I think the time to pass judgement here is faster the Mac Pros replacement comes out. Yes I do think it will be replaced as the platform is Basicaly a relic of the 80's.
I suspect the Mac Pro is dead! They are likely trying to build a machine that will actually sell and at the same time support a wider array of users. I know this freaks many Pro users out but the big towers of the past are not the way of the future. It won't be more than a year to a year and a half before a rather credible power users platform will come on a single SoC with RAM and a few support chips.
If it has similar functionality, people will buy it. What becomes annoying is when you're severely short on ports, short on places to plug a display, short on internal storage, etc. Personally I don't care how they look. Raw power is another matter where your needs may vary.
[QUOTE=wizard69;2077419]It always amazes me that these things get spun positively for Intel while the same problems at AMD result in a public lashing. What is evempn more perplexing is that AMDs far better integrated GPUs would be ideal for many Apple hardware users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Not that Sandy Bridge E processors don't have a place in this world, just that they aren't critical to every need out there. The other thing here is that Ivy Bridge E processors probably don't offer a lotto justify deployment. After all most of the development effort for Ivy Bridge went into the GPU.
They're upping the core count again at the top end much like they did with Westmere. Their workstation gpus come out later most of the time, and they most likely carry higher margins. I do find this kind of weird. It could be like Westmere where they only release a limited selection under Ivy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Intel could easily skip Ivy Bridge E in preference for the improved cores of Hazwell. Outside of the GPU Ivy Bridge doesn't offer a lot.
Even if they did that, they'd likely have some dead time anyway. It's somewhat expected for these things to come later in the year, but being a cpu generation behind the lower models is a bit weird going into the tock generations. Schedules can end up being pushed back, but everything they've released so far doesn't show them making up this time anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
The iMac is the best AIO out there. But Apple cream the specs...and do outrageous upsell. I think the top end iMac is a dream machine for me. Your mileage may vary. I think it looks like a work of art on my desk. I bought mine in a sale. Good screen. Decent GPU (again, it was a top end model...but why only a decent gpu on the top end model?) and CPU. I'd tear your arm off for a 27 inch iMac with that Ati GPU with 2 gigs of vram. It has most of the power I need. But I don't need to simulate weather I guess or do week long renders.
Violence is unnecessary. It's just a computer. The gpu in that thing is actually quite expensive. GPUs are an area where they can never be too fast for me or have too good of drivers. OpenGL lag has a distinct way of annoying me as it makes it even more difficult for me to maintain focus (and I'm already scatter-brained).
If I hadn't seen certain issues (especially long terms issues, like second year type problems) I'd like the display. I'd still want an accessible hard drive. By the way, did they ever fix the thing where thunderbolt target disk mode was horrible?
Kind of what I was getting at re apple desktops. Ie if it hasn't happened now, will it ever?
Does any of it fit in with their hardware/design/money churn philosophy?
Shouldn't we be able to use most any CPU or GPu in a pro by now? Can't apple just sell us the case?
Are Apple's desktops now merely evolutionary with the pro looking ever more he odd one out and vulnerable because of it?
Lemon Bon Bon.
I think we should be able to use any graphics card on the Pro. Also, I think that possibility would increase the sales of the Pro. Why don't Apple just let the GPU makers make drivers for OSX like they already do for Windows? Apple already left Java for Oracle to deploy. The same could happen to GPU drivers. The number of GPUs available for the Pro these days are just silly and extremely overpriced!
I think we should be able to use any graphics card on the Pro. Also, I think that possibility would increase the sales of the Pro. Why don't Apple just let the GPU makers make drivers for OSX like they already do for Windows? Apple already left Java for Oracle to deploy. The same could happen to GPU drivers. The number of GPUs available for the Pro these days are just silly and extremely overpriced!
Haven't you noticed, the entire Mac Pro is overpriced.
Haven't you noticed, the entire Mac Pro is overpriced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Nope. Because it isn't.
There's two answers to that:
1 - The entry model is indeed overpriced. Too much money for a single processor machine and is a Xeon processor really needed for the lower model? They should replace it with a good core i7. I don't know how much different the performance would be.
2- The 2 processors model it's not so overpriced. It's a Pro workstation. Performance, reliability and build quality all have their higher price attached. It's far expensive putting 2 already expensive processors, a more expensive motherboard and so on.
Of course I would like them to be not so "overpriced" but that's what we have...
Historically, the G3 line of towers was wayyyyy more affordable.
Even the G4 line comparably so.
The G5 hitched it's skirt up even higher...
...and the 2008 on prices have seen nary a single Pro tower under £2000.
Overpriced?
Historically, there was even an entry G5 model at £995. (Shock. I know...) Except even at that it had crap specs and was poor value. But it stands as record that Apple can offer a tower at a sane price.
But it sure made the current entry model look like the embarrassment of riches that it is.
Let's try the 'real world' outside of the Apple space time continuum...
"We're now a consumer company...so let's price the Mac Pro as a p*ss taking museum piece. That way nobody will buy it...we can kill it and focus on iOS and laptops."
The good news is that the Mini was rumoured to be killed.
I bet 1 banana that the Pro gets a stay of execution...a price hike and sales will surge into single figures.
I think we should be able to use any graphics card on the Pro. Also, I think that possibility would increase the sales of the Pro. Why don't Apple just let the GPU makers make drivers for OSX like they already do for Windows? Apple already left Java for Oracle to deploy. The same could happen to GPU drivers. The number of GPUs available for the Pro these days are just silly and extremely overpriced!
If Apple can approve Apps at a record clip...why can't they approve submitted drivers for OS X?
Maybe they don't want a 3rd party gpu market. It makes Pros...uhm...eh...er...upgradeable? And that's not the point of the Pro...oh wait...
I think your idea...well...it's a good idea. Well. I think...but I have to question what goes through Apple's mind when they don't get why the Pro isn't selling. Sure, it's not just down to it being massively overpriced and having 2 year out of date internals which make it exceptional value for money. :PP But I can't see your idea getting past Apple's control freakery.
The cpu upgrade market, the clone market and the gpu 3rd party market. Encouraged by Apple? Or knifed in it's crib?
How many Apple machines can you barely get into? Why does it cost you £2000+ to get into the 'tinker with it' club?
Is it difficult for Apple to support a range of 5 motherboards, 5 GPUs from ATI and Nvidia, 5 cpus from AMD and Intel. Not as many as the wintel market...but enough to give a bit more choice to but small enough to keep things stable? Geeze. Apple only has a few gpus to support for a new round of updates and even they have their problems. Perish the thought if they added a few more to the mix.
That last paragraph. I wrote it. But don't ever see it flying with Apple's lockdown abc approach to upsell marketing.
I think they'd sooner kill the Pro than offer it for anything less than a thorough eye gauging.
I'm still looking forward to the next Pro update though.
I give them two months to announce end of life for the Mac Pro. It's a dead horse. Hp's z series is the real option for an expandable computer. Have you seen their all in one Z1?
I give them two months to announce end of life for the Mac Pro. It's a dead horse. Hp's z series is the real option for an expandable computer. Have you seen their all in one Z1?
I have. And I have to say I'm impressed.
If they're going to 'can' the Pro line then I'd like to see an iMac Pro line like this with Xeons and Quadros. If HP (a PC division that was about to be spun off) can do it...why not Apple.
They could give the standard iMac line a price cut and introduce a Pro iMac where the mid to high end is now. Boom. You get your expandable iMac.
They even made the point about the z taking up less space.
Really impressed with the access the z allows. They've actually thought about it.
It's a gauntlet down to Apple as far as I'm concerned. Apple are doing sealed units.
I'm loathe to give HP any credit. But credit where it's due.
Apple's desktop line does need a little more thought. More spec. A price cut and a touch more innovation.
If they're going to 'can' the Pro line then I'd like to see an iMac Pro line like this with Xeons and Quadros. If HP (a PC division that was about to be spun off) can do it...why not Apple.
They could give the standard iMac line a price cut and introduce a Pro iMac where the mid to high end is now. Boom. You get your expandable iMac.
They even made the point about the z taking up less space.
Really impressed with the access the z allows. They've actually thought about it.
It's a gauntlet down to Apple as far as I'm concerned. Apple are doing sealed units.
I'm loathe to give HP any credit. But credit where it's due.
Apple's desktop line does need a little more thought. More spec. A price cut and a touch more innovation.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Yes, I really love my 2008 dual quad core, and am still hoping for at least one more refresh, but the fact that there are absolutely no creditable rumors, Tim Cook's speech about the post PC era, and no announcements after Intels release, tells me they want this thing dead. It's funny how they can't pull their heads out of the iPad, and iPhone long enough to even see whats going on around them. If I have to I may end up maxing out the 2.93 12 core with the 5870, and install my own ram. I just have to much invested in Mac software It really hurts though to spend that much money on old technology. I'll give then 8 more weeks I guess.
It's funny how they can't pull their heads out of the iPad, and iPhone long enough to even see whats going on around them.
While I feel your pain, if you were making most of your revenue from two product categories, and a tiny and diminishing amount of revenue from a third product category, which would you invest in?
While I feel your pain, if you were making most of your revenue from two product categories, and a tiny and diminishing amount of revenue from a third product category, which would you invest in?
If I had the kind of money Apple has, I would certainly not stick it to the professionals who supported them for all these years. I mean come on, to keep the pro line alive for Apple is no big deal. They would save face with HP, Dell, and Apple's own customers. If they dropped the pro line a lot of people would be very upset. Do you think that public relations nightmare is worth it? Besides it does make them money. Sure not like the iPad, but then it doesn't cost $800.00. What they need to do is possibly change the form factor, and lower the cost.
Yes, I really love my 2008 dual quad core, and am still hoping for at least one more refresh, but the fact that there are absolutely no creditable rumors, Tim Cook's speech about the post PC era, and no announcements after Intels release, tells me they want this thing dead. It's funny how they can't pull their heads out of the iPad, and iPhone long enough to even see whats going on around them. If I have to I may end up maxing out the 2.93 12 core with the 5870, and install my own ram. I just have to much invested in Mac software It really hurts though to spend that much money on old technology. I'll give then 8 more weeks I guess.
The 5870 is just a bit older (but not much) when compared to most of the popular workstation grade cards on the Windows side. I think the most comparable workstation version would have been a Firepro V7800 when comparing raw hardware, but the drivers are considerably different. NVidia Quadros always seem to remain higher in popularity there.
Not all of the other manufacturers have mentioned the total sum of their intended updates, or when they'll be available. Apple usually announces closer to when they're shipping. Anyway you are really over thinking this. Apple could be somewhat more proactive in the situation, but Intel really seems to be going toward very long refresh cycles on this cpu line. I'm not sure if they're running into difficulties from the continuous die shrink cycles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony3d
If I had the kind of money Apple has, I would certainly not stick it to the professionals who supported them for all these years. I mean come on, to keep the pro line alive for Apple is no big deal. They would save face with HP, Dell, and Apple's own customers. If they dropped the pro line a lot of people would be very upset. Do you think that public relations nightmare is worth it? Besides it does make them money. Sure not like the iPad, but then it doesn't cost $800.00. What they need to do is possibly change the form factor, and lower the cost.
Again you are blowing this out of proportion. Apple does have some annoying habits, and they market these as workstations even though they're missing a couple typical workstation features to justify higher markups, but you're building this up in your head here. You got caught in an awkward refresh cycle, and if you were using a Windows PC built with the same cpu type, you would still be waiting. Rather than speculating, you should figure out what your costs would be on sidegrades if you're debating switching platforms. It can be anything from full retail to nothing depending on what you run, and sometimes companies do offer discounts if you are switching from a competing product (in case you're switching out something like FCPX).
As I said, I feel your pain. And I hope that Apple does update the MP, even though I'm not a user.
But:
It takes a lot of money to re-engineer something like the Mac Pro - the case, cooling, power supply, etc. And that money has to be recouped through sales - Apple has shown it is not going to invest money in items that lose money. Without knowing the financials around the MP, it's impossible to say if it makes money, loses money, breaks even, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony3d
If I had the kind of money Apple has, I would certainly not stick it to the professionals who supported them for all these years. I mean come on, to keep the pro line alive for Apple is no big deal. They would save face with HP, Dell, and Apple's own customers. If they dropped the pro line a lot of people would be very upset. Do you think that public relations nightmare is worth it? Besides it does make them money. Sure not like the iPad, but then it doesn't cost $800.00. What they need to do is possibly change the form factor, and lower the cost.
Sorry, but I just don't buy it. Apple has tons of cash. They would have no problem at all financing another MP refresh, and lets not forget the fact that it does make them many millions of dollars. I'm sure there sales were on pare with HP. at least 90%of the people I deal with in my industry are using Mac Pros.
I wonder how many mac pros apple could give away for 45 billion instead of giving said money to shareholders?
Seriously... Your average pc company selling towers on razor margins can sell towers with up to date specs, more ram an up to date GPu. I don't see dropping in some new parts being expensive development. Even a redeveloped pro compact? *shrugs.
Hp probably sell towers on less margins than apple. They're showing a bit with the z all in one.
Apple sell pros with xeons in. We're waiting for the sandy bridge chip.
So I wouldn't panic just yet. If it hasn't been updated by next year? It's dead.
Comments
I think the time to pass judgement here is faster the Mac Pros replacement comes out. Yes I do think it will be replaced as the platform is Basicaly a relic of the 80's.
I suspect the Mac Pro is dead! They are likely trying to build a machine that will actually sell and at the same time support a wider array of users. I know this freaks many Pro users out but the big towers of the past are not the way of the future. It won't be more than a year to a year and a half before a rather credible power users platform will come on a single SoC with RAM and a few support chips.
If it has similar functionality, people will buy it. What becomes annoying is when you're severely short on ports, short on places to plug a display, short on internal storage, etc. Personally I don't care how they look. Raw power is another matter where your needs may vary.
[QUOTE=wizard69;2077419]It always amazes me that these things get spun positively for Intel while the same problems at AMD result in a public lashing. What is evempn more perplexing is that AMDs far better integrated GPUs would be ideal for many Apple hardware users.
Not that Sandy Bridge E processors don't have a place in this world, just that they aren't critical to every need out there. The other thing here is that Ivy Bridge E processors probably don't offer a lotto justify deployment. After all most of the development effort for Ivy Bridge went into the GPU.
They're upping the core count again at the top end much like they did with Westmere. Their workstation gpus come out later most of the time, and they most likely carry higher margins. I do find this kind of weird. It could be like Westmere where they only release a limited selection under Ivy.
Intel could easily skip Ivy Bridge E in preference for the improved cores of Hazwell. Outside of the GPU Ivy Bridge doesn't offer a lot.
Even if they did that, they'd likely have some dead time anyway. It's somewhat expected for these things to come later in the year, but being a cpu generation behind the lower models is a bit weird going into the tock generations. Schedules can end up being pushed back, but everything they've released so far doesn't show them making up this time anywhere.
The iMac is the best AIO out there. But Apple cream the specs...and do outrageous upsell. I think the top end iMac is a dream machine for me. Your mileage may vary. I think it looks like a work of art on my desk. I bought mine in a sale. Good screen. Decent GPU (again, it was a top end model...but why only a decent gpu on the top end model?) and CPU. I'd tear your arm off for a 27 inch iMac with that Ati GPU with 2 gigs of vram. It has most of the power I need. But I don't need to simulate weather I guess or do week long renders.
Violence is unnecessary
If I hadn't seen certain issues (especially long terms issues, like second year type problems) I'd like the display. I'd still want an accessible hard drive. By the way, did they ever fix the thing where thunderbolt target disk mode was horrible?
Kind of what I was getting at re apple desktops. Ie if it hasn't happened now, will it ever?
Does any of it fit in with their hardware/design/money churn philosophy?
Shouldn't we be able to use most any CPU or GPu in a pro by now? Can't apple just sell us the case?
Are Apple's desktops now merely evolutionary with the pro looking ever more he odd one out and vulnerable because of it?
Lemon Bon Bon.
I think we should be able to use any graphics card on the Pro. Also, I think that possibility would increase the sales of the Pro. Why don't Apple just let the GPU makers make drivers for OSX like they already do for Windows? Apple already left Java for Oracle to deploy. The same could happen to GPU drivers. The number of GPUs available for the Pro these days are just silly and extremely overpriced!
I think we should be able to use any graphics card on the Pro. Also, I think that possibility would increase the sales of the Pro. Why don't Apple just let the GPU makers make drivers for OSX like they already do for Windows? Apple already left Java for Oracle to deploy. The same could happen to GPU drivers. The number of GPUs available for the Pro these days are just silly and extremely overpriced!
Haven't you noticed, the entire Mac Pro is overpriced.
Haven't you noticed, the entire Mac Pro is overpriced.
Nope. Because it isn't.
Haven't you noticed, the entire Mac Pro is overpriced.
Nope. Because it isn't.
There's two answers to that:
1 - The entry model is indeed overpriced. Too much money for a single processor machine and is a Xeon processor really needed for the lower model? They should replace it with a good core i7. I don't know how much different the performance would be.
2- The 2 processors model it's not so overpriced. It's a Pro workstation. Performance, reliability and build quality all have their higher price attached. It's far expensive putting 2 already expensive processors, a more expensive motherboard and so on.
Of course I would like them to be not so "overpriced" but that's what we have...
Even the G4 line comparably so.
The G5 hitched it's skirt up even higher...
...and the 2008 on prices have seen nary a single Pro tower under £2000.
Overpriced?
Historically, there was even an entry G5 model at £995. (Shock. I know...) Except even at that it had crap specs and was poor value. But it stands as record that Apple can offer a tower at a sane price.
But it sure made the current entry model look like the embarrassment of riches that it is.
Let's try the 'real world' outside of the Apple space time continuum...
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...d=2051&subcat=
Hmm. That gets us a nice starting bundle...just a case, gpu and a hard drive...
...let me try again...
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...40&subcat=1444
Nice gpu....
There's even a 'Bulldozer' in there for Wizard...
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=FS-216-OE
Alot of ram...
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...40&subcat=1270
...that's a decent price.
Mac Pro, with 3 gigs of ram and an out of date gpu with a so-so quad core starting at over £2000 smackers? ...with nearly 2 year old specs?
It's not over priced. It's daylight robbery.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I guess the previous update to the latter was 'too good' in terms of value for money. Couldn't have that...more people would buy them.
Lemon Bon Bon.
"We're now a consumer company...so let's price the Mac Pro as a p*ss taking museum piece. That way nobody will buy it...we can kill it and focus on iOS and laptops."
The good news is that the Mini was rumoured to be killed.
I bet 1 banana that the Pro gets a stay of execution...a price hike and sales will surge into single figures.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Haven't you noticed, the entire Mac Pro is overpriced.
*waves. Me, me, me! I noticed!!!
Lemon Bon Bon.
I think we should be able to use any graphics card on the Pro. Also, I think that possibility would increase the sales of the Pro. Why don't Apple just let the GPU makers make drivers for OSX like they already do for Windows? Apple already left Java for Oracle to deploy. The same could happen to GPU drivers. The number of GPUs available for the Pro these days are just silly and extremely overpriced!
If Apple can approve Apps at a record clip...why can't they approve submitted drivers for OS X?
Maybe they don't want a 3rd party gpu market. It makes Pros...uhm...eh...er...upgradeable? And that's not the point of the Pro...oh wait...
I think your idea...well...it's a good idea. Well. I think...but I have to question what goes through Apple's mind when they don't get why the Pro isn't selling. Sure, it's not just down to it being massively overpriced and having 2 year out of date internals which make it exceptional value for money. :PP But I can't see your idea getting past Apple's control freakery.
The cpu upgrade market, the clone market and the gpu 3rd party market. Encouraged by Apple? Or knifed in it's crib?
How many Apple machines can you barely get into? Why does it cost you £2000+ to get into the 'tinker with it' club?
Is it difficult for Apple to support a range of 5 motherboards, 5 GPUs from ATI and Nvidia, 5 cpus from AMD and Intel. Not as many as the wintel market...but enough to give a bit more choice to but small enough to keep things stable? Geeze. Apple only has a few gpus to support for a new round of updates and even they have their problems. Perish the thought if they added a few more to the mix.
That last paragraph. I wrote it. But don't ever see it flying with Apple's lockdown abc approach to upsell marketing.
I think they'd sooner kill the Pro than offer it for anything less than a thorough eye gauging.
I'm still looking forward to the next Pro update though.
'Hope springs eternal?'
Lemon Bon Bon.
I give them two months to announce end of life for the Mac Pro. It's a dead horse. Hp's z series is the real option for an expandable computer. Have you seen their all in one Z1?
I have. And I have to say I'm impressed.
If they're going to 'can' the Pro line then I'd like to see an iMac Pro line like this with Xeons and Quadros. If HP (a PC division that was about to be spun off) can do it...why not Apple.
They could give the standard iMac line a price cut and introduce a Pro iMac where the mid to high end is now. Boom. You get your expandable iMac.
They even made the point about the z taking up less space.
Really impressed with the access the z allows. They've actually thought about it.
It's a gauntlet down to Apple as far as I'm concerned. Apple are doing sealed units.
I'm loathe to give HP any credit. But credit where it's due.
Apple's desktop line does need a little more thought. More spec. A price cut and a touch more innovation.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I have. And I have to say I'm impressed.
If they're going to 'can' the Pro line then I'd like to see an iMac Pro line like this with Xeons and Quadros. If HP (a PC division that was about to be spun off) can do it...why not Apple.
They could give the standard iMac line a price cut and introduce a Pro iMac where the mid to high end is now. Boom. You get your expandable iMac.
They even made the point about the z taking up less space.
Really impressed with the access the z allows. They've actually thought about it.
It's a gauntlet down to Apple as far as I'm concerned. Apple are doing sealed units.
I'm loathe to give HP any credit. But credit where it's due.
Apple's desktop line does need a little more thought. More spec. A price cut and a touch more innovation.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Yes, I really love my 2008 dual quad core, and am still hoping for at least one more refresh, but the fact that there are absolutely no creditable rumors, Tim Cook's speech about the post PC era, and no announcements after Intels release, tells me they want this thing dead. It's funny how they can't pull their heads out of the iPad, and iPhone long enough to even see whats going on around them. If I have to I may end up maxing out the 2.93 12 core with the 5870, and install my own ram. I just have to much invested in Mac software It really hurts though to spend that much money on old technology. I'll give then 8 more weeks I guess.
It's funny how they can't pull their heads out of the iPad, and iPhone long enough to even see whats going on around them.
While I feel your pain, if you were making most of your revenue from two product categories, and a tiny and diminishing amount of revenue from a third product category, which would you invest in?
While I feel your pain, if you were making most of your revenue from two product categories, and a tiny and diminishing amount of revenue from a third product category, which would you invest in?
If I had the kind of money Apple has, I would certainly not stick it to the professionals who supported them for all these years. I mean come on, to keep the pro line alive for Apple is no big deal. They would save face with HP, Dell, and Apple's own customers. If they dropped the pro line a lot of people would be very upset. Do you think that public relations nightmare is worth it? Besides it does make them money. Sure not like the iPad, but then it doesn't cost $800.00. What they need to do is possibly change the form factor, and lower the cost.
Yes, I really love my 2008 dual quad core, and am still hoping for at least one more refresh, but the fact that there are absolutely no creditable rumors, Tim Cook's speech about the post PC era, and no announcements after Intels release, tells me they want this thing dead. It's funny how they can't pull their heads out of the iPad, and iPhone long enough to even see whats going on around them. If I have to I may end up maxing out the 2.93 12 core with the 5870, and install my own ram. I just have to much invested in Mac software It really hurts though to spend that much money on old technology. I'll give then 8 more weeks I guess.
The 5870 is just a bit older (but not much) when compared to most of the popular workstation grade cards on the Windows side. I think the most comparable workstation version would have been a Firepro V7800 when comparing raw hardware, but the drivers are considerably different. NVidia Quadros always seem to remain higher in popularity there.
Not all of the other manufacturers have mentioned the total sum of their intended updates, or when they'll be available. Apple usually announces closer to when they're shipping. Anyway you are really over thinking this. Apple could be somewhat more proactive in the situation, but Intel really seems to be going toward very long refresh cycles on this cpu line. I'm not sure if they're running into difficulties from the continuous die shrink cycles.
If I had the kind of money Apple has, I would certainly not stick it to the professionals who supported them for all these years. I mean come on, to keep the pro line alive for Apple is no big deal. They would save face with HP, Dell, and Apple's own customers. If they dropped the pro line a lot of people would be very upset. Do you think that public relations nightmare is worth it? Besides it does make them money. Sure not like the iPad, but then it doesn't cost $800.00. What they need to do is possibly change the form factor, and lower the cost.
Again you are blowing this out of proportion. Apple does have some annoying habits, and they market these as workstations even though they're missing a couple typical workstation features to justify higher markups, but you're building this up in your head here. You got caught in an awkward refresh cycle, and if you were using a Windows PC built with the same cpu type, you would still be waiting. Rather than speculating, you should figure out what your costs would be on sidegrades if you're debating switching platforms. It can be anything from full retail to nothing depending on what you run, and sometimes companies do offer discounts if you are switching from a competing product (in case you're switching out something like FCPX).
But:
It takes a lot of money to re-engineer something like the Mac Pro - the case, cooling, power supply, etc. And that money has to be recouped through sales - Apple has shown it is not going to invest money in items that lose money. Without knowing the financials around the MP, it's impossible to say if it makes money, loses money, breaks even, etc.
If I had the kind of money Apple has, I would certainly not stick it to the professionals who supported them for all these years. I mean come on, to keep the pro line alive for Apple is no big deal. They would save face with HP, Dell, and Apple's own customers. If they dropped the pro line a lot of people would be very upset. Do you think that public relations nightmare is worth it? Besides it does make them money. Sure not like the iPad, but then it doesn't cost $800.00. What they need to do is possibly change the form factor, and lower the cost.
Seriously... Your average pc company selling towers on razor margins can sell towers with up to date specs, more ram an up to date GPu. I don't see dropping in some new parts being expensive development. Even a redeveloped pro compact? *shrugs.
Hp probably sell towers on less margins than apple. They're showing a bit with the z all in one.
Apple sell pros with xeons in. We're waiting for the sandy bridge chip.
So I wouldn't panic just yet. If it hasn't been updated by next year? It's dead.
Lemon Bon Bon.