Yes there is plenty of room in the 24" iMac to be able to propery cool a desktop C2D and a Geforce 7900. Its pushing it in a 20" and no way for a 17". So all the lines suffer so one doesnt stand out from the others.
I agree with that. Apple should offer an option for the best graphics card that can fit within heat tolerances.
Quote:
They could fix a lot of complaining by just having a lower end Mac Pro with a single dual or quad core, with 3 or 4 video options stepping from low to high performance.
I agree. Apple would not sell such a computer at $999 though.
I agree. Apple would not sell such a computer at $999 though.
of course they couldnt sell one like that for $999, anyone who asks for a price like that is being unreasonable. Well... techinically they could make a config that could sell even lower then 999 using the same parts, but it would be a low end C2D desktop chip and integrated graphics.
but they could make a decent lower end Mac Pro that ranges from $1500 - $2500 depending on options.
Also I'm wondering what constitutes a better selection.
A quick look through Dell's horrible website. As far as I can tell the top end workstation class graphics card offered by Dell is the nVidia Quadro FX 4500, same as with the Mac Pro.
Are you saying Apple should have a better selection of lower end cards?
Selection isn't just about getting the highest performance unit, it is about getting what fits the user as the user sees it.
Should Apple increase the selection for the Mac Pro? Yes, I think so. Dell offers at least half a dozen different cards for their workstations.
I really don't think it makes much sense to frame the argument around what Apple is offering because they really only effectively offer three consumer computer models and three pro computer models, which is pretty limited given how many computers they sell.
of course they couldnt sell one like that for $999, anyone who asks for a price like that is being unreasonable.
Yes there were people saying Apple should sell a desktop with expandable GPU and open PCIe slot for $999.
Quote:
Selection isn't just about getting the highest performance unit, it is about getting what fits the user as the user sees it.
Perhaps it was my misunderstanding when I got into this debate I thought they were saying Apple lags in high end graphics cards. So I asked isn't a $1600 card high end enough.
Quote:
Dell offers at least half a dozen different cards for their workstations.
The potential problem with this business model is the expense of buying several different types of graphic cards and the risk of being stuck with an excess inventory of the least popular card.
Also I'm wondering what constitutes a better selection.
A quick look through Dell's horrible website. As far as I can tell the top end workstation class graphics card offered by Dell is the nVidia Quadro FX 4500, same as with the Mac Pro.
Are you saying Apple should have a better selection of lower end cards?
Not every graphics pro has a $4000 budget. That's why Nvidia makes more than one Quadro card.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The potential problem with this business model is the expense of buying several different types of graphic cards and the risk of being stuck with an excess inventory of the least popular card.
And problem with Apple's business model is that since they don't have these options, they give their business to Dell instead. The pro graphics segment Apple could pick up easily if they'd quit being so conservative all the time.
I?m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It?s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don?t have a Mac pro, but I?d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
I think the main issue is that for Apple updates like these were normally taken as larger news so it was regarded more as apples moving in the right direction. Now they're sort of following the PC market with updates on a regular basis so people are bit less used to all these speed bumps. ALSO this is a transitioning time for apple. They've movied to Intel cpus and AMD is grabbing a hold to ATI so that means fewer ATI cards in our macs too. Good bye radeon. Hello Geforce. Or...GMA 950's if your on the other end of the spectrum.
IMO I dont care all too much about this. 8 cores is nice but is there ANY software that takes full advantage off this power? And I'm a cheap bastard anyway so I think once I'm done with this eMac and run it into the ground (or just throw fedora core on it) I might go with a Mac Book.
I agree a wider selection for the Mac Pro would be better.
I was addressing the complaint that Apple lags behind in high end graphic card use across its entire line.
They do though.
For every card they have, a better, or at least a newer one, is available for the PC.
We also don't get the various options PC users have.
Do you want a slightly higher gpu clocked card, or a slightly higher memory card instead? Do you want one that is clocked higher in both areas? Do you want a card with more memory? Are you prepared to pay more for that, or are you willing to accept a slightly lower clocked version with more memory, etc. etc.
ATI or Nvidia? At least.
There are over 350 graphics cards available to PC users. We have, what four or five?
That's not a selection. One for each category of work or play. And by no means the best one. And certainly not the newest.
Yes there were people saying Apple should sell a desktop with expandable GPU and open PCIe slot for $999.
Perhaps it was my misunderstanding when I got into this debate I thought they were saying Apple lags in high end graphics cards. So I asked isn't a $1600 card high end enough.
The potential problem with this business model is the expense of buying several different types of graphic cards and the risk of being stuck with an excess inventory of the least popular card.
A point that you are missing here is that it doesn't matrter what cards Dell offers, or Hp, or for that matter, Apple.
What matters is the cards you can buy. You don't have to buy what Dell or Hp offers. You can buy whatever card is on the shelf.
Apple writes the drivers for it's OEM cards, using code supplied by either ATI or Nvidia.
Since Nvidia and ATI can write drives for a wider use of cards on the Mac Pro it seems this would be more a priority for them since they are the ones who sell the graphic cards.
Quote:
Apple's Nvidia cards don't include all of the features that the PC versions do.
So, we lose there as well.
Where exactly do we loose out in our practical everyday computing experience?
Not my intention to sound condescending, tone does not translate well in the written word.
Since Nvidia and ATI can write drives for a wider use of cards on the Mac Pro it seems this would be more a priority for them since they are the ones who sell the graphic cards.
I'm not blaming Apple directly for this problem, though they could make up the lack in third party cards, as we see happening in the PC world, by producing more of their own.
But, because of the lack of graphic card replacable computer sales in the Mac market, those companies don't find it desirable to do this. That's why Apple should do more.
Quote:
Where exactly do we loose out in our practical everyday computing experience?
Not my intention to sound condescending, tone does not translate well in the written word.
If you don't know how we lose out, it isn't possible to explain it, as many here have tried to do just that already, and it doesn't seem to have helped.
All I can say, is for you to ask a PC owner who does activities for which (s)he has bought an after market card, and perhaps upgraded those cards several times.
Ask why. Ask how the decision was made.
Ask how (s)he would feel if the only cards offered were the one's Apple offers.
The potential problem with this business model is the expense of buying several different types of graphic cards and the risk of being stuck with an excess inventory of the least popular card.
I don't believe business works that way any longer. Amazon does not stock every book they sell. Apple needs to stock only the most popular options, and show a longer lead times for the others.
I’m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It’s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don’t have a Mac pro, but I’d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
There seems to be two camps on this. Those who want Apple to upgrade their machines as fast as the 3-parties release their goods and those who want them to wait a least 6-12 months intervals so that they don't feel "robbed" for buying a machine, only to have it upgraded a couple months later. What's Apple to do?
I say Apple should stay on the cutting edge if they want to be the leaders in technology and gain PC converts/switchers.
But, because of the lack of graphic card replacable computer sales in the Mac market, those companies don't find it desirable to do this. That's why Apple should do more.
I agree. And is another reason why Apple should offer a lower cost midrange tower.
Quote:
If you don't know how we lose out, it isn't possible to explain it, as many here have tried to do just that already, and it doesn't seem to have helped.
Perhaps I'm being obtuse but I haven't really seen any one explain in real world terms what they are missing out on with Apple's current system. Well outside of gaming of course.
Quote:
All I can say, is for you to ask a PC owner who does activities for which (s)he has bought an after market card, and perhaps upgraded those cards several times.
I'm sure this can be true under certain circumstances. I'm asking what circumstances are those.
I have friends who work with Macs configured into quarter million dollar workstations. I have not heard them complain about graphic card limitation.
Also I'm wondering what constitutes a better selection.
A quick look through Dell's horrible website. As far as I can tell the top end workstation class graphics card offered by Dell is the nVidia Quadro FX 4500, same as with the Mac Pro.
Are you saying Apple should have a better selection of lower end cards?
I think whatever card Nvidia or ATI makes should be available on the Mac as well not just friggin Windows. Cause right now if you go to there sites, there selection on the mac side is very slim. I want a large selection to choose from! Not just 3 damn cards. (nvidia side) ATI seems to offer a lot more.
That's why Nvidia makes more than one Quadro card.
Nvidia does not make graphics cards, they make GPUs and sell them to Gfx card manufacturers. Go check out their online store, not a single Gfx card.
ATi does both.
That's why we don't see many Gfx cards. The PC Nvidia graphics card universe is entirely third party boards with the small exception of mobile GPUs which Nvidia does sell as a motherboard solder on. Apple actually manufactures the Nvidia Gfx card for Apple machines. How thin do you want to spread Apples in-house engineering department?
Where exactly do we loose out in our practical everyday computing experience?
One way in which Nvidia cards are crippled on the Mac is screen rotation. ATI cards and even the low ass GMA 950 support screen rotation in Mac OS Tiger. For some reason, rotation is not available for Nvidia cards in Mac OS even though the same cards support rotation in Windows.
Comments
Yes there is plenty of room in the 24" iMac to be able to propery cool a desktop C2D and a Geforce 7900. Its pushing it in a 20" and no way for a 17". So all the lines suffer so one doesnt stand out from the others.
I agree with that. Apple should offer an option for the best graphics card that can fit within heat tolerances.
They could fix a lot of complaining by just having a lower end Mac Pro with a single dual or quad core, with 3 or 4 video options stepping from low to high performance.
I agree. Apple would not sell such a computer at $999 though.
I agree. Apple would not sell such a computer at $999 though.
of course they couldnt sell one like that for $999, anyone who asks for a price like that is being unreasonable. Well... techinically they could make a config that could sell even lower then 999 using the same parts, but it would be a low end C2D desktop chip and integrated graphics.
but they could make a decent lower end Mac Pro that ranges from $1500 - $2500 depending on options.
Also I'm wondering what constitutes a better selection.
A quick look through Dell's horrible website. As far as I can tell the top end workstation class graphics card offered by Dell is the nVidia Quadro FX 4500, same as with the Mac Pro.
Are you saying Apple should have a better selection of lower end cards?
Selection isn't just about getting the highest performance unit, it is about getting what fits the user as the user sees it.
Should Apple increase the selection for the Mac Pro? Yes, I think so. Dell offers at least half a dozen different cards for their workstations.
I really don't think it makes much sense to frame the argument around what Apple is offering because they really only effectively offer three consumer computer models and three pro computer models, which is pretty limited given how many computers they sell.
of course they couldnt sell one like that for $999, anyone who asks for a price like that is being unreasonable.
Yes there were people saying Apple should sell a desktop with expandable GPU and open PCIe slot for $999.
Selection isn't just about getting the highest performance unit, it is about getting what fits the user as the user sees it.
Perhaps it was my misunderstanding when I got into this debate I thought they were saying Apple lags in high end graphics cards. So I asked isn't a $1600 card high end enough.
Dell offers at least half a dozen different cards for their workstations.
The potential problem with this business model is the expense of buying several different types of graphic cards and the risk of being stuck with an excess inventory of the least popular card.
Also I'm wondering what constitutes a better selection.
A quick look through Dell's horrible website. As far as I can tell the top end workstation class graphics card offered by Dell is the nVidia Quadro FX 4500, same as with the Mac Pro.
Are you saying Apple should have a better selection of lower end cards?
Not every graphics pro has a $4000 budget. That's why Nvidia makes more than one Quadro card.
The potential problem with this business model is the expense of buying several different types of graphic cards and the risk of being stuck with an excess inventory of the least popular card.
And problem with Apple's business model is that since they don't have these options, they give their business to Dell instead. The pro graphics segment Apple could pick up easily if they'd quit being so conservative all the time.
I?m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It?s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don?t have a Mac pro, but I?d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
I think the main issue is that for Apple updates like these were normally taken as larger news so it was regarded more as apples moving in the right direction. Now they're sort of following the PC market with updates on a regular basis so people are bit less used to all these speed bumps. ALSO this is a transitioning time for apple. They've movied to Intel cpus and AMD is grabbing a hold to ATI so that means fewer ATI cards in our macs too. Good bye radeon. Hello Geforce. Or...GMA 950's if your on the other end of the spectrum.
IMO I dont care all too much about this. 8 cores is nice but is there ANY software that takes full advantage off this power? And I'm a cheap bastard anyway so I think once I'm done with this eMac and run it into the ground (or just throw fedora core on it) I might go with a Mac Book.
I agree a wider selection for the Mac Pro would be better.
I was addressing the complaint that Apple lags behind in high end graphic card use across its entire line.
They do though.
For every card they have, a better, or at least a newer one, is available for the PC.
We also don't get the various options PC users have.
Do you want a slightly higher gpu clocked card, or a slightly higher memory card instead? Do you want one that is clocked higher in both areas? Do you want a card with more memory? Are you prepared to pay more for that, or are you willing to accept a slightly lower clocked version with more memory, etc. etc.
ATI or Nvidia? At least.
There are over 350 graphics cards available to PC users. We have, what four or five?
That's not a selection. One for each category of work or play. And by no means the best one. And certainly not the newest.
Yes there were people saying Apple should sell a desktop with expandable GPU and open PCIe slot for $999.
Perhaps it was my misunderstanding when I got into this debate I thought they were saying Apple lags in high end graphics cards. So I asked isn't a $1600 card high end enough.
The potential problem with this business model is the expense of buying several different types of graphic cards and the risk of being stuck with an excess inventory of the least popular card.
A point that you are missing here is that it doesn't matrter what cards Dell offers, or Hp, or for that matter, Apple.
What matters is the cards you can buy. You don't have to buy what Dell or Hp offers. You can buy whatever card is on the shelf.
We can't.
What matters is the cards you can buy. You don't have to buy what Dell or Hp offers. You can buy whatever card is on the shelf.
We can't.
Seems like you are giving me half the story why is it like that?
At this point this sounds like software issue more than a hardware one.
Whose responsibility is it to write the drivers? Nvidia/ATI or Apple?
Seems like you are giving me half the story why is it like that?
At this point this sounds like software issue more than a hardware one.
Whose responsibility is it to write the drivers? Nvidia/ATI or Apple?
Responsibility is in the eye of the beholder, as the expression goes.
Apple writes the drivers for it's OEM cards, using code supplied by either ATI or Nvidia.
When ATI has retail boards for us, the code is all their own, and is far more feature complete than Apple's, which is another bone of contention.
Apple almost never gives a feature complete software bundle for their cards. They are always lacking some major features. We know this well.
You can look to the Software ATI supplies for their Mac boards, vs. the software Apple doesn't supply.
The same thing is true for Nvidia.
Apple's Nvidia cards don't include all of the features that the PC versions do.
So, we lose there as well.
Apple includes all of the features THEY think we need. But, not the ones we WANT.
Apple writes the drivers for it's OEM cards, using code supplied by either ATI or Nvidia.
Since Nvidia and ATI can write drives for a wider use of cards on the Mac Pro it seems this would be more a priority for them since they are the ones who sell the graphic cards.
Apple's Nvidia cards don't include all of the features that the PC versions do.
So, we lose there as well.
Where exactly do we loose out in our practical everyday computing experience?
Not my intention to sound condescending, tone does not translate well in the written word.
Since Nvidia and ATI can write drives for a wider use of cards on the Mac Pro it seems this would be more a priority for them since they are the ones who sell the graphic cards.
I'm not blaming Apple directly for this problem, though they could make up the lack in third party cards, as we see happening in the PC world, by producing more of their own.
But, because of the lack of graphic card replacable computer sales in the Mac market, those companies don't find it desirable to do this. That's why Apple should do more.
Where exactly do we loose out in our practical everyday computing experience?
Not my intention to sound condescending, tone does not translate well in the written word.
If you don't know how we lose out, it isn't possible to explain it, as many here have tried to do just that already, and it doesn't seem to have helped.
All I can say, is for you to ask a PC owner who does activities for which (s)he has bought an after market card, and perhaps upgraded those cards several times.
Ask why. Ask how the decision was made.
Ask how (s)he would feel if the only cards offered were the one's Apple offers.
Wait for the snickering to end for the answer.
I don't care.
I want a Mac box that is between the Mac Pro and Mini. Similar power to the iMac, but upgradeable, expandable.
,dave
I'm with you Dave. Where's that $1500 Mac Pro?
The potential problem with this business model is the expense of buying several different types of graphic cards and the risk of being stuck with an excess inventory of the least popular card.
I don't believe business works that way any longer. Amazon does not stock every book they sell. Apple needs to stock only the most popular options, and show a longer lead times for the others.
I’m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It’s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don’t have a Mac pro, but I’d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
There seems to be two camps on this. Those who want Apple to upgrade their machines as fast as the 3-parties release their goods and those who want them to wait a least 6-12 months intervals so that they don't feel "robbed" for buying a machine, only to have it upgraded a couple months later. What's Apple to do?
I say Apple should stay on the cutting edge if they want to be the leaders in technology and gain PC converts/switchers.
But, because of the lack of graphic card replacable computer sales in the Mac market, those companies don't find it desirable to do this. That's why Apple should do more.
I agree. And is another reason why Apple should offer a lower cost midrange tower.
If you don't know how we lose out, it isn't possible to explain it, as many here have tried to do just that already, and it doesn't seem to have helped.
Perhaps I'm being obtuse but I haven't really seen any one explain in real world terms what they are missing out on with Apple's current system. Well outside of gaming of course.
All I can say, is for you to ask a PC owner who does activities for which (s)he has bought an after market card, and perhaps upgraded those cards several times.
I'm sure this can be true under certain circumstances. I'm asking what circumstances are those.
I have friends who work with Macs configured into quarter million dollar workstations. I have not heard them complain about graphic card limitation.
Vinea
Also I'm wondering what constitutes a better selection.
A quick look through Dell's horrible website. As far as I can tell the top end workstation class graphics card offered by Dell is the nVidia Quadro FX 4500, same as with the Mac Pro.
Are you saying Apple should have a better selection of lower end cards?
I think whatever card Nvidia or ATI makes should be available on the Mac as well not just friggin Windows. Cause right now if you go to there sites, there selection on the mac side is very slim. I want a large selection to choose from! Not just 3 damn cards. (nvidia side) ATI seems to offer a lot more.
That's why Nvidia makes more than one Quadro card.
Nvidia does not make graphics cards, they make GPUs and sell them to Gfx card manufacturers. Go check out their online store, not a single Gfx card.
ATi does both.
That's why we don't see many Gfx cards. The PC Nvidia graphics card universe is entirely third party boards with the small exception of mobile GPUs which Nvidia does sell as a motherboard solder on. Apple actually manufactures the Nvidia Gfx card for Apple machines. How thin do you want to spread Apples in-house engineering department?
Where exactly do we loose out in our practical everyday computing experience?
One way in which Nvidia cards are crippled on the Mac is screen rotation. ATI cards and even the low ass GMA 950 support screen rotation in Mac OS Tiger. For some reason, rotation is not available for Nvidia cards in Mac OS even though the same cards support rotation in Windows.