You can load multitudes of music plugins at the same time and change them on the fly.
Its great to be able to pull up a reverb and put it across a vocal (which may be 15 different tracks) using 15 different instances. All of this in a song which may have 80 Tracks.
You can be as creative as you want without worrying.
Something you can't get with Windows at ALL & something a IMac struggles to do.
I might add a more detailed list
-Powerfull CPU
-Lots of RAM
-Storage and the option to swap discs fast and easy. If you work with sample librar and orchestration the banks are HUGE.
-PCI cards from UAD, TC Powercore, the Pro Tools HD/HDX system to name some can't run on iMacs, Mac Minis or MacBooks
These things are crusial to the work done by audi/music producers. Portable devices and the iRevolution has done absolutly nothing for this marked...so, Mac Pro or another high-end Mac still needed...
-Storage and the option to swap discs fast and easy. If you work with sample librar and orchestration the banks are HUGE.
-PCI cards from UAD, TC Powercore, the Pro Tools HD/HDX system to name some can't run on iMacs, Mac Minis or MacBooks
There are external Thunderbolt items being produced to allow for 3 PCI-e cards to be run externally, That would resolve those PCI-e cards. Some of those cards may also have been converted into breakout boxes over time.
As far as the sample libraries go, NI's Komplete Ultimate edition has an interesting solution. They put all of the samples on an external USB 2.0 hard drive. Just plug it in and leave it out of the way and have access when you need it.
The iMacs DO have powerful CPUs, just not as powerful as the ones you can get in the MP. They also max at 16GB of RAM, but while more would be better, 16 isn't bad.
There are external Thunderbolt items being produced to allow for 3 PCI-e cards to be run externally, That would resolve those PCI-e cards. Some of those cards may also have been converted into breakout boxes over time.
As far as the sample libraries go, NI's Komplete Ultimate edition has an interesting solution. They put all of the samples on an external USB 2.0 hard drive. Just plug it in and leave it out of the way and have access when you need it.
The iMacs DO have powerful CPUs, just not as powerful as the ones you can get in the MP. They also max at 16GB of RAM, but while more would be better, 16 isn't bad.
I'm aware of all that.....
You have synths, effectprocessors, a ton of stuff using USB, firewire devices and control surfaces using ethernet...cables stretching miles coiled up in the room...so lets just split the Mac up into lots of pieses too...
To hell with the hard drive....on a desktop or laptop it too is a dinosaur...a throw back to the era of spinning disks. Solid state drives are the the future and offer better performance. 256GB SSDs are already well under $400.00, and the prices will continue to drop. The MacBook Air has the right idea, tiny sticks of memory that could be aggregated for capacity or redundancy. You could easily put 5 in an iMac and have a truly awesome local storage solution in about as much space as a laptop hard drive. That's future forward design - drive bays are no longer needed.
The best use for hard disks is external RAID arrays and network storage devices.
Absolute nonsense. I have over 100 GB of media files on my Mac. Even if I could somehow manage to shoehorn that much SSD memory into the computer, the cost would be approaching the cost of my house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchnellFowVay
You do realize that you can build a comparable PC for far less than half the cost, right?
Again, nonsense.
I can buy a Mac Pro with two Quad core Xeon processors for $3500. Please show me where I can buy a PC with two quad core Xeon processors and similar specs for $1750.
It really amazes me how people will still insist that Macs are always overpriced no matter what the facts are. It's really hilarious with the MacBook Air. The same people who are claiming that all Macs are overpriced are begging the PC manufacturers to cut their prices on ultralight computers to try to match Apple's price.
Totally agree with you. Apple could just rebrand the Mac Mini and scale it from low- to high-end box and have it all covered. A slightly bigger Mac Mini-style enclosure (maybe taller) that has user-accessible internals/slots with Mac Pro-like specs would be a killer product and probably a lot cheaper to produce and sell than the Mac Pros. And hell, with Thunderbolt, you could, in theory, eliminate a lot of the internal accessibility for upgrades and expansion demanded by high-end users.
Obviously, I'm just talking out of my butt here, but it seems like a great direction for Apple to go and to further simplify their line-up (something that has always worked out well for them.) The low-end Mac Minis would be there for cost-conscious users, iMacs for casual and home business types, and this theoretical headless Mini/Pro hybrid would fill the high-end without all the drawbacks of the current Mac Pros.
mac mini server is a good option and i wish they would beef it just a tiny bit. why not make it twice the height of current mini with better cooling and more oomph....hell, make it a perfect cube. i always loved the cube. very nice.
The Mac Pro, however, is staggeringly overpriced. Outside of the professional video development arena, I have never been able to see how they make sense?
A 12 core Mac Pro is priced identically, feature for feature as the HP workstations. Such as a Z800. This has always been true. You can argue that the HP is overpriced as well, but that is another story.
And yes, the low end Mac pro is stupid overpriced because of the CPU choice limitations.
A 12 core Mac Pro is priced identically, feature for feature as the HP workstations. Such as a Z800. This has always been true. You can argue that the HP is overpriced as well, but that is another story.
And yes, the low end Mac pro is stupid overpriced because of the CPU choice limitations.
They start to converge with oems toward the top end. They're still a bit higher in most similar configurations. You can't just go 12 core for 12 core. At the very least you need to match up processor numbers as those have a pretty dramatic price range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowdog65
They should be looking at this as an opportunity to retrench to more affordable/higher volume Mac Pro.
A revamped smaller, lower cost case (some kind of distinctive cube?).
Fewer slots.
Integrated, but good motherboard video (like the iMacs 6970).
Single CPU version uses normal desktop Sandybridge.
Normal, non ECC memory.
It should be easy to get the base machine under $1500 with decent margins.
You can maintain the dual Xenon MB with ECC memory for the lunatic fringe as an expensive BTO option.
A lot of home users don't want built in monitors, but that only leaves you a choice between the low end mini and the ridiculous Mac Pro.
It was never intended for home users. What is funny here is you quote parts without knowing what they cost assuming that cheaper model = uses cheaper parts. It might sound logical but it doesn't work that way when comparing amongst the lines offered by Apple.
They start to converge with oems toward the top end. They're still a bit higher in most similar configurations. You can't just go 12 core for 12 core. At the very least you need to match up processor numbers as those have a pretty dramatic price range.
I did match processors and everything else I could. At this level they are very close. In fact the HP is a little higher.
I've been a professional user of Macs for over seventeen years. I've personally owned two G4 towers and used God knows how many others in various workplaces. I'm typing this post on a Xeon tower now.
However to be honest, I can't wait for the day when these ridiculous looking monoliths from the dark ages of computing, finally sink into the peat bog of technological history. The professional market has to be the most conservative and resistant to change of any market segment. Time and technology marches on but the chorus of whining from a vanishingly small minority over glossy screens, mini towers and other esoterica, that matters to virtually nobody anymore, is eternal.
I agree. It would be a truly bone-headed move. Many audio and video professionals would abandon Apple, with many more prosumers in tow. Media production moving elsewhere would have an impact much larger than any Mac Pro sales. Once they no longer have a clue about it, what's to say they'll "get it" as far as media consumption?
You have synths, effectprocessors, a ton of stuff using USB, firewire devices and control surfaces using ethernet...cables stretching miles coiled up in the room...so lets just split the Mac up into lots of pieses too...
Hey I never said it was a perfect solution, but it's certainly A solution and would mean the add in cards would still be used
Ignoring the obvious that Apple has long ago lost interest in its picky and critical Pro core customers, who constantly question Apple's omniscience, there are several areas Apple is leaving vacant at its peril:
1. Non glossy screens
2. High end graphics cards
3. Multi-screen high productivity workstations
4. Multi-OS installations
5. Servers
6. Gaming workstations
If Apple fails to offer anything at all to fill the power end of the market, it will lose the very people who pushed hardest for its survival, and who can take whole enterprises with them when they leave.
It happened in the print and education markets and it can happen again.
This time they'll also kill off their significant video/entertainment market as well
Steve Jobs won't be coming back from the dead to save their bacon if they stuff up one more time.
Any external PCI - Express chassis that you employ is effective limited to the performance of the TB port. This sucks balls big time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
There are external Thunderbolt items being produced to allow for 3 PCI-e cards to be run externally, That would resolve those PCI-e cards. Some of those cards may also have been converted into breakout boxes over time.
Why would anyone even want an external box if they could simply plug their cards into a proper chassis. Such an approach flies in the face of why you have a computer with slots in the first place.
Quote:
As far as the sample libraries go, NI's Komplete Ultimate edition has an interesting solution. They put all of the samples on an external USB 2.0 hard drive. Just plug it in and leave it out of the way and have access when you need it.
The iMacs DO have powerful CPUs, just not as powerful as the ones you can get in the MP. They also max at 16GB of RAM, but while more would be better, 16 isn't bad.
The iMac does nothing for you if your installation requires multiple computers all of which run some sort of I/O.
Recommending an iMac as a Pro replacement just indicates you have no idea what the machine is used for. Seriously this isn't to dismiss you out of hand but rather it is to try to get the idea across that your suggestions aren't even plausible in many use cases.
You do realize that you can build a comparable PC for far less than half the cost, right?
I am in no way saying the PC is the better option, but you seem enamored with this ability to have expansion slots, etc. Any PC motherboard has these slots.
With the Mac Pro, what you are essentially paying is a $3,000+ premium for OSX and a pretty aluminum case. You can build a 12-core PC, for example, for $2,300-$2,800, using the same or similar processors as the Mac Pro. Not to mention you can overclock them too. And you can mount the motherboard in a Mac Pro case if you want to.
Again, I am not so much raggin on the Mac Pro as much as I am pointing out that if all you want is 12 cores, 64GB of ram, and expandability, maybe the Mac Pro isn't the right machine for you (unless you absolutely need OSX).
Apple's other products all have a certain level of engineering artistry, and a level of uniqueness, that makes them command their hardware premium over similarly equiped PCs. The Mac Pro, however, is staggeringly overpriced. Outside of the professional video development arena, I have never been able to see how they make sense?
I dispute the price, which can only be achieved by cutting corners and dropping off some features. Also that figure (closer to $3000) just gets you a box of parts. You still have to assemble, test and fix what doesn't work to get a functioning computer. And that computer has no support or warranty.
So in practice you can build a cheaper and possibly more powerful workstation, because Apple puts the fatest margins on their Mac Pros, but at the cost of a considerable amount of your own time, no backup and much greater risk in both getting it to work and maintaining it.
Having said that I am disappointed that Apple may discontinue this line because I really wanted to have an alternative to having to build a Hackintosh to meet my needs.
Maybe Apple will finally succeed in launching that clone industry after all!
I'm both a photographer and a developer. As a photog, my Mac Pro works VERY hard to process large numbers of DSLR images using Aperture. It could be faster and I wouldn't mind; but as yet, there is no significantly faster Pro model.
As a developer, I'm cooking up something along the lines of Aperture that is designed to spread the load better than Aperture does. It works; large areas of the software are much faster on my 8-core than Aperture is; but the fact is, it was designed with the idea that the new 12 core/24 thread machines would benefit even more, and so on into the future.
The idea that the 12-core units are the end of the line is both disappointing to me as a photog and a developer. There's no such thing as "too much power" when you have 16 gb of photos to process from a single day's work, and there's no such thing as "too much power" when you can divide images up into subregions to process (well, at least until you get to about a core per scan line or so, which we're not even remotely near.)
And for the video folk... the same, but in spades. Every image frame is a "photo", albeit a lower resolution one than what a DSLR produces.
Nah, I've thought about it some more, and I just can't believe Apple would kill the Mac Pro line. They MAKE Aperture. They know full well that there isn't enough horsepower yet to even consider lopping the top off the performance chart.
That would be a sad and irreversible decision. I do however believe Apple should build a MacPro with a much smaller footprint - anyone remember the brilliant Quadra, the Cube?
With Thunderbolt now available, such a large case as the current MacPro is a huge waste - materials, cost of freight etc.
Graphics professionals have a need for the extra RAM, video/graphic card/s etc.
I think this is only a rumor and rumor only, Apple makes a lot of money out of mobile phone and iPod airhead dummies, the last thing they will want to do is alienate those who use their equipment in business.
Sorry - cannot agree! Everyone I know who uses a Mac or Apple product, typically keeps them far longer than those who use other products. What you've claimed is simply not true. My own iMac is 2 years old and still in its prime as far as I am concerned. I still use my 2007 MBP every day. My experience is common amongst my colleagues.
Of course, my experience might not be typical, however, I'll bet it's not far from the mark.
(Edit - my comments are really in respect of your first sentence, sorry!)
By a year or two, I may have been a bit dramatic, sorry. I like the current tower but think there's also scope for a mini tower as has been argued for for years.
There's also the point of the Mac Pro supporting a full-sized video card, which the iMac can't.
Comments
You can load multitudes of music plugins at the same time and change them on the fly.
Its great to be able to pull up a reverb and put it across a vocal (which may be 15 different tracks) using 15 different instances. All of this in a song which may have 80 Tracks.
You can be as creative as you want without worrying.
Something you can't get with Windows at ALL & something a IMac struggles to do.
I might add a more detailed list
-Powerfull CPU
-Lots of RAM
-Storage and the option to swap discs fast and easy. If you work with sample librar and orchestration the banks are HUGE.
-PCI cards from UAD, TC Powercore, the Pro Tools HD/HDX system to name some can't run on iMacs, Mac Minis or MacBooks
These things are crusial to the work done by audi/music producers. Portable devices and the iRevolution has done absolutly nothing for this marked...so, Mac Pro or another high-end Mac still needed...
I might add a more detailed list
-Powerfull CPU
-Lots of RAM
-Storage and the option to swap discs fast and easy. If you work with sample librar and orchestration the banks are HUGE.
-PCI cards from UAD, TC Powercore, the Pro Tools HD/HDX system to name some can't run on iMacs, Mac Minis or MacBooks
There are external Thunderbolt items being produced to allow for 3 PCI-e cards to be run externally, That would resolve those PCI-e cards. Some of those cards may also have been converted into breakout boxes over time.
As far as the sample libraries go, NI's Komplete Ultimate edition has an interesting solution. They put all of the samples on an external USB 2.0 hard drive. Just plug it in and leave it out of the way and have access when you need it.
The iMacs DO have powerful CPUs, just not as powerful as the ones you can get in the MP. They also max at 16GB of RAM, but while more would be better, 16 isn't bad.
There are external Thunderbolt items being produced to allow for 3 PCI-e cards to be run externally, That would resolve those PCI-e cards. Some of those cards may also have been converted into breakout boxes over time.
As far as the sample libraries go, NI's Komplete Ultimate edition has an interesting solution. They put all of the samples on an external USB 2.0 hard drive. Just plug it in and leave it out of the way and have access when you need it.
The iMacs DO have powerful CPUs, just not as powerful as the ones you can get in the MP. They also max at 16GB of RAM, but while more would be better, 16 isn't bad.
I'm aware of all that.....
You have synths, effectprocessors, a ton of stuff using USB, firewire devices and control surfaces using ethernet...cables stretching miles coiled up in the room...so lets just split the Mac up into lots of pieses too...
To hell with the hard drive....on a desktop or laptop it too is a dinosaur...a throw back to the era of spinning disks. Solid state drives are the the future and offer better performance. 256GB SSDs are already well under $400.00, and the prices will continue to drop. The MacBook Air has the right idea, tiny sticks of memory that could be aggregated for capacity or redundancy. You could easily put 5 in an iMac and have a truly awesome local storage solution in about as much space as a laptop hard drive. That's future forward design - drive bays are no longer needed.
The best use for hard disks is external RAID arrays and network storage devices.
Absolute nonsense. I have over 100 GB of media files on my Mac. Even if I could somehow manage to shoehorn that much SSD memory into the computer, the cost would be approaching the cost of my house.
You do realize that you can build a comparable PC for far less than half the cost, right?
Again, nonsense.
I can buy a Mac Pro with two Quad core Xeon processors for $3500. Please show me where I can buy a PC with two quad core Xeon processors and similar specs for $1750.
It really amazes me how people will still insist that Macs are always overpriced no matter what the facts are. It's really hilarious with the MacBook Air. The same people who are claiming that all Macs are overpriced are begging the PC manufacturers to cut their prices on ultralight computers to try to match Apple's price.
Totally agree with you. Apple could just rebrand the Mac Mini and scale it from low- to high-end box and have it all covered. A slightly bigger Mac Mini-style enclosure (maybe taller) that has user-accessible internals/slots with Mac Pro-like specs would be a killer product and probably a lot cheaper to produce and sell than the Mac Pros. And hell, with Thunderbolt, you could, in theory, eliminate a lot of the internal accessibility for upgrades and expansion demanded by high-end users.
Obviously, I'm just talking out of my butt here, but it seems like a great direction for Apple to go and to further simplify their line-up (something that has always worked out well for them.) The low-end Mac Minis would be there for cost-conscious users, iMacs for casual and home business types, and this theoretical headless Mini/Pro hybrid would fill the high-end without all the drawbacks of the current Mac Pros.
mac mini server is a good option and i wish they would beef it just a tiny bit. why not make it twice the height of current mini with better cooling and more oomph....hell, make it a perfect cube. i always loved the cube. very nice.
The Mac Pro, however, is staggeringly overpriced. Outside of the professional video development arena, I have never been able to see how they make sense?
A 12 core Mac Pro is priced identically, feature for feature as the HP workstations. Such as a Z800. This has always been true. You can argue that the HP is overpriced as well, but that is another story.
And yes, the low end Mac pro is stupid overpriced because of the CPU choice limitations.
A 12 core Mac Pro is priced identically, feature for feature as the HP workstations. Such as a Z800. This has always been true. You can argue that the HP is overpriced as well, but that is another story.
And yes, the low end Mac pro is stupid overpriced because of the CPU choice limitations.
They start to converge with oems toward the top end. They're still a bit higher in most similar configurations. You can't just go 12 core for 12 core. At the very least you need to match up processor numbers as those have a pretty dramatic price range.
They should be looking at this as an opportunity to retrench to more affordable/higher volume Mac Pro.
A revamped smaller, lower cost case (some kind of distinctive cube?).
Fewer slots.
Integrated, but good motherboard video (like the iMacs 6970).
Single CPU version uses normal desktop Sandybridge.
Normal, non ECC memory.
It should be easy to get the base machine under $1500 with decent margins.
You can maintain the dual Xenon MB with ECC memory for the lunatic fringe as an expensive BTO option.
A lot of home users don't want built in monitors, but that only leaves you a choice between the low end mini and the ridiculous Mac Pro.
It was never intended for home users. What is funny here is you quote parts without knowing what they cost assuming that cheaper model = uses cheaper parts. It might sound logical but it doesn't work that way when comparing amongst the lines offered by Apple.
They start to converge with oems toward the top end. They're still a bit higher in most similar configurations. You can't just go 12 core for 12 core. At the very least you need to match up processor numbers as those have a pretty dramatic price range.
I did match processors and everything else I could. At this level they are very close. In fact the HP is a little higher.
I've been a professional user of Macs for over seventeen years. I've personally owned two G4 towers and used God knows how many others in various workplaces. I'm typing this post on a Xeon tower now.
However to be honest, I can't wait for the day when these ridiculous looking monoliths from the dark ages of computing, finally sink into the peat bog of technological history. The professional market has to be the most conservative and resistant to change of any market segment. Time and technology marches on but the chorus of whining from a vanishingly small minority over glossy screens, mini towers and other esoterica, that matters to virtually nobody anymore, is eternal.
Where's the like button?
this will be the undoing of Apple.
I agree. It would be a truly bone-headed move. Many audio and video professionals would abandon Apple, with many more prosumers in tow. Media production moving elsewhere would have an impact much larger than any Mac Pro sales. Once they no longer have a clue about it, what's to say they'll "get it" as far as media consumption?
I'm aware of all that.....
You have synths, effectprocessors, a ton of stuff using USB, firewire devices and control surfaces using ethernet...cables stretching miles coiled up in the room...so lets just split the Mac up into lots of pieses too...
Hey I never said it was a perfect solution, but it's certainly A solution and would mean the add in cards would still be used
... but do they understand that the 10% make everything they use and need something more powerful than what they have?
Mac Pro's are needed & if people cant get one they'll use a PC.
keep it up Apple .. Steve is gone .. and you might not be far behind
Where's the like button?
On the websites that signal the degeneration of human society, where it belongs.
He's absolutely right, though, and I agree with his vision of the future.
1. Non glossy screens
2. High end graphics cards
3. Multi-screen high productivity workstations
4. Multi-OS installations
5. Servers
6. Gaming workstations
If Apple fails to offer anything at all to fill the power end of the market, it will lose the very people who pushed hardest for its survival, and who can take whole enterprises with them when they leave.
It happened in the print and education markets and it can happen again.
This time they'll also kill off their significant video/entertainment market as well
Steve Jobs won't be coming back from the dead to save their bacon if they stuff up one more time.
There are external Thunderbolt items being produced to allow for 3 PCI-e cards to be run externally, That would resolve those PCI-e cards. Some of those cards may also have been converted into breakout boxes over time.
Why would anyone even want an external box if they could simply plug their cards into a proper chassis. Such an approach flies in the face of why you have a computer with slots in the first place.
As far as the sample libraries go, NI's Komplete Ultimate edition has an interesting solution. They put all of the samples on an external USB 2.0 hard drive. Just plug it in and leave it out of the way and have access when you need it.
The iMacs DO have powerful CPUs, just not as powerful as the ones you can get in the MP. They also max at 16GB of RAM, but while more would be better, 16 isn't bad.
The iMac does nothing for you if your installation requires multiple computers all of which run some sort of I/O.
Recommending an iMac as a Pro replacement just indicates you have no idea what the machine is used for. Seriously this isn't to dismiss you out of hand but rather it is to try to get the idea across that your suggestions aren't even plausible in many use cases.
You do realize that you can build a comparable PC for far less than half the cost, right?
I am in no way saying the PC is the better option, but you seem enamored with this ability to have expansion slots, etc. Any PC motherboard has these slots.
With the Mac Pro, what you are essentially paying is a $3,000+ premium for OSX and a pretty aluminum case. You can build a 12-core PC, for example, for $2,300-$2,800, using the same or similar processors as the Mac Pro. Not to mention you can overclock them too. And you can mount the motherboard in a Mac Pro case if you want to.
Again, I am not so much raggin on the Mac Pro as much as I am pointing out that if all you want is 12 cores, 64GB of ram, and expandability, maybe the Mac Pro isn't the right machine for you (unless you absolutely need OSX).
Apple's other products all have a certain level of engineering artistry, and a level of uniqueness, that makes them command their hardware premium over similarly equiped PCs. The Mac Pro, however, is staggeringly overpriced. Outside of the professional video development arena, I have never been able to see how they make sense?
I dispute the price, which can only be achieved by cutting corners and dropping off some features. Also that figure (closer to $3000) just gets you a box of parts. You still have to assemble, test and fix what doesn't work to get a functioning computer. And that computer has no support or warranty.
So in practice you can build a cheaper and possibly more powerful workstation, because Apple puts the fatest margins on their Mac Pros, but at the cost of a considerable amount of your own time, no backup and much greater risk in both getting it to work and maintaining it.
Having said that I am disappointed that Apple may discontinue this line because I really wanted to have an alternative to having to build a Hackintosh to meet my needs.
Maybe Apple will finally succeed in launching that clone industry after all!
As a developer, I'm cooking up something along the lines of Aperture that is designed to spread the load better than Aperture does. It works; large areas of the software are much faster on my 8-core than Aperture is; but the fact is, it was designed with the idea that the new 12 core/24 thread machines would benefit even more, and so on into the future.
The idea that the 12-core units are the end of the line is both disappointing to me as a photog and a developer. There's no such thing as "too much power" when you have 16 gb of photos to process from a single day's work, and there's no such thing as "too much power" when you can divide images up into subregions to process (well, at least until you get to about a core per scan line or so, which we're not even remotely near.)
And for the video folk... the same, but in spades. Every image frame is a "photo", albeit a lower resolution one than what a DSLR produces.
Nah, I've thought about it some more, and I just can't believe Apple would kill the Mac Pro line. They MAKE Aperture. They know full well that there isn't enough horsepower yet to even consider lopping the top off the performance chart.
With Thunderbolt now available, such a large case as the current MacPro is a huge waste - materials, cost of freight etc.
Graphics professionals have a need for the extra RAM, video/graphic card/s etc.
I think this is only a rumor and rumor only, Apple makes a lot of money out of mobile phone and iPod airhead dummies, the last thing they will want to do is alienate those who use their equipment in business.
Sorry - cannot agree! Everyone I know who uses a Mac or Apple product, typically keeps them far longer than those who use other products. What you've claimed is simply not true. My own iMac is 2 years old and still in its prime as far as I am concerned. I still use my 2007 MBP every day. My experience is common amongst my colleagues.
Of course, my experience might not be typical, however, I'll bet it's not far from the mark.
(Edit - my comments are really in respect of your first sentence, sorry!)
By a year or two, I may have been a bit dramatic, sorry. I like the current tower but think there's also scope for a mini tower as has been argued for for years.
There's also the point of the Mac Pro supporting a full-sized video card, which the iMac can't.
3. Multi-screen high productivity workstations
The GPUs come with three ports?
4. Multi-OS installations
Ooh, partitioning your hard drive is so hard, oooh?
6. Gaming workstations
Oxymoron.
You want a gaming rig, you buy a PC. You want a workstation, you buy a Mac Pro.