ewtheckman

foregoneconclusion said:

What's interesting to me is how many of the internet based complaints are from people who identify themselves as software professionals who constantly run VMs etc. for comprehensive software testing, but they're dismissing the 2016 MBP without even trying it first. Those two things don't go together: "I constantly test things for a living" and "I'm making a snap judgement about something I haven't used". 

I fit that category and I said so on a different thread. But I ALSO said that I do not expect a notebook to fit that need anytime in the near future. That's because of the inherent limitations necessary to make a notebook portable. I only chimed in to point out that if you actually need more than 16GB of RAM (and I'll add now, on a regular basis) then memory swapping, even to an SSD, is not always sufficient.

I reject the MacBook Pro as my primary computer because my primary computer is not a market that notebook computers are, nor should they be, designed for. Why do you think that's unreasonable?

tallest skil said:

2) The requirement to replace everything in and attached to my current computer due to Apple's changes. Tape backups, RAID, RAID enclosure, etc. Spending more than $10,000 at one time is not an easy pill to swallow. (Especially to replace something that still works fine.)

How is that a requirement? Yes, you’d probably have to spend $100 in dongles at first, but just keep your stuff until it breaks–then buy Thunderbolt 3 versions.

I'm running a RAID. The RAID controller is a PCI card. That can't be used in the currently shipping Mac Pro. New Thunderbolt based RAID controllers did eventually come out, but they're $$$. They also require a new drive enclosure due to interface changes.

I'm also running a tape library for backups. That currently connects with a SCSI card. Again, both card and drive can't be used with the new Mac Pro. I'll be getting a new tape library soon, but that will mean getting a new card for the current Mac Pro, then replacing it with something Thunderbolt based to switch to the new Pro. Again, $$$$.

macplusplus said:

Does it make sense to buy a Mac Pro if you know that every year your jewel will be replaced by a new and better model?

As I already said (though I made a typo when I said it), the Mac Pro lifecycle has generally been superior. Heck, the useful life of most Macs has historically been superior. But not everyone buys new computers at the same time.

macplusplus said:

Your views appear much influenced from Apple kremlinologists…

That's just silly name calling, not a logical argument.

macplusplus said:

I am sorry if these have prevented you from buying a Mac Pro as soon as it is released.

No. What stopped me from buying one as soon as it was released was two things.

1) My current computer is still perfectly capable of meeting my needs, as I've already pointed out. Spending money unnecessarily is wasting money, especially when it's that much money. And also, as I've already pointed out, the concern is not the computer failing to run, it's Apple's forced obsolescence.

2) The requirement to replace everything in and attached to my current computer due to Apple's changes. Tape backups, RAID, RAID enclosure, etc. Spending more than $10,000 at one time is not an easy pill to swallow. (Especially to replace something that still works fine.)

Everyone has to make their own purchase decisions, including timing. If Apple doesn't have systems people want to buy when they are ready to buy them, then they'll buy something else if they think that's in their best interests. No one, including you, gets to dictate someone else's needs.

macplusplus said:

Apple is a general purpose electronics company producing for the mass market, not for vertical markets.

A computer is the ultimate general purpose device. When they reduce capabilities from past levels, they are no longer making general purpose systems, they are making limited purpose systems. The needs of more advanced users don't go away just because anyone arrogantly decrees that to be so.

Again. It's not just me. Notice that there are a lot of professional users chiming in. Visit other Apple focused web sites. You will see many other similar discussions. I am just one of many.

I build systems for other Mac users to use. If I can't use the Mac to build systems they need to run their business effectively, then they can't buy Macs to run those systems on. And if they have to use Windows at work, they're less likely to use a very different system at home. And if they have to use Windows at home, they're less likely to buy into other parts of the Apple ecosystem like iPhones, iPads, Apple TV etc. It is a real trickle down effect. I routinely see that "halo effect" at work. And if that effect shows up in my own little part of the world, you can bet your sweet bippy that it shows up elsewhere too.

If Apple wants to build an interconnected ecosystem, they need to make sure they build all the necessary parts. If they don't, the parts they skip are where the rot starts.

macplusplus said:

I'd suggest iMac 27" but since you made up your mind for Mac Pro that's even better. Do not hesitate to commit to Mac Pro thinking that Apple would abandon the desktop market, who said anything like that? They even developed a custom display chip for iMac 5K. This is not abandoning, this is more forceful commitment. Since Thunderbolt 3 is implemented now in the Macbooks, then an update to Mac Pro may be near.

I just checked. The maximum RAM for the iMac is 32 GB, which I'm already past.

No one said anything explicitly about Apple abandoning the desktop market. It's Apple's approach to advanced users that is the underlying theme of the discussion here. It has been a direction which has been apparent in Apple's decisions for a while.

There are users who would make use of more than 16 GB RAM even in a notebook. But Apple has apparently decided that such users matter less to them than other priorities. This is only the latest move in a pattern of moves.

Apple dropped the X-Serve, leaving only the cheese grater Mac Pro that could still serve the user base that does cluster computing. They made moves in their high end professional software (Final Cut, Aperture, etc.) that have caused professional users major grief. They released a new Mac Pro that was less flexible than the old model, cannot be rack mounted, and required replacing almost every single accessory connected to existing machines. They even went with closed proprietary connectors, making upgrades difficult at best.

And now, as of this desktop free event, that top-of-the-line flagship machine has not been updated for three full years—twice as long as what used to be considered the average period of computer obsolescence*, which was 18 months. (In my experience, the Mac Pro has had a better than that, but more than 3 years for even a spec bump is significantly unusual.) The Mac Mini had been filling the role of a Mac Pro Lite, but it's now been more than 2 years since that was upgraded, and the last "upgrade" was widely considered to actually be a downgrade for how it was being used. Even the iMac hasn't received its normal annual bump.

Another point to keep in mind is that Apple considers products to be "vintage" if they haven't been manufactured for 5 years, and "obsolete" after 7 years. That means software support for them goes away even if they're still running perfectly. By this standard, the current Mac Pro is more than halfway through that period that Apple itself considers "vintage", and in 6 months will be halfway through the "obsolete" period. That is a long time for any computer model to remain unchanged, let alone the "cutting edge" model.

Does it make sense to you why some of us are worried that Apple seems to be going after only 80% users and completely abandoning the power user market?

*Average Obsolescence: The time period when advances in computing technology make buying the old model a waste of money.

macplusplus said:

If it is Filemaker Pro then it will get a huge improvement from the new Macbooks, but this is mostly related to CPU, not RAM, increasing the RAM in my previous MBP didn't bring much improvement. Regarding the virtual machine, instead of paying a surcharge for the extra 16 GB in a Macbook getting a second machine is better. I mean if I would pay half a machine's price more for built-to-order 32 GB, I would pay the other half too to get a whole second machine instead. An old Macbook Air or old 13" MBP, bootcamped, would do the job. Sorry no other solution for the virtual machine, while Apple offers already BootCamp and Intel.

It's not Filemaker, it's 4th Dimension, which is significantly more powerful.

Getting a second machine isn't better. First, that means switching machines every time I want to go back and forth between different O/S versions. I have done that in the past using a KVM switch, but it's not nearly as effective as running a virtual machine setup. First, switching is time consuming. Second, you can't copy and paste between different OS's that way. Third, you can't have stuff from the two OS's visible at the same time (side-by-side on the same monitor).

A second machine also leaves you with the problem of being unable to support multiple OS versions without major pain. Only recently was I able to stop spending a lot of time in Windows XP. I also have Windows 7, 8.1, and 10 set up in virtual machines. I even had to add a Mac OS 10.6.8 Server VM so I could support a customer who needed to upgrade.

The ability to have such flexibility is what makes the Mac Pro machines a perfect fit for my needs. Apple's apparent lack of interest in maintaining the desktop market to provide such capabilities is very disturbing to me. If Apple winds up completely abandoning that market, it will force me to switch to Windows only, a serious blow to a guy like me who used to bleed in six colors. It would also mean I would have to drag my Mac customers over to Windows just so I could continue to develop their systems. If they think they can maintain market share by cutting off the guys who develop software for the people they're hoping to sell computers to, they're more than a little short sighted.

For the record, I'm not saying that any notebook is appropriate as a primary computer for such work. I did that for a while. Never again, unless Apple manages to build a notebook with far more capabilities than is currently practical in the foreseeable future. My main point was simply that if you actually need RAM, relying on memory swapping, even to an SSD is not sufficient.