A True Desktop Class Mac, or another Cube? - Page 14

Fortunately for me, my needs are not as extensive are yours so I could "settle" and just live with the cable clutter and only wait for the day technology makes my computer legacy forcing me to prematurely upgrade to another computer(re: maybe a used Mac Pro)

Half a Mac Pro makes a ideal 'Cube/Mid-Tower/Inbetween Mac Mini/Mac Pro desktop'.

The only thing that defeated the 'prosumer' Cube was Jobs and Apple's high pricing pitched directly against the 'Power Mac' at the time which offered more for the same money.

It was a disaster in a very t-sexy shell.

If it has been a more convential size for conventional desktop components and priced to go? It would have cleared the decks. We'll never know. It wasn't priced to go. Wasn't bigger and got, surprise, put 'on ice'. Game over.

The consumer voted with minds and not their hearts.

If you don't do something right. The consumers won't buy it. That doesn't mean the market isn't there. eg iPod market. Apple did it right and cleared the floor.

Mid-tower/Cube.

Penryn is here. Great. Another excuse for high-priced towers for serious people. Ok.

But what about a tower that doesn't have sli, doesn't have 8 ram slots, doesn't have 4 HD bays, that doesn't have a Quadro GPU that...isn't 8 core.

Seriously, anybody seriously debating that there isn't a market for half of that? Half of that gets you a discrete gpu slot, 2 hd slots and 4 core. More than enough for most consumers/gamers/prosumers. And it can, as illustrated, be done for a jaw droppingly realistic and 'I want one of those prices'.

Just get Ives to put some 'sex' on the case?

I'm sold. Plus, I and others stop whining about it.

Lemon Bon Bon.

No, I guess the Cube wasn't quite a 'true' desktop. Nearly but no cigar...

Lemon Bon Bon.

how on earth would a tower contribute to ohh and ahhh?

A cube, that was priced correctly and updated for 2007 styles is more likely to produce ohhs and ahhs if it met a specific consumer need (media center PC/NAS). A small cube-like iNAS that was easy to setup, served as an iTunes gateway for aTV, with a Blu-Ray drive and that just happened to have a PCIe slot...

iNAS is a crappy name...maybe iHome or iMedia or something without an i.

Better graphics, immediate use of all the newest tech, and the knowledge that you have a machine that does exactly what you want it to do. No matter who aesthetically pleasing a computer is designed, it starts looking real ugly, real fast if it isn't up to the task.

This may be impossible, but try to accept others may have different priorities than your own and that doesn't make them somehow inferior or unworthy of the benefits of Mac OS X.

Which if they added cards would be on the Mac Pro.


Which they are doing by going Penryn on the Pro as early as intel can supply chips.


Oddly, my Mac Pro and MBP does exactly what I want them to do. The only thing you're quibbling about is price.


Riiight. Perhaps you should try to accept that Apple has different priorities than you? You denigrate the Mac Pro as a sucky machine. Its not. Period. It may be impossible but get over yourself.

I do understand the desire for an xMac. I'd like one too but I'm not so arrogant to demand that a company change its entire desktop product line because I want something. If I want a desktop tower Mac so damn much I'll wait an extra year until I can afford a Mac Pro. My QuickSilver has lasted me since 2002 and was around $1600ish and was a single CPU unit. So while the $800 bump is somewhat painful I get a more capable machine than I did in 2002 (dual vs single) and if I had saved $1600 toward a new tower by 2007 I would have to save an extra $70 a month to get a Penryn Mac Pro in 2008. $70 might or might not be a lot. Same with $800 but heck Apple's towers have never been cheap since Jobs returned.

The primary difference 5 years later is that the bottom end Mac Pro is a dual CPU unit that is no more expensive than the middle option Quicksilver (single CPU 933Mhz). If they had a single 2.0Ghz Xeon Mac Pro for $1600ish we'd have the same tower lineup as we did half a decade ago.

Frankly it's kinda a wash...I also have a $800 3-4 year old P4 machine that was my old gaming rig. A Mac Pro can work well enough in Bootcamp mode as a gaming rig. If you were so inclined you can get an 8800 and run it in your Mac Pro.

Vinea

Key word YOU. you are not the only person on this planet.


Makin' money and bringing new users to the Mac. Sounds like we're on the same page. You, however, who want to turn the Mac into some snobby members only club...


When did I say the Mac Pro was a sucky machine, it's an excellent machine for the high end professionals it's designed for. It's just over kill for anyone who isn't making a movie. The idea of a single xeon machine, however just for the "I have xeon, I'm sooo cool" effect creates nothing but a machine that is needlessly slower and more expensive than it has to be. Higher end desktops/ low end single CPU workstations is the reason intel created the x38 chipset.


No, You want their entire lineup to cater to you and others like you exclusively.


Or you could be like a lot of potential Mac desktop users and either kept a Mac laptop with a PC desktop or skip the Mac all together. Either way, Apple is screwing themselves out of money. But then again, why have 15-20% and even more money when you can have 8.1%.


Yes, that is exactly what we want, what we used to be able to buy before Apple decided we should be buying iMacs.


Apple towers got really affordable during his reign to the point of getting down to the very competitive price of $1299.

[/quote]The primary difference 5 years later is that the bottom end Mac Pro is a dual CPU unit that is no more expensive than the middle option Quicksilver (single CPU 933Mhz). If they had a single 2.0Ghz Xeon Mac Pro for $1600ish we'd have the same tower lineup as we did half a decade ago.[/QUOTE]

If you mean not very competitive on features, I'd agree. For that price, you can get a 2.4ghz x38 chipset quad core workstation. A $1600 machine with comparable features to the low end iMac is insulting.

1 gig of ram sucks.

The gpu/7300 sucks.

The HD sucks.

Has no 'mere mortal' line of Conroe based mid-tower range.

Apart from that, it's fine.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Nope. So what? Your objection is a subjective one.

I'm addressing that an xMac tower wouldn't generate any ohhs or ahhhs. The first two objections are semi-objective and you had no response to the fact that new graphics cards also applies to the Mac Pro and its getting the latest and greatest tech from Intel.


Riiight. No, I'm pointed out that Apple's pricing already MAKES it a snobby members only club. The cheapest computer is nearly double the cost entry level PC and is arguably no more powerful.

The other point is that Apple BRANDING also points to an luxury brand that...gee...automagically puts itself into some snobby members only club.


Every time you whine about FB-DIMMS being such a performance hit that an iMac is probably faster. Do I NEED to go hunting for those posts? Heck, once you even commented that except for graphics the Mini was comparable.


More than movie makers use workstations. The "needlessly slower" is in reality not much of a performance hit. And the ONLY reason I suggest a single Xeon CPU Mac Pro is because IT'S A VERY EASY THING FOR APPLE TO DO IF THEY WANTED TO.

Get it? It's a BTO they could do TOMORROW by changing their website and modifying their instructions on assembly. Yeah, yeah, there's more lead time required to actually do this, contracts, whatever but you get the idea finally? No new MB, no engineering costs, no need to any regulatory testing.


No, I'm pointing out reality as to WHY you don't have an xMac. The conversation gets heated because you folks attack the messenger and I don't roll over.


And to date no one has shown that there is significant money being left on the table. If so you should bring it up at the next stockholder meeting complete with charts and maybe a class action lawsuit as to how if Jobs got off his AIO kick the stock price would be $170.

Oh wait.


Which is a power mac with a single vs dual CPUs. Which today would be...a Mac Pro with a single vs dual CPUs.


Once. For a very short period in 2003. For a single 1.25Ghz G4 Power Mac when the top end was a dual 2.0Ghz G5. Dead end CPU on a dead end tower line. That would like offering a $1299 1.6Ghz Woodcrest Mac Pro in the current case...assuming we get a sexy new case update...when the Penryns come out.


See...you're saying the Mac Pro sucks again because, hey, if most things don't use 4 cores then the $2200 2.0 Ghz Dual Mac Pro almost equally sucks. And for $1600 you get a single 2.0 Ghz Xeon 5130 Precision 490 workstation from Dell. Offering the SAME option to Mac Pro buyers hurts how?

Hurts nothing except you want to keep whining. At least whining about GPUs has a higher probability of getting addressed.

With the Penryns you have a HOPE that Apple offers a $1599-$1699 Mac Pro of some kind with dual dual or a single quad.

Bottom end quad...lower, middle and upper are octos.

Also on the plus side, a number of woodcrest Mac Pros should hit eBay.

Vinea,

You fail to understand that:
- using only one CPU in a motherboard DESIGNED for dual-cpus, will restrict performance a lot.
- given Apple's price policy on the Mac Pro, they will never release a single processor version for under $1999 or people will get the single CPU version and upgrade it to dual-cpu elsewhere for cheaper than what Apple can offer. Making the motherboard not-upgradable may add additional costs making the single-CPU version even more expensive
- whatever the costs of R&D/Testing, manufacturing a desktop motherboard will cost 1/4 (or so) of a server/workstation one,
- There is no "ohh and ahhh" making this today or tomorrow with the woodcrest (dual-core) cpus.

However, (see I am not always against you).

It could be more easily done and appropriate with the upcoming penryn chips/chipset. Why?
- New chipset, new motherboard: can be design from the groundup to use ONE or TWO cpus (without compromising performances).
- Most of the chips that will be available in November are Quads starting at $209 (quad 2.0GHz/1333) which is the current price of DC 2.0GHz mobile chip! (Today, a dual-core tower desktop for $1499-1999 is ridiculous, but a well made/spec'd quad in the same price range would be nice).
- So we could be talking 2/3 models of single-cpu quads and 2/3 models of dual-cpus (octo-core) Mac Pros.

Now let's suppose that at the top we'll get a dual-quad 3.2/1600 for $3999. and at the bottom a single-quad for $1499. how can it work, with the prices we know:

$1499 single-quad 2.50GHz/1333 Xeon $316 -- almost as fast as the current quad 2.66 MP for $1000 less, and maybe faster than a quad 2.40GHz/1066 Kentsfield-based computer
$1999 single-quad 2.80GHz/1600 Xeon $797 (+$481)
$2499 single-quad 3.20GHz/1600 Xeon $1,172 (+$375)
$2999 dual-quad 2.80GHz/1600 Xeon 2x$797 (+$422)
$3499 dual-quad 3.00GHz/1600 Xeon 2x$958 (+$322)
$3999 dual-quad 3.20GHz/1600 Xeon 2x$1,172 (+$428)

And that with just 4 new chips and a redesigned motherboard. Of course, we all hope that Apple will make 2GB of RAM standard, and have a trio of new video cards to offer.

That looks like a pretty nice lineup to me. Ideally, I'd have liked a smaller form factor but since a small form factor machine at iMac prices would likely put people off the iMac, I'd settle for a bulkier Mac Pro size with that range of CPUs.

When all is said and done... I could settle for that line up. I'd be a little bummed they didn't use desktop CPUs... but I can live with ECC ram if I have to. All in all... I just want a desktop between a 1500 and 2k price range... like they used to offer.

The Anandtech benchmark of the Mac Pro compared a C2D machine vs a Mac Pro with one processor disabled.

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=9

Single 3.0Ghz Xeon performed about as well (5% slower) as a 2.93 C2EE X6800.

even for rendering.

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=11

Gaming benches sucked of course. But not much worse than the quad 3.0 and sometimes better.

If you have benchmarks to show that a Mac Pro with a single CPU enabled takes a huge hit that would be good to see. But frankly that window of opportunity is passing so it hardly matters. I say that Apple could do this tomorrow but the actual probability approaches Zero.

Now I don't know how AnandTech disabled the second processor so that could be a factor.


The only model it could cannibalize is the dual 2.0 model. Dell's single 2.0Ghz CPU Precision costs $1549 price. Adding a 2nd 2.0Ghz CPU at Dell costs $429. Takes you to $1978...cheaper than the Mac Pro dual 2.0Ghz by $200 with slightly different configuration.

So worst case is you either

a) decrease the $2200 2.0 Ghz dual dual by $500 to $1700 for a single dual and folks that want to buy a $375 Xeon 5130 with stock heatsink can save a whopping $130 to invalidate AppleCare/Warranty and potentially brick their Mac Pro and have to buy a new MB out of pocket. If you've seen the teardown sites for the Mac Pro, Apple did NOT make the CPUs easy to get to. $1700 (or $1699) is $100 more than I said but far below your $1999 assertion.

The 2.66Ghz model is safe because to get dual dual is $700 ea. retail. $1700+$1400-ebay value of a 2.0Ghz doesn't sound awesome. $1700+1700 for 3Ghz is also more expensive. Dunno that anyone is selling the 3.0Ghz Clovertons.

I guess you could save a couple hundred bucks by using 2.66Ghz Clovertons. Meh.

b) not be nice and epoxy the terminator (dummy) CPU into the socket. Good luck getting that out without wrecking the MB and on a complexity scale that's a lot lower than doing a new MB for C2D and having a whole set of new SKUs.


Except there are likely no (significant) R&D/Testing, Manufacturing, etc costs of offering a single Woodcrest Mac Pro. You don't have to spin a new board.


So? The oohs and ahhs come from the top end 3.2Ghz Penryn Mac Pros. This is just a nice, and easy thing to do in order to offer a lower cost of entry for a Mac Tower.


Well given that folks expect the Penryns Mac Pros to come out in the next couple months there's no way Apple is going to offer a single CPU Woodcrest anytime soon unless Intel gives Apple a bigger price break on the 2.66Ghz Woodcrests. But presumably they have better things to do with their 65nm fabs than churn out more Woodcrests but maybe not.


They still quote $316 or something for the 2.0Ghz Woodcrests. Sure, it would be silly to use a Woodcrest, kinda like it was silly to use the Yonah in the Mini for as long as Apple did from Intel's published prices. They could use a Wolfdale but its kinda like why?

So yes, I agree that a single 2.5Ghz Harpertown would be a nice CPU to use in the $1499-$1699 range.

The other alternative is Intel has a fire sale on some 65nm parts and Apple does that for a year instead.


That's perfect. From your lips to Job's ears. If they could meet the $1499 price point that gives folks a Mac Tower that doesn't cost $2200.

Preferably without doing something to eliminate the option to upgrade to dual CPUs as Apple has done in the past.


Sure thing. No disagreement.

Don't get me wrong. FB-DIMMs are expensive AND dead tech. But eh...it ain't THAT bad and a $1500 Mac Pro is better than nothing which is what we have today.

I could definitely deal with that lineup. Price points and performance wouldn't be that different than a high end desktop.

Heh...Wolfdale and Yorkfields should still be cheaper...but hey, we finally have agreement.

Single Xeon (Harpertown) Mac Pro FTW.

I'm not talking about the Mac Pro. It has 4-cores and is designed to be used with programs that support that many cores. I'm saying a 2.0ghz dual core machine sucks compared to a 2.4ghz quad core or a 2.66ghz dual core for the same money. The server parts don't make the computer faster, it would be pretty similar to the bottom of the line iMac, what they do is make it several hundred dollars more expensive.

As for the single CPU machines, Apple actually used a different motherboard in the G5s. Using the dual CPU board was not cost effective, so they used the consumer U3L as used on the iMac. They would be doing the same thing here. The xeon 5000 series are not some kind of entirely different chip, they are a variant of the desktop core 2 modified for a multi-cpu environment. Dell may offer single cpu xeon setups, but very few of them are sold. Those who want a single cpu machine order a core 2 duo/ 975x (now x38) machine.

These are the number I've been waiting for.

Desktop sales 817,000 units for $1,195,000,000 in earnings

Notebooks sales 1,347,000 units for $1,908,000,000 in earnings

Total 2,164,000 units for $3,103,000,000 in earnings

If you are not meeting the markets demands with an effective strategy your sales and revenue don't continue to climb so steeply and so successfully. Apple's strength is obviously in its notebook line, in where they are making far more revenue than any other computer company on the planet.

I'm sure Steve is not saying, but I would love to know what the breakdown on desktop sales is: Mini, IMac, Mac Pro.

I voted for other: Mac Mini updated using the GM965 platform...maybe FW800?

Especially with the median price of your desktop line around $1500.


I agree with a point Vinea made a while ago. HP and Dell dominate the commodity desktop market. There is little reason for Apple to play to their strengths. Apple is dominating the growth of notebook sales. Apple is in a good position to dominate the handset market with the iPhone and iPod Touch, a market no one has a solid lock on. Looking towards the future is the theme.

Apple has a LONG way to go before they are beating Dell and HP in laptop sales.

The Mac Mini is a desktop, with laptop components. I agree maybe I shouldn't of "skewed" the numbers with my vote but if the "rumors" are true, Mac Mini might be gone.

My iteration may not be called Mac Mini, but I like the form factor of the Mac Mini.

Besides there is only 8 votes for others and almost 60 true desktop...I don't think I tipped the balance...

And went to a slightly larger 8x8x3 form factor. It would still be significantly smaller than other entry level machines, yet with a desktop hard drive it would actually be be competitive for a change. However, this machine is for the email readers and web surfers only. The machine is above the iMac and below the Mac Pro.

So what Apple has here is:

Mac Mini: entry level machine for novices (2GB RAM)

iMac: low to medium end general purpose family machine. (4GB RAM)

Giant hole: machine aimed at lighter professionals and higher end consumers (8GB)

Mac Pro: Workstation aimed at high end professionals (16GB ram)

Say what? Novices? You can run CS3 on a Mini. Of course, you're not getting far without the 2GB installed and even then you're hurting for memory but there's lots of stuff you can do with a Mini. Yes, all it has is a GMA950 but novices? Please.

It's also a prefectly adequate dev machine if you aren't working on DX or OGL stuff.


There's damn little you CAN'T do with an iMac. The 4GB RAM difference is really the only thing and then its an issue of speed for some apps.

The number of folks that MUST have 8GB but CAN'T afford a Mac Pro are pretty slim. Sure, there's a hole but not so huge as you make it out to be. The number of folks it really impacts is pretty small.

Just to add some more fuel to the single CPU workstations, today Sun released these.


A low-end $995 workstation, and up to $2335 (quad 3.0GHz).
That makes my suggestions above very consistent with that market:
Apple $1499 quad 2.50GHz vs Sun $1445 quad 2.40GHz
Apple $1999 quad 2.80GHz vs Sun $1835 quad 2.66GHz (it's a guess, I couldn't find the real price)
Apple $2499 quad 3.20GHz vs Sun $2335 quad 3.00GHz

Let's hope that last quater's desktop results make Apple more interested in desktop computers (room to grow) instead of thinking they have a "good enough" line-up with the Mac mini/iMac/MacPro as it is.

The mini on board video eats up system ram and put more load on the cpu as well the rest of the chipset also the slower laptop ram, cpu, and HD also slow things down even more.

That's the problem though. When you hit those conditions, you have to step up a model and then you have to consider an iMac and it has a built in glossy screen and the lowest end is twice the price of the lowest Mini so you are essentially paying double for a fairly poor GPU as you don't need the screen and the CPU is pretty much the same.

The Mini hard drives are really quite poor too btw. They make odd clicking sounds on almost all models I've tried and I really believe they have some sort of manufacturing defect because the solution to get round it is to sleep/wake the computer but I've had so many freezes from doing that it's crazy. I got a kernel panic yesterday because of it.

If you decide the iMac is not worth it (and it isn't) and look for a quad core, the next step up is 4 times the price of the Mini. So for the sake of a $200 GPU and a $200 CPU, with Apple you are paying a ridiculous and unnecessary amount of money.


Well we don't know how many people it impacts as they could be using PCs, which when you can get a quad core machine at 1/3 of the price of Apple's lowest quad you can't really blame them.

[QUOTE=Marvin;1161874]
If you decide the iMac is not worth it (and it isn't) and look for a quad core, the next step up is 4 times the price of the Mini. So for the sake of a $200 GPU and a $200 CPU, with Apple you are paying a ridiculous and unnecessary amount of money.QUOTE]

Could it be that that's Apple's intention? Nooooooo. Couldn't be! Not Apple.

Just letting you know... Sarcasm does not go far on these boards

My sarcasm was aimed at Apple, not this forum.

BTW, maybe it's because I'm 'technically challenged', but I see the 'gaping hole' in Apple's line up as between the Mini and the iMac - even between the Mini and the Mac Pro. I don't see the iMac, an AIO, as other than a niche player.
I feel the same way about printer AIO's. The lineup zigzagged instead of maintaining a lineal progression.

I was saying on these boards in general... no one seems to understand sarcasm.


Agreed...

The sequential growth from 634,000 to 817,000 in desktop sales guarrantees Apple will not consider an xMac. Any one hoping for a mid to upper end flexible desktop with any expansion ability is dreaming, it's dead.