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

[xbjllb]

Mac Pros need more expansion slots. Actually, that need has always applied since the days of the Mac II, so nothing's changed. I don't really care any more about bumps in processors or graphics cards, especially when the software is always struggling just to keep up (I'm looking at you Adobe ).

Four slots has never been enough, and will never be enough.

Pardon the ignorance here, (new to the Pro) but isn't there a PCI card that will extend the PCI bus into another enclosure (with its own power supply of course) that you could then load up with as many PCI cards as could fit? Similar to a hub only a bit more of a pain to hookup?

I know that's not the point (that the pro should have more slots to begin with) BUT is this a possible workaround (albeit an expensive colossal pain in the rear) for the problem?

 

[polaris20]

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.

So why don't you just build a Hackintosh? It's clear Apple doesn't make you happy, yet for some reason you still want to run OS X.

The point is they will be using it next year and who wants to buy something they KNOW will be out of date?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.

I didn't know you were such an industry analyst! USB3 will light the world on fire, just like wireless USB did, right? Who are you to predict how Lightpeak will be received? Oh wait, you're not. Granted, I'm no more qualified to predict Lightpeak's success, but the technology is clearly more sound than USB ever will be.

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.

I don't see it's importance at this moment in time, so I "drink the Kool-Aid". Right. How about forming a solid argument instead of throwing the Kool-Aid/Fanboy card out? It tends to make your viewpoint rather irrelevant quickly.

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).

There's so much extraordinary speculation with absolutely ZERO to back it up that there's really nothing to comment on. Lightpeak is NOT just an Apple technology. It's being developed with Intel. Furthermore, it's far more advanced, has double the bandwidth at the start along with longer transmission capability, and scales 10x higher than that.

How anyone can look at a technology developed by a major manufacturer instrumental with computers with a vastly superior technology and then say it'll have a marginal, niche impact is beyond me.

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.

All I hear is "Apple doesn't make the machine I want, so I am going to bitch about it ad nauseum, even though no one from Apple cares. Anyone who disagrees with me is a fanboy and drinks the Kool-Aid".

I know that, with reasonable security precautions, you have to make them COME ONTO YOUR PREMISES to get the info.

When that info is somewhere else, you're at the mercy of whomever is hosting it. And good luck with that.

That's not a tin foil straw man either; it's common sense.

CLOUD=SLAVERY;

MOBILE=PRELUDE TO SLAVERY

If you honestly think the govt. needs to be on premises to get into your system, you're misguided.

I don't see where I've told you I disapprove of your personal buying decisions. What I do see is you telling me that I have no right to express (or else you'll make fun of) my opinion that the current Mac Pro lacks features to justify a $3000-5000 price tag on the high-end yet is overpriced for the consumer on the low-end with Apple offering NOTHING in the $1500-2000 range to meet real computer user consumers and much better products being available in the $2500-5000 range from other vendors on the high-end.

You have EVERY RIGHT to voice your opinion. Likewise, we have every right to say we're tired of hearing about it, because it's nothing new, and it's something you post in every new Mac release thread.

The problem is that the OSX user is stuck with only ONE supplier of hardware and that is Apple, which is the reason WHY the options don't exist. Apple couldn't care less about those markets anymore (they are more and more focused on gadgets and less on actual computers) and yet they don't want anyone else handling them either, licensed or not.

Again, welcome to 1998. This isn't new. Prices have been roughly the same since 2006, as has the computer line. If you don't like it, build a Hackintosh or find an exit strategy to Windows.

I don't need ECC. I don't need Xeons. But I surely don't need a flipping iMac POS either. That leaves me either overpaying for what I don't need (and then I still don't get USB3, eSata, more than 1 FW bus or more than 4 expansion slots that I can easily get on other hardware for far less) or it leaves me with building a Hackintosh, which are spotty at times when it comes to upgrades (you have to wait until the hackers ensure the latest patch doesn't screw your entire machine and back-up constantly as the threat of that happening is VERY real as I know first hand from my Dell Netbook).

If Apple doesn't want to properly serve its computer market, fine. License someone else to do it. But the typical fan response on here seems to be if I don't like the hardware Apple is offering or the prices it puts out, I should abandon all my Mac software and go buy new software for Windows just so I can get a stinking USB3 motherboard or a newer graphics card and all because Apple doesn't think we deserve newer hardware features or has some internal conflict of interest with iTunes or whatever that it feels the need to decide FOR us that we don't "need" or "want" something like Blu-Ray. I shouldn't complain about any of that, though. Let Steve and Company run Apple with total aplomb, no consumer complaints or feedback and drink all the Kool-Aid in the world and LIKE IT. When Microsoft put out Vista, they got PLENTY of complaints from people including myself. I have never purchased Vista and stuck with XP the entire time on both my PC and my MBP boot camp partition. Windows7 is much better now. If no one complained, would they have even bothered to improve it? So long as everyone says "Great new Mac Pro!" Apple will think they are making the best possible decisions. If everyone grumbles and lets them know, they might do something about it (either lower the price or add the features people want to see). The problem with Apple is that they listen more to Steve than they do their own customers which is why I wish they'd split the computer division off for someone else to run (I don't know if Woz has the interest in running it, but he certainly has shown a LOT more interest in cutting edge computers than just gadgets than I see from Steve and he has just as much history with the company and even more in the hardware side back to the founding days; he built the Apple ii, not Steve).

You really don't get it, do you? You're in a small, vocal minority. People are still buying Macs. They're happy with them. Apple is having its best years ever lately, and as the last quarter shows, that's got to do with mobiles devices AND Macs.

If you don't like it, e-mail Steve. Or move along to Windows.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

So why don't you just build a Hackintosh? It's clear Apple doesn't make you happy, yet for some reason you still want to run OS X.

We love OSX. We just don't love the price of entry for the "pro."

I didn't know you were such an industry analyst! USB3 will light the world on fire, just like wireless USB did, right? Who are you to predict how Lightpeak will be received? Oh wait, you're not. Granted, I'm no more qualified to predict Lightpeak's success, but the technology is clearly more sound than USB ever will be.

Backwards compatibility is an incredible driver for adoption of new tech. That reason alone will sell it to the average consumer. All their old devices will still be able to be plugged in. Whether they use the old device or not is irrelevant - just the idea alone is that powerful.

Lightpeak may be better but I get the impression that people on these forums will be saying "buy the MacPro (now starting at 12,999) machine if you want a pro feature like lightpeak, for the rest of the world, USB3 will be fine. Apple sells tons of units without lightpeak so most people don't need it. If you don't like it, move to windows."

If you honestly think the govt. needs to be on premises to get into your system, you're misguided.

Unhook your computer from the internet. Done! Of course that won't stop Tom Cruise from coming down from the ceiling to steal my email contact list and mp3s.

You have EVERY RIGHT to voice your opinion. Likewise, we have every right to say we're tired of hearing about it, because it's nothing new, and it's something you post in every new Mac release thread.

This door swings both ways. For every legitimate comment about the holes in the mac pro line, there is the person posting about how successful Apple is so nobody else matters. As if that somehow makes Apple's (base) pro line worth the cash. It doesn't.

Those high end machines - expensive as they are - are a sweet deal in comparison to PC alternatives though. It's just waaaaay out of reach for many small businesses, freelancers, students, and individual users like filmmakers and animators.

The mac pro used to empower a whole generation of artists.

Again, welcome to 1998. This isn't new. Prices have been roughly the same since 2006, as has the computer line. If you don't like it, build a Hackintosh or find an exit strategy to Windows.

Likewise, pros, freelancers, filmmakers, and students get tired of hearing this. You do realize that this isn't a solution - it's the heart of the problem.

If you don't like it, e-mail Steve. Or move along to Windows.

I think I will do both. And not because I want to.

 

[cmaier]

For every legitimate comment about the holes in the mac pro line, there is the person posting about how successful Apple is so nobody else matters. As if that somehow makes Apple's (base) pro line worth the cash. It doesn't.

It's worth the cash if you need, for example, a unix-based engineering workstation. It's not worth the cash if you need less of a machine, or a machine with more built-in serial connectivity, etc.

The price is not out of line with equivalent competition. Apple just doesn't compete in the prosumer desktop space (if one assumes that this space requires much more expandability than is provided by iMac).

 

[snberk103]

... 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 ... 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. ...

I just finished doing some reading on Light Peak ... and wow does it sound amazing.... if it works as planned, so a big caveat. The big misunderstanding about Light Peak is that it is not designed to replace USB (1, 2, or 3).... it is designed to replace USB, HDMI, SATA, PCI-E, SCSI, FW, etc etc. In other words, it picks up where USB leaves off.

USB was initially designed to replace all of the low bandwidth connectors that used to clutter up the I/O ports (keyboards, mice, etc).... I still have a box of adapters just to make different keyboards and mice fit the various types of ports that were once available. Printers and thumb-drives were soon added, and then mass-storage devices. The problem with USB was that it was never intended to be a high-bandwidth connector, though of course it was altered to adapt. The problem is still that USB connects in a 'Tree' pattern, and that moving mass amounts of data easily saturates the system. That's why people who work with movies, etc tend to use FW and eSata HDs - they can sustain large data transfers at faster speeds.

From my recent reading, USB3 is actually a considerably different adaptation of the USB2 protocol, but they can make the cables backward compatible by including both the USB3 and USB2 connections in the same cable. However, they are approaching the limits of what USB can do, so Intel is developing the Light Peak standard that will, theoretically replace all USB, display cables, mass storage devices, perhaps even some network connections. It will become more "universal" than the "universal serial bus". Plus Light Peak has much further distance limitations, 100m vs USB's 5m max distance.

Light Peak is also being designed, supposedly, to be protocol neutral... so it should be possible to connect USB legacy devices to LP computers simply with the proper converters.

Incidentally, LP was first shown last year running on a prototype Mac Pro motherboard.

I am not a tech pro, so this is all based on my casual reading of info available on the interzweb...

 

[polaris20]

We love OSX. We just don't love the price of entry for the "pro."

Backwards compatibility is an incredible driver for adoption of new tech. That reason alone will sell it to the average consumer. All their old devices will still be able to be plugged in. Whether they use the old device or not is irrelevant - just the idea alone is that powerful.

Lightpeak may be better but I get the impression that people on these forums will be saying "buy the MacPro (now starting at 12,999) machine if you want a pro feature like lightpeak, for the rest of the world, USB3 will be fine. Apple sells tons of units without lightpeak so most people don't need it. If you don't like it, move to windows."

I disagree. I think they're looking at it from a standpoint that it can replace HDMI, USB, Firewire, etc.

Unhook your computer from the internet. Done! Of course that won't stop Tom Cruise from coming down from the ceiling to steal my email contact list and mp3s.

Well of course. for everything else, it's not that simple though.

This door swings both ways. For every legitimate comment about the holes in the mac pro line, there is the person posting about how successful Apple is so nobody else matters. As if that somehow makes Apple's (base) pro line worth the cash. It doesn't.

I agree Apple's laptops aren't necessarily mirroring what a professional laptop like the Thinkpad W510 is, but "Pro" is a relative term that allows us to go down the rabbit hole of semantics. We make multi-million dollar sales based upon videos created with our Mac Pros. I and others in IT support many, many users with our MacBook Pros. That's professional, is it not?

Those high end machines - expensive as they are - are a sweet deal in comparison to PC alternatives though. It's just waaaaay out of reach for many small businesses, freelancers, students, and individual users like filmmakers and animators.

Agreed; there is a hole. It's just one that Apple will likely never, ever fill. Would I buy a Core i7 mini "Mac Pro"? Absolutely. Am I holding my breath? No.

I understand the frustration many people have. I just don't get the continued whining about it on a non-Apple related forum that Apple doesn't care about. And Macs are NOT the only game in town anymore. They haven't been for a very long time.

I just finished doing some reading on Light Peak ... and wow does it sound amazing.... if it works as planned, so a big caveat. The big misunderstanding about Light Peak is that it is not designed to replace USB (1, 2, or 3).... it is designed to replace USB, HDMI, SATA, PCI-E, SCSI, FW, etc etc. In other words, it picks up where USB leaves off.

USB was initially designed to replace all of the low bandwidth connectors that used to clutter up the I/O ports (keyboards, mice, etc).... I still have a box of adapters just to make different keyboards and mice fit the various types of ports that were once available. Printers and thumb-drives were soon added, and then mass-storage devices. The problem with USB was that it was never intended to be a high-bandwidth connector, though of course it was altered to adapt. The problem is still that USB connects in a 'Tree' pattern, and that moving mass amounts of data easily saturates the system. That's why people who work with movies, etc tend to use FW and eSata HDs - they can sustain large data transfers at faster speeds.

From my recent reading, USB3 is actually a considerably different adaptation of the USB2 protocol, but they can make the cables backward compatible by including both the USB3 and USB2 connections in the same cable. However, they are approaching the limits of what USB can do, so Intel is developing the Light Peak standard that will, theoretically replace all USB, display cables, mass storage devices, perhaps even some network connections. It will become more "universal" than the "universal serial bus". Plus Light Peak has much further distance limitations, 100m vs USB's 5m max distance.

Light Peak is also being designed, supposedly, to be protocol neutral... so it should be possible to connect USB legacy devices to LP computers simply with the proper converters.

Incidentally, LP was first shown last year running on a prototype Mac Pro motherboard.

I am not a tech pro, so this is all based on my casual reading of info available on the interzweb...

As far as I can tell, you're correct on all counts. I don't want another derivative of USB. I want something that can replace everything with a standardized connector. Light Peak is that solution, so I hope that it is successful.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

So why don't you just build a Hackintosh? It's clear Apple doesn't make you happy, yet for some reason you still want to run OS X.

Why should my feelings about Apple or their hardware prices affect my views about the value of OSX as an operating system? Do you evaluate a microwave oven's usefulness based on how much you like LG as a company? Sorry, but your "logic" reeks of kool-aid.

I didn't know you were such an industry analyst! USB3 will light the world on fire, just like wireless USB did, right? Who are you to predict how Lightpeak will be received? Oh wait, you're not. Granted, I'm no more qualified to predict Lightpeak's success, but the technology is clearly more sound than USB ever will be.

It doesn't take a genius to realize the value of backwards compatibility or to make predictions based on history (something few in this world seem to appreciate no matter the topic). Firewire 400 (let alone 800) is in every actual real world sense BETTER than USB2 yet it's a failure by comparison to USB2. You find USB2 on every last machine made on earth for the past 8 years or so yet you find firewire on hardly anything by comparison. How many people have even HEARD of Lightpeak? It's fiber based so cables will be expensive compared to copper (just look how much retailers charge for a lousy 2 foot toslink cable). You'll need a "different" cable (i.e. one with a copper line) if you want to send power across it. Apple and Intel are already advertising it for use in mobile equipment in the future. I see no outright evidence that they even plan try and take on USB3 in that sense, probably because they know USB3 will be a defacto standard and on every single machine made within 2 years (whether anyone "needs" the extra bandwidth or not doesn't matter since it's 100% backwards compatible, it will just REPLACE USB2 ports). Do I REALLY need to go on???

Yes, I'm sure USB3 will fail big time and an unproven brand new format using an odd combination of fiber and copper will replace it wholesale.

I'm not against Lightpeak just like I'm not against Firewire. I might even prefer it when all is said and done, but I'd have to be smoking something pretty strong to think USB3 will not simply replace USB2 on EVERYTHING within two years time.

I don't see it's importance at this moment in time, so I "drink the Kool-Aid".

I guess I could just use the label of ignorance instead if you prefer, but the whole-sale support of Apple products regardless of merit or value and the leanings of this concept of love Apple or leave it leads me to conclude with 99.9% certainty it is indeed fanaticism I'm seeing, not real arguments. Most fanatics don't realize they are fanatics so I'm not surprised so many on here don't think they drink the Apple juice.

Right. How about forming a solid argument instead of throwing the Kool-Aid/Fanboy card out? It tends to make your viewpoint rather irrelevant quickly.

I call it like I see it and I'm pretty much right most of the time. I can form the best arguments in the universe and a fanboy will tell me how WRONG I am. There is no logic to be found in fanaticism, only obedience.

There's so much extraordinary speculation with absolutely ZERO to back it

I just gave you solid reasons above. If you choose not to believe them, that's your prerogative.

up that there's really nothing to comment on. Lightpeak is NOT just an Apple technology. It's being developed with Intel.

Firewire wasn't just Apple's baby either.

Furthermore, it's far more advanced, has double the bandwidth at the start along with longer transmission capability, and scales 10x higher than that.

And Firewire 800 isn't more advanced than USB2?

How anyone can look at a technology developed by a major manufacturer instrumental with computers with a vastly superior technology and then say it'll have a marginal, niche impact is beyond me.

A quick look at history tells the tale quite nicely. Apple used to have firewire on iPods. When they realized they were losing MOST of the possible sales out there because of it, they DITCHED it like yesterday's news. Who is going to support Lightpeak when their device will work on USB2 machines (albeit slower) and therefore isn't just catering to a tiny niche market upon release? Either that or like many hard drives, they will have to support BOTH. There is no other choice. I'm sure Apple will try to push it using the iPhone, but given the iPhone itself is becoming just another smart phone as others catch up, I'm afraid they are well past that phase where they can dictate anything.

All I hear is "Apple doesn't make the machine I want, so I am going to bitch about it ad nauseum, even though no one from Apple cares. Anyone who disagrees with me is a fanboy and drinks the Kool-Aid".

How do you know who at Apple cares about what? The day Steve retires could be the day EVERYTHING changes there.

You have EVERY RIGHT to voice your opinion. Likewise, we have every right to say we're tired of hearing about it, because it's nothing new, and it's something you post in every new Mac release thread.

As if the fanboys don't jump for joy in every Apple release thread? Do you think those of us that aren't among the faithful ever get tired of reading bend-over backwards praise for EVERYTHING they do no matter the real merits? I get DARN sick of it. But short of a no fanboy rule on here, there's not much I can do about it except voice my actual opinion.

Again, welcome to 1998. This isn't new. Prices have been roughly the same since 2006, as has the computer line. If you don't like it, build a Hackintosh or find an exit strategy to Windows.

And here is the "love it or leave" hallmark "argument" of a fanboy once AGAIN.

You're right about one thing, though. The prices have stayed roughly the same. The PROBLEM is that EVERYONE ELSE's prices have DROPPED like a stone since then. Apple is living in its own little price world. They would never get away with that if someone could buy a Dell with OSX on it. Apple would lose most of its sales immediately because their hardware no longer offers value for the dollar compared to other companies. But if you want OSX and all its value (i.e. no viruses, malware, etc.), you're currently stuck with either building a Hackintosh (I've done that once already) or buying whatever Apple puts in front of you.

You really don't get it, do you? You're in a small, vocal minority. People are
still buying Macs. They're happy with them. Apple is having its best years

Are you sure about that? How do we know YOU aren't in the vocal minority? Did you do some kind of survey or something? Buying a computer is no way to tell if someone is a fanatic or not. I bought a Mac less than two years ago. I'm pretty happy with THAT model (has everything what I want on it), but I don't like the newer notebooks coming out because they ditched the features I wanted (expansion port, removable battery, extra firewire port, matte screen display). If people want those features back, you HAVE to be vocal about it.

If you don't like it, e-mail Steve. Or move along to Windows.

Who says I haven't on the former? The latter is just a fanboy wet dream. Why don't YOU move along? I'm just as sick of fanatics as you are of the non-believers. The difference between you and me is that I evaluate Apple products and the operating system on its actual merits and you just LOVE EVERYTHING. I'll be the first to say OSX needs better drivers and OpenGL support and you'll say go buy a Windows machine if you want to game as real Mac users don't play games. Tell me who is more grounded in reality and who is living in the Matrix.

 

[polaris20]

Why should my feelings about Apple or their hardware prices affect my views about the value of OSX as an operating system? Do you evaluate a microwave oven's usefulness based on how much you like LG as a company? Sorry, but your "logic" reeks of kool-aid.

Why would you put yourself through using their hardware otherwise? The OS is so important to you that you cannot move to another one who's hardware fits your needs/price point? Sounds like you've painted yourself into a corner a long time ago, and aren't smart enough/willing to get out of it.

It doesn't take a genius to realize the value of backwards compatibility or to make predictions based on history (something few in this world seem to appreciate no matter the topic). Firewire 400 (let alone 800) is in every actual real world sense BETTER than USB2 yet it's a failure by comparison to USB2. You find USB2 on every last machine made on earth for the past 8 years or so yet you find firewire on hardly anything by comparison. How many people have even HEARD of Lightpeak? It's fiber based so cables will be expensive compared to copper (just look how much retailers charge for a lousy 2 foot toslink cable). You'll need a "different" cable (i.e. one with a copper line) if you want to send power across it. Apple and Intel are already advertising it for use in mobile equipment in the future. I see no outright evidence that they even plan try and take on USB3 in that sense, probably because they know USB3 will be a defacto standard and on every single machine made within 2 years (whether anyone "needs" the extra bandwidth or not doesn't matter since it's 100% backwards compatible, it will just REPLACE USB2 ports). Do I REALLY need to go on???

the problem is that it's impossible for you to be remotely qualified to speculate on the success or lack there of in regard to Light Peak, because a. it goes far beyond what firewire and USB can do, and b. it's not out yet.

Yes, I'm sure USB3 will fail big time and an unproven brand new format using an odd combination of fiber and copper will replace it wholesale.

I'm not against Lightpeak just like I'm not against Firewire. I might even prefer it when all is said and done, but I'd have to be smoking something pretty strong to think USB3 will not simply replace USB2 on EVERYTHING within two years time.

I never said it would fail, I just don't think it's the be all/end all that you do, and I place far greater importance on the potential of Light Peak.

I just gave you solid reasons above. If you choose not to believe them, that's your prerogative.

I don't believe you because you have zero credibility with me, and your whining contradicts everything that's happened in Apple's recent past. In short, the majority of people buying Macs disagree with you, for better or worse.

Like I've said a hundred times before, it's not that I don't think Mac Pros should be cheaper, or that they shouldn't offer a headless iMac/Mac Pro Mini, it's just that I am grounded in common sense, and realize THEY WILL NEVER DO IT!!

And Firewire 800 isn't more advanced than USB2?

Sure it is. It's also an entirely different animal than Light Peak. Read up on it, you might learn something.

A quick look at history tells the tale quite nicely. Apple used to have firewire on iPods. When they realized they were losing MOST of the possible sales out there because of it, they DITCHED it like yesterday's news. Who is going to support Lightpeak when their device will work on USB2 machines (albeit slower) and therefore isn't just catering to a tiny niche market upon release? Either that or like many hard drives, they will have to support BOTH. There is no other choice. I'm sure Apple will try to push it using the iPhone, but given the iPhone itself is becoming just another smart phone as others catch up, I'm afraid they are well past that phase where they can dictate anything.

Again, this isn't just Apple, it's Intel as well.

How do you know who at Apple cares about what? The day Steve retires could be the day EVERYTHING changes there.

Isn't it plainly obvious what Apple cares about? iDevices, laptops, and iMacs. They don't care about Mac Pros anymore.

As if the fanboys don't jump for joy in every Apple release thread? Do you think those of us that aren't among the faithful ever get tired of reading bend-over backwards praise for EVERYTHING they do no matter the real merits? I get DARN sick of it. But short of a no fanboy rule on here, there's not much I can do about it except voice my actual opinion.

I'm not jumping for joy over the Mac Pro, as I have no horse in the race. I don't personally own one, and the MP's here at work already do just fine for pro level HD video and custom engineering apps.

And here is the "love it or leave" hallmark "argument" of a fanboy once AGAIN.

Yeah, I'm such a fanboy. That's why I run and manage a network of all three major OSes. Say, weren't you the one previously whining about Linux? Yeah, I'm saying love it or leave it, precisely because A. there's nothing you can do about Apple's decisions except voting with your wallet, and B. Windows 7 is completely capable of doing anything OS X can, on any hardware you want. Wow, sounds like a trademark Apple fanboy quote, doesn't it?

You're right about one thing, though. The prices have stayed roughly the same. The PROBLEM is that EVERYONE ELSE's prices have DROPPED like a stone since then. Apple is living in its own little price world. They would never get away with that if someone could buy a Dell with OSX on it. Apple would lose most of its sales immediately because their hardware no longer offers value for the dollar compared to other companies. But if you want OSX and all its value (i.e. no viruses, malware, etc.), you're currently stuck with either building a Hackintosh (I've done that once already) or buying whatever Apple puts in front of you.

That's not really a problem for Apple, now is it? It's a sweet business model, if you can get it.

Are you sure about that? How do we know YOU aren't in the vocal minority? Did you do some kind of survey or something? Buying a computer is no way to tell if someone is a fanatic or not. I bought a Mac less than two years ago. I'm pretty happy with THAT model (has everything what I want on it), but I don't like the newer notebooks coming out because they ditched the features I wanted (expansion port, removable battery, extra firewire port, matte screen display). If people want those features back, you HAVE to be vocal about it.

I'm pretty sure the sales speak for themselves, no? If so many people were as incredibly unhappy with the hardware, why would they continue to sell in record amounts? I know I generally don't buy stuff I'm not completely happy with. Generally that's not a good thing to do.

Who says I haven't on the former? The latter is just a fanboy wet dream. Why don't YOU move along? I'm just as sick of fanatics as you are of the non-believers. The difference between you and me is that I evaluate Apple products and the operating system on its actual merits and you just LOVE EVERYTHING. I'll be the first to say OSX needs better drivers and OpenGL support and you'll say go buy a Windows machine if you want to game as real Mac users don't play games. Tell me who is more grounded in reality and who is living in the Matrix.

Actually, I do evaluate everything on its merits and base my decisions on that, and the equipment today fits my needs, hardware and all. When it doesn't, I'll continue on my merry way, because I actually have enough brain tissue to move to other OSes, unlike some people apparently.

Anyway, have fun with your tirade, I'm done. At least until the next Apple computer release, in which I'm sure you'll be head-over-heels angry once again when it doesn't have something you personally so richly deserve.

People like you are exactly why I rarely come here anymore. You either have the people that praise absolutely everything Apple does, people that ridicule everything Apple does and have never even owned a Mac, or people that owned/own Macs and complain ad nauseum how it just ain't like the good 'ol days.

Somewhere in there is reality, but sadly none of you seem to find it. Here's the reality for you: Apple is the only seller of OS X, of which can reside only on their machines. It's been this way since Uncle Steve came back. Buying a Mac and investing in the platform takes a certain amount of risk, and you need to make that decision. We've all effectively painted ourselves in the corner with this. We can either continue because we like the OS/hardware, or move on. But unless a whole lot of people (READ: more than on this board by a long, long shot) stop liking their hardware, Apple will continue doing what sells best. Right now, that's their current line. And the line before that. And the one before that.

Have a nice day!

 

[snberk103]

Why should my feelings about Apple or their hardware prices affect my views about the value of OSX as an operating system? Do you evaluate a microwave oven's usefulness based on how much you like LG as a company? Sorry, but your "logic" reeks of kool-aid.

I don't agree with your analogy. For Apple, the software and the hardware are the complete product that creates the "Apple experience." Whether you like or dislike the Apple experience is personal preference. But the fact is that Apple is selling the experience as a package.

Do you always resort to insults when arguing, or just when the your facts are thin on the ground?

It doesn't take a genius to realize the value of backwards compatibility or to make predictions based on history ... You find USB2 on every last machine made on earth for the past 8 years or so yet you find firewire on hardly anything by comparison. How many people have even HEARD of Lightpeak?

Light Peak ain't released yet, so I'd venture about the same number of people have heard of Light Peak as heard about USB before it was released. Doesn't take a "genius" to figure that one out.

There is also a fundamental difference between FW and LP. Firewire was never meant to replace everything, it was designed as a high-bandwidth connector. The LP cable will purportedly be smaller than a USB one (especially USB3 that will double the number of wires over USB2 plus require shielding.) Intel is also hoping to make the connector smaller than LP.

It's fiber based so cables will be expensive compared to copper (just look how much retailers charge for a lousy 2 foot toslink cable).

That's as much supply and demand as anything else. USB3 will need twice as much copper as USB2 since there will be two sets of connectors in a USB3 cable.

You'll need a "different" cable (i.e. one with a copper line) if you want to send power across it. Apple and Intel are already advertising it for use in mobile equipment in the future. I see no outright evidence that they even plan try and take on USB3 ...

May I humbly suggest you read some of the material available on the Intel site? It's not just Apple, it's Sony, Nokia, etc etc.

Intel is positioning LP to connect anything to anything. Not only that, it is protocol neutral so you can plug a USB hub into a LP cable to connect your devices (any devices) up to 100m away, or use a USB => Light Peak cable to connect your USB device directly into a Light Peak port. Actually, I don't see LP replacing USB initially - I see it replacing all the different display connectors first. And I see LP becoming the standard connector for USB hubs to computers. It eliminates the 15 metre distance limit, plus it handles massive amounts of data better, plus you can copy from one LP external HD to another LP HD without bogging down the system.

Light Peak overview at Intel

....
I guess I could just use the label of ignorance instead if you prefer, but the whole-sale support of Apple products regardless of merit or value and the leanings of this concept of love Apple or leave it leads me to conclude with 99.9% certainty it is indeed fanaticism I'm seeing, not real arguments. Most fanatics don't realize they are fanatics so I'm not surprised so many on here don't think they drink the Apple juice.

There have been some good points made. It's a pity you keep resorting to personal attacks and opinion instead fact based arguments.

I call it like I see it and I'm pretty much right most of the time.

I always forget.... is that hubris or arrogance?

I can form the best arguments in the universe and a fanboy will tell me how WRONG I am. There is no logic to be found in fanaticism, only obedience.

I have pulled up facts, with links. I have tried not to insult you.... (or claimed omnipotence either. )

...
A quick look at history tells the tale quite nicely. Apple used to have firewire on iPods. When they realized they were losing MOST of the possible sales out there because of it, they DITCHED it like yesterday's news.
...

Yep - Apple blew that one!!!!

...I'll be the first to say OSX needs better drivers and OpenGL support and you'll say go buy a Windows machine if you want to game as real Mac users don't play games. Tell me who is more grounded in reality and who is living in the Matrix.

My point is that I don't think you would say OS X needs better drivers and OpenGL support... "Past history" (to use your term) shows that you'd say, explicitly and by implication, that without the drivers and support OS X is useless, and anyone who finds it useful for their needs doesn't have full use of their faculties and then you would ridicule them and their decision when they show that for their needs OS X suits them very nicely indeed.


Cheers and all that....

 

[awmazz]

Pardon the ignorance here, (new to the Pro) but isn't there a PCI card that will extend the PCI bus into another enclosure (with its own power supply of course) that you could then load up with as many PCI cards as could fit? Similar to a hub only a bit more of a pain to hookup?

I know that's not the point (that the pro should have more slots to begin with) BUT is this a possible workaround (albeit an expensive colossal pain in the rear) for the problem?

Yes, there is indeed a workaround as you say with a PCI external chassis, as with USB hubs when you run short of USB ports etc. The key word is workaround because having to resort to an external hub/chassis automatically makes the statement "inadequate" about a pro workstation. I guess it keeps the production cost down for those who don't actually need the extra slots/ports, so the theory is if you really need expandability then go pay a third party more for it.

But as you say, it is expensive and hard to justify if you just need it for one or two extra cards. Especially low-end cards. Most people I imagine would sacrifice an existing low-end card instead for the one they need more if they can't justify the extra cost. Pull the USB or Firewire card out and resort to a hub instead to fit a SATA card in its place. I myself am running an external SATA backup enclosure through a USB hub because I needed the slot for an internal SATA card instead (four extra HDs in the optical drive bay space), so the eSATA card I paid good money for is sitting back in its box now unused.

Of course, along with one or two more PCI slots, a built-in eSATA port would change things for me... 10 more built-in USB ports... 2 more internal SATA ports... I'm not asking for too much, am I? It's not like demanding cutting edge 4 x 24-core processors, just more bog standard ports and slots, is all..

 

[snberk103]

...
But as you say, it is expensive and hard to justify if you just need it for one or two extra cards. Especially low-end cards. Most people I imagine would sacrifice an existing low-end card instead for the one they need more if they can't justify the extra cost. Pull the USB or Firewire card out and resort to a hub instead to fit a SATA card in its place.

I'm a little confused. Which Mac Pro are you using? I've got an 2008, and the USB/FW ports on the front and back don't use up PCI card slots. I can daisy chain a couple hundred USB/FW devices from the built in ports .... before I start using the USB/FW ports on the ACD. I wouldn't have to pull any USB/FW cards because I can't contemplate using up the existing ports.
I am sure that Mac Pros that came immediately before, and ever since use the same setup.

I myself am running an external SATA backup enclosure through a USB hub because I needed the slot for an internal SATA card instead (four extra HDs in the optical drive bay space), so the eSATA card I paid good money for is sitting back in its box now unused.
...

I understand that other people have other PCI card needs that can fill up the 4 empty slots..... but they shouldn't be filled with USB or FW. I'm not sure what you need 8 internal HDs for.... surely some of them can be moved to FW 800 - It would take you awhile to hit the 63 unit max with that, and the you'd have to start a 2nd FW daisy chain, I suppose.

Anyway.... I'm just conjecturing since I don't know your setup...

Of course, along with one or two more PCI slots, a built-in eSATA port would change things for me... 10 more built-in USB ports... 2 more internal SATA ports... I'm not asking for too much, am I? It's not like demanding cutting edge 4 x 24-core processors, just more bog standard ports and slots, is all..
__________________
Apple II (Integer BASIC chipset) | Apple II Plus | Apple III Plus | Apple Lisa 1 | Apple Lisa 2/10 | Macintosh ~
NeXTcube | NeXTstation | NeXTstation Turbo | BeBox

Just read your last line... I think you are pulling our legs.... hee hee

 

[awmazz]

Moved from the daisy chained external firewire drives to eSATA. But then added internal drives as well so was forced to move the eSATA enclosure onto USB. As you say, I could have gone back to the firewire daisy chained enclosures, but my new multi-drive enclosure only has an eSATA and USB port.

Basically I much rather have everything within the computer itself and keep external cables, drives, hubs, chassis, extra power supplies, etc etc you name it, to a minimum... (which is why I've always preferred to just add in an additional 4-port USB card instead of using a hub, where I think your confusion is coming from.)

 

[cmaier]

Moved from the daisy chained external firewire drives to eSATA. But then added internal drives as well so was forced to move the eSATA enclosure onto USB. As you say, I could have gone back to the firewire daisy chained enclosures, but my new multi-drive enclosure only has an eSATA and USB port.

Basically I much rather have everything within the computer itself and keep external cables, drives, hubs, chassis, extra power supplies, etc etc you name it, to a minimum... (which is why I've always preferred to just add in an additional 4-port USB card instead of using a hub, where I think your confusion is coming from.)

did you consider an internal drive controller with esata ports?

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I don't agree with your analogy. For Apple, the software and the hardware are the complete product that creates the "Apple experience."

Yes, that's why my Dell netbook happily runs OSX because OSX + Apple brand hardware only = Apple experience. There's a difference between hardware and an operating system. They are not linked by anything but contract. This idea that the Mac must come in a cutesy case or stuffed into the back of a monitor in order to be a "Mac" is ludicrous. Some of us remember what Macs used to look like (like everyone eles's case) and that didn't make them any less "Mac" or any less interesting. Even when they were briefly cloned, it showed some of the clones had better hardware/performance/price than Apple could match. This not only made Apple look bad, it hurt their bottom line. In other words, they don't want to do it again because they like taking more of your money. There was, however, a brief period after Steve came back that it seemed he was positioning Apple to be more competitive and align their prices more with what people could actually afford instead of just the yuppee community. Since then, they seem to be creeping their way back ever skyward once again. It's getting hard to recommend ANY model of Mac to my friends except for one that need FCP or Logic because the price/performance ratio just keeps dropping.

Do you always resort to insults when arguing, or just when the your facts are thin on the ground?

I didn't realize being a fan was an insult, but rather a description. Most of the true fans on here are PROUD of being fanatical. I'm a big Tori Amos fan. I don't get upset at being labeled a fan of hers if that is what I am. The fact you take "fan" or "fanatic" to be an "insult" means you either are not one and are upset at thinking someone implied you were or you have some hidden reason to be ashamed of your fandom.

Light Peak ain't released yet, so I'd venture about the same number of people have heard of Light Peak as heard about USB before it was released. Doesn't take a "genius" to figure that one out.

USB competed against serial ports and parallel ports when it was released, not a competing mega-standard. Besides, something that tries to do everything rarely does anything very well and is backwards compatible with nothing (i.e .nothing out there supports it right now so it's all uphill). I can just see problems arising when the Light Peak bus runs out of bandwidth and it decides that you don't need your video output at the moment so it can finish your hard drive transfer. Oops. Time to upgrade the firmware.

There is also a fundamental difference between FW and LP. Firewire was never meant to replace everything, it was designed as a high-bandwidth

How is any of this relevant, regardless? The current Mac Pro has neither USB3 *OR* Light Peak on it. If it is not offered on PCI card, neither will do you any good on the current model and that was the original point. Unlike Light Peak, though, USB3 IS available right now and could have been included on the new Mac Pro so one would at least not have to worry about sucking up a PCI slot (or doing without) on one more future standard. I know Apple likes to abandon machines less than three years old, but a Mac Pro should be the exception. They don't become obsolete over night with 12 cores.

My point is that I don't think you would say OS X needs better drivers and OpenGL support...

I've already said it in relevant threads.

"Past history" (to use your term) shows that you'd say, explicitly and by implication, that without the drivers and support OS X is useless, and anyone who finds it useful for their needs doesn't have full use of their faculties and then you would ridicule them and their decision when they show that for their needs OS X suits them very nicely indeed.

This is clearly nonsense seeing as I own three machines running OSX (the MBP is still less than 2 years old and at the time had all the "pro" features I could want unlike succeeding models), rarely even use my PC anymore except for gaming and run Apple professional software (Logic and FCP) on my MBP. The problems with the current MBP are easily fixed. Bring back removable batteries and the expansion port and offer a true matte screen option again. Similarly, the Mac Pro COULD have been much better if they offered a few more PCI ports, eSata and USB3 on the motherboard and at least two firewire buses and they'd do fine with the current prices. They could also offer a non-ECC version with normal (non xeon) processors and started them under $2000 (so as to have a non-pro expandable machine that can handle true desktop graphics and games) and between the two versions, they'd have a big hit on their hands. It's not rocket science. It's called listening to what your customers want. Unfortunately, Apple seems to do less and less of that since the iPhone came out.

 

[CaoCao]

Yes, that's why my Dell netbook happily runs OSX because OSX + Apple brand hardware only = Apple experience. There's a difference between hardware and an operating system. They are not linked by anything but contract. This idea that the Mac must come in a cutesy case or stuffed into the back of a monitor in order to be a "Mac" is ludicrous. Some of us remember what Macs used to look like (like everyone eles's case) and that didn't make them any less "Mac" or any less interesting. Even when they were briefly cloned, it showed some of the clones had better hardware/performance/price than Apple could match. This not only made Apple look bad, it hurt their bottom line. In other words, they don't want to do it again because they like taking more of your money. There was, however, a brief period after Steve came back that it seemed he was positioning Apple to be more competitive and align their prices more with what people could actually afford instead of just the yuppee community. Since then, they seem to be creeping their way back ever skyward once again. It's getting hard to recommend ANY model of Mac to my friends except for one that need FCP or Logic because the price/performance ratio just keeps dropping.



I didn't realize being a fan was an insult, but rather a description. Most of the true fans on here are PROUD of being fanatical. I'm a big Tori Amos fan. I don't get upset at being labeled a fan of hers if that is what I am. The fact you take "fan" or "fanatic" to be an "insult" means you either are not one and are upset at thinking someone implied you were or you have some hidden reason to be ashamed of your fandom.



USB competed against serial ports and parallel ports when it was released, not a competing mega-standard. Besides, something that tries to do everything rarely does anything very well and is backwards compatible with nothing (i.e .nothing out there supports it right now so it's all uphill). I can just see problems arising when the Light Peak bus runs out of bandwidth and it decides that you don't need your video output at the moment so it can finish your hard drive transfer. Oops. Time to upgrade the firmware.



How is any of this relevant, regardless? The current Mac Pro has neither USB3 *OR* Light Peak on it. If it is not offered on PCI card, neither will do you any good on the current model and that was the original point. Unlike Light Peak, though, USB3 IS available right now and could have been included on the new Mac Pro so one would at least not have to worry about sucking up a PCI slot (or doing without) on one more future standard. I know Apple likes to abandon machines less than three years old, but a Mac Pro should be the exception. They don't become obsolete over night with 12 cores.



I've already said it in relevant threads.



This is clearly nonsense seeing as I own three machines running OSX (the MBP is still less than 2 years old and at the time had all the "pro" features I could want unlike succeeding models), rarely even use my PC anymore except for gaming and run Apple professional software (Logic and FCP) on my MBP. The problems with the current MBP are easily fixed. Bring back removable batteries and the expansion port and offer a true matte screen option again. Similarly, the Mac Pro COULD have been much better if they offered a few more PCI ports, eSata and USB3 on the motherboard and at least two firewire buses and they'd do fine with the current prices. They could also offer a non-ECC version with normal (non xeon) processors and started them under $2000 (so as to have a non-pro expandable machine that can handle true desktop graphics and games) and between the two versions, they'd have a big hit on their hands. It's not rocket science. It's called listening to what your customers want. Unfortunately, Apple seems to do less and less of that since the iPhone came out.

So you want a complete redesign of the Case and motherboard and have it bigger, and an xMac option

 

[xbjllb]

If you honestly think the govt. needs to be on premises to get into your system, you're misguided.

My system? Definitely. Speak only for yourself.

Yes, there is indeed a workaround as you say with a PCI external chassis, as with USB hubs when you run short of USB ports etc. The key word is workaround because having to resort to an external hub/chassis automatically makes the statement "inadequate" about a pro workstation. I guess it keeps the production cost down for those who don't actually need the extra slots/ports, so the theory is if you really need expandability then go pay a third party more for it.

But as you say, it is expensive and hard to justify if you just need it for one or two extra cards. Especially low-end cards. Most people I imagine would sacrifice an existing low-end card instead for the one they need more if they can't justify the extra cost. Pull the USB or Firewire card out and resort to a hub instead to fit a SATA card in its place. I myself am running an external SATA backup enclosure through a USB hub because I needed the slot for an internal SATA card instead (four extra HDs in the optical drive bay space), so the eSATA card I paid good money for is sitting back in its box now unused.

Of course, along with one or two more PCI slots, a built-in eSATA port would change things for me... 10 more built-in USB ports... 2 more internal SATA ports... I'm not asking for too much, am I? It's not like demanding cutting edge 4 x 24-core processors, just more bog standard ports and slots, is all..

Ah thanks for the info and analysis, I might one day have to stuff more than three into mine myself.

 

[polaris20]

My system? Definitely. Speak only for yourself.



Ah thanks for the info and analysis, I might one day have to stuff more than three into mine myself.

For you to be 100% of that, you'd need to have coded your OS from scratch, or at least compiled a BSD derivative from scratch. You don't know what back doors are in commercial OSes and other network devices.

Just sayin'.

 

[-hh]

I just finished doing some reading on Light Peak ... and wow does it sound amazing.... if it works as planned, so a big caveat.

And let's not forget its price tag, either.

The big misunderstanding about Light Peak is that it is not designed to replace USB (1, 2, or 3).... it is designed to replace USB, HDMI, SATA, PCI-E, SCSI, FW, etc etc. In other words, it picks up where USB leaves off.

USB was initially designed to replace all of the low bandwidth connectors that used to clutter up the I/O ports (keyboards, mice, etc)....The problem with USB was that it was never intended to be a high-bandwidth connector, though of course it was altered to adapt.

I disagree. I think they're looking at it from a standpoint that it can replace HDMI, USB, Firewire, etc.

Agreed, and while I think that the idea is for LP to potentially replace USB too, the challenge with this is that USB has a huge installed base, and thus, intertia/momentum to help make USB3 more likely to be successful.

Yes, I'm sure USB3 will fail big time and an unproven brand new format using an odd combination of fiber and copper will replace it wholesale.

I'm not against Lightpeak just like I'm not against Firewire. I might even prefer it when all is said and done, but I'd have to be smoking something pretty strong to think USB3 will not simply replace USB2 on EVERYTHING within two years time.

Agreed. Historically, we can go look at the many Roadkill victims of "I have no backwards legacy" I/O interfaces. FW has actually done surprisingly well, but also consider Apple's various attempts to make a new, updated video port...the minidisplayport is merely the latest attempt, and YMMV as to the question of if it is successful yet or not.

The problem is still that USB connects in a 'Tree' pattern, and that moving mass amounts of data easily saturates the system. That's why people who work with movies, etc tend to use FW and eSata HDs - they can sustain large data transfers at faster speeds.

And yet USB2 has been successful in the mainstream, because the general public doesn't care: their first priority is capability and often, the question of capacity doesn't enter into their mind.

From my recent reading, USB3 is actually a considerably different adaptation of the USB2 protocol, but they can make the cables backward compatible by including both the USB3 and USB2 connections in the same cable.

They're merely following an approach to provide backwards-compatibility to legacy USB2 devices without the obvious need for the consumer to go out to buy an adaptor. The nuanced fine print is that two USB3 devices connected with a USB2 cable will work, but only at USB2 speeds...a detail that the general consumer will again, generally fail to pick up upon, since he will still have capability.

Light Peak is also being designed, supposedly, to be protocol neutral... so it should be possible to connect USB legacy devices to LP computers simply with the proper converters.

But until these adaptors are included (and more of them only cost $3 each), its still an impediment to the adoption of LP, no matter how technically "good" it otherwise is. Consumers are as a rule, lazy.

Incidentally, LP was first shown last year running on a prototype Mac Pro motherboard.

IMO, this is worth noting, because with the insertion of any new Tech, "Someone has to be First".

As such, the 2010 Mac Pro 'could have, should have' been a candidate, even if its implimentation was literally has an additional (removable) PCI card with a 'draft' version of the interface. Afterall, its not like the MP's production numbers come out to millions produced per month such that we're talking about impractical amount of touch labor and where relatively low wafer yields are a huge stopper.

As far as I can tell, you're correct on all counts. I don't want another derivative of USB. I want something that can replace everything with a standardized connector. Light Peak is that solution, so I hope that it is successful.

FWIW, I envision LP as effectively being nothing more than a faster version of Ethernet, and with yet another new plug. Just something to think about...

So you want a complete redesign of the Case and motherboard and have it bigger, and an xMac option

The more this conversation goes on, the more evident it becomes that the needs for a 'Pro' type machine are effectively somewhat divergent: not at all unlike the days of the Mac IIx and Mac IIcx.



-hh

 

[AidenShaw]

The nuanced fine print is that two USB3 devices connected with a USB2 cable will work, but only at USB2 speeds...a detail that the general consumer will again, generally fail to pick up upon, since he will still have capability.

An obvious implementation detail would be for a software warning when such a connection is made - just like Windows today has a small system tray popup to warn you that a USB2 device is being connected at USB1.1 speeds.

 

[polaris20]

FWIW, I envision LP as effectively being nothing more than a faster version of Ethernet, and with yet another new plug. Just something to think about...

I sure hope not. It would be a crying shame to have LP fail, when it's so vastly superior of a technology than FW, USB, HDMI, etc.

I am not saying its capabilities guarantee its success; as we saw with FW it's not always about being best.

It would just be nice to have the longer cable runs afforded by LP, and to have a single port type accomplish so much, instead of having all this extra crap. Gee, I've got x amount of USB ports, but only need 2. However I've got one FW port, and need two. I don't really need two ethernet ports, yet it takes up space on the motherboard. See what I mean?

One port, multiple, high speed purposes.

I'm sure USB3 will be successful at first; though I question its value when looking at its feature set in comparison to LP.

 

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by snberk103
I don't agree with your analogy. For Apple, the software and the hardware are the complete product that creates the "Apple experience."

Yes, that's why my Dell netbook happily runs OSX because OSX + Apple brand hardware only = Apple experience. There's a difference between hardware and an operating system. They are not linked by anything but contract. .... But a Dell running OS X is not the "Apple Experience".

I'm not saying it won't work, but I know enough about how hackintoshes work to know that you had to do some work to make sure that particular model was compatible, that there was some work involved in getting it to install, that updates are not guaranteed to work as planned, and that perhaps not all of the hardware features of the Dell are supported. So it "works", but the Apple Experience is that the intent is it "just works" seamlessly and with minimal user interaction. That is what Apple is selling. You are, of course, free to accept it as worth the price or not. And if you said that it was not worth the price, for you, that's also fine by me. For some people the Apple Experience has value, and for others it doesn't ... why can't you accept that for some people, strangers to you, it is something with value?

Originally Posted by snberk103
Do you always resort to insults when arguing, or just when the your facts are thin on the ground?

I didn't realize being a fan was an insult, but rather a description. Most of the true fans on here are PROUD of being fanatical. ... The fact you take "fan" or "fanatic" to be an "insult" means you either are not one and are upset at thinking someone implied you were or you have some hidden reason to be ashamed of your fandom.

Nice use of selective quoting there.... I was not talking about whether you were a fan or not.... my comment was in response to your statement
"... but your "logic" reeks of kool-aid." This was when I disagreed with your comparison of a microwave made by LG being the same as Macs being package of the OS and hardware.

Be a fan... I don't care. Personally, I'm a fan of the Vancouver Canucks. I will mock the players of the Maple Leafs, but I don't make fun of their fans with references to a mass suicide. Must be a Canadian thing.... people are always commenting on how "polite" and "nice" we are.

USB competed against serial ports and parallel ports when it was released, not a competing mega-standard. Besides, something that tries to do everything rarely does anything very well and is backwards compatible with nothing (i.e .nothing out there supports it right now so it's all uphill). I can just see problems arising when the Light Peak bus runs out of bandwidth and it decides that you don't need your video output at the moment so it can finish your hard drive transfer. Oops. Time to upgrade the firmware.

You may have a point. It will be tough row to hoe, admittedly. But it is Intel behind this, not just Apple. If Intel decided to include Light Peak on every motherboard it makes, and Apple adopts it, it will be a good starting point. As I wrote above (you may have missed - we have been writing a lot of words!) I think Light Peak will initially connect USB Hubs to each other and to the computers. The big selling point for this is that it gives the consumer way more flexibility for locating peripherals, so they will accept the added LP in new computers as they roll out. Manufacturers will then start to create the peripherals that will plug directly into the port (by-passing the USB hubs) when the critical mass of LP enabled systems is reached.

How is any of this relevant, regardless? The current Mac Pro has neither USB3 *OR* Light Peak on it. If it is not offered on PCI card, neither will do you any good on the current model and that was the original point. Unlike Light Peak, though, USB3 IS available right now and could have been included on the new Mac Pro so one would at least not have to worry about sucking up a PCI slot ...

I think Intel and Apple hoped to have LP ready for this generation of Mac Pros, but the timing didn't work out. My reading is that Light Peak will be offered as a PCI card with 2 LP ports from day one. It doesn't help people who have already used up all their PCIx16 slots, at least at first glance. The way Light Peak is supposed to work is that you could dump all your PCI cards and replace it with one LP card. One LP port on the card is connected by a LP cable to a multi-protocol multi-port hub that all of the peripherals are now connected to.

No, I don't think it will work well. I'm not that naive. But I believe that is the theory. However, taking one PCI card out and replacing it with one LP card connected to that one type of peripheral with one of the two LP ports leaves the other LP port available for additional "stuff".

..... They could also offer a non-ECC version with normal (non xeon) processors and started them under $2000 (so as to have a non-pro expandable machine that can handle true desktop graphics and games) and between the two versions, they'd have a big hit on their hands.

Never gonna happen, in my opinion. That machine is directly competing with Windows machines, at the consumer level. No other PC maker making a margin on those machines that Apple makes on what they do offer. Apple doesn't compete in the mainstream on price. They either dominant a niche (All-in-ones, or Mini's) or they create a new market segment and flood it with their own product. I know that MP3 players and Smart Phones existed before Apple 'invented' them. But they were in small numbers, and Apple made them incredibly easy to use, and attractive to the consumer. Then they flood the market with their own product, so now any competing product entering that market is going to be compared to an Apple product.

It's not rocket science. It's called listening to what your customers want. Unfortunately, Apple seems to do less and less of that since the iPhone came out.

Bingo!! you are right - it's not rocket science. Give the man/woman a cigar!!! It's, um... "consumer science" (???). And Apple seems to have that market cornered. Record profits, record sales. Did you miss the announcement that Mac Computer sales last quarter were at record levels? The problem with most tech companies is that they hire too many "rocket scientists" and not enough social scientists. Apple has both, I think, and it shows. Great engineering and products that appeal to the consumer. In record numbers. It's just that they don't appeal to you, necessarily.

:

:

And let's not forget its price tag, either.

We don't know what it is, so speculation is just that - speculation.

Agreed, and while I think that the idea is for LP to potentially replace USB too, the challenge with this is that USB has a huge installed base, and thus, intertia/momentum to help make USB3 more likely to be successful.

See my thinking above, and how I think that LP will initially connect hubs (USB and otherwise) to computers.

...
And yet USB2 has been successful in the mainstream, because the general public doesn't care: their first priority is capability and often, the question of capacity doesn't enter into their mind.
...
...
[USB3 cables] merely following an approach to provide backwards-compatibility to legacy USB2 devices without the obvious need for the consumer to go out to buy an adaptor. The nuanced fine print is that two USB3 devices connected with a USB2 cable will work, but only at USB2 speeds...a detail that the general consumer will again, generally fail to pick up upon, since he will still have capability.

As I've said else where as well, I think LP will be used initially as replacement for display connectors, for which there are - what? - half a dozen standards? Apple is as guilty as anyone for this, but on another thread I am posting in someone stated that their Dell monitor has seven inputs!! Yikes! So there is an obvious place to start. Plus connecting hubs of devices to your system.

What may be missed in all this discussion is that, when fully implemented, a LP port will be able to drive anything and in any combination when connected to a LP port/hub. You could in theory have a computer with one, single, solitary I/O port. Just one. And a power switch. That's it. The LP port connects to a hub, and the hub connects to your monitors, keyboard, network, printers, external HDs, optical drives, sound boards, video boards, speakers and microphones, home theatre, tablets, etc etc. The computer in your home office can drive the 48" TV - at the other end of the house - as well as the the monitor on your desk. Through a single LP port. In theory. Lets wait to see if the delivered goods meet the promised specs before dumping all over this, eh?!

...

IMO, this is worth noting, because with the insertion of any new Tech, "Someone has to be First".

As such, the 2010 Mac Pro 'could have, should have' been a candidate, even if its implimentation was literally has an additional (removable) PCI card with a 'draft' version of the interface. ...

I think you're right... and I think Apple had hoped to have this version of the Mac Pro using Light Peak, but the timing didn't work out. When Intel rolls out LP, I think Apple will release a PCI card with 2 LP ports at the same time for the Mac Pro and/or announce an upgraded Mac Pro with the single change being the addition of a couple of integrated LP ports. Hopefully it will be PCI card and upgraded Mac Pro, because if I bought the new Mac Pro this year and then Apple added LP without the ability for me add it with an expansion card, I'd be mighty annoyed.





I will end this post with two interesting observations....

1) One of Intel's partners on LP is Foxconn...
2) Apple recently posted job listing for someone with knowledge in multiple protocols (LP is protocol neutral, so all protocols will work) and who can help create "...revolutionary new feature in the very foundations of Mac OS X. We have something truly revolutionary [in progress]..." This probably Apple's usual hyperbole..... but put the LP filter on it ... and you realize that this is way to late to be developing LP for soon to be bumped Mac Pro.... oh well.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I'm not saying it won't work, but I know enough about how hackintoshes work to know that you had to do some work to make sure that particular model was compatible, that there was some work involved in getting it to install, that updates are not guaranteed to work as planned, and that perhaps not all of the hardware features of the Dell are supported. So it "works", but the Apple Experience is that the intent is it "just works" seamlessly and with minimal user interaction. That is what Apple is selling.

What you overlook is that Apple has really done just the opposite. They have gone out of their way to make sure that other hardware of the same exact class and configuration will *NOT* "just work" with OSX (just like they went out of their way to make sure that the Palm Pre would NOT sync in iTunes). It's not that Apple devices work better with OSX than other devices work with Windows (that may vary by manufacturer, but some devices work perfectly with Windows straight out of the box no matter WHAT the hardware it's connected to). It's more like they make sure THEIR hardware "works" at all with OSX while doing everything they can to make sure NO ONE ELSE is ALLOWED to "work period" (let alone "just work) with OSX. In other words, Apple's purpose isn't to help you, but to help themselves to more of your money by refusing to directly compete against anyone else whenever technically possible.

You are, of course, free to accept it as worth the price or not. And if you said that it was not worth the price, for you, that's also fine by me. For some people the Apple Experience has value, and for others it doesn't ... why can't you accept that for some people, strangers to you, it is something with value?

I have a hard time accepting that the judicial system of this country is so broken that it ignores its own laws these days in favor of big corporation desires rather than consumer freedoms, choices and competition. The whole government here is broke, IMO. It's been corroded by greed and corruption. I shouldn't have to put up with Apple prices because free market and competition should guarantee me that I can buy from Dell or Lenovo or HP or whomever I want to build OSX compatible hardware (i.e. without having to "hack" to do it). The hardware is separate from the operating system whether Apple wants to believe it or not (or any of the fans on here). My Hackintosh comment was to prove that they are indeed separate and that only Apple stands in the way of consumers getting the hardware they want, whether that means they don't want to offer it or they don't want to let anyone else offer it. I'd rather pay more for OSX and have choices than this idea of underwriting OSX through hardware prices which is the standard fan explanation of why the hardware costs so darn much (rather than admit it's all about profit). I get tired of hearing examples from fans that suggest OSX is worth ridiculous sums of money when pushed on this issue (i.e. "what if it cost $1200??) more than the price of a Mac Mini which is ABSURD since it comes with a Mac Mini plus the costs of hardware and development, so OSX cannot possibly worth more alone than the price of a Mac Mini). This is just one example of the "logic" I regularly run into when trying to "discuss" something like 3rd party hardware with the fanatical base on here. Emotion rules the discussion (i.e. love for Apple) rather than reason.

Nice use of selective quoting there.... I was not talking about whether you were a fan or not.... my comment was in response to your statement
"... but your "logic" reeks of kool-aid." This was when I disagreed with your comparison of a microwave made by LG being the same as Macs being package of the OS and hardware.

Kool-aid (Apple flavored kool-aid, in particular) is the standard term used on here to refer to towing the company line on here. I didn't realize I had somehow invented a new insult. I simply use countless examples by others using the same terms. The vast majority aren't accused of insults simply because they refer to "fans" or "fanboys" (latter is typical modern day reference to extreme fans of a single product supposedly dating back to early 20th century comic book collectors)

You may have a point. It will be tough row to hoe, admittedly. But it is Intel behind this, not just Apple. If Intel decided to include Light Peak on every motherboard it makes, and Apple adopts it, it will be a good starting point.

But will current Mac Pro owners be able to get it (or USB3 for that matter) on a card, for instance? By not offering it now, it may not matter much right at this second, but unless one only plans to keep a Mac Pro for a year or so, it might matter a lot later on. This is my problem in general with buying iMacs and Mac Minis. You have to upgrade the entire computer (and monitor in the case of an iMac) just to get one new feature. That might be the "Apple way" today, but it wasn't always that way nor should it be, IMO. I'm sure Apple loves it that way, though since they make the vast majority of their record-breaking profits through hardware, not software or music or whatever. I believe the term is planned obsolescence.

As I wrote above (you may have missed - we have been writing a lot of words!) I think Light Peak will initially connect USB Hubs to each other and to the computers. The big selling point for this is that it gives the

I see no point in Light Peak being used for such a purpose. Why would I want to connect USB hubs together or to the computer with LP instead of USB? Is this hub going to be on the other side of the house or something? I believe Apple's first hinted use for LP is for iOS devices to communicate with each other and possibly the notebook line in the future for faster transfers for larger files. This also hints at Apple's future direction for things like Final Cut Pro, moving from purely pro environments to consumer orientated things to be managed on iPhones and later edited on Macs either back at the hotel or at home. Jobs himself has commented about the great leaps FCP is about to make for "consumers" (not pros). All of this leads to fear that the professional products are going to be abandoned for prosumer garbage. Logic is now priced low enough that it's ALREADY a prosumer price (thankfully the product itself is still quite professional). I'm amazed how much they give you in the lite verison for $100 even. Compared to something like Photoshop (where all the "lite" crap from Adobe isn't even in the same league as Photoshop), it's pretty well featured and is certainly NOT an area I complain about in regards to Apple (although many pros out there think the engine is outdated, I've had no problem producing several professional quality songs without difficulty or the supposed slowdowns that they talk about; I must either not use the same feature sets they use or their hardware is quite old).

consumer way more flexibility for locating peripherals, so they will accept the added LP in new computers as they roll out. Manufacturers will then start to create the peripherals that will plug directly into the port (by-passing the USB hubs) when the critical mass of LP enabled systems is reached.

Like I said, the problem is that there is no use for putting Light Peak into a USB equation and manufacturers are slow to adopt new connection schemes (e.g. display port is still relatively rare to find on a monitor, let alone mini-display port and Apple is largely irresponsible to ONLY include such connections on their own monitors and no adapters in mini direction at all, only in the mini to something else direction. It boggles the mind, really. It's like they don't want to sell more monitors by making them flexible even within their own product lines that predate mini-display port or don't use (Mac Pros configured with better graphics cards or older cards or that only have one port, not two which is then bad for using it with mother monitors that don't have it at all, but Apple makes a nice adapter sale. Apple used to give the adapters WITH the hardware, but then they realized they could make more money by NOT including them. My MBP came with a VGA adapter, for example. I doubt the newer models include anything).

Never gonna happen, in my opinion. That machine is directly competing with Windows machines, at the consumer level. No other PC maker making a margin on those machines that Apple makes on what they do offer. Apple

The standard fan response is that all Macs are value added for running OSX so it should not matter if it's the same "type" of computer. Besides, Apple sells notebooks and those more or less directly compete against Windows machines and some have even bought them JUST for Windows in the past (when they were truly a good deal and were faster than equivalent machines for Windows). I personally believe it's purely because Steve doesn't like big machines. He likes everything to be ultra THIN, including his own body. I'm starting to think he has some kind of phobia against full figured equipment.

And Apple seems to have that market cornered. Record profits, record sales.

And we're back round circle once again to the "Apple makes lots of money so they're always right" line of fanatical "argument". Excuse me, this is where I find myself no longer wanting to bother to communicate since there is no point to it. I feel like I'm talking to one those IRC "bots". "Hello Bot" 'Hello Magnum'. "Feeling good today Bot?" 'Yes. How are you Magnum?' "I'm well Bot". 'Glad to hear it Magnum". In other words, Bots give canned responses to typical English communication, but there is no actual communication involved. I might as well read a Wiki FAQ of Apple fan responses to every argument. "Why don't Macs offer more configurable options or expansion?" 'Apple is making record profits so just trust that they know what they're doing.' "Why doesn't OSX have more themed type preference options?" 'Apple is making record profits so just trust that they know what they're doing.' Yes, it's all very helpful. Ugh.

 

[ts1973]

Great post Magnus, but be careful, before long you'll be "categorized" as An Apple hater

 

[xbjllb]

You really don't get it, do you? You're in a small, vocal minority. People are still buying Macs. They're happy with them. Apple is having its best years ever lately

iCrap BUBBLE. Real estate was having its best years too just a few years ago.

 

[G4er?]

Bingo!! you are right - it's not rocket science. Give the man/woman a cigar!!! It's, um... "consumer science" (???). And Apple seems to have that market cornered. Record profits, record sales. Did you miss the announcement that Mac Computer sales last quarter were at record levels? The problem with most tech companies is that they hire too many "rocket scientists" and not enough social scientists. Apple has both, I think, and it shows. Great engineering and products that appeal to the consumer. In record numbers. It's just that they don't appeal to you, necessarily.

It's great that Apple is selling lots of things to lots of people. But Apple is also losing some of its fans at the same time. My computer experience started with Apple computers both at work and at home. But now almost 20 years later I'm not finding a Mac that I feel is worth buying. Does it matter to Apple? Maybe not. But here is a bit of news for Apple. I haven't bought any of their toys either. No iPhones, no iPods, no iPads, and I won't be buying their new battery charger either. Would I love those things if I bought them? I might. But how can Apple expect a long time, repeat computer customer to want to buy those things when I can't buy the type of computer I really want?