Thread: 2019 Mac Pro

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. Collapse Details
    #11
    Senior Member Thomas Smet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,254
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by JCummings View Post
    The big motherboard and video card manufacturers practically reinvent their product line every 12 months or so with many incremental updates and variants in between. I'm talking bleeding-edge stuff every year or sooner.

    What Apple, with it's vast amount of money and human capital, could easily do...and choose not to...speaks volumes on where their priorities lie.

    My most painful Apple episode was buying a fully-loaded Mac Pro a year before they switched to Intel. It became a very expensive doorstop almost overnight. It still resides in dusty corner of my basement. Now they're going to do it again? Fool me once...
    You are in the minority when it comes to viewing the switch to Intel negatively. Most people were very glad for the switch and has been known as one of the decisions that put Apple back on the map in the computer world. We all face this sort of thing when we buy computers. Its a constantly changing world and we all take big risks when we invest in a workstation.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    3,984
    Default
    With all of apples resources I’d be thrilled if they doubled or tripled the size of their pro department.

    I hope the new Mac Pro reinvents modular desktops. Would be great to see a universal cartridge standard invented where you could change and update traditionally internal components like RAM and even CPU with a tool-less slide. Imagine a new intel processor coming out. Install it in cartridge, slide in, CPU upgraded. Or changing your internal ram from 32gb to 128gb without ever opening a case.

    I think the tech is there and Apple could really shake things up if they execute right.

    I also wish, tangent, that a new FCP X update would come along with the option to navigate the timeline in a more traditional manner. If Apple pressed here FCP X could truly be something very special but I think their update pace in terms of features and improvements would need to get a lot more aggressive.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    1,376
    Default
    I always liked the way the Apple rack unit server looked.
    What if they did a Mac Pro as a rack unit?
    You have the base unit with CPU, RAM, System SSD and integrated graphics etc... Need graphics card? Get a rack unit that fits two GPUs... Need more hard drives? Get the unit that has lot of space for drives... etc etc...
    I would believe that most people that want/need a mac pro live in an environment where there's other rack units so would be easy to fit in... and they could design their own rack case that makes it look like an apple computer...
    Sony NEX-FS700R | A7s | Odyssey 7Q+
    Sony SEL 50/1.8, 35/1.8, 18-105/4, FE 28-70 | Samyang 16, 35 & 85mm Cine
    MacBook Pro Retina 2.6/16/256 | macOS Sierra | FCPX | LPX


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    262
    Default
    I hope Apple comes through with something revolutionary for the Pro market, but I remember how great it was when Apple moved from RISC to x86. I still love the tool-less, cable-less sliding daughter card designs of the cheese graters, but returning to that level of elegance in hardware modularity isn’t going to go smoothly. As Bob Zelin recently pointed out, Apple’s success in the pro market is highly dependent on third party manufacturers. And moving away from x86 is going to slow third party software support of hardware. I applaud Apple’s support of OpenCL, but it feels like it’s support has lagged behind CUDA like OpenGL did compared to DirectX. Apple has lost their dominance in the video hardware space, and they will lose their dominance in the pro audio market if this transition doesn’t go well and DAW developers write more solid drivers for Windows.

    Here’s to hoping that Apple has enough foresight to create something revolutionary enough to transform the pro market in a way that draws innovation and support from third party hardware and software manufacturers.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    307
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Saddler View Post
    I hope Apple comes through with something revolutionary for the Pro market, but I remember how great it was when Apple moved from RISC to x86. I still love the tool-less, cable-less sliding daughter card designs of the cheese graters, but returning to that level of elegance in hardware modularity isn’t going to go smoothly. As Bob Zelin recently pointed out, Apple’s success in the pro market is highly dependent on third party manufacturers. And moving away from x86 is going to slow third party software support of hardware. I applaud Apple’s support of OpenCL, but it feels like it’s support has lagged behind CUDA like OpenGL did compared to DirectX. Apple has lost their dominance in the video hardware space, and they will lose their dominance in the pro audio market if this transition doesn’t go well and DAW developers write more solid drivers for Windows.

    Here’s to hoping that Apple has enough foresight to create something revolutionary enough to transform the pro market in a way that draws innovation and support from third party hardware and software manufacturers.
    Large part of them supporting OpenCL is that they only use AMD cards, so investing CUDA wouldn't make sense unless they used those cards. CUDA works in programs like Resolve though, if you have a Nvidia card in your computer/eGPU. For their own software though, they've moved on to Metal, which is their equivalent of DX12/Vulkan.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #16
    Senior Member Thomas Smet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,254
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by IanTheM View Post
    Large part of them supporting OpenCL is that they only use AMD cards, so investing CUDA wouldn't make sense unless they used those cards. CUDA works in programs like Resolve though, if you have a Nvidia card in your computer/eGPU. For their own software though, they've moved on to Metal, which is their equivalent of DX12/Vulkan.
    The CUDA dependency shrinks every year and eventually there will be no software left that must use CUDA. In the end it makes much more sense to have a universal standard to develop around GPU hardware.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #17
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by JCummings View Post

    My most painful Apple episode was buying a fully-loaded Mac Pro a year before they switched to Intel. It became a very expensive doorstop almost overnight. It still resides in dusty corner of my basement. Now they're going to do it again? Fool me once...
    I'll one-up you, I bought my 2x2.7 G5 Power Mac about 3 weeks before the intel announcement. . .


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •