The discussion has been centered on using the Mac Pro to make a cheaper, single CPU tower.
...
Even if Apple took one of these approaches using the Mac Pro chassis, I'm not sure the final product would get good marketing feedback either. I'd say forget the Mac Pro as a test bed, and just design a competitive mini tower in the prosumer price range. It's my opinion.
The discussion on a single CPU Mac Pro originated as common ground for participants in this debate to agree would be "a good thing" or if you prefer "a good start" to at least get back to the line up it had in the G5 days. It's not a "test bed"...it's a product that used to exist and likely (hopefully) will exist again.
Evidently there isn't even that much common ground on even such a neutral position. That kind of indicates which folks in this thread are reasonable and arguing in "good faith" (i.e. willing to be convinced otherwise and/or can respect the other side's position if the first part is too hard) and which...well...aren't.
Simple no? One side argues "We need cheaper towers!" the other side says "Well, here a cheaper tower we used to have, we can support that" and the response is "No that sucks! We want cheaper towers!".
Not like it matters since this is just an internet thread but really your side looks sillier on this issue.
There is something wrong with the idea that because some of us dont need dual xeons, 2TB storage, 4 video cards, and 16 GB ram, we are left with a laptop CPU, RAM and HDD and integrated GPU as our ONLY choice!
...
I see the point you're refering to. But, well, imho of course, in practice, say in daily usage,
or to put it slightly different, in reality, the difference between Laptop and Desktop CPU
is pretty much vanishing. In a few years that distinction falls anyway.
Even Intel itself doesn't differentiate between Laptop and Desktop CPU that strong
as they used to have in the past.
There are Processors and faster Processors. The naming scheme
That kind of indicates which folks in this thread are reasonable and arguing in "good faith" (i.e. willing to be convinced otherwise and/or can respect the other side's position if the first part is too hard) and which...well...aren't.
Wow! I didn't realize I was stepping on toes by posting an alternative view.
I'm willing to be convinced if I believe the argument is sound, and provides the best solution. But, in this case, it believe it is not the best path for Apple to take today. I respect your opinion more then you realize, it seems. I also think the solutions being discussed are better than what we have today. Would I buy one? Mmmm, maybe. Let me explain what I don't like about it, and why an alternative solution is better, in my opinion.
First off, the Mac Pro is too big. It would be fine for my music computer, but not my office computer, for an example. I confess that I am now using a 733 MHz G4 Quicksilver, but I'd like something a little smaller, and the Quicksilver is a little smaller than a Mac Pro already.
Second, Apple appears to be upscaling the Mac Pro to be a true workstation. I could see extending this product upward, but not downward, today. True, "we used to have" a cheaper full size tower, but that was before. We can retreat, or do something different. I choose to go forward in a new direction. Others may choose to retreat to the way things were.
Third, a new model Mac, a smaller tower, would be able to fill a much bigger hole in the product line. Currently, there is no headless Mac between about $899 and $1999. A smaller tower could fill this whole gap nicely, with choices of CPUs and other options. It could have a broader range of performance without tarnishing the image of the new Mac Pro workstation.
Okay, that's it. No stellar logic -- just trying to make marketing sense out of the situation. Next, we can discuss a better low end Mac than the Mac Mini, if you wish? Something for the $399 to $899 range.
in reality, the difference between Laptop and Desktop CPU
is pretty much vanishing....
my2cents
Except for the price. From what I can tell the cost of a Conroe is significantly less than a Merom. But I could be wrong, I'm sure someone has a better handle on pricing than I do.
There is a bigger different difference Laptop between Desktop ram, video cards and hdds.
We do not know that, because we do not know what Apple pays for desktop versus laptop parts. As has been said, it may very well be that given the huge volume of laptop parts that Apple purchases, they may in fact be cheaper for Apple than desktop parts.
We do not know that, because we do not know what Apple pays for desktop versus laptop parts. As has been said, it may very well be that given the huge volume of laptop parts that Apple purchases, they may in fact be cheaper for Apple than desktop parts.
Desktop hdd are faster then laptop ones.
Desktop video cards run at higher speeds then laptop ones.
We do not know that, because we do not know what Apple pays for desktop versus laptop parts. As has been said, it may very well be that given the huge volume of laptop parts that Apple purchases, they may in fact be cheaper for Apple than desktop parts.
Absolutely.
But the most important part in that is, by Apples huge need of
sophisticated laptop parts, the firm leverages development of
laptop parts in the same time. Apple permanently creates the
Wow! I didn't realize I was stepping on toes by posting an alternative view.
To be honest, I was referring more to your compatriot than you even though I answered your post.
No toes stepped on...just it seems odd that folks can't even agree getting back to where Apple was with the G5s as a good first step regardless of where you eventually want to end up.
If you can't find any common ground period it seems even more unlikely that you'll ever meet in the middle (again, not that it matters BUT there's a point were even in an umpteen page thread there should be some illusion of hope for consensus...I don't think it gets much weaker than illusion of hope but if there is you can consider that instead).
Fact is, I've already said it wouldn't bother me if all your desires became true. Mostly my point is that holding your breath would be a bad idea since I don't see it happening under Jobs. There, illusion of hope preserved.
No toes stepped on...just it seems odd that folks can't even agree getting back to where Apple was with the G5s as a good first step regardless of where you eventually want to end up.
Yes, if a first step means a trial run with a lower priced, single CPU tower. I just object to returning to this type of product lineup on a long term basis, since it seems Apple is trying to upscale the Mac Pro to be a higher performance workstation.
This would get back to my comment of using a single CPU model as a test bed. Here was your comment that made me believe you were thinking of going back to the old days more permanently.
Quote:
. . . at least get back to the line up it had in the G5 days. It's not a "test bed". . . it's a product that used to exist and likely (hopefully) will exist again.
I'll add to the idea of a temporary or limited edition, Mac Pro. Why not use the old tooling from the G5, with the single optical drive? It would make a clear and recognizable distinction between lower priced models and workstations. Apple already set a precedence for doing something like this.
When the G5 Power Mac came out, Apple reintroduced some G4 Power Macs that could boot OS 9. Apple did not use the last tooling for the FireWire 800 G4, but went back to the previous model for this temporary Power Mac.
So, for those looking for something we can agree on, I'd go along with using a single CPU variant of a tower, preferably in an enclosure that is readily distinguished from the Mac Pro, and do it on a temporary basis. Hopefully that would give Apple some real life market information about demand for a lower priced tower.
Quote:
(. . . there should be some illusion of hope for consensus. . . I don't think it gets much weaker than illusion of hope but if there is you can consider that instead).
If we have more than one in a discussion, there is little hope of consensus. Beside that, consensus would end the fun of discussion.
I doubt anyone can push a dual-dual anything into the sub-$1500 range. Maybe a low-end Quad FX for $1500 with a decent video card, but that's about it.
Comments
The discussion has been centered on using the Mac Pro to make a cheaper, single CPU tower.
...
Even if Apple took one of these approaches using the Mac Pro chassis, I'm not sure the final product would get good marketing feedback either. I'd say forget the Mac Pro as a test bed, and just design a competitive mini tower in the prosumer price range. It's my opinion.
The discussion on a single CPU Mac Pro originated as common ground for participants in this debate to agree would be "a good thing" or if you prefer "a good start" to at least get back to the line up it had in the G5 days. It's not a "test bed"...it's a product that used to exist and likely (hopefully) will exist again.
Evidently there isn't even that much common ground on even such a neutral position. That kind of indicates which folks in this thread are reasonable and arguing in "good faith" (i.e. willing to be convinced otherwise and/or can respect the other side's position if the first part is too hard) and which...well...aren't.
Simple no? One side argues "We need cheaper towers!" the other side says "Well, here a cheaper tower we used to have, we can support that" and the response is "No that sucks! We want cheaper towers!".
Not like it matters since this is just an internet thread but really your side looks sillier on this issue.
Vinea
...
There is something wrong with the idea that because some of us dont need dual xeons, 2TB storage, 4 video cards, and 16 GB ram, we are left with a laptop CPU, RAM and HDD and integrated GPU as our ONLY choice!
...
I see the point you're refering to. But, well, imho of course, in practice, say in daily usage,
or to put it slightly different, in reality, the difference between Laptop and Desktop CPU
is pretty much vanishing. In a few years that distinction falls anyway.
Even Intel itself doesn't differentiate between Laptop and Desktop CPU that strong
as they used to have in the past.
There are Processors and faster Processors. The naming scheme
is just for marketing purposes.
my2cents
That kind of indicates which folks in this thread are reasonable and arguing in "good faith" (i.e. willing to be convinced otherwise and/or can respect the other side's position if the first part is too hard) and which...well...aren't.
Wow! I didn't realize I was stepping on toes by posting an alternative view.
I'm willing to be convinced if I believe the argument is sound, and provides the best solution. But, in this case, it believe it is not the best path for Apple to take today. I respect your opinion more then you realize, it seems. I also think the solutions being discussed are better than what we have today. Would I buy one? Mmmm, maybe. Let me explain what I don't like about it, and why an alternative solution is better, in my opinion.
First off, the Mac Pro is too big. It would be fine for my music computer, but not my office computer, for an example. I confess that I am now using a 733 MHz G4 Quicksilver, but I'd like something a little smaller, and the Quicksilver is a little smaller than a Mac Pro already.
Second, Apple appears to be upscaling the Mac Pro to be a true workstation. I could see extending this product upward, but not downward, today. True, "we used to have" a cheaper full size tower, but that was before. We can retreat, or do something different. I choose to go forward in a new direction. Others may choose to retreat to the way things were.
Third, a new model Mac, a smaller tower, would be able to fill a much bigger hole in the product line. Currently, there is no headless Mac between about $899 and $1999. A smaller tower could fill this whole gap nicely, with choices of CPUs and other options. It could have a broader range of performance without tarnishing the image of the new Mac Pro workstation.
Okay, that's it. No stellar logic -- just trying to make marketing sense out of the situation. Next, we can discuss a better low end Mac than the Mac Mini, if you wish? Something for the $399 to $899 range.
...
in reality, the difference between Laptop and Desktop CPU
is pretty much vanishing....
my2cents
Except for the price. From what I can tell the cost of a Conroe is significantly less than a Merom. But I could be wrong, I'm sure someone has a better handle on pricing than I do.
I see the point you're refering to. But, well, imho of course, in practice, say in daily usage,
or to put it slightly different, in reality, the difference between Laptop and Desktop CPU
my2cents
There is a bigger different difference Laptop between Desktop ram, video cards and hdds.
There is a bigger different difference Laptop between Desktop ram, video cards and hdds.
Err... sorry to confuse you more, I was refering to the different difference
between bigger Laptops and smaller Desktops in the first place.
Seriously, the rate and pace at that silicon/processor technology
(production processes etc.) create greatly improved Processor designs
in very short timeframes is amazing. The key word there is nano
technology. In a not so distant future the need for unification (of all production
processes) will determine Processor designs with very (unbelievably) small form
factors. On that account i believe that the distinction between Desktop and Laptop CPU
becomes pretty useless eventually.
There is a bigger different difference Laptop between Desktop ram, video cards and hdds.
We do not know that, because we do not know what Apple pays for desktop versus laptop parts. As has been said, it may very well be that given the huge volume of laptop parts that Apple purchases, they may in fact be cheaper for Apple than desktop parts.
We do not know that, because we do not know what Apple pays for desktop versus laptop parts. As has been said, it may very well be that given the huge volume of laptop parts that Apple purchases, they may in fact be cheaper for Apple than desktop parts.
Desktop hdd are faster then laptop ones.
Desktop video cards run at higher speeds then laptop ones.
Desktop hdd are faster then laptop ones.
Desktop video cards run at higher speeds then laptop ones.
1.
So what. Changes quickly anyway.
2.
Negligible in most cases on daily usage (perhaps gaming)
Well, the difference became small. The challenge is to produce
smaller parts in less time at lesser costs, that - most important -
don't consume huge amount of energy. (Performance/Watt-Ratio,
that S.J. mentioned) As you know, worldwide resources became
scarily scarce. I believe that this point is crux, and
will be even more in the next 10 or so years. This is the most
important venture particular tech companies have have to deal with,
scarce resources. Imho of course.
We do not know that, because we do not know what Apple pays for desktop versus laptop parts. As has been said, it may very well be that given the huge volume of laptop parts that Apple purchases, they may in fact be cheaper for Apple than desktop parts.
Absolutely.
But the most important part in that is, by Apples huge need of
sophisticated laptop parts, the firm leverages development of
laptop parts in the same time. Apple permanently creates the
need to innovate. And that alone is a good thing.
Wow! I didn't realize I was stepping on toes by posting an alternative view.
To be honest, I was referring more to your compatriot than you even though I answered your post.
No toes stepped on...just it seems odd that folks can't even agree getting back to where Apple was with the G5s as a good first step regardless of where you eventually want to end up.
If you can't find any common ground period it seems even more unlikely that you'll ever meet in the middle (again, not that it matters BUT there's a point were even in an umpteen page thread there should be some illusion of hope for consensus...I don't think it gets much weaker than illusion of hope but if there is you can consider that instead).
Fact is, I've already said it wouldn't bother me if all your desires became true. Mostly my point is that holding your breath would be a bad idea since I don't see it happening under Jobs. There, illusion of hope preserved.
Vinea
No toes stepped on...just it seems odd that folks can't even agree getting back to where Apple was with the G5s as a good first step regardless of where you eventually want to end up.
Yes, if a first step means a trial run with a lower priced, single CPU tower. I just object to returning to this type of product lineup on a long term basis, since it seems Apple is trying to upscale the Mac Pro to be a higher performance workstation.
This would get back to my comment of using a single CPU model as a test bed. Here was your comment that made me believe you were thinking of going back to the old days more permanently.
. . . at least get back to the line up it had in the G5 days. It's not a "test bed". . . it's a product that used to exist and likely (hopefully) will exist again.
I'll add to the idea of a temporary or limited edition, Mac Pro. Why not use the old tooling from the G5, with the single optical drive? It would make a clear and recognizable distinction between lower priced models and workstations. Apple already set a precedence for doing something like this.
When the G5 Power Mac came out, Apple reintroduced some G4 Power Macs that could boot OS 9. Apple did not use the last tooling for the FireWire 800 G4, but went back to the previous model for this temporary Power Mac.
So, for those looking for something we can agree on, I'd go along with using a single CPU variant of a tower, preferably in an enclosure that is readily distinguished from the Mac Pro, and do it on a temporary basis. Hopefully that would give Apple some real life market information about demand for a lower priced tower.
(. . . there should be some illusion of hope for consensus. . . I don't think it gets much weaker than illusion of hope but if there is you can consider that instead).
If we have more than one in a discussion, there is little hope of consensus. Beside that, consensus would end the fun of discussion.