I agree with you on the airflow, which seems optimized for the present component layout. However, one big case improvement would be to move the drive bays to the front for easier access (and possibly include hot-swap capability), although that would require reworking the airflow.
And although it would be an aesthetic challenge, creating something that could optionally be rack-mounted (as suggested earlier) would make the overall package more flexible for those who benefit from such functionality.
Can't move the drive bays to the front as that will kill the air flow. There are two fans on the front. One big one at the front of the processor board, at the bottom, and another, smaller one on the second level for the card cage and the drive bay. There are fans at the back as well. In addition there is a fan on the power supply. Putting the drive bays at the front destroys the airflow, as it blocks that entire design concept. There's no way around that.
As I mentioned in my post above, there are several company's that make horizontal rack mounts for Mac Pros.
Seem reasonable to me. I am really waiting for this upgrade.
Me too. I have saved around 8K just for this and a Macbook for my girlfriend. This will be my first "computer computer". I have been looking up every fact I can about choosing properly so I can buy on launch day without waiting for reviews to come in. I hope there is an ample supply...
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.
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.
We can mention it, but we don't actually have influence. The info in this article has been taken from other sources, as is the info from a number of other articles. If the info from the source is wrong, it will be repeated elsewhere. This site being one of those elsewheres.
I'm amazed at how often all the world of computer reporting is wrong. Many errors in PcMag, for example, and they're not by any means alone. In some tech sites such as ArsTechnica and AnandTech, if the author has made a factual error, and a poster notes it, it will be corrected. But that's very unusual elsewhere, I've noticed. Once the article is posted, no one reads the posts to see if an error has been caught. That's a shame, but it's become much more common in recent years.
It's one reason why I still don't believe that much of what we read on the internet is reporting in the journalistic sense. While news papers make mistakes, it's far more common on the I telnet. One reason is that there's simply no fact checking going on. That eliminated most of the bloggers, and many of the web sites from my consideration as journalists, despite what the courts have said.
Even here, I find it annoying. I would like to see posting in an article regarding corrections of errors. But it's no better, or worse, here than most other places, I find.
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.
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.
What are you talking about? There is no official retirement age in the U.S. except for Social Security purposes. And you can start collecting SS at 62 if you want to - you just get less money. Private companies who have retirement plans (and not all do) can set "retirement" age at any age they want. However with most plans, you can always collect earlier, you just get less per month as per actuary tables, etc.
And for the record, when Social Security was first introduced under FDR in the 1930s, few working adults were expected to live past 65. That's why you couldn't collect until 65 - they never really expected many people to actually collect Social Security and if they did, it wasn't expected to be for very long. They had no idea that life expectancy would continually increase to where it's now about 80.
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'm not sure I understand why you are disagreeing with me. I'm talking about looks. If you look at some of the pro level servers and workstations out there, you will see that they are butt ugly. But many have a similar perforated front panel. These cases are designed for cooling and rigidity. Just like the Mac Pro case.
And just like the Mac Pro case, they are updated internally every year or two, while leaving the external shell pretty much the same, just like the Mac Pro.
Apple chose a very good design for the shell, and they made major internal upgrades since the first G5. I don't see why they need to change it, other than for more minor functional differences.
But, I would imagine that if Apple has some ideas for the machine that the current shell can't accommodate, they will then change that.
So I don't understand why you are arguing with me on this.
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.
I can't agree. The Mac Pro is one of the best designed workstations I have seen. I don't see any wasted space. It was designed for excellent airflow, which it has. If you are looking at areas that are designed to be open for the purpose of that airflow, and are assuming that it's wasted space, and can be eliminated, well, that's just wrong.
IMO, its wasted space inside. They didn't redesign the tower because they didn't have to when they switched to Intel. The MacPro doesn't have even half the fans the G5 did nor does it need special plastic internal covers, special bays, etc so that tells me it doesn't need the airflow the G5 did. I've owned both a PowerMac G5 and a MacPro and I could definitely see the need for what they did with the PowerMac G5, but the MacPro was just a waste inside IMO.
I do like the idea though an expanded MacMini Server. Maybe something slightly wider and deeper with a pull out tray to easily expand and work on. I don't see any way in hell they could use an 8-core Xeon on that though which is what some people need. So I think a MacPro type server is still necessary.
That's your opinion, and I strongly disagree with it. I've designed a lot of electronics for my own company, way back when. Apple's Mac Pro compares to $6,000-$10,000 machines from Boxx, Dell and HP, not their cheaper stuff which is crowded inside, with bays hanging down, and wires wandering everywhere. The more expensive machines are built more like Apple's. Apple uses those large, slow rpm fans for the processor board on the bottom, and that requires room. Then there are fans on the heatsinks as well. Also more fans above those. My Mac Pro is one of, if not the quietest workstation I've ever used, or seen.
The Mac Pro is one of the best designed workstations I have seen. I don't see any wasted space. It was designed for excellent airflow, which it has. If you are looking at areas that are designed to be open for the purpose of that airflow, and are assuming that it's wasted space, and can be eliminated, well, that's just wrong.
Pshh, airflow. Like Apple knows anything about that. Check out my ride, bizzizzles:
Now lemme see, we got one, two, three, four, five, SIX di-rec-tions of fans for mayyyyximum airfaaaaa-low.
Single direction front to back… Pah! Mac Pro's got nuthin' on this.
I too was surprised by the description of why the new Xeon CPUs are Sandy Bridge rather than Ivy Bridge. Intel hasn't kept it a secret that they concentrated on improving integrated graphics and reducing power consumption with Ivy Bridge. Those are very different design goals than what would be used to design new Xeons.
Hopefully these will not be the last Mac Pros but a new smaller case that's convertible to rack mountable probably would be a good idea for the next generation.
I don't understand and this smaller case thing here. I can only suspect that those wanting one don't really need a Mac Pro. Mine has a 950 watt power supply. These machines are often used with a pro level graphics card, or even two, that consume 250 watts of power each. In addition they have more slots that can use more power. In addition they have 4 official drive bays, plus a free bay under the DVD drive at the front.
This all uses power, and requires a big machine for full length boards. If you don't NEED a Mac Pro, then don't get one. Get an iMac, they are very good machines, and will satisfy the needs of most people.
But if you need 32GB or more of EEC RAM, 2 workstation level processors, and a pro level graphics card or two, plus other specialized hardware, then you need a Mac Pro. And that's goi g to be a big machine. Indeed, it's been criticized as being too small, with not enough slots. Some workstations in its class have 8.
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.
The only one I let clean my computer room is me. I clean the front with the vacuum as well as the rear, and once every 6 months or so open it up and do the inside.
They're not a very efficient fit. The mac pro's current shape would take up a lot of rack space per unit.
It works, but it was never intended to be rack mounted. It is what it is. Apple gave up on rack mounted servers. This is a workstation by nature. Not a server, though obviously it can e used that way.
Pshh, airflow. Like Apple knows anything about that. Check out my ride, bizzizzles:
Now lemme see, we got one, two, three, four, five, SIX di-rec-tions of fans for mayyyyximum airfaaaaa-low.
Single direction front to back… Pah! Mac Pro's got nuthin' on this.
My god, what an absolute horror! That's typical of the crappy, not quite designed machines I see around. Unfortunately, crap like that is built to just get everything in, but with no worry about electrical noise, stray capacitance, and airflow eddies, of which I can predict several from just looking at that. There's no shielding between various sections of the machi e which should be isolated. Also, the airflow, wherever it is there, just swirls around in the machine rather than moving through, the way it's supposed to.
That's your opinion, and I strongly disagree with it. I've designed a lot of electronics for my own company, way back when. Apple's Mac Pro compares to $6,000-$10,000 machines from Boxx, Dell and HP, not their cheaper stuff which is crowded inside, with bays hanging down, and wires wandering everywhere. The more expensive machines are built more like Apple's. Apple uses those large, slow rpm fans for the processor board on the bottom, and that requires room. Then there are fans on the heatsinks as well. Also more fans above those. My Mac Pro is one of, if not the quietest workstation I've ever used, or seen.
Some of those have more features in terms of PCI slots, bays, and memory capacity. When they came out with the first mac pro, I figured they were holding back a little on that stuff to keep the price down. Right now I'm slightly surprised that the base configuration still exists. I would've expected a better sustained cpu performance gap between top imac and bottom mac pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Pshh, airflow. Like Apple knows anything about that. Check out my ride, bizzizzles:
Now lemme see, we got one, two, three, four, five, SIX di-rec-tions of fans for mayyyyximum airfaaaaa-low.
Single direction front to back… Pah! Mac Pro's got nuthin' on this.
That looks like a home built gaming computer given the weird frankensteined setup and routing and the large cpu cooler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I don't understand and this smaller case thing here. I can only suspect that those wanting one don't really need a Mac Pro. Mine has a 950 watt power supply. These machines are often used with a pro level graphics card, or even two, that consume 250 watts of power each. In addition they have more slots that can use more power. In addition they have 4 official drive bays, plus a free bay under the DVD drive at the front.
This all uses power, and requires a big machine for full length boards. If you don't NEED a Mac Pro, then don't get one. Get an iMac, they are very good machines, and will satisfy the needs of most people.
But if you need 32GB or more of EEC RAM, 2 workstation level processors, and a pro level graphics card or two, plus other specialized hardware, then you need a Mac Pro. And that's goi g to be a big machine. Indeed, it's been criticized as being too small, with not enough slots. Some workstations in its class have 8.
Some workstations pack more into the same footprint. It varies. Most of this comes from the camp looking for an Xmac or those that aren't really satisfied with the alternatives. The other problem is when people attribute the cost of the machine to the large aluminum case even though the CNC work necessary for a macbook air might be more labor intensive given the necessary cuts and relatively fine tolerance on curvature. There's a myth that making it smaller would bring down the retail price. There was also a suggestion that accommodating a wider range of hardware down to the consumer end would help the volume of the platform, but I don't think they'll do this anymore than I think they'll try to cram an X79 chipset into an imac (regarding frequent mention of a 6 core imac concept, I don't think we'll see that until such a thing is made for consumer level chipsets).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It works, but it was never intended to be rack mounted. It is what it is. Apple gave up on rack mounted servers. This is a workstation by nature. Not a server, though obviously it can e used that way.
Some shops might benefit from it. I noticed lenovo designed one of their smaller ones to be efficiently rackable.
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.
Agreed. The Mac Pro is a thing of beauty and should never be relegated to the floor like it's some kind of ugly plastic beige box! It deserves to stand high and proud!
I threw my back out recently lugging it around. It is NOT light.
At our last facility we had seven of them on shelves in an extra-wide rack. I learned quickly not to pull the top two units by myself. Dead weight over your head is always a bad idea.
Comments
Can't move the drive bays to the front as that will kill the air flow. There are two fans on the front. One big one at the front of the processor board, at the bottom, and another, smaller one on the second level for the card cage and the drive bay. There are fans at the back as well. In addition there is a fan on the power supply. Putting the drive bays at the front destroys the airflow, as it blocks that entire design concept. There's no way around that.
As I mentioned in my post above, there are several company's that make horizontal rack mounts for Mac Pros.
ML runs fine on my MacPro 1,1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
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.
They're not a very efficient fit. The mac pro's current shape would take up a lot of rack space per unit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach
Seem reasonable to me. I am really waiting for this upgrade.
Me too. I have saved around 8K just for this and a Macbook for my girlfriend. This will be my first "computer computer". I have been looking up every fact I can about choosing properly so I can buy on launch day without waiting for reviews to come in. I hope there is an ample supply...
We can mention it, but we don't actually have influence. The info in this article has been taken from other sources, as is the info from a number of other articles. If the info from the source is wrong, it will be repeated elsewhere. This site being one of those elsewheres.
I'm amazed at how often all the world of computer reporting is wrong. Many errors in PcMag, for example, and they're not by any means alone. In some tech sites such as ArsTechnica and AnandTech, if the author has made a factual error, and a poster notes it, it will be corrected. But that's very unusual elsewhere, I've noticed. Once the article is posted, no one reads the posts to see if an error has been caught. That's a shame, but it's become much more common in recent years.
It's one reason why I still don't believe that much of what we read on the internet is reporting in the journalistic sense. While news papers make mistakes, it's far more common on the I telnet. One reason is that there's simply no fact checking going on. That eliminated most of the bloggers, and many of the web sites from my consideration as journalists, despite what the courts have said.
Even here, I find it annoying. I would like to see posting in an article regarding corrections of errors. But it's no better, or worse, here than most other places, I find.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind
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.
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.
What are you talking about? There is no official retirement age in the U.S. except for Social Security purposes. And you can start collecting SS at 62 if you want to - you just get less money. Private companies who have retirement plans (and not all do) can set "retirement" age at any age they want. However with most plans, you can always collect earlier, you just get less per month as per actuary tables, etc.
And for the record, when Social Security was first introduced under FDR in the 1930s, few working adults were expected to live past 65. That's why you couldn't collect until 65 - they never really expected many people to actually collect Social Security and if they did, it wasn't expected to be for very long. They had no idea that life expectancy would continually increase to where it's now about 80.
I'm not sure I understand why you are disagreeing with me. I'm talking about looks. If you look at some of the pro level servers and workstations out there, you will see that they are butt ugly. But many have a similar perforated front panel. These cases are designed for cooling and rigidity. Just like the Mac Pro case.
And just like the Mac Pro case, they are updated internally every year or two, while leaving the external shell pretty much the same, just like the Mac Pro.
Apple chose a very good design for the shell, and they made major internal upgrades since the first G5. I don't see why they need to change it, other than for more minor functional differences.
But, I would imagine that if Apple has some ideas for the machine that the current shell can't accommodate, they will then change that.
So I don't understand why you are arguing with me on this.
I can't agree. The Mac Pro is one of the best designed workstations I have seen. I don't see any wasted space. It was designed for excellent airflow, which it has. If you are looking at areas that are designed to be open for the purpose of that airflow, and are assuming that it's wasted space, and can be eliminated, well, that's just wrong.
That's your opinion, and I strongly disagree with it. I've designed a lot of electronics for my own company, way back when. Apple's Mac Pro compares to $6,000-$10,000 machines from Boxx, Dell and HP, not their cheaper stuff which is crowded inside, with bays hanging down, and wires wandering everywhere. The more expensive machines are built more like Apple's. Apple uses those large, slow rpm fans for the processor board on the bottom, and that requires room. Then there are fans on the heatsinks as well. Also more fans above those. My Mac Pro is one of, if not the quietest workstation I've ever used, or seen.
Judging by the gains seen in mobile Sandy Bridge a 16 core Mac Pro could easily hit twice the performance of the previous 12 core model.
Here's hoping for retina MBA!
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The Mac Pro is one of the best designed workstations I have seen. I don't see any wasted space. It was designed for excellent airflow, which it has. If you are looking at areas that are designed to be open for the purpose of that airflow, and are assuming that it's wasted space, and can be eliminated, well, that's just wrong.
Pshh, airflow. Like Apple knows anything about that. Check out my ride, bizzizzles:
Now lemme see, we got one, two, three, four, five, SIX di-rec-tions of fans for mayyyyximum airfaaaaa-low.
Single direction front to back… Pah! Mac Pro's got nuthin' on this.
I don't understand and this smaller case thing here. I can only suspect that those wanting one don't really need a Mac Pro. Mine has a 950 watt power supply. These machines are often used with a pro level graphics card, or even two, that consume 250 watts of power each. In addition they have more slots that can use more power. In addition they have 4 official drive bays, plus a free bay under the DVD drive at the front.
This all uses power, and requires a big machine for full length boards. If you don't NEED a Mac Pro, then don't get one. Get an iMac, they are very good machines, and will satisfy the needs of most people.
But if you need 32GB or more of EEC RAM, 2 workstation level processors, and a pro level graphics card or two, plus other specialized hardware, then you need a Mac Pro. And that's goi g to be a big machine. Indeed, it's been criticized as being too small, with not enough slots. Some workstations in its class have 8.
The only one I let clean my computer room is me. I clean the front with the vacuum as well as the rear, and once every 6 months or so open it up and do the inside.
It works, but it was never intended to be rack mounted. It is what it is. Apple gave up on rack mounted servers. This is a workstation by nature. Not a server, though obviously it can e used that way.
My god, what an absolute horror! That's typical of the crappy, not quite designed machines I see around. Unfortunately, crap like that is built to just get everything in, but with no worry about electrical noise, stray capacitance, and airflow eddies, of which I can predict several from just looking at that. There's no shielding between various sections of the machi e which should be isolated. Also, the airflow, wherever it is there, just swirls around in the machine rather than moving through, the way it's supposed to.
Basically, yuck!
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
That's your opinion, and I strongly disagree with it. I've designed a lot of electronics for my own company, way back when. Apple's Mac Pro compares to $6,000-$10,000 machines from Boxx, Dell and HP, not their cheaper stuff which is crowded inside, with bays hanging down, and wires wandering everywhere. The more expensive machines are built more like Apple's. Apple uses those large, slow rpm fans for the processor board on the bottom, and that requires room. Then there are fans on the heatsinks as well. Also more fans above those. My Mac Pro is one of, if not the quietest workstation I've ever used, or seen.
Some of those have more features in terms of PCI slots, bays, and memory capacity. When they came out with the first mac pro, I figured they were holding back a little on that stuff to keep the price down. Right now I'm slightly surprised that the base configuration still exists. I would've expected a better sustained cpu performance gap between top imac and bottom mac pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Pshh, airflow. Like Apple knows anything about that. Check out my ride, bizzizzles:
Now lemme see, we got one, two, three, four, five, SIX di-rec-tions of fans for mayyyyximum airfaaaaa-low.
Single direction front to back… Pah! Mac Pro's got nuthin' on this.
That looks like a home built gaming computer given the weird frankensteined setup and routing and the large cpu cooler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I don't understand and this smaller case thing here. I can only suspect that those wanting one don't really need a Mac Pro. Mine has a 950 watt power supply. These machines are often used with a pro level graphics card, or even two, that consume 250 watts of power each. In addition they have more slots that can use more power. In addition they have 4 official drive bays, plus a free bay under the DVD drive at the front.
This all uses power, and requires a big machine for full length boards. If you don't NEED a Mac Pro, then don't get one. Get an iMac, they are very good machines, and will satisfy the needs of most people.
But if you need 32GB or more of EEC RAM, 2 workstation level processors, and a pro level graphics card or two, plus other specialized hardware, then you need a Mac Pro. And that's goi g to be a big machine. Indeed, it's been criticized as being too small, with not enough slots. Some workstations in its class have 8.
Some workstations pack more into the same footprint. It varies. Most of this comes from the camp looking for an Xmac or those that aren't really satisfied with the alternatives. The other problem is when people attribute the cost of the machine to the large aluminum case even though the CNC work necessary for a macbook air might be more labor intensive given the necessary cuts and relatively fine tolerance on curvature. There's a myth that making it smaller would bring down the retail price. There was also a suggestion that accommodating a wider range of hardware down to the consumer end would help the volume of the platform, but I don't think they'll do this anymore than I think they'll try to cram an X79 chipset into an imac (regarding frequent mention of a 6 core imac concept, I don't think we'll see that until such a thing is made for consumer level chipsets).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It works, but it was never intended to be rack mounted. It is what it is. Apple gave up on rack mounted servers. This is a workstation by nature. Not a server, though obviously it can e used that way.
Some shops might benefit from it. I noticed lenovo designed one of their smaller ones to be efficiently rackable.
I keep throwing my money at the screen but nothing is happening!!
Agreed. The Mac Pro is a thing of beauty and should never be relegated to the floor like it's some kind of ugly plastic beige box! It deserves to stand high and proud!
Cue "Shut up and take my money!" Fry picture!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sevenfeet
I threw my back out recently lugging it around. It is NOT light.
At our last facility we had seven of them on shelves in an extra-wide rack. I learned quickly not to pull the top two units by myself. Dead weight over your head is always a bad idea.