Apple also announced an updated Mac Pro about the same time as the iMacs. Not available until August hence not currently in the store.

MacUser
Macworld
Tom's Hardware

Good:
Xeon 3600/5600 series chips
Improved Graphics (Radeon 5770, 5870 CTO)
SSD drive options

Poor:
Same case design as previous model (I know it's quite a good design but it's getting rather long in the tooth)
Same silly number of RAM slots (4/8) for a triple channel system
Price bump (base 4 core model now just shy of £2k)
No BD option
No eSATA, USB3 or FW S3200/S6400

Aside from the better processors and graphics cards I have to say I'm rather underwhelmed. The Xeon chips have been out for a while now and it's taken Apple this long to bother to put them in the Mac Pro (a far cry from them having an exclusive deal for a month or so when the 5500 (or was it the 5400) series chips appeared).

Anyone else getting the impression Overlord Jobs has spectacularly lost interest in the workstation market?

Not sure I get this one TBH. It's a very good case design - I've yet to see any other one that's substantially better - and it's not as if Mac Pros are being bought by people who are looking to make any sort of lifestyle statement. Those people are buying iMacs or Mac Minis, or more probably laptops. Plus there's some value in case design being consistent if you're a support techy. To me case design is definitely in the 'if it isn't broke don't fix it' category.


BR and eSATA I'd definitely agree with, they're established technologies and it's silly not to have them at least as an option. I don't think Intel are doing USB3 for a while yet and therefore Apple won't either and as for the next gen firewires... I'd worry about that more if I'd ever seen a peripheral that supported them.


I'm not sure they particularly care about the enterprise market, but then I'm not sure they particularly ever did. As workstations they're still pretty decent pieces of kit and I can't really say how they could very much improve them for the market that they're mostly selling to other than by spec fiddling. The people buying workstations like this aren't that bothered about what they look like and aren't really the types to be early adopters of things like USB3. If you're looking at plugging a mac pro into high spec storage for example you're either going to use a SAN/NAS and multiplex the network ports or you're going to do it with fibrechannel or iSCSi, both of which it has been able to do for a while. Pretty much all the other media gear uses proprietary interface cards (like HD capture cards and etc). Other than having a BR writer to prototype onto, what else would the people who are going to be buying most of these things actually want?

Jon

I'm not saying it's a terrible case design per say. There's a lot that's good about it.
Apple haven't done much to the externals of the case other than adding a few more ports at the front and a second 5.25" drive bay since the case first appeared as the PowerMac G5. The internals however have seen significant changes (although this one appears identical to the previous generation).

I guess what bugs me is more of a thing about the processor/memory tray design as that appears to be what restricts the memory to 4 or 8 slots (instead of the 6 or 12 I think it should have and like its competition from the likes of hp and Dell does have).

Maybe Apple are waiting for lightpeak before they change the port configuration.


I still think Apple are missing a trick by not having a lower specked tower system in the range with a Core i5 or i7 processor and better expandability and graphics options than are possible with the iMacs integrated design. I know I'd buy one.

Apple seem to have really lost focus on the computer division lately.

I waited nearly 6 months to buy a new laptop, once the Core i3/i5/i7 chips were released... And when they finally released an updated MacBook Pro, they didn't have any high-end models, just high-end prices... In the end, I bought a Sony Vaio, Apple wanted over 3,000€ for a dual Core i7 and 8GB RAM and 17" display, the Sony had a quad core and I saved just nearly 1,800€!

It is a real shame, I bought my 24" iMac, because it had a good spec and the price was within about 10-15% of a standard desktop and 24" monitor. Likewise, as Davros says, they used to have exclusive deals with Intel to bring out new machines with the new processors exclsusively, now they can't be bothered to put the new processors in the machines within the first 6 months of the new processors being on sale!

The new Mac mini also loses out, no modern chips in it, just the "outdated" Core 2 chips, which Intel replaced at the end of 2009. I'd expect at least a Core i3 in there.

Likewise, the 4/8 memory slots on the last generation of Xeon Pros didn't make any sense, why make such a fast machine, then slam on the brakes, by restricting its memory bus speed - like buying a Bugatti Veyron and only allowing it to be driven in the centre of London, as opposed to on the track or the Autobahn...

Given the use of the Mac range in the creative industry, not allowing Blu-Ray as an option for those creating HD video films is totally crazy - both on the Blu-Ray hardware and Final Cut not supporting mastering a Blu-Ray...

I have to agree. The problem is as you say is that many media types use macs and not having Bluray as an option at least for the Mac Pros is stupid. The processors have not kept up either, but I am not so worried that I have my new i7 imacs and they will last me four years till the next planned upgrade.

I know every Mac user on every Mac forum has the idea of "If you need it now, and the current model does what you want, buy it now", but I was getting worried that after buying a Mac Pro last Sepember, this revision would make mine completely obsolete (for example they could have put some ace processors in there and sorted out the memory problem), but I'm actually quite happy...

I expect Apple has a much better idea of the demand for Blu-ray drives in Macs than anyone with a handful of anecdotes. If the demand was there, Apple would meet it.



How can a computer that runs all the latest versions of all the key software ever be obsolete

Obsolete was the wrong word, but makes my Mac look old and rubbish. If the new Macs somehow had twice the virtual cores and 50 times better than mine, I'd be a little hacked off...

I'm not fussed about Blu-Ray, it's a medium that I've not come across just yet. An improved memory arrangement I'd be jealous at as that is my main upgrade plan for the next 10 years or so (after apple care has finished I may try replacing CPUs).

Therein lies the problem though. Apple has a vested interest in not supporting Blu-ray as they have invested in HD video delivery over IP and Jobs has said on several occassions he doesn't think that BD is worth it.
The vast majority of Apples sales are now driven by the consumer market rather than the pro market so there is never likely to be the demand in terms of sales desipte the fact that not having native BD authoring capability is cutting out a segment of the market that is potentially important to Pro users.

After reading this I just had this thought of Apple releasing a Blu-Ray writer that couldn't read Blu-Rays. You could then author Blu-Ray but it wouldn't muck up their HD over IP...

Completely absurd, it would get peoples backs up, but I could see Apple doing it...

Apple is a business. If they thought it was worth the R&D building Blu-ray authoring software and providing BD drives they would. I’m sure there are many Mac users who would like the option, but that doesn’t necessarily amount to a business case.

Apple is indeed a business but I'd argue that, for its size, it's relatively unusual in terms of the level of involvement of the CEO in individual products.
I get the impression that at Apple what Job's says goes and little or no disagreement is tolerated. Jobs doesn't believe BD is worth the effort so Apple won't do BD whether a business case could be made (and I think one could) or not.

Ironically the machine in Apples current line up that would most benefit from having a BD drive (a player anyway) is the Mac Mini as it would do its media centre credentials a lot of good and would go at least a little towards justifying the frankly silly price Apple are asking for it.

I think the Mac Pro is currently a victim of Apples success in the consumer market as it has skewed Apples user base and sales away from the creative professionals likely to buy a Mac Pro towards the iMac/Mac Mini and iPod/Phone/Pad lines. A such Apple is less interested in meeting the needs of those users than it is in the shiny new toys it can extract the most money from. As a business it's obviously important to go where the money is but alienating a loyal and long term part of your user base to do so is less of a good idea.
If Apple wants to continue to be taken seriously as a content creation rather than consumption platform then it should be supporting the major delivery formats for existing and emerging media.

Wasn't it a problem with apple not wanting to pay licensing costs & something to do with the lack of (the required) security on the operating system (you'd need to support hdcp & various other things to stop encryption being bypased)

Yes, this is what Mr. Jobs had to say about Blu-ray licensing in October 2008:



Licensing was simplified in 2009 when the 18 companies with BD patents agreed to a single licensing system (so manufacturers only need a single license). Plus, since that statement the number of BD players out there has increased substantially thanks to lower prices and the likes of the PS3.

As far as I can tell licensing fees for HDMI & HDCP run to annual fees in the region of $10k - 20k and a per device fee of $0.005 - £0.20. I can accept that that's going to cause a problem for a manufacturer who is selling a graphics card for $50 with near zero profit margin but given Apples prices and profit margins on the Mac range the overall impact would be minuscule.
Plus they've put an HDMI port on the latest Mac Mini so if it's going to be able to display protected content to a compatible HDMI display then Apple will have already need to have licensed HDMI and presumably as well HDCP otherwise it's not going to be too useful as a media centre. So they are already paying some licensing costs on the 'cheapest' machine in the range.

In Apples case I don't think it's actually licensing that's the issue, it is smoke screen. The real issue is that Apple wants to control HD content delivery through the iTunes store like it does with music and apps for the iPod/iPhone/iPad/Apple TV. HD over IP is undoubtedly going to happen but the infrastructure isn't really all there yet to deliver content, especially streamed content, at a decent speed in most countries even in places that have very good broadband in the cities. Apples past success has essentially relied on the technology all being in place and then delivering a complete end to end creation and delivery system. Unfortunately, right now and for the foreseeable future the fragmentary nature of broadband speed and availability all over the world means that the delivery infrastructure simply isn't up to the task. Apple has built its success on the idea that "it just works" so relying on flaky BB infrastructure would harm the brand.
I'm concerned that Jobs has gotten so used to controlling distribution and delivery that he's unwilling to even consider if it's a good idea to do so in this instance and there doesn't appear to be anyone at Apple who is either willing or able to argue with him. Plus he's so focused on the consumer side of the equation that he seems to have forgotten about (or simply no longer cares about) the content creators who use the Mac who will end up having to use kit probably running Windows 7 to deliver content they've created in BD format.