Mac Pro release speculation

[strausd]

This could be completely wrong, but I just thought I would share my thoughts with everyone. If the MP does not come out tomorrow, I think there is a possibility of it coming out June 15. The iPhone 4 isn't on the online store yet and probably won't be til June 15, when they start pre orders. Which means the online store will go down a week from tomorrow and all the iPhone and iPad keynotes have come and gone. Sounds like a possibility to me, but then again any Tuesday is a possibility... But I'll still keep my hopes up :)

[cohen777]

Maybe the reason a new Mac Pro wasn't announced is because Intel doesn't have enough hexacore chips. But, Intel wants to sell chips and Apple wants to stay ahead of Dell and the rest of the PC crowd. I was half expecting Jobs' famous Photoshop comparison between a Mac and a PC running all filters now that Photoshop is 64 bit and cocoa native for the Mac.

[beto2k7]

oh hell no.... not another thread....

[strausd]

oh hell no.... not another thread....

You want to complain a little more? I'm just expressing my opinion and saying what I think. Free speech man.

[Marty Macfly]

You want to complain a little more? I'm just expressing my opinion and saying what I think. Free speech man.

Not on this forum. You may express your opinion in one of the many existing threads on this topic, as creating duplicate threads with prior knowledge of others' existence is against our rules.

[Sun Baked]

oh hell no.... not another thread....

Yep ... people seem to start threads, because they cannot google info on the Intel Workstation roadmap and see that the hexacore chips are expected to "begin" shipping in quantity this month and the next chipset is slated around summer 2011.

Apple either gets new chips in quantity to ship them before the quantity shipping date or will kick the machines out 60-90 days after that date.

Either week or 2 after the show ends, or in 3 months.

---

Just because they note that the 6-core Xeons were expected to ship in quantity this month, doesn't mean the the slice of the market Apple uses is shipping in that batch. Which is why we have speculators to say, the next Mac Pro Xeon is here in quantity...

[Murray M]

No new MP for at least two weeks.

Apple needs the press to focus on the iPhone. Anything else would distract them. MP might be even a month away+.

[strausd]

Well it's not like I'm gonna say this in the "no mac pro til September" thread because it has nothing to do with a mac pro in September.

[Ravich]

No new MP for at least two weeks.

Apple needs the press to focus on the iPhone. Anything else would distract them. MP might be even a month away+.
A new MP wouldnt deprive the iPhone of any attention.

[Vylen]

Well it's not like I'm gonna say this in the "no mac pro til September" thread because it has nothing to do with a mac pro in September.

On the contrary, you would say it there cause in your "opinion" (as you're calling it), there Mac Pro will be updated in the next couple weeks rather than in September.

I hope this thread gets merged into the other one soon.

[strausd]

I really don't understand why everyone makes such a big deal about these things. Sure there are other threads that are similar, but there are so many posts that people feel like what they say can go unnoticed. Also They often get off topic. I just wanted to say what came to my head about June 15 and see what other people thought.

[JesterJJZ]

I really don't understand why everyone makes such a big deal about these things. Sure there are other threads that are similar, but there are so many posts that people feel like what they say can go unnoticed. Also They often get off topic. I just wanted to say what came to my head about June 15 and see what other people thought.

Amen. I hate the thread police. I say post away, the more threads the merrier!

[Tonytownsend]

oh hell no.... not another thread....

ha your funny, these posts are like on the Iphone forums about people posting what case they should get 60 million times gets annoying.

[Icaras]

I don't think there has been any rumor detailing that the Mac Pro would be released after June, but if someone can reference such an article opposing this, then please do.

But keeping that in mind, the last credible rumor (and not counting Shaw Wu by any means), was probably the one reported by AppleInsider mentioning the Mac Pro and 27" ACD would both be released sometime in June (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/03/18/apple-preparing-to-launch-27-inch-led-cinema-display-mac-pro-update-by-june/).

Seriously, this rumor is probably still the strongest one, so you may be right about a mid June release (or any Tuesday this month), but somehow I seriously doubt that we'll be waiting until Fall for the Mac Pro.

[strausd]

I don't think there has been any rumor detailing that the Mac Pro would be released after June, but if someone can reference such an article opposing this, then please do.

But keeping that in mind, the last credible rumor (and not counting Shaw Wu by any means), was probably the one reported by AppleInsider mentioning the Mac Pro and 27" ACD would both be released sometime in June (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/03/18/apple-preparing-to-launch-27-inch-led-cinema-display-mac-pro-update-by-june/).

Seriously, this rumor is probably still the strongest one, so you may be right about a mid June release (or any Tuesday this month), but somehow I seriously doubt that we'll be waiting until Fall for the Mac Pro.

I agree. But if they do not do a mid June release, I think it will be updated a few months later, like Sun Baked said.

[HSJR]

Once apple release 2010 MacPro; I believe we shall start making our speaculation for 2011 MacPro :p

I think we won't see any MP before October 2010; because holiday season (Summer) has started and I don't think apple will make major update for its iphone and MacPro at the same time.

[anim8or]

...I don't think apple will make major update for its iphone and MacPro at the same time.

Why the heck not???

They are completely separate product lines and have NO impact on one or another!!!

[pianojoe]

Why the heck not???

They are completely separate product lines and have NO impact on one or another!!!

Of course they do! Being an Apple fanboy, there's only so much I can shell out for gadgets every month. My 2007 MP is in dire need for an upgrade, yet I just got me an iPad, and I absolutely need to have the new iPhone - without simlock that is, which means I gotta shell out another $1000. ;-)

[telequest]

I think we won't see any MP before October 2010; because holiday season (Summer) has started ...

I've been trying to understand the logic behind the commonly-held view that if there's no Mac Pro release in June then it's definitely another 3 months or so.

Without getting into the "are you a pro or not" argument, most of us working stiffs making a living with the help of our Mac Pros do not get the entire summer off. And I assume Apple doesn't shut down its factories then either.

The most plausible reason for the delay in the 2010s is that Intel has not been shipping the new Xeons in adequate quantities. That plus the likelihood that Apple's engineering talent has been preoccupied with the various iProducts.

It makes business sense for Apple to announce and ship new MPs as soon as the necessary parts and talent make that possible, whether it's in June, July, August or the 12th of Never. The MP is not a consumer product driven by holiday shopping cycles or public relations strategies. The release will be independent of any iProduct event. And those who rely upon MPs for business reasons (or any other reason, all are valid) will buy them regardless of what month it is.

[fearoftigers]

I've been trying to understand the logic behind the commonly-held view that if there's no Mac Pro release in June then it's definitely another 3 months or so.

Without getting into the "are you a pro or not" argument, most of us working stiffs making a living with the help of our Mac Pros do not get the entire summer off. And I assume Apple doesn't shut down its factories then either.

The most plausible reason for the delay in the 2010s is that Intel has not been shipping the new Xeons in adequate quantities. That plus the likelihood that Apple's engineering talent has been preoccupied with the various iProducts.

It makes business sense for Apple to announce and ship new MPs as soon as the necessary parts and talent make that possible, whether it's in June, July, August or the 12th of Never. The MP is not a consumer product driven by holiday shopping cycles or public relations strategies. The release will be independent of any iProduct event. And those who rely upon MPs for business reasons (or any other reason, all are valid) will buy them regardless of what month it is.

What was the delay between the i5 and i7 chips coming out and the release of the Macbook Pro?

Could we use this as an approximate basis as to when Mac Pro's will be released?

[Halamolo]

Iphone

:p

[strausd]

I've been trying to understand the logic behind the commonly-held view that if there's no Mac Pro release in June then it's definitely another 3 months or so.

Without getting into the "are you a pro or not" argument, most of us working stiffs making a living with the help of our Mac Pros do not get the entire summer off. And I assume Apple doesn't shut down its factories then either.

The most plausible reason for the delay in the 2010s is that Intel has not been shipping the new Xeons in adequate quantities. That plus the likelihood that Apple's engineering talent has been preoccupied with the various iProducts.

It makes business sense for Apple to announce and ship new MPs as soon as the necessary parts and talent make that possible, whether it's in June, July, August or the 12th of Never. The MP is not a consumer product driven by holiday shopping cycles or public relations strategies. The release will be independent of any iProduct event. And those who rely upon MPs for business reasons (or any other reason, all are valid) will buy them regardless of what month it is.

I agree with you on that one. I think Apple thinks of their product releases differently when it comes to their iProducts and pro products. Many people are graduating and going off to college and parents are likely to buy their kids a new phone or something like that for those occasions. But they aren't as likely to go buy a new Mac Pro for their kids. It seems like Apple will release it when they have the chips and not when its the right time of the year. But I still think it would have been nice for Apple to announce a new Mac Pro, even if they weren't released. I would rather them show up in the store with a longer shipping time then them not show up in the store at all.

[chmilar]

At this point, all bets are off regarding when Apple will release the MacPro.

We have passed two significant events when Apple could have made an announcement: the day that Intel unveiled the new Xeons, and the WWDC.

The current speculations revolve around two theories:

1) That Intel is unable to deliver the parts in quantities that Apple needs. This assumes that the next MacPro is nothing more than a processor upgrade (and update of video cards, etc.).

2) That Apple is waiting for new technologies like USB3.0 or LightPeak, and the next MacPro be more than a simple processor upgrade.

If the first is the true reason, then Apple will silently upgrade it some random Tuesday in the next month or two. It is unlikely this will be tied to an Apple media event.

If it is the alternative reason, then it will be a long time.

[strausd]

I don't really see Apple waiting for something like 3.0 or lightpeak, just doesn't seem like something they would do. A silent update seems most likely at this point, but who knows.

[nanofrog]

At this point, all bets are off regarding when Apple will release the MacPro.

We have passed two significant events when Apple could have made an announcement: the day that Intel unveiled the new Xeons, and the WWDC.

The current speculations revolve around two theories:

1) That Intel is unable to deliver the parts in quantities that Apple needs. This assumes that the next MacPro is nothing more than a processor upgrade (and update of video cards, etc.).

2) That Apple is waiting for new technologies like USB3.0 or LightPeak, and the next MacPro be more than a simple processor upgrade.

If the first is the true reason, then Apple will silently upgrade it some random Tuesday in the next month or two. It is unlikely this will be tied to an Apple media event.

If it is the alternative reason, then it will be a long time.
There's another realistic alternative.... developer availability (too few people spread over too many projects = increased development time per project).

[Fiete5401]

There's another realistic alternative.... developer availability (too few people spread over too many projects = increased development time per project).

That came to my mind too when Steve told us during the keynote that they were working on the new iToy for 18 months.
There's only one person left in the MP division cleaning some prototype motherboards from the dust. :(

[Aldaris]

With the 'holiday' update... Really? Its not like a bunch of folks find the Mac Pro under their trees or menorahs during the holiday season.

And again summer doesn't mean videographers, photographers, and editors take a break (isn't June the big wedding month? Lots of freelance work to do there).

There is no rhyme or reason to the Mac pro line, it is truly apples only professional machine, although it is prosumer as well. The iMac is at best prosumer as well, but hardly professional, although I bet a lot of studios have them for various manipulation, but at the core you need some expansion to have the compatibility you need with your other professional tools, cameras anyone?

At this point as a prosumer, I think I'll have the money in my savings account getting interest in the meantime, mainly because at this close to a refresh, I'd kick myself for not waiting. Mind you all I am running on a Power Mac G4, and a loud ebay'd G5, with a MacBook Pro being my sweet spot at the moment. So for the other prosumers out there that can't justify a new desktop every other year. I'd rather get the full lifespan of a new model then get a few weeks or a few months out of the 2009.

Just my humble thoughts.

And to the thread police I think I saw an offender in the iPhone forums...

[Topper]

.
Does iPhone 4 mean death of the Mac? (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/techtonic-shifts/2010/06/08/does-apple-s-iphone-4-signal-the-death-of-the-macintosh.html)

Part of the article:

"Dear Macintosh,

I hate to tell you this, but my guess is you’ve probably been sensing it already. I don’t know any good way to say it so let me just be blunt: You’ve been dropped. Dumped. It’s over.

I’m sorry. I know this hurts. But you need to face up to the truth–Steve Jobs just broke up with you. This happened yesterday at the World Wide Developers Conference. I know–why couldn’t he just do it in private? Well, you know Steve. He loves the spotlight.

So what did he talk about? He talked about iPads, and the App Store, and iBooks, and videogames. He talked about the new iPhone 4, with new video-chat software called FaceTime and a gyroscope that lets you shoot missiles into outer space and take pictures of Saturn or something. And he had lots and lots to say about his new mobile-phone operating system, which used to be called iPhone OS and now has changed its name to iOS 4.

But one thing Steve didn’t have much to say about was you. In fact, he didn’t talk about you at all. That’s not how it used to be. Remember the old days?

Why it seems like only yesterday that you, Mac, were all Steve wanted to talk about. You and your wonderful stable operating system that was so much better than Windows.

And remember those cool “I’m a Mac” ads? They were everywhere.

To anyone out there who thinks yesterday’s radio silence on the Macintosh was not significant, or who still is attempting to build a business around the—and, yes, I’m talking to you, Macworld magazine, and Macworld Expo, and Mac Life, and Macalope, and MacTech, and MyMac, and MacUser, and all the rest of you—well, dear friends, listen up...."

[cohen777]

With the release of the i7 iMacs there isn't much difference, speed wise, between a low end Mac Pro and a high end iMac. That lack of a difference was supposed to be erased with the Gulftown hexacore Mac Pro's. My bet is that Intel didn't produce enough hexacore chips and Apple is concurrently letting the octo-core Mac Pro supplies go down until they are ready to be selling the new hexacore Macs. It is too bad this didn't happen during WWDC.

[strausd]

Do the i7s and xeon 5600s have the same architecture?

[nanofrog]

My bet is that Intel didn't produce enough hexacore chips...
There's enough that other vendors can produce CTO systems and ship within a week. So the "lack of parts" argument is false.

The articles that mentioned such issues focused on a specific means of obtaining them - Distributor Channels, which is for vendors that buy much smaller quantities. Apple, Dell, and HP for example, buy directly from Intel (aka Direct Channel via contracts).

Do the i7s and xeon 5600s have the same architecture?
The base architecture is the same, but there are differences between the different sockets (i.e. LGA1156 vs. LGA1366). In the case of the LGA1366, they're the same architecture, but a couple of major differences, such as a die shrink (32nm instead of 45nm) and an additional pair of cores for certain parts. There's a few other differences here and there, such as TDP ratings, and some tweaking of the features, such as improvements to Turbo mode and Virtualization.

For the LGA1156 parts, the memory controller is less sophisticated (dual channel instead of triple channel), and the interconnects are different (DMI instead of QPI). Some are Quad core (i7), while others are Dual core (i5). The specifics will depend on the exact part number (some features are/aren't available as well).

[Halamolo]

.
Does iPhone 4 mean death of the Mac? (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/techtonic-shifts/2010/06/08/does-apple-s-iphone-4-signal-the-death-of-the-macintosh.html)

Part of the article:

"Dear Macintosh,

I hate to tell you this, but my guess is you’ve probably been sensing it already. I don’t know any good way to say it so let me just be blunt: You’ve been dropped. Dumped. It’s over.

I’m sorry. I know this hurts. But you need to face up to the truth–Steve Jobs just broke up with you. This happened yesterday at the World Wide Developers Conference. I know–why couldn’t he just do it in private? Well, you know Steve. He loves the spotlight.

So what did he talk about? He talked about iPads, and the App Store, and iBooks, and videogames. He talked about the new iPhone 4, with new video-chat software called FaceTime and a gyroscope that lets you shoot missiles into outer space and take pictures of Saturn or something. And he had lots and lots to say about his new mobile-phone operating system, which used to be called iPhone OS and now has changed its name to iOS 4.

But one thing Steve didn’t have much to say about was you. In fact, he didn’t talk about you at all. That’s not how it used to be. Remember the old days?

Why it seems like only yesterday that you, Mac, were all Steve wanted to talk about. You and your wonderful stable operating system that was so much better than Windows.

And remember those cool “I’m a Mac” ads? They were everywhere.

To anyone out there who thinks yesterday’s radio silence on the Macintosh was not significant, or who still is attempting to build a business around the—and, yes, I’m talking to you, Macworld magazine, and Macworld Expo, and Mac Life, and Macalope, and MacTech, and MyMac, and MacUser, and all the rest of you—well, dear friends, listen up...."


Ouch, yes the truth hurts.

R.I.P. Mac. :(

[mism]

.
Does iPhone 4 mean death of the Mac? (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/techtonic-shifts/2010/06/08/does-apple-s-iphone-4-signal-the-death-of-the-macintosh.html)

Excellent. This is what we need, us venting on here won't get us anywhere, if there are rumbles in the media maybe, just maybe we'll hear something.

Or perhaps Steve could write an open letter about it ;)

[ValSalva]

Maybe Apple is becoming more and more like Microsoft. It took MS over five years to 'update' XP because they were distracted from their core business. And Vista was the result :(

[kazmac]

Ouch, yes the truth hurts.

R.I.P. Mac. :(

I hope not. Though that "letter" to Steve Jobs is a little too unsettling, it's true Apple is going into a very money driven area. I'll remain optimistic though.

I want to see the Mac Pro continue (and all existing Macs). I'm using my iPhone less now and my Macs more for a variety of reasons (because what the machines can run). I don't use Mac Pros but...it might just be my next Mac down the line. I hope they are updated soon though. That would prove this Newsweek article wrong which would be a good thing.

[DoFoT9]

For the LGA1156 parts, the memory controller is less sophisticated (dual channel instead of triple channel),
would you consider dual channel to be "less" sophisticated? we know that the real world implementations do not see that much of an increase in, well, anything! do you see all computers eventually changing to tri-channel? or will we stick/go back to dual-channel?

and the interconnects are different (DMI instead of QPI). Some are Quad core (i7), while others are Dual core (i5). The specifics will depend on the exact part number (some features are/aren't available as well).
don't forget TB (which appears to be the same rates for the CPUs), ECC capabilities, and the added security added onto the Xeon chips, dual CPU support of xeons, etc.

i dont really see how these effect 90% of users of a MacPro - but apple sees the Xeon CPU as an important selling point of their MP.

[Hellhammer]

would you consider dual channel to be "less" sophisticated? we know that the real world implementations do not see that much of an increase in, well, anything! do you see all computers eventually changing to tri-channel? or will we stick/go back to dual-channel?

I would guess we are going back to dual-channeling as triple-channeling only brings a minor bump over dual-channeling (well, both are pretty useless IMO). Triple-channeling also limits your RAM slots as most computers still have paired number (2,4,6,8) so using e.g. 3 slots out of 4 is pretty dumb IMO.

Maybe we move towards hexa-channeling :p Seriously, dual-channeling is more than fine in terms of performance, tri-channel only gives like 2% boost over it

don't forget TB (which appears to be the same rates for the CPUs), ECC capabilities, and the added security added onto the Xeon chips, dual CPU support of xeons, etc.

+ More RAM. LGA 1156 maxes out at 16GB while LGA 1366 can take at least twice as much.

i dont really see how these effect 90% of users of a MacPro - but apple sees the Xeon CPU as an important selling point of their MP.

LGA 1156 is for mainstream CPUs thus all Xeons (Lynnfield Xeons aren't count, they are same as non-Xeons :p) use LGA 1366. Sure single CPU Mac Pro with LGA 1156 would be nice but Apple would anyway charge the same for it.

[DoFoT9]

I would guess we are going back to dual-channeling as triple-channeling only brings a minor bump over dual-channeling (well, both are pretty useless IMO). Triple-channeling also limits your RAM slots as most computers still have paired number (2,4,6,8) so using e.g. 3 slots out of 4 is pretty dumb IMO.
Yea it's rather annoying how the implementation has been done. Iirc the improvements of tri channel was somewhere about 5-10% more? Not too sure what the logic is behind that.

Maybe we move towards hexa-channeling :p Seriously, dual-channeling is more than fine in terms of performance, tri-channel only gives like 2% boost over it
I agree, especially once you consider where the actual bottle necks of the computer are!



+ More RAM. LGA 1156 maxes out at 16GB while LGA 1366 can take at least twice as much.

ahh good point. Forgot about that.

LGA 1156 is for mainstream CPUs thus all Xeons (Lynnfield Xeons aren't count, they are same as non-Xeons :p) use LGA 1366. Sure single CPU Mac Pro with LGA 1156 would be nice but Apple would anyway charge the same for it.
you woukd never consider the mac pro to be a server machine though, it is still primarily a consumer computer. The Xserve? Yes of course. But not for the mac pro. That could be an area where apple could improve their numbers sold for the Mac pro, especially since there is no high end i7 gaming Mac.

[Hellhammer]

Yea it's rather annoying how the implementation has been done. Iirc the improvements of tri channel was somewhere about 5-10% more? Not too sure what the logic is behind that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths#Memory_Interconnect.2FRAM_buses

If that is reliable, tri-channel provides 50% increase in bandwidth over dual-channel but I think due other bottlenecks, the difference in real life is a lot smaller

you woukd never consider the mac pro to be a server machine though, it is still primarily a consumer computer. The Xserve? Yes of course. But not for the mac pro. That could be an area where apple could improve their numbers sold for the Mac pro, especially since there is no high end i7 gaming Mac.

Here we go again, the discussion about "xMac" has again been revived! :D I agree that most people don't need ECC etc but now that there is quad core iMac, I doubt there is even need for one anymore. Before when iMacs used mobile CPUs, the gap between iMac and Mac Pro was a lot bigger. Now the biggest difference is upgradeability. Apple would anyway limit the upgradeability of xMac by giving only few overpriced GPU options ;)

[DoFoT9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_device_bandwidths#Memory_Interconnect.2FRAM_buses

If that is reliable, tri-channel provides 50% increase in bandwidth over dual-channel but I think due other bottlenecks, the difference in real life is a lot smaller
50% faster, ok thats interesting. i wonder when we will actually see the software take advantage of the hardware improvements :rolleyes:

Here we go again, the discussion about "xMac" has again been revived! :D I agree that most people don't need ECC etc but now that there is quad core iMac, I doubt there is even need for one anymore. Before when iMacs used mobile CPUs, the gap between iMac and Mac Pro was a lot bigger. Now the biggest difference is upgradeability. Apple would anyway limit the upgradeability of xMac by giving only few overpriced GPU options ;)
i recall a conversation with Tesselator a while back (where is he btw?) where he stated the scenarios where ECC is actually useful. pretty much, only the military needed it.. and not many other people.

the desktop iMac has brought it up to speed with the MP, but yea upgradability is non-existent. if apple were to bring out a quad core 960/980x or similar (maybe hexa-AMD?), with upgradability for 2xGPU, 4 DDR DIMMs, and maybe 4xHDD bays - that would be VERY attractive to a lot of potential switchers i feel.

[Hellhammer]

the desktop iMac has brought it up to speed with the MP, but yea upgradability is non-existent. if apple were to bring out a quad core 960/980x or similar (maybe hexa-AMD?), with upgradability for 2xGPU, 4 DDR DIMMs, and maybe 4xHDD bays - that would be VERY attractive to a lot of potential switchers i feel.

You are already talking about Mac Pro :D i7 960 is similar to Xeon W3570 (Xeon has 6.4GT/s QPI instead of 4.8GT/s). It should be with e.g. i7 930 which is sub-300$ CPU. Then add ATI 58xx to that and voilà.

Well, we can always dream :p Apple hasn't showed any love to xMac, or desktops in general lately. Make iMac thicker so it can use desktop GPU and that would satisfy gamers too

[DoFoT9]

You are already talking about Mac Pro :D i7 960 is similar to Xeon W3570 (Xeon has 6.4GT/s QPI instead of 4.8GT/s). It should be with e.g. i7 930 which is sub-300$ CPU. Then add ATI 58xx to that and voilà.

Well, we can always dream :p Apple hasn't showed any love to xMac, or desktops in general lately. Make iMac thicker so it can use desktop GPU and that would satisfy gamers too

the "consumer" version would cost a lot less though, so technically and cost wise im not talking about the quad core MP :p

dream we shall :rolleyes: :mad:

[Hellhammer]

the "consumer" version would cost a lot less though, so technically and cost wise im not talking about the quad core MP :p

dream we shall :rolleyes: :mad:

Well, quad core Mac Pro's CPU costs 284$ :p SO you would stick in 500$ CPU along with latest graphics and price it @1500$? You would pretty much offer the same as current Mac Pro without Xeon and stick better GPU in it and drop the price significantly :cool:

[DoFoT9]

Well, quad core Mac Pro's CPU costs 284$ :p SO you would stick in 500$ CPU along with latest graphics and price it @1500$? You would pretty much offer the same as current Mac Pro without Xeon and stick better GPU in it and drop the price significantly :cool:

and therefore get ALOT more customers. apple could make a KILLING on that market, as a lot of people will not switch as the iMac isnt powerful enough GPU wise, and the MP is too expensive (and still pretty basic in the GPU sense of things). i do think that there is a large enough margin to implement another line of computers from apple.

too bad they are going mobile eh? ;)

[JCChicago]

2) That Apple is waiting for new technologies like USB3.0 or LightPeak, and the next MacPro be more than a simple processor upgrade.


Jeez, I've had USB3.0 (and SATA3 and eSATA) on my PC for months. The new Mac had better have all three or I'm going PC only.

[apolloa]

Hmm, well in the article they also quote Steve as saying:

We are focusing primarily (though not exclusively) on iPhone OS this year. Maybe next year we will focus primarily on the Mac. Just the normal cycle of things. No hidden meaning here.

To be honest anyone who think Apple is ditching the Mac is, well, stupid. Did you all forget that it was the iPod that saved the entire company? So they will now always have a very strong focus on the consumer products and why not?
They are also equally selling millions of Mac computers, everyone has had an update, the only ones that haven't are the Mac Pro, Mini and Air.

I would stop believing the rubbish in the media, as Steve yesterday indicated with his own facts an figures and his comment on the media posting rubbish about the company.

I am not going to predict the future of the Mac Pro but equally I am not naive enough to think Apple will stop selling computers :rolleyes:
I think you need to look at it this way, Apple has a very strong and good relationship with all the Jo Blogs of the world making apps, it needs and wants to keep tat strength and needs to if anything improve on it with the launch of the iPad, it need the support, hence the WWDC focus.
All they have done is focus on what needs focus, the iPhone HAS to be changed yearly to keep up with the market, and the iPod also is updated in the same manor especially the touch because it's sactuated the market and is the only way to sell them, perhaps that's why it's always before Christmas?

People treat the Mac computers differently IMO, that's why it's not had as much focus. You want the latest Apple consumer gadget, you just want an Apple computer as a consumer.
But I can see the Pro being updated at some point soon, if not then I guess the i7 iMac would be the next best thing?

[ValSalva]

Hmm, well in the article they also quote Steve as saying:

We are focusing primarily (though not exclusively) on iPhone OS this year. Maybe next year we will focus primarily on the Mac. Just the normal cycle of things. No hidden meaning here.

To be honest anyone who think Apple is ditching the Mac is, well, stupid. Did you all forget that it was the iPod that saved the entire company? So they will now always have a very strong focus on the consumer products and why not?


That's quite the ringing endorsement of Mac by SJ :rolleyes:

SJ says a lot of things. At the All Things Digital Conference last week he said that Apple can't focus on everything. He said they focus on areas where there is an upward trajectory. He also said that desktop computers are going to be used less and less by fewer and fewer people. It doesn't seem like SJ thinks computers have an upward trajectory any more.

The writing is more than on the walls. Computers and the desktop are not dead. 1 Million PC's are sold each day. Mac is dead; killed by SJ. IMHO he's jumping off the bandwagon too soon. He's selling short. It seems a shame to give Windows back the market share OS X fought for during the past decade in such a growth industry.

[Octobot]

And again summer doesn't mean videographers, photographers, and editors take a break (isn't June the big wedding month? Lots of freelance work to do there).

There is no rhyme or reason to the Mac pro line, it is truly apples only professional machine, although it is prosumer as well. The iMac is at best prosumer as well, but hardly professional, although I bet a lot of studios have them for various manipulation, but at the core you need some expansion to have the compatibility you need with your other professional tools, cameras anyone?

At this point as a prosumer, I think I'll have the money in my savings account getting interest in the meantime, mainly because at this close to a refresh, I'd kick myself for not waiting. Mind you all I am running on a Power Mac G4, and a loud ebay'd G5, with a MacBook Pro being my sweet spot at the moment. So for the other prosumers out there that can't justify a new desktop every other year. I'd rather get the full lifespan of a new model then get a few weeks or a few months out of the 2009.

Just my humble thoughts.


Agreed.., an upgrade is imminent.
Establish which computer(s) best suits your needs / fancy; proceed with an upgrade path accordingly.

There's enough that other vendors can produce CTO systems and ship within a week. So the "lack of parts" argument is false.


But they were late.. And the MP update is late. Right?

At this point, all bets are off regarding when Apple will release the MacPro.

The current speculations revolve around two theories:

1) That Intel is unable to deliver the parts in quantities that Apple needs. This assumes that the next MacPro is nothing more than a processor upgrade (and update of video cards, etc.).

2) That Apple is waiting for new technologies like USB3.0 or LightPeak, and the next MacPro be more than a simple processor upgrade.

If the first is the true reason, then Apple will silently upgrade it some random Tuesday in the next month or two. It is unlikely this will be tied to an Apple media event.

If it is the alternative reason, then it will be a long time.

One and then Two..

[nanofrog]

would you consider dual channel to be "less" sophisticated? we know that the real world implementations do not see that much of an increase in, well, anything! do you see all computers eventually changing to tri-channel? or will we stick/go back to dual-channel?
"Less Sophisticated" = fewer transistors used. The reason, is to make smaller parts for the mainstream market, which means more parts per wafer.

That ultimately translates to lower costs per part. Now they can choose to transfer this to the MSRP, keep it as increased margins, or a bit of both (compromise that makes both sides happy).

As per channels, the mainstream parts will have fewer, as it's not beneficial for such parts. It's the enterprise market that can benefit from it, and where Intel has expanded the channel count on future parts in the Xeon lines.

don't forget TB (which appears to be the same rates for the CPUs), ECC capabilities, and the added security added onto the Xeon chips, dual CPU support of xeons, etc.
Turbo Boost = feature, as is Hyper Threading,... Some, such as ECC, are present in multiple parts, but not Enabled (i.e. i7-920 vs. W3520), and is continued with the newer parts (i.e. Xeon vs. Enthusiast Desktop parts that use LGA1366).

i dont really see how these effect 90% of users of a MacPro - but apple sees the Xeon CPU as an important selling point of their MP.
The reason is because it's the ONLY way to get a Dual Processor system. Desktop parts are impossible to do this with (technical reasons).

There's also the fact that "Xeon" invokes stablity under 100% load conditions in high availability environments (24/7 operation, as you tend to find with servers). Even if it's not used that way, it makes users feel confident that the system is reliable.

I would guess we are going back to dual-channeling as triple-channeling only brings a minor bump over dual-channeling (well, both are pretty useless IMO). Triple-channeling also limits your RAM slots as most computers still have paired number (2,4,6,8) so using e.g. 3 slots out of 4 is pretty dumb IMO.
No. Look at future parts from Intel. They're actually going to scale it up (enterprise grade parts, not mainstream, as there's no need for it).

What you have to keep in mind, is that Triple Channel DDR3 (and expanded versions due in future parts) are meant for servers (i.e. Symetric Multi Processing). This, particularly with software that's been optimized for memory transfers, can actually utilize Triple Channel DDR3 now.

However, as software is almost always behind the hardware, there's precious little that's actually capable of utilizing it ATM (software needs to be updated, and that's going to take time).

If that is reliable, tri-channel provides 50% increase in bandwidth over dual-channel but I think due other bottlenecks, the difference in real life is a lot smaller
It comes back to the software. Most can't utilize it, and some types of applications never will (i.e. "idiot at the other end of the keyboard" reliant ...err... applications that wait for user input :p).

It seems a shame to give Windows back the market share OS X fought for during the past decade in such a growth industry.
The devices are where the $$$ is for Apple, as well as the content consumption (i.e. Apps sales and and advertising). As Apple's in business to make money, that's what they're going to follow.

Someone posted that SJ is about the products, not profits. BS IMO. He likes certain products (indictated by the recent focus/comments), but there's a financial motive for him as well. It could be argued job security as well, as if he was making decisions that caused the stock to tank/profits drop, he'd be fired. The Executive Board is all about ROI.

[nanofrog]

But they were late.. And the MP update is late. Right?
Not really.

Keep in mind, from the official date Intel releases parts, there's a lead time involved, which is typically 13 weeks. It was shorter than that in this case for other vendors such as Dell. Otherwise, they wouldn't be available quite yet.

You don't see systems available the same day as the parts are officially available. It's impossible, unless they made a contract with Intel to obtain parts earlier than any other vendor. Apple has done this in the past, but apparently not this time (nor did it happen with Nehalem IIRC).

Harpertowns were, and why they had systems available before anyone else.

[rajbonham]

Not really.

Keep in mind, from the official date Intel releases parts, there's a lead time involved, which is typically 13 weeks. It was shorter than that in this case for other vendors such as Dell. Otherwise, they wouldn't be available quite yet.

You don't see systems available the same day as the parts are officially available. It's impossible, unless they made a contract with Intel to obtain parts earlier than any other vendor. Apple has done this in the past, but apparently not this time (nor did it happen with Nehalem IIRC).

Harpertowns were, and why they had systems available before anyone else.

A while back, somebody said the lead time was 4-6 weeks. Hard to tell what it actually is...

[nanofrog]

A while back, somebody said the lead time was 4-6 weeks. Hard to tell what it actually is...
13 weeks typically involves the actual manufacture, shipping, customs,... And in the real world, things do go wrong (ah... the crap I've been through over Antec transformers... :rolleyes:). Seriously, if the paperwork is borked, it could get caught in customs for a lengthy period of time. Then there's weather conditions (re-routing around storms), pirates, and even sinkings.

In this case, Intel would have had parts ready to ship on the release date (ideally, packed in their shipping containers, and all the requisite documents in perfect order, and even loaded onto the ship).

The 4 - 6 weeks is more realistic in this case, as the parts were in fact already manufactured for their initial shipment (contracts typically contain penalties if they can't meet deadlines).

Once out of Customs, they have to be transported to the Assembly site, and stored. They do a test run (assy. line QC/validation), and then they can begin filling orders, packing, and finally shipping individual orders.

There is time involved before systems actually are shipped, even after the assy. location has parts (not much at this point though, unless there's a major problem).

[Salavat23]

IMO, the Mac Pro is OEL.

It's just not the profit vehicle it once was. The profit lies in the hands of consumer products today.

Why? 10 years ago, for professional work, you needed professional equipment, not consumer-level computing hardware. Today, the line is very blurred, there is practically no incentive to buy a Mac Pro, or any other workstation class computer as the consumer parts are neck and neck. .

Want a quad core, 2.8GHz CPU? Get an iMac. Want 16GB of ram? Get an iMac. Want 2TB of storage? Get an iMac. Want more storage? Get an external enclosure.

These types of relative options were simply not available 10 years ago. If you wanted lots of RAM, storage, and good CPUs, you could not go the consumer route. Now, workstations are directly competing with their consumer counterparts. This is the first time this has happened to the industry. What happens when you have to similar products? The consumers flock towards the cheaper, more value-added alternative.

Today's media creation professional can easily get away with using an iMac. Why would they pay almost twice to get a similar experience? Of course many still do, but the consumer side of the market is luring more and more people in every year.

[TennisandMusic]

IMO, the Mac Pro is OEL.

It's just not the profit vehicle it once was. The profit lies in the hands of consumer products today.

Why? 10 years ago, for professional work, you needed professional equipment, not consumer-level computing hardware. Today, the line is very blurred, there is practically no incentive to buy a Mac Pro, or any other workstation class computer as the consumer parts are neck and neck. .

Want a quad core, 2.8GHz CPU? Get an iMac. Want 16GB of ram? Get an iMac. Want 2TB of storage? Get an iMac. Want more storage? Get an external enclosure.

These types of relative options were simply not available 10 years ago. If you wanted lots of RAM, storage, and good CPUs, you could not go the consumer route. Now, workstations are directly competing with their consumer counterparts. This is the first time this has happened to the industry. What happens when you have to similar products? The consumers flock towards the cheaper, more value-added alternative.

Today's media creation professional can easily get away with using an iMac. Why would they pay almost twice to get a similar experience? Of course many still do, but the consumer side of the market is luring more and more people in every year.

Only problem is..

Want a decent matte screen? Don't get an iMac

Want a uniform screen? Don't get an iMac

Want to be able to replace your hard drive eventually since they all have a 100% failure rate? Don't get an iMac

Want a decent GPU? Don't get an iMac

Want to be able to add storage that is NOT limited by a usb2 or firewire bus? Don't get an iMac.

The iMac's are certainly lacking in many areas that standard desktops cover with ease. Remember, the PC market is growing, Apple is only treating it like it's dying because it creates hype for their iGadgets.

[nanofrog]

These types of relative options were simply not available 10 years ago. If you wanted lots of RAM, storage, and good CPUs, you could not go the consumer route. Now, workstations are directly competing with their consumer counterparts. This is the first time this has happened to the industry. What happens when you have to similar products? The consumers flock towards the cheaper, more value-added alternative.
With Macs, Yes.

But with previous Intel based systems, that's not been exactly true. The 486 for example, was also used in Worstation systems of the day.

Today's media creation professional can easily get away with using an iMac. Why would they pay almost twice to get a similar experience? Of course many still do, but the consumer side of the market is luring more and more people in every year.
It would depend on specific usage.

If they need RAID, the iMac isn't the best choice, and as mentioned, those that want/need different monitor solutions may have a different take as well.

Then there's GPU options, which are limited in the MP, but non-existant for the iMac.

[Umbongo]

13 weeks typically involves the actual manufacture, shipping, customs,... And in the real world, things do go wrong (ah... the crap I've been through over Antec transformers... :rolleyes:). Seriously, if the paperwork is borked, it could get caught in customs for a lengthy period of time. Then there's weather conditions (re-routing around storms), pirates, and even sinkings.

In this case, Intel would have had parts ready to ship on the release date (ideally, packed in their shipping containers, and all the requisite documents in perfect order, and even loaded onto the ship).

The 4 - 6 weeks is more realistic in this case, as the parts were in fact already manufactured for their initial shipment (contracts typically contain penalties if they can't meet deadlines).

Once out of Customs, they have to be transported to the Assembly site, and stored. They do a test run (assy. line QC/validation), and then they can begin filling orders, packing, and finally shipping individual orders.

There is time involved before systems actually are shipped, even after the assy. location has parts (not much at this point though, unless there's a major problem).

There are also other things we don't know that affect release time. Things like what parts Apple will use. What the frequency of parts produced by Intel is usually, or with these processors, or specifically with the ones Apple want to use. How it is worked out who gets what if supply is limited. How many processors Apple would need; because we don't know how many units they ship, or would want ready for launch. How much time it takes from Apple having access to having retail boxes travelling to stores.
I think we can guess that Apple would rather wait until they can sustain demand and sell older systems in the meantime rather than struggle to fulfil orders.

All we ever really had to go on was the time frame Apple launched within of previous Intel releases, but people tend to take Intel's definition of a release to be the same and as "it's down to vendors now".

[Octobot]

Not really.

Keep in mind, from the official date Intel releases parts, there's a lead time involved, which is typically 13 weeks. It was shorter than that in this case for other vendors such as Dell. Otherwise, they wouldn't be available quite yet.

You don't see systems available the same day as the parts are officially available. It's impossible, unless they made a contract with Intel to obtain parts earlier than any other vendor. Apple has done this in the past, but apparently not this time (nor did it happen with Nehalem IIRC).

Harpertowns were, and why they had systems available before anyone else.

Indeed.

[ValSalva]

The iMac's are certainly lacking in many areas that standard desktops cover with ease. Remember, the PC market is growing, Apple is only treating it like it's dying because it creates hype for their iGadgets.

Bingo! The iPad seems like such a step backwards for no logical reason - other than to sell something new and shiny.

[jjahshik32]

Want a decent matte screen? Don't get an iMac

IMHO the iMac's display is the best out in the market today. Sure its a bit glossy but if you position the iMac in a room right it wont look glossy at all (same goes for the 24" LED Cinema display). It has a 27" H-IPS panel with LED Backlight technology (try finding another display with these specs and size for this price).

Want a uniform screen? Don't get an iMac

All screens have some form of uneven uniformity, just because a handful of people out of millions are complaining doesnt mean anything.

Want to be able to replace your hard drive eventually since they all have a 100% failure rate? Don't get an iMac

Although I havnt done the harddrive upgrade to an iMac 27" (as I dont own one), I've read the guides on how to do it and it doesnt seem that hard at all. Also, if you REALLY wanted to do this upgrade, you'll end up doing it.

Want a decent GPU? Don't get an iMac

There's nothing wrong with the ATI 4850. It seems to be powerful enough for most games (especially most mac users arnt hardcore gamers). But the 4850 is MORE THAN good enough to play any game.

Want to be able to add storage that is NOT limited by a usb2 or firewire bus? Don't get an iMac.

The Firewire 800 is the best option right now imho. You can add 2TB external HDD and daisy chain them via fw 800. If not you can always buy a drobo and just firewire 800 it to the iMac with 8TB. USB 3.0 imo is overrated. In real world usage its about the same speed as the age old firewire 800. I suppose light peak is what we really want but that'll be a while.

[nanofrog]

There are also other things we don't know that affect release time. Things like what parts Apple will use. What the frequency of parts produced by Intel is usually, or with these processors, or specifically with the ones Apple want to use. How it is worked out who gets what if supply is limited. How many processors Apple would need; because we don't know how many units they ship, or would want ready for launch. How much time it takes from Apple having access to having retail boxes travelling to stores.
I think we can guess that Apple would rather wait until they can sustain demand and sell older systems in the meantime rather than struggle to fulfil orders.

All we ever really had to go on was the time frame Apple launched within of previous Intel releases, but people tend to take Intel's definition of a release to be the same and as "it's down to vendors now".
I'd definitely agree if parts were obtained via Distributor Channels, but it's different in Direct procurement (Intel will know where they need to concentrate production to meet contract terms), and parts selection is part of those terms (vendor choses P/N and quantity per quarterly shipment).

[Hellhammer]

What do you mean limited? Firewire 800 is the best option imho. You can add 2TB external HDD and daisy chain them via fw 800. If not you can always buy a drobo and just firewire 800 it to the iMac with 8TB. USB 3.0 imo is overrated. In real world usage its about the same speed as the age old firewire 800. I suppose light peak is what we really want but that'll be a while.

USB 3.0 = 4.8Gb/s = 600MB/s
FireWire 800 = 800Mb/s = 100MB/s

So six times faster and you call it as fast as FW800? Sure it won't make much difference for your keyboard but there are many people who want to use externals at full speed which USB 3.0 can offer. FW80 on the other hand costs a bit extra too, HDs with it has an extra tenner or two because of it.

[jjahshik32]

USB 3.0 = 4.8Gb/s = 600MB/s
FireWire 800 = 800Mb/s = 100MB/s

So six times faster and you call it as fast as FW800? Sure it won't make much difference for your keyboard but there are many people who want to use externals at full speed which USB 3.0 can offer. FW80 on the other hand costs a bit extra too, HDs with it has an extra tenner or two because of it.

Ok you got me there on the USB 3.0 (should have done my research a bit more) but I think I make a good argument to the rest of the questions from the other poster. Either way, USB 3.0 will be fast but I doubt in real world usage it'll hit that full mark.

I'd like USB 3.0 for data transfer though because there is nothing else I'd really use from those gained speeds. But then I'd have to buy USB 3.0 enabled external HDD cases for all my external HDDs. FW800 is great for now.

[TennisandMusic]

Want a decent matte screen? Don't get an iMac

IMHO the iMac's display is the best out in the market today. Sure its a bit glossy but if you position the iMac in a room right it wont look glossy at all (same goes for the 24" LED Cinema display). It has a 27" H-IPS panel with LED Backlight technology (try finding another display with these specs and size for this price).

Want a uniform screen? Don't get an iMac

All screens have some form of uneven uniformity, just because a handful of people out of millions are complaining doesnt mean anything.

Want to be able to replace your hard drive eventually since they all have a 100% failure rate? Don't get an iMac

Although I havnt done the harddrive upgrade to an iMac 27" (as I dont own one), I've read the guides on how to do it and it doesnt seem that hard at all. Also, if you REALLY wanted to do this upgrade, you'll end up doing it.

Want a decent GPU? Don't get an iMac

There's nothing wrong with the ATI 4850. It seems to be powerful enough for most games (especially most mac users arnt hardcore gamers). But the 4850 is MORE THAN good enough to play any game.

Want to be able to add storage that is NOT limited by a usb2 or firewire bus? Don't get an iMac.

The Firewire 800 is the best option right now imho. You can add 2TB external HDD and daisy chain them via fw 800. If not you can always buy a drobo and just firewire 800 it to the iMac with 8TB. USB 3.0 imo is overrated. In real world usage its about the same speed as the age old firewire 800. I suppose light peak is what we really want but that'll be a while.

The iMac screen is EXTREMELY glossy. It's a mirror. I had two of them, and unless you were on a BRIGHT screen it reflected, even when not placed near any windows. If you ran anything with a dark UI, you were looking at yourself.

On the issue of uniformity, the current iMac's are seriously flawed. It's just the bottom line. I tried two, both terrible. I've seen the bad units in the stores. Read the reports. Just because some of the millions of people who buy them are satisfied does not mean they are ok (see how that works? ;)). I think given the number of problems we are seeing on this forum, people needing to buy 6, 7 8 in a row before just quitting, it's safe to assume that the problems are epidemic. After all Apple talks about yellowed screens using LED backlighting in one of their patents. It's an issue, and it's ever present, and it's really bad. Certainly not something minor as some like to suggest. *shrug*

Replacing hard drives...you shouldn't need to risk the build of your machine, and your monitor, to replace a hard drive. They should at the least just make a little door on the side or the back. You want to replace a hard drive on any desktop? Pop open the side, slide it into a tray and plug it in. You don't risk ruining anything by removing glass and getting behind your screen. I can build anything, but I wouldn't want to open an iMac.

The GPU isn't terrible, but it's an old mobile part. Don't Windows laptops feature better GPU's? Just saying...it's not even a choice...

As far as USB3 vs. firewire 800....I believe that is incorrect. I seem to remember USB3 being really close to SATA in the benchmarks, and SATA is a much better choice for your hard drives. Firewire 800 is "ok". It is far from a normal decent choice.

The iMac's are just not serious machines. They could be with a few minor changes, but right now they aren't.

I would buy and use an iMac if a second if they were improved. :)

[Hellhammer]

The GPU isn't terrible, but it's an old mobile part. Don't Windows laptops feature better GPU's? Just saying...it's not even a choice...)

Although it's a bit old, it's still almost the fastest mobile GPU available. It's just an underclocked desktop version thus very capable. Mobile 58xx use desktop 57xx thus mobile 5850 is actually slower than 4850. It's really a high-end mobile GPU, very few "laptops" have it and they sound like an airplane. I'm too lazy to look at some benches but I would guess it beats the NVidia GT 120 which is the default GPU of Mac Pro

eSATA + matte option would probably make iMac the new Mac Pro as they are the most crucial things people look for. Of course the lack of PCIe slots would be a hit though

[chaosbunny]

Want a decent matte screen? Don't get an iMac

IMHO the iMac's display is the best out in the market today. Sure its a bit glossy but if you position the iMac in a room right it wont look glossy at all (same goes for the 24" LED Cinema display). It has a 27" H-IPS panel with LED Backlight technology (try finding another display with these specs and size for this price).

Want a uniform screen? Don't get an iMac

All screens have some form of uneven uniformity, just because a handful of people out of millions are complaining doesnt mean anything.


IMHO the iMacs display is among the worst out in the market today. It's extremely glossy, when I'm working on a darker layout or whenever anything dark appears on the screen (be it a photo, movie, game, etc.) you can't make out any details anymore. And I don't even have a window or anything bright behind me. I made the mistake to buy an Alu-iMac instead of a Mac Pro 3 years ago – I will definitely not make it again.

eSATA + matte option would probably make iMac the new Mac Pro as they are the most crucial things people look for. Of course the lack of PCIe slots would be a hit though

Now that sounds like an idea. Add a little bit more features to the iMac and Apple might get away with it. There still would be an uproar, but sadly it sounds like something Apple might do.

[REM314]

Want a decent GPU? Don't get an iMac

There's nothing wrong with the ATI 4850. It seems to be powerful enough for most games (especially most mac users arnt hardcore gamers). But the 4850 is MORE THAN good enough to play any game.

No it really isn't. And even if it does "run" new games it wont do it well. You also have to buy the highest end iMac to get that now very underpowered video card. Its a mobile video card. Im not going to buy a desktop with laptop parts, I have a laptop for that reason.

[Hellhammer]

No it really isn't. And even if it does "run" new games it wont do it well. You also have to buy the highest end iMac to get that now very underpowered video card. Its a mobile video card. Im not going to buy a desktop with laptop parts, I have a laptop for that reason.

It's just an underclocked desktop version. It's really the Ferrari of mobile GPUs. If iMac had lower resolution, it would play almost all games at high settings. A "laptop" with 4850 isn't a laptop anymore, it is noisy and clumsy brick.

Anyway, Macs aren't for gamers. Mac Pro for gaming would cost 3000$ + monitor and it's still slower than 1500$ PC

[REM314]

It's just an underclocked desktop version. It's really the Ferrari of mobile GPUs. If iMac had lower resolution, it would play almost all games at high settings. A "laptop" with 4850 isn't a laptop anymore, it is noisy and clumsy brick.

Anyway, Macs aren't for gamers. Mac Pro for gaming would cost 3000$ + monitor and it's still slower than 1500$ PC

Its too bad, because I love OS X.

[deconstruct60]

Only problem is..

Want a decent matte screen? Don't get an iMac

Want a uniform screen? Don't get an iMac


In the context of two screen set ups, how many folks need two matte, high color fidelity screens? If keep "color work" and menu bar on "external" screen and email/IM/reference manuals/etc. (i.e., not primary work task) on another screen then doesn't matter as much.

If trying to minimize system costs ( a single screen and single CPU package) then loose. iMac also isn't going to "1/2" the cost if packing 4 core and lots of RAM in it. The upper end iMac can trim off the folks who only really needed more cores and RAM.


It is a completely different story if want to get into "apples to oranges" where want to provide Mac Pro but with cheaper parts ( cut the power supply, dump ECC, cheapen the case , etc. )




Want to be able to replace your hard drive eventually since they all have a 100% failure rate? Don't get an iMac.


Eventually everything has a 100% failure rate.



Want a decent GPU? Don't get an iMac


Decent to run photoshop ?



Want to be able to add storage that is NOT limited by a usb2 or firewire bus? Don't get an iMac.


Disks are in the TB stage. Is there a good reason to keep your work project from 3 years ago live on your primary hard drive? It is one thing if most folks were going to access the files. It is quite another when more than a few folks have large numbers of files on their drive that haven't been accessed in years. Being capped in that context has little real impact. (other than having to do "spring cleaning" periodically. )


There is a gap between Mac Pro and iMac. However, it isn't as large as folks are making it out to be. Especially, in the areas that are close to the overlap in non-display hardware.

While there are folks who need higher I/O bandwidth, more flexibility, ability to store and secure more stuff inside a single cabinet, etc. , there were also folks who were buying Mac Pros not because it was the right fit, but because it was closest match (limited i/o, limited flexibility, etc. )


Even in terms of I/O. Not quite there yet but if added USB 3.0 and Lightpeak to an iMac there would fewer needs for PCI-e slots. The trendline is clear. No-slot boxes are going to be the mainstream even into the lower workstation space over the next couple of years. There are folks with legacy equipment and addicted to the familar form factor, but technically ... no reason why number of people covered by that solution won't get bigger.







The iMac's are certainly lacking in many areas that standard desktops cover with ease. Remember, the PC market is growing,

The Mac market (in terms of units) is growing. You're going to have really hard time convincing Apple their strategy is doomed as long as they are selling more Macs this year than they sold last year.

As the PC market matures the trend only grows that larger groups of people buy from the small group of profitable large vendors. Apple isn't #1, but are in the top #10 in general and in the top #5 in subsegments.

If people move from lower end Mac Pros to iMacs ..... both of those put profits into the same bank account.





Apple is only treating it like it's dying because it creates hype for their iGadgets.

They aren't treating it as dying, but as mature. The race for the biggest winner in the PC market is over. Been over for long time. Apple can sit and treadwater around 4-6% . As long as they can keep it a constant 4-6% year over year and pull profits from the market it is not a losing strategy.

It is a market that is maturing. Hype doesn't have as much of an impact anymore. Being regular and being around is sufficient.


Additionally, as long as just and many folks leave in a huff because of no minitower are replaced by folks who don't want a minitower .... again nothing particularly wrong with the strategy from Apple's perspective.

[Aldaris]

The I/O of the pro is a need for the PROFESSIONAL (depending on trade of course) and PROSUMER ENTHUSIAST/INDEPENDENT PRODUCER.

A good share of above consumer HD camera's need-require PCI expansion and HD breakout cables. An iMac although a great asset in any arsenal is in no way, a flagship for a large Hollywood studio or the local wedding videographer.

As for storage, this is where I fall into prosumer, my iTunes library is nearly over 1TB. And only growing, that's just iTunes media, what about game media, and project media? 2TB is too small for me at this point, 4TB would be livable, but 8 would be ideal. A DROBO or PROMISE solution is definitely the route for iTunes, but the rest of my media, is headed to an 8TB pool.

[TennisandMusic]

Err...Steve Jobs IS recently quoted as basically saying traditional PC's are dying. He has stated it. That is of course HIS opinion, and not one that gels with the numbers.

I think it's a dangerous game to start acting like consumption is so much more important than production. That is after all what Apple is emphasizing. Instead of being the company for creative professionals to do work, they want to appeal to everyone with gadgets. OSX is needed to make software for these things though...that generally takes pros (or really great hobbyists). If you treat the pros like second rate citizens they will move on to something else. Does Apple think Android isn't going to continue to catch up?

You do realize Apple is neither being "regular" nor "sufficient" in many of their users eyes right? Thats's what this entire issue is about.

I personally criticize because I care. It boggles my mind that some people will defend absolutely anything this company does just because it's Apple. The bottom line is they just want as much money as possible, there is certainly no benevolent M.O. going on over there. That's why they've decided to dump the pros and chase the masses.

Suggesting things like usb2 or firewire is ok to dump data onto misses the point. What if we want SSD boot drives and fast data drives for audio production? What if we need a good gpu for 3D work and game dev? Why should we settle for Apple's table scraps? It just doesn't make any sense. I don't think many exclusive Apple users realize how good it is on the PC side. But people want to defend them to the death no matter what they do so...not much else to say! :)

[ValSalva]

Err...Steve Jobs IS recently quoted as basically saying traditional PC's are dying. He has stated it. That is of course HIS opinion, and not one that gels with the numbers.

I think it's a dangerous game to start acting like consumption is so much more important than production. That is after all what Apple is emphasizing. Instead of being the company for creative professionals to do work, they want to appeal to everyone with gadgets. OSX is needed to make software for these things though...that generally takes pros (or really great hobbyists). If you treat the pros like second rate citizens they will move on to something else. Does Apple think Android isn't going to continue to catch up?

You do realize Apple is neither being "regular" nor "sufficient" in many of their users eyes right? Thats's what this entire issue is about.

I personally criticize because I care. It boggles my mind that some people will defend absolutely anything this company does just because it's Apple. The bottom line is they just want as much money as possible, there is certainly no benevolent M.O. going on over there. That's why they've decided to dump the pros and chase the masses.

Suggesting things like usb2 or firewire is ok to dump data onto misses the point. What if we want SSD boot drives and fast data drives for audio production? What if we need a good gpu for 3D work and game dev? Why should we settle for Apple's table scraps? It just doesn't make any sense. I don't think many exclusive Apple users realize how good it is on the PC side. But people want to defend them to the death no matter what they do so...not much else to say! :)

Couldn't have said it better myself. I think the move towards iGadgets and so far away from computers and pro equipment is a huge and terrible risk. And that isn't good for anyone. I'd really miss OS X.

[TennisandMusic]

http://beta.thehindu.com/sci-tech/gadgets/article445394.ece

Think about it...iMovie on the iPhone? They are devoting resources to this while OSX and their apps, including the pro stuff, and iLife could stand for vast improvements?

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2010/05/31/daily63.html

[Ravich]

I considered the iMac, and I thought I would get one if I didnt see any Mac Pro updates by WWDC.

But the bottom line is that a single internal HDD and a single FW800 port just dont cut it. I could void my warranty and install a second HDD in place of the superdrive, but let's be serious for a second. I have to remove the screen in order to change the HDD. That is r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s. Know what else I have to do? Void the warranty. Void the warranty on a machine that is prone to issues that would have me NEEDING that warranty.

I wish it could work out, but the iMac is still inadequate.

[Icaras]

I considered the iMac, and I thought I would get one if I didnt see any Mac Pro updates by WWDC.

But the bottom line is that a single internal HDD and a single FW800 port just dont cut it. I could void my warranty and install a second HDD in place of the superdrive, but let's be serious for a second. I have to remove the screen in order to change the HDD. That is r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s. Know what else I have to do? Void the warranty. Void the warranty on a machine that is prone to issues that would have me NEEDING that warranty.

I wish it could work out, but the iMac is still inadequate.

I'm with you on this. I mean, more power to those who do go out of their way to customize their iMac, but investments also need warranty, and that's just something I really value. I'm sorry, but until these are officially designated as "user-replaceable" by Apple, I'll gladly go for the Mac Pro.

Edit: Though I believe when light peak iMacs come around, this won't be an issue as most expansions will likely exist as external solutions. So we probably may never see user-replaceable internal hard drives or graphics cards for the iMac...ever... if that is, everything goes according to Apple's plan.

[Umbongo]

Err...Steve Jobs IS recently quoted as basically saying traditional PC's are dying. He has stated it. That is of course HIS opinion, and not one that gels with the numbers.

He didn't say they were dying he said they are like trucks and the analogy fits very well. I think we can give him credit enough to know the place trucks have in American society. Currently desktops are a vital part of Apple's ecosystem and that isn't going to change any time soon. Just because it may not be their primary focus does not mean that it is essentially "done". Apple's level communication is obviously a huge problem with this belief, but they aren't really acting one way or the other, it is generally how people are reading in to it usually with concern and thus worst case scenarios arise . Nothing they have said or done really backs the idea that they are done with desktops or the mac as a whole any more than it highlights their behaviour of secrecy.

[ValSalva]

I'm with you on this. I mean, more power to those who do go out of their way to customize their iMac, but investments also need warranty, and that's just something I really value. I'm sorry, but until these are officially designated as "user-replaceable" by Apple, I'll gladly go for the Mac Pro.

Edit: Though I believe when light peak iMacs come around, this won't be an issue as most expansions will likely exist as external solutions. So we probably may never see user-replaceable internal hard drives or graphics cards for the iMac...ever... if that is, everything goes according to Apple's plan.

SJ may not want users to open Apple computers and he has a thing for extremely streamlined products. So be it. But the result is a very un-Apple like mess of stuff hanging off or plugged into an iMac. It seems to me the elegant Mac Pro is the ideal solution.

[TennisandMusic]

He didn't say they were dying he said they are like trucks and the analogy fits very well. I think we can give him credit enough to know the place trucks have in American society. Currently desktops are a vital part of Apple's ecosystem and that isn't going to change any time soon. Just because it may not be their primary focus does not mean that it is essentially "done". Apple's level communication is obviously a huge problem with this belief, but they aren't really acting one way or the other, it is generally how people are reading in to it usually with concern and thus worst case scenarios arise . Nothing they have said or done really backs the idea that they are done with desktops or the mac as a whole any more than it highlights their behaviour of secrecy.

Did you read the article I linked too? Have you read his comments about "PC users feeling like their world is slipping away,and they are right"?

[Umbongo]

Did you read the article I linked too? Have you read his comments about "PC users feeling like their world is slipping away,and they are right"?

I read both. What he does say, in consumers not needing PCs and PC users feeling like that, does not equate to a statement that Apple are abandoning those areas.

[JesterJJZ]

Well Mac Trucks are in need of a refresh! :mad:

[nanofrog]

I read both. What he does say, in consumers not needing PCs and PC users feeling like that, does not equate to a statement that Apple are abandoning those areas.
No, but they are being neglected. Actually, re-prioritized to a lower status for new product development is much more accurate. And it's not just based on hardware, but their pro apps as well.

It's a mistake to do this without any rectification of personnel time shortages for the project load, or notification IMO. I can understand that good people are hard to find, and the desire to be very selective. But an official, unquestionably clear announcement would allay the panic/fear of abandonment that's setting in.

[DoFoT9]

"Less Sophisticated" = fewer transistors used. The reason, is to make smaller parts for the mainstream market, which means more parts per wafer.
well that makes sense for advancements wrt that, but it means that if you have 4 DIMMs that you now can use 3 in the correct ratio, then the 4th is different. I guess the motherboard manufacturers have to comply to the new features.

As per channels, the mainstream parts will have fewer, as it's not beneficial for such parts. It's the enterprise market that can benefit from it, and where Intel has expanded the channel count on future parts in the Xeon lines.
do you think it wise for intel/manufactures to separator the consumer and enterprise parts even more? If a customer wants tri channel memory then they must go to xeons, and the consumers stay with dual channel?


Turbo Boost = feature, as is Hyper Threading,... Some, such as ECC, are present in multiple parts, but not Enabled (i.e. i7-920 vs. W3520), and is continued with the newer parts (i.e. Xeon vs. Enthusiast Desktop parts that use LGA1366).
What is their reasoning for not enabling ECC? From a production POV it must be easier to only develop the one chip then just enable/disable features. Any other justification?


The reason is because it's the ONLY way to get a Dual Processor system. Desktop parts are impossible to do this with (technical reasons).
aahhh. Of course! Silly me.

There's also the fact that "Xeon" invokes stablity under 100% load conditions in high availability environments (24/7 operation, as you tend to find with servers). Even if it's not used that way, it makes users feel confident that the system is reliable.
marketing stuff i guess. The stability of my consumer CPU components seem fine. I was under the impression that they were both identical in reliability etc, and that RAM, HDD were the reasons for the instability of consumer machines.

[TennisandMusic]

I read both. What he does say, in consumers not needing PCs and PC users feeling like that, does not equate to a statement that Apple are abandoning those areas.

No, his words, along with complete neglect of certain areas of their business that used to be the driving force of the company equate to abandoning those areas. I mean, at the friggin developer conference they eliminated mac software design awards entirely! For? Yes, that's right, iOS software design awards!

Apple literally talked about zero Mac OSX things at their annual developer conference. Ridiculous.

Microsoft has already stated Windows 8 will be revolutionary. I believe them. Google is working on Chrome OS. Things aren't standing still. Apple needs to get back on it, or people won't want to be doing their work on OSX, and their iGadgets will fall to Android gadgets etc. It happened to the first Mac, it can happen again. Steve Jobs has a history of starting something great then running it into the ground. Will it repeat? I hope not.

[DoFoT9]

Apple literally talked about zero Mac OSX things at their annual developer conference. Ridiculous.


just because they dont talk about it doesnt mean that work isnt happening on it. apple has stated that 10.7 will be an awsome improvement. it will be the "tick" upgrade, and i hope that it brings some nice software improvements (coding wise).

[southerndoc]

We should all email Steve to remind him to refresh the MacPro lineup. Maybe he'll eventually respond to one of us.

[DoFoT9]

We should all email Steve to remind him to refresh the MacPro lineup. Maybe he'll eventually respond to one of us.

add

"--sent from my iPad"

to the bottom and he will respond :D

[nanofrog]

well that makes sense for advancements wrt that, but it means that if you have 4 DIMMs that you now can use 3 in the correct ratio, then the 4th is different. I guess the motherboard manufacturers have to comply to the new features.
The issue with the DIMM slots is a result of Apple, not the Intel architecture. Most other boards in the ATX board format are fitting 6x DIMM slots (3x channels, 2x DIMMs can be interleaved per channel).

Server boards can go higher than that as they're on larger boards, such as EATX or SSI EEB specifications (more physical real estate to fit them).

do you think it wise for intel/manufactures to separator the consumer and enterprise parts even more? If a customer wants tri channel memory then they must go to xeons, and the consumers stay with dual channel?
Not entirely true.

Intel makes LGA1366 parts in both Xeon and i7 monikers, both with triple channel DDR3. Granted they're the SP parts, and between these, the difference is only ECC (disabled on the enthusiast desktop parts).

Now where the line will get blured in the near future, is when SP parts reach 8 cores per chip. Then there won't be a need to use DP parts for workstations, and they'll be relegated to server duty exclusively (and the architecture definitely support this, such as the DDR3 channels are scaling up in some models).

What is their reasoning for not enabling ECC? From a production POV it must be easier to only develop the one chip then just enable/disable features. Any other justification?
Think backwards.

Bin the chips, and see what's viable as a Xeon. Those that aren't, get ECC disabled. It's definitely cost effective to do it this way.

marketing stuff i guess. The stability of my consumer CPU components seem fine. I was under the impression that they were both identical in reliability etc, and that RAM, HDD were the reasons for the instability of consumer machines.
It's more than just marketing from Intel, as the parts actually have to be able to do it.

Now whether or not a user actually needs that level of duty cycle, is another matter. And in such instances, could be/is used as a marketing technique.

As they're the same chips, the reliablility is the same. But there are variances between parts, and why they bin them. Separate the weaker parts from those that can survive a grueling existance. Most of the decisions are based on filling need though, as they put a lot of time into making the process consistant = high yeilds. They don't want a lot of failures (true failures) that can't be used at all.

But a chip that may not be well suited as a Xeon would make a fine desktop part. Far less waste that way = making money on the vast majority of what's produced. ;)

[deconstruct60]

Apple literally talked about zero Mac OSX things at their annual developer conference. Ridiculous.


What is ridiculous is to equate the keynote speech to the whole conference. Steve Job's keynote speech is a entertainment infomercial gathering. It is also substantially shorter than the conference so you can't possibly talk about all of the issues in a high level briefing. These product releases are just a sideshow. It has zip to do with the core purpose of the conference itself.

Go look at the sessions:

http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/

There is Mac OS X content it is just way down. Much if it where there is an overlap between iOS and Mac OS X.




Microsoft has already stated Windows 8 will be revolutionary. I believe them.


Then you are gullible. Not there won't be new stuff in them, but won't be any more 'revolutionary' than iOS/Mac OS stuff is. It is a term cavalierly thrown around by both Apple and Microsoft.

What Windows needed was less "revolutionary" and more quality. Shooting themselves in the head with a crufty Vista provides years of comic material for Apple to easily leverage. Steadily providing quality improvements is all that is really necessary.

[deconstruct60]

The issue with the DIMM slots is a result of Apple, not the Intel architecture. Most other boards in the ATX board format are fitting 6x DIMM slots (3x channels, 2x DIMMs can be interleaved per channel).


And take a speed hit when double down multiple DIMMs on a single channel. That got tweaked in the 3600/5600 series. Apple also going horizontal certainly is another constraint; the box isn't wide enough for 6 slots.


Now where the line will get blured in the near future, is when SP parts reach 8 cores per chip. Then there won't be a need to use DP parts for workstations, and they'll be relegated to server duty exclusively


This is one of those "640K is enough for everyone" moments. Some folks are just computational hogs who have enough money not to have to share. For those folks the convenience of putting a server cluster inside of their box is still going to be a better tradeoff. Their numbers will shrink over time (some who thought there were power users will not see growth in workload complexity will drop out of the workstation market, but it will still exist.).

Intel is still going to drop dual sockets for a long while. What will happen is that 16 core 4x4 package sets up will drift down to 16 core 2 x 8 package set ups.





Think backwards.

Bin the chips, and see what's viable as a Xeon. Those that aren't, get ECC disabled. It's definitely cost effective to do it this way.


It's more than just marketing from Intel, as the parts actually have to be able to do it.

Now whether or not a user actually needs that level of duty cycle, is another matter. And in such instances, could be/is used as a marketing technique.


As they're the same chips, the reliablility is the same. But there are variances between parts, and why they bin them.

Reliability has to be measured. With no ECC don't necessarily know when there is a problem because not testing. Can't know if don't test. The top end 7500 parts are now getting more RAS features ( trickling down from Itanium). No reason someone using a workstation as a personal server would not need RAS features also if data has high value. For now Intel will use it as market segmentation mechanism but will gradually trickle down over time.

[TennisandMusic]

What is ridiculous is to equate the keynote speech to the whole conference. Steve Job's keynote speech is a entertainment infomercial gathering. It is also substantially shorter than the conference so you can't possibly talk about all of the issues in a high level briefing. These product releases are just a sideshow. It has zip to do with the core purpose of the conference itself.

Go look at the sessions:

http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/

There is Mac OS X content it is just way down. Much if it where there is an overlap between iOS and Mac OS X.

Then you are gullible. Not there won't be new stuff in them, but won't be any more 'revolutionary' than iOS/Mac OS stuff is. It is a term cavalierly thrown around by both Apple and Microsoft.

What Windows needed was less "revolutionary" and more quality. Shooting themselves in the head with a crufty Vista provides years of comic material for Apple to easily leverage. Steadily providing quality improvements is all that is really necessary.

So, why were all Mac OSX software design awards eliminated from the show? Yeah that sends a great message.

There is talk about Windows 8 virtualizing all of the current registry/dll stuff and having a new base to start from. They are obviously operating differently than they were in the past, and their OS is their livelihood (along with Office of course). I don't think there is anything gullible at thinking they are likely telling the truth. Maybe things will fall apart, but I imagine we will know more in a year or two.

Gullible, is believing the Apple marketing regarding the quality of Windows. :)

[nanofrog]

And take a speed hit when double down multiple DIMMs on a single channel. That got tweaked in the 3600/5600 series.
That's part of interleaving though. And in most cases, more RAM is usually far more advantageous than raw throughput, as precious little software is capable of utilizing it fully (i.e. 1x DIMM per channel).

Apple also going horizontal certainly is another constraint; the box isn't wide enough for 6 slots.
I realize that. But they could have, had they made different choices (i.e. different case that could accomodate a larger board for DP systems). It is doable in the current enclosure with SP systems. But the daughterboard configuration would have had to be skipped (processor + RAM anyway, they still could have attempted a daugherboard for RAM only).

This is one of those "640K is enough for everyone" moments.
Not really, as a cluster is where the trends are going for "heavy lifting", as I'm sure you're aware. And it makes sense, as you can attach a workstation to the cluster (dedicated or shared, if necessary) for computational work that's too complex for the workstation to complete within the available time.

I've already seen simulations going this route now, and the newer parts will make it more cost effective (fewer systems necessary to build the cluster for a given performance level with those currently available).

Intel is still going to drop dual sockets for a long while. What will happen is that 16 core 4x4 package sets up will drift down to 16 core 2 x 8 package set ups.
Of course, and they'll continue with Multi Processor systems as well (such as the 7xxx series).

Reliability has to be measured.
What I'm talking about is testing. Specifically the binning results per part. Some will make it as x part, some y,... as mistakes do occur during processing (not just marking chips with a specific CPUID to meet a quota, when there's nothing wrong with it).

Fabs can take parts and disable individual sections (i.e. cores, QPI channels, memory channels,...) and turn what otherwise would be "trash" for the best possible CPUID (fastest clock, and all logic operational well within tolerances) into a sellable part.

[Man-Droid]

.
Does iPhone 4 mean death of the Mac? (http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/techtonic-shifts/2010/06/08/does-apple-s-iphone-4-signal-the-death-of-the-macintosh.html)

Part of the article:

"Dear Macintosh,

I hate to tell you this, but my guess is you’ve probably been sensing it already. I don’t know any good way to say it so let me just be blunt: You’ve been dropped. Dumped. It’s over.

I’m sorry. I know this hurts. But you need to face up to the truth–Steve Jobs just broke up with you. This happened yesterday at the World Wide Developers Conference. I know–why couldn’t he just do it in private? Well, you know Steve. He loves the spotlight.

So what did he talk about? He talked about iPads, and the App Store, and iBooks, and videogames. He talked about the new iPhone 4, with new video-chat software called FaceTime and a gyroscope that lets you shoot missiles into outer space and take pictures of Saturn or something. And he had lots and lots to say about his new mobile-phone operating system, which used to be called iPhone OS and now has changed its name to iOS 4.

But one thing Steve didn’t have much to say about was you. In fact, he didn’t talk about you at all. That’s not how it used to be. Remember the old days?

Why it seems like only yesterday that you, Mac, were all Steve wanted to talk about. You and your wonderful stable operating system that was so much better than Windows.

And remember those cool “I’m a Mac” ads? They were everywhere.

To anyone out there who thinks yesterday’s radio silence on the Macintosh was not significant, or who still is attempting to build a business around the—and, yes, I’m talking to you, Macworld magazine, and Macworld Expo, and Mac Life, and Macalope, and MacTech, and MyMac, and MacUser, and all the rest of you—well, dear friends, listen up...."

Reading that kind of made me sad a little. My first computer was a Mac. I have never owned anything else. Kind of sucks to see Apple just kind of ignore their baby.

[G4DP]

The Mac will now be ignored because it has served it's purpose. It saved Apple from oblivion. Steve can now concentrate of the real reason he wanted to get back to Apple.

His Ego!

The iMac was a brilliant idea, take something already existing and put a purple semi-transparent cover on it, slap a small crap CRT on the front and make $800 profit from everyone. The iPod was the beginning of the end for the computer side of Apple. Yes thy made the switch to intel, that was only to cut their cost and increase the profit. Everyone believed the crap about them running to hot etc. If that were true, why are Power Chips still used around the world. Steve didn't want to invest in development.

He now has a cash cow and can get away with it. Apple needs a stinker to bring Jobs and the board back to reality.

[Icaras]

The Mac will now be ignored because it has served it's purpose. It saved Apple from oblivion. Steve can now concentrate of the real reason he wanted to get back to Apple.


Err...wasn't it the iPod that saved Apple from oblivion?

[Mactrunk]

Seriously?

No way Apple is going to dump the Mac.
The Mac Pro is the flagship of the line.

Of course all of the shiny iProducts are highlighted and hyped.
They have made Apple #1 in sales, etc.
My opinion is that this gives Steve et al the luxury of continuing to develop the Mac and OSX.

I am certain that Mr. Jobs has a certain pride in knowing that Apple's high end systems are being used for so much "high profile" content creation.
I cannot imagine that he is willing to dump the years of tweaking and refinement that have led to the current combo of the Mac Pro and OSX.
With Apple's huge revenue, the Mac becomes a jewel in the crown.
I seriously doubt that they will throw this jewel in to the trash bin.

But, I could be wrong.

[strausd]

Seriously?

No way Apple is going to dump the Mac.
The Mac Pro is the flagship of the line.

Of course all of the shiny iProducts are highlighted and hyped.
They have made Apple #1 in sales, etc.
My opinion is that this gives Steve et al the luxury of continuing to develop the Mac and OSX.

I am certain that Mr. Jobs has a certain pride in knowing that Apple's high end systems are being used for so much "high profile" content creation.
I cannot imagine that he is willing to dump the years of tweaking and refinement that have led to the current combo of the Mac Pro and OSX.
With Apple's huge revenue, the Mac becomes a jewel in the crown.
I seriously doubt that they will throw this jewel in to the trash bin.

But, I could be wrong.

I'm right there with ya. Just think about it, it would be so stupid for Apple to completely dump the Mac. Could you imagine Steve Jobs talking on staging announcing that they are no longer going to make Macs? Ridiculous. I don't really even understand why people would ever think they will dump the Mac. The Mac Pro, maybe, but there is a very small chance of that happening. Extremely small chance in my opinion.

[harveypooka]

Yep ... people seem to start threads, because they cannot google info on the Intel Workstation roadmap and see that the hexacore chips are expected to "begin" shipping in quantity this month and the next chipset is slated around summer 2011.

Maybe we should remove MR forums? I mean, if all information is out there already on the web, why do we bother?

I agree with you to a certain extent, excessive duplicate threads can be annoying, but come on...give the guy a break. A forum is about discussion, maybe this thread is subtly different to the others?

[xgman]

Maybe we should remove MR forums? I mean, if all information is out there already on the web, why do we bother?

I agree with you to a certain extent, excessive duplicate threads can be annoying, but come on...give the guy a break. A forum is about discussion, maybe this thread is subtly different to the others?

and as they say, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". ;)

[deconstruct60]

That's part of interleaving though. And in most cases, more RAM is usually far more advantageous than raw throughput, as precious little software is capable of utilizing it fully (i.e. 1x DIMM per channel).

First, no application software change is required. The chip should do the parallelism transparently. If you put a crossbar switch between the 4 cores and the 3 memory controllers, then 3 different cores can pull data from three different controllers in parallel with no change in software. If you don't have too much data sitting behind a single controller then the work will naturally spread out. In contrast, if put a high amount of memory on the other side of a controller than it is more likely that 2 cores will both be pulling data from that pool of memory. At the extreme, if all four cores are pulling data from a single memory pool you have the "front side bus" configuration that was abandoned by this Nehalem architecture. Intel has a pretty bonehead design if that parallelism doesn't get leveraged on a common basis. Likewise, the OS is pretty bubblegum if it tends to herd multiple applications into single memory pools.


There is an additionally incremental speed hit if interleave, but not leveraging the multiple memory controllers is a waste of money on the new tech. Might has well stuck with a Core2 arch box.


Secondly, lots of memory slots is driven as much for many folks because of the current nonlinear pricing on 4GB DIMMs. If 4GB DIMMs were 2.0 or even 2.2 times as expensive at as 2GB DIMMS most folks would use 4 4GB DIMMs to get to 16GB rather than buying up 8 2GB DIMMs. Currently, they are 3x as expensive. The double down is to get cheaper DIMMs not necessarily more memory. Those are not necessarily equivalent in many cases ( sure the folks at the fully populated DIMM slot extreme but...

When 4GB eventually drop into the 2.2 multiple range the Mac Pro design will make more sense to a larger set of folks. Even so, for the single processor package set up can go 8GB and for dual package set up 16GB without dipping into the 4GB DIMMs. For the folks whose working set is smaller than that, it works and it is faster (if the work doesn't collide more than average.).


Double down only has big impact for those who have immediate term need for > 8GB (to avoid swapping) , but less than 4 cores of parallelism. There are some folks who need 32GB dual package set-ups, but not a huge number.



configuration would have had to be skipped (processor + RAM anyway, they still could have attempted a daugherboard for RAM only).


A daughterboard just for RAM is misguided. What you want are taller heatsinks on the processor packages since they are going to be more effective. One thing that the daughtercard does is orient the heatsinks in the same direction as the longest dimension of the box. There is no significant height constraint for RAM need to avoid. It is more a surface area constraint... which again going to the daughter card allows more efficient use of space because consuming "width" not "height" in consumption and keep trace lengths down.



Not really, as a cluster is where the trends are going for "heavy lifting", as I'm sure you're aware.


That is not a new trend. That is where the computer market has been since the start. Big machines did big jobs. The only "new" factor is gluing a "big machine" out of smaller decoupled components.

You are skipping past the point I was making. Workstation are not going to obviate all clusters. Most clusters are expensive. That means you have to share with someone else to make them cost effective. Workstations give you the freedom to do whatever crazy computational load you want and nobody else cares because they are using something else. For folks with heavy jobs that fit on a workstation it often pays to get the workstation (given would have to "pay" to get time on the cluster). Can also prune off smaller test run jobs just to see what the computation does without burning tons of cluster time. Once have the tweaks right can run larger job on the farm.

I get your point in the context where might have a number of workstations in a LAN and only infrequently/nonconcurrently a single person at a time needs to run a job on the cluster (perhaps overnight when everyone goes home. John Doe gets Monday and Wednesday nights, Fred Flintstone gets Tuesdays and Thursday, Barney gets Friday and Saturday, etc. )

Even Blade servers come as often with DP setups as SP ones. As long as there is an ever increasing ways to consume computational cycles, it will keep the pressure up on cluster nodes to pack more cores into a single unit.
You still have data locality issues, which if can avoid, gets you results faster if move the cores closer to the data. There is also little benefit in have a higher number of power supplies to feed.

If all the heavy lifting is done in the cluster could just get a Mac mini since main app running to accomplish that is an Xterm or VNC on the real machine.


and the newer parts will make it more cost effective (fewer systems necessary to build the cluster for a given performance level with those currently available).

And when the number of systems is one then don't need anything more than a workstation if workstations and servers use approximately the exact same computation engine.

The other problem is software costs. If the software is licensed per system and it is a significant percentage of the Workstation/Server it costs more to put it into a cluster. For example (assuming workload is embarrassingly parallel) :

4 Mac Minis ==> 8 cores ( approx $2,400 hardware cost)

1 Mac Pro Octo ==> 8 cores ( approx $3,200 hardware costs).


However, if need to buy an $800 software license per system then the total costs are:

Mini Cluster system ==> $5,600
Mac Pro Octo system ==> $4,000


If software is licensed per core then Mini cluster could be cheaper.

This is almost the mirror image of folks are avoiding non linear DIMMs; only it is software system (versus core) licensing.

[deconstruct60]

So, why were all Mac OSX software design awards eliminated from the show? Yeah that sends a great message.


A message that was already communicated. This WWDC is about iOS.
They were not going to announce anything about 10.7. They have already spent the last two WWDC with major emphasis on 10.6.

It is a little lame because really should not have taken much time to run both. Arstechnica ran one with relatively little notice. Perhaps this is a opportunity for MacWorld to make themselves more relevant. There is a problem when have too large a broad spectrum of content to cover in a limited conference space.



There is talk about Windows 8 virtualizing all of the current registry/dll stuff and having a new base to start from.


Just like how the file system was going to get a revolutoinary make over for Vista ... They don't need to virtualize crap. Need to put more App specific stuff in its own directory. If that is using more symlinks ... whoop de doo.




They are obviously operating differently than they were in the past,


Vista was more of the abnormality. They in part rushed something out the door because had contractual obligations to deliver an update.... so they delivered "anything". Vista also was a "thrown in the kitchen sink" kind of update. Again usually had not done that before (at least with the mainstream OS that most folks install. )



I don't think there is anything gullible at thinking they are likely telling the truth.

Perhaps they have spin doctored symlinks and seperate directories into "revolutionary". Revolutionary would be a solution that didn't exist on some other system previously. Extremely dubious it will be anything like that. It will be something with with more "sugar" but stantially the same stuff so that don't break everything.

[nanofrog]

First, no application software change is required. The chip should do the parallelism transparently. If you put a crossbar switch between the 4 cores and the 3 memory controllers, then 3 different cores can pull data from three different controllers in parallel with no change in software. If you don't have too much data sitting behind a single controller then the work will naturally spread out. In contrast, if put a high amount of memory on the other side of a controller than it is more likely that 2 cores will both be pulling data from that pool of memory. At the extreme, if all four cores are pulling data from a single memory pool you have the "front side bus" configuration that was abandoned by this Nehalem architecture. Intel has a pretty bonehead design if that parallelism doesn't get leveraged on a common basis. Likewise, the OS is pretty bubblegum if it tends to herd multiple applications into single memory pools.
I understand what you're getting at, but there is an influence from the software. Your argument is assuming the necessary data is actually available (and in such cases, is correct).

It has to do with how the application loads the data to the RAM from disk. If it's not optimized to keep it fed in a manner to reduce/eliminate misses, it's going to slow the throughput down (i.e was the file loaded sequentially for all cores, or was it broken down in a manner that allows it to load data simultaneously, so no core is starved while it waits for the data it needs).

A poorly written compiler can cause issues with IO as well, and cause some degree of starvation. I see it essentially as a bottleneck caused by software rather than hardware.

There is an additionally incremental speed hit if interleave, but not leveraging the multiple memory controllers is a waste of money on the new tech. Might has well stuck with a Core2 arch box.
Of course it is. But not all software can, and that which is possible, may have problems keeping the right data feed in time without the need to load data that should have been pre-loaded to prevent starvation as much as possible (not a situation where there's just a lack of RAM capacity for the task).

A daughterboard just for RAM is misguided. What you want are taller heatsinks on the processor packages since they are going to be more effective.
I'm looking at it from a commodity parts (fans in this instance) and dimensional POV (while keeping within PCB layout rules). That is, yes, you could go taller and narrower to accommodate another pair of DIMM slots, but what about air flow (i.e. available fans in terms of size and CFM)?

Taller and narrower heatsinks could force the use of a fan/s (potentially stacked) that're unable to push enough air flow due to dimensional limitations (width).

That is not a new trend. That is where the computer market has been since the start. Big machines did big jobs. The only "new" factor is gluing a "big machine" out of smaller decoupled components.
It's the "glued" aspect that I draw the definition though. That differentiates it from previous super computers (i.e. Crays of yore), as it was a single system. Multiple enclosures may have been needed, but it wasn't commodity systems via standardized interfaces, such as Infiniband, that modern clusters are created from.

You are skipping past the point I was making. Workstation are not going to obviate all clusters.
I wasn't trying to indicate that workstations will obviate clusters. On the contrary, actually.

My point was, that current and not too distant workstations will improve the cost/performance ratio. The additional cores will allow users to do more work for less funds (i.e. 8 core SP chip vs. DP Quad core).

Now in the cases that even a DP system won't suffice, what I meant as "heavy lifting", a cluster/farm is an effective means to increase the performance and resulting output. And it's getting cheaper and easier to do on a smaller scale (i.e. dedicated or at least fewer users = fewer systems = lower cost). There's independent filmmakers for example, that have built render farms of miscellaneous PC's.

As GPGPU processing becomes more prevalent, that could increase the performance as well without the need to increase the unit count in the cluster to gain additional performance. And it should be more cost effective as well (i.e. SP boards with 3 or 4x graphics cards = better cost/performance ratio than a DP system).

Most clusters are expensive. That means you have to share with someone else to make them cost effective. Workstations give you the freedom to do whatever crazy computational load you want and nobody else cares because they are using something else.
Costs are getting lower, and making it more accessible to smaller companies, and even independents/consultants (video, engineering, scientific modeling,...). For example, instead of having to purchase time, it may now be possible to construct a dedicated cluster for the desired task. As it's dedicated, it could be made smaller (fewer systems = lower cost). Combine it with the increasing cost/performance ratios that are expected, it should become a viable solution to users previously unable to afford it.

It won't be affordable for everyone (dedicated in-house), but with reduced costs to construct a cluster, hosted time should also reduce, making that more accessible as well (thinking additional hosting companies will also rise, helping to keep costs in check through competition).

I get your point in the context where might have a number of workstations in a LAN and only infrequently/non concurrently a single person at a time needs to run a job on the cluster (perhaps overnight when everyone goes home. John Doe gets Monday and Wednesday nights, Fred Flintstone gets Tuesdays and Thursday, Barney gets Friday and Saturday, etc. )
Scheduling has it's place, but it's not the only consideration I meant, as you've seen above. ;)

I'm seeing the potential for clusters to become more commonly used as a result of multiple factors converging.

If all the heavy lifting is done in the cluster could just get a Mac mini since main app running to accomplish that is an Xterm or VNC on the real machine.
In some cases, this may be all that's needed, depending on interface and/or graphics requirements.

The other problem is software costs. If the software is licensed per system and it is a significant percentage of the Workstation/Server it costs more to put it into a cluster.
This is definitely the potential "fly in the ointment" aspect to clusters/farms.

Hopefully, software vendors that have products that're meant to be used this way, will license accordingly in order to generate sales in a manner that maximizes profits (don't make it so expensive that it causes potential purchasers to exclude the product from consideration over licensing costs).

But it remains to be seen, if this will actually happen.

[Freakosuave]

I don't know what otherrs think of this... but I've been checking the Apple Store for when Apple would be updating the iPhone 4 and it just came to me that maybe Apple is going to update everything (Mac Pro, Mac Mini, etc...) once they update for the iPhone. When that will be? I have no idea! :p

[aliensporebomb]

The I/O of the pro is a need for the PROFESSIONAL (depending on trade of course) and PROSUMER ENTHUSIAST/INDEPENDENT PRODUCER.

A good share of above consumer HD camera's need-require PCI expansion and HD breakout cables. An iMac although a great asset in any arsenal is in no way, a flagship for a large Hollywood studio or the local wedding videographer.

As for storage, this is where I fall into prosumer, my iTunes library is nearly over 1TB. And only growing, that's just iTunes media, what about game media, and project media? 2TB is too small for me at this point, 4TB would be livable, but 8 would be ideal. A DROBO or PROMISE solution is definitely the route for iTunes, but the rest of my media, is headed to an 8TB pool.

Agreed. I'm nominally an independent music and video producer and my machine I'm currently using is an G5 2.5 dual with 8 gigs of ram and 4.7 TB of disc.

As promising as the Corei7 iMac looks I have a LOT of audio interfaces for my music production that may not fit into such a beast.

The Mac Pros are ungodly expensive for what you get (wasn't it Gizmodo that had the recent article "it's gotten straight stupid to buy a Mac Pro"?).

I'm just going to wait. Some more.

[strausd]

I don't know what otherrs think of this... but I've been checking the Apple Store for when Apple would be updating the iPhone 4 and it just came to me that maybe Apple is going to update everything (Mac Pro, Mac Mini, etc...) once they update for the iPhone. When that will be? I have no idea! :p

That is exactly what I said in the very first post of this thread, it is actually the whole reason I posted this thread. They will update the store on June 15, which is a Tuesday, because that is the day iPhone 4 is up for pre orders.

[lamina]

The I/O of the pro is a need for the PROFESSIONAL (depending on trade of course) and PROSUMER ENTHUSIAST/INDEPENDENT PRODUCER.

A good share of above consumer HD camera's need-require PCI expansion and HD breakout cables. An iMac although a great asset in any arsenal is in no way, a flagship for a large Hollywood studio or the local wedding videographer.

As for storage, this is where I fall into prosumer, my iTunes library is nearly over 1TB. And only growing, that's just iTunes media, what about game media, and project media? 2TB is too small for me at this point, 4TB would be livable, but 8 would be ideal. A DROBO or PROMISE solution is definitely the route for iTunes, but the rest of my media, is headed to an 8TB pool.

I love you.

[cs4160]

Does anyone have experience with the HP media smart server? The single internal HD limitation of the imac was one of the drivers pushing me towards a MP. Going NAS for my media, and benefiting from the streaming ability of the media smart server, at first glance at least, seemed compelling...