Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve and Apple have Mac users figured out.

They excel in creating hype, and use panic to their advantage.

I think they learned this from the Segway guy. There was this new thing, it's going to change the world, etc. It turned out to be a stupid electric rolling platform that only lame mall-cops use, as far as I can tell.

Steve has done the same thing. He hypes up new products that will "change the world as we know it," and it is always just some cute junk that people have convinced themselves they HAVE to have NOW. It's no different with the "pro" line.

By keeping silent about the newest pro machine, an environment creates itself in which people speculate. We've been trained into a Pavlovian response in which we demand being constantly fed new products. Enter the iPad, and see the feeding frenzy it created. There is only so far that stupid thing can go before the lipstick wears off, but it will hold us over long enough for a new tower to be polished up.

In the meantime, old Macs keep getting older, and the pool of users that feel their machines need updating grows larger. Once it reaches the breaking point... BOOM! Steve hypes up the NEW MAC PRO that kicks the ass of the Sun God Ra himself, and we will tear out the eyes of children to get it after waiting so long.

See, Apple is waiting. This tech wave with i7 and beyond-quad-core was one of the smaller waves, and they're waiting for the bigger waves behind it to come, so they can finish bigger with more style.

In my opinion, there is evidence of this in the cycle / waves of Android vs. iPhones. The 3G and 3GS were on top, then they let the android market swoop in behind them, but on a smaller wave at first. Android started to pick up and fill out, getting cooler, more hip, more widespread... and Apple throws out the iPad-iPhone 4 one-two punch. It's all just a little bit better than Android - - better screen resolution, front and rear cameras, multi-tasking (finally) and powerful enough to edit HD video on. (Edit video on a stupid phone, really? That's another rant for another time.) Now they're on top again in the mobile market, and it will take that much more effort for their competitors to out-surf them in the next heat.

Apple will build a new Mac Pro, and it will be scrumtrulescent. The pros will suck from the teats of it, savoring the nectar it gives with crack-like addiction, and have no problem justifying the increased cost, because it's the top of the big wave again.

I jumped on this train right as the 3.33GHz model came out, and I'm happy. I think it will last long enough to allow me to skip one wave (Mac Pro 5,1) and jump on the following Mac Pro 6,1 wave. I don't believe pros will be editing feature films on phones in five, ten or even twenty years, but things will change for sure.

Why sweat it? Go with the flow, mang.

:D
 
This isn't 1998.

I don't know why so many of you guys here share that flawed mentality that Windows = unreliable. If anything, today Windows is more reliable than OS X, relative to their market share.

exactly.

i read all the time that Mac users so do not want to move to windows because it crashes, freezes...explodes what not. Seriously ive been working with windows7 & Mac OS and to be honest, windows 7 is just as stable as Mac OS, i had it freeze on me but so did my Mac OS. Some things are better in Windows7 , some things are better in Mac OS. i even saw a windows 7 os that was so customized it looked even more sweet than Snow leopard...:D
 
exactly.

i read all the time that Mac users so do not want to move to windows because it crashes, freezes...explodes what not. Seriously ive been working with windows7 & Mac OS and to be honest, windows 7 is just as stable as Mac OS, i had it freeze on me but so did my Mac OS. Some things are better in Windows7 , some things are better in Mac OS. i even saw a windows 7 os that was so customized it looked even more sweet than Snow leopard...:D

I also agree because I own both operating systems so it allows me to see both sides. On average, Snow Leopard on my MB crashes with about the same frequency as my Windows 7 workstation. I scan both systems regularly with my free anti-virus software and I've never had anything reported. I never do maintenance on either machine besides virus scanning when I go to bed and they're both running great. I built my win7 machine myself which I think is the best route. But if someone wasn't comfortable with doing so and decided to go the Dell or HP route, I would suggest a reinstall of the OS when you get the machine just to clean off all bloatware they install.
 

exactly.

i read all the time that Mac users so do not want to move to windows because it crashes, freezes...explodes what not. Seriously ive been working with windows7 & Mac OS and to be honest, windows 7 is just as stable as Mac OS, i had it freeze on me but so did my Mac OS. Some things are better in Windows7 , some things are better in Mac OS. i even saw a windows 7 os that was so customized it looked even more sweet than Snow leopard...:D

Windows 7? Stable? Sure.

But that's why I also referenced the year 2007. Don't forget the lovely Vista.
 
...decided to go the Dell or HP route, I would suggest a reinstall of the OS when you get the machine just to clean off all bloatware they install.
The enterprise/business systems tend to be devoid of the additional crap that comes on the consumer systems, which is what you get if buying a Dell Precision T3500 or T5500 system for example.

Windows 7? Stable? Sure.

But that's why I also referenced the year 2007. Don't forget the lovely Vista.
Vista was a mess when they first released it. SP1 improved matters significantly, and SP2 is now out. That said, Windows 7 is still better IMO for stability.

Though the worst thing is actually Internet Explorer 8. Fortunately, there are other browsers out there. ;)
 
That's what they got in 8 days before officially starting up iAds.
Imagine how much they will be getting really.

8 weeks. They announced iPhone OS 4 (and iAds) weeks ago... not days ago. And they were pitching to folks before the announcement. Also, unless they shot the previous customers the ad company they bought had in the head, they had a customer list to start with.


The second factor is that there is a fixed amount of money for ads. Some companies may slightly boost they ad budget but for the most part for this year the ad budgets are fixed. They might canablilize their TV/print budgets a bit, but not going to be a huge shift at first.

Jobs quoted that an estimate for the whole mobile market ad market was around $250M for 2010 ( $125M for second half) . That's probably a bit low if can get ads up on iPads and expanding Android market. However, $250M is about 84K Mac Pros units at $3,000. Even if took over the whole $125M is about 42K Mac Pros units sold in 6 months. If the run rate on Mac Pros is in the sub 100K units/yr range it has problems. Big problems.
 
If the run rate on Mac Pros is in the sub 100K units/yr range it has problems. Big problems.
Absolutely, and as the specific models aren't broken down from the computer sales figures, some are seriously wondering if that's actually happened.

The current pricing has reinforced the concern that the quantity is in fact low. No proof of anything, but a fair number of members are growing concerned over this issue, particularly given those with extensive software investments in OS X applications.

It's rather easy for software to out-cost the system, and switching may not be viable if such a move is unplanned (due to a lack of funds, as they were never set aside). This could be an absolute disaster if there's no alternatives (existing system no longer viable to "buy time" in order to fund the switch, virtualization not possible or viable, cluster isn't an option,...).
 
very constructive.... /slap


If the current Mac Pro meeds your needs and you have a software investment then I see no issue. This whole must get updated systems or die attitude is pointless.

If you need a stable high end workstation and the MP sits within your requirements and budget then its a good choice. A comparable HP or Dell dual Xeon workstation class machine is about the same cost (please lets not get into the 'I can build it cheaper with i7 and gamer's parts argument').

I don't get some peoples attitudes about the 'outdated' MP. it does the job or it doesn't: its that simple for most people who earn from their systems. if it does then get one, if not then with wait or consider the options (switching etc).

I do not earn my main income from my systems so I am happy to wait and see, but when my budget allows I shall buy a Mac Pro (current or updated whatever is about at the time). Yes I would get a refurb if there is no update (to save serious pennies - PC World business often have current quads for about £1300).

at the end of the day your needs, budget and way of working will help you determine the answer.

it's hard for anyone's budget to justify purchasing a computer that is using hardware over a year old that costs just as much as the day it was released. The PC market has already moved to higher end hardware, there is little justification besides OSX to stay with the mac pro line at this point. OSX is a good excuse for a while, but when you're about to drop $3000, you want some current-gen hardware to justify the price.
 
I agree with most of what has been said here, not all of it...

Look at what software you use, whether you can afford to wait, or whether you can afford to lose a bit of value when the next Mac Pro is released...

The current Mac Pro is still a pretty powerful piece of kit. Perhaps there are other machines out there that are more powerful and cheaper, but it's still the design of the thing that gets me every time. The reason the design hasn't been refreshed is there isn't really much more you can do with it. Everything inside is so accessible and easy to access. I'm still running a Mac Pro 1,1 I've upgraded hard disks over time, and added some RAM, but the thing still runs Large Logic Studio projects without much fuss.

Yes, I guess it would be nice to have the latest and greatest, but until I start running in to problems with Logic I don't see the need to upgrade.

Buy refurbished from Apple too... I've always bought refurbished, you can often get a great deal and they've always been rock solid in terms of reliability.
 
That just seems like a temper tantrum made by an apple blogger.

Just because Steve didnt talk about the Mac in WWDC doesnt mean anything. When the time to upgrade comes it'll come. Jeez.

Especially when they have made it completely clear that the focus for this year is the iOS stuff. So the focus next year may well be the Mac. Just because the topic of conversation is on one doesn't mean the other is going to be thrown away. It's like saying that because everyone is talking about soccer two days before the World Cup that baseball is going to be cancelled next season.
 
8 weeks. They announced iPhone OS 4 (and iAds) weeks ago... not days ago. And they were pitching to folks before the announcement. Also, unless they shot the previous customers the ad company they bought had in the head, they had a customer list to start with.


The second factor is that there is a fixed amount of money for ads. Some companies may slightly boost they ad budget but for the most part for this year the ad budgets are fixed. They might canablilize their TV/print budgets a bit, but not going to be a huge shift at first.

Jobs quoted that an estimate for the whole mobile market ad market was around $250M for 2010 ( $125M for second half) . That's probably a bit low if can get ads up on iPads and expanding Android market. However, $250M is about 84K Mac Pros units at $3,000. Even if took over the whole $125M is about 42K Mac Pros units sold in 6 months. If the run rate on Mac Pros is in the sub 100K units/yr range it has problems. Big problems.

yeah, but you can't just think about it from a pure profit perspective. Not offering a pro desktop means pros won't want to invest in mac software and macs in general. How many pros do you know that don't own multiple macs? Pros in general are a niche market, but not offering pro-level products cheapens the brand for sure. It's as if saying, we can't compete with everyone else at the pro level, we just have cheap consumer grade stuff for sale.
 
I seem to remember that Mac Pros have been priced very competitively when they are fresh in their product cycle. Like when the current Mac Pro dual processor model was new, you could go on pricewatch.com (popular computer component shopping aggregator) and the whole Mac Pro cost about as much as the two Xeon processors alone.

I mean its typical of Macs to be better bargains when they are fresh in their product cycle (and the current Mac is very old) and its typical of Macs that Apple adjusts the timing of refreshes to take advantage of new hardware options that make significant improvements in either performance or cost.

So yeah, according to the Macrumors buyer's guide the current Mac Pro is 464 days old. Obviously you wouldn't want to buy the same computer for the same price today as you could have 464 days ago. Rumors seem to indicate an imminent refresh with brand new 6 core chips, and if history is any indication, the Mac Pro will be a relatively fine deal.
 
yeah, but you can't just think about it from a pure profit perspective.

Apple can't ? While profit doesn't have to be single sole measure, it is extremely important; it is a necessary factor. If not profitable then it is over. It doesn't matter what the other considerations are if that one is not present.


Not offering a pro desktop means pros won't want to invest in mac software and macs in general.

If it doesn't generate a profit for the company that is too bad. If pros are not buying the Mac Pros in sufficient volume they aren't really investing in macs in general either. Has to be a two sided commitment.

Apple is a large company. That just comes with overhead. If not enough volume then either prices have to spike or they drop the product. All indications are that Apple is trying to hold the prices constant so that can continue to offer the product.

Likewise software vendors will shift to folks who pay. The system price ( software and hardware) will get more expensive as the volume goes down. A classic example is the IBM 360 line. Originally was suppose to be a line that spanned the small, medium, and large computers. Over time it morphed into only the large/expensive computers. IBM still makes tons of money off it because the folks left are so hooked to the systems (and can still make money for the customers even at sky high prices). At this point is in a slow cash cow extraction process. The high expense leads to growth stagnating which over time leads to higher prices. Negative feedback cycle.


The Mac OS X software that only runs on Pros is a niche of a niche. That is not something to form the justification basis for a product line.



, but not offering pro-level products cheapens the brand for sure.

Offering non quality products cheapens the brand. If Apple drops the Mac Pro and keeps as high (or higher) quality on the rest of all of products that does absolutely nothing to cheapen the brand.

Are Mac Pros boxes crap because Apple dropped the XRaid boxes? Absolutely not. They are two different products.

You seem to be laboring under the game that many PC (and some car) vendors play. They are "quality" vendor because offer some high end quality line so never mind that hacked up quality line of products they ship at lower prices. The spin is that the lower end line is "better brand" because of the higher end stuff.


It's as if saying, we can't compete with everyone else at the pro level, we just have cheap consumer grade stuff for sale.

The consumer stuff is not "cheap" in low quality. It is "cheap" as in more affordable. All of Apples stuff is over average selling price ( and quality) for the given product category. Just because remove some items and deliver at a lower price doesn't make it "cheap"/low quality.

Apple already doesn't compete in the bigger than 1U server category. Nor in the the $100K computer market. As much of folks posture that the "workstation" market is "pro" the high end server market is even more pro.
If Apple shipped a $80K 5U server that would not necessarily "boost" its brand higher.

Superior execution and delivering consistent high value proposition builds brand. It is not one product line versus another.
 
I seem to remember that Mac Pros have been priced very competitively when they are fresh in their product cycle. Like when the current Mac Pro dual processor model was new, you could go on pricewatch.com (popular computer component shopping aggregator) and the whole Mac Pro cost about as much as the two Xeon processors alone.

Your memory is off. Apple doesn't sell new products below the cost of the bill of materials. You may be comparing a Mac Pro system with a lower end Xeon to the price of two of the "got more money than sense", highest bleeding edge Xeons. That is comparing "apples to oranges". There is little to deduce from that exercise.

Furthermore, Intel's typical pricing is worse (consumer perspective) at the start of the cycle than toward the end. That the stereotypical thinking that is driving some to whine about not getting cost cuts at the tail end of the cycle. That is despite Intel not really following that process on Xeons for last few cycles.

For example, Intel dropped the highest end 6 core processors on the desktop market. Max speed and max core at $999 levels. $999 spent and don't even have a box to put the CPU in. Intel extracts max profits from those who want to be on the far extreme of their lineup. Typically, Apple doesn't go there if given a choice. Sure in the upper 50-90% of the price range on Intel CPUs. They tend to avoid the CPUs where Intel is sucking max profit margin.

Obviously you wouldn't want to buy the same computer for the same price today as you could have 464 days ago.

If it is the right time to buy you do. There are two factors at play here. How old your box is and where Apple is on the release cycle. If your box isn't that old then holding out for another couple of months may be worth it. However, you should only "kick the can" down the road only so long.

For example, follow a strategy that buy new box when 80% to 100% faster than current box then may be time to move up. Passing up doubling performance is a rather strange move. A later delivery of an even newer box will only be maybe 20% faster in optimal conditions (100% versus 120% not really a big deal). It is extremely unlikely going to be some huge price drop.

The difference between a 80% and 100% faster is rather hard differentiate in the short run. Both should have enough headroom to allow for several years of operation. If the machine generates enough revenue to pay for itself in a cycle shorter than your upgrade frequency there is not a huge problem.

Folks try to bring up corner cases where current workload overwhelms all but the most bleeding edge offering. If Mac Pros are increasing at 20% a year and your workload/machine demands are increasing at 20+% a year then you need different systems. Or perhaps at least different software to either get more work out of the systems or make farming work out to a cluster easier.
 
As much as I love apple, and not trolling but honestly the PC/Windows has already proven better than Apple these days, Apple's only good computer that they make is the macbook in my opinion, it's unmatched, but the iMac and Mac Pro is just pathetic and you could buy a better PC or if you want build your own for a much better price and in this case raw spec sheets do count in how you use your device.

Windows, which not many people always realize, has a lot of professional apps that are either direct competitors to OS X, down to the most basic software, that already surpass whatever OS X offers, for rendering, for graphics/photography, for film, for audio, for gaming, for everything!

You got Avid MC, you got Pro Tools, you got Adobe CS5, and all those rendering products, and even though these are all on OS X as well they are on Windows so you could do the same on either system, minus Apple's own pro apps that they don't update anymore...

I have a macbook and I love it to death, design and portability and functionality is top notch but I will never in my life ever get a Mac desktop, ever, and I urge you to do the same. If you got tons of money to spend, even better for Windows :) and if you ever need mac like safety and stability and things that 'just work' install Ubuntu if you ever run into any road bumps with Windows.
 
it's hard for anyone's budget to justify purchasing a computer that is using hardware over a year old that costs just as much as the day it was released.

If nothing new is introduced that is significantly better performance at a significantly different price .... then it is easy. Baring external changes why does the value proposition go down on a piece of hardware. It is just as fast as it when introduced. There is way too much emphasis being placed on "year" and all too little being placed on the supposed alternatives that either don't exist (no "next gen characteristics" option released) or are more expensive. In the first latter case there isn't anything to release and in the latter case I suspect Apple gets truckloads of email/feedback on how their systems costs too much (again not really a good option if don't want more hate mail ) .


There is also little cost containment justification to go with tweaking specs on boxes at a rapid pace from a long term , lifecycle support perspective. Why Apple ship multiple configs in a year. That just means more variations to keep track of. That increases costs.

The frenzy in the PC market is sometimes as much about trying to get some attention through some very minor variations than on delivering better value. 90 vendors can't all be on the exact same release cycle and release dates so get varying stuff. That doesn't mean any one vendor should have that same frenzy inside of its own product line. There is little evidence that is actually a best practice move. Even less so in the server/workstation market.
 
Now, since it's clear that Apple doesn't care about the Pro Market, would it be a wise decision to switch to PC. I mean, I don't want to drop over $3,000 on a machine that is 1 1/2 out of date. And I don't to put money into a product line that apple might end up being canceled by apple pretty soon.

Would it be wise to just buy a used MP from ebay or something or just forget my mac plans and get a PC workstation?

Buy a PC. Never come back to Mac again.
You have obviously been taken in far too much by all the BS about Apple 'forgetting' it's Pro customers or that the Mac Pro will be 'canceled' soon. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
It will certainly not be investing in anything Mac unless things change. Im pretty sure they wont

RIP, Mac
RIP, OSX
**** off, iTard divices
 
just a thought, could Apple be holding out because of USB 3.0?

Not USB at all it is Light Peak they are waiting on.


USB 3.0 boards have been shipping on the PC side since the beginning of the year.

Even if Apple are holding back for Light Peak that's a technology so far ahead of product lines that it could be a year or more before they add it to retail units.

That's too long to justify holding the Mac Pro line back.

Remember that Apple have developed this technology and intel have demoed it, first on a Mac Pro and recently they demoed in on a a Windows laptop.

Light Peak is due next year. But i will bet that apple have exclusive rights to be the first to the market. Preferable several months.
 
Remember that Apple have developed this technology and intel have demoed it, first on a Mac Pro and recently they demoed in on a a Windows laptop.

Light Peak is due next year. But i will bet that apple have exclusive rights to be the first to the market. Preferable several months.
There is conflicting information on the details as to Apple's involvement, but the actual development hasn't been done by Apple. It's Intel and other partners.

As per the demo units, the first one at the 2009 IDF was cobbled together using PC parts, not Apple's (I've posted on this before - look closely at the pics of the system, as it's a PC PSU, and even uses a blue LED fan on the CPU cooler).

I do beleive Apple's contributed the OS X code, as it's in their best interest to develop it now, so as to be sure they've got it ready when parts become available. That's the whole point of getting Evaluation boards (which are all that's actually available right now), as you use it to develop firmware and drivers, then perform validation testing (wash, rinse, repeat, until it's working properly).
 
Not USB at all it is Light Peak they are waiting on.

Lightpeak is not a replacement to USB 3.0 It is complementary because they each perform a difference service. USB 3.0 extends the USB protocol and Lightpeak consolidates multiprotocol traffic onto a single fiber ("wire" ).

When USB 3.0 was initially announced it had fiber. That got toasted by vendors who have common USB devices. Way too much overkill coupled with increased costs ... it did nothing but either kill margins more or potentially piss off customers who would have to pay more exactly the same performance. Sure fiber costs will go down but so does the tech associated with USB 2.0/3.0. If drop at same rate the older one is cheaper. Exactly why tons of FW400 and USB 1.1 devices still floating around now.



Apple could drop USB 3.0 now if deployed the USB/xHCI driver framework required (other OS have done this, Linux, or due real soon now, Window 7 sp1 ) and nuked FW. (just replace the USB 3.0 on the PCI connector position that the FW controller is at. That would minimize board and case adjustments needed. ) Apple would piss off folk, but have done it before ( drop floppy , drop ADB , ADC connectors , etc. )

However, if they want to maximize profits reportedly it is easier just to do only the minor tweaks to the board to enable the 5600/3600 series processors.


Light Peak is due next year.

Says which peripheral vendor? Has any major peripheral vendor even expressed high interest? Have gotten comments out of Intel, Apple, and Sony but how about significant vendors who is going to put something on the "other side" of the Lightpeak cable ?

Intel demo'ed USB 3.0 at a 2008 IDF session:
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/08/idf-intel-offers-early-peek-at-usb-3-0-performance.ars
And how many Larrabee demos did Intel do over last couple of years? It is shipping when ?

It is 2010 and Intel isn't shipping USB 3.0. That is not all that uncommon with IDF demo. The tech doesn't get deployed for years. How is Lightpeak going to shave year(s) off the normal IDF demo to product deployment timescale ?

Unless this gets onto a standards process then it is a nice demo. Don't see it getting deep traction though.
 
If Mac Pros are increasing at 20% a year and your workload/machine demands are increasing at 20+% a year then you need different systems. Or perhaps at least different software to either get more work out of the systems or make farming work out to a cluster easier.

Not sure if Apple would follow this path but this might quell lots of wailing about Mac Pros with rendering cap problems.

http://www.boxxtech.com/products/renderPRO/pro_overview.asp

Since runs a different OS, you conceptually could stack one on top of a Mac Pro. Not exactly in the "I hacked it up for $1,200 range" solution. More like $2-4K (http://www.vizworld.com/2010/05/boxx-announces-renderpro-series/) and just incrementally bumping up workstation power. ( the software costs are likely the more non trivial dollar factor). Lowering costs (verus another workstation ) doesn't seem to be much of a factor here. it is price premium for space.



[ could probably trim the hardware costs by dropping PCI slot and a few touches on drives to make them cheaper or just get rid of them completely (pull data from server). Just CPU(s), RAM and some couple different network I/O options. It would be a sort of XServe mini as opposed to a scaled up Mac mini. ]
 
There is conflicting information on the details as to Apple's involvement, but the actual development hasn't been done by Apple. It's Intel and other partners.

As per the demo units, the first one at the 2009 IDF was cobbled together using PC parts, not Apple's (I've posted on this before - look closely at the pics of the system, as it's a PC PSU, and even uses a blue LED fan on the CPU cooler).

I do beleive Apple's contributed the OS X code, as it's in their best interest to develop it now, so as to be sure they've got it ready when parts become available. That's the whole point of getting Evaluation boards (which are all that's actually available right now), as you use it to develop firmware and drivers, then perform validation testing (wash, rinse, repeat, until it's working properly).


Look closely at the motherboards that is Apple motherboards. have look at the video and see for yourself.

so they used a custom PSU and a fancy CPU cooler fan....

http://macblips.dailyradar.com/video/intel-light-peak-demo-idf-2009/

Forgot to double quote so i am taking it here.

anyway apple had plans for Light Peak in all their devises even the iPone/iPod back in 2007

. said:
Light Peak is not a replacement to USB 3.0
in the long run it is meant to replace all the others.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.