Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
We're not quite there yet - but it's coming. At my current startup, we have immense computational needs, and are just wrapping up an engineering test where we moved virtually all of it up to EC2. The results have been spectacular - much faster run times, at quite a bit lower cost, than maintaining our own mini-farm of desktop/rack Big Iron. The results weren't even close - iMacs + Grid in the Sky >>>> Mac Pro on every desk.

It's not my field, so I haven't looked, but I'd bet dollars to donuts there is at least one video rendering offering already running as an EC2 "appliance".

Unfortunately, this will have the same problem that "web applications" do until the underlying pipe is WAY fast - that second or two of perceptible input lag.

The throughput may be there, in some places, but the latency certainly isn't. Although I believe you can now buy a physical link straight to EC2 from Amazon, if your organization really does use EC2 heavily. You really need roundtrip latency under 10-20ms for it to "feel" fast, and that's important for creative people when they are really in the zone - not being interrupted.
 
We're not quite there yet - but it's coming. At my current startup, we have immense computational needs, and are just wrapping up an engineering test where we moved virtually all of it up to EC2. The results have been spectacular - much faster run times, at quite a bit lower cost, than maintaining our own mini-farm of desktop/rack Big Iron. The results weren't even close - iMacs + Grid in the Sky >>>> Mac Pro on every desk.

Not all needs are like that though. For the work I do, just moving it all to the cloud would be slower alone than doing it locally. Not to mention, until there are solutions out there that can replace what I do with cloud services, I'm SOL.
 
Again Mac Pro is going nowhere. Do you really think that apple is going to not push the boundaries as much as possible? They do it with everthing they do.

Yes they want to make money - but you really have to understand that the money making has come from making the best.

What the pro can do the iMac can't
up to 96 GB Ram
Pro Graphics cards - Multiple Graphics Cards
Pro Audio Cards
Breakout boxes
Choice of monitors.
Server grade Hard drives.

The give away is the name - Mac Pro - Apple know they have a pro market and I utterly believe they know that their entire brand feeds form the top down. It's a luxury brand. Who on earth 5 years ago would have bought a £600 phone.

I have used windoze for 25 years and hate it for the most part and had the Macrevelation about 5 years ago... I can turn it on work all day every day and it works. Almost no crashes.. and when it does it's an app fault and it just crashes it out.

However - I do think things will change in time...
No optical Drive... that space alone can fit 2 more HDD drives or 4 ssd's
Smaller lighter case - if they ditch the optical.
Thunderbolt
 
Again Mac Pro is going nowhere. Do you really think that apple is going to not push the boundaries as much as possible? They do it with everthing they do.

I don't know if the Mac Pro is being cut or not, but I'm very worried about the Mac in general.
 
Unfortunately mechanics get in the way there - even if the basic idea would be applicable as well!

In the IT world it looks a little different (which is why car comparisons often don't fit - as here). If you want car comparisons, think of replacing a huge (and heavy) central explosion motor (like in the M5) with 4 lightweight electro motors (one per wheel), which together have more power (-> torque and weight/performance ratio) and cost less than the M5 motor due to mass production and much lower complexity.

I would NEVER give up the "Experience" of of the gas guzzling M5 for some electo buzz! That's way I have it ... for the Experience! Sound familiar? Why we own Mac's....O' by the by... I also have a Toyota Highlander Hybrid...wonderful SUV with elctro mileage....but the experience of the M is unbelievable ....enough on cars!
 
Automakers have grafted together two smaller engines to make one big one for a long time.

For example, Aston Martin's V12 is two Ford V6s joined together, essentially.

If I'm not mistaken, BMW joined two inline 6s at a 60 degree angle to create the V12 they used in the 8 series.

Doing this saves money on engineering, time spent in development, and allows reuse of parts.

The reverse also happens (e.g. the Porsche 944's engine was 1/2 of the 928's V8).

Be more careful with car analogies if you don't know much about cars.


EXACTLY...those engines start with really good performance base products....like a XEON....not a 90HP eco product. By the by....don't put a Porsche 944 in this class ....junk...
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A405)

Why... As explained it all drives one another. They won't drop mac pros, OSX, iMacs for at Least 5 years... By then real cloud computing may be a possibility. pay per CPU cycle.

Mac OS will be some sort if hybrid of OSX, iOS (which is a cut down OSX subset) and cloud based CPU / gpu

It's like the 60's all over again. Mainframes and dumb terminals...

Or something we've not even though of yet.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A405)

Why... As explained it all drives one another. They won't drop mac pros, OSX, iMacs for at Least 5 years... By then real cloud computing may be a possibility. pay per CPU cycle.

Mac OS will be some sort if hybrid of OSX, iOS (which is a cut down OSX subset) and cloud based CPU / gpu

It's like the 60's all over again. Mainframes and dumb terminals...

Or something we've not even though of yet.

I doubt this is going to happen exactly like this. Again, the future I see is the Mac being completely gone in X number of years. Not merged, just gone away.

By then, an iPad should have enough horsepower to run Final Cut Pro pretty well. I could however see Apple going back to a Final Cut Server like model where you have a render farm you can send your work to from your iPad.

I don't see internet speeds being fast enough in 5-10 years for doing that sort of work over the cloud. We're talking about terabytes of files in some cases. It's far cheaper to have some sort of black box render farm locally.
 
I don't know if the Mac Pro is being cut or not, but I'm very worried about the Mac in general.

Why? All you need is some common sense and you will find there is no way they are abandoning the Mac. With record sales and growth, why would they? Don't waste your time thinking about things that aren't going to happen.
 
Why? All you need is some common sense and you will find there is no way they are abandoning the Mac. With record sales and growth, why would they? Don't waste your time thinking about things that aren't going to happen.

Let me rephrase:

I'm worried that Apple is not acting sanely due to their rivalry with Google.
 
By then, an iPad should have enough horsepower to run Final Cut Pro pretty well. I could however see Apple going back to a Final Cut Server like model where you have a render farm you can send your work to from your iPad.

Working on an iPad would suck so much. I hate touching my screen, hate it worse when someone else does it. Blurry fingerprints. How would that work for photographers and colorists? Handy rags? The pad is not and may never be responsive enough. It isn't the processor power, it is the obfuscation of the layers of glass and sensors. The iPad is cute and for the masses it may be the future of consumption. The future of creation has yet to rear it's head.
 
Working on an iPad would suck so much. I hate touching my screen, hate it worse when someone else does it. Blurry fingerprints. How would that work for photographers and colorists? Handy rags? The pad is not and may never be responsive enough. It isn't the processor power, it is the obfuscation of the layers of glass and sensors. The iPad is cute and for the masses it may be the future of consumption. The future of creation has yet to rear it's head.

Unless you could plug your iPad into your fancy Thunderbolt display, at which point it would gain more USB ports and Ethernet.

We're already getting there, with the iPad supporting dual displays with different output.

I'm pretty sure the Thunderbolt display is part of the endgame for the iPad.

I think we're still years from that though, and my biggest concern about the future of the Mac is that Apple doesn't care that we're not at that point yet.
 
So what happened and why a Mac Pro?

This is extremely simple to understand. Let's do a way-back machine.

It's 1985. THE MAC IS OUT! It's the computer for "the average guy" and IT'S THE FUTURE... OK, so what does it cost? $2000!??! That's half of a new car (Yugo). What does it do?? ... almost nothing. And you have to spend thousands more in software to do anything!!

Remember there was no proper internet, just a group of ASCII dial-ups. No video editing on these things yet, and if there, it was it was so clunky. No music organization. Aside from text and photo manipulation, word processing and spread sheets, the Mac was a toy. Most of what it did in 1985 was pathetic.

Imagine spending about $5000 these days on something that did almost nothing for an average consumer. Yeah. FAIL. It wasn't such a bad failure, because it was the idea of what technology would accommodate as a successful form over a decade later. The Mac line became famous for print production and photo manipulation through the late 80s and 90s; there was a palpable niche market, but it needed MORE power and MORE storage and MORE EVERYTHING. Smartly, Apple fed that market which supported their hardware sales.

The industry was going bonkers with towers. Design was horrible. Everything was a mess of incompatibility by the late-90s... with PCs. If you wanted to use a PC in the late 90s, you needed to spend weeks just studying how all the bits and pieces work or didn't work together. It was hell. Apple didn't have that problem, but they were following the trend of under-designed boxes until Jobs came back.

Jobs came back at the right time when hardware, software, and the internet, made computers able to be what he envisioned in the early 80s. The iMac started a downward-design revolution where things were compacted and limited to allow average people access to computing, and by the late-90s, computers could actually appeal and apply to an average person. The Pro was still necessary, since there was still a huge professional market that needed the power of the bigger processors and top hardware.

Today, 2011, the Thunderbolt connectors have made the Pro line close to useless. There are still, and always will be, professionals that need the fastest processing power available, but 99% don't need it for video editing or print production or website building or internet browsing, etc. You can use the smallest Mac and hook up personal storage needs. Only high-end gaming and CGI work and special-niche computing benefit from the Pro-form computers anymore.

What Jobs saw for the computer has now been enabled by the technology. What computers had to be between the genesis of the home computer and today was necessary to fuel an industry which progressed the technology along until computers were able to meet Jobs' vision.

2015: the MacPro will be an antiquated curiosity. Towers will be passe technology. Kids will laugh at what their parents used to get on the internet or organize music in 2005. iPads will be as fast and capable as a 2006 MacPro tower. Mechanical devices within computers will be almost history. Laptops will be rare, and they will look clumsy to the average person. Most all computers will be tablets.

Steve Jobs will be completely within his prime, his vision for the world of computers at a zenith of form and function. Unfortunately he is dead.
 
Until we have instantaneous computing there will always be higher end computer systems that require more cooling to stay quiet and therefore desktops will remain.

You can talk about thunderbolt storage all you like, but it does not reduce compute times and the draw backs of a tower for a professional are often nothing compared to the extra performance. Whether Apple will continue to cater to that market and presumably their own engineers and developers no one on here knows, I doubt Apple even know yet.
 
You can talk about thunderbolt storage all you like, but it does not reduce compute times and the draw backs of a tower for a professional are often nothing compared to the extra performance.
Not to mention that some people actually like to have NO cluttery mess from a variety of external boxes and their cabling on, under or next to their desk. An iMac looks clean and nice in Apple's ads (especially with wireless mouse and keyboard) - but once you outgrow its factory setup it quickly can become a PITA.

It's hilarious how people recommend to add a variety of boxes for storage, audio interfacing or even graphic cards by using Thunderbolt. Hey - one part for owning an Apple computer (at least for me) is the neat design with consideration even for the small things. If i want a cable hell I'd go the PC box way, which is most often cheaper with more raw power in the first place...
 
The Pro was still necessary, since there was still a huge professional market that needed the power of the bigger processors and top hardware.

This is almost only sensible thing you have said is

The Pro is still necessary, since there was still a huge professional market that needed the power of the bigger processors and top hardware.

Today, 2011, the Thunderbolt connectors have made the Pro line close to useless. There are still, and always will be, professionals that need the fastest processing power available, but 99% don't need it for video editing or print production or website building or internet browsing, etc. You can use the smallest Mac and hook up personal storage needs. Only high-end gaming and CGI work and special-niche computing benefit from the Pro-form computers anymore.

Storage speed have nothing to do with CPU Power or GPU speed.
I don't expect home users to ever buy a MacPro - MacbookPros or iMac are plenty... But in the last 6 months alone I have creatively freelanced in 14 offices all running mac ( some linux machines - hardly any windows ) at a guess I have seen about 1000 MacPros - and thats' about 1/1000th of the creative companies operating in London alone.

It's not just video that needs that sort of power - Video, animation, Architectural, Medical, Universities

2015: the MacPro will be an antiquated curiosity. Towers will be passe technology. Kids will laugh at what their parents used to get on the internet or organize music in 2005. iPads will be as fast and capable as a 2006 MacPro tower. Mechanical devices within computers will be almost history. Laptops will be rare, and they will look clumsy to the average person. Most all computers will be tablets.

No... it's just that MORE computers will be tablets. Towers will continue to get faster and faster for a number of years yet. Screens will get bigger and in a few years there will be usable large 3d screen without the need for glasses. or day I say it holographic screens - and if you have any idea of the bandwidth needed for that you'd know that tablets are going to be a long way behind.

Another car analogy:
Towers are F1... Tablets are Ford focus's etc
F1 pushes technology to the Focus
In parallel The Focus makes things more efficient though supply and demand and passes that back to F1

the tower is a standard for a reason - mac/pc/linux
parts are standard - it's just software for the most part
The size and standard internal connectors drive card manufacturers.

True things will get smaller. I don't doubt there will be new internal cards slots soon. PCI Express 4 is set to double transfer speeds and leave thunderbolt in the dust.

What you and many of these MacPro doomsayers are forgetting...
Computers will always get faster and more complicated.
Tablets will always get faster and more complicated.
A bigger machine will always be needed to create content for the smaller machine.

Software always requires more and more power - Ram etc.
After effects needs a minimum of 2gb per Processor...
so an 8-core need 16gb minimum ideally 32gb
Even that I have things that take days to render.

It will be 10 years before they can squeeze that sort of power in a pad.
 
"IF" the iPad can support my photography studio ... then great!

lab.jpg


I doubt this will ever happen. Thunderbolt is not the answer. We have all kinds of peripheral devices to support the business like WACOM tablets that require the flexibility of a tower with different interfaces...SATA, USB, peer-to-peer wireless, etc... not to mention the raw horsepower needs of the image post processing computer platforms....I have two iPads and love them for what they provide....mobility and simplicity...not production work...right tools for the job is obvious...
 
So here we are. The Crazy One’s – the Outcasts – but unfortunately the very few.

Unfortunately this is no longer true. Apple is more like "think similar" today. It's now all about the conformed hipsters running around with their iPhones and MacBook Airs checking facebook thinking they are cool because they own cool stuff. That's the target audience for Apple today.

But in my opinion it would be wise for Apple not to screw their loyal core customers - the graphic designers, agencies, video/audio producers, etc. - too much. They offer the hippest gadgets now, but that's a market that can change quickly, and who knows if Apple will still have the hippest gadgets in five years, or in ten years?

Software always requires more and more power - Ram etc.
After effects needs a minimum of 2gb per Processor...
so an 8-core need 16gb minimum ideally 32gb
Even that I have things that take days to render.

It will be 10 years before they can squeeze that sort of power in a pad.

Exactly, and by the time the iPad has that sort of power it will be considered slow for photorealistic 3D games or cutting XXXHD deluxe 8000x5000 px movies. By that time a tower will have 256 cores and 1 tb ram or whatever. :)

Yes tablets get faster, but bigger machines will always be faster than smaller machines.
 
Last edited:
"IF" the iPad can support my photography studio ... then great!

Image

I doubt this will ever happen. Thunderbolt is not the answer. We have all kinds of peripheral devices to support the business like WACOM tablets that require the flexibility of a tower with different interfaces...SATA, USB, peer-to-peer wireless, etc... not to mention the raw horsepower needs of the image post processing computer platforms....I have two iPads and love them for what they provide....mobility and simplicity...not production work...right tools for the job is obvious...

I think you need a bigger studio. I go for more zen :)

desksmall.jpg
 
"IF" the iPad can support my photography studio ... then great!

Image

In 5-10 years we will ballpark have 16 core 3 ghz iPads. That certainly should be enough to support your photo editing.

I doubt this will ever happen. Thunderbolt is not the answer. We have all kinds of peripheral devices to support the business like WACOM tablets that require the flexibility of a tower with different interfaces...SATA, USB, peer-to-peer wireless, etc... not to mention the raw horsepower needs of the image post processing computer platforms....I have two iPads and love them for what they provide....mobility and simplicity...not production work...right tools for the job is obvious...

It's not that I don't think there will always be a place for trucks... But the iPad has USB and peer to peer wireless. Over Thunderbolt it could have any port you require.

As I said in other threads I have reservations about Thunderbolt's current speed, but the point of Thunderbolt is you could enhance an iOS device with any port you need.

Exactly, and by the time the iPad has that sort of power it will be considered slow for photorealistic 3D games

Will it? We seem to have reached a gaming horsepower plateau. Plenty of people are happy with the iPad's current performance. No one is complaining about how slow the 360 is. PC gaming is going downhill. It doesn't seem anyone cares any more.

or cutting XXXHD deluxe 8000x5000 px movies.

I also think that is reaching a limit. We'll never hit 8000x5000 because that's far beyond what the human eye can see. I hate to Bill Gates myself here, but the highest res I could see anyone editing at ever is IMAX. Because of the limits of the human eye, we're not going to see a resolution race go on forever. We're going to hit a limit.

By that time a tower will have 256 cores and 1 tb ram or whatever. :)

Yes tablets get faster, but bigger machines will always be faster than smaller machines.

Sure, but my point is as the iPad gets faster and faster, we're not going to need the big machines as much. We are not at that point yet, and Apple cutting the Mac Pro now would be a mistake. But it's not hard to see 5-10 years down the road you'll have an iPad connected to two thunderbolt displays at your desk, a keyboard, and maybe a mouse, and if you need big iron, there is some black box system on the local network that can do movie rendering or whatever for you, like XGrid.
 
Will it? We seem to have reached a gaming horsepower plateau. Plenty of people are happy with the iPad's current performance. No one is complaining about how slow the 360 is. PC gaming is going downhill. It doesn't seem anyone cares any more.

I would beg to differ.
 
I would beg to differ.

So would industry trends. iOS gaming is already the fastest growing segment. Sure, the touchscreen controls introduce issues, but no one is complaining about the graphics.

This also shoehorns nicely into the discussion about where we will max out at for resolution. If we max out at 1080p, there isn't too much reason to continue upgrading hardware beyond the next few cycles.
 
In 5-10 years we will ballpark have 16 core 3 ghz iPads. That certainly should be enough to support your photo editing.

That would be true for what today's mainstream cameras can provide, but within 5-10 years, those cameras will have been advanced more too.

For example, we can probably consider where the edge is today with a ~48MP image (IIRC, where Medium Format backs are at today) but which then very well may have gotten bumped up from 12 to 32 bits per channel, and even before we're starting to push the system through multiple images to stitch together, or a stack of adjustment layers, we're already at roughly ~10x the data processing demands of what we typically would expect to see from a mainstream 12-14MP digital camera.

I also think that is reaching a limit. We'll never hit 8000x5000 because that's far beyond what the human eye can see. I hate to Bill Gates myself here, but the highest res I could see anyone editing at ever is IMAX. Because of the limits of the human eye, we're not going to see a resolution race go on forever. We're going to hit a limit.

Sure, and this is the same issue that's also driving Mac Pro sales down: computer performance continues to improve, and most customer's needs are more than adequately satified with an i5 CPU with 4GB RAM. As such, a larger and larger segment of what we used to call our "Power Users" can now be satisfied with an iMac...heck, even the current Mac mini has more horsepower (by benchmarks) than my current (and ancient) Mac at home right now.

Sure, but my point is as the iPad gets faster and faster, we're not going to need the big machines as much. We are not at that point yet, and Apple cutting the Mac Pro now would be a mistake. But it's not hard to see 5-10 years down the road you'll have an iPad connected to two thunderbolt displays at your desk, a keyboard, and maybe a mouse, and if you need big iron, there is some black box system on the local network that can do movie rendering or whatever for you, like XGrid.

And on the other hand, I can also see this too: an exploitation of technologies to basically "Grand Central Dispatch" (remember that?) farm out the work packages to anonymous boxes somewhere (home .. cloud) to perform the heavy lifting. A big challenges here isn't necessarily going to be the rendering part, but rather the communication & bandwidth part: we're still at the stage where the fastest I/O is still "through" PCI/motherboard to a fast SATA-x Disk/SSD/Array, without passing the data externally, be it either wirelessly to the local "Box in the Closet" or across the Ether to a Cloud host.

This latter has a particuarly thorny issue in that the bandwidth consumption, bandwidth transfer rates and bandwidth latency all have strong influences on the quality of the user experience...and within the USA, the ISPs haven't driven down the cost of a fast & fat pipe to anywhere within reach of a generic home consumer...more than a full order of magnitude of "value" improvement (cost for bandwidth) is required here before even considering giving it a more serious look. During this period, the solution will remain the pragmatic 'high performance localized system' ... otherwise known as a Mac Pro or PC Workstation.


-hh
 
So would industry trends. iOS gaming is already the fastest growing segment. Sure, the touchscreen controls introduce issues, but no one is complaining about the graphics.

This also shoehorns nicely into the discussion about where we will max out at for resolution. If we max out at 1080p, there isn't too much reason to continue upgrading hardware beyond the next few cycles.
What you say just goes completely against human nature. :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.