The New Mac Pro…

[IAmAndre]

On 6/5/2019 at 7:34 AM, Belgarathian said:

I'd suggest that Apple went with Intel for Thunderbolt. 

If I'm not mistaken, Thunderbolt I is no longer an Intel exclusive. Some X570 motherboards have it too.

[IAmAndre]

On 6/5/2019 at 1:50 PM, mkU1tra762 said:

It should be called the Mac Industrial. Their Pro lineup was originally for small businesses or independent content creators exe. home recording studios, wedding photographers/videographers, graphic designers. People that would pay more because this is how they made their money. This product is for companies like Pixar and Lucasfilm. That's fine but I wish they had a $1.5k 5k monitor and a $2.5k - $3k desktop. I guess they are just assuming that those people will just get iMac and they may be right. Still would like them to make cheaper display. Pretty much an iMac screen by itself that can plug into a MacBook Pro via Thunderbolt 3.

I think that the word "Pro" is being used all the time for marketing and other odd reasons. This is a case where it really deserves to be used because it's actually targeting PROfessionals, unlike the iPad Pro which could have been called "iPad Plus" or "iPad X".

[Belgarathian]

13 hours ago, IAmAndre said:

If I'm not mistaken, Thunderbolt I is no longer an Intel exclusive. Some X570 motherboards have it too.

Yes, but they use a chipset... If Intel has added thunderbolt to the CPU itself then it would potentially reduce the bottleneck we've seen with external thunderbolt enclosures.

[WhyThereIsAPieOverHead]

I GUESS PEOPLE WILL BUILD A PC WHICH IS better than mac pro yet cheaper

[caincha]

I had quite a lot to say about this video like how often it was said 'to be fair' only served to prove how unfair the video was going to be but instead I'll focus on this:

 

 

How is it that a $10,000.00 computer - display not included! - that had little to no R&D, not even a fraction of background in development history that Apple has and which only purpose is 'gaming!' is acceptable to LMG standards but a less expensive machine that's built for work (therefore a tool, not a toy) ain't?

If it weren't for the entertaining videos we get from time to time I would unsubscribe. But it is because of these VERY biased videos - not only negative ones, some are clearly 'paid for' - that I just can't see myself giving any money to LMG even though I would love to have one of those merch items… 

[Foxlet]

On 6/6/2019 at 9:37 PM, SenpaiKaplan said:

Quick input on this section of your (very insightful) post.

 

DISCLAIMER! This post ended up being really long winded due to the nature of deductive reasoning, so here's a TL;DR (which also ended up pretty long): There is literally 0 reason it shouldn't work unless Apple found some way to filter PCI-E storage devices and disallow booting from some, but not others. I see no fathomable way of doing this without totally re-doing how Mac's handle external booting and making it impossible to boot from a volume not signed by Apple with a proprietary key only distributed to AASP's and Apple themselves. I don't put that past Apple, but I would imagine this isn't happening due to the fact that it would cost an insane amount of money not only in distributing new recovery drives to every Apple Store and AASP, but in creating hardware to make it work, and workers time at Apple Stores doing basic recovery jobs most consumers do themselves. It is economically non viable, and utterly stupid even if it was.

 

You don't need any of that reasoning. Codesigning is verified when boot.efi is loaded, and again when boot.efi passes control to XNU. The boot device is irrelevant as long as it can pass the two conditions. UEFI will still be able to access all the other block devices attached to the system.