What's left for the Macintosh in a Post-PC iOS World?

1568101113

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 255
    z3r0z3r0 Posts: 230member
    crysisftw wrote: »
    First of all, that's not base configuration. That's all 'up to' specification. Anyways, before posting such irrelevant comparison, you should probably realize that OS X alone is worth about $2000. Plus, the way OS X handles hardware and software renders all those 1,360 cores with 4 trillion GB RAM useless. And ask yourself, are you really willing to pay $6000 for a computer that has malware in the counts of millions, hangs and lags all the time, restarts unexpectedly, and uses the same old core system structure (extremely buggy) as an OS that came out 15 years ago? I know I don't.

    I know that's not base, but the fact that you can configure it to those specs is great! OS X is better then Windows that's a given. I'm talking about hardware performance and expandability. For example with the new Mac Pro it looks like you are stuck with AMD/ATI Firepros meaning if you are using any software that requires NVIDIA CUDA (like the majority of pro 3D, video, and compositing software) you are screwed. At least with the current Mac Pro you can add an NVIDIA Quadro K5000 and you get the full PCIX speed (thunderbolt chassis looses 20-30% throughput).

    Pro Mac users who rely on the Mac Pro did NOT want a different case. All apple had to do was add new processors (24 physical cores, I've seen 64), better video card options (Quad SLI/Crossfire/Tesla), make SSD drives standard internally and add thunderbolt 2 PCI expansion card options for those who need it (not that many devices out there BTW) and dual redundant power supplies with lights out management for those who need servers (xserve is missed)

    If Apple really did want to change the case the should have just gone bigger with more expansion slots, not smaller and definitely not a can!
    crysisftw wrote: »
    On the second topic, you cannot generalize your perception. If you don't like the new Mac Pro, it doesn't mean that it's a "spaghetti monster". I love the old Mac Pro very much - it is beastly and gorgeous at the same time.

    Wait for it.... Spaghetti Monster!

    700

    crysisftw wrote: »
    But once you get your head around the concept of the new design, you can appreciate it. It was desinged 'to accomodate hardware around a single unified thermal core'. So, it doesn't make much noise, remains cool, and reduces the overall volume. This makes it much more mature than ever before. Besides, the new design is also typically Apple - absolutely thoughtful and beautiful.

    It's a can! The rest is marketing BS! The "thermal core" is a none factor. HP can cool 24 cores without one just fine. The thermal core makes it impractical to add internal expansion like the Z820 or the previous Mac Pro.. If Apple wanted better cooling they would have gone with the Sandia cooler http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWQZNXEKkaU

    Jony is just obsessed with G4 cube which was a major failure. It didn't take off just like the new Mac Pro won't. There is a total disconnect between what Pro's need and want to what Apple thinks they need and want.
  • Reply 142 of 255
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jacodb View Post



    Microsoft's main income is from office. To really go after Microsoft Apple should release a Windows version of iWork. Many Windows users already use iWork on the iPad and would love the same suite of apps on Windows.

    What's to be achieved by going after Microsoft and Office?  There's increasingly little to be gained precisely because it's based on Windows which is a generally declining market.  Beside, Google's already going after Office.  If you're going after a market held by a competitor, go after an expanding market... not contracting.

  • Reply 143 of 255
    Please. This is AppleInsider....I'd much rather read a story about a fuzzy photo of some part of the iPhone 6 from some factory in China.
  • Reply 144 of 255
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    Everyone knows why: it starts with i and ends with pad, 

     

    Anyone who has ever tried to do serious work on an iPad is back to a Mac in no time. My real work is all done on a MacBook Pro and the iPad is used for reading and checking in on emails on the go. But millions of very casual users abandon PCs and Macs for tablets and that obviously hurts Mac/PC sales. 

  • Reply 145 of 255
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post



    Gwmac, I am going to go all out and say that the base price of the MacPro $1500.

     

    Unlikely, unless they make a single graphics card model with an i7 processor, which is pretty much what a lot of people have been wanting for years.

     

    From looking at the prices on newegg, I see no reason the base model should cost any more than the current $2500 price point.  The entry level models of the firepro card are very affordable, and the low end Xeons are not that much more than the i7.  

  • Reply 146 of 255
    Originally Posted by z3r0 View Post

    Pro Mac users who rely on the Mac Pro did NOT want a different case.

     

    Then why’d we hear them screaming for a different case? 

     

    It may not have needed one, but then again we really didn’t “need” internal combustion engines, did we.

     

    …dual redundant power supplies…


     

    It’s not a server. It’s a workstation.

     

    If Apple really did want to change the case the should have just gone bigger with more expansion slots, not smaller and definitely not a can!


     

    That’s funny. So you think you can tell Apple what it wanted to do? So you think you can tell Apple that what it did do, based on what it wanted to do, was “wrong”? Great way to start a day, that. Thanks.

     


    It's a can! The rest is marketing BS! 


     

    Or maybe you’re just not that smart.

     

    The "thermal core" is a none factor. HP can cool 24 cores without one just fine.


     

    REALLY. HUH. I didn’t know that HP made a case of the same volume as the new Mac Pro that is capable of cooling said cores without being of the Mac Pro’s design. Could you link us to said case, as it’s probably more revolutionary than the Mac Pro’s, even; thanks, you’re a peach, doll.

     

    If Apple wanted better cooling they would have gone with the Sandia cooler 


     

    Yes, I’m sure that the most successful company in the history of computing doesn’t know better than you when they make their own cooling solution from scratch instead of buying of the shelf.

     
    Jony is just obsessed with G4 cube which was a major failure.



    Funny. I see a cylinder, not a cube. I also see something that wasn’t a failure due on any part to its hardware or software. 

     

    Steve liked cubes. Jony’s impassive thereabout.

     

    It didn't take off just like the new Mac Pro won't.


     

    Thanks for telling Apple that you know the future.

     

    There is a total disconnect between what Pro's need and want to what Apple thinks they need and want.


     

    Magical. Couldn’t you have led with this? Then I could have just quoted it, alone, ignoring the rest of your post, and giving you this link? Because that’s exactly what they said here, and it was physically impossible for them to be more wrong.

  • Reply 147 of 255
    His username fits his IQ ¡
  • Reply 148 of 255
    z3r0z3r0 Posts: 230member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

     

     

     

    It may not have needed one, but then again we really didn’t “need” internal combustion engines, did we.

     

    It’s not a server. It’s a workstation.

     

    That’s funny. So you think you can tell Apple what it wanted to do? So you think you can tell Apple that what it did do, based on what it wanted to do, was “wrong”? Great way to start a day, that. Thanks.

     

    Or maybe you’re just not that smart.

     

    REALLY. HUH. I didn’t know that HP made a case of the same volume as the new Mac Pro that is capable of cooling said cores without being of the Mac Pro’s design. Could you link us to said case, as it’s probably more revolutionary than the Mac Pro’s, even; thanks, you’re a peach, doll.

     

    Yes, I’m sure that the most successful company in the history of computing doesn’t know better than you when they make their own cooling solution from scratch instead of buying of the shelf.



    Funny. I see a cylinder, not a cube. I also see something that wasn’t a failure due on any part to its hardware or software. 

     

    Steve liked cubes. Jony’s impassive thereabout.

     

    Thanks for telling Apple that you know the future.

     

    Magical. Couldn’t you have led with this? Then I could have just quoted it, alone, ignoring the rest of your post, and giving you this link? Because that’s exactly what they said here, and it was physically impossible for them to be more wrong.


     

    Wow talk about blind. Everything Apple does is golden. What a joke... 

     

    Apple products are great but that doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. The new version of the Mac Pro is a mistake plain and simple. Yes its a cylinder, but its basically a design iteration of the G4 cube if you can't see that then you really aren't as bright as you think you are.

     

    The new Mac Pro doesn't fit the mold of a workstation its too small. If it were the size of a workstation it wouldn't need the "thermal core". Pro's didn't ask for a smaller case. Bigger yes with a lot more cores. Obviously you can't squeeze 24+ cores into a can of that size, nor should you and thats the point. Wrong form factor for a workstation. There are other form factors and more effective methods to cool CPUs that don't require the added cost of a "thermal core".

     

    As far as buying the Sandia cooler off the shelf, its not on the shelf yet (watch the video). Apple can and should license it, just like it licenses liquid metal, ARM, etc... Apple doesn't have to invent everything.

     

    Regarding FCPX, if it was such a bright idea/success then Apple wouldn't have needed to prep a campaign to win back video editors: http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/03/28/apple-prepping-final-cut-pro-x-campaign-to-win-back-video-editors

     

    I'll tell you what the new Mac Pro is aside from a Can of Spaghettis.

     

     

     

     

    Its a consumer product, not a Pro product now.

     

    The writing is on the wall for Pro users on the Mac. Apple just doesn't care nor want to listen to its most passionate customers in the pro sector.

     

    P.S. Pro's currently use and want to continue to use Mac servers. So dual redundant power and lights out management should not be out of the question. Having both would allow the Mac Pro to be used as proper server being that the xserve is not an option, and it would increase sales. Apple also used to sell Mac Pro's pre-installed with OS X server so its not just a workstation.

     

    I also don't claim to see the future, but I can tell you where the puck's been with the G4 cube. Which is enough to tell you where the new can of spaghetti is headed.

  • Reply 149 of 255
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:


    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    If that is your concern you have a terrible attitude. Think abOut it how many professional audio systems from the 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 2000's are still in use. More so how much has the technology of interconnecting those apparatus changed over the years. To shy away from the new Mac Pro as a professional audio workstation is just foolish, your PCI Express hardware would need to

    Some of those markets update hardware very slowly due to interdependence and sometimes the need to wait for smaller vendors to catch up. I wouldn't say they're all shortsighted if they don't purchase new machines right away. What I find a little silly is the can description. I don't care about the aesthetics of a tool. To comment on such things only because they dislike other aspects is simply disingenuous.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by poke View Post





    The ergonomic issue is true of vertical screens but is obvious nonsense when it comes to horizontal screens. Working on a horizontal surface is how we worked for hundreds of years before the advent of computers. If it was a very large surface you'd need to be able to rest your hands on it and move your work area around, it would also likely be at a comfortable angle rather than completely horizontal, but those issues are easily solved. There's nothing to stop you having two or more displays regardless: one horizontal touch display and one or more vertical displays. A keyboard is already a horizontal touch surface and one of the least ergonomic devices - the one commonly responsible for repetitive strain problems - is actually the mouse! All those small, repetitive movements can cause serious damage to the hand. The other problem is solved by better UI design.

    I wouldn't just go by what people did in the past. Some of wacom's tablets are designed to be used in an angled manner, much like a drafting table. Notebooks are some of the worst offenders, as you have to deal with something front facing that is typically positioned below an ergonomic viewing position and above an ergonomic typing position. I really hate that. If phones were powerful enough there would be some potential for slim clients driven by your phone.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by z3r0 View Post

     

    Look at the Mac Pro's competition:

     

    HP z820

    http://www8.hp.com/us/en/campaigns/workstations/z820.html

     

    24 cores

    512 GB RAM

    15 TB internal HDD

    Thunderbolt

    Dual NVIDIA Quadro K6000 or Dual FirePro cards.

     

    Not even a contest hardware wise and its not a spaghetti monster on your desk!

     

    Love to get an old Mac Pro case and build one with these specs.


    It has always been possible to outspec a mac pro with one of the other PC oem offerings. Anyone who required a similar alignment of specs wouldn't have purchased the older mac pro design, just as they won't purchase the new one. OEMs like configurations like the one you listed as the margins are insane, yet the number of customers who buy those is tiny. Generally machines configured like that are configured for very specific use, and the actual configuration involves more than just selecting the most expensive option on each line. If you do that, good luck getting a purchase order approved.

  • Reply 150 of 255
    Originally Posted by z3r0 View Post

    Wow talk about blind. Everything Apple does is golden. What a joke... 




    If you’d like to quote me where I said that, feel free. I never did. Since I didn’t, don’t put words in my mouth.

     

    The new version of the Mac Pro is a mistake plain and simple.


     

    Which you know, having seen one, held one, used one, owned one, implemented one in a professional setting…

     

    Oh, right, you’ve done none of those things.

     

    The new Mac Pro doesn't fit the mold of a workstation its too small.



     

    Seems like it would fit the mold even better and with room to spare. Six of them fit where one old Mac Pro does.

     
    If it were the size of a workstation it wouldn't need the "thermal core".

     

    Yeah, I’m sure. Uh huh. Are you listening to yourself? 

     

    Pro's didn't ask for a smaller case.


     

    [Insert Henry Ford quote that every intelligent person already knows here]

     

    There are other form factors and more effective methods to cool CPUs that don't require the added cost of a "thermal core".


     

    Which you know, because you’ve… … What, exactly?

     

    Apple can and should license it, just like it licenses liquid metal, ARM, etc... Apple doesn't have to invent everything.


     

    1. Apple owns LiquidMetal.

    2. Didn’t you imagine that the point of the reply was to intimate to you that Apple HAD to build something new here?

     

    But then again, you were the lead hardware designer on the Mac Pro project, so you probably know better than… oh, wait, you don’t know at all, do you? I get those confused sometimes.

     

    Regarding FCPX, if it was such a bright idea/success then Apple wouldn't have needed to prep a campaign to win back video editors:


     

    Nice logic. When you have some actual logic, feel free to post it.

     

    Its a consumer product, not a Pro product now.



     

    Please go away. You’ve successfully presented your lack of knowledge and should stop wasting everyone’s time now.

     

    P.S. Pro's currently use and want to continue to use Mac servers. 


     

    I said nothing to the negative of that. 

     

     So dual redundant power and lights out management should not be out of the question.


     

    They should. Because it’s a workstation. Not a server. If they want to bring a new Xserve to market, I’m all for that. People didn’t buy them, though.

     

    I also don't claim to see the future, but I can tell you where the puck's been with the G4 cube.


     

    Thanks, once again, for proving you don’t have the first clue–much less the last–about what you’re saying.

  • Reply 151 of 255
    The article was written in TextEdit

    Use UTF-8 text encoding, not the default.
  • Reply 152 of 255
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,827member
    z3r0 wrote: »
    I know that's not base, but the fact that you can configure it to those specs is great!
    For whom? How many real people would put such a configuration on their desktop?
    OS X is better then Windows that's a given. I'm talking about hardware performance and expandability.
    Expandability is important, but the Mac Pro both wins and looses with respect to that quality. You really can't knock it that much though because the markets the Pro sells into don't care a whole hell of a lot about expandability.
    For example with the new Mac Pro it looks like you are stuck with AMD/ATI Firepros meaning if you are using any software that requires NVIDIA CUDA (like the majority of pro 3D, video, and compositing software) you are screwed. At least with the current Mac Pro you can add an NVIDIA Quadro K5000 and you get the full PCIX speed (thunderbolt chassis looses 20-30% throughput).
    First of nobody in their right mind is going to hook up a GPU card via TB. It isn't even a valid argument. Second AMD has been doing much better with OpenCL than NVidia. Buying software reliant upon sole source software like CUDA is just stupid.

    Pro Mac users who rely on the Mac Pro did NOT want a different case.
    Well you didn't obviously! However anybody familiar with technology would have realized where the industry is going. The new Mac Pr reflects that and the technologically literate acknowledge that.
    All apple had to do was add new processors (24 physical cores, I've seen 64), better video card options (Quad SLI/Crossfire/Tesla), make SSD drives standard internally and add thunderbolt 2 PCI expansion card options for those who need it (not that many devices out there BTW) and dual redundant power supplies with lights out management for those who need servers (xserve is missed)
    If you want to argue that Apple should build a server then I'm with you! Sometimes you need a product that isn't mass production to fill real niches.
    If Apple really did want to change the case the should have just gone bigger with more expansion slots, not smaller and definitely not a can!
    Wait for it.... Spaghetti Monster!
    That would result in a machine with even less sales than the current model.

    As for your derisive labeling of the new Pro as a spaghetti monster you leave out all of those break out boxes required to support reasonable amounts of I/O. Further you don't seem to realize that there is value in putting the conversion hardware near the source materials.

    It's a can! The rest is marketing BS! The "thermal core" is a none factor.
    On the contrary it is a big factor as it puts a lot of performance into a small volume. That is huge.
    HP can cool 24 cores without one just fine.
    You can say that but have you really looked into what is required to keep a server room cool?
    The thermal core makes it impractical to add internal expansion like the Z820 or the previous Mac Pro.. If Apple wanted better cooling they would have gone with the Sandia cooler
    Apple wanted a better design overall, better cooling helped them get there. You can nitpick all you want but the reality is; they are innovating in a stale industry here.

    Jony is just obsessed with G4 cube which was a major failure. It didn't take off just like the new Mac Pro won't. There is a total disconnect between what Pro's need and want to what Apple thinks they need and want.

    Consider this, you as a so called Pro are a very tiny minority in the overall pool of Pros. I'd be willing to say right now that the Mac Pro will be a huge hit if (this is a big if) Apple prices it right. Frankly I suspect that the while point of the design is to allow Apple to be a bit aggressive in pricing.

    By the way the G4 cube failed for one simple reason, it was priced grossly out of range compared to what the hardware was capable of. Frankly that was a similar problem with the old Mac Pro, which wasn't competitive at all unless you where buying a high end machine. You seem to think the old Mac Pro was a huge winner for Apple but yet everything indicates that it was in rapid decline with few serious nibbles. Frankly the old Mac Pro is a T-Rex of a machine that users, real pros in this case, lost interest in.
  • Reply 153 of 255
    z3r0z3r0 Posts: 230member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     



    If you’d like to quote me where I said that, feel free. I never did. Since I didn’t, don’t put words in my mouth.

     

    Ok, what don't you like about the new Mac Pro? Being that you are so unbiased.

     

    Which you know, having seen one, held one, used one, owned one, implemented one in a professional setting…

    Oh, right, you’ve done none of those things.

     

    NDA

     

     

    Seems like it would fit the mold even better and with room to spare. Six of them fit where one old Mac Pro does.

     

    Sure, buy six you can play telephone.

     

    Yeah, I’m sure. Uh huh. Are you listening to yourself? 

     

    The HP Z820 is a workstation form factor. It can hold 24 cores without a "thermal core"

     

    [Insert Henry Ford quote that every intelligent person already knows here]

     

    Keep driving FORDs and you'll be Found On Road Dead

     

    Which you know, because you’ve… … What, exactly?



    1. Apple owns LiquidMetal.

     

    They don't. They are a subsidiary

     

    Nice logic. When you have some actual logic, feel free to post it.

     

    So you are saying that Apple loosing market share in the video sector was not a result of FCPX's lack of Pro features out the gate?

     

    Please go away. You’ve successfully presented your lack of knowledge and should stop wasting everyone’s time now.

     

    Just because its labeled Pro doesn't mean its really Pro.

     

    Thanks, once again, for proving you don’t have the first clue–much less the last–about what you’re saying.

     

    Keep making assumptions and tooting your own horn. It won't get you far.

  • Reply 154 of 255
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,827member
    conrail wrote: »
    Unlikely, unless they make a single graphics card model with an i7 processor, which is pretty much what a lot of people have been wanting for years.
    It boggles the mind that Apple can't grasp the need here. While not exactly what I had in mind as an XMac it certainly would come close enough to effectively be what one wants out of a desktop.
    From looking at the prices on newegg, I see no reason the base model should cost any more than the current $2500 price point.  The entry level models of the firepro card are very affordable, and the low end Xeons are not that much more than the i7.  
    I could see the base model being sold at a very aggressive price. Mainly because the dedicated cards aren't being marketed as Pro expansion card options for a standard bus interface. In otherwords the non standard PCI - Express form factor means that the cards don't compete with AMDs higher priced Pro cards. This should give Apple the ability to price them very competitively possibly in line with similar consumer chips.

    Everybody keeps thinking that the Mac Pro will be oh so expensive but I see a lot of potential for the base model to beat the old price and maybe even beat $2000. They can do that and keep Apple margins too.
  • Reply 155 of 255
    Something ought to be canned alright!
  • Reply 156 of 255
    Originally Posted by z3r0 View Post

    Ok, what don't you like about the new Mac Pro? Being that you are so unbiased.


     

    Answer my question first, please. You don’t get to ask another until then.

     

     NDA


     

    Never Done Anything; yes, we know you have no experience in this regard.

     

     Sure, buy six you can play telephone.


     

    When you feel like making sense again, feel free.

     

     The HP Z820 is a workstation form factor. It can hold 24 cores without a "thermal core"


     

    Great. So maybe answer the question I asked you.

     

     Keep driving FORDs and you'll be Found ORoad Dead


     

    Your entire argument is logical fallacies. Why are you afraid to answer the questions we are asking you? It’s really embarrassing.

  • Reply 157 of 255
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by z3r0 View Post




    Jony is just obsessed with G4 cube which was a major failure. It didn't take off just like the new Mac Pro won't. There is a total disconnect between what Pro's need and want to what Apple thinks they need and want.

     

    A commercial failure maybe. But a technical wonder and one of the best Macs ever. Easily the most upgradeable since the Color Classic.

  • Reply 158 of 255
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,827member
    z3r0 wrote: »
    Wow talk about blind. Everything Apple does is golden. What a joke... 
    Nobody has said that, what is being pointed out is that either you don't know what you are talking about or you are an idiot. Those are the only two explanations I can come up with for your postings.
    Apple products are great but that doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. The new version of the Mac Pro is a mistake plain and simple. Yes its a cylinder, but its basically a design iteration of the G4 cube if you can't see that then you really aren't as bright as you think you are.
    Right off the bat you spit out bull crap, the new Pro has exactly nothing in common with the G4 Cube. To offer up this comment just shows a complete lack of depth when it comes to technology. In other words you don't know what you are talking about.
    The new Mac Pro doesn't fit the mold of a workstation its too small.
    Size has nothing to do with it. The Mac Pro has to deliver the performance its target audience demands, it does that very well.
    If it were the size of a workstation it wouldn't need the "thermal core". Pro's didn't ask for a smaller case. Bigger yes with a lot more cores.
    Actually I've heard just the opposite.
    Obviously you can't squeeze 24+ cores into a can of that size, nor should you and thats the point.
    Actually the machine has a lot more than 24 cores if you count everything sitting on the GPU cards. In any event your whining here is garbage, to get more i86 cores all you really need is a process shrink. Maybe you aren't aware of what a process shrink is, if so read a little before posting.
    Wrong form factor for a workstation. There are other form factors and more effective methods to cool CPUs that don't require the added cost of a "thermal core".
    The thermal core should lower Apples cost significantly. They have to buy one heat sink for three hot devices and only one fan. If it works as intended it should give Apple a significant marketing / cost advantage. The thermal core is a significant advantage for Apple.
    As far as buying the Sandia cooler off the shelf, its not on the shelf yet (watch the video). Apple can and should license it, just like it licenses liquid metal, ARM, etc... Apple doesn't have to invent everything.
    Who cares?
    Regarding FCPX, if it was such a bright idea/success then Apple wouldn't have needed to prep a campaign to win back video editors: 
    Many of those editors have come to realize that FCPX wasn't the mess it was made out to be by the collective knee jerk reaction. A knee jerk reaction that you are apparently going through right now.

    I'll tell you what the new Mac Pro is aside from a Can of Spaghettis.
    Cute but it adds nothing to your stream of idiotic comments.


    Its a consumer product, not a Pro product now.
    For you maybe, for real pros I can see it selling like hotcakes.
    The writing is on the wall for Pro users on the Mac. Apple just doesn't care nor want to listen to its most passionate customers in the pro sector.
    If they didn't care they wouldn't be putting all the engineering effort in to pull off something like this new Mac Pro. Think about it a bit, this machine is all new mechanically and electrically.

    As to being passionate, that is a valuable quality but when coupled with ignorance it can lead people down fruitless paths.
    P.S. Pro's currently use and want to continue to use Mac servers. So dual redundant power and lights out management should not be out of the question. Having both would allow the Mac Pro to be used as proper server being that the xserve is not an option, and it would increase sales. Apple also used to sell Mac Pro's pre-installed with OS X server so its not just a workstation.
    Like I said before Apple needs a better server product. Even the old Pro came up short in that regard. Honestly though I'd rather see them solve this problem with a sound disk array solution that can plug into a network or a TB port. In other words one box that can be direct attached to network attached.
    I also don't claim to see the future, but I can tell you where the puck's been with the G4 cube. Which is enough to tell you where the new can of spaghetti is headed.
    Actually you obviously can't see the future, however you can keep yourself informed with respect to technology. Right now you are grossly ill informed. Your comparison to the Cube highlights this starkly as the two have absolutely nothing in common. Further the allusions to a can of Spaghetti is asinine, in some applications you would actually end up with far fewer cables coming out of the box and in the majority of cases you might have one extra. Spend a few minutes thinking about this and you will realize just how ridiculous you are being here.
  • Reply 159 of 255
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,223moderator
    murman wrote: »
    MBA is not as powerful as the iMac, neither are MBPs that are in the same price bracket as the iMacs. You trade size and computing power for portability basically, it just depends on personal needs. I think a desktop line is important for Apple to maintain, as an option, as an entry point, as a part of a person's computing toolset, for OSX being a healthy platform. If the iMacs aren't growing, then the Mac Pro is growing even less, but why is there new Mac Pro refresh then?

    These models are still needed today because there is still sufficient demand, it is just weakening. The Mac Pro has changed to adapt to this. The new design isn't a sign of any major revival, otherwise they wouldn't have moved the manufacturing to the US. It's been discontinued in Europe for over 6 months now and it's not that big of a deal. The new design unifies it with the rest of the lineup so that its only distinguishing feature is more power. As time goes on, CPU/GPUs will become another 5-10x faster, there will be more moves into heterogenous computing, SSD will become as inexpensive as HDD today and more and more people will migrate to the more affordable machines.

    Like I say, if desktop share levels out and maintains that, they can keep making them for as long as they like. If customers stop buying in significant enough numbers like with the XServe and 17" MBP, they drop them. Apple is a business and it won't sell things that people don't buy in large enough quantities.
    mstone wrote:
    Extended use of an non-ergonomic computer screen / keyboard position is very unhealthy. Programming is one of those disciplines that requires prolonged concentration. With your neck bent downward for that length of time is not good.

    You don't have to use a laptop like a laptop. You can connect it to a large external display with a separate keyboard and mouse like the people who work at Apple do:

    1000

    They have laptop stands next to 27" displays and connect their keyboard and mouse. When they need to go to a meeting or work in a group, they can just unhook it and take it with them.
    mstone wrote:
    I'm not buying this notion that in the future all computing will be done with fingers touching the screen. So far I don't think anyone has come up with a better input technique than keyboard and mouse, and possibly a stylus such as Wacom.

    Interaction can still use touch and fingers without touching the screen directly. The good thing with physical objects is 1:1 mapping but there should be a way to make a more flexible input method. I'd quite like a small touch strip that showed a set of keys on the display and as you moved your fingers, it would show which key you were about to press and a tap would confirm. That would reduce mistakes and keep your eyes focused where they need to be.
    z3r0 wrote:
    if you are using any software that requires NVIDIA CUDA (like the majority of pro 3D, video, and compositing software) you are screwed. At least with the current Mac Pro you can add an NVIDIA Quadro K5000 and you get the full PCIX speed (thunderbolt chassis looses 20-30% throughput).

    NVidia cards have been shown to work just fine over Thunderbolt. The chassis that have been tested are Thunderbolt 1. Enough software supports OpenCL that missing out on CUDA isn't the end of the world. Developers need to stop using CUDA and move to OpenCL so that the code runs on the CPU too.
    z3r0 wrote:
    The "thermal core" is a none factor. HP can cool 24 cores without one just fine.

    HP doesn't list the 12-core CPUs in the order page yet but these configurations are very expensive (the CPUs in the dual 12-core will likely be ~$7k for the CPUs alone) so they don't affect that many people. HP's workstation revenue in 2012 was $2b. That's equivalent to 210,000 $10k machines or 420,000 $5k machines or about 1 million $2k machines. That's for the entire year for the biggest workstation vendor in the world. Not only this, their average selling price was listed somewhere as ~$1600 so the volume of sales just isn't in the $5k+ price point. For the audience buying up to that price, Apple is using the same components as anyone else so will stay competitive. People who need a $10k-20k machine for CPU processing can buy multiple machines.

    The number of people who rely on hardware IO over PCIe is very small and all the popular peripherals have been tested and work just fine over Thunderbolt.
  • Reply 160 of 255
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post





    NVidia cards have been shown to work just fine over Thunderbolt. The chassis that have been tested are Thunderbolt 1. Enough software supports OpenCL that missing out on CUDA isn't the end of the world. Developers need to stop using CUDA and move to OpenCL so that the code runs on the CPU too.

    That may not be as likely as you think. NVidia has held the majority of the professional graphics market for many years. Part of it is that developers often implement NVidia's research projects rather than their own. As long as that is the case, do not look forward to things that run well on AMD hardware.

Sign In or Register to comment.