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 8

post #281 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

Why not make an MacPro that looks like an XServe but is only 18"wide and 18" deep?

The Xserves were so deep because that's the industry standard. These machines fit into racks and are designed to be pulled out on rails, even while operating. They need to be that deep so the rails can hook into the rear of the rack. You wouldn't want to suspend the weight of an Xserve on just the two thumb screws on the front of the case. Besides, you need all that extra Xserve room for all the redundancy.

The data center industry thrives on standards. I remember ordering $20 million in servers and associated gear and seeing them sit in a monstrous pile in the middle of the data center because the DC staff had given us the wrong specs on their racks and our rails wouldn't fit.
post #282 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

An internal hard drive I can replace in 5 minutes...blindfolded.

To hell with the hard drive....on a desktop or laptop it too is a dinosaur...a throw back to the era of spinning disks. Solid state drives are the the future and offer better performance. 256GB SSDs are already well under $400.00, and the prices will continue to drop. The MacBook Air has the right idea, tiny sticks of memory that could be aggregated for capacity or redundancy. You could easily put 5 in an iMac and have a truly awesome local storage solution in about as much space as a laptop hard drive. That's future forward design - drive bays are no longer needed.

The best use for hard disks is external RAID arrays and network storage devices.
post #283 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichS View Post

Seems like there would be a lot of interest in a "beefed-up" version of the mini, maybe... wait for it... in a "cube" form factor!

Like the newton, the old cube wasn't the "bad idea" it was made out to be... it was just way too early for the market.

I like the idea of a cube, it would have a board in the base that allowed a macmini to be dropped in. Connecting up power, ports etc. This is surely something for a 3rd party company to develop, no?
post #284 of 649
sigh . . . .
{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
post #285 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthawaii View Post

A post from Feb 2008 asking for a mid-range tower.

http://matthewdarnell.blogspot.com/2...rom-apple.html

We should call it 'Mac'
Mac Mini < Mac < Mac Pro

-Matt

I was going to suggest the same thing. Just make a MAC.
post #286 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

I am in the market for one. They last a long time so I always buy the top of the line. Just waiting for the TB equipped version. I hope they make at least one more version.

Where else are you going to get 12 cores and 64 gigs of ram? With that much power you really need the larger enclosure just for the fans.

The expansion slots are pretty cool too. I have used two so far.

You do realize that you can build a comparable PC for far less than half the cost, right?

I am in no way saying the PC is the better option, but you seem enamored with this ability to have expansion slots, etc. Any PC motherboard has these slots.

With the Mac Pro, what you are essentially paying is a $3,000+ premium for OSX and a pretty aluminum case. You can build a 12-core PC, for example, for $2,300-$2,800, using the same or similar processors as the Mac Pro. Not to mention you can overclock them too. And you can mount the motherboard in a Mac Pro case if you want to.

Again, I am not so much raggin on the Mac Pro as much as I am pointing out that if all you want is 12 cores, 64GB of ram, and expandability, maybe the Mac Pro isn't the right machine for you (unless you absolutely need OSX).

Apple's other products all have a certain level of engineering artistry, and a level of uniqueness, that makes them command their hardware premium over similarly equiped PCs. The Mac Pro, however, is staggeringly overpriced. Outside of the professional video development arena, I have never been able to see how they make sense?
post #287 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchnellFowVay View Post

You do realize that you can build a comparable PC for far less than half the cost, right?

I am in no way saying the PC is the better option, but you seem enamored with this ability to have expansion slots, etc. Any PC motherboard has these slots.

With the Mac Pro, what you are essentially paying is a $3,000+ premium for OSX and a pretty aluminum case. You can build a 12-core PC, for example, for $2,300-$2,800, using the same or similar processors as the Mac Pro. Not to mention you can overclock them too. And you can mount the motherboard in a Mac Pro case if you want to.

Again, I am not so much raggin on the Mac Pro as much as I am pointing out that if all you want is 12 cores, 64GB of ram, and expandability, maybe the Mac Pro isn't the right machine for you (unless you absolutely need OSX).

Apple's other products all have a certain level of engineering artistry, and a level of uniqueness, that makes them command their hardware premium over similarly equiped PCs. The Mac Pro, however, is staggeringly overpriced. Outside of the professional video development arena, I have never been able to see how they make sense?

With the mac pro, it pretty much is about OSX, well that and powerful reliability, but yes the hardware could be duplicated in a PC, but the Hackintosh solution isn't going to work for most people. Too risky.
{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
post #288 of 649
They should be looking at this as an opportunity to retrench to more affordable/higher volume Mac Pro.

A revamped smaller, lower cost case (some kind of distinctive cube?).
Fewer slots.
Integrated, but good motherboard video (like the iMacs 6970).
Single CPU version uses normal desktop Sandybridge.
Normal, non ECC memory.

It should be easy to get the base machine under $1500 with decent margins.

You can maintain the dual Xenon MB with ECC memory for the lunatic fringe as an expensive BTO option.

A lot of home users don't want built in monitors, but that only leaves you a choice between the low end mini and the ridiculous Mac Pro.
post #289 of 649
If you need, use or want a powerful Mac Pro machine, now is the time to let Apple know. Visit Apple Feedback:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/

Fill it out. They do read these. Your feedback to Apple could make the difference.
post #290 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

this will be the undoing of Apple.

Right, the system that sells the smallest percentage of Apple's products being canceled will ruin them. Not even close.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Given the tdp ranges that have shown up in articles, I'm not 100% sure they could fit it along with discreet graphics. It's kind of borderline as the ranges in terms of wattage didn't shift at each processor tier. There are several ways they could do this. They could accept intel integrated graphics which will still suck but will be barely within spec due to OpenCL support meaning you'll be able to run FCPX. The other option is they might be able to underclock it slightly.

The current $800 Mac Mini uses a 35W cpu and a discrete video card, so any of the next gen CPUs will be fine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TechNewb View Post

Who cares if it's made of server parts, make a tower with high end tower parts, it doesn't have to be Xeons. Just add top of the line i7 instead.

The processors have to have 2 QPI links or else they won't support multi-chip setups. Xeons all have this and possibly the Extreme's, but none of the others do. Intel wants only their most expensive chips supported for that basically.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post

There's not many "Avatar" level movies made or albums produced, but being able to use those pros using your machines for real heavy-lifting in marketing material seems like it ought to pay dividends in the sales of the consumer class machines.

What articles talked about Avatar being made on Mac? The only articles I can find all point to Linux.

http://www.junauza.com/2010/01/techn...tar-movie.html


Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

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.

Of course, that one TB port would still allow you to chain 5 Pegasus Promise 12TB enclosures before getting to your TB Display, so how is that a bad thing? I don't think you'll be shoving 60TB into your MP.
post #291 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by ort View Post

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

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

AGREED!!

Apple's Mac Pros are wayyyyyyyyyyy overpriced for what you get. people do not usually consider one because they are definitely NOT the fastest, or most expandable.

If you don't believe me look at the competition.

Perhaps Apple should license it's OS to Boxx computer. At least they would have a real workstation.\
Nate
Reply
Nate
Reply
post #292 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

For my education, what is it about the Mac Pro that recording studios require? (Not my field.)

You can load multitudes of music plugins at the same time and change them on the fly.
Its great to be able to pull up a reverb and put it across a vocal (which may be 15 different tracks) using 15 different instances. All of this in a song which may have 80 Tracks.

You can be as creative as you want without worrying.
Something you can't get with Windows at ALL & something a IMac struggles to do.
post #293 of 649
I know this may be seen as old hat but I still think is the best next thing Apple should do, that is make an eight way PCIe based chassis ditching all mechanical legacy drives, it could even use half hight PCIe card designs making for an extreemly sleek 19" rack, like any new thing... (ie: FCPX) it would need some teething time to integrate into the mainstream but Apple are no strangers to introducing next generation leaps are they?

I would like to also see 6 & 8 core IvyBridge i7EXTREEM not Mobile based processors used with the new intel liquid cooling system built on PCIe cards too but that may be stretching the precept a bit at the moment.
the only reason one would need more than a single multiCPU in the future would be for servers and that job would benefit from multiple racked machines all through connected via opticle TB plenty fast enough for tv studio employ and massively interfacability through dedicated PCIe cards. perhaps 3 USB3 sockets too for general periferals.

this concept would minimise case requirement and development cost with a thin PSU down one side, no SATA optical or HD drive bays just very fast 8 and 16 lane PCIe slots for upto twin GPUs and as many SSD or hybrids ect cards in raid as you need the skys really is the limit with totem poled racking, and a single computer would become the perfect MacproX workstation with MacOS and integrated server really would cream the processional and high end business PROmarkets aswell as enthusiast level beyond iMacs.

This modular system would give PCIe designers a platform for developing new cards like the RED Rocket 4K dedicated video processor I'm sure all pro's can imagine their ideal machine simply buy plug and play PCIe the apple way, and I'm sure apple would find a higher end app shop aswell to make it profitable.
I could even be impressed enough to come back to MacOS.

But in so far disappointed reality I think after all this time and with all the money Apple has coveted, if they can't be asked to support its traditional hardcore people and are prepared to sacrifice the Apple figurehead machine it should at least licence out MacOS X...

Hmmm! first Acorn went, then SGI now ApplePro, thank goodness at least windows is still there to fall back on bad as it may have been in the past, and I don't see much of that outside of running Proapps anyway and haven't had any crashes either over the last few months and Ivy Bridge along with impressive nVidea GPU processor cards will be available on this PC platform too, I no longer feel I'm missing anything especially the ever wandering if Apple would continue to support my future needs, I know windows based PCs will, what a shame!
post #294 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazznb View Post

Apple's Mac Pros are wayyyyyyyyyyy overpriced for what you get.

Not in the least. Do you even know what they're for?

Quote:
people do not usually consider one because they are definitely NOT the fastest

You want a faster release schedule, take it up with Intel.

Quote:
Perhaps Apple should license it's OS to Boxx computer. At least they would have a real workstation.\

So, nonsense then. Got it.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #295 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchnellFowVay View Post

With the Mac Pro, what you are essentially paying is a $3,000+ premium for OSX and a pretty aluminum case.

Have you ever serviced a Mac Pro? It's not merely pretty; internally, it's exceptionally elegant from a practical standpoint.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchnellFowVay View Post

Apple's other products all have a certain level of engineering artistry, and a level of uniqueness, that makes them command their hardware premium over similarly equiped PCs. The Mac Pro, however, is staggeringly overpriced.

In fact, configuring similar single-CPU machines at HP and Dell doesn't yield prices all that much lower than Apple's single-CPU models (in a quick search, I couldn't figure out how to configure dual-CPU models from those sources). Sure, build-your-own may be somewhat cheaper - though the single-quantity prices for high-end Intel CPUs can be quite high. So, I'm not sure that the claim of "staggeringly overpriced" holds up.
post #296 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by n0shoe5 View Post

Does XGrid still exist ? Is it capable of linking minis over thunderbolt for parallel processing ?

plugging machines into xgrid doesn't magically make them all become one super machine.

I don't know where people got that idea from.
post #297 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlynParish View Post

You mean something like this:
http://www.macworld.com/article/163265/article.html

A little different than what I was envisioning, but all in all, that's it! Now, Apple needs native OS support for this type of parallelism.

Oh, and I know this is a bit of fantasy, but how about a "Mac mini Cluster" with 10 Gigabit Ethernet and/or a Fiber Channel. Not that Thunderbolt isn't blazing fast, I feel it leaves something to be desired for the cluster market.
post #298 of 649
seriously F this.

I had an iMac at work and after having to have the logic board replaced because of a video issue I said I would never spend any money on an iMac.

If I can't easily replace parts, than I don't want it.
post #299 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotts View Post

If I can't easily replace parts, than I don't want it.

Then you don't want a Mac at all. Enjoy your home-built PC.

Getting to the logic board on a Mac Pro is even harder than an iMac.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #300 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary54 View Post

But does it have to be this monster? The ever elusive hypothetical small form factor X-Mac mini tower would be just fine. ...

The size seems to be a big problem for some folks, but for the life of me I can't understand why. Are you all working on submarines that you can't afford a couple square feet of floor space under your desk? That's where my "monster" sits. Oooh, it's so big!
post #301 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggiti View Post

You can load multitudes of music plugins at the same time and change them on the fly.
Its great to be able to pull up a reverb and put it across a vocal (which may be 15 different tracks) using 15 different instances. All of this in a song which may have 80 Tracks.

You can be as creative as you want without worrying.
Something you can't get with Windows at ALL & something a IMac struggles to do.

I might add a more detailed list

-Powerfull CPU
-Lots of RAM
-Storage and the option to swap discs fast and easy. If you work with sample librar and orchestration the banks are HUGE.
-PCI cards from UAD, TC Powercore, the Pro Tools HD/HDX system to name some can't run on iMacs, Mac Minis or MacBooks

These things are crusial to the work done by audi/music producers. Portable devices and the iRevolution has done absolutly nothing for this marked...so, Mac Pro or another high-end Mac still needed...
post #302 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Svegard View Post

I might add a more detailed list

-Powerfull CPU
-Lots of RAM
-Storage and the option to swap discs fast and easy. If you work with sample librar and orchestration the banks are HUGE.
-PCI cards from UAD, TC Powercore, the Pro Tools HD/HDX system to name some can't run on iMacs, Mac Minis or MacBooks

There are external Thunderbolt items being produced to allow for 3 PCI-e cards to be run externally, That would resolve those PCI-e cards. Some of those cards may also have been converted into breakout boxes over time.

As far as the sample libraries go, NI's Komplete Ultimate edition has an interesting solution. They put all of the samples on an external USB 2.0 hard drive. Just plug it in and leave it out of the way and have access when you need it.

The iMacs DO have powerful CPUs, just not as powerful as the ones you can get in the MP. They also max at 16GB of RAM, but while more would be better, 16 isn't bad.
post #303 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

There are external Thunderbolt items being produced to allow for 3 PCI-e cards to be run externally, That would resolve those PCI-e cards. Some of those cards may also have been converted into breakout boxes over time.

As far as the sample libraries go, NI's Komplete Ultimate edition has an interesting solution. They put all of the samples on an external USB 2.0 hard drive. Just plug it in and leave it out of the way and have access when you need it.

The iMacs DO have powerful CPUs, just not as powerful as the ones you can get in the MP. They also max at 16GB of RAM, but while more would be better, 16 isn't bad.

I'm aware of all that.....

You have synths, effectprocessors, a ton of stuff using USB, firewire devices and control surfaces using ethernet...cables stretching miles coiled up in the room...so lets just split the Mac up into lots of pieses too...
post #304 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEAMSWITCHER View Post

To hell with the hard drive....on a desktop or laptop it too is a dinosaur...a throw back to the era of spinning disks. Solid state drives are the the future and offer better performance. 256GB SSDs are already well under $400.00, and the prices will continue to drop. The MacBook Air has the right idea, tiny sticks of memory that could be aggregated for capacity or redundancy. You could easily put 5 in an iMac and have a truly awesome local storage solution in about as much space as a laptop hard drive. That's future forward design - drive bays are no longer needed.

The best use for hard disks is external RAID arrays and network storage devices.

Absolute nonsense. I have over 100 GB of media files on my Mac. Even if I could somehow manage to shoehorn that much SSD memory into the computer, the cost would be approaching the cost of my house.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SchnellFowVay View Post

You do realize that you can build a comparable PC for far less than half the cost, right?

Again, nonsense.

I can buy a Mac Pro with two Quad core Xeon processors for $3500. Please show me where I can buy a PC with two quad core Xeon processors and similar specs for $1750.

It really amazes me how people will still insist that Macs are always overpriced no matter what the facts are. It's really hilarious with the MacBook Air. The same people who are claiming that all Macs are overpriced are begging the PC manufacturers to cut their prices on ultralight computers to try to match Apple's price.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #305 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

Totally agree with you. Apple could just rebrand the Mac Mini and scale it from low- to high-end box and have it all covered. A slightly bigger Mac Mini-style enclosure (maybe taller) that has user-accessible internals/slots with Mac Pro-like specs would be a killer product and probably a lot cheaper to produce and sell than the Mac Pros. And hell, with Thunderbolt, you could, in theory, eliminate a lot of the internal accessibility for upgrades and expansion demanded by high-end users.

Obviously, I'm just talking out of my butt here, but it seems like a great direction for Apple to go and to further simplify their line-up (something that has always worked out well for them.) The low-end Mac Minis would be there for cost-conscious users, iMacs for casual and home business types, and this theoretical headless Mini/Pro hybrid would fill the high-end without all the drawbacks of the current Mac Pros.

mac mini server is a good option and i wish they would beef it just a tiny bit. why not make it twice the height of current mini with better cooling and more oomph....hell, make it a perfect cube. i always loved the cube. very nice.
post #306 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchnellFowVay View Post

The Mac Pro, however, is staggeringly overpriced. Outside of the professional video development arena, I have never been able to see how they make sense?

A 12 core Mac Pro is priced identically, feature for feature as the HP workstations. Such as a Z800. This has always been true. You can argue that the HP is overpriced as well, but that is another story.

And yes, the low end Mac pro is stupid overpriced because of the CPU choice limitations.
post #307 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

A 12 core Mac Pro is priced identically, feature for feature as the HP workstations. Such as a Z800. This has always been true. You can argue that the HP is overpriced as well, but that is another story.

And yes, the low end Mac pro is stupid overpriced because of the CPU choice limitations.

They start to converge with oems toward the top end. They're still a bit higher in most similar configurations. You can't just go 12 core for 12 core. At the very least you need to match up processor numbers as those have a pretty dramatic price range.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowdog65 View Post

They should be looking at this as an opportunity to retrench to more affordable/higher volume Mac Pro.

A revamped smaller, lower cost case (some kind of distinctive cube?).
Fewer slots.
Integrated, but good motherboard video (like the iMacs 6970).
Single CPU version uses normal desktop Sandybridge.
Normal, non ECC memory.

It should be easy to get the base machine under $1500 with decent margins.

You can maintain the dual Xenon MB with ECC memory for the lunatic fringe as an expensive BTO option.

A lot of home users don't want built in monitors, but that only leaves you a choice between the low end mini and the ridiculous Mac Pro.


It was never intended for home users. What is funny here is you quote parts without knowing what they cost assuming that cheaper model = uses cheaper parts. It might sound logical but it doesn't work that way when comparing amongst the lines offered by Apple.
post #308 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

They start to converge with oems toward the top end. They're still a bit higher in most similar configurations. You can't just go 12 core for 12 core. At the very least you need to match up processor numbers as those have a pretty dramatic price range.

I did match processors and everything else I could. At this level they are very close. In fact the HP is a little higher.
post #309 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phormic View Post

I've been a professional user of Macs for over seventeen years. I've personally owned two G4 towers and used God knows how many others in various workplaces. I'm typing this post on a Xeon tower now.

However to be honest, I can't wait for the day when these ridiculous looking monoliths from the dark ages of computing, finally sink into the peat bog of technological history. The professional market has to be the most conservative and resistant to change of any market segment. Time and technology marches on but the chorus of whining from a vanishingly small minority over glossy screens, mini towers and other esoterica, that matters to virtually nobody anymore, is eternal.

Where's the like button? =)
post #310 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario View Post

this will be the undoing of Apple.

I agree. It would be a truly bone-headed move. Many audio and video professionals would abandon Apple, with many more prosumers in tow. Media production moving elsewhere would have an impact much larger than any Mac Pro sales. Once they no longer have a clue about it, what's to say they'll "get it" as far as media consumption?
post #311 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Svegard View Post

I'm aware of all that.....

You have synths, effectprocessors, a ton of stuff using USB, firewire devices and control surfaces using ethernet...cables stretching miles coiled up in the room...so lets just split the Mac up into lots of pieses too...

Hey I never said it was a perfect solution, but it's certainly A solution and would mean the add in cards would still be used
post #312 of 649
I know that maybe 90% of people use their computers for email, surfing, youtube, MS Word, music, video games, generally consuming content....
... but do they understand that the 10% make everything they use and need something more powerful than what they have?
Mac Pro's are needed & if people cant get one they'll use a PC.
keep it up Apple .. Steve is gone .. and you might not be far behind
post #313 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by REC View Post

Where's the like button? =)

On the websites that signal the degeneration of human society, where it belongs.

He's absolutely right, though, and I agree with his vision of the future.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #314 of 649
Ignoring the obvious that Apple has long ago lost interest in its picky and critical Pro core customers, who constantly question Apple's omniscience, there are several areas Apple is leaving vacant at its peril:

1. Non glossy screens

2. High end graphics cards

3. Multi-screen high productivity workstations

4. Multi-OS installations

5. Servers

6. Gaming workstations

If Apple fails to offer anything at all to fill the power end of the market, it will lose the very people who pushed hardest for its survival, and who can take whole enterprises with them when they leave.

It happened in the print and education markets and it can happen again.

This time they'll also kill off their significant video/entertainment market as well

Steve Jobs won't be coming back from the dead to save their bacon if they stuff up one more time.
post #315 of 649
Any external PCI - Express chassis that you employ is effective limited to the performance of the TB port. This sucks balls big time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

There are external Thunderbolt items being produced to allow for 3 PCI-e cards to be run externally, That would resolve those PCI-e cards. Some of those cards may also have been converted into breakout boxes over time.

Why would anyone even want an external box if they could simply plug their cards into a proper chassis. Such an approach flies in the face of why you have a computer with slots in the first place.
Quote:
As far as the sample libraries go, NI's Komplete Ultimate edition has an interesting solution. They put all of the samples on an external USB 2.0 hard drive. Just plug it in and leave it out of the way and have access when you need it.

The iMacs DO have powerful CPUs, just not as powerful as the ones you can get in the MP. They also max at 16GB of RAM, but while more would be better, 16 isn't bad.

The iMac does nothing for you if your installation requires multiple computers all of which run some sort of I/O.

Recommending an iMac as a Pro replacement just indicates you have no idea what the machine is used for. Seriously this isn't to dismiss you out of hand but rather it is to try to get the idea across that your suggestions aren't even plausible in many use cases.
post #316 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchnellFowVay View Post

You do realize that you can build a comparable PC for far less than half the cost, right?

I am in no way saying the PC is the better option, but you seem enamored with this ability to have expansion slots, etc. Any PC motherboard has these slots.

With the Mac Pro, what you are essentially paying is a $3,000+ premium for OSX and a pretty aluminum case. You can build a 12-core PC, for example, for $2,300-$2,800, using the same or similar processors as the Mac Pro. Not to mention you can overclock them too. And you can mount the motherboard in a Mac Pro case if you want to.

Again, I am not so much raggin on the Mac Pro as much as I am pointing out that if all you want is 12 cores, 64GB of ram, and expandability, maybe the Mac Pro isn't the right machine for you (unless you absolutely need OSX).

Apple's other products all have a certain level of engineering artistry, and a level of uniqueness, that makes them command their hardware premium over similarly equiped PCs. The Mac Pro, however, is staggeringly overpriced. Outside of the professional video development arena, I have never been able to see how they make sense?

I dispute the price, which can only be achieved by cutting corners and dropping off some features. Also that figure (closer to $3000) just gets you a box of parts. You still have to assemble, test and fix what doesn't work to get a functioning computer. And that computer has no support or warranty.

So in practice you can build a cheaper and possibly more powerful workstation, because Apple puts the fatest margins on their Mac Pros, but at the cost of a considerable amount of your own time, no backup and much greater risk in both getting it to work and maintaining it.

Having said that I am disappointed that Apple may discontinue this line because I really wanted to have an alternative to having to build a Hackintosh to meet my needs.

Maybe Apple will finally succeed in launching that clone industry after all!
post #317 of 649
I'm both a photographer and a developer. As a photog, my Mac Pro works VERY hard to process large numbers of DSLR images using Aperture. It could be faster and I wouldn't mind; but as yet, there is no significantly faster Pro model.

As a developer, I'm cooking up something along the lines of Aperture that is designed to spread the load better than Aperture does. It works; large areas of the software are much faster on my 8-core than Aperture is; but the fact is, it was designed with the idea that the new 12 core/24 thread machines would benefit even more, and so on into the future.

The idea that the 12-core units are the end of the line is both disappointing to me as a photog and a developer. There's no such thing as "too much power" when you have 16 gb of photos to process from a single day's work, and there's no such thing as "too much power" when you can divide images up into subregions to process (well, at least until you get to about a core per scan line or so, which we're not even remotely near.)

And for the video folk... the same, but in spades. Every image frame is a "photo", albeit a lower resolution one than what a DSLR produces.

Nah, I've thought about it some more, and I just can't believe Apple would kill the Mac Pro line. They MAKE Aperture. They know full well that there isn't enough horsepower yet to even consider lopping the top off the performance chart.
post #318 of 649
That would be a sad and irreversible decision. I do however believe Apple should build a MacPro with a much smaller footprint - anyone remember the brilliant Quadra, the Cube?
With Thunderbolt now available, such a large case as the current MacPro is a huge waste - materials, cost of freight etc.
Graphics professionals have a need for the extra RAM, video/graphic card/s etc.
I think this is only a rumor and rumor only, Apple makes a lot of money out of mobile phone and iPod airhead dummies, the last thing they will want to do is alienate those who use their equipment in business.
post #319 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

Sorry - cannot agree! Everyone I know who uses a Mac or Apple product, typically keeps them far longer than those who use other products. What you've claimed is simply not true. My own iMac is 2 years old and still in its prime as far as I am concerned. I still use my 2007 MBP every day. My experience is common amongst my colleagues.

Of course, my experience might not be typical, however, I'll bet it's not far from the mark.

(Edit - my comments are really in respect of your first sentence, sorry!)

By a year or two, I may have been a bit dramatic, sorry. I like the current tower but think there's also scope for a mini tower as has been argued for for years.

There's also the point of the Mac Pro supporting a full-sized video card, which the iMac can't.
post #320 of 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by rubaiyat View Post

3. Multi-screen high productivity workstations



The GPUs come with three ports

Quote:
4. Multi-OS installations

Ooh, partitioning your hard drive is so hard, oooh

Quote:
6. Gaming workstations

Oxymoron.

You want a gaming rig, you buy a PC. You want a workstation, you buy a Mac Pro.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
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