Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

New MacPro predictions? Hopes? Fears?

So, what about a TB or USB stick computer that is more powerful than any computer you own. That's is what QDCA could do on near process sizes. Imagine you could plug a little stubby USB like stick into TB 4, and have a vast processing and memory array added to your laptop, and run the laptop at idle most of the time. That is what Apple could be. In this day and age it is about the lowest energy cheapest rugged processing array before the big boys come into town.
 
"We choose to build the expandable Mac Pro and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win".
 
Did they announce something new Nicholas, or was this from the older macpro?
 
Well, that's all that Google turned up. Sounds like something somebody at Apple would use, and the direct opposite to what they did.


Seriously, was should crowd fund things and license the designs at $10 (case) - $100 (computers) a pop to afford to develop more things. An institute of better things.
 
Do they care!

I'm sick daily, of having to go the extra mile because somebody thought xy or z was good enough and suited their schemes but breaks the user experience, day and wallet. You can barely do enough and then you get put on this treadmill to fall on your face doing stuff that should be a breeze.

So Steve, kills Mac os access for clone makers, collapsing them (something I would take to court if it was me, not least the Mac OS computer market being one market that has a complete monopoly overbit against established businesses innsaud market). Privacy goes out the window through the revenue desire, rites get restricted due to revenue desire, various features dissaoear dye to flights of fancy, along with other less products that just don't do what you want but does the fancy of somebody else. Hence, the small OLD Mac Pro with one custom GPU card no drive bays or extra slots for compact expansion, and can you get top of the line CPU option?, It's owm little whirlwind of a nightmare.

This is not what the customer wants and needs market anymore. You will get what they want and desire to give you, for their own judgement and reasons. If you don't like it, don't buy any more products, and kickstart an x86 linux to future mass open RISC alternatives to buy. What is happening can hurt Microsoft and Intel this way.
 
If history continues on its present course - I think we are approaching an interesting inflexion point in process technologies.

Most of the R&D money in new process technologies is Not being driven by Intel; they have 97% of the server market and can sit on their hands. For as long as there is no viable alternative there is simply no need to compete with itself.

While mobile phones remain all-the-rage, money is pouring into Samsung and TSMC's foundry business to woo Apple (and others) to get a greater slice of the mobile pie.

The inflexion will happen IMHO as AMD will not be able to justify leading edge technology (and therefore not compete in the server market), and Intel (who need to create dozens of alternative chips designs) would experience and explosive costs at 10nm for the Design (not creation) of each chip.

So, while Intel moves to become and AI, Server company and Mobile Comms, Apple will push to create hardware accelerated 7nm TSMC chips (likely 2018).

Apple have already jettisoned part of the GPU IP they had access to for their far superior in-house design (in terms of power efficiency).
With their rapid expansion this year of the GPU teams expertise - could it be that Apple are getting ready to invade the GPU space?

Heres my prediction.

+) Apple will work with IBM, Microsoft et al to get consumer and enterprise software enhanced that makes use of the Touch Bar.
+) Apple release a stand-alone keyboard with Wireless charging that has a Touch Bar.
+) WWDC 2017 Apple release a new GPU family set of extensions that their new Mobile GPU supports.
+) Q2 2017 : Apple release a TSMC-10nm SoC in their Ipad that Matches Intels best core design in terms of performance.
+) Q3 2017 : Apple release an updated MBP using Intels 14nm chip + an Apple SoC that can optionally lock the Apple File system where Mac OS is stored.
+) Q4 2018 : Apple release a 7nm TSMC Soc for their iphone
+) Q4 2018 : Apple release a 10nm Intel MBP with Apple Secure boot SoC
+) 2019 - Apple move into Laptop GPU space, MacOs moves to Apple ARM + SVE (optimisations from Cray and Fujitsu).

AJ

EDIT : And the piece of the puzzle I think will stop Apple handing over the keys to MacOs .. is that they want to protect at a hardware level the ability to exploit the Operating System - as was outlined at this years BlackHat conference.
 
So, except for 2019 and 10 nm and 7 nm moves, not much.

You guys are so focussed on Apple you fail to see much past it. Brand Apple mind you.

Apple is serving its customers, I presume those that advertisers and those that get your information, and maybe developers that do the same. From the start of the Mac and the death of the Apple III (though the GS lingered on, as the sort of expansive machine the Mac should have been from the beginning How much did that low resolution mini monitor cost then, and the speed issues if they had used a pcw 9512 like 4 tone monitor it would have Vern.vettrt, or color switching lvd overlay, but that's too innovative, innovation is trendy user side, not practical, until you have to make purchasing decisions based on his practically it works in your business ) it was obvious this was becoming a brand company more and more versus product. A few adjustments to the firmular would have made it more popular. As it was it was a subnotebook tablet form factor gui, but where were those at the time. They could have made a good dent there, because the PC struggled to meet its feature set on a laptop, and the Mac had a natural user feel in that direction.

You can basically kick start a fkexible Linux workstation platform with a narrow range of up market GPU support (2 gpu chipsets from each new series from each gpu manufacturer). The industry would support and run it under its own umbrella organisation. In response they get free license to use the platform. No relying on chip manufacturers or companies telling you what you can get and what you can't do. Any chip manufscturer, or nsinnoard, or case manufacturer, can build to the platform spec and adjust it as long as it maintains compatibility in interfacing. You can have as big as you can get category, then blade, then floor tower, then desk tower, then small formfacturs like the trashcan and msi are down to 5 1/4 form factor, Over Time. Fits different purposes, and over time a workstation can fit in the 5 1/4 as powerful as a super computer with.the next round if computers. In the meantime, apart from players, the 5 1/4 could be a mini blade format as well, so a frame could fit them, and 5 1/4 inch bay and i/o products.

Through a scheme like this you can get away from most all the present problems with relying on certain manufacturers setting the boundaries. The smaller form factors have secondary purpose for home, display (bif advertising and presentation displays), vr and gaming, as all are performance targets.
 
Nicholas Croft said:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?145877-New-MacPro-predictions-Hopes-Fears&p=1653466&viewfull=1#post1653466

:smiley:
Click to expand...

Good illustration Nicolas, but there is more there. However, as a pro OS version, Apple could develop iMac and offer a $300 pro Mac os software bundle license to other manufactures certified for a hand full of GPI's and CPU's per year, tied to the mainboard lifetime (once your main board dies you have to buy new main hoard with license unless it is below 5 years, or simply a increasing amount to pay for each year after going to 10 years).

Apple only does a low cost limited hardware certification with parts hardware partners (nvidia, Intel, AMD, Arm), and everybody else does all the other costs of development. Most of the OS development is absorbed with their Inac range.
 
Now, Antony. It surprised me they got such a huge power shrinkage with design shrinkage recently, but it is a bit apples to oranges comparison, as even two processes of the same nominal size might have very big power consumption differences due to other factors, so I don't know yet what I'm looking at. However, they are running up against limits real quick, so radical shifts in the way things are done are needed. This s means most of this chip talk will stall or become a lot less relevant as the shape of things change a lot.


The 3D stacking.ability of MQDCA is rather interesting, and makes it potentially a pretty great mainstream technology, where you measure computing power by volume, really radically different, as you for much more processing volume in a case over present chips.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Good illustration Nicolas, but there is more there. However, as a pro OS version, Apple could develop iMac and offer a $300 pro Mac os software bundle license to other manufactures certified for a hand full of GPI's and CPU's per year, tied to the mainboard lifetime (once your main board dies you have to buy new main hoard with license unless it is below 5 years, or simply a increasing amount to pay for each year after going to 10 years).

Apple only does a low cost limited hardware certification with parts hardware partners (nvidia, Intel, AMD, Arm), and everybody else does all the other costs of development. Most of the OS development is absorbed with their Inac range.
Click to expand...

I was approaching it more from the 'enthusiast' PC builder. Just the OS (like Windows) on whatever motherboard we choose.

The trouble with that - licensing the OS, Windows style - is it would destroy the entire Mac hardware lineup.

From a PC builder perspective, the iMac is - essentially - (in AUD pricing) a $2000 motherboard and case, and a "H170" at that. (No overclocking, limited IO).

So, at $300 for the OS only, you could build your own (less 'attractive') iMac for well under a $1000.

Hence why I posited that the OS only be licenced for the Intel "HEDT" (6 cores or more).

Restricted to the part of the market - 3d/VR/6k+ - Apple couldnt give a fig about anymore.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
So, except for 2019 and 10 nm and 7 nm moves, not much.

You guys are so focussed on Apple you fail to see much past it. Brand Apple mind you.

Then small formfacturs like the trashcan and msi are down to 5 1/4 form factor, Over Time. Fits different purposes, and over time a workstation can fit in the 5 1/4 as powerful as a super computer with.the next round if computers. In the meantime, apart from players, the 5 1/4 could be a mini blade format as well, so a frame could fit them, and 5 1/4 inch bay and i/o products.

Through a scheme like this you can get away from most all the present problems with relying on certain manufacturers setting the boundaries. The smaller form factors have secondary purpose for home, display (bif advertising and presentation displays), vr and gaming, as all are performance targets.
Click to expand...

https://www.dan-cases.com/

Imagine that just slightly taller, with the motherboard ON TOP, (for thermal management - heat rises) and up to two full length GPU's underneath, and whatever IO scheme suits your fancy.
 
There is no way that Apple is going to make the mistake of licensing its OS. It tried to essentially appease critics before and it didn't work. Apple's past mistakes had nothing to do with licensing.
 
It wasnt really a mistake but not successfully managed. In what I'm saying they take the consumer market and let others handle the specialist markets but at a good profit and low risk to Apple.

Apple hasn't really woken up to big corporationism, where they spread and successfully service many different and separate markers and industries. Apple might notnrealise it, but by concentrating on limited product, high markup low cost technology, they can be balancing on the edge of bankruptsy within 5 years if a competitor suddenly turns the market away from them. To be bankrupt all you need is debts outweighing the value of your company, and as Apple outsources a lot, they have less physical ownership, a sudden turn of the market there is not enough money to pay for everything and debt to low actual company value rises very quick.

Now, diversification, and opening up more child companies in a group us normal. Say, the app store portion is its own, that can survive the rest of the company collapsing, let's say the OS is selerstw from hardware, and while the hardware company may go under, the parent company can still make money from the app store and selling the OS, which feeds back into the app store. Now, let's say we need a lot of high grade screens of our machines, therefore we can sell monitors to our customers and others, maybe printers. Let's say somebody has a knack of servicing a particular markets with unique packages, a sepetate company for that. Eventually you.land up doing something.like selling driverless cars and selling tires to everybody. But as your industry is so big, you invest in and start a metals/alloys/materials/plastics division, and from that eventually envirorntslly disposable nsppues and other household products.

If you look at big Chinese, Indian, even European groups, thus is the sort of spreading base you see. Not just what you see them publivslly doing.
 
Nicholas Croft said:
https://www.dan-cases.com/

Imagine that just slightly taller, with the motherboard ON TOP, (for thermal management - heat rises) and up to two full length GPU's underneath, and whatever IO scheme suits your fancy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that sort of thing, though I think that case could be smaller.

Main board on top is an idea, as long ss you can keep the GPU and power supply hot air away from it. That is why they are normally vertical I feel. In myrdia center design the whole thing is like a blade on it's side so 5-10cm plus wide, walk up to it and insert your bluray in a slot near the top. You could fit some pretty hefty stuff in something like that. You can stand it next to your desk and reach over to access the top portion of it.

I would be interested in what could.be.dine in a totally passively cooled setup. I spent some time trying to locate compact passive cases that took a GPU card.
 
Nicholas Croft said:
I was approaching it more from the 'enthusiast' PC builder. Just the OS (like Windows) on whatever motherboard we choose.

The trouble with that - licensing the OS, Windows style - is it would destroy the entire Mac hardware lineup.

From a PC builder perspective, the iMac is - essentially - (in AUD pricing) a $2000 motherboard and case, and a "H170" at that. (No overclocking, limited IO).

So, at $300 for the OS only, you could build your own (less 'attractive') iMac for well under a $1000.

Hence why I posited that the OS only be licenced for the Intel "HEDT" (6 cores or more).

Restricted to the part of the market - 3d/VR/6k+ - Apple couldnt give a fig about anymore.
Click to expand...

I was thinking that it only licenses for highend workstation spec machines, so that any workstation manufacturer could get it, or a limited number of partners that can deliver better quality workstations for your needs. Leaving the consumer market to Apple.

I didn't apply the vr etc thing to Apple, or Apple compatible. I applied it to other markets for a primarily industry linux workstation platform, without the restrictions. By making these high spec machines suitable for these other things, it greatly increases their sakes volumes, enabling for better pricing for workstation buyers as the basic development and manufacture costs are spread over many more people, and greater volume reduces some other costs.

Unfortunately Apple has concentrated on a chunk of the market, but not gone a bit extra to give options for higher end power uses, or others uses, like mentioned. So, you are talking about a little extra space for CPU, GPU card, stackable expansion slots. That's like $50 in the scheme of things., instead of thousands rollers not what is needed. For $50 (the customer covers anyway) you are potentially talking hundreds of thousands to millions of extra sales and tens of millions to hundreds of millukns extra net profit, increasing return on investment. Instead you have a limited vision as compact as they dare make it thing as a.brand styling statement. What happens when style goes out of fashion, when not even manics will buy.in ugh anymore, what happens is practical still sells, what people need.

Let's see what they do. It might just be what we have been talking about.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
Yeah, that sort of thing, though I think that case could be smaller.


I would be interested in what could.be.dine in a totally passively cooled setup. I spent some time trying to locate compact passive cases that took a GPU card.
Click to expand...

http://www.fanlesstech.com/

http://www.tomshardware.de/cpu-kuhler-prozessorkuhler-cooler-itx-cooling,testberichte-241546-15.html



But, really, you need a f#c# ton of surface area for a 'performance' system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PJOrfpiVwE&t=491s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top