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

[Macist]

As the exodus from FCP, and sooner or later from Macs, gathers momentum why would that part of the market need the iPhones-iPads-iOS-Cloud lifetsyle? Fair enough, that won't spoil the quarterly results too much in the short or medium term - but ask Nokia and RIM what it feels like once the shine wears off among the trendy consumer market.

While I won't deny the FCPX launch was a joke and FCPX comes across as something somewhat unfinished in its present state it's the fastest and easiest to use editor ever and if you're getting most of your footage from file based camcorders or DSLRs it's a great tool right now. In fact the only flaw it in for the thousands of one-man-band or small shop pros making, say, corporate videos is that certain background tasks saturate the CPU meaning you can barely operate the Finder so it needs a slider to adjust how much is given over.

Its low cost will mean it'll get a big user base and return to the higher end as soon as features are implemented. Apple sunk serious $ into this software and went for innovation and a solid foundation for future versions.

Give it two years and other NLEs will be copying Final Cut.

 

[Inconsequential]

Straw man set up, straw man knocked down, congrats. One does not always need the absolute top-of-the-line product (i7-3960). Go on NewEgg right now and price out a modest i7-enabled box. How much does it cost you? Not $3k! I don't need the best CPU or fully-buffered RAM. "So then why not go with one of Apple's consumer alternatives," you ask? Because, I don't need a built-in monitor, nor do I need a Texas-Toast-sized footprint. Most of all, I don't want to pay extra for space-saving, under-powered mobile varients.

What I do need is modest, desktop-grade hardware in a modular form-factor that I can tweak with my own add-ins or upgrades... INTERNALLY, so there isn't a rats nest of wires... and I need a computer that runs OS X. I'd like them to be the same machine.

Apple doesn't. And this may surprise you, but the reason isn't R&D. It's that Apple can't charge $1500 for a computer that would otherwise retail for $800. People are stupid, but they aren't THAT stupid.

-Clive

I am perfectly aware that you can buy a PC box for half the price, I looked at that while I was researching my 2009 MP.

What you want just won't happen.

If you don't need a top-of-the-line machine then go and look for a old 2009 MP which are around the $1500 dollar mark...

Then you fit a LGA1366 Core i7 with non-ECC ram and a 5770/5870 and your laughing...

Just FYI, mid-range Processors (Using Intel's 1000 unit price)
E5-1620, 3.6GHz Quad = $294
i7-3820, 3.6GHz Quad = $294
2600K, 3.4Ghz Quad = $317

If your looking for something less than that then the 2009/2010MP is really what you want :/

 

[Bregalad]

I still refuse to believe they'll simply discontinue the whole line. I can see a refresh to the design coming though. Perhaps going to 2 PCI slots and 1 optical bay.

My bet is it'll stick around just like the Mini has.

Cutting the number of PCI slots makes no sense. In order to showcase each new CPU/chipset design Intel comes out with a reference motherboard design. Theirs typically contains the same number of slots as every design before it. The reference board usually contains only new technology.

The third party PC market takes the reference design and their own history of motherboard design to create differentiated products. It's common to see third party boards that offer more than the Intel design in the way of new features and other boards that offer more than the Intel design in backward compatibility. Today USB 3.0 is widely available despite not being supported by Intel. Manufacturers also stuck with BIOS for years after Intel debuted EFI, continued to ship boards with PS/2 keyboard and mouse ports along side USB ports, shipped boards with support for two different types of RAM and offered boards with both PCI and ISA slots long after Intel and AMD considered ISA dead.

Apple is just another PC manufacturer. For them to take the Intel Xeon reference design and substitute a custom EFI takes very little effort on their part. The existing Mac Pro case is already designed to take a standard size/shape of logic board with ports in standard locations. All Apple should be doing is tweaking the case to accommodate Thunderbolt ports front and rear, reduce the prominence of FW800 to a single port on the back and replace the second optical drive bay with a pair of 2.5" SSD bays.

A few dollars later a new model of Mac Pro appears looking virtually identical to every one before it, the Mac Pro death watch resets its calendar and Apple gets to keep selling to demanding professionals. Counting build-to-order modifications and software the average Mac Pro probably nets Apple over $2000 in profit and holds onto a mindshare worth orders of magnitude more.

 

[Digital Skunk]

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?

I would have to agree only in the sense that Apple would discontinue it if it ceased to be profitable.

The Mac Pro is by far making Apple the least amount of money, but I have a feeling Apple won't axe it just yet. They themselves need something to run their own servers and high-end software.

 

[deconstruct60]

Apple is just another PC manufacturer. For them to take the Intel Xeon reference design and substitute a custom EFI takes very little effort on their part. The existing Mac Pro case is already designed to take a standard size/shape of logic board with ports in standard locations.

Errr, no.

http://www.apple.com/macpro/design.html#memory

Like to point to another generic PC market clone vendor with CPU/Memory tray that slides out that is oriented 90 degrees from the base motherboard? There is no Intel reference design with that feature.


It is based off the Intel reference design (starts there and mutate the design). It is not a standard form factor though. Nor are there many standard based board/boxes that are as wire free internally as the Mac Pro.

There is far more design inside the case than there is outside. The notion that the external appearance of the case is the differentiating factor is rather dubious.

It isn't Manhattan Project level of complexity, but the notion of slapping some proprietary implementation of EFI in the firmware and a funky box around the reference boards is far off the mark also.

 

[THX1139]

... but the pro hardware does help sell pro apps...

You mean like Shake or Final Cut Pro? Oops - discontinued.

 

[Clubber]

They weren't about the Xserve

I would guess that XServe served no official purpose but as a server. Making a MacPro version replace XServe, a single box can be sold as a workstation or a server, thus an Apple server is more of a software concept than a hardware concept. Plus, they don't have to maintain a separate design (from engineering to provisioning, to marketing, to distribution, etc).

I love my Mac Pro, it's an early 2009 8 way. It's running 4 servers in VMWare Fusion in the background including 2 public web servers, running an iTunes server for the house, a file server, and can compile Xcode projects in a flash. They're beasts.

 

[sunspot42]

Silly Argument

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

We're talking about the Mac Pro here, a machine that by default is gonna be a "rats nest' of cables when compared to something like an iMac. For starters, you have to use it with at least one monitor, its cable and its power cable. And a lot of folks are getting Mac Pros for their multiple-monitor support. Pro users are also more likely to have external backup drives.

Adding one more skinny Tbolt cable to the mix if they want to connect an external expansion box wouldn't even be a noticeable addition for those users. However, getting rid of that enormous chassis would be a huge improvement for those who want a ton of CPU power but don't care about RAID arrays or multiple graphics cards. I'd imagine any slimmed down "Mac Ultra" would be able to drive at least a pair of monitors straight outtta the box anyhow, which is all the vast majority of folks ever use, even pros.

It would also be a huge improvement for Apple Stores. They could stock 2-3 times as many Mac Ultras in the space it takes to store a single Mac Pro. And they'd no longer need to factory configure the things - the Ultras would ship with just a couple of standard buildouts. Want more junk? Just buy an empty expansion cage and fill it yourself (or have the Genius Bar slap it together). Heck, it would present a great in-store up-sell opportunity.

We shall see...

 

[yadmonkey]

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?

Unless you know what Apple's ROI is on the Mac Pro (I don't), this is all speculation. If you're a home user or you work in a non-creative field, you'd probably think that nobody uses Mac Pros. And for that, your perspective would be skewed.

My perspective is skewed the other way. I've spent 10 years providing Mac-based support in the creative fields, especially music and graphics design. I'm constantly in different studio environments and constantly surrounded by Mac Pros. On a daily basis I see that there are entire industries that depend on the Mac Pro in contexts where no other computer would do (something you couldn't say about the Xserve).

And I'd bet that it's profitable. Not wildly profitable like the iPad, but profitable still. And if a product is profitable, why pull it? You might redesign it however and try to make it more profitable. That's the easy answer, but not the whole story.

The music industry is especially dependent on the Mac Pro. Graphic design is less dependent, but has hugely adopted the Mac Pro. Why create a vacuum there? Why create an opportunity for someone else to swoop in with a product to meet the needs of creative professionals? Just because it's not as wildly profitable as your other products? That's not trimming fat - that's trimming lean.

Would you cut a profitable product simply because it isn't a wild success? I wouldn't, especially if that product is the backbone of the industry (music) that got my company through its lean years... the industry that kept Apple products "cool" when they weren't popular. Why create such a vacuum for others to fill?

 

[relimw]

And, by the way, check the dates on the graphics cards that Apple ships with the Mac Pros. ...not exactly recent!

Eh, dump the EFI and just let us buy the video cards we want/need.

 

[PBLRDom]

Just an update from the big box retailer.

 

[thekev]

Straw man set up, straw man knocked down, congrats. One does not always need the absolute top-of-the-line product (i7-3960). Go on NewEgg right now and price out a modest i7-enabled box. How much does it cost you? Not $3k! I don't need the best CPU or fully-buffered RAM. "So then why not go with one of Apple's consumer alternatives," you ask? Because, I don't need a built-in monitor, nor do I need a Texas-Toast-sized footprint. Most of all, I don't want to pay extra for space-saving, under-powered mobile varients.

What I do need is modest, desktop-grade hardware in a modular form-factor that I can tweak with my own add-ins or upgrades... INTERNALLY, so there isn't a rats nest of wires... and I need a computer that runs OS X. I'd like them to be the same machine.

Apple doesn't. And this may surprise you, but the reason isn't R&D. It's that Apple can't charge $1500 for a computer that would otherwise retail for $800. People are stupid, but they aren't THAT stupid.

-Clive

Look at how much they charge for the starter mac pro. People would buy it because it's . Look at how many people claim that Apple is a premium product and everything else is complete junk. Then if you have problems with your mac, it's your fault for owning it past the Applecare duration right ? They aren't durable or any more reliable than their competition at comparable pricing tiers. Comparing a Mac to a PC of a third the cost isn't exactly fair. I treat computers as tools. To me aesthetics and slim form factors do not matter. They've become appealing to consumers with light computing needs as the specs from year to year make very little difference for those guys these days.

I don't see any reason to worry...I mean, this probably just means a switch to Sandy Bridge-E. Or better yet, Apple has early access to Ivy Bridge.

Apple hasn't gotten any kind of preferential treatment in some time, and quite a bit of that was a myth anyway. For example in 2007 they bought up higher tdp chips that the other OEMs passed on.

I'm amazed that so many people believe the crock of crap that it's Intel's fault that the Mac Pro is out-of-date and underpowered.

Bleh Apple doesn't care. I thought the isheep opinion was that we should feel lucky and thank Apple that the machine still exists. Apple can be a very frustrating company. Given that Lion breaks a few things, I'm debating this as the time to switch to Windows. Intel spun off dual socket configurations to require parts with different firmware, and they've released fewer updates to their entry level Xeons combined with a delay on Sandy Bridge E. This has to have impacted the sales of other oems too. Right now Apple is making a machine that almost no one would buy at its current price point if it did not run OSX.

 

[Nostromo]

The horror story of the discontinuation of the Mac Pro has caused one thing that hasn't happened in a while: the Mac Pro is being talked about.

Apple has always smartly used the grapevine and the fan base to launch campaigns that were invisible as campaigns.

One of the tricks in sales is to take what you want to sell away from the prospect. This has to be done without the prospect noticing.

This is exactly what Apple is doing by planting those rumors.

We'll see a nicely upgraded Mac Pro that will blow the current line out of the water. At the same time we'll see FCP X upgraded to full functionality.

Of course this is a hypothesis. A hypothesis, may it be about the universe, the interrelation of gravity, speed, and time, or Apple's releases, are a rational construct to create order in things you can't currently prove.

Seen as this, it works better than the "all's going downhill" and "no go for pro" moods some are ventilating on this forum.

 

[xgman]

The horror story of the discontinuation of the Mac Pro has caused one thing that hasn't happened in a while: the Mac Pro is being talked about.

Apple has always smartly used the grapevine and the fan base to launch campaigns that were invisible as campaigns.

One of the tricks in sales is to take what you want to sell away from the prospect. This has to be done without the prospect noticing.

This is exactly what Apple is doing by planting those rumors.

We'll see a nicely upgraded Mac Pro that will blow the current line out of the water. At the same time we'll see FCP X upgraded to full functionality.

Of course this is a hypothesis. A hypothesis, may it be about the universe, the interrelation of gravity, speed, and time, or Apple's releases, are a rational construct to create order in things you can't currently prove.

Seen as this, it works better than the "all's going downhill" and "no go for pro" moods some are ventilating on this forum.

you might be right. any little dribble of info about the MP's is now latched onto and perpetuated into multi page threads. Even this one which is overwhelming likely due to drive lead times goes on for 8 pages as of today. I figure the more we complain, maybe Apple will notice. Doubtful, but maybe.

----------

Right now Apple is making a machine that almost no one would buy at its current price point if it did not run OSX.

Another good point. If only we could run OSX on any workstation. Of course then I would have probably needlessly upgraded those parts 3 times in the last year just because I could, but still . . . . (anyway, never will happen)

 

[milo]

Does Intel keep Apple from updating the mobo to support USB 3.0? No.

Does Intel keep Apple from adding a T-Bolt controller? No.

Does Intel keep Apple from supporting SLI and the latest CUDA-enabled Nvidia graphics? No.

Does Intel keep Apple from coming out with a mid/mini-tower with desktop SB processors? No.

Does Intel tell Apple not to put BD drives in the Mac Pro? No.​

And I'll add the one that annoys me the most. Still no SATA III when laptops, iMac, and even mini have had it for months.

HUGE bottleneck for anyone who wants to use SSD drives in a MP.

Great. I don't want a $3k Mac Pro with 2008 technology in it (LGA1366 Core i7s).

Yet in the same post you're perfectly fine with that $3k mac (as well as the $5k version) having USB 2 and SATA II? How old are those?

And I guess you miss the point that using that CPU would let Apple ship a tower for about half the current price.

If you want USB 3 or SATA 3 there are adapter cards for $50.

Have you lost your mind? You're actually in favor of the user having to eat up PCI slots on a BRAND NEW MACHINE to get features that are on boxes a fraction of the price? I'm just baffled by that.

Why on earth would you spend $500+ (Upgrade from a 2009/2010) for just these things?

Probably not many would upgrade from those newer machines but there are still users out there running 2006-2008 MPs. Personally I wouldn't upgrade those until Apple ships one with SATA III among other things.

And not just that, why would you upgrade with the knowledge a SB-E MP is coming soon!?

While I agree that right now is a bad time to update, the point is that Apple could have updated with most if not all those features 6+ months ago. They've done spec bumps in the past.

 

[milo]

Why would they spend money re-designing the MP just for these things using 3rd party controllers, some of which are known to be utter rubbish? And then who on earth would *buy* these Mac Pro's?

Certainly more people than are buying the current Mac Pros.

The chipset and CPU costs are pretty much the same (Go look for yourself, i7-3960 - $999 vs E5-1660 - $1083. There is nothing there that would suddenly drop the cost of the machine.

Considering that other companies are offering machines comparable in performance to the base (quad) MP for probably half the price, it used to be that Apple was stupidly using more expensive chips without taking advantage of the feature provided by them, now they're just flat out overcharging for those machines.

So now Apple have to produce two different cases which *could* push up R&D and production costs per unit which *could* completely remove any savings from producing this smaller case.

Hogwash. They already produce two different motherboards so no reason to not make the base model more price competitive. They could switch to a cheaper case or lower prices with that same case (if the case is that significant a part of the cost, that's another sign that they're doing things wrong).

If they can't take a mobo that's already different and not put it into a cheaper case without losing money on "R&D" then god help them.

The tower machines probably have the lowest R&D of any product apple makes, size constraints are minimal and they have intel reference boards they can tweak if they want.

What about using LGA155?
Needs two different chipsets, is it worth it?

They're already using two different motherboards, so hard to imagine how that would make much of a difference.

 

[thekev]

Hogwash. They already produce two different motherboards so no reason to not make the base model more price competitive. They could switch to a cheaper case or lower prices with that same case (if the case is that significant a part of the cost, that's another sign that they're doing things wrong).

The cost of the tower isn't what drives the cost of the machine. If it was a DIY case, it would cost quite a lot, but Apple always seems to find deals somewhere. Really they've decided to price the towers higher and higher over time. Manufacturing cost probably has a minor role in this, but it isn't the sole driving force. G4= started at $1500 G5 started at $2000 and one time they had a horrible single socket model from the previous generaion for $1500. With the Quad G5 the top model went from $3000 to 3300 going up $300, and with the Mac pro the initial dual socket 2.0ghz version moved up $300 from the base G5 to $2300. They've just inched up the point of entry over time. It happens. They don't care. The reason the desire for a cheaper mac pro or mid tower has existed this long is simply that their lower models have built in limitations and drawbacks.

While I won't deny the FCPX launch was a joke and FCPX comes across as something somewhat unfinished in its present state it's the fastest and easiest to use editor ever and if you're getting most of your footage from file based camcorders or DSLRs it's a great tool right now. In fact the only flaw it in for the thousands of one-man-band or small shop pros making, say, corporate videos is that certain background tasks saturate the CPU meaning you can barely operate the Finder so it needs a slider to adjust how much is given over.

Its low cost will mean it'll get a big user base and return to the higher end as soon as features are implemented. Apple sunk serious $ into this software and went for innovation and a solid foundation for future versions.

Give it two years and other NLEs will be copying Final Cut.

Bleh...you know one of the big mistakes was initially cutting users off from licenses of the old software as soon as the new one launched. Depending on Apple isn't always fun.

Can I ask... why?

The chipset and CPU costs are pretty much the same (Go look for yourself, i7-3960 - $999 vs E5-1660 - $1083. There is nothing there that would suddenly drop the cost of the machine.

Smaller case? Less HD/SSD slots?

So now Apple have to produce two different cases which *could* push up R&D and production costs per unit which *could* completely remove any savings from producing this smaller case.

But then most people who have a Mac Pro have more than two HDs fitted, therefore want the space of the MP as it is.

What about using LGA155?
Needs two different chipsets, is it worth it? *shrug*

I wouldn't buy a SB MP, I'm ready to buy myself a SB-E E5-1650 MP.


So again, I ask, where do these savings suddenly come from to form a 'cheaper' Mac Pro!?

First off basically everything you mentioned is valid. What I think is often overlooked is that the case isn't what keeps the price of the Mac Pro high. Apple does the determination, and much of it may be that they've required a very high margin per unit to offset the volume or something of that sort. Mainly I wanted to mention that the cpu for the 6 core model started out at $1000-1200 retail (I think it was $1200 a lot of places right at the start), so unless it's another year of inflation on the machine, that would be roughly where to expect an E5-1660 machine. Some of the manufacturing costs may have shifted. I don't know what it cost to implement the current daughterboard configuration used. Having to use separate logic board designs for the single socket model does mess with things a bit too. In the end it's a pretty inflated machine, but I just wanted to mention those details.

 

[relimw]

Another good point. If only we could run OSX on any workstation. Of course then I would have probably needlessly upgraded those parts 3 times in the last year just because I could, but still . . . . (anyway, never will happen)

100% agree on this point. The reason I don't use Windows, is, well Windows suxs I also do stuff that needs a POSIX unix to run, and Windows doesn't meet those qualifications.

 

[mBox]

You mean like Shake or Final Cut Pro? Oops - discontinued.

Haha well lets not forget that some of us use other Pro Apps with Apple in mind

 

[johanf]

Pro line is essential to loyal Mac Pro users

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

I'm worried about the high end of Apple.
Nearly all Apple news nowadays are about consumer products like phones and pads.
Apple has made some great software like Final Cut Pro (7), Aperture, Pages etc. However, it seems that they like to invent things but are not so keen to refine and update it later. Many of the software products are killed by time. Apple seems to be more interested to invent and show stuff than later keep it alive to cope with to the progress of other inventors like Adobe etc.
I want an FCP X which is at least as function packed and stable as FCP 7. I want a Pages Pro. I want a new Numbers which at least has ordinary MS Excel functions.
And I need Rosetta in the system to be able to upgrade past Snow Leopard because I have a lot of old professional stuff which need Rosetta otherwise I have to stay with Snow Leopard which probably means no new Mac Pro.

iPhone I don't care about since I changed to Android HTC.
iPad I don't need when I have MacBook Pros and also a third party TouchScreen on an iMac.
The Mac Pro line together with software are however essential stuff ...

 

[Clive At Five]

If your looking for something less than that then the 2009/2010MP is really what you want :/

No, it's NOT really what I want. Like others have pointed out Apple's neglect of BASIC TECHNOLOGY like USB3 is unacceptable. The rate at which Apple refreshes the MP technology is nothing short of egregious. The semi-annual update schedule for Apple's other lines is bad, but passable. Basic users don't give a damn about SATA III, and only care a little about storage and RAM bumps. But we're talking about Apple's Pro & prosumer user-bases, here. These are the people who care MORE about tech specs. Anything less than quarterly hardware refreshes (or at the bare minimum a spec bump) is, frankly, insulting.

Eh, dump the EFI and just let us buy the video cards we want/need.

And let you play outside Apple's walled garden prison? Dream on, friend.

 

[Clive At Five]

"the case," "the case," "the case," "the case..."

The case....

Have you forgotten that Apple has been using that atrocious Cheese Grater design since June of 2003? That's 8.5 years, kids, of nothing more than minimal tweaking of the internals.

I'm not one of those people who thinks Apple owes me/us something, but the fact that Apple hasn't put any care into redesigning the form-factor of their flagship PC for over EIGHT YEARS shows how little regard they have for their most committed user-base.

-Clive

 

[Inconsequential]

"the case," "the case," "the case," "the case..."

The case....

Have you forgotten that Apple has been using that atrocious Cheese Grater design since June of 2003? That's 8.5 years, kids, of nothing more than minimal tweaking of the internals.

I'm not one of those people who thinks Apple owes me/us something, but the fact that Apple hasn't put any care into redesigning the form-factor of their flagship PC for over EIGHT YEARS shows how little regard they have for their most committed user-base.

-Clive

It does the job.
I don't care if it changes or not, the Mac Pro is a tool, not a fashion statement ala iPhone, iPod, iPad.

The case is designed to make things easy to access whilst having the best airflow possible. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And if you *Really* care about it's looks then I challenge you to find a case on the market today that looks as good and is as well made.

The closest I've every really come is Lian Li cases, but surprise surprise nobody is buying them much anymore...

No, it's NOT really what I want. Like others have pointed out Apple's neglect of BASIC TECHNOLOGY like USB3 is unacceptable. The rate at which Apple refreshes the MP technology is nothing short of egregious. The semi-annual update schedule for Apple's other lines is bad, but passable. Basic users don't give a damn about SATA III, and only care a little about storage and RAM bumps. But we're talking about Apple's Pro & prosumer user-bases, here. These are the people who care MORE about tech specs. Anything less than quarterly hardware refreshes (or at the bare minimum a spec bump) is, frankly, insulting.

Have you lost your mind? You're actually in favor of the user having to eat up PCI slots on a BRAND NEW MACHINE to get features that are on boxes a fraction of the price? I'm just baffled by that.

lol, I am far from a "basic" user. I have no need for SATAIII, HDDs can't make use of it and SSDs over a certain point is a waste of money.

Just because you can get SSDs with 500MB/sec read/write does NOT mean you will notice a difference over something half the speed.

BENCHMARKS != REAL LIFE.

If your doing extremely heavy loading then your supposed to be using a RAID card anyway.

As for quarterly updates. What a complete waste of time. The most you'd ever be lucky to get is a CPU speed bump.

Would you prefer Apple used up 4x PCI-E lanes to make having SATA3 worth it, or have the ability to fit whichever SATAIII card you wanted?

Considering that other companies are offering machines comparable in performance to the base (quad) MP for probably half the price, it used to be that Apple was stupidly using more expensive chips without taking advantage of the feature provided by them, now they're just flat out overcharging for those machines.

Apple is famous for not dropping prices during each generation. I bought mine back at launch in 2009, so I've got my monies worth. So I couldn't care less that the price hasn't dropped.

They're already using two different motherboards, so hard to imagine how that would make much of a difference.

Simply incorrect.

The ONLY difference between the SP and MP Mac Pro (2009 & 2010) is the CPU-trays. Nothing else.

You can flash the 4,1 with 5,1 firmware, clearly showing that the 4,1 and 5,1 hardware is exactly the same.
I can swap a DP tray into my SP and it would work. I could swap a SP tray into a DP machine, it would work. Why? The rest of the hardware is the same...

LGA1155 and LGA2011 would require two different backplanes as well as a third CPU-tray.

Have you lost your mind? You're actually in favor of the user having to eat up PCI slots on a BRAND NEW MACHINE to get features that are on boxes a fraction of the price? I'm just baffled by that.

While I agree that right now is a bad time to update, the point is that Apple could have updated with most if not all those features 6+ months ago. They've done spec bumps in the past.

The solution to that is buy a second hand machine if you want cheap?

People still buying new MPs now are people who either don't care, don't know any better or have a job to do. We are enthusiasts and hence want the very best all the time.


Problem is adding ANYTHING to the MP in terms of SATAIII, TB, USB3 would require a backplane, case and probably CPU board re-design. Is that really worth doing with the SB-E Mac Pro in development at the same time?

I would be ROYALLY ****** off if this silly $1500 Core i7 Mac Pro took time away from my $3000 SB-E which then had bugs as a result.

 

[xgman]

"the case," "the case," "the case," "the case..."

The case....

Have you forgotten that Apple has been using that atrocious Cheese Grater design since June of 2003? That's 8.5 years, kids, of nothing more than minimal tweaking of the internals.

I'm not one of those people who thinks Apple owes me/us something, but the fact that Apple hasn't put any care into redesigning the form-factor of their flagship PC for over EIGHT YEARS shows how little regard they have for their most committed user-base.

-Clive

Who cares in the end. get an ipad if you want sleek. if you want to get to work, no one is looking at your case anyway. By the way, have you ever seen the but ugly PC cases on display at Micro center etc? Oh, and Apple doesn't "owe", they "profit".

 

[Digital Skunk]

...By the way, have you ever seen the but ugly PC cases on display at Micro center etc...

I haven't, but I have seen some of the workstation class cases by more traditional manufacturers like Dell and HP that allow for up to 6 internal HDD bays, a 2.5" bay, two 5.25" bays, two double wide PCI slots plus 4 more above those, etc. etc. All the while keeping cable clutter to a minimum and no tool upgrades to a maximum.

Then you have those gaming rigs that are just built for showing off like Alienware Aurora's. Those cost as much as a Mac Pro but are just smokin hot!