Let's assume for a second that it is EOL, what are the 260k per quarter (maximum) Mac Pro buyers going to do?
A portion of them will have no choice but to buy another Mac model and a portion will migrate to another platform.
Whatever happens, the number of users affected by the discontinuation of the Mac Pro will be negligible.
It was never a matter of 'if' but a matter of 'when'. Usually Apple pulls the plug too soon but I don't think now is too soon.
The only reservation I have is that Intel build Xeons the way they do for a reason. They are the best chips they know how to build. If Apple doesn't want to give up on that option then they have no other choice but to put one in the iMac or Mini or some other form factor machine.
G5 was great. Years ahed of its competition. It was fun back in PPC days when you could have something that was faster then Intel and had better hardware.
To bad that IBM f-ed up and could not deliver 3ghz parts to Apple. Somehow they could deliver 3ghz parts to MSFT.
G5 lives today inside the Xbox360. The only reason why I bought one on launch day.
And for MacPro EOL.
Intel killed MacPro with their insane XEON prices. When AMD could not compete, Intel raised prices 300% with Nehalem. In 2006 you could get a 8 core MacPro about 2K dollars.
2008 the cheapest was 3500 dollar. The price hike thanks to Intels processors. From 300 dollars to about 1000 dollar a pop.
Today Intels highend Xeons costs the same as HighEnd RISC did 10 years ago. The cheapest Intel highend Xeon is over 4000dollars.
I would be fun with dual 10 core/20 thread Intel inside a MacPro, but the computer would cost over 10000 dollars.
For that price you can get Power Workstations with much better performance.
For Apple to release bumped MacPros, its minimal work. We are talking software drivers. The motherboards are designed by intel.
The market place for MacPro is almost dead. Disc and PCI cards can be added using thunderbolt today. You can buy 2 MacMini for the price of a single Xeon processor. Its today better to buy a highend iMac and use other computers in the grid for heavy computing.
My dream is Xgrid for iOS. Almost all iOS users have more then 1 device. Why not have Xgrid? The devices are on 24/7. When you need processor power on you ipad, why not take CPU cykles from the Iphone? All this is possible thanks to Unix. This have been standard for UnixWS the last 20 years.
G5 was great. Years ahed of its competition. It was fun back in PPC days when you could have something that was faster then Intel and had better hardware.
To bad that IBM f-ed up and could not deliver 3ghz parts to Apple. Somehow they could deliver 3ghz parts to MSFT.
G5 lives today inside the Xbox360. The only reason why I bought one on launch day.
And for MacPro EOL.
Intel killed MacPro with their insane XEON prices. When AMD could not compete, Intel raised prices 300% with Nehalem. In 2006 you could get a 8 core MacPro about 2K dollars.
2008 the cheapest was 3500 dollar. The price hike thanks to Intels processors. From 300 dollars to about 1000 dollar a pop.
Today Intels highend Xeons costs the same as HighEnd RISC did 10 years ago. The cheapest Intel highend Xeon is over 4000dollars.
I would be fun with dual 10 core/20 thread Intel inside a MacPro, but the computer would cost over 10000 dollars.
For that price you can get Power Workstations with much better performance.
For Apple to release bumped MacPros, its minimal work. We are talking software drivers. The motherboards are designed by intel.
The market place for MacPro is almost dead. Disc and PCI cards can be added using thunderbolt today. You can buy 2 MacMini for the price of a single Xeon processor. Its today better to buy a highend iMac and use other computers in the grid for heavy computing.
My dream is Xgrid for iOS. Almost all iOS users have more then 1 device. Why not have Xgrid? The devices are on 24/7. When you need processor power on you ipad, why not take CPU cykles from the Iphone? All this is possible thanks to Unix. This have been standard for UnixWS the last 20 years.
*applauds post. Bravo.
Strange. You're not the first poster to mention the Xeon price hike. Ye-ouch. I remember it like it was yesterday. It put the Mac Pro beyond my reach (and no doubt, many other artists and creative pros...)
And the nod to the iOS hub drawing on the collective computing power (I have an iMac, ATV, iPad, iPhone...some people have wayyy more Apple devices...)...isn't it getting near the time when we should get them all working via Open CL or an X-Grid or something? OS X does Unix. It is Unix. Hell, Apple put Mac OS on Unix.
Enjoyed reading your post. Insightful summing up of Apple's dilemma with the Mac Pro and it's 'value equation' relative to performance. There's plenty of blame to go around on the lack of Mac Pro update.
I also remember the entry iMac price going from £675 (?) to £995 back in 2008(?) The Mac Mini going from dedicated to integrated gpu and getting a price hike. Used to be £300-ish. Not it's £500 give or take.
I'm sure the Apple shareholders aren't complaining though. And Apple Mac sales are at an all time high.
The market place for MacPro is almost dead. Disc and PCI cards can be added using thunderbolt today. You can buy 2 MacMini for the price of a single Xeon processor. Its today better to buy a highend iMac and use other computers in the grid for heavy computing.
The relative value and performance of the Mini and iMac means there's less reason to mortgage your gran to buy a Pro. Fewer people need absolute power at insane prices. The tower looks dated as well.
Many PC sellers are offering slim line towers/compacts. Hey, it's there, crappy windows or not. Even HP are offering an 'iMac' like 'z' AIO workstation with easy access.
Come on, Apple. When was the last time you wowed us with your desktop line?
Are Apple getting comfortable with their evolutionary approach and a pile of cash?
Maybe they don't have to do anything but kill the Pro and shave some alu off the iMac's chin while they fry bigger fish with iOS.
The next year should tell us plenty about where the desktop Macs are going. 26% of sales may give us nothing more than evolutionary updates from here on in...
Mind you, Tim said that the Mac was still important. *(Gulps as he sees the iOS features creeping over to the Mac...)
G5 was great. Years ahed of its competition. It was fun back in PPC days when you could have something that was faster then Intel and had better hardware.
Agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa
To bad that IBM f-ed up and could not deliver 3ghz parts to Apple. Somehow they could deliver 3ghz parts to MSFT.
IBM screwed-up, but the screw-up was with heat management, not clock speed. The fastest processor available in any Mac today is a 3.4 GHz i7-based iMac. The fastest PPC-based Macs had 2.7 GHz processors. Strictly in terms of clock speed, they had faster clocks than the vast majority of Intel-based Macs available today.
IBM screwed the pooch when it refused Steve Job's plea to reduce the PPC's heat generation. Ironically, heat generation had been a major PPC advantage over Intel x86. Without this advantage, the G4 Cube would not have been possible. However, the G4 was a Motorola/Freescale processor. The G5 was IBM and IBM is Big Iron.
The first G5s ran so hot that they required mated processor/cooling modules. Subsequent G5s required liquid cooling. In the meantime, Intel had developed new materials processing fabrication techniques that finally conquered the heat problems that had dogged it since the 386.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa
Intel killed MacPro with their insane XEON prices. When AMD could not compete, Intel raised prices 300% with Nehalem. In 2006 you could get a 8 core MacPro about 2K dollars.
2008 the cheapest was 3500 dollar. The price hike thanks to Intels processors. From 300 dollars to about 1000 dollar a pop.
Today Intels highend Xeons costs the same as HighEnd RISC did 10 years ago. The cheapest Intel highend Xeon is over 4000dollars.
I would be fun with dual 10 core/20 thread Intel inside a MacPro, but the computer would cost over 10000 dollars.
For that price you can get Power Workstations with much better performance.
Don't confuse bare processors with complete systems. Having said that, Intel manufactures some very low-end processors. However, if you want something that will boot-up this week, then Intel makes you pay. Despite their economies of scale, Intel processors have always been more expensive than PPC processors of comparable or superior performance.
The enormous price of the Intel-based Mac Pro is the reason that I have not replaced my Power Mac G5s. My G5s were in a line of price/performance that left me feeling justified in paying more for my Macs than colleagues paid for their DOS/Windows boxes. I purchased Macs with my own funds in 1989, 1996, and 2004. I have also purchased Macs at work. For each personal purchase, I paid roughly the same nominal amount. However, the computer was near the top-of-the-line for its time and provided a massive increase in productivity. That nominal amount was about $5200 US. Over the past 2-3 years, I have priced-out Mac Pros. To get a computer near the top-of-the-line, I will have to pay something in the neighborhood of $10,000. Ouch!
Then I look at my G5s. They still work great. I have a 2009 MacBook Pro for those times when I absolutely need something Intel-based.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa
For Apple to release bumped MacPros, its minimal work. We are talking software drivers. The motherboards are designed by intel.
Let's not go too far over the top here. Does any Wintel OEM sell EFI-based boxes? If not, then all of the development costs for Intel-based Apple computers are borne by Apple irrespective of who designs them. We know enough about Apple to know that Apple is not a passive customer for Intel-based motherboards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa
My dream is Xgrid for iOS. Almost all iOS users have more then 1 device. Why not have Xgrid? The devices are on 24/7. When you need processor power on you ipad, why not take CPU cykles from the Iphone? All this is possible thanks to Unix. This have been standard for UnixWS the last 20 years.
There is a small problem with this idea. iOS mobile devices are battery-powered. They drink battery power while they communicate. Without question, my iPhone has the computer power to handle the job. As a matter of economics, however, it is not a good idea. The price that you pay for an iPhone is the price necessary to make it a great phone, personal assistant, and gaming device. Most of that money is wasted if you convert it into a cluster node.
Well again you are relying on rumors which is foolish.
In any event Apple will dump the Mac Pro, that is almost a given as I doubt very much that they sell more than 50,000 a quarter. 50,000 is probably on the large size too. However I fully expect a replacement for the Pro that will appeal to a wider array of users. It is the only rational course of action for Apple if they wish to maintain a position on the desktop.
Are Apple getting comfortable with their evolutionary approach and a pile of cash?
If Apple is making zero dollars off of the Mac Pro, a real possibility, then it must go. They need a machine that is far more affordable and has a feature set that is wide enough to appeal to multiple types of users. Frankly the current Mac Pro is not really suitable to attract a wide audience which is why it's sales suck so.
Quote:
Maybe they don't have to do anything but kill the Pro and shave some alu off the iMac's chin while they fry bigger fish with iOS.
I'm not sure why this BS flys so well on this forum as it is complete ignorance. Mac OS and Mac hardware have been doing extremely well for Apple and stands in stark contrast to the rest of the PC marketplace. Killing the Pro is about business because no matter how many people whine on this forum about how important the Pro is its sales have declined significantly to the point no money is made off the unit.
The only rational course of action is for Apple to try something else.
Quote:
The next year should tell us plenty about where the desktop Macs are going. 26% of sales may give us nothing more than evolutionary updates from here on in...
We should have a good grasp of things by the middle of the year. In the end it only depends upon what direction Apple wants to take with the replacement unit. It could be built around standard desktop parts or that recently announced Intel supper chip.
Again though NOBODY should get excited about the Mac Pro until we start to see real shipment volumes of the types of processors and GPUs likely to go into a next generation machine. That means at least two more months.
Quote:
Mind you, Tim said that the Mac was still important. *(Gulps as he sees the iOS features creeping over to the Mac...)
This is another bit of BS I don't understand, the changes to Mac OS have been very beneficial. Especially if you tend to use a Mac in conjunction with an iOS device. More so each release of Mac OS has been dramatically improving the core OS, adding features power users can use and generally leading to better overall functionality.
So really what is your problem here? I have to ask because generally I'm very happy with the direction Mac OS is going. Do you not like better performance and expanded features in the supplied software?
By the way there are a few things I could do without but I fully understand the concept of taking the good with the bad.
Seriously, if Apple re-factors the Pro into some Cube renaissance I'd be the first out in public open whacking off outside an Apple Store.
I've seen some tasty conjecture online about a modular aluminum cube that's stackable, gangable via thunderbolt, etc. Can't remember where. I'd buy one. The Mac Pro Cube. Just add more cubes for more processing power.
That's the Apple Pro you're thinking of. It's the successor to the Mac Pro. Release date is unknown, but working prototypes have been in the field for some time.
There were a few innacuracies in that report. Apparently, both i7 and Xeon variants exist, which explains the prototype cube's size, it's built to cool Xeons, not i7s. In any event, it may be possible to cluster 16 core xeon cubes using Apple Galaxy over Thunderbolt.
It appears Apple wasn't content with the Mac Pro because it had nothing to differentiate it from windows Xeon workstations. Not so with the Apple Pro. Things are about to get very intersting on the desktop front...
Comments
And then he cries over a G5…
A portion of them will have no choice but to buy another Mac model and a portion will migrate to another platform.
Whatever happens, the number of users affected by the discontinuation of the Mac Pro will be negligible.
It was never a matter of 'if' but a matter of 'when'. Usually Apple pulls the plug too soon but I don't think now is too soon.
The only reservation I have is that Intel build Xeons the way they do for a reason. They are the best chips they know how to build. If Apple doesn't want to give up on that option then they have no other choice but to put one in the iMac or Mini or some other form factor machine.
I think all will be revealed in under 8 weeks.
Maybe we can't get any hints from the Mac Pro Development team because they have already left the building.
The only development team that has left any building is AIM's and the AIM building.
The only thing that's about to die for certain is iChat's functionality?
The only development team that has left any building is AIM's and the AIM building.
The only thing that's about to die for certain is iChat's functionality?
People still use that? Also I've never seen one poster make so many threads on a topic.
People still use that?
If you use iChat, yes. Plenty of people use iChat.
The Mac Pro could be dead making way for a differently named workstation that is perhaps smaller and lighter.
Like the Mac Mini?
Or one that includes a screen aka the iMac?
Seriously, if Apple re-factors the Pro into some Cube renaissance I'd be the first out in public open whacking off outside an Apple Store.
Four models. £999 above the Mac Mini up to £2000. Priced to go. iMac sexy desktop chic vs raw sex Cube-esque.
(Must be my time of the week...)
Lemon Bon Bon.
'I feel for you, man...'
Lemon Bon Bon.
Yes, because they'd know?
And then he cries over a G5?
G5 was great. Years ahed of its competition. It was fun back in PPC days when you could have something that was faster then Intel and had better hardware.
To bad that IBM f-ed up and could not deliver 3ghz parts to Apple. Somehow they could deliver 3ghz parts to MSFT.
G5 lives today inside the Xbox360. The only reason why I bought one on launch day.
And for MacPro EOL.
Intel killed MacPro with their insane XEON prices. When AMD could not compete, Intel raised prices 300% with Nehalem. In 2006 you could get a 8 core MacPro about 2K dollars.
2008 the cheapest was 3500 dollar. The price hike thanks to Intels processors. From 300 dollars to about 1000 dollar a pop.
Today Intels highend Xeons costs the same as HighEnd RISC did 10 years ago. The cheapest Intel highend Xeon is over 4000dollars.
I would be fun with dual 10 core/20 thread Intel inside a MacPro, but the computer would cost over 10000 dollars.
For that price you can get Power Workstations with much better performance.
For Apple to release bumped MacPros, its minimal work. We are talking software drivers. The motherboards are designed by intel.
The market place for MacPro is almost dead. Disc and PCI cards can be added using thunderbolt today. You can buy 2 MacMini for the price of a single Xeon processor. Its today better to buy a highend iMac and use other computers in the grid for heavy computing.
My dream is Xgrid for iOS. Almost all iOS users have more then 1 device. Why not have Xgrid? The devices are on 24/7. When you need processor power on you ipad, why not take CPU cykles from the Iphone? All this is possible thanks to Unix. This have been standard for UnixWS the last 20 years.
G5 was great. Years ahed of its competition. It was fun back in PPC days when you could have something that was faster then Intel and had better hardware.
To bad that IBM f-ed up and could not deliver 3ghz parts to Apple. Somehow they could deliver 3ghz parts to MSFT.
G5 lives today inside the Xbox360. The only reason why I bought one on launch day.
And for MacPro EOL.
Intel killed MacPro with their insane XEON prices. When AMD could not compete, Intel raised prices 300% with Nehalem. In 2006 you could get a 8 core MacPro about 2K dollars.
2008 the cheapest was 3500 dollar. The price hike thanks to Intels processors. From 300 dollars to about 1000 dollar a pop.
Today Intels highend Xeons costs the same as HighEnd RISC did 10 years ago. The cheapest Intel highend Xeon is over 4000dollars.
I would be fun with dual 10 core/20 thread Intel inside a MacPro, but the computer would cost over 10000 dollars.
For that price you can get Power Workstations with much better performance.
For Apple to release bumped MacPros, its minimal work. We are talking software drivers. The motherboards are designed by intel.
The market place for MacPro is almost dead. Disc and PCI cards can be added using thunderbolt today. You can buy 2 MacMini for the price of a single Xeon processor. Its today better to buy a highend iMac and use other computers in the grid for heavy computing.
My dream is Xgrid for iOS. Almost all iOS users have more then 1 device. Why not have Xgrid? The devices are on 24/7. When you need processor power on you ipad, why not take CPU cykles from the Iphone? All this is possible thanks to Unix. This have been standard for UnixWS the last 20 years.
*applauds post. Bravo.
Strange. You're not the first poster to mention the Xeon price hike. Ye-ouch. I remember it like it was yesterday. It put the Mac Pro beyond my reach (and no doubt, many other artists and creative pros...)
And the nod to the iOS hub drawing on the collective computing power (I have an iMac, ATV, iPad, iPhone...some people have wayyy more Apple devices...)...isn't it getting near the time when we should get them all working via Open CL or an X-Grid or something? OS X does Unix. It is Unix. Hell, Apple put Mac OS on Unix.
Enjoyed reading your post. Insightful summing up of Apple's dilemma with the Mac Pro and it's 'value equation' relative to performance. There's plenty of blame to go around on the lack of Mac Pro update.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I also remember the entry iMac price going from £675 (?) to £995 back in 2008(?) The Mac Mini going from dedicated to integrated gpu and getting a price hike. Used to be £300-ish. Not it's £500 give or take.
I'm sure the Apple shareholders aren't complaining though. And Apple Mac sales are at an all time high.
But Mac Pro sales aren't.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The market place for MacPro is almost dead. Disc and PCI cards can be added using thunderbolt today. You can buy 2 MacMini for the price of a single Xeon processor. Its today better to buy a highend iMac and use other computers in the grid for heavy computing.
The relative value and performance of the Mini and iMac means there's less reason to mortgage your gran to buy a Pro. Fewer people need absolute power at insane prices. The tower looks dated as well.
Many PC sellers are offering slim line towers/compacts. Hey, it's there, crappy windows or not. Even HP are offering an 'iMac' like 'z' AIO workstation with easy access.
Come on, Apple. When was the last time you wowed us with your desktop line?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Maybe they don't have to do anything but kill the Pro and shave some alu off the iMac's chin while they fry bigger fish with iOS.
The next year should tell us plenty about where the desktop Macs are going. 26% of sales may give us nothing more than evolutionary updates from here on in...
Mind you, Tim said that the Mac was still important. *(Gulps as he sees the iOS features creeping over to the Mac...)
Lemon Bon Bon.
G5 was great. Years ahed of its competition. It was fun back in PPC days when you could have something that was faster then Intel and had better hardware.
Agree.
To bad that IBM f-ed up and could not deliver 3ghz parts to Apple. Somehow they could deliver 3ghz parts to MSFT.
IBM screwed-up, but the screw-up was with heat management, not clock speed. The fastest processor available in any Mac today is a 3.4 GHz i7-based iMac. The fastest PPC-based Macs had 2.7 GHz processors. Strictly in terms of clock speed, they had faster clocks than the vast majority of Intel-based Macs available today.
IBM screwed the pooch when it refused Steve Job's plea to reduce the PPC's heat generation. Ironically, heat generation had been a major PPC advantage over Intel x86. Without this advantage, the G4 Cube would not have been possible. However, the G4 was a Motorola/Freescale processor. The G5 was IBM and IBM is Big Iron.
The first G5s ran so hot that they required mated processor/cooling modules. Subsequent G5s required liquid cooling. In the meantime, Intel had developed new materials processing fabrication techniques that finally conquered the heat problems that had dogged it since the 386.
Intel killed MacPro with their insane XEON prices. When AMD could not compete, Intel raised prices 300% with Nehalem. In 2006 you could get a 8 core MacPro about 2K dollars.
2008 the cheapest was 3500 dollar. The price hike thanks to Intels processors. From 300 dollars to about 1000 dollar a pop.
Today Intels highend Xeons costs the same as HighEnd RISC did 10 years ago. The cheapest Intel highend Xeon is over 4000dollars.
I would be fun with dual 10 core/20 thread Intel inside a MacPro, but the computer would cost over 10000 dollars.
For that price you can get Power Workstations with much better performance.
Don't confuse bare processors with complete systems. Having said that, Intel manufactures some very low-end processors. However, if you want something that will boot-up this week, then Intel makes you pay. Despite their economies of scale, Intel processors have always been more expensive than PPC processors of comparable or superior performance.
The enormous price of the Intel-based Mac Pro is the reason that I have not replaced my Power Mac G5s. My G5s were in a line of price/performance that left me feeling justified in paying more for my Macs than colleagues paid for their DOS/Windows boxes. I purchased Macs with my own funds in 1989, 1996, and 2004. I have also purchased Macs at work. For each personal purchase, I paid roughly the same nominal amount. However, the computer was near the top-of-the-line for its time and provided a massive increase in productivity. That nominal amount was about $5200 US. Over the past 2-3 years, I have priced-out Mac Pros. To get a computer near the top-of-the-line, I will have to pay something in the neighborhood of $10,000. Ouch!
Then I look at my G5s. They still work great. I have a 2009 MacBook Pro for those times when I absolutely need something Intel-based.
For Apple to release bumped MacPros, its minimal work. We are talking software drivers. The motherboards are designed by intel.
Let's not go too far over the top here. Does any Wintel OEM sell EFI-based boxes? If not, then all of the development costs for Intel-based Apple computers are borne by Apple irrespective of who designs them. We know enough about Apple to know that Apple is not a passive customer for Intel-based motherboards.
My dream is Xgrid for iOS. Almost all iOS users have more then 1 device. Why not have Xgrid? The devices are on 24/7. When you need processor power on you ipad, why not take CPU cykles from the Iphone? All this is possible thanks to Unix. This have been standard for UnixWS the last 20 years.
There is a small problem with this idea. iOS mobile devices are battery-powered. They drink battery power while they communicate. Without question, my iPhone has the computer power to handle the job. As a matter of economics, however, it is not a good idea. The price that you pay for an iPhone is the price necessary to make it a great phone, personal assistant, and gaming device. Most of that money is wasted if you convert it into a cluster node.
In any event Apple will dump the Mac Pro, that is almost a given as I doubt very much that they sell more than 50,000 a quarter. 50,000 is probably on the large size too. However I fully expect a replacement for the Pro that will appeal to a wider array of users. It is the only rational course of action for Apple if they wish to maintain a position on the desktop.
Good bye dear friend.
http://cnettv.cnet.com/what-up-imacs...ag=epicStories
Are Apple getting comfortable with their evolutionary approach and a pile of cash?
If Apple is making zero dollars off of the Mac Pro, a real possibility, then it must go. They need a machine that is far more affordable and has a feature set that is wide enough to appeal to multiple types of users. Frankly the current Mac Pro is not really suitable to attract a wide audience which is why it's sales suck so.
Maybe they don't have to do anything but kill the Pro and shave some alu off the iMac's chin while they fry bigger fish with iOS.
I'm not sure why this BS flys so well on this forum as it is complete ignorance. Mac OS and Mac hardware have been doing extremely well for Apple and stands in stark contrast to the rest of the PC marketplace. Killing the Pro is about business because no matter how many people whine on this forum about how important the Pro is its sales have declined significantly to the point no money is made off the unit.
The only rational course of action is for Apple to try something else.
The next year should tell us plenty about where the desktop Macs are going. 26% of sales may give us nothing more than evolutionary updates from here on in...
We should have a good grasp of things by the middle of the year. In the end it only depends upon what direction Apple wants to take with the replacement unit. It could be built around standard desktop parts or that recently announced Intel supper chip.
Again though NOBODY should get excited about the Mac Pro until we start to see real shipment volumes of the types of processors and GPUs likely to go into a next generation machine. That means at least two more months.
Mind you, Tim said that the Mac was still important. *(Gulps as he sees the iOS features creeping over to the Mac...)
This is another bit of BS I don't understand, the changes to Mac OS have been very beneficial. Especially if you tend to use a Mac in conjunction with an iOS device. More so each release of Mac OS has been dramatically improving the core OS, adding features power users can use and generally leading to better overall functionality.
So really what is your problem here? I have to ask because generally I'm very happy with the direction Mac OS is going. Do you not like better performance and expanded features in the supplied software?
By the way there are a few things I could do without but I fully understand the concept of taking the good with the bad.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Like the Mac Mini?
Seriously, if Apple re-factors the Pro into some Cube renaissance I'd be the first out in public open whacking off outside an Apple Store.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I won't go that far but I sure wish there was something without a screen between the mini and the Pro. A cube with iMac parts would work for me.
Seriously, if Apple re-factors the Pro into some Cube renaissance I'd be the first out in public open whacking off outside an Apple Store.
I've seen some tasty conjecture online about a modular aluminum cube that's stackable, gangable via thunderbolt, etc. Can't remember where. I'd buy one. The Mac Pro Cube. Just add more cubes for more processing power.
There were a few innacuracies in that report. Apparently, both i7 and Xeon variants exist, which explains the prototype cube's size, it's built to cool Xeons, not i7s. In any event, it may be possible to cluster 16 core xeon cubes using Apple Galaxy over Thunderbolt.
It appears Apple wasn't content with the Mac Pro because it had nothing to differentiate it from windows Xeon workstations. Not so with the Apple Pro. Things are about to get very intersting on the desktop front...