i honestly don't see what the fuss is all about. its a production machine. their customers are producers of content. sure, ditch the mac pro... what are we going to use, G5's?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And the 27" iMac doesn't count because [fill in the blank].
how the hell would you fit 4 hard drives, 64gb or ram, dual dvd burners, 12 cores and their corresponding cooling system into an imac?
Someone over at MacRumors did a mock-up based on 9to5's speculation:
I'm all for smaller, as long as it keeps cool and quiet. And a lower base price would be good. Yeah right.
if it fits under the desk, who cares? not like your going to run out the door and leave your mac pro behind because you didn't feel like carrying it to work today. im all for making it bigger if it keeps it cooler and deters thieves.
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.
Sure, it wouldn't have to be as thin as the XServe though, maybe 2U as opposed to the 1U XServe and the 5U Mac Pro. There should be a comfortable compromise in there somewhere. The Xserve also doesn't have that neat cheese grater design for airflow.
i honestly don't see what the fuss is all about. its a production machine. their customers are producers of content. sure, ditch the mac pro... what are we going to use, G5's?
how the hell would you fit 4 hard drives, 64gb or ram, dual dvd burners, 12 cores and their corresponding cooling system into an imac?
That is not the point. the title of the thread alludes to the MacPro's ever-retarding update cycles, its insignificance in terms of sales and the fact that portable computers are catching up with the behemoths.
Apple will continue with the MacPro as it is their halo machine, but if the beancounters made executive decisions around there, the MacPro would have been ditched last year.
If Apple had a 3U MacPro, the would deploy it into their computer centre.
Or... they HAVE and they just didn't show us pictures of it because, hey, it's not out yet.
Or maybe the... jeez, what's the name of that one tech that iTunes uses? Whatever that is: it probably doesn't need anything more fully-featured than a UNIX core on which to run.
If Apple had a 3U MacPro, the would deploy it into their computer centre.
Now Apple have bought HP servers for hundreds of millions instead of its own Xserve/MacPro/Xraid.
I doubt they would use a massive amount of workstations for a data center. The only reason that Virginia Tech used Power Macs in their (initial) supercomputer/cluster was because the Xserves were not out yet? Makes no sense to use a machine that has extra bits that go to waste when you can load way more computational power per square foot into racks of blade servers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No, it's two words together. Gah, this is going to kill me.
It's the server-end tech that is used to manage the Store, I think.
Apple will continue with the MacPro as it is their halo machine, but if the beancounters made executive decisions around there, the MacPro would have been ditched last year.
Why would Apple effectively pull out of several critical industries, none of which blink at dropping $10k-$20k on a single machine, and many of which order those machines by the truckload?
The Pro may not be Apple's most visible offering, but it's a critical part of their strategy. It may change in response to emerging technology, but it's not going anywhere. As long as it takes more power to create things than it does to consume them, there will be a more powerful professional machine at the vanguard.
As for the xMac, this thread (and all previous threads on the subject, for that matter) prove why Apple doesn't offer a headless desktop between the mini and the Pro: There isn't any one product or any one market that people want. xMac threads are always smorgasbords of custom designs--which makes them fun to read, granted, but it also points to the unlikeliness of any of those designs getting beyond Photoshop.
I think the reason the MacPro has changed so little over the years is simple economics. Once Apple fixed on a case design and contracted for the tooling the costs going forward are low. Particularly if the changes from one rev to the next are primarily circuit boards and not the metal parts. They get to spread those initial design and tooling costs out over a very long time. More profit ensues. So if they have a redesign coming (which they surely do if for no other reason than to implement Thunderbolt) it will be good right out of the box and it will remain unchanged for almost a decade. Seems like smart business to me.
I still really like the way Mac Pros look and how they are put together. I pulled a power supply from an early 2008 model just yesterday. It was a total breeze. Wish my car was that easy to work on.
I think the reason the MacPro has changed so little over the years is simple economics. Once Apple fixed on a case design and contracted for the tooling the costs going forward are low. Particularly if the changes from one rev to the next are primarily circuit boards and not the metal parts. They get to spread those initial design and tooling costs out over a very long time. More profit ensues. So if they have a redesign coming (which they surely do if for no other reason than to implement Thunderbolt) it will be good right out of the box and it will remain unchanged for almost a decade. Seems like smart business to me.
Apple has changed the front and back jacks on the Mac Pro a few times, that has never required much of a redesign.
As for the xMac, this thread (and all previous threads on the subject, for that matter) prove why Apple doesn't offer a headless desktop between the mini and the Pro: There isn't any one product or any one market that people want. xMac threads are always smorgasbords of custom designs
Exactly. We want a mid sized headless Mac that offers some internal expansion so that it can be customized to our needs or desires. That's the whole point. We feel that Apple is putting limitations on the Mac consumer. We can't all afford $2500 to have a computer that offers the ability to be customized.
I freely admit that if the money wasn't an issue I would buy a Mac Pro. Not because I need everything it offers but because it is the only Mac that offers me the chance to be myself.
Apple used to say, "Think Different". I answer, "How?" I can't get an iMac with a matte screen. I can't get an affordable Mac that is easy to open to replace a bad drive. I can't get an affordable Mac that has any internal expansion. This is thinking different?
Then Apple asked, "Which Mac Are You?" My answer? "The one you won't offer!" The one you don't even try to offer. The Mac that is missing. The Mac that because it doesn't exist is pushing me away from Apple.
Why does it seem that there is a wide range of ideas for a XMac versus the Mini, iMac or Mac Pro? Because those products have existed for years and ideas for improvements have already been made. Practical use has improved those Macs. The same would happen to a mid sized mid range Mac if Apple would bring one to market.
Would Apple's idea of a mid sized mid range Mac be exactly the same as mine? No. But it would be closer to meeting my needs and wants than the current Mini and iMac.
Why would Apple effectively pull out of several critical industries, none of which blink at dropping $10k-$20k on a single machine, and many of which order those machines by the truckload?
Like the server industry?
Sales volume is important. Apple are selling more iPads in 1 month than Mac Pros in a year and they are changing people's way of thinking and working.
The Mac Pro is just another box. It's well-designed and robust but it's not a game-changer. Like mainframes, which over time have been relegated to specialist tasks, the desktop tower is just a holdover until CPUs/GPUs reach a certain performance and SSDs reach a certain price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorph
It may change in response to emerging technology, but it's not going anywhere. As long as it takes more power to create things than it does to consume them, there will be a more powerful professional machine at the vanguard.
It will always take more power to create than consume content but I think the criterion for desktop longevity will be which content a machine allows you to create. When (not if) a Mac Mini allows you to create photorealistic 3D imagery in real-time, you don't need anything more than this and this will happen within 10 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorph
There isn't any one product or any one market that people want.
And yet there is only one product on sale from Apple designed to satisfy all markets including the server industry now. The current Mac Pro design had to come from some specifications such as:
- allow 2 socket motherboards
- allow a desktop GPU
- have PCI slots for expansion
- have 4 drive bays (it used to be two) for up to 12TB of storage
- stay as quiet as possible running at full load
These decisions were made years ago though and technology moves on. Single processors have up to 10-cores in them now. MXM mobile GPUs rival their desktop counterparts. Thunderbolt has adequate bandwidth for PCI devices. Single SSD chips can outperform quad-RAID0 hard drives.
The Mac Pro is not going to disappear overnight but it will fade into insignificance the more that the lower-end machines satisfy unchanging needs.
i honestly don't see what the fuss is all about. its a production machine. their customers are producers of content. sure, ditch the mac pro... what are we going to use, G5's?
how the hell would you fit 4 hard drives, 64gb or ram, dual dvd burners, 12 cores and their corresponding cooling system into an imac?
Comments
i honestly don't see what the fuss is all about. its a production machine. their customers are producers of content. sure, ditch the mac pro... what are we going to use, G5's?
And the 27" iMac doesn't count because [fill in the blank].
how the hell would you fit 4 hard drives, 64gb or ram, dual dvd burners, 12 cores and their corresponding cooling system into an imac?
Someone over at MacRumors did a mock-up based on 9to5's speculation:
I'm all for smaller, as long as it keeps cool and quiet. And a lower base price would be good. Yeah right.
if it fits under the desk, who cares? not like your going to run out the door and leave your mac pro behind because you didn't feel like carrying it to work today. im all for making it bigger if it keeps it cooler and deters thieves.
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.
Sure, it wouldn't have to be as thin as the XServe though, maybe 2U as opposed to the 1U XServe and the 5U Mac Pro. There should be a comfortable compromise in there somewhere. The Xserve also doesn't have that neat cheese grater design for airflow.
i honestly don't see what the fuss is all about. its a production machine. their customers are producers of content. sure, ditch the mac pro... what are we going to use, G5's?
how the hell would you fit 4 hard drives, 64gb or ram, dual dvd burners, 12 cores and their corresponding cooling system into an imac?
That is not the point. the title of the thread alludes to the MacPro's ever-retarding update cycles, its insignificance in terms of sales and the fact that portable computers are catching up with the behemoths.
Apple will continue with the MacPro as it is their halo machine, but if the beancounters made executive decisions around there, the MacPro would have been ditched last year.
if it fits under the desk, who cares?
Rackmount cares.
Now Apple have bought HP servers for hundreds of millions instead of its own Xserve/MacPro/Xraid.
If Apple had a 3U MacPro, the would deploy it into their computer centre.
Or... they HAVE and they just didn't show us pictures of it because, hey, it's not out yet.
Or maybe the... jeez, what's the name of that one tech that iTunes uses? Whatever that is: it probably doesn't need anything more fully-featured than a UNIX core on which to run.
Or maybe the... Jeez, what's the name of that one tech that iTunes uses?
HTML?
HTML?
No, it's two words together. Gah, this is going to kill me.
It's the server-end tech that is used to manage the Store, I think.
If Apple had a 3U MacPro, the would deploy it into their computer centre.
Now Apple have bought HP servers for hundreds of millions instead of its own Xserve/MacPro/Xraid.
I doubt they would use a massive amount of workstations for a data center. The only reason that Virginia Tech used Power Macs in their (initial) supercomputer/cluster was because the Xserves were not out yet? Makes no sense to use a machine that has extra bits that go to waste when you can load way more computational power per square foot into racks of blade servers?
No, it's two words together. Gah, this is going to kill me.
It's the server-end tech that is used to manage the Store, I think.
WebObjects??!?
WebObjects??!?
Yes. That's it. That's what I thought they were running. Your questclamation mark combo suggests that I'm completely off about that...
Apple will continue with the MacPro as it is their halo machine, but if the beancounters made executive decisions around there, the MacPro would have been ditched last year.
Why would Apple effectively pull out of several critical industries, none of which blink at dropping $10k-$20k on a single machine, and many of which order those machines by the truckload?
The Pro may not be Apple's most visible offering, but it's a critical part of their strategy. It may change in response to emerging technology, but it's not going anywhere. As long as it takes more power to create things than it does to consume them, there will be a more powerful professional machine at the vanguard.
As for the xMac, this thread (and all previous threads on the subject, for that matter) prove why Apple doesn't offer a headless desktop between the mini and the Pro: There isn't any one product or any one market that people want. xMac threads are always smorgasbords of custom designs--which makes them fun to read, granted, but it also points to the unlikeliness of any of those designs getting beyond Photoshop.
I still really like the way Mac Pros look and how they are put together. I pulled a power supply from an early 2008 model just yesterday. It was a total breeze. Wish my car was that easy to work on.
I think the reason the MacPro has changed so little over the years is simple economics. Once Apple fixed on a case design and contracted for the tooling the costs going forward are low. Particularly if the changes from one rev to the next are primarily circuit boards and not the metal parts. They get to spread those initial design and tooling costs out over a very long time. More profit ensues. So if they have a redesign coming (which they surely do if for no other reason than to implement Thunderbolt) it will be good right out of the box and it will remain unchanged for almost a decade. Seems like smart business to me.
Apple has changed the front and back jacks on the Mac Pro a few times, that has never required much of a redesign.
As for the xMac, this thread (and all previous threads on the subject, for that matter) prove why Apple doesn't offer a headless desktop between the mini and the Pro: There isn't any one product or any one market that people want. xMac threads are always smorgasbords of custom designs
Exactly. We want a mid sized headless Mac that offers some internal expansion so that it can be customized to our needs or desires. That's the whole point. We feel that Apple is putting limitations on the Mac consumer. We can't all afford $2500 to have a computer that offers the ability to be customized.
I freely admit that if the money wasn't an issue I would buy a Mac Pro. Not because I need everything it offers but because it is the only Mac that offers me the chance to be myself.
Apple used to say, "Think Different". I answer, "How?" I can't get an iMac with a matte screen. I can't get an affordable Mac that is easy to open to replace a bad drive. I can't get an affordable Mac that has any internal expansion. This is thinking different?
Then Apple asked, "Which Mac Are You?" My answer? "The one you won't offer!" The one you don't even try to offer. The Mac that is missing. The Mac that because it doesn't exist is pushing me away from Apple.
Why does it seem that there is a wide range of ideas for a XMac versus the Mini, iMac or Mac Pro? Because those products have existed for years and ideas for improvements have already been made. Practical use has improved those Macs. The same would happen to a mid sized mid range Mac if Apple would bring one to market.
Would Apple's idea of a mid sized mid range Mac be exactly the same as mine? No. But it would be closer to meeting my needs and wants than the current Mini and iMac.
Why would Apple effectively pull out of several critical industries, none of which blink at dropping $10k-$20k on a single machine, and many of which order those machines by the truckload?
Like the server industry?
Sales volume is important. Apple are selling more iPads in 1 month than Mac Pros in a year and they are changing people's way of thinking and working.
The Mac Pro is just another box. It's well-designed and robust but it's not a game-changer. Like mainframes, which over time have been relegated to specialist tasks, the desktop tower is just a holdover until CPUs/GPUs reach a certain performance and SSDs reach a certain price.
It may change in response to emerging technology, but it's not going anywhere. As long as it takes more power to create things than it does to consume them, there will be a more powerful professional machine at the vanguard.
It will always take more power to create than consume content but I think the criterion for desktop longevity will be which content a machine allows you to create. When (not if) a Mac Mini allows you to create photorealistic 3D imagery in real-time, you don't need anything more than this and this will happen within 10 years.
There isn't any one product or any one market that people want.
And yet there is only one product on sale from Apple designed to satisfy all markets including the server industry now. The current Mac Pro design had to come from some specifications such as:
- allow 2 socket motherboards
- allow a desktop GPU
- have PCI slots for expansion
- have 4 drive bays (it used to be two) for up to 12TB of storage
- stay as quiet as possible running at full load
These decisions were made years ago though and technology moves on. Single processors have up to 10-cores in them now. MXM mobile GPUs rival their desktop counterparts. Thunderbolt has adequate bandwidth for PCI devices. Single SSD chips can outperform quad-RAID0 hard drives.
The Mac Pro is not going to disappear overnight but it will fade into insignificance the more that the lower-end machines satisfy unchanging needs.
you definitely know how to make a catchy title.
i honestly don't see what the fuss is all about. its a production machine. their customers are producers of content. sure, ditch the mac pro... what are we going to use, G5's?
how the hell would you fit 4 hard drives, 64gb or ram, dual dvd burners, 12 cores and their corresponding cooling system into an imac?
very carefully ?
very carefully ?
I'm sure it's possible, but not with a noise profile that you would like, or you really pull back on the performance or spike the price.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/20/...-time-capsule/
What about this rumor that the next MacPro will have a bespoke CPU?
Sending from your iDevice, I reckon...
I seriously doubt this rumor. If anything, it's ARM-based chips being made by Intel for Apple. Nothing for Macs.