Recommending an iMac as a Pro replacement just indicates you have no idea what the machine is used for.
This seems to be standard procedure among a lot of Apple gadget fans. Their shiny toys do what they want them to do, so they mistakenly assume no one else has different needs. Then they try to rationalize why some totally inappropriate other feature is what an entire industry should be using instead.
I've been using nothing but Apple computers since before the Mac ever existed. I've never worked in an environment that was not Mac based. It really bothers me that Apple (and far too many of their apologists) are thinking this way, because it's starting to look like we'll have no choice eventually but to switch to Windows based products. I freaking hate Windows. Please Apple, don't make me use it.
By a year or two, I may have been a bit dramatic, sorry. I like the current tower but think there's also scope for a mini tower as has been argued for for years.
There's also the point of the Mac Pro supporting a full-sized video card, which the iMac can't.
You've reinforced a long-standing argument about full-sized cards and I could not agree more. In fact, it was the loss of this ability when the Mac was introduced that led to the rise of the 'PC' and Apple's falling out of favour. In a sense, the iMacs of their day, the first Mac computers (one of which I owned and was in awe of), signalled the end of Apple's fledgling dominance. The story, in my experience at least, goes something like this:
...engineers were the first professionals to catch onto the vision for personal computing, long before DTP and other industries. However, these engineers had particular requirements that could only be provided by specialist hardware in the form of plug-in boards. When Apple's emphasis turned to the Mac, which embodied Steve Jobs ethos of complete control over the end-user experience, those many, many engineers who had championed Apple had nowhere to turn but to open PC hardware. Later, when office based workers started seeing the potential, they turned to the only people that they could trust to provide a sound recommendation, their company's engineers. By now, their engineers had jumped ship to MS and could, or would, only recommend these systems. The rest is history.
I have direst experience of this, working for such companies at that very time. Hence, the new, open architecture Macs were, as if, sent from heaven! These were too late and still are to make a big change to buying practices, long after the initial motivation is gone.
Therefore, to me, the Mac Pro was essential to Apple. However, is it still? We have heard plenty of arguments that say YES, the Mac Pro is ESSENTIAL. History might have played out differently though. Remember the Be OS and computers built for it. They included a geek port, in deference to the geeks. If Steve Jobs had included a bus speed port, or access to the actual bus, on the Mac and a specialised, expansion peripheral, all might be different today. Steve however, wasn't interested in engineering fields.
Is it possible that engineers at Apple realise that the iMac with a full-speed Thunderbolt port(s) will replace the need for the tower, or is the question being driven (if it is at all \) by marketing people. I know which answer that I hope beyond hope is the correct one!
This seems to be standard procedure among a lot of Apple gadget fans. Their shiny toys do what they want them to do, so they mistakenly assume no one else has different needs. Then they try to rationalize why some totally inappropriate other feature is what an entire industry should be using instead.
I've been using nothing but Apple computers since before the Mac ever existed. I've never worked in an environment that was not Mac based. It really bothers me that Apple (and far too many of their apologists) are thinking this way, because it's starting to look like we'll have no choice eventually but to switch to Windows based products. I freaking hate Windows. Please Apple, don't make me use it.
I agree %100, and to see soo many posts claiming that the IMac can reproduce the same level of work as the Mac Pro its offensive and shows that you have no idea what you talking about.
Most professionals on the music business that I know are in fact complaining that we need more power, and we have been waiting for new machines to upgrade for ages.
Who cares if Mac Pro is big, I personally thing it's not big enough for the needs of most professional music studios.
We need more power at all levels, and pro users know what I am talking about.
This what I hope we have In the future but at a price we can afford.
1: 8 PCI slots.
2: Run 4 or more SSD internal drives at 2GB a piece.
3: As many processors we can get so we can run at 96khz sessions in logic with no problem.
4: Did I mention more power???
Hope apple never stops making computers for pro users...
I agree with some of the posts here about the mac pro being huge. Now, part of that is the drive space and video card size<-huge. But, as a 6-core 3.33MHz 2010 owner and pro photographer that typically maxes out the 12 threads, I'd welcome a more compact and versatile "workstation". Maybe it has only 2 or 3 drive bays. Maybe they mount from the rear into right angle adapters to a mini ATX board. (I'm going off of lingo I used to be familiar with).
Anyhow, I'd love to see Apple pioneer a new form-factor for professionals that could be sold to consumers in a stripped-down offering. Rack mount option would be huge. I'm also not a huge fan of expensive ECC memory. Can't we just move to a regular DDR3?
Why would anyone even want an external box if they could simply plug their cards into a proper chassis. Such an approach flies in the face of why you have a computer with slots in the first place.
Some people run out of space even when they have it. If they kep the MP around and you have a machine that fills up it's slots but you still need more, you have an answer. If they get rid of the MP, it's possible (notice I never say MPs are unneeded) that a top end iMac could allow the same or better level of productivity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Recommending an iMac as a Pro replacement just indicates you have no idea what the machine is used for. Seriously this isn't to dismiss you out of hand but rather it is to try to get the idea across that your suggestions aren't even plausible in many use cases.
I'm perfectly aware what the machine is used for, but for as many use cases as it won't replace it, there are many where it will. Pardon me for keeping an open mind about the possibilities we will have w/the next round of hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
This seems to be standard procedure among a lot of Apple gadget fans. Their shiny toys do what they want them to do, so they mistakenly assume no one else has different needs. Then they try to rationalize why some totally inappropriate other feature is what an entire industry should be using instead.
Gee, thanks for making all sorts of assumptions about me. I never claimed no one needed the MP, I was trying to think outside the box (yes, pun intended) for how to resolve things if this comes to pass. For the people who were utilizing the low end MP, the iMac is certainly capable of giving the MP a run for its money. The really funny thing about this is that we have this article where they are saying the MP is doomed and in the article about Cook rearranging things a bit at Apple, we have people positing that he will be making a new push into enterprise. Apple fans are schizophrenic w/their expectations of the company sometimes
Some people in this thread seem to think that the world ends if the MP does, but there could well be a new product that replaces it. The PowerBook was replaced w/the MacBook Pro after all. In the end, deciding that the death of the MP means jumping ship is just a knee jerk reaction. Without analyzing everything available at the time of the announcement (whichever way it ends up going) and if other product lines have an expected hardware refresh impending at the time, wait a bit and see. Maybe the next version of the iMac solves more of the problems. Maybe the MP gets a new version. Maybe the MP dies and a more compact non-Xeon, but still high end desktop system w/expansion options is produced. We'll just have to wait and see won't we?
This can not happen. This would be the biggest mistake Apple would ever made.
I, for example, am with Apple because of the MacPro. That's it.
If they kill this computer I'd get really upset. I bought so much software that runs
on powerful workstations almost exclusively, and it's for Mac OS X only, that I would
sue Apple to get my money back.... Seriously.
Adobe Photoshop or Lightroom that run well on a high end workstation, like MacPro, I need to process my high, very high, resolution (250MPx for example) photographs require Mac Pro with multiple cores and at least 24GB of RAM. I will never, ever, get that from some toy-like desktop iMac.
If this really happens it'll have terrible consequences. I'd have to switch back to Windows to get
Xeon multicore processor, and I hate Windows. Linux would be an option but there's no Photoshop or Lightroom for that....
A movie like tool (Apple's Final Cut Pro) will not run correctly on an iMac. What is Apple thinking?
There's a millions of those computers now, but I have to agree with some comments that the current MacPro is well overpriced. I bought 8 core Xeon for about $2800 a couple of years ago. An 8 core Xeon now is at least a $1000 more. A 12 core is close to $5000 so no wonder they don't sell them a lot. But they can't kill this computer.
They will loose a lot of customers and I'll be one for sure.
The dilemma of the Mac pro is that there are users that need more power and expandability than the 27" quad-core iMac can offer, and at the same time are disappointed with the prices of Mac pros due to Apple using the Xeon chips and ECC RAM. Apple could attract more sales by using standard CPUs instead of the Xeon series, thus reducing prices (non-ECC RAM, etc), but at the same time, obviously it will cut the high-end iMac sales as now people have option to buy a cheaper headless Mac Pros.
So, I guess it's expected for Apple to question the future of Mac Pros. The sales aren't great, and they can't push the price down without risking iMac sales.
The dilemma of the Mac pro is that there are users that need more power and expandability than the 27" quad-core iMac can offer, and at the same time are disappointed with the prices of Mac pros due to Apple using the Xeon chips and ECC RAM. Apple could attract more sales by using standard CPUs instead of the Xeon series, thus reducing prices (non-ECC RAM, etc), but at the same time, obviously it will cut the high-end iMac sales as now people have option to buy a cheaper headless Mac Pros.
So, I guess it's expected for Apple to question the future of Mac Pros. The sales aren't great, and they can't push the price down without risking iMac sales.
The starting price isn't due to xeon hardware. The single socket xeons basically parallel the top level i7s. There would be no point in merely switching to the i7 variants of what they have now as they cost the same. What you probably think of as "normal" i5/i7 cpus actually use a different socket. For example the 6 core mac pro uses a processor which also comes in an i7 variant. The xeon sells for around $600 currently. I cannot locate the i7 980x online under $950. I'm not sure why. Perhaps they halted production on the i7 variant of that cpu. When they debuted, they cost the same amount. ECC ram doesn't really affect the price. ECC vs non ECC makes little difference in price these days, and all computers in Apple's line (just like other oems) ship with minimal ram configurations.
They'd have to drop down to basically the same tiers as the imac, only minus the display and mobile version gpu. Anyway if anything is driving the cost up, it's low sales volume. This has probably affected manufacturing costs to a degree.
It seems to me that this isn't just about the end of the mac pro, but of the "pro" in general at apple.
everyone used to talk about the ipod halo effect, but but how can the company maintain a high end image if it drops the high end?
As for slow sales, as many have pointed out, it seems to be a symptom of reliable machines (not a bad thing!), and only modest/ pricey upgrades, but there is also the software disconnect.
I've had my early 2008 now for nearly four years, and still most software, including apple software can't properly tap its full potential. motion 4, for example, can leverage the nearly 2 teraflops of GPU power in the ATI radeon 4750 nicely, and motion 5 can get all 8 cores cranking in 64 bit with nearly as many flops, but neither can do both. Even with a virtual cluster in compressor, no one piece of software can really leverage the pro as well as it should. and with dumbed down FCP apple seems to really be trying to tell me to go buy a wintel box and install CS5, because they don't want to support independent freelance motion image artists who maybe can't afford an entire render farm to go along with their pewny mac mini.
i really hope apple gets its pro game back on, for their sake and mine!
I bought so much software that runs on powerful workstations almost exclusively
That's not really possible.
Quote:
, and it's for Mac OS X only, that I would sue Apple to get my money back.... Seriously.
You would lose immediately. Further money would be wasted on court fees.
Quote:
I will never, ever, get that from some toy-like desktop iMac.
That's the most shortsighted tech statement that I have EVER read since my own IDIOTIC spree about Blu-ray ever coming to the Mac back on MacRumors. And that's saying something. I actually thought Apple would adopt Blu-ray at one time.
You're completely wrong.
Quote:
A movie like tool (Apple's Final Cut Pro) will not run correctly on an iMac.
Yes, it will.
Quote:
What is Apple thinking?
That you're completely and utterly wrong.
Quote:
They will loose a lot of customers and I'll be one for sure.
Well, if your journey is from Point A, Delusion to Point B, terrible OS' made by someone else, enjoy the ride.
(... and if you truly believe iMacs are high end machines, you'll probably be allright just using an iPad...)...
The next iMac update will kick those up by another couple thousand points. And no, the iMac can't take 96GB of RAM, but it can take 16. Which is enough for a huge percentage of users. And that amount will only ever increase.
PCIe expansion's being replaced with Thunderbolt. There's nothing anyone can do about it. I, personally, would not be surprised if the next Mac Pro, if it exists, is a redesign that cuts out all but two PCIe slots: a double-wide for the GPU and a single for one card.
As a Mac Pro owner myself, I kind of actually want them to kill it. At least then the snobs would SHUT UP.
That's the most shortsighted tech statement that I have EVER read since my own IDIOTIC spree about Blu-ray ever coming to the Mac back on MacRumors. And that's saying something. I actually thought Apple would adopt Blu-ray at one time.
Yeah, the amount of hyperbole being utilized in this thread is pretty insane. "Toy-like" iMacs? Did someone mistake a My First Computer from Fisher Price for an iMac or something?
Yeah, the amount of hyperbole being utilized in this thread is pretty insane. "Toy-like" iMacs? Did someone mistake a My First Computer from Fisher Price for an iMac or something?
Oh, gosh, you saying Fisher Price brought back nightmares of that short-lived troll that wouldn't refer to Apple devices as anything but.
The level of UTTER SUBSENTIENCE he displayed just makes me sick remembering it?
I am actually making this post on a Imac 27 top of the line (and we have 2 Imacs top of the line in the office).
So in any way I am knocking a Imac, i think they are great machines and they do there purpose very well.
But lets not get confused in any way, the Imac simply cannot come close to a Mac Pro when it comes to music production at Pro level.
I know people that went for the Imac story that can produce similar results on music, and they regret it big time.
Because once they start to record instruments Live etc etc and build big projects in hi sample rate they realize even the most powerful Mac Pro just wasn't enough.
There is allot that involves big music projects and honestly there is no point in explaining why a Imac is simply out of the question.
The fact is no big studio runs there system on a Imac period.
Yes, Mac pro are very expensive and apple needs lower there prices to reach more and more people.
I've got an idear! Make OS X scale through a tech like XGrid.
While I've not personally used this tech, the concept is simple. Rather than one powerful machine with lots of RAM, Disk space, and processor power; offload those processing cycles to machines near in the cluster. Turn 'em off (or let 'em sleep) when they're not needed, and fire 'em back up when they are!
Now, obviously, there's a few things here that are missing...
Someone needs to create a rack mount fo the Mac mini that makes sense. Networking, power, thunderbolt all built in.
XGrid, from what I understand, requires the software to be XGrid aware. Can we find an OS implementation that will eliminate this need?
Nodes (Mac minis) need to be easily added and removed from the cluster with little-to-no configuration. Maybe make the rack have an auto-launching USB-drive that will automatically run when the Mac mini is connected that'll autoconfigure it?
It's a crazy idea. And I'm sure most of y'all laugh at me for saying this. But we really don't need workstations any more, especially when we have network computing. If only we could access those resources. That should solve most of your 3D rendering/video rendering/photoshop rendering needs.
The only thing that I'm missing... is the gaming experience. Same thing for processing power... and RAM. And coupled with a nice external Thunderbolt graphics card, I think we have our answer.
Mac minis!
i believe, that most of the people who use the Mac Pro or want it want it for either:
A- easy to get more RAM
B- easy to get more storage and/or swap hard drives
C- need the better graphics cards
D- want the Xeon CPU because of ECC or something like that
I record music in a Home studio Situation, I use one of the main software programs used in the recording industry. A couple of years ago i decided to downsize my studio. i had a 2008 8 core machine with 4 hardrives, i also used a aes card which was pcie. i sold the unit and card and interface. i bought an imac, i kept it for 8-12 weeks, cant remember the exact time. Anyway running the same program the imac could not hang, i couldnt record as many tracks, i tried sending files over the network which didnt work. i would record to the imac, then copy the files to an external device which was a pain. i also bought a different interface that was made for apple, it didnt sound as good as what i had. I ended up buying a firewire version of my original interface, it didnt sound the same as what i had with the aes setup. (there is a difference in sound between fire wire and aes/madi) Long story short i ended up buying another Mac Pro. If Apple gets rid of the pro.... there needs to be room for expansion.... Just my story from personal experience.
Comments
Recommending an iMac as a Pro replacement just indicates you have no idea what the machine is used for.
This seems to be standard procedure among a lot of Apple gadget fans. Their shiny toys do what they want them to do, so they mistakenly assume no one else has different needs. Then they try to rationalize why some totally inappropriate other feature is what an entire industry should be using instead.
I've been using nothing but Apple computers since before the Mac ever existed. I've never worked in an environment that was not Mac based. It really bothers me that Apple (and far too many of their apologists) are thinking this way, because it's starting to look like we'll have no choice eventually but to switch to Windows based products. I freaking hate Windows. Please Apple, don't make me use it.
By a year or two, I may have been a bit dramatic, sorry. I like the current tower but think there's also scope for a mini tower as has been argued for for years.
There's also the point of the Mac Pro supporting a full-sized video card, which the iMac can't.
You've reinforced a long-standing argument about full-sized cards and I could not agree more. In fact, it was the loss of this ability when the Mac was introduced that led to the rise of the 'PC' and Apple's falling out of favour. In a sense, the iMacs of their day, the first Mac computers (one of which I owned and was in awe of), signalled the end of Apple's fledgling dominance. The story, in my experience at least, goes something like this:
...engineers were the first professionals to catch onto the vision for personal computing, long before DTP and other industries. However, these engineers had particular requirements that could only be provided by specialist hardware in the form of plug-in boards. When Apple's emphasis turned to the Mac, which embodied Steve Jobs ethos of complete control over the end-user experience, those many, many engineers who had championed Apple had nowhere to turn but to open PC hardware. Later, when office based workers started seeing the potential, they turned to the only people that they could trust to provide a sound recommendation, their company's engineers. By now, their engineers had jumped ship to MS and could, or would, only recommend these systems. The rest is history.
I have direst experience of this, working for such companies at that very time. Hence, the new, open architecture Macs were, as if, sent from heaven! These were too late and still are to make a big change to buying practices, long after the initial motivation is gone.
Therefore, to me, the Mac Pro was essential to Apple. However, is it still? We have heard plenty of arguments that say YES, the Mac Pro is ESSENTIAL. History might have played out differently though. Remember the Be OS and computers built for it. They included a geek port, in deference to the geeks. If Steve Jobs had included a bus speed port, or access to the actual bus, on the Mac and a specialised, expansion peripheral, all might be different today. Steve however, wasn't interested in engineering fields.
Is it possible that engineers at Apple realise that the iMac with a full-speed Thunderbolt port(s) will replace the need for the tower, or is the question being driven (if it is at all
All the best.
This seems to be standard procedure among a lot of Apple gadget fans. Their shiny toys do what they want them to do, so they mistakenly assume no one else has different needs. Then they try to rationalize why some totally inappropriate other feature is what an entire industry should be using instead.
I've been using nothing but Apple computers since before the Mac ever existed. I've never worked in an environment that was not Mac based. It really bothers me that Apple (and far too many of their apologists) are thinking this way, because it's starting to look like we'll have no choice eventually but to switch to Windows based products. I freaking hate Windows. Please Apple, don't make me use it.
I agree %100, and to see soo many posts claiming that the IMac can reproduce the same level of work as the Mac Pro its offensive and shows that you have no idea what you talking about.
Most professionals on the music business that I know are in fact complaining that we need more power, and we have been waiting for new machines to upgrade for ages.
Who cares if Mac Pro is big, I personally thing it's not big enough for the needs of most professional music studios.
We need more power at all levels, and pro users know what I am talking about.
This what I hope we have In the future but at a price we can afford.
1: 8 PCI slots.
2: Run 4 or more SSD internal drives at 2GB a piece.
3: As many processors we can get so we can run at 96khz sessions in logic with no problem.
4: Did I mention more power???
Hope apple never stops making computers for pro users...
Anyhow, I'd love to see Apple pioneer a new form-factor for professionals that could be sold to consumers in a stripped-down offering. Rack mount option would be huge. I'm also not a huge fan of expensive ECC memory. Can't we just move to a regular DDR3?
Why would anyone even want an external box if they could simply plug their cards into a proper chassis. Such an approach flies in the face of why you have a computer with slots in the first place.
Some people run out of space even when they have it. If they kep the MP around and you have a machine that fills up it's slots but you still need more, you have an answer. If they get rid of the MP, it's possible (notice I never say MPs are unneeded) that a top end iMac could allow the same or better level of productivity.
Recommending an iMac as a Pro replacement just indicates you have no idea what the machine is used for. Seriously this isn't to dismiss you out of hand but rather it is to try to get the idea across that your suggestions aren't even plausible in many use cases.
I'm perfectly aware what the machine is used for, but for as many use cases as it won't replace it, there are many where it will. Pardon me for keeping an open mind about the possibilities we will have w/the next round of hardware.
This seems to be standard procedure among a lot of Apple gadget fans. Their shiny toys do what they want them to do, so they mistakenly assume no one else has different needs. Then they try to rationalize why some totally inappropriate other feature is what an entire industry should be using instead.
Gee, thanks for making all sorts of assumptions about me. I never claimed no one needed the MP, I was trying to think outside the box (yes, pun intended) for how to resolve things if this comes to pass. For the people who were utilizing the low end MP, the iMac is certainly capable of giving the MP a run for its money. The really funny thing about this is that we have this article where they are saying the MP is doomed and in the article about Cook rearranging things a bit at Apple, we have people positing that he will be making a new push into enterprise. Apple fans are schizophrenic w/their expectations of the company sometimes
Some people in this thread seem to think that the world ends if the MP does, but there could well be a new product that replaces it. The PowerBook was replaced w/the MacBook Pro after all. In the end, deciding that the death of the MP means jumping ship is just a knee jerk reaction. Without analyzing everything available at the time of the announcement (whichever way it ends up going) and if other product lines have an expected hardware refresh impending at the time, wait a bit and see. Maybe the next version of the iMac solves more of the problems. Maybe the MP gets a new version. Maybe the MP dies and a more compact non-Xeon, but still high end desktop system w/expansion options is produced. We'll just have to wait and see won't we?
I, for example, am with Apple because of the MacPro. That's it.
If they kill this computer I'd get really upset. I bought so much software that runs
on powerful workstations almost exclusively, and it's for Mac OS X only, that I would
sue Apple to get my money back.... Seriously.
Adobe Photoshop or Lightroom that run well on a high end workstation, like MacPro, I need to process my high, very high, resolution (250MPx for example) photographs require Mac Pro with multiple cores and at least 24GB of RAM. I will never, ever, get that from some toy-like desktop iMac.
If this really happens it'll have terrible consequences. I'd have to switch back to Windows to get
Xeon multicore processor, and I hate Windows. Linux would be an option but there's no Photoshop or Lightroom for that....
A movie like tool (Apple's Final Cut Pro) will not run correctly on an iMac. What is Apple thinking?
There's a millions of those computers now, but I have to agree with some comments that the current MacPro is well overpriced. I bought 8 core Xeon for about $2800 a couple of years ago. An 8 core Xeon now is at least a $1000 more. A 12 core is close to $5000 so no wonder they don't sell them a lot. But they can't kill this computer.
They will loose a lot of customers and I'll be one for sure.
So, I guess it's expected for Apple to question the future of Mac Pros. The sales aren't great, and they can't push the price down without risking iMac sales.
The dilemma of the Mac pro is that there are users that need more power and expandability than the 27" quad-core iMac can offer, and at the same time are disappointed with the prices of Mac pros due to Apple using the Xeon chips and ECC RAM. Apple could attract more sales by using standard CPUs instead of the Xeon series, thus reducing prices (non-ECC RAM, etc), but at the same time, obviously it will cut the high-end iMac sales as now people have option to buy a cheaper headless Mac Pros.
So, I guess it's expected for Apple to question the future of Mac Pros. The sales aren't great, and they can't push the price down without risking iMac sales.
The starting price isn't due to xeon hardware. The single socket xeons basically parallel the top level i7s. There would be no point in merely switching to the i7 variants of what they have now as they cost the same. What you probably think of as "normal" i5/i7 cpus actually use a different socket. For example the 6 core mac pro uses a processor which also comes in an i7 variant. The xeon sells for around $600 currently. I cannot locate the i7 980x online under $950. I'm not sure why. Perhaps they halted production on the i7 variant of that cpu. When they debuted, they cost the same amount. ECC ram doesn't really affect the price. ECC vs non ECC makes little difference in price these days, and all computers in Apple's line (just like other oems) ship with minimal ram configurations.
They'd have to drop down to basically the same tiers as the imac, only minus the display and mobile version gpu. Anyway if anything is driving the cost up, it's low sales volume. This has probably affected manufacturing costs to a degree.
everyone used to talk about the ipod halo effect, but but how can the company maintain a high end image if it drops the high end?
As for slow sales, as many have pointed out, it seems to be a symptom of reliable machines (not a bad thing!), and only modest/ pricey upgrades, but there is also the software disconnect.
I've had my early 2008 now for nearly four years, and still most software, including apple software can't properly tap its full potential. motion 4, for example, can leverage the nearly 2 teraflops of GPU power in the ATI radeon 4750 nicely, and motion 5 can get all 8 cores cranking in 64 bit with nearly as many flops, but neither can do both. Even with a virtual cluster in compressor, no one piece of software can really leverage the pro as well as it should. and with dumbed down FCP apple seems to really be trying to tell me to go buy a wintel box and install CS5, because they don't want to support independent freelance motion image artists who maybe can't afford an entire render farm to go along with their pewny mac mini.
i really hope apple gets its pro game back on, for their sake and mine!
A own OS for audio with dedicated and optimized computers for sound, recording etc,
The problem is the single CPU Mac Pro - especially the $2499 entry Mac Pro has a massive performance problem.
The starting price for a single CPU Mac Pro that tops the fastest iMac ($2199) is $3899 in the Apple store as you need to upgrade the CPU & GPU.
drop the 2.8GHz CPU model (in the wild the 3.2GHz CPU is already cheaper than the 2.8GHz CPU - Apple takes $400 for nothing
make the 3.2GHz QC CPU standard & the 3.33GHz SC a $600 upgrade
put in a HD6870 as standard & make the HD6970 a $300 upgrade
put in 12GB RAM as standard (the name is Mac Pro)
drop the entry price to $2199
Mac Pro problem solved.
Should the Mac Pro really go the way of the Dodo I'll go the way of the hackintosh (users in insanlymac.com >900.000)!
@hmm
The i7-980X was followed by the i7-990X
I bought so much software that runs on powerful workstations almost exclusively
That's not really possible.
, and it's for Mac OS X only, that I would sue Apple to get my money back.... Seriously.
You would lose immediately. Further money would be wasted on court fees.
I will never, ever, get that from some toy-like desktop iMac.
That's the most shortsighted tech statement that I have EVER read since my own IDIOTIC spree about Blu-ray ever coming to the Mac back on MacRumors.
You're completely wrong.
A movie like tool (Apple's Final Cut Pro) will not run correctly on an iMac.
Yes, it will.
What is Apple thinking?
That you're completely and utterly wrong.
They will loose a lot of customers and I'll be one for sure.
Well, if your journey is from Point A, Delusion to Point B, terrible OS' made by someone else, enjoy the ride.
(... and if you truly believe iMacs are high end machines, you'll probably be allright just using an iPad...)...
What I think is that Apple will discontinue the Mac Pro and replace it with another machine.
Imagine this:
clustered Mac Minis.
You can start buying 1 or 2 mac minis, connect them in parallel with a special connector at the mainboard level (i.e. thunderbolt) and add as many
as you want. You could end up with 10 mac minis in cluster: 10 Cpus, 80 GB of RAM, 10 HDD in RAID...
it's the new era of personal computer....the one you see only once in a decade!
(... and if you truly believe iMacs are high end machines, you'll probably be allright just using an iPad...)...
The next iMac update will kick those up by another couple thousand points. And no, the iMac can't take 96GB of RAM, but it can take 16. Which is enough for a huge percentage of users. And that amount will only ever increase.
PCIe expansion's being replaced with Thunderbolt. There's nothing anyone can do about it. I, personally, would not be surprised if the next Mac Pro, if it exists, is a redesign that cuts out all but two PCIe slots: a double-wide for the GPU and a single for one card.
As a Mac Pro owner myself, I kind of actually want them to kill it. At least then the snobs would SHUT UP.
That's the most shortsighted tech statement that I have EVER read since my own IDIOTIC spree about Blu-ray ever coming to the Mac back on MacRumors.
Yeah, the amount of hyperbole being utilized in this thread is pretty insane. "Toy-like" iMacs? Did someone mistake a My First Computer from Fisher Price for an iMac or something?
Yeah, the amount of hyperbole being utilized in this thread is pretty insane. "Toy-like" iMacs? Did someone mistake a My First Computer from Fisher Price for an iMac or something?
Oh, gosh, you saying Fisher Price brought back nightmares of that short-lived troll that wouldn't refer to Apple devices as anything but.
The level of UTTER SUBSENTIENCE he displayed just makes me sick remembering it?
So in any way I am knocking a Imac, i think they are great machines and they do there purpose very well.
But lets not get confused in any way, the Imac simply cannot come close to a Mac Pro when it comes to music production at Pro level.
I know people that went for the Imac story that can produce similar results on music, and they regret it big time.
Because once they start to record instruments Live etc etc and build big projects in hi sample rate they realize even the most powerful Mac Pro just wasn't enough.
There is allot that involves big music projects and honestly there is no point in explaining why a Imac is simply out of the question.
The fact is no big studio runs there system on a Imac period.
Yes, Mac pro are very expensive and apple needs lower there prices to reach more and more people.
Yes, Mac pro are very expensive and apple needs lower there prices to reach more and more people.
Talk to Intel. Apple doesn't set prices on chips.
I've got an idear! Make OS X scale through a tech like XGrid.
While I've not personally used this tech, the concept is simple. Rather than one powerful machine with lots of RAM, Disk space, and processor power; offload those processing cycles to machines near in the cluster. Turn 'em off (or let 'em sleep) when they're not needed, and fire 'em back up when they are!
Now, obviously, there's a few things here that are missing...
- Someone needs to create a rack mount fo the Mac mini that makes sense. Networking, power, thunderbolt all built in.
- XGrid, from what I understand, requires the software to be XGrid aware. Can we find an OS implementation that will eliminate this need?
- Nodes (Mac minis) need to be easily added and removed from the cluster with little-to-no configuration. Maybe make the rack have an auto-launching USB-drive that will automatically run when the Mac mini is connected that'll autoconfigure it?
It's a crazy idea. And I'm sure most of y'all laugh at me for saying this. But we really don't need workstations any more, especially when we have network computing. If only we could access those resources. That should solve most of your 3D rendering/video rendering/photoshop rendering needs.The only thing that I'm missing... is the gaming experience. Same thing for processing power... and RAM. And coupled with a nice external Thunderbolt graphics card, I think we have our answer.
Mac minis!
i believe, that most of the people who use the Mac Pro or want it want it for either:
A- easy to get more RAM
B- easy to get more storage and/or swap hard drives
C- need the better graphics cards
D- want the Xeon CPU because of ECC or something like that
so, you might solve
B and C (kinda)
but thats only half of the problems (i think)