Hmmmm. Releasing a TB MacPro just in time for the announcement TB2 will be released in 2014, early in the product cycle for this MacPro 2013.
Rocketman
Rocketman
Attachments
Last edited:
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.
Rumor Suggests Replacement for Mac Pro Due in April or May
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I understand your feelings but that is a no-go for Apple.
Unless Apple decides to bing some sort of specific "Pro-OS" there is no way a new Mac (whatever Mac that may be) will not come with the newest version the mainstream OS. And with every new release of the mainstream OS (OS X) there will be more and more iOS features. More iCloud integration. Etc.
IMHO, Apple wil move more and more to a mainstream user-experience. More and more to ease of use and moving OS X closer to iOS. Pro-apps will become easier to use and general computer hardware fast enough for the consumerization of IT in general.
IF Apple were to release a new Mac Pro, it will fit in one of the following categories:
1. Mac Pro based on current form factor: keep the current Pro-users happy, but this release is probably definitely the last....
2. Mac Pro / Mac mini hybrid (hate that word): a Mac mini with room for a "real" grfx card and 2 SSDs, forget optical drive.
3. Mac mini with beefed up specs..... Just Apple's way of saying: bye bye Pro.
Whatever the release, whatever the hardware: the Pro-market is diminishing... for Apple.
The 30" ACD will be built-in to the all-in-one iMacPro unit.
It will also be available in a 36" Retina iMacPro model.
Best of all, it will be super-thin. And upgrading will be easy, as long as you BTO the upgrades you want.
I guess I may be overseeing some things since I do look for products based on price. I still avoid Acer, Acer sucks.
----------
There's no questioning the fact that the mac pro is probably at a historically overly inflated price with respect to its hardware. Which is why I'm guessing so many people in this thread are asking for the entry level upgradable mac pro to drop back to $1,500 where it use to be and the hardware to match the price.
Once the update comes then you can run your comparison, until then it's just a red herring.
Ultimately the issue is about not locking your money in the planned obsolescence of an iMac and having it work for you as long as possible in something that is highly upgradable like the mac pro. 2GB of video ram might look sexy to you now but give it two years when volta drops and then not so much. I like to get a solid 4-5 years out of a machine. My 8core 2008 mac pro with 32gb of ram is holding well enough. I have 2 new video cards available to me with the possibility of a 3rd coming in the mac pro. How well do you think an iMac from 2008 would look against that?
Hence the reason I continue to use PC's as my main system, you can upgrade the living daylights out of them and it doesn't matter what hardware you use.
I'll give upgradeability to you, but if I were to look for a Mac system it'd be an iMac. I'd say I'd be able to get 3+ years out of it before becoming "obsolete".
Could be just a hype strategy..
but still, this and the announcement of Pro Tools 11 in the same day is pretty friggin sweet!!
but still, this and the announcement of Pro Tools 11 in the same day is pretty friggin sweet!!
Well, just buy an HP Z820 and Hackintosh it. The Z820 is far superior to the current Mac Pro.
...but computers aren't cars.
Imagine that the carrying capacity and performance of all cars had increased drastically in the last 5 years. Imagine you could now get six bales of straw, two goats and a concrete mixer in the back of a compact saloon. Imagine that you could add a trailer when needed and still drive at full speed (c.f. USB3/Thunderbolt external expansion).
People who needed a pickup in 2008 could now do the same thing in a small car. Of course there are still people who need four goats etc. and will buy pickups, but the market has shrunk.
The problem for Apple is not whether some people still want Pros - its whether enough people want Pros to justify the huge expense of developing a new workstation.
Apple are also in a cleft stick: superficially, the obvious thing to do would be to produce a fairly conventional tower PC using off-the-shelf components (a sort of official hackintosh. This would meet the needs of a swathe of Pro customers who just need the internal expansion/full-size graphics cards rather than any exotic hardware. However, without any distinctive Apple twists, it will either look over priced c.f. similarly specced PCs or, if cheaper, it will cannibalise sales of their far more profitable, higher margin small-form-factor systems.
(Or, Apple could invent the Sports Utility Computer and convince lots of people that they needed a $3000 tower workstation in order to check their email and run Pages - but I think you need government pork-barrel incentives for that).
Of course it will have thunderbolt. Even those consumer toy computers have thunderbolt.
It's having anything else that would be the surprise
The way I see your post is two ways: Either the current Mac Pro doesn't really need to be updated or Apple should throw away their other products since they aren't upgradeable, other than RAM.
Another reason I keep my main system running on Windows, it's very upgradeable and I never have any issues. So that may be why an iMac would be perfect for me, as a secondary machine (another reason I bought my PowerMac G4, because it's a Mac but I can't make much money). But still, 2GB for dedicated video will be pretty good for a few years. Heck, not very many systems nowadays don't even come with more than 1GB. Even though my main computer is a laptop it's still just as powerful as a fully maxed out iMac (with slightly more powerful graphics capability) minus being able to go past 16GB of RAM. And it cost less than $1000 so I don't have a problem buying a new one in 5+ years since that's how long I was able to use my previous machine for. It was from 2007.
Again with the upgradeability, I guess my next machine will be a desktop. I just wouldn't need a Mac Pro, a fully maxed out iMac at best. I just don't need a Mac as powerful as the Mac Pro because I can get software that either does the same thing or is the same thing as the Mac variant on Windows. All I really want a powerful Mac for is for Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, iMovie and GarageBand. My PowerMac G4 is just too old and incompatible to be able to do much of that on it.
I'm going to be publicly executed for saying that, aren't I?
Then why hasn't it been released. If they were just going to update to cover the blades they could have had that out weeks ago
----------
WWDC is a software conference. And about two weeks too late to launch Back to School in the US,which is the perfect tie in for new notebooks.
I'm saying early May with go times in mid to late May on notebooks. And perhaps the announcement of the Pro, although it might not street until July or so with 10.9
----------
No one is forcing you to use Launchpad, iCloud etc. so don't.
----------
Please tell me there is an updated Thunderbolt display to go along side this...
With hdmi please.
And then wait for the fun when all those analysts figure out that that is the 'iTV'
----------
And the new Mac pro is all Mac mini's stacked up to each other, a modular system with even extra CPU's, graphics cards and HD's in a separate module. Or is this not posible because of the connection speed between the modules?
![US07602603-20091013-D00000.jpg]()
This is what I'm thinking with the stack parts being hard drives, SuperDrive etc. leveraging thunderbolt for connections. The graphics cards, RAM would be in the main unit which would be the size of 2-3 Minis stacked together
Last edited:
For $1899, they could easily make a machine that beats the pants off the current base MP ($2499).
They sell an iMac with a 3.1 Ghz i7 for $1699, there's no reason they couldn't make a base MP with similar specs and swap the monitor for slots, bays, and more ram capacity at that same price point. I'd argue that machine would be no less "pro" than the base model they have now.
That's not what caused them to almost go bankrupt. It would be idiotic for them for them to cater to only pros, but there's just no reason for them not to include a pro model in a full product line. And they don't have to "beat their heads" to make pros happy, in fact doing that is probably the easiest thing in their product line. It's not rocket science, just the latest CPUs from intel with a decent number of ram slots, pci slots, and bays, and the latest versions of the various ports. And for years intel has been designing those motherboards and Apple just makes minor tweaks to those designs. There's really no excuse for Apple doing such an awful job with the mac pro, everyone knows that the sales aren't huge, but the development costs are the lowest of any computer apple sells, maybe of any product they sell (other than accessories).
That "almost bankrupt" was all pre-OS X and it had very little to do with catering to pros- they were just completely clueless. The thing you need to consider is that for every "pro", there are hundreds of consumers that want to emulate the pro look and feel. The Mac and iOS ecosystem was spawned by pros, evangelized by pros and spread by way of wannabes down to those hundreds of consumers who then told their friends and family. Plus, the pros are the ones building software for the Mac and iPhone/iPad. They don't do that on Mac Minis.
Now, I will say that 75% of my work could now be served by an iMac, and the other 25% would just take more time. I don't absolutely need a Mac Pro anymore. But I'm still using a maxed out 2006 model for production, and only last year did I feel like it needed replacing. That's a good 6 years running full time, with no problems whatsoever. So not only was it a powerhouse when I got it, but it lasted longer than I expected, and was well worth the price. I rotate backups and upgrade internals in a manner not possible with an iMac.
So, while I could get an iMac every two years, I'd prefer a Mac Pro every six. I also suspect that's why they let it go stale - Apple doesn't love selling me one computer in the time I should buy three.
You're out of your mind. What would be the point of doing all that, it would just make the Mac Pro compete with iMacs.
Much of the Mac Pro users are involved in heavy video processing, 3D modeling/rendering, etc. It would make no sense to have integrated graphics. Also: NVIDIA and EVGA just released two new graphics cards for the Mac Pro.
What ever gave you that idea?
Sure, but if they were smart they could probably also come up with a bay that could either hold one optical or two SSD. Honestly, I don't have the foggiest idea what the rest of your post has to do with what I wrote, looks like you probably totally misunderstood what I was talking about.
So you're saying it does the same thing...just not the same thing.
Only an idiot would buy things like ram and hard drives from Apple. And that ignores the biggest advantage of Mac Pro, getting those from a third party and putting them in is a piece of cake.
Going to twelve cores is expensive, but it actually does bring up performance way beyond the top end iMac. For people who work for a living, that's worth it if it pays for itself.
You ignore the fact that the external ports are slower than the internal on a mac pro. Next generation, there should be usb 3, sata III, and thunderbolt, but the sata will still be a better choice than the usb, and the tb is wildly more expensive than internal.
2008 is an old model, and there is a huge difference in power between the 2008 and 2009 due to the addition of hyperthreading. An 8 core 2009 machine is still fast.
Have you actually made the comparison? The new quad core machines have hyperthreading which is comparable to having more cores (not as good as having twice as many cores, but still a considerable improvement). Plus higher clock speeds than the 2006 models, plus the newer chips are more efficient at the same clock speed and faster bus and ram. Frankly I'd be shocked if any of the current i7 macs weren't miles faster than the fastest 2006 MP. Assuming I just needed the speed and not the expandability, I'd take a high end iMac over a 2006 MP in a heartbeat. And I hate iMacs.
Except that the expense of a new workstation isn't "huge" by any stretch of the imagination, it should have the lowest development costs of any mac they sell. Take a standard Intel design, make the necessary Apple specific tweaks and throw it in a case. That's what they've been doing for years, and probably what they will keep doing.
----------
Did you quote the wrong post? Because I certainly didn't say that.
But that's what you implied. (Either that, or you were implying the everyone here was a fanboy with too much money).
You're also missing a common thread that's been posted here.
There are many here, myself included, that need something inbetween the iMac and a full-decked out MacPro. But Apple hasn't offered that in years. So we buy MacPros (when they actually get launched).
My ideal system would probably be a dual processor, 4 RAM slots, 2 HD bays, and room for two video cards of my choosing. I could max that out and be comfortable for a number of years.
But when my current MacPro can't be updated to the latest OS, I need to do something, and if Apple doesn't provide a product, a PC manafacturer will.
But let's not forget how wasteful and environmentally unsound it is to push three machines where only one is needed, not to mention the display has to go with the machine. Greenpeace will not be pleased.
Dude your gifatar is freaking me out. I'm on my ipad and I seriously though somebody was vncing into it.
This could be true.. Apples direction is clear.. consumer and itoys.. I don't think the Mac Pro will see Haswell. That is more geared to mobile computing platforms.
QUOTE=nutjob;17118296]Enjoy the new release, it will be the MacPro's last.[/QUOTE]
QUOTE=nutjob;17118296]Enjoy the new release, it will be the MacPro's last.[/QUOTE]
