Apple should make a Mac Pro mini. Quiet and cheaper.
Who says this isn't cheap? Who says this isn't quiet? Why would there be a "Pro mini" when the iMac exists? Why would there be another mini anything when the Mac Mini exists?
Clueless troll 2010,2011,2012 - Where is the new Mac Pro? The Mac Pro is getting kind of stale! Apple needs to update the design! Has Apple discontinued and abandoned the Mac Pro line?
Clueless troll 2013 - WTF! Where is the old Mac Pro?! I don't see any SCSI connection and where is the CD slot? There is just too much innovation going on here for my feeble mind to comprehend.
It's a cool concept! With the proliferation of NAS this solution makes sense. Up to 36 arrays is crazy! The amount of storage is up to you. You can start with internal storage, and add as many Thunderbolt NAS storage arrays ad you need. Keep data on arrays, upgrade to new machine when needed, keep the arrays. The cost is likely to be very high though, with Xeons, PCI-E ssd's and workstation graphics.
The business case would be a workstation class machine, with reduced tech support needed. The IT savings would easily pay for machines, at least thats my take.
For anyone that doesn't need workstation graphics, this is not likely for them. Disappointment will come to people that wanted the Mac Pro to have a good refresh (MB and CPU's) and up to date video cards that were all user upgradable. For the PC user that wants to move to OS X I'd suggest Mac mini's with NAS if you don't need heavy duty graphics, or the 27" iMac and be prepared to change machines when you need a new computer. They do have an advantage of having good resale values, or good hand me downs without getting bugged all the time with having to provide so much tech support.
I am going to go out on a limb and suggest professionals looking for a workstation don't have "marvel of packaging" high on their list of wanted features. The design of this machine was not done to meet the needs of professionals. It was done for Apple's need to minimize upgradeability to keep people buying new machines every few years.
Don't get me wrong, I think the design is cool and I think they will probably sell a lot of them. Lets face it, there are a lot of professional Apple users that will buy whatever Apple throws at them and learn to deal with any limitations it may have. From a business standpoint, I think it is an amazing design. But from a professional user standpoint, it is horrible.
I am rather curious how long Apple can keep this kind of thing going and how long Apple users will keep accepting it? Maybe indefinitely I suppose. Time will tell.
-kpluck
I agree.
Interesting design. I probably won't buy one though. I was really looking forward to a new Mac Pro, just this isn't what I wanted. Personally I like the large case of the current design. With this new model, I can see a bunch of non-matching external chassis for hard disks, capture cards, optical media burners, etc, scattered around the desk connected by cables, all of which used to be neatly contained inside the tower.
Pros:
Faster
Cons:
Not expandable, ugly external accessories required
I was hoping for a hybrid server / pro workstation with dual power supplies, multiple fans for redundant protection, more ram slots, rack-able, card slots, Firewire, optical disks and internal HD capability. I don't like the inlet vent on the bottom either. Too easy for it to be obstructed by cables, papers, etc.
Oh, and BTW the HTML5 animations on the Apple site promoting the Mac Pro are a perfect example of why HTML5 cannot come close to replacing Flash at least not for quality animation. All kinds of glitches, timing issues and jerky non-buffered animation. If that is the best they can do, it says a lot about the lack of capabilities of the HTML5 platform.
I'm looking forward to the reviews of this bad-boy when the machine starts shipping. I hope the professional community embraces this system. I think Apple must have done some kind of research into this area before heading off on such a radical redesign.
7 teraflops in a cylinder 6" dia x 9" tall. I need to check but I believe this puts it in the supercomputer top 500 list as a single device. It wasn't that long ago it would have led all supercomputers. Of course the old IT gang will say it can't fit into an industry standard 19" rack. Who cares, build a new rack. If I had the skills necessary to design one I would but for those who do, here's my idea. Tilt each MP 15-30 degrees and stack them into the old spice jar rack offsetting each column half a unit to allow more MPs. To get good air flow, you could arrange them around a central core for cabling. Once we hear how much heat these generate, design a large airflow up-draft base to provide cool air. The MP's fan will draw this air across the its central core providing proper cooling. There's no reason we need to have all these computers in an antiquated row of 1U servers.
We will have to wait to hear if Mavericks supports CPU sharing across Thunderbolt 2. I don't believe TB-1 does. If it does, then one rack of 36 MPs could conceivably run at 1/4 petaflop. That's cooking!
Anyone remember the Cube? Hopefully they don't saddle this with a ridiculous price like they did to the cube (RIP). Price for design is not what pros want: they want power. If they premium charge this because of their aesthetic design they are going to see poor sales-through indeed.
The problem with the Cube was Apple had an entry level Power Mac and mid level iMac that cost less than the Cube.
I think everyone in here understands that (or they do now).
But I guess the bigger question that I was raising was simply, "what's the point?"
I have never heard a professional say the Mac Pro was too large. What is great about a small cylinder shape that it outweights the annoyance of having a gazillion external drives and cables?
Maybe if this thing was a true revolution in performance I might be more inclined to say, "yeah, it's worth it." But it's going to use standard, off the shelf Haswell processors that can be found on any other workstation computer. It was like the designers said "hehe, yeah, a small cylinder looks really cool!!" And then when someone from engineering said, "but most professional users don't really care about the shape of the machine," the designers just said, "well let them add external drives!!!"
Again, it's probably going to be a great machine. It's much easier to see the utility when Apple reduces the size of Macbooks, ipads, etc. I just don't see what the huge advantage is of making this thing so tiny that it lacks built-in features that many pros need and rely on.
A) I think part of what the goal here is to push developers to stop relying on tiny PCI cards. They SHOULD be a dying format. We should have fast breakout boxes with seperate cooling and processing (which can also be turned off when not needed). Spending boku bucks on cards that hide inside your computer is an old idea - one we should be working to dismiss.
The design is similar to many super computers, with a large central cooling vent.
But Apple still has an entry level Mac Mini and a mid-level iMac that will cost less than the new Pro.
Neither of those are the Mac Pro. Neither of those compete with this new Mac Pro. If Apple keeps selling the three year old Mac Pro alongside the new one (they won't), that would be a similar situation. They're not going to repeat their mistake.
The problem with the Cube was Apple had an entry level Power Mac and mid level iMac that cost less than the Cube.
That is true. The Cube was a cool machine for it's time, and still looks great I think, but it was priced about $200 higher than a Power Mac, which had many more options and features.
The possibilities of this versatile deign are limitless. I'm building a coordinated circular grate to mount on top for keeping my coffee hot, frying pancakes and boiling noodles. Also in development is an ergonomic side-mounted handle so I can use it to dry my hair and remove paint from complex woodwork.
Who says this isn't cheap? Who says this isn't quiet? Why would there be a "Pro mini" when the iMac exists? Why would there be another mini anything when the Mac Mini exists?
BTW, it is an anti-ecological waste to discard a perfectly working display of the iMac just because the un-upgradable CPU is too old (yet the display is as new). And the Mac mini is not powerful enough. And the Mac Pro could be smaller as Mac Pro mini, between the Mac Pro and the Mac mini. That is!
Comments
Originally Posted by AppeX
Apple should make a Mac Pro mini. Quiet and cheaper.
Who says this isn't cheap? Who says this isn't quiet? Why would there be a "Pro mini" when the iMac exists? Why would there be another mini anything when the Mac Mini exists?
It's a horrible replacement for the Mac Pro tower. Real Pros will hate it.
Clueless troll 2010,2011,2012 - Where is the new Mac Pro? The Mac Pro is getting kind of stale! Apple needs to update the design! Has Apple discontinued and abandoned the Mac Pro line?
Clueless troll 2013 - WTF! Where is the old Mac Pro?! I don't see any SCSI connection and where is the CD slot? There is just too much innovation going on here for my feeble mind to comprehend.
The business case would be a workstation class machine, with reduced tech support needed. The IT savings would easily pay for machines, at least thats my take.
For anyone that doesn't need workstation graphics, this is not likely for them. Disappointment will come to people that wanted the Mac Pro to have a good refresh (MB and CPU's) and up to date video cards that were all user upgradable. For the PC user that wants to move to OS X I'd suggest Mac mini's with NAS if you don't need heavy duty graphics, or the 27" iMac and be prepared to change machines when you need a new computer. They do have an advantage of having good resale values, or good hand me downs without getting bugged all the time with having to provide so much tech support.
You don't know how happy I am to be proved wrong by better informed minds!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck
I am going to go out on a limb and suggest professionals looking for a workstation don't have "marvel of packaging" high on their list of wanted features. The design of this machine was not done to meet the needs of professionals. It was done for Apple's need to minimize upgradeability to keep people buying new machines every few years.
Don't get me wrong, I think the design is cool and I think they will probably sell a lot of them. Lets face it, there are a lot of professional Apple users that will buy whatever Apple throws at them and learn to deal with any limitations it may have. From a business standpoint, I think it is an amazing design. But from a professional user standpoint, it is horrible.
I am rather curious how long Apple can keep this kind of thing going and how long Apple users will keep accepting it? Maybe indefinitely I suppose. Time will tell.
-kpluck
I agree.
Interesting design. I probably won't buy one though. I was really looking forward to a new Mac Pro, just this isn't what I wanted. Personally I like the large case of the current design. With this new model, I can see a bunch of non-matching external chassis for hard disks, capture cards, optical media burners, etc, scattered around the desk connected by cables, all of which used to be neatly contained inside the tower.
Pros:
Faster
Cons:
Not expandable, ugly external accessories required
I was hoping for a hybrid server / pro workstation with dual power supplies, multiple fans for redundant protection, more ram slots, rack-able, card slots, Firewire, optical disks and internal HD capability. I don't like the inlet vent on the bottom either. Too easy for it to be obstructed by cables, papers, etc.
Oh, and BTW the HTML5 animations on the Apple site promoting the Mac Pro are a perfect example of why HTML5 cannot come close to replacing Flash at least not for quality animation. All kinds of glitches, timing issues and jerky non-buffered animation. If that is the best they can do, it says a lot about the lack of capabilities of the HTML5 platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
I'm looking forward to the reviews of this bad-boy when the machine starts shipping. I hope the professional community embraces this system. I think Apple must have done some kind of research into this area before heading off on such a radical redesign.
Check out this over at Blackmagic Designs:
http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=8898
7 teraflops in a cylinder 6" dia x 9" tall. I need to check but I believe this puts it in the supercomputer top 500 list as a single device. It wasn't that long ago it would have led all supercomputers. Of course the old IT gang will say it can't fit into an industry standard 19" rack. Who cares, build a new rack. If I had the skills necessary to design one I would but for those who do, here's my idea. Tilt each MP 15-30 degrees and stack them into the old spice jar rack offsetting each column half a unit to allow more MPs. To get good air flow, you could arrange them around a central core for cabling. Once we hear how much heat these generate, design a large airflow up-draft base to provide cool air. The MP's fan will draw this air across the its central core providing proper cooling. There's no reason we need to have all these computers in an antiquated row of 1U servers.
We will have to wait to hear if Mavericks supports CPU sharing across Thunderbolt 2. I don't believe TB-1 does. If it does, then one rack of 36 MPs could conceivably run at 1/4 petaflop. That's cooking!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
It's a horrible replacement for the Mac Pro tower. Real Pros will hate it.
That's odd.
See my post two above.
Originally Posted by bsenka
It's a horrible replacement for the Mac Pro tower. Real Pros will hate it.
That just proves how worthy it is of the Mac Pro name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzz_ball
Anyone remember the Cube? Hopefully they don't saddle this with a ridiculous price like they did to the cube (RIP). Price for design is not what pros want: they want power. If they premium charge this because of their aesthetic design they are going to see poor sales-through indeed.
The problem with the Cube was Apple had an entry level Power Mac and mid level iMac that cost less than the Cube.
If ASUS can make a dual LGA 2011 board, why can't Apple?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131817
And this is why you'd want a dual socket motherboard...
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Intel-Xeon-Ivy-Bridge-EP-Server,21972.html
I think we'd all prefer 24 cores over 12....
Quote:
Originally Posted by SchnellFowVay
I think everyone in here understands that (or they do now).
But I guess the bigger question that I was raising was simply, "what's the point?"
I have never heard a professional say the Mac Pro was too large. What is great about a small cylinder shape that it outweights the annoyance of having a gazillion external drives and cables?
Maybe if this thing was a true revolution in performance I might be more inclined to say, "yeah, it's worth it." But it's going to use standard, off the shelf Haswell processors that can be found on any other workstation computer. It was like the designers said "hehe, yeah, a small cylinder looks really cool!!" And then when someone from engineering said, "but most professional users don't really care about the shape of the machine," the designers just said, "well let them add external drives!!!"
Again, it's probably going to be a great machine. It's much easier to see the utility when Apple reduces the size of Macbooks, ipads, etc. I just don't see what the huge advantage is of making this thing so tiny that it lacks built-in features that many pros need and rely on.
A) I think part of what the goal here is to push developers to stop relying on tiny PCI cards. They SHOULD be a dying format. We should have fast breakout boxes with seperate cooling and processing (which can also be turned off when not needed). Spending boku bucks on cards that hide inside your computer is an old idea - one we should be working to dismiss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
The problem with the Cube was Apple had an entry level Power Mac and mid level iMac that cost less than the Cube.
But Apple still has an entry level Mac Mini and a mid-level iMac that will cost less than the new Pro.
Originally Posted by Frank777
But Apple still has an entry level Mac Mini and a mid-level iMac that will cost less than the new Pro.
Neither of those are the Mac Pro. Neither of those compete with this new Mac Pro. If Apple keeps selling the three year old Mac Pro alongside the new one (they won't), that would be a similar situation. They're not going to repeat their mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
The problem with the Cube was Apple had an entry level Power Mac and mid level iMac that cost less than the Cube.
That is true. The Cube was a cool machine for it's time, and still looks great I think, but it was priced about $200 higher than a Power Mac, which had many more options and features.
You must have a thing for waste baskets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Who says this isn't cheap? Who says this isn't quiet? Why would there be a "Pro mini" when the iMac exists? Why would there be another mini anything when the Mac Mini exists?
You do not get it. Hint:
The time is (finally) right for a Mac minitower
http://www.macworld.com/article/2029740/the-time-is-finally-right-for-a-mac-minitower.html
BTW, it is an anti-ecological waste to discard a perfectly working display of the iMac just because the un-upgradable CPU is too old (yet the display is as new). And the Mac mini is not powerful enough. And the Mac Pro could be smaller as Mac Pro mini, between the Mac Pro and the Mac mini. That is!