Apple tells reseller new Mac Pro coming in spring 2013 - Page 7

The setups I've seen on the sites pitching them, the 3.5" drives are mounted width for length, the length of the 3.5" drive for the width of the 5.25" bay. So the drives are still horizontal but reoriented to fit more drives in.


The Mac Pro can support two graphics cards. It is even a BTO option.

 

Doesn't combine them, which is what they're after.

Not like SLI/CrossFire combine, but… actually, yeah, that's exactly what it's like, except not for games. That's what Relic wants (but does either manufacturer offer a solution like that for non-gaming purposes?).

 

Nonsense. You're saying that if you buy a Mac Pro today and max it out with 4 hard drives and 4 PCI cards that there's excess space?

 

No, there isn't. The space is to allow proper cooling.

 

As I said, if Apple moves to SSDs, reduces the number of PCI cards and deletes the Superdrive it can shrink.

 

But saying the current case is big for no reason is incorrect. It is properly sized for what it's built to do.

It is a common mis conception that lots of space leads to proper cooling.   Cooling is an engineering problem where you often get your best results by channeling air flow across the hot parts.   Lots of free space in a machine like the Mac Pro can and does lead to hot spots.  

I really don't buy this idea at all.   The Mac Pro was sized to handle Power PC processors that where extremely hot chips relative to what currently ships in the platform thus requiring extensive cooling systems.   Thus the case is now big due to legacy issues or for no reason at all.  

SSD only makes little sense in this kind of setup. Have you looked at the price of ssds appropriate for large scale raid use? Typically if you're going to build a 20TB Raid with striped parity (not sure how well Raid 10 would work and a 0 is too volatile with large numbers of disks, especially without some kind of failover setup in place), you'd generally stick to enterprise grade drives. They use different firmware timings. SSDs are made for enterprise use, but they tend to be cost prohibitive, and when you're stacking up a bunch of disks, you can saturate the available bandwidth with HDDs. At that point why would you drop many thousands more on SSDs?

 

The XServe never went past dual cpu packages any more than any other model. People sometimes confuse the mac pro with what is referred to as "big iron", which wouldn't have anywhere near the level of one man shop ownership that has been seen with prior mac pros. Obviously those make sense in some server types. When I've looked at workloads typical to mac pros where individuals or companies have tried to keep things that drift into server like usage patterns in one box as much as possible, it seems to come down to things like data bandwidth constraints and software licensing costs. Video and rendering come up frequently enough, and I'm partly at fault for that. In that context some software can distribute calculations, but it can mean shifting around GB of data. The other problem is that licensing and interdependencies don't always allow this box to do one set of frames and this box to do another or you run into the issue of shifting a lot of data around. 

It's not a very forward thinking way to deal with the problem, and I don't think many businesses would trust Apple there. When you say $800 a piece, you're thinking of those in the dual package models. The Sandy Bridge equivalent would be E5-26XX variants. The single tops out at $600 cpus. For comparison the 2.3 quad mini uses a cpu that's listed at $378 Obviously that lacks an additional discrete graphics chip to add to the cost. The 2.6 costs the same. The 2.7 offered cto in macbook pros has a recommended customer pricing (the standard I've been using) of $568. I chose specific examples but not so much to be biased. I wanted to show that there is a range to it. The main options used by Apple rarely go far north of the $300 barrier. On the mini this year, while I don't think it's an amazing value, the middle one took on a more seemingly more expensive cpu when it dropped the gpu (unless I just misread launch cpu pricing somewhere).

 

In terms of buying what you need, the companies (and a few individuals) that need quad socket servers haven't filled these requirements with Macs. Even for them, cost is not entirely elastic. You jump to such a solution if it makes sense in spite of the sharp price increase. Keep in mind many of these are far more than $800. The E5-4650 is listed at $3620.  Intel is reasonably consistent in their naming conventions within a given Xeon lineup. Typical XX50 means mid range relative to that specific line. Note the E5-2650. That still allows for 2 cpus and 80 PCI lanes. Here is something similar in pricing to what is used in the current single mac pro at the $3000 price point. The W3680 that is used now started off higher in price, but it came out in 2010.

In a general sense, that can be true, but I don't think it is of the Mac Pro. I don't think damaging hot spots happens with the Mac Pro given the air channeling it does, and with each channel having its own separate thermostat-controlled fan.


Why is it that I have several Intel workstations of varying vintages that are just as large as a Mac Pro, then? Compaq SP750, W8000, HP XW8200 are about the same size. HP's current Z820 is almost exactly the same dimensions. Granted, the Z820 can be stuffed with a few more things, but Mac Pro does have a slightly different focus of being a very quiet commercial workstation. A slow flow of a large cross-section of air can move just as much heat, quieter, than a high flow of a smaller cross-section of air. And the typically larger fans don't have to spin as fast.

I don't know what would be involved on a technical level, but I'd be happy if the next Mac Pro could accept regular graphics cards. As opposed to needing the super secret, double special Apple versions of graphics cards.

 

Obviously this would only work for cards where Mac drivers are available. Still, it would be nice to put any 5770 (or whatever) in, instead of needing the special version. Now that even PCs are abandoning BIOS, it seems like it should be possible.

Yes, and when they went Intel they doubled the number of HDD's. The case if fine as it is, it is a proven design, adopted by many manufactures. What is the problem.

I was tinkering on the thought of putting 1 or 2 SSD's in the new MP and put all large data on external HDD's. I certainly wouldn't advise for Apple to put many TB's of SSD in the new model. That wouldn't make sense.

Yes  I do... not only is it light... the fans are powered by a second AC line that's not connected to the PSU to minimize the stress and overall excel regular GPU and CPU performance. I can control the speed of the fan manually or let it work automatically. When I want it to be quiet I can change the voltage (high is faster, low is slower) on a switch in the bottom of the power brick. It's perfect.

I thought it was an issue of having full EFI support. It seems like that issue should be moot by now.

Well talking this in thought, they might have a TB of SSD which is very likely. This also leading to a 3TB HDD and 1/5 TB fusion drive option bringing flash to a higher point(over IMac options, with a whole lot of ram.

 

So why don't you buy a SATA PCIe card?  You can get one for under $30.  

 

 

He was probably referring to a serial port (RS-232) not SATA. I don't know if it's possible to install a serial card in a MacPro.

 

Joster

 

Because he's happy with his iMac?  And  not a nerdy nit picker?

 

I'm hoping the Mac Pro comes out this year.  Hopefully 1st half 2013.  Pro fans are long suffering.  But they hang onto their machines by expanding the crap out of it.  Goody for them.  However, by the time they've done that...there's a new iMac that's eating 'more' of it's lunch every 3 years.

 

And comes with a £899 (according to Apple) screen included.  The 680mx is 11th on the 'juicy' gpu chart.  And 8 threads is plenty good via i7 for 3D.

 

Sure, you can buy a Pro from Apple that will be 3x faster on 3D?  But you'll bend over for it.  Just like I bent over for my BTO iMac...

 

The iMac is a work of art.  

 

You don't need 'donkeys' or dinosaurs to do 'most' computing these days.  The iPad is proof of that with its 9/10 computing platform for the rest of us in a way the Mac could never achieve.  One gives way to the other.

 

Intel doesn't seem that bothered with workstation CPUs anymore.  Doesn't seem to be in a race to get them out.

 

Maybe Apple could release a value workstation machine care of an AMD processor?  *shrugs.

 

For many, an iMac is all the workstation you'll ever need.

 

Sure, people like their trucks.  But there are far less of them...and not enough for Apple to break their neck to release one.

 

Pro sales are way below 100k and have been for a very, very, very long time.

 

Sure, Apple could try to democratise the Pro with pricing rational to what they had in the past.  But they've become greedy b*stards over the years.  Part of this is Intel pricing on Xeons.

 

But Apple don't need to have Xeons for an entry Pro.  And they don't need to start at an eye watering £2000.  Taking the p*ss and a joke.  Add a studio display and it's £3k for a relic from the past.

 

And I love the Pro design.

 

But the last time I bought a pro tower was the Power Mac clone back in '97.  £2k to get started.  £1200 for the D2 monitor.  £500 for 120 megs of extra ram.  £400-500 for a 2D only gpu card.  Don't get me started on the Adobe suite I bought...or the scanner...the A3 printer etc.  Thousands upon thousands for what?  It was overkill then.  It's over kill now.  Save for a rump of a pro market that Apple has long grown past.

 

The iMac covers 90% of that market, the consumer desktop market, the prosumer, the desktop, the photoshop, the 'moderate' 3D market, casual to mid gaming...all with a boutique design. Sales seems to indicate that Apple has it right.  1,000,000 iMacs vs what?  59k Pro macs?  Vs 200k Mac Minis?  The iMac is p*ssing over the pro's lunch.  8 out of 10 Apple cats prefer the iMac when it comes to desktops...

 

How long before we see a 6 or 8 or 10 core iMac in the next 5 years?  How long before the next Thunderbolt port worthy of the name?  

 

The Pro will be lucky if it sees one more revision...that will take it to 2016?

 

By then what's left of its lunch will be powned by iMac.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

My iMac cooling?

 

It's ice cold.

 

We'll see how it does in the Summer in a hot Attic...

 

;)

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

I'd like to touch upon a few things.

 

First; there is a bit of mystery as to what Intel is up to.   Certainly their workstation processor market is tiny compared to standard processors.   However I don't think they have lost interest, rather I see them looking in a different direction.   XEON Phi is a perfect example here of looking in a different direction.    I really don't believe their research is finished in this respect either.

 

Second; for any number of reasons many users will not be satisfied with a computer with a built in screen.   It is great that many users are but that doesn't mean that everybody is willing to compromise in such a way.   iMac is vastly improved over what it use to be and again that is great for people that are satisfied with an all in one, but it isn't the best route to a performance machine.

 

Third; iPad is a very interesting platform and I sometimes think that people underestimate just what an advancement it is.   However for many of the same reasons as for the iMac, it doesn't solve the computing needs of everybody out there.    Mind you i'm almost addicted to using my iPad, but there are some things it just isn't suitable for and that will remain the case well into the future.

 

I could go on but I look at desktop computers this way, they are still machines that solve problems that can't be solved any other way.   Further the lack of an expandable desktop machine from Apple means that it will never get designed into the interesting low volume uses that standard PC hardware does.   Apple has basically designed itself out of entire markets due to the lack of a cost effective desktop machine.

 

Many have state that Apple cant capture any of the market that HP and Dell have which I find to be absolute baloney.   They can't of course if they don't have the right product for that Market.   Frankly much of these sales are not the low margin sales commonly alluded to in these sorts of thread, Apple could easily add another million in sales with the right hardware at the right price.

 

How many iPhones and iPods has Apple sold to people who still use PCs? How many of those people would love to have a complete Apple experience if Apple would just build the Mac that they need?

 

Three iPhones in my family. Two iPods in my family. Plus one work provided iPad.

Number of Macs that those three people in my family still own and use? Zero!

You are talking about an educator that used Macs in the classroom and two children that grew up using Macs in the classroom. But now all three are on Windows. I still use a Mac but Apple is trying its hardest to make it 4 for 4 at my house.

Maybe Tim Cook will read this!    It highlights the fact that people have given up on Apple when it comes to offering a viable desktop machine.  Frankly they have nothing except for machines for the gullible or those with low expectations.    Even the Mac Pro is a joke after all these years.   

There's no description of what Apple is competing with though. If the issue is price, they won't go below a certain level. You can get a 15" PC laptop for $300:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230600

Apple's 15" laptops start at $1799. They just won't build a laptop for $300. Apple can build a tower for $1500 but if they are competing with a $300 desktop:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883256195

what difference would it make?

This is a common argument that I've never understood. Apple typically doesn't address the truly low end in terms of specs, and you can't really buy a decent Windows machine for $300 anyway. When trying to draw parallels, it's a good idea to at least keep them in a similar range of capability or at least two things that a given consumer might compare in their search. People do make strange comparisons at times when they possess a poor understanding of their own requirements, but this is a stretch. Going by their previous product strategies, I agree that they have tried to minimize price conflicts. In fact you mentioned a long time ago that you thought the mac pro pricing went up due to the imac. They have raised its pricing slightly every cycle, which is why I'm skeptical that it will go any other way. The problem is whether the market that the base model caters to will pay $2500 for that at this point. Anyway HP and Asus both sell machines at higher price points than the ones you linked, and given that PCs have become a market of very slow growth, many of Apple's new customers would need to come from the Windows side.

I was at a colocation centre this past week. One local company rents a 42U rack with Xserve and Xserve RAIDs. Based on the designs some were PPC-based. I was told they need to be rebooted once a week.

I wonder why that would be…

The Mac Pro price most likely went up due to lower volume of sales but they do try to keep the lines as separate as possible.

There was an article a while ago saying that 9/10 computers sold above $1000 in the US were Macs:

http://betanews.com/2010/02/01/nine-out-of-10-premium-priced-pcs-sold-at-us-retail-is-a-mac/

Total desktop sales per quarter worldwide are ~25 million units.

$0-1000 = 20 million units (HP 24%, Lenovo 21%, Dell 15%, Acer 10%, Asus 10%, other 20%) = ~ 300k Minis per quarter
$1000-2000 = 3-4 million units (Apple has 90% in the US but it will be 50-70% worldwide) = ~ 1.3m iMacs per quarter
$2000+ = 1 million units (HP 33%, Dell 26%, Apple has 22%, Lenovo 8%, other 11%) = ~ 220k Mac Pros per quarter

The numbers and percentages don't match exactly but it gives a ballpark of where Apple stands. Where Apple loses out to Windows PCs is in the sub-$1000 range and given that the average selling price is $650 for PCs, a significant number are in the sub-$650 segment.

Apple knows this already and the problem isn't so much building a decent PC for $500, it's having a complete bundle for $500. They can build a Mini for $500 no problem but they can't give you a Mini, keyboard, mouse and display for $500 otherwise something in that bundle will be junk.

Their answer to address this was the iPad as it's a complete bundle for under $500 and this is obvious when you add the iPad into the overall stats because counting the iPad, Apple exceeds HP's overall PC marketshare.

The conclusions that we can draw from this are:

- a consumer tower in the $1000-2000 range has a fairly small audience to win over and most likely, it will just drive profits in that segment down. It could persuade 0.5m-1m new customers over but it's not what's holding Apple back from the bulk of the Windows audience by a long shot and if it doesn't significantly increase profits, there's little point.
- Apple is doing ok in the workstation segment, which has an even lower audience so they can do whatever they want. If they choose to do something nice, it's simply because they choose to, not because they have to.
- to win more customers over on the low-end, they need better bundle prices. The iPad covers the sub-$650 bundle segment but they could really do with having a $299 display and a <$100 keyboard and mouse bundle so that a customer can walk out of a store with a full desktop computer setup below $1000. They can't do that right now and yet they can get a laptop for under $1000. Dell can sell a 23" 1080p IPS for $231 so Apple should be able to sell a plastic backed display for $299 (it would be like the plastic back on the 2009 iMac and it can have a glass front with an aluminium surround, no speakers but possibly an iSight and Thunderbolt). They can have a wired keyboard at $39, not $49 and a wireless mouse at $59 not $69, even if they have to take some Magic out.

I'd like to see them get the entry MBA SSD to 128GB, eventually drop the 11", have a lower entry price for a 15" laptop (say $1499-1599 with a dual-core and IGP) have an affordable 23-24" 1080p IPS display, have slightly cheaper peripherals, use 23-24" 1080p displays on the entry iMac, possibly get a 27" iMac at $1499, although a 23-24" on the entry models would negate that a bit and for the Mac Pro, just use the latest, state-of-the-art cooling, no optical drives so that it can have a smaller form factor and lower build and shipping cost with a $2000 entry price but making the same profit.

Come on Mavin that desktop is running AMDs BRAZOS chip which is a tiny step up from an Intel ATOM.     This machine wold be outclassed by everything Apple sells today.   It is not the type of machine anybody posting here recently wants.  

 

As for what Apple is competing with the answer is simple they aren't competing with anything as they are a single source supplier for Macs.  The goal here isn't competeing but meeting customer needs.   The primary need here is a machine that is headless but yet a respectable performer.   Further that machine should have a bit of modern technology at least as interesting as Apple laptops and some expansion capability.  It isn't a lot to ask for and it would generat a lot of new sales. 

They would not be competing with that machine at all.    The goal here would be sales to people that know the difference not some idiot that drives down to the local discount chain to get screwed over with contracts, warranties and expensive cables. 

 

I really don't get your mentality here.    It should be pretty obvious that if Apple can produce and sell an iMac they shouldn't have any problem at all making a rational desktop machine for a little less than the going iMac rate.     I say rational because the Mac Pro has regressed into a platform that is barely suitable for a small minority of users.   Beyond that the Pro is a rip off, especially if you are looking for a basic workstation.  

 

And the only thing that prevents the Mac Pro from being this is this year's update.

 

Right, they do. The Mac mini. They don't want to make a consumer tower. Sort of been their modus operandi since '98.

 

I'm all for a radically redesigned Mac Pro, but it needs to fulfill the desires of a fair bit of the Mac Pro's current audience. I'm not sure if I see whatever they do (on the very lowest end of this thing) giving the 27" iMac a run for its money in the "prosumer" department. But I'd like to think it would at least give the workstation crowd a machine they can embrace. 

I don't understand the argument either, it isn't like the Mii or the iMac have to compete with Windows machines to be viable.   

 

As to the comparison lets be honest BRAZOS is a very interesting attempt by AMD to compete against Intel.   In this case they effectively are competing against ATOM and are doing very well.   However let's look at that a bit closer, they are competing with Intels Atom which is not even close to the computational power sitting in any of Apples machines today.  Well "Mac" machines, if you stack the chip up against an iPad the story is a bit different.  

 

In any event I just don't get this desire to poo poo the idea of a nice desktop box (from Apple) by comparing it to such low performance hardware.   The logic just escapes me.   As for desktop boxes I look towards what is advertised locally from the various builders and frankly decent PC boxes generally start at double that price and quickly move to the +$1000 range.   If Apple delivered a $1500 headless desktop I'd expect equivalent or better hardware than what is in those +$1000 boxes.     That is basically a $500 cushion that Apple would have to work with

Slow growth doesn't mean no growth though.    Further a smartly designed desktop would be all growth for Apple due to its ability to bring in new customers. Such a machine would open up many opportunities for Apple.    The fact of the matter here is that Apple is excluded from many opportunities due to the nature of their desktop hardware. 

Here's a dirty mockup I made of what a 1) smaller PSU and 2) exclusion of ODD bays would be assuming that all other parts remain the same. You could probably pull it closer from front to back by making the mobo smaller (but I assume there will be a fairly large SSD on the board with the change) and using better cooling tech. I wouldn't think they will get rid of the PCIe or RAM risers, or reduce their numbers.




Any other suggestions?


What constraints in design does Apple use for making it rack mountable. The Power Mac and Mac Pro case has always been big still small enough to fit sideways in a rack on a tray. Would they continue to stick with that design so that my shrinking it from top to bottom is moot or is simply being small enough good enough, and knowledge that most use it at their desk making it smaller from top to bottom is more beneficial to the average user's needs?
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/24/13 at 10:57am

This isn't a Mac Pro replacement we are talking about here.  

Further where does everybody get the idea that this machine is a "consumer tower".   It would very much be a machine for "professional" use, it would however not be the big box machine that the Pro is.   

 

As for the Mac Pro and a radical design, I agree it is needed, I have little doubt there.   However such a machine still isn't a midrange desktop machine.  And no the Mini isn't the machine to fill these shoes.   As for modus operandi, if you don't remain flexible and innovative you end up getting caught with your pants down.   

Unless you're a politician where being flexible on morals and innovative on social norms can end up getting you caught with your pants down, literally.

Then what's Apple's incentive to do it? They have everything else covered.

 

Then it's a Mac Pro replacement. Are we mincing words? Is that what it's called? Splitting hairs?

 

You're basically after a smaller, cheaper Mac Pro, right? Then it's still a Mac Pro replacement. 

 

Then it's a consumer tower you're after.

 

Do you see why I'm confused? It doesn't replace the Mac Pro, but it's a tower for professionals… except it isn't; it's a cheap tower for people.

 

"Cheap tower for people" is what everyone else does, and it makes them no money. The lack of simplicity is also why Apple doesn't. 

 

Worked for 15 years. That's… what, "lifetimes"? "generations"? in the tech industry! And every time they tried to step outside it, they've failed (or it failed to garnish enough support to be worth messing with the rest of the line). 

I'd like to see the case completely rethought not just shrunken.    That means the handles go and the thick design gets replaced with something thinner.   

 

The motherboard size is somewhat dictated by what Apple actually selects as the machines processor.   I would be surprised to see Apple go with a single slot XEON of some sort and a Xeon Phi processor soldered on board.   To make the new Pro more interesting they really need consider new technology and Xeon Phi has a certain appeal to it.    However they could just as easily solder on a new GPU chip.    Either approach would result in a large motherboard the would have to support multiple banks of RAM.   In the end I don't see the motherboard getting too much smaller.  

 

PCIe is an interesting discussion of its own.   If they go single slot with a Xeon Phi coprocessor they simply may not have the lanes for a large number of slots.   Without at least two though they would kill  the market as slots are still very important for the Pro.    Frankly I'm expecting far fewer rotating drive slots, maybe as few as two.  I would very much expect the use of at least one PCIe slot for a dedicated high speed solid state storage card.  

As far as rack mounting goes the important thing is that it fall on "U" increments thickness wise.   I'm guessing 3U would be a nice size.   Height which turns into rack width is limited by internal rack spacing so probably around 16".    That is still a Big Mac Pro box especially if they go 4U.    I'm actually expecting a smaller box myself.

 

Personally I'd prefer for them to go with a cube design.   Maybe 13 inches or so square and 3 or 4 U high.   This makes for a machine that can be rack mounted or easily placed on a shelf.   I'm not really interested in a machine sitting on my desk and would rather have it sitting next to the desk on a shelf or the like.   Unfortunately towers just don't cut the mustard when placed that way.  Note two that to support full length cards and cooling the cube might not be perfectly square as you still need fans on those PCI cards.  

 

By the way I'm under no illusion here, fitting a Pro quality computer into a 13 inch square box would be a challenge.    I do believe however that technology has progressed far enough to do so.   This is especially the case with Intel focusing far more energy on power usage even in its desktop chips.    The other way to look at this is how much is packed into a 1U server these days and how cool a modern one is.   This may require new hardware from Intel but that isn't likely a problem.     Further I wouldn't be surprised to find Apple asking Intel for a truncated Xeon Phi chip to help manage power usage, say a chip with 30 cores instead of 60 or whatever Intel is shipping to help manage power and thermals.  

 

Agreed.

 

What about Thunderbolt? Give 'em six of those.

I don't think it will lose it's handles and feet. I think it's likely they'll be very different but keeping it raised up for floor use and being able to carry/move the machine is important. Even if they can knock off 10 lbs that's still 30 lbs to lift, which can be even more clumsy to hold in a cube arrangement.

I love the idea of a cube but I asked previously how this can happen and still be accessible to all components without adding any complexity to the mix. I used the HDDs as an example. Imagine if you had to remove one HDD to get to one behind it or remove all of them, even if in some unifying special mount to get to the RAM risers. The only way I can see this being feasible is if Apple allows two sides to come apart. For instance, each side with the mobo running down the center. It saves money to put the chips and connectors on side of the board but we've seen with the iPhone they have plenty of skill in maximizing board space. This could reduce the mobo's footprint and by having two smaller fans on the sides for front and back they could potentially reduce fan noise and vibration, and save the user some power if the heat zones are better isolated.

Still, as cool as I can imagine I would surprised to see any cube design for a professional machine. Plus, at 20.1" tall which just fits in a rack sideways they'd be limited to just over 11" for the cube width so you can get 2 next to each otherwise you're losing space in a 23" wide rack. At 11"×11"×11" you get a whole bunch of other issues.


PS: I really do hope I'm wrong and we do see the rebirth of the NeXTcube.

Why is this so hard to understand?  

 

A Mac Pro would be a high performance Professional workstation.   That is a machine with lots of cores and state of the art performance.  

 

A midrange Mac is exactly that, a desktop machine running a desktop processor.  It is no more a consumer  machine than the many PCs that end up in businesses and professional offices    Really tallest I don't know why you or anybody else for that matter, have such a hard time grasping this.  The Mac Pro at one time was a high performance workstation and frankly I hope it returns to that mold, however not all workstations are high performance machines.    For example I'm fairly confident that many developers would be happy with a Haswell based Mac with decent performance, I wouldn't color such a machine consumer.   And no we are looking for a tower in any case Mac Pro nor XMac.   Towers are a concept from the 80's.  

First off $1500 for an XMac isn't cheap so I'm not sure why you keep using the word cheap.   A $1500 computer with a current processor would be expensive even in PC land.   Think of this as the difference between a Dell XPS and a Vostro.    One is a cheap "consumer" machine and the other is a far more versatile and higher performing machine.  

 

As far as working for 15 years that is total BS.   The only thing that has worked for Apple is their laptop line up.   The desktop line has been in decline for years with only the iMac holding onto sales.   The fact is they have tried anything truly new outside of the Mini since Steve cam back to Apple.   That my friends is a stagnet line up and frankly a stupid move on Apples part.   This is especially the case after Apples tarnished image with the Mac has been largely repaired with the move to Intel and Unix.   Apple actually has considerable respect in the industry now for Mac OS but sadly doesn't have the hardware most users need.   Well not for the desktop they don't.     Apple is actually in a very strong position now with Mac OS and really should be trying to leverage that by innovating on the desktop with all the effort they out into the laptop line up.   Done right Apple could increase Mac sales significantly.  

We can only hope that Apple truly rethinks its hardware.  

TB is very important and I have to agree that a Pro needs those ports.   I do wonder what that means for the GPU though.  Right now I see that they have two options.   One is to place the GPU on the motherboard the other is a specialized card slot.    It is either that or TB becomes data only on the Mac Pro. 

 

So an addition to the Mac Pro, not a replacement. But still a Xeon.

Okay, not a Xeon. They have the iMac for this. That's it.

 

So too much power for not enough use? A machine designed for that?

 

What I don't understand is why such a loud minority has such a hard time grasping that Apple couldn't care less about a consumer tower.

 

The Mac Mini is their barebones "switcher" Mac. You don't have to replace everything you already have to get one.

The iMac is their "here's everything you need to have a modern computer" Mac. It's also the "hey, you want to do some high-level stuff, that's just fine look how well it works on just this thing" Mac. 

The Mac Pro is their "you know exactly what you're doing and what you need to do it, so here it is" Mac. 

 

Where does a consumer tower fit into that? To me it sounds like a "you don't have a clue what you need, so here's something you can screw around with until you get it right" Mac. Is that "Apple"?

Haswell Mac Mini, then. Something actually cheap and still far more powerful than "the guy what works the spreadsheets" needs, but suitable for a per-cubicle basis in an office.

 

But you want these machines under the desks of every Bob Business and Angie Accounting like the crap Dell/HP towers we see today?

It's in "providing professional power for a specific need" price-land, though.

 

G4 Cube; failure; too expensive. Sort of like the computer you're trying to pitch… 

 

It's the same hardware as in any other PC. Better, in many cases. "Most users" don't need a tower. They don't need to get into their computer. They don't need to have a clue what to do with this little rectangle jobby here. 

 

Oh, I see them doing that! By getting rid of the mouse.

Handles are always nice to have.   One idea that I have had is to mold them into the cube design.   The "Handles" could also function as ports for airflow.    A die cast housing would give them lots of options here.   Done right the "Handles" wouldn't even look like handles but would rather be just another design element.   

Your concerns about accessibility are real and it is one of the reasons I hate the iMac so much.   However I'm not sure why you believe that a cube implies bad design.   It could of course but it doesn't have too.    Remember we have come a very long way since the original next cube.   While there are many approaches Apple could easily design a machine with a lift off shell with the majority of the components that would need tending to easily accessible from the exposed sides.   

 

The other thing is that the cube wouldn't need a lot of the discreet crap that machines from 20 or so years ago needed.    You won't need the following: a floppy, a optical, a sound card, a network card, you might not need a video car and probably a number of other things.  These days all of those are on the mother board often compressed into multifunction chips.  One need only look at Apples laptop to realize Apple has the engineer chops to do a high performance cube like machine.  

 

Sadly most rack systems are 19" wide.   That forces the width of the machine to less than ideal size if you want them two wide in a rack.   If you want two wide per 19" rack you are looking at around 8-9 inches.  Not bad for an XMAC but maybe just a little thin for a Mac Pro.   Interestingly we do run into a problem with a rack convertible machine and that is proper cooling where in the front out the back is the norm.   

 

I have the preference for a cube for practical reasons as I see them as easier to shelve or otherwise clear the clutter from my work area.    Of course that implies a cube that is small enough to fit on a shelf in the first place.  I can't help but to think that if the Mini was just a bit bigger it could very well give me 90% of what I'm looking for in an XMAC. That being easy access to drives, a discrete GPU and good performance.  Such a Mini would certainly still be small enough to rack mount two wide for those that need it and for those that want it on a shelf someplace the Mini is no problem at all.   Sometimes I think they should just kill the Mini in its current size and add an inch or so to the chassis to make it more than an entry level model especially at the $999 end. 

 

Now that I've jumped from Mac Pro to XMac to Mini I've probably confused you even more.    I hope however that I've illuminated the thread with my ideas as far as a cube based Mac Pro goes.    I think it is a very possible direction for Apple but it will give up some of the features current Pro user like about the machine.   The big one will be no internal disk arrays.    The other thing Apple needs to do is to spur sales with unique performance features.  

I love this idea!



It may not need them to be seperate cards but there will be slots ports that will work for all of those. I assume the primary use is for video cards. Do you think they'd get rid of PCIe slots? If so, then why even have this machine? Having two TB ports where the old and busted FW800 ports were would allow for a nice drop in price if they don't include a discrete GPU as standard. If it is for a server room then HD4000 is sufficient for most needs.

I didn't recall with more common but choose the largest for the sake of the argument as it still didn't paint a pretty picture. At 19" my shortened mockup seems more plausible.

How big is the average shelf? How much weight can it support? These are questions that would need to be addressed if they were to build a cube and I don't think the answer will be pleasant.

But they haven't done that and it seems to be pretty popular since they keep refreshing it so I think we need to understand that product better if we want to understand how the Mac Pro might change.

Possible, sure, but in no way do I think it's the most probable solution to expect.

I think that's away off. They still sell the MBP, Mac mini, and iMac with HDDS so I doubt that will come for some time. Even after those have all gone SSD I think the Mac Pro will still have the HDDs for a good time after (but part of that is because they change the design so infrequently).

You really don't know what I'm talking about and frankly I'm not sure what I can say to get you to grasp the fact that what I'm talking about has nothing to do with the consumer market!!!    I'm talking very much about a machine for professional use where a workstation class machine isn't required.   A machine with slots is often a requirement though.  

 

I have to wonder if you have ever been in a very large complex that has offices, R&D, engineering, manufacturing and other areas where computers are used.  I know of instances where several hindered PCs are used and not a one of them is used in the capacity of an office computer.  In these sorts of installations standardized hardware makes support far easier and as such the hardware has to have PCIe slots.   Those slots might employ any number of specialized cards or they may have no cards at all in them.   The important thing here is the cost of the hardware and as such the Mac Pro isn't even in the ball game.  A suitable compact XMac might be if the cost was reasonable.  The point is Apple isn't even considered for such uses because they don't have professional class hardware priced right for the use.  The rest of the building isn't likely to use an iMac either because built in screens aren't acceptable for professional usage.    Basically Apple through its bull headed approach to desktop hardware hasn't had a chance in hell of getting placed into these sorts of business settings.  

 

Now it is pretty well know that Steve didn't give a damn about the needs of business.   It wasn't his goal to think different for the business world.   However as a company Apple can change to at least offer something suitable.  It might actually take a while for business to catch on but considering the quality problems that exist for the mainstream manufactures I really think they could start to win a few installations with the right hardware.  

You talk a lot about consumer but frankly I think that is all you are familiar with.   Like it or not Apple doesn't have a midrange business solution.   You can point all you want at the iMac but nobody with any sort of business sense would buy that for use outside of an office environment.  Frankly I see more PC outside the office than I do inside them.

 

As to that Haswell Mini it might turn my head for personal usage.   But putting it into a diverse business setting would be difficult at best.