Apple to Release Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR on December 10

[will_is_here]

I don’t follow the AND rumor mill, any idea when threadripper will support more than 256GB of ECC or is that going to continue to be an EPYC segmentation play (which I wouldn’t blame them for doing)?

Crazy high memory caps will continue to be the domain of EPYC. Threadripper is more comparable to Intel's HEDT platform than Xeon, despite even Ryzen having ECC support.

 

[zzzachi]

I don’t follow the AND rumor mill, any idea when threadripper will support more than 256GB of ECC or is that going to continue to be an EPYC segmentation play (which I wouldn’t blame them for doing)?

out of interest... what is it with this memory thing?
i do renderings of HUGE scenes and never ever needed more than 64gb.
i couldnt imagine to need 256gb anytime in the next years. not to talk of 1.5tb of ram (for 25k).
is that a video specific thing?
can you video guys really get out more if you have 256gb+ of ram?

 

[GrumpyCoder]

out of interest... what is it with this memory thing?
i do renderings of HUGE scenes and never ever needed more than 64gb.
i couldnt imagine to need 256gb anytime in the next years. not to talk of 1.5tb of ram (for 25k).
is that a video specific thing?
can you video guys really get out more if you have 256gb+ of ram?

Plenty of applications for more memory. Here's an extreme... some of my colleagues are working with in-memory databases. Let's just say that 1.5TB is laughable to them. It's enough to try a few things here and there, but in the end, they need more. Persistent data storage is done on other systems, where the requirements are even larger (>1PB).

 

[zzzachi]

Plenty of applications for more memory. Here's an extreme... some of my colleagues are working with in-memory databases. Let's just say that 1.5TB is laughable to them. It's enough to try a few things here and there, but in the end, they need more. Persistent data storage is done on other systems, where the requirements are even larger (>1PB).

ok clear that there are usage cases... but this seems very specialized.
i think most users dont need more than 32gb, there is just a hand full who would make use of 1.5tb and these probably dont use a mac pro.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I’ll counter each of your points. But with this, I’m done. Feel free to reply though. I can’t imagine you’ll be able to gain any ground, but hey, why not give it a shot?

...that's 20% of the market share of the #4 largest PC maker on the planet. Sales of a few hundred thousand tower Macs would probably make it the #1 selling desktop workstation (considering that HP, Dell, Lenovo take the idea to the opposite extreme by having a ridiculous number of different models). Plus we're talking about a bog standard Xeon/AMD/i9 PCIe system made from commodity components in a nicer-than-average box (which is all the new Mac Pro will be in a few months when the PC makers have picked up the new Xeon-W range with its increased PCIe and RAM support) - the design/tooling should be a fraction of that needed for an ultra-thin design full of custom parts and envelope-pushing cooling. Unless, of course, you insist on bolting a bit of abstract modern sculpture to the front to act as a dust intake.
I think that the problem with Apple - anything that's not an iPhone is seen as small change.

• A few hundred thousand anything doesn’t make for any meaningful economies of scale.
• There’s nothing “bog-standard” about a Mac with MPX bays and a power supply that can be replaced without touching a single cable. I think the phrase you were looking for is “100% proprietary bespoke”. But it’s not really meaningful in any case.
• Compliment of design as art: valid.
• Snark about air intake: invalid. All computers need sufficient air flow for proper operation. Restricting that flow makes no sense.
• Apple doesn’t see the Mac as small change, because it’s not. On its own, it’s a Fortune 100 business. With today’s Mac Pro release, nearly every Mac—iMac, mini, MacBook Air, 13” MBP, 16” MBP and now Mac Pro—have been upgraded in the last year. iMac Pro is the sole exception, and the updated CPUs were just released last month, and possibly not even shipping in quantity as of today. Look for a refresh at WWDC.

...yes, because I'm the only person here complaining...

• No there’s a few dozen of you lol. But like I said, there’s not enough if you, even if there were a half-million. Especially if none of you are willing to pay Apple’s asking price for what you want, which wouldn’t be $3,000.
• The machine you want would be priced at a minimum of $5,000. Why? Because eliminating six DIMM slots saves Apple about $5. Eliminating four PCIe slots saves Apple about $5. A slightly smaller logic board theoretically could be a little cheaper, but in reality it adds cost, because now they’ve got to design, test and certify a completely different piece of hardware, and carry it through a decade-long life cycle. The only thing about a cut-down Mac Pro that saves Apple any real cost is a slightly smaller case and a somewhat smaller power supply. That saves maybe $300 in BOM cost.
• Apple saving a few hundred bucks on BOM cost isn’t going to drop a machine that sells for $6k to $3k, is it? That’s still a $5k machine, and home users, hobbyists and tinkerers won’t pay that. That’s one reason why the mid-tower Pro is a loser product for Apple.

As I said, the iMac is good value if you actually *want* a (fixed) 27" 5k screen. That's a very big if. If you want a matched pair of 24" screens, or a 40" 4k screen that you can use at 1:1, or an ultra-wide screen (or, for that matter, an XDR display) then that value is lost, and all Apple can offer you is a Mini with an eGPU (and a laundry list of caveats and compatibility issues) or a $6k Mac Pro that forces you to pay for vastly more expansion capacity than many people need.

• Of course iMac is only appropriate if you want an all-in-one since... it’s an all-in-one.
• Having a tower with vastly too much expansion capacity is a much better “problem” to have than having one with vastly, or even somewhat, too little capacity. Much of the Mac Pro customer base has already splintered off to iMac, iMac Pro, MacBook Pro and Mac mini. What little demand is left is not sufficient for two new models of Mac Pro, and the home consumer, hobbyist or tinkerer on a severely restricted budget market segment is currently small, and getting smaller. Those folks have lots of other options, including sucking it up and spending an extra $50/month of their hard-earned money to get the awesome new Mac Pro they really want, instead of a cut-down version they might otherwise be stuck with.

But as you've just said, those 20 million don't care about the Mac Pro - which is what we're talking about here. (...we've already established that the iMac is good value - but with qualifications - and, as an aside, the 16" MBP has just been given a substantial value-for-money boost c.f. the old 15").
As for making everybody happy - what they've done with the Mac Pro is created the ultimate "niche" product that is only viable for people who do high-end video work, are committed to Mac OS but who aren't looking at render/compute farms or cloud computing. A $3-4k, up-to-dual CPU tower would have a far broader appeal.
Oh, and NB - if you need ultimate power, whatever the cost, there are PC Xeon systems with 56 cores (with dual CPUs) and/or enough slots for 8-10 GPUs.

• A $6k machine is hardly only viable for people who do high-end video work. The afterburner and XDR, yes. Those are for video/film pros (mostly; a few others including photogs will also buy the monitor).
• This Mac Pro is for any pro who uses their computer to generate revenue. Any pro. Any industry. You bitch about an extra $50 a month, but pros don’t. $50 is a lot to you, but it’s nothing to working pros. They gladly open their wallet because that $3k delta between what the machine costs—whether that’s an entry level Pro for $6k instead if $3k, or a well-equipped box of $20k instead of $17k—and what you want the base to cost is a complete non-issue to pros who value the extra headroom the $6k platform provides.
• The market for dual-CPU workstations is an almost non-existent part of an extremely tiny niche of a really small, specialty, high-end market. If that’s your requirement, you probably are best served by one of the $100k+ Lenovo, HP or Dell machines on the market. It’s simply not Apple’s target market, and the Mac Pro wouldn’t be a good solution for that requirement. And if you need 8 or 10 GPUs, again, the Mac Pro might not be for you. But that’s ok; Apple’s fine with that. They can’t provide 100% coverage of 100% of requirements, and they don’t attempt it.

It is not about skimming profits or fraud - it is about the number of degrees of freedom in the way a large, complex enterprise can legitimately calculate its "overall" margin to hit some "goldilocks zone" that satisfies both the Revenue and the markets. E.g. last time I tried to read one of Apple's financial reports, the "costs" included the notional value of potential future software updates. Even taken straight, the overall margin tells you zip about the mark-up on any particular item (unless you think that the mark-up on a base iMac is the same as the 6 times retail mark up on a 32GB RAM upgrade?)

• The value of software is not “notional”. Classifying a portion of the hardware selling price to software is an accounting requirement. There is a cost to providing both the initial OS and the five to seven or more years of free (to the customer) updates. Similarly, there is a cost to providing support and warranty services for that hardware. Proper accounting requires that those costs be apportioned to their correct category. (How those cost are initially apportioned is based upon historical data, and is there are material variances, they are adjusted to actuals in subsequent years so they are accurate.)

Simply put, if Apple attributed the entire selling price to hardware, they would not pass their audit. Software, support and warranty services are not hardware, and Apple isn’t going to throw all those costs into hardware and publish fraudulent financial statements just because you think those costs are “notional”. On the contrary, they are quite real.​

• As I mentioned previously, given Apple’s relatively low P/E bestowed by Wall Street, Apple’s profits are none too high. Sure they could cut their prices by 10%. That would cut their net profits nearly in half, and the stock price wouldn’t be far behind.
• The markup on memory and SSD upgrades is very high; the markup on entry level models varies but can be quite slim. Single digit (or even negative) profit margins at the lowest end, combined with very high profit margins for high-end SKUs, give a blended (aggregate) gross margin of less than 32% for hardware, and around 38% for all hardware, software and services across all products overall—regardless of any attempt you think Apple is making to “engineer” some magical numbers.
• And the blended margin—lower entry-level prices subsidized by high-margin upgrades—is the biggest reason the xMac/mid-tower Pro is such a huge loser. It’s a product line that Apple would absolutely lose money on. Why? Because unlike the Mac Pro, where most buyers buy upgrades from Apple, relatively few buyers of a cut-down Pro would buy their upgrades from Apple. So even if Apple got $5k for it, there wouldn’t be the high-end, high-margin upgrades to pull up the average margin to the 32% they need. They’d sell a bunch of entry level models, and as a standalone model, a mid-tower/xMac would never even come close to the aggregate margin of 32% they need. It’s simple maths.
• People think, “oh they’re selling it for $5k and the parts only cost $2k, they’re making a fortune”. No. BOM cost is only one element of overall cost. As we know, Apple is a huge company with a huge overhead. If the parts cost $2k and other costs add another $3.5k, they lose $500 on every $5k box they sell. It doesn’t matter how little you can buy the parts for at Newegg, because you don’t have billions per month in expenses to cover. Those costs are part of every product sold, and they make Apple products expensive. But high-priced is different to overpriced, isn’t it?

 

[PickUrPoison]

out of interest... what is it with this memory thing?
i do renderings of HUGE scenes and never ever needed more than 64gb.
i couldnt imagine to need 256gb anytime in the next years. not to talk of 1.5tb of ram (for 25k).
is that a video specific thing?
can you video guys really get out more if you have 256gb+ of ram?

I’m not a video guy so I can’t really speak to that, but for 8K with Premier Pro, Adobe recommends a minimum of 256GB, and running the minimum recommended config is not usually recommended

It’s great you only need 64GB; there are a lot of users who don’t need more than 32GB, which is probably why Apple starts the Mac Pro there. If you’re never going to need more than 64 or 128GB, and don’t care about MacOS, you should definitely check out threadripper; you can no doubt save money over an Intel-based PC.

But there’s a reason why Xeons that can address 2TB of RAM exist, and why high-end motherboards will have 12, 24 or more DIMM slots. Yeah 128GB ECC RDIMMs are really freaking expensive, but some users need them to get to the capacity they require.

Certain workloads require the entire dataset to be in memory to efficiently solve the problem. SSDs are great but accessing data from RAM takes nanoseconds, which is much different from microseconds. Think scientific and engineering computing like simulations and analyses, cacheing to guarantee QoS when accessing large databases, servers with lots or large footprint VMs, etc. 24/28 cores can efficiently use a tremendous amount of RAM.

Not everyone needs a lot of RAM, just like not everyone needs a lot of cores, storage or GPU. Customers will upgrade one, some, or all of those system resources to optimize their machine for their particular workload.

The 2018 Mac Pro really nailed it in my opinion. It’s an incredibly capable machine, with a ton of dynamic range. To go from 8-core/32GB/256GB/580X to 28-core/1.5TB/8TB/2 x dual Vega II plus the Afterburner card, in steps, starting at $6k? Whether corporate/enterprise, small/medium business or a one or two person shop, if you need powerful machines and need or want MacOS, I think it’s an outstanding platform.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Yeah, I love real Linux rather than old BSD code on a crap kernel. I even get ZFS, docker and KVM/QEMU!

ZFS is supported on MacOS, as is Docker. VirtualBox works great. However, you have completely made my point for me. Neither this (nor any Macintosh) is the machine for you. It is not a linux machine, and its benefits are based on its ecosystem. If you give up the ecosystem (including commercially supported third party software), you give up most of the benefits of the machine. Since you do not care or want any of that, you should buy a commodity machine (or build one yourself from scratch) that exactly meets your needs.

Your complaints are the equivalent of saying this sports car does not carry as much cargo as my semi. The statement is true but the comparison is meaningless.

 

[mBox]

I would like to see folks start posting their configs and confirmation of purchase...

Hmm got quite fast didn't it

I for one can't afford it at the moment.
Would have to sell all my RED camera gear.

So for now, I wait and see how I can re-mortgage my home for a loaded one and dual displays/stands

 

[GrumpyCoder]

ok clear that there are usage cases... but this seems very specialized.
i think most users dont need more than 32gb, there is just a hand full who would make use of 1.5tb and these probably dont use a mac pro.

But what isn't a specialized use case and what is a hand full? Isn't your use case specialized as well with only a handful of users doing it?
A "normal" user or the majority of users are browsing the web, using Mail, maybe writing, etc. This is not a machine for them, it can be done on a normal iMac, a MacMini, MacBook Air...

Every research center in the world, every university needs 1.5TB of RAM in some machines, certainly not every machine, but it's not only a handful. I should be back in Geneva at CERN early next year, really curious how many of these fully spec'd out MPs I'll see. Sure, that is the extreme, but I already know a few people in small universities that are waiting for them. And again, these are cheaper than Dell, Lenovo, etc. I'm really surprised by the price. I thought it would be much more expensive.

 

[Williesleg]

ZFS is supported on MacOS, as is Docker. VirtualBox works great. However, you have completely made my point for me. Neither this (nor any Macintosh) is the machine for you. It is not a linux machine, and its benefits are based on its ecosystem. If you give up the ecosystem (including commercially supported third party software), you give up most of the benefits of the machine. Since you do not care or want any of that, you should buy a commodity machine (or build one yourself from scratch) that exactly meets your needs.

Your complaints are the equivalent of saying this sports car does not carry as much cargo as my semi. The statement is true but the comparison is meaningless.

Actually ZFS isn't native on OSX, and Docker is via a real linux VM, not natively OSX.
What I'm saying is that the Mac has lost it's edge. It's sad.

 

[Lalatoon]

But what isn't a specialized use case and what is a hand full? Isn't your use case specialized as well with only a handful of users doing it?
A "normal" user or the majority of users are browsing the web, using Mail, maybe writing, etc. This is not a machine for them, it can be done on a normal iMac, a MacMini, MacBook Air...

Every research center in the world, every university needs 1.5TB of RAM in some machines, certainly not every machine, but it's not only a handful. I should be back in Geneva at CERN early next year, really curious how many of these fully spec'd out MPs I'll see. Sure, that is the extreme, but I already know a few people in small universities that are waiting for them. And again, these are cheaper than Dell, Lenovo, etc. I'm really surprised by the price. I thought it would be much more expensive.

Mac Pro full specs is a very powerfull machine compared to most PC out there. But as shown in one of the youtube review the 28 core and 384 gb Ram only reach 21k in geekbench. So I checked Geekbench website and apparently the highest is 59k. Now amazingly there are setup like this

https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/635251

that reach 22k but its only i9 and 65gb ram.

I am curious how much points a 1.5TB ram MacPro gets. Even with that memory bump I think it will not land on the first 3 pages of top multicore result in geekbench 5. Perhaps it will be on page 7,8,9 or 10 because thats where 28 cores machines started to pop out.

Basing on Geekbench result MacPro can not be the most powerfull desktop machine and it also appears overpriced because an i9 18core 36 threads with 64GB ram reach 22k while a 28core 56threads with 384GB MacPro reached only 21k.

But I know Geekbench is not the ultimate test but it shows what to expect from a certain device.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Actually ZFS isn't native on OSX, and Docker is via a real linux VM, not natively OSX.
What I'm saying is that the Mac has lost it's edge. It's sad.

ZFS is supported on macOS, in just the same way as it is supported on Linux, as a port of an open source project. Apple’s own APFS offers most of the same benefits as ZFS (it does not yet offer a RAID Z2 alternative, nor checksumming, but it is copy on write and it offers snapshots), and is light years ahead of EXT4 the most common Linux filesystem.

Docker is what docker is. It is the same on every platform on which it runs. That is the whole point.

Apple continues to improve the ecosystem for its actual users. You once again demonstrate that you are not one of them. I am glad you have found an environment that makes you happy. Please stop trying to make Apple’s ecosystem into it.

 

[Nugget]

Apple’s own APFS offers most of the same benefits as ZFS (it does not yet offer a RAID Z2 alternative, nor checksumming. . .

Those are two huge features of ZFS. Enough to discount your “offers most of the same benefits” claim.

Docker is what docker is. It is the same on every platform on which it runs. That is the whole point.

This is not accurate and I think you’ve missed the nuance of williesleg’s point. On Linux, docker is running a simple container isolation layer. On Windows and in macOS, this is not the case. On non-Linux platforms, Docker runs an internal virtual machine running Linux which then provides the Linux environment which hosts the Docker containers. Docker for macOS involves is a whole VM layer which doesn’t exist when you’re running Docker in Linux. This is precisely how Docker is able to behave “the same on every platform” from a compatibility standpoint. If you’re running Docker in macOS, you’re running a Linux VM. It’s just hidden from view.

 

[OkiRun]

7.1 Mac Pro with XDR & Stand & Apple Care
Mac Pro

製品の詳細を非表示 Mac Pro

ハードウェア

2.7GHz 24コアIntel Xeon Wプロセッサ（Turbo Boost使用時最大4.4GHz）

• 96GB（6 x 16GB）DDR4 ECCメモリ
• Radeon Pro Vega II Duo（2 x 32GB HBM2メモリ搭載）
• 4TB SSDストレージ
• Apple Afterburnerカード
• キャスターつきのステンレススチールフレーム
• Magic Trackpad 2
• Magic Keyboard（テンキー付き）- 日本語（JIS）
• アクセサリキット

￥3,470,280

Will wait until Jan 2020.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Those are two huge features of ZFS. Enough to discount your “offers most of the same benefits” claim.

Sorry, on laptops and most Mac desktops, there is one drive, so the fact that APFS does not offer RAID-Z is not particularly meaningful. As for checksumming, it was really critical in the spinning disk world and is still important for large file systems, but just is not as important for the smaller SSD based laptop and desktop systems.

It is a much more modern filesystem then EXT 4, the default filesystem for Ubuntu.

This is not accurate and I think you’ve missed the nuance of Lalatoon’s point. On Linux, docker is running a simple container isolation layer.

It is completely accurate, you are talking about implementation details and, in this context, they are irrelevant. It works just like jails on FreeBSD, something that has been around for a while. However, I think you have missed my point, the macOS version of Docker means that I can run any X86-64 Docker container. That is the whole point of Docker. I am only running Docker containers on my Mac for development, but it works as designed to provide an environment where I do not need to worry about the differences between machines.

On Windows and in macOS, this is not the case. On non-Linux platforms, Docker runs an internal virtual machine running Linux which then provides the Linux environment which hosts the Docker containers. Docker for macOS involves is a whole VM layer which doesn’t exist when you’re running Docker in Linux. This is precisely how Docker is able to behave “the same on every platform” from a compatibility standpoint. If you’re running Docker in macOS, you’re running a Linux VM. It’s just hidden from view.

Again, all your explanation changes nothing. I can run Docker containers on macOS and they work fine. However, once again, it is all irrelevant. If your goal is to have a Linux desktop system, a Macintosh is not the machine for you. That is the point I keep making. You can explain all you want things that Linux does well, but not one of them is legally run macOS applications, or support the Apple ecosystem. If neither of those matter to you, then there is absolutely no reason for you to consider Macintosh machines.

Everything Apple does is designed to create a seamless connection between all the various elements - hardware, software and services - to produce a particular user experience. If that is the the experience one wants, Apple hardware is probably not the best choice. Apple chooses its components to work well with its software and designs its software around its component choices. This means it is not as general and/or flexible as other systems, but when all mated together it is great.

 

[Nugget]

Sorry, on laptops and most Mac desktops, there is one drive, so the fact that APFS does not offer RAID-Z is not particularly meaningful.

I see you bought the optional $400 wheels for your goalposts.

As for checksumming, it was really critical in the spinning disk world and is still important for large file systems, but just is not as important for the smaller SSD based/ laptop and desktop systems.

The importance of data integrity is dependent on the value of your data, irrespective of the physical media underneath it. Maybe I just care about my data more than you care about yours.

It is a much more modern filesystem then EXT 4, the default filesystem for Ubuntu.

What Ubuntu chooses to be the default file system for their distro of Linux could not be less important to me.

It is completely accurate, you are talking about implementation details and, in this context, they are irrelevant.

The context at hand is the post you were replying to, which raised a valid point about implementation details.

It works just like jails on FreeBSD, something that has been around for a while.

Docker does not “work like jails” on macOS or Windows because on those platforms Docker requires a VM layer in between the host operating system and the container environment. Docker works like jails only when you’re using it in a native Linux environment.

However, I think you have missed my point, the macOS version of Docker means that I can run any X86-64 Docker container. That is the whole point of Docker. I am only running Docker containers on my Mac for development, but it works as designed to provide an environment where I do not need to worry about the differences between machines.

Yes, and this is because there is a virtual Linux machine running on your macOS host in order to provide that developer experience.

You can explain all you want things that Linux does well, but not one of them is legally run macOS applications, or support the Apple ecosystem. If neither of those matter to you, then there is absolutely no reason for you to consider Macintosh machines.

I’m not sure why you are mentioning this. I run both operating systems (and jails on FreeBSD, for whatever that’s worth) and I don’t expect any of the platforms to be more than they are. The reality of being platform agnostic is that it at times becomes important to understand the technical details underlying all these systems so that we can make informed choices about the software and environments that make sense to do the work that we need to do.

Perhaps you have mistaken me for someone who doesn’t like macOS. I don’t know why you’d think that. I just wanted to correct misstatements you’ve made in the course of your enthusiastic advocacy for the platform you seem to prefer over Linux.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I see you bought the optional $400 wheels for your goalposts.

You seem not to understand the origin of this discussion, so let me give you some context:

So funny I'm now on a machine way more powerful for a fraction of the cost.
Gotta love AMD and Ubuntu!

Yeah, I love real Linux rather than old BSD code on a crap kernel. I even get ZFS, docker and KVM/QEMU!

My initial point (which I will reiterate) is that if one is considering Ubuntu for one’s desktop, one is not a very good candidate for a Macintosh, so this was all about desktops and laptops, so so moving of the goal posts at all.

His response of “I even get ZFS, docker and KVM/QEMU” was in that context, your response is completely out of context.

The importance of data integrity is dependent on the value of your data, irrespective of the physical media underneath it. Maybe I just care about my data more than you care about yours.

I love ZFS. I have been running it on all my FreeBSD systems since it first became available and everyone of them even boots from ZFS now (usually from a mirrored pair). Jails and ZFS are a great combination. I would love for Apple to add end-to-end checksums to APFS (less concerned about their adding a RAID-Z equivalent for most of their machine), while your statement that “the value of data integrity is dependent on value of your data” is true, the reality is that they value of end-to-end checksums as a requirement to ensure data integrity is much reduced in a solid state storage environment.

In the same way as ECC RAM is much more important in systems with large amounts of RAM (cosmic rays being what they are), then in those with small amounts of RAM.

What Ubuntu chooses to be the default file system for their distro of Linux could not be less important to me.

Again, you are coming in the middle of a discussion. The comparison was between Ubuntu and macOS, and the argument that one can run ZFS on Ubuntu is less meaningful when it is not the default FS, and root on ZFS is only currently in beta.

The context at hand is the post you were replying to, which raised a valid point about implementation details.

From the standpoint of a developer who needs to run a docker container on his Mac, the implementation details matter very little. Again, the original statement was arguing that these things were not possible on a Mac (”I can even run”).

Docker does not “work like jails” on macOS or Windows because on those platforms Docker requires a VM layer in between the host operating system and the container environment. Docker works like jails only when you’re using it in a native Linux environment.

Absolutely correct, but in the context of the discussion, completely irrelevant. The statement to which I was replying did not begin: “Running docker on linux is somewhat more efficient, and therefore one should be willing to give up all the other benefits of macOS for it.” It was simply stating that it was possible to which my response was that it is also possible on macOS and for the average developer completely solves the problem.

Yes, and this is because there is a virtual Linux machine running on your macOS host in order to provide that developer experience.

Absolutely true, but again, not relevant.

I’m not sure why you are mentioning this. I run both operating systems (and jails on FreeBSD, for whatever that’s worth) and I don’t expect any of the platforms to be more than they are. The reality of being platform agnostic is that it at times becomes important to understand the technical details underlying all these systems so that we can make informed choices about the software and environments that make sense to do the work that we need to do.

I do as well (although I only have Linux on AWS/Azure/IBM’s cloud platform and raspberry PI class embedded systems). I mentioned it, because it was the whole context of the discussion. This was based on the fundamental argument that someone who was running Ubuntu as a desktop machine was not a great candidate for a Mac, and all the points were in that context.

Perhaps you have mistaken me for someone who doesn’t like macOS. I don’t know why you’d think that. I just wanted to correct misstatements you’ve made in the course of your enthusiastic advocacy for the platform you seem to prefer over Linux.

I presumed that you were aware of the context of williesleg’s posts and responded accordingly. None of this was advocating for macOS over Linux, just making it clear that Macintoshes are systems where much of their value comes from the Apple ecosystem and that devoid of that, they do not make sense to purchase. Again, it seems you came in late and did not understand the context.

 

[Alan Wynn]

No, by $12,000 I am referring to the price of a properly configured Mac Pro: at least 64 gigs of RAM, 28 core CPU, a few TBs of storage and one or two MPX GPU modules.

Not sure how you can possibly expect that configuration for $12,000. The CPU lists for $7,453, the closest GPU with a list price is the Quadro 6000 which lists for around $5000 (putting you over $12,000 without a case, motherboard, RAM, power supply, etc.).

The base model of the Mac Pro is almost pointless - you are much better of buying an iMac then. The only reason one would get the M.P. is because it can be configured to be much more powerful.

I have listed reasons before, since it seems you have missed them, here are some agai: 1) need for support for high speed 4 stick NVMe storage, the need for the afterburner card, the need for 40Gb/s or 100Gb/s Ethernet support, and/or the option of moving some existing GPUs from external enclosures to the machine itself.

These are specs you would need for higher end 3d animation and rendering. I am not even entertaining the idea of the XDR Display here.

There are many uses that do not need those specs.

The base model of the Mac Pro is almost pointless - you are much better of buying an iMac then. The only reason one would get the M.P. is because it can be configured to be much more powerful.

Might be for your application, but not for many others.

Later today when the configurator is up, we’ll see what the price of a decent config will be. But I fully expect it will be a *lot* higher than the $6,000 entry price.

Do not need to see the configurations to know that the entry level machine works for really well for many use cases.

 

[Billrey]

Do not need to see the configurations to know that the entry level machine works for many use cases.

Of course it will work for many use cases. But is is worse than the cheaper iMac Pro in pretty much every way. That is my point. If you need more power than an iMac Pro, the base model Mac Pro is TERRIBLE value.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Of course it will work for many use cases. But is is worse than the cheaper iMac Pro in pretty much every way. That is my point. If you need more power than an iMac Pro, the base model Mac Pro is TERRIBLE value.

Wow, you basically ignored all the examples I gave and only quoted the summary line. Impressive.

To make it easier for you here are some examples where the base machine is a great system vs. getting an iMac Pro (another great machine):

• One needs 40Gb/s or 100Gb/s Ethernet.
• One needs two 10Gb/s Ethernet ports.
• One needs internal high speed NVMe storage.
• One has existing GPUs that one can move from external enclosures to internal slots.
• One has enough money to buy the base machine today without needing to go into debt and plans to upgrade it as one has more resources available.

All of those are great, real world examples, that would make it make sense to buy the base configuration.

 

[Abazigal]

Of course it will work for many use cases. But is is worse than the cheaper iMac Pro in pretty much every way. That is my point. If you need more power than an iMac Pro, the base model Mac Pro is TERRIBLE value.

My theory is that the base model is not meant to be sold in its current form. You are expected to spec it according to your needs (and there will be some use cases where you leave one spec untouched because your workflow doesn't benefit from having more of that particular spec).

 

[Nugget]

Again, it seems you came in late and did not understand the context.

In the light of day and after a cup of coffee I see that you're absolutely right. Sorry for being so abrasive, it was not warranted or productive.

 

[Alan Wynn]

In the light of day and after a cup of coffee I see that you're absolutely right. Sorry for being so abrasive, it was not warranted or productive.

No problem at all. You read his most recent comments as if they were technical, rather than just trolling. Easy mistake to make.

BTW, the single most impressive thing Apple did with APFS was figure out how to upgrade an HFS+ filesystem in place without need for almost any extra storage space. Wish I could have done that with UFS2 to ZFS. (Not sure I would have trusted it, even if it had been an option.)

 

[GrumpyCoder]

But I know Geekbench is not the ultimate test but it shows what to expect from a certain device.

Not really. All those benchmarks mostly focusing on CPU. If you have memory heavy applications, it's a completely different animal. If your use case needs 300GB of RAM, see how happy (and fast) you will be on 64GB. That's why you buy your machines based on your use cases and not for benchmarks.

 

[Williesleg]

You seem not to understand the origin of this discussion, so let me give you some context:




My initial point (which I will reiterate) is that if one is considering Ubuntu for one’s desktop, one is not a very good candidate for a Macintosh, so this was all about desktops and laptops, so so moving of the goal posts at all.

His response of “I even get ZFS, docker and KVM/QEMU” was in that context, your response is completely out of context.



I love ZFS. I have been running it on all my FreeBSD systems since it first became available and everyone of them even boots from ZFS now (usually from a mirrored pair). Jails and ZFS are a great combination. I would love for Apple to add end-to-end checksums to APFS (less concerned about their adding a RAID-Z equivalent for most of their machine), while your statement that “the value of data integrity is dependent on value of your data” is true, the reality is that they value of end-to-end checksums as a requirement to ensure data integrity is much reduced in a solid state storage environment.

In the same way as ECC RAM is much more important in systems with large amounts of RAM (cosmic rays being what they are), then in those with small amounts of RAM.



Again, you are coming in the middle of a discussion. The comparison was between Ubuntu and macOS, and the argument that one can run ZFS on Ubuntu is less meaningful when it is not the default FS, and root on ZFS is only currently in beta.



From the standpoint of a developer who needs to run a docker container on his Mac, the implementation details matter very little. Again, the original statement was arguing that these things were not possible on a Mac (”I can even run”).



Absolutely correct, but in the context of the discussion, completely irrelevant. The statement to which I was replying did not begin: “Running docker on linux is somewhat more efficient, and therefore one should be willing to give up all the other benefits of macOS for it.” It was simply stating that it was possible to which my response was that it is also possible on macOS and for the average developer completely solves the problem.



Absolutely true, but again, not relevant.



I do as well (although I only have Linux on AWS/Azure/IBM’s cloud platform and raspberry PI class embedded systems). I mentioned it, because it was the whole context of the discussion. This was based on the fundamental argument that someone who was running Ubuntu as a desktop machine was not a great candidate for a Mac, and all the points were in that context.



I presumed that you were aware of the context of williesleg’s posts and responded accordingly. None of this was advocating for macOS over Linux, just making it clear that Macintoshes are systems where much of their value comes from the Apple ecosystem and that devoid of that, they do not make sense to purchase. Again, it seems you came in late and did not understand the context.

Unfortunately Apple's ecosystem is crumbling. Tim Cooked will go down as the worst CEO of Apple ever.

The world moved away from tools like Final Cut Pro and iWork/i(web/photo/dvd/etc)

People like me are becoming more common. Haven't been to the Apple store in a long time. Used to love to go and check out the new stuff.

Change is difficult. But I'll tell you what, once you're liberated it's fantastic!