It isn't a little nit pick, the garbage quoted in the article pretty much throws into question the article writers suitability as an author on technical issues. It further tarnishes the declining reputation of Appleinsider as site with an actual grasp of what is happening in the industry.
One little nit to pick with the report. The Mac Pro won't get Ivy Bridge chips because Intel doesn't yet make Ivy Bridge Xeons. They are now Sandy Bridge. That's a step up.
Yes a very good step up! People also need to realize that there isn't a huge difference in CPU performance between Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. In a Xeon there would be little to gain from Ivy Bridge.
The Ivy Bridge chips are for desktops, not for workstations. They don't allow for more than one socket, and have much more limited memory bandwidth. I'm also sure that they won't allow for the largest DIMM's that will come out in the next few years.
With the massive delays in the Sandy Bridge based Xeons I'm not even convinced a Ivy Bridge based Xeon will be made. At this point Intel might as well go next generation.
As far as this article goes, if you have any influence at Appleinsider please do something to get them to stop printing plain ignorance. It is one thing to speculate about the next Pro, after all that is what Future Macs is all about, but it is another thing to print obviously wrong info. Sadly the article would have been far more interesting to read if the garbage was simply edited out.
I can give you one really good reason for a case redesign. To make it rack mountable in a reasonable space. Apple no longer offers a product that can act as an MDC for Xsan out of the box that any legitimate administrator is going to put in a server room. Getting it to something that will fit in a 2U or 3U space in a rack opens up a number of possibilities. If they work with VMWare on the project and bring ESXi to the MacPro it could be offered as a possible replacement for the XServe and allow OS X virtualization in more environments...
You are talking about two completely different machines. Something that is only 2U or 3U cannot be used as a tower. It would fall over and the DVD would be vertical. If they made it rackable it would be a minimum of 4U. Otherwise it would have to be used as an old style desktop CPU, laying flat with the monitor on top, and that will never happen.
Just because a new Mac Pro case is introduced it does not imply that it would be any less professional. I really don't buy this mentality that if the case changes the product is somehow less professional. I can make a very good arguement that the current case is far from what many professionals need.
Yeah, my old Mac Pros just keep working and working; 24/7/365 year after year. No problems with heat (Flash) either - unlike iMacs and MacBooks that overheat and sometimes shut themselves off when the going gets too hot (yes, I keep them clean and employ extra fans and cooling, but they still fail now and then).
Interestingly I've never had that happen. Then again I make a point to never run flash unless it is absolutely required.
Will definitely get new Pros when I need the power and Mountain Lion (seems older Pros won't run ML).
Well that is nice buying sight unseen. If that is the case, why even bother writing about what Apple does with the chassis?
Who here thinks that the Thunderbolt ports will only be serving graphics from an Intel 4000 built onto the logic board and the ports on the Radeon 78xx cards will just be Mini DisplayPort?
That would be an interesting trick, considering the Xeon CPUs don't have GPUs built in. Adding the 4000 directly to the mobo and using that to drive a main monitor and then your video card is being used entirely for GPGPU functionality or is powering a different monitor that has your actual work on it? That doesn't really make a ton of sense.
This is one good reason to overhaul the Mac Pro. While I don't really see a huge demand for the services you mention a Rack Mountable Mac Pro would solve many problems for a wide range of users.
I can give you one really good reason for a case redesign. To make it rack mountable in a reasonable space. Apple no longer offers a product that can act as an MDC for Xsan out of the box that any legitimate administrator is going to put in a server room. Getting it to something that will fit in a 2U or 3U space in a rack opens up a number of possibilities. If they work with VMWare on the project and bring ESXi to the MacPro it could be offered as a possible replacement for the XServe and allow OS X virtualization in more environments...
I love they way my Mac Pro is built. It's a professional grade workstation. It should be solid and heavy.
I agree. The only time this worried me was when I was traveling to Boston from Florida and mine was in the back of my Jeep. I suddenly had this vision of a crash stop causing the Mac Pro to continue moving from the rear of my Jeep through the seat, me and exit the front. At the next rest stop I put a seat belt on it!
With the usb 3.0 Sandy Bridge doesn't natively support it. I'm guessing they are putting in a usb 3.0 controller. Now that make me wonder why apple didn't support usb 3.0 in the Macbooks earlier. I'm glad apple is finally understanding that people want these thing and make bias towards their purchase when things that are so simple not available
It isn't so simple. Intel just started to include USB 3 in its hardware. In the past many of the USB3 to PCI bridges had problems, either with power, performance or bugs that only recently have been ironed out.
Either way this Mac Pro is probably going to be the last Workstation apple makes.
You have no information to justify that statement. Though honestly I can see them blowing this rev again and ignoring what their customers need. They could very easily continue the Mac Pros downward spiral with respect to sales. However they could address that with a smart redesign that addresses the needs of a wider array of power users.
It's sad that Apple has gone basically all mobile and mobile component devices. Apple really has nothing to loose other than expanding their customer base. I'd argue this is better time than ever for Apple to offer more high end products with people ditching Dells and HP's.
I agree with this. Apples current desktop lineup is just plain dumb. It is no wonder that laptop sales continue to increase for them.
It also would be nice for Apple to do like Dell and have a Performance segment i.e. Alien-Ware and cater to Gamers and Professionals. I doubt they'd ever will but they sure have the money and the right infrastructure to do such amazing things.
This I disagree with. Apple simply needs a midrange machine, that is a desktop box with slots and expansion capability that allows for sales to those that don't need a Pro but do need a sound choice in GPUs and a bit of internal expansion. The Mini is almost there but is always outfitted by Apple with extremely low end components. By that I mean the Mini doesn't even get strong performing laptop parts which makes it a bit worthless as a longer term investment.
I'm a 67 year old developer. I suspect this may be my "LAST COMPUTER!"
I'm about to hit 60 and I might use the same excuse / lol
I sold my 8 Core Xeon Mac Pro with twin 30" ACDs and moved to a MBP i7 2.66 GHz with 8 GIGs of RAM and 23" ACD (to save space as we down sized our home) ... It's a great little Mac but it's terrible at multi tasking compared to the Mac Pro and seems very slow in comparison in many other areas that on paper didn't seem to be the case. The reality is, it is slow, hot and I miss the Mac Pro like hell ...Plus I have an iPad now for portability .. A rack mount would save a lot of space! Oh the temptation .... My last one honest ...
If you're in the US, you may have to keep working as it appears they want to raise the retirement age. Soon you won't get to retire until you die.
One big issue in the USA is that the government penalizes retires if they make to much money every year. This is the strangest thing one can imagine. They really should do the opposite and encourage productivity for these individuals.
Can't wait for the new MacPro! I'd love to see the benchmarks for it before I order, but I imagine there could be a backlog of orders if I do. The ole MacPro 1,1 is still chugging along, but it's showing its age.
Likewise I'm the owner of an old 2008 MBP which suffers under the strain of modern software and a demanding user. Still I'm not convinced the Mac Pro is for me. Often I feel forced into a laptop if I want to get reasonable performance out of a Mac, apple simply doesn't have a good desktop alternative. {Don't get me started on the iMac}.
Not to mention that some people get health problems (read: die, I think) from just up and not working anymore, you know?
My retirement plan is to keep up with Apple hardware and Apple and Adobe software even if then only for hobbies ... that should keep my mind active ... It worked for my dad who sadly passed away last year at 86, sitting at his new 27" iMac i7 I should add.
Since this isn't a consumer machine, which requires new external "looks" every couple of years or so,
I couldn't disagree more.
Pro or consumer, a machine only requires a new look when the makers feel it is needed, not some external 'this is old looking so now it's trash' clock. If Apple feels that the Mac Pro is not in the ideal shape or size then yes they will and should change it. On the flip if they feel they have the winning look for their other machines then they damn well better not waste time coming up with something new and fresh because of some arbitrary BS reason like consumers expect it. Consumer expectations can be changed. And since Apple is the last company to give the consumers what they want when they want it (like blu-ray support) they will be the ones to make the consumers change expectation to fit their plans not the other way around. They will spend their time improving what needs to be improved, the internal hardware and the software.
Don't bring political stuff into a thread not in PO, please.
Who here thinks that the Thunderbolt ports will only be serving graphics from an Intel 4000 built onto the logic board and the ports on the Radeon 78xx cards will just be Mini DisplayPort?
I suspect one of two things will happen with the Mac Pro.
One is that Apple will solder the GPU right on the motherboard with GPU ram in a card slot. This will make TB connections easy to do and might have other performance advantages.
Two is that a new card format will be defined in conjunction with Intel. This card will have extra connections for data channels to the TB switch. This would allow for upgradability if the industry can accept the need for GPU specific slots.
I love they way my Mac Pro is built. It's a professional grade workstation. It should be solid and heavy.
They can keep the over all design...just make it smaller. There's no need for it to be as big as it is. There is quite a bit of dead space inside it. They could make it the size of the PowerMac G4 and keep the aluminum case and basic design.
With the usb 3.0 Sandy Bridge doesn't natively support it. I'm guessing they are putting in a usb 3.0 controller. Now that make me wonder why apple didn't support usb 3.0 in the Macbooks earlier. I
It's not a fact that they are now. Could turn out that they aren't which will lead to the typical "Apple is stupid for not . . ." bashing that comes with everything they don't do.
For practical purposes, Apple went down that road and found too few people wanted an xserve to justify keeping it in the lineup. IIRC, Jobs said so himself.
I think you missed his point entirely. We are talking about a Mac Pro that can be easily rack mounted if required. There is a huge difference there. Done right it is a viable way to solve real issues for people while still having a solution for the desktop user.
A $150 kit to make the machine a rack mount is digestible. My preference is actually a bit different as I would prefer half width units with enough "u" space for a reasonable number of I/O cards. That would make for a very compact machine but it isn't impossible these days.
In any event no body is talking about a 1U dedicated server machine here.
Comments
Yes a very good step up! People also need to realize that there isn't a huge difference in CPU performance between Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. In a Xeon there would be little to gain from Ivy Bridge.
With the massive delays in the Sandy Bridge based Xeons I'm not even convinced a Ivy Bridge based Xeon will be made. At this point Intel might as well go next generation.
As far as this article goes, if you have any influence at Appleinsider please do something to get them to stop printing plain ignorance. It is one thing to speculate about the next Pro, after all that is what Future Macs is all about, but it is another thing to print obviously wrong info. Sadly the article would have been far more interesting to read if the garbage was simply edited out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomahawk
I can give you one really good reason for a case redesign. To make it rack mountable in a reasonable space. Apple no longer offers a product that can act as an MDC for Xsan out of the box that any legitimate administrator is going to put in a server room. Getting it to something that will fit in a 2U or 3U space in a rack opens up a number of possibilities. If they work with VMWare on the project and bring ESXi to the MacPro it could be offered as a possible replacement for the XServe and allow OS X virtualization in more environments...
You are talking about two completely different machines. Something that is only 2U or 3U cannot be used as a tower. It would fall over and the DVD would be vertical. If they made it rackable it would be a minimum of 4U. Otherwise it would have to be used as an old style desktop CPU, laying flat with the monitor on top, and that will never happen.
I doubt that very much. They say 67 is the new 47. Hell my mother is almost 80 and is getting pretty damned efficient on her iMac.
Interestingly I've never had that happen. Then again I make a point to never run flash unless it is absolutely required.
Well that is nice buying sight unseen. If that is the case, why even bother writing about what Apple does with the chassis?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Who here thinks that the Thunderbolt ports will only be serving graphics from an Intel 4000 built onto the logic board and the ports on the Radeon 78xx cards will just be Mini DisplayPort?
That would be an interesting trick, considering the Xeon CPUs don't have GPUs built in. Adding the 4000 directly to the mobo and using that to drive a main monitor and then your video card is being used entirely for GPGPU functionality or is powering a different monitor that has your actual work on it? That doesn't really make a ton of sense.
I agree. The only time this worried me was when I was traveling to Boston from Florida and mine was in the back of my Jeep. I suddenly had this vision of a crash stop causing the Mac Pro to continue moving from the rear of my Jeep through the seat, me and exit the front. At the next rest stop I put a seat belt on it!
It isn't so simple. Intel just started to include USB 3 in its hardware. In the past many of the USB3 to PCI bridges had problems, either with power, performance or bugs that only recently have been ironed out. You have no information to justify that statement. Though honestly I can see them blowing this rev again and ignoring what their customers need. They could very easily continue the Mac Pros downward spiral with respect to sales. However they could address that with a smart redesign that addresses the needs of a wider array of power users. I agree with this. Apples current desktop lineup is just plain dumb. It is no wonder that laptop sales continue to increase for them.
This I disagree with. Apple simply needs a midrange machine, that is a desktop box with slots and expansion capability that allows for sales to those that don't need a Pro but do need a sound choice in GPUs and a bit of internal expansion. The Mini is almost there but is always outfitted by Apple with extremely low end components. By that I mean the Mini doesn't even get strong performing laptop parts which makes it a bit worthless as a longer term investment.
I'm about to hit 60 and I might use the same excuse / lol
I sold my 8 Core Xeon Mac Pro with twin 30" ACDs and moved to a MBP i7 2.66 GHz with 8 GIGs of RAM and 23" ACD (to save space as we down sized our home) ... It's a great little Mac but it's terrible at multi tasking compared to the Mac Pro and seems very slow in comparison in many other areas that on paper didn't seem to be the case. The reality is, it is slow, hot and I miss the Mac Pro like hell ...Plus I have an iPad now for portability .. A rack mount would save a lot of space! Oh the temptation .... My last one honest ...
One big issue in the USA is that the government penalizes retires if they make to much money every year. This is the strangest thing one can imagine. They really should do the opposite and encourage productivity for these individuals.
Likewise I'm the owner of an old 2008 MBP which suffers under the strain of modern software and a demanding user. Still I'm not convinced the Mac Pro is for me. Often I feel forced into a laptop if I want to get reasonable performance out of a Mac, apple simply doesn't have a good desktop alternative. {Don't get me started on the iMac}.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I really don't understand the rush to retire. A person might want to slow down a bit but to stop working completely just seems like giving up.
Not to mention that some people get health problems (read: die, I think) from just up and not working anymore, you know?
My retirement plan is to keep up with Apple hardware and Apple and Adobe software even if then only for hobbies ... that should keep my mind active ... It worked for my dad who sadly passed away last year at 86, sitting at his new 27" iMac i7 I should add.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Since this isn't a consumer machine, which requires new external "looks" every couple of years or so,
I couldn't disagree more.
Pro or consumer, a machine only requires a new look when the makers feel it is needed, not some external 'this is old looking so now it's trash' clock. If Apple feels that the Mac Pro is not in the ideal shape or size then yes they will and should change it. On the flip if they feel they have the winning look for their other machines then they damn well better not waste time coming up with something new and fresh because of some arbitrary BS reason like consumers expect it. Consumer expectations can be changed. And since Apple is the last company to give the consumers what they want when they want it (like blu-ray support) they will be the ones to make the consumers change expectation to fit their plans not the other way around. They will spend their time improving what needs to be improved, the internal hardware and the software.
I suspect one of two things will happen with the Mac Pro.
One is that Apple will solder the GPU right on the motherboard with GPU ram in a card slot. This will make TB connections easy to do and might have other performance advantages.
Two is that a new card format will be defined in conjunction with Intel. This card will have extra connections for data channels to the TB switch. This would allow for upgradability if the industry can accept the need for GPU specific slots.
I'm leaning towards #1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio
I agree. A workstation class machine needs to have that macho factor to it.
Wow that statement is so wrong. And so reeks of someone making up for something else being too small.
A workstation only needs 'macho' in terms of power. Physical size and look are beside the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I love they way my Mac Pro is built. It's a professional grade workstation. It should be solid and heavy.
They can keep the over all design...just make it smaller. There's no need for it to be as big as it is. There is quite a bit of dead space inside it. They could make it the size of the PowerMac G4 and keep the aluminum case and basic design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmxing85
With the usb 3.0 Sandy Bridge doesn't natively support it. I'm guessing they are putting in a usb 3.0 controller. Now that make me wonder why apple didn't support usb 3.0 in the Macbooks earlier. I
It's not a fact that they are now. Could turn out that they aren't which will lead to the typical "Apple is stupid for not . . ." bashing that comes with everything they don't do.
Will I be able to order a 16 core version you think?
I think you missed his point entirely. We are talking about a Mac Pro that can be easily rack mounted if required. There is a huge difference there. Done right it is a viable way to solve real issues for people while still having a solution for the desktop user.
A $150 kit to make the machine a rack mount is digestible. My preference is actually a bit different as I would prefer half width units with enough "u" space for a reasonable number of I/O cards. That would make for a very compact machine but it isn't impossible these days.
In any event no body is talking about a 1U dedicated server machine here.