I realize that this is third or fourth hand gossip but I'll pass it on anyway for what it's worth.
Over a year or more ago, several Apple reps came to MDC, where I teach, to show some aspects of Snow Leopard. The show was interesting and I even won a keychain flashlight for answering a question about snow leopard. I can't recall exactly when this took place; however, I posted it on AI at the time.
At that time, our campus Apple liaison claims, no, swears that he overheard them talking about a new Mac Pro.
The Apple reps are supposed to have said that Apple was trying to get rid of towers and could be planning on fielding an iMac-like Mac Pro. Our liaison didn't overhear anything on how this beast was supposed to be upgraded and he wasn't willing to speculate when I asked him.
Though I took this with a grain of salt, it might explain why there is no X Mac.
Okay, let the flames begin. This may be good for several pages of posts screaming about how this can't be.
Well, yeah. The 'pro' is like the dinosaur. The mammals are taking over. It's dead. Just not yet, eh? If Apple didn't put sh*t gpu in the iMac range, why bother with an x-mac anyhow?
It's not like they can't fit the crappy, out of date, cheap ass 'top of the range' 4850 into an iMac. Artificial price tiering in that example. Why no option to add it for £50 to whatever iMac you want?
Because we're Apple and we like screwing your wallet.
Solipsism, sure, it's their right to present us with Mac Pro's that aren't cutting edge. They've been succeeding at that for years. At least they have the common courtesy to dust off all the parts before assembling them. I simply don't have the heart to believe that the coming Mac Pro update will impress us at all. I've been let down too many times. I'll end up buying one someday, not because it inspires me, but because I'm a Mac user and I'll not use PC's again.
It's obvious Steve Jobs doesn't care about the Mac Pro (because when he does care, things happen with haste) and it's obvious that Jonathan Ives hasn't gone above and beyond with his work involving Mac Pro's. Sure, they can go out of their way to make the inside look good, but the complete lack of quality, forward-thinking, updates, is utterly disappointing. A Mac Pro update with USB3, faster FireWire, and marginally faster CPU's, will be underwhelming in every way. I'll stick with what I've already "settled" for. Everyone on the Mac Pro team (if there even is a team) ought to be ashamed of the little they've accomplished.
3 March, 2009 since their last update. Boy, their work on the Mac Pro must have taken a lot out of them.
It sounds like you are taking it personally and that you've made up your mind about the update. I hope you are pleasantly surprised, but I don't think many (at least on tech forums) will ever be happy with what Apple offers.
It seems to me there is conflicting info here. People want the latest and greatest immediately yet they want it to be the best possibly quality design and want it updated often but worlds faster than it's predecessor, yet their are still comments on tech forums about how Apple has made their Mac "obsolete" with this update. I don't care about those people because they are irrational.
The last Mac Pro I bought* was the 2008 model with the 2x4-core Harpertowns. The update after that seemed to offer enough performance benefit for the price so I didn't upgrade. What advancements could Apple offer in the Mac Pro for updates every 6 months? Is Intel even making viable advancements at comparative price-points with sustainable production to make it an option for Apple?
If you think they are of poor quality and performance why not buy the machine that is of the quality and performance you want. Macs are PCs, always have been, but now you can Mac OS X on most desktop grade HW. You can make a very fast Max for a lot less than any OEM will charge you.
It sounds like you are taking it personally and that you've made up your mind about the update. I hope you are pleasantly surprised, but I don't think many (at least on tech forums) will ever be happy with what Apple offers.
It seems to me there is conflicting info here. People want the latest and greatest immediately yet they want it to be the best possibly quality design and want it updated often but worlds faster than it's predecessor, yet their are still comments on tech forums about how Apple has made their Mac "obsolete" with this update. I don't care about those people because they are irrational.
The last Mac Pro I bought* was the 2008 model with the 2x4-core Harpertowns. The update after that seemed to offer enough performance benefit for the price so I didn't upgrade. What advancements could Apple offer in the Mac Pro for updates every 6 months? Is Intel even making viable advancements at comparative price-points with sustainable production to make it an option for Apple?
If you think they are of poor quality and performance why not buy the machine that is of the quality and performance you want. Macs are PCs, always have been, but now you can Mac OS X on most desktop grade HW. You can make a very fast Max for a lot less than any OEM will charge you.
I hope I'm pleasantly surprised as well. You can see what I'm running in my signature. My Mac Pro can't run in 64-bit mode, and I'm living with it, even though there's a RAM hit for 32-bit. I fully expect Apple to step up their game and create the most powerful Mac Pro's ever. Just once in my life, I'd like to not get sh!t from my friends that all run faster PC's. I loathe the Windows OS, and won't ever go back, and I'm not about to buy a hackintosh because that's about like buying knock-off electronics. It always ends badly. What upsets me is that Apple refuses to be leading in the area of performance. I'm not buying a hackintosh, I'm demanding a higher performance product from the manufacturer that ought to be stepping up their game in the first place.
Am I expecting Mac Pro upgrades every 6 months? No. Am I expecting Apple to do more that give us a few tenth's of a GHz speed boost and little besides? Certainly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not aiming this at you. It's not like YOU did this to all of us. Apple has been. The problem with Apple is that they literally don't listen to people and they certainly don't care what I think. If they did, they'd be putting Alienware to shame already. Whom ever it is that is dropping the ball in Apple needs to get off their @$$ and put together a high end Mac Pro if they are going to charge as much.
As for Lemon's idea of an iMac Pro, I wouldn't buy one. Why on earth would I give up my 30" cinema display that is awesome for a computer that I have to throw away the display with it when it's outdated? I learned that with the last iMac I bought. I won't buy another iMac as a result. It's like pulling teeth getting Apple to give me a machine that kicks serious @$$ dealing with 1080p HD footage.
And yes, Solipsism, I am taking their lack of forward thinking personally. It's personally affecting me. It's be fine if I were still shooting DV footage with the old camera I have in the corner. NVIDIA isn't any better. They shouldn't allow their old products to be in ANYTHING labeled "Pro". It's insulting.
Even with my minimalist approach there are still cables to manage...
...gave up on my eyeTV- no HD and an extra coax cable. Time capsule takes care of the firewire external drive and power bricks.
I think you'll find, upon further examination, Apple is tending towards wireless configurations. As are the enlightened consumers that can afford Apple's latest offerings.
Best.
I have EyeTV with HD maybe you had an older version. My firewire 800 drive is for video logging in FCP so no, TimeCapsule would not do it for me. BTW light peak will be wired/cabled when we get it.
While this is all terribly fascinating, it would be really nice if they just, ya know, released the @#%@ thing already. While I'm engaging in wishful thinking regarding a product that Steve Jobs obviously has no interest in anymore, I would really think that they need to do this very soon, like before/same time as the new iMac soon. If the high-end iMac gets another speedbump and improved GPU, Apple is going to have a really hard time trying to sell the current Mac Pros to anybody except those who truly need them right now.
I hope I'm pleasantly surprised as well. You can see what I'm running in my signature. My Mac Pro can't run in 64-bit mode, and I'm living with it, even though there's a RAM hit for 32-bit. I fully expect Apple to step up their game and create the most powerful Mac Pro's ever. Just once in my life, I'd like to not get sh!t from my friends that all run faster PC's. I loathe the Windows OS, and won't ever go back, and I'm not about to buy a hackintosh because that's about like buying knock-off electronics. It always ends badly. What upsets me is that Apple refuses to be leading in the area of performance. I'm not buying a hackintosh, I'm demanding a higher performance product from the manufacturer that ought to be stepping up their game in the first place.
Am I expecting Mac Pro upgrades every 6 months? No. Am I expecting Apple to do more that give us a few tenth's of a GHz speed boost and little besides? Certainly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not aiming this at you. It's not like YOU did this to all of us. Apple has been. The problem with Apple is that they literally don't listen to people and they certainly don't care what I think. If they did, they'd be putting Alienware to shame already. Whom ever it is that is dropping the ball in Apple needs to get off their @$$ and put together a high end Mac Pro if they are going to charge as much.
As for Lemon's idea of an iMac Pro, I wouldn't buy one. Why on earth would I give up my 30" cinema display that is awesome for a computer that I have to throw away the display with it when it's outdated? I learned that with the last iMac I bought. I won't buy another iMac as a result. It's like pulling teeth getting Apple to give me a machine that kicks serious @$$ dealing with 1080p HD footage.
And yes, Solipsism, I am taking their lack of forward thinking personally. It's personally affecting me. It's be fine if I were still shooting DV footage with the old camera I have in the corner. NVIDIA isn't any better. They shouldn't allow their old products to be in ANYTHING labeled "Pro". It's insulting.
What exactly are you doing ?? That you need such great power. If your needs are so great then take your old machine and soup IT up with added cards and gigs and fill all your power bays up . When you buy a Powerful mac you should expect to use it for 36 to 48 months of intensive rendering and stuff like that.
So dude I ask you and all the people who have a junkies need for more power ?? When you bought you old PRO mac desktop you Need to do a certain amount of work every day .NO ??
In that TIME has your work needs increased so much that you need the new A more powerful mac so bad ???You guys can't wait a few more months ??
When APPLE put's on the market its new powerful but low power consumption MAC desk top line up .YOU HAVE TO BUY the highest configuration you can .
if not buy 2 or fill the bays up with more power
or get a large server array ..
IN truth most of the people here should buy 5 or 6 minis w/ one acting as a server and that should be fine . Or even 2 mini's and one imac .
So exactly what heavy lifting are all you guys doing that you need such RAW power ??
is cray so long ago ???
SEND in you mac computer work flow stories to me and Apple will award A PRIZE FOR THE MOST UNIQUE USE .
What exactly are you doing ?? That you need such great power. If your needs are so great then take your old machine and soup IT up with added cards and gigs and fill all your power bays up . When you buy a Powerful mac you should expect to use it for 36 to 48 months of intensive rendering and stuff like that.
So dude I ask you and all the people who have a junkies need for more power ?? When you bought you old PRO mac desktop you Need to do a certain amount of work every day .NO ??
In that TIME has your work needs increased so much that you need the new A more powerful mac so bad ???You guys can't wait a few more months ??
When APPLE put's on the market its new powerful but low power consumption MAC desk top line up .YOU HAVE TO BUY the highest configuration you can .
if not buy 2 or fill the bays up with more power
or get a large server array ..
IN truth most of the people here should buy 5 or 6 minis w/ one acting as a server and that should be fine . Or even 2 mini's and one imac .
So exactly what heavy lifting are all you guys doing that you need such RAW power ??
is cray so long ago ???
SEND in you mac computer work flow stories to me and Apple will award A PRIZE FOR THE MOST UNIQUE USE .
9
I can't speak for everyone, but I can use all the cores I can get my hands on. My workstation at home (see sig) and my desktop system at work are mostly for local testing, since most of my jobs need a lot more cores than that provides (I run my research on one of several large clusters I have access to).
Also, your post amuses me because I'm SSHed into a 52 core + 1 tesla card test cluster, a cray system (cx1) right now
brucep, your post does amuse me. It reminds me of my cousin, who's a LAN Admin for our local library system (he oversees over 4000 terminals). He always says the same thing. Why do you need more than a single core, at 1 GHz, with 512 MB of RAM? The problem with people like that is that they don't do a single thing with HD video footage, much less try to actually work with it in a timeframe that doesn't make you want to pull your hair out.
That said, is my Mac Pro old? Certainly. As you can see directly below in my signature, I'm running a MacPro2,1. I bought the very best graphics card they offered at the time, and I loaded it up with more RAM and storage than I ever thought I'd need. While I can't fully utilize the RAM, due to the whole nightmare issue of not being able to run in 64-bit mode, I certainly use all of the cores, albeit at the far lower FSB MHz. My Clovertown CPU's still perform well today, but having more cores doing the work (now that Apple has GCD) would be amazing.
It's true that there are a LOT of people out there who never even use the Mac Mini to it's full capability (which sends shudders down my spine), and there are even a LOT MORE people out there who never push an iMac to the very edge of its capability. I won't even mention laptops because they are toys in my opinion. There are those of us that use FCP and Aperture, and do a lot of work with HD footage and images. That footage uses up a LOT of storage, a LOT of bandwidth, and a LOT of processor power, just to be functional, much less be able to manipulate it. There are a LOT of people out there who don't do more with video than what their iPhone can do, and it's great that Apple actually does accommodate their needs. What's failing to happen, is Apple accommodating the needs of people who push their Macs harder than the rest. The vast majority look at us like we're constantly whining because Apple can't keep up with competitors when it comes to raw horsepower. It's because they use only a little bit of power. The way I see it, it's like an old man driving a souped-up sports car at 25 MPH. That car manages to do everything that man ever wanted, and more. Now have those NASCAR folks run a single race driving a Ford Focus. The crowd would see very quickly that the drivers are expecting far more from their machines than what the machines can actually deliver. I'm not even a NASCAR fan, but that analogy works well to demonstrate that while Apple has done well with the array of Mac products (as Solipsism correctly mentioned previously) they have failed to provide a top end machine that can do the heavy lifting people working with film, video, or rendering need.
As for the comment about the CRAY, man, do I dream of that horsepower. As it stands now, I'd take a Mac Pro with four AMD chips in it (I have ZERO loyalty to Intel) with as many cores as we can get. I'll take the very best NVIDIA can offer (simply because I'm hoping to use their cores for processing as well).
This Mac Pro is getting long in the tooth. It handles Safari and Mail with ease. It even handles iTunes well. This Mac is already more powerful than anything my mom would ever use it for, for those people, you're absolutely right. There's literally ZERO need for Apple to improve their products at all, for at least the next decade. The Macs out right now can handle easily everything OS X can throw at them, as were the Macs out in 2005 for that matter. I have a younger brother that still uses my old 600 MHz G3 iBook (running 10.4), and loves it (with a new larger hard drive)
The people who actually push their Macs aren't in that group though. I manage doing what I'm doing with 8 cores right now. It sends shivers down my spine thinking of what it would be like using just 4 cores. I will admit that it does make me smile thinking of what it'd be like with 24 (or more) cores. We'll hopefully see soon what Apple will offer as their new top end machine. The last time I was surprised was when I bought this Mac. I didn't expect to have 8 cores at my disposal. Twelve cores would certainly be better, but not nearly as good as four chips from AMD (because they don't price them outrageously).
They're upgrading the Mac Pro? Whats the matter, did they run out of iOS devices to sell?
Nice to see Apple remembering that they make Macs, too.
I never can understand this sentiment. Desktops and laptops are stable, save for they typical upgrades outlined in articles like this one. Other than a filesystem and new drive interface that better takes advantage of SSD with the usual desire for general speed and stability improvements, I don't know what more you could want from them.
So tell us: What aren't they doing that makes you so jelous of the activity with the iOS devices? What do you think they can be doing that would allow them to truly innovate like they are with the iOS?
If you are looking for the Mac to overtake or even significantly gain on Windows, you are going to be waiting as that ship has sailed. It's a good thing Apple is moving onto the next big thing - it will keep the Mac around that much longer!
I'm one of those that can always use more compute power... but its getting to the point where I'm not willing to pay for it anymore. Still, I fully comprehend the desire to spend what's necessary to get as much as you can.
The way I look at Apple's slow update cycle though, is that a constant stream of small increments isn't useful. Sure it adds up to a big delta after 18 months, but usually they only let it go for 12 months or so. The problem is that the pace of processor advancement has tapered off a little in the past few years. As much as people are moaning about how slow the current MacPro is, the real, practical difference between a top-of-the-line workstation and the top end MacPro isn't exactly earth shattering. Not compared to the kind of delta we would have seen even 5 years ago. With the 6 core chips now available, new generation GPUs, new busses, new memories, etc... now is the time when Apple sees it is possible to deliver a big leap in the MacPro. It'll be interesting to see if we can identify what precisely they've been waiting on, but we may never know what kept them from rolling the machine out back in the March-May timeframe. Its only a few months later though, and they're still selling plenty of Macs... so really, does it matter? It might strain the patience of a few, but I think its better to wait a little longer for a bigger leap.
Most of the naysayers seem to forget that when Apple updates, it ships a workstation that is contemporary. It doesn't ship one that is already outdated. The GPU is usually a point of contention, but they usually have a range of GPUs that are contemporary to what the other PC makers have. Yeah they don't have the ultra maxxed out ubercard... but those things tend to be problematic, flakey, excessively hot, excessively expensive, and/or unavailable in the quantity Apple needs to ship. And the real delta between what they ship and those extreme cards is usually not as big as it is commonly made out to be. There are notable weakspots or functionality issues (related to pro level 3D apps), but those are gradually being ironed out as the features are folded into all levels of GPU. And the low end gets blasted for being really weak, but there really are people out there (lots of them) for whom the lower end GPU is plenty... although OpenCL is changing this, so it'll be interesting to see if Apple's stance on this begins to change.
I don't think Apple is deliberately ignoring the high end machine market... that's just not all that exciting anymore. Its not what sells huge volumes, and it never will. Yeah, a consumer level tower would be another matter, but the MacPro isn't that. The issue of why Apple doesn't have lower end tower is another conversation.
Programmer, you make many good points, and I agree that incremental updates for a workhorse like the Mac Pro is probably ill-advised. I pointed out in a prior post that Apple hasn't updated the Mac Pro in 18 months. That's a lifetime in the technology field. I'll have a problem with Apple releasing a Mac Pro that isn't substantially more powerful (more cores, not more GHz), with faster RAM. The USB3 and faster Firewire are great, but the much lesser machines will get all of that anyway. I'm hoping that Apple has been actually speaking to NVIDIA and that they have been working on getting the best GPU's in the Mac Pro (just so we can use the cores in them for processing).
I'm really hoping that Apple goes above and beyond with this next Mac Pro. They have changed the look of literally every other Mac in their lineup, with the exception of the Mac Pro. Perhaps it'll look different too. I already have the 30" Cinema Display, and I love it. There's no need to upgrade that. I'm just after more horsepower under the hood of the next Mac Pro.
Personally, I'd love to see such significant changes that Steve feels compelled to demo one in a Keynote. That's when we'll all know that there's been something substantial done to the Mac Pro's.
That's what I'm saying though. If they can only put out a 27" LED backlit IPS display for $1499 and the 27" iMac is $1699 then why bother making a separate product line?
Quality as represented by color gamut and ability to be calibrated? As much as I love the 27" display on the iMac, it's not what I'm looking for in color management.
"Gnat? Bug? Is there a similarity there? I think so!"
Quote:
Their latest quarterly results talked about how they sold more Macs than in any previous quarter, up 33%. For all the moaning and belly aching about how Apple hasn't "kept up with the Jones'", they aren't having trouble moving machines.
No kidding. I would live for them to keep on video cards more. I was really hopping with intel and MS pushing EFI in Vista we would get more cards that were easy to hack.
Darn PC industry that can't get out of a rut even when prodded!
I'd love to see such significant changes that Steve feels compelled to demo one in a Keynote. That's when we'll all know that there's been something substantial done to the Mac Pro's.
I don't think we will see that again unless by coincidence... i.e. they release date just happens to line up with some occasion like wwdc. Conversely, however, they don't feel compelled to hold back a rollout for an event. They get so much press attention that it's worth millions just having their online store close for an update for an hour! I'm not expecting a case update for any of the desktops, but the internal tech will get updated nicely. I'm a bit doubtful that the iMacs are coming tomorrow (err... later today), but it could happen. And the existence of a "get a touch" promotion won't stop it from happening.
Well, there you go... iMacs too. No new cases (which I have no issue with), and really not anything earth shaking at all... hence the stealth update to the specs. The MacPro pricing makes me boggle, but then I haven't been interested in that class of a machine for years. Lemon isn't going to be happy.
Come to think of it though, I'm not sure what would get me excited over a new Mac. USB3? Yawn. New FW? Bigger yawn. A low end tower? No, because I actually do want an AIO these days. AMD? LOL. And Apple isn't going to markedly change it's pricing strategy so these are still in line with what came before (just updated internals). So... what? I certainly haven't gone looking at other computer maker sites to look excitedly at anything either (just compairison shopping). I need a new one, but the whole affair has gotten a bit boring compared to years gone by. Computers are just so commodity, especially since going x86. And that's why Jobs and Ive are making their splashes in the mobile space, while still selling more Macs than ever.
Programmer, yes we have new Mac Pro's (or will have in August). I've got some more reading to do regarding the new one, and I'm really eyeballing the 12 cores. Grand Central Dispatch makes the more cores all the better for multithreaded apps, which I'm guessing we'll see more and more of as apps refresh. I have to wait for the new ones to show up on Apple's website (they still have the old ones on the Apple Store) before I can spec one out the way I want it. It will be then that I'll have to look and see if the addition of four more cores than what I have now is really worth the thousands they are asking for. So far, every Mac purchase I've made, the number of cores has doubled (with exception to laptops). Keeping to that rule, I'll likely be waiting for 16 cores in a Mac Pro before upgrading. The new iMacs will appeal to a lot of people though, and I'm sure they'll do well.
This Mac Pro update deserves a stealth update on the website. To be honest, the #1 thing I'm really looking at updating is my hard drives to SSD's. And while expensive, it's still cheaper than a new Mac Pro.
brucep, your post does amuse me. It reminds me of my cousin, who's a LAN Admin for our local library system (he oversees over 4000 terminals). He always says the same thing. Why do you need more than a single core, at 1 GHz, with 512 MB of RAM? The problem with people like that is that they don't do a single thing with HD video footage, much less try to actually work with it in a timeframe that doesn't make you want to pull your hair out.
That said, is my Mac Pro old? Certainly. As you can see directly below in my signature, I'm running a MacPro2,1. I bought the very best graphics card they offered at the time, and I loaded it up with more RAM and storage than I ever thought I'd need. While I can't fully utilize the RAM, due to the whole nightmare issue of not being able to run in 64-bit mode, I certainly use all of the cores, albeit at the far lower FSB MHz. My Clovertown CPU's still perform well today, but having more cores doing the work (now that Apple has GCD) would be amazing.
It's true that there are a LOT of people out there who never even use the Mac Mini to it's full capability (which sends shudders down my spine), and there are even a LOT MORE people out there who never push an iMac to the very edge of its capability. I won't even mention laptops because they are toys in my opinion. There are those of us that use FCP and Aperture, and do a lot of work with HD footage and images. That footage uses up a LOT of storage, a LOT of bandwidth, and a LOT of processor power, just to be functional, much less be able to manipulate it. There are a LOT of people out there who don't do more with video than what their iPhone can do, and it's great that Apple actually does accommodate their needs. What's failing to happen, is Apple accommodating the needs of people who push their Macs harder than the rest. The vast majority look at us like we're constantly whining because Apple can't keep up with competitors when it comes to raw horsepower. It's because they use only a little bit of power. The way I see it, it's like an old man driving a souped-up sports car at 25 MPH. That car manages to do everything that man ever wanted, and more. Now have those NASCAR folks run a single race driving a Ford Focus. The crowd would see very quickly that the drivers are expecting far more from their machines than what the machines can actually deliver. I'm not even a NASCAR fan, but that analogy works well to demonstrate that while Apple has done well with the array of Mac products (as Solipsism correctly mentioned previously) they have failed to provide a top end machine that can do the heavy lifting people working with film, video, or rendering need.
As for the comment about the CRAY, man, do I dream of that horsepower. As it stands now, I'd take a Mac Pro with four AMD chips in it (I have ZERO loyalty to Intel) with as many cores as we can get. I'll take the very best NVIDIA can offer (simply because I'm hoping to use their cores for processing as well).
This Mac Pro is getting long in the tooth. It handles Safari and Mail with ease. It even handles iTunes well. This Mac is already more powerful than anything my mom would ever use it for, for those people, you're absolutely right. There's literally ZERO need for Apple to improve their products at all, for at least the next decade. The Macs out right now can handle easily everything OS X can throw at them, as were the Macs out in 2005 for that matter. I have a younger brother that still uses my old 600 MHz G3 iBook (running 10.4), and loves it (with a new larger hard drive)
The people who actually push their Macs aren't in that group though. I manage doing what I'm doing with 8 cores right now. It sends shivers down my spine thinking of what it would be like using just 4 cores. I will admit that it does make me smile thinking of what it'd be like with 24 (or more) cores. We'll hopefully see soon what Apple will offer as their new top end machine. The last time I was surprised was when I bought this Mac. I didn't expect to have 8 cores at my disposal. Twelve cores would certainly be better, but not nearly as good as four chips from AMD (because they don't price them outrageously).
thanks dude
and apple has given us a great new powerful desktop line up !!
and apple has given us a great new powerful desktop line up !!
9
First off I never thought of the Mac Pro as a desktop, it is more off a machine for professionals. Or it should be but Apple configures it in odd ways that results in the comments in this thread. You see I fully understand it is a low volume machine, but Apples seems to be hell bent on selling it as a compromised machine at a high price. Here I'm talking about the video cards for the most part. If it is a Pro machine configure it as such.
What is worst is that Apple tries to sell a watered down version of this machine as a desktop machine in the image of the many PC desktops. However the machine can't really be priced for that market either. Thus the continued growl from the Mac community for an XMac. That is a true desktop machine built from desktop parts for people like me. That is somebody expecting a little better performance than can be had in a Mini and a half decent video card. I say card when talking about video but would be happy with a soldered in discrete video GPU on the motherboard. I'm not here to slag the Mini as it is a very nice machine, especially in the last revision, but it is just a little short on power. What I'm implying here is that Apple needs to concentrate on the Pro market with the Mac Pro and deliver a machine for the rest of us slotted between the Mini and the Pro in price. That way you aren't delivering half baked Mac Pros to the middle of the road market and creating ligitimate issues for the high end users. I know the various XMac ideas are seen as a joke in the Mac using community, but really you guys need to move a lot more Macs to sustain the current high stock price. Filling the desktop void would go a long way to solving the problem of accelerating sales even more. By the way some of us have come to see the Mac Pro as a bit of a joke these days for reasons other than expressed here.
The other thing that tweaks me a bit is AMD, does Apple have a problem using their chips? Frankly it is the only leverage you have with Intel. AMD is Apples best chance of delivering an XMac class machine at a reasonable price and without the wasted hardware of an Intel solution. Apple needs to do something as the hardware line up has been stagnet for years on the desktop. You know this is true, as the Mini, iMac and Pro haven't changed in years.
Thankfully Apple still innovates with the Laptop line, I'm actually impressed with the new AIRs. The question is this you drive sales of your portables via being innovative but apparently have punted, given up, with the desktops - so what is the problem? Like I said I'm not a Mac Pro user as I'm getting by with my old MBP, but honestly the recent Mac Pro iterration looks like it was an after thought or a fall back plan of some sort.
Maybe my perspective is a little warped but the value equation isn't very balanced at all for the two desktop machines Apple has. The Mini isn't bad at all but the Mac Pro quickly becomes outlandish when viewed against middle of the road hardware. By the way I left the iMac out of the discussion because I don't consider it to be a desktop due to the built in monitor.
If you care to discuss this further feel free to. I'm even willing to take the discussion off the forum. Just be warned I'm not impressed at all with Apples desktop line up. The current hardware thumbs its nose at whole classes of users. That isn't good for Apple long term.
Comments
I realize that this is third or fourth hand gossip but I'll pass it on anyway for what it's worth.
Over a year or more ago, several Apple reps came to MDC, where I teach, to show some aspects of Snow Leopard. The show was interesting and I even won a keychain flashlight for answering a question about snow leopard. I can't recall exactly when this took place; however, I posted it on AI at the time.
At that time, our campus Apple liaison claims, no, swears that he overheard them talking about a new Mac Pro.
The Apple reps are supposed to have said that Apple was trying to get rid of towers and could be planning on fielding an iMac-like Mac Pro. Our liaison didn't overhear anything on how this beast was supposed to be upgraded and he wasn't willing to speculate when I asked him.
Though I took this with a grain of salt, it might explain why there is no X Mac.
Okay, let the flames begin. This may be good for several pages of posts screaming about how this can't be.
Well, yeah. The 'pro' is like the dinosaur. The mammals are taking over. It's dead. Just not yet, eh? If Apple didn't put sh*t gpu in the iMac range, why bother with an x-mac anyhow?
It's not like they can't fit the crappy, out of date, cheap ass 'top of the range' 4850 into an iMac. Artificial price tiering in that example. Why no option to add it for £50 to whatever iMac you want?
Because we're Apple and we like screwing your wallet.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Solipsism, sure, it's their right to present us with Mac Pro's that aren't cutting edge. They've been succeeding at that for years. At least they have the common courtesy to dust off all the parts before assembling them. I simply don't have the heart to believe that the coming Mac Pro update will impress us at all. I've been let down too many times. I'll end up buying one someday, not because it inspires me, but because I'm a Mac user and I'll not use PC's again.
It's obvious Steve Jobs doesn't care about the Mac Pro (because when he does care, things happen with haste) and it's obvious that Jonathan Ives hasn't gone above and beyond with his work involving Mac Pro's. Sure, they can go out of their way to make the inside look good, but the complete lack of quality, forward-thinking, updates, is utterly disappointing. A Mac Pro update with USB3, faster FireWire, and marginally faster CPU's, will be underwhelming in every way. I'll stick with what I've already "settled" for. Everyone on the Mac Pro team (if there even is a team) ought to be ashamed of the little they've accomplished.
3 March, 2009 since their last update. Boy, their work on the Mac Pro must have taken a lot out of them.
It sounds like you are taking it personally and that you've made up your mind about the update. I hope you are pleasantly surprised, but I don't think many (at least on tech forums) will ever be happy with what Apple offers.
It seems to me there is conflicting info here. People want the latest and greatest immediately yet they want it to be the best possibly quality design and want it updated often but worlds faster than it's predecessor, yet their are still comments on tech forums about how Apple has made their Mac "obsolete" with this update. I don't care about those people because they are irrational.
The last Mac Pro I bought* was the 2008 model with the 2x4-core Harpertowns. The update after that seemed to offer enough performance benefit for the price so I didn't upgrade. What advancements could Apple offer in the Mac Pro for updates every 6 months? Is Intel even making viable advancements at comparative price-points with sustainable production to make it an option for Apple?
If you think they are of poor quality and performance why not buy the machine that is of the quality and performance you want. Macs are PCs, always have been, but now you can Mac OS X on most desktop grade HW. You can make a very fast Max for a lot less than any OEM will charge you.
It sounds like you are taking it personally and that you've made up your mind about the update. I hope you are pleasantly surprised, but I don't think many (at least on tech forums) will ever be happy with what Apple offers.
It seems to me there is conflicting info here. People want the latest and greatest immediately yet they want it to be the best possibly quality design and want it updated often but worlds faster than it's predecessor, yet their are still comments on tech forums about how Apple has made their Mac "obsolete" with this update. I don't care about those people because they are irrational.
The last Mac Pro I bought* was the 2008 model with the 2x4-core Harpertowns. The update after that seemed to offer enough performance benefit for the price so I didn't upgrade. What advancements could Apple offer in the Mac Pro for updates every 6 months? Is Intel even making viable advancements at comparative price-points with sustainable production to make it an option for Apple?
If you think they are of poor quality and performance why not buy the machine that is of the quality and performance you want. Macs are PCs, always have been, but now you can Mac OS X on most desktop grade HW. You can make a very fast Max for a lot less than any OEM will charge you.
I hope I'm pleasantly surprised as well. You can see what I'm running in my signature. My Mac Pro can't run in 64-bit mode, and I'm living with it, even though there's a RAM hit for 32-bit. I fully expect Apple to step up their game and create the most powerful Mac Pro's ever. Just once in my life, I'd like to not get sh!t from my friends that all run faster PC's. I loathe the Windows OS, and won't ever go back, and I'm not about to buy a hackintosh because that's about like buying knock-off electronics. It always ends badly. What upsets me is that Apple refuses to be leading in the area of performance. I'm not buying a hackintosh, I'm demanding a higher performance product from the manufacturer that ought to be stepping up their game in the first place.
Am I expecting Mac Pro upgrades every 6 months? No. Am I expecting Apple to do more that give us a few tenth's of a GHz speed boost and little besides? Certainly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not aiming this at you. It's not like YOU did this to all of us. Apple has been. The problem with Apple is that they literally don't listen to people and they certainly don't care what I think. If they did, they'd be putting Alienware to shame already. Whom ever it is that is dropping the ball in Apple needs to get off their @$$ and put together a high end Mac Pro if they are going to charge as much.
As for Lemon's idea of an iMac Pro, I wouldn't buy one. Why on earth would I give up my 30" cinema display that is awesome for a computer that I have to throw away the display with it when it's outdated? I learned that with the last iMac I bought. I won't buy another iMac as a result. It's like pulling teeth getting Apple to give me a machine that kicks serious @$$ dealing with 1080p HD footage.
And yes, Solipsism, I am taking their lack of forward thinking personally. It's personally affecting me. It's be fine if I were still shooting DV footage with the old camera I have in the corner. NVIDIA isn't any better. They shouldn't allow their old products to be in ANYTHING labeled "Pro". It's insulting.
Even with my minimalist approach there are still cables to manage...
...gave up on my eyeTV- no HD and an extra coax cable. Time capsule takes care of the firewire external drive and power bricks.
I think you'll find, upon further examination, Apple is tending towards wireless configurations. As are the enlightened consumers that can afford Apple's latest offerings.
Best.
I have EyeTV with HD maybe you had an older version. My firewire 800 drive is for video logging in FCP so no, TimeCapsule would not do it for me. BTW light peak will be wired/cabled when we get it.
Meh, I'm tired of waiting.
I would really think that they need to do this very soon, like before/same time as the new iMac soon
If inventories are going down like the article says, they have already stopped making the current models. Hang in there
I hope I'm pleasantly surprised as well. You can see what I'm running in my signature. My Mac Pro can't run in 64-bit mode, and I'm living with it, even though there's a RAM hit for 32-bit. I fully expect Apple to step up their game and create the most powerful Mac Pro's ever. Just once in my life, I'd like to not get sh!t from my friends that all run faster PC's. I loathe the Windows OS, and won't ever go back, and I'm not about to buy a hackintosh because that's about like buying knock-off electronics. It always ends badly. What upsets me is that Apple refuses to be leading in the area of performance. I'm not buying a hackintosh, I'm demanding a higher performance product from the manufacturer that ought to be stepping up their game in the first place.
Am I expecting Mac Pro upgrades every 6 months? No. Am I expecting Apple to do more that give us a few tenth's of a GHz speed boost and little besides? Certainly. Don't get me wrong, I'm not aiming this at you. It's not like YOU did this to all of us. Apple has been. The problem with Apple is that they literally don't listen to people and they certainly don't care what I think. If they did, they'd be putting Alienware to shame already. Whom ever it is that is dropping the ball in Apple needs to get off their @$$ and put together a high end Mac Pro if they are going to charge as much.
As for Lemon's idea of an iMac Pro, I wouldn't buy one. Why on earth would I give up my 30" cinema display that is awesome for a computer that I have to throw away the display with it when it's outdated? I learned that with the last iMac I bought. I won't buy another iMac as a result. It's like pulling teeth getting Apple to give me a machine that kicks serious @$$ dealing with 1080p HD footage.
And yes, Solipsism, I am taking their lack of forward thinking personally. It's personally affecting me. It's be fine if I were still shooting DV footage with the old camera I have in the corner. NVIDIA isn't any better. They shouldn't allow their old products to be in ANYTHING labeled "Pro". It's insulting.
What exactly are you doing ?? That you need such great power. If your needs are so great then take your old machine and soup IT up with added cards and gigs and fill all your power bays up . When you buy a Powerful mac you should expect to use it for 36 to 48 months of intensive rendering and stuff like that.
So dude I ask you and all the people who have a junkies need for more power ?? When you bought you old PRO mac desktop you Need to do a certain amount of work every day .NO ??
In that TIME has your work needs increased so much that you need the new A more powerful mac so bad ???You guys can't wait a few more months ??
When APPLE put's on the market its new powerful but low power consumption MAC desk top line up .YOU HAVE TO BUY the highest configuration you can .
if not buy 2 or fill the bays up with more power
or get a large server array ..
IN truth most of the people here should buy 5 or 6 minis w/ one acting as a server and that should be fine . Or even 2 mini's and one imac .
So exactly what heavy lifting are all you guys doing that you need such RAW power ??
is cray so long ago ???
SEND in you mac computer work flow stories to me and Apple will award A PRIZE FOR THE MOST UNIQUE USE .
9
What exactly are you doing ?? That you need such great power. If your needs are so great then take your old machine and soup IT up with added cards and gigs and fill all your power bays up . When you buy a Powerful mac you should expect to use it for 36 to 48 months of intensive rendering and stuff like that.
So dude I ask you and all the people who have a junkies need for more power ?? When you bought you old PRO mac desktop you Need to do a certain amount of work every day .NO ??
In that TIME has your work needs increased so much that you need the new A more powerful mac so bad ???You guys can't wait a few more months ??
When APPLE put's on the market its new powerful but low power consumption MAC desk top line up .YOU HAVE TO BUY the highest configuration you can .
if not buy 2 or fill the bays up with more power
or get a large server array ..
IN truth most of the people here should buy 5 or 6 minis w/ one acting as a server and that should be fine . Or even 2 mini's and one imac .
So exactly what heavy lifting are all you guys doing that you need such RAW power ??
is cray so long ago ???
SEND in you mac computer work flow stories to me and Apple will award A PRIZE FOR THE MOST UNIQUE USE .
9
I can't speak for everyone, but I can use all the cores I can get my hands on. My workstation at home (see sig) and my desktop system at work are mostly for local testing, since most of my jobs need a lot more cores than that provides (I run my research on one of several large clusters I have access to).
Also, your post amuses me because I'm SSHed into a 52 core + 1 tesla card test cluster, a cray system (cx1) right now
That said, is my Mac Pro old? Certainly. As you can see directly below in my signature, I'm running a MacPro2,1. I bought the very best graphics card they offered at the time, and I loaded it up with more RAM and storage than I ever thought I'd need. While I can't fully utilize the RAM, due to the whole nightmare issue of not being able to run in 64-bit mode, I certainly use all of the cores, albeit at the far lower FSB MHz. My Clovertown CPU's still perform well today, but having more cores doing the work (now that Apple has GCD) would be amazing.
It's true that there are a LOT of people out there who never even use the Mac Mini to it's full capability (which sends shudders down my spine), and there are even a LOT MORE people out there who never push an iMac to the very edge of its capability. I won't even mention laptops because they are toys in my opinion. There are those of us that use FCP and Aperture, and do a lot of work with HD footage and images. That footage uses up a LOT of storage, a LOT of bandwidth, and a LOT of processor power, just to be functional, much less be able to manipulate it. There are a LOT of people out there who don't do more with video than what their iPhone can do, and it's great that Apple actually does accommodate their needs. What's failing to happen, is Apple accommodating the needs of people who push their Macs harder than the rest. The vast majority look at us like we're constantly whining because Apple can't keep up with competitors when it comes to raw horsepower. It's because they use only a little bit of power. The way I see it, it's like an old man driving a souped-up sports car at 25 MPH. That car manages to do everything that man ever wanted, and more. Now have those NASCAR folks run a single race driving a Ford Focus. The crowd would see very quickly that the drivers are expecting far more from their machines than what the machines can actually deliver. I'm not even a NASCAR fan, but that analogy works well to demonstrate that while Apple has done well with the array of Mac products (as Solipsism correctly mentioned previously) they have failed to provide a top end machine that can do the heavy lifting people working with film, video, or rendering need.
As for the comment about the CRAY, man, do I dream of that horsepower. As it stands now, I'd take a Mac Pro with four AMD chips in it (I have ZERO loyalty to Intel) with as many cores as we can get. I'll take the very best NVIDIA can offer (simply because I'm hoping to use their cores for processing as well).
This Mac Pro is getting long in the tooth. It handles Safari and Mail with ease. It even handles iTunes well. This Mac is already more powerful than anything my mom would ever use it for, for those people, you're absolutely right. There's literally ZERO need for Apple to improve their products at all, for at least the next decade. The Macs out right now can handle easily everything OS X can throw at them, as were the Macs out in 2005 for that matter. I have a younger brother that still uses my old 600 MHz G3 iBook (running 10.4), and loves it (with a new larger hard drive)
The people who actually push their Macs aren't in that group though. I manage doing what I'm doing with 8 cores right now. It sends shivers down my spine thinking of what it would be like using just 4 cores. I will admit that it does make me smile thinking of what it'd be like with 24 (or more) cores. We'll hopefully see soon what Apple will offer as their new top end machine. The last time I was surprised was when I bought this Mac. I didn't expect to have 8 cores at my disposal. Twelve cores would certainly be better, but not nearly as good as four chips from AMD (because they don't price them outrageously).
They're upgrading the Mac Pro? Whats the matter, did they run out of iOS devices to sell?
Nice to see Apple remembering that they make Macs, too.
I never can understand this sentiment. Desktops and laptops are stable, save for they typical upgrades outlined in articles like this one. Other than a filesystem and new drive interface that better takes advantage of SSD with the usual desire for general speed and stability improvements, I don't know what more you could want from them.
So tell us: What aren't they doing that makes you so jelous of the activity with the iOS devices? What do you think they can be doing that would allow them to truly innovate like they are with the iOS?
If you are looking for the Mac to overtake or even significantly gain on Windows, you are going to be waiting as that ship has sailed. It's a good thing Apple is moving onto the next big thing - it will keep the Mac around that much longer!
brucep, your post does amuse me.
I'm one of those that can always use more compute power... but its getting to the point where I'm not willing to pay for it anymore. Still, I fully comprehend the desire to spend what's necessary to get as much as you can.
The way I look at Apple's slow update cycle though, is that a constant stream of small increments isn't useful. Sure it adds up to a big delta after 18 months, but usually they only let it go for 12 months or so. The problem is that the pace of processor advancement has tapered off a little in the past few years. As much as people are moaning about how slow the current MacPro is, the real, practical difference between a top-of-the-line workstation and the top end MacPro isn't exactly earth shattering. Not compared to the kind of delta we would have seen even 5 years ago. With the 6 core chips now available, new generation GPUs, new busses, new memories, etc... now is the time when Apple sees it is possible to deliver a big leap in the MacPro. It'll be interesting to see if we can identify what precisely they've been waiting on, but we may never know what kept them from rolling the machine out back in the March-May timeframe. Its only a few months later though, and they're still selling plenty of Macs... so really, does it matter? It might strain the patience of a few, but I think its better to wait a little longer for a bigger leap.
Most of the naysayers seem to forget that when Apple updates, it ships a workstation that is contemporary. It doesn't ship one that is already outdated. The GPU is usually a point of contention, but they usually have a range of GPUs that are contemporary to what the other PC makers have. Yeah they don't have the ultra maxxed out ubercard... but those things tend to be problematic, flakey, excessively hot, excessively expensive, and/or unavailable in the quantity Apple needs to ship. And the real delta between what they ship and those extreme cards is usually not as big as it is commonly made out to be. There are notable weakspots or functionality issues (related to pro level 3D apps), but those are gradually being ironed out as the features are folded into all levels of GPU. And the low end gets blasted for being really weak, but there really are people out there (lots of them) for whom the lower end GPU is plenty... although OpenCL is changing this, so it'll be interesting to see if Apple's stance on this begins to change.
I don't think Apple is deliberately ignoring the high end machine market... that's just not all that exciting anymore. Its not what sells huge volumes, and it never will. Yeah, a consumer level tower would be another matter, but the MacPro isn't that. The issue of why Apple doesn't have lower end tower is another conversation.
I'm really hoping that Apple goes above and beyond with this next Mac Pro. They have changed the look of literally every other Mac in their lineup, with the exception of the Mac Pro. Perhaps it'll look different too. I already have the 30" Cinema Display, and I love it. There's no need to upgrade that. I'm just after more horsepower under the hood of the next Mac Pro.
Personally, I'd love to see such significant changes that Steve feels compelled to demo one in a Keynote. That's when we'll all know that there's been something substantial done to the Mac Pro's.
That's what I'm saying though. If they can only put out a 27" LED backlit IPS display for $1499 and the 27" iMac is $1699 then why bother making a separate product line?
Quality as represented by color gamut and ability to be calibrated? As much as I love the 27" display on the iMac, it's not what I'm looking for in color management.
Real pro displays cost more than an iMac
Only if you have the attention span of a gnat.
"Gnat? Bug? Is there a similarity there? I think so!"
Their latest quarterly results talked about how they sold more Macs than in any previous quarter, up 33%. For all the moaning and belly aching about how Apple hasn't "kept up with the Jones'", they aren't having trouble moving machines.
No kidding. I would live for them to keep on video cards more. I was really hopping with intel and MS pushing EFI in Vista we would get more cards that were easy to hack.
Darn PC industry that can't get out of a rut even when prodded!
I'd love to see such significant changes that Steve feels compelled to demo one in a Keynote. That's when we'll all know that there's been something substantial done to the Mac Pro's.
I don't think we will see that again unless by coincidence... i.e. they release date just happens to line up with some occasion like wwdc. Conversely, however, they don't feel compelled to hold back a rollout for an event. They get so much press attention that it's worth millions just having their online store close for an update for an hour! I'm not expecting a case update for any of the desktops, but the internal tech will get updated nicely. I'm a bit doubtful that the iMacs are coming tomorrow (err... later today), but it could happen. And the existence of a "get a touch" promotion won't stop it from happening.
Come to think of it though, I'm not sure what would get me excited over a new Mac. USB3? Yawn. New FW? Bigger yawn. A low end tower? No, because I actually do want an AIO these days. AMD? LOL. And Apple isn't going to markedly change it's pricing strategy so these are still in line with what came before (just updated internals). So... what? I certainly haven't gone looking at other computer maker sites to look excitedly at anything either (just compairison shopping). I need a new one, but the whole affair has gotten a bit boring compared to years gone by. Computers are just so commodity, especially since going x86. And that's why Jobs and Ive are making their splashes in the mobile space, while still selling more Macs than ever.
Well, there you go... iMacs too.
Programmer, yes we have new Mac Pro's (or will have in August). I've got some more reading to do regarding the new one, and I'm really eyeballing the 12 cores. Grand Central Dispatch makes the more cores all the better for multithreaded apps, which I'm guessing we'll see more and more of as apps refresh. I have to wait for the new ones to show up on Apple's website (they still have the old ones on the Apple Store) before I can spec one out the way I want it. It will be then that I'll have to look and see if the addition of four more cores than what I have now is really worth the thousands they are asking for. So far, every Mac purchase I've made, the number of cores has doubled (with exception to laptops). Keeping to that rule, I'll likely be waiting for 16 cores in a Mac Pro before upgrading. The new iMacs will appeal to a lot of people though, and I'm sure they'll do well.
This Mac Pro update deserves a stealth update on the website. To be honest, the #1 thing I'm really looking at updating is my hard drives to SSD's. And while expensive, it's still cheaper than a new Mac Pro.
brucep, your post does amuse me. It reminds me of my cousin, who's a LAN Admin for our local library system (he oversees over 4000 terminals). He always says the same thing. Why do you need more than a single core, at 1 GHz, with 512 MB of RAM? The problem with people like that is that they don't do a single thing with HD video footage, much less try to actually work with it in a timeframe that doesn't make you want to pull your hair out.
That said, is my Mac Pro old? Certainly. As you can see directly below in my signature, I'm running a MacPro2,1. I bought the very best graphics card they offered at the time, and I loaded it up with more RAM and storage than I ever thought I'd need. While I can't fully utilize the RAM, due to the whole nightmare issue of not being able to run in 64-bit mode, I certainly use all of the cores, albeit at the far lower FSB MHz. My Clovertown CPU's still perform well today, but having more cores doing the work (now that Apple has GCD) would be amazing.
It's true that there are a LOT of people out there who never even use the Mac Mini to it's full capability (which sends shudders down my spine), and there are even a LOT MORE people out there who never push an iMac to the very edge of its capability. I won't even mention laptops because they are toys in my opinion. There are those of us that use FCP and Aperture, and do a lot of work with HD footage and images. That footage uses up a LOT of storage, a LOT of bandwidth, and a LOT of processor power, just to be functional, much less be able to manipulate it. There are a LOT of people out there who don't do more with video than what their iPhone can do, and it's great that Apple actually does accommodate their needs. What's failing to happen, is Apple accommodating the needs of people who push their Macs harder than the rest. The vast majority look at us like we're constantly whining because Apple can't keep up with competitors when it comes to raw horsepower. It's because they use only a little bit of power. The way I see it, it's like an old man driving a souped-up sports car at 25 MPH. That car manages to do everything that man ever wanted, and more. Now have those NASCAR folks run a single race driving a Ford Focus. The crowd would see very quickly that the drivers are expecting far more from their machines than what the machines can actually deliver. I'm not even a NASCAR fan, but that analogy works well to demonstrate that while Apple has done well with the array of Mac products (as Solipsism correctly mentioned previously) they have failed to provide a top end machine that can do the heavy lifting people working with film, video, or rendering need.
As for the comment about the CRAY, man, do I dream of that horsepower. As it stands now, I'd take a Mac Pro with four AMD chips in it (I have ZERO loyalty to Intel) with as many cores as we can get. I'll take the very best NVIDIA can offer (simply because I'm hoping to use their cores for processing as well).
This Mac Pro is getting long in the tooth. It handles Safari and Mail with ease. It even handles iTunes well. This Mac is already more powerful than anything my mom would ever use it for, for those people, you're absolutely right. There's literally ZERO need for Apple to improve their products at all, for at least the next decade. The Macs out right now can handle easily everything OS X can throw at them, as were the Macs out in 2005 for that matter. I have a younger brother that still uses my old 600 MHz G3 iBook (running 10.4), and loves it (with a new larger hard drive)
The people who actually push their Macs aren't in that group though. I manage doing what I'm doing with 8 cores right now. It sends shivers down my spine thinking of what it would be like using just 4 cores. I will admit that it does make me smile thinking of what it'd be like with 24 (or more) cores. We'll hopefully see soon what Apple will offer as their new top end machine. The last time I was surprised was when I bought this Mac. I didn't expect to have 8 cores at my disposal. Twelve cores would certainly be better, but not nearly as good as four chips from AMD (because they don't price them outrageously).
thanks dude
and apple has given us a great new powerful desktop line up !!
9
thanks dude
and apple has given us a great new powerful desktop line up !!
9
First off I never thought of the Mac Pro as a desktop, it is more off a machine for professionals. Or it should be but Apple configures it in odd ways that results in the comments in this thread. You see I fully understand it is a low volume machine, but Apples seems to be hell bent on selling it as a compromised machine at a high price. Here I'm talking about the video cards for the most part. If it is a Pro machine configure it as such.
What is worst is that Apple tries to sell a watered down version of this machine as a desktop machine in the image of the many PC desktops. However the machine can't really be priced for that market either. Thus the continued growl from the Mac community for an XMac. That is a true desktop machine built from desktop parts for people like me. That is somebody expecting a little better performance than can be had in a Mini and a half decent video card. I say card when talking about video but would be happy with a soldered in discrete video GPU on the motherboard. I'm not here to slag the Mini as it is a very nice machine, especially in the last revision, but it is just a little short on power. What I'm implying here is that Apple needs to concentrate on the Pro market with the Mac Pro and deliver a machine for the rest of us slotted between the Mini and the Pro in price. That way you aren't delivering half baked Mac Pros to the middle of the road market and creating ligitimate issues for the high end users. I know the various XMac ideas are seen as a joke in the Mac using community, but really you guys need to move a lot more Macs to sustain the current high stock price. Filling the desktop void would go a long way to solving the problem of accelerating sales even more. By the way some of us have come to see the Mac Pro as a bit of a joke these days for reasons other than expressed here.
The other thing that tweaks me a bit is AMD, does Apple have a problem using their chips? Frankly it is the only leverage you have with Intel. AMD is Apples best chance of delivering an XMac class machine at a reasonable price and without the wasted hardware of an Intel solution. Apple needs to do something as the hardware line up has been stagnet for years on the desktop. You know this is true, as the Mini, iMac and Pro haven't changed in years.
Thankfully Apple still innovates with the Laptop line, I'm actually impressed with the new AIRs. The question is this you drive sales of your portables via being innovative but apparently have punted, given up, with the desktops - so what is the problem? Like I said I'm not a Mac Pro user as I'm getting by with my old MBP, but honestly the recent Mac Pro iterration looks like it was an after thought or a fall back plan of some sort.
Maybe my perspective is a little warped but the value equation isn't very balanced at all for the two desktop machines Apple has. The Mini isn't bad at all but the Mac Pro quickly becomes outlandish when viewed against middle of the road hardware. By the way I left the iMac out of the discussion because I don't consider it to be a desktop due to the built in monitor.
If you care to discuss this further feel free to. I'm even willing to take the discussion off the forum. Just be warned I'm not impressed at all with Apples desktop line up. The current hardware thumbs its nose at whole classes of users. That isn't good for Apple long term.