Just isn't the same as running a real Mac. There are so many little things that get annoying.
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.
Mac Pro is not being axed.
- Thread starter spacedesign911
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just isn't the same as running a real Mac. There are so many little things that get annoying.
Actually, it was a Apple news site report that suggested Apple was "rethinking"
the line, but that wouldn't have been such a issue if Intel had delivered on time. The long wait has fueled concerns which may have been subdued somewhat if the suggestion was never made in the press. Also if Apple had give any sort of scrap of intent months ago, there wouldn't have been such uncertainty here. There are a lot of people that want to make all sorts of excuses for Apple's lack of communication. They may be exactly right in many cases, but it still bothers a number of us, and I don't see anything wrong with expressing ourselves on this forum community.
----------
Agreed. At this point I'd rather have the uncertainty of when and if as opposed to worrying about drivers and whether it will boot and if the next update will work. Been there, done that. No thanks.
And as was pointed out, the same site said that the Mac Mini was dead three years ago.
I don't necessarily disbelieve that somewhere in Apple someone had a conversation about the future of the Mac Pro, but without a when/what/where/why/who it's not all that great of info. It could have been a VP in the iOS division with no real power over the Mac Pro who brought up cutting the line for all we know.
Way too much fuss over an extremely unspecific report from an unreliable source.
2014 you mean,Id say we are now on a 2 year cycle
The angst will start in 2013 so we'll need to have snacks figured out by then.
Actually some of them do (e.g., have a look at Amazon resellers) and your assumption appears to be correct: most resellers only show single- or double-digit stock levels on the HP Z620, my Mac Pro alternative (for now). Supply issues must certainly be the main problem.
There's certainly something to Apple wanting to have sufficient stock on hand, but then again the Mac Pro is such a niche product that you'd think even a small batch could satisfy initial demand. Personally, I have my fingers crossed that they announce something on June 11 and allow at least pre-ordering so I can get a purchase order put together before the end of our fiscal year on the 15th. I don't need it to ship right away but need to get the funds officially encumbered.
I've noticed that people tend to believe the bad news/rumors and disbelieve the good news/rumors.
Agreed, although it just depends on what annoys you and are you willing to deal with it. not recommend for those that don't have a good understanding of Mac OS X and PC hardware.
Here's what I just did.....
1. eBayed my 2007 2,1
2. Bought a new 5,1
3. Good for another 5 years.
4. Profit
1. eBayed my 2007 2,1
2. Bought a new 5,1
3. Good for another 5 years.
4. Profit
There is a massive difference between having a discussion about something and making a plan to do something.
This point seems to have been completely lost in the thousands of threads written based on a single rumour with not a shred of evidence to back it up. It suggests a very high level of paranoia in the Mac Pro community!
Probably too busy posting more consumer iProducts drivel that generate more site traffic than a Mac Pro rumour.
To be fair, Apple's policy of secrecy around future products isn't helping here. It forces us to read tea leaves, and we wound up with a cup of bad omens. I don't blame anyone for being nervous.
That said, Apple would be foolish to kill off the Pro without a competent replacement. It would result in a major "reverse halo" (horns? pitchfork?) effect that would impact the entire desktop market. Folks who need a pro would have to leave, but those who might need one in the future would be driven out too, as well as a lot of bandwagon jumpers. It would not be pretty.
I think Apple simply painted itself into a corner when it comes to their product lines; No-one else makes something comparable with the Xeon in workstation performance at the moment, and given the costs and delays, Intel is either taking advantage of that monopoly, or is on the bleeding edge of fabrication capabilities. They can't upgrade without parts, and they can't downgrade without harming the iMac.
Still, in the past, Apple has done price cuts when there was no clear upgrade for a system over time. If nothing else, they should at least have reined in the CTO costs; those prices are just offensive these days.
As far as Jobs was concerned, Apple's whole raison d'etre was to facilitate the marriage of the liberal arts and technology.
As long as creative professionals require a powerful Apple computer to realise that creative process I believe Apple will provide one.
Anything else would be a betrayal of the core of the apple.
As long as creative professionals require a powerful Apple computer to realise that creative process I believe Apple will provide one.
Anything else would be a betrayal of the core of the apple.
The problem with that statement is that I don't believe creative professionals require Apple computers anymore. Apple doesn't have have the stronghold of the creative community that it had years ago.
Require and Want are two different things.....
All you have to do is see the disproportunate number of Macs displayed on television to realise your statement is not true. Apple still rules in Hollywood....
They never did require Apple computers even back then. Final Cut Pro was popular because it was a LOT cheaper than Avid.
Even when Aperture came out there were more expensive Darkroom apps. Despite the ideology that Apple products are always expensive they often buck that trend with software that is functional, albeit limited in scope, at a great price.
Adobe may be the only other company that can compete at this level on price. I mean to have a well stocked media setup for Macs costs very little
Final Cut Pro X - $300
Compressor - $ 50
Motion - $ 50
Logic Pro - $200
Aperture - $ 80
Less than a kilobuck and you've got software that you can earn a living off of. Amazing times.
----------
Even better. Go to a college campus and see what the kids are using. I'm seeing more Macs than ever on campuses. These are the future media studs and they're learning on Apple apps.
Get SL Running on one for now and its quite a stable experience if you get the right hardware. I'd agree though running one for years is a hassel.
And how many of those are unpaid product placements? Hollywood whores out everything at this point. Including just about any recognizable brand that you see in a show or movie.
They are largely there because Apple paid for them to be there. You can tell when the logo is covered/obscured that sometimes they don't pay, but the machine is disguised.
As other people have mentioned, they never did.
When was the last time Photoshop was Mac only?
TV logos need clearance as well
Not only that, but if an identifiable product is shown, permission must be obtained by the owner of the shown copyright/trademarked item. I've been on a couple of "reality TV" shoots where we were instructed to display NO logos on our t-shirts, hats, etc., and they ran around with black gaffer tape to cover those marks that showed up anyway.
The only product names that were allowed were guitars, drumsets, keyboards, and amps: Guess they decided that taping over the Fender or Gibson logo would not be allowed by the owners of said instruments. Maybe they had clearance as well, don't know.
Not only that, but if an identifiable product is shown, permission must be obtained by the owner of the shown copyright/trademarked item. I've been on a couple of "reality TV" shoots where we were instructed to display NO logos on our t-shirts, hats, etc., and they ran around with black gaffer tape to cover those marks that showed up anyway.
The only product names that were allowed were guitars, drumsets, keyboards, and amps: Guess they decided that taping over the Fender or Gibson logo would not be allowed by the owners of said instruments. Maybe they had clearance as well, don't know.
They may just not be out in volume yet. Intel has been playing with their launch dates. They officially launch something, and the wait begins whether it's feasible to ship products in volume or not.
I know Dell is estimating July, but they did some major redesign work. I kind of wonder if there was a lack of testing samples early on if they're showing up in online retailers yet still not shipping from the biggest oems. By that I mean that they've already made their way through distributors to online retailers. Oems typically have purchasing contracts.
I'll bring beer. It's so silly how people get focused on what they want Apple to cancel rather than build.
Publishing really did stay with macs. It just remained a thing long after it was truly necessary. Photoshop and Quark (which no one remembers) both debuted on Macs. Even though they were ported to PCs within a couple years, Macs remained the most popular in this area.
What you see on television isn't necessarily what was used to create it.
I don't see that at all and I teach at a major university. We certainly run off of both Mac and PC hardware but none of the applications are proprietory to Apple. It's all Adobe, Autodesk, Avid, The Foundry, etc. And most of this advanced software is running in our upperclass and graduate labs on PC workstations.
I see the same thing in the vfx/post houses I do work for as well.
Yeah, "required" was a poor word choice and I didn't mean it that way. I was just using in response to how the post I was replying to did.
Yes they do. It is a barter trade. None of those shows are buying them. But they are being bartered for position. I said Holloywood were whores .... not expensive hoes. Most are like the hoes to who tricks for crack rocks.