AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Mac Pro no longer available from European Online Apple Stores
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mac Pro no longer available from European Online Apple Stores - Page 2

post #41 of 81
2/19/13 at 5:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Strange remark; look at Final Cut Pro X: announced on April 12, 2011 and released on June 21. FCP EOL-ed right there.
Excellent point. Pros just work, many times on 'old' hardware. Many don't know what processor speed they have, how much RAM and all that. They just look at InDesign or whatever and say, hmm, maybe it's time to get a new Mac because it's slower than it used to be.

MMPP (My MP prediction):
  • 6 socket 4 and 6-core XEON CPU
  • 16 RAM slots, maxing out at 256GB
  • ODD (for mass DVD production you can't hand over a DVD anyway; that has to be on tape)
  • USB2/3 (no v3 needed but for future proofing it would make sense. CPU has to support it though)
  • 2xFW800 on the back (why dump it if they don't have to pay a software license)
  • 2xEth, 'many' TB, analogue/optical in/out, WiFi, BT and all that
  • 1 or 2 PSU
  • Similar chassis to current one, 19" high so can be put on shelve for racks,: stack all CPU's vertically (landscape orientation, at the front) and put all (6?) PCI cards behind that. Above that 1 or 2 PSU. So:

CPU PSU
CPU PSU
CPU PCI
CPU PCI
CPU PCI
CPU PCI
                PCI
                PCI

Craply done layout but you'll 'get the picture' I trust: 6xCPU stacked at front, 6x PCI tacked at back + 2xPSU op top of that. Put air holes at the bottom with a filter, fans on top, sucking cold air and blow out the hot air at the top/back. Not regular fans, but the ones posted in yesterdays thread.

The only thing I disagree on is the ODD. Even if you need to turn over a tape for mass production, prototyping is likely to involve a DVD for your client. I don't see it being dropped any time soon.

And the number of CPUs will depend on what Intel has available.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 81
2/19/13 at 5:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Apple made a strategic decision to market the MacPro for only the very high end markets which typically require multiple CPUs. Because of that decision - and Intel's failure to release newer Xeon products - Apple is limited in what they can offer.

Must be a déjà vu for them, after IBM couldn't deliver a 3GHz G5.
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
post #43 of 81
2/19/13 at 5:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider 
the computer has been made unavailbable

bable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider 
Apple noted in the announcement that authorized resellers would be able to purchase the Mac Pro until Feb. 18, but did not previously specify an exact date on which general consumer orders would be discontinued.

They have a low turnaround time so it's expected that they'd stop close to Feb 18th.

Discontinued on the UK site too now. #BBCpanicbuy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah 
New one soon then

It depends what you consider to be soon. I don't know how much warning they had about this new safety ammendment but it comes into effect on March 1st so they can't continue selling machines that aren't compliant. If they didn't have enough warning, the update will have to be within their already planned update cycle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 
I believe that is because Apple is waiting for Intel to release their Haswell-DT CPU with the LGA1150 socket, which also would allow for USB3. ETA is June 2.

Haswell-DT is their desktop line for the likes of the iMac. The MP would use either Sandy Bridge EP (released last March) or Ivy Bridge EP (due Q3 2013 - July or thereabouts).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta 
Which dual CPU system on the market is Sandy Bridge?

http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/workstations/z820_features.html#.USN6v2hAyqk

They use Sandy Bridge Xeons, which came out last March. HP's machines were shipping around May. Dell and Boxx use them too. Apple skipped them so if they went with Sandy Bridge Xeons, they'd be using at least 9 month old CPUs.

But they can't go Ivy Bridge Xeon until Intel releases the EP versions in July.

Intel might let Apple launch them in June at WWDC because the volumes are so low.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 81
2/19/13 at 5:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Haswell-DT is their desktop line for the likes of the iMac. The MP would use either Sandy Bridge EP (released last March) or Ivy Bridge EP (due Q3 2013 - July or thereabouts).

Using last March CPU would seem a step back, so I wager the one from Q3. Is it true that USB3 requires this specific CPU? (sorry for asking again, I thought you replied on this a while back, but iForgot)
Quote:
But they can't go Ivy Bridge Xeon until Intel releases the EP versions in July.

Intel might let Apple launch them in June at WWDC because the volumes are so low.

But Intel sometimes releases CPU's earlier for Apple, either due to low volume or to give them a heads up on the competition.

Will, in your opinion, a 4 or 6 socket design be feasible? Does that 1150 allow for that?
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
post #45 of 81
2/19/13 at 5:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Must be a déjà vu for them, after IBM couldn't deliver a 3GHz G5.

That's very true. CPUs are not something I know anything about so this may be total BS to even think ... but I wonder if Apple will ever go it alone on high end CPUs to avoid this even if they have them made for them (not by Samsung of course lol).
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #46 of 81
2/19/13 at 5:40am
I haven't looked inside a Mac Pro in a long time, but are the "unprotected" fan blades really so dangerous? And even though current Mac laptops don't really enable users to change anything in the machine and therefore shouldn't be opened by mere mortals, are those fan blades non-protected as well?

What exactly is this new rule?

And is a new MacPro going to be anything but updated processors and slots for flash drives as well as fusion drives and an updated graphics board in maybe (but not necessarily) a new case? What is it exactly that people are expecting? I think people are setting themselves up for disappointment.

However, this new European rule may be doing us a favor as it might force Apple to release a new MacPro sooner rather than later.

I don't think Apple hates pros, it's just that as the company has become so huge and with Wall Street looking so closely, it simply doesn't make financial sense for them to concentrate on machines that don't sell very well.

However, there is still a reason to have such machines and that is that the top of the line drives the perception of the rest of the line from a marketing standpoint. Whether it's car companies like BMW or camera companies like Nikon and Canon, or Sony with their new 84" 4K $25,000 TV, they all have very expensive top-of-the-line models that don't actually sell in huge numbers, but drive the perception of quality. Also, if "pros" start using Windows machines for "pro" applications, they might start using Windows machines as their personal machines as well. That could be the beginning of a slippery slope. Apple used to released computers that they could claim were the most powerful. I remember the ad campaign where Apple claimed their computer was so powerful that they weren't permitted to export it to many countries. Even though most users don't actually need more power, they need to get back to that place and restore the perception that Apple is the best computer, not just that it has the best ecosystem.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 81
2/19/13 at 5:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Must be a déjà vu for them, after IBM couldn't deliver a 3GHz G5.

That's very true. CPUs are not something I know anything about so this may be total BS to even think ... but I wonder if Apple will ever go it alone on high end CPUs to avoid this even if they have them made for them (not by Samsung of course lol).

Interesting point you raise here. I think PA Semi did indeed design desktop CPU's. DED has an article on that here.

Lol on the Samsung thing!
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
post #48 of 81
2/19/13 at 5:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I haven't looked inside a Mac Pro in a long time, but are the "unprotected" fan blades really so dangerous? And even though current Mac laptops don't really enable users to change anything in the machine and therefore shouldn't be opened by mere mortals, are those fan blades non-protected as well?

What exactly is this new rule?

And is a new MacPro going to be anything but updated processors and slots for flash drives as well as fusion drives and an updated graphics board in maybe (but not necessarily) a new case? What is it exactly that people are expecting? I think people are setting themselves up for disappointment.

However, this new European rule may be doing us a favor as it might force Apple to release a new MacPro sooner rather than later.

I don't think Apple hates pros, it's just that as the company has become so huge and with Wall Street looking so closely, it simply doesn't make financial sense for them to concentrate on machines that don't sell very well.

However, there is still a reason to have such machines and that is that the top of the line drives the perception of the rest of the line from a marketing standpoint. Whether it's car companies like BMW or camera companies like Nikon and Canon, or Sony with their new 84" 4K $25,000 TV, they all have very expensive top-of-the-line models that don't actually sell in huge numbers, but drive the perception of quality. Also, if "pros" start using Windows machines for "pro" applications, they might start using Windows machines as their personal machines as well. That could be the beginning of a slippery slope. Apple used to released computers that they could claim were the most powerful. I remember the ad campaign where Apple claimed their computer was so powerful that they weren't permitted to export it to many countries. Even though most users don't actually need more power, they need to get back to that place and restore the perception that Apple is the best computer, not just that it has the best ecosystem.

Exactly right. Plus, not only does a high end product help with perception etc. it is also where the technology often drips down from to lower end products. F1 racing cars being a great example of this.
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #49 of 81
2/19/13 at 7:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 
Using last March CPU would seem a step back, so I wager the one from Q3. Is it true that USB3 requires this specific CPU?

It's not the CPU itself but the available chipset (motherboard components) that's compatible with the CPU. If Intel's chipset doesn't support USB 3, Apple has to use a 3rd party controller (which is an option). Right now, Intel doesn't have a Xeon-compatible chipset that supports USB 3 or more than 2 SATA 6G or PCIe 3.

Intel does have a new chipset coming - the Intel C610 chipset (Wellsburg), which supports USB3, 10 SATA 6G ports, still PCIe 2:

http://www.chiploco.com/leaked-slides-spill-details-about-intel-haswell-ep-platform-14358/

but this is meant for Haswell-EP, which most likely won't arrive until 2014.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie 
But Intel sometimes releases CPU's earlier for Apple, either due to low volume or to give them a heads up on the competition.

Will, in your opinion, a 4 or 6 socket design be feasible? Does that 1150 allow for that?

4 socket would be feasible, Intel demos it with the old Nehalem processors here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ianMNs12ITc

but I doubt Apple would go above two. The problem when speccing out computers is that it's inevitable that buyers will create the best machine they can imagine for the lowest price.

The mindset in designing a Mac Pro is usually that it should have more of everything but that would make it less appealling to a lot of people, drive the price up, add complexity to Apple's supply chain and would kill it off even faster because the sales volume would go down again.

The idea that Apple will ever set out to build a machine that won't leave you wanting more is not realistic. If you sell someone a machine with 64 physical cores when the average is about 6-12, that machine will last a very long time so it has to be priced under the assumption that the customer won't be back soon. That's not a good business model.

A healthier way to do it is to scale it down so that it's only a small amount faster than the old one but it has a more appealling form factor and a lower price. This means that people will buy more for networked computation and for individual workstation use, it creates more growth as the highest machines would be more affordable.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 81
2/19/13 at 8:03am

I've yet to hear a legitimate reason why a company with more than $100 billion in cash can't spare the resources necessary to have simply updated the logic board of the existing mac pro to current generations, keeping the same case as they have for some time. The "oh just wait for 2013" crowd seems to forget that the 2010 Mac Pro which is the current Mac Pro was only slightly speed bumped last year because Intel stopped making some of the processors Apple was using. And how about all those out-dated graphics card options? So please, tell me again how much Apple cares about the Mac Pro? People would have been happy with a simple upgrade and a thunderbolt port. I certainly don't care about a case redesign. I only care about whats inside.

 

"Something great" "later" in 2013 is nothing but vaporware until it is released. I was all ready to spend several thousand dollars on a new Mac Pro to replace my 2008 one, but I absolutely refuse to upgrade to the old-technology overpriced machine Apple currently offers. Again, a company with basically unlimited resources has no excuse to not have kept this machine up to date in my opinion.

Reply
Reply
post #51 of 81
2/19/13 at 8:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips 
not only does a high end product help with perception etc. it is also where the technology often drips down from to lower end products. F1 racing cars being a great example of this.

It's the opposite with the Mac Pro though. It's mostly on the small form factor machines that you see the innovative steps being taken such as making really fast IGPs and integrated memory advances for heterogeneous computing, Thunderbolt (low latency external PCIe), better display technology, Firewire (iMac DV) instead of capture cards, SSDs, gesture input.

It's the old saying 'necessity is the mother of invention'. The Mac Pro gives you the option to put anything into a PCI slot and they don't really need to make innovative architecture improvements because there's so little competition, they just add more cores, which is no doubt why Intel's so far behind now. Workstations certainly don't drive the personal computer industry forward.

As a status symbol, it's also the opposite of the car analogy. Sports and racing cars are the best designed machines that everybody would love to have to replace the car they drive back and forth to work with. People simply don't want to replace iPads, laptops and iMacs with Mac Pros because it's an archaic form factor so it's a step back. A closer analogy would be with boats.

The Mac Pro is like a cargo ship and the lower machines are like beautiful speedboats full of babes sunning themselves on the decks. Now sure, if you need to transport some cargo, the giant boat is the better option but the babes aren't going with you. You'll just be stuck with old smelly wise fishermen (professionals) telling tales of yore and how for years they've laughed at speedboat owners trying to transport cargo with their puny boats. But what's this? In the distance they spot a small speedboat full of babes coming up beside them towing cargo with a single cable and it overtakes. The man feels disappointment that he picked the cargo ship and gave up the babes to be with the smelly fishermen.

** intermission for bathroom breaks and snacks **

As time goes on, the fishermen gradually get speedboats of their own and pick up the babes and there are but a few bitter ones who chain themselves to their ships and vow to go down with them. So they shall and they will be rescued by the speedboat owners and see the error of their ways and eventually everyone gets speedboats and the old cargo ships rust away at the bottom of the ocean. Grandchildren will be told tales (rarely factual) about the old boats and how they achieved things that no other boat could in their day and how they don't appreciate the newfangled boats they have now but the children simply run off and play, not really giving a sh*t. It is the perpetual cycle of life.

Boat technology doesn't advance the same way so really it's a rubbish analogy too but the main point is that for all of the power in a Mac Pro, all of the processors that make it do what it does can fit in the palm of your hand just like with every other computer. With the right thermal engineering, the whole thing can fit in the palm of your hand - the Mac Pro is the most apparent admission that thermal engineering hasn't advanced enough, which isn't a good statement. The function of performance expansion cards can be done natively, IO cards can be done with any IO standard, so it comes down to storage, which just needs a cable.

If Apple really wants to make a status symbol, they'd build a box that is a fraction of the size of the Mac Pro that does the same thing using some innovative thermal engineering and people can be proud that they have a machine up to 3x times faster than the iMac in a footprint barely larger than a Mac Mini.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdogg 
a company with basically unlimited resources has no excuse to not have kept this machine up to date in my opinion.

They don't need an excuse though. The harm that they cause by it is not as far reaching as people like to think.

I'm pretty sure they are moving their manufacturing for the MP back to the US so that needs them to setup the factory, employ staff, get all the equipment setup and ready to go.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 81
2/19/13 at 8:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdogg View Post

"Something great" "later" in 2013 is nothing but vaporware until it is released. I was all ready to spend several thousand dollars on a new Mac Pro to replace my 2008 one, but I absolutely refuse to upgrade to the old-technology overpriced machine Apple currently offers. Again, a company with basically unlimited resources has no excuse to not have kept this machine up to date in my opinion.

While I understand your point, you have to realize Apple doensn't make anything. They use off the shelve components to build the Mac Pro, and in this case it seems that they are waiting for Intel to release a new CPU, one that supports USB3 and all that. Yes, they could have added a new mobo, supporting SATA III, plugged in a faster graphics card, but alas, they don't do that. Possibly that's because 'pros' buy what they need; a new MP. When? When their current one dies. Right before a new model comes out? Yes, because they don't give a FF about what's inside the box, or how it looks. They've got stuff to do.
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
post #53 of 81
2/19/13 at 9:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It's not the CPU itself but the available chipset (motherboard components) that's compatible with the CPU. If Intel's chipset doesn't support USB 3, Apple has to use a 3rd party controller (which is an option). Right now, Intel doesn't have a Xeon-compatible chipset that supports USB 3 or more than 2 SATA 6G or PCIe 3.

Ah, thanks a mil Marvin, I keep forgetting this but now it's imprinted in my memory (bank).
Quote:
The idea that Apple will ever set out to build a machine that won't leave you wanting more is not realistic. If you sell someone a machine with 64 physical cores when the average is about 6-12, that machine will last a very long time so it has to be priced under the assumption that the customer won't be back soon. That's not a good business model.

A healthier way to do it is to scale it down so that it's only a small amount faster than the old one but it has a more appealling form factor and a lower price. This means that people will buy more for networked computation and for individual workstation use, it creates more growth as the highest machines would be more affordable.

Valid point, though I don't think Apple (or any manufacturer) should create an appealing FF, rather design what is a good and solid. Do the appearance afterwards.

The cube actually made sense for various reasons, as discussed earlier. Thanks to Solipsism for Allen's Law. Though I think they'll make 'just another old school desktop'. They have for 'a couple of decades', and for good reason.
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
post #54 of 81
2/19/13 at 9:08am
Can someone tell me more regarding the regulation requiring protected fan blades? What triggered this regulation? Did people get hurt by them or did they cause injuries, overheating etc? Thanks in advance.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 81
2/19/13 at 9:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


While I understand your point, you have to realize Apple doensn't make anything. They use off the shelve components to build the Mac Pro, and in this case it seems that they are waiting for Intel to release a new CPU, one that supports USB3 and all that. Yes, they could have added a new mobo, supporting SATA III, plugged in a faster graphics card, but alas, they don't do that. Possibly that's because 'pros' buy what they need; a new MP. When? When their current one dies. Right before a new model comes out? Yes, because they don't give a FF about what's inside the box, or how it looks. They've got stuff to do.

 

You don't think "pros" care about what they are buying? Sure, we may be forced to buy a current model out of outright necessity because an old one dies or otherwise there is no option. Apple doesn't give us much choice do they? But for me the choice to upgrade is one that I'm a little more free to make, and like I said I refuse to upgrade to the current model, and you actually kinda make my point. Apple doesn't even really have to "make" anything to keep the MP up to date. They just take what's available and slap it into their box. How hard could that be for a company like Apple? If no one gave a FF what's inside the box then there wouldn't be anything to discuss here now would there? Everyone would just happily soak up whatever the Apple deemed worthy of them, except we know there are better options out there if Apple would just take minimal effort to keep pace with the rest of the PC industry.

Reply
Reply
post #56 of 81
2/19/13 at 9:30am
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
So you're pre-hating them, just in case?

 

Why, of course! I've already said that roughly 75% of the current Mac Pro audience will absolutely hate what Apple turns the Mac Pro into this year. 

 

Of that 75%, a third will move to the iMac, with 80% of THEM finding that it suits their needs and the other 20% moving back to the new Mac Pro. Another third will putter around with their existing Mac Pro for years, complaining that it's old but refusing to update to the new machine, finally caving, and finding it was exactly what they wanted. And the final third will just go buy a Dell or HP. And hate their lives, finally moving back to the Mac Pro, tail between their legs, once they have the money and have seen how well it's operating for the rest of the pie chart.


Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post
What do they expect us to work on? Windows 7 machines? I can't do my work without a Mac Pro.

 

Too bad your Mac Pro exploded last night, rendering it unusable.


Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
These are people who don't buy Mac Pros but are here to stir the pot.

 

You really think someone would do that? Just go on the Internet and tell lies?


Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post
I believe that is because Apple is waiting for Intel to release their Haswell-DT CPU with the LGA1150 socket, which also would allow for USB3. ETA is June 2.

 

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait… I thought it was just Sandy Bridge Xeons coming out this spring! Ivy Bridge in late fall and Haswell next year.

 

I saw this thread and thought to myself, "Gosh dang it, they're going to update to the outdated SB chips!" 

 

Did they move the release dates up HUGELY?


Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
The only thing I disagree on is the ODD. Even if you need to turn over a tape for mass production, prototyping is likely to involve a DVD for your client. I don't see it being dropped any time soon.

 

You're kidding, yeah? $25 external thing. Get that crap out of the machine proper so that it can be reengineered to take full advantage of what truly matters.


Originally Posted by iSteelers View Post
Can someone tell me more regarding the regulation requiring protected fan blades? What triggered this regulation? Did people get hurt by them or did they cause injuries, overheating etc? Thanks in advance.

 

The European Union is a nanny state, too idiotically overprotective of its citizens to see the obvious:

 

If you have the Mac Pro open while it's in operation, the LEAST dangerous thing in there is touching a moving fan. 

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #57 of 81
2/19/13 at 10:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

The European Union is a nanny state, too idiotically overprotective of its citizens to see the obvious:

 

If you have the Mac Pro open while it's in operation, the LEAST dangerous thing in there is touching a moving fan. 

 

I know that EU bashing in en vogue, but it completely misses the point. The revised regulation was necessary, because hundreds (if not thousands) of cheap, mainly Asian, outfits were shipping unsafe devices to the EU and authorities had insufficient regulations on hand to stop these imports before something went bad. These regulations were not done with Apple (or the Mac Pro) in mind.

 

Nevertheless, all companies doing business in the EU had access to the revised regulations since they were first published in Q4/2005. That's right, these rules were published before the first Mac Pro ever even shipped. Apple and all other OEMs were given a generous transition period of more than 7 years to make their devices compliant. The internal layout of the Mac Pro has changed a few times during these 7 years, and Apple was obviously not interested in making it compliant. No need to blame the EU for that.

 

Now, let's just hope a successor is not too far out. Not being able to get a new machine for 3-6 months is not a problem, beyond that it would get ugly.

Reply
Reply
post #58 of 81
2/19/13 at 10:42am
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post
I know that EU bashing in en vogue, but it completely misses the point. The revised regulation was necessary, because hundreds (if not thousands) of cheap, mainly Asian, outfits were shipping unsafe devices to the EU and authorities had insufficient regulations on hand to stop these imports before something went bad. These regulations were not done with Apple (or the Mac Pro) in mind.

 

Maybe don't stick your hand in a fan!

 

Look, I can see if the fans from these cut-rate places were FLYING out of their mountings, busting through the computer case, and hitting people in the shin. Was that happening?

 

Now, let's just hope a successor is not too far out. Not being able to get a new machine for 3-6 months is not a problem, beyond that it would get ugly.

 

It's a three year old computer. I'm pretty sure people will be okay with not being able to buy it. lol.gif

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #59 of 81
2/19/13 at 11:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Maybe don't stick your hand in a fan!

 

Look, I can see if the fans from these cut-rate places were FLYING out of their mountings, busting through the computer case, and hitting people in the shin. Was that happening?

 

It's a three year old computer. I'm pretty sure people will be okay with not being able to buy it. lol.gif

 

The regulation (over 700 pages) covers a multitude of design criteria (fans are actually just two paragraphs). It is not specific to computers, it applies to all kinds of equipment and does not differentiate between "small devices with less dangerous" and "big devices with more dangerous" fans. And it makes pretty simple and straight-forward demands: either the fan is in a cage, or device must turn itself off in conditions where somebody could touch the fan blades (both could have been accomplished with minimal cost and re-design efforts). Fans used in computers can barely cause severe injuries, but they still have to meet the same criteria. There are several electronic devices with pretty powerful fans (fridges, radiators, ACs, etc.) that can indeed do severe damage. Another point is that workplace safety requirements in (most of) the EU are a lot more stringent than in the US (I know, because we have imported a lot of US airport equipment - loaders, conveyors, tugs, stairs) to the EU, every single item required severe modifications to be certified).

 

Yeah, it's three years old, but if your workflows depend on that one type of machine only (and there is nothing at all at any price point that can replace it)... what can you do? I can have pretty much every workstation on the market delivered same day... just none of them will run the software our people are trained on.

Reply
Reply
post #60 of 81
2/19/13 at 11:27am
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post
…it applies to all kinds of equipment and does not differentiate between "small devices with less dangerous" and "big devices with more dangerous" fans. 

 

And that's nonsense. Forcing everything to have the same requirements stifles everything.


Yeah, it's three years old, but if your workflows depend on that one type of machine only (and there is nothing at all at any price point that can replace it)... what can you do?

 

Right. But age isn't a problem now; they can't buy it! 1wink.gif "Could always Hackintosh", he says, in jest. 

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #61 of 81
2/19/13 at 11:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
I thought it was just Sandy Bridge Xeons coming out this spring! Ivy Bridge in late fall and Haswell next year.

I saw this thread and thought to myself, "Gosh dang it, they're going to update to the outdated SB chips!" 

Did they move the release dates up HUGELY?

He was talking about Haswell desktop, which is going to launch in June and was pushed back from April. This year's Mini, iMac and laptops will be Haswell, most likely with the MBP and iMac chips first in June followed by the GT3 mobile chips.

Ivy Bridge Xeons are in production just now and there are various reports of engineering samples being sent out. One of the performance engineers at Intel tweeted about Ivy Bridge Xeon performance so they are being manufactured and tested just now. Unless they have a problem, there's no reason to think they won't be able to ship these in July. That will let Apple announce them at WWDC, put up an order page and say they will ship in 3-4 weeks.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 81
2/19/13 at 1:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

bable.
They have a low turnaround time so it's expected that they'd stop close to Feb 18th.

Discontinued on the UK site too now. #BBCpanicbuy
It depends what you consider to be soon. I don't know how much warning they had about this new safety ammendment but it comes into effect on March 1st so they can't continue selling machines that aren't compliant. If they didn't have enough warning, the update will have to be within their already planned update cycle.
Haswell-DT is their desktop line for the likes of the iMac. The MP would use either Sandy Bridge EP (released last March) or Ivy Bridge EP (due Q3 2013 - July or thereabouts).
http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/workstations/z820_features.html#.USN6v2hAyqk

They use Sandy Bridge Xeons, which came out last March. HP's machines were shipping around May. Dell and Boxx use them too. Apple skipped them so if they went with Sandy Bridge Xeons, they'd be using at least 9 month old CPUs.

But they can't go Ivy Bridge Xeon until Intel releases the EP versions in July.

Intel might let Apple launch them in June at WWDC because the volumes are so low.
By June(or first week of July at latest)
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 81
2/19/13 at 4:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

And that's nonsense. Forcing everything to have the same requirements stifles everything.

 

Having different requirements for everything makes for insanely complicated law, special pleading by every lobby in every industry, etc., etc.

 

In any case, how hard would it have been for Apple to cage the fan? It wouldn't really take a total redesign, would it?

 

Since the answer to the last two questions must be, I imagine, "not very" and "it wouldn't," I suspect that Apple just isn't selling any Mac Pros in Europe anymore, so the whole issue is irrelevant. 

Reply
Reply
post #64 of 81
2/19/13 at 5:03pm
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post
Having different requirements for everything makes for insanely complicated law, special pleading by every lobby in every industry, etc., etc.

 

The idea is to not have the law at all. Screw lobbies. Keep things safe where they need to be safe, individually, on a per-industry basis, tailored to what actually needs to be made safe. 


In any case, how hard would it have been for Apple to cage the fan?

 

Not the point. The point is forcible, pointless reengineering that diminishes the quality of the product to meet a fanciful requirement for something that doesn't actually matter.

 

Can't screw with airflow. Everything changes.


I suspect that Apple just isn't selling any Mac Pros in Europe anymore, so the whole issue is irrelevant. 

 

That's even sillier than the law. Not selling "any"? Even TI manages to get away with selling decades-old hardware.

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #65 of 81
2/19/13 at 8:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


It's not the CPU itself but the available chipset (motherboard components) that's compatible with the CPU. If Intel's chipset doesn't support USB 3, Apple has to use a 3rd party controller (which is an option). Right now, Intel doesn't have a Xeon-compatible chipset that supports USB 3 or more than 2 SATA 6G or PCIe 3.

Intel does have a new chipset coming - the Intel C610 chipset (Wellsburg), which supports USB3, 10 SATA 6G ports, still PCIe 2:

http://www.chiploco.com/leaked-slides-spill-details-about-intel-haswell-ep-platform-14358/

but this is meant for Haswell-EP, which most likely won't arrive until 2014.
4 socket would be feasible, Intel demos it with the old Nehalem processors here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ianMNs12ITc

but I doubt Apple would go above two. The problem when speccing out computers is that it's inevitable that buyers will create the best machine they can imagine for the lowest price.

The mindset in designing a Mac Pro is usually that it should have more of everything but that would make it less appealling to a lot of people, drive the price up, add complexity to Apple's supply chain and would kill it off even faster because the sales volume would go down again.

The idea that Apple will ever set out to build a machine that won't leave you wanting more is not realistic. If you sell someone a machine with 64 physical cores when the average is about 6-12, that machine will last a very long time so it has to be priced under the assumption that the customer won't be back soon. That's not a good business model.

A healthier way to do it is to scale it down so that it's only a small amount faster than the old one but it has a more appealling form factor and a lower price. This means that people will buy more for networked computation and for individual workstation use, it creates more growth as the highest machines would be more affordable.

 

I see what you're saying here, I really do.  Why do you think razors get dull so fast when we know full-well that they could be made to last a lot longer?  They want the user to come back for another purchase.  The issue I have with the MacPro is that we're not seeing much true innovation.  The form factor has been frozen for years and hasn't gotten any smaller.  Apple has done everything they can to get every one of their products smaller, with the exception of the Mac Pro.  It's obscenely oversized for what it could be.  Has Jonny Ive done anything to bring it to even half the size it currently is?  Nope.  I have one from 2006.  Set it next to one in the Apple store today and you can't tell them apart with exception to the ports in front.  BFD.

 

I admit that I'm rather disillusioned with Apple, and with Johnny Ive in particular, because we haven't seen the innovation.  We haven't seen the breakthroughs.  The Mac Pro is stalled out while every other Mac has seen more innovation.  Even the Mac Mini has gotten smaller and faster.  The iMac is insanely thin and powerful.  What are we getting with the Mac Pro?  We're expected to pay top dollar for this particular Mac and yet it's the one receiving the least amount of attention?  It ought to always have insanely more cores than the other models. An iMac had better NEVER compete with a Mac Pro.  Ever.  People buy the big systems that cost and arm and a leg because we want performance.  I don't want Ford Escort performance, I want Indy 500 Performance.  That's what I'm paying for.  I've waited this long because I just haven't seen the innovation.  I'm underwhelmed with Thunderbolt as a primary selling point.  I've got 8 cores right now at 3GHz a piece.  Sure the bus is slower, but that isn't a performance killer.  The GPU pushes the 30" Cinema Display without issue.  I want the new Mac Pro to knock everything else out of the water.  It's the same reason we all want fiber to our houses rather than first-gen DSL.  Sure, you can wait for things to download.  You just would rather not.  I'd rather have more cores to chew through HD footage I shoot.  

 

Apple hasn't done anything to impress me on the Mac Pro front since Clovertown.  I went from 4 cores before that, to the 8 I have now.  When Intel gets off their @$$es and gets us 16 to start with, then we'll talk.  It's called progression, and I'm just not seeing any of that with the Mac Pro.  Everything else has been getting it. Just not the Mac Pro.  I'd love to see the days when a Mac kicked the fsck out of a PC on stage again.  Remember those days?  Think way back.  The fact that Apple hasn't done something far reaching with the Mac Pro is a travesty.  I expect more from them.  I expect more from Johnny Ive.  I'm not impressed yet with Tim Cook's leadership in this.  Leadership.  To lead, not to follow.  The Mac Pro is most certainly following.  They need to remember what it was like to lead, and do it again.  We're waiting for USB3?   I'd like to upgrade to thunderbolt for my next external.  Once again, innovation.  I don't think USB3 is all that innovative in comparison to Thunderbolt.  We have to wait for USB 3, but we won't see more cores.  We won't see much for innovation at all, if the upgrades since my 2,1 are any indication.  I like the 12 core systems, and may have to settle on one if this one dies.

 

In the end, people don't always push their sports cars to the limit every minute of their driving day.  They like to have the power there when they want it without question.  We demand the same of our internet connections. Sure we could all have a slow DSL connection.  But we choose not to.  Same with the computer.  I could technically use a Mac Mini.  I could buy an iMac and have two huge screens.  I'm more interested in the power.  The absolute crunching power that the Mac Pro used to be known for.  It's sad that I've waited over 6 years and I haven't been impressed enough to upgrade, though I've upgraded my primary drive to an SSD myself.  If they'd bring out some true innovation in the Mac Pro, I'd drop the plastic in a heartbeat.  They are stalling, as am I.

MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
post #66 of 81
2/19/13 at 9:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I believe that is because Apple is waiting for Intel to release their Haswell-DT CPU with the LGA1150 socket, which also would allow for USB3. ETA is June 2.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait… I thought it was just Sandy Bridge Xeons coming out this spring! Ivy Bridge in late fall and Haswell next year.

I saw this thread and thought to myself, "Gosh dang it, they're going to update to the outdated SB chips!" 

Did they move the release dates up HUGELY?

I'm not "into CPU's" so only posted what I read on wikipedia:

"Haswell is the codename for a processor microarchitecture under development by Intel's Oregon team as the successor to the Ivy Bridge architecture.[1] Using the 22 nm process,[2] Intel is expected to release CPUs based on this microarchitecture around June 2, 2013 according to leaked roadmaps."

LOL - wiki has a [3] after that paragraph, guess where that points to: our beloved DigiTimes. Gees, if Wikipedia is going to be smeared with that, where is the truth to be found on the internet?
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
post #67 of 81
2/19/13 at 9:58pm
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post
Intel is expected to release CPUs based on this microarchitecture around June 2, 2013 according to leaked roadmaps."

 

Yeah, but we're talking Xeons here. The Xeons are up to a year after the first chips, which is, surprisingly, the entire line of regular desktop chips, simultaneously. Though Wikipedia also says the 47W (not a typo; two extra watts for some reason) laptop chips are in May… 

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #68 of 81
2/19/13 at 10:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

I see what you're saying here, I really do.  Why do you think razors get dull so fast when we know full-well that they could be made to last a lot longer?  They want the user to come back for another purchase.  The issue I have with the MacPro is that we're not seeing much true innovation.  The form factor has been frozen for years and hasn't gotten any smaller.  Apple has done everything they can to get every one of their products smaller, with the exception of the Mac Pro.  It's obscenely oversized for what it could be.  Has Jonny Ive done anything to bring it to even half the size it currently is?  Nope.  I have one from 2006.  Set it next to one in the Apple store today and you can't tell them apart with exception to the ports in front.  BFD.

I admit that I'm rather disillusioned with Apple, and with Johnny Ive in particular, because we haven't seen the innovation.  We haven't seen the breakthroughs.  The Mac Pro is stalled out while every other Mac has seen more innovation.  Even the Mac Mini has gotten smaller and faster.  The iMac is insanely thin and powerful.  What are we getting with the Mac Pro?  We're expected to pay top dollar for this particular Mac and yet it's the one receiving the least amount of attention?  It ought to always have insanely more cores than the other models. An iMac had better NEVER compete with a Mac Pro.  Ever.  People buy the big systems that cost and arm and a leg because we want performance.  I don't want Ford Escort performance, I want Indy 500 Performance.  That's what I'm paying for.  I've waited this long because I just haven't seen the innovation.  I'm underwhelmed with Thunderbolt as a primary selling point.  I've got 8 cores right now at 3GHz a piece.  Sure the bus is slower, but that isn't a performance killer.  The GPU pushes the 30" Cinema Display without issue.  I want the new Mac Pro to knock everything else out of the water.  It's the same reason we all want fiber to our houses rather than first-gen DSL.  Sure, you can wait for things to download.  You just would rather not.  I'd rather have more cores to chew through HD footage I shoot.  

Apple hasn't done anything to impress me on the Mac Pro front since Clovertown.  I went from 4 cores before that, to the 8 I have now.  When Intel gets off their @$$es and gets us 16 to start with, then we'll talk.  It's called progression, and I'm just not seeing any of that with the Mac Pro.  Everything else has been getting it. Just not the Mac Pro.  I'd love to see the days when a Mac kicked the fsck out of a PC on stage again.  Remember those days?  Think way back.  The fact that Apple hasn't done something far reaching with the Mac Pro is a travesty.  I expect more from them.  I expect more from Johnny Ive.  I'm not impressed yet with Tim Cook's leadership in this.  Leadership.  To lead, not to follow.  The Mac Pro is most certainly following.  They need to remember what it was like to lead, and do it again.  We're waiting for USB3?   I'd like to upgrade to thunderbolt for my next external.  Once again, innovation.  I don't think USB3 is all that innovative in comparison to Thunderbolt.  We have to wait for USB 3, but we won't see more cores.  We won't see much for innovation at all, if the upgrades since my 2,1 are any indication.  I like the 12 core systems, and may have to settle on one if this one dies.

In the end, people don't always push their sports cars to the limit every minute of their driving day.  They like to have the power there when they want it without question.  We demand the same of our internet connections. Sure we could all have a slow DSL connection.  But we choose not to.  Same with the computer.  I could technically use a Mac Mini.  I could buy an iMac and have two huge screens.  I'm more interested in the power.  The absolute crunching power that the Mac Pro used to be known for.  It's sad that I've waited over 6 years and I haven't been impressed enough to upgrade, though I've upgraded my primary drive to an SSD myself.  If they'd bring out some true innovation in the Mac Pro, I'd drop the plastic in a heartbeat.  They are stalling, as am I.

Why on earth would you want a smaller computer? Why? Doesn't make any sense. If anything, they should make it larger so more stuff fits in. Full length video capture cards for instance. There are way longer cards than this one:


The chassis of the Mac Pro has been constantly redesigned. Just not on the outside, but look at the inside. They went from 2 HDD to 4 HDD, removed the plastic cover, changed the design of the cooling, increased speed of all components (CPU, memory, yes, even the ODD) increased the PSU from 400 to 950W.

You have to understand that we won't see much innovation on desktop computers anymore. Where we used to get significant speed increases we now will be lucky to see 15% increase. Yes, small steps to what we are used to. It is now just a matter of evolution, until something major drops.

I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
post #69 of 81
2/19/13 at 10:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yeah, but we're talking Xeons here. The Xeons are up to a year after the first chips, which is, surprisingly, the entire line of regular desktop chips, simultaneously. Though Wikipedia also says the 47W (not a typo; two extra watts for some reason) laptop chips are in May… 

There you Brian Green; 2 Watts! I bet you think that is not very innovative.
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
post #70 of 81
2/19/13 at 11:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


There you Brian Green; 2 Watts! I bet you think that is not very innovative.

No need to get snotty PhilBoogie.  Do I think less power use is innovative?  Sure.  Is it a direct concern for me?  Not really.  It might be if I were running the house on solar panels and a wind mill.  I'm not, so a decrease in power consumption for something that isn't battery driven isn't of significant concern.  Is it innovative, sure it is.  Do I get all warm and fuzzy thinking about how great it is that we've managed to drop power consumption?  Only if I think about the millions of people using them.  

 

They can redesign the cooling system, and add in slight upgrades in CPU, GPU, and even ODD as you mentioned, but it is anything really significant?  Not really.  As for the cards, I know there are a lot of people out there who need a lot of cards, some of them are close friends of mine in the movie business.  I get why people need a bunch of cards.  As technology improves, things shrink.  Things get smaller, even the cards.  The card you showed could be decreased in size if they had to do it.  There's no need for them to, so why would they bother?

 

I currently only have one drive inside my Mac Pro (that has four drive slots way back in 2006), and that's an SSD for the OS and Apps only.  Everything else is external for capacity reasons.  We're seeing innovation galore in the iPhone and iPad.  We're seeing it in the Macbook Pros.  We're seeing it in the iMac.  Would I applaud significantly more cores?  Of course I would.  Ever since we got Grand Central Dispatch I've dreamed of more cores.  There are lots of people it doesn't matter to.  You don't need four cores for email.  You certainly don't need four cores to surf the web.  You don't need four cores to listen to iTunes.  There are a lot of people who do only that.  They use Office and spend a lot of time on Reddit.  When it comes to dealing with hours of HD footage from multiple cameras, every core counts.  There are plenty of folks out there who use server farms for their work, an it's great that they have those resources.  Not everyone does.  That's where the innovation comes in.  We progressed from two G5 cores in my first Mac Pro, to 12 cores in the most recent one.  Yes, the bus speeds have improved, and going to 64-bit allowed for more RAM.  That's evolution, to be sure, but slower.

 

What are we getting these days?  We're pretty much stuck at 12 cores because they aren't going to offer more than two chips in a Mac.  RAM speeds have leveled off.  SSD's are getting bigger, but the speeds are leveling.  You think the form factor is fine, okay, then give us significantly more computing power in that space.  Go with the less expensive chips and give us four of them instead of two, or the more expensive chips and still four of them.  Intel is shrinking the chips.  The 22nm chips hurt my head to think of just how small they are.  It's great that they are doing that.  But why stop at six cores per chip especially when they are dropping the power consumption of them?  Less power is less heat.  

 

All in all, I guess I've already seen the great advances in computing technology.  We're plateauing yet we're still increasing our resolutions.  There was a time when I wouldn't have thought we'd go past 1080p.  Now I see televisions coming out at four times that resolution.  Creating content will only get more challenging as we demand more resolution.  Content creators need to stay on top of that.  The Mac Pro needs to be the work horse that makes it happen.  

MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
post #71 of 81
2/20/13 at 12:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

There you Brian Green; 2 Watts! I bet you think that is not very innovative.
No need to get snotty PhilBoogie.  

Snotty - I like that. Good rebuttal.
Quote:
Do I think less power use is innovative?  Sure.  Is it a direct concern for me?  Not really.  It might be if I were running the house on solar panels and a wind mill.  I'm not, so a decrease in power consumption for something that isn't battery driven isn't of significant concern.  Is it innovative, sure it is.  Do I get all warm and fuzzy thinking about how great it is that we've managed to drop power consumption?  Only if I think about the millions of people using them.  

You are certainly more green than I am, I don't give a damn about less power. Or more power. I plug in a device, it works - I don't care how much it consumes. That's a very arrogant thing from me.
Quote:
They can redesign the cooling system, and add in slight upgrades in CPU, GPU, and even ODD as you mentioned, but it is anything really significant?  Not really.  As for the cards, I know there are a lot of people out there who need a lot of cards, some of them are close friends of mine in the movie business.  I get why people need a bunch of cards.  As technology improves, things shrink.  Things get smaller, even the cards.  The card you showed could be decreased in size if they had to do it.  There's no need for them to, so why would they bother?

Point well taken.
Quote:
I currently only have one drive inside my Mac Pro (that has four drive slots way back in 2006), and that's an SSD for the OS and Apps only.  Everything else is external for capacity reasons.

I just knew there are people like you out there! In this very thread I wrote about the possibility of Apple dumping HD altogether. 1 or 2 SSD for the OS + Apps. Large amounts of data on external HDD.

In your case, your option for 4x4TB isn't sufficient? True, 4TB is 'a bit new'.
Quote:
We're seeing innovation galore in the iPhone and iPad.  We're seeing it in the Macbook Pros.  We're seeing it in the iMac.  Would I applaud significantly more cores?  Of course I would.  Ever since we got Grand Central Dispatch I've dreamed of more cores.  There are lots of people it doesn't matter to.  You don't need four cores for email.  You certainly don't need four cores to surf the web.  You don't need four cores to listen to iTunes.  There are a lot of people who do only that.  They use Office and spend a lot of time on Reddit.  When it comes to dealing with hours of HD footage from multiple cameras, every core counts.  There are plenty of folks out there who use server farms for their work, an it's great that they have those resources.  Not everyone does.  That's where the innovation comes in.  We progressed from two G5 cores in my first Mac Pro, to 12 cores in the most recent one.  Yes, the bus speeds have improved, and going to 64-bit allowed for more RAM.  That's evolution, to be sure, but slower.

I'm embarrassed to say that I actually am one of those people using a MP for surfing the web. Though admittedly I sometimes 'floor it' by having 20+ apps open, de- muxing video, converting audio and Aperture gets good use from me, almost daily. I just like to have everything work instantly. Always bought Mac desktops. Did have a laptop or two from Apple, but it turned out I never used it other than at work or home, so the mobility aspect was never used.
Quote:
What are we getting these days?  We're pretty much stuck at 12 cores because they aren't going to offer more than two chips in a Mac.  RAM speeds have leveled off.  SSD's are getting bigger, but the speeds are leveling.  You think the form factor is fine, okay, then give us significantly more computing power in that space.  Go with the less expensive chips and give us four of them instead of two, or the more expensive chips and still four of them.  Intel is shrinking the chips.  The 22nm chips hurt my head to think of just how small they are.  It's great that they are doing that.  But why stop at six cores per chip especially when they are dropping the power consumption of them?  Less power is less heat.

True, they should increase the number of sockets/CPU. I believe Marvin made a good point earlier that Apple also have to create a want/need as well, so maxing out a MP would not be very business-wise.
Quote:
All in all, I guess I've already seen the great advances in computing technology.  We're plateauing yet we're still increasing our resolutions.  There was a time when I wouldn't have thought we'd go past 1080p.  Now I see televisions coming out at four times that resolution.  Creating content will only get more challenging as we demand more resolution.  Content creators need to stay on top of that.  The Mac Pro needs to be the work horse that makes it happen.  

Plateauing! That's the word!

Yeah, 4k will be welcomed, but I think we need the infrastructure for that to make it a reality. Wiki tells me: 4.5 Mbit/s for 1080p can I conclude from that that we need 18 Mbit/s for 4k? that certainly is not widespread, globally.
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
post #72 of 81
2/20/13 at 1:14am

PhilBoogie, I do think of power consumption on the large scale, but then again I'm also looking at what I have done to reduce power consumption throughout the house, so I'm giving myself more leeway when it comes to having a computer that does what I need it to do, when I need it to do it.  Mac Pro's don't sip power when compared to their brethren.  I think people who use them know that there's going to be a hit on the power bill.  With the chips getting smaller, requiring less wattage to run, we're going to see advances.  We're also seeing advances in SSD tech, because there's no moving parts it uses less power.

 

The drives are always getting bigger.  I love that.  It makes my life so much easier.  I have everything in different RAIDs that are hot swappable.  The drives in the Mac Pro are not.  They can be software RAIDed, or you can buy the card for it that cost an arm and a leg, or you can go with externals that have everything built in.  Capacity of storage is key, but it's external for me.  I'm using Firewire800 right now, and will convert over to Thunderbolt when I eventually get a new Mac Pro.  I have no use for the internal drive bays though.  Cut them all out and give me two more CPU chips and I'm a happy guy.  I only need one SSD for the OS and Apps.

 

Having multiple apps open isn't a bad thing.  We have the horsepower for it, and the RAM for it.  Just using a prosumer bundle of iMovie and iPhoto at the same time can be taxing on the system when you're dealing with imported video from an iPhone shot at 1080p.  Just one vacation worth of video alone makes your computer wish it had power to spare.  

 

Apple does have to create a want and need of their products, that's for sure.  They also have to realize that an iMac doesn't fit the needs of everyone.  A Mac Mini certainly doesn't.  That leaves us the Mac Pro.  Yes, my system is over six years old.  It can't even run Mountain Lion because of a chip the size of my pinky nail (EFI chip) that's 32-bit only.  Everything else runs in 64-bit though.  I want to upgrade and I've saved up the money.  I just wait for something I deem worthy of the upgrade.  From what I've heard, I'm already underwhelmed because I don't think they are pushing the envelope anymore when it comes to desktops.  They'll certainly do everything they can to push the envelope with the iPad and iPhone.  We're not getting any attention paid, even though we're forking out over $6k for a decent system.  If I'm dropping that kind of coin on a system, I expect a fsck-ton more than what they are offering.  

 

Spec'ing out a current system, here's what I chose:

Two 3.06GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon (12 cores) 

24GB RAM

1 512GB SSD

1 ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB GPU

One Super Drive

Total = $7449.00, then you bring in taxes and shipping and you're looking at eight large.  

 

Can I afford it?  If I had to.  Is it a jump in technology so compelling that there's no doubt in my mind that I HAD TO HAVE IT? Nope.  Not even close.  If Apple wants to charge that much for a computer, it'd better be cutting edge rather than having fallen behind.  Yet we hear people lauding USB3 as if it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Not when we have Thunderbolt already.  I have seen no stats which compel me to drop 8k on a new Mac Pro that isn't all that much of an improvement.  If they want my money they'd better come up with something better than that.  

 

They'll have to make changes to appease the EU, why not make changes to the whole thing and give people some variety in what they want?  Don't use a lot of cards, but want more CPU's?  That ought to be an option.  We need to start thinking ahead to when the 4k resolution TV's become the norm.  Yes, there's upscaling, and I'm happy for that at least in the short term.  We already have RED cameras shooting far more than 1080p.  That's the trend.  Computers had better start growing to handle that.  Looking ahead to where technology is headed just in the entertainment industry alone, we're going to need lots more horsepower than what's being offered.

 

I don't see Apple leading anymore when they really need to.  Does that mean challenging the CPU paradigm by also using other processing chips like the A6 to bring the cores up significantly?  I don't know.  I'm not an engineer.  What I do know is that they need to do something.  I'd rather see Apple shake things up and lead the way.  Judging from what I'm hearing about the Mac Pro, they aren't going to do that.

MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
post #73 of 81
2/20/13 at 6:54am
Quote:
PhilBoogie, I do think of power consumption on the large scale, but then again I'm also looking at what I have done to reduce power consumption throughout the house, so I'm giving myself more leeway when it comes to having a computer that does what I need it to do, when I need it to do it.  Mac Pro's don't sip power when compared to their brethren.  I think people who use them know that there's going to be a hit on the power bill.

You're a better man than me.

Is power expensive in the USA? I don't even know what it costs for me, but can't imagine it being a hit on my power bill. Gas for heating, that is where money can be saved. Here in NL.
Quote:
With the chips getting smaller, requiring less wattage to run, we're going to see advances.  We're also seeing advances in SSD tech, because there's no moving parts it uses less power.
 
Indeed, and that is a good. I love the change from moving parts to solid state. Mainly because of the lack of noise. I actually drilled a hole in the wall and put my MP in the adjoining room.
Quote:
The drives are always getting bigger.  I love that.  It makes my life so much easier.  I have everything in different RAIDs that are hot swappable.  The drives in the Mac Pro are not.  They can be software RAIDed, or you can buy the card for it that cost an arm and a leg, or you can go with externals that have everything built in.  Capacity of storage is key, but it's external for me.  I'm using Firewire800 right now, and will convert over to Thunderbolt when I eventually get a new Mac Pro.  I have no use for the internal drive bays though.  Cut them all out and give me two more CPU chips and I'm a happy guy.  I only need one SSD for the OS and Apps.

RAID's? As in plural? You must have large amounts of data. Hot swap is indeed not an option in the MP. Do you think they might be considering that for a new model?

The RAID card from Apple is nothing but trouble, just look at the support pages. But there are cards available, working ones.

 I wouldn't mind if they made the new model SSD only. At all. I'll set it up like you did, external HDD.
Quote:
Having multiple apps open isn't a bad thing.  We have the horsepower for it, and the RAM for it.  Just using a prosumer bundle of iMovie and iPhoto at the same time can be taxing on the system when you're dealing with imported video from an iPhone shot at 1080p.  Just one vacation worth of video alone makes your computer wish it had power to spare.  

Is that really the case? I read positive feedback on this site that the mini and iMac now have the horsepower to do more 'heavier' work. Converting video, a mini with 16 threads, it's now possible. I just don't know what a real life experience will be like. I have a mini under my TV, but haven't tried using it as my main machine. Since I'm in front of my 30" ACD I can't try that out without buying the $99 DVI adapter.
Quote:
Apple does have to create a want and need of their products, that's for sure.  They also have to realize that an iMac doesn't fit the needs of everyone.  A Mac Mini certainly doesn't.  That leaves us the Mac Pro.  Yes, my system is over six years old.  It can't even run Mountain Lion because of a chip the size of my pinky nail (EFI chip) that's 32-bit only.  Everything else runs in 64-bit though.  I want to upgrade and I've saved up the money.  I just wait for something I deem worthy of the upgrade.  From what I've heard, I'm already underwhelmed because I don't think they are pushing the envelope anymore when it comes to desktops.  They'll certainly do everything they can to push the envelope with the iPad and iPhone.  We're not getting any attention paid, even though we're forking out over $6k for a decent system.  If I'm dropping that kind of coin on a system, I expect a fsck-ton more than what they are offering.

Spec'ing out a current system, here's what I chose:

Two 3.06GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon (12 cores) 

24GB RAM

1 512GB SSD

1 ATI Radeon HD 5870 1GB GPU

One Super Drive

Total = $7449.00, then you bring in taxes and shipping and you're looking at eight large.  

It's ok to use a MP for that many years. Unless you really need to power and are currently continuously waiting for a render to complete. The software always have something nice to offer, 'pros can live without that'. Well, some are moving from FCP to FCPX, in which case they also buy a new machine.

But yes, for the costs you should be able to get a very fast machine. The current config might not drop in price though, usually you simply get more bang for your buck. And prices have increased. Marvin wrote earlier on this, either in this thread or other recent Mac Pro discussions.
Quote:
Can I afford it?  If I had to.  Is it a jump in technology so compelling that there's no doubt in my mind that I HAD TO HAVE IT? Nope.  Not even close.  If Apple wants to charge that much for a computer, it'd better be cutting edge rather than having fallen behind.  Yet we hear people lauding USB3 as if it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.  Not when we have Thunderbolt already.  I have seen no stats which compel me to drop 8k on a new Mac Pro that isn't all that much of an improvement.  If they want my money they'd better come up with something better than that.  

I also don't give a FF forUSB3. Yes, they should come up with a compelling machine. Read my earlier post on this page with what I believe might happen. Or should, take your pick.
Quote:
They'll have to make changes to appease the EU, why not make changes to the whole thing and give people some variety in what they want?  Don't use a lot of cards, but want more CPU's?  That ought to be an option.  We need to start thinking ahead to when the 4k resolution TV's become the norm.  Yes, there's upscaling, and I'm happy for that at least in the short term.  We already have RED cameras shooting far more than 1080p.  That's the trend.  Computers had better start growing to handle that.  Looking ahead to where technology is headed just in the entertainment industry alone, we're going to need lots more horsepower than what's being offered.

I honestly don't see a global transition to 4k happening. Just look at how slow the adoption to 1080p is. I wish it was, but the Internet is just not up to it, infrastructure wise. I read that by 2016 the average speed for consumers is 39MB. That is pathetic. Maybe the 3rd world drags that number down, and us city boys will have 1Gb. One can hope.
 
Quote:
I don't see Apple leading anymore when they really need to.  Does that mean challenging the CPU paradigm by also using other processing chips like the A6 to bring the cores up significantly?  I don't know.  I'm not an engineer.  What I do know is that they need to do something.  I'd rather see Apple shake things up and lead the way.  Judging from what I'm hearing about the Mac Pro, they aren't going to do that.

I read that sentiment a lot, and partially agree. One example is Aperture. They keep on refining it, but there's no major release for the past 2+ years. Now I really would like a new version; I have a 'spec-whore-long' list with feature wishes. But the current updates are all free of charge, and they do actually add features, so that a plus.
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
I wish Google was drowning, so I could describe the water for them.
Reply
post #74 of 81
2/20/13 at 2:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Why on earth would you want a smaller computer? Why? Doesn't make any sense. If anything, they should make it larger so more stuff fits in. Full length video capture cards for instance. There are way longer cards than this one:


The chassis of the Mac Pro has been constantly redesigned. Just not on the outside, but look at the inside. They went from 2 HDD to 4 HDD, removed the plastic cover, changed the design of the cooling, increased speed of all components (CPU, memory, yes, even the ODD) increased the PSU from 400 to 950W.

You have to understand that we won't see much innovation on desktop computers anymore. Where we used to get significant speed increases we now will be lucky to see 15% increase. Yes, small steps to what we are used to. It is now just a matter of evolution, until something major drops.

With smaller size easier to move uses less space.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 81
2/20/13 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green 
Has Jonny Ive done anything to bring it to even half the size it currently is?

It's not likely Jony Ive's job to figure out the technicalities of it. There are at least a couple of people whose job titles are thermal engineer (Richard Tan, Frank Liang):

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/frank-liang/5/83b/432

Usually the public figures are the ones expected to make the changes but every project they work on has to be a collaboration between many different expert skillsets. The teams definitely haven't put the same emphasis into the Mac Pro form factor that they have with the other machines though.

There's not much reason for them to. With something that ships in such low volumes vs everything else and is tried and tested, the easiest way for them is to just keep the conveyer belt running. They are restricted in a lot of ways by Intel and their prices.

I'd like to see them make one more effort at a good workstation, even if it's the last. There's a jump to heterogeneous computing that hasn't really been taken with workstations yet. The PS4 was just announced with 8-cores, a 2TFLOP GPU and 8GB shared GGR5 memory. The Mac Pro could easily have a design along similar lines. Not necessarily an APU as such but it can have some sort of shared memory architecture with fast GPU memory for the most part and a large bank of slower cache memory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green 
The Mac Pro is stalled out while every other Mac has seen more innovation. What are we getting with the Mac Pro?  We're expected to pay top dollar for this particular Mac and yet it's the one receiving the least amount of attention?

I'd love to see the days when a Mac kicked the fsck out of a PC on stage again.  Remember those days?  Think way back.

I think part of the problem here is that raw power doesn't impress people any more, it's almost expected. People are more impressed by the fact you can read a digital magazine on the toilet now and it's understandable because people like new things and new ways to do things.

No matter how powerful the Mac Pro gets, that improvement will only be of interest to a very small amount of people and there are cloud services now that would impress many of them even more. The fact that you can take a laptop somewhere and render production quality visual effects for feature films at any resolution you need remotely is such a big advancement because it takes the power people need, keeps it properly cooled and makes it cheap.

There are offline workstation scenarios that still justify the existence of a workstation for now but GPUs are progressing so quickly that a lot of those will be trivial on any hardware in a few years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green 
But why stop at six cores per chip especially when they are dropping the power consumption of them? Less power is less heat.

Intel described this issue. The reason they drop the power is because when they pack so many transistors in, the thermal density heats the chips up too much. Overclockers have found that the chips get too hot upping the voltages.

They can put more physically separated processors in but then there's issues with syncing them up and maintaining high bandwidth interconnects between them all and they'd be designing multi-socket motherboards for a tiny fraction of buyers.

They're still making advances though - Ivy Bridge and Haswell will see 10-15-core chips, some with low enough TDPs to fit in an iMac.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 81
2/21/13 at 7:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It's the opposite with the Mac Pro though. It's mostly on the small form factor machines that you see the innovative steps being taken such as making really fast IGPs and integrated memory advances for heterogeneous computing, Thunderbolt (low latency external PCIe), better display technology, Firewire (iMac DV) instead of capture cards, SSDs, gesture input.

It's the old saying 'necessity is the mother of invention'. The Mac Pro gives you the option to put anything into a PCI slot and they don't really need to make innovative architecture improvements because there's so little competition, they just add more cores, which is no doubt why Intel's so far behind now. Workstations certainly don't drive the personal computer industry forward.

As a status symbol, it's also the opposite of the car analogy. Sports and racing cars are the best designed machines that everybody would love to have to replace the car they drive back and forth to work with. People simply don't want to replace iPads, laptops and iMacs with Mac Pros because it's an archaic form factor so it's a step back. A closer analogy would be with boats.

The Mac Pro is like a cargo ship and the lower machines are like beautiful speedboats full of babes sunning themselves on the decks. Now sure, if you need to transport some cargo, the giant boat is the better option but the babes aren't going with you. You'll just be stuck with old smelly wise fishermen (professionals) telling tales of yore and how for years they've laughed at speedboat owners trying to transport cargo with their puny boats. But what's this? In the distance they spot a small speedboat full of babes coming up beside them towing cargo with a single cable and it overtakes. The man feels disappointment that he picked the cargo ship and gave up the babes to be with the smelly fishermen.

** intermission for bathroom breaks and snacks **

As time goes on, the fishermen gradually get speedboats of their own and pick up the babes and there are but a few bitter ones who chain themselves to their ships and vow to go down with them. So they shall and they will be rescued by the speedboat owners and see the error of their ways and eventually everyone gets speedboats and the old cargo ships rust away at the bottom of the ocean. Grandchildren will be told tales (rarely factual) about the old boats and how they achieved things that no other boat could in their day and how they don't appreciate the newfangled boats they have now but the children simply run off and play, not really giving a sh*t. It is the perpetual cycle of life.

Boat technology doesn't advance the same way so really it's a rubbish analogy too but the main point is that for all of the power in a Mac Pro, all of the processors that make it do what it does can fit in the palm of your hand just like with every other computer. With the right thermal engineering, the whole thing can fit in the palm of your hand - the Mac Pro is the most apparent admission that thermal engineering hasn't advanced enough, which isn't a good statement. The function of performance expansion cards can be done natively, IO cards can be done with any IO standard, so it comes down to storage, which just needs a cable.

If Apple really wants to make a status symbol, they'd build a box that is a fraction of the size of the Mac Pro that does the same thing using some innovative thermal engineering and people can be proud that they have a machine up to 3x times faster than the iMac in a footprint barely larger than a Mac Mini.
They don't need an excuse though. The harm that they cause by it is not as far reaching as people like to think.

I'm pretty sure they are moving their manufacturing for the MP back to the US so that needs them to setup the factory, employ staff, get all the equipment setup and ready to go.

I do see merit in a lot of what you say but I'd argue it depends on exactly who you are trying to impress with the high end product (cargo boat). NASCAR folks are more likely to be impressed with a large wheeled pick up truck than an new F1 design 'and so it goes' as Kurt would say. However, when the Terascale Cluster at Virginia Tech was set up there was a lot of kudos and limelight for Apple. In the same way I believe a new innovative Mac Pro that was designed more like a luxury yacht rather than a cargo ship to use your analogy (I like it actually 1wink.gif) ... and was ten times faster than anything else in the same category would IMHO impress iPod and iPhone buyers. Not in the sense that they want one, rather because this is the same company that makes their beloved iDevice. As to it being possible, I bow to your knowledge on thermal issues, I just wish for stuff 1biggrin.gif
Edited by digitalclips - 2/21/13 at 7:56am
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #77 of 81
2/21/13 at 8:42am

Marvin,

 

Thanks for the response concerning specific issues.  I saw the PS4 announcement yesterday and saw that it has more crunching power than my Mac Pro in every way, yet is a fraction of the size.  It goes to my point that there's much improvement that can be made to the existing platform to once again make it appealing.  I've heard the issue discussed before, saying that there's no need to improve the design because people aren't interested in it.  It can also be said backwards as well.  People aren't interested in it because there's no improvement to design.  

 

I also am working under the premise that I'm witnessing the death of this specific style of computing.  I know that offline crunching is going away.  Many of my friends have already transitioned. I saw a render completing on an Air the other day that dropped my jaw.  Server farms are the way of the future I get it.  But I'm hoping for one last great Mac Pro because I don't think anyone there at Apple cares about the product.  When they care more about the Apple TV than the MacPro, that ought to be a giant red flag waving.  So I know it's an end of an era, and I'm as much a dinosaur as my computer is, and I'm only 38.  I'm still a fan of doing everything on site.  Maybe it's time for a new career.  Then a Mac Mini wouldn't be such an insult as the only other headless Mac.

 

The issue with more cores can be corrected with more sockets as well.  We have Grand Central Dispatch for this reason.  Why limit everything to two physical chips?  With reduction in motherboard sizes as we've seen, I can not accept that it's even impractical to have more than two chips.  It would appear to me that they just aren't trying.  I'm very interested in Haswell, and I look forward to seeing and experiencing the final product, but there has to be options available.  Apple has once again fallen for the dependence on one vendor.  Intel this, Intel that, we have to wait for Intel.  Just switch that to IBM and you can recall those nightmares.  The problem here is that we're no longer running different hardware.  Of course, we're running far behind the likes of Alienware, and the other folks who max everything out.  I'm not the hackintosh kind of guy, nor will I ever revert to Windows.  I am extremely envious that we're always behind.  Perhaps Johnny, Richard, and Frank ought to see their next-gen and then be told, "beat that".  It looks to me like the Mac Pro is dying.  I'd like the last one to go out with one hell of a bang.

 

MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
MacPro2,1 2 x 3GHz Quad Core Intel Xeons, 13GB RAM, 1.5TB Storage, 30" Apple Cinema Display pushed by an NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
Reply
post #78 of 81
2/21/13 at 8:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

Thanks for the response concerning specific issues.  I saw the PS4 announcement yesterday and saw that it has more crunching power than my Mac Pro in every way, yet is a fraction of the size.  It goes to my point that there's much improvement that can be made to the existing platform to once again make it appealing.

I'm not sure how you can compare the two. For starters, I saw nothing that showed the size of the PS4.

Secondly, the PS4 doesn't need to make it easy to access the internals, the PS4 won't have 4 bays for 3.5" drives, the PS4 won't have 3 PCIe slots, the PS4 won't need a PSU that can handle an unknown amount of power because there won't be any internal expansion that could use a lot of power, and the PS4 won't have 2 riser cards that can hold 64GB RAM each.

The 8GB RAM the PS4 has will likely soldered to the board like in the PS3. You're talking about a dedicated machine, a gaming appliance, not a workstation PC that is designed with many other considerations.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #79 of 81
2/21/13 at 9:34am
[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post

Marvin,



 



Thanks for the response concerning specific issues.  I saw the PS4 announcement yesterday and saw that it has more crunching power than my Mac Pro in every way, yet is a fraction of the size.  It goes to my point that there's much improvement that can be made to the existing platform to once again make it appealing.  I've heard the issue discussed before, saying that there's no need to improve the design because people aren't interested in it.  It can also be said backwards as well.  People aren't interested in it because there's no improvement to design.  


A PS4 is basically a customized chip designed for a certain set of tasks, including a laptop optical drive, laptop hard drive, with a few other soldered-on items. Which is just about everything a Mac Pro isn't. It's more like a souped-up mini. Mac Pro isn't a piece of consumer hardware, looks aren't important there. You hide it under a desk and it looks great. I think it looks better than any other workstation that's currently sold. I don't believe for a minute that Mac Pro owners aren't upgrading because of a lack of an aesthetic design change. If anything, it's the lack of a hardware upgrade, which hopefully they'll address both this year.

A four socket machine is squarely in the enterprise server market, something they've pretty much decided to withdraw from. The four socket machines that are the size of a Mac Pro are louder than all get out.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 81
2/21/13 at 1:47pm
Originally Posted by Brian Green View Post
Marvin,
Thanks for the response concerning specific issues.  I saw the PS4 announcement yesterday and saw that it has more crunching power than my Mac Pro in every way, yet is a fraction of the size.

 

A unreleased system which is the opposite goal of Mac Pro.(fun and games vs. work) not to mention you are proably comparing it to a 10 year old Mac pro(not to mention the ps4 is at least a year away to release).

Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Mac Pro no longer available from European Online Apple Stores