Has Apple finally given up on the MP?

[Ethosik]

Really, other than gaming, how much better are new GPUs and new Xeon Processors? It is the same with the laptop line, people are making it out to be Skylake is about a 300% performance boost. At most it might only take a few seconds off of a render or so. Not earth shattering that people are making it out to be.

My 2010 Mac Pro running Final Cut X took about 12 hours to render a 8.5 hour video.
My 2015 PC running Premiere Pro was a little bit faster, but not by much.

Also, the design takes up quite a bit of the price too. When I build computers, I usually get $300 cases in order to have a nice design.

it could be a little cheaper sure. But you have to realize that the market for these computers usually make $3,000 within a day or week so it pays off VERY quickly. It is not for people like you or me that game or do light work on it.

 

[spaz8]

I think the biggest problem with the Mac line up across the board is the absence of Nvidia anywhere - even as the most expensive BTO. Way too many programs and processes benefit from CUDA acceleration, and openCL has floundered. If you spend all day in an app that benefits from CUDA its hard to choose Apple and know you will get an AMD or integrated graphics. The eGPU really needs to solidly materialize.

 

[teagls]

I think the biggest problem with the Mac line up across the board is the absence of Nvidia anywhere - even as the most expensive BTO. Way too many programs and processes benefit from CUDA acceleration, and openCL has floundered. If you spend all day in an app that benefits from CUDA its hard to choose Apple and know you will get an AMD or integrated graphics. The eGPU really needs to solidly materialize.

Yes, it's also hard for a developer to invest in OpenCL on a Mac when Apple has given up supporting it in favor of Metal compute(which is lack luster atm). Plus to make matters worse 90% of existing development packages/frameworks are written for CUDA. There is very little for Metal and OpenCL. No developer is going to invest all that time and money to reinvent the wheel on a technology that is being phased out or minimally supported.

I stopped developing for OpenCL on Mac it's just not worth the time and effort. I've moved on to Nvidia for other platforms.

 

[calaverasgrande]

Lest talk about how Apple has treated pro users of it's software
To be honest, with FCPX, with some work you can regain some of the lost functionality. I cannot recall all the details, but it is not too hard to get it out of iMovie mode.
Speaking of, Logic Pro looks an awful lot like Garage Band when you first open it.
You have to go in and 'enable the advanced features'. So the default is dumbed down. Speaking of dumbed down. Somewhere along the way Apple decided that nobody ever wants their DAW to sync to external MIDI clock. Why would you want your MPC or drum machine to be midi master? Make Logic the timing master and pray that it doesn't sound jittery. That one decision illustrates to me that nobody at Apple has ever seen a professional studio. They think all the unsophisticated bedroom producers will not know any better and expect pro users to go to Pro Tools for such needs.
Fixing the code so it can chase midi timecode while recording solid digital audio was not a profit center.
Likewise, there is no logical reason to delete raid functions from Disk Utility. Even if you are on a laptop, you can still have a raid in an external. So why did they do it?
Not mobile, loss leader, who uses that? Pro what?

 

[flat five]

Lest talk about how Apple has treated pro users of it's software
To be honest, with FCPX, with some work you can regain some of the lost functionality. I cannot recall all the details, but it is not too hard to get it out of iMovie mode.
Speaking of, Logic Pro looks an awful lot like Garage Band when you first open it.
You have to go in and 'enable the advanced features'. So the default is dumbed down. Speaking of dumbed down.

so the default settings on some applications are basic-- which is the supporting cast of "Lest talk about how Apple has treated pro users of it's software"
??

cmon.. that's a stretch.. what software isn't defaulting to a similar state upon clean install?

Likewise, there is no logical reason to delete raid functions from Disk Utility. Even if you are on a laptop, you can still have a raid in an external. So why did they do it?
Not mobile, loss leader, who uses that? Pro what?

GUI options for raid is back in macOS
(fwiw)

 

[JoelTheSuperior]

I know people love to complain about Logic Pro X but I genuinely think it's a fantastic DAW. It's true that the defaults are very noob friendly but I don't think that's a bad thing - it's not hard to re-enable the advanced features and the environment is fantastic.

It has some of the best stock plugins I've seen and honestly I'd give up some of my expensive paid plugins for them - they're that good. Flex pitch / flex time works really well (the best out of any DAW I've seen) and the workflow on the whole is very good. From a songwriter's perspective, the drummer is better than anything else I've seen and whilst the samples aren't the best (though they are very good) it's easy enough to swap them out with whatever other virtual instrument you want, be that Superior Drummer or a Kontakt library.

 

[AidenShaw]

The point being, OS X is a much better operating system.... No DLL's, ...

This statement is laughable on several levels.

First, Apple OSX does have DLLs - but they usually have the file extension of ".so" or ".dylib". Calling it a "dynamic library" rather than a "dynamic link library" doesn't change the fact of what it is.

Second, the statement implicitly refers to what a long time ago was called "DLL hell". "DLL hell" is from the era of "IRQ conflicts". The WinSxS feature has made DLL conflicts a complete non-issue unless people who don't care to understand Windows wrote your applications.

*nix systems have DLLs, and also have mechanisms to allow multiple versions of .SO or .DYLIB to co-exist.

You may prefer Apple OSX - but please base your justification on Windows systems from the second decade of the 21st century. You wouldn't want me to say compare Apple OS 8 to Window 10 to try to prove "Windows is a much better operating system", would you?

 

[antonis]

This statement is laughable on several levels.

First, Apple OSX does have DLLs - but they usually have the file extension of ".so" or ".dylib". Calling it a "dynamic library" rather than a "dynamic link library" doesn't change the fact of what it is.

Second, the statement implicitly refers to what a long time ago was called "DLL hell". "DLL hell" is from the era of "IRQ conflicts". The WinSxS feature has made DLL conflicts a complete non-issue unless people who don't care to understand Windows wrote your applications.

*nix systems have DLLs, and also have mechanisms to allow multiple versions of .SO or .DYLIB to co-exist.

You may prefer Apple OSX - but please base your justification on Windows systems from the second decade of the 21st century. You wouldn't want me to say compare Apple OS 8 to Window 10 to try to prove "Windows is a much better operating system", would you?

I am only assuming here, of course, but I guess he was referring abstractly to the fact that it's in OSX's development culture to include such libs within the application package so there is no conflicts or incompatibilities with system's shared libs, while on the Windows side, you usually end up installing something system-wide.

Having said that, however, getting back to windows 10 after many years of OSX-only environments, I don't see any issues of such kind, anymore.

 

[ITguy2016]

I am only assuming here, of course, but I guess he was referring abstractly to the fact that it's in OSX's development culture to include such libs within the application package so there is no conflicts or incompatibilities with system's shared libs, while on the Windows side, you usually end up installing something system-wide.

Having said that, however, getting back to windows 10 after many years of OSX-only environments, I don't see any issues of such kind, anymore.

I can't recall the last time I saw a DLL conflict. I think this was addressed around the Windows 2000 / XP era. While I'm sure there continue to be examples of conflicts they're not nearly the problem they were back in the day. Rending the argument all but moot.

 

[antonis]

I can't recall the last time I saw a DLL conflict. I think this was addressed around the Windows 2000 / XP era. While I'm sure there continue to be examples of conflicts they're not nearly the problem they were back in the day. Rending the argument all but moot.

That's my impression from W10 as well. There's always a benefit of having the libraries needed for an application included in the application package, compared to system-wide installation, of course. Ubuntu has also went the apple-way recently, on that matter. But as long as it doesn't get in the way, it's not bad. Last time I needed something like that in W10, it was the visual c++ runtime libraries that were needed for an application. But I didn't experience any conflicts after installation. I remember having issues with vista, though, where several versions of the msvc libs were causing issues.

 

[ITguy2016]

That's my impression from W10 as well. There's always a benefit of having the libraries needed for an application included in the application package, compared to system-wide installation, of course. Ubuntu has also went the apple-way recently, on that matter. But as long as it doesn't get in the way, it's not bad. Last time I needed something like that in W10, it was the visual c++ runtime libraries that were needed for an application. But I didn't experience any conflicts after installation. I remember having issues with vista, though, where several versions of the msvc libs were causing issues.

Windows has provided the means to provide self contained applications for a long time (I think back in the Windows 2000 / XP days). Shared libraries don't need to be installed in system wide locations. They can all be contained within the programs install directory. However doing so eliminates one of the advantages of shared libraries in that they're no longer shared.

 

[lowendlinux]

That's my impression from W10 as well. There's always a benefit of having the libraries needed for an application included in the application package, compared to system-wide installation, of course. Ubuntu has also went the apple-way recently, on that matter. But as long as it doesn't get in the way, it's not bad. Last time I needed something like that in W10, it was the visual c++ runtime libraries that were needed for an application. But I didn't experience any conflicts after installation. I remember having issues with vista, though, where several versions of the msvc libs were causing issues.

Snappy packages aren't quite the same

 

[GeorgeBanner12]

Has anyone else wondered why they have added the RAID Utility back into "MacOS". The utility works with the old RAID cards but seems unlike Apple to want to give functionality back to the users of the cMP. Does the RAID utility work with any other RAID card?

 

[tuxon86]

I can't recall the last time I saw a DLL conflict. I think this was addressed around the Windows 2000 / XP era. While I'm sure there continue to be examples of conflicts they're not nearly the problem they were back in the day. Rending the argument all but moot.

There are no more DLL conflict since Windows Vista. Now you can have multiple copy of the same named DLL, windows just rename them and link them to the application that needs it automatically if that DLL content is different than the one already present on the system.
[doublepost=1469103731][/doublepost]

Has anyone else wondered why they have added the RAID Utility back into "MacOS". The utility works with the old RAID cards but seems unlike Apple to want to give functionality back to the users of the cMP. Does the RAID utility work with any other RAID card?

The utility was always there, it's only the GUI that was missing. You could manage your raid via the command line.

 

[antonis]

Snappy packages aren't quite the same

Not in their technical details, but they go towards the same generic direction. Face the conflict nightmare by separating the core os from these.
[doublepost=1469109312][/doublepost]

Windows has provided the means to provide self contained applications for a long time (I think back in the Windows 2000 / XP days). Shared libraries don't need to be installed in system wide locations. They can all be contained within the programs install directory. However doing so eliminates one of the advantages of shared libraries in that they're no longer shared.

A feature is as good as the dev that is willing to use it, though.

 

[lowendlinux]

Not in their technical details, but they go towards the same generic direction. Face the conflict nightmare by separating the core os from these.
[doublepost=1469109312][/doublepost]
A feature is as good as the dev that is willing to use it, though.

Again not really, the only similarity is they include the needed libs.

Snappy is a Canonical take on some RH ideas to meet their need to make apps portable between Ubuntu touch and Ubuntu desktop.

 

[ITguy2016]

Not in their technical details, but they go towards the same generic direction. Face the conflict nightmare by separating the core os from these.
[doublepost=1469109312][/doublepost]
A feature is as good as the dev that is willing to use it, though.

Agreed. However if you're going to speak to the strengths / weaknesses of an operating system you shouldn't fault the operating system if developers choose to utilize a method which causes problems. IMO what separates "Windows" from "OS X" is the developers who tend to do things the "right" way on OS X. It seems they're more disciplined in following the guidelines for OS X.
[doublepost=1469110106][/doublepost]

Again not really, the only similarity is they include the needed libs.

Snappy is a Canonical take on some RH ideas to meet their need to make apps portable between Ubuntu touch and Ubuntu desktop.

Snap packages are more a function of LXC .

 

[lowendlinux]

Agreed. However if you're going to speak to the strengths / weaknesses of an operating system you shouldn't fault the operating system if developers choose to utilize a method which causes problems. IMO what separates "Windows" from "OS X" is the developers who tend to do things the "right" way on OS X. It seems they're more disciplined in following the guidelines for OS X.
[doublepost=1469110106][/doublepost]
Snap packages are more a function of LXC .

Snaps aren't really containers either though that was the inspiration for both snappy and flatpack

 

[ITguy2016]

Snaps aren't really containers either though that was the inspiration for both snappy and flatpack

I didn't say they were containers. I said they're more a function of containers. However this is off topic so this will be my final comment on this subject (at least in this thread).

 

[SDAVE]

People can definitely defend Windows (and Windows 10) but it's still not an elegant operating system.

No font smoothing, terrible icons, desktop looks ugly, taskbar is weird, start menu/tiles are so bad it took Microsoft 2 OS iterations to get it to look "decent".

Not to mention the fact that there are huge privacy concerns.

App installing in OS X is a breeze, and uninstalling is the same without leaving traces in the system. (Use ApplCleaner).

Just all in all, Windows still has ways to go. The font subsystem is terrible. No anti-aliasing/font smoothing.

The only upside it has is it gives GPUs direct access to the OS to hook into, and this gives a bit better performance under the same CPUs.

It doesn't matter if Win10 is a decent OS, it's still clunky. Window snappings are clunky, "all windows" features (ie like expose) look terrible and clunky. Multi-monitor is clunky. Sound is clunky. Just things in general that make you hate using it.

 

[Miguel Cunha]

I think the biggest problem with the Mac line up across the board is the absence of Nvidia anywhere - even as the most expensive BTO. Way too many programs and processes benefit from CUDA acceleration, and openCL has floundered. If you spend all day in an app that benefits from CUDA its hard to choose Apple and know you will get an AMD or integrated graphics. The eGPU really needs to solidly materialize.

I couldn't agree with you more. Every single word of it.
I've been saying this over and over, for the past years.
I work in film post production and ALL software makers support nVidia.
Recently they start saying something like "AMD?... Maybe, but you should definitely use nVidia".
My Mac is aging and I won't buy another unless it comes with nVidia GPUs.
Are they expensive? So are Macs. For the price tag Apple charges it can stuff Macs with nVidia GPUs.

 

[SDAVE]

Apple just needs to give people an option between AMD and nVidia on the Mac Pro's and stop using Workstation level GPUs in Mac Pro's.

I don't want a Quadro or FirePro in a Mac Pro.

 

[antonis]

Again not really, the only similarity is they include the needed libs.

Snappy is a Canonical take on some RH ideas to meet their need to make apps portable between Ubuntu touch and Ubuntu desktop.

Again, I don't disagree. I'm just saying that one of the benefits is that it sorts out (at least to a degree) the libs conflict issue.

From 16.04 review at linux.com :

Snaps address two big problems. Linus Torvalds once criticized Linux distributions for making it hard to package applications for Linux distributions as compared to Mac OS and Windows. That’s because, aside from different distributions, even different versions of the same distribution use different versions of libraries. With Snaps that “dependency hell” is eliminated, and developers can package everything that
their application needs.

Linus Torvalds is right, of course, since this was a long-time pain for linux.

The 2nd problem mentioned above that it addresses is the one that you described, explained at the next paragraph of the article. The portability.
It's abstractly in the same logic of unburden the OS from having to provide all the libs (and their different versions) an application might potentially need. This, of course, opens the way for portability, as well which seems to be a major consideration for all OS vendors lately.

But we got really off-topic now, so I'll let myself get back to the thread's topic.

 

[Roykor]

Thanks for the reply.

I had the ability to buy a brand new nMP for $3,000 with the 6 core d500 variant (I think the one in your signature) but didn't pull the trigger as I wanted to see if there is another way of doing this.

I do need a desktop but can't justify $3,000+ on 4 year old hardware and the iMac is out of the question as I need raw CPU power and a good GPU. For now my workhorse is an upper range 2014 rMBP.

It looks like you need to move over to PC, just like me. I am (still) waiting for the green light, but when it comes (soon) i am going to order a 6800K six core CPU, 2 x PCI SSD drives for OS and programs, GTX 1070 GPU, couple of SSD drives for simple stuff / main storage, and this all around 2600+ euro. Its a beast. i cant wait on what Apple will or not will do. With there long secrecy and silence, i shove them in the corner of unreliable. I can not build on them. Even if there will be an 7.1, they are capable of not upgrading that machine for years... they have showed us how they do it with the 6.1

I dont like to be fooled when i spend 4 or 5000 euro on a single Apple machine without a keyboard. So, i am going to move over. Its exciting and scary. But i will survive.

 

[ITguy2016]

People can definitely defend Windows (and Windows 10) but it's still not an elegant operating system.

No font smoothing, terrible icons, desktop looks ugly, taskbar is weird, start menu/tiles are so bad it took Microsoft 2 OS iterations to get it to look "decent".

Not to mention the fact that there are huge privacy concerns.

App installing in OS X is a breeze, and uninstalling is the same without leaving traces in the system. (Use ApplCleaner).

Just all in all, Windows still has ways to go. The font subsystem is terrible. No anti-aliasing/font smoothing.

The only upside it has is it gives GPUs direct access to the OS to hook into, and this gives a bit better performance under the same CPUs.

It doesn't matter if Win10 is a decent OS, it's still clunky. Window snappings are clunky, "all windows" features (ie like expose) look terrible and clunky. Multi-monitor is clunky. Sound is clunky. Just things in general that make you hate using it.

I understand you may not prefer Windows but what you've described are personal preferences. Preferences based on what appears to be a lack of knowledge about the operating system (for example Windows does have font smoothing / anti aliasing and has starting way back in Windows 95).

If you prefer OS X that's fine. But please do so from a base of knowledge and refrain from spreading misinformation about it.