On the one hand, Apple would likely prefer to only support the new OS.
But a lot of Pro software (ProTools? Adobe? CAD?) likely isn't Mavericks-ready yet.
Huh? All applications are being updated right now. They don't release their new versions until Apple releases 10.9 and then the s/w update their apps which is usually a minor update?
This is how it's been done since the beginning of the s/w industry. That's why Apple releases the Beta versions of the OS, it gives the developers to do modifications of their apps, test it and they aren't at Golden Master yet. I'm sure Apple will be at Golden Master within a month and then they release 10.9 and then the flood gates of updated apps come out, but they will just be minor updates unless they are planning on their own major release.
Huh? All applications are being updated right now. They don't release their new versions until Apple releases 10.9 and then the s/w update their apps which is usually a minor update?
How old are you? If you just turned 13, I can understand you not knowing this, but this is how it's been done since the beginning of the s/w industry. That's why Apple releases the Beta versions of the OS, it gives the developers to do modifications of their apps, test it and they aren't at Golden Master yet. I'm sure Apple will be at Golden Master within a month and then they release 10.9 and then the flood gates of updated apps come out, but they will just be minor updates unless they are planning on their own major release.
Don't be silly and condescending. Pros don't typically jump on a new OS version right out of the gate.
Don't be silly and condescending. Pros don't typically jump on a new OS version right out of the gate.
The Pro USERS may wait a little bit, but the s/w developers don't usually wait that long, typically within a couple of months, depending on if they are going to add a lot of features in their updates.
What are you talking about? The new version of OS X isn't a switch from 32 to 64 bit, it's just a routine OS update just like 10.8, and previous versions. Why do you think Apple has WWDC? To release and discuss the next release of OS X and gives them about 4 months (give or take) to get their code up to date in the mean time.
It's ALWAYS been when Apple releases a major release of OS X, within a couple of months all of the major s/w products, Pro Tools, Adobe, CAD, etc. are updated. This has been this way for a LONG time. Mention an existing s/w that wasn't updated to run on the latest version of OS X in previous generations?
Adobe is usually on it like a fly on $hit, ProTools usually within 2 or 3 months, but they are always slow, but I can't think of any app that doesn't issue a update to their apps to run on the latest version of OS X.
I've worked for Apple corporate resellers between the mid 80's and 2000 and it's ALWAYS been that way. It hasn't deviated from that. But the s/w apps usually update their apps whether it's a $10 app or a $5000 app within a couple of months after the release.
Maybe you're new to OS X and are used to WIndows. Windows makes drastic GUI changes in their interface which is why Windows apps aren't as fast to market, especially Windows 8.
Regardless of whether updates are available right away, a lot of Pro shops can take months to update their systems.
So the question is relevant if there are shops that are sticking with Mountain Lion (which seems to be as bulletproof a release as I've ever seen) and the new Pro only comes with Mavericks.
The Pro hasn't been updated in forever, but I always thought Apple went with the previous-OS-and-a-free-upgrade route.
Don't be silly and condescending. Pros don't typically jump on a new OS version right out of the gate.
Now, one thing about major releases is there is usually a minor update within a couple of months that addresses anything major that crops up. Some users will adopt typically after about to 6 months if they have a higher end system and there are problems with the more strange configurations, which does happen since they can't test every possible scenario. But Apple typically will spit out their first bug fix VERY quickly and then it's up to the users to update, but the s/w developers are typically on it quickly once Apple releases the OS X update.
That's why Apple's adoption rate is VERY quick. Apple gets users to update much faster than Windows or Android users do and that's FACT because there are less problems.
Regardless of whether updates are available right away, a lot of Pro shops can take months to update their systems.
So the question is relevant if there are shops that are sticking with Mountain Lion (which seems to be as bulletproof a release as I've ever seen) and the new Pro only comes with Mavericks.
The Pro hasn't been updated in forever, but I always thought Apple went with the previous-OS-and-a-free-upgrade route.
When a user updates is different than when the s/w from the 3rd party app developers update their apps. his question was when were the app developers going to release their updates, not when were the users going to upgrade. Two different questions. Typically pro users have to make sure all of the major bugs are fixed, which is typically pretty quickly and the apps are usually updated within a month or two after Apple's official release to market. The only time when it was dragged out was because of the transition from PowerPC to Intel, or 32 bit to 64 bit or Mac OS to OS X, other than that they are pretty fast to update their apps.
It depends on when Apple releases new hardware. Because this Pro model is a departure from the previous models, the MacPro this year will only come with 10.9, so the app developers are compelled to release their updates.
Regardless of whether updates are available right away, a lot of Pro shops can take months to update their systems.
So the question is relevant if there are shops that are sticking with Mountain Lion (which seems to be as bulletproof a release as I've ever seen) and the new Pro only comes with Mavericks.
The Pro hasn't been updated in forever, but I always thought Apple went with the previous-OS-and-a-free-upgrade route.
The s/w that usually drag their feet are the apps like some of these teeny tiny shareware people that don't really pay attention if their apps are poorly written in the first place OR the app has a lot of interaction with other software or hardware, which Pro Tools falls into that category because they typically have to "BLESS" the OS on their hardware with other products as well. Pro Tools is PROBABLY one of the longer hold outs, but they will probably have their s/w updated fairly soon after 10.9 gets released. I would just check with Avid directly. CAD apps? They are pretty simple, they really aren't that big of a deal in this case since there isn't any major changes like a processor platform change, 32 to 64 change or any major GUI changes. It's a pretty straightforward update other than some more features and behind the scene optimizations.
Regardless of whether updates are available right away, a lot of Pro shops can take months to update their systems.
Months or even years. When I was operations manager of a post production facility we NEVER upgraded the OS until we had good feedback that it was working well with our profit center softwares: Photoshop, Final Cut, Avid, After Effects etc. Most post facilities are loath to upgrade because they cannot afford to have problems with their money making systems. Nor do they want to have technical issues while clients are in the room. There are still facilities out there with ancient systems and OSes that they won't upgrade because they are totally stable and just work. Not typically high-end facilities, but places that four-wall and offer systems for rental.
What I would do is wait several months and then upgrade a single non-critical system and let the editors come in and try to break it. If it passed the test then I would gradually bring the others systems up.
On the one hand, Apple would likely prefer to only support the new OS.
But a lot of Pro software (ProTools? Adobe? CAD?) likely isn't Mavericks-ready yet.
There was a description here saying some developers are testing their software with the Mac Pro:
They've always shipped the high-end the same way as the other machines with the latest software. The GPUs will benefit from OpenGL 4 and OpenCL 1.2 support so it'll be better to have all the machines on Mavericks.
Some people have their hands on the top processors, there's a dual setup tested here:
[VIDEO]
The Mac Pro will have one of those CPUs. The video looks like it says 16 core / 32 thread and it should really be 24 / 48 for that CPU so I'm not sure if it's a software limitation but the score matches up somewhat with other reports. Given that each CPU is over $2600, the setup in the video would be $5200 + margin for just the CPUs and then add on the components and GPUs. Apple never went after this kind of machine spec so now that they have the option of a single 12-core, it makes more sense for them to go single CPU and the value will come from the GPUs when developers decide to leverage them.
When software makers really get into their stride to leverage dual gpus, open gl, cl etc...
Good post, Marv.
As for Mr. Wizard. He's right about the re-factored Mini.
They could just offer the new Pro case with i7s in them and single gpus. Boom. New radical Mini. Take off the cost of the iMac monitor and you have a boom-tastic mini-tower for mortals.
I think it's 24 cores but the program isn't displaying the right info. Those are the same 12-core CPUs that the Mac Pro will use but it will use one so the performance would be slightly over half the speed but given that one of those CPUs retails at $2749:
and Apple would charge over $3k for it (HP charges $3749 - http://h30094.www3.hp.com/product/sku/10715666/mfg_partno/721426-B21 ), a dual spec would be very expensive. The model with a single 12-core CPU is likely to be ~$6k so a dual 12-core would be over $9k. Having the option might seem like a nice idea but hardly any customers are going to buy at that price point and people that would, aren't very likely to upgrade often so it doesn't matter from Apple's point of view. Having a single socket motherboard simplifies things for them and people who need extra CPU power can buy multiple machines.
The 4K IGZO displays look like they have nice black levels vs the other displays:
[VIDEO]
Apple must have something in the works regarding their Cinema Display line. If they could somehow manage to get 4K Cinema Displays for $999 that work with the entry dual W5000 Mac Pros, that would be a pretty competitive system. I suspect they'd want these kind of displays in the iMac too so they can share the panels and keep the price low.
4k very expensive. No kidding. I don't expect Apple doing us any favours on price even if they get them to market.
Still, I look at the retina in the iPad and the Macbook Pros and think, '...what's the hold up?' We're overdue a boost in desktop displays. It's been ages since we've seen much in the way of advances.
The top end res' on my iMac and hi def in general is pretty mainstream now. Heck. Retina is mainstream now. Be nice to see a big 32 inch 4k monitor at a sub £1k price here in the UK. Doubt it though.
I'm sure the 12 core (and hyper-threaded) Xeon that goes in the Mac Pro will be very nice. But out of my budget range for now. I've a few more payments on my iMac (took advantage of the 0% offer last year...) An attractively priced entry Pro would be nice... And there's no doubt dual GPUs are going to have an impact for us going forward.
Personally, I don't see why they couldn't just offer i7 versions of the Pro and much cheaper prices. Give people the alternative to the iMac...and the top end Mac Minis.
Doubt that will happen because of Apple's nickel and dime and artificial upsell model.
Apple must have something in the works regarding their Cinema Display line. If they could somehow manage to get 4K Cinema Displays for $999 that work with the entry dual W5000 Mac Pros, that would be a pretty competitive system. I suspect they'd want these kind of displays in the iMac too so they can share the panels and keep the price low.
I think when such a thing shows up will be dependent upon when it's cheap enough to use in an imac. They have used a fairly streamlined setup for a long time. I would be surprised if they departed from that.
I think when such a thing shows up will be dependent upon when it's cheap enough to use in an imac. They have used a fairly streamlined setup for a long time. I would be surprised if they departed from that.
Actually there are two parts to the equation here. You need reasonably priced panels which is part of the equation but you also need to be able to drive those panels reliably and without performance artifacts. I suspect GPUs good enough to drive 4K panels with reasonable quality, at a reasonable price is a factor also. Many GPUs simply can't sustain the required data rates across the serial connections to the monitors. Further some bog down at the shear number of pixels to process. Like the panels the low cost solutions to these problems are just coming online.
Comments
Any rumours on the Pro's OS capabilities?
On the one hand, Apple would likely prefer to only support the new OS.
But a lot of Pro software (ProTools? Adobe? CAD?) likely isn't Mavericks-ready yet.
Any rumours on the Pro's OS capabilities?
On the one hand, Apple would likely prefer to only support the new OS.
But a lot of Pro software (ProTools? Adobe? CAD?) likely isn't Mavericks-ready yet.
Huh? All applications are being updated right now. They don't release their new versions until Apple releases 10.9 and then the s/w update their apps which is usually a minor update?
Fixed that for you… ;^p
I actually think a fully-specced out Mac Pro would be around 7.5k
12-core Xeon E5 CPU
128GB ECC DDR3 RAM (4x32GB)
756GB PCI-E FlashRAM SSD
Two (2) W9000 GPUs w/6GB ECC GDDR5 RAM
And I am REALLY hoping the entry-level model comes in around 2k
6-core Xeon E5 CPU
16GB ECC DDR3 RAM (4x4GB)
128GB PCI-E FlashRAM SSD
Two (2) W5000 GPUs w/2GB GDDR5 RAM
Huh? All applications are being updated right now. They don't release their new versions until Apple releases 10.9 and then the s/w update their apps which is usually a minor update?
Don't be silly and condescending. Pros don't typically jump on a new OS version right out of the gate.
Don't be silly and condescending. Pros don't typically jump on a new OS version right out of the gate.
The Pro USERS may wait a little bit, but the s/w developers don't usually wait that long, typically within a couple of months, depending on if they are going to add a lot of features in their updates.
What are you talking about? The new version of OS X isn't a switch from 32 to 64 bit, it's just a routine OS update just like 10.8, and previous versions. Why do you think Apple has WWDC? To release and discuss the next release of OS X and gives them about 4 months (give or take) to get their code up to date in the mean time.
Adobe is usually on it like a fly on $hit, ProTools usually within 2 or 3 months, but they are always slow, but I can't think of any app that doesn't issue a update to their apps to run on the latest version of OS X.
Maybe you're new to OS X and are used to WIndows. Windows makes drastic GUI changes in their interface which is why Windows apps aren't as fast to market, especially Windows 8.
Don't be silly and condescending. Pros don't typically jump on a new OS version right out of the gate.
I felt due to history, it's always been that way and it's not the brightest question in the first place. Seriously, that was a silly question.
Name one major application that wasn't updated within a couple of months from a major update and I'll tell you WHY it wasn't.
Regardless of whether updates are available right away, a lot of Pro shops can take months to update their systems.
So the question is relevant if there are shops that are sticking with Mountain Lion (which seems to be as bulletproof a release as I've ever seen) and the new Pro only comes with Mavericks.
The Pro hasn't been updated in forever, but I always thought Apple went with the previous-OS-and-a-free-upgrade route.
Don't be silly and condescending. Pros don't typically jump on a new OS version right out of the gate.
Now, one thing about major releases is there is usually a minor update within a couple of months that addresses anything major that crops up. Some users will adopt typically after about to 6 months if they have a higher end system and there are problems with the more strange configurations, which does happen since they can't test every possible scenario. But Apple typically will spit out their first bug fix VERY quickly and then it's up to the users to update, but the s/w developers are typically on it quickly once Apple releases the OS X update.
That's why Apple's adoption rate is VERY quick. Apple gets users to update much faster than Windows or Android users do and that's FACT because there are less problems.
Regardless of whether updates are available right away, a lot of Pro shops can take months to update their systems.
So the question is relevant if there are shops that are sticking with Mountain Lion (which seems to be as bulletproof a release as I've ever seen) and the new Pro only comes with Mavericks.
The Pro hasn't been updated in forever, but I always thought Apple went with the previous-OS-and-a-free-upgrade route.
When a user updates is different than when the s/w from the 3rd party app developers update their apps. his question was when were the app developers going to release their updates, not when were the users going to upgrade. Two different questions. Typically pro users have to make sure all of the major bugs are fixed, which is typically pretty quickly and the apps are usually updated within a month or two after Apple's official release to market. The only time when it was dragged out was because of the transition from PowerPC to Intel, or 32 bit to 64 bit or Mac OS to OS X, other than that they are pretty fast to update their apps.
It depends on when Apple releases new hardware. Because this Pro model is a departure from the previous models, the MacPro this year will only come with 10.9, so the app developers are compelled to release their updates.
Regardless of whether updates are available right away, a lot of Pro shops can take months to update their systems.
So the question is relevant if there are shops that are sticking with Mountain Lion (which seems to be as bulletproof a release as I've ever seen) and the new Pro only comes with Mavericks.
The Pro hasn't been updated in forever, but I always thought Apple went with the previous-OS-and-a-free-upgrade route.
The s/w that usually drag their feet are the apps like some of these teeny tiny shareware people that don't really pay attention if their apps are poorly written in the first place OR the app has a lot of interaction with other software or hardware, which Pro Tools falls into that category because they typically have to "BLESS" the OS on their hardware with other products as well. Pro Tools is PROBABLY one of the longer hold outs, but they will probably have their s/w updated fairly soon after 10.9 gets released. I would just check with Avid directly. CAD apps? They are pretty simple, they really aren't that big of a deal in this case since there isn't any major changes like a processor platform change, 32 to 64 change or any major GUI changes. It's a pretty straightforward update other than some more features and behind the scene optimizations.
Regardless of whether updates are available right away, a lot of Pro shops can take months to update their systems.
Months or even years. When I was operations manager of a post production facility we NEVER upgraded the OS until we had good feedback that it was working well with our profit center softwares: Photoshop, Final Cut, Avid, After Effects etc. Most post facilities are loath to upgrade because they cannot afford to have problems with their money making systems. Nor do they want to have technical issues while clients are in the room. There are still facilities out there with ancient systems and OSes that they won't upgrade because they are totally stable and just work. Not typically high-end facilities, but places that four-wall and offer systems for rental.
There was a description here saying some developers are testing their software with the Mac Pro:
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/06/mac-pro-amd-gpu-firepro-blackmagic-resolve-10-adobe-cc/
They've always shipped the high-end the same way as the other machines with the latest software. The GPUs will benefit from OpenGL 4 and OpenCL 1.2 support so it'll be better to have all the machines on Mavericks.
Some people have their hands on the top processors, there's a dual setup tested here:
[VIDEO]
The Mac Pro will have one of those CPUs. The video looks like it says 16 core / 32 thread and it should really be 24 / 48 for that CPU so I'm not sure if it's a software limitation but the score matches up somewhat with other reports. Given that each CPU is over $2600, the setup in the video would be $5200 + margin for just the CPUs and then add on the components and GPUs. Apple never went after this kind of machine spec so now that they have the option of a single 12-core, it makes more sense for them to go single CPU and the value will come from the GPUs when developers decide to leverage them.
Wow. That's fast rendering that.
But that's 16 cores?
We'll see 'only' 12 in the new Pro.
But that's plenty fast.
It's about the dual GPUs now, baby...!
When software makers really get into their stride to leverage dual gpus, open gl, cl etc...
Good post, Marv.
As for Mr. Wizard. He's right about the re-factored Mini.
They could just offer the new Pro case with i7s in them and single gpus. Boom. New radical Mini. Take off the cost of the iMac monitor and you have a boom-tastic mini-tower for mortals.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Lemon Bon Bon.
That is a problem but it is what makes a refactored Mini interesting, the upsell model is the same chassis with high performance parts
I think it's 24 cores but the program isn't displaying the right info. Those are the same 12-core CPUs that the Mac Pro will use but it will use one so the performance would be slightly over half the speed but given that one of those CPUs retails at $2749:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116925
and Apple would charge over $3k for it (HP charges $3749 - http://h30094.www3.hp.com/product/sku/10715666/mfg_partno/721426-B21 ), a dual spec would be very expensive. The model with a single 12-core CPU is likely to be ~$6k so a dual 12-core would be over $9k. Having the option might seem like a nice idea but hardly any customers are going to buy at that price point and people that would, aren't very likely to upgrade often so it doesn't matter from Apple's point of view. Having a single socket motherboard simplifies things for them and people who need extra CPU power can buy multiple machines.
The 4K IGZO displays look like they have nice black levels vs the other displays:
[VIDEO]
Apple must have something in the works regarding their Cinema Display line. If they could somehow manage to get 4K Cinema Displays for $999 that work with the entry dual W5000 Mac Pros, that would be a pretty competitive system. I suspect they'd want these kind of displays in the iMac too so they can share the panels and keep the price low.
Still, I look at the retina in the iPad and the Macbook Pros and think, '...what's the hold up?' We're overdue a boost in desktop displays. It's been ages since we've seen much in the way of advances.
The top end res' on my iMac and hi def in general is pretty mainstream now. Heck. Retina is mainstream now. Be nice to see a big 32 inch 4k monitor at a sub £1k price here in the UK. Doubt it though.
I'm sure the 12 core (and hyper-threaded) Xeon that goes in the Mac Pro will be very nice. But out of my budget range for now. I've a few more payments on my iMac (took advantage of the 0% offer last year...) An attractively priced entry Pro would be nice... And there's no doubt dual GPUs are going to have an impact for us going forward.
Personally, I don't see why they couldn't just offer i7 versions of the Pro and much cheaper prices. Give people the alternative to the iMac...and the top end Mac Minis.
Doubt that will happen because of Apple's nickel and dime and artificial upsell model.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Apple must have something in the works regarding their Cinema Display line. If they could somehow manage to get 4K Cinema Displays for $999 that work with the entry dual W5000 Mac Pros, that would be a pretty competitive system. I suspect they'd want these kind of displays in the iMac too so they can share the panels and keep the price low.
I think when such a thing shows up will be dependent upon when it's cheap enough to use in an imac. They have used a fairly streamlined setup for a long time. I would be surprised if they departed from that.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Actually there are two parts to the equation here. You need reasonably priced panels which is part of the equation but you also need to be able to drive those panels reliably and without performance artifacts. I suspect GPUs good enough to drive 4K panels with reasonable quality, at a reasonable price is a factor also. Many GPUs simply can't sustain the required data rates across the serial connections to the monitors. Further some bog down at the shear number of pixels to process. Like the panels the low cost solutions to these problems are just coming online.