or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Tim Cook confirms updated Mac Pro coming in 2013
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tim Cook confirms updated Mac Pro coming in 2013 - Page 7

post #241 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by squareback View Post

All this flaming going and not one mention of the Knights Corner chip Intel will be releasing later this year, and how it may relate to the next Apple Pro.

That was covered on page 4.
post #242 of 335
This bull crap needs to die!
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post


You miss several points. First, Apple's neglect and fights with Adobe have resulted in the loss of what was once an important customer base.
What fights did Apple pick with Adobe? They made a decission to go to 64 Cocoa, which was not a change directed at anyone company. It was done because it was the right thing to do. It prevent Apple from having to support legacy software forever. The impact wasn't unique to Adobe. This idea that Apple singled out Adobe is plain BS.
Quote:
I am aware of a fair number of technical useers in the scientific and medical community who, if forced will leave the platform, but would much prefer to remain. They would have to find a solution elsewhere...a unix or linux box most likely.
You fail to explain why here. However a fair number of technical users do prefer Linux.
Quote:

I don't take Tim's statement as meaning anything in particular. If forced to guess, I would say that it means there will be one more Mac Pro.
Oh that is nice you dismiss out of hand a public statement made by the man running the company and then you GUESS at what will happen in the future. Now answer this question who is in a position to know?
Quote:
Apple's commitment to the continuation of the Mac Pro lineup is still in question. I don't think it has much of a future because it is following in the footsteps of the X-Serve in terms of not being kept up-to-date and declining sales. Apple has failed to step up and give assurances that there will be Mac Pros in the future. The fact of the matter is that Apple have dropped enough hints about the lack of sales to lead to a conclusion that there is not much of a future for it.
I really don't know whoe is dropping hints as I've seen nothing official from Apple. The fact of the matter though is that the current Mac Pro is a bit of a Joke as far as professional machines go. This is why I believe it will be replaced with something different.
Quote:
If the machine that Apple releases as the next Mac Pro is not substantially better than the existing one, who would want it. The current one is outdated and has been for some time.
Well that is obvious, but don't you think that an all new computer to replace the Mac Pro would be substantially different? The current one is technically out dated but it is still a very good performer.

Look I'm not saying the current behavior with respect to the Mac Pro is a good thing with respect to the using community. However it may very well make sense if Apple sees it as the end of the line. Now one has a choice here they can think that Apple will say screw it or they can think a new generation of machine is coming. I really don't see Apple saying screw it.
post #243 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by squareback View Post

All this flaming going and not one mention of the Knights Corner chip Intel will be releasing later this year, and how it may relate to the next Apple Pro.
Much love
Larry

I brought this up awhile back. Knights Corner is just one approach that Intel is pursuing with respect to high performance computing chips which they have now branded as Zeon Phi.

I actually believe that this has a strong potential to fit into Apples future and also explains Apples hold off to early next year. It is the only architecture that I know of that is coming due in that time frame from Intel. Xeon Phi however is a family of technologies from what I understand. One can not be certain that what we know as Knights Corner is what Apple has planned for the Mac Pro replacement. One vector that Intel is working on is a high performance computing chip with Infiniband built in. This would be very interesting and could lead to the low cost compute modules often discussed and rumored in these forums.

Combine these advancements with other technologies Intel is working on such as 3D RAM and you can see a huge potential for a new generation of machine from Apple. Considering Apples behavior here I would suspect a new generation of machine, it is just hard pinpoint exactly what that machine will look like.
post #244 of 335

Wizard69,

 

You again miss most points. You seem to be good at that. Try reading and thinking for a change.

 

For example, your "Well that is obvious" remark after you proclaim how wonderful the new one will be...bla, bla, bla. The Mac Pro has been neglected in a major way.

 

As far as Tim's statement, I took it at face value. There will be a Mac Pro next year sometime. He has yet to display a willingness to say that the Mac Pro has a place in Apple's future beyond that. That is a major problem.

 

You also misread the remark about scientific and medical researchers. I am aware of a number of them using Mac Pros because they can run Unix software necessary for their research. Should the Mac Pro lineup disappear I doubt that an iMac would have sufficient performance for their needs and they would have to look elsewhere for their solutions, such as a Unix or Linux box. That's pretty obvious.

 

Oh, by the way, you are the promoter of used oats. If you can't get it straight, just go into a read only mode for some time while you figure it out.

post #245 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

As far as Tim's statement, I took it at face value. There will be a Mac Pro next year sometime. He has yet to display a willingness to say that the Mac Pro has a place in Apple's future beyond that. That is a major problem.

 

Why?  HP nearly dumped their entire PC business.  "Committing" to more than a year in the future is likely an empty promise anyway.

 

 

Quote:

You also misread the remark about scientific and medical researchers. I am aware of a number of them using Mac Pros because they can run Unix software necessary for their research. Should the Mac Pro lineup disappear I doubt that an iMac would have sufficient performance for their needs and they would have to look elsewhere for their solutions, such as a Unix or Linux box. That's pretty obvious.

 

Unless they are refreshing workstations every year that's 2015+ problem.  It's hard to say what will have sufficient performance that far out.  The biggest limitation on the iMac has been RAM and expansion.  Maybe by 2015 we'll have 20Gbps TB on the iMac and you can offload some the processing to CUDA/OpenCL/KnightsWhatever cards with their own big block of RAM in an expansion chassis.  Not much you can do if Intel supports only XXGB/processor and that's what you already allow.

post #246 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Why?  HP nearly dumped their entire PC business.  "Committing" to more than a year in the future is likely an empty promise anyway.

 

 

 

Unless they are refreshing workstations every year that's 2015+ problem.  It's hard to say what will have sufficient performance that far out.  The biggest limitation on the iMac has been RAM and expansion.  Maybe by 2015 we'll have 20Gbps TB on the iMac and you can offload some the processing to CUDA/OpenCL/KnightsWhatever cards with their own big block of RAM in an expansion chassis.  Not much you can do if Intel supports only XXGB/processor and that's what you already allow.


The issue is whether one outpaces the other, and whether that power is harnessed by software. There is something to be said for the ability to perform basic service on site too. Overall it's important not to view computing technology as an area with static goalposts. They will always look for a way to make you buy something. Using HP as a business example seems like a bad idea. They've taken some good ideas and just destroyed them. They also had no intention of spinning off all PCs. They wanted to spin off the least profitable division, which was consumer products. The high margin workstations were never on the chopping block, so the reference is counter to your argument. Go to their site and look at how much a Z workstation costs. They mark up any configuration changes by a large amount, so they have volume driven base configurations, and a very high margin on any upgrades. It's the consumer towers and laptops that are getting thrashed. Sadly they've seen many problems in recent years. They started off as a company that made decent computers, so just remember, this could happen to Apple too.

post #247 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

Wizard69,

You again miss most points. You seem to be good at that. Try reading and thinking for a change.
I'm doing fine! Really I'm trying to take a positive slant on what might be happening. You on the other hand are a boat load of negativity.

Now some of that is justified, the last Mac Pro micro update was very much an insult to Mac Pro users. More so Apples attitidue towards the desktop does suck so I understand the negative perspective.
Quote:
For example, your "Well that is obvious" remark after you proclaim how wonderful the new one will be...bla, bla, bla. The Mac Pro has been neglected in a major way.
Has anyone here disagreed with the idea that the Mac Pro has been neglected? The fact is I've been very vocal about the neglect to the entire desktop line up.
Quote:
As far as Tim's statement, I took it at face value. There will be a Mac Pro next year sometime. He has yet to display a willingness to say that the Mac Pro has a place in Apple's future beyond that. That is a major problem.
Even Ford won't guarantee that the F150 will be in production ten years from now. It is totally asinine for you or anybody else on this forum to expect Cook to layout product plans for the coming years. If you can't deal with that then you have real issues to address.
Quote:
You also misread the remark about scientific and medical researchers. I am aware of a number of them using Mac Pros because they can run Unix software necessary for their research. Should the Mac Pro lineup disappear I doubt that an iMac would have sufficient performance for their needs and they would have to look elsewhere for their solutions, such as a Unix or Linux box. That's pretty obvious.
So the go to a server manufacture for the same sort of hardware.
Quote:
Oh, by the way, you are the promoter of used oats. If you can't get it straight, just go into a read only mode for some time while you figure it out.

You really need to get a grip and think positive! Sure it is a little harder but you will be far less miserable.
post #248 of 335

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

...
What fights did Apple pick with Adobe?
...

I think it's safe to say that Apple and Adobe had a strong disagreement about how Adobe's "Flash" products should fit into the future of the web, with particular emphasis on how it should fit into the mobile web browsing.

 

I think it's fair to say that Apple has moved away from Abobe's proprietary "Type 1" font format, and now prefers True Type and Open Type.

 

I think it's fair to say that Apple and Adobe are in direct competition with their Lightroom and Aperture products.  Apple reduced the price on Lightroom forcing Adobe to reduce the price on Lightroom.

 

In the old days, Apple and Adobe were best friends.  Adobe's main revenue source was licensing the PostScript page description language for use in Laser Printers.  Apple's LaserWriter was the first commercial product to use PostScript.  Today, they are no longer best friends, and they clearly butt heads, and/or directly compete on a number of fronts.

post #249 of 335

Aperture isn't doing so well relative to Lightroom.  I wouldn't be surprised if Apple axed it soon.  

post #250 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

Aperture isn't doing so well relative to Lightroom.  I wouldn't be surprised if Apple axed it soon.  

I've always seen it as a pet project for Apple. Adobe put a lot of work/effort into Lightroom. It's one of their better success stories.

post #251 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



I agree with OS X popularity rising due to the switch to a unix core but how many 17" and MP buyers do you think are out there influencing people to buy Macs and do you honestly think those same people will not only switch to Windows PCs but convince others to do the same in large numbers? IT depts have for the most part accepted Apple because of the iPhone's use in business, it had nothing to do with the relatively miniscule amount of Mac users.

 

So you think Macs would have the market share they have today if Apple had just kept improving the classic Mac OS and forgot about Mac OS X? 

 

So it's just the iPhone?  IT geeks would adopt an inferior OS as long as the same company made a cool phone?  Really?  

 

It sounds like you're just apologizing for Apple's decisions rather than analyzing them.  Or maybe you weren't a Mac user prior to OS X and don't remember what horrid junk Mac OS 9 was in comparison.

post #252 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I've always seen it as a pet project for Apple. Adobe put a lot of work/effort into Lightroom. It's one of their better success stories.

 

Actually when Lightroom was first introduced, Aperture compared to it very favorably.  It seems that Aperture lit a fire under Adobe's arse that compelled them to tweak and refine Lightroom in the powerhouse it now is.  Meanwhile Apple let Aperture sort of languish, failing to put the same resources into it that Adobe put into Lightroom.  It's understandable, given that Lightroom has a significantly larger user base, but kind of sad, too.

post #253 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

 

Actually when Lightroom was first introduced, Aperture compared to it very favorably.  It seems that Aperture lit a fire under Adobe's arse that compelled them to tweak and refine Lightroom in the powerhouse it now is.  Meanwhile Apple let Aperture sort of languish, failing to put the same resources into it that Adobe put into Lightroom.  It's understandable, given that Lightroom has a significantly larger user base, but kind of sad, too.

I so disagree with you. Aperture is such a flawed piece of software in how its designed. It imports all of the files, creates a huge bloated library, and hides the originals. Aperture uses a relatively lean amount of metadata stored as a set of instructions either within the same folder or at a specified location. It adds very little weight to the archive for the amount of information that can be assigned within it, and they maintain a reasonable amount of backward compatibility with legacy profiles to match the look you got from them several years ago on a prior version. They include the .DNG format. While I wouldn't use it for most things, it would be a useful conversion if we're talking about legacy file formats. It gives you some kind of migration path while support remains in effect. Aperture is just a big clunky mess if you're sorting thousands of images, and the raw profiles it uses are vastly inferior even if I don't like Adobe's use of prophoto internally on such things. Aperture did very little in terms of lighting a fire there. The two came out around the same time. Adobe just did a better job. They lag on some things, but they're quite responsive with things of extreme mass market appeal, much like Apple. Even with delays due to Apple's change in plans,  they still released a 64 bit creative suite before Apple's internally developed software made the same migration, and lightroom has always scaled better than aperture.

 

By the way, I still prefer the way capture one handles colors.

post #254 of 335

I don't disagree on your comparison, but I do think you exagerrate the difference between the two at their release.  Aperture's GUI has some benefits over Lightrooms, in that one isn't forced to constantly switch between modules.  Personally I prefer Lightroom's approach, but others disagree.  

post #255 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfryd View Post

I think it's safe to say that Apple and Adobe had a strong disagreement about how Adobe's "Flash" products should fit into the future of the web, with particular emphasis on how it should fit into the mobile web browsing.
This is the closest thing to what might be described as a fight. Interestingly Steve left an opening for Flash, it just required Adobe to fix its many outstanding issues. In any event Steve's interest here wasn't to fight Adobe but rather to keep a known problem child off iOS, there is a big difference.
Quote:
I think it's fair to say that Apple has moved away from Abobe's proprietary "Type 1" font format, and now prefers True Type and Open Type.
Yes and rightfully so. Proprietary isn't good here at all. But again this isn't a fight with Adobe, it is rather doing the right thing for Apples customers.
Quote:
I think it's fair to say that Apple and Adobe are in direct competition with their Lightroom and Aperture products.  Apple reduced the price on Lightroom forcing Adobe to reduce the price on Lightroom.
I think you mean Aperture above, but non the less this is competition not a fight. Further more Apples products offer a unique take on the need here. Also Apple has Agressively been reducing the cost to users for software which in many cases is priced extremely high for what you get. Apple isn't targeting Adobe here as much as they are going after the entire industry that basically charges rip off prices. This again is competition not a fight and it is certainly not targetted at Adobe.
Quote:
In the old days, Apple and Adobe were best friends.  Adobe's main revenue source was licensing the PostScript page description language for use in Laser Printers.  Apple's LaserWriter was the first commercial product to use PostScript.  Today, they are no longer best friends, and they clearly butt heads, and/or directly compete on a number of fronts.

Doing what is right for Apple isn't fighting with Adobe. I'm not sure where this comes from. Apple has done a better job with PDF and Postscript technologies than Adobe did. Their code is fast. Further it is integrated into Mac OS in a way that Adobe could never do as a contractor. Apple really had no choice here but to pull much of this development in house, but that does not imply that there was hostility towards Adobe.
post #256 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I so disagree with you. Aperture is such a flawed piece of software in how its designed. It imports all of the files, creates a huge bloated library, and hides the originals.
Being an amateur I was extremely frustrated with this approach. It is almost as if Apple designed Aperture to be an archiving platform for pictures. While such a system might be useful in conjunction with other software, it does not work well as a stand alone system. It's fatal mistakes being the idea that it can organize things better than you can in a directory and the idea that a user doesn't need quick access to images from other apps.
Quote:
Aperture uses a relatively lean amount of metadata stored as a set of instructions either within the same folder or at a specified location. It adds very little weight to the archive for the amount of information that can be assigned within it, and they maintain a reasonable amount of backward compatibility with legacy profiles to match the look you got from them several years ago on a prior version. They include the .DNG format. While I wouldn't use it for most things, it would be a useful conversion if we're talking about legacy file formats. It gives you some kind of migration path while support remains in effect. Aperture is just a big clunky mess if you're sorting thousands of images,
In a nut shell it is a mess. Slow too. I'm not sure how Apple came to the conclusion that the storage of pictures in one big file makes sense. It really doesn't have the database capabilities to even remotely make it worthwhile to do so. Even then it would likely be smarter fo the database to simply link to files on disk in a defined directory structure.
Quote:
and the raw profiles it uses are vastly inferior even if I don't like Adobe's use of prophoto internally on such things. Aperture did very little in terms of lighting a fire there. The two came out around the same time. Adobe just did a better job. They lag on some things, but they're quite responsive with things of extreme mass market appeal, much like Apple. Even with delays due to Apple's change in plans,  they still released a 64 bit creative suite before Apple's internally developed software made the same migration, and lightroom has always scaled better than aperture.

By the way, I still prefer the way capture one handles colors.

Like I said I was an Aperture user. As an amature it has almost no appeal and doesn't fit into the common usage pattern of using various tools to work on your files. The minute you need to do something outside of Aperture it becomes very tedious.
post #257 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


This is the closest thing to what might be described as a fight. Interestingly Steve left an opening for Flash, it just required Adobe to fix its many outstanding issues. In any event Steve's interest here wasn't to fight Adobe but rather to keep a known problem child off iOS, there is a big difference.
...

 

I think we view the situation differently.  In my opinion, the primary reason for keeping flash off of iOS was a business decision, not a technical decision.  The technical rationale was given to the public, but it was not the primary reason.

 

 

Flash was not banned from iOS because it was "a known problem child", Flash was banned because Steve wanted to kill Adobe's dominance of the interactive web site market.

 

Steve very much wanted to control the entire ecosystem.  Apple designs the hardware, designs the software, handles the retail experience, and is the gatekeeper for third party software.  If Flash had continued it's dominance of interactive web sites, then Adobe would have too much control.  By breaking Flash's dominance, and replacing Flash with an open standard (HTML 5), Apple has kept Adobe from maintaining dominance in this area.

 

Keep in mind that Adobe did not develop Flash.  They got flash by spending a lot money to buy Macromedia.  As Flash loses dominance, the acquisition of Macromedia loses value.

 


However, this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong.  Perhaps it really was too much of a technical challenge to engineer a reliable Flash engine for iOS.  It not like it was an easy project on the order of allowing 68K code to run on a PPC, or PPC code to run on Intel seemlessly alongside of native code.

post #258 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfryd View Post

I think we view the situation differently.  In my opinion, the primary reason for keeping flash off of iOS was a business decision, not a technical decision.  The technical rationale was given to the public, but it was not the primary reason.
Unfortunately that is speculation, all I have to go on is what Apple has made public. The technical reasons though are not inconsistent with my experience with flash nor millions of others. I really don't think Apple would have gotten the public support if flash wasn't in fact a pain for many many users.
Quote:

Flash was not banned from iOS because it was "a known problem child", Flash was banned because Steve wanted to kill Adobe's dominance of the interactive web site market.

what can I say I don't believe that one bit. First it took a couple of years before the iPhone got to the point that it could run Flash reliablly if it was even an option. Even the first iPad had trouble running Safari all by itself.
Quote:
 
Steve very much wanted to control the entire ecosystem.  Apple designs the hardware, designs the software, handles the retail experience, and is the gatekeeper for third party software.  
I don't disagree with this completely but you need to ask why. The why is the user experience. Apple experience with Flash indicated that it would be a real issue on a cell phone. Again this isn't battling Adobe for the hell of it, it is development directed at a good user experience.
Quote:
If Flash had continued it's dominance of interactive web sites, then Adobe would have too much control.  By breaking Flash's dominance, and replacing Flash with an open standard (HTML 5), Apple has kept Adobe from maintaining dominance in this area.
Sure the end effect is good, that being a more open standard for the web. However do you really think Apple would have been successful with that if flash got wide spread support and became more reliable and less of a hog? Flash was already on the ropes and had no way of even running properly on the initial wave of iOS devices. Adobe missed the portable devices market by not having a suitable product for the devices.

The most interesting part of this whole discussion isn't Apple or their supposed fight with Adobe, it is the fact that the rest of the industry could not use flash to a competitive advantage. In fact it was removed from many mobile devices due some of the well known issues with flash. If Apple was wrong with their technical position the competition would have a weapon to attack iOS devices with. The reality is that there was no traction at all with respect to flash as a competitive advantage. Instead supporting it became a disadvantage.
Quote:
Keep in mind that Adobe did not develop Flash.  They got flash by spending a lot money to buy Macromedia.  As Flash loses dominance, the acquisition of Macromedia loses value.
What does that have to do with the discussion?
Quote:

However, this is just my opinion, and I could be wrong.  Perhaps it really was too much of a technical challenge to engineer a reliable Flash engine for iOS.
I'd have to say that for the initial iOS devices it would have been impossible. A check point can be had in the various other hand sets on the market, where flash does run on these devices it isn't an overwhelming joy for the user.
Quote:
 It not like it was an easy project on the order of allowing 68K code to run on a PPC, or PPC code to run on Intel seemlessly alongside of native code.

Actually that was an impressive accomplishment. However instruction sets for processors are well specified flash isn't. At least with Javascript we do have an international standard. With that standard JavaScript gets better specified with each revision.

Speaking of which; if Apple, google or Microsoft invest huge bucks in making JavaScript a strong performing language on their machines and make it reliable, does it not make sense to push developers in that direction?
post #259 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfryd View Post

 

 

Steve very much wanted to control the entire ecosystem.  Apple designs the hardware, designs the software, handles the retail experience, and is the gatekeeper for third party software.  If Flash had continued it's dominance of interactive web sites, then Adobe would have too much control.  By breaking Flash's dominance, and replacing Flash with an open standard (HTML 5), Apple has kept Adobe from maintaining dominance in this area.

 

Keep in mind that Adobe did not develop Flash.  They got flash by spending a lot money to buy Macromedia.  As Flash loses dominance, the acquisition of Macromedia loses value.

They got other things from Macromedia. In the end they're still supplying the content authoring tools even if they output to HTML5 instead. There are a few things that annoy me with Adobe. Sometimes their tools are poorly tuned on a technical level. Linear workflow in after effects was semi poorly implemented in earlier versions (not sure on CS6). Brush engines in photoshop/illustrator were kind of bad in terms of responsiveness and pressure sensitivity. In Lion this was partially a wacom driver problem, but it goes back further than that. The issue is the ability to make smooth strokes. I've tested quite a lot of this in detail with protractor or straight edge compared to freehand. Sometimes you have to really tweak the settings to prevent tangent breaks in painted strokes. Other issues are pressure controlled opacity and brush sizes. No matter how you  tweak the driver, it's difficult to get a good response there. Sketching in pencil assuming you use fairly soft pencils, you can get a very nice buildup. I considered trying Manga Studio for straight drawing and PS for everything else just because their brushes supposedly have a better flow response. Anyway I'm drifting off topic.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Like I said I was an Aperture user. As an amature it has almost no appeal and doesn't fit into the common usage pattern of using various tools to work on your files. The minute you need to do something outside of Aperture it becomes very tedious.


I dislike it for many reasons. If Apple ever loses interest in Aperture, it's unlikely to be a pleasant process migrating from it to some other system. The databases store a lot of information and  take up a lot of space. Lightroom gives you a small folder of instructions that indicate how to interpret the files, and many of the global image adjustments and popular filters used by both amateur photographers and those who go through large volumes of imagery (such as wedding/portrait photographers) have many of these tools available within a very accessible ui. The thing I liked about Aperture in its original version was that it had a pretty nice way of interpreting raw files without a lot of messing with adjustments. If you didn't wish to push much of that onto post due to the need to preserve certain details or whatever else, it was a good option. Adobe has issues with a few of their profiles. The phase one profiles were never very good, but most of those guys use capture one or Phocus for outputting finals anyway.

post #260 of 335

Just to keep this thread alive, here are some images of a modular MacPro concept:

 

http://ipack3d.com/page8/index.php?id=2959698825183484676

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #261 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Just to keep this thread alive, here are some images of a modular MacPro concept:

 

http://ipack3d.com/page8/index.php?id=2959698825183484676

(Thunderbolt) is to slow have a VIDEO card + the HDD's running over it. One video card can max out the bus on it's own.

 

So there will need to be a PCI-e link at least X16 + other smaller links + sata pass though as well.   and on the xenon systems likely at a min dual X16 + other links.

post #262 of 335

I found the link from another rumor site and thought the images would be interesting after some here had tossed around the idea of a block-type machine that could be easily clustered.

 

Personally, I have no idea how it could be achieved.  I just like the concept and hope that something with a relatively small footprint comes out to help render animation for BluRay.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #263 of 335
Even though I couldn't afford it, I like it.
post #264 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Just to keep this thread alive, here are some images of a modular MacPro concept:

 

http://ipack3d.com/page8/index.php?id=2959698825183484676

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe The Dragon View Post

(Thunderbolt) is to slow have a VIDEO card + the HDD's running over it. One video card can max out the bus on it's own.

 

So there will need to be a PCI-e link at least X16 + other smaller links + sata pass though as well.   and on the xenon systems likely at a min dual X16 + other links.

 

 

Even if TB is too slow & some other form of interconnect needs to be hammered out, or multiple interconnects made for different purposes; that is still damned COOL…!!!!

Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #265 of 335

While waiting for an update.  Anyone have good current hackintosh plans?  I need a temporary upgrade 'til the new pro is released.  Would rather not give up OS X.

post #266 of 335

I find the wording of the new iMac's marketing hyperbole somewhat ominous, as far as the way it makes it seem like they are possible workstation replacements…

 

http://www.apple.com/imac/performance/

 

Quote:

The new iMac is amazingly thin, yet it offers faster quad-core performance, up to 60 percent faster graphics, ultrafast Thunderbolt, and the all-new Fusion Drive option. So it’s powerful enough for a design studio, production house, or science lab. And beautiful enough for any room in your home.

 

It is that middle sentence that scares me…!

 

REALLY hoping for a all new, all powerful Mac Pro modular unit come 2013…!

Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #267 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

I find the wording of the new iMac's marketing hyperbole somewhat ominous, as far as the way it makes it seem like they are possible workstation replacements…

 

http://www.apple.com/imac/performance/

 

 

It is that middle sentence that scares me…!

 

REALLY hoping for a all new, all powerful Mac Pro modular unit come 2013…!

Why would it scare you?

 

Apple is getting out of the big expandable computer market segment.

 

The replacement for the Mac Pro will be a Mac Mini with multiple thunderbolt ports.  It will be faster than the current Mac Pro, and will do everything the average consumer might need from a high end machine.

 

If you are waiting for Apple to come out with a machine targeted at the high end of the market, or even a customizable machine, you've got a very long wait.  That's not the Apple of today.  Apple makes machines with RAM soldered to the motherboard, and the batteries are glued in.  Internal expansion is not Apple's style.

 

Apple is very focused with their products.  They don't feel a need to fill every market niche.  At the moment, Apple is focused on the consumer market.  There is no place for a traditional Mac Pro in this market.

 

If there was a new Mac Pro coming out, Tim Cook would have said as such.  Instead he said they were "working on something really great".  Obviously, whatever they are working on, it won't be a Mac Pro.   Apple pride's itself on leading the market by introducing what Apple thinks the market needs, not be giving the market what they asked for.  Whatever (if anything) replaces the Mac Pro, you can be sure it isn't something we asked for, it will be something Apple thinks we should have instead.

post #268 of 335
Originally Posted by mfryd View Post

The replacement for the Mac Pro will be a Mac Mini with multiple thunderbolt ports.  It will be faster than the current Mac Pro, and will do everything the average consumer might need from a high end machine.

 

Then it's not a replacement for the Mac Pro in any way. It's not a consumer machine. That makes absolutely no sense. The Mac Mini and iMac are the consumer machines. They can buy THOSE.

 

If you are waiting for Apple to come out with a machine targeted at the high end of the market, or even a customizable machine, you've got a very long wait.  

 

… Except that's what the Mac Pro is, and the wait is until early 2013.

 

Internal expansion is not Apple's style.

 

Has ALWAYS been available in the Mac Pro… 

 

They don't feel a need to fill every market niche.

 

Then they should probably stop trying to fill every consumer niche, don't you think? The Mac Pro is a niche they MUST have.

 

At the moment, Apple is focused on the consumer market.  There is no place for a traditional Mac Pro in this market.

 

Good luck getting consumers to use your platform when there are no pros making applications for it.

 

If there was a new Mac Pro coming out, Tim Cook would have said as such.

 

Read the sentence again.

 

Whatever (if anything) replaces the Mac Pro, you can be sure it isn't something we asked for, it will be something Apple thinks we should have instead.

 

Thing about the Mac Pro's market is that they tell the company what we need and the company either gives it to them or they lose those users permanently. If Apple thinks they can ignore the people who saved them in 1996, let them try.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #269 of 335

After this week's announcements, I am a bit excited to see what they have in store for the MacPro.  Could be very interesting.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #270 of 335
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post
After this week's announcements, I am a bit excited to see what they have in store for the MacPro.  Could be very interesting.

 

I see a complete case and internal redesign that absolutely everyone here in the Mac Pro's demographic will hate at first but begrudgingly come to accept as the future standard.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #271 of 335
I am ecstatic about what the Mac Pro will bring. I can almost guarantee though there will be much disappointment by some just like with everything.

Though they do need to update it more frequently.
post #272 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Then it's not a replacement for the Mac Pro in any way. It's not a consumer machine. That makes absolutely no sense. The Mac Mini and iMac are the consumer machines. They can buy THOSE.

 

 

 

… Except that's what the Mac Pro is, and the wait is until early 2013.

 

 

Has ALWAYS been available in the Mac Pro… 

 

 

 

Then they should probably stop trying to fill every consumer niche, don't you think? The Mac Pro is a niche they MUST have.

 

 

 

Good luck getting consumers to use your platform when there are no pros making applications for it.

 

 

 

Read the sentence again.

 

 

 

Thing about the Mac Pro's market is that they tell the company what we need and the company either gives it to them or they lose those users permanently. If Apple thinks they can ignore the people who saved them in 1996, let them try.

 

 

Yes, The Mac Mini is targeted at consumers.  All of Apple's current lineup is targeted at consumers.   Yes, these machines are not ideal for high end professionals.  To be fair, today's consumer machines are approaching (or have exceeded) the performance of the high end machines of a year or so ago.

 

Apple needs the Mac Pro about as much as it needs the Xserve.  The Mac Mini makes about as good a Mac pro replacement as it makes an Xserve replacement.  Apple discontinued the Xserve, yet they somehow have managed to remain profitable.

 

 

 

Software developers will make software for the Mac as long as it makes business sense.  The absence of a high end Mac Pro is not very important.   There is profit in volume.  Large software vendors want to sell to large markets, not small markets.  Selling popular software for $20 on the App Store can generate far more profit than selling a $1,000 software package to every TV station in the country.

 

I don't think I understand you business rationale for why Apple can't ignore the people who saved them in 1996.  These people are no longer in Apple's target market.

 

Keep in mind the Mac makes up a small percentage of Apple's revenue, and an even smaller percentage of profit.  Apple's main business is selling iPhone/iPads and iPods.  Apple makes more profit from selling one iPhone then from selling one Mac.  

 

If all current Mac owners never bought another Mac, it wouldn't matter.  Most Macs are sold to people who have never owned a Mac before.  Most Mac sales are non-expandable laptops.  Even where some expansion is possible, most people never expand.

 

Your point seems to be that Apple needs a machine to meet the needs of the small number of people who need the fastest machine and the most expandability.  Yet you have offered no business justification for this.   

 

Face it.  You may not like the answer, but from a business point of view, the Apple TV is far more important to Apple's bottom line than the Mac Pro.  And the Apple TV is just a "hobby".

 

The Mac Pro is going away.  Apple will come up with something really cool that will make rich consumers feel like they have the best.   It likely won't have an optical drive, a hard drive, nor internal expansion.  What it will have is fast wireless networking, thunderbolt ports, and a really impressive form factor.

post #273 of 335
Originally Posted by mfryd View Post
Software developers will make software for the Mac as long as it makes business sense.  The absence of a high end Mac Pro is not very important.

 

Apple kills the Mac Pro. Pro video (et. al.) businesses buy Windows machines. Companies that made pro video (et. al.) software stop making Mac versions. Non-Mac Pro users of that software in OS X stop buying Macs because they also need that software. Snowball. 

 

Keep in mind the Mac makes up a small percentage of Apple's revenue, and an even smaller percentage of profit.  Apple's main business is selling iPhone/iPads and iPods.  Apple makes more profit from selling one iPhone then from selling one Mac.

 

Keep in mind that without the Mac, there's no iDevice lineup. And that doesn't just apply to the past. It applies to the present. If you can't develop for iDevices on an iDevice, good luck saying the Mac is dead.

 

Your point seems to be that Apple needs a machine to meet the needs of the small number of people who need the fastest machine and the most expandability.  Yet you have offered no business justification for this.

 

None you haven't ignored for whatever reason, at least.

 

The Mac Pro is going away.  Apple will come up with something really cool that will make rich consumers feel like they have the best.   It likely won't have an optical drive, a hard drive, nor internal expansion.  What it will have is fast wireless networking, thunderbolt ports, and a really impressive form factor.

 

Given that you think "rich customers" are the ones buying the Mac Pro, are you the best to comment on its use at all?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #274 of 335
I said this before and I will say it again, Apple can most definitely not kill the Mac Pro. They do need to build it back up though. It reminds me in the sense of a football team that maybe won a Super Bowl several years ago but hasn't done anything since (or for everyone else when your country wins the World Cup and then doesn't win it again for maybe the next 12 years). They need to set aside a team that can give their full undivided attention to it and make it into a winning machine. You need your Fords and you need your Ferraris to put it another way.

I still believe that they should perhaps make it entirely BTO if the margin for people buying it is that small. That way you can go online to the Apple Store and configure exactly to your specifications OR buy it as default and then add whatever the hell you want.

Don't just make it a pro machine but also make it a hobbyist machine (which I believe it has always been) where users can turn it into their own powerhouse. Also make it competitively priced for the technology, I understand a bit of markup since Apple is a major corporation though don't go crazy.

With that in mind, I could see them bringing it back up to speed.

I look forward to TS's and wizard69's responses.
post #275 of 335
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
I still believe that they should perhaps make it entirely BTO if the margin for people buying it is that small. That way you can go online to the Apple Store and configure exactly to your specifications OR buy it as default and then add whatever the hell you want.

 

Isn't that how it is now? Buy as default and/or make it BTO… 

 

 

Don't just make it a pro machine but also make it a hobbyist machine (which I believe it has always been) where users can turn it into their own powerhouse.
 

Hmm. Still 1-2 Xeon chips, yeah? It'd have to be. This would still make the xMac people complain, and the workstation people would also complain about it dropping to that level. As long as Apple gives it a solid direction, I'd be fine with that. The whole "moving into the future" idea. Can you elaborate on what you'd like to see in this regard? It's already as upgradable as anyone would imagine.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #276 of 335
Make things compatible with the latest technology as soon as it comes out is the best way I can describe it. So when AMD or nVidia release a new video card, make it a no. 1 priority that there are compatible and stable drivers. Hopefully that makes sense.

In addition it might be a good idea to add those video card options fairly soon after they come out to the available BTO options once the drivers are updated and working.

I might be asking for a lot though. ^^;
post #277 of 335
Originally Posted by Winter View Post
So when AMD or nVidia release a new video card, make it a no. 1 priority that there are compatible and stable drivers.

 

Apple's not in charge of that. And that's really the only thing they don't do, isn't it?

 

I forget which was which… One of them refuses to write their own drivers, so Apple has to do it for them (and they're bad), and the other writes their own, but they're just bad at it. Think nVidia's the latter.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #278 of 335
Hmm interesting. So tell me about Apple's mark in the professional market with regards to video. If they are so bad, how smooth were things over the years? (not a rhetorical question, just genuinely curious)

Oh and spend some money on advertising for it. Make it noticeable. Just a few ads here and there. They did one for the PowerMac G5 and I'm almost certain they did at least one Mac Pro ad.
Edited by Winter - 10/26/12 at 12:23pm
post #279 of 335

Well Phil Schiller just publicly confirmed that hard drives and optical drives are "anchors on the way we want to go".  These technologies are holding Apple back.

 

Apple is very pleased at how well it is streamlining it's product line.

 

The new iMacs don't even have a firewire port.  "ThunderBolt" is the answer to every question about expansion.

 

I don't see where there's anything left to put into a Mac Pro.

 

Over 80% of all Mac sales are Mac Books.  Mac Pro sales are likely less than 1% of all Mac Sales.  Obviously, Apple won't go out of business if they lose Mac Pro sales.

 

The people who buy new Mac are typical consumers.  They use a computer as a tool.  They do document processing, email, surf the web, buy music, balance their check book, and possibly spread sheets.  That pretty much covers the vast majority of all users.  The low end MacBook Air is more than enough computer for most people (the iPad is enough for most people).

 

Yes, there are people who need a powerful machine.  There aren't enough of these people for Apple to bother.  You may think that Apple needs to please these people in order to maintain their reputation.  I suspect it's just the opposite.  Apple wants to simplify their product line to make it easy for the consumer.  There's no need to waste resources on supporting expansion slots when 99% of Macs sold won't have them.

 

Look at the iPad.  It doesn't have a USB connector or a flash card slot.  The competition does.  Yet, somehow Apple has dominated the tablet market.  Do they dominate despite the fact that the don't have a high end expandable tablet, or do they dominate because they offer a simple product without unnecessary functionality?

post #280 of 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter View Post

Hmm interesting. So tell me about Apple's mark in the professional market with regards to video. If they are so bad, how smooth were things over the years? (not a rhetorical question, just genuinely curious)
Oh and spend some money on advertising for it. Make it noticeable. Just a few ads here and there. They did one for the PowerMac G5 and I'm almost certain they did at least one Mac Pro ad.

 

Although Apple claims the professional video market is important, they have abandoned it.

 

They released a new version of Final Cut that doesn't work on projects created with the old version.  If your client needs you to modify a project from a few years ago, you have a real problem.

 

On release of the new version, it was missing many features that professional need.  On release day Apple stopped selling the old version, and recalled it from stores. If you were in the middle of a large project and needed to add another person you were out of luck.  Apple wouldn't sell you a license to add another seat of the old version, and the new version wouldn't work with the old project.

 

Yes, Apple talks about being in the professional video market, but this is to promote sales to the high end, home pro-sumer market.  For every real video professional, there are a hundred consumers who think they are video editors.  If Apple loses the pro market, but gains half the pro-sumer market, sales will go up 50 fold.

 

If you want to see a company interested in the professional market, look for a company that has a track record of supporting old projects, doesn't drop functionality without notice, and gives a roadmap so companies can budget future purchases.  Don't look at company that pulls the rug out from under their customers.

 

Apple is clearly not serious about the professional video market.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Tim Cook confirms updated Mac Pro coming in 2013