MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)

[Mago]

I think the "not so mini" rumors are right.

The Pizza Box still perfect for a single SSD and a Single Spinner, besides an Low TDP APU as the newest from AMD, I doubt Apple will introduce a radical revision, Apple dont fixes what isnt broken, look at the iPhone 6,7,8 almost the same Form Factor by 5 years, a record for any flagship.

Who buys the Mac Mini anymore?

Also consider there are still Media Center Users for which Apple TV is not enough (those with large A/V libraries or watch foreign TV thru Kodi - I know many Hindus and Latins that uses to watch TV from they origin countries with KODI- ).

There are lots mac mini students (and those that cant afford a 1000$ mac), in Enterprise are common for presentations, demos, and where you need a mac plugged to a 70" display and not just to watch TV, Mac Mini are Handy, no way to argument against that fact.

As server too, but seems Apple doesn't care the current server market dominated by cheap NAS Boxes, most macOS server are now part of the STD mac OS HS, the very few exclusive macOS server features are mostly irrelevant.

 

[goMac]

xMac has little to do with gamers. It has to do with 90% of the current Mac Pro market would be better of with such a machine as @JesperA describes

I really disagree. Not that gamers aren’t a market, or that Apple isn’t serving them well. But who else is this market that wants a more powerful iMac, but for whom a low end Mac Pro with higher end GPUs is still to expensive.

Only market I can think of is gamers.

Unless you’re positing Apple, out of the kindness of their hearts, would make a cheaper pro Mac without workstation parts to avoid charging people more Apple tax which is LOL no. Apple has no problem making pros who need desktop GPUs but not workstation CPUs pony up the extra cash for a Mac Pros.

I’m not even sure there is an argument Apple would grow their market with such a Mac except for, again, gamers.

 

[ixxx69]

I really disagree. Not that gamers aren’t a market, or that Apple isn’t serving them well. But who else is this market that wants a more powerful iMac, but for whom a low end Mac Pro with higher end GPUs is still to expensive.

Only market I can think of is gamers.

Unless you’re positing Apple, out of the kindness of their hearts, would make a cheaper pro Mac without workstation parts to avoid charging people more Apple tax which is LOL no. Apple has no problem making pros who need desktop GPUs but not workstation CPUs pony up the extra cash for a Mac Pros.

I’m not even sure there is an argument Apple would grow their market with such a Mac except for, again, gamers.

Hmm... not quite sure what you're disagreeing with... let alone really disagreeing with!

First, xMac is not about more "powerful" than iMac. Obviously wanting the more reasonably priced hardware as used in the iMac is priority one. Next there's lots of users (pro or not) who find the iMac screen a deal-breaker and want to choose their own screens. Finally, probably the majority of xMac wish-listers want a standard PCIe slot for GPU (personally I'd be fine with just a high-end dGPU - I don't care about the upgradeability). Everything else is just details.

Second, the market for the xMac is fairly similar to the iMac, except as noted above. "Consumer" hardware serves 90% of the "pro" market... all those media-content creators, design, CAD, audio/video production, web/app development - the vast, vast majority would be rock'n with a standard i7/GTX. Those that need more hopefully still can choose a MP... though Apple obviously has dropped the ball presently. I have IRL experience with those usages and what's actually being used in real businesses by real professionals doing real work... they simply don't need it.

You didn't quote the rest of my post, but I think I made it abundantly clear that I don't believe Apple will pursue such a product, so I don't think we disagree there either.

While it's just conjecture, where I disagree is that you're telling me that an xMac with a PCIe slot wouldn't have made a ****-ton more money for Apple than the MP? It's hard to imagine the volume would not easily make up for the lower margins on each unit (not to mention just broadening their market and extending the Apple halo).

Further, worrying about cannibalization of sales by one product over another spells disaster for nearly every company that gets caught up in that. It's actually one of the primary reasons '90's Apple nearly bit it, and one of the major points Jobs made on his return to Apple. If you don't make the best product to serve the market because you're worried another one of your products will be cannibalized, then you're doomed. It's like if Apple had refused to integrate iTunes into the iPhone because it would kill iPod sales (which it obviously did, and Apple has only gotten richer).

 

[CWallace]

Apple has to be working on some redesign of the Mac Mini's case. If they were just going to update the internals, we'd have seen that at WDCC when they updated the internals of the rest of the Mac line (sans Mac Pro). Even the MacBook Air received a CPU "boost".

For a time I felt they might just go with the Intel NUC design and make it a "hockey puck" like the Apple TV, but that would really hamper the internals they could put in it and the Mac Mini does fill a role as the kind of "catch all" Mac for situations where a laptop or an iMac would be impractical.

So this being today's Apple, I expect the Mac Mini to become smaller, but not significantly so. That could mean Apple might need to use CPUs with TDPs lower then the current 25W models, but the Kaby Lake R (8000 series) i7 and i5 CPUs would work as they have a baseline TDP of 15W with a max of 25W (Apple could limit turbo mode for thermals if cooling is an issue in the smaller package) and they are all quad-core CPUs.

 

[BB8]

I really disagree. Not that gamers aren’t a market, or that Apple isn’t serving them well. But who else is this market that wants a more powerful iMac, but for whom a low end Mac Pro with higher end GPUs is still to expensive.

Only market I can think of is gamers.

Unless you’re positing Apple, out of the kindness of their hearts, would make a cheaper pro Mac without workstation parts to avoid charging people more Apple tax which is LOL no. Apple has no problem making pros who need desktop GPUs but not workstation CPUs pony up the extra cash for a Mac Pros.

I’m not even sure there is an argument Apple would grow their market with such a Mac except for, again, gamers.

the market of people who truly need ECC ram is probably much smaller still than the number of people who will buy an iMac/Mac Pro, and if you don't need ECC why go with expensive Xeons?

 

[goMac]

Obviously wanting the more reasonably priced hardware as used in the iMac is priority one.

And you missed where I said Apple cares very little/not at all about making Macs cheaper for you. They have no problem making you pay more for an iMac.

Finally, probably the majority of xMac wish-listers want a standard PCIe slot for GPU (personally I'd be fine with just a high-end dGPU - I don't care about the upgradeability).

I think you meant "gamers."

Look, I'm not trying to knock gamers. I'm just saying we all know who "people who want a discrete GPU who can't afford a Mac Pro" is.

And at this point Apple's answer is going to be "eGPU."

Second, the market for the xMac is fairly similar to the iMac, except as noted above. "Consumer" hardware serves 90% of the "pro" market... all those media-content creators, design, CAD, audio/video production, web/app development - the vast, vast majority would be rock'n with a standard i7/GTX.

If the pitch is "and Apple can sell these people a cheaper machine that they make less money off of" it's DOA.

While it's just conjecture, where I disagree is that you're telling me that an xMac with a PCIe slot wouldn't have made a ****-ton more money for Apple than the MP? It's hard to imagine the volume would not easily make up for the lower margins on each unit (not to mention just broadening their market and extending the Apple halo).

For pros, they're going to force them to buy a Mac Pro, an iMac Pro, or an iMac, all of which will make Apple more money.

Again, when you say volume, you're talking about people who do not feel forced to buy Macs right now. You're pointing at gamers again. And I wish Apple would be more gamer friendly. But as it is now, their response is either going to be "we don't care about gamers" or "get an eGPU."

Quite honestly, the reason the xMac isn't happening is eGPU. All these complaints are address by either a MacBook Pro or an iMac with an eGPU. All maybe except for the "no built in display" thing, which I doubt Apple cares about. Or they make you buy a Mac Mini with an eGPU.

Either way there's just no compelling case for an xMac anymore from Apple's perspective. It's dead.

 

[Zarniwoop]

Apple has to be working on some redesign of the Mac Mini's case. If they were just going to update the internals, we'd have seen that at WDCC when they updated the internals of the rest of the Mac line (sans Mac Pro). Even the MacBook Air received a CPU "boost".

For a time I felt they might just go with the Intel NUC design and make it a "hockey puck" like the Apple TV, but that would really hamper the internals they could put in it and the Mac Mini does fill a role as the kind of "catch all" Mac for situations where a laptop or an iMac would be impractical.

So this being today's Apple, I expect the Mac Mini to become smaller, but not significantly so. That could mean Apple might need to use CPUs with TDPs lower then the current 25W models, but the Kaby Lake R (8000 series) i7 and i5 CPUs would work as they have a baseline TDP of 15W with a max of 25W (Apple could limit turbo mode for thermals if cooling is an issue in the smaller package) and they are all quad-core CPUs.

I was playing with the idea here on Mac Mini thread:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...rtainly-coming.1681773/page-436#post-25316578

 

[goMac]

the market of people who truly need ECC ram is probably much smaller still than the number of people who will buy an iMac/Mac Pro, and if you don't need ECC why go with expensive Xeons?

Because:
1) Apple can charge you more money.
2) Apple doesn't need to worry about a bunch of configurations
3) If you don't like it they'll sell you an iMac

 

[BB8]

Because:
1) Apple can charge you more money.
2) Apple doesn't need to worry about a bunch of configurations
3) If you don't like it they'll sell you an iMac

I'm sure that was their original thinking, but I'm not convinced the market for the Mac Mini is worthwhile anymore. Otherwise they just would have given it another mediocre refresh.

The pitch is not that Apple could sell people a cheaper machine than the iMac or Mac Pro. The pitch is that Apple could sell a more expensive Mac Mini and make up for any sales cannibalization by capturing a larger market than what the Mac Mini/iMac currently serve.

 

[ixxx69]

And you missed where I said Apple cares very little/not at all about making Macs cheaper for you. They have no problem making you pay more for an iMac.



I think you meant "gamers."

Look, I'm not trying to knock gamers. I'm just saying we all know who "people who want a discrete GPU who can't afford a Mac Pro" is.

And at this point Apple's answer is going to be "eGPU."



If the pitch is "and Apple can sell these people a cheaper machine that they make less money off of" it's DOA.



For pros, they're going to force them to buy a Mac Pro, an iMac Pro, or an iMac, all of which will make Apple more money.

Again, when you say volume, you're talking about people who do not feel forced to buy Macs right now. You're pointing at gamers again. And I wish Apple would be more gamer friendly. But as it is now, their response is either going to be "we don't care about gamers" or "get an eGPU."

Quite honestly, the reason the xMac isn't happening is eGPU. All these complaints are address by either a MacBook Pro or an iMac with an eGPU. All maybe except for the "no built in display" thing, which I doubt Apple cares about. Or they make you buy a Mac Mini with an eGPU.

Either way there's just no compelling case for an xMac anymore from Apple's perspective. It's dead.

Sorry goMac, but you seem to be arguing with someone else.

I do not game. I'm not a gamer. I do not play video games. I do not want to play video games. However, I would like an xMac.

You seem to be confusing the market for such a machine and the desire for such a machine with whether Apple will make such a machine. In both my posts I indicated that Apple will not make such a machine. Why do you keep arguing this point with me?

At the moment, you're sticking your head in the sand as much as the posters who can't understand why Apple doesn't make such a machine.

 

[Zarniwoop]

Is it coincidence that TB3 will be open for AMD in 2018 and Apple has also post-poned Mac Pro update to 2018?

http://www.eedesignnewseurope.com/news/intel-will-open-release-thunderbolt-3-interface-spec-2018

There really are not many obstacles that Mac Pro with AMD CPU couldn't happen.

 

[0990848]

I dont know exactly when we will see those AMD macs, but 2018 is the year and the iMac Pro likely the last Intel Based Mac.

So you say 2018 is when we'll likely see AMD Macs? I'll remember to remind you of this quote for when your wrong. Then I'll also remind you in 2019

 

[AidenShaw]

the market of people who truly need ECC ram is probably much smaller still than the number of people who will buy an iMac/Mac Pro, and if you don't need ECC why go with expensive Xeons?

If you've ever had a system that starts to panic and hang and act strangely - you'll know the advantage of ECC memory.

With ECC memory, you don't have to run long memory tests to "maybe" show that is or is not a RAM problem - you know without testing whether it's RAM.

 

[CWallace]

Is it coincidence that TB3 will be open for AMD in 2018 and Apple has also post-poned Mac Pro update to 2018?

Apple did not plan to update the Mac Pro as the iMac Pro was to be the top-end Macintosh on offer (with the cMP then being pulled once all remaining stock was sold).

Apple subsequently changed their mind / had it changed for them and decided to develop and sell a new Mac Pro earlier this year. As they had nothing planned, it will be 2018 before they have something.

 

[Biped]

the market of people who truly need ECC ram is probably much smaller still than the number of people who will buy an iMac/Mac Pro, and if you don't need ECC why go with expensive Xeons?

I'm not familiar too much with what Intel is doing these days, but if the supporting Xeon architecture (Csomething ?) is unique from the x299 in the areas of PCH bandwidth and VROC BS .... Well there are a few more reasons

 

[curmudgeonette]

the market of people who truly need ECC ram is probably much smaller still than the number of people who will buy an iMac/Mac Pro

If you are earning money with a system, you should have ECC. Period. The first time a $100/hr employee has to spend an hour fixing a corrupted spreadsheet, they could have paid for the ECC memory.

For whatever reason, the computer industry is holding ECC back from business users that should have it. It is a minor feature to add on a CPU. ECC UDIMMs should cost only 9/8ths of the price of non-ECC DIMMs. So - presently it should be a $100 feature.

if you don't need ECC why go with expensive Xeons?

At Apple's wholesale volumes, a Xeon and an i9 should be the same cost. They are both the same die, just with different features enabled/disabled. Sure, there is a massive price difference at NewEgg, but that's because i9's are remarketed defective Xeons. They are the small portion of chips of otherwise functional chips that couldn't work as Xeons. They are marked down to get them to sell. On the other hand, in a large wholesale contract, Intel will want to cover the costs of every die.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

I'm not familiar too much with what Intel is doing these days, but if the supporting Xeon architecture (Csomething ?) is unique from the x299 in the areas of PCH bandwidth and VROC BS .... Well there are a few more reasons

talking about PCH bandwidth some LGA 3647 server boards linkin an added cpu pci-e x8 link to the PCH to give it more io then just the DMI link.

 

[goMac]

I do not game. I'm not a gamer. I do not play video games. I do not want to play video games. However, I would like an xMac.

You seem to be confusing the market for such a machine and the desire for such a machine with whether Apple will make such a machine. In both my posts I indicated that Apple will not make such a machine. Why do you keep arguing this point with me

Again, I don’t think you’re reading.

You want an xMac because it would be cheaper than the Mac Pro. Like I said, Apple has no interest in selling you something cheaper.

 

[beaker7]

Is it coincidence that TB3 will be open for AMD in 2018 and Apple has also post-poned Mac Pro update to 2018?

Yes

 

[goMac]

The pitch is not that Apple could sell people a cheaper machine than the iMac or Mac Pro. The pitch is that Apple could sell a more expensive Mac Mini and make up for any sales cannibalization by capturing a larger market than what the Mac Mini/iMac currently serve.

Is there a larger market?

Apple exists on being a monopoly. If you need a Mac, you have to buy one. If you have to buy one, they’d rather upcharge you to a Mac Pro.

My understanding is Apple would sooner look the other way on Hackintoshes before they’d dilute their product line. If that’s how Apple is thinking, really doubt we’ll see an xMac.

There’s always rumors about a better Mac Mini, but... like I said before, with a Mac Mini + eGPU, Apple will much more strongly see no reason to do an xMac.

 

[ManuelGomes]

Maybe the new Mini will be the new Mac (just Mac now), as an headless iMac. The same way the MacPro is the headless iMac Pro. That would complete the line. Different form factor maybe, even to accommodate some expansion cards (which I very much doubt) so that everyone is happy.
One thing we know (maybe) for sure: the mMP will be space grey to go with the keyboard and mouse/trackpad of the iMac Pro.

 

[Zarniwoop]

Maybe the new Mini will be the new Mac (just Mac now), as an headless iMac. The same way the MacPro is the headless iMac Pro. That would complete the line. Different form factor maybe, even to accommodate some expansion cards (which I very much doubt) so that everyone is happy.
One thing we know (maybe) for sure: the mMP will be space grey to go with the keyboard and mouse/trackpad of the iMac Pro.

And rename it Machintosh. There's nothing grand in the name Mini when it is an adjective.

Machintosh
Machintosh Pro
iMac
iMac Pro
Macbook
Macbook Pro

And maybe that will happen with iPad too.

iPad 8
iPad 10
iPad Pro 10
iPad Pro 12

 

[mattspace]

Apple exists on being a monopoly. If you need a Mac, you have to buy one. If you have to buy one, they’d rather upcharge you to a Mac Pro.

We've all seen what happens to the quality of products turned out by those who hold monopolies.

If the next Mac Pro is as expensive as I suspect it will be, to make the "Nuts & Gum, together at last" iMac Pro look affordable, or at least look like it's pricing structure is "Mac Pro with a free monitor", then one needs to ask how signifiant it is that there seems to be an increasing tide of formerly Mac-only content app developers moving their products to cross platform - Macphun being the latest.

When all the money is absorbed by Apple, what will be left to spend on "pro" apps?

Meanwhile "gaming PCs" ie what Apple would market as a "Pro Core i(x) workstation" if they made it, continue to grow sales something like >20% annually, despite competing against dedicated gaming consoles.

 

[vailr]

If you are earning money with a system, you should have ECC. Period. The first time a $100/hr employee has to spend an hour fixing a corrupted spreadsheet, they could have paid for the ECC memory.

For whatever reason, the computer industry is holding ECC back from business users that should have it. It is a minor feature to add on a CPU. ECC UDIMMs should cost only 9/8ths of the price of non-ECC DIMMs. So - presently it should be a $100 feature.

Okay then: you should probably lobby and argue that Intel should mandate: "ECC for all future models of desktop CPU's", and never mind the extra cost of ECC RAM vs. non-ECC RAM.
While you're doing that, most casual users would be more than happy with the type of current generation desktop machine pictured here:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/waiting-for-mac-pro-7-1.1975126/page-265#post-25278728
Which I think would sell quite well, and increase the overall usage of macOS several percentage points vs. Windows. As long as it was somewhat cost competitive with an equally specced Dell or HP Windows PC.
At some previous point in time, the Apple operating system was several percentage points higher than it is currently.
"Mind share" is something to be valued, not ignored.
[doublepost=1509383820][/doublepost]

There’s always rumors about a better Mac Mini, but... like I said before, with a Mac Mini + eGPU, Apple will much more strongly see no reason to do an xMac.

The whole idea of eGPU is simply distasteful to me.
A Mac Mini with an eGPU option is simply a stupid idea.
If you want a VR capable machine designed for the home user, then a PCIe GTX 1080ti equipped, mid tower Mac, should be an available option.
If you want a MAC with an internal Blu-Ray burner installed at the factory, then allow for that option.
No currently offered Mac includes an internal optical drive option.

 

[MarkJames68]

The whole idea of eGPU is simply distasteful to me.
A Mac Mini with an eGPU option is simply a stupid idea.
If you want a VR capable machine designed for the home user, then a PCIe slot Mac, should be an available option.
If you want a MAC with an internal Blu-Ray burner installed at the factory, then allow for that option.
No currently offered Mac includes an internal optical drive option.

I wouldn’t call it “distasteful” but agree that eGPU is a kludge, especially on TB2 bandwidth. But it’s better then the alternative right now which is to order a Mac Pro D700 as the best option (this is a thread about a Pro, not Mini).

I am happy with an external DVD option. I use it very infrequently. Apple’s last internal optical drive model sold was the MD101LL/A, which dated from 2012.

What would have sufficed was to have a next generation D900 GPU or whatever as an aftermarket option. That’s where I felt Apple let down the pro market, especially given the focus on photography and video for the machine.