Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
We've seen the new mini enclosure... thoughts on potential Mac Pro redesign...?
- Thread starter anim8or
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
you are correct and I agree with you 100%. for consumer products, needing to change the look is important to get people to buy the newest version(see iphones, ipods, imacs, etc)
for pro machines, the look is secondary and power is everything. As long as apple keeps the hardware updated frequently with the newest and greatest hardware, that is what matters to professionals. Apple should focus on that exclusively and if it so happens they have time to create a new design then great. It just shouldn't be their priority.
Went back and looked closely at a Mac Pro case. It already is a unibody case. The "handles" aren't some separate bolted/screwed on thing.
The primary structural element of the case is formed by taking a single sheet of aluminum and forming a 'C' shape. The "handles" and left side (when looking on from the front) is one single sheet. The "handles" are formed by cutting slices out of that single sheet. That is unibody construction (moving the structural loads to the frame so have more interior room). The side panel that comes off helps handle loads transfered on that side when in place. (similar to the bottoms that come of the unibody laptops. )
That external wrapper allows them to poke more holes in the front and back of the "inner" box. The inner box doesn't have to support the weight either. If peeled off that a wrapper, the inner box would bend and twist much more easily.
Only case upgrade can think of is if they wanted to collapse the Mac Pro and XServe enclosures. The could make an inner box that either plugged into a upright 'C' wrapper or a 'rackmount' wrapper. However, don't really see them doing that though. ( the orientation on the optical drives for one. The XServe looses 1U height for another. ) And if XServe can't hold its own revenues wise, they seem more likely to just cancel it.
would be easier to "rackount" the Mac Pros vertically. ( put in a shelf and secure them as pack in side by side. ). A crossbar that mounts to the rack and latched on to "handles" could secure them in place. They aren't going to a dense pack option because never intended to be. That is what XServes are for.
This is my setup:
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v335/52/95/537467851/n537467851_911550_2609.jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v335/52/95/537467851/n537467851_911549_1840.jpg
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v335/52/95/537467851/n537467851_911548_956.jpg
Out of date though - modem (3rd picture) got changed. Additional devices were added, power boards are now full
Some wiring changes.Have had this setup for under 2 years. No problems with heat. I presume the pegboard material can sort of act as a way to dissipate heat slightly.
Pardon my intrusion. I saw "new mini" in the link and followed it...
... can I ask whether or not I'm missing something? Only, the Mac Pro seems like an absolutely scandalous rip-off, to me. Reading the specs, I reckon I could build a PC from the ground up for something like sixty-to-seventy percent of the price. True, it wouldn't be anywhere near as tough-looking (and they are damned tough-looking...), but I have to ask - where the Hell does all the money go? Does Apple reckon OS X is worth $1,000...?
EDIT: To put my potentially controversial comments into context... I own a 2009 Mini, so I'm no stranger to being overcharged for underspec'd hardware. In the Mini, I reckon there's a similar performance-to-price ratio; but I don't mind, because I accept that I paid a premium for the tiny form factor. But really, where's the like pay-off for the Mac Pro? To my mind, it's just a disgustingly poor value, full-sized desktop computer.
Please, if I've missed something, let me know. I'm relatively new to Macs, so it's very possible that I might've done.
... can I ask whether or not I'm missing something? Only, the Mac Pro seems like an absolutely scandalous rip-off, to me. Reading the specs, I reckon I could build a PC from the ground up for something like sixty-to-seventy percent of the price. True, it wouldn't be anywhere near as tough-looking (and they are damned tough-looking...), but I have to ask - where the Hell does all the money go? Does Apple reckon OS X is worth $1,000...?
EDIT: To put my potentially controversial comments into context... I own a 2009 Mini, so I'm no stranger to being overcharged for underspec'd hardware. In the Mini, I reckon there's a similar performance-to-price ratio; but I don't mind, because I accept that I paid a premium for the tiny form factor. But really, where's the like pay-off for the Mac Pro? To my mind, it's just a disgustingly poor value, full-sized desktop computer.
Please, if I've missed something, let me know. I'm relatively new to Macs, so it's very possible that I might've done.
You can start with the fact it isn't intended to sit on your desk. So it isn't a desktop computer. There is longer list after that, but not particularly worth going into since missed that obvious one.
I think the handles and feet are here to stay. How else would you remove the MP from the box? Turn it upside down and let it slide out?
My friend's father's a professional photographer and has two Mac Pros, on two different desks in his studio. I guess I'll just call him up at 1AM and tell him that "deconstruct60" of Macrumors forums says that he'd never make a living as an interior designer...
Does anyone have anything positive and distinctive to say about the Pro? Something that makes it better than the sum of its parts?
It requires a wall socket for a power source rather than a battery, so it's not a laptop/portable. Nor is it a rackmount enclosure.
So what other physical classification does it fit?
I make a really nice living on mine and its paid for itself many times over. I will give it to my 5 year old when the next one comes.
Only the IRS cares about the price.
Your 5 year old might be ready to make a living by the time the next one comes out.
It's a.... floortop? Cause not many people opt to put such a behemoth on top of their desks
There are quite a few independents, freelancers and small studios who use 'em for rendering, editing, music etc. (I being an independent).. And yes some who just decide they want one.
...
New handle design. Similar effectiveness.
I think the handles and feet are here to stay. How else would you remove the MP from the box? Turn it upside down and let it slide out?
They will design the boxes like the iPad & iPhone ones.. Top slides off.
It's a mid-tower, which is at a size that it can be placed either on the desk or floor (though I do agree that on the desk can be a tad awkward, especially if they're typically more familiar with mini-towers).It's a.... floortop? Cause not many people opt to put such a behemoth on top of their desks
But it's by no means a full size tower, which is too big for anywhere but the floor.
Thanks for the non-douche reply.
I can see how that would be... but is there anything about the Pro that makes it distinctly better than a kit-built PC with the same components? Does it have a particularly excellent service-record, or warranty? Because I'd want either or both, for that kinda money.
They're built out of the same parts as any other workstation system that uses the same processor, so reliability is approximately the same (some board makers do cut corners on things like resistors and capacitors, and PC boards may have additional features not offered in the MP, such as eSATA or built-in hardware RAID (LSI 1064 for example).
As per warranty, you have to pay extra to extend Apple Care beyond it's initial time period of one year, and it's usually carried into the nearest Apple store (PC workstation and servers come with 3yr Next Day on-site support).
Apple does offer on-site if you're within 50 miles of an Apple Store, but they're difficult about it (i.e. act as if they're doing you a MASSIVE favor), and it typically takes longer, according to those that have successfully obtained service that way.
Keep in mind, this is on systems built by PC vendors vs. the MP, not a DIY build. In that case, you're on the hook for all diagnostics, tracking down warranty support from individual suppliers, ... So there is definitely a "cost" to go this route.
If you're earning a living with the system, then it's best to get a vendor built system (i.e. Dell, HP,...). But if you're say an enthusiast or student for example, the trade-offs may be acceptable (have the ability to put forth the necessary time in case of a problem).
Workstation (or Deskside , which is typically assigned to servers). Desktop is a generic, catch all, nondescriptive category that folks use to classify mainstream personal computers with. Go to Dell's, HP's, IBM's, etc. sites and see if they don't draw a distinction.
Workstations have historically been much more closer to entry level servers that are assigned to one person. Usually because that person has workload that makes them not so favorable to timeshare on a shared server, but a server level of workload.
The Mac Pro is more so an XServe in a vertically oriented box that can sit on the floor instead of a rack as opposed to a mini in a bigger case. Would be closer to a 2U XServe if one existed. The Mac Pro has much more historical design motivations from the history of Unix Workstations than from the original IBM PC. It actually is a Unix workstation with a candy coated UI.
Going past the initial Sun and Apollo pizza boxes, these typically moved off the desktop because typically were coupled with larger monitor(s) and a variety of input devices ( input pad , dial boxes , etc. ) which tends to consume much of the flat working space. So the designs were/are highly motivated to enable moving the box off somewhere else and run cable(s) to the monitor(s) over a significant distance.
If can stick the box on the desktop two inches away from the monitor... why not merge them. Need a cable to run a several inches ?
I suppose they have an excellent service-record. There are still people using their Mac Pro from years ago - including those who are still using its predecessor, the Powe Mac G5.
My dev setup is made of my 2009 mac pro dual as a work station, several dell high-end servers and some nice slapped-together machines to do unimportant tasks (like dns, for example).
The mac does everything I need, mostly terminal based stuff. It can crank through giant datasets and not flinch. I don't want a linux workstation, although all my servers are linux. gnome, kde and others suck as a desktop. A comparable non-mac machine costs about the same. Windows and ssh really doesn't mix well and windows can run in a vm on the mac if needed. For what I do, its the best choice. It has the bonus of a nice, well designed GUI.
As far as on-site service is concerned, all my dell servers have on-site service. Its usually faster to diagnose it myself (in fact always in my case).
Reliability is not going to be same if the generic case has a jacked up thermal design or the components jammed into it willy nilly screw up what the case was designed around.
Sure can pour fans on the case like ketchup ("a class 2 tornado inside the box should take care of any problems we overlooked" ) , but that increases noise and if done poorly just wastes almost as much energy and it pulls out of the case.
Some of these parts are cheaper also because if you need a replacement part 3 years from now ... good luck. They don't make them anymore and not inventoried anywhere. You can go to eBay for parts but you'll have no idea what that user did to that part beforehand.
Also paying for Mac OS X support also though. Bug fixes and security updates ( these "I shaved $1,000" claims often shave dollars off of the OS price. Windows7 Ultra/Deluxe tends to cost more. ).
It is not the parts, because often in these $1,000 cheaper claims, the parts are not equivalent. They are just superficially equivalent and folks cherry pick off the specifications and design criteria they want to match. It is the trade-offs that are the larger differential in part costs. The rest of it is Apple's profit margin, which partially means they are around in the future, and has value if want service or another box in the future.
Integrating (making the choices and hooking them up) is worth money. Time, labor, and/or skill. (again the cheaper claims come from not counting everything that is involved either from lack of observation or just willful ignorance. )
In all of the years I've been in the industry, I've never known anyone to use the term Deskside. I do realize what you mean by the term, but I'm accustomed with Mid-Tower filling that definition (capable of both desk, floor, or a shelf system attached to the desk itself for physical location).
I even indicated that previously to try and clear things up.
Guess it didn't work. BTW, my familiarity with the term Desktop originally meant unit that laid flat (i.e. original IBM PC, and almost always had the monitor sitting on top of it), but later included the Mini-Tower (and the monitor set beside it).
Just different nomenclature I guess, but it can help clear things up.
I've not argued against this.
At any rate, it wasn't that long ago that the same processor was use for consumer, workstation, or entry level server (i.e. 80486 systems were that way, as the split began with Pentium Pro as I see it with Intel parts, as the Pentium II Xeon was the introduction of the Xeon badge).
From a component POV, yes, it does (same DP Xeons, same chipset). But take expansion into account (in general), they've split a bit (i.e. servers using on-board graphics), and fewer expansion slots in some cases, depending on the actual size of the rackmount enclosure (i.e. 2U vs. 5U). This also includes space for storage, as workstations tend to require larger storage pools for that system, rather than off-load it to a separate storage server (less expensive to include it in the system if doesn't need to be available to the entire network).
By going to pedestal cases (mid or full size towers), they can add additional slots to the board, more HDD locations, and use commodity large value PSU's (low profile PSU's are more expensive).
Ultimately, going to a different physical arrangement for a workstation produced lower costs, which won out over previous system types offered by SGI, Sun,... And with the advent of Linux or Open Solaris for example, Intel systems can run UNIX (hacking OS X not considered an option in a business environment).
I meant in terms of each component (board, graphics,...). As per the case, it takes the right selection, as with anything else (it's just another component to me, and has to be selected properly for the intended system).
Assuming proper cooling and other considerations (i.e. good build quality parts) are taken into account, it's not going to be much different.
If building out of Xeons, the price difference narrows, especially for DP systems (still a notable difference for a SP Xeon system vs. the '09 Quad MP).
But I also mentioned there's compromise for that lower cost in the form of user = all support (hardware and OS, assuming it's OS X or Linux; a Retail copy of Windows does come with support for a period of time; rather short, but it's there).
But neither a DIY system, or Hackintosh one at that, are acceptable for a business. That's a fools errand IMO.
An enthusiast OTOH, could be another story (if they're willing, have the time to do so when needed, and have the skills).