then as always you are stuck waiting for apple to decide when you can get a faster chip/version - as we've seen sometimes way over a year or more...
i'm a huge mac fan and would prefer to use them over windows, but it just does not make sense for a growing majority of applications or uses to pay the premium that apple wants for what is often outdated components at ship time - trust me i think that sucks big time and wish apple could
i have my mac workstation, a couple mac servers, then 40 or so PC's, some running linux, others Windows7 Pro... it would be great to run all OSX... but reality is reality.
i keep hoping for them to sell OSX as an OS for PC's - just give it a strict set of hardware requirements but let us either buy or build our own PC to run it on. (i'd pay $249 in a heartbeat for that OSX version - which when compared to the $29 cost of OSX for mac - should be a fair profit margin for them - probably more then they make on some of their hardware)
c'mon apple - release OSX for PC - lock it to the hardware or whatever you need to do to prevent it being pirated like Microsoft does, but let us who really want choice (and top power) to have some!
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
On Jun 11, 2013, at 5:11 PM, Dennis Wilkins wrote:
maybe, but I don't see an ROI on spending 50% more for 10-15% faster. I don't need the fastest CPU, just one thats really fast. my i7 2.93 4core averages 5% than my zeon 4X2 2.8 tower. the i7's have more than good enough performance.
I guess you didn't check out the link (
http://www.cbscores.com); current 12-core Xeon machines are closer to 75-80% faster than the fastest available over-clocked 6-core i7 chips. Cost/performance wise, i7 CPU's are very good CPU's.
This new machine will be expensive, as all Mac Pro's have been (relative to the average PC), but I also think it will be an amazing performer.