[Matsu]

Eugene, you make a good point. Maybe what we need are smaller Mac Pros, or at least one smaller, entry level mac pro. It only needs one fast PCI slot for the graphics, and room for dual CPUs, one SSD and one HDD, and lots of thunderbird ports. That would mean it didn't need as big a PSU or case.

Me, being the cheap bastard that I am, I would want to pay LESS than 2499 for this machine. More like 1899-1999 at most. Still have to buy a monitor and external drives...

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by FFL This can easily be accomplished even today by ordering a CTO iMac with both an SSD and a SATA drive.

Apple's included SSDs are way overpriced and not great in terms of performance. No thanks. And what if I want a second internal HDD rather than an SSD? Cannot be done.

Originally Posted by Eugene And how many iMac users need more than one HDD and would not accept an external ThunderBolt drive. You guys argued the exact same thing I did when I was pimping the idea of an expandable midrange Mac. It's funny how the roles have reversed. Buy a PC (and maybe install OS X) if you don't think the iMac or Mac Pro suit your needs. That's what I did.

As I said in my earlier post, it would be nicer to have the option to have at least two interal HDDs. External drives are fast enough, but take up too much desk space. I like the iMac otherwise, and cannot be bothered to go through the hassle of a hackintosh, been there done that.

[Wrao]

The weird thing about Mac Pros to me is the single-processor model. It really doesn't make a lot of sense to be priced as highly as it is. Sure, the performance is comparable/superior to a $2500 iMac configuration, but the iMac comes with a 27" display! Mac Pros, when using current generation chips, are actually pretty cost competitive against HP and Dell offerings in the "dual processor Xeon workstation" niche. It's just that Dell and HP rightfully make their single processor Xeon systems in the $1000-$1500 range, and Apple just sort of ignores that the $2499 Mac Pro is only "worth" about half that realistically for what you get.

The entry level Mac Pro "should" be ~$1599, have several BTO options and maybe even a special bundle pricing with the 27" display. A $1599 Mac Pro "should" be (at least) on par with a $2000 iMac performance wise, the trade-off being that you have to buy your own display. Once you get into dual-processor territory, go nuts, have the ultimate configuration, sell it for $500 less than Dell or HP's offering, and it'd be a compelling system for professionals. Apple kind of tries to play both roads though, pretending that the Mac Pro is a regular tower for regular people but pricing it firmly for people who can write it off and/or will make back the cost in a single job.

This whole scenario stands to become even more egregious when Sandy Bridge(or Ivy Bridge even) Xeons start being used, as those chips are, on average, substantially cheaper than the Gainestown chips for the same tier. Apple is not typically in the habit of affecting full-model price cuts just because a part has become more affordable, but they do have a history of restructuring their pricing models to go along with major case redesigns, so I guess it could happen. Though, I doubt we'll ever see that ~$1500 "Mac" tower any time soon.

[Xaqtly]

The thing is though, look at Apple's big picture. Snow Leopard Server is now only $50, and there are Mac Minis with Thunder thighs ports in the pipeline. The way I see it, you could easily move any requirement for storage over to a cheap server connected to a Thundercats raid, leaving your choice of workstation less dependent on internal storage capability.

I have also been in the Mac Pro camp at least partly because of the storage options. But Apple definitely seems to be moving towards a client/server relationship, even in - maybe even specifically in - the home. Maybe that won't be for everyone, but I am seriously considering that setup after Lion and the new Minis come out. Still doesn't solve the problem of SSDs generally being super expensive, but if all you needed locally was the OS + applications, it seems like a viable solution.

[Robo]

Apparently "Mac Pro (Mid 2011)" documents are floating around, and the next Mac Pro will move from having 4/6/8/12 cores to having 6/8/12/16 cores. Maybe.

More cores might preclude this, but: does anyone else think that the Mac Pro might get a little smaller? It would only need to get a tiny bit shorter to be rack-mountable, right? A rack-mountable Mac Pro with the 3.5" drives accessible from the front would be pretty cool.

[Matsu]

I would like to see two mac Pro case designs. One essentially being a headless mac at the entry level. It's got only one PCI slot - for whatever full spec graphics slot is needed - lots of RAM slots (eight or so), and two drive bays. And maybe an option for dual mutlicore CPUs. Everything else is handled by thunderpants. But this is what I want; it has no bearing on what Apple might do.

For that, perhaps a slightly smaller, perhaps even more utilitarian design?

New minis rumored as well. This seems a fairly easy guess: They get a propellorshaft port, and a slight bump. I wonder if they could make one to match the top-line imac spec, maybe a slightly taller mini with room for more powerful internals? Again, something I want, not something we're likely to see.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Matsu I would like to see two mac Pro case designs. One essentially being a headless mac at the entry level. It's got only one PCI slot - for whatever full spec graphics slot is needed - lots of RAM slots (eight or so), and two drive bays. And maybe an option for dual mutlicore CPUs. Everything else is handled by thunderpants. But this is what I want; it has no bearing on what Apple might do. For that, perhaps a slightly smaller, perhaps even more utilitarian design? New minis rumored as well. This seems a fairly easy guess: They get a propellorshaft port, and a slight bump. I wonder if they could make one to match the top-line imac spec, maybe a slightly taller mini with room for more powerful internals? Again, something I want, not something we're likely to see.

Why would it have eight DIMM slots? Four already allows for 32 GB, which is plenty for anyone who doesn't have an unlimited budget. A full-sized graphics card of course fills the space of two PCIe slots, so it may as well have two electrical slots. I don't think a headless iMac needs more than one processor socket at all. It should have space for two internal 3.5" HDDs though.

It will never be built.

[Moogs]

Mr. X say: new machines coming this week.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/11/...els-this-week/

[nikstar101]

Originally Posted by Moogs Mr. X say: new machines coming this week. http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/11/...els-this-week/

After years of watching for PowerMac and MacPro updates, i am now waiting for Mac Mini updates!!

I wonder what Apple will update. I imagine adding thunderbolt, but how will that work with the separate display card? Will the mini display connector plug into either the motherboard or graphics card? And what about USB 3?? I mean they should have it but knowing Apple it will be missing.

[Jason]

I still don't get this. I thought there were no new processors ready?

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Jason I still don't get this. I thought there were no new processors ready?

Would be interesting, we may see an early release of LGA2011 Sandy Bridge Xeons...roughly two quarters ahead of their scheduled release.

[Jason]

Wrong part numbers.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Jason Wrong part numbers.

[Moogs]

Mr X status: pwned.

[Eugene]

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/21557

Part numbers and details for the LGA2011 based Xeons. Going to need 8 DIMMs for max memory bandwidth...

[Jason]

I wonder how much closer we are to new Mac Pros?

[Moogs]

If the part numbers are just leaking now, I bet not until next year. Apple's never been shy about letting some Mac Pro revs get long in the tooth.

[Eugene]

Assuming Jan/Feb timeframe like usual.

[Jason]

That feels like a long way away.

[Eugene]

There's no sense in releasing new Mac products in the traditionally strong holiday quarter where iPhone, iPad, and even iPod sales will easily carry Apple toward its financial guidance. These Intel SKUs also don't have a firm release date, so it's not like anyone will have them a month or two from now.

[Jason]

Yeah, I tend to forget how Apple (like everyone else) is ultimately at the mercy of chip manufacturers.

Well, except for iPhones and iPads.

[Yonzie]

Originally Posted by Eugene http://techreport.com/discussions.x/21557

Part numbers and specs are all over the place with no rhyme or reason.
Xeon E5-2630 6*2.3GHz
Xeon E5-2630L 6*2.0GHz
Xeon E5-2637 2*3.0GHz
L means low power (95W vs. 65W) but the '7' is straight up crazy talk.

Look at the crazy intervals in clock speed:
Xeon E5-2650 8*2.0GHz
Xeon E5-2660 8*2.2GHz
Xeon E5-2670 8*2.6GHz
Xeon E5-2680 8*2.7GHz
Xeon E5-2690 8*2.9GHz

There's also the "Xeon E5-2665 8*2.4GHz" which Techreport missed, but why increment by 5 and break the series?
Of course, Intel isn't exactly known for logical marketing.

[Jason]

I'm taking this one with a healthy pinch of salt.

Regards

[Jason]

Now looking like early 2012.

[Matsu]

I find I'm not really interested any longer in a Mac Pro, largely because Apple is never going to supply one that is remotely affordable for my uses. Still it's technically interesting, and sometimes, for a brief moment at introduction, new models represent decent value for what they are: workstations.

Thunderbolt now takes care large scale of storage, and iMacs seem to be able to take a lot of RAM (16-32GB) and an SSD, which should cure all speed related concerns in CS5 type applications. The last sticking point is really monitor selection. iMac is good, but not ideal, but is that enough of a reason to buy a Mac Pro? If I had any tech skills I'd build a hackintosh.

[Xaqtly]

One point to add to that - video cards. Mac Pros are the only machines Apple makes that can take standard pci-e cards, although they still have to be "made for Mac" with the EFI and whatnot.

I agree about storage though. Internal storage is no longer really an issue with Thunderbolt, IMO.

[Matsu]

Even video has for the most part progressed to the point of "meh, one's as good as another," at least for those not gaming.

I'll be buying a mac desktop in the new year, exclusively for PS CS5, LR and NX use, maybe a bit of iMovie. The one missing feature right now is USB 3. The drives are everywhere, but the ports are not. Thunderbolt is the exact opposite: All the new macs have them, but the drives are hard to find.

USB2 has become a major bottle-neck for me. I can't find FW800 card readers or enclosures for a reasonable cost, and I tend to deal with photo outings in 16GB quantities.

My MBP tops out a 3GB RAM, and has a puny 120GB harddrive. After some problems with a 500GB hybrid, I'm back to the original drive and use the hybrid in a USB2 enclosure.

I have to literally keep everything on the external just to work with 2-3 current/active projects. Not good, hugely inconvenient, except that I still have the bad habit of lying on the couch trying to tweak an image, then the fans spin up and machine gets very toasty and loud. I wonder if an SSD would cure this problem and keep the machine usable for a few more years. (quicker data swaps/scratch disk?)

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Matsu I wonder if an SSD would cure this problem and keep the machine usable for a few more years. (quicker data swaps/scratch disk?)

I put one of those hybrid drives in my 1st gen MBP, and it made a *huge* difference... for disk-bound operations. If you're being CPU-bound or memory-bound, an SSD won't help that much. It'll be faster in general, but your problem won't be solved.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Jason Now looking like early 2012.

Blame AMD and Bulldozer imo...

[Matsu]

Hi Dave, which version of the OS are you running. After OSX 10.5, lots of folks reported problems booting apps from those hybrid drives. Did it ever get fixed, either from Maxtor or in the OS? I don't want to risk any failures.