Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It seems that Apple is going for cost-effective, rather than user-effective! Not everyone has the same needs for their box, yet Apple post-Steve doesn't seem to care, as long as they make money.

Thus, it doesn't surprise me that our organization is moving away from Apple products. Why spend the money on a handicapped product?
Very sad, but true!
"Still, there are two SSD storage slots for graphics, media, and networking cards."

What is this supposed to mean? The current Mac Pro has 2 SSD slots, for Apple SSDs only.
Very good question!

If there are slots for GPU or other cards, then what is being described here? From the report, it sounds like only for SSD since that is what he is saying. But if it has PCIe slots that can be used for upgradeable GPU's, network, sound cards or more SSD, then that is okay.

Very confusing!
How do you know it's handicapped and overpriced?

I mean it might well be handicapped and overpriced, but at least it won't have cooling issues.

From what is being described, the only thing that can be upgraded is the SSD. You can't use a custom GPU. You can't upgrade the RAM. You can only one additional SSD.

That is basically the Trashcan, but at least on that you could upgrade the RAM. So it's actually worse then the Trashcan.

However, look above there might be hope at the end of the tunnel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan
Folks, history repeats itself. Don'tcha know that Apple will release the Pro and sell us external ram packages later just like the home micros of yore.

ZX81.jpg
 
From what I understand, all M-Chips have an integrated RAM ceiling.

So from what I'm hearing people here want in a Mac Pro, Apple would have to design a new chip with user-customisable RAM amounts?
Yes but for the price of the Mac Pro, it seems like such a design would be built into the huge price they would be charging for it.

On another note, it's funny all of the disappointment at using the same enclosure, as that suggests the machine will be more capable than if they redesigned it smaller. Unless they fill all of the extra space with hot glue or something, you'd be getting the slots and other expandibility from the current model (except RAM if gurman is correct). If they gave it a small form factor, people would be complaining that Apple didn't just use the old case and keep the expansion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlphaCentauri
You guys are being unreasonable, what do you want apple to do here exactly, the apple silicon design is soc, do you want apple to hack this just so you can upgrade memory later.

apple and m chip has brought the high end processing order of magnitude better vs what intel has, both in term of $ per processing or watt usage. With studio having m ultra it should satisfy majority of mac pro users at a much smaller footprint and $, it IS the old mac pro replacement but way better.

The new mac pro will be a very niche product only for people who truly need the expansions or ability to swap drives. I am sure they will give the mac pro more memory and storage options to differentiate from mac studio. So stop complaining, or do you rather we be stuck with the new intel egg frying cpus so you can have the option to upgrade your precious memory later, which most of you will never do anyway.
Traditionally, the Mac Pro is made as a pro level device that is user upgradeable. Sometimes you are able to update the processor, but always the RAM, GPU, SSD/HD, network cards and sounds cards. They are devices that are expensive - like other workstations - but they can last the user a very long time!

What they are describing (and they may be describing it badly) is we can only upgrade the hard drive or add additional hard drives. That will not satisfy the Mac Pro market. Especially if they can't add additional sound cards. A lot of sound engineers use their Mac Pro with some additional hardware so they can make music. They need those cards.

But I think the report is badly worded because it does mention some "SSD slots where you can put hard drives, GPU's and other devices." So clearly they are talking about PCIe slots.

But the RAM does need to be ECC. Another feature usually meant for Pro Machines.
 
Looks like Apple is hoping to wow the world with their AR headset in 2023 and as it seems it's gonna be a rather boring year for their traditional line up
 
They should stay out of the Pro space, offer the machines at specific targets like photo, video, music. With a bit of 3D modelling on the side, which could be served by the Studio, leave the rest of the Pro space to PC’s.
I think Apple left the Pro space a long ago...2013 to be precise.
Look at their current desktop line up..
An iMac...an unexpandable Mac with a built in display and no ethernet (unless you pay extra).
A Mac Mini...an unexpandable Mac that starts from £699 with just 256GB storage and 8GB RAM as standard, two USB ports, two Thunderbolt ports and Ethernet.
A Mac Studio...an unexpandable Mac which uses proprietary storage to keep it unexpandable. It starts from £2000 (almost three times the cost of a Mini) and for that you get a slightly quicker processor and GPU, a (still poultry) 512GB storage, a much more healthy 32GB RAM, a further two USB C sockets and two more Thunderbolt ports over the Mini plus an SD Card reader.
A Mac Pro - an expandable tower design that arrived 7 years late and at almost three times the cost of Apple's prior tower, making it an unattainable product to many previous Apple tower users who they simply abandoned.
The form factor of the Mini and the Studio is effectively the same and this design had already been rejected by users in the past, but Apple still persist on making you use it. And you know what...it's slowly working.
They've used software to effectively lock you out unless you upgrade your hardware too, so your options are to stay with your existing old Mac setup in perpetuity or to 'compromise' and make do with an alternative that you don't really wish to use.
I hold websites like Mac Rumors and other Apple related websites partly responsible for this.
They have a voice and a standing that many do not and they NEVER...ever...ever hold Apple to account.
They are obsequious and never critical of Apple...ever.
Had they have been, perhaps the choice of Apple products we have today may have been different.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, PC owners were out buying “How To Install An Ethernet Card and Install its Drivers For Dummies” books.
I used to do a lot of upgrades, and the one that got me:

Everything had pretty much gone Plug and Play. I was trying to install some hardware and didn't understand why it wouldn't work. Turned out it was some rare thing that still wasn't Plug and Play
 
Had they made a noise, maybe the choices we have today would have been different.
Oh yeah, different to be sure! AND, the day a CEO says,”Yes, this last year didn’t do anything for our bottom line and we did just go through our third round of layoffs due to revenue shortfalls, but we were able to do some of the things MacRumors folks wanted!” is the day a CEO loses their job. :)
 
The current Mac Pro case still looks great, is very well laid-out inside, easy to work in, has lots of expansion etc, so this kind of makes sense doesn't it? Why would they change it for the sake of it?
Possibly to jump to PCIe 5.0?

MPX is really ye olde PCIe 3.0 + a bunch of proprietary internal Thunderbolt lanes and additional socketed power connectors, to avoid the clunky cabling you get with PC motherboards - having to plug additional power cables into GPUs and then externally plugging the GPU's displayport output into an input on the same motherboard to then output over Thunderbolt, etc.

In theory PCIe 5.0's speed will obviate the need for an internal Thunderbolt bus, depending on how it's implemented, There's also a new draft PCIe 5.0 power connector that can provide up to 600w for very power-hungry GPUs. It'd be nice if PC, power supply and GPU makers would copy Apple in creating a more cable-free power bus solution, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ascender
Looks like Apple is hoping to wow the world with their AR headset in 2023 and as it seems it's gonna be a rather boring year for their traditional line up
Rumors like this are the same as the Apple Car, something related to the technology but not necessarily a product that everyone expects. Given the changes with the AS platform this speculation about Mac Pro has us scratching our heads to what it might consist of also.
 
Oh yeah, different to be sure! AND, the day a CEO says,”Yes, this last year didn’t do anything for our bottom line and we did just go through our third round of layoffs due to revenue shortfalls, but we were able to do some of the things MacRumors folks wanted!” is the day a CEO loses their job. :)
It's not an either or choice though is it?
The two are mutually achievable.
You can make a profit, keep all your staff and still produce products that are in line with the model they replaced.
 
I'm going to say no. How does this impact the pro-worthiness of a Mac Pro?
A lot of customer's who spend the extra money on a Mac Pro, need ECC RAM for what they do. That is why in Windows workstations a lot of them will come configured with ECC RAM. It's not something a graphic or video designer would need, which is why the Mac Studio was perfect for those customers.

But not every Mac Pro customer is a designer and some of those do need ECC RAM. It is niche, but this is a niche product. So kind of important to be able to do that. I think even the Trashcan can even have ECC RAM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan
It's not an either or choice though is it?
The two are mutually achievable.
You can make a profit, keep all your staff and still produce products that are in line with the model they replaced.
Well, I’m still waiting on the product that’s in line with the Apple II and the iPod. AND the LaserWriter. They all are due for replacement.
 
As a Mac salesman at the time, I loved this transition. Margins on iMacs were super low, but adapters always had very high margins. USB to ADP, USB to Parallel and USB floppy drives were a hot commodity for quite a few years after the iMac came out. Man were Apple users grumpy, though.

Exactly right. Apple users were grumpy.

The hallmark being Apple’s willingness to take courageous risks — dangerous risks like the risk of turning customers off Apple forever had the iMac been rejected by the marketplace. And Apple quite literally going out of business if consumers panned the iMac as much as tech journalists did. (Many tech journalists PROMISED at the time that the iMac would flop. As did the “braintrust” at CNBC.)

Yet, four months after its release, the iMac was the #1 selling personal computer in the U.S. (and it only took that long because Apple UNDERestimated demand and had to ramp up production). This was much to the consternation of all those tech journalists.

Intel’s CEO would later credit Apple with finally and single-handedly making USB an accepted industry standard — a standard Intel had long pressed PC makers to adopt, but had no takers. (PC makers are so craven and risk averse and lack anything resembling “daring.”)

(Apple is responsible for making 802.11[…] an industry standard too.)

What does that make Apple then? Microsoft had Windows 2000 out and compatible with most home PC software while Mac OS X was still in beta. When Windows XP came out, very few PC users had to worry about whether their software would run properly on it - almost everything did on day 1. The conversion to Mac OS X, on the other hand, was quite long and painful, and some very key software took years to make the transition (while some never did).


Yes, those were trying times. Step 1) Plug the card in the slot. Step 2) Insert the CD into the drive. This, of course, ignoring the fact that many broadband providers at the time were already providing PC users ethernet cards and free installation services as part of their standard installation packages anyhow. So the real steps were "Step 1 - call the Cable company and say you want to sign up for broadband."

1.) The conversion to Mac OS X was a heavier lift. Apple was transitioning to a completely different OS architecture with Unix as its base. The software technological differences were so radically different from OS 9 that the transition was tough and painful — but worth it. A necessary evil. I shudder to think what would’ve happened had Apple gone with simply grafting “Modern OS features” onto OS 9. :eek: I’m not sure we’d even be talking about a company named Apple at this moment.

Microsoft’s OS transitions were nothing compared to Apple’s transition to OS X and were more comparable to Apple’s transition to System 7. Microsoft was not replacing DOS with Unix. (And, btw, to this day, DOS is still apparent in Windows and “winks” at you from time to time. The “C: drive” is still in your face.)

2.) I think you’re missing the point — and softballing the process PC owners endured. (Including extra cost$.)

Broadband providers didn’t need to so much as give Ethernet cards and driver install CDs to Mac owners. No modifications to Ethernet-integrated Macs were required.

I remember at the time, friends with PCs calling me, frazzled about what to do. And I remember helping them buy an Ethernet card. Then they insisted I come over and open up their machines to install it and then the drivers. (Carefully wearing a grounded static protection wrist band for the card install.) It was a PITA.

You might be thinking, “Big deal,” but not everyone is/was a geek like me (or you if the term applies) at the time.

You’re really bending over backwards to force the idea that there was zero difference between connecting to Broadband Internet on a PC vs. a Mac. Not every computer owner is a geek.

So the point remains, at the time of Broadband’s rollout, most reasonably recent Macs came with Ethernet ports already integrated and no messy driver installations required. And that was A Good Thing™.

THE END
 
Thank you for your reply! I’m not gonna pretend to understand most of it.

It would be amazing if you could specify to any application which ram to use. Use case: I’m a composer and I max my ram full of sample libraries. Some libraries might not benefit from faster ram due to being used less frequently. Would be great to tell the sample engine (Kontakt) which RAM to load a patch into.

Yes, this is one of the use cases where having lots of RAM helps - when you have massive orchestral libraries that have dozens of articulations. For instance, running very large Vienna Symphonic Library sets can easily run up to 64GB+, and the common practice is to run VSL on a host app on separate computer, and pipe the audio back to your DAW over Ethernet. The current Mac Pro makes it very easy to do that on one machine, so it'd be nice if the future Pro M-chip had at least enough RAM in the SoC to cover that use case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: compwiz1202
The hallmark being Apple’s willing to take dangerous risks — dangerous risks like the risk of turning customers off Apple forever had the iMac been rejected by the marketplace. And Apple quite literally going out of business if consumers panned the iMac as much as tech journalists did. (Many tech journalists PROMISED at the time that the iMac would flop. As did the “braintrust” at CNBC.)
Apple has a knack for ensuring that they’re always focused on what’s coming… to the detriment of what’s behind. However, if Apple loses 20 million customers and gains a new 20 million customers, it’s still a win even though there may be 20 million pissed off customers. :)
 
Well, I’m still waiting on the product that’s in line with the Apple II and the iPod. AND the LaserWriter. They all are due for replacement.
lol
You've had them already.
The Macintosh II was effectively an early Mac tower. It's just that the case was designed horizontally to sit on a desk rather than vertically to sit on the floor and it offered nubus instead of PCIe for expansion slots.
The iPod touch and then ultimately the smartphone which is ubiquitous means everyone already has an iPod in their pocket!
 
  • Like
Reactions: R2DHue
This also means GPU will get obsolete faster than CPU and there is nothing you can do about it. Shared memory is also a two edged sword. Great for performance gains but it will turn into a bottleneck in heavy compositions where apps require RAM and GPU memory at the same time unless you have speced your computer with enough RAM to be future proof on the day you ordered it. And that costs a lot of money out of the gate. And then once your total amount of RAM finally kicks sometime n the future your GPU gets obsolete.
That was what killed the trashcan.

You couldn't replace defective GPUs (the 700s were easily cooked), because the video ROM was on the motherboard.
 
I remember when you used to be able to own the bits of the software you purchased.

Now, you can only rent it, and, like with an apartment, you can get “evicted” if you stop paying the rent. Adobe can tell through invisible digital “tells” it embeds in things created with their suite by someone who has stopped paying rent! Adobe will send these “digital squatters” a legal letter essentially telling them to stop using the bits on their hard drives or be sued criminally for piracy!
Every piece of software on my Mac has a perpetual license....;)
I refuse to rent software.
 
Not GPU’s but everything else, sure.
This is exactly what the report says, from Bloomberg.com.

" Still, there are two SSD storage slots and for graphics, media and networking cards."

Originally I read that we can only swap out or add additional SSD's, but as someone pointed out, they must be talking about PCIe slots. And since they are specifically mentioned graphics, media and networking cards, and discussing this report, that is what I am going by.
 
I have an honest question:

Is there a scenario where Apple could just allow multiple M2 Ultra chips? I mean...when I buy ungodly expensive IBM iSeries machines (or even Windows servers, for that matter), they just charge me another $10k for a second processor (I'm dating myself a little here, it might be much more today).

And I know that the second processor doesn't make the server twice as fast as a single...but it helps a lot in various types of loads.

Why can't Apple just create multiple connections...I think they might call them sockets....again, this isn't my area.

They wouldn't be 'integrated', but they would be faster and cheaper than running multiple Mac Pros for heavy loads. And it would be very scalable (the only extra development would be the sockets).

A report earlier stated that was what they were trying to do and because of the cost decided not to.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.