13 ms·

The Mac Pro hasn't changed internally since 2013, calling it a professional computer is a joke at this point.

rbanffy 10y ago
The reasoning was that newer Xeons were not fast enough to warrant a redesign. I am curious about the kind of usage a fully loaded Mac Pro is inadequate for. Of course, you can buy a similarly capable Dell (OSX not included) for less, but you lose the hassle-free Macintoshness.
- CPLX 10y ago
  > I am curious about the kind of usage a fully loaded Mac Pro is inadequate. Financial sanity, mostly. Those things cost $10,000+
  - rbanffy 10y ago
    If you spend more than 2 weeks of lost productivity over the lifetime of the machine because the hardware is not supported, the financials no longer make sense.
    - mamcx 10y ago
      Not everyone is a rich guy with dream-like paychecks. With iOS you are stuck with OSX and currently the value proposition is bad.
      - rbanffy 10y ago
        This is a business decision. Being unable to be sure whether deadlines will be met is a cost you should factor in when acquiring hardware.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - stephenr 10y ago
        Building iOS apps doesn't require 32GB of memory. You don't need a mac pro if your only reason for having a Mac is to run Xcode.
        mamcx 10y ago
        No. But building the backend and development for other things aside iOS, YES. Is not the current fad "Full-Stack developers"? I'm one since I start this 17 years ago (way before it was called "Desperate developer do anything for food!" instead of be "full-stack" ;). Is not ideal to have more than 1 machine.
        stephenr 10y ago
        Very few development environments need 32gb. Would I like 32gb in my mbp? Yes. But 16gb gets the job done. The inconveniences of using another platform (or lack of support with macOS on unsupported hardware) far outweighs the slight benefit of 32gb vs 16gb of ram.
        mamcx 10y ago
        Like 5 years old machine. So why upgrade? We don't buy for years-ago needs, but for now-and-future. And even ignoring this: Is also signaling. We expect top-of-the-line machine for work. IF we use at FULL capacity OR NOT, is not the business of Apple.
        rbanffy 10y ago
        A computer built from parts running an unsupported OS is most definitely not top-of-the-line. If you are spending on memory and CPU you don't need, you are spending your money (ou your client's money) foolishly. Spend it on things that'll make you more productive.
        stephenr 10y ago
        > top-of-the-line Define top of the line. What measurement do you use? The reason the 2016 MBP has a 2015 Intel CPU is the same reason it has a 16GB memory limit. Intel hasn't shipped a LPDDR4-capable quad-core mobile processor yet. Even dual-core Kaby Lake mobile processors released already don't support LPDDR4, and even if they did, they're less appropriate for a "pro" machine than previous generation quads. [In competing devices the only machines that exceed 16GB of RAM will be using regular DDR3/4, (i.e. not low-power) and there will be a significant battery life effect, not to mention running hotter. (More power in == more heat out) As a developer (i.e. not video/audio/graphics editing/production) the only use I can imagine that would regularly benefit from > 16GB of RAM is running multiple virtual machines to simulate a complex server environment. This is the exact scenario I personally would like 32/64 GB of RAM to better handle. And yet, I'm still in favour of the highly portable configuration they settled on, rather than a power-hungry, hot machine using regular DDR.

The reasoning was that newer Xeons were not fast enough to warrant a redesign. I am curious about the kind of usage a fully loaded Mac Pro is inadequate for. Of course, you can buy a similarly capable Dell (OSX not included) for less, but you lose the hassle-free Macintoshness.

CPLX 10y ago
> I am curious about the kind of usage a fully loaded Mac Pro is inadequate. Financial sanity, mostly. Those things cost $10,000+
- rbanffy 10y ago
  If you spend more than 2 weeks of lost productivity over the lifetime of the machine because the hardware is not supported, the financials no longer make sense.
  - mamcx 10y ago
    Not everyone is a rich guy with dream-like paychecks. With iOS you are stuck with OSX and currently the value proposition is bad.
    - rbanffy 10y ago
      This is a business decision. Being unable to be sure whether deadlines will be met is a cost you should factor in when acquiring hardware.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - stephenr 10y ago
      Building iOS apps doesn't require 32GB of memory. You don't need a mac pro if your only reason for having a Mac is to run Xcode.
      - mamcx 10y ago
        No. But building the backend and development for other things aside iOS, YES. Is not the current fad "Full-Stack developers"? I'm one since I start this 17 years ago (way before it was called "Desperate developer do anything for food!" instead of be "full-stack" ;). Is not ideal to have more than 1 machine.
        stephenr 10y ago
        Very few development environments need 32gb. Would I like 32gb in my mbp? Yes. But 16gb gets the job done. The inconveniences of using another platform (or lack of support with macOS on unsupported hardware) far outweighs the slight benefit of 32gb vs 16gb of ram.
        mamcx 10y ago
        Like 5 years old machine. So why upgrade? We don't buy for years-ago needs, but for now-and-future. And even ignoring this: Is also signaling. We expect top-of-the-line machine for work. IF we use at FULL capacity OR NOT, is not the business of Apple.
        rbanffy 10y ago
        A computer built from parts running an unsupported OS is most definitely not top-of-the-line. If you are spending on memory and CPU you don't need, you are spending your money (ou your client's money) foolishly. Spend it on things that'll make you more productive.
        stephenr 10y ago
        > top-of-the-line Define top of the line. What measurement do you use? The reason the 2016 MBP has a 2015 Intel CPU is the same reason it has a 16GB memory limit. Intel hasn't shipped a LPDDR4-capable quad-core mobile processor yet. Even dual-core Kaby Lake mobile processors released already don't support LPDDR4, and even if they did, they're less appropriate for a "pro" machine than previous generation quads. [In competing devices the only machines that exceed 16GB of RAM will be using regular DDR3/4, (i.e. not low-power) and there will be a significant battery life effect, not to mention running hotter. (More power in == more heat out) As a developer (i.e. not video/audio/graphics editing/production) the only use I can imagine that would regularly benefit from > 16GB of RAM is running multiple virtual machines to simulate a complex server environment. This is the exact scenario I personally would like 32/64 GB of RAM to better handle. And yet, I'm still in favour of the highly portable configuration they settled on, rather than a power-hungry, hot machine using regular DDR.