As I said, I feel your pain. And I hope that Apple does update the MP, even though I'm not a user.
But:
It takes a lot of money to re-engineer something like the Mac Pro - the case, cooling, power supply, etc. And that money has to be recouped through sales - Apple has shown it is not going to invest money in items that lose money. Without knowing the financials around the MP, it's impossible to say if it makes money, loses money, breaks even, etc.
This is somewhat of a misconception regarding the case and cooling and stuff. First the board designs last at least two years. The external shell stays pretty much the same. Some of the internals might change a bit, but they can pretty much stick to the current design. Foxconn produces the boards. They probably do most of the development there. I actually do not think much of the work surrounding these machines takes place in Cupertino.
Keep in mind, I don't expect them to do much to re-engineer it. I expect them to ride the current design as much as possible. They approve a logic board design, let Foxconn handle testing and stuff, and sell a machine.
Sorry, but I just don't buy it. Apple has tons of cash. They would have no problem at all financing another MP refresh, and lets not forget the fact that it does make them many millions of dollars.
This isn't the case at all. Sales could be around 50,000 a quarter and maybe significantly less than that. This idea that the Mac Pro is a huge money maker for Apple really needs some thought out into it. Begin by looking at the split between Laptops and desktops which is now significantly skewed towards laptops. So let's be generous and say desktop sales are 25% of all Mac sales. Then we have to device that up between iMac, Mini and Pro, Apple pretty much acknowledges that the iMac gets the majority of desktop sales with the Mini coming in second. In the end the Mac Pro could be less that a percentage point of overall sales.
Quote:
I'm sure there sales were on pare with HP. at least 90%of the people I deal with in my industry are using Mac Pros.
That means nothing! That is like working in a swimwear store and saying the majority of woman wear spandex. In the area I work in nobody has a desktop Mac installed.
This is somewhat of a misconception regarding the case and cooling and stuff. First the board designs last at least two years. The external shell stays pretty much the same. Some of the internals might change a bit, but they can pretty much stick to the current design. Foxconn produces the boards. They probably do most of the development there. I actually do not think much of the work surrounding these machines takes place in Cupertino.
You assume that the next Mac Pro will be built on the same chassis. That appears to be fairly unlikely at this point.
As for design I do think most of the effort is California based. At one time it was rumored that the Mac Pro design was handed off to Intel during the transition but I'm not sure I believe that.
Quote:
Keep in mind, I don't expect them to do much to re-engineer it. I expect them to ride the current design as much as possible.
That is certainly possible but it would be a sign of the products death to me.
Quote:
They approve a logic board design, let Foxconn handle testing and stuff, and sell a machine.
When working with a subcontractor you really are working as a team. However I don't think Apple is going to give up significant control over its designs. If anything they are likely in stronger control than many of the competitors.
I was unaware that you had access to Apple's internal financials regarding the Mac Pro.
Unless you do, you have no idea what it would cost Apple to re-engineer the Mac Pro. Nor do we have any way of knowing what Apple's ROI targets are for the MP, and if it is worth it to them to come out with a new one. Put simply, it's more complicated than you make it to be.
As I've said before, I'm not a MP user, but I do hope they release new models. But you have to look at it from Apple's perspective, not from yours. It has to make sense from the overall corporate perspective - that includes both financial and non-financial data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
This is somewhat of a misconception regarding the case and cooling and stuff. First the board designs last at least two years. The external shell stays pretty much the same. Some of the internals might change a bit, but they can pretty much stick to the current design. Foxconn produces the boards. They probably do most of the development there. I actually do not think much of the work surrounding these machines takes place in Cupertino.
Keep in mind, I don't expect them to do much to re-engineer it. I expect them to ride the current design as much as possible. They approve a logic board design, let Foxconn handle testing and stuff, and sell a machine.
I was unaware that you had access to Apple's internal financials regarding the Mac Pro.
Unless you do, you have no idea what it would cost Apple to re-engineer the Mac Pro. Nor do we have any way of knowing what Apple's ROI targets are for the MP, and if it is worth it to them to come out with a new one. Put simply, it's more complicated than you make it to be.
As I've said before, I'm not a MP user, but I do hope they release new models. But you have to look at it from Apple's perspective, not from yours. It has to make sense from the overall corporate perspective - that includes both financial and non-financial data.
I presented some things that are somewhat of a given. No company actually wants to lose customers. If they decide to eol it, they will be looking at how to minimize such an effect. You mentioned engineering costs. As I mentioned, they shouldn't be too rough with a tower configuration given the generous fan space, and Foxconn does in fact design their boards. This was a change as of the 2009 model. I'm just saying if they're attempting to buy time, that kind of refresh isn't difficult. Regarding whether or not it goes away, there hasn't been a single credible rumor, and it remains listed on the front page (usually when they EOL something it leaves the front page of their site beforehand). The only reason we're even talking about this is that too many people don't even pay attention to Intel's cpu release cycles, and now that cpus have started to ship, they've gone back to declaring an obituary for the line. In other products, sometimes cpus are out for 2-3 months before we see an update.
Anyway, we don't really have any evidence on what will happen there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
You assume that the next Mac Pro will be built on the same chassis. That appears to be fairly unlikely at this point.
As for design I do think most of the effort is California based. At one time it was rumored that the Mac Pro design was handed off to Intel during the transition but I'm not sure I believe that.
That is certainly possible but it would be a sign of the products death to me.
When working with a subcontractor you really are working as a team. However I don't think Apple is going to give up significant control over its designs. If anything they are likely in stronger control than many of the competitors.
Well the logic boards went away from intel's reference spec to one done by Foxconn. I kind of doubt they're going to put a lot of resources into this round, especially with Intel's floundering here. Sandy Bridge E just started shipping, and the Ivy equivalent is due around the same time as consumer Haswell. Given that the cpus are running quite hot and Apple tries to make a silent tower (especially for the guys who deal with audio), I think it's likely that they'll retain the current form factor given its ability to house large fans.
I'm really not expecting much in the way of imagination from them. Towers are an easy way to deal with legacy baggage and really hot cpus. The way things are seated in the tower currently takes up quite a lot of space. I know they could do something new with it. I'm just not expecting it this round.
If they're going to 'can' the Pro line then I'd like to see an iMac Pro line like this with Xeons and Quadros. If HP (a PC division that was about to be spun off) can do it...why not Apple.
They could give the standard iMac line a price cut and introduce a Pro iMac where the mid to high end is now. Boom. You get your expandable iMac.
They even made the point about the z taking up less space.
Really impressed with the access the z allows. They've actually thought about it.
It's a gauntlet down to Apple as far as I'm concerned. Apple are doing sealed units.
I'm loathe to give HP any credit. But credit where it's due.
Apple's desktop line does need a little more thought. More spec. A price cut and a touch more innovation.
Lemon Bon Bon.
IMHO a Pro iMac doesn't make sense. Pro users don't go after the kind of screen on the iMac. They prefer matte displays.
I presented some things that are somewhat of a given. No company actually wants to lose customers. If they decide to eol it, they will be looking at how to minimize such an effect. You mentioned engineering costs. As I mentioned, they shouldn't be too rough with a tower configuration given the generous fan space, and Foxconn does in fact design their boards.
You seem awfully sure about that. I'm not convinced that Apple would give up that much control. I'm certain they have a partnership with Foxconn but that is a bit different than saying Foxconn designs the boards.
Quote:
This was a change as of the 2009 model. I'm just saying if they're attempting to buy time, that kind of refresh isn't difficult. Regarding whether or not it goes away, there hasn't been a single credible rumor, and it remains listed on the front page (usually when they EOL something it leaves the front page of their site beforehand). The only reason we're even talking about this is that too many people don't even pay attention to Intel's cpu release cycles, and now that cpus have started to ship, they've gone back to declaring an obituary for the line. In other products, sometimes cpus are out for 2-3 months before we see an update.
Well this I agree with! The almost spastic demand that Apple release a new Sandy Bridge E machine is ridiculous as Apple seldom releases hardware in lock step with Intel. The only exception here seems to be the laptops where it often appears that Apple is pulling Intel along.
Quote:
Anyway, we don't really have any evidence on what will happen there.
Well the logic boards went away from intel's reference spec to one done by Foxconn. I kind of doubt they're going to put a lot of resources into this round, especially with Intel's floundering here.
Well again I'm not so convinced of this. First off the Pros board is not a reference design, it is a pretty unique design on its own.
As to resource allocation I really think they have no choice, they need to show the customer base that the desktop has not been abandoned. Apple has serious credibility problems on the desktop right now.
Quote:
Sandy Bridge E just started shipping, and the Ivy equivalent is due around the same time as consumer Haswell. Given that the cpus are running quite hot and Apple tries to make a silent tower (especially for the guys who deal with audio), I think it's likely that they'll retain the current form factor given its ability to house large fans.
A large box does not really solve ones cooling problems. As to the audio guys, frankly screw them. Apple really needs to focus on a design that can service a very wide array of customer needs first. If the design is suitably quiet for the audio world afterward then fine, but the Pro really shouldn't be a niche machine.
Quote:
I'm really not expecting much in the way of imagination from them. Towers are an easy way to deal with legacy baggage and really hot cpus. The way things are seated in the tower currently takes up quite a lot of space. I know they could do something new with it. I'm just not expecting it this round.
I'd have to say just the opposite. The Mac Pro isn't really known to be a cool running platform. The large internal volume actually makes even cooling more difficult.
As two doing something with it, I've expecting something for the last couple of years. Frankly they have been rolling in cash, so if they can't pull off a modern refactoring of the Pro this round when will they be able to? One reason to expect this is that the technology exists to allow for it. Compact motherboards are easy, high speed I/O is solved and high speed storage is easy to come buy.
In effect this allows Apple design flexibility. For one they can put disk arrays into a separate box, this alone dramatically reduces the Pros size. In the Pro itself local storage can be taken care of by very fast SSD technology which again takes up less space. Drop out the large optical bays and again the machine shrinks. The final step would be to shrink I/O card space leaving room for one high performance GPU card and an additional slot. With four TB ports the machine would still have access to bulk secondary storage.
The big advantage here is a far lower cost for the base machine. This means a wider audience that would find the platform usefull. More importantly for those that need the extra capability they give up nothing, except for maybe an all in one box solution.
Now maybe such a platform would shock some current Pro users, especially those that get something personal out of having a big box near buy. In the end though you either evolve or you die.
IMHO a Pro iMac doesn't make sense. Pro users don't go after the kind of screen on the iMac. They prefer matte displays.
Some Pro users prefer a matte screen but this is a dwindling number. The advantages to matte screens are few, the disadvantages many. Once Apple goes to HiDPI screens I see the vast majority of so called Pros giving up long held beliefs. Just play around with iPad 3 for a bit to grasp the advantages of the newer screen technologies.
Some Pro users prefer a matte screen but this is a dwindling number. The advantages to matte screens are few, the disadvantages many. Once Apple goes to HiDPI screens I see the vast majority of so called Pros giving up long held beliefs. Just play around with iPad 3 for a bit to grasp the advantages of the newer screen technologies.
Though I prefer a headless desktop, I think the display on the iMac is great. I like the color saturation on glossy screens even if they aren't the best for work on well lit environments. I don't need to see the new iPad to see how better the screen is. The screen on the iPhone 4 already got me but I still believe that there will be a legion of pros wanting matte displays for work with image/video/3d.
I think we should be able to use any graphics card on the Pro. Also, I think that possibility would increase the sales of the Pro. Why don't Apple just let the GPU makers make drivers for OSX like they already do for Windows? Apple already left Java for Oracle to deploy. The same could happen to GPU drivers. The number of GPUs available for the Pro these days are just silly and extremely overpriced!
Yes you can use many normal PC graphic cards. Off the shelf cards are always cheaper then buying from the Apples store, same goes for memory, drives, controller cards and CPU upgrades. What I would like to see the most is support for SLI.
Though I prefer a headless desktop, I think the display on the iMac is great. I like the color saturation on glossy screens even if they aren't the best for work on well lit environments. I don't need to see the new iPad to see how better the screen is. The screen on the iPhone 4 already got me but I still believe that there will be a legion of pros wanting matte displays for work with image/video/3d.
Though I prefer a headless desktop, I think the display on the iMac is great. I like the color saturation on glossy screens even if they aren't the best for work on well lit environments. I don't need to see the new iPad to see how better the screen is. The screen on the iPhone 4 already got me but I still believe that there will be a legion of pros wanting matte displays for work with image/video/3d.
Maybe it is me but my iPhone 4 doesn't have the same effect on me as does my new iPad. I'm not sure why yet but that IPad is just amazing to use.
I used procreate 1.5. An astonishing simple and powerful paint program for the iPad and it isn't even optimised for iPad '3'.
1.6 promises to tear up the town as the engine is asked on gl. The developers are very excited about the quad core GPu as their engine is GPu not CPU based.
I'd have to say just the opposite. The Mac Pro isn't really known to be a cool running platform. The large internal volume actually makes even cooling more difficult.
As two doing something with it, I've expecting something for the last couple of years. Frankly they have been rolling in cash, so if they can't pull off a modern refactoring of the Pro this round when will they be able to? One reason to expect this is that the technology exists to allow for it. Compact motherboards are easy, high speed I/O is solved and high speed storage is easy to come buy.
In effect this allows Apple design flexibility. For one they can put disk arrays into a separate box, this alone dramatically reduces the Pros size. In the Pro itself local storage can be taken care of by very fast SSD technology which again takes up less space. Drop out the large optical bays and again the machine shrinks. The final step would be to shrink I/O card space leaving room for one high performance GPU card and an additional slot. With four TB ports the machine would still have access to bulk secondary storage.
The big advantage here is a far lower cost for the base machine. This means a wider audience that would find the platform usefull. More importantly for those that need the extra capability they give up nothing, except for maybe an all in one box solution.
Now maybe such a platform would shock some current Pro users, especially those that get something personal out of having a big box near buy. In the end though you either evolve or you die.
You seem awfully sure about that. I'm not convinced that Apple would give up that much control. I'm certain they have a partnership with Foxconn but that is a bit different than saying Foxconn designs the boards.
Well this I agree with! The almost spastic demand that Apple release a new Sandy Bridge E machine is ridiculous as Apple seldom releases hardware in lock step with Intel. The only exception here seems to be the laptops where it often appears that Apple is pulling Intel along.
Well again I'm not so convinced of this. First off the Pros board is not a reference design, it is a pretty unique design on its own.
As to resource allocation I really think they have no choice, they need to show the customer base that the desktop has not been abandoned. Apple has serious credibility problems on the desktop right now.
The armchair executive opinion on here seems to be that they don't really require such a machine given what they already have. I feel like at the top end the imac has been very much of a leveraged design in that it's grown due to people choosing it out of Apple's lineup over a different Mac. Perhaps design is a strong word there. From what I have seen of the insides on the current one, they've moved away from Intel's typical reference design. It's quite a bit different from earlier models (2006-2008), and it does seem to handle heat pretty well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
A large box does not really solve ones cooling problems. As to the audio guys, frankly screw them. Apple really needs to focus on a design that can service a very wide array of customer needs first. If the design is suitably quiet for the audio world afterward then fine, but the Pro really shouldn't be a niche machine.
I'd have to say just the opposite. The Mac Pro isn't really known to be a cool running platform. The large internal volume actually makes even cooling more difficult.
Apple's marketing used to state "whisper quiet" in the G5 era. They definitely lent some prioritization to noise level. Overall it should still be possible to keep the machine reasonably quiet. No one wants the noise of server fans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As two doing something with it, I've expecting something for the last couple of years. Frankly they have been rolling in cash, so if they can't pull off a modern refactoring of the Pro this round when will they be able to? One reason to expect this is that the technology exists to allow for it. Compact motherboards are easy, high speed I/O is solved and high speed storage is easy to come buy.
In effect this allows Apple design flexibility. For one they can put disk arrays into a separate box, this alone dramatically reduces the Pros size. In the Pro itself local storage can be taken care of by very fast SSD technology which again takes up less space. Drop out the large optical bays and again the machine shrinks. The final step would be to shrink I/O card space leaving room for one high performance GPU card and an additional slot. With four TB ports the machine would still have access to bulk secondary storage.
The big advantage here is a far lower cost for the base machine. This means a wider audience that would find the platform usefull. More importantly for those that need the extra capability they give up nothing, except for maybe an all in one box solution.
Now maybe such a platform would shock some current Pro users, especially those that get something personal out of having a big box near buy. In the end though you either evolve or you die.
I truly don't care about the shape. Some users might benefit from a rackmount friendly case. If the reliance was on thunderbolt, they'd really need to provide some ports. It seems to be touted as a catch all solution on here whether we're speaking of ethernet adapters, external video, drives, etc. Certain things really should have their own port in its current state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Some Pro users prefer a matte screen but this is a dwindling number. The advantages to matte screens are few, the disadvantages many. Once Apple goes to HiDPI screens I see the vast majority of so called Pros giving up long held beliefs. Just play around with iPad 3 for a bit to grasp the advantages of the newer screen technologies.
I kind of wonder how you came to that conclusion. Glossy displays are quite annoying. It's not that the matte coatings have to be super aggressive, as that can lead to secondary specular issues (note the glitter effect on some anti glare panels). It's just that the way they are currently, the display can become almost a mirror solely from its own emitted light. Calling it matte or glossy doesn't really mean much. The goal should be to provide a clear picture without the obvious perception of environmental reflection. I have a feeling that it comes down to costs, as I've seen displays with much better anti glare finishes than the old cinema displays.
You have the 2? Or the new one? I used the 2 and was very impressed.
I never used the 2, in fact after it came out I avoided the Apple store for fear I'd blow my budget on one! I'm really glad I waited for iPad 3.
Quote:
I have the 'new' iPad and I'm in love in a way that I haven't been since my first power mac with a copy of photoshop 4.
It is a nice machine. All of the performance problems of iPad1 are gone (even if 5.1 helped a lot there), it just feels much smoother or fluid. I hardly even look at my Mac for E-mail, or web access anymore.
Quote:
Recharge takes a while though!
Well you can't win them all.
Quote:
Lemon Bon Bon.
I know this will perplex many but I had a very hoo hum attitude to my iPhone 4's screen. There is much to like about that phone but I guess I see it more as a tool than something that one can get pleasure from using.
Oh well... March is ending and nothing on the horizon...
Yes. It's by turns frustrating and sad.
Needed: Macintosh desktop computer with multiple internal ssd hard drives in raid configuration, Thunderbolt out, high end video card, latest Intel chips. Will pay cash.
Comments
As I said, I feel your pain. And I hope that Apple does update the MP, even though I'm not a user.
But:
It takes a lot of money to re-engineer something like the Mac Pro - the case, cooling, power supply, etc. And that money has to be recouped through sales - Apple has shown it is not going to invest money in items that lose money. Without knowing the financials around the MP, it's impossible to say if it makes money, loses money, breaks even, etc.
This is somewhat of a misconception regarding the case and cooling and stuff. First the board designs last at least two years. The external shell stays pretty much the same. Some of the internals might change a bit, but they can pretty much stick to the current design. Foxconn produces the boards. They probably do most of the development there. I actually do not think much of the work surrounding these machines takes place in Cupertino.
Keep in mind, I don't expect them to do much to re-engineer it. I expect them to ride the current design as much as possible. They approve a logic board design, let Foxconn handle testing and stuff, and sell a machine.
Sorry, but I just don't buy it. Apple has tons of cash. They would have no problem at all financing another MP refresh, and lets not forget the fact that it does make them many millions of dollars.
This isn't the case at all. Sales could be around 50,000 a quarter and maybe significantly less than that. This idea that the Mac Pro is a huge money maker for Apple really needs some thought out into it. Begin by looking at the split between Laptops and desktops which is now significantly skewed towards laptops. So let's be generous and say desktop sales are 25% of all Mac sales. Then we have to device that up between iMac, Mini and Pro, Apple pretty much acknowledges that the iMac gets the majority of desktop sales with the Mini coming in second. In the end the Mac Pro could be less that a percentage point of overall sales.
I'm sure there sales were on pare with HP. at least 90%of the people I deal with in my industry are using Mac Pros.
That means nothing! That is like working in a swimwear store and saying the majority of woman wear spandex. In the area I work in nobody has a desktop Mac installed.
This is somewhat of a misconception regarding the case and cooling and stuff. First the board designs last at least two years. The external shell stays pretty much the same. Some of the internals might change a bit, but they can pretty much stick to the current design. Foxconn produces the boards. They probably do most of the development there. I actually do not think much of the work surrounding these machines takes place in Cupertino.
You assume that the next Mac Pro will be built on the same chassis. That appears to be fairly unlikely at this point.
As for design I do think most of the effort is California based. At one time it was rumored that the Mac Pro design was handed off to Intel during the transition but I'm not sure I believe that.
Keep in mind, I don't expect them to do much to re-engineer it. I expect them to ride the current design as much as possible.
That is certainly possible but it would be a sign of the products death to me.
They approve a logic board design, let Foxconn handle testing and stuff, and sell a machine.
When working with a subcontractor you really are working as a team. However I don't think Apple is going to give up significant control over its designs. If anything they are likely in stronger control than many of the competitors.
Unless you do, you have no idea what it would cost Apple to re-engineer the Mac Pro. Nor do we have any way of knowing what Apple's ROI targets are for the MP, and if it is worth it to them to come out with a new one. Put simply, it's more complicated than you make it to be.
As I've said before, I'm not a MP user, but I do hope they release new models. But you have to look at it from Apple's perspective, not from yours. It has to make sense from the overall corporate perspective - that includes both financial and non-financial data.
This is somewhat of a misconception regarding the case and cooling and stuff. First the board designs last at least two years. The external shell stays pretty much the same. Some of the internals might change a bit, but they can pretty much stick to the current design. Foxconn produces the boards. They probably do most of the development there. I actually do not think much of the work surrounding these machines takes place in Cupertino.
Keep in mind, I don't expect them to do much to re-engineer it. I expect them to ride the current design as much as possible. They approve a logic board design, let Foxconn handle testing and stuff, and sell a machine.
I was unaware that you had access to Apple's internal financials regarding the Mac Pro.
Unless you do, you have no idea what it would cost Apple to re-engineer the Mac Pro. Nor do we have any way of knowing what Apple's ROI targets are for the MP, and if it is worth it to them to come out with a new one. Put simply, it's more complicated than you make it to be.
As I've said before, I'm not a MP user, but I do hope they release new models. But you have to look at it from Apple's perspective, not from yours. It has to make sense from the overall corporate perspective - that includes both financial and non-financial data.
I presented some things that are somewhat of a given. No company actually wants to lose customers. If they decide to eol it, they will be looking at how to minimize such an effect. You mentioned engineering costs. As I mentioned, they shouldn't be too rough with a tower configuration given the generous fan space, and Foxconn does in fact design their boards. This was a change as of the 2009 model. I'm just saying if they're attempting to buy time, that kind of refresh isn't difficult. Regarding whether or not it goes away, there hasn't been a single credible rumor, and it remains listed on the front page (usually when they EOL something it leaves the front page of their site beforehand). The only reason we're even talking about this is that too many people don't even pay attention to Intel's cpu release cycles, and now that cpus have started to ship, they've gone back to declaring an obituary for the line. In other products, sometimes cpus are out for 2-3 months before we see an update.
Anyway, we don't really have any evidence on what will happen there.
You assume that the next Mac Pro will be built on the same chassis. That appears to be fairly unlikely at this point.
As for design I do think most of the effort is California based. At one time it was rumored that the Mac Pro design was handed off to Intel during the transition but I'm not sure I believe that.
That is certainly possible but it would be a sign of the products death to me.
When working with a subcontractor you really are working as a team. However I don't think Apple is going to give up significant control over its designs. If anything they are likely in stronger control than many of the competitors.
Well the logic boards went away from intel's reference spec to one done by Foxconn. I kind of doubt they're going to put a lot of resources into this round, especially with Intel's floundering here. Sandy Bridge E just started shipping, and the Ivy equivalent is due around the same time as consumer Haswell. Given that the cpus are running quite hot and Apple tries to make a silent tower (especially for the guys who deal with audio), I think it's likely that they'll retain the current form factor given its ability to house large fans.
I'm really not expecting much in the way of imagination from them. Towers are an easy way to deal with legacy baggage and really hot cpus. The way things are seated in the tower currently takes up quite a lot of space. I know they could do something new with it. I'm just not expecting it this round.
I have. And I have to say I'm impressed.
If they're going to 'can' the Pro line then I'd like to see an iMac Pro line like this with Xeons and Quadros. If HP (a PC division that was about to be spun off) can do it...why not Apple.
They could give the standard iMac line a price cut and introduce a Pro iMac where the mid to high end is now. Boom. You get your expandable iMac.
They even made the point about the z taking up less space.
Really impressed with the access the z allows. They've actually thought about it.
It's a gauntlet down to Apple as far as I'm concerned. Apple are doing sealed units.
I'm loathe to give HP any credit. But credit where it's due.
Apple's desktop line does need a little more thought. More spec. A price cut and a touch more innovation.
Lemon Bon Bon.
IMHO a Pro iMac doesn't make sense. Pro users don't go after the kind of screen on the iMac. They prefer matte displays.
I presented some things that are somewhat of a given. No company actually wants to lose customers. If they decide to eol it, they will be looking at how to minimize such an effect. You mentioned engineering costs. As I mentioned, they shouldn't be too rough with a tower configuration given the generous fan space, and Foxconn does in fact design their boards.
You seem awfully sure about that. I'm not convinced that Apple would give up that much control. I'm certain they have a partnership with Foxconn but that is a bit different than saying Foxconn designs the boards.
This was a change as of the 2009 model. I'm just saying if they're attempting to buy time, that kind of refresh isn't difficult. Regarding whether or not it goes away, there hasn't been a single credible rumor, and it remains listed on the front page (usually when they EOL something it leaves the front page of their site beforehand). The only reason we're even talking about this is that too many people don't even pay attention to Intel's cpu release cycles, and now that cpus have started to ship, they've gone back to declaring an obituary for the line. In other products, sometimes cpus are out for 2-3 months before we see an update.
Well this I agree with! The almost spastic demand that Apple release a new Sandy Bridge E machine is ridiculous as Apple seldom releases hardware in lock step with Intel. The only exception here seems to be the laptops where it often appears that Apple is pulling Intel along.
Anyway, we don't really have any evidence on what will happen there.
Well the logic boards went away from intel's reference spec to one done by Foxconn. I kind of doubt they're going to put a lot of resources into this round, especially with Intel's floundering here.
Well again I'm not so convinced of this. First off the Pros board is not a reference design, it is a pretty unique design on its own.
As to resource allocation I really think they have no choice, they need to show the customer base that the desktop has not been abandoned. Apple has serious credibility problems on the desktop right now.
Sandy Bridge E just started shipping, and the Ivy equivalent is due around the same time as consumer Haswell. Given that the cpus are running quite hot and Apple tries to make a silent tower (especially for the guys who deal with audio), I think it's likely that they'll retain the current form factor given its ability to house large fans.
A large box does not really solve ones cooling problems. As to the audio guys, frankly screw them. Apple really needs to focus on a design that can service a very wide array of customer needs first. If the design is suitably quiet for the audio world afterward then fine, but the Pro really shouldn't be a niche machine.
I'm really not expecting much in the way of imagination from them. Towers are an easy way to deal with legacy baggage and really hot cpus. The way things are seated in the tower currently takes up quite a lot of space. I know they could do something new with it. I'm just not expecting it this round.
I'd have to say just the opposite. The Mac Pro isn't really known to be a cool running platform. The large internal volume actually makes even cooling more difficult.
As two doing something with it, I've expecting something for the last couple of years. Frankly they have been rolling in cash, so if they can't pull off a modern refactoring of the Pro this round when will they be able to? One reason to expect this is that the technology exists to allow for it. Compact motherboards are easy, high speed I/O is solved and high speed storage is easy to come buy.
In effect this allows Apple design flexibility. For one they can put disk arrays into a separate box, this alone dramatically reduces the Pros size. In the Pro itself local storage can be taken care of by very fast SSD technology which again takes up less space. Drop out the large optical bays and again the machine shrinks. The final step would be to shrink I/O card space leaving room for one high performance GPU card and an additional slot. With four TB ports the machine would still have access to bulk secondary storage.
The big advantage here is a far lower cost for the base machine. This means a wider audience that would find the platform usefull. More importantly for those that need the extra capability they give up nothing, except for maybe an all in one box solution.
Now maybe such a platform would shock some current Pro users, especially those that get something personal out of having a big box near buy. In the end though you either evolve or you die.
IMHO a Pro iMac doesn't make sense. Pro users don't go after the kind of screen on the iMac. They prefer matte displays.
Some Pro users prefer a matte screen but this is a dwindling number. The advantages to matte screens are few, the disadvantages many. Once Apple goes to HiDPI screens I see the vast majority of so called Pros giving up long held beliefs. Just play around with iPad 3 for a bit to grasp the advantages of the newer screen technologies.
Some Pro users prefer a matte screen but this is a dwindling number. The advantages to matte screens are few, the disadvantages many. Once Apple goes to HiDPI screens I see the vast majority of so called Pros giving up long held beliefs. Just play around with iPad 3 for a bit to grasp the advantages of the newer screen technologies.
Though I prefer a headless desktop, I think the display on the iMac is great. I like the color saturation on glossy screens even if they aren't the best for work on well lit environments. I don't need to see the new iPad to see how better the screen is. The screen on the iPhone 4 already got me but I still believe that there will be a legion of pros wanting matte displays for work with image/video/3d.
I think we should be able to use any graphics card on the Pro. Also, I think that possibility would increase the sales of the Pro. Why don't Apple just let the GPU makers make drivers for OSX like they already do for Windows? Apple already left Java for Oracle to deploy. The same could happen to GPU drivers. The number of GPUs available for the Pro these days are just silly and extremely overpriced!
Yes you can use many normal PC graphic cards. Off the shelf cards are always cheaper then buying from the Apples store, same goes for memory, drives, controller cards and CPU upgrades. What I would like to see the most is support for SLI.
Though I prefer a headless desktop, I think the display on the iMac is great. I like the color saturation on glossy screens even if they aren't the best for work on well lit environments. I don't need to see the new iPad to see how better the screen is. The screen on the iPhone 4 already got me but I still believe that there will be a legion of pros wanting matte displays for work with image/video/3d.
I buy NEC monitors for that.
Though I prefer a headless desktop, I think the display on the iMac is great. I like the color saturation on glossy screens even if they aren't the best for work on well lit environments. I don't need to see the new iPad to see how better the screen is. The screen on the iPhone 4 already got me but I still believe that there will be a legion of pros wanting matte displays for work with image/video/3d.
Maybe it is me but my iPhone 4 doesn't have the same effect on me as does my new iPad. I'm not sure why yet but that IPad is just amazing to use.
Dave
Lemon Bon Bon.
Maybe it is me but my iPhone 4 doesn't have the same effect on me as does my new iPad. I'm not sure why yet but that IPad is just amazing to use.
Dave
You have the 2? Or the new one? I used the 2 and was very impressed.
I have the 'new' iPad and I'm in love in a way that I haven't been since my first power mac with a copy of photoshop 4.
Recharge takes a while though!
Lemon Bon Bon.
1.6 promises to tear up the town as the engine is asked on gl. The developers are very excited about the quad core GPu as their engine is GPu not CPU based.
Finger painting was never this much fun.
Getting a stylus soon...
Lemon Bon Bon.
I'd have to say just the opposite. The Mac Pro isn't really known to be a cool running platform. The large internal volume actually makes even cooling more difficult.
As two doing something with it, I've expecting something for the last couple of years. Frankly they have been rolling in cash, so if they can't pull off a modern refactoring of the Pro this round when will they be able to? One reason to expect this is that the technology exists to allow for it. Compact motherboards are easy, high speed I/O is solved and high speed storage is easy to come buy.
In effect this allows Apple design flexibility. For one they can put disk arrays into a separate box, this alone dramatically reduces the Pros size. In the Pro itself local storage can be taken care of by very fast SSD technology which again takes up less space. Drop out the large optical bays and again the machine shrinks. The final step would be to shrink I/O card space leaving room for one high performance GPU card and an additional slot. With four TB ports the machine would still have access to bulk secondary storage.
The big advantage here is a far lower cost for the base machine. This means a wider audience that would find the platform usefull. More importantly for those that need the extra capability they give up nothing, except for maybe an all in one box solution.
Now maybe such a platform would shock some current Pro users, especially those that get something personal out of having a big box near buy. In the end though you either evolve or you die.
*nods enthusiastically.
A creative post.
Bravo. I hope Apple listen.
Lemon Bon Bon.
You seem awfully sure about that. I'm not convinced that Apple would give up that much control. I'm certain they have a partnership with Foxconn but that is a bit different than saying Foxconn designs the boards.
Well this I agree with! The almost spastic demand that Apple release a new Sandy Bridge E machine is ridiculous as Apple seldom releases hardware in lock step with Intel. The only exception here seems to be the laptops where it often appears that Apple is pulling Intel along.
Well again I'm not so convinced of this. First off the Pros board is not a reference design, it is a pretty unique design on its own.
As to resource allocation I really think they have no choice, they need to show the customer base that the desktop has not been abandoned. Apple has serious credibility problems on the desktop right now.
The armchair executive opinion on here seems to be that they don't really require such a machine given what they already have
A large box does not really solve ones cooling problems. As to the audio guys, frankly screw them. Apple really needs to focus on a design that can service a very wide array of customer needs first. If the design is suitably quiet for the audio world afterward then fine, but the Pro really shouldn't be a niche machine.
I'd have to say just the opposite. The Mac Pro isn't really known to be a cool running platform. The large internal volume actually makes even cooling more difficult.
Apple's marketing used to state "whisper quiet" in the G5 era. They definitely lent some prioritization to noise level. Overall it should still be possible to keep the machine reasonably quiet. No one wants the noise of server fans.
As two doing something with it, I've expecting something for the last couple of years. Frankly they have been rolling in cash, so if they can't pull off a modern refactoring of the Pro this round when will they be able to? One reason to expect this is that the technology exists to allow for it. Compact motherboards are easy, high speed I/O is solved and high speed storage is easy to come buy.
In effect this allows Apple design flexibility. For one they can put disk arrays into a separate box, this alone dramatically reduces the Pros size. In the Pro itself local storage can be taken care of by very fast SSD technology which again takes up less space. Drop out the large optical bays and again the machine shrinks. The final step would be to shrink I/O card space leaving room for one high performance GPU card and an additional slot. With four TB ports the machine would still have access to bulk secondary storage.
The big advantage here is a far lower cost for the base machine. This means a wider audience that would find the platform usefull. More importantly for those that need the extra capability they give up nothing, except for maybe an all in one box solution.
Now maybe such a platform would shock some current Pro users, especially those that get something personal out of having a big box near buy. In the end though you either evolve or you die.
I truly don't care about the shape. Some users might benefit from a rackmount friendly case. If the reliance was on thunderbolt, they'd really need to provide some ports. It seems to be touted as a catch all solution on here whether we're speaking of ethernet adapters
Some Pro users prefer a matte screen but this is a dwindling number. The advantages to matte screens are few, the disadvantages many. Once Apple goes to HiDPI screens I see the vast majority of so called Pros giving up long held beliefs. Just play around with iPad 3 for a bit to grasp the advantages of the newer screen technologies.
I kind of wonder how you came to that conclusion. Glossy displays are quite annoying. It's not that the matte coatings have to be super aggressive, as that can lead to secondary specular issues (note the glitter effect on some anti glare panels). It's just that the way they are currently, the display can become almost a mirror solely from its own emitted light. Calling it matte or glossy doesn't really mean much. The goal should be to provide a clear picture without the obvious perception of environmental reflection. I have a feeling that it comes down to costs, as I've seen displays with much better anti glare finishes than the old cinema displays.
You have the 2? Or the new one? I used the 2 and was very impressed.
I never used the 2, in fact after it came out I avoided the Apple store for fear I'd blow my budget on one! I'm really glad I waited for iPad 3.
I have the 'new' iPad and I'm in love in a way that I haven't been since my first power mac with a copy of photoshop 4.
It is a nice machine. All of the performance problems of iPad1 are gone (even if 5.1 helped a lot there), it just feels much smoother or fluid. I hardly even look at my Mac for E-mail, or web access anymore.
Recharge takes a while though!
Well you can't win them all.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I know this will perplex many but I had a very hoo hum attitude to my iPhone 4's screen. There is much to like about that phone but I guess I see it more as a tool than something that one can get pleasure from using.
Oh well... March is ending and nothing on the horizon...
Yes. It's by turns frustrating and sad.
Needed: Macintosh desktop computer with multiple internal ssd hard drives in raid configuration, Thunderbolt out, high end video card, latest Intel chips. Will pay cash.