Who is the Mac Pro going to be for?

[ssgbryan]

In addition to all of that, in my case:

Add 2 external 4 bay Hard drive enclosures (1 data - 1 backup) $800ish.
Add 1 dock to attach scanner, iPad, iPhone, USB thumb drive, etc. $250ish
Add 1 external enclosure for Blu-Ray player $100ish

Which equals 1 rat's nest of wiring, and as an added bonus -

Rerouting all of the power connectors. (Including monitors, I am counting eight power plugs - Computer, 2 monitors, 2 HDD enclosures, Blu-Ray enclosure, Scanner, Printer)

And then there is my Windows test bed/Game Box: HP Z210

 

[JazzyGB1]

If you need the horsepower then the iMac Pro already fills that role, the Mac Pro is for those who need power AND flexibility. Given the timing of Apple's decision to reverse course on the Mac Pro they know that.

The Mac Pro is for people who need functionality first and foremost, which is something the tower format offers that the other form factors like the 2013 Mac Pro, iMac, and Mac mini do not.

That should be Apple's primary focus for the Mac Pro.

Of course it should be scalable with the high end powerful Xeon versions too for those that need it, but for many (like me) its the functionality of a tower we require more than the raw power.

I hope Apple release a quieter, more efficient, lighter Mac Pro tower with modern connections like TB3 and USBc, but tbh I believe the quad core i7 or i9 processors currently used in the iMacs would probably offer enough CPU power for many users.

I'm not asking for anything new here, Apple have done this before.

G3 towers were sold alongside G3 iMacs, G4 towers were sold alongside G4 iMacs and G5 towers were sold alongside G5 iMacs too.

It was only when Apple moved to intel processors and introduced the Mac Pro in 2006 that they started using different CPUs to those in an iMac. The high end XEON processors which is fine but over the years the price has increased in a way not seen in the other desktop models and in 2013 the Mac Pro lost the functionality too which is why it bombed.

It's really not difficult to please power users, but Apple seem determined to make it look like rocket science.

Like so many politicians at the moment, they just have not been listening - this is their last chance to show they now are.

 

[iluvmacs99]

I think the good old days of Mac vs. PC battles are over .
But whether or not it is worth to stick with OSX, when Mac hardware becomes more and more limited and limiting, and OSX along with it, that has become a valid question again .

Apple nailed it with the Intel switch ( GPUs, I know..) , and it was smooth sailing till 2012ish .
Things went south since then .



But does using a Mac still improve productivity ?
It's what I used to believe, yet I havn't seen much evidence of it lately .

I think the recent drive towards more limited to non-repairable Macs is a sign that the PC market has matured to a point where people are keeping their machines longer. So if you make Macs easily upgradable and repairable, then who would want to keep buying Macs year over year and keep Apple's profit machines moving? Haven't you noticed by now that Apple answers only to its shareholders NOT the users who love Macs? Apple cares only about making profits and maintaining a sizeable cash flow so it can keep paying dividends and keep raising them. Can't keep paying dividends and raise them if no one buys new Macs rather than upgrading the older Macs with better graphics, SSD and more memory. By the way, Apple isn't the only one doing this and yet this is a defensive play when there's clearly a lack of innovation on their part. Like you say; sooner or later people are going to question whether it's worth staying with Apple or moving on.

Does using a Mac help improve productivity still? I think so as I know some people who switched from PC to Macs did so because they simply didn't want to have the downtime and problems associated with running a PC. A Mac is more intuitive and easier to use. That was the main point of the ad a few years back where they were trying to convince PC users to switch to the first Mac Mini. That campaign worked for the very reason that the Mac is simpler and less fuzzy. It's still true today. The measure of productivity is not simply the measure of how many cores you've got on the CPU and GPU, but whether the software could utilize those cores or not and it doesn't matter if you have 16 cores or 24 cores because when you use it for word processing or accounting, more cores doesn't make finishing these jobs 16 or 24x faster than a single core computer, so there's not necessarily a defined productivity gain in going for more cores with these tasks. What allows more productivity per worker is preventing the amount of downtime and the amount of retraining the worker needs to be away from the job in order to upgrade his/her skill set and Macs are much more intuitive and easier and may help certain individuals reduce the training/downtime necessary so that these individuals can quickly become even more productive with shorter downtime. So it's not an overall effect with Macs, but it can help.

 

[Derived]

What the Mac Pro NEEDS to be: An HP Z8 workstation equivalent that runs Mac OS X.

2 processor sockets, up to 36 cores, 768GB of memory, multi-GPU support, endless storage opportunities.

Anything less is simply not good enough.

They also need a mid-tier mid-size Mac tower machine again.

Whatever this "modular" idea they are coming up with, nobody asked for it, nobody wants it, and it's going to be overpriced form over function.

"I don't know what it is, but I do know it's bad and I don't want it"

What a line of reasoning that is...

 

[Boil]

I wonder how many iMac Pro sales are simply because someone is looking at a regular 27" iMac with similar specs & deciding to pay the extra 750 bucks for Space Grey goodness...?!?

Yeah, the 'regular' i9 has faster clocks than the Xeon; but the iMac Pro has 8 more CUs on the GPU, 10Gb Ethernet, & two more TB3 ports; so it is not really just Space Grey the 750 bucks goes towards...

 

[deconstruct60]

T.
....

G3 towers were sold alongside G3 iMacs, G4 towers were sold alongside G4 iMacs and G5 towers were sold alongside G5 iMacs too.

The iMac G5 has a 970fx. The last Power Mac had a 970MP. Those had same base number, but not the same performance or thermals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_970#PowerPC_970FX

The 970MP went to multiple cores and higher thermals because that was where the top end competition was in overall workstation market. [ apple held around in the channel some older model to hit lower price points. but the shift had started. ]

It was only when Apple moved to intel processors and introduced the Mac Pro in 2006 that they started using different CPUs to those in an iMac. The high end XEON processors which is fine but over the years the price has increased in a way not seen in the other desktop models

Not quite. The iMac had a high end laptop processor for a long while after change to Intel. The 970fx was somewhat in that boat too (45-50W).

The processors in the Mac Pro 2013 ( or 2009-2012 models ) where mostly were not the high end Xeon processors. (at the tip top of the BTO configurations, but in the entry-mid range they were not all that off the top of the i7 HEDT price points. There was no huge price gap there. ).

 

[throAU]

If that is their target audience, then it will be DOA. That was the target audience for the trashcan.


The target audience should be anyone that needs horsepower.

Like i said, i'm not saying it is necessarily appropriate but i do not believe it is aimed at hobbyists, because any "serious" hobbyist will build their own more suitable machine to their own workload for likely half the price (like i did. for what i do, my 2700x below will smoke any trashcan Xeon Mac Pro at under half the price. better GPUs, still has 8 cores and higher clock speeds).

 

[deconstruct60]

100%

What's wrong with the Imac Pro for the Mac Pro audience?

• ....
  
• Dongles, dongles and more dongles
• ....

the iMac Pro has 8 USB ports. The 2008-2012 Mac Pro has just five. Dongles where? Even if throw out the 4 Type C ports it is basically in the same range as the iMac Pro comes out the box with a wireless keyboard and mouse ( so still four free Type A ports. Where out of the box the old Mac Pro is down to just 4 presuming daisy chain the mouse off that bundled keyboard. ) [ No doubt there will be groans about no USB port on the front, but that isn't necessarily a dongle. ]

Ethernet socket. One less but no dongle necessary in nominal set ups. ( 10GbE to san and again wireless for generic LAN/Internet. ). WiFi? No dongle required.

SD card slot. Not on Mac Pro.

Even the new Mac Mini. ( 6 USB 4 Type C and just two Type A , but not dogma all Type-C. Ethernet socket still there. Even a 10GbE option. And a HDMI port. ) . HDMI out on the iMac Pro is about the only candidate.


The all ports Type-C Mac laptops generate tons of grumbling about dongles, but the desktop line up Apple doesn't have a track record there. The notion that Apple is going to slavishly mimic the laptop path with respect to sockets with the next Mac Pro and/or iMac Pro is flawed.


If spinning 'dongles' as external storage and external devices , then that is a bit of a misdirect from the standard semantics. A USB printer is not a dongle in any normal sense of the term.

 

[k2focus]

Like i said, i'm not saying it is necessarily appropriate but i do not believe it is aimed at hobbyists, because any "serious" hobbyist will build their own more suitable machine to their own workload for likely half the price (like i did. for what i do, my 2700x below will smoke any trashcan Xeon Mac Pro at under half the price. better GPUs, still has 8 cores and higher clock speeds).

i completely agree. some people are saying they'd buy a Mac Pro for their hobby because they love OSX, but I'm guessing they could get a super baller PC to do whatever hobby they are doing (it will probably be better and cheaper) and still have loads left to buy an i7 or i9 MBP to have as their personal computer.

it's sort of like someone suggesting that they buy a porsche 911 to use for their ice cream business or something. it's like sure it's a nice car, but totally nonsensical for the task.

 

[mattspace]

i completely agree. some people are saying they'd buy a Mac Pro for their hobby because they love OSX, but I'm guessing they could get a super baller PC to do whatever hobby they are doing (it will probably be better and cheaper) and still have loads left to buy an i7 or i9 MBP to have as their personal computer.

Yeah imagine that, someone wanting to get a tool they prefer to use, that they enjoy using, for their recreational hobby activity.

Astounding, huh?

This'll blow your mind - people go on holiday to nice places that are more expensive than where they live, when they could just stay at home and continue to exist there more cheaply. I know, amazing right?

 

[k2focus]

Yeah imagine that, someone wanting to get a tool they prefer to use, that they enjoy using, for their recreational hobby activity.

Astounding, huh?

This'll blow your mind - people go on holiday to nice places that are more expensive than where they live, when they could just stay at home and continue to exist there more cheaply. I know, amazing right?

i feel like you're getting a bit defensive and missing my point. i am in no way saying that macs are dumb or you shouldn't buy them. i can't make that any more clear. this isn't a why would you ever buy a mac debate.

the issue is why you would spend a huge amount on a mac if it's not the best tool for the purpose. if you're running your high end computer for a program or a suite of programs i'd think that was the most important thing that the computer is being used for. if the software is on both i'd think you'd get the computer that it ran best on. in terms of sheer power and value the PC is probably going to win every time - and not just by a little, but by a lot. also, when you're in a program doing work the OS doesn't really make a difference. it's the app that you're using, so why do you even care? i get why the OS matters for your daily tasks in general, but why does it matter when you're getting a computer for a certain task? especially when you can have both for cheaper.

 

[mattspace]

the issue is why you would spend a huge amount on a mac if it's not the best tool for the purpose.

No, the issue is you keep ignoring people's clear messaging telling you, that what makes a tool "best" is subjective depending on the user. A task that takes 5 minutes longer on a machine that is more pleasant to use, isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Finder Vs. Explorer, System Preferences Vs Windows Control Panel. If the core functionality of the machine, for such simple tasks as adjusting settings and moving files about is actively unpleasant, then it doesn't matter if the apps themselves are largely similar - every time you bring up an open/save navigator you're going to be dumped into a non-fun aspect of the tool.

Putting up with a tool you don't enjoy using, isn't a mark of a professional, or a hobbyist who maintains a professional-quality practice. Suffering while you work is the mark of a short-term-thinking workplace burn-out.

 

[k2focus]

No, the issue is you keep ignoring people's clear messaging telling you, that what makes a tool "best" is subjective depending on the user. A task that takes 5 minutes longer on a machine that is more pleasant to use, isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Finder Vs. Explorer, System Preferences Vs Windows Control Panel. If the core functionality of the machine, for such simple tasks as adjusting settings and moving files about is actively unpleasant, then it doesn't matter if the apps themselves are largely similar - every time you bring up an open/save navigator you're going to be dumped into a non-fun aspect of the tool.

Putting up with a tool you don't enjoy using, isn't a mark of a professional, or a hobbyist who maintains a professional-quality practice. Suffering while you work is the mark of a short-term-thinking workplace burn-out.

if things were as bad as you claimed i might agree with you - up until a point. the fact is that it's not that bad. you click a folder icon and your folder opens up - it's not fun in either OS.

but hey man, if you want to spend a small fortune on a less functional machine for your hobby go ahead. it's honestly no skin off my back, and i'm happy that you can get what you want. however, you aren't going to convince me that the Mac Pro is going to survive off of people like you with the argument that opening the windows file folder isn't fun.

 

[gazwas]

i feel like you're getting a bit defensive and missing my point. i am in no way saying that macs are dumb or you shouldn't buy them. i can't make that any more clear. this isn't a why would you ever buy a mac debate.

the issue is why you would spend a huge amount on a mac if it's not the best tool for the purpose. if you're running your high end computer for a program or a suite of programs i'd think that was the most important thing that the computer is being used for. if the software is on both i'd think you'd get the computer that it ran best on. in terms of sheer power and value the PC is probably going to win every time - and not just by a little, but by a lot. also, when you're in a program doing work the OS doesn't really make a difference. it's the app that you're using, so why do you even care? i get why the OS matters for your daily tasks in general, but why does it matter when you're getting a computer for a certain task? especially when you can have both for cheaper.

This conversation makes no sense and you are just running it around in circles....

Your question is loaded full of wild assumptions on a computer who's spec and price don't exist.

I suggest looking again in a month when we hopefully have more information at WWDC as all this seem pointless.

 

[k2focus]

This conversation makes no sense and you are just running it around in circles....

Your question is loaded full of wild assumptions on a computer who's spec and price don't exist.

I suggest looking again in a month when we hopefully have more information at WWDC as all this seem pointless.

by your logic we should never really discuss anything. the point of discussions is to discuss - maybe learn something you didn't know that you didn't know. the easiest thing to do when you don't like a conversation is to just not join it.

 

[shaunp]

We are yet to see the computer, never mind the cost if the next Mac Pro so righting if off seems very premature. And forget iMac Pro, I didn’t understand what a regular iMac can’t do that your current PC can in terms of a photography only demand? How much faster in seconds will you save processing 500 wedding images on a PC over a 2019 i9 iMac?

I see a Mac of any description as a necessary tool of my business that is written off as an asset after two years so flexibility and what I know and like using is much more important than purchasing cost. I just don’t see your issue?

For me it's a price point that the iMac (or any other all-in-one for that matter) reaches where I think I'd be better off getting a standalone machine with a good monitor. Yes I write it off over a few years, but I can sweat that asset for longer as I can swap out the GPU, etc as I need to without having to swap out the entire asset. Eventually I do replacement but I find I can keep a few bits from the old one and move them over - 10Gig cards, etc - and not have to buy these bits again until they fail or are not performing as I want them to. I could go down the route of getting an iMac and swapping it out every 2-3 years, but the process for selling on old kit is more hassle than it's worth and I don't buy enough to justify getting into any kind of lease agreement otherwise I'd probably do that. With a PC or a Mac Pro I could literally run it until it is of very little commercial value because of the upgrade potential. I could then just donate it to a local charity.

I also get more flexibility if something fails. I can swap out failed fans, RAM, GPU, CPU and storage myself if anything ever fails. I don't need to cart the whole lot back to Apple. Which is another bone of contention - why cannot I not get onsite support with Apple products. I can from Dell and Lenovo and its either included in the price or not to expensive to add to the order.

So while the whole applicance aspect of the iMac has a certain appeal, it's the need to do more frequent refreshes and the pain in the ass of selling it on afterwards that puts me off.

 

[JazzyGB1]

The processors in the Mac Pro 2013 ( or 2009-2012 models ) where mostly were not the high end Xeon processors. (at the tip top of the BTO configurations, but in the entry-mid range they were not all that off the top of the i7 HEDT price points. There was no huge price gap there. ).

I meant that Xeons in the cMac Pro were high end processors compared to the Core 2 Duo's that were in the iMacs at that time.

 

[gazwas]

by your logic we should never really discuss anything. the point of discussions is to discuss - maybe learn something you didn't know that you didn't know. the easiest thing to do when you don't like a conversation is to just not join it.

You have had many opinions as to who wants a Mac Pro yet you seem to want to steer the conversation round and round and round and round and..........

The only thing I've learn about anything here is you personally not into spending huge amount of money on Mac that you, me or the rest of the Mac Pro forum know diddly squat about.

This conversion would be great if we had a basis onto which to praise or condemn the new Mac Pro against your new found love of Windows but alas, thats hopefully next month.

I've used Mac all my student and professional life and the two main pieces of software I use, Capture One and FCPX work flawlessly. I'm due an upgrade so why wouldn't I buy a new Mac Pro and throw all those years of profitable money making ownership out the window.

Mac's work for me and lots of other people.

 

[a2jack]

I'm not a Pro user, in terms of business use, nor just a hobbyist. I know exactly where I want my electronics to take me ...To the future...VR

Yet, I have no time, nor memory space, to learn MS all over again.

In retrospect, it was an error to have become this dependent upon a company who, like Amazon, now devotes their main energy's to the money business.

I'm ready right now to buy an Apple machine that will take me to VR ,and be tech sustainable a few years into the future. What are the bets for the new Pro this June? a2

 

[mattspace]

I'm not a Pro user, in terms of business use, nor just a hobbyist. I know exactly where I want my electronics to take me ...To the future...VR

As the local “god won’t he shut up about VR already” person here, sad to say you’re not going to see it go anywhere on the Mac, based on the company’s current trajectory.

AMD can’t build a GPU that’s any good for VR’s specific needs (4K gaming as a benchmark), Apple’s GPU tech is unlikely to leapfrog Nvidia’s, and we’re stilll a long way from the reality plateau where companies can take their foot off the gas on GPU development. Also, Apple won’t build a machine (off the shelf NVidia graphics in a motherboard slot, at a gaming pc price point) necessary to foster a large enough customer market for developers to target.

There isn’t some low-hanging fruit first-gen iPhone-like revolution just waiting for Apple to be in the right place at the right time, unfortunately.

While VR on the Mac is basically still-born, they do have some very easy software things they could do to advance things if they nut up with the hardware - simple stuff like universal open/save dialogues which everyone has to roll themselves at present etc.

 

[Jack Burton]

"I don't know what it is, but I do know it's bad and I don't want it"

What a line of reasoning that is...

I am completely skeptical of Apple. Years to design and produce a well designed tower?

No. They are working on something else. I fully expect to see a final cut targeted Mac Pro with AMD Navi GPUs, leaving any other non FCP/Logic Mac users out in the cold.

Switching to back PC will be a bitter pill to swallow.

 

[k2focus]

I am completely skeptical of Apple. Years to design and produce a well designed tower?

No. They are working on something else. I fully expect to see a final cut targeted Mac Pro with AMD Navi GPUs, leaving any other non FCP/Logic Mac users out in the cold.

Switching to back PC will be a bitter pill to swallow.

I switched back a few months ago, and I'm really liking it. Took a week or two of getting used to it, but it's just so much faster that I can't see myself going back to Mac any time soon. They just need to make simple towers with space and simple repairs and uoupgrad - essentially just sell OSX and let us install it on our computer.

 

[ssgbryan]

I am completely skeptical of Apple. Years to design and produce a well designed tower?

No. They are working on something else. I fully expect to see a final cut targeted Mac Pro with AMD Navi GPUs, leaving any other non FCP/Logic Mac users out in the cold.

Switching to back PC will be a bitter pill to swallow.

That would be a successor to the tcmp, and they have already declared that a failure.

 

[Boil]

Who is the (forthcoming 2019 modular) Mac Pro going to be for...?

Simplest answer is any Mac power user who does not want a laptop, does not want an all-in-one, and does not want the piss poor integrated graphics of the new 2018 Space Grey Mac mini, but also does not want the added expense of an eGPU box nor the performance hit that TB3 imposes on the GPU...

A power user can be defined as anyone who uses a computer for needs beyond the general email / web browsing / media consumption that the vast majority of computer users actually use their computers for...

And in regards to the whole "a Mac Pro is not worth the money over a bespoke PC"...

Let us use the automobile analogy...

I need a daily driver to go from home to work & back, with occasional stops at the grocery...

A Toyota Prius would do those tasks just fine, but a Tesla Roadster would do the same with more panache...

 

[macguru9999]

I would like a space grey cheese grater, 85% the height of the 2012 cMP with one internal blu-ray burner, 4 TB3 ports and 4 USB A 3.1 ports on the back , 2 of each and a headphone socket on the front. Minimum dual 6 core xenons , 1000W power supply and PCIe 3 slots , 4 of them, with support for both nvidia and AMD GPUs, DDR4 Ram standard 32GB up to 256GB, 10GB ethernet x2. ... did I leave anything out ? Yes, Yes I know why they won't do it but that does not stop me .... oh and ergonomic pads on the handles that dont cut into my hands...
***************
Addendum. Actually, the reason these towers still LOOK good after 8 years is because they are not coated but externally just pure alloy, so I am happy for that to continue. As for the handles, just make them a little thicker and bevel the edges, less chance of bending them and no rubber to peel off...