With respect to Windows users wanting desktops most folks I see now have laptops.
No doubt; laptops are very popular, but I referred to "Windows users who want a desktop." Believe it or not, a fair number of us still want a desktop.
Quote:
No. The lack of software is likely the number 1 reason folks don't switch.
I could agree with that statement too. It depends upon where they are in the decision making process. I was thinking of those who are ready "to try OS X." It is down to which Mac to buy. Lack of acceptable hardware can put an end to the process as fast as a price that's too high. Since Mac prices are fairly competitive today, it is more likely to be poor choices of hardware.
Quote:
The number of folks that still need a desktop is dwindling.
Okay. The number who want a desktop is dwindling, true. I see this as a readjustment in the market because more people are discovering the advantages and flexibility of the laptop. Desktop sales will pick up once the new installed base ratio is reached. Here is what I mean. It is only a theory and I don't claim it to be fact.
Say the old ratio was 75 desktops and 25 laptops for every 100 computers in use. Now people are seeing the advantage of having a laptop too and they are buying them, at the expense of desktop sales.
Now let's also say the new equilibrium will be 50 desktops and 50 laptops for every 100. Until that ratio is reached in the installed base, laptop sales will soar and desktop sales will wane.
To rephrase it: During a transition the sales are temporarily more lopsided than they will be once equilibrium is finally reached.
No doubt; laptops are very popular, but I referred to "Windows users who want a desktop." Believe it or not, a fair number of us still want a desktop.
I could agree with that statement too. It depends upon where they are in the decision making process. I was thinking of those who are ready "to try OS X." It is down to which Mac to buy. Lack of acceptable hardware can put an end to the process as fast as a price that's too high. Since Mac prices are fairly competitive today, it is more likely to be poor choices of hardware.
Okay. The number who want a desktop is dwindling, true. I see this as a readjustment in the market because more people are discovering the advantages and flexibility of the laptop. Desktop sales will pick up once the new installed base ratio is reached. Here is what I mean. It is only a theory and I don't claim it to be fact.
Say the old ratio was 75 desktops and 25 laptops for every 100 computers in use. Now people are seeing the advantage of having a laptop too and they are buying them, at the expense of desktop sales.
Now let's also say the new equilibrium will be 50 desktops and 50 laptops for every 100. Until that ratio is reached in the installed base, laptop sales will soar and desktop sales will wane.
To rephrase it: During a transition the sales are temporarily more lopsided than they will be once equilibrium is finally reached.
You are so diluted.
Quote:
Desktop sales were off only 3% for the year ending Sept. 30.
"The decrease in sales of the company's professional" oriented desktop products was a primary reason for the decline in Macintosh desktop sales," Apple's second-quarter 10-Q report stated. "The company believes the decline in the company's professional-oriented desktop products was due to customers delaying purchases of such products in anticipation of the release of Intel-based professional systems and updated software applications capable of running on Intel-based Macintosh computers."
I think that is a better explanation.
Can you say Photoshop, Painter, Maya, and so on.
Another good explanation is that the Laptops were updated a lot more recently than the Mac Pro. People who wanted a Mac Pro already got one last August, and as I recall desktop sales were awesome when they finally came out with the intel Mac Pro. Another great reason laptop sales are stronger now, and usually are, is that the Pro desktop is more expensive. Not as many can afford them, but that does not mean there are not a huge number of iMac, MacBook, and MacBook Pro users that wouldn't rather have a Mac Pro.
Just because some clown says laptop sales are growing because people dislike desktops does not mean it's gospel. All it means is the guy has job writing, and he needs to feed his face.
Not every old PowerMac user wants a dual xeon setup. Not all of them have gotten the Machine they wanted, only the ones on the high end.
Maybe not, but Apple has not changed the pricing, or anything from what the powermac used to be since they switched to intel. If your saying they have not come out with this mid range Mac thing again that has little to do with what we are discussing, but it would contribute to more desktop sales probably. Needless to say that is a non existing pre intel Mac.
Not every old PowerMac user wants a dual xeon setup. Not all of them have gotten the Machine they wanted, only the ones on the high end.
What is it about Woodcrest that you hate soooo much? They design for stability over ultimate performance but the performance isn't bad. The price point is in line with the G5 lines with the exception of a $1600 machine. Which used to be a crippled G5 box. An uncrippled single CPU 2.66Ghz woodcrest would be an improvement if they offered one.
Maybe not, but Apple has not changed the pricing, or anything from what the powermac used to be since they switched to intel. If your saying they have not come out with this mid range Mac thing again that has little to do with what we are discussing, but it would contribute to more desktop sales probably. Needless to say that is a non existing pre intel Mac.
What is it about Woodcrest that you hate soooo much? They design for stability over ultimate performance but the performance isn't bad. The price point is in line with the G5 lines with the exception of a $1600 machine. Which used to be a crippled G5 box. An uncrippled single CPU 2.66Ghz woodcrest would be an improvement if they offered one.
Vinea
It would also be $2000, not $1600 and requires RAM that costs 50% but is slower. A single CPU woodcrest system is more or less wasting $500 for no gain. Better yet, why do you hate Conroe, which is designed for single cpu environments, soo much
It would also be $2000, not $1600 and requires RAM that costs 50% but is slower. A single CPU woodcrest system is more or less wasting $500 for no gain. Better yet, why do you hate Conroe, which is designed for single cpu environments, soo much
No...it would be $1699 in as much as the Dell 2.66Ghz is $1749. I think Apple can find the extra $50 difference given their 2.66Ghz pricing on 2 CPUs is pretty agressive.
How many times are you going to persist in the lie that a $1699 woodcrest Mac Pro is "impossible" when Dell offers woodcrest based Precision workstations for $1214? It's amazing flame deleted = JL for you to continue to chant that "any Woodcrest machine MUST be $2000" when the cheapest Dell machine is $800 cheaper.
I have nothing against Conroe. Its just that not shipping a CPU seems simpler than making another motherboard and buying another line of processors. Trying to turn that argument around is just childish...ESPECIALLY since I've never said there would be anything wrong with a $1699 conroe box. Just that its simpler for Apple to NOT SHIP A SECOND CPU in their box.
There...nice big bold letters so you can't miss it for the 10th time.
The benchmark differences between a Mac Pro 3Ghz and a Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93Ghz box is 2-10% in desktop apps (sometimes in favor but mostly against). 2-5% is noise. 10% is today.
In 3D RENDERING for 3dsmax 7 and Cinebench the Mac Pro outperformed the X6800 with 50-65% improvement.
So anywhere single threaded you have a the "horrific" 5-10% FB-DIMM penalty. Anywhere where more cores helped Woodcrests wins by 50%. Except for gaming where Rise of Legends sucked more than the rest. Even there as you go up in resolution the differences fade.
Cry me a river. Like you need 116 FPS for a RTS. During playback. BFD. 63 vs 80 FPS (gate) and 99 vs 114 fps (dungeon) in Oblivion is also not a deal breaker. The Mac Pro isn't a gaming rig. Deal.
FB-DIMMs are designed for folks for whom reliability is important. Because losing hours of work because of a crash is not a time saver nor is corrupted data on a financial transaction a money saver. Even for prosumers its not a bad trade.
Can you say Photoshop, Painter, Maya, and so on. Another good explanation is that the Laptops were updated a lot more recently than the Mac Pro.
True. You have a piece of the answer for Mac desktops. However, I wasn't referring to just the Mac platform, and I wasn't referring to the Mac Pro at all because it is in a workstation category.
The subject discussed was all desktop computers, below workstations. Several have stated that this market is dwindling, giving rise to all sorts of ideas about the future mix of consumer and prosumer computers. I am arguing that we may be seeing only be a minor increase in the presence of laptops.
Whenever the market shifts, the effect on current sales will be exaggerated. There may be a marketing term for this behavior, and if there is, maybe someone like vinea knows it. It is simply mathematics. I'll give you another example.
Suppose a trucking company does local deliveries only, and has a fleet of relatively small, city-maneuverable trucks. This company decides to do about 10 percent of its business in long distance hauling and needs that percentage of long trucks with lots of cargo space. So the situation is this. The company has a few too many small trucks, and needs some long ones. What will its purchases look like to its truck supplier however?
Will the delivery firm buy 90 percent small trucks and 10 percent long? No. It now have too many small trucks and no long ones. If the truck supplier looked only at current sales, it might think that the market for small trucks is completely drying up, and soon this delivery firm will only buy long trucks. Yet once the delivery firm has the right number of each truck, they will be buying 90 percent small trucks and 10 percent long one -- just the opposite of what the sales figures were suggesting.
No...it would be $1699 in as much as the Dell 2.66Ghz is $1749. I think Apple can find the extra $50 difference given their 2.66Ghz pricing on 2 CPUs is pretty agressive.
How many times are you going to persist in the lie that a $1699 woodcrest Mac Pro is "impossible" when Dell offers woodcrest based Precision workstations for $1214? It's amazing for you to continue to chant that "any Woodcrest machine MUST be $2000" when the cheapest Dell machine is $800 cheaper.
I have nothing against Conroe. Its just that not shipping a CPU seems simpler than making another motherboard and buying another line of processors. Trying to turn that argument around is just childish...ESPECIALLY since I've never said there would be anything wrong with a $1699 conroe box. Just that its simpler for Apple to NOT SHIP A SECOND CPU in their box.
There...nice big bold letters so you can't miss it for the 10th time.
Vinea
That cheaper also includes a 48x CD-ROM, an 80gb hard drive, and cheaper 533mhz ram. Adding a Burner, 250gb hard drive, and 667mhz RAM results in a nearly $2000 price. The 2.33mhz version may be possible at $1699, but since Apple doesn't buy any of them, it's hard to say what price Intel would want. But since I don't use the professional rendering programs for fun at home, I'm not willing to pay more for a machine that is 12% slower on equal mhz to make things easier on Apple.
The benchmark differences between a Mac Pro 3Ghz and a Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93Ghz box is 2-10% in desktop apps (sometimes in favor but mostly against). 2-5% is noise. 10% is today.
In 3D RENDERING for 3dsmax 7 and Cinebench the Mac Pro outperformed the X6800 with 50-65% improvement.
So anywhere single threaded you have a the "horrific" 5-10% FB-DIMM penalty. Anywhere where more cores helped Woodcrests wins by 50%. Except for gaming where Rise of Legends sucked more than the rest. Even there as you go up in resolution the differences fade.
Cry me a river. Like you need 116 FPS for a RTS. During playback. BFD. 63 vs 80 FPS (gate) and 99 vs 114 fps (dungeon) in Oblivion is also not a deal breaker. The Mac Pro isn't a gaming rig. Deal.
FB-DIMMs are designed for folks for whom reliability is important. Because losing hours of work because of a crash is not a time saver nor is corrupted data on a financial transaction a money saver. Even for prosumers its not a bad trade.
And people wonder why the Mac platform despite having so many advantage is at a pitiful 5%. "Oh sorry son, we don't if you've been using Macs for 15 years. if you don't agree completely with Apple and hand your decision making over to them, we don't want you on this platform."
That cheaper also includes a 48x CD-ROM, an 80gb hard drive, and cheaper 533mhz ram. Adding a Burner, 250gb hard drive, and 667mhz RAM results in a nearly $2000 price. The 2.33mhz version may be possible at $1699, but since Apple doesn't buy any of them, it's hard to say what price Intel would want.
So? Even with these components its STILL only $1553 for a single 2.0Ghz Woodcrest Precision and Apple does sell the 2.0Ghz part and that seems since Apple has had $1599 towers and 2.0Ghz matches their slowest dual CPU Mac Pro this isn't such a horrible alternative. Upgrade to a single 266Ghz for $149 more (based on the price differential of dual 2.0 and dual 2.66 prices).
And it doesn't take into account any price drops from Intel.
"May be possible" my ass. If Dell can do it then Apple has proven it can as well. The dual 2.66Ghz, 1GB 667Mhz RAM, 250GB HD is STILL cheaper than Dell's BTO with the same specs by $311. Take $150 off the $1943 price of the single 2.66Ghz price from Dell and you're still in that $1599-$1799 historical low-end Powermac price range.
Get over it. A single 2.0Ghz Xeon Mac Pro for $1599 with BTO to single CPU 3Ghz would also pretty much make everyone (but you) as happy as a $1699 2.66Ghz with slower RAM and smaller HDD.
Care to name any non-game app that you're going to see earth shattering difference on? No? Probably just more FUD that the Mini would be faster which is another lie you like repeating. I would say you're simply incorrect but repeatedly claiming something that is untrue despite verifiable evidence doesn't imply ignorance but willful deception.
And people wonder why the Mac platform despite having so many advantage is at a pitiful 5%. "Oh sorry son, we don't if you've been using Macs for 15 years. if you don't agree completely with Apple and hand your decision making over to them, we don't want you on this platform."
No, that was benchmarks to disprove your clearly incorrect assertions that Xeons/FB-DIMMs are some tragic mistake for users. Only gamers see any serious degradation and only in a few games.
To date you have yet to show any application where there is more than a minor amount of difference that won't last past the next release of the software that is more multi-core friendly. Which "prosumer" application is horribly impacted? Quicktime I'll give you but that seems more of a QT lack than a Mac Pro problem.
And no...I couldn't care less if you were using macs 15 years or 15 seconds. Lies and untruths are still lies and untruths. For someone that can't even agree on the most neutral of positions to be claiming some kind of matyrdom is just rich.
There was no single CPU PowerMac when it was first announced. It came later. Also, there was just one processor that Apple was using for it's Pro desktop - the G5. Now Apple is still using the one processor XEON, and it does not allow for a single CPU configuration. For Apple to do that they would have to purchase a second processor which would leave them more Mac Pro inventory. Apple is all wise about inventory, and if they want to add a conroe they will. but if they feel that there will be an inventory problem they wont.
XEON, and it does not allow for a single CPU configuration.
Huh? Since when? I'm pretty sure that Xeon can be used individually. The difference between them and Conroe is that Conroe is single-cpu only, whereas Xeon is SMP-capable.
I'm with Vinea that if Apple were to offer only one additional desktop configuration, and they were targeting $1599 + as the price point of that config, a single-cpu Xeon (i.e. a Mac Pro with one cpu instead of two) would be the way to go. It's just that I think the whole $399 - $1999 segment needs a dedicated machine.
I'm with Vinea that if Apple were to offer only one additional desktop configuration...
Hey, I'm willing to say "Let's hope that Apple offers at least one additional desktop configuration..."
I'm not opposed to more Mac Pros down to the $1499 price point. Heck, I'm not even opposed to the xMac. I just don't think:
a) it's going to happen
b) that its some huge mistake that Apple is making not to build the xMac or that the holes in the product lines are unintended and don't have their own advantages.
c) risks outweigh advantages in messing with the product lines in this way for the near future (i.e. killing the iMacs).
If they build an xMac I'm certainly not going to be upset in any way whatsoever...as long as its successful.
There was no single CPU PowerMac when it was first announced. It came later. Also, there was just one processor that Apple was using for it's Pro desktop - the G5. Now Apple is still using the one processor XEON, and it does not allow for a single CPU configuration. For Apple to do that they would have to purchase a second processor which would leave them more Mac Pro inventory. Apple is all wise about inventory, and if they want to add a conroe they will. but if they feel that there will be an inventory problem they wont.
It is usable in a single CPU configuration, but it's an awfully expensive waste. The 4mb Core 2 Duos paired with the 975x motherboard are intended for the single processor high end desktop/ low end workstation market.
Comments
With respect to Windows users wanting desktops most folks I see now have laptops.
No doubt; laptops are very popular, but I referred to "Windows users who want a desktop." Believe it or not, a fair number of us still want a desktop.
No. The lack of software is likely the number 1 reason folks don't switch.
I could agree with that statement too. It depends upon where they are in the decision making process. I was thinking of those who are ready "to try OS X." It is down to which Mac to buy. Lack of acceptable hardware can put an end to the process as fast as a price that's too high. Since Mac prices are fairly competitive today, it is more likely to be poor choices of hardware.
The number of folks that still need a desktop is dwindling.
Okay. The number who want a desktop is dwindling, true. I see this as a readjustment in the market because more people are discovering the advantages and flexibility of the laptop. Desktop sales will pick up once the new installed base ratio is reached. Here is what I mean. It is only a theory and I don't claim it to be fact.
Say the old ratio was 75 desktops and 25 laptops for every 100 computers in use. Now people are seeing the advantage of having a laptop too and they are buying them, at the expense of desktop sales.
Now let's also say the new equilibrium will be 50 desktops and 50 laptops for every 100. Until that ratio is reached in the installed base, laptop sales will soar and desktop sales will wane.
To rephrase it: During a transition the sales are temporarily more lopsided than they will be once equilibrium is finally reached.
No doubt; laptops are very popular, but I referred to "Windows users who want a desktop." Believe it or not, a fair number of us still want a desktop.
I could agree with that statement too. It depends upon where they are in the decision making process. I was thinking of those who are ready "to try OS X." It is down to which Mac to buy. Lack of acceptable hardware can put an end to the process as fast as a price that's too high. Since Mac prices are fairly competitive today, it is more likely to be poor choices of hardware.
Okay. The number who want a desktop is dwindling, true. I see this as a readjustment in the market because more people are discovering the advantages and flexibility of the laptop. Desktop sales will pick up once the new installed base ratio is reached. Here is what I mean. It is only a theory and I don't claim it to be fact.
Say the old ratio was 75 desktops and 25 laptops for every 100 computers in use. Now people are seeing the advantage of having a laptop too and they are buying them, at the expense of desktop sales.
Now let's also say the new equilibrium will be 50 desktops and 50 laptops for every 100. Until that ratio is reached in the installed base, laptop sales will soar and desktop sales will wane.
To rephrase it: During a transition the sales are temporarily more lopsided than they will be once equilibrium is finally reached.
You are so diluted.
Desktop sales were off only 3% for the year ending Sept. 30.
"The decrease in sales of the company's professional" oriented desktop products was a primary reason for the decline in Macintosh desktop sales," Apple's second-quarter 10-Q report stated. "The company believes the decline in the company's professional-oriented desktop products was due to customers delaying purchases of such products in anticipation of the release of Intel-based professional systems and updated software applications capable of running on Intel-based Macintosh computers."
I think that is a better explanation.
Can you say Photoshop, Painter, Maya, and so on.
Another good explanation is that the Laptops were updated a lot more recently than the Mac Pro. People who wanted a Mac Pro already got one last August, and as I recall desktop sales were awesome when they finally came out with the intel Mac Pro. Another great reason laptop sales are stronger now, and usually are, is that the Pro desktop is more expensive. Not as many can afford them, but that does not mean there are not a huge number of iMac, MacBook, and MacBook Pro users that wouldn't rather have a Mac Pro.
Just because some clown says laptop sales are growing because people dislike desktops does not mean it's gospel. All it means is the guy has job writing, and he needs to feed his face.
Most Mac Pro users know better.
Not every old PowerMac user wants a dual xeon setup. Not all of them have gotten the Machine they wanted, only the ones on the high end.
Maybe not, but Apple has not changed the pricing, or anything from what the powermac used to be since they switched to intel. If your saying they have not come out with this mid range Mac thing again that has little to do with what we are discussing, but it would contribute to more desktop sales probably. Needless to say that is a non existing pre intel Mac.
Not every old PowerMac user wants a dual xeon setup. Not all of them have gotten the Machine they wanted, only the ones on the high end.
What is it about Woodcrest that you hate soooo much? They design for stability over ultimate performance but the performance isn't bad. The price point is in line with the G5 lines with the exception of a $1600 machine. Which used to be a crippled G5 box. An uncrippled single CPU 2.66Ghz woodcrest would be an improvement if they offered one.
Vinea
Maybe not, but Apple has not changed the pricing, or anything from what the powermac used to be since they switched to intel. If your saying they have not come out with this mid range Mac thing again that has little to do with what we are discussing, but it would contribute to more desktop sales probably. Needless to say that is a non existing pre intel Mac.
Single CPU G5: $1499
Dual 2.0: $1999
Cheapest possible Mac Pro: $2121.
$2200 with 250gb Hard drive.
What is it about Woodcrest that you hate soooo much? They design for stability over ultimate performance but the performance isn't bad. The price point is in line with the G5 lines with the exception of a $1600 machine. Which used to be a crippled G5 box. An uncrippled single CPU 2.66Ghz woodcrest would be an improvement if they offered one.
Vinea
It would also be $2000, not $1600 and requires RAM that costs 50% but is slower. A single CPU woodcrest system is more or less wasting $500 for no gain. Better yet, why do you hate Conroe, which is designed for single cpu environments, soo much
It would also be $2000, not $1600 and requires RAM that costs 50% but is slower. A single CPU woodcrest system is more or less wasting $500 for no gain. Better yet, why do you hate Conroe, which is designed for single cpu environments, soo much
No...it would be $1699 in as much as the Dell 2.66Ghz is $1749. I think Apple can find the extra $50 difference given their 2.66Ghz pricing on 2 CPUs is pretty agressive.
How many times are you going to persist in the lie that a $1699 woodcrest Mac Pro is "impossible" when Dell offers woodcrest based Precision workstations for $1214? It's amazing flame deleted = JL for you to continue to chant that "any Woodcrest machine MUST be $2000" when the cheapest Dell machine is $800 cheaper.
I have nothing against Conroe. Its just that not shipping a CPU seems simpler than making another motherboard and buying another line of processors. Trying to turn that argument around is just childish...ESPECIALLY since I've never said there would be anything wrong with a $1699 conroe box. Just that its simpler for Apple to NOT SHIP A SECOND CPU in their box.
There...nice big bold letters so you can't miss it for the 10th time.
Vinea
The benchmark differences between a Mac Pro 3Ghz and a Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93Ghz box is 2-10% in desktop apps (sometimes in favor but mostly against). 2-5% is noise. 10% is today.
In 3D RENDERING for 3dsmax 7 and Cinebench the Mac Pro outperformed the X6800 with 50-65% improvement.
So anywhere single threaded you have a the "horrific" 5-10% FB-DIMM penalty. Anywhere where more cores helped Woodcrests wins by 50%. Except for gaming where Rise of Legends sucked more than the rest. Even there as you go up in resolution the differences fade.
Cry me a river. Like you need 116 FPS for a RTS. During playback. BFD. 63 vs 80 FPS (gate) and 99 vs 114 fps (dungeon) in Oblivion is also not a deal breaker. The Mac Pro isn't a gaming rig. Deal.
FB-DIMMs are designed for folks for whom reliability is important. Because losing hours of work because of a crash is not a time saver nor is corrupted data on a financial transaction a money saver. Even for prosumers its not a bad trade.
Vinea
http://anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2832
You are so diluted.
I think that is a better explanation.
Can you say Photoshop, Painter, Maya, and so on. Another good explanation is that the Laptops were updated a lot more recently than the Mac Pro.
True. You have a piece of the answer for Mac desktops. However, I wasn't referring to just the Mac platform, and I wasn't referring to the Mac Pro at all because it is in a workstation category.
The subject discussed was all desktop computers, below workstations. Several have stated that this market is dwindling, giving rise to all sorts of ideas about the future mix of consumer and prosumer computers. I am arguing that we may be seeing only be a minor increase in the presence of laptops.
Whenever the market shifts, the effect on current sales will be exaggerated. There may be a marketing term for this behavior, and if there is, maybe someone like vinea knows it. It is simply mathematics. I'll give you another example.
Suppose a trucking company does local deliveries only, and has a fleet of relatively small, city-maneuverable trucks. This company decides to do about 10 percent of its business in long distance hauling and needs that percentage of long trucks with lots of cargo space. So the situation is this. The company has a few too many small trucks, and needs some long ones. What will its purchases look like to its truck supplier however?
Will the delivery firm buy 90 percent small trucks and 10 percent long? No. It now have too many small trucks and no long ones. If the truck supplier looked only at current sales, it might think that the market for small trucks is completely drying up, and soon this delivery firm will only buy long trucks. Yet once the delivery firm has the right number of each truck, they will be buying 90 percent small trucks and 10 percent long one -- just the opposite of what the sales figures were suggesting.
No...it would be $1699 in as much as the Dell 2.66Ghz is $1749. I think Apple can find the extra $50 difference given their 2.66Ghz pricing on 2 CPUs is pretty agressive.
How many times are you going to persist in the lie that a $1699 woodcrest Mac Pro is "impossible" when Dell offers woodcrest based Precision workstations for $1214? It's amazing for you to continue to chant that "any Woodcrest machine MUST be $2000" when the cheapest Dell machine is $800 cheaper.
I have nothing against Conroe. Its just that not shipping a CPU seems simpler than making another motherboard and buying another line of processors. Trying to turn that argument around is just childish...ESPECIALLY since I've never said there would be anything wrong with a $1699 conroe box. Just that its simpler for Apple to NOT SHIP A SECOND CPU in their box.
There...nice big bold letters so you can't miss it for the 10th time.
Vinea
That cheaper also includes a 48x CD-ROM, an 80gb hard drive, and cheaper 533mhz ram. Adding a Burner, 250gb hard drive, and 667mhz RAM results in a nearly $2000 price. The 2.33mhz version may be possible at $1699, but since Apple doesn't buy any of them, it's hard to say what price Intel would want. But since I don't use the professional rendering programs for fun at home, I'm not willing to pay more for a machine that is 12% slower on equal mhz to make things easier on Apple.
Benchmark differences:
The benchmark differences between a Mac Pro 3Ghz and a Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93Ghz box is 2-10% in desktop apps (sometimes in favor but mostly against). 2-5% is noise. 10% is today.
In 3D RENDERING for 3dsmax 7 and Cinebench the Mac Pro outperformed the X6800 with 50-65% improvement.
So anywhere single threaded you have a the "horrific" 5-10% FB-DIMM penalty. Anywhere where more cores helped Woodcrests wins by 50%. Except for gaming where Rise of Legends sucked more than the rest. Even there as you go up in resolution the differences fade.
Cry me a river. Like you need 116 FPS for a RTS. During playback. BFD. 63 vs 80 FPS (gate) and 99 vs 114 fps (dungeon) in Oblivion is also not a deal breaker. The Mac Pro isn't a gaming rig. Deal.
FB-DIMMs are designed for folks for whom reliability is important. Because losing hours of work because of a crash is not a time saver nor is corrupted data on a financial transaction a money saver. Even for prosumers its not a bad trade.
Vinea
http://anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2832
And people wonder why the Mac platform despite having so many advantage is at a pitiful 5%. "Oh sorry son, we don't if you've been using Macs for 15 years. if you don't agree completely with Apple and hand your decision making over to them, we don't want you on this platform."
That cheaper also includes a 48x CD-ROM, an 80gb hard drive, and cheaper 533mhz ram. Adding a Burner, 250gb hard drive, and 667mhz RAM results in a nearly $2000 price. The 2.33mhz version may be possible at $1699, but since Apple doesn't buy any of them, it's hard to say what price Intel would want.
So? Even with these components its STILL only $1553 for a single 2.0Ghz Woodcrest Precision and Apple does sell the 2.0Ghz part and that seems since Apple has had $1599 towers and 2.0Ghz matches their slowest dual CPU Mac Pro this isn't such a horrible alternative. Upgrade to a single 266Ghz for $149 more (based on the price differential of dual 2.0 and dual 2.66 prices).
And it doesn't take into account any price drops from Intel.
"May be possible" my ass. If Dell can do it then Apple has proven it can as well. The dual 2.66Ghz, 1GB 667Mhz RAM, 250GB HD is STILL cheaper than Dell's BTO with the same specs by $311. Take $150 off the $1943 price of the single 2.66Ghz price from Dell and you're still in that $1599-$1799 historical low-end Powermac price range.
Get over it. A single 2.0Ghz Xeon Mac Pro for $1599 with BTO to single CPU 3Ghz would also pretty much make everyone (but you) as happy as a $1699 2.66Ghz with slower RAM and smaller HDD.
Care to name any non-game app that you're going to see earth shattering difference on? No? Probably just more FUD that the Mini would be faster which is another lie you like repeating. I would say you're simply incorrect but repeatedly claiming something that is untrue despite verifiable evidence doesn't imply ignorance but willful deception.
Vinea
And people wonder why the Mac platform despite having so many advantage is at a pitiful 5%. "Oh sorry son, we don't if you've been using Macs for 15 years. if you don't agree completely with Apple and hand your decision making over to them, we don't want you on this platform."
No, that was benchmarks to disprove your clearly incorrect assertions that Xeons/FB-DIMMs are some tragic mistake for users. Only gamers see any serious degradation and only in a few games.
To date you have yet to show any application where there is more than a minor amount of difference that won't last past the next release of the software that is more multi-core friendly. Which "prosumer" application is horribly impacted? Quicktime I'll give you but that seems more of a QT lack than a Mac Pro problem.
And no...I couldn't care less if you were using macs 15 years or 15 seconds. Lies and untruths are still lies and untruths. For someone that can't even agree on the most neutral of positions to be claiming some kind of matyrdom is just rich.
Vinea
Single CPU G5: $1499
Dual 2.0: $1999
Cheapest possible Mac Pro: $2121.
$2200 with 250gb Hard drive.
There was no single CPU PowerMac when it was first announced. It came later. Also, there was just one processor that Apple was using for it's Pro desktop - the G5. Now Apple is still using the one processor XEON, and it does not allow for a single CPU configuration. For Apple to do that they would have to purchase a second processor which would leave them more Mac Pro inventory. Apple is all wise about inventory, and if they want to add a conroe they will. but if they feel that there will be an inventory problem they wont.
XEON, and it does not allow for a single CPU configuration.
Huh? Since when? I'm pretty sure that Xeon can be used individually. The difference between them and Conroe is that Conroe is single-cpu only, whereas Xeon is SMP-capable.
I'm with Vinea that if Apple were to offer only one additional desktop configuration, and they were targeting $1599 + as the price point of that config, a single-cpu Xeon (i.e. a Mac Pro with one cpu instead of two) would be the way to go. It's just that I think the whole $399 - $1999 segment needs a dedicated machine.
I'm with Vinea that if Apple were to offer only one additional desktop configuration...
Hey, I'm willing to say "Let's hope that Apple offers at least one additional desktop configuration..."
I'm not opposed to more Mac Pros down to the $1499 price point. Heck, I'm not even opposed to the xMac. I just don't think: If they build an xMac I'm certainly not going to be upset in any way whatsoever...as long as its successful.
Vinea
There was no single CPU PowerMac when it was first announced. It came later. Also, there was just one processor that Apple was using for it's Pro desktop - the G5. Now Apple is still using the one processor XEON, and it does not allow for a single CPU configuration. For Apple to do that they would have to purchase a second processor which would leave them more Mac Pro inventory. Apple is all wise about inventory, and if they want to add a conroe they will. but if they feel that there will be an inventory problem they wont.
It is usable in a single CPU configuration, but it's an awfully expensive waste. The 4mb Core 2 Duos paired with the 975x motherboard are intended for the single processor high end desktop/ low end workstation market.
It is usable in a single CPU configuration, but it's an awfully expensive waste.
Except if you offer a single-cpu Mac Pro you can also offer after-market upgrades to make the single-cpu computers dual-cpu computers.