“Apple’s WWDC conference is almost upon us, and with the expectation that the company will unveil new Macs at the event, I decided to do a bit of checking around on retail stock levels,” J. Glenn Künzler reports for MacTrast.
“What I found, somewhat to my surprise, was a remarkable shortage of Apple’s entry-level Mac Pro,” Künzler reports. “I checked a dozen major Apple resellers (including Apple’s own website and retail stores), and found that the vast majority were either out of stock or had very limited supplies of the $2499 2012 Mac Pro.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Dan K.” for the heads up.]
Mac Pros can’t come soon enough!
… DIDN’T! Not for me, at least.
I bought myself the honkingest iMac available early this year. Yes, I wanted a Mac Pro. Apple wasn’t suppling “new” ones. This i7 iMac is at least as powerful as those entry-level Mac Pros now in short supply, AND it has a gorgeous 27′ screen. OK, no argument, if I need an extra port (or two) or another disk … it could get messy. Not likely, but possible.
They will kick ass.
And people will still whine…
But of course!
I’ll whine if they are not radically different from the current design. More compact please.
It will be very hard to make them compact and still very expandable…
Most people buying Mac Pros will always care more about expandability.
I mean “more compact”, not “non-expandable”. I know the difference between a Mac Pro and an iMac. I contend that Apple can accomplish both.
It will be very difficult to keep all the expansion options that the current Mac Pro has and compact it more without turning it into the dreaded 9100. You know, the one where you almost had to give up some skin in order to even add RAM.
I like the openness of the current design. It is very, very easy to change out RAM or video cards or even optical drives. For the people who really need Mac Pro systems this ease is really necessary.
Perhaps they could make it a tardis.
Can’t have everything. I’m sure that a MacPro that has faster RAM, has more storage capacity, and has a faster CPU will be some consolation.
Who cares if they’re compact? Get an iMac if space is your problem.I want quad monitors!!!
Most people I know looking fora Mac Pro aren’t looking for a smaller size but faster processors with bays for several hard drives, an optical drive and many slots for a variety of card to add to the system. Smaller just as won’t work!
That’s where thunderbolt comes in. I’m not saying this will happen, but it’s entirely possible even now to offload your pcie cards to a separate box. Same with hard drives/raid. So what’s left is a smaller footprint machine with a ton of expandability for ram and maybe a few slots for SSD’s. The rest goes to thunderbolt peripherals for those (me) that need them. Except for the ram, you can already do this with a mini. I would LOVE to have a box the size of the old cube with the fastest processor on earth chewing up my 3D files… What I’d really like to see is fast/cheap networking. Fiber is too expensive and gig is too slow…
Who would want a retina display that could accompany a Mac Pro?
You buy your display separately when you get a Mac Pro.
When I meant accompany I meant released at the same time. I know their separate. Just curious if peeps would want one.
If I were designing the new MacPro, the basic configuration would be essentially a 19″ rack on its side with various “blades” that could be configured to construct anything from a medium-scale workstation to a high-end server, or anything in between. And yes, mounting them in a standard 19″ rack would be supported, and even encouraged. Essentially design-your-own proMac. I think that Apple’s major problem would be keeping up with demand.
Blades are normally a bit noisy due smaller fans spinning faster and blowing harder. Have to admit the fan design on the current Mac Pros is pretty good. Tough compromises.
The only new Intel Xeon due in mid 2013 is the E3, which seems kind of lame for a Mac Pro. Apple may be moving to a single Core i7 processor for the new Mac Pro, which would also be kind of lame.
Would be better off with current Xeon E5 processors, IMO. But Apple could have built a new Mac Pro with those processors months ago.
Way to go Apple, a day late or a dollar short, take your pick.
I want a left-handed tower. If it’s only available in right-hand models, Tim Cook needs to go.
/s
Isn’t the new light based Thunderbolt due soon? Perhaps EOL Firewire but definitely USB2 will be retired. Perhaps that will premiere in the new Mac Pro?
There may be scope for reducing the bulky chassis as Apple is pretty ingenious in rejigging and miniaturising components and their layout. Will the updated Mac Pro be the new “Made in the U.S.” computer from Apple?
Why this inane desire for a tiny Mac Pro? It will be placed out of site anyway.
It’s a natural progression if you think about it. As technology advances things tend to get smaller don’t they? No reason why the body couldn’t be a 1/3 or 1/2 smaller…theres so much free space inside my 2010 Mac Pro I reckon I can fit a 6 pack of beers in there…no joke.
Too big of a gap between iMac & Mac Pro Tower. Mac Pro Mini needed. Still expandable & more powerful than iMac, not the top of the line Mac Pro. MPMini equals 1/2 of current Tower. 1 6 Core Server chip. 1 expandable graphics card slot, same external ports, 1 optical slot drive, 2 drive bays, 1/2 number of RAM slots. Smaller aluminum cube form like Pro Cube.
There really is no need for the new Mac Pro to be smaller in size than the current design. For anyone serious about expansion, all those slots come in handy. Not to mention all those drive bays.
What matters most (at least to me, but no doubt many others) is processor speed, memory and faster graphics. Oh yes, much faster graphics.
Bus speed also needs a boost but that will be part of any new processor architecture.
Thunderbolt will be welcome too.
A new case design would be ok as long as ease of access to drives, memory and slots is retained similar to the current design.
Anodised black aluminum ??
Imho, it doesnt need to be mre compact. Just way lighter, without losing its sturdiness.