MP All Models Mac Pro X,Y…WHAT IF…

[avkills]

In retrospect Apple should have also had a sane priced tower that used i7/i9 Desktop CPUs from Intel (or AMD) instead of Xeon models. That would have kept the price decent and in reach of those who did not need any of the extra tech piled into the Xeon chips like ECC, etc etc.

Maybe Apple should make a Studio that has a very high speed interconnect that can be connected to a separately purchased enclosure that has PCIe slots; and when I say high speed I mean not Thunderbolt. 😂

 

[mode11]

In retrospect Apple should have also had a sane priced tower that used i7/i9 Desktop CPUs from Intel (or AMD) instead of Xeon models. That would have kept the price decent and in reach of those who did not need any of the extra tech piled into the Xeon chips like ECC, etc etc.

Maybe Apple should make a Studio that has a very high speed interconnect that can be connected to a separately purchased enclosure that has PCIe slots; and when I say high speed I mean not Thunderbolt. 😂

Yeah, that's what practically everyone who bought a second-hand Mac Pro wanted. But Apple had no interest in building it, so the choice was preowned workstation or move to Windows.

The Studio won't get an eGPU for the same reason the 2023 MP doesn't have PCIe GPUs. Apple want developers to optimise their apps for a single system architecture, and not ask them to cater for two different approaches to memory usage. All for the benefit of 0.1% of their customers, who they've been trying to push towards other products in their line (or Windows) since about 2017 anyway...

 

[mode11]

Apple didn't raise the price as much as they raised the base configuration sizing. The 2019 MP came with lower minimum on both RAM, SSD , and GPU . Apple isn't going to give away more of those for free. Paying more because are getting more.



" ...

Std. RAM:​	32 GB	64 GB

...
Video Options: 580X vs 60 core GPU
...

Standard SSD:​	256 GB	1 TB

...."

Differences Between Mac Pro 2019 and 2023 Towers: EveryMac.com

Compares all differences between the 2019 Mac Pro and the 2023 Mac Pro towers. Specs, expansion and more.

everymac.com

The GPU in 2023 model is closer to W5700 than a 580X ( which was dated at the MP 2019 release and just got 'older' over time. ).

For perspective, the base version 2013 MP came with a 256GB SSD 9 years earlier.

Mac Pro "Quad Core" 3.7 (Late 2013) Specs (Late 2013, ME253LL/A, MacPro6,1, A1481, 2630): EveryMac.com

Technical specifications for the Mac Pro "Quad Core" 3.7 (Late 2013). Dates sold, processor type, memory info, hard drive details, price and more.

everymac.com

The 2017 iMac Pro base SSD configuration was 1TB. So 2 years later going backwards in capacity. Apple already knew most users were going to pick 1TB (or larger) as a starting point.


That base SSD configuration was likely aimed at folks who either didn't like or wouldn't primarily use the SSD. ( either using MP to run a hypervisor and real user OS is stored elsewhere. Or just use the SSD to core maintenance but day-to-day OS stored elsewhere. ). The MP 2023 just goes to the standard size that most folks who wanted to substantively use the SSD selected in BTO. Similar with GPU option. Apple trying to cover the W5700 zone ; not the 580X one.

If you put the MP 2019 BTO page into 64 RAM range, 1TB SSD range , and W5700 there wasn't a price increase. If folks mostly bought that before , there wouldn't be much of a volume drop on common configurations as bought from Apple.


There was a 100% base price increase from MP 2013 to MP 2019 but that was all on Intel. There is nothing material the M-series brought to that aspect. Apple was OK with shrinking the target market before they go to 2020.


Folks can grumble at the configuration up from the base configuration. Buying 3rd party RAM versus buying Apple BTO RAM isn't an option anymore , but already at the base price.

This type of comparison always ignores the market backdrop of falling prices / increasing specs over time. A 2023 computer should damn well have a better SSD / GPU than a 2019 one, and I wouldn't expect to pay more for the privilege either.

 

[H. Flower]

Really wanting to make the switch from 2019 to m chips. Are the m4 Mac Pro / studios really not coming out for another year or so ? I know Gurman is saying spring or summer of next year.

This company really knows how to test patience 😂 😭

 

[avro707]

In retrospect Apple should have also had a sane priced tower that used i7/i9 Desktop CPUs from Intel (or AMD) instead of Xeon models. That would have kept the price decent and in reach of those who did not need any of the extra tech piled into the Xeon chips like ECC, etc etc.

Half of the anti Mac Pro crowd would have been supporting this approach as well.

A well designed system with those types of processors (maybe the AMD equivalents) at reasonable prices would have done well.

Imagine if it could have used either AMD or Nvidia GPUs as well…

I was just looking at new AMD 9000 series CPUs recently… top one barely AUD$1000. Compare with Xeon prices.

 

[mode11]

Really wanting to make the switch from 2019 to m chips. Are the m4 Mac Pro / studios really not coming out for another year or so ? I know Gurman is saying spring or summer of next year.

This company really knows how to test patience 😂 😭

It has always been thus, regardless of architecture.

Whereas new MacBooks come out almost every year, and new iPhones are revealed like clockwork in mid-September.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

It has always been thus, regardless of architecture.

Whereas new MacBooks come out almost every year, and new iPhones are revealed like clockwork in mid-September.

I think it was pretty regular up until 2010, and then it fell off a cliff.

 

[bax2023]

I think it was pretty regular up until 2010, and then it fell off a cliff.

In Mid-2012 "release" it was clear that Apple is not sure where to go with Tower Pro machine. While all other platforms got USB 3.0, Thunderbolt and SATA 3, Mac Pro was seriously left behing in that ragard.

 

[MacPoulet]

In Mid-2012 "release" it was clear that Apple is not sure where to go with Tower Pro machine. While all other platforms got USB 3.0, Thunderbolt and SATA 3, Mac Pro was seriously left behing in that ragard.

I disagree. The 2013 model came out a year after, so they knew their direction. It just turned out to be the wrong one for the time and their bet on dual-GPUs and no internal expansion was a bust.

At the time, it looked like the 2012 was just a stop-gap with slightly updated processors to keep things warm like the buffet at a Best Western. So yeah, you can say it looked like it was left behind but if I remember correctly there were indications that Apple was cooking up something. It was just half-baked.

 

[bax2023]

I disagree. The 2013 model came out a year after, so they knew their direction. It just turned out to be the wrong one for the time and their bet on dual-GPUs and no internal expansion was a bust.

Don't even get me started on Late 2013 model....I had 3 of those, and all of them had major GPU issues. Even in 2013 they already had old CPU (HP already made refresh of Z820 with support for LGA-2011-3 CPUs). And then Apple keep selling those for 6 years. I really thought that this was the end of the road for Mac Pro.

If 2013 Mac Pro was cMP with USB 3.0, Thunderbolt, PCIe storage and SATA 3 ports, it would be the best machine ever.

 

[Melbourne Park]

Don't even get me started on Late 2013 model....I had 3 of those, and all of them had major GPU issues. Even in 2013 they already had old CPU (HP already made refresh of Z820 with support for LGA-2011-3 CPUs). And then Apple keep selling those for 6 years. I really thought that this was the end of the road for Mac Pro.

If 2013 Mac Pro was cMP with USB 3.0, Thunderbolt, PCIe storage and SATA 3 ports, it would be the best machine ever.

It did have 6 Thunderbolt 2 ports (20 Gb/s) and 4 USB 3.0 ports (5 GB/s) . Also an HDMI 1.4 and several USB 2.x ports (480 Mb/s). Sound out and digital out ... but no SATA and an Apple contorted PCI arrangement. They looked overpriced to me. So does an Ultra Studio if one considers longevity ... I am insecure about SSD life. And RAM can fail too ...

 

[avro707]

I am insecure about SSD life. And RAM can fail too ...

That's the problem with Apple proprietary parts. It's fine on cheap Mac Minis and other disposable machines, but on AUD$12K expensive machines that is not okay to have to junk the lot if something fails.

Apple also doesn't have a good track record of keeping parts available to buy so owners can upgrade or fix their machines - eg MPX modules or SSDs for Mac Pro 2019.

 

[Carrotstick]

MPX modules

That’s also on AMD. Depends how long the contract was for.

SSDs for Mac Pro 2019.

This is on Apple. Your only hope is to boot off and run from third party SSDs so the Apple drive doesn’t get used.

Seems they only stock SSDs for the Sillicon Macs in the Repair site.

 

[Harry Haller]

That's the problem with Apple proprietary parts. It's fine on cheap Mac Minis and other disposable machines, but on AUD$12K expensive machines that is not okay to have to junk the lot if something fails.

Apple also doesn't have a good track record of keeping parts available to buy so owners can upgrade or fix their machines - eg MPX modules or SSDs for Mac Pro 2019.

The Trashcan was 6 years of abandonware.
The clever iMac Pro was 5 years of abandonware.
The brilliant 7.1 was 4 years of abandonware.
The 14,8 will be…
You don’t need to be Nostradamus to imagine where the Mac Pro is headed.
So, the question is, why did Apple do this to the Mac Pro?
I believe the answer lies in the transition from the 5.1 to the Trashcan.

 

[Carrotstick]

The 14,8 will be…

Will be even worse.

The 16,8 ( the M4 Mac Pro) will demolish it. The 14,8 will be considered the worst Mac Pro.

The 14,8 doesn’t even have Ray tracing but the MBP M3 does. That shows the priority Apple has for desktops.

 

[avro707]

That’s also on AMD. Depends how long the contract was for.

But Apple could work with AMD to provide driver support for the newer 7800/7900 series, so it is partly to blame there as well.

 

[mattspace]

So, the question is, why did Apple do this to the Mac Pro?

Because the Mac is becoming a non-touch iPad. Every Apple Silicon Mac is just an iPad with a higher set of specifications. People talk about wanting macOS on their iPads, but the truth is macOS already runs on them, Apple would just prefer you bought and carried two devices if you need a drawing surface, AND a proper computer, rather than have an iPad that can do complex orchestration.

 

[Carrotstick]

Because the Mac is becoming a non-touch iPad. Every Apple Silicon Mac is just an iPad with a higher set of specifications. People talk about wanting macOS on their iPads, but the truth is macOS already runs on them, Apple would just prefer you bought and carried two devices if you need a drawing surface, AND a proper computer, rather than have an iPad that can do complex orchestration.

Apple Sillicon Macs can run with SiP disabled, allows for external volume boot up, roll back to previous macOS versions which are unsigned, can run ARM Linux and also run non-Apple blessed apps. iPads can’t do these.

So I disagree that AS Macs are just iPads they just share same ARM architecture that’s it. macOS is just so far ahead of ipadOS. iPadOS is in no way in it’s current state a replacement for macOS and Apple makes it that way.

Also iPads cap at 16GB RAM, they don’t even get the 24GB RAM that macbook Airs get. Meanwhile MacBook pros currently go up to 128 GB of RAM.

What I dislike is the stupidity priced SSD and RAM upgrades on these Macs.

 

[avro707]

What I dislike is the stupidity priced SSD and RAM upgrades on these Macs.

They should be using industry standard SSDs rather than bespoke ones for 7,1 and 14,8 Mac Pros.

So if something goes wrong you just get a WD or Samsung whatever to replace the original one and be done with it, just as you would on high end PC workstations.

 

[mattspace]

Apple Sillicon Macs can run with SiP disabled, allows for external volume boot up, roll back to previous macOS versions which are unsigned, can run ARM Linux and also run non-Apple blessed apps. iPads can’t do these.

That's software. IF you could get past the firmware lock on the iPad that prevents OS installs, macOS on it would be exactly the same as on a Mac.

So I disagree that AS Macs are just iPads they just share same ARM architecture that’s it. macOS is just so far ahead of ipadOS. iPadOS is in no way in it’s current state a replacement for macOS and Apple makes it that way.

M1 iPads and M1 Macs are effectively the same SOC.

Also iPads cap at 16GB RAM, they don’t even get the 24GB RAM that macbook Airs get. Meanwhile MacBook pros currently go up to 128 GB of RAM.

As I said, Macs are just ipads with higher specifications.

 

[Melbourne Park]

Having revitalised a my dead edit out: 2100 2011 MacBook pro 13" - 128 TB/4GB unit with USB A /2 port, Firewire 2, Thunderbolt 1, photo card slot, ethernet port, long action keyboard, alloy case etc - I realised have there hero John Ives was great for the iPhone, but guilty for putting form factor over function. I ditched that MacBook because I bought a 5,1 twin CPU on run out, and I bought an Air when the trackpad failed on the MacBook Pro. When I put in 1TB drive, 16 GB RAM and a new battery - the trackpad suddenly worked. It's SSD had failed - I formatted it and re-installed - but it was gone. Perhaps if I used a 3rd party drive recovery package (I had one too) I might have revived it, but 1 TB was cheap. 30 minutes to replace all the components.

We have a new color laser jet in the house, and it took some time in later Mac OSs to setup that printer. With High Sierra on that MacBook 2011, I tried printing. It instantly found the wifi printers, setup the printer itself seemingly instantly, and I printed. I then check the options and it reversed printed etc etc.

But with today's OSs, you have to go into the contorted change for the sake of change system preferences, find the printing area, then add a printer. Hmmm ... just like windows. In fact, Windows is easier, because that's the way its been for eons.

So were are we? We are addicted to some of the software, that is what is going on. But the quality of the gear is much lower. Because longevity and quality are synonymous. And without user replacement components that do fail over time, Apple's products cannot be termed high quality. They've become disposable items. The saving grace I guess, is that a notebook is good value, especially compared to an iPhone.

Fact is I'd be better off buying a Lenovo workstation with 2 graphic - or even one - graphics slots. Even three. They are cheaper than any Ultra Studio, and they will last much longer.

 

[Boil]

Having revitalised a my dead 2100 MacBook pro 13"

Time traveler spotted..!

 

[Carrotstick]

But with today's OSs, you have to go into the contorted change for the sake of change system preferences, find the printing area, then add a printer. Hmmm ... just like windows. In fact, Windows is easier, because that's the way its been for eons.

Didn’t printing change in windows 11? It’s not the same place as it was in 10.

System settings changed once in a decade for macOS. It’s easy to add printers to current macOS.

Fact is I'd be better off buying a Lenovo workstation with 2 graphic - or even one - graphics slots. Even three. They are cheaper than any Ultra Studio, and they will last much longer.

Agree

 

[avro707]

We have a new color laser jet in the house

I did similar, some miracle the printer was configured with every Mac within minutes.

I have it sitting inside a cupboard out of the way. Doesn’t take up desk room.

I don’t print all that much but sometimes it is necessary.

 

[Melbourne Park]

Apple's business model is straightforward. If you want to be productive, then buy what you need, and you pay a lot for it. But for base models, they are much better value. And the cheap models will be sold through discount stores etc. But try to get - for instance - a MacBook Pro with a 4TB drive and 128 GB RAM through a discount store.

So people who use such higher RAM and drive capacity machines for profit, can finance and depreciate such hardware, and use the capacity for an economic return. They are not bothered as much by the actual cost. For them, it's a ratio of cost and performance.

For the rest of us, well then, it makes sense to buy the base models of higher end units, when they are being sold by the big discount stores on big discounts, hence they become much better value. Why higher end units? Because they have more drive capacity, and more RAM than lesser units. More drive capacity and RAM means less wear and tear, and greater longevity.

If your a "Prosumer", used to buying highly equipped Apple gear and keeping it for a long time, then you're going to be paying the Big Price and worse, you have to pay for it straight away. Whereas once, you could buy something for now and expand it yourself later on. Really, Apple has ditched the value orientated Prosumer who wants longevity.

IMO the four things that will supersede current Apple computers not being used for economic return are
1 - lack of capacity (which increases the probability of # 2)
2 - item failure
3 - lack of OS support
4 - lack of software support