Discussion in 'Apple Desktop Hardware/Software' started by elvis, Apr 5, 2017.
Nasty little bugger aren't you?
All jokes aside, this appears to be getting very personal for you. I'll be blunt: I have no beef with you as an individual. But you're also not going to convince anyone that a company are doing sensible things with posts like these.
I also won't mute my opinion on the matter because it upsets someone. Not now, not ever. So if you genuinely want to change my mind, present better information.
If you want to persist with these sorts of posts, I won't stop you. But it doesn't change my opinion on Apple.
Alternatively if you don't care about my opinion, act like it.
It’s certainly not personal, and don’t take my criticism personally either, I don’t know you from a bar of soap.
I’m not trying to change your mind, I don’t think you’re capable of it - I’m just offering a dissenting opinion in a circle-jerk of seemingly jaded poorly informed characters.
If you back your posts with real insight tempered by the reality that none of us have the full picture - I’m happy to take it onboard, but I don’t see a lot of that in this thread
Not personally having a go, feel free to not respond to anything I post.
It's very much personal. You're going out of your way to make it personal.
This post is in direct contrast with these comments:
Three posts that have nothing to do with either the topic at large, or Apple in general. Pure ad hominem, and nothing more.
Again, I welcome your opinions on Apple, and the new Apple Mac Pro hardware. You're clearly a technically competent end user. By all means, give me your opinions on those matters. I welcome them, but not whatever this has devolved in to.
Let's turn this around and make something positive of it. I invite you to join me in some better quality discussion.
Agreed. The simple rule is to discuss the topic, not each other. If the post you're writing is about the person you're discussing the topic with, rather than the topic itself, it's probably not going to be a very good post. Reconsider before hitting submit.
at least one (apple)"pro" user that is complaining about the new mac pro's being a bit to (elvis)"pro" for them.
Does this mean that apple have landed in some sort no-pro-nether-region between "pro" and "pro"?
I'm only asking that rhetorically here as I think we all know the lay of the land on this board. The article is just an opinion that's a bit different to what has been covered in the last 30+ pages and as such might be worth a skim to anyone still subscribed to this thread.
Audio is an interesting industry. The previous business I worked for was a prominent multi-national multi-media company that spanned several industries. I tend to concentrate on video and VFX in my posts here as that was my primary role in the company, but they had a world leading, award winning audio department that did everything from film score mixing and dialogue ADR, to top 40 pop music production to banal things like radio and TV commercials, voice overs, etc (supported by other people in our technical team who were more experienced in that side of the industry).
What was obvious for them, as time went on, was that even consumer computing far exceeded their requirements. What used to require the superior IO that Apple was famous for back in the early Macintosh days could, even as early as 2015-ish, is that the sort of IO and processing grunt required for even the most complex DAW could be handled on literally anything. A low end laptop or even an iPad has the power needed to do multi-track audio mixing, effects, autotuning, and the rest.
The article linked looks back nostalgically on "bubble" iMacs, which at the time were not the flagship powerhouse of Apple. The G3 iMac was certainly a pretty special machine (I still have one for my own retro computing love), but there was a Power Macintosh G3. When these were around I was working for an architecture firm, and their art and marketing department had these in droves for pushing around huge Quark and Adobe Pagemaker documents (InDesign wasn't quite a thing yet). And even then (pre-2000), we were already seeing flagship Apple workstations at fully specced configurations (a) hitting over AUD $10K, and (b) being well overspecced for what audio users "needed" (it's always nice to have more grunt to speed up rendering, even in audio, but real-time effects and whatnot were sorted a long time ago).
The article author complains about the cost of a Mac Pro, and musicians dependency on Apple. For the hardware, I think honestly a low-end iMac would cover the needs of most audio production requirements. And even then, there's no great "need" for Mac. People are welcome to their preferences, but Window and even Linux are competent DAW solutions today, and even on low end hardware. Software wise, again, it all falls down to whether people are self-motivated to break free from vendor lock in. Ardour, for example, has a booming user base in the indie music scene. And even outside of that, I read on the daily how folks are mixing rough cuts of things in hotel rooms on iPads. I can't imagine it will be long until we hear professional music entirely composed on mobile devices. Heck, Hollywood heavyweight Steven Soderbergh has shot a number of large scale projects entirely on iPhone. The times, they are a-changin'.
So, long answer to a short question, but is there a gap in the middle between what was the high end of yesteryear, and what is the high end of today? I think "yes". This current Mac Pro isn't enough for the sorts of people I'm supporting (media, VFX, high end scientific compute), but it's way overpriced for a bunch of other people who can literally get by on an ultra light laptop or mobile device. And I think that's a big problem for Apple. They either need to aim higher or aim lower. But trying to find an average between two points isn't making either customer type happy.
I built an audio workstation for a client a few years back that up until the point they finally decided to upgrade were still using a 600mhz Pentium 3 as their workstation! When I built the new machine audio latency and fan noise were the biggest concerns, and latency was no longer the issue under Windows that it once was.
More power = more heat, more heat = More fan noise that the mic's can pick up. Obviously not an issue in a proper recording studio, but an apparent issue where many home studio's are concerned.
Having said that, from what I read most would love nothing more than to keep their old cMP running - It's the fact that Apple are dropping support for the cMP that really gets them in a twist.
Latency was one of the huge selling points of Mac over other platforms for a long time (certainly pre-2000). But you're right - latency under any OS today is far less of an issue. Linux has had a low-latency kernel on offer for a long time (it installed by default with Ubuntu Studio, and was useful for all sorts of latency-sensitive engineering projects, not just audio), but now many of those tweaks are available at runtime (tools like Jack Audio can do this on demand).
Outside of tool and OS familiarity, there's no longer a "killer feature" that Mac offers over and above the other two OSes for audio, either in hardware or software. Most audio engineers and producers I know today who use Mac do so out of familiarity.
Indeed, one of the biggest pro-Mac guys I know left a job at a larger studio to set up his own small home studio. He rang me about 2 months in seeking advice on home upgrades, complaining bitterly about the price of Mac equipment. He also had a number of projects on the go that required Unreal Studio for AR/VR jobs he was doing audio for. Lots of tears and tantrums later, and he decided to buy a Windows workstation at a fraction of the cost. I caught up with him again recently, and he's perfectly happy with the new setup, despite having used Mac for the better part of 30 years as a professional audio engineer.
Quite funny that he spent years demanding Mac when I worked with him, but when it came down to spending his own money in his own business, he was suddenly willing to look at and ultimately use functional alternatives to make a profit. You couldn't tell him that to his face, of course.
Plenty of similar stories about After Effects editors and VFX folks, web developers, and the like I knew who all did the same thing - demanded Mac at bigger studios, then did freelance gigs and all switched to Windows to get the same performance for lower dollars.
Time will tell how this new Mac Pro goes. I don't know a lot of places keep to pony up for that spec machine. I'll be interested to see if it ends up in larger studios with complex Mac workflows. It'll likely come down to the cost of changing all their tools over to Windows, versus just shelling out for the Mac Pro and eating the cost per workstation.
i'm having troubles editing 4K. it's taking forever. this is apples -current- base mac pro offering too...
and I don't even render out in 4K. i only using it as a kind of cheat to get 2x zoom with prime lenses when rendering out at 1080p, and yet the machine can't cope
if you're already using avid, black magic or adobe products then it's a simple swap to windows machine, maybe even linux re: avid because windows is horrible
but, what're you going to do if you use final cut/logic etc? invest in all new software? nope. that would mean throwing away all of the learning you've done, succumbing to adobe's horrible licensing model, taking a hit in productivity as you re-train, buy all new plug ins, rearrange your workflow, all kinds of stuff that makes the new system painful to buy, but probably cheaper in the long run...
I think this plays into the benefit offset... When you make the decision to work in a closed ecosystem, limited to one system or the other the consideration really needs to be made at the start is the cost/time/training benefit of being in that closed system worth the potential training required to switch systems in the long run? I'd say not. I don't feel this has been a huge surprise for many people who've already made the switch from an apple ecosystem to a more universal one, that works on both. Photographers had the option years ago to go with Lightroom on both or Aperture on Mac. Aperture initially was a more polished product, but was ultimately dropped when Lighroom V2 started to overtake it on many features. (That's not to comment on the current climate, where Capture One, and Phocus along with other third parties are playing the game).
There were many, myself included who looked at the current Mac Pro as a step backwards, and I feel the new Mac Pro is a bit of a rubber band affair. Overkill for most especially when pricing is considered... but not necessarily bad on its own. Just the software ecosystem that Apple have is highly limiting.
The irony is, NOW an updated machine like the current Mac Pro would probably fill a good niche. Where the iMac and iMac Pro exist, a Mac Pro, and a Mac Pro + (the new style being the Mac plus) could work.
Need some nerd rage for the morning?
A macrumors user speaking on the new 16in MacBook PRO:
Need your Mac Pro on wheels? That's an extra $400
(Ask yourself what a set of tires for a small car costs...)
eh, it's enterprise level stuff, doesn't seem too extreme. we pay $699 for rack mounting kits to rack mount our HP workstations
AUD vs. US though i guess
I have a Z4 workstation
128gb, 2.5tb ssd's, RTX4000, 9980XE 18 core
96gb, 16 core, 2tb, 16gb radeon
slower....and more expensive. yay?
You fool, your dinky Z4 can't grate cheese, or power itself with the owner's sense of smug self satisfaction!
Yep rack mount kits that are designed to hold ~100kg at a 1m angle while still sliding smoothly and not toppling over.
Vs some wheels
Seems fine to me, the combination of insane ram capability, VRAM and afterburner card don't really have a competitor so they can charge whatever they want. I really want that XDR display!