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

[askunk]

Why shouldn't I hope for open PCIe slots or at least the ability to replace GPU without much restriction. They specifically said next Mac Pro will be "modular". While that does not guarantee that Apple will come out with traditional design like 5.1, but at least it gives the reason to have some hope.

I agree. Lots of old tech won't be needed (optical bays, internal HDDs - come on guys, almost all of us rely on ext multidrive boxes and NAS- additional fans and power...), new tech is getting smaller (Tx chips doing the job of many others, M2 drives, wireless...), therefore what the frack does it take to put a PCI slot and a good cooling system and design something we could theoretically also put in a backpack and bring around?

They say they are talking to professionals to understand the present bottlenecks and needs. Well... do you really think there is no one who would tell them "I wanna use Photoshop and see it fly like on a PC" or "I want to be able to update my GPU without relying on your plans, like every other Pro user on the planet"?

 

[Kpjoslee]

I always love, when people are reading way too much in my posts than I actually I have written. Its not my fault that, in a post which talks about, the tech behind it, and having open platform, that is not locked in to one GPU vendor through software, you read me saying that it is a bad thing to have Nvidia.

It will be great if their hardware will be better than AMD's in non-bloated by proprietary, GPU vendor-made, software environment, and you will not be forced by CUDA to use and buy Nvidia GPUs.

Its the point of my question: what happens when AMD comes with much better hardware than Nvidia, but your software can ONLY work on CUDA?

Crap yourself, because all of people who were not locked to any GPU vendor by software, are advancing their technology, and development?

How dare Nvidia for working with software vendors to make sure their software works well on their hardware.

When there are only two vendors (Maybe 3 in the future, but Intel needs few more years until they offer anything
competitive), open platform is nothing more than an excuse to just throw it out there and maybe hope for software vendors to adopt and optimize. If we have like 7-8 different vendors, then open standard would be really important feature, but when there is only 2, it becomes meaningless. It is up to AMD to make sure softwares works well with their hardware. Nvidia is not pointing gun at software companies to be locked at CUDA, AMD also needs give out the support to software companies to make sure their hardware is well supported.

What if AMD comes out with better hardware than Nvidia? Having a better hardware would mean not just a number crunching power, but softwares are well supported. then I can just switch to AMD. That is the reason why it would be important for Mac Pro to be modular enough to support present and future GPUs and allow them to swap without much restrictions.

 

[Biped]

Nvidia is not pointing gun at software companies to be locked at CUDA, AMD also needs give out the support to software companies to make sure their hardware is well supported.

ok not literally, but figuratively Nvidia is behind some pretty predatory business practices that have nothing to do with merit of product or technology.

 

[ssgbryan]

I agree. Lots of old tech won't be needed (optical bays, internal HDDs - come on guys, almost all of us rely on ext multidrive boxes and NAS- additional fans and power...)

What is this "all of us" nonsense? Just because you aren't using doesn't mean others aren't. I have enough stuff scattered on my desk, I don't want to add more.

I use my optical bay (Upper - Blu-ray, Lower: additional HD) If the customer asks for output on a CD, guess what - they are getting it. It would be different if that external USB superdrive I bought from Apple worked with a my Mac Pro, but it doesn't (firmware lobotomy courtesy of Apple).

In addition, I currently have 5 HDDs in my machine. I have enough full external boxes (2) as it is; I am not interested in adding more points of failure to my workflow.

 

[vailr]

Apple has been planned to jump into GPU market with both feet. At this point they have and are shipping large volume. If Nvidia has sent lawyers sniffing around Apple about infringement and Apple's need to give them a stream of the iPhone revenue, then they probably burned a bridge with dynamite.

That's what Apple has been doing: designing their own custom GPU chip + PCIe card for the new modular Mac Pro.
Or maybe not.

 

[AidenShaw]

That's what Apple has been doing: designing their own custom GPU chip + PCIe card for the new modular Mac Pro.
Or maybe not.

And if Apple suggested that to their big pro customers - it would get an even bigger "OMG - NO!" response than the reveal of the Imac Pro got!
[doublepost=1533861782][/doublepost]

ok not literally, but figuratively Nvidia^H^H^H^H^H^H Apple is behind some pretty predatory business practices that have nothing to do with merit of product or technology.

Please, accusing any other company of predatory business practices from an Apple forum?

 

[Biped]

Please, accusing any other company of predatory business practices from an Apple forum?

Heh, point taken.

 

[Lammers]

Unlike you, I don't remember posting Nvidia preaching posts like you litter the forum with AMD PR slides or Semiaccurate garbages.

Why shouldn't I hope for open PCIe slots or at least the ability to replace GPU without much restriction. They specifically said next Mac Pro will be "modular". While that does not guarantee that Apple will come out with traditional design like 5.1, but at least it gives the reason to have some hope.

There is no such thing as permanent marriage or divorce in tech world. Depends on how Apple would like to position the next Mac Pro, they can always bring back Nvidia, and pretend like nothing ever happened between them.

If you even care about Mac Pro, why would you be against having a Nvidia GPU as an option? It would be much of same reason you want to see Zen 2 in Mac Pro. Are you that much of a hypocrite?

I do think there is a chance that “modular” might not mean what you want it to mean. It might just mean modular at the point of purchase - i.e. you buy it with the modules you want for your workload - and not necessarily changeable thereafter, or changeable only with Apple’s own “modules”.
[doublepost=1533890220][/doublepost]

During the April 2017 pow-wow

"... With regards to the Mac Pro, ....and we want to architect it so that we can keep it fresh with regular improvements, and we’re committed to making it our highest-end, high throughput desktop system, designed for our demanding pro customers. ... "
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/t...-john-ternus-on-the-state-of-apples-pro-macs/

Some folks have 'spun' thing into the highest possible throughput on the market. IMHO, that is a misread. It is "making it our highest" which more likely means fastest throughput in Mac product line up. A single x16 PCI-e v3 standard slot would do that. They don't need to engage in a slot count war to get there.

later one there is also this:

"... But certainly flexibility and our flexibility to keep it current and upgraded. We need an architecture that can deliver across a wide dynamic range of performance and that we can efficiently keep it up to date with the best technologies over years. ..."

The Mac Pro doesn't have to be solely about 'highest' everything (i.e., most expensive possible. ). The system has to cover a broad range also.

Again many folks have spun 'efficiently keep up' to be equivalent to 'have to keep up with the computer parts bin a Fry's' . There is no direct commitment to that. That relies on the presumption that Apple is gong to commit to the absolute minimal amount of work. ( they have laid a track record for that certainly, but that hasn't been highly successful either. ). With a reasonable amount of resource allocation and active work Apple can keep up to speed.

Apple needs to "talk" by delivering product. What Apple needs is an architecture where they can update a major subsystem on a regular basis (e.g., 12-18 months ).




" ... We’re not going to make any promise, or anything that should be misinterpreted as ‘Here’s what Apple said they’re going to do in the future on the Mac Pro.’ I will point out that we make decisions at a product-by-product level ... Just because on one product we remove something doesn’t mean we’re going to remove it from everything if it doesn’t make sense. So there’s no reason to draw any conclusion. For example, [saying] what we choose to do on a MacBook Pro means that that’s all we will do on a desktop in the future. That’s not a reasonable conclusion. We make choices based on a variety of factors per product."

This was right after a joke about no Macs with RS 232 port and Serial ATA (SATA) port.

One of those factors is likely going toward where folks are going to. So RS 232 is a port won't see. IF $/GB was exactly same for PCI-e SSDs , then SATA would be in the same bucket. All the aspects are going to be put under scrutiny.


In the April 2018 discussion

"...
This time around, Boger was succinct: the promised Mac Pro will be a 2019 product.

“We want to be transparent and communicate openly with our pro community, so we want them to know that the Mac Pro is a 2019 product. It’s not something for this year.” ... "
https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/05/apples-2019-imac-pro-will-be-shaped-by-workflows/

They aren't looking to slide into 2020 or to pick parts which could highly likely cause them to slide into 2020. It is quite likely they expected to finish a substantive amount of work in 2018. How far into 2019 isn't hinted, but it is a definitely not ship in 2018.

I think the title of this second article is a bit off though.

"... Because we want to provide complete pro solutions, not just deliver big hardware, which we’re doing and we did it with iMac Pro. But look at everything holistically.” ... "

That "Pro Workflow " group isn't primarily about Mac Pro. That is an aspect, but so is enhancing the pro software on MBP and iMacs. It isn't about making software faster by just throwing more Watts and 'grunt' at it so that it is only effective on the largest wattage Mac we sell.
[doublepost=1533580169][/doublepost]

they have used expansion, but they also haven't excluded thunderbolt from expansion either. One of the more common complaints made about the iMac by detractors is that they don't want the monitor/screen attached to the computer. So an alternative to that is modular. They would have 'checked' one of the big box complaints.



Apple didn't get off of slots for RAM and CPUs on the current iteration. Two fans are in the iMac Pro. It is probably a larger power budget more so than fans ( fans follow with need to get rid of the heat from the power usage. )




the "Pre Workflow" isn't about the Mac Pro specifically. It is about all the Mac that are in the Pro space. The Mac Pro is and would extremely likely remain a small signal digital member of that space. How Pro software works on MBP, iMac , and iMac Pro is just as much of a charter of that group as anything that runs on Mac Pro. It is a fairly wide and broad space, so know they don't know all the answers for all time there.





Keeping the product updated doesn't necessarily conflict with end user updates. They have done RAM. They don't actively support CPU, but folks have done it.

I think the bigger disconnect is those who primarily look at the Mac Pro as something that is primarily just a container in which to put commodity "stuff". Apple's view is more likely aligned with the Mac Pro as a working system for work now first, something that is a nexus (e.g. hook monitor to it), and something that can be adjusted, within some limits, later.

Right, so they have talked about it being “high throughput”, but then they also talk about Thunderbolt being in that category. They haven’t said “optimized for throughput” as suggested by another poster.

“Expandable”, to your point, can easily refer to external expandability - where it seems clear Apple has been very focused, including around external GPUs - or, to come back to the “modular” point, could easily refer only to Apple proprietary modules using proprietary connectors and designs.

I agree, the suggestion that Apple would put standard slots in the new Mac Pro for people to plug in commodity off-the-shelf hardware defies all their established business practices and principles, and requires them to unwind several years of history and “progress” away from those things. Apple haven’t sold a Mac with PCI slots for six years, I don’t see them going back on that which essentially requires implicit acknowledgement that all of that was a mistake.

In my view, if you look at Apple’s principles, their history, how long this is taking, the fact that they have kicked off a big pro workflow analysis exercise, and the language they’ve used to describe the new Mac Pro, my expectation at this point is that it will be a chassis with only proprietary internal connectors for proprietary modules only sold by Apple, preserving tight integration between software and hardware. And it will be beautifully designed, naturally, and with a price tag to match. Pros will initially be sceptical (“This isn’t what we wanted!! Where are the PCI slots?!?”), but Apple will launch it along with a bunch of videos of pros talking about how it’s the best workstation they’ve ever used. And there will be valid technical reasons why those proprietary connections are superior to whatever is the open standard equivalent, which is the argument Apple will make for why they’ve done it this way. And it may fail, because it still doesn’t give pros what they want (which is something Apple doesn’t want to give them), or it may be a roaring success. Other workstation OEMs will mock it... and then eventually copy it.

 

[Simon R.]

I do think there is a chance that “modular” might not mean what you want it to mean. It might just mean modular at the point of purchase - i.e. you buy it with the modules you want for your workload - and not necessarily changeable thereafter, or changeable only with Apple’s own “modules”.
[doublepost=1533890220][/doublepost]
Other workstation OEMs will mock it... and then eventually copy it.

Oh you mean like the trashcan that has been copied so much

If they go all proprietary like you suggest it will flunk. Nobody will trust Apple upgrading it. If Apple themselves don't even realize that... then we're all in trouble.

 

[askunk]

What is this "all of us" nonsense? Just because you aren't using doesn't mean others aren't. I have enough stuff scattered on my desk, I don't want to add more.

Wow... calm down I do understand why sometimes some here had fights over futile matters. We have different opinions, neither of us has the truth, remember. No need to feel attacked or be aggressive...
I didn't say "ALL OF US", I said ALMOST all of us. It's undeniable that the primary drive is now an SSD (not only for pros...) and that Pro users work with big bulk storage (CAD, video, audio, simulations... they all need TBs and TBs of HDDs, plus you need mirroring or backup) that cannot be shrunk into one or two drives. (AGAIN I am GENERALISING... not telling everyone what to do)

It's the market trend (also on PCs, I showed some time ago the new formats for Pro machines which hold a GPU, CPU and SSDs and are much more compact and silent than before) and it makes sense, since you can even move the storage away from the main workstation and save on cooling and noise, plus it becomes easier to swap drives when faulty.

Anyway, if you think I am totally wrong and that the majority of Pro users need internal HDDs, then let's debate it... with respect

 

[fuchsdh]

You are missing money. It's how the world works, especially in a trillion dollar company. If they show a prototype, they will crater sales in iMac Pro and probably i9 MBP until 2019 or whenever the MP is released.

Again, I don't think Apple is concerned about an osbourne effect when they've already announced a new Mac Pro is coming, and they recognize it's not serving the same types of people who are served by the iMac Pro.

 

[ssgbryan]

I don't feel I am being attacked, I am amused by your presumption that your opinion equals fact.

Everything depends on your usage. Some workflows don't need a lot of space for data, others however do. I am in the 3d Art arena - I never have enough cores, ram, or disk space for my work. And I am not even a "pro". I am a hobbyist, albeit a hobbyist that needs a workstation. No, an iMac isn't an option - I would melt one.

SSDs are great, IF you are working with small amounts of data, or you don't mind burning through them with constant read/writes. I have 2 of them in an Apricorn Duo in a RAID-0 configuration, and for an OS/App drive they are certainly fine.

Data is a different story. Large amounts of data still mean spinners, even if that is just your iTunes library. I am strictly amateur hour and I am moving from 21TB to 45TB between now and Xmas.

TB is a solution in search of a problem, since it is a TCO fail in comparison to other solutions (internal, USB-3, ESATA, or Ethernet). Intel can push it all they like, but until the boxes that attach to it drop significantly in price, the performance in comparison to other options make it a non-starter. For local (i.e. at the desktop), I prefer internal storage, but my backup is ESATA.

 

[-hh]

I do think there is a chance that “modular” might not mean what you want it to mean. It might just mean modular at the point of purchase - i.e. you buy it with the modules you want for your workload - and not necessarily changeable thereafter, or changeable only with Apple’s own “modules”.

A point well taken, although in counterpoint/fairness, I think we all do recognize that the modularity as has been implemented in the Windows PC community (and in the cMP, although a bit less so) is quite effective, even though it does occasionally stumble on compatibility issues, so it effectively is the default assumption.

[doublepost=1533890220][/doublepost]
“Expandable”, to your point, can easily refer to external expandability - where it seems clear Apple has been very focused, including around external GPUs - or, to come back to the “modular” point, could easily refer only to Apple proprietary modules using proprietary connectors and designs....
In my view, if you look at Apple’s principles, their history, how long this is taking, the fact that they have kicked off a big pro workflow analysis exercise, and the language they’ve used to describe the new Mac Pro, my expectation at this point is that it will be a chassis with only proprietary internal connectors for proprietary modules only sold by Apple, preserving tight integration between software and hardware. And it will be beautifully designed, naturally, and with a price tag to match....

Yes, Apple does love to lock things down - - but in counterpoint, this strategy follows the same serious flaw that Apple has had on all of this - - which is the Leadership to maintain a continuity of hardware incremental improvement.

Specifically, it does us no good to have a proprietary 'module' plug if no one bothers (or is allowed) to use it.

Case in point, just what better/newer than Original Equipment (OE) video cards did the Apple Store have listed for sale on the website for those years when the 2010 & 2012 Mac Pros were being sold?

 

[mikas]

Got tired of waiting, so built my own modular tower mac pro cube version 301. Can add more units on top of it.

 

[Pressure]

Got tired of waiting, so built my own modular tower mac pro cube version 301. Can add more units on top of it.View attachment 775429

What do you need 3 for?

 

[JesterJJZ]

Got tired of waiting, so built my own modular tower mac pro cube version 301. Can add more units on top of it.View attachment 775429

I would welcome a Macpro that big.

 

[mikas]

What do you need 3 for?

C4D team render e.g.

Or sometimes I just launch another instance or two of ArchiCAD to do test renders, while working ahead with my model on another machine.

 

[Lammers]

Oh you mean like the trashcan that has been copied so much

If they go all proprietary like you suggest it will flunk. Nobody will trust Apple upgrading it. If Apple themselves don't even realize that... then we're all in trouble.

Good point - they got as far as the mocking stage.... but didn't need to get to the copying stage.

I expect Apple does understand that risk... but likely is struggling to reconcile their business and product principles (sell whole widgets, aggressive removal of legacy connectors, no upgradeability, high margin, etc) with what pros are saying they want (basic shell with standard connectors to use commodity hardware).

 

[Lammers]

A point well taken, although in counterpoint/fairness, I think we all do recognize that the modularity as has been implemented in the Windows PC community (and in the cMP, although a bit less so) is quite effective, even though it does occasionally stumble on compatibility issues, so it effectively is the default assumption.




Yes, Apple does love to lock things down - - but in counterpoint, this strategy follows the same serious flaw that Apple has had on all of this - - which is the Leadership to maintain a continuity of hardware incremental improvement.

Specifically, it does us no good to have a proprietary 'module' plug if no one bothers (or is allowed) to use it.

Case in point, just what better/newer than Original Equipment (OE) video cards did the Apple Store have listed for sale on the website for those years when the 2010 & 2012 Mac Pros were being sold?

All quite true. But I'm afraid I still think Apple won't give people that as it's too contrary to their principles (plus the question over why bother doing all this "pro workflow" analysis if you're just going to give people a standard workstation chassis (more or less)).

 

[Dr. Stealth]

I lost what little faith I had left in Apple 4 years ago when they killed off Aperture and tried to gave us Photos as a replacement. I have 30,000+ digital images in 20+ Aperture Libraries the majority with multiple versions and edits. They dropped me like a bad habit. After 40 years of being a faithful customer and even an evangelist, that was pretty much the final straw for me. I'm not waiting a couple years hanging on a thread of hope that Apple will give us what we need instead of what Apple thinks we need.

I just finished building my Backup Plan. I justified it by telling myself I was building a render slave, but the reality is my cMP will soon be under my desk as the slave.

Hi, I'm Dave... And I'm a Switcher !

 

[Lammers]

If Apple is serious about next Mac Pro, even if they are slated for next year, they should show at least the prototype before the year's end. There is no reason to hide it since no other workstation manufacturers will bother copying it no matter how radical it is.
That way, at least we don't have to waste time waiting if it is another lackluster one like MPtc.

It doesn't follow that if Apple is serious about the next Mac Pro then they should show it this year. They clearly are serious about it, having made the expectation quite clear that it's coming, and yet it's entirely possible that they don't show it this year. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

The reason to hide it is to manage expectations. They won't show it this year if it's not ready to be shown this year, which will depend on where it is in its development cycle.

 

[BlueTide]

It doesn't follow that if Apple is serious about the next Mac Pro then they should show it this year. They clearly are serious about it, having made the expectation quite clear that it's coming, and yet it's entirely possible that they don't show it this year. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

The reason to hide it is to manage expectations. They won't show it this year if it's not ready to be shown this year, which will depend on where it is in its development cycle.

It doesn't follow that they are serious about it either. So far we've just heard about a few promises, some talks about how Dynamic Wallpapers are inspired by pro (Ok, I'm poking fun of them with this one), and we've seen that some products are not shipped at least in the time frame they have promised (wireless charging pad) and no idea when.

 

[pl1984]

It doesn't follow that if Apple is serious about the next Mac Pro then they should show it this year. They clearly are serious about it, having made the expectation quite clear that it's coming, and yet it's entirely possible that they don't show it this year. The two things have nothing to do with each other.

The reason to hide it is to manage expectations. They won't show it this year if it's not ready to be shown this year, which will depend on where it is in its development cycle.

Perhaps they could provide us with an idea of what they are expecting it to be. It's been over a year since their first statement regarding a new Mac Pro and then it's been, essentially, radio silence.

 

[filterdecay]

if they dont give me a box I can add things to by next year I will start to plan out migrating to pc.

 

[zephonic]

Perhaps they could provide us with an idea of what they are expecting it to be. It's been over a year since their first statement regarding a new Mac Pro and then it's been, essentially, radio silence.

Actually, Panzarino’s “pro-workflow” article was from April 5 this year. It’s when they announced the MacPro wouldn’t be a 2018 product.

https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/05/apples-2019-imac-pro-will-be-shaped-by-workflows/