If it didn't cost more than a third-world Kidney transplant, I'm guessing more people would be mac pros.
Exactly! It is like Apple doesn't understand what most people need or want in a desktop.
Quote:
I never understood why they couldn't sell it as an infinitely upgradeable tower with cheaper starting components to make it a more affordable computer, sometimes people don't need everything that the desktop tower has to offer to want one.
They could but they are tied to their old marketing beliefs. The current desktop lineup is of their own making and frankly it is like they don't have the maturity to let go.
I love my Mac pro at work... I took advantage of The possibility of adding four drives which is very useful...
The other advantage is that they support huge amounts of ram and I could eventually upgrade the tax card
but I do think the form factor is too much for most needs
If apple took the highest specced iMacs and place them in a tower that allowed for two 2.5 drives, four 3.5 drives and support for more ram then these machines would be welcome in many studios again... The 27" iMacs r great but I'd rather have to invest once in a good monitor every five years rather than a completely new machine every three
Also when things go wrong with an iMac... They go spectacularly wrong... With my Mac pro I can quickly remove the hdds and use them on another machine or replace them myself... The iMac ha to be taken for servicing...
It's the nicest tower PC on the market by far, but clearly its days were numbered. The case hasn't been overhauled in over 8 years, and Apple has slowly been replacing or discontinuing all of its other professional grade stuff.
Apple could offer a smaller tower with a double wide x16 PCie and a 8x PCie, 2hard drive bays... They can drop the use of the large size memory and come up with something half the size well equipped and a third of the weight that would make it cheaper to transport....
The iMac is a really nice machine but lack that hard drive & PCie expansion and support for high end video cards.
I was still waiting for the next version of it with the sandy bridge and thunderbolt... They had prototypes for a smaller form factor but I guess wasn't that chick*
It's an interesting crossroads. I would love to be a fly on the wall at Apple high-level strategy sessions. Conventional wisdom used to be that if you wanted to court developers you had to make sure Mac development hardware and software was available. Not sure to what extent that is still true. I would feel better knowing that such a tool continues to exist for those who want or need it.
On the other hand, one of things that distinguishes Apple is that it has always been bold in seizing future trends with both hands and not looking back--for better or worse. Mostly better. The other thing that Steve brought when he returned was a narrowed focus--jettisoning lines instead of accumulating them like so much moss. If Apple has a bold plan for the future that doesn't include heavy iron, I'm interested in seeing where it's going.
Remember Steve's truck analogy. Maybe Apple doesn't see the truck market as a part of its future.
mac pros are very important for a market share. If they discontinue it they will lose apple customers. Myself, i'm an avid gamer, and to me the mac pro is the only viable option. other macs are bargan computers that lack future proofing for gaming and don't have the performance of a mac pro either. If i have to get an imac with a mobile GPU in it to game, i'm gonna have to go the hackintosh route istead so i can keep my high end hardware.
They might be thinking sales of Mac Pros make people refresh their Macs less frequently, and they'd be right. I bought an 8-core Mac Pro a year ago. I need it for working with heavy plugins and large images in Photoshop, as well as the odd music recording project every now and then. I probably could have made due with an iMac at the time - but I bought a Pro for the expansion options, since it supports 4 HDs and 64GBs of RAM and also has room for expansion slots to put in special DSP-cards if I need to, or an extra graphics card. I bought the Pro because I'm hoping it'll last 6-10 years with me upgrading a component here and there along the way. If most people put an extra $500-$1000 into their Mac and then ended up only needing a new one every 10 years or even less frequently, then that wouldn't be very good business for Apple.
They need something more powerful than the Mac Mini but screen-less unlike the iMac. However, the Mac Pro is and has been a boat anchor. I mean seriously, that thing is unwieldy. No need for a huge hunk of aluminum like that in this day & age. I cringe whenever I have to deploy or service one.
Why can't they utilize their expertise in ventilation and produce a fast thin octo-core unit that can stand upright if needed, and be turned on its side for rack mounting to replace the XServe? This rumor has been going around for a while and made so much sense that I am shocked to learn it might now not be happening.
Replacing the Xserve requires more than just a rackmount form factor. The Xserve also had:
Dual hot swap power supplies.
Hot swappable hard drives.
Hardware monitoring and sensors: You could check status of the Xserve's fans, power supply, and system temperatures from Apple's Server Manager application.
Lights out management: You can remotely power up or hard shutdown the Xserve even if the Mac OS is not working-- you dont' need to drive to the server room just to hold down the power button.
[...] a fast thin octo-core unit that can stand upright if needed, and be turned on its side for rack mounting to replace the XServe?
The Xserve isn't going to be replaced. If you need server power beyond Apple's offerings, rack-mounted, buy dedicated server hardware (or hire blade space in a dedicated datacenter) and go virtual.
The sales of the Mac Pros suck because they don't put enough effort into making it a desireable product.
I disagree. The real problem is that technology has changed. Towers were needed for their PCI slots and internal drive speeds (it was about speed rather than merely the ability to house the drives internally). My Pro Tools rig used to eat up four PCI slots and its own internal hard drive. Now, it just needs a firewire port (for the audio I/O), a USB port (for that frigging iLok dongle) and a few external drives (including backups).
What does one need a giant tower for that can't be better handled by external gear? The only thing a Mac Pro has going for it is processing power and RAM. Put that in a Mac Mini Pro.
Does XGrid still exist ? Is it capable of linking minis over thunderbolt for parallel processing ?
To me, XGrid, or some future iteration of such, would be ideal for those who need more power.
I figure the limiting factor is the current top speed of Thunderbolt, for both intercommunication and for external PCI cards (I'm under the impression that Thunderbolt doesn't use many lanes and that video cards do ... )
Personally if i had the need and the money I would prefer to have the simple and elegant Mac Pro over a few minis and multiple external boxes ....
Buying a new computer shouldn't mean buying a new monitor. Especially if that monitor is glossy.
Double the size of the Mac Mini by adding an extra drive bay or two and spec it with Macbook Pro hardware -- and don't charge the same price as the Macbook Pro! -- and you've got yourself a deal.
mac pros are very important for a market share. If they discontinue it they will lose apple customers. Myself, i'm an avid gamer, and to me the mac pro is the only viable option. other macs are bargan computers that lack future proofing for gaming and don't have the performance of a mac pro either. If i have to get an imac with a mobile GPU in it to game, i'm gonna have to go the hackintosh route istead so i can keep my high end hardware.
Same for me. At home, I depend on a Penryn Mac Pro. It served me well so far and is going to continue doing so for an other 4 years. If they discontinue the line, I will have to leave Apple and go back to the PC world. I don't want a laptop with a 27" screen. I want a tower that I can upgrade as time goes. I'm a gamer and a music producer and I need what's inside this "boat anchor". Yes, it's heavy. So what! It'd a desktop, it's not supposed to be moved around anyway.
To those of you saying that thunderbolt is equivalent to PCI-e, please, stop spreading lies. It might be the same signal but it's not the same bandwidth. You can get 8 GBps on a 16x 2.0 slot and there is now 4 of those on modern motherboards. We will soon get PCI-e 3.0 which will double that number. So, until we get 3 or 4 thunderbolt ports on a MacBook Pro, I won't be interested. Just one is far from being enough to replace the adaptability of a Mac Pro.
The Mac Pro is the "Kwisatz Haderach" of all computers, and Apple is considering its relevance as a viable product. Come on Steve enforce your will in the after life! Make them not just continue it but make it better, faster, stronger!
They need something more powerful than the Mac Mini but screen-less unlike the iMac.
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.
Comments
If it didn't cost more than a third-world Kidney transplant, I'm guessing more people would be mac pros.
Exactly! It is like Apple doesn't understand what most people need or want in a desktop.
I never understood why they couldn't sell it as an infinitely upgradeable tower with cheaper starting components to make it a more affordable computer, sometimes people don't need everything that the desktop tower has to offer to want one.
They could but they are tied to their old marketing beliefs. The current desktop lineup is of their own making and frankly it is like they don't have the maturity to let go.
Apple should build a Mac mini Pro or a Mac Pro mini.
With a matte display to complement.
No fan (or very quiet at least).
Quad-core.
Two 3.5-ich 7200 rpm disk drives inside.
Thunderbolt.
Firewire 800.
USB 3.
SDXC card slot.
Gigabit Ethernet.
Did I say quiet?
You mean almost like the 27" iMac?
The other advantage is that they support huge amounts of ram and I could eventually upgrade the tax card
but I do think the form factor is too much for most needs
If apple took the highest specced iMacs and place them in a tower that allowed for two 2.5 drives, four 3.5 drives and support for more ram then these machines would be welcome in many studios again... The 27" iMacs r great but I'd rather have to invest once in a good monitor every five years rather than a completely new machine every three
Also when things go wrong with an iMac... They go spectacularly wrong... With my Mac pro I can quickly remove the hdds and use them on another machine or replace them myself... The iMac ha to be taken for servicing...
The iMac is a really nice machine but lack that hard drive & PCie expansion and support for high end video cards.
I was still waiting for the next version of it with the sandy bridge and thunderbolt... They had prototypes for a smaller form factor but I guess wasn't that chick*
On the other hand, one of things that distinguishes Apple is that it has always been bold in seizing future trends with both hands and not looking back--for better or worse. Mostly better. The other thing that Steve brought when he returned was a narrowed focus--jettisoning lines instead of accumulating them like so much moss. If Apple has a bold plan for the future that doesn't include heavy iron, I'm interested in seeing where it's going.
Remember Steve's truck analogy. Maybe Apple doesn't see the truck market as a part of its future.
They need something more powerful than the Mac Mini but screen-less unlike the iMac. However, the Mac Pro is and has been a boat anchor. I mean seriously, that thing is unwieldy. No need for a huge hunk of aluminum like that in this day & age. I cringe whenever I have to deploy or service one.
Why can't they utilize their expertise in ventilation and produce a fast thin octo-core unit that can stand upright if needed, and be turned on its side for rack mounting to replace the XServe? This rumor has been going around for a while and made so much sense that I am shocked to learn it might now not be happening.
Replacing the Xserve requires more than just a rackmount form factor. The Xserve also had:
Dual hot swap power supplies.
Hot swappable hard drives.
Hardware monitoring and sensors: You could check status of the Xserve's fans, power supply, and system temperatures from Apple's Server Manager application.
Lights out management: You can remotely power up or hard shutdown the Xserve even if the Mac OS is not working-- you dont' need to drive to the server room just to hold down the power button.
[...] a fast thin octo-core unit that can stand upright if needed, and be turned on its side for rack mounting to replace the XServe?
The Xserve isn't going to be replaced. If you need server power beyond Apple's offerings, rack-mounted, buy dedicated server hardware (or hire blade space in a dedicated datacenter) and go virtual.
.tsooJ
They really need to come down to earth with a cost reduced tower that could actually sell to consumers.
The sales of the Mac Pros suck because they don't put enough effort into making it a desireable product.
I disagree. The real problem is that technology has changed. Towers were needed for their PCI slots and internal drive speeds (it was about speed rather than merely the ability to house the drives internally). My Pro Tools rig used to eat up four PCI slots and its own internal hard drive. Now, it just needs a firewire port (for the audio I/O), a USB port (for that frigging iLok dongle) and a few external drives (including backups).
What does one need a giant tower for that can't be better handled by external gear? The only thing a Mac Pro has going for it is processing power and RAM. Put that in a Mac Mini Pro.
To me, XGrid, or some future iteration of such, would be ideal for those who need more power.
I figure the limiting factor is the current top speed of Thunderbolt, for both intercommunication and for external PCI cards (I'm under the impression that Thunderbolt doesn't use many lanes and that video cards do ... )
Personally if i had the need and the money I would prefer to have the simple and elegant Mac Pro over a few minis and multiple external boxes ....
Double the size of the Mac Mini by adding an extra drive bay or two and spec it with Macbook Pro hardware -- and don't charge the same price as the Macbook Pro! -- and you've got yourself a deal.
mac pros are very important for a market share. If they discontinue it they will lose apple customers. Myself, i'm an avid gamer, and to me the mac pro is the only viable option. other macs are bargan computers that lack future proofing for gaming and don't have the performance of a mac pro either. If i have to get an imac with a mobile GPU in it to game, i'm gonna have to go the hackintosh route istead so i can keep my high end hardware.
Same for me. At home, I depend on a Penryn Mac Pro. It served me well so far and is going to continue doing so for an other 4 years. If they discontinue the line, I will have to leave Apple and go back to the PC world. I don't want a laptop with a 27" screen. I want a tower that I can upgrade as time goes. I'm a gamer and a music producer and I need what's inside this "boat anchor". Yes, it's heavy. So what! It'd a desktop, it's not supposed to be moved around anyway.
To those of you saying that thunderbolt is equivalent to PCI-e, please, stop spreading lies. It might be the same signal but it's not the same bandwidth. You can get 8 GBps on a 16x 2.0 slot and there is now 4 of those on modern motherboards. We will soon get PCI-e 3.0 which will double that number. So, until we get 3 or 4 thunderbolt ports on a MacBook Pro, I won't be interested. Just one is far from being enough to replace the adaptability of a Mac Pro.
http://matthewdarnell.blogspot.com/2...rom-apple.html
We should call it 'Mac'
Mac Mini < Mac < Mac Pro
-Matt
They need something more powerful than the Mac Mini but screen-less unlike the iMac.
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.