I've used NEC. In fact I still own one. The thing is immortal even if it's beyond where I can calibrate it properly at this point. What's interesting with the one you linked is the ability to position multiple windows on one screen. I wish we had better functionality for doing that, but extremely wide formats aren't the norm.
I'm a big fan of this NEC monitor, the colours are very vibrant and warm, it has tons of inputs and it pivots when I'm reading a really long forum thread, built in speakers kind of suck though. The best feature about this monitor and the real big reason why I bought it is that you can display multiple images from different video sources, like PIP on a TV.
I think the one thing folks keep forgetting/ignoring is that the current 27" Apple Thunderbolt Display is not just a monitor…
It is also a Thunderbolt docking station; with USB2, FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet & Thunderbolt connectivity…
It also has stereo speakers, an iSight/FaceTime camera & microphone…
It also provides a charging solution for your laptop, if that is what you are attaching it to…
So, a good bit of functionality/added value beyond just the display part of the equation…!
As for the musings on a 32" model, why not…? Apple used to do the 30" Cinema Display, why not a 32" 5K display…?
Off the top of my head, pro video & medical imaging come to mind as two markets for such a beast…
Oh don't get me wrong the Apple Display is definitely uber cool, just wasn't worth the extra money for me. Not when the NEC screen quality was better, display width is like two monitors in one without the ugly bezel in the middle, in fact you can display two video sources at once, in my case OSX on the left and Linux on the right.
I almost bought a PC Illuminate 4x24 Super HD 3840 x 2160 Quad Multi-Monitor LCD Display;
IBM has a new 4k monitor for about 1,500 bucks now, IBM T221 22.2";
I think I will stick with the NEC for at least a few years though, I'm toying with the idea of adding 2 more for a total of 3, at 700 a piece they're not super expensive.
Unless you have a pretty trivial business it is almost impossible to buy exactly what you need to get the advantage you want. It isn't uncommon where I work to buy the closest fit tooling wise and them modify it to do the job you want the way you want.
Apple will most likely offer variations of this Mac Pro, the "up to" phrases in the online documentation pretty much assure that. What Ford doesn't do for its customers is offer highly tailored models of their pickups for specific usages. That they leave to specialist in the market that change a good penny for their additions to the platform.
Not the variation commonly being asked for with respect to the Mac Pro.
The hostility is directed at people whome have this expectation that Apple must serve their specific needs no matter what. There are many things about Apple and their product line ups that frustrate and at times piss me off but I don't go around suggesting that Apple make a specific variant just for me. Even when it comes to the XMac it is more about a product that would be attractive to a significant number of customers.
The ability for useful dialog went out the door when people started complaining about the new Mac Pros impact on their workflow. It isn't that new technology doesn't impact workflow, it will, just that it is your responsibility to adapt to the change and not make a big scene about it.
Technology changes and sometimes you have to change with it. I can remember back to the time when dot matrix printers started to become hard to get. One person I knew was fretting about his loss of the ability to print two part forms. He was more resistant to workflow changes even if those changes might lead to actual improvements in workflow. I'm seeing the same mentality here and frankly it is at best regressive.
Apple hasn't given its customers a FU, but rather an opportunity to move forward.
Apple is effectively giving people more options with this Mac Pro than in their previous machines. That people don't see this contimpnues to amaze me.
This one size fits all view of the new Mac Pro is just asinine. This new Mac Pro is highly configurable, more so than its previous machine. Rather it is a machine that is adaptable to a wider array of users than ever before.
This is exactly what the new Mac Pro allows them to do. Expansion is an option handled by external devices. As for the internal machine I expect that it will be available in multiple configurations, most likely Apples normal good, better and best lineup. The variations here will be in CPU and GPU configurations.
As to people using internal expansion on the Mac Pro I highly doubt it gets anywhere near 50/50 even including installing a disk array. Remove disk arrays from consideration and you will come awfully close to the 99/1 ratio. Again there is a bias in these forums that seem to indicate that the only real users of the Mac Pro are those in the audio visual fields. That simply isn't true. Even within that field though not everybody has gone with massive amounts of internal hardware.
The goal isn't to insult people but rather to get them to look outside of their habitual behaviors and at least look at the new Mac Pro with fresh eyes.
The hardware environment isn't restricted if anything it is more open. Continuously repeating this theme doesn't make it true. This new Mac Pro is a significant step forward, not backward as you imply. As far as profitability goes it is pretty obvious that the old machine wasn't cutting the mustard in that respect.
Will this machine do better? Hard to say at this point when costs aren't even know. I will say this though, this new machine has a far greater chance at success than the previous model.
This is certainly true and it is exactly what the new Mac Pro accels at. When it ships I doubt there will be a better machine on the market for meeting a wide array of user needs.
I enjoyed the well reasoned arguments there.
Especially the summative punchline. (I think it's a far more flexible machine which can be tailored to many more needs virtually unlimited external expansion vs limited internal expansion. Also, would we have 'killed' for a dual GPU machine but mere few months ago? 12 core single cpu as standard on the top end? Blisteringly fast SSD? It's worlds away from the old model. And it's the Cube reborn. What more do we want? Let the vocal 5% of 50, 000 sales scream all they want...)
Theoretically, Apple could replace the ENTIRE Desktop lineup with this new Mac Pro design…!!!
Three 'performance sectors' in the new Mac Pro…
One would always be filled by a CPU; be it i5s on the low-end (with IGP), i7s on the mid-end (with IGP) or Xeons on the high-end (without IGP)…
Second 'sector'; low to mid-end discrete consumer-class GPUs, mid to high-end discrete consumer-class GPUs or a full range of workstation-class GPUs…
Also in second 'sector' is the PCIe Flash RAM SSD (boot, apps, storage)…
Third 'sector' (this is where things change up); one or two 2.5" HDDs, matching mid to high-end discrete consumer-class GPUs (yes, SLI/CrossFire for gamers!) or matching high-end workstation-class GPUs…
As seen in the second 'sector', the third (excepting the one with the single or dual 2.5" HDD option) includes a slot for a second PCIe Flash RAM SSD…
Upgrade the I/O on the Thunderbolt Display to USB3 & TB2, change the screen 'finish' to match the newer iMacs, same pricing…
Release the All New, Bargain Priced 21.5" Thunderbolt 2 Display; US$599.00…
Release the All New 32" Retina 5K Display (5120 x 2880) for US$2,249.00…
No more Mac mini, iMac or Mac Pro; just the Mac…
Configure as desired, add monitor of choice…
After all; most of their 'PC' sales are supposed to be laptops; so leave the multi SKUs there (which you kinda have to, with the screen all attached and such) and par the Desktop line down to one highly configurable unit…! ;^p
Apple would have a full range of suggested configurations on the online store, but they would all fall under the same SKU; meaning every new Mac was BTO…! Hey, Made (Assembled) In USA, an efficient design, quick turn-around on custom orders…!?!
Bonus idea that just hit me; optional (BTO) integration of the SuperDrive into the 21.5" & 27" Thunderbolt 2 Displays and the 32" Retina 5K Displays…!!! This would also be something that could be easily added later by the end-user…
Wow 32', who makes those? I almost pulled the trigger on a 27" Apple Monitor until I saw the 29” NEC MultiSync EA294WMi, it was 300 CHF cheaper and just gorgeous. I really think Apple needs relook it's pricing for their monitors, they just aren't very competitively price, actually far from it. The LG monitor which uses the exact same LCD display is now 500 dollars less.
My NEC MultiSync EA294WMi
Good for viewing A3 documents? I'll need a 2nd monitor to look at 11x17 inch comic book art pages that I scan in...
Especially the summative punchline. (I think it's a far more flexible machine which can be tailored to many more needs virtually unlimited external expansion vs limited internal expansion. Also, would we have 'killed' for a dual GPU machine but mere few months ago? 12 core single cpu as standard on the top end? Blisteringly fast SSD? It's worlds away from the old model. And it's the Cube reborn. What more do we want? Let the vocal 5% of 50, 000 sales scream all they want...)
Lemon Bon Bon.
I think they need to come out with a product like this that will satisfy a lot of high end users, not for some. I think that a lot of stems from dealing with the heat issues. That seemed to dictate a lot of other aspects of this computer as a result. It's a brilliant way to deal with heat. Simply brilliant. Some people don't mind some people do mind having external chassis for PCI cards and storage. That's where this type of product will take some time getting used to.
I also see a big enough market for people that want to rack mount the system because they work in a production environment where everything else is rack mounted, or they do a lot of traveling whereby using flight cases with built in shock absorption, and everything is rugged, etc. This new box doesn't appeal to those that like rack mounted systems. Unfortunate.
I'm a big fan of this NEC monitor, the colours are very vibrant and warm, it has tons of inputs and it pivots when I'm reading a really long forum thread, built in speakers kind of suck though. The best feature about this monitor and the real big reason why I bought it is that you can display multiple images from different video sources, like PIP on a TV.
NEC seems to balance toward sRGB, which is a lot warmer than what you get from many LED backlit notebooks. Some of the whites on those measure around 8000K in i1 profiler. NEC also has spectraview, which is a lot better than the off the shelf solutions. They switched to usb calibration rather than DDC, so the problems of keeping up with connectors should be lessened now. Eizo did that a bit earlier, but the two are a lot closer in quality than they were in 2007-2008. I wish Eizo still sold CG211s. That was the best display I ever used. After that the panels switched from Hitachi to LG. They're still really good, but there are really specific points where I thought those older ones did a better job. The Adobe RGB vs sRGB thing didn't matter very much, as the only things that really matter are how close discrete points can get to target colors on a calibrated display, how uniform, and how well it tracks the desired gamma. I don't even like the super deep black levels, as incredibly minor surface reflections can mess up shadow detail when you start to get down to that .15, .2 cd/m**2 level. Some of the older ones also had better stands, although NEC still does a good job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Oh don't get me wrong the Apple Display is definitely uber cool, just wasn't worth the extra money for me. Not when the NEC screen quality was better, display width is like two monitors in one without the ugly bezel in the middle, in fact you can display two video sources at once, in my case OSX on the left and Linux on the right.
They just do so much with displays in general, where I think Apple's priority is driven by synergy with their higher volume product lines, especially notebooks, as well as matching aesthetics. I think if it wasn't for the cost of the new process, we would have seen a thunderbolt display update by now. Given how long they have waited, I suspect it will go to thunderbolt 2 and include a usb3 chipset. Some of NECs stuff starts out a lot higher, but displays have long product cycles. Typically a year in you can get a new one for 40% less, where product cycles are generally 2-3 years in desktop displays. The last big update was 2010, and I'm not sure we'll see anything terribly interesting unless it comes to 4K displays. NEC tried a RGB-LED array as a backlight a number of years ago. Samsung also tried the same thing later. Neither really caught on. I think it just not cost effective. The volume and growth probably isn't there in desktop displays, and panels have become a highly commoditized item with LG supplying panels on everything in the < $3k retail range.
It is an excellent engineering effort. Though not exactly what I had in mind it is a far more compact Mac Pro which is to be expected. The machine is very well thought out.
The problem is design seldom drives sales in this industry. Apple will have to demonstrate complete solutions and reasonable pricing before things take off.
We just need the other config options and pricing now.
Looks great. Good job Apple.
Pricing will make or break this machine. I have this strong fear that it will end up grossly over priced. This is one reason why I'm hoping that Apple will have a junior or XMac version. That is a machine with a desktop processor and a single GPU to get a model on the market for well under $2000. If the base model comes out at the $3500 mark I see Apple having huge issues moving stock after the early adopters leave the market.
Pricing will make or break this machine. I have this strong fear that it will end up grossly over priced. This is one reason why I'm hoping that Apple will have a junior or XMac version. That is a machine with a desktop processor and a single GPU to get a model on the market for well under $2000.
It's called the Mac Mini. Other than the GPU there's nothing that the pro can do that the mini can't. The iMac can do GPU so the iMac is exactly a Mac Pro with desktop CPU and single GPU.
Yep. I imagine that if the Pro pricing starts steep, Apple is more likely to add a midrange option to the Mini than offer a watered down Pro.
I'd actually kinda prefer that. I've got a mini serving double-duty in the living room, the first being the typical (though difficult to imagine being necessary) way to get material from a storage device to the Apple TV, the second being an occasional rendering station. A juiced-up mini would do a better job at the second task, and wouldn't require finding a place to put a coffee carafe on the bookcase with the other gear.
It's called the Mac Mini. Other than the GPU there's nothing that the pro can do that the mini can't. The iMac can do GPU so the iMac is exactly a Mac Pro with desktop CPU and single GPU.
And the attached monitor…
And the lack of PCIe Flash RAM SSD…
And less I/O ports…
Huh, come to think of it, the iMac is nothing like the new Mac Pro…
And the attached monitor…
And the lack of PCIe Flash RAM SSD…
And less I/O ports…
Huh, come to think of it, the iMac is nothing like the new Mac Pro…
Given that there's no Mac Pro yet the odds are good that the iMac will have the pcie flash drive no more than half a year later when it gets refreshed.
It has the same number of Memory slots. It has a high end GPU option and a high end i7 option.
There's not a single thing a stripped i7 + single GPU Mac Pro can do that the next gen iMac can't. Or even the current gen iMac.
Just slower.
So there is zero reason that Apple MUST introduce a 2k Mac Pro. The iMac more than ably fills that niche.
Given that there's no Mac Pro yet the odds are good that the iMac will have the pcie flash drive no more than half a year later when it gets refreshed.
It has the same number of Memory slots. It has a high end GPU option and a high end i7 option.
There's not a single thing a stripped i7 + single GPU Mac Pro can do that the next gen iMac can't. Or even the current gen iMac.
Just slower.
So there is zero reason that Apple MUST introduce a 2k Mac Pro. The iMac more than ably fills that niche.
Zero reason…?!?!
Are you effing kidding me…!?!
So what you are saying is that Apple would be all like, 'Uh, Apple Pro users, we could not be bothered to make an entry level Mac Pro; just take this iMac, with weaker CPU & GPU… Oh, and we included a monitor that you may or may not want as well!"
Seriously, give it a rest…!
The iMac may fill the needs of plenty of folks for an all-in-one workstation solution; but there may also be plenty of folks who want an entry level Mac Pro.
If I am looking for a workstation (from Apple, before folks go off on a tangent about other vendors/OSes, etc.), even if it is entry level; would I not be doing myself a disservice to pick a machine that has consumer level CPU/GPU, when I could get one that has a Xeon CPU & workstation level DUAL GPUs…?!?
Reality is that Apple NEEDS a US$2,000.00 Mac Pro to pump up the numbers on Mac Pro sales. Taking the Mac Pro line and making the new entry point US$3,500.00 (which is a number that has been bandied about for entry level pricing) would be foolish.
So what you are saying is that Apple would be all like, 'Uh, Apple Pro users, we could not be bothered to make an entry level Mac Pro; just take this iMac, with weaker CPU & GPU… Oh, and we included a monitor that you may or may not want as well!"
Seriously, give it a rest…!
Not only do they have zero reason there are significant reasons not to introduce a $2K Mac Pro based on the i7.
1) Initial launch will be supply constrained because of pent up demand for Mac Pros, assembly in the US and a new supply chain to feed the US assembly. It is far more advantageous for Apple to sell primarilry top end Mac Pros at launch and a limited number of mid and lower end units. A low end unit that sits entirely in the same power category as the top end iMac is a suboptimal use of limited Mac Pro production capability. They want higher ASPs not lower.
2) A desktop CPU and single GPU option on a $2K Mac Pro will significantly cannibalize $3K Mac Pro Xeon sales lowering overall Mac Pro ASPs and profits.
3) If there is a low end Mac Pro it is far more likely a Xeon E3-1200 rather than Core i7.
Quote:
The iMac may fill the needs of plenty of folks for an all-in-one workstation solution; but there may also be plenty of folks who want an entry level Mac Pro.
Want vs Need. If you want it that bad you'll pay $2500+.
Quote:
If I am looking for a workstation (from Apple, before folks go off on a tangent about other vendors/OSes, etc.), even if it is entry level; would I not be doing myself a disservice to pick a machine that has consumer level CPU/GPU, when I could get one that has a Xeon CPU & workstation level DUAL GPUs…?!?
Reality is that Apple NEEDS a US$2,000.00 Mac Pro to pump up the numbers on Mac Pro sales. Taking the Mac Pro line and making the new entry point US$3,500.00 (which is a number that has been bandied about for entry level pricing) would be foolish.
Wizard wants: "That is a machine with a desktop processor and a single GPU to get a model on the market for well under $2000."
That's not a workstation CPU but a consumer grade CPU. And it also doesn't have dual GPUs.
You may want a low end Mac Pro for $2000 but Apple doesn't need to "pump up the numbers on Mac Pro sales" because it's highly likely they will be severely supply constrained. I would expect that the base price for the Mac Pro will remain around $2.5K or perhaps up to $3K and ship in very low numbers with the bulk of the production given to the mid-tier $4K model and the high tier $6K+ model.
Comments
I'm a big fan of this NEC monitor, the colours are very vibrant and warm, it has tons of inputs and it pivots when I'm reading a really long forum thread, built in speakers kind of suck though. The best feature about this monitor and the real big reason why I bought it is that you can display multiple images from different video sources, like PIP on a TV.
Oh don't get me wrong the Apple Display is definitely uber cool, just wasn't worth the extra money for me. Not when the NEC screen quality was better, display width is like two monitors in one without the ugly bezel in the middle, in fact you can display two video sources at once, in my case OSX on the left and Linux on the right.
I almost bought a PC Illuminate 4x24 Super HD 3840 x 2160 Quad Multi-Monitor LCD Display;
IBM has a new 4k monitor for about 1,500 bucks now, IBM T221 22.2";
I think I will stick with the NEC for at least a few years though, I'm toying with the idea of adding 2 more for a total of 3, at 700 a piece they're not super expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Unless you have a pretty trivial business it is almost impossible to buy exactly what you need to get the advantage you want. It isn't uncommon where I work to buy the closest fit tooling wise and them modify it to do the job you want the way you want.
Apple will most likely offer variations of this Mac Pro, the "up to" phrases in the online documentation pretty much assure that. What Ford doesn't do for its customers is offer highly tailored models of their pickups for specific usages. That they leave to specialist in the market that change a good penny for their additions to the platform.
Not the variation commonly being asked for with respect to the Mac Pro.
The hostility is directed at people whome have this expectation that Apple must serve their specific needs no matter what. There are many things about Apple and their product line ups that frustrate and at times piss me off but I don't go around suggesting that Apple make a specific variant just for me. Even when it comes to the XMac it is more about a product that would be attractive to a significant number of customers.
The ability for useful dialog went out the door when people started complaining about the new Mac Pros impact on their workflow. It isn't that new technology doesn't impact workflow, it will, just that it is your responsibility to adapt to the change and not make a big scene about it.
Technology changes and sometimes you have to change with it. I can remember back to the time when dot matrix printers started to become hard to get. One person I knew was fretting about his loss of the ability to print two part forms. He was more resistant to workflow changes even if those changes might lead to actual improvements in workflow. I'm seeing the same mentality here and frankly it is at best regressive.
Apple hasn't given its customers a FU, but rather an opportunity to move forward.
Apple is effectively giving people more options with this Mac Pro than in their previous machines. That people don't see this contimpnues to amaze me.
This one size fits all view of the new Mac Pro is just asinine. This new Mac Pro is highly configurable, more so than its previous machine. Rather it is a machine that is adaptable to a wider array of users than ever before.
This is exactly what the new Mac Pro allows them to do. Expansion is an option handled by external devices. As for the internal machine I expect that it will be available in multiple configurations, most likely Apples normal good, better and best lineup. The variations here will be in CPU and GPU configurations.
As to people using internal expansion on the Mac Pro I highly doubt it gets anywhere near 50/50 even including installing a disk array. Remove disk arrays from consideration and you will come awfully close to the 99/1 ratio. Again there is a bias in these forums that seem to indicate that the only real users of the Mac Pro are those in the audio visual fields. That simply isn't true. Even within that field though not everybody has gone with massive amounts of internal hardware.
The goal isn't to insult people but rather to get them to look outside of their habitual behaviors and at least look at the new Mac Pro with fresh eyes.
The hardware environment isn't restricted if anything it is more open. Continuously repeating this theme doesn't make it true. This new Mac Pro is a significant step forward, not backward as you imply. As far as profitability goes it is pretty obvious that the old machine wasn't cutting the mustard in that respect.
Will this machine do better? Hard to say at this point when costs aren't even know. I will say this though, this new machine has a far greater chance at success than the previous model.
This is certainly true and it is exactly what the new Mac Pro accels at. When it ships I doubt there will be a better machine on the market for meeting a wide array of user needs.
I enjoyed the well reasoned arguments there.
Especially the summative punchline. (I think it's a far more flexible machine which can be tailored to many more needs virtually unlimited external expansion vs limited internal expansion. Also, would we have 'killed' for a dual GPU machine but mere few months ago? 12 core single cpu as standard on the top end? Blisteringly fast SSD? It's worlds away from the old model. And it's the Cube reborn. What more do we want? Let the vocal 5% of 50, 000 sales scream all they want...)
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
Theoretically, Apple could replace the ENTIRE Desktop lineup with this new Mac Pro design…!!!
Three 'performance sectors' in the new Mac Pro…
One would always be filled by a CPU; be it i5s on the low-end (with IGP), i7s on the mid-end (with IGP) or Xeons on the high-end (without IGP)…
Second 'sector'; low to mid-end discrete consumer-class GPUs, mid to high-end discrete consumer-class GPUs or a full range of workstation-class GPUs…
Also in second 'sector' is the PCIe Flash RAM SSD (boot, apps, storage)…
Third 'sector' (this is where things change up); one or two 2.5" HDDs, matching mid to high-end discrete consumer-class GPUs (yes, SLI/CrossFire for gamers!) or matching high-end workstation-class GPUs…
As seen in the second 'sector', the third (excepting the one with the single or dual 2.5" HDD option) includes a slot for a second PCIe Flash RAM SSD…
Upgrade the I/O on the Thunderbolt Display to USB3 & TB2, change the screen 'finish' to match the newer iMacs, same pricing…
Release the All New, Bargain Priced 21.5" Thunderbolt 2 Display; US$599.00…
Release the All New 32" Retina 5K Display (5120 x 2880) for US$2,249.00…
No more Mac mini, iMac or Mac Pro; just the Mac…
Configure as desired, add monitor of choice…
After all; most of their 'PC' sales are supposed to be laptops; so leave the multi SKUs there (which you kinda have to, with the screen all attached and such) and par the Desktop line down to one highly configurable unit…! ;^p
Apple would have a full range of suggested configurations on the online store, but they would all fall under the same SKU; meaning every new Mac was BTO…! Hey, Made (Assembled) In USA, an efficient design, quick turn-around on custom orders…!?!
Bonus idea that just hit me; optional (BTO) integration of the SuperDrive into the 21.5" & 27" Thunderbolt 2 Displays and the 32" Retina 5K Displays…!!! This would also be something that could be easily added later by the end-user…
This. Top post.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Wow 32', who makes those? I almost pulled the trigger on a 27" Apple Monitor until I saw the 29” NEC MultiSync EA294WMi, it was 300 CHF cheaper and just gorgeous. I really think Apple needs relook it's pricing for their monitors, they just aren't very competitively price, actually far from it. The LG monitor which uses the exact same LCD display is now 500 dollars less.
My NEC MultiSync EA294WMi
Good for viewing A3 documents? I'll need a 2nd monitor to look at 11x17 inch comic book art pages that I scan in...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
I enjoyed the well reasoned arguments there.
Especially the summative punchline. (I think it's a far more flexible machine which can be tailored to many more needs virtually unlimited external expansion vs limited internal expansion. Also, would we have 'killed' for a dual GPU machine but mere few months ago? 12 core single cpu as standard on the top end? Blisteringly fast SSD? It's worlds away from the old model. And it's the Cube reborn. What more do we want? Let the vocal 5% of 50, 000 sales scream all they want...)
Lemon Bon Bon.
I think they need to come out with a product like this that will satisfy a lot of high end users, not for some. I think that a lot of stems from dealing with the heat issues. That seemed to dictate a lot of other aspects of this computer as a result. It's a brilliant way to deal with heat. Simply brilliant. Some people don't mind some people do mind having external chassis for PCI cards and storage. That's where this type of product will take some time getting used to.
I also see a big enough market for people that want to rack mount the system because they work in a production environment where everything else is rack mounted, or they do a lot of traveling whereby using flight cases with built in shock absorption, and everything is rugged, etc. This new box doesn't appeal to those that like rack mounted systems. Unfortunate.
Quote:
Release the All New 32" Retina 5K Display (5120 x 2880) for US$2,249.00…
Is that display tech' even possible at the moment? Anybody selling one?
Or will Apple just do '4k?'
Lemon Bon Bon.
I'd love to be able to view A3 300 dpi print documents on a monitor that can rotate so I can view them A3 native print size.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
I'm a big fan of this NEC monitor, the colours are very vibrant and warm, it has tons of inputs and it pivots when I'm reading a really long forum thread, built in speakers kind of suck though. The best feature about this monitor and the real big reason why I bought it is that you can display multiple images from different video sources, like PIP on a TV.
NEC seems to balance toward sRGB, which is a lot warmer than what you get from many LED backlit notebooks. Some of the whites on those measure around 8000K in i1 profiler. NEC also has spectraview, which is a lot better than the off the shelf solutions. They switched to usb calibration rather than DDC, so the problems of keeping up with connectors should be lessened now. Eizo did that a bit earlier, but the two are a lot closer in quality than they were in 2007-2008. I wish Eizo still sold CG211s. That was the best display I ever used. After that the panels switched from Hitachi to LG. They're still really good, but there are really specific points where I thought those older ones did a better job. The Adobe RGB vs sRGB thing didn't matter very much, as the only things that really matter are how close discrete points can get to target colors on a calibrated display, how uniform, and how well it tracks the desired gamma. I don't even like the super deep black levels, as incredibly minor surface reflections can mess up shadow detail when you start to get down to that .15, .2 cd/m**2 level. Some of the older ones also had better stands, although NEC still does a good job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Oh don't get me wrong the Apple Display is definitely uber cool, just wasn't worth the extra money for me. Not when the NEC screen quality was better, display width is like two monitors in one without the ugly bezel in the middle, in fact you can display two video sources at once, in my case OSX on the left and Linux on the right.
They just do so much with displays in general, where I think Apple's priority is driven by synergy with their higher volume product lines, especially notebooks, as well as matching aesthetics. I think if it wasn't for the cost of the new process, we would have seen a thunderbolt display update by now. Given how long they have waited, I suspect it will go to thunderbolt 2 and include a usb3 chipset. Some of NECs stuff starts out a lot higher, but displays have long product cycles. Typically a year in you can get a new one for 40% less, where product cycles are generally 2-3 years in desktop displays. The last big update was 2010, and I'm not sure we'll see anything terribly interesting unless it comes to 4K displays. NEC tried a RGB-LED array as a backlight a number of years ago. Samsung also tried the same thing later. Neither really caught on. I think it just not cost effective. The volume and growth probably isn't there in desktop displays, and panels have become a highly commoditized item with LG supplying panels on everything in the < $3k retail range.
Two graphics cards standard.
Hdmi port and ac wifi built in.
They've put a ton of design into this
http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/index2.html
We just need the other config options and pricing now.
Looks great. Good job Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM
Configurations up to 12 cores.
Two graphics cards standard.
Hdmi port and ac wifi built in.
They've put a ton of design into this
http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/index2.html
We just need the other config options and pricing now.
Looks great. Good job Apple.
What he said.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The problem is design seldom drives sales in this industry. Apple will have to demonstrate complete solutions and reasonable pricing before things take off.
Pricing will make or break this machine. I have this strong fear that it will end up grossly over priced. This is one reason why I'm hoping that Apple will have a junior or XMac version. That is a machine with a desktop processor and a single GPU to get a model on the market for well under $2000. If the base model comes out at the $3500 mark I see Apple having huge issues moving stock after the early adopters leave the market.
It's called the Mac Mini. Other than the GPU there's nothing that the pro can do that the mini can't. The iMac can do GPU so the iMac is exactly a Mac Pro with desktop CPU and single GPU.
Yep. I imagine that if the Pro pricing starts steep, Apple is more likely to add a midrange option to the Mini than offer a watered down Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Yep. I imagine that if the Pro pricing starts steep, Apple is more likely to add a midrange option to the Mini than offer a watered down Pro.
I'd actually kinda prefer that. I've got a mini serving double-duty in the living room, the first being the typical (though difficult to imagine being necessary) way to get material from a storage device to the Apple TV, the second being an occasional rendering station. A juiced-up mini would do a better job at the second task, and wouldn't require finding a place to put a coffee carafe on the bookcase with the other gear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
It's called the Mac Mini. Other than the GPU there's nothing that the pro can do that the mini can't. The iMac can do GPU so the iMac is exactly a Mac Pro with desktop CPU and single GPU.
And the attached monitor…
And the lack of PCIe Flash RAM SSD…
And less I/O ports…
Huh, come to think of it, the iMac is nothing like the new Mac Pro…
Given that there's no Mac Pro yet the odds are good that the iMac will have the pcie flash drive no more than half a year later when it gets refreshed.
It has the same number of Memory slots. It has a high end GPU option and a high end i7 option.
There's not a single thing a stripped i7 + single GPU Mac Pro can do that the next gen iMac can't. Or even the current gen iMac.
Just slower.
So there is zero reason that Apple MUST introduce a 2k Mac Pro. The iMac more than ably fills that niche.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Given that there's no Mac Pro yet the odds are good that the iMac will have the pcie flash drive no more than half a year later when it gets refreshed.
It has the same number of Memory slots. It has a high end GPU option and a high end i7 option.
There's not a single thing a stripped i7 + single GPU Mac Pro can do that the next gen iMac can't. Or even the current gen iMac.
Just slower.
So there is zero reason that Apple MUST introduce a 2k Mac Pro. The iMac more than ably fills that niche.
Zero reason…?!?!
Are you effing kidding me…!?!
So what you are saying is that Apple would be all like, 'Uh, Apple Pro users, we could not be bothered to make an entry level Mac Pro; just take this iMac, with weaker CPU & GPU… Oh, and we included a monitor that you may or may not want as well!"
Seriously, give it a rest…!
The iMac may fill the needs of plenty of folks for an all-in-one workstation solution; but there may also be plenty of folks who want an entry level Mac Pro.
If I am looking for a workstation (from Apple, before folks go off on a tangent about other vendors/OSes, etc.), even if it is entry level; would I not be doing myself a disservice to pick a machine that has consumer level CPU/GPU, when I could get one that has a Xeon CPU & workstation level DUAL GPUs…?!?
Reality is that Apple NEEDS a US$2,000.00 Mac Pro to pump up the numbers on Mac Pro sales. Taking the Mac Pro line and making the new entry point US$3,500.00 (which is a number that has been bandied about for entry level pricing) would be foolish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
So there is zero reason that Apple MUST introduce a 2k Mac Pro. The iMac more than ably fills that niche.
It depends whether they release what should be a 2k Mac Pro with a 3k price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
Zero reason…?!?!
Are you effing kidding me…!?!
So what you are saying is that Apple would be all like, 'Uh, Apple Pro users, we could not be bothered to make an entry level Mac Pro; just take this iMac, with weaker CPU & GPU… Oh, and we included a monitor that you may or may not want as well!"
Seriously, give it a rest…!
Not only do they have zero reason there are significant reasons not to introduce a $2K Mac Pro based on the i7.
1) Initial launch will be supply constrained because of pent up demand for Mac Pros, assembly in the US and a new supply chain to feed the US assembly. It is far more advantageous for Apple to sell primarilry top end Mac Pros at launch and a limited number of mid and lower end units. A low end unit that sits entirely in the same power category as the top end iMac is a suboptimal use of limited Mac Pro production capability. They want higher ASPs not lower.
2) A desktop CPU and single GPU option on a $2K Mac Pro will significantly cannibalize $3K Mac Pro Xeon sales lowering overall Mac Pro ASPs and profits.
3) If there is a low end Mac Pro it is far more likely a Xeon E3-1200 rather than Core i7.
Quote:
The iMac may fill the needs of plenty of folks for an all-in-one workstation solution; but there may also be plenty of folks who want an entry level Mac Pro.
Want vs Need. If you want it that bad you'll pay $2500+.
Quote:
If I am looking for a workstation (from Apple, before folks go off on a tangent about other vendors/OSes, etc.), even if it is entry level; would I not be doing myself a disservice to pick a machine that has consumer level CPU/GPU, when I could get one that has a Xeon CPU & workstation level DUAL GPUs…?!?
Reality is that Apple NEEDS a US$2,000.00 Mac Pro to pump up the numbers on Mac Pro sales. Taking the Mac Pro line and making the new entry point US$3,500.00 (which is a number that has been bandied about for entry level pricing) would be foolish.
Wizard wants: "That is a machine with a desktop processor and a single GPU to get a model on the market for well under $2000."
That's not a workstation CPU but a consumer grade CPU. And it also doesn't have dual GPUs.
You may want a low end Mac Pro for $2000 but Apple doesn't need to "pump up the numbers on Mac Pro sales" because it's highly likely they will be severely supply constrained. I would expect that the base price for the Mac Pro will remain around $2.5K or perhaps up to $3K and ship in very low numbers with the bulk of the production given to the mid-tier $4K model and the high tier $6K+ model.