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

[Naimfan]

Apologies if someone has posted this before but i couldn't read 300 pages of posts.

Whilst procrastinating in the office I imagined a concept for the modular mac pro based on Apple's (Tim's) recent design philosophy:

1) make is small and thin
2) Solder everything to prevent users from upgrading the machine themselves
3) Add plenty of Apple Tax so Tim can make even more money
4) Use the smallest SSD/ RAM/ number of USB-C connectors possible in the entry level configuration whilst still calling it PRO
5) makes Lots of dongles! so that even after spending $5K you still need to buy more dongles and have a desk full of wire spaghetti before you can do any work.


View attachment 748916

Some nice work.

There have been (many) others who suggested the same.

As many have noted, it would be suicide in the market Apple *appears* to be targeting. (Which might better be termed "power user" as opposed to "professional.")

 

[fuchsdh]

Some nice work.

There have been (many) others who suggested the same.

As many have noted, it would be suicide in the market Apple *appears* to be targeting. (Which might better be termed "power user" as opposed to "professional.")

Not to mention if this was Apple's master plan, why would they not have done this with the previous Mac Pro?

 

[goMac]

I’ve been busy, but a point I’ve meant to make about the Apple-controlling-GPUs hand wringing is if that’s what they wanted to do, why have they left eGPU wide open?

You don’t need a Mac flashed card or Apple licensed card for eGPU. Even Apple’s dev kit is all stock hardware and firmware.

 

[StuAff]

I’ve been busy, but a point I’ve meant to make about the Apple-controlling-GPUs hand wringing is if that’s what they wanted to do, why have they left eGPU wide open?

You don’t need a Mac flashed card or Apple licensed card for eGPU. Even Apple’s dev kit is all stock hardware and firmware.

Now don't start making sensible well-informed points. That will never do.

 

[CWallace]

As many have noted, it would be suicide in the market Apple *appears* to be targeting. (Which might better be termed "power user" as opposed to "professional.")

It would be suicide in the market Apple currently targets, who value simplicity, thinness and lightness most.

 

[barmann]

Damn shame you cannot attach one or more additional monitors to the iMac Pro, isn't it? Oh, wait.

And even if Apple does release a 32" 8K display in conjunction with the new Mac Pro, I expect the significant majority of purchasers will also be connecting another monitor as well - quite possibly a 27" 5K display like that on the iMac Pro.

I don't think additional monitors on an iMac are often seen in a production house .
A secondary monitor used by freelancers ( aka non-pros ) I have seen, but most workstation scenarios I know don't mix and match monitors, and they certainly don't use Apple displays .

 

[-hh]

And no one seems to question why those decisions were made. Did the resulting new design function better than the old one ? Was it more cost effective ? Did it solve a long standing serious issue with the old design ?

Sure, and a grossly oversimplified example could be that the old Mac was recognized as "big & heavy" from a logistics supply chain standpoint, so the solution of the smaller & lighter tcMP allowed Apple to save money (which means higher profits) on their shipping/transportation/warehousing costs. Naturally, that cost savings for Apple wasn't passed along to the customer.

Why were things removed/locked down but ended up locking their own ability to update ( this one is a riot !) ? where did all those promised peripherals with thunderbolt disappear ?

Simply put: "Dude, that's not my department, so its not my responsibility (problem)."

Similarly, if it doesn't affect the next cycle of employee bonuses, we can safely kick that can down the road (translation: avoid spending money today to "Do It The Right Way").

Try finding a cost effective dual/quad eGPU solution. It costs almost as much as decent 4x GPUs themselves...

Same thing happened with (non-slow) local storage: instead of adding a bare drive into an empty internal bay, one had to add on the cost of an external TB box to the drive: cMP configurations which used to cost $5500 now priced out at $7500 for no increase in capability - it was a $2000 "Form Factor Tax". Per seat.

 

[barmann]

It would be suicide in the market Apple currently targets, who value simplicity, thinness and lightness most.

The argument being made, is that Apple need to rethink that approach to cater to a performance and usability only oriented clientele ; one which has been neglected for years .

Whether or not they will do that, or even intend to, remains to be seen .
But it would arguably be suicide for Apple computing, and OSX , if they stuck to proprietary hardware solutions for much longer, all across the line .
[doublepost=1517228372][/doublepost]

Simply put: "Dude, that's not my department, so its not my responsibility (problem)."

Similarly, if it doesn't affect the next cycle of employee bonuses, we can safely kick that can down the road (translation: avoid spending money today to "Do It The Right Way").

Well said .
It's easy to forget that a company like Apple has a whole bunch of people in managment, and most of them are not in it for the greater good .

Same thing happened with (non-slow) local storage: instead of adding a bare drive into an empty internal bay, one had to add on the cost of an external TB box to the drive: cMP configurations which used to cost $5500 now priced out at $7500 for no increase in capability - it was a $2000 "Form Factor Tax". Per seat.

Amen to that .
While a lot of storage is external these days , there is still no viable substitute for quickly putting in a couple of SSDs or even spinners, at zero extra cost - or added noise, cables, driver issues, ...

 

[filmak]

Amen to that .
While a lot of storage is external these days , there is still no viable substitute for quickly putting in a couple of SSDs or even spinners, at zero extra cost - or added noise, cables, driver issues, ...

... ejecting during sleep issues, unexpected random ejecting (MacOs issues)etc. In many cases internal storage is absolutely more reliable.

 

[Chancha]

I don't think additional monitors on an iMac are often seen in a production house .
A secondary monitor used by freelancers ( aka non-pros ) I have seen, but most workstation scenarios I know don't mix and match monitors, and they certainly don't use Apple displays .

2D graphics and desktop publishing workstations have favored dual screens for a while. A typical setup is a larger interfacing screen with moderate to low specs but high resolution and real estate, coupled with a calibrated wide gamut display that is smaller and less resolution due to cost. The smaller "proofing" screen is often set aside.

With the 5K iMac being popular in these roles, it quite naturally replaces both the larger interfacing screen and also the computer of course.

 

[singhs.apps]

Truth be told, I am half hoping/expecting Apple to bung this up.

Would give me a last, final excuse to get out of its ecosystem.

 

[barmann]

2D graphics and desktop publishing workstations have favored dual screens for a while. A typical setup is a larger interfacing screen with moderate to low specs but high resolution and real estate, coupled with a calibrated wide gamut display that is smaller and less resolution due to cost. The smaller "proofing" screen is often set aside.

With the 5K iMac being popular in these roles, it quite naturally replaces both the larger interfacing screen and also the computer of course.

I'll have to take your word for that, personally I've never seen a setup like this .
Dual displays are a given, and not always are they matched, but the main work screen being inferiour ?
Sounds odd to me .

 

[fuchsdh]

Whether or not they will do that, or even intend to, remains to be seen .
But it would arguably be suicide for Apple computing, and OSX , if they stuck to proprietary hardware solutions for much longer, all across the line .

This is ridiculous, given that the only obstacle to Apple making more money every quarter off Macs is mostly their update schedule or lack of it. The reality is that Apple doesn't need pros and hasn't for a decade now. The only question is whether they think it's still important enough as a fringe group to keep invested in the platform. I hope they are, but the people who posit Apple's failure to cater to pros as Apple's doom are the ones who are stuck in the 90s. The stakes aren't that high at all.

I'll have to take your word for that, personally I've never seen a setup like this .
Dual displays are a given, and not always are they matched, but the main work screen being inferiour ?
Sounds odd to me .

It's a thing in editing and coloring setups as well. It's not cost-effective to try and make every screen a pro calibrated monitor, especially since the pickings at 4K or 5K are slim and incredibly expensive.

 

[singhs.apps]

I'll have to take your word for that, personally I've never seen a setup like this .
Dual displays are a given, and not always are they matched, but the main work screen being inferiour ?
Sounds odd to me .

I believe he is talking about the NEC and Eizo monitors.

 

[CWallace]

I don't think additional monitors on an iMac are often seen in a production house.

Which implies they do like the 5K display.

The argument being made, is that Apple need to rethink that approach to cater to a performance and usability only oriented clientele ; one which has been neglected for years.

And that argument depends on how one defines "performance" and "usability". For many on this forum, "usability" is defined as the ability to self-upgrade the components inside. Apple could offer a new Mac Pro that can have up to 8 Xeon Platinum CPUs, four top-level GPUs from both nVidia and AMD, 1.5TB of RAM and four M.2 SSDs but if you cannot self-upgrade any or all of those components, it would be decried as "completely unusable" by those members.

 

[singhs.apps]

Which implies they do like the 5K display.
And that argument depends on how one defines "performance" and "usability". For many on this forum, "usability" is defined as the ability to self-upgrade the components inside. Apple could offer a new Mac Pro that can have up to 8 Xeon Platinum CPUs, four top-level GPUs from both nVidia and AMD, 1.5TB of RAM and four M.2 SSDs but if you cannot self-upgrade any or all of those components, it would be decried as "completely unusable" by those members.

I am curious what those complaining about the lack of upgrades would want to upgrade to if Apple builds such systems as you suggest.

 

[beaker7]

Which implies they do like the 5K display.




And that argument depends on how one defines "performance" and "usability". For many on this forum, "usability" is defined as the ability to self-upgrade the components inside. Apple could offer a new Mac Pro that can have up to 8 Xeon Platinum CPUs, four top-level GPUs from both nVidia and AMD, 1.5TB of RAM and four M.2 SSDs but if you cannot self-upgrade any or all of those components, it would be decried as "completely unusable" by those members.

I wouldn't care so much about upgradability so much if Apple would update their workstation components on a reasonable interval. "Upgradability" isn't so much a requirement as "not bring restricted to ancient hardware in order to run OSX." Upgradability is just a way to get there.

 

[Chancha]

I'll have to take your word for that, personally I've never seen a setup like this .
Dual displays are a given, and not always are they matched, but the main work screen being inferiour ?
Sounds odd to me .

Well I have to admit this isn't anywhere near a standard config, but it happens enough to at least be considered pretty common.

The oddity has to do with a few factors:
- screens with exotic resolution and reliable color replication at the same time is too costly, if space is not an issue then it is more economically sound to split the roles, even when budget is there
- people generally are more effective on dual screens anyway, matched or not simply depends on the use case
- the iMac being popular in these kind of workspace means the larger interfacing screen is being bundled anyway and is in abundance, if bought in bulk, workers who only need the built-screen gets just the iMac, others who need proofing just add the Eizo/NEC which you can say are superior than anything from Apple.

 

[vailr]

.

For many on this forum, "usability" is defined as the ability to self-upgrade the components inside. Apple could offer a new Mac Pro that can have up to 8 Xeon Platinum CPUs, four top-level GPUs from both nVidia and AMD, 1.5TB of RAM and four M.2 SSDs but if you cannot self-upgrade any or all of those components, it would be decried as "completely unusable" by those members.

You seem to be ignoring the $$dollar$$ factor: the obvious universal wish to want to try and bypass the "Apple Tax".
The problem isn't that it would be "completely unusable", but rather: "completely too much Apple Tax".
If Apple were to be the only source for obtaining some new video card, say in 2019, then you know that there would be a rather expensive "Apple Tax" attached to that video card. Not to mention the several month time delay from public availability of the PC version vs. the "special" Apple version card.
If Apple were to only offer PCIe slot AMD video cards in the 2018 Mac Pro, then a post-purchase option to swap out for a generic off-the-shelf (PCIe slot) nVidia video card would be seen as something of particular value to many potential customers.
Same kind of deal for a post-purchase SSD or system memory upgrade.

 

[CWallace]

I am curious what those complaining about the lack of upgrades would want to upgrade to if Apple builds such systems as you suggest.

GPU is a given. Either because users want to play AAA games so they want the most advanced consumer GPU available or their work involves GPU-heavy computation and GPU performance is roughly doubling every year.

RAM and SSD storage would be also high-up on the list because of the "Apple Tax" often brought up (see above/below).

I wouldn't care so much about upgradability so much if Apple would update their workstation components on a reasonable interval. "Upgradability" isn't so much a requirement as "not bring restricted to ancient hardware in order to run OSX." Upgradability is just a way to get there.

Yes, Apple not designing themselves into a "thermal corner" like they did with the 2013 Mac Pro would be good. Though the Mid-2012 model did get it's fair share of flack from folks for only offering slightly faster Xeons compared to the Mid-2010 model.

You seem to be ignoring the $$dollar$$ factor: the obvious universal wish to want to try and bypass the "Apple Tax".

Not at all. In fact I have noted that people pining for a very expandable and upgradeable Mac Pro might find the prices of such a machine to be unpalatable considered an HP Z8 also starts at $5000 and can go to the nearside of $100,000.

So as it has been, it may remain that the most-effective way to bypass the "Apple Tax" is to build a Hackintosh off consumer-level components.

If Apple were to be the only source for obtaining some new video card, say in 2019, then you know that there would be a rather expensive "Apple Tax" attached to that video card. Not to mention the several month time delay from public availability of the PC version vs. the "special" Apple version card.
If Apple were to only offer PCIe slot AMD video cards in the 2018 Mac Pro, then a post-purchase option to swap out for a generic off-the-shelf (PCIe slot) nVidia video card would be seen as something of particular value to many potential customers.

But even with the 2009-2012 models you cannot just use any PCIe graphics card you want, correct? I see threads with folks asking how they can flash the ROM on the card to get it to work.

Same kind of deal for a post-purchase SSD or system memory upgrade.

Well with today's report that the T2 APU is now possibly expanding to the iMac and MacBook (Pro) lines, that could very well take third-party SSD upgrades either off the table or make them significantly more expensive due to having to engineer in support for the T2.

 

[monokakata]

I'll have to take your word for that, personally I've never seen a setup like this .
Dual displays are a given, and not always are they matched, but the main work screen being inferiour ?
Sounds odd to me .

Well, I'm a freelancer ("non-pro" according to you -- a gratuitous insult but I'll let it pass) and I regularly wish I had a second monitor in my 5K iMac setup (and if I get an iMac Pro I'll wish for the same thing). When I'm working at designing a book using InDesign I realize it would be convenient to have some of my source material, or earlier versions, displayed on another screen so that I can take the entire iMac screen for the hot job.

And when, as in this week, I'm actually writing a report for a committee and I have 4 or 5 input sources that I need to scroll through and pick out material from . . . well, I'm sure you get the point.

I can do without the screen, obviously, or I'd have been fired long ago (oh wait, we non-pros can't get fired, right?) but having one would help my workflow considerably.

 

[singhs.apps]

GPU is a given. Either because users want to play AAA games so they want the most advanced consumer GPU available or their work involves GPU-heavy computation and GPU performance is roughly doubling every year.

RAM and SSD storage would be also high-up on the list because of the "Apple Tax" often brought up (see above/below).

But in your post you already mentioned Apple could offer 8 socket xeons, 4 top level GPUs, 1.5 TB ram, super fast drives etc.

So again... what would these ‘complaining folks’ want to upgrade to ?
[doublepost=1517249096][/doublepost]

("non-pro" according to you -- a gratuitous insult but I'll let it pass)

Oh that’s a rather funny declaration by the OP of this thread. Hence the quotes.

 

[CWallace]

But in your post you already mentioned Apple could offer 8 socket xeons, 4 top level GPUs, 1.5 TB ram, super fast drives etc.

So again... what would these ‘complaining folks’ want to upgrade to ?

Well I also noted "self-upgrade" so using vailr's post as an example, they would want to be able to upgrade all of it via less-expensive third-party options to avoid paying Apple's prices.

 

[singhs.apps]

Well I also noted "self-upgrade" so using vailr's post as an example, they would want to be able to upgrade all of it via less-expensive third-party options to avoid paying Apple's prices.

An upgrade usually means adding better or non existing parts ( which technically might mean expanding ) in a system.

Perhaps you meant 3rd party peripherals that are cheaper ?

 

[goMac]

But even with the 2009-2012 models you cannot just use any PCIe graphics card you want, correct? I see threads with folks asking how they can flash the ROM on the card to get it to work..

Incorrect. ROM is just for the boot/option key status select screen. Beyond that nearly any GPU would work.

Apple even signs the drivers for the Nvidia 1000/900 series. Which if they didn't like they could block.

That's the other ridiculous part of this. If Apple didn't want this to go on they would have already killed it.

Some posters here are calling the ROM thing a sort of "lockout", but again, newer Macs seem like they don't require custom ROMs for the GPUs. I don't think it's a priority for Apple.