I can't justify the cost of a 4 door F250 Super Duty pickup truck, but I know there are others who need it. Just because I think it's an oversized, overpriced machine that doesn't sell 20% of the units the Fusion sells doesn't mean they should stop making it.
The Mac Pro is really an F350, Apple doesn't even sell an F150 or F250 equivalent. The iMac is Fords generic Sedan and the Mini is some sort of compact.
Apple needs an XMac that is in general a F150. Something to haul the lighter loads.
The Mac Pro is really an F350, Apple doesn't even sell an F150 or F250 equivalent. The iMac is Fords generic Sedan and the Mini is some sort of compact.
Apple needs an XMac that is in general a F150. Something to haul the lighter loads.
They need all three models. The problem with a one-size-fits-all model like the mac pro is it really doesn't fit anyone properly.
I bought a fully loaded 27" iMac back in late June and returned it after two weeks. After one encoding job, the thing was hot enough to keep my dinner warm. I quickly realized that it would be insufficient for my needs. I've been waiting for a Mac Pro refresh ever since (as I'm sure a lot of people have). The truth is, I need more cores than an iMac Pro or Mac Pro Mini would seemingly be able to provide. If they (Apple) could make an 8-core iMac that wouldn't get hot enough to cook my dinner, I'd consider it, but I think that is just wishful thinking. With regards to the sluggish or non-existent sales of the Mac Pro, I think this is one of those self fulfilling scenarios. They literally are, through product stagnation and high pricing, causing the very problem they are complaining about. The truth is, though, that if the AppleTV can be a hobby project and not generate much in the way of profits (I could be mistaken on this), then why not have a mid to high-end desktop for those that a)Actually need more than an iMac can provide and b)Don't want to switch back to PC because of their investment in Apple or Mac software (or just on general principle).
So true. In Mona Simpson's eulogy for her brother Steve, printed today in the NY Times, we see that Jobs was great precisely because he put aesthetics first. Sales were secondary, coming in droves as a consequence of building beautiful products.
And all that hard work going into aesthetics is wasted if a bunch of external devices get connected to that great looking Apple product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar
I also find it contradictory that the same people who praise the iMac for being an all in one computer with little cable clutter are also the ones advocating stringing together a bunch of external devices rather than have a single expandable tower.
This is one reason I feel so screwed by the new mini. What is so hard about making the mini a few inches taller to allow for 2 hard drives and having space for an optical drive if someone still wants or needs one? Instead Apple wants us to clutter things up with external devices.
Now Apple wants to get rid of the only computer that is truly designed with the user in mind? Easy to open case, ports on the front where they are easy to reach, easy to replace drives and RAM.
OpenCL is completely integrated with OS X, along-side OpenGL 3.x..
Apple writes the stack for both to work together in OS X.
Wake me when Windows has equivalent solutions with DirectX and it's hack-neyed response to OpenCL throughout it's OS, and can handle all the cores across it's entire OS.
It doesn't.
Apple lists which GPGPUs it supports fully.
Actually, Lion runs perfectly well without a OpenCL GPU. My old 2006 Mini (used as a headless server) has a GMA950. Most apps don't use OpenCL yet, and many never will, as GPUs are only good at simple, massively parallel tasks. CPUs can process complex tasks much more efficiently.
The GPUs support OpenGL features years before Apple gets around to supporting them in their OpenGL stack. OpenGL 3.0 has been around since 2008, but only in 2011 had Apple actually supported it in OS X. Generic graphics cards work fine with OS X, but you have to either hack the card's firmware to trick OS X into thinking it's an Apple card, or hack OS X's drivers to allow the generic cards to run. These hacked cards work perfectly well. Apple could quite easily allow generic, off the shelf graphics cards, but no, they want to sell their own out of date, extortionately priced ones. A Radeon 5770 from Apple: £203. The same generic version from Kikatek.com: £112.
There is too big a gap between the Mac Mini/iMac and the Mac Pro. Lots of people want a good quality, well designed and powerful computer that is easy to upgrade.
The trouble is the Mac Pro it hasn't kept up-to-date. It is a niche product that would not need to be changed very much to have a broader appeal.
Lots of users want a powerful and quick computer like the Mac Pro. Most don't need dual processors, and especially so now we have multi-core processors.
Apple would not need to compromise on quality and design to make a high quality computer for the same price as an iMac.
You only have to look at building a very fast PC yourself, and you can build something that is as high a quality, is faster and costs half the price.
There are only a small minority of users who need a top end workstation processor, never mind those who need dual processors. It is a shame that all the people who want a more powerful or expandable Mac than an iMac have to look at spending a huge amount more, and see little return for their money.
You can build a very quick computer, with a high quality case and components for £800. It would be great if Apple realised this and filled the gap.
Another user who is waiting for an update to the Mac Pro line.
I was guessing that the next update would be the last with the general direction of Apple (becoming a consumer iThings company and dropping their professional linkups along the way). I live in the Mac and Windows worlds every day and if the tower goes away from Apple I'd have to take my money to the PC world and I would prefer not to do that.
Excellent point by users who said drop the Xeons and use the standard Intel chips, the Xeons don't give you much in exchange for alot of extra money - drop the Xeons and you would see a good drop in price, just from that.
Hopefully Apple brings out one more revision to the Mac Pro (since they already have it developed), there will be alot of people waiting to buy them.
There is too big a gap between the Mac Mini/iMac and the Mac Pro.
Maybe between the Mac Mini and iMac, not the iMac and Mac Pro.
Quote:
The trouble is the Mac Pro it hasn't kept up-to-date.
Which is Intel's fault.
Quote:
Lots of users want a powerful and quick computer like the Mac Pro. Most don't need dual processors, and especially so now we have multi-core processors.
The Mac Pro isn't designed to be for 'lots of users' or 'most'.
Quote:
Apple would not need to compromise on quality and design to make a high quality computer for the same price as an iMac.
An xMac isn't happening.
Quote:
You only have to look at building a very fast PC yourself, and you can build something that is as high a quality, is faster and costs half the price.
But isn't OS X, doesn't work at all in the same situations as the Mac Pro, and is therefore outside Apple's realm of caring.
Quote:
There are only a small minority of users who need a top end workstation processor, never mind those who need dual processors.
Exactly. Everyone else can buy an iMac or Mac Mini.
Quote:
It is a shame that all the people who want a more powerful or expandable Mac than an iMac have to look at spending a huge amount more, and see little return for their money.
It's a shame you're ignoring Thunderbolt, FireWire, USB, and the billions of means of expansion for both the iMac and Mac Mini.
Quote:
You can build a very quick computer, with a high quality case and components for £800.
Really? You can buy a computer that isn't from Apple that has a 7"x7"x1" case and uses ten watts idle?
Or you can buy a computer with a total footprint of 35" square and has a S-IPS panel?
Quote:
It would be great if Apple realised this and filled the gap.
"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that isn't a piece of trash." Because there aren't any $500 computers that aren't pieces of trash.
... then why not have a mid to high-end desktop for those that a)Actually need more than an iMac can provide and b)Don't want to switch back to PC because of their investment in Apple or Mac software (or just on general principle).
I would think one of Apple's main goals would be to prevent people from leaving the OS X platform. Sure, all the iDevices work in Windows, but when someone starts to leave the ecosystem on the computer front, won't they be more likely to start looking closer at competing personal devices (tablets, phones)?
And I have to wonder why a company with $80 billion in cash reserve is so concerned that a specialized high end workstation isn't profitable enough. Not that they're losing money, they're not making enough money. The mac pro unit can't be draining that many resources.
My mac mini looks like a damned octopus. My next leap will be back to a professional tower (iMac was a fail many years ago for similar reasons). If the Mac Pro is discontinued, refurbs/ebay will be the way to go.
By the way, AI marked the death of the iPod classic over two years ago, yet it lives on.
What is being missed is that Apple is thinking in terms of where the Mini is going to be a year from now, not where it is, exactly, right now. What the Mini is today is a rather capable machine though not quite capable enough to meet the needs of the most demanding customers. Fast forward though and I think it's highly likely that the Mini will become powerful enough. I hear so much complaining about desktop clutter but really, who cares, when all is said in done if it is a permanent desktop set-up. You can arrange the pieces so that the desk doesn't look all that bad. When I'm at my computer, I see mainly just the screen I'm working on which is how it should be.
Quite simply, when the Mini becomes such a powerhouse that it's really an ego issue more than legitimate need that motivates some to want a Mac Pro instead, the Mac Pro is pointless. So here's the thing. If that comes in a year, why devote more effort and money into updating the Pro. If that comes in 18 months. Ditto. But make no mistake, the time is near when a fully specced Mini will meet the needs of even the most demanding customers.
By the way, I'm running a fully specced new-gen Mini and finding it to represent a quantum leap in performance over my previous Minis. I'm not talking a modest step up but a huge step up as in rendering video in a fraction of the time etc.
The Mac Pro is not going to survive past 2013. I think that's pretty much a given. Apple is just trying to figure out the appropriate exit strategy.
You clearly have no idea about why there is a pro market or what it is. iMacs are great, but they aren't equivalent in any way to the Mac pro.
What does the Mac Pro have now that the iMac won't in the next 6 months. If it is cores, a single Ivy Bridge processor will have up to eight physical cores running 16 threads. If it's RAM, new 8 GB modules are already on the market and will be mainstream in 18 months? If it's graphics, the removal of the optical drive and 3.5" hard disk will allow for cooling faster graphics. If it's storage, USB 3 will be standard on all Ivy Bridge Macs and provide fast and cheap external storage.
The Mac Pro is a Dinosaur and the iMac has a more future forward design, especially given the hardware that is in development right now. 2012 will be a watershed year for Mac hardware.
What does the Mac Pro have now that the iMac won't in the next 6 months. If it is cores, a single Ivy Bridge processor will have up to eight physical cores running 16 threads. If it's RAM, new 8 GB modules are already on the market and will be mainstream in 18 months? If it's graphics, the removal of the optical drive and 3.5" hard disk will allow for cooling faster graphics. If it's storage, USB 3 will be standard on all Ivy Bridge Macs and provide fast and cheap external storage.
The Mac Pro is a Dinosaur and the iMac has a more future forward design, especially given the hardware that is in development right now. 2012 will be a watershed year for Mac hardware.
You were going really well and then mentioned USB and storage in the same sentence - nobody's perfect.
What does the Mac Pro have now that the iMac won't in the next 6 months. If it is cores, a single Ivy Bridge processor will have up to eight physical cores running 16 threads. If it's RAM, new 8 GB modules are already on the market and will be mainstream in 18 months? If it's graphics, the removal of the optical drive and 3.5" hard disk will allow for cooling faster graphics. If it's storage, USB 3 will be standard on all Ivy Bridge Macs and provide fast and cheap external storage.
The Mac Pro is a Dinosaur and the iMac has a more future forward design, especially given the hardware that is in development right now. 2012 will be a watershed year for Mac hardware.
An internal hard drive I can replace in 5 minutes...blindfolded.
What does the Mac Pro have now that the iMac won't in the next 6 months. If it is cores, a single Ivy Bridge processor will have up to eight physical cores running 16 threads. If it's RAM, new 8 GB modules are already on the market and will be mainstream in 18 months? If it's graphics, the removal of the optical drive and 3.5" hard disk will allow for cooling faster graphics. If it's storage, USB 3 will be standard on all Ivy Bridge Macs and provide fast and cheap external storage.
The Mac Pro is a Dinosaur and the iMac has a more future forward design, especially given the hardware that is in development right now. 2012 will be a watershed year for Mac hardware.
If you want to run more than two external displays, you want multiple drives running as a RAID set, you want to add lots of internal memory, you want to add PCIe cards (especially ultra-fast RAID SSD cards), you want high-end 6 and 8-core procs, etc. then you need a Mac Pro.
The Mac Pro is not for most people. It's for hard-core gamers, 3-D modelers, video producers, scientists, multimedia hounds, etc. My university has many dozens of Mac Pros, many upgraded. They're used for video production, 3D animation, scientific illustration, number crunching, simulations, etc.
The Macbook Pro and iMacs are fantastic machines, and Thunderbolt is truly awesome for its external storage and multi-display bandwidth, but they are largely for the general consumer. The Mac Pro machines are for the professional market, which Apple *really* needs to take care of.
Comments
Then you don't really need it.
I can't justify the cost of a 4 door F250 Super Duty pickup truck, but I know there are others who need it. Just because I think it's an oversized, overpriced machine that doesn't sell 20% of the units the Fusion sells doesn't mean they should stop making it.
The Mac Pro is really an F350, Apple doesn't even sell an F150 or F250 equivalent. The iMac is Fords generic Sedan and the Mini is some sort of compact.
Apple needs an XMac that is in general a F150. Something to haul the lighter loads.
But I cannot justify the pricetag as it stands.
The Mac Pro is really an F350, Apple doesn't even sell an F150 or F250 equivalent. The iMac is Fords generic Sedan and the Mini is some sort of compact.
Apple needs an XMac that is in general a F150. Something to haul the lighter loads.
They need all three models. The problem with a one-size-fits-all model like the mac pro is it really doesn't fit anyone properly.
So true. In Mona Simpson's eulogy for her brother Steve, printed today in the NY Times, we see that Jobs was great precisely because he put aesthetics first. Sales were secondary, coming in droves as a consequence of building beautiful products.
And all that hard work going into aesthetics is wasted if a bunch of external devices get connected to that great looking Apple product.
I also find it contradictory that the same people who praise the iMac for being an all in one computer with little cable clutter are also the ones advocating stringing together a bunch of external devices rather than have a single expandable tower.
This is one reason I feel so screwed by the new mini. What is so hard about making the mini a few inches taller to allow for 2 hard drives and having space for an optical drive if someone still wants or needs one? Instead Apple wants us to clutter things up with external devices.
Now Apple wants to get rid of the only computer that is truly designed with the user in mind? Easy to open case, ports on the front where they are easy to reach, easy to replace drives and RAM.
That's brain dead on the Generic GPUs.
OpenCL is completely integrated with OS X, along-side OpenGL 3.x..
Apple writes the stack for both to work together in OS X.
Wake me when Windows has equivalent solutions with DirectX and it's hack-neyed response to OpenCL throughout it's OS, and can handle all the cores across it's entire OS.
It doesn't.
Apple lists which GPGPUs it supports fully.
Actually, Lion runs perfectly well without a OpenCL GPU. My old 2006 Mini (used as a headless server) has a GMA950. Most apps don't use OpenCL yet, and many never will, as GPUs are only good at simple, massively parallel tasks. CPUs can process complex tasks much more efficiently.
The GPUs support OpenGL features years before Apple gets around to supporting them in their OpenGL stack. OpenGL 3.0 has been around since 2008, but only in 2011 had Apple actually supported it in OS X. Generic graphics cards work fine with OS X, but you have to either hack the card's firmware to trick OS X into thinking it's an Apple card, or hack OS X's drivers to allow the generic cards to run. These hacked cards work perfectly well. Apple could quite easily allow generic, off the shelf graphics cards, but no, they want to sell their own out of date, extortionately priced ones. A Radeon 5770 from Apple: £203. The same generic version from Kikatek.com: £112.
The trouble is the Mac Pro it hasn't kept up-to-date. It is a niche product that would not need to be changed very much to have a broader appeal.
Lots of users want a powerful and quick computer like the Mac Pro. Most don't need dual processors, and especially so now we have multi-core processors.
Apple would not need to compromise on quality and design to make a high quality computer for the same price as an iMac.
You only have to look at building a very fast PC yourself, and you can build something that is as high a quality, is faster and costs half the price.
There are only a small minority of users who need a top end workstation processor, never mind those who need dual processors. It is a shame that all the people who want a more powerful or expandable Mac than an iMac have to look at spending a huge amount more, and see little return for their money.
You can build a very quick computer, with a high quality case and components for £800. It would be great if Apple realised this and filled the gap.
I was guessing that the next update would be the last with the general direction of Apple (becoming a consumer iThings company and dropping their professional linkups along the way). I live in the Mac and Windows worlds every day and if the tower goes away from Apple I'd have to take my money to the PC world and I would prefer not to do that.
Excellent point by users who said drop the Xeons and use the standard Intel chips, the Xeons don't give you much in exchange for alot of extra money - drop the Xeons and you would see a good drop in price, just from that.
Hopefully Apple brings out one more revision to the Mac Pro (since they already have it developed), there will be alot of people waiting to buy them.
There is too big a gap between the Mac Mini/iMac and the Mac Pro.
Maybe between the Mac Mini and iMac, not the iMac and Mac Pro.
The trouble is the Mac Pro it hasn't kept up-to-date.
Which is Intel's fault.
Lots of users want a powerful and quick computer like the Mac Pro. Most don't need dual processors, and especially so now we have multi-core processors.
The Mac Pro isn't designed to be for 'lots of users' or 'most'.
Apple would not need to compromise on quality and design to make a high quality computer for the same price as an iMac.
An xMac isn't happening.
You only have to look at building a very fast PC yourself, and you can build something that is as high a quality, is faster and costs half the price.
But isn't OS X, doesn't work at all in the same situations as the Mac Pro, and is therefore outside Apple's realm of caring.
There are only a small minority of users who need a top end workstation processor, never mind those who need dual processors.
Exactly. Everyone else can buy an iMac or Mac Mini.
It is a shame that all the people who want a more powerful or expandable Mac than an iMac have to look at spending a huge amount more, and see little return for their money.
It's a shame you're ignoring Thunderbolt, FireWire, USB, and the billions of means of expansion for both the iMac and Mac Mini.
You can build a very quick computer, with a high quality case and components for £800.
Really? You can buy a computer that isn't from Apple that has a 7"x7"x1" case and uses ten watts idle?
Or you can buy a computer with a total footprint of 35" square and has a S-IPS panel?
It would be great if Apple realised this and filled the gap.
"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that isn't a piece of trash." Because there aren't any $500 computers that aren't pieces of trash.
... then why not have a mid to high-end desktop for those that a)Actually need more than an iMac can provide and b)Don't want to switch back to PC because of their investment in Apple or Mac software (or just on general principle).
I would think one of Apple's main goals would be to prevent people from leaving the OS X platform. Sure, all the iDevices work in Windows, but when someone starts to leave the ecosystem on the computer front, won't they be more likely to start looking closer at competing personal devices (tablets, phones)?
And I have to wonder why a company with $80 billion in cash reserve is so concerned that a specialized high end workstation isn't profitable enough. Not that they're losing money, they're not making enough money. The mac pro unit can't be draining that many resources.
By the way, AI marked the death of the iPod classic over two years ago, yet it lives on.
Quite simply, when the Mini becomes such a powerhouse that it's really an ego issue more than legitimate need that motivates some to want a Mac Pro instead, the Mac Pro is pointless. So here's the thing. If that comes in a year, why devote more effort and money into updating the Pro. If that comes in 18 months. Ditto. But make no mistake, the time is near when a fully specced Mini will meet the needs of even the most demanding customers.
By the way, I'm running a fully specced new-gen Mini and finding it to represent a quantum leap in performance over my previous Minis. I'm not talking a modest step up but a huge step up as in rendering video in a fraction of the time etc.
The Mac Pro is not going to survive past 2013. I think that's pretty much a given. Apple is just trying to figure out the appropriate exit strategy.
Apple should build a Mac mini Pro or a Mac Pro mini.
With a matte display to complement.
No fan (or very quiet at least).
Quad-core.
Two 3.5-ich 7200 rpm disk drives inside.
Thunderbolt.
Firewire 800.
USB 3.
SDXC card slot.
Gigabit Ethernet.
Did I say quiet?
You clearly have no idea about why there is a pro market or what it is. iMacs are great, but they aren't equivalent in any way to the Mac pro.
What does the Mac Pro have now that the iMac won't in the next 6 months. If it is cores, a single Ivy Bridge processor will have up to eight physical cores running 16 threads. If it's RAM, new 8 GB modules are already on the market and will be mainstream in 18 months? If it's graphics, the removal of the optical drive and 3.5" hard disk will allow for cooling faster graphics. If it's storage, USB 3 will be standard on all Ivy Bridge Macs and provide fast and cheap external storage.
The Mac Pro is a Dinosaur and the iMac has a more future forward design, especially given the hardware that is in development right now. 2012 will be a watershed year for Mac hardware.
What does the Mac Pro have now that the iMac won't in the next 6 months. If it is cores, a single Ivy Bridge processor will have up to eight physical cores running 16 threads. If it's RAM, new 8 GB modules are already on the market and will be mainstream in 18 months? If it's graphics, the removal of the optical drive and 3.5" hard disk will allow for cooling faster graphics. If it's storage, USB 3 will be standard on all Ivy Bridge Macs and provide fast and cheap external storage.
The Mac Pro is a Dinosaur and the iMac has a more future forward design, especially given the hardware that is in development right now. 2012 will be a watershed year for Mac hardware.
You were going really well and then mentioned USB and storage in the same sentence - nobody's perfect.
Intel Core i7-2600 @ 3.40GHz (8M Cache, 4 cores - 8 threads)
6GB RAM
2TB Hard disk
Nvidia GT 530 2GB
HP 2311 Series (23" LED monitor Full HD 5ms w/ HDMI, etc, etc)
Total: $800 USD (bought yesterday brand new, ofc, with OS preinstalled. A bit pricey, could have it for 10-20% less, but anyways ...).
Nowadays Mac prices are a completely joke :P.
The XServes were 18" wide and 30" deep!
why not make an MacPro that looks like an XServe but is only 18"wide and 18" deep?
It could be 2U high as well.
This will still appeal to Apple's high end audio and video customers.
It would also offer an upgrade path to the Mac mini server.
What does the Mac Pro have now that the iMac won't in the next 6 months. If it is cores, a single Ivy Bridge processor will have up to eight physical cores running 16 threads. If it's RAM, new 8 GB modules are already on the market and will be mainstream in 18 months? If it's graphics, the removal of the optical drive and 3.5" hard disk will allow for cooling faster graphics. If it's storage, USB 3 will be standard on all Ivy Bridge Macs and provide fast and cheap external storage.
The Mac Pro is a Dinosaur and the iMac has a more future forward design, especially given the hardware that is in development right now. 2012 will be a watershed year for Mac hardware.
An internal hard drive I can replace in 5 minutes...blindfolded.
What does the Mac Pro have now that the iMac won't in the next 6 months. If it is cores, a single Ivy Bridge processor will have up to eight physical cores running 16 threads. If it's RAM, new 8 GB modules are already on the market and will be mainstream in 18 months? If it's graphics, the removal of the optical drive and 3.5" hard disk will allow for cooling faster graphics. If it's storage, USB 3 will be standard on all Ivy Bridge Macs and provide fast and cheap external storage.
The Mac Pro is a Dinosaur and the iMac has a more future forward design, especially given the hardware that is in development right now. 2012 will be a watershed year for Mac hardware.
More than 1 FireWire port.
Mac Pro has 4.
If you want to run more than two external displays, you want multiple drives running as a RAID set, you want to add lots of internal memory, you want to add PCIe cards (especially ultra-fast RAID SSD cards), you want high-end 6 and 8-core procs, etc. then you need a Mac Pro.
The Mac Pro is not for most people. It's for hard-core gamers, 3-D modelers, video producers, scientists, multimedia hounds, etc. My university has many dozens of Mac Pros, many upgraded. They're used for video production, 3D animation, scientific illustration, number crunching, simulations, etc.
The Macbook Pro and iMacs are fantastic machines, and Thunderbolt is truly awesome for its external storage and multi-display bandwidth, but they are largely for the general consumer. The Mac Pro machines are for the professional market, which Apple *really* needs to take care of.
More than 1 FireWire port.
Mac Pro has 4.
FireWire's unnecessary when you have Thunderbolt.