Apple will release a new Mac Pro this spring, according to a French fanbois website that got its mains on what it says is a memo from a Gallic Apple reseller. "Apple nous informe qu'une nouvelle gamme Mac Pro va sortir au printemps 2013," France Systèmes wrote in a missive to its customers informing them of the February 18 …
>b) a legal paid up copy of Mac OS X so am struggling to work out why this isn't completely legitimate.
Which requires you to have another new Mac around so that the stupid ass Mac store will actually allow you to purchase and download it. Apple goes out of there way to make sure they check your machine before they even legally allow you to join their club. Your money is not good enough for them unless your membership card is up to date.
>Perhaps thats the problem and why the Saintly all-knowing, never wrong, android hating Jobs never really liked the Pro and why Acolyte Cook is struggling to replace it. It works, it doesn't go wrong (for me) and its cost effective.
Exactly Apple hates any system that can be upgraded in any way. They only believe in the making fancy enclosed appliance like stuff that must be replaced every few years an not upgraded. And they don't push the Mac Pro much because as you say at least when I bought mine it was actually cost effective to comparable dual socket PC of the era.
iPads have 4:3 screens
iPhones have 3:2 screens except iPhone 5 which have 16:9.
Nothing there tells that iPads will go 16:9
Planned obsolescence isn't two years with Apple. Here are some figures.
here is an bit old image but you get the idea
Actually the CPU do 64 bit fine.
Problem is 32 bit EFI support only. But everything else is supporting 64 bit. Apple choose not enable booting the kernel in 64 bit mode, by a n update.
But you can bypass the 32bit efi with some thinkering to make it load the 64 bit kernel in 10.8. 10.7 was last to ship with 32 bit kernel.
Re: a new machine is 2-3x that price and for what...
Nope it won't
The MacPro1,1 has pretty good I/O capabilities. That's it's strong part. If you only consider CPU speeds you are maybe correct. But as soon as you start doing I/O the old mac pro outperforms most pc's. But then it's a proper workstation, not a generic PC.
>but they sure do upgrade their software more often that windroids.
Nah Microsoft upgrades a significant amount of their OS's every month. Apples does too but its more like every 3 months or more.
Had one since 2008
Had one since 2008 as my main workstation for video editing. It was bloody expensive and it is very heavy. It is well built and its nice to work on internally provided you are accessing the bits Apple want you to be able to access. Airflow is exceptional internally and the fans only makes a noise when you thrash the CPU for hours on end.
It's never given me any hassle at all. Sits there, switched on 24/7 all year round barring Christmas. Chugs away, batch processes video encode jobs overnight, keeps all the data in one place and runs beautifully.
The magic is that it does "just work". The previous edit suite ran on XP. Cheaper? Hell yeah! But the problem always was that everyone running Windows has slightly different hardware config. So you'd apply an update and all the video acceleration would suddenly become invisible to the edit software or something (this used to happen more than I'd like). I'd sit there tearing my hair out trying to work out what had gone wrong this time. On a production machine that is annoying.
Could you build a better spec Windows PC for far less money? Easily! Could you guarantee I wouldn't lose any edit days to niggy hardware problems that will crop up? Probably not.
If Apple offer an updated version I'll probably go for it when the time is right so glad to see they aren't dropping it.
While I agree with the concept (since strictly Apple limits what will work with MacOS, it's approximately one metric fuckton easier to ensure compatibility), the reality is that Apple isn't going to give you that guarantee that you won't lose edit days due to upgrades; what they do get you is a lower risk of that sort of thing happening (although the other aspect of this is that it is perfectly possible to achieve the same with non-Mac boxes, it's just harder because YOU have to pick the mainstream fully supported parts, rather than Apple doing it for you).
(The other other aspect is that traditionally Apple has been slow to provide upgrades to MacOS, even when they should because of security vulnerabilities, and provide fewer of them, therefore reducing the chances of upgrade problems by reducing the number of upgrades).
>While I agree with the concept (since strictly Apple limits what will work with MacOS, it's approximately one metric fuckton easier to ensure compatibility)
Keep believing those lies. I guess getting enough people to believe that is how you become a 600 billion dollar company. What I am saying is Apples goes out of their way to drop support for their own hardware they designed. It has gotten especially obvious in the last few years.
Lies? What lies? The sentence you quoted noted nothing more than it is EASIER to ensure compatibility. You apparently conflate that with some kind of alleged guarantee that compatibility will be achieved.
Over here in the real world, decisions on what degree of backward compatibility (and compatibility testing) may or may not make it into a given release (of anything) factor the ease (or otherwise) of getting that job done. If it is easier, the probability is higher than if it is harder. Sorry this is confusing.
No the lie (not yours) is that Apple wants to imply that they can only support a very limited subset of even their own hardware in order for everything to just work. I can buy the argument they don't want to support others hardware (although Microsoft and Linux for at least the last 5 to 10 years has had no problems really doing this) but for the most valuable company in the world they should find a way to support their own hardware just a bit better instead forcing everyone to pay top dollar again every few years. It might be why their downward curve has already started again.
Of all the Macs
This one has the case that I really like (just the case, not the internals) and I wish there was something similar for the PC that wasn't cheap tatty plastic.
Later next year?.... or Later, Next Year. ?
It's amazing that Apple has made any sort of announcement. Steve Jobs was big on secrecy and Tim Cook suffers from the same disease in a more advanced stage. It's about time Apple upgraded the Mac Pro. I don't care for the mac v. win v. lin debates. In the creative world the software that is used the most runs on Mac, period. Yes, there are alternatives and many vendors have the same app that runs on Windows as well, but creative people prefer the Mac interface. You may also notice that when you watch videos of NASA engineers, the computer mix is usually AT LEAST 50% Mac.
Me? I have WinXP and Win7 and Ubuntu running with VMware. I need to live in all worlds and my Mac Pro lets me do that. There are woefully few good CAD programs available on the Mac, so I use the Windows install to allow me to use a serious CAD package. When I am coding embedded systems, linux rules and I use that.
A previous comment stated that there was no way except a PCI card to get WiFi on the vintage of Mac Pro that they possess. Mine's a 2006 and has a slot to stick in an Airport (or clone) card, but the computer is not particularly portable so I stick to the old fashioned ethernet cable that just happens to be much faster than flinging bits through the air. I have WiFi so I can tote my laptop around the house and if I ever actually watched TV, I could set up some sort of WiFi link to stream movies over there. I'd run ethernet cable everywhere, but I'm just renting the house.
Competition is good. It keeps all of the players on their toes and keeps us lot in good kit.
That all the creative software is on Win and Apple users are left with tatty shite like Logic
Nasa Mac Love
Not surprised that the Mac found its way into NASA. They were pretty keen on the Amiga back in the day.
Ah here we go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAPD9HA8Unw
Long and short of that video is that back in the 80's NASA wanted to use Macs but Apple wouldn't play ball. So they went to Commodore instead. I assume Apple have since had a change of heart.
What is new?
If their last few upgrades are any indication, this new one will have a band new upgraded RoHS sticker.
I wish they would put a real power chip back in these things. When Apple was doing OS X for the PPC, they were still building for x86 internally and they found many bugs doing the dual platform development. A Power 7/8 device would regain their title of having the fastest desktop computer again and would help reduce their bug count in their products while keeping a core customer demographic very happy. Too bad they won't even consider that anymore.
/mines the one with the g4 laptop in the very large pocket
Re: What is new?
It was the monstrous heat output of the PPC970fx that did for Power on the Mac add to that no interest from IBM in a laptop part and it was game over.
I own a couple of iMacs but when I wanted something with more guts but still able to run OSX I built a monster Hackintosh with the best parts I could find, as knew it would still be 1/3 the cost of an Mac Pro and would have user servicable parts inside when stuff started blowing out.
I've had many mac Pros and none has ever had a part "blow out". Do you normally keep your machines for over 5 years?
I've had my Mac Pro for about four and a half years now. It cost a small fortune, but at least I saved a bit my putting my own memory and disk in. I deliberately got a Pro as I wanted a Mac with more than one disk, and I was messing about with video a bit at the time. I've had no real problems with it, though the OS is a bit laggy every now and again, but that's probably my fault for being lazy and upgrading rather then a fresh install. And on that subject I have a sneaky feeling that for the next release of Mac OS Apple may shift their support window and leave my Pro out in the cold.
I see my Pro going for a good few years yet (not bad considering I used to replace my Win PCs every 2-3 years) and I'd love to replace it with another Pro (hopefully with USB3, Thunderbolt etc all thrown in), so fingers crossed Apple don't do away with it and try and convince people that a Mac Mini with serveral daisychained external drives is a good thing...
You say it will be barred from Europe and refer to a standard on a none European website?
Failure to comply to EN60950 is not a reason to bar an item from Europe. Failure to comply with the LVD (Low voltage directive) is the only way to bar an item from Europe.
Compliance with EN60950 does not automatically infer compliance with the directive.
You can market something provided it complies with the directive even if it does not meet EN60950.
The lack of a new Mac Pro
Just shows how superficial Apple have got with their product line. It's all glitz and surface. That's not to say that the products are bad just that they are not competing on performance like they used to. The new Macbook Pro? That's sold on it's flashy screen. Why? Because the CPU, RAM and HDDs are all stock components that are found in loads of PCs from any number of manufacturers or system builders.
I agree with the poster above, -tim, that the change from PPC to x86 has cost Apple their 'power' crown.
Re: The lack of a new Mac Pro
For 90%+ of users, the MBP is vastly overpowered as it is. Apple are not superficial, they simply focus their main activity on the home user market rather than business... similar to FireFox really in this regard. Nothing wrogn with being focused.
The change from PPC to x86 has cost Apple their 'power' crown.
No, it hasn't. The later PowerPC Macs (later G4s and the G5) were in fact quite slow, even when compared to the dreadful Pentium4 with its Netburst architecture (and the XEONs which were based on the same stuff). When intel finally came out with their Core 2 processors, Apple was lost. Plain and simple.
The only positive thing for Apple in using PowerPCs was that they were different enough to act as a differentiator from ordinary PCs. Since Apple adopted x86, there is not much which makes a Mac different from a PC, and in the areas there still is a difference, Apple is mostly more limiting.