People Who Complain About the New Mac Pro Misunderstand It

[7enderbender]

You had me until you said sound cards. There are pretty decent class compliant sound cards that are darn cheap. Then there are the USB and Firewire equipped mixers. Both Dj and console style. And at the high end we get UAD and Apogee boxes with open configuration architecture that allows different output modules to be fitted.
But then I have had a MOTU 828MKII since they came out. Still works pretty much perfectly from any Mac.

And then I gotta say there are some really nice monitors from boring old Dell and HP. May not fit the "style" of a mac, but they have really good color gamut and accuracy.

I think we mean the same thing though. First monitor: yes, there are a few very good desktop monitors available that work for photographers. They are expensive but do exist. You always have to watch out for various compatibility questions on Macs though from all I've seen so far. On laptops on the other hand monitor quality and real estate has been dropping over the last few years. The retina models sure look nice but don't have good real estate when running in native resolution. Plus they're shiny and I can't stand that. The old 15" and 17" inch hi res matt options were nicer but are old news now or have been discontinued. That's why I still do my mobile photo editing on a very old Thinkpad with a really nice screen that nobody has anymore.

Sound cards: yes, there are options. Either old USB technology or Firewire - which I much prefer but has been declared obsolete by the geniuses at Apple.

 

[MachineShedFred]

VMware.

I just wish Apple would take the restriction of legally virtualizing Mac OS X off by working a deal with VMware. Running on "Apple Branded" hardware means that I have to spend way more money on one of these things, with super expensive RAM in comparison to what I could shove into my blade server for half the price to do the same job. Oh, and a hydra of thunderbolt-to-10GbE adapters hanging off the back is going to be a great way to talk to my iSCSI SAN, and super-supported in VMware ESX, I'm sure.

Or, I could use a MacPro5,1 with a Smalltree (read: Intel) multi-port PCI-e 10GbE card and RAM that costs half as much for the same quantity and call it a day.

Virtualization is all about storage and RAM, and usually never about CPU if you balance the VM load properly. This new Mac Pro sucks for virtualized development, or from a disaster recovery / business continuity standpoint.

So there's two more use cases that the previous model is better at.

 

[Mac Hammer Fan]

No we understand it completely. Apple made a mistake and should call the new machine a super Mac Mini. Then they should read all the complaints and concentrate on designing a new Mac Pro.

Well said. I totally agree!

 

[Javik]

I just wish Apple would take the restriction of legally virtualizing Mac OS X off by working a deal with VMware. Running on "Apple Branded" hardware means that I have to spend way more money on one of these things, with super expensive RAM in comparison to what I could shove into my blade server for half the price to do the same job. Oh, and a hydra of thunderbolt-to-10GbE adapters hanging off the back is going to be a great way to talk to my iSCSI SAN, and super-supported in VMware ESX, I'm sure.

Or, I could use a MacPro5,1 with a Smalltree (read: Intel) multi-port PCI-e 10GbE card and RAM that costs half as much for the same quantity and call it a day.

Virtualization is all about storage and RAM, and usually never about CPU if you balance the VM load properly. This new Mac Pro sucks for virtualized development, or from a disaster recovery / business continuity standpoint.

So there's two more use cases that the previous model is better at.

then continue using the old one.

 

[mcnallym]

I just wish Apple would take the restriction of legally virtualizing Mac OS X off by working a deal with VMware. Running on "Apple Branded" hardware means that I have to spend way more money on one of these things, with super expensive RAM in comparison to what I could shove into my blade server for half the price to do the same job. Oh, and a hydra of thunderbolt-to-10GbE adapters hanging off the back is going to be a great way to talk to my iSCSI SAN, and super-supported in VMware ESX, I'm sure.

Or, I could use a MacPro5,1 with a Smalltree (read: Intel) multi-port PCI-e 10GbE card and RAM that costs half as much for the same quantity and call it a day.

Virtualization is all about storage and RAM, and usually never about CPU if you balance the VM load properly. This new Mac Pro sucks for virtualized development, or from a disaster recovery / business continuity standpoint.

So there's two more use cases that the previous model is better at.

I take it that you have looked at the Apple Web Site since they replaced the current Mac Pro with the upcoming one.

Look under Server and you will simply see 3 items

OSX Server
Remote Desktop
Mac Mini with OSX Server

Note that the Mac Pro OSX Server option is gone.

Personally I think the Mac Pro OSX server was just a sop for easing people away from OSX Server when they killed off the xserve, and adding the vmware helped ease peoples fears, whilst providing a way to transition the Server side away from OSX.

OSX Server now appears to be simply for the management of OSX Desktops, Laptops, Software Updates, Mobile Device Management etc. There is certainly enough complaining out there on the forums about the dumbing down of OSX Server.

None of this requires a powerful machine, and certainly not one with the amount of Graphics Power coming withe the new Mac Pro. It certainly isn't aimed as a replacement for an OSX Server platform, isn't even being listed as selling an OSX Server version this time.

 

[MachineShedFred]

My issue is that Apple requires me to run OS X on Apple hardware, even if virtualized. Then, they proceeded to cancel off all hardware capable of virtualizing it in multiple sessions. Xserve is gone. Mac Pro is becoming Mac Prosumer.

Today, I can load VMware ESX on the bare metal of a MacPro5 maxed out with RAM - VMware even has it listed in their hardware compatibility list for ESX 5.1. I can then get 20 VMs running on there and point Screen Sharing sessions to users for application testing and systems validation. No more of that, I guess.

Oh, and to the brain child above that said "then continue using the old one" - I guess you forgot that before Apple even starts shipping the new model, they bleed the channel dry of the old one? It's a lesson they learned in the late 90s when they would kick new models out the door, and have thousands of the old stale models laying around no one would buy.

Oh, and "continue using the old one" is a great strategy for future planning too, when you know that it's already 20-month old hardware that will be end-of-sale in a matter of weeks.

Don't get a job in IT. Or, do - then I can be paid lots of money to clean up your mess after you get run out of the building.

 

[-hh]

then continue using the old one.

Some of us are doing just that.

However, the bigger picture is ... the bigger picture.

One such question comes down to longer term planning. Even if a 2012 MP is adequate for the next few years, there's still the question of where to drive one's IT solution in 2016...and good long term planning will take that to account for what business decisions are to be made in 2013, 2014 and 2015.

In part, this is how to avoid being forced into a corner that's expensive to escape from.


For example, the users of legacy PowerMacs were able to manage risk by more gradually moving into USB because they could add an expansion card to give themselves USB ports and run both legacy+new in a single environment. This approach isn't available with Thunderbolt for the current (soon to be legacy) Mac Pro users, so the implications of this are that MP users are constrained to changing the host (Mac) and TB at the same time, which is a higher risk to their workflow.

One approach to mitigating this risk is to look at USB3 devices instead because they do bridge on an existing Mac Pro ... and it also makes it less costly/risky for a legacy MP user to defect from the Macintosh platform.

This user reaction is very logical (self-interests) but it also very clearly jepordizes the adoption rate/success of TB for Apple, and possibly even their commitment to the 2013 MP design too.

Time will tell for how the marketplace speaks. While some people will point out that Apple hasn't had a huge Macintosh flop since the Cube (and suggest parallels here), let's not also forget the far more recent Final Cut Pro --> X mess, which really messed up a lot of their professional customer base. Yes, Apple is (still) working to recover from FCP/X, but the important point is that they're far from infallible and Apple did most certainly make a huge and recent misstep in serving their customers.



-hh

 

[MacMilligan]

I wish having the new model didn't preclude having the tried and true design as well. A few tweaks to the current Mac Pro would keep most happy while Apple can experiment with the new design.

 

[flat five]

I wish having the new model didn't preclude having the tried and true design as well. A few tweaks to the current Mac Pro would keep most happy while Apple can experiment with the new design.

it seems like that's what they've been doing the last few years.. a few tweaks to the current one while they were experimenting with the new design.

 

[GermanyChris]

it seems like that's what they've been doing the last few years.. a few tweaks to the current one while they were experimenting with the new design.

No a few tweaks would have been a Sandy processor board attached to the existing chipset. Not ohh these processors now fit the price envelope. There is little to no difference between the '09 and 12' MP

 

[flat five]

tomato tomato

but now that they've (unarguably?) seriously tweaked the thing and made great improvements across the board, people will still complain
(and as far as i can tell, the same people complaining back then are the same people complaining now.. amiright?)

 

[flat five]

and hey man.. i don't want to argue you.. i don't want to call you a complainer etc. i get it- you're geeky about your computers (geeky not insinuating a bad thing) and of course you always want access to bleeding edge tech and the ability to tweak your computer in every way imaginable.. i respect that and i'm fine with that. but i'm not like that so much (but i'd say i'm more computer geeky than the majority of people)..
just differing needs and wants here is all..

but i will say this- i'm not always on this forum and i usually come around when either A) i have a problem or question i can't solve or B) researching for an upcoming buy.. i've been waiting on a new macpro for about 2 years now and thankfully, my current pro has held up during that time.. but i'm more likely than not going to be buying this new one as soon as it's available.. so i've been hanging around here to see other's opinions on how it may or may not be a bad thing for me to buy.. and none (as in zero) of these complaints have made me question wether or not i should drop the $$ on it.. in fact, many of the complaints and what they're about actually reinforce my decision to go ahead and continue setting aside money for it.