Waiting till Day 600.

[deconstruct60]

I see the Mac Pro as a "concept car".
The super duper hot rod that is shown off at car shows.

A bad analogy. The Mac Pro is a truck. A heavy duty pick-up truck that people use for work.

It is not a concept car. It is not a F1 racer. It is not a bragging rights car.

Apple wants people to buy the appropriate product that matches what they need done. If that is a small box or a large box is not the primary point. If there is a mismatch then there is a mismatch (Apple isn't out to sell everything to everybody).

The MBA has been more of a "concept car" than the Mac Pro for the last 4 years. "What is the minimum number of sockets people will tolerate?". "Is the optical drive necessary?". "Can primary connectivity be based on wireless?". And of late "Is a 100% SSD line-up viable? ". Up until the $999 model it sold in the lowest numbers of all Mac Models ( behind the Mac Pro even).

There is no F1 racer in Apple's line up because Apple makes products that people can get things done with. F1 cars are centerpieces in some kind of sport/entertainment experience where the majority of participates are 3rd party onlookers.

Given Intel has moved the E5 class Xeons toward the end of architecture roll out cycle it is the wrong platform to put some choices of new technology upon.


The Mac Pro may have a deep problem though if there was a significant number of folks who bought it primarily for ego and bragging rites. Fad buying like that can disappear.

 

[linuxcooldude]

I'm seeing a big surge in the enterprise business market increase for Macs. It started when employees started bringing in their own iPhones & iPads. Then they started requesting Macs for everyday work use. Now its the lightweight laptops like the MacBook Air. I think this will eventually trickle down to iMacs and even Mac Pros when needed.

It seems Tim Cook is more open to enterprise market then Steve Jobs was with iPhones & iPads leading the way.

 

[-hh]

The screen name "iNeedaMacProOrIllBuyaDell" was too long ..or maybe, I need a mac pro SOON or I'll end up buying a Dell

Comments from LostSoul80 and dh2005 aside, my thoughts have been that if my current 'dinosaur Mac' suddenly croaks before a new Pro ships, I'll buy a mini ASAP, from a "Continuity of Operations" perspective.

True, a mini probably isn't as good as a 2010 Pro, but it is also a less bad value...and it isn't vaporware.

Do Apple have any history of slashing prices on products that reach their end-of-life? I mean, if they decide not to update the Pro, might they cut the price of the 2010 model? I might be tempted to pick one up, if it was more realistically priced for 2012.

Refurb store. Figure on a whopping $200 or so.

The whole point I have been making in several posts here -- who says there IS GOING TO BE another Mac Pro?

Mitigating factors as others have pointed out. There was also note of a new Graphics card driver showing up in one of the beta builds of the next dot on Lion...kind of hard to figure why anyone at Apple would be writing drivers for a new PCIe card for a Mac Pro if it is going to be EOL'ed.

I'm seeing a big surge in the enterprise business market increase for Macs...

That could be another reason to consider keeping it around, if for no other reason than to see if it gets traction.


In any case, the way I look at it for my personal needs, by the time I take a non-Pro (such as an i7 iMac) and add another ~$1200 to it for a Thunderbolt based Promise R4 RAID, the Mac Pro's current price point doesn't look all that bad.

Of course, the other interesting thing that I keep on thinking back to is ... the years of silence on Grand Central Dispatch and the prospects turning loose a bunch of GPUs on some jobs, particularly if the Mac Pro is reworked to be able to take a nice stack of SSDs inside.


-hh

 

[theSeb]

I am going to wait for 604 days, then I am giving up.

 

[xgman]

Too bad the imacs are a closed box. This April ivy cpu sounds nice.

Core i7threads-3770K: 4 cores, 8 threads, 8 MB of cache, TDP of 77W, 3500 MHz with Turbo mode:3900 MHz,

 

[Hellhammer]

Too bad the imacs are a closed box. This April ivy cpu sounds nice.

Core i7threads-3770K: 4 cores, 8 threads, 8 MB of cache, TDP of 77W, 3500 MHz with Turbo mode:3900 MHz,

Well, you couldn't use it anyway. Using Ivy Bridge CPU on a 6-series chipset requires a BIOS/EFI update and obviously Apple doesn't provide such updates.

 

[salmoally]

I decided to migrate over to Windows 7 on a custom i7 based workstation a few months ago. I was hoping Apple would release a cheaper Macpro with say an i7 quadcore but it looks like it'll never happen. I don't really need Xeon processors, infact they'd be slower for what I do.

It was a tough decision to go to Windows 7, I'm not very technical minded, never even opened up a pc before. But here I am running a super fast machine, fully self built, no crashes or virus, no BSOD, 100% stable. Only took me a day to build and setup.

I even got very cheap cuda enabled card for premiere pro cs5.5 so editing video has been a wonderful experience so far (I do freelance editing 2-3 days a week). I really wasn't expecting this kind of performance for the same money as a base imac (my build includes a Dell 24" Ultrasharp too).

It took a few weeks to get used to the Windows way of doing things but a few months in now and I feel like I'm at home. I also have this weird "weight" lifted off my shoulders not having to wait for Apple to release what I want, being stuck with hardware which is hard to upgrade, having more money to spend on the family.

I'll still keep my iPhone though

 

[derbothaus]

I decided to migrate over to Windows 7 on a custom i7 based workstation a few months ago. I was hoping Apple would release a cheaper Macpro with say an i7 quadcore but it looks like it'll never happen. I don't really need Xeon processors, infact they'd be slower for what I do.

It was a tough decision to go to Windows 7, I'm not very technical minded, never even opened up a pc before. But here I am running a super fast machine, fully self built, no crashes or virus, no BSOD, 100% stable. Only took me a day to build and setup.

I even got very cheap cuda enabled card for premiere pro cs5.5 so editing video has been a wonderful experience so far (I do freelance editing 2-3 days a week). I really wasn't expecting this kind of performance for the same money as a base imac (my build includes a Dell 24" Ultrasharp too).

It took a few weeks to get used to the Windows way of doing things but a few months in now and I feel like I'm at home. I also have this weird "weight" lifted off my shoulders not having to wait for Apple to release what I want, being stuck with hardware which is hard to upgrade, having more money to spend on the family.

I'll still keep my iPhone though

I am happy for you. I wish more complainers would just get the PC and control they really want and think is lacking in the Apple ecosystem.

 

[ActionableMango]

I was hoping Apple would release a cheaper Macpro with say an i7 quadcore

I find no fault with most of what you said, but Apple switching to an i7 in the MP would not cause some sort of massive savings. Last I checked, the i7 is something like $10 cheaper than its Xeon equivalent.

 

[Digital Skunk]

If you're using a 2005 computer, are you sure you *need* the horsepower of a Mac Pro? Why don't you opt for an iMac or even a Mini.

Very true, but in most cases the machine that's still kicking after 7 years of service is a tower that may have had a part or two upgraded/user serviced. Buying a Mac Pro will give the user a chance to see that $3000+ purchase last 7 years and beyond.

In any case, the way I look at it for my personal needs, by the time I take a non-Pro (such as an i7 iMac) and add another ~$1200 to it for a Thunderbolt based Promise R4 RAID, the Mac Pro's current price point doesn't look all that bad.

True, but no one looking at a $1200 Pegasus should be thinking about saving a few hundred bucks getting an iMac. If a $1200+ HDD enclosure is on your budget list then moving from a maxed out iMac to a Mac Pro isn't an issue. It's the users that are just looking at the pure system.

Not to mention that you'd still have to get a decent display with the Mac Pro.

 

[salmoally]

@derbothaus
Haha yes, I too was one of those whiners. I think a lot of it has to do with Apple users being perhaps too "attached" to their platform of choice. I can see why because Apple does provide the ultimate experience from buying to turning it on for the first time.

Also fear of Windows is a big factor, but from my own experience there is almost no difference these days. Another problem is most OEMs are terrible, they skimp on important parts like power supplies and load on bloatware. The only brand that has great out of the box experience and support are Lenovo.

I enjoy the fact that I am my own support atm, I've learn't much more about computers in general since I built mine. However if my business grows and I have less tolerance for downtime, I would probably go for a HP or Dell workstation. Mainly because of the excellent extended warranties and support. Dell offers 24/7 support and same day/next day on site repair.

Apple can't offer anything near as good where I live, infact my old iMac took 2 weeks for a repair and that involved days off to get it upto an Apple store and back again, just for a faulty dvd drive.

Anyway enough blabbing, I hope the people who really need a new Macpro get one but don't worry if there isn't, there are plenty of alternatives.

 

[xgman]

I wonder which we will see first. Ivy Bridge imacs or new Mac Pros?

 

[-hh]

Very true, but in most cases the machine that's still kicking after 7 years of service is a tower that may have had a part or two upgraded/user serviced. Buying a Mac Pro will give the user a chance to see that $3000+ purchase last 7 years and beyond.

Much of it can easily depend on what attribute is needed. For example, is it CPU horsepower, or is it fast data storage, etc?

True, but no one looking at a $1200 Pegasus should be thinking about saving a few hundred bucks getting an iMac. If a $1200+ HDD enclosure is on your budget list then moving from a maxed out iMac to a Mac Pro isn't an issue. It's the users that are just looking at the pure system.

Sure, but I'm not looking at the iMac to save money ... I'm looking to see how it could be applied it to my individual needs (at at what cost) if the Mac Pro is discontinued, etc.

To this end, my personal "Attribute of Interest" is for lots of fast data storage, which the iMac doesn't have integral (and for external, using FW800 would be frustratingly slow), but which would be internal & fast on the Mac Pro.

Not to mention that you'd still have to get a decent display with the Mac Pro.

Sure, and I'm budgeting in a new display in my KISS cross comparison which is basically: (iMac+Pegasus) vs. (Mac Pro+27" Apple LCD Display).

Cost-wise, that's ($2000+$1200) vs ($2500+$1000), or: $3200 vs $3500.

Granted, I've not yet included purchasing of four new 3.5" HDDs (or reuse from my existing inventory) for the Mac Pro, but my main point is that the price difference is roughly only ~10% which isn't large enough in significance to override other factors (ie, technical) for which option to pursue.


-hh

 

[xgman]

Sure, but I'm not looking at the iMac to save money ... I'm looking to see how it could be applied it to my individual needs (at at what cost) if the Mac Pro is discontinued, etc.

It's too soon to worry about that and even if and when it does go, I have to think that there will be a better higher end alternative imac or whatever than there is currently in the lineup.

 

[Santabean2000]

A bad analogy. The Mac Pro is a truck. A heavy duty pick-up truck that people use for work.

It is not a concept car. It is not a F1 racer. It is not a bragging rights car.

Apple wants people to buy the appropriate product that matches what they need done. If that is a small box or a large box is not the primary point. If there is a mismatch then there is a mismatch (Apple isn't out to sell everything to everybody).

The MBA has been more of a "concept car" than the Mac Pro for the last 4 years. "What is the minimum number of sockets people will tolerate?". "Is the optical drive necessary?". "Can primary connectivity be based on wireless?". And of late "Is a 100% SSD line-up viable? ". Up until the $999 model it sold in the lowest numbers of all Mac Models ( behind the Mac Pro even).

There is no F1 racer in Apple's line up because Apple makes products that people can get things done with. F1 cars are centerpieces in some kind of sport/entertainment experience where the majority of participates are 3rd party onlookers. .

You're right in a sense, the MBA was def more of a concept car than the MP, but I disagree that the Mac Pro is a 'truck'.

The Mac Pro is all about speed, not weight. Most of the Mac lineup can now 'lift' most things, except the (highest end) MP does it faster. A lot faster.

The PowerMac/MP was the first to get a super fast dual core 'engine', and now every mac has at least that.

I suspect that the MP will be the first to get a 16 core 'engine', yet in a few years time my iPhone may be getting close to that too.

The MP is all about speed. Not weight. The MP is a race car, the highest performance one that Apple has. Race teams have large budgets, where performance trumps saving cash, much like people who buy MPs for work, (not play).

The tech/concepts first pioneered in these machines will be used and/or adapted to all other models further down the line.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Much of it can easily depend on what attribute is needed. For example, is it CPU horsepower, or is it fast data storage, etc?

Sure, but I'm not looking at the iMac to save money ... I'm looking to see how it could be applied it to my individual needs (at at what cost) if the Mac Pro is discontinued, etc.

To this end, my personal "Attribute of Interest" is for lots of fast data storage, which the iMac doesn't have integral (and for external, using FW800 would be frustratingly slow), but which would be internal & fast on the Mac Pro.

Sure, and I'm budgeting in a new display in my KISS cross comparison which is basically: (iMac+Pegasus) vs. (Mac Pro+27" Apple LCD Display).

Cost-wise, that's ($2000+$1200) vs ($2500+$1000), or: $3200 vs $3500.

Granted, I've not yet included purchasing of four new 3.5" HDDs (or reuse from my existing inventory) for the Mac Pro, but my main point is that the price difference is roughly only ~10% which isn't large enough in significance to override other factors (ie, technical) for which option to pursue.

-hh

True true. When you look at it in that perspective then yes the prices are very negligible. I've always taken it from the perspective of someone looking to save money, so they are considering the iMac over the Mac Pro . . . just the systems and any necessary hardware (e.g. monitor).

But even still, you'd have to price the Mac Pro a little higher for the extra four HDDs that you'd need to mirror the Pegasus.

 

[-hh]

True true. When you look at it in that perspective then yes the prices are very negligible. I've always taken it from the perspective of someone looking to save money, so they are considering the iMac over the Mac Pro . . . just the systems and any necessary hardware (e.g. monitor).

Agreed. Sure, it is nice to save money, but to sacrifice utility to spend less is a risk of becoming a false economy.

But even still, you'd have to price the Mac Pro a little higher for the extra four HDDs that you'd need to mirror the Pegasus.

Sure, and I did mention that briefly ("new or reuse"). Our contemplation on what to do with any purchase is a hybrid of looking at the problem from a 'clean plate' as well as from the context of what we already have invested.

For example, when upgrading from a legacy desktop Mac (versus having no computer whatsoever), there's probably a legacy display also available, so there may not necessarily be a need to immediately buy a new monitor.


-hh

 

[Digital Skunk]

Agreed. Sure, it is nice to save money, but to sacrifice utility to spend less is a risk of becoming a false economy.

Sure, and I did mention that briefly ("new or reuse"). Our contemplation on what to do with any purchase is a hybrid of looking at the problem from a 'clean plate' as well as from the context of what we already have invested.

For example, when upgrading from a legacy desktop Mac (versus having no computer whatsoever), there's probably a legacy display also available, so there may not necessarily be a need to immediately buy a new monitor.

-hh

Ah yes, I was thinking the same thing about legacy hardware that would just move up to the next system. Most users in the market for a Mac Pro will already have a decent monitor. Even I had a few ACDs after I sold my G5 tower. I've since sold them, so I am at that clean slate position.

 

[wallysb01]

The Mac Pro is all about speed, not weight. Most of the Mac lineup can now 'lift' most things, except the (highest end) MP does it faster. A lot faster.

The PowerMac/MP was the first to get a super fast dual core 'engine', and now every mac has at least that.

I suspect that the MP will be the first to get a 16 core 'engine', yet in a few years time my iPhone may be getting close to that too.

The MP is all about speed. Not weight. The MP is a race car, the highest performance one that Apple has. Race teams have large budgets, where performance trumps saving cash, much like people who buy MPs for work, (not play).

This is mostly an argument over meaningless semantics, but I see the Mac Pro more as the truck then the sports car. Sure the Mac Pro is fast, but it only beats the i7 in things that can really take advantage of >4 cores. That might change with SB-E, or the gap may at least be small enough to be meaningless, practically speaking. So, the Mac Pro's advantage really comes through with jobs that are big, and REALLY big jobs are often not even possible on an i7, but are on the Mac Pro.

So, while the i7 might have some turbo charged V-8 with 450 hp, its only pulling a car with two seats in it. The Mac Pro instead has the kind of engine used in semi-trucks, say a DD15 with maybe the same kind of horsepower, but many times the torque. So while that little sexy sports car could go 150 mph, its not pulling 20,000 lbs over the Tejon Pass.

That's my mental image anyway.

 

[derbothaus]

This is mostly an argument over meaningless semantics, but I see the Mac Pro more as the truck then the sports car. Sure the Mac Pro is fast, but it only beats the i7 in things that can really take advantage of >4 cores. That might change with SB-E, or the gap may at least be small enough to be meaningless, practically speaking. So, the Mac Pro's advantage really comes through with jobs that are big, and REALLY big jobs are often not even possible on an i7, but are on the Mac Pro.

So, while the i7 might have some turbo charged V-8 with 450 hp, its only pulling a car with two seats in it. The Mac Pro instead has the kind of engine used in semi-trucks, say a DD15 with maybe the same kind of horsepower, but many times the torque. So while that little sexy sports car could go 150 mph, its not pulling 20,000 lbs over the Tejon Pass.

That's my mental image anyway.

Still arguing over generational differences between the i7's? SB tech is still not sold in Xeon package yet. Comparisons are stupid. "Did you know the new technology is faster than the older stuff?", "Really? How odd." The fact that the Pro's still keep pace with the consumer new stuff is the most telling. They are all i7. Just 1st gen vs. 2nd gen. SB-E based Xeons will close any single thread gap as they inherit the die changes. Not mysterious and not sports cars.

 

[wallysb01]

Still arguing over generational differences between the i7's? SB tech is still not sold in Xeon package yet. Comparisons are stupid. "Did you know the new technology is faster than the older stuff?", "Really? How odd." The fact that the Pro's still keep pace with the consumer new stuff is the most telling. They are all i7. Just 1st gen vs. 2nd gen. SB-E based Xeons will close any single thread gap as they inherit the die changes. Not mysterious and not sports cars.

Well, yeah, but timing does matter. I'm describing the situation we have now, and have had for the rememberable past. If the "smaller, faster" consumer chips are available 1-2 years ahead of "big, fast" chips, then it is something like I describe. Remember, we've had i7 iMacs exactly as long as we've had Westmere Mac Pros. By the time we have SB-E Mac Pros, Ivy Bridge i7 iMacs will be out or right around the corner. Granted speed differences likely won't be as much as they are now, but Ivy should still be faster. And this trend of the consumer machines being one chip generation ahead of the pro machines nearly at all times doesn't seem to be fading any time soon.

 

[xgman]

Well, yeah, but timing does matter. I'm describing the situation we have now, and have had for the rememberable past. If the "smaller, faster" consumer chips are available 1-2 years ahead of "big, fast" chips, then it is something like I describe. Remember, we've had i7 iMacs exactly as long as we've had Westmere Mac Pros. By the time we have SB-E Mac Pros, Ivy Bridge i7 iMacs will be out or right around the corner. Granted speed differences likely won't be as much as they are now, but Ivy should still be faster. And this trend of the consumer machines being one chip generation ahead of the pro machines nearly at all times doesn't seem to be fading any time soon.

I tend to agree and I'm really ready to be done with it, one way or the other. I'll still get a new MP regardless though.

Looks like a a good bet of new imacs around April maybe:
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2012/01/30/ivy-bridge-desktop-cpus-updated-list-and-earlier-availability

 

[wallysb01]

I tend to agree and I'm really ready to be done with it, one way or the other. I'll still get a new MP regardless though.

Looks like a a good bet of new imacs around April maybe:
http://www.hardmac.com/news/2012/01/30/ivy-bridge-desktop-cpus-updated-list-and-earlier-availability

And it will probably be around the same time for the Mac Pro.

I'm not really saying one is always better than the other, or that Xeons should be out sooner than they are. I'm just calling it how I see it. Though, what I do know, is that despite being on an the "old" westmere E5620 with a slow 2.4 clock speed, I can do things no i7 iMac could ever do, not Sandy Bridge and not Ivy either.

 

[derbothaus]

All valid points but I don't really need the fastest on the block all the time. My only needs are a fast Mac that has a ton of I/O and upgradable GPU's as they need replacing far more than the CPU. That is Mac Pro. For me it is a bonus to have rock solid Xeon as the brand inside. I care not that the little iMac's have a nice i7 in them. I need thread depth and a W3680 can do more than an i7-2600 in something like Logic. Which is when I usually tax the proc. The rest of the time it barely stretches it's legs. Games are no exception. After a quad i5 there is no use upgrading proc for video games. All test the same at 1-5 frame differences. A total wash. If AMD gets their act together Intel may be motivated to release earlier. The whole point to Xeon is stability and that takes testing time.

 

[wallysb01]

All valid points but I don't really need the fastest on the block all the time. My only needs are a fast Mac that has a ton of I/O and upgradable GPU's as they need replacing far more than the CPU. That is Mac Pro. For me it is a bonus to have rock solid Xeon as the brand inside. I care not that the little iMac's have a nice i7 in them. I need thread depth and a W3680 can do more than an i7-2600 in something like Logic. Which is when I usually tax the proc. The rest of the time it barely stretches it's legs. Games are no exception. After a quad i5 there is no use upgrading proc for video games. All test the same at 1-5 frame differences. A total wash. If AMD gets their act together Intel may be motivated to release earlier. The whole point to Xeon is stability and that takes testing time.

Agreed. I don't need the fastest clock either (though man, sometimes it would be nice to have 2 of those X5670s, but not necessarily for the $3K). Its just different beasts. And that's part of why I like the semi-truck to sports car comparison. The sports car if fun to take out for a spin, and you can drive pretty far, pretty fast. But if you want to pull 20,000 lbs across the country and not worry about breaking down, nor making the same trip 20 times a year, that's the semi-truck.

And yes, it would be nice if AMD could get their act together. More competition would almost certainly be a good thing.