I suspect that the Mac Pro will be supply-constrained for 6-12 months, because of leading-edge parts (some of which don't even exist, yet) and limited production capabilities.
I actually doubt that. Mainly because I think Apple has a good idea as to what the initial buying surge will be, so they are likely producing machines right now to address that demand. That would be pilot production ramping up over November for the December launch.
When the constraint eases, Apple could offer both lower-end and higher-end models.
That is possible, but that would go against Apples history with respect to the Mac Pro.
I just spec'd a fully loaded iMac 27" at $3,949.00.
So? I mean really you can go out and spec machines at all sorts of price points.
I already have the Thunderbolt RAIDS and and could use my 2011 (~$3500) iMac as a Thunderbolt display (with a 23" Cinema Display) -- so all I really need is the Mac Pro.
Exactly! Some people act like it is impossible to plug an old computer into a LAN or unplug an old monitor to use someplace else.
I can sell the iMac/Display and buy a couple of displays or just keep what I've got.
I realize that my situation is unusual... But, I also think that the Mac Pro philosophy is the future -- expand the base system with external components.
Actually your situation is the norm. Many people seem to want to fabricate issues just so they can come online to slag Apple. Further you appear to be a lot smarter than some here with your buying decisions over the last year.
I do understand the desire of some existing Mac Pro users to move ahead gently (to the wallet) by reusing their existing components in a new Mac Pro... But, before long, technology advances are going to overtake those older components (if they haven't already).
Actually you do because you advocate exactly that above. You suggest reusing your monitors and other hardware which frankly is sound advice. You where also smart enough to buy TB disk arrays which will plug right into your new machine.
My question to these users: wouldn't you be better off selling your existing system and going with the flow? ASAP?
Some might be better off, but for others keeping old hardware and buying a new Mac pro makes sense too. There is an element here that wants to swim upstream or against the flow, and there is the other element that just can't deal with change. I would imagine many of these people bawled their eyes out all night when the had to retire their Apple 2.
It isn't excessively steep for what is offered, it is excessively steep for an entry level workstation computer. The problem is the $3000 price tag will drive people away before they even rationally consider the machine.
Frankly this is exactly the same problem the old Mac Pro had! It was way to expensive at the entry level point which had the effect of curtailing sales drastically. This machine will have exactly the same issue and two to three years from now (after the initial buying surge) Apple will be neglecting the machine and thinking about caning it.
Well no, it is the realization that there is inherent value in the electronics required to get some amount of work done. The problem is that there are many users out there that could benefit from the Mac Pro if it was priced to fit a budget. $2000 isn't an unachievable price point for a decent desktop computer yet Apple missed this mark by $1000. So a lot of midrange users get the bone again from Apple and we have to go through the drama of no Mac Pro sales in a couple of years due to nothing in the line up to drive volume. Apple really needs to try harder, I can only hope that the have a plan in place for the Mini or its replacement to address this.
For $3K, it's a nice box.
The midrange users just have to stop wasting money on drugs and alcohol and use their party money towards a better computer. :-)
What I wish Apple did was this.
Add a high end i7 version to choose from with the choice of GPU ranging from 1 to 2 and whichever processor and VRAM options.
I always thought Apple needs a high end prosumer workstation in the $2K to $3K range, something like the guts of a high end iMac into a box that's larger than a MacMini that's sold in the $2K to $3K market. That's what I was hoping for and maybe they'll address that. The more demand Apple gets for something that's more of a high end prosumer product is what they need to address.
I am not convinced by this airflow arrangement, the specs on this wee beastie call for ~470W maximum, now that's a lot of heat to dissipate from just one fan. My guess is that, once again, Apple will push the thermal envelope to it's very maximum, reducing the lifespan ultimately. Also don't expect the dB's to stay low on full throttle.
The fan Plus's air through a tube, that is very efficient. Ultimately you don't need a lot of Air flow to cool 470 watts, what you need is surface area which the heat sink has lots of.
Will it be noisy fully loaded? That is a harder question to answer. In comparison to other machines with the same hardware it is likely to be very quiet.
It isn't excessively steep for what is offered, it is excessively steep for an entry level workstation computer. The problem is the $3000 price tag will drive people away before they even rationally consider the machine.
Frankly this is exactly the same problem the old Mac Pro had! It was way to expensive at the entry level point which had the effect of curtailing sales drastically. This machine will have exactly the same issue and two to three years from now (after the initial buying surge) Apple will be neglecting the machine and thinking about caning it.
Well no, it is the realization that there is inherent value in the electronics required to get some amount of work done. The problem is that there are many users out there that could benefit from the Mac Pro if it was priced to fit a budget. $2000 isn't an unachievable price point for a decent desktop computer yet Apple missed this mark by $1000. So a lot of midrange users get the bone again from Apple and we have to go through the drama of no Mac Pro sales in a couple of years due to nothing in the line up to drive volume. Apple really needs to try harder, I can only hope that the have a plan in place for the Mini or its replacement to address this.
What would you think a $2000 configuration would look like?
How much SSD? What speed SSD?
What GPU?
What CPU?
What and how many ports?
What case type?
How much RAM (base and max)
Remember Apple needs a decent margin and all of these PC mfg are working on 10% or less Net Profit margins, which Apple won't do. They don't want to become another casualty of the PC industry like Compaq, IBM and what Dell, HP and others will become at the rate they are going.
Yes this I understand. What I'm saying is that it isn't the entry level box Apple needs to drive volume.
The midrange users just have to stop wasting money on drugs and alcohol and use their party money towards a better computer. :-)
Sounds like one that has never worked in the corporate world.
What I wish Apple did was this.
Add a high end i7 version to choose from with the choice of GPU ranging from 1 to 2 and whichever processor and VRAM options.
I always thought Apple needs a high end prosumer workstation in the $2K to $3K range, something like the guts of a high end iMac into a box that's larger than a MacMini that's sold in the $2K to $3K market.
Well close, I'd rather see them get to the $1500 range. Frankly they could do this in the Mac Pro chassis using a Haswell processor with the option of a second GPU. A 75 to 85 (or whatever they top out at now) watt Haswell plus the option of a GPU would make for a very inviting machine. Make it an Iris + based Haswell for the upsell model.
They could also do this in a beefed up Mini platform without the expansion capability. Switch the Mini to SSD only internally and you free up a lot of space for power supply and fan. Add four TB 2 ports and you would have a very nice machine that could handle a processor in the 55 to 65 watt range.
That's what I was hoping for and maybe they'll address that. The more demand Apple gets for something that's more of a high end prosumer product is what they need to address.
I don't like the prosumer term at all, in fact I find it an insult in a way. The big problem that Apple has had for years is that the don't have a good midrange desktop machine. The gap between the Mini and the Mac Pro has gotten even wider with the debut of this new Mac Pro, oh and before anybody says anything NO the iMac is not the solution. Even worst for the mini is that the low end of the market that machine use to serve has gone to tablets, so it really needs to transition into more of a performance machine. Sadly we haven't even heard a good rumor about the Mini lately.
I am not convinced by this airflow arrangement, the specs on this wee beastie call for ~470W maximum, now that's a lot of heat to dissipate from just one fan. My guess is that, once again, Apple will push the thermal envelope to it's very maximum, reducing the lifespan ultimately. Also don't expect the dB's to stay low on full throttle.
The fan Plus's air through a tube, that is very efficient. Ultimately you don't need a lot of Air flow to cool 470 watts, what you need is surface area which the heat sink has lots of.
Will it be noisy fully loaded? That is a harder question to answer. In comparison to other machines with the same hardware it is likely to be very quiet.
I read/saw somewhere that it has the same noise level as a Mac Mini!
Yes this I understand. What I'm saying is that it isn't the entry level box Apple needs to drive volume.
The midrange users just have to stop wasting money on drugs and alcohol and use their party money towards a better computer. :-)
Sounds like one that has never worked in the corporate world.
What I wish Apple did was this.
Add a high end i7 version to choose from with the choice of GPU ranging from 1 to 2 and whichever processor and VRAM options.
I always thought Apple needs a high end prosumer workstation in the $2K to $3K range, something like the guts of a high end iMac into a box that's larger than a MacMini that's sold in the $2K to $3K market.
Well close, I'd rather see them get to the $1500 range. Frankly they could do this in the Mac Pro chassis using a Haswell processor with the option of a second GPU. A 75 to 85 (or whatever they top out at now) watt Haswell plus the option of a GPU would make for a very inviting machine. Make it an Iris + based Haswell for the upsell model.
They could also do this in a beefed up Mini platform without the expansion capability. Switch the Mini to SSD only internally and you free up a lot of space for power supply and fan. Add four TB 2 ports and you would have a very nice machine that could handle a processor in the 55 to 65 watt range.
That's what I was hoping for and maybe they'll address that. The more demand Apple gets for something that's more of a high end prosumer product is what they need to address.
I don't like the prosumer term at all, in fact I find it an insult in a way. The big problem that Apple has had for years is that the don't have a good midrange desktop machine. The gap between the Mini and the Mac Pro has gotten even wider with the debut of this new Mac Pro, oh and before anybody says anything NO the iMac is not the solution. Even worst for the mini is that the low end of the market that machine use to serve has gone to tablets, so it really needs to transition into more of a performance machine. Sadly we haven't even heard a good rumor about the Mini lately.
Thinking out loud...
I agree that a lower-price entry would be attractive.
What's the price/availability of TB 2 compared to TB1?
They could use the same form factor to replace the Mac Mini (maybe in a different color).
This could also be used as a home server/Time Machine Backup Serverr.
I wonder if the manufacturing of the cases will be a supply constraint -- one that's difficult to ramp up?
The thing that is really frustrating about the cylinder Mac Pro is that they wasted a lot of time and money on a cool piece of industrial design for a computer architecture that is fundamentally flawed, constrained, inflexible, and will soon be obsolete. And because of the expense, they won't make the small investment for some time in a nice but pragmatic rectangular box that customers actually need.
For most of those making workstation buying decisions, I'm afraid any Mac OS X advantage will not overcome the comparison with what HP, SuperMicro, Dell, etc. offer for workstations.
i wonder... if you use boot camp on the new mac pro, can you use crossfire under windows for gaming?... yes, cost wise, it is a poor computer for gaming in windows, but can you...?
but it is an awesome computer, and people get work done on Apple computer, thus it really does not matter if it can "crossfire" under windows while gaming...
Can it CrossFire under Mac OS for 3D work applications, as in both cards rendering the same 3D model in parallel?
Yes this I understand. What I'm saying is that it isn't the entry level box Apple needs to drive volume.
Sounds like one that has never worked in the corporate world.
Well close, I'd rather see them get to the $1500 range. Frankly they could do this in the Mac Pro chassis using a Haswell processor with the option of a second GPU. A 75 to 85 (or whatever they top out at now) watt Haswell plus the option of a GPU would make for a very inviting machine. Make it an Iris + based Haswell for the upsell model.
They could also do this in a beefed up Mini platform without the expansion capability. Switch the Mini to SSD only internally and you free up a lot of space for power supply and fan. Add four TB 2 ports and you would have a very nice machine that could handle a processor in the 55 to 65 watt range.
I don't like the prosumer term at all, in fact I find it an insult in a way. The big problem that Apple has had for years is that the don't have a good midrange desktop machine. The gap between the Mini and the Mac Pro has gotten even wider with the debut of this new Mac Pro, oh and before anybody says anything NO the iMac is not the solution. Even worst for the mini is that the low end of the market that machine use to serve has gone to tablets, so it really needs to transition into more of a performance machine. Sadly we haven't even heard a good rumor about the Mini lately.
I've not only work in the corporate world, I've also worked for two of the largest computer resellers that sold to corporations and government for over a decade. Now, when it comes to workstations, my customers NEVER bought the entry level workstation that had a processor with ECC memory. My customers would buy the high end models with the fastest processors, load it with memory, etc. because no matter what they had, they always want more and anyone that's a serious workstation user wants as much as they can get and they will pay for it. That's what customers I'm used to working with. They would spend EASILY $6K or more on a workstation and they were using those for high end graphics, video editing, etc.
The class of user you are talking about is more prosumer, which has emerged over the past 10 years or so.
Now, maybe because of the how the MacPro is designed, they are just keeping it XEON only and maybe they'll come out with something that is more prosumer based headless box like a MacMiniPro which has a high end i7, a decent GPU, etc. to go after that market which would end up in the $2000 (give or take) market. That's something I do agree with, but I think there might be reasons why the MacPro is strictly XEON.
The drugs/alcohol comment was tongue and cheek, and yeah, I could easily substantiate that people that drink alcohol/ use drugs are wasting thousands of dollars a year on those habits which may prevent them from buying a better computer, or whatever.
But the corporate workstation market isn't the midrange, they typically buy the most powerful system they can get within reason. Some are cost is not an object. My customers were typically, cost wasn't the factor, it was getting the most powerful box they could get their hands on. At least, that's what the workstation users were buying. I used to sell IBM AIX, HP UX, Sun Solaris, Windows NT, Mac OS, SGI and even OS/2 (remember those?) back when OS/2 came out which was pre-Windows 95.
And why does the high end configuration on the Apple Store only have 256GB of Flash? Even the high end Macbook Pro configuration has 512GB. Surely the default configs should be designed to avoid as many people having to do CTO as possible. i.e. you don't want to inconvenience people by forcing them to wait for a special build. And yet these configurations seem more about meeting a certain price point than being sensible defaults.
What Apple Store?
Re only have 256GB of Flash, are you referring to the User accessible PCle-based flash Storage configurable to 512GB or 1 Tb as posed on the Mac Pro Spec Sheet?
Re only have 256GB of Flash, are you referring to the User accessible PCle-based flash Storage configurable to 512GB or 1 Tb as posed on the Mac Pro Spec Sheet?
ascii was complaining that the default config was just 256GB and the poor purchaser would be forced to go down that painful build-to-order path that makes delivery so much slower. That will be an issue only if there is an appreciable difference between shipping time for default versus BTO configurations. I would hope they would steal a page (the only useful page) from the Dell playbook and a super efficient (< 1 business day) BTO process.
I think people are failing to realize that Apple has revolutionized the pro computer.
The future is that the "desktop PC" is the brain, and you stick on attachments from the outside, with no loss of performance, as needed.
Why did you need that huge internal volume with all those slots? Because you needed a fast internal-bus to stick cards into. Connecting from the outside was too slow.
If there's no loss of performance to hang a drive or accessory on the outside, then you only buy what you need.
The machine is CHEAPER since you only buy the brain now, and whatever body-parts you need later. No performance loss.
So how does the speed of Thunderbolt 2 compare with the fastest PCI Express slots? A previous poster wrote that it was comparable to x4 speed, or 1/4 of an x16 slot.
Yes this I understand. What I'm saying is that it isn't the entry level box Apple needs to drive volume.
Sounds like one that has never worked in the corporate world.
Well close, I'd rather see them get to the $1500 range. Frankly they could do this in the Mac Pro chassis using a Haswell processor with the option of a second GPU. A 75 to 85 (or whatever they top out at now) watt Haswell plus the option of a GPU would make for a very inviting machine. Make it an Iris + based Haswell for the upsell model.
They could also do this in a beefed up Mini platform without the expansion capability. Switch the Mini to SSD only internally and you free up a lot of space for power supply and fan. Add four TB 2 ports and you would have a very nice machine that could handle a processor in the 55 to 65 watt range.
I don't like the prosumer term at all, in fact I find it an insult in a way. The big problem that Apple has had for years is that the don't have a good midrange desktop machine. The gap between the Mini and the Mac Pro has gotten even wider with the debut of this new Mac Pro, oh and before anybody says anything NO the iMac is not the solution. Even worst for the mini is that the low end of the market that machine use to serve has gone to tablets, so it really needs to transition into more of a performance machine. Sadly we haven't even heard a good rumor about the Mini lately.
As you notice, Apple didn't mention any new MacMinis this last go around, so maybe Apple is getting ready to revamp their MacMini lineup and maybe a higher end model to go after the prosumer grade systems is something in the works. They only have so many people they can task to do this and maybe the MacMini update will happen next year sometime (maybe 1st quarter?)
Obsolete the day it ships. Thunderbolt is perfect for a Thunderbolt display, but not much else. The use of 6 Thunderbolt connectors requires two GPUs, how many current Mac Pros ship with two GPUs? This is a badly constrained design.
what?
if the new Mac Pro ships with 2 GPUs standard, then.... how does that make it obsolete the day it ships?
Just to add some meat this thread. here's a video by Michael Cioni. His company, Light Iron, does Post, DI, etc for movies like 42, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Muppets... Michael is a talented creative, engaging speaker and has an amazing mind.
The entire video is a great watch, but at 13:42, Michael talks about the future of FCPX (I'd love to get his take on the Mac Pro).
FWIW, I am going to buy a Mac Pro!
Thank you for the link as well. A lot of naysayers here would do themselves a lot of good viewing Cioni's video. Would love to see Larry Jordan use FCPX on the new Mac Pro.
As for my getting a Mac Pro, all I can say is that my wife is very, very nervous about it. Such a purchase might be the last of more that four dozen (that she knows of) Macs that I have bought since Jan, 1984.
The thing that is really frustrating about the cylinder Mac Pro is that they wasted a lot of time and money on a cool piece of industrial design for a computer architecture that is fundamentally flawed, constrained, inflexible, and will soon be obsolete. And because of the expense, they won't make the small investment for some time in a nice but pragmatic rectangular box that customers actually need.
For most of those making workstation buying decisions, I'm afraid any Mac OS X advantage will not overcome the comparison with what HP, SuperMicro, Dell, etc. offer for workstations.
In post after post, you keep declaring it "obsolete" either "soon" or on arrival. Why are you on this mission? If it doesn't work for you, go elsewhere! If you're playing the "anonymous voice of a competitor" please, enough already.
You use these catchwords, "fundamentally flawed" and "constrained" and "inflexible".... all because it breaks with the model that you are conditioned to be comfortable with? The "pragmatic" rectangular box?
Except, the new Mac Pro begins with needing little, if any 'expansion' out of the box at all. The "constraints" are imaginary. Inflexibility is only your narrative. It's powerful enough right out of the box.
As for flexibility, if you do need more drive space or speed, or expansion, then you attach a fast drive array, more monitors, whatever. Thunderbolt 2 is fast enough to attach a PCIe expansion chassis. You could have additional GPUs in that chassis, or whatever else you may need.
That's how modern "pro" computing is working these days anyway. Single-person workstations don't have the entire ball of wax inside on "pragmatic" box anymore. The workstations attach to external processing, drive arrays and more. Especially the type of "pro environments" you allude to.
I can't wait to get my hands on one of these, and put it through its paces with Logic and Final Cut... something tells me I'm going to be blown away, and that's before I even attach any expansion to it...
Comments
Some might be better off, but for others keeping old hardware and buying a new Mac pro makes sense too. There is an element here that wants to swim upstream or against the flow, and there is the other element that just can't deal with change. I would imagine many of these people bawled their eyes out all night when the had to retire their Apple 2.
It isn't excessively steep for what is offered, it is excessively steep for an entry level workstation computer. The problem is the $3000 price tag will drive people away before they even rationally consider the machine.
Frankly this is exactly the same problem the old Mac Pro had! It was way to expensive at the entry level point which had the effect of curtailing sales drastically. This machine will have exactly the same issue and two to three years from now (after the initial buying surge) Apple will be neglecting the machine and thinking about caning it.
Well no, it is the realization that there is inherent value in the electronics required to get some amount of work done. The problem is that there are many users out there that could benefit from the Mac Pro if it was priced to fit a budget. $2000 isn't an unachievable price point for a decent desktop computer yet Apple missed this mark by $1000. So a lot of midrange users get the bone again from Apple and we have to go through the drama of no Mac Pro sales in a couple of years due to nothing in the line up to drive volume. Apple really needs to try harder, I can only hope that the have a plan in place for the Mini or its replacement to address this.
For $3K, it's a nice box.
The midrange users just have to stop wasting money on drugs and alcohol and use their party money towards a better computer. :-)
What I wish Apple did was this.
Add a high end i7 version to choose from with the choice of GPU ranging from 1 to 2 and whichever processor and VRAM options.
I always thought Apple needs a high end prosumer workstation in the $2K to $3K range, something like the guts of a high end iMac into a box that's larger than a MacMini that's sold in the $2K to $3K market. That's what I was hoping for and maybe they'll address that. The more demand Apple gets for something that's more of a high end prosumer product is what they need to address.
The fan Plus's air through a tube, that is very efficient. Ultimately you don't need a lot of Air flow to cool 470 watts, what you need is surface area which the heat sink has lots of.
Will it be noisy fully loaded? That is a harder question to answer. In comparison to other machines with the same hardware it is likely to be very quiet.
That is truely an amazing video!
Thanks for sharing
It isn't excessively steep for what is offered, it is excessively steep for an entry level workstation computer. The problem is the $3000 price tag will drive people away before they even rationally consider the machine.
Frankly this is exactly the same problem the old Mac Pro had! It was way to expensive at the entry level point which had the effect of curtailing sales drastically. This machine will have exactly the same issue and two to three years from now (after the initial buying surge) Apple will be neglecting the machine and thinking about caning it.
Well no, it is the realization that there is inherent value in the electronics required to get some amount of work done. The problem is that there are many users out there that could benefit from the Mac Pro if it was priced to fit a budget. $2000 isn't an unachievable price point for a decent desktop computer yet Apple missed this mark by $1000. So a lot of midrange users get the bone again from Apple and we have to go through the drama of no Mac Pro sales in a couple of years due to nothing in the line up to drive volume. Apple really needs to try harder, I can only hope that the have a plan in place for the Mini or its replacement to address this.
What would you think a $2000 configuration would look like?
How much SSD? What speed SSD?
What GPU?
What CPU?
What and how many ports?
What case type?
How much RAM (base and max)
Remember Apple needs a decent margin and all of these PC mfg are working on 10% or less Net Profit margins, which Apple won't do. They don't want to become another casualty of the PC industry like Compaq, IBM and what Dell, HP and others will become at the rate they are going.
They could also do this in a beefed up Mini platform without the expansion capability. Switch the Mini to SSD only internally and you free up a lot of space for power supply and fan. Add four TB 2 ports and you would have a very nice machine that could handle a processor in the 55 to 65 watt range. I don't like the prosumer term at all, in fact I find it an insult in a way. The big problem that Apple has had for years is that the don't have a good midrange desktop machine. The gap between the Mini and the Mac Pro has gotten even wider with the debut of this new Mac Pro, oh and before anybody says anything NO the iMac is not the solution. Even worst for the mini is that the low end of the market that machine use to serve has gone to tablets, so it really needs to transition into more of a performance machine. Sadly we haven't even heard a good rumor about the Mini lately.
I read/saw somewhere that it has the same noise level as a Mac Mini!
Thinking out loud...
I agree that a lower-price entry would be attractive.
What's the price/availability of TB 2 compared to TB1?
They could use the same form factor to replace the Mac Mini (maybe in a different color).
This could also be used as a home server/Time Machine Backup Serverr.
I wonder if the manufacturing of the cases will be a supply constraint -- one that's difficult to ramp up?
Can I use the mac Pro with these:
The thing that is really frustrating about the cylinder Mac Pro is that they wasted a lot of time and money on a cool piece of industrial design for a computer architecture that is fundamentally flawed, constrained, inflexible, and will soon be obsolete. And because of the expense, they won't make the small investment for some time in a nice but pragmatic rectangular box that customers actually need.
For most of those making workstation buying decisions, I'm afraid any Mac OS X advantage will not overcome the comparison with what HP, SuperMicro, Dell, etc. offer for workstations.
i wonder... if you use boot camp on the new mac pro, can you use crossfire under windows for gaming?... yes, cost wise, it is a poor computer for gaming in windows, but can you...?
but it is an awesome computer, and people get work done on Apple computer, thus it really does not matter if it can "crossfire" under windows while gaming...
Can it CrossFire under Mac OS for 3D work applications, as in both cards rendering the same 3D model in parallel?
Yes this I understand. What I'm saying is that it isn't the entry level box Apple needs to drive volume.
Sounds like one that has never worked in the corporate world.
Well close, I'd rather see them get to the $1500 range. Frankly they could do this in the Mac Pro chassis using a Haswell processor with the option of a second GPU. A 75 to 85 (or whatever they top out at now) watt Haswell plus the option of a GPU would make for a very inviting machine. Make it an Iris + based Haswell for the upsell model.
They could also do this in a beefed up Mini platform without the expansion capability. Switch the Mini to SSD only internally and you free up a lot of space for power supply and fan. Add four TB 2 ports and you would have a very nice machine that could handle a processor in the 55 to 65 watt range.
I don't like the prosumer term at all, in fact I find it an insult in a way. The big problem that Apple has had for years is that the don't have a good midrange desktop machine. The gap between the Mini and the Mac Pro has gotten even wider with the debut of this new Mac Pro, oh and before anybody says anything NO the iMac is not the solution. Even worst for the mini is that the low end of the market that machine use to serve has gone to tablets, so it really needs to transition into more of a performance machine. Sadly we haven't even heard a good rumor about the Mini lately.
I've not only work in the corporate world, I've also worked for two of the largest computer resellers that sold to corporations and government for over a decade. Now, when it comes to workstations, my customers NEVER bought the entry level workstation that had a processor with ECC memory. My customers would buy the high end models with the fastest processors, load it with memory, etc. because no matter what they had, they always want more and anyone that's a serious workstation user wants as much as they can get and they will pay for it. That's what customers I'm used to working with. They would spend EASILY $6K or more on a workstation and they were using those for high end graphics, video editing, etc.
The class of user you are talking about is more prosumer, which has emerged over the past 10 years or so.
Now, maybe because of the how the MacPro is designed, they are just keeping it XEON only and maybe they'll come out with something that is more prosumer based headless box like a MacMiniPro which has a high end i7, a decent GPU, etc. to go after that market which would end up in the $2000 (give or take) market. That's something I do agree with, but I think there might be reasons why the MacPro is strictly XEON.
The drugs/alcohol comment was tongue and cheek, and yeah, I could easily substantiate that people that drink alcohol/ use drugs are wasting thousands of dollars a year on those habits which may prevent them from buying a better computer, or whatever.
But the corporate workstation market isn't the midrange, they typically buy the most powerful system they can get within reason. Some are cost is not an object. My customers were typically, cost wasn't the factor, it was getting the most powerful box they could get their hands on. At least, that's what the workstation users were buying. I used to sell IBM AIX, HP UX, Sun Solaris, Windows NT, Mac OS, SGI and even OS/2 (remember those?) back when OS/2 came out which was pre-Windows 95.
And why does the high end configuration on the Apple Store only have 256GB of Flash? Even the high end Macbook Pro configuration has 512GB. Surely the default configs should be designed to avoid as many people having to do CTO as possible. i.e. you don't want to inconvenience people by forcing them to wait for a special build. And yet these configurations seem more about meeting a certain price point than being sensible defaults.
What Apple Store?
Re only have 256GB of Flash, are you referring to the User accessible PCle-based flash Storage configurable to 512GB or 1 Tb as posed on the Mac Pro Spec Sheet?
What Apple Store?
Re only have 256GB of Flash, are you referring to the User accessible PCle-based flash Storage configurable to 512GB or 1 Tb as posed on the Mac Pro Spec Sheet?
ascii was complaining that the default config was just 256GB and the poor purchaser would be forced to go down that painful build-to-order path that makes delivery so much slower. That will be an issue only if there is an appreciable difference between shipping time for default versus BTO configurations. I would hope they would steal a page (the only useful page) from the Dell playbook and a super efficient (< 1 business day) BTO process.
I think people are failing to realize that Apple has revolutionized the pro computer.
The future is that the "desktop PC" is the brain, and you stick on attachments from the outside, with no loss of performance, as needed.
Why did you need that huge internal volume with all those slots? Because you needed a fast internal-bus to stick cards into. Connecting from the outside was too slow.
If there's no loss of performance to hang a drive or accessory on the outside, then you only buy what you need.
The machine is CHEAPER since you only buy the brain now, and whatever body-parts you need later. No performance loss.
So how does the speed of Thunderbolt 2 compare with the fastest PCI Express slots? A previous poster wrote that it was comparable to x4 speed, or 1/4 of an x16 slot.
Yes this I understand. What I'm saying is that it isn't the entry level box Apple needs to drive volume.
Sounds like one that has never worked in the corporate world.
Well close, I'd rather see them get to the $1500 range. Frankly they could do this in the Mac Pro chassis using a Haswell processor with the option of a second GPU. A 75 to 85 (or whatever they top out at now) watt Haswell plus the option of a GPU would make for a very inviting machine. Make it an Iris + based Haswell for the upsell model.
They could also do this in a beefed up Mini platform without the expansion capability. Switch the Mini to SSD only internally and you free up a lot of space for power supply and fan. Add four TB 2 ports and you would have a very nice machine that could handle a processor in the 55 to 65 watt range.
I don't like the prosumer term at all, in fact I find it an insult in a way. The big problem that Apple has had for years is that the don't have a good midrange desktop machine. The gap between the Mini and the Mac Pro has gotten even wider with the debut of this new Mac Pro, oh and before anybody says anything NO the iMac is not the solution. Even worst for the mini is that the low end of the market that machine use to serve has gone to tablets, so it really needs to transition into more of a performance machine. Sadly we haven't even heard a good rumor about the Mini lately.
As you notice, Apple didn't mention any new MacMinis this last go around, so maybe Apple is getting ready to revamp their MacMini lineup and maybe a higher end model to go after the prosumer grade systems is something in the works. They only have so many people they can task to do this and maybe the MacMini update will happen next year sometime (maybe 1st quarter?)
Obsolete the day it ships. Thunderbolt is perfect for a Thunderbolt display, but not much else. The use of 6 Thunderbolt connectors requires two GPUs, how many current Mac Pros ship with two GPUs? This is a badly constrained design.
what?
if the new Mac Pro ships with 2 GPUs standard, then.... how does that make it obsolete the day it ships?
True of every computer from everyone. Your point is meaningless.
A VGA display.
A DVI display.
An HDMI display.
A DisplayPort display.
Audio hardware.
Video hardware.
A single hard drive.
Multiple hard drives.
A RAID array.
Ethernet.
Two simultaneous ten gigabit Ethernet streams.
You’re good for trolling and not much else.
Every single one. Are you blind?
^^^ This!
Just to add some meat this thread. here's a video by Michael Cioni. His company, Light Iron, does Post, DI, etc for movies like 42, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Muppets... Michael is a talented creative, engaging speaker and has an amazing mind.
The entire video is a great watch, but at 13:42, Michael talks about the future of FCPX (I'd love to get his take on the Mac Pro).
FWIW, I am going to buy a Mac Pro!
Thank you for the link as well. A lot of naysayers here would do themselves a lot of good viewing Cioni's video. Would love to see Larry Jordan use FCPX on the new Mac Pro.
As for my getting a Mac Pro, all I can say is that my wife is very, very nervous about it. Such a purchase might be the last of more that four dozen (that she knows of) Macs that I have bought since Jan, 1984.
The thing that is really frustrating about the cylinder Mac Pro is that they wasted a lot of time and money on a cool piece of industrial design for a computer architecture that is fundamentally flawed, constrained, inflexible, and will soon be obsolete. And because of the expense, they won't make the small investment for some time in a nice but pragmatic rectangular box that customers actually need.
For most of those making workstation buying decisions, I'm afraid any Mac OS X advantage will not overcome the comparison with what HP, SuperMicro, Dell, etc. offer for workstations.
In post after post, you keep declaring it "obsolete" either "soon" or on arrival. Why are you on this mission? If it doesn't work for you, go elsewhere! If you're playing the "anonymous voice of a competitor" please, enough already.
You use these catchwords, "fundamentally flawed" and "constrained" and "inflexible".... all because it breaks with the model that you are conditioned to be comfortable with? The "pragmatic" rectangular box?
Except, the new Mac Pro begins with needing little, if any 'expansion' out of the box at all. The "constraints" are imaginary. Inflexibility is only your narrative. It's powerful enough right out of the box.
As for flexibility, if you do need more drive space or speed, or expansion, then you attach a fast drive array, more monitors, whatever. Thunderbolt 2 is fast enough to attach a PCIe expansion chassis. You could have additional GPUs in that chassis, or whatever else you may need.
That's how modern "pro" computing is working these days anyway. Single-person workstations don't have the entire ball of wax inside on "pragmatic" box anymore. The workstations attach to external processing, drive arrays and more. Especially the type of "pro environments" you allude to.
I can't wait to get my hands on one of these, and put it through its paces with Logic and Final Cut... something tells me I'm going to be blown away, and that's before I even attach any expansion to it...