Some of the workstation parts are not much more expensive than the desktop ones though. An i7 chip and motherboard with everything else the same would only be about $100-200 cheaper and only the motherboard makes the difference.
Well this may be true but it also leads to Apples to Oranges comparisons. To put it simply I have no desire to see the Mac Pro displaced as Apple top performing machine. However there is a massive gulf right now between the Mini and the Mac Pro performance and capability wise.
Quote:
There's a Dell Vostro Mini Tower that can be configured for under $1000 with a quad i7 and is about 40% smaller and lighter than the Mac Pro:
So the bulk of the cost has to be elsewhere in the machine and in the margins. The price went up dramatically at one point without the parts being much more expensive so margins have to be a part of it.
Well let's list some of the things that make the Mac Pro expensive. The case jumps to mind real quick followed closely by the main logic board. Then you have the power supply and main memory system.
If we back up a bit, the case itself is custom and certainly isn't a $39 dollar solution. I would be surprised if it cost Apple $100 or more. The main logic board is again custom and from what I can see is not a cheap implementation. In the end I don't see equivalent in the PC world.
Quote:
It seems to me the iMac is the only way they can make an Apple-chosen IPS display and a Mac together the most affordable. Shared PSU and shared casing will cut the costs a bit along with the volumes of both.
Not at all. They simply don't want to for whatever reason. Look at it this way HP, Dell and a host of others can make very good monitors at reasonable prices. Apple on the otherhand has gone in the opposite direction in the past. That is making marginal quality displays at high prices. This seemingly the result of design over functiion. The most recent example being the $800 screen for the portables that was a huge joke price wise. Not to mention it was ugly.
To put it simply there is no reason I can think of for them not to have a decent monitor around $350 for use with the laptops and Mini. It almost looks like they go out of their way to force people to buy outside of the Apple supply chain.
Quote:
If you get a quad i7 tower with a 27" IPS in a PC, the cost would be $2000, which is not far off the $2200 i7 iMac price. Personally, I don't think it's good selling a 27" and 21.5". The 21.5" is quite small and the 27" is too big. I reckon a 24" 1080p for all would have been a better option. The problem there is that video editors can't edit 1080p at native size but they could always get a second display and edit at full size.
First let's hit upon 1080p on the small screen. That is doable with today's tech.
As to the screens let's face it minor difference in cost mean nothing. Especially if you are trying to fulfill specific needs.
Quote:
I would rather they sold a 24" quad i7 iMac at maybe $1800, design it like the Cinema display and then sell 24" Cinema displays for $599 vs $999. They might not be able to get the parts in a 24" chassis just now though.
I'd rather see an XMac then screen size just drops out if the equation.
I think the big issue here is Apples defective policy towards bad LCD screens. This is a greater concern for many than the latest Intel CPU or fancy GPU.
Quote:
I think they are over-building it. Sure, some people will try to turn it into a Tesla-like compute machine but very few. It's clear it's not being targeted at consumers now so I guess it doesn't matter but it creates the following scenario:
Nope to the overbuilding. The problem with the Mac Pro is that it is a very good solution for certain classes of users. The problem is it is a terrible solution for people that need something similar.
If Apple where to drop the Mac Pro it would do far more damage than dropping the XServe. That is simply because there is a reasonably large number of Apple customers that actually use the capabilities if the Mac Pro. More importantly there are few alternatives. XServe got dropped because there is almost an infinite supply of servers out there. So if the Mac Pro sells ten thousand a month those are sales to customers with little in the way of real alternatives.
Quote:
If they price the Mac Pro out of reach of consumers, they drop the volume, which pushes prices higher.
Or they know they have people over a barrel with little in the way of real options. I'm nit really sure what drives the ultimate price on the Mac Pro but I'd have to say a big part of it is greed on Apples part. I say that due to the rather stiff price increases for rather marginal component upgrades.
Quote:
If they design the iMac to be most cost-effective with a display included then they can't make a tower with an extra display cost-effective.
Cost has nothing to do with it. Seriously it really doesn't. Contrary to popular belief the Mini is very popular with people even now. Frankly it really isn't a great value but the flexibility to connect your desired monitor is very appealing.
Quote:
Like I said earlier, if you go into an Apple Store right now, you can't walk out with a complete desktop computer system cheaper than the iMac and that includes the Mini. It's not necessarily a bad thing as they have a nice design in the latest iteration but you are going to be stuck with the poor display warranty on a very expensive machine.
You really seem to be hung up on price. That is to bad as it misses many of the points people bring up when discussing the Mini and XMac. The reason people want these machines has little to do with price. If price was the only concern people could easily turn to commodity hardware and LINUX.
Quote:
Also, they would find it hard to build a display-less machine with a standout design that is high performance without using mobile parts.
That is a matter of opinion. An XMac class machine could easily be built with 45 to 60 watt parts. The whole point of XMac is to provide for a bigger chassis that the Mini but at the same time considerably smaller than a Mac Pro. That provides for a lot of room design wise. Especially considering that the design goal is easy access drive slots, maybe a PCI Express slot and a decent GPU. Even if they went to mobile parts that still offers up a chassis that can handle a lot more than the Mini.
Quote:
Although, chips like Intel's Sandy Bridge i5-2400s are 65W chips and perform ok - it actually performs about the same as the i7-860 in the current iMac but uses half the power. Perfect for a small desktop but for the other reasons won't make it into one.
As long as Intel doesn't have any silly restrictions there is always the potential. However we must remember these new generations of chips provide for advances in hardware capability simply due to their lower power profiles. Apple might not use them in a desktop but that won't stop somebody else.
As a side note for a company that is growing it's PC sales Apples Mac Line up is very stale. I honestly believe they would be even farther ahead sales wise if they had a broader desktop offering. The reality is many shoppers fit into that gulf between the Mini and the Pro.
Quote:
I think the Mini is the best hope for a standalone consumer desktop people have and I think it's going to become more important over time.
While the shrinking chips certainly mean more power in the little box it still misses the point with respect to the people that are actually asking for something different.
Quote:
When they ultimately build one in 3 years with 4-6 core processors at 2-2.5GHz with 4-8GB RAM, 256-512GB SSD and a GPU 4x the 320M, why would 90% of people buy anything with a higher spec?
I see that word spec and immediately realize that you still don't get it. It has nothing to do with the CPU spec but rather flexibility. For example you mention 512GB of SSD but yet many people have real applications where that is a none starter with out expansion capability. It also drops out the request for a PCI Express slot or two. Not to mention the need for more RAM than the base models provide.
I'm just bothered by your obsession with specs. The whole idea of XMac revolves around being able to configure for your specific needs. Like it or not it is a highly used feature in the PC world. With Apples reluctance to service this market need a lot of potential application developers never consider the Mac as a platform.
Quote:
You get all the performance you need with the choices of affordable displays with great warranties and is flexible enough a design that you can use for any number of tasks (server, media centre, desktop),
As good as the Mini is it is not flexible at all, not even close. Again though I think you mis the whole point of the discussion here because frankly it is all about flexibility in a low cost platform. Something that costs $1000 instead of $1600.
Actually it could cost less than that but you get the idea. This can be done easily because there is an endless number of examples in the PC world. Many are in fact wellunder $1000 but $1000 wouldn't be bad for a well designed Apple product.
Quote:
is easy to resell as it's light and portable, easy to take into an Apple Store for repair.
Yes exactly! One shouldnt have to wear a supporter to take his Mac to the store.
Quote:
The Mini is our xMac.
Nope, not at all. No where near flexible enough
Quote:
All we asked for was a decent CPU with a good GPU. Credit to them, they got NVidia to build the best IGP ever made, they just came up short on the CPU. With extra engineering effort, they could get dedicated GPUs in there like other manufacturers but it may be the wiser option to side-step and wait for Intel to improve their IGPs.
Or just go AMD. I think it is important to realize that part of the equation here is offering value for the money. There is no reason why Apple needs to use high price intel chips, Llano would make for a very nice XMac.
Since this is all about getting Apple to break the mold that they have been using design wise, AMD inside could help the process along. IMac, Mini and Pro are a throw back to tge days when Apple couldn't afford a reasonable line up. They need to rethink that strategy now that sales are strong and more people are taking an interest in Apple.
Quote:
The decisions they make at the end of this month will be interesting to see - does their allegiance lie with innovation or chipzilla?
Actually I'd be surprised if anything more than the laptops got updated.
On the otherhand technology moves forward, at some point you won't be able to get dual core CPUs. Even this year could lead to a major improvement to the Mini if Apple really wants to. Both Llano and Sandy Bridge would be excellent for the platform. If Apple waits till next year most of the hardware bugs should be gone and AMD should have even better cores for their APUs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geneking7320
I hope I'm wrong but somehow I don't think Apple will build the mini that Marvin refers to in post #60.
OTOH, if Apple manufactures a small laptop with that much power they might indeed do so.
Laptops are strong sellers no doubt but that does not excuse neglecting the desktops. I'm really of the opinion that Apple is currently in a position hardware wise where they can't realize the full potential of the market. The big chill in the publics mind has melted away, nobody these days expected Apple to go under. However they now need to have the right products to service a wider array of customers.
The Mac Pro (and PowerMac that preceded it) is a niche product, but I don't think the niche that Apple is selling it to will buy anything else. At least, not as long as they can.
To put it simply there is no reason I can think of for them not to have a decent monitor around $350 for use with the laptops and Mini. It almost looks like they go out of their way to force people to buy outside of the Apple supply chain.
There has to be something to do with inventory though. The middle two iMacs have the exact same spec and for just $200, you jump from a 21.5" screen to a 27" screen. I've never seen such a small and large IPS display separated by so little money. In Dell terms, that jump is $800.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I'd rather see an XMac then screen size just drops out if the equation.
Indeed it does for informed consumers but can you imagine an average shopper standing in the Apple store being advised about a computer screen:
Shopper: Thanks for the Cube, now where can I get a screen for it?
Apple employee: Anywhere you want.
Shopper: Yeah but where?
*tumbleweed*
They won't be allowed to recommend non-Apple screens so the average shopper would have to go home with an unusable product. It is interesting that Apple sell 3rd party hardware on their store so long as it's products they don't compete strongly with. I wonder how many people actually do blow $1000 on the 27" Cinema screens. There are 165 reviews, a lot of them complaining about the glare so maybe it sells ok but I can't imagine there would be all that many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I see that word spec and immediately realize that you still don't get it. It has nothing to do with the CPU spec but rather flexibility. For example you mention 512GB of SSD but yet many people have real applications where that is a none starter with out expansion capability. It also drops out the request for a PCI Express slot or two. Not to mention the need for more RAM than the base models provide.
Yeah but these requirements will pass soon. Light Peak can replace PCI Express and if they combine it with USB 3 ports, you'd get 4-5 PCI slot equivalents without having to open the machine and compromising the design for people who don't need them with external power for some components. If you could buy a GPU that way, that would be awesome.
Also when it comes to storage, I'd rather have things stored on an external RAID so I can switch drives with the turn of a key and not touch the computer at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Llano would make for a very nice XMac.
It would - the quad-core version would be ideal, not least because it's codenamed Beavercreek. I want to use the phrase 'I have a Beavercreek in my Mini' in everyday conversation just to see how people react.
Rumour has it that it's due in May now and will no doubt undercut Intel's pricing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Actually I'd be surprised if anything more than the laptops got updated.
Yeah but I mean the way in which they choose to update them will be interesting because whatever they do to the low-end laptops generally applies to the Mini. I do think the iMac could use a chip refresh though and using 65W chips in those would help keep the temperatures down.
On the topic of the PCI slot removal after externalising PCI using Light Peak, They could perhaps shrink the Mac Pro down again:
People will complain about the 2.5" drives not being enough but long-term, they will be fine, lower powered, lower heat and SSD is mostly 2.5". Takes up less space as a server too. Forcing the GPU to be external may not be a great idea but it depends on what Light Peak is capable of and what GPU developments come along. I could see the CPU block containing 2x Xeons and a 3rd GPU chip in there that performs about 3-4x a 320M. Anything more and it goes outside with its own power supply.
If the optical is scrapped, there could actually be 5x or 6x 3.5" drives vertical in the space vs 2.5" drives.
I used to work IT Support in a newspaper environment. All the graphic artists and page layout staff used Mac Pros. In practice, the only internal changes we made were when we needed to add ram, add/replace hard disks, and sometimes add the occasional PCI SCSI card for connecting legacy equipment like professional bed-style scanners.
In an IT environment, being able to do on-site replacements (RAM, HDD, or even swap in a fan from another Pro) is extremely important. Even if it's to install a PCI NIC because the on-board one died.
That kind of modular design for "workstation" machines will always be needed.
Now, as for the machines used by the writers and salespeople who live in Microsoft Office for a living? They demand laptops. They get laptops. If they are serviceable onsite, it's nice, but pretty much we'd just replace the whole thing when one gets sufficiently broken.
The Mac Pro (and PowerMac that preceded it) is a niche product, but I don't think the niche that Apple is selling it to will buy anything else. At least, not as long as they can.
However for many users that is just too much of a machine for their needs. Easy serviceability and minimal expandability is all that they really need.
The goal rather is a midrange system between the Mini and the Pro. There is really no point in shrinking the Pro or following it's design points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
On the topic of the PCI slot removal after externalising PCI using Light Peak, They could perhaps shrink the Mac Pro down again:
To put it simply I'm not a big fan of externalized I/O. Generally it is a very expensive way to do I/O. On top of that it could be years before the IP is generally available for custom I/O.
Quote:
People will complain about the 2.5" drives not being enough but long-term, they will be fine, lower powered, lower heat and SSD is mostly 2.5".
I'd go even farther and would hope for a couple of the blade SSD slots.
Quote:
Takes up less space as a server too. Forcing the GPU to be external may not be a great idea but it depends on what Light Peak is capable of and what GPU developments come along.
In a year or two I would expect that on die GPUs will be good enough for this platfom. That is assuming AMD hardware.
Quote:
I could see the CPU block containing 2x Xeons and a 3rd GPU chip in there that performs about 3-4x a 320M. Anything more and it goes outside with its own power supply.
My image of an XMac is a little less than what you are after. In this regards I'm of the opinion that a single chip processor is the way to go. I'm mixed on the use of a discrete GPU. The whole point here is to design a much lower cost XMac. The goal is a small single board computer with no riser or CPU cards.
Quote:
If the optical is scrapped, there could actually be 5x or 6x 3.5" drives vertical in the space vs 2.5" drives.
Stick to the smaller drives.
In any event the goal isn't smaller Mac Pro but rather an alternative desktop Mac.
I used to work IT Support in a newspaper environment. All the graphic artists and page layout staff used Mac Pros. In practice, the only internal changes we made were when we needed to add ram, add/replace hard disks, and sometimes add the occasional PCI SCSI card for connecting legacy equipment like professional bed-style scanners.
I'm not sure people understand the importance of serviceability in a large IT environment.
Quote:
In an IT environment, being able to do on-site replacements (RAM, HDD, or even swap in a fan from another Pro) is extremely important. Even if it's to install a PCI NIC because the on-board one died.
Your mention of Ethernet is interesting because we often find need to install a second Ethernet port. Sometimes though far simpler expansion is needed for things like USB ports or even RS 232 ports. It is very easy to populate all your ports in a commercial application.
On top of that high speed serial ports like USB have serious problems like latency. So good old PCI is still required for many applications.
Quote:
That kind of modular design for "workstation" machines will always be needed.
More so it isn't always the realm of a high performance workstation where these needs come into play. Sometimes you simply need I/O ports of one type or another.
Quote:
Now, as for the machines used by the writers and salespeople who live in Microsoft Office for a living? They demand laptops. They get laptops. If they are serviceable onsite, it's nice, but pretty much we'd just replace the whole thing when one gets sufficiently broken.
This is pretty familiar however I think you leave out a huge array of systems for more middle of the road usage. That is machines for use in Engineering, R&D, manufacturing, metrology and all the other parts of a modern company. These are all places where desktops are commonly implemented but don't always require the performance of a Mac Pro.
Nope to the overbuilding. The problem with the Mac Pro is that it is a very good solution for certain classes of users. The problem is it is a terrible solution for people that need something similar.
More importantly there are few alternatives.
So if the Mac Pro sells ten thousand a month those are sales to customers with little in the way of real alternatives.
Or they know they have people over a barrel with little in the way of real options. I'm not really sure what drives the ultimate price on the Mac Pro but I'd have to say a big part of it is greed on Apples part. I say that due to the rather stiff price increases for rather marginal component upgrades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuturePastNow
The Mac Pro (and PowerMac that preceded it) is a niche product, but I don't think the niche that Apple is selling it to will buy anything else. At least, not as long as they can.
That's what it looks like to me as well. They know they can get away with the MacPro's inflated prices. As if the base model isn't pricy enough, the upgrades is what really kill it. I have tried to find RAM priced similar to Apple's 3x4GB @ $1275 and it simply can't be had for that money.
OWC (certainly not a price-fighter) sells 3x4GB @ $220, that is more than a $1000 deficit. Apple's HDD prices are a little more reasonable but still more than twice the price of OEM.
I feel slightly let down by Apple. I need the expandibility of the MacPro, but to spec it up to my requirements would jettison the price into the $5000+ stratosphere. If I were to get a barebone 3.2GHz quadcore and spec it out myself, I could save about $1500. But a comparable custom-built rackmount i7 PC would cost about $2500, and likely offer better performance too.
I say that the single-CPU MacPro should drop the Xeon. I don't mind paying a premium for a Mac, but it has gotten a little disproportionate. I am seriously considering the aforementioned custom-built PC as my next machine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
As a side note for a company that is growing it's PC sales Apples Mac Line up is very stale. I honestly believe they would be even farther ahead sales wise if they had a broader desktop offering. The reality is many shoppers fit into that gulf between the Mini and the Pro.
Since this is all about getting Apple to break the mold that they have been using design wise, AMD inside could help the process along. IMac, Mini and Pro are a throw back to the days when Apple couldn't afford a reasonable line up. They need to rethink that strategy now that sales are strong and more people are taking an interest in Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I'm really of the opinion that Apple is currently in a position hardware wise where they can't realize the full potential of the market. The big chill in the public's mind has melted away, nobody these days expected Apple to go under. However they now need to have the right products to service a wider array of customers.
I for one would heartily agree, but I bet Apple is not going to do an xMac...ever. It simply does not coincide with their vision of the future. Think of two famous Jobs' utterances, first he likened desktops to the trucks everybody drove in the early 20th century, and more recently he said that Apple's strategy is (I kid you not) "to price it aggresively, and go for volume".
To me, that is a clear indication of where Apple is headed (consumer electronics/lifestyle/content/cloud), and although I do not think they will abandon the MacPro anytime soon, it would take a seismic shift (think near-banktruptcy) to make them focus again on the small and insignificant performance desktop market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
There has to be something to do with inventory though. The middle two iMacs have the exact same spec and for just $200, you jump from a 21.5" screen to a 27" screen. I've never seen such a small and large IPS display separated by so little money. In Dell terms, that jump is $800.
I wonder how many people actually do blow $1000 on the 27" Cinema screens. There are 165 reviews, a lot of them complaining about the glare so maybe it sells ok but I can't imagine there would be all that many.
The 27" is actually a pretty good deal. Similar displays from competing companies aren't a lot cheaper and do not look as sexy. In fact, dollar-for-dollar the 27" iMac is better value than the 21.5" right now.
The middle one would either explode or melt itself.
The small one makes no sense whatsoever; why would Apple make a device with external graphics? That's just one more cable and one more box on your desk; an iMac would do better.
The middle one would either explode or melt itself.
The small one makes no sense whatsoever; why would Apple make a device with external graphics? That's just one more cable and one more box on your desk; an iMac would do better.
It wouldn't have external graphics by default, there would be an on-board chip but upgrades could be external. Think of it like the Turbo 264 USB dongle that processes video files.
The more advanced computers get, the less people need expansions and upgrades so you don't need the big PSU, or the PCI slots so there's no need to force a large enclosure on everyone. They should analyse what the majority of buyers are doing with their Mac Pro and if over 80% don't use the functionality, either build a smaller custom model on top or just go with one size fits all.
With a fast enough IO port, the manufacturers will adapt.
back in the 90s having a IIfx, or PM 7500 acually meant that scrolling in Word and editing a small image was way faster than in a office compiter and way way faster than a portable computer.
Now portable computers is more than fast enough for such apps and much more. An iMac is even more powerful. So the step up from iMac to Pro is needed by fewer now. The pro is not dead it is just relegated to a smallar share of the market
One thing is very clear over the years of all the xmac threads and comments and that is just about everybody agrees that Apple should make a tower xmac.
But it is obvious that they aren't going to - I resigned myself to that fact a long time ago.
And if they did they'd cripple it so that it would be limited for expansion in some way, like having one only pcie slot etc; It's just not worth it for them competing in that end of the market.
"Now portable computers is more than fast enough for such apps and much more. An iMac is even more powerful. So the step up from iMac to Pro is needed by fewer now. The pro is not dead it is just relegated to a smallar share of the market"
Exactly - but the moment you need expansion -> it's 0800 MacPro.
At the moment that 12 core is a big ask but if you want the latest greatest you'll stump and pay or go the open source route and build a Linux system.
In any event the goal isn't smaller Mac Pro but rather an alternative desktop Mac.
wizard, that's your goal but not everyones.
I like the MacPro for all the reasons vandil points out in a previous post. Presently I have a 2006 MacPro. It's still chugging along and doing everything I need it to do. At some point old age will catch up to it and it'll need replacing, which I'll do with another MacPro more likely.
But what I really would want is a MacPro Jr, with a case design similar to the toaster design in post #15 or the middle one posted by Marvin. It would have the same processor as the entry MacPro, 2 HD bays, 4 memory slots, 1 optical bay, blu-ray please, a video card slot, plus one additional slot, 2 ethernet ports plus a full array of other connector ports. Priced about $200 - $250 cheaper than the entry level MacPro.
Would there be a market for this type of machine? I doubt it. Would Apple build something like this? Again I doubt it.
I guess the point of this post is that not everyone wants an inexpensive, read cheapened, xMac.
The xMac is different things to different people. If everybody agreed on what it ought to be, Apple might actually think that there's untapped market potential there.
The simplest option (I think) would be:
- a regular MacPro case, no need to spend R&D $$$ on something new.
- a consumer-grade i7 could conceivably work on exisitng mainboards with few (or no) modifications.
- a less powerful, cheaper PSU
- no ECC memory
- lower-cost GPU
- no dual-CPU support
This way there's little extra R&D cost involved, and I bet they could sell this profitably at $1500 with full options approaching the $2500 base-model MacPro.
Comments
OTOH, if Apple manufactures a small laptop with that much power they might indeed do so.
Some of the workstation parts are not much more expensive than the desktop ones though. An i7 chip and motherboard with everything else the same would only be about $100-200 cheaper and only the motherboard makes the difference.
Well this may be true but it also leads to Apples to Oranges comparisons. To put it simply I have no desire to see the Mac Pro displaced as Apple top performing machine. However there is a massive gulf right now between the Mini and the Mac Pro performance and capability wise.
There's a Dell Vostro Mini Tower that can be configured for under $1000 with a quad i7 and is about 40% smaller and lighter than the Mac Pro:
http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/vostro-430/pd
So the bulk of the cost has to be elsewhere in the machine and in the margins. The price went up dramatically at one point without the parts being much more expensive so margins have to be a part of it.
Well let's list some of the things that make the Mac Pro expensive. The case jumps to mind real quick followed closely by the main logic board. Then you have the power supply and main memory system.
If we back up a bit, the case itself is custom and certainly isn't a $39 dollar solution. I would be surprised if it cost Apple $100 or more. The main logic board is again custom and from what I can see is not a cheap implementation. In the end I don't see equivalent in the PC world.
It seems to me the iMac is the only way they can make an Apple-chosen IPS display and a Mac together the most affordable. Shared PSU and shared casing will cut the costs a bit along with the volumes of both.
Not at all. They simply don't want to for whatever reason. Look at it this way HP, Dell and a host of others can make very good monitors at reasonable prices. Apple on the otherhand has gone in the opposite direction in the past. That is making marginal quality displays at high prices. This seemingly the result of design over functiion. The most recent example being the $800 screen for the portables that was a huge joke price wise. Not to mention it was ugly.
To put it simply there is no reason I can think of for them not to have a decent monitor around $350 for use with the laptops and Mini. It almost looks like they go out of their way to force people to buy outside of the Apple supply chain.
If you get a quad i7 tower with a 27" IPS in a PC, the cost would be $2000, which is not far off the $2200 i7 iMac price. Personally, I don't think it's good selling a 27" and 21.5". The 21.5" is quite small and the 27" is too big. I reckon a 24" 1080p for all would have been a better option. The problem there is that video editors can't edit 1080p at native size but they could always get a second display and edit at full size.
First let's hit upon 1080p on the small screen. That is doable with today's tech.
As to the screens let's face it minor difference in cost mean nothing. Especially if you are trying to fulfill specific needs.
I would rather they sold a 24" quad i7 iMac at maybe $1800, design it like the Cinema display and then sell 24" Cinema displays for $599 vs $999. They might not be able to get the parts in a 24" chassis just now though.
I'd rather see an XMac then screen size just drops out if the equation.
$200 for Dell now:
http://accessories.dell.com/sna/prod...1&sku=320-9271
3 year zero dead pixel warranty too vs Apple's 1 year warranty with up to 8 dead pixels acceptable. That's the main reason I like a separate display.
HP are under $300 too:
http://www.amazon.com/HP-ZR22w-21-5-.../dp/B003D1CFHY
I think the big issue here is Apples defective policy towards bad LCD screens. This is a greater concern for many than the latest Intel CPU or fancy GPU.
I think they are over-building it. Sure, some people will try to turn it into a Tesla-like compute machine but very few. It's clear it's not being targeted at consumers now so I guess it doesn't matter but it creates the following scenario:
Nope to the overbuilding. The problem with the Mac Pro is that it is a very good solution for certain classes of users. The problem is it is a terrible solution for people that need something similar.
If Apple where to drop the Mac Pro it would do far more damage than dropping the XServe. That is simply because there is a reasonably large number of Apple customers that actually use the capabilities if the Mac Pro. More importantly there are few alternatives. XServe got dropped because there is almost an infinite supply of servers out there. So if the Mac Pro sells ten thousand a month those are sales to customers with little in the way of real alternatives.
If they price the Mac Pro out of reach of consumers, they drop the volume, which pushes prices higher.
Or they know they have people over a barrel with little in the way of real options. I'm nit really sure what drives the ultimate price on the Mac Pro but I'd have to say a big part of it is greed on Apples part. I say that due to the rather stiff price increases for rather marginal component upgrades.
If they design the iMac to be most cost-effective with a display included then they can't make a tower with an extra display cost-effective.
Cost has nothing to do with it. Seriously it really doesn't. Contrary to popular belief the Mini is very popular with people even now. Frankly it really isn't a great value but the flexibility to connect your desired monitor is very appealing.
Like I said earlier, if you go into an Apple Store right now, you can't walk out with a complete desktop computer system cheaper than the iMac and that includes the Mini. It's not necessarily a bad thing as they have a nice design in the latest iteration but you are going to be stuck with the poor display warranty on a very expensive machine.
You really seem to be hung up on price. That is to bad as it misses many of the points people bring up when discussing the Mini and XMac. The reason people want these machines has little to do with price. If price was the only concern people could easily turn to commodity hardware and LINUX.
Also, they would find it hard to build a display-less machine with a standout design that is high performance without using mobile parts.
That is a matter of opinion. An XMac class machine could easily be built with 45 to 60 watt parts. The whole point of XMac is to provide for a bigger chassis that the Mini but at the same time considerably smaller than a Mac Pro. That provides for a lot of room design wise. Especially considering that the design goal is easy access drive slots, maybe a PCI Express slot and a decent GPU. Even if they went to mobile parts that still offers up a chassis that can handle a lot more than the Mini.
Although, chips like Intel's Sandy Bridge i5-2400s are 65W chips and perform ok - it actually performs about the same as the i7-860 in the current iMac but uses half the power. Perfect for a small desktop but for the other reasons won't make it into one.
As long as Intel doesn't have any silly restrictions there is always the potential. However we must remember these new generations of chips provide for advances in hardware capability simply due to their lower power profiles. Apple might not use them in a desktop but that won't stop somebody else.
As a side note for a company that is growing it's PC sales Apples Mac Line up is very stale. I honestly believe they would be even farther ahead sales wise if they had a broader desktop offering. The reality is many shoppers fit into that gulf between the Mini and the Pro.
I think the Mini is the best hope for a standalone consumer desktop people have and I think it's going to become more important over time.
While the shrinking chips certainly mean more power in the little box it still misses the point with respect to the people that are actually asking for something different.
When they ultimately build one in 3 years with 4-6 core processors at 2-2.5GHz with 4-8GB RAM, 256-512GB SSD and a GPU 4x the 320M, why would 90% of people buy anything with a higher spec?
I see that word spec and immediately realize that you still don't get it. It has nothing to do with the CPU spec but rather flexibility. For example you mention 512GB of SSD but yet many people have real applications where that is a none starter with out expansion capability. It also drops out the request for a PCI Express slot or two. Not to mention the need for more RAM than the base models provide.
I'm just bothered by your obsession with specs. The whole idea of XMac revolves around being able to configure for your specific needs. Like it or not it is a highly used feature in the PC world. With Apples reluctance to service this market need a lot of potential application developers never consider the Mac as a platform.
You get all the performance you need with the choices of affordable displays with great warranties and is flexible enough a design that you can use for any number of tasks (server, media centre, desktop),
As good as the Mini is it is not flexible at all, not even close. Again though I think you mis the whole point of the discussion here because frankly it is all about flexibility in a low cost platform. Something that costs $1000 instead of $1600.
Actually it could cost less than that but you get the idea. This can be done easily because there is an endless number of examples in the PC world. Many are in fact wellunder $1000 but $1000 wouldn't be bad for a well designed Apple product.
is easy to resell as it's light and portable, easy to take into an Apple Store for repair.
Yes exactly! One shouldnt have to wear a supporter to take his Mac to the store.
The Mini is our xMac.
Nope, not at all. No where near flexible enough
All we asked for was a decent CPU with a good GPU. Credit to them, they got NVidia to build the best IGP ever made, they just came up short on the CPU. With extra engineering effort, they could get dedicated GPUs in there like other manufacturers but it may be the wiser option to side-step and wait for Intel to improve their IGPs.
Or just go AMD. I think it is important to realize that part of the equation here is offering value for the money. There is no reason why Apple needs to use high price intel chips, Llano would make for a very nice XMac.
Since this is all about getting Apple to break the mold that they have been using design wise, AMD inside could help the process along. IMac, Mini and Pro are a throw back to tge days when Apple couldn't afford a reasonable line up. They need to rethink that strategy now that sales are strong and more people are taking an interest in Apple.
The decisions they make at the end of this month will be interesting to see - does their allegiance lie with innovation or chipzilla?
Actually I'd be surprised if anything more than the laptops got updated.
I hope I'm wrong but somehow I don't think Apple will build the mini that Marvin refers to in post #60.
OTOH, if Apple manufactures a small laptop with that much power they might indeed do so.
Laptops are strong sellers no doubt but that does not excuse neglecting the desktops. I'm really of the opinion that Apple is currently in a position hardware wise where they can't realize the full potential of the market. The big chill in the publics mind has melted away, nobody these days expected Apple to go under. However they now need to have the right products to service a wider array of customers.
To put it simply there is no reason I can think of for them not to have a decent monitor around $350 for use with the laptops and Mini. It almost looks like they go out of their way to force people to buy outside of the Apple supply chain.
There has to be something to do with inventory though. The middle two iMacs have the exact same spec and for just $200, you jump from a 21.5" screen to a 27" screen. I've never seen such a small and large IPS display separated by so little money. In Dell terms, that jump is $800.
I'd rather see an XMac then screen size just drops out if the equation.
Indeed it does for informed consumers but can you imagine an average shopper standing in the Apple store being advised about a computer screen:
Shopper: Thanks for the Cube, now where can I get a screen for it?
Apple employee: Anywhere you want.
Shopper: Yeah but where?
*tumbleweed*
They won't be allowed to recommend non-Apple screens so the average shopper would have to go home with an unusable product. It is interesting that Apple sell 3rd party hardware on their store so long as it's products they don't compete strongly with. I wonder how many people actually do blow $1000 on the 27" Cinema screens. There are 165 reviews, a lot of them complaining about the glare so maybe it sells ok but I can't imagine there would be all that many.
I see that word spec and immediately realize that you still don't get it. It has nothing to do with the CPU spec but rather flexibility. For example you mention 512GB of SSD but yet many people have real applications where that is a none starter with out expansion capability. It also drops out the request for a PCI Express slot or two. Not to mention the need for more RAM than the base models provide.
Yeah but these requirements will pass soon. Light Peak can replace PCI Express and if they combine it with USB 3 ports, you'd get 4-5 PCI slot equivalents without having to open the machine and compromising the design for people who don't need them with external power for some components. If you could buy a GPU that way, that would be awesome.
Also when it comes to storage, I'd rather have things stored on an external RAID so I can switch drives with the turn of a key and not touch the computer at all.
Llano would make for a very nice XMac.
It would - the quad-core version would be ideal, not least because it's codenamed Beavercreek. I want to use the phrase 'I have a Beavercreek in my Mini' in everyday conversation just to see how people react.
Rumour has it that it's due in May now and will no doubt undercut Intel's pricing.
Actually I'd be surprised if anything more than the laptops got updated.
Yeah but I mean the way in which they choose to update them will be interesting because whatever they do to the low-end laptops generally applies to the Mini. I do think the iMac could use a chip refresh though and using 65W chips in those would help keep the temperatures down.
People will complain about the 2.5" drives not being enough but long-term, they will be fine, lower powered, lower heat and SSD is mostly 2.5". Takes up less space as a server too. Forcing the GPU to be external may not be a great idea but it depends on what Light Peak is capable of and what GPU developments come along. I could see the CPU block containing 2x Xeons and a 3rd GPU chip in there that performs about 3-4x a 320M. Anything more and it goes outside with its own power supply.
If the optical is scrapped, there could actually be 5x or 6x 3.5" drives vertical in the space vs 2.5" drives.
In an IT environment, being able to do on-site replacements (RAM, HDD, or even swap in a fan from another Pro) is extremely important. Even if it's to install a PCI NIC because the on-board one died.
That kind of modular design for "workstation" machines will always be needed.
Now, as for the machines used by the writers and salespeople who live in Microsoft Office for a living? They demand laptops. They get laptops. If they are serviceable onsite, it's nice, but pretty much we'd just replace the whole thing when one gets sufficiently broken.
The Mac Pro (and PowerMac that preceded it) is a niche product, but I don't think the niche that Apple is selling it to will buy anything else. At least, not as long as they can.
However for many users that is just too much of a machine for their needs. Easy serviceability and minimal expandability is all that they really need.
On the topic of the PCI slot removal after externalising PCI using Light Peak, They could perhaps shrink the Mac Pro down again:
To put it simply I'm not a big fan of externalized I/O. Generally it is a very expensive way to do I/O. On top of that it could be years before the IP is generally available for custom I/O.
People will complain about the 2.5" drives not being enough but long-term, they will be fine, lower powered, lower heat and SSD is mostly 2.5".
I'd go even farther and would hope for a couple of the blade SSD slots.
Takes up less space as a server too. Forcing the GPU to be external may not be a great idea but it depends on what Light Peak is capable of and what GPU developments come along.
In a year or two I would expect that on die GPUs will be good enough for this platfom. That is assuming AMD hardware.
I could see the CPU block containing 2x Xeons and a 3rd GPU chip in there that performs about 3-4x a 320M. Anything more and it goes outside with its own power supply.
My image of an XMac is a little less than what you are after. In this regards I'm of the opinion that a single chip processor is the way to go. I'm mixed on the use of a discrete GPU. The whole point here is to design a much lower cost XMac. The goal is a small single board computer with no riser or CPU cards.
If the optical is scrapped, there could actually be 5x or 6x 3.5" drives vertical in the space vs 2.5" drives.
Stick to the smaller drives.
In any event the goal isn't smaller Mac Pro but rather an alternative desktop Mac.
I used to work IT Support in a newspaper environment. All the graphic artists and page layout staff used Mac Pros. In practice, the only internal changes we made were when we needed to add ram, add/replace hard disks, and sometimes add the occasional PCI SCSI card for connecting legacy equipment like professional bed-style scanners.
I'm not sure people understand the importance of serviceability in a large IT environment.
In an IT environment, being able to do on-site replacements (RAM, HDD, or even swap in a fan from another Pro) is extremely important. Even if it's to install a PCI NIC because the on-board one died.
Your mention of Ethernet is interesting because we often find need to install a second Ethernet port. Sometimes though far simpler expansion is needed for things like USB ports or even RS 232 ports. It is very easy to populate all your ports in a commercial application.
On top of that high speed serial ports like USB have serious problems like latency. So good old PCI is still required for many applications.
That kind of modular design for "workstation" machines will always be needed.
More so it isn't always the realm of a high performance workstation where these needs come into play. Sometimes you simply need I/O ports of one type or another.
Now, as for the machines used by the writers and salespeople who live in Microsoft Office for a living? They demand laptops. They get laptops. If they are serviceable onsite, it's nice, but pretty much we'd just replace the whole thing when one gets sufficiently broken.
This is pretty familiar however I think you leave out a huge array of systems for more middle of the road usage. That is machines for use in Engineering, R&D, manufacturing, metrology and all the other parts of a modern company. These are all places where desktops are commonly implemented but don't always require the performance of a Mac Pro.
Nope to the overbuilding. The problem with the Mac Pro is that it is a very good solution for certain classes of users. The problem is it is a terrible solution for people that need something similar.
More importantly there are few alternatives.
So if the Mac Pro sells ten thousand a month those are sales to customers with little in the way of real alternatives.
Or they know they have people over a barrel with little in the way of real options. I'm not really sure what drives the ultimate price on the Mac Pro but I'd have to say a big part of it is greed on Apples part. I say that due to the rather stiff price increases for rather marginal component upgrades.
The Mac Pro (and PowerMac that preceded it) is a niche product, but I don't think the niche that Apple is selling it to will buy anything else. At least, not as long as they can.
That's what it looks like to me as well. They know they can get away with the MacPro's inflated prices. As if the base model isn't pricy enough, the upgrades is what really kill it. I have tried to find RAM priced similar to Apple's 3x4GB @ $1275 and it simply can't be had for that money.
OWC (certainly not a price-fighter) sells 3x4GB @ $220, that is more than a $1000 deficit. Apple's HDD prices are a little more reasonable but still more than twice the price of OEM.
I feel slightly let down by Apple. I need the expandibility of the MacPro, but to spec it up to my requirements would jettison the price into the $5000+ stratosphere. If I were to get a barebone 3.2GHz quadcore and spec it out myself, I could save about $1500. But a comparable custom-built rackmount i7 PC would cost about $2500, and likely offer better performance too.
I say that the single-CPU MacPro should drop the Xeon. I don't mind paying a premium for a Mac, but it has gotten a little disproportionate. I am seriously considering the aforementioned custom-built PC as my next machine.
As a side note for a company that is growing it's PC sales Apples Mac Line up is very stale. I honestly believe they would be even farther ahead sales wise if they had a broader desktop offering. The reality is many shoppers fit into that gulf between the Mini and the Pro.
Since this is all about getting Apple to break the mold that they have been using design wise, AMD inside could help the process along. IMac, Mini and Pro are a throw back to the days when Apple couldn't afford a reasonable line up. They need to rethink that strategy now that sales are strong and more people are taking an interest in Apple.
I'm really of the opinion that Apple is currently in a position hardware wise where they can't realize the full potential of the market. The big chill in the public's mind has melted away, nobody these days expected Apple to go under. However they now need to have the right products to service a wider array of customers.
I for one would heartily agree, but I bet Apple is not going to do an xMac...ever. It simply does not coincide with their vision of the future. Think of two famous Jobs' utterances, first he likened desktops to the trucks everybody drove in the early 20th century, and more recently he said that Apple's strategy is (I kid you not) "to price it aggresively, and go for volume".
To me, that is a clear indication of where Apple is headed (consumer electronics/lifestyle/content/cloud), and although I do not think they will abandon the MacPro anytime soon, it would take a seismic shift (think near-banktruptcy) to make them focus again on the small and insignificant performance desktop market.
There has to be something to do with inventory though. The middle two iMacs have the exact same spec and for just $200, you jump from a 21.5" screen to a 27" screen. I've never seen such a small and large IPS display separated by so little money. In Dell terms, that jump is $800.
I wonder how many people actually do blow $1000 on the 27" Cinema screens. There are 165 reviews, a lot of them complaining about the glare so maybe it sells ok but I can't imagine there would be all that many.
The 27" is actually a pretty good deal. Similar displays from competing companies aren't a lot cheaper and do not look as sexy. In fact, dollar-for-dollar the 27" iMac is better value than the 21.5" right now.
The middle one would either explode or melt itself.
The small one makes no sense whatsoever; why would Apple make a device with external graphics? That's just one more cable and one more box on your desk; an iMac would do better.
The middle one would either explode or melt itself.
The small one makes no sense whatsoever; why would Apple make a device with external graphics? That's just one more cable and one more box on your desk; an iMac would do better.
It wouldn't have external graphics by default, there would be an on-board chip but upgrades could be external. Think of it like the Turbo 264 USB dongle that processes video files.
The more advanced computers get, the less people need expansions and upgrades so you don't need the big PSU, or the PCI slots so there's no need to force a large enclosure on everyone. They should analyse what the majority of buyers are doing with their Mac Pro and if over 80% don't use the functionality, either build a smaller custom model on top or just go with one size fits all.
With a fast enough IO port, the manufacturers will adapt.
Now portable computers is more than fast enough for such apps and much more. An iMac is even more powerful. So the step up from iMac to Pro is needed by fewer now. The pro is not dead it is just relegated to a smallar share of the market
But it is obvious that they aren't going to - I resigned myself to that fact a long time ago.
And if they did they'd cripple it so that it would be limited for expansion in some way, like having one only pcie slot etc; It's just not worth it for them competing in that end of the market.
"Now portable computers is more than fast enough for such apps and much more. An iMac is even more powerful. So the step up from iMac to Pro is needed by fewer now. The pro is not dead it is just relegated to a smallar share of the market"
Exactly - but the moment you need expansion -> it's 0800 MacPro.
At the moment that 12 core is a big ask but if you want the latest greatest you'll stump and pay or go the open source route and build a Linux system.
I don't think the macpro is dead. I think it's time for a new case design...
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; f you're buying it because of the case design, you're buying it for zero of the reasons it exists.
The case is meaningless. There's no point in redesigning it.
In any event the goal isn't smaller Mac Pro but rather an alternative desktop Mac.
wizard, that's your goal but not everyones.
I like the MacPro for all the reasons vandil points out in a previous post. Presently I have a 2006 MacPro. It's still chugging along and doing everything I need it to do. At some point old age will catch up to it and it'll need replacing, which I'll do with another MacPro more likely.
But what I really would want is a MacPro Jr, with a case design similar to the toaster design in post #15 or the middle one posted by Marvin. It would have the same processor as the entry MacPro, 2 HD bays, 4 memory slots, 1 optical bay, blu-ray please, a video card slot, plus one additional slot, 2 ethernet ports plus a full array of other connector ports. Priced about $200 - $250 cheaper than the entry level MacPro.
Would there be a market for this type of machine? I doubt it. Would Apple build something like this? Again I doubt it.
I guess the point of this post is that not everyone wants an inexpensive, read cheapened, xMac.
The simplest option (I think) would be:
- a regular MacPro case, no need to spend R&D $$$ on something new.
- a consumer-grade i7 could conceivably work on exisitng mainboards with few (or no) modifications.
- a less powerful, cheaper PSU
- no ECC memory
- lower-cost GPU
- no dual-CPU support
This way there's little extra R&D cost involved, and I bet they could sell this profitably at $1500 with full options approaching the $2500 base-model MacPro.
Hey, am just dreaming out loud...