Thunderbolt to kill Mac Pro range?

neil_g

neil_g

Suspended / Banned
Messages
30,364
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
No
Last edited:
Desktop sales are falling everywhere - wouldn't surprise me if they start taking more focus away from it at minimum.

Same with the ipod classic - less market demands for high capacity mp3 players, more demand for average user things with fancy features.
 
I think Mac Pros have a very limited market. The standard Macs offer plenty of speed for 99% of users. Particularly with SandyBridge, the performance between ultra high cost CPUs and the mainstream (if you can call £250 for a cpu mainstream) is quite narrow.
 
Until mainstream applications exist that are able to use the high CPU power high end PCs have, we're all stuck on lower end tech. It's funny that we have the technology to advance well beyond the current state of average IT, but market demand holds us back.
 
i think theyll replace it with a slightly larger (taller), better spec mac mini. maybe with a unit of the same footprint with thunderbolt connection thatll take "legacy" PCI card(s) almost like the minimate unit.
 
someguy201 said:
Until mainstream applications exist that are able to use the high CPU power high end PCs have, we're all stuck on lower end tech. It's funny that we have the technology to advance well beyond the current state of average IT, but market demand holds us back.
Click to expand...
Not quite sure what you mean here. Do you mean utilise the cores that are being put on chip? Unfortunately, only certain algorithms are able to be split into parallel tasks and they tend to be 2D or 3D type systems (pictures, video, 3D modelling etc) which have limited general purpose use...
 
arad85 said:
Not quite sure what you mean here. Do you mean utilise the cores that are being put on chip? Unfortunately, only certain algorithms are able to be split into parallel tasks and they tend to be 2D or 3D type systems (pictures, video, 3D modelling etc) which have limited general purpose use...
Click to expand...

It was just a general vague point, rather than anything specific. My own view is that market demand halts progress in technology - it continues developing, but not at the fastest possible rate etc. Intel could manufacture only the latest processors, and sell them at much cheaper prices.

The point about mainstream applications, is that there isn't a demand for high spec PCs, because the majority of users don't use any applications that need that technology - if everyone used software that required very high end CPUs, then the CPUs would be cheaper, and technology would be driven forward at a faster rate than it currently is.

Think of the discrepancy between scientific computers, and £300 off the shelf things. Obviously in extreme cases the hardware is so substantially different - but the point is much better technology exists that could theoretically be utilised by standard PCs - it's lack of demand for higher end PCs that stops them becoming widespread and user PCs gaining better technology.

Make sense? It's mainly just my personal view rather than any factual statements - in my opinion that appears to be the case
 
Most people only use PCs to browse/email etc... Processors don't need to be powerful to do that. It was only when I stared dealing with 5D2 raw files and HD video recodes that I started to need a better PC (was on an E8400).
 
That's merely because that type of application has been developed and is mainstream. There is no "default" that says we only need to use PCs for internet browsing and emails. If software companies went in a different direction that would produce popular applications that didn't fit into that scheme, and utilised far more processor power, then technology would develop further.

Most people only use PCs to browse/email, because that's what currently exists and has been developed - that does not mean to say there are not potentially high performance applications that could be developed that would be hugely popular even by low end users.
 
arad85 said:
I think Mac Pros have a very limited market. The standard Macs offer plenty of speed for 99% of users. Particularly with SandyBridge, the performance between ultra high cost CPUs and the mainstream (if you can call £250 for a cpu mainstream) is quite narrow.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by a "standard mac" but I will assume you mean an imac.

The only trouble with this is that you are stuck with a built in monitor and most serious photographers are going to want to get a decent standalone monitor.

My partner has an imac 21.5" and while it offers a good quality IPS screen there is that awful glossy coating to contend with.
 
someguy201 said:
That's merely because that type of application has been developed and is mainstream. There is no "default" that says we only need to use PCs for internet browsing and emails. If software companies went in a different direction that would produce popular applications that didn't fit into that scheme, and utilised far more processor power, then technology would develop further.
Click to expand...
Be my guest on developing something.. ;)

The "problem" is that a computer spends most of its time waiting for user input. Then you want it to react instantaneously until the next time you tell ity to do something. Multi processing is great, if you can keep them fully occupied. Apart from games (many of which are not multi-threaded or can become GFX limited) the only real user apps that use a lot of CPU are video and photos. Everything else tends to be the domain of science.

someguy201 said:
Most people only use PCs to browse/email, because that's what currently exists and has been developed - that does not mean to say there are not potentially high performance applications that could be developed that would be hugely popular even by low end users.
Click to expand...
But what are they? If you had infinite CPU power, what app would you want on your PC you currently don't because it's too slow?
 
boliston said:
I'm not sure what you mean by a "standard mac" but I will assume you mean an imac.

The only trouble with this is that you are stuck with a built in monitor and most serious photographers are going to want to get a decent standalone monitor.

My partner has an imac 21.5" and while it offers a good quality IPS screen there is that awful glossy coating to contend with.
Click to expand...
Yup. iMac.

The software between Mac and PC is the same for photo editing. Given the cost difference between the hardware, you either have to be seriously minted or seriously tied to the Apple brand to justify a Mac Pro just because you edit photos on it (and can't you just add an external monitor to an iMac anyway?)
 
arad85 said:
But what are they? If you had infinite CPU power, what app would you want on your PC you currently don't because it's too slow?
Click to expand...

Ask the same question, but put yourself back in time 50 years. Who would have gone "I really need a method of managing my photos and checking my email, whilst browsing the internet."

See my point?

Imagine we had widespread technology enough to make software commonly seen in sci-fi popular.

Anyway, we're getting rather off topic, interesting as this discussion is. Technological progress is limited by market drive and desire - however market drive is also one of the factors that start progress in the first place.

I think we were talking something about Macs...... :lol:
 
someguy201 said:
Ask the same question, but put yourself back in time 50 years. Who would have gone "I really need a method of managing my photos and checking my email, whilst browsing the internet."
Click to expand...
Noone.. but then doesn't that just mean having lots of processing available means we have a solution looking for a problem?
 
Like many technological advances, if the demand isn't there, or there is minimal support/devices, then it may not take off, even if it does, it may be very slow on the uptake. many products in the IT industry that were ahead of their time ended up like this.

What we need is a universal standard, like USB, if computer manufacturers are going the shuttle PC route, Thunderbolt may end up like Firewire, being replaced by the next "big" connectivity standard.

I have a stack of devices, ISA cards, parallel port ZIP Drive, serial mice, AT keyboards, SCSI drives/caddies, most of which is now fit for recycling, or as paperweights

:)
 
The whole computer on a desktop is on it's way out for the vast majority of consumers. Desktops have lost out to laptops, which are now being replace by smart phones and Pads.

As Andy says most people use computers to browse the web a few emails and a some music and video watching, which the current hardware is more than capable of handling, as for in the office, again there is little need for ground breaking tech.

Imagine we had widespread technology enough to make software commonly seen in sci-fi popular
Click to expand...

It's here already:
Star Trek communicator = mobile phone
Navigation by hand movement without contact to screen coming to a computer and TV from Microsoft and apple VERY soon (already here for gaming with xbox kinect)




As for the Mac pro I would think it has very low sales numbers and it's just not really worth Apple spending time to develop a product that they can see no sales growth or even falling sales, with Thunderbolt, NAS drives and the latest iMac CPU's, is there really a need for the Pro anymore ?

If they wish to continue with the ultimate CPU powerhouse, I agree with Neil, in a mightyminimac,

Thunderbolt is a universal standard, remember it is Intel Thunderbolt and Apple are just the first to fit it to their hardware, anyone else can too if they wish. If more peripherals start to incorporate Thunderbolt so will more computers, it's the old chicken and egg syndrome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
whiteflyer said:
The whole computer on a desktop is on it's way out for the vast majority of consumers. Desktops have lost out to laptops, which are now being replace by smart phones and Pads.

As Andy says most people use computers to browse the web a few emails and a some music and video watching, which the current hardware is more than capable of handling, as for in the office, again there is little need for ground breaking tech.



It's here already:
Star Trek communicator = mobile phone
Navigation by hand movement without contact to screen coming to a computer and TV from Microsoft and apple VERY soon (already here for gaming with xbox kinect)




As for the Mac pro I would think it has very low sales numbers and it's just not really worth Apple spending time to develop a product that they can see no sales growth or even falling sales, with Thunderbolt, NAS drives and the latest iMac CPU's, is there really a need for the Pro anymore ?

If they wish to continue with the ultimate CPU powerhouse, I agree with Neil, in a mightyminimac,

Thunderbolt is a universal standard, remember it is Intel Thunderbolt and Apple are just the first to fit it to their hardware, anyone else can too if they wish. If more peripherals start to incorporate Thunderbolt so will more computers, it's the old chicken and egg syndrome.
Click to expand...


I didn't know that Thunderbolt was created by Intel, cheers for clearing that up :thumbs:

I agree that tech needs to move on, otherwise we would be stuck in the dark ages.

Mightymacmini :thumbs:
 
Apple are suffering from the problem that for most peoples use computers were powerful enough a few years ago! For photo processing and all the related stuff then a Mac Pro that is 3 years old is more than powerful enough. My Mac Pro is plenty powerful enough for CS5 as is my Windows 7 machine and the MBP 17" ! It is finding that a lot of the companies that might have upgraded every 2-3 years are not doing due to the above and the financial situation. The ability to use 12 processors, 4 hard drives, multiple monitors and 64Gb of RAM is not really on most people's shopping list :D

When I bought my Mac Pro it was the CHEAPEST quad Xeon 3GHz PC on the market and was cheaper than buying the components. I know of a company who bought 16 of them and installed Windows on them as that is the OS they needed and they couldn't build them as cheap.

An iMac is more than powerful enough for the vast majority of people especially now that you can get a 27" quad core 16Gb one !
 
boliston said:
I'm not sure what you mean by a "standard mac" but I will assume you mean an imac.

The only trouble with this is that you are stuck with a built in monitor and most serious photographers are going to want to get a decent standalone monitor.

My partner has an imac 21.5" and while it offers a good quality IPS screen there is that awful glossy coating to contend with.
Click to expand...

Shame they don't offer the anti-glare screen from the mac book pro on the iMacs or thunderbolt display, I find it REALLY good.
 
neil_g said:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...reportedly_questioning_future_of_mac_pro.html

a lot of "reportedly" and such words in the article but half of me thinks its possible itll be dropped and half of me thinks theyll be kept on since apple dropped its xserve line.

discuss.

edit - i should point out how i came to the thread title. how thunderbolt has taken away the need for PCI slots.
Click to expand...

With PCIe3 and reports of what PCIe4 will have they are going to out perform even thunderbolt even with optical cables. I hope that the Mac Pro lives on to fill the serious horsepower position and to act as servers just to keep things interesting.

I'm going to be replacing my 17" Macbook Pro this year with my last one nearly 4 years old. It is still quick enough for what I use it for with 6Gb Ram and a hybrid hard drive but it is showing it's age (both fans need replacing for example). The new ones all have Thunderbolt as does my 11" Macbook Air so one of their 27" monitors would be a nice addition :) Shame the new generation will probably lose the optical drive!

Shame the cables are expensive but the transmission electronics are in the cable so £50 it'll have to be until the Chinese get involved.
 
puggie said:
Shame they don't offer the anti-glare screen from the mac book pro on the iMacs or thunderbolt display, I find it REALLY good.
Click to expand...

I have both screens, having the anti glare on my Macbook Pro and a normal screen on my Macbook Air. Both screens have their advantages with the normal screen having darker darks, more contrast and appear brighter. Yes there is more glare but if your screen is in a fixed location you are more likley to be able to combat that. Having it as an option probably wouldn't do any harm but it would be a niche choice and on the larger screen they would probably start charging £100 extra !
 
neil_g said:
See its had a "refresh". Can't see any thunderbolt and the graphics options aren't new or what I'd expect in a system costing so much. Disappointed to be honest.
Click to expand...

I've already located a dead Mac G5 and will be building a computer inside that case very soon :) Asus thunderbolt motherboard 32Gb Ram. I'm more annoyed that they have dumped the 17" Macbook pros.....
 
neil_g said:
See its had a "refresh". Can't see any thunderbolt and the graphics options aren't new or what I'd expect in a system costing so much. Disappointed to be honest.
Click to expand...
Graphics is new. They have Nvidia which means Premiere Pro can use the Mercury Playback Engine.

They also have an implementation of Optimus technology. As I said in the other thread, nice to see Macs finally catching up with PCs ;)
 
arad85 said:
Graphics is new. They have Nvidia which means Premiere Pro can use the Mercury Playback Engine.

They also have an implementation of Optimus technology. As I said in the other thread, nice to see Macs finally catching up with PCs ;)
Click to expand...

Gives me a new graphics option on my self build :)
 
arad85 said:
I was going to say..... ;)
Click to expand...

For the £2500 for a reasonable MacPro you can build a nutter ! When I bought my Quad Xeon Mac Pro it was competitively priced. They don't help their cause using Xeons and workstation class RAM.

I'm building a computer around a Atmel 2560 and 5" touch screen etc from scratch (handy having a PCB manufacturing plant :)) which is going to live in the same box powered off the 5V permanent live line. Attached to the network I will be able to attach to it from anywhere and re-boot any computer in the room, send commands to them, share a bluetooth keyboard and mouse etc.

Now that Apple are embracing USB3 too I can stick that on my computer too.
 
neil_g said:
Nvidia in the mac pro? I only saw 5770 and 5870?
Click to expand...

So did I. I am busy doing the firmware for the controller at the moment so hadn't had time to read it. I assumed I just hadn't read that yet....
 
Oops. Sorry, I meant the MacBOOK Pro... What's 4 letters between friends?
 
arad85 said:
Oops. Sorry, I meant the MacBOOK Pro... What's 4 letters between friends?
Click to expand...

i can think of a few 4 letter words ;)

i mean theres nothing wrong with 5770, ive only just changed mine out theyre capable cards. but for the amount of money the pro costs id expect an up to date 7xxx card.

and no thunderbolt? what are they doing? its almost like theyve given it a minor refresh hoping more people will jump ship to the other models like the mbp, imac or mac mini.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
See its had a "refresh". Can't see any thunderbolt and the graphics options aren't new or what I'd expect in a system costing so much. Disappointed to be honest.
Click to expand...

Yeah, totally underwhelmed. The big thing at the moment is the 15" retina display MacBook Pro. The retina display works well for iPhone and iPad which you naturally view at a closer range anyway. However I'm not convinced that it's really needed on a laptop. Not to mention the new MacBook is totally un-upgradable after you've bought it, and it's well on the expensive side for what it is IMO.

No new iMacs :suspect:. The iMac is well overdue for an upgrade. This delay is suggesting to me that Apple has gone for a completely new industrial design, and for some reason it's still got teething problems.

The MacPro. Well as far as I'm concerned that big aluminium housing it comes in is now it's coffin. Basically after 2 years it gets a measly processor speed bump, and a graphics speed bump. Still no SATA3, USB3 or Thunderbolt. Apple has pretty much said that they've moved out of the professional arena and are concentrating on the consumer market. This IMO pretty much bears this out, and I'd be surprised if we see another Mac Pro (Perhaps a better moniker these days would be Mac average tower system)

All in all pretty disappointing, and only serves to confirm that Apple's direction no longer caters for the Pro user.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top