His blog post still suggests big iron for a small shop with only a couple stations. It's about what I recall reading last time. He started with the imacs for offline workflows and slip edits. He doesn't mention getting rid of big iron entirely.
Further down he also mentions they stuck to big iron for finishing systems, as I expected.
Workstations help when it comes to rendering and encoding as they are up to 3x faster than iMacs and the dual-GPUs in the MP will help with Resolve as it works with OpenCL:
The examples suggest a definite improvement, but displays are a much more complicated issue than is sometimes suggested. Note how that 17" broadcast display referenced in the thread was "only" $3200.
The iMac's internal display isn't much more important a consideration than a Macbook Pro's. If it's not good enough, you get an external display.
"A certain group of people just can't accept Apple being seen positively in any light."
Recently, I read this on MacRumors. It seems to sum it up:
"As an actual professional that uses these machines, I'm getting really sick and tired of seeing people assume what it is that I need or want to implement in my business. Particularly when they clearly have no idea what a professional workflow is like."
Workstations help when it comes to rendering and encoding as they are up to 3x faster than iMacs and the dual-GPUs in the MP will help with Resolve as it works with OpenCL:
"the cards for the Z1 are of HP proprietary design and there is no question of finding something else that will conveniently just fit anyway.
What we are talking about here is buying some HP replacement parts and making up a pseudo HP card by putting another board into the HP replacement housing. Although this doesn't appear too tricky, it's more than your normal PC upgrade.
And there is risk that it won't work at all, will not work properly, will overheat, not control the fan appropriately or whatever.
The safe option is to buy an HP Quadro graphics card, but to get one with decent gaming performance, likely it will cost nigh on as much as your Z1 did."
These guys helpfully try recommending installing a 680M MXM card:
Now, the lowest price for a base Z1 seems to be around $2500 with a Core-i3 and no dedicated GPU so let's add a quad-i5, 8GB RAM, entry dedicated GPU = $3,000.
The quad-i7 iMac with a 680MX, even faster than a 680M is $2350. Is the empty space inside the Z1 to store all the sadness buyers feel once they realise how bad a deal they got?
But again I wasn't talking about owning one, just that I would prefer the opened design. Oh and I read the thread, the guy wasn't sad, he just wanted to know his upgrade options for video cards, as it looks there are quite a few.
I wish Mac's weren't so damn hard to upgrade, I would love to see the iMac have the same opened design as an HP Z1.
Then adding in your AMD 7970 would be a trivial thing.
I have brought up the same thing before. It's always "use thunderbolt if your drive dies" yet thunderbolt it also suggested for many other things. The imac has 2 ports. If I wasn't comfortable swapping out a drive, it would make me a lot more hesitant to buy a machine. I hate flaky drives more than anything. By the way IIRC the K3000m was defined by using different memory than the 1000 and 2000. That amazon price is a lot cheaper than what some oems charged for the upgrade. IT was generally more than twice that on cto pricing. Some people have mentioned upgrading the imac with mxm type cards, but in most cases I doubt you gain much. There was a thread elsewhere about upgrading a 6770m to a 6970m. For what it cost the person asking could have purchased it with the higher end option initially, unless of course they were talented at scavenging tech auctions for things such as used tesla cards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
I wasn't talking about owning a Z1, I just wish the iMac was as easy to open and upgrade. You have to admit that the internal design is kind of cool.
Okay so looking around you can insert a MXM 3.0 card in it, any of these would fit,
I think it's cool. I've referenced it before. Initially HP claimed they would offer dreamcolor display upgrades with that one, but I never saw pricing on that. Those displays may be abandonware at this point. They were HP's attempt at a low end broadcast display.
"the cards for the Z1 are of HP proprietary design and there is no question of finding something else that will conveniently just fit anyway.
The person who bought one misunderstood the intent of the design if they were expecting a gpu ugprade to be simple. You're limited to mobile parts anyway. The difference isn't as great as it was. It's often 30-50% today comparing to top mobile gpus. It used to be well over 100%. The 680mx is basically a very underclocked version of the 680. The Z1 is designed to be easily serviceable with HP parts so as to minimize downtime. The machine doesn't have to go anywhere. It wasn't really designed to accommodate upgrades. I liked the design overall, but the ratio of cost to specs is much worse than some of their other machines. The best deals with HP tend to be stock configurations, as their cto pricing is madness.
<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;font:13px Verdana;">"As an actual professional that uses these machines, I'm getting really sick and tired of seeing people assume what it is that I need or want to implement in my business. Particularly when they clearly have no idea what a professional workflow is like."</p>
The problem with the above comment and often very similar ones, is that it is a very self centered comment and dismisses the whole idea of mass production. Frankly people like this need to be told repeatedly how to run their business if only to run up their blood pressure. To be a successful product the New Mac Pro needs to appeal to a broad array of potential users. Frankly to far more people than the current model does. It is a reality of the industry that mass production helps control costs and assure profitability.
As to someone's personal work flow, frankly screw them! Apple can't possibly build a custom tailored PC for each and every customer out there. This is fundamental to the type of business Apple is engaged in, they effectively mass produce high performance computers! The Air is an excellent example here, by tailoring the machine to a limited use case they can offer excellent performance at a low price point. This is exactly where they have gone wrong with the old Mac Pro over the last few years, it became a high priced low performance machine in its base configuration.
In a nut shell all of these people demanding that Apple tailor a Mac Pro to their requirements are asking for the impossible. If Apple would attempt to do so they would suffer in the marketplace as they have with the old Mac Pro design. When 99% of your market doesn't need some of the expensive features being demanded, trying to support that one percent alienates the other 99%.
The problem with the above comment and often very similar ones, is that it is a very self centered comment and dismisses the whole idea of mass production. Frankly people like this need to be told repeatedly how to run their business if only to run up their blood pressure.
That particular comment seems to be in support of what Apple did. It was said against people who suggested the design Apple went with was prosumer (about halfway down):
Some of the points include that businesses use network storage so bulk internal storage typically isn't a factor. The edit suite mentioned above has a 48TB RAID, which can be expanded to more than double and is shared by 18 workstations:
This helps with data protection, physical security and is needed for collaboration.
Concerning the CPU, when Phil said double the CPU performance of the last-gen, I think he meant that each CPU has double the performance of the old CPUs. In other words, the fastest single CPU they offered before was 6-core and now it's 12-core but because there's only 1 CPU, the overall performance will be at least as fast as the old 12-core but they can offer it cheaper.
To some people, that compromise will seem a little prosumer but as I've said before, they wouldn't offer two 12-cores anyway because they are too expensive. Apple just has to offer good value and again, people have to consider the roadmap. Intel has increased core-count by double in 3 years. If they do that again, you get a 24-core Mac Pro in 3 years. While HP/Dell may offer a 24-core this year, the price points will be up at the $10k mark, which hardly appeals to anyone and those who invest in that won't upgrade often. For people invested in the Mac eco-system, there will be more regular upgrades needed, which is better for Apple and people who absolutely need more cores just now simply buy two or more workstations.
Just replying because of the mention of Behringer.
Recently had to cancel two Behringer orders because their stuff just isn't getting over to the US. My distributor mentioned that he has canceled lots of Behringer orders because of supply issues.
Installing sound equipment in two new schools and they have to be done like yesterday. I guess the boat was an extra slow one from China.
The problem with the above comment and often very similar ones, is that it is a very self centered comment
How else would you have one view one's own business? I'd cut you some slack on that one as you're not self-employed, but really it's just common sense. One by nature of the process quite obviously looks inward when evaluating what is needed to grown one's business and make money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
[...] and dismisses the whole idea of mass production.
I see. So Ford makes only one version of it's overwhelmingly successful workhouse, the F150, is that right? They don't offer versions with heavy transmissions for those who wish to tow things and a lighter version for those who carry less and value fuel economy? Versions that are close to the ground for easy loading and highway efficiency and versions that are raised up for ground clearance on unpaved work sites?
Seriously? Mass production can't handle variation? I'd say you're very clearly mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Frankly people like this need to be told repeatedly how to run their business if only to run up their blood pressure.
Jeepers Wiz, did your wife run off with an artist or something? Your overt hostility towards anyone who isn't thoroughly satisfied with anything Apple makes is puzzling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As to someone's personal work flow, frankly screw them!
I think this may be a sign that the potential for useful dialog may be diminishing, but suffice to say that a resounding "F*ck you!" to your customer base is not the way to grow profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Apple can't possibly build a custom tailored PC for each and every customer out there.
There is obviously a LOT of ground between "You'll take what we give you and LIKE it!" and "custom tailored for each and every customer." The world of production allows for ample shades of grey, not just black or white.
Apple absolutely CAN provide options without adversely affecting profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The Air is an excellent example here, by tailoring the machine to a limited use case they can offer excellent performance at a low price point.
But we're not talking about a product in the Air's category. We're talking about the top-of-the-line workstation. It faces a MUCH wider palette of usage models and sells to a market that is much less price sensitive. There's much more latitude with a Pro than with an Air, AND assuming a one-size-fits-all stance in that market is suicide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
When 99% of your market doesn't need some of the expensive features being demanded, trying to support that one percent alienates the other 99%.
Nonsense. All they have to do is provide the expensive feature as an option and charge appropriately for it. It's not even difficult, much less impossible. Besides, the demographic that buys the Mac Pro is hardly 99/1. Probably more like 50/50.
Your primary battle cry, aside from insulting anyone who doesn't worship at the Apple product table, seems to be profitability, so let me ask you this:
If Apple continues to restrict the hardware environment so tightly that it's just not a good choice for many users, how will THAT affect profitability? Is it better to sell 100,000 units with half being BTO, or sell only 50,000?
People in different situations have differing needs. Even t-shirts come in more than one size.
\Recently had to cancel two Behringer orders because their stuff just isn't getting over to the US. My distributor mentioned that he has canceled lots of Behringer orders because of supply issues.
Thank Dog for that! The less Behringer gear in the field the better! Maybe people will be forced to buy something half-decent.
Theoretically, Apple could replace the ENTIRE Desktop lineup with this new Mac Pro design…!!!
Three 'performance sectors' in the new Mac Pro…
One would always be filled by a CPU; be it i5s on the low-end (with IGP), i7s on the mid-end (with IGP) or Xeons on the high-end (without IGP)…
Second 'sector'; low to mid-end discrete consumer-class GPUs, mid to high-end discrete consumer-class GPUs or a full range of workstation-class GPUs…
Also in second 'sector' is the PCIe Flash RAM SSD (boot, apps, storage)…
Third 'sector' (this is where things change up); one or two 2.5" HDDs, matching mid to high-end discrete consumer-class GPUs (yes, SLI/CrossFire for gamers!) or matching high-end workstation-class GPUs…
As seen in the second 'sector', the third (excepting the one with the single or dual 2.5" HDD option) includes a slot for a second PCIe Flash RAM SSD…
Upgrade the I/O on the Thunderbolt Display to USB3 & TB2, change the screen 'finish' to match the newer iMacs, same pricing…
Release the All New, Bargain Priced 21.5" Thunderbolt 2 Display; US$599.00…
Release the All New 32" Retina 5K Display (5120 x 2880) for US$2,249.00…
No more Mac mini, iMac or Mac Pro; just the Mac…
Configure as desired, add monitor of choice…
After all; most of their 'PC' sales are supposed to be laptops; so leave the multi SKUs there (which you kinda have to, with the screen all attached and such) and par the Desktop line down to one highly configurable unit…! ;^p
Apple would have a full range of suggested configurations on the online store, but they would all fall under the same SKU; meaning every new Mac was BTO…! Hey, Made (Assembled) In USA, an efficient design, quick turn-around on custom orders…!?!
Bonus idea that just hit me; optional (BTO) integration of the SuperDrive into the 21.5" & 27" Thunderbolt 2 Displays and the 32" Retina 5K Displays…!!! This would also be something that could be easily added later by the end-user…
That particular comment seems to be in support of what Apple did. It was said against people who suggested the design Apple went with was prosumer (about halfway down):
I never liked the pro vs prosumer debate. It's just a weird abstraction arguing names rather than requirements or desired features. End rant..
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
Release the All New 32" Retina 5K Display (5120 x 2880) for US$2,249.00…
It's difficult for me to picture one window scaled that large, and the specific reason others quoted that resolution was due to it matching the 27" doubled in each direction. It may just be me, but I don't see 32" becoming a standard for desk monitors. The way these things work, I find a secondary display to be better for some things beyond the 24-27" size.
I never liked the pro vs prosumer debate. It's just a weird abstraction arguing names rather than requirements or desired features. End rant..
Excellent point. I don't know if I've been guilty of that (probably), but next time I'm tempted to make a meaningless generalization instead of focussing on specifics I'll remember your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
The way these things work, I find a secondary display to be better for some things beyond the 24-27" size.
I understand what you're saying, but I'd be inclined to at least try it. I find having a boundary area between two monitors distracting. Then again, I've never worked with a giant monitor so maybe I'd hate that more.
I never liked the pro vs prosumer debate. It's just a weird abstraction arguing names rather than requirements or desired features. End rant..
It's difficult for me to picture one window scaled that large, and the specific reason others quoted that resolution was due to it matching the 27" doubled in each direction. It may just be me, but I don't see 32" becoming a standard for desk monitors. The way these things work, I find a secondary display to be better for some things beyond the 24-27" size.
Wow 32', who makes those? I almost pulled the trigger on a 27" Apple Monitor until I saw the 29” NEC MultiSync EA294WMi, it was 300 CHF cheaper and just gorgeous. I really think Apple needs relook it's pricing for their monitors, they just aren't very competitively price, actually far from it. The LG monitor which uses the exact same LCD display is now 500 dollars less.
How else would you have one view one's own business? I'd cut you some slack on that one as you're not self-employed, but really it's just common sense. One by nature of the process quite obviously looks inward when evaluating what is needed to grown one's business and make money.
Unless you have a pretty trivial business it is almost impossible to buy exactly what you need to get the advantage you want. It isn't uncommon where I work to buy the closest fit tooling wise and them modify it to do the job you want the way you want.
I see. So Ford makes only one version of it's overwhelmingly successful workhouse, the F150, is that right? They don't offer versions with heavy transmissions for those who wish to tow things and a lighter version for those who carry less and value fuel economy? Versions that are close to the ground for easy loading and highway efficiency and versions that are raised up for ground clearance on unpaved work sites?
Apple will most likely offer variations of this Mac Pro, the "up to" phrases in the online documentation pretty much assure that. What Ford doesn't do for its customers is offer highly tailored models of their pickups for specific usages. That they leave to specialist in the market that change a good penny for their additions to the platform.
Seriously? Mass production can't handle variation? I'd say you're very clearly mistaken.
Not the variation commonly being asked for with respect to the Mac Pro.
Jeepers Wiz, did your wife run off with an artist or something? Your overt hostility towards anyone who isn't thoroughly satisfied with anything Apple makes is puzzling.
The hostility is directed at people whome have this expectation that Apple must serve their specific needs no matter what. There are many things about Apple and their product line ups that frustrate and at times piss me off but I don't go around suggesting that Apple make a specific variant just for me. Even when it comes to the XMac it is more about a product that would be attractive to a significant number of customers.
I think this may be a sign that the potential for useful dialog may be diminishing, but suffice to say that a resounding "F*ck you!" to your customer base is not the way to grow profits.
The ability for useful dialog went out the door when people started complaining about the new Mac Pros impact on their workflow. It isn't that new technology doesn't impact workflow, it will, just that it is your responsibility to adapt to the change and not make a big scene about it.
Technology changes and sometimes you have to change with it. I can remember back to the time when dot matrix printers started to become hard to get. One person I knew was fretting about his loss of the ability to print two part forms. He was more resistant to workflow changes even if those changes might lead to actual improvements in workflow. I'm seeing the same mentality here and frankly it is at best regressive.
Apple hasn't given its customers a FU, but rather an opportunity to move forward.
There is obviously a LOT of ground between "You'll take what we give you and LIKE it!" and "custom tailored for each and every customer." The world of production allows for ample shades of grey, not just black or white.
Apple absolutely CAN provide options without adversely affecting profit.
Apple is effectively giving people more options with this Mac Pro than in their previous machines. That people don't see this contimpnues to amaze me.
But we're not talking about a product in the Air's category. We're talking about the top-of-the-line workstation. It faces a MUCH wider palette of usage models and sells to a market that is much less price sensitive. There's much more latitude with a Pro than with an Air, AND assuming a one-size-fits-all stance in that market is suicide.
This one size fits all view of the new Mac Pro is just asinine. This new Mac Pro is highly configurable, more so than its previous machine. Rather it is a machine that is adaptable to a wider array of users than ever before.
Nonsense. All they have to do is provide the expensive feature as an option and charge appropriately for it. It's not even difficult, much less impossible. Besides, the demographic that buys the Mac Pro is hardly 99/1. Probably more like 50/50.
This is exactly what the new Mac Pro allows them to do. Expansion is an option handled by external devices. As for the internal machine I expect that it will be available in multiple configurations, most likely Apples normal good, better and best lineup. The variations here will be in CPU and GPU configurations.
As to people using internal expansion on the Mac Pro I highly doubt it gets anywhere near 50/50 even including installing a disk array. Remove disk arrays from consideration and you will come awfully close to the 99/1 ratio. Again there is a bias in these forums that seem to indicate that the only real users of the Mac Pro are those in the audio visual fields. That simply isn't true. Even within that field though not everybody has gone with massive amounts of internal hardware.
Your primary battle cry, aside from insulting anyone who doesn't worship at the Apple product table, seems to be profitability, so let me ask you this:
The goal isn't to insult people but rather to get them to look outside of their habitual behaviors and at least look at the new Mac Pro with fresh eyes.
If Apple continues to restrict the hardware environment so tightly that it's just not a good choice for many users, how will THAT affect profitability? Is it better to sell 100,000 units with half being BTO, or sell only 50,000?
The hardware environment isn't restricted if anything it is more open. Continuously repeating this theme doesn't make it true. This new Mac Pro is a significant step forward, not backward as you imply. As far as profitability goes it is pretty obvious that the old machine wasn't cutting the mustard in that respect.
Will this machine do better? Hard to say at this point when costs aren't even know. I will say this though, this new machine has a far greater chance at success than the previous model.
People in different situations have differing needs. Even t-shirts come in more than one size.
This is certainly true and it is exactly what the new Mac Pro accels at. When it ships I doubt there will be a better machine on the market for meeting a wide array of user needs.
Excellent point. I don't know if I've been guilty of that (probably), but next time I'm tempted to make a meaningless generalization instead of focussing on specifics I'll remember your post.
Awesome. I was actually a positive influence for once. I thought I was only capable of corruption. I've definitely made the same mistake, but I don't think the OP of that thread understood it. I just hate what becomes a debate of semantics rather than what offers the best solution, and I think these things need to at least acknowledge the present market. Given that the mac pro was a preview for late this year, they may not see it really picking up prior to 2015. I think they're treating it as a slow moving market where any given design has to accommodate a long design cycle. It doesn't mean I approve of skipping an entire processor generation when the cpus in question don't even stay on a 12 month cycle.
Quote:
I understand what you're saying, but I'd be inclined to at least try it. I find having a boundary area between two monitors distracting. Then again, I've never worked with a giant monitor so maybe I'd hate that more.
You know it depends on your workflow. If you have a UI heavy application that consumes the entire display, you may want a very large display to accommodate the actual work area + additional elements. 3d packages are often that way if you ever use the quad view layouts. I tend to use older displays as secondary monitors just to hold notes and reference. If I place those on the primary display, there's always that annoying thing of trying to position windows and overlap issues. F3 can help, but it's still annoying. When the display gets too big, it's also annoying. If you use a graphics tablet the mapping becomes weird. If you use a mouse, you end with a high level of mouse acceleration, which I find annoying. I like to be able to sense how far I must move something. Enormous screens also put a lot to peripheral vision. You aren't looking over at something to check reference so much as you have to scan a very large primary working area. They had 30" 16: 10 displays before and went down to 27" 16:9. It's hard for me to believe that they really intend to go go way up again, especially with something that is doubled from the current screen. I would find 4K much more likely if the panels were brought down in price by cherry picking A+ units from those used in televisions. I don't see them going larger ahead of everyone else as an experiment, as Apple and other companies already did that experiment in the early to mid 2000s.
Anyway you might be right. I just wanted to offer my own reasoning on what I view as a concluded experiment. I have dealt with both the 30" Apple cinema display and the PVA eizo version, so I know what they look like. I didn't personally own either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Wow 32', who makes those? I almost pulled the trigger on a 27" Apple Monitor until I saw the 29” NEC MultiSync EA294WMi, it was 300 CHF cheaper and just gorgeous. I really think Apple needs relook it's pricing for their monitors, they just aren't very competitively price, actually far from it. The LG monitor which uses the exact same LCD display is now 500 dollars less.
My NEC MultiSync EA294WMi
I've used NEC. In fact I still own one. The thing is immortal even if it's beyond where I can calibrate it properly at this point. What's interesting with the one you linked is the ability to position multiple windows on one screen. I wish we had better functionality for doing that, but extremely wide formats aren't the norm.
Comments
Workstations help when it comes to rendering and encoding as they are up to 3x faster than iMacs and the dual-GPUs in the MP will help with Resolve as it works with OpenCL:
http://barefeats.com/gpu7950.html
The 680MX in the iMac would still do the job and the encoding/rendering would just take a bit longer.
The iMac's internal display isn't much more important a consideration than a Macbook Pro's. If it's not good enough, you get an external display.
Marvin wrote:
"A certain group of people just can't accept Apple being seen positively in any light."
Recently, I read this on MacRumors. It seems to sum it up:
"As an actual professional that uses these machines, I'm getting really sick and tired of seeing people assume what it is that I need or want to implement in my business. Particularly when they clearly have no idea what a professional workflow is like."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Workstations help when it comes to rendering and encoding as they are up to 3x faster than iMacs and the dual-GPUs in the MP will help with Resolve as it works with OpenCL:
http://barefeats.com/gpu7950.html
It's too bad they didn't release a 7970 mac edition considering the price.
Quote:
The 680MX in the iMac would still do the job and the encoding/rendering would just take a bit longer.
The iMac's internal display isn't much more important a consideration than a Macbook Pro's. If it's not good enough, you get an external display.
My point was that I would own a notebook anyway, it just wouldn't be quite as up to date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
It's too bad they didn't release a 7970 mac edition considering the price.
I wish Mac's weren't so damn hard to upgrade, I would love to see the iMac have the same opened design as an HP Z1.
Then adding in your AMD 7970 would be a trivial thing.
This guy who bought one doesn't seem to think so:
http://h30499.www3.hp.com/t5/Workstations-z-series-xw-series/HP-Z1-Upgrading-Graphics-Card-PLEASE-HELP/td-p/5941449#.Ud8wLL8yEnU
"the cards for the Z1 are of HP proprietary design and there is no question of finding something else that will conveniently just fit anyway.
What we are talking about here is buying some HP replacement parts and making up a pseudo HP card by putting another board into the HP replacement housing. Although this doesn't appear too tricky, it's more than your normal PC upgrade.
And there is risk that it won't work at all, will not work properly, will overheat, not control the fan appropriately or whatever.
The safe option is to buy an HP Quadro graphics card, but to get one with decent gaming performance, likely it will cost nigh on as much as your Z1 did."
These guys helpfully try recommending installing a 680M MXM card:
http://forums.bit-tech.net/showthread.php?t=255757
Now, the lowest price for a base Z1 seems to be around $2500 with a Core-i3 and no dedicated GPU so let's add a quad-i5, 8GB RAM, entry dedicated GPU = $3,000.
The quad-i7 iMac with a 680MX, even faster than a 680M is $2350. Is the empty space inside the Z1 to store all the sadness buyers feel once they realise how bad a deal they got?
I wasn't talking about owning a Z1, I just wish the iMac was as easy to open and upgrade. You have to admit that the internal design is kind of cool.
Okay so looking around you can insert a MXM 3.0 card in it, any of these would fit,
http://stores.ebay.ca/Razors-Edge-by-Eurocom-Notebooks/MXM-Video-cards-/_i.html?_fsub=1558582010
No doubt their expensive, entry level Xeon model is 2350.00 Core i5 is 2060.00.
http://www.amazon.com/HP-D3J70UT-All---One-Workstation/dp/B00CD7WBCS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373583452&sr=8-1&keywords=hp+z1
Add 16GB and a Quadro K3000 and your at 3,200.00, that;s not cheap.
http://www.amazon.com/Hewlett-Packard-C3G85AT-Nvidia-Quadro/dp/B00ARI1KX6/ref=sr_1_35?ie=UTF8&qid=1373583765&sr=8-35&keywords=hp+z1+workstation
But again I wasn't talking about owning one, just that I would prefer the opened design. Oh and I read the thread, the guy wasn't sad, he just wanted to know his upgrade options for video cards, as it looks there are quite a few.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
I wish Mac's weren't so damn hard to upgrade, I would love to see the iMac have the same opened design as an HP Z1.
Then adding in your AMD 7970 would be a trivial thing.
I have brought up the same thing before. It's always "use thunderbolt if your drive dies" yet thunderbolt it also suggested for many other things. The imac has 2 ports. If I wasn't comfortable swapping out a drive, it would make me a lot more hesitant to buy a machine. I hate flaky drives more than anything. By the way IIRC the K3000m was defined by using different memory than the 1000 and 2000. That amazon price is a lot cheaper than what some oems charged for the upgrade. IT was generally more than twice that on cto pricing. Some people have mentioned upgrading the imac with mxm type cards, but in most cases I doubt you gain much. There was a thread elsewhere about upgrading a 6770m to a 6970m. For what it cost the person asking could have purchased it with the higher end option initially, unless of course they were talented at scavenging tech auctions for things such as used tesla cards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
I wasn't talking about owning a Z1, I just wish the iMac was as easy to open and upgrade. You have to admit that the internal design is kind of cool.
Okay so looking around you can insert a MXM 3.0 card in it, any of these would fit,
I think it's cool. I've referenced it before. Initially HP claimed they would offer dreamcolor display upgrades with that one, but I never saw pricing on that. Those displays may be abandonware at this point. They were HP's attempt at a low end broadcast display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
This guy who bought one doesn't seem to think so:
http://h30499.www3.hp.com/t5/Workstations-z-series-xw-series/HP-Z1-Upgrading-Graphics-Card-PLEASE-HELP/td-p/5941449#.Ud8wLL8yEnU
"the cards for the Z1 are of HP proprietary design and there is no question of finding something else that will conveniently just fit anyway.
The person who bought one misunderstood the intent of the design if they were expecting a gpu ugprade to be simple. You're limited to mobile parts anyway. The difference isn't as great as it was. It's often 30-50% today comparing to top mobile gpus. It used to be well over 100%. The 680mx is basically a very underclocked version of the 680. The Z1 is designed to be easily serviceable with HP parts so as to minimize downtime. The machine doesn't have to go anywhere. It wasn't really designed to accommodate upgrades. I liked the design overall, but the ratio of cost to specs is much worse than some of their other machines. The best deals with HP tend to be stock configurations, as their cto pricing is madness.
The problem with the above comment and often very similar ones, is that it is a very self centered comment and dismisses the whole idea of mass production. Frankly people like this need to be told repeatedly how to run their business if only to run up their blood pressure. To be a successful product the New Mac Pro needs to appeal to a broad array of potential users. Frankly to far more people than the current model does. It is a reality of the industry that mass production helps control costs and assure profitability.
As to someone's personal work flow, frankly screw them! Apple can't possibly build a custom tailored PC for each and every customer out there. This is fundamental to the type of business Apple is engaged in, they effectively mass produce high performance computers! The Air is an excellent example here, by tailoring the machine to a limited use case they can offer excellent performance at a low price point. This is exactly where they have gone wrong with the old Mac Pro over the last few years, it became a high priced low performance machine in its base configuration.
In a nut shell all of these people demanding that Apple tailor a Mac Pro to their requirements are asking for the impossible. If Apple would attempt to do so they would suffer in the marketplace as they have with the old Mac Pro design. When 99% of your market doesn't need some of the expensive features being demanded, trying to support that one percent alienates the other 99%.
That particular comment seems to be in support of what Apple did. It was said against people who suggested the design Apple went with was prosumer (about halfway down):
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1600248
Some of the points include that businesses use network storage so bulk internal storage typically isn't a factor. The edit suite mentioned above has a 48TB RAID, which can be expanded to more than double and is shared by 18 workstations:
http://www.small-tree.com/Articles.asp?Id=400
This helps with data protection, physical security and is needed for collaboration.
Concerning the CPU, when Phil said double the CPU performance of the last-gen, I think he meant that each CPU has double the performance of the old CPUs. In other words, the fastest single CPU they offered before was 6-core and now it's 12-core but because there's only 1 CPU, the overall performance will be at least as fast as the old 12-core but they can offer it cheaper.
To some people, that compromise will seem a little prosumer but as I've said before, they wouldn't offer two 12-cores anyway because they are too expensive. Apple just has to offer good value and again, people have to consider the roadmap. Intel has increased core-count by double in 3 years. If they do that again, you get a 24-core Mac Pro in 3 years. While HP/Dell may offer a 24-core this year, the price points will be up at the $10k mark, which hardly appeals to anyone and those who invest in that won't upgrade often. For people invested in the Mac eco-system, there will be more regular upgrades needed, which is better for Apple and people who absolutely need more cores just now simply buy two or more workstations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The hardware listed was a Behringer audio mixer, which would be the same on a MP:
http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/MON800.aspx
Just replying because of the mention of Behringer.
Recently had to cancel two Behringer orders because their stuff just isn't getting over to the US. My distributor mentioned that he has canceled lots of Behringer orders because of supply issues.
Installing sound equipment in two new schools and they have to be done like yesterday. I guess the boat was an extra slow one from China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The problem with the above comment and often very similar ones, is that it is a very self centered comment
How else would you have one view one's own business? I'd cut you some slack on that one as you're not self-employed, but really it's just common sense. One by nature of the process quite obviously looks inward when evaluating what is needed to grown one's business and make money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
[...] and dismisses the whole idea of mass production.
I see. So Ford makes only one version of it's overwhelmingly successful workhouse, the F150, is that right? They don't offer versions with heavy transmissions for those who wish to tow things and a lighter version for those who carry less and value fuel economy? Versions that are close to the ground for easy loading and highway efficiency and versions that are raised up for ground clearance on unpaved work sites?
Seriously? Mass production can't handle variation? I'd say you're very clearly mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Frankly people like this need to be told repeatedly how to run their business if only to run up their blood pressure.
Jeepers Wiz, did your wife run off with an artist or something? Your overt hostility towards anyone who isn't thoroughly satisfied with anything Apple makes is puzzling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As to someone's personal work flow, frankly screw them!
I think this may be a sign that the potential for useful dialog may be diminishing, but suffice to say that a resounding "F*ck you!" to your customer base is not the way to grow profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Apple can't possibly build a custom tailored PC for each and every customer out there.
There is obviously a LOT of ground between "You'll take what we give you and LIKE it!" and "custom tailored for each and every customer." The world of production allows for ample shades of grey, not just black or white.
Apple absolutely CAN provide options without adversely affecting profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The Air is an excellent example here, by tailoring the machine to a limited use case they can offer excellent performance at a low price point.
But we're not talking about a product in the Air's category. We're talking about the top-of-the-line workstation. It faces a MUCH wider palette of usage models and sells to a market that is much less price sensitive. There's much more latitude with a Pro than with an Air, AND assuming a one-size-fits-all stance in that market is suicide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
When 99% of your market doesn't need some of the expensive features being demanded, trying to support that one percent alienates the other 99%.
Nonsense. All they have to do is provide the expensive feature as an option and charge appropriately for it. It's not even difficult, much less impossible. Besides, the demographic that buys the Mac Pro is hardly 99/1. Probably more like 50/50.
Your primary battle cry, aside from insulting anyone who doesn't worship at the Apple product table, seems to be profitability, so let me ask you this:
If Apple continues to restrict the hardware environment so tightly that it's just not a good choice for many users, how will THAT affect profitability? Is it better to sell 100,000 units with half being BTO, or sell only 50,000?
People in different situations have differing needs. Even t-shirts come in more than one size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTac
\Recently had to cancel two Behringer orders because their stuff just isn't getting over to the US. My distributor mentioned that he has canceled lots of Behringer orders because of supply issues.
Thank Dog for that! The less Behringer gear in the field the better! Maybe people will be forced to buy something half-decent.
Theoretically, Apple could replace the ENTIRE Desktop lineup with this new Mac Pro design…!!!
Three 'performance sectors' in the new Mac Pro…
One would always be filled by a CPU; be it i5s on the low-end (with IGP), i7s on the mid-end (with IGP) or Xeons on the high-end (without IGP)…
Second 'sector'; low to mid-end discrete consumer-class GPUs, mid to high-end discrete consumer-class GPUs or a full range of workstation-class GPUs…
Also in second 'sector' is the PCIe Flash RAM SSD (boot, apps, storage)…
Third 'sector' (this is where things change up); one or two 2.5" HDDs, matching mid to high-end discrete consumer-class GPUs (yes, SLI/CrossFire for gamers!) or matching high-end workstation-class GPUs…
As seen in the second 'sector', the third (excepting the one with the single or dual 2.5" HDD option) includes a slot for a second PCIe Flash RAM SSD…
Upgrade the I/O on the Thunderbolt Display to USB3 & TB2, change the screen 'finish' to match the newer iMacs, same pricing…
Release the All New, Bargain Priced 21.5" Thunderbolt 2 Display; US$599.00…
Release the All New 32" Retina 5K Display (5120 x 2880) for US$2,249.00…
No more Mac mini, iMac or Mac Pro; just the Mac…
Configure as desired, add monitor of choice…
After all; most of their 'PC' sales are supposed to be laptops; so leave the multi SKUs there (which you kinda have to, with the screen all attached and such) and par the Desktop line down to one highly configurable unit…! ;^p
Apple would have a full range of suggested configurations on the online store, but they would all fall under the same SKU; meaning every new Mac was BTO…! Hey, Made (Assembled) In USA, an efficient design, quick turn-around on custom orders…!?!
Bonus idea that just hit me; optional (BTO) integration of the SuperDrive into the 21.5" & 27" Thunderbolt 2 Displays and the 32" Retina 5K Displays…!!! This would also be something that could be easily added later by the end-user…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
That particular comment seems to be in support of what Apple did. It was said against people who suggested the design Apple went with was prosumer (about halfway down):
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1600248
I never liked the pro vs prosumer debate. It's just a weird abstraction arguing names rather than requirements or desired features. End rant..
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
Release the All New 32" Retina 5K Display (5120 x 2880) for US$2,249.00…
It's difficult for me to picture one window scaled that large, and the specific reason others quoted that resolution was due to it matching the 27" doubled in each direction. It may just be me, but I don't see 32" becoming a standard for desk monitors. The way these things work, I find a secondary display to be better for some things beyond the 24-27" size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
I never liked the pro vs prosumer debate. It's just a weird abstraction arguing names rather than requirements or desired features. End rant..
Excellent point. I don't know if I've been guilty of that (probably), but next time I'm tempted to make a meaningless generalization instead of focussing on specifics I'll remember your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
The way these things work, I find a secondary display to be better for some things beyond the 24-27" size.
I understand what you're saying, but I'd be inclined to at least try it. I find having a boundary area between two monitors distracting. Then again, I've never worked with a giant monitor so maybe I'd hate that more.
Wow 32', who makes those? I almost pulled the trigger on a 27" Apple Monitor until I saw the 29” NEC MultiSync EA294WMi, it was 300 CHF cheaper and just gorgeous. I really think Apple needs relook it's pricing for their monitors, they just aren't very competitively price, actually far from it. The LG monitor which uses the exact same LCD display is now 500 dollars less.
My NEC MultiSync EA294WMi
I think the one thing folks keep forgetting/ignoring is that the current 27" Apple Thunderbolt Display is not just a monitor…
It is also a Thunderbolt docking station; with USB2, FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet & Thunderbolt connectivity…
It also has stereo speakers, an iSight/FaceTime camera & microphone…
It also provides a charging solution for your laptop, if that is what you are attaching it to…
So, a good bit of functionality/added value beyond just the display part of the equation…!
As for the musings on a 32" model, why not…? Apple used to do the 30" Cinema Display, why not a 32" 5K display…?
Off the top of my head, pro video & medical imaging come to mind as two markets for such a beast…
The hostility is directed at people whome have this expectation that Apple must serve their specific needs no matter what. There are many things about Apple and their product line ups that frustrate and at times piss me off but I don't go around suggesting that Apple make a specific variant just for me. Even when it comes to the XMac it is more about a product that would be attractive to a significant number of customers.
The ability for useful dialog went out the door when people started complaining about the new Mac Pros impact on their workflow. It isn't that new technology doesn't impact workflow, it will, just that it is your responsibility to adapt to the change and not make a big scene about it.
Technology changes and sometimes you have to change with it. I can remember back to the time when dot matrix printers started to become hard to get. One person I knew was fretting about his loss of the ability to print two part forms. He was more resistant to workflow changes even if those changes might lead to actual improvements in workflow. I'm seeing the same mentality here and frankly it is at best regressive.
Apple hasn't given its customers a FU, but rather an opportunity to move forward. Apple is effectively giving people more options with this Mac Pro than in their previous machines. That people don't see this contimpnues to amaze me. This one size fits all view of the new Mac Pro is just asinine. This new Mac Pro is highly configurable, more so than its previous machine. Rather it is a machine that is adaptable to a wider array of users than ever before. This is exactly what the new Mac Pro allows them to do. Expansion is an option handled by external devices. As for the internal machine I expect that it will be available in multiple configurations, most likely Apples normal good, better and best lineup. The variations here will be in CPU and GPU configurations.
As to people using internal expansion on the Mac Pro I highly doubt it gets anywhere near 50/50 even including installing a disk array. Remove disk arrays from consideration and you will come awfully close to the 99/1 ratio. Again there is a bias in these forums that seem to indicate that the only real users of the Mac Pro are those in the audio visual fields. That simply isn't true. Even within that field though not everybody has gone with massive amounts of internal hardware. The goal isn't to insult people but rather to get them to look outside of their habitual behaviors and at least look at the new Mac Pro with fresh eyes. The hardware environment isn't restricted if anything it is more open. Continuously repeating this theme doesn't make it true. This new Mac Pro is a significant step forward, not backward as you imply. As far as profitability goes it is pretty obvious that the old machine wasn't cutting the mustard in that respect.
Will this machine do better? Hard to say at this point when costs aren't even know. I will say this though, this new machine has a far greater chance at success than the previous model. This is certainly true and it is exactly what the new Mac Pro accels at. When it ships I doubt there will be a better machine on the market for meeting a wide array of user needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Excellent point. I don't know if I've been guilty of that (probably), but next time I'm tempted to make a meaningless generalization instead of focussing on specifics I'll remember your post.
Awesome. I was actually a positive influence for once
Quote:
I understand what you're saying, but I'd be inclined to at least try it. I find having a boundary area between two monitors distracting. Then again, I've never worked with a giant monitor so maybe I'd hate that more.
You know it depends on your workflow. If you have a UI heavy application that consumes the entire display, you may want a very large display to accommodate the actual work area + additional elements. 3d packages are often that way if you ever use the quad view layouts. I tend to use older displays as secondary monitors just to hold notes and reference. If I place those on the primary display, there's always that annoying thing of trying to position windows and overlap issues. F3 can help, but it's still annoying. When the display gets too big, it's also annoying. If you use a graphics tablet the mapping becomes weird. If you use a mouse, you end with a high level of mouse acceleration, which I find annoying. I like to be able to sense how far I must move something. Enormous screens also put a lot to peripheral vision. You aren't looking over at something to check reference so much as you have to scan a very large primary working area. They had 30" 16: 10 displays before and went down to 27" 16:9. It's hard for me to believe that they really intend to go go way up again, especially with something that is doubled from the current screen. I would find 4K much more likely if the panels were brought down in price by cherry picking A+ units from those used in televisions. I don't see them going larger ahead of everyone else as an experiment, as Apple and other companies already did that experiment in the early to mid 2000s.
Anyway you might be right. I just wanted to offer my own reasoning on what I view as a concluded experiment. I have dealt with both the 30" Apple cinema display and the PVA eizo version, so I know what they look like. I didn't personally own either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Wow 32', who makes those? I almost pulled the trigger on a 27" Apple Monitor until I saw the 29” NEC MultiSync EA294WMi, it was 300 CHF cheaper and just gorgeous. I really think Apple needs relook it's pricing for their monitors, they just aren't very competitively price, actually far from it. The LG monitor which uses the exact same LCD display is now 500 dollars less.
My NEC MultiSync EA294WMi
I've used NEC. In fact I still own one. The thing is immortal even if it's beyond where I can calibrate it properly at this point. What's interesting with the one you linked is the ability to position multiple windows on one screen. I wish we had better functionality for doing that, but extremely wide formats aren't the norm.