It's beyond usable - for some applications, it's almost refreshingly familiar.
And it's got package managers. *fond sigh*
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.
Are the Mac Pros ever coming???
- Thread starter tony3d
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's beyond usable - for some applications, it's almost refreshingly familiar.
And it's got package managers. *fond sigh*
No. No it isn't. I cannot run 99.9% of my "pro" software natively on a Linux machine. Great for servers though I can't deny that.
Apple buys by contract, in which they negotiate pricing and delivery schedules. So they're not buying on the open market from Distributors (contract shipments will be filled first, then Distributors, from where most retailers will source parts from).
That's not to say that contract shipments are equal, as it depends on the specific conditions stated in the contracts (i.e. company A that buys 1M units will usually be shipped parts before company B that only buys 50K of a specific CPUID, unless they've negotiated a lower price due to longer lead times <delivery quantities and schedule dates>).
Depends on your industry. A lot of pro video and 3D software is on Linux. If you're CS Suite bound, you may or may not be able to use Linux. But I expect that if both Mac and Windows keep going the way they're going, Adobe will have to break and port native to Linux.
I'm not really sure how much of that 16x I'm using, haven't calculated that; I only know that I'm wanting over a teraflop/sec out of that gpu, but my kernel is fairly complex ... I may some day be surprised to find that I can live with a TB connect to the GPU....
BUT, I'm also aware (through calculations) that with 16 xeon cores I might not need the GPU at all! (OpenCL performance on the Xeons is pretty impressive for my workload.) If that turns out to be the case, then I might be happy to use just CPU cores for shows that I do myself; also, it would provide more hw options for potential licensees....
Last edited:
"Macintosh Performance Guides" (Diglloyd) take:
Its About Time for a New Mac Pro
Monday, March 19, 2012 - SEND FEEDBACK - PERMALINK
The question keeps arising whether to invest in a Mac Pro now, or whether to wait.
Mac Pro schematic
What will it be?
Here we are in mid-March with new Intel chips on the near horizon (end of March or early April), and the rumor mill is as dry as winter in California this year. With some luck, that will change like the monsoon-like rains we had this past week.
Or maybe not. In 2010, Apple delayed a new Mac Pro until August. Might we see a repeat this year? I dont want to contemplate the worse alternative (discontinued).
After all, Apple is selling so many iPads and iPhones, the Mac Pro is just a grain of sand in the iP* sandbox, so it makes absolutely no difference to profits, at least in the short term bean-counter sense.
My advice to professionals remains the same: if your current Mac (any flavor) is impeding your work (and your time is valuable), get a new Mac Pro soon, outfitted as an MPG Pro Workstation. It wont hurt to wait another 2 weeks, but if no new model emerges soon, get on with getting work done.
As I wrote back in December, Apple shows a disregard for its professional users in the way it arbitrarily changes programs like Final Cut, and when it also provides no guidance as to whether a crucial product might continue. When there is credible speculation of the Mac Pro being discontinued, Apples silence speaks volumes. Professionals need to know they have a path forward, any vague guidance in the affirmative would address the issue.
Its About Time for a New Mac Pro
Monday, March 19, 2012 - SEND FEEDBACK - PERMALINK
The question keeps arising whether to invest in a Mac Pro now, or whether to wait.
Mac Pro schematic
What will it be?
Here we are in mid-March with new Intel chips on the near horizon (end of March or early April), and the rumor mill is as dry as winter in California this year. With some luck, that will change like the monsoon-like rains we had this past week.
Or maybe not. In 2010, Apple delayed a new Mac Pro until August. Might we see a repeat this year? I dont want to contemplate the worse alternative (discontinued).
After all, Apple is selling so many iPads and iPhones, the Mac Pro is just a grain of sand in the iP* sandbox, so it makes absolutely no difference to profits, at least in the short term bean-counter sense.
My advice to professionals remains the same: if your current Mac (any flavor) is impeding your work (and your time is valuable), get a new Mac Pro soon, outfitted as an MPG Pro Workstation. It wont hurt to wait another 2 weeks, but if no new model emerges soon, get on with getting work done.
As I wrote back in December, Apple shows a disregard for its professional users in the way it arbitrarily changes programs like Final Cut, and when it also provides no guidance as to whether a crucial product might continue. When there is credible speculation of the Mac Pro being discontinued, Apples silence speaks volumes. Professionals need to know they have a path forward, any vague guidance in the affirmative would address the issue.
It's really too bad that Apple seems to be dropping the ball in the professional market, although I really can't blame them at the same time.
Speaks volumes? Not really. Apple is a disciplined company. They follow corporate policy all the time. Good times? Bad times ? Same policy. If you set a policy you believe in and consistently execute on it then that just means you don't "blow in the wind" .
Apple doesn't talk about future products with the general population. Them not talking about Mac Pro's now is really no different than not talking about Mac Pro's when they were "hot". Silence does say anything because silence is the standard policy.
This whole thing that Apple didn't talk to folks about Final Cut Pro X is a complete farce. In the often cited rumblings from that "Reality TV" shop that switched the chief tech guy who made the call outlines how he was briefed on FCPX in late Winter (Feb ?) about the changed product. The hand waving that absolutely nobody knew and Apple solicited zero feedback before their motives is bunk.
Second the FCPX was demo'ed early before the product launch. That in and of itselve should have been a clue since it goes against the grain of the standard corporate policy. And yet people buried their head in the sand (didn't upgrade to soon to be discontinued FCP if languishing 1 or 2 versions behind. Didn't buy seats if needed them. Didn't proactively go to Apple about continuity arrangements for current FCP. )
The changes to FCPX aren't arbitrary either.
Roadmaps aren't panacea either. A year ago Intel's roadmaps said E5's coming in 2011 Q3/Q4 they showed up close to 2012 Q2. Anyone who was critically dependent upon replacing a machine in Dec 2011 and "bet the farm" on that roadmap got screwed.
It would be nice if Apple dropped some hints, but it shouldn't be necessary to formulate a plan since that is not what Apple does (to the general population). Anyone looking at the completely likely parts supply chain roadmaps gets hints. That involves not looking at a singular part or one rumor source to catch clues.
Last edited:
Yep, not to mention we went through this with the Mac Mini. Appleinsider declared it dead (complete with a tomb stone graphic), and Apple said nothing. Everyone assumed it was dead, and then one day they released a totally redesigned Mini.
Not saying the Mac Pro is alive or dead, but Apple's silence in the face of discontinuation rumors is not unusual at all.
They never said when the G5 was being discontinued in favor of the Mac Pro either, leaving pros to make risky investments.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
Apple has never been a company to discuss its roadmaps with products. Why do you all think that will change because intel delayed some chips?
Breathe look supply chains, and let logic prevail. IMO I myself would be happy if they waited until the AMD 7990 Is released
Apple has never been a company to discuss its roadmaps with products. Why do you all think that will change because intel delayed some chips?
Breathe look supply chains, and let logic prevail. IMO I myself would be happy if they waited until the AMD 7990 Is released
It was not the dropping of PPC support in Snow Leopard that was the risky part. Again folks tend to harp on stuff that doesn't matter as much and fail to raise the alarm on things that do.
Apple's policy of not talking about software product de-support is a much more important issue than talking about unreleased hardware products. Apple's policy on hardware is spell out on their site: 5 years after being superseded to reach legacy status.
The G5 replacement release was not all that risky. Apple had already released some Intel Macs. So that the "upper end Mac workstation" going to Intel couldn't possibly be a surprise or risky. If you wanted an Intel version "wait". If needed continuity on PPC buy. There was zero secret that it was Apple's intent to transition the whole line up to x86 once they announced they were going to the x86.
The only risky part if folks bought G5's in 2005-2006 and expected OS support after 2010 (i.e., around 5 years after discontinuation). It defacto ended in 2011 with Lion's release, but new PPC apps started disappearing before then. That was only about "unannounced" products in that the "legacy countdown date" triggers on the next product" and the "OS de-support date" is coupled to future OS releases. If Apple uncoupled those slightly there would be little direct causal impact at all.
..... and yet people keep yelping about when products start as opposed to when they end.
Once announced, folks have the majority of info they need to make a purchase decision. This is the computer market.... if you wait 6-12 months their is always going to be a faster, but different, box you could possibly buy. If your buying needs are grounded in the old box being too slow and what the immediate term projects' needs are then it is not that hard to see if the current box fit the needs or not.
Since Apple keeps the prices about the same if a protracted decision to buy a 2010 Mac Pro turns into a 2012 Mac Pro ... you take the "bonus" and be happy. If not the 2010 Mac Pro was capable of the job anyway.
Apple can't hide behind the "don't talk about unannounced product policy" curtain if keep the discussion focused on products that have already announced.
Again folks can look at what Apple has done as opposed to what they wished they would do to make informed decisions.
The "internal Crossfire" card isn't a good bet because Apple has neither.
a. bought into the greater than 220W graphics card solutions in the past. (extended variety of power cables/connectors dangling inside the box)
b. bought into multiple 160W graphics card solutions in the past . (hence avoided the hooking graphics cards on their own proprietary back-channel network based solutions ).
Apple goes for proprietary stuff they might invent but they are not big fans of proprietary stuff that others invent. Either standards or Apple's way is the general design principles.
The "performance at max possible wattage" isn't an Apple trait either.
Personally, with the ongoing nervousness of at least some of the MP community, I think it wouldn't hurt them to throw us a "don't worry" sort of bone, sort of like those infamous one line email responses Steve used to make from time to time. Just feels sometimes like we are talking about something that may never come.
The other reason Apple doesn't release a pro roadmap is because they got burned last time they did. In 1996 Apple promised that any Mac on the market at that time would be able to run OS X. When OS X finally shipped, it required at least a Power Mac G3. The Power Mac G3 came out in 1997. And then they got burned by the 500 mhz G4s.
At Apple, any product or promise is not a lock until the product is actually shipping. They take the heat for not releasing a road map, and then when they pre-announce they take heat if they don't live up to promises. It's a no win situation for them with pros.
At Apple, any product or promise is not a lock until the product is actually shipping. They take the heat for not releasing a road map, and then when they pre-announce they take heat if they don't live up to promises. It's a no win situation for them with pros.
If the Pro is such a distraction, why don't they spin off a separate company - maybe call it 'Apple Computer' again? That would be a good way to avoid the trust-busting that's sure to happen if they keep growing at the rate they have been.
They use the same small pool of engineers for multiple product lines so it is better suited to all be within one company.
Apart from the 2010 model coming 6 months later, Apple have updated the Mac Pro within 2 months of every tick and tock since the Intel switch so far. No one has said why the 2010 model was late so any reasoning is speculation. There isn't anywhere near enough evidence to believe the Mac Pro has been abandoned, but those who want to see it as such will always find a way.
Once it was clear that nothing would be close enough to release to place orders in 2011, it stopped mattering as much for year end IT budgets and equipment purchased made for tax reasons. I doubt they'll release anything at this point until the latest gpus are shipping in high enough numbers.
The G5 should have been obvious. They weren't going to leave one thing non Intel. What was annoying was how little attention they paid to bug fixes after the first mac pros rolled out, especially when a lot of people had to wait for certain programs to run as universal binary apps to avoid bugs under Rosetta, as some programs weren't emulated well enough in certain areas. I don't really blame Apple there. It's going to happen with large programs.
I think the rumors about it being killed off involved blogs fishing for page hits. There isn't a lot they can do with it. I've said before that a slight bump in the single core model and possibly updated gpus + higher base ram might have been appreciated last year as a mid cycle refresh (keep in mind I didn't take note then of how weak of an update the latest gpus were), but as new stuff is coming out, that doesn't make sense. Unless someone is several generations back on hardware or new software versions are too demanding, a couple extra months shouldn't be that big a deal when it's the same year anyway.