This is not a "Pro" machine.

[deconstruct60]

....
But ATI is a good choice, because it has strong reputation in GPGPU computing. CUDA is well supported by pro(sumer) software but ATI is a solide reference for science, simulation or brute calculation, as OpenCL is.

AMD (ATI was merged a long while back) has been lagging on science/simulation GPGPU. They've had OpenCL driver optimization issues and were totally slacking on ECC memory support until this latest generation. Even in the OpenCL space Nvidia has had a bigger foothold in the HPC space than AMD has. This lastest FirePro iteration is competitive but they'd had problems. ( yet another reason for them to take Apple's custom card offer and Nvidia probably to brush them off. )



Some foks in HPC space have planned ahead and not try to sink a sourcecode base into the CUDA prorprietary tarpit. Write a large library of code and now stuck with a single vendor. Frankly, it probably won't take more that 2 more update generation iterations for the multi-platform commercial software to dump CUDA all together.

Nvidia spends substantive effort keeping up with OpenCL because CUDA's leverage is only temporary and increasingly for stagnant code.

And it does the minimal of what you could except for such hardware in other pro software that Nvidia had favor.

If Nvidia is willing to make a deal with Apple for custom GPUs cards in the 2014-15 Mac Pro it could very well have the exclusive on the next iteration. It probably depends upon what both parties are going to deliver and when.

 

[thekev]

Depend on which market they are targetting. For media/3d market where most of the processing can be delegated to the GPU then yes, having a lower $$$ and spec CPU + $6k of GPU is the thing to do.

It depends on what part. I doubt they set up modeling and texturing workstations with $6000 worth of gpus. I'm a little skeptical on how large a market that would reach.

But ATI is a good choice, because it has strong reputation in GPGPU computing. CUDA is well supported by pro(sumer) software but ATI is a solide reference for science, simulation or brute calculation, as OpenCL is. And it does the minimal of what you could except for such hardware in other pro software that Nvidia had favor.

That isn't true. NVidia is the typical choice for both professional graphics and HPC. AMD is much newer to that market.

You are kidding right? It is important to both vendors as discrete card vendors. ( I suppose if mean AMD in total (GPU + non GPU business) also then yes. But the non GPU parts aren't going to subsidize the discrete GPU business. The non discrete GPU parts of AMD would retire the cards just as much as enable them.).

Image

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6137/the-amd-firepro-w9000-w8000-review-part-1/3

The lower end discrete graphics card market is largely a race to the bottom at this point. These Pro market cards are largely keeping the heavy R&D investments going.

Are you sure about that? I figured it was mostly driver based. The pie chart is somewhat biased. Professional graphics makes up a much larger percentage of overall profits for NVidia than AMD even if margins are quite high for both.

 

[-hh]

Not in the real world...

1- the w9000 is the top of the line AMD gpu. No one give discount on the top end model. Beside, Apple market for worksation is ridiculously small and is shrinking even more as we speak....

Something came to mind while reading this thread...this is probably the least bad place to quote...

One of the other things that we know about the nMP video card is that it isn't a conventional PCIe form factor / interface. To date, our reaction has been a combination of "Yeah, okay, new thermal management core" as well as "Dammit, there goes Apple with yet another expensive proprietary interface!".

The question is: maybe this is a good thing?


My line of thought here is that this nonstandard interface would represent a product that's not compatible with the general WinTel PC market, which means that a different deal could be cut, because a 'cheap' Apple GPU card couldn't make its way out into PC aftermarket sales.

If we look at where things are at, we have a reference design that's been certified and is expensive ... and we have what we understand to be the same reference design in a repackaged configuration. The fixed development costs are done for the first card and are being amortized in the high retail price....for the second, the fixed costs should mostly be just the different board layout, etc.

The notional business proposition would then be of the form: "Hey, I'd like to use your design, and I can do so in a fashion which doesn't threaten your current market...how does $5M for rights for me to build my copy {clone variant} of your design - for use in just my products - sound to you?"

Under this line of thought, the cost for the GPU gets disassociated with the conventional PCIe card that's being sold on the market.


-hh

 

[Tesselator]

Something came to mind while reading this thread...this is probably the least bad place to quote...

One of the other things that we know about the nMP video card is that it isn't a conventional PCIe form factor / interface. To date, our reaction has been a combination of "Yeah, okay, new thermal management core" as well as "Dammit, there goes Apple with yet another expensive proprietary interface!".

The question is: maybe this is a good thing?


My line of thought here is that this nonstandard interface would represent a product that's not compatible with the general WinTel PC market, which means that a different deal could be cut, because a 'cheap' Apple GPU card couldn't make its way out into PC aftermarket sales.

If we look at where things are at, we have a reference design that's been certified and is expensive ... and we have what we understand to be the same reference design in a repackaged configuration. The fixed development costs are done for the first card and are being amortized in the high retail price....for the second, the fixed costs should mostly be just the different board layout, etc.

The notional business proposition would then be of the form: "Hey, I'd like to use your design, and I can do so in a fashion which doesn't threaten your current market...how does $5M for rights for me to build my copy {clone variant} of your design - for use in just my products - sound to you?"

Under this line of thought, the cost for the GPU gets disassociated with the conventional PCIe card that's being sold on the market.


-hh

Yup, I said the same thing in a post somewhere here the day after WWDC. They have cut just about every cost corner there is to cut and took over the design and fabrication of every component. There's no motherboard, there's no reference GUP designs, there's nothing even similar to a standard PSU. The case is basically a one-piece pressed ("Stretched Aluminum") part. Apple has potentially assumed control (Outer Limits style) over all important aspects of the manufacture and build. They even intelligently pre-partnered with some of the key technologies well in advance. Some will remember me applauding them feverishly for these moves - and also shaking my wallet at them at the same time saying: They better pass these savings on to us end buyers - or else!

 

[flat five]

quite a few comments spread throughout the forum but i'll mishmash the gripes and put them here

my internet playtime is running out but there's a general theme going on around here that could be examined..

so many people are complaining 'oh, apple doesn't listen to me' or 'they didn't design this computer with me in mind' or 'this thing is for hipsters (or other words used in derogatory manner)'.. that kind of stuff.

the problem, as i see, with most of that talk is that people are saying these things in a form of insult to others except they're not themselves believing/listening to their own words..

i mean, as far as i can tell, apple's pro users have always been the creative professional.. apple basically built their computing name around this single mantra.. and the thing is, it's true. there's a skewed amount of creative pros using macs as opposed to windows..

this new computer is designed with them in mind.. they are the people that apple is listening to and catering too. (well, that and the fact that apple has the money to hire a lot of the better pros out there and have them working on the computer and OS design directly).

they aren't designing their pro line with geekbench scores in mind.. and it appears this forum is rife with geekbench players who are mainly concerned with spending lots of cash so they can post their new high score online.. and i'm telling you, you're right.. apple is not producing products with you in mind.. they're also not catering to the person that sits in a cubicle their whole life and moves gigantic amounts of data around.. data that when viewed for what it is, equates to being about as interesting as reading a phone book.. and hey, me and maybe a million other people on earth are hyped that apple is not listening to you.. because all you guys are doing is saying 'we want apple to build the same computer that's available everywhere except has a picture of a bitten apple on the side'.. and while that may be good for you and give you an advantage when playing geekbench, it does little to address the day-to-day problems and/or bottlenecks a typical pro may encounter. we use apple because they do in fact try (and very often succeed) to solve or ease the pesky little hardware related things encountered on the daily.. this new computer (plus some of their OS stuff) seems to solve a lot of my personal data transfer gripes as well as address the fact that the modern workstation has evolved (i.e.- everyone i know using macpros in a working sense also has at least one laptop in the mix..)

again, what i'm really saying is that you may very well be correct with many of your gripes and that this computer does not do or act the way you want or need.. and i'm not trying to come across as "well, if you don't like it then don't buy it.. there are plenty of other choices etc" in a whiney bitch sort of way.. i'm trying to say it in a way that puts any sort of brand loyalty or emotions aside and let's you see it for what it really is.. you should use a computer that is suited to your needs.. if this one doesn't do it then why waste time crying that it doesn't? find the one that does.

 

[flat five]

and yeah, maybe I'm annoying or whatever but that doesn't mean what I'm saying is inaccurate.. the only reason you're comfortable with laying on the personally attacks here is that you're surrounded by all ur geekbench buddies to back you up. big deal..

edit-- it looks like the last two comments were modded out so go ahead and delete this one too bc it makes no sense now

 

[garirry]

and yeah, maybe I'm annoying or whatever but that doesn't mean what I'm saying is inaccurate.. the only reason you're comfortable with laying on the personally attacks here is that you're surrounded by all ur geekbench buddies to back you up. big deal..

edit-- it looks like the last two comments were modded out so go ahead and delete this one too bc it makes no sense now

I never said that you were inaccurate. You ARE annoying. Sorry but I can't keep calm when somebody is annoying me, so, you stop annoying me, I stop insulting you.

 

[entatlrg]

There really isn't an argument. Apple and anyone with eyes knows this is Apple's attempt to gracefully exit the serious market and move into the Mickey Mouse/ "I'm a Director because I make wedding & graduation videos" market.

The serious folk need power with no compromises or middle man adapters. They want software that doesn't have excuses or silly limits. "What do you mean you need multi cam support? Just shoot with fewer cameras, see we SAVED you money !!!"

The wedding video guys are satisfied with a few sparkle dazzle spinning stars transitions and....a computer in a can.




Yes, it would seem most of Apple's shills have been posting all sorts of glowing comments.

What's with insulting people who's opinions may differ from yours?

It's clear Apple doesn't offer the product you and the OP want. Why are you whining here about it? Email Apple and buy a laptop from a different company. Problem solved. Calling people shills doesn't solve anything.

 

[flat five]

I never said that you were inaccurate. You ARE annoying. Sorry but I can't keep calm when somebody is annoying me, so, you stop annoying me, I stop insulting you.

yeah, well, imagine being more/less stuck with being me.. because I often annoy myself as well and I don't have the choice to simply tune myself out.. like you do.

 

[TennisandMusic]

my internet playtime is running out but there's a general theme going on around here that could be examined..

so many people are complaining 'oh, apple doesn't listen to me' or 'they didn't design this computer with me in mind' or 'this thing is for hipsters (or other words used in derogatory manner)'.. that kind of stuff.

the problem, as i see, with most of that talk is that people are saying these things in a form of insult to others except they're not themselves believing/listening to their own words..

i mean, as far as i can tell, apple's pro users have always been the creative professional.. apple basically built their computing name around this single mantra.. and the thing is, it's true. there's a skewed amount of creative pros using macs as opposed to windows..

this new computer is designed with them in mind.. they are the people that apple is listening to and catering too. (well, that and the fact that apple has the money to hire a lot of the better pros out there and have them working on the computer and OS design directly).

they aren't designing their pro line with geekbench scores in mind.. and it appears this forum is rife with geekbench players who are mainly concerned with spending lots of cash so they can post their new high score online.. and i'm telling you, you're right.. apple is not producing products with you in mind.. they're also not catering to the person that sits in a cubicle their whole life and moves gigantic amounts of data around.. data that when viewed for what it is, equates to being about as interesting as reading a phone book.. and hey, me and maybe a million other people on earth are hyped that apple is not listening to you.. because all you guys are doing is saying 'we want apple to build the same computer that's available everywhere except has a picture of a bitten apple on the side'.. and while that may be good for you and give you an advantage when playing geekbench, it does little to address the day-to-day problems and/or bottlenecks a typical pro may encounter. we use apple because they do in fact try (and very often succeed) to solve or ease the pesky little hardware related things encountered on the daily.. this new computer (plus some of their OS stuff) seems to solve a lot of my personal data transfer gripes as well as address the fact that the modern workstation has evolved (i.e.- everyone i know using macpros in a working sense also has at least one laptop in the mix..)

again, what i'm really saying is that you may very well be correct with many of your gripes and that this computer does not do or act the way you want or need.. and i'm not trying to come across as "well, if you don't like it then don't buy it.. there are plenty of other choices etc" in a whiney bitch sort of way.. i'm trying to say it in a way that puts any sort of brand loyalty or emotions aside and let's you see it for what it really is.. you should use a computer that is suited to your needs.. if this one doesn't do it then why waste time crying that it doesn't? find the one that does.

I'm not sure where you got this idea from. As a music person, plenty of people involved with music are ticked off over this coming update. I see people starting to plan Windows devices, which is a shame for Apple.

This computer feels like a FCPX machine, and that's it. You know how many people don't need dual GPU's? Not even going to get a choice it seems.

 

[Tesselator]

yeah, well, imagine being more/less stuck with being me.. because I often annoy myself as well and I don't have the choice to simply tune myself out.. like you do.

LOL,

But I just have to say, you're totally not annoying man! I for one have enjoyed everything I've read from you so far.

 

[derbothaus]

I'm not sure where you got this idea from. As a music person, plenty of people involved with music are ticked off over this coming update. I see people starting to plan Windows devices, which is a shame for Apple.

This computer feels like a FCPX machine, and that's it. You know how many people don't need dual GPU's? Not even going to get a choice it seems.

Sounds that way. Nothing is solidified yet obviously. It can make sense with an OpenCL patch for Logic Pro X later in the year. Otherwise a big ol' waste of cash. A current iMac could suffice at 32GB memory for most users but I just hate that form factor to death and that mirror of a screen. It's going to get interesting. Especially when most studio's really do use the current Mac Pro towers and Pro-tools. Apple has great Audio penetration. But I agree this could be the death knell.

 

[deconstruct60]

Sounds that way. Nothing is solidified yet obviously. It can make sense with an OpenCL patch for Logic Pro X later in the year.

Doesn't need to be a patch to Logic Pro X per se. Moving to Mavericks and OpenGL 4.1 should open up a broad range of applications moving more computation to the GPU ( as the not complete v3.3 imiplementation current present didn't support all the shader features. ). Likewise general library usage of OpenCL will free up cycles on the CPU cores even if the specific Lgoic Pro X plugins can't move.

So it really is a question of whether those music folks will never need dual GPUs rather than can do it immediately.

It is also a bit premature as to how much dual GPUs is really costing them. If the new one is about the same price as the old ones ......... were going to pay around that much to have a Mac Pro anyway. Many of the folks drifting off to lower priced Windows systems are the same folks who would have been leaving anyway.

 

[deconstruct60]

...
Are you sure about that? I figured it was mostly driver based. The pie chart is somewhat biased.

It isn't the one chart is it both of them. The disproportionally small number of Pro units leads to over 25% of the revenue.

Professional graphics makes up a much larger percentage of overall profits for NVidia than AMD even if margins are quite high for both.

Right. That is what the charts strongly suggests. The vendors won't break down the specific markets but if the units is small and revenues high unless there is a major component difference that is highly suggestive of high profits. AMD is selling the whole Pro card (and need to by VRAM capacitors , etc ) , but still the core GPU part is largely the same at roughly equivalent levels of performance.

In contrast, the lower end graphics drive much of the unit numbers and a disproportionally much smaller set of the revenue. That's typicall indicative of low profits (especially in part because AMD is selling just the GPU and reference design and not the whole card. So cannot apply a 50-80% mark up to all of those components. )

The lower end GPUs are just chopped down versions of the higher end ones. fewer cores , ROPs ,etc. What is driving the R&D into larger number of cores , ROPs , etc are the Pro end not the low end. In part, because that is where the high profits are.

 

[flat five]

I'm not sure where you got this idea from. As a music person, plenty of people involved with music are ticked off over this coming update. I see people starting to plan Windows devices, which is a shame for Apple.

This computer feels like a FCPX machine, and that's it. You know how many people don't need dual GPU's? Not even going to get a choice it seems.

yeah, i can see what you're saying.. for me personally, there are only a few little things on the new mac which i'll be paying for and probably not using. ethernet and maybe a few other ports.. i definitely think music pros were considered during design though.. (i also wouldn't rule out the fact that gpu may benefit music.. i mean, i know it sounds like 'that's for video and i want audio' but gpus don't only have to give you great graphics.. they can also be used as calculators)..

i guess i would challenge you to try look at it from the designer's pov then see where you fit in.. in my case, if i fit in many ways and not too much in a few other aspects then the benefits may outweigh the negatives and make it ok to pay the extra 300 or whatever..

for me, i honestly see myself using every bit of the thing.. (with my current mp, i don't.. an empty bay, empty pci, empty optical, empty air).. and i truly don't believe the majority of others had their macpro guts stuffed to the brim.. (but it doesn't matter either way because the same argument# applies)


say you're (*you not meaning anyone in particular) faced with the task of designing a computer.. there's going to be a whole lot of conflict when faced with the cpu side of things.. you know intel has that 32 core idea cooking so you have to at least accompany that.. can we figure out a decent way to get 4 sockets in there.. show designJ-647 of that cooling system again.. so&so is working on such&such and would really be able to utilize arrandale4.. months and months of this.. round and round..
then, the no name guy that shows apple the reason they're paying him (sensationalizing but possibly true), says 'one socket'.. half the team think he's straight nuts at first but hey, they're open.. they're professionals.. the guy points out that they've been arguing about this thing which has no answer other than infinity.. just look at what's happened in the last decade regarding the amount of cpus in a computer.. (as in, this is something a designer should be looking at as well).. the memo from HQ specifically says we are not to increase the physical size of the computer (in fact, it's the 1st item on the list).. 10 years from now, if we continue along the trend of more processors, we're going to run out of space.. literally, the train of thought which goes along the lines of the_more_cpus_the_merrier is shooting itself in the foot.. you are growing the size of the enclosure due to an inherited design flaw. we talked to a few people over at ProperAnimation (you know, the people that really really do need massive cpu and aren't just playing geekbench) and found they have 200 linux boxes in the back room.. johnny at ProperArchitecture over there says they use the ranch.. what do they know that we don't?.. they know that you're a pretty much a lunatic for trying to put real cpu power inside the box.. (and to make it kinda funny, they're also saying 'i just benchpressed 100k.. gfy')

not only did that engineer solve the huge problem about how many sockets with the simple solution that's been staring everyone in the face (cpu hungry users don't need or even want all that power sitting on their desk.. at least not in the current form of processors we can use).. all we need to do is put one badass processor in there that will totally handle 99% (.999?) of operations.. and if people need more than that, there are much cheaper means of them getting the additional power and customizing to suit their need.. no need to considerably jack up the price for everybody when a very very small amount of people may take advantage of it (and even then, they're pretty much the same people that will look to the farms because their needs exceed the size of the box)..



his thinking led to the physical size of the macpro shrinking.. it didn't happen the other way around (as many people here seem to think.. i.e.- goal #1 is to shrink it so let's start ripping things out for the sake of size).. the fact that it's smaller has next to nothing to do with a 'make it smaller' state of mind and almost everything to do with a very well thought out computer in every way imaginable.

i'm sure this same scenario about the cpu could be applied to every single aspect about the new mac pro.. the engineers probably thought/talked about this stuff 100x more than all the internet chatter on it combined.. and it was discussed with a problem solving mindset as opposed to 'oh..oh.. hp has 16core box that beats paulie's high score'..

i mean, please.. give these people some credit.. i almost guarantee there's not a single legit engineer (in any field) that can't appreciate what this team has come up with.. if this thing works once it hits the public (turns on, does what it's supposed to do, and doesn't break), it's going to win all sorts of design and engineering awards.. and not because of how it looks because it goes deeper than that.. the looks are more of a result due to the design..

from a design perspective, the thing is completely inspirational and an example of what we should all be striving for in our own work.. it has addressed multiple problems in the big box and solved them all in relatively simple manners..

i'm not trying to suggest people shouldn't make fun of it or recognize that it may not be their cup of tea or whatever.. i'm also not trying to suggest that 'apple- the corporation' is the awesomest thing out there (because hey, i probably have more gripes about corporations than most people).. what i'm trying to suggest is that when ripping on the engineers about their faults, don't just make crap up and insult them.. try to see it from their point of view and what they set out to accomplish and whether or not they succeeded in meeting their goals.. anyone but the most thickheaded of people should be able to recognize and appreciate their work.. after that, put your opinions and dislikes out there all you want- it's 100% fine and understandable.

 

[wonderspark]

yeah, i can see what you're saying.. for me personally, there are only a few little things on the new mac which i'll be paying for and probably not using. ethernet and maybe a few other ports.. i definitely think music pros were considered during design though.. (i also wouldn't rule out the fact that gpu may benefit music.. i mean, i know it sounds like 'that's for video and i want audio' but gpus don't only have to give you great graphics.. they can also be used as calculators)..

i guess i would challenge you to try look at it from the designer's pov then see where you fit in.. in my case, if i fit in many ways and not too much in a few other aspects then the benefits may outweigh the negatives and make it ok to pay the extra 300 or whatever..

for me, i honestly see myself using every bit of the thing.. (with my current mp, i don't.. an empty bay, empty pci, empty optical, empty air).. and i truly don't believe the majority of others had their macpro guts stuffed to the brim.. (but it doesn't matter either way because the same argument# applies)


say you're (*you not meaning anyone in particular) faced with the task of designing a computer.. there's going to be a whole lot of conflict when faced with the cpu side of things.. you know intel has that 32 core idea cooking so you have to at least accompany that.. can we figure out a decent way to get 4 sockets in there.. show designJ-647 of that cooling system again.. so&so is working on such&such and would really be able to utilize arrandale4.. months and months of this.. round and round..
then, the no name guy that shows apple the reason they're paying him (sensationalizing but possibly true), says 'one socket'.. half the team think he's straight nuts at first but hey, they're open.. they're professionals.. the guy points out that they've been arguing about this thing which has no answer other than infinity.. just look at what's happened in the last decade regarding the amount of cpus in a computer.. (as in, this is something a designer should be looking at as well).. the memo from HQ specifically says we are not to increase the physical size of the computer (in fact, it's the 1st item on the list).. 10 years from now, if we continue along the trend of more processors, we're going to run out of space.. literally, the train of thought which goes along the lines of the_more_cpus_the_merrier is shooting itself in the foot.. you are growing the size of the enclosure due to an inherited design flaw. we talked to a few people over at ProperAnimation (you know, the people that really really do need massive cpu and aren't just playing geekbench) and found they have 200 linux boxes in the back room.. johnny at ProperArchitecture over there says they use the ranch.. what do they know that we don't?.. they know that you're a pretty much a lunatic for trying to put real cpu power inside the box.. (and to make it kinda funny, they're also saying 'i just benchpressed 100k.. gfy')

not only did that engineer solve the huge problem about how many sockets with the simple solution that's been staring everyone in the face (cpu hungry users don't need or even want all that power sitting on their desk.. at least not in the current form of processors we can use).. all we need to do is put one badass processor in there that will totally handle 99% (.999?) of operations.. and if people need more than that, there are much cheaper means of them getting the additional power and customizing to suit their need.. no need to considerably jack up the price for everybody when a very very small amount of people may take advantage of it (and even then, they're pretty much the same people that will look to the farms because their needs exceed the size of the box)..



his thinking led to the physical size of the macpro shrinking.. it didn't happen the other way around (as many people here seem to think.. i.e.- goal #1 is to shrink it so let's start ripping things out for the sake of size).. the fact that it's smaller has next to nothing to do with a 'make it smaller' state of mind and almost everything to do with a very well thought out computer in every way imaginable.

i'm sure this same scenario about the cpu could be applied to every single aspect about the new mac pro.. the engineers probably thought/talked about this stuff 100x more than all the internet chatter on it combined.. and it was discussed with a problem solving mindset as opposed to 'oh..oh.. hp has 16core box that beats paulie's high score'..

i mean, please.. give these people some credit.. i almost guarantee there's not a single legit engineer (in any field) that can't appreciate what this team has come up with.. if this thing works once it hits the public (turns on, does what it's supposed to do, and doesn't break), it's going to win all sorts of design and engineering awards.. and not because of how it looks because it goes deeper than that.. the looks are more of a result due to the design..

from a design perspective, the thing is completely inspirational and an example of what we should all be striving for in our own work.. it has addressed multiple problems in the big box and solved them all in relatively simple manners..

i'm not trying to suggest people shouldn't make fun of it or recognize that it may not be their cup of tea or whatever.. i'm also not trying to suggest that 'apple- the corporation' is the awesomest thing out there (because hey, i probably have more gripes about corporations than most people).. what i'm trying to suggest is that when ripping on the engineers about their faults, don't just make crap up and insult them.. try to see it from their point of view and what they set out to accomplish and whether or not they succeeded in meeting their goals.. anyone but the most thickheaded of people should be able to recognize and appreciate their work.. after that, put your opinions and dislikes out there all you want- it's 100% fine and understandable.

"Look at it from the designers' points of view" you say? Ok.

They designed it so that I *have* to use Thunderbolt, which I don't believe is the future. In fact, I think it will end up going away long term, just like Firewire is now, because Apple is trying so hard to be where the puck will be, that they forgot to play the game... or they *are* playing the game, which is taking money from our wallets. They took away my PCIe slots, which will cost me money to adapt to.

How about I give my money to a corporation that considers what *I* need, instead? You appear to love this new design more than seems reasonable, and the effort you've put into convincing others that it's an improvement makes me question what your real story is.

 

[flat five]

How about I give my money to a corporation that considers what *I* need, instead?

you're 100% correct

You appear to love this new design more than seems reasonable, and the effort you've put into convincing others that it's an improvement makes me question what your real story is.

i honestly don't feel the level of excitement or whatever you may see in my posts.. in a conversation sense, it's me exaggerating my side figuring that, to most people(online), it will settle to my actual feeling.. (well, add on the fact that i'm adhd101 and you'll get a good sense of what hyperfocus can be about when not steered in a more productive direction )


i do appreciate the design though.

 

[wonderspark]

you're 100% correct

i honestly don't feel the level of excitement or whatever you may see in my posts.. in a conversation sense, it's me exaggerating my side figuring that, to most people(online), it will settle to my actual feeling.. (well, add on the fact that i'm adhd101 and you'll get a good sense of what hyperfocus can be about when not steered in a more productive direction )

i do appreciate the design though.

I appreciate the design. It's clever. However, I don't appreciate that it's designed to be disposable. I have a greater appreciation for a design like the current Mac Pro, whereby if I need a custom solution, it's a PCIe slot away. That's why I have USB3, eSATA and different GPUs to choose from... it's a slot away.

Apple appreciates cash, so they made it harder for me to keep mine. They appreciate people who constantly buy the newest stuff they make, and I'm not that person. I replaced the battery on my iPhone 3GS, and I don't even have an iPad yet. They would rather I lost my mind and shoved money in their faces for the newest thing every year. I get it, but I'm not foolish enough to be hypnotized by the hype.

 

[GermanyChris]

I appreciate the design. It's clever. However, I don't appreciate that it's designed to be disposable. I have a greater appreciation for a design like the current Mac Pro, whereby if I need a custom solution, it's a PCIe slot away. That's why I have USB3, eSATA and different GPUs to choose from... it's a slot away.

Apple appreciates cash, so they made it harder for me to keep mine. They appreciate people who constantly buy the newest stuff they make, and I'm not that person. I replaced the battery on my iPhone 3GS, and I don't even have an iPad yet. They would rather I lost my mind and shoved money in their faces for the newest thing every year. I get it, but I'm not foolish enough to be hypnotized by the hype.

One is timeless one is current, one has intrinsic value one does not. There is really little to like about the new Mac Pro.

 

[flat five]

I appreciate the design. It's clever. However, I don't appreciate that it's designed to be disposable.

see, i just don't think it's designed to be disposable.. saying that is imagining the designers sitting around the table going "we can't use that part because it lasts too long.. we need this thing to break in 4years"..
i just don't see it happening.. not at these people's level in the engineering world.. some of these designers are in an elite field of top 500 in the world.. they would quit their jobs before accepting a requirement to make their design break.. it seems built to last (relatively speaking) if you ask me.

but look.. it would be dumb and overly annoying of me to go over every detail because i'm going to go ahead and assume i'll be repeating myself over and over and over..

your statement is "I don't appreciate that it's designed to be disposable"

[snip- for real.. i'm cutting myself off here with these long posts.. going back to telling jokes]

----------

One is timeless one is current.

yeah, timeless meaning until maybe 2020.. (unless i completely misunderstand what you were saying)

 

[wonderspark]

see, i just don't think it's designed to be disposable.. saying that is imagining the designers sitting around the table going "we can't use that part because it lasts too long.. we need this thing to break in 4years"..
i just don't see it happening.. not at these people's level in the engineering world.. some of these designers are in an elite field of top 500 in the world.. they would quit their jobs before accepting a requirement to make their design break.. it seems built to last (relatively speaking) if you ask me.

but look.. it would be dumb and overly annoying of me to go over every detail because i'm going to go ahead and assume i'll be repeating myself over and over and over..

your statement is "I don't appreciate that it's designed to be disposable"

[snip- for real.. i'm cutting myself off here with these long posts.. going back to telling jokes]

----------



yeah, timeless meaning until maybe 2020.. (unless i completely misunderstand what you were saying)

Would you rather I used the word obsolete instead of disposable?

They certainly designed it to be non-user servicable, and become obsolete within about four years, like the iMacs are today.

Maybe I'm wrong, and all future GPUs will be just like the ones in this new design, and they'll just plug and play. Same with CPUs... just flick a latch and drop in new CPUs like in the current Mac Pro. That would be sweet.

Otherwise, no... they did in fact design it to be replaced in four or so years, when the new technology makes this design old and busted. My 2009 is better than what Apple sells in 2013... and THAT is a good design.

 

[flat five]

Would you rather I used the word obsolete instead of disposable?

[...]

Otherwise, no... they did in fact design it to be replaced in four or so years, when the new technology makes this design old and busted.

all technology we as a species have ever come up with is obsolete.. we have yet to develop a pure technology in any field ever..

we know what old-fashioned looks like.. we have over a hundred years worth photographs which is plenty of time for us to realize how fast things appear old fashioned. i assume an 85 year old person has seen old-fashioned happen 3-4 times in their life directly..

of course this computer is obsolete.. of course it's not the end all and be all of personal computing.. not even remotely close to that. (and i really hope i'm not coming across as saying this is the 'ultimate' computer in the truest sense of the word).. there are zero computers on our planet that weren't obsolete the minute they were born

the question isn't about 'is this the ultimate pc?'.. it's more about where it sits in the line of pc progression..

 

[wonderspark]

all technology we as a species have ever come up with is obsolete.. we have yet to develop a pure technology in any field ever..

we know what old-fashioned looks like.. we have over a hundred years worth photographs which is plenty of time for us to realize how fast things appear old fashioned. i assume an 85 year old person has seen old-fashioned happen 3-4 times in their life directly..

of course this computer is obsolete.. of course it's not the end all and be all of personal computing.. not even remotely close to that. (and i really hope i'm not coming across as saying this is the 'ultimate' computer in the truest sense of the word).. there are zero computers on our planet that weren't obsolete the minute they were born

the question isn't about 'is this the ultimate pc?'.. it's more about where it sits in the line of pc progression..

See, I appreciate things that can continue to function and be useful longer than what the other guy sells.

There are old cars built decades ago that still run better than some new cheap cars. There are nice cups and containers that I can clean and reuse a thousand times, rather than use that disposable plastic bottle. There are computers, like the current Mac Pro, that can last well beyond what anyone at Apple even imagined. These are truly great designs.

Apple chose to ruin that. They could have made the new model use a new CPU tray that allows 2009-2013 Mac Pro owners to upgrade their old boxes with new CPUs well into the future, but they chose instead to make the old ones old forever. They had the option to make a truly lasting design continue forward, but they have their eyes on different bragging rights... that of cash, not lasting design.

I don't blame them, because money is awesome. However, I don't buy this 'design' argument at all, because I see the design through different eyes than others, and that is a design to make money instead of actually being better.

 

[flat five]

My 2009 is better than what Apple sells in 2013... and THAT is a good design.

yeah man.. the past macpros are awesome too.. (in case it's not clear, i was equally hyped on the powermac g5 as i am on this thing.. the current mac pro is the best box design we'll ever see.. (imo of course.. i've never used anything but the current tower so i'm comparing to next to nothing in terms of hands-on experience)

it's a proven design that has lasted 10 years with no altercations to the original idea for the span of it's life. that's a great accomplishment..
but get out while you're ahead.. you know what i mean? move on.. make it even better.. refine it..

 

[wonderspark]

yeah man.. the past macpros are awesome too.. (in case it's not clear, i was equally hyped on the powermac g5 as i am on this thing.. the current mac pro is the best box design we'll ever see.. (imo of course.. i've never used anything but the current tower so i'm comparing to next to nothing in terms of hands-on experience)

it's a proven design that has lasted 10 years with no altercations to the original idea for the span of it's life. that's a great accomplishment..
but get out while you're ahead.. you know what i mean? move on.. make it even better.. refine it..

Get out while I'm ahead... move on... to planned obsolescence?

It seems like you're fully sold on the disposable way of life.