Apple Announces New Mac Pros With Up to 12 Cores, SSD Options

[darkplanets]

Me. I'll be buying a 12-core.

I envy you.

You know, if you think about it in context, $5000 is a decent investment, yes, but consider the usage. My old G5 iMac cost far less and got used well into 2008; imagine how long a 12 core could last (bar any chip manufacturer changes). My Dad's G5 dual Mac Pro is still chugging along quite well too, and that wasn't cheap either when it came out.

I realize the cost is cheaper if you build it yourself, and then you don't have to get Xeons, but hey, it actually seems like a decent investment, even if the value/price is a little skewed. The GPU expandability makes it an even more attractive buy.

 

[relimw]

The main issue I find is Apple is forcing you to buy the entry level ATI card and the one you're really gonna use. As if their profit margins weren't big enough, somehow they found a way to charge you for something you aren't gonna use. How hard would it be to put the nVidias as BTO?

No, the main issue is that Apple is forcing you to use an EFI card. Drop that requirement, everybody is happy on the graphics front, a ton of cards to fit your specific needs and not the 1-5 cards that Apple thinks you'll need. Yes, I know you can flash your own, but not everybody is savy to doing that.

 

[snberk103]

...
The only thing preposterous I see is someone comparing a $5000 computer (whereby a non-ecc equivalent in the PC world goes for $1200) to a $12 coffee maker.

I mean seriously, if you're going to use coffee makers as a frame of comparison, you could at least an example that makes sense (say an Elektra A1C versus a Pavoni versus a Cecilware or something, not Cecilware dual head commercial espresso maker versus a Black & Decker drip pot at Sears or a Mr. Coffee steam based espresso maker.

In other words, $5000 isn't exactly pocket change even in the professional market. People expect it to have the features they're looking for if they're going to spend that kind of money, not get the features of a $600 semi-manual Silvia (nice machine for the money, BTW) ...

At least quote me accurately.... It was $2 coffee maker, and $12 toaster. And I never said it was B&D.... It's a Melitta plastic funnel type.... works great, too! And I was trying to make a point - that's all. You buy what is valuable to you... if you don't find it valuable, then don't buy it. And quite honestly, spending $5000 on a tool for my trade is, while not cheap and I could wish it were cheaper, is not the most expensive expense. I'm looking at buying a digital back (not the camera, not the lenses, just the back that houses the digital sensor) for 3x times what the new Mac Pros are going for. It's the cost of the tools in my business - professional photography. I either stay current, and charge to cover my expenses... or I'm happy as an amateur. The middle ground, where many people seem to be stuck, is a bad place to be. I have some sympathy for them, but I don't sympathize that they can't afford the tools of their trade.

We just had a house built for us.... you think a Mac Pro is expensive? You should see what some of the tools cost in the construction trade.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

A nice nVidia card. I don't care if ATI gets better wattage or even better framerates. ATI products don't work with some of the tools I use.

Won't work, or, just are not as fast? Seems odd that they would not work at all. In any case, generally the ATI cards are faster and cooler.

I don't think there is any big advantage in Final Cut. Getting the right nVidia card for Premiere pro, however, makes a big difference.

Too bad that Adobe chose to use direct CUDA calls instead of OpenCL. I read that the initial OpenCL ATI implementation was buggy--maybe that is why. Is ATI OpenCL still not working well? Strange that Adobe would tie itself to a proprietary library tied to a specific hardware vendor. Is Nvidia sticking to its idea to artificially limit Double Precision performance on Fermi-based boards?

 

[xbjllb]

I think what people are failing to see is the bigger picture.

* Apple have a data centre
* Companies want flexible delivery of power
* IP Networks are booming pushing down the cost of access

So this is what you will see over the next five years from Apple:


4. OSX Applications being hosted out of the cloud - Apple maintaining a 30% cut in the revenue form these services.

5. Content providers such as film studios will utilise the cloud for processing and then release through to Apple's delivery platforms (AppleTV, iOS etc) for the consumers.

Make no bones about it Apple is looking to host and process the content from the camera through to the end user.

Make no bones about it, Apple will be s out of luck on that one. There will be an awful lot of people utilizing ten year old programs and hardware that will get the job done just fine without RENTING the privilege to create from Apple.

And that's not a prediction; it's a promise.

In THIS world, at THIS time, in THIS security atmosphere, NO BUSINESS is going to trust ANY OTHER CORPORATION to control/host their data.

The cloud will fail except for ignorant consumers eager to enjoy their stolen content anywhere on the planet. Except... ooopps... cloud police will delete all their stolen content!

Darn. There goes the only consumer for the cloud.

It's the Mac Rumors way. Be as pompous, arrogant, and condescending as possible, because it's easy to hide behind a keyboard and monitor, especially when there's very little moderation going on here.

There is NOTHING quite so boring in the world than civilized discourse. Not that it doesn't have its audience as well, although far smaller. Most people tune in for the entertaining rants, raves, and jousts.

And for those who don't, that's what the ignore button is for.

That said and done...

No, it means that I should be able to either buy (or build if necessary) the hardware I need. Apple has built the current Mac Pro for whom, exactly? It's priced too high for consumers and it's missing too many modern features (eSata, multiple firewire buses, USB3, lack of PCI slots to make up for it, etc.) for Pros. In the PC world, it's not hard to find SOMEONE that offers what you're looking for and if they don't have exactly what you want, you can buy it piece-meal and build it yourself (or any number of shops will do it for you). Apple's only competition is an ENTIRE PLATFORM (i.e. you must go with Windows or Linux if you don't like the hardware Apple offers) and so that can get away with "take it or leave it". THAT is what I find most objectionable. If they don't want to offer a TRUE Pro machine, then they should at least let someone else do it. The operating system should NOT be tied to the hardware and vice versa because that is what creates these problems. You're using Final Cut Pro or Logic and if you cannot get the hardware you want, too bad. I guess you better get to liking Cubase or something because there is NO OTHER HARDWARE. If Apple would at least listen to their customers and offer what is needed by most people then it wouldn't matter if that's all there was, but they don't listen at all. They use every excuse in the book (bag of hurt) to prop up other market areas (i.e. iTunes downloads) instead of letting the customer decide what he or she actually needs or wants. I find that very underhanded to say the least. You can call it good business if you want, but unhappy customers don't come back and sooner or later the gadget fad is going to either end or become overcrowded with competitors at are doing it as well or better for less than Apple.


The worst part is that is a complete artificial construct of Apple's doing to limit competition and the result is the current Mac Pro that serves no one. Apple will then turn around and day no on is buying it and use that as an excuse to get out of that market segment entirely, abandoning all their professional software in the process and leaving Pros hanging high and dry OR Pros will have no other choice but to work with it anyway as best they can and Apple will say, "See? It's GREAT. Everyone's buying it!" It's the same reason thinks the iMac is still a great "desktop" in 2010. Of course Mac fans are buying it. What other choice do they have? Drop $2500+ on a Mac Pro plus similar graphics card?



At least with a car I can get after-market upgrades and make it into what I want if that's all I have left to do. Try doing that with an iMac. Besides, a car is a car. A computer is at LEAST as much about the operating system as the hardware when it comes to a Mac and nothing is more irritating than needing a hardware upgrade but feeling stymied by the lack of choices that you actually want (that they USED to offer!) like matte screens, various expansion ports, interchangeable batteries, etc. Apple also used to be on top of the game and innovate in computers. Now they innovate in phones and follow the leader in computers and all because they don't care about traditional computers anymore.



No, it would be nice if there were a law (actually there is, but the government refuses to enforce it) preventing a company from tying their hardware to their software by artificial/contractual means for the sole purpose of thwarting competition to increase profits.



Simply being able to buy the hardware I need like I can with a Windows machine is all that's actually needed and that would be possible if the government would stop Apple from saying you can't build clones. On the other hand, I do fault software companies for not doing what Steam and Telltale games are doing and that is if you buy the game on one platform, you get a version for BOTH platforms so you don't have to worry about migration. That wouldn't help with Final Cut Pro and Logic (and any other software that might be Mac only), but it would be helpful with the vast majority of Mac software that IS available for Windows. It's not such a big problem for Windows users migrating to the Mac because they can take their Windows software with them and run it under virtualization or Boot Camp. Apple forbids running OSX under virtualization or on a PC, so once again they stack the deck in one direction only. It might be legal, but that doesn't make it right.

If the playing fields were even then the best product would always win based on its actual merits, not on what software you're forced to use to do business or which you don't want to forfeit and buy all over again because you're unhappy with either the operating system (e.g. Vista) or the hardware (e.g. iMacs as the only consumer desktop Macs).



First of all, people like you show up in every thread validating Apple's stance. Does that change anything? Do people feel great about arguing for Apple all the time to do whatever they feel like? I argue for what I believe in. If enough people were to step up and do the same, Apple might listen. That's what it takes for them to offer bumpers or at least something. But a handful of voices alone won't do it. When they hear a chorus of Kool-Aid praising them for their latest sub-par offering, they will think just the opposite, that they can do whatever they want and still make money.

And it is NOT the same as it was in 1998 (unless you mean Apple is on the brink of going South again; I'd say give that a few more years for Apple to dig their own graves and the iPhone glitz to wear off a bit). Apple used to offer a consumer level tower (PowerMac) in the $1500-2000 range that was expandable. I'm using one right now, in fact. It came out three years after Steve returned so it's not like "his" Apple wasn't a part of it. The difference is back then he actually cared about Macs and the Pro market. He's now so consumed with lust after hand-held mobile devices, he's lost all site of the home market and is comparing desktops to "trucks" for goodness sake.

+1,000,000

I have to say thanks so much for finally showing up and joining in with your civilized discourse that goes into far greater detail about what I've been complaining about. Perhaps you'll be able to reach the people I haven't been able to with my grandstanding trolling.

Maybe finally Apple will wake up in time.

 

[DMann]

I'm drinking no such Kool Aid. I realize (as I have since 2006, when the first Mac Pro came out for $2499, the same as the current model) that Apple wants to play in the workstation market, and the all-in-one market, but no desktop market. It's been this way for several years now. Had it bothered me, I wouldn't have bought into Apple products, or I would have had an exit strategy. Surely it's common sense that this is one of the risks involved when choosing a one vendor platform, is it not? Since 2006, the line has not changed that much at all. Have you been complaining that long?

How true.

Considering, though, that the cost for a stock 450 Mhz single-processor G4 tower in 1999 was $3999, $5000 for a 12-core workstation doesn't seem unreasonable.

Happily, I'll be getting one in August.

 

[NickK1066]

Make no bones about it, Apple will be s out of luck on that one. There will be an awful lot of people utilizing ten year old programs and hardware that will get the job done just fine without RENTING the privilege to create from Apple.

That depends on if it's a financially attractive value proposition.

Companies/corporations are looking seriously at their costs but you're right if you were to look at a premium product strategy. However if you look at the reduced loss of revenue by keeping the data encrypted in the cloud from the camera to your Apple TV.. then there are considerable cost savings resulting in large profits as they'll rent out the content at a higher cost.

What is interesting is that content providers are already attempting to circumvent paying apple 30% by numerous methods. Apple own the hardware that the user uses.. so you have a choice of not using it.. up to the content providers to vote with their wallets/vendor choices.. but you know what? Apple have no peers at the moment so they can do what ever they want..

And that's not a prediction; it's a promise.

In THIS world, at THIS time, in THIS security atmosphere, NO BUSINESS is going to trust ANY OTHER CORPORATION to control/host their data.

Corporations already have information about competitors if the government uses them to store data.

All apple need is a form of government accreditation and your financial history, tax calculation, printing and other services could be run through them..

Lastly, if a goverment enforces accreditation to protect the data in this situation helps but you're right - there's nothing to protect a chinese aviation exec when they travel to the US if US customs copy the data form the hard drive and it magically appears in the posession of US aviation companies.. (that's a hyperthetical sitation not a fact)

Cloud services often beat the security of individual corporations. Fact.

The cloud will fail except for ignorant consumers eager to enjoy their stolen content anywhere on the planet. Except... ooopps... cloud police will delete all their stolen content!

Well that's what Apple want todo.. and oddly MS really want to follow the same business model but they can't as they are still subject to the monopoly rulings from the 80s..

 

[polaris20]

Make no bones about it, Apple will be s out of luck on that one. There will be an awful lot of people utilizing ten year old programs and hardware that will get the job done just fine without RENTING the privilege to create from Apple.

And that's not a prediction; it's a promise.

In THIS world, at THIS time, in THIS security atmosphere, NO BUSINESS is going to trust ANY OTHER CORPORATION to control/host their data.

The cloud will fail except for ignorant consumers eager to enjoy their stolen content anywhere on the planet. Except... ooopps... cloud police will delete all their stolen content!

Darn. There goes the only consumer for the cloud.

Wait, did you just say the cloud will fail for business? ROFL

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...ces_google_apps_for_government.html?tk=hp_new

Universities are switching to it. Small businesses are switching to it. And that's just Google. Everyone's going to want a piece of the pie.

Sorry, but you're sadly mistaken. The cloud is here to stay, and that includes businesses.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no huge cloud fanboy; the biggest thing I like about it is synchronization-type stuff like Notational Velocity/SimpleNote, Evernote, and perhaps personal e-mail.

But to say the cloud will fail is a bit short-sighted.......to put it mildly.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

AI'm looking at buying a digital back (not the camera, not the lenses, just the back that houses the digital sensor) for 3x times what the new Mac Pros are going for. It's the cost of the tools in my business - professional photography. I either stay current, and charge to cover my expenses... or I'm happy as an amateur. The middle ground, where many people seem to be stuck, is a bad place to be. I have some sympathy for them, but I don't sympathize that they can't afford the tools of their trade.

We just had a house built for us.... you think a Mac Pro is expensive? You should see what some of the tools cost in the construction trade.

I said it's not pocket change, but that doesn't mean I think the price would be out of line *IF* it offered the features a typical Pro NEEDS. You wouldn't buy that camera back if it were a POS would you? You only do that if you have money to burn. The point some people are making is that the current Mac Pro serves NO ONE. It's a computer without a market. Sure, a few will buy it because they have no other choice, but it's still a consumer machine at a Pro price. The only thing pro about it anymore is the CPU and the ECC memory. Everything else is lacking (dual FW bus, USB3, eSata, etc.) Pros expect Pro tools, not consumer tools at pro prices.

How true.

Considering, though, that the cost for a stock 450 Mhz single-processor G4 tower in 1999 was $3999, $5000 for a 12-core workstation doesn't seem unreasonable.

Happily, I'll be getting one in August.

If you think comparing prices in 1999 to 2010 makes any sense what-so-ever, more power to you, but some of us expect the current market to have some bearing on Apple pricing. I mean an Amiga 3000 was over $3000 in 1992. I can get a machine that is about 200x faster now for $600 brand new. What's the point in comparing them? There is none.

 

[snberk103]

... The point some people are making is that the current Mac Pro serves NO ONE. It's a computer without a market. ...

No, the point you are making is that because it doesn't suit your needs, it's as good as deerpiss, and then anyone who expresses an interest is either implicitly or explicitly an idiot. Why do you (and the other negative posters) feel the need to bring your righteous outrage to a thread where people might have had a chance to discuss the pros and the cons of the new Mac Pros on actual merits? Instead, you and other negative posters turn this discussion into a polarized "Me vs Them" mud-flinging and insult-hurling debate that mirrors the worst bits of American politics currently.

 

[cmaier]

No, the point you are making is that because it doesn't suit your needs, it's as good as deerpiss, and then anyone who expresses an interest is either implicitly or explicitly an idiot. Why do you (and the other negative posters) feel the need to bring your righteous outrage to a thread where people might have had a chance to discuss the pros and the cons of the new Mac Pros on actual merits? Instead, you and other negative posters turn this discussion into a polarized "Me vs Them" mud-flinging and insult-hurling debate that mirrors the worst bits of American politics currently.

You're arguing with a guy that thinks a computer that doesn't come with USB3 is worthless (do you know anyone who owns any USB3 devices?). Even when you can plug a card in and get USB3 if you need it. Because, presumably, you also need that card slot for e-sata (because everyone must need e-sata). And for another couple firewire channels. Because no professional doesn't need all that stuff.

 

[the editor]

i wouldn't be surprised one bit if Apple would start making TV's and refrigerators, in a few years...kind of like Samsung.

They already released a battery charger...Steve said it was going to be an exiting year.

Apple has had its peak with the Ipad...sooner or later the hype is going to become boring... its all going to be downhill from there. The only reason most people by Macs is because of the OS, in due time some kid will come up with a way to install MAC OS on a PC as easy as clapping your hands...if that day comes (and be assured that it will) its byby mac for "allot" of people. and Apple might find itself in some trouble.

 

[meatballs]

The only reason most people by Macs is because of the OS, in due time some kid will come up with a way to install MAC OS on a PC as easy as clapping your hands...if that day comes (and be assured that it will) its byby mac for "allot" of people. and Apple might find itself in some trouble.

+1

Posted from my i5-750 Hackintosh running retail SL

 

[snberk103]

i wouldn't be surprised one bit if Apple would start making TV's and refrigerators, in a few years...kind of like Samsung.

They already released a battery charger...Steve said it was going to be an exiting year.

Apple has had its peak with the Ipad...sooner or later the hype is going to become boring... its all going to be downhill from there. The only reason most people by Macs is because of the OS, in due time some kid will come up with a way to install MAC OS on a PC as easy as clapping your hands...if that day comes (and be assured that it will) its byby mac for "allot" of people. and Apple might find itself in some trouble.

I think in about 1 year (at the earliest) to 3 years Apple is going to turn what we think of computers on it's ear.

The personal computer, as we know it, is a mature product. There just isn't that many more ways to improve it. Sure it will get faster, more storage, etc. etc. But what Apple was known for making the personal computer easier and easier for the average person to use. To make it more like an appliance than a box of digital wizardry. The mouse, the all-in-one, USB ports, the GUI, etc etc were either invented by Apple (admittedly not much of it was) or recognized by Apple as a technology that simplified the computing experience and made it better. These technologies were seized on by Apple and the old technologies were left behind. Like floppies.

There just isn't much more that can be done with the current way of thinking about how a computer should work. Except for touch technology (which Apple has pounced on, both on the screen and on the track-pad) and batteries. Note that the biggest improvements to Apple's mobile systems are now the batteries. The CPUs are only being bumped, the storage is only being bumped. The SD card reader was added, I believe, to have something new to talk about. But these machines are able to go considerably longer between charges for each generation.

But you can't really sell a desktop system with a battery. However, note the announcement last year about LightPeak. Intel did not just come up with this idea, Apple went to Intel with the design specs and asked Intel to make it. Why? Apple would rather the keyboard and mouse were wireless. They like all-in-ones - with minimal cables. Very few people need to connect storage devices externally with the speed that LP promises (not saying that there aren't uses, just that the Masses of the Unwashed don't need it.) So.... why would Apple want LP, and why would they go to Intel to get it done, instead of taking the time to build up their own in-house lab to create it. They can certainly afford it.

Think about what LightPeak can do. One cable to connect anything to anything, over a distance of at least 100 feet, if not 100 meters (that's yards to you Yanks - and yes, that is how Canadians often mix their distances, get over it).

Run LightPeak cables throughout your house, similar to telephone outlets. Put a CPU unit in your closet. Add CPU units if you need multi core. Add harddrives as needed, each connected by LP. In each room you either plug something into the LP outlet directly if it needs massive bandwidth and/or use the wireless point connected to the LP outlet (or that is part of the LP outlet). Each room only gets the input/output and displays that you need. Effectively you can take what is not part of computer box, and scatter the parts throughout a house or business so that each user only has the computer bits that they actually need at hand, and the all the other bits are - somewhere else. A single LP cable, supposedly, can handle multiple displays, printers, external HDs, and optical discs. The bottleneck is going to be getting the date from the CPU, HD, and RAM units into the LP cable.

Or imagine a computer that is made up of modules, similar to a Mini in size, that you build yourself by stacking. Each module connected by a LP connector. Buy the CPU module. Add a second CPU module. Add the graphics, HD, Optical disc, etc modules and stack them to create the mythological mini-tower.

Just dreaming.

 

[AidenShaw]

Or imagine a computer that is made up of modules, similar to a Mini in size, that you build yourself by stacking. Each module connected by a LP connector. Buy the CPU module. Add a second CPU module. Add the graphics, HD, Optical disc, etc modules and stack them to create the mythological mini-tower.

Just dreaming.

And how many power bricks and power strips will you need for your mini-tower sized stack of "modules"? And will there be a rat's nest of cables for signal and power connections between the modules?

I laugh when friends with minis say how clean they are - and when I see them there are USB and 1394 and DC cables to a mess of power bricks and USB hubs and external drives.

A clean mini-tower with all the parts inside would be so much more "Apple-like" - except that Apple doesn't sell a mini-tower.

 

[DMann]

If you think comparing prices in 1999 to 2010 makes any sense what-so-ever, more power to you, but some of us expect the current market to have some bearing on Apple pricing. I mean an Amiga 3000 was over $3000 in 1992. I can get a machine that is about 200x faster now for $600 brand new.

And there were also cheaper 25 Mhz PCs available at the time of the Amiga 3000.

Within the 'current market' of workstations, however, Mac Pros are very reasonably priced.

Bitching and moaning about their pricing, is rather pointless.

 

[polaris20]

I said it's not pocket change, but that doesn't mean I think the price would be out of line *IF* it offered the features a typical Pro NEEDS. You wouldn't buy that camera back if it were a POS would you? You only do that if you have money to burn. The point some people are making is that the current Mac Pro serves NO ONE. It's a computer without a market. Sure, a few will buy it because they have no other choice, but it's still a consumer machine at a Pro price. The only thing pro about it anymore is the CPU and the ECC memory. Everything else is lacking (dual FW bus, USB3, eSata, etc.) Pros expect Pro tools, not consumer tools at pro prices.

It serves no one? No, it doesn't serve you. There are many people that CHOOSE the Mac Pro, when a Windows workstation will work too. Again, Apple doesn't build what YOU want, so you complain. Over, and over, and over.

USB3? Really? I know of no one using it. There aren't many devices out for it, and by the time Lightpeak comes out next year, it'll be irrelevant. So why would I want USB3? eSATA would be nice, I guess. But our FCP machine already has four 2TB drives in it, a 1.5TB FW800 drive, and a DroboPro over iSCSI. Not exactly lacking space.

So we'll continue making money on our consumer machine, while you continue whining about instead of just buying a Windows machine, where you would probably be happier. See you next year, about the same time?

 

[snberk103]

And how many power bricks and power strips will you need for your mini-tower sized stack of "modules"? And will there be a rat's nest of cables for signal and power connections between the modules?

...

Ahhh, that's where you don't understand. They snap together, with all data communication and power ('cause remember that the LP spec includes power) routed through the LP connectors. In the same way that HDs currently just snap into the HD bays in the Mac Pros.

Also, pay attention to the job listing at Apple that Mac Rumours talked about a day or two ago. All that data moving between modules will need a whole new framework. Reread that job description, and if you - for argument sake only - assume a module computer system is there any part of the job description that positively does not work for this new paradigm?

 

[cmaier]

Ahhh, that's where you don't understand. They snap together, with all data communication and power ('cause remember that the LP spec includes power) routed through the LP connectors. In the same way that HDs currently just snap into the HD bays in the Mac Pros.

Also, pay attention to the job listing at Apple that Mac Rumours talked about a day or two ago. All that data moving between modules will need a whole new framework. Reread that job description, and if you - for argument sake only - assume a module computer system is there any part of the job description that positively does not work for this new paradigm?

How much current can the LP power connector handle?

 

[snberk103]

How much current can the LP power connector handle?

I can't remember off-hand, but it's not a lot... though enough to handle a HD, etc etc. Won't be the first time Apple has gone out of spec, and if they are a variant integrated into the modules designed for direct connections they can bump the power up to whatever they need.

 

[MacFanJeff]

Won't work, or, just are not as fast? Seems odd that they would not work at all. In any case, generally the ATI cards are faster and cooler.



Too bad that Adobe chose to use direct CUDA calls instead of OpenCL. I read that the initial OpenCL ATI implementation was buggy--maybe that is why. Is ATI OpenCL still not working well? Strange that Adobe would tie itself to a proprietary library tied to a specific hardware vendor. Is Nvidia sticking to its idea to artificially limit Double Precision performance on Fermi-based boards?

Apple's limitation on video cards is one of the reasons why I had to leave the Mac for my 3D art needs. Adobe, along with some other high-end 3D art programs (that cost as much as $3,000) are programmed to support nVidia more than ATI. A perfect example is CUDA and then there are some "shaders" too that are available or better with nVidia.

For someone like myself, this was a no compromise deal, which is why I have gone back to custom building my hardware so the parts I need are exactly what I want. I do still recommend Macs to some friends and family that are more "consumer" based, but for 3D art and CAD design there simply is no choice with Apple.

 

[xbjllb]

That depends on if it's a financially attractive value proposition.

From Apple? Surely you're joking.

Cloud services often beat the security of individual corporations. Fact.

Fact: That only lasts until the very last sucker is on board. Then the government raids the proprietary business secrets of every foolish participant. You want to talk blackmail?

How about someone hacking into your cloud account to put kiddie porn there?

Cloud will never beat the security of individual companies or people wisely keeping their own data in more than one place on their own premises, once all the foolish and trusting are in and the trap is sprung.

Wait, did you just say the cloud will fail for business? ROFL

Not initially. But after the first cybercrime wave, businesses and people will be fleeing from it like the plague. But it will be too late, gov will already have all their private info and any hacked planted criminal content and proof of business/tax "crimes" as well.

Just dreaming.

I think the iBrain implantable chip with "monitor" electrodes right into the optic nerve center of the brain is where Jobs is headed... along with the govs and secret services of the world.

And no one will want to turn it off, even if they could, because they'll miss the next episode of "Jersey Shore" piped directly into their pea-sized brains with highly targeted advertising for tanning lotion and cheap beer.

We're already WAY past 1984; do we have to make it any worse than it already is?

 

[polaris20]

From Apple? Surely you're joking.




Fact: That only lasts until the very last sucker is on board. Then the government raids the proprietary business secrets of every foolish participant. You want to talk blackmail?

How about someone hacking into your cloud account to put kiddie porn there?

Cloud will never beat the security of individual companies or people wisely keeping their own data in more than one place on their own premises, once all the foolish and trusting are in and the trap is sprung.



Not initially. But after the first cybercrime wave, businesses and people will be fleeing from it like the plague. But it will be too late, gov will already have all their private info and any hacked planted criminal content and proof of business/tax "crimes" as well.




I think the iBrain implantable chip with "monitor" electrodes right into the optic nerve center of the brain is where Jobs is headed... along with the govs and secret services of the world.

And no one will want to turn it off, even if they could, because they'll miss the next episode of "Jersey Shore" piped directly into their pea-sized brains with highly targeted advertising for tanning lotion and cheap beer.

We're already WAY past 1984; do we have to make it any worse than it already is?

Rofl! In the morning to you! I ran out of tinfoil, can you make me a hat from some of yours!

This is actually funnier than some of your other predictions.

If you think the government can't already get wherever it wants, even in private businesses, you're either delusional, or you know zilch about security. Perhaps both.

 

[snberk103]

You're arguing with a guy that thinks a computer that doesn't come with USB3 is worthless (do you know anyone who owns any USB3 devices?). Even when you can plug a card in and get USB3 if you need it. Because, presumably, you also need that card slot for e-sata (because everyone must need e-sata). And for another couple firewire channels. Because no professional doesn't need all that stuff.

Oh, I know. But sometimes I like to work out some stress by tilting at windmills. And, unfortunately, MR has recently given me enough windmills to tilt at. Usually I have to head over to ZDNet to find my windmills.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

No, the point you are making is that because it doesn't suit your needs, it's as good as deerpiss, and then anyone who expresses an interest is either implicitly or explicitly an idiot. Why do you (and the other negative posters) feel the need to bring your righteous outrage to a thread where people might have had a chance to discuss the pros and the cons of the new Mac Pros on actual merits? Instead, you and other negative posters turn this discussion into a polarized "Me vs Them" mud-flinging and insult-hurling debate that mirrors the worst bits of American politics currently.

No, it DOES suit my needs (I don't need many of those video editing features as I'm currently writing and producing music non-professionally in my spare time at the moment, but planning to go pro within the next year once I have my first album done), but then so does a $2000 Macbook Pro. I'm not poor by any means, but that doesn't mean I can afford to drop $3000-5000 on something just because that's what Apple wants for it. I'd be more tempted to buy a previous generation machine at a discount like I did with the Macbook Pro. It's a much better deal. But then I could just build a Hackintosh and save myself another $1000 and have a machine that graphically runs circles around the $2500 model. The point is I don't feel like throwing my money at Apple just because they like making huge profits. If they want my money, they better give me all the features I'm looking for. I don't want to buy a Mac Pro today and a year from now it has USB3, eSata and all the crap that would be great to have NOW. That just shows how Apple is no longer leading, but following everyone else. Apple should have the new standards FIRST.

USB3? Really? I know of no one using it. There aren't many devices out for it, and by the time Lightpeak comes out next year, it'll be irrelevant.

The point is they will be using it next year and who wants to buy something they KNOW will be out of date? Lightpeak will never offset USB3 because whether you accept the truth or not, USB2 rules the world. USB3 will be backwards compatible with USB2 meaning you don't need but one set of ports on the machine to do everything. Lightpeak is asking people start buying equipment incompatible with older equipment just like someone would be hesitant to buy a FW device if doesn't support USB2 also and thus there are very few FW only devices out there (even camcorder and audio interfaces are now supporting or switching entirely to USB). Lightpeak might become useful on tiny mobile devices (the REAL reason Apple wants the "standard"), but the idea that USB3 will become irrelevant tells me you don't live in reality but drink the Kool-Aid like many others on here. At best Lightpeak might hope to achieve some level of parallel success as a way to connect iPhones, but if Android devices use USB3, forget about it. Look at the way iPods started as FW devices but soon switched to USB2. It was hurting their PC sales to include only an interface that few carry in the PC world. The same will be 100% true of Lightpeak. Apple will carry it. No one else will. No one else will support it. But even if you think Lightpeak will rule the universe, it's not in the current machines either. You can only PRAY that Apple will release it on a card for current machines (90% unlikely, IMO; they'd MUCH rather make you buy a new machine to get it and only have it on the motherboard).

So we'll continue making money on our consumer machine, while you continue whining about instead of just buying a Windows machine, where you would probably be happier. See you next year, about the same time?

For recording music, a MBP is more useful to me than a Mac Pro so I can afford to wait another year. It would be nice to have a Mac Pro as a home studio editing station, but I can always dock the MBP easy enough, so I'm not in a hurry. I can wait for the new standards (otherwise it'll take up PCI slots to add them later). I know I'd regret buying now a year from now. The writing is on the wall. USB4 won't be coming out any time soon. Next year is a good time for a new PC. Or I can build a USB3 based Hackintosh now and know once Apple adds support for it on something, the Hackintosh community will have a driver out I can use. Apple doesn't support older machines. They regularly release new graphics cards taht don't even work on older Mac Pros despite a standard card slot. They do everything they can to force even their highest end users to buy new equipment all the time. I have a real ethical problem with that. They should be making me WANT new equipment because of new innovations, not withholding things that SHOULD work. A prime example is my MBP versus the newer models. Mine has an expansion slot. I can add 3rd party USB3 when it becomes available. This is impossible on newer "pro" machines. SD readers are not "pro". They're not even prosumer. You have no options on newer MBP models save the 17" which is getting pretty large to carry around.