or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by ecs

 I guess you're right. I bought SGI workstations in the 90s, so this new Mac Pro is way more affordable than the prices SGI usually gave me, which were always shocking, specially when you wanted textured graphics (until they released the O2, when hardware textured graphics became affordable, at about $6000, and this is my favorite machine I've ever owned). However, quite a few years have passed, and I don't see myself paying the same price of an O2, no matter how I loved...
The only thing I'm beginning to dislike about this new design is that Apple doesn't offer "triangle modules" so that you could update your Mac Pro later. I think it would attract users who never bought a $3000 machine before. For example, if there's a new generation of Xeons two years from now, just changing the CPU triangle module you could have an up to date Mac Pro at a fraction of the cost, making the original $3000 investment a wise price even for those users who...
I like it. I never had a Xeon before, but I'm looking for a powerful Mac desktop without display, so for me is either the Mac Pro or a Hackintosh. I like this Mac Pro, the only thing I dislike is the entry model being quad core. If I enter Xeon, I'd like to have at least 6 cores, so that my investment lasts more years. But the jump to 6 cores is $1000 more, and that pricing becomes too hard for me. Also, as others said, I also prefer NVIDIA, but I understand Apple got a...
 Yes, that's my feeling also. But it would be rare and risky if there's no configuration below $3000. And, honestly, I don't know how they could achieve that. They said "up to 12 cores", so it means they can save some money by putting a less powerful CPU in the entry model. However, "dual GPU" was announced as "standard", so this means the entry model will also have 2 GPUs. And it seems all models will have SSD storage. In other words, the entry model will feature a basic...
It can be improved: it's not thin enough.
 While that's a point too, it's not what I meant. I meant why should you pay for a builtin display if you want a midrange (where a "midrange" is the highest configuration below Xeons). And the reason is clear: even if you bought a great display last year, you've to get yet another new display if you want a midrange Mac, because that's the way Apple scales their product line. Problem is that most users who want to get a new midrange Mac, have a great display already. And...
And then there's people who say StreetView is scary...
Nope. The display in the iMac is used to scale all the desktop product line: If the iMac had low performance specs, its price should be low, and Apple wouldn't be able to justify a higher price by adding a display. OTOH, if the iMac had no display, it would be nonsense to ask $2500 for an i7 with a good GPU and SSD. It's the display what lets Apple ask $2500 for that configuration.So, Apple scales the desktop product line by making the midrange machine an AIO. If you want...
I believe the iMac AIO concept is outside what the market demands nowadays, but I've no idea if I'm the person you mention. Anyway, your solution doesn't fix the problem: if you have a relatively new and big display already (and many folks have it because it's been one of the trends these years), the only way of not throwing it away is to use it for dual head. Being forced to get a new display when you have a (perhaps) greater one is nonsense nowadays.It's also nonsense to...
The problem is the display. In these years of economic crisis, people return to the (wise) behavior of not throwing away stuff that works. If you bought an awesome display two years ago, why should you replace it if you want a powerful Mac? The options for a display-less Mac are either the Mini (with lower specs than the iMac) or the Mac Pro (usually priced to another market segment). Going for a "low cost" iMac will be just a Mac Mini with an attached display, and that...
New Posts  All Forums: