I had a cheese grater quad 2.66 and loved it , that for me was the definition of a true pro Mac
Not impressed with what followed and as for the joke of the new one … smh
Not impressed with what followed and as for the joke of the new one … smh
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.
MP 6,1 Trashcan was the perfect Mac
- Thread starter discofuel
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But that's the issue: the design is conceptually flawed. Apple Silicon is an on-package design, meaning the triad heatsink of the trashcan would be redundant today and thus the chimney doesn't need to exist.
Apple designed this Mac Pro and they were aware of the hardware's efficiency, and thus had the opportunity to design a product that was suitable for the intended chips. They put the concept before practicality.
Yes, but don't forget that the functionality of the Studio is also markedly improved. More and better I/O, front-facing I/O, performance that meets professionals expectations.
Absolutely, I was more thinking that the Mac Studio could just as well have been cylinder shaped again, with entirely redesigned internals, and having front ports and all the Studio benefits.
I also said "...it was almost completely silent, it had all the power I needed, it had all the Thunderbolt ports and connectivity I needed, and for the 7 years that I owned it, I never had a single issue with it." These are the reasons why it was the perfect Mac for me.
With the previous Mac Pro, music studios had to place the tower in a different room or a soundproof case because of the fan noise. My previous computer, a 27" iMac, was unusable because of the fan noise. So being able to have it on my desk (whilst looking stunning!) was a huge benefit.
I said, "For me, the 2013 Mac Pro was the perfect desktop". The Studio wasn't available then.
Never had a single issue with the heatsink.
For my needs and the devices I used, Thunderbolt was superior to PCIe. I now use the same Thunderbolt devices with my MBP 16".
But with all due respect, why? Manufacturing a cylinder is not only more expensive but a less efficient use of space and volume than a cuboid.
I am not advocating for a trashcan reboot, there's a reason it got that nickname and the Studio is much prettier anyways. My point was that if Apple had ASi-efficient hardware back in 2013, and the cooling design to go with it, the trashcan Pro might have been much more successful.
All the more reason for Apple to design their own SoCs. They learned a lot from this product.
I disagree in that I don't believe the Mac Studio is some radically better designed product. It's the same concept, just done for the third time.
You may not like the Mac Pro (2013)'s industrial design, the fact that it replaced the beloved Mac Pro (mid 2012) or that Intel couldn't produce Xeon chips to fit in such an enclosure, but they're still very similar products. Even the I/O is pretty similar.
Mac Pro (2013) has 4 USB ports, 6 thunderbolt ports, two ethernet ports, audio in, audio out and an HDMI port.
Mac Studio has 2 USB ports, 4 thunderbolt ports, 2 USB-C ports, an ethernet port, an audio out port, an SD card reader and an HDMI port.
Whether Apple released an Apple silicon rounded square, a cylinder or a cube, it would have been successful because hardware and consumer expectations have evolved.
Professionals are willing to go without PCI slots and Apple is no longer beholden to Intel or ATI.
Also, something we haven't debated is the Mac Studio's pricing is more in line with the previous PPC Power Macs (that used to start around $1599). Dare I say the Studio is a decent value?
$2999 - Mac Pro (2013)
$1999 - Mac Studio (2022)
Huge difference.
Other Pros:
$2499 - Mac Pro (Mid 2012)
$2199 - Mac Pro (2008)
$1799 - Power Mac G5 ($1999 to start, but was reduced a few months after and frequently found for around $1599 retail)
$1599 - Power Mac G4
$1599 - Power Mac G3 (B&W)
Last edited:
I understand that. I think it would have been a great product to sell alongside the traditional tower, but not as a replacement. It’s also a shame that the Studio doesn’t use a similar premium design. I think people would pay a little extra for something that doesn’t look like a little cheap box of junk.
But the target demographic doesn’t care about how it looks, they care about the function and the performance. In the case of the Studio, the function informed the aesthetic.
Actually it’s profit-driven. They created the cheapest most simple design at the lowest cost possible.
Correct, and it happens to be the most sensible design. There’s no point tooling an elaborate chimney enclosure and forged polished metal casing when a cylinder is itself the less efficient way to mount electronics and use the available space.
This brings up something that has always bugs me: the Mac hardly gets colors. Yeah the M1 iMac has colors as well as the MacBook airs, albeit limited. But they don’t really offer many fun colors.
But here’s the part that really confuses me. They made a product red themed trashcan Mac Pro that is one of a kind and sold for almost $1 million on auction. Why are there no product red Macs I would pay very nicely for one.
They (Apple) didn't. Jony Ive did for charity.
The professional machines don't get bright or bold colors because it's not considered professional. They tried that with the B&W Power Mac G3 and it was called "Fisher Price" and "not serious."
Apple then turned around and made the G4 graphite in color. Same with the iMac and iBook.
I found a middle specced 2013 for free and absolutely love it!
I don’t consider it a “Mac Pro” in spite of it’s name.
I consider it “A modern day G4 Cube done right”
I love the way it looks on my desk and everything about it. Pairs perfectly with an old Apple LED displayport monitor I also have for a nice clean uncluttered look.
Only thing I still would like to do is pick up the slate (?) colored Apple wireless keyboard and mouse to complete “the look”
😀
I don’t consider it a “Mac Pro” in spite of it’s name.
I consider it “A modern day G4 Cube done right”
I love the way it looks on my desk and everything about it. Pairs perfectly with an old Apple LED displayport monitor I also have for a nice clean uncluttered look.
Only thing I still would like to do is pick up the slate (?) colored Apple wireless keyboard and mouse to complete “the look”
😀
You need to adjust these prices in relation to the value of the dollar in purchasing power for the year released if you want accurate comparisons.
$1000 in 1989 isn’t the same as $1000 in 2023.
Doing this actually helps modern computer prices a bit.
😀
I was just comparing nominal value and Apple's psychological price points they've always tried to hit. However, here you go. During Steve Jobs' tenure, they really tried to hit that sweet spot base model price point.
They went nuts in 2013 and haven't looked back except for the Mac Studio, which again, is priced fairly aggressively.
Important Events:
Steve Jobs took full control of Apple in late 1997. The B&W Power Mac was the first Pro desktop released under his reign (Early 1999). He passed away in late 2011.
| Product | Price | Adjusted for Inflation (2023) |
| Mac Studio (2023) | $1999 | $1999 |
| Mac Pro (2023) | $6999 | $6999 |
| Mac Pro (2019) | $5999 | $7136 |
| Mac Pro (2013) | $2999 | $3915 |
| Mac Pro (2012) | $2499 | $3310 |
| Mac Pro (2008) | $2199 | $3106 |
| Power Mac G5 (2003) | $1799 | $2974 |
| Power Mac G4 (QS/2002) | $1599 | $2703 |
| Power Mac G4 (DA/2001) | $1699 | $2919 |
| Power Mac G4 (1999) | $1599 | $2918 |
| Power Mac G3 B&W (1999) | $1599 | $2918 |
| Power Macintosh G3 (1997) | $2400 | $4478 |
| Power Macintosh 9600 (1997) | $3699 | $7009 |
| Power Macintosh 8100 (1994) | $4250 | $8722 |
Last edited:
According to the pricing comparison adjusted, the Mac Studio is the best deal on a professional Mac Apple has ever released!
😀
It’s not considered a professional product, unless that’s what you consider the 27” iMac (non-Pro) to be that it replaced.
What are you talking about?????
To quote Apples website….
“Embraced by creative pros everywhere, Mac Studio now delivers next-generation power”
I don’t believe the products target audience is stay at home Moms surfing the internet…
🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨🤨
Clearly theres a discrepancy between what both of you and apple think is a "professional"
mac studio is pretty squarely aimed at video editors or graphic artists which apple considers "professional"
I assume "professionals" include scientists & engineers (including ML researchers), people who run massive simulations with massive datasets, people who do 3D graphic work, audio professionals.
Based on the 2023 mac pro, apple seems to only want to cater to the audio professionals and none of the other people I mentioned.
This gets back to my point on the first page of this thread. There are two, divergent ways that computers are used professionally (well actually three). On the one hand you have people who need the computational power, but use it in the context of off-board data storage, perhaps on a network, or perhaps using directly connected external storage, and have no need for either specialist IO or other expansion, or for large amounts of on-board storage. On the other hand you have people who need specialist expansion card type interfaces, or people who have a need for large amounts of on-board storage. (The third option being using some high powered cluster or cloud computing for heavy lifting that is beyond the capabilities of something that can sit on/under a desk.)
Part of the controversy when the trashcan came out was that, while it was well suited to the needs of the first sort of user, it was ill suited to the needs of the second sort. Equally, having a large tower case with lots of (not cheap) capability for incorporating lots of on-board customisation, including (loud) cooling for them, is not an optimal solution for the first sort of user, and for that user, the trashcan was a great solution.
The Apple Silicon Mac Pro and the top-spec Mac Studio both have the same CPU, GPU, Memory etc. They have identical computing capabilities. The studio has a form factor that is well suited to the first sort of user, while the pro tower has a form factor that suits the needs of the second sort.
Always wondered what Apple’s original plan was for the cylinder MacPro.
I have a hard time imagine they had zero plans for a rev 2 and future upgrades after spending all that time and R&D instead of just releasing yet another standard Mac Pro.
Faster & cooler GPUs should’ve been possible a few years later?
I have a hard time imagine they had zero plans for a rev 2 and future upgrades after spending all that time and R&D instead of just releasing yet another standard Mac Pro.
Faster & cooler GPUs should’ve been possible a few years later?
Apple does know there’s a lot of professional workstations with RGB lights right?