Mac OS X 10.7.3 beta supports AMD's next-gen desktop graphics - Page 2

Bye Bye. It was knowing you.


My guess is you're using Windows on your Mac Pro anyway and not vested in Apple graphics software. This is why Apple will probably abandon this market segment.


How fast is fast? I trained a few years ago in graduate school to do film and motion graphics. Those guys never were happy with what they had to use. But the university's systems for 3D and motion graphics were state-of-the-art and did the job nicely.


You were never top on Apple's list. If Apple produced a supercomputer workstation, you'll still use Windows software to do your thing. IMO you probably were never much of an Apple fan to begin with. So don't hold you breath.

It's pretty clear he is using a Mac. And fast is never fast enough in Motion Graphics. Clients call the shots and they often want stuff yesterday.

Exactly... how do so many people not understand that if your needs for a system exceed Apple's basic design paradigm, the imac/mini solutions turn into a much bigger mess. Also Apple used to be all about making machines that would run silent. That thunderbolt enclosure is quite noisy.


That's true with more than just motion graphics. If he could make changes in real time, it would be fast enough. Without that, people will always buy something faster. Speed is always a big deal and it involves more than just stupid geekbench scores.


Oh this is funny, you're trolling him for "not" being a fanboy. That is beyond pathetic dude. Apple can be really annoying at times, but the whole mac pro may be cancelled thing is speculation. They never had any sources. They made them up because citing anonymous sources is simple. There's no way to verify if you have real information. They simply suggested that Apple actually talked about the future of a product in one of their meetings. You don't need sources for that.

including their (Apple's) own developers.

The Mac pro is going nowhere. When Intel updates CPUs, it will be refreshed. One 4 lane PCI express slot can slaughter Thunderbolt - the fact that there are three of them and two sixteen lane slots speaks volumes.

Memory, graphics cards, internal hard drive capacity - all are essential for critical groups.

If Apple ever does release an updated Graphics card, that will once again be an advantage - not for the new one but for those of us existing Mac Pro owners!

Yes, because it's so hard to plug in third party displays to a Mac Pro.


Oh gawd, I should have know it. A matte fanatic.

Look, either go third party, slap on a high quality film like from 3M or just shut up and move to the PC already. Your not getting a matte display from Apple. Time to move on.


You mean just like them offering glossy only?

Could you be more vague?


more tired memes. Even if the Mac Pro were axed tomorrow, the possibility of Apple turning into another sony are nill.

Again, all this hype is hand wringing over nothing. As long as Apples own developers require the Mac Pro, it's going nowhere. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the case or basic form factor. Other than having to update a new graphic driver or two (please!) there isn't that much that the Mac Pro takes in the form of resources compared to systems like the iMac, Mini or the portables.

I do wish they would offer an "xMac" - something based on desktop class CPUs limited to one socket, 8 memory slots and two sixteen lane slots and one 4 lane slot with the typical compliment of other ports. I think it would be a huge seller and something that I would have rather had vs. what I have now. Don't get me wrong, I love my Pro for what it does for me, but it was overkill by $1K easily.

And no, a MBP or iMac wasn't good enough... I tried the MBP as a desktop and it just didn't work as well....


Ugh, now we are back to the "go crawl back under your rock" - Apple is successful because they create compelling, user-focused products.

Just because they snub matte because that's what the VAST majority of their customers want doesn't mean they are failing. Your confusing your twisted desires with reality. Continue to remain frustrated


So you have been inside Tim's head? Fascinating. Please tell us more!

(actually don't. That was a sarcastic rhetorical question. It's pretty obvious you are totally clueless and driven by irrational loathing by being rejected as irrelevant)


Over 70 billion in the bank and the second largest market cap and they have no "safety net"?

Damn - the rest of the industry must be underwater by comparison. I hope you are just trolling and seriously don't believe any of this crap. If so, that's just sad and pathetic...


While I don't think they will do it, even if they did the Mac Pro wouldn't make nary a dent in their continued success. To think otherwise is simply being delusional. Then again your continued matte sniping demonstrates your disconnection from reality

No I'm not calling him a troll at all. My point is that his industry almost exclusively uses Windows platform software for their work which he probably uses on his Mac Pro and he demands Apple give him what he wants even though he is a very small minority of Apple's base.

It was my own opinion, as I wrote in several post before, that I thought Apple will discontinue the Mac Pro. I wasn't relying on the rumors, just my own observations. I believe Apple wants to phase out the Pro products and focus on the consumer and prosumer market.

I don't know if or when Apple will do it, but I believe they will at some point in the near future. And I told him not to hold his breath as way to tell him to going get a Pro windows box. So don't call someone pathetic when you don't have the whole story or context.

I completely agree. If Apple drops the MacPro, developers and highe end users will desert the platform, as will I. I will run my MacPro 2010 until it dies. The users of this machine are more important than the margins.

I don't belive this at all. If there where any significant profit in the Pro it would be getting more attention. Instead we get longer and longer update cycles.

A couple of thing have me believing the Pro will be completely refactored. For one thing Apple needs to drive sales and to do that they need to have a machine priced reasonably. Second, to support Thunderbolt they will need to put the GPU on the motherboard. Beyond that they need a case that can be converted to rack mount easily and professionally.

I don't think Adobe would bother making After Effects for the Mac nor would Autodesk make their products nor The Foundry. There is clearly a profitable enough market to make it worthwhile. They even make AutoCAD for the Mac now.

A Mac Pro isn't necessary to justify these products though and I think Apple will find a way to phase it out over time.

If they redesign it, it will have to stick around for a few years to justify the retooling. If it just gets a spec bump early next year, I don't think it has a long future ahead of it. It partly depends on Intel's plans too though.

I work in a exhibition design company and out designers use MAC Pro's of which I am one of them. A couple of my designers are waiting for a upgrade but it seems pointless to upgrade at the moment when current Mac Pro's are a year old. If Apple shuts the MAC Pro's down we will have to switch to windows based machines (shudder). That change will will filter down the system as we rotate the computers. As the designers get new PC's then the office staff get there old PC's. Soon all staff will be using PCs. Then the iPhones will go and the laptops................I am sure this is repeated throughout the industry.

I registered just to put this post up as I feel so strongly about it. If anyone from Apple monitors these forums then they should take note..........my industry is waiting for new MAC Pro's. Not powerful MAC mini's, not iMacs or even thunderbolt devices, just the powerhouse that WAS the Mac Pro. At the moment my company is willing to wait but I'm sure other have already started to change to windows - come Feb/March next year I will be sadly looking on the dell website.

Especially the single CPU model


Yes sure, no room needed for cooling.
There is a 200W difference between the old G4 Cube and your pipe dream.

I guess I'm one of the few people in the forum that isn't a Apple board member with inside info, based on all these definitive statements above.

Mac Pro is probably more profitable than any other competitor's high end machines. However, it's profit margin would be very low when compared to the other products in Apple inventory. So it's a drag on the firm's overall profit margin, and thus "non-performing".

It's really just a bean-counter type of thinking. Hopefully Apple doesn't fall for it.

Whether AMD can fab these cards in volume at lower process nodes, and back them up with good graphics drivers, remains to be seen.

That made me laugh



It is pretty high. Given the pricing and single year warranty (every other workstation I can find has a three year warranty as a standard feature), that machine should really start with something more like the six core cpu. A high minimum sale combined with a somewhat bland set of base features isn't all that compelling. The case design internally is really nice from an ergonomics standpoint although I wish the drives and gpus had better cooling (some of the gpu options have been known to run too hot in that machine and fail early). I just dislike the way they're optimized sometimes. Expensive logic board configurations and tidy ergonomic internals are nice, but they do very little for the price or reliability of the internals I mentioned. In buying one of those I want the best speed and stability possible. Other workstation manufacturers do use the W3530 in some models too. They typically start significantly lower in price. I get that Apple wants to keep it above the imac, but they should offer more for the price.

What might be seen as even worst I'm expecting that the next Mac Pro will have some sort of GPU integrated on board. For two reasons. One is to allow for Thunderbolt ports which at a minimal should be four ports. The other is that the trend is to move the GPU closer and closer to the CPU and other motherboard logic. At some point I would expect to see a GPU as a co processor sharing the same address space as the CPU.

It would seem that Apple is chopping away at its lineup. Maybe it's heading for One-Size-Fits-All to save manufacturing costs. That wouldn't be so terrible if it would allow us to configure the innards to what we need. Would a larger Mini or Mini Cube have enough room?????

I'd be beating a dead horse to suggest an xMac. Modular??

First what in the hell does the iPhone have to do with this discussion? Seriously you need to get a grip, millions of people go to work every day and use their iPhones in conjunction with MicroSoft and other operating systems. IPhone is a tool that is completely independent of the systems it works with.

Second; the Mac Pro isn't profitable as it now stands. I can't see how the annual movements even pay for the development costs. Given that Apple isn't a charity they need to do something to sell more hardware. That means the machine must be refactored, Apple really has no choice here.

The problem with this forum is that people like you seem to think that anything that doesn't use the current case / design pattern will be a failure. That is the thinking of a very closed mind. Technology offers them a chance to do more in a more economical package. In the end it isn't the size of the box that matters it is what you can get out of it. If the next Mac Pro comes in a 4U sized box but yet allows you to get twice the performance is that not a significant improvement?

Apple isn't a charity set up to pacify your personal desires, never has been and never will be. Given that I really don't think they will give up on the pro market the way people here seem to think. However the Mac Pro has been dead a very long time now. As such Apple needs to find a way to move enough hardware to at least pay for annual development costs. They also need to move the platform over to new technology initiatives. As such this means new hardware, it is really the only choice Apple has.

The other way to look at this is how many Mac Pros does Apple sell a year. We already know that around 80% of the hardware sold goes to Laptops and after that a significant number of iMacs are sold. So Mini and Pro get the leftovers with a good portion of that going to Mini sales. In the end do you really think that Pro sales are all that significant?

I've seen nothing to indicate that Apple is chopping anything, this whole thread revolves around a rumor. Given that I simply can't see how the Pro can even be remotely profitable for Apple. In general sales are terrible. That in terms of Mac sales.

Given that I really think they have no choice but to try to breath new life into the desktop and workstation lineup. The big problem with the Pro when it comes right down to it is the one sizes fits all mentality at Apple. Customers are obviously rejecting that position. To put it plainly customers want a range of expandable hardware that covers a range of needs. That means a credible XMac for less than $1200 and a Pro that starts at $2000. Note that these can easily be built into the same chassis. Ideally the XMac would be Ivy Bridge based while the Pro would be a dual chip Xeon. The goal would be to keep as many parts as possible in common between the two and to drive volume through the XMac.

Thunderbolt doesn't seem to actually require integration in this manner. Does it even work with the chipsets used in the mac pro? Regarding number of thunderbolt ports, this is Apple, and they always sting us on ports. I think on every mac I've owned, I've populated every firewire and usb port. The cactus ridge (intel and their silly nomenclature) chip won't be around until Ivy Bridge. I would probably expect to see a machine based on Sandy Bridge E and then nothing much until 2013. I'm not sure about the gpu being further integrated on stronger hardware (as in nothing designed for mobility). Take a look at what Nvidia is doing with Teslas and Quadros. If we're reliant on the integrated graphics technology of intel, I'm not sure how much power you will really derive from that.

You're right though on gamers. The mac pro is an expensive machine for gaming. Macs in general are a terrible choice for gamers. The subject came up at times, but it's obvious that gaming companies aren't a big priority for Apple. They don't make a single machine that is a good fit. The mac pro is the only one with an upgradable gpu, but the price of one isn't driven by gamers who would be better served by Windows boxes.

From what I gather Thunderbolt (TB) should work with any processor supporting PCI Express as it acts like a bridge chip. Now I haven verified this by reading Intels documentation but I can't see them tying TB to tightly to Intel only hardware. For TB to take off it needs to be implementable with other hardware.

In any event for TB to get access to the PCI Express data lanes and the Display Port data lanes the chip would need to be on a board where all of these resources are available. The only possible way around this would be to use a 16X slot and build a custom GPU card with TB built on it. That approach would be far less than optimal I would imagine.

This is especially bad on a laptop. There I have zero need for the Firewire port but could use more USB ports.

This is Apple, as such I would suspect that any chip suitable for the Mac Pro is under heavy NDA with Intel.

Note that just because a GPU will be integrated on the motherboard does not mean that we will loose the PCI Express slots. The whole point of the Mac Pro would be lost if those slots went away.

The Mac Pro isn't a gamers machine, but Macs don't do to bad for modest games. At least Macs with a discreet GPU. If one is the type to chase the latest and greatest in gaming hardware and software the Mac is the wrong platform.

I agree. I don't have a Mac Pro but that's only because I can't afford one. I'm on a fixed budget. \ I'd still have an iMac and laptop as a personal Mac. But I do think the Mac Pro has too big a footprint. I'd like to see Apple redesign it as a Mid Tower.

I still believe Apple will discontinue it though and replace it with a superduper iMac. Maybe they will do that with an iMac with several full blown thunderbolt ports when Intel's lightpeak technology matures. I have been very worried that Apple might in the future abandon OS X and try to make it into some type of iOS. I think that would be disastrous for me and anyone using OS X for commercial use.

I hope they don't screw up their developer base.

Considering their moves with Final Cut Pro X, I believe they are heading towards a software that uses most o a Pro's assets and I think they will stick with it.

Consumers are Pros at work, and if they use Mac at home....

What I think is that, the Pro is not profitable cause we do not need to update them as often.
I still have my 2008(early) beauty here with 8 cores and 12 GB RAM, that works still great.
Probably we would see a huge update every 2-3 years on the line, and drivers coming out so we could actually replace the GPU as it fits.
I am planning to replace mine with the ATI 5890 not because it is a problem for work but my games on my Windows disk would benefit from that.

The Pro line does not generate big profits directly but I think is essential to Apple.
The 64bit architecture of Final Cut, Premiere, Photoshop, AutoCad, Logic Pro and other pro Apps will need the pro to work as they should when everything moves to 64 bit.

There is no way to fit 64GB RAM in an iMac & you can not force people who have 30' displays purchased to drop them and go for a close architecture.

So I have a deep belief that the Pro line will stay for a very long time with us.

I Second that. 100%