MP 7,1 Is the new 7,1 Mac Pro a failure on arrival

[Zdigital2015]

With this I reiterate my earlier statement:

What's puzzling is why so many people are arguing so vehemently against it. Their arguments are reminiscent of those who were arguing against a Mac Pro tower when the 6,1 Mac Pro was released.

It is simply not something Apple feels the need or desire to create at this point in its evolution for a multitude of reasons and no amount of pleading, griping, threatening or Hackintoshing is going to change their stance. Frankly, I am surprised the 2019 Mac Pro even exists given how loathe Apple was to create it after the 2013 Mac Pro and the iMac Pro were released and found wanting by some.

On the flip side, Apple needs to re-engineer the iMac and iMac Pro into something that can sustain higher, longer and more varied thermal loads give the lack of transparency by Intel when referring to TDP and actual power consumption under load, which are completely divorced from reality at this point, but I digress.

 

[defjam]

People aren't vehemently against it. It's just that there are in this thread a bunch of people trying to explain to you why fetch won't happen, and you keep failing to get the message.

I am already aware of these reasons so I fail to see why they'd be attempting to do so.

 

[danwells]

Apple is a trillion dollar company by market capitalization with over $250 million in annual revenue that makes roughly 20 million computers (Macs - many, many more if you count iThings as "computers") per year.

Puget Systems doesn't have a true market capitalization nor do they publicly report revenue, being privately held - but estimates of their revenue are in the range of $5 million to $25 million per year. They make several thousand computers per year. Nothing wrong with that - they're a great little family business that employs a bunch of people (in many ways, a better thing to be than an iconic tech giant)

Yes, Puget Systems is just about the most relevant comparison... I write for a photography site, and I'm about to review a tower designed just for photographers - from Puget Systems. Who's the #1 most discussed desktop PC brand (other than $500-$1000 specials) on photography forums? Puget Systems (a fraction of the mentions of Apple, and nowhere near 50% of all PC mentions, but probably more than anyone else's quality desktops).

They have great Ryzen and Threadripper systems available (my upcoming review system is a 16-core Ryzen 3950X). They're among the most important builders of high-end desktop/tower non-gaming PCs (e.g. xMacs running Windows). There are a few other builders of high-end non-gaming PCs, but they're around the same size as Puget Systems. There are a few gaming PC companies that make high-end professional PCs as well (Falcon Northwest is an example).

Video folks, 3D folks, etc. are getting their machines from this same group of companies, and at the high end, from the Dell and HP workstation lines that the Mac Pro competes against.

I'd be amazed if the total sales of the whole bunch of xMac competitors put together were half a million machines per year. I'm defining "xMac competitor" as any PC costing between $2000 and $7000 and not built or used primarily for gaming or engineering tasks.

Apple's not going to break into the CAD, GIS, etc. market, where most of the software won't run on MacOS (thereby the exclusion of engineering). Apple has no interest in gamers on MacOS, nor in their hardware and software demands that make systems less stable than they could be for everyone else as well. Above $7000 is covered by the Mac Pro. Below $2000 isn't what the xMac chorus claims to want.

Apple has simply decided that a part of a market of a few hundred thousand machines per year isn't worth their time (especially when they have pretty good partial coverage from the iMac and iMac Pro). They know there are a lot of folks who like to build their own in there, too.

The only reason they build the Mac Pro is because a lot of the potential users live and work in a VERY few ZIP codes (90027,90038,90068,90078 - Hollywood, CA). They want to keep Hollywood happy so they keep getting other Apple stuff placed in movies and TV. Hollywood doesn't want xMacs - they spend more than a Mac Pro costs on a tripod head - routinely! It's worth putting some development into a low-sales machine that lands on some very influential desks (whose owners decide whether an iPhone or a Samsung Galaxy lands on a big sitcom).

Photographers, indie video types, and the like don't have that kind of pull. As far as Apple is concerned, they can buy what Apple's selling or buy a computer from Puget Systems.

 

[defjam]

Apple has simply decided that a part of a market of a few hundred thousand machines per year isn't worth their time (especially when they have pretty good partial coverage from the iMac and iMac Pro). They know there are a lot of folks who like to build their own in there, too.

Do you have any data to support this? Or is this merely conjecture?

 

[jasonmvp]

The MVMI want to pay the bare minimum amount for this xMac and then fill it with bargain shopper upgrades that they buy and install themselves.

Addendum to your sentence: "...and then bitch at Apple because those devices don't work in MacOS."

The size of the MVMI market is so small compared to iPhone, iPad, Services, Wearables and Mac that Apple is at peace with itself if they lose MVMI to Windows. MVMI just hasn't reconciled it in their minds yet.

Another hobby and huge part of my life is cars; specifically the Corvette. I happen to be friends with the Corvette chief engineer just out of pure luck. He and I chat quite a bit. This same sort of thing happens in the Corvette world constantly, just at different levels of money. There's a very vocal minority of folks who don't even own the car (yet) bitch, piss, moan, and complain that Corvette won't build an "ultra-lightweight, super-fast, track-focused-only" car. When my friend tries to explain to them that there's no actual market for that car, they get all bent out of shape. He'll explain to them the reasons the car costs as little as it does relative to the competition is because General Motors can do things at volume. But specialty versions are the antithesis of that and the price would sky-rocket because of it. Then he asks, "So how many would actually buy it if it cost XXXXXXXXX?" Silence.

I find it comical how many folks don't understand that; and it appears to exist in all markets, apparently.

 

[Adult80HD]

Addendum to your sentence: "...and then bitch at Apple because those devices don't work in MacOS."



Another hobby and huge part of my life is cars; specifically the Corvette. I happen to be friends with the Corvette chief engineer just out of pure luck. He and I chat quite a bit. This same sort of thing happens in the Corvette world constantly, just at different levels of money. There's a very vocal minority of folks who don't even own the car (yet) bitch, piss, moan, and complain that Corvette won't build an "ultra-lightweight, super-fast, track-focused-only" car. When my friend tries to explain to them that there's no actual market for that car, they get all bent out of shape. He'll explain to them the reasons the car costs as little as it does relative to the competition is because General Motors can do things at volume. But specialty versions are the antithesis of that and the price would sky-rocket because of it. Then he asks, "So how many would actually buy it if it cost XXXXXXXXX?" Silence.

I find it comical how many folks don't understand that; and it appears to exist in all markets, apparently.

It's why most people are employees, and not business owners or senior management.

 

[defjam]

I find it comical how many folks don't understand that; and it appears to exist in all markets, apparently.

It's not that people don't understand "that". The problem is it is merely speculation there's not a sufficiently large market for an xMac. I have yet to see anyone provide any data showing as much. If you would like to put up some data then I'd be happy to look at it. If not I would appreciate you stop being condescending to those who will not merely take your word for it. We're allowed our opinions too.

 

[fuchsdh]

Do you have any data to support this? Or is this merely conjecture?

It's self-evident by the fact that people have clamored for an xMac for 20 years and it hasn't appeared. The only argument besides "it's not worth Apple's time to do it" is "Apple hates money". The latter is demonstrably false, so the former is the only explanation that makes sense.

 

[defjam]

It's self-evident by the fact that people have clamored for an xMac for 20 years and it hasn't appeared. The only argument besides "it's not worth Apple's time to do it" is "Apple hates money". The latter is demonstrably false, so the former is the only explanation that makes sense.

No, it is not self evident. It's a reasonable assumption but it is in no way conclusive. You need to separate your opinion from facts. There are those in this forum who, in their opinion, feel there is a sufficiently large market to build one. If you disagree with that opinion that's fine. However it is no less valid than yours and I would appreciate it if people would stop being condescending to those who hold it.

 

[DoofenshmirtzEI]

What's puzzling is why so many people are arguing so vehemently against it. Their arguments are reminiscent of those who were arguing against a Mac Pro tower when the 6,1 Mac Pro was released.

But the Mac Pro isn't a proper tower according to those who wanted one. It hasn't got any drive bays, and we all know a tower needs drive bays (#snark for the humor impaired). The screaming about the 6,1 was a lot about drive bays. The only thing tower-ish it has is lots of card slots. What needs to go inside a computer is "what needs to live close to the CPU". What needs to live close to the CPU is stuff that goes in card slots, not stuff that goes in drive bays.

The argument that the 7,1 is solely needed so that Hollywood will keep putting Apple products in its movies is a complete crock. Apple needs big grunt for development work so long as developing for MacOS (and some iOS) requires an Apple computer. What the hell are developers (including Apple themselves) supposed to run their pipelines on? What do you think Apple themselves compile MacOS on, an iMac or Macbook Pro?

 

[goMac]

The argument that the 7,1 is solely needed so that Hollywood will keep putting Apple products in its movies is a complete crock. Apple needs big grunt for development work so long as developing for MacOS (and some iOS) requires an Apple computer. What the hell are developers (including Apple themselves) supposed to run their pipelines on? What do you think Apple themselves compile MacOS on, an iMac or Macbook Pro?

The 16" MacBook Pro is Apple's developer computer. eGPU if you need it. iMac Pro or iMac if you feel really attached to the desktop form factor.

I think internally Apple probably uses a lot of iMac Pros.

Heavy duty compiling is typically done on server farms these days (powered by Mac minis or Mac Pros.) No one is building all of macOS at their desks anymore.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

But the Mac Pro isn't a proper tower according to those who wanted one. It hasn't got any drive bays, and we all know a tower needs drive bays (#snark for the humor impaired). The screaming about the 6,1 was a lot about drive bays. The only thing tower-ish it has is lots of card slots. What needs to go inside a computer is "what needs to live close to the CPU". What needs to live close to the CPU is stuff that goes in card slots, not stuff that goes in drive bays.

The argument that the 7,1 is solely needed so that Hollywood will keep putting Apple products in its movies is a complete crock. Apple needs big grunt for development work so long as developing for MacOS (and some iOS) requires an Apple computer. What the hell are developers (including Apple themselves) supposed to run their pipelines on? What do you think Apple themselves compile MacOS on, an iMac or Macbook Pro?

Not accurate. It has space for 2 drive bays. Potentially more if others use the 5 pin (3 on the mother board and dual rails towards the motherboard) space that Apple engineered/designed to allow any number of drive combinations to be supported. The Pegasus J2i is the first supporting 2 3.5" drives. That same space could support say 4-6 2.5" drives. And permutations thereof. Storage is important to a significant number of pros, and apple has provided space for it.

The crock is that this machine is just for Hollywood. Don't let the facts and their own statements of "professional" being a wide spectrum of users stop your trolling though. We all know it won't.

 

[DoofenshmirtzEI]

The 16" MacBook Pro is Apple's developer computer. eGPU if you need it. iMac Pro or iMac if you feel really attached to the desktop form factor.

Primarily what I need on my desk is lots of displays, so anything that can push lots of displays I can work on. A laptop keyboard isn't sufficient, but will do in a pinch if I need to go mobile (at my present employment I never do, but I know those who do). I've come to the conclusion that the new Mac Pro keyboard is fine, but the mouse is crap because it can't be used while it is recharging.

I think internally Apple probably uses a lot of iMac Pros.

I can't speak for Apple, but there would probably be a revolt at my work if they brought in iMac Pros. A lot of my colleagues have enormous egos (way bigger than some of the blowhards here), and having to work on an iMac (even the Pro) model would probably be worse than having to take a 50% pay cut for them. So management keeps them happy and buys Mac Pros. The only quibble I would have with an iMac (Pro or not) would be the adjustability of the display. My setup now, I can move and rotate my monitors pretty much anywhere I want them on VESA mounts. But I'm not familiar with iMacs. Can they be VESA mounted?

Heavy duty compiling is typically done on server farms these days (powered by Mac minis or Mac Pros.) No one is building all of macOS at their desks anymore.

That was my point. Something from Apple has to do the compiling and testing, even if it isn't sitting on a programmer's desk. I've long been adamant that release versions of software must be compiled on a machine with ECC, and I would be shocked if places like Apple didn't have the same policy.

It would not surprise me in the least if someone forgot to consult Apple's internal software teams when the 6,1 was created, as I'm sure their reaction to it was much like mine. A second GPU completely useless for most development work, and no option for a second CPU. A piece of crap for software development.

So long as Apple requires that software for Apple machines be made on Apple machines, there will always be an Apple machine that can do heavy duty software pipelines.
[automerge]1579037373[/automerge]

Not accurate. It has space for 2 drive bays. Potentially more if others use the 5 pin (3 on the mother board and dual rails towards the motherboard) space that Apple engineered/designed to allow any number of drive combinations to be supported. The Pegasus J2i is the first supporting 2 3.5" drives. That same space could support say 4-6 2.5" drives. And permutations thereof. Storage is important to a significant number of pros, and apple has provided space for it.

The crock is that this machine is just for Hollywood. Don't let the facts and their own statements of "professional" being a wide spectrum of users stop your trolling though. We all know it won't.

Having space for bays and having them without buying or building an addon are two different things. There was space that wasn't being used for anything else, Apple said, "eh, we can see that being used for any number of different things, we'll put the bare minimum that we have to put in for those different things, use it for what you like, knock yourself out".

Storage no longer requires bays. The highest end storage requires slots, not bays, and those are explicitly provided, not just "there is space".

 

[goMac]

Primarily what I need on my desk is lots of displays, so anything that can push lots of displays I can work on. A laptop keyboard isn't sufficient, but will do in a pinch if I need to go mobile (at my present employment I never do, but I know those who do). I've come to the conclusion that the new Mac Pro keyboard is fine, but the mouse is crap because it can't be used while it is recharging.

The MacBook Pro can support lots of displays, and can be used closed on a desk with whatever external keyboard and mouse and displays. MacBook Pro specs say it can do 4 4k displays at once.

I can't speak for Apple, but there would probably be a revolt at my work if they brought in iMac Pros. A lot of my colleagues have enormous egos (way bigger than some of the blowhards here), and having to work on an iMac (even the Pro) model would probably be worse than having to take a 50% pay cut for them. So management keeps them happy and buys Mac Pros.

I mean, I don't want to be a jerk but.... that doesn't sound like a real problem. If your engineers really want Mac Pros that bad then Apple is just smart for charging a large amount of money for them.

The only quibble I would have with an iMac (Pro or not) would be the adjustability of the display. My setup now, I can move and rotate my monitors pretty much anywhere I want them on VESA mounts. But I'm not familiar with iMacs. Can they be VESA mounted?

iMacs can be VESA mounted.

That was my point. Something from Apple has to do the compiling and testing, even if it isn't sitting on a programmer's desk. I've long been adamant that release versions of software must be compiled on a machine with ECC, and I would be shocked if places like Apple didn't have the same policy.

Sure, but again, industry practice has moved away from doing any release compiling at your desk.

It would not surprise me in the least if someone forgot to consult Apple's internal software teams when the 6,1 was created, as I'm sure their reaction to it was much like mine. A second GPU completely useless for most development work, and no option for a second CPU. A piece of crap for software development.

Second GPU doesn't really hurt anything. But Minis are perfectly adequate as well. ECC isn't really that necessary. Any issues are probably going to result in a failed compile, and not bits sent out. And those issues are few and far between.

I don't know any shops that mandate doing release builds on ECC cause it just isn't that necessary.

So long as Apple requires that software for Apple machines be made on Apple machines, there will always be an Apple machine that can do heavy duty software pipelines.

Sure, I just think your perception of what Apple needs and what Apple actually needs may not be aligned.

 

[DoofenshmirtzEI]

The MacBook Pro can support lots of displays, and can be used closed on a desk with whatever external keyboard and mouse and displays. MacBook Pro specs say it can do 4 4k displays at once.

But given that I don't need to go mobile, why would I use a MBP instead of something else? My work setup has 6 monitors, although I could get by with 4 in a pinch, why should I?

iMacs can be VESA mounted.

Then I could use one. Although the aforementioned egos would not thank me for being a crack in the wall on iMacs. I only throw fits about stuff that actually impacts my work (like mice that can't be used while recharging).

Sure, but again, industry practice has moved away from doing any release compiling at your desk.

There's lots of tiny iOS developers who do that, but yes, for a professional shop, nobody has done release compiling on a personal workstation for a couple decades at least.

Second GPU doesn't really hurt anything. But Minis are perfectly adequate as well. ECC isn't really that necessary. Any issues are probably going to result in a failed compile, and not bits sent out. And those issues are few and far between.

It doesn't hurt anything except my wallet, if I had to pay for it and have it suck up electricity and be utterly useless. Which is why I didn't buy one. And i beg to differ on the ECC issue. It might not be an issue for folx who do continuous delivery where one faulty build will just be papered over by the next 20 minutes later, but I have known of at least one case where 20 years worth of ECC systems would have been paid for by the cost of the consequences of a bad release. People don't think ECC is necessary because it's hard to prove that the bad stuff happened because you didn't have it, but it is very cheap insurance.

 

[goMac]

But given that I don't need to go mobile, why would I use a MBP instead of something else? My work setup has 6 monitors, although I could get by with 4 in a pinch, why should I?

There are benchmarks out and about showing that the Mac mini, MacBook Pro, and iMac all tend to compile faster than a Mac Pro.

A better question might be why you (and the thread) actually need a Mac Pro if you don't need it.

Doesn't have to be a MacBook Pro. But there are better options than a Mac Pro unless you really need the unique features of the Mac Pro.

Then I could use one. Although the aforementioned egos would not thank me for being a crack in the wall on iMacs. I only throw fits about stuff that actually impacts my work (like mice that can't be used while recharging).

Given the Mac Pro is not the fastest compiling Mac, you guys might be tripping over your own egos.

It doesn't hurt anything except my wallet, if I had to pay for it and have it suck up electricity and be utterly useless. Which is why I didn't buy one. And i beg to differ on the ECC issue. It might not be an issue for folx who do continuous delivery where one faulty build will just be papered over by the next 20 minutes later, but I have known of at least one case where 20 years worth of ECC systems would have been paid for by the cost of the consequences of a bad release.

You don't have to go to continuous delivery. Continuous integration solves this problem nicely, in addition to testing your code for defects beyond what ECC would cause.

People don't think ECC is necessary because it's hard to prove that the bad stuff happened because you didn't have it, but it is very cheap insurance.

Exactly. No one has been able to prove ECC makes any real difference for software development. You can get it as an insurance policy, but most shops I know of don't bother. It just isn't necessary for modern development. Building software doesn't even happen at a fraction of the same scale that typically ECC use cases demand.

Good read after a bit of searching:

To ECC or Not To ECC

On one of my visits to the Computer History Museum [http://www.computerhistory.org/] – and by the way this is an absolute must-visit place if you are ever in the San Francisco bay area – I saw an early Google server rack circa 1999 in the exhibits. Not too fancy, right?

blog.codinghorror.com

ECC tends to be an issue when you've got thousands of nodes running on large gigabyte values worth of data. Code compiling is usually a few nodes working on tens to hundreds of megabytes of source and intermediate code. Not impossible to have a soft memory error but also just incredibly incredibly unlikely. And it will probably be caught immediately through a compiler crash. Which given how short compiles are... recompiling is not going to be a huge issue.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Having space for bays and having them without buying or building an addon are two different things. There was space that wasn't being used for anything else, Apple said, "eh, we can see that being used for any number of different things, we'll put the bare minimum that we have to put in for those different things, use it for what you like, knock yourself out".

Storage no longer requires bays. The highest end storage requires slots, not bays, and those are explicitly provided, not just "there is space".

Not just space. Rails. Pins. Power. Which accommodate, wait for it.... BAYS. TADA.

But thanks for doing exactly what I expected you to! You do not disappoint. I look forward to more of your hand waving against reality. Do carry on.

 

[throAU]

Even assuming Apple produced it more with basic commodity parts (no T2, etc) it's still going to be substantially more expensive than building a machine yourself. Which will always be the case, and hence is a huge obstacle to it ever being a viable strategy. The idea that 100% of Hackintosh users are Hackintosh users solely because Apple doesn't make a machine for them ignores the reality that everyone's "machine for them" is different, and everyone has different price sensitivities.

There's "more expensive than building yourself" and then there's Apple's recent Mac Pro pricing.

I could build 3 PCs with better performance than the new Mac Pro entry level for less money than their entry pricing.

We aren't talking some minor bump in price here, we're talking multiples of price.

Sure, there's a nice (likely really difficult/expensive to manufacture, but who's fault is that?) case but that's about it. I don't want to have to pay 300% markup to get into a big box Mac, purely because Apple is wasting money on shiny things, or choosing inappropriate parts (hot, slow, power hungry workstation Xeons, in 2019/2020).

Go into partnership with Alphacool or EK (for some proper cooling solutions - i mean the new machine is not even out yet and the fanboys are frothing about how amazing the cooling is - same thing happened with the previous Pro and look how that turned out?), use non-proprietary form factor components (so that the machine is compatible with third party upgrades) and just stick a t2 chip on the board and call it a day. It will cost far less and still differentiate the machine from generic PCs in a way that enables Apple only features you won't get with a commodity motherboard.

 

[fuchsdh]

There's "more expensive than building yourself" and then there's Apple's recent Mac Pro pricing.

I could build 3 PCs with better performance than the new Mac Pro entry level for less money than their entry pricing.

We aren't talking some minor bump in price here, we're talking multiples of price.

Sure, there's a nice (likely really difficult/expensive to manufacture, but who's fault is that?) case but that's about it. I don't want to have to pay 300% markup to get into a big box Mac, purely because Apple is wasting money on shiny things, or choosing inappropriate parts (hot, slow, power hungry workstation Xeons, in 2019/2020).

Go into partnership with Alphacool or EK (for some proper cooling solutions - i mean the new machine is not even out yet and the fanboys are frothing about how amazing the cooling is - same thing happened with the previous Pro and look how that turned out?), use non-proprietary form factor components (so that the machine is compatible with third party upgrades) and just stick a t2 chip on the board and call it a day. It will cost far less and still differentiate the machine from generic PCs in a way that enables Apple only features you won't get with a commodity motherboard.

You can't build three equivalent workstations to the Mac Pro for the same price. That you don't value the Mac Pro's attributes doesn't make it overpriced.

Why this is necessary to say boggles my mind, but some people need to pull their heads out of their asses and realize "this machine doesn't make sense for me" doesn't equal "this machine doesn't make sense." You can by all means keep yelling into the wind and wishing on your pennies that Apple somehow decides that they're going to cater to you instead, but you're better off saving your pennies.

Besides, we were talking about a mythical xMac in the analogy, so the relevance to the Mac Pro is besides the point.

 

[throAU]

You can't build three equivalent workstations to the Mac Pro for the same price. That you don't value the Mac Pro's attributes doesn't make it overpriced.

Re-read what i said. Then think about it.

I didn't say i could build three equivalent machines. I said i could build three machines that outperform the entry level to big box macs.

And no, i don't value the "Attributes" that Apple is wasting time and effort on, instead of actually getting performant hardware into the hands of as many of their users as possible.

What's more important to you? Getting things done in half the time (if apple chose appropriate parts for same/less money), or blowing the budget on some shiny enclosure that you can't fit commodity parts in?

[automerge]1579046403[/automerge]

Besides, we were talking about a mythical xMac in the analogy, so the relevance to the Mac Pro is besides the point.

Call it what you want (and re-read the thread title), i'm talking about an entry level big box mac. There is no Xmac, the only thing apple have in that segment is the Mac Pro. If they weren't wasting time and effort on shiny enclosures, etc. then the Mac Pro would cost a lot less and be available to more of their user-base. Or higher spec, more performant models would be available to those who could currently only afford entry level or mid-range.

I'm not sure why so many of you are defending more expensive hardware that is making you work slower than you could otherwise be working, purely because it is shiny and has an apple logo on it. Even if you're a Mac Pro customer, you should be demanding better hardware for your money and Apple not offering to you is doing you a dis-service.

Sooner or later, blender (starting to be used more and more in video) is going to eat apple's lunch...

 

[fuchsdh]

Re-read what i said. Then think about it.

I didn't say i could build three equivalent machines. I said i could build three machines that outperform the entry level to big box macs.

And no, i don't value the "Attributes" that Apple is wasting time and effort on, instead of actually getting performant hardware into the hands of as many of their users as possible.

What's more important to you? Getting things done in half the time (if apple chose appropriate parts for same/less money), or blowing the budget on some shiny enclosure that you can't fit commodity parts in?

[automerge]1579046403[/automerge]


Call it what you want (and re-read the thread title), i'm talking about an entry level big box mac. There is no Xmac, the only thing apple have in that segment is the Mac Pro. If they weren't wasting time and effort on shiny enclosures, etc. then the Mac Pro would cost a lot less and be available to more of their user-base. Or higher spec, more performant models would be available to those who could currently only afford entry level or mid-range.

I'm not sure why so many of you are defending more expensive hardware that is making you work slower than you could otherwise be working, purely because it is shiny and has an apple logo on it. Even if you're a Mac Pro customer, you should be demanding better hardware for your money and Apple not offering to you is doing you a dis-service.

Sooner or later, blender (starting to be used more and more in video) is going to eat apple's lunch...

I'm not sure how this is anything but a non sequitur, given Apple doesn't make a 3D modeling/animation program.

 

[throAU]

I'm not sure how this is anything but a non sequitur, given Apple doesn't make a 3D modeling/animation program.

Maybe look up how blender is now adding (and getting good at) 2d animation and other video editing features then.

i.e., it is aiming to be a one-stop video editing/effects/rendering suite.

 

[fuchsdh]

Maybe look up how blender is now adding (and getting good at) 2d animation and other video editing features then.

i.e., it is aiming to be a one-stop video editing/effects/rendering suite.

People have been evangelizing Blender all around me since high school. It hasn't made a dent in any market I've been in. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Adult80HD]

People have been evangelizing Blender all around me since high school. It hasn't made a dent in any market I've been in. I'll believe it when I see it.

I've been around in IT for a long time. I remember when Apple was dead in the late 1990s. Gone forever! I remember when Windows was going to be gone because, well, EVERYONE would use Linux, and it would be FREE! I mean it is free, but I'm still waiting. Gimp would kill Adobe! Still waiting.

All of that and yes, the Blender comment was a non sequitur.

 

[DoofenshmirtzEI]

Good read after a bit of searching:

To ECC or Not To ECC

On one of my visits to the Computer History Museum [http://www.computerhistory.org/] – and by the way this is an absolute must-visit place if you are ever in the San Francisco bay area – I saw an early Google server rack circa 1999 in the exhibits. Not too fancy, right?

blog.codinghorror.com

Read that blog post years ago and much as I respect Jeff, he and I build very different software. A non-critical web app, fine, don't use ECC. You're doing CD anyway. Could probably get away with no parity memory entirely.

Which given how short compiles are... recompiling is not going to be a huge issue.

Okay, maybe your compiles are short, but it appears that our use cases are different enough that we are going to be talking about completely different things. The issue with a release build is that it has all the debug/testing stuff stripped out of it. That makes it difficult to test.

Given the Mac Pro is not the fastest compiling Mac, you guys might be tripping over your own egos.

Please don't say "you guys" when it's only a few prima donnas, not all of us.

You don't have to go to continuous delivery. Continuous integration solves this problem nicely, in addition to testing your code for defects beyond what ECC would cause.

Continuous delivery implies... release builds! Continuous integration does not. Testing code for programming defects is completely different from the sorts of defects that ECC catches.
[automerge]1579054900[/automerge]

Not just space. Rails. Pins. Power. Which accommodate, wait for it.... BAYS. TADA.

But thanks for doing exactly what I expected you to! You do not disappoint. I look forward to more of your hand waving against reality. Do carry on.

Rails, pins, and power that could be used for any number of things. Hell, in another thread, that internal USB port that is meant for software dongles is being repurposed for any number of other things it could be used for, and god, I had to laugh when someone pointed out you could use that "bay" space to hang your thing you're attaching to the USB port. Nooo, nooo, nooo, Apple meant that for bays and by god, you will not put anything else there!