New Mac Pro-will you buy one? - Page 4 - MacRumors Forums
Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

View Poll Results: Will you buy a new cylinder style Mac Pro
Yes, I love it, this is all I need 86 55.48%
No, I hate it, its just a big mac mini 12 7.74%
No, I need a way to keep it all my components in one box 18 11.61%
No, I hate extra cables and power supply on my desk from extra components 15 9.68%
No, see my explanation below 24 15.48%
Voters: 155. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 20, 2013, 04:28 AM   #76
-hh
macrumors 68020
 
-hh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: NJ Highlands, Earth
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuxon86 View Post
...While I still stand by my NO vote, if one of you pro nMP would buy one and give it to me, I would accept it
Or similar improvements to the 'value' assessment.

In my case, I'd ask that whoever's providing the Tube also include 20TB worth of attached local storage too.


-hh
-hh is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2013, 04:47 AM   #77
englishman
macrumors 6502a
 
englishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
I could do with something better than my mini - so will probably either get a new iMac or used Mac Pro when people start to upgrade and their used Mac Pros come on the market. But it depends on the price.
englishman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2013, 08:06 AM   #78
theluggage
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroundLoop View Post
No for me as well. My immediate needs are for a server to host a number of virtual machines.
Interesting - one thing people aren't pointing out is that the new Pro also, presumably, marks the demise of the Mac Pro Server.

However, I've never quite seen the point of Intel Macs as dedicated servers - OS X is a great 'jack of all trades' OS if you want a Unix system with better GUI than Linux and the ability to run industry-standard server software and industry-standard desktop software, but as soon as you unplug the display and mouse you might as well be running Linux. Oh, and good looks don't count for anything in the server rack.

The Mac Mini server fills a niche as a server for small Mac-dominated workgroups who want AFP shares and centralised Time Machine backups - move beyond that and you'll probably be better off with PC server hardware using cross-platform standards.

Back in the PPC days it was different - the xServe could offer something completely different architecture-wise. The lack of per-seat license fees was more of a big deal before Linux was so well established, and desktop Macs weren't so good at talking to Windows (not to mention Netware) servers.

...as for the big question?
It depends what I'm working on in 6 months time. However, in a world with USB3 and Thunderbolt, I don't think I'll buy another 'big box' computer like the old Mac Pro - I'd go for either a laptop, Mac Mini or New Mac Pro depending on what my graphics/processing needs were, then add external storage...
theluggage is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2013, 04:43 PM   #79
Sebastian85
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: May 2010
Nah.

After the fiasco earlier this year when a mac pro upgrade was delayed, i made the move and migrated to W7 for my music production and design/illustration. Haven't had a problem with it, and the simple fact is that i can build a better workstation for half the money i'd spend on the Pro. Experiences with Macbook Pros have proven to me that arguments that once upon a time were true (longer life cycles, durable) are no longer accurate about the Macbooks or iMacs. I find this new concept to be one of the biggest letdowns Apple's done in a long while.

I'm a happy Windows-user now, and this product only confirms my belief that i switched at the right time.
Sebastian85 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 20, 2013, 10:45 PM   #80
puckhead193
macrumors G3
 
puckhead193's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NY
did not vote but more then likely. I'm not happy about the way the storage is. I liked how I could fit in a 4 HDD on the old MP; now my desk will be cluttered with external drives.
I hope apple releases a new retina display and I hope I can run FCP 7. I need it for some work.
__________________
nMP - 6 core, D700s, 32 gig, 1 TB, NEC PA272W
20" iMac C2D
17" MBP i7
iPod Touch, 64 GB iPhone 5, 64 GB iPad 3
puckhead193 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 07:19 AM   #81
Dr. Stealth
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SoCal
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
OSX doesn't support 256GB or 128GB currently. If you're not going to use OSX then I question buying a Mac.
Believe it or not, there are people who buy Macs with no intention of ever running OSX. They just like the hardware....
__________________
Mac Pro 5,1 12 Core @ 3.33GHz - 64GB RAM - Dual 500 GB SSD - Dual EVGA FTW+ GTX 680 4GB
7 TB 7200 HDs - Aux 450 watt PSU - 27" Cinema Display - SpacePilot Pro - GeekBench 30,883
Dr. Stealth is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 07:33 AM   #82
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Stealth View Post
Believe it or not, there are people who buy Macs with no intention of ever running OSX. They just like the hardware....
Thats a lot of money for pretty HW but I'm sure it's true.
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 07:56 AM   #83
Tesselator
macrumors 601
 
Tesselator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Stealth View Post
Believe it or not, there are people who buy Macs with no intention of ever running OSX. They just like the hardware....
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanyChris View Post
Thats a lot of money for pretty HW but I'm sure it's true.
I know a CG animator in Tokyo who did that with SGI equipment. He bought a bunch of pretty SGI machines and set them around the front office. Some were never even plugged in. Then in the back room he toiled away on 7 DIY ragged looking (some case-less) Wintel machines making his animations. I bet some of you have seen some of his commercials even abroad - so I guess it worked.
Tesselator is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 09:04 AM   #84
deconstruct60
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by theluggage View Post
Interesting - one thing people aren't pointing out is that the new Pro also, presumably, marks the demise of the Mac Pro Server.
Not sure what quantitatively based rationale would support that. The number of deployed Mac OS X units went up after the Mac mini became the primary deployment platform in the period after the demise of the XServe.
The current Mac Pro isn't the dominate OS X Server platform so a change in that secondary one isn't likely going to trigger a demise.

In contrast, this actually aligns the Mac Pro with the external storage solutions that the Mac Mini would use for larger bulk storage duties also. Both Macs on same solution is more likely to create synergy than demise.

Same thing was trotted out when XServe was discontinued ... Mac OS X Server is going to die quickly without the XServe. The exact opposite happened with the adjustments Apple made. OS X Server's success is not necessarily driven by driving other entrenched solutions out of the server room. " We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose.." was uttered in 1997 and there are still folks fully gripped to that notion.


Quote:
However, I've never quite seen the point of Intel Macs as dedicated servers - OS X is a great 'jack of all trades' OS if you want a Unix system with better GUI than Linux .... Oh, and good looks don't count for anything in the server rack.
OS X Server is far more so competing with Windows Server than Unix/Linux. In the Mac Pro case probably tilted more to the Unix/Linux, but for many small businesses there is no server rack. Nor any full time admin.

Quote:
The Mac Mini server fills a niche as a server for small Mac-dominated workgroups who want AFP shares and centralised Time Machine backups - move beyond that and you'll probably be better off with PC server hardware using cross-platform standards.
OS X Server configs nominally deferring to Active Directory for authentication and with Mavericks clients shifting to SMD share as the default file share is highly indicative of how not cross platform most folks set-ups are.

Purely just file sharing though is a slipper slope. Deadicated NAS boxes ( Synology , QNAP ,etc. ) are increasingly capable of doing this kind of work. Even Time Machine duties with a mounted image file.


Quote:
The lack of per-seat license fees was more of a big deal before Linux was so well established, and desktop Macs weren't so good at talking to Windows (not to mention Netware) servers.
It isn't Linux's lack of per seat charges as much as SAMBA , Apache, OpenLDAP, etc. lack of per seat charges. The facts are both Mac OS X and Linux were using the same stuff. Apple 'forked' a few of those both pragmatically (with slower release cycles) and more overtly ( OpenDirectory fork of OpenLDAP).

At this point, OS X Server is a bit more "honest" now in that it is sold as just a set of Apps layered on top of the standard OS. Most of those opensource based server services apps the OS X ports still exist even if Apple isn't directly doing them.

It isn't the services per se. The difference far more at the lower end of the OS interfaces. Drivers to a wider variety of server cards. More ports of back end software like DBMS that have low level interfaces.
deconstruct60 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 09:27 AM   #85
deconstruct60
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by teleromeo View Post
Strange poll, 4 no's, 1 yes an not a single maybe.
Depends upon see what the motivation was. As a market measuring device it is deeply flawed. It isn't so much a "maybe" , but undecided ( not enough information) option.

The primary purpose of the poll though is to generate the postings for "no" option 4 which required folks to list it below. (the other three no's highly overlap with external and therefore cables context of the mini). The skew is indicative probably expecting the opposite yes/no breakdown.


Quote:
Anyway, it will all depend on the specs, the price and the overall performance before I make my decision.
That's is probably what is tipping the scales to the "yes" side with folks who presume that the prices will be about the same as now and the performance better in the single CPU package space (since newer parts).
deconstruct60 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 10:16 AM   #86
SeattleMoose
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Der Wald
Your "hate" comes across in your biased poll options. All "No" votes and just one "Yes" vote? What a joke. Fact is we don't know the end configuration nor the price, so you should have had at least one "Maybe" selection.
SeattleMoose is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 10:26 AM   #87
fastlanephil
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Some people will hold off purchasing the new Mac Pro with a wait and see approach but eventually most folks who actually need a Pro machine will probably have one of these or a future revision sitting on their desk.

Personally, I can't imagine having to deal with Windows as my main OS.

Take my money Apple.
fastlanephil is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 11:46 AM   #88
theluggage
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by deconstruct60 View Post
Same thing was trotted out when XServe was discontinued ... Mac OS X Server is going to die quickly without the XServe.
I was talking about the "Server" model of the Mac Pro - not the OS X server software - I'm sure OSX Server will continue, since the Mac Mini Server seems like a success. However, since Lion the emphasis of OS X server has shifted distinctly towards the "small workgroup server" rather than "big iron server" (see the wails from SL Server users when Lion came out). I suspect that, for many people, the Time Machine facilities will be the USP.

Quote:
In contrast, this actually aligns the Mac Pro with the external storage solutions that the Mac Mini would use for larger bulk storage duties also.
Fine - the issue with the new Mac Pro as a server is that 2/3 of the beast is filled with expensive "workstation-class" graphics cards that won't do much good in a headless server.

(Mind you, a quick Google shows that OpenCL-accelerated DBMSs, webservers etc. are being developed so I wouldn't count it out in the longer term - but here and now...)

Quote:
OS X Server configs nominally deferring to Active Directory for authentication and with Mavericks clients shifting to SMD share as the default file share is highly indicative of how not cross platform most folks set-ups are.
How are SMB and Active Directory not cross-platform c.f. the protocols that Apple have used previously? They may have originated from Windows, and MS may not be too chuffed with Samba, but they're pretty much industry standard.
theluggage is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 12:02 PM   #89
td2243
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac Hammer Fan View Post
Definitely not. I want an expandable and upgradeable machine like the 2009-2010-2012, with space for at least 4 harddrives, a PCI-e graphics card and a blu-ray burner. I have never been so disappointed about a "Pro" machine as now.

Right now, I'm also leaning in this direction. I'm using a hand-me-down MBP for the time being and I hate the clutter of wires I'm forced to use with several external HD's. That won't get any better I'm guessing with the new MP. I don't need a blu-ray burner, but internal HD's always look sleeker. Since the only internal HD on the new MP will be SDD, I'm not forking over $1000 to get a measly 1GB SDD drive, or whatever they cost.

Apple designs what they want people to use and we can decide whether it fits our wants/needs or not. Easy as that. It isn't a "I hate Apple" thing at all. My wife and I simply don't make much money, so I want to spend my money wisely. The option of upgradability no longer a concern for Apple, but it is to me.
td2243 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 02:28 PM   #90
deconstruct60
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by theluggage View Post
I was talking about the "Server" model of the Mac Pro - not the OS X server software - I'm sure OSX Server will continue, since the Mac Mini Server seems like a success. However, since Lion the emphasis of OS X server has shifted distinctly towards the "small workgroup server" rather than "big iron server" (see the wails from SL Server users when Lion came out). I suspect that, for many people, the Time Machine facilities will be the USP.
Small home environments are going to fit TimeCapsule or AirportExtreme (given it can take a USB drive) if TimeMachine is the one and only primary criteria.

Small workgroup is generally more indicative of number of people not the individual workloads each one puts onto the server.

For example, At one point ActiveSan had (or was going to have) a product called InnerPool ( company didn't survive so to pointing to FAQ elsewhere. Essentially a sizable chunk of those folks got absorbed by Quantum/StorNext).

http://www.xsanity.com/forum/viewtop...?p=46623#46623

It put the XSan metadata controller on a single card with and SSD. The new Mac Pro is a bit more than a single card with SSD but for some workgroups it would work better as a Metadata server ( more CPU horesepower, dual Ethernet connections so that one could be on dedicated metadata VLAN. ) than a mini would. It is metadata that is being stored so it isn't an issue of bulk data inside the device for a reasonably sized XSan workgroup deployment.

It while number of people isn't completely decoupled from how much workload they throw at the metadata server a relatively small number of users with lots of metadata blocks to grab and/or manipulate can invoke a workload that could test a limited Mac Mini. High user concurrent loads tend to lead to higher server workloads.


With the new direction that Apple is taking with the new Mac Pro I don't think they are going to terminate XSan anytime soon. The new Mac Pro may be an oddball for rack based SAN farm but the Mac mini isn't a perfect fit out of the box either.

Similar issues for new Mac Pro versus mini if running as a ZFS "head node". ( http://getgreenbytes.com/solutions/zevo/ ). The server side computational levels are high. It doesn't necessarily have to be just file serving duties; ZFS is just illustrative that there more than just XSan metadata workload even in file system space. In short, it is just server side computational requirements that would separate a Mac Pro Server from a Mac Mini server. [ I know some will view the difference between the two purely as a internal storage capacity difference but I think that is warped viewpoint. ]

The Server version of the mini is just a configuration different SKU. The bulk of the device is the same. The configuration skew Apple could do with a Mac Pro Server model is possibly drop the second GPU. It isn't likely to be useful in most server contexts. They could swap that BOM cost decrease for a SSD capacity increase or just a general price reduction ( would not hold breath on the latter).

Alternatively, they could swap the 2nd GPU for a drive card. Server OS/Apps on RAID 1 would have as much service uptime as a mini in mirror mode. [ It doesn't look like there is room for a 2.5" ( unless super ultra slim) on a card, but a second SSD would provide redundancy/capacity with not a whole lot of drama. It is just a cut down version of the GPU card with the drive slot on it; just remove the GPU stuff. It will be a smaller, cheaper card with mainly "delete this stuff" engineering. ]

Quote:
Fine - the issue with the new Mac Pro as a server is that 2/3 of the beast is filled with expensive "workstation-class" graphics cards that won't do much good in a headless server.
OS X has terminal server like capabilities. It isn't necessarily headless from a "logged in and using graphics on server" point of view.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/...screen_sharing

Nor as I pointed out.... does there have to be two GPU cards present if it is a separate SKU sold with with OS X Server App bundled.

VNC over a hardwired 1GbE local LAN link isn't that bad for alot usages. ( of course in the distant past I've used 300 baud modems and X Windows over 10Mb/s Ethernet to get remote work so may have a different, more appreciative, perspective. )


Quote:
(Mind you, a quick Google shows that OpenCL-accelerated DBMSs, webservers etc. are being developed so I wouldn't count it out in the longer term - but here and now...)
Webservers no. DBMS not so sure.

Quote:
How are SMB and Active Directory not cross-platform c.f. the protocols that Apple have used previously?
How long did it take SAMBA to match all of the latest updates to AD (primary domain controller ,etc) and to SMB 3.0 (formerly 2.2 ) ?


Quote:
They may have originated from Windows, and MS may not be too chuffed with Samba, but they're pretty much industry standard.
There are defacto standards that are reverse engineering and eventually dribbled out to multiple platforms. That is a huge stretch of "cross platform" definition. For significant blocks of time the standard as it evolves only works on one platform. Then folks uncork that and Microsoft tweaks them again. Rise and repeat. But yeah if you lag sufficiently far behind when the standard is deployed on Windows.... yes it is effectively cross platform.


If Windows wasn't the overwhelming dominant player that wouldn't be happening. That at only adds to point to with what OS X Server is actually primarily competing with.

It is questionable Apple is going to be able to keep up with this over time. They may have been frustrated by SAMBA development decisions but they still have to prove they can actually keep up with the Microsoft treadmill.
deconstruct60 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 02:38 PM   #91
crjackson2134
macrumors 6502a
 
crjackson2134's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Charlotte, NC
No I won't buy one. The reason being has nothing to do with the design. I purchased a new 5.1 only 4 months ago and I'm very happy with it. Also, if I were inclined to buy a nMP, I'd have to wait until all the kinks are worked out, third party devices are abundant and affordable, and my current machine no longer keeps me happy.

If I hadn't already purchased the current model (and not regretting it), I'd buy one in a heartbeat if the price is right.
__________________
Mac Pro 5,1 Hexa 3.33 GHz, 48 GB, ATI HD 5870
Optical-Apple Super Drive & MCE Internal Blu-ray
512GB Samsung 840 Pro 1TB WD, 1TB Barracuda
Inateck KT4004 USB 3.0/ SOLO-X2 / OS X 10.9.4
crjackson2134 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 02:43 PM   #92
Ezlivin
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
I've been waiting for a new Mac Pro

I always get the newest top-of-the-line Mac Pro every seven years. My Mac Pro 1,1 has been a good machine, but it's time to make way for the future.

I'm very interested in the new Mac and am equally interested in what they've not yet told us.
Ezlivin is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 03:40 PM   #93
GermanyChris
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezlivin View Post
I always get the newest top-of-the-line Mac Pro every seven years. My Mac Pro 1,1 has been a good machine, but it's time to make way for the future.

I'm very interested in the new Mac and am equally interested in what they've not yet told us.
So this will be you're second MP. How is that always?
GermanyChris is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 04:27 PM   #94
slakjaw
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
I want one. Depending on price, this thing would be perfect for me. I use 2 Drobo 5D's on thunderbolt, 2 monitors, and one external SSD via thunderbolt. I do photo and video work. Different strokes for different folks I guess because to me its like the perfect desktop.
slakjaw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 05:50 PM   #95
Sharky II
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United Kingdom
cost is everything
Sharky II is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Desktops > Mac Pro

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mac Pro questions (to buy or not to buy) snapdragonx Mac Pro 3 Apr 15, 2014 02:39 PM
What brand of Ram can i buy from Best buy for mac book Pro? michael31986 MacBook Pro 12 Nov 19, 2013 11:18 AM
To buy or not to buy, with the new Mac Pro's coming soon? BDM STUDIOS NL Mac Pro 31 Apr 16, 2013 11:44 AM
To Buy/Not Buy A 2008 Mac Pro Acaleus Thor Mac Pro 26 Feb 19, 2013 05:04 AM
second hand mac pro, to buy or not to buy Dinges Mac Pro 2 Oct 21, 2012 05:57 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:25 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC