Why is everybody fighting about the MiniPro?

[ssgbryan]

Hmmmmm? I can't think of anything that made Cocoa unusable since.. probably 10.3? Maybe 10.2?

The biggest problem was that some things only worked in Carbon and some only in Cocoa, which wasn't world ending since you could mix the two. What exactly was missing/unusable?

Most of the blame at Apple gets assigned by companies who were expecting Apple would hand everything to them on a platter, so they refused to port until Apple basically did the porting work for them (looking at you Adobe.)

And here I thought it was because Apple had said at WWDC that they were developing 64-bit Carbon one year, and then up & announce the cancellation of that at the following WWDC.

Adobe was just 1 of the offenders. Nobody is going to rewrite their entire code base when Apple can't keep their story straight on what their API development plan is. That is a lot of work that doesn't always have a payoff.

 

[flat five]

freaking awesome for a consumer machine.

nothing to do with consumer or pro or prosumer or whatever..

this is no different than back in the day when some geeks were messing around with computers the size of a house then someone says "that'd be sweet if we could have this much computing power in something that will fit under a desk"... then one of the geeks says "pffft.. yeah, not for pros though"

there's going to be more computing power than a mac in things way smaller than peanuts one day.. it would be freaking awesome to see it right now instead of waiting/watching the evolution of it.. either way, it's coming for sure.

 

[MacVidCards]

freaking awesome for a consumer machine.
I think that is the big disconnect in the discussion about the new Mac Pro. Some of us look at it as a neat piece of gear, kind of a hobbyist/prosumer perspective.
Some of us only see it as a solution to a specific engineering problem.
I'm kind of in the middle. I'm a computer guy at work, and I nerd out with music hardware for fun. So I can see the gee-whiz aspect as well as the "what does it solve".
The whole smaller is better is kind of silly to me either way. Sure the old Mac Pro is a boat of chassis, but it also has many more capabilities than the new design. The newer smaller MP essentially shuts the door on a whole lot of usage scenarios, but certainly is more attractive to many users that likely skipped over the old Mac Pro for an iMac or MacBook Pro, just because they didn't want "some big old computer" in their office/studio/livingroom.
I'm not making stuff up. I've heard those exact words uttered.

100% in agreement

The "Classic" Mac Pro could be configured to various uses.

The new one is great for certain uses, and has clearly tossed the rest by the wayside.

If you are in the subset of folks who are still served by the "Mac-ina-can", great. For the rest of the user base, time to have a closer look at other options.

 

[flat five]

The whole smaller is better is kind of silly to me either way.

how so? pretty much every single thing that can be made smaller is eventually made smaller and benefits.. things like bikes and beds can't be made any smaller because they are built according to our body size.. but a computer? you don't hug it or anything like that.. it's physical size has nothing to do with it's function.. i mean, maybe don't make it smaller than a coin because that's where a line starts being drawn as to when humans really start losing things.. but then in other ways, it could go a lot smaller than that too.. an imac in a contact lens? sure, sign me up.

The newer smaller MP essentially shuts the door on a whole lot of usage scenarios,

are you exaggerating? what usage scenario is the door being shut on?

but certainly is more attractive to many users that likely skipped over the old Mac Pro for an iMac or MacBook Pro, just because they didn't want "some big old computer" in their office/studio/livingroom.
I'm not making stuff up. I've heard those exact words uttered.

of course you're not making stuff up.. i mean half the imac owners (and probably even more laptop owners) out there bought based on that reason alone.. so what?

 

[goMac]

And here I thought it was because Apple had said at WWDC that they were developing 64-bit Carbon one year, and then up & announce the cancellation of that at the following WWDC.

Adobe was just 1 of the offenders. Nobody is going to rewrite their entire code base when Apple can't keep their story straight on what their API development plan is. That is a lot of work that doesn't always have a payoff.

I thought Cocoa being insufficient was the problem, now the problem is Carbon?

Adobe didn't seem to have any huge issues making the leap. Photoshop CC, CS5 and CS6 are all 64 bit Cocoa apps. Back in the day, Adobe claimed that an intern managed to rewrite Photoshop in Cocoa (before Carbon existed) in a week. So really I'm having a hard time feeling bad for Adobe. Cocoa was pretty clearly not going away anyway, so I don't buy the "Oh, who knows what the future of Cocoa is?" thing.

 

[-hh]

I thought Cocoa being insufficient was the problem, now the problem is Carbon?

Adobe didn't seem to have any huge issues making the leap. Photoshop CC, CS5 and CS6 are all 64 bit Cocoa apps. Back in the day, Adobe claimed that an intern managed to rewrite Photoshop in Cocoa (before Carbon existed) in a week. So really I'm having a hard time feeling bad for Adobe. Cocoa was pretty clearly not going away anyway, so I don't buy the "Oh, who knows what the future of Cocoa is?" thing.

Agreed, plus it should be noted that Adobe's delivery schedule for 64 bit on the Mac was a full revision behind Windows ... simply because business doesn't spend money unless it absolutely has to. While Apple was promoting Cocoa, as long as the Status Quo of Carbon continued, there wasn't a strong reason to change (the old "technology for technology's sake" -push model).

It is for this very pragmatic reason that I don't see the likes of Adobe making the investment to pay for OpenGL until the business case for the product justifies it ... ie, a "Pull". Which essentially translates as sales revenue - and which also means that in markets where there isn't strong competition, adoption will be slow. In an industry where the retail product cycle is a ~3 year refresh, five years is merely the 'version after next'...not as far away as it may seem.

-hh

 

[goMac]

It is for this very pragmatic reason that I don't see the likes of Adobe making the investment to pay for OpenGL until the business case for the product justifies it ... ie, a "Pull". Which essentially translates as sales revenue - and which also means that in markets where there isn't strong competition, adoption will be slow. In an industry where the retail product cycle is a ~3 year refresh, five years is merely the 'version after next'...not as far away as it may seem.

Right, and that is why, while I don't think it was the primary reason, Apple has no fear of moving to AMD chips. They're forcing Adobe to adapt in places where Adobe will drag it's feet as long as it can.

Carbon basically existed only for Microsoft Office and Adobe at the time it was cut, and all new Adobe apps were written in Cocoa. The idea that Apple should, or would be obligated to, maintain an entire API for the sake of two companies is bizarre.

 

[IGregory]

Right, and that is why, while I don't think it was the primary reason, Apple has no fear of moving to AMD chips. They're forcing Adobe to adapt in places where Adobe will drag it's feet as long as it can.

Carbon basically existed only for Microsoft Office and Adobe at the time it was cut, and all new Adobe apps were written in Cocoa. The idea that Apple should, or would be obligated to, maintain an entire API for the sake of two companies is bizarre.

Considering PC sales, including Macs are going down every year, why do you think Apple is in a strong position to force Adobe to do anything? If I am Adobe, doing a cost benefit analysis, I could very well figure it is not worth it to me.

 

[goMac]

Considering PC sales, including Macs are going down every year, why do you think Apple is in a strong position to force Adobe to do anything? If I am Adobe, doing a cost benefit analysis, I could very well figure it is not worth it to me.

And I think that was the motivation in 1998.

2006 was a different time though. If Adobe would have left the platform, why am I looking at a Cocoa port in my applications folder right now? Obviously Apple was in a position to force the matter.

 

[calaverasgrande]

nothing to do with consumer or pro or prosumer or whatever..

this is no different than back in the day when some geeks were messing around with computers the size of a house then someone says "that'd be sweet if we could have this much computing power in something that will fit under a desk"... then one of the geeks says "pffft.. yeah, not for pros though"

there's going to be more computing power than a mac in things way smaller than peanuts one day.. it would be freaking awesome to see it right now instead of waiting/watching the evolution of it.. either way, it's coming for sure.

I guess I kind of rambled and didnt make a clear point.
What I meant to point out is that having a computer much smaller than a Mac mini is just not practical. At least unless you expect everything to be done wirelessly? Otherwise you need at least enough of it to plug all your cables into it.
Heck my mini can barely sit in one place with the USB, video, ethernet, power, 1394 and sound cables.

But if your mini is only plugged into power and video? Yeah maybe a very large peanut would work.

----------

are you exaggerating? what usage scenario is the door being shut on?

Anything that requires a PCIe card that is the least bit finicky. I also haven't been able to find any good solutions for full length PCIe cards yet.

It's actually a deal killer for a few of our studio and edit suite positions that the mini mac pro doesn't have internal drive bays any more. Cobbling together a thunderbolt chassis to use "internal" drives or PCIe cards is a non starter. Thunderbolt is a non locking connector. There is no way we are putting that in a production environment!

That and these couldn't be more rack unfriendly. Though to be honest, the Mac pro hasn't been getting racked as much as the Mini has.

 

[ssgbryan]

I thought Cocoa being insufficient was the problem, now the problem is Carbon?

Adobe didn't seem to have any huge issues making the leap. Photoshop CC, CS5 and CS6 are all 64 bit Cocoa apps. Back in the day, Adobe claimed that an intern managed to rewrite Photoshop in Cocoa (before Carbon existed) in a week. So really I'm having a hard time feeling bad for Adobe. Cocoa was pretty clearly not going away anyway, so I don't buy the "Oh, who knows what the future of Cocoa is?" thing.

Congrats, you got it backwards.

Adobe (and MicroSoft, and e-on, and well, everybody else) was continuing down the Carbon road. After all, they already had their programs written using them (with a reasonably debugged API), and Apple had announced that they were continuing to develop 64-bit Carbon. One year later, they announced that they were no longer developing it. One full year of development time lost. But you knew that, right?

Adobe sure did have problems making the leap - CS3 & CS4 were a waste of electrons, - how many iterations did it take them to move from Carbon to Cocoa? What was the 1st version of Office that went Cocoa? It sure wasn't Office 2008.

The reality was companies were still using Carbon because Cocoa at the time wasn't quite ready for prime time, and Apple had announced that they were still developing for Carbon.

Software companies are not going to put all of their eggs in a version 1 of an API.

This is why things like Object-Oriented COBOL exist.

Note, I didn't say that it's a good thing, it is simple cost-benefit analysis.

 

[goMac]

Congrats, you got it backwards.

Adobe (and MicroSoft, and e-on, and well, everybody else) was continuing down the Carbon road. After all, they already had their programs written using them (with a reasonably debugged API), and Apple had announced that they were continuing to develop 64-bit Carbon. One year later, they announced that they were no longer developing it. One full year of development time lost. But you knew that, right?

One year of development time on the code... they already had?

The idea behind 64 bit Carbon was that they could move their Carbon code to 64 bit with a recompile. So I'm having a hard time getting upset about the 0 hours of work they wasted on empty promises.

Adobe sure did have problems making the leap - CS3 & CS4 were a waste of electrons, - how many iterations did it take them to move from Carbon to Cocoa? What was the 1st version of Office that went Cocoa? It sure wasn't Office 2008.

Yes. They had to do some work. Maybe write some code too. The horror. Next thing you'll tell me is that they actually have to hire engineers to write apps for them, and gasp, maintain them! Oh no!

The expectation that Adobe has that companies should cater to them, even through huge platform shifts or revisions, to make it so they never have to write any new code is bizarre. "Stuff" happens. Good developers plan ahead.

The reality was companies were still using Carbon because Cocoa at the time wasn't quite ready for prime time, and Apple had announced that they were still developing for Carbon.

Please expand on this. I'm very curious as to what the perceived problems with Cocoa.

The only things I can think of that Apple had in Carbon were Finder and Final Cut Pro. Finder was pretty much a Carbon demo piece, and Final Cut Pro's dependence was really QuickTime (which is what caused all the problems with FCPX). Oh, and iTunes, pretty much because of the Carbon Windows port.

Every other app Apple did, including all of iLife, was Cocoa by that point.

Software companies are not going to put all of their eggs in a version 1 of an API.

Yes. Cocoa was only 15 years old at that point, and Microsoft and Adobe were the last companies not writing code for it. Clearly version 1.0 material.

 

[tuxon86]

One year of development time on the code... they already had?

The idea behind 64 bit Carbon was that they could move their Carbon code to 64 bit with a recompile. So I'm having a hard time getting upset about the 0 hours of work they wasted on empty promises.



Yes. They had to do some work. Maybe write some code too. The horror. Next thing you'll tell me is that they actually have to hire engineers to write apps for them, and gasp, maintain them! Oh no!

The expectation that Adobe has that companies should cater to them, even through huge platform shifts or revisions, to make it so they never have to write any new code is bizarre. "Stuff" happens. Good developers plan ahead.



Please expand on this. I'm very curious as to what the perceived problems with Cocoa.

The only things I can think of that Apple had in Carbon were Finder and Final Cut Pro. Finder was pretty much a Carbon demo piece, and Final Cut Pro's dependence was really QuickTime (which is what caused all the problems with FCPX). Oh, and iTunes, pretty much because of the Carbon Windows port.

Every other app Apple did, including all of iLife, was Cocoa by that point.



Yes. Cocoa was only 15 years old at that point, and Microsoft and Adobe were the last companies not writing code for it. Clearly version 1.0 material.

You really have no idea of how the software engineering and development works now do you?

Simple recompile... Lol... Famous last word...

 

[goMac]

You really have no idea of how the software engineering and development works now do you?

Simple recompile... Lol... Famous last word...

Edit snip: wrong thread.

Simple recompile? I was the one implying that was something crazy to think...

 

[reel2reel]

Here's another reason why:

Haha, that perfectly nails it for me.

I loathe cables and the new Mac Pro seems like a potential cable nightmare.

 

[MacVidCards]

Haha, that perfectly nails it for me.

I loathe cables and the new Mac Pro seems like a potential cable nightmare.

This is yet another place that Apple has planned ahead for you.

By pricing the cables at $40-50 each, you are less likely to buy so many. You will want to think long and hard before connecting a bunch of unnecessary and frivolous peripherals . (Things like hard drives & Red Rocket cards that you could live without if you disciplined yourself)

Another win for the new MP.

 

[slughead]

This is yet another place that Apple has planned ahead for you.

By pricing the cables at $40-50 each, you are less likely to buy so many. You will want to think long and hard before connecting a bunch of unnecessary and frivolous peripherals . (Things like hard drives & Red Rocket cards that you could live without if you disciplined yourself)

Another win for the new MP.

Exactly! More cables = Less cables. Think Different!

 

[flat five]

Exactly! More cables = Less cables. Think Different!

dunno.. i actually sat down and thought about it (ok.. i didn't really sit down to think about it.. it's actually a very simple thing to think through).

from a different thread:

and this wires things is sort of nuts.. if you're not imac_ing and bluetoothing, you're going to have wires.. sometimes lots of them. you're a computer user

how many more thunderbolt cables will you need? i mean, i count 4.. 2 to displays 1 to a hard drive and 1 hanging out randomly to plug whatever (laptop/portable drive/etc) into..

right now i have the same amount (4) in the form of 2 dvi cables, a fw800 hanging out of the front and a usb in the front.. i just really don't get the whole 'cable clutter' madness.. it's as if people think "oh, thunderbolt.. i don't like it.. let me find some reasons why i don't" instead of working the problem in the other direction..
maybe you have a different situation which will outline this cable clutter you're talking about? (and don't post that stupid picture of the wireless macpro next to a bird's nest of components which nobody even knows what they are)

[edit- actually, if i go to thunderbolt, i'll need one less cable.. currently, i have a usb and a fw800 in my backpack.. along with a minidisplayport->dvi.. so i'll only need one cable now]



i mean, what? are you going to say i'm lying or something? am i fooling myself?

 

[clamnectar]

dunno.. i actually sat down and thought about it (ok.. i didn't really sit down to think about it.. it's actually a very simple thing to think through).

from a different thread:

and this wires things is sort of nuts.. if you're not imac_ing and bluetoothing, you're going to have wires.. sometimes lots of them. you're a computer user

how many more thunderbolt cables will you need? i mean, i count 4.. 2 to displays 1 to a hard drive and 1 hanging out randomly to plug whatever (laptop/portable drive/etc) into..

right now i have the same amount (4) in the form of 2 dvi cables, a fw800 hanging out of the front and a usb in the front.. i just really don't get the whole 'cable clutter' madness.. it's as if people think "oh, thunderbolt.. i don't like it.. let me find some reasons why i don't" instead of working the problem in the other direction..
maybe you have a different situation which will outline this cable clutter you're talking about? (and don't post that stupid picture of the wireless macpro next to a bird's nest of components which nobody even knows what they are)

[edit- actually, if i go to thunderbolt, i'll need one less cable.. currently, i have a usb and a fw800 in my backpack.. along with a minidisplayport->dvi.. so i'll only need one cable now]



i mean, what? are you going to say i'm lying or something? am i fooling myself?

The "cable madness" will mainly be for those who had PCIe devices. Also, keep in mind that the 4 internal drive bays will become external via a cable and the separate purchase of a RAID or similar mass storage. So undoubtedly some people are looking at 2-3 more cables. In my case, an external TB drive bay would cover me, so the cable count would only go up by one.

 

[flat five]

The "cable madness" will mainly be for those who had PCIe devices.

to plug in what though? most people, i've seen, are using the built in pci for usb3 and gpus... as in, they're literally adding things to their computers which then require more cables to be plugged in to.

Also, keep in mind that the 4 internal drive bays will become external via a cable and the separate purchase of a RAID or similar mass storage. So undoubtedly some people are looking at 2-3 more cables. In my case, an external TB drive bay would cover me, so the cable count would only go up by one.

ok.. so 1 extra cable and (assuming) one extra power plug.. granted, it's not cool to have to add more cables into the mix of anything but i think this scenario is livable..
i'm interested in hearing an example (a real honest example) outlining 'cable hell' because of thunderbolt.. i mean, as far as i can gather, if someone is going to have a cable nightmare with thunderbolt then they already have exactly that without thunderbolt.. (edit-- or not thunderbolt per_se.. more to do with not having an all-in-one machine)

 

[flat five]

t
i'm interested in hearing an example (a real honest example) outlining 'cable hell' because of thunderbolt..

actually, i not even interested in hearing it.. not too many people seem to be able to speak honestly around here.. the main reason i replied to slug in the first place was because of this:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1604272/

but for whatever reason, i don't think he's going to make the connection that when he posts pics of his true cable nightmare then starts talking about how thunderbolt is going to cause cable clutter-- people aren't going to take him seriously at all.. except for a few other back slappers with equally wishywashy logic capabilities.

 

[SeattleMoose]

Ballmer is reading this thread with glee. When all the disgruntled "Pros" migrate to non-Mac HW (big beige boxes), he knows you'll need to run Windows 8.

 

[clamnectar]

actually, i not even interested in hearing it.. not too many people seem to be able to speak honestly around here.. the main reason i replied to slug in the first place was because of this:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1604272/
Image

but for whatever reason, i don't think he's going to make the connection that when he posts pics of his true cable nightmare then starts talking about how thunderbolt is going to cause cable clutter-- people aren't going to take him seriously at all.. except for a few other back slappers with equally wishywashy logic capabilities.

If you're the sort of person who would end up in cable hell, there's a good chance you're already in cable hell, and will remain there.... FOREVER!

The worst thing about the new Mac Pro is the possibility of having to buy external enclosures, which is worse from an aesthetic point of view, not to mention far more expensive.

 

[flat five]

If you're the sort of person who would end up in cable hell, there's a good chance you're already in cable hell, and will remain there.... FOREVER!

right

The worst thing about the new Mac Pro is the possibility of having to buy external enclosures, which is worse from an aesthetic point of view, not to mention far more expensive.

it's a matter of perception.. for one, 'internal expansion' is pretty much a misnomer because as far as i can gather, you're still buying drives and putting them inside a box.. and you're still paying for that box and the capabilities to put hard drives inside of it.. some people want an all-in-one thing- others don't..

i mean, i have a printer and i have a scanner.. sure, i could get them as an all-in-one thing that even faxes and copies too.. but i don't- i'd rather get specialized components that do one thing and do them well.. maybe i'm a bad shopper and spent too much money and have double the cables needed for my printing and scanning needs but so be it..

and yeah, maybe someone with 5 drives inside a macpro will spend more money on storage enclosures with the new mac.. but at the same time, how many empty macpro drive bays (and pci slots) are out there.. we really don't know but i'm willing to bet $ that there are far more empty bays and slots than occupied ones..

if you want more drives- buy more drives.. and pay for an enclosure for those drives.. i don't know what else to say.. i mean, you can't just go to the store right now and buy a hard drive and do something with it.. you have to also pay for something else in order for it to be of any use. nothing has changed in this regard with the new mac.

further, there are advantages of buying a separate enclosure if you're data hungry.. currently, if you buy a computer and cram a bunch of drives inside, you've moreORless tied your storage to that single computer.. what happens if you want to use those drives for another computer? or what happens when you replace your computer? unscrew all of them then rescrew all of them? or just unplug one cord then plug it in to the new or other computer? i'd rather go with the latter.. your storage solution can be viewed as a separate investment and doesn't have to be locked to one box.. it's it's own box.

it's not much different than imac users needing to replace their displays if they want to replace their computers.. where as a macpro user just unplugs their display from the old computer and plugs it into a new one.. you buy your display according to what your needs are.. there is more freedom to customize and build to suit your specific need when peripheral objects aren't tied to an all-in-one deal.. this same idea can be applied to storage as well because storage isn't a computing necessity.. it's an add on and no two people have the same exact needs for their add ons where as an all-in-one package assumes they do and imposes limits by design..

 

[-hh]

to plug in what though? most people, i've seen, are using the built in pci for usb3 and gpus...

If I were to generalize, the PCIe card -based complaints I've been seeing tend to be either music-oriented or high end video.

...as in, they're literally adding things to their computers which then require more cables to be plugged in to.

Yes, there's always going to be something else plugged in at the far end. However, what this change really represents is a change,

From:

(Mac Pro w/PCIe Card) <---cable--> peripheral

To:

(Mac Pro) <---TB---> (PCIe Adaptor Box w/PCIe Card)* <--cable--> peripheral


where * denotes the possibility of an additional power connection


Granted, we can assume that some of the vendors who are currently making their product available as PCIe cards can repackage them as TB boxes, which means that the future anticipated capability can be illustrated as:

Future:

(Mac Pro) <---TB---> (speciality box)* <--cable--> peripheral


where * denotes the possibility of an additional power connection

ok.. so 1 extra cable and (assuming) one extra power plug.. granted, it's not cool to have to add more cables into the mix of anything but i think this scenario is livable..

Sure, it is "livable" ... but the question really is more of if it still represents a reasonble value, hence the Thunderbolt Tax parlance. Add to this the complexities of product lifecycle variations and release dates and an ugly transition period (of presently indeterminate length) is assured. In the meantime, while "+1 Cable" doesn't sound too bad, that's in many cases a "1+1", which means two and thus a doubling of connections.

i'm interested in hearing an example (a real honest example) outlining 'cable hell' because of thunderbolt.. i mean, as far as i can gather, if someone is going to have a cable nightmare with thunderbolt then they already have exactly that without thunderbolt.. (edit-- or not thunderbolt per_se.. more to do with not having an all-in-one machine)

YMMV as to what the threshhold is for how many cables cross over into Hell, but as one can see by the above illustrations, the number of cables to support N Peripherals is likely in a lot of cases to double, to 2N...and that's before considering the potential for additional power feeds (and a risk of 3N).


-hh