The limiting factor is more about OS X than it is about a low cost desktop. Even if Apple offered a low cost desktop it isn't likely to make a significant difference in market share unless that desktop shipped with Windows.
You've got it back to front. I'm sure that OS X appeals to more than 5% of the market, but the limited hardware is a turn-off. The barrier to adoption is not enough hardware choices, not OS X.
You've got it back to front. I'm sure that OS X appeals to more than 5% of the market, but the limited hardware is a turn-off. The barrier to adoption is not enough hardware choices, not OS X.
Very true. From my experience, nobody likes to use windows and would use OSX if available. Apple is in a weird position where they've priced/featured themselves out of reach for just about everyone I know. The ones I know who would be interested in the iMac really don't need or are willing to spend for a dual core CPU. The ones who are willing to pay the price point of the 20 and 24 inch iMacs are looking for a lot more expansion. With the exception of Mac users, usually the more a person is willing to pay the more hands on they want to be. When you have a basic family computer solely occupying the mid range and you have to upgrade to a professional workstation to have any kind of expansion beyond an army of firewire and USB devices occupying your desk, desktop sales aren't what they could be. For God's sake, they've moved things even more upscale than the last PowerPC computers.
Very true. From my experience, nobody likes to use windows and would use OSX if available.
Then as they say, your experience is limited. There are plenty of Windows fans...and in fact they still do have 90% of the market. OSX is not a killer app or the ratios would be reversed.
The odds are that OSX is niche and would remain niche even with $399 hardware. Thus far no one has bothered to address the poor desktop penetration of free unix desktops on commodity ($399) hardware. Yes, OSX is nicer but Ubuntu has many of the same advantages and isn't that horrible to use.
Quote:
With the exception of Mac users, usually the more a person is willing to pay the more hands on they want to be.
Yes the number aftermarket parts for lexus, mercedes and rolex addons are staggering. If you prefer electronics then the six figure home theater systems are typically built for folks who simply want it to work...not assembled by them to be tinkered with.
Quote:
For God's sake, they've moved things even more upscale than the last PowerPC computers.
Gee...and they seem to making more money than ever. I wonder if they planned that?
You guys keep avoiding the fact that for all the xMacs you propose, there is a cheaper iMac that has a smaller footprint and comes with a monitor. A customer comparing the $1699 xMac to the $1499 iMac is going to choose the iMac. They are going to scratch their heads wondering why the xMac costs more since it has no monitor and takes up more space. Even if you price the xMac $200 below the cheapest iMac, they are still going to buy the iMac since they get a 17-inch monitor for $200.
The computer world doesn't revolve around an attached display. But then again who needs things like a faster processor, more ram, better graphics, full size optical drives that are twice as fast or room for a second hard drive that allows you to use time machine when you you can have a redundant built in display that replaces the one you already have and shortens the life cycle of that computer.
You guys keep avoiding the fact that for all the xMacs you propose, there is a cheaper iMac that has a smaller footprint and comes with a monitor. A customer comparing the $1699 xMac to the $1499 iMac is going to choose the iMac. They are going to scratch their heads wondering why the xMac costs more since it has no monitor and takes up more space.
Not sure where you got that idea about proposed xMacs. A $1699 Mac mini tower would be in a different performance league than the iMac. I try not to use the term xMac because it means so many different things to different people. I envision two new desktops: a small Mac desktop in the price range $399 to $799, and a higher performance Mac mini tower in the range of about $799 to $1699. Of course the high end on either of these could go higher with more options.
Quote:
Even if you price the xMac $200 below the cheapest iMac, they are still going to buy the iMac since they get a 17-inch monitor for $200.
Depend on who the customer is. A current Mac user who likes iMacs will prefer an iMac. Current Windows users haven't really caught on to the AOI yet, and are looking for something else. Why try to sell them something they don't want? They won't buy it, and in fact, are not buying it -- much. Yet Windows users appear to love the Mac Book.
. . . There are plenty of Windows fans...and in fact they still do have 90% of the market. OSX is not a killer app or the ratios would be reversed.
True, many folks like Window and would buy nothing else. The other half are getting fed up with Windows. If you don't like 'half,' let's say 10 percent. That is still a lot of dissatisfied Windows users. OSX doesn't have to be a killer OS to attract the attention of dissatisfied Windows customers.
Quote:
The odds are that OSX is niche and would remain niche even with $399 hardware. Thus far no one has bothered to address the poor desktop penetration of free unix desktops on commodity ($399) hardware.
True, many folks like Window and would buy nothing else. The other half are getting fed up with Windows. If you don't like 'half,' let's say 10 percent. That is still a lot of dissatisfied Windows users. OSX doesn't have to be a killer OS to attract the attention of dissatisfied Windows customers.
10 percent of the current users perhaps. Of that 10% many likely can't move off the platform.
Quote:
Free Unix OS doesn't run MS Office.
Given how annoying Entourage can be once in a while arguably neither can you fully do so on OSX. I'm moving to parallels for that reason. That and no visio and project from MS on OSX.
Linux can do the same thing with Wine or CrossOver Office and VMs. CrossOver Office doesn't need XP. CrossOver for Mac doesn't seem to run as much.
At least according to Apple. 50% are new to the Mac. And seeing as Mac sales are up, who are we to argue.
I think this thread just highlights how rigid Apple's line up is for desktops.
Laptops all have the same form, so it scales from £800-£1700 just fine.
However, Apple doesn't have a tower that scales from £399-£2300. And it would seem more logical to have that. Why would a £399 tower from Apple do any less well than a £2300 tower? Given that R&D would be spread across one line?
It is the way it is. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. Or that my PC friend wants it as it is.
The desktop line isn't flexible enough for many of the customers it could attract from the PC side. Give them what they know with the Apple touch. But, guess what, they do have it. The Mac Pro. But it's priced waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of reach starting at £1695. Shakes head.
Even if they didn't have a tower starting at the ultra cheap £395, at least have one starting at £795 with a Conroe in it...scaling upto £1395 for the Extreme version.
Or just pump up the very nice looking Mac Mini into a cube shape? 10x10. Standard m/b, hd, desktop parts and...have it GPU upgradable around £795. I'd be all over it.
The iMac covers £695-£1395. It's trying to cover an area far too wide for it's limitations. It's a great machine. But it's sat right in the middle of the machine many people want. A machine that gives more flexibility to would be buyers who are used to that said flexibility. Whether they use it or not. And I'm a big iMac fan.
I'm sure that OS X appeals to more than 5% of the market, but the limited hardware is a turn-off. The barrier to adoption is not enough hardware choices, not OS X.
To make sure I understand what you are saying. There is a sizable number of people who like OS X better than Windows buy do not buy a Mac because of hardware choice.
One problem with the mind set on a tech savvy internet list is that people on the list think that everyone wants the newest fastest and best. In reality that is not necessarily true. I know lots of people who use old Macs. As long as the Mac does what they need they are perfectly happy.
Honestly I've never seen anyone out in reality exclaim that they would want to use OS X but cannot because of hardware choice. I would say in real life consumer market other considerations play more important roles in the decision to use OS X or Windows than hardware. I'm sure there are some people who do feel this way, but I believe this is such a small number of people that it has little effect on Apple.
To make sure I understand what you are saying. There is a sizable number of people who like OS X better than Windows buy do not buy a Mac because of hardware choice.
Oddly, I think there folks that purchased G5 Mac Pros to run Linux on rather than Dell boxes. Like...oh I dunno...Linus. That was a couple years ago so I dunno what he runs today.
I know lots of people who use old Macs. As long as the Mac does what they need they are perfectly happy.
I am one of them. I have three older Macs running Tiger, and these machines do what I need. I think several on this forum have said the same. I'd really like to buy a new desktop Mac, but Apple doesn't make what I want. For Mac users, buying on eBay seems to work okay.
Now, when I look at my PC using friends, I get an entirely different picture. Every one of them buys a brand new PC rather than upgrade the OS in their existing PC. Buying a used computer or upgrading their current hardware are things they never consider. I realize some do these things, but not nearly as much as in the Mac camp. Okay, this is just my observation, but it is uncanny how consistent it seems to be. Anyone else notice this?
So, what does this have to do with the topic? Apple's lack of a prosumer desktop and better value low cost desktop hurts Apple in two ways. Mac users are turning to eBay to buy, and Windows users who want a desktop are ignoring the Mac platform. Sure there are exceptions, but most Windows users appear to want and expect different desktop hardware.
Quote:
Honestly I've never seen anyone out in reality exclaim that they would want to use OS X but cannot because of hardware choice.
You really wouldn't really expect them to say it this way, would you?
Quote:
I would say in real life consumer market other considerations play more important roles in the decision to use OS X or Windows than hardware.
There's no doubt that you are correct. Yet, once someone gets the notion to try OS X, I believe hardware choice is the number one deciding factor for whether or not to do it. Laptop people are switching. I know several. I don't know any PC user who switched to a Mac desktop however.
Mac users are turning to eBay to buy, and Windows users who want a desktop are ignoring the Mac platform. Sure there are exceptions, but most Windows users appear to want and expect different desktop hardware.
I doubt folks buying macs off ebay annoys Apple at all. It still contributes to having a decently sized user base and keeping Mac hardware resell value higher.
With respect to Windows users wanting desktops most folks I see now have laptops. Even "prosumers" can use laptops as dekstop replacements.
Quote:
There's no doubt that you are correct. Yet, once someone gets the notion to try OS X, I believe hardware choice is the number one deciding factor for whether or not to do it.
No. The lack of software is likely the number 1 reason folks don't switch. The cost delta isn't THAT high outside the entry level market. The lack of certain software a user needs/wants is the entry barrier...whether it is a business app or games.
Quote:
Laptop people are switching. I know several. I don't know any PC user who switched to a Mac desktop however.
The number of folks that still need a desktop is dwindling. What can't you do with a merom based laptop?
Anything that requires a PCIe card and doesn't have an expresscard equivalent. But if you bought a Dell you can get a D/Dock Expansion Station with a half height PCI slot. And later this year the Asus XG Station will give you a single 1xPCIe slot for a GPU.
The number of folks that still need a desktop is dwindling. What can't you do with a merom based laptop?
I think this point gets overlooked quite a bit. Rigt now laptops are very close in performance to desktop machines. If your machine is a few years old, a dual core laptop, either Intel core 2 or AMD dual core Turion, will probably crush the desktop of a few years ago. If you are a buyer now why get a desktop?
Anything that requires a PCIe card and doesn't have an expresscard equivalent. But if you bought a Dell you can get a D/Dock Expansion Station with a half height PCI slot. And later this year the Asus XG Station will give you a single 1xPCIe slot for a GPU.
Vinea
I actually addressed this a few pages back...
Can't run dual monitors (built in display is too small for a work station, even the 17"), mobile graphics cards are quite weak for rendering, 2.5" hard drives aren't rated for hard work (8x5 a week as opposed to 16x7 a week), Parts wear out quicker when being worked hard because of heat.
As I said I addressed these earlier and don't want to rehash them out. I was addressing TenoBell and why desktops will ALWAYS be around, at least for the working person.
Why in the world would you want to put a GPU in a 1xPCIe slot? For an extra monitor? That would be so incredibly slow.
Can't run dual monitors (built in display is too small for a work station, even the 17"), mobile graphics cards are quite weak for rendering, 2.5" hard drives aren't rated for hard work (8x5 a week as opposed to 16x7 a week), Parts wear out quicker when being worked hard because of heat.
Well...I do run a 30" ACD off my MBP so I don't miss the dual 24" I used to have. An expresscard videocard will eventually be offered. Doesn't Belkin offer one? Dunno if it works on the MBP but they're selling it at MacMall and ClubMac. Targus has one as well. Again, likely without OSX drivers but presumably that will change over time.
As far as drives a NAS solves a lot of the issues when at the office and on the road...well its not like you'd have your desktop in a hotel room and with decent broadband and VPN you can at least see your larger work drives. Plus any local FW drives.
Quote:
As I said I addressed these earlier and don't want to rehash them out. I was addressing TenoBell and why desktops will ALWAYS be around, at least for the working person.
Why in the world would you want to put a GPU in a 1xPCIe slot? For an extra monitor? That would be so incredibly slow.
Because its faster than a GMA 950? Not applicable to MBPs but more than Apple makes laptops. And while I had a dual 24" rig (one DVI-D the other VGA) with an older Dell laptop, rest assured that the frame rates on the second monitor were bad. Good for Visual Studio. Bad for graphics. Whenever I saw my FPS in single digits I would remember that I stuck the application on the wrong screen.
The typical "working person" needs little more than VPN software, Explorer, Outlook, Word and Powerpoint.
Even many a "power user" can be satisfied on a laptop. DCC folks often do live on MBPs. Some software devs have moved to laptops (as long as dual displays work when docked).
A lot of folks can go mobile today better than they could even a couple years ago.
Oh I agree that a lot of folks can go mobile now days. I'm in the opposite boat however. I'm trying to get away from mobile and go desktop for my work. Besides dual 20" or dual 24" being cheaper than a 30", they also offer segmentation of the work area and more pixels. For me, dual lcds are a much better work environment than 1 big one.
I can't say how slow the intel GPU is, because I've never punished myself with one. But I would think that it would be faster than 1x. I could be wrong though. Can someone verify this?
Don't get me wrong about the hotel thing. I'd still take my computer on the road. But I just can't stand working on a laptop any more for a majority of my work.
"100%. No, So what?"
My original argument was I would have to look at a different vendor if apple completely dropped their desktop line. In no way can I stand to do a majority of my work on my laptop any more. I know many people in the same boat in my field. I was actually warned before I told these people I was moving to a laptop 100%. Now i'm crawling back. The good thing is... I got rid of my g5 before it dropped in price because of the switch.
Now, when I look at my PC using friends, I get an entirely different picture. Every one of them buys a brand new PC rather than upgrade the OS in their existing PC.
Do you actually feel jealous because they can purchase a $500 POS PC and you have no option to buy a $500 POS Mac?
Now its very true that Apple has a limited desktop line. But quite obviously that does not effect Apple's ability to make money.
Quote:
Mac users are turning to eBay to buy,
At this point a dual core 2.7GHz G5 can be had for around $1500. That's reasonable for a very capable machine.
Quote:
Can't run dual monitors (built in display is too small for a work station, even the 17"), mobile graphics cards are quite weak for rendering, 2.5" hard drives aren't rated for hard work (8x5 a week as opposed to 16x7 a week), Parts wear out quicker when being worked hard because of heat.
Yet laptops sales are exponentially outgrowing desktop sales.
Quote:
I was addressing TenoBell and why desktops will ALWAYS be around, at least for the working person.
I've never said desktops are going away. I'm only showing the clear evidence that sales are slowing and profit in desktops is shrinking.
Quote:
if apple completely dropped their desktop line
That won't happen too soon. Despite what people say the iMac and Mac Pro are very profitable.
The Mac Pro in one form or another will never disappear. Too many users will always need an upgradable/customizable pro system to suit an individuals, or workgroups needs. There are too many different configurations for Apple to have an all in one Pro Audio *iMac, a Pro Video *iMac, Science Professional *iMac, CAD *iMac, Pro Photographers *iMac, 3D professional *iMac., Animators *iMac, etc. etc... That's why they have customizable computers to begin with. Just because Apple has lost market-share in most of those areas over the past few years does not mean those users will not be back. Because they will, and the Mac Pro will always be there for those users.
There are also the users that just don't like iMacs, and laptops that prefer to sit at a full size workstation.
Comments
The limiting factor is more about OS X than it is about a low cost desktop. Even if Apple offered a low cost desktop it isn't likely to make a significant difference in market share unless that desktop shipped with Windows.
You've got it back to front. I'm sure that OS X appeals to more than 5% of the market, but the limited hardware is a turn-off. The barrier to adoption is not enough hardware choices, not OS X.
You've got it back to front. I'm sure that OS X appeals to more than 5% of the market, but the limited hardware is a turn-off. The barrier to adoption is not enough hardware choices, not OS X.
Very true. From my experience, nobody likes to use windows and would use OSX if available. Apple is in a weird position where they've priced/featured themselves out of reach for just about everyone I know. The ones I know who would be interested in the iMac really don't need or are willing to spend for a dual core CPU. The ones who are willing to pay the price point of the 20 and 24 inch iMacs are looking for a lot more expansion. With the exception of Mac users, usually the more a person is willing to pay the more hands on they want to be. When you have a basic family computer solely occupying the mid range and you have to upgrade to a professional workstation to have any kind of expansion beyond an army of firewire and USB devices occupying your desk, desktop sales aren't what they could be. For God's sake, they've moved things even more upscale than the last PowerPC computers.
Very true. From my experience, nobody likes to use windows and would use OSX if available.
Then as they say, your experience is limited. There are plenty of Windows fans...and in fact they still do have 90% of the market. OSX is not a killer app or the ratios would be reversed.
The odds are that OSX is niche and would remain niche even with $399 hardware. Thus far no one has bothered to address the poor desktop penetration of free unix desktops on commodity ($399) hardware. Yes, OSX is nicer but Ubuntu has many of the same advantages and isn't that horrible to use.
With the exception of Mac users, usually the more a person is willing to pay the more hands on they want to be.
Yes the number aftermarket parts for lexus, mercedes and rolex addons are staggering. If you prefer electronics then the six figure home theater systems are typically built for folks who simply want it to work...not assembled by them to be tinkered with.
For God's sake, they've moved things even more upscale than the last PowerPC computers.
Gee...and they seem to making more money than ever. I wonder if they planned that?
Vinea
You guys keep avoiding the fact that for all the xMacs you propose, there is a cheaper iMac that has a smaller footprint and comes with a monitor. A customer comparing the $1699 xMac to the $1499 iMac is going to choose the iMac. They are going to scratch their heads wondering why the xMac costs more since it has no monitor and takes up more space.
Not sure where you got that idea about proposed xMacs. A $1699 Mac mini tower would be in a different performance league than the iMac. I try not to use the term xMac because it means so many different things to different people. I envision two new desktops: a small Mac desktop in the price range $399 to $799, and a higher performance Mac mini tower in the range of about $799 to $1699. Of course the high end on either of these could go higher with more options.
Even if you price the xMac $200 below the cheapest iMac, they are still going to buy the iMac since they get a 17-inch monitor for $200.
Depend on who the customer is. A current Mac user who likes iMacs will prefer an iMac. Current Windows users haven't really caught on to the AOI yet, and are looking for something else. Why try to sell them something they don't want? They won't buy it, and in fact, are not buying it -- much. Yet Windows users appear to love the Mac Book.
. . . There are plenty of Windows fans...and in fact they still do have 90% of the market. OSX is not a killer app or the ratios would be reversed.
True, many folks like Window and would buy nothing else. The other half are getting fed up with Windows. If you don't like 'half,' let's say 10 percent. That is still a lot of dissatisfied Windows users. OSX doesn't have to be a killer OS to attract the attention of dissatisfied Windows customers.
The odds are that OSX is niche and would remain niche even with $399 hardware. Thus far no one has bothered to address the poor desktop penetration of free unix desktops on commodity ($399) hardware.
Free Unix OS doesn't run MS Office.
True, many folks like Window and would buy nothing else. The other half are getting fed up with Windows. If you don't like 'half,' let's say 10 percent. That is still a lot of dissatisfied Windows users. OSX doesn't have to be a killer OS to attract the attention of dissatisfied Windows customers.
10 percent of the current users perhaps. Of that 10% many likely can't move off the platform.
Free Unix OS doesn't run MS Office.
Given how annoying Entourage can be once in a while arguably neither can you fully do so on OSX. I'm moving to parallels for that reason. That and no visio and project from MS on OSX.
Linux can do the same thing with Wine or CrossOver Office and VMs. CrossOver Office doesn't need XP. CrossOver for Mac doesn't seem to run as much.
Vinea
At least according to Apple. 50% are new to the Mac. And seeing as Mac sales are up, who are we to argue.
I think this thread just highlights how rigid Apple's line up is for desktops.
Laptops all have the same form, so it scales from £800-£1700 just fine.
However, Apple doesn't have a tower that scales from £399-£2300. And it would seem more logical to have that. Why would a £399 tower from Apple do any less well than a £2300 tower? Given that R&D would be spread across one line?
It is the way it is. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. Or that my PC friend wants it as it is.
The desktop line isn't flexible enough for many of the customers it could attract from the PC side. Give them what they know with the Apple touch. But, guess what, they do have it. The Mac Pro. But it's priced waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of reach starting at £1695. Shakes head.
Even if they didn't have a tower starting at the ultra cheap £395, at least have one starting at £795 with a Conroe in it...scaling upto £1395 for the Extreme version.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The iMac covers £695-£1395. It's trying to cover an area far too wide for it's limitations. It's a great machine. But it's sat right in the middle of the machine many people want. A machine that gives more flexibility to would be buyers who are used to that said flexibility. Whether they use it or not. And I'm a big iMac fan.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I'm sure that OS X appeals to more than 5% of the market, but the limited hardware is a turn-off. The barrier to adoption is not enough hardware choices, not OS X.
To make sure I understand what you are saying. There is a sizable number of people who like OS X better than Windows buy do not buy a Mac because of hardware choice.
One problem with the mind set on a tech savvy internet list is that people on the list think that everyone wants the newest fastest and best. In reality that is not necessarily true. I know lots of people who use old Macs. As long as the Mac does what they need they are perfectly happy.
Honestly I've never seen anyone out in reality exclaim that they would want to use OS X but cannot because of hardware choice. I would say in real life consumer market other considerations play more important roles in the decision to use OS X or Windows than hardware. I'm sure there are some people who do feel this way, but I believe this is such a small number of people that it has little effect on Apple.
To make sure I understand what you are saying. There is a sizable number of people who like OS X better than Windows buy do not buy a Mac because of hardware choice.
Oddly, I think there folks that purchased G5 Mac Pros to run Linux on rather than Dell boxes. Like...oh I dunno...Linus. That was a couple years ago so I dunno what he runs today.
Vinea
I know lots of people who use old Macs. As long as the Mac does what they need they are perfectly happy.
I am one of them. I have three older Macs running Tiger, and these machines do what I need. I think several on this forum have said the same. I'd really like to buy a new desktop Mac, but Apple doesn't make what I want. For Mac users, buying on eBay seems to work okay.
Now, when I look at my PC using friends, I get an entirely different picture. Every one of them buys a brand new PC rather than upgrade the OS in their existing PC. Buying a used computer or upgrading their current hardware are things they never consider. I realize some do these things, but not nearly as much as in the Mac camp. Okay, this is just my observation, but it is uncanny how consistent it seems to be. Anyone else notice this?
So, what does this have to do with the topic? Apple's lack of a prosumer desktop and better value low cost desktop hurts Apple in two ways. Mac users are turning to eBay to buy, and Windows users who want a desktop are ignoring the Mac platform. Sure there are exceptions, but most Windows users appear to want and expect different desktop hardware.
Honestly I've never seen anyone out in reality exclaim that they would want to use OS X but cannot because of hardware choice.
You really wouldn't really expect them to say it this way, would you?
I would say in real life consumer market other considerations play more important roles in the decision to use OS X or Windows than hardware.
There's no doubt that you are correct. Yet, once someone gets the notion to try OS X, I believe hardware choice is the number one deciding factor for whether or not to do it. Laptop people are switching. I know several. I don't know any PC user who switched to a Mac desktop however.
Mac users are turning to eBay to buy, and Windows users who want a desktop are ignoring the Mac platform. Sure there are exceptions, but most Windows users appear to want and expect different desktop hardware.
I doubt folks buying macs off ebay annoys Apple at all. It still contributes to having a decently sized user base and keeping Mac hardware resell value higher.
With respect to Windows users wanting desktops most folks I see now have laptops. Even "prosumers" can use laptops as dekstop replacements.
There's no doubt that you are correct. Yet, once someone gets the notion to try OS X, I believe hardware choice is the number one deciding factor for whether or not to do it.
No. The lack of software is likely the number 1 reason folks don't switch. The cost delta isn't THAT high outside the entry level market. The lack of certain software a user needs/wants is the entry barrier...whether it is a business app or games.
Laptop people are switching. I know several. I don't know any PC user who switched to a Mac desktop however.
The number of folks that still need a desktop is dwindling. What can't you do with a merom based laptop?
Anything that requires a PCIe card and doesn't have an expresscard equivalent. But if you bought a Dell you can get a D/Dock Expansion Station with a half height PCI slot. And later this year the Asus XG Station will give you a single 1xPCIe slot for a GPU.
Vinea
The number of folks that still need a desktop is dwindling. What can't you do with a merom based laptop?
I think this point gets overlooked quite a bit. Rigt now laptops are very close in performance to desktop machines. If your machine is a few years old, a dual core laptop, either Intel core 2 or AMD dual core Turion, will probably crush the desktop of a few years ago. If you are a buyer now why get a desktop?
Anything that requires a PCIe card and doesn't have an expresscard equivalent. But if you bought a Dell you can get a D/Dock Expansion Station with a half height PCI slot. And later this year the Asus XG Station will give you a single 1xPCIe slot for a GPU.
Vinea
I actually addressed this a few pages back...
Can't run dual monitors (built in display is too small for a work station, even the 17"), mobile graphics cards are quite weak for rendering, 2.5" hard drives aren't rated for hard work (8x5 a week as opposed to 16x7 a week), Parts wear out quicker when being worked hard because of heat.
As I said I addressed these earlier and don't want to rehash them out. I was addressing TenoBell and why desktops will ALWAYS be around, at least for the working person.
Why in the world would you want to put a GPU in a 1xPCIe slot? For an extra monitor? That would be so incredibly slow.
I actually addressed this a few pages back...
Can't run dual monitors (built in display is too small for a work station, even the 17"), mobile graphics cards are quite weak for rendering, 2.5" hard drives aren't rated for hard work (8x5 a week as opposed to 16x7 a week), Parts wear out quicker when being worked hard because of heat.
Well...I do run a 30" ACD off my MBP so I don't miss the dual 24" I used to have. An expresscard videocard will eventually be offered. Doesn't Belkin offer one? Dunno if it works on the MBP but they're selling it at MacMall and ClubMac. Targus has one as well. Again, likely without OSX drivers but presumably that will change over time.
As far as drives a NAS solves a lot of the issues when at the office and on the road...well its not like you'd have your desktop in a hotel room and with decent broadband and VPN you can at least see your larger work drives. Plus any local FW drives.
As I said I addressed these earlier and don't want to rehash them out. I was addressing TenoBell and why desktops will ALWAYS be around, at least for the working person.
Why in the world would you want to put a GPU in a 1xPCIe slot? For an extra monitor? That would be so incredibly slow.
Because its faster than a GMA 950? Not applicable to MBPs but more than Apple makes laptops. And while I had a dual 24" rig (one DVI-D the other VGA) with an older Dell laptop, rest assured that the frame rates on the second monitor were bad. Good for Visual Studio. Bad for graphics. Whenever I saw my FPS in single digits I would remember that I stuck the application on the wrong screen.
The typical "working person" needs little more than VPN software, Explorer, Outlook, Word and Powerpoint.
Even many a "power user" can be satisfied on a laptop. DCC folks often do live on MBPs. Some software devs have moved to laptops (as long as dual displays work when docked).
A lot of folks can go mobile today better than they could even a couple years ago.
100%? No. So what?
Vinea
I can't say how slow the intel GPU is, because I've never punished myself with one. But I would think that it would be faster than 1x. I could be wrong though. Can someone verify this?
Don't get me wrong about the hotel thing. I'd still take my computer on the road. But I just can't stand working on a laptop any more for a majority of my work.
"100%. No, So what?"
My original argument was I would have to look at a different vendor if apple completely dropped their desktop line. In no way can I stand to do a majority of my work on my laptop any more. I know many people in the same boat in my field. I was actually warned before I told these people I was moving to a laptop 100%. Now i'm crawling back. The good thing is... I got rid of my g5 before it dropped in price because of the switch.
Now, when I look at my PC using friends, I get an entirely different picture. Every one of them buys a brand new PC rather than upgrade the OS in their existing PC.
Do you actually feel jealous because they can purchase a $500 POS PC and you have no option to buy a $500 POS Mac?
Now its very true that Apple has a limited desktop line. But quite obviously that does not effect Apple's ability to make money.
Mac users are turning to eBay to buy,
At this point a dual core 2.7GHz G5 can be had for around $1500. That's reasonable for a very capable machine.
Can't run dual monitors (built in display is too small for a work station, even the 17"), mobile graphics cards are quite weak for rendering, 2.5" hard drives aren't rated for hard work (8x5 a week as opposed to 16x7 a week), Parts wear out quicker when being worked hard because of heat.
Yet laptops sales are exponentially outgrowing desktop sales.
I was addressing TenoBell and why desktops will ALWAYS be around, at least for the working person.
I've never said desktops are going away. I'm only showing the clear evidence that sales are slowing and profit in desktops is shrinking.
if apple completely dropped their desktop line
That won't happen too soon. Despite what people say the iMac and Mac Pro are very profitable.
There are also the users that just don't like iMacs, and laptops that prefer to sit at a full size workstation.
**can also substitute laptop.