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.
Steve Jobs Once Considered Killing Apple's Pro Products
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It may have wowed them, but I guarantee you if there is another machine that does the job better for less, a fancy looking chassis goes right out the window. The fact that Apple is in bed with Pixar also says a thing or two...
Pixar and Cloud
What's always been hard to swallow is the fact that:
Simple Google search for the following:
what hardware does pixar use to render
what hardware does apple use in their data center
Sources:
1. http://www.businessinsider.com/what-kind-of-gear-is-apple-using-in-its-huge-new-datacenter-2011-6
2. http://www.macworld.com/article/1167512/help_wanted_apple_using_oracle_ibm_servers_in_data_center.html
3. http://askville.amazon.com/hardware-software-specifications-computers-Pixar-makings-animations/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=9008558
What's always been hard to swallow is the fact that:
- Pixar does not use Xserve rather SUN UltraSparc
- Cloud uses HP (Blade) Servers running UNIX (not Mac OS X Server)
Simple Google search for the following:
what hardware does pixar use to render
what hardware does apple use in their data center
Sources:
1. http://www.businessinsider.com/what-kind-of-gear-is-apple-using-in-its-huge-new-datacenter-2011-6
2. http://www.macworld.com/article/1167512/help_wanted_apple_using_oracle_ibm_servers_in_data_center.html
3. http://askville.amazon.com/hardware-software-specifications-computers-Pixar-makings-animations/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=9008558
Actually, you found a 1997 quote for Pixar, whereas this 2003 quote Pixar switches from Sun to Intel says that Pixar uses Xeons running Linux.
And of course Apple isn't using Apple OSX in its data center - do you expect them to run MiniMacs by the millions?
The real kicker is that the Apple Icloud is hosted by Microsoft's servers.
Professionals aren't that religious - they use the right tool for the job. Apple makes nothing suitable for any of these tasks - not software, not hardware.
Note this comment about one of Microsoft's cloud data centers - "That gives the Chicago facility a total capacity of 112 containers holding 224,000 servers" (where each server will have from 16 to 80 physical cores). http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/...icrosoft-unveils-its-container-powered-cloud/
Microsoft has 4 of the 11 largest data centers - Apple isn't even on the list. http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/special-report-the-worlds-largest-data-centers/ (Here's a newer list that has Microsoft at 4 of the top 10 http://www.techopedia.com/2/29345/e...nfographic-the-worlds-10-largest-data-centers. Another recent graphic http://cdn.business2community.com/w...3/07/Largest_Data_Center_Infographic-1-11.png)
Last edited:
Still? It's not like they're suddenly going to change it after showing it off.
cjoy said:
In terms of raw processing power - yes, and also 32 GB RAM are more than sufficient, but try connecting 2 pro displays and a cintiq to that polished mirror. If there was an iMac minus the display, but with the MP I/O,
I would've been in line for it most likely. Granted, thats a niche use case ... but thats what made the old MP so great: versatility.
i'm very glad that apple didn't kill their pro products, and glad they finally redesigned the mac pro
Which says nothing to my point. Of course they are going to mention the look and design when brought on stage to talk about it. That doesn't mean it has anything to do with their hardware purchasing decisions. I'm pretty sure hey only care about one thing... performance to dollar. Like any other successful business.
People are projecting way too much from that Mari demo.
You didn't read my posts.
I work for a company whose management considers mac to be "just better", without having a clue about enterprise computing. Hence the directive to "just buy macs".
Meanwhile the professionals that I support literally cannot function without industry-standard workstations.
I had to tell Management that Apple does not make workstations anymore, as they don't. They make some kind of an antique workstation desktop, for which I could pay double what it would cost to buy the equivalent Dell, but the graphics don't play nicely with our design packages.
That was my original response to this story. In short, don't believe the hype about Apple "once having considered" ditching the pro market. The truth is that they did it a long, long time ago.
----------
Nope.
Maybe in A/V or graphic design, but in the type of design that actually powers industry the "Retina" is pretty but impotent.
The thing is useless with the most basic engineering packages. It does not compete with even a mid-grade Dell workstation when it comes to my company's application.
It's pretty as hell though.
----------
You got it right.
I can't comprehend how Boeing or a civil engineering company handles an assembly with 10,000,000 parts. Our 100k part assemblies are kids stuff in the engineering world, and if the workstations I deploy can't handle them then my designers will make it my problem.
Apple does not make a portable workstation that can open a 100k part assembly, never mind perform FEA on something.
Apple doesn't make a tower workstation that can be reasonably considered by anyone with a budget to manage to and Google access.
Many consider the MMP (Mini Mac Pro) to be the final proof that Apple did in fact kill their pro products in favor of "pretty".
The MMP is but a fraction of the current MP.
i did.. probably took something different away than what you were saying.. idk
that sounds like me.. i don't have much of a clue about enterprise computing either. mainly just sole_enterprise computing
also, my experience with solidworks is very little.. i had to work with an engineering firm earlier this summer and they were solidworkers.. they were having problems with my .3dm files.. ended up sharing info through sketchup.. go figure.
...which really isn't enough to do 4K video processing quickly enough. Dedicated graphics processing cards do this task far, far better.
An SSD as fast is already in the Mac Pro as standard.
Theoretically but external drives is the only option for a large amount of drives, by default it's more "pro" as it's the only configuration for more than a few drives.
Well Apple and Pixar are both the best at what they do, and both have the same principles, to make the best product ever. It's no surprise Pixar still like Apple. Apple understand Pixar, more then any other computer company would. And yes both having the Jobs relation, does factor into that too.
And as you know, no animation studio or any studio can move to different systems just as soon as a cheaper alternative enters the market. They have to pick one system and make it work for the long term. Almost impossible to change systems mid movie. In saying that Pixar would still not like Apple hardware if it didn't do the job they needed.
That Mari demo was 50% a demo and 50% that guy just drooling over the new MP. Every 2nd word out of his mouth was "I love the new MP" And I would guess he was not paid to say that, it sounded genuine. And most of his talk was about the power and capabilities of the MP. Very little of it was on the physical shape of it.
And of cause power to dollar does matter for every business. But I am sure Pixar understand to be the best (and they are), you have to have the best gear. And would be willing to pay for it (within reason).
Well it's not exactly vapourware is it. They exist and have been tested. It's just not out yet.
Of course, no one has ever suggested otherwise. Pixar can do whatever they want. They run their own software. And they hardly use Apple hardware as it is.
That's a bit hyperbolic. He definitely made mention of how impressive the MP seemed to be, multiple times. But the demo was almost an hour long. Most of his talk was about the power and capabilities of the software, not the MP.
What I am claiming is simple. It had nothing to do with how the system looks. A company, such as Pixar, is not going to pick hardware by the merits of how pretty it looks. Thinking that is simply foolish.
And I wasn't I playing switching hardware mid movie. Or switching hardware in the fly either. Not sure where you got that notion, honestly. But you can bet hardware is updated ridiculously often there. Of this I have no doubt.
No they haven't been tested, and no they don't exist: the article you pointed to mentions that Corning were planning on offering. There's nothing on their website offering specific lengths- just mentioning possibilities of lengths...
Besides, don't you think that if R&D was complete and they were capable of manufacturing the "thing", they'd not cash in on their R&D now by releasing the product before others offered similar tech?
from corning's where to buy page:
This device has not yet been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.
That's an entirely meaningless statement- it could be that it's not approved yet because nothing's been submitted for approval yet... or it has been submitted and it's been junked by the FCC... FCC approval takes weeks not months from what I've read btw (especially that it's just a cable with two transceivers)...
ok.. no thunderbolt cables over 6 feet long will ever be for sale.. anybody that thinks the technology is capable of reaching longer lengths is living a pipe dream..
because 0x0x0x0 tells me so.. got it.. thanks! #
How old are you? This is absolutely not what I said! We were talking about a specific product. The website for that product is most basic- no indication of anything specific at all, no mention of any SKUs or anything of the form. The only thing that speaks for that product is a press release and a quickly thrown together webpage. Btw, a 100m QSFP fibre link (going at rates similar to what's needed for a TBv2 port) costs in excess of $1000 (and there's a lot of competition in that field!)...
36
and phase 2 is denial..
dude say a page or two back that longer cables are theoretically possible.. which they are.. of course they are.. but you've been arguing against that ever since..
i don't even care about long thunderbolt cables anyway.
adios
The RAM is upgradable (unlike the Macbook Air), but other parts are soldered to a board and hence are neither readily repairable nor upgradable.