rob53

StrangeDays said:

coolfactor said:

macxpress said:

M68000 said:

Looking forward to watching real world reviews of this new computer and monitor.  Yes it may seem expensive, but when you think that it's possible to get 10 years out of a computer this powerful and this monitor will certainly not be obsolete any time soon - is it really that expensive over time ?   Instead of buying 2 or 3 high end desktops\laptops in 10 years - just buy this... 

I think it all depends on what you're doing. I doubt any serious professional (company) is gonna buy one and expect it to last 10yrs. For most companies the standard length they keep a computer around (Mac or PC) is 3yrs before its considered EOL (End of Life). That doesn't mean its useless, its just a standard some companies go by. 

I could be living in a totally different world, but I've seen companies (and myself!) hold onto the same computers for 10 years. My current laptop is 6 years old and still good as new, running Mojave. And do you remember the XP years? Windows XP lasted 10 years, and people ran it on the same hardware that whole time. So the three-year timespan is questionable in my mind, and I think the Mac Pro has 10 years in it, easy. It's a real workhorse.

I’ve worked American enterprise as a contractor for almost 20 years, none of the many companies I’ve worked for had us using machines older than a few years. My personal computer at home, yes (last iMac went 8 years), but never corporate machines. 

I worked for a large US government contractor and even though we transitioned to Apple products in the late 80's, the Windows people started forcing their way in, getting new PCs whenever they wanted then while I had to justify getting Macs. We kept out Macs for much longer than 3 years and supported them with only a handful of people while the PC users had an entire department supporting them. It all depends on where you work(ed) and who was in charge (people who know things or stupid bean counters).

macxpress said:

wierdninja said:

No NVidia support. This is DOA. Apple is stubborn beyond belief. $6000 base price includes an anemic GPU. Ridiculous. I wanted to love the new Mac Pro. They gimped it and then limited hardware compatibility. Tim Cook is bad for Apple. This latest release is not the only reason. I considered buying one. High price for pointless omissions and limitations. I’ll pass.

It's not Apple's fault they don't use NVIDIA. When NVIDIA decides to start supporting Metal, then maybe you'll start seeing NVIDIA chips in Macs. Until then, its AMD graphics and the graphics you can get is no slouch.

To add to your comment, search quora for an article titled "Why exactly does Apple use AMD graphic cards instead of NVIDIA?" then scroll down to Quinn FitzGerald's comment. Expand it and see where Quinn talks about the Kepler licensing issues and that whole fiasco. Quinn also mentions --

Nvidia, when it came to Apple, did not have as many advantages as in the desktop arena. They had, and still have, worse OpenCL support than AMD. Their power efficiency almost completely vanishes in the power envelopes that Apple demanded. And even worse, AMD has shown to be more willing and able to work with other companies. A great example of this is the original 5K iMac which used custom work to enable the screen to run at 60hz.

I don't know who Quinn is but his comments sound reasonable.

I've read China has the same issues so I could see Apple, and other mapping companies, creating an outlined area for areas under dispute. Of course, that might make a whole lot of areas outlined but it would be better than taking sides. Of course, there should be an authoritative source for country boundaries. Is it the United Nations or does one even exist?

It's also not fair to make the mapping companies the bad guys. They are only trying to present information that someone says is valid. 

The difference between Apple's success and other tech companies, like Microsoft, is for the most part Apple has succeeded because people actually want to buy their products. Microsoft's monopolistic practices had to do with Microsoft forcing PC vendors to license their operating system. Apple is vertically integrated, which is unique in the tech world. Because of that, ignorant competition commissioners just don't understand how to deal with this type of company. Tesla is also vertically integrated and I can't wait for the first complaint from the EU (backed by auto manufacturers) that Tesla should be broken up. 

mwhite said:

gatorguy said:

MacPro said:

 excepgatorguy said:

"Will Apple have to brainwash the masses to buy it?"

It's not a computer for the masses and no amount of brainwashing could change that.

At the same time it's gonna appeal to a certain segment of buyers who have needs for intense video processing or scientific applications, or a few who purchase it "just because it exists". 

I don't think there is such a category as 'those that buy just because it exists' except in the minds of Android users and Apple haters

We've already had a couple of members who said they were buying it even tho they didn't think they needed one. They just wanted it. At the rumored prices I doubt there's very many of those types. The new Mac Pro is really for those people earning money with it, not gaming or processing a few photos. 

21,241 Anti Apple posts, Gatorguy you need to get a life.....

Yes, @gatoryguy has his own opinions that don't always match mine but in this case, I totally agree with him and conversely, disagree with your worthless comment. I spent ~$3K back in the early 90's for a simple Mac and much more than that over the years for Macs at work. I'm guessing somewhere north of $2-3M. If I was still in charge of those purchases (I'm retired), I can guarantee I would be buying several Mac Pros for presentation artwork and video work. I also know many will be purchased by people (mainly scientists, physical and computer) who's job is to advance science. As gatorguy states, they won't be used for gaming or processing a few photos. We were creating multi-gigabyte photos two decades ago and I can only imagine what's happening now. The fact the new Mac Pro has the computational power, both CPU and GPU, of TOP500 supercomputers of ~15 years ago, all in a small package, is simply amazing. The Mac Pro will be used in many universities and research labs because it's a whole lot less expensive than the huge supercomputers it can replace for individual users. If you've never seen a current supercomputer, you have no understanding of its massive size, power and cooling requirements and amount of staff necessary to keep it running. Put this "small" box in the hands of creative users and get ready for amazing things to happen.

@mwhite I presume you're not one of these people but do have a right to your own opinion.

New Mac Pro, https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/
Supports configuration of two Radeon Pro Vega II Duo MPX Modules. The four GPUs combine to add up to 56 teraflops.

June 1997, first teraflop computer
June 2001, 7.2 teraflops, 512 nodes each with 16 IBM Power3 processors
June 2002 things started to take off with huge computational arrays, Japanese system 35+ teraflops
May 2009, first petaflop

ref: https://top500.org/timeline/ ;