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.
Apple to Release Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR on December 10
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Give me an evidence that you're using the same PC for 10 years without any problems.
I have been using 1 MacPro and 4 PCs in the last decade. The MacPro is still 24/7 in use the PCs have been recyled. Maybe the qualitiy of PCs have improved within the last 2 years but my experiences lead me to my conclusion.
So you can't provide any evidence that Macs last at least three time longer than PC's. Glad we got that sorted out.
I think Apple will definitely upgrade the iMac Pro. Lots of pro users moved to iMac years ago, and they do have the need for more cores, better GPUs and more memory. It wouldn’t surprise me if it outpaces Mac Pro on a units sold basis. Apple hanging out to dry the current iMac Pro users would be almost as bad as having left Mac Pro users hanging without an upgrade for six years. So I do think they’ll continue the platform.
But the chips were just released last month, and I’m not even sure they’re shipping yet. Apple no doubt wants to burn off the pent up demand for Mac Pro as well, so I think WWDC would be a likely target for a refreshed iMac Pro.
Faster clocks, 1TB max RAM and WiFi 6 will make for a decent upgrade. Navi GPU upgrade will be nice, and with CPU, flash and RAM supplier price cuts I think we could reasonably expect some price relief or at least spec bumps.
Yeah, that's always hard to tell with Intel. I bet a lot of "why didn't Apple upgrade to Intel chip xyz?" questions can be answered with "because Intel has privately told Apple that they can't actually ship that product in volume yet".
(See, in particular, Ice Lake. Yeah, it's slowly gaining momentum, but Intel also second-guessed themselves by shipping Comet Lake-U simultaneously, and they won't move higher parts to 10nm for what looks like another year and a half.)
Intel's release dates are hard to trust.
Cooper Lake-W miiiiiiiight be ready by then, actually.
But yeah, definitely a nicer GPU, and probably some minor bumps.
It can definitely take a while after the nominal release date. You might remember after the iMac Pro was released in Dec 2017, iirc only the 8- and 10-core SKUs shipped that month; the 12- and 14-core were January and the 18-core didn’t start showing up until February.
Its the same on servers and has always been that way. If you do really NEED 1.5TB RAM your software could cost more than the hardware anyway, so 20k for RAM wouldn't be an issue. However most of us do not NEED 1.5TB RAM, 64-128GB is more than enough for most 'power' users.
And in 20 years we had 3 verions of mac pro..so stop lie ..there are always 50-50 chances to be a new mac prozzzachi said:
dream onThe pro and those mpx modules wont get an update for ages, if ever. We dont even know if there will be ever a next mac pro.
20 years of experience with apple
[automerge]1575895289[/automerge]
800 comments and i bet there are just 10 users that will order this..so even in 2020 we have haters or people that likes to cry about something that is useless or out of reach for them?!!
I think it's more some kind of frustration of a community that hold on to Apple for this long awaiting a new MacPro and get a machine that's somehow not what they expected or will need (for this price).
It's quite strange that Apple is not providing a system that probably (just guessing) most pros need:
- A Mac for about $3500
- An Apple styled (iMac like) 5K monitor für about $1500
But maybe I am completely wrong...
You're not wrong; that is what a lot of pros need. And most of those users have gone to the $5,000 iMac Pro. They just want to get their work done and don’t fetishize the tower form factor.
Well, anecdotally, IBM claims it's 3 times more expensive to manage a PC compared to a Mac on average.
https://www.computerworld.com/artic...-are-even-cheaper-to-run-than-it-thought.html
Though the savings seems to come from lower support costs, and not windows hardware breaking down any more quickly than Macs (at least, not that I can gather from the article).
IBM would say that after inking a huge contract with Apple.
A PC or Mac is good for years. It's a ridiculous claim to suggest a Mac will last 3 times the length of a PC. Good luck running modern software & OS on a MacBook Air with it's feeble processor in 5 years time. The MBA's we have struggle and they are only a few years old.
MacBook Pro's age well, although anything older than 2013/2014 is starting to show it's age, but I'd expect any premium notebook to still be in service after 6/7 years.
It's not like the late 90's & early 2000's where a PC was good for about 3 years tops. Things have improved drastically in the last 15 years.
More importantly PC's are easily serviceable by the end user/admins with cheap and easy SSD/RAM/Wi-Fi and other component upgrades. You can also cannibalise a bunch of dud PC's to make a good one with a few component and/or screen swaps. Good luck doing that with a MacBook.
The administration/support infrastructure is also way more advanced for PC's making it highly cost effective. IBM's claims are nonsense and I say this as an ex IBM'er.
I think this is as timely a moment as any to trot out this video, which I think explains Apple's motivations so very well. If you fast forward to t=3 min, it also explains why the writer believes Apple is so slow to update the Mac, because it's the furthest from their vision of what a computer ought to be.
I rewatch it from time to time, just to remind myself of the grand theory of Apple, and I am amazed at how well this has held up.
I rewatch it from time to time, just to remind myself of the grand theory of Apple, and I am amazed at how well this has held up.
This has nothing to do with being a hater. I m just realistic instead of romantic.
I dunno about you, but for me a 50-50 chance is pretty bad to base a business and future income on.
With a PC i'm absolutely 100% sure i can always buy and use the newest technology.
With a Mac Pro I have to live with uncertainty and very likely with years without upgrades.
I still work with a Mac Pro 2012, because the Urn was a failure, that was years lagging behind the PC competition. But I still would love to go on working with MacOS.
Depending on the prices announced tomorrow I maybe will.
My Mac mini has a dual drive raid0, a 5bay raid 10 + single drive, a sata ssd, and an m2. Oh and the memory is upgradable if I hadn’t already hit the cpu max of 64GB.
If I want a dedicated gpu I can add that too.
Your argument seems to be “I want a Mac that allows expansion without external devices.” The good news is, such a Mac exists, and it’s called the Mac Pro.
It’s up to you whether you’re willing to pay for the convenience of that built in expansion capability.
You seem to have missed the part where the Mac pros up until the 6,1 were updated every 12-24 months.zzzachi said:
dream on
20 years of experience with apple
So what history exactly says they’re going to stop updating it again? Surely if they weren’t committed they’d have just cancelled the Mac Pro line rather than spending however many millions they’ve spent on r&d, tooling etc.
I suppose it's possible that Promostyle bought a set of extremely expensive ($28k!!) components for a workstation, put them together and intends to maintain them. Aficionados are real.
Whether one buys that story or not, though, it's clearly not a viable model for most people in the market for, well, any computer at all. Especially not a workstation. You expect that thing to just work™, and to have service available when it doesn't. (In fact, you want to complain about something? Complain that AppleCare isn't included at that price, and that you don't get a loaner computer for when issues do occur.)
What like group policy and the Windows ducking registry?
You might as well claim brain surgery is “better” than setting a broken bone because it’s “more advanced”.
When the thing that needs to be managed is a cluster **** from the start, having complex tools to reduce the burden isn’t a positive it’s a way to reduce the negatives.
The very previous Mac Pro model kind of makes me wonder. How much they commit to keeping the Mac Pro more up-to-date than before depends in part on how well it sells. That's certainly true of MPX modules as well.
Just done a bit of research and the 24-core machine should be at least twice as fast in single-threaded apps, and more than three times faster in multi-threaded, compared to my dual-hexacore 2010 MP. I always aim to get twice the performance, so this feels like a decent upgrade – although it's taken 10 years to arrive. Hopefully the next upgrade won't take as long.
Ah yeah, sorry I totally forgot..
regarding Mac Pros the last 10 years we always had the latest and newest ?
The unique selling point of the Mini is that it has a built-in PSU - I've yet to see a Mini-sized PC that didn't have a whacking great external power brick. So if the specs meet your needs, there's nothing quite as neat as a Mini. Trouble is, with the fiddling small (and expensive to upgrade) SSD and weak Intel baseline iGPU you soon end up with multiple boxes and cables for external storage and eGPU, so that neatness soon goes away.
Obvious alternative is this: https://simplynuc.co.uk/hades-canyon/ No, its not as neat and pretty as the Mini, but it uses Intel's combined mobile i7 + Radeon graphics chip and so has a better balance between CPU and GPU power - so you're less likely to need an eGPU - and has two internal M.2 slots for storage - so you're less likely to need external storage. It also has decent connectivity, including two TB3s (whichis rare on a PC).
Basically, though, if I were going to the Post Office, I wouldn't start from here - instead of getting a tiny PC then hanging endless external boxes off it, I'd decide what I wanted in terms of processor, internal storage, GPU and PCIe and get something just big enough to accommodate them all. Probably custom-build something around a Mini-ITX or MicroATX board, but if you don't want to do that there are places that will build and guarantee PCs (e.g. off the top of my head https://www.quietpc.com/systems - but bear in mind they specialise in ultra-quiet/silent systems, so there's a premium for that).
(That's why Apple's refusal to build a headless system with modest internal expansion is so frustrating)
...actually, when I bought a 2006 Mac Pro, I did the math and you really couldn't get a similarly-specced (dual Xeon) PC for the same price. The current iMacs are pretty reasonable value too if you want a 5k screen (and upgrade your own RAM). Reality check: the people complaining about Apple prices today are Apple users who have been paying the "Apple Tax" for years, but since ~2016 have seen that going up and up. The infamous display stand (although that's really not something I care about) even shocked an auditorium full of Apple superfans at WWDC.
No, I want MacOS and am prepared to pay a premium. I don't need it, and I'm not prepared to pay a $2000 premium.
...who are consequently one of the biggest buyers and makers of consumer electronics components, a field where economy of scale means everything. The other thing large companies can afford is top-flight accountants who's whole job is to convince shareholders that they're making money hand over fist while convincing the Revenue that they're barely making a penny. The only thing I'd believe about their "margin" figures is that they're computed by some accepted (by accountants) process. The consistent pattern of Apple's results over the last few years has been significantly rising revenue despite fairly stable sales.
So what you're basically saying is "Don't you dare criticise Apple!" Got it.
So... what you are saying is that he needs "comparable processing power and enough expansion for maybe a dual GPU, plus a decent amount of fast SSD" - i.e. exactly what I said (oh, plus 1 spare PCIe slot for 100Gb networking). He doesn't need enough slots for 1.5TB of RAM, quad GPUs, 8 PCIe slots and the power to drive a machine with all that - which is what "justifies" the hardware cost of a Mac Pro vs. a $3-4k PC. Oh, and we've yet to see whether there's any compatible 3rd party SSD alternative to Apple's (presumably) costly proprietary PCIe blades, or those two Promise expansion modules.