QFT
That's why I can not settle for an iMac, the ease of expandability can't be beat.
The Pro isn't dead, Apple has never been one to give announcements.
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.
If The Mac Pro is Dead - What next?
- Thread starter videoadvert.tv
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
QFT
That's why I can not settle for an iMac, the ease of expandability can't be beat.
The Pro isn't dead, Apple has never been one to give announcements.
It sounds like it will be packed more like a laptop though. I assume some day these things will be so powerful that they could hub drive anything, but it's just not there yet.
I've been pretty sure all along that a new Mac Pro was coming, but I'm really starting to think maybe not. There is plenty of leaks about just about every other model but not a peep about this. Nothing . . . .
There are so many recent rumors about Apple gearing up to build so many Macbook Pros and iMacs and Airs and Mini's on and on, and not a single one regarding Mac Pros. Shouldn't we be a bit nervous? Something just doesn't fee right this time around.
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted
Doesn't there have to be something that can run 3 or 4 dvi displays at once. If the mp disappears, the only way will be a hackintosh, not something I am looking forward to.
Doesn't there have to be something that can run 3 or 4 dvi displays at once. If the mp disappears, the only way will be a hackintosh, not something I am looking forward to.
Today sure would have been a good day to announce a new E5 Mac Pro.
Maybe in two weeks? We can hope. Maybe they are having trouble integrating Thunderbolt with AMD/Nvidia GPUs.
Maybe in two weeks? We can hope. Maybe they are having trouble integrating Thunderbolt with AMD/Nvidia GPUs.
We've already moved our office workstations to home built linux server grade machines and gone with alternative softwares as the mac pros were getting too expensive for the power, and we tested a top of the line i7 iMac and were getting compile times of our software upward of 20 minutes, compared to the current 6 minute on these new machines.
Thats 14 minutes people could be working/testing wasted possibly 10 or more times a day
which is stupid..
so its too little too late for us, ill still be keeping my MBP's for OOO work but i hope they dont lose any more business customers over this
Thats 14 minutes people could be working/testing wasted possibly 10 or more times a day
which is stupid..
so its too little too late for us, ill still be keeping my MBP's for OOO work but i hope they dont lose any more business customers over this
Not really. More likely ...... Given the Mac Pro is likely closer to the 6 min compile times than the 20 minute ones Apple would point out that the 9-10 mins per compile and 6 times a day is 54-60 mins per day saved. If paying the employee $20/hr. 250 days at $20/day is $5,000. A sum likely more than the delta between the iMac and the Mac Pro.
Similarly, shipping compiles off to a build farm where perhaps 1-2 Mac Pros are "shared" by developers to do build work also can have an even faster return on investment. Multiple developers are more likely to keep a much smaller number of machines busy closer to 100% of the time. In contrast when stepping through the debugger to smoke out a bug the Mac Pro isn't going to be much better than the iMac. Editing the source file ... same issue.
20 minute compiles smells like high C++ template overhead getting entangled with limited RAM working space.
Not worried. Don't let the tools define the task. Windows is an alternative in nearly every space and can be configured countless ways. While maybe not an attractive option, it is a very functional one.
It is a problem for those outfitting larger shops and trying to figure out what to do with their dollars in the present when the future is so uncertain. However, this has been the case with Apple for quite some time. If Apple's secretive product development is twisting your business plan into knots, it might be time to ween your shop from them. In business terms, Mac OS X is a luxury and not a necessity in nearly all cases (FCX one of the exceptions, obviously).
The main problem with that idea is that Avid is a shell of the company it was. They have outsourced pretty much all of their development and it has not gone well, and Pro Tools is 50% of their business and they have pissed off pretty much all of their users, sans the fanbois, with their latest release. So even though Media Composer is looking better than ever, Avid as a company is hemorrhaging and it is unlikely to survive in the current state. It is only a matter of time before the assets are purchased by a group of people that actually understand how to run a business.
A look at Avid Technologies, Inc.
It is a problem for those outfitting larger shops and trying to figure out what to do with their dollars in the present when the future is so uncertain. However, this has been the case with Apple for quite some time. If Apple's secretive product development is twisting your business plan into knots, it might be time to ween your shop from them. In business terms, Mac OS X is a luxury and not a necessity in nearly all cases (FCX one of the exceptions, obviously).
The main problem with that idea is that Avid is a shell of the company it was. They have outsourced pretty much all of their development and it has not gone well, and Pro Tools is 50% of their business and they have pissed off pretty much all of their users, sans the fanbois, with their latest release. So even though Media Composer is looking better than ever, Avid as a company is hemorrhaging and it is unlikely to survive in the current state. It is only a matter of time before the assets are purchased by a group of people that actually understand how to run a business.
A look at Avid Technologies, Inc.
I also don't think that the Mac Pro will be discontinued as it served way too many customers that absolutely cannot be served by any other Mac with or without the potential of Thunderbolt. Still your question assumed that the possibility that the current rev of Mac Pro is the final one, so I'll run with that in providing my two cents.
For one, I couldn't agree with the anti-iMac sentiment any more, not just due to lack of expansion, but also lack of reliability due to its poor design. That said, as far as the frequency of iMac redesigns go, they typically happen once every three revs, or so it has been since the iSight-model iMac G5 unveiled three design refreshes ago. If you follow that belief than we're due for a refresh. Given that we've been in a state of being due for a Mac Pro design refresh (let alone a new rev) for a while now, and given that the 27" iMac has been cannibalizing some of the Mac Pro's marketshare (whether or not for intelligent or relevant reasons), it is possible that those two lines might merge and the higher-end iMac size might transition to a model that can gain the expandability required by Mac Pro customers, while leaving the 21.5" model for consumers. Then again, it's also possible that the Mac Pro might still continue to be refreshed (albeit, nowhere near as frequently as the other Macs) and that so will the iMac, with very little change down the road.
Running with the assumption that the Mac Pro will get the axe and that either iMac size will continue to be an unsuitable replacement for those that it is currently an unsuitable replacement for, I wholeheartedly second the Hackintosh option. Trickier to maintain than a normal Mac, unarguably. Not as intuitive to maintain than a Windows PC, yes, but that's debatable. Easier to maintain than a Windows PC, absolutely. Given that you do work on this machine, you probably run large system updates, such as Mac OS X point release updates (such as 10.7.3 from 10.7.2) after a while of research and consideration as to whether the update interferes with a piece of software or a function that is critical to your job. Incidentally, while point release updates are very much doable on a Hackintosh, they do require you to know what you're doing and to, similarly do that kind of research.
I'll maintain that you should probably also have a 15" or 17" MacBook Pro (mainly because I think the iMac is crap, the MacBook Air is a wimpy machine, SSD speeds aside, and the Mac mini and 13" Pros aren't powerful enough) around so as a just-in-case machine, if not as your personal not-necessarily-used-for-work-all-the-time machine. I'll also recommend that you set up a hard drive specifically for use as a Hackintosh recovery boot drive that you can use to stage your main drive in the event of a problem. Also storing your user accounts on yet a different drive will also help reduce any inconvenience to a potential problem with the Hackintosh'd OS X installation on your main drive. Again, a spare actual Mac, such as the 15" or 17" MacBook Pro that I'm recommending here will help in case you have a problem with both drives.
Again, I bring up those things as safety precautions. A dear friend of mine has both a 15" MacBook Pro and a Hackintosh and the Hackintosh runs just as reliably for him. As for raw performance, it is sadly the only real alternative to a Mac Pro, and frankly, offers way more flexibility than any of Apple's desktops ever will (Mac Pro included).
For one, I couldn't agree with the anti-iMac sentiment any more, not just due to lack of expansion, but also lack of reliability due to its poor design. That said, as far as the frequency of iMac redesigns go, they typically happen once every three revs, or so it has been since the iSight-model iMac G5 unveiled three design refreshes ago. If you follow that belief than we're due for a refresh. Given that we've been in a state of being due for a Mac Pro design refresh (let alone a new rev) for a while now, and given that the 27" iMac has been cannibalizing some of the Mac Pro's marketshare (whether or not for intelligent or relevant reasons), it is possible that those two lines might merge and the higher-end iMac size might transition to a model that can gain the expandability required by Mac Pro customers, while leaving the 21.5" model for consumers. Then again, it's also possible that the Mac Pro might still continue to be refreshed (albeit, nowhere near as frequently as the other Macs) and that so will the iMac, with very little change down the road.
Running with the assumption that the Mac Pro will get the axe and that either iMac size will continue to be an unsuitable replacement for those that it is currently an unsuitable replacement for, I wholeheartedly second the Hackintosh option. Trickier to maintain than a normal Mac, unarguably. Not as intuitive to maintain than a Windows PC, yes, but that's debatable. Easier to maintain than a Windows PC, absolutely. Given that you do work on this machine, you probably run large system updates, such as Mac OS X point release updates (such as 10.7.3 from 10.7.2) after a while of research and consideration as to whether the update interferes with a piece of software or a function that is critical to your job. Incidentally, while point release updates are very much doable on a Hackintosh, they do require you to know what you're doing and to, similarly do that kind of research.
I'll maintain that you should probably also have a 15" or 17" MacBook Pro (mainly because I think the iMac is crap, the MacBook Air is a wimpy machine, SSD speeds aside, and the Mac mini and 13" Pros aren't powerful enough) around so as a just-in-case machine, if not as your personal not-necessarily-used-for-work-all-the-time machine. I'll also recommend that you set up a hard drive specifically for use as a Hackintosh recovery boot drive that you can use to stage your main drive in the event of a problem. Also storing your user accounts on yet a different drive will also help reduce any inconvenience to a potential problem with the Hackintosh'd OS X installation on your main drive. Again, a spare actual Mac, such as the 15" or 17" MacBook Pro that I'm recommending here will help in case you have a problem with both drives.
Again, I bring up those things as safety precautions. A dear friend of mine has both a 15" MacBook Pro and a Hackintosh and the Hackintosh runs just as reliably for him. As for raw performance, it is sadly the only real alternative to a Mac Pro, and frankly, offers way more flexibility than any of Apple's desktops ever will (Mac Pro included).
Mac Pros are compiling beasts. Can't be beat by iMacs.
Unfortunately if you do Mac or iOS development, Linux boxes aren't an option.
iMac - is it really an option ?
I am doing lots of videoHD rendering. Two MacPro (dual quad) with sleep disabled. I turn off the 30" display and let it render (8 ~ 10 hrs). First the iMac does not have the horsepower (single socket only); and then I cannot turn off the display WITHOUT putting it to sleep. And with the display on, I am really worried about heat - because I don't have A/C - it doesn't get that hot here. When I go to a BestBuy the iMacs there don't do much (not 100% CPU; not rendering) and are much hotter than my MacPro at home. And they have A/C turned on (ok, at low setting).
I considered buying the Matrox MXO2+iMac27 = same price as MacPro; but then the new H264 software came out and is now twice as fast as VisualHub. Software is easier to update than hardware ...
I am doing lots of videoHD rendering. Two MacPro (dual quad) with sleep disabled. I turn off the 30" display and let it render (8 ~ 10 hrs). First the iMac does not have the horsepower (single socket only); and then I cannot turn off the display WITHOUT putting it to sleep. And with the display on, I am really worried about heat - because I don't have A/C - it doesn't get that hot here. When I go to a BestBuy the iMacs there don't do much (not 100% CPU; not rendering) and are much hotter than my MacPro at home. And they have A/C turned on (ok, at low setting).
I considered buying the Matrox MXO2+iMac27 = same price as MacPro; but then the new H264 software came out and is now twice as fast as VisualHub. Software is easier to update than hardware ...
There is a key command to turn off the iMac display without putting it to sleep, but I forget what it is...
Otherwise, I agree with you that the iMac isn't as powerful as the Mac Pro.
Edit:
Here it is. Should work great on your Mac Pro too so you don't need to physically turn off the display.
http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20080407091837231
I agree with much of what you say, especially regarding iMacs, so I'm just addressing where I disagree.
I think a typical pro user or even prosumer, doesn't want to be bothered with researching point release updates and their effect on particular Hackintosh hardware, or trying to recover after a failed update using a 15" MB Pro, or reinstall user accounts, or recover off an external boot drive. Goodness, this isn't a major hardware failure to recover and restore from, it's just a regular OS update.
I'd wager this typical pro user likely is not an OSX Wizard and he doesn't want to be. He's a Photoshop Wizard, or an Avid Wizard, or maybe an Adobe Premier Wizard, etc. Mid to long term, the OS he's using isn't that important, he'll discover he can get workstation hardware from HP or whoever on a Windows OS that gives him the access to his favorite app w/o worrying whether each update will set him back a day or three in his work/hobby.
@threadstarter; If you're a one man shop, get a current Mac Pro load it up with 2x 6 core processors and however much RAM you can afford and I bet it will last you the next 12 years, or at least 6-8 years.
The Pro is priced out of my league but I find these EOL threads for it interesting. I'm probably one of the very few, but I don't see the need for T-bolt in a Mac Pro. Everything you need is already inside the box (a nice big quiet and cool running box at that). And these new E5 processors are 10-15% faster than current? Does such an increase make that much real world difference? Maybe it does, I dunno.
How many years away from Windows? Win7 really isn't that bad and Windows PC workstations aren't going anywhere.
For the record, a new Mac Pro will show up in the Apple Store this summer. Not a lot of fanfare, it'll just be there one Tuesday in July if I ventured a guess.
The Pro is priced out of my league but I find these EOL threads for it interesting. I'm probably one of the very few, but I don't see the need for T-bolt in a Mac Pro. Everything you need is already inside the box (a nice big quiet and cool running box at that). And these new E5 processors are 10-15% faster than current? Does such an increase make that much real world difference? Maybe it does, I dunno.
How many years away from Windows? Win7 really isn't that bad and Windows PC workstations aren't going anywhere.
For the record, a new Mac Pro will show up in the Apple Store this summer. Not a lot of fanfare, it'll just be there one Tuesday in July if I ventured a guess.
The thing which worries me the most is, they messed up FCP and a lot of people moved to PCs. I am sure numbers will be down more because of that as well, and if they base the EOL on those numbers, well we have problems. Unless the majority come back when FCP gets sorted out, but who knows if that will happen.
Apple really need a Ferrari type model in the stable, it helps with the overall marketing image. If they think they can get everyone to accept an iMac in that role though they are dreaming.
Apple really need a Ferrari type model in the stable, it helps with the overall marketing image. If they think they can get everyone to accept an iMac in that role though they are dreaming.
Honestly, I think I will probably go custom build when it is time to upgrade my Mac Pro. Whether or not they continue to update the Mac Pro most likely will not affect my decision. I do a lot of 3D work and video work and the use of a Quadro card makes all the difference. And from what I have heard, the drivers for the Quadro 4000 for Mac are not very good. And sure, I could just get a Quadro 5000 or 6000 and run it under Bootcamp. But the problem becomes my hard drives, which are currently all formatted for OS X. I have tried using Mac Drive, but that doesn't help. Plus I don't like having only 4 drive bays.
However, I think I will always stay with OS X when it comes to laptops. In my mind, Apple focuses 90% of their time to the consumer market and AT MOST 10% to the prosumer/professional market. But I think Microsoft pays much more attention to the professional market while not paying as much attention to the consumer market, maybe 50/50. But I definitely see OS X as a laptop OS now.
However, I think I will always stay with OS X when it comes to laptops. In my mind, Apple focuses 90% of their time to the consumer market and AT MOST 10% to the prosumer/professional market. But I think Microsoft pays much more attention to the professional market while not paying as much attention to the consumer market, maybe 50/50. But I definitely see OS X as a laptop OS now.
I think the FCPX stuff is overblown. Apple added back in features, the reviews in the app store are way way up, and third parties are supporting it. I haven't heard any fuss over it in a while.
Except that the current Apple TB 27" LCD display isn't compatible. That's pretty much the only reason why the old Cinema Display is still being sold ... particularly at the same exact price as its TB equipped brother: $999
In any case, on a heavy duty work desktop machine, one is nearly invariably going to end up with external drives, if for no other reason than for a SMB to push backup data to it (instead of across one's network) to then be removed to the safety of a remote site.
It is probably in that ballpark, although that's not really the real point.
If real point is that if the Mac Pro goes EOL, then the current dual Xeon configuration dies too and the most powerful machine available is just an iMac.
Sure, the most powerful iMac is a quad core i7, which is can be argued is comparable to the least powerful Mac Pro ...
... but the current Mac Pro line offers up to 12 cores, which is a huge difference for those work packages that benefit significantly from core count. Similarly, work packages that benefit from having gobs of GPU and/or gobs of RAM also take a big hit in going to even the top end iMac.
-hh
I think the point being made was that with a 10-15% cpu speed bump, there's no major, major hurry to push the E series xeons out. They will come in good time.
However, to turn this discussion on its head, i'm going to start the rumour that the mac pro is so delayed, because apple is waiting for ivy bridge AND the E series xeons so that they can push out both a high end mac pro, and a lower end i7 ivy bridge variant.
I know its not likely to happen, but i can hope, right? I certainly think there's a market out there begging for it.
People who saying that Apple want to discontinue Mac Pro because of poor sales and because it is overpriced are really unintellegent noobs who never owned Mac Pro and does not know why is made for and they use computers only for browsing Internet and listen to ther overlycompressed 64k mp3 music. No offence but that what i am thinking.....
Mac Pro are made for proffesionals who need a powerful computer which can handle their tasks.
Mac Pros is not just faster and can do awrything fester there are many tasks which can be acomplished only with Mac Pros or similar workstations from other manufactors , u won't be able to do that with any other consumer computer. ( just put in that way that u can reach a moon only by a rocket u cannot get their by bicacle)
I know that Mac Pros a very popular with a proffesional musicians and studios 90% of them uses Mac Pros and probably other 10 % is filed with Dells or HP workstations similar to Mac Pro
Some people claims that Mac Pros has a limited sales and yes ofcause they do probably for 1 Mac Pro there sold 100 MacBook Airs but it is still extremely profitable market for Apple and in addition do not forget that Mac Pro is more expansive then Airs so Apple get more profit out of singel MacPro
p.s. So in conclusion: Children if u own an Air and u are happy with it and it does awrything what u need so be it but please don't post any crupp on Mac Pro that it is discontinued or it is over priced or it is unnecessary powerful and etc....
Mac Pro are made for proffesionals who need a powerful computer which can handle their tasks.
Mac Pros is not just faster and can do awrything fester there are many tasks which can be acomplished only with Mac Pros or similar workstations from other manufactors , u won't be able to do that with any other consumer computer. ( just put in that way that u can reach a moon only by a rocket u cannot get their by bicacle)
I know that Mac Pros a very popular with a proffesional musicians and studios 90% of them uses Mac Pros and probably other 10 % is filed with Dells or HP workstations similar to Mac Pro
Some people claims that Mac Pros has a limited sales and yes ofcause they do probably for 1 Mac Pro there sold 100 MacBook Airs but it is still extremely profitable market for Apple and in addition do not forget that Mac Pro is more expansive then Airs so Apple get more profit out of singel MacPro
p.s. So in conclusion: Children if u own an Air and u are happy with it and it does awrything what u need so be it but please don't post any crupp on Mac Pro that it is discontinued or it is over priced or it is unnecessary powerful and etc....
Last edited:
The possibilites are not good as PC vendors tend to swap parts out on a pretty regular basis. The reason Macs run so well is the hardware and software are built by the same company. Outsource on of these and you have the same problem Windows / [name your PC maker] have.
Unless Apple tight controls the acceptable specs. I think that we see if they release or EOL, then if not, see what alternative up scaling Apple offers for IMac or mini or xMac, then if nothing . . . not sure. I suppose for most Professionals, it's settle down scale or Windows as Hackintosh will have limited appeal and may not even be supported if Apple doesn't update it's OS to new MP specs.