8-Core Mac Pro In January? Displays Too?

[Rocketman]

What it all comes down to is manufacturers are trying to be too literal with their HDMI implementation instead of allowing some slack or dynamic ability to it. Rather stupid on their part, but I think it's really a way for the consumer electronics industry to essentially stall and delay the massive rollout of HDMI/HDCP. I'm not usually one for consipiracy theories, but the CE industry does not like HDCP - content providers have forced it upon them. Same thing with 1080p, but in reverse.

I believe this error of judgement is what Apple is going to exploit by offering iTV systems and components that solve the problem on an end to end basis. The fact Apple is the world leader in legal content distribution, and they are willing to follow that model on movies as well, with content providers' hardware emphasis, which falls right into the Apple mantra.

Apple will likely offer the very first real consumer easy HDTV expeience. Apple will sell it through Apple Stores, Radio Shack, and Apple.com.

Rocketman

 

[whatever]

HDCP works over DVI and in fact was developed for DVI... Before HDMI existed. Additionally, HDMI is single-link DVI plus 8-channel digital audio rolled into a single, compact connector. The HDMI video specs (even the latest v1.3) are all defined standard resolutions and timings based on DVI v1.1.

The store I was working with has been working with various Cable/Satalite providers, and audio manufacturors to test various setups in their labs and it doesn't work. Basically the HDMI has problems with crossovers. What happens is that the HDCP is not being passed. [/quote]

Actually msot the problems out there with HDMI devices are pretty much limited to satellite and cable receivers. Strange, but true... Starting with Hughes and Echostar... Echostar is the worst as their HDMI port isn't even HDMI. They call it a "HDTV Port" and they have not licensed the HDMI spec. It only works with a very small percentage of displays out there and does not properly interface HDCP, even if you use a HDMI to DVI adapter (nothing more than a cable or adapter with pin reassignment) and send it to a DVI-HDCP display. This is currently a huge problem with their VIP-622 DVR and VIP-211 HD receiver. DirecTv has terrible HDMI audio bugs with their HR-250 DVR. The updated DVR which is in beta market testing right now is reportedly much better. The older H-10 receivers had the same problems as the HR-210/250. The current H-20 is better, but still has some issues. Most SA cable receivers have broken HDMI and on them it's actually not the HDCP that's the big problem. They didn't properly implement the EIA/TIA-861 timings. Connecting them to a DVI display usually works because DVI is required to adapt to the differing timings (or at least within a certain degree of common formats), HDMI is not.

[/quote]So a workaround is to use DVI, which ignores HDCP completely.[/quote]

Uh, no. But most displays with a true DVI connector are far more tolerant of the signals that can be accepted as they are a true DVI interface and not an HDMI interface, which is a subset of DVI and only must adhere to the resolutions and timings set forth within the HDMI spec. And to further restrict that, they don't even have to do that... They only have to support the resolutions and timings that the manufacturer wishes them to. And most manufacturers are using one of the 4 different Silicon Image chipset variants on the market right now and all are fairly limited, even the latest two additions to the SI family which support 1080p. The newest is the v1.3 chipset and has the expanded color depth capabilities and more timing options included.



If you're working around an HDMI issue buy going to DVI, then it's most likely not an HDCP issue, but rather a signal timing issue. However, DVI is also more tolerant of HDCP signals in different places and timings within a format than HDMI is. So this still could be so... What it all comes down to is manufacturers are trying to be too literal with their HDMI implementation instead of allowing some slack or dynamic ability to it. Rather stupid on their part, but I think it's really a way for the consumer electronics industry to essentially stall and delay the massive rollout of HDMI/HDCP. I'm not usually one for consipiracy theories, but the CE industry does not like HDCP - content providers have forced it upon them. Same thing with 1080p, but in reverse. Content providers have fought 1080p from the start, even broadcasters, often citing extra costs or lack of hardware capability as an excuse, but it really comes down to pressure from content providers on manufacturers is what held it up. 1080p at 24, 30, 50 and 60 Hz were ATSC defined standards right from the beginning and there's no reason for them not to be implemented right from the beginning. 1080p30 has no different bandwidth requirements than 1080i @ 60Hz and 1080p24 is even less demanding than that. It took HD-DVD and BluRay to push 1080p into the mainstream fro new displays and even with that look at the prices. true 1080p displays this year are still 40% cheaper than pseudo 1080p displays from last year.



Seriously, HDCP is part of the DVI spec and the shift to HDMI has nothing to do with wanting HDCP in there. The primary reasons behind HDMI is it's actually cheaper to implement than DVI (a smaller-focus, subset of DVI) and it includes audio. DVI is considered a mid-range to professional connection (even though it has proliferated into consumer computer components). HDMI is targeted at the consumer right from the start.



All of that with the exception of the audio can pass on DVI. DVI can also do even more over dual-link connections with layered HDCP and support for stereoscopic displays or other forms of integrated data streams. HDMI was supposed to get dual-link capability with the 1.3 update, but the dual-link portion of the spec was pulled (literally at the last minute) because it would have required a new connector type to be introduced.[/QUOTE]

Thank you so much for your clean and concise explanation.

I have literally walked into the store with my credit card in hand ready to buy my new gear and ended up walking out scratching my head, more confused and frustrated than before.

Quick question (I apologize for being off topic, but perhaps this can help others too). So would this solution work, usd HDMI to go from the Elite Monitor to the Elite A/V receiver and then use component connectors for everything else, since the TV is just a giant monitor.

Thanks again

 

[RichP]

I doubt we are going to see an 8-Core machine this month; I would suspect sometime in Spring; perhaps with Blueray, and closely coincided with CS3 launch (haha, perhaps AFTER CS3 launch, so people buy up existing stocks of MacPros!)

iTV has basically been "released" to us. I have a feeling we got that unusual product preview earlier to make room this MWSF for something else.

January is always such an expensive month...

 

[tortoise]

I just wanna know, has ANYONE ever said "damn, this 30" display is just not big enough.. i would really like something larger like maybe a 50"

That would be me. There are only two things I can never get enough of in a computer and am willing to pay good money for more: RAM and screen real estate. In that regard, a 50" might be just the ticket so that I would finally have enough screen space for a set of windows, though a good implementation of virtual desktops would help a lot too; on UNIX I usually run 3-4 heavily-subscribed desktops at once and flit back and forth between them. I am hoping that OS 10.5's implementation of Spaces is done well so that I can stop complaining about the native lack of this feature. A contiguous 50" screen (assuming a decent resolution) with a virtual desktops would just about the ticket.

CPU that comes with any box that can support enough RAM is usually adequate, so I only pay a modest amount for a speed bump, and the cores need fast, scalable memory access -- lots of cores on a crappy bus don't cut it. Graphics, I don't care about as long as they can drive the display -- no intensive 3D work or games. For hard disk, I only need about 250GB, preferably mirrored for redundancy.

So there you have it. Non-graphical high-performance engineering workstation that needs a ton of screen real estate. That is what I use and abuse a Mac for that is not multimedia related, though it was not a particularly good option until the Intel Mac Pros showed up.

 

[AppliedVisual]

I have literally walked into the store with my credit card in hand ready to buy my new gear and ended up walking out scratching my head, more confused and frustrated than before.

Don't worry about it, the current state of HDTV is confusing to say the least and many stores and installers out there are not really familiar with the technology. Even ones who are doing compatibility testing, the best they can do is try it and see if it works and it either does or it doesn't... And many times it's impossible to tell what the actual reason would be... To further complicate matters, most of the problematic equipment out there that is well-known to be a problem, is still being pushed by manufacturers that refuse to acknowledge these problems. An excellent example of that is COX, Verizon/FIOS and Comcast shipping cable boxes that can connect to very few TVs via HDMI. Echostar/Dish has the same problem... I have had more failures than successes connecting their HD receivers and DVR units to display systems. TV manufacturers struggle to... And HD-DVD and BluRay players also have their share of problems. HDMI is intended to be hot-pluggable, yet the Toshiba HD-A1/XA1 HD-DVD players won't activate their HDMI connections unless there is already an active cable connection and if the cable is unplugged, they shut down with an error, forcing the user to restart the unit. Makes it difficult in many home theatre installs to get HD-DVD players working with video switches, receivers and TVs... Lots of extra programming steps for remote controls that involve delays and other pointless things. And then the client always calls me later to complain about how their remote runs too slow or ask why they have to point it at the sensor/TV for nearly 20 seconds for it to do everything.

Quick question (I apologize for being off topic, but perhaps this can help others too). So would this solution work, usd HDMI to go from the Elite Monitor to the Elite A/V receiver and then use component connectors for everything else, since the TV is just a giant monitor.

Yeah, this is all off topic, but oh well... Anyway check out www.avsforum.com -- a wealth of information on all this over there. But for the simple, direct answer.. Yes. Drive your plasma (or other HDTV) display from the A/V receiver via HDMI. I would also recommend running a component cable as well, possibly more depending on what you ultimately want to do. But a single HDMI would work just fine.

The newer Pioneer Elite receivers as well as their primary competiton - Denon - upconvert everything for output over HDMI and they work quite well. I put in a Denon 4306 receiver in my home theatre and the component to HDMI conversion is quick enough that I can play my XBOX 360 with no noticeable lag. I've installed both Denon and Pioneer receivers for others.

Anyway, from there you can connect certain devices to the receiver via HDMI or component. In most situations, the component connection on a 1080i HD source will be indistinguishable from HDMI, so it's not something to really worry about. Your cable/sat receiver will probably need to be connected via component. Most DVD players are only component, but newer upscale models have HDMI and most seem to work well across the compatibility chain. Although, many of them don't allow for both HDMI and component to be active at the same time, which can be a problem if you want to view DVD in multiple locations from the same player.

Going back to the the previous advice about running multiple cable sets to your TV, you really won't need it. Especially if you don't use your TV speakers. However many people like to do this so they can adjust picture settings for individual inputs on the TV. Especially calibration freaks who like to color-calibrate their DVD player on its own input and then do the same with their HD receiver on another. So that's something to think about it. But for the rest of us (even a videophile like me) a good HDTV like the new Pioneer plasmas or Samsung 1080P DLP sets will look amazing with a few minutes of adjusting on the HDMI input and channeling everything to that via the receiver.

Oh, and don't pay too much for cables... That's one area where retail store locations really stick it to the customer. I've seen HDMI cables selling in local stores for $100 or more for a 2M cable! That's literally $87 more than that cable should sell for.

 

[whatever]

Don't worry about it, the current state of HDTV is confusing to say the least and many stores and installers out there are not really familiar with the technology. Even ones who are doing compatibility testing, the best they can do is try it and see if it works and it either does or it doesn't... And many times it's impossible to tell what the actual reason would be... To further complicate matters, most of the problematic equipment out there that is well-known to be a problem, is still being pushed by manufacturers that refuse to acknowledge these problems. An excellent example of that is COX, Verizon/FIOS and Comcast shipping cable boxes that can connect to very few TVs via HDMI. Echostar/Dish has the same problem...

Oh, and don't pay too much for cables... That's one area where retail store locations really stick it to the customer. I've seen HDMI cables selling in local stores for $100 or more for a 2M cable! That's literally $87 more than that cable should sell for.

Thank you again. Since the Pioneer I'm looking at is just a monitor (no speakers or tuner) I think I'm just going to go HDMI. I was surprised to learn that Verizon/FIOS is shipping with older equipment (according to their site their boxes don't even have HDMI/DVI.

One last question (sorry everyone), but 1080i vs 1080p, is 1080p really worth the extra money (about $2,000 more)?

Thanks again.

 

[MrCrowbar]

Introducing the 50" iPod with the all new kickwheel.

Wow, that's a good one. Hook up the iPod to your HDTV, and mount the kickwheel under your couchtable. Scroll with your toes or use a laser pointer and make the dog do it. Kick the sides of the table to change channels (sudden motion sensor), Hit the table top hard for instant access to pornography. The possibilities are endless!

 

[moonfacekid]

One last question (sorry everyone), but 1080i vs 1080p, is 1080p really worth the extra money (about $2,000 more)?

Thanks again.

I was reading an article that stated if you sit away from your TV 10 feet or more, most people would not be able to tell the difference between 720p vs 1080p. Here is a Diagram. Of course if you can afford the difference, then I would say go for the 1080p to future proof your TV a bit more plus to enjoy the better resolution. And of course with technology you will never really be able to "futureproof" ... with TV there will be higher resolutions eventually ... 1440p... and SED technology sometime down the road, etc etc.

 

[AppliedVisual]

One last question (sorry everyone), but 1080i vs 1080p, is 1080p really worth the extra money (about $2,000 more)?

Well, if you want to future-proof your investment, 1080p is desireable. Since you're looking at a plasma display (I think you said), you essentially have the options of 42" at 1024x768, 50" at 1366x768 or 50" at 1920x1080. (for the Pioneer models - other brands have a few different selections) All modes are progressive on the plasma sets... But anyway, the 1080p is the way to go as it gives superior image clarity when viewing HD sources - most of which out there are 1080i from broadcasters right now. HD-DVD and BluRay are both 1080p although not all players output 1080p. If you intend to buy into HD-DVD or BluRay in the future, you will be cutting yourself short if you don't choose the 1080 display.

But what moonfacekid posted is also something to consider. The human eye is only so good... The farther away you are from your display, the less resolution your eye can distinguish and at a certain point you can't differentiate between 720p and 1080p, a bit farther away and you can't tell the difference between 480p and 1080p. Try to test it out and let your eyes be the judge. In the end, your own eyes (and your wallet) should be the deciding factor. Don't over-spend either... No reason to break the bank buying into a home theatre setup... That $6K HDTV you can buy right now will be inferior to a $2500 TV within 2 years. Which means that a 720p TV today may be the stepping stone for a much better 1080p display down the road with little or no more money out of your pocket.

 

[drsmithy]

I'd be very happy if Apple sold a mid-range Mac that had just one dual core Xeon with RAM configurable to 8GB and PCIe based graphic card Just about exactaly 1/2 of a Mac Pro. I'd buy it.

People have been begging Apple for a machine in this class since the first iMacs appeared - a headless iMac with a modular video card.

Apple won't do it now for the same reason they wouldn't do it then and haven't done it in the interim - because it would absolutely slaughter higher-margin "Pro" machine sales.

 

[Liquidog]

I just wanted to thank MM for taking the criticism and responding thoughtfully. Also, thanks to MM, Applied Visual, and others whose technical knowledge make this thread as informative as it is.

 

[drsmithy]

Most people do not have just one app running. Heck, look at the number of processes running on your OS X box right now. 8 cores can be used by most people and won't be a waste.

You have a very, very strange definition of "most people". To suggest anything except a tiny niche of customers need 8 cores of processing power *on their desktops* is ridiculous on its face.

Yes, lots of processes are "running" in the background - but the vast, vast majority aren't doing anything _at all_ 99% of the time and most of the ones that are left do very little.

Added to that, OS X still has a lot of maturing to do vis-a-vis multi-cpu scalability (10.5 should extensively improve, for example, kernel locking granularity to this end).

There's certainly a market for 8 core Mac Pros and I expect them to sell well to that market, but it is *extremely* small in the grand scheme of things. It's also unlikely to get markedly bigger in the foreseeable future, because there's simply no need - even with a heavyweight platform like OS X - because the vast majority of users aren't CPU limited, and haven't been for some time.

 

[popelife]

There's certainly a market for 8 core Mac Pros and I expect them to sell well to that market, but it is *extremely* small in the grand scheme of things. It's also unlikely to get markedly bigger in the foreseeable future, because there's simply no need - even with a heavyweight platform like OS X - because the vast majority of users aren't CPU limited, and haven't been for some time.

What you say about the majority of users being fine with dual or even quad core is true. But an 8-core isn't about appealing to the majority, it'd be a premium machine for specialist users.

Those working with native DAW applications like Logic, Nuendo, DP, etc would snap up 8-core Mac Pros like there's no tomorrow. Audio plug-ins and virtual instruments keep getting more sophisticated, and power-hungry.

Same I'm sure goes for video people, especially those working with HD. You can never render or compress fast enough.

Apple could sell thousands of 8-core Mac Pros just within these two markets. That alone probably makes it a viable product.

Remember, they also used to say that no-one would ever need more than 640MB of RAM.

 

[Multimedia]

Adobe Premiere For OS X In April

Just got an inside report from an Adobe insider last night who knows Adobe has decided that because Macs run on Intel processors now, they can publish a Mac OS X version of Premiere abandoning their agreement with Apple not to compete with FCP to date. Look for it to be announced and shipping at or closely after April's NAB, 8 core ready and taking advantage of all Leopard offers as well. This guy thinks Adobe Premiere for OS X will be a Final Cut Pro killer. But he also said that Adobe will make their OS X Premiere completely cross compatible with the entire Final Cut Studio suite. All files generated in each other's apps will open in the other's. So it's not like war as much as it is a friendly competition. God knows we need more of that in the Mac world.

He also thinks waiting for Stoakley-Seaburg is the way to go believing they won't ship that way until May-June But may be pre-announced at April's NAB as "shipping next month". I sure hope it won't be that long.

 

[RichP]

Just got an inside report from an Adobe insider last night who knows Adobe has decided that because Macs run on Intel processors now, they can publish a Mac OS X version of Premiere abandoning their agreement with Apple not to compete with FCP to date...

He also thinks waiting for Stoakley-Seaburg is the way to go believing they won't ship that way until May-June But may be pre-announced at April's NAB as "shipping next month". I sure hope it won't be that long.

I agree with your friend; unless of course we just see one top tier 8-core soon, then a real refresh in the spring. Spring will be ripe for upgrades, with the beloved Adobe apps going universal.

About Premiere, the Adobe/Apple balance always makes me nervous. I see how M$ treats their Mac division lately (no more Windows Media, IE was killed years ago, Office is due for an overhaul and wont be compatible with Office 2007 for a while, etc) I would hate to see Adobe cripple its CS suite for OSX out of spite.

 

[digitalbiker]

I agree with your friend; unless of course we just see one top tier 8-core soon, then a real refresh in the spring. Spring will be ripe for upgrades, with the beloved Adobe apps going universal.

About Premiere, the Adobe/Apple balance always makes me nervous. I see how M$ treats their Mac division lately (no more Windows Media, IE was killed years ago, Office is due for an overhaul and wont be compatible with Office 2007 for a while, etc) I would hate to see Adobe cripple its CS suite for OSX out of spite.

They won't. The difference between Adobe and Microsoft is like night and day.

Apple users make up a significant portion of Adobe's creative software market. Unlike MS Office which has a much larger Windows base of users than Mac users.

Adobe also values it's realationship with Apple as together they have weathered many difficult years together since the Desktop publishing days. Also Adobe listens to it's user base and is always looking to improve.

Many times I get the feeling that Microsoft would just be content to keep selling the same old cr@p over and over without innovation if they could get away with it for an extended period of time.

 

[3CCD]

Just got an inside report from an Adobe insider last night who knows Adobe has decided that because Macs run on Intel processors now, they can publish a Mac OS X version of Premiere abandoning their agreement with Apple not to compete with FCP to date. Look for it to be announced and shipping at or closely after April's NAB, 8 core ready and taking advantage of all Leopard offers as well. This guy thinks Adobe Premiere for OS X will be a Final Cut Pro killer. But he also said that Adobe will make their OS X Premiere completely cross compatible with the entire Final Cut Studio suite. All files generated in each other's apps will open in the other's. So it's not like war as much as it is a friendly competition. God knows we need more of that in the Mac world.

Being a videographer myself, this is kind of exciting since both programs have their ups and downs. 2007 for Apple looks huge, even better on my new 24" iMac.

 

[failsafe1]

Just got an inside report from an Adobe insider last night who knows Adobe has decided that because Macs run on Intel processors now, they can publish a Mac OS X version of Premiere abandoning their agreement with Apple not to compete with FCP to date. Look for it to be announced and shipping at or closely after April's NAB, 8 core ready and taking advantage of all Leopard offers as well. This guy thinks Adobe Premiere for OS X will be a Final Cut Pro killer. But he also said that Adobe will make their OS X Premiere completely cross compatible with the entire Final Cut Studio suite. All files generated in each other's apps will open in the other's. So it's not like war as much as it is a friendly competition. God knows we need more of that in the Mac world.

He also thinks waiting for Stoakley-Seaburg is the way to go believing they won't ship that way until May-June But may be pre-announced at April's NAB as "shipping next month". I sure hope it won't be that long.

I love competition. Makes things a lot better. But I always doubt the mysterious inside source. Hope it's true but time will tell.

 

[TMay]

Regarding Premiere

I believe that Adobe will provide Premiere, based on MM's insider, I just don't believe that there ever was an agreement. I recall that Adobe pulled Premiere from the platform because of FCP's features (Premiere was long in the tooth, and Apple was on the ropes). I surely can't believe that Apple had any leverage with Adobe, though because of Photoshop, I can see the reverse having some truth. Why wouldn't Adobe just provide the "FCP Killer" on the PC platform, what with the availability of Parallels, et al?

Either way, very good news for Apple, Adobe and FCP. The more tools on the OSX platform, the better.

 

[AppliedVisual]

I believe that Adobe will provide Premiere, based on MM's insider, I just don't believe that there ever was an agreement. I recall that Adobe pulled Premiere from the platform because of FCP's features (Premiere was long in the tooth, and Apple was on the ropes). I surely can't believe that Apple had any leverage with Adobe, though because of Photoshop, I can see the reverse having some truth. Why wouldn't Adobe just provide the "FCP Killer" on the PC platform, what with the availability of Parallels, et al?

Either way, very good news for Apple, Adobe and FCP. The more tools on the OSX platform, the better.

Yeah, there was never an agreement between Apple and Adobe to limit competing products - in fact, that would be somewhat illegal in many parts of the world. Adobe's official stance a couple years ago is that they would no longer develop products for the Mac where Apple already had a product in place or where they would suffer from too little market interest to justify development. It made sense, even though a lot of Premiere users (and users of other discontinued Adobe products) felt a little cheated. I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe brings Premiere back to the Mac... It makes sense. I think they could do well with it and I can see them even offering their video production bundle with AE too. With the Intel shift, there's no need to optimize code for two different CPU platforums and an OSX version really only calls for the OS-specific portions to be tailored for OSX. So very possible.... FWIW, I've never been much of a Premiere fan, even their latest version. I've always felt it to be one of their weaker software offerings. ...And Ecore as well. On the PC it's one of the better DVD authoring softwares, but it doesn't compare to DVDSP, I wonder what Adobe will do there? I can't imagine them offering Premiere and not also offering their own application to author DVDs on the Mac. Another reason this move would make sense (to bring back premiere) is that Apple now only sells FCP, Soundtrack Pro, Motion and DVDSP as the studio bundle. Apple is almost leaving the market wide open for a good NLE software positioned between their own FCS bundle and Final Cut Express.

 

[Multimedia]

BusinessWire Confirmation Premiere For OS X Coming

And here we have confirmation my rumor was true. Digital Media Net publishes the Adobe press release:

Adobe Production Studio To Be Available for Both Mac and Windows - Adobe's Complete Video Post-Production Suite Goes Cross-Platform

Will be first publicly demoed at Adobe's MacWorld Expo Booth 901 and released mid-2007 giving the market a total cross-platform pro video editing suite for the first time since OS 9. Looks like it's going to be Leopard required, Intel Macs only not UB.

 

[Multimedia]

Only 9% Of Us Want An 8 Core Mac Pro Most At This Show

Only Displays rate less @ 5.5% and the Video iPod is at 18%. I can't believe 34% want an iPod Phone. That seems completely insane to me. I don't get the idea of an iPod in a phone at all. To me they seem completely different items that don't belong together.

 

[aswitcher]

Only Displays rate less @ 5.5% and the Video iPod is at 18%. I can't believe 34% want an iPod Phone. That seems completely insane to me. I don't get the idea of an iPod in a phone at all. To me they seem completely different items that don't belong together.

Does sound like you commute to work on public transport or get many phone calls when your on your ipod.

 

[paradillon]

Only Displays rate less @ 5.5% and the Video iPod is at 18%. I can't believe 34% want an iPod Phone. That seems completely insane to me. I don't get the idea of an iPod in a phone at all. To me they seem completely different items that don't belong together.

When you combine the iPod and phone it really broadens what the device can be beyond just the two. The consumer has to be educated to understand how they will use the device or how even to perceive it. Is it a phone with iPod function or an iPod with phone function, there is a big difference between the two and for me the second is much more appealing.

The interface is the big question for me, how far have they gone to have it be an extension of the desktop environment.

The "Displays" figure is surprisingly low to me. Apple has completely fortold their full onslaugth to the living room environment, so to think they would leave a large part of the equation untouch doesn't make sense. It may just be a timing issue that it isn't in the plan for this Macworld, plus I haven't seen any rumors of display makers ramping up for apple. They are already at high capacities. Or it could be an economics issue due to the low margins display makers are dealing with today.

 

[Multimedia]

Looks Like The 8 Core Mac Pro Is Still On The Table

I'm thinking it's a long shot, but some posts insist it will happen tomorrow. Any thoughts?