How about modular boxes daisy chained together with thunderbolt and/or fiber optics...
Separate boxes with: RAM/CPUs; SSDs; GPUs; HDD RAIDS... mix or match these as needed to address current needs.
Apple already has software to manage this distributed computing system
Exactly what I see coming as well!
So if you "pros" can't be patient for another 6-7 months, go ahead... build that "killer PC box" for $3-4k... and get ready to trash it when you see the next "Insanely Great™" Pro solution from Apple.... or
can you please explain to me what the current Mac Pro can't do for you? i use a Mac mini and i'm super happy with it.However, i understand many professionals like designers want something more powerful than a mini or Macbook Pro but all this madness why the Mac Pro wasn't updated i don't get.
In 2010, the Mac Pro cost 3x times as much as MBP and was 3x faster. Today, it still costs 3x as much but is only 1.3x faster. You see the problem? In 2010 if you needed expansion, you paid a lot but also got a lot of speed with it. Today, if you need expansion you still pay a lot, but you don't get a lot of extra speed with it. In terms of value for money, expansion capabilities has become much more expensive.
So, what happened to Apple's famous wall of secrecy if even the CEO is now commenting on future models? Such a change isn't good for the mystique and marketing fervour Apple normally generates with a series of rumours; giving it to us straight not only destroys all that, it also gives competitors a view into what they need to do..
So really its a three year wait for a new system. Seems like many will jump ship and rightfully so. Apple(Tim) dropped the ball on this and thats sad. At the very least they should have added USB3 and thunderbolt. Both technologies have been out for over a year and this would at least allowed new buyers to get something they didn't have before. There is absolutely nothing "new" about the update Monday. The lack of mention at WWDC is nothing more than shameful Tim skulking and shirking with silence. How embarrassing! Be a man tim, address the issues and tell your loyal customers what they need to hear. As a mac pro user for over a decade this is the last one I will ever buy. The way Apple has treated its most spendy and professional customers is a disgrace. Wait wait and wait again. Good by Mac Pro!
For the common sense reasons Apple has never done this in the past: free press and actually selling products.
I'm going to say it, even though everyone'll just laugh and dismiss it: Osborne Effect.
That's what it is. I don't care how old the computers are already, I don't care how much money they make from iDevices. This is a bad idea.
Actually, it might have an anti-Osborne effect.
Current Mac Pro users might be considering switching to Windows, but if there's something on the horizon, they might decide that it's worth holding on to their existing Mac Pros for another year to see what happens. If there's no future for the Mac Pro, might as well switch today.
Some day someone stating that Apple is DOOMED will be correct.
That day isn't today.
But he's right...Apple doesn't care about servers anymore. Microsoft does a FAR better job than Apple can. As Tim states, they prefer to concentrate on areas where they can do better than the industry leader. So I would expect, based on what Tim stated at D10, that they're going to make sure that OSX is the best enterprises CLIENT and not that OSX is the best enterprise server.
So that blog post was whine whine whine, blah blah blah, Apple is teh Doomed for the umpteenth time.
I don't see that Microsoft does a "FAR better job" than Apple in servers. OS X Server is actually a very solid, robust, reliable server. And when you look at licensing costs, it's far less expensive than Windows, at least if you're talking about a lot of clients. While Windows server does have some advantages, most of them are simply "this is what users are familiar with" rather than "this is a better way to do it".
The real difference is that HP, IBM, etc have invested more heavily in server HARDWARE and Apple doesn't have competitive Enterprise server hardware. At the workstation level (or even the departmental server level), OS X is quite capable.
Or not. After all Apple is a business and they run on a Fiscal Calendar so 2013 for them starts Oct 1, 2012. And he didn't say "a year from now" so they could have this new Mac Pro ready in Oct for all we know.
He said 2013. Late 2013. That's not October 1, 2012.
The updated mac pro will come out right after the G5 powerbook and a new Cube.
Some day someone stating that Apple is DOOMED will be correct.
That day isn't today.
But he's right...Apple doesn't care about servers anymore. Microsoft does a FAR better job than Apple can. As Tim states, they prefer to concentrate on areas where they can do better than the industry leader. So I would expect, based on what Tim stated at D10, that they're going to make sure that OSX is the best enterprises CLIENT and not that OSX is the best enterprise server.
So that blog post was whine whine whine, blah blah blah, Apple is teh Doomed for the umpteenth time.
If you consistently concentrate on areas where you can do better than industry leaders, slowly you will find yourself doing less and less over time, until your business model becomes unsustainable (it can't support the R&D needed to be good at anything).
Apple is already far behind their former self, where I could buy hardware/software/update from them and be sure it will work. These days that is no longer true.
Current Mac Pro users might be considering switching to Windows, but if there's something on the horizon, they might decide that it's worth holding on to their existing Mac Pros for another year to see what happens.
I think you're giving those people too much credit. For people who are willing to wait months to make sure their purchases are of the right hardware, hardware that they'll use daily for years upon years, every single one of them sure seems incredibly fickle and willing to jump ship because the gas station across the street is handing out free balloons and hot dogs.
But your thought is certainly interesting. You give them more credit than I do, and hopefully you're right.
I'm not sure why (most) everyone here is assuming that the "something really great" Cook is hinting at will look anything like an existing Mac Pro. If all they wanted to do was to build a newer Mac Pro, there's no reason for that to take a year and a half to put together. Meanwhile, the market for Mac Pros is clearly declining (I have one and love it, by the way -- no hating here!) and, if I were Cook, I'd be looking for a way to provide lots of computing cycles to my high-end customers, but in a way that might also pay off for other customers in other ways.
Perhaps give a Mac Mini a bigger processor, an SSD drive, and a Thunderbolt interface, and then let people hook together as many as they need? Two for my home server, ten for my video rendering box at work. Maybe open up Apple's cloud service so that I can offload compute-intensive jobs in a way that seems transparent/invisible? There are lots of ways to give people lots of computing cycles other than to stick a bunch of stuff in a big box under their desk.
"Think different", remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I agree!
How about modular boxes daisy chained together with thunderbolt and/or fiber optics...
Separate boxes with: RAM/CPUs; SSDs; GPUs; HDD RAIDS... mix or match these as needed to address current needs.
Apple already has software to manage this distributed computing system
Like it.
I have no experience with true rack systems, but they could probably come up with something that would fit one of those, or just a simple home stack, one atop the other. I've often tinkered with this idea since buying a LaCie hard drive system a couple of years ago they had a simple rack, and after seeing all the form-fitting accessories for the Mac mini.
This way, they would cover a large number of customers' needs: home, small office, big company.
A few years ago didn't some university link 1000 MacPros together into a super computer?
My current set-up is a main iMac with another iMac off to the side for use when outputting videos; I split the jobs between the two. I use Remote Desktop to operate the second iMac and have no need for a display on it and would be very happy if it could actually fit on a bookshelf. I tried this with a Mac mini but it took ages to output anything and got super hot so I went with the iMac.
The new iMac is 27" with SSD. It replaced a MacPro with a 23" display that was seven years old and fading. A slight step down, but cost, screen size and the SSD have made it a fantastic purchase. Replacing the MacPro with a new MacPro and display would have been more expensive and it didn't have Thunderbolt. Since I upgraded my external drives to TB, I finally tossed my last FW drive and cable.
This new forum system can't quote properly at all.
What i was going to respond to is what the Mac Pro replacement will look like. I think you are a bit negative here in describing it as a Mac Mini as I'm really hoping for more. Note I said hoping, I've lost confidence that Apple has really good plans for the desktop.
I do expect a dramatic change in size for the pro replacement. If they put half as much effort into it that they put into the retina Laptop it could be one hell of a machine. That is if they keep an eye on the ball and truly design a machine for professional usage. There is a real and justified fear that they don't grasp professional needs anymore. Of course most professionals can't see beyond their own needs so this is no surprise. What they do need to do is to make sure they end up with a machine that appeals to a wide array of users.
Apple is clearly going after the consumer market.
Their brand new "high end" laptop lacks an Ethernet port, lacks and optical drive, and it lacks expandability (even the RAM is soldered on). Of course, it does score well on the important metrics: it's light weight, looks great, and has a gorgeous screen.
A lot of people are assuming that Apple has to come out with a product for the high end professional. I see nothing to back this up. If Apple never sold another High end machine again, it wouldn't have a noticeable affect on profits.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mac pro replacement was an iPad with a faster multi-core processor, more memory, and a non-mirrored HDMI output for a second screen. Storage will be in Apple's iCloud. By next year, the iPad's processor will be more than fast enough for video editing.
If you think about it, such an arrangement would be more than enough power for 99% of users. There's no need for Apple to go after that extra 1%. Apple is no longer a small company trying to carve out a niche for survival. Apple is a very large company, selling to the masses, leaving the smaller niche markets for others.
Most Mac Pro buyers are either interested in raw power, or expandability. SSD drives give the appearance of raw power, and Apple clearly isn't interested in expandability (the new high end laptop requires a proprietary screwdriver to open, and the batteries are glued into the case).
Here is a thought and maybe someone with real experience can validate it. Apple has XGrid technology and I seem to remember some people actually deploying it to get better rendering times with things like Final Cut Pro, so while people might be waiting for these new MacPro systems, they might want to investigate deploying XGrid technology by adding more systems to the network to assist in rendering times so that there is a solution instead of always having to wait for a new processor refresh. Just a thought.
Anyone successfully doing this that can share information as to the validity of this technology?
Their brand new "high end" laptop lacks an Ethernet port, lacks and optical drive, and it lacks expandability (even the RAM is soldered on). Of course, it does score well on the important metrics: it's light weight, looks great, and has a gorgeous screen.
Ethernet via TB. Optical Drive via USB3. Not so hard.
16GB 204-pin SODIMM DDR 3 for Early 2011 MBP - $159.99 from crucial
16GB upgrade in Retina MBP $200
If you want to max your ram it's not a big cost delta. I wish you could go to 32GB.
The expandability in the new Retina MBP is unparalleled.
The retina screen allows 1080p editing at full res.
Quote:
A lot of people are assuming that Apple has to come out with a product for the high end professional. I see nothing to back this up. If Apple never sold another High end machine again, it wouldn't have a noticeable affect on profits.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mac pro replacement was an iPad with a faster multi-core processor, more memory, and a non-mirrored HDMI output for a second screen. Storage will be in Apple's iCloud. By next year, the iPad's processor will be more than fast enough for video editing.
Fairly poor trolling. However, if you can have an semi-effective 4K workflow on a 13" MBA then yes, Pro requirements can be met with consumer grade laptops...if you add on around $10-$15K worth of add-on gear.
Quote:
If you think about it, such an arrangement would be more than enough power for 99% of users. There's no need for Apple to go after that extra 1%. Apple is no longer a small company trying to carve out a niche for survival. Apple is a very large company, selling to the masses, leaving the smaller niche markets for others.
Most Mac Pro buyers are either interested in raw power, or expandability. SSD drives give the appearance of raw power, and Apple clearly isn't interested in expandability (the new high end laptop requires a proprietary screwdriver to open, and the batteries are glued into the case).
This MBP has more expandability than ever available before since it has TWO TB ports. That's huge. Much better than one TB and the Expresscard in the older MBP 17".
Hate it. While TB makes even the MBA a contender for mobile workflows it's too slow to connect the pieces that would compose a Mac Pro.
4 PCIe lanes for 2 channel 10Gbps bi-directional is a lot slower than 16 PCIe lanes in a slot. You want the GPU and CPU in the same chassis on the same backplane. You want any device that uses 8 lanes (like the Red Rocket) in the same chassis on the same backplane. At this point you're looking at a tower again. You might as well stick the boot drive in there too.
I don't see that Microsoft does a "FAR better job" than Apple in servers. OS X Server is actually a very solid, robust, reliable server. And when you look at licensing costs, it's far less expensive than Windows, at least if you're talking about a lot of clients. While Windows server does have some advantages, most of them are simply "this is what users are familiar with" rather than "this is a better way to do it".
Really? OS X server can provide the same level of service as Active Directory? Nice. The mail server does everything that Exchange can do? Cool. At the enterprise level? Right.
Quote:
The real difference is that HP, IBM, etc have invested more heavily in server HARDWARE and Apple doesn't have competitive Enterprise server hardware. At the workstation level (or even the departmental server level), OS X is quite capable.
If the department is small enough perhaps. At best Apple servers are really only SOHO and small business capable.
Ethernet via TB. Optical Drive via USB3. Not so hard.
16GB 204-pin SODIMM DDR 3 for Early 2011 MBP - $159.99 from crucial
16GB upgrade in Retina MBP $200
If you want to max your ram it's not a big cost delta. I wish you could go to 32GB.
The expandability in the new Retina MBP is unparalleled.
The retina screen allows 1080p editing at full res.
Fairly poor trolling. However, if you can have an semi-effective 4K workflow on a 13" MBA then yes, Pro requirements can be met with consumer grade laptops...if you add on around $10-$15K worth of add-on gear.
This MBP has more expandability than ever available before since it has TWO TB ports. That's huge. Much better than one TB and the Expresscard in the older MBP 17".
You seem to agree with Apple that Pros don't need internal expandability, and that the external expandability of the new Mac Book Pro is sufficient.
While the new Mac Book Pro may be more expandable than the old, it is certainly different. if you need ethernet, an optical drive, rotating media, or an Expresscard, then the new is far less convenient than the old. I for one, am glad that everything I need is internal to my 17" Mac Book Pro, and I don't have to carry around lots of extras, and spend a few minutes setting up every time I need to work.
The expandability of the new Mac Book Pro is certainly less than the expandability of the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro can handle multiple high end video cards (each better than the Mac Book Pro's built in video). The internal expansion slots of the Mac Pro have far more bandwidth than two Thunderbolt ports. You and Apple seem to think that Thunderbolt is enough, some disagree.
Remember, Apple's history is not to give people what they want. it is to give people what Apple think's they need. Apple is also very aggressive about shutting off support for old technology in an effort to boost acceptance of new technology.
alright, since Nvidia graphics are back (in the MBP Retina Display), let's say that "insanely great" could include options for Quadro 5000 & 6000 (yes, means a beefier power supply) and how about a 4k Cinema Display (DP v1.2 supports 4k x 2k resolution) with HDMI and TOSlink out (for passing embedded 5.1/7.1 audio)?
Obviously, if we talk about 2013, the Ivy Bridge "tick+" has come and gone and the ensuing tock should be in full swing. PCIe 3.0 mobos are plentiful, RAM that's faster than 1600MHz, etc.
next would come the leapfrog bits: 12Gb/S SAS, SSD caching on the mobo, and rear-removable PSU (js, rackmount form factor is assumed)
AT LEAST one additional x32 slot (the PCIe 3 equivalent of x16) for that expansion chassis, with total bandwidth exceeding 80 lanes, so those 3x Thunderbolt ports can coexist
then comes NIC - 10GbE should have come down, potentially allowing for a pair of NICs (maybe optical implementation is an option…)
then, the piece de resistance: for years, the CPU modules in Mac Pro towers have been modular. Let us start with a 16-core and swap in 2x 12-core procs when they become available! The annual spend would actually increase, serviceability wouldn't be adversely affected - who knows, we might even keep parts on the shelf!
I'm not coming from IT - I'm coming from enabling and supporting creative types, who have, for 25 years and more, kept returning to Apple to pay the premium price, but have felt all but abandoned in a sea of iOS device frenzy. We like the little guys, but come on - that we can make a living making content that's just as likely to show up on Pirate Bay or DRM-less audio sites, as it is to be licensed for an ad or a film, is a testament to our tenacity. Show us some love in the tools we rely on, and "insanely great" will continue to spring from Mac users, not just Mac makers.
Thanks for dropping the dime, Tim! it's a breath of fresh air…
The cpus weren't modular to facilitate upgrades (at least not in the past decade). They were modular because at the top end, those parts were incredibly expensive. You wouldn't want to replace both cpus due to the failure of a logic board component, especially on warranty servicing. You do know that PCI lanes are now dependent on the cpu package right? This means with the dual cpu package model, Apple has more addressable lanes. If it's close they could always oversubscribe much like crossfire on consumer boxes. Last thing is that Ivy Bridge E is still scheduled for 2013. If they drop it, that is a different story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Resolution.
Show me a 24-inch display with 1920x1200 resolution, and then show me a 27-inch display with 1920x1080.
I'll be taking the 24-inch display. The 27-incher in the example above, for desktop work, will have a physically bigger display, but you'll end up seeing *less* of your work. What you *do* see will just look bigger. You won't actually see more. So all that extra real estate you perceive will be useless.
Resolution is everything (until you're getting a little too small physically.) So I'll be taking a 15-inch MBP that has a higher res over a 17-inch MBP that has a lower res. Very happy to sacrifice two physical inches for bigger resolution.
Quite often ui elements do make a difference here. In the case of vector graphics and some other things, being able to display somewhat to scale can be an advantage. Beyond that sometimes it's just helpful to see things big given the little quirks of computer ergonomics. If we had better precision in terms of control, that would be less of an issue, but I can hit a target on paper with better accuracy than one of equivalent size via cursor. Tablets make this a bit easier as you lack the disconnect and mapping quirks of relative position on a display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
What do you mean it is pretty obvious that the petition was a waste of time. Unless you call this "new" Mac Pro the type of machine Mac Pro users where expecting.
I would agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The timeframe of late 2013 makes me think this will be the big overhaul. While Ivy Bridge Xeons would be due at that point, I really don't think it would be wise of Intel to bother with Ivy Bridge Xeons. They have 22nm already so they might as well jump right to the Haswell architecture.
10-core/20-thread single CPU, 8" Cube design, 512GB SSD blade, 3x platter bays, fast GPU only upgradable from Apple using HSA architecture, 6x Thunderbolt ports 20Gbps each, 4x RAM slots (up to 64GB RAM), Thunderbolt daisy-chaining for compute sharing CPUs and GPUs.
No way they'd wait 3 years and build another giant box.
Assuming we're talking about the same socket type and not the low power Xeons or consumer cpus, Haswell isn't much of a guarantee for 2013. Ivy Bridge E speculations have been as late at the second half. I wouldn't say only upgradeable from Apple. If they go that route, you're looking at one directly on the logic board ordered at time of purchase. I disagree with the 8" cube. That just imposes a lot of design limitations if they wish to address Xeons. Now regarding Intel, are you suggesting that dropping Ivy Bridge might actually allow them to push the Haswell version out next year while accounting for any hiccups in implementation. This round stepping issues and messed up SATA pushed it back immensely. Even when the last mac pro update came out in 2010, Sandy Bridge E was scheduled for Q3-Q4. We had a later rumor that stepping problems pushed it back further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Your points are very valid. However the issue with the GPU is more complicated I'm actually expecting the next machines to have the GPU integrated right on the motherboard. It is the only way to move technology and performance foreword. We can only hope that the GU isn't to dated.
By the way form the software development standpoint having a fixed GPU for a specific model is a huge advantage. It means time spent on optimization is less likely to got to waste.
The thing I dislike with this trend is that you end up with increasingly expensive trash logic boards where expensive devices continue becoming more and more disposable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog
This is the Dell Copper, an ARM based server. Maybe Apple is thinking along these lines, but with a big wad of A5s or the like.
Okay, maybe not, but it would be interesting.
There's a difference between a workstation and server.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
Exactly what I see coming as well!
So if you "pros" can't be patient for another 6-7 months, go ahead... build that "killer PC box" for $3-4k... and get ready to trash it when you see the next "Insanely Great™" Pro solution from Apple.... or
Be Patient... it's a virtue
What's the point in the silly chest beating? A rig doesn't become trash because the new thing looks shiny. Further you should consider that if they're using it for work, they probably can't put it into service on day one if some of their applications require bug fixes and testing with the new hardware. It's very simple. Current rig is choking on the workload = can't wait. Current rig is okay but you're concerned that it won't last another software generation = can probably wait. It's really silly that they couldn't take a similar design approach to just get a current hardware generation. Much of the current rig is from 2009, and Intel hiccuped with Sandy Bridge E giving them extra time to make up their minds.
So what. AIX and HPUX are essentially dead due to Linux. Solaris is half dead. And while linux and unix runs web servers and databases the enterprise runs on Exchange, Active Directory, Sharepoint and Win Server.
Yeah, I know and there is the workstation market which the MacPro goes after in terms of mostly FCP, ProTools, etc. Microsoft is still getting hammered by all directions.
The cpus weren't modular to facilitate upgrades (at least not in the past decade). They were modular because at the top end, those parts were incredibly expensive. You wouldn't want to replace both cpus due to the failure of a logic board component, especially on warranty servicing. You do know that PCI lanes are now dependent on the cpu package right? This means with the dual cpu package model, Apple has more addressable lanes. If it's close they could always oversubscribe much like crossfire on consumer boxes. Last thing is that Ivy Bridge E is still scheduled for 2013. If they drop it, that is a different story.
Quite often ui elements do make a difference here. In the case of vector graphics and some other things, being able to display somewhat to scale can be an advantage. Beyond that sometimes it's just helpful to see things big given the little quirks of computer ergonomics. If we had better precision in terms of control, that would be less of an issue, but I can hit a target on paper with better accuracy than one of equivalent size via cursor. Tablets make this a bit easier as you lack the disconnect and mapping quirks of relative position on a display.
I would agree.
Assuming we're talking about the same socket type and not the low power Xeons or consumer cpus, Haswell isn't much of a guarantee for 2013. Ivy Bridge E speculations have been as late at the second half. I wouldn't say only upgradeable from Apple. If they go that route, you're looking at one directly on the logic board ordered at time of purchase. I disagree with the 8" cube. That just imposes a lot of design limitations if they wish to address Xeons. Now regarding Intel, are you suggesting that dropping Ivy Bridge might actually allow them to push the Haswell version out next year while accounting for any hiccups in implementation. This round stepping issues and messed up SATA pushed it back immensely. Even when the last mac pro update came out in 2010, Sandy Bridge E was scheduled for Q3-Q4. We had a later rumor that stepping problems pushed it back further.
The thing I dislike with this trend is that you end up with increasingly expensive trash logic boards where expensive devices continue becoming more and more disposable.
There's a difference between a workstation and server.
What's the point in the silly chest beating? A rig doesn't become trash because the new thing looks shiny. Further you should consider that if they're using it for work, they probably can't put it into service on day one if some of their applications require bug fixes and testing with the new hardware. It's very simple. Current rig is choking on the workload = can't wait. Current rig is okay but you're concerned that it won't last another software generation = can probably wait. It's really silly that they couldn't take a similar design approach to just get a current hardware generation. Much of the current rig is from 2009, and Intel hiccuped with Sandy Bridge E giving them extra time to make up their minds.
Apple still has that XGrid technology and MAYBE they need to exploit it more so by having people wait every couple of years for a new MacPro system (because they have to wait for Intel) maybe they could develop a system to add processing power to help rendering that is much cheaper is what I think he is eluding to. Anyones guess right now.
I think maybe Apple needs to maybe develop XGrid servers that are cheap to add more CPUs to help developers compile, video guys render, etc. Just a thought.
It may not be the Mac Pro as we know it now, but knowing they are going to continue a professional line of desktop machines makes me happy. In 2013 I was actually going to sell my 2010 iMac (Apple Care would've run out by that point) and get a Pro tower. Nice to know I can still do that. Weather its a "typical" tower, so to speak, remains to be seen.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I agree!
How about modular boxes daisy chained together with thunderbolt and/or fiber optics...
Separate boxes with: RAM/CPUs; SSDs; GPUs; HDD RAIDS... mix or match these as needed to address current needs.
Apple already has software to manage this distributed computing system
Exactly what I see coming as well!
So if you "pros" can't be patient for another 6-7 months, go ahead... build that "killer PC box" for $3-4k... and get ready to trash it when you see the next "Insanely Great™" Pro solution from Apple.... or
Be Patient... it's a virtue
Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedude
Mac Pro fans scare me.
can you please explain to me what the current Mac Pro can't do for you? i use a Mac mini and i'm super happy with it.However, i understand many professionals like designers want something more powerful than a mini or Macbook Pro but all this madness why the Mac Pro wasn't updated i don't get.
In 2010, the Mac Pro cost 3x times as much as MBP and was 3x faster. Today, it still costs 3x as much but is only 1.3x faster. You see the problem? In 2010 if you needed expansion, you paid a lot but also got a lot of speed with it. Today, if you need expansion you still pay a lot, but you don't get a lot of extra speed with it. In terms of value for money, expansion capabilities has become much more expensive.
So, what happened to Apple's famous wall of secrecy if even the CEO is now commenting on future models? Such a change isn't good for the mystique and marketing fervour Apple normally generates with a series of rumours; giving it to us straight not only destroys all that, it also gives competitors a view into what they need to do..
So really its a three year wait for a new system. Seems like many will jump ship and rightfully so. Apple(Tim) dropped the ball on this and thats sad. At the very least they should have added USB3 and thunderbolt. Both technologies have been out for over a year and this would at least allowed new buyers to get something they didn't have before. There is absolutely nothing "new" about the update Monday. The lack of mention at WWDC is nothing more than shameful Tim skulking and shirking with silence. How embarrassing! Be a man tim, address the issues and tell your loyal customers what they need to hear. As a mac pro user for over a decade this is the last one I will ever buy. The way Apple has treated its most spendy and professional customers is a disgrace. Wait wait and wait again. Good by Mac Pro!
I see the trolls are out in force...
Actually, it might have an anti-Osborne effect.
Current Mac Pro users might be considering switching to Windows, but if there's something on the horizon, they might decide that it's worth holding on to their existing Mac Pros for another year to see what happens. If there's no future for the Mac Pro, might as well switch today.
I don't see that Microsoft does a "FAR better job" than Apple in servers. OS X Server is actually a very solid, robust, reliable server. And when you look at licensing costs, it's far less expensive than Windows, at least if you're talking about a lot of clients. While Windows server does have some advantages, most of them are simply "this is what users are familiar with" rather than "this is a better way to do it".
The real difference is that HP, IBM, etc have invested more heavily in server HARDWARE and Apple doesn't have competitive Enterprise server hardware. At the workstation level (or even the departmental server level), OS X is quite capable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Or not. After all Apple is a business and they run on a Fiscal Calendar so 2013 for them starts Oct 1, 2012. And he didn't say "a year from now" so they could have this new Mac Pro ready in Oct for all we know.
He said 2013. Late 2013. That's not October 1, 2012.
The updated mac pro will come out right after the G5 powerbook and a new Cube.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Some day someone stating that Apple is DOOMED will be correct.
That day isn't today.
But he's right...Apple doesn't care about servers anymore. Microsoft does a FAR better job than Apple can. As Tim states, they prefer to concentrate on areas where they can do better than the industry leader. So I would expect, based on what Tim stated at D10, that they're going to make sure that OSX is the best enterprises CLIENT and not that OSX is the best enterprise server.
So that blog post was whine whine whine, blah blah blah, Apple is teh Doomed for the umpteenth time.
If you consistently concentrate on areas where you can do better than industry leaders, slowly you will find yourself doing less and less over time, until your business model becomes unsustainable (it can't support the R&D needed to be good at anything).
Apple is already far behind their former self, where I could buy hardware/software/update from them and be sure it will work. These days that is no longer true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Actually, it might have an anti-Osborne effect.
Current Mac Pro users might be considering switching to Windows, but if there's something on the horizon, they might decide that it's worth holding on to their existing Mac Pros for another year to see what happens.
I think you're giving those people too much credit. For people who are willing to wait months to make sure their purchases are of the right hardware, hardware that they'll use daily for years upon years, every single one of them sure seems incredibly fickle and willing to jump ship because the gas station across the street is handing out free balloons and hot dogs.
But your thought is certainly interesting. You give them more credit than I do, and hopefully you're right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Miller
I'm not sure why (most) everyone here is assuming that the "something really great" Cook is hinting at will look anything like an existing Mac Pro. If all they wanted to do was to build a newer Mac Pro, there's no reason for that to take a year and a half to put together. Meanwhile, the market for Mac Pros is clearly declining (I have one and love it, by the way -- no hating here!) and, if I were Cook, I'd be looking for a way to provide lots of computing cycles to my high-end customers, but in a way that might also pay off for other customers in other ways.
Perhaps give a Mac Mini a bigger processor, an SSD drive, and a Thunderbolt interface, and then let people hook together as many as they need? Two for my home server, ten for my video rendering box at work. Maybe open up Apple's cloud service so that I can offload compute-intensive jobs in a way that seems transparent/invisible? There are lots of ways to give people lots of computing cycles other than to stick a bunch of stuff in a big box under their desk.
"Think different", remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I agree!
How about modular boxes daisy chained together with thunderbolt and/or fiber optics...
Separate boxes with: RAM/CPUs; SSDs; GPUs; HDD RAIDS... mix or match these as needed to address current needs.
Apple already has software to manage this distributed computing system
Like it.
I have no experience with true rack systems, but they could probably come up with something that would fit one of those, or just a simple home stack, one atop the other. I've often tinkered with this idea since buying a LaCie hard drive system a couple of years ago they had a simple rack, and after seeing all the form-fitting accessories for the Mac mini.
This way, they would cover a large number of customers' needs: home, small office, big company.
A few years ago didn't some university link 1000 MacPros together into a super computer?
My current set-up is a main iMac with another iMac off to the side for use when outputting videos; I split the jobs between the two. I use Remote Desktop to operate the second iMac and have no need for a display on it and would be very happy if it could actually fit on a bookshelf. I tried this with a Mac mini but it took ages to output anything and got super hot so I went with the iMac.
The new iMac is 27" with SSD. It replaced a MacPro with a 23" display that was seven years old and fading. A slight step down, but cost, screen size and the SSD have made it a fantastic purchase. Replacing the MacPro with a new MacPro and display would have been more expensive and it didn't have Thunderbolt. Since I upgraded my external drives to TB, I finally tossed my last FW drive and cable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This new forum system can't quote properly at all.
What i was going to respond to is what the Mac Pro replacement will look like. I think you are a bit negative here in describing it as a Mac Mini as I'm really hoping for more. Note I said hoping, I've lost confidence that Apple has really good plans for the desktop.
I do expect a dramatic change in size for the pro replacement. If they put half as much effort into it that they put into the retina Laptop it could be one hell of a machine. That is if they keep an eye on the ball and truly design a machine for professional usage. There is a real and justified fear that they don't grasp professional needs anymore. Of course most professionals can't see beyond their own needs so this is no surprise. What they do need to do is to make sure they end up with a machine that appeals to a wide array of users.
Apple is clearly going after the consumer market.
Their brand new "high end" laptop lacks an Ethernet port, lacks and optical drive, and it lacks expandability (even the RAM is soldered on). Of course, it does score well on the important metrics: it's light weight, looks great, and has a gorgeous screen.
A lot of people are assuming that Apple has to come out with a product for the high end professional. I see nothing to back this up. If Apple never sold another High end machine again, it wouldn't have a noticeable affect on profits.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mac pro replacement was an iPad with a faster multi-core processor, more memory, and a non-mirrored HDMI output for a second screen. Storage will be in Apple's iCloud. By next year, the iPad's processor will be more than fast enough for video editing.
If you think about it, such an arrangement would be more than enough power for 99% of users. There's no need for Apple to go after that extra 1%. Apple is no longer a small company trying to carve out a niche for survival. Apple is a very large company, selling to the masses, leaving the smaller niche markets for others.
Most Mac Pro buyers are either interested in raw power, or expandability. SSD drives give the appearance of raw power, and Apple clearly isn't interested in expandability (the new high end laptop requires a proprietary screwdriver to open, and the batteries are glued into the case).
Here is a thought and maybe someone with real experience can validate it. Apple has XGrid technology and I seem to remember some people actually deploying it to get better rendering times with things like Final Cut Pro, so while people might be waiting for these new MacPro systems, they might want to investigate deploying XGrid technology by adding more systems to the network to assist in rendering times so that there is a solution instead of always having to wait for a new processor refresh. Just a thought.
Anyone successfully doing this that can share information as to the validity of this technology?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfryd
Apple is clearly going after the consumer market.
Their brand new "high end" laptop lacks an Ethernet port, lacks and optical drive, and it lacks expandability (even the RAM is soldered on). Of course, it does score well on the important metrics: it's light weight, looks great, and has a gorgeous screen.
Ethernet via TB. Optical Drive via USB3. Not so hard.
16GB 204-pin SODIMM DDR 3 for Early 2011 MBP - $159.99 from crucial
16GB upgrade in Retina MBP $200
If you want to max your ram it's not a big cost delta. I wish you could go to 32GB.
The expandability in the new Retina MBP is unparalleled.
The retina screen allows 1080p editing at full res.
Quote:
A lot of people are assuming that Apple has to come out with a product for the high end professional. I see nothing to back this up. If Apple never sold another High end machine again, it wouldn't have a noticeable affect on profits.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mac pro replacement was an iPad with a faster multi-core processor, more memory, and a non-mirrored HDMI output for a second screen. Storage will be in Apple's iCloud. By next year, the iPad's processor will be more than fast enough for video editing.
Fairly poor trolling. However, if you can have an semi-effective 4K workflow on a 13" MBA then yes, Pro requirements can be met with consumer grade laptops...if you add on around $10-$15K worth of add-on gear.
Quote:
If you think about it, such an arrangement would be more than enough power for 99% of users. There's no need for Apple to go after that extra 1%. Apple is no longer a small company trying to carve out a niche for survival. Apple is a very large company, selling to the masses, leaving the smaller niche markets for others.
Most Mac Pro buyers are either interested in raw power, or expandability. SSD drives give the appearance of raw power, and Apple clearly isn't interested in expandability (the new high end laptop requires a proprietary screwdriver to open, and the batteries are glued into the case).
This MBP has more expandability than ever available before since it has TWO TB ports. That's huge. Much better than one TB and the Expresscard in the older MBP 17".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
Like it.
Hate it. While TB makes even the MBA a contender for mobile workflows it's too slow to connect the pieces that would compose a Mac Pro.
4 PCIe lanes for 2 channel 10Gbps bi-directional is a lot slower than 16 PCIe lanes in a slot. You want the GPU and CPU in the same chassis on the same backplane. You want any device that uses 8 lanes (like the Red Rocket) in the same chassis on the same backplane. At this point you're looking at a tower again. You might as well stick the boot drive in there too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I don't see that Microsoft does a "FAR better job" than Apple in servers. OS X Server is actually a very solid, robust, reliable server. And when you look at licensing costs, it's far less expensive than Windows, at least if you're talking about a lot of clients. While Windows server does have some advantages, most of them are simply "this is what users are familiar with" rather than "this is a better way to do it".
Really? OS X server can provide the same level of service as Active Directory? Nice. The mail server does everything that Exchange can do? Cool. At the enterprise level? Right.
Quote:
The real difference is that HP, IBM, etc have invested more heavily in server HARDWARE and Apple doesn't have competitive Enterprise server hardware. At the workstation level (or even the departmental server level), OS X is quite capable.
If the department is small enough perhaps. At best Apple servers are really only SOHO and small business capable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Ethernet via TB. Optical Drive via USB3. Not so hard.
16GB 204-pin SODIMM DDR 3 for Early 2011 MBP - $159.99 from crucial
16GB upgrade in Retina MBP $200
If you want to max your ram it's not a big cost delta. I wish you could go to 32GB.
The expandability in the new Retina MBP is unparalleled.
The retina screen allows 1080p editing at full res.
Fairly poor trolling. However, if you can have an semi-effective 4K workflow on a 13" MBA then yes, Pro requirements can be met with consumer grade laptops...if you add on around $10-$15K worth of add-on gear.
This MBP has more expandability than ever available before since it has TWO TB ports. That's huge. Much better than one TB and the Expresscard in the older MBP 17".
You seem to agree with Apple that Pros don't need internal expandability, and that the external expandability of the new Mac Book Pro is sufficient.
While the new Mac Book Pro may be more expandable than the old, it is certainly different. if you need ethernet, an optical drive, rotating media, or an Expresscard, then the new is far less convenient than the old. I for one, am glad that everything I need is internal to my 17" Mac Book Pro, and I don't have to carry around lots of extras, and spend a few minutes setting up every time I need to work.
The expandability of the new Mac Book Pro is certainly less than the expandability of the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro can handle multiple high end video cards (each better than the Mac Book Pro's built in video). The internal expansion slots of the Mac Pro have far more bandwidth than two Thunderbolt ports. You and Apple seem to think that Thunderbolt is enough, some disagree.
Remember, Apple's history is not to give people what they want. it is to give people what Apple think's they need. Apple is also very aggressive about shutting off support for old technology in an effort to boost acceptance of new technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidmaven
alright, since Nvidia graphics are back (in the MBP Retina Display), let's say that "insanely great" could include options for Quadro 5000 & 6000 (yes, means a beefier power supply) and how about a 4k Cinema Display (DP v1.2 supports 4k x 2k resolution) with HDMI and TOSlink out (for passing embedded 5.1/7.1 audio)?
Obviously, if we talk about 2013, the Ivy Bridge "tick+" has come and gone and the ensuing tock should be in full swing. PCIe 3.0 mobos are plentiful, RAM that's faster than 1600MHz, etc.
next would come the leapfrog bits: 12Gb/S SAS, SSD caching on the mobo, and rear-removable PSU (js, rackmount form factor is assumed)
AT LEAST one additional x32 slot (the PCIe 3 equivalent of x16) for that expansion chassis, with total bandwidth exceeding 80 lanes, so those 3x Thunderbolt ports can coexist
then comes NIC - 10GbE should have come down, potentially allowing for a pair of NICs (maybe optical implementation is an option…)
then, the piece de resistance: for years, the CPU modules in Mac Pro towers have been modular. Let us start with a 16-core and swap in 2x 12-core procs when they become available! The annual spend would actually increase, serviceability wouldn't be adversely affected - who knows, we might even keep parts on the shelf!
I'm not coming from IT - I'm coming from enabling and supporting creative types, who have, for 25 years and more, kept returning to Apple to pay the premium price, but have felt all but abandoned in a sea of iOS device frenzy. We like the little guys, but come on - that we can make a living making content that's just as likely to show up on Pirate Bay or DRM-less audio sites, as it is to be licensed for an ad or a film, is a testament to our tenacity. Show us some love in the tools we rely on, and "insanely great" will continue to spring from Mac users, not just Mac makers.
Thanks for dropping the dime, Tim! it's a breath of fresh air…
The cpus weren't modular to facilitate upgrades (at least not in the past decade). They were modular because at the top end, those parts were incredibly expensive. You wouldn't want to replace both cpus due to the failure of a logic board component, especially on warranty servicing. You do know that PCI lanes are now dependent on the cpu package right? This means with the dual cpu package model, Apple has more addressable lanes. If it's close they could always oversubscribe much like crossfire on consumer boxes. Last thing is that Ivy Bridge E is still scheduled for 2013. If they drop it, that is a different story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Resolution.
Show me a 24-inch display with 1920x1200 resolution, and then show me a 27-inch display with 1920x1080.
I'll be taking the 24-inch display. The 27-incher in the example above, for desktop work, will have a physically bigger display, but you'll end up seeing *less* of your work. What you *do* see will just look bigger. You won't actually see more. So all that extra real estate you perceive will be useless.
Resolution is everything (until you're getting a little too small physically.) So I'll be taking a 15-inch MBP that has a higher res over a 17-inch MBP that has a lower res. Very happy to sacrifice two physical inches for bigger resolution.
Quite often ui elements do make a difference here. In the case of vector graphics and some other things, being able to display somewhat to scale can be an advantage. Beyond that sometimes it's just helpful to see things big given the little quirks of computer ergonomics. If we had better precision in terms of control, that would be less of an issue, but I can hit a target on paper with better accuracy than one of equivalent size via cursor. Tablets make this a bit easier as you lack the disconnect and mapping quirks of relative position on a display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
What do you mean it is pretty obvious that the petition was a waste of time. Unless you call this "new" Mac Pro the type of machine Mac Pro users where expecting.
I would agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The timeframe of late 2013 makes me think this will be the big overhaul. While Ivy Bridge Xeons would be due at that point, I really don't think it would be wise of Intel to bother with Ivy Bridge Xeons. They have 22nm already so they might as well jump right to the Haswell architecture.
10-core/20-thread single CPU, 8" Cube design, 512GB SSD blade, 3x platter bays, fast GPU only upgradable from Apple using HSA architecture, 6x Thunderbolt ports 20Gbps each, 4x RAM slots (up to 64GB RAM), Thunderbolt daisy-chaining for compute sharing CPUs and GPUs.
No way they'd wait 3 years and build another giant box.
Assuming we're talking about the same socket type and not the low power Xeons or consumer cpus, Haswell isn't much of a guarantee for 2013. Ivy Bridge E speculations have been as late at the second half. I wouldn't say only upgradeable from Apple. If they go that route, you're looking at one directly on the logic board ordered at time of purchase. I disagree with the 8" cube. That just imposes a lot of design limitations if they wish to address Xeons. Now regarding Intel, are you suggesting that dropping Ivy Bridge might actually allow them to push the Haswell version out next year while accounting for any hiccups in implementation. This round stepping issues and messed up SATA pushed it back immensely. Even when the last mac pro update came out in 2010, Sandy Bridge E was scheduled for Q3-Q4. We had a later rumor that stepping problems pushed it back further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Your points are very valid. However the issue with the GPU is more complicated I'm actually expecting the next machines to have the GPU integrated right on the motherboard. It is the only way to move technology and performance foreword. We can only hope that the GU isn't to dated.
By the way form the software development standpoint having a fixed GPU for a specific model is a huge advantage. It means time spent on optimization is less likely to got to waste.
The thing I dislike with this trend is that you end up with increasingly expensive trash logic boards where expensive devices continue becoming more and more disposable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog
This is the Dell Copper, an ARM based server. Maybe Apple is thinking along these lines, but with a big wad of A5s or the like.
Okay, maybe not, but it would be interesting.
There's a difference between a workstation and server.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc
Exactly what I see coming as well!
So if you "pros" can't be patient for another 6-7 months, go ahead... build that "killer PC box" for $3-4k... and get ready to trash it when you see the next "Insanely Great™" Pro solution from Apple.... or
Be Patient... it's a virtue
What's the point in the silly chest beating? A rig doesn't become trash because the new thing looks shiny. Further you should consider that if they're using it for work, they probably can't put it into service on day one if some of their applications require bug fixes and testing with the new hardware. It's very simple. Current rig is choking on the workload = can't wait. Current rig is okay but you're concerned that it won't last another software generation = can probably wait. It's really silly that they couldn't take a similar design approach to just get a current hardware generation. Much of the current rig is from 2009, and Intel hiccuped with Sandy Bridge E giving them extra time to make up their minds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
So what. AIX and HPUX are essentially dead due to Linux. Solaris is half dead. And while linux and unix runs web servers and databases the enterprise runs on Exchange, Active Directory, Sharepoint and Win Server.
Yeah, I know and there is the workstation market which the MacPro goes after in terms of mostly FCP, ProTools, etc. Microsoft is still getting hammered by all directions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
The cpus weren't modular to facilitate upgrades (at least not in the past decade). They were modular because at the top end, those parts were incredibly expensive. You wouldn't want to replace both cpus due to the failure of a logic board component, especially on warranty servicing. You do know that PCI lanes are now dependent on the cpu package right? This means with the dual cpu package model, Apple has more addressable lanes. If it's close they could always oversubscribe much like crossfire on consumer boxes. Last thing is that Ivy Bridge E is still scheduled for 2013. If they drop it, that is a different story.
Quite often ui elements do make a difference here. In the case of vector graphics and some other things, being able to display somewhat to scale can be an advantage. Beyond that sometimes it's just helpful to see things big given the little quirks of computer ergonomics. If we had better precision in terms of control, that would be less of an issue, but I can hit a target on paper with better accuracy than one of equivalent size via cursor. Tablets make this a bit easier as you lack the disconnect and mapping quirks of relative position on a display.
I would agree.
Assuming we're talking about the same socket type and not the low power Xeons or consumer cpus, Haswell isn't much of a guarantee for 2013. Ivy Bridge E speculations have been as late at the second half. I wouldn't say only upgradeable from Apple. If they go that route, you're looking at one directly on the logic board ordered at time of purchase. I disagree with the 8" cube. That just imposes a lot of design limitations if they wish to address Xeons. Now regarding Intel, are you suggesting that dropping Ivy Bridge might actually allow them to push the Haswell version out next year while accounting for any hiccups in implementation. This round stepping issues and messed up SATA pushed it back immensely. Even when the last mac pro update came out in 2010, Sandy Bridge E was scheduled for Q3-Q4. We had a later rumor that stepping problems pushed it back further.
The thing I dislike with this trend is that you end up with increasingly expensive trash logic boards where expensive devices continue becoming more and more disposable.
There's a difference between a workstation and server.
What's the point in the silly chest beating? A rig doesn't become trash because the new thing looks shiny. Further you should consider that if they're using it for work, they probably can't put it into service on day one if some of their applications require bug fixes and testing with the new hardware. It's very simple. Current rig is choking on the workload = can't wait. Current rig is okay but you're concerned that it won't last another software generation = can probably wait. It's really silly that they couldn't take a similar design approach to just get a current hardware generation. Much of the current rig is from 2009, and Intel hiccuped with Sandy Bridge E giving them extra time to make up their minds.
Apple still has that XGrid technology and MAYBE they need to exploit it more so by having people wait every couple of years for a new MacPro system (because they have to wait for Intel) maybe they could develop a system to add processing power to help rendering that is much cheaper is what I think he is eluding to. Anyones guess right now.
I think maybe Apple needs to maybe develop XGrid servers that are cheap to add more CPUs to help developers compile, video guys render, etc. Just a thought.
Oh thank christ!
It may not be the Mac Pro as we know it now, but knowing they are going to continue a professional line of desktop machines makes me happy. In 2013 I was actually going to sell my 2010 iMac (Apple Care would've run out by that point) and get a Pro tower. Nice to know I can still do that. Weather its a "typical" tower, so to speak, remains to be seen.