or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Despite new CPU options, Apple reportedly questioning future of Mac Pro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Despite new CPU options, Apple reportedly questioning future of Mac Pro - Page 7

post #241 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

If you really want to save the Mac Pro, put your money where your mouth is: buy a Mac Pro today!

Alas, like the iPod Classic, its days are probably numbered. The reason it's not an easy one to let go of is that it still has advantages for professional use, and the pro market sustained Apple during the dark years. Still, it is progress if Apple doesn't need the pro market like it once did. For me, the main reason the Mac Pro existed (going all the way back to the days of the dual G5 PowerMacs) is that it used to be the only way to get two processors in a Mac. Now, thanks the ubiquitous dual- and quad-core CPUs, there's less of an advantage for the Mac Pro.

You're mistaken. Highly!

I want the Mac Pro to continue and i've been 'saving' to buy the new one for months now. I won't buy the current one since it's outdated for my needs. I have already thunderbolt storage and thunderbolt display so i need thunderbolt connectivity. I already bought 2 Vertex 3 SSDs for RAID 0 and 4 WD Velociraptors 600GB SATA 3 drives. The current Mac Pro is still on SATA 2 which is old and gets filled instantly by my current drives.

Also for the pro applications like Aperture and Final Cut nothing beats x 2 CPU machines with tons of RAM. A mac pro can get even 96 GB of RAM.
post #242 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R View Post

I saw the writing on the wall ages ago. Glad I bounced to PC hardware. To be frank, it was easier than I thought, and I've yet to Hackintosh it.

$%^& you, Apple.


You certainly can. And then overclock it 40%. And use graphics cards from the past 9-12 months.

3D content creation on Windows is where it's at. I'm still investigating Linux, got portable Photoshop running on Wine.


Are you building your own rig? How is Windows on color management quirks these days? Have wacom drivers improved on the windows side? Photoshop via wine doesn't sound that fun. Linux color management is basically non existent. I've been kind of tempted to go that route for a while. I like OSX. I just haven't been happy with Apple hardware choices lately.



Quote:
Originally Posted by tcixb View Post

I suppose the ideal MacPro emplacement would be;

1) Remove both optical drive slots
2) 4 x RAM slots (max 32gb RAM)
3) 1 x PCI Express 3.0 x16 slot
4) On board AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5 (prefer better)
5) 1 x HD slot
6) Single Xeon CPU option, so up to 6 core max.
7) 2 x Thunderbolt
8) 4 x USB 3.0
9) 1 x Firewire 400/800
10) 1 x Gigabit Ethernet port
11) Audio in/out
12) Wi-Fi
13) Bluetooth
14) Optical digital audio

Force users to use external optical driver using USB or eventually Thunderbolt, this is the way MacBook Pro are going means smaller enclosure and lower weight.

Removing the optical drives will reduce overall size of the MacPro enclosure, cost reduction!

Using on-board GPU greatly reduces cost of a GPU card, smaller enclosure size and lower weight.

32gb RAM more than enough for 99% of customers., cheaper MLB design smaller enclosure and lower weight.

If they require more HD space then use external Thunderbolt or USB enclosures.

There is major cost reduction to be had in reducing the physical size of the MacPro. Reduce logistics costs by getting more product on a pallet and reduced shipping weight.

Only on HD slot.
No GPU card.
Half the number of RAM slots.
Once on x16 card slot.

Yeah yeah headless imac. Here's what you don't get. The parts that go into a mac pro cost less than the top imac which is hundreds cheaper. If they wanted it priced lower, they'd price it lower. Instead they keep moving the price upward. Even when they've cut costs on the machine, the price has still gone up, which is completely stupid. That aside your design wouldn't really bring the price down. Thunderbolt chips = expensive. That gpu costs more than the one used baseline in it right now (or did when it debuted). The other internals you mention don't cost much. What you're asking for is a redesign which costs money with components in the redesigned version of basically equivalent cost. Even if they did turn the price the other way, going from a $2500 to a $2300 point of entry isn't going to magically turn things around. No one interested in one will be dissuaded by a paltry difference like that.

By the way I like Eizo too
post #243 of 649
People also forget that size is still a mandatory aspect to take into account and size gets bigger as computing power gets bigger. You can't really provide a high-end iMac to match a Mac Pro and the same can be said to the Mac Mini. You can't keep it mini but expand it to the Mac Pro because DOOOH you'll stumble upon the mac pro sizes.

Guys, that's the reason the best configured iMac has still MOBILE GRAPHICS. WTF!? Mobile graphics on a desktop computer? Why? SIMPLE: The iMac hasn't got a lot of room to breathe. You can't stuff in crazy fast CPUs and GPUs in such tight space unless you want it to burn out. The same can be said about the Mac Mini and the Mac Book Pros. Remember the early models of the Macbook Airs? Remember that some configues did have the necessary cooling and some users complaint about burns?

PS: How the f%*% are you supposed to get this http://www.fusionio.com/platforms/iodrive2-duo/ in a iMac and Mac Mini? Somebody earlier complained about servicing Mac Pros!? Are you crazy? A MP is the easiest Mac to service. It has space and quick access, unlike the iMac when you need to take the fucking screen apart to reach the insides.

SO IN CONCLUSION: The Mac Pro has to continue. It can suffer a redesign but the scalability, power of the machine, Server grade CPUs, RAM slots, HDD bays and PCI Express cannot be replaced by any current and future mac line-up (not for a while at least).
post #244 of 649
I had this very discussion with a member of staff at the local apple store last weekend, it went like this:

"Any news on the refresh of the Mac Pro"
"No, no one is really buying them, how about an iMac, or a MacBook Pro"
"I have a MacBook Pro, I do a lot of video and 3D work, I need more Power and flexibility"
"Well, the iMac has Thunderbolt"
"I know, all the Mac family has Thunderbolt, except the Model that would utilise it the most"
"But the iMac has a 27" screen"
"I have 2 27" screens running on my Mac Pro, 1920 x1200 each"
"Ah, but most of Apple's new software only requires one screen now"
"I run other software other than Apple's"
"But you can get an iMac with a Quad processor"
"Yes, and the Mac Pro has 12"
"Ah, I see what you mean"

I have the money waiting to spend on a new Mac Pro to replace my old G5 Mac Pro, but they have not been refreshed for over a year now. I am sure there is many people that are in the same position to me. I Like the size, I like the fact I can used the 3rd Party video cards I have invested in, more memory, larger harddrive, simples.

Yes I use my MacBook Pro more for video at the moment, it is only because my old G5 has only started to look sluggish. I have a Mac mini which is now used simple as a media server because it took too long to do any rendering or converting tasks I sent to it.

Yes the money is with the consumer products but it is hardly as if Apple are hard up for cash.

Now I have got this bug bear off my chest I will leave you with this:

Volkswagen sell millions of consumer cars - But they also sell the high end, low yield Bugatti Veyron, Bentley, and Lamborghini. Power at a price.
post #245 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

That's brain dead on the Generic GPUs.

OpenCL is completely integrated with OS X, along-side OpenGL 3.x..

Apple writes the stack for both to work together in OS X.

Wake me when Windows has equivalent solutions with DirectX and it's hack-neyed response to OpenCL throughout it's OS, and can handle all the cores across it's entire OS.

It doesn't.

Apple lists which GPGPUs it supports fully.

All newer cards on windows support Open CL. All cards on windows for many many years have supported open GL. Direct X is a differant beast, but yeah, Windows supports GL and CL big time, just ask Autodesk or Adobe about that...
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #246 of 649
Well, Apple got a bunch of angry professionals when they did the last final cut version, I wonder what an uproar they would cause if they killed off the mac pro.

Consumers doesn't need the mac pro, but those who give the mac the reputation it got in the professional sector does. I wouldn't trade my mac pro in for an imac. heck, I can't see myself owning an imac at all. It's just not user serviceable, and when your working on tight deadlines having the hard drive die cost too much when you need to go through a service center. I could probably have my mac pro up and running in a matter of hours after a crash, fully recovered from backup.

to quote a friend who works as a service tech. Working on macs is a breeze compared to other brands as long as it's not an imac nor a macbook air.
post #247 of 649
For one the Mac Pro has its place as there are people that make use of the machines. The problem is that for the vast majority of Pro users, they could get by with less of a box. Being forced to buy hardware you don't need is very bad business though for all parties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

I have to agree, these huge heavy tower cases are a thing of the past, we need server chips in a smaller footprint that can do comparable processing by reducing the sheer size. I'm sure people will be adopting external thunderbolt drives instead of internal sata's like they used to.

This is the thing I have to disagree with most strongly. External storage modules are not a replacement for internal storage in a computer. Especially a computer that comes with one TB port. This whole idea that TB would be acceptable to the pro crowd that uses the Mac Pro is a joke.

However a modern Mac Pro really needs to start demonstrating a little leadership or innovation if you will. That internal storage really needs to come in the form of printed circuit cards that plug into high speed I/O slots. The storage capacity should be supplemented with traditional bays for the industry transition but that is another thing that doesn't have to take up lots of space.
Quote:
Apple should seriously get working on this and give us another option that is more powerful than its iMac line.

yep the XMac. A modern desktop priced right for today's needs.
Quote:
Time is against them on this issue, workstations have remained stagnant, and it's up to Apple to reinvent this broken thing.

Yeah they have ignored the desktop for too long. They need to innovate there or give up. The Mac Pro combined with the Mini demonstrate a stagnant division within Apple. 2/3 rds of the lineup barely meets the needs of the customer base.
post #248 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamas View Post

I had this very discussion with a member of staff at the local apple store last weekend, it went like this:

"Any news on the refresh of the Mac Pro"
"No, no one is really buying them, how about an iMac, or a MacBook Pro"
"I have a MacBook Pro, I do a lot of video and 3D work, I need more Power and flexibility"
"Well, the iMac has Thunderbolt"
"I know, all the Mac family has Thunderbolt, except the Model that would utilise it the most"
"But the iMac has a 27" screen"
"I have 2 27" screens running on my Mac Pro, 1920 x1200 each"
"Ah, but most of Apple's new software only requires one screen now"
"I run other software other than Apple's"
"But you can get an iMac with a Quad processor"
"Yes, and the Mac Pro has 12"
"Ah, I see what you mean"

It's great how they talk to you isn't it? Most of them seem to have 1-2 geeky employees that can actually answer real questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by moijk View Post


to quote a friend who works as a service tech. Working on macs is a breeze compared to other brands as long as it's not an imac nor a macbook air.

Current HDD slot requires a custom part, wide sample variation on displays and they're all glossy and impossible to calibrate anyway, screens have had some weird aging problems on past products (ever seen the corners turn purple and blotchy?). I still think it's a better buy than the current baseline mac pro given how that thing has the cheapest possible xeon from two years ago but only because that model is overpriced and using hardware that intel should have replaced long ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

All newer cards on windows support Open CL. All cards on windows for many many years have supported open GL. Direct X is a differant beast, but yeah, Windows supports GL and CL big time, just ask Autodesk or Adobe about that...

Reality distortion field is at work again. Open GL is not new on OSX or Windows. Windows is actually ahead of OSX on the graphics card feature end. Photoshop on Windows actually supports 10 bit displayport connections with a compatible gpu. That isn't available from Apple at all.
post #249 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Wow, it's like Intel sets their release schedules and prices or something!



Gosh, I have no idea if you're joking here. Seriously, I cannot tell. Given your history, I would think so, but you're so dang smart and the actual numbers show that this statement can't be anything but a joke

I'm not joking at all. Apple sells a lot of iMacs because the two other desktop offerings are just terrible. If you want to be involved in the Apple ecosystem the iMac is the most economical alternative, it is not the most desirable system though.

They only thing Apples numbers prove is that they have a very screwed up desktop line up. I'd go so far as to say that they could double even today's growth rate in sales with properly configured machines. The Mini is effectively designed to be an under powered platform and the Mac Pro is priced beyond reason for most desktop user needs. Really $2500 to start just to get a little expansion capability is a joke.
Quote:


You're completely wrong.
post #250 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

I don't think that necessarily follows. The key thing is to rewrite their Pro apps to use the GPU more. Then even a midrange, non-removable GPU in a iMac should be able to do what used to take 12 Xeon cores.

One can not wave a wand and force an app to use the GPU effectively. If the data being processesed along with the algorithms used don't map well onto a GPU you will not get an advantage from GPU computing.

The reality is some apps will never map well onto a GPUs structure. A GPU is best used for algorithms that can effectively be parallelized to process data in parallel. This is at times significantly different than what the CPUs do with threads.
post #251 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by ort View Post

The sales of the Mac Pros suck because they don't put enough effort into making it a desireable product.

Yup. This says it all. I'd buy a half dozen rackmountable Mac Pros in a heartbeat. Asking us to use Mac Mini's was beyond insulting - at least the new gen Mini has a power cord that doesn't fall off...
post #252 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post

Apple, don't be stupid!!! You may not sell a lot of Mac Pros, but guess who's buying them:

>>> DEVELOPERS. And HIGH END USERS <<<<

Yes but most of these users don't need a machine the size of the Mac Pro nor are these people extremely pleased about the rip off pricing of the Pro.
Quote:
Both of these groups are important to keep happy for the health and well-being of the Mac ecosystem. What are we supposed to build Mac apps on, iPhones?

True but here is the real question; do you think most current Pro buyers are happy about having to buy a Pro? I'd say the answer is no.
Quote:
Personally, I'd be fine with a less-nice case. I just want expandability and lots of fast CPUs. Or, let us boot Mac OS on generic PC hardware. That would be fine. Maybe you could re-start the licensing program, but only allow hardware to be made that doesn't overlap with Apple's offerings. This could be really great: more Mac options for users, and Apple could unload models that weren't profitable.


Apple can make and sell a profitable XMac type machine if it really wanted too. There really is no reason to support third party hardware. The problem is the current hardware line up has become a self fulfilling prophecy in the sense that the Pro becomes more and more expensive because they effectively priced it out of the market. At least the market where sales covers development and manufacturing expenses. An XMac type machine would allow them to reset the marketplace.
post #253 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

How many of you who don't want Apple to drop the Pro planning to (or have already) purchased the current Xeon-based Mac Pro? Because that's the only vote that counts. If these things were selling better, Apple wouldn't even think of killing it. And yet here we are.

Er, that's not how it works. Our post-production company will use a Mac Pro for 3 or so years before beginning upgrades throughout the office. Actually we are currently waiting the next update to the Mac Pro line so that we can upgrade a couple of edit suites and a motion graphics station or two. Whilst we haven't ditched FCS (yet), we've already got Avid and Premiere on a station each after the FCSX marketing debacle. If the Mac Pro was killed off, without support for AJA and Blackmagic cards, for example, I daresay half of our workstations would have to go over to the PC-realm. <<Shudder>>
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #254 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by ort View Post

They have limitted sales because they rarely update them and they are WAY overpriced.

It's time to come out with something cheaper. You could always buy a decent Mac tower for about $1,500 bucks in the past, and now the cost of entry is $2,600. It's ridiculous.

A lot of people need something without a built in screen that you can actually open without needed suction cups.

The sales of the Mac Pros suck because they don't put enough effort into making it a desireable product.

Here, Here!

We need (and have needed for awhile now) 3 complete new work stations (yes only 3, but I wonder how many others are in this position?), but haven't purchased, like many here, because of the Cost, and lack of a new, exciting model

- 3 New CPU's
- 3 New 30" Monitors would be real nice (to replace our current 30" monitors, that are getting lines in the screens

One of the units, has to be restarted, sometimes 3-5 times before it comes up (the CPU seems to work, but the monitor doesn't start up)

Skip
post #255 of 649
Hell, subsidize the damn things with your freakin 75 BILLION cash reserves, or you could just sell them for less, upgrade more often (heck make believe it's an iPhone).

By holding off on updating, fixing, making better, lowering the price and giving folks an option, yes I'm sure many have switched to an iMac (and many others have jumped the fence).

Heck, if it IS such a small part of the company, then subsidizing won't really cost you that much, and you'll end up with a bunch of HAPPY Apple users, that's got to worth something.

YES we the Desktop unit owners, are some of the very folks who got you where you are today, reward us already.



Skip
post #256 of 649
Hell, I'd even give serious consideration to the new DTP units, if they brought back and up-dated the "iCube".

Make them stackable units.

Make them clear cases

You know, just do something please.

Skip
post #257 of 649
We are talking well before Fedora here and in the context of portable devices like laptops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

Apple must decide if the prestige is worth the effort to continue to manufacture the Mac Pro. I'm not in this market segment and never will be. I can't cry for its demise or cheer for a newer model.

There is no prestige in a Mac Pro!

Beyond that I'm not in the Pros market segment either but that has more to do with its rip off pricing.
Quote:
I like the Mac Mini but it costs too much for what is inside it.

The Minis cost isn't that bad if you value a machine that is economical to run. That is the laptop parts and all. The problem is the performance of this machine seems to be purposefully limited and even if it wasn't the ultimate performance isn't there.
Quote:
I've got a 2008 Mac Book and it is acting up lately due to a previous problem caused by the battery expanding inside the case. I'm not sure I want to purchase another Mac computer.

Another early 2008 MBP owner here! I'm however pretty much convinced I will buy another Mac laptop in the future. The laptops are good values.
Quote:
I would have bought a new iPod Touch if it would have been upgraded with the new A5 and had some software updates. Instead the only upgrade or change was the availability of the white color option.

IOS 5 was a pretty huge software update! In a way the lack of an A5 was a disappointment, however I fully understand why Apple did it. Dropping the price keeps the unit viable.
Quote:
My main hope was for a larger screen along with the processor upgrade. Apple gave me a big disappointment. If the rumors of a seven inch screen device are true then it might be worth a look when it comes out. Otherwise I'll be switching to a different brand of laptop and putting a version of Linux on it.

Interesting that you seem to be letting developments in the iPod/iPad market dictate your laptop choices. That just seems odd.

The distressing thing here is your move to Linux on the laptop. I really can't recommend that right now. Laptop support still sucks bad in Linux. This from a Linux user that was using Linux for years before Fedora even came out. It is far easier to put Linux in a VM on an Apple laptop to use as needed. Beyond that I find that I only need commercial software on my Mac laptop.

The funny thing here is that I could see myself installing Linux on a laptop if the capability of iPad expanded a bit. It is just that iPad still comes up short for even semi advanced things like HTML mail, that combined with the fact that most client software that comes with Linux sucks balls keeps me in Apple laptops.

As a side note there is a huge problem with GPL3 software in that it effectively limits your freedom. Going the BSD route might make more sense in the long run. I really like Linux but I honestly believe the Free Software foundation is a bit off it's rocker with GPL3. fortunately even Linus has problems with the that version of GPL but from the user perspective it is time to support alternatives.
post #258 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mode View Post

So your saying fuck the people and businesses who have spent years and untold amounts of money buying into Apple's platform with computers, peripherals, software, infrastructure, work flows, education, servicing, IT departments, vendor relations, etc...

The 'so-called pros' your so eager to throw under the bus ARE the people who saved Apple. Not Steve Jobs and not any investors who hang around here.
Sticking a knife in the back of the loyal people and businesses who stuck with Apple is cutting off their nose to spite their own face.

Consumers are fickle and always looking for the next best thing. If a new company or someone pops up and blows the iPhone and iPad out of the water with a way better gadget OS - and Apple has told its stronghold (professionals) to go fuck themselves - where do you think that leaves Apple?
I imagine they would never be trusted again. Relegating Apple to Sony 2.0

Exactly, some people here have a hard time understanding trust. Once you lose the trust of your customers, there is no going back. And Apple has been really good lately doing just that. Remember the XServe, and the lack of communication around Java "deprecation". That was really damaging. Followed by FCPX. I think as far as any serious professionals doing actual work on their computers, the picture is quite clear. You have only one option. PC. It is superior computing platform for doing actual work. If you want to make a fashion statement, get something from Apple. That's the message we keep getting from Apple.

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply

Mac Pro, 8 Core, 32 GB RAM, nVidia GTX 285 1 GB, 2 TB storage, 240 GB OWC Mercury Extreme SSD, 30'' Cinema Display, 27'' iMac, 24'' iMac, 17'' MBP, 13'' MBP, 32 GB iPhone 4, 64 GB iPad 3

Reply
post #259 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

I haven't yet had the opportunity to read all posts in this thread, however, just to add some perspective, this is the performance of my 2 year old iMac under Mathematica, which is quite a demanding program. Of course, this doesn't talk to graphics capability but underlying math processing is tested and of course, doesn't address concerns about expandability etc. I had always expected to be using a Mac Pro for this work but don't believe that it was necessary to look beyond the iMac. (I have a bigger version of the second image if anyone is interested.)

All the best.




I just not sure about Mathematicas parallel processing capabilities. The thing here is one can almost be certain that the next iMac revision will be faster again. The problem with the Mac Pros is that to be useful you need to employ software that takes advantage of the hardware. There are people that do that every day. The problem is there isn't enough to sustain the platform. Worst is that if you want something besides a iMac you are out of luck.

In any event I like the chart. The chart highlights just how out of tune with reality G5 owners are. The G5 is close to one tenth the performance of current Intel hardware.
post #260 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary54 View Post

But I cannot justify the pricetag as it stands.

Then you don't really need it.

I can't justify the cost of a 4 door F250 Super Duty pickup truck, but I know there are others who need it. Just because I think it's an oversized, overpriced machine that doesn't sell 20% of the units the Fusion sells doesn't mean they should stop making it.
post #261 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post

Then you don't really need it.

I can't justify the cost of a 4 door F250 Super Duty pickup truck, but I know there are others who need it. Just because I think it's an oversized, overpriced machine that doesn't sell 20% of the units the Fusion sells doesn't mean they should stop making it.

The Mac Pro is really an F350, Apple doesn't even sell an F150 or F250 equivalent. The iMac is Fords generic Sedan and the Mini is some sort of compact.

Apple needs an XMac that is in general a F150. Something to haul the lighter loads.
post #262 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary54 View Post

But I cannot justify the pricetag as it stands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The Mac Pro is really an F350, Apple doesn't even sell an F150 or F250 equivalent. The iMac is Fords generic Sedan and the Mini is some sort of compact.

Apple needs an XMac that is in general a F150. Something to haul the lighter loads.

They need all three models. The problem with a one-size-fits-all model like the mac pro is it really doesn't fit anyone properly.
post #263 of 649
I bought a fully loaded 27" iMac back in late June and returned it after two weeks. After one encoding job, the thing was hot enough to keep my dinner warm. I quickly realized that it would be insufficient for my needs. I've been waiting for a Mac Pro refresh ever since (as I'm sure a lot of people have). The truth is, I need more cores than an iMac Pro or Mac Pro Mini would seemingly be able to provide. If they (Apple) could make an 8-core iMac that wouldn't get hot enough to cook my dinner, I'd consider it, but I think that is just wishful thinking. With regards to the sluggish or non-existent sales of the Mac Pro, I think this is one of those self fulfilling scenarios. They literally are, through product stagnation and high pricing, causing the very problem they are complaining about. The truth is, though, that if the AppleTV can be a hobby project and not generate much in the way of profits (I could be mistaken on this), then why not have a mid to high-end desktop for those that a)Actually need more than an iMac can provide and b)Don't want to switch back to PC because of their investment in Apple or Mac software (or just on general principle).
post #264 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sybaritic View Post

So true. In Mona Simpson's eulogy for her brother Steve, printed today in the NY Times, we see that Jobs was great precisely because he put aesthetics first. Sales were secondary, coming in droves as a consequence of building beautiful products.

And all that hard work going into aesthetics is wasted if a bunch of external devices get connected to that great looking Apple product.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

I also find it contradictory that the same people who praise the iMac for being an all in one computer with little cable clutter are also the ones advocating stringing together a bunch of external devices rather than have a single expandable tower.

This is one reason I feel so screwed by the new mini. What is so hard about making the mini a few inches taller to allow for 2 hard drives and having space for an optical drive if someone still wants or needs one? Instead Apple wants us to clutter things up with external devices.
Now Apple wants to get rid of the only computer that is truly designed with the user in mind? Easy to open case, ports on the front where they are easy to reach, easy to replace drives and RAM.
post #265 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

That's brain dead on the Generic GPUs.

OpenCL is completely integrated with OS X, along-side OpenGL 3.x..

Apple writes the stack for both to work together in OS X.

Wake me when Windows has equivalent solutions with DirectX and it's hack-neyed response to OpenCL throughout it's OS, and can handle all the cores across it's entire OS.

It doesn't.

Apple lists which GPGPUs it supports fully.

Actually, Lion runs perfectly well without a OpenCL GPU. My old 2006 Mini (used as a headless server) has a GMA950. Most apps don't use OpenCL yet, and many never will, as GPUs are only good at simple, massively parallel tasks. CPUs can process complex tasks much more efficiently.

The GPUs support OpenGL features years before Apple gets around to supporting them in their OpenGL stack. OpenGL 3.0 has been around since 2008, but only in 2011 had Apple actually supported it in OS X. Generic graphics cards work fine with OS X, but you have to either hack the card's firmware to trick OS X into thinking it's an Apple card, or hack OS X's drivers to allow the generic cards to run. These hacked cards work perfectly well. Apple could quite easily allow generic, off the shelf graphics cards, but no, they want to sell their own out of date, extortionately priced ones. A Radeon 5770 from Apple: £203. The same generic version from Kikatek.com: £112.
post #266 of 649
There is too big a gap between the Mac Mini/iMac and the Mac Pro. Lots of people want a good quality, well designed and powerful computer that is easy to upgrade.

The trouble is the Mac Pro it hasn't kept up-to-date. It is a niche product that would not need to be changed very much to have a broader appeal.

Lots of users want a powerful and quick computer like the Mac Pro. Most don't need dual processors, and especially so now we have multi-core processors.

Apple would not need to compromise on quality and design to make a high quality computer for the same price as an iMac.

You only have to look at building a very fast PC yourself, and you can build something that is as high a quality, is faster and costs half the price.

There are only a small minority of users who need a top end workstation processor, never mind those who need dual processors. It is a shame that all the people who want a more powerful or expandable Mac than an iMac have to look at spending a huge amount more, and see little return for their money.

You can build a very quick computer, with a high quality case and components for £800. It would be great if Apple realised this and filled the gap.
post #267 of 649
Another user who is waiting for an update to the Mac Pro line.

I was guessing that the next update would be the last with the general direction of Apple (becoming a consumer iThings company and dropping their professional linkups along the way). I live in the Mac and Windows worlds every day and if the tower goes away from Apple I'd have to take my money to the PC world and I would prefer not to do that.

Excellent point by users who said drop the Xeons and use the standard Intel chips, the Xeons don't give you much in exchange for alot of extra money - drop the Xeons and you would see a good drop in price, just from that.

Hopefully Apple brings out one more revision to the Mac Pro (since they already have it developed), there will be alot of people waiting to buy them.
post #268 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewrimmer View Post

There is too big a gap between the Mac Mini/iMac and the Mac Pro.

Maybe between the Mac Mini and iMac, not the iMac and Mac Pro.

Quote:
The trouble is the Mac Pro it hasn't kept up-to-date.

Which is Intel's fault.

Quote:
Lots of users want a powerful and quick computer like the Mac Pro. Most don't need dual processors, and especially so now we have multi-core processors.

The Mac Pro isn't designed to be for 'lots of users' or 'most'.

Quote:
Apple would not need to compromise on quality and design to make a high quality computer for the same price as an iMac.

An xMac isn't happening.

Quote:
You only have to look at building a very fast PC yourself, and you can build something that is as high a quality, is faster and costs half the price.

But isn't OS X, doesn't work at all in the same situations as the Mac Pro, and is therefore outside Apple's realm of caring.

Quote:
There are only a small minority of users who need a top end workstation processor, never mind those who need dual processors.

Exactly. Everyone else can buy an iMac or Mac Mini.

Quote:
It is a shame that all the people who want a more powerful or expandable Mac than an iMac have to look at spending a huge amount more, and see little return for their money.

It's a shame you're ignoring Thunderbolt, FireWire, USB, and the billions of means of expansion for both the iMac and Mac Mini.

Quote:
You can build a very quick computer, with a high quality case and components for £800.

Really? You can buy a computer that isn't from Apple that has a 7"x7"x1" case and uses ten watts idle?

Or you can buy a computer with a total footprint of 35" square and has a S-IPS panel?

Quote:
It would be great if Apple realised this and filled the gap.

"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that isn't a piece of trash." Because there aren't any $500 computers that aren't pieces of trash.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #269 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

... then why not have a mid to high-end desktop for those that a)Actually need more than an iMac can provide and b)Don't want to switch back to PC because of their investment in Apple or Mac software (or just on general principle).

I would think one of Apple's main goals would be to prevent people from leaving the OS X platform. Sure, all the iDevices work in Windows, but when someone starts to leave the ecosystem on the computer front, won't they be more likely to start looking closer at competing personal devices (tablets, phones)?

And I have to wonder why a company with $80 billion in cash reserve is so concerned that a specialized high end workstation isn't profitable enough. Not that they're losing money, they're not making enough money. The mac pro unit can't be draining that many resources.
post #270 of 649
My mac mini looks like a damned octopus. My next leap will be back to a professional tower (iMac was a fail many years ago for similar reasons). If the Mac Pro is discontinued, refurbs/ebay will be the way to go.

By the way, AI marked the death of the iPod classic over two years ago, yet it lives on.
post #271 of 649
What is being missed is that Apple is thinking in terms of where the Mini is going to be a year from now, not where it is, exactly, right now. What the Mini is today is a rather capable machine though not quite capable enough to meet the needs of the most demanding customers. Fast forward though and I think it's highly likely that the Mini will become powerful enough. I hear so much complaining about desktop clutter but really, who cares, when all is said in done if it is a permanent desktop set-up. You can arrange the pieces so that the desk doesn't look all that bad. When I'm at my computer, I see mainly just the screen I'm working on which is how it should be.

Quite simply, when the Mini becomes such a powerhouse that it's really an ego issue more than legitimate need that motivates some to want a Mac Pro instead, the Mac Pro is pointless. So here's the thing. If that comes in a year, why devote more effort and money into updating the Pro. If that comes in 18 months. Ditto. But make no mistake, the time is near when a fully specced Mini will meet the needs of even the most demanding customers.

By the way, I'm running a fully specced new-gen Mini and finding it to represent a quantum leap in performance over my previous Minis. I'm not talking a modest step up but a huge step up as in rendering video in a fraction of the time etc.

The Mac Pro is not going to survive past 2013. I think that's pretty much a given. Apple is just trying to figure out the appropriate exit strategy.
post #272 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx View Post

Apple should build a Mac mini Pro or a Mac Pro mini.

With a matte display to complement.
No fan (or very quiet at least).
Quad-core.
Two 3.5-ich 7200 rpm disk drives inside.
Thunderbolt.
Firewire 800.
USB 3.
SDXC card slot.
Gigabit Ethernet.

Did I say quiet?

post #273 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

You clearly have no idea about why there is a pro market or what it is. iMacs are great, but they aren't equivalent in any way to the Mac pro.

What does the Mac Pro have now that the iMac won't in the next 6 months. If it is cores, a single Ivy Bridge processor will have up to eight physical cores running 16 threads. If it's RAM, new 8 GB modules are already on the market and will be mainstream in 18 months? If it's graphics, the removal of the optical drive and 3.5" hard disk will allow for cooling faster graphics. If it's storage, USB 3 will be standard on all Ivy Bridge Macs and provide fast and cheap external storage.

The Mac Pro is a Dinosaur and the iMac has a more future forward design, especially given the hardware that is in development right now. 2012 will be a watershed year for Mac hardware.
post #274 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEAMSWITCHER View Post

What does the Mac Pro have now that the iMac won't in the next 6 months. If it is cores, a single Ivy Bridge processor will have up to eight physical cores running 16 threads. If it's RAM, new 8 GB modules are already on the market and will be mainstream in 18 months? If it's graphics, the removal of the optical drive and 3.5" hard disk will allow for cooling faster graphics. If it's storage, USB 3 will be standard on all Ivy Bridge Macs and provide fast and cheap external storage.

The Mac Pro is a Dinosaur and the iMac has a more future forward design, especially given the hardware that is in development right now. 2012 will be a watershed year for Mac hardware.

You were going really well and then mentioned USB and storage in the same sentence - nobody's perfect.
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #275 of 649
Let's see:

Intel Core i7-2600 @ 3.40GHz (8M Cache, 4 cores - 8 threads)
6GB RAM
2TB Hard disk
Nvidia GT 530 2GB
HP 2311 Series (23" LED monitor Full HD 5ms w/ HDMI, etc, etc)

Total: $800 USD (bought yesterday brand new, ofc, with OS preinstalled. A bit pricey, could have it for 10-20% less, but anyways ...).

Nowadays Mac prices are a completely joke :P.
post #276 of 649
The other option I would like to see Apple pursue is replacing the XServe and the Mac Pro with a smaller 1 or 2U server.
The XServes were 18" wide and 30" deep!
why not make an MacPro that looks like an XServe but is only 18"wide and 18" deep?
It could be 2U high as well.

This will still appeal to Apple's high end audio and video customers.
It would also offer an upgrade path to the Mac mini server.
post #277 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEAMSWITCHER View Post

What does the Mac Pro have now that the iMac won't in the next 6 months. If it is cores, a single Ivy Bridge processor will have up to eight physical cores running 16 threads. If it's RAM, new 8 GB modules are already on the market and will be mainstream in 18 months? If it's graphics, the removal of the optical drive and 3.5" hard disk will allow for cooling faster graphics. If it's storage, USB 3 will be standard on all Ivy Bridge Macs and provide fast and cheap external storage.

The Mac Pro is a Dinosaur and the iMac has a more future forward design, especially given the hardware that is in development right now. 2012 will be a watershed year for Mac hardware.

An internal hard drive I can replace in 5 minutes...blindfolded.
post #278 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEAMSWITCHER View Post

What does the Mac Pro have now that the iMac won't in the next 6 months. If it is cores, a single Ivy Bridge processor will have up to eight physical cores running 16 threads. If it's RAM, new 8 GB modules are already on the market and will be mainstream in 18 months? If it's graphics, the removal of the optical drive and 3.5" hard disk will allow for cooling faster graphics. If it's storage, USB 3 will be standard on all Ivy Bridge Macs and provide fast and cheap external storage.

The Mac Pro is a Dinosaur and the iMac has a more future forward design, especially given the hardware that is in development right now. 2012 will be a watershed year for Mac hardware.

More than 1 FireWire port.
Mac Pro has 4.
post #279 of 649
I hope they don't end production of the Mac Pro.

If you want to run more than two external displays, you want multiple drives running as a RAID set, you want to add lots of internal memory, you want to add PCIe cards (especially ultra-fast RAID SSD cards), you want high-end 6 and 8-core procs, etc. then you need a Mac Pro.

The Mac Pro is not for most people. It's for hard-core gamers, 3-D modelers, video producers, scientists, multimedia hounds, etc. My university has many dozens of Mac Pros, many upgraded. They're used for video production, 3D animation, scientific illustration, number crunching, simulations, etc.

The Macbook Pro and iMacs are fantastic machines, and Thunderbolt is truly awesome for its external storage and multi-display bandwidth, but they are largely for the general consumer. The Mac Pro machines are for the professional market, which Apple *really* needs to take care of.
post #280 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

More than 1 FireWire port.
Mac Pro has 4.

FireWire's unnecessary when you have Thunderbolt.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Despite new CPU options, Apple reportedly questioning future of Mac Pro