This is not a "Pro" machine.

[flat five]

The problem is, we'll be able to do it more than twice as fast on the PC workstations we are migrating towards now due to the new design.

out of curiosity (as in, i really don't know much about video editing workflow), where is this cut_the_workday_in_half speed coming from?

are you saying it's because of thunderbolt? and if so, does thunderbolt even need to be a factor in the actual work?

or rephrasing with a simple example- couldn't you, out of the box with no externals (other than mouse,keyboard,etc), edit video with even faster results than doing the same thing with a current mac pro? even if you had some pcie stuff hooked up to the current mp?

 

[MacVidCards]

huh? nowhere did i say that.. if you want to argue both sides to support your case (say what you want then make up sht about what the other people say) then you're not going to have anybody taking you seriously after they see through it.. here you go- maybe they can help:
http://www.psychforums.com/personality-disorders/

there is a nerd spec in the new mac pro that excites me.. 6x 3.5ghz.. that's something i will notice and feel when i'm working.. (as opposed to 2.66 at the moment)

the rest of the specs i don't care so much about but even then, everything in my current setup will be faster in a new mp setup (though i won't notice it like that- i won't be buying brand new stuff all at once.. things trickle in on an as needed basis with a few bonus buys sprinkled throughout)

OK, other than imply that I have a personality disorder, what actual point have you made?

You are eager and willing to pay $50/cable instead of $5/cable so that MOST of them match?

If we remove USB, how many are we talking about?

Firewire400/800 is 2.

DVI is one more.

So that's 3.

I guess you could toss in Ethernet and make it 4.

To replace the internal drives in a current MP with TB enclosures will require 2-6 housings, so 4 to 12 cables EXTRA on your desktop.

But at least they all match, even all those extra ones, right?

I can see where that would be really important.

 

[flat five]

OK, other than imply that I have a personality disorder, what actual point have you made?

You are eager and willing to pay $50/cable instead of $5/cable so that MOST of them match?

eager? no.. willing? yes (even with your exaggerated numbers)
for one, it's not like i'd go to a store and come back with a slew of thunderbolt cables.. they're acquired on an as needed basis..
so if i'm looking at a $200 part vs $250, i'd pay the extra fifty.. or, if were talking storage, i'd probably end up doing the similar cost but less storage option (as i did with the ssd upgrades.. and took a much bigger storage hit than what will happen with thunderbolt)

To replace the internal drives in a current MP with TB enclosures will require 2-6 housings, so 4 to 12 cables EXTRA on your desktop.

for drives, (which i do have four right now inside), i'm picturing more of an enclosure which can hold several drives and has one cable running to it.

But at least they all match, even all those extra ones, right?

I can see where that would be really important.

you lost me.. i'll go for the re-read in a bit..

 

[MacVidCards]

for drives, (which i do have four right now inside), i'm picturing more of an enclosure which can hold several drives and has one cable running to it.

Power by Unicorn Poo or Fairy Dust?

Or maybe a power cable and power brick?

So, a box, 2 cables, and an extra 120V outlet, all so your cables match?

Does that really sound like "progress"?

Do you mean like this one:

http://www.amazon.com/DataTale-RS-M...1&sr=8-4&keywords=thunderbolt+drive+enclosure

So, just a mere $600 so your DVI/FW/Ethernet cable woes can be solved by $50 TB cables?

Please explain.

 

[flat five]

Power by Unicorn Poo or Fairy Dust?

Or maybe a power cable and power brick?

So, a box, 2 cables, and an extra 120V outlet, all so your cables match?

Does that really sound like "progress"?

depends.. doing the cord count thing then no, not really progressive because right now, not counting the portable drive or laptops, i have 5 drives.

the external has a power brick and firewire.. so in that regard, it stays the same.

the footprint will still be smaller than my current setup.. those drives will be more accessible to me though and i assume the housing will also be able to be used as a docking station for the portable drive.. and yes, i see that as progressive if things end up that way.

----------

Do you mean like this one:

http://www.amazon.com/DataTale-RS-M...1&sr=8-4&keywords=thunderbolt+drive+enclosure

So, just a mere $600 so your DVI/FW/Ethernet cable woes can be solved by $50 TB cables?

Please explain.

yeah.. like that. not at that price though

 

[MacVidCards]

yeah.. like that. not at that price though

Yeah, I don't like the price on a new Mercedes either, but sadly that is what they sell for.

And you have just proven another reason the iTrashCan is NOT progress at least in terms of your drives. To achieve the same functionality as your current internal drives requires $600 housing, 2 cables and a mess on your desk.

FWIW, try holding "T" on your Mac Pro at boot, now it is an external enclosure for your MBP. And it didn't cost an extra $600 to do that.

 

[flat five]

Yeah, I don't like the price on a new Mercedes either, but sadly that is what they sell for.

we have long (enough) term sampling of what fancy car prices do.. we also have long term sampling of what electronic prices do..

And you have just proven another reason the iTrashCan is NOT progress at least in terms of your drives. To achieve the same functionality as your current internal drives requires $600 housing, 2 cables and a mess on your desk.

prove to who? i like the idea of the drives being outside.. that's what i said earlier and see it as a move in the right direction.. it's progressive.

FWIW, try holding "T" on your Mac Pro at boot, now it is an external enclosure for your MBP. And it didn't cost an extra $600 to do that.

right.. it only cost me $3000 to be able to do that

 

[slughead]

prove to who? i like the idea of the drives being outside.. that's what i said earlier and see it as a move in the right direction.. it's progressive.

Holy cow this is insane: You just said how awesome TB is, then he pointed out that your external drive solutions you'd have to get to use it are ridiculously overpriced. Then you proceded to say how overpriced it is, now you're saying how great it is.

TB sucks because it forces expensive solutions--ones you've JUST pointed out are beyond your price range. Still want a TB RAID? Get ready to pay a ton of money. Still want a long cable? Get ready to pay $831.

 

[MacVidCards]

Holy cow this is insane: You just said how awesome TB is, then he pointed out that your external drive solutions you'd have to get to use it are ridiculously overpriced. Then you proceded to say how overpriced it is, now you're saying how great it is.

TB sucks because it forces expensive solutions--ones you've JUST pointed out are beyond your price range. Still want a TB RAID? Get ready to pay a ton of money. Still want a long cable? Get ready to pay $831.

Tells me I have a personality disorder then makes nonsensical arguments to prove $600 drive enclosures make sense so he can have matching cables instead of 4 different kinds.

Logic is as rare in those words as ice water in hell.

He got the extra good Kool Aid.

Going on the "ignore" list, same thing as the crazy exes.

 

[flat five]

Holy cow this is insane: You just said how awesome TB is, then he pointed out that your external drive solutions you'd have to get to use it are ridiculously overpriced. Then you proceded to say how overpriced it is, now you're saying how great it is.

i notice you didn't quote me saying how awesome thunderbolt is

TB sucks because it forces expensive solutions--ones you've JUST pointed out are beyond your price range. Still want a TB RAID? Get ready to pay a ton of money. Still want a long cable? Get ready to pay $831.

thunderbolt is beyond everyone's price range right now.. it will come down.. a lot..

so my choice is either sit here and argue with you about it or simply shut up about it.. because either way, you're going to eventually know it to be true.. that you somehow think thunderbolt is going to magically maintain it's new technology price when we've totally seen how much and how fast prices drop on similar items in the past -- well, that's not my problem

----------

Tells me I have a personality disorder then makes nonsensical arguments to prove $600 drive enclosures make sense so he can have matching cables instead of 4 different kinds.

Logic is as rare in those words as ice water in hell.

He got the extra good Kool Aid.

Going on the "ignore" list, same thing as the crazy exes.

i don't get you
nowhere did i say $600 drive enclosures make sense. far from it.

you do see that, right? so why would you argue back to me as if i said it? why?

 

[tuxon86]

i notice you didn't quote me saying how awesome thunderbolt is



thunderbolt is beyond everyone's price range right now.. it will come down.. a lot..

so my choice is either sit here and argue with you about it or simply shut up about it.. because either way, you're going to eventually know it to be true.. that you somehow think thunderbolt is going to magically maintain it's new technology price when we've totally seen how much and how fast prices drop on similar items in the past -- well, that's not my problem

It wont come down because beside Apple nobody is using it... While some pc mobo maker have tb on their high end model, it. Hasn't got any traction on the windows side. Hell, the only people using tb on the pc side are those building hackintosh.

In a pro/office setting, externals drive are a pain in the @@@. Desk space is at a premium, external can get damaged, knock off the desk and they are easier to steal than a 80 pounds workstation.

 

[flat five]

It wont come down because beside Apple nobody is using it...

like i said

so my choice is either sit here and argue with you about it or simply shut up about it.. because either way, you're going to eventually know it to be true.. that you somehow think thunderbolt is going to magically maintain it's new technology price when we've totally seen how much and how fast prices drop on similar items in the past -- well, that's not my problem

 

[tuxon86]

like i said

so my choice is either sit here and argue with you about it or simply shut up about it.. because either way, you're going to eventually know it to be true.. that you somehow think thunderbolt is going to magically maintain it's new technology price when we've totally seen how much and how fast prices drop on similar items in the past -- well, that's not my problem

It wouldn't be the first time that apple and intel tries to push a new tech and fail. Sony is also another one who overshoot their customer needs. Tb is a solution searching a problem to fix. For the common joe and moderate power user USB3 and eSata are enough.

And as a business decision, why would an OEM pay the high intel "tax" for the licence to use TB when you can get a way cheaper USB3 that is good enough for 95% of users. For the 5% they are better served by sas than by tb anyway.

 

[flat five]

It wouldn't be the first time that apple and intel tries to push a new tech and fail. Sony is also another one who overshoot their customer needs. Tb is a solution searching a problem to fix. For the common joe and moderate power user USB3 and eSata are enough.

And as a business decision, why would an OEM pay the high intel "tax" for the licence to use TB when you can get a way cheaper USB3 that is good enough for 95% of users. For the 5% they are better served by sas than by tb anyway.

sorry tux, i've been modded..
adios

 

[portishead]

sorry tux, i've been modded..
adios

people like to get in flame wars and then cry to the mods. it's not worth your time anyway.

 

[tuxon86]

people like to get in flame wars and then cry to the mods. it's not worth your time anyway.

If you think this was a flamewar, you must be too young to remember the good old days of BBS... Apple ][ vs C64 vs Atari... Ahhhh such fine memories...

 

[Tesselator]

Oh, I thought you were talking about the whole market, not just macs. In that case I agree.

Sure...

I disagree, it varies largely depending on which kind of card you're using and what you're using it for.

But you're just proving my point. Apple has always been "Think Different - ALS LONG AS IT'S IDENTICAL TO WHAT APPLE IS THINKING"... you gotta know that, right? Well, here's a case where they forced their thinking by eliminating the option altogether. I can just see the designer's thoughts now:

I'll show those wankerz... Trying to skip out on their Apple tax by installing reasonably priced unapproved PC GPUs aye? Ha! Take THAT!!!​

It reminds me of quote from Henry Ford: "You can have any color you like as long as it's black!".

It's already been shown that TB1 can accommodate the I/O speeds of all other card types except Games and High-Spec-Video on a GPU. It even keeps up perfectly (± 3%) for GPGPU (GPU computing). TB2 will do even better across the board but probably still come up slightly lacking for Games and High-Spec-Video on a GPU. Which I guess is what Apple wants. With the added costs of going external and the proprietary GPU form factor internally they have made great advancements in forcing users to pay the Apple Tax and at the same time coercing users to use only GPUs they select. The later is another topic but I have a hunch part of their thinking is gaining the stability associated with closed and controlled systems.

In the end it's just like I said and you reinforced in your rebuttal: We will be able to do anything we want via TB2 external connections except maybe Game (frame rates) and High-Spec-Video editing - and for those things Apple will offer (with tax!) the only solutions.

They got us right were they want us and except for those wanting to upgrade their GPUs for a reasonable cost we can accept and love the position they put us in (assuming the initial system price isn't too high).

And really the people who are wanting to upgrade their GPUs so often are mostly only Gamers anyway - And we all know what Apple thinks of Gamers...



EDIT:
The cost of TB controllers, cables, and enclosures has already come down in price and will continue to do so until it's probably close to SATA equivalents. Just don't expect next year's prices next week is all.

 

[portishead]

If you think this was a flamewar, you must be too young to remember the good old days of BBS... Apple ][ vs C64 vs Atari... Ahhhh such fine memories...

Yeah I bet those years were a hoot. I was around 5, probably more worried about tying my shoes.

 

[tuxon86]

Yeah I bet those years were a hoot. I was around 5, probably more worried about tying my shoes.

You should try to get your hand on the documentary: "BBS - The documentary".

 

[FluJunkie]

I've been giving this more thought, and I actually think an argument can be made that the machine actually is a Pro machine - and that Apple overshot "Pro" and headed into "Enterprise Pro" by accident.

I was thinking about my workload, for example, while in a lab. Storage should be some sort of shared storage anyway, so the loss of internal drives isn't as big of a deal - the SSD only needs to carry around the OS, applications and other things that *aren't* shared.

If something needs lots of cores it'll get sent to a dedicated computational resource - be it a "scale up" mega-server that vastly exceeds the current Mac Pros capabilities, or a "scale out" cluster. Similarly, if something needs GPU firepower, it'll probably get sent to another dedicated resource.

What does that leave? A powerful enough workstation to drive multiple screens, support development and prototyping, etc. Which the new Mac Pro will be able to do well - though since all I need is "Does it work?" computing power from the GPU and driving screens, I might be pissed if I have to pay for dual FirePros.

So why am I miffed now?. Because that workflow is the workflow of someone with a huge amount of institutional backing in terms of their computational resources. A research university, a major company, etc? No biggie.

But right now, that's not me. I'm much closer to a solo/small-group professional, where adding things like a dedicated NAS or the like is a little silly - it's just my machine doing the heavy lifting. And in that setting, the new Mac Pro is a recipe for a nest of wires and pricey enclosures.

So I feel like the new Mac Pro hits "Prosumer" and "Enterprise Pro" well, but misses smaller firms and solo folks almost completely.

 

[Tesselator]

I've been giving this more thought, and I actually think an argument can be made that the machine actually is a Pro machine - and that Apple overshot "Pro" and headed into "Enterprise Pro" by accident.

I was thinking about my workload, for example, while in a lab. Storage should be some sort of shared storage anyway, so the loss of internal drives isn't as big of a deal - the SSD only needs to carry around the OS, applications and other things that *aren't* shared.

If something needs lots of cores it'll get sent to a dedicated computational resource - be it a "scale up" mega-server that vastly exceeds the current Mac Pros capabilities, or a "scale out" cluster. Similarly, if something needs GPU firepower, it'll probably get sent to another dedicated resource.

What does that leave? A powerful enough workstation to drive multiple screens, support development and prototyping, etc. Which the new Mac Pro will be able to do well - though since all I need is "Does it work?" computing power from the GPU and driving screens, I might be pissed if I have to pay for dual FirePros.

So why am I miffed now?. Because that workflow is the workflow of someone with a huge amount of institutional backing in terms of their computational resources. A research university, a major company, etc? No biggie.

But right now, that's not me. I'm much closer to a solo/small-group professional, where adding things like a dedicated NAS or the like is a little silly - it's just my machine doing the heavy lifting. And in that setting, the new Mac Pro is a recipe for a nest of wires and pricey enclosures.

So I feel like the new Mac Pro hits "Prosumer" and "Enterprise Pro" well, but misses smaller firms and solo folks almost completely.

I don't think I understand you. What I get from what you're saying is that external storage is only available to large companies and that the MP6,1 can't do it on a smaller cheaper scale.

Yet with just one $50 enclosure and three $125 3TB drives you can have a single 9TB expansion box with one USB3 connection (no mountain of cables) capable of delivering the same 450MB/s to 500MB/s (sustained) it would on the MP5,1 if connected internally.

So I'm not really understanding your comment.

 

[FluJunkie]

I don't think I understand you. What I get from what you're saying is that external storage is only available to large companies and that the MP6,1 can't do it on a smaller cheaper scale.

Yet with just one $50 enclosure and three $125 3TB drives you can have a single 9TB expansion box with one USB3 connection (no mountain of cables) capable of delivering the same 450MB/s to 500MB/s (sustained) it would on the MP5,1 if connected internally.

So I'm not really understanding your comment.

The mountain of cables doesn't come just from the drives - see also GPUs and the like. It's not that "external storage is only available to large companies" but that widespread external storage as a part of the pre-existing infrastructure, along with many-core systems (for those upset that the nMP might be single-processor only), large RAM systems, etc. are more likely to be encountered in an enterprise/institutional setting.

It was spawned by the thought that the nMP would make an excellent, powerful client machine. Such a strength necessarily implies a server somewhere .

Also, if you look at the people who Apple asked to rave about the nMP at the WWDC, and who presumably were consulted in its design, they're the kinds of people I'm talking about - folks where there's a large computational infrastructure already in place.

 

[wallysb01]

It was spawned by the thought that the nMP would make an excellent, powerful client machine. Such a strength necessarily implies a server somewhere .

I originally really liked this machine for that very reason, but then I thought about it more and it now has me confused. Why do you need an excellent, powerful client machine? I'd like some in local horsepower, but if I have easy access to a cluster/high RAM machines, or what have you, why do I want to pay multiple thousands of dollars for "just" a client machine, even if its a pretty damn good client?

This is why the bottom end of spectrum is going to be so key. It could be a great client machine with reasonable horsepower, but I'm not sure many people or corporations will want to buy $2500, or more, machines that are ultimately just clients. A mac mini also makes a great client for about 1/3 of that cost. And at the bottom end, you're going to be comparing 4 mainstream Haswell cores to 4 Ivy Bridge E5 cores, where the difference in CPU performance will not be huge. So for small-medium jobs, the mac mini is going to keep up with the a Mac Pro pretty well, and then the big jobs go to the cluster anyway. So...huh?

 

[sirio76]

I've been giving this more thought, and I actually think an argument can be made that the machine actually is a Pro machine - and that Apple overshot "Pro" and headed into "Enterprise Pro" by accident.

I was thinking about my workload, for example, while in a lab. Storage should be some sort of shared storage anyway, so the loss of internal drives isn't as big of a deal - the SSD only needs to carry around the OS, applications and other things that *aren't* shared.

If something needs lots of cores it'll get sent to a dedicated computational resource - be it a "scale up" mega-server that vastly exceeds the current Mac Pros capabilities, or a "scale out" cluster. Similarly, if something needs GPU firepower, it'll probably get sent to another dedicated resource.

What does that leave? A powerful enough workstation to drive multiple screens, support development and prototyping, etc. Which the new Mac Pro will be able to do well - though since all I need is "Does it work?" computing power from the GPU and driving screens, I might be pissed if I have to pay for dual FirePros.

So why am I miffed now?. Because that workflow is the workflow of someone with a huge amount of institutional backing in terms of their computational resources. A research university, a major company, etc? No biggie.

But right now, that's not me. I'm much closer to a solo/small-group professional, where adding things like a dedicated NAS or the like is a little silly - it's just my machine doing the heavy lifting. And in that setting, the new Mac Pro is a recipe for a nest of wires and pricey enclosures.

So I feel like the new Mac Pro hits "Prosumer" and "Enterprise Pro" well, but misses smaller firms and solo folks almost completely.

I mostly agree except for the "recipe for a nest of wires and pricey enclosures".
Take a look here and notice how many cables are on the back of the machine and how many cable you see in front of you:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1604272/
There's also a second computer hided under the desk. Nothing prevent you to organize the cables of the nMP on the back or to put your mass storage or whatever you want hided from the view.
I don't care too much about the price of enclosure for backup, I'm sure every pro(even small or individual business) can afford a few hundred dollar to purchase an appropriate external solution(and I think most of the pro already have one with the current design). If somebody doesn't have the resources to afford that, probably he is not going to buy an expensive workstation neither.

 

[Tesselator]

• The mountain of cables doesn't come just from the drives - see also GPUs and the like. It's not that "external storage is only available to large companies" but that widespread external storage as a part of the pre-existing infrastructure, along with many-core systems (for those upset that the nMP might be single-processor only), large RAM systems, etc. are more likely to be encountered in an enterprise/institutional setting.
  
  
• It was spawned by the thought that the nMP would make an excellent, powerful client machine. Such a strength necessarily implies a server somewhere .
  
  
• Also, if you look at the people who Apple asked to rave about the nMP at the WWDC, and who presumably were consulted in its design, they're the kinds of people I'm talking about - folks where there's a large computational infrastructure already in place.

• The mountain of cables doesn't make sense to me. Whether it's like sirio76 linked to or my own system cables are just a part of the deal. The MP6,1 will not have any more or less than any other system. Maybe a total of one more for the drives but that's all I'm giving. As soon as you add a third GPU the MP6,1 is actually using less cables than a MP5,1 would with the same added in - unless you get very creative and tricky about adding an internal PSU - and then you're opting out bays intended for other devices anyway.
  
  
• I also don't really follow you about the enterprise thing either. External drives are common from the Commodore 64 and Atari 8-bit machines all the way up to every present electronic computerized device sold today from entry level to enterprise. Heck, even my LCD Television has a port for an external hard drive. And saying that it's more suited as a "client" whatever that means, seems to assume that it's somehow not configurable. Sure, it can be used that way. And the fact that it's a strong self-contained machine out-of-the-box might lend to that vision but it no more needs a server than any other computer. It probably will need mass storage of some kind but that can be three 4TB seagates in a USB3 enclosure just as well as 14 1TB drives in an Xserve or other server. The configurability looks to be very dynamic to me. A company can save money [assumed] by using a bunch of MP6,1 (one on each person's desktop) and a large server share or an individual can connect up a single four or five bay 5.25 enclosure via TB2, USB3, or Ethernet just as easily. Likewise one could easily set up the MP6,1 as a server itself. So I'm not seeing how it fits one description better than the other or lends itself to enterprise environments more than any other possible configuration.
  
  
• Yeah, I think it's good for that - so I guess I can see the vision you're seeing too. I somehow doubt anyone outside Apple was consulted tho - that wouldn't be typical for sure! Keep in mind that in order to regain almost all of the configurability of the previous MP models all one needs to add is a single 4-bay 5.25 enclosure. Everything else is the same and upgraded. Where people added cards for eSATA we have USB3 - no cards needed. Where people added USB3 cards they are no longer needed as there are 4 dedicated USB3 ports already present. No one I know of installed more than two GPUs and the MP6,1 now comes standard with two - and with TB2 we even take advantage of the upgrade and add another 12 or so GPUs to it. Where people were using old-skool Audio cards there are USB2/3 devices with the same and better/more-modern functionality available to use in their place. Given that the new machine is between 1/8 and 1/6th the size of the MP5,1 it would seem to me to fit into more computing environments - not less.

Shrug, I dunno, that's just the way I see it.