Mac Pro Build-to-Order Ship Dates Slip as Future Remains Uncertain

[wildmac]

The day Apple cancels the MacPro is the day I start pricing out a replacement PC desktop. I don't want a laptop as my primary workstation, and iMacs do not have the graphics horsepower. (If they made an iMac with pro level graphics, or even high-end gaming graphics, I would consider one).

When that happens, it will also be the day Pro app development stops for the Mac. Adobe would relish dropping Mac support. Only photographers really use laptops as their primary workstations.

What's ironic is that it was the creative market that kept Apple "hip" in the music and art areas, and Apple is getting close to cutting them off, to focus on consumers.

The Pro market doesn't really need the full towers now like Apple offers, but it does need something besides the crappy laptop and iMac graphics capabilities. A slim tower that would take a pro graphics card would fit the bill.

 

[Zwhaler]

What about the Pro market with Shake, Xserve Raid, Xserve, FCP, Final Cut Server, Lion, etc

They certainly didn't make the pro market happy by cutting off those products. This shows why there's a chance it'll happen to the Mac Pro, but I don't think it would be a good idea.

 

[soulbot]

The Pro market doesn't really need the full towers now like Apple offers...

...except for all the motion picture pros (editors, DITs, etc.) wanting to put Red Rocket cards in their Macs, the recording/mixing engineers wanting to put ProTools cards in their rigs and the Colorists wanting proper broadcast-quality output coming out of a video (expansion) card.

 

[Misaki]

I don't think the tower form factor is necessarily what is important. In the end it comes down to necessary features and a machine designed for high duty cycle and reliability (as in one capable of running with massive storage and 24/7 reliability). The other machines weren't really designed for this. They're the kind of thing that you buy for such a reason because of price or availability of the design.

Let's put it this way, what can you and can't you do with the existing iMac or laptop that you can do with the MacMini (with thunderbolt)...

- Replace the monitor. Not just "add one more" but when your workspace requires two or more monitors of identical size. It's impractical to do this with a device that comes with one.
- Cintiq http://www.wacom.com/en/Products/Cintiq/Cintiq24HD.aspx

Somehow connecting a 2600$ Cintiq to a 600$ Macmini seems a bit silly, sure you could connect it to an iMac or any of the laptop models, but Photoshop makes use of the GPU, so you really do-not-want the onboard Intel chip that's in the lowend models, and want at least a midrange GPU.

What actually requires a MacPro above a Macmini?
- More than 1 PCIe slot. I assume Apple was waiting for PCIe3.0,USB3,SATA 3 and TB to be in the chipset, hence why they didn't release anything yet.
- Larger power supply capable of up to 4 PCIe video cards.
- Multiple hard drives. Usually in the context of Video capture (doable with TB but existing MacPros do not have TB.)

Thunderbolt is a nice idea in concept, but it's not a PCIe 3.0 16 lane slot. It's only 4 lanes. So you're not putting video cards or capture cards on it.
This thunderbolt device: http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/ultrastudio3d/ is only capable of 2K capture, while other devices they have require PCIe 8 lane slots and can do 4K.

Now how many people are going to buy a mac pro to do that? If your workflow is all mac based and you already have software licences, you're not going to dump it all and switch to Windows or Linux.

And this is the point I think people miss when speculating that the Mac Pro is going away. Apple produces software like Final Cut Pro, and there are hardware devices that we can't see the future of (2K, 4K, 3D, what next?) that will require an expandable device at the system level, not merely a one-size-fits-all solution.

Even a half-way-in-between model of a MacMini Pro would still be lacking, but if there were a model that had the space of 2 PCIe slots would solve the video capture beast requirements, and everyone who needs something better than the laptop grade video but not a 16 core beast would be happy. (But the mini's cooling and power requirements would be compromised doing so, hence why you get the huge tower case, and this not being workable.)

That leaves the question of science and video compression machines which require either as many GPGPU cards and CPU cores as possible depending on what they are doing, and no, a stack of macmini's won't do.

I'd be shocked if Apple dumped the Mac Pro.

 

[HelveticaRoman]

"You're the 2000th customer I've told this morning; there's no demand for what you want." If the professional market is being willfully ignored of course sales will decline.

 

[rmwebs]

You must be new to the mac world: As recently as Snow Leopard, macs have been running PPC compiled apps just fine via Rosetta, so they would likely do something similar for an ARM MacBook Air. I'm not saying they will introduce an ARM MBA as I highly doubt it, especially given Intel's recent effort to reduce the TDP on their processors, but if they did, that's how they would do it.

No, I'm not 'new to the mac world'...Rosetta and PPC support was discontinued in Lion...

Getting Intel to emulate PPC is one thing, but getting ARM to emulate Intel is a whole other ballgame. I suggest you research. It's be like trying to get a 1990's Mac to run 10.7 - thats the kind of performance difference we're looking at. Intel apps are big and bulky compared to ARM apps and run on a very, very different architecture. An Intel emulator would be near impossible to do on ARM.

In addition you've got the licensing. PPC emulation wasn't a problem as Apple had certain rights to the architecture, with x86-64 they have no rights other than a standard manufacturers usage agreement. Because of this they would have a very hard time getting the green light from intel, who would need to provide proprietary information to Apple to do it.

I can hardly see Intel providing this knowing Apple is leaving their architecture.

----------

Every time I hear someone say that T-Bolt is the solution I think of the attached Apple ad. Rat's nest of cables and boxes - that's T-Bolt.

Image

Thats a pretty flawed and idiotic picture, dont you think? If you slapped a wired keyboard and mouse on the iMac you'd add two extra cables.

My Mac Pro has 2 display cables, 1 power cable and 1 USB cable coming out the back of it.
Total cables on the Mac Pro: 4

My old iMac had 2 USB cables (1 hard drive isn't enough if you care about your work, so I had to have an external USB drive), an extra display cable, a power cable and a speaker cable (hate the tinny/cheap iMac speakers).
Total cables on the iMac: 5

Were either messy? No, because it takes 2 minutes to organise your cables with cable ties. That picture you posted is probably someone who doesn't give a damn about their workspace/setup. I've never seen the back of anyones Mac Pro look like that.

----------

"You're the 2000th customer I've told this morning; there's no demand for what you want." If the professional market is being willfully ignored of course sales will decline.

The stupid thing is, many developers work on 2 or three screens. If you go with a 27" iMac you're limited to 1 extra screen, which will end up looking silly next to a 27" screen. You'd have to be silly with too much money to burn to buy one of Apple's ripoff (LG) displays as our second screen.

The Mac Pro really is the only option for pro users. Take my setup, I need 2 screens and ideally they need to be the same size - that alone rules out any iMac as I'm not stupid enough to pay for a cinema display when you can get better non-apple displays a lot cheaper. In addition, I need a lot of diskspace, around 5 TB. I could slap a bunch of USB or firewire drives on an iMac, but that would be slow as hell. The mac pro has 4 sata ports, so I can fit a SSD for boot, and three 2TB drives - sorted.

I also need to be able to upgrade memory as/when I like to decent amounts. The iMac's are limited to 16GB - the Mac Pro supports up to 64GB...no brainer.

The iMac is a nice machine, but completely impractical for pro users.

 

[shaunp]

Maybe, maybe not

If this Mac is discontinued and everything is moved to ARM processors then it will be the end of the world as we know it.

That all depends what the next line of ARM processors are. Remember the 'think different slogan'? Just because Mac Pro's have been Xeon-based in the past doesn't mean they have to be in future. I'm not suggesting a current ARM chip can compete with Xeon in terms of performance by the way, I'm merely saying that to move forward the Mac Pro my change significantly at some point. Right now though I expect an updated machine with support for Ivy Bridge, Thunderbolt and maybe a redesigned case to allow more internal storage options.

 

[thekev]

Let's put it this way, what can you and can't you do with the existing iMac or laptop that you can do with the MacMini (with thunderbolt)...

- Replace the monitor. Not just "add one more" but when your workspace requires two or more monitors of identical size. It's impractical to do this with a device that comes with one.
- Cintiq http://www.wacom.com/en/Products/Cintiq/Cintiq24HD.aspx

Somehow connecting a 2600$ Cintiq to a 600$ Macmini seems a bit silly, sure you could connect it to an iMac or any of the laptop models, but Photoshop makes use of the GPU, so you really do-not-want the onboard Intel chip that's in the lowend models, and want at least a midrange GPU.

What actually requires a MacPro above a Macmini?
- More than 1 PCIe slot. I assume Apple was waiting for PCIe3.0,USB3,SATA 3 and TB to be in the chipset, hence why they didn't release anything yet.
- Larger power supply capable of up to 4 PCIe video cards.
- Multiple hard drives. Usually in the context of Video capture (doable with TB but existing MacPros do not have TB.)

Thunderbolt is a nice idea in concept, but it's not a PCIe 3.0 16 lane slot. It's only 4 lanes. So you're not putting video cards or capture cards on it.
This thunderbolt device: http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/ultrastudio3d/ is only capable of 2K capture, while other devices they have require PCIe 8 lane slots and can do 4K.

Now how many people are going to buy a mac pro to do that? If your workflow is all mac based and you already have software licences, you're not going to dump it all and switch to Windows or Linux.

And this is the point I think people miss when speculating that the Mac Pro is going away. Apple produces software like Final Cut Pro, and there are hardware devices that we can't see the future of (2K, 4K, 3D, what next?) that will require an expandable device at the system level, not merely a one-size-fits-all solution.

Even a half-way-in-between model of a MacMini Pro would still be lacking, but if there were a model that had the space of 2 PCIe slots would solve the video capture beast requirements, and everyone who needs something better than the laptop grade video but not a 16 core beast would be happy. (But the mini's cooling and power requirements would be compromised doing so, hence why you get the huge tower case, and this not being workable.)

That leaves the question of science and video compression machines which require either as many GPGPU cards and CPU cores as possible depending on what they are doing, and no, a stack of macmini's won't do.

I'd be shocked if Apple dumped the Mac Pro.

Oh I'm with you on this stuff. Let me rephrase, if they could provide the same functionality in a different form factor, I wouldn't care. Many people on here make accusations that some people are trying to hold onto the big tower in a time when it's "no longer needed" (according to them). I don't think it's necessary to focus on what it looks like, but rather that there is a need for a performance machine that isn't solved by anything else in the current lineup. I was trying to put the focus on what the machine can do that isn't available in other Macs rather than its aesthetics.

I wouldn't use an imac. I could be in photoshop with something rendering in the background, and my files go into gigabytes, so that isn't happening .

The next thing I add will be cad program, so gpu is definitely important to me too. The reason for cad is simply a better nurbs modeler. They work exceptionally well for high resolution surfacing work, and if you do it just right, they don't really distort when tesselated.

 

[vitzr]

If that happens I'm either looking Boxx or one of the Dell Precision line rather than dragging it out. There isn't another machine with decent gpu options that is made for a high duty cycle..

Excellent post, I agree with your well stated points.

I've watched a Boxx perform ray trace rendering at lightning fast speeds and it's quite impressive. Boxx would be my choice for several reasons, not the least of which would be their exemplary support. That's just my take on it.

 

[MacFanJeff]

Personally, I think the Mac Pros are too good of a product to fit into Apple's current business model. Let's face it: a 2010 souped up Mac Pro with 32GB of RAM will perform for many years to come and therefore presents too good of a value for customers. It seems Apple wants to push on us products that we will upgrade every year or other year like the iPad 2, 3 etc.

It will? Try telling that to the pro 3D artists, video editors, graphic producers, etc. I am constantly in need of upgrades for new graphics and CPUs. The software I use can use everything you can throw at it, meaning it does not bottom out like most other general consumer software. If I had 20 cores per CPU X 2, 32GB of RAM and the most current graphics card out I could still use more.

Also, for those saying you can just use some sort of connection box for things like graphics cards, drives, etc. you can NOT and expect to get the same native speed as doing it from the motherboard internally.

----------

Oh I'm with you on this stuff. Let me rephrase, if they could provide the same functionality in a different form factor, I wouldn't care. Many people on here make accusations that some people are trying to hold onto the big tower in a time when it's "no longer needed" (according to them). I don't think it's necessary to focus on what it looks like, but rather that there is a need for a performance machine that isn't solved by anything else in the current lineup. I was trying to put the focus on what the machine can do that isn't available in other Macs rather than its aesthetics.

I wouldn't use an imac. I could be in photoshop with something rendering in the background, and my files go into gigabytes, so that isn't happening .

The next thing I add will be cad program, so gpu is definitely important to me too. The reason for cad is simply a better nurbs modeler. They work exceptionally well for high resolution surfacing work, and if you do it just right, they don't really distort when tesselated.

A truly high-end workstation is going to be BIG and rather bulky. As a pro 3D artist, I am considering a custom build and moving to Windows due to several reasons that all cost me money and time. But, in regard to the size, it will be a LARGE cube type that is about 2 X 3 X 3 foot. It has all the room I need for things like liquid cooling, temperature controls, pumps, etc.

So, if you ask most professionals like me, we actually want BIG systems for what we use them for and what we put in them.

 

[Bubba Satori]

The Pro won't be discontinued so much as it will morph into a different machine. Hopefully Apple will make it decidedly cheaper, at least in one expandable version.

Is morph the right word?

iPad Pro replaces Mac Pro.

12" super glossy screen, 1GB memory, 128GB storage, Nvidia 8600GT and a Superdrive.
$2,500.

 

[saxofunk]

But why boot from a RAID anyway? Do a RAID with 3 slots of 2-3 TB HDs, then boot from an SSD. Or put the boot SSD in the optical bay and use the 4 regular slots in RAID.

Because I'm talking about a 4 disk SSD RAID. At SATA III speeds, the data rate might actually exceed the theoretical limit of Thunderbolt. If I had that kind of speed and no moving parts, then I wouldn't have a need for extraneous storage other than a backup. Right now I need a moving disk for the OS and another to work off of. There is so much throughput potential in this platform, and yet it's being crippled by a simple software hangup.

Sorry I'm just ranting now. For me Lion was one step forward and two steps backward. I want to see the sort of significant improvements that were announced with Tiger in the next OS, not just pretty effects stolen from a mobile OS and labeled as features.

I have one more idea to offer and that is: perhaps the entire OS could run from a 8-16GB NAND flash (seriously at 's cost they can fit one [or more] in a $2k-5k machine) running on a more serious bus than SATA. Recovery can be handled entirely over the internet, or on a 4GB NAND flash with internet help. Then we could just load huge amounts of storage into the drive bays and everyone can be happy.

 

[chirpie]

Reminds me of the Mac Mini rumors from 2007:

Image

Yeah, but for every Mac Pro and Mac Mini, there's an XServe or iPod Classic. I don't think they'd kill it, but I won't lie that I'll breath easier after an announcement.

 

[xgman]

I think we will see at least one more mac pro in a couple/few months, and it will most likely be in the same case, sandy bridge, newest vid card and thruderbolt, with NO usb 3 unfortunately. Then maybe an Ivy bridge one in late 2013? Or maybe then they downsize it and create a sort of imac pro.

(oh, and I don't think this delay in ordering means anything at all other than the parts are being ordered on an as needed basis and delivery times will fluctuate)

 

[saxofunk]

The stupid thing is, many developers work on 2 or three screens. If you go with a 27" iMac you're limited to 1 extra screen, which will end up looking silly next to a 27" screen. You'd have to be silly with too much money to burn to buy one of Apple's ripoff (LG) displays as our second screen.

The Mac Pro really is the only option for pro users. Take my setup, I need 2 screens and ideally they need to be the same size - that alone rules out any iMac as I'm not stupid enough to pay for a cinema display when you can get better non-apple displays a lot cheaper. In addition, I need a lot of diskspace, around 5 TB. I could slap a bunch of USB or firewire drives on an iMac, but that would be slow as hell. The mac pro has 4 sata ports, so I can fit a SSD for boot, and three 2TB drives - sorted.

I also need to be able to upgrade memory as/when I like to decent amounts. The iMac's are limited to 16GB - the Mac Pro supports up to 64GB...no brainer.

The iMac is a nice machine, but completely impractical for pro users.

You're a little off on your specs. The current 27" iMac can support two additional displays (3 total). It can also address 32GB of RAM. On the other hand, the current 8/12 core Mac Pro can potentially handle 6-10 displays and can address 96GB of ECC RAM.

I think we're seeing a shift of what kind of jobs need a 'workstation' and what jobs don't need one anymore. Long have we awaited a "mid-tower". I think that with TB, dual drive options, and a 1GB graphics card on the new 27" iMac, we're beginning to get close to a machine that can fill that bill. However, that does not come close to the serious horse power needed for 3D, 2k-4k video, multi-track 192k audio, and scientific applications. At the rate we're going 96GB of RAM will be no big deal in 4-5 years, if that long.

 

[sigamy]

I was off last week and while playing with the kids caught a few episodes of The Price is Right on TV. I twice saw a Mac Pro listed as one of the prizes that people had to guess the price of.

Seemed strange to me. Why would Apple put Mac Pro's on "The Price is Right"?

 

[milo]

Can you explain the Mac Pro's value that is "beyond its immediate ROI in dollars"? I fail to see what value the Mac Pro has to Apple that isn't dependent on ROI. Most profitable companies will not continue selling a product with marginal ROI to a tiny, niche market that represents a small fraction of total sales. What am I missing?

Software and the halo effect.

 

[onejed1]

If you try the BTO Mac pro and upgrade anything, it seems that the 1-3 weeks occurs only if you have selected a 1 TB hard drive.

e.g. upgrade ram and select 2TB = 2-4 business days.

 

[xgman]

If you try the BTO Mac pro and upgrade anything, it seems that the 1-3 weeks occurs only if you have selected a 1 TB hard drive.

e.g. upgrade ram and select 2TB = 2-4 business days.

= nothing to see her folks, move on . . . . . (or desperate for any mac pro news, so any tidbit gets reported)

 

[kazmac]

let it mean

new Mac Pros.

I would hate for these to be discontinued. I do not use Mac Pros but I respect the industries and folks which do use them. Eradicating the Mac Pro means Apple will become nothing more than a trendy consumer electronics company.

Oh...right they already are.

 

[BrotherBeagle]

To be fair, the number of business using the Xserve as a true enterprise server was TINY. Macs are usually served by small Mac-based workgroup servers or hung off Windows or UNIX networks. That's the reality.

The same can't be said of the Mac Pro, even if a lot of, say, professional graphic design is done on MacBook Pros or iMacs rather than hefty towers these days. It's not as if masses of R&D goes into them - they are basically a pretty standard intel motherboard and a posh case.

(This'll sound like a jerk statement, but I really don't mean it as such.)

I find it curious as to how the sentiment is always, "It's okay for those people, but it'll never happen about something I care about."

The truth is, the demise of the Xserve created an affect that has a direct impact on the need for Mac Pros: Many shops voted with their dollars and did not switch over to Pros as a replacement and migrated away from OS X Server as backbone infrastructure.

The problem comes down to trust -- and Apple burnt a lot of theirs up in the professional and enterprise markets by tossing those that needed Xserves cleanly (and unapologetically) under the bus. Their education and enterprise field and sales reps did very little to smooth those waters, either.

I hope this is just rumour fodder. I really hope that Apple does continue providing a professional class desktop. I want to believe that my gut feeling that we're (rapidly) approaching a time where all Apple produces are consumer appliances is wrong.

But considering that Apple's belief that it is okay to inform users that in order to reinstall their "server" class operating system, they need to recovery boot and download over the internet -- No, I don't believe that Apple, as an entity, has any real consideration of their products outside of the living room or travel bag. Perhaps they like the concept of SOHO use, but on the professional stance, they could care less.

As long as you can write iOS apps on an iMac, that's all that matters.

 

[TMay]

If you try the BTO Mac pro and upgrade anything, it seems that the 1-3 weeks occurs only if you have selected a 1 TB hard drive.

e.g. upgrade ram and select 2TB = 2-4 business days.

Flooding in Thailand. Both Seagate and Western Digital were hit hard. I bought a 2TB WD from Amazon and within a couple of weeks of the flooding, the price had doubled. Still, demand may be higher for 1TB drives for OEM's.

 

[deconstruct60]

a few episodes of The Price is Right on TV. I twice saw a Mac Pro listed as one of the prizes that people had to guess the price of.

Seemed strange to me. Why would Apple put Mac Pro's on "The Price is Right"?

Because it is a game show. If the game is not competitive/hard enough it is a lousy game and hence a lousy show. They pick it because most people don't know the exact price. They want the four people to guess because then you don't know who is going to be closest (e.g., bidding $1 because guess that the others are all high.) . If all four know the exact price then the first person to choose a value will win. There is a rigid order in which the people select values, so the variable has to be what values they are guessing.

A Mac Pro is good because even if most folks have been browsing commodity PC boxes in BestBuy/Walmart/etc. because they are going to be way off. (e.g., $800 , $900 , even $1500 ). So it is not only an irregularly purchased item, it is also an outlier on price. If the competitors bid $500-1600 range and walk away with a $2,400 prize, that winner is going to be excited ("fist pump" , jump up and down, etc. ) . Again it makes for a better game.

 

[scoobydoo99]

may see a release being held back until the beginning of March, still several months from now.

I realize that MacRumors has a propensity to make numerous grammatical and syntactic errors, even in short posts that any high-school graduate should be able to proofread in 2 minutes, BUT....

SEVERAL is defined as "more than 2, but not many..."

This is the beginning of January. The "beginning of March" is exactly 2 months away. By no logic could that be construed as "several" months away.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Why would Apple put Mac Pro's on "The Price is Right"?

Top ten reasons Apple would put Mac Pro's on the Price is right.

10 Somebody in the marketing department has a sarcastic sense of humor.
9 Needed to get rid of the last two Mac Pros.
8 Wanted to find out what people are willing to pay for a Mac Pro.
7 Reminding America that Apple still makes desktop computers.
6 Couldn't find a Pro TV program to display them on.
5 The Price is Right was Steve Jobs' favorite show.
4 Woz has dated all the Price is Right girls.
3 Apple is considering selling Mac Pros on QVC.
2 Drew Carey has more money than brains.
1 Hoped a clueless contestant would blurt out $5,000.