Does anyone know if Apple will discuss (or even mention) the possible upgrade future of the Mac Pro at WWDC 2011? I know that it's supposed to focus mostly (if not only) on software. I'm certainly expecting for them to devote any significant time towards it, or the remaining modules that are due for the upgrade.
Does anyone know if Apple will discuss (or even mention) the possible upgrade future of the Mac Pro at WWDC 2011? I know that it's supposed to focus mostly (if not only) on software. I'm certainly expecting for them to devote any significant time towards it, or the remaining modules that are due for the upgrade.
Any thoughts, gang?
Again, NO. CHIPS. Means that they CAN'T. EXIST. I said this at the top of the page.
Look at Wikipedia for Intel's release date for these chips. Q3 2011. Can't happen at WWDC.
Apple doesn't talk about products before they're ready to launch them unless they don't already sell a product that the new one will be replacing.
Yeah. The Pro's/tower's relative importance to Apple along with Adobe and MS's has greatly diminished.
Remember the days when MS or Adobe purportedly held an 'axe' over Apple's head?
Heh. Payback is a bitch.
It's still a handsome machine. But the entry spec, the gpu...the COUGH(!) price? No mortal is going to pay that.
The iMac now occupies the Pro's historical ground in the mid range. I can see the iMac encroaching even further on the Mac Pro's territory in performance and value over time.
There will be a market for the (probably, forthcoming) dual 8 core Mac Pro. It's not a mainstream one, obviously.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I really can't argue much with this logic. Having been one of the insane to buy the entry level Mac Pro back in 2008, I'm really leaning towards the 27" iMac next time. Right now I'm looking towards upgrading the GeForce 8800 GT to the AMD 5770, and this has always been a big reluctance for me on the iMac. If however as some of the suspicion/hopes here suggest and we could somehow get a TB plugin graphics card to allow for upgrading the iMac graphics that would pretty much seal the deal for me. I recently saw some Mac Mini under desk mounts, and I could see grabbing up one or two of these to mount ext TB drives in and avoid the increased footprint that some keep mentioning.
I guess my iMac setup would be something like the 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD option on the top in iMac. Then I would plan on attaching a 2TB TB drive for Time Machine, and another 256GB SSD TB drive for Win 7. Both of these drives would go under the back of the desk so that are completely out of sight. This would be a pretty sweet setup, and in a couple years when the AMD 6970 is beginning to show it's age I could simply attach a new AMD 7 or 8 series GPU on TB. Yeah, this would really be awesome. I could give up the expandability and flexibility of the Mac Pro for this.
Yes, exactly - something like this was done for the previous generation of minis, with external hard drive cases that had the same footprint as the mini, and also served as USB and FireWire hubs. Of course, given the connection options at the time, this was only useful for storage, but with two bi-directional 10Gbps channels on each Thunderbolt port, other possibilities are opened up.
I had this same thought too. It would also be cool if Apple standardized/integrated the TB connection into the stacking. This would mean that you could add-on without any cables. You could still have cable connection ports on the back so that if you got really crazy on the add-ons you could start a second stack.
Whenever the Mac Pro (or any system, really) receives the upgrade to Sandy Bridge processors, will the new architecture be able to support an upgrade to the eventual Ivy Bridge processors? Would I have to purchase a whole new system to take advantage or what? Ive read conflicting statements about all of this.
Whenever the Mac Pro (or any system, really) receives the upgrade to Sandy Bridge processors, will the new architecture be able to support an upgrade to the eventual Ivy Bridge processors? Would I have to purchase a whole new system to take advantage or what? Ive read conflicting statements about all of this.
Any help would be appreciated.
Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge should be chipset compatible, I think.
The 0.000000001% of Mac Pro users that even do this will be happy about it.
Or, were you just implying, or reinforcing, the title of this thread... The Mac Pro is Dead, lol.
Neither.
I'm saying that it's far more trouble than all but maybe fifteen Mac Pro users would go to to upgrade their machines. Everyone else will just buy the new model as a whole.
I'm saying that it's far more trouble than all but maybe fifteen Mac Pro users would go to to upgrade their machines. Everyone else will just buy the new model as a whole.
I just read that the new "Bridge" chips were backwards compatible. Why, then, would it be such a big deal to change them, making a person want to buy a whole new machine instead?
I just read that the new "Bridge" chips were backwards compatible. Why, then, would it be such a big deal to change them, making a person want to buy a whole new machine instead?
Because you have to swap out the daughterboards, meaning RAM will change as well. Physically, it's about as easy as an upgrade can possibly get. Financially, swapping the boards costs virtually as much as buying a new machine without any of the benefits of actually being a new machine (like better/more ports, SATA III connections, etc.).
I'm a music composition student (college). My sample library, and studio set-up, is growing rapidly. In fact, I have more than my current CPU can handle efficiently, if at all. Beyond the obvious processing speed increases, I really need that option of easy upgradability.
I need to upgrade to a rig that allows me to create with the most efficiency possible. It's a cliche, but it's true. I understand what people are saying when they say that they'd prefer an iMac (I've owned two, so far)... but, a Mac Pro is what I need for my career/passion, even in it's infant stage.
WELL you need to upgrade with a real time scalability as time goes on .So you want the mac pro desk top which should be out soon .
Because you have to swap out the daughterboards, meaning RAM will change as well. Physically, it's about as easy as an upgrade can possibly get. Financially, swapping the boards costs virtually as much as buying a new machine without any of the benefits of actually being a new machine (like better/more ports, SATA III connections, etc.).
I'm not sure if it was clear that I was suggesting an upgrade on the upcoming Sandy Bridge models. If I had the refreshed model, would it be a big deal to upgrade to Ivy Bridge, excluding and physical changes to the design during that time?
Because you have to swap out the daughterboards, meaning RAM will change as well. Physically, it's about as easy as an upgrade can possibly get. Financially, swapping the boards costs virtually as much as buying a new machine without any of the benefits of actually being a new machine (like better/more ports, SATA III connections, etc.).
seems like a major hassle swapping out . why not just wait 6 months or so ..
I think the whole premise of this thread is flawed. Professionals who edit video and modern digital media aren't going to use an iMac, nor a Macbook Pro most of the time. They need real power and speed. That is why the Mac Pro exists.
Many are calling it dead for two reasons: 1) Their perspective is that of a consumer or prosumer and 2) The type of computers these people use has shifted over the years. 5+ years ago, a lot of power users and upper end consumers went the pro route. iMacs were not powerful enough, yet a lot of people feel they "needed" a desktop. Times have changed. A Macbook Pro (or even a Macbook) can do what all but maybe 5-10% of users need. Ditto on the iMac for those that prefer a desktop solution. But, the Mac Pro is alive and well in professional video and audio production, as well as other industries. A laptop or iMac is just not going to cut it there.
I think the whole premise of this thread is flawed.
Many are calling it dead for two reasons: 1) Their perspective is that of a consumer or prosumer and 2) The type of computers these people use has shifted over the years. 5+ years ago, a lot of power users and upper end consumers went the pro route. iMacs were not powerful enough, yet a lot of people feel they "needed" a desktop. Times have changed. A Macbook Pro (or even a Macbook) can do what all but maybe 5-10% of users need. Ditto on the iMac for those that prefer a desktop solution. But, the Mac Pro is alive and well in professional video and audio production, as well as other industries. A laptop or iMac is just not going to cut it there.
Personally I hope the Mac Pro survives. Even though I have no need for that much computer only the Mac Pro seems to be built with any sensibility to ease of use. Only the Mac Pro has some jacks on the front where they are easy to reach. Only the Mac Pro has enough room in it so you aren't going to be worried about heat. (I'm not saying the Mini and iMac run too hot, just that plenty of Mini and iMac owners worry about heat) and only the Mac Pro has a case that is easy to open without having to depend on the use of tools that are odd for working on electronics (putty knife and suction cups, those are things you find in an auto body shop).
If I had the money I'd buy a Mac Pro because it is the only Apple computer that is designed for function over form. What I really wish for is a 2/3rds size version.
Personally I hope the Mac Pro survives. Even though I have no need for that much computer only the Mac Pro seems to be built with any sensibility to ease of use. Only the Mac Pro has some jacks on the front where they are easy to reach. Only the Mac Pro has enough room in it so you aren't going to be worried about heat. (I'm not saying the Mini and iMac run too hot, just that plenty of Mini and iMac owners worry about heat) and only the Mac Pro has a case that is easy to open without having to depend on the use of tools that are odd for working on electronics (putty knife and suction cups, those are things you find in an auto body shop).
If I had the money I'd buy a Mac Pro because it is the only Apple computer that is designed for function over form. What I really wish for is a 2/3rds size version.
I have to wonder if Apple is looking to do something creative here with the Mac Pro form factor. Has anyone really innovated tower PC case design recently? The Mac Pro isn't the only computer with easy access and room for drives etc. Some of the HP workstations are nice. I'm just thinking this is an area where Apple could innovate to move the tower well forward from where it sits today. Maybe something more modular. Maybe something that takes advantage of Thunderbolt to allow smaller size with even more capabilities. Maybe Apple doesn't really care about this segment any longer, but who knows really? Just a few months ago some people were saying that Apple was going to sell off the Pro Apps division and thus dump Final Cut. That didn't happen.
Professionals who edit video and modern digital media aren't going to use an iMac, nor a Macbook Pro most of the time. They need real power and speed. That is why the Mac Pro exists.
The quad i7 Macbook Pro is faster than the current entry Mac Pro though. Plus you can have a slow drive in a Mac Pro and an SSD in a MBP and the MBP will run rings round the Pro editing 1080p.
Video editors can do rough cuts remotely on a laptop and musicians can take laptops straight to the recording sessions or work on the same content at home as in the office without syncing.
I would say that if you work on very demanding visual effects, money is no object and you work with a big screen then the Mac Pro makes the most sense but the advantages the Mac Pro offers in real-world scenarios are getting fewer the more that time goes on.
If a Macbook Pro or iMac lets you perform the tasks you need to do then you don't need to spend more money on a workstation.
I think they'll redesign it first but over time, it will become unnecessary. It has become an elephant in the room - just a big, grey object shoved under a desk.
I think they'll redesign it first but over time, it will become unnecessary. It has become an elephant in the room - just a big, grey object shoved under a desk.
What is immediately obvious from that picture is how massive the Mac Pro is compared to the XServe just to the left of it and they had the same processors. The design also looks very old in comparison. If they bring the Mac Pro down to use MXM GPUs just like the iMac, there shouldn't be any problem making it very thin and serve a dual-purpose. It wouldn't even need screws, it could have a plate that slides into a groove on the side for it to sit vertically and be held in with a couple of magnets. Just pull it forward off the plate and you have an XServe that can sit horizontally. They can have rotating feet of course but a slide-on plate would probably be more robust.
What is immediately obvious from that picture is how massive the Mac Pro is compared to the XServe just to the left of it and they had the same processors. The design also looks very old in comparison. If they bring the Mac Pro down to use MXM GPUs just like the iMac, there shouldn't be any problem making it very thin and serve a dual-purpose. It wouldn't even need screws, it could have a plate that slides into a groove on the side for it to sit vertically and be held in with a couple of magnets. Just pull it forward off the plate and you have an XServe that can sit horizontally. They can have rotating feet of course but a slide-on plate would probably be more robust.
You forget that an XServe sounds like a plane taking off, due to its tiny fans spinning at warp speed. Small size does bring some compromises.
Comments
Any thoughts, gang?
Does anyone know if Apple will discuss (or even mention) the possible upgrade future of the Mac Pro at WWDC 2011? I know that it's supposed to focus mostly (if not only) on software. I'm certainly expecting for them to devote any significant time towards it, or the remaining modules that are due for the upgrade.
Any thoughts, gang?
Again, NO. CHIPS. Means that they CAN'T. EXIST. I said this at the top of the page.
Look at Wikipedia for Intel's release date for these chips. Q3 2011. Can't happen at WWDC.
Apple doesn't talk about products before they're ready to launch them unless they don't already sell a product that the new one will be replacing.
Yeah. The Pro's/tower's relative importance to Apple along with Adobe and MS's has greatly diminished.
Remember the days when MS or Adobe purportedly held an 'axe' over Apple's head?
Heh. Payback is a bitch.
It's still a handsome machine. But the entry spec, the gpu...the COUGH(!) price? No mortal is going to pay that.
The iMac now occupies the Pro's historical ground in the mid range. I can see the iMac encroaching even further on the Mac Pro's territory in performance and value over time.
There will be a market for the (probably, forthcoming) dual 8 core Mac Pro. It's not a mainstream one, obviously.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I really can't argue much with this logic. Having been one of the insane to buy the entry level Mac Pro back in 2008, I'm really leaning towards the 27" iMac next time. Right now I'm looking towards upgrading the GeForce 8800 GT to the AMD 5770, and this has always been a big reluctance for me on the iMac. If however as some of the suspicion/hopes here suggest and we could somehow get a TB plugin graphics card to allow for upgrading the iMac graphics that would pretty much seal the deal for me. I recently saw some Mac Mini under desk mounts, and I could see grabbing up one or two of these to mount ext TB drives in and avoid the increased footprint that some keep mentioning.
I guess my iMac setup would be something like the 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD option on the top in iMac. Then I would plan on attaching a 2TB TB drive for Time Machine, and another 256GB SSD TB drive for Win 7. Both of these drives would go under the back of the desk so that are completely out of sight. This would be a pretty sweet setup, and in a couple years when the AMD 6970 is beginning to show it's age I could simply attach a new AMD 7 or 8 series GPU on TB. Yeah, this would really be awesome. I could give up the expandability and flexibility of the Mac Pro for this.
Yes, exactly - something like this was done for the previous generation of minis, with external hard drive cases that had the same footprint as the mini, and also served as USB and FireWire hubs. Of course, given the connection options at the time, this was only useful for storage, but with two bi-directional 10Gbps channels on each Thunderbolt port, other possibilities are opened up.
I had this same thought too. It would also be cool if Apple standardized/integrated the TB connection into the stacking. This would mean that you could add-on without any cables. You could still have cable connection ports on the back so that if you got really crazy on the add-ons you could start a second stack.
Whenever the Mac Pro (or any system, really) receives the upgrade to Sandy Bridge processors, will the new architecture be able to support an upgrade to the eventual Ivy Bridge processors? Would I have to purchase a whole new system to take advantage or what? Ive read conflicting statements about all of this.
Any help would be appreciated.
Could you guys/gals clarify something for me...
Whenever the Mac Pro (or any system, really) receives the upgrade to Sandy Bridge processors, will the new architecture be able to support an upgrade to the eventual Ivy Bridge processors? Would I have to purchase a whole new system to take advantage or what? Ive read conflicting statements about all of this.
Any help would be appreciated.
Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge should be chipset compatible, I think.
The 0.000000001% of Mac Pro users that even do this will be happy about it.
The 0.000000001% of Mac Pro users that even do this will be happy about it.
Why do you think that they'll be mostly unhappy? Or, were you just implying, or reinforcing, the title of this thread... The Mac Pro is Dead, lol.
Why do you think that they'll be mostly unhappy?
Not what I was saying.
Or, were you just implying, or reinforcing, the title of this thread... The Mac Pro is Dead, lol.
Neither.
I'm saying that it's far more trouble than all but maybe fifteen Mac Pro users would go to to upgrade their machines. Everyone else will just buy the new model as a whole.
Not what I was saying.
Neither.
I'm saying that it's far more trouble than all but maybe fifteen Mac Pro users would go to to upgrade their machines. Everyone else will just buy the new model as a whole.
I just read that the new "Bridge" chips were backwards compatible. Why, then, would it be such a big deal to change them, making a person want to buy a whole new machine instead?
I just read that the new "Bridge" chips were backwards compatible. Why, then, would it be such a big deal to change them, making a person want to buy a whole new machine instead?
Because you have to swap out the daughterboards, meaning RAM will change as well. Physically, it's about as easy as an upgrade can possibly get. Financially, swapping the boards costs virtually as much as buying a new machine without any of the benefits of actually being a new machine (like better/more ports, SATA III connections, etc.).
I'm a music composition student (college). My sample library, and studio set-up, is growing rapidly. In fact, I have more than my current CPU can handle efficiently, if at all. Beyond the obvious processing speed increases, I really need that option of easy upgradability.
I need to upgrade to a rig that allows me to create with the most efficiency possible. It's a cliche, but it's true. I understand what people are saying when they say that they'd prefer an iMac (I've owned two, so far)... but, a Mac Pro is what I need for my career/passion, even in it's infant stage.
WELL you need to upgrade with a real time scalability as time goes on .So you want the mac pro desk top which should be out soon .
KEEP US in the loop i wanna now how you decide .
peace dude and good luck with your music
9
Because you have to swap out the daughterboards, meaning RAM will change as well. Physically, it's about as easy as an upgrade can possibly get. Financially, swapping the boards costs virtually as much as buying a new machine without any of the benefits of actually being a new machine (like better/more ports, SATA III connections, etc.).
I'm not sure if it was clear that I was suggesting an upgrade on the upcoming Sandy Bridge models. If I had the refreshed model, would it be a big deal to upgrade to Ivy Bridge, excluding and physical changes to the design during that time?
Because you have to swap out the daughterboards, meaning RAM will change as well. Physically, it's about as easy as an upgrade can possibly get. Financially, swapping the boards costs virtually as much as buying a new machine without any of the benefits of actually being a new machine (like better/more ports, SATA III connections, etc.).
seems like a major hassle swapping out . why not just wait 6 months or so ..
peace
9
Many are calling it dead for two reasons: 1) Their perspective is that of a consumer or prosumer and 2) The type of computers these people use has shifted over the years. 5+ years ago, a lot of power users and upper end consumers went the pro route. iMacs were not powerful enough, yet a lot of people feel they "needed" a desktop. Times have changed. A Macbook Pro (or even a Macbook) can do what all but maybe 5-10% of users need. Ditto on the iMac for those that prefer a desktop solution. But, the Mac Pro is alive and well in professional video and audio production, as well as other industries. A laptop or iMac is just not going to cut it there.
I think the whole premise of this thread is flawed.
Many are calling it dead for two reasons: 1) Their perspective is that of a consumer or prosumer and 2) The type of computers these people use has shifted over the years. 5+ years ago, a lot of power users and upper end consumers went the pro route. iMacs were not powerful enough, yet a lot of people feel they "needed" a desktop. Times have changed. A Macbook Pro (or even a Macbook) can do what all but maybe 5-10% of users need. Ditto on the iMac for those that prefer a desktop solution. But, the Mac Pro is alive and well in professional video and audio production, as well as other industries. A laptop or iMac is just not going to cut it there.
Personally I hope the Mac Pro survives. Even though I have no need for that much computer only the Mac Pro seems to be built with any sensibility to ease of use. Only the Mac Pro has some jacks on the front where they are easy to reach. Only the Mac Pro has enough room in it so you aren't going to be worried about heat. (I'm not saying the Mini and iMac run too hot, just that plenty of Mini and iMac owners worry about heat) and only the Mac Pro has a case that is easy to open without having to depend on the use of tools that are odd for working on electronics (putty knife and suction cups, those are things you find in an auto body shop).
If I had the money I'd buy a Mac Pro because it is the only Apple computer that is designed for function over form. What I really wish for is a 2/3rds size version.
Personally I hope the Mac Pro survives. Even though I have no need for that much computer only the Mac Pro seems to be built with any sensibility to ease of use. Only the Mac Pro has some jacks on the front where they are easy to reach. Only the Mac Pro has enough room in it so you aren't going to be worried about heat. (I'm not saying the Mini and iMac run too hot, just that plenty of Mini and iMac owners worry about heat) and only the Mac Pro has a case that is easy to open without having to depend on the use of tools that are odd for working on electronics (putty knife and suction cups, those are things you find in an auto body shop).
If I had the money I'd buy a Mac Pro because it is the only Apple computer that is designed for function over form. What I really wish for is a 2/3rds size version.
I have to wonder if Apple is looking to do something creative here with the Mac Pro form factor. Has anyone really innovated tower PC case design recently? The Mac Pro isn't the only computer with easy access and room for drives etc. Some of the HP workstations are nice. I'm just thinking this is an area where Apple could innovate to move the tower well forward from where it sits today. Maybe something more modular. Maybe something that takes advantage of Thunderbolt to allow smaller size with even more capabilities. Maybe Apple doesn't really care about this segment any longer, but who knows really? Just a few months ago some people were saying that Apple was going to sell off the Pro Apps division and thus dump Final Cut. That didn't happen.
Professionals who edit video and modern digital media aren't going to use an iMac, nor a Macbook Pro most of the time. They need real power and speed. That is why the Mac Pro exists.
The quad i7 Macbook Pro is faster than the current entry Mac Pro though. Plus you can have a slow drive in a Mac Pro and an SSD in a MBP and the MBP will run rings round the Pro editing 1080p.
Video editors can do rough cuts remotely on a laptop and musicians can take laptops straight to the recording sessions or work on the same content at home as in the office without syncing.
I would say that if you work on very demanding visual effects, money is no object and you work with a big screen then the Mac Pro makes the most sense but the advantages the Mac Pro offers in real-world scenarios are getting fewer the more that time goes on.
If a Macbook Pro or iMac lets you perform the tasks you need to do then you don't need to spend more money on a workstation.
I think they'll redesign it first but over time, it will become unnecessary. It has become an elephant in the room - just a big, grey object shoved under a desk.
.
I think they'll redesign it first but over time, it will become unnecessary. It has become an elephant in the room - just a big, grey object shoved under a desk.
I shove mine right here:
I shove mine right here:
What is immediately obvious from that picture is how massive the Mac Pro is compared to the XServe just to the left of it and they had the same processors. The design also looks very old in comparison. If they bring the Mac Pro down to use MXM GPUs just like the iMac, there shouldn't be any problem making it very thin and serve a dual-purpose. It wouldn't even need screws, it could have a plate that slides into a groove on the side for it to sit vertically and be held in with a couple of magnets. Just pull it forward off the plate and you have an XServe that can sit horizontally. They can have rotating feet of course but a slide-on plate would probably be more robust.
What is immediately obvious from that picture is how massive the Mac Pro is compared to the XServe just to the left of it and they had the same processors. The design also looks very old in comparison. If they bring the Mac Pro down to use MXM GPUs just like the iMac, there shouldn't be any problem making it very thin and serve a dual-purpose. It wouldn't even need screws, it could have a plate that slides into a groove on the side for it to sit vertically and be held in with a couple of magnets. Just pull it forward off the plate and you have an XServe that can sit horizontally. They can have rotating feet of course but a slide-on plate would probably be more robust.
You forget that an XServe sounds like a plane taking off, due to its tiny fans spinning at warp speed. Small size does bring some compromises.