[...] Had they just upgraded the tower form factor I would have bought one on day one. Instead I settled for iMac 5K maxed out.
I might too, except that in all three of my Mac use cases that wonderful, glorious, much-vaunted display is not a feature, it's a liability. It adds cost for something I won't use, and results in a form factor that makes it impractical, if not impossible, to fit in the spaces in which our computers are used.
In the living room the Mac is connected to the home theatre system. Not only is there no need for a display, there's nowhere to put one. The mini sits nicely with the rest of the equipment.
In the studio the output of the Mac feeds a video wall shared with other sources. It was hard enough to find a workable way to rack mount the trashcan and all its various OUTBOARD peripherals (including a damn PCI-e card enclosure). An iMac makes zero sense in that scenario.
The iMac is an awesome device, but there are still many applications, both consumer and pro, for which a headless device is still a better choice.
I know that secrecy builds up suspense and stuff but for us Pro's, secrecy just means lack of communication with the company that is providing us with tools.
I just wish they would come out and tell us what is going on. If they are planning an upgrade, can't they at least gives us an announcement to stay tuned and show us a grill or something. If they have decided to get out of the pro market, can't they have the decency to just let us know. I need to upgrade our systems. Should I be switching to PC? Should I be waiting a few more month? I don't want to switch but I really can't operate my business like this anymore.
Apple get your act together.
Just asking: how is it remotely possible that you "can't operate your business anymore" with a 2013 Mac Pro(s)? So much so that would consider a generic PC with presumably better specs-on-paper?
Because we do 3D renderings and require as much CPU as possible. The 2013 design did not help us out at all because they cut out an entire processor. So our 2010 12 core machines are pretty equivollent to the current 2013 machines at 12 cores only the 2013 cost twice as much. So we haven't upgraded most of our systems for 6 years. Some are starting to fail now and there is no way I would pay what Apple is asking for to replace them (double the price for 6 year old speed).
This would be fine if the industry was sitting still but my competitors are easily surpassing what my company can do. They are running 44 core machines from Dell and HP. In rendering terms, that means what we can do in 10 hours, they can do in 2.5 hours. or it means they can crank up the realism, or a little of both. It was fine before because with-in a year Apple would be slightly ahead, and then the PC would be slight ahead but its been 6 years with no improvement in CPU.
Like I said, I don't really want to switch to PC but I keep waiting and waiting and waiting.
Sounds horribly inefficient.
What you're telling me is that your operation is a Core Whore, and you've yet find to find a more efficient way of accomplishing the tasks, or more efficient software that can do the same job with less horsepower. But let's not even get into that.
There are machines out there built for what it is you are trying to do...DELL is one of the makers of them. Why on earth would you even expect Apple to tackle that market? It's not that Apple once made computers for your task....they once made the fastest computers any money could buy. That changed as hardware changed and as other companies took on certain priorities.
Don't expect Apple to make any 44 core Mac Pros. If that is what you're waiting on, move on.
Sorry but no way Apple redesigns this device only to cancel it a few years later. Would never have redesigned it in the first place, and just retired it in back in 2013.
I suppose it depends how well it is selling. It certainly isn't getting a lot of love from the pro community. Had they just upgraded the tower form factor I would have bought one on day one. Instead I settled for iMac 5K maxed out.
It would get more love if they didn't let it languish. Same with Mac Mini. I don't get Apple and the Mac these days.
But how embarrassing if they discontinue the product Phil Schiller used as proof that Apple could still innovate.
6) your last point. It's soon to be 2017 and you still are in the camp hoping the HD doesn't go extinct, and even more so, you want Apple to support HD?
By HD I assume you mean hard drive? If so, yeah, there's an argument for it. In my case I don't WANT to use hard drives, but I pretty much HAVE to because of capacity per bay and price. Even if I could find 4TB or 6TB SSDs, there's just no way I could afford them. For those of us doing high-volume work with large amounts of data, hard drives are still a regular part of everyday life.
I know that secrecy builds up suspense and stuff but for us Pro's, secrecy just means lack of communication with the company that is providing us with tools.
I just wish they would come out and tell us what is going on. If they are planning an upgrade, can't they at least gives us an announcement to stay tuned and show us a grill or something. If they have decided to get out of the pro market, can't they have the decency to just let us know. I need to upgrade our systems. Should I be switching to PC? Should I be waiting a few more month? I don't want to switch but I really can't operate my business like this anymore.
Apple get your act together.
Just asking: how is it remotely possible that you "can't operate your business anymore" with a 2013 Mac Pro(s)? So much so that would consider a generic PC with presumably better specs-on-paper?
Because we do 3D renderings and require as much CPU as possible. The 2013 design did not help us out at all because they cut out an entire processor. So our 2010 12 core machines are pretty equivollent to the current 2013 machines at 12 cores only the 2013 cost twice as much. So we haven't upgraded most of our systems for 6 years. Some are starting to fail now and there is no way I would pay what Apple is asking for to replace them (double the price for 6 year old speed).
This would be fine if the industry was sitting still but my competitors are easily surpassing what my company can do. They are running 44 core machines from Dell and HP. In rendering terms, that means what we can do in 10 hours, they can do in 2.5 hours. or it means they can crank up the realism, or a little of both. It was fine before because with-in a year Apple would be slightly ahead, and then the PC would be slight ahead but its been 6 years with no improvement in CPU.
Like I said, I don't really want to switch to PC but I keep waiting and waiting and waiting.
Sounds horribly inefficient.
What you're telling me is that your operation is a Core Whore, and you've yet find to find a more efficient way of accomplishing the tasks, or more efficient software that can do the same job with less horsepower. But let's not even get into that.
There are machines out there built for what it is you are trying to do...DELL is one of the makers of them. Why on earth would you even expect Apple to tackle that market? It's not that Apple once made computers for your task....they once made the fastest computers any money could buy. That changed as hardware changed and as other companies took on certain priorities.
Don't expect Apple to make any 44 core Mac Pros. If that is what you're waiting on, move on.
Gee thanks...
So if you can please show me this magical software that does 3D renderings with out utilizing CPU cores and how I've been doing it wrong for 30 years, please enlighten me and the rest of the 3D community. I'm not even sure what you mean by "more efficient". If the software is utilizing every core of your machine at 100%, isn't that efficient? or do you mean we should stop what we are doing and only use our Pro's for word processing.
Thanks again for letting me know that Dell and HP offer 44 core systems and that the door is that way -> I knew that... I put it in my post. I also said that for the first 25 years of those 30, the Mac platform was viable to what we are doing because the Mac and PC would leap frog each other by small margins. Now the gap has widened tremendously. This is why, I need to know what's going on.
In a professional setting, switching to PC is not an easy proposition. We have people here that only know the Mac. We have a lot of other software that is Mac only, the costs, training and down time makes it difficult. We also chose MacOS when we started because of all the problems associated with Windows. We don't want to give that up either. So if I know a new MacPro is coming, its much better to wait then to switch. If they decide to discontinue the Pro or make another lame update, I have no choice. All I am saying that after 1000 days give us pros some respect and at least tell us what is going on.
It would get more love if they didn't let it languish. Same with Mac Mini. I don't get Apple and the Mac these days.
They confuse me too.
I've a 2011 mini that would be fine if it had USB3 ports. I didn't buy the 2012 model because I just couldn't imagine life with Intel 4000 graphics so I decided to wait it out for the next generation.
Who knew it would be, what, 2-1/2 years until the next one came along? Now it has acceptable graphics and a decent array of ports, but no quad core version.
I'm sure Apple has reasons for the choices it makes, but it's frustrating that I so often seem to be outside their target market.
They take one questionable example and turn it into an age-discrimination issue. BS! In Vegas where we have at least 6 Apple stores (most of which I've visited at one time or another). Though there are more young people, there is still quite a mixture of ages, as well as ethnicities. I'm 70 and remain quite tech savvy, but understand that a position at an Apple store is likely better suited to the tech-obsessed younger generation and their exuberance. No doubt this story will self-replicate over and over again with no basis in fact.
Tech savvy enough to post this on the wrong thread.
I have a clutch of 4,1 Mac Pros, some upgraded to 5,1 standard. Also a bunch of 1,1s, a dead 2,1 (power supply/logic board) and a couple of 3,1s. All do sufficiently well, especially with Cubix outboard GPUs, to have never made the 2013 Mac Pro a compelling proposition. Maybe if we ran a lot of FCP X, but we've gone from there, sorry. So for us, actually, an Xserve rack form factor is much more pro-friendly than a design exercise for the desktop. I know Sonnet make rack mounts, but really, I'd rather just buy a Mac that does what we need, rather than research a bespoke parts bin. The 2013 Mac Pro was never a great fit.
I know that secrecy builds up suspense and stuff but for us Pro's, secrecy just means lack of communication with the company that is providing us with tools.
I just wish they would come out and tell us what is going on. If they are planning an upgrade, can't they at least gives us an announcement to stay tuned and show us a grill or something. If they have decided to get out of the pro market, can't they have the decency to just let us know. I need to upgrade our systems. Should I be switching to PC? Should I be waiting a few more month? I don't want to switch but I really can't operate my business like this anymore.
Apple get your act together.
Just asking: how is it remotely possible that you "can't operate your business anymore" with a 2013 Mac Pro(s)? So much so that would consider a generic PC with presumably better specs-on-paper?
Because we do 3D renderings and require as much CPU as possible. The 2013 design did not help us out at all because they cut out an entire processor. So our 2010 12 core machines are pretty equivollent to the current 2013 machines at 12 cores only the 2013 cost twice as much. So we haven't upgraded most of our systems for 6 years. Some are starting to fail now and there is no way I would pay what Apple is asking for to replace them (double the price for 6 year old speed).
This would be fine if the industry was sitting still but my competitors are easily surpassing what my company can do. They are running 44 core machines from Dell and HP. In rendering terms, that means what we can do in 10 hours, they can do in 2.5 hours. or it means they can crank up the realism, or a little of both. It was fine before because with-in a year Apple would be slightly ahead, and then the PC would be slight ahead but its been 6 years with no improvement in CPU.
Like I said, I don't really want to switch to PC but I keep waiting and waiting and waiting.
Sounds horribly inefficient.
What you're telling me is that your operation is a Core Whore, and you've yet find to find a more efficient way of accomplishing the tasks, or more efficient software that can do the same job with less horsepower. But let's not even get into that.
There are machines out there built for what it is you are trying to do...DELL is one of the makers of them. Why on earth would you even expect Apple to tackle that market? It's not that Apple once made computers for your task....they once made the fastest computers any money could buy. That changed as hardware changed and as other companies took on certain priorities.
Don't expect Apple to make any 44 core Mac Pros. If that is what you're waiting on, move on.
Gee thanks...
So if you can please show me this magical software that does 3D renderings with out utilizing CPU cores and how I've been doing it wrong for 30 years, please enlighten me and the rest of the 3D community. I'm not even sure what you mean by "more efficient". If the software is utilizing every core of your machine at 100%, isn't that efficient? or do you mean we should stop what we are doing and only use our Pro's for word processing.
Thanks again for letting me know that Dell and HP offer 44 core systems and that the door is that way -> I knew that... I put it in my post. I also said that for the first 25 years of those 30, the Mac platform was viable to what we are doing because the Mac and PC would leap frog each other by small margins. Now the gap has widened tremendously. This is why, I need to know what's going on.
In a professional setting, switching to PC is not an easy proposition. We have people here that only know the Mac. We have a lot of other software that is Mac only, the costs, training and down time makes it difficult. We also chose MacOS when we started because of all the problems associated with Windows. We don't want to give that up either. So if I know a new MacPro is coming, its much better to wait then to switch. If they decide to discontinue the Pro or make another lame update, I have no choice. All I am saying that after 1000 days give us pros some respect and at least tell us what is going on.
Well you've survived somehow for 30 years without a 44 core Mac to do the job, so I'm at a loss for why you need that now to continue functioning. Sounds more like you've done the hypothetical calculation of what could be done in theory, and now think you can't live without it.
Your profession is a prime example of many that, despite all the seeming "advances" over time, hasnt really changed much and is still doing the same basic tasks. It probably takes you the same amount of time to get something shipped today as it did 10 or 20 years ago, despite all the so called advances in technology. So when you are lamenting the speed of a 3D render, keep some perspective.
There are still paid search ads live pointing to the Mac Pro page. I'm guessing if they were going to discontinue it, they would have pulled paid support from those terms or direct the traffic straight to Apple.com or MBP long ago.
It was a poor decision for them to essentially abandon the high-end market. They still need to have pro solutions for people who use CAD, for film editors, for effects people, scientists, etc. The Mac Pro still needs to be an aspirational product and it should occupy a space that helps the "home" market Mac OS/macOS user to graduate to more powerful computers, unless Apple intends on extending the iMac line with a new iMac Pro?
The imac currently fills a lot of pricing territory that used to be occupied by the mac pro, and I suspect it has picked up some customers. If you're dealing with anything super color-critical (eg need a close as possible match to hard proofs or a broadcast display or something similar), it's not really a great option. Scientific computing is often done on servers or CUDA, so it's not an option either way. OpenCL is a terrible option for that, partly due to legacy code, but the role of a Mac in any kind of scientific computing would likely be either light simulations or a simple terminal (ssh whateverserver).
I don't think the mac pro has ever been an aspirational product. It allowed for better customization. Considering the reported throttling and gpu failures on this one, I don't think they'll make another.
Sorry but no way Apple redesigns this device only to cancel it a few years later. Would never have redesigned it in the first place, and just retired it in back in 2013.
I suppose it depends how well it is selling. It certainly isn't getting a lot of love from the pro community. Had they just upgraded the tower form factor I would have bought one on day one. Instead I settled for iMac 5K maxed out.
It would get more love if they didn't let it languish. Same with Mac Mini. I don't get Apple and the Mac these days.
But how embarrassing if they discontinue the product Phil Schiller used as proof that Apple could still innovate.
The killer app that was supposed to represent the perfect pairing for the new Mac Pro was FCP X which also met with a rather chilly reception by the pros. I bought the app but never used it. I switched back to Premire.
The imac currently fills a lot of pricing territory that used to be occupied by the mac pro, and I suspect it has picked up some customers...
I work with Wolfram's Mathematica. (https://www.wolfram.com/mathematica/) When my 2009 iMac was even a year old, Mathematica's computational speed tests showed it to be faster than many desktop systems running windows and linux and quite near the top of the performance ladder. Better graphics performance would definitely have been good but otherwise the iMac was quite serviceable in crunching through data. My future needs will request much better graphics performance and I too hope that the pro is about to be renewed.
- the lack of USB on the front means you are constantly spinning your machine around, or leaving it pointed cables-forward, which kind of defeats the entire purpose of making the front look clean
- 4 USB simply isn't enough. I am constantly pulling one to make room for USB keys and such. This would be better if the Apple keyboard had a USB3 hub, but it's not.
What's the problem with buying a USB hub or two together with an extension lead and leaving everything plugged in place?
- the lack of USB on the front means you are constantly spinning your machine around, or leaving it pointed cables-forward, which kind of defeats the entire purpose of making the front look clean
- 4 USB simply isn't enough. I am constantly pulling one to make room for USB keys and such. This would be better if the Apple keyboard had a USB3 hub, but it's not.
What's the problem with buying a USB hub or two together with an extension lead and leaving everything plugged in place?
Design decisions to emphasize size and silent running allowed me to place it on my desk rather than under it... probably not as important as expansion. You can't see the raid attached under the desk or the 2 power strips running the entire operation. More than one person has mistaken it as a trash can and dropped something into it.
- the lack of USB on the front means you are constantly spinning your machine around, or leaving it pointed cables-forward, which kind of defeats the entire purpose of making the front look clean
- 4 USB simply isn't enough. I am constantly pulling one to make room for USB keys and such. This would be better if the Apple keyboard had a USB3 hub, but it's not.
What's the problem with buying a USB hub or two together with an extension lead and leaving everything plugged in place?
Design decisions to emphasize size and silent running allowed me to place it on my desk rather than under it... probably not as important as expansion. You can't see the raid attached under the desk or the 2 power strips running the entire operation. More than one person has mistaken it as a trash can and dropped something into it.
if more than one person you work with thinks all that crap is plugged into a trash can that's inconviently sitting on your desktop behind your monitor...then your org needs help. the sort Apple cannot provide.
To comment on those who are critiquing altivec88 and as a fellow Pro Mac user, the issue is not that he can't run his business with the 2013 Mac Pro, but that the uncertainty of whether he should be using Macs in a pro environment at all is causing pro's a lot of stress, myself included. We can't tell if we should be waiting a few weeks when we need to add or replace a workstation, for Apple to finally give us a reason to happily continue using mac towers, or sadly switch to Windows when we need a new machine with high-end specs. Deep down we know that it isn't really that hard for Apple to do these things, so they probably just don't care anymore, and that makes pros everywhere feel... :-(
If there is anything, I think Mac Pro should be the single product that Apple produces and should make a Net Zero profit. i,e At the starting price of $2999, it should offer a Pro Computer that there is NO way you could build for the same price ( Specification wise ) and not from Competitors.
It is highly likely, if not certain that within the next 2-3 years we will have iMac that offer 4x the current GPU performance of iMac 5K, 2x the CPU performance, 2x I/O Performance, 2x Memory. i.e It will pretty fit all of the Prosumer and Many professional needs.
Probably retiring it. The design was goofy in my opinion. Sort of like the Cube was. I still love my original Mac Pro which I recently completely upgraded with all new everything and even though it was EOL with Lion, there is a nice hack that lets you install the latest OS. Not anywhere as fast as the new model but still quite serviceable.
I still see it as a forward looking design. We will soon see another process shrink, possibly to ten nanometers, at this level we will see a tremendous performance boost in the machine. Take on 3D chip technology of some sort and the platform will scale immensely. The only thing Apple did bad here is price it way to high.
Comments
In the living room the Mac is connected to the home theatre system. Not only is there no need for a display, there's nowhere to put one. The mini sits nicely with the rest of the equipment.
In the studio the output of the Mac feeds a video wall shared with other sources. It was hard enough to find a workable way to rack mount the trashcan and all its various OUTBOARD peripherals (including a damn PCI-e card enclosure). An iMac makes zero sense in that scenario.
The iMac is an awesome device, but there are still many applications, both consumer and pro, for which a headless device is still a better choice.
What you're telling me is that your operation is a Core Whore, and you've yet find to find a more efficient way of accomplishing the tasks, or more efficient software that can do the same job with less horsepower. But let's not even get into that.
There are machines out there built for what it is you are trying to do...DELL is one of the makers of them. Why on earth would you even expect Apple to tackle that market? It's not that Apple once made computers for your task....they once made the fastest computers any money could buy. That changed as hardware changed and as other companies took on certain priorities.
Don't expect Apple to make any 44 core Mac Pros. If that is what you're waiting on, move on.
But how embarrassing if they discontinue the product Phil Schiller used as proof that Apple could still innovate.
Is that kind of thing really necessary? What did that accomplish?
So if you can please show me this magical software that does 3D renderings with out utilizing CPU cores and how I've been doing it wrong for 30 years, please enlighten me and the rest of the 3D community. I'm not even sure what you mean by "more efficient". If the software is utilizing every core of your machine at 100%, isn't that efficient? or do you mean we should stop what we are doing and only use our Pro's for word processing.
Thanks again for letting me know that Dell and HP offer 44 core systems and that the door is that way -> I knew that... I put it in my post. I also said that for the first 25 years of those 30, the Mac platform was viable to what we are doing because the Mac and PC would leap frog each other by small margins. Now the gap has widened tremendously. This is why, I need to know what's going on.
In a professional setting, switching to PC is not an easy proposition. We have people here that only know the Mac. We have a lot of other software that is Mac only, the costs, training and down time makes it difficult. We also chose MacOS when we started because of all the problems associated with Windows. We don't want to give that up either. So if I know a new MacPro is coming, its much better to wait then to switch. If they decide to discontinue the Pro or make another lame update, I have no choice. All I am saying that after 1000 days give us pros some respect and at least tell us what is going on.
They confuse me too.
I've a 2011 mini that would be fine if it had USB3 ports. I didn't buy the 2012 model because I just couldn't imagine life with Intel 4000 graphics so I decided to wait it out for the next generation.
Who knew it would be, what, 2-1/2 years until the next one came along? Now it has acceptable graphics and a decent array of ports, but no quad core version.
I'm sure Apple has reasons for the choices it makes, but it's frustrating that I so often seem to be outside their target market.
Your profession is a prime example of many that, despite all the seeming "advances" over time, hasnt really changed much and is still doing the same basic tasks. It probably takes you the same amount of time to get something shipped today as it did 10 or 20 years ago, despite all the so called advances in technology. So when you are lamenting the speed of a 3D render, keep some perspective.
I don't think the mac pro has ever been an aspirational product. It allowed for better customization. Considering the reported throttling and gpu failures on this one, I don't think they'll make another.
Design decisions to emphasize size and silent running allowed me to place it on my desk rather than under it... probably not as important as expansion. You can't see the raid attached under the desk or the 2 power strips running the entire operation. More than one person has mistaken it as a trash can and dropped something into it.
i,e At the starting price of $2999, it should offer a Pro Computer that there is NO way you could build for the same price ( Specification wise ) and not from Competitors.
It is highly likely, if not certain that within the next 2-3 years we will have iMac that offer 4x the current GPU performance of iMac 5K, 2x the CPU performance, 2x I/O Performance, 2x Memory. i.e It will pretty fit all of the Prosumer and Many professional needs.