New stackable Mac replaces both mini and Pro.

irelandireland
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware
Is this possible and what do you think of the idea: if it is I feel it would allow professional desktop users to choose the power they need. And these stacks could similarly be added onto a new MBP for when you visit your desktop setup and require a ton more juice.

What if the new Mac Pro is a rebranded, redesigned miniature Mac that is physically and technologically stackable. You could stack say up to six machines vertically. The top surface near the four corners would have little indentations and the feet of the next machine would sit neatly into said indents. Each machine would come with a short USBc cable for connecting to the next machine.

Each would have a few USBc ports and especially one on each end of the machine, so if you wanted to you could start a new 6-level stack beside and so on, continuing to daisy chain. Using this method let's say you are able to daisy chain up to 30 of these Macs.

Cleverly the power button is the Apple logo and you just press it atop the machine connected to your monitor and it becomes the master and initiates all of the other machines. So in this example I have three of these Macs stacked and I power on the top machine which powers on the other two drones as well.

Upon startup I see the desktop of the machine that's connected to my monitor. Apple educates its customers to this methodology. So now I have a little super-computer. I can use the disk space and the processing capability of all the machines in the chain, but it appears to me on screen I'm using just a single machine. About this Mac would list the true power and size of my whole chain in a cleverly simple manner. Now to convert a 40 minute 4K clip and all machines join in dividing the time x3 and so on.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 6
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Since XGrid is already on every Mac I seen no reason why it wouldn't be possible, though it's rather inefficient (OS would be installed on every computer, lots of logic boards and IO where a MacPro has a single core).  Getting the single desktop interface as if you're using one computer would be a tricky thing, and invites lots of questions about where data is actually be stored and how resources are divided.

    I'm not sure that just connecting a USBc cable between two computers to achieve this would be a great idea, there needs to be a bit more to it than that.

    Also, not the same, but reminds me a little of this old chestnut: http://ipack3d.com/modular-macpro-design-concept/

    And like that design, nice idea as it might be, it's never going to happen.
    edited November 2016
  • Reply 2 of 6
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    crowley said:

    I'm not sure that just connecting a USBc cable between two computers to achieve this would be a great idea, there needs to be a bit more to it than that.
    I know it's not simple, but the idea is the system is designed by Apple to be just that: simply a USBc between each link in the chain and one desktop with an aggregate about this Mac screen. It just works would be the goal. Having data spread out could also be a plus for redundancy.
    And like that design, nice idea as it might be, it's never going to happen.
    Thanks, and you're surely right about that.
    edited November 2016
  • Reply 3 of 6
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    ireland said:
    crowley said:

    I'm not sure that just connecting a USBc cable between two computers to achieve this would be a great idea, there needs to be a bit more to it than that.
    I know it's not simple, but the idea is the system is designed by Apple to be just that: simply a USBc between each link in the chain and one desktop with an aggregate about this Mac screen. It just works would be the goal. Having data spread out could also be a plus for redundancy.
    Sorry, wasn't clear, I actually think having such an extreme simplicity could be undesirable as it's going to be a major security risk.  It can't be as simple as being able to access all the data on a computer just by plugging them into mine with a USB cable.  There needs to be some set up / authentication, where the slave computer(s) are either fresh installs, or are using the same Apple Id, and there probably needs to be some config where the user decides which computer is the master and which is/are the slave(s).  And probably more besides.
  • Reply 4 of 6
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    crowley said:
    ireland said:
    crowley said:

    I'm not sure that just connecting a USBc cable between two computers to achieve this would be a great idea, there needs to be a bit more to it than that.
    I know it's not simple, but the idea is the system is designed by Apple to be just that: simply a USBc between each link in the chain and one desktop with an aggregate about this Mac screen. It just works would be the goal. Having data spread out could also be a plus for redundancy.
    Sorry, wasn't clear, I actually think having such an extreme simplicity could be undesirable as it's going to be a major security risk.  It can't be as simple as being able to access all the data on a computer just by plugging them into mine with a USB cable.  There needs to be some set up / authentication, where the slave computer(s) are either fresh installs, or are using the same Apple Id, and there probably needs to be some config where the user decides which computer is the master and which is/are the slave(s).  And probably more besides.
    Certainly. At a minimum you'd need to be Apple ID logged in to all of them somehow.
  • Reply 5 of 6
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,323moderator
    ireland said:
    crowley said:
    ireland said:
    crowley said:

    I'm not sure that just connecting a USBc cable between two computers to achieve this would be a great idea, there needs to be a bit more to it than that.
    I know it's not simple, but the idea is the system is designed by Apple to be just that: simply a USBc between each link in the chain and one desktop with an aggregate about this Mac screen. It just works would be the goal. Having data spread out could also be a plus for redundancy.
    Sorry, wasn't clear, I actually think having such an extreme simplicity could be undesirable as it's going to be a major security risk.  It can't be as simple as being able to access all the data on a computer just by plugging them into mine with a USB cable.  There needs to be some set up / authentication, where the slave computer(s) are either fresh installs, or are using the same Apple Id, and there probably needs to be some config where the user decides which computer is the master and which is/are the slave(s).  And probably more besides.
    Certainly. At a minimum you'd need to be Apple ID logged in to all of them somehow.
    They can have an option to share the resources like how the networking and storage can be shared (system prefs > sharing). I think this is something they should implement in the OS to avoid having to do this kind of thing manually:

    https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202507

    I don't think it's worth changing the hardware design to suit this as the majority of people will be buying a single machine. The Mac Pro starts at $3k. It has an audience in the tens of thousands.
  • Reply 6 of 6
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    Marvin said:
    ireland said:
    crowley said:
    ireland said:
    crowley said:

    I'm not sure that just connecting a USBc cable between two computers to achieve this would be a great idea, there needs to be a bit more to it than that.
    I know it's not simple, but the idea is the system is designed by Apple to be just that: simply a USBc between each link in the chain and one desktop with an aggregate about this Mac screen. It just works would be the goal. Having data spread out could also be a plus for redundancy.
    Sorry, wasn't clear, I actually think having such an extreme simplicity could be undesirable as it's going to be a major security risk.  It can't be as simple as being able to access all the data on a computer just by plugging them into mine with a USB cable.  There needs to be some set up / authentication, where the slave computer(s) are either fresh installs, or are using the same Apple Id, and there probably needs to be some config where the user decides which computer is the master and which is/are the slave(s).  And probably more besides.
    Certainly. At a minimum you'd need to be Apple ID logged in to all of them somehow.
    They can have an option to share the resources like how the networking and storage can be shared (system prefs > sharing). I think this is something they should implement in the OS to avoid having to do this kind of thing manually:

    https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202507

    I don't think it's worth changing the hardware design to suit this as the majority of people will be buying a single machine. The Mac Pro starts at $3k. It has an audience in the tens of thousands.
    This allows them address all kinds of pro markets with one machine. It makes sense economically for Apple and practically for pros. Same time pros can get one or two and add on another one or two if their needs change or they want to push things further. It allows anyone who wants more to add on one later on, and I think people would. And it allows video and graphic pros to get five or six of them or many more. They could be $999 a-piece of smtn with add ons to increase cost, power and hard disk space per unit up to $2K per unit or so. And in this scenario it'd be only a matter of time until a hard driver maker makes a large hard drive that is a form factor replica for one of these that's placed in the chain.
    edited November 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.