Exactly. No need to reinvent the wheel. If this form factor works for all other workstations, why can't it work for the Mac Pro. If you have a job to do you don't spend all day looking at your computer and admiring how thin it is, or the lack of bezels. You get on with doing your work.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Who is the Mac Pro going to be for?
- Thread starter k2focus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. No need to reinvent the wheel. If this form factor works for all other workstations, why can't it work for the Mac Pro. If you have a job to do you don't spend all day looking at your computer and admiring how thin it is, or the lack of bezels. You get on with doing your work.
I'm hoping the new Mac Pro will be for Audio Pro's , we've been waiting for a replacement to the old Mac Pro for so long now, the trash can was super cool but it was never followed up, now I'm glad I hung on to my old Cheesgrater 5.1, I upped the CPU's to dual 6 cores lots of Ram and a nice SSD & NVme upgrades and it chugs along nicely.
However single core performance still isn't great, so can't wait to see it's going to offer us all something affordable and future proof.
Maybe Apple have been secretly testing AMD Ryzen's and the new 3000 7nm chips coming with 16 cores & 32 threads will be included
However single core performance still isn't great, so can't wait to see it's going to offer us all something affordable and future proof.
Maybe Apple have been secretly testing AMD Ryzen's and the new 3000 7nm chips coming with 16 cores & 32 threads will be included
I'm hoping the new Mac Pro will be for Audio Pro's , we've been waiting for a replacement to the old Mac Pro for so long now, the trash can was super cool but it was never followed up, now I'm glad I hung on to my old Cheesgrater 5.1, I upped the CPU's to dual 6 cores lots of Ram and a nice SSD & NVme upgrades and it chugs along nicely.
However single core performance still isn't great, so can't wait to see it's going to offer us all something affordable and future proof.
Maybe Apple have been secretly testing AMD Ryzen's and the new 3000 7nm chips coming with 16 cores & 32 threads will be included
There are so many types of 'professional' requiring the Mac Pro, each with their own requirements. This is why I think it needs to be a 'box' design like the 5,1 Mac Pro as flexibility is key to meeting all these different requirements not to mention the different budgets we all have.
Yes but now you’re talking about a $4-8k computer. My point was that if your budget is $2.5k Apple already has plenty of mac’s In that price range. Apple is not going to create a Mac Pro with a 10-core processor, terabytes of SSD storage and 64gb RAM for anything under $4k. You’re hoping for Apple to build you something that’s not in your price range. Your options are the 2018 mini or 2019 iMac. Both are more than capable of handling many VI’s at once. If you’re a film composer and literally need hundreds of VI’s than you need a larger budget... $2.5k isn’t enough
It's not just about price range it's about functionality.
An iMac however powerful it may be isn't suitable for making music projects long term as the internal drive is sealed and so irreplaceable as is the screen and there's no way to upscale it in future should your needs change or easily repair them when they develop a fault.
The same applies to the Mac Mini. I don't mind paying a bit of a premium (you always have for Apple stuff), but I need the functionality I get from my current Mac Pro, which has allowed me to easily replace hard drives, increase RAM, add extra ports and upgrade my graphics via PCIe expansion slots - all of which I have done and none of which is possible on the 2013 trashcan Mac Pro or the new Mac Mini - that's why they are unsuitable as replacements and that's why the tMac Pro bombed.
Apple could easily introduce an entry level modular Mac Pro tower with lower spec than Xeons that would still meet the demands of many professionals and power users. Call it a Mac Pro lite or something.
The CPU isn't the only thing that matters to pros and power users. Like you said the CPU in an iMac would cope very well with demands of running many VI's, where it fails is it cannot offer the flexibility to tailor it to meet your requirements and to be able to quickly fix the components that fail - the classic Mac Pro did.
Apple took this functionality away and have paid the price with plummeting sales ever since.
If Apple announced a modular Mac Pro with space for 4 internal sata 3 drives, 4 PCIe slots and a 6 core 8th generation i7 processor for £1995 it would fly off the shelves. There aren't many out there who need PCIe based SSD's, SATA would I'm sure be fine for 95% of users.
Dell offer such a system for £1199.00 so it's easily done and that's allowing Apple an £800.00 premium to pay for their design improvements and profit margin.
They can still offer Xeon based solutions at the higher end for those who need that power of which I'm sure many do and that's fine, but for the rest who (like me) already have a nice 32" 4K screen and just want a more modern Mac to connect it to and the ability to transfer my existing storage to, the specs described above would easily meet the needs of many.
It wouldn't 'cannibalise' sales or any of that nonsense, it'd simply make many long term Apple users like me happy and we'd be parting with our money instead of keeping it in our pockets.
My decade old Mac Pro has more functionality and flexibility than anything that Apple have introduced since.
Last edited:
Totally agree. Is there ANYONE in this forum who gives a damn about what the next MP looks like, anyone who would not be fine with a return to the cheese grater box with updated internals? What the heck is Apple thinking, which universe of buyers do they think is bigger:
1) ones savoring something slick-looking and shiny, regardless of what limits the new form factor has on function? vs
2) those of us who just want something up-to-date functionally, flexibly configurable (to fit many different use cases), and upgradable down the road, and who don't really give a rat's ass what it looks like?
The term 'professional' is good for marketing, but next to useless for many other things...
So, you're a professional novelist and only want the most stable machine? You're a photographer? Programmer? VFX artist? Homemaker? Wedding planner?
Designing for a role is completely meaningless. The Apple design team simply need to look at it from this perspective: for whom won't a Mac mini, MacBook Pro, iMac or iMac Pro not work? That's it. That's the validation for yet another design to maintain.
Can you accept a built in screen? Are you CPU limited, even with the top CPU choices do date? Are you GPU limited (CUDA)?
I've heard podcasts with photographers and developers who think they are the target for a Mac Pro. Give me an effin' break. Get an iMac already.
If you can get your work done in half the time each time you double the number of CPU cores—then you're a candidate. If your render times get reduced by 50% when you add your third RTX 2080 Ti—then you're a candidate.
OR
Maybe you just feel that you want a computer without a built in monitor, and you don't want to hook up external graphics or hard drives—at the best possible price.... well, that opens up another can of worms because that is potentially everyone.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but it's actually not that long now, before we get to see what Apple designed for.
Regardless, it will be VERY, VERY interesting to see if they touch base with this one. If what they are bringing actually aligns with what people want, or if it's more a gamble along the lines of "if we built it they will come". I think Apple would do well to design something relatively conservative.
So, you're a professional novelist and only want the most stable machine? You're a photographer? Programmer? VFX artist? Homemaker? Wedding planner?
Designing for a role is completely meaningless. The Apple design team simply need to look at it from this perspective: for whom won't a Mac mini, MacBook Pro, iMac or iMac Pro not work? That's it. That's the validation for yet another design to maintain.
Can you accept a built in screen? Are you CPU limited, even with the top CPU choices do date? Are you GPU limited (CUDA)?
I've heard podcasts with photographers and developers who think they are the target for a Mac Pro. Give me an effin' break. Get an iMac already.
If you can get your work done in half the time each time you double the number of CPU cores—then you're a candidate. If your render times get reduced by 50% when you add your third RTX 2080 Ti—then you're a candidate.
OR
Maybe you just feel that you want a computer without a built in monitor, and you don't want to hook up external graphics or hard drives—at the best possible price.... well, that opens up another can of worms because that is potentially everyone.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but it's actually not that long now, before we get to see what Apple designed for.
Regardless, it will be VERY, VERY interesting to see if they touch base with this one. If what they are bringing actually aligns with what people want, or if it's more a gamble along the lines of "if we built it they will come". I think Apple would do well to design something relatively conservative.
I'd give a damn
.The cheese grater is too big for what you get, the handles are sharp and uncomfortable - and keep it from easily fitting in a rack. (See a Dell Precision for comfortable handles that fits in a rack.)
I'd give a damn
The cheese grater is too big for what you get, the handles are sharp and uncomfortable - and keep it from easily fitting in a rack. (See a Dell Precision for comfortable handles that fits in a rack.)
Well, okay, I take your point, up to a point. The cheese grater box could be improved. But what you're suggesting are functional improvements to the case, not spiffy looks for their own sake.
ALL my mac apps run much better in Windows 10 on bootcamp than in MacOS.
Programmers on here can correct me, but it simply appears that they prioritise [and rightly so] the development of the windows apps over mac apps due to the user bases. I would do the same.
I use an imac pro with the Vega 64 and can easily max out the video card to 100% usage immediately. I can also make full use of the CPU. This is through VR 3D design software and also rendering. These apps make full use of your hardware and it does make a difference in the day to day work having a fast computer.
So yes I am the target market for a Mac Pro. Will I buy one - it depends fully on the price. I do get pleasure from having mac hardware and think the imac pro stands up in value, when the screen and cooling is considered. It will be interesting to see how the Mac Pro compares to HP Workstations which I also use and have specified in the past when I lead the technical teams.
The iMac's screen can not be directly hardware calibrated = not a "Professional" photographer's tool. It's that simple. It's the final percent in capability - the thing that you need it to do, that none else needs it to do, that makes it the professional tool.
[doublepost=1556073014][/doublepost]
Yup nothing about "Pro" directly implies Xeon etc - Hell, Apple's own nomenclature, they have "Pro" laptops with consumer CPUs and gaming GPUs (despite Xeon + Quadro laptops being a thing), or their "Pro" iMac, which has a gaming GPU, they're calling them all "Pro".
The "Mac Pro" should be a product range that only describes the form factor - a conservative slotbox. From there, processor, power supply, gpu etc should just be options. It should be run as an effectively separate, even BTO organisation - Apple at one time had its entire desktop business running on a BTO basis around 1997-99 (and NeXT was responsible for Dell's BTO software back end).
Last edited:
There are two big frustrations for me with regard to Apple:
1. Their apparent need to redesign everything, every time.
They had a winner with the cMP. All they needed to do was tweak the design and keep it fresh with updated tech on the inside and improved interior processes (you want an industrial design problem to solve, Jony Ive? Good! Make the fans quieter, more efficient, and smaller to accommodate more PCI / RAM / Drives, etc.
If they came out with that in 2013, I'd have bought it. Instead I opted for a reconditioned and updated 4,1 --> 5,1.
A compulsion to re-design each time suggests, IMHO, indecision and insecurity, as if they don't really understand their market.
2. The locked-down, inaccessible, non-upgrade-able ethos.
Clearly this is a business decision to drive more frequent sales; after all, it works for iPhone and other small tech.
But this is simply another indicator of Apple's lack of understanding of the high-end content-creator market (let's avoid the "professional" term here). What works to sell gadgets doesn't necessarily work for the upper end users.
Granted, there are big organizations that won't think twice about massive computing expenditures as a yearly budget line item.
But there are also many smaller operations (small businesses / home-based operations) that need just as much computing power but lack the grand budget to upgrade every year, or even two or three years at a stretch. They can, and would eagerly, invest in new internals. I speak here of my own situation (a four-year upgrade pattern prior to 2013, now I'm hanging on by my fingernails until something decent comes along, or my career comes to an end).
So either Apple doesn't really understand the Mac Pro market; doesn't care as long as Ive can do something thin; or thinks they can drive the market into their own locked-down computing ghetto niche and keep them there forever.
I'm just spitballin' here. Hell, I'm close enough to retirement that I find it hard to care any more about what Apple's Grand New Design will be. To be honest, if Windows handled fonts and color management better, I'd be long gone by now.
1. Their apparent need to redesign everything, every time.
They had a winner with the cMP. All they needed to do was tweak the design and keep it fresh with updated tech on the inside and improved interior processes (you want an industrial design problem to solve, Jony Ive? Good! Make the fans quieter, more efficient, and smaller to accommodate more PCI / RAM / Drives, etc.
If they came out with that in 2013, I'd have bought it. Instead I opted for a reconditioned and updated 4,1 --> 5,1.
A compulsion to re-design each time suggests, IMHO, indecision and insecurity, as if they don't really understand their market.
2. The locked-down, inaccessible, non-upgrade-able ethos.
Clearly this is a business decision to drive more frequent sales; after all, it works for iPhone and other small tech.
But this is simply another indicator of Apple's lack of understanding of the high-end content-creator market (let's avoid the "professional" term here). What works to sell gadgets doesn't necessarily work for the upper end users.
Granted, there are big organizations that won't think twice about massive computing expenditures as a yearly budget line item.
But there are also many smaller operations (small businesses / home-based operations) that need just as much computing power but lack the grand budget to upgrade every year, or even two or three years at a stretch. They can, and would eagerly, invest in new internals. I speak here of my own situation (a four-year upgrade pattern prior to 2013, now I'm hanging on by my fingernails until something decent comes along, or my career comes to an end).
So either Apple doesn't really understand the Mac Pro market; doesn't care as long as Ive can do something thin; or thinks they can drive the market into their own locked-down computing ghetto niche and keep them there forever.
I'm just spitballin' here. Hell, I'm close enough to retirement that I find it hard to care any more about what Apple's Grand New Design will be. To be honest, if Windows handled fonts and color management better, I'd be long gone by now.
First, it's good to see arguments about 'pro'. Even better is to have seen such discussion is not monopolized by film-makers or photographers. But when people coming to talk about 'pro', it's about either pro users or pro functionalities, and they are not clearly separated in the discussion.
Pro functionalities should be the focus of argument rather than pro users. Who would know what a pro poet need from a desktop computer? Maybe he needs only a typewriter, or maybe he needs a powerful machine for designing his dream mansion with 3-D modeling software - just his hobby.
Pro functionalities can be more objectively defined. To me, they are user-upgradability (achieved by new form factor), reliability (achieved by Xeon CPU), security (achieved by T2 chip), and productivity (achieved by built-in high-end GPU).
As who would be qualified to use them, that question is not a good business question for Apple. The better question in terms of selling more machines, making more money, is to what minimal price Apple can lower the price of Mac Pro, still maintaining 40% gross profit margin, to create a new customer stratum.
Pro functionalities should be the focus of argument rather than pro users. Who would know what a pro poet need from a desktop computer? Maybe he needs only a typewriter, or maybe he needs a powerful machine for designing his dream mansion with 3-D modeling software - just his hobby.
Pro functionalities can be more objectively defined. To me, they are user-upgradability (achieved by new form factor), reliability (achieved by Xeon CPU), security (achieved by T2 chip), and productivity (achieved by built-in high-end GPU).
As who would be qualified to use them, that question is not a good business question for Apple. The better question in terms of selling more machines, making more money, is to what minimal price Apple can lower the price of Mac Pro, still maintaining 40% gross profit margin, to create a new customer stratum.
While focussing on functionality is good, your "objective" definitions of "pro-functionalities" are not necessarily objective enough.
- User-upgradablity = replacing the factory parts with faster / better parts down the line, not just adding extra parts (how Thunderbolt counts as "user upgradability").
- Reliability = could also be "able to be replaced by an off the shelf part available in any local brick & mortar computer store", because the only thing that really matters is downtime when something goes wrong.
- Security = Security without flexibility (if the T2 in practice functions to restrict 1.) becomes counter-productive. Instead of restricting what goes into a machine, a stronger system of auditing what goes out, so that if the GPU / SSD you bought on Newegg has some state-sponsored hardware rootkit within it. Something equivalent to Little Snitch will tell you "this is an issue". I believe that was Tron's job in monitoring the MCP
- Productivity = A built-in GPU has no innate advantages over a slot-based solution, and just becomes a vestigial organ you have to drag around, like an appendix without the gut micro-biome repopulating advantages, just sitting there waiting to become a limiter on a machine's lifespan.
I agree with you on point 1. But for reliability, I define mean more like 'self-healing' ability. Say when the machine is left on overnight, it can correct memory errors in the hardware side. On the software side, it can analyze 'Siri mistakes' it makes during the daytime and update relevant AI parameters so the machine can give better answers next time. Furthermore, while the machine is going through 'self-organizing', 'self-rejuvination', it can still handle server function.While focussing on functionality is good, your "objective" definitions of "pro-functionalities" are not necessarily objective enough.
- User-upgradablity = replacing the factory parts with faster / better parts down the line, not just adding extra parts (how Thunderbolt counts as "user upgradability").
- Reliability = could also be "able to be replaced by an off the shelf part available in any local brick & mortar computer store", because the only thing that really matters is downtime when something goes wrong.
- Security = Security without flexibility (if the T2 in practice functions to restrict 1.) becomes counter-productive. Instead of restricting what goes into a machine, a stronger system of auditing what goes out, so that if the GPU / SSD you bought on Newegg has some state-sponsored hardware rootkit within it. Something equivalent to Little Snitch will tell you "this is an issue". I believe that was Tron's job in monitoring the MCP
- Productivity = A built-in GPU has no innate advantages over a slot-based solution, and just becomes a vestigial organ you have to drag around, like an appendix without the gut micro-biome repopulating advantages, just sitting there waiting to become a limiter on a machine's lifespan.
And for productivity, I don't mean only spec productivity but how little time users must spend on hooking up extra modules. Considering organization hassle for power cord and deck space, situating GPU and large SSD within a single case is so much more convenient.
Trust me I’m all for a lower budget Mac that meets those specs. I just don’t see Apple doing that. It would also jeopardize sales of both the mini and iMac, so they’d either need to trash the mini, or further clutter their Mac lineup. They’d have the mini, iMac, imac pro, Mac Pro, Mac Pro lite.
It just doesn’t sound like Apple to give us a simple, powerful, affordable desktop config that can be updated and modified easily. I sure hope I’m wrong! I just don’t see it happening.
Falls well short?
Replacing a Mac Pro with a Mac Mini will take a fall more like this!
And I don't mean with a soft landing!
Not that Woolworths exists on the high street anymore, but if it did, I'd bare my backside it's shop front if apple released such a machine for <£2k
This is how I'd like to see the mMP setup - I'm sure there are a thousand reasons why it can't/wouldn't be done, but hey, you never know. For example, I'd like to do a bit of gaming, bit of web design work and Adobe bits n bobs. So, bog standard 2 slots of ram, 2 hd slots and 1 slot GPU would be fine for me. If I was an audio production pro, I'd probably go for more hard drive slots and ram slots. They could be configured populated or unpopulated, so people have a choice (shocking, I know).
Just a pie in the sky idea, so don't be too harsh
As you can see in my post in the paragraph above what you quote, I say: can you live with the integrated screen? If you can't—regardless of why—well, there you go...
Yes, but the suggestion that an iMac being "good enough" for a photographer, who shouldn't therefore consider themselves a valid target market for a Mac Pro, is what I was responding to. The paragraph before that doesn't modify how problematic it is to just dismiss those people's needs by suggesting they just be happy with a lower utility device.
Looks are extremely important, or more specifically design, which is a combination of how it works and how it looks. The cheesegrater Mac Pro had a great design, limitations aside. The HP Z-series design is also a lot nicer than what you can find in the PC case market and that does matter. I expect that whatever Mac Pro that Apple ships it will have great industrial design, it will run quiet, it will look attractive, it will not have obnoxious flashing blue LEDs. Apple whiffed on the trashcan in a couple of areas - they made bets on thunderbolt expansion and dual GPUs that didn't pay off. The market went in a different direction. In terms of design the trashcan did manage to fit an impressive amount of hardware into a small power-efficient computer. I expect the modular Mac Pro will be a compromise somewhere between the trashcan and the cheesegrater. You'll get some of the expansion options that you want while others you won't. It will pack a lot of hardware into a small space, smaller than you could reasonably build yourself from off the shelf parts with comparable specs.
That's my guess anyway, call it the vaporware Mac Pro all you want because we will find out on June 3 what the heck they've been up to.
I remain in the camp where what the box looks like is of virtually no concern. Of course it needs to have great industrial design, where form follows function, and not the reverse. My MP is a tool that enables me to earn a living. While I'm working, I'm looking at my monitors and touching my keyboard and mouse. The software (the OS and apps) creates the images I'm looking at. The box full of hardware is hiding under my desk. The only time I look at it or touch is when I turn it on or off, or when I need to connect something to it, or service something inside. How the box is designed and configured matters, definitely. It needs to be quiet, efficient, easy to service, expandable. And that will be a beautiful thing, not just skin deep.
There's nothing wrong, of course, with hoping that the new MP will be an object worthy of adoring gazes. But for me, the looks by themselves are useless, and certainly not worth the 6 year delay in providing a replacement for the trashcan.
Lack of assets in the 10.14 betas does not mean that the Mac Pro will not ship with 10.14 as there could be a special build of 10.14 just for the Mac Pro. If history is to judge 10.15 will ship before the Mac Pro does - 10.15 will ship in late October while the modular Mac pro won't ship until late December.