Take iMac. Remove screen. Add easy open case. Make case big enough for some expansion. Sell for $1500. I'd gladly give $1500 for that but I'll never give $1500 for an all in one.
Take iMac. Remove screen. Add easy open case. Make case big enough for some expansion. Sell for $1500. I'd gladly give $1500 for that but I'll never give $1500 for an all in one.
The case is where Apple has a lot of room to innovate. The only limitation here is that I'd like to be able to plug in standard PCI-Express video cards. I'd also like to see them move to PCI-Express SSD cards but they need to use industry standard cards. If they put half the thought they put into the UniBodies they could have a very serviceable and innovative platform.
In any event if Apple can't hit $1500 for this machine something is very wrong at one infinite loop. Frankly $1500 is a little high.
Take iMac. Remove screen. Add easy open case. Make case big enough for some expansion. Sell for $1500. I'd gladly give $1500 for that but I'll never give $1500 for an all in one.
Would the G4 tower case be large enough to house the iMac "guts" using an Intel
Would the G4 tower case be large enough to house the iMac "guts" using an Intel
quad core i7 chip?
I'm not really interested in a massive tower like machine, we already have that in the Mac Pro. Rather I'm looking for a desktop sized machine just big enough to give us the desired flexibility described so far. If you look at the iMac there really isn't a lot there, likewise recent laptops. . The higher integration chips have had a significant impact on board size.
The real trick is figuring out how much power to budget for the PCI Express slot(s). One use for those slots would be a supplemental video card which to be useful would need to be supported up to 150 watts. I have no illusions here of top of the line video cards, but the supplemental card needs to be able to supply a real advantage over the integrated.
Frankly I'd be happy if Apple takes the current Mini approach and offers a machine variant with a built GPU. There would still be a need for the expansion slots but they could use a different power budget then. However Apple can't screw up and build in a GPU with to little performance or RAM.
In any event back to your question about the processor. The issue revolves around one word "heat". Any chassis they come up with needs to be able to remove the heat generated. Sounds simple but Apples noise limitations will make it more difficult than for an average PC. This is where freedom to design comes in, they can custom tailor the case for thermal efficiency. Given that it should be easy to do better than the iMac. The current Mini is an excellent example of good thermal design and the integration of all of the components to achieve that goal.
Speaking of the Mini, I really like the new models but wish that Apple would stop castrating the upper end models. Why they would put in a GPU and then artificially limit the RAM dedicated to it is beyond me. Anybody with a need beyond integrated GPUs will likely want or need a discreet GPU with more RAM than Apple supplies. Maybe it is me but I wanted to bang my head against the wall when the new Minis where announced.
I'm not really interested in a massive tower like machine, we already have that in the Mac Pro. Rather I'm looking for a desktop sized machine just big enough to give us the desired flexibility described so far. If you look at the iMac there really isn't a lot there, likewise recent laptops. . The higher integration chips have had a significant impact on board size.
The real trick is figuring out how much power to budget for the PCI Express slot(s). One use for those slots would be a supplemental video card which to be useful would need to be supported up to 150 watts. I have no illusions here of top of the line video cards, but the supplemental card needs to be able to supply a real advantage over the integrated.
Frankly I'd be happy if Apple takes the current Mini approach and offers a machine variant with a built GPU. There would still be a need for the expansion slots but they could use a different power budget then. However Apple can't screw up and build in a GPU with to little performance or RAM.
In any event back to your question about the processor. The issue revolves around one word "heat". Any chassis they come up with needs to be able to remove the heat generated. Sounds simple but Apples noise limitations will make it more difficult than for an average PC. This is where freedom to design comes in, they can custom tailor the case for thermal efficiency. Given that it should be easy to do better than the iMac. The current Mini is an excellent example of good thermal design and the integration of all of the components to achieve that goal.
Speaking of the Mini, I really like the new models but wish that Apple would stop castrating the upper end models. Why they would put in a GPU and then artificially limit the RAM dedicated to it is beyond me. Anybody with a need beyond integrated GPUs will likely want or need a discreet GPU with more RAM than Apple supplies. Maybe it is me but I wanted to bang my head against the wall when the new Minis where announced.
I hadn't seen a G4 Mac in a while so I didn't think it was that large (at lease compared to
the Mac Pro). I wonder what size box would be able to quietly remove the heat from a
I hadn't seen a G4 Mac in a while so I didn't think it was that large (at lease compared to
the Mac Pro). I wonder what size box would be able to quietly remove the heat from a
a quad core i7 and still meet Apple's standards?
The large tower was designed for the G5. I'm not sure what the i7s would require but they have one in a 27" imac. I don't think they'd get one in a mini, but with the next die shrink I imagine a fairly compact enclosure might be possible. The low end mac pro still makes no sense in its positioning, and the mac pro still overall lacks some features of a true workstation line. That's why I find it a bit awkward.
As much as I complain I do like some what Apple does, but their line has been growing in a way where it makes it hard for me to use their machines in my work, which makes me sad.
I hadn't seen a G4 Mac in a while so I didn't think it was that large (at lease compared to
the Mac Pro). I wonder what size box would be able to quietly remove the heat from a
a quad core i7 and still meet Apple's standards?
Good question. A smaller box works better to keep the air flow concentrated where it is needed. The Mini is a very good example of good thermal design and and management. Obviously a more powerful design requires a different approach. The other thing here is that Core i7 comes in different wattage ranges, something in the 45 to 60 watt range has different needs than a 120 watt processor.
In any event Apple doesn't use off the shelf ATX type parts so they can build to suit their engineering goals.
The large tower was designed for the G5. I'm not sure what the i7s would require but they have one in a 27" imac. I don't think they'd get one in a mini, but with the next die shrink I imagine a fairly compact enclosure might be possible.
What do they use in the Mini server? For some reason I thought that was a i7. It doesn't really matter though because you can get i7 in several variants.
Quote:
The low end mac pro still makes no sense in its positioning, and the mac pro still overall lacks some features of a true workstation line. That's why I find it a bit awkward.
I agree with the first part there, though I actually think the Pro does meet the needs of many workstation users. The thing is it is beyond awkward, it is almost as if Apple thumbs it's nose at the Mac community. They are basically saying you are screwed if you want slots or disk bays in a reasonably priced machine.
Quote:
As much as I complain I do like some what Apple does, but their line has been growing in a way where it makes it hard for me to use their machines in my work, which makes me sad.
Yep they are killing any prospect for traditional business uses.
What do they use in the Mini server? For some reason I thought that was a i7. It doesn't really matter though because you can get i7 in several variants.
I agree with the first part there, though I actually think the Pro does meet the needs of many workstation users. The thing is it is beyond awkward, it is almost as if Apple thumbs it's nose at the Mac community. They are basically saying you are screwed if you want slots or disk bays in a reasonably priced machine.
Yep they are killing any prospect for traditional business uses.
I still disagree on the low end mac pro. The mac pro was designed for a different spec than that one, and what you see there is basically a reverse engineered downgrade from the higher models. It really doesn't boast anything truly impressive for its price, and the processor/ram/etc feel underpowered for such a machine and compared against a few others in its line. I've been over the details before but it's easy to track when you look at how intel does their product numbering and pricing. Going down to a single socket logic board should have further cut costs and allowed them some kind of budget for the other components.
The mini server uses a 2.0 ghz quad core i7 laptop variant. It's engineered to be as small as possible, and does fit in well as a home server. It's clocked lower with more cores and a raid 0 drive configuration, so yeah it's well thought out for its intended purpose from what I can tell.
I know this is pure fantasy, but wouldn't it be neat if Apple would sell a kit that would fit into an older MacPro case or even oldies like the lucite G4. Gut the old, slide in the kit and Voila, a new(er) tower.
It could come in many flavors that you could specify for your own needs. Price depending on your specifications.
Stop the flames, guys; I'm only fantasizing. I know that Apple would never field a kit like that.
Stop the flames, guys; I'm only fantasizing. I know that Apple would never field a kit like that.
They did with the Apple ][gs. You never know.
You could send in your Apple ][ or Apple ][e and have its guts replaced with Apple ][gs guts and a shiny new top panel that reflected that it was now a ][gs.
Or you could buy a ][gs in the new design on its own.
I know this is pure fantasy, but wouldn't it be neat if Apple would sell a kit that would fit into an older MacPro case or even oldies like the lucite G4. Gut the old, slide in the kit and Voila, a new(er) tower.
It could come in many flavors that you could specify for your own needs. Price depending on your specifications.
Stop the flames, guys; I'm only fantasizing. I know that Apple would never field a kit like that.
If Apple manufactured their computers here that might work.
How about this: bring your Mac to the Apple store, they update it and return it to you
I know forum members want flexibility and expandability, but Apple want the opposite. I expect any radical redesign of the Mac Pro to have the upgradeability of the current Mini. I expect the next major redesign of the Mini to have the upgradeability of the iPad.
I know forum members want flexibility and expandability, but Apple want the opposite. I expect any radical redesign of the Mac Pro to have the upgradeability of the current Mini. I expect the next major redesign of the Mini to have the upgradeability of the iPad.
Again I think you're applying trends in consumer products to pro level rigs (even though they aren't always faster than the consumer versions).
If they go this direction, I'll probably build my own workstation and continue to buy Apple laptops. I'm pretty close to that point anyway for software reasons (even parallels isn't a perfect solution). I think they need to clean up the overall line of macs for uniformity reasons. Thunderbolt is really needed on the mac pro so that thunderbolt peripherals match up across the line.
The mac pros need a lot of work, but most of all Apple needs to spend some time optimizing them because some of the Aperture/final cut numbers have been really disappointing as they often don't take (near) full advantage of machine resources even when left alone. I used those two as an example because they're developed in house. If they don't feel it's worth doing so with the current design then it's on them to replace it with something they feel more comfortable supporting. I want to see Apple be proactive in the matter rather than eventually just having to ditch a failing product line.
Again I think you're applying trends in consumer products to pro level rigs (even though they aren't always faster than the consumer versions).
If they go this direction, I'll probably build my own workstation and continue to buy Apple laptops. I'm pretty close to that point anyway for software reasons (even parallels isn't a perfect solution). I think they need to clean up the overall line of macs for uniformity reasons. Thunderbolt is really needed on the mac pro so that thunderbolt peripherals match up across the line.
The mac pros need a lot of work, but most of all Apple needs to spend some time optimizing them because some of the Aperture/final cut numbers have been really disappointing as they often don't take (near) full advantage of machine resources even when left alone. I used those two as an example because they're developed in house. If they don't feel it's worth doing so with the current design then it's on them to replace it with something they feel more comfortable supporting. I want to see Apple be proactive in the matter rather than eventually just having to ditch a failing product line.
I believe there are only two things we can write with certainty about the next Mac Pro (or whatever replaces it) that we can't write about the current Mac Pro:
- it will include at least one Thunderbolt port, and
- it will be faster than the current Mac Pro.
The extent to which the next major redesign of the Mac Pro may or may not be expandable is somewhat less clear. However, I think many forum members underestimate the extent to which the card slots (other than the DIMM slots) in the Mac Pro are a support nightmare for Apple. Having those slots also adds to cost and reduces reliability. My guess is that Apple will continue to make a screaming fast Pro machine, but without the expansion slots.
I think a second Thunderbolt port is likely. It should be possible to simply include two Cactus Ridge chips.
They use desktop CPUs in the iMacs and mobile GPUs. The mobile GPUs are also among the fastest you can buy so not much advantage to buying a tower + screen separately. The time for a mid-range tower is gone.
Yup. Apple is just no longer interested in the desktop-monitor paradigm any longer, despite the excellent suggestions made in this thread...
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The case is where Apple has a lot of room to innovate. The only limitation here is that I'd like to be able to plug in standard PCI-Express video cards. I'd also like to see them move to PCI-Express SSD cards but they need to use industry standard cards. If they put half the thought they put into the UniBodies they could have a very serviceable and innovative platform.
In any event if Apple can't hit $1500 for this machine something is very wrong at one infinite loop. Frankly $1500 is a little high.
Nothing's wrong at One Infinite Loop. They just don't see any significant value or profit in pursuing something like this. And I'm inclined to agree: the people who swarm their stores every hour of the day are buying iPhones, Airs and iMacs - more than ever before.
Thunderbolt is basically an external PCI-Express slot so support issues are almost identical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcarling
I believe there are only two things we can write with certainty about the next Mac Pro (or whatever replaces it) that we can't write about the current Mac Pro:
- it will include at least one Thunderbolt port, and
- it will be faster than the current Mac Pro.
This is almost certainly the case.
Quote:
The extent to which the next major redesign of the Mac Pro may or may not be expandable is somewhat less clear. However, I think many forum members underestimate the extent to which the card slots (other than the DIMM slots) in the Mac Pro are a support nightmare for Apple. Having those slots also adds to cost and reduces reliability. My guess is that Apple will continue to make a screaming fast Pro machine, but without the expansion slots.
I think a second Thunderbolt port is likely. It should be possible to simply include two Cactus Ridge chips.
Thunderbolt is basically an external PCI-Express slot so support issues are almost identical.
They use the same basic protocols according to intel. For some reason everyone on here is convinced that they can only be routed through integrated graphics connections when intel has stated they support both displayport and PCIe protocols. A couple of them also claimed that it is impossible to route through PCIe or any machine with such a standard in place.
I knew this wouldn't be the case simply because Intel wants to encourage widespread adoption on the windows and linux side.
Comments
Take iMac. Remove screen. Add easy open case. Make case big enough for some expansion. Sell for $1500. I'd gladly give $1500 for that but I'll never give $1500 for an all in one.
That would be great. I'd buy one
Take iMac. Remove screen. Add easy open case. Make case big enough for some expansion. Sell for $1500. I'd gladly give $1500 for that but I'll never give $1500 for an all in one.
The case is where Apple has a lot of room to innovate. The only limitation here is that I'd like to be able to plug in standard PCI-Express video cards. I'd also like to see them move to PCI-Express SSD cards but they need to use industry standard cards. If they put half the thought they put into the UniBodies they could have a very serviceable and innovative platform.
In any event if Apple can't hit $1500 for this machine something is very wrong at one infinite loop. Frankly $1500 is a little high.
Take iMac. Remove screen. Add easy open case. Make case big enough for some expansion. Sell for $1500. I'd gladly give $1500 for that but I'll never give $1500 for an all in one.
Would the G4 tower case be large enough to house the iMac "guts" using an Intel
quad core i7 chip?
Would the G4 tower case be large enough to house the iMac "guts" using an Intel
quad core i7 chip?
I'm not really interested in a massive tower like machine, we already have that in the Mac Pro. Rather I'm looking for a desktop sized machine just big enough to give us the desired flexibility described so far. If you look at the iMac there really isn't a lot there, likewise recent laptops. . The higher integration chips have had a significant impact on board size.
The real trick is figuring out how much power to budget for the PCI Express slot(s). One use for those slots would be a supplemental video card which to be useful would need to be supported up to 150 watts. I have no illusions here of top of the line video cards, but the supplemental card needs to be able to supply a real advantage over the integrated.
Frankly I'd be happy if Apple takes the current Mini approach and offers a machine variant with a built GPU. There would still be a need for the expansion slots but they could use a different power budget then. However Apple can't screw up and build in a GPU with to little performance or RAM.
In any event back to your question about the processor. The issue revolves around one word "heat". Any chassis they come up with needs to be able to remove the heat generated. Sounds simple but Apples noise limitations will make it more difficult than for an average PC. This is where freedom to design comes in, they can custom tailor the case for thermal efficiency. Given that it should be easy to do better than the iMac. The current Mini is an excellent example of good thermal design and the integration of all of the components to achieve that goal.
Speaking of the Mini, I really like the new models but wish that Apple would stop castrating the upper end models. Why they would put in a GPU and then artificially limit the RAM dedicated to it is beyond me. Anybody with a need beyond integrated GPUs will likely want or need a discreet GPU with more RAM than Apple supplies. Maybe it is me but I wanted to bang my head against the wall when the new Minis where announced.
I'm not really interested in a massive tower like machine, we already have that in the Mac Pro. Rather I'm looking for a desktop sized machine just big enough to give us the desired flexibility described so far. If you look at the iMac there really isn't a lot there, likewise recent laptops. . The higher integration chips have had a significant impact on board size.
The real trick is figuring out how much power to budget for the PCI Express slot(s). One use for those slots would be a supplemental video card which to be useful would need to be supported up to 150 watts. I have no illusions here of top of the line video cards, but the supplemental card needs to be able to supply a real advantage over the integrated.
Frankly I'd be happy if Apple takes the current Mini approach and offers a machine variant with a built GPU. There would still be a need for the expansion slots but they could use a different power budget then. However Apple can't screw up and build in a GPU with to little performance or RAM.
In any event back to your question about the processor. The issue revolves around one word "heat". Any chassis they come up with needs to be able to remove the heat generated. Sounds simple but Apples noise limitations will make it more difficult than for an average PC. This is where freedom to design comes in, they can custom tailor the case for thermal efficiency. Given that it should be easy to do better than the iMac. The current Mini is an excellent example of good thermal design and the integration of all of the components to achieve that goal.
Speaking of the Mini, I really like the new models but wish that Apple would stop castrating the upper end models. Why they would put in a GPU and then artificially limit the RAM dedicated to it is beyond me. Anybody with a need beyond integrated GPUs will likely want or need a discreet GPU with more RAM than Apple supplies. Maybe it is me but I wanted to bang my head against the wall when the new Minis where announced.
I hadn't seen a G4 Mac in a while so I didn't think it was that large (at lease compared to
the Mac Pro). I wonder what size box would be able to quietly remove the heat from a
a quad core i7 and still meet Apple's standards?
I hadn't seen a G4 Mac in a while so I didn't think it was that large (at lease compared to
the Mac Pro). I wonder what size box would be able to quietly remove the heat from a
a quad core i7 and still meet Apple's standards?
The large tower was designed for the G5. I'm not sure what the i7s would require but they have one in a 27" imac. I don't think they'd get one in a mini, but with the next die shrink I imagine a fairly compact enclosure might be possible. The low end mac pro still makes no sense in its positioning, and the mac pro still overall lacks some features of a true workstation line. That's why I find it a bit awkward.
As much as I complain I do like some what Apple does, but their line has been growing in a way where it makes it hard for me to use their machines in my work, which makes me sad.
I hadn't seen a G4 Mac in a while so I didn't think it was that large (at lease compared to
the Mac Pro). I wonder what size box would be able to quietly remove the heat from a
a quad core i7 and still meet Apple's standards?
Good question. A smaller box works better to keep the air flow concentrated where it is needed. The Mini is a very good example of good thermal design and and management. Obviously a more powerful design requires a different approach. The other thing here is that Core i7 comes in different wattage ranges, something in the 45 to 60 watt range has different needs than a 120 watt processor.
In any event Apple doesn't use off the shelf ATX type parts so they can build to suit their engineering goals.
The large tower was designed for the G5. I'm not sure what the i7s would require but they have one in a 27" imac. I don't think they'd get one in a mini, but with the next die shrink I imagine a fairly compact enclosure might be possible.
What do they use in the Mini server? For some reason I thought that was a i7. It doesn't really matter though because you can get i7 in several variants.
The low end mac pro still makes no sense in its positioning, and the mac pro still overall lacks some features of a true workstation line. That's why I find it a bit awkward.
I agree with the first part there, though I actually think the Pro does meet the needs of many workstation users. The thing is it is beyond awkward, it is almost as if Apple thumbs it's nose at the Mac community. They are basically saying you are screwed if you want slots or disk bays in a reasonably priced machine.
As much as I complain I do like some what Apple does, but their line has been growing in a way where it makes it hard for me to use their machines in my work, which makes me sad.
Yep they are killing any prospect for traditional business uses.
What do they use in the Mini server? For some reason I thought that was a i7. It doesn't really matter though because you can get i7 in several variants.
I agree with the first part there, though I actually think the Pro does meet the needs of many workstation users. The thing is it is beyond awkward, it is almost as if Apple thumbs it's nose at the Mac community. They are basically saying you are screwed if you want slots or disk bays in a reasonably priced machine.
Yep they are killing any prospect for traditional business uses.
I still disagree on the low end mac pro. The mac pro was designed for a different spec than that one, and what you see there is basically a reverse engineered downgrade from the higher models. It really doesn't boast anything truly impressive for its price, and the processor/ram/etc feel underpowered for such a machine and compared against a few others in its line. I've been over the details before but it's easy to track when you look at how intel does their product numbering and pricing. Going down to a single socket logic board should have further cut costs and allowed them some kind of budget for the other components.
The mini server uses a 2.0 ghz quad core i7 laptop variant. It's engineered to be as small as possible, and does fit in well as a home server. It's clocked lower with more cores and a raid 0 drive configuration, so yeah it's well thought out for its intended purpose from what I can tell.
Article is here
Looks like new processors will be available soon so if they are going to refresh the MAC Pro line I would imagine that it may be soon.
Article is here
Mac Pro. Mac.
It could come in many flavors that you could specify for your own needs. Price depending on your specifications.
Stop the flames, guys; I'm only fantasizing. I know that Apple would never field a kit like that.
Stop the flames, guys; I'm only fantasizing. I know that Apple would never field a kit like that.
They did with the Apple ][gs. You never know.
You could send in your Apple ][ or Apple ][e and have its guts replaced with Apple ][gs guts and a shiny new top panel that reflected that it was now a ][gs.
Or you could buy a ][gs in the new design on its own.
I know this is pure fantasy, but wouldn't it be neat if Apple would sell a kit that would fit into an older MacPro case or even oldies like the lucite G4. Gut the old, slide in the kit and Voila, a new(er) tower.
It could come in many flavors that you could specify for your own needs. Price depending on your specifications.
Stop the flames, guys; I'm only fantasizing. I know that Apple would never field a kit like that.
If Apple manufactured their computers here that might work.
How about this: bring your Mac to the Apple store, they update it and return it to you
in two weeks and recycle the old parts.
I know forum members want flexibility and expandability, but Apple want the opposite. I expect any radical redesign of the Mac Pro to have the upgradeability of the current Mini. I expect the next major redesign of the Mini to have the upgradeability of the iPad.
Again I think you're applying trends in consumer products to pro level rigs (even though they aren't always faster than the consumer versions).
If they go this direction, I'll probably build my own workstation and continue to buy Apple laptops. I'm pretty close to that point anyway for software reasons (even parallels isn't a perfect solution). I think they need to clean up the overall line of macs for uniformity reasons. Thunderbolt is really needed on the mac pro so that thunderbolt peripherals match up across the line.
The mac pros need a lot of work, but most of all Apple needs to spend some time optimizing them because some of the Aperture/final cut numbers have been really disappointing as they often don't take (near) full advantage of machine resources even when left alone. I used those two as an example because they're developed in house. If they don't feel it's worth doing so with the current design then it's on them to replace it with something they feel more comfortable supporting. I want to see Apple be proactive in the matter rather than eventually just having to ditch a failing product line.
Again I think you're applying trends in consumer products to pro level rigs (even though they aren't always faster than the consumer versions).
If they go this direction, I'll probably build my own workstation and continue to buy Apple laptops. I'm pretty close to that point anyway for software reasons (even parallels isn't a perfect solution). I think they need to clean up the overall line of macs for uniformity reasons. Thunderbolt is really needed on the mac pro so that thunderbolt peripherals match up across the line.
The mac pros need a lot of work, but most of all Apple needs to spend some time optimizing them because some of the Aperture/final cut numbers have been really disappointing as they often don't take (near) full advantage of machine resources even when left alone. I used those two as an example because they're developed in house. If they don't feel it's worth doing so with the current design then it's on them to replace it with something they feel more comfortable supporting. I want to see Apple be proactive in the matter rather than eventually just having to ditch a failing product line.
I believe there are only two things we can write with certainty about the next Mac Pro (or whatever replaces it) that we can't write about the current Mac Pro:
- it will include at least one Thunderbolt port, and
- it will be faster than the current Mac Pro.
The extent to which the next major redesign of the Mac Pro may or may not be expandable is somewhat less clear. However, I think many forum members underestimate the extent to which the card slots (other than the DIMM slots) in the Mac Pro are a support nightmare for Apple. Having those slots also adds to cost and reduces reliability. My guess is that Apple will continue to make a screaming fast Pro machine, but without the expansion slots.
I think a second Thunderbolt port is likely. It should be possible to simply include two Cactus Ridge chips.
They use desktop CPUs in the iMacs and mobile GPUs. The mobile GPUs are also among the fastest you can buy so not much advantage to buying a tower + screen separately. The time for a mid-range tower is gone.
Yup. Apple is just no longer interested in the desktop-monitor paradigm any longer, despite the excellent suggestions made in this thread...
The case is where Apple has a lot of room to innovate. The only limitation here is that I'd like to be able to plug in standard PCI-Express video cards. I'd also like to see them move to PCI-Express SSD cards but they need to use industry standard cards. If they put half the thought they put into the UniBodies they could have a very serviceable and innovative platform.
In any event if Apple can't hit $1500 for this machine something is very wrong at one infinite loop. Frankly $1500 is a little high.
Nothing's wrong at One Infinite Loop. They just don't see any significant value or profit in pursuing something like this. And I'm inclined to agree: the people who swarm their stores every hour of the day are buying iPhones, Airs and iMacs - more than ever before.
I believe there are only two things we can write with certainty about the next Mac Pro (or whatever replaces it) that we can't write about the current Mac Pro:
- it will include at least one Thunderbolt port, and
- it will be faster than the current Mac Pro.
This is almost certainly the case.
The extent to which the next major redesign of the Mac Pro may or may not be expandable is somewhat less clear. However, I think many forum members underestimate the extent to which the card slots (other than the DIMM slots) in the Mac Pro are a support nightmare for Apple. Having those slots also adds to cost and reduces reliability. My guess is that Apple will continue to make a screaming fast Pro machine, but without the expansion slots.
I think a second Thunderbolt port is likely. It should be possible to simply include two Cactus Ridge chips.
Thunderbolt is basically an external PCI-Express slot so support issues are almost identical.
They use the same basic protocols according to intel. For some reason everyone on here is convinced that they can only be routed through integrated graphics connections when intel has stated they support both displayport and PCIe protocols. A couple of them also claimed that it is impossible to route through PCIe or any machine with such a standard in place.
I knew this wouldn't be the case simply because Intel wants to encourage widespread adoption on the windows and linux side.