Why Apple Are In No Hurry To Build A New Mac Pro

[calaverasgrande]

Oh come on, now you are just being difficult. Nextstep is in the family tree, but bears as much resemblance to OS X as Win 95 does to Win 7.
Does this look like OS X to you?
It was used as a framework for OS X but they reworked major portions of the OS before it was released on PowerPC. Those portions that were redone as native PPC code had to be redone again for OS X to be 100% intel code.

Anyway I can tell you aren't even reading my posts with any comprehension because you are still talking about "hard disks" when I have already said all of the machines tripping out have SSDs.

But you know, fanboyism does that. Blinding you to what the facts are because you are so in love with the brand.
Hey, I like Apple too. Much better than HP, Dell etc. But NO computer company is perfect. Apple really needs to stop trying to make OSX into IOS and concentrate and making it "just work".
I certainly hope the "New Mac Pro" isn't just some prosumer toy. I enjoy working on and using Macs at work. If it's not powerful enough we will have to switch to (blecch) HP Z820 workstations.

 

[goMac]

Oh come on, now you are just being difficult. Nextstep is in the family tree, but bears as much resemblance to OS X as Win 95 does to Win 7.
Does this look like OS X to you?

It's a skin.

Windows 8 looks nothing like Windows XP, but they're also both closely related.

It was used as a framework for OS X but they reworked major portions of the OS before it was released on PowerPC. Those portions that were redone as native PPC code had to be redone again for OS X to be 100% intel code.

No, they weren't. The Intel version was maintained the entire time, and large portions of which continued to be available as Darwin x86 the entire time. I remember looking at the x86 code in 2000. Intel was not a report, it was the original x86 code + the ongoing maintenance.

Anyway I can tell you aren't even reading my posts with any comprehension because you are still talking about "hard disks" when I have already said all of the machines tripping out have SSDs.

Then I don't know. But you've already said the CPU usage is not climbing, which means nothing is wasting CPU. That sounds like a disk or network lock. Especially because, again, you're in Finder which does a lot of disk and network things.

Yeah, it would be great if Finder was threaded, but then again, no version of Finder ever in the entire history of Mac OS has ever been well threaded. Spend a week on Mac OS 9, and then come back and tell me that the current Finder is seriously worse than it used to be.

But you know, fanboyism does that. Blinding you to what the facts are because you are so in love with the brand.
Hey, I like Apple too. Much better than HP, Dell etc. But NO computer company is perfect. Apple really needs to stop trying to make OSX into IOS and concentrate and making it "just work".
I certainly hope the "New Mac Pro" isn't just some prosumer toy. I enjoy working on and using Macs at work. If it's not powerful enough we will have to switch to (blecch) HP Z820 workstations.

I never said any of that. You're the one who sounds like you have an agenda. I'm not saying Apple is perfect, but I'm not making wild accusations that somehow Mac OS is less optimized than it used to be either.

 

[calaverasgrande]

It's a skin.

Windows 8 looks nothing like Windows XP, but they're also both closely related.

and there are dozens of applications that will run in XP but not Win8.

No, they weren't. The Intel version was maintained the entire time, and large portions of which continued to be available as Darwin x86 the entire time. I remember looking at the x86 code in 2000. Intel was not a report, it was the original x86 code + the ongoing maintenance.

so what was the point of fat binaries and Rosetta?

Then I don't know. But you've already said the CPU usage is not climbing, which means nothing is wasting CPU. That sounds like a disk or network lock. Especially because, again, you're in Finder which does a lot of disk and network things.

Yeah, it would be great if Finder was threaded, but then again, no version of Finder ever in the entire history of Mac OS has ever been well threaded. Spend a week on Mac OS 9, and then come back and tell me that the current Finder is seriously worse than it used to be.



I never said any of that. You're the one who sounds like you have an agenda. I'm not saying Apple is perfect, but I'm not making wild accusations that somehow Mac OS is less optimized than it used to be either.

I'm not even trying to argue the points that you are picking. I can't give two shakes about when or what part of the code is native or emulated.
What it comes down to is that using the original Mac on the first few iterations of the OS, you almost never ran into hourglassing/beachballing when just doin mundane finder type things. That was with laughable amounts of ram and a CPU that was lower powered than your current DVD/Blueray player.
I just think it is inexcusable that I have to wait even a second for anything as banal as opening a finder window or turning OFF the wifi. Especially when I am using a MAC that is the highest spec Apple sells.
You seem to think that is defensible, even if it is only a "hard disk issue".

 

[goMac]

and there are dozens of applications that will run in XP but not Win8.

Sure, and there are apps that will not run in 10.3 but will run in 10.2. Your point?

so what was the point of fat binaries and Rosetta?

Huh? I'm not getting the question. It's also kind of funny, considering fat binaries existing in NeXTStep and are a great example of something Apple continued using throughout PowerPC.

I'm not even trying to argue the points that you are picking. I can't give two shakes about when or what part of the code is native or emulated.
What it comes down to is that using the original Mac on the first few iterations of the OS, you almost never ran into hourglassing/beachballing when just doin mundane finder type things. That was with laughable amounts of ram and a CPU that was lower powered than your current DVD/Blueray player.

Are you kidding? I've been using Macs since System 7 and I ran into them all the freakin time. People have been complaining about Finder on OS X being slow and laggy since the OS X Finder came out.

Where have you been? Worse? It's the same as it always was. The problem usually is it's not properly thread on disk and network activity and never has been.

I just think it is inexcusable that I have to wait even a second for anything as banal as opening a finder window or turning OFF the wifi. Especially when I am using a MAC that is the highest spec Apple sells.
You seem to think that is defensible, even if it is only a "hard disk issue".

I'm not saying it's defensible. I'm saying it's been around since OS X came out.

Seriously, here's people complaining about the same issue in Mac OS 10.3, on PowerPC:
http://macosx.com/forums/mac-os-x-system-mac-software/34259-panther-finder-multithreaded.html

This has nothing to do with Apple being more lazy than before, or being ported to Intel. It's always been this way. I remember this on every single PowerPC Mac I ever owned, and even before that.

 

[jigzaw]

It would be sad if Apple, considering its history, was no longer a company to go to for a high-end computer. I'm sure the Pro line is a sliver of their sales, but the Pro community is pretty influential and they're getting annoyed with Apple.

I'm an Asst. Editor on reality shows and to date, every show I've worked on has been Mac based (compared to when I used to work in the financial industry which was 100% PC). I've become a Mac person because I use them at work. When FCX came out, it was all people would talk about around here, how Apple had basically said F You to Hollywood and the professional creative community that has historically been their #1 fans.

The Mac Pro's I'm working on now are still perfectly acceptable for what we do but I don't know for how much longer. I can't see replacing these bays with iMacs. Some of these systems are used exclusively for digitizing from tape or transcoding HD footage 24 hours a day for weeks on end. Could an iMac handle that kind of processing workload? Not so sure about that. And as things are going 3D in the narrative field, I really can't imagine it unless the iMacs get some major power boosts.

I'm seeing an increasing amount of job listings for TV pros who are comfortable with Windows-based editing bays. While the shows I've worked on have been Avid (on Mac) based, many were (until recently) proudly using Final Cut. However just recently probably the biggest reality TV company, Bunim Murray, announced they were abandoning their Final Cut 7 machines and switching everything to Avid because they felt secure that Avid would be focused on professional needs for the foreseeable future. Apple, not so much. I love Apple and would hate to see short-sightedness and a lack of drive take them off of the cutting edge. I was tempted to say toy company, but I really do love their phones and iPads and think highly of them. I use those "toys" BECAUSE I worked on their Pro machines at work and fell in love with that ecosystem.

 

[Santabean2000]

LOL. It is Macrumors... some folks will debate that the sky is blue. They are just anti-everything that is rational.

However, this "speed bump upgrade followed a year, 2011, where they didn't go anything. ( all other workstation vendors in same class didn't do anything either in 2011, but since Apple expectation are more dependent upon actions there is much larger misdirection of expectations. ). Point just last June doesn't establish a norm track record.

It was not a normal upgrade. As a "We have not quit on the Mac Pro" upgrade it was fine. That speed bump gave them a mechanism to talk about whether continuing work or not. Apple said it was.

On the other hand, 2-3 year old GPUs when ( 6000 and 7000 AMD series were possible candidates) also sets negative expectations. Apple only rarely, if ever, skips completely viable GPU upgrades. Similarly, Apple skipped on a completely sensible CPU upgrade also. When Apple shipped the upgraded Mac Pro major competitors were already shipping Xeon E5 alternatives. Again very uncharacteristic of Apple's track record on other Apple products to skip very significant and viable components in an upgrade. Both of these raise expectations that Apple is "asleep at the wheel" when it comes to the Mac Pro.

When Apple failed to get drivers for new GPU cards out in a timely fashion (10.8.3 ) and withdrew the Mac Pro from EU market because still had not worked getting a new model operational. The relatively short warning too for the EU withdrawal is another contributing factor to building "Apple will pull the rug out from under you on short notice" expectations. Again those actions (failures) generate negative expectations. So not only screwed up in 2012, they have continued to screw up in 2013.


So no, the speed bump last June didn't buy a 'we're back on normal cadence' card. By Apple's actions since then, there is little reason to expect a broad range consensus that the Mac Pro is on a normal Apple upgrade track at all. That is exactly why there are many folks still trying to peg to this some Intel part that Apple "had to" wait for. Or just saying that it is dead. Or that it will be butchered into some Mac mini/headless iMac monstrosity.

The speed bump plus the "we will be doing something in 2013" presents reasonable grounds to expect them to come through in 2013. However, Apple is steadily loosing folks who find that creditable.

A spot-on assessment of the current state of affairs.

It really is hard to see where they're going from here. My guess is the high-end pros will not be entirely stoked... but for prosumer folk like me there may be something really interesting in the offer.

 

[Macsonic]

Another factor could be is how often do pros upgrade their
Mac Pros and buy a new Mac Pro. Some would opt for a used Mac Pro and this may put lesser pressure on Apple to upgrade the Mac Pro. I guess users tend to hang on to their Mac Pros longer compared to other Mac models. But at this time an upgrade is long overdue.

 

[Simon R.]

Another factor could be is how often do pros upgrade their
Mac Pros and buy a new Mac Pro. Some would opt for a used Mac Pro and this may put lesser pressure on Apple to upgrade the Mac Pro. I guess users tend to hang on to their Mac Pros longer compared to other Mac models. But at this time an upgrade is long overdue.

Yet another attempt at defending Apple...

Pros also upgrade machines if they can better performance, new tools etc. I would have upgraded my 2010 Mac Pro at once, had Apple come out with a new Mac Pro with faster CPUs, SATA3, Thunderbolt and USB3. Perfectly expected updates that should have come to Mac Pro no later than 2012. But they didn't. Well respected companys like BlackMagic design have created USB3 versions of their equipment for PC only now! They used to bring out Mac versions first...

I think the Mac Pro (as we know it at least) is dead but I hope I am wrong.

 

[Macsonic]

Yet another attempt at defending Apple...

Pros also upgrade machines if they can better performance, new tools etc. I would have upgraded my 2010 Mac Pro at once, had Apple come out with a new Mac Pro with faster CPUs, SATA3, Thunderbolt and USB3. Perfectly expected updates that should have come to Mac Pro no later than 2012. But they didn't. Well respected companys like BlackMagic design have created USB3 versions of their equipment for PC only now! They used to bring out Mac versions first...

I think the Mac Pro (as we know it at least) is dead but I hope I am wrong.

Nope, not defending Apple. My last sentence "But at this time an upgrade is long overdue." is actually my complain to Apple. Apple greatly owes us pros a new Mac Pro for the nth time. I would not want to think the Mac Pro is dead. It's up to us too to sustain and keep the interest alive and hope Apple will still continue building Mac Pros.

 

[Simon R.]

Nope, not defending Apple. My last sentence "But at this time an upgrade is long overdue." is actually my complain to Apple. Apple greatly owes us pros a new Mac Pro for the nth time. I would not want to think the Mac Pro is dead. It's up to us too to sustain and keep the interest alive and hope Apple will still continue building Mac Pros.

If Apple creates a product that pro users will pay for, they will buy it. If Apple halts its development, keeps everybody in the dark, degrade some of their pro best selling software like Final Cut, people will stop buying it. The ball is 100% in Apple's court. If they no longer seem interested in creating the pro apps that they used to and which was a big selling point for the Mac Pro's, both software + hardware will fade away. People don't buy Mac Pro's or pro applications out of charity or "to support Apple".

 

[xgman]

I've moved on for the time being, but I wonder at this late time has Apple even decided internally, what it is going to do one way or the other?

 

[MacsRgr8]

Sure, and there are apps that will not run in 10.3 but will run in 10.2. Your point?



Huh? I'm not getting the question. It's also kind of funny, considering fat binaries existing in NeXTStep and are a great example of something Apple continued using throughout PowerPC.



Are you kidding? I've been using Macs since System 7 and I ran into them all the freakin time. People have been complaining about Finder on OS X being slow and laggy since the OS X Finder came out.

Where have you been? Worse? It's the same as it always was. The problem usually is it's not properly thread on disk and network activity and never has been.



I'm not saying it's defensible. I'm saying it's been around since OS X came out.

Seriously, here's people complaining about the same issue in Mac OS 10.3, on PowerPC:
http://macosx.com/forums/mac-os-x-system-mac-software/34259-panther-finder-multithreaded.html

This has nothing to do with Apple being more lazy than before, or being ported to Intel. It's always been this way. I remember this on every single PowerPC Mac I ever owned, and even before that.

All of this is true.

I've been around Apple since System 7 and Mac OS X is:

a) ever since NeXT was bought by Apple, NeXSTEP, Rhapsody and Mac OS X have always stayed Intel-compatible.
b) NeXTSTEP and OS X are very closely related. Fire up NeXTSTEP or Rhapsody and you will clearly see the resemblance, just like NT 4 and Windows 8. Of course time has changed a lot. But the family resemblance is there!
c) The Finder and 2D grfx performance of Mac OS X have always been an issue. If you were there during Mac OS X 10.0 and Mac OS X 10.1 on a G4 then you would really have memories of very, very, poor 2D grfx performance. Quartz Extreme on 10.2 on a faster mac with compatible grfx card helped somewhat, but it still was pretty bad.

 

[lewdvig]

It's too soon to start turning away from profitable business lines IMO.

If they just upgrade the main board and add updated ports I would be happy.

 

[fastlanephil]

A new Mac Pro isn't exactly Apple's Manhattan Project but just a mention of something at the Apple 2013 WWDC would bring a lot of smiles.

 

[d-m-a-x]

It must have been cancelled at one point. When was the last major update? 2009? Wars have been won and lost in less time

 

[ABCDEF-Hex]

This from the Wash. Post article on Cook's tax proposal

Cook said Apple aims to create more jobs in the United States. When manufacturing begins later this year on a $100 million project for a line of Mac computers, components will be made in Arizona and the final assembly will take place in Texas.

 

[DisMyMac]

When manufacturing begins later this year on a $100 million project for a line of Mac computers, components will be made in Arizona and the final assembly will take place in Texas.

Maybe that's a television. They can't build TVs in Asia, because Samsung owns everything there.

 

[Umbongo]

Maybe that's a television. They can't build TVs in Asia, because Samsung owns everything there.

No, it is an existing Mac line as confirmed by Tim Cook.

 

[kuau]

This is what Apple should do but never will.
If anyone remembers the days of NeXT computers, Jobs realized that making hardware was a looser and just sell software.
We're did OSX come from? NeXT,
Apple could sell a "builders only" version of OSX only that has a list of compatible of the shelf hardware, just like NeXT did.
problem solved. Apple gets all the revenue off of OSX without having to spend a ton of money designing and building a new Mac Pro which is basically a Hi end Intel PC.

I know will never happen.

 

[deconstruct60]

This is what Apple should do but never will.
If anyone remembers the days of NeXT computers, Jobs realized that making hardware was a looser and just sell software.

What that really successful? NeXT died as a company. You can handwave, spin-doctor that they did a reverse takeover of Apple but they didn't. The only and primary reason the NeXT folks took over is that Steve Jobs took over another company he founded.

Decoupling from the hardware is often a losing strategy also unless there is large dominating marketshare position (e.g,. MS Windows, Android ). NeXT really didn't have a choice because neither the software nor hardware had a viable market share. NeXt dropped hardware because it was the weaker of the two; not that one was in an overall market dominate position. They were just trying to survive.

We're did OSX come from? NeXT,

No it didn't. OS X came from Apple. The major Application API of OS X was Carbon and that was very much not NeXT. Without Carbon OS X would have been a flop. There are major pieces from NeXT (that is in part why the company was bought), but waving that OS X is just NeXTStep is humorous.

The final push to POSIX was done by Apple, not NeXT.

Apple could sell a "builders only" version of OSX only that has a list of compatible of the shelf hardware, just like NeXT did.

That wasn't a successful strategy for NeXT. ( Toward the end it was WebObjects that more folks were interested in. NeXTStep was basically dead-in-the-water on its own momentum. )

problem solved.

More like more problems created. It is just a balloon squeeze. The problem is being shifted to a different group of folks. The 'Clone wars' are over.

Apple gets all the revenue off of OSX without having to spend a ton of money designing and building a new Mac Pro which is basically a Hi end Intel PC.

The R&D costs don't really matter if the revenues from unit sales are there. It isn't like Apple couldn't trivially finance a $20-80M development project. (not that it is that high, could be done for less).

The core issue is about growth. A cannibalistic "builder edition" which sold more machines that competed directly with Mac mini's , iMac, MBP, etc than sold new units would result in a net loss of Apple label Macs sold. The handwaving is all about how this would be additive and largely would not be. The clone vendors would want to go after the same highly profitable and broad market for Mac users as Apple would. That means it would far more likely be a zero-sum game than a market expansive one.

I know will never happen.

Probably not because Apple has already tried it and it did nothing for the company. There is little rational reason for them to shot themselves in the kneecap again.

 

[deconstruct60]

Cook said Apple aims to create more jobs in the United States. .... components will be made in Arizona

That likely isn't "more jobs". Intel has large fab in Arizona (and Oregon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_manufacturing_sites It wouldn't be surprising for AZ to have moved to 22nm and 450mm wafers on the path to 14nm production. Especially for a couple billion transistor sized Xeon E5 and E7 products. )

Not sure if this is really Mac Pro specific components.

and the final assembly will take place in Texas.

Wouldn't be very surprising if one of the factories that Dell sold off comes back as an factory for Apple's manufacturing contractor. Again not so sure they are "new jobs". This is same industry that nuked the jobs in the first place.

 

[Cavalier777]

I'm not even trying to argue the points that you are picking. I can't give two shakes about when or what part of the code is native or emulated.
What it comes down to is that using the original Mac on the first few iterations of the OS, you almost never ran into hourglassing/beachballing when just doin mundane finder type things. That was with laughable amounts of ram and a CPU that was lower powered than your current DVD/Blueray player.
I just think it is inexcusable that I have to wait even a second for anything as banal as opening a finder window or turning OFF the wifi. Especially when I am using a MAC that is the highest spec Apple sells.
You seem to think that is defensible, even if it is only a "hard disk issue".

oh my dayum AMEN BROTHER

 

[theluggage]

That means it would far more likely be a zero-sum game than a market expansive one.

Probably worse than zero-sum.

(1) People who were considering Macs could buy cheaper OEM OS X machines.
(2) Sellers of OEM 'OS X' machines have no particular incentive to promote OS X over Windows (probably quite the reverse, given MS's sales tactics) and would probably end up only selling to established Mac users rather than expanding the market for OS X. Look at the wonderful job that Dell etc. have done selling Linux-based machines (they do launch one from time to time, usually more expensive than the equivalent Windows machine and relegated to some obscure backwater of the website).

Probably not because Apple has already tried it and it did nothing for the company. There is little rational reason for them to shot themselves in the kneecap again.

...don't forget that both Jobs (NeXT) and Apple (in the StarMac era) tried it.

In the latter case, it did exactly what you said - third parties went after Apple customers rather than trying to expand the market.

Apple could sell a "builders only" version of OSX only that has a list of compatible of the shelf hardware.

Clue: Microsoft Windows has a huge list of compatible hardware. Microsoft doesn't write all of those drivers - in many cases, the manufacturers of the hardware handle the support, because of the ubiquity of Windows. Even where hardware can run using generic/standards-based drivers, manufacturers may only test it with Windows (or worse, design it around Windows' gimped version of the standards).

Apple would have to do a lot of work either lobbying manufacturers to support Apple or writing, testing and supporting its own drivers.

Look at how limited Linux's success has been in trying to give away an alternative OS.

 

[GermanyChris]

I like building computers, I like building hackintosh's

A build you're own Mac Pro using Mac Pro type parts wouldn't be as fun. If it looses it's fun factor then I'll just go ahead and get a Mac Pro.

 

[Moonjumper]

I really hope that Apple do pay the Mac Pro the attention it deserves. Long term I think it has more chance of survival that any other Mac line because it is the furthest away from being able to be cannibalised by the iPad. The iPad will become more capable, but it will never be the workhorse.