The Mac Pro is basically the Apple Cube

[MacVidCards]

The other machine wasn't more upgradable, it was bigger but most importantly more powerful. You actually got more power for not that more money which is why people bought it. Or put differently: the Cube was too expensive and too slow compared to its bigger brother.

100% wrong.

You could buy a Radeon 9800 and put it in ANY G4, there was no Cube sized version. Worked fine in the Sawtooth, which was out at same time as Cube.

I found and flashed a Cube sized one but only 1 in 3 would be stable. And even then you were on the knife's edge for power. The VRM board wouldn't take it over time. For awhile there was an aftermarket VRM board that would allow you to upgrade both the CPU and the GPU.

You could put more drives in a standard G4. You could put several PCI cards in any other G4, Cube only had a single AGP2 slot. You had a much greater range of options for Optical drive for standard G4 since the Cube used a slot load versus a tray.

To refresh, you just typed "The other machine wasn't more upgradable" If you want to be right, don't argue nonsense. The Cube could only take small, less powerful GPUs. When Dual CPU upgrades came out for other G4s the Cube versions were more expensive and more trouble. If you used one with a better GPU you burned up your VRM. How does this not mean "less upgradeable"?

To get the small size they sacrificed power and compromised on heat. They originally were going to put a fan in the base of the Cube. They decided it was too noisy and left it out. So for better esthetics they sacrificed performance.

The Cube is a perfect analog to the nMP but as Apple learned, people will only go for the compromised version if you don't offer them the less compromised version.

As far as cMP being difficult to upgrade. YES< YOU HAVE TO DO RESEARCH. But guess what, the PCIE SSD I bought works GREAT as a boot drive. Wanna know where it won't work? In a WINDOWS machine. Some people just can't handle small fiddly stuff. Apple demanded that you drag your entire 50+lb Mac Pro into a store if you wanted a 2oz WiFi card installed. It was NOT considered "user installable" yet MOST people could do it just fine.

Moral of story, some people just need to admit that this kind of stuff is beyond them and have a Pro do upgrades for them. But that doesn't explain removing the option altogether.

Anyone who has taken a Cube apart knows how much it has in common with nMP. Compromise after compromise. Makes sense today, will seem hopelessly limited in a year or two when nnMP comes out with Nvidia Titan Z or Hawaii GPUs or new CPUs on new socket.

 

[chaosbunny]

The other machine wasn't more upgradable, it was bigger but most importantly more powerful. You actually got more power for not that more money which is why people bought it. Or put differently: the Cube was too expensive and too slow compared to its bigger brother. The difference in power between a small machine and a big machine was really big back then but the gap is getting smaller each year. Nowadays we only see a difference when doing long computations (which has to do with heat: things will throttle down if it becomes too hot and thus the performance decreases).

Powermacs and Mac Pro's have never been very upgradable. People have always complained about it and the PC guys always made fun of it. It's only since OS X Lion, the work done by websites like netkas.org and UEFI use on ordinary computers that we've gotten a wider range of graphics cards. Before we only had what Apple was offering which were like 1 or 2 different cards. Same thing applies to a lot of other components. The OSX86 project exists for that reason.


I'm not exaggerating, some people only see what they want to see. Before the nMP everybody was yelling at Apple that the Mac Pro wasn't upgradable and was so expensive. Apple should come out with an i7 version and allow various graphics cards from Nvidia and AMD. Then the nMP came out and suddenly the old Mac Pro was the very upgradable. Riiiiiight...


And that's my entire point: we techies (aka people who read this part of the forum and sites like tonymac, netkas and so on) know what to look for and where. We know what works and what doesn't work. Why? Because it's our hobby and so we spend time on it. The problem is that about 90% of the users won't do this. They don't care, they just want something that works (main reason why most people buy Apple products). If you have to read a forum to know what card works or not it's too difficult. They'll probably ask an IT guy they know.

There is a difference between our world and everybody else's


SATA SSDs aren't the problem, PCIe ones are but only when you want to boot from them (you need to read my post more carefully). If you just want fast storage after OS X has booted then any SSD will do. You want to boot from a PCIe SSD...danger Will Robinson!


And how many of the cards they sell work in a Mac? Because if you read the forums here, netkas and so on there are quite a few that won't work. Does your bootscreen work? Can you do OpenCL computations or similar (some scientists and other users use software that take use of this)?


It highly depends. I've seen shops where they work with custom made computers and shops that work with standard configurations. The first don't care much about warranty and support because they are able to do it themselves. The latter are a different type, they require warranty and support (you can have that with custom made machines but it'll be very very expensive). I've also seen a mix where they use standardised machines for office work and custom setups when that is required in the lab. The amount of upgrades however are seriously limited. They usually are just memory and disk (mostly hdd to ssd upgrades). I do the support for those companies and have seen quite a lot of them (as well as computers). Had this conversation with one guy at work. He argued that everybody should have admin rights because people are smart enough. Yes, in his group they that's why they have those rights. I showed him some of the tickets I had and after that he changed his mind. There are many different users but most of them are not smart.


Yep but try to look beyond your own setup and your own little world. Like I said, we are in a different world than most ordinary users. Apple's user group has always been the kind that didn't want to do much to a computer: they just want it to work.

First of all, nice to have a civilized discussion on an internet forum!

By the way my machine is booting just fine from the pci ssd - simple plug & play, I did no research, I didn't install any additional software. Just walked into my local Apple reseller, bought the card, put an ssd in it, installed it, cloned my OS and done. But I do understand your point, sure most if not all users - especially Mac users - want something that just works. And that's what the MacBooks, the iMac, the Mini and the iPad are for. The Mac Pro was and is aimed at users who need the performance. I don't notice a difference between my old 2008 MacBook Pro and my tower with its old 2.8 ghz quad or with its new 3.46 ghz hex processor when browsing the web. But you bet I notice that difference when exporting a color graded video.

So people bought the bigger more powerful machine back in 2001, and all I'm saying is that they would do so again now. An updated classic Mac Pro would have been more powerful, if only because of the ability to have dual processors.

Maybe I'm viewing this from a limited point of view, but I'm not the biggest techie either. Macrumors is the only tech related website I visit.

Oh, and I still have my old Cube from 2001. I loved the look of it back then but often regretted not getting a PowerMac later. Learned my lesson.

 

[gpzjock]

Who killed the G4 Cube? In a nutshell, the developer of the G4 iMac.
Apple announce the Cube is on ice in July 2001.
January 2002 sees the 800 MHz G4 iMac with 1 GB RAM capacity, 32 Mb Nvidia Geforce 4MX and a 15" LCD screen for the price of a 500 MHz Cube 6 months earlier.
How long does it take to bring a design to market?
http://youtu.be/sYutehhGknI

 

[dyn]

100% wrong.

You are looking 100% in the wrong direction indeed. A computer is software that runs on hardware. The hardware part that you guys keep on going on about isn't the problem here, it's the software part that is. The software has to support the hardware properly in order to make it run properly. That means manufacturers have to support OS X. And there's your problem.
To quote you:

I found and flashed a Cube sized one but only 1 in 3 would be stable.

That would make a success rate of 33% but it is very inaccurate due to the very small batch. Or in other words: it doesn't say anything about it working properly. And even if it did it would mean that it won't work in 66% of the time aka the majority of the time. So don't talk nonsense about things being upgradable if you give numbers that show it doesn't work the majority of the time. Never assume it will if it won't work in the majority of time. If you do it will bite you because you are promising someone something that you can't keep.

As far as cMP being difficult to upgrade. YES< YOU HAVE TO DO RESEARCH.

Yes and that's the problem. If you have to do research it'll become technical. Having to do research is a very high wall, hitting technical stuff is another high wall. What do people do when they hit a high wall? They won't bother. Too much effort.

Moral of story, some people just need to admit that this kind of stuff is beyond them and have a Pro do upgrades for them. But that doesn't explain removing the option altogether.

And some people need to know what users are exactly. The problem is knowing that you can upgrade. Most users have no clue about that and those who do generally also have the knowledge and will do the research and might even do the upgrades themselves. Most users however will only come to you and ask why their machine is so slow. In reality most users are not technical at all, they don't know nor understand computers. Therefore we cannot expect that any manufacturer that is aiming at the general public will bring in those features that we techies want. Take a good look at Android vs iOS.

There are lots of explanations, the problem is that some of you do not wish to see them and are trying their utmost to battle them. If your business depends on it I can imagine that you have even more reason to do so.

By the way my machine is booting just fine from the pci ssd - simple plug & play, I did no research, I didn't install any additional software. Just walked into my local Apple reseller, bought the card, put an ssd in it, installed it, cloned my OS and done.

Same here but we're talking about a reseller who is in the Apple business since the 90s and who also do Apple sysadmin stuff. They know their stuff and it shows in their product portfolio (meaning that whatever you buy there is guaranteed to work; they did the proper research). Unfortunately (or maybe not) they are not that known, only within a very small circle of people (it's probably why they still exist: very small but loyal customers).

But I do understand your point, sure most if not all users - especially Mac users - want something that just works. And that's what the MacBooks, the iMac, the Mini and the iPad are for. The Mac Pro was and is aimed at users who need the performance.

Yep, that's how most manufacturers differentiate their products. They aim at certain users and use cases. Upgradability has never been part of that at Apple. The fact that they use certain components is what makes it possible but there is no official support (which is why you need to do research).

Maybe I'm viewing this from a limited point of view, but I'm not the biggest techie either. Macrumors is the only tech related website I visit.

I don't mind people sharing their point of view, you can learn from it. In this case people need to learn that things are not always the way they think they are. Companies handle new computers differently as do ordinary users that make up about 90% of the entire userbase. They are not into upgrades and components like we are. When they upgrade they upgrade to a new machine.

When I was an intern we wanted to upgrade one of the HP workstations from single cpu to dual cpu. The machine was only 6 months old. We contacted HP and they told us the machine wasn't supported any more. There were no cpu upgrades. Now, we could do some research, buy a cpu and risk it not working but why would we want to upgrade a machine that the manufacturer no longer supports? There are more risks so it is better to replace it with a new one.
Something similar applies to machines that are 3 years old: yes you can upgrade a component but do keep in mind that the other components are also 3 years old (at least). They were top notch 3 years ago but they are outdated now. If you want a fast machine you eventually end up upgrading so much components that a new machine is a better idea. A lot of decisions are made on time, effort and money. Just to give you an idea how sysadmins deal with these and other things.

A hobbyist won't think that way. He'll go "gees, that new Mac Pro costs me another 3k, that video card only 300; am definitely buying the video card!". It's quite different when you have to fork out all that money yourself instead of via some kind of financial trick.

That's why Apple gets away with doing things as they do. Most of their userbase simply doesn't care. I just like that they use Thunderbolt. It gives you some of the pro things we techies like. It also gives me components that have proper OS X support which means I don't have to spend huge amounts of time doing research, getting things to work and/or troubleshooting problems because things are guaranteed to work. For my users that means the support costs are lower. If they work in a group the group can buy such a component and share it amongst their members. That saves money as well. We have a lot of issues with the PCI components and none with the USB versions. USB is something that you can pass on to a vm easily with any virtualisation software. PCI passthrough however... If possible we recommend people to get the USB version. That way they are not as dependant on the hardware. I find this to be the only downside to Thunderbolt: you can't pass it on to a vm.

Oh, and I still have my old Cube from 2001. I loved the look of it back then but often regretted not getting a PowerMac later. Learned my lesson.

It was and still is a cute little machine but it wasn't always a good choice indeed

 

[MacVidCards]

That would make a success rate of 33% but it is very inaccurate due to the very small batch. Or in other words: it doesn't say anything about it working properly. And even if it did it would mean that it won't work in 66% of the time aka the majority of the time. So don't talk nonsense about things being upgradable if you give numbers that show it doesn't work the majority of the time. Never assume it will if it won't work in the majority of time. If you do it will bite you because you are promising someone something that you can't keep.


Yes and that's the problem. If you have to do research it'll become technical. Having to do research is a very high wall, hitting technical stuff is another high wall. What do people do when they hit a high wall? They won't bother. Too much effort.


And some people need to know what users are exactly. The problem is knowing that you can upgrade. Most users have no clue about that and those who do generally also have the knowledge and will do the research and might even do the upgrades themselves. Most users however will only come to you and ask why their machine is so slow. In reality most users are not technical at all, they don't know nor understand computers. Therefore we cannot expect that any manufacturer that is aiming at the general public will bring in those features that we techies want. Take a good look at Android vs iOS.

There are lots of explanations, the problem is that some of you do not wish to see them and are trying their utmost to battle them. If your business depends on it I can imagine that you have even more reason to do so.



I don't mind people sharing their point of view, you can learn from it. In this case people need to learn that things are not always the way they think they are. Companies handle new computers differently as do ordinary users that make up about 90% of the entire userbase. They are not into upgrades and components like we are. When they upgrade they upgrade to a new machine.

Ahh we get to the root of those upgrading troubles you had. Understanding printed words on a page.

I'll try again.

You claimed that the Cube was just as upgradable as the other machines. I pointed out that ATI released a Radeon 9800 that worked in EVERY SINGLE G4 MADE.

The lone exception was the Cube. You would had to have sawed a hole in the case and the 9800 would have poked out the top.

The Black Sapphire 9800 I discovered had poor success in Cubes and only the most devout fans bothered with them.

I was not saying that the Cube was easily upgradeable. (That was you)

I was showing that it was NOT upgradeable due to all of the compromises Apple made to keep it pretty.

When doing upgrades, it is very important that you read words and apply critical thought to understand the words you have read.

Please let me know if I can clarify this further.

Did I mention the special end plate Cube GPUs required? I spent hours cutting and threading those so the cards could be securley fastened to the frame. Can't tell you how many times I sliced my fingers making those.

The Cube was NOT as upgradeable as the other G4s. Saying that it was shows a lack of actual knowledge on the subject of this thread.
Why do I not post in RAID threads? Because I have no actual knowledge and would make a fool of myself.

As far as "companies don't upgrade"

Guess who 40-50% of my customers are? Video post production COMPANIES (Apples former target market) and Medical imaging COMPANIES. Huh.

 

[ShinySteelRobot]

Apple Cube was simply Steve's second iteration of the cube concept.

Ironically, in some ways the NeXT Cube was more upgradeable than the Apple Cube, for example you could swap out the whole motherboard in the NeXT machine (IIRC the 68030 CPU was surface mounted so you had to swap the motherboard to upgrade to a 68040, you could also upgrade the drive, the video etc).

Steve really loved the cube shape.

 

[rrl]

Steve really loved the cube shape.

 

[Redneck1089]

Its not for people making money with them...

There are lots of people who use Mac Pros for their private businesses and "mak[e] money with them" that cannot afford to upgrade because of the costs associated with having to adopt all TB peripherals.

I'm glad to see that people on Mac Rumors are so well off that they can either afford to have the big company they work for pay for these things, or that their own businesses are capable of absorbing such costs.

 

[Gav Mack]

Having had the cubes to bits and the nMP the only things common is the concept is it being very compact for the horsepower and being the direct opposite in terms of thermodynamics.

Cubes were very noisy and hot, broke down a lot and that was one of the first I used to really, really curse about Apple's rubbish application of thermal paste. Did it my way they would break down less and they still don't bloody learn to this day

The nMP I don't actually have a really accurate comparison with any type of computer never mind just a macintosh, or the cheesegraters most of us love.

It's simply something completely different. Nothing I have ever seen before can hold a candle to it in terms of hearing hardly a thing when pushed hard - the opposite to the cube!

 

[rambo47]

The design of the G4 Cube had thermal problems. If you upgraded components you ran the serious risk of instability. It was a niche products, whether that's what Apple intended or not. It was spiffing, it pushed the envelope of what desktop computers looked like, but ultimately was a dead end. Still, I wish I kept mine and left if stock.

 

[iBug2]

Then why didn't the Cube sell? Why did people choose the bigger, more upgradable machine back then and wouldn't now? Firewire was the hot stuff back then for fast external hds, much like thunderbolt is now. Ok, you can do more with thunderbolt, but not that much more - especially not gpu wise. I bet most classic Mac Pro owners at least upgraded to a ssd by now and installed more ram over time, you can't even do the later on most Macs sold today.

The Cube didn't have the same performance as the bigger PowerMac, it had single CPU compared to dual CPU the PowerMac had. Paying more for a slower machine was the main reason it failed I bet, not upgradability.

----------

100% wrong.

No he wasn't 100% wrong. He was at most 50% wrong. The cube did have half the performance of the PowerMac G4. Single CPU vs Dual CPU. Don't know how people can miss this. Memorywise they were more or less the same (1.5 vs 2GB) and the only upgrade option the PowerMac had was the GPU. That doesn't make the Cube "not upgradable" compared to the PowerMac. Both are hardly upgradeable, Cube even more so. But the performance being twice as low was the deciding factor. The nMP does not have that limitation. That's the main difference with the Cube.

 

[barkmonster]

It's the NeXT Cube in modern form because it uses powerful CPU/GPU components in a small form-factor and runs on the modern equivelent of NeXT Step. (The basis of Mac OS X).

 

[MacVidCards]

The Cube didn't have the same performance as the bigger PowerMac, it had single CPU compared to dual CPU the PowerMac had. Paying more for a slower machine was the main reason it failed I bet, not upgradability.

----------



No he wasn't 100% wrong. He was at most 50% wrong. The cube did have half the performance of the PowerMac G4. Single CPU vs Dual CPU. Don't know how people can miss this. Memorywise they were more or less the same (1.5 vs 2GB) and the only upgrade option the PowerMac had was the GPU. That doesn't make the Cube "not upgradable" compared to the PowerMac. Both are hardly upgradeable, Cube even more so. But the performance being twice as low was the deciding factor. The nMP does not have that limitation. That's the main difference with the Cube.

So 25% difference in RAM is "more or less the same"

How much does Apple pay you people?

48 GB vs 64 GB is "more or less the same"

You could put powerful GPU in G4

You could put crap in Cube. I modded and sold Cube cards for years, I know.

"The nMP does not have that limitation."

It DOES ! Why spread lies that are easily disproved?

It holds half of theCPU upgrade options a Dual CPU machine would have. And as a result half the RAM. It is a watered down machine, just like Cube. Making excuses for it won't make it faster.

Just like nMP where you FROM DAY ONE could put better GPU in cMP.

Please stop. Please stop spreading nonsense for Apple.

Who exactly do you think you are fooling?

The nMP has a fleet of limitations. Denying their existence doesn't even put a dent in reality.

 

[AidenShaw]

one-sixth the RAM

It holds half of theCPU upgrade options a Dual CPU machine would have. And as a result half the RAM.

A dual socket E5-26xx v2 system can have 24 DIMM slots - the MP6,1 has 4.

 

[chaosbunny]

The Cube didn't have the same performance as the bigger PowerMac, it had single CPU compared to dual CPU the PowerMac had. Paying more for a slower machine was the main reason it failed I bet, not upgradability.

The way you describe it this sounds pretty much like the new Mac Pro. It's a single cpu machine, while with the old design dual cpu machines were possible.

The only difference now is that the dual cpu machine is no longer available.

 

[casperes1996]

Stepping in for a sec...

The other machine wasn't more upgradable, it was bigger but most importantly more powerful. You actually got more power for not that more money which is why people bought it. Or put differently: the Cube was too expensive and too slow compared to its bigger brother. The difference in power between a small machine and a big machine was really big back then but the gap is getting smaller each year. Nowadays we only see a difference when doing long computations (which has to do with heat: things will throttle down if it becomes too hot and thus the performance decreases).

Powermacs and Mac Pro's have never been very upgradable. People have always complained about it and the PC guys always made fun of it. It's only since OS X Lion, the work done by websites like netkas.org and UEFI use on ordinary computers that we've gotten a wider range of graphics cards. Before we only had what Apple was offering which were like 1 or 2 different cards. Same thing applies to a lot of other components. The OSX86 project exists for that reason.


I'm not exaggerating, some people only see what they want to see. Before the nMP everybody was yelling at Apple that the Mac Pro wasn't upgradable and was so expensive. Apple should come out with an i7 version and allow various graphics cards from Nvidia and AMD. Then the nMP came out and suddenly the old Mac Pro was the very upgradable. Riiiiiight...


And that's my entire point: we techies (aka people who read this part of the forum and sites like tonymac, netkas and so on) know what to look for and where. We know what works and what doesn't work. Why? Because it's our hobby and so we spend time on it. The problem is that about 90% of the users won't do this. They don't care, they just want something that works (main reason why most people buy Apple products). If you have to read a forum to know what card works or not it's too difficult. They'll probably ask an IT guy they know.

There is a difference between our world and everybody else's


SATA SSDs aren't the problem, PCIe ones are but only when you want to boot from them (you need to read my post more carefully). If you just want fast storage after OS X has booted then any SSD will do. You want to boot from a PCIe SSD...danger Will Robinson!


And how many of the cards they sell work in a Mac? Because if you read the forums here, netkas and so on there are quite a few that won't work. Does your bootscreen work? Can you do OpenCL computations or similar (some scientists and other users use software that take use of this)?


It highly depends. I've seen shops where they work with custom made computers and shops that work with standard configurations. The first don't care much about warranty and support because they are able to do it themselves. The latter are a different type, they require warranty and support (you can have that with custom made machines but it'll be very very expensive). I've also seen a mix where they use standardised machines for office work and custom setups when that is required in the lab. The amount of upgrades however are seriously limited. They usually are just memory and disk (mostly hdd to ssd upgrades). I do the support for those companies and have seen quite a lot of them (as well as computers). Had this conversation with one guy at work. He argued that everybody should have admin rights because people are smart enough. Yes, in his group they that's why they have those rights. I showed him some of the tickets I had and after that he changed his mind. There are many different users but most of them are not smart.


Yep but try to look beyond your own setup and your own little world. Like I said, we are in a different world than most ordinary users. Apple's user group has always been the kind that didn't want to do much to a computer: they just want it to work.

Sure. I can agree to what you're saying... Except for two things. A: The people who don't know about these things won't try to smash in a new GPU anyway, so what's lost by allowing those who do know these things to fiddle?
B: The Apple user group you're talking about aren't the ones buying Mac Pros... That's the people here.

 

[mikeboss]

You want to boot from a PCIe SSD...danger Will Robinson!

of the two recent models that came to market (SAMSUNG XP941 and PLEXTOR M6e) both work in the classic Mac Pro as bootdrive. not so much with PCs: only the PLEXTOR works as bootdrive. the SAMSUNG isn't bootable in most PCs.

 

[dyn]

I was not saying that the Cube was easily upgradeable. (That was you)

I never said anything about how difficult or easy upgrading the cube was. I said that the Powermac was at the same level in terms of upgradability as the cube.

I was showing that it was NOT upgradeable due to all of the compromises Apple made to keep it pretty.

Which is something I acknowledge. Thus what would be the conclusion now? That the Powermac is as difficult to upgrade as the cube was. Just not for the same reasons.

When doing upgrades, it is very important that you read words and apply critical thought to understand the words you have read.

Exactly. The only way you can do this is by having decent knowledge. The problem is that most users do not have this and are thus unable to do so.

The Cube was NOT as upgradeable as the other G4s. Saying that it was shows a lack of actual knowledge on the subject of this thread.

No it just shows that you haven't read what I was saying and apply critical thought to it. What you've done is quickly read it and assumed what I was talking about.

As far as "companies don't upgrade"

Guess who 40-50% of my customers are? Video post production COMPANIES (Apples former target market) and Medical imaging COMPANIES. Huh.

Guess who my 80-90% of customers are? Companies that do not wish to do upgrades because a new machine is cheaper in their eyes. The other percentage doesn't mind. They don't mind if I custom build something for them. A small portion of those 80-90% cannot upgrade due to legislation so it's not always their own choice. I have various kinds of organisations among them are video editing companies, scientist doing all sorts of research (such as medical imaging), more administrative types of work and so on. It's the chemist that use OS X, the others usually use Windows (some are not allowed to use anything but Windows).

However, when I talk to competitors they see the same thing. The majority of users simply do not have the knowledge and most of them don't even know that you can upgrade no matter if we are talking Windows, Linux or OS X here.

Btw, with your own logic as well as some others, the cube is as upgradable as the Powermac because you can fit a gigantic gpu in it. You have to saw but hey you can upgrade it! Again, upgrading something is only meaningful if it is 1. easy to do and 2. it works properly afterwards. If you have to do any research it is not easy to do. If you need to tweak stuff, apply hacks and so on it is not easy to do and generally also not very stable.

Sure. I can agree to what you're saying... Except for two things. A: The people who don't know about these things won't try to smash in a new GPU anyway, so what's lost by allowing those who do know these things to fiddle?

Let me get 1 thing straight: I don't give a rats about it but I do know how companies think (and yes it is annoying at times because you don't get what you want). In this case you are asking the wrong question. A company would ask: what benefit is there for us to include it or not? It's all about the money.

B: The Apple user group you're talking about aren't the ones buying Mac Pros... That's the people here.

Nope. The Mac Pro is being bought by many different users. From the criticism on this forum I highly doubt people here are the ones buying the new Mac Pro since it isn't the same design as the old one (so no 4 drive bays, no PCIe). If you take a closer look at the feature set of the new Mac Pro it becomes clear that the main target audience are the large media companies like Disney, Pixar and so on. They'll buy Thunderbolt devices, have everything on a huge SAN and so on. Big enterprises that have a different upgrade scheme as I've explained. On a Dutch Apple forum there are a few who've bought this machine as well. They are photographers. About 99% of that forum are non-technical people who are the exact user group I mentioned.

The new Mac Pro is targeted at a certain audience which isn't the hobbyist/technician who likes and wants to tinker with the computer on both a hardware and software level. That doesn't mean that nobody is buying the machine nor that Apple shot themselves in the foot. You're not the target audience but many others are. Do I like it? Well, that doesn't matter at all. Apple does not give a damn about me, they go for the majority of users. That's how companies work. And that's why Apple products are still in the range of "somewhat affordable" instead of being "for the filthy rich only" (because that's what going to happen if they made a completely custom model where everything is to your liking).

of the two recent models that came to market (SAMSUNG XP941 and PLEXTOR M6e) both work in the classic Mac Pro as bootdrive. not so much with PCs: only the PLEXTOR works as bootdrive. the SAMSUNG isn't bootable in most PCs.

I wasn't only talking about recent models, it was about ALL PCIe SSDs you can buy. You may want to search for that topic in this part of the forum if you want to know more.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'm not sure that I believe this - where are the cracks in the MP6,1 ??

 

[MacVidCards]

I never said anything about how difficult or easy upgrading the cube was. I said that the Powermac was at the same level in terms of upgradability as the cube.


Which is something I acknowledge. Thus what would be the conclusion now? That the Powermac is as difficult to upgrade as the cube was. Just not for the same reasons.

You aren't even trying to make sense.

I owned one of every G4, including the Cube.

Your above statements don't mesh with reality, in fact they don't even sound serious.

If you aren't going to contribute rational discussion, why bother?

 

[kwikdeth]

If you aren't going to contribute rational discussion, why bother?

it was very successful in warming the room. it was getting kinda chilly in here.

 

[chaosbunny]

I never said anything about how difficult or easy upgrading the cube was. I said that the Powermac was at the same level in terms of upgradability as the cube.


Which is something I acknowledge. Thus what would be the conclusion now? That the Powermac is as difficult to upgrade as the cube was. Just not for the same reasons.


Exactly. The only way you can do this is by having decent knowledge. The problem is that most users do not have this and are thus unable to do so.


No it just shows that you haven't read what I was saying and apply critical thought to it. What you've done is quickly read it and assumed what I was talking about.


Guess who my 80-90% of customers are? Companies that do not wish to do upgrades because a new machine is cheaper in their eyes. The other percentage doesn't mind. They don't mind if I custom build something for them. A small portion of those 80-90% cannot upgrade due to legislation so it's not always their own choice. I have various kinds of organisations among them are video editing companies, scientist doing all sorts of research (such as medical imaging), more administrative types of work and so on. It's the chemist that use OS X, the others usually use Windows (some are not allowed to use anything but Windows).

However, when I talk to competitors they see the same thing. The majority of users simply do not have the knowledge and most of them don't even know that you can upgrade no matter if we are talking Windows, Linux or OS X here.

Btw, with your own logic as well as some others, the cube is as upgradable as the Powermac because you can fit a gigantic gpu in it. You have to saw but hey you can upgrade it! Again, upgrading something is only meaningful if it is 1. easy to do and 2. it works properly afterwards. If you have to do any research it is not easy to do. If you need to tweak stuff, apply hacks and so on it is not easy to do and generally also not very stable.


Let me get 1 thing straight: I don't give a rats about it but I do know how companies think (and yes it is annoying at times because you don't get what you want). In this case you are asking the wrong question. A company would ask: what benefit is there for us to include it or not? It's all about the money.


Nope. The Mac Pro is being bought by many different users. From the criticism on this forum I highly doubt people here are the ones buying the new Mac Pro since it isn't the same design as the old one (so no 4 drive bays, no PCIe). If you take a closer look at the feature set of the new Mac Pro it becomes clear that the main target audience are the large media companies like Disney, Pixar and so on. They'll buy Thunderbolt devices, have everything on a huge SAN and so on. Big enterprises that have a different upgrade scheme as I've explained. On a Dutch Apple forum there are a few who've bought this machine as well. They are photographers. About 99% of that forum are non-technical people who are the exact user group I mentioned.

The new Mac Pro is targeted at a certain audience which isn't the hobbyist/technician who likes and wants to tinker with the computer on both a hardware and software level. That doesn't mean that nobody is buying the machine nor that Apple shot themselves in the foot. You're not the target audience but many others are. Do I like it? Well, that doesn't matter at all. Apple does not give a damn about me, they go for the majority of users. That's how companies work. And that's why Apple products are still in the range of "somewhat affordable" instead of being "for the filthy rich only" (because that's what going to happen if they made a completely custom model where everything is to your liking).


I wasn't only talking about recent models, it was about ALL PCIe SSDs you can buy. You may want to search for that topic in this part of the forum if you want to know more.

I do understand your arguments and the bigger company view behind them. I even understand Apples decision - that doesn't mean I have to like it though.

I'm coming more from the small company/freelance side of things, you know, the crazy ones, the misfits, those who are stupid enough to think they can change the world ...

But still there is something I noticed in the last years when working for bigger companies. Since the never ending financial crisis that started 2008 even big companies have to watch their spendings more and more. That "oh that € 300,- part of that machine broke, let's just replace the whole € 3000,- machine then we have warranty again" attitude you described is found less and less. Sometimes there are discussions about € 50,- more during a € 100.000,- project.

Second, it's not like building a Windows machine doesn't require any research. If I didn't do any research before ordering the parts maybe I'd end up frying the whole thing because I order a power supply that's too weak. When upgrading the gpu in that Windows machine I'd look for benchmarks and user comments to find the model that offers the most bang for the buck. Buying anything that's a little more expensive without research is asking for trouble, be it a Mac, a PC or a washing machine.

Third, the new Mac Pro is certainly more "for the filthy rich only" than the old one was. The base model is € 500,- more, external thunderbolt storage is expensive, what if you don't even need dual gpus but rather have a strong single one, etc.

Anyway, complaining won't help, for me the nmp is way too expensive for what it is. Guess in the future it's either back to buying new Apple laptops every 2 years or further down that rabbit hole and build a hackintosh.

 

[MacVidCards]

I do understand your arguments and the bigger company view behind them. I even understand Apples decision - that doesn't mean I have to like it though.

I'm coming more from the small company/freelance side of things, you know, the crazy ones, the misfits, those who are stupid enough to think they can change the world ...

But still there is something I noticed in the last years when working for bigger companies. Since the never ending financial crisis that started 2008 even big companies have to watch their spendings more and more. That "oh that € 300,- part of that machine broke, let's just replace the whole € 3000,- machine then we have warranty again" attitude you described is found less and less. Sometimes there are discussions about € 50,- more during a € 100.000,- project.

Second, it's not like building a Windows machine doesn't require any research. If I didn't do any research before ordering the parts maybe I'd end up frying the whole thing because I order a power supply that's too weak. When upgrading the gpu in that Windows machine I'd look for benchmarks and user comments to find the model that offers the most bang for the buck. Buying anything that's a little more expensive without research is asking for trouble, be it a Mac, a PC or a washing machine.

Third, the new Mac Pro is certainly more "for the filthy rich only" than the old one was. The base model is € 500,- more, external thunderbolt storage is expensive, what if you don't even need dual gpus but rather have a strong single one, etc.

Anyway, complaining won't help, for me the nmp is way too expensive for what it is. Guess in the future it's either back to buying new Apple laptops every 2 years or further down that rabbit hole and build a hackintosh.

You can't reason with the guy. He reminds me of someone driving around on five flats, there is a hint of reason but clouded in ....

Anyone who ever loved a Cube and tried to upgrade it vs a G4 Powermac knows he's full of it. Completely different machines.

 

[barkmonster]

So 25% difference in RAM is "more or less the same"

How much does Apple pay you people?

48 GB vs 64 GB is "more or less the same"

You could put powerful GPU in G4

You could put crap in Cube. I modded and sold Cube cards for years, I know.

"The nMP does not have that limitation."

It DOES ! Why spread lies that are easily disproved?

It holds half of theCPU upgrade options a Dual CPU machine would have. And as a result half the RAM. It is a watered down machine, just like Cube. Making excuses for it won't make it faster.

Just like nMP where you FROM DAY ONE could put better GPU in cMP.

Please stop. Please stop spreading nonsense for Apple.

Who exactly do you think you are fooling?

The nMP has a fleet of limitations. Denying their existence doesn't even put a dent in reality.

I couldn't agree more. It lacks any form of internal expansion (People talk about Thunderbolt as if it's a magic fix. It's a bandwidth-limited compromise and that's like Batman talking about money as if it was a superpower).

The CPU-only performance is rapidly becoming slower than the higher end i7-based offerings in the Macbook Pro and iMac range unless you go high end, then used 2012 Mac Pros that DO offer vast internal expansion are available still in the used market that spank all but the 12 core model.

It's rediculously over-priced no matter what manipulative figures someone cooks up by adding displays etc... to artifically inflate the cost. I was expecting it to be cheaper than it was by a huge margin due to the lack of internal expansion and the cost/compromise of Thunderbolt only solutions to make up for it.

As it is, it's a video-orientated workstation that's of little use to a lot of people the previous Mac Pro was perfect for unless they have money to burn.

 

[ixxx69]

I'm not going to argue the whole upgradeability issue because it's a non-debate... tower computers are inherently more upgradeable (CPU/GPU/RAM).

(though on the nMP, RAM is obviously upgradeable, the CPU is upgradeable, the internal SSD is upgradeable, and we'll just have to wait and see about the GPUs)

With Thunderbolt, expandability is pretty good, more convenient in some ways (just plug it in), and less convenient in other ways (rats nest of cables and external boxes). Any internal peripheral you would add to a tower, you can add via TB.

I know how frustrating it is when Apple doesn't give choices. At least when they introduced the G4 Cube you could still buy the tower. Personally, I've been wishing for the infamous xMac forever - I've been stuck over-spending on Mac Pros because Apple refuses to offer a top-shelf i7 and gaming GPU without a built-in display.

Though I think Apple is being obstinate and missing out on a huge audience (and at risk of eventually loosing the audience they have), at least I understand their mission - to make computers like appliances. That was Steve Jobs' original vision, and at least for the time being, Apple is sticking to it. Jobs never liked the towers (they were a concession to the times), and I'm sure he was instrumental in the Mac Pro going in the direction it did, even if he wasn't around to see it through.

I think what these discussions often forget is how small a minority there is that want to internally upgrade their Macs (aside from RAM, which is an unfortunate growing trend). I'm pretty sure less than 1% of Mac Pros will ever see a CPU upgrade; less than 10% will ever upgrade their video cards. What percentage of that small percentage of users will refuse to buy a new Mac because of those limitations? A pretty tiny percentage. Even the vast majority of users who are unhappy with it will move on to a new Mac and adapt.

I'm just glad they came out with a new Mac Pro at all. I would have literally had to go the hackintosh route again, which was a major PITA.

----------

(People talk about Thunderbolt as if it's a magic fix. It's a bandwidth-limited compromise and that's like Batman talking about money as if it was a superpower).

All expansion, both internal and external, is bandwidth limited. I have no idea what that analogy means, but it made me chuckle.