Apple files hint at re-engineered iMac and Mac Pro models, potentially without optical drives - Page 5

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Apple-Unveils-Personal-Supercomputer-2909963.php

"The first Intel MIC products target segments and applications that use highly parallel processing, including:

High Performance Computing (HPC)
Workstation
Data Center"

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/many-integrated-core/intel-many-integrated-core-architecture.html

I know and I still think it's the way forward. Once you let go of the idea that in order to be a professional, you have to own a 40lb workstation, it should be clear.

Yeah but they wouldn't have 2TFLOPs of computer power. Performance per dollar would be better with the Mac Pro. Right now, they are about even.

The size reduction isn't necessarily a motivational element, merely a positive by-product.

How does increasing performance by an order of magnitude, reducing the price, making parallel computing simple and doubling available expansion ports **** up the Mac Pro? Ah you mean because it's not exactly the same design as last year's model with a fractional improvement in performance. To me, that would be ****ing up the Mac Pro. If you want the Mac Pro to die out, fine, keep hoping for that same design and a 40% performance jump after 3 years.

"Intel® MIC Architecture software environment includes a highly functional, Linux* OS running on the co-processor with:
– A familiar interactive shell
– IP Addressability [headless node]
– A local file system with subdirectories, file reads, writes, etc
– standard i/o including printf
– Virtual memory management
– Process, thread management & scheduling
– Interrupt and exception handling
– Semaphores, mutexes, etc...

What does this mean?
– A large majority of existing code even with OS oriented calls like
fork() can port with a simple recompile
– Intel MIC Architecture natively supports parallel coding models like Intel® CilkTM Plus, Intel® Threading Building Blocks, pThreads*, OpenMP*"

http://www.olcf.ornl.gov/wp-content/training/electronic-structure-2012/ORNL_Elec_Struct_WS_02062012.pdf

Apple can allow OS X to be used in the same way over PCI. Even just addressing the MIC would be enough.

Ah, the old 'I want to buy one Mac Pro in my lifetime' argument - compelling for Apple to take interest in it I'm sure. Is it really too much to ask that you buy a new computer every 7 years? Anyway, this is just more fearmongering. Firewire has been around for 17 years so you can't tell what obsolescence will occur in what time-frame.

I'm all for ditching optical drives in laptops. In desktops? Meh. 

I hope both iMac sizes get retina-ized. 

 

I still don't see this going via thunderbolt, nor do I see thunderbolt taking many available lanes to include that many as one chip doesn't support that number of ports. It would be configured to consume the same number of lanes with PCI 3 whether it takes advantage of the increased bandwidth or not. We have yet to see any chip versions from Intel that support more than 2 thunderbolt ports per chip, and i can't find any specs for multiple chips. It's also not designed as an interconnect. I would suggest I'll eventually be right on this one.

Are you even reading what I said? Tallest suggested he wants to be able to add on to his old computer when it goes out of date. I said that won't happen anyway and per their vintage policy, hardware service would eventually be unattainable anyway. It's not designed to run forever. My entire point was that his suggestion wouldn't work. You really shouldn't assign me an opinion based on that. I'd usually suggest if something is beyond 3 years old, you generally don't want to run the latest thing. Machines can perform their tasks fine if you keep it to tasks they were designed to run until you're ready to upgrade, and I'd never suggest a mac pro based on longevity. I'd suggest it if it's what you need today. If you need a mini, buy a mini. There's no point in buying either for some mythical future-proofing quality. Your prior statement months ago about 1,1 owners upgrading the gpu rather than buying a new machine was merely a suggestion that Apple did little to make the new units compelling relative to their old ones. In some cases this is completely true. If they're going further than that, they're likely on their own at that point with hardware support.

 

Firewire is a little bleh. It has always been the best of a bad situation. It outperformed usb without the cpu overhead of usb. Thunderbolt was never going to kill it. Note they remain present on the thunderbolt display. What may finally kill it is usb3. It's a significant jump and the firewire spec hasn't been updated in a very long time. Beyond that usb3 retains the same style of connector. It has been the same since the 1990s. Overall that's great. You can plug in the same thing with mice and keyboards, so it minimizes premature e-waste.

when I first read that some time ago the first thing that came to mind is that there is enough hardware to run a UNIX like OS on the hardware. What immediately followed was that Mac OS is UNIX. So right off the bat one can see multiple ways for Apple to exploit this hardware, one being putting the Mac OS kernel right on the hardware to act as a slave to run processes and threads. Other options include a micro kernel to run GCD/OpenCL threads dispatched from the main processor sort of like the current approach to GPU usage. This is huge, even if Apple used Intels Linux approach there is a huge amount of similarity here. Porting efforts could be far simpler than the GPU approach. Which also means that the hardware is capable of supporting blocks, GCD and other common models seen in OS/X. It actually looks like the hardware is flexible enough to support multiple models at once. For example it may be possible to put whole Mac OS processes over there, while at the same time handling code dispatched to the MiC via GCD/OpenCL methods. Such flexibility, if implemented could be a huge boost for Mac OS. Many back ground search and indexing tasks could run there without impairing the main processors. Or you could have a transcoding operation run there as a process significantly reducing main processor work loads.

I think the key here, and Apples probable interest is in the flexibility that MiC offers. Maybe it is maybe it isn't. Personally after years of almost constant upgrading I've tried to displine myself and have stuck with the same main computer since 2008. Yes that computer sucks now. However if I ever did buy a Mac Pro that computer would be expected to last even longer than the 4 years I've already gotten out of the MBP. 7 years may be a long time for a computer but I don't see it as totally unreasonable. If you are in business many business run their capital equipment into the ground because it makes sense to get as much value out of an investment as is possible. Computers are different in that they improve so much faster but every year that you can run a machine past it's paid for date is gravy. The most interesting thing here is Intels intentions to integrate a clustering standard right into the MiC chips. Frankly I'm pulling a blank here but I believe it was Infiniband {as a side note searching MiC and Clustering takes you far away from Intel}. In any event lets say Infiniband (which Apple capitalizes for me) is part of the new Mac Pro, this does not invalidate the usefullness of TB in a Pro machine it just takes away the need to develop a hardware and software infrastructure around TB to support clustering.

In any event Intel is up to something more than has been made public with Xeon Phi. I'm actually expecting a main processor to go with the Phi coprocessor. One feature that processor may have is an extra 16 lanes of PCI Express for the coProcessor. Rumor has it that intel may do the public release of the line at a super computer conference in November so our wait might not be until next year. In any event it will be most interesting to see how this all comes together. Much is still unknown at this time but I still have this feeling that the hardware will be almost ideal for a Mac Pro replacement.

It is interesting here Apples timing of the dropping of XGrid which I thought was somewhat successful. They did so quietly which is also interesting in that there has been little in the way of negative comments. Either nobody cares about XGrid or they are expecting something else.
There is no reason why it wouldn't work. Scientist have been known to build clusters out of used computers if it can get the job dome. Also one has to consider that if you have a machine capable of one teraflop you really can't just toss it out on a whim. Even five years from now that will still be a very useful computational machine.

If you think about some of the rumors Apple could deliver a node in a 12" cube that delivers a bit over one teraflop in that cube. If you think about it it would make building a clip ulster a matter of adding in nodes one teraflop at a time. That is just silly and would have been thought impossible only a year or two ago. Another way to look at this is an office with ten of these computers sitting on each engineers desk. That effectively makes a 10 teraflop computer given a super computer interconnect to each machine. Two computers on each desk and you have a 20 teraflop computer. It likely would not be Thunderbolt as such interconnects are still needed for connection to local storage arrays. If you are going to build hardware that makes modular supercomputers possible, your ports should have well defined uses. I think it would be a mistake to tie up ports like TB for clustering communications when there are well defined and frankly sound systems that already exist for just that. Beyond that I see TB as just too limited for that sort of communications. Why not plists, Apple uses them for everything else. XGrid basically did much of this for you. I'm not sure why it got dropped, maybe XGrid 2 is coming. XEON Phi makes the need to throw GPU code around far less of an issue. With PHi you could just send X86 code around or at least a proper subset. Apples approach with LLVM and GCD/OpenCL is most Interesting here as your other option is to send code around the system that gets dynamically compiled to run on that nodes local hardware. With that arrangement it wouldn't matter if one node has newer hardware capabilities relative to an older one.

Frankly my programming experience doesn't extend to using OpenCL but My understanding is that they basically do such now to support GPUs. HoweverGPu support is apparently somewhat hardware dependent. Maybe there is an OpenCL programmer out there with more specific information. It is interesting though that Intel has supported OpenCL on X86 hardware.
One thing is for certain, next year will be most interesting when it comes to Macs and high performance. If they dont debut a spectacular Mac Pro replacement they will likely have a revolt on their hands.

The other thing is this, if they do leverage Phi (seems likely at this point) how well will it work with existing code. That is will existing code, via GCD mechanisms be able to execute those blocks on Phi processors? Will existing threads and processes run there? Will there be an XGrid replacement that leverages new communications technology on the machines? Answers to these questions will tell us much about the immediate success of Phi based hardware. If existing code can't benefit from all of those processors it could take years for software to leverage the new hardware.

Like I said next year will be very interesting. Either that or the next Pro flops and gets killed.

 

 

 

 

 

I just saw that Pic on the front page. *Ron Popeil voice* But wait! There is more: ;-)

 

http://pascaleggert.de/iMacPro.html

I'm pretty sure that isn't what he is talking about. One or more of the Phi (MiC) chips is a coprocessor that sits on a sixteen lane wide PCI Expess bus. The trick is how do you get Mac OS and apps to leverage that coprocessor. Right now it appear to map onto OpenCL type usage really well. However apps that use blocks and GCD dispatch alone would seem to have problems. It is a very interesting question really, how would you leverage such a coprocessor. Actually I see no reason why one couldn't just map in another TB interface chip. It is more or less a bridge between buses. I don't know about that, Apple could be forced to provide support for these machine over seven years or longer. People will look at these machines as capital equipment and thus will want to milk them for all they are worth. Maybe I will be wrong in five years but I don't see people being happy about tossing out a one teraflop machine just because Apple doesn't want to support it. If Apple is at all serious about business they will likely have to look closely at policy here. I wouldn't be surprised to find businesses demanding at least five years of OS support with 7 to 10 likely. A given block of computational performance will always have that level of performance. If Apple delivers a dramatically more capable machine that just means it will remain viable as a block of performance much longer. I think you mis understand, it isn't future proofing it is leveraging a capital investment for as long as possible. No body here is denying that future hardware will be more powerful, rather the point is a high performance node is nothing to sneeze at and you won't be seeing people tossing functional nodes simply because this years machine is 1,5 times faster. This very well may be the case, but frankly I see people/businesses becoming more and more frustrated with that. It is often the case that old machines get handed down to new employees simply because it is economical. Especially when Apple has nade a very compelling case that a Mac Pro upgrade isn't worth the money.

I really don't know what the long term solution will be but I see it as completely reasonable for users to want well defined software support commitments from Apple for Pro hardware. Apple has been playing a little too loose with hardware support in Mac OS of late and it is pissing people off.
FireWire ought to be buried but I fear it will be around for awhile. By the way the spec was updated some time ago but Apple never bought into the much faster versions. It is just as well as support was far too limited.

Sadly we are still waiting for USB 3 on most of Apples desktop machines. This is just pathetic and frankly frustrates me to no end. I really believe that no body at Apple gives a damn about the desktop. They couldn't even bother to get a basic Mini Ivy Bridge upgrade out the door, tht is really disgusting.

 

 

My Website is so wide, so people with big screen can enjoy it. True Apple spirit, never support outdated stuff ;-) Sorry to hear you don't like the lines, my first apple product ever was an iPod Mini and I loved every line on it. 

 

Regarding the keyboard: Well, the press registration is quite simple, there are dozens of touch screen technologies out there. For a little block of glass hitting another glass surface you wouldn't need the capacitive touch technology from an iPad, a classic resistive sensor would work. To make the glass block move up and down, a foldable ring of rubber would do. 

I was saying that Apple is not always fully predictable with later software support, and if this is a slowly growing cluster of aging machines, you may run into issues with lack of support. Marvin was just trolling me with the Sally Struthers argument of, "is it really too much to ask that users buy a new computer at least once every 7 years?"  Apple tries to offer hardware service for five years past the discontinuation of a model. Once it's moved to vintage status it's a matter of what is available, with things market obsolete after that and no longer serviced.

I noticed they dropped XGrid. I didn't think they'd do this if they intended to replace it with some other HPC type of solution. If they were going to release something of that sort, I would have guessed they'd drag along support for XGrid until a replacement solution could be announced. I'm aware that these things can lead long lives with multiple updates. I was saying that with Apple hardware you get certain updates for a limited amount of time. These include firmware revisions, general bug fixes, security updates, current OS support (which may or may not be important if running alongside newer machines), etc. Fragmented support can become an issue if you're trying to work with hardware that spans many generations, as Apple may no longer be offering support to help keep these older units running.

I know that. Perhaps I should have stated may not work if the older machine is old enough to no longer be supported. Also note that I needed to have some fun with Marvin's argument of "Please.... help Apple by buying a new mac pro". Hehe... Noting some of Tallest's older posts, he owned a mac pro partially for longevity reasons. I would suggest that if you're going far enough back to where hardware will not support newer features that are leveraged here, such as trying to hook up a new machine alongside older ones dating back 5+ years. It's not that unrealistic of a situation if we're examining from the dates they went on sale with one mac pro sold new from 2006-2008 with refurbished available longer and the current one being potentially 2010-2013 + almost identical to the 2009 revision. If this became available next year and you tried to hook up an older 5,1 and 1,1 for distributed computing but found the 1,1 would not work for whatever reason, Apple would not be there to help. This model is off their supported list. Seeing as this is someone who keeps his hardware for some time, it was worth mentioning.

Some interesting concepts. The folding stand position would need counter-weights to prevent making the machine top-heavy. The power cable and ports also place restrictions on this. It's something Apple has obviously thought about though:



http://www.macrumors.com/2010/08/23/apple-discloses-methods-for-transitioning-between-mouse-based-and-touch-interfaces/

I think it has to be as simple as being able to pull the screen down. Lenovo has their own implementation of this:



The collapsing stand in Apple's patent and Lenovo's model looks like the only way it would be feasible, although the components have to go into the base so that the cables and ports aren't affected by the movement of the screen. I think they'll most likely avoid doing this until they can make it without a major compromise. It would be pretty cool being able to pull the screen down and play a full keyboard in Garageband or have a 27" Wacom.

I don't think so. By the time we get to late 2013, we will have an all-Haswell consumer lineup. They really could drop it without any problems as evidenced by the effect of what they did this year with the MP after a 2 year wait. It just doesn't affect that many users any more.

I wouldn't say it's likely. It's the only thing that will make the MP worthwhile but it depends on their motivation. If they don't see a long future ahead for it, they simply draw out the updates, make the updates weak and then kill it. This is what happened with their software. Shake had very minor updates over long periods and then one day, they just decided it's not what they wanted to do any more. FCS was similar with minor updates over long periods and then they just dropped it. In the case of the latter they dropped it for a completely rethought replacement. It can really go either way.

Tim Cook did hint that there would be "something really great". To me, that in no way refers to the same design and an Ivy Bridge Xeon dropped in. So it's either a totally rethought Pro or he just means the Haswell iMac or MBP will be good enough next year to drop it.

No, better hardware in a not as pretty package that still works fine.

I don't know about removing optical drives.  What about those who use iMovie or Final Cut to author home movies to share with friends and relatives?  How does one share a high quality version of the finished product?  Remember that broadband still is not available in many places except for 3g, which comes with bandwidth caps that make streaming HQ video prohibitively expensive.  

 

Virtually everyone has DVD players, it's a reliable standard if you want to share home movies.  Isn't that the whole point of iLife?

 

Sure, you can buy an external ODD for your Mac.  By that reasoning, Macs shouldn't come with boot drives, because it's easy to buy external HDDs and SSDs.  It's rather absurd to expend so much effort towards styling hardware only to hook up a bunch of ugly drives to it and make a rat's nest of cables on the back of one's desk.

 

Sadly, there are a lot of Windoze dorks that insist on maximizing browser windows to full screen.  Yes of course it's pointless since web pages are usually in portrait format, but Windoze has unfortunately conditioned a lot of people to work in a very inefficient single-window mode.   If you go into an Apple store you can often see browsers covering the whole screen, with about 1/3 content and 2/3 blank space.

He'd be drinking his own kool-aid. The imac can in some situations replace the single package mac pro. If someone is debating between imac and mac pro, they aren't looking at the 12 core as a potential machine. A big problem there is that there is little value at the low end of that platform as I've mentioned before. It still clips a portion of their customer base. If you look at people who bought a 12 core in 2010 and tell them look this 2014 imac can match the processing power of your machine, it will mean next to nothing. If it's matching at that point, this wouldn't motivate a new purchase if the prior thing is still working. If they need something more, just being able to match wouldn't cut it. In terms of gains in requirements, there are incremental and sharp gains at times. Looking at professional media based workflows it's common to be extremely conservative on software updates. The important thing is that the solution works. If the software doesn't run well, the typical options would be to update hardware or roll back the version. If the higher end machine is required at one time, being able to match it in a lighter machine years later generally means very little unless requirements have been outpaced by gains in the hardware. When I read words like "something really great" I see nothing but execu-speak. It would be cool to see a real update, but don't make the assumption that one replaces anything but the low end of the other. The possibility exists that the volume is below sustainable levels beyond that point so they're catering to those who would have purchased the single package model and just clipping the rest. I will say the supported gpu selection and some of the peripheral hardware is pretty weak on the mac pro. This may be a problem. You need to be able to work out a full solution, and thunderbolt doesn't provide that. If you see an increase in thunderbolt speeds come 2014, I'd give it two years beyond that to see some real developments on the PC end. When it comes to external solutions, the best possible solution would be to buy something from one vendor. Note how black magic put out a black magic intensity with a thunderbolt connection. If it wasn't such a limited market, you might see more products like that, but few companies will produce such a thing for OSX systems only given the inherent development costs.

Edited by hmm - 8/12/12 at 4:57pm

Having a full screen OPTION isn't the problem as it's very handy for certain tasks, for certain apps, and certain display sizes. What I'd like to see is a browser that offered side by side browsing. Basically the tab is the second window within the browser and then the tabs build off of those. I'm surprised Opera has done something like this.

That ad is horrible. It's so bad I'd expect it to be concept from a Droid commercial. It's beyond pointless in selling the Power Mac because it ends by mentioning Pentium.

It looks like it works in Chrome on Windows. It seems like this is built from a Windows 7 API that is used in Aero Snap.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn97WbalJwM

It seems like there might be some 3rd-party solutions for Macs.

• http://www.google.com/search?q=aero+snap+for+mac

edit: I just tested iSnap. It's pointless on my 13" MBP but it seems list it would be great on a larger display. It snaps quickly and accurately enough for me to want to test it when I get an iMac.
Edited by SolipsismX - 8/12/12 at 3:54pm

good idea

It would be very good as I do not remember the last time I have used an optical drive, Although they will make a compact external one available for those who needs one, I would buy it just incase. this idea will save your machine to heat up too, I am up for a retina display iMac without the optical drive.

It won't do anything of the sort in an imac. The odd isn't smooshed against a logic board or taking up a large portion of its space there. If you see thermal improvements, that won't be the cause.

I wouldn't say his comment is directly accurate, but indirectly it does allow a lot more freedom for the engineers which could result in better heat dissipation with a lower cost of engineering if they don't have to design around the ODD.

You pointed out several months ago that the ODD makes up a large portion of the cubic internal area for the 13" mbp. Given that it's a portable and very compact machine, this represents a significant design savings. I don't so much see it the same way when examining a slim ODD in a stationary machine. I think the gains are much more minimal. One thing I do not mind is the reduced waste. I still have way too many old burned dvds that need to be recycled. Most are from years ago, and I need to find a place that recycles them in Los Angeles.

You mean besides the fact it's 1/3 the price and includes a $1000 display. A $2000 2014 (maybe even 2013) iMac will outperform a $6200 2010 12-core MP and you get a 27" display worth $1000.

While workstation components will likely still offer 3x more performance for 3x the price, they might just decide the iMac is fast enough for the customers they want to target. There are faster laptops than the MBA for under $1000 but Apple decided the MBA is fast enough for that demographic.

Note what Cook said:

"We also announced a MacBook Pro with a Retina Display that is a great solution for many pros."

Even making the top-end iMac a 6-core would be enough.

The pros we support are still hoping for it, not to mention a lot of individuals I talk to with.  I guess we could be a minority.

 

I guess we shall see, if I'm wrong then there will be a lot of disappointed people but then I'm sure people will still buy Apple.

Marvin stop saying the display is worth $1000. For $1000 you can buy a better display. Go buy an NEC. They're way better. The second point would be that even if you're only examining raw x86 performance, you couldn't buy a 2014 imac in 2010. Suggesting you know where usage needs will be at that time is just truly silly, and all I really stated was that if you're looking at the next imac and a discontinuation of the mac pro, the imac would likely capture many of those who would have purchased the lower mac pro option. You can buy a 16 core workstation today. Next year you will see 20 core workstations. The two simply do not fit the same market, yet the 12 core mac pro would have mostly fit in with such a market in 2010. Autodesk ported smoke over that year. I kind of doubt many of those licenses were running on imacs (although they dropped the prices, so it must have seen slow adoption rates).

It's not the one you get with the iMac though. The one you get with the iMac costs $1000. It's cheaper if you shop around so I'll say $500-1000 to cover 3rd party displays too but the point is, you still have to buy a display with the MP so it has to factor into the cost.

Ok, it's $1168 then. There I was trying to save people money:

http://www.amazon.com/NEC-PA271w-bk-27-Inch-2560-1440/dp/B003LD1QRY/

There's no reason why some people wouldn't run Smoke on an iMac. Here's a post-production engineer demoing Smoke on an iMac along with (*cover your ears*) Thunderbolt storage:

http://vimeo.com/28697171#

While he does mention that it's not a 'hero suite', that's mainly the storage configuration that can produce dropped frames. Something other than RAID 5 or SSD would give even better performance.

I get that lots of people don't like the idea of using an iMac as evidenced in the following thread but there were also comments about the iMacs at NAB this year:

"5 brand new workstations for just over $16,000 and they can run Avid, Adobe and Autodesk. I say bring it on! At NAB they were the talk of the show not only because of Smoke being more edit friendly but BECAUSE it was running on the iMac":

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/365/165

The complaints about the iMac are not so much 'I can't use an iMac' but rather 'I don't want to use an iMac' and then rattle of the excuses of 'they're too slow' or 'they're too shiny' or 'they'd burn out, 'cos this work is too xtreem'.

Yes 16-cores are better than 4-cores and 96GB RAM is better than 32GB RAM and a GTX 680 is faster than a 6970M but so what? If there's not enough people buying the machines Apple don't have to keep making them so don't be surprised if one day, they stop making them. Does that mean these jobs can no longer be done on the Mac platform? No, it doesn't. What it means is that these people will either choose to switch to another platform or buy the highest-end iMac and the next year, they'll buy the highest-end iMac again and the next and so on until they find that iMacs don't have to be upgraded all that often either.

You talk about not knowing future workflows and the performance requirements but here's why that's bollocks. Mac Pro users hold onto their machines (as you've stated) for 3 years or more. Within 3 years, the highest-end iMac matches the highest-end Mac Pro. So, one of the following is true:

- A Mac Pro becomes obsolete in under 3 years (not everyone will get the highest one) and unusable for the highest-end tasks
or
- A Mac Pro is suitable for 5-7 years or more of use and given that an iMac will match the highest-end Mac Pro within 3 years, it is also suitable for the highest-end tasks

I'm not saying Apple will drop the MP for a Haswell iMac, I'm just saying they could. I'd rather see them build a personal supercomputer but it's easy for me to say that when I'm not footing the bill. You have to think about what you'd do if you were at the helm of such a valuable company looking at a product that is using up valuable design, engineering and manufacturing resources and making less than 2% of your company's revenue. On the other hand, if your values are in the creative industry, you know this kind of product has a place (albeit not an exclusive place, unlike what some people want to believe) in which case, you set out to build it the best way you know how. They're not doing that any more so they need to 'either shit or get off the pot'.

Fact check: HD-DVD was not a Microsoft endeavor; it was Toshiba.

 

Microsoft merely pushed out an HD-DVD add-on for the Xbox 360.

I'm not even sure we disagree on that many points. 5-7 years would be a very long cycle if it's supposed to run the highest end tasks for the entirety of its service life.  Usually if something goes that long it's either a freelancer who had consecutive bad years or the machines are cycled down, which isn't that uncommon. Something used for a hero suite as you mentioned could end up on a junior editor's desk later. Such cycling isn't that uncommon. Again on the other points, I was saying it's not interchangeable with the dual package xeons of the same hardware generation. This had nothing to do with the percentage of Apple sales. I said if they were going to buy 16 core workstations, the proposition of an imac isn't likely to work. I also indicated it's a much better match relative to the mac pro quad option which likely makes up a large portion of mac pro sales due to its price. It's true that you are going to clip the upper end unless those guys are buying more computer than they really require. Regarding the display, you're ignoring that the thunderbolt display doubles as a docking station which helps justify its price, and the NEC is $1100 from B+H :D.

 

In case you're wondering, I budget purchases on whether their total cost can be justified within 2 years. I update displays every 3-4 years depending on use (I track the hours and profile drift). Displays don't change that much. That is one area where it works or it doesn't, and I do track the drifting.  Sometimes things last longer, but that is my typical basis. The upgrades still have to be viable. If someone bought a new mac pro in 2010, it's unlikely that they'd replace it today. the elusive "6 core imac" concept still gives me a minor headache as so many people don't get why it's unlikely. It would mean using a separate board specifically for that cpu option. Apple hates that kind of fragmentation, not that I blame them. I've also seen that creative cow thread. I remember reading that same person mention somewhere that the imacs tend to handle the lighter duty work. I'd have to find it though.

Discs are not "dead", and it's silly to say they are.

 

I think you're just saying no one uses optical drives because Apple is phasing them out.  You pretty much recite whatever is in Apple's latest marketing copy.  When Apple releases a new Mac Pro, you'll be gushing about how forward thinking it is, but if Apple were to EOL the Mac Pro, you would be denigrating everyone here who is critical of Apple's decision.  

 

Out in the real world, DVDs and Blu-ray are widely used.  Are they on their way out?  Absolutely.  But there is nothing that replaces them when it comes to cheaply distributing high quality video.  If Apple decides to ditch optical drives then Apple users will have to deal with it, but a good portion of new Macs will be bought with an external drive that takes up valuable desk space and adds more cords to the rat's nest.  This is nothing at all like when floppy drives were ditched, at that time there simply wasn't any compelling reason to use floppy discs, and software was being distributed on optical discs.  At this time, in the real world, movies and video are still distributed on optical discs.  

The iMac still is the common family computer. 

Apple might kill the well established CD/DVD (I wouldn't mind wouldn't all my music and movie library backup copies rely on heavily invested CD/DVD's) - floppy 

drives were like USB sticks - data containers without any standardized media format. 

 

Clearly Apple hasn't spend time in Asia, as one of the preferred format for movies still uses MPEG1 on VCDs.

 

Killit it gives the iTunes store an advantage, by dropping support for all the CD stores. But like the Bluray initiative of Sony and their

foolproof plan to dominate the media sector after buying MGM with its biggest film library it might be heavier to chew 

as predicted.

 

It might be a tad too early as iTunes Extra isn't available on my accessories and isn't the industry standard for USB stored movies

to handle chapters and extras yet. It's not just a shiny cheap resource - it is, so far, the only available physical media format. 

 

iLife created output today is being rendered into a big question mark - just having dropped iDVD didn't solve the problem. But don't get me 

started into discussing the castrated iLife :-)

 

 

You seem to think that Apple waves a magic wand and the universe obeys.  Ummm...no.  

 

All the people using optical discs for movies or video don't care what Apple does or does not include on their hardware.  Those who have a decade or more of data archived on DVD are not going to convert their entire backup scheme because Apple changed hardware configurations.  The world doesn't work the way you seem to believe.

 

As for floppy discs, the idea that Apple "killed" them is absurd.  Their marketshare in the late 90s was miniscule.  Floppy discs were supersceded by newer media formats.  Software companies distributed their goods on CD ROMs.  Files grew too large for floppies and thus people quit using them.  These changes happen incrementally due to myriad causes, you cannot cherry pick one factor and say "that's what killed floppies".