or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Chip complex delaying Apple's new iMac line, says analyst
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Chip complex delaying Apple's new iMac line, says analyst - Page 4

post #121 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Guess that's the iMac then. I hope there's a high end iMac with i7.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I don't think that's going to happen. The i7 puts out a lot of heat. Read the last page of the article at Anand.

Right Intel are making i7 so affordable because desk top sales are cratering. Laptops sales now exceed desk top sales. I think Intel are doing all they can to make desk tops as appealing as they can. Pricing i7 like they are and getting desk tops out there with i7 around $1000 looks like their strategy.

Still the s class penryns are basically being made for AIO machines. Its almost seems like a part made specifically for Apple. I welcome the s class quad core cpus for iMacs even if they aren't as powerful as Nehalem. They'll still be a nice improvement over the dual core cpus currently available.

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see Intel drag their feet rolling out mobile Nehalem cpus and low power Nehalem cpus. AMD don't challenge Intel in this market very much at all and i7 may help stimulate desk top sales with its superb performance.
post #122 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Guess that's the iMac then. I hope there's a high end iMac with i7.

As it has been stated so many times before, i7 is 130W. Not possible. Even the 95W C2Q won't happen. Intel has just released 65W C2Q at a higher price, but since the price-to-power and new lower wattage, especially if Apple users Nvidia's lower watesge options over Intel's and does add more advanced coolng, then we may see desktop-grade chips in the iMac. But to expect i7 is just setting yourself up for for dissapointnent.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #123 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Agreed.




\



I hope we don't get these quad cores in the upper tiers of the iMac. That would be outrageous. Dell and Co. had i7s in their line ups ages ago.

And it adds fuel to the fire that we should have a desktop cpu option for the Mac Tower with a price cut to reflect this. It would render the debate moot.

Cube 2? Or 'Desktop' Mac Pro. Whatever Apple.

Also, there are some great gpus at good prices. Hopefully Apple will include the best in their Towers and iMac.

Why limit the design of the iMac to underperforming over priced components and fleece iMac buyers? I'd put a proper mid-tower alongside it. They'd still make money on Cinema displays.

Apple should be there by now. Quad core. Decent gpus. They've been available ages now. These machines haven't had an update in over a year, just under a year or years in the case of the Mac Mini.

Their desktop line up is flawed. It's go holes in it. And the fact that Mac Pro sales are taking a hammering says that iMac cannibilization is underway.

Apple could go a long way to keep buyers buying in this economic climate. A desktop mid-tower. A Cube shaped mini-tower. And allow us to pick better gpus and i7s in our desktop machines.

The design is good, Apple. But it's not excellent is it? Otherwise, we'd be able to pick our own components or a broader choice of components. The current desktop is embarrassing, out of date, a bean counter's wet dream and politically etched with Steve Jobs stubborness.

Jeeze. The industry moved to quad core ages ago Apple. And even PC world has decent 1 gig GPUs in their 'mid-towers' at around a £1000 or less. And we're still waiting. I thought post PPC we'd be getting the best of performance at all levels. Design is getting in the way of consumer wants. They need to pull their finger out of their iPhone...

The desktop line has flies over the carcass.

Lemon Bon Bon.

I could not agree more. Apple's reputation is for delivering new hardware late, choosing a lower end, if not bottom end, part, and gouging the customer. And then there is still the problem of Rev A machines that continue to have problems.

Apple does not seem to have the ability to execute product development and introduction.

The answer to many of the questions surrounding the choice of processors for the new iMac is probably that the newer processor does not perform as well as expected with Leopard and there are problems with Snow Leopard (which is supposed to provide better multi-core support) which means that it is unlikely to be ready for release by the time the new iMac is ready to ship.

Decisions, decisions. If Apple ship the iMac with the newer processor they will give up the opportunity to pocket some money that could be saved by shipping the older one and the purchaser probably would not notice much of a difference until they upgrade to Snow Leopard.

My guess is that the $$$ will win out. The bean counters are the real designers at Apple.
post #124 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

Apple's reputation is for delivering new hardware late, choosing a lower end, if not bottom end, part, and gouging the customer.

In order for it to be a reputation it really should be truthful. Apple has always used Intels highest-grade chip in class. They have even gotten Xeons before anyone else, as in the case of a previous Mac Pro, have even gotten Intel to send to production a previous shelved item, as in the case of the first MBA processor, and have gotten Intel to release "hybrid chips" early, as in the case of the current iMac. What you are trying to compare is an aging revision due for an overhaul, like the current iMac, to the other major OEMs who showcase new models and revisions each month but sell most oldhat machines at little to no profit. For all intents and purposes Apple still works like a boutique computer shop. If you want a Nac with the latest HW you'll have to wait until the revisions are made.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #125 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

In order for it to be a reputation it really should be truthful. Apple has always used Intels highest-grade chip in class. They have even gotten Xeons before anyone else, as in the case of a previous Mac Pro, have even gotten Intel to send to production a previous shelved item, as in the case of the first MBA processor, and have gotten Intel to release "hybrid chips" early, as in the case of the current iMac. What you are trying to compare is an aging revision due for an overhaul, like the current iMac, to the other major OEMs who showcase new models and revisions each month but sell most oldhat machines at little to no profit. For all intents and purposes Apple still works like a boutique computer shop. If you want a Nac with the latest HW you'll have to wait until the revisions are made.

Apple has a nasty habit of tossing you a dog biscuit...with a bite taken out of it, a pattern that goes back much further than their use of Intel chips.

Are things better since the adoption of Intel chips? Of course, but it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks. The product development cycle is absurdly slow which only contributes to the problem. By the time the product gets out, it is already dated.
post #126 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

Their desktop line up is flawed. It's got holes in it. And the fact that Mac Pro sales are taking a hammering says that iMac cannibilization is underway.

Or that existing PowerMac users are so disgusted with Apple's current lineup, that they're choosing not to upgrade. Having done the reluctant PowerMac to iMac conversion, I don't blame them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

What industry moved entirely to 4-core mobile CPUs? You like to compare Apple's mini-desktop and AIOs and then cry foul, but you never want to acknowledge that these are a differnt class of machine than towers.

We acknowledge it all the time, the iMac has a place. It's just not the one size fits all computer that Apple wants it to be.

Quote:
Apple currently only wants to make a tower that is a higher-end workstation. What choice do you have but to accept that?

That's the point, you have no choice but to accept whatever Apple gives you unless you want to risk not being able to use your files and have to repurchase every piece of software you own on a move to windows. This shows how twisted things have become, the user is now supposed to serve Apple like a corrupt monarch. Whatever happened to the company who earned devout loyalty by offering a better computer? Live a minute in our shoes and might might understand why Jobs and apple have turned from the hero to the villain.
post #127 of 155
Quote:
never

I mentioned the iMac by name. I even used that boutique design statement more than once in my ramble.

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 #128 of 155
Quote:
Or that existing PowerMac users are so disgusted with Apple's current lineup, that they're choosing not to upgrade. Having done the reluctant PowerMac to iMac conversion, I don't blame them.

He get's it. And the post PowerMac Mac Pro is even more expensive to add insult to injury! And with a lame ass built to order mid-range GT.

iMac boutique? It's got some way to go to catch the Mac Pro!

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 #129 of 155
Desktop sales are plummeting. Apple just released a monitor that basically turns your MacBook into a 24" iMac with a couple of plugs.

I'm not sure what that means for the iMac, frankly. I'm sure they'll keep making it, because signs point to its being by far their best selling desktop, but I'm not sure where it will go. Ironically, like other desktops it might settle into a school/enterprise role.

It's impossible to make any firm projections without looking at the sales numbers, which Apple of course refuses to provide, so but it would not surprise me if the delay in updates reflects a sense that the whole desktop product line needs a do-over, now that the laptop is king.

I'm not going to try to predict where this is going, except that a move by the mini to the Atom platform would be an interesting repositioning. (They could go old school and stuff the whole machine in a keyboard.) I don't know to what extent Grand Central works across machines or with Apple's distributed computing frameworks, but that could be an interesting partnership. Its usefulness would depend, for one, on the speed and reliability of the network connecting the pieces, especially if they're wireless.

The odd duck is the Mac Pro. There are people will need maximum computational power more or less indefinitely. The question is whether there are enough of them to justify making the machine at a less than stratospheric price (and if you think the Mac Pro's price is stratospheric, you've never priced a UNIX workstation). It's possible to make machines that scale up to near-maximum power while still catering to people who only need a lot of power, which is one way the Windows PC killed the UNIX workstation. I guess the real question is actually whether a large enough number of people will need the internal expansion, since the computational power can be more efficiently stuffed into a rackmount unit.

Just thinking out loud, though.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #130 of 155
Exactly which Apple product has been launched with dated components?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

The product development cycle is absurdly slow which only contributes to the problem. By the time the product gets out, it is already dated.
post #131 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorph View Post

Desktop sales are plummeting. Apple just released a monitor that basically turns your MacBook into a 24" iMac with a couple of plugs.

Lowend MacBook + 24" Apple Cinema Display = $2200 = :-(
I hope they don't go down that road.
post #132 of 155
Desktop sales are rising, just not by as much as they used to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorph View Post

Desktop sales are plummeting.
post #133 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider View Post

Lowend MacBook + 24" Apple Cinema Display = $2200 = :-(
I hope they don't go down that road.

I can't see why they'd do it in the near term. And there's only the one monitor. But if you look at it as a toe in the water, an exploration of a product realignment, it's kind of interesting.

Of course, it could simply be a laptop monitor with a couple of other bits thrown in for convenience. Even so, if the novelty wears off and the price drops, it could signal a shift. I'm sure Apple is watching the numbers.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #134 of 155
Is This The Chip that Apple have been holding off for?

put this 8 core in the Pro, a quad in the iMac and a crippled quad in the mini?
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
I don't see how an anti M$ stance can be seen as a bad thing on an Apple forum I really can't!

nagromme - According to Amazon: "SpongBob Typing Tutor" is outselling Windows
Reply
post #135 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorph View Post

Desktop sales are plummeting. Apple just released a monitor that basically turns your MacBook into a 24" iMac with a couple of plugs.

When your desktop lineup is a three year old dinosaur, a non-portable Macbook Pro in a a display, and a professional workstation, there is no good reason not to buy a laptop. The MBPs are easier to expand and upgrade than the iMacs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Exactly which Apple product has been launched with dated components?

http://www.apple.com/macmini/
Unless you count this as a member of the NOS category. Then again, who's that nostalgic about what computers were like three years ago.

You also might want to check to graphics chipsets against wants currently in use. They're a generation or two behind.
post #136 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

http://www.apple.com/macmini/
Unless you count this as a member of the NOS category. Then again, who's that nostalgic about what computers were like three years ago.

When the mini had its last update, the processor and chipset were current. Its obvious Jobs wants to kill the mini. Someone with some power in Apple is keeping it alive.

Quote:
You also might want to check to graphics chipsets against wants currently in use. They're a generation or two behind.

This depends on what is needed. Battery and heat management are as much a useful advancement as speed. Apple does not use the fastest graphics because they want sleek notebooks with good battery life. As opposed to hulking cases with loud fans and short battery life.
post #137 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

The MBPs are easier to expand and upgrade than the iMacs.

Exactly. I can get to the Hard drive in my laptop. I can't in my iMac. Why would I buy an iMac?

Apple's "plummeting desktop sales" is a crisis entirely of their own making.
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 #138 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorph View Post

Desktop sales are plummeting. Apple just released a monitor that basically turns your MacBook into a 24" iMac with a couple of plugs.

I'm not sure what that means for the iMac, frankly. I'm sure they'll keep making it, because signs point to its being by far their best selling desktop, but I'm not sure where it will go. Ironically, like other desktops it might settle into a school/enterprise role.

It's impossible to make any firm projections without looking at the sales numbers, which Apple of course refuses to provide, so but it would not surprise me if the delay in updates reflects a sense that the whole desktop product line needs a do-over, now that the laptop is king.

I'm not going to try to predict where this is going, except that a move by the mini to the Atom platform would be an interesting repositioning. (They could go old school and stuff the whole machine in a keyboard.) I don't know to what extent Grand Central works across machines or with Apple's distributed computing frameworks, but that could be an interesting partnership. Its usefulness would depend, for one, on the speed and reliability of the network connecting the pieces, especially if they're wireless.

The odd duck is the Mac Pro. There are people will need maximum computational power more or less indefinitely. The question is whether there are enough of them to justify making the machine at a less than stratospheric price (and if you think the Mac Pro's price is stratospheric, you've never priced a UNIX workstation). It's possible to make machines that scale up to near-maximum power while still catering to people who only need a lot of power, which is one way the Windows PC killed the UNIX workstation. I guess the real question is actually whether a large enough number of people will need the internal expansion, since the computational power can be more efficiently stuffed into a rackmount unit.

Just thinking out loud, though.

I think what the market is suggesting (in rather loud language) is that the iMac needs to be more than just a laptop's guts with a large screen. The new lower power consumption Intel chips are the perfect next step for the iMac, along with improved graphics to take advantage of CUDA. I think Apple should do this with the next release of the iMac, whether it makes any large difference in performance with Leopard because people will upgrade to Snow Leopard to take advantage of improve multi-core utilization, better graphics in general and the ability to off-load some things to the GPU with CUDA.
post #139 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

When the mini had its last update, the processor and chipset were current. Its obvious Jobs wants to kill the mini. Someone with some power in Apple is keeping it alive.

If current means leftovers from the then recently updated Macbook.
post #140 of 155
I guess everyone is making the same mistake, every other major computer company is suffering from plummeting sales and job losses. Could something be going on right now to cause all this trouble? Hmmm...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Apple's "plummeting desktop sales" is a crisis entirely of their own making.
post #141 of 155
Before our current global economic meltdown, the current iMac was selling very well. With a higher average revenue than the general desktop market.

Apple is not directly supporting CUDA. Apple is developing an open graphics framework called OpenCL. CUDA will work with OpenCL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

I think what the market is suggesting (in rather loud language) is that the iMac needs to be more than just a laptop's guts with a large screen. The new lower power consumption Intel chips are the perfect next step for the iMac, along with improved graphics to take advantage of CUDA. I think Apple should do this with the next release of the iMac, whether it makes any large difference in performance with Leopard because people will upgrade to Snow Leopard to take advantage of improve multi-core utilization, better graphics in general and the ability to off-load some things to the GPU with CUDA.
post #142 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Before our current global economic meltdown, the current iMac was selling very well. With a higher average revenue than the general desktop market.

Apple is not directly supporting CUDA. Apple is developing an open graphics framework called OpenCL. CUDA will work with OpenCL.

Yes, the point, however, is that the hardware should be compatible with the ultimate CUDA implementation. It is a game changer when it comes to video.
post #143 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorph View Post

(They could go old school and stuff the whole machine in a keyboard.)

If they sold an aluminum Macbook without the monitor, but with the keyboard and multitouch trackpad and all the same ports on the side, I'd buy it so fast they wouldn't know what had happened. "Where did this money come from? Was it that easy?" they'd say. Yes, Apple, it would be that easy. Just take off the display. Of course, I'm an odd duck, but it's basically the form factor of an Apple II, one of the best-selling computers of all time. It's too nice and makes too much sense for Apple to do it now.
post #144 of 155
With Apple using Nvidia chipsets, I doubt CUDA support will be an issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

Yes, the point, however, is that the hardware should be compatible with the ultimate CUDA implementation. It is a game changer when it comes to video.
post #145 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

I think what the market is suggesting (in rather loud language) is that the iMac needs to be more than just a laptop's guts with a large screen. The new lower power consumption Intel chips are the perfect next step for the iMac, along with improved graphics to take advantage of CUDA. I think Apple should do this with the next release of the iMac, whether it makes any large difference in performance with Leopard because people will upgrade to Snow Leopard to take advantage of improve multi-core utilization, better graphics in general and the ability to off-load some things to the GPU with CUDA.

I don't share the confidence you have in reading the tea leaves. First, Apple is one of the few companies in the industry seeing growth right now, so it's hard to argue that anything they're doing is horribly wrong. Desktop sales are down generally, not just at Apple, and that makes perfect sense: Why would you need to sit at a whole desk full of multiple parts with loud fans and wires all over the place when you can have a laptop and a wireless printer and be able to do what you want to do where you want to do it, whether it's on OS X or Windows or Linux? Obviously this argument doesn't wash for users who still need a lot of power, but those are a minority of users.

Between laptop chips hitting a sweet spot in performance and the economic downturn, more power does not translate directly to more sales. I will be the last person to argue against a screamingly powerful iMac, but if they offered one Apple would have to make the case to consumers that there was a material, out of the box advantage to that power that offset the fact that you can't throw it in your bag and take it around, and then Apple would have to turn around and make the case to its power users that they really still wanted to buy Mac Pros.

I'm not saying that the iMac won't get a desktop CPU, I just don't see it as an obvious choice. It depends on how well iMacs are selling and why they're selling and where Apple feels the iMac should be positioned as its market shrinks.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #146 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorph View Post

.....: Why would you need to sit at a whole desk full of multiple parts with loud fans and wires all over the place when you can have a laptop


I'm not saying that the iMac won't get a desktop CPU, I just don't see it as an obvious choice. It depends on how well iMacs are selling and why they're selling and where Apple feels the iMac should be positioned as its market shrinks.

You've answered your question. There isn't a compelling reason to have a desk top machine if a lap top gives comparable performance. That's why the iMac needs a desk top class cpu and desk top like performance in order to be an attractive product.

If desk tops are only offer mild performance advantages over lap tops then they don't make a lot of sense. Hell, 20" and 24" monitors are cheap.
post #147 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

You've answered your question. There isn't a compelling reason to have a desk top machine if a lap top gives comparable performance.

That wasn't my question.

My question was: Is there a compelling reason to have a desktop machine of any description if a laptop is powerful enough to do what you need, given the advantages that laptops offer? The observation behind the question is that laptops are now powerful enough to do what people want their computers to do at an affordable price.

Therefore, it doesn't matter whether a desktop is two or three or four times faster unless the manufacturer can give the customer a concrete and appealing justification for all that speed: a concrete use, something desirable that the laptop can't do. I'm not seeing that. Certainly there aren't enough games to justify Mac desktop purchases. So, given that most people seem to consider laptop performance good enough to use as a primary machine, how would you sell them a desktop? What would your pitch be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

If desk tops are only offer mild performance advantages over lap tops then they don't make a lot of sense. Hell, 20" and 24" monitors are cheap.

Performance was only a relevant metric while laptops were too slow and too starved for storage capacity to be primary machines. Even if the iMac offers pro-level performance, what would that do other than cannibalize sales of the Mac Pro?
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #148 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorph View Post

That wasn't my question.

My question was: Is there a compelling reason to have a desktop machine of any description if a laptop is powerful enough to do what you need, given the advantages that laptops offer? The observation behind the question is that laptops are now powerful enough to do what people want their computers to do at an affordable price.

Therefore, it doesn't matter whether a desktop is two or three or four times faster unless the manufacturer can give the customer a concrete and appealing justification for all that speed: a concrete use, something desirable that the laptop can't do. I'm not seeing that. Certainly there aren't enough games to justify Mac desktop purchases. So, given that most people seem to consider laptop performance good enough to use as a primary machine, how would you sell them a desktop? What would your pitch be?



Performance was only a relevant metric while laptops were too slow and too starved for storage capacity to be primary machines. Even if the iMac offers pro-level performance, what would that do other than cannibalize sales of the Mac Pro?

I agree to certain extent. Laptop power is 'good enough' for most users. However if the iMac continues to be a 'stationary lap top' that's certainly going to be recipe for failure.

Users need a reason besides a larger screen to get an iMac. Monitors are cheap.
post #149 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorph View Post

That wasn't my question.

My question was: Is there a compelling reason to have a desktop machine of any description if a laptop is powerful enough to do what you need, given the advantages that laptops offer? The observation behind the question is that laptops are now powerful enough to do what people want their computers to do at an affordable price.

Therefore, it doesn't matter whether a desktop is two or three or four times faster unless the manufacturer can give the customer a concrete and appealing justification for all that speed: a concrete use, something desirable that the laptop can't do. I'm not seeing that. Certainly there aren't enough games to justify Mac desktop purchases. So, given that most people seem to consider laptop performance good enough to use as a primary machine, how would you sell them a desktop? What would your pitch be?



Performance was only a relevant metric while laptops were too slow and too starved for storage capacity to be primary machines. Even if the iMac offers pro-level performance, what would that do other than cannibalize sales of the Mac Pro?

I think there are two ways to look at this question depending on your needs.

1) If you're inclined to go for a MacBook plus monitor instead of an iMac then you give up the "high tech furniture" feature of the iMac plus you give up Firewire (unless your MB is white in color) and maybe video performance if either of those matter.

2) If you're inclined to go for a MacBook Pro plus monitor then you are spending a fair chunk more money versus an iMac as well as the aesthetics mentioned above but getting similar tech specs for those who care.

In either case, you can't do a one-for-one replacement but without doubt it's more feasible to go this route than, say, five years ago.
post #150 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorph View Post

That wasn't my question.

My question was: Is there a compelling reason to have a desktop machine of any description if a laptop is powerful enough to do what you need, given the advantages that laptops offer? The observation behind the question is that laptops are now powerful enough to do what people want their computers to do at an affordable price.

Therefore, it doesn't matter whether a desktop is two or three or four times faster unless the manufacturer can give the customer a concrete and appealing justification for all that speed: a concrete use, something desirable that the laptop can't do. I'm not seeing that. Certainly there aren't enough games to justify Mac desktop purchases. So, given that most people seem to consider laptop performance good enough to use as a primary machine, how would you sell them a desktop? What would your pitch be?



Performance was only a relevant metric while laptops were too slow and too starved for storage capacity to be primary machines. Even if the iMac offers pro-level performance, what would that do other than cannibalize sales of the Mac Pro?

My pitch, succinctly would be: user experience...

I can't stand using a laptop and I have a 17" MBP with 4GB Mem and a 2.5GHz processor. I'm getting rid to go back to an iMac (in the absence of an affordable Powermac/Mac Pro). Here's 5 reasons why...

It never leaves the house.
The 1920x1200 resolution is just too small on a 17" screen. I love that beautiful 24" display on the iMac and miss it dearly
I like a full size keyboard - why be restricted to using function keys and the like when I'm sat in an office?
It looks like it is in surgery constantly as there are so many devices connected to it (printer, FW800 drive, Mouse, Keyboard, iPhone cable, Network cable, power cable etc). If I want to move it to another room I have to unplug about 8 cables!
It's too expensive.

I like a nice big screen. I like an aesthetically pleasing desktop with the cables hidden around the back to give me more desk space (the MBP actually has a larger footprint than the iMac in my mind). A desktop computer is like the Rolls Royce of cars, why have cotton when you can have silk? I don't understand the obsession with laptops - bring on the next prosumer Mac...
post #151 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

Users need a reason besides a larger screen to get an iMac. Monitors are cheap.

And that reason is...?

See, that's the rub. "Performance" is only a reason if it gains you something concrete; laptops have enough for snappy performance in everyday use, so if it simply makes things go faster that are fast enough, that's not much of a selling point. What does it do?


If you look at T-rex's example above, I'm wondering why he ever bought a laptop in the first place. My external hard drive, printer and speakers are all wireless and I have no second monitor. There are obvious performance tradeoffs in going from a hard drive over FW800 to one over 802.11n, and that's one question that can go in a desktop machine's favor. But frankly, if you're talking about FireWire you're talking about professionals, not consumers. A lot of professionals need and will need desktops. The questions are: What kind? and for what? The iMac could move to become a more professional-strength machine easily if the numbers justified it.

By the way, I wouldn't necessarily add the cost or bulk of Apple's 24" monitor to the cost of a laptop to compare it to the iMac. For many people a MacBook alone will do the job just fine. If you need or really prefer a larger screen, and I agree that they're much easier on the eyes, then that's one possible argument in favor of a desktop as well. Or a second monitor for your laptop.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #152 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorph View Post

And that reason is...?
.

I would argue that the reason is virtualization.

VM Ware with two cores enabled is a revelation. It feels 'native'.

For a platform that wooing switchers the ability to run Windows smoothly under virtualization is a selling point IMO.
post #153 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

I would argue that the reason is virtualization.

VM Ware with two cores enabled is a revelation. It feels 'native'.

For a platform that wooing switchers the ability to run Windows smoothly under virtualization is a selling point IMO.

I am not sure if OS X (perhaps server?) has the ability to assign cores to a particular application or virtualization yet, but the capability to do so is very interesting indeed. I have seen a discussion of a limited capability to do this with windows and businesses (or at least their IT people) appear to be very interested in the capability.

It will be interesting to watch this develop.
post #154 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

I am not sure if OS X (perhaps server?) has the ability to assign cores to a particular application or virtualization yet, but the capability to do so is very interesting indeed. I have seen a discussion of a limited capability to do this with windows and businesses (or at least their IT people) appear to be very interested in the capability.

It will be interesting to watch this develop.

The app VM Ware can determine how many cores to use.

When enabled to use two cores it runs very crisply. I do this on my MBP fro limited periods of time. Its not recommended to do this fro long periods of time because it can cause problems for the host os.

4 cores would leave two for the host and two fro a guest os.
post #155 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac View Post

The app VM Ware can determine how many cores to use.

When enabled to use two cores it runs very crisply. I do this on my MBP fro limited periods of time. Its not recommended to do this fro long periods of time because it can cause problems for the host os.

4 cores would leave two for the host and two fro a guest os.

Thanks for posting back about this. I guess that must be an added feature since the early demo I saw. What I had seen on the corporate server stuff was intended to be used full time so that a multi-core server could run multiple OSes simultaneously.

Cheers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Chip complex delaying Apple's new iMac line, says analyst