Apple Sends Mac Pro Posters to Journalists: 'The Computer We Were Insane to Build'

[yakovlev]

Ah, finally someone making some sense. Universal Audio and Apogee have introduced TB interfaces also. On the video/film side of things where I am, all of our storage is external and in a separate room. We use fibre to connect to that so I could seen needing an expansion chassis for the the card but that would be mounted under the desk and out of sight.

Expect SAN vendors to add support for Thunderbolt cabling.

One common misconception about Thunderbolt is that it is simply an “external PCI Express”. It is not. Thunderbolt is a super low-latency, high-throughput packet switching fabric with crazy time synchronization capabilities (8 ns). It can support any network topologies, it’s just that Apple only utilized line topology (2 ports) before Mac Pro. Both DisplayPort and PCI Express protocols work over Thunderbolt protocol (with an added twist that Thunderbolt ports can give out DisplayPort signal directly, so a user can attach non-Thunderbolt DisplayPort display).

With Mavericks, Apple has now added a third protocol, IP. It would be trivial for them to add Fibre Channel protocol as well. Fibre Channel already supports Ethernet cabling (FCoE), and it would be even easier for SAN vendors to add support for Thunderbolt cabling (let’s call it “FCoTB”), as Thunderbolt does not have packet congestion problems of Gigabit Ethernet. Since you won’t need to buy expensive FC HBAs or 10GbE NICs, you’ll be getting Fibre Channel for the cost of Thunderbolt cables and you’ll be able to connect a 16GFC link to any Mac with a TB2 port.

 

[kunai]

Same concept as "can't innovate my ass" or most of the buzzwords from the last 2 events. It makes apple sound like apple is run by incompetent fools who can't properly express themselves. The current management team is so far beneath the quality of the company.

Yes. Exactly. "For the colorful?" "Completely renanoed?"

As in the words of Job, "THIS IS ****!"

 

[kwags]

Say both machines are running the full Adobe suite, how will Mavericks outdo the Windows machine?

My wife finally switched from PC Adobe to Mac Adobe (Dec 2012 iMac with the works) ... and can't speak to Mavericks yet, but Mountain Lion out performs Windows simply by being reliable, not crashing and not requiring weekly reboots for this or that.

After almost 20 years on PC, she's really far happier with OS X overall. IMHO, it's certainly worth a few bucks more on the hardware side to get a working and reliable OS.

 

[forumBuddy]

If anyone can build a tiny cylindrical case, with the same mac materials and quality - and made in america - that holds this kind of technology, please respond to this post with a price. Insofar as expandability is concerned, I find it pretty critical given the need to share data. I, for one, will be in line.

OK, I take the challenge. There is a device similar to new Mac Pro, and it's costs $2,999 (down from original $3,999).

It is a somewhat powerful pro computer in a tiny package that can't be done by any company other than Apple.

Except no one bought it.

Back in 2001 however, Apple pro customers had a choice to buy a real PowerMac. This time around new MacPro could be more successful simply because there is no other choice in the Mac world.

Then again, that's why PowerMag G5 was my last desktop Mac.

 

[o0smoothies0o]

I have no need for nor interest in ever buying a 'Pro' desktop computer, but I always thought the Mac Pro was needing one thing mainly, and that was a redesign. It looked too much like all of the other god awful run of the mill regular rectangular big hunks of plastic/metal which defined desktop computers really. I had absolutely no interest in this machine, if or when they made a new one, but I just hoped they would redesign it, and that's what they did, and I think it looks amazing.

It is so much smaller and more futuristic looking than anything else like it. I love people comparing it to a trash can because what makes art special is that not everyone can understand or appreciate it, and people see different things... what they might want to see or not want to see. What you should ask yourself is what you see in a normal desktop, because it is pretty much a plastic box, there is no design achievement at all, it is a lack of care.

 

[wildmac]

I want a cheaper MacPro Made In China in a plastic case, available in colors... That will be called Mac Pro C.

From $1699, quad-core, single gpu, 128GB SSD and 2GB RAM.

????

2GB RAM? reallly?…


buy an iMac.. seems perfect for ya..

----------

So, can we sum this up?

"It is CRUCIAL that we not use a single vendor proprietary solution for GPGPU as that is a bad thing and would give one vendor an unacceptable stranglehold over the industry, even though it is currently the better system. However, if you wish to connect anything to this free and open graphics system you need to use a single vendor, proprietary system that must be licensed and OK'd by Intel because if we force everyone to use it, it will become the better system"

Does that cover it?

Don't worry, it's Apple, they'll change the spec in 2 years anyway...

----------

Your points are all good, but I would say that if you want a headless Mac (say you're invested in your current monitor setup and don't want an all-in-one) with good discrete graphics, this is your only choice. We haven't seen what's in store for the updated mini yet, but with top specs it isn't exactly cheap.

It's more expensive than a fairly loaded MacBook Pro, but not much more (for some definitions of much).

Obviously don't get this just as a gaming rig - that would be foolish. But if you want a high end Mac, the fact that it's a competent gaming rig is icing on the cake.

Plus it just looks cool.

This.

A loaded rMBP is $2600.
A loaded iMac is $2700-$2900 depending on your storage pick.

The base MacPro is $3000, with far better graphics, and much more expandability.

And a Doghouse systems gaming rig with dual GTX 680s, similar SSD and 16GB ram is well north of $3k, and that's still with an i7 instead of a Xeon.

So, really, where is it that the MacPro is really that expensive compared to similar systems?

Sure you can build-your-own for less, but that that much less, and then you have to support it.

 

[H2SO4]

The Apple Pro was designed for those that need it. They are the ones that will purchase them. They are the only ones that could be complaining about its shortcomings.

Let's get something straight. Anybody that shells out money on this product or any other product from any other manufacturer has good reason to complain about shortcomings.
The ones that will purchase them are the ones with money and inclination to buy. It is not limted to those who work in the graphics industry. They may be pointed more toward a specific demographic but if people only bought exactly what they need a lot of companies would go out of business.

 

[supercoolmanchu]

Why do you assume that if someone doesn't have a rack of external storage that all they do is play games? That's a pretty bad stereotype and I can only assume that you think OSX / Mac Pro's are for the guys that have a camera and think they are creative professionals. Every time I read these forums it sounds like everyone here works for Pixar, when I am pretty positive a lot of people here just do youtube videos and think they need something so powerful.

I don't know where you got Pixar, they'd kinda be at the top of their segment in the professional video industry. There's a lot of room left for very serious video professionals without ever getting to Pixar. What you should be asking is if anyone here works for Vivid, but judging by the relative angst level, probably not.

My needs for a Mac Pro are a bit different. I have 5-6 clients that I do massive enterprise reporting and programming for. Just so happens, I like OSX and that's why I use a Mac Pro and temporarily using a PC as most enterprise-level PCIex SSD's do not work with the current Mac Pro.

Then you are a tiny minority of a tiny minority that are professional users who might be interested in the new Mac Pro. You should realize this, move on and find a better solution for your specific application.

So no, I don't work for Pixar, and I sure don't have racks of storage for youtube videos or consider myself a "creative professional". But since I can afford it, I do want the fastest IO/CPU and potential upgradability as needs arise so I have every right to rant that Mac Pro does not meet my needs and wish it had a little more expansion just like every other person here has been complaining about CUDA.

I work in audio. You don't see me complaining that I've got to plug external speakers for studio monitors and mains into the Mac Pro to get any "professional" level sound out. So sure, you have every right, but the bigger deal you make out of your exact special needs not being catered to, the less it seems that you actually need a pro solution.

I really am going to stop posting to these forums as everyone here is a "real pro" vs the normal pros or apparently everyone else who just plays games. sigh... Yes, you are very special and more "pro" than everyone else. The rest of us just make money playing games, apparently.

What sucks for you, does not suck for everyone else. Apparently nobody here can help you, bitch to Apple if you want a cylinder to fill with SSDs. If there's actually a market for that, then then might try to make a solution for you. Or you can keep ranting here and get less done.

 

[xmichaelp]

Conventional thinking says you have to make a pro desktop tower computer fully upgradable on all parts by the user! Conventional thinking says you have to follow a certain tower design so standard components can be put in there more easily.
We say: **** that, no user serviceable anything! Everyone should throw their computer away after 4 years to buy a new one and if they need any additional hardware, which they will, yes, they should connect everything via thunderbolt. What, there are only a handful thunderbolt devices and almost all sold at outrageous prices?
Hey whatever!! No boundaries! Nothing user serviceable is the new creativity and innovation! We can't innovate anymore my ass!

Why do people always say this garbage? Is it supposed to further your point? Like any sane person would throw away a working computer rather than sell it to upgrade..

 

[rGiskard]

Not trying to be cynical, but besides form factor, what's revolutionary about this Mac "Pro"? They've done it before with iCube, the iMac on the stick (with a dome base, in face of predominantly square computers back then and even today). But otherwise, what's revolutionary here, I just don't see it?

With quicksilver PowerMac G4 - it was revolutionary, because unlike PC (and I've always build my own PCs), it could be opened in one motion with all expansion slots very easily accessible. To a bit lesser degree same was with Mac Pro G5. But G5 had innovation that on top of easily expandability, it had smart cooling and almost no visible internal wires.

What's innovative about new Mac Pro? They designed cylindrical from factor with a turbine inspired cooling, venting through the top... OK. Custom design proprietary motherboard to fit into small space (ala dome base iMac) - OK. But that's nice for a light consumer computer, where looks are super important. Heck for Apple pro-user, looks are really important. But what does it bring to the usability that pro users need? How does it improve my workflow when I cannot add graphics card, expansion cards, more hard drives - while retaining the elegant minimalistic looks?

It seems to me Apple thinks Mac pro users really don't need pro features, they THINK they need. Time will tell. But given that, there is no technological barriers this thing broke. Anyone with enough budget can design custom electronics to fit into a specific shape, especially if there is no requirement for extensive expandability.

Marketing talk, that what it is.

Looks and packaging, that's what's "innovative". Funny thing, most "pros" wanted a Mac Pro "minitower" with more PCIe power to run the latest power hungry video cards, with a few dedicated mini PCIe slots for SSDs. They wanted an evolution of the the Mac Pro Tower, the beauty of which is in the form following function.

I never talked to a single "Pro" who complained that the Mac Pro Tower was too versatile or offered too much expansion. Nobody I know ever whined about being able the upgrade video cards. For sure, nobody said, "I wish Apple would blow away some barriers and put only ONE drive bay in the new Mac Pro!"

'The Computer We Were Insane to Build'

Well said, Apple. $3K for a quad core Xeon workstation? No internal expansion at all? Not even the ability to add a second SSD blade when the stock config is 256GB? Yeah, that's pretty insane.

Once the Apple fanbois are sated, this will go the way of the PMG4 Cube. It has the same feel to it, the same confined, locked-in design, and the absurd pricing. Those dual GPUs are great if you need a 4K video editing workstation for a production environment in a studio flush with cash. That's a pretty tiny niche for one of Apple's three desktop computer lines.

But then, these are the same hardware geniuses who think it's innovative to build a thin desktop computer that requires months of technical training to replace the HDD, lol.

 

[ssgbryan]

OK, I take the challenge. There is a device similar to new Mac Pro, and it's costs $2,999 (down from original $3,999).
Image

It is a somewhat powerful pro computer in a tiny package that can't be done by any company other than Apple.

Except no one bought it.

Back in 2001 however, Apple pro customers had a choice to buy a real PowerMac. This time around new MacPro could be more successful simply because there is no other choice in the Mac world.

Then again, that's why PowerMag G5 was my last desktop Mac.

I am surprised so many people haven't made the connection, but then again, looking at join dates, a lot of these folks weren't around for the cube.

For the cost of a base 6 core and all of the external adapters, docks, and enclosures (8.5 Tb internal storage, 10.5 Tb external) I'll need, I can purchase a 16 core Dell workstation. And since none of my software (3d Art) uses OpenCL GPU assisted rendering, I know which one would be a better deal for me.

 

[MH01]

You do realize there's more than a CPU in it right ?

One CPU and 2xGPU

To be honest that's not special, shuttle have been doing that for many many years.

 

[Cormac]

It maybe a really nice looking computer and have lots of "goodies" inside, but I don't think I will upgrade to it unless I have to buy a new Mac Pro. I really like my "old" Mac Pro (1,1) cheesegrater model.

 

[MH01]

I am surprised so many people haven't made the connection, but then again, looking at join dates, a lot of these folks weren't around for the cube.

For the cost of a base 6 core and all of the external adapters, docks, and enclosures (8.5 Tb internal storage, 10.5 Tb external) I'll need, I can purchase a 16 core Dell workstation. And since none of my software (3d Art) uses OpenCL GPU assisted rendering, I know which one would be a better deal for me.

The new Mac Pro is like a fashion accessory. Though let's be honest most people buying it will not even understand the components that are used inside it. Surly the actual pro users would have abandoned apple years ago or when the pro new pro was announced. Apple is effectively trying to ask it's remaining pro uses to give up true desktop dual CPU workstations for a ultra sexy shuttle . Having owned plenty of workstations and a few shuttles, the only good thing about the shuttle was the looks, for real work, nothing beats the form factor of a desktop.

 

[H2SO4]

But that's the thing, it's not really a cost savings... and the video is much less capable even with this decked out system. If the graphics card weren't a mobile one...

Real question is, will the drivers in the new MacPro be written in a way where a Photoshop/Lightroom/gamer will be able to make use full use of them?

I didn't realise how good a value the iMac was, (relatively speaking of course - you get a screen too).

 

[MH01]

It maybe a really nice looking computer and have lots of "goodies" inside, but I don't think I will upgrade to it unless I have to buy a new Mac Pro. I really like my "old" Mac Pro (1,1) cheesegrater model.

Ditto.

If I needed a Mac Pro right now, I would get the cheese grater case, and build a hackintosh.

 

[MacVidCards]

Are there any other options for PCIe over a wire besides Thunderbolt?

You can always hold your nose and attach an enclosure and your Intel lock-in is limited to a single cable.

Also, Thunderbolt does nothing to stifle a technology that Apple is boosting. In fact, it enables the direction they want to take their PCs. CUDA, on the other hand, is stepping on the throat of one of their core technologies.

Pity their goal isn't making fast computers with best tech available.

 

[H2SO4]

It maybe a really nice looking computer and have lots of "goodies" inside, but I don't think I will upgrade to it unless I have to buy a new Mac Pro. I really like my "old" Mac Pro (1,1) cheesegrater model.

Same as. It's running ML too and works great. Must admit I'm torn tho and will likely give in and buy version 2. After that the only capability I want, is to be able to control it natively with an iPad. (No not with a third party solution).
Every time I think about buyng one I suddenly remember I need to add the cost of peripherals to replace my BlackMagic capture card, 6 hard disk drives and two optical drives.

 

[demars]

Then again, Open CL came in 2009 and it's been 4 years and it hasn't really gained traction yet. Adobe seems to have in their plans for the near future to include more Open CL support but we'll see.

Isn't Adobe already providing substantial OpenCL support?

http://blogs.adobe.com/premierepro/2013/05/improved-gpu-support-in-adobe-premiere-pro-cc.html

 

[Bibbler]

3000 for a quad core. I'm trying hard to keep a straight face.

But it's sexy, magical, and elegant! When you put junk into one of "Jony's" gorgeous cases, there is a percentage of Mac "Fanatic Community" who will pay an outrageous price just to have one. This is all Apple needs....

I'll stick with my iMac, Mini, and for heavy lifting, my Hackintoish ... It may not look like "Jony's" sexy garbage can, but it's got all the power I need for thousands less.....

Still waiting for the xMac!

 

[Sylvan]

I'd really like one. I think it looks awesome. Unfortunately I can't possibly justify the expense. I already have a 2011 iMac that is more than enough for my needs, such as web surfing, light gaming, light video editing, light "pro" use (iOS development). Plus I'm married now. If I was single I wouldn't have to try to justify the purchase

 

[occamsrazor]

Funny thing, most "pros" wanted a Mac Pro "minitower"............ For sure, nobody said, "I wish Apple would blow away some barriers and put only ONE drive bay in the new Mac Pro!"

+1... what he said. I was hoping for a mid-range mini-tower with two internal 3.5" drive slots (hot-swap even better) and internal 2.5" SSD drive slot.

 

[Justin L Franks]

I have no need for nor interest in ever buying a 'Pro' desktop computer, but I always thought the Mac Pro was needing one thing mainly, and that was a redesign. It looked too much like all of the other god awful run of the mill regular rectangular big hunks of plastic/metal which defined desktop computers really. I had absolutely no interest in this machine, if or when they made a new one, but I just hoped they would redesign it, and that's what they did, and I think it looks amazing.

It is so much smaller and more futuristic looking than anything else like it. I love people comparing it to a trash can because what makes art special is that not everyone can understand or appreciate it, and people see different things... what they might want to see or not want to see. What you should ask yourself is what you see in a normal desktop, because it is pretty much a plastic box, there is no design achievement at all, it is a lack of care.

Spiffy design or the computer itself being a "piece of art" means nothing to most of the people in the market for a Mac Pro. It's supposed to be a workhorse that is easily upgraded/expanded.

Apple could have redesigned the looks of the new Mac Pro to be much more interesting than the silver boxes of the previous iteration, while still retaining great expandability and upgradability. But they chose to essentially make a superpowered Mac Mini.

Whether or not this is a major mistake on Apple's part is something we won't know for a while, but they tried a similar idea in the past which completely flopped.

I expect that third-party manufacturers will introduce a medium-sized Mac Pro "expandability box" with space for multiple drives. If there is a way to use a device like this to add standard video cards (and if having them external over Thunderbolt is just as fast as internal GPU's), then I think the new Mac Pro will do just fine. People who are content with the system as they bought it will just use the cylinder, and people who want to upgrade will still be able to do so.

 

[dannys1]

Besides looking cool, small and sexy, what is better performance wise about this over the same components in a case of conventional design?

The silence?

 

[Shivetya]

You do realize there's more than a CPU in it right ?

64G Maximum ram, hard fail.

----------

The silence?

Matches your Dyson fan?