Ahhh, yes. Remember the good old days when the PowerMac was the heart and soul of Apple's business? Good times.
Yes, I remember those halcyon days when instead of spending $2400 in 2009 dollars on a Mac Pro you could just waltz down and pick up a PowerMac 9600 for, uh, much more than that. In 1997 dollars. Or if that was too rich for your blood you could pick up an 8600 for just over $3000 in 1997 dollars.
The G3 and G4 era PowerMacs were based on a motherboard that was originally meant to go into Performas. It was never intended for professional work. The G3 surprised everyone with its performance, and Apple canned the parallel 604e-derived platform and went with the cheap one.
In other words, the G3 and G4 PowerMacs started out as hopped-up consumer machines and eventually matured into semi-professional machines. But all the way through the end, the architecture remained strictly budget: even multiple processors were all funneled through the same single bus to the same northbridge.
Starting with the PowerMac G5, the PowerMac actually started to sport the kind of motherboard engineering you would expect from a professional machine. The kind of engineering that had not been seen from Apple since the heyday of the 604e because the G4 wouldn't support it. The current Mac Pros have high-performance, multi-core CPUs plugged into a high-speed fabric architecture that you would not be surprised to find in a true workstation. Despite that, Apple's prices are significantly lower, both in real dollar amounts and (certainly!) in inflation-adjusted dollars than they were the last time they were fielding no-apologies hardware.
The "prosumer" grade hardware is still available at a "prosumer" price in a "prosumer" machine (I use scare quotes because that word gives me hives), but this time they throw in a nice, 8-bit, 24" monitor with the machine.
The G3 and G4 era PowerMacs were based on a motherboard that was originally meant to go into Performas. It was never intended for professional work. The G3 surprised everyone with its performance, and Apple canned the parallel 604e-derived platform and went with the cheap one.
They were going to put 64 bit PCI slots in consumer machines?
Desktop optical drives cost is trivial though, and when you're considering pro software, you're not going to be cheaply distributing it on SDHC cards or over the web, most pro software is installed from several discs.
Is it really? In the grand scheme of drive controller types, it's not been around so long. How many drives are hitting the limit of 3Gbps link? I looked around and it looked like even SSDs are only hitting half that yet. It seems that a 6Gbps should give it plenty more headroom.
Agreed on SATA seeing as SATA 6 and the full 3.0 standard was released on May 27, 2009.
The audience for the Mac Pros is fairly limited when you think about it. The iMac and MacBook Pro lines provide sufficient power for mainstream users. At the highest end, the lack of an Apple option with more than two processors forces users to drop OS X in favor of Linux or NT.
The Mac Pro are then targeted at individuals who need (or perceive they need) something with more powerful processing / graphics / expandability options than the iMac provides and are willing to pay for it. This is clearly a shrinking market:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypoluxa
I think my next Mac that will replace my G5 will be a 15" Macbook Pro though. No more desktops for me.
The shift from desktop 'big iron' is reflected in several ways. Notebooks sell better than desktops. Netbooks are a rapidly growing market. And, for many users, smartphones are replacing their notebooks (i.e. they are electing to leave their notebooks behind in situations where they would have previously brought one).
Likewise, the rise of cloud computing promises (and in most situations today it is only a promise) to satisfy computational and storage needs. The higher latency will ensure a continued role for graphics processors locally.
Between the Macbook (Pro), iMac, and iPhone, Apple can satisfy an increasing percentage of its users. The addition of a rumored tablet would naturally complement these. The Mac Pro, then, becomes like the prestige cars which car manufactures produce to promote the brand. They generate excitement and sell okay, but they will never be the most profitable line. As such, Apple will continue to focus the majority of its R&D on other devices.
[Disclosure: Update or not, I expect to purchase a Mac Pro in September.]
Of course, the reason Apple laptops are selling faster than the desktop line may also have something to do with the fact that it is easier to access the hard drive in a MacBook than an iMac.
Speaking as someone who is looking to upgrade as well, I'd say that Apple would have to introduce a 20" laptop to really decimate the Pro line. I've been looking at the 17" as a potential replacement for my tower and 15" MacBook Pro. But I just can't seem to wrap my head around using a screen that small to do design work on a daily basis.
Agreed on SATA seeing as SATA 6 and the full 3.0 standard was released on May 27, 2009.
That is all well and good but where is the hardware? The fact is modern SSD for all intents saturate the commonly available SATA interfaces available today.
SSD is not replacing SATA 6 drives. Not by a long shot.
This is about replacing SATA (of all generations) with PCI Express for use with Solid State Storage. In fact it is common today on some netbooks. There are advantages to doing away with the extra level of electronics in a device. It saves power and reduces latenancy. Plus it makes for a transition to storage modules on pluggable PC cards thus dumping a legacy physical format.
For many applications "SSD" interfaced via PCI Express makes a lot of sense.
I don't think he was arguing that the Pros aren't workhorse machines, Amorph.
(Nice to see you back, by the way.)
He wasn't. But implicit in his argument was the idea that the old G4 PowerMacs were workhorses. They got as close as the architecture allowed by the end, but they started out as Performas. Their midrange price was an accident of their humble lineage. The Mac Pro is priced as a top-end machine because it actually is one. It's a workstation, not a hopped-up consumer machine, and it's targeted accordingly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
It's just that, as the top end of the line, they should be the machines everybody wants.
As workstations--inexpensive ones, at that--they should appeal to people who need workstations. A Mac Pro is not better for my purposes than my 24" iMac, which hit the sweet spot in price/performance for me and rests on a plant stand by my favorite wingback chair to boot. It's a much more comfortable work environment than any desk, and it fits seamlessly into the living room. So I don't want one, and that's fine.
The point being, computers are tools. The Mac Pro is the most expensive because it serves the niche that requires the most performance and expandability, but it is not and should not be the most universally desirable machine, any more than the 17" MacBook should be the most desirable laptop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Case in point: We know Apple will rev iPods on September 9th and iMacs in October.
But nobody has a clue if the Pros will get touched, except for Snow Leopard pre-loaded.
And the Pro line is the one market where the secrecy really hurts corporate planning.
Consumer products and operating systems are sold on New! Shiny! and they're updated frequently to keep people's interest up. Real pro stuff--I'm talking here about operating systems with licensing fees in the $100k per year range, and hardware in the high hundreds of thousands and up--is updated rarely and conservatively because it's more important that the update be absolutely rock solid. iPods are noncritical accessories. If one breaks, you buy another one and an hour later it has every song the old one did. Mac Pros are not accessories. People do not buy them when someone announces New! Shiny!. They buy them when the relevant depreciation account matures, or when they hire new employees; the point being that the timing of purchasing is divorced from anything Phil Schiller would recognize as a compelling release date. So it's OK to update them quietly. It's actually good practice to update them conservatively, because the absolute #1 most important thing they have to do is work. Downtime is lethal in a professional workflow. If that is their highest priority in maintaining the Mac Pro, they are paying attention to their professionals.
Now, that's not what they did with the old PowerMacs. But: 1) the old PowerMacs weren't pro hardware; 2) Apple was striving to make them as close to pro as possible, and; 3) Apple was clamoring for mindshare at the time, to the point where some Stevenotes were cringeworthy. Now, they have mindshare to spare.
But implicit in his argument was the idea that the old G4 PowerMacs were workhorses. They got as close as the architecture allowed by the end, but they started out as Performas. Their midrange price was an accident of their humble lineage.
At least, you could pull the lucite (or whatever) ring on the side; spill its guts out level; make changes or make upgrades; shove the side closed, and you were back in business. Any Mac less expensive than a Mac Pro isn't that easy, anymore. I would like a mid-tower, Mini Pro, or ... to be that easy to work with and that easy to upgrade. However, Steve, in his infinite wisdom (and spite) doesn't want his loyal followers to have that option.
At least, you could pull the lucite (or whatever) ring on the side; spill its guts out level; make changes or make upgrades; shove the side closed, and you were back in business. Any Mac less expensive than a Mac Pro isn't that easy, anymore. I would like a mid-tower, Mini Pro, or ... to be that easy to work with and that easy to upgrade. However, Steve, in his infinite wisdom (and spite) doesn't want his loyal followers to have that option.
The first iMac G5 was designed that way. It was well-executed and they were widely hailed for it in the IT community. Apparently no-one took advantage of it, because it was gone in the next revision.
The point being, that Apple is not going to spend lots of extra time and money figuring out how to implement a feature that nobody uses. It has nothing to do with spite.
The days when even a significant minority of computer users ever open the case for any reason are long gone. There aren't enough left to make it worth the extra design effort. Even the low- to mid-range PC towers--the ones that haven't already been replaced by smaller, cheaper, closed boxes--are only expandable as a side effect of using the ATX family of specifications. They're not actually engineered or tested to be used in any other configurations than the ones they ship in.
Of course, there are other platforms with larger subcultures that still muck around in the innards, but there are reasons for that that simply don't apply to the Mac platform anymore. The core appeal of Macs is that you take them out of the box and plug them in and they work.
Apparently no-one took advantage of it, because it was gone in the next revision.
That's not why they were discontinued.
The geniuses at Apple made EVERYTHING accessible to users. Which multiplied Apple's support costs incredibly. Joe Six Pack doesn't need to have access to the entire motherboard. Or the Power Supply. That's just begging for product support nightmares.
So Apple, which is somewhat bi-polar, locked down the entire machine (save the RAM slots.)
Had Apple simply engineered access to the RAM and HD in the first place (like the laptop line) the whole thing could have been settled ages ago.
We need (not really, but I WANT) to purchase 3 new desktop units for the office, or at least ONE for me.
Heck, when I do, my G5 w/ Dual 2.66 will make someone in the office happy. As will the last person in line who gets the G5 with dual 2.5 processors, because that person is currently using a "Blueberry iMac"
Doubt it. Apple may tinker with it a bit, but the Cheese-grater-wind-tunnel still has legs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncee
- WILL be smaller
No. Cooling is still a factor and double-wide PCI slots take up space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncee
- WILL be available in 3 different models
No. Since they will be killing the low end architecture (see Messiah's analogy of Yikes and Sawtooth) I think they will be back to one recommended model and then add and subtract as you please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncee
- WILL be different
Duh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncee
- WILL be before the end of the year
Maybe, I'm not up to speed with what chips are available and when. Blu-Ray can be added anytime Jobs wants. If Apple wants to add USB3 and/or FW3200, they will probably wait for January.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncee
- WILL be announced WITH new monitors
Apple has probably gone to a two monitor lineup - 24" and 30" - leaving the budget space to the others. So technically we're just waiting for one monitor. The new 30" needs Mini-Displayport and all the envirofeatures of the 24". Again, I know little about available panels, but if USB3 ports are desired on the new monitor, that likely means 2010.
What's in store? If the last few updates are any indication: higher end features and a price increase to further protect the iMac and the same case despite badly needing a new one.
What's in store? If the last few updates are any indication: higher end features and a price increase to further protect the iMac and the same case despite badly needing a new one.
Why does the Mac Pro line 'badly need' a new case?
Why does the Mac Pro line 'badly need' a new case?
In my opinion, it's too big. He just received some HP workstations with dual Nehalem CPUs (5500 series) and their cases are about 30-40% smaller volume wise. Externally, they look much smaller and fit in more places. Plus, they look dated, in Apple terms. I think a new case is in the works. Something more efficient and less costly to manufacture.
Comments
Ahhh, yes. Remember the good old days when the PowerMac was the heart and soul of Apple's business? Good times.
Yes, I remember those halcyon days when instead of spending $2400 in 2009 dollars on a Mac Pro you could just waltz down and pick up a PowerMac 9600 for, uh, much more than that. In 1997 dollars. Or if that was too rich for your blood you could pick up an 8600 for just over $3000 in 1997 dollars.
The G3 and G4 era PowerMacs were based on a motherboard that was originally meant to go into Performas. It was never intended for professional work. The G3 surprised everyone with its performance, and Apple canned the parallel 604e-derived platform and went with the cheap one.
In other words, the G3 and G4 PowerMacs started out as hopped-up consumer machines and eventually matured into semi-professional machines. But all the way through the end, the architecture remained strictly budget: even multiple processors were all funneled through the same single bus to the same northbridge.
Starting with the PowerMac G5, the PowerMac actually started to sport the kind of motherboard engineering you would expect from a professional machine. The kind of engineering that had not been seen from Apple since the heyday of the 604e because the G4 wouldn't support it. The current Mac Pros have high-performance, multi-core CPUs plugged into a high-speed fabric architecture that you would not be surprised to find in a true workstation. Despite that, Apple's prices are significantly lower, both in real dollar amounts and (certainly!) in inflation-adjusted dollars than they were the last time they were fielding no-apologies hardware.
The "prosumer" grade hardware is still available at a "prosumer" price in a "prosumer" machine (I use scare quotes because that word gives me hives), but this time they throw in a nice, 8-bit, 24" monitor with the machine.
The G3 and G4 era PowerMacs were based on a motherboard that was originally meant to go into Performas. It was never intended for professional work. The G3 surprised everyone with its performance, and Apple canned the parallel 604e-derived platform and went with the cheap one.
They were going to put 64 bit PCI slots in consumer machines?
They were going to put 64 bit PCI slots in consumer machines?
I think he may have been referring to the beige G3s that had 32 bit slots.
(Nice to see you back, by the way.)
It's just that, as the top end of the line, they should be the machines everybody wants.
Yet it feels like Apple only pays lip service to them in favour of the iPod/iMac.
It's like Toyota saying they'll rev the Lexus cars once a year, but the Corollas get updated with new features every quarter.
Case in point: We know Apple will rev iPods on September 9th and iMacs in October.
But nobody has a clue if the Pros will get touched, except for Snow Leopard pre-loaded.
And the Pro line is the one market where the secrecy really hurts corporate planning.
I should hope so.
Desktop optical drives cost is trivial though, and when you're considering pro software, you're not going to be cheaply distributing it on SDHC cards or over the web, most pro software is installed from several discs.
Is it really? In the grand scheme of drive controller types, it's not been around so long. How many drives are hitting the limit of 3Gbps link? I looked around and it looked like even SSDs are only hitting half that yet. It seems that a 6Gbps should give it plenty more headroom.
Agreed on SATA seeing as SATA 6 and the full 3.0 standard was released on May 27, 2009.
http://www.sata-io.org/
SSD is not replacing SATA 6 drives. Not by a long shot.
http://www.asus.com/product.aspx?P_ID=sqbdCm0nmFxn3sS4
Just remove stuff like the VGA and PS/2 ports replacing them with Firewire 3200/800 ports.
The Mac Pro are then targeted at individuals who need (or perceive they need) something with more powerful processing / graphics / expandability options than the iMac provides and are willing to pay for it. This is clearly a shrinking market:
I think my next Mac that will replace my G5 will be a 15" Macbook Pro though. No more desktops for me.
The shift from desktop 'big iron' is reflected in several ways. Notebooks sell better than desktops. Netbooks are a rapidly growing market. And, for many users, smartphones are replacing their notebooks (i.e. they are electing to leave their notebooks behind in situations where they would have previously brought one).
Likewise, the rise of cloud computing promises (and in most situations today it is only a promise) to satisfy computational and storage needs. The higher latency will ensure a continued role for graphics processors locally.
Between the Macbook (Pro), iMac, and iPhone, Apple can satisfy an increasing percentage of its users. The addition of a rumored tablet would naturally complement these. The Mac Pro, then, becomes like the prestige cars which car manufactures produce to promote the brand. They generate excitement and sell okay, but they will never be the most profitable line. As such, Apple will continue to focus the majority of its R&D on other devices.
[Disclosure: Update or not, I expect to purchase a Mac Pro in September.]
Speaking as someone who is looking to upgrade as well, I'd say that Apple would have to introduce a 20" laptop to really decimate the Pro line. I've been looking at the 17" as a potential replacement for my tower and 15" MacBook Pro. But I just can't seem to wrap my head around using a screen that small to do design work on a daily basis.
Agreed on SATA seeing as SATA 6 and the full 3.0 standard was released on May 27, 2009.
That is all well and good but where is the hardware? The fact is modern SSD for all intents saturate the commonly available SATA interfaces available today.
http://www.sata-io.org/
SSD is not replacing SATA 6 drives. Not by a long shot.
This is about replacing SATA (of all generations) with PCI Express for use with Solid State Storage. In fact it is common today on some netbooks. There are advantages to doing away with the extra level of electronics in a device. It saves power and reduces latenancy. Plus it makes for a transition to storage modules on pluggable PC cards thus dumping a legacy physical format.
For many applications "SSD" interfaced via PCI Express makes a lot of sense.
Dave
I presume that means that it won't show up till the January rev of the Mac Pro.
I don't think he was arguing that the Pros aren't workhorse machines, Amorph.
(Nice to see you back, by the way.)
He wasn't. But implicit in his argument was the idea that the old G4 PowerMacs were workhorses. They got as close as the architecture allowed by the end, but they started out as Performas. Their midrange price was an accident of their humble lineage. The Mac Pro is priced as a top-end machine because it actually is one. It's a workstation, not a hopped-up consumer machine, and it's targeted accordingly.
It's just that, as the top end of the line, they should be the machines everybody wants.
As workstations--inexpensive ones, at that--they should appeal to people who need workstations. A Mac Pro is not better for my purposes than my 24" iMac, which hit the sweet spot in price/performance for me and rests on a plant stand by my favorite wingback chair to boot. It's a much more comfortable work environment than any desk, and it fits seamlessly into the living room. So I don't want one, and that's fine.
The point being, computers are tools. The Mac Pro is the most expensive because it serves the niche that requires the most performance and expandability, but it is not and should not be the most universally desirable machine, any more than the 17" MacBook should be the most desirable laptop.
Case in point: We know Apple will rev iPods on September 9th and iMacs in October.
But nobody has a clue if the Pros will get touched, except for Snow Leopard pre-loaded.
And the Pro line is the one market where the secrecy really hurts corporate planning.
Consumer products and operating systems are sold on New! Shiny! and they're updated frequently to keep people's interest up. Real pro stuff--I'm talking here about operating systems with licensing fees in the $100k per year range, and hardware in the high hundreds of thousands and up--is updated rarely and conservatively because it's more important that the update be absolutely rock solid. iPods are noncritical accessories. If one breaks, you buy another one and an hour later it has every song the old one did. Mac Pros are not accessories. People do not buy them when someone announces New! Shiny!. They buy them when the relevant depreciation account matures, or when they hire new employees; the point being that the timing of purchasing is divorced from anything Phil Schiller would recognize as a compelling release date. So it's OK to update them quietly. It's actually good practice to update them conservatively, because the absolute #1 most important thing they have to do is work. Downtime is lethal in a professional workflow. If that is their highest priority in maintaining the Mac Pro, they are paying attention to their professionals.
Now, that's not what they did with the old PowerMacs. But: 1) the old PowerMacs weren't pro hardware; 2) Apple was striving to make them as close to pro as possible, and; 3) Apple was clamoring for mindshare at the time, to the point where some Stevenotes were cringeworthy. Now, they have mindshare to spare.
But implicit in his argument was the idea that the old G4 PowerMacs were workhorses. They got as close as the architecture allowed by the end, but they started out as Performas. Their midrange price was an accident of their humble lineage.
At least, you could pull the lucite (or whatever) ring on the side; spill its guts out level; make changes or make upgrades; shove the side closed, and you were back in business. Any Mac less expensive than a Mac Pro isn't that easy, anymore. I would like a mid-tower, Mini Pro, or ... to be that easy to work with and that easy to upgrade. However, Steve, in his infinite wisdom (and spite) doesn't want his loyal followers to have that option.
IIRC, there was a bug found in the SATA 6 chipset and it was pulled off the market temporarily.
I presume that means that it won't show up till the January rev of the Mac Pro.
That was a cheapo Marvell 88SE9123 controller that was supposed to be included on motherboards.
There are other SATA 6.0Gb/s controllers that don't have problems, but were presumably too expensive for mobo makers' margins.
At least, you could pull the lucite (or whatever) ring on the side; spill its guts out level; make changes or make upgrades; shove the side closed, and you were back in business. Any Mac less expensive than a Mac Pro isn't that easy, anymore. I would like a mid-tower, Mini Pro, or ... to be that easy to work with and that easy to upgrade. However, Steve, in his infinite wisdom (and spite) doesn't want his loyal followers to have that option.
The first iMac G5 was designed that way. It was well-executed and they were widely hailed for it in the IT community. Apparently no-one took advantage of it, because it was gone in the next revision.
The point being, that Apple is not going to spend lots of extra time and money figuring out how to implement a feature that nobody uses. It has nothing to do with spite.
The days when even a significant minority of computer users ever open the case for any reason are long gone. There aren't enough left to make it worth the extra design effort. Even the low- to mid-range PC towers--the ones that haven't already been replaced by smaller, cheaper, closed boxes--are only expandable as a side effect of using the ATX family of specifications. They're not actually engineered or tested to be used in any other configurations than the ones they ship in.
Of course, there are other platforms with larger subcultures that still muck around in the innards, but there are reasons for that that simply don't apply to the Mac platform anymore. The core appeal of Macs is that you take them out of the box and plug them in and they work.
Apparently no-one took advantage of it, because it was gone in the next revision.
That's not why they were discontinued.
The geniuses at Apple made EVERYTHING accessible to users. Which multiplied Apple's support costs incredibly. Joe Six Pack doesn't need to have access to the entire motherboard. Or the Power Supply. That's just begging for product support nightmares.
So Apple, which is somewhat bi-polar, locked down the entire machine (save the RAM slots.)
Had Apple simply engineered access to the RAM and HD in the first place (like the laptop line) the whole thing could have been settled ages ago.
- WILL be smaller
- WILL be available in 3 different models
- WILL be different
- WILL be before the end of the year
- WILL be announced WITH new monitors
? i hope
We need (not really, but I WANT) to purchase 3 new desktop units for the office, or at least ONE for me
Heck, when I do, my G5 w/ Dual 2.66 will make someone in the office happy. As will the last person in line who gets the G5 with dual 2.5 processors, because that person is currently using a "Blueberry iMac
Skip
- be a new cool design
Doubt it. Apple may tinker with it a bit, but the Cheese-grater-wind-tunnel still has legs.
- WILL be smaller
No. Cooling is still a factor and double-wide PCI slots take up space.
- WILL be available in 3 different models
No. Since they will be killing the low end architecture (see Messiah's analogy of Yikes and Sawtooth) I think they will be back to one recommended model and then add and subtract as you please.
- WILL be different
Duh.
- WILL be before the end of the year
Maybe, I'm not up to speed with what chips are available and when. Blu-Ray can be added anytime Jobs wants. If Apple wants to add USB3 and/or FW3200, they will probably wait for January.
- WILL be announced WITH new monitors
Apple has probably gone to a two monitor lineup - 24" and 30" - leaving the budget space to the others. So technically we're just waiting for one monitor. The new 30" needs Mini-Displayport and all the envirofeatures of the 24". Again, I know little about available panels, but if USB3 ports are desired on the new monitor, that likely means 2010.
What's in store? If the last few updates are any indication: higher end features and a price increase to further protect the iMac and the same case despite badly needing a new one.
Why does the Mac Pro line 'badly need' a new case?
Why does the Mac Pro line 'badly need' a new case?
In my opinion, it's too big. He just received some HP workstations with dual Nehalem CPUs (5500 series) and their cases are about 30-40% smaller volume wise. Externally, they look much smaller and fit in more places. Plus, they look dated, in Apple terms. I think a new case is in the works. Something more efficient and less costly to manufacture.