I bought and used an early iMac Pro in January of 2018 for just over two years (64GB, 3GHZ 10-core, Vega 56), selling just before AppleCare expired around April last year (aka early Covid). It was my daily driver in my photography studio and although I’m not in charge of retouching, I do handle all the initial edits and selections and then exports. For that reason alone, I loved it.

The form factor, revamped cooling system, mass of I/O and screen made it a joy to work on - with Capture One at least. It was a complete dog in Adobe Lightroom CC, to the point I had to turn down the screen resolution to avoid stuttering and slowdowns. It was entirely Adobe’s fault (the unfixed coding dating back to CS2 for God’s sake) but it made it pretty much unusable for my studio as we are predominately Adobe users.

I sold it to a graphic designer of a local church just as Covid started and got a good price for it. I’m glad it’s gone to a good home but am I planning to get one on the cheap in a few years to add to my collection? Hells yeah I am. 😉

shamino wrote on 2021-03-08, 12:02:

There's an iMac Pro?

Sounds like a contradiction.

There's also a MacBook Pro 16", MacBook Pro 13", iPad Pro, iPhone Pro and AirPods Pro

mothergoose729 wrote on 2021-03-12, 18:19:

shamino wrote on 2021-03-08, 12:02:

There's an iMac Pro?

Sounds like a contradiction.

They are used in professional media production a lot. They will pay anything for a high power mac machine to run lightroom or what-have-you, because it is so much more expensive for them to change their workflow or miss deadlines.

I kind of doubt Apple will just never have a mac pro again. My guess is that they feel confident their M1 architecture can scale to the workstation and is coming soon.

I know there's powerful Macs, but the "i" part is what surprised me. Such a product seems contradictory, but I'm obviously out of touch with the Apple world.
Last I knew an iMac was a laptop living inside a desktop monitor, designed to be minimalistic. It's not a design that lends itself to being powerful (in the context of it's time) or expandable. Mac Pros (no i) on the other hand are tower desktop computers that can dissipate the power they need to burn.
I guess there must have been a marketing niche for a low power machine that they could still brand as a "Pro". Maybe for photo work it makes sense, as I guess that doesn't demand as much power (Watts consumed and dissipated) as video.

drosse1meyer wrote on 2021-03-12, 21:44:

The iMac Pro is quite powerful, surpassing the trashcan style mac pro, and also has a 27" 5k screen, USBC ports, and at least a 8 gb graphics cards

Sounds like over time, the performance of new iMacs started to overlap old Pros, so they started to play around with the branding.

The imac pro had very advanced cooling allowing for powerful desktop processors.

kolderman wrote on 2021-03-15, 07:05:

The imac pro had very advanced cooling allowing for powerful desktop processors.

And desktop GPUs as well, don’t forget. There was a Vega 64 with 16GB and also the upgraded 64X version.

I have to say that in the two years I had mine, it was whisper quiet even under heavy load. I would have kept it if it wasn’t for such poor Adobe performance at 5k.

My guess is next step is abandoning MacBook Pro soon too.

ROFLMAO they just launched M1 MacBooks, and are set to launch new ones like a 14-inch model along with a new iMac this year, yet you come with this prediction? 🤣.

Bruninho wrote on 2021-04-02, 19:25:

ROFLMAO they just launched M1 MacBooks, and are set to launch new ones like a 14-inch model along with a new iMac this year, yet you come with this prediction? 🤣.

The M1 processor apparently isn't that bad, IMHO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpKQ1iASEfQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYbkGkrffKU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhilMx4nrGM

Both macOS and Win 10 ARM seem to run very well on it,
provided that enough memory is available (8GB RAM is not enough).
So maybe x86 can now rest in peace. No BIOS, no life.

Also, both Parallels and VMware are working on M1 ports of their virtualizers.
Which, of course, can't handle x86 VMs of any kind.

Anyway, Win 10 ARM can handle x86 and x86-64 binaries on its own by now,
so that's not a huge issue as far as application support is considered.

Things look different for classic Mac OS X VMs, though.
Tiger (10.4) was the first one to support x86 and Snow Leopard was the last one with Rosetta on board (PPC program support on x86 Mac OS X).

So without any kind of emulation support,
virtualizers are not going to run old versions of macOS.
Which is a bit of a contradiction here. Apple constantly changes stuff in the OS,
which requires developers,
artists etc to keep multiple versions of macOS around in order to retain compatibility with older professional software they need to work with.

apparently
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Jo22 wrote on 2021-05-04, 12:28:

Anyway, Win 10 ARM can handle x86 and x86-64 binaries on its own by now,
so that's not a huge issue as far as application support is considered.

Not very well though. It's far slower than Apple's x86 emulation and there are bugs in the FPU translation - it looks like they thought using the native FPU would be good enough, but x87 is not a typical IEEE754 compatible piece of hardware...

jmarsh wrote on 2021-05-04, 14:44:

Jo22 wrote on 2021-05-04, 12:28:

Anyway, Win 10 ARM can handle x86 and x86-64 binaries on its own by now,
so that's not a huge issue as far as application support is considered.

Not very well though. It's far slower than Apple's x86 emulation and there are bugs in the FPU translation - it looks like they thought using the native FPU would be good enough, but x87 is not a typical IEEE754 compatible piece of hardware...

To be fair, though, x87 is considered deprecated for years by now.

https://www.realworldtech.com/physx87/4/

Don't get me wrong, I do really appreciate math co-processors.
Installed them in my vintage machines, too.

But perhaps it's time to move on.

I seriously hoped that x86 would keep developing and keep being future-proof,
but thanks to Intel's "vision" of removing all the legacy stuff (mainly, CSM) I nolonger can keep up with that illusion.

Seriously, what's x86 good for if not extreme compatibility? 🤔
Well, Windows and Office were. But neither of them requires x86 anymore, either.

Embedded systems use chips from VIA, the Vortex86, Transmeta CPUs etc.
These literally live happily in their own, UEFI-free world.

I can't help, but believe x86 is coming to an end in the next few years. 😔
All major platforms have some sort of ARM support by now, which they embrace.

You can still run old OS X through QEMU, so it's emulation. It is still lightning fast with a M1 Mac. 8GB is enough for very old OS emulation, 16GB is obviously better but not necessary. I don't care at all about Windows 7, 8 and 10, only about 3.11 and 98SE. XP is only useful if there is Glide passthrough for games like Grand Prix 3/4.

I've seen people on youtube running old OS 9 and OS X with UTM (QEMU GUI) on M1. The M1 is indeed a very amazing CPU, but I will wait until the transition is complete to get one of these new Macs. I don't want to be a "beta tester" for two years, the M1 hasn't even completed 1 year yet, and people is already talking about M1X and M2 this year. When Apple manages to deliver a more improved, robust and durable version, I'll commit to it. My plan is to stick to the 2013 MBP for as long as possible, as long as there is Big Sur updates for it. When the time comes, I'll do the jump with whatever Apple has in the MBP line.

Parallels is far ahead of VMware, delivering a product more compatible with Windows 10 ARM (Insider Preview versions) than VMware. https://blogs.vmware.com/teamfusion/ and VMware doesn't even have their VMware Tools for that Windows version yet.

With that weak approach from VMware and the very expensive prices Parallels practice for their products, I am very inclined to stick with QEMU & DOSBox-X.

I don't really need Windows at all, except for holding a certificate that validates my current work as a certified individual small entrepreneur, but I have already transferred a copy of this certificate to my Mac so no need for Windows at all. I can even move to Linux if I want.

Bruninho wrote on 2021-05-04, 15:26:

You can still run old OS X through QEMU, so it's emulation. It is still lightning fast with a M1 Mac. 8GB is enough for very old […]
Show full quote

You can still run old OS X through QEMU, so it's emulation. It is still lightning fast with a M1 Mac. 8GB is enough for very old OS emulation, 16GB is obviously better but not necessary. I don't care at all about Windows 7, 8 and 10, only about 3.11 and 98SE. XP is only useful if there is Glide passthrough for games like Grand Prix 3/4.

I've seen people on youtube running old OS 9 and OS X with UTM (QEMU GUI) on M1. The M1 is indeed a very amazing CPU, but I will wait until the transition is complete to get one of these new Macs. I don't want to be a "beta tester" for two years, the M1 hasn't even completed 1 year yet, and people is already talking about M1X and M2 this year. When Apple manages to deliver a more improved, robust and durable version, I'll commit to it. My plan is to stick to the 2013 MBP for as long as possible, as long as there is Big Sur updates for it. When the time comes, I'll do the jump with whatever Apple has in the MBP line.

Parallels is far ahead of VMware, delivering a product more compatible with Windows 10 ARM (Insider Preview versions) than VMware. https://blogs.vmware.com/teamfusion/ and VMware doesn't even have their VMware Tools for that Windows version yet.

With that weak approach from VMware and the very expensive prices Parallels practice for their products, I am very inclined to stick with QEMU & DOSBox-X.

I don't really need Windows at all, except for holding a certificate that validates my current work as a certified individual small entrepreneur, but I have already transferred a copy of this certificate to my Mac so no need for Windows at all. I can even move to Linux if I want.

Thank you for sharing your point of view! 👍
I can relate to that in some way or another.

While I'm no fan of Windows 10 by any means, I recognize it in its function as a runtime (hi Win 1.x/2.x!).
It's perhaps the last bastion of calm in this app-centric society we live in:
It still has a remarkable user base and supports classic desktop programs/applications.

So if it can keep its role of executing Win32, Java,.Net, Win64 applications alongside Metro apps, then that's a win-win situation.

Because, that means that software projects based on classic development systems,
such as Visual Studio 4/5/6,.Net and Borland Delphi are not becoming obsolete any soon.
(There are many excellent programs that do only exist on the Windows platform.)

That's about the only thing that I do value when it comes to Win 10. 😉
Otherwise, I think it's a total perversion of Windows NT (well, wasn't MS planning to replace the kernal, anyway?).

Speaking of emulation of older macOS systems on M1:
I think it's great that there's so much going on! 🙂
The Macintosh always had been utilizing emulation of some form:

* The Apple Lisa got Mac Works in the early 80s, essentially a Macintosh emulator

* The Atari ST got software emulators for Mac OS early on (Alladin?)

* The Power PC versions of System was based on old 68000 code,
thus had a built-in 86k emulator.

* FPU emulators were sold because the default emulation of a 68k FPU on Power PC System was poor/incomplete

* Mac OS used to excessively work with disk images (emulated floppy disks) that
held all the meta data, rather than using zip/lha archives like the rest of the world.

* Third-party emulators like Soft Windows, Soft PC or Virtual PC were a must have

* Mac OS X emulated+virtualized its predecessor (OS 9) through Classic Environment

* Intel versions of Mac OS X 10.4 to 1.06 included Rosetta,
to emulate Power PC instructrions

^Edit: That's why Snow Leopard (10.6, intel) was and still is simewhat popular!
It was the last macOS that could execute the old Mac OS X applications.
Tiger (10.4, ppc) was also very beloved because of this.
It was the last OS to execute real Mac OS applications (68k/emulated and PPC/native) through the help of Classic.
Classic was more of a virtual machine running OS 9, though.

Jo22 wrote on 2021-05-04, 15:17:

To be fair, though, x87 is considered deprecated for years by now. […]
Show full quote

To be fair, though, x87 is considered deprecated for years by now.

https://www.realworldtech.com/physx87/4/

Don't get me wrong, I do really appreciate math co-processors.
Installed them in my vintage machines, too.

But perhaps it's time to move on.

To be fair, if you say your OS can run x86 apps it should be able to run them exactly as an x86 machine would.
Declaring a feature deprecated (even when it's still shipping in current hardware...) doesn't magically make its usage go away in older programs, that were written when nothing else was available.
Maybe if the proposed replacement hardware (SSE) had at least equivalent functionality, x87 would have gone away. But as it stands it still has practically unmatched precision/range and a much wider coverage of functions.

Apple/Intel is what revived Apple computers when it was near bankruptcy from poor sales.
Thunderbolt is also an Intel technology. I dont see Apple being free from intel any time soon.
Not everyone wants a computer for video editing.

jmarsh wrote on 2021-05-04, 22:21:

To be fair, if you say your OS can run x86 apps it should be able to run them exactly as an x86 machine would. Declaring a featu […]
Show full quote

Jo22 wrote on 2021-05-04, 15:17:

To be fair, though, x87 is considered deprecated for years by now. […]
Show full quote

To be fair, though, x87 is considered deprecated for years by now.

https://www.realworldtech.com/physx87/4/

Don't get me wrong, I do really appreciate math co-processors.
Installed them in my vintage machines, too.

But perhaps it's time to move on.

To be fair, if you say your OS can run x86 apps it should be able to run them exactly as an x86 machine would.
Declaring a feature deprecated (even when it's still shipping in current hardware...) doesn't magically make its usage go away in older programs, that were written when nothing else was available.
Maybe if the proposed replacement hardware (SSE) had at least equivalent functionality, x87 would have gone away. But as it stands it still has practically unmatched precision/range and a much wider coverage of functions.

Well, I can't argue here. 😀 I just assume (or rather hope) that Windows on ARM itself has/will have an FPU emulator that takes care of this.
Back in the 16-Bit Windows 2.x days, there used to be WIN87EM.EXE, which also acted as a x87 virtualizer (multiple programs with x87 support could be multi-tasked simultanously).
- Well, if memory serves. Windows programs, of that era, which used floating points, seemed to run on machines with no FPU, too. Don't think they had alternate code paths.
Not sure how the 32-Bit counterpart worked, however. My memories of Win95/Win NT are a bit vague. 😅

iPhone 13 (at least the regular one) won't use M1