I've actually been pretty selective about that. I want a wider screen so haven't bought an iPhone since the 4 and I like my 17" MBP so I haven't replaced it, but I have purchased other products like my wife's MacBook, the mini in the living room and a couple ATVs.
I'll probably buy a Pro tube too, but I'm still bothered by the way Apple decides something has to go and drops support for it BEFORE anyone is ready with alternatives so some of us can't use the new product even if we want to, then, and this is the real piss off, they act all superior like everyone else on the planet is "lagging" behind their "visionary lead" so anyone who objects is a "whiner." REALLY irritating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Good products sell, and therefore stay. Bad products don’t.
Mostly true, except in Apple's case they sell WAY more "compromise" product than any other brand ever could because there's no way to run OS X without one of their machines. As a result I think a fair number of buyers settle for configurations that aren't necessarily what they want because they can't go to another vendor for an OS X machine.
" Mostly true, except in Apple's case they sell WAY more "compromise" product than any other brand ever could because there's no way to run OS X without one of their machines. As a result I think a fair number of buyers settle for configurations that aren't necessarily what they want because they can't go to another vendor for an OS X machine."
Yea - apart from the hackintosh route, of course. But as most of us know, that doesn't really guarantee any OS upgrade path :-)
It's going to be interesting foe Apple over the next couple of years - I say that only because the new MacPro and the existing MacMini seem to be on a head on collision path. I think only one will survive. The way they are pitched, both pretty much non upgradeable in any hardware sense by the user, apart from ram. The new MacPro obviously has far more expansion possibilities, for now as far as we know. The two headless models in quite different form factors - ah, idk I just think in the long term only one will see the light of day.
As you say, v5v, always some compromises in hardware.
It is an incredible bit of ignorance to believe Apple can make a computer that is custom tailored to each and every professional out there. You certainly have a problem if you believe Apple or any manufacture can do so.
It is exactly that blend of condescension and arrogance coming from Apple that makes me want to drive down to Cupertino and piss on some asshole's shoes. DAMN it's annoying to get a pat on the head, a roll of the eyes and a "scoot!" pat on the bum as a bunch of smarmy hipsters assure each other that they know better than I what's best for my business.
You make an assumption that you know what is good for your business, there is no assurance that you will build a business in a successful way. Like wise Apple has no guarantee that the new Mac Pro will be successful. However Apple does have years of sales data reflecting what configurations have been successful. They could fool themselves into building the wrong product (it has happened to other companies), but I don't think it is the case in this situation.
I don't go around crying in my soup that Mercedes doesn't make the pickup truck I want. It is up to me to select the right vehicle for the job at hand. When it comes to computing the world isn't any different you select the right manufacture to supply the computing hardware you need.
Coming from you it's just absurd and ridiculous because you obviously have no idea whatsoever what best satisfies another user's computing needs, but coming from Apple it's insulting and irritating.
Actually you are wrong in that regard, in both cases too.
However the bigger problem here is why you even remotely believe that Apple has it in for you personally? I'm sure forum members here would like an explanation. Like it or not Apples responsibility here is to the company and share holders to produce a professional machine that can sell in quantities large enough to be a successful product. Let's face it Apples entire desktop line is suffering from declining sales and the Mac Pro has taken the biggest hit there. By redefinition Apple needs a machine that appeals to a wider market to prevent ado ward spiral into oblivion for the desktop line up.
You whine over Apple not making a super computer for your personal needs while Apple struggles to find a solution that will keep the desktops around at all. Think about that a bit.
They COULD consult their users, but it seems like they'd rather foster the impression that they're so much smarter, cooler and more aware than everyone else that we'd have to be stupid not to accept every pronouncement and product they make.
If you would open your mind a bit you would realize that the Mac Pro is a very smart design. Bleeding edge really. The only thing that will stop the machine from my standpoint is Apple making a huge mistake pricing wise.
You can claim the machine isn't for you, that is fine, what is garbage is your hostility towards the rest of the world. Apple isn't on this planet to deliver some sort of tricked out machine personally for you, crying like a 3 year old that you aren't getting what you want offers nothing for your position.
You seem to be of the mind that selling a mass market workstation is a simple thing to do these days. Just throw into a box everything every possible user could want and be done with it. It just doesn't work that way.
Nobody wants to duplicate IBM or Microsoft, but neither would I want a company like Apple to be my only choice for hardware.
It very well could be if you wanted it to be. This isn't rocket science, the computer is just like any other tool you have to leverage it for your benefit. If it doesn't do the job you purchase a different one.
If I didn't SO prefer OS X over Windows I'd have been gone like a shot two or three years ago.
If this is so then the hardware isn't as important as you make it out to be.
No, I don't find it appropriate to use Ford's quotes as a justification for the glaring shortcomings found in the new Mac Pro.
Wasn’t the point, and you know it.
Apple should actively consult with Pro users to make sure their needs are met.
And you have proof they didn’t, I assume.
Pro users are the most vocal and have a strong say in regards to what equipment at large companies. Look how easily they jumped ship when FCPX was released to Premiere or Avid. Not to mention how many more Pro's Apple lost when they cut the Xserve, Xraid, Final Cut Server, and Shake.
Have any numbers, or…
Originally Posted by z3r0
The Rokr was made in cooperation with Apple.
Not sure what part of “It isn’t an Apple product” was difficult for you to comprehend, but you seem to have had quite a few issues in that department.
Originally Posted by v5v
Mostly true, except in Apple's case they sell WAY more "compromise" product than any other brand ever could because there's no way to run OS X without one of their machines.
If Apple’s wrong, don’t buy it. Good products sell, and therefore stay. Bad products don’t.
It makes about as much sense as the people that call iPhone a terrible product even though it sells in the tens of millions every quarter. Similarly the old Mac Pro was a bad product for the markets it was targeted at as can be seen in the sales numbers. The configurations where terrible and it all sat in a box way to big for most users.
It’s “condescending” for a company to say its products are the best? You must hate everything Apple (and every other company) does, then.
A good marketer will always find ways to put their products in the best light. If you have a salesman that calls your product scrap you best get rid of them. An adult sees around these marketing blitzes as they know every product has faults.
And they’ve been wrong about hardware and software… how many times in the past? Compared to how many times they’ve been right? Not sure why you’re even feeling this in the first place.
The guy makes no sense, incredible anger for no reason at all. There are all sorts of things I'd love to see Apple build, but I see no reason to fly off the rocker when these things don't happen.
<div class="quote-container">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>wizard69</strong> <a href="/t/159827/whats-left-for-the-macintosh-in-a-post-pc-ios-world/200#post_2410953"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /><br /><br />Totally unrealistic for a desktop computer. You would be looking at a minimal of 400 watts for the CPUs and close to 300 watts for each of the GPUs. That is 1600 watts that you won't get reliably from a conventional 120 VAC wall outlet.<br /><br />You can throw out these asinine configurations but a minutes worth of research would indicate these aren't the markets Apple is after. By the way I do think Apple made a big mistake in the server market trying to go after 1U machines. If Apple could have built a machine to actually handle the configuration you describe above they might have gotten some real server sales. Further that server could be as power hungry as needed as there is an expectation that servers are professionally installed.</div></div><p> </p><p>One or two of these would fit in the space vacated by removing the optical drive bays and current PSU up top in the current Mac Pro:</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/Cisco-power-supply-hot-plug-redundant-3000-Watt/2868885.aspx">http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/Cisco-power-supply-hot-plug-redundant-3000-Watt/2868885.aspx</a></p><p> </p><p>I do wish Apple would go after enterprise markets.</p>
You mis the point completely, you won't plug that into standard 120VAC outlets and get 3000 watts out of the power supply. A 15 amp outlet can supply 1800 watts of power and a 20 amp outlets 2400 watts. Worst if you want reliable power you need to derate, so that 20 amp outlet might yield 1900 watts.
As for the enterprise I don't think Apple has a chance there, most companies would rather ride with Microsoft even if they are going no where at all. I do think Apple could have success in the high performance computing market where pricing isn't as cut throat. However they would have to accept modest sales and offer a significantly enhanced sales experience. Most of these sorts of installations require engineering to support power distribution to the units and even cooling of the machines. Even a smallish desk side unit might require a 220VAC outlet delivering a few thousands of watts power.
The problem with the high performance computing market is that sales are so minor even specialized companies have trouble staying afloat. Further Apple has no credibility here and would be up against the established suppliers. So I think chances are real thin here.
<div class="quote-container"><p> </p><div class="quote-block"><p>Sure, and professionals can never be wrong about what they think they want or need.</p></div><p> </p><p>HP wouldnt sell 24 core machines if there wasn't demand. Pros need the highest level of performance.</p><p>
Sure there is legitimate demand out there but it is a tiny fraction of the pro market. I'm also under the impression that many of those machines are never fully utilized because the user doesn't understand diminishing returns.
</p><div class="quote-block"><p>And that tool will be the Mac Pro.</p></div><p> </p><p>Not if Apple is in the pasta business.</p></div>
No, I don't find it appropriate to use Ford's quotes as a justification for the glaring shortcomings found in the new Mac Pro.
Just what are these shortcomings? Especially in the context of the markets targeted.
Honestly we have heard a bunch of bull shit from you but nothing of substance. List out these shortcomings with an explanation of why you see them as shortcomings. The new Mac Pro does not have any shortcomings that would be described as glaring by the majority of users it targets.
This doesn't explicitly prove anything other then that there is a disconnect between Apple and Pro users needs and wants.
More like you and Apple. You seem to mis one very important fact, the professional market is huge, the segment you seem to be interested is tiny.
Apple should actively consult with Pro users to make sure their needs are met. Pro users are the most vocal and have a strong say in regards to what equipment at large companies.
Which explains why so many companies are in the situation they are in with their Windows hardware. Pros consistently make mistakes with regard to what the mainstream market wants.
Look how easily they jumped ship when FCPX was released to Premiere or Avid.
Look at how many realized that their knee jerk reaction wasn't as smart as it should have been. Of course the return to FCPX has been done sheepishly because most pros don't want to admit they got on the wrong bandwagon.
Not to mention how many more Pro's Apple lost when they cut the Xserve,
They sold less than 5000 XServes a year. How many pros is that, especially when they where often sold in blocks of multiple machines. Now consider this, how many professionals live and work in an average city. We are talking engineers, designers, doctors, managers, scientist, educators and what have you.
Xraid, Final Cut Server, and Shake. Pro/Advanced users are usually the ones you go to recommend software or hardware. Loose them and a negative halo effect kicks in.
Yeah that is proving to be a lot of baloney, pros are far more likely to make bad decisions when it comes to selecting technology. How many companies installed Wangnet or some of the other failed networking choices. Sometimes the exposure to marketing pressure makes for bad decision making. Marketing pressure being everything from performance lies to out right corruption. Look at what the Pros did at Delta selecting a MS tablet for their plane crews, would you call that sound decision making from the Pros?
I've actually been pretty selective about that. I want a wider screen so haven't bought an iPhone since the 4 and I like my 17" MBP so I haven't replaced it, but I have purchased other products like my wife's MacBook, the mini in the living room and a couple ATVs.
I'm still using my iPhone 4 also. Not because I want a bigger screen as I don't have a need for a large screen but because I don't see the point in buying every product revision Apple puts out. That also explains my 2008 MBP ( which really is in need of an update).
The problem I have is this seemingly unending demand from some for Apple to produce a machine exactly tailored to their needs. Apple can't do that anymore than Ford can.
I'll probably buy a Pro tube too, but I'm still bothered by the way Apple decides something has to go and drops support for it BEFORE anyone is ready with alternatives so some of us can't use the new product even if we want to, then, and this is the real piss off, they act all superior like everyone else on the planet is "lagging" behind their "visionary lead" so anyone who objects is a "whiner." REALLY irritating.
I don't think people realize just how bad Mac Pro sales have been over the last couple of years. I suspect Apple feels like they have lost nothing.
I'm not sure I follow you fully above though because it is Apples job to promote their new products. It is no different than any other company, Ford for example wants you to think they produce a superior truck. Coco-cola wants you to believe in their sugar water.
in any event in some areas the rest of the world is lagging Apple be a significant margin. Highlighting these facts is a way to make a product look new and attractive.
Mostly true, except in Apple's case they sell WAY more "compromise" product than any other brand ever could because there's no way to run OS X without one of their machines. As a result I think a fair number of buyers settle for configurations that aren't necessarily what they want because they can't go to another vendor for an OS X machine.
This is a mixed bag really. If you follow my past posts you will realize that I haven't been happy with the desktop line up for a very long time now. Compromised is a good word here. However that isn't the word that I'd use for the laptops. In fact Apples laptop lineup is anything but compromised, they are in fact the best the industry offers. It so bad that the last time I purchased a Mac, that 2008 MBP, I was really looking at desktops but simply didn't have the right machine to choose from.
Macs are one thing but the issue of compromised is even less applicable to iOS devices. In fact we see again and again that Apple packs a lot into their iOS devices in such a way that few can match. From the quality of the touch screens, UI responsiveness, to the power of the processors, it is hard to describe any of these devices as compromised.
So in the end a mixed bag, but this is hardly any different than any other company. Where is HP with a cell phone, tablet or even a decent laptop? Each company has a niche to fill, Apple isn't perfect but they do ship a lot of high quality hardware.
As for the 2.0 OpenCL spec, I haven't looked at it in depth, but it looks like it is evolving along with hardware capabilities. This is another thing to consider, nobody has really gotten to the point where they are delivering the hardware for the type of heterogeneous systems everyone is reaching for. Haswell comes very close and has some really impressive compute scores. Both AMD and NVidia are working hard at advancing their GPUs to handle that heterogeneous future better. However that hardware and software really needs to integrate well with Apples OS.
I mentioned this a few weeks ago but I'm still wondering(hoping) that the big delay for the new Mac Pro is in part GPU related. It is my understanding new Pro hardware will come late this year from AMD. A new generation of GPUs would make the Mac look that much better.
I'll drop the topic of NVidia for now, as I don't look at enough of their stuff to fully grasp their future plans. I suspect they have modeled these things out where Kodak didn't position themselves well. They were involved in many things beyond traditional film. The problem was they destroyed practically everything. They ate the remains of Creo and Leaf and eventually folded all of that. I don't know who holds their IP related to CCD chips these days. Epson and HP crushed them on the printer end. They had basically nothing left in the consumer market and a business that was too large going forward. It pretty much became a graveyard of other bankrupt companies.
What I find interesting about OpenCL and CUDA is basically what we have now. Maybe 15 years ago these things didn't even have programmable pixel shaders. Things that interest me are the things that could be done today given the aggressive memory culling that modern OpenGL and OpenCL specs provide for. I am extremely well versed with Adobe's software, so I can see where older algorithms and methods have persisted in their software from ICC workflows left over in some applications (as opposed to LUTs) to the persistent use of silly inverse gaussian calculations applied as a means of sharpening. What interests me is what could run on the next iPad through SOCs and clean code that hasn't been updated for so many years.
As for a new gpu generation, I'm skeptical that they will have new firepros based on their newest chips out this year. Those tend to change at a much slower rate, and you'll see that some older chips are still used in firepros where they have been retired from the gaming card lines. I don't know exactly how that will work out because I don't know whether Apple is buying a working board or just chips. I really doubt we'll see any just released gpus though. It would be a massive change in direction from prior behavior.
I'll drop the topic of NVidia for now, as I don't look at enough of their stuff to fully grasp their future plans. I suspect they have modeled these things out where Kodak didn't position themselves well. They were involved in many things beyond traditional film. The problem was they destroyed practically everything. They ate the remains of Creo and Leaf and eventually folded all of that. I don't know who holds their IP related to CCD chips these days. Epson and HP crushed them on the printer end. They had basically nothing left in the consumer market and a business that was too large going forward. It pretty much became a graveyard of other bankrupt companies.
I don't want to see NVidia go belly up like Kodak did, however the situation is somewhat similar in that the core money making product, that consumers love, is about to be eclipsed by the onward thrust of technology. The integrated GPUs we are seeing from Intel and AMD will pull a lot of income from NVidia. Frankly it doesn't look like they have a handle on what the industry wants with respect to ARM based products. So it doesn't look good.
What I find interesting about OpenCL and CUDA is basically what we have now. Maybe 15 years ago these things didn't even have programmable pixel shaders. Things that interest me are the things that could be done today given the aggressive memory culling that modern OpenGL and OpenCL specs provide for. I am extremely well versed with Adobe's software, so I can see where older algorithms and methods have persisted in their software from ICC workflows left over in some applications (as opposed to LUTs) to the persistent use of silly inverse gaussian calculations applied as a means of sharpening. What interests me is what could run on the next iPad through SOCs and clean code that hasn't been updated for so many years.
Apples SoC sure are interesting and their secretive GPU team makes for interesting speculation. I'm as about certain as I can be that Apple will work to empower its SoC with bleeding edge OpenCL performance. Everything I've seen over the last couple of years indicates that Apple sees GPU compute as extremely important. They pushed Intel in that direction even when it looked like Intel really didn't want to go in that direction.
So yeah whatever Apple is up to in this regard will be very interesting. It is also a playing field for new vendors. It is interesting that Adobe can't seem to bring much to the iPad, granted the early models didn't have the performance but developers have innovated here anyways.
As for a new gpu generation, I'm skeptical that they will have new firepros based on their newest chips out this year.
Well I have no crystal ball here, however they did release a "mobile" FirePro in September. It is a GCN chip but I'm not sure which one.
As for new FirePros, it isn't impossible as AMD has released a series of new GPU cards for the desktop/gaming market that supposedly ship in the next couple of weeks.
Those tend to change at a much slower rate, and you'll see that some older chips are still used in firepros where they have been retired from the gaming card lines.
How old are we talking, last I knew all FirePros where GCN based. That could still mean a year or two old core but the top end card would have to support newer technology to compete with NVidia.
I don't know exactly how that will work out because I don't know whether Apple is buying a working board or just chips. I really doubt we'll see any just released gpus though. It would be a massive change in direction from prior behavior.
I'm not sure who is making the boards for Apple either. Obviously they aren't standard PCI Express boards. As to a massive change in prior behavior it is mandatory for the new Mac Pro to be a success. Of course they can't ship that which doesn't exist, but Apple has screwed them selves repeatedly shipping pathetic video cards in what is supposedly a pro machine.
As to a massive change in prior behavior it is mandatory for the new Mac Pro to be a success. Of course they can ship that which doesn't exist, but Apple has screwed them selves repeatedly shipping pathetic video cards in what is supposedly a pro machine.
Right there wiz !
We've always had the ability to add whatever we might have needed through ye olden PCI/e slots.
Gone - the future for the MacPro is yet to be written. Yet capability is there through TB, but as we've discussed in other threads - still an X factor unless TB become ubiquitous. Could end up like fw ... great tech, adopted by the PC crowd late. Then swamped by usb3. Bleeding edge here ...
Right there wiz !
We've always had the ability to add whatever we might have needed through ye olden PCI/e slots.
If you work in an environment where that is possible, great but not every Pro user is that free to swap cards around. With today's electronics I find the economics of these upgrades harder to justify anymore. It is a certainty that some industries can justify GPU upgrades with every GPU revision but that is a diminishing crowd. I see most users being better off buying the best performance they can get at the time of the computer purchase.
Gone - the future for the MacPro is yet to be written.
I like to think of it this way, Apple is free to screw up the future of the Mac Pro. I really like the new design personally but that doesn't mean that Apples pricing will align with my willingness to pay. My big fear is a machine priced astronomically high and out of line with the hardware contained. It is my hope that the new design effectively lowers costs to Apple.
Yet capability is there through TB, but as we've discussed in other threads - still an X factor unless TB become ubiquitous.
I've been hearing about Ethernet protocols over TB, if this is real it could lead to very cheap but high performance clustering over TB of Apple hardware. This becomes very interesting in the case of the Mac Pro as one would never need to throw out a Mac Pro if the software supports clustered compute nodes. So every two years or so when the GPU manufactures deliver a real GPU improvement one can simply buy a new Mac Pro and plug it into the cluster with you costs being the one TB cable.
If this is in fact a reality TBs future is not in doubt, it is in fact sealed. There are many things TB can do that no other low cost port can, it is really just a matter of Apple leveraging the hardware. The idea that TB needs to be "ubiquitous" is in my mind misplaced. All we really need for TB to get a lock on its future is a couple of key apps. We already have the use of TB for docks and high performance storage, if this IP over TB is real and Apple supports clustered installations nobody will have to worry about TBs future. We will have three compelling uses for the port, each with rather broad support.
Could end up like fw ... great tech, adopted by the PC crowd late. Then swamped by usb3. Bleeding edge here ...
Actually I've heard this crap one too many times, TB and USB 3 aren't even in the same ball park as far as application and performance goes. I'm not sure why this keeps coming up in discussions, I've yet to see a video monitor with a USB connection that also acts as a dock for example. The idea that TB was designed to replace USB is a joke too, even though Intel and Apple have tried to dismiss the idea people still seem to grab on to the idea that TB is a USB replacement. One look at cable construction should dismiss that idea completely, but yet the idea continues on in the publics mind. TB will be successful doing things other ports can't. That might not be the massive market seen with USB but who cares?
In any event let's get back to the clustering speculation, people often complain about the lack of dual processors in the new Mac Pro even though there are two high performance GPUs in the machine. OK I can understand that some apps just need a lot of I86 cores but is a massive Mac Pro box the right way to go to deliver those cores. For many apps I would say no, it makes more sense to cluster a bunch of low cost nodes to get the cores you need. TB, at 20GB per second, would allow for that to happen with good performance over a wide array of apps. A Beowulf cluster with a high performance interconnect if you will.
With such a clustering ability many people win. Apple for one would sell more computers and their computers would be seen as an easy avenue into high performance low cost computing. Users will win big time as the majority of the users out there, that don't need this technology, would enjoy lower cost hardware as they wouldn't need to support the small minority needing a big box. User also win due to malleable systems that don't completely die if one node goes belly up. Software developers win also as they will have a limited number of Mac Pro configurations to work with. More so if developers have customers complaining about performance they can suggest adding another node ( given that the software supports operation on a cluster).
For some developers a mind set change is probably in order, others will have apps that just don't fit into a clustered environment. However for many industries Apple targets, clustered computers are nothing new. What would be new here is doing it for a relatively cheap price and perhaps on a smaller scale. However small scale is relative here, a cluster of 4-8 Mac Pros would be nothing to sneeze at, especially for GPU accelerated apps. I can see many developers getting excited at the prospect of cheap low pain clustering and are probably hoping that this feature is real.
err, I wasn't comparing TB with usb3 but fw being overtaken by usb3. Sorry for any confusion
I haven't kept up with what else may be coming that could oppose TB other than some noise from the PC crowd about new Ethernet protocols that they seem to think are going to be offer the way forward. Apple could certainly leverage TB for the Mac, I guess it's over to Intel - but what their intentions are I don't know. Ubiquitous may have been the wrong use of a word - I was meaning commonplace or accepted.
Ethernet over TB is real enough. I bought my wife a TB to Ethernet adaptor for her new MBA. Works flawlessly as does the usb3 to Ethernet adaptor. Not sure what else Apple needs to add - we already have QMaster that adds whatever machines are required over the network for distributed rendering. Possibly an upgraded version of QMaster or a derivative of that ? I haven't added the MBA as a node to my setup yet - but I'll do it soon, as a test. So what we would need is a TB link to a breakout box that handles peripherals and network requirements. Yes ?
The GPU ones haven't been released yet and would be better waiting for Thunderbolt 2 but the others already run all the high-end PCIe cards like the Red Rocket and HDX audio cards. They're apparently quite noisy and they are expensive but that's the fault of the box manufacturers and not TB itself.
Once you have something like that and working drivers, it doesn't really matter if Thunderbolt doesn't take off in a big way, you have working peripherals. Given that TB latches onto mini-displayport, there's no need to remove the port if it doesn't get used for data. While USB 3 will take over some roles, you can't run a GPU over USB 3 or do real-time video capture over it like with the Blackmagic Thunderbolt camera (what used to be firewire's job but Thunderbolt 2 will handle 4K).
Yep - I've been keeping a track of those. Found one ! What I was meaning was more like this - good Ol Belkin to the rescue ! http://www.belkin.com/us/p/P-F4U055/
Not TB2 yet - many more of these BOB's will come I'm sure.
edit: I reread wiz's post. I may have simplified things too much (a character fault, I admit ) I now see what wiz is saying - all network protocols could be handled by TB using the much wider pipe and not limited to GigE. That makes perfect sense. Given that there's adaptors that work now it should be relatively straightforward to implement.
Yep - I've been keeping a track of those.
Found one !
What I was meaning was more like this - good Ol Belkin to the rescue ! http://www.belkin.com/us/p/P-F4U055/
Not TB2 yet - many more of these BOB's will come I'm sure.
Well we can hope but the breakout box market doesn't appear to be real hot at the moment.
edit: I reread wiz's post. I may have simplified things too much (a character fault, I admit )
I now see what wiz is saying - all network protocols could be handled by TB using the much wider pipe and not limited to GigE.
Well it looks like i didn't address things in a clear manner myself. What I was alluding to is IP over TB hardware. In other words a 20 GB connection between machine with no intervening hardware.
In this case there would be no adapters, just a TB cable connecting machines.
That makes perfect sense.
Given that there's adaptors that work now it should be relatively straightforward to implement.
Well we can hope but the breakout box market doesn't appear to be real hot at the moment.
Lol, not right now.
"But it's gonna be" (TM)
I could use the Belkin offering right now for the MBA. If only to tidy up connections so that everything was on one port off one side of the computer. All ports are now being used as my wife is using an external monitor when at home.
So the TB port is used miniDP to hdmi. The usb3 is being used by keyboard/mouse and on the other side the usb3 port is used the Ethernet adaptor. Yes. I can connect her by ac wifi - but that's a seperate issue right now - causing some problems with the AirPort Extreme/Time capsule. Further reading here if you're interested https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5263183?tstart=0
299USD is too much. I'd expect prices to come down as competition enters the market.
In any event let's get back to the clustering speculation, people often complain about the lack of dual processors in the new Mac Pro even though there are two high performance GPUs in the machine. OK I can understand that some apps just need a lot of I86 cores but is a massive Mac Pro box the right way to go to deliver those cores. For many apps I would say no, it makes more sense to cluster a bunch of low cost nodes to get the cores you need. TB, at 20GB per second, would allow for that to happen with good performance over a wide array of apps. A Beowulf cluster with a high performance interconnect if you will.
Surely Apple are the ones to simplify and deliver cluster computing for the small business or solo artist?
Wasn't it supposed to be X-Grid? What came of that?
I often hear of artists having another old computer that they just use as a render node for their 3D app?
Basically render images/passes are divided between the two (or more) computers?
Surely only thing the two computers need is to be networked for the date sharing and compilation at the end to take place?
In that context, the mini is a perfect render node...very stackable next to the Mac Pro.
How difficult is that for something like Lightwave 3D? Want more render power? Add another mini to your iMac or Mac Pro.
Comments
If Apple’s wrong, don’t buy it.
I've actually been pretty selective about that. I want a wider screen so haven't bought an iPhone since the 4 and I like my 17" MBP so I haven't replaced it, but I have purchased other products like my wife's MacBook, the mini in the living room and a couple ATVs.
I'll probably buy a Pro tube too, but I'm still bothered by the way Apple decides something has to go and drops support for it BEFORE anyone is ready with alternatives so some of us can't use the new product even if we want to, then, and this is the real piss off, they act all superior like everyone else on the planet is "lagging" behind their "visionary lead" so anyone who objects is a "whiner." REALLY irritating.
Good products sell, and therefore stay. Bad products don’t.
Mostly true, except in Apple's case they sell WAY more "compromise" product than any other brand ever could because there's no way to run OS X without one of their machines. As a result I think a fair number of buyers settle for configurations that aren't necessarily what they want because they can't go to another vendor for an OS X machine.
Yea - apart from the hackintosh route, of course. But as most of us know, that doesn't really guarantee any OS upgrade path :-)
It's going to be interesting foe Apple over the next couple of years - I say that only because the new MacPro and the existing MacMini seem to be on a head on collision path. I think only one will survive.
The way they are pitched, both pretty much non upgradeable in any hardware sense by the user, apart from ram. The new MacPro obviously has far more expansion possibilities, for now as far as we know.
The two headless models in quite different form factors - ah, idk I just think in the long term only one will see the light of day.
As you say, v5v, always some compromises in hardware.
You make an assumption that you know what is good for your business, there is no assurance that you will build a business in a successful way. Like wise Apple has no guarantee that the new Mac Pro will be successful. However Apple does have years of sales data reflecting what configurations have been successful. They could fool themselves into building the wrong product (it has happened to other companies), but I don't think it is the case in this situation.
I don't go around crying in my soup that Mercedes doesn't make the pickup truck I want. It is up to me to select the right vehicle for the job at hand. When it comes to computing the world isn't any different you select the right manufacture to supply the computing hardware you need. Actually you are wrong in that regard, in both cases too.
However the bigger problem here is why you even remotely believe that Apple has it in for you personally? I'm sure forum members here would like an explanation. Like it or not Apples responsibility here is to the company and share holders to produce a professional machine that can sell in quantities large enough to be a successful product. Let's face it Apples entire desktop line is suffering from declining sales and the Mac Pro has taken the biggest hit there. By redefinition Apple needs a machine that appeals to a wider market to prevent ado ward spiral into oblivion for the desktop line up.
You whine over Apple not making a super computer for your personal needs while Apple struggles to find a solution that will keep the desktops around at all. Think about that a bit. If you would open your mind a bit you would realize that the Mac Pro is a very smart design. Bleeding edge really. The only thing that will stop the machine from my standpoint is Apple making a huge mistake pricing wise.
You can claim the machine isn't for you, that is fine, what is garbage is your hostility towards the rest of the world. Apple isn't on this planet to deliver some sort of tricked out machine personally for you, crying like a 3 year old that you aren't getting what you want offers nothing for your position.
You seem to be of the mind that selling a mass market workstation is a simple thing to do these days. Just throw into a box everything every possible user could want and be done with it. It just doesn't work that way. It very well could be if you wanted it to be. This isn't rocket science, the computer is just like any other tool you have to leverage it for your benefit. If it doesn't do the job you purchase a different one.
If this is so then the hardware isn't as important as you make it out to be.
No, I don't find it appropriate to use Ford's quotes as a justification for the glaring shortcomings found in the new Mac Pro.
Wasn’t the point, and you know it.
And you have proof they didn’t, I assume.
Have any numbers, or…
The Rokr was made in cooperation with Apple.
Not sure what part of “It isn’t an Apple product” was difficult for you to comprehend, but you seem to have had quite a few issues in that department.
“Compromise” in what way, just hardware?
The guy makes no sense, incredible anger for no reason at all. There are all sorts of things I'd love to see Apple build, but I see no reason to fly off the rocker when these things don't happen.
You mis the point completely, you won't plug that into standard 120VAC outlets and get 3000 watts out of the power supply. A 15 amp outlet can supply 1800 watts of power and a 20 amp outlets 2400 watts. Worst if you want reliable power you need to derate, so that 20 amp outlet might yield 1900 watts.
As for the enterprise I don't think Apple has a chance there, most companies would rather ride with Microsoft even if they are going no where at all. I do think Apple could have success in the high performance computing market where pricing isn't as cut throat. However they would have to accept modest sales and offer a significantly enhanced sales experience. Most of these sorts of installations require engineering to support power distribution to the units and even cooling of the machines. Even a smallish desk side unit might require a 220VAC outlet delivering a few thousands of watts power.
The problem with the high performance computing market is that sales are so minor even specialized companies have trouble staying afloat. Further Apple has no credibility here and would be up against the established suppliers. So I think chances are real thin here.
You again do yourself no favors.
Honestly we have heard a bunch of bull shit from you but nothing of substance. List out these shortcomings with an explanation of why you see them as shortcomings. The new Mac Pro does not have any shortcomings that would be described as glaring by the majority of users it targets. More like you and Apple. You seem to mis one very important fact, the professional market is huge, the segment you seem to be interested is tiny. Which explains why so many companies are in the situation they are in with their Windows hardware. Pros consistently make mistakes with regard to what the mainstream market wants. Look at how many realized that their knee jerk reaction wasn't as smart as it should have been. Of course the return to FCPX has been done sheepishly because most pros don't want to admit they got on the wrong bandwagon. They sold less than 5000 XServes a year. How many pros is that, especially when they where often sold in blocks of multiple machines. Now consider this, how many professionals live and work in an average city. We are talking engineers, designers, doctors, managers, scientist, educators and what have you.
Yeah that is proving to be a lot of baloney, pros are far more likely to make bad decisions when it comes to selecting technology. How many companies installed Wangnet or some of the other failed networking choices. Sometimes the exposure to marketing pressure makes for bad decision making. Marketing pressure being everything from performance lies to out right corruption. Look at what the Pros did at Delta selecting a MS tablet for their plane crews, would you call that sound decision making from the Pros?
The problem I have is this seemingly unending demand from some for Apple to produce a machine exactly tailored to their needs. Apple can't do that anymore than Ford can. I don't think people realize just how bad Mac Pro sales have been over the last couple of years. I suspect Apple feels like they have lost nothing.
I'm not sure I follow you fully above though because it is Apples job to promote their new products. It is no different than any other company, Ford for example wants you to think they produce a superior truck. Coco-cola wants you to believe in their sugar water.
in any event in some areas the rest of the world is lagging Apple be a significant margin. Highlighting these facts is a way to make a product look new and attractive.
This is a mixed bag really. If you follow my past posts you will realize that I haven't been happy with the desktop line up for a very long time now. Compromised is a good word here. However that isn't the word that I'd use for the laptops. In fact Apples laptop lineup is anything but compromised, they are in fact the best the industry offers. It so bad that the last time I purchased a Mac, that 2008 MBP, I was really looking at desktops but simply didn't have the right machine to choose from.
Macs are one thing but the issue of compromised is even less applicable to iOS devices. In fact we see again and again that Apple packs a lot into their iOS devices in such a way that few can match. From the quality of the touch screens, UI responsiveness, to the power of the processors, it is hard to describe any of these devices as compromised.
So in the end a mixed bag, but this is hardly any different than any other company. Where is HP with a cell phone, tablet or even a decent laptop? Each company has a niche to fill, Apple isn't perfect but they do ship a lot of high quality hardware.
As for the 2.0 OpenCL spec, I haven't looked at it in depth, but it looks like it is evolving along with hardware capabilities. This is another thing to consider, nobody has really gotten to the point where they are delivering the hardware for the type of heterogeneous systems everyone is reaching for. Haswell comes very close and has some really impressive compute scores. Both AMD and NVidia are working hard at advancing their GPUs to handle that heterogeneous future better. However that hardware and software really needs to integrate well with Apples OS.
I mentioned this a few weeks ago but I'm still wondering(hoping) that the big delay for the new Mac Pro is in part GPU related. It is my understanding new Pro hardware will come late this year from AMD. A new generation of GPUs would make the Mac look that much better.
I'll drop the topic of NVidia for now, as I don't look at enough of their stuff to fully grasp their future plans. I suspect they have modeled these things out where Kodak didn't position themselves well. They were involved in many things beyond traditional film. The problem was they destroyed practically everything. They ate the remains of Creo and Leaf and eventually folded all of that. I don't know who holds their IP related to CCD chips these days. Epson and HP crushed them on the printer end. They had basically nothing left in the consumer market and a business that was too large going forward. It pretty much became a graveyard of other bankrupt companies.
What I find interesting about OpenCL and CUDA is basically what we have now. Maybe 15 years ago these things didn't even have programmable pixel shaders. Things that interest me are the things that could be done today given the aggressive memory culling that modern OpenGL and OpenCL specs provide for. I am extremely well versed with Adobe's software, so I can see where older algorithms and methods have persisted in their software from ICC workflows left over in some applications (as opposed to LUTs) to the persistent use of silly inverse gaussian calculations applied as a means of sharpening. What interests me is what could run on the next iPad through SOCs and clean code that hasn't been updated for so many years.
As for a new gpu generation, I'm skeptical that they will have new firepros based on their newest chips out this year. Those tend to change at a much slower rate, and you'll see that some older chips are still used in firepros where they have been retired from the gaming card lines. I don't know exactly how that will work out because I don't know whether Apple is buying a working board or just chips. I really doubt we'll see any just released gpus though. It would be a massive change in direction from prior behavior.
So yeah whatever Apple is up to in this regard will be very interesting. It is also a playing field for new vendors. It is interesting that Adobe can't seem to bring much to the iPad, granted the early models didn't have the performance but developers have innovated here anyways. Well I have no crystal ball here, however they did release a "mobile" FirePro in September. It is a GCN chip but I'm not sure which one.
As for AMD this announcement: http://community.amd.com/community/amd-blogs/business/blog/2013/06/11/power-and-performance-delivered-by-amd-firepro-graphics-with-amd-graphics-core-next, pretty much says the same thing as Apples debut. However they did indicate GCN cores, like Apple they used the phrase "up to" very often. So it is hard to even guess other than to say the GPUs will all be GCN based.
As for new FirePros, it isn't impossible as AMD has released a series of new GPU cards for the desktop/gaming market that supposedly ship in the next couple of weeks. How old are we talking, last I knew all FirePros where GCN based. That could still mean a year or two old core but the top end card would have to support newer technology to compete with NVidia.
I'm not sure who is making the boards for Apple either. Obviously they aren't standard PCI Express boards. As to a massive change in prior behavior it is mandatory for the new Mac Pro to be a success. Of course they can't ship that which doesn't exist, but Apple has screwed them selves repeatedly shipping pathetic video cards in what is supposedly a pro machine.
Right there wiz !
We've always had the ability to add whatever we might have needed through ye olden PCI/e slots.
Gone - the future for the MacPro is yet to be written. Yet capability is there through TB, but as we've discussed in other threads - still an X factor unless TB become ubiquitous. Could end up like fw ... great tech, adopted by the PC crowd late. Then swamped by usb3. Bleeding edge here ...
If this is in fact a reality TBs future is not in doubt, it is in fact sealed. There are many things TB can do that no other low cost port can, it is really just a matter of Apple leveraging the hardware. The idea that TB needs to be "ubiquitous" is in my mind misplaced. All we really need for TB to get a lock on its future is a couple of key apps. We already have the use of TB for docks and high performance storage, if this IP over TB is real and Apple supports clustered installations nobody will have to worry about TBs future. We will have three compelling uses for the port, each with rather broad support.
Actually I've heard this crap one too many times, TB and USB 3 aren't even in the same ball park as far as application and performance goes. I'm not sure why this keeps coming up in discussions, I've yet to see a video monitor with a USB connection that also acts as a dock for example. The idea that TB was designed to replace USB is a joke too, even though Intel and Apple have tried to dismiss the idea people still seem to grab on to the idea that TB is a USB replacement. One look at cable construction should dismiss that idea completely, but yet the idea continues on in the publics mind. TB will be successful doing things other ports can't. That might not be the massive market seen with USB but who cares?
In any event let's get back to the clustering speculation, people often complain about the lack of dual processors in the new Mac Pro even though there are two high performance GPUs in the machine. OK I can understand that some apps just need a lot of I86 cores but is a massive Mac Pro box the right way to go to deliver those cores. For many apps I would say no, it makes more sense to cluster a bunch of low cost nodes to get the cores you need. TB, at 20GB per second, would allow for that to happen with good performance over a wide array of apps. A Beowulf cluster with a high performance interconnect if you will.
With such a clustering ability many people win. Apple for one would sell more computers and their computers would be seen as an easy avenue into high performance low cost computing. Users will win big time as the majority of the users out there, that don't need this technology, would enjoy lower cost hardware as they wouldn't need to support the small minority needing a big box. User also win due to malleable systems that don't completely die if one node goes belly up. Software developers win also as they will have a limited number of Mac Pro configurations to work with. More so if developers have customers complaining about performance they can suggest adding another node ( given that the software supports operation on a cluster).
For some developers a mind set change is probably in order, others will have apps that just don't fit into a clustered environment. However for many industries Apple targets, clustered computers are nothing new. What would be new here is doing it for a relatively cheap price and perhaps on a smaller scale. However small scale is relative here, a cluster of 4-8 Mac Pros would be nothing to sneeze at, especially for GPU accelerated apps. I can see many developers getting excited at the prospect of cheap low pain clustering and are probably hoping that this feature is real.
I haven't kept up with what else may be coming that could oppose TB other than some noise from the PC crowd about new Ethernet protocols that they seem to think are going to be offer the way forward.
Apple could certainly leverage TB for the Mac, I guess it's over to Intel - but what their intentions are I don't know. Ubiquitous may have been the wrong use of a word - I was meaning commonplace or accepted.
Ethernet over TB is real enough. I bought my wife a TB to Ethernet adaptor for her new MBA. Works flawlessly as does the usb3 to Ethernet adaptor. Not sure what else Apple needs to add - we already have QMaster that adds whatever machines are required over the network for distributed rendering. Possibly an upgraded version of QMaster or a derivative of that ?
I haven't added the MBA as a node to my setup yet - but I'll do it soon, as a test.
So what we would need is a TB link to a breakout box that handles peripherals and network requirements. Yes ?
These already exist:
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpressse2.html
http://www.magma.com/expressbox-3t
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Thunderbolt/PCIe_Chassis/Mercury_Helios
There's ones that have been designed specifically to handle GPUs too:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7040/computex-2013-thunderbolt-graphics-from-silverstone
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5352/
The GPU ones haven't been released yet and would be better waiting for Thunderbolt 2 but the others already run all the high-end PCIe cards like the Red Rocket and HDX audio cards. They're apparently quite noisy and they are expensive but that's the fault of the box manufacturers and not TB itself.
Once you have something like that and working drivers, it doesn't really matter if Thunderbolt doesn't take off in a big way, you have working peripherals. Given that TB latches onto mini-displayport, there's no need to remove the port if it doesn't get used for data. While USB 3 will take over some roles, you can't run a GPU over USB 3 or do real-time video capture over it like with the Blackmagic Thunderbolt camera (what used to be firewire's job but Thunderbolt 2 will handle 4K).
Found one !
What I was meaning was more like this - good Ol Belkin to the rescue !
http://www.belkin.com/us/p/P-F4U055/
Not TB2 yet - many more of these BOB's will come I'm sure.
edit: I reread wiz's post. I may have simplified things too much (a character fault, I admit
I now see what wiz is saying - all network protocols could be handled by TB using the much wider pipe and not limited to GigE.
That makes perfect sense.
Given that there's adaptors that work now it should be relatively straightforward to implement.
In this case there would be no adapters, just a TB cable connecting machines.
Lol, not right now.
"But it's gonna be" (TM)
I could use the Belkin offering right now for the MBA. If only to tidy up connections so that everything was on one port off one side of the computer. All ports are now being used as my wife is using an external monitor when at home.
So the TB port is used miniDP to hdmi. The usb3 is being used by keyboard/mouse and on the other side the usb3 port is used the Ethernet adaptor. Yes. I can connect her by ac wifi - but that's a seperate issue right now - causing some problems with the AirPort Extreme/Time capsule. Further reading here if you're interested https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5263183?tstart=0
299USD is too much. I'd expect prices to come down as competition enters the market.
Surely Apple are the ones to simplify and deliver cluster computing for the small business or solo artist?
Wasn't it supposed to be X-Grid? What came of that?
I often hear of artists having another old computer that they just use as a render node for their 3D app?
Basically render images/passes are divided between the two (or more) computers?
Surely only thing the two computers need is to be networked for the date sharing and compilation at the end to take place?
In that context, the mini is a perfect render node...very stackable next to the Mac Pro.
How difficult is that for something like Lightwave 3D? Want more render power? Add another mini to your iMac or Mac Pro.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Would that be four i7 minis for about the same cost as an entry quad core Mac Pro?
Lemon Bon Bon.