Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Insider preview of the 2013 Mac Pro design principles.
- Thread starter MiJuConcept
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd believe that a SR-71 engine was part of the inspiration, and that Apple is hoping that other PC manufacturers have to follow suit. But I'm not necessarily buying everything in the OP's post. OP seems like somebody who likely knew something on the Mac Pro team, but not necessarily a long timer or someone who's a member of the team.
In all likelyhood, OP isn't an Apple employee. An Apple employee wouldn't risk their job in a post like this. They also wouldn't want to compare to the G5's water-cooling for obvious reasons.
I'd believe that a SR-71 engine was part of the inspiration, and that Apple is hoping that other PC manufacturers have to follow suit. But I'm not necessarily buying everything in the OP's post. OP seems like somebody who likely knew something on the Mac Pro team, but not necessarily a long timer or someone who's a member of the team.
In all likelyhood, OP isn't an Apple employee. An Apple employee wouldn't risk their job in a post like this. They also wouldn't want to compare to the G5's water-cooling for obvious reasons.
That is correct. Apple employees are not allowed to leak design concepts.
So, there is no "insider" and all of this is actually just your thoughts and/or opinions.
If you start a thread titled, "Insider preview of the 2013 Mac Pro design principles.", I would have hoped there would actually be an insider involved.
----------
Yes, I'm aware of this, which is why I found the thread extremely questionable and asked the questions that I asked.
If the thread says insider, then it means insider. It doesn't mean Apple approved this thread.
None of your posts mention anything about this insider. Did it all come to you in a dream?
I never asked if Apple approved of this thread. That would be rhetorical.
So, we are supposed to believe you got your info from this insider just because you say so? Wouldn't that be a bit naive?
Btw, I also always question news articles citing "unnamed sources".
Forgive me for assuming a rumour site would accept rumours. Maybe you can take another option. Chill out.
There are aspects to the design which are not public domain and never will be. But other aspects, such as the aesthetic composition which are largely apparent and self explanatory once you align the ideas together and start seeing how the genesis took place.
Like all stories about design, they have a firm foundation in a specific idea. End of story.
None of your posts mention anything about rumors. Everything was stated as fact, so I questioned.
Forgive me for not buying the snake oil.
I'm glad we settled that. Now the rest of us can get back to postulating what else it could have been or how well the design brief fits the final product.
The case is built from the beaks of a thousand eagles. There is also some eagle under the heatsinks.
Unlikely. The terminal velocity is probably less than the speed of an air liner.
I love that movie!
I still have no idea what's going on in this thread. SR71's are pretty neat though, I wonder if the new Mac Pro will be detected by radar.
They'll definitely be an infra red signature transcoding with FCPX - a Hog can drop a Maverick right on it.
The Hog is one of the most pig ugly aircraft that's ever flown but that's certainly built with less compromise. Titanium cockpit bath, cannon shells the size of milk bottles, being able to survive with an engine shot off....
I love it nearly as much as Concorde. I don't just appreciate aircraft for their looks.
that 'risk' was ridiculously low. The EU standards didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere. They actually were passed the around the same time Apple was finishing up the last Mac Pro design in late 2007-2008. A bit late to weave into what likely was partially committed to 2009 instance inside of 2008, but far more than generous amount of time for anyone working on something in 2010 destine for 2012.
Apple had nothing new in 2012. that's is likely true because they were not working on anything in 2010 and a good chunk of 2011.
There is very little here that couldn't have been released in June-July 2012 if Apple had been working on it. The FirePro GPUs that these are derived from were appeared in June 2012. The Xeon E5 v1 were shipping in volume around the same time. They couldn't have done something that a "12 core" ( so would have temporarily backslid on max core count) but
Casing shell on the thermal core? Where? It doesn't particularly touch it at all.
There was no radical redesign driven by the EU restrictions. HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc all still have the "box with slots" model.
The design objective to make this about 1/2 as quiet as the previous Mac Pro is one of the drivers of that. One large diameter (lower RPM ) fan gets you both one "tunnel" and the circular shape. As I highlighted before the "sit on desk and be very quiet" is an very old Mac design objective from the dawn of the Macintosh. There is no sudden EU restriction or Dr Who 50th or SR-71 50th celebration tied to it.
None of the following sound like extreme power and speed, and they all sound like compromises:
- Fewer CPU sockets
- Fewer memory slots
- 2-year old GPUs
- Dual GPUs with no Crossfire support in the OS
- PSU with insufficient power for top end configuration
- An external interface that is slower and more expensive than the internal interface that it replaces
- The promise of whisper-quiet computing that will be ruined by whiny hard drives in external boxes (drives that are quieter mounted internally)
- Inability to grate cheese
It does have motion-detecting glowy ports on the back though!
The infantry men I know think the A-10 is the most beautiful airplanes they've ever seen.
Moot point, as there's been several computers which have 'fallen' from greater heights.
For example, there's been an HP-41CV calcuator that's ridden on the Space Shuttle, which peaks at around Mach 25 on reentry. Plus the Space Shuttles control computers themselves were IIRC simply just hardened IBM PCs.
-hh
PS:
"Which part of this design isn't asking people to rethink computing?"
... well when not even Samsung is willing to copy your design ...
Last edited:
Having Godwin's law invoked on page 3 of a thread speaks volumes about the frivolity of this subject.