Intel 'officially' releases E5 Xeons

[ValSalva]

Maybe Apple will release the new Mac Pro around the NAB conference in mid-April.

For sure Apple will not release it before then because of their desire to keep all their attention on the new iPad. The Mac Pro and the iPad are completely different devices with completely different target markets but Apple doesn't have infinite resources. They aren't going to allow for any chance at hiccups in iPad mania which makes sense given how much money it makes them.

 

[derbothaus]

Maybe Apple will release the new Mac Pro around the NAB conference in mid-April.

Very possible, actually. They wouldn't steal any iDevice thunder and they would be catering to their target audience. They seem to only really concentrate on one major thing at a time giving plenty of breathing room between. Of course they could release everything at once but that has never been their's or even the tech worlds style. Crumbs of updates with a hint of planned obsolescence keeps the wallets phat.

 

[xgman]

For sure Apple will not release it before then because of their desire to keep all their attention on the new iPad.

Do you honestly think that news of MP would keep any attention off the ipad? Apples and Oranges. No effect whatsoever. I personally will buy both. Apple will release it when it is ready, period. We tend to over think these things.

 

[Umbongo]

Maybe Apple will release the new Mac Pro around the NAB conference in mid-April.

For sure Apple will not release it before then because of their desire to keep all their attention on the new iPad. The Mac Pro and the iPad are completely different devices with completely different target markets but Apple doesn't have infinite resources. They aren't going to allow for any chance at hiccups in iPad mania which makes sense given how much money it makes them.

If only 10,000 processors had shipped by the 6th I doubt Apple are ready to launch. Some time in April is well within a realistic time frame for a new Mac Pro.

 

[ValSalva]

Do you honestly think that news of MP would keep any attention off the ipad? Apples and Oranges. No effect whatsoever. I personally will buy both. Apple will release it when it is ready, period. We tend to over think these things.

No I don't think a new Mac Pro release would take any significant attention away from the iPad. In fact it would just be more good press for Apple.

However I think Apple wants unity in their marketing and doesn't want any possibility of distraction. And who knows, maybe Apple doesn't want the iPad to completely overshadow a new Mac Pro.

 

[-hh]

That's like saying Mercedes shouldn't update the SL500 line right after the C320 is refreshed. 2 completely different markets and Apple has separate resources working on each line.

I'm not so sure the analogy holds, since it isn't like a new C class is going to swamp all of the dealership's salesmen for 3-4 weeks with lines of customers.

But even if it did apply, it still comes down to the question of what are you going to tell your sales force to focus on: selling ten C's per day at $5K profit per pop ($50K/day), versus an occasional S for $20K profit.

I don't see a silent MP refresh interfering with anything. They will pop when they are ready, but, they are obviously not a priority for Apple.

Any new product is going to require some fixed amount of resources to deploy. For example, when the arrive at the Apple Stores, all sales staff are probably should get an hour or three of familiarization training...those are hours lost in which they're not pumping out iPads through the front doors.

My point is simply that from a business sense, it is good business to let the iPad surge peak go by before throwing another new product out there: it is a straightforward "resource levelling" management decision.


-hh

 

[xgman]

Any new product is going to require some fixed amount of resources to deploy. For example, when the arrive at the Apple Stores, all sales staff are probably should get an hour or three of familiarization training...those are hours lost in which they're not pumping out iPads through the front doors.

I doubt they will even continue to carry these at stores save for maybe one per large store.

 

[deconstruct60]

I understand your points, but I'm not convinced that this was the causality in the case of the 2010 MP's.

1. They were drop-in parts for existing boards (Nehalem based), which made it possible to get systems shipping quickly.
2. Even though it wasn't a complete update in terms of full line-up, and they were late, other vendors such as HP and Dell managed to get systems shipping before Apple.

So Apple should just copy HP and Dell "monkey see , monkey do" strategy? I don't buy the rationale behind that.

One reason PC vendors nickel and dime over extremely minor spec details ( Intel dropping minor speed bumps) is that there is retatlively little product differentation between there products. Dell's computer runs the same set of Windows programs at almost identical speeds that HP's computers run the exact same set of programs when the hardware is matched up. So there is a constant race to put some relatively minor doo-hicky on to your box that your competitors don't have.

This is exactly why PCs end up looking like the results of "feature wars". Bubba's got a VGA socket. Put a VGA socket on mine. Oh look PS/2 sockets... yeah slap those on too. Why? because those other guys have them. The evolves over time into competing and lengthening feature check lists. PCs are sold with "ooh look" this one has 38 features a full page long and higher GHz ... that one only has 32 features on a half page and is 20MHz slower.

Apple doesn't have that problem. They write a whole different OS for there hardware. That in and of itself is a huge difference. It also obviates the need to drop "3% faster clock" product updates which in the big picture are that much different.

Seems more likely based on the expiration of contracts between Apple and Intel IMO (i.e. no longer had early delivery dates for CPU's due to the expiration of the previous CPU contract, and ended up with longer lead times for the next CPU's they selected due to a reduced volume - recession impact).

Errrr. if Apple is sticking to "older" CPUs then really shouldn't be a problem with getting Intel to sign a bridge contract to keep selling them. It is actually cheaper for Intel to keep selling what was already mature than to jump to newer product.

I do that Apple changed the contract length and prices. But only to adjust to the extended delays that Intel was putting on the table. So since Intel was pragmatically driving the delay Apple signs a longer contract at lower prices with Intel. They punt on the "speed bump" crumbs that Intel was going to over the other "spec chasers" for lower costs upfront on the newer chips there were going to buy. So instead of 10% off the list price for 8 months and then a later contract or 15% for another 8, that they would demand 12-13% off for 16 months. Intel takes it trading off steady state production for lower upfront profits.

The wailing about how Apple "has to lower costs" at the 8 month mark because Intel lowered the prices to the other vendors .... chuckle that was already factored into Mac Pro prices already. Apple is riding out the lower upgrade volume all along with higher margins per unit and zero necessity to lower prices.

When not desperately sitting across the table from Intel something like this is more plausible. The vendors who gotta have some minor bump now or hiccup in profits this quarter don't have that kind of leverage.

[ Last conference call Tim Cook commented the hard drive floods had zero impact because they had contract pricing. Apple uses their capital to remove pricing risks . I have no idea why folks think they run around buy stuff spot market (and so systems should reflect spot market pricing) or not longer term. Apple is always planning 2-3 years out when most PC vendors are just worrying about the next 3 quarters. ]

If using a 2-3 year window perspective of how to move with the Mac Pro there was zero reason to move in unison updates with the other PC vendors back in 2010. None.

 

[TheGoblin]

That's like saying Mercedes shouldn't update the SL500 line right after the C320 is refreshed. 2 completely different markets and Apple has separate resources working on each line. I don't see a silent MP refresh interfering with anything. They will pop when they are ready, but, they are obviously not a priority for Apple.

I don't think its that Apple is concerned with Mac Pros eating into their iPad profit but more so that they need to have a consistent marketing message.

They can't just say "we have our feet firmly planted in the Post-PC era" then say oh one more thing we're going to release this big honking PC era workstation at the same time.

True, one has no bearing on the other and most people looking to buy a Mac Pro would have no concerns with also buying an iPad but their marketing message gets blurred a bit.

 

[deconstruct60]

Maybe Apple will release the new Mac Pro around the NAB conference in mid-April.

It is an extremely dubious move for two large reasons.

First, it goes against Apple's policy of coupling products to 3rd party conventions. Other people don't drive product releases. Apple drops them when they are ready and has the parts. Obviously, Apple is highly dependent upon suppliers. However, it is dubious to through additional constraints on top of that with even more 3rd parties.

If Nvidia, AMD, or Intel synch up to the conventions then they can drag Apple around a bit with them. However, sitting back waiting? Not really. They have openly stated they were not going to follow that approach.


Second, this is one of the major flaws in Mac Pro's perception now. "Mac Pros are only useful as broadcast workstations". Poppycock! Synchronizing to that convention only reinforces the notion rather than dispel it.

If the Mac Pro is only useful as a broadcast workstation they should just kill it now. It is a fixed sized, niche market with dubious and large sunk costs.

What the Mac Pro desperately needs is a new contexts where it is more broadly seen as a useful tool.

 

[deconstruct60]

They can't just say "we have our feet firmly planted in the Post-PC era" then say oh one more thing we're going to release this big honking PC era workstation at the same time.

There is nothing inconsistent with that. The "Post PC" era is merely an era where there are other form factors of roughly pier status of being Personal Computers. Not that there are no more Personal Computers. Just that the size, shape, and scope isn't fixed in 1992 definitions.

Nobody at Apple is saying "boxes with slots" are going to totally disappear. Just that they are not the dominate form factor. Go back to Jobs "trucks versus cars" story. He never said trucks would disappear. (obviously because they haven't). Only that they aren't the dominate form. Not that "automoble" companies should stop making trucks if they had successful models.

I really don't understand this hysteria. Just a couple of weeks ago Apple went around to a sizable group of journalists , bloggers, etc. and told them point blank that they were in the OS X market.

The core issue folks waving their hands here are not addressing is how the OS X market is inherently detached from the Mac Pro. It is not. People can make up excuses how, but they are weak as water.


Logistically delivering a Mac Pro right now has problems. There is no need to invent other rationales.

 

[nanofrog]

So Apple should just copy HP and Dell "monkey see , monkey do" strategy? I don't buy the rationale behind that.

It has nothing to do with "monkey see, monkey do".

I'm talking about the Intel's basic strategy with their Tick-Tock cycles. As a result:

1. Apple knew what parts were coming down the line as a vendor (Development Partner) in order to make their CPUID choices for their suitable products.
2. Had access to Engineering Samples in order to iron out any kinks, particularly with firmware.

Given the following facts, they weren't blind-sided as to what was coming, and had enough time to get their systems ready to accept them.

So the fact they were late, is either they had longer lead times on components (CPU's), they still didn't get started early enough, despite the fact it was less work than a new architecture, or the engineering development team that did the work are inept.

Considering these possibilities, lead times are the most likely in my experience.

Nothing to do with "keeping up with the Jones'" or feature creep.

Errrr. if Apple is sticking to "older" CPUs then really shouldn't be a problem with getting Intel to sign a bridge contract to keep selling them. It is actually cheaper for Intel to keep selling what was already mature than to jump to newer product.

Cheaper for Intel, yes. But it can also stall sales for the vendor if newer parts surface in other products for an extended period of time.

From what I recall, there were quite a few "wait, unless you absolutely have no choice" in various threads where people needed a system back in Q1 2010.

As per contracts, volume is a significant factor as you well know. Unfortunately, the overall workstation market is shrinking, and the MP isn't demonstrating it's an exception.

Combine the changes Nehalem brought (no longer able to use a dual socket board that can serve both SP and DP systems = more of the base CPUID selected) with the recession, its reasonable that the volume was substantially reduced. Under such conditions, Intel would be less generous during negotiations than they had been previously for Xeons with Apple.

A Perfect Storm of sorts that made a significant reduction in purchase volume, giving Apple less negotiating power.

The negotiations between Dell or other vendors and Intel don't really figure into it in regard to Apple. They each have their own models (i.e. PC versions offering damn near every CPUID in the series Intel offers vs. Apple just sells 3 per sub-segment <SP and DP respectively>).

Where I do see the PC versions having the additional leverage, is even though they're buying more CPUID's for a particular system (more configurations), their volume was high enough to allow it. That's all.

 

[TheGoblin]

There is nothing inconsistent with that. The "Post PC" era is merely an era where there are other form factors of roughly pier status of being Personal Computers. Not that there are no more Personal Computers. Just that the size, shape, and scope isn't fixed in 1992 definitions.

...

Logistically delivering a Mac Pro right now has problems. There is no need to invent other rationales.

I'm not saying the Mac Pro is inconsistent with Apple's overall strategy or that Apple is only interested in Post PC devices and the Mac Pro is dead. But if you have an event purely focused on iPad, iCloud, AppleTv and as Tim Cook puts it devices that need to be "more mobile" you do not release a new Desktop at or around said event. It goes against the things Apple wants you to focus on. It's the same deal that they aren't going to release new MacBook Airs near the iPad event. They don't want cloud the water with to many messages to consumers.

Apple is going to release new Mac Pros when they are ready to release new Mac Pros and they are going to release them in a way that doesn't conflict with the message they are trying to send. And right now that message is for most people you can do everything you want to do on a computer with a "Post PC" device.

Trust me I've got my piggy bank stashed away waiting for the new Mac Pros and will be buying one as soon as they are released. No hysteria here, no inventing rationales for Mac Pros not being releases. Its just a real thing that Apple does. Apple controls it's message and releases products when it's ready.

 

[deconstruct60]

It has nothing to do with "monkey see, monkey do".

I'm talking about the Intel's basic strategy with their Tick-Tock cycles. As a result:

Intel doesn't dictate to Apple when to ship a product. They don't.

1. Apple knew what parts were coming down the line as a vendor (Development Partner) in order to make their CPUID choices for their suitable products.

This is the fact you seem to want to flush down the toilet. They know ahead of time what the roadmap actually going to be. It not like they were caught flatfooted on Intel's launch day with the fact the follow on was going to be like. I'm as saying they new that before the launch and before they committed to a specific launch date.

This is exactly the benefit of not attaching Apple's launch dates to external 3rd parties. Apple can move when Apple wants to as long as they have the parts to move with. It is not Intel's call.

So the fact they were late, is either they had longer lead times on components (CPU's), they still didn't get started early enough, despite the fact it was less work than a new architecture, or the engineering development team that did the work are inept.

Or the purposely deleted option here of deliberately delaying what they already had ready for their own long term tactical and strategic reasons(e.g., splitting up the incured delay for customers over two years.) . It is not incompetence to plan ahead for the delay that Intel has already told you is going to happen in the next 18 months. Apple also has smart enough folks around to know that PCI-e v3.0 was a risk factor not being potentially something that could blow up the timeline delay even further.

Cheaper for Intel, yes. But it can also stall sales for the vendor if newer parts surface in other products for an extended period of time.

An utterly moot point if Apple tells them point blank they are not going buy up the crumbs Intel dribbles of the table later. As I said, if willing to tell Intel "no" and back away from the table you have leverage. The vendors who can't say "no, never going to buy it" don't. That's Intel's problem they need for find customers for their minor speed bumps. Not Apple's. Nor would it be hard since most PC vendors have weak differentiation.

 

[thekev]

I'm not so sure the analogy holds, since it isn't like a new C class is going to swamp all of the dealership's salesmen for 3-4 weeks with lines of customers.

But even if it did apply, it still comes down to the question of what are you going to tell your sales force to focus on: selling ten C's per day at $5K profit per pop ($50K/day), versus an occasional S for $20K profit.

The car analogies have been a bit overdone here, and they're not even correct. As to the individuals who own mac pros, most also own a laptop or an ipad. It's not an exclusive product. Anyway the guys that own them seem to spend a lot on Apple stuff overall. Second issue being their retail sales force doesn't need to push them in any way. If someone is interested in one, they most likely already have an idea of their requirements.

Really the only things that clog the stores anyway are the idevices, but a few mac pro customers aren't going to change that issue in any significant way. As I mentioned before most probably buy online given some of the configuration options.

Any new product is going to require some fixed amount of resources to deploy. For example, when the arrive at the Apple Stores, all sales staff are probably should get an hour or three of familiarization training...those are hours lost in which they're not pumping out iPads through the front doors.

My point is simply that from a business sense, it is good business to let the iPad surge peak go by before throwing another new product out there: it is a straightforward "resource levelling" management decision.


-hh

This might happen for the ipads. Mac Pros aren't kept in stock at all stores. It seems to be those in major markets that carry them. They have quite a few configuration options which lend themselves to online purchasing anyway. In terms of sales staff training, they are not putting aside that kind of time on most of these products, especially not a mac pro. If you go into an Apple store and ask about the mac pro, they go searching for their resident geek unless he's not working at the time. Ask them about anything. Most of them don't know very much.

You should not expect that they're receiving hours of dedicated product familiarization with anything coming in aside from maybe the iphone/ipad. You've got a little time setting up the demo model in place of the old one with the default retail floor installation of OSX and apps. You have inventory time. Anyway if they wish to, they can even pull them from the Apple retail stores as they're not universally carried anyway. Third party retailers carry them. The Apple store carries them.

I don't even know how much of the design process goes on at Apple for this line anymore. Board updates could probably be managed by Foxconn.

That's like saying Mercedes shouldn't update the SL500 line right after the C320 is refreshed. 2 completely different markets and Apple has separate resources working on each line. I don't see a silent MP refresh interfering with anything. They will pop when they are ready, but, they are obviously not a priority for Apple.

Hehe... too many car references, but I get what you're saying anyway in that they're sold on a different basis. I don't think Apple sees this as a flagship machine, but at the same time some

 

[twoodcc]

You would think they would make a big deal out of this one. At least Apple Computer Inc. would...

maybe, but hey, a silent update is better than no update

I don't expect that they'll do any other updates during the demand surge for the iPad3 and AppleTV...from a simple business sense standpoint, one needs to be cautious when risking sales of your main product lines. Given that the iPad is a major growth area and it is starting to feel some heat from Linux tablets, if I were CEO, I'd make it very clear what is currently Corporate Priority #1.

Its possible that they'll wait until iMac updates in April/May, although I'd really hope for earlier...the March 27th date for AMD's HD7800 card could be the milestone there.

What we need is for a slightly impatient Mac Pro development team member to anonymously email MR with just a confirmational "Yeah, the new MP is all ready to go, just waiting for the boss to approve the exact date of the public launch"...

Tax refund is due any day now; that opens up a $5K budget for new hardware.


-hh

you might have a point. but they are different product lines. i don't see how it would steal any thunder from the iPad. if anything, that would just keep attention on apple more

 

[nanofrog]

Intel doesn't dictate to Apple when to ship a product. They don't.

You're still missing the point, as this is not what I said.

Intel is not aiming a gun at Apple's head and says "you will deliver systems on X date", nor did I imply that. Not even close (read more carefully).

The 2nd part of the Tick-Tock cycle has relevance as there wasn't as much work (can't be blamed on technical issues associated with new architecture). That's it. Not Intel dictating dates. Vendors can choose to get parts later if they wish, or even skip them all together (they certainly knew what was coming and when, just as any other vendor that buys directly from Intel).

Now here's where my point was truly missed I think; previous systems came early due to preferential treatment of Apple by Intel in terms of delivery dates (early delivery vs. other vendors), due to their order volume and board contracts in place. As a result, Intel was willing to offer the benefit of early delivery dates to "seal the deal" so to speak (additional incentive to get Apple to sign the dotted line).

However, that initial contract situation expired and wasn't renewed (Apple shifted to Foxconn for boards, then the CPU contract expired). Combine this with the critical fact that Apple's purchase volume on Xeons dropped significantly (architecture changes + recession), so they no longer had the leverage they had previously during contract negotiations in order to get things like early delivery dates. As a result, the earliest they could obtain CPU's was on the official release in 2010.

With reduced volume and no more board contracts, Intel doesn't have the incentive to offer terms such as early delivery dates any more. Just not enough profit in it for them to bother. Now if something changes, such as a sudden surge in volume purchasing, this could reverse. But so far, there's no indication that this will happen.

Apple is now on equal footing with other vendors in regard to CPU delivery dates, and unable to deliver systems earlier than PC vendors as they once did.

You call it planning, and to some extent it is. But not based on what you refer to as "crumbs statements", but rather going for the lowest bidder for board production and assembly in order to push margins without investing anything more.

Remember, Foxconn is essentially doing the assembly work at cost, or even a small loss, but it's more than made up for by the board contracts which are quite lucrative (more margin in boards than CPU's). Terry Guo stated this publicly if you recall, and it was reported on MR's front page.

 

[-hh]

...
you might have a point. but they are different product lines. i don't see how it would steal any thunder from the iPad. if anything, that would just keep attention on apple more

It isn't that the Mac Pro would be 'stealing thunder'... it is that to do its deployment right now would be competing for resources (eg manpower) that are being gobbled up by the iPad demand surge.

If the iPad deployment has been appointed as the corporate 'priority', a lower priority project won't be allowed to obstruct them in any way...its like a game of Frogger, and the Mac Pro is the frog.



-hh

 

[twoodcc]

It isn't that the Mac Pro would be 'stealing thunder'... it is that to do its deployment right now would be competing for resources (eg manpower) that are being gobbled up by the iPad demand surge.

If the iPad deployment has been appointed as the corporate 'priority', a lower priority project won't be allowed to obstruct them in any way...its like a game of Frogger, and the Mac Pro is the frog.



-hh

i see. you might be right. but surely apple has enough employees to do both? if not, at least release the new mac pro next month

 

[chedda]

Special Event

I think Apple may make it a special event and invite autodesk to do a demo, including 3ds max for mac ! ( or is this a recurring dream)

 

[-hh]

There is precedent at Apple

i see. you might be right. but surely apple has enough employees to do both? if not, at least release the new mac pro next month

People cost money, and Apple has been notoriously lean on manpower.

Apple has shifted manpower resources pretty dramatically before, and even went as far as issuing a press release back on 12 April 2007 to say as much during an announcement of a 5 month slip in the delivery schedule for OS X Leopard.


"...iPhone... had to borrow some key software engineering and QA resources from our Mac OS X team, and as a result we will not be able to release Leopard at our Worldwide Developers Conference in early June as planned....{we will} ship Leopard in October. We think it will be well worth the wait. Life often presents tradeoffs, and in this case we're sure we've made the right ones."

BTW, in tracking this down, I found the following to be interesting. This Apple press release is cited by multiple Tech news sites, such as this, this and this ... but that original statement is absent from Apple's own Press Releases library for 2007, as one can see here.

I've sent an email off to Apple PR asking them where (if?) they've locally archived their own statement.


-hh

 

[xgman]

Next year it will all be moot. The writing is on the wall:

"Led by Apple's iPad, tablet sales seen exceeding desktop PCs in 2013

Industry insiders now believe there will be greater consumer demand for the rapidly expanding tablet market, led by Apple's iPad, than there will be for desktop PCs in 2013."

 

[twoodcc]

People cost money, and Apple has been notoriously lean on manpower.

Apple has shifted manpower resources pretty dramatically before, and even went as far as issuing a press release back on 12 April 2007 to say as much during an announcement of a 5 month slip in the delivery schedule for OS X Leopard.


"...iPhone... had to borrow some key software engineering and QA resources from our Mac OS X team, and as a result we will not be able to release Leopard at our Worldwide Developers Conference in early June as planned....{we will} ship Leopard in October. We think it will be well worth the wait. Life often presents tradeoffs, and in this case we're sure we've made the right ones."

BTW, in tracking this down, I found the following to be interesting. This Apple press release is cited by multiple Tech news sites, such as this, this and this ... but that original statement is absent from Apple's own Press Releases library for 2007, as one can see here.

I've sent an email off to Apple PR asking them where (if?) they've locally archived their own statement.


-hh

yeah i remember that. but that was software stuff (i think). either way, next month it needs to happen

Next year it will all be moot. The writing is on the wall:

"Led by Apple's iPad, tablet sales seen exceeding desktop PCs in 2013

Industry insiders now believe there will be greater consumer demand for the rapidly expanding tablet market, led by Apple's iPad, than there will be for desktop PCs in 2013."

i know. i'm scared at the thought of that.

 

[Netquity]

There is nothing inconsistent with that. The "Post PC" era is merely an era where there are other form factors of roughly pier status of being Personal Computers. Not that there are no more Personal Computers. Just that the size, shape, and scope isn't fixed in 1992 definitions.

Nobody at Apple is saying "boxes with slots" are going to totally disappear. Just that they are not the dominate form factor. Go back to Jobs "trucks versus cars" story. He never said trucks would disappear. (obviously because they haven't). Only that they aren't the dominate form. Not that "automoble" companies should stop making trucks if they had successful models.

I really don't understand this hysteria. Just a couple of weeks ago Apple went around to a sizable group of journalists , bloggers, etc. and told them point blank that they were in the OS X market.

The core issue folks waving their hands here are not addressing is how the OS X market is inherently detached from the Mac Pro. It is not. People can make up excuses how, but they are weak as water.


Logistically delivering a Mac Pro right now has problems. There is no need to invent other rationales.

I agree completely, OSX and Mac Pros have to be in their strategy. Mac or iOS App development is vital to their eco system. They understand and practically invented this eco system. Without a strong OSX strategy it would adversely affect developers. I think 16GB is minimum ram required to compile ICS projects (I maybe wrong). I know 8GB feels lethargic on some of our xCode projects.

iDevices are great for content consumption but horrible for content creation. Unless I see xCode for Windows or some revolutionary way to code with Siri and compile with an iCloud EC2 services I don't see any reason to doubt a strong and continuing Mac / OSX lineup in the near future.

 

[scottrichardson]

How come there's always oodles of iPhone and iPad part leaks, but we rarely see parts for Mac Pros or iMacs being leaked?

Part leakers, here this: Please let some mac pro parts into the wild!!