AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's Mac Pro retail inventories suggest refresh on the horizon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Mac Pro retail inventories suggest refresh on the horizon - Page 3

post #81 of 133
7/25/10 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Are you referring to me and my reply to a comment that specified Macs as a whole, not the single model type you specified in your comment? If so, note that Ive already made a sarcastic remark about the long delay between Mac Pro releases in this thread and have made many mentions over the years to the weakening focus on non-consumer based Apple products, but that doesnt change the fact that Apple is focused on Macs do to the money they are making and money they can make from them for the foreseeable future.

What?

You made a sarcastic comment about Apple?



*Goes for a lay down. (But not before wanting to hunt and gold frame the 'word for word' text where Solip' castigates teh mothership for the 14 month delay to the alone and unloved 'pro' range.)

'pro' users. *fist pumps his chest. I'm feeling it for you buddies...

*wipes away tear.

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #82 of 133
7/25/10 at 11:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


If you want a Mac that gets uodated frequently you should be asking for an XMac. That is a Mac built around the more common hardware available instead of server grade hardware. Instead of knocking a niche product like the Mac Pro knock the missing product in Apples lineup.


Dave

Dave, you always know how to 'kiss it better.'

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #83 of 133
7/25/10 at 11:22am
Ps. the Mac 'pro' is a niche product? How did that happen? When? Golly, would it have anything to do with charging 2k for a 2.66 quad core with a p*ss poor gpu...and offering premium components like 4 gigs or ram and a 5oo gig HD?

Other than that...I have no idea...

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #84 of 133
7/25/10 at 11:23am
Quote:
It still doesn't look all that odd to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Actually it is out of the ordinary. If you look at MacRumors Buyer's Guide it is the longest time without update since their records started, in 2002.
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac_Pro
Again it really doesn't look that bad. Im not sure what your problem is. The Mac Pro doesn't suport the volume to justify updates like are seen in the consummer lineup. It isn't even marketed to people with the need for the latest and greatest. Rather it is a stable platform for serious work thus the "Pro" name.



Dave

What?

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #85 of 133
7/25/10 at 11:24am
*Hands Dave some spectacles.

Now look again...

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #86 of 133
7/25/10 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

Yes Lemon, we know. It's been 4 days, you couldn't contain your Mac Pro rage The processors in the Mac Pro were definitely top end upon release, the only thing that was poor was the video card options. Currently it is certainly behind the times, no one is arguing that with you. I think you can let go of the anger tho buddy, it's being updated very soon if these reports are right. We'll see exactly how up to date it becomes.

Heh, heh, heh...

'Behind the times?' The gpu was behind the times at launch. So poor. Terrible pain.

I'll wager the next iPad revision out performs the current graphics on the 'pro'...in fact, I'll wager the next iPad bump comes out before the 'pro...'

4 days? That long. I'm slipping.

Still, has it really been since 2002 since the mac 'pro' was updated?

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #87 of 133
7/25/10 at 11:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by a Martin View Post

I fully agree with Lemon here.

At work we have been waiting fot quite some time to buy new Mac Pro's.
I don't want to buy the current ones because of the reasons stated above (same price as when introduced over a year ago, now old graphics card etc.) and in this case there is no discussion that one feels a bit locked having just Apple as the hardware vendor. Or I guess that would be fine if the updates was more frequent and more in pace with the rest of the industry. I'd also be happy to see a little more hardware options, (not that it should be overwhelming like with Dell and such).

Cheers, Marv'.

One Marv' to rule them all. Spoken like a true king.

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #88 of 133
7/25/10 at 11:33am
...and if the 'pro' is locked for 14 months. What's the point of the 'tower' format.

It's not like you can add gpus to it in that 14 month cycle. Or an Apple branded monitor. They no longer sell them. (unless you count that apology of a display range updated 6-8 years ago?)

Better to just create a 30 inch 'iMac Pro' and be done with it. You'd get a dual core in there? Plenty of space and some hot rod gills out the back.

Let's not pretend Apple has a tower range. It's been updated about 5 times in the last ten years?

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #89 of 133
7/25/10 at 11:38am
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
... I suspect that the new Pro will be a big advance over the old one. I could be wrong here but it would not make sense for Apple to introduce a marginally better machine for 3 months if they know a major revision is just a short time away.

If Apple delivers a new Pro with nothing more than a processor bump then they deserve some of the anger seen here. If it is instead a significantly newer platform then we have a different story. ...

Re-hee-hee-heally? Ya think? What gave ya that idea?

'Wu-ell...I dohwn kno' T.C...' Benny.

How could it NOT be? *(Looks at the flies around the pungent, dead carcass of the 'pro' range specs...)

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #90 of 133
7/25/10 at 11:43am
Ok. I'll stop now. That was wayyyy too easy. You guys are slipping...

Still, if Apple could deliver an entry Mac 'pro' with a decent gpu as standard and 27 inch LED for £1,995 I would look longingly at it.

I don't see it happening. They're too greedy.

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #91 of 133
7/25/10 at 11:55am
So does anyone have any idea of what might really be in store for this refresh? USB 3 and Firewire aside.

What kind of processor offerings are we likely to see?
Most likely those graphics cards that have already shown up as compatible with Snow Leopard?
And what about output? Will the MacPro get HDMI? as well as Display Port? I can't see HDMI mattering much, some new huge IPS display will likely be the target output monitor. Or two or three of them.
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 133
7/25/10 at 1:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I think you might be forgetting the 30" ACD. Once you have one of those it's hard to go back to anything else and the majority of the Mac Pro market is still in love with the 30" ACD.

I think at some point they have to have a modern replacement for this product and the 27" just doesn't do it.

The Cinema display is bigger certainly but the main thing with the iMac is that it's 16:9 now, which makes it smaller but it's good for movies:

http://eljackimages.com/temp/imac&acd-3043.jpg

If they made a 42" then I'd say it's worth it but sitting in front of a 27" iMac feels like the screen is big enough. FCP panels fit in place very easily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon

£1,495 for a six core 'mini' pro with a decent gpu (AS STANDARD for gawd's sakes...) would get Apple back on the map re: value and reason again. Who knows, they might even sell more.

I think they'd definitely sell more and that volume should make it worthwhile hitting that price point. I'd really like to know how many people actually buy the souped up $5900 model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon

Cheers, Marv'.

One Marv' to rule them all. Spoken like a true king.

Thanks for the sentiment but you quoted Martin there.

I actually read his posts sometimes and think 'hang on, I don't remember writing that'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz

So does anyone have any idea of what might really be in store for this refresh? USB 3 and Firewire aside.

What kind of processor offerings are we likely to see?

If they go the boring route then it will be the 3600/5600 Xeons. So pretty much the same configs as now, just a tad faster.

In fact, I don't think they'd use the 3600 Xeon as it's too expensive so it would be 3500/5600 but a faster 3500 on the entry point. Right now, the entry level uses a W3520 2.66, which is $284. The 3680 6-core is $999. So if they used it, the entry price would jump up over $700.

If they use the 6-core 3.2GHz AMD 1090T however, it costs $295 but outperforms most of Intel's lower-end single chips:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

You can see from the prices on the right how much cheaper it is vs performance. It's near level pegging with a $1200 Xeon 5600 series chip.

Quite frankly, if Apple want to have an affordable entry Mac Pro, Intel has left them without an option with this generation of Xeons. They could go with the Core i7 but why bother when it's slower/more expensive than AMD's offering?

In the higher-end, I'd like to see them make a 4P machine, just for the hell of it. Because AMD scrapped the 4P tax, Apple can build a 48-core AMD machine for the same price as a 12-core Intel machine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz

Most likely those graphics cards that have already shown up as compatible with Snow Leopard?

Yeah, the high-end compute cards - the Geforce 480 and the Radeon 5870. As nice as it would be for them to drop them in the low-end, they'll probably continue the tradition of dropping a low-end GPU in the base model so that people can opt to save that money. I reckon they'll go with cards that have 6 x mini-displayport outputs on them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz

And what about output? Will the MacPro get HDMI? as well as Display Port? I can't see HDMI mattering much, some new huge IPS display will likely be the target output monitor. Or two or three of them.

HDMI does support higher resolutions that 1080p so it's possible but they can still fit more ports on one card using Mini-displayport.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 133
7/25/10 at 2:57pm
Well I'm going to purchase a current 8-core and a current matte 30" in the next few days.

If Apple release an updated glassy/glossy display then I'll be laughing.

If they release an updated matte display I'll be able to return the matte 30"er.

I can't risk being left in the position where a glossy display is the only show in town...
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #94 of 133
7/25/10 at 3:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

So does anyone have any idea of what might really be in store for this refresh? USB 3 and Firewire aside.

I'm guessing it will be 'really slim'.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #95 of 133
7/25/10 at 3:31pm
I realize that this is third or fourth hand gossip but I'll pass it on anyway for what it's worth.

Over a year or more ago, several Apple reps came to MDC, where I teach, to show some aspects of Snow Leopard. The show was interesting and I even won a keychain flashlight for answering a question about snow leopard. I can't recall exactly when this took place; however, I posted it on AI at the time.

At that time, our campus Apple liaison claims, no, swears that he overheard them talking about a new Mac Pro.

The Apple reps are supposed to have said that Apple was trying to get rid of towers and could be planning on fielding an iMac-like Mac Pro. Our liaison didn't overhear anything on how this beast was supposed to be upgraded and he wasn't willing to speculate when I asked him.

Though I took this with a grain of salt, it might explain why there is no X Mac.

Okay, let the flames begin. This may be good for several pages of posts screaming about how this can't be.
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #96 of 133
7/25/10 at 4:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Are you referring to me and my reply to a comment that specified Macs as a whole, not the single model type you specified in your comment? If so, note that I’ve already made a sarcastic remark about the long delay between Mac Pro releases in this thread and have made many mentions over the years to the weakening focus on non-consumer based Apple products, but that doesn’t change the fact that Apple is focused on Macs do to the money they are making and money they can make from them for the foreseeable future.

Solipsism, it's one thing for Apple to continue to make money from Macs, and entirely another for them to routinely neglect pro users (and buyers). It's like a sad joke at this point that Jonathan Ives goes all out for other products (though he screwed everyone with the pitiful C2D chips in iMacs), and then does literally the very least he possibly can do with regard to the Mac Pro line. This IS his fault right? The finger must be pointed at him, correct? Or is there someone else designing the Mac Pro's whom we need to directly insult for the continued underperformance and excessive costs of the Mac Pro? It's not like Steve actually does anything with them. This has to be Jonathan's failure.

Just once in my life, I'd like to see Apple lead in the pro market rather than follow years behind in tech. I'm 36 now, perhaps I'll see it sometime in my life. There must be SOMEONE at Apple (it obviously isn't Steve) that actually wants a high end machine that actually competes at the very high end (considering that they are charging us very high end prices). NVIDIA must enjoy dusting off all of their old stock, in order to sell it to us at a significant markup. I'm not sure who supplies the RAM, or HD's, but they have to be laughing at us all as well. The last update was 3 March, 2009. They expect us to believe they care about Mac Pro's with delays like that? Steve doesn't care about them, or those of us who use them, at all. Actions speak far louder than any words Apple could say at this point. And there haven't been an actions on their behalf in well over a YEAR.

Just so it's clear, Solipsism, I'm not directing this anger and frustration at you, I'm just responding to your comment that, "Apple is focused on Macs". I'm furious at Apple and the lack of motivation they have demonstrated regarding the Mac Pro, which it has most decidedly NOT been focused on.
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
post #97 of 133
7/25/10 at 4:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

I realize that this is third or fourth hand gossip but I'll pass it on anyway for what it's worth.

Over a year or more ago, several Apple reps came to MDC, where I teach, to show some aspects of Snow Leopard. The show was interesting and I even won a keychain flashlight for answering a question about snow leopard. I can't recall exactly when this took place; however, I posted it on AI at the time.

At that time, our campus Apple liaison claims, no, swears that he overheard them talking about a new Mac Pro.

The Apple reps are supposed to have said that Apple was trying to get rid of towers and could be planning on fielding an iMac-like Mac Pro. Our liaison didn't overhear anything on how this beast was supposed to be upgraded and he wasn't willing to speculate when I asked him.

Though I took this with a grain of salt, it might explain why there is no X Mac.

Okay, let the flames begin. This may be good for several pages of posts screaming about how this can't be.

Well I think that if Apple produced a matte version of the 27" iMac, it would do very well (at the expense of Mac Pro sales). The i5 27"er is a very capable machine (especially when you connect two of them together), and the only reason that the studios aren't buying them en mass is because of the glassy-glossy display.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #98 of 133
7/25/10 at 4:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

Solipsism, it's one thing for Apple to continue to make money from Macs, and entirely another for them to routinely neglect pro users (and buyers). It's like a sad joke at this point that Jonathan Ives goes all out for other products (though he screwed everyone with the pitiful C2D chips in iMacs), and then does literally the very least he possibly can do with regard to the Mac Pro line. This IS his fault right? The finger must be pointed at him, correct? Or is there someone else designing the Mac Pro's whom we need to directly insult for the continued underperformance and excessive costs of the Mac Pro? It's not like Steve actually does anything with them. This has to be Jonathan's failure.

[...]

Just so it's clear, Solipsism, I'm not directing this anger and frustration at you, I'm just responding to your comment that, "Apple is focused on Macs". I'm furious at Apple and the lack of motivation they have demonstrated regarding the Mac Pro, which it has most decidedly NOT been focused on.

That's fine and it certainly does sucks when the product category you care most about is the least considered by manufactures. My point was that Apple does care about the Mac line, since the comment I originally commented on was about Macs, plural.

I don't agree with you on te C2D in the iMac. There are space constraints and it wasn't until cooler Core-i and the larger 27" iMac that we saw this change so I have to think their were engineering reasons for it. One can argue that Apple didn't have to keep making the iMac thinner (and they didn't have to) but they choose to because they felt this was more important to the people that buy the most iMacs.

But regardless of their business reasons, it's still the company's choice to make what they wish, and then our right to buy from them, a competitor, or make our own product if we feel their is a market for it.

As for Ives, I have no idea jar his duties involve but I have to think he is one of many, many people responsible for the direction Apple is going and the lack of attention to their "Pro" market. Heck, for all we know Ives is the only one who wanted to focus on the Pros or maybe he really isnt that talented a designer but was chosen by Jobs as 'a' face and voice of Apple for his rugged good looks and cool way of saying "aluminum". [US] American think British accents mean you know what you're talking about.


PS: I'm a decade plus notebook user who bought a 3rd-party SSD for my last MBP because Apple's offerings aren't great and I've technically voided my warranty by removing my optical drive to install a HDD for a total of two drives. You can technically get 2TB of storage in a unibody Mac notebook as they do take 12.5mm drives.

My point being, Apple doesn't focus on my needs directly, either. I have to wonder how many people would go for regular notebook without an optical drive — the MBA's 1.8" drive won't cut it — if they offered it. I have to think this is the next major step for Mac notebooks... and people will complain!
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #99 of 133
7/25/10 at 5:02pm
Solipsism, sure, it's their right to present us with Mac Pro's that aren't cutting edge. They've been succeeding at that for years. At least they have the common courtesy to dust off all the parts before assembling them. I simply don't have the heart to believe that the coming Mac Pro update will impress us at all. I've been let down too many times. I'll end up buying one someday, not because it inspires me, but because I'm a Mac user and I'll not use PC's again.

It's obvious Steve Jobs doesn't care about the Mac Pro (because when he does care, things happen with haste) and it's obvious that Jonathan Ives hasn't gone above and beyond with his work involving Mac Pro's. Sure, they can go out of their way to make the inside look good, but the complete lack of quality, forward-thinking, updates, is utterly disappointing. A Mac Pro update with USB3, faster FireWire, and marginally faster CPU's, will be underwhelming in every way. I'll stick with what I've already "settled" for. Everyone on the Mac Pro team (if there even is a team) ought to be ashamed of the little they've accomplished.

3 March, 2009 since their last update. Boy, their work on the Mac Pro must have taken a lot out of them.
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
post #100 of 133
7/25/10 at 5:18pm
Quote:
Solipsism, sure, it's their right to present us with Mac Pro's that aren't cutting edge. They've been succeeding at that for years. At least they have the common courtesy to dust off all the parts before assembling them. I simply don't have the heart to believe that the coming Mac Pro update will impress us at all. I've been let down too many times. I'll end up buying one someday, not because it inspires me, but because I'm a Mac user and I'll not use PC's again.

It's obvious Steve Jobs doesn't care about the Mac Pro (because when he does care, things happen with haste) and it's obvious that Jonathan Ives hasn't gone above and beyond with his work involving Mac Pro's. Sure, they can go out of their way to make the inside look good, but the complete lack of quality, forward-thinking, updates, is utterly disappointing. A Mac Pro update with USB3, faster FireWire, and marginally faster CPU's, will be underwhelming in every way. I'll stick with what I've already "settled" for. Everyone on the Mac Pro team (if there even is a team) ought to be ashamed of the little they've accomplished.

3 March, 2009 since their last update. Boy, their work on the Mac Pro must have taken a lot out of them.

Get in there my son! *Joins in, puts boot into mac 'pro' team...*(and keeps kicking...and kicking...)

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #101 of 133
7/25/10 at 5:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

Solipsism, it's one thing for Apple to continue to make money from Macs, and entirely another for them to routinely neglect pro users (and buyers). It's like a sad joke at this point that Jonathan Ives goes all out for other products (though he screwed everyone with the pitiful C2D chips in iMacs), and then does literally the very least he possibly can do with regard to the Mac Pro line. This IS his fault right? The finger must be pointed at him, correct? Or is there someone else designing the Mac Pro's whom we need to directly insult for the continued underperformance and excessive costs of the Mac Pro? It's not like Steve actually does anything with them. This has to be Jonathan's failure.

Just once in my life, I'd like to see Apple lead in the pro market rather than follow years behind in tech. I'm 36 now, perhaps I'll see it sometime in my life. There must be SOMEONE at Apple (it obviously isn't Steve) that actually wants a high end machine that actually competes at the very high end (considering that they are charging us very high end prices). NVIDIA must enjoy dusting off all of their old stock, in order to sell it to us at a significant markup. I'm not sure who supplies the RAM, or HD's, but they have to be laughing at us all as well. The last update was 3 March, 2009. They expect us to believe they care about Mac Pro's with delays like that? Steve doesn't care about them, or those of us who use them, at all. Actions speak far louder than any words Apple could say at this point. And there haven't been an actions on their behalf in well over a YEAR.

Just so it's clear, Solipsism, I'm not directing this anger and frustration at you, I'm just responding to your comment that, "Apple is focused on Macs". I'm furious at Apple and the lack of motivation they have demonstrated regarding the Mac Pro, which it has most decidedly NOT been focused on.

Absolutely 100% nailed down. Apple? Focused on Macs? In general? Bahhhhhh. Baaaaaaaah. Meehheheheheheheheheh. Brays*. The Mac desktop line has been coasting for years.

The mini recently got a makeover with stagnant specs. Why bother. Drop it and buy a laptop. The iMac design and redesign with glass edging is the only thing to have happened to Apple's desktop line in years. Monitors? About nothing. Mini. Years. Nothing. Pro? years. Nothing. The desktop line has been overpriced and underspecced for years.

It's clear Apple are pushing the tower design out the picture through their pricing structure. Which as gone from a single G5 tower option for £995 to an eye-watering £1964 for a crap entry spec. That's a thousand more. Drop the 'niche' monster...the lame ass dinosaur that it is. And just do an iMac Pro. Because it would make way more sense with what Apple are doing.

Apple care about the profits from Macs. But take away the design and OS, would they be good value spec wise?

Bullsh*t would they be. They're screwing the pooch on out of date components. The C2D is how many years old cpu? Not like they couldn't have used a quad core in the low end iMac or Mac Mini. Heat? Well design the f*ckers a different way then. It's not like we need desktops to be freakin' laptops. We got them already.

Do away with towers? Go ahead. It's not like the 'pro' is a tower anyhow. It doesn't offer value. It doesn't offer gpu choice. It doesn't update with new specs regularly. It doesn't offer cpu choice. It's a complete oxymoron of what a tower is. So drop it. It's iMac obsolescence in a poor value, our of date spec box...that is far too overblown for the components inside.

The fully loaded iMac p*sses on the 'pro' entry model in every way. Better cpu, better gpu, great monitor...more ram...better design.

Other than the dual option, the 'pro' aint offering much else. Remember when the iMac had 2-3 models under £1000? What the hell happened?

Rage. Anger. Rahahahhhh!. RAARRGGHHGH!. *Rails at angry red sky. I call upon the G3 towers of the past...avenge us...AVENGE US!

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #102 of 133
7/25/10 at 5:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

I realize that this is third or fourth hand gossip but I'll pass it on anyway for what it's worth.

Over a year or more ago, several Apple reps came to MDC, where I teach, to show some aspects of Snow Leopard. The show was interesting and I even won a keychain flashlight for answering a question about snow leopard. I can't recall exactly when this took place; however, I posted it on AI at the time.

At that time, our campus Apple liaison claims, no, swears that he overheard them talking about a new Mac Pro.

The Apple reps are supposed to have said that Apple was trying to get rid of towers and could be planning on fielding an iMac-like Mac Pro. Our liaison didn't overhear anything on how this beast was supposed to be upgraded and he wasn't willing to speculate when I asked him.

Though I took this with a grain of salt, it might explain why there is no X Mac.

Okay, let the flames begin. This may be good for several pages of posts screaming about how this can't be.

Well, yeah. The 'pro' is like the dinosaur. The mammals are taking over. It's dead. Just not yet, eh? If Apple didn't put sh*t gpu in the iMac range, why bother with an x-mac anyhow?

It's not like they can't fit the crappy, out of date, cheap ass 'top of the range' 4850 into an iMac. Artificial price tiering in that example. Why no option to add it for £50 to whatever iMac you want?

Because we're Apple and we like screwing your wallet.

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #103 of 133
7/25/10 at 5:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

Solipsism, sure, it's their right to present us with Mac Pro's that aren't cutting edge. They've been succeeding at that for years. At least they have the common courtesy to dust off all the parts before assembling them. I simply don't have the heart to believe that the coming Mac Pro update will impress us at all. I've been let down too many times. I'll end up buying one someday, not because it inspires me, but because I'm a Mac user and I'll not use PC's again.

It's obvious Steve Jobs doesn't care about the Mac Pro (because when he does care, things happen with haste) and it's obvious that Jonathan Ives hasn't gone above and beyond with his work involving Mac Pro's. Sure, they can go out of their way to make the inside look good, but the complete lack of quality, forward-thinking, updates, is utterly disappointing. A Mac Pro update with USB3, faster FireWire, and marginally faster CPU's, will be underwhelming in every way. I'll stick with what I've already "settled" for. Everyone on the Mac Pro team (if there even is a team) ought to be ashamed of the little they've accomplished.

3 March, 2009 since their last update. Boy, their work on the Mac Pro must have taken a lot out of them.

It sounds like you are taking it personally and that you've made up your mind about the update. I hope you are pleasantly surprised, but I don't think many (at least on tech forums) will ever be happy with what Apple offers.

It seems to me there is conflicting info here. People want the latest and greatest immediately yet they want it to be the best possibly quality design and want it updated often but worlds faster than it's predecessor, yet their are still comments on tech forums about how Apple has made their Mac "obsolete" with this update. I don't care about those people because they are irrational.

The last Mac Pro I bought* was the 2008 model with the 2x4-core Harpertowns. The update after that seemed to offer enough performance benefit for the price so I didn't upgrade. What advancements could Apple offer in the Mac Pro for updates every 6 months? Is Intel even making viable advancements at comparative price-points with sustainable production to make it an option for Apple?

If you think they are of poor quality and performance why not buy the machine that is of the quality and performance you want. Macs are PCs, always have been, but now you can Mac OS X on most desktop grade HW. You can make a very fast Max for a lot less than any OEM will charge you.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #104 of 133
7/25/10 at 5:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It sounds like you are taking it personally and that you've made up your mind about the update. I hope you are pleasantly surprised, but I don't think many (at least on tech forums) will ever be happy with what Apple offers.

It seems to me there is conflicting info here. People want the latest and greatest immediately yet they want it to be the best possibly quality design and want it updated often but worlds faster than it's predecessor, yet their are still comments on tech forums about how Apple has made their Mac "obsolete" with this update. I don't care about those people because they are irrational.

The last Mac Pro I bought* was the 2008 model with the 2x4-core Harpertowns. The update after that seemed to offer enough performance benefit for the price so I didn't upgrade. What advancements could Apple offer in the Mac Pro for updates every 6 months? Is Intel even making viable advancements at comparative price-points with sustainable production to make it an option for Apple?

If you think they are of poor quality and performance why not buy the machine that is of the quality and performance you want. Macs are PCs, always have been, but now you can Mac OS X on most desktop grade HW. You can make a very fast Max for a lot less than any OEM will charge you.

I hope I'm pleasantly surprised as well. You can see what I'm running in my signature. My Mac Pro can't run in 64-bit mode, and I'm living with it, even though there's a RAM hit for 32-bit. I fully expect Apple to step up their game and create the most powerful Mac Pro's ever. Just once in my life, I'd like to not get sh!t from my friends that all run faster PC's. I loathe the Windows OS, and won't ever go back, and I'm not about to buy a hackintosh because that's about like buying knock-off electronics. It always ends badly. What upsets me is that Apple refuses to be leading in the area of performance. I'm not buying a hackintosh, I'm demanding a higher performance product from the manufacturer that ought to be stepping up their game in the first place.

Am I expecting Mac Pro upgrades every 6 months? No. Am I expecting Apple to do more that give us a few tenth's of a GHz speed boost and little besides? Certainly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not aiming this at you. It's not like YOU did this to all of us. Apple has been. The problem with Apple is that they literally don't listen to people and they certainly don't care what I think. If they did, they'd be putting Alienware to shame already. Whom ever it is that is dropping the ball in Apple needs to get off their @$$ and put together a high end Mac Pro if they are going to charge as much.

As for Lemon's idea of an iMac Pro, I wouldn't buy one. Why on earth would I give up my 30" cinema display that is awesome for a computer that I have to throw away the display with it when it's outdated? I learned that with the last iMac I bought. I won't buy another iMac as a result. It's like pulling teeth getting Apple to give me a machine that kicks serious @$$ dealing with 1080p HD footage.

And yes, Solipsism, I am taking their lack of forward thinking personally. It's personally affecting me. It's be fine if I were still shooting DV footage with the old camera I have in the corner. NVIDIA isn't any better. They shouldn't allow their old products to be in ANYTHING labeled "Pro". It's insulting.
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
post #105 of 133
7/25/10 at 8:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

Even with my minimalist approach there are still cables to manage...

...gave up on my eyeTV- no HD and an extra coax cable. Time capsule takes care of the firewire external drive and power bricks.

I think you'll find, upon further examination, Apple is tending towards wireless configurations. As are the enlightened consumers that can afford Apple's latest offerings.

Best.

I have EyeTV with HD maybe you had an older version. My firewire 800 drive is for video logging in FCP so no, TimeCapsule would not do it for me. BTW light peak will be wired/cabled when we get it.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #106 of 133
7/26/10 at 12:26am
While this is all terribly fascinating, it would be really nice if they just, ya know, released the @#%@ thing already. While I'm engaging in wishful thinking regarding a product that Steve Jobs obviously has no interest in anymore, I would really think that they need to do this very soon, like before/same time as the new iMac soon. If the high-end iMac gets another speedbump and improved GPU, Apple is going to have a really hard time trying to sell the current Mac Pros to anybody except those who truly need them right now.

Meh, I'm tired of waiting.
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 133
7/26/10 at 12:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardH View Post

I would really think that they need to do this very soon, like before/same time as the new iMac soon

If inventories are going down like the article says, they have already stopped making the current models. Hang in there
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 133
7/26/10 at 4:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

I hope I'm pleasantly surprised as well. You can see what I'm running in my signature. My Mac Pro can't run in 64-bit mode, and I'm living with it, even though there's a RAM hit for 32-bit. I fully expect Apple to step up their game and create the most powerful Mac Pro's ever. Just once in my life, I'd like to not get sh!t from my friends that all run faster PC's. I loathe the Windows OS, and won't ever go back, and I'm not about to buy a hackintosh because that's about like buying knock-off electronics. It always ends badly. What upsets me is that Apple refuses to be leading in the area of performance. I'm not buying a hackintosh, I'm demanding a higher performance product from the manufacturer that ought to be stepping up their game in the first place.

Am I expecting Mac Pro upgrades every 6 months? No. Am I expecting Apple to do more that give us a few tenth's of a GHz speed boost and little besides? Certainly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not aiming this at you. It's not like YOU did this to all of us. Apple has been. The problem with Apple is that they literally don't listen to people and they certainly don't care what I think. If they did, they'd be putting Alienware to shame already. Whom ever it is that is dropping the ball in Apple needs to get off their @$$ and put together a high end Mac Pro if they are going to charge as much.

As for Lemon's idea of an iMac Pro, I wouldn't buy one. Why on earth would I give up my 30" cinema display that is awesome for a computer that I have to throw away the display with it when it's outdated? I learned that with the last iMac I bought. I won't buy another iMac as a result. It's like pulling teeth getting Apple to give me a machine that kicks serious @$$ dealing with 1080p HD footage.

And yes, Solipsism, I am taking their lack of forward thinking personally. It's personally affecting me. It's be fine if I were still shooting DV footage with the old camera I have in the corner. NVIDIA isn't any better. They shouldn't allow their old products to be in ANYTHING labeled "Pro". It's insulting.

What exactly are you doing ?? That you need such great power. If your needs are so great then take your old machine and soup IT up with added cards and gigs and fill all your power bays up . When you buy a Powerful mac you should expect to use it for 36 to 48 months of intensive rendering and stuff like that.

So dude I ask you and all the people who have a junkies need for more power ?? When you bought you old PRO mac desktop you Need to do a certain amount of work every day .NO ??

In that TIME has your work needs increased so much that you need the new A more powerful mac so bad ???You guys can't wait a few more months ??

When APPLE put's on the market its new powerful but low power consumption MAC desk top line up .YOU HAVE TO BUY the highest configuration you can .


if not buy 2 or fill the bays up with more power
or get a large server array ..

IN truth most of the people here should buy 5 or 6 minis w/ one acting as a server and that should be fine . Or even 2 mini's and one imac .

So exactly what heavy lifting are all you guys doing that you need such RAW power ??

is cray so long ago ???



SEND in you mac computer work flow stories to me and Apple will award A PRIZE FOR THE MOST UNIQUE USE .


9
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #109 of 133
7/26/10 at 8:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

What exactly are you doing ?? That you need such great power. If your needs are so great then take your old machine and soup IT up with added cards and gigs and fill all your power bays up . When you buy a Powerful mac you should expect to use it for 36 to 48 months of intensive rendering and stuff like that.

So dude I ask you and all the people who have a junkies need for more power ?? When you bought you old PRO mac desktop you Need to do a certain amount of work every day .NO ??

In that TIME has your work needs increased so much that you need the new A more powerful mac so bad ???You guys can't wait a few more months ??

When APPLE put's on the market its new powerful but low power consumption MAC desk top line up .YOU HAVE TO BUY the highest configuration you can .


if not buy 2 or fill the bays up with more power
or get a large server array ..

IN truth most of the people here should buy 5 or 6 minis w/ one acting as a server and that should be fine . Or even 2 mini's and one imac .

So exactly what heavy lifting are all you guys doing that you need such RAW power ??

is cray so long ago ???



SEND in you mac computer work flow stories to me and Apple will award A PRIZE FOR THE MOST UNIQUE USE .


9

I can't speak for everyone, but I can use all the cores I can get my hands on. My workstation at home (see sig) and my desktop system at work are mostly for local testing, since most of my jobs need a lot more cores than that provides (I run my research on one of several large clusters I have access to).

Also, your post amuses me because I'm SSHed into a 52 core + 1 tesla card test cluster, a cray system (cx1) right now
MBP (15, 2.33, 3GB,10.6/win/lin on 250GB)
MP (3,1 oct 2.8, 10GB. 10.6 on 4x1TB RAID10, Win/Lin on 1x2TB, 2407WFP on 1x5770 + 2xSamsung 910t on 1xGT120)
also a lot of other systems :-p
I met a...
Reply
MBP (15, 2.33, 3GB,10.6/win/lin on 250GB)
MP (3,1 oct 2.8, 10GB. 10.6 on 4x1TB RAID10, Win/Lin on 1x2TB, 2407WFP on 1x5770 + 2xSamsung 910t on 1xGT120)
also a lot of other systems :-p
I met a...
Reply
post #110 of 133
7/26/10 at 9:32am
brucep, your post does amuse me. It reminds me of my cousin, who's a LAN Admin for our local library system (he oversees over 4000 terminals). He always says the same thing. Why do you need more than a single core, at 1 GHz, with 512 MB of RAM? The problem with people like that is that they don't do a single thing with HD video footage, much less try to actually work with it in a timeframe that doesn't make you want to pull your hair out.

That said, is my Mac Pro old? Certainly. As you can see directly below in my signature, I'm running a MacPro2,1. I bought the very best graphics card they offered at the time, and I loaded it up with more RAM and storage than I ever thought I'd need. While I can't fully utilize the RAM, due to the whole nightmare issue of not being able to run in 64-bit mode, I certainly use all of the cores, albeit at the far lower FSB MHz. My Clovertown CPU's still perform well today, but having more cores doing the work (now that Apple has GCD) would be amazing.

It's true that there are a LOT of people out there who never even use the Mac Mini to it's full capability (which sends shudders down my spine), and there are even a LOT MORE people out there who never push an iMac to the very edge of its capability. I won't even mention laptops because they are toys in my opinion. There are those of us that use FCP and Aperture, and do a lot of work with HD footage and images. That footage uses up a LOT of storage, a LOT of bandwidth, and a LOT of processor power, just to be functional, much less be able to manipulate it. There are a LOT of people out there who don't do more with video than what their iPhone can do, and it's great that Apple actually does accommodate their needs. What's failing to happen, is Apple accommodating the needs of people who push their Macs harder than the rest. The vast majority look at us like we're constantly whining because Apple can't keep up with competitors when it comes to raw horsepower. It's because they use only a little bit of power. The way I see it, it's like an old man driving a souped-up sports car at 25 MPH. That car manages to do everything that man ever wanted, and more. Now have those NASCAR folks run a single race driving a Ford Focus. The crowd would see very quickly that the drivers are expecting far more from their machines than what the machines can actually deliver. I'm not even a NASCAR fan, but that analogy works well to demonstrate that while Apple has done well with the array of Mac products (as Solipsism correctly mentioned previously) they have failed to provide a top end machine that can do the heavy lifting people working with film, video, or rendering need.

As for the comment about the CRAY, man, do I dream of that horsepower. As it stands now, I'd take a Mac Pro with four AMD chips in it (I have ZERO loyalty to Intel) with as many cores as we can get. I'll take the very best NVIDIA can offer (simply because I'm hoping to use their cores for processing as well).

This Mac Pro is getting long in the tooth. It handles Safari and Mail with ease. It even handles iTunes well. This Mac is already more powerful than anything my mom would ever use it for, for those people, you're absolutely right. There's literally ZERO need for Apple to improve their products at all, for at least the next decade. The Macs out right now can handle easily everything OS X can throw at them, as were the Macs out in 2005 for that matter. I have a younger brother that still uses my old 600 MHz G3 iBook (running 10.4), and loves it (with a new larger hard drive)

The people who actually push their Macs aren't in that group though. I manage doing what I'm doing with 8 cores right now. It sends shivers down my spine thinking of what it would be like using just 4 cores. I will admit that it does make me smile thinking of what it'd be like with 24 (or more) cores. We'll hopefully see soon what Apple will offer as their new top end machine. The last time I was surprised was when I bought this Mac. I didn't expect to have 8 cores at my disposal. Twelve cores would certainly be better, but not nearly as good as four chips from AMD (because they don't price them outrageously).
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
post #111 of 133
7/26/10 at 4:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

They're upgrading the Mac Pro? Whats the matter, did they run out of iOS devices to sell?

Nice to see Apple remembering that they make Macs, too.

I never can understand this sentiment. Desktops and laptops are stable, save for they typical upgrades outlined in articles like this one. Other than a filesystem and new drive interface that better takes advantage of SSD with the usual desire for general speed and stability improvements, I don't know what more you could want from them.

So tell us: What aren't they doing that makes you so jelous of the activity with the iOS devices? What do you think they can be doing that would allow them to truly innovate like they are with the iOS?

If you are looking for the Mac to overtake or even significantly gain on Windows, you are going to be waiting as that ship has sailed. It's a good thing Apple is moving onto the next big thing - it will keep the Mac around that much longer!
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 133
7/26/10 at 5:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

brucep, your post does amuse me.

I'm one of those that can always use more compute power... but its getting to the point where I'm not willing to pay for it anymore. Still, I fully comprehend the desire to spend what's necessary to get as much as you can.

The way I look at Apple's slow update cycle though, is that a constant stream of small increments isn't useful. Sure it adds up to a big delta after 18 months, but usually they only let it go for 12 months or so. The problem is that the pace of processor advancement has tapered off a little in the past few years. As much as people are moaning about how slow the current MacPro is, the real, practical difference between a top-of-the-line workstation and the top end MacPro isn't exactly earth shattering. Not compared to the kind of delta we would have seen even 5 years ago. With the 6 core chips now available, new generation GPUs, new busses, new memories, etc... now is the time when Apple sees it is possible to deliver a big leap in the MacPro. It'll be interesting to see if we can identify what precisely they've been waiting on, but we may never know what kept them from rolling the machine out back in the March-May timeframe. Its only a few months later though, and they're still selling plenty of Macs... so really, does it matter? It might strain the patience of a few, but I think its better to wait a little longer for a bigger leap.

Most of the naysayers seem to forget that when Apple updates, it ships a workstation that is contemporary. It doesn't ship one that is already outdated. The GPU is usually a point of contention, but they usually have a range of GPUs that are contemporary to what the other PC makers have. Yeah they don't have the ultra maxxed out ubercard... but those things tend to be problematic, flakey, excessively hot, excessively expensive, and/or unavailable in the quantity Apple needs to ship. And the real delta between what they ship and those extreme cards is usually not as big as it is commonly made out to be. There are notable weakspots or functionality issues (related to pro level 3D apps), but those are gradually being ironed out as the features are folded into all levels of GPU. And the low end gets blasted for being really weak, but there really are people out there (lots of them) for whom the lower end GPU is plenty... although OpenCL is changing this, so it'll be interesting to see if Apple's stance on this begins to change.

I don't think Apple is deliberately ignoring the high end machine market... that's just not all that exciting anymore. Its not what sells huge volumes, and it never will. Yeah, a consumer level tower would be another matter, but the MacPro isn't that. The issue of why Apple doesn't have lower end tower is another conversation.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #113 of 133
7/26/10 at 7:07pm
Programmer, you make many good points, and I agree that incremental updates for a workhorse like the Mac Pro is probably ill-advised. I pointed out in a prior post that Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro in 18 months. That's a lifetime in the technology field. I'll have a problem with Apple releasing a Mac Pro that isn't substantially more powerful (more cores, not more GHz), with faster RAM. The USB3 and faster Firewire are great, but the much lesser machines will get all of that anyway. I'm hoping that Apple has been actually speaking to NVIDIA and that they have been working on getting the best GPU's in the Mac Pro (just so we can use the cores in them for processing).

I'm really hoping that Apple goes above and beyond with this next Mac Pro. They have changed the look of literally every other Mac in their lineup, with the exception of the Mac Pro. Perhaps it'll look different too. I already have the 30" Cinema Display, and I love it. There's no need to upgrade that. I'm just after more horsepower under the hood of the next Mac Pro.

Personally, I'd love to see such significant changes that Steve feels compelled to demo one in a Keynote. That's when we'll all know that there's been something substantial done to the Mac Pro's.
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
post #114 of 133
7/26/10 at 9:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

That's what I'm saying though. If they can only put out a 27" LED backlit IPS display for $1499 and the 27" iMac is $1699 then why bother making a separate product line?

Quality as represented by color gamut and ability to be calibrated? As much as I love the 27" display on the iMac, it's not what I'm looking for in color management.

Real pro displays cost more than an iMac
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 133
7/26/10 at 9:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer View Post

Only if you have the attention span of a gnat.

"Gnat? Bug? Is there a similarity there? I think so!"

Quote:
Their latest quarterly results talked about how they sold more Macs than in any previous quarter, up 33%. For all the moaning and belly aching about how Apple hasn't "kept up with the Jones'", they aren't having trouble moving machines.

No kidding. I would live for them to keep on video cards more. I was really hopping with intel and MS pushing EFI in Vista we would get more cards that were easy to hack.

Darn PC industry that can't get out of a rut even when prodded!
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 133
7/27/10 at 12:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

I'd love to see such significant changes that Steve feels compelled to demo one in a Keynote. That's when we'll all know that there's been something substantial done to the Mac Pro's.

I don't think we will see that again unless by coincidence... i.e. they release date just happens to line up with some occasion like wwdc. Conversely, however, they don't feel compelled to hold back a rollout for an event. They get so much press attention that it's worth millions just having their online store close for an update for an hour! I'm not expecting a case update for any of the desktops, but the internal tech will get updated nicely. I'm a bit doubtful that the iMacs are coming tomorrow (err... later today), but it could happen. And the existence of a "get a touch" promotion won't stop it from happening.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #117 of 133
7/27/10 at 6:28am
Seems I'll be waiting until August to go try one of these new ones out. 12 cores isn't bad.
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
post #118 of 133
7/27/10 at 7:09am
Well, there you go... iMacs too. No new cases (which I have no issue with), and really not anything earth shaking at all... hence the stealth update to the specs. The MacPro pricing makes me boggle, but then I haven't been interested in that class of a machine for years. Lemon isn't going to be happy.



Come to think of it though, I'm not sure what would get me excited over a new Mac. USB3? Yawn. New FW? Bigger yawn. A low end tower? No, because I actually do want an AIO these days. AMD? LOL. And Apple isn't going to markedly change it's pricing strategy so these are still in line with what came before (just updated internals). So... what? I certainly haven't gone looking at other computer maker sites to look excitedly at anything either (just compairison shopping). I need a new one, but the whole affair has gotten a bit boring compared to years gone by. Computers are just so commodity, especially since going x86. And that's why Jobs and Ive are making their splashes in the mobile space, while still selling more Macs than ever.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #119 of 133
7/27/10 at 3:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer View Post

Well, there you go... iMacs too.

Programmer, yes we have new Mac Pro's (or will have in August). I've got some more reading to do regarding the new one, and I'm really eyeballing the 12 cores. Grand Central Dispatch makes the more cores all the better for multithreaded apps, which I'm guessing we'll see more and more of as apps refresh. I have to wait for the new ones to show up on Apple's website (they still have the old ones on the Apple Store) before I can spec one out the way I want it. It will be then that I'll have to look and see if the addition of four more cores than what I have now is really worth the thousands they are asking for. So far, every Mac purchase I've made, the number of cores has doubled (with exception to laptops). Keeping to that rule, I'll likely be waiting for 16 cores in a Mac Pro before upgrading. The new iMacs will appeal to a lot of people though, and I'm sure they'll do well.

This Mac Pro update deserves a stealth update on the website. To be honest, the #1 thing I'm really looking at updating is my hard drives to SSD's. And while expensive, it's still cheaper than a new Mac Pro.
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
post #120 of 133
10/22/10 at 9:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

brucep, your post does amuse me. It reminds me of my cousin, who's a LAN Admin for our local library system (he oversees over 4000 terminals). He always says the same thing. Why do you need more than a single core, at 1 GHz, with 512 MB of RAM? The problem with people like that is that they don't do a single thing with HD video footage, much less try to actually work with it in a timeframe that doesn't make you want to pull your hair out.

That said, is my Mac Pro old? Certainly. As you can see directly below in my signature, I'm running a MacPro2,1. I bought the very best graphics card they offered at the time, and I loaded it up with more RAM and storage than I ever thought I'd need. While I can't fully utilize the RAM, due to the whole nightmare issue of not being able to run in 64-bit mode, I certainly use all of the cores, albeit at the far lower FSB MHz. My Clovertown CPU's still perform well today, but having more cores doing the work (now that Apple has GCD) would be amazing.

It's true that there are a LOT of people out there who never even use the Mac Mini to it's full capability (which sends shudders down my spine), and there are even a LOT MORE people out there who never push an iMac to the very edge of its capability. I won't even mention laptops because they are toys in my opinion. There are those of us that use FCP and Aperture, and do a lot of work with HD footage and images. That footage uses up a LOT of storage, a LOT of bandwidth, and a LOT of processor power, just to be functional, much less be able to manipulate it. There are a LOT of people out there who don't do more with video than what their iPhone can do, and it's great that Apple actually does accommodate their needs. What's failing to happen, is Apple accommodating the needs of people who push their Macs harder than the rest. The vast majority look at us like we're constantly whining because Apple can't keep up with competitors when it comes to raw horsepower. It's because they use only a little bit of power. The way I see it, it's like an old man driving a souped-up sports car at 25 MPH. That car manages to do everything that man ever wanted, and more. Now have those NASCAR folks run a single race driving a Ford Focus. The crowd would see very quickly that the drivers are expecting far more from their machines than what the machines can actually deliver. I'm not even a NASCAR fan, but that analogy works well to demonstrate that while Apple has done well with the array of Mac products (as Solipsism correctly mentioned previously) they have failed to provide a top end machine that can do the heavy lifting people working with film, video, or rendering need.

As for the comment about the CRAY, man, do I dream of that horsepower. As it stands now, I'd take a Mac Pro with four AMD chips in it (I have ZERO loyalty to Intel) with as many cores as we can get. I'll take the very best NVIDIA can offer (simply because I'm hoping to use their cores for processing as well).

This Mac Pro is getting long in the tooth. It handles Safari and Mail with ease. It even handles iTunes well. This Mac is already more powerful than anything my mom would ever use it for, for those people, you're absolutely right. There's literally ZERO need for Apple to improve their products at all, for at least the next decade. The Macs out right now can handle easily everything OS X can throw at them, as were the Macs out in 2005 for that matter. I have a younger brother that still uses my old 600 MHz G3 iBook (running 10.4), and loves it (with a new larger hard drive)

The people who actually push their Macs aren't in that group though. I manage doing what I'm doing with 8 cores right now. It sends shivers down my spine thinking of what it would be like using just 4 cores. I will admit that it does make me smile thinking of what it'd be like with 24 (or more) cores. We'll hopefully see soon what Apple will offer as their new top end machine. The last time I was surprised was when I bought this Mac. I didn't expect to have 8 cores at my disposal. Twelve cores would certainly be better, but not nearly as good as four chips from AMD (because they don't price them outrageously).

thanks dude
and apple has given us a great new powerful desktop line up !!


9
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's Mac Pro retail inventories suggest refresh on the horizon