4 ms·

You have a (probably) $6k machine that is still giving you a workable system 10 years later - doesn't that tend to suggest something?

by dpcx 8y ago

64738 8y ago
Mine's a mid-2010 MBP, only paid $1600 new (later upgraded the memory and swapped to an SSD). It's still my main system eight years later. Unfortunately, I can't install newer versions of the OS. I'm stuck at no higher than 10.12(?), so now there's mainstream software I can't install because of OS version requirements. Kind of a bummer since it's still a good machine. 8+ years is a pretty good run, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to replace it. I guess my point is, yeah, even if initially expensive, it's been a good value. I hope the new ones are similar...
- overcast 8y ago
  You can definitely install a newer MacOS, they run fine. It's a 5 minute patch to the installer, and away you go. My 2008 has been running High Sierra without any issues. http://dosdude1.com/software.html http://dosdude1.com/software.html
  - 64738 8y ago
    Very interesting! I have looked for ways to fake what version MacOS reports to installers, but was unaware of methods to install the newer OSes. Thank you, I sincerely appreciate the link :D
llampx 8y ago
A 10 year old desktop PC with similar specs would have lasted just as long. I just upgraded my PC from 2008 (original Intel Core i7) to a Ryzen system this year, and a Mac Pro had much more power to begin with.
- tkcins 8y ago
  That's apples to oranges. A laptop includes many pieces of hardware you probably don't understand as part of your desktop PC (think keyboard, screen, loudspeakers, ...), is carried around all day, and sometimes suffers some abuse :)
  - andrewstuart2 8y ago
    A Mac Pro is a desktop computer, not to be confused with a MacBook Pro. :-) https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/ https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/
Someone1234 8y ago
I still have a $1.5K system doing the same. I'm pretty sure it suggests that after Moore's Law computers now last significantly longer than they used to. Only major hardware improvement in that period is Nvidia's GTX 1060/1070/1080 series graphics cards and faster PCI based SSD storage. CPUs and memory have barely moved.
- p1necone 8y ago
  I think it's just as much Intel just not having competition/incentive to improve as it is Moore's Law. Until Ryzen forced Intel to get off their asses there was very little performance improvement generation by generation in intel processors. For example: Over 2011 - 2017 there was a ~18% (userbenchmark) improvement in the *700 i7 model. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-2700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-7700/1985vs3887 https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-2700K-vs... But then Ryzen came out and the very next model (released in the same year) was already a ~23% improvement. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700-vs-Intel-Core-i7-8700/3887vs3940 https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700-vs-...
  - ethebubbeth 8y ago
    The "Ryzen forced Intel to get off their asses" portion is definitely in full effect here. It got Intel to move from 4 to 6 cores on the *700 i7 part. However, both in the SC Mixed results on the benchmarks you linked, and in individual benchmarks at Anandtech ( https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2255?vs=2127 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2255?vs=2127), the single threaded results track previous generations. Intel still had to go wide to increase performance due to competition from AMD. They didn't increase generational improvement on their individual cores.
overcast 8y ago
The 2008 MacPro was $3000 at the time, and was actually an outrageously good deal. A pair of the Xeon CPU's were roughly the same cost retail, nevermind the rest of it. Judging by the existing trash can one, it will be ridiculously overpriced this time around.
ken 8y ago
The 2008 Mac Pro cost only $2299: https://everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_pro/specs/mac-pro-quad-core-2.8-2008-specs.html https://everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_pro/specs/mac-pro-qua... Even accounting for inflation, that's under $2700 today. And the only reason my 2008 is still "workable" is because I used a third-party tool to enable me to run a recent macOS installer. Apple's official macOS installer refuses to update a 2008 Mac Pro beyond OS 10.11 (El Cap, 2015), even though the hardware is perfectly capable of running newer versions.

You have a (probably) $6k machine that is still giving you a workable system 10 years later - doesn't that tend to suggest something?

by dpcx 8y ago

You have a (probably) $6k machine that is still giving you a workable system 10 years later - doesn't that tend to suggest something?

64738 8y ago

Mine's a mid-2010 MBP, only paid $1600 new (later upgraded the memory and swapped to an SSD). It's still my main system eight years later. Unfortunately, I can't install newer versions of the OS. I'm stuck at no higher than 10.12(?), so now there's mainstream software I can't install because of OS version requirements. Kind of a bummer since it's still a good machine. 8+ years is a pretty good run, but that doesn't mean I'm ready to replace it. I guess my point is, yeah, even if initially expensive, it's been a good value. I hope the new ones are similar...

overcast 8y ago
You can definitely install a newer MacOS, they run fine. It's a 5 minute patch to the installer, and away you go. My 2008 has been running High Sierra without any issues. http://dosdude1.com/software.html http://dosdude1.com/software.html
- 64738 8y ago
  Very interesting! I have looked for ways to fake what version MacOS reports to installers, but was unaware of methods to install the newer OSes. Thank you, I sincerely appreciate the link :D

llampx 8y ago

A 10 year old desktop PC with similar specs would have lasted just as long. I just upgraded my PC from 2008 (original Intel Core i7) to a Ryzen system this year, and a Mac Pro had much more power to begin with.

tkcins 8y ago
That's apples to oranges. A laptop includes many pieces of hardware you probably don't understand as part of your desktop PC (think keyboard, screen, loudspeakers, ...), is carried around all day, and sometimes suffers some abuse :)
- andrewstuart2 8y ago
  A Mac Pro is a desktop computer, not to be confused with a MacBook Pro. :-) https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/ https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/

Someone1234 8y ago

I still have a $1.5K system doing the same. I'm pretty sure it suggests that after Moore's Law computers now last significantly longer than they used to. Only major hardware improvement in that period is Nvidia's GTX 1060/1070/1080 series graphics cards and faster PCI based SSD storage. CPUs and memory have barely moved.

p1necone 8y ago
I think it's just as much Intel just not having competition/incentive to improve as it is Moore's Law. Until Ryzen forced Intel to get off their asses there was very little performance improvement generation by generation in intel processors. For example: Over 2011 - 2017 there was a ~18% (userbenchmark) improvement in the *700 i7 model. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-2700K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-7700/1985vs3887 https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-2700K-vs... But then Ryzen came out and the very next model (released in the same year) was already a ~23% improvement. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700-vs-Intel-Core-i7-8700/3887vs3940 https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7700-vs-...
- ethebubbeth 8y ago
  The "Ryzen forced Intel to get off their asses" portion is definitely in full effect here. It got Intel to move from 4 to 6 cores on the *700 i7 part. However, both in the SC Mixed results on the benchmarks you linked, and in individual benchmarks at Anandtech ( https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2255?vs=2127 https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/2255?vs=2127), the single threaded results track previous generations. Intel still had to go wide to increase performance due to competition from AMD. They didn't increase generational improvement on their individual cores.

overcast 8y ago

The 2008 MacPro was $3000 at the time, and was actually an outrageously good deal. A pair of the Xeon CPU's were roughly the same cost retail, nevermind the rest of it. Judging by the existing trash can one, it will be ridiculously overpriced this time around.

ken 8y ago

The 2008 Mac Pro cost only $2299: https://everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_pro/specs/mac-pro-quad-core-2.8-2008-specs.html https://everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_pro/specs/mac-pro-qua... Even accounting for inflation, that's under $2700 today. And the only reason my 2008 is still "workable" is because I used a third-party tool to enable me to run a recent macOS installer. Apple's official macOS installer refuses to update a 2008 Mac Pro beyond OS 10.11 (El Cap, 2015), even though the hardware is perfectly capable of running newer versions.