I just find it sad that the minute this rumour raises it's head, there are half a dozen comments by people who are basically expecting an "X Mac" mini-tower (that Apple has never made and never should make). You do not need a Mac Pro for an "iPhoto server" for instance.
The Power Mac G4 was called a "mini tower" by Apple and the base version was $1599 IIRC. That counts as an xMac for many of us.
Ivy Bridge Xeon E5 V2 isn't due until 3rd quarter 2013, which jibes with Cook's comment about new Mac Pros in late 2013.
Maybe Apple has a special arrangement with Intel on the latest Xeons?
It has nothing to do with that. Why does everyone read into a statement that way? None of you heard it from the original source. It contain the words "Later" and "in 2013". It did not provide further context, even if it happens to work out that way. It just provided a calendar year target. Further it's unlikely that Apple has any kind of special arrangement. If they're skipping Sandy, engineering samples could be in circulation at Apple, but that is normal. Sandy also rolled out over several months. This kind of thing could roll into 2014 if they're stuck on Ivy. I get really tired of watching people add significance that defies all logic. It turns a simple statement into FUD.
If they're skipping Sandy, engineering samples could be in circulation at Apple, but that is normal. Sandy also rolled out over several months. This kind of thing could roll into 2014 if they're stuck on Ivy. I get really tired of watching people add significance that defies all logic. It turns a simple statement into FUD.
I don't see how it defies logic to assume that after making people wait nearly 3 years that they'd at least use the latest Xeon processors and not ones that everybody else shipped last May.
Some people seem to prefer the idea of getting Sandy Bridge around March but I don't get why anyone would rather get Sandy Bridge, nor why there would be completely unfounded assumptions that Ivy Bridge will be pushed back to 2014 when it's in production - that's the definition of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Ivy Bridge being on time is optimistic, not FUD.
If they stick with DP machines, it would potentially go 6-core, 12-core, 20-core, shipping exactly when everyone else is in June/July. They can go with up to 16-core Sandy Bridge in March but I don't see why that would be their most logical choice. They could do that tomorrow if they wanted to. Sandy Bridge is available right now. What possible reason would they have for delaying a Sandy Bridge launch any further and worse, pushing an Ivy Bridge Mac Pro back to 2014 when HP, Dell etc will launch Ivy Bridge this year? They might as well catch up when they have the chance.
The issue with this is and always has been, I don't want cables, boxes, hard drives, etc all over my desk or else the pretty iMac will end p looking like the Dell shown below which is precisely what Apple tries to prevent. If I have a tower, I can put everything inside it where it should be.
That's a silly comparison. Add the external HDDs and an external ODD to match the amount of drives that can be added internally to the desktop tower, and you'll find that it's the iMac with a rat's nest of cables behind it.
That's a silly comparison. Add the external HDDs and an external ODD to match the amount of drives that can be added internally to the desktop tower, and you'll find that it's the iMac with a rat's nest of cables behind it.
You have to be pretty OCD to think an HDD and ODD are equal to what we see from that Dell above. Apple doesn't put ports on their iMac to make them look pretty. They serve a purpose and I'm quite happy that I can plug in something to USB, TB, ethernet without having a half-dozen requires cables getting in the way.
PS: An ODD and HDD are even less cluttery than the iMac shown above because the new iMacs ship with a wireless keyboard and mouse/trackpad thereby removing the need for any of the wires to come out in front of the display.
Add the external HDDs and an external ODD to match the amount of drives that can be added internally to the desktop tower, and you'll find that it's the iMac with a rat's nest of cables behind it.
That's one box, two more cables.
The only silly thing is you thinking ODDs are needed.
You have to be pretty OCD to think an HDD and ODD are equal to what we see from that Dell above. Apple doesn't put ports on their iMac to make them look pretty. They serve a purpose and I'm quite happy that I can plug in something to USB, TB, ethernet without having a half-dozen requires cables getting in the way.
PS: An ODD and HDD are even less cluttery than the iMac shown above because the new iMacs ship with a wireless keyboard and mouse/trackpad thereby removing the need for any of the wires to come out in front of the display.
My Mac Pro doesn't have a rat's nest of cables anything like that Dell pictured. If you added the number of HDDs, SSDs, and ODDs inside my Mac Pro to an iMac, you would have a LOT of cables not to mention of a lot of used up desk real estate. I'd wager that my Mac Pro uses less desk space than a Mini with a comparable amount of storage. I'm talking desk surface area, not volume.
I don't think many here at AI understand this concept. Not everyone is content to use an iMac as it was configured the day they purchased it. A 1 TB fusion drive doesn't cut it for many professionals or even ethusiasts.
The only silly thing is you thinking ODDs are needed.
Two SSDs
Five HDDs
One ODD, because I watch MOVIES on my Mac Pro. Understand the concept of entertainment? Streaming movies are worthless to me because I live in a rural area and pay by the gigabyte.
That all fits in one box? Are you delusional?
Quote:
Apple doesn't put ports on their iMac to make them look pretty. They serve a purpose
If they were purely functional then the iMac would have a few easily accessable ports for things like flash drives or transiently plugged in cables. The Mac Pro is an example of ergonomic port placement. The iMac is an abomination if you need to plug in a flash drive.
My Mac Pro doesn't have a rat's nest of cables anything like that Dell pictured. If you added the number of HDDs, SSDs, and ODDs inside my Mac Pro to an iMac, you would have a LOT of cables not to mention of a lot of used up desk real estate. I'd wager that my Mac Pro uses less desk space than a Mini with a comparable amount of storage. I'm talking desk surface area, not volume.
I don't think many here at AI understand this concept. Not everyone is content to use an iMac as it was configured the day they purchased it. A 1 TB fusion drive doesn't cut it for many professionals or even ethusiasts.
1) If you need the max number of total drives directly connected to your system that a Mac Pro can offer than an iMac wouldn't be an viable option. Your post reads that if you have any cables sticking out of your iMac that it completely makes it a pointless device to have. This is wrong!
2) How many people keep their Mac Pros on their desks? Even one I know with a MP keep it under or next to it.
3) We all get the concept that the MP is more powerful than an iMac with a lot more configuration options, but you need to understand that all those options and extra performance don't appeal to most people. Even if I could have bought a MP plus a 27" IPS display for not much more than the cost of my iMac but that isn't what I wanted. I wanted the AIO. Outside of maxing out the RAM myself I have no intention of upgrading it during its lifetime. I've owned enough computers to know how I will utilize them.
4) A 1TB Fusion Drive? You are either creating a fallacious argument or you are not aware that he iMac has up to a 3.1TB Fusion Drive. It's what I waited 4 weeks to receive and the only BTO option I wanted outside the default high-end model.
5) If you need or want multiple internal HDDs or SSDs you put in yourself and 2 Xeon CPUs with 128GB RAM then there is only one choice from Apple but surely you have to realize that very few users buy that machine compared to the iMac just as very few buy an iMac compared to a Mac notebook. And it's not a sound argument to suggest that two things connected to your iMac means you should have gotten an MP.
The iMac is an abomination if you need to plug in a flash drive.
Then the Mac Pro is an admonition if I need to plug in a serial cable?
PS: I still need to use a serial cable every single day but I don't complain that entire machine is now a pointless piece of crap because I have to use a USB adapter to plug something in.
One ODD, because I watch MOVIES on my Mac Pro. Understand the concept of entertainment? Streaming movies are worthless to me because I live in a rural area and pay by the gigabyte.
Pro tip: They make 'em bigger than this, too. But you probably don't care since you didn't seem to know that cases which hold multiple hard drives existed in the first place.
The Mac Pro is an example of ergonomic port placement. The iMac is an abomination if you need to plug in a flash drive.
So the Mac Pro is an abomination if you need to plug in optical audio, Ethernet, analog audio out, or anything involving any PCIe card. Got it.
I don't see how it defies logic to assume that after making people wait nearly 3 years that they'd at least use the latest Xeon processors and not ones that everybody else shipped last May.
You aren't maintaining context with my statement. What I called FUD was the method of interpretation applied to the statement. Beyond that oem shipping dates haven't always been in line with intel's official launch dates. Sandy Bridge officially launched in Q1. It had a 3-4 month lag there. You may not see Ivy either this year or until very late in the current year. I previously thought you might see something around January for Sandy followed by Ivy a year later. Westmere shipped a number of months later than it became available. The first in line or early shipping on future Xeons seems to be a drift away from what is likely.
Quote:
Some people seem to prefer the idea of getting Sandy Bridge around March but I don't get why anyone would rather get Sandy Bridge, nor why there would be completely unfounded assumptions that Ivy Bridge will be pushed back to 2014 when it's in production - that's the definition of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Ivy Bridge being on time is optimistic, not FUD.
If they stick with DP machines, it would potentially go 6-core, 12-core, 20-core, shipping exactly when everyone else is in June/July. They can go with up to 16-core Sandy Bridge in March but I don't see why that would be their most logical choice. They could do that tomorrow if they wanted to. Sandy Bridge is available right now. What possible reason would they have for delaying a Sandy Bridge launch any further and worse, pushing an Ivy Bridge Mac Pro back to 2014 when HP, Dell etc will launch Ivy Bridge this year? They might as well catch up when they have the chance.
Note what I said about intel's official launch dates compared to when we see them ship. Even in my Westmere example they were announced in July and didn't ship until late August that year. The later it gets the more likely it is that they'd skip Sandy, although that doesn't really justify scrubbing PR statements for secondary information. They are obviously behind with that specific line at the moment. Even if it's aimed at Ivy, I wouldn't look for Apple to ship first. As for their cpu lineup, assuming they choose similar price points, Sandy would still start with a quad model. The graphic at that link doesn't really display the appropriate cpus in any case. E7/EX supports up to 4 sockets. E5 4600 is also not something you'll see. The two that basically align with their current setup and what others ship in every other workstation on the market would be specifically E5-16XX in single machines and E5-26XX in duals. Ivy Bridge will probably just be a v2 version. Hopefully they don't do a repeat on Westmere and only release a partial lineup. I kind of doubt they'll do that again, but it's always possible.
This basically means ignore anything that says E3, E5-14xx, E5-24xx, 26xxL, E5-46xx, and E7. Some are close enough to where it's easy to get mixed up. You noticed my own prior mistake regarding chipsets.
Pro tip: They make 'em bigger than this, too. But you probably don't care since you didn't seem to know that cases which hold multiple hard drives existed in the first place.
So the Mac Pro is an abomination if you need to plug in optical audio, Ethernet, analog audio out, or anything involving any PCIe card. Got it.
One of the annoying things is finding a NAS that is well supported on OSX.
The fact is they owe you nothing based on purchases a decade ago. Apple is a dramatically different company these days as it is.
The only thing Apple owes customers is the support they expect for their hardware as defined in warranties given. Apple does really well here and often goes above expectations to make things right for customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
This attitude has served American business so well in recent decades!
One of the annoying things is finding a NAS that is well supported on OSX.
Tell me about it. The one I linked? Says it's supported. Total lies. And no help whatsoever when you call! The management utility is in Flash, if that tells you anything, too.
You may not see Ivy either this year or until very late in the current year.
There's no evidence so far to suggest that Ivy Bridge will have the same delays Sandy Bridge did (VT-d bug) so assuming that, which would you prefer: Sandy Bridge in March or Ivy Bridge in June/July?
Also, what reason would Apple have for waiting for a Sandy Bridge update when the CPUs have been available for over 9 months?
How well do you think people would receive 9 month old hardware in it after this long a wait?
For an IB update, it would likely use E5-2600v2 as you say. They won't use dual 10-core as they cost too much so at best it'll be a 16-core. Still no evidence they'll have USB 3, SATA 6G or PCIe 3 yet either. Imagine how disappointing it would be to have an entry quad-core Sandy Bridge at $2500 with USB 2, SATA 3G and PCIe 2 after all this time.
Ivy Bridge Xeon E5 V2 isn't due until 3rd quarter 2013, which jibes with Cook's comment about new Mac Pros in late 2013.
Maybe Apple has a special arrangement with Intel on the latest Xeons?
Not always, but it wouldn't be the first time. Didn't Apple get the first quad core Xeons, at least couple months early? I think it was also a slight variant model that no one else got. I don't know if they got in early on the Core Duos or not for the first Intel iMacs and MacBook Pros, it seems like they did.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I just find it sad that the minute this rumour raises it's head, there are half a dozen comments by people who are basically expecting an "X Mac" mini-tower (that Apple has never made and never should make). You do not need a Mac Pro for an "iPhoto server" for instance.
The Power Mac G4 was called a "mini tower" by Apple and the base version was $1599 IIRC. That counts as an xMac for many of us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Ivy Bridge Xeon E5 V2 isn't due until 3rd quarter 2013, which jibes with Cook's comment about new Mac Pros in late 2013.
Maybe Apple has a special arrangement with Intel on the latest Xeons?
It has nothing to do with that. Why does everyone read into a statement that way? None of you heard it from the original source. It contain the words "Later" and "in 2013". It did not provide further context, even if it happens to work out that way. It just provided a calendar year target. Further it's unlikely that Apple has any kind of special arrangement. If they're skipping Sandy, engineering samples could be in circulation at Apple, but that is normal. Sandy also rolled out over several months. This kind of thing could roll into 2014 if they're stuck on Ivy. I get really tired of watching people add significance that defies all logic. It turns a simple statement into FUD.
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
The Power Mac G4 was called a "mini tower"…
The Mac Pro is classed as a "mini tower" because of its size, too. This means nothing.
I don't see how it defies logic to assume that after making people wait nearly 3 years that they'd at least use the latest Xeon processors and not ones that everybody else shipped last May.
Some people seem to prefer the idea of getting Sandy Bridge around March but I don't get why anyone would rather get Sandy Bridge, nor why there would be completely unfounded assumptions that Ivy Bridge will be pushed back to 2014 when it's in production - that's the definition of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Ivy Bridge being on time is optimistic, not FUD.
http://techiser.com/intel-database-confirmed-ivy-bridgee-15-cores-155502.html
If they stick with DP machines, it would potentially go 6-core, 12-core, 20-core, shipping exactly when everyone else is in June/July. They can go with up to 16-core Sandy Bridge in March but I don't see why that would be their most logical choice. They could do that tomorrow if they wanted to. Sandy Bridge is available right now. What possible reason would they have for delaying a Sandy Bridge launch any further and worse, pushing an Ivy Bridge Mac Pro back to 2014 when HP, Dell etc will launch Ivy Bridge this year? They might as well catch up when they have the chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
The issue with this is and always has been, I don't want cables, boxes, hard drives, etc all over my desk or else the pretty iMac will end p looking like the Dell shown below which is precisely what Apple tries to prevent. If I have a tower, I can put everything inside it where it should be.
That's a silly comparison. Add the external HDDs and an external ODD to match the amount of drives that can be added internally to the desktop tower, and you'll find that it's the iMac with a rat's nest of cables behind it.
You have to be pretty OCD to think an HDD and ODD are equal to what we see from that Dell above. Apple doesn't put ports on their iMac to make them look pretty. They serve a purpose and I'm quite happy that I can plug in something to USB, TB, ethernet without having a half-dozen requires cables getting in the way.
PS: An ODD and HDD are even less cluttery than the iMac shown above because the new iMacs ship with a wireless keyboard and mouse/trackpad thereby removing the need for any of the wires to come out in front of the display.
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Add the external HDDs and an external ODD to match the amount of drives that can be added internally to the desktop tower, and you'll find that it's the iMac with a rat's nest of cables behind it.
That's one box, two more cables.
The only silly thing is you thinking ODDs are needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Apple is a company. They sell product, you buy product. They owe you NOTHING.
And just to clarify, they owe ME nothing for my '90s purchases, either.
This attitude has served American business so well in recent decades!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You have to be pretty OCD to think an HDD and ODD are equal to what we see from that Dell above. Apple doesn't put ports on their iMac to make them look pretty. They serve a purpose and I'm quite happy that I can plug in something to USB, TB, ethernet without having a half-dozen requires cables getting in the way.
PS: An ODD and HDD are even less cluttery than the iMac shown above because the new iMacs ship with a wireless keyboard and mouse/trackpad thereby removing the need for any of the wires to come out in front of the display.
My Mac Pro doesn't have a rat's nest of cables anything like that Dell pictured. If you added the number of HDDs, SSDs, and ODDs inside my Mac Pro to an iMac, you would have a LOT of cables not to mention of a lot of used up desk real estate. I'd wager that my Mac Pro uses less desk space than a Mini with a comparable amount of storage. I'm talking desk surface area, not volume.
I don't think many here at AI understand this concept. Not everyone is content to use an iMac as it was configured the day they purchased it. A 1 TB fusion drive doesn't cut it for many professionals or even ethusiasts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's one box, two more cables.
The only silly thing is you thinking ODDs are needed.
Two SSDs
Five HDDs
One ODD, because I watch MOVIES on my Mac Pro. Understand the concept of entertainment? Streaming movies are worthless to me because I live in a rural area and pay by the gigabyte.
That all fits in one box? Are you delusional?
Quote:
Apple doesn't put ports on their iMac to make them look pretty. They serve a purpose
If they were purely functional then the iMac would have a few easily accessable ports for things like flash drives or transiently plugged in cables. The Mac Pro is an example of ergonomic port placement. The iMac is an abomination if you need to plug in a flash drive.
1) If you need the max number of total drives directly connected to your system that a Mac Pro can offer than an iMac wouldn't be an viable option. Your post reads that if you have any cables sticking out of your iMac that it completely makes it a pointless device to have. This is wrong!
2) How many people keep their Mac Pros on their desks? Even one I know with a MP keep it under or next to it.
3) We all get the concept that the MP is more powerful than an iMac with a lot more configuration options, but you need to understand that all those options and extra performance don't appeal to most people. Even if I could have bought a MP plus a 27" IPS display for not much more than the cost of my iMac but that isn't what I wanted. I wanted the AIO. Outside of maxing out the RAM myself I have no intention of upgrading it during its lifetime. I've owned enough computers to know how I will utilize them.
4) A 1TB Fusion Drive? You are either creating a fallacious argument or you are not aware that he iMac has up to a 3.1TB Fusion Drive. It's what I waited 4 weeks to receive and the only BTO option I wanted outside the default high-end model.
5) If you need or want multiple internal HDDs or SSDs you put in yourself and 2 Xeon CPUs with 128GB RAM then there is only one choice from Apple but surely you have to realize that very few users buy that machine compared to the iMac just as very few buy an iMac compared to a Mac notebook. And it's not a sound argument to suggest that two things connected to your iMac means you should have gotten an MP.
Then the Mac Pro is an admonition if I need to plug in a serial cable?
PS: I still need to use a serial cable every single day but I don't complain that entire machine is now a pointless piece of crap because I have to use a USB adapter to plug something in.
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Two SSDs
Five HDDs
One ODD, because I watch MOVIES on my Mac Pro. Understand the concept of entertainment? Streaming movies are worthless to me because I live in a rural area and pay by the gigabyte.
That all fits in one box? Are you delusional?
Are you?
Pro tip: They make 'em bigger than this, too. But you probably don't care since you didn't seem to know that cases which hold multiple hard drives existed in the first place.
The Mac Pro is an example of ergonomic port placement. The iMac is an abomination if you need to plug in a flash drive.
So the Mac Pro is an abomination if you need to plug in optical audio, Ethernet, analog audio out, or anything involving any PCIe card. Got it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I don't see how it defies logic to assume that after making people wait nearly 3 years that they'd at least use the latest Xeon processors and not ones that everybody else shipped last May.
You aren't maintaining context with my statement. What I called FUD was the method of interpretation applied to the statement. Beyond that oem shipping dates haven't always been in line with intel's official launch dates. Sandy Bridge officially launched in Q1. It had a 3-4 month lag there. You may not see Ivy either this year or until very late in the current year. I previously thought you might see something around January for Sandy followed by Ivy a year later. Westmere shipped a number of months later than it became available. The first in line or early shipping on future Xeons seems to be a drift away from what is likely.
Quote:
Some people seem to prefer the idea of getting Sandy Bridge around March but I don't get why anyone would rather get Sandy Bridge, nor why there would be completely unfounded assumptions that Ivy Bridge will be pushed back to 2014 when it's in production - that's the definition of FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Ivy Bridge being on time is optimistic, not FUD.
http://techiser.com/intel-database-confirmed-ivy-bridgee-15-cores-155502.html
If they stick with DP machines, it would potentially go 6-core, 12-core, 20-core, shipping exactly when everyone else is in June/July. They can go with up to 16-core Sandy Bridge in March but I don't see why that would be their most logical choice. They could do that tomorrow if they wanted to. Sandy Bridge is available right now. What possible reason would they have for delaying a Sandy Bridge launch any further and worse, pushing an Ivy Bridge Mac Pro back to 2014 when HP, Dell etc will launch Ivy Bridge this year? They might as well catch up when they have the chance.
Note what I said about intel's official launch dates compared to when we see them ship. Even in my Westmere example they were announced in July and didn't ship until late August that year. The later it gets the more likely it is that they'd skip Sandy, although that doesn't really justify scrubbing PR statements for secondary information. They are obviously behind with that specific line at the moment. Even if it's aimed at Ivy, I wouldn't look for Apple to ship first. As for their cpu lineup, assuming they choose similar price points, Sandy would still start with a quad model. The graphic at that link doesn't really display the appropriate cpus in any case. E7/EX supports up to 4 sockets. E5 4600 is also not something you'll see. The two that basically align with their current setup and what others ship in every other workstation on the market would be specifically E5-16XX in single machines and E5-26XX in duals. Ivy Bridge will probably just be a v2 version. Hopefully they don't do a repeat on Westmere and only release a partial lineup. I kind of doubt they'll do that again, but it's always possible.
This basically means ignore anything that says E3, E5-14xx, E5-24xx, 26xxL, E5-46xx, and E7. Some are close enough to where it's easy to get mixed up. You noticed my own prior mistake regarding chipsets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Are you?
Pro tip: They make 'em bigger than this, too. But you probably don't care since you didn't seem to know that cases which hold multiple hard drives existed in the first place.
So the Mac Pro is an abomination if you need to plug in optical audio, Ethernet, analog audio out, or anything involving any PCIe card. Got it.
One of the annoying things is finding a NAS that is well supported on OSX.
The fact is they owe you nothing based on purchases a decade ago. Apple is a dramatically different company these days as it is.
The only thing Apple owes customers is the support they expect for their hardware as defined in warranties given. Apple does really well here and often goes above expectations to make things right for customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
This attitude has served American business so well in recent decades!
Originally Posted by hmm
One of the annoying things is finding a NAS that is well supported on OSX.
Tell me about it. The one I linked? Says it's supported. Total lies. And no help whatsoever when you call! The management utility is in Flash, if that tells you anything, too.
There's no evidence so far to suggest that Ivy Bridge will have the same delays Sandy Bridge did (VT-d bug) so assuming that, which would you prefer: Sandy Bridge in March or Ivy Bridge in June/July?
Also, what reason would Apple have for waiting for a Sandy Bridge update when the CPUs have been available for over 9 months?
How well do you think people would receive 9 month old hardware in it after this long a wait?
For an IB update, it would likely use E5-2600v2 as you say. They won't use dual 10-core as they cost too much so at best it'll be a 16-core. Still no evidence they'll have USB 3, SATA 6G or PCIe 3 yet either. Imagine how disappointing it would be to have an entry quad-core Sandy Bridge at $2500 with USB 2, SATA 3G and PCIe 2 after all this time.
Not always, but it wouldn't be the first time. Didn't Apple get the first quad core Xeons, at least couple months early? I think it was also a slight variant model that no one else got. I don't know if they got in early on the Core Duos or not for the first Intel iMacs and MacBook Pros, it seems like they did.
The concept that a company has to wait on a consumer's every demand has gotten a bit far.