or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Editorial: What will Apple do with the Macintosh?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Editorial: What will Apple do with the Macintosh? - Page 2

post #41 of 192

What is it that requires a Mac Pro other than movie editing? I see that Dell and HP sell monster machines with Xenon processors. There are movie editing programs that work on Windows and Linux.

Just this month Red Shark released its Lightworks movie editing program for Linux. It is a program that seems to be on par with anything from Avid or Adobe.  It's even set up to create 3D movies, AND IT'S FREE!

Can't real scientific work be accomplished by racks of servers linked together? Since other manufactures fill the gap in the high end market maybe Apple can just forsake it once and for all instead of slapping together something every three years. Let the movie editing and design work go to other brands. Apple can stick to its iOS world and expand it enough to just dump the laptops in a year or so.

It seems that Apple is mostly concerned with cutting edge performance only on consumer devices. Even so, they're not always out in front.

Why haven't they taken Keynote and all of the iWorks programs to much higher levels of performance? So many people here admit that the Microsoft Office suite is better than iWorks that it must be true. It seems that Apple really isn't interested in making the iWork "experience" better. They just want it good enough to get people to buy an Apple device. With all of their talent you would think that by now they would have created an office suite that would blow away Office or at least equal it. I bet it is easier to innovate in software than it is in hardware. When will Apple ever get off its butt and create a cohesive office suite that will put the last nail in the coffin of Microsoft? I don't think they have it in them or they would have done it years ago.  

LibreOffice will eventually be as good as Microsoft Office and the iWork suite will be a second runner up.

Apple makes great entertainment devices. That is why they will enter the TV market. The Mac Pro will have one last hurrah and then it will be gone. The only reason we know this is because Tim Cook said that a new Mac Pro was coming this year. It will be the last one.
 

post #42 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

My guess is that won't be the case. I think it will be smaller because they can remove the space for the two ODDs, reduce the PSU size and several other components, but I think it'll still be a tower and one that will offer expansion options.
Maybe so, but remember, even the Cube had impressive expand-ability for its time. Though I suspect it's rarer now, I have no doubt there are still Cubes out there rockin' Dual-core CPUs, SSDs or mSATA drives, and DirectX 11 graphics. (I want one! 1biggrin.gif)
post #43 of 192

 

Quote:
What is wrong with the iMac display?

 

 

For professionals in photography, the iMac monitors are not as accurate and don't have the color range we need to do the highest quality work. Neither do Cinema Displays, for that matter.

post #44 of 192
I have thought (and suggested on this site, only to be roundly criticized) that the future Pro would be an evolution of the Mini. Some Lego-like modular computer that could stacked or otherwise snapped together using appropriate electromechanical links, Thunderbolt or proprietary and device specific. Modules could supply the features, power, and flexibility required for each power-user's needs.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #45 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


What is wrong with the iMac display?

For photography professionals, the iMac is not accurate enough and does not have a great enough color range. Neither do the Cinema Displays. Glossy screens are not a benefit for us-they don't improve either of these needed qualities.

post #46 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lowney View Post

There are still many things that one cannot do well or at all with anything less than a Mac Pro and a huge monitor. I like the idea of stacked Mac Minis (NeXT could be expanded with up to 4 motherboards) but that doesn't address the expansion slot and other issues easily addressed in a tower config. MacOS X hard/software may not be the biggest wage earner in the family anymore but they are essential in keeping the family together.

Of course it does. Thunderbolt expansion chassis are great now, and will get better as the technology grows.

post #47 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smallwheels View Post

What is it that requires a Mac Pro other than movie editing? I see that Dell and HP sell monster machines with Xenon processors. There are movie editing programs that work on Windows and Linux.
 

We use primarily CS on our Mac Pros. That is several high end publishing, editing  and programming tools in one package. We copy and paste from one application to the other. We reuse assets such as logos and photography in movies. There is no other platform that has ALL the high end publishing, animation and movie editing in one package. I often do all three of those things along with a little CAD and programming every single day.There is a lot of overlap and that is where the Mac Pro shines. I can switch gears in a heartbeat. The single task environment is not the primary target market for a new Mac Pro. We do a lot of multitasking with our Mac Pros and I can't wait to get my hands on the new version. Hoping it will be soon.

 

I really don't give a hoot about using the Mac Pro as a server. That is what Linux is for.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #48 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

iMac Pro?

With a built-n screen? I hope that's not the answer, not unless they partner with NEC or Eizo.

My 2011 iMac can drive 2 (thats "two") additional 30" monitors, Leaving the beautiful 27" built in monitor for nothing but email and Angry Birds, if I want. I don't even know  what the 2013 models can do.

post #49 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

 

Florida. In progress. Been noticed.

Link?

post #50 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrobr View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


What is wrong with the iMac display?

For photography professionals, the iMac is not accurate enough and does not have a great enough color range. Neither do the Cinema Displays. Glossy screens are not a benefit for us-they don't improve either of these needed qualities.

I don't think you're really familiar with the technology built into the new iMac displays (calibration system etc). Regardless, very few pros are using Eizos these days. Those that need 'em, buy 'em. Some need a CRT. But the Apple displays are pro grade. That's a fact.

post #51 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Despite sharing lots of technology and features between the Mac and iOS, Apple hasn't pursued Microsoft's strategy of melding its desktop and mobile device platforms with a common, hybrid user interface. Instead, the Mac has remained a conventional computer without a touchscreen. How long can Apple afford to devote significant resources to maintaining the Mac when there's so much more opportunity for growth and revenues on the iOS side?

Tim said the people at Apple don't see a convergence between iOS and OS X. It's clear to see why because floating windows don't work with touch and split panes don't work well with iOS apps. A split view needs a UI rethink. Vertical splits would work ok, even for use with a mouse as long as they are done better than how Microsoft did them.

This effectively gets rid of the title bar in every app, no maximize/minimize etc. You'd have a horizontal carousel of vertically split panes. These could minimize into slim panes and you'd be able to put active ones side by side. Apps like the calculator and even Quicktime will still be an issue but you can imagine those centered in a panel like the notification pane. You'd be able to open multiple panels for one app but no more stacking of windows, no more drop shadows. This would work with touch if the Dock was done like the NextStep one (or I suppose the iOS one).

The menu bar would have to change to a different style of menu that has a single activation button on the app window and it can have a gesture to activate. It would take a fair amount of work but I don't think it's impossible and I think it would improve on what we have now rather than degrade it to a simpler instance of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple can't afford not to maintain a presence at the top of the PC performance hill, if for no other reason that there's a lot of technology that trickles downhill.

I think those days of technology trickling down are over and a lot of technology has been pushed forward by a need to save power and space for mobile form factors. Thunderbolt wasn't developed because of the Mac Pro, same with USB 3. The tower form factor would have held a lot of technology back and you can see this from the technology in workstation chipsets. This is because there's been too much reliance on PCI slots, which don't really fit on anything other than a tower.

For technology to be adopted, it has to hit the mass audience. The mass audience has migrated to laptops and small/slim form factors so ~70% of all devices have an AIO/mobile form factor and it's growing the more that PC manufacturers adopt AIOs and HTPCs. This means peripherals made for the PCI slot form factor are not designed for 70% of the computing world.

The only need for the Mac Pro is raw power and for large scale computing, it's more cost-effective for that to sit in the cloud with server blade form factors. Everything else is going real-time with GPUs and given that Apple was demoing native 4K editing on an iMac at NAB, the technology really has become powerful enough that the Mac Pro is far less relevant than it was.

You can plug Eizo or NEC displays into an iMac too and it comes with pretty much the fastest consumer parts now. Brand new Mac Pro hardware will still be able to scale up to 3x the highest iMac because the Mac Pro can dissipate 1kW of heat, an iMac can only do 1/3 of that but that's for the most expensive model, which is 3x the price. There aren't enough people willing to drop $6k+ on a computer when the productivity gains aren't that high now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A more modern technology, Thunderbolt, has never made it to the Mac Pro. Because Thunderbolt is essentially PCIe via a cable, Apple could conceptually use Thunderbolt rather than large open slots in a big enclosure to retain the Mac Pro's expansion potential. Imagine a smaller unit with the ability to interface with an external box housing expansion cards, including video adapters. The majority of PC users never make any use of the PCI slots in their systems. Apple recognized this with the Mac mini and iMac, which connect to peripherals via USB. Thunderbolt makes the same thing possible for the Mac Pro.

If Apple could radically rethink the desktop computer into a more modular, flexible form, it could deliver a compact box that scales from a serious game machine to stackable cluster nodes to a high end workstation, potentially expanding its allure to eat up multiple segments of the valuable remains of the vast PC market.

There's not much left to eat up. Any future Mac Pro will still come with a premium price tag because of Intel so it's a potential audience of 1 million units per quarter. A smaller form factor like an 8" Cube could potentially work for the server market which is 2 million units per quarter but the bulk audience for desktop PCs is around the $500 average selling price, which Apple even struggles to win over with the Mini because they don't sell affordable displays. Apple's cheapest display is nearly double the cheapest mini and both together are more expensive than the cheapest iMac.

It is a high profit segment in spite of the low volume and I think it deserves one more model before the segment isn't needed. When CPUs and GPUs get to 10x faster than now in a few years, it's not worth bothering about.

While Apple hasn't technically confirmed a Mac Pro, there was a model identifier separate from the iMac. They obviously could just make an iMac Pro with a 4K display, possibly a 6-core i7 processor, up to 64GB RAM, 4x Thunderbolt ports with maybe a dual controller etc. but it does prevent them being used in headless setups.

What I'd like to see them do with the Mac going forward is make the laptops more affordable, make a lower priced display, make the iMacs all 27" and shrink the Mac Pro down to a Cube for its last iteration to last up to 10 years. The mini will be fast enough in a few years for headless scenarios and they can discontinue it. It depends a lot on what Intel's plans are too. I think they want to go SoC top to bottom. I actually think every company is thinking that way, the component market isn't going to hold up. Somewhere in there, I'd like to be able to use OS X with a touch UI.
post #52 of 192

The one thing that annoys me with this article is the assumed premise that they are designing something new, when there's no way to confirm that. Even with the Mac being outpaced, it's still important for the foreseeable future. Just look at the criticism over the lack of an imac for several months. It's not really marginalized to the point of where any company would kill it. It's just unlikely that they would continue to expand the line. At least the macbook pros will eventually collapse back into one design per size.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rrobr View Post

For photography professionals, the iMac is not accurate enough and does not have a great enough color range. Neither do the Cinema Displays. Glossy screens are not a benefit for us-they don't improve either of these needed qualities.

When they were still heavily catering to that market, they did get SWOP certification with whatever software + hardware solution. I didn't like the old Cinema displays though. Their uniformity was an issue.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


I don't think Apple cares so much about Windows capability anymore. It served its purpose in giving people a fall-back position for the computer in case they don't like Mac OS, it doesn't mean as much now that the brand is so much more widely known. And I say this as a person that uses virtualization to run Windows on a Mac. I just think my use is a minority use. If Apple ever actually deprecates the Intel architecture then I'll buy the newest Intel and use that until I can transition.
Really, absolutely nothing, except maybe the cost.

The new iMac finally has an incredibly high degree of anti-reflection coating that there's no reason to prefer the washed out blacks of a matte surface except to be a wanker.

They can still be somewhat distracting on a rMBP under typical lighting, but really if it's anything visual, I find no display really fares perfectly in a brightly lit room. I haven't tested one of the new imacs in subdued lighting, so I can't comment there. Compared to some other displays, it's not just an issue of coatings. Most offer what is kind of a turnkey display solution via oemed software and either adapted or built in colorimeters combined with internal LUT systems. Just hooking a generic one up and generating a typical matrix profile is often less consistent. I tried Basiccolor a bit back with the display I was using, as some people claimed better shadow detail, but the results clipped green and blue, so absolute black was fairly neutral while the lower shadow values just above it came out very red. Apple usually goes for good enough for the majority of users, so I'm sure they will be popular. The old ones were really annoying in terms of reflections. It made it difficult to see anything subtle as surface reflections do not exactly obey the same rules as display gamma.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

I have thought (and suggested on this site, only to be roundly criticized) that the future Pro would be an evolution of the Mini. Some Lego-like modular computer that could stacked or otherwise snapped together using appropriate electromechanical links, Thunderbolt or proprietary and device specific. Modules could supply the features, power, and flexibility required for each power-user's needs.


Even if they started from something like the mini, they don't have an interconnect that would allow for these things to work like a heterogeneous grid. Thunderbolt isn't something like infiniband. If you just wanted something along the lines of a render farm, that should be possible with what is already available. It's just I don't think there's anything available that would be suitable for multiple boxes accessing the same memory address space. In terms of product design right now, Apple reuses a lot of parts throughout the mac pro line. Much of this seems to come up because it sounds cool, but I suspect that Apple would still maintain their minimum sale. The mac pro sits at its current price to ensure that it doesn't crowd the imac. There's really nothing in the base model that forces it to its current price point just to maintain comparable margins to the rest of the line. The really expensive parts are restricted to the dual models.

post #53 of 192

I don't know what is happening, but I know I'm getting sick of not knowing what is happening. My Mac Pro at work is 5 years old and I've been waiting to have it upgraded for over a year.

post #54 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post

 Apple can't have it all.

Oh contrare.

post #55 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Even if they started from something like the mini, they don't have an interconnect that would allow for these things to work like a heterogeneous grid. Thunderbolt isn't something like infiniband. If you just wanted something along the lines of a render farm, that should be possible with what is already available. It's just I don't think there's anything available that would be suitable for multiple boxes accessing the same memory address space. In terms of product design right now, Apple reuses a lot of parts throughout the mac pro line. Much of this seems to come up because it sounds cool, but I suspect that Apple would still maintain their minimum sale. The mac pro sits at its current price to ensure that it doesn't crowd the imac. There's really nothing in the base model that forces it to its current price point just to maintain comparable margins to the rest of the line. The really expensive parts are restricted to the dual models.

Well said especially about access to the memory. In the old days we had CPU cards and RAM cards on the Sun mainframe boxes but with the cpu/bus speeds of today that type of modular tiering is not possible. All CPU and memory needs to be directly on the mobo.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #56 of 192

Several things are happening. Apple sales in terms of market share for what gets shipped in the US has tripled in the last 6 years and that trend line is linear. However, IPad sales are increasing at a faster rate because MOST people are finding out they are using a tablet for most of their needs rather than a full blown desktop/laptop. Will this trend continue at that the rate it's done over the past 6 years? With all product sales, there are always time periods when things slow down and speed up.  Obviously, the tablet craze is taking over and people are less likely to upgrade their computers as often because as long as they get the funcionality out of it and it runs a later version OS, most Mac users will keep what they have until they feel they NEED to update.  Pros are more likely going to update their equipment more often because they see the benefits since they are more power hungry in what they do, so they'll use every amount of power they can get and since its a bigger part of their income, they will upgrade more often than the average consumer.  Times are also tough on a lot of people and they just can't afford a new computer and tablet and smartphone so they'll more likely opt to get newer mobile devices before the desktop/laptop because they are less expensive and they probably get more use if they are average users.

 

In addition, there are a lot of people looking at the current technology and what's around the corner.

 

Obviously, Intel plays a BIG part of this, if they only update their processor family once a year, then people have to figure out when to dump what they have to go to the next level.  For most Mac users, a 3 year computer does pretty much everything they need and there isn't that big of a speed difference in the most current versions, so they might wait until there is a big enough speed advantage or some other factor.

 

What the next major change is going to be is also 802.11 since ac is around the corner and that's going to impact ALL devices including routers, anything that goes on someone's home WiFi.  I think that will definitely spurt sales once the 802.11ac standard emerges in desktops and laptops.


For the high end Pros, they are waiting for the MacPro with Thunderbolt technology since that's what is replacing Firewire and the current MacPro doesn't have it.   I guess we can nod our heads to Intel on that one.

 

Either way, I think Apple, like everyone else, is going through weird times right now and if things pick up towards the end of the year, Apple might get some more Mac sales.  But as indicated, the average consumer doesn't see the need in desktops/laptops like they used to, so many are using smartphones and tablets instead.

 

I think technology for now has hit a ceiling and there has to be some major breakthrough for the desktop/laptop market to convince higher numbers of people to replace what they have.  What that is I don't know.

post #57 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

I don't think you're really familiar with the technology built into the new iMac displays (calibration system etc). Regardless, very few pros are using Eizos these days. Those that need 'em, buy 'em. Some need a CRT. But the Apple displays are pro grade. That's a fact.

 

Has there been any comparisons for pro-grade monitors and comparing them to the new iMacs?  I recall that Apple has triple calibration for these things as they are being assembled and that the techniques they are using is supposed to result in top notch color accuracy.

post #58 of 192

The NeXT Cube is nothing like the Apple G4 Cube.

 

The NeXT Cube had a unified passive backplane akin to the DEC Alpha.

 

In modern times it would be the equivalent of a Mac Pro with 4 motherboard equivalents hooked into a passive backplane. Each board supported 64MB of RAM at the time I had one.

 

With the NeXTdimension add-on to deal with dedicated audio/video processing with 24bit RGB and 8 bit alpha 1990 was way ahead of its time.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTdimension

 

The size of the system today would allow for redundant power supplies each probably 1200-1500W range and much more.

I don't see Apple reducing the footprint of the Mac Pro. That reduced footprint is already prevalent in their iMac and Mac Mini.

 

Only if Apple actually creates another column on their matrix to offer 2 varieties do I see a reduced footprint. Otherwise,  see Apple modifying the case dimensions and expanding its capabilities.

post #59 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

 

Has there been any comparisons for pro-grade monitors and comparing them to the new iMacs?  I recall that Apple has triple calibration for these things as they are being assembled and that the techniques they are using is supposed to result in top notch color accuracy.

 

For damn sure EIZO isn't living in CRT ville with the likes of this model:

http://www.eizo.com/global/products/coloredge/cg276/index.html

 

And for damn sure its capabilities are not built into an iMac, not to mention the 27" Thunderbolt Displays.

 

It appears they've updated it to support 4K.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/4K-Eizo-ColorEdge-CG276-IPS,21879.html

post #60 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

I don't think you're really familiar with the technology built into the new iMac displays (calibration system etc). Regardless, very few pros are using Eizos these days. Those that need 'em, buy 'em. Some need a CRT. But the Apple displays are pro grade. That's a fact.

We have Eizos in the X-ray suites and NEC in the prepress suite. I have an original 30" Cinema at my workstation that is way off on color but I use the eye dropper to sample the values and I know my numerical colors very well. Then we have a high end Epson proofing system which is the final authority on what a print job will look like. As far as digital video is concerned we output to Sony HDTV although I have had people tell me that we should be using Panasonic, Sharp or Samsung.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #61 of 192
Quote:
Because Thunderbolt is essentially PCIe via a cable, Apple could conceptually use Thunderbolt rather than large open slots in a big enclosure to retain the Mac Pro's expansion potential.

Highly doubtful. That might work for ONE card, but not for 3 or 4 PCIe 3 cards (graphics, PCIe SSDs, etc.) PCie3 x16 tops out around 15GB/s in theory - even Thunderbolt 2 would be around 2GB/s. Take a look over at Tom's Hardware testing of the Echo Express Pro.

Thunderbolt is a great way to get expansion for a MacBook, iMac, or macMini, but professional machines will need the fastest connections it can have - not just "good enough".
post #62 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

I don't think you're really familiar with the technology built into the new iMac displays (calibration system etc). Regardless, very few pros are using Eizos these days. Those that need 'em, buy 'em. Some need a CRT. But the Apple displays are pro grade. That's a fact.

 

Has there been any comparisons for pro-grade monitors and comparing them to the new iMacs?  I recall that Apple has triple calibration for these things as they are being assembled and that the techniques they are using is supposed to result in top notch color accuracy.

I haven't really seen a side by side smack down; but yes, these things are factory calibrated using, basically, a multi-million dollar color calibrator.

post #63 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilSF1 View Post

Quote:
Because Thunderbolt is essentially PCIe via a cable, Apple could conceptually use Thunderbolt rather than large open slots in a big enclosure to retain the Mac Pro's expansion potential.

Highly doubtful. That might work for ONE card, but not for 3 or 4 PCIe 3 cards (graphics, PCIe SSDs, etc.) PCie3 x16 tops out around 15GB/s in theory - even Thunderbolt 2 would be around 2GB/s. Take a look over at Tom's Hardware testing of the Echo Express Pro.

Thunderbolt is a great way to get expansion for a MacBook, iMac, or macMini, but professional machines will need the fastest connections it can have - not just "good enough".

Well, you can be happy that you are wrong in this case.

Pro is going Thunderbolt, all the way. (and it's early):

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?sts=ma&Ns=p_PRICE_2%7c1&N=0&srtclk=sort&Ntt=thunderbolt

 

http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html

See "Partners" section at bottom of this page.

post #64 of 192

I don't think the PC market is shrinking, just changing. Sales of the overall PC market have been dropping since the iPad was released, but I'd be more interested in seeing usage statistics (if they even exist). Upgrade cycles for PC's are getting longer as people can do the majority of work on 5+ year old PC's - half my company (S&P 500) is still running Windows XP. Design teams all use Macs but all of them are 3+ years old. The only new hardware for end users they are investing in are iPads (something about trying to reduce a $4M annual paper bill).

 

So in short unless Apple are planning to revolutionize the PC (again - if you include the iPad as a PC), they should just plan for longer upgrade cycles, which from the last CC is what they are doing.

post #65 of 192
Originally Posted by Bloodshotrollin'red View Post
Mac Pro's are the only Mac's I buy now as they are hardware configurable.

 

Your implication—that the others aren't—is laughable. "Drop OS X"? Ha!

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #66 of 192

Toyota has their Lexus brand. I agree with DED on the trickle down theory. Bragging rights, trickle down, whatever - I'm all for the Mac Pro.

 

Is it just me or has Intel slowed down on CPU innovation? I don't remember the last time I was excited for an upcoming processor. I thought we'd be up to 10 GHz by now.

post #67 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by bugsnw View Post

Is it just me or has Intel slowed down on CPU innovation? I don't remember the last time I was excited for an upcoming processor. I thought we'd be up to 10 GHz by now.

Intel has slowed their releases, but only because they are so far ahead of the competition that it made no sense to keep releasing much better chips at breakneck speeds. The innovation is still there but don't look at cycle counts as a guide to know how well a processor performs.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #68 of 192
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Intel has slowed their releases, but only because they are so far ahead of the competition that it made no sense to keep releasing much better chips at breakneck speeds.

 

It also gives them more breathing room for their successor plan once the current processor architecture hits the inevitable (and understood now to be very real) ceiling of Moore's Law. 

 

Also to improve their iGPU program, which apparently they started caring about and which desperately needs work if they hope to compete with the major players in said industry proper.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #69 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

People that don't own a Mac Pro just don't get it. And as far as those silly benchmarks, that means nothing it actual daily use. Try some some video rendering for example and compare the results when all 12 cores are being used in a Mac Pro. Finally we can also use off the shelf video cards. Apple are notorious about not offering the latest or fastest video cards as an option. I recently bought a new Nvidia for my Mac Pro and it screams. I will never be interested in an iMac and certainly not a Mini. I enjoy the speed and expansion possibilities a Mac pro affords and I also have two very nice 30" monitors. The iMac is a fine computer for people in that market but I have all 4 hard bays used with drives from 2 to 3TB in size and even that isn't enough space. I have an external quad bay Firewire 800 enclosure daisy chained to another dual bay enclosure. I realize I am not typical and most people don't need over 10TB of storage like me but for those of us that do the iMac is not a great option. 

People that need a Mac Pro NEED a Mac Pro and the iMac will never be a good substitute for me. It is like asking Corvette owners to just make do with a Chevette instead since they are both Vettes after all. 

Just curious... what app are you using to render video that uses all 12 cores?
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #70 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


Just curious... what app are you using to render video that uses all 12 cores?

 

Blender, make, ANSYS 14.5, CATIA, COMSOL 4.5, and of course any other OpenCL, SMP (GCD) aware application on OS X, like Pixelmator, VLC, Handbrake, never mind Maya, Autodesk, etc.

 

I'd mention FCP X and Color, etc., but I haven't used them yet.

post #71 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

Well, you can be happy that you are wrong in this case.

Pro is going Thunderbolt, all the way. (and it's early):

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?sts=ma&Ns=p_PRICE_2%7c1&N=0&srtclk=sort&Ntt=thunderbolt

 

http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html

See "Partners" section at bottom of this page.

 

I would think the Mac Pro would be well served by hanving 3 separate Thunderbolt full bandwidth controllers on-board so that they aren't shared to match 3 PCI-E 3.0 full x16 slots support on the card to allow for a triple GPGPU or a dual and then a CAD based separate third card specifically for CAD/CAM.

post #72 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Just curious... what app are you using to render video that uses all 12 cores?

Blender, make, ANSYS 14.5, CATIA, COMSOL 4.5, and of course any other OpenCL, SMP (GCD) aware application on OS X, like Pixelmator, VLC, Handbrake, never mind Maya, Autodesk, etc.

I'd mention FCP X and Color, etc., but I haven't used them yet.

Haven't tried Blender in a while... will give it a go!

I don't have a Mac Pro, but FCPX exploits 8 cores (4 virtual) on my loaded early 2012 iMac 27 (3.4 GHz, 16 GB RAM, Radeon HD 6970 1024MB *)

* I screwed up and didm't max out the VRAM

Anyway, FCPX is wicked fast -- rendering, transcoding and analysis (camera shake, etc.) -- you should give it a try -- it take things like MultiCam and 2K, 3K, 4K video in stride
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #73 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim W View Post

Also, I don't want 5 or 10 boxes on my desk connected by cables. The tower may not be revolutionary, but it combines the necessary technology in one compact high speed enclosure.

Fundamentally, it is hard for me to imagine that the tower concept will really survive long-term. The drive problem is solved with NAS; you can have a NAS box with whatever performance requirements are necessary for your task, and a price to match. You can also stick the NAS in a rack if need be. To me, it means that the pro box needs 10Gb networking or the ability to aggregate 2-4 interfaces.

Does Apple really stand a chance in the $30k workstation arena?
post #74 of 192

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

 

I would think the Mac Pro would be well served by hanving 3 separate Thunderbolt full bandwidth controllers on-board so that they aren't shared to match 3 PCI-E 3.0 full x16 slots support on the card to allow for a triple GPGPU or a dual and then a CAD based separate third card specifically for CAD/CAM.

Everything I've read so far suggests intel doesn't support multiple thunderbolt chips, and Apple has routed them through embedded graphics up to this point. I'm not sure what you mean by 3 x16 slots. If Apple used the same parts, it would translate to E5-16XX and E5-24XX. The 1600s would be way over-subscribed at that point. They have done that before, just not to that degree. Those support 40 lanes total from the cpu, and you have to account for other ports and things that eat some of those.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by drblank View Post

 

Has there been any comparisons for pro-grade monitors and comparing them to the new iMacs?  I recall that Apple has triple calibration for these things as they are being assembled and that the techniques they are using is supposed to result in top notch color accuracy.

 

Saying they calibrate is partly marketing speech. I'm sure they have a good system in place, but the statement doesn't deliver much information. Dell calibrates their displays too, as does every other brand. Displays are not stable devices and saying they were calibrated and double checked still doesn't tell you everything. They take time to warm up in general, so when you wake your computer, you have 15 to 30 minutes prior to seeing things precisely as they are intended. It's a gradual change, so most people will never notice it. Some displays seem to warm up faster than others. It doesn't tell you how many regions they measured or their pass/fail tolerance on any metric. It doesn't mention their pass or fail standards for uniformity. When people see a bad one, they assume QA, but they really don't know what is considered passable at the factory. Even after all of that, displays are unstable devices. A year from now it will look different even if you don't notice it due to the gradual nature of its changes. Some offer tools to help minimize this. With Apple you are limited to profiling software, which helps. It's just really really limited in what it can do.

 

None of this really tells you how well they are done. I mainly wanted to point out that these things lack some of the tools that other brands have used for years to maintain some consistency over time, but at the same time Apple doesn't really aim directly at specialized markets. It's more frequently good enough to work with than ideal when it comes to specialized use cases.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Well said especially about access to the memory. In the old days we had CPU cards and RAM cards on the Sun mainframe boxes but with the cpu/bus speeds of today that type of modular tiering is not possible. All CPU and memory needs to be directly on the mobo.

Well yeah trying to place additional links in there with asynchronous frequencies and a greatly expanded distance doesn't sound like good system design. Beyond that intel developed the technology for thunderbolt. They wouldn't develop a solution to undercut their own higher margin chips. Much of the other hardware is available in external add-on form factors with the exception of gpus and a couple other pieces of dedicated specialty hardware. GPUs seem like the most likely candidate, but I still don't think it's that likely. Mobile gpus and IGPs keep getting better. Intel needs better drivers and Apple needs to offer better OpenGL support, but in terms of weighing options, how many people are going to pay easily $600-700 for a mid range gpu shoved into a case with a $50 cable just to retrofit the machine? I remember the Quadro 4000 Mac had severe driver issues for months after its release, and that wasn't taxed with being hot pluggable.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

I haven't really seen a side by side smack down; but yes, these things are factory calibrated using, basically, a multi-million dollar color calibrator.


I'm not sure about multi million dollar. It might not be that high per unit, and they likely use more than one. When people accused Dell's U2410 of having an uneven pink cast a few years ago right when it debuted, it came out that they did calibrate them. They just only measured the center. Factory calibration is just part of assembly, and they delivered just enough information to sound good. If they went into the real detail, their audience would lose interest.


Edited by hmm - 4/27/13 at 8:19pm
post #75 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post


Agree. Eventually, the Mac Pro could be composed of snap-together modules with Thunderbolt connectors. The basic Mac Pro would have one CPU module, one storage module, a power module, a Display Adapter module, plus an Apple Thunderbolt Display. (And maybe that would be the Mac mini configuration, come to think of it.)

I see the new Mac Pro going something like this as well. Imagine an enclosure that is basically like 3-4 Mac Minis stacked on top of each other. Slide out pieces in the back would allow you to install more ram, GPUs etc. the base drive kit be a fusion drive and you could add more storage via TB connected drives.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #76 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

The only possible answer is "it's glossy". And that's not even an argument anymore.

Never an argument for those that know how to properly position their lighting.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #77 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post



People that need a Mac Pro NEED a Mac Pro and the iMac will never be a good substitute for me.

Key words being 'for me'. Your needs are yours. They don't equal every one else. Nor does your opinion of how to fill our needs. Some of us find our Linux and unix render farms to be way better than even a tricked out Mac Pro and have for quite some time. So we will keep using them and you can keep your Mac Pro

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #78 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Tim said the people at Apple don't see a convergence between iOS and OS X.

That's not completely true. The two are already based off the same core software, just with appropriate UI features for each style. And all this iCloud etc is a kind of convergence.

All Timmy doesn't seem interested in is putting the exact same software on everything with the same UI, a la Microsoft Windows 8

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #79 of 192
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

That's not completely true. The two are already based off the same core software, just with appropriate UI features for each style. And all this iCloud etc is a kind of convergence.

I'd say the same core is evidence of a cleaving and the tying of apps through services via iCloud is a connecting, but I wouldn't say they are being combined as they are clearly distinct entities that we both agree are not likely to be wrapped into one giant fail like Windows RT.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #80 of 192
E
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

People that don't own a Mac Pro just don't get it. And as far as those silly benchmarks, that means nothing it actual daily use. Try some some video rendering for example and compare the results when all 12 cores are being used in a Mac Pro. Finally we can also use off the shelf video cards. Apple are notorious about not offering the latest or fastest video cards as an option. I recently bought a new Nvidia for my Mac Pro and it screams. I will never be interested in an iMac and certainly not a Mini. I enjoy the speed and expansion possibilities a Mac pro affords and I also have two very nice 30" monitors. The iMac is a fine computer for people in that market but I have all 4 hard bays used with drives from 2 to 3TB in size and even that isn't enough space. I have an external quad bay Firewire 800 enclosure daisy chained to another dual bay enclosure. I realize I am not typical and most people don't need over 10TB of storage like me but for those of us that do the iMac is not a great option. 

People that need a Mac Pro NEED a Mac Pro and the iMac will never be a good substitute for me. It is like asking Corvette owners to just make do with a Chevette instead since they are both Vettes after all. 

Everything this man said is 100% spot on.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Editorial: What will Apple do with the Macintosh?