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 15

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 #561 of 647
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

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.

Within one year. Marked.
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 #562 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Within one year. Marked.

Onlooker = glass half full
rickag = glass half empty and leaking

\
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #563 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag View Post

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.

I hate to rejoin this discussion but...

I think as Mac sales gain momentum the likelihood of and xMac increases. Apple will need to address more market segments in order to increase sales. As well they will be purchasing components in greater volumes allowing for discounts. It gets easier IMO.

I also am beginning to wonder if the iPhone won't dent laptop sales. I'm a big advocate of laptop machines but the iPhone has give me reason to reconsider my strategy. In the past I've felt that a laptop with an external monitor and keyboard and mouse is the 'optimal' configuration. It is costly however.

2.2 ghz MBP, 2gbs Ram and 120 gb HDD $1999.
Apple Care $349
Monitor 20" $250 (approximately)
Keyboard, (Apple wired keyboard) $49
Mouse $29
RAZR free

vs.

iMac 20" 2.4 ghz, 2gbs Ram, 320gb HDD $1649
Apple Care $169
iPhone $399
Apple Care $69

So that's $2676 for the MBP setup and $2286 for the iMac and iPhone setup. To me both sets are different but comparable. The iMac setup is cheaper though. When it comes upgrading my Mac this may be the setup scenario I choose. I wonder if others see it similarly.
post #564 of 647
Onlooker = glass half full
backtomac = glass half full
rickag = glass half empty and slightly leaking

backtomac, sounds logical, but well, this argument has been logical for some time in my mind.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #565 of 647
Quote:
Apple has a LONG way to go before they are beating Dell and HP in laptop sales.

In growth and profits Apple is beating Dell and HP's pants off.

Quote:
Who says Apple has to play them? I don't see other PC manufacturers as opposition. I see them as a gauge as to where the market has potential growth for Apple. There are obviously an enormous amount of Mac and PC users that want a regular Mac desktop. It's foolish to ignore the growth potential.

They are competitors because the majority of desktop sales are not business to consumer they are business to business. Dell and HP's advantage is selling large volumes of cheap PC boxes. Apple has little chance of prying those cheap crap PC boxes from most business that would buy them in large volume. If Apple cannot sell to high volume business then its desktop sales will not see the growth that its notebook line enjoys.
post #566 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

In growth and profits Apple is beating Dell and HP's pants off.

Yes but we're talking market share / unit sales per quarter.

Quote:
They are competitors because the majority of desktop sales are not business to consumer they are business to business. Dell and HP's advantage is selling large volumes of cheap PC boxes. Apple has little chance of prying those cheap crap PC boxes from most business that would buy them in large volume. If Apple cannot sell to high volume business then its desktop sales will not see the growth that its notebook line enjoys.

True... so does apple just leave the business market alone forever? I think that's not very bright.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #567 of 647
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post

... so does apple just leave the business market alone forever? I think that's not very bright.

Agreed.
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 #568 of 647
Quote:
Yes but we're talking market share / unit sales per quarter.

Lets break it down this way. If we only looked at Dell and HP notebooks priced over $1099 in comparison to Apple. Who would have the better marketshare and unit sales quarter?

Quote:
so does apple just leave the business market alone forever? I think that's not very bright.

At this point for Apple to have any chance in business they would have to sell $400 Windows boxes. What do you suggest they do to get around this?

My point is instead of competing in a market that is all but conquered. Apple is competing in markets that play to their strength and conquering those markets.
post #569 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

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

The thing is, I don't know if it's *just* shameless profiteering (though there seems to be some of that in there) or just using the wrong chips in the Mac Pro. They are using two dual core Xeons in the lower end. Take for example the 2.66 model. It uses two Xeon 5150s, which each cost $690 = $1380.

Now a quad core 2.66 Xeon (X5355) costs $744.

A dual 5130 = 2 x $316 = $632 = 2GHz Mac Pro

But a quad E5335 2.0 costs $316

so the Mac Pro could straight away drop by at least $300 in the 2GHz and $500 in the 2.66. The quad E5335 isn't far off the price of the Core 2 Quad assuming a 2GHz Xeon matches a 2.4GHz Core 2 CPU.

I couldn't find a 2.5GHz Xeon for $316 as in BenRoethig's lineup, the only quad Xeon for $316 was the 2.0GHz E5335 judging by Intel's September prices.

One of the big issues is still this phoney tax Apple keep adding onto non-US sales.

In the US, the lowest Mac Pro is $2200, which translated to the UK including tax should be £1260 but Apple have it as £1509.

If you use the single quad, that should come to £1089. If Apple included 2GB Ram and had a price point of maybe £1099 then being able to get a Core 2 Quad PC with a weak GPU for £660 vs getting a quad Xeon Mac with a 7300GT for £1099 wouldn't really be so bad.
post #570 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

The thing is, I don't know if it's *just* shameless profiteering (though there seems to be some of that in there) or just using the wrong chips in the Mac Pro. They are using two dual core Xeons in the lower end. Take for example the 2.66 model. It uses two Xeon 5150s, which each cost $690 = $1380.

Now a quad core 2.66 Xeon (X5355) costs $744.

A dual 5130 = 2 x $316 = $632 = 2GHz Mac Pro

But a quad E5335 2.0 costs $316

so the Mac Pro could straight away drop by at least $300 in the 2GHz and $500 in the 2.66. The quad E5335 isn't far off the price of the Core 2 Quad assuming a 2GHz Xeon matches a 2.4GHz Core 2 CPU.

I couldn't find a 2.5GHz Xeon for $316 as in BenRoethig's lineup, the only quad Xeon for $316 was the 2.0GHz E5335 judging by Intel's September prices.

One of the big issues is still this phoney tax Apple keep adding onto non-US sales.

In the US, the lowest Mac Pro is $2200, which translated to the UK including tax should be £1260 but Apple have it as £1509.

If you use the single quad, that should come to £1089. If Apple included 2GB Ram and had a price point of maybe £1099 then being able to get a Core 2 Quad PC with a weak GPU for £660 vs getting a quad Xeon Mac with a 7300GT for £1099 wouldn't really be so bad.

First, I don't like bragging, but it is my lineup not Ben's.
Second, I choose to use the upcoming penryn Xeons (Harpertown) because they will be available very soon (mid-november) and they are faster and/or cheaper than any current versions (5100 or 5300 series). Pricing info

Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP - 1600 MHz FSB
Model Frequency\tTDP Cache Price
X5482 3.2 GHz 120W 12MB $???? ($1,172 or more)
E5472 3.0 GHz 80W 12MB $958
E5462 2.8 GHz 80W 12MB $797

Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP - 1333 MHz FSB
Model Frequency\tTDP Cache Price
X5460 3.16 GHz 120W 12MB $1,172
E5450 3.00 GHz 80W 12MB $851\t
E5440 2.83 GHz 80W 12MB $690\t
E5430 2.66 GHz 80W 12MB $455\t
E5420 2.50 GHz 80W 12MB $316\t
E5410 2.33 GHz 80W 12MB $256\t
E5405 2.00 GHz 80W 12MB $209

The fact that :
- the Seaburg chipset will also be released soon and that
- Apple is rumored to have bought most of the high-end models of the upcoming Harpertown cpus
made the lineup I suggested more pertinent than using current Xeon chips/chipsets.

Still I agree that using desktop chip/chipsets would make the cost lower, but this is Apple and they may keep their line-up as it is today: Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro.

What has been suggested was to expand the Mac Pro line-up towards single CPU workstations instead of releasing a brand new headless desktop. Using the same chips/chipsets/enclosure/RAM/etc... would allow for a certain economy of scale for Mac Pro computers (more chip/chipsets bought by Apple, better prices from Intel).

Like I wrote earlier, Sun has single quad-core workstations starting at $1400, so a similar model from Apple at $1499 wouldn't be so bad.

I feel for you about the currently exchange chaos, even at a lesser degree, we also have the same problem just north of the US, in Canada, while the USD has been lower than CND for some time, we still have to pay a premium.
post #571 of 647
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

......................... we also have the same problem just north of the US, in Canada, while the USD has been lower than CND for some time, we still have to pay a premium.

That's what you get for being a Canuck.
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 #572 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

First, I don't like bragging, but it is my lineup not Ben's.

Ah, ok sorry about that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

Second, I choose to use the upcoming penryn Xeons (Harpertown) because they will be available very soon (mid-november) and they are faster and/or cheaper than any current versions (5100 or 5300 series). Pricing info

Thanks for posting the new prices. Very interesting indeed.

Now typically, Apple like to maintain certain price brackets so with those prices, that makes me wonder if instead of bringing the Mac Pro down in price, they will just make it 8 cores across the board.

I wouldn't like that at all - the iMac would surely have to go quad core but it's already been updated. The gap between the iMac and Mac Pro would be huge if the iMac stayed dual core.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

Like I wrote earlier, Sun has single quad-core workstations starting at $1400, so a similar model from Apple at $1499 wouldn't be so bad.

Definitely, one big question though would be when could they introduce it? I read Penryn has a November 11th release date so hopefully new Mac Pros before Christmas.
post #573 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

At this point for Apple to have any chance in business they would have to sell $400 Windows boxes. What do you suggest they do to get around this?

How about by making the Mini just slightly larger to make it competitive and new 17" and 20" displays that aren't twice as expensive as the competition or how about a new 19" eMac. Apple had a good concept with the mini, they just went overboard. Most of the office/education computer I see these days are low profile Dell Optiplexes.
post #574 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

First, I don't like bragging, but it is my lineup not Ben's.
Second, I choose to use the upcoming penryn Xeons (Harpertown) because they will be available very soon (mid-november) and they are faster and/or cheaper than any current versions (5100 or 5300 series). Pricing info

Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP - 1600 MHz FSB
Model Frequency\tTDP Cache Price
X5482 3.2 GHz 120W 12MB $???? ($1,172 or more)
E5472 3.0 GHz 80W 12MB $958
E5462 2.8 GHz 80W 12MB $797

Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP - 1333 MHz FSB
Model Frequency\tTDP Cache Price
X5460 3.16 GHz 120W 12MB $1,172
E5450 3.00 GHz 80W 12MB $851\t
E5440 2.83 GHz 80W 12MB $690\t
E5430 2.66 GHz 80W 12MB $455\t
E5420 2.50 GHz 80W 12MB $316\t
E5410 2.33 GHz 80W 12MB $256\t
E5405 2.00 GHz 80W 12MB $209

The fact that :
- the Seaburg chipset will also be released soon and that
- Apple is rumored to have bought most of the high-end models of the upcoming Harpertown cpus
made the lineup I suggested more pertinent than using current Xeon chips/chipsets.

Still I agree that using desktop chip/chipsets would make the cost lower, but this is Apple and they may keep their line-up as it is today: Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro.

What has been suggested was to expand the Mac Pro line-up towards single CPU workstations instead of releasing a brand new headless desktop. Using the same chips/chipsets/enclosure/RAM/etc... would allow for a certain economy of scale for Mac Pro computers (more chip/chipsets bought by Apple, better prices from Intel).

Like I wrote earlier, Sun has single quad-core workstations starting at $1400, so a similar model from Apple at $1499 wouldn't be so bad.

I feel for you about the currently exchange chaos, even at a lesser degree, we also have the same problem just north of the US, in Canada, while the USD has been lower than CND for some time, we still have to pay a premium.

That Sun is exactly the kind machine I've been looking for. Core 2 Duo/Quad with x38 chipset. It would be a very nice addition to the xeon 5400/Seaburg 8-core Mac Pros.
post #575 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

How about by making the Mini just slightly larger to make it competitive and new 17" and 20" displays that aren't twice as expensive as the competition or how about a new 19" eMac. Apple had a good concept with the mini, they just went overboard. Most of the office/education computer I see these days are low profile Dell Optiplexes.

I don't mind any of the newer Dell models (Inspirons, Dimensions, Latitudes, etc), but after working in my university's IT department for the past few months, I totally hate Optiplexes, even the standard mid-tower size, because those use non-standard monitor connections.

The low-profile Optiplexes seems to have issues with overheating and blown capacitors. The only nice thing, is that Dell Premier service is top notch.

Gateways are usually fine too, I like their Tablet PC's, and Vista has improved functionally it that regard.

And as an aside, I also help support the Macs on campus, and the prices that Apple charges for hard drive and RAM upgrades is just murder - they wanted $1000 for 4 GB to put in a MBP, whereas we got the same amount for about $300 from Crucial.

Apple could claim that their boxes have a longer shelf life than the typical Windows machine, but they could still offer a lot better EDU discounts then they do right now...I was amazed that we actually got Leopard discs for $69.

I've seen quite a few Mini's and iMacs around (in labs), with a lot of students using MB's around campus, the occational MBP, and only a couple of Mac Pro's.
post #576 of 647
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

How about by making the Mini just slightly larger to make it competitive and new 17" and 20" displays that aren't twice as expensive as the competition or how about a new 19" eMac. Apple had a good concept with the mini, they just went overboard. Most of the office/education computer I see these days are low profile Dell Optiplexes.

The poll, and rest of the internet, reflects that more people are interested in a larger than iMac but smaller than Mac Pro, not slightly larger than mini.
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 #577 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

The poll, and rest of the internet, reflects that more people are interested in a larger than iMac but smaller than Mac Pro, not slightly larger than mini.

If internet polls were actually valid, 47% of users would be using Mac OS X. Most sales are either entry level or business machines.
post #578 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix View Post

First, I don't like bragging, but it is my lineup not Ben's.

Well if you're going to brag, I've been preaching single Xeon Mac Pros for a while now. The relative difference between the Harpertowns vs Wolfdale will remain about the same as Woodcrest vs Conroe.

What's different? Oh, the fact that the Penryns are now on the horizon rather than a year in the distance...

Quote:
Still I agree that using desktop chip/chipsets would make the cost lower, but this is Apple and they may keep their line-up as it is today: Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro.

Well glad you got on board and I can stop being the only one getting beat on for suggesting such xMac heresy.

That everyone now agrees that single CPU Harpertown Mac Pro's as acceptable is funny as hell though.
post #579 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Well if you're going to brag, I've been preaching single Xeon Mac Pros for a while now. The relative difference between the Harpertowns vs Wolfdale will remain about the same as Woodcrest vs Conroe.

What's different? Oh, the fact that the Penryns are now on the horizon rather than a year in the distance...

Uh, no. Woodcrest/cloverton were significantly more expensive. What you expected is users to happily accept a machine (I'm talking about this proposed model, not the Mac Pro line befoere you try to start that B.S. argument again.) that is 400mhz slower and has half as many cores as its conroe counterpart for the same money. You're nore going to find too many takers when the machine is not only non-competitive with others machines but lines up pretty well on specs with Apple's own low end 20" iMac. The next generation of the penryn family and the seaburg family narrow that gap considerable to a point where they are more expensive than the desktop versions, but not by much.

Quote:
That everyone now agrees that single CPU Harpertown Mac Pro's as acceptable is funny as hell though.

When the difference in component prices drops from over a grand to about $250 it makes a large difference of those of us who have five digit incomes and therefore a finite amount of money.
post #580 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

When the difference in component prices drops from over a grand to about $250 it makes a large difference of those of us who have five digit incomes and therefore a finite amount of money.

The end cost is still the same. About a two grand machine. If you're hurting that bad from a budget standpoint you wait one product cycle. Neither prosumers or pro's are hurting that bad if they are considering two grand machines (your 8GB RAM scenario) in the first place.
post #581 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

There's still that giant gap between the family iMac and the ultra professional Mac Pro.

I agree completely with you, but I find it hilarious that today's iMac is delegated to the 'family' labeling, when it is one sweet piece of machinery, dead ended or not.
You are so right about the gap, though.
post #582 of 647
I still can't get over the fact that with the iMac i'm FORCED to have a glossy screen and FORCED into a weak 128bit card like the 2600. I find this so funny since last rev's 7600gt beats it hands down.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #583 of 647
Quote:
There's still that giant gap between the family iMac and the ultra professional Mac Pro.

I'd say.

But. BUT. If they put or could put the new 8800GT or the new 'high-mid' ATI card in the iMac?

I'd snap and buy one.

I covet the iMac like somebody else's pretty wife.

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 #584 of 647
Quote:
There's still that giant gap between the family iMac and the ultra professional Mac Pro.

No kidding.

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 #585 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

I covet the iMac like somebody else's pretty wife.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Hahahahahaha

Quoted For Truth!
post #586 of 647
... still.... has..... glossy...... screen (even with good graphics card)

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #587 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_Chak13209 View Post

I agree completely with you, but I find it hilarious that today's iMac is delegated to the 'family' labeling, when it is one sweet piece of machinery, dead ended or not.
You are so right about the gap, though.

It's a very good machine for those it's designed for, that being said it really stops in capability at a higher end MATX machine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

I'd say.

But. BUT. If they put or could put the new 8800GT or the new 'high-mid' ATI card in the iMac?

I'd snap and buy one.

I covet the iMac like somebody else's pretty wife.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I would be pretty happy if my iMac had a 8800GT in it. That being said, I have a feeling that 2600Pro might have been the highest end card that could fit in the iMac.
post #588 of 647
Thread Starter 
Actually I would have bought the iMac too if it would have had that video card. And thats just because I needed another Mac in my household before I buy a new Mac Pro. Which could turn out to be another PC now that Mac OS is up and running on other intel PC's. Well have to see though. Again it's all up to Apple.
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 #589 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Actually I would have bought the iMac too if it would have had that video card. And thats just because I needed another Mac in my household before I buy a new Mac Pro. Which could turn out to be another PC now that Mac OS is up and running on other intel PC's. Well have to see though. Again it's all up to Apple.

Say What!
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 #590 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

It's a very good machine for those it's designed for, that being said it really stops in capability at a higher end MATX machine.



I would be pretty happy if my iMac had a 8800GT in it. That being said, I have a feeling that 2600Pro might have been the highest end card that could fit in the iMac.

I have an iMac G3 500 Mgh and an aging G4 Yikes that I've brought from 350 mgh to a 1 Gig... the iMac you describe is as far above my aging pair as homo superior above the neandrathal.

...okay, not that extreme... but Photoshop runs a whole lot slower than on my Mac Pro at work.
post #591 of 647
At work today, I heard a conversation between two techs about buying a new iMac. One tech said the online "have it your way" Apple store site didn't have what he wanted, so he called and got what he wanted. He claimed he called (Apple??) direct and was able to get the iMac configured his way- which was an upgraded video card. I had to leave before I could butt into the conversation and ask questions.

Of course, he could have been full of BS. Has anyone heard of this before?
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #592 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

Actually I would have bought the iMac too if it would have had that video card. And thats just because I needed another Mac in my household before I buy a new Mac Pro. Which could turn out to be another PC now that Mac OS is up and running on other intel PC's. Well have to see though. Again it's all up to Apple.

Take it from me... you probably don't want to go down this road unless it is for a hobby.

I have some of the most compatible PC hardware, and I'm thinking of selling the pc for a new mac pro when they come out. I have a e6750 overclocked to 3.25. It runs 10.4.10 like a champ. But everything from audio updates to graphics updates to point updates break it... gets old having to re-patch it.

On the same token... I haven't had 1 Kernel Panic with it. And I have had 2 with my mbp 2.33. So go figure .

But there is other incompatibilities. For instance: Adobe CS3 doesn't run unless you crack it (which i won't do because I bought it). The reason is because the software attempts to read a genuine apple hardware serial number... and crashes.

Long story long... it is a fun hobby but not worth making a full time machine out of it. You may want to reconsider and think about the next mac pro instead. I felt I had the best of both worlds by building my own... in the end I just used my mbp as my work machine.

And I'm glad you brought this up Onlooker. More and more people are going down this route. They are finding they can run os x on their pc and get away with basic things like 3d modeling (lol @ basic), internet stuff, photo editing (aperture, iphoto), sound editing, etc. A lot of these users have admitted it is because Apple does NOT have a mid-tower / Desktop solution that fits their needs. So they go out of their way to build a machine and spend hours hacking it. If this gets much easier I can picture apple losing sales. Then piracy will ramp up on the Apple OS... which means... apple will lose money. Is this an extreme that takes intelligent users? Sure. But like I said, if it gets any easier it could hurt apple in the end. They could easily distract a lot of these users if they had a mid-tower / desktop solution. WHAT THEY WANT!

/end rant

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #593 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post

At work today, I heard a conversation between two techs about buying a new iMac. One tech said the online "have it your way" Apple store site didn't have what he wanted, so he called and got what he wanted. He claimed he called (Apple??) direct and was able to get the iMac configured his way- which was an upgraded video card. I had to leave before I could butt into the conversation and ask questions.

Of course, he could have been full of BS. Has anyone heard of this before?

Maybe he's talking about going from 2400xt to 2600pro? Or maybe last rev and going from x1600 to 7600gt?

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #594 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by emig647 View Post


. . . More and more people are . . . finding they can run os x on their pc and get away with basic things like 3d modeling (lol @ basic), internet stuff, photo editing (aperture, iphoto), sound editing, etc. A lot of these users have admitted it is because Apple does NOT have a mid-tower / Desktop solution that fits their needs. . .

[Apple] could easily distract a lot of these users if they had a mid-tower / desktop solution. WHAT THEY WANT!


Interesting. Could many sales of Leopard be going for PCs? It would be ironic if there are twice as many OS X users as Mac users. Could the following tidbit support this possibility?


Quote:

Piper Jaffray senior analyst Gene Munster issued a research note to developers on Tuesday which noted that Apple's sale of two million copies of Mac OS X Leopard during its first weekend on sale was a dramatic improvement that showed the new release was not simply profiting from existing users but triggering sales to first-time customers. . .

By comparison, Mac OS X Tiger took 39 days to reach the same sales mark -- a 13-fold increase despite a Mac OS X user base that had only doubled in the space of two and a half years. . .

post #595 of 647
I did read there was a way to convert normal leopard installs to work on your pc (i won't dare post it here, you'll have to find it on your own). However, 9 times out of 10 someone has to get a "hacked" copy to run on the pc hardware. Basically, you need a copy with a bunch of drivers to support various chipsets. It would be interesting to know how many installed it on a real mac vs "something else" out of the 2 million that were sold though ô.O

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #596 of 647
Dell has moved into the all-in-one PC market pioneered by Apple with the iMac, with Mondays introduction of the XPS One, a new Intel-based Windows-compatible PC. The system starts at $1,499.

It's outclassed as a computer by Apple's iMac, and as a home entertainment system by a recent HP, but in the weird niche of high-end, digital-media-friendly all-in-ones (of which we know of one other competitor) the Dell XPS One gets our nod. If you're not shopping in that narrow market, move on.


post #597 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

It's outclassed as a computer by Apple's iMac, and as a home entertainment system by a recent HP, but in the weird niche of high-end, digital-media-friendly all-in-ones (of which we know of one other competitor) the Dell XPS One gets our nod.

It also has some improvements over the iMac: no shiny screen, optional blu-ray, optional TV Tuner, SD card reader (the iMac only has 3 USB ports so an internal one would be nice), a clip at the back so that if you move your computer, it doesn't yank out the power cord (this happens on the Mini too), easy access to the internals by unscrewing the back, touch sensing media buttons, and no freakin' chin!!

So, now that the PC world has a few 'iMacs', it's surely about time we get the mid-range towers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

If you're not shopping in that narrow market, move on.[/i]

Easy to say for a PC user. Mac users have nowhere else to move to.
post #598 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

.....
If you're not shopping in that narrow market, move on.[/i]....

This is the key phrase. Apple competes in a "narrow market".

If the improbable happens and AIO actually catches on with the Windows market, where exactly will that leave Apple?
More competition?
Less margins?
Fewer switchers?

So far only Sony has gone solely to AIO and their target seems much more media oriented(ie. the TV is the computer hub in the living room) I seriously doubt HP, Compac, Gateway or Dell will abandon the consumer friendly tower any time soon.

So, if there is an actual market demanding AIO design this might only cause Apple trouble.

Then again, I think Dell's, HP's and whomever else enters the AIO market will soon realize what a very narrow market this is and will relegate it accordingly.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #599 of 647
Quote:
It also has some improvements over the iMac:

Such as 20-inch 1,680 x 1050 display, Intel Celeron, Intel Pentium D, or 2.33 Core Duo, Intel GMA or ATI Radeon HD 2400, no firewire 800, no optical audio input, 500GB HDD, and uses Windows.

Quote:
This is the key phrase. Apple competes in a "narrow market".

Well Gateway and Dell must see something there to introduce new products.

Quote:
If the improbable happens and AIO actually catches on with the Windows market, where exactly will that leave Apple?
More competition?
Less margins?
Fewer switchers?

Apple does not really compete in that way. Dell is competing against Sony and Gateway.

Quote:
Then again, I think Dell's, HP's and whomever else enters the AIO market will soon realize what a very narrow market this is and will relegate it accordingly.

We'll have to see. But I think they are all competing for the success of the iMac in the PC market.
post #600 of 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Such as 20-inch 1,680 x 1050 display, Intel Celeron, Intel Pentium D, or 2.33 Core Duo, Intel GMA or ATI Radeon HD 2400, no firewire 800, no optical audio input, 500GB HDD, and uses Windows.

3 additional USB 2.0 ports including 2 on the side for easy access, a card reader, and a TV tuner. What I would give to have any of those things on my iMac. In fact, I've paying about $200 to get them. Then again, it's made for the crowd who just want to hook up a printer and go. People with higher needs are just stuck with it.


Quote:
Well Gateway and Dell must see something there to introduce new products.

They also see something in having form factors as well rather than forcing you to buy an all in one whether you want one or not. No, having to but a $2500 super professional workstation is not a REASONABLE alternative.
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?