Would be cool to see a slight case redesign, but I likely doubt it. Either way, the current design still works. Just wish it was lighter. I remember my old G5 tower, man that was a beast to lug around.
agreed here. now that they did away with the xserve, it would be great to see the new mac pro to be a little sleeker in the form. not a mini, still fully expandable with drive bays, but maybe without the big stand and top hoops.
I am very pleased with the very likely possibility that Apple is continuing it's commitment to the Mac Pro. I will be waiting with cash in hand to purchase one if and when that materializes. What I find extremely odd is that after such angst about the possibility of the Mac Pro's demise that almost half of this thread has derailed into a discussion about retirement... WTF? Just sayin'.
The nearly ten year old case design looks as modern as ever. No need to change it for the sake of looking new. As is the case with many Apple designs, it's timeless and absolutely gorgeous, practical, tough, functional and unique.
Unless they are aiming for a case design that works both as a desktop (floor) workstation or as a rackmounted unit.
Unfortunately the optimal rackmount design is kinda squared off and utilitarian (because a rackspace has specific dimensions). Only way to carry it off would be locking Ives in a room and make sure he didnt see the design before it hit production.
I have a G5 2.0 since 2005 and it's been fantastic machine. No hardware issues and worth every penny. I originaly chose this as I'm a great believer in components being separated rather than integrated. Back then reliability for iMacs were not as robust as of now but I will be in the market for a new machine and it will be a big decision which way to go. Even though they are expensive I reckon they would last longer than an iMac.
Unless they are aiming for a case design that works both as a desktop (floor) workstation or as a rackmounted unit.
I never keep towers on the floor because when the housekeepers come in with their vacuum cleaner they are both blowing dust right into the intake fans as well as bumping into the computer. Also, in the case of the Mac Pro, it puts the front mounted i/o almost at ground level which I find awkward.
I have a G5 2.0 since 2005 and it's been fantastic machine.
No hardware issues and worth every penny. I originaly chose this as I'm a great believer in components being separated rather than integrated.
Back then reliability for iMacs were not as robust as of now but I will be in the market for a new machine and it will be a big decision which way to go.
Even though they are expensive I reckon they would last longer than an iMac.
I think it depends on a few things such as what you do. Overall the 1,1 and 3,1 machines aged quite well even if I wouldn't suggest one today, but the 3,1 still does well enough in heavily threaded functions. Imacs worry me at times because there are the people who end up with chronic problems, and of course I hate the lack of machine access. If they debut a decent machine this time in the sub 3k realm, I'll have to buy one. Even apart from raw computing power, there are things that I like. They're made for higher duty cycles. I can populate them with drives, keep gpus up to date if necessary, and they have more ports. I don't buy the thunderbolt display or expensive TB docking stations. It erodes any savings against a tower in the longer term.
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...
That would be outstanding to see. I'd love to clear some desktop space for more monitors. Not to mention, our MDCs are due to be rotated out in another year or so. Rack units for our edit suites, though - yes, please.
My current Mac Pro has four new 3TB Serial-ATA drives. Obviously, I want to retain and use these drives in any new MacPro I buy. So, will the new MacPro support the same HDs as the Early 2008 models?
My current Mac Pro has four new 3TB Serial-ATA drives. Obviously, I want to retain and use these drives in any new MacPro I buy. So, will the new MacPro support the same HDs as the Early 2008 models?
Probably since that is still the same power and SATA interface used today. SATA 3 should be backwardly compatible with your current drives however SATA 3 would be quite a bit faster. Depends on which drives you have and how you use them if it makes sense to put them in a new machine and also if you are going to sell or keep your current machine. Seems to me that if you are spending thousands on a new machine that is going to last you 5 years or more, you might as well bring everything up to current state of the art right from the beginning.
My current Mac Pro has four new 3TB Serial-ATA drives. Obviously, I want to retain and use these drives in any new MacPro I buy. So, will the new MacPro support the same HDs as the Early 2008 models?
Of course. The drives will just be slower than they could be, as the ports will be SATA III.
And… what, we might not have four bays in the next model if it gets a new case.
That would be outstanding to see. I'd love to clear some desktop space for more monitors. Not to mention, our MDCs are due to be rotated out in another year or so. Rack units for our edit suites, though - yes, please.
I didn't believe they made the 3TB drives in SATA II flavors. I have a feeling these are SATS III drives being run on a SATA II plug. Mechanical hard drives didn't max out SATA II either tho, so it shouldn't matter either way.
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).
Will definitely get new Pros when I need the power and Mountain Lion (seems older Pros won't run ML).
Mine runs 24/7 as well. When it's not in use by me, it's running some global project.
Truth is, I've never had a problem with Apple's products, and between mine, my family's, and the many I bought for my company over the years, that's saying something.
Looks like the current MP is limited to 48 or 96 megs of usable ram. I assume the next gen being quad channel will up that to 64 and 128? Does that mean still just four ram slots on the base model or eight slots on all machines? Four slots on a $2400 machine always seemed dumb to me.
You can put 128GB RAM inside, but OS X, because of some limitation, according to OWC, only currently recognizes 96GB. But if you install 64 bit Windows 7 in a boot partition, it will see, and use all 128GB.
Well, the limitation is, to a great extent, due to the limitation imposed by Intel. Their workstation controllers can use up to 16GB DIMMS, and their server controllers, up to 8GB DIMMS. At the time, there were no 16GB DIMMS, and 8GB DIMMS were just getting to the prototype stage. Four socket machine scan use more than 8 slots, up to 16.
I don't yet know what the new Sandy Bridge Xeons are capable of handling insofar as the size of the DIMMS go. When I get to read the documentation, I'll let people know, if they're interested.
I am happy Apple is updating the Mac Pro. My Mac Pro is only 3 years old and runs well so need for me to get this version, but I want that option in the future and I am glad I will be able to upgrade when needed. I understand the need to have a high end Mac Pro with as many slots for Ram and as many CPU's and cores possible for those people that demand every ounce of performance they can get. What I don't understand is why Apple insists on putting a Xeon in the low end model that only includes one CPU. Aren't the high performance ivy bridge Core i7 as fast if not faster than Xeon when you only have one? Not to mention a lot cheaper.
The Xeons have other advantages such as higher memory channel performance, as well as more channels. They also have a higher maximum speed vs the nominal speed as less than the full complement of cores is being used. They can also be run hotter. Overall, they are more robust.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypoluxa
Would be cool to see a slight case redesign, but I likely doubt it. Either way, the current design still works. Just wish it was lighter. I remember my old G5 tower, man that was a beast to lug around.
agreed here. now that they did away with the xserve, it would be great to see the new mac pro to be a little sleeker in the form. not a mini, still fully expandable with drive bays, but maybe without the big stand and top hoops.
I am very pleased with the very likely possibility that Apple is continuing it's commitment to the Mac Pro. I will be waiting with cash in hand to purchase one if and when that materializes. What I find extremely odd is that after such angst about the possibility of the Mac Pro's demise that almost half of this thread has derailed into a discussion about retirement... WTF? Just sayin'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo
The nearly ten year old case design looks as modern as ever. No need to change it for the sake of looking new. As is the case with many Apple designs, it's timeless and absolutely gorgeous, practical, tough, functional and unique.
Unless they are aiming for a case design that works both as a desktop (floor) workstation or as a rackmounted unit.
Unfortunately the optimal rackmount design is kinda squared off and utilitarian (because a rackspace has specific dimensions). Only way to carry it off would be locking Ives in a room and make sure he didnt see the design before it hit production.
No hardware issues and worth every penny. I originaly chose this as I'm a great believer in components being separated rather than integrated.
Back then reliability for iMacs were not as robust as of now but I will be in the market for a new machine and it will be a big decision which way to go.
Even though they are expensive I reckon they would last longer than an iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoXoM
Fixed by editing the html source code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tokenuser
Unless they are aiming for a case design that works both as a desktop (floor) workstation or as a rackmounted unit.
I never keep towers on the floor because when the housekeepers come in with their vacuum cleaner they are both blowing dust right into the intake fans as well as bumping into the computer. Also, in the case of the Mac Pro, it puts the front mounted i/o almost at ground level which I find awkward.
I'm kinda excited.. I might be in line buying my first Mac Pro this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo1234
I have a G5 2.0 since 2005 and it's been fantastic machine.
No hardware issues and worth every penny. I originaly chose this as I'm a great believer in components being separated rather than integrated.
Back then reliability for iMacs were not as robust as of now but I will be in the market for a new machine and it will be a big decision which way to go.
Even though they are expensive I reckon they would last longer than an iMac.
I think it depends on a few things such as what you do. Overall the 1,1 and 3,1 machines aged quite well even if I wouldn't suggest one today, but the 3,1 still does well enough in heavily threaded functions. Imacs worry me at times because there are the people who end up with chronic problems, and of course I hate the lack of machine access. If they debut a decent machine this time in the sub 3k realm, I'll have to buy one. Even apart from raw computing power, there are things that I like. They're made for higher duty cycles. I can populate them with drives, keep gpus up to date if necessary, and they have more ports. I don't buy the thunderbolt display or expensive TB docking stations. It erodes any savings against a tower in the longer term.
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...
That would be outstanding to see. I'd love to clear some desktop space for more monitors. Not to mention, our MDCs are due to be rotated out in another year or so. Rack units for our edit suites, though - yes, please.
Only 67! Something tells me that you make live longer than you think! : ) Funny I have family friends that are in their 70's who still code...
My current Mac Pro has four new 3TB Serial-ATA drives. Obviously, I want to retain and use these drives in any new MacPro I buy. So, will the new MacPro support the same HDs as the Early 2008 models?
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowney
My current Mac Pro has four new 3TB Serial-ATA drives. Obviously, I want to retain and use these drives in any new MacPro I buy. So, will the new MacPro support the same HDs as the Early 2008 models?
Probably since that is still the same power and SATA interface used today. SATA 3 should be backwardly compatible with your current drives however SATA 3 would be quite a bit faster. Depends on which drives you have and how you use them if it makes sense to put them in a new machine and also if you are going to sell or keep your current machine. Seems to me that if you are spending thousands on a new machine that is going to last you 5 years or more, you might as well bring everything up to current state of the art right from the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowney
My current Mac Pro has four new 3TB Serial-ATA drives. Obviously, I want to retain and use these drives in any new MacPro I buy. So, will the new MacPro support the same HDs as the Early 2008 models?
Of course. The drives will just be slower than they could be, as the ports will be SATA III.
And… what, we might not have four bays in the next model if it gets a new case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by handygeek
That would be outstanding to see. I'd love to clear some desktop space for more monitors. Not to mention, our MDCs are due to be rotated out in another year or so. Rack units for our edit suites, though - yes, please.
Then go with Active Storage mSAN....
Looks familiar hé!
I didn't believe they made the 3TB drives in SATA II flavors. I have a feeling these are SATS III drives being run on a SATA II plug. Mechanical hard drives didn't max out SATA II either tho, so it shouldn't matter either way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuberMagPico
Looks familiar hé!
I'll say. Forget ultrabook lawsuits…
Mine runs 24/7 as well. When it's not in use by me, it's running some global project.
Truth is, I've never had a problem with Apple's products, and between mine, my family's, and the many I bought for my company over the years, that's saying something.
You can put 128GB RAM inside, but OS X, because of some limitation, according to OWC, only currently recognizes 96GB. But if you install 64 bit Windows 7 in a boot partition, it will see, and use all 128GB.
Well, the limitation is, to a great extent, due to the limitation imposed by Intel. Their workstation controllers can use up to 16GB DIMMS, and their server controllers, up to 8GB DIMMS. At the time, there were no 16GB DIMMS, and 8GB DIMMS were just getting to the prototype stage. Four socket machine scan use more than 8 slots, up to 16.
I don't yet know what the new Sandy Bridge Xeons are capable of handling insofar as the size of the DIMMS go. When I get to read the documentation, I'll let people know, if they're interested.
The Xeons have other advantages such as higher memory channel performance, as well as more channels. They also have a higher maximum speed vs the nominal speed as less than the full complement of cores is being used. They can also be run hotter. Overall, they are more robust.
There are companies that offer rack mounts for Mac Pro's as well as for Mini's. No reason why Apple needs to do so.