No computer OEM is making much money from desktops these days.
I think you are right. So why doesn't Apple come up with the next great thing for this market segment? Just like they do with their other products, something we don't even know we want or need? There has to be a way to make hardware that can do what pros need, but in a new way.
How many of you who don't want Apple to drop the Pro planning to (or have already) purchased the current Xeon-based Mac Pro? Because that's the only vote that counts. If these things were selling better, Apple wouldn't even think of killing it. And yet here we are.
Why bother spending a lot of money to buy a computer that hasn't been updated over a year? The last upgrade before that: March 2009!
This is Apple's silly self-fufilling prophecy at work. Mac Pros are a tiny part of their product line because they've done everything possible to neglect them for a very, very long time.
This isn't 1983 anymore. You can't release a computer and then think about shipping a successor a few years later. Technology keeps moving, and Apple has been content to let the Pro machines fall behind. Nobody is going to reward them for that by purchasing such overpriced and outdated hardware.
I love my Mac Pro, never had to touch it since I bought it in early 2009. It's still running great.
I think that's the problem, they're so well made that I've never had any issues with it at all. I added 32GB of RAM and an SSD as an upgrade once, and that was it, I was done. And aside from having to blow out the dust every year, it's been a rock solid piece of hardware.
I don't see myself replacing this machine for at least another 2-3 years, which will give me almost 4 years of life on this box. It just doesn't require me to replace it, which probably killed future revenues for Apple.
That being said, if they did decide to kill off the Mac Pro, I'd probably buy the best one I could, because they're just fantastic machines.
I'm good friends with a number of professional musicians, and without exception they own a recent Mac Pro, all but one with dual CPUs. Contributing factors towards purchase include (1) need for high-end CPUs (still too easy to max out even the most powerful Mac Pro with realtime plug-ins at low latencies), (2) use of PCI audio cards (which provide more channels than USB or Firewire devices), (3) use of lots of drives for audio and sample libraries (most have all four bays in use), and (4) use of lots of RAM. Thunderbolt may eventually provide for (2) and (3), but a high-end motherboard is still required for (1) and (4). I don't think any of us care overly much what form-factor these come in, but we need them nonetheless, and my guess is that a tower with a single enclosure and power supply still provides the most cost-effective solution.
I haven't yet had the opportunity to read all posts in this thread, however, just to add some perspective, this is the performance of my 2 year old iMac under Mathematica, which is quite a demanding program. Of course, this doesn't talk to graphics capability but underlying math processing is tested and of course, doesn't address concerns about expandability etc. I had always expected to be using a Mac Pro for this work but don't believe that it was necessary to look beyond the iMac. (I have a bigger version of the second image if anyone is interested.)
Looks like that benchmark isn't making much use of the second CPU. For comparison, look here:
I understand as a proportion to all the other gadgets and gizmos that Apple sells, the Mac Pro might seem insignificant. I?m not sure I really believe this story. I imagine Apple telling the people at Pixar that they will have to make the next project on an iMac wouldn't go over so well. I?ll be the first to agree that even the cheapest iMac or Mac Book Pro could handle the biggest percentage of tasks. On the other hand we always bought Apple computers because they could handle what the others couldn?t. Specifically for creative endeavors, which was the purpose for every Mac. Everyone has been waiting for too many features for the Mac Pro to sell well. I recall the appleTV and Mac Mini being dead at one point as well...
In Geekbench, the fastest Mac Pro beats the fastest iMac by nearly 2:1. That second processor does a lot, as long as your application can use it.
Actually, I think that you have a point there. \ Mathematica is important to me but is not perhaps the best indication. These iMacs however, are probably underestimated by many.
We rely on a MacPro that has run great for over four years
Sadly, this may be part of Apple's reasoning. Mac Pro buyers typically upgrade less often because they're higher powered and have much more expandability. This doesn't suit Apple's insatiable desire to increase turnover rates and therefore profits. Apple wants their products to be redundant in a year or two. I get extremely angry at companies that behave like this and build in planned obselence. We are ultimately all the poorer in a throwaway society.
The fact is that iMacs don't last because they're trying to squeeze too much heat producing electronics into too small and slim an enclosure. Yes the Mac Pro is a big "anchor" but I've gotten used to it and it still has enough power to last me a few more years.
What's more, because it can fit four internal hard drives (and I use them!) it makes my desktop ultimately much cleaner and nicer looking than having random hard-drives connected with cables. It's not like it'll cost them that much to refresh the current design with new processors, graphics cards and Thunderbolt!
The day Apple stops making a performance workstation with four internal hard drives is the day I stop buying Apple products excusively. I hope to goodness that day will never come.
Sadly, this may be part of Apple's reasoning. Mac Pro buyers typically upgrade less often because they're higher powered and have much more expandability. This doesn't suit Apple's insatiable desire to increase turnover rates and therefore profits. Apple wants their products to be redundant in a year or two. I get extremely angry at companies that behave like this and build in planned obselence. We are ultimately all the poorer in a throwaway society.
The fact is that iMacs don't last because they're trying to squeeze too much heat producing electronics into too small and slim an enclosure. Yes the Mac Pro is a big "anchor" but I've gotten used to it and it still has enough power to last me a few more years.
What's more, because it can fit four internal hard drives (and I use them!) it makes my desktop ultimately much cleaner and nicer looking than having random hard-drives connected with cables. It's not like it'll cost them that much to refresh the current design with new processors, graphics cards and Thunderbolt!
The day Apple stops making a performance workstation with four internal hard drives is the day I stop buying Apple products excusively. I hope to goodness that day will never come.
Sorry - cannot agree! Everyone I know who uses a Mac or Apple product, typically keeps them far longer than those who use other products. What you've claimed is simply not true. My own iMac is 2 years old and still in its prime as far as I am concerned. I still use my 2007 MBP every day. My experience is common amongst my colleagues.
Of course, my experience might not be typical, however, I'll bet it's not far from the mark.
(Edit - my comments are really in respect of your first sentence, sorry!)
Do they? Your opinion says yes. But the facts may say no.
I work for a studio level FX/Annie house and last year we replaced 20 aging Pro based workstations with iMacs and have had no issues. We are replacing the other 30 with iMacs over the next six months. We have a mac mini server running our email. We also have four workstations running a Linux based rendering system. If we could get Mac minis that could handle that load we would.
As to your facts the last two lines above says it all, there actually is demand for something other than the iMac on the desktop.
Why would Apple abandon their loyal content creation professionals? I just can't imagine they'd want media pros using another OS. They may be questioning the tower form factor, and I see nothing wrong with this. But Apple is not going to retreat from the field. Why would they? As others have speculated, the days of big, heavy boxes might be over. If Apple could make modular, stackable minis or cubes, then the pros could simply assemble their desired level of power, expandability, storage, etc.
They have limitted sales because they rarely update them and they are WAY overpriced.
It's time to come out with something cheaper. You could always buy a decent Mac tower for about $1,500 bucks in the past, and now the cost of entry is $2,600. It's ridiculous.
I haven't done price comparisons on the Mac Pro recently, but at the time the current model was released, it was as cheap or cheaper than most of the workstation class computers available from companies like HP and Dell. I'm sure they're getting spanked currently since they still don't have Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge is due in March/April, but if you want Apple and expandability w/o waiting for more TB related gear to get produced, it's currently your only option.
I'll agree w/you about the entry level for the big desktop should be lower, but the processors in those systems were 1200+ each when they were released, so even trying to price things out you weren't building cheaper at the time. The Mac Pro as it is currently designed is not really targeting the home user who wants to stuff a bigger video card in and dual boot to Windows to play games (yes I know Mac gaming has improved, but the number of games is still way low, I've been bitching w/people on the SW:ToR forums about the lack of a Mac client heh) but instead it's aimed at the workstation crowd. Number crunching, people who need Fibre cards, people who really need all the expansion capabilities like say for music production end up going that route often.
There could be other ways to replace an change their current workflow w/something else and still stay on the Mac platform, but that means a reduction in efficiency and learning a new method, which if you're a business, needs to be figured into the cost-benefit analysis. External options have gotten fast and out of the way enough that less people need the internal space and can get by just fine w.iMacs or even Minis, so Apple is considering putting the MP out to pasture. They aren't wrong to do so, but it will certainly ruffle a few feathers. Very few if their sales data is accurate tho.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyp
Why would Apple abandon their loyal content creation professionals? I just can't imagine they'd want media pros using another OS. They may be questioning the tower form factor, and I see nothing wrong with this. But Apple is not going to retreat from the field. Why would they?
I can't find any info on the systems used for the actual creation of the films at Pixar, but the rendering is all done on Linux clusters. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there isn't a healthy mix of Mac and Linux both there, but I'd really love to find some info on the actual production machines. What are the designers using for generating all the images and sounds of the films.
My church recently did a did a big A/V build out. We have a couple of Mac Pros in the video suite with various I/O cards - for video and balanced audio, and a Mac Pro in the record suite with a ProTools PCI card using both Ethernet connectors - one for network and one to connect to a C|24 desk, and with extra internal hard drives for recording up to 128 channels of audio at the same time. We have a few iMacs floating around to run Pro Presenter on in the sanctuary.
As others have pointed out, there are real applications for big beefy towers. The CPU and GPU power are not necessarily as important as lots of internal bus speed and expansion. Is this a large market? No. Is this a prestigious market? Yes. There's not many "Avatar" level movies made or albums produced, but being able to use those pros using your machines for real heavy-lifting in marketing material seems like it ought to pay dividends in the sales of the consumer class machines.
One of Apple's claims to fame is OS X and it's claim to be UNIX under the hood with industrial strength OS technology. If you have no industrial strength machines doing industrial strength jobs, the claim that your OS is awesome doesn't hold much weight.
But, it's now Apple, Inc. not Apple Computer, Inc. so maybe they are fully embracing the consumer electronics moniker and abandoning the serious computer market.
- Jasen.
What does industrial strength mean in the context of an OS? Usually, not much. In some cases, the context could be *mission critical* applications or industries - e.g. banking, real time control of machinery, etc. Mac OS X has never been the first choice in these cases. So, despite its Unix foundation, Mac OS X was not built for *industrial strength* requirements in that sense.
Second, I disagree that, in the absence of *industrial strength*, Mac OS is not *awesome*. The awesomeness of Mac OS has also been about the UX. This is likely where Apple will redouble its focus. Forsaking the Mac Pro may allow them to do just that.
Such a decision may make the likes of Solidworks rethink whether they would port their applications to the Mac. But that's not where Apple is counting on gaining market share.
When I need something small, quiet, compact, and powerful I go with a Macbook Pro. I like Apple's products when I have zero intent to take them apart or expand their internals.
However when I need a workstation computer - something that I intend to open up a couple times a year to swap hard drives or video cards - I go with the cheapest solution. I can build a similarly powered Windows or Linux workstation for half the price of a Mac Pro. Sure, I'm not getting OSX, but I've got that on my laptop.
I like the car analogy. When I'm shopping for a laptop, I want the fuel-efficient sporty coupe that packs the most power into the smallest package without becoming unreliable. When I'm shopping for a workstation, I just want something big and throaty that will get the job done - like a pickup truck. I could care less if it gets dinged up, or if a part occasionally fails because those parts are easy to replace by myself and are relatively inexpensive. Mac Pros, to me, are like Lincoln pickup trucks. Sure, you're getting something with a V8 and a bed-liner, but you can get an equally functional Ford for 35% less. Sure, you're giving up the leather seats and the chrome wheels, but who cares, it's a pickup truck.
I'm a very happy Mac Pro 1,1 owner for many years and would hate to see it discontinued. My next machine will still be a Mac Pro!
I get to choose my own display, non-glossy with a hood.
I have a RAID card with two external enclosures with 12tb of RAID 5 storage.
I have 16gb RAM cuz I use virtual machines a lot and tend to leave them running most of the time.
I upgraded the factory video card a few years ago.
I never use the optical drives and rarely use one, why the MacPro needs two I have no idea. Maybe remove both and force owners to use the MBA USB optical drive, and then Apple could update it to Thunderbolt. USB sticks have mostly replaced the need for daily use of optical drives anyway.
I only use one of the Ethernet interfaces & firewire is only used for my iSight. I do use the internal HD slots, but that historical and mainly use in RAID 0 for scratch disks, so no issues. So only one HD for the OS is really required and I have my external RAID.
Xeon would still be my preference cuz its just plain faster then anything else, though I don't need 12 cores. The Pro is build using top quality components and for the last 5 years its never switched off for any length of time. So its running 24/7 and I don't have to worry about it at all.
So a mini is not an option cuz limited RAM and no Xeon CPUs, ignoring my RAID for now. But I can choose my own display. The iMac is not an option cuz I cannot choose my own display, ignoring my RAID for now.
My RAID is just too expensive to replace with Thunderbolt just because Apple feels it want to discontinue the Pro. And there is no need to change the RAID, it works just fine for us!
So I would be sad if Apple discontinue it, but I would purchase a new MacPro when they do. And my reasoning is as follows;
1) A new MacPro has a potential useable life of >5 years, this represents excellent value to money.
2) Thunderbolt needs time to evolve with more products on the market.
3) I can still use my RAID card and external enclosures (very important).
4) I can continue to use my fabulous Eizo display.
I suppose in 5 or 6 years moving to a iMac type machine with thunderbolt RAID and Xeon would not be a major problem for us; In 5 years technology will be very different making it easier to change. But still like to be able to choose my own display.
But not today!
1) So a smaller MacPro with two or three slots would be ok.
2) Today RAM is offered in increasing density, so getting more RAM per stick, so no need for 8 RAM slots anymore.
3) One or two HD slots would be ok.
4) Would like a x16 slot for a good GPU.
5) Apple would need to add another slot for those who do have RAID or other cards.
6) Remove both the optical drives completely, no need at all.
4) On board AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5 (prefer better)
5) 1 x HD slot
6) Single Xeon CPU option, so up to 6 core max.
7) 2 x Thunderbolt
8) 4 x USB 3.0
9) 1 x Firewire 400/800
10) 1 x Gigabit Ethernet port
11) Audio in/out
12) Wi-Fi
13) Bluetooth
14) Optical digital audio
Force users to use external optical driver using USB or eventually Thunderbolt, this is the way MacBook Pro are going means smaller enclosure and lower weight.
Removing the optical drives will reduce overall size of the MacPro enclosure, cost reduction!
Using on-board GPU greatly reduces cost of a GPU card, smaller enclosure size and lower weight.
32gb RAM more than enough for 99% of customers., cheaper MLB design smaller enclosure and lower weight.
If they require more HD space then use external Thunderbolt or USB enclosures.
There is major cost reduction to be had in reducing the physical size of the MacPro. Reduce logistics costs by getting more product on a pallet and reduced shipping weight.
1) Yes, optical drives are so 20th century and, more important, stand in the way of Apple's strategic shift to iTunes and iCloud.
2) Why??? A high-end machine needs much more RAM capacity. I think 8 DIMM slots are a minimum and 16 might be justified. Not much space can be saved by limiting DIMM slots.
3) Yes.
4) Probably, yes.
5) One HD slot plus one SSD stick slot.
6) Single Xeon CPU means up to 8 cores today, so why a 6 core limit? Next year Ivy Bridge will provide Xeon CPUs with 12 cores and the year after Haswell will provide Xeon CPUs with 16 cores. What is the point of a 6 core maximum???
7) Yes.
8) Doubtful. USB3 does not seem to be strategic for Apple
9) No, Firewire is finished. Apple will push Thunderbolt hard by dropping Firewire.
10) Yes, of course. Maybe 2x Ethernet ports.
11) Yes.
12) Yes.
13) Yes.
14) Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcixb
I suppose the ideal MacPro emplacement would be;
1) Remove both optical drive slots
2) 4 x RAM slots (max 32gb RAM)
3) 1 x PCI Express 3.0 x16 slot
4) On board AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5 (prefer better)
5) 1 x HD slot
6) Single Xeon CPU option, so up to 6 core max.
7) 2 x Thunderbolt
8) 4 x USB 3.0
9) 1 x Firewire 400/800
10) 1 x Gigabit Ethernet port
11) Audio in/out
12) Wi-Fi
13) Bluetooth
14) Optical digital audio
Force users to use external optical driver using USB or eventually Thunderbolt, this is the way MacBook Pro are going means smaller enclosure and lower weight.
Removing the optical drives will reduce overall size of the MacPro enclosure, cost reduction!
Using on-board GPU greatly reduces cost of a GPU card, smaller enclosure size and lower weight.
32gb RAM more than enough for 99% of customers., cheaper MLB design smaller enclosure and lower weight.
If they require more HD space then use external Thunderbolt or USB enclosures.
There is major cost reduction to be had in reducing the physical size of the MacPro. Reduce logistics costs by getting more product on a pallet and reduced shipping weight.
Comments
No computer OEM is making much money from desktops these days.
I think you are right. So why doesn't Apple come up with the next great thing for this market segment? Just like they do with their other products, something we don't even know we want or need? There has to be a way to make hardware that can do what pros need, but in a new way.
Who better than Apple to figure this out?
How many of you who don't want Apple to drop the Pro planning to (or have already) purchased the current Xeon-based Mac Pro? Because that's the only vote that counts. If these things were selling better, Apple wouldn't even think of killing it. And yet here we are.
Why bother spending a lot of money to buy a computer that hasn't been updated over a year? The last upgrade before that: March 2009!
This is Apple's silly self-fufilling prophecy at work. Mac Pros are a tiny part of their product line because they've done everything possible to neglect them for a very, very long time.
This isn't 1983 anymore. You can't release a computer and then think about shipping a successor a few years later. Technology keeps moving, and Apple has been content to let the Pro machines fall behind. Nobody is going to reward them for that by purchasing such overpriced and outdated hardware.
I think that's the problem, they're so well made that I've never had any issues with it at all. I added 32GB of RAM and an SSD as an upgrade once, and that was it, I was done. And aside from having to blow out the dust every year, it's been a rock solid piece of hardware.
I don't see myself replacing this machine for at least another 2-3 years, which will give me almost 4 years of life on this box. It just doesn't require me to replace it, which probably killed future revenues for Apple.
That being said, if they did decide to kill off the Mac Pro, I'd probably buy the best one I could, because they're just fantastic machines.
I haven't yet had the opportunity to read all posts in this thread, however, just to add some perspective, this is the performance of my 2 year old iMac under Mathematica, which is quite a demanding program. Of course, this doesn't talk to graphics capability but underlying math processing is tested and of course, doesn't address concerns about expandability etc. I had always expected to be using a Mac Pro for this work but don't believe that it was necessary to look beyond the iMac. (I have a bigger version of the second image if anyone is interested.)
Looks like that benchmark isn't making much use of the second CPU. For comparison, look here:
http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/
In Geekbench, the fastest Mac Pro beats the fastest iMac by nearly 2:1. That second processor does a lot, as long as your application can use it.
For my education, what is it about the Mac Pro that recording studios require? (Not my field.)
Pro Tools.
DSP cards.
Many many DSP cards.
High End DAW's often use DSP card instead of the CPU to do all the heavy lifting.
Post Production Audio can have sessions with hundreds and hundreds of tracks.
These usually require more power then any current CPU can handle on it's own
and often also require an external raid array.
The gap is closing between native and dsp audio processing, but dsp is still king
right now.
Looks like that benchmark isn't making much use of the second CPU. For comparison, look here:
http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/
In Geekbench, the fastest Mac Pro beats the fastest iMac by nearly 2:1. That second processor does a lot, as long as your application can use it.
Actually, I think that you have a point there.
Best.
We rely on a MacPro that has run great for over four years
Sadly, this may be part of Apple's reasoning. Mac Pro buyers typically upgrade less often because they're higher powered and have much more expandability. This doesn't suit Apple's insatiable desire to increase turnover rates and therefore profits. Apple wants their products to be redundant in a year or two. I get extremely angry at companies that behave like this and build in planned obselence. We are ultimately all the poorer in a throwaway society.
The fact is that iMacs don't last because they're trying to squeeze too much heat producing electronics into too small and slim an enclosure. Yes the Mac Pro is a big "anchor" but I've gotten used to it and it still has enough power to last me a few more years.
What's more, because it can fit four internal hard drives (and I use them!) it makes my desktop ultimately much cleaner and nicer looking than having random hard-drives connected with cables. It's not like it'll cost them that much to refresh the current design with new processors, graphics cards and Thunderbolt!
The day Apple stops making a performance workstation with four internal hard drives is the day I stop buying Apple products excusively. I hope to goodness that day will never come.
Sadly, this may be part of Apple's reasoning. Mac Pro buyers typically upgrade less often because they're higher powered and have much more expandability. This doesn't suit Apple's insatiable desire to increase turnover rates and therefore profits. Apple wants their products to be redundant in a year or two. I get extremely angry at companies that behave like this and build in planned obselence. We are ultimately all the poorer in a throwaway society.
The fact is that iMacs don't last because they're trying to squeeze too much heat producing electronics into too small and slim an enclosure. Yes the Mac Pro is a big "anchor" but I've gotten used to it and it still has enough power to last me a few more years.
What's more, because it can fit four internal hard drives (and I use them!) it makes my desktop ultimately much cleaner and nicer looking than having random hard-drives connected with cables. It's not like it'll cost them that much to refresh the current design with new processors, graphics cards and Thunderbolt!
The day Apple stops making a performance workstation with four internal hard drives is the day I stop buying Apple products excusively. I hope to goodness that day will never come.
Sorry - cannot agree! Everyone I know who uses a Mac or Apple product, typically keeps them far longer than those who use other products. What you've claimed is simply not true. My own iMac is 2 years old and still in its prime as far as I am concerned. I still use my 2007 MBP every day. My experience is common amongst my colleagues.
Of course, my experience might not be typical, however, I'll bet it's not far from the mark.
(Edit - my comments are really in respect of your first sentence, sorry!)
Do they? Your opinion says yes. But the facts may say no.
I work for a studio level FX/Annie house and last year we replaced 20 aging Pro based workstations with iMacs and have had no issues. We are replacing the other 30 with iMacs over the next six months. We have a mac mini server running our email. We also have four workstations running a Linux based rendering system. If we could get Mac minis that could handle that load we would.
As to your facts the last two lines above says it all, there actually is demand for something other than the iMac on the desktop.
They have limitted sales because they rarely update them and they are WAY overpriced.
It's time to come out with something cheaper. You could always buy a decent Mac tower for about $1,500 bucks in the past, and now the cost of entry is $2,600. It's ridiculous.
I haven't done price comparisons on the Mac Pro recently, but at the time the current model was released, it was as cheap or cheaper than most of the workstation class computers available from companies like HP and Dell. I'm sure they're getting spanked currently since they still don't have Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge is due in March/April, but if you want Apple and expandability w/o waiting for more TB related gear to get produced, it's currently your only option.
I'll agree w/you about the entry level for the big desktop should be lower, but the processors in those systems were 1200+ each when they were released, so even trying to price things out you weren't building cheaper at the time. The Mac Pro as it is currently designed is not really targeting the home user who wants to stuff a bigger video card in and dual boot to Windows to play games (yes I know Mac gaming has improved, but the number of games is still way low, I've been bitching w/people on the SW:ToR forums about the lack of a Mac client heh) but instead it's aimed at the workstation crowd. Number crunching, people who need Fibre cards, people who really need all the expansion capabilities like say for music production end up going that route often.
There could be other ways to replace an change their current workflow w/something else and still stay on the Mac platform, but that means a reduction in efficiency and learning a new method, which if you're a business, needs to be figured into the cost-benefit analysis. External options have gotten fast and out of the way enough that less people need the internal space and can get by just fine w.iMacs or even Minis, so Apple is considering putting the MP out to pasture. They aren't wrong to do so, but it will certainly ruffle a few feathers. Very few if their sales data is accurate tho.
Why would Apple abandon their loyal content creation professionals? I just can't imagine they'd want media pros using another OS. They may be questioning the tower form factor, and I see nothing wrong with this. But Apple is not going to retreat from the field. Why would they?
I can't find any info on the systems used for the actual creation of the films at Pixar, but the rendering is all done on Linux clusters. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there isn't a healthy mix of Mac and Linux both there, but I'd really love to find some info on the actual production machines. What are the designers using for generating all the images and sounds of the films.
My church recently did a did a big A/V build out. We have a couple of Mac Pros in the video suite with various I/O cards - for video and balanced audio, and a Mac Pro in the record suite with a ProTools PCI card using both Ethernet connectors - one for network and one to connect to a C|24 desk, and with extra internal hard drives for recording up to 128 channels of audio at the same time. We have a few iMacs floating around to run Pro Presenter on in the sanctuary.
As others have pointed out, there are real applications for big beefy towers. The CPU and GPU power are not necessarily as important as lots of internal bus speed and expansion. Is this a large market? No. Is this a prestigious market? Yes. There's not many "Avatar" level movies made or albums produced, but being able to use those pros using your machines for real heavy-lifting in marketing material seems like it ought to pay dividends in the sales of the consumer class machines.
One of Apple's claims to fame is OS X and it's claim to be UNIX under the hood with industrial strength OS technology. If you have no industrial strength machines doing industrial strength jobs, the claim that your OS is awesome doesn't hold much weight.
But, it's now Apple, Inc. not Apple Computer, Inc. so maybe they are fully embracing the consumer electronics moniker and abandoning the serious computer market.
- Jasen.
What does industrial strength mean in the context of an OS? Usually, not much. In some cases, the context could be *mission critical* applications or industries - e.g. banking, real time control of machinery, etc. Mac OS X has never been the first choice in these cases. So, despite its Unix foundation, Mac OS X was not built for *industrial strength* requirements in that sense.
Second, I disagree that, in the absence of *industrial strength*, Mac OS is not *awesome*. The awesomeness of Mac OS has also been about the UX. This is likely where Apple will redouble its focus. Forsaking the Mac Pro may allow them to do just that.
Such a decision may make the likes of Solidworks rethink whether they would port their applications to the Mac. But that's not where Apple is counting on gaining market share.
Can you guys at AJA and Black Magic make Thunderbolt-compatible hardware?
Someone else has likely already posted these links, but maybe things like this?
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/pro...ultrastudio3d/
http://www.aja.com/news/index_article.php?id=159
However when I need a workstation computer - something that I intend to open up a couple times a year to swap hard drives or video cards - I go with the cheapest solution. I can build a similarly powered Windows or Linux workstation for half the price of a Mac Pro. Sure, I'm not getting OSX, but I've got that on my laptop.
I like the car analogy. When I'm shopping for a laptop, I want the fuel-efficient sporty coupe that packs the most power into the smallest package without becoming unreliable. When I'm shopping for a workstation, I just want something big and throaty that will get the job done - like a pickup truck. I could care less if it gets dinged up, or if a part occasionally fails because those parts are easy to replace by myself and are relatively inexpensive. Mac Pros, to me, are like Lincoln pickup trucks. Sure, you're getting something with a V8 and a bed-liner, but you can get an equally functional Ford for 35% less. Sure, you're giving up the leather seats and the chrome wheels, but who cares, it's a pickup truck.
I get to choose my own display, non-glossy with a hood.
I have a RAID card with two external enclosures with 12tb of RAID 5 storage.
I have 16gb RAM cuz I use virtual machines a lot and tend to leave them running most of the time.
I upgraded the factory video card a few years ago.
I never use the optical drives and rarely use one, why the MacPro needs two I have no idea. Maybe remove both and force owners to use the MBA USB optical drive, and then Apple could update it to Thunderbolt. USB sticks have mostly replaced the need for daily use of optical drives anyway.
I only use one of the Ethernet interfaces & firewire is only used for my iSight. I do use the internal HD slots, but that historical and mainly use in RAID 0 for scratch disks, so no issues. So only one HD for the OS is really required and I have my external RAID.
Xeon would still be my preference cuz its just plain faster then anything else, though I don't need 12 cores. The Pro is build using top quality components and for the last 5 years its never switched off for any length of time. So its running 24/7 and I don't have to worry about it at all.
So a mini is not an option cuz limited RAM and no Xeon CPUs, ignoring my RAID for now. But I can choose my own display. The iMac is not an option cuz I cannot choose my own display, ignoring my RAID for now.
My RAID is just too expensive to replace with Thunderbolt just because Apple feels it want to discontinue the Pro. And there is no need to change the RAID, it works just fine for us!
So I would be sad if Apple discontinue it, but I would purchase a new MacPro when they do. And my reasoning is as follows;
1) A new MacPro has a potential useable life of >5 years, this represents excellent value to money.
2) Thunderbolt needs time to evolve with more products on the market.
3) I can still use my RAID card and external enclosures (very important).
4) I can continue to use my fabulous Eizo display.
I suppose in 5 or 6 years moving to a iMac type machine with thunderbolt RAID and Xeon would not be a major problem for us; In 5 years technology will be very different making it easier to change. But still like to be able to choose my own display.
But not today!
1) So a smaller MacPro with two or three slots would be ok.
2) Today RAM is offered in increasing density, so getting more RAM per stick, so no need for 8 RAM slots anymore.
3) One or two HD slots would be ok.
4) Would like a x16 slot for a good GPU.
5) Apple would need to add another slot for those who do have RAID or other cards.
6) Remove both the optical drives completely, no need at all.
$%^& you, Apple.
I can build a similarly powered Windows or Linux workstation for half the price of a Mac Pro.
You certainly can. And then overclock it 40%. And use graphics cards from the past 9-12 months.
3D content creation on Windows is where it's at. I'm still investigating Linux, got portable Photoshop running on Wine.
1) Remove both optical drive slots
2) 4 x RAM slots (max 32gb RAM)
3) 1 x PCI Express 3.0 x16 slot
4) On board AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5 (prefer better)
5) 1 x HD slot
6) Single Xeon CPU option, so up to 6 core max.
7) 2 x Thunderbolt
8) 4 x USB 3.0
9) 1 x Firewire 400/800
10) 1 x Gigabit Ethernet port
11) Audio in/out
12) Wi-Fi
13) Bluetooth
14) Optical digital audio
Force users to use external optical driver using USB or eventually Thunderbolt, this is the way MacBook Pro are going means smaller enclosure and lower weight.
Removing the optical drives will reduce overall size of the MacPro enclosure, cost reduction!
Using on-board GPU greatly reduces cost of a GPU card, smaller enclosure size and lower weight.
32gb RAM more than enough for 99% of customers., cheaper MLB design smaller enclosure and lower weight.
If they require more HD space then use external Thunderbolt or USB enclosures.
There is major cost reduction to be had in reducing the physical size of the MacPro. Reduce logistics costs by getting more product on a pallet and reduced shipping weight.
Only on HD slot.
No GPU card.
Half the number of RAM slots.
Once on x16 card slot.
2) Why??? A high-end machine needs much more RAM capacity. I think 8 DIMM slots are a minimum and 16 might be justified. Not much space can be saved by limiting DIMM slots.
3) Yes.
4) Probably, yes.
5) One HD slot plus one SSD stick slot.
6) Single Xeon CPU means up to 8 cores today, so why a 6 core limit? Next year Ivy Bridge will provide Xeon CPUs with 12 cores and the year after Haswell will provide Xeon CPUs with 16 cores. What is the point of a 6 core maximum???
7) Yes.
8) Doubtful. USB3 does not seem to be strategic for Apple
9) No, Firewire is finished. Apple will push Thunderbolt hard by dropping Firewire.
10) Yes, of course. Maybe 2x Ethernet ports.
11) Yes.
12) Yes.
13) Yes.
14) Yes.
I suppose the ideal MacPro emplacement would be;
1) Remove both optical drive slots
2) 4 x RAM slots (max 32gb RAM)
3) 1 x PCI Express 3.0 x16 slot
4) On board AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5 (prefer better)
5) 1 x HD slot
6) Single Xeon CPU option, so up to 6 core max.
7) 2 x Thunderbolt
8) 4 x USB 3.0
9) 1 x Firewire 400/800
10) 1 x Gigabit Ethernet port
11) Audio in/out
12) Wi-Fi
13) Bluetooth
14) Optical digital audio
Force users to use external optical driver using USB or eventually Thunderbolt, this is the way MacBook Pro are going means smaller enclosure and lower weight.
Removing the optical drives will reduce overall size of the MacPro enclosure, cost reduction!
Using on-board GPU greatly reduces cost of a GPU card, smaller enclosure size and lower weight.
32gb RAM more than enough for 99% of customers., cheaper MLB design smaller enclosure and lower weight.
If they require more HD space then use external Thunderbolt or USB enclosures.
There is major cost reduction to be had in reducing the physical size of the MacPro. Reduce logistics costs by getting more product on a pallet and reduced shipping weight.
Only on HD slot.
No GPU card.
Half the number of RAM slots.
Once on x16 card slot.