OS X: Mavericks - Seriously, Apple?

lol

lol

lol

the combo of the sega-megathing and trash can gif made my day after a 14 day workweek.

This thread makes lols

I think the way Apple is approaching the new Mac Pro is most storage is moving towards server/cloud situations, and the days of physically attached drives is becoming a thing of the past, just like an optical drive. I understand there are still outfits that work that way, but Apple has never been one to be backwards-thinking, for better or worse.

I personally think that physically-attached storage is a bit outdated, and is unreliable without a backup system (which these days is almost always network-attached). As long as you've got a Gigabit hardwired connection (that's only one input, folks), you've got the bandwidth for the most demanding video and rendering duties.

I can imagine some of the higher end studios having rows of these little trashcans, humming away and churning through video and rendering like nobody's business.

your points about physically attached storage being outdated are mostly correct. but only if you're a standard consumer.

can you imagine the professional market, storing video / audio data in the cloud and editing it from the cloud? I can't. And if you can, then you're putting way too much faith and misplaced expectations on cloud storage.

The new Mac "Pro" is yet another example of Apple gearing their stuff for a 'prosumer' market.

I'll have to look a bit into it though - the main 'expansion' capability seems to be reliant solely on Thunderbolt 2. If Thunderbolt 2 can keep bandwidth and speed over long distances, it would actually be a good thing, as they can have the computer CPU hardware close-by and have storage in another room. But like I said, I'll need to do my homework on the specification of Thunderbolt 2.

At the face of it though, this is actually quite a bad thing, imo.

edit: 3 metres maximum length for a Thunderbolt cable. this is a massive fail.

  On 6/10/2013 at 7:07 PM, Joyrex said:

they're going to name their future OSes after basketball teams? What's next, OS X: Spurs?

maybe it's a reference to surfing, the web...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mavericks_%28location%29

  On 7/1/2013 at 5:02 PM, oscillik said:

your points about physically attached storage being outdated are mostly correct. but only if you're a standard consumer.

 

can you imagine the professional market, storing video / audio data in the cloud and editing it from the cloud? I can't. And if you can, then you're putting way too much faith and misplaced expectations on cloud storage.

 

The new Mac "Pro" is yet another example of Apple gearing their stuff for a 'prosumer' market.

 

I'll have to look a bit into it though - the main 'expansion' capability seems to be reliant solely on Thunderbolt 2. If Thunderbolt 2 can keep bandwidth and speed over long distances, it would actually be a good thing, as they can have the computer CPU hardware close-by and have storage in another room. But like I said, I'll need to do my homework on the specification of Thunderbolt 2.

 

At the face of it though, this is actually quite a bad thing, imo.

 

edit: 3 metres maximum length for a Thunderbolt cable. this is a massive fail.

When I mentioned "cloud", I was referring to network-based storage - obviously studios are not going to rely on internet-based storage for their assets. Sorry if that clouded (ha) the point.

3 meters isn't long enough? Seriously, think about it - the most likely situation for Thunderbolt 2 is external (temporary) connections, and don't forget TB2 is used for more than just drives - monitors, etc. can use the standard. Who'd have a monitor/external HDD/optical drive more than 3 meters from the unit?

I wonder if that is 3 meters maximum, or the use of hubs/repeaters could extend that length...

the only way to have multiple thunderbolt ports right now is through apples monitor. that's a fucking joke! was on a photo shoot today and were we shooting mass amounts of data. 6 time lapse videos using stills. was a joke transferring data. cloud based would have been a disaster to say the least!

for someone who does video archiving and processing involving lots of outdated media storage types (hi-8, vhs, minidv, etc.) removing most of the physical interface/hubs is a massive FUCK YOU to me

i'm sorry that they said FUCK YOU to you

  On 7/2/2013 at 9:19 AM, Salvatorin said:

for someone who does video archiving and processing involving lots of outdated media storage types (hi-8, vhs, minidv, etc.) removing most of the physical interface/hubs is a massive FUCK YOU to me

  On 7/2/2013 at 9:19 AM, Salvatorin said:

for someone who does video archiving and processing involving lots of outdated media storage types (hi-8, vhs, minidv, etc.) removing most of the physical interface/hubs is a massive FUCK YOU to me

Obviously your setup is not the norm, and you really can't expect any company to account for all types of customer uses, can you? Besides, wouldn't you have in that scenario a general I/O breakout box for those outdated types (composite, S-Video, BNC, component, etc.)? That's just one input cable, typically USB these days. At least that's the way it was when we used to do video depositions that would come in on antiquated formats rather than a DVD.