How can Apple reclaim its dominance over PC-based workstations?

[vishnu]

I wish I'd bought Apple 20 years ago but if I owned any now I would for sure be selling it, they are very near the tipping point...

[GIJoe]

stumbled into this cute little site:
http://hp.com/go/mac-to-z

i think at this point it's all about the mac environment though. if there's no preference in using that (e.g. build of editing app running better on mac) then might as well go with windows.

is there a way to keep windows 10 definitely and permanently from rebooting when it fancies an update though? i imagine that is kind of a deal breaker for a machine in a work environment where it may be busy rendering outside office hours. last i heard all you could do is schedule those updates for a more convenient time, not stop them entirely.

[Trippynet]

It depends. You can control Windows 10 updates much better in a corporate environment by using WSUS. If you're not doing this, the only other workaround I know is to stop and disable the Windows Update service.

[Shiunbird]

stumbled into this cute little site:
http://hp.com/go/mac-to-z

I don't think it's an entirely fair comparison.
In some sense, the Mac Pro reminds me of the old UNIX workstations - integrated software and hardware, OS and applications.
Apple placed all bets on GPU performance for Final Cut X, and I bet how this comparison would be if we would compare Final Cut and premiere performing the same tasks (and also, same number of cores, RAM and etc).

[theinonen]

Comparison is fair.

Whole point is that current Mac Pro is limited system without much upgrade potential.

There would be very little point to use use similar configuration and same software for both systems as the test results would then be identical. If you put exactly the same components on different box, it does not different system make and in that sense Mac Pro has very little to do with workstations of the past.

For me Mac Pro is just another expensive high-spec PC instead of real workstation and it may be fast and get the job done, but no way I would ever buy or even less collect one. I have small apartment now and no space for boring x86-systems anymore, so this Lenovo PC I have can serve in that position for at least next 10 years and I doubt nothing much will change in that time frame. Hardware components will get faster but still be the same boring stuff from just couple makers without real competition and at least in the 90´s there was more diversity and more choice than just Intel/AMD/Nvidia.

[ClassicHasClass]

"Were you expecting the Mac to beat the HP?"
"No, because this is hp.com."

[Shiunbird]

Comparison is fair.

Hardware components will get faster but still be the same boring stuff from just couple makers without real competition and at least in the 90´s there was more diversity and more choice than just Intel/AMD/Nvidia.

Comparing a multiple-core monster with a TB of RAM with a Mac Pro is a bit late. They are systems built with different purposes in mind.
It's like comparing a Dodge Ram with a Prius.

I must agree, though, it is indeed boring.

[guardian452]

Comparison is fair.

Whole point is that current Mac Pro is limited system without much upgrade potential.

I think the idea is that they are comparing two PC's that cost about the same amount of dollars, not necessarily the same amount of cores or anything like that. It sure isn't a winner if the size or weight is a consideration