Hacker News Reader

Comment by DRW_ | Hacker News Reader

I'm not so sure the reviews would have been _quite_ so positive if they hadn't also announced they're releasing a 'modular' traditional Mac Pro.

I think the knowledge that a new 'modular' Mac Pro is coming gives a different context to this machine. I think people are framing this on the idea that: if you want a quiet, good looking machine with a great screen and the other 'benefits' of an all in one (and don't mind the trade offs), then it's good to have this option. If the trade offs don't work for you, then wait for the more traditional Mac Pro.

If it had been released without any mention of another option coming for pro users, then it would have been framed as "if you need workstation grade hardware running mac os, then your only choice is now an expensive, non-upgradeable all-in-one which has traded off performance for quietness and for other thermal constraints".

View on HN

I'm definitely in the category you describe: owing to ancient personal prejudices, I consider the idea of having one's computer integrated with the screen to be an utter abomination. I have trouble suffering the trend towards laptops and notebooks precisely for this reason, let alone the rise of the integrated all-in-one.

Knowledge of the coming Mac Pro allows me to view this device with levity because I can view it as a herald of things to come in a more satisfying format; had I not known of the ‘imminent’ (end of 2018 or beginning of 2019) Mac Pro, I would have been utterly aghast at the idea of Apple pushing me towards the integrated solution.

I tend to cram my computers with cards (not graphics cards, but things like SDRs and FPGAs) but what really does it for me is having the monitor built-in: I'm used to multiple monitor desktops, and I like both screens to be absolutely identical make and model. That clearly isn't possible when you have an all-in-one computer with no available ‘identical’ screen.

Also, my computer belongs beneath my desk, and my monitors on top of it. It's just the preordained way. All else is heresy. ;)

Also, computers and monitors have vastly different life cycles; the former become obsolete much faster than the latter. Binding them together physically forces you to replace one or the other either too soon or too late for absolutely no benefit.

At least the displays Apple ships are very very good. Best in the industry.

I agree. I was the very happy owner of an Apple Cinema Display that served me well for many, many years, and was still in perfect working order when I had to abandon it in favor of an ASUS display because I needed more resolution and Apple wasn't selling standalone displays any more :-(

I want to be an Apple fan. I really do. But they are making it impossible for me nowadays.

Apple has mentioned that the next Mac Pro will also have a matching display.

I'm fine with a typical 4k display (or better). The panels of the better ones seem to come from LG anyway and are widely available on the market. I wonder if Apple would be selling a good quality 5k monitor with TB3, or if they go for a high-end 8k screen. Personally I'm not in the business for the highest end. LG has announced a bunch of TB3 screens, where the 4k 32" version would be sufficient for me. But LG lately has problems bringing their better screens in enough quantities to the market. Last years 32" 4k screen is still not widely available here in Germany.

I actually think that the 27" 5K display in the iMac Pro is going to age quicker than the internal components. I suspect that ~32" 8K displays will be mainstream in a year or two.

> I suspect that ~32" 8K displays will be mainstream in a year or two.

8K would require new HDMI cables and ports, would it not? I'm pretty sure that many people are still stuck with legacy hardware in this regard.

Current 8k displays use 2x DP connections just like early 4k displays.

Given your use case is a Mac, any Mac, running OSX even an option? I also use FPGA cards and what not but I do so in a separate Linux box because all the tools I need to for the setup only have native Linux versions. And if all you need is a screen running OSX which remotes into other things, isn’t that what the iMac is?

What SDR are you putting on a PCIe bus?

LimeSDR

I wish they would have left the Xeon and Pro GPU components to the new Mac Pro instead of putting them in this. It would’ve been nice just to have top of the line consumer grade hardware available in a Mac instead.

That and the amount of time they’re taking on this modular one is just nuts. All people want is a simple tower. They could just bring the damn cheese grater back.

I agree so, so much with what you wrote.

I only have one teeny tiny nit and I'm only mentioning it because I think it's a common misconception:

    if you want a **quiet,** good looking machine with a 
    great screen and the other 'benefits' of an all 
    in one (and don't mind the trade offs)

I don't think "quiet" needs to be the domain of all-in-ones; with a $60 CPU cooler from NewEgg one can have a ~4ghz i5/i7 PC that's nearly silent. The old cheese grater Mac Pros were noisy, but that really doesn't need to be the case, especially if Apple would just release a damn desktop i5/i7 based Mac Pro.

Which might have been okay, because iirc the complaints weren't really 'we want upgradable pro machines' - they were more 'just build a pro machine'. Other than upgradability of core components, I'm not sure what the Mac Pro can possibly bring to the table now. And it seems like there aren't that many folks who care about upgradability alone.

because iirc the complaints weren't really 'we want upgradable pro machines'

That is totally untrue. The places I was complaints were all about upgradability. That's why many people still get the previous generation of Mac Pro's and upgrade the processors, graphics cards and add SSDs. My main machine at work is one of these, and feels just as fast as my Mac Pro 6,1 (the trashcan version) at home.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com