We deal with PHI data that can't go on AWS or any outside servers. Some of our machines are 768GB RAM, the previous workstation limit, as virtualized instances as mentioned will take a heck of a lot of memory relative to their need for CPU. That bit seems to be throwing off a lot of people online who can't imagine needing 1.5TB in a single workstation. We were already maxing out older platforms.
AWS is HIPPA compliant and will sign a BAA. There’s no reason you can’t put PHI in the Amazon Cloud. You’re incorrectly limiting your organization’s IT options if you aren’t evaluating cloud options. There may be other reasons not to use AWS, but HIPPA and PHI is not one of them.
This is completely correct. The BAA is the thing that makes something "HIPAA compliant" - all modern encryption meets HIPAA requirements.
We've been using AWS for EMR/EPM for years, with a BAA in place.
Our PACS remains in-house, as the cost of 100 TB on AWS is monumental, and then we get to have a smaller pipe on our WAN (our PACS serves up 100s of GBs of data every day)
Cloud options abound for HIPPA-constrained organizations. Google Cloud for example is also HIPPA-compliant and Google will sign a BAA as well. Last I knew Apple Cloud was not tho, and they will not sign a BAA. If that's changed someone please chime in.
In any event off-site cloud storage does not need to be a hindrance for compliance.
We've been half-heartedly trying to get Apple to sign one for almost the past decade.
When they opened their store in Philly, we opened a "business" account & they were determined to make something happen, and over the years as macOS Server has changed, and iCloud matured, they tried again and again to push it up the chain, it never worked.
Apple obviously does if it is something they care about (see AppleWatch research) until they build tumor detection into their phones, i think we are off their radar.
Has Apple ever said why they don’t support Nvidia?
As an operating system and computer manufacturer Apple is prohibited from accessing the “bare metal” of the Nvidia GPU, like everyone. They cannot program the GPU directly, they must call Nvidia’s APIs, which in turn pass those calls to the GPU. Apple has absolutely no access to the inner workings of the Nvidia GPU. As a chip, computer and OS manufacturer Apple cannot take into serious such a “computation”, while FPS freaks, DIY tinkerers and a few academics may live with that.
As a hardware nut, I think there's a small Apple tax on the entry level model but I think it's justifiable.
1) Motherboard is a custom large server/professional design, depending on how many layers as well, with the amount of supposed throughput, this makes sense. 2) Full PCIe 4.0 out of the box, only Raptor Computing has "consumer" level PCIe 4.0 alvut calling it for consumers is very generous. AMD has some boards supporting PCIe 4.0 but they need BIOS updates to enable it. 3) Custom PCIe MPX slots for beyond standard PCIe 4.0 speeds. For the target audience this garuntee's they will have the fastest graphics bus for at least a few years. 4) Compactness of on board components takes some R&D. For example there is a ton of room in that chassis, slim 1400 Watt PSU and 8 total on board x16 slots.
I'm assuming the board costs around $2k-$2.5k, adding base level components and small apple tax, this cost is actually pretty justifiable.
The ONLY downside I see is, nlike AMD's AM4 sockets, this board is held back by the possible available CPU's it can take in the future. You get a 28-core Xeon, 1-2 years from now Intel jumps to 10nm lithography (CPU transistor size) and releases another chipset with double the horsepower. Many others will be able to upgrade the CPU more cost effective, however the Pro's main board will still probably be better than what most people could buy or afford.
While I think the Mac Pro is too expensive for my needs, The monitor stand pricing is just plain ridiculous. Even this guy thinks so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58VJ6v54KU4
I was reading that the lack of Nvidia support is a deal breaker for some when it comes to the Mac Pro. I can't imagine that you couldn't build a comparable PC with Nvidia cards for less than the price of a Mac Pro. But then there's the OS. That matters for some. For others, it's the tools that matter.
Seems to me the operating system is a rather integral part of those "tools." Windows is still hot garbage. Undissmissamble auto-updates, orders of magnitudes more viruses (that are easier to contract), and just plain terrible (and inconsistent!) interface decisions all over the place force people that are just trying to get work done to deal with the OS. Tools matter indeed. I'll give you the Nvidia thing though, that's a major bummer.
I disagree. Plenty of pros have switched to Windows because of Nvidia support and that they felt Apple was ignoring the pro market. If Mac OS is superior, why didn't they stay? How many of them do you think will go back with the introduction of this new machine, still without Nvidia support? The OS matters least to them.
I was reading that the lack of Nvidia support is a deal breaker for some when it comes to the Mac Pro. I can't imagine that you couldn't build a comparable PC with Nvidia cards for less than the price of a Mac Pro. But then there's the OS. That matters for some. For others, it's the tools that matter.
Seems to me the operating system is a rather integral part of those "tools." Windows is still hot garbage. Undissmissamble auto-updates, orders of magnitudes more viruses (that are easier to contract), and just plain terrible (and inconsistent!) interface decisions all over the place force people that are just trying to get work done to deal with the OS. Tools matter indeed. I'll give you the Nvidia thing though, that's a major bummer.
I think you are exaggerating the Windows issues a little bit. yes Windows updates are garbage but malware is more prevalent only because so many people use Windows, and the Windows interface hasn't been terrible/inconstant (this is subjective I know) since Windows 8. Under the hood Windows 10 has made strides that are pretty great, especially with stuff like the Windows Subsytem for Linux, ARM support (though the arm processors need to catch up) and Sandboxing. Microsoft has seen the writing on the wall an expanding into the cloud with Azure.
Either way though, replace Windows with Ubuntu, linux, or whatever your preference is. The fact is Nvidia has drivers for Linux and Windows, none for OS X, and I think that is what OP was alluding to. Some people value using OS X over using Nvidia cards, and thats why its the tools (graphics cards) that matter for some.
As a hardware nut, I think there's a small Apple tax on the entry level model but I think it's justifiable.
1) Motherboard is a custom large server/professional design, depending on how many layers as well, with the amount of supposed throughput, this makes sense. 2) Full PCIe 4.0 out of the box, only Raptor Computing has "consumer" level PCIe 4.0 alvut calling it for consumers is very generous. AMD has some boards supporting PCIe 4.0 but they need BIOS updates to enable it. 3) Custom PCIe MPX slots for beyond standard PCIe 4.0 speeds. For the target audience this garuntee's they will have the fastest graphics bus for at least a few years. 4) Compactness of on board components takes some R&D. For example there is a ton of room in that chassis, slim 1400 Watt PSU and 8 total on board x16 slots.
I'm assuming the board costs around $2k-$2.5k, adding base level components and small apple tax, this cost is actually pretty justifiable.
The ONLY downside I see is, nlike AMD's AM4 sockets, this board is held back by the possible available CPU's it can take in the future. You get a 28-core Xeon, 1-2 years from now Intel jumps to 10nm lithography (CPU transistor size) and releases another chipset with double the horsepower. Many others will be able to upgrade the CPU more cost effective, however the Pro's main board will still probably be better than what most people could buy or afford.
As a hardware nut, I think there's a small Apple tax on the entry level model but I think it's justifiable.
1) Motherboard is a custom large server/professional design, depending on how many layers as well, with the amount of supposed throughput, this makes sense. 2) Full PCIe 4.0 out of the box, only Raptor Computing has "consumer" level PCIe 4.0 alvut calling it for consumers is very generous. AMD has some boards supporting PCIe 4.0 but they need BIOS updates to enable it. 3) Custom PCIe MPX slots for beyond standard PCIe 4.0 speeds. For the target audience this garuntee's they will have the fastest graphics bus for at least a few years. 4) Compactness of on board components takes some R&D. For example there is a ton of room in that chassis, slim 1400 Watt PSU and 8 total on board x16 slots.
I'm assuming the board costs around $2k-$2.5k, adding base level components and small apple tax, this cost is actually pretty justifiable.
The ONLY downside I see is, nlike AMD's AM4 sockets, this board is held back by the possible available CPU's it can take in the future. You get a 28-core Xeon, 1-2 years from now Intel jumps to 10nm lithography (CPU transistor size) and releases another chipset with double the horsepower. Many others will be able to upgrade the CPU more cost effective, however the Pro's main board will still probably be better than what most people could buy or afford.
I just want to say something about the price, and maybe bring back some memories for those who’ve been around a while. I remember the day, as clear as if it were yesterday, when John Jurewicz (author of UltraVision) showed up at work one morning with his new Compaq 386 portable. A cool $12k+.
There's one problem with that. This is a portable computer for $12,000. NOT a desktop. There is a difference. And yes I do remember the high prices back in the 80s and 90s.
"yes Windows updates are garbage but malware is more prevalent only because so many people use Windows, and the Windows interface hasn't been terrible/inconstant (this is subjective I know) since Windows 8."
1. If you're a pro and can't be sure when you'll be without your main tool because Windows decided to take over for three hours, that seems pretty disqualifying to me.
2. It doesn't matter why there are more viruses that are far easier to be infected with, it matters that there are.
"yes Windows updates are garbage but malware is more prevalent only because so many people use Windows, and the Windows interface hasn't been terrible/inconstant (this is subjective I know) since Windows 8."
1. If you're a pro and can't be sure when you'll be without your main tool because Windows decided to take over for three hours, that seems pretty disqualifying to me.
2. It doesn't matter why there are more viruses that are far easier to be infected with, it matters that there are.
3. This.... Hot. Garbage.
We get it. You hate Windows for whatever reason. Most people don't spend ANY TIME changing their IP ADDRESS on a regular basis so your example is reaching. The truth is, we can go back and forth with HOT GARBAGE ways that macOS does something worse or less intuitive than Windows. WHO CARES? You're so biased against Windows you probably can't even see the improvements MS has made in the latest Windows. For me and my clients, Windows is GREAT. We don't get malware or viruses. We don't change our IP addresses every day. And Windows Updates rarely intrude when you actually take the time to configure when "Active hours" are.
I have a client with an Arts Dept (all using Trash Can Mac Pro's) and were waiting for the new Mac Pro to upgrade. Now, they will be looking at Windows Workstations for half the cost, the same or better upgradability and performance, and can STILL run their Adobe CC. Apple just lost a customer (and I'd bet more than just this client).
Here's a question for you...this client has 12 Windows users and 8 Mac users. Guess who has more issues? Hint -- not the 12 Windows users.
"yes Windows updates are garbage but malware is more prevalent only because so many people use Windows, and the Windows interface hasn't been terrible/inconstant (this is subjective I know) since Windows 8."
1. If you're a pro and can't be sure when you'll be without your main tool because Windows decided to take over for three hours, that seems pretty disqualifying to me.
2. It doesn't matter why there are more viruses that are far easier to be infected with, it matters that there are.
3. This.... Hot. Garbage.
We get it. You hate Windows for whatever reason. Most people don't spend ANY TIME changing their IP ADDRESS on a regular basis so your example is reaching. The truth is, we can go back and forth with HOT GARBAGE ways that macOS does something worse or less intuitive than Windows. WHO CARES? You're so biased against Windows you probably can't even see the improvements MS has made in the latest Windows. For me and my clients, Windows is GREAT. We don't get malware or viruses. We don't change our IP addresses every day. And Windows Updates rarely intrude when you actually take the time to configure when "Active hours" are.
I have a client with an Arts Dept (all using Trash Can Mac Pro's) and were waiting for the new Mac Pro to upgrade. Now, they will be looking at Windows Workstations for half the cost, the same or better upgradability and performance, and can STILL run their Adobe CC. Apple just lost a customer (and I'd bet more than just this client).
Here's a question for you...this client has 12 Windows users and 8 Mac users. Guess who has more issues? Hint -- not the 12 Windows users.
Well I probably wouldn't be having a pointless internet debate if I weren't biased, kind of a prerequisite I'd say, but hey-- even if the updates are running during off hours- you've never experienced an update that broke an important piece of software? Sure, roll back to a backup, but that takes time.
"yes Windows updates are garbage but malware is more prevalent only because so many people use Windows, and the Windows interface hasn't been terrible/inconstant (this is subjective I know) since Windows 8."
1. If you're a pro and can't be sure when you'll be without your main tool because Windows decided to take over for three hours, that seems pretty disqualifying to me.
2. It doesn't matter why there are more viruses that are far easier to be infected with, it matters that there are.
3. This.... Hot. Garbage.
We get it. You hate Windows for whatever reason. Most people don't spend ANY TIME changing their IP ADDRESS on a regular basis so your example is reaching. The truth is, we can go back and forth with HOT GARBAGE ways that macOS does something worse or less intuitive than Windows. WHO CARES? You're so biased against Windows you probably can't even see the improvements MS has made in the latest Windows. For me and my clients, Windows is GREAT. We don't get malware or viruses. We don't change our IP addresses every day. And Windows Updates rarely intrude when you actually take the time to configure when "Active hours" are.
I have a client with an Arts Dept (all using Trash Can Mac Pro's) and were waiting for the new Mac Pro to upgrade. Now, they will be looking at Windows Workstations for half the cost, the same or better upgradability and performance, and can STILL run their Adobe CC. Apple just lost a customer (and I'd bet more than just this client).
Here's a question for you...this client has 12 Windows users and 8 Mac users. Guess who has more issues? Hint -- not the 12 Windows users.
Ooops calm down and try to digest this: every Mac user IS a potential Windows user because every Mac IS also a Wintel PC at the same time. Maybe not the majority but a significant portion the Mac users happily experience the benefits of using both OSes on the same machine. So stop thinking with the memes of the 90’s and grow up.
Have to chuckle over folks limiting their potential use-view of this workstation to film and video. Anyplace with supercomputers has staff who will want the Mac Pro capabilities on their desktop. At work or home. First time I ever saw a workstation in someone's study was in Los Alamos. 'Nuff said.
For those which are already on Mac Pro workflows the price isn't too contentious, it is par for the course - that said this is actually one of the most affordable MacPros/PowerMacs to date, and that includes considering the new screen. The 2013 MacPro was actually the first MacPro that one *couldn't* BTO into high $ territory - and this truly demonstrated the limited nature of the design - making it more like the Cube than the Pro.
As Apple rightly noted during the keynote, configuring a similar (yet slower) computer on a competing brand results in a higher outlay with none of the finesse. This was the same with the iMac Pro. Dollars-for-performance wise, these are price competitive computers and that value can only be obtained by those who will use this processing power.
The return to a tower design affords flexibility that opens new doors for Apple's platform as there has been much technological innovation in recent years that has been largely restricted to configurable PCs (e.g. Certain VR development.)
Apple is so confident in their new approach, that despite the new Mac Pro not being available for many months, the 2013 Mac Pro is not easily accessed online (with purchasing is still possible via the comparison tool).
For many who are still running a Late 2013 Mac Pro the new 2019 Mac Pro is a well timed upgrade. Unlike laptops these machines don't suffer from the usual wear and tear that often drives an upgrade, combining this with their high-end performance and it's completely normal to keep the workhorse in service for 4-6 years. Which also allows for the full depreciation of the hardware, thus reducing the real world price. (In Australia currently up to $30k can be immediately claimed on computer hardware without having to use depreciation - so for Australians there are significant tax benefits in upgrading.)
I've been on MacPro (and PowerMac) workflows for the bulk of my career and this will represent my 4th pro Mac. Ignoring what I get back(i.e. tax stuff)) the running average to using pro mac hardware represents $1,500 per year for me - which as you can appreciate is less than what some people spend on their phone.
After reading this article a couple of times, my BS radar has been set off. This article is similar to the Apple press release about how excited "pros" were for this. I do have to hand it to apple though, they have managed to stoke plenty of arguments of what a "pro" is! Its almost to the audiophile level of arguments
Lets break down the sample of people though:
1. A video editor that AppleInsider has known for 30 years - "I have to cut, render and output HD and 4K video very quickly. The video files can be very large and sometimes I'm running multiple programs. I need as much horsepower as I can get."
2. Blake Garner, an Automation Architect at Adobe - "The rack mount option is huge for Adobe," Garner said, "as we host a lot of Macs in server rooms doing Xcode builds and automated testing..... "the memory capacity is going to be a very noticeable improvement. Running large RAM virtual machines or sets of virtual machines for homelab work will eat all the RAM you can afford, let alone the large Xcode builds." I mean this is kind of like cherrypicking your audience. Without a doubt Adobe will be buying plenty of these as they develop for these! Kind of funny that the buying point he mentions is that its rack mountable and that currently they have these things on baker racks, like some sort of bitcoin mining farm. At first I thought it was BS that he would buy one of these for a homelab, but I guess since the Mac mini tops out at 64 GB with zero expandability and you need a mac to (legally) virtualize OS X, this might sadly be his only choice.
3. An anonymous photographer who is working on sensitive projects - He said that the new Mac Pro was appealing because of "raw horsepower" in his workflow. "Not having to wait while rendering [is key]," he said, "especially since Adobe makes minimal use of GPU processing in Lightroom and Photoshop." Is this guy working for the CIA or something? Or is he in the witness protection program? And wait a minute, since he says he doesn't need high end GPUs, is he really buying this thing for a modern Xeon processor and more RAM? If so this seems to perpetuate the claim that there are Pros who don't need quad GPUs and a 1000 watt PSU.
4. Michael Trauffer, senior video editor for a large post production facility -"The Keynote mentioned that Adobe is one of the software providers that is on board with the new Mac Pro," he says. "I'm hoping that their software will finally be able to take advantage of all of that horsepower that is being made available. Premiere Pro doesn't [currently] utilize multiple GPU when playing/editing..... We are planning on getting one of the new Mac Pros to test it as a possible upgrade/replacement for our 2013 Mac Pros." Finally someone who says what he is currently using. That said, considering the last Mac Pro could be configured with dual GPUs, I don't really see why this new computer would relate to Adobe's software features. The fact that they are buying one for testing to see if its even a viable replacement shows his company isn't sold.
5. Keith R. Sbiral, Photographer and owner (or IT Manager, can't really tell) of a career-development consultancy business. - "Our office is an all-Mac one," he said, "and that alone makes my work and my life easier. There is something to be said for the dependability and expandability of a Mac Pro that simply make it a great machine... "For a vast majority of Mac users, admittedly including myself," he continued, "the specs are likely far beyond what I really need to do my job. But I love to work on a blazing fast machine, particularly when I'm working on photography projects." - So is he buying one or not? He thinks its overkill but likes it because its expandable and fast. This doesn't sound like something you would find at career development consultancy.
6. Jules Ryckebusch, product development for medical visualization - "I work in product development for medical visualization," Jules Ryckebusch told us, "specifically in the minimally-invasive surgery space. I am also a long-time hobby photographer and a video guy." LOL thanks for the insight Jules.
7. High-ranking members of the Department of Defense - "Without divulging specifics, use cases cited include real-time image processing, and time-sensitive audio classification and identification." Beep Beep Beep, BS detected. What exactly is a high ranking member of the DoD? No one is going to use a Mac workstation for this type of stuff.
So what is the verdict about purchasing and what they think of the price?
1. The anonymous Video Editor - Not Buying "I won't buy it right away," he says. "My current Mac Pro is still getting the job done. I [also] want to take it for a test drive and see how well (or poorly) it performs with Adobe Premiere." This guy seems the most grounded. If you are doing fine with a 6 year old machine, buying one of these things would be a luxury purpose. Considering he isn't getting one though, I wonder if he is truly a "Pro."
2.Blake Garner - Buying for work"Personally, cost is a factor. I'll likely go with the bottom-end and enjoy using third party storage and RAM. Adding upgrades over time is a great way to get value from a high-end system like this. In the work context, teams will pick configurations that are optimized to save time, and high-end configurations will be worth the cost." No surprise Adobe will be buying these in droves. I thought he was buying one for his house too, but then the article said this: As certain as he is that he and Adobe will be buying Mac Pro machines, Garner is also waiting for more details. "Thoughts will evolve once the third-party MPX modules and pricing is posted to the Apple Store," he said. Translation: Not a pro
3. The Anonymous Photographer - Buying"Price is not too much of a concern," said the photographer. "I'm expecting to spend around $9,000-$10,000" Well I was wrong about this guy. When he dismissed the use of high spec GPUs I figured he wasn't a true pro. Throwing $10k at a computer like someone driving through the toll lane though speaks otherwise. He also said he expects it to last a decade, which makes me question if he is a true pro after all. 4. Michael Trauffer - Buying
5. Keith R. Sbiral - Buying "I've had most every pro-level Mac since the 840AV, and I think the one fantastic part about the product is the longevity of use. I had a 2008 Mac Pro and a 2013 Mac Pro and now I'm ready for the 2019 version. I'm really excited about the power, graphics, and upgradability." Apple has to love customers like this
6. Jules Ryckebusch - Not Buying "I expect it will be in the $10,000 - $20,000 range when I purchase," he says. "The other thing to take into account here is where the rest of it is going. We will need a 10gig LAN to really take advantage of the whole ecosystem... All of that also will need to catch up" Sounds like this guy might be too Pro for this machine!
The article glosses over and cherry coats a lot of the quotes that should really be considered criticisms. One of them says he plans to add in a RAID card along with NVME PCI cards. Others cite the lack of 10 GB ethernet. Another plans on populating the memory and GPU with 3rd party options. All of this makes me wonder, why not just build your own computer?! You pay a premium to Dell, HP, Apple, etc because they support what they build. If you are forced to add your own cards to make up for the shortcomings it seems a little counterproductive.
Comments
1) Motherboard is a custom large server/professional design, depending on how many layers as well, with the amount of supposed throughput, this makes sense.
2) Full PCIe 4.0 out of the box, only Raptor Computing has "consumer" level PCIe 4.0 alvut calling it for consumers is very generous. AMD has some boards supporting PCIe 4.0 but they need BIOS updates to enable it.
3) Custom PCIe MPX slots for beyond standard PCIe 4.0 speeds. For the target audience this garuntee's they will have the fastest graphics bus for at least a few years.
4) Compactness of on board components takes some R&D. For example there is a ton of room in that chassis, slim 1400 Watt PSU and 8 total on board x16 slots.
I'm assuming the board costs around $2k-$2.5k, adding base level components and small apple tax, this cost is actually pretty justifiable.
The ONLY downside I see is, nlike AMD's AM4 sockets, this board is held back by the possible available CPU's it can take in the future. You get a 28-core Xeon, 1-2 years from now Intel jumps to 10nm lithography (CPU transistor size) and releases another chipset with double the horsepower. Many others will be able to upgrade the CPU more cost effective, however the Pro's main board will still probably be better than what most people could buy or afford.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58VJ6v54KU4
Either way though, replace Windows with Ubuntu, linux, or whatever your preference is. The fact is Nvidia has drivers for Linux and Windows, none for OS X, and I think that is what OP was alluding to. Some people value using OS X over using Nvidia cards, and thats why its the tools (graphics cards) that matter for some.
I believe it's PCIe 3, not 4:
https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/
1. If you're a pro and can't be sure when you'll be without your main tool because Windows decided to take over for three hours, that seems pretty disqualifying to me.
2. It doesn't matter why there are more viruses that are far easier to be infected with, it matters that there are.
3. This.... Hot. Garbage.
I have a client with an Arts Dept (all using Trash Can Mac Pro's) and were waiting for the new Mac Pro to upgrade. Now, they will be looking at Windows Workstations for half the cost, the same or better upgradability and performance, and can STILL run their Adobe CC. Apple just lost a customer (and I'd bet more than just this client).
Here's a question for you...this client has 12 Windows users and 8 Mac users. Guess who has more issues? Hint -- not the 12 Windows users.
As Apple rightly noted during the keynote, configuring a similar (yet slower) computer on a competing brand results in a higher outlay with none of the finesse. This was the same with the iMac Pro. Dollars-for-performance wise, these are price competitive computers and that value can only be obtained by those who will use this processing power.
The return to a tower design affords flexibility that opens new doors for Apple's platform as there has been much technological innovation in recent years that has been largely restricted to configurable PCs (e.g. Certain VR development.)
Apple is so confident in their new approach, that despite the new Mac Pro not being available for many months, the 2013 Mac Pro is not easily accessed online (with purchasing is still possible via the comparison tool).
For many who are still running a Late 2013 Mac Pro the new 2019 Mac Pro is a well timed upgrade. Unlike laptops these machines don't suffer from the usual wear and tear that often drives an upgrade, combining this with their high-end performance and it's completely normal to keep the workhorse in service for 4-6 years. Which also allows for the full depreciation of the hardware, thus reducing the real world price. (In Australia currently up to $30k can be immediately claimed on computer hardware without having to use depreciation - so for Australians there are significant tax benefits in upgrading.)
I've been on MacPro (and PowerMac) workflows for the bulk of my career and this will represent my 4th pro Mac. Ignoring what I get back(i.e. tax stuff)) the running average to using pro mac hardware represents $1,500 per year for me - which as you can appreciate is less than what some people spend on their phone.
Lets break down the sample of people though:
1. A video editor that AppleInsider has known for 30 years - "I have to cut, render and output HD and 4K video very quickly. The video files can be very large and sometimes I'm running multiple programs. I need as much horsepower as I can get."
2. Blake Garner, an Automation Architect at Adobe - "The rack mount option is huge for Adobe," Garner said, "as we host a lot of Macs in server rooms doing Xcode builds and automated testing..... "the memory capacity is going to be a very noticeable improvement. Running large RAM virtual machines or sets of virtual machines for homelab work will eat all the RAM you can afford, let alone the large Xcode builds." I mean this is kind of like cherrypicking your audience. Without a doubt Adobe will be buying plenty of these as they develop for these! Kind of funny that the buying point he mentions is that its rack mountable and that currently they have these things on baker racks, like some sort of bitcoin mining farm. At first I thought it was BS that he would buy one of these for a homelab, but I guess since the Mac mini tops out at 64 GB with zero expandability and you need a mac to (legally) virtualize OS X, this might sadly be his only choice.
3. An anonymous photographer who is working on sensitive projects - He said that the new Mac Pro was appealing because of "raw horsepower" in his workflow. "Not having to wait while rendering [is key]," he said, "especially since Adobe makes minimal use of GPU processing in Lightroom and Photoshop." Is this guy working for the CIA or something? Or is he in the witness protection program?
4. Michael Trauffer, senior video editor for a large post production facility - "The Keynote mentioned that Adobe is one of the software providers that is on board with the new Mac Pro," he says. "I'm hoping that their software will finally be able to take advantage of all of that horsepower that is being made available. Premiere Pro doesn't [currently] utilize multiple GPU when playing/editing..... We are planning on getting one of the new Mac Pros to test it as a possible upgrade/replacement for our 2013 Mac Pros." Finally someone who says what he is currently using. That said, considering the last Mac Pro could be configured with dual GPUs, I don't really see why this new computer would relate to Adobe's software features. The fact that they are buying one for testing to see if its even a viable replacement shows his company isn't sold.
5. Keith R. Sbiral, Photographer and owner (or IT Manager, can't really tell) of a career-development consultancy business. - "Our office is an all-Mac one," he said, "and that alone makes my work and my life easier. There is something to be said for the dependability and expandability of a Mac Pro that simply make it a great machine... "For a vast majority of Mac users, admittedly including myself," he continued, "the specs are likely far beyond what I really need to do my job. But I love to work on a blazing fast machine, particularly when I'm working on photography projects." - So is he buying one or not? He thinks its overkill but likes it because its expandable and fast. This doesn't sound like something you would find at career development consultancy.
6. Jules Ryckebusch, product development for medical visualization - "I work in product development for medical visualization," Jules Ryckebusch told us, "specifically in the minimally-invasive surgery space. I am also a long-time hobby photographer and a video guy." LOL thanks for the insight Jules.
7. High-ranking members of the Department of Defense - "Without divulging specifics, use cases cited include real-time image processing, and time-sensitive audio classification and identification." Beep Beep Beep, BS detected. What exactly is a high ranking member of the DoD? No one is going to use a Mac workstation for this type of stuff.
So what is the verdict about purchasing and what they think of the price?
1. The anonymous Video Editor - Not Buying "I won't buy it right away," he says. "My current Mac Pro is still getting the job done. I [also] want to take it for a test drive and see how well (or poorly) it performs with Adobe Premiere." This guy seems the most grounded. If you are doing fine with a 6 year old machine, buying one of these things would be a luxury purpose. Considering he isn't getting one though, I wonder if he is truly a "Pro."
2. Blake Garner - Buying for work "Personally, cost is a factor. I'll likely go with the bottom-end and enjoy using third party storage and RAM. Adding upgrades over time is a great way to get value from a high-end system like this. In the work context, teams will pick configurations that are optimized to save time, and high-end configurations will be worth the cost." No surprise Adobe will be buying these in droves. I thought he was buying one for his house too, but then the article said this: As certain as he is that he and Adobe will be buying Mac Pro machines, Garner is also waiting for more details. "Thoughts will evolve once the third-party MPX modules and pricing is posted to the Apple Store," he said. Translation: Not a pro
3. The Anonymous Photographer - Buying "Price is not too much of a concern," said the photographer. "I'm expecting to spend around $9,000-$10,000" Well I was wrong about this guy. When he dismissed the use of high spec GPUs I figured he wasn't a true pro. Throwing $10k at a computer like someone driving through the toll lane though speaks otherwise. He also said he expects it to last a decade, which makes me question if he is a true pro after all.
4. Michael Trauffer - Buying
5. Keith R. Sbiral - Buying "I've had most every pro-level Mac since the 840AV, and I think the one fantastic part about the product is the longevity of use. I had a 2008 Mac Pro and a 2013 Mac Pro and now I'm ready for the 2019 version. I'm really excited about the power, graphics, and upgradability." Apple has to love customers like this
6. Jules Ryckebusch - Not Buying "I expect it will be in the $10,000 - $20,000 range when I purchase," he says. "The other thing to take into account here is where the rest of it is going. We will need a 10gig LAN to really take advantage of the whole ecosystem... All of that also will need to catch up" Sounds like this guy might be too Pro for this machine!
The article glosses over and cherry coats a lot of the quotes that should really be considered criticisms. One of them says he plans to add in a RAID card along with NVME PCI cards. Others cite the lack of 10 GB ethernet. Another plans on populating the memory and GPU with 3rd party options. All of this makes me wonder, why not just build your own computer?! You pay a premium to Dell, HP, Apple, etc because they support what they build. If you are forced to add your own cards to make up for the shortcomings it seems a little counterproductive.
Which is a bummer. Considering the timing it would have been amazing if it was PCIe 4 and could take that new AMD threadripper. And NVIDIA cards.