sandor

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.

Mike Wuerthele said:

bitmod said:

Hey Mike, 
I totally disagree with your analysis of the number of people upgrading RAM. I know for a fact that number is much much higher. 

Apple charges 3x the price for RAM upgrades. Your numbers make sense when you look at the data Apple has - which shows people are smart enough to not order ram from Apple. 
I think a better way to determine the true number is to ask a company like OWC how business is? Determine their market share, extrapolate sales / new machines sold etc... 

I've upgraded the RAM on my own for every Mac I've ever owned (40-50 computers). 
On top of that, I've upgraded all of my friends Mac's with ram (100+ computers).
On top of that, I upgrade all of my clients computers with RAM or direct them to OWC (300+ computers).

Thats about 450 computers with upgraded RAM that Apple, or anyone else, has zero data on... and I'm just 1 guy. 
I have many peers who do the same for their friends and clients. 
I could easily estimate over 3000+ computers. 

I would argue the type of people answering your poll here are 'unlikely' to be upgraders. 
If you ran the same poll on Barefeats - it would probably be close to 100% upgrade their RAM on their own. 

How much data do you think 22 service techs spanning 18 states and 15 years has? Way, way more than this. Regarding the polling of Apple store visitors from a few years back, that is as average Apple customer as you can literally get.

Your data isn't wrong, but like the Barefeats readers you speak of, it is skewed the wrong way from a polled population standpoint. It's like asking AppleInsider readers how many have done upgrades.

And, regarding Apple's data. They know exactly who upgrades and who doesn't. What do you think gets included in those crash reports?

#1, bitmod, 3000 computers is a literal drop in the bucket compared to Mac sales over the past decade or so.
I have no problem believing 2-7 percent upgrade internal components - apart from our work machines (90% Mac) my coworkers simply buy a new personal computer when the specs aren’t enough for web browsing & email at home.

#2, Mike, I think numbers garnered through service can be as skewed as any from forums. those that upgrade, especially in the workplace, are savvy enough to return the system to stock prior to sending out for service. New computer bought, factory hard drive & ram go on the shelf in the server room, SSD & max ram are installed. It eases data safety concerns as well. Win win.

We still run the 2012 Mac Pro, 128 GB RAM, internal 4 TB SSD boot drive, but I have no qualms about external “modularity” - the FC Arrays the Mac Pro controls squashed that a decade ago, and out peripherals at the workstations are never going to be internal, so will always be accompanied by a gaggle of cords.

What I dislike the most is the slow depreciation of the Server app - we’ve been running our own mail server, etc for so long with it, the transition will be painful. At least until Topicdesk writes up the process . 

And as as much as I love the HP workstations (the Z’s have been rock solid good performers) the Mac OS is the reason we are a majority Apple, much more so than the hardware.


Give us 10GbE, modern processors, more RAM capacity.
and please, please, “one more thing”, 4 TB drive options in the laptops -our power users are stuck on the old 13” when they travel simply because for 2 years we have been throwing a Samsung 4 TB 2.5” drive in as the boot drive.

Would it kill them to have a $2500 4 TB option.
The people who need it would pay the markup for it.

The comoditization of the non-pro lines is what hurts the most. Smaller pro users could get capable machines by maxing out the lower end, now that gets you much less in terms of approving “maximum current computing power” in regards to internal RAM, processors & storage. The middle level is really what Apple has eroded away over the iOS era.

PickUrPoison said:

london11 said:

Andrew_OSU said:

Nameo_ said:

There are two things that came to my mind when I heard the news about this budget iPad:

1. I know Sammy’s Galaxy tablets are already dead, but I just want to recognize them: RIP Galxy tabs. 
2. At this point, when the budget iPad packs all these features and performance while maintaining the price tag of $329, iPP pricing seems unreasonable and even a little ridiculous.

At $649, it’s roughly 2x the price of the iPad 6th gen, and I just can’t justify that price gap. I hope this year’s iPP would bring enough enhancements to make me feel I was actually wrong.

To be fair on the iPad Pro pricing, those devices are now a bit older. Chances are they will be updated fairly soon, putting them quite a step above this budget iPad. 
The more egregious issue, in my opinion, is the ridiculous price of the iPad Mini. The mini 4 is only $29 less than the same storage 9.7"iPad. So for that $29 you get a bigger/better screen, faster processor, upgraded motion coprocessor, more ram, etc. The iPad Mini isn't even capable of shooting Live Photos. 

Yes, it makes no sense to not kill the iPad mini or drop its price, or update it.  

I hope the mini4 is updated, some prefer the form factor and it’s important to certain verticals. I think Apple is aware of this, and I expect it will be updated in the image of this latest 9.7” iPad, i.e. A10, Apple Pencil support and non-laminated screen. It’ll then be good for another 3-4 years of shelf life untouched.

It won’t be much cheaper though, since costs aren’t much cheaper, if at all, considering the lower volume it will sell at. $249 would be a real reach and would probably be less gross margin than the 9.7”. I’d expect something more like $279 or even $299 (compared to the larger iPad’s $329 retail), which is at least a $100 price cut from its current $399 price. Maybe $20-30 discount for education, if Apple wants to go there. 

it fits into a physician's coat pocket.

for us, that is tens of thousands of patient records + hundreds of TBs of patient imaging + full dictation capabilities for correspondence from a device about 1/2 the size of one patient's old paper chart.

we're one group hoping to see more movement on the iPad mini.

dunks said:

I like the idea of the Apple pencil, but it's much too long. Two thirds of its current length would feel so much better in the hand. If you can top up the charge by plugging it in for a minute the battery life is more or less moot.

It is interesting, i find the Apple Pencil a welcome change in terms of its size.
A shorter stylus has always been too small for my hands, and harder to use comfortably.

tipoo said:

Have a few questions about it that probably won't be answered till reviews, but...

Is the display laminated? Using the pencil without lamination would probably feel weird 
Is the antireflective coating back? 
What is the touch and pencil sample rate? 
Will the Crayon share the same Pencil sample rates/is it active/what does it miss out on for the price? 

https://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/#ipad-pro-10-5,ipad