I'd love to see a much smaller Mac Pro, but I haven't seen Pro GPU's get much smaller. The things are huge. So their either has to be a huge change in the way graphics are pushed to monitors, or there's going to be a design limitation based upon the huge GPU's we have these days for Pros. I'd really like to think that Jonny Ive could put together something jaw dropping, while keeping performance the priority for Pro users. I can't complain about my Mac Pro; I love the thing, and even being several years old, it still chews through high definition video with ease. If they can drop the size to something like Steve's Cube, I'll certainly drop the plastic for it.
The mac pros are somewhat spacious. The C20 lenovo makes is the smallest I've seen in a smaller footprint, and it's quite expensive fully upgraded. You do run into constraints as you go smaller, and you end up making choices especially in terms of noise factor. they currently use large fans and not really "pro" gpus but the upper end of available gpu hardware. Steve's cube isn't happening with the current hardware being addressed. To get there, you'd be looking at drastically different hardware, and the problem is the machine has to maintain some kind of target market. I mean the 12 core is aimed at a totally different market than the base quad. Many (not all) of the people buying the base quad might be better served by a headless imac design, especially if it had something similar to imac cpus with standard desktop gpu options and a nice price, but we aren't likely to see that happen.
I replace the chip if possible. Otherwise I'll have to replace the whole thing.
The chips are already soldered onto the circuit board, so you would be replacing at least the motherboard. It's difficult to imagine that would be better than buying a new Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoganHunter
Either way, that's a situation I'll think about when that time comes.
The chips are already soldered onto the circuit board, so you would be replacing at least the motherboard. It's difficult to imagine that would be better than buying a new Mac.
I've been holding onto my MacPro2,1 for longer than I'd like to have simply because I'm waiting for a smaller form factor for a Pro mac. I have my credit card patiently waiting in my wallet for the day one is released. Hopefully, my 30" Cinema Display will be supported. I just can't bring myself to use an underpowered Mac Mini.
I also have a MP2,1 which I love but Mountain Lion is around the corner and it's time to take a look at what else is out there. I've been looking at the iMac 27 top end model. The only problem is the glossy screen. I have been hearing rumors about Matte screens but it is only rumors. I presently have 2 30" Mac screens and love them. I can get them to work with the new Macs but I am tempted with the iMac.
Yeesh. Glossy screens. I love 'em. I don't notice the reflections. But I don't have a window behind me. Lighting is reasonably ambient. *Shrugs. None issue for me and nearly a million iMac owners.
Still. Some have different mileage.
I'm really looking forward to a 2013 retina iMac.
Time for Apple to put the boot into the PC market once and for all.
The chips are already soldered onto the circuit board, so you would be replacing at least the motherboard. It's difficult to imagine that would be better than buying a new Mac.
2015.
I suspect that RAM will be a separate feature for sometime. It might not be the RAM we have today but the reality is the demand for RAM continues to grow. More so the exact need for RAM varies with usage.
I also have a MP2,1 which I love but Mountain Lion is around the corner and it's time to take a look at what else is out there. I've been looking at the iMac 27 top end model. The only problem is the glossy screen. I have been hearing rumors about Matte screens but it is only rumors. I presently have 2 30" Mac screens and love them. I can get them to work with the new Macs but I am tempted with the iMac.
I think we have to be patient. Regards
I extended the life of my MacPro2,1 by making the main drive a 60GB SSD from OWC, which wasn't a big deal considering that all of my data is on an external RAID. That move alone dramatically increased the performance of the 2,1. Being able to run everything but the kernel in 64-bit also prolonged the life of the machine. That said, I'm pretty sure that Mountain Lion will be the last OS upgrade this beast sees. I'm looking at the amount of cores we'll eventually be able to have. Ours both have 8 cores at 3GHz. We now have the ability to have 12 cores. The more cores, the faster working with HD footage and images becomes. While I only have one 30" Cinema Display, I haven't found an Apple offering that exceeds what I have now even with their new products. Their 27" is running 2560 x 1440, when our 30" Cinema Displays are running 2560 x 1600. There's zero motivation to upgrade to a different monitor when the ones we have (that aren't even for sale anymore) beat what they currently offer. As for Thunderbolt, I have no use for it at this time. Everything I have would have to be upgraded and I'm not going to drop that kind of coin for that at this time.
Ultimately, a new Mac Pro will be purchased by me when the number of cores goes up, and the size comes down. I've owned three iMac's in my life, and while I've liked having them, throwing away a screen just because the guts are old seems incredibly irresponsible to me. I prefer a separate monitor from the Mac. We'll have to wait and see what's going on. It seems to me that Apple isn't paying attention to desktop users anymore because we're not where the money is. We might need new and superior hardware, but they are far too interested in iPad's and laptops to bother with serious upgrades to the Mac Pro. I worry quite a bit about that.
" I just don't see a huge tower as being the best way to deliver a professional computing platform anymore."
Everyone proclaiming that high powered towers are unnecessary doesn't understand the professional market place. The professional market place ISN'T a centralized location with hundreds of computing nodes and access to ultragigabit network speeds. The professional marketplace consists of thousands of free lancers and subcontractors that need as much local storage and processing power as possible. Thundrbolt is not a solution.
<p> " I just don't see a huge tower as being the best way to deliver a professional computing platform anymore."<br /> <br /> Everyone proclaiming that high powered towers are unnecessary doesn't understand the professional market place.
Anyone that doesn't understand that a professional machine no longer needs to be built into a tower doesn't understand computers!! More so they haven't keep up with technology and the ever shrinking componentry.
The professional market place ISN'T a centralized location with hundreds of computing nodes and access to ultragigabit network speeds. The professional marketplace consists of thousands of free lancers and subcontractors that need as much local storage and processing power as possible.
Which be default will come in smaller and smaller packages. Even today computers take a massive hit when they have to go off chip for anything, that only gets worst in the future.
Thundrbolt is not a solution.<br /> </p>
Well yes it is. A dedicated TB port for a disk array makes good sense, it is a use for that port that makes sense. Not if you follow my postings I'm constantly trying to moderate peoples imaginations when it comes to TB as expectations have been blown way out of proportion to reality. However a disk array connection is a very good TB use. By the way a Mac Pro replacement doesn't have to give up all internal storage options, it just needs those options that the majority of users need and want.
Ah, I found a nice Steve Jobs quote that we can get a head start on taking out of context before the trolls do:
Quote:
“I think this mouse is actually an insult to the pro users,” I said. There was a short period of silence as Steve sat there, unsmiling. For a second I thought I’d overstepped my bounds. Then, expressionless, he looked me in the eye and said: “**** ’em.”
Holy cow, the forum censors swears. Makes me glad I don't, then.
Anyone that doesn't understand that a professional machine no longer needs to be built into a tower doesn't understand computers!! More so they haven't keep up with technology and the ever shrinking componentry.
Which be default will come in smaller and smaller packages. Even today computers take a massive hit when they have to go off chip for anything, that only gets worst in the future.
Well yes it is. A dedicated TB port for a disk array makes good sense, it is a use for that port that makes sense. Not if you follow my postings I'm constantly trying to moderate peoples imaginations when it comes to TB as expectations have been blown way out of proportion to reality. However a disk array connection is a very good TB use. By the way a Mac Pro replacement doesn't have to give up all internal storage options, it just needs those options that the majority of users need and want.
TB is somehow touted as the answer to everything, and expectations on here actually exceed intel's promises, which is obviously illogical. Dell has trickled out their new designs. They're not shipping, but some of the changes are interesting. There's a definite focus on density and they're obviously designed to be serviceable in rackmount configurations. I don't expect Apple to go the same way. Price has been mentioned on here, yet they went with a somewhat exotic design on the last revision in 2009. I'm not sure this is actually favorable to the end cost. I mean the cpu trays and things. Crunching something down can end up being quite expensive. Regarding thunderbolt and storage options, we don't have a lot of good choices there at the moment. If it becomes favored Windows side, perhaps some basic NAS setups will start to trickle out. I'm wondering how long before a gpu is integrated standard in place of a couple extra cpu cores. I half expect this with Haswell. I don't think they're going to jump to 6 core cpus as the norm right away. I think you'd be more likely to see graphics integrated on the chip first unless I'm missing some engineering problem with such a design. That seems to be consistent with your predictions. I just wonder if they'll be able to fit that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ah, I found a nice Steve Jobs quote that we can get a head start on taking out of context before the trolls do:
Holy cow, the forum censors swears. Makes me glad I don't, then.
Oh, it's from that new book. I sort of want to read it.
The official biography didn't look that interesting, especially when the articles referenced half of it. I might read this one. I didn't care for the single button mouse. It didn't give me enough control. I typically use either a large graphics tablet or a multi button mouse. I have difficulty without at least right and middle click functions. I hotkey stuff too. Getting off track here... I remember supposedly when Steve returned to Apple, he focused on a separation of professional and consumer products. Professional sales and the ipods seem to be what really funded much of the early iphone/ipad development. That quote still seems a bit out of context, and now I just went back to your comment and it seems you already mentioned that.
Back on the thread topic, I wonder what their design priorities would be if they were designing a higher end machine today. I don't think either the mac pro or imac would really be what they are if built from the ground up today. The people who suggest a suped up imac do not understand socket types or features. There are things that could be addressed. I don't typically agree with Apple's design priorities.
Anyone that doesn't understand that a professional machine no longer needs to be built into a tower doesn't understand computers!! More so they haven't keep up with technology and the ever shrinking componentry.
Which be default will come in smaller and smaller packages. Even today computers take a massive hit when they have to go off chip for anything, that only gets worst in the future.
Well yes it is. A dedicated TB port for a disk array makes good sense, it is a use for that port that makes sense. Not if you follow my postings I'm constantly trying to moderate peoples imaginations when it comes to TB as expectations have been blown way out of proportion to reality. However a disk array connection is a very good TB use. By the way a Mac Pro replacement doesn't have to give up all internal storage options, it just needs those options that the majority of users need and want.
My profession requires a tower with as many cores as possible, cranking out renders for movies and broadcast. Until Maxon, Autodesk, and Adobe make it possible to use less power to do professional work without connecting to the internet, this will always be the case. The studios that put out the movies I work on require that the machines/servers that their movies are on can not be connected to the internet. They even go as far as require that all the USB, Firewire, etc, ports be disabled.
So, I'm hoping Apple steps up and continues to compete in this sector, but a two year old 12 core box is a disgrace when it renders at just over half the speed of the current crop of professional PCs that are available now.
As soon as the current job I'm on is done in 2-3 weeks, it's the prefect time to either upgrade to a new Mac Pro if available, or a new PC. All my software runs the same on both platforms, there's just learning the OS that might slow me down for a bit if I switch.
Why are you not running on a cluster then? Obviously the answer there could be software but the fact is no single box is a solution to your problem. Your Mac should be nothing more that a cluster controller terminal.
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>wizard69</strong> <a href="/t/148181/mac-pro-dead-or-alive/40#post_2100295"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <br /> Anyone that doesn't understand that a professional machine no longer needs to be built into a tower doesn't understand computers!! More so they haven't keep up with technology and the ever shrinking componentry.<br /> Which be default will come in smaller and smaller packages. Even today computers take a massive hit when they have to go off chip for anything, that only gets worst in the future.<br /> Well yes it is. A dedicated TB port for a disk array makes good sense, it is a use for that port that makes sense. Not if you follow my postings I'm constantly trying to moderate peoples imaginations when it comes to TB as expectations have been blown way out of proportion to reality. However a disk array connection is a very good TB use. By the way a Mac Pro replacement doesn't have to give up all internal storage options, it just needs those options that the majority of users need and want.</div></div><p> </p><p> My profession requires a tower with as many cores as possible, cranking out renders for movies and broadcast. Until Maxon, Autodesk, and Adobe make it possible to use less power to do professional work without connecting to the internet, this will always be the case.
Your profession doesn't require the approach you are using, it is just that the software and operating system are easy to manage.
The studios that put out the movies I work on require that the machines/servers that their movies are on can not be connected to the internet. They even go as far as require that all the USB, Firewire, etc, ports be disabled. </p>
That isn't surprising at all. However what does it have to do with this discussion?
<p> </p><p> So, I'm hoping Apple steps up and continues to compete in this sector, but a two year old 12 core box is a disgrace when it renders at just over half the speed of the current crop of professional PCs that are available now.</p>
Which machines are you talking about here. If they are machines that came out in the last couple of weeks you have no arguement.
<p> </p><p> As soon as the current job I'm on is done in 2-3 weeks, it's the prefect time to either upgrade to a new Mac Pro if available, or a new PC. All my software runs the same on both platforms, there's just learning the OS that might slow me down for a bit if I switch.</p><p> </p>
Good for you, switch and take your crying in your cerial with you. To put it bluntly I don't care one bit if Apple never makes another professional machine, at least one that fulfills your imaginations requirements, because frankly it would mean we no longer have to listen to this juvenile complaining. Do you really think Apple, or any company for that matter, would take your threats seriously; that is your proclamation that if nothing arrives in 2-3 weeks you are jumping platforms? It makes about as much sense as screaming at GE for a new washer and dryer within 2 weeks or you are going to jump ship to Maytag. More so it looks like some of the Airlines that couldn't wait for Boeings new plane and jumped ship to their later regrets. In a nut shell your posting just makes you look pathetic.
My profession requires a tower with as many cores as possible, cranking out renders for movies and broadcast. Until Maxon, Autodesk, and Adobe make it possible to use less power to do professional work without connecting to the internet, this will always be the case. The studios that put out the movies I work on require that the machines/servers that their movies are on can not be connected to the internet. They even go as far as require that all the USB, Firewire, etc, ports be disabled.
So, I'm hoping Apple steps up and continues to compete in this sector, but a two year old 12 core box is a disgrace when it renders at just over half the speed of the current crop of professional PCs that are available now.
As soon as the current job I'm on is done in 2-3 weeks, it's the prefect time to either upgrade to a new Mac Pro if available, or a new PC. All my software runs the same on both platforms, there's just learning the OS that might slow me down for a bit if I switch.
Windows always seemed more popular in that area, but I guess that doesn't really matter. A few months ago you could have made the same argument, and new cpus simply would not have been available. I don't know if they're going to wait on other parts such as updated thunderbolt controllers. I'm sure they'd like to implement thunderbolt for consistency, so it's possible. Dell and HP have announced their new machines at this point. They did so just a few days ago, and they're not yet shipping. If you're doing heavy lighting and rendering or post work, wouldn't you want to wait for a stable release? Typically companies like Autodesk and Maxon test the hardware once it becomes available. Sometimes gpus will have weird bugs in one program or another that cause things to display incorrectly. Is your current machine choking on the workload? I mean is it an incremental upgrade to stay up to date or one that is motivated by a currently underpowered rig? Assuming an incremental upgrade, I'd personally wait until new machines are tested under the newest releases anyway and continue using the older stable computer/software combination before that time. My point was that I'd prioritize stability, so I'd give it a couple months either way. I haven't seen anything suggesting that Sandy Bridge E will double things over the current 12 core.
The problem I have with messages like the one Fix posted is this very issue, Sandy Bridge E machines are not shipping in volume yet. So the question is what is the point in posting such crap? I mean it would be one thing if HP or Dell was actually shipping product in volume, for months now, but that isn't the case.
This is also why I tell people not to worry about the Mac Pro or it's replacement until after Apple announces something. The overall likelihood is that the Mac Pro will be replaced. That really shouldn't surprise anybody these days, but even if it isn't replaced we will still see a major upgrade to the Mac Pro.
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>Mike Fix</strong> <a href="/t/148181/mac-pro-dead-or-alive/40#post_2101227"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> My profession requires a tower with as many cores as possible, cranking out renders for movies and broadcast. Until Maxon, Autodesk, and Adobe make it possible to use less power to do professional work without connecting to the internet, this will always be the case. The studios that put out the movies I work on require that the machines/servers that their movies are on can not be connected to the internet. They even go as far as require that all the USB, Firewire, etc, ports be disabled. </p> <p> </p> <p> So, I'm hoping Apple steps up and continues to compete in this sector, but a two year old 12 core box is a disgrace when it renders at just over half the speed of the current crop of professional PCs that are available now.</p> <p> </p> <p> As soon as the current job I'm on is done in 2-3 weeks, it's the prefect time to either upgrade to a new Mac Pro if available, or a new PC. All my software runs the same on both platforms, there's just learning the OS that might slow me down for a bit if I switch.</p> <p> </p> </div></div><p> </p><p> Windows always seemed more popular in that area, but I guess that doesn't really matter. A few months ago you could have made the same argument, and new cpus simply would not have been available. I don't know if they're going to wait on other parts such as updated thunderbolt controllers. I'm sure they'd like to implement thunderbolt for consistency, so it's possible. Dell and HP have announced their new machines at this point. They did so just a few days ago, and they're not yet shipping. If you're doing heavy lighting and rendering or post work, wouldn't you want to wait for a stable release? Typically companies like Autodesk and Maxon test the hardware once it becomes available. Sometimes gpus will have weird bugs in one program or another that cause things to display incorrectly. Is your current machine choking on the workload? I mean is it an incremental upgrade to stay up to date or one that is motivated by a currently underpowered rig? Assuming an incremental upgrade, I'd personally wait until new machines are tested under the newest releases anyway and continue using the older stable computer/software combination before that time. My point was that I'd prioritize stability, so I'd give it a couple months either way. I haven't seen anything suggesting that Sandy Bridge E will double things over the current 12 core. </p>
Comments
I'd love to see a much smaller Mac Pro, but I haven't seen Pro GPU's get much smaller. The things are huge. So their either has to be a huge change in the way graphics are pushed to monitors, or there's going to be a design limitation based upon the huge GPU's we have these days for Pros. I'd really like to think that Jonny Ive could put together something jaw dropping, while keeping performance the priority for Pro users. I can't complain about my Mac Pro; I love the thing, and even being several years old, it still chews through high definition video with ease. If they can drop the size to something like Steve's Cube, I'll certainly drop the plastic for it.
The mac pros are somewhat spacious. The C20 lenovo makes is the smallest I've seen in a smaller footprint, and it's quite expensive fully upgraded. You do run into constraints as you go smaller, and you end up making choices especially in terms of noise factor. they currently use large fans and not really "pro" gpus but the upper end of available gpu hardware. Steve's cube isn't happening with the current hardware being addressed. To get there, you'd be looking at drastically different hardware, and the problem is the machine has to maintain some kind of target market. I mean the 12 core is aimed at a totally different market than the base quad. Many (not all) of the people buying the base quad might be better served by a headless imac design, especially if it had something similar to imac cpus with standard desktop gpu options and a nice price, but we aren't likely to see that happen.
As long as they let me replace the graphics card and add RAM, I'm ok with that.
What do you plan to do when the CPU, GPU, and RAM are all on the same chip?
What do you plan to do when the CPU, GPU, and RAM are all on the same chip?
I replace the chip if possible. Otherwise I'll have to replace the whole thing. Either way, that's a situation I'll think about when that time comes.
I replace the chip if possible. Otherwise I'll have to replace the whole thing.
The chips are already soldered onto the circuit board, so you would be replacing at least the motherboard. It's difficult to imagine that would be better than buying a new Mac.
Either way, that's a situation I'll think about when that time comes.
2015.
The chips are already soldered onto the circuit board, so you would be replacing at least the motherboard. It's difficult to imagine that would be better than buying a new Mac.
2015.
So be it!
I've been holding onto my MacPro2,1 for longer than I'd like to have simply because I'm waiting for a smaller form factor for a Pro mac. I have my credit card patiently waiting in my wallet for the day one is released. Hopefully, my 30" Cinema Display will be supported. I just can't bring myself to use an underpowered Mac Mini.
I also have a MP2,1 which I love but Mountain Lion is around the corner and it's time to take a look at what else is out there. I've been looking at the iMac 27 top end model. The only problem is the glossy screen. I have been hearing rumors about Matte screens but it is only rumors. I presently have 2 30" Mac screens and love them. I can get them to work with the new Macs but I am tempted with the iMac.
I think we have to be patient. Regards
Still. Some have different mileage.
I'm really looking forward to a 2013 retina iMac.
Time for Apple to put the boot into the PC market once and for all.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The chips are already soldered onto the circuit board, so you would be replacing at least the motherboard. It's difficult to imagine that would be better than buying a new Mac.
2015.
I suspect that RAM will be a separate feature for sometime. It might not be the RAM we have today but the reality is the demand for RAM continues to grow. More so the exact need for RAM varies with usage.
I also have a MP2,1 which I love but Mountain Lion is around the corner and it's time to take a look at what else is out there. I've been looking at the iMac 27 top end model. The only problem is the glossy screen. I have been hearing rumors about Matte screens but it is only rumors. I presently have 2 30" Mac screens and love them. I can get them to work with the new Macs but I am tempted with the iMac.
I think we have to be patient. Regards
I extended the life of my MacPro2,1 by making the main drive a 60GB SSD from OWC, which wasn't a big deal considering that all of my data is on an external RAID. That move alone dramatically increased the performance of the 2,1. Being able to run everything but the kernel in 64-bit also prolonged the life of the machine. That said, I'm pretty sure that Mountain Lion will be the last OS upgrade this beast sees. I'm looking at the amount of cores we'll eventually be able to have. Ours both have 8 cores at 3GHz. We now have the ability to have 12 cores. The more cores, the faster working with HD footage and images becomes. While I only have one 30" Cinema Display, I haven't found an Apple offering that exceeds what I have now even with their new products. Their 27" is running 2560 x 1440, when our 30" Cinema Displays are running 2560 x 1600. There's zero motivation to upgrade to a different monitor when the ones we have (that aren't even for sale anymore) beat what they currently offer. As for Thunderbolt, I have no use for it at this time. Everything I have would have to be upgraded and I'm not going to drop that kind of coin for that at this time.
Ultimately, a new Mac Pro will be purchased by me when the number of cores goes up, and the size comes down. I've owned three iMac's in my life, and while I've liked having them, throwing away a screen just because the guts are old seems incredibly irresponsible to me. I prefer a separate monitor from the Mac. We'll have to wait and see what's going on. It seems to me that Apple isn't paying attention to desktop users anymore because we're not where the money is. We might need new and superior hardware, but they are far too interested in iPad's and laptops to bother with serious upgrades to the Mac Pro. I worry quite a bit about that.
" I just don't see a huge tower as being the best way to deliver a professional computing platform anymore."
Everyone proclaiming that high powered towers are unnecessary doesn't understand the professional market place. The professional market place ISN'T a centralized location with hundreds of computing nodes and access to ultragigabit network speeds. The professional marketplace consists of thousands of free lancers and subcontractors that need as much local storage and processing power as possible. Thundrbolt is not a solution.
Well yes it is. A dedicated TB port for a disk array makes good sense, it is a use for that port that makes sense. Not if you follow my postings I'm constantly trying to moderate peoples imaginations when it comes to TB as expectations have been blown way out of proportion to reality. However a disk array connection is a very good TB use. By the way a Mac Pro replacement doesn't have to give up all internal storage options, it just needs those options that the majority of users need and want.
Ah, I found a nice Steve Jobs quote that we can get a head start on taking out of context before the trolls do:
Quote:
“I think this mouse is actually an insult to the pro users,” I said. There was a short period of silence as Steve sat there, unsmiling. For a second I thought I’d overstepped my bounds. Then, expressionless, he looked me in the eye and said: “**** ’em.”
Holy cow, the forum censors swears. Makes me glad I don't, then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Anyone that doesn't understand that a professional machine no longer needs to be built into a tower doesn't understand computers!! More so they haven't keep up with technology and the ever shrinking componentry.
Which be default will come in smaller and smaller packages. Even today computers take a massive hit when they have to go off chip for anything, that only gets worst in the future.
Well yes it is. A dedicated TB port for a disk array makes good sense, it is a use for that port that makes sense. Not if you follow my postings I'm constantly trying to moderate peoples imaginations when it comes to TB as expectations have been blown way out of proportion to reality. However a disk array connection is a very good TB use. By the way a Mac Pro replacement doesn't have to give up all internal storage options, it just needs those options that the majority of users need and want.
TB is somehow touted as the answer to everything, and expectations on here actually exceed intel's promises, which is obviously illogical. Dell has trickled out their new designs. They're not shipping, but some of the changes are interesting. There's a definite focus on density and they're obviously designed to be serviceable in rackmount configurations. I don't expect Apple to go the same way. Price has been mentioned on here, yet they went with a somewhat exotic design on the last revision in 2009. I'm not sure this is actually favorable to the end cost. I mean the cpu trays and things. Crunching something down can end up being quite expensive. Regarding thunderbolt and storage options, we don't have a lot of good choices there at the moment. If it becomes favored Windows side, perhaps some basic NAS setups will start to trickle out. I'm wondering how long before a gpu is integrated standard in place of a couple extra cpu cores. I half expect this with Haswell. I don't think they're going to jump to 6 core cpus as the norm right away. I think you'd be more likely to see graphics integrated on the chip first unless I'm missing some engineering problem with such a design. That seems to be consistent with your predictions. I just wonder if they'll be able to fit that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ah, I found a nice Steve Jobs quote that we can get a head start on taking out of context before the trolls do:
Holy cow, the forum censors swears. Makes me glad I don't, then.
Where did you find that quote?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Where did you find that quote?
Oh, it's from that new book. I sort of want to read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh, it's from that new book. I sort of want to read it.
The official biography didn't look that interesting, especially when the articles referenced half of it. I might read this one. I didn't care for the single button mouse. It didn't give me enough control. I typically use either a large graphics tablet or a multi button mouse. I have difficulty without at least right and middle click functions. I hotkey stuff too. Getting off track here... I remember supposedly when Steve returned to Apple, he focused on a separation of professional and consumer products. Professional sales and the ipods seem to be what really funded much of the early iphone/ipad development. That quote still seems a bit out of context, and now I just went back to your comment and it seems you already mentioned that.
Back on the thread topic, I wonder what their design priorities would be if they were designing a higher end machine today. I don't think either the mac pro or imac would really be what they are if built from the ground up today. The people who suggest a suped up imac do not understand socket types or features. There are things that could be addressed. I don't typically agree with Apple's design priorities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Anyone that doesn't understand that a professional machine no longer needs to be built into a tower doesn't understand computers!! More so they haven't keep up with technology and the ever shrinking componentry.
Which be default will come in smaller and smaller packages. Even today computers take a massive hit when they have to go off chip for anything, that only gets worst in the future.
Well yes it is. A dedicated TB port for a disk array makes good sense, it is a use for that port that makes sense. Not if you follow my postings I'm constantly trying to moderate peoples imaginations when it comes to TB as expectations have been blown way out of proportion to reality. However a disk array connection is a very good TB use. By the way a Mac Pro replacement doesn't have to give up all internal storage options, it just needs those options that the majority of users need and want.
My profession requires a tower with as many cores as possible, cranking out renders for movies and broadcast. Until Maxon, Autodesk, and Adobe make it possible to use less power to do professional work without connecting to the internet, this will always be the case. The studios that put out the movies I work on require that the machines/servers that their movies are on can not be connected to the internet. They even go as far as require that all the USB, Firewire, etc, ports be disabled.
So, I'm hoping Apple steps up and continues to compete in this sector, but a two year old 12 core box is a disgrace when it renders at just over half the speed of the current crop of professional PCs that are available now.
As soon as the current job I'm on is done in 2-3 weeks, it's the prefect time to either upgrade to a new Mac Pro if available, or a new PC. All my software runs the same on both platforms, there's just learning the OS that might slow me down for a bit if I switch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Did it kill Dell/HP/etc. Xeon sales?
The sad thing is that people think that's needed?
Good Point... Agreed!
Your profession doesn't require the approach you are using, it is just that the software and operating system are easy to manage. That isn't surprising at all. However what does it have to do with this discussion? Which machines are you talking about here. If they are machines that came out in the last couple of weeks you have no arguement.
Good for you, switch and take your crying in your cerial with you. To put it bluntly I don't care one bit if Apple never makes another professional machine, at least one that fulfills your imaginations requirements, because frankly it would mean we no longer have to listen to this juvenile complaining. Do you really think Apple, or any company for that matter, would take your threats seriously; that is your proclamation that if nothing arrives in 2-3 weeks you are jumping platforms? It makes about as much sense as screaming at GE for a new washer and dryer within 2 weeks or you are going to jump ship to Maytag. More so it looks like some of the Airlines that couldn't wait for Boeings new plane and jumped ship to their later regrets. In a nut shell your posting just makes you look pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix
My profession requires a tower with as many cores as possible, cranking out renders for movies and broadcast. Until Maxon, Autodesk, and Adobe make it possible to use less power to do professional work without connecting to the internet, this will always be the case. The studios that put out the movies I work on require that the machines/servers that their movies are on can not be connected to the internet. They even go as far as require that all the USB, Firewire, etc, ports be disabled.
So, I'm hoping Apple steps up and continues to compete in this sector, but a two year old 12 core box is a disgrace when it renders at just over half the speed of the current crop of professional PCs that are available now.
As soon as the current job I'm on is done in 2-3 weeks, it's the prefect time to either upgrade to a new Mac Pro if available, or a new PC. All my software runs the same on both platforms, there's just learning the OS that might slow me down for a bit if I switch.
Windows always seemed more popular in that area, but I guess that doesn't really matter. A few months ago you could have made the same argument, and new cpus simply would not have been available. I don't know if they're going to wait on other parts such as updated thunderbolt controllers. I'm sure they'd like to implement thunderbolt for consistency, so it's possible. Dell and HP have announced their new machines at this point. They did so just a few days ago, and they're not yet shipping. If you're doing heavy lighting and rendering or post work, wouldn't you want to wait for a stable release? Typically companies like Autodesk and Maxon test the hardware once it becomes available. Sometimes gpus will have weird bugs in one program or another that cause things to display incorrectly. Is your current machine choking on the workload? I mean is it an incremental upgrade to stay up to date or one that is motivated by a currently underpowered rig? Assuming an incremental upgrade, I'd personally wait until new machines are tested under the newest releases anyway and continue using the older stable computer/software combination before that time. My point was that I'd prioritize stability, so I'd give it a couple months either way. I haven't seen anything suggesting that Sandy Bridge E will double things over the current 12 core.
This is also why I tell people not to worry about the Mac Pro or it's replacement until after Apple announces something. The overall likelihood is that the Mac Pro will be replaced. That really shouldn't surprise anybody these days, but even if it isn't replaced we will still see a major upgrade to the Mac Pro.