Editorial: The new Mac Pro is overkill for nearly everybody, and it hit Apple's own target...

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 88
    The gap between Consumer and Pro is huge now. What is there plan for middle ground that doesn't involve an all-in-one?

    I think this will all improve once they move to their own CPUs.
  • Reply 82 of 88
    knowitall said:
    Ahem, didn't say it wasn't compliant, I said it isn't based on Unix (its based on mach, thats the kernel running).
    ...
    macOS is even POSIX (a standard to unify Unix) compliant, but this isn't a guarantee that (heavy) porting of software will work (see one of my earlier posts).

    Disagree that macOS isn't based on UNIX. Although it contains a Mach-based kernel, it also contains a BSD subsystem based on 4.4BSD-Lite2 and FreeBSD on top of the kernel that provides OS API services. So it shares UNIX linage back through what most people think as UNIX back to AT&T and Berkeley distributions.

    The choice of kernel does not make a UNIX operating system. The Open Group (owner of UNIX) has decided that any operating system that meets the Single Unix Specification standard and passes their UNIX certification program is given a license to be called UNIX.  The standard does not mandate kernel implementation.

    macOS not only is POSIX compiiant, but passes the Open Group's Single UNIX Specification (UNIX 03). That's what makes it officially licensed to use the UNIX name. 

    Linux is most definitely not UNIX from a kernel and a naming/branding standpoint, although it does strive to be POSIX and Single Unix Specification compatible. It hasn't been (and in all likelihood won't be put) through the certification and licensing process to gain the name. 

    Regardless of UNIX/POSIX/Linux designations - there's no guarantee that any "UNIX" software package will compile on every UNIX or UNIX-like system without some "porting" work - not just macOS.  Look at the sources for a lot of open source packages and you'll see a lot of conditionals based on the platform it discovers (not just macOS).
    tht
  • Reply 83 of 88
    sandorsandor Posts: 591member
    10 years ago, it made sense to buy a Mac Pro for use with software like Adobe Photoshop. These days, that's not really a high-end software use anymore. Photoshop can easily be handled by a standard iMac. I think people who complain about what the 2019 version of the Mac Pro represents don't really understand just how much more powerful hardware is today vs. 10 years ago. The 'Pro' end for desktop is MUCH more specialized than it used to be. Only the heaviest of heavy lifting through software requires 'Pro' models anymore.

    It depends on what you are doing with Photoshop - Its a much better experience on our 2012 Mac Pros w/ 128 GB of RAM & SSD drives than on any of our much newer iMacs or  MacBook Pros with 32 GB of RAM.
  • Reply 84 of 88
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,300member
    1TB
    sandor said:
    10 years ago, it made sense to buy a Mac Pro for use with software like Adobe Photoshop. These days, that's not really a high-end software use anymore. Photoshop can easily be handled by a standard iMac. I think people who complain about what the 2019 version of the Mac Pro represents don't really understand just how much more powerful hardware is today vs. 10 years ago. The 'Pro' end for desktop is MUCH more specialized than it used to be. Only the heaviest of heavy lifting through software requires 'Pro' models anymore.

    It depends on what you are doing with Photoshop - Its a much better experience on our 2012 Mac Pros w/ 128 GB of RAM & SSD drives than on any of our much newer iMacs or  MacBook Pros with 32 GB of RAM.
    RAM does make a difference, as does a speedy SSD (Note there's more than one version. An SSD is not simply an SSD for those not familiar with them).

    Can't imagine tho that 128GB RAM on an older processor would be faster than a recent machine with 32GB and at least a Gen8 i7 processor. Heck Photoshop will run OK on just 8GB, which is actually what Adobe recommends. I consider 32GB as future proofing, and my personal preference. My very recently replaced laptop used for photo-processing when I want to kick back with work had a Gen6 i5, 16 GB, a 256MB M.2 PCIE NVMe SSD and a traditional 1TB data drive. Cost me all of $900 from a college student who no longer needed it. I typically keep both LR and PS open and at the same time might run DxO, Topaz or Luminar for certain tasks. It was just fine for purpose.

    So why did I buy a newer one then? Because I could...
    and I convinced myself it would be a labor saver, letting me get a lot more done with less time spent. In reality it's not, but I still enjoy it more.

    Going from a FHD to 4K display is eye-opening tho. Problem is many of the folks viewing the finished imagery I design will never see it the way I created it since they look at it on their smartphone, or home computer or some other un-calibrated and/or small display. So I do it for personal pride. 
    edited December 2019 muthuk_vanalingamcornchip
  • Reply 85 of 88
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,426member
    gatorguy said:
    1TB
    sandor said:
    10 years ago, it made sense to buy a Mac Pro for use with software like Adobe Photoshop. These days, that's not really a high-end software use anymore. Photoshop can easily be handled by a standard iMac. I think people who complain about what the 2019 version of the Mac Pro represents don't really understand just how much more powerful hardware is today vs. 10 years ago. The 'Pro' end for desktop is MUCH more specialized than it used to be. Only the heaviest of heavy lifting through software requires 'Pro' models anymore.

    It depends on what you are doing with Photoshop - Its a much better experience on our 2012 Mac Pros w/ 128 GB of RAM & SSD drives than on any of our much newer iMacs or  MacBook Pros with 32 GB of RAM.
    RAM does make a difference, as does a speedy SSD (Note there's more than one version. An SSD is not simply an SSD for those not familiar with them).

    Can't imagine tho that 128GB RAM on an older processor would be faster than a recent machine with 32GB and at least a Gen8 i7 processor. Heck Photoshop will run OK on just 8GB, which is actually what Adobe recommends. I consider 32GB as future proofing, and my personal preference. My very recently replaced laptop used for photo-processing when I want to kick back with work had a Gen6 i5, 16 GB, a 256MB M.2 PCIE NVMe SSD and a traditional 1TB data drive. Cost me all of $900 from a college student who no longer needed it. I typically keep both LR and PS open and at the same time might run DxO, Topaz or Luminar for certain tasks. It was just fine for purpose.

    So why did I buy a newer one then? Because I could...
    and I convinced myself it would be a labor saver, letting me get a lot more done with less time spent. In reality it's not, but I still enjoy it more.

    Going from a FHD to 4K display is eye-opening tho. Problem is many of the folks viewing the finished imagery I design will never see it the way I created it since they look at it on their smartphone, or home computer or some other un-calibrated and/or small display. So I do it for personal pride. 
    Not to mention there could be updates to some programs that are not even available to older machines even running the same macOS. I am sitting looking at a 2013 Mac Pro with 64 GB RAM and the aforementioned iMac i9 also 64 GB RAM, both with the new macOS 10.5.2 . Logic Pro X had an update today on the iMac, not on the Mac Pro. 10.4.8 is the latest, the Mac Pro is only offered as far as 10.4.7. I don't know for sure, I will look into this, but I have to suspect the later version is taking advantage of newer hardware in either the CPU or GPU or both maybe?  Not checked but I bet FCPX et alia will go the same way.

    Yes, SSDs are not all created equal for sure, the one on the iMac shows 2,250 MB/s read/write! Jeeez! My 8 bay HDD 24 TB RAID 0 on TB3 is at 1,250 MB/s read/write. I'd love to see that with eight of the same SSDs as in the iMac!

    BTW, After a year or so on a Dell 4K the Apple 5K is a far greater leap than I imagined it would be. Simply stunning and and damn close to 1:1  full frame 6K photo editing. The Dell makes a nice second monitor now and doubles a the prime monitor for my Dell PC.

    Also ... I'm loving PS 2020!  Fun times.
    edited December 2019 cornchip
  • Reply 86 of 88
    We pay hundreds of thousands for Cars that we use for a limited time of the day. Depending on your budget: 20K - 150K for a new car that will last only 5-6 years or a little more before I would need to replace it.

    To me, it makes sense to invest this much or more in a piece of equipment that I will be using several hours a day, certainly more than my car. The importance of comfort of working on a powerful machine every day is way more than reaching for work (etc) in a comfortable car. I would prefer to buy the new Mac Pro above making my purchase decision for a new car. 
    cornchip
  • Reply 87 of 88
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,865member
    snailer said:
    When you actually have the most kick-ass computer, you don't have to say, "Can't innovate my ass".

    LoL touche

    10 years ago, it made sense to buy a Mac Pro for use with software like Adobe Photoshop. These days, that's not really a high-end software use anymore. Photoshop can easily be handled by a standard iMac. I think people who complain about what the 2019 version of the Mac Pro represents don't really understand just how much more powerful hardware is today vs. 10 years ago. The 'Pro' end for desktop is MUCH more specialized than it used to be. Only the heaviest of heavy lifting through software requires 'Pro' models anymore.

    That's only partly/minimally true. it's not just the software. A Mac Mini can handle Photoshop just fine; it's the files a Pro has to churn through that's what the MM has problems with. Over the years a pro will upgrade cameras, work on bigger more advanced 3D files etc, and that's where needing the increased processing horsepower comes in. The ease of expandability of this machine is going to make it extremely popular me thinks. I know I'll be getting one in a few years.


  • Reply 88 of 88
    Looking forward to seeing the Cinebench scores and compare them to the Threadripper 3970x.
Sign In or Register to comment.