or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › A True Desktop Class Mac, or another Cube?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A True Desktop Class Mac, or another Cube? - Page 7

Poll Results: Cube or Desktop.

This is a multiple choice poll
  • 35% (44)
    CUBE
  • 58% (72)
    True Desktop
  • 6% (8)
    Something I'll explain.
124 Total Votes  
post #241 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

What kind of twisted logic is this?

People buying iMacs will give Apple the false impression that they made the right choice in not offering an xMac?

People buying a $1200 - $2300 computer are not really satisfied with their purchase?

You guys are pushing this crusade way past what makes sense.

I'm far from satisfied, but I really didn't have a choice. check that, I 'm very satisfied with what's on the screen, but not satisfied with the Mac of ports of the fact that it takes me a half a hour to burn a DVD that would take 12 minutes on an actual desktop. Then again. I don't have $3000 to pay for under $2000 worth of capability. Instead I bought a jack of all trades, master of none type.
post #242 of 647
Quote:
I'm far from satisfied, but I really didn't have a choice.

But that does not mean that you represent the desires of the rest of the market.

Barring complaints about the glossy screens the latest iMacs have had very good reviews. I have not seen a caveat in any of those reviews that said "we would rather buy a desktop with no monitor, but Apple gives us no choice."
post #243 of 647
Desktops vs laptop where is the market going?

Loren Loverde, director of IDC's Worldwide Quarterly PC Tracker says "The shift to mobility will continue to drive growth, as portable PCs are expected to represent more than 50 per cent of shipment value during 2007 and more than half of worldwide volume by 2009."
post #244 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

People buying a $1200 - $2300 computer are not really satisfied with their purchase?

But that does not mean that you represent the desires of the rest of the market.

True but all the iMac owners I know say the same things and I've seen a couple of other people here who would have bought a mid-tower over the iMac. Maybe it's not a lot of iMac users but then again maybe it is. We'll only know roughly how many through threads like this and it looks to me like quite a lot.

People who spend that amount of money are certainly dissatisfied when you show them the spec they could have had for the same money. For the Mac laptops and Mac Pro not so much as they follow the rest of the market but for the iMac and Mini, they are just not competitive with proper desktops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Barring complaints about the glossy screens the latest iMacs have had very good reviews. I have not seen a caveat in any of those reviews that said "we would rather buy a desktop with no monitor, but Apple gives us no choice."

Yeah but it's a different product. When they do a review of the iMac, they do so in the context of it being an AIO design and among competing AIOs, it's great because simply put there is very little competition.

If you were reviewing a static caravan, you don't say you'd rather have a chalet because a static caravan is basically a caravan without the portability with all the problems of a caravan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

Desktops vs laptop where is the market going?

Loren Loverde, director of IDC's Worldwide Quarterly PC Tracker says "The shift to mobility will continue to drive growth, as portable PCs are expected to represent more than 50 per cent of shipment value during 2007 and more than half of worldwide volume by 2009."

That's great but that doesn't justify turning desktops into laptops. Also, when you talk shipping numbers, that doesn't give you an idea of the number of desktop owners, which still far outweigh laptop owners. It's only recently that laptops have become powerful enough to replace the desktop model for some users. This does not mean it's a good idea to replace much better desktop models with slower laptop based ones so soon.
post #245 of 647
Quote:
We'll only know roughly how many through threads like this and it looks to me like quite a lot.

This thread is not at all representative of the general market.

Quote:
People who spend that amount of money are certainly dissatisfied when you show them the spec they could have had for the same money.

That's vague enough to say about just about anything. You have to sacrifice some advantage to gain another. You sacrifice the thinness and elegance of the iMac to have a better spec. Its not a completely gain/gain situation.

And again if you are talking to someone about computer specs and they actually understand what you are saying. That is beyond what most of the general market knows or even cares about.

Quote:
Yeah but it's a different product. When they do a review of the iMac, they do so in the context of it being an AIO design and among competing AIOs, it's great because simply put there is very little competition.

If there was such a problem with Apple only offering a AIO and no mid-sized tower, a review is a good place to make note of its limitations and speak of the advantages of a mid-sized tower.

Quote:
Also, when you talk shipping numbers, that doesn't give you an idea of the number of desktop owners, which still far outweigh laptop owners. It's only recently that laptops have become powerful enough to replace the desktop model for some users.

This hasn't just started laptops have been outselling desktops since 2005. That quote is talking about how the gap is only going to widen over the next few years.

The majority of HP and Dell desktops are sold to companies not consumers. Laptops sales are also expected to outpace desktop in business also.

Most people are not buying laptops because of power they are buying them for convenience.

Quote:
This does not mean it's a good idea to replace much better desktop models with slower laptop based ones so soon.

You guys keep riding this slower laptop mantra, while todays iMac is faster than the PowerMac G5 line up from two years ago.
post #246 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

While a 'declining' market in the march to laptops (shudders...), the Desktop market is still huge and I don't think Apple are fully taking advantage of it.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I think Apple's reluctance to produce an xMac is based more on image than "slowing" desktop sales or cannibalization of Mac mini, iMac, and/or Mac Pro sales. Steve Jobs says they are not going after the enterprise market but he knows more Macs are making their way into the corporate world so he wants Apple's presence to be known. The notebooks are easy enough to spot because of the logo that is lit, but desktops are a bit trickier. The iMac kills two birds with one stone by removing the previous monitor from view and putting the iMac into view so clients, customers, patients, etc. will see a Mac, not a monitor. An xMac, while it would do the same work as an iMac, would not provide Apple with a means to get more mind share because most people don't look at screens so they would not see a Mac in use.

I really like the design of the iMac, but I would take an xMac over an iMac any day of the week. The only thing I would have to buy extra is a Mac ergonomic keyboard.
post #247 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by troberts View Post


I think Apple's reluctance to produce an xMac is based more on image than a "slowing" desktop sales or cannibalization of Mac mini, iMac, and/or Mac Pro sales. Steve Jobs says they are not going after the enterprise market but he knows more Macs are making their way into the corporate world so he wants Apple's presence to be known.

. . . The iMac kills two birds with one stone by removing the previous monitor from view and putting the iMac into view. . . .An xMac, while it would [do] the same work as an iMac, would not provide Apple with a means to get more mind share. . .


That is an interesting theory. It also suggests a strategy Apple could use, should Steve decide to sell an xMac, mini tower or whatever you want to call it.

Raise the price of the xMac, say $150, over what the selling price would typically be. Then, offer Apple displays at a low price when purchased with an xMac. An Apple display could be offered at an extremely good price, since it is being subsidized from two sources -- the excess price of the xMac being purchased, plus the excess from xMacs sold without a display.

It might work.

post #248 of 647
I think 'ole Steve knows a Mac mini tower would probably sell, he's all about iMage. Everybody here talks about how the AIO and Powermac server style market isn't all that big compared to the standard Windows tower market. Maybe he doesn't want to enter the tower market and be "just like another Microsoft box", no matter how much we ask for one.
post #249 of 647
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aflaaak View Post

I think 'ole Steve knows a Mac mini tower would probably sell, he's all about iMage. Everybody here talks about how the AIO and Powermac server style market isn't all that big compared to the standard Windows tower market. Maybe he doesn't want to enter the tower market and be "just like another Microsoft box", no matter how much we ask for one.

I don't think anybody here is asking for a wintel box clone. but another cube is out of the question for most of us. Just a slim-line, sleek, Apple desktop. Is that so hard for a company like Apple. I doubt it.

These mini's and cubes and iMacs are really making me sick lately. These outdated designs were cool at first, and looked nice, but it's SOOOOOO time to dump it. The fact they are starting to look like they are screaming at you yelling "look, look, I'm small, I look like a Japanese miniaturization project, It's all about small over there" This tokyo envy is disgusting after 10 years of it. Apple needs to reinvent it's designs. Has Jonathan Ive not noticed the retro Muscle car is making a huge comeback? Seeing that Camaro in the transformers made me tear up. There is HEMI"s all over the road! The only thing you can do better than that is make it a Bio Diesel and keep the horsepower. I think that guy forgot what it's like to be living in the free world. (born in london) Design something that looks original, and give it some wow factor other than it looks like nothing, and don't reduced it to a paper clip.
End of Rant...
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #250 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

I don't think anybody here is asking for a wintel box clone. but another cube is out of the question for most of us. Just a slim-line, sleek, Apple desktop. Is that so hard for a company like Apple. I doubt it.

These mini's and cubes and iMacs are really making me sick lately. These outdated designs were cool at first, and looked nice, but it's SOOOOOO time to dump it. The fact they are starting to look like they are screaming at you yelling "look, look, I'm small, I look like a Japanese miniaturization project, It's all about small over there" This tokyo envy is disgusting after 10 years of it. Apple needs to reinvent it's designs. Has Jonathan Ive not noticed the retro Muscle car is making a huge comeback? Seeing that Camaro in the transformers made me tear up. There is HEMI"s all over the road! The only thing you can do better than that is make it a Bio Diesel and keep the horsepower. I think that guy forgot what it's like to be living in the free world. (born in london) Design something that looks original, and give it some wow factor other than it looks like nothing, and don't reduced it to a paper clip.
End of Rant...

I'm with you, Onlooker. This bullshit that the iMac is the perfect place for Apple to express it's elegance and simplicity of design is a load of crap. With me, I'd end up with more peripheral wires hanging out of it than a telephone pole in a Third World slum. C'mon Steve, you can have your iTeam design up a cool mid-price mid tower for the mid users of us out here. Until then, I think I'm going to hang on to my boring beigh box and run Windows. I really want to switch to the Apple platform, but not an iMac and I can't justify paying for the Powermac.
post #251 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aflaaak View Post

I think 'ole Steve knows a Mac mini tower would probably sell, he's all about iMage. Everybody here talks about how the AIO and Powermac server style market isn't all that big compared to the standard Windows tower market. Maybe he doesn't want to enter the tower market and be "just like another Microsoft box", no matter how much we ask for one.

Which is what I think is the case. In the context of the computer market as a whole, that is fine. Someone has to sell to the niche customers and Apple makes a lot of money having an almost total monopoly on that segment. However, Apple isn't just a computer maker, they are the entire Mac platform. That means that you have not only those who are interested in the niche designs, but those who are interested in an operating system much better than windows. When you lock that operating system to niche hardware you not only waste Apple's best trump card in OSX, but you cause discontent among those who are looking for something a little more familiar and practical. Apple has a chance to revolutionize the computer industry the way Microsoft never could. The problem is that they want to control everything right down to what computer you should buy.
post #252 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


Which is what I think is the case. In the context of the computer market as a whole, that is fine. Someone has to sell to the niche customers and Apple makes a lot of money having an almost total monopoly on that segment. However, Apple isn't just a computer maker, they are the entire Mac platform. That means that you have not only those who are interested in the niche designs, but those who are interested in an operating system much better than windows. When you lock that operating system to niche hardware you not only waste Apple's best trump card in OSX, but you cause discontent among those who are looking for something a little more familiar and practical. Apple has a chance to revolutionize the computer industry the way Microsoft never could. The problem is that they want to control everything right down to what computer you should buy.


I think you just summed up the real issues at stake in Apple's desktop offerings!

post #253 of 647
Apple does not have much to talk about at MWSF2008 because we have the new Mac mini, iMac, iLife, iWork, iPods, iPhone, and updated (again) iTunes. I can only think of 5 items that Apple has that can get updates and they are:
  1. Displays - these could get built-in iSight with the 23" getting replaced by a 24"
  2. Mac Pro - new quad-core processors and graphics cards
  3. MacBook - moves to the Santa Rosa platform and gets the aluminum treatment like the iPod classic.
  4. MacBook Pro - gets the Penryn processor and maybe even quad-core CTO.
  5. Apple TV - support for higher resolution video
These updates should take all of 15 minutes to announce, and that includes the sales reports, so unless Apple springs Aperture 2.0 on us, with a demo, Steve has plenty of time to fill. Maybe the Mac BU will give a nice demo of Office:mac 2008 to whet our appetite for the newest Microsoft offering. Whatever happens, Steve will need something to go into his "One more thing" category and there is no better way to start the new year off than with an xMac. The names I came up with are:
  1. Mac tower - self-explanatory
  2. Mac spire - fancy way of saying Mac tower
post #254 of 647
There is zero chance of five product updates being announced alongside an entirely new product at MWSF.

Zero.
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 #255 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

There are obviously many of us who would like to see Apple offer a lower cost tower built with desktop, not workstation, components. However, Apple might stick with the current offerings and ignore us.

If there aren't enough of "you" they will continue to "ignore" you. That's true.

Quote:

It is not too big of a deal, however, just inconvenient. We wait a little longer and eventually get today's Mac Pro on eBay.

Because you really have to have that desktop? Seriously...you refuse to by an iMac or spend a little extra dough for the Mac Pro new?

Quote:

I'm sorry to be blunt, but this statement makes no sense. It's been pointed out over and over that we only need to look at what kind of Windows desktops are selling. It's not AIOs or Mini sized boxes.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but what doesn't make sense is that you're saying it doesn't make sense. \ It's been pointed out over and over that one CANNOT just "look at what Windows is selling." The markets are not the same. The reasons have been listed ad naseum.

Quote:

Why Apple hasn't released one yet is anybody's guess, but it's not because there is no market for it. Maybe Apple fears it will hurt sales of the iMac, the Mini, and to a lesser extent, also the Mac Pro. It's not my problem.

OK then. So they have some super secret reasons? They're a business. They're not going to ignore a big segment of the market.

I think I've figured out your reasoning here though. Then problem is you are looking at the midpro in the context of a vacuum. Sure, if you just look at the midpro and nothing else...if you pretend Apple sold no other machines....then I'm sure tons of people would buy it. It's the same principle that drives midpro sales on the Windows side...that's just what's offered by almost all wintel makers.

But when we take the xMac out of it's glass bottle and put it into the product matrix and the Apple universe, things change considerably. It's going to compete with the iMac and to some extent, the Mac Pro. So in a sense you're looking at it as a "gross market" instead of as a "net market...which is the one that matters. It's the number of people that will buy after comparing the midpro to the other offerings. That's the number that's the problem at present.

In that same vein, you're incorrect when you state that the xMac might hurt sales of the mini, iMac and Mac Pro. It's going to be the other way around, with the potential exception of the Mac Pro due to cost. You'll have consumers comparing this:

__________________________________________________ _
iMac:

20" LCD
2.4GHZ Core Duo
320GB HD
256MB graphics
8X Dual Layer SD
Mouse, Keyboard, Bluetooth
1GB Ram

Price: $1499

and

xMac:

No LCD
2.0 GHZ Core Duo or 2.4GHZ Core Duo
160GB Hard Drive, one open bay
8X Dual Layer SD, one open bay
Two PCI slots
Mouse, Keyboard, Bluetooth

Price: $1299 2.0 GHZ, $1499 2.4 GHZ

_____________________________________________


And herein lies the problem. The vast, huge, enormous majority of people are going to look at that comparison and buy the iMac. They can even upgrade it with enough goodies to make it somewhat future proof. For $1799 they can get a 500GB HDD, wireless keyboard and mouse, and 2GB of RAM pre-installed. That's a damn nice machine.

Yes, I hear you already: But what about people with a nice LCD already!!!! How many of those people are really out there AND how many will want the xMac? Let's look at the potential:

Laptop owners: Need a display anyway

Older G5/G4 owners: Generally need pro level replacement and likely a new panel at this point.

iMac owners: Self-explanatory.

So who buys this thing?

Quote:

I don't need to buy now, which is good, since Apple doesn't make anything today that interests me. When I can get a Mac Pro cheap, I'll buy one on eBay.





Apple doesn't make anything that interest you? Is it possible our standards are just a tad bit high?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

The lack of a mid-priced, mid-range tower is a gaping hole in Apple's product lineup. Their only options right now are to buy top of the line, or buy a laptop. iMacs and Minis are just laptops that are chained to the desk. I don't want a laptop, I want a consumer desktop.

It's not a gaping hole. It's that parking space that is likely too small for your SUV to get into. There are plenty of options, certainly more than you present. They don't need to by the top of the line." That's simply false. They can buy a bottom end Mac Pro, iMac or possibly mini. And the iMac, for christ's sake, IS a consumer desktop. You just want to be able to slap the "Real Desktop" sticker on what you buy.

Quote:

I'm still using an aging G4 tower. As monitors got better and cheaper, I upgraded to a larger and better one. As my HD got full, I added another one inside the tower. As the RAM needs increased, I added more. When DVD drives came out, I swapped out the CD-drive. When USB2 replaced USB1, I added a USB2 card. When the video card no longer met my needs, I replaced it.

Good for you. Your G4 was a pro machine, just like the Mac Pro.

Quote:

Since I bought that G4, computer prices right across the board have basically halved. Yet, the only model Apple offers that would allow me to do all of this costs twice what I paid for the G4. On what planet does this make sense to anyone? Why should anyone have to pay nearly $3000 just to get BASIC functionality? The Mac Pro is serious overkill. Way more power, way too big, and way too expensive for most consumer's needs.

So you paid $1100 for your G4? No, you didn't. Not at all. And dude...for $2000 you could get a machine that would make your G4 go running to its mama. Hell, a Macbook Pro would do that. So would an iMac. And certainly a low end Mac Pro.

Quote:


I really don't care if it's a tower, a cube, a pyramid, or a Tonka truck form factor, as long as it uses real desktop parts, has a separate monitor, and is not a closed system

Why, oh why, are you clamoring on about Real Desktop Parts (TM). The use of laptop components has worked out fine thus far in terms of price and performance. If you need the upgrade potential, you need a Pro machine LIKE YOU HAVE NOW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

Did Apple shoot itself in the foot by not adding a mini-tower to its lineup?

No.

Quote:

I assume Apple wants to sell 23" ACD and possibly a new 24" ACD. Will Mini users buy that monitor? I doubt it. Too expensive.

Too expensive? A 20" ACD is $599. If you want cheaper, buy a fucking vizio for $200 and see how it works out. No offense.

Quote:

Will iMac users buy a 23 or 23" ACD. I doubt it since the iMac already has a large display.

Duh. Also, irrelevant point. because it has nothing to do with this:

Quote:
Did Apple shoot itself in the foot by not adding a mini-tower to its lineup?

Quote:
Yes, Mac Pro users will buy it (or even a 30" ACD) , but that still means that Apple's ACD customer base is truncated.

How? It's not truncated at all.

Quote:

Apple is missing the ACD target - xMac users.

So they should offer a machine just to sell ACDs? How can you even be serious. They're not MISSING anything because the product doesn't fucking exist!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

What kind of twisted logic is this?

See my above post....same questing came to my mind.

Quote:

People buying iMacs will give Apple the false impression that they made the right choice in not offering an xMac?

To the xMac zealots, apparently.

Quote:

People buying a $1200 - $2300 computer are not really satisfied with their purchase?

You guys are pushing this crusade way past what makes sense.

Exactly. It all boils down to the fact that Apple doesn't offer the product for a reason. One, there's little market when it's looked at against their product matrix. Two, they already have their bases covered for the most part. Three, they don't want to start making minitowers just because that's what wintel does. Apple doesn't follow wintel...it's not their style. Fourth and last....it might hurt Mac Pro and mini sales.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aflaaak View Post

I think 'ole Steve knows a Mac mini tower would probably sell, he's all about iMage. Everybody here talks about how the AIO and Powermac server style market isn't all that big compared to the standard Windows tower market. Maybe he doesn't want to enter the tower market and be "just like another Microsoft box", no matter how much we ask for one.

You've hit that last part on the head, but you imply that he should want to enter the M$ box market. Has this ever worked for Apple before?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Which is what I think is the case. In the context of the computer market as a whole, that is fine. Someone has to sell to the niche customers and Apple makes a lot of money having an almost total monopoly on that segment. However, Apple isn't just a computer maker, they are the entire Mac platform. That means that you have not only those who are interested in the niche designs, but those who are interested in an operating system much better than windows. When you lock that operating system to niche hardware you not only waste Apple's best trump card in OSX, but you cause discontent among those who are looking for something a little more familiar and practical. Apple has a chance to revolutionize the computer industry the way Microsoft never could. The problem is that they want to control everything right down to what computer you should buy.

I wouldn't say Apple has "niche" hardware. They have a variety of options. Secondly, of course they want to control the whole system...that's their entire goal! The Apple Experience is created from this control over the hardware and software. The thing is you're assuming that it's OSX by itself and that people will only switch because "their looking for a better operating system." That's just not true...it's the whole Apple Experience of hardware design, Mac branding and software that draws people in. Apple would not be successful and selling beige boxes with X. They tried this before in the 1990s and they nearly went bankrupt.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #256 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I wouldn't say Apple has "niche" hardware.

That's because you're under the delusion that the other 96% agrees with you.

Quote:
They have a variety of options.

Three actually.

1 Mac Mini. It's for...I'm not exactly sure who. This is the ultimate example of Apple's design team getting in the way. The extra of inches shaved off by using a laptop hard drive makes this more expensive and less competitive than other SFF entr level desktops.

2. iMac. Designed for low to mid level consumers and families

3. Mac Pro Designed for high level professionals

High level consumers and low to mid level consumers are pretty SOL. Then again, Dell, HP, and the like are more than happy to take their money,

Quote:
Secondly, of course they want to control the whole system...that's their entire goal! The Apple Experience is created from this control over the hardware and software. The thing is you're assuming that it's OSX by itself and that people will only switch because "their looking for a better operating system." That's just not true...it's the whole Apple Experience of hardware design, Mac branding and software that draws people in.

The thing you're assuming is that everybody on the Mac and pretty much all computer users agree with you. You are the exception, not the rule.= and Apple already serves you. The problem is that you and those like you apparently have no tolerance with anyone else being served.



Quote:
Apple would not be successful and selling beige boxes with X. They tried this before in the 1990s and they nearly went bankrupt.

apple would have went bankrupt without them. They were incompetent under Spindler.
post #257 of 647
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

..........
I wouldn't say Apple has "niche" hardware. They have a variety of options. Secondly, of course they want to control the whole system...that's their entire goal! .........

Well they need to expand the system in areas that impress computer users as a whole, and not just niche markets.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #258 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This thread is not at all representative of the general market.

Of course not, the people who want an xMac aren't here because of this thread, it's the other way round.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That's vague enough to say about just about anything. You have to sacrifice some advantage to gain another. You sacrifice the thinness and elegance of the iMac to have a better spec. Its not a completely gain/gain situation.

The gains exceed the losses. Anyway, no one is advocating getting rid of the iMac just adding a product that satisfies the majority of users.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

If there was such a problem with Apple only offering a AIO and no mid-sized tower, a review is a good place to make note of its limitations and speak of the advantages of a mid-sized tower.

Not really, as I said it's a different product. Respectable reviews would be impartial in the same way a news reader would be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This hasn't just started laptops have been outselling desktops since 2005. That quote is talking about how the gap is only going to widen over the next few years.

Right so people want laptops, not desktops that are only as powerful as laptops. AIOs aren't outselling towers last time I checked and that's the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You guys keep riding this slower laptop mantra, while todays iMac is faster than the PowerMac G5 line up from two years ago.

So you're saying the iMac slogan should be 'two year old hardware at today's prices'? Anyway it's not quite the same as the G5 had higher throughput like the Mac Pro and Conroe. A G5 tower will still kick an iMac's skinny ass in certain tasks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

If there aren't enough of "you" they will continue to "ignore" you. That's true.

But how can they possibly know how many of us there are when they don't make a product for us? The only option we have is to buy an iMac or get a PC. How do those opinions get back to Apple exactly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

iMac:

Price: $1499

and

xMac:

Price: $1299 2.0 GHZ, $1499 2.4 GHZ

Actually the xMac would be $4. Where do I get that number you ask? Out my ass, no doubt you got your figures out of yours. I don't know how this isn't getting through to you but I'll say it another 3 times.

A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU

The xMac would use desktop components therefore it is cheaper. It has no LCD therefore it is cheaper still. How you can know this and still say they'd come out the same price/spec is beyond me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Yes, I hear you already: But what about people with a nice LCD already!

It's not *just* about those people. All you opponents to the xMac keep doing this as though it's one silly little argument why we want this product when if you'd take into account all the reasons you'd see it's for a lot of reasons and a lot of users with varied needs.

In short, a mid-tower satisfies far more *needs* than an iMac ever could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

t's been pointed out over and over that one CANNOT just "look at what Windows is selling." The markets are not the same. The reasons have been listed ad naseum.

There haven't been any reasons, you just keep saying it's not the same market when it is the same market. If it wasn't the same damn market then why do Apple even have a 'switch' campaign? How can PC users who own a mid-range tower switch if they aren't the target market?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

You just want to be able to slap the "Real Desktop" sticker on what you buy.

4th time:

A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU

^ It's more than a sticker. The iMac is about image as others have correctly stated, the xMac is in opposition to this idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001

Secondly, of course they want to control the whole system...that's their entire goal! The Apple Experience is created from this control over the hardware and software.

Displays don't play a part in that whatsoever though. Apple have shown their display technology is overpriced and of poorer quality than the competition. They probably seal it in because they know you wouldn't buy their displays if you had the option. The display is what you look at most often and if you have a poor display then that reflects badly on your product. When I point out the iMac screen flaws to people they can see straight away how crap they are.
post #259 of 647
Quote:
So you're saying the iMac slogan should be 'two year old hardware at today's prices'? Anyway it's not quite the same as the G5 had higher throughput like the Mac Pro and Conroe. A G5 tower will still kick an iMac's skinny ass in certain tasks.


Mac Performance In The Raw - Wow! The Intel iMac Is Almost As Fast As The Quad Core Power Mac

We are pleased to report that our testing results show that the new Dual Core Intel iMac, which clocks in at 2X 2.0GHz is almost as fast as the current high-end Power Mac that has two Dual Core G5 processors running at 2.5GHz.

This test is a dual intel vs a quad G5. This test was done a year and a half ago before many pro apps were universal. The current iMac has a faster processor, faster bus, and denser HDD.

You know intel core 2 is not two year old technology that is a argumentative statement. My point is that it is faster than the workstation Mac from two years ago. You use "slow laptop parts" as a red herring.
post #260 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Mac Performance In The Raw - Wow! The Intel iMac Is Almost As Fast As The Quad Core Power Mac

We are pleased to report that our testing results show that the new Dual Core Intel iMac, which clocks in at 2X 2.0GHz is almost as fast as the current high-end Power Mac that has two Dual Core G5 processors running at 2.5GHz.

They must have done that benchmark wrong because I've tested an iMac against a quad G5 and it came in at half the speed but again we're talking CPU performance not throughput. Whenever I get a high resolution uncompressed movie on the iMac it chokes but the G5 is fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

This test is a dual intel vs a quad G5. This test was done a year and a half ago before many pro apps were universal. The current iMac has a faster processor, faster bus, and denser HDD.

The G5 had a 1GHz system bus and the Mac Pro 1.33GHz. The iMac is 667MHz. The processors are slower not counting the 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme. Denser HDD is available to the older machines now too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You know intel core 2 is not two year old technology that is a argumentative statement. My point is that it is faster than the workstation Mac from two years ago. You use "slow laptop parts" as a red herring.

Ok look I know the processors are fast and the software optimization on Intel is better, the point I'm making is that desktop class Intel CPUs are faster still at half the price. It's actually a factor of 2 across the board; all the equivalent CPUs in the desktop range cost half of those in the laptop range or you can get a faster quad for the same price as a dual core. It's a price/performance argument.
post #261 of 647
What are you people still trying to accomplish here?
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #262 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Which is what I think is the case. In the context of the computer market as a whole, that is fine. Someone has to sell to the niche customers and Apple makes a lot of money having an almost total monopoly on that segment. However, Apple isn't just a computer maker, they are the entire Mac platform. That means that you have not only those who are interested in the niche designs, but those who are interested in an operating system much better than windows. When you lock that operating system to niche hardware you not only waste Apple's best trump card in OSX, but you cause discontent among those who are looking for something a little more familiar and practical. Apple has a chance to revolutionize the computer industry the way Microsoft never could. The problem is that they want to control everything right down to what computer you should buy.

Bingo! In a way, Apple has way more of a monopoly than Microsoft. It's just that when your market share is so much smaller, no one pays attention. Having never used a Mac and really wanting to, I'm really disappointed in what boils down to some kind of lame marketing game.
post #263 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aflaaak View Post

Bingo! In a way, Apple has way more of a monopoly than Microsoft. It's just that when your market share is so much smaller, no one pays attention. Having never used a Mac and really wanting to, I'm really disappointed in what boils down to some kind of lame marketing game.


Very true. If Apple gains more Mac market share, then I'm sure the federal government will take notice and file suit on the system and hardware monopoly of Apple. That being said, I still prefer OS X to Windows by a very wide margin.
2009 Quad 2.66 Mac Pro, 12 GB OWC RAM, ATI 4870, Wi-Fi Card 802.11n, AppleCare, 4 WD Caviar Black 1TB HD's, 2 SuperDrives, 24" Apple LED Display.
Reply
2009 Quad 2.66 Mac Pro, 12 GB OWC RAM, ATI 4870, Wi-Fi Card 802.11n, AppleCare, 4 WD Caviar Black 1TB HD's, 2 SuperDrives, 24" Apple LED Display.
Reply
post #264 of 647
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royboy View Post

Very true. If Apple gains more Mac market share, then I'm sure the federal government will take notice and file suit on the system and hardware monopoly of Apple. That being said, I still prefer OS X to Windows by a very wide margin.

I doubt it. Apple has the right to bundle their products with their computers. It's an issue of Compatibility, and user experience. Look at how much shit you have to go through to build, and maintain a M$ box. It's a nightmare experience. What M$ did was have a strangle hold on the wintel manufacturers, and used it to threaten them with penalties. There is a huge difference.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #265 of 647
Quote:
They must have done that benchmark wrong because I've tested an iMac against a quad G5 and it came in at half the speed but again we're talking CPU performance not throughput.

They actually conducted two tests. The first they encoded one quicktime movie. This test did not overly tax either the iMac or the G5. In this test the G5 did not really perform much better than the intel iMac.

The second test was encoding two quicktime movies. This test 100% of the iMac CPU was used and most of the 4 G5 cores were used. In this test the iMac was beat by a wider margin because the G5 has more cores. But the iMac was only beat by 79 seconds.

Quote:
Ok look I know the processors are fast and the software optimization on Intel is better, the point I'm making is that desktop class Intel CPUs are faster still at half the price. It's actually a factor of 2 across the board; all the equivalent CPUs in the desktop range cost half of those in the laptop range or you can get a faster quad for the same price as a dual core. It's a price/performance argument.

The funny thing is at the beginning of this thread I was one of the people who more championed Apple making an xMac. I do see the advantages of having a mid-range Mac with no monitor and a couple of expansion slots. The MacPro is way more than I need.

But the pro xMac side began to have unrealistic and unreasonable reasons why Apple should do this. That's when I began too look more against the xMac. But really I see where the market is headed and understand why Apple probably will never do a mid-range Mac, even if I do see the usefulness of one.

Within that the current iMac line is plenty fast and you guys try to take something that is complex and simplify it down to only CPU spec sheets. Apple does not run its business solely by CPU speed charts.

Quote:
If Apple gains more Mac market share, then I'm sure the federal government will take notice and file suit on the system and hardware monopoly of Apple.

The government cannot punish Apple for having a monopoly of its own product. That is not against the law. You misunderstand what MS was doing. They forced OEM's to bundle their own products and threatened them if they bundled competitive products. Forcing OEM's to not bundle Netscape by awarding price breaks is against the law.
post #266 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

What are you people still trying to accomplish here?

Better yet, what are you trying to accomplish? Why are you so damn hostile to anyone who is different than you?
post #267 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

They actually conducted two tests. The first they encoded one quicktime movie. This test did not overly tax either the iMac or the G5. In this test the G5 did not really perform much better than the intel iMac.

The second test was encoding two quicktime movies. This test 100% of the iMac CPU was used and most of the 4 G5 cores were used. In this test the iMac was beat by a wider margin because the G5 has more cores. But the iMac was only beat by 79 seconds.

I'm sure Quicktime only uses one processor-worth per encoding task but it seems to be able to distribute each process over separate cores. I can only get Quicktime to use all of the G5 (350%+ in the activity monitor) with 3-4 encodings at once.

The tests I did were with Shake and the iMac is almost exactly half the speed of the quad G5, which you'd expect:

dual 1.66 Mini = 1 hour 20 min
dual 2GHz Core 2 Duo iMac = 52 mins
quad 2.5GHz G5 = 25 mins

for the same motion graphics render, which did not exceed the Ram in each. Since a desktop Intel quad costs the same as the dual core imac CPU then you are paying the same for half the speed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

But the pro xMac side began to have unrealistic and unreasonable reasons why Apple should do this. That's when I began too look more against the xMac. But really I see where the market is headed and understand why Apple probably will never do a mid-range Mac, even if I do see the usefulness of one.

Sure but when is the market headed there? I'm sure the automobile market is heading towards flying cars but that doesn't mean we should take all our wheels off now. At the moment. desktop parts still have a price/performance ratio that is twice as good as the equivalent laptop parts.

I'm sure that in 5-10 years we will have laptops with 10-20 core CPUs and GPUs in the low end that are today's high end and flash drives where you can fit two or more in an iMac and displays that don't get dead pixels and at that point, I would agree that making a mid-range desktop is probably not as big of an issue. But we're not at that stage right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Within that the current iMac line is plenty fast and you guys try to take something that is complex and simplify it down to only CPU spec sheets. Apple does not run its business solely by CPU speed charts.

We didn't reduce it to *only* anything, as I said this is what the opponents to this are doing to make the idea look absurd. As I said before there are many reasons. The display is a big problem - this includes not being able to use it with a games console, with a KVM switch, not being able to repair it easily or upgrade it. Not having two internal drives etc. I'm not going to go through them all again so that you can try and reduce it to one again. There are *many* valid reasons for wanting this product and a huge market just waiting for it.
post #268 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

Better yet, what are you trying to accomplish? Why are you so damn hostile to anyone who is different than you?

You mistake an opposing viewpoint as hostility.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #269 of 647
Quote:
The tests I did were with Shake and the iMac is almost exactly half the speed of the quad G5, which you'd expect:

dual 1.66 Mini = 1 hour 20 min
dual 2GHz Core 2 Duo iMac = 52 mins
quad 2.5GHz G5 = 25 mins

There are many more options for improving the performance of the Power Mac than an iMac. I'm not sure about your set up but if you are using Shake then its likely you have optimized the performance.

The guys at MacSpeedZone made some effort to not add performance gain to the Power Mac in attempt to isolate as much of the work as possible onto the processor and less in the through put.

Their quicktime render just took minutes which means it was a small video file. As the video gets larger PM faster bus and performance gains work to its benefit.

My over all point is processor for processor todays iMac would be faster than the Power Mac.

Quote:
Sure but when is the market headed there? I'm sure the automobile market is heading towards flying cars but that doesn't mean we should take all our wheels off now.

Flying cars don't exist. But a real comparison in the automobile industry between traditional petroleum cars and hybrid cars. In America people are growing more interested in efficient fuel vehicles. Many companies are exploring alternative power vehicles. Most are just making even more petroleum efficient cars.

Toytota more than any other car manufacturer has embraced hybrid vehicles. Because of their efforts is now the worlds largest car manufacturer. Toyota's top selling vehicles all have hybrid versions. Alternative fueled vehicles are the future and Toyota has the vision to seeing where its all going.
post #270 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

What are you people still trying to accomplish here?

And what are you still trying to accomplish here?
post #271 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

There are many more options for improving the performance of the Power Mac than an iMac.

And with an xMac. I'm glad you agree the iMac is crippled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I'm not sure about your set up but if you are using Shake then its likely you have optimized the performance.

The tests were done with each machine having the setup it came with from Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

The guys at MacSpeedZone made some effort to not add performance gain to the Power Mac in attempt to isolate as much of the work as possible onto the processor and less in the through put.

Mine was solely a CPU test.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Their quicktime render just took minutes which means it was a small video file. As the video gets larger PM faster bus and performance gains work to its benefit.

Everybody knows that benchmarks that run using small files are flawed. Also, they didn't use enough simultaneous encodings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

My over all point is processor for processor todays iMac would be faster than the Power Mac.

Yeah but I'm saying that you can buy a quad for the same price as an iMac CPU and the quad is twice as fast. The difference between the Intel and PPC isn't all that much - there were benchmarks done for a quad Mac Pro vs a quad G5 when it came out and they turned out almost even.

The benefit of Intel is the lower price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Flying cars don't exist. But a real comparison in the automobile industry between traditional petroleum cars and hybrid cars. In America people are growing more interested in efficient fuel vehicles. Many companies are exploring alternative power vehicles. Most are just making even more petroleum efficient cars.

Toytota more than any other car manufacturer has embraced hybrid vehicles. Because of their efforts is now the worlds largest car manufacturer. Toyota's top selling vehicles all have hybrid versions. Alternative fueled vehicles are the future and Toyota has the vision to seeing where its all going.

Fair point, now tell me have those manufacturers stopped producing standard fuel cars in favour of hybrids or do they offer you a choice? There's a difference between phasing out and just dropping an entire market. I wouldn't mind if they phased out the mid-tower in 5-10 years but it has gone too soon.
post #272 of 647
Looks like Marv' really gave it to 2001.

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 #273 of 647
Quote:
And with an xMac. I'm glad you agree the iMac is crippled.

I said in the previous post I see the usefulness of a mid-range Mac. No I don't think the iMac is crippled its not designed to be expandable.

Quote:
Mine was solely a CPU test.

Fair enough. But bear in mind we have no evidence of your findings, you could be flat out lying. At least Mac Speed Zone has a website where they publish their findings. They can be easily critiqued and criticized.

Quote:
Everybody knows that benchmarks that run using small files are flawed.

I've never heard that. I've seen plenty of benchmark tests where they use small video files.

Quote:
Yeah but I'm saying that you can buy a quad for the same price as an iMac CPU and the quad is twice as fast.

That is not blanketly true, it depends on so many factors. Most software isn't even designed to take advantage of four processors. So all four will not be used their most efficient, which would not double the performance.

Quote:
The difference between the Intel and PPC isn't all that much - there were benchmarks done for a quad Mac Pro vs a quad G5 when it came out and they turned out almost even.

Show me what benchmarks you were looking at. The only ones I've ever seen that were close is because the apps were PPC and the Intel had to use Rosetta. Even with that the many times the intel still beat the G5. But with intel native apps G5 was easily beat. Most of these types of tests are a year and a half old, when intel on the Mac was still very new. Now that their has been more time for code optimization, I'm sure the gap has widened.


NOT UNIVERSAL






UNIVERAL



post #274 of 647
All Eyes on 'Penryn' CPU at Intel Developer Forum

PC Magazine agrees Apple has been ahead of the curve.

Penryn will be a 45-nm shrink of the latest Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors. Like the naming structure, we expect the line between "mobile" processors and "desktop" processors to become blurred in 2008, with more desktop PCs using the same CPUs as larger, faster notebooks. We've seen this trend in all-in-one desktops such as the Apple iMac and Sony VAIOs
post #275 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Originally Posted by Marvin:
Yeah but I'm saying that you can buy a quad for the same price as an iMac CPU and the quad is twice as fast.

That is not blanketly true, it depends on so many factors. Most software isn't even designed to take advantage of four processors. So all four will not be used their most efficient, which would not double the performance.

Marvin was comparing apples to apples: a $266 2.40GHz quad-core desktop cpu with a $241-$291 2.00GHz dual-core mobile chip (price depending of which version you choose). He repeated this three times on two occasions. For the sake of it, I'll repeat it myself here, so you'll base your remarks on what has been said not what you imagine was been said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin:
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU
A desktop 2.4GHz quad CPU costs the same as a laptop dual 2GHz CPU

Given what we know about dual and quads and associated chipsets, it is fair to say that a desktop 2.40GHz quad-core chip is roughly twice as fast as a mobile 2.00GHz dual-core chip.

And this will still be the case for penryn:
- quad-core desktop penryns (Q1 2008) will start at 2.5GHz and $250 (roughly)
- quad-core mobile penryns (Q3 2008) will cost $850 (roughly)
So even a year from now we may still be discussing the same arguments.
post #276 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I said in the previous post I see the usefulness of a mid-range Mac. No I don't think the iMac is crippled its not designed to be expandable.

Just like a kid who isn't designed to walk isn't crippled? That's a matter of semantics. It's not just about expandability either, it's mainly options. If Apple provided enough options then people wouldn't need upgradability. One of those options would be a matte display.

Hey if I can get a 17" iMac* with a matte screen + matching display, no chin, two hard drives, quad CPU and an nVidia GPU for £900 then I'll go and get it right now. Where is it? That's likely what my setup would be if I could get a mid-tower so if the iMac is good enough then I should be able to get an iMac like that somewhere.

*normally I'd get a 20"+ but I don't like repair costs for the iMac so I'd go for the 17" to keep the initial purchase price down.

I actually don't need a big display but I need raw power. Apple seem to think the more power you need, the bigger display you need too. This is evident with them only offering a 15" screen with the MBP and only a 13" with the MB. It's a stupid way of thinking because the two things don't correlate at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Fair enough. But bear in mind we have no evidence of your findings, you could be flat out lying. At least Mac Speed Zone has a website where they publish their findings. They can be easily critiqued and criticized.

You don't really have any evidence online, which is why you should never play online poker. But even thinking logically, a quad G5 is close to a Mac Pro so if you're saying an iMac is as fast or faster than a quad G5 then you are saying it's almost on par with a Mac Pro, which doesn't make sense because it's not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I've never heard that. I've seen plenty of benchmark tests where they use small video files.

It's the same with any test, you need to do the test over a sustained period of time and a certain number of times otherwise you could have issues like memory allocation or disk access coming into play.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That is not blanketly true, it depends on so many factors. Most software isn't even designed to take advantage of four processors. So all four will not be used their most efficient, which would not double the performance.

No but then you do something else. If you encode 3 movies on a quad, you can still use the computer as normal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Now that their has been more time for code optimization, I'm sure the gap has widened.

Sure but that's a different issue. But if there's more optimization then it's likely a quad core is better and it costs the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


(2.66X4)/(2.5x4) = 1.064 * 1194 = 1270 -> 1384
(3x4)/(2.5x4) = 1.2 * 1194 = 1432 -> 1589

The difference has a little to do with the clock speed difference but software optimization plays a part in it. Still, ignoring clock speed, I'd readily admit the Intels are 10% faster for the same clock speed compared to the G5.

On that front, a 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme should be just 40% slower than a quad 2.5GHz G5. A quad 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 CPU should be 5% faster. Let's compare prices then. A 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme is $851 and a 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad is $266. So you are paying over 3 times more for the CPU and actually losing a lot of performance.

The form factor is all it has going for it but as I say, If I want a small form factor, I'd be as well to get a laptop and get the benefits it offers. The imac design has no real benefit except to save space, which is not that high a priority for most people as a headless computer can easily go under the desk. If someone is untidy then the space saved will get filled by more useless junk anyway.

2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
120GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Nvidia 8600M GT 128MB
MacBook Pro 15-inch Widescreen Display

$1999

2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
320GB Serial ATA Drive
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB memory
20-inch glossy widescreen LCD

$1649

For $250, I'd get the laptop any day. It has a better GPU too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

PC Magazine agrees Apple has been ahead of the curve.

Penryn will be a 45-nm shrink of the latest Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors. Like the naming structure, we expect the line between "mobile" processors and "desktop" processors to become blurred in 2008, with more desktop PCs using the same CPUs as larger, faster notebooks. We've seen this trend in all-in-one desktops such as the Apple iMac and Sony VAIOs

The line is distinguishable by the hefty price difference but like I say, I expect an overall move to mobile chips just not as quickly as Apple want to move there. Even if Apple came out with a quad core Penryn, I'd get a MBP over an iMac.
post #277 of 647
Quote:
Just like a kid who isn't designed to walk isn't crippled?

Uh-no not like that at all. A handicapped person is a design flaw. Genetically they are designed to walk.

Quote:
You don't really have any evidence online, which is why you should never play online poker.

Are you attempting to playing jedi mind tricks on me? I have shown independent evidence. You have shown nothing from another source, only your own opinion.

Quote:
Sure but that's a different issue.

I'm not sure what you mean by a different issue. Other than being inconvenient to your argument. Software would need to be optimized for Intel instructions and the better parts of the chip from the G5, such as SSE 4. Those optimization make it even faster than the G5. The G5 is stuck in 2005, Intel Core is evolving.

Quote:
A 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme is $851 and a 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad is $266. So you are paying over 3 times more for the CPU and actually losing a lot of performance.

Why do you keep talking about quad core as though its automatically faster. Most of the time only one or two processors will get much work. Unless you are working often with multithread apps or doing some heavy work most of the time four cores will rarely ever see any action.

Most of the time most software will only be able to make good use of one or two 2.8 processors or one or two 2.4 processors. There are only a few apps under certain circumstances that will make make good use of all four 2.4 processors.

If I mostly have apps that are only going to use one or two processors. Do I want 2.8 or 2.4?

Quote:
Even if Apple came out with a quad core Penryn, I'd get a MBP over an iMac.

As most people in the computer market are.
post #278 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Uh-no not like that at all. A handicapped person is a design flaw. Genetically they are designed to walk.

The iMac is designed to satisfy the mid-range and yet it doesn't. Is that closer to a design flaw?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Are you attempting to playing jedi mind tricks on me? I have shown independent evidence. You have shown nothing from another source, only your own opinion.

Since I don't really consider online benchmark sources to be any more reliable than my own, I wouldn't feel they'd back me up. Plus the one you posted was enough to show there's not a significant difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I'm not sure what you mean by a different issue.

It's different because you can't really compare two architectures using heavy optimization. Some benchmarks will compare Altivec vs no SSE etc. I'm sure Apple did this when trying to flog their old G4s. If both are optimized I guess it's fairer but it's hard to get a truly fair assessment of real-world performance that way as not every app will be so heavily optimized.

I agree that Intel chips are easier to optimize for but I don't see where this is going. I don't really care about Intel vs G5 because PPC is outdated as you said. The quad G5 is faster than the Intel iMac, you don't have to believe it but that's how it is even though it won't always be the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Why do you keep talking about quad core as though its automatically faster. Most of the time only one or two processors will get much work. Unless you are working often with multithread apps or doing some heavy work most of the time four cores will rarely ever see any action.

Ok but with a desktop CPU, you are getting the other two cores free compared to the laptop CPU and at a higher clock speed. 2.4GHz quad desktop costs the same as 2GHz dual mobile. You're gaining 2 cores when you need them plus extra clock speed for apps that aren't properly multithreaded for the same price. There's no downside to using desktop components other than Apple can't weld a screen onto it, which isn't really a disadvantage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Most of the time most software will only be able to make good use of one or two 2.8 processors or one or two 2.4 processors.

If I mostly have apps that are only going to use one or two processors. Do I want 2.8 or 2.4?

Sure but then use the desktop equivalent, which will be half the price and get rid of the screen and it's cheaper again. If you had the choice between say a cube with a 2.8 GHz desktop CPU with no screen for $1499 or the 24" iMac at $2299, which would you go for? The iMac because it's slimmer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

As most people in the computer market are.

So if that's the case then why not get rid of the iMac altogether? If Apple are so ahead of the game then why don't they just get rid of all the consumer 'desktops'? After all the Macbook is only £350 more than the roughly equivalent Mini and the Macbook Pro is only £350 more than the roughly equivalent iMac.

I think they might eventually do that and I honestly wouldn't object to it when as I say the components make it worthwhile to do so. Once they get quad core laptops with good GPUs under £1000 then I don't see the consumer desktops having much more to offer and I'd quite happily see Apple have one laptop lineup and a Mac Pro with 8+ processors but now is not the time for such a radical change. We need solid desktops for at least another two years and neither the iMac nor Mini suffice.

I really wish they'd get rid of both and just make a small tower that ranges up to the Mac Pro with a Core 2 Quad at the top end. The lineups would look so much cleaner as you'd just have one consumer laptop and desktop and one pro laptop and desktop. You'd have the Macbook and Macbook Pro, the Mac and the Mac Pro.
post #279 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The iMac is designed to satisfy the mid-range and yet it doesn't. Is that closer to a design flaw?

You make some good points but here I think your argument breaks down. The iMac does satisfy the mid-range market. What you advocate for, a quad core machine that is headless, is more of a high end enthusiast machine than a mid-range machine.

You are far from a 'mid range' user and I don't say that as an insult. Apple doesn't make a machine to satisfy enthusiasts that know the difference between dual core and quad core.
post #280 of 647
Quote:
The iMac is designed to satisfy the mid-range and yet it doesn't.

It seems to do well enough for Apple to continue with this strategy. If Apple were not making good money from it they would change.

If we could break down desktop sales only to the consumer market between $1000 - and $2500. I bet iMac sales and Apple profit would look pretty good.

Quote:
It's different because you can't really compare two architectures using heavy optimization.

When is the code not heavily optimized? The first G5 vs Intel tests were mostly using code that was not only optimized for PPC it wasn't written for Intel at all.

Quote:
If both are optimized I guess it's fairer but it's hard to get a truly fair assessment of real-world performance that way as not every app will be so heavily optimized.

Conduct the test using the same app, the difference is that app now is written better for intel. A test using the current Photoshop CS3. The 2.8 iMac would beat the Quad G5. No one will bother with doing a test like this because everyone already knows this will be the outcome.

Quote:
Ok but with a desktop CPU, you are getting the other two cores free compared to the laptop CPU and at a higher clock speed. 2.4GHz quad desktop costs the same as 2GHz dual mobile.

You miss the reason why PC Magazine expects more desktops to use laptop CPU's. In the long run its cheaper. Everyone is selling more laptops than they are desktops. Its cheaper for Apple to order a large batch of laptop CPU's and use some in the iMac. Splitting the order into a small number of Conroe would be more expensive.

Quote:
So if that's the case then why not get rid of the iMac altogether?

Plain and simple - the iMac makes Apple money.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › A True Desktop Class Mac, or another Cube?