rob53

Soli said:

roundaboutnow said:

Soli said:

mattinoz said:

Rackmount doesn't have an option for no Keyboard or mouse.  

¿Que? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're getting at, but I see two USB ports on the front that can be used to attach a keyboard and mouse.

I think what he's saying is that you can't order without a keyboard and mouse. This would be a good option for a multi-Mac Pro installation where all Macs are connected to a KVM switch with a single keyboard/mouse/monitor. (Ideally you would get a credit back for forgoing the normally included keyboard/mouse.)

Ah, that makes sense. Yeah, that is odd. Why would anyone buying a rack-mounted workstation or server want to have a separate keyboard, mouse/trackpad, and USB-C-to-Lightning cable for every machine?

Because people wanting to rack mount a computer aren't necessarily just using it as a server. Please read my comment above for all the reasons.

If the buyer doesn't want to use the keyboard or mouse then sell them. You're not paying extra for them anyway. They would only save you a couple hundred bucks and Apple would need to create special manufacturing workflows to remove them, which would end up costing Apple more money than the cost of these items.

tht said:

How does one change RAM on this thing?

I assume the whole case doesn’t slide off, and there is a door on the top side to get access to the PCIe slots. But the RAM on the underside of the motherboard? A bottom door? There will be some craning of necks involved?

If you look at the photo of the rack-mounted Mac Pro there's two slider locks at the sides (along with two TB3 ports on the front) and what appears to be locks on the upper part of the sides to remove the "top" cover plate. I searched for more information on installing memory but Apple only shows how to install memory in the upright version (so far). The fact the front panel comes off should mean there's a way to get to the bottom but until Apple shows the inside of this Mac Pro, we'll have to do a lot of guessing.

Just checked the CVE website and they're still showing it as being reserved without any information although the CVE number, CVE-2019-17026, was assigned 9/30/2019 so it's been known for awhile.

I don't remember ever seeing DHS actually make an announcement like this so especially in today's political environment I am a little suspicious about it. Firefox/Mozilla is open source so I wonder if someone slipped something in that DHS finally discovered. We've been told because of the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani to expect more cyber attacks so maybe this is the first one found. Who knows because there isn't any public information being given on this patch other than "CVE-2019-17026 is a type confusion vulnerability in IonMonkey, the JavaScript Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler for SpiderMonkey, Mozilla’s JavaScript engine. According to Mozilla’s advisory, the flaw exists in the JIT compiler due to “incorrect alias information for setting array elements,” specifically in StoreElementHole and FallibleStoreElement."

This is where it is officially identified, cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2019-17026 There's nothing there to look at, however.

FUD from Intel to try and slow down Apple's migration to i's own chips. Intel won't come out with these any time soon. Single CPU clock speed seems to still be important because too many applications are not programmed to make use of multi cores. If developers spent more time getting away from single thread programs, they could see their applications run faster by using more cores. Unless something has changed recently, Adobe products continue to make use of single cores to run the majority of their consumer software. Non-Adobe products are using multi cores making them run a lot faster, especially on "slower" CPUs.

This publication and all the other Apple documents are what allows Apple products to be used by the US government, its contractors and many corporations. They are used to help justify the security measures implemented by the various IT staff when configuring Apple computers. Without these documents, Apple products would have a difficult time being configured to meet the various government security requirements. As for those people who scoff at Apple's documentation, I could care less about your comments. Try supporting several hundred people's computers without any technical documentation and see how far you get. 

As for 100's of different Apple servers being pinged what's wrong with that? I have an Apple ID so of course I'll be pinging Apple servers all the time. I would be more concerned about servers not related to apple.com like anything related to google and microsoft.