What makes me laugh here is that the article is taking popular opinion and assigning anonymous sources to it. The machine for the past couple years has been priced higher than PC workstation counterparts, and it's weaker on features and available accessory hardware. Anyone could have told you the future of the mac pro must be a topic of discussion at Apple. You don't need an insider source for that.
Originally Posted by ktappe
They need something more powerful than the Mac Mini but screen-less unlike the iMac. However, the Mac Pro is and has been a boat anchor. I mean seriously, that thing is unwieldy. No need for a huge hunk of aluminum like that in this day & age. I cringe whenever I have to deploy or service one.
The mac mini to me is in a weird spot. People like the concept but it has too many compromises over even the imac which is really designed as a consumer machine and leveraged upward into professional markets. Much of the manufacturing cost there comes from engineering it to be small, and you do end up having to make choices. You don't get a lot of internal storage. You are limited in ram. You're limited on gpu power. I think they don't want it to interfere more than necessary with imac sales. Apple likes to ensure that their line is really simple at a given price point.
Originally Posted by aplnub
Slim the case down but don't stop making it. We rely on a MacPro that has run great for over four years now.
I see where they are coming from but I like the internal drive bays. Yeah, I guess thunderbolt external drives here we come with a mini attached. It is inevitable...
The case isn't the reason for the price. The laptop cases are way more intricate to make, and the majority of the cost with something like aluminum is generally processing rather than raw materials. As for thunderbolt, it needs more third party support.
Originally Posted by TheBestMan
I have a Mac Pro, but haven't done much to it other than add more hard drive space and memory since I bought it 3-1/2 years ago. (or was it 2-1/2??)
That's fairly normal. With an imac or mini you can't easily do these things. The mini especially is a bit tight on ram, and buying 8GB sticks really kills the economy of it (even though it would help ensure a long usable life to the machine).
Originally Posted by dsol
The MacPro is expensive because Xeons are expensive. I've never understood why Apple used Xeons in their single CPU macPro configs. Yeah, yeah - it supports ECC. But the single CPU configs cut the number of RAM slots in half anyway, so ECC was pretty pointless.
I need to correct this misconception. It may inflate the cost of the logic board "slightly" but even there it's not much at all. Apple uses a fairly basic logic board configuration. ECC ram used to be way way more expensive. It's not so much anymore, especially if you upgrade your ram via third party. Mac Pro 1,1 through 3,1 (2008) used special ram
with the aluminum fins for additional cooling. The newer ones don't require this, and their cost isn't that bad assuming you don't buy from Apple.
The Xeons used are basically identical in cost to the corresponding i7 extreme processors. The baseline model uses a $300 processor in a $2500 machine. It's roughly the same processor cost as the cto i7 imac (and you don't get a 27" ips display built in). It costs less than the most expensive macbook pro processor option (the 2820QM had a $568 recommended channel price).
Pretty much the machine was made on a very limited hardware budget, so at the low end it couldn't take full advantage of all updates made available for this socket (for example westmere focused on more expensive processors).
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
This should not be a surprise to anybody following Apple. They alienated the company which made some of the most popular software for their machines, and discontinued their own professional software. They discontinued their infrastructure products, and declared themselves to be a gadget company which is changing its focus to "portable devices".
You're right. It shouldn't surprise anyone. The clashing with Adobe really is completely stupid though. It hasn't actually benefitted anyone who uses things made by either of these companies.
The thing about Apple is they know a lot of people will grumble and buy something anyway. They don't worry about what is left. If you look at their products and accessories that serve a very limited market, those are always the ones that are unreliable and full of bugs (display adapters, quadro cards, etc). If it affects enough users, the bugs are fixed much quicker or they move on to something new.
Originally Posted by charlituna
Do they? Your opinion says yes. But the facts may say no.
I work for a studio level FX/Annie house and last year we replaced 20 aging Pro based workstations with iMacs and have had no issues. We are replacing the other 30 with iMacs over the next six months. We have a mac mini server running our email. We also have four workstations running a Linux based rendering system. If we could get Mac minis that could handle that load we would.
If the imac display was really a solid display, that would get me to buy one. Unfortunately getting that display to be really amazing and working out the quality control to a finer degree would be cost prohibitive. The top display manufacturers tend to use a lot of extra electronics and testing to get the LG panels to perform as they do.
Originally Posted by BuzDots
Running a Dual 2.0 GHz PPC daily, I still think I can blow the wheels off any iMac made today for heavy graphic work.
I will believe a high-end iMac when I see it.
You can't really assuming that imac is set up correctly. In a lot of past iterations it was missing a few things. Scratch drives used to be a big deal due to hard drive speed. Faster hdds/ssds and the ability to cost effectively put 16 GB of ram in one solves this issue. Your G5 can't handle anything from Adobe past CS4, nor can it handle the 64 bit rewrites of other software manufacturers which make use of the extended ram capacity here.
You think it's faster because at one point it handled certain bottlenecks that were still an issue in something like an imac. That is not the case today.
Originally Posted by reuzedoder
If they stop in fact they say they say goodbye to the professional user that needs all the expansibility and power.
I am a longtime Mac pro ( powermac) user going back to the G4.
The current casco was made for the G5 - its IBM-processors produced so much heat that they needed to make this big machine with all the fans in it to cool it without making too much noise.
So I guess it is time to make a new casco- smaller and lighter.
If they stop making it it will be the first time i have to stop using an Apple. I need its speed, space and flexibility.
It's annoying isn't it? Aside from the area directly around the cpus, the case design really isn't that great. You can access things easily, but the airflow to other components isn't anything special. Graphics cards often run too hot. Hard drives tend to run closer to their upper limit than I'd like. For a couple generations it required a special ram design for extra cooling.
Originally Posted by ConradJoe
Never love anything that will not love you back.
Apple will throw you under the bus if you don't provide them with enough profits. It is not a two-way relationship.
They want profits. That is the one and only thing the Corporation cares about. Your love is irrelevant to Apple, unless it results in oversized profits.
That's something I never understood about Apple fans. I use their computers too, but I'm not emotionally attached to the brand. Anyway they could have done something beyond this kind of awkward retreat from the market segment.
Originally Posted by Svegard
If Apple drops the Mac Pro without making another high end alternative I will be throwing Logic and Apple out the door and get a PC with Pro Tools HD...
That goes for the rest of the pro audio marked using Mac as well....
Yeah, and I will dump all my iToys with it......
Windows isn't as bad as it was say around XP to Vista. Windows 7 is quite usable really even though I prefer OSX. Both have bugs. OSX doesn't always just work. I hate when people suggest that it does. It's just if you've worked with it long enough, you may have workarounds for some of the weird quirks. A slow switch toward Windows means having to deal with new issues. I still wish Linux was up to my own needs.