Where I agree with Ben is that the original Cube was a rib off and that is why it did not do well in the marketplace. At that time the G4 was not a high performance chip and Apple was charging way too much.
Where I agree with Chucker is that Apple does not really need to play in the sub $1000 desktop market. Sub $1000 is more about market share than profit and to make profit you have to sell at high volume. Apple is not in the high volume business and there is no way Apple can become a high volume business. The education market is about the only sector Apple can be a volume business. Apple needs to out design and out innovate its competition.
Quote:
It's basically an iMac without a display that is more expensive. That really defeats the purpose of the machine. Compared to prosumer PCs it would be 80% more in base price, have very limited expansion, lack of ports, and a slow notebook drive.
Well it does have a few advantages over the iMac. The first obvious is that you can choose any monitor you want. You can replace with the graphics card of your choice and you have a second expansion slot. Three choices you don't with the current iMac. Apple is not going to offer a computer with more options than the iMac and charge less for it. That's just bad business.
For the processor I chose the Conroe Extreme for a reason. Its not very likely the Conroe Extreme will fit into the slim iMac without the machine making a lot of noise. If we see Conroe in the iMac its likely to be the 1.86GHz and 2.13GHz.
Within the price the consumer would pay for the engineering and design. It would likely take a lot of engineering to fit 2.93GHz Conroe Extreme into the Cube and keep the machine relatively quiet. If its even possible.
With my theoretical Intel Cube ($1700) you are getting a machine that has more power than the current 2.3GHz Dual Core PowerMac G5 ($2500) incased in a 10" x 8" box.
Where I agree with Chucker is that Apple does not really need to play in the sub $1000 desktop market.
Why? I read your response but in another AI article it is speculated (granted speculation only) that the educational iMac has been pulled from the Apple store because it is selling so well that it is eating into iMac sales. More evidence that there is pent up demand for sub $1000 macs, mini notwithstanding.
I doubt that is true. That speculation is precipitated on the assumption that most people who would buy an iMac have access to the educational discount.
Certainly people with access to the educational discount would more likely buy the cheaper iMac but that is a smaller group from the larger potential iMac buyer.
I believe its more likely Apple has a limited initial build of the edu iMacs and wants to make sure they can fill large orders.
Where I agree with Chucker is that Apple does not really need to play in the sub $1000 desktop market. Sub $1000 is more about market share than profit and to make profit you have to sell at high volume. Apple is not in the high volume business and there is no way Apple can become a high volume business. The education market is about the only sector Apple can be a volume business. Apple needs to out design and out innovate its competition.
But, in many cases that design and innovation comes at the expense of functionality. Anyone who thinks the iMac can do everything a MATX PC can (from the hardware aspect) and do it as well is fooling themselves.
Quote:
Well it does have a few advantages over the iMac. The first obvious is that you can choose any monitor you want. You can replace with the graphics card of your choice and you have a second expansion slot. Three choices you don't with the current iMac. Apple is not going to offer a computer with more options than the iMac and charge less for it. That's just bad business.
Would it be less when you factored in the display? A headless prosumer mac and the iMac appeal to very different markets.
Quote:
With my theoretical Intel Cube ($1700) you are getting a machine that has more power than the current 2.3GHz Dual Core PowerMac G5 ($2500) incased in a 10" x 8" box.
No one else offers this.
No one else offers it (including apple) because there isn't that big of a market for such a machine and shuttle pretty much covers it. After that there's DTR notebooks. It's more an expensive aesthetic novelty than a functioning computer. that's why it failed. Too expensive for the consumers and not functional enough for what the prosumers want.
Nice lineup, BenRoethig. It makes so much sense there's no way Apple would do it.
A couple of things I'd change would be get rid of one of the 5 1/4" bays, and add a Firewire 800 port. I suspect that you wouldn't see an integrated card reader, either, 'cause Steve thinks they're ugly.
(Also-- bump the HD specs on the top two machines-- I don't think they'd start out with 80GB HDs.)
Well, Steve isn't the won doing my work, I am. The card reader allows me to pic and choose what pictures I want to import and put them where I want them. It's one of the reasons I'm currently using a HP for most of my photo stuff. As for the second optical bay, it is a necessity to me. If I have a program that needs the disk, I like to keep it in the DVD-ROM and leave the burner open for more general tasks.
Motherboard: $300? (sort of a wildcard, don't know the features it'll have)
Case: $100?
Everything Else: $90?
That totals to $1650, which is a profit margin for Apple of about 18%, or $350 per machine. Therefore, assuming my numbers aren't insanely off (they're based on Newegg), it's possible to have a $2000-2200 Quad @ 2.0 GHz.
Motherboard: $300? (sort of a wildcard, don't know the features it'll have)
Case: $100?
Everything Else: $90?
That totals to $1650, which is a profit margin for Apple of about 18%, or $350 per machine. Therefore, assuming my numbers aren't insanely off (they're based on Newegg), it's possible to have a $2000-2200 Quad @ 2.0 GHz.
Aren't you forgetting about bundled software, R&D, marketing and manufacturing costs?
But, in many cases that design and innovation comes at the expense of functionality.
Well such is life, you cannot have everything.
Quote:
Anyone who thinks the iMac can do everything a MATX PC can (from the hardware aspect) and do it as well is fooling themselves.
I'm not understanding how you can even compare the two.
Quote:
Would it be less when you factored in the display?
The point isn't for it to be less. The consumer is free to choose an extremely cheap monitor or an expensive monitor that has nothing to do with Apple.
Quote:
A headless prosumer mac and the iMac appeal to very different markets.
This is the point of it. There is no need to make a new computer that serves the same purpose and market of the iMac.
Quote:
No one else offers it (including apple) because there isn't that big of a market for such a machine and shuttle pretty much covers it.
The same way people say their is no market for all-in-ones, but yet the iMac has been Apples best selling computer.
Quote:
It's more an expensive aesthetic novelty than a functioning computer. that's why it failed.
I believe the Cube failed simply because it was overpriced. Everyone loved the concept of it.
Quote:
Too expensive for the consumers and not functional enough for what the prosumers want.
What functionality is missing?
Outside of a business I don't really know of anyone who uses all of the PowerMacs expansion slots or uses two internal hard drives or networked to gigabit Ethernet. Or many of the other things people on computer boards demand computers must have.
For a majority of the market a small amount of expansion is good enough for an even larger percentage of the market no expansion is fine because they won't ever use it.
Not forgetting them, ignoring them. I recognize that they are there, but my point was that at >15% margin was possible on a $2000 Quad. Apple will make $350 on each of those hypothetical machines, which, if sold in sufficient quantities, will cover all the fixed costs (R&D, software, marketing). I can only address the marginal costs (what it costs to make one extra Mac Pro). The fixed costs come out of Apple's margin, and assuming Apple sells a decent number of those (which I assume it will), it'll make good profits overall.
Additionally, R&D is probably confined to the case and motherboard, because the RAM, HDD, video card, and chips are standard (checked newegg.com prices even), and thus require little R&D.
Similarly, the required updates to 10.4 and iLife to get them working on Woodcrests are going to be a minor part of Apple's software budget.
Lastly, those costs you mention are at best identical across the AI scenario of 2/3 Quads, and my scenario of 3/3 Quads.
A PowerPC Mac mini was a great value. An Intel mac mini is a great value.
TRUE...IT is SOOOOO quiet, I cant hear it run for the most part, if there isnt a disk in the optical drive, you wouldnt know it was on were it not for the LED in front! You cant get that from a PC in the sub$800 range anywhere....
Motherboard: $300? (sort of a wildcard, don't know the features it'll have)
Case: $100?
Everything Else: $90?
That totals to $1650, which is a profit margin for Apple of about 18%, or $350 per machine. Therefore, assuming my numbers aren't insanely off (they're based on Newegg), it's possible to have a $2000-2200 Quad @ 2.0 GHz.
You forgot that they pay the system builders, fund R&D, WRITE A FRIGGEN OS, which you leave out of our quote, and face it, few people build boxes like that to run Ubuntu...
Theres also marketing, a website, taxes, shipping of the raw parts to their factories, and making CUSTOM MOBOs (which they still do.)
You forgot that they pay the system builders, fund R&D, WRITE A FRIGGEN OS, which you leave out of our quote, and face it, few people build boxes like that to run Ubuntu...
Theres also marketing, a website, taxes, shipping of the raw parts to their factories, and making CUSTOM MOBOs (which they still do.)
Please refer to my response to the last guy who said precisely that (solsun). People were starting to say it was impossible to put together a dual-Woodcrest machine for under $2k while having a decent margin. My original post illustrated that it is possible to do so, having 15-25 percent margins for a product in the $2000-$2200 range. Thus a low-end Quad is possible.
The point of having high "margins" is to pay for fixed costs. Aside from the building and shipping, everything you mention is a fixed cost. It costs the same to write 1 copy of OS X as it does to write 1,000,000 (assuming mirroring costs are negligible).
I don't see why people always say that we don't need expansion options. I, and many people I know, use our computers for many things. One of them is watching movies/tv/etc some of which is obtained from the iTunes store and a much larger portion is obtained from "other means" This is becoming more and more common especially with things like Front Row, MythTV, etc... I have three firewire drives hooked up to my Mini and three internals in an old G4 running as a file server and I still need more space... and from looking at my friends systems (some Macs some PCs) I'm certainly not out of the ordinary. In fact I'm the type of customer that buys new computers more often than many others. If the new Mac Pros only have 2 internal HD bays I will not be getting one. I would like 6-10 bays like every PC case I can find anywhere, but I'm not expecting miracles!
I want a easy to use network storage hdd. An easy access hdd (1 TB or larger would be cool to get me started) that is easy as pie to setup. Why Apple hasn't done this is beyond me.
Quote:
Originally posted by laurence13
I don't see why people always say that we don't need expansion options. I, and many people I know, use our computers for many things. One of them is watching movies/tv/etc some of which is obtained from the iTunes store and a much larger portion is obtained from "other means" This is becoming more and more common especially with things like Front Row, MythTV, etc... I have three firewire drives hooked up to my Mini and three internals in an old G4 running as a file server and I still need more space... and from looking at my friends systems (some Macs some PCs) I'm certainly not out of the ordinary. In fact I'm the type of customer that buys new computers more often than many others. If the new Mac Pros only have 2 internal HD bays I will not be getting one. I would like 6-10 bays like every PC case I can find anywhere, but I'm not expecting miracles!
You forgot that they pay the system builders, fund R&D, WRITE A FRIGGEN OS, which you leave out of our quote, and face it, few people build boxes like that to run Ubuntu...
Theres also marketing, a website, taxes, shipping of the raw parts to their factories, and making CUSTOM MOBOs (which they still do.)
If R&D, OS costs, system builder wages were so high, Apple wouldn't be able to sell a 600 dollar Mac mini. The Mac mini is full of custom parts, laptop components, and a modest CPU. Trust me...hardware R&D, system builder wages, OS R&D and whatever else you can think of does not amount to anything above $100.
If you had a mini with a single slot for a vid card what couldn't you do with a stackable component in your list?
Isn't firewire or GigE fast enough for most of these expansion uses?
Vinea
The problem is that I don't WANT to have multiple firewire drives hooked up to my computer. I want a box that has everything in it. In fact I would also like the option to have a 10 in one card reader in the main unit as well. This is something that makes everything so convenient on PCs. At work I have a crappy dell workstation that has a card reader, dual burners, and a 5 drive <B>hardware</B> RAID5 storage array in addition to the C: drive. I'm not going to switch to Windows, but I do see the convenience of having everything in one box. I have a keyboard, monitor and network cable hooked up and that's it. It makes the desktop so much "cleaner" looking. Firewire doesn't cut it in a "professional" environment. My work system gets around 300 MB/s as opposed to firewire 800's theoretical 100MB/s transfer rate. Of course I could get a fiberchannel card and hook up an X-Serve RAID, but that's ridiculously expensive and unnecessary. The Dell system was around $3500, but that included the 6 250GB drives and the RAID card.
Okay, let's take a break and look at GPU OPTIONS in the Mac Pro:
Let's review the nVidia cards out there as compared to the iMac Core Duo's ATI X1600 as clocked by Apple. Estimates based on 3DMark05:
7900GTX: 2.1x faster
7900GT: 1.9x faster
7800GT: 1.8x faster
7600GT: 1.8x faster
7600GS: 1.1x faster
6600GT: 0.9x faster
IMO this leads me to believe that MacPros will ship with 7600GS on the low-end, 7600GT on the mid and high end, with 7900GTX and Quadros as BTO options.
nVidia 7600 the magic number for shipping Mac Pros
One of them is watching movies/tv/etc some of which is obtained from the iTunes store and a much larger portion is obtained from "other means" This is becoming more and more common especially with things like Front Row, MythTV, etc... I have three firewire drives hooked up to my Mini and three internals in an old G4 running as a file server and I still need more space...
You have three firewire drives hooked to a Macmini, with multiple hard drives, so you can store movies and TV shows? Based on this Apple needs to have a Mac Pro with 6 or 7 drive bays so you can store more movies and TV shows?
Quote:
I would like 6-10 bays like every PC case I can find anywhere, but I'm not expecting miracles!
Nah I don't see Apple putting 6-10 drive bays in the Mac Pro. For one the case would be huge. For two most people who need that many hard drives will use an external RAID.
Three drive bays and two optical bays are fair enough, Apple should at least put in that many.
Huge ugly DIY boxes may have 6 to 10 bays I don't see any home consumer OEM who offers this many. Dell's most expensive XPS has 3 drive bays. Boxx offers 10 bays as an option but Boxx is not a home consumer OEM.
Quote:
In fact I would also like the option to have a 10 in one card reader in the main unit as well.
Card readers are more logical in laptops than desktops. Apple hasn't put them in the laptop, I wouldn't count on them in the desktop.
Comments
(yes, sigh, a Cube)
Ideal "Mac" or "mini+" config:
Core 2 Duo (upgradeable)
Intel Integrated Graphics standard
PCI Express slot (open or several BTO/CTO graphics cards available - user serviceable to add fastest card their wallet will allow..)
3.5" sata HD
4 Ram slots
DL Superdrive
Built-in AirPort and Bluetooth.
3 USB ports
1 FW 400 port
1 FW 800 port
10/100/1000 Ethernet
Digital audio in/out
Prob. asking too much, but I'd buy 3 of these.
jwd
Where I agree with Chucker is that Apple does not really need to play in the sub $1000 desktop market. Sub $1000 is more about market share than profit and to make profit you have to sell at high volume. Apple is not in the high volume business and there is no way Apple can become a high volume business. The education market is about the only sector Apple can be a volume business. Apple needs to out design and out innovate its competition.
It's basically an iMac without a display that is more expensive. That really defeats the purpose of the machine. Compared to prosumer PCs it would be 80% more in base price, have very limited expansion, lack of ports, and a slow notebook drive.
Well it does have a few advantages over the iMac. The first obvious is that you can choose any monitor you want. You can replace with the graphics card of your choice and you have a second expansion slot. Three choices you don't with the current iMac. Apple is not going to offer a computer with more options than the iMac and charge less for it. That's just bad business.
For the processor I chose the Conroe Extreme for a reason. Its not very likely the Conroe Extreme will fit into the slim iMac without the machine making a lot of noise. If we see Conroe in the iMac its likely to be the 1.86GHz and 2.13GHz.
Within the price the consumer would pay for the engineering and design. It would likely take a lot of engineering to fit 2.93GHz Conroe Extreme into the Cube and keep the machine relatively quiet. If its even possible.
With my theoretical Intel Cube ($1700) you are getting a machine that has more power than the current 2.3GHz Dual Core PowerMac G5 ($2500) incased in a 10" x 8" box.
No one else offers this.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Where I agree with Chucker is that Apple does not really need to play in the sub $1000 desktop market.
Why? I read your response but in another AI article it is speculated (granted speculation only) that the educational iMac has been pulled from the Apple store because it is selling so well that it is eating into iMac sales. More evidence that there is pent up demand for sub $1000 macs, mini notwithstanding.
Certainly people with access to the educational discount would more likely buy the cheaper iMac but that is a smaller group from the larger potential iMac buyer.
I believe its more likely Apple has a limited initial build of the edu iMacs and wants to make sure they can fill large orders.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Where I agree with Chucker is that Apple does not really need to play in the sub $1000 desktop market. Sub $1000 is more about market share than profit and to make profit you have to sell at high volume. Apple is not in the high volume business and there is no way Apple can become a high volume business. The education market is about the only sector Apple can be a volume business. Apple needs to out design and out innovate its competition.
But, in many cases that design and innovation comes at the expense of functionality. Anyone who thinks the iMac can do everything a MATX PC can (from the hardware aspect) and do it as well is fooling themselves.
Well it does have a few advantages over the iMac. The first obvious is that you can choose any monitor you want. You can replace with the graphics card of your choice and you have a second expansion slot. Three choices you don't with the current iMac. Apple is not going to offer a computer with more options than the iMac and charge less for it. That's just bad business.
Would it be less when you factored in the display? A headless prosumer mac and the iMac appeal to very different markets.
With my theoretical Intel Cube ($1700) you are getting a machine that has more power than the current 2.3GHz Dual Core PowerMac G5 ($2500) incased in a 10" x 8" box.
No one else offers this.
No one else offers it (including apple) because there isn't that big of a market for such a machine and shuttle pretty much covers it. After that there's DTR notebooks. It's more an expensive aesthetic novelty than a functioning computer. that's why it failed. Too expensive for the consumers and not functional enough for what the prosumers want.
Originally posted by Gamblor
Nice lineup, BenRoethig. It makes so much sense there's no way Apple would do it.
A couple of things I'd change would be get rid of one of the 5 1/4" bays, and add a Firewire 800 port. I suspect that you wouldn't see an integrated card reader, either, 'cause Steve thinks they're ugly.
(Also-- bump the HD specs on the top two machines-- I don't think they'd start out with 80GB HDs.)
Well, Steve isn't the won doing my work, I am. The card reader allows me to pic and choose what pictures I want to import and put them where I want them. It's one of the reasons I'm currently using a HP for most of my photo stuff. As for the second optical bay, it is a necessity to me. If I have a program that needs the disk, I like to keep it in the DVD-ROM and leave the burner open for more general tasks.
Processors: 2x2.0 GHz Woodcrest $660
RAM: 2x512MB FB-DIMM $150
HDD: 250GB 7200rpm $100
Video: 7800GT $250 (bulk discount from $300)
Motherboard: $300? (sort of a wildcard, don't know the features it'll have)
Case: $100?
Everything Else: $90?
That totals to $1650, which is a profit margin for Apple of about 18%, or $350 per machine. Therefore, assuming my numbers aren't insanely off (they're based on Newegg), it's possible to have a $2000-2200 Quad @ 2.0 GHz.
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
How to make a $2000 Woodcrest Mac Pro:
Processors: 2x2.0 GHz Woodcrest $660
RAM: 2x512MB FB-DIMM $150
HDD: 250GB 7200rpm $100
Video: 7800GT $250 (bulk discount from $300)
Motherboard: $300? (sort of a wildcard, don't know the features it'll have)
Case: $100?
Everything Else: $90?
That totals to $1650, which is a profit margin for Apple of about 18%, or $350 per machine. Therefore, assuming my numbers aren't insanely off (they're based on Newegg), it's possible to have a $2000-2200 Quad @ 2.0 GHz.
Aren't you forgetting about bundled software, R&D, marketing and manufacturing costs?
But, in many cases that design and innovation comes at the expense of functionality.
Well such is life, you cannot have everything.
Anyone who thinks the iMac can do everything a MATX PC can (from the hardware aspect) and do it as well is fooling themselves.
I'm not understanding how you can even compare the two.
Would it be less when you factored in the display?
The point isn't for it to be less. The consumer is free to choose an extremely cheap monitor or an expensive monitor that has nothing to do with Apple.
A headless prosumer mac and the iMac appeal to very different markets.
This is the point of it. There is no need to make a new computer that serves the same purpose and market of the iMac.
No one else offers it (including apple) because there isn't that big of a market for such a machine and shuttle pretty much covers it.
The same way people say their is no market for all-in-ones, but yet the iMac has been Apples best selling computer.
It's more an expensive aesthetic novelty than a functioning computer. that's why it failed.
I believe the Cube failed simply because it was overpriced. Everyone loved the concept of it.
Too expensive for the consumers and not functional enough for what the prosumers want.
What functionality is missing?
Outside of a business I don't really know of anyone who uses all of the PowerMacs expansion slots or uses two internal hard drives or networked to gigabit Ethernet. Or many of the other things people on computer boards demand computers must have.
For a majority of the market a small amount of expansion is good enough for an even larger percentage of the market no expansion is fine because they won't ever use it.
Additionally, R&D is probably confined to the case and motherboard, because the RAM, HDD, video card, and chips are standard (checked newegg.com prices even), and thus require little R&D.
Similarly, the required updates to 10.4 and iLife to get them working on Woodcrests are going to be a minor part of Apple's software budget.
Lastly, those costs you mention are at best identical across the AI scenario of 2/3 Quads, and my scenario of 3/3 Quads.
Originally posted by Chucker
A PowerPC Mac mini was a great value. An Intel mac mini is a great value.
TRUE...IT is SOOOOO quiet, I cant hear it run for the most part, if there isnt a disk in the optical drive, you wouldnt know it was on were it not for the LED in front! You cant get that from a PC in the sub$800 range anywhere....
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
How to make a $2000 Woodcrest Mac Pro:
Processors: 2x2.0 GHz Woodcrest $660
RAM: 2x512MB FB-DIMM $150
HDD: 250GB 7200rpm $100
Video: 7800GT $250 (bulk discount from $300)
Motherboard: $300? (sort of a wildcard, don't know the features it'll have)
Case: $100?
Everything Else: $90?
That totals to $1650, which is a profit margin for Apple of about 18%, or $350 per machine. Therefore, assuming my numbers aren't insanely off (they're based on Newegg), it's possible to have a $2000-2200 Quad @ 2.0 GHz.
You forgot that they pay the system builders, fund R&D, WRITE A FRIGGEN OS, which you leave out of our quote, and face it, few people build boxes like that to run Ubuntu...
Theres also marketing, a website, taxes, shipping of the raw parts to their factories, and making CUSTOM MOBOs (which they still do.)
Originally posted by a_greer
You forgot that they pay the system builders, fund R&D, WRITE A FRIGGEN OS, which you leave out of our quote, and face it, few people build boxes like that to run Ubuntu...
Theres also marketing, a website, taxes, shipping of the raw parts to their factories, and making CUSTOM MOBOs (which they still do.)
Please refer to my response to the last guy who said precisely that (solsun). People were starting to say it was impossible to put together a dual-Woodcrest machine for under $2k while having a decent margin. My original post illustrated that it is possible to do so, having 15-25 percent margins for a product in the $2000-$2200 range. Thus a low-end Quad is possible.
The point of having high "margins" is to pay for fixed costs. Aside from the building and shipping, everything you mention is a fixed cost. It costs the same to write 1 copy of OS X as it does to write 1,000,000 (assuming mirroring costs are negligible).
Originally posted by laurence13
I don't see why people always say that we don't need expansion options. I, and many people I know, use our computers for many things. One of them is watching movies/tv/etc some of which is obtained from the iTunes store and a much larger portion is obtained from "other means" This is becoming more and more common especially with things like Front Row, MythTV, etc... I have three firewire drives hooked up to my Mini and three internals in an old G4 running as a file server and I still need more space... and from looking at my friends systems (some Macs some PCs) I'm certainly not out of the ordinary. In fact I'm the type of customer that buys new computers more often than many others. If the new Mac Pros only have 2 internal HD bays I will not be getting one. I would like 6-10 bays like every PC case I can find anywhere, but I'm not expecting miracles!
Originally posted by a_greer
You forgot that they pay the system builders, fund R&D, WRITE A FRIGGEN OS, which you leave out of our quote, and face it, few people build boxes like that to run Ubuntu...
Theres also marketing, a website, taxes, shipping of the raw parts to their factories, and making CUSTOM MOBOs (which they still do.)
If R&D, OS costs, system builder wages were so high, Apple wouldn't be able to sell a 600 dollar Mac mini. The Mac mini is full of custom parts, laptop components, and a modest CPU. Trust me...hardware R&D, system builder wages, OS R&D and whatever else you can think of does not amount to anything above $100.
Originally posted by laurence13
I don't see why people always say that we don't need expansion options. I, and many people I know, use our computers for many things...
If you had a mini with a single slot for a vid card what couldn't you do with a stackable component in your list?
Isn't firewire or GigE fast enough for most of these expansion uses?
Vinea
Originally posted by vinea
If you had a mini with a single slot for a vid card what couldn't you do with a stackable component in your list?
Isn't firewire or GigE fast enough for most of these expansion uses?
Vinea
The problem is that I don't WANT to have multiple firewire drives hooked up to my computer. I want a box that has everything in it. In fact I would also like the option to have a 10 in one card reader in the main unit as well. This is something that makes everything so convenient on PCs. At work I have a crappy dell workstation that has a card reader, dual burners, and a 5 drive <B>hardware</B> RAID5 storage array in addition to the C: drive. I'm not going to switch to Windows, but I do see the convenience of having everything in one box. I have a keyboard, monitor and network cable hooked up and that's it. It makes the desktop so much "cleaner" looking. Firewire doesn't cut it in a "professional" environment. My work system gets around 300 MB/s as opposed to firewire 800's theoretical 100MB/s transfer rate. Of course I could get a fiberchannel card and hook up an X-Serve RAID, but that's ridiculously expensive and unnecessary. The Dell system was around $3500, but that included the 6 250GB drives and the RAID card.
Let's review the nVidia cards out there as compared to the iMac Core Duo's ATI X1600 as clocked by Apple. Estimates based on 3DMark05:
7900GTX: 2.1x faster
7900GT: 1.9x faster
7800GT: 1.8x faster
7600GT: 1.8x faster
7600GS: 1.1x faster
6600GT: 0.9x faster
IMO this leads me to believe that MacPros will ship with 7600GS on the low-end, 7600GT on the mid and high end, with 7900GTX and Quadros as BTO options.
nVidia 7600 the magic number for shipping Mac Pros
One of them is watching movies/tv/etc some of which is obtained from the iTunes store and a much larger portion is obtained from "other means" This is becoming more and more common especially with things like Front Row, MythTV, etc... I have three firewire drives hooked up to my Mini and three internals in an old G4 running as a file server and I still need more space...
You have three firewire drives hooked to a Macmini, with multiple hard drives, so you can store movies and TV shows? Based on this Apple needs to have a Mac Pro with 6 or 7 drive bays so you can store more movies and TV shows?
I would like 6-10 bays like every PC case I can find anywhere, but I'm not expecting miracles!
Nah I don't see Apple putting 6-10 drive bays in the Mac Pro. For one the case would be huge. For two most people who need that many hard drives will use an external RAID.
Three drive bays and two optical bays are fair enough, Apple should at least put in that many.
Huge ugly DIY boxes may have 6 to 10 bays I don't see any home consumer OEM who offers this many. Dell's most expensive XPS has 3 drive bays. Boxx offers 10 bays as an option but Boxx is not a home consumer OEM.
In fact I would also like the option to have a 10 in one card reader in the main unit as well.
Card readers are more logical in laptops than desktops. Apple hasn't put them in the laptop, I wouldn't count on them in the desktop.