Despite new CPU options, Apple reportedly questioning future of Mac Pro - Page 9

This seems to be standard procedure among a lot of Apple gadget fans. Their shiny toys do what they want them to do, so they mistakenly assume no one else has different needs. Then they try to rationalize why some totally inappropriate other feature is what an entire industry should be using instead.

I've been using nothing but Apple computers since before the Mac ever existed. I've never worked in an environment that was not Mac based. It really bothers me that Apple (and far too many of their apologists) are thinking this way, because it's starting to look like we'll have no choice eventually but to switch to Windows based products. I freaking hate Windows. Please Apple, don't make me use it.

You've reinforced a long-standing argument about full-sized cards and I could not agree more. In fact, it was the loss of this ability when the Mac was introduced that led to the rise of the 'PC' and Apple's falling out of favour. In a sense, the iMacs of their day, the first Mac computers (one of which I owned and was in awe of), signalled the end of Apple's fledgling dominance. The story, in my experience at least, goes something like this:

...engineers were the first professionals to catch onto the vision for personal computing, long before DTP and other industries. However, these engineers had particular requirements that could only be provided by specialist hardware in the form of plug-in boards. When Apple's emphasis turned to the Mac, which embodied Steve Jobs ethos of complete control over the end-user experience, those many, many engineers who had championed Apple had nowhere to turn but to open PC hardware. Later, when office based workers started seeing the potential, they turned to the only people that they could trust to provide a sound recommendation, their company's engineers. By now, their engineers had jumped ship to MS and could, or would, only recommend these systems. The rest is history.

I have direst experience of this, working for such companies at that very time. Hence, the new, open architecture Macs were, as if, sent from heaven! These were too late and still are to make a big change to buying practices, long after the initial motivation is gone.

Therefore, to me, the Mac Pro was essential to Apple. However, is it still? We have heard plenty of arguments that say YES, the Mac Pro is ESSENTIAL. History might have played out differently though. Remember the Be OS and computers built for it. They included a geek port, in deference to the geeks. If Steve Jobs had included a bus speed port, or access to the actual bus, on the Mac and a specialised, expansion peripheral, all might be different today. Steve however, wasn't interested in engineering fields.

Is it possible that engineers at Apple realise that the iMac with a full-speed Thunderbolt port(s) will replace the need for the tower, or is the question being driven (if it is at all \) by marketing people. I know which answer that I hope beyond hope is the correct one!

All the best.

I agree %100, and to see soo many posts claiming that the IMac can reproduce the same level of work as the Mac Pro its offensive and shows that you have no idea what you talking about.

Most professionals on the music business that I know are in fact complaining that we need more power, and we have been waiting for new machines to upgrade for ages.

Who cares if Mac Pro is big, I personally thing it's not big enough for the needs of most professional music studios.

We need more power at all levels, and pro users know what I am talking about.

This what I hope we have In the future but at a price we can afford.


1: 8 PCI slots.
2: Run 4 or more SSD internal drives at 2GB a piece.
3: As many processors we can get so we can run at 96khz sessions in logic with no problem.
4: Did I mention more power???

Hope apple never stops making computers for pro users...

I agree with some of the posts here about the mac pro being huge. Now, part of that is the drive space and video card size<-huge. But, as a 6-core 3.33MHz 2010 owner and pro photographer that typically maxes out the 12 threads, I'd welcome a more compact and versatile "workstation". Maybe it has only 2 or 3 drive bays. Maybe they mount from the rear into right angle adapters to a mini ATX board. (I'm going off of lingo I used to be familiar with).

Anyhow, I'd love to see Apple pioneer a new form-factor for professionals that could be sold to consumers in a stripped-down offering. Rack mount option would be huge. I'm also not a huge fan of expensive ECC memory. Can't we just move to a regular DDR3?

Some people run out of space even when they have it. If they kep the MP around and you have a machine that fills up it's slots but you still need more, you have an answer. If they get rid of the MP, it's possible (notice I never say MPs are unneeded) that a top end iMac could allow the same or better level of productivity.


I'm perfectly aware what the machine is used for, but for as many use cases as it won't replace it, there are many where it will. Pardon me for keeping an open mind about the possibilities we will have w/the next round of hardware.



Gee, thanks for making all sorts of assumptions about me. I never claimed no one needed the MP, I was trying to think outside the box (yes, pun intended) for how to resolve things if this comes to pass. For the people who were utilizing the low end MP, the iMac is certainly capable of giving the MP a run for its money. The really funny thing about this is that we have this article where they are saying the MP is doomed and in the article about Cook rearranging things a bit at Apple, we have people positing that he will be making a new push into enterprise. Apple fans are schizophrenic w/their expectations of the company sometimes

Some people in this thread seem to think that the world ends if the MP does, but there could well be a new product that replaces it. The PowerBook was replaced w/the MacBook Pro after all. In the end, deciding that the death of the MP means jumping ship is just a knee jerk reaction. Without analyzing everything available at the time of the announcement (whichever way it ends up going) and if other product lines have an expected hardware refresh impending at the time, wait a bit and see. Maybe the next version of the iMac solves more of the problems. Maybe the MP gets a new version. Maybe the MP dies and a more compact non-Xeon, but still high end desktop system w/expansion options is produced. We'll just have to wait and see won't we?

This can not happen. This would be the biggest mistake Apple would ever made.
I, for example, am with Apple because of the MacPro. That's it.
If they kill this computer I'd get really upset. I bought so much software that runs
on powerful workstations almost exclusively, and it's for Mac OS X only, that I would
sue Apple to get my money back.... Seriously.
Adobe Photoshop or Lightroom that run well on a high end workstation, like MacPro, I need to process my high, very high, resolution (250MPx for example) photographs require Mac Pro with multiple cores and at least 24GB of RAM. I will never, ever, get that from some toy-like desktop iMac.
If this really happens it'll have terrible consequences. I'd have to switch back to Windows to get
Xeon multicore processor, and I hate Windows. Linux would be an option but there's no Photoshop or Lightroom for that....
A movie like tool (Apple's Final Cut Pro) will not run correctly on an iMac. What is Apple thinking?
There's a millions of those computers now, but I have to agree with some comments that the current MacPro is well overpriced. I bought 8 core Xeon for about $2800 a couple of years ago. An 8 core Xeon now is at least a $1000 more. A 12 core is close to $5000 so no wonder they don't sell them a lot. But they can't kill this computer.
They will loose a lot of customers and I'll be one for sure.

The dilemma of the Mac pro is that there are users that need more power and expandability than the 27" quad-core iMac can offer, and at the same time are disappointed with the prices of Mac pros due to Apple using the Xeon chips and ECC RAM. Apple could attract more sales by using standard CPUs instead of the Xeon series, thus reducing prices (non-ECC RAM, etc), but at the same time, obviously it will cut the high-end iMac sales as now people have option to buy a cheaper headless Mac Pros.

So, I guess it's expected for Apple to question the future of Mac Pros. The sales aren't great, and they can't push the price down without risking iMac sales.

The starting price isn't due to xeon hardware. The single socket xeons basically parallel the top level i7s. There would be no point in merely switching to the i7 variants of what they have now as they cost the same. What you probably think of as "normal" i5/i7 cpus actually use a different socket. For example the 6 core mac pro uses a processor which also comes in an i7 variant. The xeon sells for around $600 currently. I cannot locate the i7 980x online under $950. I'm not sure why. Perhaps they halted production on the i7 variant of that cpu. When they debuted, they cost the same amount. ECC ram doesn't really affect the price. ECC vs non ECC makes little difference in price these days, and all computers in Apple's line (just like other oems) ship with minimal ram configurations.

They'd have to drop down to basically the same tiers as the imac, only minus the display and mobile version gpu. Anyway if anything is driving the cost up, it's low sales volume. This has probably affected manufacturing costs to a degree.

It seems to me that this isn't just about the end of the mac pro, but of the "pro" in general at apple.
everyone used to talk about the ipod halo effect, but but how can the company maintain a high end image if it drops the high end?

As for slow sales, as many have pointed out, it seems to be a symptom of reliable machines (not a bad thing!), and only modest/ pricey upgrades, but there is also the software disconnect.

I've had my early 2008 now for nearly four years, and still most software, including apple software can't properly tap its full potential. motion 4, for example, can leverage the nearly 2 teraflops of GPU power in the ATI radeon 4750 nicely, and motion 5 can get all 8 cores cranking in 64 bit with nearly as many flops, but neither can do both. Even with a virtual cluster in compressor, no one piece of software can really leverage the pro as well as it should. and with dumbed down FCP apple seems to really be trying to tell me to go buy a wintel box and install CS5, because they don't want to support independent freelance motion image artists who maybe can't afford an entire render farm to go along with their pewny mac mini.

i really hope apple gets its pro game back on, for their sake and mine!

If this happens it is so tragic that I will start to hope for another solution than the audio industry surfing on the mainstream computer marked.

A own OS for audio with dedicated and optimized computers for sound, recording etc,

The dual CPU Mac Pro (besides the GPU) are nice as they are. They are competitive to dual CPU workstation from other brands.

The problem is the single CPU Mac Pro - especially the $2499 entry Mac Pro has a massive performance problem.
The starting price for a single CPU Mac Pro that tops the fastest iMac ($2199) is $3899 in the Apple store as you need to upgrade the CPU & GPU.

drop the 2.8GHz CPU model (in the wild the 3.2GHz CPU is already cheaper than the 2.8GHz CPU - Apple takes $400 for nothing )
make the 3.2GHz QC CPU standard & the 3.33GHz SC a $600 upgrade
put in a HD6870 as standard & make the HD6970 a $300 upgrade
put in 12GB RAM as standard (the name is Mac Pro)
drop the entry price to $2199

Mac Pro problem solved.

Should the Mac Pro really go the way of the Dodo I'll go the way of the hackintosh (users in insanlymac.com >900.000)!

@hmm
The i7-980X was followed by the i7-990X

That's not really possible.


You would lose immediately. Further money would be wasted on court fees.


That's the most shortsighted tech statement that I have EVER read since my own IDIOTIC spree about Blu-ray ever coming to the Mac back on MacRumors. And that's saying something. I actually thought Apple would adopt Blu-ray at one time.

You're completely wrong.


Yes, it will.


That you're completely and utterly wrong.


Well, if your journey is from Point A, Delusion to Point B, terrible OS' made by someone else, enjoy the ride.

I love my MacPro... but it doesn't mean i'll stick with Apple if they decide to go only after the entry level Market...

(... and if you truly believe iMacs are high end machines, you'll probably be allright just using an iPad...)...

What I think is that Apple will discontinue the Mac Pro and replace it with another machine.

Imagine this:

clustered Mac Minis.

You can start buying 1 or 2 mac minis, connect them in parallel with a special connector at the mainboard level (i.e. thunderbolt) and add as many
as you want. You could end up with 10 mac minis in cluster: 10 Cpus, 80 GB of RAM, 10 HDD in RAID...

it's the new era of personal computer....the one you see only once in a decade!

The next iMac update will kick those up by another couple thousand points. And no, the iMac can't take 96GB of RAM, but it can take 16. Which is enough for a huge percentage of users. And that amount will only ever increase.

PCIe expansion's being replaced with Thunderbolt. There's nothing anyone can do about it. I, personally, would not be surprised if the next Mac Pro, if it exists, is a redesign that cuts out all but two PCIe slots: a double-wide for the GPU and a single for one card.

As a Mac Pro owner myself, I kind of actually want them to kill it. At least then the snobs would SHUT UP.

Yeah, the amount of hyperbole being utilized in this thread is pretty insane. "Toy-like" iMacs? Did someone mistake a My First Computer from Fisher Price for an iMac or something?

Oh, gosh, you saying Fisher Price brought back nightmares of that short-lived troll that wouldn't refer to Apple devices as anything but.

The level of UTTER SUBSENTIENCE he displayed just makes me sick remembering it

I am actually making this post on a Imac 27 top of the line (and we have 2 Imacs top of the line in the office).

So in any way I am knocking a Imac, i think they are great machines and they do there purpose very well.

But lets not get confused in any way, the Imac simply cannot come close to a Mac Pro when it comes to music production at Pro level.

I know people that went for the Imac story that can produce similar results on music, and they regret it big time.
Because once they start to record instruments Live etc etc and build big projects in hi sample rate they realize even the most powerful Mac Pro just wasn't enough.

There is allot that involves big music projects and honestly there is no point in explaining why a Imac is simply out of the question.
The fact is no big studio runs there system on a Imac period.

Yes, Mac pro are very expensive and apple needs lower there prices to reach more and more people.

Talk to Intel. Apple doesn't set prices on chips.

i believe, that most of the people who use the Mac Pro or want it want it for either:

A- easy to get more RAM
B- easy to get more storage and/or swap hard drives
C- need the better graphics cards
D- want the Xeon CPU because of ECC or something like that


so, you might solve
B and C (kinda)

but thats only half of the problems (i think)

I record music in a Home studio Situation, I use one of the main software programs used in the recording industry. A couple of years ago i decided to downsize my studio. i had a 2008 8 core machine with 4 hardrives, i also used a aes card which was pcie. i sold the unit and card and interface. i bought an imac, i kept it for 8-12 weeks, cant remember the exact time. Anyway running the same program the imac could not hang, i couldnt record as many tracks, i tried sending files over the network which didnt work. i would record to the imac, then copy the files to an external device which was a pain. i also bought a different interface that was made for apple, it didnt sound as good as what i had. I ended up buying a firewire version of my original interface, it didnt sound the same as what i had with the aes setup. (there is a difference in sound between fire wire and aes/madi) Long story short i ended up buying another Mac Pro. If Apple gets rid of the pro.... there needs to be room for expansion.... Just my story from personal experience.

I am typing this post on an early 2008 Mac Pro which has been a full time video production work horse for the past four years.

It seems not so long ago that Steve Jobs was comparing Apple's market share in the computer market to the likes of Mercedes Benz in the car market. Both were making cutting edge products that continually redefined their industry, he said, and so it was logical that they wouldn't find mass markets with mid-range consumers and that's just how Apple wanted it. Things have certainly changed since then.

It does seem coldly logical that the Mac Pro, having become a niche offering from a company that now makes most of it's money elsewhere, could go the way of the Dodo. The rules of capitalism dictate that a publicly traded company must seek to maximise profits where it can. But there may be a different type of logic at play.

In every sector of design and innovation there are various strata of product offering. In the car industry the research vehicle begets the executive saloon begets the midsize family car. At each step down the chain the technology becomes less cutting edge but the market gets bigger.

In the fashion world the major fashion houses produce their Haute Couture collections every year. This is where they really flex their creative muscles and let design and innovation trump economics. The clothes that are made are cutting edge, yet they only sell to a few well heeled inhabitants of New York, London, Paris, Milan. These clothes, painstakingly made and expensively showcased, are what build the reputation of brands like Chanel and Gucci. There is a trickle down effect of cool. Few of us will ever wear Alexander McQueen or John Galliano, but within a couple of seasons, the clothes we do buy will be inspired by their work at the haute couture level.

In the case of Apple, there are huge reputational dividends to be derived from making the best computers in the world, even if these machines are only used by a relatively niche audience of filmmakers, architects, 3D artists, graphics designers, photographers etc. The Mac Pro, like a bespoke suit or an S-Class Mercedes, cannot be for everyone, but can be Apple's premium offering, a showcase for the best of it's engineering prowess.

It remains to be seen whether a post Jobs Apple has any real interest in making the best computers in the world, or whether the dropping of the world 'computer' from the company's name will come to be seen as prescient.

Most people I know who have ever owned a Mac Pro have eventually replaced it with a Mac Mini, when a new Mini became available that was faster than the older Mac Pro. The only exceptions are those who buy a new Mac Pro every year because they need the fastest Mac available and load it up with lots of RAM. I don't know anyone who has replaced a Mac Pro with an iMac, but I'm sure some people have done so.

It looks like you forgot those who need the CPU performance. One example of such users would be those doing simulations (of just about anything). My guess is the main reasons users buy a Mac Pro is either for the CPU performance or because they need more RAM than an iMac can handle.

Good write up on Diglloyd if it hasn't already been posted.

http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/...ifeMacPro.html

Apple really needs to address this rumor. This can effect the way whole design/media companies operate.

Even this being a rumor is enough for me to start exploring what my other options are, as I can't afford to go down a dead end, nor can the rest of the media/design industry.

If I lose the Mac Pro, I'm ditching my laptop and everything Apple related as I need my systems to work together on the same OS.

This is coming from someone who had used Apple computers since the Apple ][+. It would be sad to give up 30 years of support, but I have to consider the future. Support from software manufactures that I rely on will drop, particularly in the 3D sector.

Apple, please address this rumor.

I run a professional photography studio - and use a huge camera system that is 245 MP - producing 600 MB images. After upsizing to 40X60 inches and adding a few layers, I work on 1.5GB images that need to get ready for printing onto canvas.

I've been waiting for several months to replace my 2009 Mac Pro (I have 2 of them) with a newer, faster model. I also have 15 external hard drives (eSATA) in bays for image storage, and I run 2 large displays.

I'd like a fast processor and 24 GB of RAM -- and my cc is ready.

Killing the Mac Pro may get me off the Mac list - and I've been a steady user since my IIfx and Photoshop version 2.0 in 1991 --- 20 years of Macs ...

Yes, I love my iPhone and my iPad --- but this is still a computer company, even though they removed the word "computer" from their name.

Kill this rumor now, Apple !!!!!

You had a IIfx - the dream machine of it's time? I hate you!

To whosoever is responsible for the decision of whether to continue the mac pro or not, i beg you with whatever you hold dearest, please don't, because you are going to kill apple as a whole by doing that.

Please reconsider and i am sure you will find a reason or two not to.

Yes, 1991. A Mac IIfx - and a 16" color monitor. We had a "true" digital camera on my microscope - with a Peltier cooling unit and lots of SCSI cables. The camera weighed about 4 pounds - was 1 Megapixel - and it was black and white only. The camera cost over $20,000 ..... We ran Photoshop version 2.0 - which came in a big box with a dozen floppy disks.

Those were challenging, but fun-filled days.

Isn't it really all about performance and isn't the question not what sort of performance do the consumer desktops provide today but rather what sort of performance the consumer desktops (i.e. the iMac and the Mac Mini) will be providing 18 months from now. After all, Apple still sells the Mac Pro for those who need such a device. It isn't about killing the Mac Pro right now but rather what sort of role would such a machine play in the line-up if 18 months from now iMacs and Mac Minis will be able to offer similar performance, if not better, to the current roster of Mac Pros.

I just finished a video project and while there were hiccups and times when I wish I had more power, my Mac Mini did get the project done using the new Final Cut Pro. I'm running a fully specced Mini with the 2.7 processor, the SD+7200 RPM drives, 8GB of RAM, and Firewire 800 external drive. While some odd stuff was happening, mainly in relation to transitions and titling, I don't know if it was related to the Mini or if the Final Cut software, being relatively new, has some glitches. I can say that processing video on this newer Mini compared to my doing the same sort of work last year (it's for an annual event) using iMovie and a 2,53Ghz Mini, turned out to be substantially different. What the old machine struggled several hours to complete, this new machine pulled off in a matter of minutes.

If the current Mini is a quantum leap ahead of the Minis that came before, surely a year from now we'll have a Mini with some fairly amazing capabilities and two years from now a Mini with the muscle to do rather demanding work. I wasn't able to maximize the capabilities of the existing set-up, either, in that I don't have a Thunderbolt drive in the mix. Also, I had gathered up so much junk that the internal drives were getting close to full when I worked on the video project. No doubt this impacted on how well the Mini could perform.

If it takes two years for the Mini to be upgraded enough to be taken seriously by those who have demanding work to do, even that tells me that it's just not worth it for Apple to sink much time, effort, and money into updating the Mac Pro. Why bother? They can make the existing version available for the next while, maybe drop the price a bit from time to time and when the Mini gains the power to be a legitimate Mac Pro substitute, pull the plug with relative ease. A few folks will grumble at first, even fewer will switch to a PC, and the majority will simply buy a well-equiped Mini instead. Apple's part in this will be to ensure the Mini is up to the task when the Mac Pro is axed. Today it's not but two years from now it probably will be.

So I'm better off to use great OS with piece of junk hardware? And you're saying that this is the only not delusional way? LOL
So I should get weak (hardwarewise) computer because this maybe the only one that Apple will offer? You know who is buying a lot of iMacs? Just go to a Apple store and look... I see some (not too many) teens and a lot of older people that need to send safely e-mail, without viruses etc. But this isn't a computer for serious post processing of movies or photographs and cameras these days are getting more advanced with more pixels that iMac won't handle. And, i'm not talking about digital photography done by iPhone.
Why are you commenting on something you don't know about?
Just look at BigPhotos post above. He needs computer to process 1.5GB in size picture. Try that on iMac or laptop? Or you'll say that's possible again? Hahahahaha
It's possible to drive car with your feet, you know? I've seen it done.... Won't you try it.

Not a fan of integrated monitors. I could never own an iMac. Mac Pro is the way to go for multiple displays, added storage, ram, expansion cards, multiple optical drives and horsepower!

iMac's and Mini's basically use laptop components. I need workstation power and size!

Pro Video, 3D, Audio and Graphics demand it!

Good luck if your integrated screen burns out!

I thought some time ago I read that Apple sought to be the BMW of computers. Some of you are aware that there are "regular" BMWs and there are BMW "M" models. The Mac Pros would be analagous to the M series BMWs. Since Apple is unlikely to license OS X to another manufacturer could Apple create a Pro division to create the multi chip machines that people like Mr. Fix and others love? That Pro division could be wholly owned by Apple.
And how about replacing the single chip MP with the X Mac?
Just my $0.02

So this software magically breaks if you try to install it on anything but a 12-core Xeon?





It is. You've lost. I'm confused why you're even in this.

Bleh one of the older posts but even if intel gave the chips away free, I doubt the starting price of the mac pro would drop by much if at all.



Yes and it was a marginal bump. Neither can be found approaching the price of the xeon version though. Speaking of which, when it became clear new processors wouldn't be out for a while, a mid generation bump would have helped sales somewhat with the 6 core coming down to a price that reflects the current cost to build one.



He's dealing with one of a few things. It could be high resolution digital backs or scanning backs. Either produces a very very very large file toward the top end of what is available. He could be dealing with panoramic stitching which in all fairness takes a huge amount of ram although the newest imacs wouldn't chug as bad as older ones. Many of these programs really don't make efficient use of all the extra cores so the computer will pretty much choke regardless of cpu choice. If he's dealing with really big files 32GB or more of ram might be a requirement for the whole process to not suck. Before these applications were rewritten to 64 bit it was common to raid boot and/or scratch drives to help alleviate the bottleneck there.

I don't have a real fight in the Mac Pro because it is overkill for my needs. I have been holding out for a mid sized mid range headless Mac while my current Mac just keeps getting older and older.
I look to Apple for my computer needs. Right now that need isn't being met. I'm not about to spend any money on anything else from Apple (wants versus needs) if the need isn't being supplied. There is no halo effect with any of the iDevices without the desktop computer I need.

Sad to think that I was first exposed to Apple over 18 years ago in a professional setting which got me to use Macs for personal use and now Apple is considering throwing professionals under a bus.

Hmm. All right, fair enough.

I guess I'm more defending the progress of tech rather than the iMac itself. Most arguments against the death of the Mac Pro tend to require the iMac to never receive an update ever again until the end of time.

No serious photographer would ever use an iMac for high-quality image editing. We spend thousands of dollars on monitors that can be profiled and calibrated so the what we see on the screen will match what comes out of our $6,000 printers. I do have iMacs in a classroom - and in an office. But if there are no new, upgraded Mac Pros I will have no alternative than to move to PCs. And, if I do that for the editing studio, I'll probably force everyone else in my little company to make the move to PCs as well just to standardize and train everyone. If it comes to that, I may just retire or find another occupation.

The iPhone company may just be looking at the bottom line - rather than making the world's best tools to do important tasks. That's not the company I just finished reading about in the book on Steve Job's life.

I'm using a current 12 core Mac Pro and I have render times of up to 20 minutes a frame, sometimes longer. So I don't want to wait a few years for an iMac or Mac Mini to have the power of what is needed NOW.

If Apple drops the Mac Pro, I'm am switching, and I'm not just switching at the desktop level, I'm switching the whole studio. Then their halo is broken...and when my friends that aren't professionals see me using something other than Apple, they're going to question why they're using it, if the professionals aren't. Consumers always and will continue to want what the professionals/famous people use. That will not be Apple if they kill the Mac Pro. As I will switch within 3 months of that announcement.