Possible Mac Pro 2019 Leaks

[Dewdman42]

Further to all of that, over the past few years a number of Apple products with proprietary hardware have had numerous hardware problems that were basically incorrectable, leaving people stranded. I for one experienced that with my macbookpro that has a cheap capacitor in there which renders the nvidia graphics card unusable. Apple never had a fix for it, people just got screwed.

There have been other issues like that, google around. If Apple is going to make a closed system that can basically only be supported, expanded, fixed by them, directly or indirectly, it better be higher quality then what they’ve been doing the past few years and I don’t have a lot of confidence about that.

At the end of the day do we really need thunderbolt 4 and 6k monitor? I don’t think most of us do. More ram yes, more storage yes, faster cpu if possible, why not. And while there are a few power users like us that can always find a way to use power like that, the vast majority of the buying public doesn’t even need as much power as my 2010 macpro.

 

[VinRice]

At the end of the day do we really need thunderbolt 4 and 6k monitor? I don’t think most of us do. More ram yes, more storage yes, faster cpu if possible, why not. And while there are a few power users like us that can always find a way to use power like that, the vast majority of the buying public doesn’t even need as much power as my 2010 macpro.

If we needed these things today then it would already be out of date. This is low-volume long-term product. Macs get replaced less often than PC's as you know, and this will be eight-year cycle product at least. Video editors and photographers are the main target, followed by music production and scientific research, plus rich guys who have to have all the toys.

This form factor is an easier sell than the 'cheese-grater' and the 'trashcan'. People loved the upgradability of the cheese-grater but in fact most customers never upgraded them. People loved the speed of the trashcan but moaned about the lack of upgradability. Being able to upgrade without getting your hands dirty in the engine bay will appeal to a lot of people.

If these rumours are true then Apple have clearly gone for a combination of the two previous iterations. In Apple style it will be designed and engineered to within an inch of its life and they really don't give a fuck if has to use a proprietary inter-module connector to do that. If it's successful there will undoubtedly be a licensing program in due course.

 

[storyteller]

6k on a 31.6” screen is a very logical and legitimate rumor because it is essentially 5k density on a 27” screen, but with a larger panel size that has 6k of pixels. Logically, this would allow the UI for OSX to maintain its aesthetic proportion as it is on a 5k. He missed the whole purpose WHY Apple went 5k... which was that it was twice the density of their original designs. Same thing happened with the iPhone initially when it went retina....

 

[GtrString]

Lets see how it turns out, but with Tim Cook I suspect its just a customer ripoff/ hostage scheme, because Apple now delves into the business case of selling overpriced hardware “upgrades” to machines that they starve from decent specs to begin with. They do the pc thing, the Tim Cook way. I like Apple gear, but not greed and they are walking a thin line afaik.

 

[Dewdman42]

6k on a 31.6” screen is a very logical and legitimate rumor because it is essentially 5k density on a 27” screen, but with a larger panel size that has 6k of pixels. Logically, this would allow the UI for OSX to maintain its aesthetic proportion as it is on a 5k. He missed the whole purpose WHY Apple went 5k... which was that it was twice the density of their original designs. Same thing happened with the iPhone initially when it went retina....

The point he made is that people don’t really need 5k on 27 inch monitor from a typical viewing distance, according to him. In his view 4K is plenty dense enough. I have been using 32 inch monitor at 4K in various hidpi modes and frankly I think it looks fantastic. Would it look better at 6k? Maybe barely so if I sat really close to the monitor. But the bigger problem is that current technology is strained such that 6k will only be supported on a single cable with thunderbolt 4. Photographers and video people will want it sure or they can already get now an 8k monitor that requires two video cards but still it’s there for them. Most users will not really need the 6k anymore then most users don’t need the 5k one now.

 

[storyteller]

The point he made is that people don’t really need 5k on 27 inch monitor from a typical viewing distance, according to him. In his view 4K is plenty dense enough. I have been using 32 inch monitor at 4K in various hidpi modes and frankly I think it looks fantastic. Would it look better at 6k? Maybe barely so if I sat really close to the monitor. But the bigger problem is that current technology is strained such that 6k will only be supported on a single cable with thunderbolt 4. Photographers and video people will want it sure or they can already get now an 8k monitor that requires two video cards but still it’s there for them. Most users will not really need the 6k anymore then most users don’t need the 5k one now.

I get what you are saying. I certainly understand. What I meant was that Apple's design aesthetic is a native 2560x1440... which is more like 2.5k. So the 5k screen accommodated twice the pixels at this resolution. For video and photos, it displayed the full 5k resolution. This was the best of both worlds. Users did not have issues with small UI elements and could make use of the high res screen for what mattered most - art.

4k screens fall somewhere in between Apple's design aesthetic and a smaller, yet still legible appearance that some users prefer. This is not what Apple believes is the best user experience. So a 6k screen keeps Apple's UI proportions and sizings while making it feel like a 3k screen with no visible pixels. Hope this makes sense. The original iPhones were 320x480. The retina version was 640x480, but maintained the same UI element proportions. Bigger phones did not actually "increase resolution" but rather "added the same density of pixels to a larger space." And, in some cases, they kept the resolution but increased the size of the pixels to make it easier on the eyes for those who wanted larger screens.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the most visually important part of Apple's user experience is the design and proportion aesthetic, not 4k vs 5k vs 6k. Truthfully, this potential 6k monitor would display like a 3k monitor, but with twice the pixel density.

 

[VinRice]

The point he made is that people don’t really need 5k on 27 inch monitor from a typical viewing distance, according to him. In his view 4K is plenty dense enough. I have been using 32 inch monitor at 4K in various hidpi modes and frankly I think it looks fantastic. Would it look better at 6k? Maybe barely so if I sat really close to the monitor. But the bigger problem is that current technology is strained such that 6k will only be supported on a single cable with thunderbolt 4. Photographers and video people will want it sure or they can already get now an 8k monitor that requires two video cards but still it’s there for them. Most users will not really need the 6k anymore then most users don’t need the 5k one now.

But you are getting too hooked on the numbers. It's a 6K simply because it's a scale up of the 5K. Nobody uses them at 5K unless sitting 2 inches away. The natural user resolution is 2.5, so it's basically oversampling for edge quality. The new monitor will be used at 3K by most people.

You don't design next year's computer with today's technology.

 

[Nick Batzdorf]

Why does Apple insist on making proprietary stuff that will be expensive and become out dated?

That's pretty much their brand model!

Yes, yes, their business model is making garbage products their customers hate. And what better proof of that than this official Apple video showing the precise design, prices, and specs?

I'm typing this on an updated 10-year-old Mac while being bent over a barrel by Tim Cook.

 

[D Halgren]

Yes, yes, their business model is making garbage products their customers hate. And what better proof of that than this official Apple video showing the precise design, prices, and specs?

I'm typing this on an updated 10-year-old Mac while being bent over a barrel by Tim Cook.

Sounds sexy

 

[jamwerks]

Yes, yes, their business model is making garbage products their customers hate. And what better proof of that than this official Apple video showing the precise design, prices, and specs?

I'm typing this on an updated 10-year-old Mac while being bent over a barrel by Tim Cook.

Hey Nick, congrats on your spirited reply! You've got a great since of humor!! I, on the other hand, wasn't joking!

 

[storyteller]

Hey Nick, congrats on your spirited reply! You've got a great since of humor!! I, on the other hand, wasn't joking!

Argumentatively, I think there is a case to be made that if Apple didn't innovate the way they do, the technology market outside of Apple products wouldn't move forward at the pace it does. Seriously. Think of all of the innovations Apple has made (or made popular) first by brute force and sheer innovation, before it became a standard in the "outside of apple" market. So yes, they do keep changing technology, but most Apple users tend to support their innovation schedule (albeit grumbling sometimes due to upgrade expense). On the bright side, their stuff lasts a long time and retains value incredibly well as @Nick Batzdorf joked about.

 

[jtnyc]

Does he edit his video like that because he thinks its cool? What is that?

I couldn't get through 1 minute without getting very uncomfortable.

So annoying

Unwatchable

 

[Dewdman42]

I get what you are saying. I certainly understand. What I meant was that Apple's design aesthetic is a native 2560x1440... which is more like 2.5k. So the 5k screen accommodated twice the pixels at this resolution. For video and photos, it displayed the full 5k resolution. This was the best of both worlds. Users did not have issues with small UI elements and could make use of the high res screen for what mattered most - art.

4k screens fall somewhere in between Apple's design aesthetic and a smaller, yet still legible appearance that some users prefer. This is not what Apple believes is the best user experience. So a 6k screen keeps Apple's UI proportions and sizings while making it feel like a 3k screen with no visible pixels. Hope this makes sense. The original iPhones were 320x480. The retina version was 640x480, but maintained the same UI element proportions. Bigger phones did not actually "increase resolution" but rather "added the same density of pixels to a larger space." And, in some cases, they kept the resolution but increased the size of the pixels to make it easier on the eyes for those who wanted larger screens.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the most visually important part of Apple's user experience is the design and proportion aesthetic, not 4k vs 5k vs 6k. Truthfully, this potential 6k monitor would display like a 3k monitor, but with twice the pixel density.

Most people will not notice a difference between 4K and 5k and don’t care about retina. But hey why not be make it Retina anyway? The reason why not is because it’s an unnecessary and burdensome demand in the computer just so that if you look really really close at the monitor you will not see any pixels. And will be expensive. 4K already looks spectacular on my 32 inch and can run easily at the same hidpi resolutions as the 5k actually I can run it even bigger reals then the 5k because the size is bigger.

By the way, a 6k monitor in hidpi/retina mode is always using the full 6k resolution of the monitor, even though the desktop is anywhere from 50% to 80% of that resolution. In order to use a 6k monitor in hidpi mode you will need a serious gpu and possibly thunderbolt4 or else two video cards

 

[storyteller]

Most people will not notice a difference between 4K and 5k and don’t care about retina. But hey why not be make it Retina anyway? The reason why not is because it’s an unnecessary and burdensome demand in the computer just so that if you look really really close at the monitor you will not see any pixels. And will be expensive. 4K already looks spectacular on my 32 inch and can run easily at the same hidpi resolutions as the 5k actually I can run it even bigger reals then the 5k because the size is bigger.

By the way, a 6k monitor in hidpi/retina mode is always using the full 6k resolution of the monitor, even though the desktop is anywhere from 50% to 80% of that resolution. In order to use a 6k monitor in hidpi mode you will need a serious gpu and possibly thunderbolt4 or else two video cards

I understand what you are saying, but that is a completely different point to be made. Yes, your hardware is going to process however many pixels are on your screen. I don't think that's the argument. iMac's have fully handled 5k pixel counts just fine. I'm sure whatever mac pro comes out will properly drive a 6k monitor of Apple's design. The point is that Apple's design aesthetic (and how they intend users to make use of their screens) is at 2580x1440 for a 27" screen.

• You are saying you enjoy 3840x2160 on a 32" screen.
• Apple is saying (if this rumor is true), that they think something around 3072x1620 is a perfect native resolution for a 31.7" screen. But you actually will get twice the pixel count for a cleaner look.

So it isn't an argument against your 4k screen. It is more like Apple's desire to maintain their UI layout proportions on a 31.7" screen instead of a 27" screen. Plus, with as much video that is being shot beyond 4k and cameras with higher and higher resolutions, it provides a benefit that a 4k monitor cannot handle. It is actually a brilliant strategy on their part. Future proofing for higher res stuff and keeping their UI intact. Even so... it is still a rumor (though it makes complete sense given Apple's design philosophy).

 

[Dewdman42]

No I am using hidpi Mode on my 4K screen, same as retina; typically at 3008x1692hidpi. Looks spectacular. I agree with the guy on the video, 6k monitors are not necessary but Apple is going to try to make you think you need it so that you will pay $7500 for a new Mac Pro

Someone else, not you, tried to say that the 6k doesn’t always use that bandwidth, I was responding to them. Sorry I didn’t quote them it’s hard on my iphone

 

[storyteller]

Someone else, not you, tried to say that the 6k doesn’t always use that bandwidth, I was responding to them. Sorry I didn’t quote them it’s hard on my iphone

No worries!

 

[Pudge]

Funny story, my bro sent them design ideas for a modular build about 30 years ago. Be interesting to see if they actually go down the modular rout, it makes absolutely NO sense why computers are built and configured the way they are. Everything should be hot swap-able and use NO wires, just nice sounding clickly insert slots using a rail system.

 

[Dewdman42]

I want to make a few more comments about what is "retina".

So basically "retina" is something Apple tried to coin as a marketing term. Its not really a specific "technology", its simply a rating. A monitor only qualifies to be labeled as "retina" by Apple if it meets a certain pixel density which is: dense enough at a certain viewing distance that the human retina can't see any pixels.

This is not the same density for all displays. Its dependent on how close the typical user will be sitting to that display. So iPhones require a higher density to be rated as "retina" then say a monitor that is going to be 2-3 feet from your eyes. The 27" 5k display has 218ppi, while some hand held devices are over 400ppi, for example.

So Apple is using the term "retina" to give a name to monitors sold by them which meet or beat that criteria.

For this reason, in order to release a 32inch monitor, they must feel that it needs to be 6k in order to meet the pixel density spec to be labeled and sold as "retina".

That being said, if you go to the following site, you can type in some specs and see what would need to be the case to meet retina classification: https://tools.rodrigopolo.com/display_calc/

Putting in the specs of my 32", it says that in order to be perceived as "retina", in other words to not see the pixels, I need to have my eyes 24" away from the screen. Which is actually about where I sit.

so is 6k necessary in a 32" monitor? Maybe if you're going to use it 11" from your face, but that is not what I would consider a typical viewing distance with this monitor.

However, Apple will basically try to say that theirs meets this higher standard and that you need it. By the way, the above site says that a 6k 31.5" monitor needs to be no closer then 15" to be perceived as without-pixels...ie...to be considered "retina".

The question is do we need that? Hey, if they can do 6k or 8k or 5k or anything you want so that I have the option to sit 15" away from the screen..then why not. More is better right? But if I have to buy an expensive new computer in order to have that...or run multiple video cards, or something of that nature then do we really need it? I think not for typical viewing distances. Its overkill until such time that all computers come with the necessary buss bandwidth and computing power to easily take it on, then why not....

 

[jamwerks]

Just for the record, in my original post I clearly spoke about "garbage products" & a total lack of innovation!

 

[storyteller]

The question is do we need that? Hey, if they can do 6k or 8k or 5k or anything you want so that I have the option to sit 15" away from the screen..then why not. More is better right? But if I have to buy an expensive new computer in order to have that...or run multiple video cards, or something of that nature then do we really need it? I think not for typical viewing distances. Its overkill until such time that all computers come with the necessary buss bandwidth and computing power to easily take it on, then why not....

Not to beat a dead horse, but I want to clearly explain why 6k for a 31.7" monitor IS NEEDED.

Apple's 27" 5K iMac has become an industry standard display over the last 4-5 years with the following specs:

• 5120x2880 native resolution (UI elements are way too small, hence why Apple defaults to HiDPI mode but this still allows for the native display of 5k video and hi res photography even in HiDPI mode)
• 2560x1440 HiDPI mode (which is the same basic resolution old 27" displays had and conforms to the Apple UI Design standard for UI elements such as menu bars, buttons, etc.)

An external 32" 4k monitor offers:

• 3840x2160 native resolution (UI elements are smaller than Apple's desire)
• 1920x1080 HiDPI mode (This does not have the screen real-estate that Apple desires. It is less than the screen real-estate of a 27" iMac)

So by all accounts, if a user wanted an external monitor not tied to an all-in-one system like the iMac, Apple could choose to release a 27" monitor identical to their iMac specs, or a larger monitor that allows for the same luxuries of the 5k iMac without sacrificing screen real-estate (as experienced with a 4k monitor in Hi-DPI mode) and without creating a problem with the scalability of their UI elements such as menu bars, buttons, etc. (as experienced with a 4k monitor in native resolution). A monitor larger than 27" also will not cannibalize potential iMac sales yet also creates a new industry solution for a current film editor (and photo editor) problem.

The numbers above show why a 32" 4k monitor is inferior to a 27" 5k monitor in both native resolution and HiDPI mode. A larger 5k monitor would create a new problem by having UI elements larger than Apple would like since the assumption is that the monitor would sit in the same space a 27" monitor presently sits. It also would require a new production line since the pixels required for the display would be larger than the current 5k model. So, Apple's solution will likely be (if this rumor plays out):

An external 31.7" 6k Apple-branded monitor:

• 6144x3240 native resolution (making it a premium display and uniquely placed as the only solution for this industry problem for working with hi-res digital content)
• 3072x1620 HiDPI mode (UI elements are the exact same size as a 5k iMac and previous generation 27" iMacs)

The final argument is that a bigger 4k monitor (north of 40") could solve the UI size problem... but it actually wouldn't because a monitor bigger than 32" is meant to be viewed from further back. So essentially the logic here for Apple to maintain their user experience is just a simple math equation. That runs contradictory as to how marketing companies would approach it. But in the end, 6k makes perfect sense especially in light of 5k & 6k content already being shot on many digital cameras and hi-res film scans going up to 10k resolution.

Anyway, that's a much more thorough and detailed explanation than my previous posts...