Insider preview of the 2013 Mac Pro design principles.

[MiJuConcept]

I suppose you didn't understanded what i was pointing at.


I RELLY do think that Mac Pro is a complete revolution. People are still strugling to understand the idea of Future computer.


Computer that is part of Internet-of-Things idea, which "Mobile Revolution" is just start.

I do understand the concernes about the design and being completely uncompatibile backwards in terms of way people thought about "workhorses". But thats part of revolution .

I'm not disagreeing with you. I guess not everyone has heard about the power restrictions.

10 billion devices are on the internet. Another 20 billion are expected. The power can only come from energy savings not energy sources.

 

[koyoot]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I guess not everyone has heard about the power restrictions.

10 billion devices are on the internet. Another 20 billion are expected. The power can only come from energy savings not energy sources.

I Have only one sentence for this: "Ultra low power energy fields".

 

[Larry-K]

Some of the old Power Mac G5 units were liquid cooled.

Yep, Mine still runs fine.

 

[AidenShaw]

Yep, Mine still runs fine.

Mine burned through its case and is headed towards the earth's core.

(this post makes more sense than half of what's been posted in this thread )

 

[goMac]

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been sent to the wasteland already.

We got in some good conversation about hot pockets...

 

[Larry-K]

Mine burned through its case and is headed towards the earth's core.

(this post makes more sense than half of what's been posted in this thread )

I was always paranoid about mine doing that, but it's outlasted Applecare by 5 years.

I'm thinking the nMP has explosive potential when all the GPUs & CPUs are cranked to max.

And, as usual, you make more sense than 90% of the posts.

 

[flat five]

Nailed it!

http://tinyurl.com/ncth4o7

it's so incredibly absurd to suggest the nmp drew design inspiration from an sr71 but makes complete sense to say it's modeled after a garbage can :/

 

[ybz90]

Zero compromise engineering. That is what the nMP is all about. The design elements speak for themselves and these elements were not "suggested" after the fact. They were the primary ideas in the first document.Take it how you see fit, it was the data which started this whole conversation in the design studio.

There is no such thing as zero compromise engineering and if anything, the nMP is the definition of compromise. It pushes a different paradigm, a new one, at the expense of conventions and standards. Whether this is a good thing or a bad is another issue, but there are PLENTY of compromises here.

Also, design used in your context is a compromise in and of itself. If what you say is true, and that the design was pre-determined, then the true beauty of the engineering is in fact precisely how the mechE/EE guys at Apple managed to deal with those design constraints/compromises and still produce a usable workstation.

 

[MiJuConcept]

There is no such thing as zero compromise engineering and if anything, the nMP is the definition of compromise. It pushes a different paradigm, a new one, at the expense of conventions and standards. Whether this is a good thing or a bad is another issue, but there are PLENTY of compromises here.

Also, design used in your context is a compromise in and of itself. If what you say is true, and that the design was pre-determined, then the true beauty of the engineering is in fact precisely how the mechE/EE guys at Apple managed to deal with those design constraints/compromises and still produce a usable workstation.

Try and build an nMP into a generic ITX form factor with a 500W limit. You will find it incredibly tough to come anywhere near the machine spec.

Yes, the form factor has taken a quantum shift. Apple has identified a different way of marketing the personal computer. But the form factor doesnt highlight compromise for the vast majority - from all of the negative comments I deduced that the performance isn't high enough and the TB2 storage solutions cost too much. Which is fair enough.

There is always a person who feels estranged when evolution goes from Ape to Man or from Fish to Bird.

 

[ybz90]

Try and build an nMP into a generic ITX form factor with a 500W limit. You will find it incredibly tough to come anywhere near the machine spec.

Yes, the form factor has taken a quantum shift. Apple has identified a different way of marketing the personal computer. But the form factor doesnt highlight compromise for the vast majority - from all of the negative comments I deduced that the performance isn't high enough and the TB2 storage solutions cost too much. Which is fair enough.

There is always a person who feels estranged when evolution goes from Ape to Man or from Fish to Bird.

I am simply pointing out inherent contradictions in what you are saying. As an engineer (granted, bioE, not EE/CS), I like to think I know a thing or two about engineering principles.

Reread the rhetorical command that you posed to me in your reply. That in and of itself IS the compromise Apple is making by building the machine (to paraphrase you, 500W power envelope, small form factor, etc).; to conform to the design, and all of its merits, there were sacrifices made. If it were truly no compromise, those limitations would not exist in the first place.

I for one like the design and many of the features that it espouses. I am not "estranged" by Apple's design shift. I am also not a layman spewing forth idiotic babble on topics I know nothing about.

 

[barmann]

Mine burned through its case and is headed towards the earth's core.

Oh, that was yours ?

There is always a person who feels estranged when evolution goes from Ape to Man or from Fish to Bird.

I couldn't agree more . The progress card trumps them all, who needs a valid argument ? .

Like when the wheel was invented, everybody went: 'what, just one ?!?'
Now Apple re-introduces the wheelbarrow, and people still insist on keeping their humongous trucks .

 

[Rich.Cohen]

I am simply pointing out inherent contradictions in what you are saying. As an engineer (granted, bioE, not EE/CS), I like to think I know a thing or two about engineering principles.

I have a BS in EE and an MS in System Eng. In practice I was a software engineer for about 20 years. Now I mostly do requirements definition. I agree that engineering is all about compromise. To me a good requirements statement leaves the engineer the maximum room to make compromises. I'm not sure I agree with all the compromises made in the nMP, but I plan to buy one.

 

[Giuly]

I dont deny you the right of refusal but have you seen a better summary?

Maybe it was influenced by a kitchen appliance or some sort of electric razor instead of an airplane. Who knows.

 

[chfilm]

Geez, give the man some rest and take some deep breaths, I don't know if the intel here is coming from a real insider or not, but why not for one moment accept the possibility it was?
If so I just wanted to thank the TS for the very interesting thoughts and informations about how things might have come together here. Whoever read the jobs bio and knows how Ive approached design in the past can see some resemblance. I don't find the way of thinking that was presented to us that unlikely. Can totally see apple thinking that way. I'm so pumped for the nmp and how it will perform. And actually I just don't understand why anyone with big storage needs (like myself as an editor) could seriously complain about this machine, it gives you THE BEST storage expandability that ever existed with TB2. Every current Mac Pro owner that I know has dozens of external FireWire 800 hdds with data spread all over them, while I'm happy on my iMac with promise Pegasus 12TB raid via thunderbolt. If I imagine the nmp with the new solution from Pegasus attached to it...omg! so, I really don't understand the discontent and suspicion against the thread starter.

----------

- from all of the negative comments I deduced that the performance isn't high enough and the TB2 storage solutions cost too much. Which is fair enough.

There is always a person who feels estranged when evolution goes from Ape to Man or from Fish to Bird.

They should just go buy cheap usb3 drives, still heck of a lot better than those FireWire 800 or esata drives.

 

[MiJuConcept]

I am simply pointing out inherent contradictions in what you are saying. As an engineer (granted, bioE, not EE/CS), I like to think I know a thing or two about engineering principles.

Reread the rhetorical command that you posed to me in your reply. That in and of itself IS the compromise Apple is making by building the machine (to paraphrase you, 500W power envelope, small form factor, etc).; to conform to the design, and all of its merits, there were sacrifices made. If it were truly no compromise, those limitations would not exist in the first place.

I for one like the design and many of the features that it espouses. I am not "estranged" by Apple's design shift. I am also not a layman spewing forth babble on topics I know nothing about.

The computer design fits the constraints which are enforceable within the lifetime of the new model. These constraints are not part of the thinking people use this week but it will slowly shift.

I find your comments to be largely philosophical and based on unrestricted builds. I assume we all did that thing where we click on every possible option in the BUILD YOUR OWN section and worked out a spec for a machine that would cost as much as a house. Those days are gone ......

 

[ybz90]

I find your comments to be largely philosophical and based on unrestricted builds. I assume we all did that thing where we click on every possible option in the BUILD YOUR OWN section and worked out a spec for a machine that would cost as much as a house. Those days are gone ......

False. I'm not talking about price at all, but concrete, physical compromises made to engineer the item.

There were serious compromises in designing this computer, and my point in all this is that there are always compromises. That is what engineering is; minimizing acceptable compromises to get your product to fit predetermined limitations. If we take the old Mac Pro, there were compromises too.

My issue was with your characterization of the nMP as "no compromise engineering", that's all. Not only is this untrue, but the nMP actually features far more compromises than the old MP. Whether this is worth it is not the issue I'm arguing, just that it's not the glorious, perfect machine you make it out to be.

 

[flat five]

but the nMP actually features far more compromises than the old MP.

like what? no bulk storage inside?

because that's not a compromise-- it's a feature.

it may be a compromise for you, the buyer, as it doesn't fit your ideals/wants/needs but make no mistake-- the computer was designed that way on purpose.. it's not like they were sitting around going "well, we really want to put bulk storage inside but alas, we won't be able to" (i.e.- that would be a compromise).. from their point of view, it's "we're going to put bulk storage outside because that's where it belongs and put super sweet working storage inside because that's where it belongs"

again, it may be a compromise for you personally to buy the computer..

an example of an actual compromise which the designers faced is- "well, we'd really like it if the computer didn't have to have a power cord attached to it but alas, we need to so let's figure out where to put the socket"


anyway- using 'compromise' as if it's a derogatory word then rebutting the phrase 'no compromise engineering' with it as if they're antonyms will just lead to miscommunication..

 

[ybz90]

it's not like they were sitting around going "well, we really want to put bulk storage inside but alas, we won't be able to" (i.e.- that would be a compromise)..

from their point of view, it's "we're going to put bulk storage outside because that's where it belongs and put super sweet working storage inside because that's where it belongs"

LOL. You again. Stay in your own thread, don't go elsewhere to troll.

And actually, I'm sure that's exactly what happened over the course of hundreds/thousands of design iterations. At some point, designers and engineers probably did say, after they decided to commit to the thermal core design, "bummer, we can't put storage in there but fortunately, SSDs are all the rage now and Thunderbolt alleviates this concern so that's an acceptable compromise to us as we believe the benefits of this form factor outweigh the cons."

like what? no bulk storage inside?

because that's not a compromise-- it's a feature.

Comments like yours are precisely what people say when they mock Apple and the fanboyism that often accompanies it. Only you're actually serious. It's frankly mindblowing that someone can post what you just said and mean it. Mind. Blowing.

 

[flat five]

that's a sweet gif
#

 

[beaker7]

Next we'll be told the single socket and obsolete GPUs are a feature because we'll get more coffee breaks, waiting for things to process.

"Everyone loves coffee breaks, so let's make the machine slower to enable them."

 

[flat five]

Comments like yours are precisely what people say when they mock Apple and the fanboyism that often accompanies it. Only you're actually serious. It's frankly mindblowing that someone can post what you just said and mean it. Mind. Blowing.

flip it around for a different look.. you're an engineer, right? you consider multiple angles i assume?

what if someone's last working project folder weighs in at 163MB.. and maybe they spent 1 solid week computing then 2 weeks onsite using said data and maybe generating a hair more.. then take a week off..
or basically, this person generates around 200MB per month.

the work, albeit small in file size, requires a lot of processing in order to arrive at completion.. a pro grade computer is needed (or is much better suited for) for the work.


so when it comes time to purchase a computer, is that person supposed to believe the design team has made a flaw or 'bad compromise' since the computer doesn't serve their needs precisely? you know, because it has all those hard drive bays in there?

or would you say:
_no need for hd bays -- computer has 5_
is not an engineering compromise

while:
_need 5 hd bays -- computer has 1 _
is an engineering compromise

?

are these not the same things in reverse? this stuff is strictly on the buyers' side.. if the computer doesn't suit you then don't buy it.. if it suits you in more ways than it doesn't suit you then make a compromise and buy it.. if it suits you well then don't compromise and buy it.

trying to blame an engineer who is designing for millions of people on the fact that the final product doesn't perfectly suit your exact precious desires.. is (derogatory word)


the irony in all of this is that i'm defending you, an engineer, in this.. but you're battling me over it.

 

[goMac]

The amount of complaining about the hard drive bays blows my mind. I'm not crazy enough to claim it's a "feature", because it's not, but it's a relatively easily solvable "problem", and a limit of 4 internal bays does not make for lots of expansion anyway.

There are a lot of external solutions that are way better than the 4 internal bays in a Mac Pro. And the number of people who can't figure out where to put a second box somewhere also boggles my mind.

Mac Pro users are supposed to be the creative ones, right?

 

[Rich.Cohen]

but the nMP actually features far more compromises than the old MP.

That is highly debatable. To truly argue that position, you must first establish a metric of compromise and that is very difficult. It is even more difficult because the two designs where created to satisfy different detailed requirements which probably put different weights on different characteristics and had different nominal targets for the characteristics they shared. On top of that the designs where created many years apart in the face of different external constrains. I would challenge anyone to come up with a meaningful metric to compare the amount of compromise between the two designs and a doubt you could get many people to agree that metric was valid.

I hope and trust the Apple's engineers did a good job making compromises to meet their assigned objectives. I intend to buy one and will therefor be putting my money behind that hope.

I should also point out that every buyers value metric will be different from the value metric given the the engineers. That will affect the quality of the design compromises in the eyes of the buyers, but should not be used to evaluate the quality of the design. Any criticism of the value metric given the engineers is a criticism of management and marketing, not engineering. A lot of the threads in this forum have essentially been arguments about that quality metric or have been based on the assumption that a particular users quality metric should have been given to the designers.

I've worked in the metrics area and it is a real challenge. For example, do you always agree with Consumer Report's product scores?

 

[LeandrodaFL]

Dude, the inspiration was a trash can

 

[ybz90]

the irony in all of this is that i'm defending you, an engineer, in this.. but you're battling me over it.

You have a bad understanding of what engineering means and you miss my points completely. This has nothing to do with value, prices, or the points of view of the end user. I'm talking from the point of view of the designers themselves.

To simplify, like I did in the other thread for you, from which you followed me here to troll me after I started ignoring you there:
1. There is no such thing as zero compromise engineering.
2. Compromises are neither good nor bad; I never said they were bad, which seems to be the crux of your (mis)interpretations. They are inherently both -- you give up something to get another.
3. The nMP is full of compromises. It is defined by compromising certain features to conform to the specific set of limitations resulting from the design and thermal form factor. I actually like the nMP and will probably get one for work. But it's still full of compromises.

And not having bulk storage is not feature. Some users will care, some won't. But again, it's a compromise because I'm sure Apple wanted both the form factor and expandability (two good things in their view) but had to choose one (form factor). Consumer preferences are irrelevant.

Get it? Jesus.

----------

That is highly debatable. To truly argue that position, you must first establish a metric of compromise and that is very difficult.

Very fair, in my opinion there are more compromises but arguments can be made either way. But there is no doubt it's not compromise free, and there are certain users here proclaiming it to be the pinnacle of engineering.