Teardown of New Mac Pro Reveals Surprising Amount of Accessibility, Circular Daughterboard

[flat five]

The Mac Mini is slow, noisy, and has not been updated since 2012.

The iMac has a decent CPU, but only mobile graphics, and the display is built in. So it's useless for games, and you're now getting rid of a perfectly good display when you buy a new system. Or you have to replace the machine if you want 4K. (assuming the 2014 iMac gets a 4K display)

The Mac Pro uses workstation-class CPUs, ECC RAM, and dual GPUs. It's basically designed for Final Cut.

A mid-range option would use an LGA1150 CPU (Haswell) up to 32GB of DDR3, and a single gaming-class GPU - preferably Nvidia.
AMD GPUs are best used for OpenCL, and dual GPUs are not great for gaming - especially anything from AMD prior to Hawaii.

are you saying the usage fail is in games then?

so now two things have been recently established:

-macs are expensive
-macs aren't good for gaming

if we keep going, i'm sure we'll re-find out things that have been known and argued about for the past, say, 20 years or so..


more to the point though--

are you saying there is not a computer available that suits your needs? or are you just mad because apple specifically doesn't make the computer you want? if the latter, why?.. seems better to just buy the setup you want then get on with it..

----------

It's basically designed for Final Cut.

i think you got that part backwards.. the latest fcp release is designed for the new mac pro.

 

[Beta Particle]

so now two things have been recently established:

-macs are expensive
-macs aren't good for gaming

if we keep going, i'm sure we'll re-find out things that have been known and argued about for the past, say, 20 years or so..


more to the point though--

are you saying there is not a computer available that suits your needs? or are you just mad because apple specifically doesn't make the computer you want? if the latter, why?.. seems better to just buy the setup you want then get on with it..

You asked why people want a mid-range Mac, I answered. Personally, I'd much rather just build a Windows PC for gaming, but some people want to be able to run OS X (without hacks) and have the ability to run games well.

Neither the Mac Pro (overpriced and underperforming) or the iMac (far too slow) are good choices for games.

i think you got that part backwards.. the latest fcp release is designed for the new mac pro.

No, I meant what I wrote. Very little is designed to take advantage of OpenCL - most of the GPU accelerated software being used today is CUDA, which requires an Nvidia GPU.

Most of the graphics/photo editing packages people are still using today are not so highly multithreaded that they can take advantage of 6-12 cores effectively, and will actually perform better on a Haswell i7.

The main reason to buy a Mac Pro today is if you need Final Cut. I can think of very little else where it makes sense to buy one of the new Mac Pros over either another Mac, or a Windows machine.

 

[Renzatic]

Most of the graphics/photo editing packages people are still using today are not so highly multithreaded that they can take advantage of 6-12 cores effectively, and will actually perform better on a Haswell i7.

Depends on what you mean by graphics in the graphics/photo editing part of your quote. Still shot editors like Lightroom and Photoshop don't need to be heavily multithreaded, because it's able to perform an action within a split second regardless of how large your picture is (well, as long as you're below gigapixel resolution). There are a couple of things you can do in PS that can hammer a CPU or two, like free transforms, content aware actions, and maybe some painting effects, but what it needs more than anything is ram. Lots and lots of rams.

Now by graphics if you mean 3D applications like Max, Modo, and Maya, then you're dead wrong. They'll take as many cores as they can get, and chew through them like nothing. The more you throw at them, the happier they are. They use multiple processors heavier than even video editors like Final Cut and Avid.

 

[VoR]

Who cares if sales of the xMac would take away sales from the iMac? A sale is a sale! Everything Apple sells makes them a handsome profit anyway... so it shouldn't matter what you buy

If they did produce an i7/r9 290 version, how would they explain the resultant benchmarks compared to the nMP?

Apple's pricing has always seemed a little strange to me - Normally you pay a premium for miniaturisation, but with apple the opposite seems to be true. The smaller models tend to be the low end.

Anyway, while I'd love to jump back on the apple bandwagon with an appropriately priced xmac, I'm sure they've been through it all with their marketeers. They're a business after all, and they seem to be doing quite well without ubiquity.

 

[Renzatic]

Anyway, while I'd love to jump back on the apple bandwagon with an appropriately priced xmac, I'm sure they've been through it all with their marketeers. They're a business after all, and they seem to be doing quite well without market ubiquity.

I think Apple won't make an xMac because it's a market already completely owned by Windows PCs. The Mac Pro is a well respected workstation PC, and you really can't get a better AIO than an iMac. Even the Mini has its place.

But the xMac will be targeting an audience that's already better served by Windows. Gamers, realtime 3D graphic designers, some photographers, programmers, hobbyists. People who need a powerful PC without breaking the bank. OSX would do a decent enough job here, but you'll be able to get a far more powerful Windows machine for the same price, or an iMac. For Apple, an xMac would cover a market they don't have much strength in, or is redundant with their other products.

 

[VoR]

For Apple, an xMac would cover a market they don't have much strength in, or is redundant with their other products.

I completely agree with your post but if apple were ignoring the rest of their product segments, I still think there's a pretty sizeable market. osx, bootcamp, the brand and their generally nice designs definitely hold some value even to enthusiasts that would normally diy.

From a general consumer pov, an xmac would be their midrange machine that 'doesn't have a screen', would have to be priced appropriately and would probably (arguably - With their manufacturing might they certainly could) end up with only a modest premium over similar machines.

 

[flat five]

No, I meant what I wrote. Very little is designed to take advantage of OpenCL - most of the GPU accelerated software being used today is CUDA, which requires an Nvidia GPU.

i swear this place is a giant echo chamber.. let me guess- you don't really know this to be true, do you? and you've only 'learned' this from macrumors, right?

same with 'xmac'.. the xmac idea of old is here&now and it's called a mac mini (the entry nmp ends up being some sort of xmac+ but either way, neither are towers).. but it continues to just reverberate around here as if it's a new idea or smthng.. meanwhile, these 'outside the box thinkers' sit around claiming they're thinking outside the box when in reality, they're just repeating what the last guy said..

i don't know why i let myself get annoyed by it so maybe i'll just stop.. probably as easy as flipping the wgaf switch in my head..
flipping
now
click

Most of the graphics/photo editing packages people are still using today are not so highly multithreaded that they can take advantage of 6-12 cores effectively, and will actually perform better on a Haswell i7.

so if the applications you need can't processes in parallel, don't spend money on more than 4cores.. is this really that tough?

The main reason to buy a Mac Pro today is if you need Final Cut. I can think of very little else where it makes sense to buy one of the new Mac Pros over either another Mac, or a Windows machine.

hmm.. ok.. since you can't think of a need then there must not be a need other than final cut.. got it.

 

[Renzatic]

I completely agree with your post but if apple were ignoring the rest of their product segments, I still think there's a pretty sizeable market. osx, bootcamp, the brand and their generally nice designs definitely hold some value even to enthusiasts that would normally diy.

From a general consumer pov, an xmac would be their midrange machine that 'doesn't have a screen', would have to be priced appropriately and would probably (arguably - With their manufacturing might they certainly could) end up with only a modest premium over similar machines.

It's a sizable market, and Apple probably could make a little money off of it if they played their cards right. But that's the problem. They've gotta tempt a group of people who are already happy, comfortable, and well provided for from one niche to another.

Like realtime 3D designers, programmers, and photographers. They could've already switched to Macs years ago, and likely would've if Apple provided them with a machine that they wanted. But they've been out of that game for so long now, that most of these same people are entrenched in the Windows ecosystem, and now don't care about moving anywhere else. They've all got their setup they're happy with, and it'd take something big to get them to move.

Gamers will barely even blink. The only thing that could tempt the a good bit of them over from a PC would be the very game-centric Steam Machines, and they'll take a couple years at least before they start gaining traction.

With the right machine at the right price, some would be tempted over, no doubt. But how many? Will it be a mass exodus, or just a slow trickle? Will it be a huge success, a modest one, or will it fall flat on its face? The whole thing would be a gamble on Apple's part.

Really, PCs have been around so long now, that every platform has found it's little niche in the marketplace. Apple's got theirs, and they've made a ton of money off it. The question is, are they now willing to take Windows OEMs head on in a market they pretty much got their asses handed to them in previously? They've got more than enough money now and better brand recognition than they ever have, but is that enough? The Windows market is HUGE, and covers more use cases than Macs do, which, since the second coming of Steve Jobs, tend more focused by design. Apple would have to do more, cover more, to appeal to that market, and there's no guarantee for anything beyond having to spend a lot of cash in the attempt.

Really, I doubt Apple thinks it'd be worth it. Don't get me wrong, having an xMac would be nice, but I don't see it happening.

 

[TitoC]

. . . I’m a little surprised that it scores an 8/10 without a replaceable GPU or PSU, unless you have a MP to use as spare parts.

I think you just answered your own question: "without a replaceable GPU" would have given them a 9/10 and "PSU" would have given them a perfect 10.

 

[wallysb01]

I think you just answered your own question: "without a replaceable GPU" would have given them a 9/10 and "PSU" would have given them a perfect 10.

Not really, those are 2 very major components. There aren't 10 major components in a computer. And going forward GPUs will probably show their age faster than CPUs. Plus, while possible, its a lot of work to replace the CPU, which means more chances to make a stupid mistake and damage something.

So if you break it down in as component and replaceability its:

GPU: no
PSU: no
CPU: yes, but harder than standard PC
RAM: yes
SSD: yes, but need specific part

I get it that the thing is relatively easy to take apart, but when you only have an easy 2 out of those 5 above and another half way or so, 8 seems a little high....

 

[flat five]

Not really, those are 2 very major components. There aren't 10 major components in a computer. And going forward GPUs will probably show their age faster than CPUs. Plus, while possible, its a lot of work to replace the CPU, which means more chances to make a stupid mistake and damage something.

So if you break it down in as component and replaceability its:

GPU: no
PSU: no
CPU: yes, but harder than standard PC
RAM: yes
SSD: yes, but need specific part

I get it that the thing is relatively easy to take apart, but when you only have an easy 2 out of those 5 above and another half way or so, 8 seems a little high....

we've been through this before but maybe you have some new info since then?

so in a couple years from now when i fry a gpu, what happens? i throw my computer away because i can't buy a replacement?
or i can only buy a replacement part IF i also pay some repair shop the labor fees to replace it?
where are you getting this info?

 

[Beta Particle]

Depends on what you mean by graphics in the graphics/photo editing part of your quote. Still shot editors like Lightroom and Photoshop don't need to be heavily multithreaded, because it's able to perform an action within a split second regardless of how large your picture is (well, as long as you're below gigapixel resolution). There are a couple of things you can do in PS that can hammer a CPU or two, like free transforms, content aware actions, and maybe some painting effects, but what it needs more than anything is ram. Lots and lots of rams.

You're right, I did mean image editors rather than rendering - and that's exactly my point. The applications are not heavily multithreaded to take advantage of 6-12 cores, and in most cases, they don't need to be - though batch exporting from Lightroom would benefit from it.

Now by graphics if you mean 3D applications like Max, Modo, and Maya, then you're dead wrong. They'll take as many cores as they can get, and chew through them like nothing. The more you throw at them, the happier they are. They use multiple processors heavier than even video editors like Final Cut and Avid.

Absolutely - but none of the people I know that work in 3D modelling/rendering care about whether they're on Windows/Mac, and you can get far more for your money if you go with a PC.

The only people I know that do that and need OS X, are developers who are shipping on iOS - but one of the studios I know just outfitted everyone with maxed-out iMacs rather than Mac Pros. I think they're getting a handful of Mac Pros in, but the iMacs suit their needs better than the Mac Pros do.

same with 'xmac'.. the xmac idea of old is here&now and it's called a mac mini (the entry nmp ends up being some sort of xmac+ but either way, neither are towers)

The mini is underpowered for most tasks, and it gets really loud if you actually try to do any work on it. People that want an "xMac" are looking for something faster than an iMac, but without the workstation-class hardware of a Mac Pro. (i7's rather than Xeons, GeForce GTX cards rather than FirePros.)

.. but it continues to just reverberate around here as if it's a new idea or smthng.. meanwhile, these 'outside the box thinkers' sit around claiming they're thinking outside the box when in reality, they're just repeating what the last guy said..

Who said it was a new idea? There's clearly a market demand for it.

so if the applications you need can't processes in parallel, don't spend money on more than 4cores.. is this really that tough?

OK - so what do you buy then if you only need quad-core performance?

When you're looking at quad-core performance, the i7s are faster than the Xeons, as they are a generation ahead. But you can only get one of them inside an iMac.
The iMac only has mobile graphics, and you're paying for a display that most people doing image editing won't want or need. (because they already own a pair of nice NEC or Eizo monitors)

And if you were using it, what do you do when it's time to upgrade? Just toss out the display?

Gamers will barely even blink. The only thing that could tempt the a good bit of them over from a PC would be the very game-centric Steam Machines, and they'll take a couple years at least before they start gaining traction.

Those are really aimed at the console market who want a machine that will only do games.

I don't know anyone that's interested in moving away from Windows with its decades-long library of games, to Linux which has really only started to gain traction recently. I can't speak for everyone, but one of the main reasons the people I know that are dedicated PC gamers use the PC, is because of that. With consoles, every new generation of hardware now, you need to keep a separate box around and hope that it still works in order to play old games. With PCs, you can play games that are 20+ years old without any problem, and most of the time they look better now than they ever did.

I think you just answered your own question: "without a replaceable GPU" would have given them a 9/10 and "PSU" would have given them a perfect 10.

You instantly lose a point on iFixit if you don't make the service manual available.

Repairability might be 8/10 because it's easy enough to take apart, but upgradability seems poor unless Apple stick with the connector they're using and start selling upgrades to end-users. (never going to happen)

so in a couple years from now when i fry a gpu, what happens? i throw my computer away because i can't buy a replacement?
or i can only buy a replacement part IF i also pay some repair shop the labor fees to replace it?

Isn't that how it has always been for Apple computers?

 

[flat five]

The mini is underpowered for most tasks, and it gets really loud if you actually try to do any work on it. People that want an "xMac" are looking for something faster than an iMac, but without the workstation-class hardware of a Mac Pro. (i7's rather than Xeons, GeForce GTX cards rather than FirePros.)

so the mini is underpowered, the imac is underpowered, the i7 in the imac is faster than the xeon..
but you want something faster than the imac?
sorry but i think you're sol..

in the meantime, the rest of us power users will just suffer away on this slow, underpowered junk..

(what exactly do you do anyway? not some hypothetical pro- you.. like, are you speaking from experience or just making this stuff up as you go along?)

Who said it was a new idea? There's clearly a market demand for it.

a demand for what again? a quad that's faster than the haswell? demanding something that doesn't exist might make sense in some sort of fantasy world but there are some people who need computers now.

OK - so what do you buy then if you only need quad-core performance?

me personally? i'd buy a quad mac pro.. the last mac pro i bought in 2007 was a quad and it's sitting over there chugging away and has been doing so for 36hours now.. and has been under those types of loads on/off for the past 6 years..

When you're looking at quad-core performance, the i7s are faster than the Xeons, as they are a generation ahead. But you can only get one of them inside an iMac.

faster at what exactly? geekbench? is that what you're basing this stuff off of?

are you telling me that i could put two computers behind a wall.. one with a xeon quad and one with a haswell quad then have you work on them and you could tell a difference between the two?

The iMac only has mobile graphics, and you're paying for a display that most people doing image editing won't want or need. (because they already own a pair of nice NEC or Eizo monitors)

so what if it has 'mobile' graphics.. what does that mean?
does it do what i need it to or not? if not, i get a computer with gpus which will do what i need.. duh

And if you were using it, what do you do when it's time to upgrade? Just toss out the display?

donate it.. just like i do with all of my old computers.. i'm sure you could sell it too if that's what you'd like to do.. or you could keep it around as a second display/render node.. dunno, lots of different approaches

Isn't that how it has always been for Apple computers?

no.. if i break a part, i go down to the store and buy a replacement then install it.. i've been doing this for years and never once have i had to pay someone to install a part in order for me to buy the part.

aside from hard drives and ram, i've broken 3 parts on my current mac pro.. 2gpus and a wifi card (+ bought/installed the original wifi card in the mp).. and all 3 replacements were apple certified parts which i was able to buy -as a part- and install it myself.. i'm really not sure where some of you all get the idea that this will no longer be possible with the new mac..
but it appears you're basing it off misinformation such as -"Isn't that how it has always been for Apple computers?"... because no.. that's not how it's always been.

seriously, it would be a much more meaningful conversation if you spoke of personal experience instead of reading someone else's bad info then repeating it.. have you ever broke a part in a mac pro and were unable to buy a new part and replace it yourself? if not, you shouldn't be spreading info as if you have been in that situation.

 

[wallysb01]

we've been through this before but maybe you have some new info since then?

so in a couple years from now when i fry a gpu, what happens? i throw my computer away because i can't buy a replacement?
or i can only buy a replacement part IF i also pay some repair shop the labor fees to replace it?
where are you getting this info?

Yeah, we have been through this before, and its you lacking the information. To date there are ZERO replacement GPUs available for the nMP. Not from Apple not from anyone. The only way you’ll find one in the future is from a cannibalized nMP. Which means it will be used and it will probably be very expensive due to limited supply.

While you’re in AppleCare you should be fine, as Apple will probably just give you a new machine. But once you leave AppleCare and you tell Apple store employee this happened, he’s going to point you towards a new computer, not a fix for your current one.

Until we actually see Apple selling GPUs for the nMP individually or some third party doing so, this the way it is.

----------

no.. if i break a part, i go down to the store and buy a replacement then install it.. i've been doing this for years and never once have i had to pay someone to install a part in order for me to buy the part.

To date there are no stores selling the GPU in the nMP and there probably never will be. The reason there used to be GPUs in the store that could work in a MP is because the GPUs were the same hardware in any PC, just flashed to work on a Mac.

Now we are talking about a completely custom part for just ONE type of computer.

The iFixit teardown even says this:

"While this stacks up fairly well for current Apple GPU offerings, the proprietary nature, and lack of an elegant external GPU option, may age this device before its time."

seriously, it would be a much more meaningful conversation if you spoke of personal experience instead of reading someone else's bad info then repeating it.. have you ever broke a part in a mac pro and were unable to buy a new part and replace it yourself? if not, you shouldn't be spreading info as if you have been in that situation.

When you can acknowledge that the nMP GPUs are completely custom and very unlikely to have 3rd party knockoffs, then we can maybe have a meaningful conversation.

 

[flat five]

Yeah, we have been through this before, and its you lacking the information. To date there are ZERO replacement GPUs available for the nMP. Not from Apple not from anyone. The only way you’ll find one in the future is from a cannibalized nMP. Which means it will be used and it will probably be very expensive due to limited supply.

While you’re in AppleCare you should be fine, as Apple will probably just give you a new machine. But once you leave AppleCare and you tell Apple store employee this happened, he’s going to point you towards a new computer, not a fix for your current one.

Until we actually see Apple selling GPUs for the nMP individually or some third party doing so, this the way it is.

----------



To date there are no stores selling the GPU in the nMP and there probably never will be. The reason there used to be GPUs in the store that could work in a MP is because the GPUs were the same hardware in any PC, just flashed to work on a Mac.

Now we are talking about a completely custom part for just ONE type of computer.

The iFixit teardown even says this:

"While this stacks up fairly well for current Apple GPU offerings, the proprietary nature, and lack of an elegant external GPU option, may age this device before its time."



When you can acknowledge that the nMP GPUs are completely custom and very unlikely to have 3rd party knockoffs, then we can maybe have a meaningful conversation.

lol. you can't even go to a store right now and buy a complete computer with a d700 in it but you expect you should be able to go buy a separate d700? smh

and who said anything about 3rd party knockoffs? If/when I break a part, I want to replace it with one that is supported in the computer I'm fixing. I'm not down for the hackathon and I believe very few people are.

the replacement d700 is there. they are already being made and you don't have to rely on "well, is someone going to make a replacement?".. there's no guesswork involved. the replacements are already being made.

idk, you were wrong about so much of this stuff before just like you're wrong about me not being able to fix a gpu if I break one. so I don't really care what you think about it but if you want to revel in "this guy is a fool.. he's buying a $5000 computer under the assumption he can fix it if it breaks".. then so be it.. enjoy it while it lasts because that's exactly what I'm doing.

 

[Renzatic]

Those are really aimed at the console market who want a machine that will only do games.

I don't know anyone that's interested in moving away from Windows with its decades-long library of games, to Linux which has really only started to gain traction recently. I can't speak for everyone, but one of the main reasons the people I know that are dedicated PC gamers use the PC, is because of that. With consoles, every new generation of hardware now, you need to keep a separate box around and hope that it still works in order to play old games. With PCs, you can play games that are 20+ years old without any problem, and most of the time they look better now than they ever did.

It's kind of positioned in a best-of-both-worlds in between place. It's got the ease of use and (relatively) hassle free setup of a console, but the power, upgradability, and mod friendly games that are normally exclusive to PCs. That's what makes it so interesting, and why it might actually succeed.

You're right that it'll never have access to Windows full back catalog natively, but, nice as that is, it isn't necessarily that big of a deal. If it can manage to land all the latest releases on Linux, from the big studio AAA games to the indie titles, it'll draw a good bit of attention to the platform. For awhile, it'll sit side by side with PCs, but after a couple of years, it'll end up building enough of a library to be able to stand on its own.

And for the older, older games, you've got Wine and Dosbox, which'll both run just about every game released from 1980 up to 2008 or so.

 

[wallysb01]

lol. you can't even go to a store right now and buy a complete computer with a d700 in it but you expect you should be able to go buy a separate d700? smh

If this was the old form factor, just updated and not yet in stores, you could still find GPUs that would work in it today... Comprehension isn't your thing, is it?

and who said anything about 3rd party knockoffs?

Me, and anyone that wants to upgrade. If (and a big if there) you can only buy it from Apple as a replacement part, it will be expensive due to lack of competition.

If/when I break a part, I want to replace it with one that is supported in the computer I'm fixing. I'm not down for the hackathon and I believe very few people are.

You don't need to hack anything to get non-Apple provided GPUs to work in the old Mac Pro. You've been told this how many times and you still don't get it?

the replacement d700 is there. they are already being made and you don't have to rely on "well, is someone going to make a replacement?".. there's no guesswork involved. the replacements are already being made.
[\QUOTE]

d700s are being made, but they are all going into new Mac Pros. If you find a place you can buy d700s, please share.

idk, you were wrong about so much of this stuff before just like you're wrong about me not being able to fix a gpu if I break one.

I was only wrong in your eyes because you consistently twisted my words into something they weren't and/or you had a complete misunderstanding of the truth.

so I don't really care what you think about it but if you want to revel in "this guy is a fool.. he's buying a $5000 computer under the assumption he can fix it if it breaks".. then so be it.. enjoy it while it lasts because that's exactly what I'm doing.

I don't give two pieces of #### what you do with your $5K. That won't change the fact that the only way you're going to replace the GPU is either A) through a cannibalized part from another Mac Pro, B) sending it to Apple under AppleCare or for a pretty penny if outside the 3 years. To expect to go to Fry's or click over to NewEgg and find a d700 is pure ignorance, but believe what you want and spend your money how you want. No one is trying to stop you.

 

[flat five]

.

no. I get what you're saying.
if I can't go to fry's or newegg and buy an nvidia gpu to fix a broken Mac Pro then it's not repairable and ifixit have made a flawed repairability score because of this.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

same with 'xmac'.. the xmac idea of old is here&now and it's called a mac mini

You really don't GET the entire concept of the "xMac" do you? Here's a little hint. It's not supposed to be a tiny closed unexpandable box with an integrated slow as hell GPU. In fact, the concept of the xMac is the EXACT OPPOSITE. It's supposed to be an expandable mid-range Mac with a good graphics card that can be upgraded in the future.... (sigh)

 

[flat five]

You really don't GET the entire concept of the "xMac" do you? Here's a little hint. It's not supposed to be a tiny closed unexpandable box with an integrated slow as hell GPU. In fact, the concept of the xMac is the EXACT OPPOSITE. It's supposed to be an expandable mid-range Mac with a good graphics card that can be upgraded in the future.... (sigh)

maybe that's your definition of it but do some research into the history of the term and you're going to find something like "a fast little thousand dollar expandable mac to be used basically as a media server of sorts." ie- a headless mac that's not a g5 (t)powerhouse..

nowadays, the X seems to mean any computer configuration that I (not me) want but apple doesn't sell.

that aside, I still don't get the logic of "such&such's line of products suck because they don't sell X computer like all the other companies do"

why don't you just buy the computer which fits your needs instead of whining about one single company which apparently doesn't sell X computer?.. why? (real question)

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

why don't you just buy the computer which fits your needs instead of whining about one company which apparently doesn't sell X computer.. why?

That's like asking why don't you move to Candyland where everything is sweet and happy?

Give me a freaking break, dude. Have you seen the ratings of Apple's apps on the Mac App store lately? 7 out of 19 have less than 3 stars. Apps that used to be crowd pleasers like iPhoto have tanked lately. I like Mavericks, but a LOT of people do not. I despise iOS7, gawdy and buggy and slow. My iPod Touch 4th Gen is only one gen behind the current model, but half the software updates and a lot of new Apps and games coming out already dumped support for iOS6 and yet Apple in their infinite wisdom chose to offer iOS7 only for the current model. We're at the point were you have to have the very latest hardware or you can't even get a bug fix. That's pathetic. But I shouldn't "whine" about such things according to people like you. I should just bend over and take whatever Apple feels like shoving up there any time they feel like shoving it. Sorry, but I'm not into that. I give them negative feedback and negative reviews when they deserve it and positive when they do it right. I can't please everyone and fanatical types that worship at the grave of Steve Jobs will never like hearing his company did something wrong. So...too bad.

 

[flat five]

That's like asking why don't you move to Candyland where everything is sweet and happy?

Give me a freaking break, dude. Have you seen the ratings of Apple's apps on the Mac App store lately? 7 out of 19 have less than 3 stars. Apps that used to be crowd pleasers like iPhoto have tanked lately. I like Mavericks, but a LOT of people do not. I despise iOS7, gawdy and buggy and slow. My iPod Touch 4th Gen is only one gen behind the current model, but half the software updates and a lot of new Apps and games coming out already dumped support for iOS6 and yet Apple in their infinite wisdom chose to offer iOS7 only for the current model. We're at the point were you have to have the very latest hardware or you can't even get a bug fix. That's pathetic. But I shouldn't "whine" about such things according to people like you. I should just bend over and take whatever Apple feels like shoving up there any time they feel like shoving it. Sorry, but I'm not into that. I give them negative feedback and negative reviews when they deserve it and positive when they do it right. I can't please everyone and fanatical types that worship at the grave of Steve Jobs will never like hearing his company did something wrong. So...too bad.

why are you using apple products? you realize all you do is sit around and complain, right?
this is a personal problem.. not a problem of any single company.

there's more likely than not a solution to every one of your gripes but it appears you're not interested in solutions. don't know what to tell you and I know I can't help you with these types of issues so.. keep on keepin on #

 

[Beta Particle]

a demand for what again? a quad that's faster than the haswell? demanding something that doesn't exist might make sense in some sort of fantasy world but there are some people who need computers now.

The Mac Pros are not using Haswell - they are on Ivy Bridge-E.
The Haswell i7 inside the iMacs (and a potential "xMac") is faster than the quad-core Xeon used in the Mac Pros.

faster at what exactly? geekbench? is that what you're basing this stuff off of?

At any task which uses four cores or less. If your argument is that benchmarks (i.e. performance) doesn't matter, why are you even buying a high-end computer?

so what if it has 'mobile' graphics.. what does that mean?

It means that the iMacs are using GTX 780M chips - chips which were designed to go inside high-end notebooks - not desktop computers. That's very under-powered for a 2560x1440 display.

does it do what i need it to or not? if not, i get a computer with gpus which will do what i need.. duh

Which Apple does not offer. If you need CUDA, you have to buy an iMac and make do with a mobile GPU.
If you want to game, the iMac is not fast enough, and the Mac Pro is ridiculously overpriced and underpowered for that task. ($1500 would build you a much better system for gaming)

aside from hard drives and ram, i've broken 3 parts on my current mac pro.. 2gpus and a wifi card (+ bought/installed the original wifi card in the mp).. and all 3 replacements were apple certified parts which i was able to buy -as a part- and install it myself.. i'm really not sure where some of you all get the idea that this will no longer be possible with the new mac.

You can walk into any computer store and buy replacement parts for a PC. They use standard connections such as SATA and PCIe, so you can easily upgrade the parts inside an old computer.
If you have an old PC with a Radeon 5870 in it, you can replace that with a modern AMD R9 GPU - or switch to Nvidia if you prefer.

The old Mac Pro's parts were basically standard PC parts, which meant that they were intended to be user serviceable. Many of the parts used custom firmware though, which limits your options to hardware which Apple has approved, rather than standard PC parts.
This distinction means that if your Mac Pro with a Radeon 5870 has the GPUs die, all you can do is buy a replacement 5870 from Apple (at $450!) rather than upgrading to a modern GPU - at least if you want to use Apple certified hardware without any hacks.

When Apple stops selling those 5870's, then what do you do?
I can't find any Radeon 5870's for sale on Newegg for PC's, but that doesn't matter, because you can just buy any PCIe GPU and it will work.

The new Mac Pro's graphics cards are completely custom boards and are not designed to be user serviceable.
You won't be able to walk into a store and buy replacement GPUs for the new Mac Pro, just like you can't walk into a store and buy a replacement logic board or other parts for other Macs.
If something goes wrong with the GPUs, you will have to get Apple to service them for as long as they still have parts. When they no longer carry parts, you will have to look on the second-hand market or buy a new machine.

While you’re in AppleCare you should be fine, as Apple will probably just give you a new machine. But once you leave AppleCare and you tell Apple store employee this happened, he’s going to point you towards a new computer, not a fix for your current one.

Which is exactly what happened to a relative of mine a few months ago when they took their white MacBook in to be repaired.
They tried to sell them a new MacBook Air instead of fixing the machine - over a $5 part.

 

[flat five]

The Mac Pros are not using Haswell - they are on Ivy Bridge-E.......

i give up.. to be honest, i don't even know what the point you're trying to make is.

 

[iSayuSay]

Oh wow, I see the xMac debate is getting longer than it should? .. I do want and very much support the xMac concept. I don't want to pay extra for a Xeon but I love the MacPro. Like I said, it would be the only desktop computer Apple ever needs. As a halo effect, Apple can also lure people to buy an Apple display with one of those, instead of enforcing a built-in one like with iMac. Honestly I see it as a win-win for both Apple and customers.

But really, I admit Apple would never make one, it's not in its blood. The sooner we accept that fact, the better. I even feel that overall Mac products also started to lose its traction and hype in the market. It doesn't feel as important or long-awaited as a few last years.

It's all about iOS nowadays and Mac is getting dumbed down to be a "hobby" for Apple. Mac AppStore sales is also pale compared to iOS. If somehow Apple build native XCode for iOS, then it would complete the loop to be a whole, standalone ecosystem.