Apple 'Questioning' the Future of its Mac Pro Line?

[JarredWagner]

Every single thing you mentioned can be done on an iMac or Mac Mini.

We're not discussing the loss of PCs. We're discussing the loss of a single model of high-end workstation.

No, it can't, not yet. Look, I don't have time to diagram my system for you guys, but the reality is that only a full blown tower can handle our workload, and we are just a small photo studio. And we are definitely not alone in that.

If the Mac Pro dies, most serious creative pros will move to Windows out of absolute necessity.

 

[junkster]

Here's my view, as if this thread really needs another:

The Mac notebook line-up is amazing. I've got a second-gen Intel MacBook, and it still feels like a snappy new machine. Even with Lion. Even when using XCode. There have been significant CPU and GPU improvements since then. SSDs are common. Memory sizes have doubled or quadrupled.

But there is a problem with the notebooks: HEAT. And heat translates into fan noise and shorter battery life. The faster MacBook Pros have already crossed the line, and there have been people returning them for the lower-end model. You really don't want to push those systems with video compression or anything that hits the CPUs. What's the point in having such processing power if you don't want to us it.

That's the point of the Mac Pro line. You can put the case out of the way. There's room for big fans and heat sinks. There's no conflict between cutting edge tech and super slim cases.

 

[derbladerunner]

I wonder how many people complaining about the Mac pro updates (or lack thereof) could do fine with a maxed out Mac mini i7 and 8GB of RAM ?

I guess a low percentage (10-25%, just my uneducated guess ?) of Mac Pro owners could switch and add storage expansion via TB.

And yes, I fully understand the other 75%+, namely audio and video pros, really need Mac Pro with expansion ports and so on.

PS: And the third-party 16GB RAM option for Mac mini will come down in price over time also...
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/26/owc-offers-16gb-ram-upgrade-for-new-mac-mini-for-1400/

 

[KnightWRX]

No, it can't, not yet. Look, I don't have time to diagram my system for you guys, but the reality is that only a full blown tower can handle our workload, and we are just a small photo studio. And we are definitely not alone in that.

If the Mac Pro dies, most serious creative pros will move to Windows out of absolute necessity.

That's the thing, that's "your" system. The point is, many people are already moving away from Pro workstations. Many aren't. But the niche is growing smaller and as it becomes smaller, there will come a time when Apple will follow the money and divert those ressources to more profitable endeavours.

This might not be next year, but it's going to come.

 

[deshstar]

The Mac Mini would be a better option as you could retain your current monitor and other peripherals.

----------

No, I mentioned the 27" iMac as it is the nearest substitution outside the mac pro range for the power, ram, gfx and internal storage of my current configuration. The mac mini would be even more of a performance downgrade.

Even with the mac mini the problem of daisy chaining multiple external HD's etc would still exist only I'd need one extra to add on a superdrive.

 

[milo]

Every single thing you mentioned can be done on an iMac or Mac Mini.

I know for a fact there's audio content that can't be done on iMac or mini due to ram and processor limitations. I suspect the same goes for some video content.

 

[kiljoy616]

As I said yesterday this is one puppy that need to be put out to pasture and a new paradigm of hardware be introduced by Apple. I like to see a smaller but as powerful box with some kind of liquid cooling that does not require such an ugly big box.

 

[rmwebs]

Every single thing you mentioned can be done on an iMac or Mac Mini.

We're not discussing the loss of PCs. We're discussing the loss of a single model of high-end workstation.

The Mac Pro can take 4 hard drives. The iMac can take 2.

The Mac Pro can take up to 64GB RAM. The iMac can take up to 16GB.

The Mac Pro allows 4 expansion ports, e.g 4 graphics cards (or other expandables). The iMac allows none.

The Mac Pro allows two interchangeable optical drives. The iMac has one, fixed optical drive (or no optical drive if you opt for a second hard disk).

The Mac Pro allows two SERVER GRADE Quad Core CPU's. The iMac has 1 DESKTOP GRADE (there is a difference) Quad Core CPU

See the issue here?

 

[CptnJustc]

You can run virtualized environnements just fine on iMacs/MBP and heck even my lowly MBA.

I know I can, and do (at least on my MBP). It's not nearly as pleasant an experience as on my MP, however, on which I can do multiple virtualization, development in the host, and plenty else besides without a hiccup. And I'm not exactly Adobe.

Just saying... there's benefit to be had from there being top-end machines in the ecosystem that aren't captured by those specific machines' sales numbers. Maybe iMacs will become so powerful that they can handle whatever any large developer will throw at them. Even so, I think Apple will want to keep something around with a bit more flexibility for niche markets with a punch above their weight in just machine terms. We'll see what they come up with.

I used to run VMware workstation on my P2-333 with 192 MB of RAM.

Virtualization is only as ressource intensive as the guests you're running out of those VMs.

Yeah, I remember VMware from those days. It was kind of a nightmare for doing anything particularly useful. In modern times it's become much more practical, but still, if you want multiple virtualization of Lion, you're going to want a fair bit of RAM and cores devoted to it.

 

[kiljoy616]

Psssh. Apple would be making a massive mistake if they killed off the Mac Pro. Sales are DOWN on it only because it has not been updated in so long.

But let me play devil's advocate for a moment. In desperate need of a Mac Pro, I *almost* built my own. But have decided to wait to see what Apple decides to do.

Sure, it's not legit, but you could *cough*, hypothetically build a Hack-Pro for around $1500 that has MORE power than the $5K Mac Pro.

I would definitely prefer a Mac Pro. Took me a few years to switch to Mac's from Window's computers. But I love how easy the Mac Pro's are to swap parts on. Install new drives, etc.

When they mention the fact that they could upgrade the power of an iMac for the power hungry users... yah, that won't happen.

My 3-year-old 24" Intel Core 2 Duo 3.06ghz iMac, with a Geforce 8800 GS video card, runs so hot, that they have had to replace the LCD panel (due to image persistence) 2-3 times, and the video card due to overheating, twice. An iMac isn't, and never will be an industry-grade system for doing video editing or graphics on.

Not to mention, the cost of a high-end iMac (27", 2tb hd, 2gb video, 8gb ram) is almost $3,000. Add to that, the cost of adding any external thunderbolt cases, add-ons, and you'd be better OFF, buying a Mac Pro.

Just my two cents.

Either Apple comes out with a new Mac Pro, or I build one.

I wish I'd never sold my quad Xeon to buy this iMac >_<

Sound like you should move over to Windows quickly since money is not your strong forte if your need so much power and are making no financial gains from it. Build your own PC and move on. I for example make tons of money on my Mac system and find 3000 to be nothing that faces me since its all business expenses. So move on and never look back.

 

[nerdo]

Great, another totally subjective discussion with too many people calling each other ignorant and pretending they have their finger on the pro market.

Off course the Mac Pro needs to be questioned and completely re-designed. The mac Pro's I have here heat the entire floor when running 24/7, fun in the winter I must admit.

Everything needs to be questioned including a lot of peoples attitude towards each other. A future where I take my MacBook Air home, plug it into a smooth dock thingy that takes the TB to a box underneath my desk, you know like the Mac Pro, filled with IO goodness. Sucking whatever new data into the box, dropping whatever should be in iCloud in iCloud and sharing whatever should be shared on the NAS.

Syncing my video edits with the Apple TV downstairs and dropping whatever I shot that day on whatever centralized storage.

It is all about workflow and building something that works. Not about holding on to whatever you already know. I think the real problem is FCPX: it made everybody question Apples commitment to the Pro market as they know it. At it all sounds like they might take away whatever foundation in the future.

So far I haven't seen anyone come up with actual numbers, it would be nice to have real numbers and compare them to let's say DELL or HP. 12 core VS 12 Core and all that. They seem to think there is a market for them. HP even has a laptop with a NVidia Quadro 4000.

Besides, I have a bunch of Mac Pro's here and because of the MP's I got iMac for everybody else that just do basic production work. Bunch of MBP's for location work etc.

People love to talk "ECO system" and the Mac Pro is part of it. In this shape or some future incarnation. The only thing I don't see happening is keeping all the space for internal storage because everything is moving towards centralized / cloud storage.

 

[xgman]

I feel sick to my stomach.

 

[thegaffer]

I wonder how many people complaining about the Mac pro updates (or lack thereof) could do fine with a maxed out Mac mini i7 and 8GB of RAM ?

I guess a low percentage (10-25%, just my uneducated guess ?) of Mac Pro owners could switch and add storage expansion via TB.

https://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/26/owc-offers-16gb-ram-upgrade-for-new-mac-mini-for-1400/

I generally don't disagree with this statement. A lot of time our Mac Pros sit around not doing anything too taxing, but when they do get used the faster they are the better things for us (because we need that quick turn around time).

 

[KnightWRX]

Yeah, I remember VMware from those days. It was kind of a nightmare for doing anything particularly useful. In modern times, it's become much more practical, but still, if you want multiple virtualization of Lion, you're going to want a fair bit of RAM and cores devoted to it.

It was ? Ran just fine on my P2-333 and did plenty of useful stuff.

Why would you run "multiple virtualization of Lion" anyhow ? You're talking about very specific development needs there. Most probably, web development is the most "virtualization" rich form there is, and they would run 1 instance of each OS so they can run the different iterations of browsers on these (Linux, Windows, Mac with each browser installed). And this sure as heck doesn't require Mac Pro level hardware.

Not to mention they can just run these VMs on a hypervisor and deport the display to a local VMware Console client, no need to run them locally.

 

[Daschund]

Every single thing you mentioned can be done on an iMac or Mac Mini.

We're not discussing the loss of PCs. We're discussing the loss of a single model of high-end workstation.

Every single thing he mentioned could be done on a PC with Windows. Why do we use a Mac? Because they do it better or easier. Why do we need a MacPro? Same thing. You can cook with just fire, but if you have an industrial grade oven it will probably be much easier/faster.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

The Mac Pro can take 4 hard drives. The iMac can take 2.

The Mac Pro can take up to 64GB RAM. The iMac can take up to 16GB.

The Mac Pro allows 4 expansion ports, e.g 4 graphics cards (or other expandables). The iMac allows none.

The Mac Pro allows two interchangeable optical drives. The iMac has one, fixed optical drive (or no optical drive if you opt for a second hard disk).

The Mac Pro allows two SERVER GRADE Quad Core CPU's. The iMac has 1 DESKTOP GRADE (there is a difference) Quad Core CPU

See the issue here?

You can put more than 4 HDD's in a Mac Pro.

 

[Carouser]

The Mac Pro can take 4 hard drives. The iMac can take 2.

The Mac Pro can take up to 64GB RAM. The iMac can take up to 16GB.

[etc.]

See the issue here?

Satisfying the demand for these specs is of decreasing relevance to Apple.
They have no obligation to keep producing such products.
They will probably try to maximize profit in the short- and long- term, and the Mac Pro might not fit into that.

See the issue here?

Fourty-six pages of people confusing
a) personally wanting/needing/using something
b) Apple's incentives (or lack thereof) to keep satisfying that market

The only thing more stable than a Mac is the MR entitlement complex.

 

[JarredWagner]

Also, it should be mentioned that serious graphic design, photo and video work demands a proper, matte, wide gamut, hardware calibrated display.

This basically eliminates the iMac as an option. You can add a second display, but the discrepancy between them would be extremely distracting, to say the least.

 

[carlemil]

I know for a fact there's audio content that can't be done on iMac or mini due to ram and processor limitations. I suspect the same goes for some video content.

What audio content can't be done on an iMac because of processor and ram limitations?

7.1 Surround? 300 tracks? Tons of plug-ins while recording at 256? Multichannel recording?

There is a lot of reasons to choose an Mac Pro for audio, including ram and processor considerations, but there is nothing audiowise that cannot be done on the processor and RAM possibilities for the iMac.

To answer another question, i work as a production designer at a post production facility, and we usually store (and work from) our work at a central datacenter, but all of our simple grading in 1080p (4k is internal and on linux, da vinci) we use GLYPH Forte Raid disks.
http://www.glyphtech.com/products/forteraid/#/images/products/buynow-forteraid

We work internally when we are worked with R3D raw material, but that is often only needed when we need to render and export in clusters.

 

[TTTokyo]

I feel like my anecdote about buying a Mac Pro last night got a bit lost (I know, it was too long). But I'm curious what people make of the fact that one of the largest online retailers of Macs is intentionally letting their stock deplete. I'm not sure if the guy was supposed to actually reveal that or not, but it seemed telling to me.

Read on if you're curious

-------

I had been considering caving and buying a current 8-core Mac Pro. And when I read the rumor article today about Apple possibly discontinuing the line, I slightly panicked and decided to DEFINITELY go ahead and cave. I need a new machine badly, and if they aren't going to make any more Mac Pros, then I'd better get one of the remaining current stock.

So... I call up one of the big online mac retailers (in order to avoid paying sales tax at the Apple Store). I tell them that I'd like to buy an 8-core machine, and that I'd like to upgrade the graphics card. The rep then asks if they can put me on hold. I say "sure". They're gone for quite a long while, then he comes back and says (and I still don't QUITE understand this), "Sir, we aren't offering any upgrades on this machine, because we are letting the stock run out". I said, "Wait, you're intentionally letting the stock run out?" and he said "Yes". Hmmm. Then I said, "Well, that seems like something you would do if you knew a new model of this machine was coming and you didn't want to get stuck with old stock". And he didn't say anything at first and then he said, "I... know what you mean." Hmm. So, I said, "I know you probably can't talk about it --" and he interrupted me and said "no sir, I can't". And i continued, "... and I don't want to get you fired, but, suppose a friend of mine suggested that I WAIT to buy this machine, because he thinks a new machine might be coming out very soon. Would you think my friend makes sense?" Again, he paused and then said, seemingly reluctantly "This is a fine machine." Hmmm. Kind of weird. I'd like to point out that he wasn't being dismissive or rude at all. He was being very polite. Then I asked if I could return the machine if I buy it and a new model comes out in a week or two. He said that as long as the box was unopened, yes, I could do it. If it was opened, I'd have to pay a restocking fee.

So, after I buy it, I say "Ok, I can return it for a new mac IF i don't open it." Yes sir. And THEN I ask, "So, do you think it would be wise to not open it?" And he said, "Yes sir, I do. Very wise." Aha. Okay. I laughed, and he laughed. We understood each other.

Take what you will from it. It might not mean anything. I have no idea. But here's what I'm wondering: if Apple was about to release a new Mac Pro but they knew there was a lot of unpurchased current Mac Pro stock sitting around out there, might it be in their best interest to "suggest", via rumor, that the Mac Pro was being discontinued, so as to create a sudden rush to buy the remaining Mac Pro stock? I mean, that was MY personal reaction, and I can't be the only one to have done it.

 

[CptnJustc]

It was ? Ran just fine on my P2-333 and did plenty of useful stuff.

Why would you run "multiple virtualization of Lion" anyhow ? You're talking about very specific development needs there. Most probably, web development is the most "virtualization" rich form there is, and they would run 1 instance of each OS so they can run the different iterations of browsers on these (Linux, Windows, Mac with each browser installed). And this sure as heck doesn't require Mac Pro level hardware.

Not to mention they can just run these VMs on a hypervisor and deport the display to a local VMware Console client, no need to run them locally.

I'm aware that I'm talking "very specific development needs". That's my point -- that tiny niches in machine terms can be more important than the number of machines they buy.

While I don't have survey data as to who uses virtualization in what environments (and which of them could "make do" with less), I would suspect that there are developers out there who would benefit very much from something to cross the gulf between relying on an iMac alone and needing a remote hypervisor. I further suspect that the majority of the considerable (if not overwhelming in percentage terms) number of people who purchase top-of-the-line desktops are not doing so because they just don't know that other computers can be pretty speedy these days.

 

[JarredWagner]

You can put more than 4 HDD's in a Mac Pro.

Right now I have 4 HDDs and 2 SSDs internal, 4 eSATA and a BR external. And I seriously need all of them. Plus 2 firewire CF card readers, 7 usb devices including an audio interface that prefers its own bus.

 

[lilo777]

The Mac Pro can take 4 hard drives. The iMac can take 2.

The Mac Pro can take up to 64GB RAM. The iMac can take up to 16GB.

The Mac Pro allows 4 expansion ports, e.g 4 graphics cards (or other expandables). The iMac allows none.

The Mac Pro allows two interchangeable optical drives. The iMac has one, fixed optical drive (or no optical drive if you opt for a second hard disk).

The Mac Pro allows two SERVER GRADE Quad Core CPU's. The iMac has 1 DESKTOP GRADE (there is a difference) Quad Core CPU

See the issue here?

Nice explanation but you are arguing with people most of whom have no idea about the difference between casual/consumer type of computers usage (i.e. Facebook, e-mail and web browsing) and professional usage (CAD, video/audio editing, software development etc.)

 

[Carouser]

Nice explanation but you are arguing with people most of whom have no idea about the difference between casual/consumer type of computers usage (i.e. Facebook, e-mail and web browsing) and professional usage (CAD, video/audio editing, software development etc.)

No, he's arguing with people who recognize the difference between a market existing and Apple's obligation (or lack thereof) to satisfy that market.

 

[435713]

Thumbs up if the Mac pro should stay

Thumbs down if it should go and be replaced by daisy chained mini's and imacs.

Curious to see