Resolved .

[namethisfile]

My head was spinning from reading that and your subsequent response, thus my characterization as twisted. There's nothing in the nMP design preventing it from receiving some updates. The fact Apple has chosen to do zero updates demonstrates even Apple considers it a failure. No amount of spin will change that.

I didn’t mean to be twisty. I even numbered my responses and spaced them out to be more clear in thought. But, I also understand that it might be rambly, no matter the layout I use.

Anyway, to try to answer why the “trashcan” Mac Pro never got updated can be long and I have laid out attempts to answer this in my prior post. Other members of this forum unrelated to this thread have also sort of laid out the technological landscape circa 2006-present where partial answers can be found. This, off the top of my head, was in regards to technological changes and the role change of the iMac from being a second computer or Grandma’s computer to being “the” computer.

In my own experience, when I was in the market for a Mac in 2007, I saw the iMac as a cheaper Macbook Pro. This notion is still true to this day. Except, of course, this “cheaper Macbook Pro” has also sort of become a “cheaper Mac Pro,” today.

The idea behind above’s sentiment, of which has been said before by other people is that the role of the iMac changed.

This is probably the biggest reason as to why we didn’t see an updated “trashcan” Mac Pro because its role needed to be differentiated not just from the regular iMac but also the newly announced iMac Pro.

Apple didn’t wanna release a $4000 “headless,” cylindrical iMac Pro when there is one with a screen that cost $1000 more. And, allegedly, the iMac Pro would be a bigger profit margin for Apple.

So, I could have just said $$$$ is the reason. But, I wanted to lay down my thoughts because even though it’s shorter and cooler to say $$$$ is the reason… I don’t know that for sure. Or, of course, it is about $$$$ but why!

I feel honored to be so specifically mentioned....

You omitted the Power Mac G5 in your headstone though. It should read Mac Pro 2003-2012 since the cMP borrowed its chasis from the Power Mac G5's.

 

[mavericks7913]

Still arguing about this? It's simple.

1. Not upgradable.
2. Poor hermal design
3. Limited upgradability
4. Price
5. Quality
6. Performance

#1 is so obvious. Mac Pro is a workstation computer. That's why many people still use Mac Pro 2012 or older version.

#2 is one of the main reason why Trashcan Mac failed. With a proper liquid or air cooler, you will get 60~70c at full load except for the fact that Intel failed to make better CPU in these days. Still, for workstation purposes, keeping the temperature down is the main objective and yet Mac Pro 2013's thermal design is a failure. Why? There is only one fan to cool down 1 CPU and 2 GPU. You would wannna see how big CPU and GPU coolers are such as Noctua and Corsair products. I have my own Mac Pro 2013 and it reaches up to 95c. Even modern desktop or workstation try not to reach above 70c. Pretty obvious since Mac computers are well known for throttling and overheating for a long time.

#3 Similar to #1 due to its design

#4, #5 TBH, manufacurting Mac computer in USA was a failure too. Expansive labor costs compared to Asian country, poor skills since factories in USA never manufactured Mac computer before, and quality control failed due to lack of experiences. That's why iMac Pro manufactured in Asia instead of USA. Tim Cook already admitted about manufacturing in Asia where all Mac computers were created.

#6 Poor thermal design caused poor performance. Simple.

 

[pat500000]

By "They," I assume, you mean Apple and not the "They," aka "the RIP Mac Pro 2006-2012 coalition...."

Or, the computer box with PCIe slots coalition...

Or, the HP Z840 but Apple Mac Pro Z840 coalition...

Or, the Rip Van Winkle One-Man coalition...

Or, you get the drift....

But, each of the coalition could be a little right. So, together, the right equals more than 50%, in which case, the case (pun intended) would be in favor of the coalition and that, indeed, "They (the coalition) wanted the nMP to fail in virtue of its aesthetics/design philosophy and its lack of updates between the years of 2013-2018.

Now, I would like to add my own coalition , called the "Wait a minute," or "Hold your horses, over there."

Wait a minute! And, hold your horse, there, sir because...

1) The cMP we saw updated at least 5 times ( MP1,1; MP2,1; MP3,1; MP4,1; MP5,1).

1a) These updates included a tweak of the cMP chasis to what would become the 5,1 chasis that everyone harps on here who hate the nMP as their "perfect" Mac Pro figure. This 5,1 chasis, I would like to add seems to have been revamped from the 3,1 chasis in order to facilitate ease-of-use even further. But, the internal layout between the MP 3,1 and the MP 4,1/MP 5,1 seems to have changed into the 4,1 almost organically, though. It was as, if, Apple cMP chasis designers had this wisdom built-in to the cMP chasis. But, it could just be considered lucky design, or they had a big enough chasis to work with to make the internal changes look seamless and organic. And, indeed, one can say, the cMP chasis is "big enough."

1b) The MP4,1/MP5,1 is so spacious that the middle fan in the PCIe slot compartment is off-set some inches inside the case from the front grill of the case.

2) We also saw three CPU architectural changes put in the cMP from 2006 to 2012. If, I am correct, they are Intel Woodcrest in the MP1,1; Intel Harpertown/Penryn in the MP3,1; And, then Intel Nehalem/Westmere in the MP4,1/MP5,1

2a) From 2010 to 2012, the cMP 5,1 skew continued when the 2012 MP's were introduced.

2b) So, basically, the MP5,1 lasted from 2010-2012.

2c) Since the MP4,1 share CPU architecture with MP 5,1, one can say that cMP from 2009-2012 remained similar; minor tweaks.

3) With my Wait a minute list and hold your horses there, sir, argument above, we can observe that Apple Mac Pro from 2006 to 2012 got one big tweak and the rest were minor tweaks, at the very least.

4) So, to conclude, it is not that unprecedented that the 2013 nMP didn't get tweaked at all from 2013-2018 when one looks at the big picture.

4a) So, Apple did not, in my opinion, neglect the nMP. It seems more par per course to the kind of machine that the nMP is.

4b) And, one can even say that Apple learned something from the cMP of 2006-2012. What that is seems to be that they didn't tweak it because they didn't have to.

4c) The thermal corner, Apple person talks about is probably just an excuse to say, we're doing something new (not just a tweak) so, hold your horses, there, sir!

Apple failed ..as you mentioned...thermal failure. Apple failed because their idiot designers had no clue how to create a regular rectangular shaped computer with basic components. Even hackintosh would have been suitable for the next gen mac pro. Computers are lead by their company leader. ....lack of visionary and more pac man mentality gobbling up our money.

 

[pl1984]

I didn’t mean to be twisty. I even numbered my responses and spaced them out to be more clear in thought. But, I also understand that it might be rambly, no matter the layout I use.

I thought the way you presented your case was good, breaking it apart and numbering each point was helpful in following it. However I think it was still a lot of twisted logic to arrive at your conclusion. I see nothing in the nMP design which would prohibit Apple from updating certain components. The SSD being the most obvious example. The MBP can be configured with a 4TB SSD yet the Mac Pro is limited to a 1TB SSD. Surely there are no thermal / power / size constraints on the 4TB SSD which would prevent its use in the nMP because it's being used in a system with even more thermal / power / size constraints. So why hasn't Apple made it an option? I can't imagine it would require any significant engineering resources to do.

 

[KevWind]

Seems to me the debate is a bit circular because every bodies interpretation of "Failure" seems to be different .

If it is dependent on did they make money or loose money selling them ? I am guessing they made money
which would make it not a failure in simplistic financial terms.

But if it means has the design concept itself been successful then even by Apple's own admission then it was a mistake and for much of the Pro market it was a failure of design.

I think the real question and what will determine Apples standing in the Pro market going forward , will be what the new mac pro actually turns out to be .