The mac will always be around... just won't be the same thing we are used to is all... be the client mainframe platform. Won't need a Mac Pro... you'll have a super computer at your disposal! I'll still keep my computers running snow leo forever as long as there's replacement parts.
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 Update Now Possible with New Xeon E5 Chips Next Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think "post PC" is more than a subtle way of saying - we are shifting away from desktop computers.
Chances are slim we will ever see another Macpro , personally I'm not going to torture my self anymore by longing for one.
It is what it is, giving Apple the bird, moving on...
Chances are slim we will ever see another Macpro , personally I'm not going to torture my self anymore by longing for one.
It is what it is, giving Apple the bird, moving on...
You aren't seeing it man, you are thinking wishfully, and that never works. I'm not following the Apple world too closely, but you are ignoring some huge milestones that signal the end of their time in the pro market. The hugest being the dumbing down of their two flagship software titles that drove the sales of the Mac Pro for quite a while. Simply put, Final Cut and Logic Pro are not the draws they used to be, therefor the box really doesn't have a leg to stand on. I can buy 8 Lenovos for the same price as one very dated Mac Pro and get way more performance and run a free OS that is significantly better. You can argue build quality and design all you want, but all i need is a steel cage that can hold some stuff in it. I'll get payed regardless of the finish of my case.....
Not. You have it backwards. The customers aren't buying. It isn't Apple letting the market go it is in part the market shifting to products that Apple doesn't sell. If there is a market shift tweaking the Mac Pro isn't necessarily going to bring them back. In fact, it is more risky to chase those folks with the wrong product line than to just walk away.
I am not saying Apple shouldn't ship a new Mac Pro, but if updated and it doesn't sell that is highly indicative of a market shift. Not Apple ignoring the market.
Sometimes the market changes and companies have to walk away from products. It is a huge mistake to not walk away when all the indicators are pointing at a collapse and just ignore it until profits go negative.
"It is still profitable" isn't a salient point. There is no reason to get to the state where taking loses to exit. If it is not profitable and growing the product is on the cut list for additional R&D. Don't think so. Look at the iPods. The touch got what? A color. The ipod shuffle and mini ... basically nothing last Fall.
Apple might treat the Mac Pro like the 30" Display. Just keep selling it for as long as "enough" people buy it. But it wouldn't get R&D. The risk they are evaluating is whether the R&D invested shows a return on investment that is as high as that money being spent on a variety of other problems. The $100B in cash just means they can take bigger bets on gambles that have very high returns on growths and profits. Not that they can blow money on a wider number of R&D projects. That money isn't Apple's. That is the stockholders money. If they don't show high returns on those investments the stockholders will take it away. None of the execs want that because it also helps them reduce risks.
From HP's and Dell's pattern of running a PC business but it isn't Apple's. Apple knows they lost the PC War. It is over. Windows won. Apple only needs to hold onto a profitable small fraction of the market to be successful. ( less than 10% is OK. ).
The Mac Pro folks are probably somewhere in the vicinity of 1-3% of the Mac base. If that 1-3% goes out and 1-3% of the overall PC market comes into Mac then that is a net gain for Apple. ( 3% of Apple's 8% share is smaller that 1% of Windows' 90% share. )
Apple's market strategy is to sell the right subset of profitable and growing products in the overall PC market. This will maximize the time in which they have a profitable subset of the industry. They walk away from the parts that aren't profitable or growing fast enough. Those are the parts of the market were most of the PC vendors in trouble financially suffer from.
One quick way to hemorrhage cash is the chase customers who don't want your product (discount coupons , "fire sales" , etc. ) Not the other way around.
Apple doesn't want to. If customers vote "no" by not buying the result is on them. Not Apple.
Spinning off Mac Pro is just re-invoking the "clone vendor" argument. That too is a dead and buried option. It is an extremely dubious move. iOS and OS X are too tightly coupled to have 3rd party vendors mucking around in there. The Lion - Mountain Lion trend is that they will only get more tightly coupled.
LOL. HP needs high margin workstations to offset the loss-leader boxes on the low end. On the whole HP's PC business has about 5-10% margins. (that's is exactly why there was thought of spinning of off when it was at 4%). Apple's Mac business has 25-30+% margins. Why on Earth would Apple abandon their strategy that has generated billions in freely allocated cash from operations to pick up HP's strategy which has not?
Notice how going higher up into HP's and Dell's workstation offerings Apple's solutions are actually under their prices? That because Apple doesn't have to "rob Peter to pay Paul". All the Mac products are profitable with healthy margin so there is not need for one subset to offset the costs of the other. They all stand on their own (or not ... discontinued ).
Dropping the XServe and XRaid really tanked Apple's bottom line over the last several years....... not!
This is the standard hand waving argument. "the 1 percenters" market is special. Apple will implode if they don't sell these machines. Sorry but that is a self centered, myopic , and deeply flawed position.
The core flaw here is the the "pro user market share" is 100% correlated with the Mac Pro. It isn't. There are already "pro" folks transitioning to other Mac products. The skewed argument here is that Apple has to wait until that transition goes to the point that 100% of the folks have left or bolted for Windows before turning off the product. It doesn't.
There has always been products in the pipeline that are not "Mac Pro tower class" boxes in the works that could do the current workload targeted to those machines. That is the whole computer market.
Minicomputer ate a significant fraction of Mainframe workload.
PCs/Workstations ate a significant fraction of Minicomputer workload.
Laptops are eating a significant fradction of Desktop workload.
Smartphones/Tablets are eating PC workload.
There is nothing new here. Well only thing new are a new set of folks yelping about how their workload "can't possibly move down a tier". Frankly, most of these arguments are all old-as-dirt. Just "substitute" "minicomputer" and "PC" for "Mac Pro" and "iToys" and it is the same handwaving from 20 years ago.
A lot of folks are very happy with the latest Final Cut Pro X update. I am not a hardcore user of the software, but many reviews and comments on forums indicate that features have been added or restored. I do use Logic Pro, though, and I think it is great. So, I think you are ignorant in your analysis of the situation. I am not saying the Mac Pro is going to live on, but that has nothing to do with FCPX or LP.
Also, you are full of crap when you state that you can buy eight Lenovos with a significantly better free OS for the price of a Mac Pro. And, btw, OS X only costs $29.00 now. I would gladly pay that price than resort to running some buggy Linux OS.
First, nice regurgitation of the "Apple hates Pros" FUD campaign. Your not following Apple too closely makes you an almost perfect patsy.
Second, those two programs were never solely the core of what the "Mac Pro" class of machines were aimed at. The class existed before those programs came to market and would exist even if they disappeared for some reason. There was a wide body of software that folks used machines in this class. I know there is a large group of users of those programs that deluded themselves into thinking that the Mac Pro was primarily made just for their program. That's looney.
FCPX cuts both ways by being rewritten from the ground up to be 64-bit , OpenCL , and multithreaded. None of those attributes are unique to the Mac Pro. There never were going to be exclusive to the Mac Pro for any significant period of time. So it is not "dumbed down" but broadened out to the whole Mac product line. How that is a bad idea holistically for the Mac product line I have no clue. Given Apple only has less that 10% of the PC market. Shrinking the machines the software can be used on to a smaller 1% of that subset would only inhibit the value in perusing the software. Mac only software has to shoot for covering a large fraction of the Mac base, because the Mac base is so relatively small.
For those workloads which need huge RAM and a dozen cores the Mac Pro fits now. Nevermind the possible updated version being even better. In fact that is one of the problems the Mac Pro has. It needs more software that can effectively use all the resources present in the box. Not fewer, higher priced titles, but expanding the set of multi-core , GPGPU, etc. titles. Two titles for a whole product entry is a joke. Any product with only two serious titles is doomed.
Apple never tried to go after these customers. It is only a subset of the market they want. Those who want a "system" (hardware + software).
8 workstations instead of one? Where am I going to put them? Round here, floor space costs about $800/sq ft, even if I have stacked them, the floor space alone would cost more than the MP.
Never mind the $300 a pop noise cancelling headphones everyone would be demanding from all that noise.
And who's going to manage the clustering? And rewriting of software? Does anyone even make an 8-way KVM? What's the incremental cost of 8 cable sets?
Yikes.
Maybe that solution works for you, but it would be a catastrophe in our shop.
Both of those products were bought in order to sure up faltering sales but nice revisionist history dude.
----------
LoL. This makes no sense. I don't even know how to reply.
I hope for your sake that you're getting paid to write all this. Those could be a lot of words to eat.
I remain optimistic that Apple will update the product. If the update comes, your arguments will be irrelevant to the end-user for at least two years. We should know fairly soon.
Some food for thought, below is from Apple's 2011 Annual Report, repeated in their 2012 10Q. Apple does not appear interested in ceding anything to Windows. Desktop sales have been steadily increasing and are up 12% for the 2012 first quarter, though true that the Mac Pro component is not broken down in that number. I don't think they will cede an inch in the PC market, they will try to capture more of it by re-defining it, not by dumbing it down.
"With respect to its Mac products, the Company believes the availability of third-party software applications and services depends in part on the developers’ perception and analysis of the relative benefits of developing, maintaining, and upgrading such software for the Company’s products compared to Windows-based products. This analysis may be based on factors such as the perceived strength of the Company and its products, the anticipated revenue that may be generated, continued acceptance by customers of Mac OS X, and the costs of developing such applications and services. If the Company’s minority share of the global personal computer market causes developers to question the Company’s prospects, developers could be less inclined to develop or upgrade software for the Company’s products and more inclined to devote their resources to developing and upgrading software for the larger Windows market."
Last edited:
Where is the evidence of that? Apple did buy both Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro, but I think it had more to do with their dedication to the professional creative market. Apple has traditionally aligned itself with this market... it is part of their DNA. Do I think they also wanted to sell hardware? Of course. But if Apple was only interested in sales and the bottom line, they could have produced crap all these years.
It makes a lot of sense... in order to get the power of a Mac Pro, you would have to harness the processing power of a bunch of cheap consumer-grade Lenovos. And that is what you would have to purchase if you think you could buy eight for the price of one Mac Pro. Also, they would take up a lot of space and have more fan noise. Does that not make sense?
----------
I agree with your comments. Apple might discontinue the current Mac Pro form factor or even the name, but I can't see them leaving pros high and dry. Pros use Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro (both have been updated very recently). Pros develop software for both OS X and iOS. Pros work in IT departments where Apple hardware is deployed. I would also think people within Apple's corporate walls might have a need for a more powerful workstation than what a MacBook Pro or Mac mini can offer.
You're right... time will tell... and then I suppose all of us will be eating at least a few of our comments! lol
New Xeons
I'm thinking that a good higher-end configuration for a new Mac Pro would be a pair of E5-2670's with 128GB of DDR3-1600, and an AMD Radeon HD 7970.
I'm thinking that a good higher-end configuration for a new Mac Pro would be a pair of E5-2670's with 128GB of DDR3-1600, and an AMD Radeon HD 7970.
Where is the evidence of that? Apple did buy both Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro, but I think it had more to do with their dedication to the professional creative market. Apple has traditionally aligned itself with this market... it is part of their DNA. Do I think they also wanted to sell hardware? Of course. But if Apple was only interested in sales and the bottom line, they could have produced crap all these years.
It makes a lot of sense... in order to get the power of a Mac Pro, you would have to harness the processing power of a bunch of cheap consumer-grade Lenovos. And that is what you would have to purchase if you think you could buy eight for the price of one Mac Pro. Also, they would take up a lot of space and have more fan noise. Does that not make sense?
----------
I agree with your comments. Apple might discontinue the current Mac Pro form factor or even the name, but I can't see them leaving pros high and dry. Pros use Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro (both have been updated very recently). Pros develop software for both OS X and iOS. Pros work in IT departments where Apple hardware is deployed. I would also think people within Apple's corporate walls might have a need for a more powerful workstation than what a MacBook Pro or Mac mini can offer.
You're right... time will tell... and then I suppose all of us will be eating at least a few of our comments! lol
Evidence:
Evidence Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Cut_Pro#History
"Final Cut was shown in private room demonstrations as a 0.9 alpha at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) exposition in 1998 after Macromedia pulled out of the main show floor. At the demonstration, both Mac and Windows versions were shown. The Mac version was working with a Truevision RTX dual stream real time card with limited real time effects. When no purchaser could be found, Apple purchased the team as a defensive move. When Apple could not find a buyer in turn, it continued development work, focusing on adding FireWire/DV support and at NAB 1999 Apple introduced Final Cut Pro. ProMax was the first vendor to demonstrate Final Cut Pro on the show floor. A third party training CD from DVcreators.net called "Final Cut Pro PowerStart" was also released at NAB 1999, the first FCP training product available."
This is a common practice for Apple, it goes along with their Intellectual squashing of the market. They either buy it outright, or buy the intellectual rights via patent. That's where their "innovation" comes from.
As far as the Lenovo question, just because it costs 8x as much doesn't mean it's 8x as great. If you have one operator who needs one box to work at, a Lenovo will work just fine. If you need 8 lenovos for 8 people i'm sure you'll have the room. Just because something is 8x as expensive that doesn't mean it's fills 8x the tasks. Another way to look at it would be to say: Do I need a ferrari to run any Pro level software these days? The answer is clearly, no. There really is no reason to own a Mac Pro at their current price range and configuration. There is something cheaper that will do it "good enough."
Personally, as a 3d artist, more and more shops are moving away from the Mac due to the ease of setting up Unbuntu or any other *nix languages and the cheap cost of a PeeCee.
I've been waiting for a long time to be able to afford one of these machines, but the fact is, technology is moving too fast for the current marketing cycle. These boxes are getting blown away by competitors due to neglect by dudes in suits at apple. That is lame. That's the bottom line.
No. They most likely bought because at those acquisition time points Steve Jobs had spent more time as CEO of Pixar than at Apple over the previous 8-10 years.
He bought what he "knew well" that was a good value proposition that could be flipped into more widely marketed, more affordable product. Exactly the same reason what Warren Buffet do not buy Tech companies. Doesn't know them as well and doesn't strike his interest.
Apple's DNA is taking expensive and/or less accessible technology and making it available to a wider number of "normal people". Starting from the first Apple I which is a pre-fabricated kit computer in the era when most PCs can in a box with assembly instructions. Through the Xerox Alto (who could personally afford one) to Lisa ( again who could afford one) to the Mac ( OK maybe if I eat Ramen noodles for a couple of months ). Notice the price dropping in that sequence? Same with the iPod , iPhone, iPad , etc. etc. etc.
The Mac was the "The computer for the rest of us" long before this skewed vision of elitist "think different" notion came along. "Think Different" wasn't suppose to be the elitist anthem it has become. It has been bastardized by folks who want to skew it that way primarily by ignoring who are most of the people in the ad.
There was a short term top-gap, "put a finger in the dike", element to buying these programs ( because of the developer flight off of the Mac that is still in motion). But the long term plan was always to make them more affordable and accessible. If they were solely tied to only the Mac Pro they would not accomplish that overall strategic objective. Nor have they been tied exclusively to the Mac Pro over time.
Apple is interested in sales and bottom line. What Apple isn't interest in is short term gimmicks to increased sales and bottom line. Apple takes a long term view about making money, but the products have to pay off over time. There are no "free rides". That was one of the systemic problems in the 90's that tanked the company.
No. Similar posts about XServe " Apple store runs on WebObjects... Apple has to keep the XServe". Sorry. Right tool for the right job. Apple writes checks with lots of zeros on them to Oracle, SAP, and Microsoft for tools they need to get their jobs done.
I"m sure Apple would like to have a workstation. But if the customers don't buy in sufficient numbers there is not reason to keep it around "just because we have to". Selling to customers is the only reason that counts.
Your evidence came from a wikipedia article? Really? And you are really trying to say that all Apple innovation comes from buying other company's intellectual property?
Just because you do not need a powerful Mac Pro does not mean other people don't. "Good enough" might be compatible with your work ethic and clients' expectations, but that is not true for all.
I think they'll do at least one more version also. I think they know they don't know how many customers are out there for the Mac Pro. The potholes that parts chain has thrown into the product have muddied the waters and it is probably worth one last try to make it work.
If it works great, they'll continue. If it doesn't work... they'll walk away. Perhaps slowly ( milk the R&D for as long as it will sell.) but no more R&D.
I wouldn't count on two years. If the response is extremely poor there is little reason even to hiccup a Ivy Bridge firmware bump next year. Support lasts for 5 years after discontinuing so there is a long trailing cost chain here. However, there is so much pent up demand the response should be at least be positive growth for a year. That's enough for another year.
Having more product SKU is not equal to taking share to Windows.
Before Jobs got back the Mac Product line up had like a dozen models. More if throw in the clones. That got cut back to six major models.
If don't count the "sub versions" now have 5 : " MBA , MBP , Mini , iMac , MacPro". Last spring it was 6 : <same list> + "Macbook". ( can argue the MB and MBA 11" just traded places).
It is not quantity, it is quality market fit that matters. It is how well each one of those is targeted at the market they are aimed at and if each actually grows the Mac market.
The rumored MBA 15" could replace the MacPro and keep the number of models constant. If Apple believes that would bring in a large number ( 500K) of Windows users they could pull the trigger on it if it shows a greater rate of return.
Right. So how would a shrinking Mac Pro contribute to a positive Mac market perception to developers? Developers need more Macs to sell their software into. Any model that isn't making that market for OS X software bigger isn't contributing to the solution. It is not about "profitable Mac" it is about profitable and growth Macs.
The Mac market is relatively so small, developers are not going to target just the Mac Pro. Most will make their software run on the other boxes. If those boxes increase in number at a rate faster than the Mac Pros are decreasing it is a minor issue for them. There is no "get out of jail free" card for the Mac Pro in Apple's statement above.
What's wrong with wikipedia articles? If you need further proof, go to the cited articles at the bottom and read further. I can't help it if you are in denial of the facts.
Nobody needs a powerful mac pro at this moment. It has no place in the market. It's quite obvious. Name one piece of software that needs those specs. Oh right, you can't because the primary platforms are windoze and unix.
oh and one more thing quality of machine =/= quality of work put out. If you think that's the case, your sorely mistaken, and probably not working in any field where the dollar is king.
Last edited:
That's a lot of speculation. I think it is pretty obvious that Apple has historically been aligned with the creative pro community and the creative community in general. That predates Jobs at Pixar.
I agree.
I still don't think Apple will abandon the pro market. I have posted before that I don't know if the Mac Pro will be discontinued or not, but I do believe something will take its place.
Last edited:
I saw nothing at the bottom that corroborates that section of the Wikipedia article you quoted. Wikipedia articles are basically a message board. Anybody can post anything... you should know that. If you cite Wikipedia in your research, then you are a buffoon!
Science applications and simulations... video post production... OS X server (there are no more Xserves and minis don't have the same connectivity)... and some people just want as much power as possible... I need as much power as I can get for tracking and applying effects in Logic Pro.
If you can get the job done with a generic box with Linux, then good for you. If you can make the same amount of money with that system, then, again, good for you. Your needs are not my needs or the same as everyone else. If some say they need the power, quality components, connectivity, and expandability of a Mac Pro, then I trust these professionals know their field and their needs. I can produce great music on a piece of **** honky tonk piano, but I can create even better music with the right technology at my disposal.
I prefer a powerful Mac with OS X, and that is what I will use. You prefer a cheap Lenovo with a free Linux OS, and that is certainly fine with me. Why should I care? Don't tell me what I need to do my work. I didn't tell you what you need... nor do I care.
In some of the previous transitions the lower models picked up a lot of higher end features such as in the case of generic video cards which were driven by the video game industry relative to SGI workstations and stuff like Barco Creator vs photoshop (which debuted on the mac much like Quark, both of which contributed to the dominant use of the mac in publishing along with other features that were added on the Mac before Windows). In this case it's not just one of lighter hardware. Useful features in drivers and reliability/quality control aren't addressed to the same level on the lower machines, and their volume probably makes this extremely difficult especially when balancing the cost of manufacturing as opposed to the number of users who will recognize these improvements. Displays are one area where I've hated the products ever since the transition from crts. Various companies have come up with excellent lcd implementations for over a decade. With Apple displays it was always high failure rates, warm greys, weird uniformity issues, etc. typical of less expensive displays. They were not at all on the level of the really expensive units yet much more expensive than the budget models, and had a lot of parts that were prone to failure outside of a short warranty period.
I don't personally care what the form factor looks like. I care about usability. The only thing that sucks is transition periods where you have a lot of supporting hardware (such as storage boxes that require a host card, or really any specialized hardware that can't be migrated) that isn't quite ready for replacement, yet the potential updates are unattractive. The transitions away from such products have been hastened by Apple backing off on the level of hardware offered at the base price points (and they aren't exactly lower at the top if compared with comparable builds, just much closer) and the lack of software and OS support for further gains in performance have contributed to the stagnation here. As an example, 64 bit application build remove a lot of limitations in the way you can work (you no longer have to work around ram limits to such a degree on a single application level) but that didn't come about until SL. Given the time to transition code and stuff, several of these companies released 64 bit versions a year or more later on the Mac than Windows (looking at Autodesk and Adobe primarily).
Apple always got a free pass on this kind of thing, yet microsoft was criticized for it
. I always found that funny. 3d was never that popular on the Mac overall given that some of the biggest applications were limited on OSX. It's improved, but some of the plugins and stuff really aren't entirely available. Linux has other issues. The use of Linux there seems to go back to dedicated hardware where you'd have a few Linux boxes or specific certified workstations to run very specific applications. Ubuntu seems to be gaining some support from NVidia for better gpu drivers and stuff, but Linux as a whole still has a high level of fragmentation, and many of the really heavy applications don't seem to be certified specifically under Ubuntu. If Linux had better support from Adobe and a better overall level of system level color management and profile loading, I imagine they'd gain further popularity given that Adobe is the developer that offers them the least support (Autodesk, Maxon, The Foundry, etc. all port to Linux).There are some excellent things about Linux and features offered by Lenovo, although I don't think Lenovo workstations are one of their major lines given the limitations in configuration relative to other oems and the lesser number that are certified by some of these software developers.
Linux itself doesn't necessarily equate to free or cheap. It's just the OS that's free. From Apple you pay $30. They both build the real costs in elsewhere. Linux has support contracts and things that do cost quite a bit. With Apple they build the costs into their hardware. I know what you're responding to, but neither is just a cheap solution. In the case of Apple, features and support have definitely fallen behind in a couple areas for me which is quite annoying at the price points of these machines. It has received very limited development in the past few years especially at a bug fix and driver level in areas where in the past this would have been less likely.
Anyway growth is always what excites people in tech. Look at how many people predict ARM cpus on the Air as soon as this year. They notice a technology type making impressive gains and it becomes desirable from a consumer standpoint. If you're wondering why I wrote this much, I wanted to be part of the conversation
.
If you can't take my word for it, then I can link you to about another 100 webpages if you would like. However, I don't think your response is going to change.
And again, as far as "powerful" and "cheap"
The two terms don't even correlate. You are trying to argue apples and oranges. Anybody who tells you that you are making a good business decision buying a Power Mac right now or in the Future under the current spec/pricing isn't being honest or can't run the math properly. Furthermore, anybody who has a brand loyalty such as your own will continuously make bad decisions. Sorry dude, but you just don't know what you are talking about.
@ The Key I use Zbrush Nuke, Maya and Amira on Ubuntu based machines a ton and it works great. I don't have to do any of the support on these computers so I'm not sure how it goes on that end regarding support, hence my desire for a Mac Pro that I can't justify atm....catch 22 of sorts.
Last edited:
Nope. Lenovo sells you a machine with 4GB of RAM and dual Xeon processors based on the Westmere architecture with an nVidia Quadro 400 for 1599$. Compare that to the base Mac Pro that sells for 1000$, and consider the fact that Lenovo sells you all of this hardware in what they call "The smallest workstation case" being part of their slim workstation line-up...
No, the comment made no sense at all. Lenovo has updated their workstation hardware more than once in the last 2 years. They update GPUs, RAM, lower prices based on market realities, things Apple doesn't do.
Sounds good... give me links from insider sources... not speculation and conjecture. Thanks!
I prefer OS X and some OS X only apps, and that means I need to buy a Mac. I also prefer a powerful workstation that can be updated and has more than one ethernet port. What other machine should I buy to run OS X without violating the OS X license? So, I will buy a Mac Pro if there is another release... I never said I would buy the current Mac Pro. I agree that it is NOT a good deal at the current price and specs. That is why I want an update!
I do know what I like, and I do know what I am talking about. I am glad your workflow works great, but I require different apps than you. How does Logic Pro run on Ubuntu? See my point? We have different needs! Jeesh!
----------
Right... and my point was that you could NOT purchase EIGHT Lenovos for the price of one Mac Pro and have them be equal. You obviously did not follow the complete thread. I agree that there are cheaper higher-end Lenovos that are more powerful, but that wasn't what I was referring to. The other point I was making is that I prefer OS X, so I will stick with Mac hardware... and that will include an updated Mac Pro if that ever becomes a reality.
That's right, they wouldn't be equal, they'd be more powerful. You can sit 8 operators behind 8 boxes or have one operator behind one box. It's obvious that your just some dude making tunes so i'll stop now. But like, you've been continuously rebutted throughout this thread by several people and your brand loyalty isn't allowing you to see it.
*Posted from my Ipad using a cheap linksys router...something you'll never understand.
Please educate me... show me the eight Lenovos for the same price as one Mac Pro that are each more powerful.
I am loyal to Logic Pro, and I am loyal to running the most powerful workstation I can that is capable of running that software. I think making music is great... and I am not just "some dude making tunes", as you so insultingly said. You know nothing about me or what I do. Personal attacks... really?