07:13 +1100
                      Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-24 08:00 -0700
                    Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-24 04:24 +0000
                      Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-24 07:57 -0700
                        Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-25 05:36 +0000
                          Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-25 07:51 -0700
                            Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-26 10:09 +1300
                          Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-10-25 16:47 -0400
          Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-10-22 18:41 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#50329 — Re: Apple confirms October 22nd press event in San Francisco

In article <michelle-C95DB6.09424215102013@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> We should see the shipping date for Mavericks as well as the products 
> mentioned in the article.
> 
> Interesting that the event will be at the Yerba Buena Center instead of the 
> Apple Campus, where iOS 7 and the new iPhones were introduced.  They must 
> be inviting a greater number of correspondents.

Should be starting in about 15 minutes if I have my time zone 
differences right.

-- 
Paul Sture

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#50330

Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> In article <michelle-C95DB6.09424215102013@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>> We should see the shipping date for Mavericks as well as the products 
>> mentioned in the article.
>> 
>> Interesting that the event will be at the Yerba Buena Center instead of the 
>> Apple Campus, where iOS 7 and the new iPhones were introduced.  They must 
>> be inviting a greater number of correspondents.
> 
> Should be starting in about 15 minutes if I have my time zone 
> differences right.


I watched the live stream while I had lunch.
Seemed to go well, though I'm sure *someone* will make "I'm disappointed"
comments.
Probably several someone's, with different complaints.
bj

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50331

In article
<480681549404159505.629303address_is-invalid.invalid@news.giganews.com>,
 bj <address_is@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I watched the live stream while I had lunch.

rather long lunch break.

> Seemed to go well, though I'm sure *someone* will make "I'm disappointed"
> comments.
> Probably several someone's, with different complaints.

can't please everyone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50344

Tim Cook was better than before at the keynote.

Still not sure of the MacPro's lack of storage though. If you want
performance, you need local storage which it lacks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50351

In article <5266eb51$0$12645$c3e8da3$69010069@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Still not sure of the MacPro's lack of storage though. If you want
> performance, you need local storage which it lacks.

it have very fast internal storage and can connect to external via
thunderbolt 2.

people who buy high end systems typically have raid arrays.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50354

On 13-10-22 17:43, nospam wrote:

> it have very fast internal storage and can connect to external via
> thunderbolt 2.
> 
> people who buy high end systems typically have raid arrays.


Did Apple announce a separate box to hold real disk drives for a storage
array ?

Out of curiosity, do storage arrays today support Thunderbolt 2  ?

So that 43 watt quote for the new MacPro when idle is rather empty
promise if you need to buy seperate boxes with their own power supplies
to fill the needs of what is missing inside the MacPro.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50357

In article <5266fae3$0$53692$c3e8da3$14a0410e@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > it have very fast internal storage and can connect to external via
> > thunderbolt 2.
> > 
> > people who buy high end systems typically have raid arrays.
> 
> 
> Did Apple announce a separate box to hold real disk drives for a storage
> array ?

no

> Out of curiosity, do storage arrays today support Thunderbolt 2  ?

not yet

> So that 43 watt quote for the new MacPro when idle is rather empty
> promise if you need to buy seperate boxes with their own power supplies
> to fill the needs of what is missing inside the MacPro.

still a shitload less than the previous model.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50358

On 13-10-22 18:37, nospam wrote:

>> So that 43 watt quote for the new MacPro when idle is rather empty
>> promise if you need to buy seperate boxes with their own power supplies
>> to fill the needs of what is missing inside the MacPro.
> 
> still a shitload less than the previous model.

But the real MacPro has drives in it. So the 150 watts it consumes is
with drives. When you start to add 2TB drives to the new Macpro, how
much power will the combo consume ?

The 43watt idle power consumption for the new one is not fair comparison
since it lacks sufficient storage.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50361

In article <52670212$0$44249$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> >> So that 43 watt quote for the new MacPro when idle is rather empty
> >> promise if you need to buy seperate boxes with their own power supplies
> >> to fill the needs of what is missing inside the MacPro.
> > 
> > still a shitload less than the previous model.
> 
> But the real MacPro has drives in it. So the 150 watts it consumes is
> with drives. When you start to add 2TB drives to the new Macpro, how
> much power will the combo consume ?

the old mac pro has a huge ass power supply to support multiple pci
cards that are rarely needed.

the hard drives are a drop in the bucket. a random hitachi 3.5" hard
drive is under 5 watts. 

> The 43watt idle power consumption for the new one is not fair comparison
> since it lacks sufficient storage.

1 terabyte of ssd is insufficient?

and it's at idle anyway, when the raid array might be powered down.
it's obviously higher when running at full tilt.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50376

In article <52670212$0$44249$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> The 43watt idle power consumption for the new one is not fair comparison
> since it lacks sufficient storage.

Sufficient for what, exactly?

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50404

Am 23.10.2013 00:54, schrieb JF Mezei:
> On 13-10-22 18:37, nospam wrote:
>
>>> So that 43 watt quote for the new MacPro when idle is rather empty
>>> promise if you need to buy seperate boxes with their own power supplies
>>> to fill the needs of what is missing inside the MacPro.
>>
>> still a shitload less than the previous model.
>
> But the real MacPro has drives in it. So the 150 watts it consumes is
> with drives.

Which are (hopefully) powered down when running idle. And that was the 
comparison point.

If the old MacPro didn't power down drives when idling around for some 
time that's its fault, not the new one's.

> When you start to add 2TB drives to the new Macpro, how
> much power will the combo consume ?

Idle? Hopefully not much more than Apple listed.

> The 43watt idle power consumption for the new one is not fair comparison
> since it lacks sufficient storage.

How much capacity could you order the old MacPro with (directly from 
Apple, not added by anybody else)? Did that go much beyond the 1 TB of 
the new model?

If there wasn't much more you could order, the comparison is still very 
valid... ;-)

Best regards,

Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50430

Michael Eyd wrote:
>
> How much capacity could you order the old MacPro with (directly from 
> Apple, not added by anybody else)? Did that go much beyond the 1 TB of 
> the new model?


4 * 2 terabyte drives on MacPro.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50455

On 2013.10.23, 14:52 , JF Mezei wrote:
> Michael Eyd wrote:
>>
>> How much capacity could you order the old MacPro with (directly from
>> Apple, not added by anybody else)? Did that go much beyond the 1 TB of
>> the new model?
>
>
> 4 * 2 terabyte drives on MacPro.

I've got 9 TB spinning - outside the iMac.  (Firewire).


-- 
"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another."
                                                 -Ambrose Bierce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50502

In message <B9KdnWidNKRq2_XPnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@giganews.com> 
  Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2013.10.23, 14:52 , JF Mezei wrote:
>> Michael Eyd wrote:
>>>
>>> How much capacity could you order the old MacPro with (directly from
>>> Apple, not added by anybody else)? Did that go much beyond the 1 TB of
>>> the new model?
>>
>>
>> 4 * 2 terabyte drives on MacPro.

> I've got 9 TB spinning - outside the iMac.  (Firewire).

Pfft! I have ... 42TB last I counted. And that doesn’t count the boot
drives on any of my machines, that's just extra storage.

I might be at 39, I can't remember if that 42 counts the Seagate
external 3TB piece of shit that died.

-- 
Reality is a curve.  That's not the problem. The problem is that there
isn't as much as there should be. According to some of the more mystical
texts in the stacks of the library of Unseen University - (...) - at
least nine-tenths of all the original reality ever created lies outside
the multiverse, and since the multiverse by definition includes
absolutely everything that is anything, this puts a bit of a strain on
things. --Moving Pictures

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50701

On 2013.10.24, 00:26 , Lewis wrote:
> In message <B9KdnWidNKRq2_XPnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2013.10.23, 14:52 , JF Mezei wrote:
>>> Michael Eyd wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How much capacity could you order the old MacPro with (directly from
>>>> Apple, not added by anybody else)? Did that go much beyond the 1 TB of
>>>> the new model?
>>>
>>>
>>> 4 * 2 terabyte drives on MacPro.
>
>> I've got 9 TB spinning - outside the iMac.  (Firewire).
>
> Pfft! I have ... 42TB last I counted. And that doesn’t count the boot
> drives on any of my machines, that's just extra storage.

It's not the number of penises Lewis, it's how well you do with 1.

-- 
"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another."
                                                 -Ambrose Bierce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50748

On 10/25/13 3:40 PM, in article
ic2dnUvIGo7dSvfPnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com, "Alan Browne"
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2013.10.24, 00:26 , Lewis wrote:
>> In message <B9KdnWidNKRq2_XPnZ2dnUVZ_omdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>    Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2013.10.23, 14:52 , JF Mezei wrote:
>>>> Michael Eyd wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> How much capacity could you order the old MacPro with (directly from
>>>>> Apple, not added by anybody else)? Did that go much beyond the 1 TB of
>>>>> the new model?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 4 * 2 terabyte drives on MacPro.
>> 
>>> I've got 9 TB spinning - outside the iMac.  (Firewire).
>> 
>> Pfft! I have ... 42TB last I counted. And that doesn¹t count the boot
>> drives on any of my machines, that's just extra storage.
> 
> It's not the number of penises Lewis, it's how well you do with 1.

Ahah! The old "pissing contest": did it HAVE to come to this?!?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50367

On 2013.10.22 18:23 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 13-10-22 17:43, nospam wrote:
>
>> it have very fast internal storage and can connect to external via
>> thunderbolt 2.
>>
>> people who buy high end systems typically have raid arrays.
>
>
> Did Apple announce a separate box to hold real disk drives for a storage
> array ?
>
> Out of curiosity, do storage arrays today support Thunderbolt 2  ?

In queue:
http://www.storagenewsletter.com/rubriques/systems-raid-nas-san/promise-technology-thunderbolt-2-pegasus-idf/

http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Unveils+Thunderbolt+2+Will+Land+By+Years+End/article31697.htm

etc.

> So that 43 watt quote for the new MacPro when idle is rather empty
> promise if you need to buy seperate boxes with their own power supplies
> to fill the needs of what is missing inside the MacPro.

Not at all.  You can do a lot of work with a 500 GB - 1 TB drive.  It 
depends on the project.  Once done, archive it offline.

If it's a large project then existing TB (1) drives, Firewire, etc. will 
get you there in any case - yes, with more idle (not to mention) working 
power.

-- 
"Quotation, n: The act of repeating erroneously the words of another."
                                                 -Ambrose Bierce

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50394

In article <_qmdnfSnb55IgvrPnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2013.10.22 18:23 , JF Mezei wrote:
> >
> > So that 43 watt quote for the new MacPro when idle is rather empty
> > promise if you need to buy seperate boxes with their own power supplies
> > to fill the needs of what is missing inside the MacPro.
> 
> Not at all.  You can do a lot of work with a 500 GB - 1 TB drive.  It 
> depends on the project.  Once done, archive it offline.
> 
> If it's a large project then existing TB (1) drives, Firewire, etc. will 
> get you there in any case - yes, with more idle (not to mention) working 
> power.

It of course depends what you use the computer for, but that model is
marketed at "pro users" who do often need large amounts of storage
space. Apple's argument is basically that Thunderbolt is just as fast
(if not faster) than the internal connections.

My PowerMac has it's original 6GB hard drive and an added 120GB hard
drive - both only about half full. (It normally also has an old 4GB
laptop drive, but I've had to temporarily re-purpose that into an
external case for use on someone else's computer.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50374

In article <5266fae3$0$53692$c3e8da3$14a0410e@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 13-10-22 17:43, nospam wrote:
> 
> > it have very fast internal storage and can connect to external via
> > thunderbolt 2.
> > 
> > people who buy high end systems typically have raid arrays.
> 
> Did Apple announce a separate box to hold real disk drives for a storage
> array ?

Are you suggesting it would be good for Apple to enter the storage box 
market? Do you have any actual data to back that up?

> Out of curiosity, do storage arrays today support Thunderbolt 2  ?

Go find out for yourself, since it matters to you.

> So that 43 watt quote for the new MacPro when idle is rather empty
> promise if you need to buy seperate boxes with their own power supplies
> to fill the needs of what is missing inside the MacPro.

So your position is that the existing storage options in the new Mac Pro 
are insufficient for most people?  

I'm finding that a little hard to swallow, personally, considering I am 
one of those people and think the storage would be sufficient for my 
needs.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#50378

In message <jollyroger-0620DB.18481222102013@news.individual.net> 
  Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <5266fae3$0$53692$c3e8da3$14a0410e@news.astraweb.com>,
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>> On 13-10-22 17:43, nospam wrote:
>> 
>> > it have very fast internal storage and can connect to external via
>> > thunderbolt 2.
>> > 
>> > people who buy high end systems typically have raid arrays.
>> 
>> Did Apple announce a separate box to hold real disk drives for a storage
>> array ?

> Are you suggesting it would be good for Apple to enter the storage box 
> market? Do you have any actual data to back that up?

>> Out of curiosity, do storage arrays today support Thunderbolt 2  ?

> Go find out for yourself, since it matters to you.

>> So that 43 watt quote for the new MacPro when idle is rather empty
>> promise if you need to buy seperate boxes with their own power supplies
>> to fill the needs of what is missing inside the MacPro.

> So your position is that the existing storage options in the new Mac Pro 
> are insufficient for most people?  

> I'm finding that a little hard to swallow, personally, considering I am 
> one of those people and think the storage would be sufficient for my 
> needs.

As long as you're not doing video. I would need external storage for it.
Heck, my iTunes library is larger than that. That said, I'd love one of
those new machines and would be happy to use that machine with a decent
NAS.

-- 
A ship should not ride on a single anchor, nor life on a single hope

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web