Why did Apple decide to make this things suck so hard??? The

>>57538118
the design is phenomenal, as is the silent and efficient airflow considering how compact the machine is. The only thing that sucks about it is that they still haven't updated it to 2016 hardware, which is ridiculous, considering that it's a "pro" machine

>>57538118

Fuck you, this is a really innovative and neat design. The old Powermac g5 design was looks positively last century now.

>>57538118
What does the lock switch do?

can you put a titan x in there with the x99 chipset cpus?

>>57538118
why didn`t apple make this as a mac pro mini and the actual mac pro would stay the same

Also was previous mac pro really upgradeable? Outside of the graphics card

>>57538431
It's for accessing internals. You flick it right and slide the can part of

>>57538538
At least it used somewhat standard components. If you're trying to upgrade this shit you need to account for component size on top of compatibility (which leaves you with one or no components that meet the requirements and are usually apple approved a therefore shill as fuck)

Considering they use the same plug, why is there both a speaker and headphone icon?

>>57539750
I believe the difference would be that the speaker icon one supports optical audio out

3 years without an update. Pretty shameful.

>>57538118
Apple was always shit.

>Intel Xeon instead of i7 6 core or 8 core so they can charge twice as much
>ECC Ram on something that isnt a server
>AyyMD anything

just from the specs you can tell this is fucked
also Linus showed it being destroyed in workstation applixations by a gaymer pc build with a GTX780

>>57538118
what the fuck is this
is apple designing high-tech trashcans now? I can't think of any reason I would need USB ports on such a thing

I remember when the Pro used to be good, as you could upgrade the GPU, and they were expensive but not "holy shitballs I'd better sell a kidney"

That they're still charging the same for 3 year old tech is shameful, and you just know they're going to bring out a new one even more ridiculously priced but with soldered RAM.

File: mac-pro-soda-can-1.jpg (28KB, 463x545px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 463x545px

>>57538118
>Dual GPU system the size of a shoe
>Bad
The only bad thing is that they forgot to upgrade it for the last 3 years, but Apple negleting the Pro line is not a new phenomenon.

>>57539987
>all workstation manufacturers are wrong
>Linus
please leave /g/ for the good of humanity

>>57538350
The g4 cube was phenomenal this is just lazy... Too bad they fucked up the cooling on that one, could have been a beast. They should reboot them.

>>57538358
C O U R A G E
O
U
R
A
G
E

>>57538358
>Last century
but at least it was fucking upgradable

>>57538118
>Why did Apple decide to make this things suck so hard???
It's not THAT terrible. Although why they never updated the graphics is beyond me. I'd say it works fine for whatever you'd use a uniprocessor workstation for.

>>57538538
>Also was previous mac pro really upgradeable?
It was a dual socket machine with actual expansion slots.

apple is the jewiest company in the world. frankly i'm amazed the ipod comes as standard with earphones

>>57538118
courage, pretty much.
but it's not that terrible, they just need to improve the cooling. a "workstation" pc that costs $5000 should not be overheating, that's a bit awkward.

>>57538118
>only one hdmi port
>USB not even color coded despite not all ports being usb 3.0
>power button blocked by all the cables, impossible to find without looking
>only 3.5mm audio
>2 ethernet ports

who approved this?

>>57538118
Pretentious designers put in charge.

They saw that the whole world sucks their cock even if they shit into its mouth. So they want to see how far can the push the consumer before something in them breaks.

>>57540882
All ports are USB 3.0.
>only 3.5mm audio
What? Do you want XLR or something?

File: rackmacpro_2modulesmacpros.png (115KB, 380x220px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 380x220px

>>57538118
> upgradeability is a joke...
If you need to upgrade just buy a second one and put them into a rack mount.

>>57538118
its not for gaymers. end of discussion.

>>57542070
That's really dumb

File: 0dXRpCn.gif (504KB, 300x222px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 300x222px

>>57538358
>innovative and neat
>all ports on the back

>>57542034
There is no way to output a surround signal, unless you use USB. So if you already have a surround system you need another niche device to connect those together.

>>57542332
>There is no way to output a surround signal
It's SPDIF compatible.

>>57542364
so where do i plug that in?

>>57542376
The 'speaker' port, I imagine. Maybe both.

>>57539987
>Intel Xeon instead of i7 6 core or 8 core so they can charge twice as much
>ECC Ram on something that isnt a server
ECC is great for high-use workstations as well. I use ECC RAM on my desktop PC. Because I don't a bit flips corrupting my filesystem.

>>57542402
that's pretty cool. but they weren't the first to do it, were they?

>>57542413
No, who said they were? That's something that's existed for at least a decade.

>>57542437
i just never heard of it before, and i didnt expect apple to be innovative. so i was hoping for someone to prove me wrong.

>>57539967
/thread

>>57542479
Yea, you just get one of these and it'll connect right up. Works on all MacBook Pros to 2015, the plastic MacBooks, I think the old Mac Pros.

https://www.amazon.com/Toslink-Optical-Adapter-Cable-Macbook/dp/B0025W1FR8

File: 1463742052074.jpg (127KB, 1200x525px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1200x525px

>>57538118

>>57538118
The design would be great, even if it is essentially trying to do the "laptop" concept for a "desktop" computer (ie, you take it as is, nearly 0 upgradeability)

IF

they were upgrading it.

Instead, everyone pretty much suspects that Apple has utterly become bored of the professional segment, if not of computers in general. All the poor guys want to do is sit on an iphone that eternally prints a big pile of money.

Jony Ive used to have a filter. He used to have people, like Steve, that would encourage him to think outside the box, and then shitcan his ideas when they were stupid.

And then Jobs died, and after Scott Forstall flubbed (the skeumorphic retard responsible for Apple maps launch), he became the SVP for Design generally. And then in 2015, they promoted him to the Chief Design Officer.

And Tim Cook just lets him do whatever the fuck he wants.

>>57544799
>nearly 0 upgradeability
You can upgrade the processor, RAM, and storage. The only thing you can't upgrade are the GPUs, which sucks.

>>57538118
The trashcan was really neat from a design perspective but it was crazy expensive and never once got updated, making it shit.

>>57538118
>>57544837
The design is an engineering hard on. I don't think Jony Ive had anything to do with it.

>>57545003
It wasn't that expensive. The E5-2697v2 processor was very expensive and, at the time of release, 10k was getting you about a dual socket 6 core machine with more gigahertz, but nothing mindbending.

>>57545046
>design is an engineering hardon
So are unibody macs and having a mac with virtually no ports with everything being USB type C external. Ive picks the design first, and engineering compromises everything around said design as little as possible.

>>57544974
>The only thing you can't upgrade are the GPUs, which sucks.
There's this new thing called "external GPU" that Apple is trialling.

>>57545250
more dongles?

>>57544941
sshfs

>>57545055
Yeah, but it didn't support ECC for its VRAM which is standard on real FirePro and Quadro graphics cards.

>>57545434
Sure, but that's not really useful. I'd argue ECC system RAM isn't really useful for most professional applications.

>>57545474
Redundancy is useless if your hardware never fails

>>57545480
Uh...What?

>>57545480
Bit flips are common once you get to 128gb of ram or more. We have at least one a month in our labs 4 node cluster.

>>57545502
ECC is just bit-level redundancy. Like other forms of redundancy, it's useless if your hardware never fails.

My point is that you could say the same about fucking everything from backups to insurance. Sure, it's wasted if nothing ever goes wrong. But if you want to be realistic, you know that's simply not the case in practice. Stuff breaks. Bit flips happen. Hard drives die. Houses burn down.

How much is safety and integrity worth to you?

>>57545480
LOL

>>57545567
I know what ECC is. I think that, for most professional applications, it is useless. For servers and processes that run constantly? Absolutely. A workstation isn't doing that.

>>57545578
>I don't understand why people keep backups. I've never had a hard drive fail on me

>>57545602
You keep making all these analogies that don't work. Why don't you actually try to argue how a rare bit flip will destroy your CAD drawing or DaVinci project?

>>57538350
the previous mac pros were silent as fuck too, with dual xeon processors etc.

>>57545686
>You keep making all these analogies that don't work.
But backups are literally just disk/machine-level redundancy, which is equivalent to ECC memory's bit-level redundancy but on a different scale.

The reasoning for backups is exactly the same as the reasoning for ECC memory: If a bit (drive) gets lost, you will lose work. So use redundancy if you care about your work at all.

>>57545859
>equivalent to ECC memory
No, it isn't. Hard drives are persistent, RAM is not.

>>57545480
>Being this close minded

>>57545567
>if your hardware never fails

Nobody plans on hardware going to shit. This is why they have backups, so when a drive fails (And one will eventually), there is a available backup.

You wont do good in the IT field son. If you cant grasp that preventative measures do more than just waiting until the day shit does hit the fan, you wont make it.


>>>>>>>/v/

>>57545578
>I think

What you think and whats actually going on is 2 different things m8. Sorry.

>>57545924
I don't see how that's relevant for the comparison at all

>>57546031
>>57546057
I'm not sure if you're legitimately retarded or just pretending. But for the sake of my sanity, I'll go with the latter.

>>57546071
Whatever you say.
>>57546084
>I don't see how that's relevant for the comparison at all
You finish what you're working on in the course of a workday and move onto the next. The workstations get shut down at the end of the day. These aren't systems that are up 24/7 doing something important which is when you will be vulnerable to a bit flip occuring. That's why ECC RAM is useful for servers. It's usually not useful for most professional applications. Especially not ECC RAM on your graphics board.

>>57540523
That's because back in the times of 3,5mm jack, people would just buy third-party headphones, not official Apple ones.

>>57546270
The chance of getting a bit flip per hour of uptime is independent from the number of reboots you perform per month

When you get a bit flip it doesn't matter if your machine has been running for 30 days or 30 minutes, it will corrupt your data structure and perhaps corrupt your file system or crash your program regardless.

Just because you use your workstation 12 hours a day instead of 24 hours a day only means it's half as likely that you'll get a bit flip per day. Doesn't somehow magically make ECC ram not worth it.

>>57546751
>Doesn't somehow magically make ECC ram not worth it.
Do you know, people used to make a big fuss over parity on RAM in the old days.
How long since you've heard that word in connection with PC RAM?

>>57546751
>The chance of getting a bit flip per hour of uptime is independent from the number of reboots you perform per month
The main point was that the systems weren't in constant use.

>>57547929
keep reading nigger
>Just because you use your workstation 12 hours a day instead of 24 hours a day only means it's half as likely that you'll get a bit flip per day. Doesn't somehow magically make ECC ram not worth it.

>>57548045
>keep reading nigger
You're just retarded, there is no explaining to you.

>>57548072
Look, it's real simple. The chance of getting a bit flip per RAM cell per second is essentially constant.

So for every second you use your computer, multiplied times the amount of RAM you have, the more chances you have to receive a bit flip.

The only reason people don't use ECC ram on desktop PCs is:

1. desktop PCs tend to not have much RAM. (Doesn't apply to workstations)
2. desktop PCs tend to be used only for gaming and facebook, where bit flips don't matter. (Doesn't apply to workstations)
3. desktop PCs are optimized to be as cheap as possible to manufacture. (Doesn't apply to workstations)

If you're not using ECC ram in a workstation, it's not a workstation. Simple as that.

>>57548197
Ok bud.