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.
Any news on the Mac Pro
- Thread starter The Beatles
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Too hard to tell on this as we don't know what processors they will use, why they chose not to sell it (edit: 1333MHz memory) on the 09 models or why they went as far as to disable it. My guess would be if they just update to the newer processors that have replaced the current ones then 1066Mhz will remain the only option. If they do something else, like an all 6-core line up then you'd possibly see 1333MHz memory.
I'd expect them to stick with 1066, even if some of the parts can actually utilize 1333Mhz DDR3, as is with the 3.33GHz Quad. It keeps the parts bins simpler, which translates into a financial savings.
Less work for Apple's developers too, as the current firmware is fixed to 1066, as tested by gugucom (swapped out to a 1333MHz DDR3 capable processor and 1333MHz DDR3, but it was stuck to 1066MHz).
LOL? What's so wrong about an SD card slot? For the price you pay for a Mac Pro, I would welcome any addition, as small and insignificant as they may be.
Or do you consider this as some slap in the face to the "pro" market, again?
What I'd also like to very much see is wifi finally just built in. Enough with the CTO BS. I don't care if 99% of Mac Pro users around the world do not use airport. The technology has been standardized long enough. It just seems silly to leave it out at this point.
Well, your 2008 Mac Pro actually offered great value for money back then. Would you have bought a Mac Pro if it only had a Core 2 Duo for 2500 bucks in 2008? Be ready to wait in 2012.
+1.
I'm willing to bet that it's not being used simply because folks who would use it look at the option on the BTO page and rationalize how they could go "wired only." I know that a large number of people rely on Ethernet, but the old "speed and reliability" argument is getting harder to make with 802.11n, at least for internet connections.
Is that the "All New Anemic Mac Pro! Its not just thin anymore."
There's also cost, and for some, the additional shipping time is unacceptable (assuming the wireless card is all that's added).
Ready-made cables can be had rather cheap. And as per the security, it's still valid. Encryption can be broken, and end up with bandwidth leaches. If the data is critical (i.e. Intellectual Property, financial records, such as credit card or account #'s,...), wireless interception is far easier than physical access to the hardware as a means of theft.
It's the biggest reason why such data isn't handled wirelessly in data centers. They've enough of a security hassle to keep wired access under control. Wireless just adds another area for security breaches, so it's just skipped (increases the risk of employee theft too, as they could attempt to hide in a bathroom or similar unmonitored location).
Home users, are at less risk, though not negligable (stolen account information via say a keylogger can be absolutely devastating to an individual).
There's also cost, and for some, the additional shipping time is unacceptable (assuming the wireless card is all that's added).
And as per the security, it's still valid. Encryption can be broken, and end up with bandwidth leaches. If the data is critical (i.e. Intellectual Property, financial records, such as credit card or account #'s,...), wireless interception is far easier than physical access to the hardware as a means of theft.
It's the biggest reason why such data isn't handled wirelessly in data centers. They've enough of a security hassle to keep wired access under control. Wireless just adds another area for security breaches, so it's just skipped (increases the risk of employee theft too, as they could attempt to hide in a bathroom or similar unmonitored location).
Home users, are at less risk, though not negligable (stolen account information via say a keylogger can be absolutely devastating to an individual).
Ok, I got you. It's still not perfect.
But, for those dependent on extreme security: turn airport off.
My point was simply to add it for convenience for those who do want it. Just set it and forget it! Does something as small and as universally widespread really need to be CTO anymore?
Exactly.
It's easy, and the cost difference between a router and wireless router are rather negligible, if it exists at all (last I checked, price differences between vendors was more of an issue).
Convenience is the whole point for wireless connections. It's definitely easier than trying to wire up a house that's not already equiped, and no need to deal with a landlord, if it's an apartment (or rental house).
When you think about it, there aren't any reasons for Apple to continually exclude it. The "extremely secure" customers can easily remove a chip from a $3,000 workstation.
It all comes down to Apple fighting for that extra $1 of profit. It was obvious from their exclusion of BT in the 06 machines, and it is obvious now.
Steve is obsessed with thin. His goal a computer 1/3rd the thickness of human hair made out of pounded gold as the case.
NSA would not be allowed to purchase any Mac Pros, even if you can turn off the wireless option. it would not pass muster with them. And yes the NSA uses Mac Pros, they were a heavy Nextstep shop back in the days.
Does not work like that during Procurement. If on the PO the part number is a product that contains a restricted technology for use in a classified or TS environment, it will not get purchased period.
Simple solution: Have it be an option to remove wireless technologies, rather than having to pay extra to add them.
Exactly, and there's plenty of corporate environments that follow similar practices (internal company IT policies, not a contractual necessitation for dealing with clients such as governement agencies).
For some reason, IT staff get a bit angry when they have to spend hours fixing something a user broke/caused, that shouldn't have ever happened in the first place.
And as they get at least some say in policy creation (if not final approval), they'll usually get their way over such technology. the 5520, 3540, and 3520 didn't support it.
(respectively
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=39718&processor=W3520&spec-codes=SLBEW
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=39719&processor=W3540&spec-codes=SLBEX
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=40200&processor=E5520&spec-codes=SLBFD
)
the 5620 doesn't support it either.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=47925&processor=E5620&spec-codes=SLBV4
The choices are that Apple move to a higher set of 3 different processors (and raise prices higher) or go with what they did. Keep it uniform so have few configs to test/support/etc. (e.g, they get zero support calls where someone has stuck various different speeds in and wonders why there is a glitch. When you have a K.I.S.S. setup you don't get these calls. ).
As to what the hold up is .... there is no 3620 and 3640 is move to. The set of processors that Apple was using haven't all been upgraded. There are some older speed bumped parts 3530/3550, but that would be using "older" in a model that has to run for another year. Depends upon what is on Intel's roadmap. If delay for 4 months gets 3620/3640 and a lower 5600 series contract prices, it is a better move Apple is making.
It would still have the same part number unless you made that a different one. You need a offering with a product part number that does not have it. If you bump the hard drive or add a video card the Mac Pro part number doesn't change. Typically the any config bump is automatically outlined in the augmented description in the P.O.
The simplest way to have minimum number of part numbers is to leave it off by default. What want is that any "wireless" thing should up explicitly not be part of the default parameters buried "inside" a part number.
Back on topic.....
You'll find plenty of less expensive pro user alternatives in the PC world, but you probably already have a bunch of expensive Mac software, so I would recommend staying mac at this point. Id say go for a used early Mac Pro. They're many hundreds of dollars cheaper in most cases than the more powerful 2009 models, but it sounds like if you've been able to survive on a mini, a 2008 2.66 will hook you up really just fine for as long as Apple sits on their hands with the new model.
Because its used and not a top-line model, you'll already be getting it at a HUGE discount from a new one, and it sounds like you just need it for a really short, stop-gap time until the new one comes out. Then, sell it on ebay. You probably wont lose much on it if you bought smart, as they're still really great computers for all but the most demanding users.
Don't ever sit losing valuable time on learning something just because of hardware. The other guy competing with you for your next job has probably been spending his time learning with his setup.
Buy your used setup, use your time well by learning that new software, and by the time the new Pro rolls out from behind the curtain, you'll be ready to give it a run for its money. How does that sound?
You'll find plenty of less expensive pro user alternatives in the PC world, but you probably already have a bunch of expensive Mac software, so I would recommend staying mac at this point. Id say go for a used early Mac Pro. They're many hundreds of dollars cheaper in most cases than the more powerful 2009 models, but it sounds like if you've been able to survive on a mini, a 2008 2.66 will hook you up really just fine for as long as Apple sits on their hands with the new model.
Because its used and not a top-line model, you'll already be getting it at a HUGE discount from a new one, and it sounds like you just need it for a really short, stop-gap time until the new one comes out. Then, sell it on ebay. You probably wont lose much on it if you bought smart, as they're still really great computers for all but the most demanding users.
Don't ever sit losing valuable time on learning something just because of hardware. The other guy competing with you for your next job has probably been spending his time learning with his setup.
Buy your used setup, use your time well by learning that new software, and by the time the new Pro rolls out from behind the curtain, you'll be ready to give it a run for its money. How does that sound?
Right. So Apple not selling it was to reduce cost to them and most likely because performance difference was minimal or even negligible for most Pro apps. Disabling the support of it was probably to prevent people not buying memory through them if 1333MHz was supported. No other reason I can think of.
As for the 5620, that isn't a workstation processor and Apple would have no reason to offer it. I don't think that the line will be all 6-core, but that is the only way I can see them selling 1333MHz memory. Other companies of course would (and do) sell you 1333MHz whether it is supported or not on the lower ones so you could utilize it with the higher end models that do. However they used to sell multiple types of memory 4 years ago, and were forced to sell only one type with the two models after that. Only the 09 models have been recent ones where different types of memory could be used and with so much being weird about them (memory speed, slots, cpu speeds, pricing) and not knowing how they sold we don't really know what Apple will change.
I've seen you bring up this line of reasoning on more than one occasion. Perhaps it is a different approach to the situation, but for me it is irrelevant that only the high end has moved to 6 core, while the low end has just relieved a bump in speed. Would a 6-core line be more marketable? Sure, but that isn't the line that is currently out and has been for 3 months now. Such an attitude will lose them customers in the long run. There is no 3620 even scheduled, even in rumourland, so we are likely looking at a 2011 release date for such a product. Apple waiting on that is beyond a reason for any current delay in my mind. I'm also not a believer that Apple waiting with everyone expecting an update for at least another 3 months (3640 release) does them any favours.