New Mac Pro before Sept ... or bust.

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by deconstruct60, Mar 7, 2013.

  1. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #1
  2. phoenixsan macrumors 65816

    phoenixsan

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    #2
    From the link....

    you posted, I see this important tidbit of info:

    "Both series are three or four generations older than Xeon E3-1200 v3 products, expected to launch in Q2 2013, therefore it's not surprising to see them retired"

    Apple being an OEM partner with Intel can have access to very early notifications that the normal public/media. And that also applies to available CPU chips in production quantities.So, IMHO, the bust can be no Mac Pro upgrade in the 2013....:eek::(

    :):apple:
     
  3. deconstruct60 thread starter macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #3
    I don't really understand that comparison. This seems to be some weird notion that Intel seems to be trying to float that the Xeon E3 are some sort of follow on to the Xeon 3000 series . They are not.

    The Xeon 3000 series evolved into the E5 1600 series.

    The E3 is a totally new branch in product targeting that they kicked off around the same time they stalled the 3500's evolution with a anemic 3600 series roll out of one and only one model in the whole "series". Over two years they bumped that to a grand total of 3 but it was slow and substantive contributor as to why the lowest entry point of the Mac Pro has competitive computational performance problems against the modern Mac Minis and iMacs.

    There is a notion that

    3000 --> E3
    5000 ---> E5
    7000 --> E7

    I think some of the pr and marketing weenies at Intel think that. I don't they have a clue from an architectural standpoint of what they are talking about.

    I imagine though there is some tension to "prune" the 1400 and 1600 E5 from the product line up. It doesn't make much sense though from the workstation market perspective though.

    The E3 is relatively anemic when it comes to I/O relative to the E5 1600 .

    It really isn't going to make much of a difference. If Apple rolls out something Q4 2013 after 8-9 months of being frozen out of the EU markets. After the parts used in the single package market being pulled from stores.
    Seriously, HP/Dell/Lenovo/etc sales folks are going to be clowning Apple sooooooo hard it that is going to make Apple sales job even in die-hard Mac shops hard. Apple may sell a small number of 2013 Mac Pro but what will happen is that it is being positioned for failure. Once it fails Apple will point to the dismal sales numbers and kill the product (or put it in comatose mode for a couple years and then kill it.)

    If it is Q4 2013 Apple is looking for an almost complete different set of customers that is something else. Or else several folks at Apple is drinking gallons of Cupertino kook-aid.
     
  4. d-m-a-x macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    #4
    Mac Pro = Mac Pathetic. Come on Apple, get it together
     
  5. deconstruct60 thread starter macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #5
    There is a chance they aren't as clueless as they look now and that there is something that is just several weeks off target.

    This should have been the window they were shooting for in 2013 just before these sorts of stories started to break which will just compound their marketing problems.
     
  6. d-m-a-x macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    #6
    i think they could have had something the day sandy bridge came out. I'm sure the most profitable computer company in the world had the means and the knowhow to do it, they are just completely sidetracked with i-toys
     
  7. deconstruct60 thread starter macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #7
    given what appears to be the decisions that were made in late 2010-2011 I don't think so. I looks like that at least mothballed if not outright shut down Mac Pro during that period. So they painted themselves into a corner for that transition.

    The so call toys are why they are the most profitable computer company in the world. It is not so much distraction as taking advantage of opportunity they had. iOS is completely tangential issue. The Mac Pro isn't even keeping up with the other Mac products. There is no reason to drag in anything outside the Mac space to point to the problematical issues.

    Even if they started in late 2011-early 2012 the fact they missed this deadline before this streak of external deadlines got imposed on them, it doesn't really support the "know how". Much more like "know not". What is happening here smacks of suspect product management than know how.
     
  8. brand macrumors 601

    brand

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #8
    The fact that Apple has chosen not to perform a substantial update to the Mac Pro in no way means they are clueless. What an absurd thing to say.
     
  9. deconstruct60 thread starter macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #9
    Sorry but to tell folks you are going to do something and then start to get hammered with the product being forced off the market because it is so old is clueless. There is no way someone with a clue would have planned to do this on purpose. If they had a clue they had a hard external deadline they should have been prepared well before it hit.

    In no way is Apple demonstrating competence right now in terms of product management or customer support on the Mac Pro.
     
  10. PowerPCMacMan macrumors 6502a

    PowerPCMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    PowerPC land
    #10
    Sadly..

    Nothing can be further from the truth. Apple really does not care. Oh well, to the OP: "Bust!"


     
  11. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #11
    It's a very large company, so I wouldn't call their entire team clueless. This is a gaff though. Internally they had time to discuss this. They knew about EU laws and changes on intel's end earlier than people who read tech articles. Sometimes I think it's just arrogance on the part of their management.
     
  12. wallysb01 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    #12
    I find it hard to beleave the Mac Pro slipped past an internal deadline. The parts have been available for nearly a year, and it fairly unlikely Apple is trying to do some complicated redesign that would include something difficult. It just wouldn't make sense to go from nearly axing the machine to investing who knows how much into introducing something novel to the Mac Pro other than chip updates. So what could possibily be the hold up, other than A) someone f-ed up or B) this was the plan and they are just dumb or cancelling the Mac Pro.

    Honestly, how had could it be to get someone to provide LGA 2011 motherboards, the appropriate Xeon chips, the same case, updated GPUs, and throw the thing out there? Workstations are the easiest thing in the world to build. I just don't believe a delay. And with all this negative news, pointing out how old the Mac Pro is, why wouldn't they just announce it even if its not ready to ship for another month or even more? They certainly do that all the time and it would help keep people from jumping ship.
     
  13. deconstruct60 thread starter macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #13
    For something of the complexity of the Mac Pro it isn't surprising. The larger than average (for the Mac) configurations that need to be tested and evaluated, additional drivers, and other software it is a bit more than just new hardware.

    When bringing lost of different subcomponents together into a new system it is not hard to produce slippages in schedule. For example, regular clockwork patches will show up several weeks after a new OS X update of stuff that really should have been in the bundle in the first place. The majority of those were trying to hit the targeted date and missed.

    Throw on top of that they haven't tried to do it in a long time. The last moor board driven refresh was done by folks back in 2008. It wouldn't be surprising a significant portion of that team doesn't even work on the Mac Pro anymore ( heck some may not work at Apple at all anymore with that kind of gap. Honestly, why would anyone who particularly liked making workstation class products and had job offers at other companies have staid at Apple all this time? With this kind of a gap it is very likely Apple has had brain drain. Even if the board is really done by substractors. No one has "run" the subcontractors in a long time. )

    That's why if there was a March 1st drop dead deadline they should have been targeting something several weeks in advance.


    Apple does go out their way to make it a challenging task. ;-) No visible wires if possible. Seamless handle attachment. etc. Sometimes their OCD approach to design makes the products harder to get out. It isn't a big issue if they allocated time to spend OCD time on those issues.


    That worked so well the last time they did it; iMac in the Fall. I think there is a judgement call in that the stock analyst and market followers will say "who cares some EU guy can't get one". Rather than Apple once again get on stage and say "we're not really ready but... ". They may be in over protective damage control mode. ( it isn't helping but folks are busy making internal political moves. )


    For Macs they generally don't. For iphones the logistical issues are an order of magnitude larger to the point where they can't.

    Again going back to the iMac, I wouldn't be surprised if there is low confidence in projected schedule ( if the date has been revised several times at some point there is no believe in any date. )
     
  14. PowerPCMacMan macrumors 6502a

    PowerPCMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    PowerPC land
    #14
    Again, speculation.. We don't know what the new Mac Pro will be like, but from the information we have thus far I anticipate it won't be like the Mac Pro we all know and love. It will be a some sort of hybrid, a mix of iMac and Mac Mini with "PRO" attached to it. Or it could be a rack mount type of design.

    Either way, I expect it not to be as heavily user friendly in terms of expansion compared to what we all have now. I hope I am DEAD wrong.. but the way Apple now does things and their direction is proof that the days of expanding our machines is slowly coming to a close.
     
  15. d-m-a-x macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    #15
    Those 2tb 3.5 inch drives are interesting. If its a sealed box, time to get the torches and pitchforks out
     
  16. ValSalva macrumors 68040

    ValSalva

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    Burpelson AFB
    #16
    In the big picture I can only see two possibilities for this Mac Pro delay:

    1) Apple is waiting to release a new Mac Pro that can push out enough pixels to a desktop retina display. The parts are not ready or satisfactory enough for Apple yet.

    2) Apple is allowing the market for the Mac Pro to slowly realize the Mac Pro isn't necessary (not true but Apple is abandoning the highest end of the market). Apple is not going to make another Mac Pro. The next Professional grade Mac that Cook referred to is going to be a retina iMac released later this year.

    Of course I hope #1 is correct but fear Apple is done with the Mac Pro.
     
  17. Wardenski macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2012
    #17
    Is there a GPU capable of running a big retina display? Let alone one that could fit into an iMac.

    I find it hard to believe that Mac Pro die hards would even touch an iMac and get a Dell/HP or Supermicro workstation etc instead. I am not a professional but I have four internal HDs which would go to waste with an iMac.
     
  18. JesterJJZ macrumors 68020

    JesterJJZ

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
  19. ValSalva macrumors 68040

    ValSalva

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    Burpelson AFB
    #19
    I'm not sure if there is a video card available that could push enough pixels to an iMac retina display. But it's only a matter of time before there are some.

    A lot of Mac Pro users have already moved to iMacs and even MacBook Pros. Of course not all would make the move. To me the iMac isn't an option. But for many it is.
     
  20. deconstruct60, Mar 9, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2013

    deconstruct60 thread starter macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #20
    New AMD 7000 series and Nvidia K5000 GPU PCI-e cards information leads to Mini and iMac designs being more plausible? Not really.



    Removing ODDs, one of the most consistent trend right now across the Mac line up, has very little to do with expansion. The other major trend right now is Thunderbolt. To position that Thunderbolt is not about expansion is more that just a little dubious.

    The mini is about as tall, wide and deep as it has been for the product's lifetime. The iMac is about as tall, wide , and deep as it has been for these respective screen sizes. Yes laptops are on track for thinner and lighter but all competitive laptops are on that track. If not on that track the "attack of the killer tablets" will eat them alive over time. "Killer tablets" aren't a major threat to the workstation market right now so that is non factor in making them more competitive with other offerings in the workstation space.


    If there are multiple PCI-e slots then it won't be a sealed box. If Apple is drinking gallons of Thunderbolt kool-aid then there will be no slots. But why the new cards and drivers? Better still why give up the massive increase in performance in I/O and/or computation (enough to swamp Thunderbolt bandwidths) by being able to add cards of that class? Are the TB kool-aid dispensing inmates running the asylum now? Is Apple really that technologically clueless? Right now the major differentiating performance gains in the workstation market come through PCI-e cards.

    Apple could add Thunderbolt to the Mac Pro without taking away the PCI-e slots. It can easily be in compliance with the "all Macs must have TB " with zero number of PCI-e slots going away. There would likely be a GPU embedded on the motherboard but against that doesn't mean there can't be PCI-e slots.


    Retina has two factors. pixel ppi and distances from the eyes. In most detached monitor situations moving the monitor back a inch or two is a far more cost effective way of achieving "Retina" than massively increasing the ppi.

    For a laptop the keyboard is attached so the distance is limited. For a phone/ipad limited by arm length, eyesight (due to smallness) , and/or lap distance to prop it on. None of that has any significant connection to desktop configurations.

    There are no Retina iMacs. The upcoming TB docking station ( Display) is likely to exactly mimic the current iMacs. Exactly the same ppi due to the above factors. The likely upcoming TB docking station is delayed for exactly the same reasons the iMac was delayed. If Apple coupled the Mac Pro release to the revised docking station release that was a bozo move. But I can see them as making that kind of bozo move.



    There is lots of hand waving wishing for relatively cheap 4K monitors. Not going to happen any time soon.


    It is far more likely the many segments of the market realized that for their own workloads long before Apple did. There are some "head in the sand" folks that haven't caught the overall market trends, but Apple isn't way out in front of the curve here. In fact this have been the relative norm over the last 60+ years of electronic computers for workloads to gradually move to smaller machines over time. Some stay but the overall the expansion is largely on the smaller end where new "smaller" products appear over time.

    "Retina", or not, wouldn't make an iMac "professional". It also would have been absolutely horribly bad expectation management if when repeatively asked about the Mac Pro and respond going to have something new in 2013 to not deliver a Mac Pro. Don't confuse restrictions on Apple's ability to specifically name a product as a likely indicator that they are engaging in misdirection. It is vague because a vague, indirection reference to a product is all that they can name and still be in compliance with the directive.

    If Apple eventually goes "iMac Pro" (perhaps a refinement on HP Z1 concept) that is really only a move to "save' the entry level customers from the Mac Pro and fold those into the iMac customer pool. If they drop the Mac Pro it is because the market of folks who want to buy a Mac Pro on a regular basis has shrunk so far as to make it non-viable as a growth market. Whether there is on going Mac Pro depends far more upon what customers do next than on what Apple does next (well after they actually deliver something new. ). There are two sides to this.
     
  21. deconstruct60 thread starter macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #21
    video cards are relatively a non factor. For the modestly small increase in ppi needed to do "overkill" for most detached monitor contexts, it really outside the range of what can drive a current 27" monitor well.

    Doing "pixel doubling" would be complete and total overkill from a real retina standpoint for nominal placement of these ( 25"-30" ) screens.
     
  22. ValSalva macrumors 68040

    ValSalva

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    Burpelson AFB
    #22
    It might seem like overkill but isn't it easier on everyone (web designers, developers, etc.) for Apple to only require 1x and 2x assets in apps? Not that Apple does what's easiest for developers, but it does seem logical.
     
  23. deconstruct60 thread starter macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #23
    No, if users can attach 21" , 24" , 27" , 30" and super wide screens to the box the screen size dimensions are going to vary anyway. They still have dynamic layout issues.

    1x and 2x just means the larger screens can use the 1x versions. It doesn't mean they have to produce 2x larger version. Especially if a 2x screen isn't economical for Apple or the users. Even more so if it is largely overkill.

    It is far easier and economical to make a 4K screen that is just physically big as oppose to for example trying to pack it into 21.5" inch screen. Not that it is discount pricing but...

    http://www.tomshardware.com/news/eizo-4k-lcd-monitor-display,15278.html

    A 36" monitor with 1x. Trying to push that into 17-20" monitor isn't really going to make it "retina". It already is if position at the appropriate viewing distance.

    You seem to be implicitly driving at a notion it would be easier to aggressively move everyone to 2x and dump 1x. Given the rate of change of the user base that is unlikely to get any traction at all and is highly premature.

    Current cards targeted at Display 1.2 are max out at 4096x2160 per display. ( For example the new AMD 8970M do that and can do multiple displays). At maximum gaming refresh rates perhaps not so much but it is a mobile GPU.
     
  24. PowerPCMacMan macrumors 6502a

    PowerPCMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    PowerPC land
    #24
    You and 1000 others, possibly everyone on this forum.

     
  25. DisMyMac macrumors 65816

    DisMyMac

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2009
    #25
    Is there any hope for honeycomb panels, ie. hexagon pixels? The edges would be jagged, but that shouldn't matter because Retina is too small to notice.
     

Share This Page