The Future of Apple's Pro Desktop Line

SB_SamuraiSam writes "WWDC is drawing nearer and ArsTechnica has a thorough look at what they think Apple's plans are for their future Pro desktop line. It's a decent read. As always Ars has a competent pulse on Apple and is more reasonable than purely speculative. From the article:

I think Apple's CPU choice is clear cut. Strange as it sounds, the Xeon 5100 series is the best fit for the Mac. If Apple wants to keep the Quad name alive, it's the only option. Dual CPU configurations are not possible with anything else in Intel land, so if Apple wants to offer two CPUs and four cores, Xeon is the only game in town. With the benchmarks we have seen, the Core 2 Duo is a clear winner for Intel, outperforming anything AMD has to offer. The Xeon? With its faster FSB and different memory, it's even faster than the Core 2 Duo."

pure speculation

[moosesocks]

Pure speculation here, but what's preventing Apple from using an Opteron in their Pro lines? Last I heard, AMD had the competitive edge in the high-end/server market...

Personally, I'm waiting on an Intel XServe.....

Re:pure speculation

[kannibal_klown]

I'd have to guess being uniform. It's pretty obvious that they're going with the Intel route for everything else as the Core Duo is a decent chip (and the Core 2 chips are supposedly quite nice). Having their pro line be the black sheep might cause more headaches than they'd want: different motherboard, different chipset, different CPU, different drivers, etc. Might as well "go with what's working" for them.

That being said, considering their already buying bulk from Intel, adding another line of chips to their order is probably fairly cost efficient. So now instead of buying x chips from Intel at a bulk-order discount of y, they'd be buying 1.2x for perhaps an even larger discount-per-chip (0.98y). After all, you can get lower than a standard OEM price if you buy large-enough bulks.

well, the link i went to...

[kesuki]

was kinda screwed up :) i mean it looked like 7 different editors had gone through it and tried to put in their own views of what the new mac pro should be. and wound up stuck in an infinite loop of just rehashing the same issues.

there are better articles out there on the new mac pro. i just haven't had a chance to read them yet.

Quad CPU is expensive software wise too

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Quad G5 desktop.

The problem is Applications. I keep monitoring Applications CPU usage, I see many of them use single CPU, mencoder like open source stuff uses single CPU while iDVD happily uses all 4 CPUs (360% CPU usage)

Legendary mac shareware uses single CPU while saving TIFF files. To use all CPUs you need professional applications and they are expensive.

Photoshop CS, AVID comes to mind.

Games are just beginning to use SMP and can't expect 4 CPU.

There is advantage of Quad CPUs but don't expect too much.

Also as a person used Xeon systems, Xeon is not a top of the line game/ordinary application performer. It is optimised for corparate/server usage from the start.

Re:Windows faster on a Mac

[mrxak]

I don't think anybody believes Apple intends windows to be the primary OS on their hardware. However, it does make for an interesting comparison when windows and windows apps run faster on a Mac than a PC.

What will be most interesting is what Leopard has in store in the way of windows compatiblity. Some think Bootcamp functionality will no longer require a reboot.

Not buying a Mac?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone not buying a Mac because it contains an Intel?

I'm curious because I have several friends that will not buy one now because it contains a Intel.

Some point out that the real reason Mac picked Intel over AMD was for the simple fact of marketing.

It was sighted that one of there reasons for picking Intel was the heating issue of the CPU. They thought Intel was better at controlling heating issues. What I hear on the news now and from one friend this has happened to is the new Macs are reporting over heating issues, even exploding and catching fire.

What I remember from talking to other friends and colleague is that it was Intel that had the notorious reputation for over heating issues and that AMD was better.

Some friends wish Mac would have offered choices instead.

The Intel fan could have a Mac with Intel or the AMD fan an AMD CPU inside the Mac.

One friend pointed out they thought this was just another blunder Mac is famous for making. They shot themselves in the foot ... again.

By not offering choices they have alienated a huge section of potential buyers.

???

Re:pure speculation

[FuturePastNow]

An "Exclusive for X years" deal with Intel is the reason Apple can't use Opteron; the reason Apple won't use Opteron is because Intel provides the complete package of processor and chipsets, optimized for stability and performance. In order to use AMD processors, Apple would have to sign deals not just with AMD but also with ATI, or NVidia, or VIA, or another chipset maker.

And you're wrong, AMD no longer has the high-end edge. They won't regain it until 2008 at the earliest.

Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach

[gellenburg]

As a 20 year Mac user myself, I want to agree with you except for one thing.

I bought a Mac Mini specifically for FrontRow and specifically so I could stream my video collection from iTunes, and I have never been more embarrassed or dissatisfied with a piece of Apple hardware in a very very long time.

The *only* thing this machine is doing is running iTunes & FrontRow.

More often than not iTunes is pegged at 100% CPU that the entire machine becomes so unstable that I have to pull out the power cord because I can't even shut the machine down gracefully!

2x faster my ass. My older 800MHz iMac G4 was more stable and faster than this Intel crap.

Re:The Switch?

[sootman]

We already went through this just a few years ago with OS X. Apple would be STUPID to wait until CS3 comes out. Yes, designers squirmed for a year or two while they waited for all their apps to come out, but Apple managed to stay in business in the meantime, and by the time the apps came out, the OS was quite nice. Hell, the FINDER in OS X 10.0 sucked ass performance-wise; I can't imagine trying to run any real APPS with it. (I used 10.0 to play around with the UNIX side of OS X while I waited 9 months for 10.1 to appear. While 10.1 was out, all the apps were released, and then Apple came out with 10.2 and the whole package was finally very nice.)

Same thing this time: Apple will have new hardware out, and one day when the apps appear, users will be able to buy them and use them that day. Apple will continue to sell G5s, and designers will hoard them, just like they did with the last of the OS-9-booting MDD G4s. The switch to Intel is really no different. Doesn't matter if it's the OS or hardware changing, the effect on the applications is the same: the apps won't run in an ideal manner, so people will either wait to change, or get by with non-optimal systems, untill the apps match the system.

Besides, plenty of people buy nice Macs and don't use CS. Final Cut is already shipping for Intel and Apple's other pro apps will all be universal soon--maybe even coincident with the release of the hardware. I'd expect to see an announcement regarding that at the WWDC as well: "We at Apple have just finished our transition to Intel, and we've also transitioned all of our apps. Yay us!"

The biggest difference this time, actually, is with Adobe: since OS 9 came out, they purchased Macromedia, and Quark almost dead, so Adobe can drag their feet all they want for the Intel transition.* That's another big reason that Apple would be stupid to wait for Adobe to get a product out the door. (Besides, how would it look for Apple to be waiting on Adobe before releasing new hardware? Very weak, that's how.)

* Plus, the switch to Intel ain't exactly easy. [adobe.com] Same situation at Microsoft. [msdn.com]

Re:As A Quad-970 Owner I'm Sick To My Stomach

[Ilgaz]

I am getting sick of pure mac zealots praising Intel since WWDC announcement.

I also see you pay $100 yearly to .Mac service and you claim the parent being "devotee".

Apple does not announce professional workstation line because there is NOTHING from x86 (Intel) to have Quad G5 specs right now.

People becoming Intel fanatic after WWDC calling concerned Quad G5 owners make me sick indeed.

You call a 64 bit, RISC processor having vector processing unit several year old design... When will Intel reach Altivec specs? SSE3?

Please don't comment about professional workstations, they have nothing to do with your consumer grade shareware applications or games.

Did you watch World Cup Excerpts? Quad G5 is designed for such usage and those people using them does not come to slashdot to comment.

Apple kinda gave up the computer business, they offer stylish Intel whiteboxes with some stylish OS to keep the "computer company" image. You really want the truth? Quad G5 is the LAST true Macintosh coming from Apple.

Rest are locked down, DRM chip having Intel white box crap. You use x86 generic computer and you can't even decide what brand of x86 to use.

Want more truth? I bet you bought a "macbook" pro (!), there is a multiplatform game in hand "World Of Warcraft" which is coded by Blizzard. Use bootcamp , run game on both OS'es and compare fps.

Also read some sites like http://www.power.org/about/faq/ [power.org] before claiming PowerPC is old arch.

Oh check this too: http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype= userpage&username=Ilgaz [stanford.edu]

As there are no Mactel folding@home right now, I wonder how Team Mac OS X is number 11 with these "old" CPUs
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype= teamstats [stanford.edu]

Re:Windows faster on a Mac

[mrchaotica]

Some think Bootcamp functionality will no longer require a reboot.

I wonder, would that mean running Windows in a Window (like Parallels), or having a hypervisor and a hotkey to switch between OSes?

Of course, I'd still rather see a complete and 100% compatible DarWINE instead of any kind of virtualization... perhaps Apple ought to put some funding and developer manpower into that!

Prediction on the Outer Case

[Hootenanny]

I'm willing to hazard a guess on the nature of the redesigned enclosure.

Have you noticed how Apple likes a certain symmetry between applications (iTunes brushed aluminum, Safari brushed aluminum) and the Pro enclosure (G5 brushed aluminum)? Apple seems to be experimenting with a lighter, smooth metal theme as seen in the current Mail.app. I hereby conjecture that the new Pro Mac enclosure will likewise be a very light-colored, smooth metal with a similar look.

Re:Windows faster on a Mac

[monoqlith]

I'm pretty sure Parallels runs using a hypervisor too, IIRC. It's not Mac virtualizing a Windows platform, it's Parallels virtualizing both Mac and Windows. The Mac acts as a host operating system, and Windows as a guest but only in appearance, because Apple won't allow OS X to boot on anything else besides TPM. If Apple would allow booting OS X outside of TPM in some circumstances(which is probably never going to happen) you could conceivably do it the other way around - run Mac as a guest OS to Windows. Is there a Virtual Machine that makes the guest OS think it's running inside a trusted platform? I'm not sure about the specifics.

I could definitely see Mac supporting Windows inside a built-in "Classic"-type virtualization environment and integrating with the OS, so that double-clicking on an exe file in the Mac would launch it in Windows. I could even see them doing that in "rootless" mode like they did with Classic when they first made the transition to OS X - run Windows applications as though they were running on OS X directly - they draw regular Aqua windows instead of Windows Windows, can be switched to from the Dock, and have the same background as other OS X applications (although Classic still head a lot of the appearance of Mac OS 9).

Some people have suggested reproducing the Windows API inside of Mac OS X, since Apple has been given access to the entire Windows API but I think that would run counter to Apple's commitment to comparmentalizing different APIs inside of different protected memory stacks, so that a crash inside a Windows application doesn't take down the whole host OS with it. While reproducing the Windows API doesn't preclude the possibility of running it on top of OS X, instead of parallel to it, it's not worth the effort when an instance of Windows itself can already run on top of OS X. I also don't think that would be better than virtualizing Windows, since a hack could easily make Windows run applications in rootless mode inside the OS X graphical environment . Then they could advertise that Mac OS X now runs Windows programs just as well as it runs Mac programs - even though really it would be Windows running Windows programs on top of Mac programs.

Re:Not buying a Mac?

[kannibal_klown]

I love my Albook but would love to buy a new Intel Mac. However I upgraded my PC for work and gaming so my computer spending is shut down for now.

I'll probably wait to see if Apple is going to use the Core 2 Duos in any of their machines (iMac, Mac Pro, etc) and wait for a second revision of those before making the plunge. By then I'll have more money saved up, more apps will be native/universal, and I'll have the new chip as well.

PPC Linux support is very good

[reaktor]

Gentoo PPC on the dual CPU powermacs is great. And it is getting better. I recently purchased a used Powermac G5- it's a fast machine. Compiled KDE-base and other KDE apps together in well under an hour. Wireless airport card works now with 2.6.17 kernel. I love it.

Re:pure speculation

[oh_my_080980980]

Apperantly you did not read AMD's announcement about it's 4x4 architecture which provides EXACTLY what Apple is looking for, Quad computing - 2 dual-core processors.

Again, Intel lags behind. It was a mistake not to have Conroe not be multi socket capable.

Re:Woodcrest for the high end, Conroe for others

[spyinnzus]

The mac mini comment is so valid I know a startup company lobotomizing Mac Mini's into gentoo boxes simply because the mac mini is by far the best small footprint machine (in cost, power consumption, and size) that it's worth it for them to do it.

Re:Far from 'insightful'

[Mies van der Robot]

Just because you made that sentence by rearranging words I used, that doesn't mean it's what I said. But I'll answer your objections anyway. I know more than a few professionals who use Garageband as a "sketchpad" for Logic. Logic reads Garageband files, and if you're a Logic Pro user (as I am), you don't want to have to carry your valuable dongle around 24/7, so in a pinch you get an idea down in Garageband and finesse it later in Logic. In case you haven't noticed, "real" musicians also use Casio SK-1 keyboards, Nintendo GameBoys, and toy pianos. John Cage even composed for toy piano. Don't let your prejudice of Garageband as a mass-market toy cloud the fact that real-world professionals are using it to do something remunerative. As for Final Cut Pro, using it is not "the norm" with recording musicians, but many pros who do audio editing on OSX prefer the workflow of Soundtrack Pro to other available options (e.g. Peak), and have bought into the crossgrade just to get Soundtrack Pro. The rest of FCP Studio they'll probably never touch. Go search Apple's Soundtrack forums for the terms "upgrade" and "crossgrade" if you require evidence of people who've made the switch. "Real" musicians also use Roombas, cordless drills, ball bearings, and bicycle chains to make music that ends up on albums you buy. Just because something like Final Cut Pro isn't ostensibly meant for musicians doesn't mean some of them aren't using it anyway.