New MP on May 18

[fearoftigers]

Would anyone be interested in a new thread for this?

i.e. one that is simply for evidence, speculation and rumours about the release date and spec of the new Mac Pro?

I just want to believe a new Mac Pro is coming soon! Who's with me?

 

[Aldaris]

Would anyone be interested in a new thread for this?

i.e. one that is simply for evidence, speculation and rumours about the release date and spec of the new Mac Pro?

I just want to believe a new Mac Pro is coming soon! Who's with me?

I'm game!

Maybe '2010 Mac Pro: Speculation and whisperings, it's gonna be magical'

 

[fearoftigers]

Here she is:

'2010 Mac Pro: Speculation and whisperings, it's gonna be magical'

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9987493#post9987493

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple is taking super advantage of its customers especially the pro customers because they know there ain't that much options for them except hackintosh systems

That position would have far more weight if there weren't PC vendors selling workstations at roughly the same prices at Apple is (+/- 5-15% ). If get out of what is the bargin basement "pro" workstation can buy and start looking at mid and upper product line prices will see that Apple's offerings are in line with the other large, established PC vendors. There are price premiums in certain cases but "super advantage" is a bit of stretch in characterization.

Most of these kinds of threads purport to be about "over pricing" when really what they are about is restricted selection. PC vendors tend to over a broader range of offerings that make component tradeoffs to lower the price. (e.g., cheaper power supplies, cases , CPUs , motherboards, designs , etc. ). It isn't very productive to compare "apples to oranges".

If Apple is offering a product that provides value not leveraging, one coarse of action is to find a way to take advantage of it. If can't leverage the added value then perhaps you are fixated on the wrong Apple product offering. Or Apple isn't your vendor.


As far as legacy software lockin. Chuckle, everybody (that is large and leveraging a steady revenue stream) does that. MS Office, MS Windows , z/OS , Oracle DB , etc. etc. etc. etc. They all make migration not insanely drop dead simple cost wise.

 

[Umbongo]

That position would have far more weight if there weren't PC vendors selling workstations at roughly the same prices at Apple is (+/- 5-15% ). If get out of what is the bargin basement "pro" workstation can buy and start looking at mid and upper product line prices will see that Apple's offerings are in line with the other large, established PC vendors. There are price premiums in certain cases but "super advantage" is a bit of stretch in characterization.

Most of these kinds of threads purport to be about "over pricing" when really what they are about is restricted selection. PC vendors tend to over a broader range of offerings that make component tradeoffs to lower the price. (e.g., cheaper power supplies, cases , CPUs , motherboards, designs , etc. ). It isn't very productive to compare "apples to oranges".

A 2.8GHz quad core Xeon Workstation from Dell starts at $1037 with a 3 year next business day warranty. If we try and make equal comparisons then a 2.8GHz quad, with 3GB of RAM, 500GB hard drive, comparable graphics card, optical drive, firewire and 3 year warranty is $1,468 (cheaper with 3rd party upgrades) compared to a Mac Pro with Apple care costing $2,748.

These are the price differences people tend to focus on. $1,000+ difference for generally less hardware performance and options is a lot to pay for OS X for a good many people it seems. The dual socket comparisons are closer, but other companies lower prices gradually over the life of the product; a Dell T5500 like the base 8 core was $1,000 less than Apple before they updated. Apple also going from offering systems for processor price + $1100-$1200 to processor price + $2,200/$2,500 made a lot of people question the value of the Mac Pro.

 

[nanofrog]

It maybe just me but I'd take a second hand ebay 2008 Mac Pro for $2500 over a 2010 home-build PC running any version of Windows. The 2008 3.2 Octad is can still kick the ass of most of the 2009 Mac Pro's so all this obsessing about 'this years must have' is really relative to your budget.

The 2008 MP's offer a good value to those that have them (and bought new or refurbished; used, maybe, maybe not, as some are priced rather high).

But that's not what my post was about. Rather that users that have extensive software investments under OS X are limited to a single system vendor (as it's pros, hackintosh's aren't typically an acceptable alternative given the potential support issues = user is on their own).

Generally speaking, I see computers + software as tools. If one solution is better for the usage, then that's the better choice. So for some, OS X is the better solution, others, with falls under a different OS (PC's can offer more choices in terms of finding hardware, but the software may only offer about the same number of limited choices as are available under OS X for professional use).

Some users may have realized that their usage would be better served by switching to another OS for the available applications suites. But because of the existing software investment, they're "locked down" to what they're in due to budget restrictions. And this can apply to whatever OS/applications are being used.

A 2.8GHz quad core Xeon Workstation from Dell starts at $1037 with a 3 year next business day warranty. If we try and make equal comparisons then a 2.8GHz quad, with 3GB of RAM, 500GB hard drive, comparable graphics card, optical drive, firewire and 3 year warranty is $1,468 (cheaper with 3rd party upgrades) compared to a Mac Pro with Apple care costing $2,748.

These are the price differences people tend to focus on. $1,000+ difference for generally less hardware performance and options is a lot to pay for OS X for a good many people it seems. The dual socket comparisons are closer, but other companies lower prices gradually over the life of the product; a Dell T5500 like the base 8 core was $1,000 less than Apple before they updated. Apple also going from offering systems for processor price + $1100-$1200 to processor price + $2,200/$2,500 made a lot of people question the value of the Mac Pro.

This is where the complaint is valid IMO as well. The value once provided by MP's has disappeared with the 2009 systems.

It makes being locked into MP's as a result of OS X based software investments harder to swallow, and seems to leave users with a feeling of being taken advantage of/ripped off. This impression may be even stronger if the individual/company has lost regard/confidence for their software as well. Such as features available in other OS variants not provided in the OS X version in what they think is a reasonable period of time (i.e. available in one version for more than a year, when a new OS X version ships and it's still missing).

Perception plays a big role IMO as to how people determine their system value (including software), and Apple's hurting their own cause IMO by keeping users in the dark (not just for planning purposes for things like MTBR).

 

[Techhie]

Perception plays a big role IMO as to how people determine their system value (including software), and Apple's hurting their own cause IMO by keeping users in the dark

I can understand why they are so secretive, but sometimes it seems as though the childish "black veil" treatment is a slap in the face to those who actually use their hardware and software as more than shiny playthings.

Blatantly overemphasizing the power of the anemic GT 120 for example, makes one feel that Cupertino expects the same technical ignorance from Mac Pro users as it does from its "consumer" market.

 

[DoFoT9]

I can understand why they are so secretive, but sometimes it seems as though the childish "black veil" treatment is a slap in the face to those who actually use their hardware and software as more than shiny playthings.

Blatantly overemphasizing the power of the anemic GT 120 for example, makes one feel that Cupertino expects the same technical ignorance from Mac Pro users as it does from its "consumer" market.

imagine if apple didnt do that...

if apple announced a new MacPro 6 months before hand, they wouldnt sell the current ones (except to people who CANT wait). they would have a lot more refurbs thats for sure, which arent necessarily a bad thing

 

[nanofrog]

I can understand why they are so secretive, but sometimes it seems as though the childish "black veil" treatment is a slap in the face to those who actually use their hardware and software as more than shiny playthings.

For the consumer items (including the iMac and Mini), keeping things secret helps. Partly to keep the competition in the dark and left scrambling, and thier marketing dept. seems to be able to spin it well enough to generate anticipation.

But the enterprise market is different. IT staff have to plan system replacements ahead of time, and information is needed to accomplish this. Random guessing doesn't cut it (and in fact could cost someone their job).

The rest of the enterprise market does this, and does well in this segment. So why Apple proceeds to hurt their enterprise system users with a total lack of information doesn't make logical sense (though I'm sure we could think up at least a few plausible explainations).

Blatantly overemphasizing the power of the anemic GT 120 for example, makes one feel that Cupertino expects the same technical ignorance from Mac Pro users as it does from its "consumer" market.

Well, Steve has a habit of believing he knows better than anyone else as to what they need in a computer system, so maybe that has to do with it. Then the marketing dept. tries to spin it in a positive light as best they can. So we get "best thing since sliced bread" type of statements.

if apple announced a new MacPro 6 months before hand, they wouldnt sell the current ones (except to people who CANT wait). they would have a lot more refurbs thats for sure, which arent necessarily a bad thing

Intel publishes their roadmaps, leaks typically occur prior to that (and at least some of them seem intentional as to generate attention), and other system vendors do as well. There's even dedicated publications that deal with this sort of thing.

This makes IT planners happy, and works out for Intel and system vendors (users anticipate the upcoming products when it's time for new systems).

And they do fine (systems do sell, as enterprise customers tend to purchase according to their MTBR cycles). I tend to see it as a win-win situation.

 

[JesterJJZ]

They should announce basic specs in advance, then save some juicy tidbits like extra vent holes and a sixth USB port as a surprise.

 

[DoFoT9]

Intel publishes their roadmaps, leaks typically occur prior to that (and at least some of them seem intentional as to generate attention), and other system vendors do as well. There's even dedicated publications that deal with this sort of thing.

This makes IT planners happy, and works out for Intel and system vendors (users anticipate the upcoming products when it's time for new systems).

And they do fine (systems do sell, as enterprise customers tend to purchase according to their MTBR cycles). I tend to see it as a win-win situation.

id say that intel have an obligation to specify their roadmaps, as entire businesses may virtually depend on their developments. apple doesnt effect as wide of an audience.

sure, it would be nice to know when the new stuff comes out (iPad for example was a particularly good instance) - but it wrecks the surprise

 

[ag55]

dreamlist

*usb 3.0 - 6 or 7 of em
* esata
* blu ray
* more hdd slots
* endless supplies of intels new chips
* more pci slots
* free ssd drives
* new enclosure
* cheaper price
* MOAR EVERYTHING


reality
* an extra usb port

 

[Ravich]

I would like to see the lower end mac pro have 8 RAM slots.

 

[GiantDolphin]

imagine if apple didnt do that...

if apple announced a new MacPro 6 months before hand, they wouldnt sell the current ones (except to people who CANT wait). they would have a lot more refurbs thats for sure, which arent necessarily a bad thing

This point is rather moot, since the reason this is such a big thread is exactly because people already know 6 months out to EXPECT a refresh of the line (induced from past release dates) whether Apple announces it or not. As a result a lot of people wait by a certain point in the cycle from buying the current model, and hold off for the expected refresh. The Buyer's Guide on this site practically makes that wait an American institution.

In my case I decided I needed a new Mac Pro last December. After searching around before pulling the trigger I found some rumors that the 2010 Mac Pro was coming out in early 2010. Based on the previous refresh date of March, I decided I could wait and not buy until then (I bought at the end of the cycle before and did NOT want to do that again). So I waited. And waited. March got closer and rumors started to fly. Then March came and went. Then the rumors slowed. Then they dried up completely. I waited. More time went by. Then I actually registered on this site to vent my frustration. Then a rumor popped up that it wouldn't be until September for the refresh. By then I had waited so long I needed to do something, but I sure as heck at that point was not going to buy the 2009 model at 2010 prices. I opted for a CPU, video card, and RAM upgrade on my current machine for a fraction of the price and infused several years more life into my Mac Pro 1,1. I did not buy a single thing from Apple in the process.

Now, imagine if last December Apple had officially announced a mid to late year 2010 release of the Mac Pro line refresh. I am certain I would have gone ahead and bought the current Mac Pro then and there for the $6k.

This argument that if Apple pre-announced releases it would kill their sales on the current model is poppycock. People already expect the refresh.

 

[Umbongo]

I would like to see the lower end mac pro have 8 RAM slots.

The platform only supports 6 on a single socket. It was poor on Apple's part not to have them with 6 and 9 so triple channel could have been used rather than the 4 and 8.

 

[nanofrog]

id say that intel have an obligation to specify their roadmaps, as entire businesses may virtually depend on their developments. apple doesnt effect as wide of an audience.

1. It generates interest as the dates draw nearer (help generate sales)
2. Allows IT staff to plan

sure, it would be nice to know when the new stuff comes out (iPad for example was a particularly good instance) - but it wrecks the surprise

You can do this with consumer goods, as such users will buy them for entertainment purposes.

Once major corporations decide that a product is indespensible, keeping them in the dark can cost sales, as corporate clients have to plan their purchases. Tech budgets are fixed and set over time (i.e. x paymens of y dollars paid into a use specific account, and is likely earning interest), not a nearly unlimited slush fund that can be tapped at random.

 

[SirHaakon]

I was thinking more like 5

Look at that, they actually managed to do it in 3 and a half!