How Much Longer Can They Do This?

[thekev]

People are still buying them, I 100% guarantee that.

Some people *need* new hardware to do the paid work they get.

If the machine is 10% slower than the new Mac Pro but 100% faster than the machine they are replacing they have done X weeks/months of added work before the new MP has come out, i.e. been more productive and earnt more.

Cost != productivity.

There are only certain situations where this happens so late in a product cycle if we're looking at one man shops rather than a larger business that is expanding. They could be new. They could have experienced a severe hardware failure recently. A newer piece of software may be choking the old machine. If this was just an incremental upgrade and their software has not become exponentially more power hungry in the past couple years, it's more likely that they would have purchased earlier in the development cycle. People make a big deal out of small percentage gains, but they really have to look at if work is getting done. If that isn't the case, you already waited too long to upgrade.

And lets not get into people under-powering their machines with ram. A friend was wondering why his 8-core was getting choked on rendering in AE while my 4-core hummed the same project in half the time and was still usable during render. He had 6GB RAM and I had 16GB. He was choking each core with virtually no RAM while mine was sailing. To make a 12-core even close to worth it you would need at least 64GB of ram at the bare minimum. Anything less you would be better off with less cores and more ram.

Many people underestimate the value of ram. I see many threads about the desire for an ssd, yet many people are stuck on ram simply because so many applications (yes professional applications that cost thousands of dollars) couldn't make truly effective use of it until more recently.

 

[Liquinn]

Many people underestimate the value of ram. I see many threads about the desire for an ssd, yet many people are stuck on ram simply because so many applications (yes professional applications that cost thousands of dollars) couldn't make truly effective use of it until more recently.

Define 'professional' applications; please. Thanks.

 

[thekev]

Define 'professional' applications; please. Thanks.

You know what I meant . Motion graphics came up in the thread. Even applications common to that like Cinema 4D (okay it only costs thousands if you're buying the modules, but whatever) only switched to 64 bit builds within the past couple years. I was saying that the mentality of how much ram could be used effectively was dragged on from that era. Quite a few things that involved paging to disk or implementing weird constraints due to memory limitations have started to go away.

 

[Liquinn]

You know what I meant . Motion graphics came up in the thread. Even applications common to that like Cinema 4D (okay it only costs thousands if you're buying the modules, but whatever) only switched to 64 bit builds within the past couple years. I was saying that the mentality of how much ram could be used effectively was dragged on from that era. Quite a few things that involved paging to disk or implementing weird constraints due to memory limitations have started to go away.

I thought Photoshop was professional? I use Photoshop for photo-editing daily.

A Mac Pro would help I guess but my MBP does it just fine ^_^

 

[salmoally]

Video editors? I do that for a living and have for many years. Video editing has zero to do with processing power. I can edit just as quickly on my 6-core at work as I could on a macmini. I know, because I have done it. If you are talking about transcoding (usually things an asst editor deals with) or heavy motion graphics I get it but for editing, anything over a 4-core is overkill.

Fact of the matter is MOST software even pros use don't come close to flexing 12-core machines. Hardware is so far ahead of software it is laughable. People who upgrade every time the new MacPros come out to the biggest and baddest to do measly 2d animation and NLEing are laughable and flushing their money down the drain.

And lets not get into people under-powering their machines with ram. A friend was wondering why his 8-core was getting choked on rendering in AE while my 4-core hummed the same project in half the time and was still usable during render. He had 6GB RAM and I had 16GB. He was choking each core with virtually no RAM while mine was sailing. To make a 12-core even close to worth it you would need at least 64GB of ram at the bare minimum. Anything less you would be better off with less cores and more ram.

And it would be faster and cheaper to create a multi-smaller machine render farm than keep buying the biggest machines Apple could produce at a premium.

And THAT is how a video editor thinks.

A lot of sense spoken here. Most studio's I've been to provide a small onsite render farm so the speed of what's on the desk is largely irrelevant.

It's much smarter to get multiple computers instead of one because you can increase the power of your farm over time much more cheaply. Also if one computer goes down, it's not a show stopper.

 

[Photovore]

... MOST software even pros use don't come close to flexing 12-core machines....

To make a 12-core even close to worth it you would need at least 64GB of ram at the bare minimum....

Point the first: I expect this to change as OpenCL grows. In my own work I use OpenCL, and, once you as a developer have climbed that mountain of learning, simply adding cores divides the job. I could use 64 or 128 CPU cores without changing a line of code, and it'd run that much faster.

Point the second: My work is atypical in that I don't need memory per core; the 6GB I have now would work for the above-mentioned 128 CPU cores with no slowdown. However, I imagine you're correct in 97% of the cases!

 

[thekev]

I thought Photoshop was professional? I use Photoshop for photo-editing daily.

A Mac Pro would help I guess but my MBP does it just fine ^_^

I could tell you so many damn tricks for optimizing photoshop and tracking down performance issues. The thing is if you deal with any large files at 16-32 bpc, you really do end up constrained by either ram or scratch drive speeds (typically your primary drive). On photoshop yes it runs faster on a hex mac pro than on a laptop, but if you tweak things efficiently and keep your layering efficient, it can run reasonably well on pretty much almost any modern computer. The only thing I'd suggest for people buying today is to observe their minimum recommended gpu types. For me the big annoying constraints with a macbook pro were that once the express port went away, the fastest connection was firewire prior to thunderbolt. It makes opening really huge files so slow, and dragging them between drives isn't a great solution. It's just asking for corruption one day. The other common issue was ram limitation. When photoshop was 32 bit on OSX (prior to CS5), you really didn't gain much from additional ram even though it was used for additional cache space. This meant that prior to ssds, this kind of thing was absolutely painful on a laptop. I mean sure G3s ran the program years ago, but it was just 8bpc imagery, and 100MB was a large scan (not sure if you remember when you paid for drum scans by MB).

 

[rawdawg]

I wish people would quit making excuses for Apple. They aren't doing a great job with their computers, there is no need to defend them.

Man, you are my hero!

 

[TennisandMusic]

Video editors? I do that for a living and have for many years. Video editing has zero to do with processing power. I can edit just as quickly on my 6-core at work as I could on a macmini. I know, because I have done it. If you are talking about transcoding (usually things an asst editor deals with) or heavy motion graphics I get it but for editing, anything over a 4-core is overkill.

Fact of the matter is MOST software even pros use don't come close to flexing 12-core machines. Hardware is so far ahead of software it is laughable. People who upgrade every time the new MacPros come out to the biggest and baddest to do measly 2d animation and NLEing are laughable and flushing their money down the drain.

And lets not get into people under-powering their machines with ram. A friend was wondering why his 8-core was getting choked on rendering in AE while my 4-core hummed the same project in half the time and was still usable during render. He had 6GB RAM and I had 16GB. He was choking each core with virtually no RAM while mine was sailing. To make a 12-core even close to worth it you would need at least 64GB of ram at the bare minimum. Anything less you would be better off with less cores and more ram.

And it would be faster and cheaper to create a multi-smaller machine render farm than keep buying the biggest machines Apple could produce at a premium.

And THAT is how a video editor thinks.

You can edit the same on a Mac Mini as you can a hex core Pro? Are you talking about with tiny proxy files in iMovie or what? My sandy bridge mac mini is a turd compared to my iMac 27", I can't even run word processors as ably. Of course this is mostly due to the hard drive, but yeah. Suggesting mac minis are as able as Mac Pros in any way, is just not true. If you can do your work the same on each, your work simply isn't that heavy.

By the way, I also run a 12 core Pro with 24 gigabytes of ram doing weather simulations that take hours to days to complete. We use the same type of configuration as the NCAR super computers that run this software (called WRF and WRF-Chem, among other things). We had to install Linux on it because OSX enforces a small and limited stack space that you cannot change without recompiling the kernel(!). On linux its a single command in the terminal to change.

And you're telling me I need AT LEAST 64 gigabytes to do this? I am thinking of throwing on some mini servers to create a compute farm as well. I know how this stuff works, certainly far beyond what is needed for video editing. I don't pull facts out of my rear, and I certainly don't LIKE complaining about Apple. The bottom line is they are stinking up the computer side of their business, when they used to absolutely lead the way in this area. It is an incredibly important segment to the producers of society. They are chasing consumer dollars though, and if they continue to focus ONLY on this I truly do believe it will be their eventual downfall.

Because a cooler consumer product will inevitably show up. Consumer products, by their very nature, are trendy.

World class tools, however, will always be in strong demand by those who know how to utilize them.

 

[WRP]

You can edit the same on a Mac Mini as you can a hex core Pro? Are you talking about with tiny proxy files in iMovie or what? My sandy bridge mac mini is a turd compared to my iMac 27", I can't even run word processors as ably. Of course this is mostly due to the hard drive, but yeah. Suggesting mac minis are as able as Mac Pros in any way, is just not true. If you can do your work the same on each, your work simply isn't that heavy.

I had to edit 3 feature length HD programs in DVCPro HD on a mac mini. 3 cameras, motion graphics with alpha, full 4 channels of mics, 4 channels of music, sound effects, etc. The mini didn't skip a beat.

By the way, I also run a 12 core Pro with 24 gigabytes of ram doing weather simulations that take hours to days to complete. We use the same type of configuration as the NCAR super computers that run this software (called WRF and WRF-Chem, among other things). We had to install Linux on it because OSX enforces a small and limited stack space that you cannot change without recompiling the kernel(!). On linux its a single command in the terminal to change.

And you're telling me I need AT LEAST 64 gigabytes to do this?

No, you specifically said editors. As an editor, I use After Effects on a daily basis. In my example of After Effects your machine would be a dog compared to my 4-core if you enabled all cores. AE just can't work with 2GB per core very effectively while my 4-core with 4GB per would run just fine. And if you DID enable all cores with 2GB designated per core your computer would be absolutely worthless during while it was rendering. That's where distributing the workload comes in handy. You can set up a render node, let a couple small machines do the work while your machine is free to do other things. You can make any scenario you want fit your mode, but you said editors and I answered how as an editor, your statement was invalid.

With a lot of OGL rendering being done on the GPU too, it takes a lot of the stress of the CPUs. My point is even the lowliest of low of mac pros is more than the majority of editors are going to throw at it. My 4-core was streaming 16 clips of red footage via open-sync simultaneously. How many people are going to be doing that? I bet all those people will be spending money on 12-cores while I'm doing it fine on mine and spending the money on other production pieces.

And finally... editing clips in an NLE has to do with your throughput. If you try to edit on your 12-core off a 5400RPM green drive you won't be able to do anything. Run a RAID and wow... magically you can access all this data fast. I used to edit uncompressed 8-bit on a G4. I could only do that with a RAID, it had nothing to do with my processor.

But you're right, you know my industry so much better than I.

 

[omgitswes]

I don't think thats true so much for the MP, if we were talking about iMac's I'd agree.

I actually thought i was in the MBP forum lol. But I agree

 

[TheReadyPrompt]

I don't know how Tim Cook sleeps at night selling this old tech at top buck!

Do you really care, Tony, or are you just upset at how long it's taking to refresh the product line? You're not alone. All of the kicking and screaming you can muster isn't going to push new Macs out of the pipeline any sooner.

Deep breath. Think about baby ducks. Kiss your girlfriend. The new machines are on the way. Until then, let those who are buying "old tech" worry about their own money. You save your nickels and pennies.

 

[JesterJJZ]

It's much smarter to get multiple computers instead of one because you can increase the power of your farm over time much more cheaply. Also if one computer goes down, it's not a show stopper.

My MP1.1 chugs along fine for most of what I do. Editing everything up to 1080p prores 4444 is like cutting through butter. AE renders get a bit slow at times but I've managed.

I got a RED recently. My 2006 isn't cutting it with R3D files. I actually do most of my RED work on my 2010 MBP but it's far from ideal. I simply want a second machine and have it dedicated to my RED and more complex projects, keep the simpler stuff on my current machine. I want the baddest thing out. I can wait for the next MacPro, but that doesn't mean I'm happy having to do so. I'm getting by, but I'd rather be blazing.

 

[Puevlo]

Selling it at the current price is bordering on criminal.

 

[scottrichardson]

Good to see some posts with some sense about then in here.

I agree that most people don't use all the processing power available - but it's nice to have extra CPU grunt for any future software that might make use of it all.

I think a lot of people are on the hunt for 'snappiness' and the 'feeling of their mac being fast'. If so, then you're better off upgrading your current Mac Pro with a decent SSD. One of those OWC Accelsior PCI SSD cards would really make your Mac scream. Seriously I can't recommend an SSD more highly. My co worker has a MBP17" with stock Magnetic drive, and launching apps, saving photoshop files etc, is a nightmare compared to my Mac Pro 09 with a Mercury Pro 3D SSD.

More RAM, SSD, and a better GPU will give your current Mac Pro plenty of legs. Years. Unless you desperately have a need for Thunderbolt, which is unlikely given your Mac Pro has PCI slots, then the 2009 and 2010 gen Mac Pros are fast enough.

 

[tony3d]

Selling it at the current price is bordering on criminal.

You've got that right! Really makes Apple look bad, and precisely why I won't buy one!

 

[ixodes]

As long as people are willing to buy them I guess.

Sadly, this is so true.

It's why I have a rather love/hate relationship with Apple. When you've been an avid loyal user / shareholder since 1991 as I have, the Apple of today can be maddening with the way they handle certain things.

Then, conversely, they create a design & super nice functioning line like the new MBA's that I just can't get enough of. I've bought both the new 2010 11" & 13" models upon release, so as to have them arrive with 10.6.x. Then the 13" MBA so I could try out Lion on a properly configured machine.

Thereby saving (for my work & personal use) my other much loved, 10.6 powered 2010 15" & 17" MBP's and Mac Pro.

 

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by TennisandMusic
I wish people would quit making excuses for Apple. They aren't doing a great job with their computers, there is no need to defend them.

Man, you are my hero!

Selling it at the current price is bordering on criminal.

You've got that right! Really makes Apple look bad, and precisely why I won't buy one!

I really wish people would make the distinction between their own needs/wants and the rest of world.

Apple is obviously doing a great job with their computers, as far as the RoW is concerned. Sales figures prove it. For the vast majority of Apple users, they are doing a "great job". If they don't make a computer for you - then that is a personal decision and no one can argue that.

Apple's pricing is not the least approaching "criminal". It is an open market, and they are offering their goods at a price that people are willing to pay. Prices in an open market are always set by what the market will bear. It's called a free market economy (yes, go ahead and point out the half dozen exceptions that exist only because they aren't in an open market.)

Only makes Apple look bad in your eyes and the other minimal minority potential buyers who desperately want an Apple product that Apple doesn't actually make. Sort of like railing against Microsoft because they don't make motorcycles.

Apple has no obligation to make a computer just for you at a price you dictate. Apple makes what it wants... you get to buy it at their prices, look for deals, or not buy it. Say it after me.... "I live in a free market economy..."

And ... I will acknowledge right now that you also live in a free society and have the right to rant away. I am not suggesting you not post. Just as I have the right to point out muddled logic and an apparent shallow grasp of market theory.

Maybe it's time I had breakfast?

 

[tony3d]

I really wish people would make the distinction between their own needs/wants and the rest of world.

Apple is obviously doing a great job with their computers, as far as the RoW is concerned. Sales figures prove it. For the vast majority of Apple users, they are doing a "great job". If they don't make a computer for you - then that is a personal decision and no one can argue that.

Apple's pricing is not the least approaching "criminal". It is an open market, and they are offering their goods at a price that people are willing to pay. Prices in an open market are always set by what the market will bear. It's called a free market economy (yes, go ahead and point out the half dozen exceptions that exist only because they aren't in an open market.)

Only makes Apple look bad in your eyes and the other minimal minority potential buyers who desperately want an Apple product that Apple doesn't actually make. Sort of like railing against Microsoft because they don't make motorcycles.

Apple has no obligation to make a computer just for you at a price you dictate. Apple makes what it wants... you get to buy it at their prices, look for deals, or not buy it. Say it after me.... "I live in a free market economy..."

And ... I will acknowledge right now that you also live in a free society and have the right to rant away. I am not suggesting you not post. Just as I have the right to point out muddled logic and an apparent shallow grasp of market theory.

Maybe it's time I had breakfast?

I don't know if you noticed, but Apple is not selling many Mac Pros these days, because they are no longer competitive in today's market. If Apple plans on selling 2 year old tech at those shameful price that's fine, but very few people will buy them in fact the people that do, probably don't know any better. Defend Apple all you want, it speakers volumes to me, and most of the professional community! They just removed the "New" from the product page about 3 weeks ago. I wonder why? Now go have your breakfast.

 

[snberk103]

I don't know if you noticed, but Apple is not selling many Mac Pros these days, because they are no longer competitive in today's market. If Apple plans on selling 2 year old tech at those shameful price that's fine, but very few people will buy them in fact the people that do, probably don't know any better. Defend Apple all you want, it speakers volumes to me, and most of the professional community! They just removed the "New" from the product page about 3 weeks ago. I wonder why? Now go have your breakfast.

Thanks... had a terrific breakfast. Yum.

I'm not actually disputing some of the main points. My 'quibble' is with these sweeping generalized personal opinions that are bandied about like facts. Like "...Apple is not selling many Mac Pros these days..." Because we don't know that. I may believe that you are correct... but nobody outside of Apple knows that. For all we know some Apple salesperson is making terrific large volume sales.

Anyway... I am also waiting to see what Apple brings out. I believe it will be this year. There is a convergence of technologies that would make for a very interesting 'new' Mac Pro. My feeling is that Apple will not abandon the Mac Pro. What they will introduce this year, imho, is a 'boutique' type of computer. More customizable (by Apple as a BTO) - and pricey. They will have noticed that for some people a Mac Pro at any price is better (for them) than anything else. And Apple will price accordingly. So, low volume sales - but very high margins. And I would hope enhanced tech support. For instance if the extended AppleCare was included as part of the purchase price. Or something like that. Basically 1st class service for the 1st class price.

Time for more coffee, eh?

 

[SuperCachetes]

I don't know if you noticed, but Apple is not selling many Mac Pros these days...

Yep. This giant consumer walkout has pulled a real whammy on company earnings, too.

 

[tony3d]

Thanks... had a terrific breakfast. Yum.

I'm not actually disputing some of the main points. My 'quibble' is with these sweeping generalized personal opinions that are bandied about like facts. Like "...Apple is not selling many Mac Pros these days..." Because we don't know that. I may believe that you are correct... but nobody outside of Apple knows that. For all we know some Apple salesperson is making terrific large volume sales.

Anyway... I am also waiting to see what Apple brings out. I believe it will be this year. There is a convergence of technologies that would make for a very interesting 'new' Mac Pro. My feeling is that Apple will not abandon the Mac Pro. What they will introduce this year, imho, is a 'boutique' type of computer. More customizable (by Apple as a BTO) - and pricey. They will have noticed that for some people a Mac Pro at any price is better (for them) than anything else. And Apple will price accordingly. So, low volume sales - but very high margins. And I would hope enhanced tech support. For instance if the extended AppleCare was included as part of the purchase price. Or something like that. Basically 1st class service for the 1st class price.

Time for more coffee, eh?

I agree that Apple, if they do refresh, will probably not disappoint. I hope they leave the form factor alone. I think the Mac Pro's case is perfect. This thing about Thunderbolt dosen't make much sense to me on the Mac Pro, because I don't see any huge advantage over PCI. Now it makes sense on an iMac or Mac Mini, because they lack PCI slots. I also surely don't see the advantage of having a small main Mac Pro hooked up to a bunch of other boxes on my desktop. Would much rather have everything in one box! Anyway, I sure hope they release soon because my 2008 quad cores are really showing their age, and I'm beginning to loose jobs over it now. At this stage of the game, for the pro products, I really think Apple needs to fess up!

 

[snberk103]

I agree that Apple, if they do refresh, will probably not disappoint. I hope they leave the form factor alone. I think the Mac Pro's case is perfect. This thing about Thunderbolt dosen't make much sense to me on the Mac Pro, because I don't see any huge advantage over PCI. ....

A year or two back, when TB (then something called Lightening Bolt or something - I don't recall) was first announced I got really really excited for the Mac Pro. I figured it was a way for Apple to totally reinvent how a computer works. Basically, imagine how a PC might work if the people inventing the very 1st PC (PC as in Personal Computer - Not OS specific) had the technology of today with TB to tie it all together. Concentrate on what a computer needs to do, and forget the existing form factors that have evolved from the 1st beige box days.

Then I realized that Apple has shifted all their best engineers to the iOS Devices. And that Apple was already two steps beyond "reinventing the PC" to reinventing the world where PCs don't really play a big part. I say that, as part of the minority that feels that I need a PC to get my work done. I happen to like Apple's computers. I also like the Mac Pro form factor, but I could work with an iMac if I had to (My needs are a really good monitor and lots of internal storage).

Some days I am pessimistic and worry that Apple will drop the Mac Pro altogether. Other days I'm optimistic and believe that Apple is willing to lose some money on the Mac Pro if they can use it to get lots of media attention because of something wonderful they've done with it. The Jobs biography made it clear that Apple does not track profit/loss on divisions or individual products. So Apple may be perfectly willing to sell Mac Pros at a loss if it meant increased profits somewhere else. So... I'm optimistic. And I'm hopeful, as you are, that a re-introduced Mac Pro will not disappoint.

I can see, btw, a benefit to putting TB on a Mac Pro... once they've finally gone to the fibre optic option. The distances that the parts of the Mac Pro can be from each other is about 100 metres. So... you could have a HDD farm in your closet in the basement and work with a Mac Pro upstairs - as if the HDDs were internal. The HDD farm would be right next to the internet connection coming into the house as well. A single FO cable up to the computer is all you'd need for HDDs and internet. Keyboard/mouse would be Blue Tooth, perhaps a printer as well (new faster standards coming there too). So one cable into a box that only needs to be big enough for housing and cooling the CPUs and RAM. One FO TB cable coming out to an Apple display that was also a powered hub for all the other legacy devices you need to connect. Isn't that what Jobs wanted? A honking powerful computer with two I/O ports and power cord. That's it. And he'd probably tell the engineers to figure out how to power the computer through the cable connecting it to monitor. Now it's just two cables. Anyway.. that is just one example when you start "reinventing" what a PC does with today's technology in mind.

In the mean time.... I've also got a 2008 Mac Pro.... the Octocore. I'm fine for now... though I keep surfing the refurbished offerings. I'm more worried about an unwarrantied repair at this point.

 

[linuxcooldude]

I don't know if you noticed, but Apple is not selling many Mac Pros these days, because they are no longer competitive in today's market. If Apple plans on selling 2 year old tech at those shameful price that's fine, but very few people will buy them in fact the people that do, probably don't know any better. Defend Apple all you want, it speakers volumes to me, and most of the professional community! They just removed the "New" from the product page about 3 weeks ago. I wonder why? Now go have your breakfast.

I don't think it as to do with not being competitive, but more to do with a much smaller market. Whens the last time you seen TV commercials advertising Pro Tools or Avid Media? I never have.

I think most PC workstations and Apples Mac Pro are really in the same boat. Even the new HP & Dell Workstations have been pushed back the shipping dates due to the Xeon processors.

So if you want the latest and greatest without 2 year wait times then start looking at the consumer side, instead of workstations in general.

 

[derbothaus]

I don't know if you noticed, but Apple is not selling many Mac Pros these days, because they are no longer competitive in today's market. If Apple plans on selling 2 year old tech at those shameful price that's fine, but very few people will buy them in fact the people that do, probably don't know any better. Defend Apple all you want, it speakers volumes to me, and most of the professional community! They just removed the "New" from the product page about 3 weeks ago. I wonder why? Now go have your breakfast.

The people still buying Mac Pro's are business and professionals that also enjoy the benefits of NOT being on 10.7. Any new stuff will force you into Lion. 10.6 is far superior for enterprise interaction as everything continues to work well. A few day's ago I just got a few more. Because they were needed for Final Cut 7 and XSAN. People know they are old tech but they are not slow by any means. And also depends on what bracket you buy at. These were 12-core 2.93's. No one is buying the lowly 2.8 quad unless they are swapping out the proc.