The Power Mac was EOL'd because Apple switched to the Intel platform introducing the Mac Pro.
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.
CNET reports MP is EOL
- Thread starter akadmon
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Power Mac was EOL'd because Apple switched to the Intel platform introducing the Mac Pro.
I think that was the point of the post. EOL can mean many things, including a replacement on the way. Or product category death.
Honestly, the only thing I will actually trust as being definitive is when Apple announces. Too many rumors based on non solid information getting everyone in a tizzy right now. Best just to sit back and watch.
AI said:
I am trying to understand the consistency of the reporting. Macbook Pro 15" stock constraints = new Macbook Pro 15" just around the corner!!11!
Mac Pro stock constraints = end of life for Mac Pro!!!!!!111
Ok.
----------
Yup, I've called it a 27" laptop on this forum before and a 27" laptop is not appropriate for everybody.
Actually, the Macbook Pro has is more expendable than the iMac.
Yup, I've called it a 27" laptop on this forum before and a 27" laptop is not appropriate for everybody.
Actually, the Macbook Pro has is more expendable than the iMac.
Except they shove a desktop processor in it, just to make sure any problems that could happen as a result of heat will eventually happen. I don't think I've ever known an iMac to not have some sort of problem in a 3 year span. But of course that's just my experience...
Yep. This is exactly the problem with the rumors.
To be fair, the Macbook Pro line is in danger, but it's in danger of being replaced with something similar but totally new. If Apple really wanted to wow us this year, they could be totally replacing their Mac line with new products like has been rumored for the laptop line and iMac. Could mean a brand new Mac tower design.
Or the perfect time to drop it. Who knows!
At least they brought something out to replace it. I am seriously wondering if they will bring out a replacement for the Mac Pro, or just get out of the high end work station buisness all together. It would be a shame if they did.
Not me because E5-4600s are out in a little while and would be a better choice
.http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2012040901_Prices_of_Xeon_E5-4600_microprocessors.html
Last edited:
Why would they allow you to suddenly start using all the GPUs you want in 10.7 and then EOL the only machine that can use that feature.
Makes no sense, he's just reading the general feeling in forums and turning that into "sources".
So far, there has been no change in anything Apple has done that may say the Mac Pro is going ton e EOLed. I am not sure if it's just a lot of people have not been around with Apple long enough to know this, heck, the only difference right now with G5 era is that we know for sure when Intel is releasing CPUs, nothing else.
Makes no sense, he's just reading the general feeling in forums and turning that into "sources".
So far, there has been no change in anything Apple has done that may say the Mac Pro is going ton e EOLed. I am not sure if it's just a lot of people have not been around with Apple long enough to know this, heck, the only difference right now with G5 era is that we know for sure when Intel is releasing CPUs, nothing else.
Not without flashing the majority. Certainly not out of the box like you can now, since 10.7.
Actually, I see the CNet story as a good sign of new MPs around the corner.
Apple leaks the "rumour". Everyone who has been waiting to see if a refreshed MP is announced decides that the 2010 model is best they're going to get and start buying up the 2010 models. Apple clears the old stock, and then they announce the new MPs.
Could mean anything, but I've noticed that until today there has been a good selection of MPs on the Canadian refurbed site (and since our refurb stock comes from the US I assume that it reflects the same selection, if not the same pricing). Just checked - just two models listed at present, one of which is from July 2009.
Apple leaks the "rumour". Everyone who has been waiting to see if a refreshed MP is announced decides that the 2010 model is best they're going to get and start buying up the 2010 models. Apple clears the old stock, and then they announce the new MPs.
Could mean anything, but I've noticed that until today there has been a good selection of MPs on the Canadian refurbed site (and since our refurb stock comes from the US I assume that it reflects the same selection, if not the same pricing). Just checked - just two models listed at present, one of which is from July 2009.
10.7 has actually introduced multiple issues with more than one GPU on my machine. 10.6 ran just fine. 10.7 runs buggy.
Well . . . . not exactly. back then Apple wasn't going around touting the "Post PC era".
Last edited:
Your assumption is based on two weak foundational elements. The first, is that those GPU drivers are only good for classic PCI-e GPU cards. The same graphics technology typically migrates to the "mobile" GPU cards used in the rest of the Mac line up. Even if Apple doesn't do anything with interim GPUs, they need to keep the driver teams whole and moving toward the future.
The second is that the whole PC industry is moving over to EFI booting environments. For example
"....Microsoft will require computers with the "Designed for Windows 8" logo to use UEFI with secure boot ... "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface
Support for new cards doesn't say much either way ( cancel or not cancel ) for the Mac Pro.
My assumption comes from the idea that, although you are correct, it is a move that did not happen with previous Mac desktops. They simply changed the rules from one system to the next.
Of course, it may not say much, however it is a stronger ingredient (and much more of a fact considering no one can say this did not happen) than all the unconfirmed rumours which are stuffing the forum nowadays about an EOL.
Very unlikely. Several of the basic reasons are outlined in this blog
http://www.marco.org/2011/11/02/scaling-down-the-mac-pro
The primarily problem is 90-135W CPUs. Throw on top of that the modern trend to drive the PCI-e GPU card up into the 200W zone, and you have about 290-335W of heat to get rid up. Couple that to the Mac Pro (and most Macs) constraint for relatively quite operation and there is only so small you can make the box. Large diameter fans allow them to move a larger volume of air at lower speeds. Lower speeds results in quieter operation. [ One of the huge problems with the Mac Cube's design was heat. They tried the "natural ventilation approach", but that wasn't very well grounded in good design. ]
Switching to a cube (or smaller box ) would mean switching to a Xeon E3 ( or a mainstream Corei7 as in the iMac). That cuts the Xeon down into the 77W range and since not as many slots (likely only one 16x slot for GPU ) the constraints are lower.
Apple could come out with a shorter Mac Pro. Maybe 2/3 or 3/4 the height if they toss top end performance for tighter thermal boundaries but that is doubtful for several reasons. The biggest of which is it basically ties to very closely to the iMac in performance.
The other problem though is price. Apple is not likely to price a replacement that will eat into the iMac. Even if Apple comes out with an E3 model it would likely be priced above the iMac (or at best slightly overlapping the upper end.)
Apple could toss the ODD drives and just have a couple of 2.5" drive sleds. But that won't be a huge size saver. It would help with a 2/3 or 3/4 sized E3 based model but for an E5 model it big enough it isn't going to make much of difference.
----------
The huge problem with this is the implicit assumption that Apple has very sloppy supply chain control. They don't. By several reports, Apple execs have weekly meetings about the sales levels of all of the problems. Over the last year of "no updates" they have likely watched the Mac Pro inventories very carefully. As less people bought them they ordered less. It is doubtful they have some huge stockpiles in warehouses somewhere to get rid of. [ They made have to pull some manageable amount back out of there distributor chain but that isn't a huge problem. i
Besides if they did an EOL announcement they could just tack 3-5 month period onto the end where they can sell the inventory. Apple knows folks who buy machines in these price ranges are slower than average procurement cycles. They will likely continue to sell them for several months even after announce EOL. That "have to buy " folks can easily buy them up over that several month period without restorting to back-channel-read-the-tea-leaves rumors.
I think you guys are over thinking this. If it does continue, it is highly likely they wouldn't put any r&d into a new case unless they completely scrap it for a different product line. I fully expect the case to remain the same more or less, that is if it continues on. As far as that is concerned, I feel like even odds at this point, but I really would not be too surprised if they dump out later this summer after the new imacs etc are done.
Not me because E5-4600s are out in a little while and would be a better choice
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2012040901_Prices_of_Xeon_E5-4600_microprocessors.html
It is doubtful either E7s or these E5-4600's would attract even a small number of Mac Pro users. From the linked article.
".. Xeon E5-4600s will be 50% - 100% more expensive than E5-2600 microprocessors with comparable characteristics. .. "
There is already much FUD slug in these forums about 'expensive' Xeons driving up the price of the Mac Pro versus the Core i7 Exterme alternatives ( giant smoke generating festivals since E5 1600's and those models cost pragmatically identical amounts. ). Xeons that actually are more expensive would only drive a bigger wedge. Remember Apple is going to tack an additional 30% on top of the 50-100% surcharge.
I know there are some subset of contexts where the extra cores have traction. Those are typically not primarily individual activity driven workstations though. [ A server with 100-1,000 users' activity can better leverage those additional cores. ]
The other major problem is that 4 sockets drives a radical redesign of the Mac Pro. The horizontal CPU/RAM tray isn't going to work well at all for 4 sockets plus the associated DIMM slots per slot. You'd have to "fork" the design between single , dual, and quad designs (e.g., a single and perhaps one that did both dual and quad. ) The core problem is that the Mac Pro is already tittering on the verge of "low volume" cancellation. Doing yet another fork only increases that problem.
I was not seriously suggesting such a thing be created. 4 socket systems aren't something for OSX. It might be cool once, but in reality that's what linux clusters are for.
Same thing was said about the Mini. Apple has a tendency to surprise people.
But I really have no guess as to what's going to happen. I wouldn't say the odds are even as much as I have completely no idea what will happen.
Just ask yourself at this point which one is going to generate more ad views producing more revenues.
A. "Mac Pro is dead" (especially in context of cnet tidbit weaved in. )
B. "Mac Pro updates coming later" (like who doesn't know they are overdue ? )
likewise.
A. "MacBook Pro temporarily in limited supplies at some stores "
B. "Overdue MacBook Pro coming real soon now". (playing off ivy bridge launch date rumors. )
[ Cough... BestBuy just dumped their CEO and lost $1+ billion dollars. They probably aren't ordering much of anything that isn't extremely quickly leaping off the shelf. ]
They are consistent when looked at through a review generating lens.
But it has happened. Apple picked the x86 architecture to align itself and supply chain with the rest of the PC industry (lowers costs and helps them boost their profit margins). Apple picked EFI to do the same thing. I'm sure they were not counting on Windows getting lost in the wilderness with Vista and it taking three more OS releases after XP for Microsoft to standardize on EFI, but eventually it was going to happen. Intel wanted the switch to EFI to happen and eventually the giant, decades old hack that is BIOS was going to run out of steam (e.g., can't deal with multiple TB storage devices. )
Aside from a limited number of brouhaha examples ( "Retina displays" ), Apple typically follows the general personal computer market trends. All the more so in the current "return of Steve" incarnation.
If Apple wanted to be odd-balls they could have stuck with PowerPC or at least with OpenFirmware.
Apple being a 8-12 months behind Windows in driver support is also quite "normal". That mature GPUs coming on line in OS X is what usually happens. [ It would be a bit odd for Apple to adopt the new PCI-e v3.0 GPUs right out of the gate, but then again their release dates have slid so far into the future they can easily mesh with Apple's typically trailing window adoption schedule. ]