The 2019 Mac Pro will be what Apple wants it to be, and it won't, and shouldn't, make ever...

145791015

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 289
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,216member
    jdw said:

    Citing data and telling us how "Apple Inc" thinks vs "Apple Computer" does not persuade people like me from thinking like I already do.  I know what I want and what I can afford.  I want a module Mac Pro, but not if it's $5000 or more, and not if expandability is artificially limited for the sake of maintaining the Johnny Ive ideal.  Macs are already a tiny segment of the PC market anyway, so Apple is not losing or gaining much by offering the buyer what the buyer wants, as opposed to offering a product that Apple and Johnny Ive want.  In the end though, it makes good PR sense to, at least occasionally, give the buyer what they want.  And that is a modular Mac that doesn't look like a trash can and which is affordably priced and will last (with upgrades) 10 years.  Nothing is impossible when you put your mind to it.  Hopefully, Apple keeps "the rest of us" in mind like it once did.
    Well said.

    Again you'd swear someone killed a puppy for each un-upgraded RAM, expansion slot or hard drive in previous Mac's.  Who cares if 90% of the users never touched them?!?! What difference does it make?  It's crucial to those to DO need to use them!
    jdw
  • Reply 122 of 289
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 1,627member
    docno42 said:
    One of the things early Apple and Steve Jobs learned was that if you give people a system they can grow on, with and in, then people will find new ways of using it. – Ways that both will be beneficial to Apple and their customers. 
    Ha!  Steve hated slots.  Woz threatened to quit if Steve kept insisting that the Apple II didn't have slots.

    I think Tim Cook and Johnny Ive are channeling this aspect of Steve a little too much.

    And for gods sake is it too much to ask for a desktop computer to be made with actual desktop parts?  Instead of relying on laptop parts so you can make stupidly thin desktops because - it's so thin! 
    Steve wasn't a tech person. He needed tech people to ground him in that which was possible and workable. The thing is, tech people need the same and opposite: they often need to be beaten into submission when it comes to serving HUMANS instead of serving geeks (or serving "the way it has always been done"). It was a give and take where the leadership was firmly planted in the hands and ideologies of a non-techie.

    He was probably a horrible boss but he was good for the computer industry. He was an overpowering force that drove his company's computers toward average humans being able to use them, which is something the industry actively hates. Sadly, the golden age of 2007 to 2012 is over and the industry is returning to its previous form, as Apple returns to being a Wall Street addict/toy.
  • Reply 123 of 289
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,735member
    docno42 said:
    jdw said:

    Citing data and telling us how "Apple Inc" thinks vs "Apple Computer" does not persuade people like me from thinking like I already do.  I know what I want and what I can afford.  I want a module Mac Pro, but not if it's $5000 or more, and not if expandability is artificially limited for the sake of maintaining the Johnny Ive ideal.  Macs are already a tiny segment of the PC market anyway, so Apple is not losing or gaining much by offering the buyer what the buyer wants, as opposed to offering a product that Apple and Johnny Ive want.  In the end though, it makes good PR sense to, at least occasionally, give the buyer what they want.  And that is a modular Mac that doesn't look like a trash can and which is affordably priced and will last (with upgrades) 10 years.  Nothing is impossible when you put your mind to it.  Hopefully, Apple keeps "the rest of us" in mind like it once did.
    Well said.

    Again you'd swear someone killed a puppy for each un-upgraded RAM, expansion slot or hard drive in previous Mac's.  Who cares if 90% of the users never touched them?!?! What difference does it make?  It's crucial to those to DO need to use them!
    Apple cares. It makes a difference to them, clearly. Why is so hard to understand that all these decisions are all up to Apple. You vote by not buying products that don't suit your needs. I don't understand why this notion is so difficult to understand. Personally, I've never once had Apple make a product that was exactly what I wanted at the time I wanted it, but they tend to be closer than anyone else so I tend to end up with Apple to make my life easier and more profitable. Could they do more to support my specific needs? Sure, but it's not my say.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 124 of 289
    I've upgraded just about every Mac I've ever bought over time, and my last 3 were top of line at the time.

    I stopped buying new hardware in 2011 due to the move to onboard everything and the proprietary bs the post Jobs governance and brutality of forced beta annual 'upgrades'...

    Apple is free to make their choices, and I have made mine... $0 to Apple since the new governance, or is regime a better term?

    I'm about to upgrade a 2011 i7 mini to16G ram, because I can...
    jdwavon b7hammeroftruthdocno42
  • Reply 125 of 289
    KITAKITA Posts: 17member
    cpelham said:
    I don’t see many people commenting about what is going to be needed hardware/software wise to create 4k/8k 360VR, 3D and AR content in the coming years. Cook has commented many times in recent years that this is where he thinks tech/content is going and that Apple wants to play a big part in creating it and delivering it. From what I understand, we are going to need much more powerful machines and I think they must be taking this extra year to try to design for this future, and this future may well require something other than Intel inside and possibly faster busses and cables and whatnot to drive, say, two 8k monitors.
    We have workstations with immense amounts of power now, but at a high cost.

    For example, NVIDIA's DGX Station:



    It brings to market a considerable boost in performance via the 2560 Tensor cores which put out 500 TFLOPS of mixed precision performance, this is on top of the 60 TFLOPS of single precision from the CUDA cores. It even utilizes NVLink 2.0 for speeds much greater than PCIe. The same system was used to run the Unreal Engine / Star Wars real time ray tracing demo (video). 



    All of this comes at a smooth price of $50,000.  

    Bringing the cost down is the next step.
    jdw
  • Reply 126 of 289
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,415member
    netrox said:
    I actually upgraded RAM after I bought the standard iMac to save money. I've done the same with all my PC's as well. 

    While it's true most of those machines don't get upgraded, it does not mean nobody does that. The upgrades are more common among those who own pros at home than those who use them at work.

    Do you really think that companies will let users upgrade their company machines? No. That's not how it works. Companies OWN those machines, not users. Users have little say. 
    At no point did I say that nobody does it. In fact, the middle of the article spells out who does, and how rare it is. It's just important to note, that while probably 90% of AI readers do it, we are far and away the minority in that regard.

    Regarding work, the fact that the user won't upgrade it isn't the point. The corporate entity doesn't, and won't, as it's neither cost nor labor effective to do so.
    Heh. I think you’ll find that 90% of AI readers say they do it. How many of them really do it is somewhat less. 
  • Reply 127 of 289
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,415member
    k2kw said:
    Well, that's the point. They are making the products that consumers want. 
    Are they?

    I love my 2016 MacBook Pro. It was fun being the first kid on the block to have one. A year-and-a-half later I'm still the ONLY kid on the block to have one. I honestly don't know even one other person (in real life, not counting people I "know" on the internet) who bought one. Not one. Obviously that doesn't mean NO ONE is buying them, and I'm well aware that my anecdotal observations are only valid in the context of their very limited scope. It's just culture shock for me to feel so technologically isolated.
    I think that is the result of the TouchBar.   I really wanted a Laptop with touchId, but not that over priced gimmick.   I consider it a failure.   If it had been a success we would have had a slew of Windows copycats.

    Apple went Stealth Fighter when they should have gone Stealth Bomber and kept the SD slot and MagSafe.


    The Touchbar is one of their stealth experiments on their user base. They’re looking to replace the keyboard with a second screen at some point, and this is the forerunner. I actually use mine quite a bit, but then I have BetterTouchTools installed. 
    thtfastasleep
  • Reply 128 of 289
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,415member
    Soli said:

    One of the things early Apple and Steve Jobs learned was that if you give people a system they can grow on, with and in, then people will find new ways of using it. – Ways that both will be beneficial to Apple and their customers. 

    The current Apple seem to have lost much of this early gained knowledge. It has in many ways become a non-learning organization.
    Far too many companies have faltered under the philosophy of design by committee. 
    Actually, Jobs hated expandabilty and slots and sought out to block them. Read it from the guys in the room. Here’s one of the Macintosh creators Andy Hertzfeld:

    Apple's other co-founder, Steve Jobs, didn't agree with Jef about many things, but they both felt the same way about hardware expandability: it was a bug instead of a feature. Steve was reportedly against having slots in the Apple II back in the days of yore, and felt even stronger about slots for the Mac. He decreed that the Macintosh would remain perpetually bereft of slots, enclosed in a tightly sealed case,”

    https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Diagnostic_Port.txt

    So much for your theory. 

    And are are you actually claiming Apple is a design by committee company!? Good one. 
    While not accurate, as you prove, he did make one of the best "If Steve Jobs were alive…" arguments I've seen without actually using those words.
    Er … how can it be the best “if Steve Jobs we’re alive…” arguments you’ve ever seen if the foundation for it was incorrect?
    fastasleep
  • Reply 129 of 289
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,415member

    Shouldn’t the Mac Pro be the most boring product in Apple’s lineup?  Why do they need to spend all this time rethinking the pro desktop?
    Because this is Apple, not Dell?
    StrangeDaysfastasleep
  • Reply 130 of 289
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,415member
    rcfa said:
    In the end it boils down to one thing: licensing of Apple’s OS to third parties.

    Nobody in their right mind blames Apple for not building hardware for what, given its size, are niche  markets.
    The issue is, what’s a niche market for Apple is still a sizable for others, and users don’t feel like they should be forced into using inferior software, just because the hardware they need doesn’t fit into Apple’s 80-20 model of doing business.

    people and companies want to be able to standardize on one platform, and the availability of Apple’s tied-at-the-hip hardware and software offerings just don’t cover sufficient ground.
    The result is that people stick or are driven to other platforms who would love to use macOS, but can’t find suitable hardware.
    And then you have the same problems that you get on Windows. Something breaks then you have bounce between Microsoft and HP to see who will deal with the problem. And things will break … on their race to the bottom. 
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 131 of 289
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,415member
    This was actually one of the best editorials I’ve seen on AI in quite some time (though Daniel’s piece on education was also very good). 

    It came as no surprise that folk skimmed over it and then went on to do exactly the same thing the writer said they’d been doing all along: assuming that their tiny wedge of anecdotal evidence is as valid as that of a company that has GBs of data on purchases and repairs of machines that coves decades. 

    There was only be reason that Apple spoke to TechCrunch: to give its users just enough information to make a decision.

    This is what we’re planning:
    Expansion in power and functionality will come through linking components together, not opening up boxes, dumping components and sticking in new ones. If you want upgrade then you replace a CPU module with a better CPU module, or a GPU module with a better GPU module. You want to buy an off—the-shelf CPU and fit that? Tough. Apple has no interest in turning their kit into a hodge podge or poorly-tested, unsafe boxes that folk will then demand they support. 
    How about licensing the OS? Yes, that worked so well in the past. We can watch manufacturers sell dirt cheap kit, that brings in no revenue for the desktop line. 

    When will it happen?
    Not until the 3rd quarter/end of 2019 I would say. 

    Why so long?
    Because they’re going back to the drawing board. The problem with the last Mac Pro is that they tried to guess where the industry is going and ride along with it. That was their mistake. When the industry flipped and went in a different direction, they were left with a box that couldn’t work with it. The mistake they made was trying to be part of something else instead of doing what has always served them best: forging their own path. 
    I reckon this “modular” kit will contain more of their own tech than any machine before it. It may mean coming up with their own solutions to ensure that they don’t get caught in the same dead end. Because if you rely on other companies (like IBM or Intel or Qualcomm) for your key components then they’ll trip you up as soon as your interests don’t align with theirs. 

    But folk now have enough time to make up their minds. They can wait or they can move to a different platform. 

    But it might also be worth thinking about what kind of “pro” you are. Apple is designing this stuff for the next generation of adaptable professionals. If you prefer things to stay the same then you’re not the customer they’re interested in. 
    macplusplusStrangeDayscornchipfastasleep
  • Reply 132 of 289
    geirnoklebyegeirnoklebye Posts: 15unconfirmed, member
    And are are you actually claiming Apple is a design by committee company!? 
    They are on fast track to become one. 
    sandorwozwozdocno42
  • Reply 133 of 289
    geirnoklebyegeirnoklebye Posts: 15unconfirmed, member
    Actually, Jobs hated expandabilty and slots and sought out to block them. 
    In the early years with the Macintosh and Macintosh Plus, yes, but even the SE had the first hints of expandability. 

    Both the Power Macintosh G3 Blue and White and the "cheese grater" Mac Pro + the Xserve were created when Steve Jobs were at the helms, so he learned from the early experience that people liked powerful systems they could use to expand their imagination and Apple's revenue stream. 

    The only focus Tim & Co have is for the anorexic thin and black shiny. 
  • Reply 134 of 289
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 2,346administrator
    jdw said:
    No surprises that this article on "AppleInsider" is very pro-Apple regardless of what Apple introduces to the market  But as an exclusively "Mac" user since my 128k in 1984, I believe I have a voice and a voice that matters.  

    The article starts off with the experience of the author saying that few people (at that point in time) performed their own upgrades.  That surely holds through to this day, now that Apple makes it nearly impossible to perform upgrades even by those who want to.  That thinking in the article is then extended with this: "Apple knows this better than we do. They have all the data, back to the dawn of Apple-certified service departments."  So the premise of the article is that "Apple knows best, and nobody cares about your needs because you are just a miscreant Apple product lover who will likely keep buying Apple products anyway."  

    The fact remains though that the current Mac Pro is a niche product not only because it is a Mac but because of the way it is priced -- into the stratosphere!  Certainly, some "pros" justify the cost, but the pros that do are flush with cash and can earn that cash back by working on high dollar commercial products.  But think about this.  Just how many of those pros are out there versus prosumers?  Answer: very few.  Yet we prosumers want many or most of the things the pros want, just at a price point we can afford.  

    In years past, the Mac Pro was purchased even by non-Pros.  I'm 47, but even my father purchased a PowerMac G5 (basically an older style Mac Pro) when it came out because he already had a display and wanted to keep using it.  Sure the old Pro Macs were big and bulky, but they offered the Apple II appeal of expandability.  

    Expandability at Apple has always been a war between the memory of Woz and the memory of Jobs.  I still feel that one of the best compact vintage Macs in existence is the SE/30 -- machine that came out after the ousting of Jobs.  That's not to deride the critical importance of Apple's founder.  Without Jobs returning with NeXT tech in 1996, there would be no Apple in existence today.  And while the Apple of today is very much a company of smartphones and tablets (profit-wise), it's heart is still very much tied to the Mac, and that is unlikely to ever change.  But the argument is over how the Mac is changing.  I believe the Mac should and must evolve, but does that mean removing all user customizability?  Does Macintosh evolution justify removal of the SD card slot on a 15" MBP with more than enough space to accommodate that technology, which still is very much alive and well today?  Does evolution of computing technology dictate yet another non-expandable Mac Pro, priced so high "the rest of us" can only sit back at laugh at how ridiculous the price tag is, all the while we drool over the specs like we did back in the day when the Mac IIfx was on the scene selling at $10,000?

    At the end of the day, I love Apple but...  When Steve Jobs was at Apple, Apple really seemed to know what I wanted before I knew I wanted it.  But after Jobs' departure to the land beyond, Apple has been merely refining existing products (Apple Watch excepted) based on what they think is the Jobsian ideal of minimalism.  What drives Apple though is the Johnny Ivian ideal of minimalism, which is basically so minimal that one day we will end up with a round metallic sphere with no buttons or obvious means to know how to use it.  In other words, minimalism taken to an extreme is fascinating (like alien tech from space) but not necessarily practical.  And even though Jobs was far to minimalist for my taste (I prefer the SE/30 over the Mac Plus), even Jobs had balance in his thinking, which is why he retained Scott Forstall to balance out Johnny Ive.  Steve also loved the rivalry between the Apple II and Macintosh camps back in the day.  But today Jobs is gone, Forstall is out, and everyone is pushing the Johnny Ive design aesthetic far more than the Steve Jobsian ideal of balance.  Remember that Steve was a fan of skeuomorphism and Ive eliminated that from the iOS UI.  Steve Jobs was a big Ive fan, but Steve still had balance.  Remember also that Ive was at Apple long before Steve returned, yet Ive did not revamp the company, and no, I don't believe that was due to Ive not having the power he has today.  Steve was the man who led Ive to create greatness by Steve guiding Ive in a particular direction, while at the same time listening to other voices in Apple, which included Ive rivals like Scott Forstall.

    I think it would be great if Apple replaced the Mac Pro with an upgradable machine that was very powerful out of the box but which could be made much more powerful through upgrades, both from Apple and from third parties.  It would go against the minimalism of Johnny Ive, so many would say that is not what Apple is working on today, and they are probably right.  But it would be a machine that would appeal to more people than the niche product Apple is likely concocting now but speaking secretly to ultra-high-end pros who have very specialty use cases for a computer.  

    I like upgradable Macs because you can get more life out of them.  At the prices we pay for Macs, we ought to expect more, and I personally expect 10 years of life from any expensive Mac I buy.  In the past, such as was the case with my Quadra 650, you could get that many years from it, or more.  But modern Macs are not built as well.  They need repair, and after about 4-5 years, they need accelerators to stay current.  Imagine buying an iMac Pro for $5k or more today.  Five years hence, you want to upgrade it but you can't.  You can't use it as an external display either.  And if you are in Japan like me, you cannot trade it in for a discount on a new Mac like you can in the USA.  No, you have to pay $50 equivalent to dispose of your old Mac!  Insane!  Selling it online might be an option, but it's not always easy or safe to do that, even here in Japan where the buyer is God and picky as hades.   The promise of a modular Mac is that you don't really need to worry about it becoming a paper-weight over time like an iMac, because by definition it is upgradable.  At some point it will not be able to be upgraded further, but by then (10 years or more later), the electrolytic capacitors are likely drying out or leaking to the extent that you'd want to get a replacement machine anyway.

    Citing data and telling us how "Apple Inc" thinks vs "Apple Computer" does not persuade people like me from thinking like I already do.  I know what I want and what I can afford.  I want a module Mac Pro, but not if it's $5000 or more, and not if expandability is artificially limited for the sake of maintaining the Johnny Ive ideal.  Macs are already a tiny segment of the PC market anyway, so Apple is not losing or gaining much by offering the buyer what the buyer wants, as opposed to offering a product that Apple and Johnny Ive want.  In the end though, it makes good PR sense to, at least occasionally, give the buyer what they want.  And that is a modular Mac that doesn't look like a trash can and which is affordably priced and will last (with upgrades) 10 years.  Nothing is impossible when you put your mind to it.  Hopefully, Apple keeps "the rest of us" in mind like it once did.
    You have some excellent points, but missed a big one.

    This isn’t a pro-Apple article. Just a precautionary one.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 135 of 289
    sandorsandor Posts: 419member
    bitmod said:
    Hey Mike, 
    I totally disagree with your analysis of the number of people upgrading RAM. I know for a fact that number is much much higher. 

    Apple charges 3x the price for RAM upgrades. Your numbers make sense when you look at the data Apple has - which shows people are smart enough to not order ram from Apple. 
    I think a better way to determine the true number is to ask a company like OWC how business is? Determine their market share, extrapolate sales / new machines sold etc... 

    I've upgraded the RAM on my own for every Mac I've ever owned (40-50 computers). 
    On top of that, I've upgraded all of my friends Mac's with ram (100+ computers).
    On top of that, I upgrade all of my clients computers with RAM or direct them to OWC (300+ computers).

    Thats about 450 computers with upgraded RAM that Apple, or anyone else, has zero data on... and I'm just 1 guy. 
    I have many peers who do the same for their friends and clients. 
    I could easily estimate over 3000+ computers. 

    I would argue the type of people answering your poll here are 'unlikely' to be upgraders. 
    If you ran the same poll on Barefeats - it would probably be close to 100% upgrade their RAM on their own. 
    How much data do you think 22 service techs spanning 18 states and 15 years has? Way, way more than this. Regarding the polling of Apple store visitors from a few years back, that is as average Apple customer as you can literally get.

    Your data isn't wrong, but like the Barefeats readers you speak of, it is skewed the wrong way from a polled population standpoint. It's like asking AppleInsider readers how many have done upgrades.

    And, regarding Apple's data. They know exactly who upgrades and who doesn't. What do you think gets included in those crash reports?
    #1, bitmod, 3000 computers is a literal drop in the bucket compared to Mac sales over the past decade or so.
    I have no problem believing 2-7 percent upgrade internal components - apart from our work machines (90% Mac) my coworkers simply buy a new personal computer when the specs aren’t enough for web browsing & email at home.

    #2, Mike, I think numbers garnered through service can be as skewed as any from forums. those that upgrade, especially in the workplace, are savvy enough to return the system to stock prior to sending out for service. New computer bought, factory hard drive & ram go on the shelf in the server room, SSD & max ram are installed. It eases data safety concerns as well. Win win.

    We still run the 2012 Mac Pro, 128 GB RAM, internal 4 TB SSD boot drive, but I have no qualms about external “modularity” - the FC Arrays the Mac Pro controls squashed that a decade ago, and out peripherals at the workstations are never going to be internal, so will always be accompanied by a gaggle of cords.

    What I dislike the most is the slow depreciation of the Server app - we’ve been running our own mail server, etc for so long with it, the transition will be painful. At least until Topicdesk writes up the process :)

    And as as much as I love the HP workstations (the Z’s have been rock solid good performers) the Mac OS is the reason we are a majority Apple, much more so than the hardware.


    Give us 10GbE, modern processors, more RAM capacity.
    and please, please, “one more thing”, 4 TB drive options in the laptops -our power users are stuck on the old 13” when they travel simply because for 2 years we have been throwing a Samsung 4 TB 2.5” drive in as the boot drive.

    Would it kill them to have a $2500 4 TB option.
    The people who need it would pay the markup for it.

    The comoditization of the non-pro lines is what hurts the most. Smaller pro users could get capable machines by maxing out the lower end, now that gets you much less in terms of approving “maximum current computing power” in regards to internal RAM, processors & storage. The middle level is really what Apple has eroded away over the iOS era.
    edited April 7 macplusplusBigDann
  • Reply 136 of 289
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,735member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Soli said:1

    One of the things early Apple and Steve Jobs learned was that if you give people a system they can grow on, with and in, then people will find new ways of using it. – Ways that both will be beneficial to Apple and their customers. 

    The current Apple seem to have lost much of this early gained knowledge. It has in many ways become a non-learning organization.
    Far too many companies have faltered under the philosophy of design by committee. 
    Actually, Jobs hated expandabilty and slots and sought out to block them. Read it from the guys in the room. Here’s one of the Macintosh creators Andy Hertzfeld:

    Apple's other co-founder, Steve Jobs, didn't agree with Jef about many things, but they both felt the same way about hardware expandability: it was a bug instead of a feature. Steve was reportedly against having slots in the Apple II back in the days of yore, and felt even stronger about slots for the Mac. He decreed that the Macintosh would remain perpetually bereft of slots, enclosed in a tightly sealed case,”

    https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Diagnostic_Port.txt

    So much for your theory. 

    And are are you actually claiming Apple is a design by committee company!? Good one. 
    While not accurate, as you prove, he did make one of the best "If Steve Jobs were alive…" arguments I've seen without actually using those words.
    Er … how can it be the best “if Steve Jobs we’re alive…” arguments you’ve ever seen if the foundation for it was incorrect?
    1) The foundation for all "If Steve Jobs were alive" arguments are unsound except for "If Steve Jobs were alive he wouldn't be dead."

    2) It's how the comment was written, hence the best I've ever seen. The accuracy, as previously stated, is irreverent to the structure of response.
    edited April 7
  • Reply 137 of 289
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,867member
    Soli said:
    sdw2001 said:
    I really think upgradability is something that people say they want more than they actually do.  Let's say a creative professional buys a $5000 Mac Pro (close to top of the line without going nuts).  He already has a display and peripherals.  How many times would he upgrade it before replacing it?  What is he actually going to upgrade beyond the RAM and maybe storage?  
    All the professionals I know that need the maximum performance available are quick to upgrade and will max it out from the start because every processing cycle translate into dollars for them. It's hard for me to wrap my head around the other argument, but I'm all for Apple supporting those users as it doesn't negatively affect my usage in any way.
    But what are they upgrading?  RAM? The video card?  No way are they replacing the processor. I’m saying that you take a maxed out Pro...how many times are you going to upgrade it in its lifespan, especially beyond RAM.  
  • Reply 138 of 289
    Our own forums have been full of discussions about what professionals need. A notable portion of them assume that what they need is universal, and what everybody needs. A subset of those go further, and claim that if you don't need that particular use case, then the reader is not a pro at all.

    Apple made a mistake with the "Pro" naming scheme, which feeds into the toxic elitism surrounding this. Owning a "Pro" machine doesn't magically make you one...

    I am actually shocked to read the above paragraph, because it is a rare thing that techie boyz admit to such an essential truth about their overall rotten attitudes towards one another. However I do think the first line of the following paragraph needs to be updated, because calling yourself a "power user" doesn't make you one either, and is entirely subjective because it's how techie boyz rapturously refer to themselves that leads them to toxic elitism (and a belief this extends to all other areas in life) and delusions of grandeur about knowing what professionals actually need.

    So, it's a draw, but even that should be considered progress.
  • Reply 139 of 289
    nhtnht Posts: 4,039member
    Just got a trash can Mac Pro.  It nicer than a lot of folks here say it is.  I wouldn’t pay new prices for one but if Apple just spec bumped it a couple time it would have sold a lot better
    wozwoz
  • Reply 140 of 289
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 2,610member
    dysamoria said:
    And here’s another question: if the trash can Mac Pro was just the industrial design team run amok then how come it’s replacement won’t be here until at least 2019? You’d think if the only issue was giving designers too much sway that would be an easy problem to solve.
    Not when the incompetent parts of the company drive out the parts of the company with competency. Look at their GUI design since 2013...
    Hi Scott.
    cornchip
Sign In or Register to comment.