"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." (Henry Ford).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Mac Pro debut at WWDC?
- Thread starter tanker5
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem with people using that quote is that in many respects, the car IS exactly that, a faster horse...
Agreed, a very high-end case alone would not be cheap. In fact, if you look for workstation-class cases, you can quickly go for over 500$ and still not have something as classy as the Mac Pro one.
And if you compare the Mac Pro to a PC workstation, not just a regular PC tower, you realise Apple is not really charging a premium for the Apple logo, quite the contrary (Mac Pros used to be workstation bargains, except if you needed a good GPU).
Even if you configure brand new workstation class machines, they're not too drastically far off from the top of the line 12-cores (with comparable upgrades done via 3rd party). The price isn't necessarily the biggest issue right now, it's the overall specs and lack of "bumps" to the latest generation of core technology. The market that's looking to spend $8,000+ on an overall system isn't balking at any perceived Apple tax - they want a machine that works, and works well with the latest technology. You (usually) don't go into a purchase like that without doing at least some research...
I'd love for them to keep this same style case design in the next version. I don't care about the weight, size, etc. Seriously would be happy with just having native USB3, PCIe, and SATA updates.
I'd love for them to keep this same style case design in the next version. I don't care about the weight, size, etc. Seriously would be happy with just having native USB3, PCIe, and SATA updates.
If Apple really fully upgrades the interior of the present MP case with USB3, PCIe with higher voltage (3rd party GPU's) MB options, SATA-600 and top-notch Mhz RAM modules, then I'm your man! ;-)
Cars eat hay and drop manure in the street? In very few respects are cars horses. The whole support infrastructure changed: gas stations and auto repair shops replaced blacksmiths, horse shoers , and saddle/bridal gear shops. Even the substantive make up of streets has fundalmentally shifted due to cars.
Only in the broad generalization of being "transportation devices" are they the same. That makes it few respects. You are confusing a broad category with high degree commonality of characteristics.. Those are very different dimensions.
On the consumer side they are similar and I think that's what he was getting at.
They are only similar if contrast that comparison of a "horse : car" to something like "horse : rock" or "horse : shovel ". In other words, drag in something completely outside the general category of transportation. However, within transportation though.... they aren't. Not even close.
In the context of the point he was making, they certainly are. To the consumer, how would the first automobiles make life so wildly different than if we had had some magical power to make horses faster? There would be some adapting (instead of providing hay for sustenance, we use fuel), but he end result is still the same with either. A faster way of transport. The horse had reached its maximum potential as a tool of transport, so the next step with automobiles was inevitable.
I guess.....
an announcement regarding Mac Pros it is likely in WWDC 2013. But, as other threads and posters have stated with more information, depends in how much the redesign or new Mac Pro had been worked out to make an introduction. And how Intel will manage the production of the new chips.
an announcement regarding Mac Pros it is likely in WWDC 2013. But, as other threads and posters have stated with more information, depends in how much the redesign or new Mac Pro had been worked out to make an introduction. And how Intel will manage the production of the new chips.
They drink gasoline and fart toxic gasses among other things lol!
I just think the quote is too often misused. People wanted faster horses, that's exactly what Ford made. A car is nothing more than a mechanical horse. Where do you think the term "horsepower" comes from?
It hardly can be a indicative of being similarly in many respects if making adaptions. Similarity would be indicative of having to made no adjustments because they were the same.
The ends neither justify or necessarily obfuscate the means. By myopically narrowing the focus solely to the ends rather than the means is just a mechanism to introduce a sweeping generalization. Once generalized to remove the large number of differences, you are simply jumping to the unjustified conclusion that there are few differences.
----------
It is not a mechanical horse. "Horsepower" is a unit of measure for an engine; not a car. It is basically 550 foot-pounds per second. That has little to do with the properties or characteristics of a car/automobile.
No, they are not - far from it.
There's hardly a change imaginable as massive as the step from horse to car.
A horse can transport up to 2 people - though one is better - and a little freight. A car can scale very flexibly to adjust to the owner's needs and can transport up to 5 people easily (up to 100 if you count in buses) and take freight up to tons of weight.
A car protects you from weather conditions, a horse - not.
A horse can go nearly everywhere, whereas a car needs roads or at least a halfway decent path, so the terrain of the whole world has changed to adapt to the needs of a car. As a result roads changed the importance of whole cities depending on whether the traffic was routed towards or away. Think of Route-66: Since most traffic has been re-routed via the new freeways, most towns along Route-66 have faded into oblivion.
A horse needs food and water in quantities that are hard to take with you for longer journeys, so you need to plan your trips well. A car can take all "food" it needs with it easily without even impairing its load capacity - and can go up to 1200 kilometers without requiring a rest or time for regeneration. As a driver you can go hundreds of kilometers and still feel relaxed upon leaving the car - try that with a horse...
To cut it short - a car is much more than just a faster way of transport. It offers so much more options and higher flexibility that it is not even in the same league with horses.
That's exactly the point - the concept of a horse being the main transport medium had reached its limits, but people would not be able to think out of the box! They would not be able to realize that they need to take a completely different route and leave horses behind, if they want to improve further.
In hindsight the next step with automobiles looks inevitable, but back then it was not perceived that way - at least by the majority. Instead horses were considered reliable, familiar and sufficient. Perhaps you could breed them a little faster even, with better food during upbringing, tweaking some bits here and there... but switching to a new technology that is loud, strange and slower than the trains we already adopted to over the recent decades? No way - instead a slightly improved yet-another-Xeon-box ...errrr..... a new, fresh young horse would be sufficient, wouldn't it?
Humans tend to stick with what they have and know. They rather seldom recognize what a change might bring and so they would not want something new, until it's available and in use by early adopters - only THEN they suddenly realize they indeed want it, badly! Thus it's questionable if it's the right strategy to _only_ listen to the customers without interpreting.
What Mac Pro users want is not a big box w/ Intel server hardware. That's only what they know. What they _really_ want is a machine with lots of power for a fair price/performance ratio, which is reliable, comparably silent under load, offering easy access and some headroom for upgrades and a couple of storage units. Ideally neatly wrapped into a high-quality package in terms of look and feel.
Ignoring the outdatedness of the current Mac Pro, there are only a few limited configurations possible in terms of CPU('s).
Chances are that you either pay more than you would need, if you e.g. like to have the headroom and easy access for upgrades, but would not need server-grade components.
Or you reach the upper limits of what's possible, but can't get more as the maximum is 12/24 cores running at xy GHz. You can buy another box, but you don't have the additional computing power available instantly. You would need to e.g. split up work to make use of the second box you purchased.
With a modular concept done right you could configure the machine in much finer granularity according to your real needs, so you could eventually reach a better individual price/performance ratio.
Make the entry with consumer-grade components (like e.g. a core-i5/i7) or a single Xeon and upgrade later with additional CPU modules.
Perhaps you could even rent an expansion module for that one high-volume project with tight deadlines, which would not justify buying a new machine and migrating everything to it.
Need much more computing power than those measly Dual-Xeon setup? Get a multi-CPU expansion with 128 ARM cores - the supercomputer cluster for the rest of us.
I would prefer a storage expansion module over a rat's nest of cables and bigger footprint for additional external drives any day.
The PSU would not have to be dimensioned for the maximum expansion possible in the big box (and thus be over-dimensioned for 90% of all users), but can be smaller and thus more power-efficient. If you need or want more later on, simply get a suitable PSU expansion module (unless each expansion module has its own, optimized PSU in the first place, hooked to the common power rail).
And so on...
I don't doubt current Mac Pro users would prefer a simple update of the PCB and CPU's inside the existing box, as they are afraid that any change may be for the worse. They know what they got, but not what they may get - just like the people that experienced the transition from horses to cars as primary means of (mass) transportation...
----------
The term "horsepower" had been invented during the upcoming of steam machines. It helped dimensioning a machine for running a mill or loom and smoothly introducing the new technology to people by using familiar terms and units.
So your point is? A steam machine is a horse, too?
They had darned well better, or they have no IDEA how big the firestorm of complaints on internet message boards is going to be!
There isn't really much in the way of available technology for these CPU "modules", and the Xeons that can scale beyond 2 processors become much more expensive...
I mean, we kind of have that with the current Mac Pro anyway. Take the current Mac Pro, throw in more OpenCL GPUs, or even possibly Xeon Phis, and you've got the same thing already.
I mean, we kind of have that with the current Mac Pro anyway. Take the current Mac Pro, throw in more OpenCL GPUs, or even possibly Xeon Phis, and you've got the same thing already.
The big firestorm of complaints was in June 2012. Didn't do any good, did it?!
There will NOT be a new Mac Pro at WWDC. As being said in this thread, there are no leaks, no new technology.
If they did bring out a new Mac Pro, it would be as crappy an update as the one in June 2012.
From an evolutionary perspective of methods of transportation, yes.
Sure opened up a can of worms here didn't I?
Also, when Ford made that remark, I lean to believe he was talking about "horse and buggy/carriage" rather than simply a horse on its own. In that sense, you can compare the traditional horse, to an engine, which would be powering said buggy or car.
Last edited:
OK. IMO, it doesn't matter what people call it or if a company is criticized or praised for it. It's just whether or not that's actually the case - pay more for same or less. I think that an analogy with Bentley is a failure for the same reasons that an analogy with Rolex would be. That's probably where our misunderstandings are coming from.
From an evolutionary perspective of methods of transportation, yes.
Sure opened up a can of worms here didn't I?
Also, when Ford made that remark, I lean to believe he was talking about "horse and buggy/carriage" rather than simply a horse on its own. In that sense, you can compare the traditional horse, to an engine, which would be powering said buggy or car.
Jesus!!!!!!! Who cares? Get off it? You've totally hijacked the thread!!!! Are you done?
Yes my son?
OR....
Gawd, I hope it's not that! UG!
That would be great for a new-ish MacMini concept tho. The second unit up is kind of an impossibility BTW.
Last edited:
Especially if they had some sort of an alternative around extra cables. Maybe the ports (which would be docked to) on the top or a solid connector on the back between units (like APC drive stacks used to have for power). I would *possibly* consider it as a temporary holdover if they announce the 2013 MP is delayed but it would depend on their implementation (like is one of those units able to hold 3.5 drives with speeds that make it a viable boot alternative and how accessible are the units). One of my main fears would be what if Apple decided at some point to stop making the units? Sure, I could buy them from 3rd parties but they would not be under applecare.
However as Tesselator said, that would make me consider a Mini, not a Pro. Apple knows the main thing that has waved off prospective mini buyers for years and it can be summed up in 3 letters: G P U. Having 3.5 drives is second yes, but most of their customer base do not care if they have a 2.5 or a 3.5 in there (I do, partly because a viper is a 3.5 form factor) since 2.5s work fine in laptops.
Don't really need it. Perhaps 0.2m cables ( or 0.15m) cables. The "problem" is the standard Thunderbolt cables are geared to long distances, not stacked on top distances.
First, 3rd parties can have warrantee service two. Second, it is highly doubtful Apple would cover these under a single "computer" Applecare policy. They aren't single units and frankly once start putting things like drives , GPU cards , etc in them there aren't even close to being the same additional risk as a monitor.
Finally, Apple isn't going to make 5-6 different variants of these boxes. This "general solution" already exists. It is the Mac mini. That's why these pictures look like a mini.
And it makes even less sense for Apple to come in a squash the 3rd party external TB market with their own devices. Thunderbolt already has slow uptick. Apple making moves to wipe out 3rd parties by steam rolling them will only drive off vendors.
That is just going to resolve itself over time. The upcoming Haswell HD5200 (GT3) with embedded eRAM cache is only the first step.
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/...PU_performance_Haswell_BGA_chip_pictured.html
They run a bit hotter than current CPU package so the Mini may not get it this year but next year with Broadwell. Or Apple may tweaks the Mini's innards to make it work.
As far as GPUs in external TB boxes.... that isn't an Apple problem. That is a driver issue.
3.5" drive plus the ODD that folks sometimes wail about.
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echo15thunderboltdock.html
The solutions to these "problems" are already coming to market. There is absolutely zero sane reason Apple should mutate the Mac Pro to resolve them. The Mac Pro re-targeted to being the better mini is drinking gallons of Cupertino kool-aid.
The "Modular, multiple boxes with multiple power supplies" Mac already exists. It is called the Mac Mini.
Likewise the "modular, extra functions on cards" Mac already exists. It is called the Mac Pro.
Some modular solution in the gap between those two is a diminishing small niche. There is a area above the Mac Pro were would get into Blade server territory. That isn't somewhere Apple is likely to go. It is rack/machine room oriented ( as oppose to individual users ). It is also more expensive.
I posted this link in the "modular" thread:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/04/27/editorial-what-will-apple-do-with-the-macintosh
Any comments on the content ??
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/04/27/editorial-what-will-apple-do-with-the-macintosh
Any comments on the content ??