The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Tim Cook on Mac Desktop commitment Virtual Instrument Plugins
Old 13th June 2017
  #901
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnyjohn View Post
Its free speech. Snowflakes just go back to your safe space if you don't want to read what you don't agree.
Yes, free speech means people can have opinions on your expressed opinion. And you can have an opinion on that, repeat ad nauseum .

Personally, I don't feel any post have drifted very far from the focus which is desktop Macs. Macs can hopefully finally stand up to the Windows-based alternatives once these newer machines have been released.
Old 13th June 2017
  #902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
Macs can hopefully finally stand up to the Windows-based alternatives once these newer machines have been released.
Since using Intel, freshly released Macs have always been up to par with Windows boxes, often a bit earlier due to a special deal with Intel. Until the next refresh if Apple doesn't follow Intel. The current MacPro leaps 2 versions behind the market, the new Xeon generation (Skylake X) will come this year (which presumably is in the iMac Pro).
Old 13th June 2017
  #903
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
Since using Intel, freshly released Macs have always been up to par with Windows boxes…
See that bold part in your quote. If it's not out it isn't. And these machines aren't. Yet.

In addition as a side-note, Apple's overall inclination since a decade or so to choose weaker graphics cards, lesser RAM, smaller SSDs also in their MacBook Pro line has not been fine with me. I've used MBPs because I could upgrade RAM and storage. To remove that possibility in the Pro line is more than silly I think.

At the moment I'll stay on the Mac platform, because of lower costs overall and great uptime. But Apple needs to keep convincing for a long time now.
Old 13th June 2017
  #904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikael B View Post
See that bold part in your quote. If it's not out it isn't. And these machines aren't. Yet.
Yes, I know. I can imagine they are slightly early compared to the generic market if they manage to release in time, but I also suspect that it will take at least 2 generations again to update them...
Old 13th June 2017
  #905
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by zephonic View Post
Truth is, in my situation backward-compatibility is hardly ever needed, whereas an up-to-date system becomes ever more important now that devs have discovered they can drop support for older versions and charge for updates that work with only with the latest OS.
That doesn't make sense, backwards compatibility means that old stuff Just Works™. So you can't be charged for updates to maintain compatibility with a new OS and devs don't have to spend time and money updating installers or fixing things that Just Worked™ before the last OS update(s). Assuming they are still around.
You're basically saying the same thing I'm saying? What doesn't make sense?
Old 13th June 2017
  #906
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAW PLUS View Post
Yes, I know. I can imagine they are slightly early compared to the generic market if they manage to release in time, but I also suspect that it will take at least 2 generations again to update them...
I don't know. I think they got a bit of a reality check, and hope it has caused them to be a bit more vigilant about keeping Macs up-to-date.
Old 13th June 2017
  #907
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zephonic View Post
You're basically saying the same thing I'm saying? What doesn't make sense?
I suppose the bit about backwards compatibility not being important because some Mac developers take advantage of the OS not being backwards compatible on top of the developers who are caught in the crossfire. Microsoft don't break things on purpose.
Old 14th June 2017
  #908
Lives for gear
 
zephonic's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain caveman View Post
I suppose the bit about backwards compatibility not being important because some Mac developers take advantage of the OS not being backwards compatible on top of the developers who are caught in the crossfire. Microsoft don't break things on purpose.
...I thought it was obvious, but I guess I should have marked that part of my post with an [s]-[/s]...
Old 15th June 2017
  #909
Lives for gear
 
Joe Porto's Avatar
 

RE: iMac Pro

Not sure if it was mentioned, but several sources are quoting $4999 for base model, up to $17,999 for a fully loaded 18 core. I believe the base price is from Apple, and the max price is speculation.

A little out of my league...lol...but at least now I can focus on what I need, and not what I want. Still on the fence about the current iMac release. Only because I already have a great 32" monitor. I'd really like a powerful Mini to replace my 2015 MBP. I guess I'll keep waiting....but at least I know that Apple is back on track with decent desktop updates!
Old 16th June 2017
  #910
Lives for gear
 

The problem with the iMac for studio use is fan noise right in front of you and a heavy duty / heavy use computer of any kind needs cooling (fans). It's the same problem with all laptops. If you are talking about heavy load, big boy studio usage, you need the computer itself out of the audio spaces as all fan noise is heard in a properly designed control room or live studio recording space. It's the reason so much money is spent on a specifically designed HVAC system, as any moving air makes noise. When you are into high budgets for computers, presumably a large amount of money has already been spent on the spaces themselves for sound / noise isolation and good acoustics. The bedroom guys in the majority of setups would be better off spending $5k on their audio front and back ends, NOT computer.

As for using high core counts, the software has to catch up to begin with and other budget contenders (rumors of AMD's 16 core Ryzen CPU for under $1k) may soon be on the horizon.

If Apple wants in on recording studio heavy load computing they need a separate box with PCIe slots that can be placed in a non audio space with long cables run for the video and I/O.
Old 17th June 2017
  #911
Lives for gear
 
Joe Porto's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post

If Apple wants in on recording studio heavy load computing they need a separate box with PCIe slots that can be placed in a non audio space with long cables run for the video and I/O.
I am running 3 PCIe cards with my MBP using a Sonnet ECHO-III.

There is no reason to put PCIe slots in a computer when 99% of users will not use them. I could see Apple coming out with a branded PCIe/TB chassis, particularly with the talk of a modular Pro concept. But PCIe in the main box is a step backwards, imo.
Old 18th June 2017
  #912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Porto View Post
I am running 3 PCIe cards with my MBP using a Sonnet ECHO-III.

There is no reason to put PCIe slots in a computer when 99% of users will not use them. I could see Apple coming out with a branded PCIe/TB chassis, particularly with the talk of a modular Pro concept. But PCIe in the main box is a step backwards, imo.
That is a good point; but arguably people buying desktops are much more likely to use PCIe slots than laptop users, so it does make more sense to include them (along with drive bays, more powerful video cards, more ports etc) on these machines.

We've just got an HDX rig - cost an extra aus$3k or so to get the same form factor (3 extra drive bays, 3pcie slots of which one is taken up by the drive controller) as an old style Mac Pro, although at least it's rackmountable. But it's a massive expense on top of an already expensive machine.
Old 18th June 2017
  #913
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Porto View Post
I am running 3 PCIe cards with my MBP using a Sonnet ECHO-III.
That thing costs around 1000 Euro. Full motherboards with PCIe slots start at less than 100 Euro which tells us that adding PCIe slots to a motherboard costs next to nothing.

Adding external TB to PCIe boxes costs a lot of money. The cost of going external is disproportionate to simply including the PCIe slots in the computer design and, most importantly, there are no benefits when talking about permanent devices like a HDX card! (Having TB ports for swappable external drives on the other hand is a valid reason for adding TB ports to complement internal PCIe slots).

By going external with TB you add unnecessary complexity. More parts that can break or have compatibility issues. More communication steps. (Including a slight added latency to the system as the signal gets translated by the TB chips). Etc.

Quote:
There is no reason to put PCIe slots in a computer when 99% of users will not use them.
I have given good reasons above why including PCIe slots in a workstation makes a lot of sense.

When talking about office/internet computers you might be right about the lack of need for PCIe slots but when talking about professional workstations, those percentages don't hold. And if someone really doesn't need PCIe slots, there is always the iMac Pro line so this comment doesn't really make much sense.

Quote:
I could see Apple coming out with a branded PCIe/TB chassis, particularly with the talk of a modular Pro concept. But PCIe in the main box is a step backwards, imo.
What would you consider modular if it doesn't even have PCIe slots?

Alistair
Old 18th June 2017
  #914
Lives for gear
 
B-San's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Porto View Post
...But PCIe in the main box is a step backwards, imo.
High-end GPU's maxing out at X4 over TB3 isn't exactly a step forward..

As far as audio-only builds go - fanless PCIe cards sound better inside the computer most of the time..

Oh well - at least there's currenlty plenty of high-powered options for running our favorite DAWS; very good times indeed .
Old 18th June 2017
  #915
Lives for gear
 
Joe Porto's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
That is a good point...

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
That thing costs around 1000 Euro. Full motherboards...



What would you consider modular if it doesn't even have PCIe slots?

Alistair

Quote:
Originally Posted by B-San View Post
High-end GPU's maxing out at X4 over TB3 isn't exactly a step forward..
Just to address all replies, Apple will never put PCIe slots in a computer again. It's obvious from their track record that as "innovators", they set the tone for obsolescence, and they have deemed PCIe to be that, at least inside their own machines.

As far as what modular is, by definition, it is a series of modules that work together, so a main CPU box, a monitor w/ built in GPU and a separate box w/ PCIe expansion would be considered modular.

I do agree that a TB expansion box is more expensive, and it is not expensive to include a MB w/ PCIe expansion. But hopes for PCIe in a future Pro is futile IMO, and those who will put out the expensive of a "pro" Mac ($4999 starting price for iMac) will not have an issue paying for an expansion box if necessary.

As far as speed, I agree that the most high end 4X video cards theoretically supersede TB3 thoughtput. But Apple is not going to take a step back, and TB speeds will increase, I'm sure beyond PCIe x16 speeds. Apple users understand the drill...drop the technology long before it's obsolete, then once it finally is, get recognized as "forward thinkers"....
Old 18th June 2017
  #916
Gear Maniac
Quote:
Originally Posted by fgimian View Post
Personally, I am blown away by the iMac Pro announcement. 128 GB RAM, 18 cores, WOW!!!! This is basically everything I could ever dream of.

Now regarding the price, I'm not surprised it's high. These are server-grade components, Xeon CPUs, ECC RAM. You should see the prices we pay for servers at work with similar specs.

Exhibit A (HP Server with 16 cores and 128 GB RAM): PROVANTAGE: HPE 816816-B21 HPE DL580 GEN9 E7-4850V4 4P 128GB Server
This is actually a 64-core server. 4x16 core
Old 18th June 2017
  #917