I am typing this post on an early 2008 Mac Pro which has been a full time video production work horse for the past four years.
It seems not so long ago that Steve Jobs was comparing Apple's market share in the computer market to the likes of Mercedes Benz in the car market. Both were making cutting edge products that continually redefined their industry, he said, and so it was logical that they wouldn't find mass markets with mid-range consumers and that's just how Apple wanted it. Things have certainly changed since then.
It does seem coldly logical that the Mac Pro, having become a niche offering from a company that now makes most of it's money elsewhere, could go the way of the Dodo. The rules of capitalism dictate that a publicly traded company must seek to maximise profits where it can. But there may be a different type of logic at play.
In every sector of design and innovation there are various strata of product offering. In the car industry the research vehicle begets the executive saloon begets the midsize family car. At each step down the chain the technology becomes less cutting edge but the market gets bigger.
In the fashion world the major fashion houses produce their Haute Couture collections every year. This is where they really flex their creative muscles and let design and innovation trump economics. The clothes that are made are cutting edge, yet they only sell to a few well heeled inhabitants of New York, London, Paris, Milan. These clothes, painstakingly made and expensively showcased, are what build the reputation of brands like Chanel and Gucci. There is a trickle down effect of cool. Few of us will ever wear Alexander McQueen or John Galliano, but within a couple of seasons, the clothes we do buy will be inspired by their work at the haute couture level.
In the case of Apple, there are huge reputational dividends to be derived from making the best computers in the world, even if these machines are only used by a relatively niche audience of filmmakers, architects, 3D artists, graphics designers, photographers etc. The Mac Pro, like a bespoke suit or an S-Class Mercedes, cannot be for everyone, but can be Apple's premium offering, a showcase for the best of it's engineering prowess.
It remains to be seen whether a post Jobs Apple has any real interest in making the best computers in the world, or whether the dropping of the world 'computer' from the company's name will come to be seen as prescient.
Recommending an iMac as a Pro replacement just indicates you have no idea what the machine is used for.
Most people I know who have ever owned a Mac Pro have eventually replaced it with a Mac Mini, when a new Mini became available that was faster than the older Mac Pro. The only exceptions are those who buy a new Mac Pro every year because they need the fastest Mac available and load it up with lots of RAM. I don't know anyone who has replaced a Mac Pro with an iMac, but I'm sure some people have done so.
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
It looks like you forgot those who need the CPU performance. One example of such users would be those doing simulations (of just about anything). My guess is the main reasons users buy a Mac Pro is either for the CPU performance or because they need more RAM than an iMac can handle.
Apple really needs to address this rumor. This can effect the way whole design/media companies operate.
Even this being a rumor is enough for me to start exploring what my other options are, as I can't afford to go down a dead end, nor can the rest of the media/design industry.
If I lose the Mac Pro, I'm ditching my laptop and everything Apple related as I need my systems to work together on the same OS.
This is coming from someone who had used Apple computers since the Apple ][+. It would be sad to give up 30 years of support, but I have to consider the future. Support from software manufactures that I rely on will drop, particularly in the 3D sector.
I run a professional photography studio - and use a huge camera system that is 245 MP - producing 600 MB images. After upsizing to 40X60 inches and adding a few layers, I work on 1.5GB images that need to get ready for printing onto canvas.
I've been waiting for several months to replace my 2009 Mac Pro (I have 2 of them) with a newer, faster model. I also have 15 external hard drives (eSATA) in bays for image storage, and I run 2 large displays.
I'd like a fast processor and 24 GB of RAM -- and my cc is ready.
Killing the Mac Pro may get me off the Mac list - and I've been a steady user since my IIfx and Photoshop version 2.0 in 1991 --- 20 years of Macs ...
Yes, I love my iPhone and my iPad --- but this is still a computer company, even though they removed the word "computer" from their name.
To whosoever is responsible for the decision of whether to continue the mac pro or not, i beg you with whatever you hold dearest, please don't, because you are going to kill apple as a whole by doing that.
Please reconsider and i am sure you will find a reason or two not to.
You had a IIfx - the dream machine of it's time? I hate you!
Yes, 1991. A Mac IIfx - and a 16" color monitor. We had a "true" digital camera on my microscope - with a Peltier cooling unit and lots of SCSI cables. The camera weighed about 4 pounds - was 1 Megapixel - and it was black and white only. The camera cost over $20,000 ..... We ran Photoshop version 2.0 - which came in a big box with a dozen floppy disks.
I run a professional photography studio - and use a huge camera system that is 245 MP - producing 600 MB images. After upsizing to 40X60 inches and adding a few layers, I work on 1.5GB images that need to get ready for printing onto canvas.
I've been waiting for several months to replace my 2009 Mac Pro (I have 2 of them) with a newer, faster model. I also have 15 external hard drives (eSATA) in bays for image storage, and I run 2 large displays.
I'd like a fast processor and 24 GB of RAM -- and my cc is ready.
Killing the Mac Pro may get me off the Mac list - and I've been a steady user since my IIfx and Photoshop version 2.0 in 1991 --- 20 years of Macs ...
Yes, I love my iPhone and my iPad --- but this is still a computer company, even though they removed the word "computer" from their name.
Kill this rumor now, Apple !!!!!
Isn't it really all about performance and isn't the question not what sort of performance do the consumer desktops provide today but rather what sort of performance the consumer desktops (i.e. the iMac and the Mac Mini) will be providing 18 months from now. After all, Apple still sells the Mac Pro for those who need such a device. It isn't about killing the Mac Pro right now but rather what sort of role would such a machine play in the line-up if 18 months from now iMacs and Mac Minis will be able to offer similar performance, if not better, to the current roster of Mac Pros.
I just finished a video project and while there were hiccups and times when I wish I had more power, my Mac Mini did get the project done using the new Final Cut Pro. I'm running a fully specced Mini with the 2.7 processor, the SD+7200 RPM drives, 8GB of RAM, and Firewire 800 external drive. While some odd stuff was happening, mainly in relation to transitions and titling, I don't know if it was related to the Mini or if the Final Cut software, being relatively new, has some glitches. I can say that processing video on this newer Mini compared to my doing the same sort of work last year (it's for an annual event) using iMovie and a 2,53Ghz Mini, turned out to be substantially different. What the old machine struggled several hours to complete, this new machine pulled off in a matter of minutes.
If the current Mini is a quantum leap ahead of the Minis that came before, surely a year from now we'll have a Mini with some fairly amazing capabilities and two years from now a Mini with the muscle to do rather demanding work. I wasn't able to maximize the capabilities of the existing set-up, either, in that I don't have a Thunderbolt drive in the mix. Also, I had gathered up so much junk that the internal drives were getting close to full when I worked on the video project. No doubt this impacted on how well the Mini could perform.
If it takes two years for the Mini to be upgraded enough to be taken seriously by those who have demanding work to do, even that tells me that it's just not worth it for Apple to sink much time, effort, and money into updating the Mac Pro. Why bother? They can make the existing version available for the next while, maybe drop the price a bit from time to time and when the Mini gains the power to be a legitimate Mac Pro substitute, pull the plug with relative ease. A few folks will grumble at first, even fewer will switch to a PC, and the majority will simply buy a well-equiped Mini instead. Apple's part in this will be to ensure the Mini is up to the task when the Mac Pro is axed. Today it's not but two years from now it probably will be.
Yes it is! Obviously you don't know anything about pro software....
Sure, you can run Adobe Photoshop on some low class computer, like e-machines LOL for example, but it'll take a millennium to accomplish the same thing....
Try to process 256MPx picture on an iMac with only 8GB memory and 2.5" HD. Even if you put an SSD it'll won't work... You also need a great Video card. They will never put anything that good in an iMac, just like they won't put it into a laptop. You don't know anything...
You would lose immediately. Further money would be wasted on court fees.
--I'm cool with that.... It's my money...
Well, if your journey is from Point A, Delusion to Point B, terrible OS' made by someone else, enjoy the ride.
So I'm better off to use great OS with piece of junk hardware? And you're saying that this is the only not delusional way? LOL
So I should get weak (hardwarewise) computer because this maybe the only one that Apple will offer? You know who is buying a lot of iMacs? Just go to a Apple store and look... I see some (not too many) teens and a lot of older people that need to send safely e-mail, without viruses etc. But this isn't a computer for serious post processing of movies or photographs and cameras these days are getting more advanced with more pixels that iMac won't handle. And, i'm not talking about digital photography done by iPhone.
Why are you commenting on something you don't know about?
Just look at BigPhotos post above. He needs computer to process 1.5GB in size picture. Try that on iMac or laptop? Or you'll say that's possible again? Hahahahaha
It's possible to drive car with your feet, you know? I've seen it done.... Won't you try it.
Not a fan of integrated monitors. I could never own an iMac. Mac Pro is the way to go for multiple displays, added storage, ram, expansion cards, multiple optical drives and horsepower!
iMac's and Mini's basically use laptop components. I need workstation power and size!
Pro Video, 3D, Audio and Graphics demand it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Do they? Your opinion says yes. But the facts may say no.
I work for a studio level FX/Annie house and last year we replaced 20 aging Pro based workstations with iMacs and have had no issues. We are replacing the other 30 with iMacs over the next six months. We have a mac mini server running our email. We also have four workstations running a Linux based rendering system. If we could get Mac minis that could handle that load we would.
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.
Apple really needs to address this rumor. This can effect the way whole design/media companies operate.
Even this being a rumor is enough for me to start exploring what my other options are, as I can't afford to go down a dead end, nor can the rest of the media/design industry.
If I lose the Mac Pro, I'm ditching my laptop and everything Apple related as I need my systems to work together on the same OS.
This is coming from someone who had used Apple computers since the Apple ][+. It would be sad to give up 30 years of support, but I have to consider the future. Support from software manufactures that I rely on will drop, particularly in the 3D sector.
Apple, please address this rumor.
I thought some time ago I read that Apple sought to be the BMW of computers. Some of you are aware that there are "regular" BMWs and there are BMW "M" models. The Mac Pros would be analagous to the M series BMWs. Since Apple is unlikely to license OS X to another manufacturer could Apple create a Pro division to create the multi chip machines that people like Mr. Fix and others love? That Pro division could be wholly owned by Apple.
And how about replacing the single chip MP with the X Mac?
Yes and it was a marginal bump. Neither can be found approaching the price of the xeon version though. Speaking of which, when it became clear new processors wouldn't be out for a while, a mid generation bump would have helped sales somewhat with the 6 core coming down to a price that reflects the current cost to build one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So this software magically breaks if you try to install it on anything but a 12-core Xeon?
It is. You've lost. I'm confused why you're even in this.
He's dealing with one of a few things. It could be high resolution digital backs or scanning backs. Either produces a very very very large file toward the top end of what is available. He could be dealing with panoramic stitching which in all fairness takes a huge amount of ram although the newest imacs wouldn't chug as bad as older ones. Many of these programs really don't make efficient use of all the extra cores so the computer will pretty much choke regardless of cpu choice. If he's dealing with really big files 32GB or more of ram might be a requirement for the whole process to not suck. Before these applications were rewritten to 64 bit it was common to raid boot and/or scratch drives to help alleviate the bottleneck there.
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 how can the company maintain a high end image if it drops the high end?
I don't have a real fight in the Mac Pro because it is overkill for my needs. I have been holding out for a mid sized mid range headless Mac while my current Mac just keeps getting older and older.
I look to Apple for my computer needs. Right now that need isn't being met. I'm not about to spend any money on anything else from Apple (wants versus needs) if the need isn't being supplied. There is no halo effect with any of the iDevices without the desktop computer I need.
Sad to think that I was first exposed to Apple over 18 years ago in a professional setting which got me to use Macs for personal use and now Apple is considering throwing professionals under a bus.
He's dealing with one of a few things. It could be high resolution digital backs or scanning backs. Either produces a very very very large file toward the top end of what is available. He could be dealing with panoramic stitching which in all fairness takes a huge amount of ram although the newest imacs wouldn't chug as bad as older ones. Many of these programs really don't make efficient use of all the extra cores so the computer will pretty much choke regardless of cpu choice. If he's dealing with really big files 32GB or more of ram might be a requirement for the whole process to not suck. Before these applications were rewritten to 64 bit it was common to raid boot and/or scratch drives to help alleviate the bottleneck there.
Hmm. All right, fair enough.
I guess I'm more defending the progress of tech rather than the iMac itself. Most arguments against the death of the Mac Pro tend to require the iMac to never receive an update ever again until the end of time.
No serious photographer would ever use an iMac for high-quality image editing. We spend thousands of dollars on monitors that can be profiled and calibrated so the what we see on the screen will match what comes out of our $6,000 printers. I do have iMacs in a classroom - and in an office. But if there are no new, upgraded Mac Pros I will have no alternative than to move to PCs. And, if I do that for the editing studio, I'll probably force everyone else in my little company to make the move to PCs as well just to standardize and train everyone. If it comes to that, I may just retire or find another occupation.
The iPhone company may just be looking at the bottom line - rather than making the world's best tools to do important tasks. That's not the company I just finished reading about in the book on Steve Job's life.
Isn't it really all about performance and isn't the question not what sort of performance do the consumer desktops provide today but rather what sort of performance the consumer desktops (i.e. the iMac and the Mac Mini) will be providing 18 months from now. After all, Apple still sells the Mac Pro for those who need such a device. It isn't about killing the Mac Pro right now but rather what sort of role would such a machine play in the line-up if 18 months from now iMacs and Mac Minis will be able to offer similar performance, if not better, to the current roster of Mac Pros.
I'm using a current 12 core Mac Pro and I have render times of up to 20 minutes a frame, sometimes longer. So I don't want to wait a few years for an iMac or Mac Mini to have the power of what is needed NOW.
If Apple drops the Mac Pro, I'm am switching, and I'm not just switching at the desktop level, I'm switching the whole studio. Then their halo is broken...and when my friends that aren't professionals see me using something other than Apple, they're going to question why they're using it, if the professionals aren't. Consumers always and will continue to want what the professionals/famous people use. That will not be Apple if they kill the Mac Pro. As I will switch within 3 months of that announcement.
Comments
It seems not so long ago that Steve Jobs was comparing Apple's market share in the computer market to the likes of Mercedes Benz in the car market. Both were making cutting edge products that continually redefined their industry, he said, and so it was logical that they wouldn't find mass markets with mid-range consumers and that's just how Apple wanted it. Things have certainly changed since then.
It does seem coldly logical that the Mac Pro, having become a niche offering from a company that now makes most of it's money elsewhere, could go the way of the Dodo. The rules of capitalism dictate that a publicly traded company must seek to maximise profits where it can. But there may be a different type of logic at play.
In every sector of design and innovation there are various strata of product offering. In the car industry the research vehicle begets the executive saloon begets the midsize family car. At each step down the chain the technology becomes less cutting edge but the market gets bigger.
In the fashion world the major fashion houses produce their Haute Couture collections every year. This is where they really flex their creative muscles and let design and innovation trump economics. The clothes that are made are cutting edge, yet they only sell to a few well heeled inhabitants of New York, London, Paris, Milan. These clothes, painstakingly made and expensively showcased, are what build the reputation of brands like Chanel and Gucci. There is a trickle down effect of cool. Few of us will ever wear Alexander McQueen or John Galliano, but within a couple of seasons, the clothes we do buy will be inspired by their work at the haute couture level.
In the case of Apple, there are huge reputational dividends to be derived from making the best computers in the world, even if these machines are only used by a relatively niche audience of filmmakers, architects, 3D artists, graphics designers, photographers etc. The Mac Pro, like a bespoke suit or an S-Class Mercedes, cannot be for everyone, but can be Apple's premium offering, a showcase for the best of it's engineering prowess.
It remains to be seen whether a post Jobs Apple has any real interest in making the best computers in the world, or whether the dropping of the world 'computer' from the company's name will come to be seen as prescient.
Recommending an iMac as a Pro replacement just indicates you have no idea what the machine is used for.
Most people I know who have ever owned a Mac Pro have eventually replaced it with a Mac Mini, when a new Mini became available that was faster than the older Mac Pro. The only exceptions are those who buy a new Mac Pro every year because they need the fastest Mac available and load it up with lots of RAM. I don't know anyone who has replaced a Mac Pro with an iMac, but I'm sure some people have done so.
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
It looks like you forgot those who need the CPU performance. One example of such users would be those doing simulations (of just about anything). My guess is the main reasons users buy a Mac Pro is either for the CPU performance or because they need more RAM than an iMac can handle.
http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/...ifeMacPro.html
Even this being a rumor is enough for me to start exploring what my other options are, as I can't afford to go down a dead end, nor can the rest of the media/design industry.
If I lose the Mac Pro, I'm ditching my laptop and everything Apple related as I need my systems to work together on the same OS.
This is coming from someone who had used Apple computers since the Apple ][+. It would be sad to give up 30 years of support, but I have to consider the future. Support from software manufactures that I rely on will drop, particularly in the 3D sector.
Apple, please address this rumor.
I've been waiting for several months to replace my 2009 Mac Pro (I have 2 of them) with a newer, faster model. I also have 15 external hard drives (eSATA) in bays for image storage, and I run 2 large displays.
I'd like a fast processor and 24 GB of RAM -- and my cc is ready.
Killing the Mac Pro may get me off the Mac list - and I've been a steady user since my IIfx and Photoshop version 2.0 in 1991 --- 20 years of Macs ...
Yes, I love my iPhone and my iPad --- but this is still a computer company, even though they removed the word "computer" from their name.
Kill this rumor now, Apple !!!!!
Please reconsider and i am sure you will find a reason or two not to.
You had a IIfx - the dream machine of it's time? I hate you!
Yes, 1991. A Mac IIfx - and a 16" color monitor. We had a "true" digital camera on my microscope - with a Peltier cooling unit and lots of SCSI cables. The camera weighed about 4 pounds - was 1 Megapixel - and it was black and white only. The camera cost over $20,000 ..... We ran Photoshop version 2.0 - which came in a big box with a dozen floppy disks.
Those were challenging, but fun-filled days.
I run a professional photography studio - and use a huge camera system that is 245 MP - producing 600 MB images. After upsizing to 40X60 inches and adding a few layers, I work on 1.5GB images that need to get ready for printing onto canvas.
I've been waiting for several months to replace my 2009 Mac Pro (I have 2 of them) with a newer, faster model. I also have 15 external hard drives (eSATA) in bays for image storage, and I run 2 large displays.
I'd like a fast processor and 24 GB of RAM -- and my cc is ready.
Killing the Mac Pro may get me off the Mac list - and I've been a steady user since my IIfx and Photoshop version 2.0 in 1991 --- 20 years of Macs ...
Yes, I love my iPhone and my iPad --- but this is still a computer company, even though they removed the word "computer" from their name.
Kill this rumor now, Apple !!!!!
Isn't it really all about performance and isn't the question not what sort of performance do the consumer desktops provide today but rather what sort of performance the consumer desktops (i.e. the iMac and the Mac Mini) will be providing 18 months from now. After all, Apple still sells the Mac Pro for those who need such a device. It isn't about killing the Mac Pro right now but rather what sort of role would such a machine play in the line-up if 18 months from now iMacs and Mac Minis will be able to offer similar performance, if not better, to the current roster of Mac Pros.
I just finished a video project and while there were hiccups and times when I wish I had more power, my Mac Mini did get the project done using the new Final Cut Pro. I'm running a fully specced Mini with the 2.7 processor, the SD+7200 RPM drives, 8GB of RAM, and Firewire 800 external drive. While some odd stuff was happening, mainly in relation to transitions and titling, I don't know if it was related to the Mini or if the Final Cut software, being relatively new, has some glitches. I can say that processing video on this newer Mini compared to my doing the same sort of work last year (it's for an annual event) using iMovie and a 2,53Ghz Mini, turned out to be substantially different. What the old machine struggled several hours to complete, this new machine pulled off in a matter of minutes.
If the current Mini is a quantum leap ahead of the Minis that came before, surely a year from now we'll have a Mini with some fairly amazing capabilities and two years from now a Mini with the muscle to do rather demanding work. I wasn't able to maximize the capabilities of the existing set-up, either, in that I don't have a Thunderbolt drive in the mix. Also, I had gathered up so much junk that the internal drives were getting close to full when I worked on the video project. No doubt this impacted on how well the Mini could perform.
If it takes two years for the Mini to be upgraded enough to be taken seriously by those who have demanding work to do, even that tells me that it's just not worth it for Apple to sink much time, effort, and money into updating the Mac Pro. Why bother? They can make the existing version available for the next while, maybe drop the price a bit from time to time and when the Mini gains the power to be a legitimate Mac Pro substitute, pull the plug with relative ease. A few folks will grumble at first, even fewer will switch to a PC, and the majority will simply buy a well-equiped Mini instead. Apple's part in this will be to ensure the Mini is up to the task when the Mac Pro is axed. Today it's not but two years from now it probably will be.
That's not really possible.
Yes it is! Obviously you don't know anything about pro software....
Sure, you can run Adobe Photoshop on some low class computer, like e-machines LOL for example, but it'll take a millennium to accomplish the same thing....
Try to process 256MPx picture on an iMac with only 8GB memory and 2.5" HD. Even if you put an SSD it'll won't work... You also need a great Video card. They will never put anything that good in an iMac, just like they won't put it into a laptop. You don't know anything...
You would lose immediately. Further money would be wasted on court fees.
--I'm cool with that.... It's my money...
Well, if your journey is from Point A, Delusion to Point B, terrible OS' made by someone else, enjoy the ride.
So I'm better off to use great OS with piece of junk hardware? And you're saying that this is the only not delusional way? LOL
So I should get weak (hardwarewise) computer because this maybe the only one that Apple will offer? You know who is buying a lot of iMacs? Just go to a Apple store and look... I see some (not too many) teens and a lot of older people that need to send safely e-mail, without viruses etc. But this isn't a computer for serious post processing of movies or photographs and cameras these days are getting more advanced with more pixels that iMac won't handle. And, i'm not talking about digital photography done by iPhone.
Why are you commenting on something you don't know about?
Just look at BigPhotos post above. He needs computer to process 1.5GB in size picture. Try that on iMac or laptop? Or you'll say that's possible again? Hahahahaha
It's possible to drive car with your feet, you know? I've seen it done.... Won't you try it.
iMac's and Mini's basically use laptop components. I need workstation power and size!
Pro Video, 3D, Audio and Graphics demand it!
Do they? Your opinion says yes. But the facts may say no.
I work for a studio level FX/Annie house and last year we replaced 20 aging Pro based workstations with iMacs and have had no issues. We are replacing the other 30 with iMacs over the next six months. We have a mac mini server running our email. We also have four workstations running a Linux based rendering system. If we could get Mac minis that could handle that load we would.
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.
Apple really needs to address this rumor. This can effect the way whole design/media companies operate.
Even this being a rumor is enough for me to start exploring what my other options are, as I can't afford to go down a dead end, nor can the rest of the media/design industry.
If I lose the Mac Pro, I'm ditching my laptop and everything Apple related as I need my systems to work together on the same OS.
This is coming from someone who had used Apple computers since the Apple ][+. It would be sad to give up 30 years of support, but I have to consider the future. Support from software manufactures that I rely on will drop, particularly in the 3D sector.
Apple, please address this rumor.
I thought some time ago I read that Apple sought to be the BMW of computers. Some of you are aware that there are "regular" BMWs and there are BMW "M" models. The Mac Pros would be analagous to the M series BMWs. Since Apple is unlikely to license OS X to another manufacturer could Apple create a Pro division to create the multi chip machines that people like Mr. Fix and others love? That Pro division could be wholly owned by Apple.
And how about replacing the single chip MP with the X Mac?
Just my $0.02
So I'm better off to use great OS with piece of junk hardware? And you're saying that this is the only not delusional way? LOL
So this software magically breaks if you try to install it on anything but a 12-core Xeon?
cameras these days are getting more advanced with more pixels that iMac won't handle.
Try that on iMac or laptop? Or you'll say that's possible again? Hahahahaha
It is. You've lost. I'm confused why you're even in this.
Talk to Intel. Apple doesn't set prices on chips.
Bleh one of the older posts but even if intel gave the chips away free, I doubt the starting price of the mac pro would drop by much if at all.
@hmm
The i7-980X was followed by the i7-990X
Yes and it was a marginal bump. Neither can be found approaching the price of the xeon version though. Speaking of which, when it became clear new processors wouldn't be out for a while, a mid generation bump would have helped sales somewhat with the 6 core coming down to a price that reflects the current cost to build one.
So this software magically breaks if you try to install it on anything but a 12-core Xeon?
It is. You've lost. I'm confused why you're even in this.
He's dealing with one of a few things. It could be high resolution digital backs or scanning backs. Either produces a very very very large file toward the top end of what is available. He could be dealing with panoramic stitching which in all fairness takes a huge amount of ram although the newest imacs wouldn't chug as bad as older ones. Many of these programs really don't make efficient use of all the extra cores so the computer will pretty much choke regardless of cpu choice. If he's dealing with really big files 32GB or more of ram might be a requirement for the whole process to not suck. Before these applications were rewritten to 64 bit it was common to raid boot and/or scratch drives to help alleviate the bottleneck there.
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 how can the company maintain a high end image if it drops the high end?
I don't have a real fight in the Mac Pro because it is overkill for my needs. I have been holding out for a mid sized mid range headless Mac while my current Mac just keeps getting older and older.
I look to Apple for my computer needs. Right now that need isn't being met. I'm not about to spend any money on anything else from Apple (wants versus needs) if the need isn't being supplied. There is no halo effect with any of the iDevices without the desktop computer I need.
Sad to think that I was first exposed to Apple over 18 years ago in a professional setting which got me to use Macs for personal use and now Apple is considering throwing professionals under a bus.
He's dealing with one of a few things. It could be high resolution digital backs or scanning backs. Either produces a very very very large file toward the top end of what is available. He could be dealing with panoramic stitching which in all fairness takes a huge amount of ram although the newest imacs wouldn't chug as bad as older ones. Many of these programs really don't make efficient use of all the extra cores so the computer will pretty much choke regardless of cpu choice. If he's dealing with really big files 32GB or more of ram might be a requirement for the whole process to not suck. Before these applications were rewritten to 64 bit it was common to raid boot and/or scratch drives to help alleviate the bottleneck there.
Hmm. All right, fair enough.
I guess I'm more defending the progress of tech rather than the iMac itself. Most arguments against the death of the Mac Pro tend to require the iMac to never receive an update ever again until the end of time.
The iPhone company may just be looking at the bottom line - rather than making the world's best tools to do important tasks. That's not the company I just finished reading about in the book on Steve Job's life.
Isn't it really all about performance and isn't the question not what sort of performance do the consumer desktops provide today but rather what sort of performance the consumer desktops (i.e. the iMac and the Mac Mini) will be providing 18 months from now. After all, Apple still sells the Mac Pro for those who need such a device. It isn't about killing the Mac Pro right now but rather what sort of role would such a machine play in the line-up if 18 months from now iMacs and Mac Minis will be able to offer similar performance, if not better, to the current roster of Mac Pros.
I'm using a current 12 core Mac Pro and I have render times of up to 20 minutes a frame, sometimes longer. So I don't want to wait a few years for an iMac or Mac Mini to have the power of what is needed NOW.
If Apple drops the Mac Pro, I'm am switching, and I'm not just switching at the desktop level, I'm switching the whole studio. Then their halo is broken...and when my friends that aren't professionals see me using something other than Apple, they're going to question why they're using it, if the professionals aren't. Consumers always and will continue to want what the professionals/famous people use. That will not be Apple if they kill the Mac Pro. As I will switch within 3 months of that announcement.