I just ordered an 8 core and I am good with that. The current design runs quiet and very cool. I can shut it down and remove a hard drive that instant and not get burned. I hate that the new update may or may not be coming but the need was now and it is clearly going to last a long time. Our quad core from way back in 2007 (I think) is still going strong.
This is first time apple has ever let it go this long. the mac pro had 5 generations, all 1 year apart, then all of a sudden, 2 and a half years and nothing.
That's not actually accurate. If you look at the Mac Pro days between releases on, say, the MacRumors Buyers Guide, not only are they not "all 1 year apart", but, extrapolating to the "next release" would lead one not to expect it before this summer.
That's not quite true. The iPod Classic hasn't been updated in 994 days whilst the Mac Pro was updated 674 days ago. If you exclude that product then the Mac Pro is at the top but just barely.
Here is a list of the ones that stuck out to me:
Apple Display - 651 days
iPod Shuffle - 637 days
Mac mini - 574 days
MacBook Air - 499 days
iPhone - 467 days
2011 MBA and Mac Mini were released July 20, 2011 and I bought my Mini in early August. The new iPhone came out in October. This list is questionable.
You are extremely mis informed here. Intel hasn't really come out with a new processor for the pro, not until about a month ago! Sandy Bridge E is very late by Intel standards.
As to Intel and Apple well I think they have had a falling out. Apples ARM initiatives have had a big impact on Intel because it has shown the industry that successful hardware doesn't have to be i86 based.
Are there any numbers telling how many Mac Pros are being sold to consumers? Does it even reach over a million units a year? It just seems as though if a company can't be bothered to update a product for that long a time, they're not concerned about that target audience. As fast as Intel comes out with new processors and to not let the once top-of-the-line product get newer processors for two years or so, it just seems criminal. I thought that Apple had an inside track with Intel on acquiring new processors.
Apple has never let a product go this long without an update. This is new territory.
The problem is that there's no compelling reason for an update (or, at least, wasn't until a couple of weeks ago). Until earlier this month, there were no new Xeon chips that would be a significant enough performance improvement to justify it. Intel has been very slow at releasing new Xeon chips. They're just now on Sandy Bridge.
except the performance difference between current gen hardware and 2010 is miles apart, literally.
Really? The new Sandy bridge chips came out a couple of weeks ago and would be something like 20-30% faster than the chips Apple is using now. That's 'miles apart'? Until 3 weeks ago, there were no better chips Apple could use (except for very minor clock speed bumps which wouldn't have added more than a few percent). So Apple is, at most, a few weeks into the Sandy Bridge availability cycle.
mean heck, even if they released an update tomorrow, it'd be based off sandy bridge server chips and even that is half way through it's life cycle, it's a shame really.
You might want to stop commenting until you can get your facts right. Sandy Bridge Xeon chips are only a couple of weeks old - not 'halfway through its cycle'.
I'm waiting for a new mac pro cause 2010 one does not have the performance i need for my 2012 tasks. the 5870 graphics card we have is also quite obsolete, the 7000 series is half way through it's life cycle. It's not just about owning a mac pro it's about the commitment to it. This is first time apple has ever let it go this long. the mac pro had 5 generations, all 1 year apart, then all of a sudden, 2 and a half years and nothing. THAT is is the concern. If the product line is discontinued, why would we want to buy a 2010 model that's overpriced and charged like it's actually still 2010, so a 2012 imac can run circles around our twice as expensive unit?
Maybe no one has explained it to you, but you can replace the graphics card in the Mac Pro. It's not even that hard. And, believe it or not, replacing a graphics card is far less expensive than replacing the entire computer.
I don't want an imac though, i want expansion, durability, and quality. I want a high end graphics card, not a mobile gpu thrown in a tiny enclosure that's posing as a desktop computer. The mac pro is the only good mac hardware they mac. macbook pros are pretty but are full of issues. They run to hot, they have a very short shelf life. Almost no expansion to speak of, a poor long term investment really. I get 4-5 years out of a mac pro easy (when it's bought current gen, not 2.5 years obsolete).
See above. You don't even have your basic facts right, so your whining is really misplaced.
2011 MBA and Mac Mini were released July 20, 2011 and I bought my Mini in early August. The new iPhone came out in October. This list is questionable.
They're talking about the longest time that each product went since replacement. Look at the Mac Rumors Buying Guide (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/). They list the time between each upgrade cycle. The numbers that were reported above are accurate.
Apple doesn't like releasing a product unless they can make it compelling enough to warrant an new model. Intel hasn't released a replacement for the processors Apple is using for their current lineup. I believe Apple had made an announcement a while back eluding to a new model later this year. So, just be patient and you'll probably have something worthwhile.
Obviously, new processors, Thunderbolt, and graphics cards are areas of improvements, but i am wondering what other aspects they can revise as well.
I don't recall any such announcement.
Mac Pro updates are done on processor / chipset generation updates, then other things are updated on those intervals. For that kind of customer, it would have been nice if they did a mid-cycle bump on the graphics and other options.
What is Apple's problem?
During the honeymoon between Intel and Apple, Apple release Mac Pros with Xeon's not released officially.
Then Intel/Apple had a fallout over that Intel didn't license the CPU interconnect to Nvidia, so Nvidia was forced stop making motherboards.
Apple started to talk to AMD.
During the Intel/Apple exclusive agreement, Intel engineers designed Apples motherboards. I don't know how its today.
But if Intel still designs Apples motherboards: Making a bumped Mac Pro takes minimal effort. Drivers for Thunderbolt + drivers for a good graphic card. That should not take to long time.
The rumor is that Apple is redesigning the MacPro to a smaller case. The case haven't been updated in 7 years. I really don't care. The current design/case is amongst the greatest in the business. My MacPro is 100% silent during max load.
Since Apple decided to stop support 32bit EFI in 10.8, I will have to upgrade my Mac Pro.
That Apple is insane/greedy for removing support for 32bit EFI is another issue. An 8 core computer, with AMD 5 series graphics card is not supported by 10.8.
It would be nice to get a 64 bit upgrade, the machine is fully capable of it.
What is Apple's problem?
During the honeymoon between Intel and Apple, Apple release Mac Pros with Xeon's not released officially.
Then Intel/Apple had a fallout over that Intel didn't license the CPU interconnect to Nvidia, so Nvidia was forced stop making motherboards.
Apple started to talk to AMD.
No one outside of Intel or Apple knows the entire story. There are plenty of things that have led to friction between Apple and Intel. Any one of them (or all of them) might prevent Apple from 'pre-releasing' systems using new chips:
- As you cited, the Nvidia licensing problem
- Intel's subsidizing of Apple's competitors
- The huge growth of the mobile business and Apple's use of AMD
- Backlash from all the other computer vendors when Apple got access to chips early
During the Intel/Apple exclusive agreement, Intel engineers designed Apples motherboards. I don't know how its today.
But if Intel still designs Apples motherboards: Making a bumped Mac Pro takes minimal effort. Drivers for Thunderbolt + drivers for a good graphic card. That should not take to long time.
The rumor is that Apple is redesigning the MacPro to a smaller case. The case haven't been updated in 7 years. I really don't care. The current design/case is amongst the greatest in the business. My MacPro is 100% silent during max load.
Since Apple decided to stop support 32bit EFI in 10.8, I will have to upgrade my Mac Pro.
That Apple is insane/greedy for removing support for 32bit EFI is another issue. An 8 core computer, with AMD 5 series graphics card is not supported by 10.8.
When was the last Mac Pro which had 32 bit EFI? Around 2007? Life moves on. Your computer will continue to work fine with its current OS.
I just ordered an 8 core and I am good with that. The current design runs quiet and very cool. I can shut it down and remove a hard drive that instant and not get burned. I hate that the new update may or may not be coming but the need was now and it is clearly going to last a long time. Our quad core from way back in 2007 (I think) is still going strong.
My Mac Pro is great in that regard, but I've also had a few HP & Compaq workstations over the years and never had a hot drive.
They're talking about the longest time that each product went since replacement. Look at the Mac Rumors Buying Guide (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/). They list the time between each upgrade cycle. The numbers that were reported above are accurate.
My bad, I was thinking it meant for the current version of the product. Carry on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
When was the last Mac Pro which had 32 bit EFI? Around 2007? Life moves on. Your computer will continue to work fine with its current OS.
Here's a list I found of all the Macs and their EFIs. They don't have release dates attached to all the models, but it wouldn't be hard to look at that list and compare against release dates on wikipedia.
Isn't "Pro users, stay tuned" what Apple told professional video users just before the discontinued FInal Cut Pro, and replaced it with the incompatible and incomplete Final Cut X?
Apple is not foreshadowing an update to the Mac Pro, but rather a radical replacement.
My guess is that it will be a souped up Mac Mini. A small box with a high performance processor, fast SSD, no optical drive, and multiple Thunderbolt ports to give high end users the expansion that Apple thinks is best.
The Apple is way is not to give customers what they want, but to give them what Apple thinks they should want. Consumers were not demanding the discontinuation of the optical drive, but Apple no longer thinks we need them. Consumers were not demanding the discontinuation of support for old software (Rosetta) but Apple felt it was time, and that users would have a better experience if they threw out old software, and replaced with new software with more modern features.
"All they (Apple) have to do is say four words: 'Pro users, stay tuned,'" he said. "That's all they would have to say and the the 13,000+ people that are on the site right now would breathe a sigh of relief knowing that Apple still sees us, they're still committed...Everybody's patience meter which has gone all the way completely to frustrated would just automatically be reset back to zero."
He's accidentally said something true. If Apple gave a hint like that, I think a lot of people on that petition would indeed have their patience-meter set to zero. As in, "zero patience". A sip of water to a man dying of thirst sometimes makes them crazy for more.
(I'm like a lot of people, though. I think Apple's most expensive high-end machine should be constantly updated, instead of a 2010 relic)
People seem to think Pro users will just sit around waiting for Apple to release new hardware but that's not true. I got mad at Apple and instead of staying in the cult I built a Hackintosh. I would urge others to do the same. When Apple sees they can no longer treat their business customers so direspectfully maybe they'll start giving out rough release dates. Until then I refuse to buy Apple.
The problem is that there's no compelling reason for an update (or, at least, wasn't until a couple of weeks ago).
Minor spec bumps are easy to do, they don't need to wait for a major chip release to do those. As you say, there are higher clock speeds than they are offering, actually quite a few other options when you consider all the 4/6/8/12 core variants. Not to mention they could bump the hard drive, memory, and graphics cards along with minor clock speed upgrades.
USB3, SATA III and TB are some of the biggest things missing right now but I can see why they'd wait on those.
And besides the potential minor upgrades, they can also move some of the higher BTO options down to the standard configurations. The chips have dropped in price over the last two years but the MPs haven't - when they first are upgraded they tend to be competitive with similar PCs but the PCs drop in price and get the incremental upgrades while the macs stay the same (more profit for Apple as component costs drop, and less competitive with PCs as time goes on).
Any other company would drop prices as the tech gets cheaper (and then bump them again when newer, pricier chips are available) but Apple refuses to do that. But they could still maintain pricing and drop the higher BTO options, making those the newer base models.
$2499 wouldn't be such highway robbery for the base MP if it bought a six or eight core machine instead of a quad that is outperformed by iMacs, Macbooks, and PCs that are half the price or less.
That's not quite true. The iPod Classic hasn't been updated in 994 days whilst the Mac Pro was updated 674 days ago. If you exclude that product then the Mac Pro is at the top but just barely.
Here is a list of the ones that stuck out to me:
Apple Display - 651 days
iPod Shuffle - 637 days
Mac mini - 574 days
MacBook Air - 499 days
iPhone - 467 days
2011 MBA and Mac Mini were released July 20, 2011 and I bought my Mini in early August. The new iPhone came out in October. This list is questionable.
I thought that too, at first, but then, I wonder if these aren't all current run-times, but in a couple cases, the ones you mentioned, were 'historical' (i.e., times before, not since, current versions)?
...something even consumers ask for and neither group has ever gotten...
FCX was an exception, when there was enough of a stink and the threat of many users dumping it, Apple broke their code of silence and made announcements of future plans. Pros are aware of the situation with Intel, it wouldn't kill Apple to say something along the lines of "MP will be updated, we're sorry it's been so long but we're just waiting for the next gen of CPUs."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
When was the last Mac Pro which had 32 bit EFI? Around 2007?
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a machine with a 64 bit cpu that runs 64 bit apps. And it outperforms many of the machines that are supported on ML. Sure stinks of forced obsolescence as opposed to hardware that is actually unable to keep up.
As a number of people have pointed out, intel's improvements have been slow over the last few years particularly on the high end, so a high end machine from 2007 is still fairly competitive when it comes to performance.
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a machine with a 64 bit cpu that runs 64 bit apps. And it outperforms many of the machines that are supported on ML. Sure stinks of forced obsolescence as opposed to hardware that is actually unable to keep up.
And since the computer runs 64 bit apps, there's little real advantage to making the kernel run 64 bit, too. But to support it means a lot of expense in developing drivers, kernel development, and then all the costs in support, testing, etc. Since the majority of Pro users have moved on to newer machines, it's just not worth the effort.
As a number of people have pointed out, intel's improvements have been slow over the last few years particularly on the high end, so a high end machine from 2007 is still fairly competitive when it comes to performance.
Which is why all the "why hasn't Apple updated the Pro" complaints are largely misguided.
this company is great this company doesnt need any type of clearence like warenty and an all that i like this and its owner steave is my favourite engineer i personally like this company and i am always awating for its knew updates and their knew products HOSTING luxury real estate / long island real estate / allegheny county real estate
Comments
I just ordered an 8 core and I am good with that. The current design runs quiet and very cool. I can shut it down and remove a hard drive that instant and not get burned. I hate that the new update may or may not be coming but the need was now and it is clearly going to last a long time. Our quad core from way back in 2007 (I think) is still going strong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticalOS
This is first time apple has ever let it go this long. the mac pro had 5 generations, all 1 year apart, then all of a sudden, 2 and a half years and nothing.
That's not actually accurate. If you look at the Mac Pro days between releases on, say, the MacRumors Buyers Guide, not only are they not "all 1 year apart", but, extrapolating to the "next release" would lead one not to expect it before this summer.
Is this getting stupid?
"Yep"
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That's not quite true. The iPod Classic hasn't been updated in 994 days whilst the Mac Pro was updated 674 days ago. If you exclude that product then the Mac Pro is at the top but just barely.
Here is a list of the ones that stuck out to me:
Apple Display - 651 days
iPod Shuffle - 637 days
Mac mini - 574 days
MacBook Air - 499 days
iPhone - 467 days
2011 MBA and Mac Mini were released July 20, 2011 and I bought my Mini in early August. The new iPhone came out in October. This list is questionable.
As to Intel and Apple well I think they have had a falling out. Apples ARM initiatives have had a big impact on Intel because it has shown the industry that successful hardware doesn't have to be i86 based.
The problem is that there's no compelling reason for an update (or, at least, wasn't until a couple of weeks ago). Until earlier this month, there were no new Xeon chips that would be a significant enough performance improvement to justify it. Intel has been very slow at releasing new Xeon chips. They're just now on Sandy Bridge.
Really? The new Sandy bridge chips came out a couple of weeks ago and would be something like 20-30% faster than the chips Apple is using now. That's 'miles apart'? Until 3 weeks ago, there were no better chips Apple could use (except for very minor clock speed bumps which wouldn't have added more than a few percent). So Apple is, at most, a few weeks into the Sandy Bridge availability cycle.
You might want to stop commenting until you can get your facts right. Sandy Bridge Xeon chips are only a couple of weeks old - not 'halfway through its cycle'.
Maybe no one has explained it to you, but you can replace the graphics card in the Mac Pro. It's not even that hard. And, believe it or not, replacing a graphics card is far less expensive than replacing the entire computer.
See above. You don't even have your basic facts right, so your whining is really misplaced.
They're talking about the longest time that each product went since replacement. Look at the Mac Rumors Buying Guide (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/). They list the time between each upgrade cycle. The numbers that were reported above are accurate.
I don't recall any such announcement.
Mac Pro updates are done on processor / chipset generation updates, then other things are updated on those intervals. For that kind of customer, it would have been nice if they did a mid-cycle bump on the graphics and other options.
It would be nice to get a 64 bit upgrade, the machine is fully capable of it.
A lot of those figures are historical, not current cycle.
That Air figure was from a previous update interval:
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#MacBook_Air
Check the rest of the list, I think you'll find those numbers to be correct.
No one outside of Intel or Apple knows the entire story. There are plenty of things that have led to friction between Apple and Intel. Any one of them (or all of them) might prevent Apple from 'pre-releasing' systems using new chips:
- As you cited, the Nvidia licensing problem
- Intel's subsidizing of Apple's competitors
- The huge growth of the mobile business and Apple's use of AMD
- Backlash from all the other computer vendors when Apple got access to chips early
When was the last Mac Pro which had 32 bit EFI? Around 2007? Life moves on. Your computer will continue to work fine with its current OS.
My Mac Pro is great in that regard, but I've also had a few HP & Compaq workstations over the years and never had a hot drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
They're talking about the longest time that each product went since replacement. Look at the Mac Rumors Buying Guide (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/). They list the time between each upgrade cycle. The numbers that were reported above are accurate.
My bad, I was thinking it meant for the current version of the product. Carry on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
When was the last Mac Pro which had 32 bit EFI? Around 2007? Life moves on. Your computer will continue to work fine with its current OS.
Here's a list I found of all the Macs and their EFIs. They don't have release dates attached to all the models, but it wouldn't be hard to look at that list and compare against release dates on wikipedia.
http://www.everymac.com/mac-answers/snow-leopard-mac-os-x-faq/mac-os-x-snow-leopard-64-bit-macs-64-bit-efi-boot-in-64-bit-mode.html
Isn't "Pro users, stay tuned" what Apple told professional video users just before the discontinued FInal Cut Pro, and replaced it with the incompatible and incomplete Final Cut X?
Apple is not foreshadowing an update to the Mac Pro, but rather a radical replacement.
My guess is that it will be a souped up Mac Mini. A small box with a high performance processor, fast SSD, no optical drive, and multiple Thunderbolt ports to give high end users the expansion that Apple thinks is best.
The Apple is way is not to give customers what they want, but to give them what Apple thinks they should want. Consumers were not demanding the discontinuation of the optical drive, but Apple no longer thinks we need them. Consumers were not demanding the discontinuation of support for old software (Rosetta) but Apple felt it was time, and that users would have a better experience if they threw out old software, and replaced with new software with more modern features.
Quote:
"All they (Apple) have to do is say four words: 'Pro users, stay tuned,'" he said. "That's all they would have to say and the the 13,000+ people that are on the site right now would breathe a sigh of relief knowing that Apple still sees us, they're still committed...Everybody's patience meter which has gone all the way completely to frustrated would just automatically be reset back to zero."
He's accidentally said something true. If Apple gave a hint like that, I think a lot of people on that petition would indeed have their patience-meter set to zero. As in, "zero patience". A sip of water to a man dying of thirst sometimes makes them crazy for more.
(I'm like a lot of people, though. I think Apple's most expensive high-end machine should be constantly updated, instead of a 2010 relic)
It's a little late for that, unless the buyer has been living under a rock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The problem is that there's no compelling reason for an update (or, at least, wasn't until a couple of weeks ago).
Minor spec bumps are easy to do, they don't need to wait for a major chip release to do those. As you say, there are higher clock speeds than they are offering, actually quite a few other options when you consider all the 4/6/8/12 core variants. Not to mention they could bump the hard drive, memory, and graphics cards along with minor clock speed upgrades.
USB3, SATA III and TB are some of the biggest things missing right now but I can see why they'd wait on those.
And besides the potential minor upgrades, they can also move some of the higher BTO options down to the standard configurations. The chips have dropped in price over the last two years but the MPs haven't - when they first are upgraded they tend to be competitive with similar PCs but the PCs drop in price and get the incremental upgrades while the macs stay the same (more profit for Apple as component costs drop, and less competitive with PCs as time goes on).
Any other company would drop prices as the tech gets cheaper (and then bump them again when newer, pricier chips are available) but Apple refuses to do that. But they could still maintain pricing and drop the higher BTO options, making those the newer base models.
$2499 wouldn't be such highway robbery for the base MP if it bought a six or eight core machine instead of a quad that is outperformed by iMacs, Macbooks, and PCs that are half the price or less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That's not quite true. The iPod Classic hasn't been updated in 994 days whilst the Mac Pro was updated 674 days ago. If you exclude that product then the Mac Pro is at the top but just barely.
Here is a list of the ones that stuck out to me:
Apple Display - 651 days
iPod Shuffle - 637 days
Mac mini - 574 days
MacBook Air - 499 days
iPhone - 467 days
2011 MBA and Mac Mini were released July 20, 2011 and I bought my Mini in early August. The new iPhone came out in October. This list is questionable.
I thought that too, at first, but then, I wonder if these aren't all current run-times, but in a couple cases, the ones you mentioned, were 'historical' (i.e., times before, not since, current versions)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
...something even consumers ask for and neither group has ever gotten...
FCX was an exception, when there was enough of a stink and the threat of many users dumping it, Apple broke their code of silence and made announcements of future plans. Pros are aware of the situation with Intel, it wouldn't kill Apple to say something along the lines of "MP will be updated, we're sorry it's been so long but we're just waiting for the next gen of CPUs."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
When was the last Mac Pro which had 32 bit EFI? Around 2007?
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a machine with a 64 bit cpu that runs 64 bit apps. And it outperforms many of the machines that are supported on ML. Sure stinks of forced obsolescence as opposed to hardware that is actually unable to keep up.
As a number of people have pointed out, intel's improvements have been slow over the last few years particularly on the high end, so a high end machine from 2007 is still fairly competitive when it comes to performance.
And since the computer runs 64 bit apps, there's little real advantage to making the kernel run 64 bit, too. But to support it means a lot of expense in developing drivers, kernel development, and then all the costs in support, testing, etc. Since the majority of Pro users have moved on to newer machines, it's just not worth the effort.
Which is why all the "why hasn't Apple updated the Pro" complaints are largely misguided.
this company is great this company doesnt need any type of clearence like warenty and an all that i like this and its owner steave is my favourite engineer i personally like this company and i am always awating for its knew updates and their knew products HOSTING luxury real estate / long island real estate / allegheny county real estate