Almost the whole lineup of Apple hardware moved to high-PPI except the professional workhorse computers that you'd have thought would've gotten that technology first. Why do you think pros have moved to iMacs? 5K iMac for photography? "Yes please", they said. "Since you're not making a Mac Pro capable of retina, I might as well buy the 5K iMac," they likely said.
Is there some reason you can't achieve high-PPI with a Mac Pro and any third-party 4K monitor? Isn't that capability built in?
For me, the fact that it's NOT tied to a specific display is an essential part of its appeal. Our control room has a pair of huge displays positioned eight feet away from the operator that are switched between various sources depending on the task being performed. The "headless" design of the Mac Pro slides right in to that setup.
It's also why I use a Mac mini in my living room instead of an iMac. Not only is the display on the iMac not an asset since I wouldn't use it, it's actually a liability in that it restricts placement because of its sheer physical bulk.
After a couple years or so of using the current Mac Pro, the only thing I've found to complain about is how hard it is to find the power button between all the cables. Considering how much I like to complain, that's pretty high praise!
Almost the whole lineup of Apple hardware moved to high-PPI except the professional workhorse computers that you'd have thought would've gotten that technology first. Why do you think pros have moved to iMacs? 5K iMac for photography? "Yes please", they said. "Since you're not making a Mac Pro capable of retina, I might as well buy the 5K iMac," they likely said.
Is there some reason you can't achieve high-PPI with a Mac Pro and any third-party 4K monitor? Isn't that capability built in?
I gather these are rhetorical questions, but in case dysamoria doesn't get it, the current Mac Pro supports a 5K monitor -- Dell's UP2715K was perfect for it, now discontinued (still waiting for its TB3/USB-C replacement) -- or dual 4K monitors.
Did Apple actually say for a fact they'd be coming out with the new Mac Pro next year? I think there's some reading between the lines and assumptions because I don't see where they did. No doubt they will update the design but I don't think it's promised for 2018.
Did Apple actually say for a fact they'd be coming out with the new Mac Pro next year? I think there's some reading between the lines and assumptions because I don't see where they did. No doubt they will update the design but I don't think it's promised for 2018.
You're right. All they said was it won't be this year. It may not appear until 2020 for all we know.
Dell's delay in coming out with a successor to the discontinued UP2715K (the best 5K choice for the 2013 Mac Pro) is interesting. It's been several months now. I thought that they would move fast to compete with the LG 5K monitor to be the best choice for 2016 MacBook Pro (and high-end PC laptops in general), but instead they are taking their time with it. Maybe it is a supply-chain thing, but if not, then what are they doing? Do they know something?
DED is talking about the possibility that part of what "modular" means is moving the Mac Pro GPU to the monitor. That has a dual purpose. [1] It takes the heat (literally) off of the rest of the Mac Pro and allows the CPU/Memory/Storage module to be an all-Intel affair, thereby easing that upgrade path. [Note: the same could be accomplished by moving the GPU to a separate module, instead of to the monitor.] [2] It also allows for the MacBook Pros to take advantage of the GPU when you plug them into it. [I assume this is possible. I don't actually know. I do know it was rumored a while back.]
EDIT: With regard to Dell, there is of course the new 8K 32" UP3218K which lists at $5K! Ships in May. But it is not TB3/USB-C -- it has two DisplayPorts (v 1.4). I bring it up because I was assuming 5K for the "modular" display redesign, when maybe two models, a 5K and a crazy-expensive 8K, seem plausible.
If this refresh/update comes out in 2018, then it's what, only three years late?
Never good enough for some people. How miserable.
It was released on December 19, 2013. The next update of ANY kind was April 4, 2017. In the computer world, that's a long time. Waiting until *maybe* 2018 or later for a significant upgrade to what is supposed to be the professional workstation model with huge amounts of processing power is simply asking for some dissatisfied customers.
I'm sorry but there's simply nothing that Apple could do that would have sirisfied some of the people who post on the blogs and rumor sites. Nothing. Also, the fact that Apple didn't just drop the Mac Pro when they said in the DF piece that it accounts for a single digit percentage of PRO users, (not overall users, not Mac users, but people who use a pro level app daily or at least once a week) is a very very good sign that all the whining about the doom of Apple and Tim Cook, yadda yadda, was a lot of wasted breath, typing, and energy.
These people simply refused to see that there weren't any real upgrades to be had until recently. And to be frank, most of them wouldn't even have bought a new one. They would have found something else to complain about, because that's all they do.
In the transcript of the interview, Craig F is asked that exact question, if they were faced with issuing nearly meaningless/minor updates, or not bothering at all, and he confirmed that is exactly correct.
If this refresh/update comes out in 2018, then it's what, only three years late?
Never good enough for some people. How miserable.
It was released on December 19, 2013. The next update of ANY kind was April 4, 2017. In the computer world, that's a long time. Waiting until *maybe* 2018 or later for a significant upgrade to what is supposed to be the professional workstation model with huge amounts of processing power is simply asking for some dissatisfied customers.
I'm sorry but there's simply nothing that Apple could do that would have sirisfied some of the people who post on the blogs and rumor sites. Nothing. Also, the fact that Apple didn't just drop the Mac Pro when they said in the DF piece that it accounts for a single digit percentage of PRO users, (not overall users, not Mac users, but people who use a pro level app daily or at least once a week) is a very very good sign that all the whining about the doom of Apple and Tim Cook, yadda yadda, was a lot of wasted breath, typing, and energy.
These people simply refused to see that there weren't any real upgrades to be had until recently. And to be frank, most of them wouldn't even have bought a new one. They would have found something else to complain about, because that's all they do.
In the transcript of the interview, Craig F is asked that exact question, if they were faced with issuing nearly meaningless/minor updates, or not bothering at all, and he confirmed that is exactly correct.
Fair enough, but there are two things Apple COULD do to appease institutional/business buyers:
1. Issue a statement. Tell us that there won't be a new model this year because the available tech doesn't justify the cost of rejigging. Then we're not caught in the uncertainty of wondering if we're about to buy something that will be less desirable and/or competitive in short order. I'm more likely to buy the current model if I know it won't be superseded in the next few months.
2. Adjust pricing over time. I understand that the price of a Mac Pro includes more than the cost of the components, and that Apple undoubtedly amortizes the cost of development over the expected shelf life of any particular model. Still, the cost of components does drop, so one assumes there must be room to push prices down.
Why would Apple do that? Because the value proposition presented to the buyer by any particular generation of tech diminishes with time. When it's new, you know you have a year or two before it's likely to be replaced with something better. When it's already a year or two old, the window of opportunity to leverage advantages gets a lot smaller. Thus the amount I'm willing to pay for a given level of capability gets lower over time. When the selling price is the same after two years as it was the day it came out, I'm less likely to buy so revenue to Apple is zero. If the price goes down to reflect its age, I may decide that the cost/benefit ratio is a net win and buy in.
Both of those things happened this week. I'm pleased and impressed. Perhaps in the future we won't have to wait so long for similar outcomes.
If this refresh/update comes out in 2018, then it's what, only three years late?
Never good enough for some people. How miserable.
It was released on December 19, 2013. The next update of ANY kind was April 4, 2017. In the computer world, that's a long time. Waiting until *maybe* 2018 or later for a significant upgrade to what is supposed to be the professional workstation model with huge amounts of processing power is simply asking for some dissatisfied customers.
I'm sorry but there's simply nothing that Apple could do that would have sirisfied some of the people who post on the blogs and rumor sites. Nothing. Also, the fact that Apple didn't just drop the Mac Pro when they said in the DF piece that it accounts for a single digit percentage of PRO users, (not overall users, not Mac users, but people who use a pro level app daily or at least once a week) is a very very good sign that all the whining about the doom of Apple and Tim Cook, yadda yadda, was a lot of wasted breath, typing, and energy.
These people simply refused to see that there weren't any real upgrades to be had until recently. And to be frank, most of them wouldn't even have bought a new one. They would have found something else to complain about, because that's all they do.
In the transcript of the interview, Craig F is asked that exact question, if they were faced with issuing nearly meaningless/minor updates, or not bothering at all, and he confirmed that is exactly correct.
Fair enough, but there are two things Apple COULD do to appease institutional/business buyers:
1. Issue a statement. Tell us that there won't be a new model this year because the available tech doesn't justify the cost of rejigging. Then we're not caught in the uncertainty of wondering if we're about to buy something that will be less desirable and/or competitive in short order. I'm more likely to buy the current model if I know it won't be superseded in the next few months.
2. Adjust pricing over time. I understand that the price of a Mac Pro includes more than the cost of the components, and that Apple undoubtedly amortizes the cost of development over the expected shelf life of any particular model. Still, the cost of components does drop, so one assumes there must be room to push prices down.
Why would Apple do that? Because the value proposition presented to the buyer by any particular generation of tech diminishes with time. When it's new, you know you have a year or two before it's likely to be replaced with something better. When it's already a year or two old, the window of opportunity to leverage advantages gets a lot smaller. Thus the amount I'm willing to pay for a given level of capability gets lower over time. When the selling price is the same after two years as it was the day it came out, I'm less likely to buy so revenue to Apple is zero. If the price goes down to reflect its age, I may decide that the cost/benefit ratio is a net win and buy in.
Both of those things happened this week. I'm pleased and impressed. Perhaps in the future we won't have to wait so long for similar outcomes.
You hit the nail on the head Lorin.
They got the design wrong. They got the communication wrong. They got the pricing adjustments wrong.
Complete and utter silence for years is not the way to do things and although they haven't exactly said so, it's pretty clear that a solution to this mess was only recently put into motion.
Now. Let's hope that this marks a new attitude with regards to how to do things.
If this refresh/update comes out in 2018, then it's what, only three years late?
Never good enough for some people. How miserable.
It was released on December 19, 2013. The next update of ANY kind was April 4, 2017. In the computer world, that's a long time. Waiting until *maybe* 2018 or later for a significant upgrade to what is supposed to be the professional workstation model with huge amounts of processing power is simply asking for some dissatisfied customers.
I'm sorry but there's simply nothing that Apple could do that would have sirisfied some of the people who post on the blogs and rumor sites. Nothing. Also, the fact that Apple didn't just drop the Mac Pro when they said in the DF piece that it accounts for a single digit percentage of PRO users, (not overall users, not Mac users, but people who use a pro level app daily or at least once a week) is a very very good sign that all the whining about the doom of Apple and Tim Cook, yadda yadda, was a lot of wasted breath, typing, and energy.
These people simply refused to see that there weren't any real upgrades to be had until recently. And to be frank, most of them wouldn't even have bought a new one. They would have found something else to complain about, because that's all they do.
In the transcript of the interview, Craig F is asked that exact question, if they were faced with issuing nearly meaningless/minor updates, or not bothering at all, and he confirmed that is exactly correct.
Fair enough, but there are two things Apple COULD do to appease institutional/business buyers:
1. Issue a statement. Tell us that there won't be a new model this year because the available tech doesn't justify the cost of rejigging. Then we're not caught in the uncertainty of wondering if we're about to buy something that will be less desirable and/or competitive in short order. I'm more likely to buy the current model if I know it won't be superseded in the next few months.
2. Adjust pricing over time. I understand that the price of a Mac Pro includes more than the cost of the components, and that Apple undoubtedly amortizes the cost of development over the expected shelf life of any particular model. Still, the cost of components does drop, so one assumes there must be room to push prices down.
Why would Apple do that? Because the value proposition presented to the buyer by any particular generation of tech diminishes with time. When it's new, you know you have a year or two before it's likely to be replaced with something better. When it's already a year or two old, the window of opportunity to leverage advantages gets a lot smaller. Thus the amount I'm willing to pay for a given level of capability gets lower over time. When the selling price is the same after two years as it was the day it came out, I'm less likely to buy so revenue to Apple is zero. If the price goes down to reflect its age, I may decide that the cost/benefit ratio is a net win and buy in.
Both of those things happened this week. I'm pleased and impressed. Perhaps in the future we won't have to wait so long for similar outcomes.
You hit the nail on the head Lorin.
They got the design wrong. They got the communication wrong. They got the pricing adjustments wrong.
Complete and utter silence for years is not the way to do things and although they haven't exactly said so, it's pretty clear that a solution to this mess was only recently put into motion.
Now. Let's hope that this marks a new attitude with regards to how to do things.
I don't think Apple got the design "wrong." I really like the one we have. I just couldn't understand why it remained untouched for three freakin' years. Now we know -- the current components already max the thermal capacity of the existing design. So I guess in a way you're right that the design had a flaw -- it can't accommodate new components -- but with the components it DOES support it works really well.
Great. And you know why? This is going to shock some around here:
'Constant Negativity' From Pro Users Led Apple to Develop Modular Mac Pro, Which May Not Ship Until 2019
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/06/mac-pro-may-not-ship-until-2019
So, you see, criticising Apple when doing things wrong is not that bad. A win for all. Now, learn the lesson.
The design question on "modules" is how they will fit together. People upthread who seem to think "modular" means a return to the box concept are probably mistaken. More likely it is a "rethinking" of the current approach -- they are not abandoning the vision of a core component at the center of a Thunderbolt system. They are just going to "architect" it in a way that allows it to be regularly upgraded BY APPLE: Schiller says, "we want to architect it so that WE can keep it fresh with regular improvements" ... "to do something that can be supported for a long time with customers with updates and upgrades throughout the years." ... "The current Mac Pro, as we’ve said a few times, was constrained thermally and it restricted OUR ability to upgrade it."
Agree. in fact I'd even bet on same Industrial design. Look at the progression of the internals of the previous gen. The first gen "cheese grater" G5s were actually pretty gnarly to do upgrades on compared to my 2009. I know your point was that it's not about user upgradability, I'm just making the point that Apple has a habit of using the same ID but massively re-engineering the internals of a product. I have a feeling the exterior design will remain much the same, and even if it changes, certainly won't go back to the massive towers of yore.
EDIT: after reading Gruber's piece again, it looks like it probably will have new ID. Doubt it will be a big clunky box though.
2018 - seriously? Read other articles that it's early 2019. So it's takes over 5 years to design a new Mac Pro? It was pre-announced to keep users from abandoning the Apple environment. Way too late for me - bye Apple.
The design question on "modules" is how they will fit together. People upthread who seem to think "modular" means a return to the box concept are probably mistaken. More likely it is a "rethinking" of the current approach -- they are not abandoning the vision of a core component at the center of a Thunderbolt system. They are just going to "architect" it in a way that allows it to be regularly upgraded BY APPLE: Schiller says, "we want to architect it so that WE can keep it fresh with regular improvements" ... "to do something that can be supported for a long time with customers with updates and upgrades throughout the years." ... "The current Mac Pro, as we’ve said a few times, was constrained thermally and it restricted OUR ability to upgrade it."
Agree. in fact I'd even bet on same Industrial design. [...] Apple has a habit of using the same ID but massively re-engineering the internals of a product. I have a feeling the exterior design will remain much the same, and even if it changes, certainly won't go back to the massive towers of yore.
EDIT: after reading Gruber's piece again, it looks like it probably will have new ID. Doubt it will be a big clunky box though.
It might depend on where the GPU its going. If it goes into the monitor as DED has speculated, then it isn't crazy to think they would use another quiet cylinder design. Once you eliminate the GPU, then I'll guess the "thermals" of that design are such that updates/upgrades are not an issue. The timing means they will be using the "Purley" platform and its larger socket, and there's also the question of what is happening with memory/storage technology.
If the GPU is going into its own module, separate from the CPU module and the monitor, then it's hard to imagine how a cylinder would work for the design.
In some ways, it is possible to interpret the "thermals" comments as saying: "We've been forced to face the fact that the GPU needs a fan."
Should be pretty easy for Apple, there are already sites they can just go to to figure out their strategy. 1. Selected motherboard. 2. Create a boot loader. 3. Thank nvidia for commiting to make pascal drivers for the mac. 4. Design a really pretty Desktop case cover.
There really is no reason for apple to "reinvent" anything, it's all available in the market today. Sure they could probably design a nice case, but let's be honest the only things Apple will add is. 1. Design constraints and artificially lower clock speeds based on the presume need for thinness or heat dispersion. 2. Small power supplies, gimped ports, throttled memory and motherboard speeds. 3. Overpriced components. Slow hard drives, unneeded complexity like combining ssd's, pci memory and traditional drives. 3. A complex overpriced thunderbolt solution that just serves to solve a problem that does not existing.
I purchased a Mac Pro in early 2014 and built a hackintosh at the same time. I dropped a ssd, several hard drives and finally 1080 in the hackintosh last month and am windows only now. Had to purchase an external raid for the Mac Pro, and it will be retired soon. The Mac OS is the differentiating factor, and Mac hardware on holds it back.
Apple can maintain their margins by becoming a desktop case maker only, I think they have shown that is all they are capable of.
its impossible to believe it took them this long long to come to the conclusion of the effectiveness of the Mac pro. I am glad they did, but I am worried they will continue to just make things overally complex.
1. Design constraints and artificially lower clock speeds based on the presume need for thinness or heat dispersion. 2. Small power supplies, gimped ports, throttled memory and motherboard speeds. 3. Overpriced components. Slow hard drives, unneeded complexity like combining ssd's, pci memory and traditional drives. 3. A complex overpriced thunderbolt solution that just serves to solve a problem that does not existing.
What's the PSU on the cylinder Mac Pro? The tower was 980W. How's that small? How are the ports gimped? The only thing gimped about the RAM is having 8 slots when the chipset supports 12 (the Xserve had the full amount).
2018 - seriously? Read other articles that it's early 2019. So it's takes over 5 years to design a new Mac Pro? It was pre-announced to keep users from abandoning the Apple environment. Way too late for me - bye Apple.
No, it takes a year or two to design a new Mac Pro. They just started. Three years were spent hoping the market would adopt General Purpose computing.
While I'm disappointed that Apple let so much time piss away, I'm tickled that at least they're on it now.
1. Design constraints and artificially lower clock speeds based on the presume need for thinness or heat dispersion. 2. Small power supplies, gimped ports, throttled memory and motherboard speeds. 3. Overpriced components. Slow hard drives, unneeded complexity like combining ssd's, pci memory and traditional drives. 3. A complex overpriced thunderbolt solution that just serves to solve a problem that does not existing.
What's the PSU on the cylinder Mac Pro? The tower was 980W. How's that small? How are the ports gimped? The only thing gimped about the RAM is having 8 slots when the chipset supports 12 (the Xserve had the full amount).
the old cheese grater mac were also around xxx. Can barely run a gtx680. ~ sorry edit - you were right, but the pci slots were under powered. I am shocked the old tower were that large really, bring it back with more slots, or better spaced slots.
4 USB ports on the cylinder and the controllers on the 6 thunderbolts ports with multiple displays and a raid have played havoc with my work. Not to mention one slot for pci drive.
Just hoping they keep the design simple and useful.
I don't think Apple got the design "wrong." I really like the one we have. I just couldn't understand why it remained untouched for three freakin' years. Now we know -- the current components already max the thermal capacity of the existing design. So I guess in a way you're right that the design had a flaw -- it can't accommodate new components -- but with the components it DOES support it works really well.
It can because the new components increased performance per watt, which is all that matters. They can underclock any part to fit a thermal profile. The new model outperformed the tower model it replaced with far lower power usage. They can double the performance of the GPUs in the same design and increase the CPU by about 60%.
The truth is the high value workstation market was dead just like the XServe. If it wasn't dead in 2012 when they still sold the expandable towers, they wouldn't have redesigned it. The redesign and marketing was to try and boost the sales again and get marketshare back from Dell and HP. We know it was dead because they practically stopped selling the tower model and it made zero difference to their balance sheet so revenue would likely have been under $0.5b.
The possible components that can go in the machine just now are single CPUs that are about 60% faster or 100% faster if they used dual CPUs and GPUs that are 50-60GFLOPs/Watt vs 24GFLOPs/Watt in the Mac Pro so 100% faster GPUs.
The reason why they don't just update it is probably because the new one hasn't boosted sales and they are still selling as poorly as the old tower models and they might not be able to source custom GPUs from AMD because if they only produce monolithic chips, they can't afford to use two of them and underclock them. The move to the iMac Pro was fully expected to be the next step. It's unexpected that they'd build a modular computer on top of this because it's going to sell even worse but it's obviously a market that they still want to try and service. In the long-term, these issues work themselves out, the XServe is a distant memory now and nobody even talks about it any more because the industry found more suitable solutions. GPUs can probably still double in performance another 2-3 times so where people need quad GPUs now, a single GPU will do that in about 4 years and mobile in 6 years so it will erode away the need for higher-end workstations to the point that the complaints just die out.
Comments
Is there some reason you can't achieve high-PPI with a Mac Pro and any third-party 4K monitor? Isn't that capability built in?
For me, the fact that it's NOT tied to a specific display is an essential part of its appeal. Our control room has a pair of huge displays positioned eight feet away from the operator that are switched between various sources depending on the task being performed. The "headless" design of the Mac Pro slides right in to that setup.
It's also why I use a Mac mini in my living room instead of an iMac. Not only is the display on the iMac not an asset since I wouldn't use it, it's actually a liability in that it restricts placement because of its sheer physical bulk.
After a couple years or so of using the current Mac Pro, the only thing I've found to complain about is how hard it is to find the power button between all the cables. Considering how much I like to complain, that's pretty high praise!
DED is talking about the possibility that part of what "modular" means is moving the Mac Pro GPU to the monitor. That has a dual purpose. [1] It takes the heat (literally) off of the rest of the Mac Pro and allows the CPU/Memory/Storage module to be an all-Intel affair, thereby easing that upgrade path. [Note: the same could be accomplished by moving the GPU to a separate module, instead of to the monitor.] [2] It also allows for the MacBook Pros to take advantage of the GPU when you plug them into it. [I assume this is possible. I don't actually know. I do know it was rumored a while back.]
EDIT: With regard to Dell, there is of course the new 8K 32" UP3218K which lists at $5K! Ships in May. But it is not TB3/USB-C -- it has two DisplayPorts (v 1.4). I bring it up because I was assuming 5K for the "modular" display redesign, when maybe two models, a 5K and a crazy-expensive 8K, seem plausible.
1. Issue a statement. Tell us that there won't be a new model this year because the available tech doesn't justify the cost of rejigging. Then we're not caught in the uncertainty of wondering if we're about to buy something that will be less desirable and/or competitive in short order. I'm more likely to buy the current model if I know it won't be superseded in the next few months.
2. Adjust pricing over time. I understand that the price of a Mac Pro includes more than the cost of the components, and that Apple undoubtedly amortizes the cost of development over the expected shelf life of any particular model. Still, the cost of components does drop, so one assumes there must be room to push prices down.
Why would Apple do that? Because the value proposition presented to the buyer by any particular generation of tech diminishes with time. When it's new, you know you have a year or two before it's likely to be replaced with something better. When it's already a year or two old, the window of opportunity to leverage advantages gets a lot smaller. Thus the amount I'm willing to pay for a given level of capability gets lower over time. When the selling price is the same after two years as it was the day it came out, I'm less likely to buy so revenue to Apple is zero. If the price goes down to reflect its age, I may decide that the cost/benefit ratio is a net win and buy in.
Both of those things happened this week. I'm pleased and impressed. Perhaps in the future we won't have to wait so long for similar outcomes.
They got the design wrong.
They got the communication wrong.
They got the pricing adjustments wrong.
Complete and utter silence for years is not the way to do things and although they haven't exactly said so, it's pretty clear that a solution to this mess was only recently put into motion.
Now. Let's hope that this marks a new attitude with regards to how to do things.
EDIT: after reading Gruber's piece again, it looks like it probably will have new ID. Doubt it will be a big clunky box though.
If the GPU is going into its own module, separate from the CPU module and the monitor, then it's hard to imagine how a cylinder would work for the design.
In some ways, it is possible to interpret the "thermals" comments as saying: "We've been forced to face the fact that the GPU needs a fan."
1. Selected motherboard.
2. Create a boot loader.
3. Thank nvidia for commiting to make pascal drivers for the mac.
4. Design a really pretty Desktop case cover.
There really is no reason for apple to "reinvent" anything, it's all available in the market today. Sure they could probably design a nice case, but let's be honest the only things Apple will add is.
1. Design constraints and artificially lower clock speeds based on the presume need for thinness or heat dispersion.
2. Small power supplies, gimped ports, throttled memory and motherboard speeds.
3. Overpriced components. Slow hard drives, unneeded complexity like combining ssd's, pci memory and traditional drives.
3. A complex overpriced thunderbolt solution that just serves to solve a problem that does not existing.
I purchased a Mac Pro in early 2014 and built a hackintosh at the same time. I dropped a ssd, several hard drives and finally 1080 in the hackintosh last month and am windows only now. Had to purchase an external raid for the Mac Pro, and it will be retired soon. The Mac OS is the differentiating factor, and Mac hardware on holds it back.
Apple can maintain their margins by becoming a desktop case maker only, I think they have shown that is all they are capable of.
its impossible to believe it took them this long long to come to the conclusion of the effectiveness of the Mac pro. I am glad they did, but I am worried they will continue to just make things overally complex.
While I'm disappointed that Apple let so much time piss away, I'm tickled that at least they're on it now.
the old cheese grater mac were also around xxx. Can barely run a gtx680. ~ sorry edit - you were right, but the pci slots were under powered. I am shocked the old tower were that large really, bring it back with more slots, or better spaced slots.
4 USB ports on the cylinder and the controllers on the 6 thunderbolts ports with multiple displays and a raid have played havoc with my work. Not to mention one slot for pci drive.
Just hoping they keep the design simple and useful.
The truth is the high value workstation market was dead just like the XServe. If it wasn't dead in 2012 when they still sold the expandable towers, they wouldn't have redesigned it. The redesign and marketing was to try and boost the sales again and get marketshare back from Dell and HP. We know it was dead because they practically stopped selling the tower model and it made zero difference to their balance sheet so revenue would likely have been under $0.5b.
The possible components that can go in the machine just now are single CPUs that are about 60% faster or 100% faster if they used dual CPUs and GPUs that are 50-60GFLOPs/Watt vs 24GFLOPs/Watt in the Mac Pro so 100% faster GPUs.
The reason why they don't just update it is probably because the new one hasn't boosted sales and they are still selling as poorly as the old tower models and they might not be able to source custom GPUs from AMD because if they only produce monolithic chips, they can't afford to use two of them and underclock them. The move to the iMac Pro was fully expected to be the next step. It's unexpected that they'd build a modular computer on top of this because it's going to sell even worse but it's obviously a market that they still want to try and service. In the long-term, these issues work themselves out, the XServe is a distant memory now and nobody even talks about it any more because the industry found more suitable solutions. GPUs can probably still double in performance another 2-3 times so where people need quad GPUs now, a single GPU will do that in about 4 years and mobile in 6 years so it will erode away the need for higher-end workstations to the point that the complaints just die out.