New Cylindrical Mac Pro

**Preston** · 11-Jun-2013, 09:44

Here's a slide show and some info on the new Mac-Pro

foxnews.com/sneak-peek-at-apple-new-mac-pro

I bet this little beastie will cost a dime or three, though!

--p

**Otto Seaman** · 11-Jun-2013, 10:11

I guess this is the end of having a consumer-affordable professional Mac workstation. I bet a lot of people ran Mac Pros that only had $3 to $6K invested in a professional-quality workstation. But setting up one of these new ones with all the recommended new technologies is going to be more expensive, prohibitive for many people. It also has a different footprint, so it screws up a lot of professional installations, forcing people to put the thing on the desk instead of the floor. That's a huge marketing advantage for Apple, some people will get these out of peer pressure and keeping up with the Joneses. Don't think there isn't a legion of interior designers waiting to redesign offices around this ;-p

What they should do is a Mini with better video and some extra ports and sell it to us who don't want to use an iMac monitor.

**brian mcweeney** · 11-Jun-2013, 10:16

Looks like it was designed by Dyson vacuums ...
The fan will suck all the pet hair up from the floor and vent out the top.

**Jac@stafford.net** · 11-Jun-2013, 10:31

Originally Posted by Otto Seaman

It also has a different footprint, so it screws up a lot of professional installations, forcing people to put the thing on the desk instead of the floor.

I'm not so sure. It is much smaller than the existing Pro.

**Walter Calahan** · 11-Jun-2013, 11:10

Can't wait till the coffee mug version comes out.

**Tin Can** · 11-Jun-2013, 11:13

First thing my video editor friend said was, 'no firewire'...

Originally Posted by vinny

Built-in obselesence, nothing new to aplle products these days.

**Lenny Eiger** · 11-Jun-2013, 11:46

I have a Westmere 8 core Intel Mac Pro with 24 Gigs of RAM. Now, I don't know about video editing... I am sure they could use a mainframe-level computer to do what they want. I'm just a lowly one-frame-at-a-time photographer. I can tell you this this little computer is fast enough to do what I need. The bottleneck is PhotoShop.

Adobe is lazy. They have a serious problem with their strategy - they are focused on consumers, with a complex, high-end product, difficult to use (and learn) product. Focusing on consumers means they haven't done the work to handle a large file. Why, because they think that nobody makes them. Of course, most of us here, make all kinds of large files. I have had repeated requests for 4x5's and 6x17's done at 8,000 ppi. That's a 6 gig file.

As everyone wants the ability to make a decent print, file sizes will get into the 2 Gig range - even for digital files. Adobe will ultimately have to address this.

Apple's new computer will do fine... It would be nicer if it were even more powerful, but they have to sell millions of them, and they can't make even a single mis-step, so they can't really use the cutting edge stuff...

Lenny

**Tin Can** · 11-Jun-2013, 11:49

Video editing and photo large file is done off line at low res, and then rendered.

Render is the time killer.

Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger

I have a Westmere 8 core Intel Mac Pro with 24 Gigs of RAM. Now, I don't know about video editing... I am sure they could use a mainframe-level computer to do what they want. I'm just a lowly one-frame-at-a-time photographer. I can tell you this this little computer is fast enough to do what I need. The bottleneck is PhotoShop.

Adobe is lazy. They have a serious problem with their strategy - they are focused on consumers, with a complex, high-end product, difficult to use (and learn) product. Focusing on consumers means they haven't done the work to handle a large file. Why, because they think that nobody makes them. Of course, most of us here, make all kinds of large files. I have had repeated requests for 4x5's and 6x17's done at 8,000 ppi. That's a 6 gig file.

As everyone wants the ability to make a decent print, file sizes will get into the 2 Gig range - even for digital files. Adobe will ultimately have to address this.

Apple's new computer will do fine... It would be nicer if it were even more powerful, but they have to sell millions of them, and they can't make even a single mis-step, so they can't really use the cutting edge stuff...

Lenny

**drew.saunders** · 11-Jun-2013, 20:16

Originally Posted by Randy Moe

First thing my video editor friend said was, 'no firewire'...

$30: http://store.apple.com/us/product/MD...rewire-adaptor

Or, for $999, get the Thunderbolt display, which has FW 800, 3 powered USB 2.0 ports, and Gigabit Ethernet on the back:

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC...splay-27-inch?

**JW Dewdney** · 11-Jun-2013, 21:48

Personally I don't care much for the new design - really seems to lack the 'design integrity' (read: minimalism, functionality?) of the jobs inspired machines (not that I think he was a god or anything, like some - but he was a good overseer). Thank god for the imacs though - a brilliant low end solution that had/has all the power where it really needs to be to get all but the most demanding tasks done. Having been an architect it was a godsend (huge display, no graphics or math coprocessor card subsystems necessary) for running both higher end CAD software AND photoshop etc... hopefully the imacs will be around for a LITTLE longer...