Rich, as I said in the other thread, it's time to ignore these clowns. You've got better things to do. When these two get their engineering degrees, then their words carry weight.
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.
Insider preview of the 2013 Mac Pro design principles.
- Thread starter MiJuConcept
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Rich, as I said in the other thread, it's time to ignore these clowns. You've got better things to do. When these two get their engineering degrees, then their words carry weight.
OK. The post you replied to said the SR-71 was seven orders of magnitude more difficult an engineering job.
I think that was an extreme exaggeration.
On the other hand, you said "it was harder for humans to arrive at -or- more engineering went in to today's computers than high flying spy planes.."
Certainly the nMP represent more advanced technology over a considerable range of technologies than the SR-71, but that's the standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants effect. As a step forward, I'm willing to argue the SR-71 was a much larger step than the nMP. The only computer I can think of that comes close in terms of step forward size is the IBM 360.
nah.. it's a bomb on wings.. their biggest challenge was to make sure it doesn't fall apart
(i kid, i kid)
dunno.. when i see things such as an sr71, the main sweetness isn't even that it's an engineering marvel.. there's more to it.. because it can be traced to a single person. a genius.. at the pinnacle of their abilities/knowledge.. who more/less solved all the considerable challenges in the project single handily.
the other engineers assisted the genius..
(and please @anybody.. don't think i'm trying to make some sort of nmp sjobs comparison there)
hmm.. maybe
but bringing the computers back into it..
the steps are:
mac pro -> new mac pro
U2 -> SR-71
i guess it's arguable which are larger steps but it would take too long to arrive at a conclusion.. there are 2000 different ways to look at it and you'd have to go through all of them prior to determining which step is bigger..
And that would be totally valid if this theoretical chef were trying to do business consulting.
We are engineers trying to explain to you why your proclamations and assumptions on topics within the engineering domain are in fact factually incorrect. Many of these contentious topics are not matters of differences of opinion; you guys are actually spreading misinformation.
If you actually know better than we do about these things, which you two seem to think you do, perhaps you apply for jobs at Apple. And if not, maybe you should defer to the actual experts.
EDIT: Also, in reference to the SR-71, the challenges, especially unforeseen ones that might never occur before in simulations or controlled testing, to produce a supersonic stealth jet, regardless of prior existing technology, is orders of magnitude greater than engineering a computer like the nMP.
Plus, the nMP is NOT even that novel. There is nothing groundbreaking about it from a technological standpoint, just its form factor is unique. The way the central thermal core works is fundamentally no different than a water cooling system with blocks that cool the CPU, GPU, etc through a central reservoir.
It was more like U2 -> A12 Blackbird -> SR-71 Blackbird
In any case, how hard something is should be reflected in how long it took to make a quantum shift .... in the case of planes it took about 100 years and Apple reinvented personal computing in about 30 years. So I dont know why everyone is suggesting that it wasnt tough to do. I can see people working on single elements of these problems for years at a time, such as the nMP fan. To suggest it took little or few engineering hours to build that the main nMP fan is a misconception.... it delayed the build by one year.
what does that have to do with anything? i'm an engineer as well.. is that going to change anything?
Again, it's not even comparable on scale. This year delay you reference, assuming this is true, means nothing without context to the project size. How many engineers, designers, and research dollars do you think were poured into the entire nMP project? Now compare that to the sheer man-hours required to design a single turbine blade, let alone a turbine, let alone the structure, let alone the material development, etc for the SR-71. Come on, dude. Just think about it.
Your assertion is vague and that is being generous. You could back this up with a production model from somewhere else which comes close on all dimensions and technical specs.
Perhaps we can do an experimental build where you spec out the parts and we look at the overall outcome and discuss its merits. As I am sure this conversation was had in 2010 when the idea broke the surface. How did we go from something Shuttle would design in Germany to something MOMA would accept in a heartbeat.
Im afraid the god is in the detail. Not in the generalizations.
No, it's really not. The thermal core is just a triagonal prism of some sort of heat dissipating metal. It is bounded on each of its sides by one heat source, a CPU and two GPUs. The novelty is that all three can share a single heatsink, therefore minimizing parts, size, and streamlining the cooling into a single unidirectional air pipe. Is this specific enough for you?
I can send you a picture of my water cooled PC if you want. You may not understand this analogy, but the fundamental concept is identical. All Apple did was pool the heatsinks into one reservoir for the heat. The design is unique and innovative, but there is no groundbreaking new technology here.
dunno.. seems more like a spec bump to me.
seems like they probably used the same turbine blade as the one before.. probably tweaked/refined a little..
regardless.. it does appear most of your 'sheer man-hours' happened prior to the development of the sr71
Again, scale and unforeseen issues. What happens when you change the shape of plane even a tiny bit? Potentially enormous consequences. Or the material of a plating? How about weight? Does it even still fly, let alone perform as well/better? Tell me, what happens when do you any of those things to a Mac Pro, using equivalent analogies. Yeah, the nMP was such a huge step forward compared to the SR-71. /s
I'm not trivializing the effort that went into designing the nMP. I will repeat what I've said before -- I am getting one, probably a maxed out model for work. But really, it's not some archetype of brilliant computer building. It's great, but its far from perfect and is full of compromises. And technologically speaking, it's nothing special. Definitely not even on the level of something like the SR-71.
I believe the article which references the cooling system was written up either in New Yorker or Flipboard.
Inventions can be simple - so simple that even an engineer with a lifetime of experience cannot grasp the importance.
----------
Well then I hope you enjoy your first SR-72 flyover. It will make you eat these words.
idk.. i feels as if you're putting too much emphasis on death.. (fwiw, over 1/3 of sr71s crashed)
as in- if i make a mistake on this wing rivet, someone could die -vs- if i mess up on this cpu socket, the computer will overheat..
but one doesn't necessarily present a tougher engineering challenge than the other based on death alone.. even though the consequence of mistake are more severe..
dunno.. i've led projects in which death is a very real factor.. but building this thing was a lot easier than some of the other stuff i've built.
maybe - maybe not.. it's all in which angle you look at it from..
i know it will be incredibly outdated and caveman in 50 years but for now, it's all we got.. this thing is going to win all sorts of design / engineering awards etc (if it works right).. from well respected peers etc.
i know it sounds all cheesy to most people here if a few of the members are hyping it up from an engineering standpoint but if you think that's bad, wait til the engineering community as a whole gets one of these things in their hands.. you're going to be extra super annoyed then.
fwiw, regarding the size of step..
i'd liken the old mac's step to the new one more along these lines:
granted, the purposing is much different between the two comparisons as the original purpose of the sr71 has been dealt with via technology other than aircraft.. so that aside if you can.
i'd liken the old mac's step to the new one more along these lines:
granted, the purposing is much different between the two comparisons as the original purpose of the sr71 has been dealt with via technology other than aircraft.. so that aside if you can.
The irony, like the flying wing from WWII which became the B2, the nMP was initially discussed in Germany and then brought to the USA afterwards. Hence the reason why the public information was published on this thread. History seems to be on a loop tape sometimes.
You're right, but they are so good at hitting one of my hot buttons and I rant.
----------
nah.. it's a bomb on wings.. their biggest challenge was to make sure it doesn't fall apart
(i kid, i kid)
dunno.. when i see things such as an sr71, the main sweetness isn't even that it's an engineering marvel.. there's more to it.. because it can be traced to a single person. a genius.. at the pinnacle of their abilities/knowledge.. who more/less solved all the considerable challenges in the project single handily.
the other engineers assisted the genius..
(and please @anybody.. don't think i'm trying to make some sort of nmp sjobs comparison there)
I've been a fan of the SR-71 since I first heard of it in the late 1960's. It is a great aircraft and has held a number of important records for more than 40 years, a phenomenal achievement.
Kelly Johnson was an engineering genius. I'm sure he provided to coherent vision of what they were creating that allow his team of engineers to more easily solve many of the problems they faced. BUT he probably solved only a few of those problems himself.
I think we can probably say the same about Sir Jonathan Paul Ive with regard to the nMP.
----------
Just for the record, trade-off is the term I use most. Compromise comes in second. I have used balance occasionally.
I also prefer to speak of defects rather than bugs.
----------
I think the new Mac Pro is an elegant design worthy of Jony Ive. I just object to some of the over-the-top rhetoric. The engineering community tends to be restrained in evaluating designs, it's the press that really goes over the top in both praise and condemnation.
in the words of the great Bender, "hahaha, oh wait you're serious. Let me laugh even harder! HAHAHAHA"
The parallels you people are drawing between the nMP and spy planes is right up there with the 9/11 conspiracy people. You aren't stretching, you are doing the splits.
Mr Cohen, I have no gripe with your engineering vision. I simply dont follow you on design at all. I personally have never met an engineer that would allow themselves to take a far fetched concept purely on the basis of beauty, style and art. That is what makes engineers reliable and well grounded. The ability to stand in a room of paintings and see the emotional connection with something a fashion designer would do to clothing. Im not sold on the pure rational approach for that reason.
The bottom line is that I dont impose emotions on you any more than you impose logic on me. But I draw the line at asking all and sundry to buy into the argument that rational and literal meaning can only be drawn by a logic process. You wouldnt be able to explain a Ferrari in that way or any other magnificently engineered object of power and speed. Yet, you hint at appreciation and enjoyment but deny all association with the conceptual development process. It's your option naturally but I dislike your minions calling us idiots ... since us idiots do the hard work in breaking away from dinosaur ideas. You may find some exception in declaring the result a great triumph for the nMP but you havent seen the response from the industry overall.
The opinions of all people in this forum are valid. Its a trash can, a compromise, a triumph and fail, a win and it is amazing. Why would I not accept that as part of the internet fabric.
----------
Did you offer a better design explanation ?
Whether the nMP is a design triumph or not is a matter of opinion.
Actually i wish they had used the SR-71 as inspiration from a performance standpoint. Then the nMP wouldn't have made such dramatic performance tradeoffs to fit a desired form.
Maybe the exterior of the nMP will be so influenced by the SR-71 that it too will reach 500 degrees.
Actually i wish they had used the SR-71 as inspiration from a performance standpoint. Then the nMP wouldn't have made such dramatic performance tradeoffs to fit a desired form.
Maybe the exterior of the nMP will be so influenced by the SR-71 that it too will reach 500 degrees.
Ok so I'm being sucked into this one: I have a few questions about the project itself and Apples philosophy and approach to the "traditional" desktop space.
We all know Apple has shifted focus to their baby, the iphone, and iOS. They are now expanding with peripherals all based off this new direction with and iPad and this new "wearable" or watch probably coming out next fall.
There were rumors for months that apple was debating abandoning the pro market because the investment vs payoff of a new redesign was a negative sum.
How was this handled or discussed internally?
Did they give any restrictions what so ever to the design teams?
What was the decision to do dual video instead of dual CPU?
Have you heard any rumblings about a new Cinema Display?
We all know Apple has shifted focus to their baby, the iphone, and iOS. They are now expanding with peripherals all based off this new direction with and iPad and this new "wearable" or watch probably coming out next fall.
There were rumors for months that apple was debating abandoning the pro market because the investment vs payoff of a new redesign was a negative sum.
How was this handled or discussed internally?
Did they give any restrictions what so ever to the design teams?
What was the decision to do dual video instead of dual CPU?
Have you heard any rumblings about a new Cinema Display?
Insider preview of the 2013 Mac Pro design principles.
I'm pretty sure it went something like this...
Tim: Mac Pro sales are steadily dropping and the folks on MacRumors are starting to think the Mac Pro is dead... What should we do?
Phil: We need something to resurrect our reputation for innovation. Jony, what can we do with this "Truck"?
Jony: <English accent> I just bought a Dyson on the weekend, I think I have an idea...
I'm pretty sure it went something like this...
Tim: Mac Pro sales are steadily dropping and the folks on MacRumors are starting to think the Mac Pro is dead... What should we do?
Phil: We need something to resurrect our reputation for innovation. Jony, what can we do with this "Truck"?
Jony: <English accent> I just bought a Dyson on the weekend, I think I have an idea...
Last edited:
going with the last point first-- did jony ive even design the nmp? i'm under the impression he designed the imac but not the new mac pro.. can someone clarify?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
regarding the other thing- i could definitely of written that in a different way to describe what i meant by "when i see things such as an sr71, the main sweetness isn't even that it's an engineering marvel"
i mean, i don't even believe what i wrote at face value because it sounds like i could of been saying "it's a great accomplishment based on the fact that one person did it as opposed to a team of people.. and that's what amazes me." that's really not what i meant.
to try to say it differently:
the a12, to me, looks to be a purer design based off these two pictures (granted, it could be the difference in lens perspective which is causing me to say this)..
the sr71 looks to have attempted slightly more softend / less angular approach.. it appears as if the gist of the original idea (for lack of better words) has shown through more prominently in the a12 than the sr71 regardless of the sr71 being the more advanced version.. i'm sure many will argue that the engineering dictated the aesthetics and while i agree with that in many regards, i also know an aircraft designer has more aesthetic choice than some people are making it out to be..
for instance:
this picture tries to show that everything on an aircraft doesn't have to be so exact/perfect/precise from an engineering standpoint to the extent that a designer has zero freedom of how the plane actually looks or is shaped
that's supposed to be an exaggerated example of showing that if a designer chooses to make, say, a wing one foot longer then they do have the freedom/looseness to do so without automatically suffering some sort of engineering imposed penalty.. it's usually design first -> engineering second.. at least on items which cause widespread wow and awe.
i'm not quite sure people who have spoken so negatively etc in the thread up to now will actually admit what it is that they like so much about the sr71.. or why it was the most awesome thing in the world to them when they were 8years old.. but i truly (yes, truly) believe it's because of how it looks 1st & foremost.. the color/shape/sleekness/etc..
the specs (altitude/speed/etc) comes in second and further adds to the appreciation of step1.. the actual engineering aspects come some time after and are a much less important factor in causing someone to say "wow, that's amazing"
Last edited: