MP 6,1 Trashcan was the perfect Mac

[discofuel]

I've been an Apple user for over 30 years and have owned many different Macs during that time.

For me, the 2013 Mac Pro was the perfect desktop. It was my primary music production computer in my studio. It sat on my desk looking stunning right next to my monitor, it was almost completely silent, it had all the power I needed, it had all the Thunderbolt ports and connectivity I needed, and for the 7 years that I owned it, I never had a single issue with it. I purchased it with only 256GB SSD (and paired it with an extra Thunderbolt drive), and 12GB of ram with the intention of upgrading but never needed to.

When the M1 MBP came out, I traded it in for a 16" which is the best laptop I've owned, but I do miss my trashcan!

Of course, if I was buying a desktop today, the Mac Studio would be the equivalent and it looks like an amazing machine.

I understand that the lack of connectivity was frustrating for some pro users who needed PCI, GPU, etc, but why was there so much hate around this model?

 

[avro707]

I have a 6,1 which is the top spec available.

It is lovely to look at but the bespoke GPUs are a big pain in the ****. If anything goes wrong with them, huge problem. And replacement D700s are not easy to find.

On the 5,1 if the RX580 fails you just get a RX6600XT - flash the firmware and done - easy. The RX6600XT actually works brilliantly, it runs fairly cool and doesn’t make a noise.

On 7,1 you can use RX6900XT if you need to. Less bespoke components is safer.

And if you avoid MacOS then you open up to Nvidia 4090 and other very powerful new GPUs that the temple of Apple refuses to support in MacOS (because they want you to spend big $$$ on the next computer).

Personally I think the 7,1 is much more stunning looking on my desk - the structure of it is stunning. It is also silent - it never makes a noise. No matter what you do, no matter how hard it is working.



FWIW I have 2x 5,1, the 6,1 and 7,1.

 

[mattspace]

so much hate around this model?

• Because it added no new capabilities that necessitated a design which removed a lot of capabilities and flexibility.
• Because it was a textbook example of "design as appearance, not as function".
• Because it increased the price while doing this.
• Because it was the start of an attempt to make workstation-priced computers have an iPad-priced obsolescence model.
• Because its basic design was fundamentally flawed - it cooked its own components, despite literally being built around its cooling system.

To quote Ray & Charles Eames:

• "What works is better than what looks good"
• "The most of the best, to the greatest number, for the least"

The 2013 mac Pro failed on both these measures, and it's therefore reasonable to not only damn it, but also the people who betrayed the fundamental principles of their profession by participating it its creation.

 

[sunapple]

It’s great if it worked well for you, I’m sure it did for a few people, but they shouldn’t have removed a tower Mac from the lineup. It maybe should’ve been the first “Mac Studio”.

 

[Mac3Duser]

I have a 6.1 (64 gb ram 12 cores and D700), but now I don't use it anymore. The design is perfect and I don't understand why the mac studio has not the same design and a standard M2 SSD nvme.
The mac studio is closed and I don't know how people will remove dust.

 

[Basic75]

It sat on my desk looking stunning

That's the only thing it was better at than the predecessor, and many things where it was worse. That's not a good trade-off for professionals.

 

[rcp27]

Pro users seem to divide into two sorts: those who want the horsepower and basic connectivity (ethernet, thunderbolt etc), but don't really make use of serious on-board expandability (depending more on network storage and that sort of thing); and those who want to make use of the on-board flexibility for storage, specialist expansion cards and the like.

With the trashcan, Apple took the path of assuming its customers were primarily of the first sort, but with the cheesegrater they backtracked and embraced the second sort. Clearly there are plenty of people who want the first sort of use, though, and the Studio effectively addresses that use case. Now that there are basically equivalent (in terms of computing power) pro and studio models on offer, it gives the ability to actually assess how the user base splits accross these two user sorts.

 

[discofuel]

Pro users seem to divide into two sorts: those who want the horsepower and basic connectivity (ethernet, thunderbolt etc), but don't really make use of serious on-board expandability (depending more on network storage and that sort of thing); and those who want to make use of the on-board flexibility for storage, specialist expansion cards and the like.

With the trashcan, Apple took the path of assuming its customers were primarily of the first sort, but with the cheesegrater they backtracked and embraced the second sort. Clearly there are plenty of people who want the first sort of use, though, and the Studio effectively addresses that use case. Now that there are basically equivalent (in terms of computing power) pro and studio models on offer, it gives the ability to actually assess how the user base splits accross these two user sorts.

This is really well put.

I'm in the first sort, so the trashcan was perfect for me, whereas the cheesegrater wasn't.

Switching the audience of the Mac Pro back and forth between releases whilst abandoning the second sort of users seems to have caused all the frustration.

It’s great if it worked well for you, I’m sure it did for a few people, but they shouldn’t have removed a tower Mac from the lineup. It maybe should’ve been the first “Mac Studio”.

Agreed. Although, then it would have taken Apple 9 years to release an updated Studio!

The new Mac Pro aside, Apple seems to have nailed it with the current offerings of laptops and desktops. If Apple can sort out the Mac Pro in the next release, then (hopefully!) both sorts of pro users will be happy.

 

[avro707]

Pro users seem to divide into two sorts: those who want the horsepower and basic connectivity (ethernet, thunderbolt etc), but don't really make use of serious on-board expandability (depending more on network storage and that sort of thing); and those who want to make use of the on-board flexibility for storage, specialist expansion cards and the like.

With the trashcan, Apple took the path of assuming its customers were primarily of the first sort, but with the cheesegrater they backtracked and embraced the second sort. Clearly there are plenty of people who want the first sort of use, though, and the Studio effectively addresses that use case. Now that there are basically equivalent (in terms of computing power) pro and studio models on offer, it gives the ability to actually assess how the user base splits accross these two user sorts.

I was looking at the Lenovo PX (P10) it's actually quite nicely done and has a lot of scope for expansion (16 ram slots, 2 CPUs, 4 GPUs, hot-swappable drive bays, 2 power supplies). It's not quite as beautiful as the 7,1 Mac Pro but as far as PC workstations go it's pretty good - from outside it's not bad, definitely the Lenovo look.

Also the HP Z8 G5 I was looking at, that's also way expandable (4x Nvidia A6000 and Intel W9 56 core), and inside has a similar layout to the Lenovo but not as nice outside. But for the price very hard to beat, they were offering USD$10,000 discount on it which makes it really hard to overlook. The PSU that can be swapped out easily is a nice touch, on a Mac Pro replacing a PSU is not easy at all.

Looking back, if custom versions of the HP or Lenovo had been available in Australia I might have just gone with one of those instead of the 7,1.

 

[orionquest]

Is this post just for reactions?
I'm sure this topic has been discussed ad nauseam why rehash this?

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

I've been an Apple user for over 30 years and have owned many different Macs during that time.

For me, the 2013 Mac Pro was the perfect desktop. It was my primary music production computer in my studio. It sat on my desk looking stunning right next to my monitor, it was almost completely silent, it had all the power I needed, it had all the Thunderbolt ports and connectivity I needed, and for the 7 years that I owned it, I never had a single issue with it. I purchased it with only 256GB SSD (and paired it with an extra Thunderbolt drive), and 12GB of ram with the intention of upgrading but never needed to.

When the M1 MBP came out, I traded it in for a 16" which is the best laptop I've owned, but I do miss my trashcan!

Of course, if I was buying a desktop today, the Mac Studio would be the equivalent and it looks like an amazing machine.

I understand that the lack of connectivity was frustrating for some pro users who needed PCI, GPU, etc, but why was there so much hate around this model?

The Trash Can failed for many reasons. expansion was limited to external solutions like eGPUs which lead to lots of cables and for many professionals it wasn't enough. A notable example is Neil Parfitt, a composer for major TV productions. His studio needed TWO Mac Pros basically daisy chained together in a weird setup with custom rack mounts loaded with cables and extra external boxes, versus the 2019 Mac Pro where it's all relegated to just one box and is a lot easier to manage now

But the expansion issues were the least of it's problems. The biggest one was of course it ran like ass with it's small design. That "Unified Thermal Core" did jack. It thermal throttled so easily and it's design meant newer Intel Xeon cards could not be used or the thing would overheat. Even Apple themselves in a rare moment had to make a public apology about the computer and admit it was a mistake. In one exec's own words: “I think we designed ourselves into a bit of a thermal corner, if you will.”

Apple admits the Mac Pro was a mess

The company is ready to reconcile with pros

www.theverge.com

They had to make the iMac Pro as basically a band-aid fix for the 2013 Trash Can until they could make a proper Mac Pro with the 2019 one. Hell you can argue the whole mess with the 2013 Mac Pro is one of the catalysts to push Apple to leave Intel chips and just put their own ARM chips in the Mac instead so they could make crazy computers like this that would actually work.

It was an interesting design no doubt, but in practice it didn't work at all. Honestly it was way ahead of it's time. If that design was made during the Apple Silicon era we're in right now, it would've worked.

But hey, at least we got the Mac Studio now which in hindsight is also better than the trashcan since it has a lot more ports than it and a much better cooling system. So in the end you still got your perfect desktop, it just doesn't look like a corporate office trash can now.

 

[maflynn]

For me, the 2013 Mac Pro was the perfect desktop.

Glad you qualified it, because in almost every sense the trash barrel mac was not a Pro level machine. At least in comparison to prior Mac Pros and its competitors. Apple was very much into the form over function and the lack of drive bays and GPU upgrades basically hamstrung its longevity and its future.

 

[okkibs]

The trashcan Pro could absolutely work today if the cooling was fixed. Back in 2013 the hardware was less efficient, the Mac Studio only works now because of the more efficient technology. In 2013 a Mac Studio would have failed as well, with the extra space that the GPU and RAM slots would have taken up.

The Mac Studio to me is the trashcan's spiritual successor. And since the Studio's design works reliably and no longer overheats it's much better received.

 

[mattspace]

I was looking at the Lenovo PX (P10) it's actually quite nicely done and has a lot of scope for expansion (16 ram slots, 2 CPUs, 4 GPUs, hot-swappable drive bays, 2 power supplies). It's not quite as beautiful as the 7,1 Mac Pro but as far as PC workstations go it's pretty good - from outside it's not bad, definitely the Lenovo look.

Call me heretical, but I think the new Lenovo machines (especially that Louboutin red accent 👨‍🍳) look MUCH better than the 7,1, which which is a little bling-vulgar for my taste.

Looking back, if custom versions of the HP or Lenovo had been available in Australia I might have just gone with one of those instead of the 7,1.

Yup, but neither of them are available in .au now - they're still months off release, and HP doesn't offer build-to-order here at all. It's laughable that Apple actually offered the best workstation buying experience for the .au market.

*edit* I stand corrected - Lenovo are offering the P5/7/X here (.au) now, with full customisation options.

 

[displayator]

At least it had the expandable ram. Now the mac studio is really an overgrown mini and nothing is upgradable. I waited for them to upgrade it after a year or two but indeed they never did.

The trashcan Pro could absolutely work today if the cooling was fixed. Back in 2013 the hardware was less efficient, the Mac Studio only works now because of the more efficient technology. In 2013 a Mac Studio would have failed as well, with the extra space that the GPU and RAM slots would have taken up.

The Mac Studio to me is the trashcan's spiritual successor. And since the Studio's design works reliably and no longer overheats it's much better received.

I think if they had called it the mac studio at the time and kept a tower mac pro it would have been a hit.
And today they could re-launch it with an M2 Max/Ultra and a bunch of standard nvme slots in place of the custom GPUs and it could be a hit. It should have enough space and cooling for the m2 and m2 ultra. Just don't call it 'Pro'.

I really hope they can create a GPU and RAM story for the next generation of mac pro.

 

[Spaceboi Scaphandre]

The trashcan Pro could absolutely work today if the cooling was fixed. Back in 2013 the hardware was less efficient, the Mac Studio only works now because of the more efficient technology. In 2013 a Mac Studio would have failed as well, with the extra space that the GPU and RAM slots would have taken up.

The Mac Studio to me is the trashcan's spiritual successor. And since the Studio's design works reliably and no longer overheats it's much better received.

The fact most of the Mac Studio is just the overengineered cooling system is hilarious. Apple really did not want a repeat of the Trash Can with the Studio since the Studio is now essentially the new general Mac Pro for the masses.

 

[cateye]

"What works is better than what looks good"

Every MacRumors member should be required to read this sentence before posting. The stark opposition to this simple idea nearly destroyed the Mac, and the obsessive, maudlin need for people to always define Apple products first by their "beauty" is a sign of a greater problem: People buying things they don't actually need because they're victims of marketing nonsense, tarted up as high-art. It's a bunch of glitter throwing for the easily distracted.

The Trash Can Mac Pro was fundamentally poorly designed as a functional device. Both as hardware with zero cooling or iterative headroom, and the way in which its dual GPU setup targeted a graphics computing model, OpenCL, that would be quickly abandoned by Apple as unworkable, and never achieved anything close to mass support in the broader marketplace. It was doomed from the design stage onward. It could never be anything but a failure for its intended audience.

 

[neuropsychguy]

My recommendation is to not call it the trashcan Mac. That's a pejorative term. I prefer the term turbine Mac.

It's an amazing design but obviously not one that worked for many people it was geared towards. I'd love to see Apple bring it back as something like their Mac Studio. Oh, and Apple should bring back the sunflower Mac (iMac G4). Those two Macs were just about the most interesting and beautiful computer designs Apple ever made.

 

[Amethyst]

Totally love it, although mine one have GPU Problems, but it's the Mac which bring me PHd, that all.

Now with Mac Studio, it look like this is perfect replacement for my beloved 6,1.

 

[cateye]

Those two Macs were just about the most interesting and beautiful computer designs Apple ever made.

So, are computers tools or are they curios? As others in this thread have argued far better than I could, the Studio is the Trash Can Mac (sorry, but as a flawed device, it deserves its pejoratives) but where its function and flexibility are its defining beauty, and its physical form both serves those needs and fulfills the human emotional need for tools to be inoffensive and approachable in appearance. It's the "Turbine" Mac done correctly.

 

[neuropsychguy]

It was doomed from the design stage onward. It could never be anything but a failure for its intended audience.

Maybe, but I think the design is amazing. It didn't work out for many reasons but I think it could would work well with Apple Silicon.

I don't love the design because I'm somehow a victim of Apple's marketing, I love the design because it's beautiful and clever. I understand there are problems and costs when things don't work out (they worked for many people), but at least Apple tried something different.

 

[neuropsychguy]

So, are computers tools or are they curios?

Yes.

 

[cateye]

Yes.

I must admit, you made me chuckle because I sort of predicted this would be your reply and it effectively takes the wind out of my argument. I don't want to come across like I'm trodding on personal preference. I would argue that the failure of the Turbine/Trash Can Mac as an aesthetic device is what defined its failure as a functional device, and if it can't function, then its aesthetics are secondary and inconsequential. But again, there's room for us to disagree on that amicably.

 

[mattspace]

It's an amazing design but obviously not one that worked for many people it was geared towards.

No, it's not an amazing design, that's the point. It is a pretty decorative object (if one is into simple forms and reflectivity - probably goes hand in hand with an enjoyment of Jeff Koons metallic balloon animals as well), but as an example of design, it is a piece of garbage.

Design is how it works. The 2013 Mac Pro did not work by any reasonable criteria, or even by any of the criteria Apple set out for it at launch.

Don't praise mediocrity, or if you do, praise it in terms that have a reasonable basis.

 

[neuropsychguy]

I must admit, you made me chuckle because I sort of predicted this would be your reply and it effectively takes the wind out of my argument. I don't want to come across like I'm trodding on personal preference. I would argue that the failure of the Turbine/Trash Can Mac as an aesthetic device is what defined its failure as a functional device, and if it can't function, then its aesthetics are secondary and inconsequential. But again, there's room for us to disagree on that amicably.

I agree with that. I appreciate aesthetics and performance. When a company can do both well (many of Apple's products do), I find this appealing.

It's like cars. They can work well and not have to look like the Pontiac Aztek (although, there are quite a few worse looking cars). We can have the E-type Jaguar or many Ferraris, that look good and generally perform well. Or, at lower ends of performance and price, you can have something the 2023 Prius that looks good (especially compared to the previous iterations of the Prius) and works well.

My main computer is one I put together. It's a boring but not gaudy black box. It looks good and works but isn't going in any art or design museums. Many of Apple's products could.

All of this is simply my bias. I know many other people don't care or value these aesthetics. That's fine. I'm a scientist but I also turn my research into art. When I'm putting together a presentation for a conference, I'll spend as much time on the look of my presentation as I do on the content (this doesn't mean the function/content suffers, it means I put in a lot of extra time on the look). For my classes I don't do this most of the time but I'll go through my slides and work on making them more aesthetically pleasing when I update them each year. The visuals are done not to distract but to complement what's being covered.

I see Apple doing similar things. Trying to have something look good and work well. That doesn't always work but I value their efforts (and don't begrudge people who don't).