Apple's 2019 Mac Pro: eight things we want to see

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 63
    GrampsGramps Posts: 2member
    I'd also like to see some sort of retaining clip for all Thunderbolt cables. I like my 2013 quite well, but it's maddening to rotate the thing and have half of the Thunderbolt cables fall out.
    RV8watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 63
    KoorstagKoorstag Posts: 2unconfirmed, member
    All I see in this article is lots of things we need (Nvidia and upgradable processors the most important to me), but probably won't get. What is the point of that? I hate my trashcan mac with the fury of 10,000 suns. Seems to me that Apple still isn't learning.
  • Reply 23 of 63
    leroykleroyk Posts: 1member
    Stability. My 2017 Mac Pro randomly reboots. My 2009 Mac Pro is rock solid.
  • Reply 24 of 63
    macxpress said:
    tht said:
    The biggest issue is to just keep the machines updated at a 12 to 18 month cadence, preferably 12. They are even fine with keeping the 2013 Mac Pro industrial design as long as it is updated with state of the art parts. This is basically the iOS device model strategy. Instead of upgrading the machines internally, people sell old models to buy new models. Maybe Apple could have a convenient exchange program.

    Minimally, 1 Xeon and 1 Vega means 150+300 = 400 W of power for those two alone. I/O, RAM, storage is going to be another 100 W. So the next box needs to be handle 500 W. Give it 50% margin and make a 750 W box. This way, the box could be retrofitted for 2 250W GPUs, or whatever unforeseen new capability the box wasn’t designed for. There was zero excuse for painting themselves into a thermal corner.

    The internally expandable box is great for hobbyists and tinkerers, but Apple could just easily fall into the same rut of not updating that type of design with state of the art components. It’s really not the box that is the problem, it’s Apple’s commitment to continually offer state of the art workstation level machines.
    Of course it also helps to have something to upgrade to as well. What I don't want to see if Apple updating the Mac Pro for the sake of updating it. Some either forgot or have never experienced the PowerMac G4 days where Apple would release this minuscule update basically just for the sake of updating it and sometimes the outgoing model was technically faster than the new model in certain applications. This constantly pissed customers off so if Intel doesn't have anything worthy of upgrading to for 2yrs then I can understand Apple waiting. Is it really worth Apple's time putting a new Xeon chip in thats only marginally faster just to shut people up?
    Yes, because new gpus will be available, as well as updated ram and storage requirements for whatever workflow/apps you use.  And 2 years is a really long time in the computer industry.
    edited April 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 63
    toddzrxtoddzrx Posts: 194member
    OK, I'm a complete non-Pro Mac owner using a 2010 21" iMac with an SSD that's still chugging along.  So take this with a grain of salt.

    Seems to me that the most important part about the new Mac Pro is that the processor, memory, and storage all need to be absolutely blazing fast, well beyond the new iMac Pro which, while pretty capable in its own right, has its thermal limits.  The processor, memory, and storage are all components that get utilized all the time so they have to perform, and I would imagine that buyers across the board require this no matter what they're using it for; it's the core capability of the machine.  I think this is what should make up the majority of the cost and capability of a new Pro.

    Graphics, on the other hand, is where there's a variety of needs.  My understanding is that there's an NVidia camp, an AMD camp, and an "I don't really care" camp.  You're not going to please anyone buy restricting the GPU to just a few options, so why not just give the Pro a competent base GPU but with a lot of upgrade options, both AMD and NVidia, and externals as well?  I think this will broaden the Pro's customer base and even though Apple would lose some profit to customers who will upgrade graphics on their own, they'll make that up by just selling more Pros overall.

    Of course, there should be TB3 ports galore.  I tend to think that 1 or 2 HDMI is a good thing, but again, I'm not a pro at all.

    Also, I wish Apple would release a range of displays that look like the one in the article.  I can easily see 3 different models: a large 8K monitor (30" or larger), a slightly smaller 5K (27"), and a 24" 4K that's more consumer oriented.  I'd be an instant buyer of a $500 24" 4K monitor to hook up to a new Mac Mini or a new Macbook, and I would imagine that Apple would get a lot of customers like me that want a very nice looking and capable monitor like the one shown, edge-to-edge screen and all.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 63
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,140member
    Is it really worth Apple's time putting a new Xeon chip in thats only marginally faster just to shut people up?
    This is my observation too.  Looking at diminishing returns for higher core-count is creating an HP Z-Series lookalike really the right way to increase productivity?

    There’s a lot of this turn a Mac into a PC commentary on the web but all I can see happening is when the bleated get their way they’ll just say Apple’s too expensive, license MacOS.  Back to the tower isn’t the Apple way.  I’d rather see Apple produce their own silicon for video, for music, for gaming.  Just as they have creativity software, they should have creativity hardware.

    I think:-
    1) They also don’t believe a tower is the future of Mac Pro hence the word ‘modular’.
    2) They still reckon most Pro scenarios would benefit from better MacBook Pros & iMac Pros than a tower hence the delay.
    3) They will release updated 5K & 8K Thunderbolt Displays with built-in Apple GPU and that’s the real reason behind eGPU support.  This would make MacBook Pro (& Mac Mini Pro ?) configs more professionally viable.
    4) They will produce their own graphics & audio processors across all products.

    As an interim measure; alongside a new TB Display, a GPU card replacement with their own GPU for the Mac Pro.  More of a push for multi-GPU software support, which has slowly improved anyway.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 63
    ivanhivanh Posts: 350member
    1. Mac Enterprise for a team (not Mac Pro for individual)
    2. Rack mounted, 19”, 4RU - 45RU
    3. Multi-Slate deign, upward unlimited scalability
    4. Native Virtual Machine on iMac Pro
    5. An Apple logo sticker splashing on the rack telling people this is a Mac-rack.

    In a nut shell, Apple-As-A-Service, aka AAAS,

    (perfect for stammerers: a...a...a...s)
    edited April 2018
  • Reply 28 of 63
    tht said:
    Originally, Apple hadn't updated the "cheese grater" Mac Pro because they were getting ready to announce the new cylindrical Mac Pro. That Mac Pro launched, and it was fine at the beginning, but then they noticed all the issues that came up with it. Notably no modularity, not enough power, among other issues. It was then they decided, again, to redesign it. So instead of limping the current one along, they left it as-is and promised the new one soon.
    I think the history is something like this:

    2012: 2012 Mac Pro: perfunctory update to only the CPUs, 2013 Mac Pro well into development
    2013: 2013 Mac Pro: new Mac Pro design!
    2014: Not looking promising for updating CPUs and GPUs. Uh, no new 135W GPUs from AMD?
    2015: Uh, we can’t put 250W GPUs into the Mac Pro, it’ll melt or be very loud; iMac Pro starts development to replace Mac Pro
    2016: iMac Pro continues development; Mac Pro users provide feedback, like why no VR support, or no GPU compute?
    2017: Apple figures out iMac Pro won’t be enough; new headless Mac, eGPU starts development
    2018: The iMac Pro is our Pro desktop offering at this time, please buy it. eGPU supported.
    2019: new Mac Pro! New monitor!

    [...]
    You rightly highlight the GPU problem, but compounding that were CPU problems in 2015 and 2016 -- the Ivy Bridge-EPs (September 2013) used in the Mac Pro were updated in September 2014 (Haswell-EP), but then not again until June 2016 (Broadwell-EP). IIRC, the delays were unexpected. It's possible Apple planned to do a quiet Late 2015 refresh (whatever the GPUs) that fell apart when Intel fumbled. Apple pulls the plug on the whole design in 2015 rather than refresh with year-old CPUs. If Intel had delivered in September 2015 like they were expected to, there might at least have been a decent refresh of the current design.

    Nonetheless, we would still be where we are today (give or take a year), for all the reasons we've heard, mainly the GPU thermals. It's just some of us would be less unhappy, running Late 2015 Mac Pros instead the current 2013 units. On the other hand, Apple would likely have remained silent and thus we'd probably not know anything about the upcoming redesign. Plus, the Late 2017 iMac Pro that came out of the blue at WWDC 2017 would be triggering all sorts of rumors that the Mac Pro is dead because it wasn't refreshed at the same time...
    edited April 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 63
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,787member
    jdb8167 said:
    For the record, my 2013 Mac Pro is the best desktop computer I've ever owned. It suits my needs in most ways. I never needed a second GPU but other than that, pretty much perfect though very expensive.

    But it is getting pretty old at this point. I will probably upgrade sometime in the next couple of years. I want:

    1. One moderately powerful, upgradeable GPU. I don't care AMD or NVIDIA.
    2. 8-12 Core Xeon possibly with support for 2 CPUs. I might be satisfied with an i9 but I don't think it supports ECC memory which I want.
    3. Large amount of ECC memory. At least up to 128 GB for future expansion. ECC is pretty necessary when going with large amounts of RAM.
    4. Upgradeable SSD slots, at least 4 for RAID configurations. At least 4 TB.
    5. Thunderbolt 3. At least 6 ports, at least 3 independent controllers for maximum bandwidth.
    6. Quiet and relatively small case. I love the Mac Pro trashcan but I don't mind larger for more expandability. Enough cooling to never throttle.
    7. Dual 10 Gb ethernet.

    I run lots of VMs. These requirements are all in service to having 2 or more VMs running simultaneously.
    The one thing I never understood about the current Mac Pro is the lack of a single GPU option.    Many so called pro use cases simply don't need two GPU's.   The trash can could have appealed to a lot of people if Apple simply replaced the extra GPU card with a carrier card for 4 M.2 SSD cards.    That would have made for an amazing platform and shut down many of the cries about expansion.

    As for 2 CPU chips I don't see that happening.   Technology has passed that by for ever being cost effective in a workstation.   We live in an age when one can get 64 ARM cores on a single chip, I just don't see there ever being enough volume to do dual slot workstations.

    Beyond that I hope somebody at Apple reads your list.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 63
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,787member
    macxpress said:
    tht said:
    The biggest issue is to just keep the machines updated at a 12 to 18 month cadence, preferably 12. They are even fine with keeping the 2013 Mac Pro industrial design as long as it is updated with state of the art parts. This is basically the iOS device model strategy. Instead of upgrading the machines internally, people sell old models to buy new models. Maybe Apple could have a convenient exchange program.

    Minimally, 1 Xeon and 1 Vega means 150+300 = 400 W of power for those two alone. I/O, RAM, storage is going to be another 100 W. So the next box needs to be handle 500 W. Give it 50% margin and make a 750 W box. This way, the box could be retrofitted for 2 250W GPUs, or whatever unforeseen new capability the box wasn’t designed for. There was zero excuse for painting themselves into a thermal corner.

    The internally expandable box is great for hobbyists and tinkerers, but Apple could just easily fall into the same rut of not updating that type of design with state of the art components. It’s really not the box that is the problem, it’s Apple’s commitment to continually offer state of the art workstation level machines.
    Of course it also helps to have something to upgrade to as well. What I don't want to see if Apple updating the Mac Pro for the sake of updating it. Some either forgot or have never experienced the PowerMac G4 days where Apple would release this minuscule update basically just for the sake of updating it and sometimes the outgoing model was technically faster than the new model in certain applications. This constantly pissed customers off so if Intel doesn't have anything worthy of upgrading to for 2yrs then I can understand Apple waiting. Is it really worth Apple's time putting a new Xeon chip in thats only marginally faster just to shut people up?
    That is a real problem with Intel mostly to blame.   First Xeon hasn't been on the same track as Intel's desktop processors as far as updates go.   That is OK, you would expect Intel to make sure its workstation processors are reliable and well tested.   The problem is the use of Xeon means we constantly have idiots looking at the desktop lines looking for the same kind of updates.

    That is one side of it but it does not explain Apples lack of a trash can update.    At this late date there are plenty of chips to update the trash can with and give it a reasonable performance bump.   The so called thermal cage they designed themselves into is effectively gone.    In other words no updates in 2015 are one thing, no updated today is just Apple being stupid.  

    Oh and by the way stupid is the right word and applies to the Mini and Mac Book Air also.    The design considerations that created those revisions many years ago are gone, so the lack of updates are only killing off the product lines now.   I actually find the condition of the Mini to be extremely frustrating as they have so many real option for that platform.   This lack of interest in the Mac desktop market has me actually believing the rumors about ARM based Macs coming real soon.   In the case of the Mini, Apple could easily produce an ARM based machine that outperforms the old one making it look like a good ""upgrade"".  
  • Reply 31 of 63
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,787member
    tht said:
    The biggest issue is to just keep the machines updated at a 12 to 18 month cadence, preferably 12. They are even fine with keeping the 2013 Mac Pro industrial design as long as it is updated with state of the art parts. This is basically the iOS device model strategy. Instead of upgrading the machines internally, people sell old models to buy new models. Maybe Apple could have a convenient exchange program.

    Minimally, 1 Xeon and 1 Vega means 150+300 = 400 W of power for those two alone. I/O, RAM, storage is going to be another 100 W. So the next box needs to be handle 500 W. Give it 50% margin and make a 750 W box. This way, the box could be retrofitted for 2 250W GPUs, or whatever unforeseen new capability the box wasn’t designed for. There was zero excuse for painting themselves into a thermal corner.

    The internally expandable box is great for hobbyists and tinkerers, but Apple could just easily fall into the same rut of not updating that type of design with state of the art components. It’s really not the box that is the problem, it’s Apple’s commitment to continually offer state of the art workstation level machines.
    I totally agree that it is an issue to not updated the boxes after a significant amount of time. However, I don't think it will be a problem going further. (Least I hope!)

    Originally, Apple hadn't updated the "cheese grater" Mac Pro because they were getting ready to announce the new cylindrical Mac Pro. That Mac Pro launched, and it was fine at the beginning, but then they noticed all the issues that came up with it. Notably no modularity, not enough power, among other issues. It was then they decided, again, to redesign it. So instead of limping the current one along, they left it as-is and promised the new one soon.

    Obviously, they could have handled this better. They could have updated the basic specs on the machine to keep it current. I think if they nail the design on the new one, and they plan to actually keep it around, then it will be more likely for them to keep it updated.
    Handled it better?????   There is nothing acceptable about Apples behavior with the Mac line up.  Nothing!!!!!   In part it is why i'm typing this on an HP ENVY right now.   Some may laugh here but the little AMD processor in this machine runs rings around my 13" MBP, the Mini and likely even some of the iMacs.   That is running a gross version of Windows, run Linux on it (a close analog of Mac OS) and it is amazingly fast.

    The point here is that the world of processors has changed dramatically since the introduction of most of Apple Macs!   The lack of upgrades should have Apple user base up in arms over this neglect.  
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 32 of 63
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 12,787member
    sandor said:
    jdb8167 said:
    For the record, my 2013 Mac Pro is the best desktop computer I've ever owned. It suits my needs in most ways. I never needed a second GPU but other than that, pretty much perfect though very expensive.

    But it is getting pretty old at this point. I will probably upgrade sometime in the next couple of years. I want:

    1. One moderately powerful, upgradeable GPU. I don't care AMD or NVIDIA.
    2. 8-12 Core Xeon possibly with support for 2 CPUs. I might be satisfied with an i9 but I don't think it supports ECC memory which I want.
    3. Large amount of ECC memory. At least up to 128 GB for future expansion. ECC is pretty necessary when going with large amounts of RAM.
    4. Upgradeable SSD slots, at least 4 for RAID configurations. At least 4 TB.
    5. Thunderbolt 3. At least 6 ports, at least 3 independent controllers for maximum bandwidth.
    6. Quiet and relatively small case. I love the Mac Pro trashcan but I don't mind larger for more expandability. Enough cooling to never throttle.
    7. Dual 10 Gb ethernet.

    I run lots of VMs. These requirements are all in service to having 2 or more VMs running simultaneously.

    This is the start of a good list.

    We have been running our 2012 Pro very successfully over the years, and there are capability reasons we haven't upgraded.

    Xeon processors have been greatly beneficial (we have the 12 core variant)

    128 GB RAM is the least on the maximum end - we've been running 128 for 4? years now, and i wish we could go higher.

    re: SSDs - we need the ability to use off the shelf drives (preferably SATA or SAS - this allows us 4, 8, 12 TB SSD in a 2.5" form factor)

    Apple has lagged so far behind in regards to SSD capacity.
    Our heaviest users have remained (for their mobile computers) on old form factor MacBook Pros with 2.5" drives solely because Apple doesnt have a 4 TB option, and we can throw in a Samsung 4 TB SSD with no issue.
    This shouldn't happen in a MacBook Pro, and cannot be acceptable in a Mac Pro.
    The capacities exist, allow a customer to pay the money to get it.

    Thunderbolt is an "of course"
    PCI expansion is necessary, as upgrading to a new Mac Pro is cheap compared to upgrading our FibreChannel SAN. We have been running some workstations with Thunderbolt to FC bridges, but they have not been the easiest to keep rolling...

    The case should fit in a standard rack, or at least have removable appendages that allow it to be bolted in (i am looking at you, 2012 aluminum case with non-detachable feet & "arms"

    GPUs should be current & upgradeable. It is our least-necessary bit, but i understand the needs of others.
    FCP rendering has proven fast enough on the workstations for us, and storage & imaging database are the biggest resources hogs on our 2012.

    Apple has totally lost it as far as computer engineering goes.   In 2008 when I got back onto the platform I never thought I would be saying that.    It is almost like their engineers don't know what exists on the chip market these days.   While I don't have the pressing need for the massive capacities you suggest (at least not yet) the HP ENVY I have has an M2 slot along with a position for 2.5" device, that is in a low end computer (25 watt) selling well below a comparable Mac Pro.   I say comparable Mac Pro here judging it against my 13" MBP .   The little AMD processor is just as fast if not faster (more cores) than Apples 13" offering and it has a far better GPU.  

    Frankly I see the excuses offered up by Apple of late to be complete bullshit.   The hardware exists to update everything in the Mac line up and it has for years now.   The only thing Apple is accomplishing right now is that they are loosing customers.   I have this feeling that when WWDC comes they will be introducing Macs with year old processors again.
  • Reply 33 of 63
    wizard69 said:
    macxpress said:
    tht said:
    The biggest issue is to just keep the machines updated at a 12 to 18 month cadence, preferably 12. They are even fine with keeping the 2013 Mac Pro industrial design as long as it is updated with state of the art parts. This is basically the iOS device model strategy. Instead of upgrading the machines internally, people sell old models to buy new models. Maybe Apple could have a convenient exchange program.

    Minimally, 1 Xeon and 1 Vega means 150+300 = 400 W of power for those two alone. I/O, RAM, storage is going to be another 100 W. So the next box needs to be handle 500 W. Give it 50% margin and make a 750 W box. This way, the box could be retrofitted for 2 250W GPUs, or whatever unforeseen new capability the box wasn’t designed for. There was zero excuse for painting themselves into a thermal corner.

    The internally expandable box is great for hobbyists and tinkerers, but Apple could just easily fall into the same rut of not updating that type of design with state of the art components. It’s really not the box that is the problem, it’s Apple’s commitment to continually offer state of the art workstation level machines.
    Of course it also helps to have something to upgrade to as well. What I don't want to see if Apple updating the Mac Pro for the sake of updating it. Some either forgot or have never experienced the PowerMac G4 days where Apple would release this minuscule update basically just for the sake of updating it and sometimes the outgoing model was technically faster than the new model in certain applications. This constantly pissed customers off so if Intel doesn't have anything worthy of upgrading to for 2yrs then I can understand Apple waiting. Is it really worth Apple's time putting a new Xeon chip in thats only marginally faster just to shut people up?
    That is a real problem with Intel mostly to blame.   First Xeon hasn't been on the same track as Intel's desktop processors as far as updates go.   That is OK, you would expect Intel to make sure its workstation processors are reliable and well tested.   The problem is the use of Xeon means we constantly have idiots looking at the desktop lines looking for the same kind of updates.

    That is one side of it but it does not explain Apples lack of a trash can update.    At this late date there are plenty of chips to update the trash can with and give it a reasonable performance bump.   The so called thermal cage they designed themselves into is effectively gone.    In other words no updates in 2015 are one thing, no updated today is just Apple being stupid. [...]
    There could have been a mid-2016 update, for sure. Broadwell-EP and I-don't-know-what in terms of GPU. But it seems pretty clear that the ship had already sailed by then. A judgment was made, probably in 2015. It's hard to second-guess that without a lot more information and context (i.e., what did they know and when did they know it). The iMac Pro was probably already in development and using the next generation of those Xeon-EP single-processor workstation CPUs (Skylake-W). Apple would have known Intel was transitioning to a new platform for Xeon-SP. Not to mention persistent memory, and Apple's T-series co-processors. The old design was toast. 2019 is not surprising, though I'll guess 2018 was the original target date, back in 2015 when this decision must have been made.

    The mini is another story, and hell if I know. My hope is that it is dead and it will be replaced by a "Mac," without the "mini"...
    edited April 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 34 of 63
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,140member
    tenthousandthings said:

    There could have been a mid-2016 update, for sure. Broadwell-EP and I-don't-know-what in terms of GPU. But it seems pretty clear that the ship had already sailed by then. A judgment was made, probably in 2015. It's hard to second-guess that without a lot more information and context (i.e., what did they know and when did they know it). The iMac Pro was probably already in development and using the next generation of those Xeon-EP single-processor workstation CPUs (Skylake-W). Apple would have known Intel was transitioning to a new platform for Xeon-SP. Not to mention persistent memory, and Apple's T-series co-processors. The old design was toast. 2019 is not surprising, though I'll guess 2018 was the original target date, back in 2015 when this decision must have been made.

    The mini is another story, and hell if I know. My hope is that it is dead and it will be replaced by a "Mac," without the "mini"...
    I think they had a real issue with Xeon & AMD GPU updates.  Intel provided only incremental updates to Xeon and they backed the wrong horse with AMD; Vega took forever and was/is still too power-hungry.

    Unless they’re prepared to become just another box supplier they should go with their own silicon.  Unfortunately, just as benchmarks don’t support their 1x Edit + 1x Render GPU configuration in the Mac Pro some idiot will point out their hyper-optimal Metal GPU doesn’t run OpenGL benchmarks well so marketing will be a challenge.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 35 of 63
    jdwjdw Posts: 742member
    We can see that there is an admittedly small crowd of people who would like the modularity and expandability of a pro machine, even if they don't need the raw power of one. What we are hoping for, is a more affordably priced base model. If the Mac Pro is as upgradable as we hope, there is a chance there will be a more affordable base model that users could upgrade themselves over time.
    I'm definitely a part of that "small crowd."  It doesn't matter if it is unlikely, we can only provide feedback to Apple in support of the idea and hope one day our needs will be met.
  • Reply 36 of 63
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,061member
    Question regarding ECC vs Optane as RAM.
    If Intel can get up the volume to really start pushing Optane as DRAM DIMMs would that delete the need for ECC?
    Or would the long storage nature of the non-volitile storage make error checking more important.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 37 of 63
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,591member
    lkrupp said:
    Two definitions I’d like to see talked about. First is the definition of Pro user. Who is a pro user? I’ve been around long enough to question anyone who says they are a professional user. Like “mechanic” anybody can  hang out their shingle and call themselves a pro. For example I can easily call Alex Lindsay of Pixel Corps a true professional. Some guy in his bedroom using Photoshop not so much. Second is to define what a pro needs vs what a pro wants. Again I’ve been around the track a few times and wonder sometimes at the comment that starts, “I’m a pro and I need this or that.”

    So bottom line I hope Apple listens to professionals like Alex Lindsay and others and not someone who built a hackintosh with stuffed in parts from Fry’s and calls themselves a pro user. Don’t fall into the specs trap.

    Rest assured, though, that whatever Apple comes up with will be torn to shreds by the Internet technorati and their constant negativity. Can you tell I’m a bitter cynic when it comes to know-it-alls who know nothing?

    When you get right down to it, you can basically boil everything negative said about Apple into one single complaint:

    "I want it cheaper"

    That's basically it.

    Analysts whine about marketshare and try to play down the importance of profit. Why? Because to compete on marketshare, Apple would have to sell phones at a near loss.

    Android users spend all their time on Apple rumour sites. Why? Because they want an iPhone but don't want to pay for one. So their only recourse is to try to remove the iPhone as a choice so they don't feel butthurt about choosing something else.

    Folk bang on about upgradability in the future as though it's more important than the suitability of the machine they're buying now? Why because they want a machine and don't want to buy another one ever again. 

    Apple want to build a Pro machine, but they don't want to build a Pro machine that people they will only ever buy in its first iteration.

    Folk (understandably) want something for nothing.
    Apple wants to sell something that justifies the cost and effort of designing and maintaining.

    The trick is finding the balance that is acceptable to the 'real' customers, and ignore everyone else.

    So I'm thinking that upgrades are going to be through stackable boxes that can replaced easily.  The main CPU will have the RAM and IO. You can upgrade that and keep the rest of your stack. Same with the GPU(s). Will you be able to upgrade the RAM? Probably, yes.

    If they go down the route of stackable boxes, then I guarantee that folk will complain that they can't upgrade the stuff inside the stack boxes, and so avoid the "Apple tax".
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 38 of 63
    Koorstag said:
     I hate my trashcan mac with the fury of 10,000 suns. Seems to me that Apple still isn't learning.

    Shouldn't you have done some research before you bought your trashcan Mac? How can you blindly spend so much on a computer without understanding what it can and cannot do?

    Your fury of 10,000 suns should be turned on yourself for not having done due diligence before buying it.

    edited April 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 63
    The article states:
    "... If the Mac Pro is as upgradable as we hope, there is a chance there will be a more affordable base model that users could upgrade themselves over time.
    Still, this seems quite unlikely to happen. Money spent on upgrades would go to others besides Apple, something they probably aren't too keen on. ..."
    To still benefit from customers upgrading their MacPros, Apple could consider designing swappable boards, ideally, to be also included in iMac Pros, such that Macs could possibly benefit from future architectural upgrades above and beyond what GPU makers and other add-on manufactures have to offer (and to support advances in those add-ons).
    edited April 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 63
    The irony of all the "pro user" talk is that the standard iMac of today wipes the floor with the old Mac Pro cheese grater machines. That's just how computer technology works. The hardware advances much faster than the software. The majority of users that bought a cheese grater Pro machine for what they did professionally 10 years ago are not going to need to buy a Pro machine today. Apple's current (and future) Pro lineup of desktops is serving a smaller and smaller niche of users...the heaviest of the heavy lifters. 
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.