MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)

[rGiskard]

As much as I don't like the lack of updates, I wonder what people here would do if they were in charge of such a large corporation as Apple. Shareholders (some of which might even post here, who knows?) demand that the company makes money, not that it keeps releasing models with the latest hardware available. Maybe, just maybe, yearly complete lineup refreshes isn't in the shareholders best interest, or is it?

From 2003 to 2010 Apple updated the aluminum tower pro workstation every year or two while transitioning to an entirely new processing architecture.

Since 2010 Apple have updated their professional workstation once. One update in 6 years. Well, maybe one and half updates, since in 2012 Apple bumped the CPU GHz by 5-10% (while failing to adopt the latest Intel chipsets). And the one major update is viewed by most pro Mac users as a serious downgrade in features.

I don't have any data, but judging by the local studios and word on the internet, pro migration from OS X to Windows has been significantly higher since 2010 than it was from 2003 to 2010. Those who rely on heavily multi-threaded apps are furious with the Tube introduction and subsequent neglect.

Surely there must be a happy medium between yearly updates and one update every six years? Perhaps longtime pro Mac users even have some useful ideas about what sort of computer they need?

 

[JimGoshorn]

that's what i said..
it's ok for HP to use this type of language but if apple does it, it's not ok.
..and you'll find ways to justify it in your head. (while completely failing to recognize HP is pointblank copying apple's marketing style)

That's the point to me, Apple did the innovation and developed the iMac and MacPro and then they morphed them into stylish designs instead of continuing the develop them into designs like the Z1 and Z840. Apple has the talent, money, resources and experience to have done that but instead they chose to take them in a direction that many of their users aren't happy about.

Like Mr Miyagi said, "Walk left side OK, Walk right side OK, walk down middle of the road, get squashed like grape".

 

[koyoot]

That's the point to me, Apple did the innovation and developed the iMac and MacPro and then they morphed them into stylish designs instead of continuing the develop them into designs like the Z1 and Z840. Apple has the talent, money, resources and experience to have done that but instead they chose to take them in a direction that many of their users aren't happy about.

Like Mr Miyagi said, "Walk left side OK, Walk right side OK, walk down middle of the road, get squashed like grape".

I think that is exactly what Apple did with Mac Pro. Jumped from left side to right side. And everybody who was and still is on the left side, complain about that they changed sides.

 

[JimGoshorn]

Let it be clear that I'm not defending Apple or anything, but I can understand if this is their vision of things, which might not be really, just me wondering.
OK, I'm ready for the counter strike...

I see your point. Thing is, that years ago, Apple did have regular updates to the MacPro/PowerMac about every year (maybe bait longer) and there didn't seem to be any issues with that. Apple made money and the users were happy. All of a sudden, Apple just winds the whole update thing down to the point that users are concerned. There doesn't have to be a whole new model, just an update to include new technology (like they do with those iToys).
[doublepost=1466889244][/doublepost]

I think that is exactly what Apple did with Mac Pro. Jumped from left side to right side. And everybody who was and still is on the left side, complain about that they changed sides.

To me, it seems like they are more in the middle. It's more than an iMac but less than a tower and it's just sitting there waiting to be run over

 

[koyoot]

I see your point. Thing is, that years ago, Apple did have regular updates to the MacPro/PowerMac about every year (maybe bait longer) and there didn't seem to be any issues with that. Apple made money and the users were happy. All of a sudden, Apple just winds the whole update thing down to the point that users are concerned. There doesn't have to be a whole new model, just an update to include new technology (like they do with those iToys).

Everything currently points to a situation where they wanted to bring revised hardware lineup with technologies that are not able to work without other parts: eg. HDR cannot work without GPUs supporting it and DP1.3/1.4. It is not only Mac Pro that has been stalled. There are few computers that have been let down for few years.

Easiest answer for people is that Apple is abandoning markets. Are they? Or its simply personal preferences and personal view at the situation? I do not believe that this is what is happening with Apple computer hardware.

 

[JimGoshorn]

Surely there must be a happy medium between yearly updates and one update every six years? Perhaps longtime pro Mac users even have some useful ideas about what sort of computer they need?

That sounds reasonable. Give technology around 2 years to improve enough to justify an update and release an improved model. At least they could issue models at around the same time as PC makers do and give users some certainty about the MacPro.

 

[rGiskard]

That's the point to me, Apple did the innovation and developed the iMac and MacPro and then they morphed them into stylish designs instead of continuing the develop them into designs like the Z1 and Z840. Apple has the talent, money, resources and experience to have done that but instead they chose to take them in a direction that many of their users aren't happy about.

Like Mr Miyagi said, "Walk left side OK, Walk right side OK, walk down middle of the road, get squashed like grape".

What's most perplexing to me is that Apple gave up on desktop computing only after they had the resources to walk on both sides of the road at the same time. The Tube could have been the headless iMac with desktop components that Mac users have pined for since 2003, and the tower could have lived on as a multicore beast workstation.

 

[ManuelGomes]

Jim, Apple is not the same company as it was some years back, they're a multi-million corporation that focuses more on what the regular consumer wants/needs (or think they do). And now they have to make money, because they've grown a lot. I believe some time ago they could get away with almost anything, specially with Jobs, he wouldn't give a crap about what others might think, his vision was the way to go.
But times have changed, and Apple needs to follow the money, and indeed the money that Apple wants or needs is not in WS. As much as we don't like this, the fact is that this is the trend.

And as koyoot said, as many of us did before as well, the right hardware was not ready yet. Of course they could've done an incremental update (maybe go Haswell, or Fiji, or both) but would that really be worth it?
I think (and I have said it before) they're waiting for the right combination of new stuff that one can consider good enough to justify an update. And now with the new GPUs (be it Polaris, Vega or Pascal) I believe the conditions are met. Better still with Skylake of course, that will be the most notable change in platform, but still a year away and I don't think they'll wait that long anymore. Maybe in a year they'll update again, this time with quite a worthy update.

 

[JimGoshorn]

Jim, Apple is not the same company as it was some years back, they're a multi-million corporation that focuses more on what the regular consumer wants/needs (or think they do). And now they have to make money, because they've grown a lot. I believe some time ago they could get away with almost anything, specially with Jobs, he wouldn't give a crap about what others might think, his vision was the way to go.
But times have changed, and Apple needs to follow the money, and indeed the money that Apple wants or needs is not in WS. As much as we don't like this, the fact is that this is the trend.

Yes, it is unfortunate but as you say, they are a different company. The way that have spoken about the MacPro, they made it sound like they still considered it a workstation based on what they consider will be the future workstations. When I think about it, they did the same thing with floppies, optical drives and now hard drives. They did a more massive jump this time making it harder to adapt.

 

[ManuelGomes]

And you'll see that most manufacturers will follow this trend with compact WS

 

[antonis]

As much as I don't like the lack of updates, I wonder what people here would do if they were in charge of such a large corporation as Apple. Shareholders (some of which might even post here, who knows?) demand that the company makes money, not that it keeps releasing models with the latest hardware available. Maybe, just maybe, yearly complete lineup refreshes isn't in the shareholders best interest, or is it? Some will say that because of the lack of updated specs Apple looses sales, but is it really like that? Better yet, the sales lost will outpace the new orders income if new models keep coming up? Doubt it very much. Apple buyers want stability, and new models every now and then doesn't really play that game, and support for a wide range of products can become a nightmare.
Let it be clear that I'm not defending Apple or anything, but I can understand if this is their vision of things, which might not be really, just me wondering.
OK, I'm ready for the counter strike...

And please keep the discussion on topic or we'll have another closed thread.

RX480 coming up to stores even in the Us in large quantities, availability seems good.
Some lucky guys might get one of those babies before the 29th?
I guess Apple must have samples for some time to test.
If Polaris does come to the nMP than we'll again have no ECC mem. With Vega only probably.

I see your point regarding shareholders, but I don't think it's that simple. A manufacturer releasing a professional-oriented product X (either a h/w or a s/w product) targeting to a specific professional market, has to maintain a consistency. It's all about responsibility as well as profit. They have to stay relevant to the market changes, they have to update the product to keep it current. Or they have to kill it and let everyone know about it. Cause people are working with it and expecting to make their living based on that said product. They have to know where things go, so they can decide if they stay with it or move forward to something else. Otherwise the said company is not trustworthy.

 

[koyoot]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38318245&postcount=61

Pretty interesting post regarding state of OpenCL implementations, and Final Cut Pro X.

 

[Mago]

Few "updates" from DarknetGuy, Apple Mac event on August 16, Apple to introduce new Macbook Pros, Mac "Mini" and Updated Mac Pro, possible iMac Skylake/TB3 update too, 5K Retina Display also on menu no internal, eGPU maybe an optional plug-in add-on module for this display.

Also tell about next iPhone 7 / Watch, Waterproof a main feature (both), Apple Watch to be available too as round shaped watch, steel golden variant instead solid gold 3 days battery life.

 

[ibgb]

Do you think Apple management likes to be in tight control of every development/product?

How many projects can top management give their attention to? 3? 5? 10?

The wave driving the iphone / ipad is petering out, isn't it?

Maybe their attention will be directed to other streams of products, like computers, do you think?

It seems to me management focuses their attention on their babies bringing in the money, and can't manage too many simultaneous projects, because top management has to be so involved in them. That focus has a good side and a bad side. Its bad if you are not buying an iphone, but good if you are.

 

[koyoot]

@ManuelGomes I have something for you

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...is-announcements.1975249/page-5#post-23059954

 

[rGiskard]

Jim, Apple is not the same company as it was some years back, they're a multi-million corporation that focuses more on what the regular consumer wants/needs (or think they do). And now they have to make money, because they've grown a lot. I believe some time ago they could get away with almost anything, specially with Jobs, he wouldn't give a crap about what others might think, his vision was the way to go.
But times have changed, and Apple needs to follow the money, and indeed the money that Apple wants or needs is not in WS. As much as we don't like this, the fact is that this is the trend.

Apple has always had to be profitable, that's nothing new. If anything, with their most obscene profit stream originating from iDevices, they can now afford a few low-profitability halo products.

Also, the other workstation manufacturers are also multi-million dollar corporations that answer to shareholders, and yet they update their computers frequently, usually with every Xeon update. HP's profitability is also consumer-oriented, with most of their profits originating from the inkjet cartridge scam. So the excuse that Apple are now highly profitable in the consumer space and thus cannot afford to update the Mac Pro doesn't hold water.

Mago, who is DarknetGuy? I tried to google him but nothing comes up except for drug sites. His predictions sound groovy but then so do those of "No One" on the Mac Pro Rising thread.

 

[Mago]

Mago, who is DarknetGuy? I tried to google him but nothing comes up except for drug sites. His predictions sound groovy but then so do those of "No One" on the Mac Pro Rising thread.

It's the nick I gave to some self proclaimed apple insider that leaks Apple Corporate info at some site hosted in darknet, i cant give you the actual nick of this guy neither the darkent (.onion) address. BTW I'm not strange you get those search results, in darknet durg dealings and ulltra-radical politics are the basic menu.

P.D. TAKE WITH AN VERY HUGE GRAIN OF SALT EVERY THING I WROTE FROM DARKNETGUY, THESE ARE ABSOLUTELY UNRELIABLE LEAKS, I POST HERE JUST FOR FUN, AND COZ SOMEHOW MATCHES OUR OWN SPECULATIONS.

 

[rGiskard]

Interesting. I hope he really does have insider info, at least for all the non Tube stuff. I like No One's "insider" info on the Tube best, alas I believe it is wishful thinking.

eGPU is a bit dodgy since Apple normally likes self-contained computers, but there is Sierra's support for eGPU. And isn't it thoughtful of them to let us buy a PCIE enclosure to supplement their workstation w/o PCIe slots or upgradable GPUs?

 

[koyoot]

Interesting. I hope he really does have insider info, at least for all the non Tube stuff. I like No One's "insider" info on the Tube best, alas I believe it is wishful thinking.

eGPU is a bit dodgy since Apple normally likes self-contained computers, but there is Sierra's support for eGPU. And isn't it thoughtful of them to let us buy a PCIE enclosure to supplement their workstation w/o PCIe slots or upgradable GPUs?

Don't you think that eGPUs are a way for every OEM to maintain upgradeability in their non-upgradeable computers?

 

[fastlanephil]

Few "updates" from DarknetGuy, Apple Mac event on August 16. /QUOTE]

Is Apple going to hold the event at the beach? Maybe they'll try to get the Beach Boys to reunite one last time.

 

[rGiskard]

Don't you think that eGPUs are a way for every OEM to maintain upgradeability in their non-upgradeable computers?

Apple are not "every OEM". I expect their eGPU will not actually be an external PCIe enclosure into which users can install their video card of choice. No, the Apple solution will be a proprietary GPU board inside a sealed aluminum box (a very Thin aluminum box that overheats on prolonged use), and the entire kit will cost twice as much as a normal enclosure + GPU. After a couple years when the GPU is obsolete, you'll have to throw out the entire box and buy a new one from Apple.

Since Apple gimp the GPU on every single desktop they sell, their eGPU will be required equipment for anyone who needs a Mac for GPU intensive tasks. So Apple will have finally figured out a way to sell an extra $1K component with nearly every Mac Tube sale. It was probably the plan all along, but they had to wait three years so they can say they're responding to Mac Tube buyers' needs. I mean, imagine the optics of removing the Mac Pro's PCIe slots and simultaneously charging an extra $1K to add a modern GPU - even the most gullible Mac users wouldn't put up with that sort of abuse.

 

[koyoot]

Apple are not "every OEM". I expect their eGPU will not actually be an external PCIe enclosure into which users can install their video card of choice. No, the Apple solution will be a proprietary GPU board inside a sealed aluminum box, and the entire kit will cost twice as much as a normal enclosure + GPU. After a couple years when the GPU is obsolete, you'll have to throw out the entire box and buy a new one from Apple.

Since Apple gimp the GPU on every single desktop they sell, their eGPU will be required equipment for anyone who needs a Mac for GPU intensive tasks. So Apple will have finally figured out a way to sell an extra $1K component with nearly every Mac Tube sale. It was probably the plan all along, but they had to wait three years so they can say they're responding to Mac Tube buyers' needs. I mean, imagine the optics of removing the Mac Pro's PCIe slots and simultaneously charging an extra $1K to add a modern GPU - even the most gullible Mac users wouldn't put up with that sort of abuse.

So you are saying that adding third GPU externally to two built in is a bad thing? So you are saying that adding two GPUs to two built in GPUs and increasing compute power externally is a bad thing?

The hell?

 

[rGiskard]

So you are saying that adding third GPU externally to two built in is a bad thing? So you are saying that adding two GPUs to two built in GPUs and increasing compute power externally is a bad thing?

The hell?

The hell, indeed. How is it anything but customer abuse to overcharge for a disposable eGPU to use with a workstation that should have had a full set of PCIe slots?

The two built in GPU on the Tube are already obsolete. If it were a conventional tower Apple could just offer updated video cards for users to slip in. Two modern high end video cards on the internal PCIe controller are far preferable to two old internal cards and one bandwidth-limited Thunderbolt eGPU. Hell, Apple could even have built a workstation with the capacity for three or four internal video cards for rocking OpenCL, or even <gasp> a couple Phi cards! I know a few scientists who would have camped out overnight in line for such a Mac Pro tower.

 

[koyoot]

You are using worst possible case, without even knowing the potential pricing. What if it will be 50% of it, for Fiji or Vega performance equivalent?

What if they will be able to update the eGPUs with every year? You did not thought this all through and yet, you complain only because you are too used to one view of computing idea: internally expandable tower.

Give Apple a chance before making any assumptions.

 

[JimGoshorn]

I think an ideal idea along those lines would be replaceable GPUs (with a crossfire like connection) in the tube and the option of adding an eGPU which could be a Tesla for high compute needs. If you need to add eGPUs to replace the internal ones, then the eGPUs would have to override the internal ones which leaves them useless but still on? Might be a bit tricky to get it working.