LoopRumors sez new Mac Pro will be smaller
Reply 21 of 25
February 16, 2007 2:10PM
In my opinion the Mac Pro will stay pretty much like it is. The new machine will be a smaller version of the Mac Pro but with one processor (likely a quad core available as an option) and with a honkin' video card (also available as an option). Standard (no options) price will be in between the top iMac and the bottom Mac Pro. This would fill a gap that's in Apples current product line.
Just my opinion.
Reply 22 of 25
February 16, 2007 2:27PM
Yeah, I can see Apple creating a smaller, more powerful machine for a couple hundred less. Pros can configure it out the yahzoo and mid-range users can get a fairly affordable machine.
I've got a G5 Power Mac and the size of the tower alone is ridiculous!
Reply 23 of 25
February 16, 2007 4:13PM
I think there is room to make the Mac Pro smaller and at the same time keeping everything we currently have on the actual models.
Remember why the PowerMac tower was so high and big, because the super hot IBM's G5 chips, so no surprise it needed tons of room for cooling.
Now with the cooler Intel chips is very possible that the new MacPro's might be smaller, but I think the size difference will not be that great.
I still believe we will see it either at NAB or WWDC. I don't think they will announce before.
Reply 24 of 25
February 16, 2007 6:28PM
Originally Posted by
I don't think you can really compare an Alienware machine to an Apple workstation. Two completely different beasts as far as I'm concerned. .............
So am I. The Alienware is much more capable workstation in numerous categories. Audio, Video, and 3D to name a few. 2D work doesn't need all that much, but there is more having a capable workstation than just accommodating the 2D world. So your right. You can't really compare the workstations at all, but a user can almost have it all on the Alienware, and not be tied down to just doing 2D work. Outside of work I have a personal life which includes a Band in which I need space for Audio cards for numerous band mates equipment. Not only that. I have an SLI capable machine in case I want to add a second Quadro for 3D work in which I would, but I don't have a slot to spare because of the audio cards.
I use my PowerMac for video editing, but would prefer to use a PC because the Video Editing Card capability, and choice is much better on a PC side in which I could now use BootCamp, but again that would take up all my card space. So no, I'm not a big fan of reducing the workstation when they just started down the path of creating one that can actually be used as one for more people than just 2D Pro's. With the amount of effort they have put into their Pro Audio, and Video Applications I doubt they will reduce the size of the Pro workstation. That doesn't mean they wouldn't add a smaller one as a second choice for users that don't need it all, but As I said. If I could have one or the other I would prefer the bigger one, and so would a lot of other Professionals outside of 2D work.
Reply 25 of 25
February 16, 2007 7:56PM
I think Apple have been very cute with the design of their first generation of Intel based Macs. Whilst whats inside the enclosure bears little of no resemblance to the PPC Macs, the enclosure itself has hardly changed at all.
The iMac is a great example. You'd be hard pushed to tell a 20" iSight G5 iMac apart from a 20" Intel Core Duo iMac without the About This Mac box. This approach has allowed Apple to introduce an entirely new build of their operating system, and entirely new hardware, and the perception is that very little has actually changed. After all, if it looks like a Mac, and it works like a Mac ? it's a Mac right? I believe that if Apple had radically changed the appearance of the first generation of Intel based Macs, the differences between the PPC and Intel machines that have slipped by virtually unnoticed would have been glaringly obvious.
I believe that the majority of Mac users do not appreciate just how much has changed in transitioning from PPC to Intel ? they simply think that some small component inside the Intel Mac is now better in th erspect that it offers the potential of massive performance increases. Little do they know that an Intel based Mac is really a Mac in name only!
Rosetta has also had a big part to play in this. Because it only appears as though it's some mystery component inside the enclosure that has changed, it's easy to swallow that the new machines are faster ? it's just Rosetta that's holding them back for the time being. If the machines had looked radically different, then users would probably have associated the apparent performance hit with moving to the radically different Intel based architecture. I guess people blame the most apparent change for any performance hit, and to date Apple has cleverly made sure that this has been Rosetta ? a scapegoat that is necessary and thankfully temporary.
IMHO the current Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro and MacBook Pro families will prove to be short lived transition Macs. I believe that the MacBook is the first of a new generation of Macs that will be redesigned from the ground up, and which will bear very little resemblance to the PPC based Macs and transition Macs that they replace. Whilst the name of the game so far has been consistency, I believe that the name of the game post Leopard will be differentiation.
With regards to when Apple is going to release Leopard, I believe that they are simply waiting for 'all the planets to align'. I believe that Leopard will offer more than just enhancements to speed, stability and a new user interface ? I believe that Leopard will fundamentally change the way in which we interact with computers and will be hailed as nothing short of revolutionary.
Once all the apps are universal, there will be a perceived speed boost, and if Apple can get their timings perfect, there is an opportunity for Leopard and a new generation of Mac hardware to arrive all at the same time. The combined impact would leave Microsoft gagging. Apple would be able to say that they were using the same components as other PC manufacturers ? but look what happens when Apple designs a symbiotic system around them - Microsoft will be unable to do anything but look on, and will be left crying into a pile of Vista boxes.
These are the reasons why I think that the next generation of Macs will bear little or no resemblance to what we have seen before. From where I'm sitting, there is every opportunity that the next Mac Pro will be radically different to the current offering. If the MacBook is anything to go by, I for one will go buy.
The iPhone is a cool product, but I suspect that we might just remember 2007 as the year of the Macintosh ? that is assuming that the leap forward isn't so great that it justifies a new name!