My coke - by - blow account of place up and running a Mac Pro extend . In the first installment , I share my out - of - the - box experience and run some tests on some apps . In this 2nd part , I sing about my observations of working on the desktop , perform audio and video tasks , and use Boot Camp and Parallels Desktop to bend my Mac Pro into a Windows - run powerhouse .
Here ’s what I discovered .
General usage observations
In this section of my March story on the mini , I spent a slew of time talk about the tradeoffs affect in buying a low-toned - end Intel - power mini . While the speed was dear , the machine was clearly not an pick for serious gamers , as the chip - free-base graphics just did n’t have the pizzazz for the late 3 - D game . And there was a destiny of discussion about Rosetta , and its impact on program carrying out . I also discussed memory , and how add more literal RAM makes for a smoother calculation experience .
Well , other than the bit about RAM , there ’s no indigence to spill about any of those other issues comparative to the Mac Pro ’s operation . This is Apple ’s top - of - the - descent product kinsfolk , and it evidence . As I touch to in the first part of this story , the machine is just plain tight — at everything , including using Rosetta - based applications . It still care RAM , of course of study , and Apple has made it about as gentle as potential to add more . magnate down the machine , toss off out the RAM daughter poster , add the newfangled chips , reinstall the cards , and power back up . For now , I ’ve left the political machine ’s retentiveness at 2 GB , though I plan on taking it to 4 GB once Aries the Ram prices drop in the future .
Even with “ only ” 2 GB of RAM , the machine had no troubles at all running 20 to 25 applications at once . Paging , which I discuss in the article on the mini , did occur once I used up all the real RAM . But the hard effort in the Mac Pro are libertine enough that it ’s only a moment of a dogfight when an program has to be read back into RAM from disk . I still would n’t recommend operating in this way , but with each new generation of Macs , the floor of incommodiousness associated with paged out program seems to go down .
HandBrake version 0.7.1 was used to ripCharlie and the Chocolate Factoryfor five minutes on each machine. All HandBrake settings were at their default values, except for the Quality section. The quality was set to Constant quality, and the associated slider was set at 70 percent. The results above are from a screenshot taken at the five minute mark.Avg FPSis the average frames per second processed by HandBrake.Time left @ 5 minsrepresents the estimate that HandBrake provides on how long it will take to complete the rip, as displayed at the end of the five-minute test. Times listed are in hours:minutes:seconds.
Just to see what would bump , I create a brochure with about 25 software aliases in it . I mixed Rosetta , Java , and Cocoa applications , lay out from simple utilities to things such as PowerPoint and Keynote . I then opened the leaflet , pick out everything , and twice - clicked to launch them all at once . The machine chugged away for a minute or so , launching everything . When it was done churn the hard drive , I had no difficulty switching between programs via Command - tab , and every program was responsive . I also could n’t easily tell whether an app was run in Rosetta or not , as they all were reactive and rapid .
For instance , I guessed thatMarine Aquarium 2must be a worldwide app — I was getting more than 425 skeletal system a second with a 1,024 - by-768 three - fish window on the screen :
A quick check in the Finder , though , showed that I was wrong — it ’s PowerPC code . ( I also discovered that rendering 2.6 is Universal . When I installed the new version , the skeleton charge per unit increase to over 950fps at 1,024 - by-768 ! )
HandBrake version 0.7.1 was used to ripCharlie and the Chocolate Factoryfor five minutes on each machine. All HandBrake settings were at their default values, except for the Quality section. The quality was set to Constant quality, and the associated slider was set at 70 percent. The results above are from a screenshot taken at the five minute mark.Avg FPSis the average frames per second processed by HandBrake.Time left @ 5 minsrepresents the estimate that HandBrake provides on how long it will take to complete the rip, as displayed at the end of the five-minute test. Times listed are in hours:minutes:seconds.
The more I see Rosetta in action on a rapid machine , the more impressed I am with its performance . Without it , the transition to Intel might not have been potential , as we would have had to give up access to too many covering . And when running Universal applications , you’re able to really see the performance capabilities of the Mac Pro , as those programs plainly scream .
Noise level
The Mac Pro is a very quiet machine , notably quieter than my 2GHz Dual G5 . Both machines have multiple voiceless drives and video lineup with their own rooter , so they ’re somewhat likewise equipped . But the Mac Pro is the quieter of the two . Even while testing games , I never get wind the buff sound off up appreciably . In normal use , the ambient noise level is very acceptable , even with the box seat sit at spike level on the desk . Once I move it to its last emplacement , off to the side of my desk , it should be nearly silent from my rear . It ’s clearly not a miniskirt , but for the amount of exponent inside the boxwood , it ’s admirably soundless .
The only time the machine is louder than my G5 is on wake from sleep . After doing some speedy testing with my ear behind the machine , it ’s the video card that ’s responsible for for most of the noise — its buff bicycle up and expels a great deal of air for a 2d or two , then return to its normal muted level . The G5 does something alike , but not to the same extent .
Three takeout food target
Audio and video
Unlike the mini , whose basal function in many households may be that of A / Phoebe center , it ’s not likely that many of us will purchase a Mac Pro to stick next to our television . That does n’t mean that it ’s not a smashing audio - video machine , of course ; it ’s more a comment on the machine ’s majority and noise level . There ’s enough horsepower here to handle just about any audio or video task you confuse at the machine . As such , I ’ll just give a few highlights about the Mac Pro ’s performance in this area .
sound : I was concerned in find out how well the new simple machine would rip a CD . So I grabbed one at random from our collection ( Mark Knopfler and Emmylou Harris’All the Roadrunning ) . To get a baseline , I first ripped it on the Dual 2GHz G5 . My import options are to rip to 192Kbps MP3 with VBR enabled on High . On the G5 , the moment took a little more than four minutes—4:03 to be accurate . Moving over to the Mac Pro , I first used the stock Sony campaign , and the import get hold of just 2:28 ( and yes , I made certain the signification background were selfsame ) . I then delete the imported call and try out again with my after - food market drive , which reads candela at 48x versus the line of descent drive ’s 32x . Total significance metre : 2:01 . The extra rotational speeding prune almost 30 moment off the import prison term .
Next , I was peculiar about the pep pill of the central processing unit themselves , without the need to use the optical drives . I re-create the AIFF for the path “ All the Roadrunning ” to the difficult drive ( it ’s about 41 mebibyte ) , import it into iTunes , and then used the Advanced - > Convert Selection menu item to convert the track to different formats . On the Dual G5 , converting to 192Kbps high VBR MP3 train about 9 indorsement ; convert to 192Kbps AAC took a minuscule more than 12 seconds . On the Mac Pro , those fourth dimension cut down to 3 and 7 seconds , severally . empty the four CPUs have a tidy sum of power .
HD Video : There are no number with HD playback — the Mac Pro handled everything I threw at it without ill . The CPUs were n’t even breathing firmly during playback . So I think I ’d tempt fate again , as I did with the Mac miniskirt , and try play two HD clips at once . On the Mac miniskirt , QuickTime die a abominable death when I hear this , conk abruptly . So what hap on the Mac Pro ? Not much at all — it just put to work . It worked so well that I thrust another curve at it — I require Snapz Pro to conquer the 1,440 - by-900 window , with sound , at 30fps while the two HD clips were roleplay back . astonishingly , the machine still had no worry at all . Here ’s a abbreviated snipping of the video , at two reduced sizes — click the link to launch the video of your pick in a fresh web internet browser windowpane :
720×450 , 1.6MB360×225 , 840 KB
As you could see , the car do admirably , with nary a hiccup . In fact , if you search at the four upright bars on the right side of the menu bar , you’re able to see that the CPUs were n’t even maxed out for most of the sentence . My G5 will strain to play two HD clip at once , but it wo n’t do so very well — there ’s lots of bumble audio and dropped television frame .
Since two clips did n’t seem to cause any yield , I upped the ante — three HD cartridge holder at once . No trouble . What about four ? While I still did n’t kill QuickTime , this did at least ram the CPUs closelipped to maximal utilisation . As grounds , check outthis large screenshot(148 KB , 1440×900 ) . Four clips trifle , still no dropped frames or audio , but the CPU meters in the menubar are close to full . I could have proceed the insanity , of form , and finally find the smirch that broke the machine . But do it to say that the Mac Pro ’s power to handle HD video recording is not something you need to question .
DVD Playback : There ’s not much to say here , other than DVD playback exercise fine . About all I tested was whether my new drive would work with DVD Player . It did — insert a DVD into either private road , and DVD Player launch and starts playing the moving picture . Unfortunately , you ca n’t play back two DVDs at once ( not using Apple ’s DVD Player , anyway ) .
Video encryption : In the original report on the mini , I tested video recording encoding by convert Bruce Springsteen ’s “ Devils & Dust ” music picture . This magazine is 61 MB in size , lead 5:15 in length , and was encode with the Sorenson 3 codec . I set up QuickTime Pro to convert it to H.264 video recording at intermediate quality using the faster individual - pass encryption method .
On the mini , the conversion train 14:39 . On the Dual G5 , the job was done in a small more than 7 minute of arc . On the Mac Pro , it took only a very brief 3:35 .
As a further test , I installedHandBrakeon the Mac Pro , and then place it up to rip my videodisc ofCharlie and the Chocolate Factory(well , to pull the primary movie , not all the associated extras ) . I pull up stakes all of HandBrake ’s setting at their nonremittal , except I change the Quality plane section to “ Constant lineament , ” and upped the associated slider to 70 per centum . I then started the tide rip and countenance it progress for five minutes . I repeat the exact same experimentation on the MacBook and the Dual G5 — and on my 12 - in PowerBook G4/1.25GHz , just to see how far we ’ve come with the portable . Here ’s how thing came out :
DVD RIPPING COMPARISON
All testing by Rob Griffiths
HandBrake interlingual rendition 0.7.1 was used to ripCharlie and the Chocolate Factoryfor five minute on each motorcar . All HandBrake setting were at their nonpayment values , except for the Quality section . The caliber was set to Constant quality , and the associated yellow-bellied terrapin was set at 70 percent . The results above are from a screenshot taken at the five second mark . Avg FPSis the average material body per secondly processed by HandBrake . Time left @ 5 minsrepresents the estimate that HandBrake provides on how long it will take to complete the rip , as displayed at the end of the five - minute of arc test . Times listed are in hours : minute : second gear .
Not surprisingly , the Mac Pro bested the other two , and by a substantial gross profit . What was surprising to me was how well the MacBook did against the G5 . While the central processing unit speed and numeration are identical , the MacBook will take amply 16 minutes less to rip this DVD than will the G5 . That ’s impressive performance from a machine that be less than half as much as the G5 !
It ’s also fairly obvious that the G4 poker chip in my PowerBook has been completely outclass — the MacBook could theoretically rip almost seven videodisc in the metre require for the PowerBook to process but one . Even if the PowerBook G4 had two CPUs , it would n’t be doing much better than 20fps , still well off the footstep of the MacBook . To me , this clearly demonstrates one of the master reason Apple give for switching to Intel chips — there was much more processing office available for the laptop line .
If you ’re working with video conversion , where time is money , investing in the Mac Pro seems like a very simple expense to rationalise .
Windows on the Mac
This is a new segment , one that does n’t have a vis-a-vis in the Intel Mac mini report . Back in March , lam XP on an Intel Mac was still in its early stages , and I did n’t focus on it back then . Now , however , betweenBoot CampandParallels Desktop , running Windows on your Mac is promiscuous and more compatible than ever before . As such , I determine to spend a second of time discourse the Mac Pro ’s performance both as a native Windows automobile ( Boot Camp ) and when run Windows in a practical auto ( Parallels Desktop ) . I ’ll appear at Parallels first .
Parallels Desktop
This is the easy way to take to the woods Windows ( and many other operating scheme ) on your Intel - powered Mac . Download and install Parallels , launch it , say it you require to create an XP installation , insert your XP record , and instal Windows XP . It ’s about as simple-minded as things get . Once install , you may do most of the things you could do on a “ actual ” Windows machine , with a couple caveats :
alfresco of those two caveats — and with a nod to Parallels ’ exact that both USB 2 and accelerated graphics support will be present in the next translation — the computer software is astonishingly good at what it does ( as we noted in our critical review of the virtualization software ) . Office productivity applications take to the woods hunky-dory and at speeds near what you ’d get running them natively . entanglement browsers mold as expected . you may set up shared folder with your Mac . In short , Parallels is in all probability the best resolution for 95 pct of those who need to get at Windows applications .
Given how well Parallels make on both my mini and MacBook , I was n’t await any issues with the Mac Pro — and I did n’t experience any . One of the squeamish thing about Parallels is that each operating system you install exist as a single turgid filing cabinet on your hard drive . Want to migrate Parallels to a new automobile ? Just simulate those files to the unexampled machine and you ’re done .
On the Mac Pro , Parallels originally had some issues — specially for users with more than 4 GB of RAM . However , the latest update have taken care of those problem , and the product is now trouble free on the Mac Pros . One other modification in recent builds is an “ express install ” option for Windows . Using an supporter , you input your Windows activation key and personal info , and the supporter does the rest — no more working through 200 dialogue . Just click the button , and Parallels Desktop installs and configure your Windows system . It ’s importantly easier than installing window yourself on a veridical PC .
In my examination , Parallels process as it did in my original review , only faster . With more random memory , I could probably run seven or eight practical automobile at once at full speed . As it was with only 2 GB of RAM , four virtual machines ( Windows XP , Windows 2000 , Fedora Core Linux , and Debian Linux ) all ran fine ( sink in the double for a ( 156 KB JPEG ) 1,440 - by-900 version ):
That ’s an Exposé - ed shot of all four VMs bleed at once . At the top left is Windows 2000 , running Firefox and show theMac OS X Hintspage . At top right field is Windows XP , showing Macworld.com on Internet Explorer 7 . The bottom left is Fedora Core Linux , which is shown editing ( in OpenOffice ) a papers I wrote a few year ago in Word on my Mac . in the end , the bottom right windowpane is Debian Linux , running a motion-picture show player and playing some barren sample time I downloaded from the Web .
What you ca n’t see in the shot is how well things are run . Even though I was using all of the machine ’s strong-arm RAM , each VM was running fine ( though switching between them was somewhat dense ) . If you ’re the case who care to see at other operating systems , or need to use Windows for the occasional project , Parallels Desktop is great shaft for the line .
Boot Camp
If you want the full Windows experience on your Mac , then Boot Camp is the result . Currently in an protracted public genus Beta , which will end with the button of OS X 10.5 next outflow , Boot Camp really turns your Mac into a Windows automobile , with full computer hardware support .
Installation is somewhat more complex than it is with Parallels . After download and set up Boot Camp , you execute the Boot Camp Assistant . Using the Assistant , you first must partition off the boot magnetic disk of your Mac to provide space for the Windows facility . This is a non - destructive legal action , so none of your oxygen X data is harm in the process . ( Still , it ’s always good to have a fresh computer backup ) .
After partitioning , you then burn a CD take the Windows driver for the Apple - provided ironware in the Mac Pro . You ’ll install these drivers in Windows , once you get it up and running . Which is , obviously , the next stair in the process . You insert your Windows XP Pro or Home ( with Service Pack 2 ) compact disk , and the Mac then reboots into the Windows installer . If you ’ve never seen this before , you ’re in for a ocular shock — it ’s a non - in writing installer . Some 30 - odd instant afterward , if all perish well , you ’ll be booted into Windows , and all signs of OS X will be gone . ( Windows ca n’t see or write to your OS disco biscuit partition , so you do n’t postulate to concern about transferring virus or lose data in OS X while boot into Windows . )
The final tone is to execute the driver facility CD — this will sum funding for the computer graphic wag , sound chip , ethernet adapters , wireless web , keyboard , mouse , and probably a few other things to the Windows OS . I was fairly impressed with the drivers , as thing such as the keyboard volume keys put to work , and I can even exclude both CD tray from the keyboard ( using Eject and Option Eject ) . One minor complaint is that even after plugging a circle of verbaliser into the speaker output on the back of the Mac Pro , sound continues to come from the Mac ’s inner speaker ( in addition to the connected verbaliser ) . The only solution for this seems to be to plug something into the headphone jack on the front of the Mac Pro — I used a headphone rail-splitter cable , without any headphones connected . It ’s not the prettiest of solutions , but it form .
After the Mac driver are installed , you ’re done — you’ve now get a dual - boot information processing system which will race both Windows and Mac OS X natively . Just hold down the Option key during startup to choose which organization to bang . After reboot , you ’re greet with Windows ( click the image for the full - size 1,440 - by-900 variation ):
So how good of a Windows simple machine is a Mac Pro ? Very good , especially one when pair with the ATI X1900XT telecasting scorecard . In preparation for the Mac Pro I thought I ’d be corrupt next year , I had late sold my standalone PC , intending to use Boot Camp for my occasional forays into the earth of Windows ( at the ironware , not Parallels , level ) . My brief clip with the Mac Pro as a Windows car has shown me that my thinking was right — the Mac Pro makes a wonderfully speedy Windows machine .
The system of rules palpate very antiphonal in all aspects . Apps open up very quickly , and the games I quiz all had splendid build rate and beautiful graphics . As but one object lesson , here ’s a series of four blastoff ( cluck each for a large version ) taken from Microsoft ’s new Flight Simulator X :
The game ran fluidly at 1,440 - by-900 with anti - aliasing enable and most artwork effects set to medium or gamy . Other games would have interchangeable operation — the Mac Pro seems to be a solid microcomputer gaming political platform ( albeit an expensive one equate to no - name homebuilts ) .
In the concluding part of this written report , I ’ll be expect at gambling on the OS X side of the Mac Pro , running a few unlike benchmark tests , and wrapping it all up with my conclusions on the Mac Pro .
[ Rob Griffiths is a senior editor atMacworld . ]
