The base model on the store right now has 6GB RAM, a 1TB HDD and a single Radeon 5770. They are adding a second GPU and an SSD. They are removing some things too, which will lower some build costs and they will probably cut down on shipping charges. If they can pull off 512GB + 16GB, that would be great but people might then wonder why not offer a 256GB model with 8GB RAM for a lower price.
Valid point, but I also think of the following:
That spec is for the 'current' MP, which is 'a bit outdated'. The iMacs might be a better comparison, not only because it's also a desktop but it's more current. Those start off with 8GB RAM + 256GB SSD (if not choosing a HDD). I guess people will compare the new MP to that config, seeing how much the iMac costs compared to a MP + screen. Which will be difficult once people do not choose an Apple screen, but that's another discussion.
As to people wondering why there wouldn't be a possible 256/8 option I think Apple will want this MP to be considered a beast from the get go. The current MP was also considered a lame config many years before with their base config. Many articles pointed out that 'it really doesn't cost 2-2.5k but...such and such because 'one needs to upgrade the base model anyway'
I would say 256GB is cramped but it's not an issue if it's to be supplemented with bulk storage anyway. If you put video on a external drive like a 4TB and higher USB3, ethernet or Thunderbolt drive then very little will be going on the internal.
I agree that it would make a 'sellable' machine if the base model is 256/8. One thing though: using external drives for larger projects: wouldn't that negate the whole SSD config thing? I'm using SSD PCIe for OSX, Apps & ~. All video's currently are on HDD, but I'm not doing much video right now anyway. All my photos are on SSD and it shows (don't even need Apertures' previews as everything is fast anyway). Will spend vast amount of time in FCPX once the winter starts and I post less on AI...
I hope so, I'm just wondering what it's performance will be like and if it will be worth it over the iMac,
It would be very easy to exceed iMacs performance by using a six core Haswell desktop chip or simply using a 4 core at a high clock rate. The question becomes price. Chips faster than the iMacs are possible in 4 core variants at reasonable prices, the six core chips are however very expensive.
I still think Apple could hit the $1500 mark with a base line machine that outperforms the iMac. This would be a machine using desktop chips with possibly Iris graphics. They might not call it a Mac Pro though. Apple apparently likes to equate the Pros with XEON engines.
Frankly if Apple doesn't have a plan for a Mac Pro baseline machine that comes in at well,under $2000 they are nuts and out of touch with their users. The number one issue with the Mac Pro has always been performance for the dollar especially in the entry level machine.
I do love the look and screen of the iMac, not sure if i am getting a little greedy on spec, but i'd like to see a good performance gain.
Nothing wrong with wanting performance. Right now it looks like it would be easy for Apple to offer an entry level model that is a very good performer at a decent price. That is if they wanted too.
I wouldn't like to see a crippled Mac Pro just to get the price lower when you would be better off with an iMac instead.
Err you would never be better off with an iMac. At least not if the current design trend continues.
Regarding a 256GB SSD: the whole point of fast SSD storage is speed. Why handicap the machine with having to off load data when you're working.I'd want enough room on the SSD for system, applications, data, a scratch disk, a working file large enough to accommodate photo projects I'm currently working on plus music. Photo projects that I'm not currently working with can go in bulk storage. In my mind, 768GB should be the minimum although I could get by with 512GB I suppose.
I'm hoping for a robust machine that meets my expectations priced around the current entry amount for the existing Mac Pro. A lesser price would be nice as long as the computer isn't compromised in performance. Those people who want an under $2000 machine probably should look long and hard at an iMac. Just my $.02.
Regarding a 256GB SSD: the whole point of fast SSD storage is speed. Why handicap the machine with having to off load data when you're working.I'd want enough room on the SSD for system, applications, data, a scratch disk, a working file large enough to accommodate photo projects I'm currently working on plus music.
It depends on how much data people have. The entry 15" Macbook Pro isn't handicapped if you only need 256GB. You still benefit hugely from the fast performance. OS and apps will typically be under 50GB. You could then have 100GB for active projects, 50GB for consumption data (iTunes, holiday photos etc) and 50GB free for working with. It's cramped these days but would still be usable. People who can't fit everything they want on that would just pay $300 extra.
768GB should be the minimum although I could get by with 512GB I suppose.
Apple has to buy components from suppliers and then they add a markup. Their pricing is limited by the supplier prices. Their SSD prices seem a bit high - they are still quite far above $1/GB when you look at the upgrade prices. Retail SSDs are now below $0.60/GB:
Those SSDs are sold directly by the manufacturers and the memory parts would sell at lower wholesale prices to Apple but probably not much lower than those prices. It also depends on which NAND is used:
TLC is getting prices down to $0.60/GB wholesale (from OCZ and possibly cheaper elsewhere). Apple is still using MLC NAND, which is better quality but more expensive. The Samsung 830 used MLC and was more expensive:
The wholesale prices for the parts would be something like the following:
E5-2609v2 4-core ($294) or E5-1620v2 ($294)
8GB RAM (4x 2GB) $100 ( http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/85MP3E2M08GK/ )
256GB SSD = $230 @ $0.90/GB MLC
Dual W5000 - $200-500 for both together (depends on how good a deal they got from AMD)
Enclosure, PSU, motherboard, wifi, bluetooth etc probably around $300
Minimum build cost is $1124, add 40% margins and it can be $1899. I highly doubt they got entry FirePros for $100 each though. I reckon it'll be $200 each, which takes the price up to $2199. This was the original price of the entry Mac Pro.
A further 8GB RAM should be $170 retail (I say 'should be' but it's not, as Apple charges $300 for this just now) and 256GB $380, taking it to $2749.
If Apple's Mac Pro RAM was cheaper, they could do 16GB for $2499 but I don't see how they can do 512GB SSD at that price and like I say, they don't charge $170 for 8GB, they charge $300. Given that 3rd party RAM is so cheap, if they are nice about the bundled RAM prices and hit $2199 with 8GB and 256GB, you'd be able to buy a 512GB SSD for a further $300 at $2499 and then because it has replaceable RAM, you'd be able to get 16GB from OWC for $150.
Compared to the old model, that wouldn't be too bad. $2649 for 512GB 1.25GB/s SSD, 16GB RAM, quad-core, 2GB dual FirePros (which is somewhere between a single 7870 and 7970 or the 2013 equivalents).
I feel that a 256GB SSD would be an insult in a supposedly "professional" machine.
It may be a bit on the small size but that doesn't make it any less of a professional machine. Your image of a professional machine isn't the same as the guy next to you, the guy next to you may have dreams of speeding up a disk intensive task, compiling large programs or engineering a fine machine. Non of these require huge local storage. Further in many professional settings assists don't get stored on a local machine.
Personally I'd like to see a larger "drive" but I know I can get buy nicely on one that size.
I still cringe when I think of the last radical Mac desktop, the Mac Pro G5. It was the worst Mac I've owned dating back to the SE. I hope they've done a better job this time.
I'm very optimistic. That doesn't mean we will see a completely trouble free machine or Mavericks debut. However the new Mac Pro confirms what I was promoting sometime ago in that the next Mac Pro would be far smaller. The idea of a the never crossed my mind though.
However I don't like the idea expressed that the Mac Pro is radical, it is a natural evolution and reflects what happens when you squeeze a tremendous amount of transistors on to a chip. These chips are incredibly powerful right now but the future looks pretty bright for at least a couple of more nodes shrinkage. This effectively means transistor counts could double in the 2014-2015 time. That is a lot of power to put into a tube.
Question, how well do the TB to FireWire adapters that Apple has on its website work?
Haven't tried one but there have been mixed reports. I'd suggest searching for first hand info.
It might be a 2013 equivalent of the W5000 but the 8970 would probably still be higher raw performance. The FirePro is designed for certain workloads though, even if a lot of it is on the software level:
Note though that the software split personality that is seen in the Windows world doesn't really apply to the Mac world. We get one set of driver for a given bit if hardware. I doubt we will ever see game optimized drivers come to the Mac lineup or example, instead drivers will be built to optimize performance across a range of uses while keeping an eye on stability.
[VIDEO]
People don't expect to flash firmwares or switch drivers in an expensive machine they rely on for work.
Yet people do it insisting that they are "pros". I find this one of these things that I have mixed feelings with as I mess with that stuff on Linux often. I bought a MBP to get away from that on my primary machine. The idea of just working and trouble free updates put a Mac in my house well that and a little iPhone lust.
Macs are meant to work as intended out of the box for every user. You're still talking about dual W5000 (or 2013 equivalent) so the performance will be high. There's a habit of pointing at what Apple's using and suggesting there's a much better value alternative but this will probably happen until the end of time. They are a premium manufacturer and charge more for what you get spec-wise, this isn't news.
Yet it is really hard to find a competitive machine to compete against the MBA.
Raw spec is not why Apple customers keep buying and hasn't been for the past 30 years.
The base model on the store right now has 6GB RAM, a 1TB HDD and a single Radeon 5770. They are adding a second GPU and an SSD. They are removing some things too, which will lower some build costs and they will probably cut down on shipping charges. If they can pull off 512GB + 16GB, that would be great but people might then wonder why not offer a 256GB model with 8GB RAM for a lower price.
Their first priority should be an entry level model at a decent price point. How they will go about that is unknown but I don't think the Mac Pro has a chance in hell if the only options are high end configurations few buy. I see this refactored Mac Pro offering some pretty huge savings over the old models. Even the power supply should be far moe streamed line as high power demands are processor related with zero high current mechanical drives.
A 256GB SSD would be an ok amount for photographers and designers. 8GB RAM would be ok for video editing. 8GB + 256GB is the base spec of the 15" Macbook Pro.
That base spec for the Mac Book Pro is probably why the Mac Pros minimal configuration will be a bit more. In any event people seem to forget real fast that the SSDs in this machine are real fast PCI-Express based units. The pay off for many users will be huge and likely a surprise to many coming from machines with mechanical drives.
The one with 16GB + 512GB is $2799. There's a CPU bump on the higher model too but that's $100. The extra 8GB and 256GB SSD adds $500 to the retail price. If they are happy with the margins on a $2499 machine with 512GB + 16GB, they'd be able to offer a 256GB + 8GB for $1999. Either way, I think 256GB + 8GB will be the base spec.
This will depend some upon what is the base processor in the machine. In any event if the processor supports four channels of memory then that is only 2GB sticks which are dirt cheap.
I would say 256GB is cramped but it's not an issue if it's to be supplemented with bulk storage anyway. If you put video on a external drive like a 4TB and higher USB3, ethernet or Thunderbolt drive then very little will be going on the internal.
I've struggled in the past to free up space on my MBP drive so cramped it is. Saying that I understand both sides of the equation, in a laptop I especially want as much storage as possible internal. In a desktop it is a different ball of wax.
That spec is for the 'current' MP, which is 'a bit outdated'. The iMacs might be a better comparison, not only because it's also a desktop but it's more current. Those start off with 8GB RAM + 256GB SSD (if not choosing a HDD). I guess people will compare the new MP to that config, seeing how much the iMac costs compared to a MP + screen. Which will be difficult once people do not choose an Apple screen, but that's another discussion.
The current Mac Pro was outdated 3 years ago.
As to people wondering why there wouldn't be a possible 256/8 option I think Apple will want this MP to be considered a beast from the get go. The current MP was also considered a lame config many years before with their base config. Many articles pointed out that 'it really doesn't cost 2-2.5k but...such and such because 'one needs to upgrade the base model anyway'
What was lame was the pricing or value you got which is or was perhaps the worst of any of Apples products. 256/8 doesn't mean squat if the pricing along with the rest of the machine grabs people's interests. That being said 256/16 would be very easy for Apple to do and would make a lot of sense for many users. I can see Apple wanting to address the perception that the desktop Macs have been ripoffs as far as installed RAM goes and have been for years. Plus they will want to put at ease people's concerns about the maximum RAM capacity.
I agree that it would make a 'sellable' machine if the base model is 256/8. One thing though: using external drives for larger projects: wouldn't that negate the whole SSD config thing? I'm using SSD PCIe for OSX, Apps & ~. All video's currently are on HDD, but I'm not doing much video right now anyway. All my photos are on SSD and it shows (don't even need Apertures' previews as everything is fast anyway). Will spend vast amount of time in FCPX once the winter starts and I post less on AI...
I don't think it negates anything if you can keep your eye focused on what is important and keep it on the fast drive. The issue of cheap bulk storage will never go away so if magnetic drives provide that people ill use them until something better comes along.
It might be a 2013 equivalent of the W5000 but the 8970 would probably still be higher raw performance. The FirePro is designed for certain workloads though, even if a lot of it is on the software level:
Oh I am aware of the advantages and disadvantages of a workstation card but thanks for the video.
I still think Apple could hit the $1500 mark with a base line machine that outperforms the iMac. This would be a machine using desktop chips with possibly Iris graphics.
I would be all over that type of Mac. I do not want an all in one but I want more oomph than the mini.
A headless iMac with an easy open case with enough room for an optional drive (HDD, SSD, Optical) whatever the user wants or needs.
$1500 and I'll camp outside an Apple Store for that.
Go build a freaking Hackintosh and give it up already.
What he said, no seriously I think you would be much happier. Apple is going in a completely different direction than what you want, you are not going to get what you wish for. A Hackintosh at least gives you a working OSX machine with the changeable components you are looking for and it works, you can even update your machine via the System Update program. It's not a Apple but maybe you will be happier.
Most of the work was done on a MacPro processor that consumes 700 watts when it’s really cranking — not counting the power the two 30-in. monitors burn. Jirman estimates that paying a Pacific Gas & Electric rate of $0.38 per kilowatt hour, he ran up a $178 electric bill just to keep the computers running
I use a MP with one ACD where the Mac PSU supposedly can use up to 950W but I never really 'seen' an increase on my electricity bill. No idea what I'm paying though, but the US rate seems likely.
I suspect the Mac Pro would have mainly been helpful for the internal storage as 6TB of data wouldn't fit on any other Mac's internal drives and the same will be true with the upcoming Mac Pro. With a large enough external though, stitching photo frames together could be done with any modern Mac. The process is faster with a faster machine of course. The frames would have been over 15MB each so at 24p would be 360MB/s to avoid dropping frames, which needs a RAID. A Pegasus would cope with this though.
Stan Jirman there is noted as being an ex-Apple software engineer. A profile here says he worked at Apple for 14 years:
"Prior to Lytro, Stan spent 14 years at Apple in a variety of senior engineering roles. He was one of the founding members of the Aperture image processing and management software team, on the iOS team from the inception of the iPhone all the way to iOS 5, and most recently in charge of the Camera and Photos applications."
I wonder if he was one of the engineers that people were surprised to see leaving the company as the timing there coincides with the change of management.
Now that we know what it is and at least the starting price... How do you all feel?
All things considered, I feel that the pros outweigh the cons. If it performs the way the benchmarks are looking, I think it's going to be a screamer. I think using the faster SSD is far faster, more reliable than using a hard drive which the PCs mfg are still using. Having Thunderbolt 2 expandability makes it far more attractive given the expanding number of products available. There's PCi slot/RAID boxes to choose from by various mfg, there are more TB related processing devices for the audio and video markets like AD/DA converters and Video capture/conversion. Then instead of only getting one GPU, they leverage 2 as standard. Having a small box makes it very easy to handle. No more cracking open a box to install and install cards and drives when upgrading from one computer to the next when it comes to upgrading the computing portion. So, there might be that initial investment of buying an external chassis, but you retain that chassis investment when it comes to upgrading the main box for the next version. The only cons are you only have choices of what GPU you can order, and it's not rack mountable. I think most people may not actually need more than 64 G of RAM, but it would be nice if they support higher density RAM modules to kick up the max RAM to higher than 64 G. Maybe that will come later as higher density modules come to market. If it could support 32GB RAM, then it could go to 128GB of RAM, which might be overkill for most, but there might be some that would prefer that. Due to the fact that the GPU boards on the MacPro have to be attached to the heat sink with thermal paste, it would have been cool for Apple to have even higher end GPU options to be able to use when available since there are at least 2 different GPU mfg that always seem to leapfrog each other with newer chips. If Apple could have produced a fan-less XEON system, that would be even better, but I think it actually might be impossible without using one HUGE and HEAVY heatsink requiring a much bigger case. But it would've been interesting if they could have stuffed that much power in a 2, 3 or 4 U Rack design.
The only area Apple needs to focus on other than updating the MacMini to Haswell is creating a higher end Hasell headless box catering to the $1500 to $3000 market since some people don't need XEON, but they do need higher level i7, with better GPU, more RAM, TB2, and optional monitor since some prefer headless computers vs AIO.
Comments
Valid point, but I also think of the following:
That spec is for the 'current' MP, which is 'a bit outdated'. The iMacs might be a better comparison, not only because it's also a desktop but it's more current. Those start off with 8GB RAM + 256GB SSD (if not choosing a HDD). I guess people will compare the new MP to that config, seeing how much the iMac costs compared to a MP + screen. Which will be difficult once people do not choose an Apple screen, but that's another discussion.
As to people wondering why there wouldn't be a possible 256/8 option I think Apple will want this MP to be considered a beast from the get go. The current MP was also considered a lame config many years before with their base config. Many articles pointed out that 'it really doesn't cost 2-2.5k but...such and such because 'one needs to upgrade the base model anyway'
I agree that it would make a 'sellable' machine if the base model is 256/8. One thing though: using external drives for larger projects: wouldn't that negate the whole SSD config thing? I'm using SSD PCIe for OSX, Apps & ~. All video's currently are on HDD, but I'm not doing much video right now anyway. All my photos are on SSD and it shows (don't even need Apertures' previews as everything is fast anyway). Will spend vast amount of time in FCPX once the winter starts and I post less on AI...
I still think Apple could hit the $1500 mark with a base line machine that outperforms the iMac. This would be a machine using desktop chips with possibly Iris graphics. They might not call it a Mac Pro though. Apple apparently likes to equate the Pros with XEON engines.
Frankly if Apple doesn't have a plan for a Mac Pro baseline machine that comes in at well,under $2000 they are nuts and out of touch with their users. The number one issue with the Mac Pro has always been performance for the dollar especially in the entry level machine. Nothing wrong with wanting performance. Right now it looks like it would be easy for Apple to offer an entry level model that is a very good performer at a decent price. That is if they wanted too.
Err you would never be better off with an iMac. At least not if the current design trend continues.
Regarding a 256GB SSD: the whole point of fast SSD storage is speed. Why handicap the machine with having to off load data when you're working. I'd want enough room on the SSD for system, applications, data, a scratch disk, a working file large enough to accommodate photo projects I'm currently working on plus music. Photo projects that I'm not currently working with can go in bulk storage. In my mind, 768GB should be the minimum although I could get by with 512GB I suppose.
I'm hoping for a robust machine that meets my expectations priced around the current entry amount for the existing Mac Pro. A lesser price would be nice as long as the computer isn't compromised in performance. Those people who want an under $2000 machine probably should look long and hard at an iMac. Just my $.02.
It depends on how much data people have. The entry 15" Macbook Pro isn't handicapped if you only need 256GB. You still benefit hugely from the fast performance. OS and apps will typically be under 50GB. You could then have 100GB for active projects, 50GB for consumption data (iTunes, holiday photos etc) and 50GB free for working with. It's cramped these days but would still be usable. People who can't fit everything they want on that would just pay $300 extra.
Apple has to buy components from suppliers and then they add a markup. Their pricing is limited by the supplier prices. Their SSD prices seem a bit high - they are still quite far above $1/GB when you look at the upgrade prices. Retail SSDs are now below $0.60/GB:
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-Electronics-EVO-Series-2-5-Inch-MZ-7TE1T0BW/dp/B00E3W16OU/
Those SSDs are sold directly by the manufacturers and the memory parts would sell at lower wholesale prices to Apple but probably not much lower than those prices. It also depends on which NAND is used:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5067/understanding-tlc-nand
TLC is getting prices down to $0.60/GB wholesale (from OCZ and possibly cheaper elsewhere). Apple is still using MLC NAND, which is better quality but more expensive. The Samsung 830 used MLC and was more expensive:
http://www.amazon.com/SAMSUNG-2-5-Inch-Internal-MZ-7PC512B-WW/dp/B0077CR6B0/
The wholesale prices for the parts would be something like the following:
E5-2609v2 4-core ($294) or E5-1620v2 ($294)
8GB RAM (4x 2GB) $100 ( http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/85MP3E2M08GK/ )
256GB SSD = $230 @ $0.90/GB MLC
Dual W5000 - $200-500 for both together (depends on how good a deal they got from AMD)
Enclosure, PSU, motherboard, wifi, bluetooth etc probably around $300
Minimum build cost is $1124, add 40% margins and it can be $1899. I highly doubt they got entry FirePros for $100 each though. I reckon it'll be $200 each, which takes the price up to $2199. This was the original price of the entry Mac Pro.
A further 8GB RAM should be $170 retail (I say 'should be' but it's not, as Apple charges $300 for this just now) and 256GB $380, taking it to $2749.
If Apple's Mac Pro RAM was cheaper, they could do 16GB for $2499 but I don't see how they can do 512GB SSD at that price and like I say, they don't charge $170 for 8GB, they charge $300. Given that 3rd party RAM is so cheap, if they are nice about the bundled RAM prices and hit $2199 with 8GB and 256GB, you'd be able to buy a 512GB SSD for a further $300 at $2499 and then because it has replaceable RAM, you'd be able to get 16GB from OWC for $150.
Compared to the old model, that wouldn't be too bad. $2649 for 512GB 1.25GB/s SSD, 16GB RAM, quad-core, 2GB dual FirePros (which is somewhere between a single 7870 and 7970 or the 2013 equivalents).
Personally I'd like to see a larger "drive" but I know I can get buy nicely on one that size. I'm very optimistic. That doesn't mean we will see a completely trouble free machine or Mavericks debut. However the new Mac Pro confirms what I was promoting sometime ago in that the next Mac Pro would be far smaller. The idea of a the never crossed my mind though.
However I don't like the idea expressed that the Mac Pro is radical, it is a natural evolution and reflects what happens when you squeeze a tremendous amount of transistors on to a chip. These chips are incredibly powerful right now but the future looks pretty bright for at least a couple of more nodes shrinkage. This effectively means transistor counts could double in the 2014-2015 time. That is a lot of power to put into a tube.
Haven't tried one but there have been mixed reports. I'd suggest searching for first hand info.
I've struggled in the past to free up space on my MBP drive so cramped it is. Saying that I understand both sides of the equation, in a laptop I especially want as much storage as possible internal. In a desktop it is a different ball of wax.
I don't think it negates anything if you can keep your eye focused on what is important and keep it on the fast drive. The issue of cheap bulk storage will never go away so if magnetic drives provide that people ill use them until something better comes along.
It might be a 2013 equivalent of the W5000 but the 8970 would probably still be higher raw performance. The FirePro is designed for certain workloads though, even if a lot of it is on the software level:
Oh I am aware of the advantages and disadvantages of a workstation card but thanks for the video.
I still think Apple could hit the $1500 mark with a base line machine that outperforms the iMac. This would be a machine using desktop chips with possibly Iris graphics.
I would be all over that type of Mac. I do not want an all in one but I want more oomph than the mini.
A headless iMac with an easy open case with enough room for an optional drive (HDD, SSD, Optical) whatever the user wants or needs.
$1500 and I'll camp outside an Apple Store for that.
A headless iMac with an easy open case with enough room for an optional drive (HDD, SSD, Optical) whatever the user wants or needs.
Go build a freaking Hackintosh and give it up already.
Go build a freaking Hackintosh and give it up already.
What he said, no seriously I think you would be much happier. Apple is going in a completely different direction than what you want, you are not going to get what you wish for. A Hackintosh at least gives you a working OSX machine with the changeable components you are looking for and it works, you can even update your machine via the System Update program. It's not a Apple but maybe you will be happier.
A little off-topic, but this was created on a (pre-2013) MacPro:
http://lightbox.time.com/2013/10/14/space-shuttle-endeavour-exclusive-timelapse/
Shows why we need MacPros!
Great video! Thank for that.
Funny I never gave this a thought:
I use a MP with one ACD where the Mac PSU supposedly can use up to 950W but I never really 'seen' an increase on my electricity bill. No idea what I'm paying though, but the US rate seems likely.
A little off-topic, but this was created on a (pre-2013) MacPro:
http://lightbox.time.com/2013/10/14/space-shuttle-endeavour-exclusive-timelapse/
Shows why we need MacPros!
Coooooolllll!!!!!
I suspect the Mac Pro would have mainly been helpful for the internal storage as 6TB of data wouldn't fit on any other Mac's internal drives and the same will be true with the upcoming Mac Pro. With a large enough external though, stitching photo frames together could be done with any modern Mac. The process is faster with a faster machine of course. The frames would have been over 15MB each so at 24p would be 360MB/s to avoid dropping frames, which needs a RAID. A Pegasus would cope with this though.
Stan Jirman there is noted as being an ex-Apple software engineer. A profile here says he worked at Apple for 14 years:
https://www.lytro.com/about/leadership/stan-jirman/
"Prior to Lytro, Stan spent 14 years at Apple in a variety of senior engineering roles. He was one of the founding members of the Aperture image processing and management software team, on the iOS team from the inception of the iPhone all the way to iOS 5, and most recently in charge of the Camera and Photos applications."
Looks like he left in October 2011:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/phototrek
I wonder if he was one of the engineers that people were surprised to see leaving the company as the timing there coincides with the change of management.
It would only increase the electricity bill if it was running at peak for long periods of time. The idle power is much lower:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2836?viewlocale=en_US&locale=en_US
I think the Lytro camera [I]seems[/I] cool, but most likely will end up in a drawer as it turns out to be just gimmicky.
Now that we know what it is and at least the starting price... How do you all feel?
Now that we know what it is and at least the starting price... How do you all feel?
All things considered, I feel that the pros outweigh the cons. If it performs the way the benchmarks are looking, I think it's going to be a screamer. I think using the faster SSD is far faster, more reliable than using a hard drive which the PCs mfg are still using. Having Thunderbolt 2 expandability makes it far more attractive given the expanding number of products available. There's PCi slot/RAID boxes to choose from by various mfg, there are more TB related processing devices for the audio and video markets like AD/DA converters and Video capture/conversion. Then instead of only getting one GPU, they leverage 2 as standard. Having a small box makes it very easy to handle. No more cracking open a box to install and install cards and drives when upgrading from one computer to the next when it comes to upgrading the computing portion. So, there might be that initial investment of buying an external chassis, but you retain that chassis investment when it comes to upgrading the main box for the next version. The only cons are you only have choices of what GPU you can order, and it's not rack mountable. I think most people may not actually need more than 64 G of RAM, but it would be nice if they support higher density RAM modules to kick up the max RAM to higher than 64 G. Maybe that will come later as higher density modules come to market. If it could support 32GB RAM, then it could go to 128GB of RAM, which might be overkill for most, but there might be some that would prefer that. Due to the fact that the GPU boards on the MacPro have to be attached to the heat sink with thermal paste, it would have been cool for Apple to have even higher end GPU options to be able to use when available since there are at least 2 different GPU mfg that always seem to leapfrog each other with newer chips. If Apple could have produced a fan-less XEON system, that would be even better, but I think it actually might be impossible without using one HUGE and HEAVY heatsink requiring a much bigger case. But it would've been interesting if they could have stuffed that much power in a 2, 3 or 4 U Rack design.
The only area Apple needs to focus on other than updating the MacMini to Haswell is creating a higher end Hasell headless box catering to the $1500 to $3000 market since some people don't need XEON, but they do need higher level i7, with better GPU, more RAM, TB2, and optional monitor since some prefer headless computers vs AIO.
Now that we know what it is and at least the starting price... How do you all feel?
Poor.
As long as you are in good health in life that is what counts not computers so much.