When Apple allowed other OEMs to sell licensed machines that ran System 7, it effectively killed Apple's own Mac program. As such, there is no way Apple will ever license macOS to another OEM PC manufacturer.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Intel Announces Full Lineup of Kaby Lake Processors for iMac, MacBook Pro, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
When Apple allowed other OEMs to sell licensed machines that ran System 7, it effectively killed Apple's own Mac program. As such, there is no way Apple will ever license macOS to another OEM PC manufacturer.
I was an engineer at Apple from 1987 to 1997 and I started in the Apple II group. The Apple II was the backbone of the company and funded the development of the Macintosh. But when the Mac became more profitable than the Apple II, management started cutting our funding (while promising employees and customers, "Apple II Forever!"), until they killed the Apple II entirely.
The Macintosh was Apple's next cash cow and it's being replaced by mobile devices and cloud services as Apple's biggest earners. When Tim Cook says "Great things are coming for the Mac," I'm taking that with a grain of salt. Apple has always followed the cash and I don't expect that to change.
What's sad to me is that Apple is known for being a customer-focused company, but looking at the way they neglect pro users with their infrequent Mac Pro and MacBook Pro updates, the way they're ignoring those of us who don't have the eyesight of a 30 year old by killing their 17" laptop line, and the way they're now disregarding their non-mobile users in general, it's clear they are more profit-focused than customer-focused.
In my opinion, Apple needs to realize that one of the biggest reasons for their success is that when a customer buys an Apple product, they're not just buying a phone or a laptop, they're buying into a product ecosystem that works together brilliantly. And, as with living ecosystems, if enough species go extinct, the ecosystem can collapse...
The Macintosh was Apple's next cash cow and it's being replaced by mobile devices and cloud services as Apple's biggest earners. When Tim Cook says "Great things are coming for the Mac," I'm taking that with a grain of salt. Apple has always followed the cash and I don't expect that to change.
What's sad to me is that Apple is known for being a customer-focused company, but looking at the way they neglect pro users with their infrequent Mac Pro and MacBook Pro updates, the way they're ignoring those of us who don't have the eyesight of a 30 year old by killing their 17" laptop line, and the way they're now disregarding their non-mobile users in general, it's clear they are more profit-focused than customer-focused.
In my opinion, Apple needs to realize that one of the biggest reasons for their success is that when a customer buys an Apple product, they're not just buying a phone or a laptop, they're buying into a product ecosystem that works together brilliantly. And, as with living ecosystems, if enough species go extinct, the ecosystem can collapse...
Last edited:
Well until Apple ports XCode to Windows, you can only develop for iOS on a Mac so they need to keep at least one model around to support the iPhone.
Okay then, all I'm saying is if I wanted a hackintosh PC (I don't without legal permission) I would at least be decent enough to buy an Apple Store gift card and put it in the shredder and fugget about it. Keep the receipt though haha
So true. I missed the full sized Mac towers like the G3 to the Mac Pro. Apple had amazing tower computers back then.
Both of which turned out to be simple Software issues, easily fixed.
[doublepost=1484162351][/doublepost]
The Mac Pro already HAS a "decent" GPU. Understand that it is not intended as a Gaming machine. The GPU it has is geared more for CAD and Illustration-type work, and for driving many displays. It is NOT optimized for FPS ratings.
Could it stand a refresh? Maybe so; but even at its present state, the GPUs aren't really the problem.
But you hit upon (by accident, likely) the main reason why the Mac Pro hasn't been upgraded: ThunderBolt 3/PCI-e. Up until VERY recently, there hasn't been a Xeon-class CPU with enough PCI-e lanes to do ThunderBolt 3 effectively. So, yes, that is why Apple DOES have to wait for Intel.
That is going to change in 2017, because Intel is JUST NOW beginning to talk about a real release date for a Skylake-based Xeon with enough PCI-e lanes to make TB 3 on the Mac Pro a reality.
So, crossed-fingers, I'm sure Apple has Engineering Samples of this new Xeon, and is busily figuring out how best to utilize it in an updated Mac Pro, for release later this year. Mark my words, you heard it here first...
Hahahaha, all I could do was laugh at this. "Gaming" isn't something that any pro Mac user is interested in. However, film/video professionals need MORE power than gamers do. So... saying that the graphics card is good enough for a Mac Pro, but isn't good enough for gaming, is a pretty absurd thing to say.
I've been out of the video editing world since Final Cut Pro 5 so I'm curious what drives video editors to need video cards that are more powerful than that of gamers. I'm not a gamer either so I really don't know. Is it the need to drive multiple 4k monitors at 60hz or GPU acceleration of HD rendering for effects/color correction/compositing/etc or something else?
Any 4K video production that involves any sort of VFX or color grading will require a very powerful computer. Grading natively in 4K in DaVinci Resolve (even from cheap 8-bit mirrorless cameras) is still sluggish on a relatively high-end gaming PC. Now take 6K and 8K RED footage, which I work with quite often, and you need an even MORE powerful computer. Apple currently doesn't make a single computer to fit the needs of a professional colorist working with 6K and 8K raw footage. It's really sad. Even transcoding HD proxy files from the raw footage is insanely sluggish.
Last edited:
No it isn't.
I am not a GPU expert; but from what I understand, you can basically either focus your GPU architecture on balls-to-the-walls Frame Rate, at the expense of "detail" (again, I don't understand this perfectly; but I assume that means something like "numbers of Polygons, Triangles, or whatever primitives they use these days"), OR you can focus on "image complexity", at the expense of raw Frame Rates.
Actually, film and video is quite different from gaming, because it could care less about 3D performance (at least for most work, I would imagine), but needs a fat pipeline to handle high-resolution video and scaling at decent rates. That application is kind of in the middle between the other two applications; but I know that high-resolution video editing was a design-goal of the Mac Pro, while Gaming performance was not.
[doublepost=1486487376][/doublepost]
What's "sad" about it? You picks yer model, you gets yer features.I would laugh if this wasn't so sadly true...
Actually you are... wrong... Games rely on the 3D power capacity of a GPU, namely the number of polygons it can handle, how it handles shaders and the bandwidth it has to interchange information with the GPU memory. Video editing heavy lifting is made mostly by the CPU in most Video Editing programs i know (and i know a lot since i work directly with video editing companies as i produce assets for them).
I'm not saying that the Mac Pro (or any Mac for that matter) shouldn't have a better GPU. I love Mac's and i love gaming, so give me a beast of a GPU. But in this particular case, video editing, CPU is far more important.
No, I am not wrong. If I were wrong then gaming in 4K would be more sluggish than color grading in DaVinci Resolve in 4K. But it's not. Gaming is like cutting butter with a hot knife with my gtx 1080, but DaVinci Resolve still struggles, especially when working with raw video. I don't think you know what you're talking about nor do you have firsthand experience to back your claims.
[doublepost=1486488901][/doublepost]
Yeah, suuuure, except that we use 3D all the time in Resolve, Fusion, After Effects, and Cinema4D, ALL of which are a part of the filmmaking post process. And even basic color grading with 6K and 8K Redcode RAW footage is 10x more sluggish than any gaming I've ever done. Why do you guys start arguments when you don't know what you're talking about?
Last edited:
No, I am not wrong. If I were wrong then gaming in 4K would be more sluggish than color grading in DaVinci Resolve in 4K. But it's not. Gaming is like cutting butter with a hot knife with my gtx 1080, but DaVinci Resolve still struggles, especially when working with raw video. I don't think you know what you're talking about nor do you have firsthand experience to back your claims.
You are comparing apples and oranges... You are comparing something that taxes mainly the GPU (4k gaming) with something that taxes mainly the CPU (color grading or any video editing). Just log your CPU usage when you are gaming and when you are rendering a video and see the differences... As for my experience, same goes for you...
That's basically a ad hominem argument. "I don't agree with you so i say you don't know what you are talking about"... I work with video editing companies, for almost 15 years, creating illustration and graphic assets for them. And many of them have pretty good GPU's but ALL of them have the maximum CPU cores available for them and/or multiple CPU's.
You are comparing apples and oranges... You are comparing something that taxes mainly the GPU (4k gaming) with something that taxes mainly the CPU (color grading or any video editing). Just log your CPU usage when you are gaming and when you are rendering a video and see the differences... As for my experience, same goes for you...
No. Apps like Resolve and After Effects and Cinema4D are MUCH more dependent on the GPU than the CPU.
Dude, now you are just citing a couple of applications so you won't admit you are wrong... There are a few more professional programs for video editing than those, you know that right?
As for those, I don't know about resolve, but i can assure you that any Adobe program (AE, Premiere, SpeedGrade) uses mainly CPU on the rendering. GPU is important when previewing or applying a given effect, but even then, RAM is far more important there. But overall? CPU! By far!! You can even check that on the Adobe support pages and on the forums.
Kaby Lake CPUs for the iMac are now just going into production - same with the AMD GPUs - so iMac could not really be updated before now (at least in a way that made it worth the effort).
Mac Mini could have gone Skylake last year, but I expect the Mac Mini to be discontinued once existing stock is sold through.
Mac Pro could have had a very mild CPU update within the past 12-18 months by moving to Haswell-EP, but would it have made a fundamental difference in performance? I expect not, but hey, you can still upgrade yourself if you want since the nMP's CPUs are user-upgradeable. And it looks like AMD's new workstation chips did not start shipping until mid-2016 as well as the new Skylake-EP CPUs just starting to enter the fab. So if Apple intends to update the Mac Pro, then like the iMac, it wasn't really possible to update it before now.
Last edited:
you have used cinema 4d before , right ?
because if you have used it before you will realize that c4d don't rely on GPU heavily unless you are using GPU renderer like octane .
and c4d favor cpu with higher clock speed , and most of the slow down in the app is caused by the code it self , and they are implementing new core code to fix that
Sure, but you can't enhance them later in time, diminishing the life span of your machine.
That's the point of upgrading.
Which is why forward-thinking design-choices such as going all USB-C/TB3 is even more important!