All they would need to do is bring back The Cube with Conroe. That was a great computer.
For the 3 or 4 people who actually bought one. A new cube would fail for exactly the same reasons the old one did. Plus, because of form factor, you could not use one in a set top environment.
????!?!!?? Maybe I live under a rock, but are you nuts? Integrated graphics are the worst thing to happen to computers since windows! That's probably the number 2 way to minimize the longevity of a computer system, with number 1 being to not allow the owner to upgrade the RAM. YUCK! I hate toasters! well, sometimes...
Integrated graphics are the worst thing to happen to computers since windows! That's probably the number 2 way to minimize the longevity of a computer system,
If that were true then why is 80% of the PC market using IG?
As far as longevity its not like computer manufacturers really want you to use a computer for 10 years. The onus is on software developers to continue to support older machines. I still have a 7 year old iMac with a 12MB GPU that runs Tiger. Of course it cannot run all of Tigers candy but it works.
If that were true then why is 80% of the PC market using IG?
As far as longevity its not like computer manufacturers really want you to use a computer for 10 years. The onus is on software developers to continue to support older machines. I still have a 7 year old iMac with a 12MB GPU that runs Tiger. Of course it cannot run all of Tigers candy but it works.
Most of those pcs have PCI, AGP or PCIe slots. So lets modify my previous:
IG without further expandability are the bla bla bla...
Xeon requires the expensive 5000x motherboard and FB-DIMMs. While such a computer would be pretty comparable to its Conroe brethren, it'd be close to $500 more expensive.
That is precisely why my next sentence read, " I don't think they would sell many. A Mac mini tower is just a much better solution for the majority."
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
80% of the PC market gets along with integrated graphics fine. No matter which dedicated card Apple put in it gamers will complain that their is a better one.
My objection to integrated graphics on a mid to high end consumer model is that customers must pay for something they do not use in many or most cases. Why not give the customers a wide choice of price and performance in graphics cards and omit the integrated graphics? It allows a computer to compete better with a slightly lower price.
I think integrated graphics comes on standard Intel motherboards, so manufacturers using these boards and customers buying their products have no choice. They get integrated graphics whether they want it or not. It's a waste. Intel sees it as selling more chips.
On a lower cost, more of an entry level computer, integrated graphics are fine. Such computers are purchased for doing email and internet browsing or general office work. Integrated graphics, with no PCI slots on board, keeps the cost down. Yet even business will often pass up these low cost solutions and get something like a mini tower with PCI slots.
My objection to integrated graphics on a mid to high end consumer model is that customers must pay for something they do not use in many or most cases. Why not give the customers a wide choice of price and performance in graphics cards and omit the integrated graphics? It allows a computer to compete better with a slightly lower price.
I thought I'd read on here that the integrated graphics cost about $4, so the price couldn't lower much by omitting it. Plus, like you said, is there even any way to omit the integrated graphics? I thought that even Apple's machines that use dedicated graphics have IG on the motherboard, it just doesn't get used. My guess is that buying a custom motherboard from Intel that didn't include the IG would have lower economies of scale which would negate the small cost savings anyway.
Myself, I don't care if the base config uses integrated graphics, as long as it's possible to put a real graphics card in there via a PCI-E slot. Actually, there should be at least two slots - one for a graphics card and another for further expansion.
ok, that's partial support, although the original claim is unsubstantiated (just cause a thousand people repeat the same rumor doesn't make it true), but lets assume that it is for now.
What about the claim that most people never use the video upgrade options available to them?
A quick stroll through Circuit City or Best Buy make me feel otherwise.
*edit* and by integrated video, are we excluding ati and nvidia mobile versions soldered to the main board, or are those included?
I thought I'd read on here that the integrated graphics cost about $4, so the price couldn't lower much by omitting it.
Well, I'd be interested in finding out more, if someone really has the answers. I don't believe the $4 figure. I suspect that $4 is for the added cabling and VGA connector, both labor and parts. The graphics chip set was considered to be free, because the Intel boards come that way, to many or most PC vendors. My guess.
Quote:
Plus, like you said, is there even any way to omit the integrated graphics? . . . My guess is that buying a custom motherboard from Intel that didn't include the IG would have lower economies of scale which would negate the small cost savings anyway.
Here again I'd like to know the facts. I seriously doubt Apple uses any Intel motherboards. I'm almost sure of that since Apple motherboards boot up OS X and Intel boards do not. So, that being the case, there is no reason for Apple to design a motherboard and put an integrated graphics chip set on it, unless it is something like the Mac Mini.
Also, Intel boards have both PCI and PCI-e slots. Apple chose to go with PCI-e only. So Apple saves the cost of a bridge chip, PCI-e to PCI. By leaving out unwanted items, Apple shaves a little off the board cost.
I'll just add that possibly the iMac has something like an ATI graphics chips set integrated on the motherboard, rather than a graphics card. I'm showing my lack of knowledge here.
What about the claim that most people never use the video upgrade options available to them?
Jow Blow is looking for the cheapest computer possible. What value does this person see in spending another $150 - $200 on a better graphics card? If Joe Blow even knows what a graphics card is.
A business is buying 500 computers for a new office. These computers will spend their entire life word processing, spread sheets, and number crunching, what value does this company find in spending more money on graphics cards?
Jow Blow is looking for the cheapest computer possible. What value does this person see in spending another $150 - $200 on a better graphics card? If Joe Blow even knows what a graphics card is.
A business is buying 500 computers for a new office. These computers will spend their entire life word processing, spread sheets, and number crunching, what value does this company find in spending more money on graphics cards?
No go. I asked for evidence not reasoning. Reasoning can easily be countered and we'd just start going around and around in circles arguing that the other person is wrong. So rather than that, lets see some quotes or statistics.
I would tend to argue the oposite that most people generally WANT and use expandability. However, I have no more evidence for this than you have presented for your claim, and it really is nothing more than a projection of my own bias onto others... in other words, it is assuming that everyone else, or at least the majority, thinks just as I do.
Also both examples used in the reasoning you just posted make several insubstantiated assumptions, such as that the majority of computers bought for business are neither used nor intended for any kind of graphics duty, or that the majority of consumers are only interested in the cheapest computer possible and don't care about graphics ability, now or in the future.
We must both remember that our own 'comon sense' is no more than an acumulation of patters we have observed which apply to OUR OWN lives, and that in that respect, comon sense isn't comon. In other words, I'm not god, and everybody doesn't have to think like me (even though I sometimes wish they'd try).
Well that article from Ars is relevant because figures from the VP of Epic Games and Matrox state the far majority of the PC market use computers with integrated graphics. Both of those companies are invested in people using dedicated graphic cards.
If their numbers are not good enough, there isn't much more for me to say.
Well that article from Ars is relevant because figures from the VP of Epic Games and Matrox state the far majority of the PC market use computers with integrated graphics. Both of those companies are invested in people using dedicated graphic cards.
If their numbers are not good enough, there isn't much more for me to say.
Their numbers are irrelevant because they don't apply to whether or not people are upgrading. If we assume that they are correct, all they indicate is that the motherboards on the majority of computers have integrated graphics, not that the majortiy of computers also lack a dedicated graphics card, or that people are not upgrading.
As the article says though, they don't know where epic etc. got those numbers from, so they are still unproven. In light of those companies' vested interest in the industry though, I think it is safe, at least for right now, to pretend that they are correct.
I am a PC user who really needs to upgrade his ancient P4 desktop. I'd love to get a Conroe tower so I could still run my legacy Windows apps and files while making the migration to OS X. The MP may be a great value, but it's still a bit overkill for what I need and is out of my price range. I don't want an AIO. I need PCIe (PCI would be nice, but I'm not counting on it) for pro audio expansion cards and room for additional internal HDs. Plus I'd rather keep the monitor separate from the computer. FW800 might come in handy too.
I think a $1500 Conroe tower is pretty feasible. The lowest base MP price is $2150. Do a little cost cutting like such: (numbers are rough estimates of savings at consumer level)
1) Take away the extra CPU ($300-400),
2) Replace the FB RAM with plain ole DDR2 ($75-100)
3) Design a less elaborate smaller case. The MP case was designed for the extreme cooling requirements of the G5. ($50)
4) use a non-server Mobo. Dual socket, dual ethernet mobos are 2 to 3 times as expensive. ($250-350)
5) lower end base video card. 128 meg card should be plenty. Not all of us play games or do 3D scientific modelling. ($75)
6) 8x superdrive instead of 16x ($50)
Proposed base specs for $1500 tower :
2.13 Ghz Conroe
1 gig DDR2
160 Gig SATA HD
128 meg video card
3 PCIe slots
8x superdrive
Such a tower could arguable be more profitable than a MP for Apple and could really make Michael Dell lose serious sleep at night!
Such a tower could arguable be more profitable than a MP for Apple and could really make Michael Dell lose serious sleep at night!
Agree. It looks like it could fit into the $1000 to $2400 range that has been discussed here, buy choosing different configurations. I hope you can get it from Apple someday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rageous
In theory, of course. In practice it's probably not, or they'd already have a similar offering.
Not necessarily. I believe Apple would transition all current models to Intel first, before introducing new models. The transition is complete, so now we can wait to see what new models will be offered. I would not be surprised to see a mini tower by MWSF, but also not surprised if I don't see it.
Comments
All they would need to do is bring back The Cube with Conroe. That was a great computer.
For the 3 or 4 people who actually bought one. A new cube would fail for exactly the same reasons the old one did. Plus, because of form factor, you could not use one in a set top environment.
????!?!!?? Maybe I live under a rock, but are you nuts? Integrated graphics are the worst thing to happen to computers since windows! That's probably the number 2 way to minimize the longevity of a computer system, with number 1 being to not allow the owner to upgrade the RAM. YUCK! I hate toasters! well, sometimes...
Or I could have my head up my butt.
Both features of the mini.
Integrated graphics are the worst thing to happen to computers since windows! That's probably the number 2 way to minimize the longevity of a computer system,
If that were true then why is 80% of the PC market using IG?
As far as longevity its not like computer manufacturers really want you to use a computer for 10 years. The onus is on software developers to continue to support older machines. I still have a 7 year old iMac with a 12MB GPU that runs Tiger. Of course it cannot run all of Tigers candy but it works.
If that were true then why is 80% of the PC market using IG?
As far as longevity its not like computer manufacturers really want you to use a computer for 10 years. The onus is on software developers to continue to support older machines. I still have a 7 year old iMac with a 12MB GPU that runs Tiger. Of course it cannot run all of Tigers candy but it works.
Most of those pcs have PCI, AGP or PCIe slots. So lets modify my previous:
IG without further expandability are the bla bla bla...
Xeon requires the expensive 5000x motherboard and FB-DIMMs. While such a computer would be pretty comparable to its Conroe brethren, it'd be close to $500 more expensive.
That is precisely why my next sentence read, " I don't think they would sell many. A Mac mini tower is just a much better solution for the majority."
80% of the PC market gets along with integrated graphics fine. No matter which dedicated card Apple put in it gamers will complain that their is a better one.
My objection to integrated graphics on a mid to high end consumer model is that customers must pay for something they do not use in many or most cases. Why not give the customers a wide choice of price and performance in graphics cards and omit the integrated graphics? It allows a computer to compete better with a slightly lower price.
I think integrated graphics comes on standard Intel motherboards, so manufacturers using these boards and customers buying their products have no choice. They get integrated graphics whether they want it or not. It's a waste. Intel sees it as selling more chips.
On a lower cost, more of an entry level computer, integrated graphics are fine. Such computers are purchased for doing email and internet browsing or general office work. Integrated graphics, with no PCI slots on board, keeps the cost down. Yet even business will often pass up these low cost solutions and get something like a mini tower with PCI slots.
My objection to integrated graphics on a mid to high end consumer model is that customers must pay for something they do not use in many or most cases. Why not give the customers a wide choice of price and performance in graphics cards and omit the integrated graphics? It allows a computer to compete better with a slightly lower price.
I thought I'd read on here that the integrated graphics cost about $4, so the price couldn't lower much by omitting it. Plus, like you said, is there even any way to omit the integrated graphics? I thought that even Apple's machines that use dedicated graphics have IG on the motherboard, it just doesn't get used. My guess is that buying a custom motherboard from Intel that didn't include the IG would have lower economies of scale which would negate the small cost savings anyway.
Myself, I don't care if the base config uses integrated graphics, as long as it's possible to put a real graphics card in there via a PCI-E slot. Actually, there should be at least two slots - one for a graphics card and another for further expansion.
For the 3 or 4 people who actually bought one. A new cube would fail for exactly the same reasons the old one did.
The Cube failed primarily because of price.
The design was widely praised.
So far designing a computer around being a set top box has not been a big selling feature.
Most of those pcs have PCI, AGP or PCIe slots. So lets modify my previous:
IG without further expandability are the bla bla bla...
True enough but this is an option that mostly goes unused.
Which brings us back to integrated graphics are used by 80% of the PC market.
True enough but this is an option that mostly goes unused.
Which brings us back to integrated graphics are used by 80% of the PC market.
ok, back to the previous statement: Maybe I'm living under a rock, BUT ARE YOU NUTS?!?
In other words: Please provide evidence to back up this claim. It seems increadible.
more than 300 million of the 550 million PCs sold between 2003 and 2005 feature integrated video.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060712-7247.html
Keep in mind that the laptop market is growing faster than the desktop market
more than 300 million of the 550 million PCs sold between 2003 and 2005 feature integrated video.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060712-7247.html
ok, that's partial support, although the original claim is unsubstantiated (just cause a thousand people repeat the same rumor doesn't make it true), but lets assume that it is for now.
What about the claim that most people never use the video upgrade options available to them?
A quick stroll through Circuit City or Best Buy make me feel otherwise.
*edit* and by integrated video, are we excluding ati and nvidia mobile versions soldered to the main board, or are those included?
I thought I'd read on here that the integrated graphics cost about $4, so the price couldn't lower much by omitting it.
Well, I'd be interested in finding out more, if someone really has the answers. I don't believe the $4 figure. I suspect that $4 is for the added cabling and VGA connector, both labor and parts. The graphics chip set was considered to be free, because the Intel boards come that way, to many or most PC vendors. My guess.
Plus, like you said, is there even any way to omit the integrated graphics? . . . My guess is that buying a custom motherboard from Intel that didn't include the IG would have lower economies of scale which would negate the small cost savings anyway.
Here again I'd like to know the facts. I seriously doubt Apple uses any Intel motherboards. I'm almost sure of that since Apple motherboards boot up OS X and Intel boards do not. So, that being the case, there is no reason for Apple to design a motherboard and put an integrated graphics chip set on it, unless it is something like the Mac Mini.
Also, Intel boards have both PCI and PCI-e slots. Apple chose to go with PCI-e only. So Apple saves the cost of a bridge chip, PCI-e to PCI. By leaving out unwanted items, Apple shaves a little off the board cost.
What about the claim that most people never use the video upgrade options available to them?
Jow Blow is looking for the cheapest computer possible. What value does this person see in spending another $150 - $200 on a better graphics card? If Joe Blow even knows what a graphics card is.
A business is buying 500 computers for a new office. These computers will spend their entire life word processing, spread sheets, and number crunching, what value does this company find in spending more money on graphics cards?
Jow Blow is looking for the cheapest computer possible. What value does this person see in spending another $150 - $200 on a better graphics card? If Joe Blow even knows what a graphics card is.
A business is buying 500 computers for a new office. These computers will spend their entire life word processing, spread sheets, and number crunching, what value does this company find in spending more money on graphics cards?
No go. I asked for evidence not reasoning. Reasoning can easily be countered and we'd just start going around and around in circles arguing that the other person is wrong. So rather than that, lets see some quotes or statistics.
I would tend to argue the oposite that most people generally WANT and use expandability. However, I have no more evidence for this than you have presented for your claim, and it really is nothing more than a projection of my own bias onto others... in other words, it is assuming that everyone else, or at least the majority, thinks just as I do.
Also both examples used in the reasoning you just posted make several insubstantiated assumptions, such as that the majority of computers bought for business are neither used nor intended for any kind of graphics duty, or that the majority of consumers are only interested in the cheapest computer possible and don't care about graphics ability, now or in the future.
We must both remember that our own 'comon sense' is no more than an acumulation of patters we have observed which apply to OUR OWN lives, and that in that respect, comon sense isn't comon. In other words, I'm not god, and everybody doesn't have to think like me (even though I sometimes wish they'd try).
If their numbers are not good enough, there isn't much more for me to say.
Well that article from Ars is relevant because figures from the VP of Epic Games and Matrox state the far majority of the PC market use computers with integrated graphics. Both of those companies are invested in people using dedicated graphic cards.
If their numbers are not good enough, there isn't much more for me to say.
Their numbers are irrelevant because they don't apply to whether or not people are upgrading. If we assume that they are correct, all they indicate is that the motherboards on the majority of computers have integrated graphics, not that the majortiy of computers also lack a dedicated graphics card, or that people are not upgrading.
As the article says though, they don't know where epic etc. got those numbers from, so they are still unproven. In light of those companies' vested interest in the industry though, I think it is safe, at least for right now, to pretend that they are correct.
So go scrape up some numbers on upgrading.
I think a $1500 Conroe tower is pretty feasible. The lowest base MP price is $2150. Do a little cost cutting like such: (numbers are rough estimates of savings at consumer level)
1) Take away the extra CPU ($300-400),
2) Replace the FB RAM with plain ole DDR2 ($75-100)
3) Design a less elaborate smaller case. The MP case was designed for the extreme cooling requirements of the G5. ($50)
4) use a non-server Mobo. Dual socket, dual ethernet mobos are 2 to 3 times as expensive. ($250-350)
5) lower end base video card. 128 meg card should be plenty. Not all of us play games or do 3D scientific modelling. ($75)
6) 8x superdrive instead of 16x ($50)
Proposed base specs for $1500 tower :
2.13 Ghz Conroe
1 gig DDR2
160 Gig SATA HD
128 meg video card
3 PCIe slots
8x superdrive
Such a tower could arguable be more profitable than a MP for Apple and could really make Michael Dell lose serious sleep at night!
Such a tower could arguable be more profitable than a MP for Apple and could really make Michael Dell lose serious sleep at night!
In theory, of course. In practice it's probably not, or they'd already have a similar offering.
Proposed base specs for $1500 tower :
2.13 Ghz Conroe
1 gig DDR2
160 Gig SATA HD
128 meg video card
3 PCIe slots
8x superdrive
Such a tower could arguable be more profitable than a MP for Apple and could really make Michael Dell lose serious sleep at night!
Agree. It looks like it could fit into the $1000 to $2400 range that has been discussed here, buy choosing different configurations. I hope you can get it from Apple someday.
In theory, of course. In practice it's probably not, or they'd already have a similar offering.
Not necessarily. I believe Apple would transition all current models to Intel first, before introducing new models. The transition is complete, so now we can wait to see what new models will be offered. I would not be surprised to see a mini tower by MWSF, but also not surprised if I don't see it.