or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's next Mac Pro may sport six-core processors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's next Mac Pro may sport six-core processors - Page 3

post #81 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

So basically, you want a cheap computer that you can throw whatever bargain basement hardware you can find into, and also be able to take it in to an Apple Store for service when one of those cheap components causes problems?

No, I don't want a cheap computer. No bargain basement hardware. You didn't get that from my post. You pulled that out of thin air.

I want a decent quality Mac that falls between a Mini and an IMac. I might only add memory to the more expensive Mac which should have better specs than the Mini. If and when the HDD failed, I could replace it without hassle.

I bought a G4 tower and a 22" ACD 7 years ago. The ACD is still like new while the G4 is a dinosaur. That convinced me not to buy an iMac. That left me with no other choice except the Mini. Don't get me wrong. I love the mini. I would just have liked something with somewhat better specs but not an AIO or a Mac Pro that would be extremely overkill for me. I can afford a Mac Pro no matter the cost. I just don't need it. Why buy a Mercedes when an Acura will get me to work and back.
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #82 of 133
Please please please Apple, this is the time: People are looking at systems with Windows 7 coming out, they're looking at their 3-5 year old PCs and wondering if it's time to upgrade and if they do, if it should be an Apple like their iPod or iPhone.

Do it. Core i7, 2 gigs of ram standard expandable to 6, dual core, 13" aluminum case, two PCI slots, 1 16x PCI-E slot, FW800, Airport, 6 USB 2.0 ports, and what ever card is in the low-end Mac Pro with a DisplayPort output. Price at 1399$.

I even see the advertising: "Now, we can all be Professionals: Mac Pro, starting at 1399$."

Won't cabalize the low end iMac or Laptops, higher end iMacs can be phased out.
post #83 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roc Ingersol View Post

Because the average person has been over-supplied with compute resources since before the end of the megahertz races. The vast majority of mini and iMac users wouldn't notice the difference between a dual, quad or hexacore processor.

Sure, there's a would-be segment of gaming enthusiasts who would love a beefier machine for under 3k. But that's a segment that Apple has long-chosen not to serve.

While I completely agree, there has to be something that makes people WANT to upgrade.

Forcing all the PowerPC people to upgrade in order to use the latest software is a one shot deal. Once we've all gone Intel what's going to make us give up a perfectly adequate machine?

Changing the aluminum shell only works on the few who value having the latest "look" over all practical reasons. Having machines die and need replacing tends to drive customers away so that's not a good strategy. That leaves attempting to steal from competitors.

Apple has done really well in the last few years by stealing customers from Dell. If Windows 7 is any good that strategy isn't going to be nearly as effective going forward.

I don't need a new Mac. My 2009 Mini, bought in haste when my 2.7GHZ G5 died, does what I need it to.

However I want a new Mac. I want something exciting, something that doesn't feel like a sideways step again. I want something that I know will last me a long time, something with cores to spare that can be put to work by smarter software next year, but I don't want to trade away most of my raw clock speed just to say I have more cores. I also want a real GPU because I know the software of the future will make much greater use of powerful graphics processors.

I miss the drive bays in my G5. I used to buy a new hard drive every year to get the benefits of greater speed, capacity and a clean OS install. Now I have to muck around with external drive cases that don't put the drives to sleep when the computer sleeps.

Gamers are a mixed blessing. They drive CPU and GPU technology, but they're also responsible for TN becoming so prevalent in LCD displays. If the colors on your display aren't going to look right, why bother viewing them at all?

Maybe I should say I need a new display. I'm tired of VA technology that produces huge color and contrast shifts when you move your head. I'm tired of being bombarded by fluorescent light from all angles including my computer display. I'm tired of constantly shifting my iPod touch so I can look at the screen without seeing my surroundings. There's no glare in museums or art galleries so why does Apple force us to choose between mirrors and 15 year old matte technology?
post #84 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

You wouldn't expect a car company to build a cheap car which supports easy owner-serviceability and provide a long warranty which covers that car for free service no matter what the owner does to the car. That car manufacturer would soon be out of business due to the high cost of honoring those warranties. The same goes for computers.

I think you're going a bit far, and I think the analogy falls apart. Maybe you're not aware of it, but people do upgrade and modify their cars. It's not as easy as slapping in a memory card, but it's not terribly hard either. A lot of them do tacky stuff like riveting on ground-clearance reducing trim kits, but a lot do actual performance mods too. So far that I've known, people that do that don't expect the dealer to fix anything that's the fault of those modifications, unless it was an authorized mod done by the dealer and such.

I understand why they don't do it, but Apple can make a less expensive tower just by not requiring that it be a Xeon CPU and chipset. I don't think that's the same as asking that Apple make junk as you seem to say it is.

I personally don't buy cheap PCs, I have bought previously expensive PCs inexpensively. For many years, I bought off-lease workstation PCs for a few hundred dollars instead of a few thousand, and they live for a long time. I did that again a month ago because even an original three year old Mac Pro is still too expensive for my workbench. Besides, the original 7300 is clunky and the X1900 is just plain unreliable.
post #85 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

Time for a 13" Mac Pro.


That would be sweet, but better with the handles to get it off the ground and improve air flow.
post #86 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I understand why they don't do it, but Apple can make a less expensive tower just by not requiring that it be a Xeon CPU and chipset. I don't think that's the same as asking that Apple make junk as you seem to say it is.

The Xeons prices are not the problem. Their prices match up to the corresponding i7 brand. They can use "Xeon" 3500 series CPUs and the X58 chipset and create a really good workstation that is also inexpensive.
post #87 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A forthcoming update to the Mac Pro line could have short-term exclusivity of a new Intel Xeon six-core CPU early next year, according to a new rumor.

Citing an inside source, Hardmac has reported that Apple is testing the Gulftown Xeon chip in the new Mac Pro desktop. The chip is an improvement over the model currently being used in the 2009 model with more horsepower and lower power consumption.

The new 32 nanometer chips have 12MB of L3 cache, and 6 cores with 12 threads for each CPU. Apple usually doubles the processors in its high-end professional workstations, so it's possible the new Mac Pro system could have a total of 12 cores. The new hardware could be released sometime in the first quarter of 2010.

Gulftown is the codename of a yet-unreleased Intel chip. It will be sold under the Intel Core i9 name, while the server version is to be called the Xeon 5600 series. It will be the first dual-socket, six-core processor for Intel.

The report said that the new Mac Pro will have a modified motherboard with a 10Gbit/second Ethernet port. In addition, it is said to support 8GB and 16GB RAM modules, an increase from the 4GB offered today. That would mean the system could carry up to 128GB of RAM.

The new hardware is said to possibly arrive in early 2010, before the new chip enters mass production. If true, it is likely that the Mac maker would have short-term exclusive use of the new Xeon CPU.

"We currently do not know if all future Mac Pro models will be using this hexacore Xeon or if Apple will keep quad core XEon for the entry level model," the report said. "This could decrease significantly the price of the first Mac Pro, and maybe convince some Mac users desperately waiting for a Mac Pro mini to finally get one. It is also unclear if the enclosure will be modified or not."

If true, it wouldn't be the first time Apple had early access to a new Xeon chip. The last two revisions of the Mac Pro line had the first crack at their respective chips.

Earlier this year, Apple introduced a new Mac Pro with Nehalem Xeon processors. The 2.66GHz CPU offered 2.4 times increase of memory bandwidth with 40 percent lower memory latency over its predecessor. The current high-end 8-core Mac Pro offers two 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5500 series processors with 8MB of shared L3 cache.

When is Apple going to come out with a new PowerMac case? This one has been around for about 5 years, it's old.
post #88 of 133
What a grumbly damn thread. No one seems pleased with this rumored announcement at all and would rather resurrect endless (and endlessly debated) minutiae about imperfections in the land of A. But coming from the vacuum tube era and experiencing various epiphanies with the first Wurlitzer-size Pong game I ever saw, the first transistor radio that would fit in a pocket, punch card readers, the nearly original "mini-computer" (a half-room filling DEC PDP8 that had to be fed data in the hexadecimal number system - or was it octal, I forget), my own cherished Commodore 64 that gave ME my own computer for under $200, etc., etc., etc., to today's sleek Apple mobiles - knowing we're still barely at the dawn of digital, I watch this all unfold with wonder and my only thought is...

...."Open the pod door, please, Pro...."

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #89 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

Time for a 13" Mac Pro.


Sold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

The Xeons prices are not the problem. Their prices match up to the corresponding i7 brand. They can use "Xeon" 3500 series CPUs and the X58 chipset and create a really good workstation that is also inexpensive.

Right. The problem is either with getting really cute with the (6 1/2 year old) case so Ive doesn't have to design a new one or much higher than normal margins to protect the high end iMacs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

What a grumbly damn thread. No one seems pleased with this rumored announcement at all and would rather resurrect endless (and endlessly debated) minutiae about imperfections in the land of A. But coming from the vacuum tube era and experiencing various epiphanies with the first Wurlitzer-size Pong game I ever saw, the first transistor radio that would fit in a pocket, punch card readers, the nearly original "mini-computer" (a half-room filling DEC PDP8 that had to be fed data in the hexadecimal number system - or was it octal, I forget), my own cherished Commodore 64 that gave ME my own computer for under $200, etc., etc., etc., to today's sleek Apple mobiles - knowing we're still barely at the dawn of digital, I watch this all unfold with wonder and my only thought is...

...."Open the pod door, please, Pro...."

Lots of people are Happy, they just have names like Lucas and Spielberg and haven't had to deal with a budget for many many years. Problem is that market is pretty small.
post #90 of 133
I have no idea why anyone would complain about this. Sign me up. I'll take one.
{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
{2010 Mac Pro-6 core 3.33-12gb 1333 ram-ati5870-velociraptor 600's-SL/win7/64-Konnekt Live/Onkyo-Dell3007wfp}
{2008 Mac Pro-8 core 3.2's-16GB-evga285} {MBP17}{ipad}{iphone 4 blk16gb}
Reply
post #91 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakashizuma View Post

Yup the best option is to be a sheep noob hipster, buy overpriced slow computers with yesterday's components and NEVER expect to be able to upgrade the hardware of your computer if the master "Apple" thinks you dont need it! Also if you need more storage, use the built in "iDelete" feature to free up Hard drive space! Sounds like a perfect plan!

lol... sheep noob hipster? maybe you should add "epic fail" and "douchebag" to cover all of your current judgemental slang bases?

If it's possible to move beyond the knee-jerk, throwing vacuous judgement language around level of argumentation here...

Choose the computer which works best for the tasks you require. If you need custom hardware and continual upgrades for something like gaming or networking, then custom build a PC. If you need to spend your time just getting work done and not tinkering with your computer, then get a Mac.

I personally have a custom-built Linux PC which runs my entire network. I like it because it's upgradable (added new hard drives a while back to increase the RAID size) and configurable for any networking task (just installed ps3mediaserver and custom compiled versions of ffmpeg and mencoder/mplayer so that I can stream .mkv files to my PS3 from it), and is much cheaper than a Mac Pro or Xserve.

For my daily work, I use a Mac because if something goes wrong, I can take it in to the Apple Store and get it fixed on the spot most of the time (a few days at most). I don't have to spend time trying to RMA the parts and wait weeks/months to get new ones as I do with my Linux PC.

And, with a bit of research (finding Apple service manuals), obscure screwdrivers + the odd putty knife, and patience, I still can do my own upgrades to my Mac if I need to save a few dollars.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #92 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

No, I don't want a cheap computer. No bargain basement hardware. You didn't get that from my post. You pulled that out of thin air.

I want a decent quality Mac that falls between a Mini and an IMac. I might only add memory to the more expensive Mac which should have better specs than the Mini. If and when the HDD failed, I could replace it without hassle.

It's ridiculously easy to add/replace the RAM in an iMac. I'm pretty sure it's covered as a "user-serviceable" component in the warranty. I've taken an iMac which I've upgraded the memory on in to the Apple Store for service and they didn't even bat an eye.

As for hard drive upgrades, if you have some patience, you can do that on an iMac as well, but I agree that Apple could make it more user-serviceable. The other option is to just buy an external drive and use that. It's slower than an internal drive, but still useable for most tasks.

As I said before, it's a numbers game. Most people out there would not try to upgrade their own hard drive no matter if it were easily accessible or not. They would take it in for service (or get their technology-savvy relative/friend to do it).
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #93 of 133
LOL, yes, I'm a complete sheep noob hipster, and my computing experience has never been better.

That's too funny. Laughed so hard I almost spilled my Starbucks vanilla latte all over My MBP.

post #94 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I think you're going a bit far, and I think the analogy falls apart. Maybe you're not aware of it, but people do upgrade and modify their cars

I'm not sure where I stated or implied that I don't think people do. I have mechanic friends who modify their cars all the time.

I'm just stating that it's not fair to expect great a great warranty and service plan (as Macs have) on an inexpensive computer which can be user-customized. The technical support costs would greatly outweigh the slim profit margin. Business 101.
Quote:
So far that I've known, people that do that don't expect the dealer to fix anything that's the fault of those modifications, unless it was an authorized mod done by the dealer and such.

Yes, I'm the same way when it comes to computer mods. If I install components myself, and they fail/cause problems, I'll deal with the manufacturer of those components and not waste Apple's time/money trying to fix a problem I caused.

However, I don't consider myself to be representative of the majority of computer users out there. I'd be willing to bet that the average computer user would probably get their technology-savvy friend/relative to install custom components for them, and then take the computer in to Apple if/when something goes wrong with it.

Quote:
I understand why they don't do it, but Apple can make a less expensive tower just by not requiring that it be a Xeon CPU and chipset. I don't think that's the same as asking that Apple make junk as you seem to say it is.

Again, you misinterpreted what I was saying. I never said that Apple should make junk PCs, I said that people might install junk components.

For example: if you take a look at the memory in the Mac Pro, it's full error correcting (ECC) and has massive heat-sinks on it (much larger heat-sinks than those on most RAM). Very high quality (and more expensive) memory modules.

The average person looking to upgrade RAM themselves (most likely to save money) would take a look at the prices of various RAM modules and buy the cheapest ones they can get (not understanding the details about the differences). Then when their computer starts crashing randomly because the RAM is overheating, they're going to take it in to the Apple Store and waste Apple's time/money on a problem caused because they installed shoddy RAM modules.
Quote:
I personally don't buy cheap PCs, I have bought previously expensive PCs inexpensively. For many years, I bought off-lease workstation PCs for a few hundred dollars instead of a few thousand, and they live for a long time. I did that again a month ago because even an original three year old Mac Pro is still too expensive for my workbench. Besides, the original 7300 is clunky and the X1900 is just plain unreliable.

Yes, you seem to be a very savvy computer buyer (researching models, components, etc). Unfortunately, I don't think one can assume that everyone who buys a Mac is as savvy. And therein lies the technical support cost dilemma for Apple.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #95 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

It's ridiculously easy to add/replace the RAM in an iMac. I'm pretty sure it's covered as a "user-serviceable" component in the warranty. I've taken an iMac which I've upgraded the memory on in to the Apple Store for service and they didn't even bat an eye.

As for hard drive upgrades, if you have some patience, you can do that on an iMac as well, but I agree that Apple could make it more user-serviceable. The other option is to just buy an external drive and use that. It's slower than an internal drive, but still useable for most tasks.

As I said before, it's a numbers game. Most people out there would not try to upgrade their own hard drive no matter if it were easily accessible or not. They would take it in for service (or get their technology-savvy relative/friend to do it).

Did you actually read my post? There's no way in hell, I'd buy an iMac. My post explained that. And yes, I use external HDD's on my computers.
Furthermore, why buy a computer that you have to take in 'for service' just after buying it. That doesn't compute to me. I want one that I don't have to go to great lengths to have a computer I need. I want it to be available that way when I buy it.

If you have people around you that are Mac-savvy, my congratulations. I don't have any Mac-savvy (relatives or) friends except for the ones on AppleInsider.

auxio, are you sure you were responding to MY post?
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #96 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

Did you actually read my post? There's no way in hell, I'd buy an iMac. My post explained that. And yes, I use external HDD's on my computers.
Furthermore, why buy a computer that you have to take in 'for service' just after buying it. That doesn't compute to me. I want one that I don't have to go to great lengths to have a computer I need. I want it to be available that way when I buy it.

If you have people around you that are Mac-savvy, my congratulations. I don't have any Mac-savvy (relatives or) friends except for the ones on AppleInsider.

auxio, are you sure you were responding to MY post?

Absolutely. Have you even considered the core of your argument?

You basically say that the Mini and the iMac are not what you want because the Mini is underpowered and the iMac is an all-in-one. You want a machine like the Mac Pro, but at a lower cost -- correct?

What I'm saying is that if you need a machine which is as customizable/upgradable as the Mac Pro, I'd venture to guess that you'll be doing some actual customization on it at some point -- correct?

So then what's the difference between popping open the case and installing some new hardware in that customizable PC vs tracking down the service manuals for either the Mini or the iMac and popping them open to do the same customization (with a bit more care)? It's really only slightly more difficult due to the fact that the Mini and the iMac are packed in a smaller case.

Here's a good place to look if you're curious. They even have videos showing how to do many upgrades. And no, I don't work for them (I just buy my Mac components from them).

The only thing I'll give you is that you can't upgrade the video card in the Mini or the iMac. But then why are you buying a Mac for gaming in the first place? That's the only reason I can think of why you'd need to upgrade the video card.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #97 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

Furthermore, why buy a computer that you have to take in 'for service' just after buying it. That doesn't compute to me. I want one that I don't have to go to great lengths to have a computer I need. I want it to be available that way when I buy it.

There's no guarantee that if you go to the Dell website (or whichever pre-configured PC brand you prefer) that you're going to find a computer which fits your exact needs either. Apple has build-to-order options, Dell has build-to-order options, maybe you'll find one which fits, maybe you won't.

If you don't find a preconfigured machine which meets your needs, then you're going to have to customize it either way. And as I said, it's only slightly more difficult with a Mac than a PC if you already have the basic knowledge of how to do upgrades yourself.
Quote:
If you have people around you that are Mac-savvy, my congratulations. I don't have any Mac-savvy (relatives or) friends except for the ones on AppleInsider.

I never said I did. I'm the computer-savvy relative/friend for everyone else.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #98 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

J
What's mildly surprising is the 3 year old tech sitting in the Mini and the iMac. The iMac should have gone Quad-Core this year (maybe it will during Fall) and the Mini looks poor against almost all Mini-ATX competitors that are far less expensive (the recent GF9400m is a nod in the right direction, but really too little too late, especially if your GPU is sharing a precious 1GB of RAM.) The Mini should really retail at $399 and $499 and ship with 4GBs of RAM as a minimum and include 7200rpm hdds as standard.

As if any sensible person would even attempt to run OS X with 1 GB of RAM.
And before 7200 rpm becomes a standard at the very bottom, would it not first have to become the standard at the very top (MBPs)? No MBP has 7200 rpm drives as a standard yet.
post #99 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio View Post

There's no guarantee that if you go to the Dell website (or whichever pre-configured PC brand you prefer) that you're going to find a computer which fits your exact needs either. Apple has build-to-order options, Dell has build-to-order options, maybe you'll find one which fits, maybe you won't.

If you don't find a preconfigured machine which meets your needs, then you're going to have to customize it either way. And as I said, it's only slightly more difficult with a Mac than a PC if you already have the basic knowledge of how to do upgrades yourself.
I never said I did. I'm the computer-savvy relative/friend for everyone else.

Auxio, forgive me, but I don't have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about. And you seem to have no concept of what I'm thinking about. We seem to be talking about two entirely different topics. We're just not on the same page. However, thank you for trying to set me straight. I know you mean well, and I'll take your suggestions under advisement.

There's a joke (??) about the US and Britain being two countries divided by a common language. Of course, I don't know where you are, and I apologize for bringing that up if English isn't your primary language.

I hope my reply doesn't sound like sarcasm. It's not meant to be. Let's be friends.
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #100 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

And before 7200 rpm becomes a standard at the very bottom, would it not first have to become the standard at the very top (MBPs)? No MBP has 7200 rpm drives as a standard yet.

That's true, but there's a reason for that.

I just installed a 7200rpm drive in my MBP last month. I love it, but battery life has definitely taken a hit.

The Mini is a desktop (or at least it's supposed to be), so Apple doesn't have to worry about battery life.

As long as the 7200rpm drives stay within the heat threshold, Apple should be clear to include one in the higher end of the Mini range.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #101 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That's true, but there's a reason for that.

I just installed a 7200rpm drive in my MBP last month. I love it, but battery life has definitely taken a hit.

The Mini is a desktop (or at least it's supposed to be), so Apple doesn't have to worry about battery life.

As long as the 7200rpm drives stay within the heat threshold, Apple should be clear to include one in the higher end of the Mini range.

It pays to pay attention to performance tests using the faster drives. I really didn't notice the battery life hit in my MBP. Last I checked, the power consumption rating is only about half a watt more than 5400 drives, something like ~1.75 (5400) vs ~2.25 (7200) at load, that's a pittance compared to the entire system power draw, my typical use is maybe 20 watts on average, which calculates to maybe 5 minutes less run time. The batteries are something like 60Wh in my pre-unibody MBP, the new ones are 73Wh. I did notice the speed improvement though.
post #102 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

That's true, but there's a reason for that.

I just installed a 7200rpm drive in my MBP last month. I love it, but battery life has definitely taken a hit.

The Mini is a desktop (or at least it's supposed to be), so Apple doesn't have to worry about battery life.

As long as the 7200rpm drives stay within the heat threshold, Apple should be clear to include one in the higher end of the Mini range.

Whenever I have seen actual numbers, the actual system power consumption usually varied by less than 5% between a 5400 rpm and 7200 rpm-equipped laptop (and sometimes the 7200 rpm drives consumed less than the 5400 rpm drives). Try to find some (non-anecdotal) numbers, and you'll see the difference is for most drives negligible.
(BTW, I had for roughly the last eight years always 7200 rpm drives in my laptops.)
post #103 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

Like others here I think it is a disgrace that the price of entry for a "desktop" Mac is around $2500.

The iMac is $1399 CDN. $1199 US. That's the price of entry for a "desktop" Mac. You're getting caught up in the tinkering-inside-the-case Windows/PC paradigm.

Wanting an in-between desktop option, with expandability, etc., is all well and good. But given Apple's numbers and the lack of demand for desktops these days, it would be a diffcult case to make. The reason you don't see that neato headless "mini" Mac Pro is because there just isn't enough demand for one. No one off these boards really cares about the issue. And in terms of economics, Apple doesn't see a need for such a system. Given current numbers plus the dismal state of desktop sales, I can't say I'm surprised. To the vast majority of Apple's market, a "computer" is an appliance. Appliances aren't expanded or upgraded beyond memory and hard drives. They're used "as is" until they're done and then they're replaced. To be honest, I'm perfectly fine with that. Leaves room to do other things.

When you make an argument for this Mac Pro "mini" system, you need to justify it to Apple, not just to yourselves.

You guys really need to think outside of yourselves. The AppleInsider/MacRumors bubble is insular. We don't represent Apple's market at large, and really, I so no reason why we necessarily should.
post #104 of 133
Quote:
Sold.

I'm sold.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #105 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

Time for a 13" Mac Pro.


Very sold.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #106 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

The iMac is $1399 CDN. $1199 US. That's the price of entry for a "desktop" Mac. You're getting caught up in the tinkering-inside-the-case Windows/PC paradigm.

Wanting an in-between desktop option, with expandability, etc., is all well and good. But given Apple's numbers and the lack of demand for desktops these days, it would be a diffcult case to make. The reason you don't see that neato headless "mini" Mac Pro is because there just isn't enough demand for one. No one off these boards really cares about the issue. And in terms of economics, Apple doesn't see a need for such a system. Given current numbers plus the dismal state of desktop sales, I can't say I'm surprised. To the vast majority of Apple's market, a "computer" is an appliance. Appliances aren't expanded or upgraded beyond memory and hard drives. They're used "as is" until they're done and then they're replaced. To be honest, I'm perfectly fine with that. Leaves room to do other things.

When you make an argument for this Mac Pro "mini" system, you need to justify it to Apple, not just to yourselves.

You guys really need to think outside of yourselves. The AppleInsider/MacRumors bubble is insular. We don't represent Apple's market at large, and really, I so no reason why we necessarily should.

No demand just look at psystar computer and others.

also the mac pro used to cost $2000 and then apple jacked it up to $2500.
post #107 of 133
Quote:
You guys really need to think outside of yourselves. The AppleInsider/MacRumors bubble is insular. We don't represent Apple's market at large, and really, I so no reason why we necessarily should.

The Apple eco system is insular. Look outside it and prices are cheaper, more competitive and offer more choice. AND more bang for buck.

Quote:
No demand just look at psystar computer and others.

also the mac pro used to cost $2000 and then apple jacked it up to $2500.

Heh. Good catch. Why would Psystar bother if there was no profit in it? Just to annoy Apple zealots? Perhaps because Apple is a greedy, insular computing monopoly and Pystar can make a good enough profit on less sizeable margins and far less volume...

How ironic.

Psystar's presence dispproves the naysayers from Apple's PR dept. I don't approve of Psystar but...there presence tells us a few things...

ie that Apple weren't competitive when there were Apple clones. They certainly aren't now re: desktops.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #108 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

The Apple eco system is insular. Look outside it and prices are cheaper, more competitive and offer more choice. AND more bang for buck.



Heh. Good catch. Why would Psystar bother if there was no profit in it? Just to annoy Apple zealots? Perhaps because Apple is a greedy, insular computing monopoly and Pystar can make a good enough profit on less sizeable margins and far less volume...

How ironic.

Psystar's presence dispproves the naysayers from Apple's PR dept. I don't approve of Psystar but...there presence tells us a few things...

ie that Apple weren't competitive when there were Apple clones. They certainly aren't now re: desktops.

Lemon Bon Bon.


You're overstating the case. Psystar isn't exactly scrambling to meet skyrocketing demand. There is no evidence to suggest that as of yet there is any real market in Mac ripoffs.

In fact, Psystar can't make a good enough profit, and they haven't.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Psys...lan/1243450183

So it took a shot at developing a PC that could command a respectable premium -- something that distinguished it from its competition, enabling it to increase its margins. But in this market and this economy, the gamble hasn't paid off.

"Debtor [Psystar] sales have been greatly affected by the decrease in consumer spending. The financial crisis has also caused creditors to tighten up their terms and become more demanding for immediate payment," last Thursday's petition reads. "Debtor's vendors due to their own financial problems are not being able to supply all necessary items to allow Debtor to produce their product, thus, forcing Debtor to pay higher prices for parts in order to fulfill customer orders in a timely manner and to assure satisfaction with the product. These factors seriously contribute to the Debtor not being able to turn a significant profit in each sale."

Psystar's profits were "diminutive" during the bad economy, it goes on, with the hopes of a turnaround on the horizon. That hasn't happened, and while the company now seeks time and space to make a fresh start of things, its plan so far is to build again around its "valuable intellectual property" -- no doubt a reference to its ability to produce Mac work-alikes.


And in a recession, no less, people are lining up to buy Macs and hand Apple record quarters. Apple has shown unheard of grwoth during this recession. They continue to sell *more* Macs. Not bad for a "greedy, insular computing monopoly."

Psystar's presence doesn't prove or disprove anything. It simply shows they're making an attempt to do something. The success of this attempt, however, is an entirely different question. And if this is how they plan on rolling in profits, they're doing a pretty lousy job. NO ONE IS BUYING THEIR GARBAGE. There is no currently viable Mac ripoff market because there is simply not enough demand for one. Note that in the presence of lower-cost, faster, allegedy high-value alterntives, Apple's Mac business is thriving. In a recession! And Apple's Mac business continues to grow. Apple's market isn't exactly looking around for cheaper alternatives.

Your contentions have no basis in reality. And as we gradually move out of the recession, guess where Apple's target market is going to spend their dollars in even greater numbers?
post #109 of 133


A couple of years ago, someone came up with this design for a Mid-tower. Would this work for a new Mac Pro? Unfortunately, I can't find the dimensions, but this is the rundown for the mid-tower:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2052/...58e698ea_o.jpg
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #110 of 133
I have wanted to buy a lower priced Mac desktop for years now, but Apple is fixated on making me choose from products I have no interest in, thus have purchased nothing. An iMac is nothing but a non-portable notebook computer. I have absolutely no interest in it at all. I want a kick-ass personal computer constructed from desktop components at an affordable price, not an AIO; and I don't need a full-blown workstation. My dream box would be a scaled down Mac Pro having a Xeon CPU with QuickPath and 6 RAM slots, with a focus on power but having limited ports and expandability to keep the costs down but margins high.
post #111 of 133
Quote:
I have wanted to buy a lower priced Mac desktop for years now, but Apple is fixated on making me choose from products I have no interest in, thus have purchased nothing. An iMac is nothing but a non-portable notebook computer. I have absolutely no interest in it at all. I want a kick-ass personal computer constructed from desktop components at an affordable price, not an AIO; and I don't need a full-blown workstation. My dream box would be a scaled down Mac Pro having a Xeon CPU with QuickPath and 6 RAM slots, with a focus on power but having limited ports and expandability to keep the costs down but margins high.

No kidding. Apple are more interested in up sell. Excessive profits. Lack of choice. Laptop parts. Expensive parts forcing the consumer to artificially pay more when cheaper components are available. Also, forcing the user to have less powerful options...

You want quad core? You have to pay £1800+ for it.

PC land? £400 entry fee.

That isn't choice, Apple are offering. It's limiting.

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #112 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post



A couple of years ago, someone came up with this design for a Mid-tower. Would this work for a new Mac Pro?

No.

A mid-tower will not have any slots, and the Mac Pro is never going to be that small.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #113 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

I bought a G4 tower and a 22" ACD 7 years ago. The ACD is still like new while the G4 is a dinosaur. That convinced me not to buy an iMac.

Let's think about that a moment. I don't have the 2002 prices but in 2001 Apple was asking $2499 for the 22" ACD. So today you can get a 24" iMac for $2199 with an H-IPS screen...but that's bad because in 2016 you want to keep using that 24" screen?

Eh. That 22" ACD may be like when it was new but not like new monitors today given the panel technology is from around 2000 (60ms IPS) when it got discontinued in 2003.

The Dell 22" 2209WA IPS monitor is $289.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...4&sku=320-7825

So for what will be a <$300 monitor in 2016 you wont get an iMac over a Mini even though you might have wanted a faster CPU/GPU combo? Yah...that may make sense at an emotional level but when weighed against the value of electronics after 7 years I don't think it's quite as compelling.

What I would have learned is buy the cheapest you can live with and not worry about reusing old hardware. My G4 tower is no more expandable or useful than a G4 mini. Likewise a circa 2002 monitor is not all that useful to me except to pass along with the circa 2002 computer.
post #114 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

Like others here I think it is a disgrace that the price of entry for a "desktop" Mac is around $2500. The Mini and iMac are completely underpowered for the price you pay. There are Core i7 PC's going for as little as $900! Why Apple is obsessed with thin cases for a vertical desktop is beyond me. The gap in power between a Mac Pro and an iMac is big enough to fly a 747 through. Surely there is room for a desktop class Mac between the laptop like iMac and server class Mac Pro.

I even have the perfect name for it, simply call it the "Mac" Give it a Core i7 or i5. Allow for up to 12GB of Ram, two hard drives, and a PCIe slot for a real GPU. Make it easy to access and upgrade the Ram/HD/GPU. Surely if PC makers can make this for $900 Apple could do it for at least $1500?

I have a feeling if every single person that wants this Mac would send feedback to Apple directly we would already have one by now. They certainly do not read these boards.

If they built it I would buy it!
post #115 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Let's think about that a moment. I don't have the 2002 prices but in 2001 Apple was asking $2499 for the 22" ACD. So today you can get a 24" iMac for $2199 with an H-IPS screen...but that's bad because in 2016 you want to keep using that 24" screen?

Right. the 22" ACD was selling for $2499 in 2002, too; however, I bought from a Mac warehouse on sale for under $1900. And yes, by 2016, the computer and the monitor may not have lived the same life. One or the other may have to be replaced long before 1016. NO iMac, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

. That 22" ACD may be like when it was new but not like new monitors today given the panel technology is from around 2000 (60ms IPS) when it got discontinued in 2003.

The Dell 22" 2209WA IPS monitor is $289.

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...4&sku=320-7825

A nice monitor especially at that price. BTW, is there a way to determine whether a monitor is an IPS other than the viewing angle - 178 or greater? Do manufacturers indicate in any way whether the monitor is a TN or IPS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

for what will be a <$300 monitor in 2016 you wont get an iMac over a Mini even though you might have wanted a faster CPU/GPU combo? Yah...that may make sense at an emotional level but when weighed against the value of electronics after 7 years I don't think it's quite as compelling.

I don't understand your first sentence. An iMac shouldn't be in the equation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I would have learned is buy the cheapest you can live with and not worry about reusing old hardware. My G4 tower is no more expandable or useful than a G4 mini. Likewise a circa 2002 monitor is not all that useful to me except to pass along with the circa 2002 computer.

I did buy the cheapest I could live with: a Mini. But that wasn't the deciding factor. It was the ONLY computer (that Apple markets) that I could live with. I'm not concerned with price - only a good bang for the buck. For my needs, that eliminates the iMac and the Mac Pro.

BTW, I made the above multiple quote by copying the individual quotes one at a time. Is there a better way to do multiple quotes.
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #116 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

A nice monitor especially at that price. BTW, is there a way to determine whether a monitor is an IPS other than the viewing angle - 178 or greater? Do manufacturers indicate in any way whether the monitor is a TN or IPS?

Some do. Some don't. Dell does, if you read under "Tech Specs". Usually if a manufacturer makes an IPS monitor, they point out that fact. Also look at companies' more expensive business lines.
post #117 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

Right. the 22" ACD was selling for $2499 in 2002, too; however, I bought from a Mac warehouse on sale for under $1900. And yes, by 2016, the computer and the monitor may not have lived the same life. One or the other may have to be replaced long before 1016. NO iMac, please.

I guess the question is why no iMac if at the end of the cycle we're talking about a component (the display) with little remaining market value.

Quote:
A nice monitor especially at that price. BTW, is there a way to determine whether a monitor is an IPS other than the viewing angle - 178 or greater? Do manufacturers indicate in any way whether the monitor is a TN or IPS?

I use google...someone always knows. You can kinda tell by spec but you don't know PVA vs IPS, etc.

Quote:
I don't understand your first sentence. An iMac shouldn't be in the equation.

The question is why the iMac isn't in the equation. You postulated a good reason: reusing the monitor. For one cycle maybe. For two? Eh. Of course, if I had bought the 3.06Ghz iMac over the Mini + monitor I'd expect to get 2 cycles out of it.

Quote:
I did buy the cheapest I could live with: a Mini. But that wasn't the deciding factor. It was the ONLY computer (that Apple markets) that I could live with. I'm not concerned with price - only a good bang for the buck. For my needs, that eliminates the iMac and the Mac Pro.

IMHO the current mini is an aberration caused by the delay in Clarksfield. In a few weeks (or hopefully days) the performance delta will greatly favor the iMac again. At least at the top end and then again at the entry level while the mini stays C2D and the low end iMac goes Arrandale.

Right now the mini is an exception buy within the current mac lineup and the low end iMac pretty bad. Historically, it's the other way around and with Arrandale it will be again.

Quote:
BTW, I made the above multiple quote by copying the individual quotes one at a time. Is there a better way to do multiple quotes.

Sure...use the quote tag function...select the text then hit the quote button above (4th from the right, between insert image and code). Tooltip works so hover will show you.
post #118 of 133
Arrandale sucks weaker video then 9400m.
post #119 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe The Dragon View Post

Arrandale sucks weaker video then 9400m.

Which means that Apple will pair it with a cheap dedicated GPU on the low end that is as good or better than the 9400M. For the iMac anyway.
post #120 of 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Which means that Apple will pair it with a cheap dedicated GPU on the low end that is as good or better than the 9400M. For the iMac anyway.

Crosses fingers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple's next Mac Pro may sport six-core processors