Apple's unveils new Mac Pro desktop with up to 12 processing cores

1567911

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 210
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by starmax View Post


    Thank you!



    Believe me, I know there is a lot more to these machines than just the CPU. Having owned PowerMacs for almost 2 decades, the G5/Mac Pro design is almost a work of art (IMHO) and the build quality is top notch.



    My huge beef with this update is the entry level model is basically a retread of the March 2009 model w/5% faster clocked CPU and a slightly faster GPU. Apple should have made the 3.33 6-core $2499 and Quad core around $2k. Apple has been improving performance while dropping prices on almost every other model (Mac Mini excluded), why no love for the Mac Pro?



    I feel like we've traveled back to the PowerMac G4 days, where years of waiting turned into marginal performance increases....



    I think we can be pretty sure that the entire machine has been redesigned from the ground up internally. It's not like they just dropped a new cpu inside.
  • Reply 162 of 210
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by starmax View Post


    Apple should have made the 3.33 6-core $2499 and Quad core around $2k. Apple has been improving performance while dropping prices on almost every other model (Mac Mini excluded), why no love for the Mac Pro?



    I feel like we've traveled back to the PowerMac G4 days, where years of waiting turned into marginal performance increases....



    I see you are a new poster. Welcome to the forum.



    I tend to roll my eyes at comments regarding what a company that is hugely successful should have done. I certainly don’t know what the best path for Apple is to meet their goals. If anyone knows i’d think it’s Apple. They know what their unit sales are across each model and configuration. I can’t help but think that they realize there is a market for a cheaper headless Mac, but are choosing not to delve into that market for very specific reasons that we can only speculate on.



    We can say what we wish they would have done to meet our needs or what we wish or expect them to do in the future, but I don’t think we can make an argument for what they should have done after we see the fall out from a major misstep.
  • Reply 163 of 210
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I see you are a new poster. Welcome to the forum.



    I tend to roll my eyes at comments regarding what a company that is hugely successful should have done. I certainly don?t know what the best path for Apple is to meet their goals. If anyone knows i?d think it?s Apple. They know what their unit sales are for across each model and configuration. I can?t help but think that they realize there is a market for a cheaper headless Mac, but are choosing not to delve into that market for very specific reasons that we can only speculate on.



    We can say what we wish they would have done to meet our needs or what we wish or expect them to do in the future, but I don?t think we can make an argument for what they should have done after we see the fall out from a major misstep.



    It just seems to me, based on what the users for these machines need them for, that Apple doesn't want to stray far from that profile. They likely think they won't get enough sales to matter, or they want to go down a specific road, and introducing that smaller, cheaper machine will lead people away from it.



    When we consider the performance of iMacs over the past two years or so, we can see that even on intense applications they often perform as well, or even better than a medium level MacPro. So MacPro buyers are looking for more than just raw performance, unless they're buying into the top machines, at a high, but competitive price (for that class of machine).



    Now, for the first time, an iMac can include two drives. That surprised me, and I'm surprised I haven't read a lot of posts stating just how amazed people are at that unexpected move. Yes, it would be nice if they could allow two HDDs instead of just one plus an SSD, but still, a big move for a "consumer" machine from Apple (which isn't always).
  • Reply 164 of 210
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    It just seems to me, based on what the users for these machines need them for, that Apple doesn't want to stray far from that profile. They likely think they won't get enough sales to matter, or they want to go down a specific road, and introducing that smaller, cheaper machine will lead people away from it.



    When we consider the performance of iMacs over the past two years or so, we can see that even on intense applications they often perform as well, or even better than a medium level MacPro. So MacPro buyers are looking for more than just raw performance, unless they're buying into the top machines, at a high, but competitive price (for that class of machine).



    My guess is Apple doesn?t think the sales will be high enough to warrant the effort, and unlike many of their other products which compliment each other this may actually detract from other sales of Macs and long term profits if people could get the highly upgradable xMac that is mentioned on tech forums as it, 1) could mean more support costs from Apple from users doing more 3rd-party configurations, 2) less profit to Apple if users can buy cheaper components elsewhere for this machine, and 3) use this machine for a lot longer than typical Macs.



    I say just build a Hackintosh if you really want that and save yourself the ?Apple tax? altogether.



    Quote:

    Now, for the first time, an iMac can include two drives. That surprised me, and I'm surprised I haven't read a lot of posts stating just how amazed people are at that unexpected move. Yes, it would be nice if they could allow two HDDs instead of just one plus an SSD, but still, a big move for a "consumer" machine from Apple (which isn't always).



    That is one thing that was on my wish list for this update so do I get brownie points?
  • Reply 165 of 210
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    My guess is Apple doesn?t think the sales will be high enough to warrant the effort, and unlike many of their other products which compliment each other this may actually detract from other sales of Macs and long term profits if people could get the highly upgradable xMac that is mentioned on tech forums as it, 1) could mean more support costs from Apple from users doing more 3rd-party configurations, 2) less profit to Apple if users can buy cheaper components elsewhere for this machine, and 3) use this machine for a lot longer than typical Macs.



    I say just build a Hackintosh if you really want that and save yourself the ?Apple tax? altogether.



    Of course, this could have been possible a few years ago when PC prices still hovered around $1,000 (with monitor) for the average PC. But now that price is closer to $500 which makes the whole idea untenable.



    Quote:

    That is one thing that was on my wish list for this update so do I get brownie points?



    I wasn't aware that we gave brown nose, I mean brownie points out. I'll look into it.



    Ah, here's one for you:





  • Reply 166 of 210
    welshdogwelshdog Posts: 1,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Of course, this could have been possible a few years ago when PC prices still hovered around $1,000 (with monitor) for the average PC. But now that price is closer to $500 which makes the whole idea untenable.







    I wasn't aware that we gave brown nose, I mean brownie points out. I'll look into it.



    Ah, here's one for you:









    So would we dare look far into the future? Let's assume Apple continues on their current path of expanding desktop and laptop market share driven in part by the iOS product halo effect. As OS X continues to expand, at some point would Apple actually need a mid range computer? I dunno, let's just pull this out of my proctal area and say at 20% market share would it make more sense for them to have a broader desktop range? What percentage of the Windows market is considered mid size?
  • Reply 167 of 210
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post


    I dunno, let's just pull this out of my proctal area and say at 20% market share would it make more sense for them to have a broader desktop range? What percentage of the Windows market is considered mid size?



    I think 20% Mac marketshare is unobtainable with their current business model. Mac OS is sold for their brand of PC so we have to compare it to other PC makers, not to an OS maker that sells to any and all. Look at the others which have only barely topped 25% and have done that with cheap, profit machines loaded with shovelware to obtain a measly profit at the low end of the market.
    There is simply no good reason for Apple to ruin its brand to increase marketshare, which may not even increase their profit. On top of that, if this chart is even remotely correct they have absolutely no incentive to break what in working.
    I expect we’ll see a drop in Mac prices but ONLY after the current price point has been adequately saturated. This will be done like they did with the Mac notebooks a year or so ago with a drop of $100. This is a pyramid with each drop opening up to more and more customers so each drop in price will take longer and longer (assuming everything else remains constant, and so far it pretty much has with the number of switchers still being about 50% and the YoY unit sales increases outperforming the market). I don’t think they are close to reaching that saturation level for their current price points.
  • Reply 168 of 210
    starmaxstarmax Posts: 9member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I think we can be pretty sure that the entire machine has been redesigned from the ground up internally. It's not like they just dropped a new cpu inside.



    Sure, but it does not appear that they changed it from the 2009 model, which is where I'm drawing my pricing perspective from.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I see you are a new poster. Welcome to the forum.



    I tend to roll my eyes at comments regarding what a company that is hugely successful should have done. I certainly don?t know what the best path for Apple is to meet their goals. If anyone knows i?d think it?s Apple. They know what their unit sales are across each model and configuration. I can?t help but think that they realize there is a market for a cheaper headless Mac, but are choosing not to delve into that market for very specific reasons that we can only speculate on.



    We can say what we wish they would have done to meet our needs or what we wish or expect them to do in the future, but I don?t think we can make an argument for what they should have done after we see the fall out from a major misstep.



    Thank you for the greeting.



    I'm speaking purely from a consumer's perspective here. I'm actually a stock owner though Of course Apple knows what they are doing, they have come from the brink of bankruptcy to being one of the most valuable Tech companies in the world. I'm just having a tizzy cause I was really disappointed with the lack of improvement (without spending huge $$$) in Mac Pro over the last 1.5 years. It seems like Apple is over-pricing these pro models since their main customer base is probably creative professionals. Where as the iMac is targeted towards home users. You used to be able to get a PowerMac G5 for $1599, or even the first gen Mac Pros you could BTO a slower CPU to get it around $2k. I thought PCs were supposed to get cheaper over time
  • Reply 169 of 210
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by starmax View Post


    I thought PCs were supposed to get cheaper over time



    They are.



    Measured in terms of performance per dollar, these machines are a notable improvement. And Apple has always had machines at roughly these price points, and it hasn't really shifted despite inflation. My $3000 1985 Mac128K in adjusted dollars cost (depending on how you calculate it) $5300 - $10100. And, measured in FLOPS, the performance is literally 60 million times faster and it can have a quarter million times as much memory, and tens of millions times as much disk storage.



    Nobody in the industry is leaping forward, despite what the whiners go on and on about. Apple has updated to current parts, and I expect them to do it again in 12 months when Sandy Bridge is available. At that point they will include what Intel builds into the chipsets and the better between AMD and nVidia at the time. Will Apple enter the low cost tower market or the headless box market again? Not while they are selling their current machines as fast as they can... those machines are a cutthroat low margin business that cause companies to go out of business. Apple doesn't need a loss leader.
  • Reply 170 of 210
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post


    So would we dare look far into the future? Let's assume Apple continues on their current path of expanding desktop and laptop market share driven in part by the iOS product halo effect. As OS X continues to expand, at some point would Apple actually need a mid range computer? I dunno, let's just pull this out of my proctal area and say at 20% market share would it make more sense for them to have a broader desktop range? What percentage of the Windows market is considered mid size?



    That's an interesting question. Dare we even think they will ever get to 20%, or even close?



    There's one paraphrased quote I like to use from Jobs before he came back to the company, when he was asked what he would do about Apple if he did come back.



    He said "I would milk the Mac for all it's worth, and then go on to the next big thing".



    It sure seems as though that's exactly what he's doing!



    There's something that's heresy, but I believe actually has a chance now that Apple is such a different company, and is doing so well, and is now the most valuable brand in the world. If the Mac lines go below 20% of sales of the company, and average margins on them, particularly the consumer lines, are below the rest of the main lines Apple offers, they may be interested in doing something that's long been thought impossible again. That would be to allow clones.



    Yes, as I said, it's heresy. But if Apple did it right, it could work. If they allowed just a small number of companies to do this, say Hp, maybe Dell, perhaps one other, and this time spec'ed carefully what could be done, Apple could do very well.



    Unlike before, when Apple was floundering, and clones were thought to be required for business to take them up again, it was a gamble, that wasn't thought out carefully enough. But now, Apple is THE hottest brand on the planet. If Apple came up with reference designs that these companies would be required to follow, and Apple had approval, then it could work. These companies could manufacture OS X clones that fit into Apple line. Less expensive machines that Apple doesn't want to make. Gamer machines perhaps too. If Apple loses 25% of their computer sales, that would only be, at most 5% of total sales. Not much, and made up with other faster selling items.



    But, this could double, and possibly eventually even triple Apple's market share. Who knows, it could go even higher. Then Apple would be selling tens of millions of OS X licenses, and making 80% profit margins off that. It would add to their bottom line greatly. Their overall margins could come to 50%.



    This would solve a lot of problems, and allow companies to add machines from the big vendors they know and trust, while moving away from MS, which seems to be happening in a small way now. three or four years ago, 2% of large businesses had 250 or more Macs. Last year, that number rose to 7%. If Hp or Dell sold them, that could rise more quickly still.



    If eventually, Apple sold 50 million licenses a year at $60 a license, not far off from what MS gets on average, though a bit less, that would total $3 billion in a year, almost all profit. Far more profit than they could get from selling much more in computers. Right now, they have to sell $20 billion of computers to make $3 billion in profit. Would they give up one for the other? They might.
  • Reply 171 of 210
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by starmax View Post


    Sure, but it does not appear that they changed it from the 2009 model, which is where I'm drawing my pricing perspective from.



    Faster memory in the top models, and no doubt internal improvements. Also upgraded graphics cards and such. Not actually the "same". I've got an early 2009 dual cpu model, and you're right that the changes are great, but the performance will be significantly better. For the crowd this is aimed at, that's enough.



    Quote:

    I'm speaking purely from a consumer's perspective here. I'm actually a stock owner though Of course Apple knows what they are doing, they have come from the brink of bankruptcy to being one of the most valuable Tech companies in the world. I'm just having a tizzy cause I was really disappointed with the lack of improvement (without spending huge $$$) in Mac Pro over the last 1.5 years. It seems like Apple is over-pricing these pro models since their main customer base is probably creative professionals. Where as the iMac is targeted towards home users. You used to be able to get a PowerMac G5 for $1599, or even the first gen Mac Pros you could BTO a slower CPU to get it around $2k. I thought PCs were supposed to get cheaper over time



    I understand what you're saying, but Apple's machines used to be much more expensive than they are now. Much more! There were a few years when the pro models became cheaper, but now they're back up.



    When I bought my first personal Mac in early 1992, the 950 cost me $6,000. The keyboard alone was almost $200. Over the next few years, prices came down a bit at a time, but were still very high. My 9500 was $5,000. My 9600 was almost as much. The B/W was a change. It was significantly less expensive. But this was when Apple was having problems. It was also a smaller machine that had less of everything.



    The first G5 low end machines were more expensive, but seem cheaper. But when inflation is taken into account, they aren't much different from the low end MacPro today. Actually, when the price of the B/W is inflated to todays prices, it's about the same.



    People just seem to want to spend less these days.
  • Reply 172 of 210
    1337_5l4xx0r1337_5l4xx0r Posts: 1,558member
    You're right on that one. For the prices Apple is asking, I'd expect significantly higher performance. Outside of the iMac, which doesn't work for me, the bang/buck ratio is way off.



    I know a lot of people here haven't had their value threshold tripped, and that's fine. But I think the writing on the wall is clear with regards to Macs, the speed of their evolution, and the pricing we can look forward to going forward. The latest Mini and Mac Pros are examples of this. I'm bailing out, and I suspect that in two years or so, many, many of you will as well. All my computers have been Macs since I was in art school. I genuinely never foresaw the day when I'd be contemplating Windows 7/Direct 3D by choice. I still love OS X. So, Hackintosh it is. And Windows 7 when I need 2010 levels of graphics power.



    Apple's moving into gadgets and phones, because 'that's the future.' Unfortunately for content creators, Maya and the long-dead Shake don't run on iPads and iTouches.



    I don't buy music and movies from iTunes. I don't own an iPhone or iPad. I need a high performance computer I can refresh every few years, and the Mac pro is not that computer. With 500 day refresh cycles, and GPUs a solid year behind the competition, worst-in-class OpenGL/3D performance and $2500 starting price, it never will be.
  • Reply 173 of 210
    kwatsonkwatson Posts: 95member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R View Post


    You're right on that one. For the prices Apple is asking, I'd expect significantly higher performance. Outside of the iMac, which doesn't work for me, the bang/buck ratio is way off.



    I know a lot of people here haven't had their value threshold tripped, and that's fine. But I think the writing on the wall is clear with regards to Macs, the speed of their evolution, and the pricing we can look forward to going forward. The latest Mini and Mac Pros are examples of this. I'm bailing out, and I suspect that in two years or so, many, many of you will as well. All my computers have been Macs since I was in art school. I genuinely never foresaw the day when I'd be contemplating Windows 7/Direct 3D by choice. I still love OS X. So, Hackintosh it is. And Windows 7 when I need 2010 levels of graphics power.



    Apple's moving into gadgets and phones, because 'that's the future.' Unfortunately for content creators, Maya and the long-dead Shake don't run on iPads and iTouches.



    I don't buy music and movies from iTunes. I don't own an iPhone or iPad. I need a high performance computer I can refresh every few years, and the Mac pro is not that computer. With 500 day refresh cycles, and GPUs a solid year behind the competition, worst-in-class OpenGL/3D performance and $2500 starting price, it never will be.



    Couldn't 'a said it better.



    Apple is walking out of the computer market, saying 'see-ya sucka' to the crowd who stood by them and kept them afloat through the hard years, and getting cuddly with a very frivolous and fickle new audience.
  • Reply 174 of 210
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Not exactly on topic and not exactly Light Peak, but I thought the readers on this thread would be interested in the latest optical technology from Intel.
  • Reply 175 of 210
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,313member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I read the article, and it's clearly wrong. OS X needs trim just as much as Windows and Linux. There's nothing in OS X that gets around the problem



    Unless you use a drive like OWC Mercury Extreme which does the garbage collection internally by utilizing some internal extra capacity, negating the need for hacks such as TRIM.



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...8&postcount=10
  • Reply 176 of 210
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,228moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    All of us who have a Mac Pro, and who have also had the earlier G5 have seen just how expensively these machines are built. They are not even close to consumer machines as the older lines Apple always had. They are way more industrial than the older B/W or graphite G4's. They are also built much better than my older Macs. Those were all PC level machines with refinements. These are NASA quality machines.



    I don't think that Apple has an interest in making a model with less. It just doesn't fit within this quality group.



    Couldn't you say the same about the entire aluminium product line though? They are all engineered with precision and built extremely well and I think all Apple customers have that quality expectation. They already made a reasonably priced quad Mac Pro (<$2000) with the same quality bar you mention so it can't be about meeting quality expectations.



    It seems to me it's pushed aside to give way to the quad 27" iMac, which costs $1999. It could be a strategic move to allow them to get the 27" Cinema display so cheap by shipping in high volume vs their rivals but it doesn't seem that quality comes into it. If they were focused on quality and the Mac Pro is the best they have then they'd surely try to get them to as many people as they could by making it $1999.



    In terms of impact, the 27" iMac naturally sells itself better because a Mac Pro would be hidden under a desk somewhere and could be hooked up to any display. Plus the i5 gets 4941 here vs the Xeon 3530 getting 4964:



    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html



    So when you buy an i5 iMac at $1699, you get close to the performance of a $2499 Mac Pro but with a 27" LED backlit display thrown in too (worth $999). In real world tests, the Mac Pro beats it:



    http://www.barefeats.com/imi7.html



    but not by that much, especially not the i7. So how can it possibly be the case that a 27" iMac with CPUs costing about the same and bundled with a 27" LED backlit IPS display is still $800 less than the Mac Pro? They aren't carving the Mac Pro out of platinum.



    It has to be down to volume. When you drop the volume you raise the price and vice versa. Maybe the $1999 Mac Pro wasn't selling in a high enough volume so they dropped it but they could have analyzed why it wasn't selling. I don't think people buying at that price point wanted an 18kg workstation, they just wanted a great desktop computer. Instead they got an all-in-one with a hard drive they can't access.



    But of course, it will sell in volume to people who don't care about the hard drive until it breaks so now we will be stuck with this setup until 27" screens become really cheap and they pull it down to the lower end and bring the Mac Pro down with it. This will be a long way off yet though.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by starmax


    My huge beef with this update is the entry level model is basically a retread of the March 2009 model w/5% faster clocked CPU and a slightly faster GPU. Apple should have made the 3.33 6-core $2499 and Quad core around $2k. Apple has been improving performance while dropping prices on almost every other model (Mac Mini excluded), why no love for the Mac Pro?



    They seem to be pushing the GPU angle more and more these days. I'm sure we'll see the benefit of that someday but CPUs are just dragging along now.
  • Reply 177 of 210
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R View Post


    You're right on that one. For the prices Apple is asking, I'd expect significantly higher performance. Outside of the iMac, which doesn't work for me, the bang/buck ratio is way off.



    I know a lot of people here haven't had their value threshold tripped, and that's fine. But I think the writing on the wall is clear with regards to Macs, the speed of their evolution, and the pricing we can look forward to going forward. The latest Mini and Mac Pros are examples of this. I'm bailing out, and I suspect that in two years or so, many, many of you will as well. All my computers have been Macs since I was in art school. I genuinely never foresaw the day when I'd be contemplating Windows 7/Direct 3D by choice. I still love OS X. So, Hackintosh it is. And Windows 7 when I need 2010 levels of graphics power.



    Apple's moving into gadgets and phones, because 'that's the future.' Unfortunately for content creators, Maya and the long-dead Shake don't run on iPads and iTouches.



    I don't buy music and movies from iTunes. I don't own an iPhone or iPad. I need a high performance computer I can refresh every few years, and the Mac pro is not that computer. With 500 day refresh cycles, and GPUs a solid year behind the competition, worst-in-class OpenGL/3D performance and $2500 starting price, it never will be.



    You're not a majority opinion. Mac sales are increasing by a good clip.
  • Reply 178 of 210
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kwatson View Post


    Couldn't 'a said it better.



    Apple is walking out of the computer market, saying 'see-ya sucka' to the crowd who stood by them and kept them afloat through the hard years, and getting cuddly with a very frivolous and fickle new audience.



    Again, sales are rising faster than the Pc market as a whole, which means that you are wrong.
  • Reply 179 of 210
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post


    Unless you use a drive like OWC Mercury Extreme which does the garbage collection internally by utilizing some internal extra capacity, negating the need for hacks such as TRIM.



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...8&postcount=10



    That does not solve the problem, it just makes it less of a problem. And that method that Sandforce uses is considered to be less safe, as it's easier to lose data.
  • Reply 180 of 210
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,803member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


    Couldn't you say the same about the entire aluminium product line though? They are all engineered with precision and built extremely well and I think all Apple customers have that quality expectation. They already made a reasonably priced quad Mac Pro (<$2000) with the same quality bar you mention so it can't be about meeting quality expectations.



    It seems to me it's pushed aside to give way to the quad 27" iMac, which costs $1999. It could be a strategic move to allow them to get the 27" Cinema display so cheap by shipping in high volume vs their rivals but it doesn't seem that quality comes into it. If they were focused on quality and the Mac Pro is the best they have then they'd surely try to get them to as many people as they could by making it $1999.



    In terms of impact, the 27" iMac naturally sells itself better because a Mac Pro would be hidden under a desk somewhere and could be hooked up to any display. Plus the i5 gets 4941 here vs the Xeon 3530 getting 4964:



    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html



    So when you buy an i5 iMac at $1699, you get close to the performance of a $2499 Mac Pro but with a 27" LED backlit display thrown in too (worth $999). In real world tests, the Mac Pro beats it:



    http://www.barefeats.com/imi7.html



    but not by that much, especially not the i7. So how can it possibly be the case that a 27" iMac with CPUs costing about the same and bundled with a 27" LED backlit IPS display is still $800 less than the Mac Pro? They aren't carving the Mac Pro out of platinum.



    It has to be down to volume. When you drop the volume you raise the price and vice versa. Maybe the $1999 Mac Pro wasn't selling in a high enough volume so they dropped it but they could have analyzed why it wasn't selling. I don't think people buying at that price point wanted an 18kg workstation, they just wanted a great desktop computer. Instead they got an all-in-one with a hard drive they can't access.



    But of course, it will sell in volume to people who don't care about the hard drive until it breaks so now we will be stuck with this setup until 27" screens become really cheap and they pull it down to the lower end and bring the Mac Pro down with it. This will be a long way off yet though.



    The iMac is a quality machine, in that it uses better parts than the run of the mill PC. But the Mac Pro is a different animal entirely. I wouldn't say that the quality, which in this case is embodied in the ruggedness of the Mac Pro, is the same. The iMac is much more of a consumer machine, though some pros use it as well.



    I know about the performance issue, as I mentioned it. It's really when you get to the higher level Mac Pro where it really pulls ahead. You're not getting a 6 core cpu, not a 12 core dual cpu, not higher end graphics cards, not as much RAM capacity, etc in an iMac, at least not for a number of years, and then the Mac Pro will still be ahead..



    These are separate lines, and are very different. Those who don't want them, and don't need them, won't buy them. We go over this same point over and again, and it still stands. If Apple doesn't care, why should we? I was one of the first to come up with a small design with the G5, but it's pretty clear by now, that it ain't happening. There's no point in insisting that it should. I've given up on it, and so should everyone else.
Sign In or Register to comment.