Huh? Apple needs to make it's products available to anyone who's willing to buy them, anywhere, at any time. \
Another thing Apple should change is allowing their authorized resellers to give student and teacher discounts. The only place you can get these discounts is online or at an apple store. They should also allow the apple store to have in stock Mac with the most popular upgrades, best example ram and video card upgrades.
If someone has to wait or has to go home and order online to get what they want in many cases that will end up as a sale lost.
I agree with you and most here do too. There has been many discussions about this. It's a mystery as to why Apple doesn't offer a consumer mini tower. I would have bought one long ago. I'm not spending $2400 for a tower and the Mac mini is not upgradable - not what I want.
It's a mystery. \
There are a billion threads on this, so if you're really interested in the wide variety of opinions on this, search the archives.
I'll only say what I've said before: that Apple is extremely fiscally conservative. Each model they have requires overhead for production, transport, support, advertising, etc. They will only do this when their marketshare grows to a size that can support another model without unduly canibalizing sales of other products.
And remember, people who actually upgrade their computers are a tiny portion of the population. They may be a large portion of people who populate chat rooms, but their market size is quite small. (Most people say they want their computers to be upgradeable, but few people actually do upgrade them.)
Now, having said that, a "headless iMac" is probably next line (or maybe next after a tablet-style comp) in Apple's roadmap...if only to kill the perenial complaints.
3) Bundle Parallels? I'm sure Parallels could live comfortably on $5/mac if it was bundled on every Mac. VMWare might get annoyed though.
What else?
This is what they should do. Bootcamp is nice but all it does is allow dual booting your machine with a different os which is something we've done on PCs since the dawn of time (linux, windows, etc...)
But with Parallels and it's Coherence mode I can launch any windows application from my OSX dock and not have to switch to a windows desktop.
Running windows applications right on OSX is where it is at.
The next step would be for Apple to BUY Parallels and have them integrate virtualization tightly into the OS. I'd like to launch ANY application from any platform with a click of the mouse.
This is what they should do. Bootcamp is nice but all it does is allow dual booting your machine with a different os which is something we've done on PCs since the dawn of time (linux, windows, etc...)
But with Parallels and it's Coherence mode I can launch any windows application from my OSX dock and not have to switch to a windows desktop.
Running windows applications right on OSX is where it is at.
The next step would be for Apple to BUY Parallels and have them integrate virtualization tightly into the OS. I'd like to launch ANY application from any platform with a click of the mouse.
I don't think it's such a good idea.
We get back to the problem Apple has with Windows being too ubiquitous. We don't want companies to be thinking that as every Mac comes with an easy way to install Windows, they don't have to write Mac software. This is an old debate.
Let those who really want it, buy it. Boot Camp is enough.
Also, Parallels is part of a bigger company that has a plan in mind here. It's doubtful that Apple could buy them even if they wanted to.
I agree with you and most here do too. There has been many discussions about this. It's a mystery as to why Apple doesn't offer a consumer mini tower. I would have bought one long ago. I'm not spending $2400 for a tower and the Mac mini is not upgradable - not what I want.
It's a mystery. \
Mystery? No, not really.
Its an old story in fact... Apple choosing margins over marketshare. Steve has something of a rep for being a risk taker, but when it comes to stuff like this, he's more conservative than a Texas Republican speaking at a Baptist revival.
Now to vamoose, before I get gang-tackled by the Apple Apologista Squad?, who always insist that $2500 towers are the way to go.
Its an old story in fact... Apple choosing margins over marketshare. Steve has something of a rep for being a risk taker, but when it comes to stuff like this, he's more conservative than a Texas Republican speaking at a Baptist revival.
Now to vamoose, before I get gang-tackled by the Apple Apologista Squad?, who always insist that $2500 towers are the way to go.
.
A 2500.00 tower isnt that much of an issue as long as it has 2500.00 worth of hardware. Lets jump into reality here 1gig of ram, 250gig harddrive and a 7300 gpu just isn't going to cut it. When people talk about the iMac they can at least argue design but the Macpro as the exact same intel, Nvidia hardware you can find in any computer. Its a 2500.00 system that most can have built for 1500.00.
A 2500.00 tower isnt that much of an issue as long as it has 2500.00 worth of hardware. Lets jump into reality here 1gig of ram, 250gig harddrive and a 7300 gpu just isn't going to cut it. When people talk about the iMac they can at least argue design but the Macpro as the exact same intel, Nvidia hardware you can find in any computer. Its a 2500.00 system that most can have built for 1500.00.
You are, of course, talking about the same Mac Pro that's so much cheaper than equivalent Dells that a rep from Dell, when questioned, only managed to squeak out, "It is what it is," right?
You are, of course, talking about the same Mac Pro that's so much cheaper than equivalent Dells that a rep from Dell, when questioned, only managed to squeak out, "It is what it is," right?
That's what I thought.
I don't buy Dell computers so I wouldn't know if it's cheaper than a Dell. I think you have been watching Steve's keynote far too often if you believe there is 2500.00 worth of hardware in a Mac Pro.
You can go on pricewatch, newegg or pretty much anywhere else and price it out yourself.
Actually I just went to Dells site and priced a a system that would smoke the Mac Pro with a 24" flatscreen for less than the Mac Pro alone. With one exception I used a Core 2 Duo chip instead of a Xeon. Ya who needs a server chip in their home system.
It's an unbalanced system, which is what Apple seesm to be buiding lately. You don't use a Xeon chip and then give the standard config a low end gpu and only 1 gig of Ram.
As an example why not use a Core 2 Duo chip 6600, give it a Nvida 8800 Dx10 card and 2 gigs of Ram. Then you have a balanced system that is worth 2400.00. You can even do crazy things like add sound cards that support up to 7.1, throw in a dual tv tuner, you know like everyone else configs their systems.
Its niced they configed the system to use four harddrives thats fine but to config a system to use four 7300 cards thats like buiding a corvette and putting four 1970 pinto tires on it.
Let me also add your example is a joke, that article is not your standard desktop config at 7500.00 - 8500.00 your a tad out of the ballpark.
Actually I just went to Dells site and priced a a system that would smoke the Mac Pro with a 24" flatscreen for less than the Mac Pro alone. With one exception I used a Core 2 Duo chip instead of a Xeon. Ya who needs a server chip in their home system.
2 quick points
1) If it was a Core2Duo, then it wasn't a quad-core machine (they require a Xeon). Apple's MacPro has 2 x Xeon (Dual Core) chips. Xeons also have faster buses etc. I'm sure what you priced was a nice machine, but it didn't "smoke" the Mac Pro.
2) Apple was, in many ways, forced to use Xeons. When they replaced any of their single processor machines (Mac Mini, PowerBook, iMac) with the Core2Duo, having a dual processor gave them some head room so that the new systems were both more responsive than the old and could still perform well with older software (via Rosetta emulation). This was more difficult with the professional desktops - they had Power Mac G5s that were very fast, dual core, and even quad core. They had to make sure their new machines were as fast or faster and a Core2Duo wouldn't have done that.
I would have liked a standard C2D desktop, it would match my needs, but Apple needed more speed, and had to avoid articles that showed the new MacPro was slower than the old PowerMacs for many tasks. Hopefully we'll see some desktop C2D (or equivalent) systems in the not too distant future (who knows).
Another thing Apple should change is allowing their authorized resellers to give student and teacher discounts. The only place you can get these discounts is online or at an apple store. They should also allow the apple store to have in stock Mac with the most popular upgrades, best example ram and video card upgrades.
If someone has to wait or has to go home and order online to get what they want in many cases that will end up as a sale lost.
The apple stores do the basic upgrades in-store (memory and video cards) they do not do processor swaps or HD Upgrades just so you know. also if you want to go crazy an totaly customize your mac, you can do it at one of the computers in the store, and have it shiped for free I have seen people at an apple store decide to go with a mac, choose their upgrades and order them from the store to have them shiped to their house. They have their concers so they go to the store to get answers and if they decide foor a model with an upgrade the store doesnt do (processor) they just order it online right at the store.
1) If it was a Core2Duo, then it wasn't a quad-core machine (they require a Xeon). Apple's MacPro has 2 x Xeon (Dual Core) chips. Xeons also have faster buses etc. I'm sure what you priced was a nice machine, but it didn't "smoke" the Mac Pro.
2) Apple was, in many ways, forced to use Xeons. When they replaced any of their single processor machines (Mac Mini, PowerBook, iMac) with the Core2Duo, having a dual processor gave them some head room so that the new systems were both more responsive than the old and could still perform well with older software (via Rosetta emulation). This was more difficult with the professional desktops - they had Power Mac G5s that were very fast, dual core, and even quad core. They had to make sure their new machines were as fast or faster and a Core2Duo wouldn't have done that.
In terms of other machines "smoking" a Mac Pro thats when you look at all around performance. I have never understood Apples design then it comes to this. I build mainframes for a living have for a few decades now and building a system is all about balance. My point being you don't build a quad core machine (which most software can't take advantage of anyways) and then only supply it with 1gig of ram and a 7300 gpu as standard equipment.
If Apple was going to intro a new Mac Pro they should have a profession addition one that costs 7k and one for the home user that is 2500.00 but uses balance throughout the machine. I guess this goes back to he whole it would be nice if they finally wised up and created a mid tower for the advanced home user, not junk but a solid mid tower that can be upgraded by the end user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander
I would have liked a standard C2D desktop, it would match my needs, but Apple needed more speed, and had to avoid articles that showed the new MacPro was slower than the old PowerMacs for many tasks. Hopefully we'll see some desktop C2D (or equivalent) systems in the not too distant future (who knows).
I agree it wouldn't have been a very good choice to produce a new Mac Pro that didn't should solid improvments over the previous version.
The apple stores do the basic upgrades in-store (memory and video cards) they do not do processor swaps or HD Upgrades just so you know. also if you want to go crazy an totaly customize your mac, you can do it at one of the computers in the store, and have it shiped for free I have seen people at an apple store decide to go with a mac, choose their upgrades and order them from the store to have them shiped to their house. They have their concers so they go to the store to get answers and if they decide foor a model with an upgrade the store doesnt do (processor) they just order it online right at the store.
You can upgrade your ram that day but everything else has to wait unit they order it. What I was trying to say was it would be nice if they have models in stock that already had the most popular upgrades. Also to use the iMac as an example if you want to upgrade in the store it cost the full price of the upgrade and you are left with ram modules that are useless seeing the imac only has two ram slots. Its very expensive to upgrade most mac computers once you have purchased the standard config because most of the time all the slots have been used, its rarely an addon its always a replacement.
On another note... most people have forgoten that apple and microsoft had a licence exchane agreement for 5 years thus apple now has legal rights to use micosoft apis in their os (wine has been rewriting windows apis so they can run windows software on a mac) since mac can legaly use the windows apis, and are running a stable os on intel (x86) chips, whats stoping apple from implementing this so that mac OSX is able to run winblows software natively?...
remember they will still be making their own software, wich will run better and more stable than anything out there... remember the transition b2ing os9 and osX?... at first it was dual boot...hmmmmm
You can upgrade your ram that day but everything else has to wait unit they order it. What I was trying to say was it would be nice if they have models in stock that already had the most popular upgrades. Also to use the iMac as an example if you want to upgrade in the store it cost the full price of the upgrade and you are left with ram modules that are useless seeing the imac only has two ram slots. Its very expensive to upgrade most mac computers once you have purchased the standard config because most of the time all the slots have been used, its rarely an addon its always a replacement.
no longer the case... like i said if you want the ram upgrade or vid card you can have it done wile you wait, and even if you have left over modules of ram they match the on-line pricing for the ram upgrade, so you get the ram you want at the on-line price and have modules left over. not a bad deal since now i can sell the extra modules on ebay for some xtra change.
On another note... most people have forgoten that apple and microsoft had a licence exchane agreement for 5 years thus apple now has legal rights to use micosoft apis in their os (wine has been rewriting windows apis so they can run windows software on a mac) since mac can legaly use the windows apis, and are running a stable os on intel (x86) chips, whats stoping apple from implementing this so that mac OSX is able to run winblows software natively?...
I've read this in forums many times, and from a couple of opinion sites. Do we have anything firmer confirming Apple has this right?
I really can't imagine that 7 years ago Microsoft gave Apple the right to simpy build their then-current APIs into Mac products. They'd have had a lot to lose if Apple had done it and sold it for any hardware.
building a system is all about balance. My point being you don't build a quad core machine (which most software can't take advantage of anyways) and then only supply it with 1gig of ram and a 7300 gpu as standard equipment.
Yeah I think part of their need was raw processor power to run emulated apps. Especially for the graphics crowd. That need is almost gone.
Hopefully we will see better balance in future. Preferably both a simpler CPU in some (for me?), and the 8-core plus all the bells and whistles a graphic artist or videographer needs in the other?
no longer the case... like i said if you want the ram upgrade or vid card you can have it done wile you wait, and even if you have left over modules of ram they match the on-line pricing for the ram upgrade, so you get the ram you want at the on-line price and have modules left over. not a bad deal since now i can sell the extra modules on ebay for some xtra change.
Not here in Atlanta. We have an Apple Store at Northpoint Mall and the only upgrade they can do without ordering is ram and its a fairly decent size store and its always packed with many users just looking for a good reason to switch. Even during Christmas the only iMacs they had in stock at the store were standard configs and I even asked about vid upgrades they they told me I would have to order online.
Meh... People who are stupid enough to fall for gimmics don't deserve to use Apple products. After a year or two when they finally realize they wasted $300 on a P.O.S. they turn around and buy an iPod/Mac.
-Clive
I wish this were true. But the classic example of consumer stupidity is Windows itself. "Oh this version of windows isn't so bad - it's better than the last... and I'm gonna upgrade when the next POS comes out."
In my experience, it is astonishing how stupid consumer-wise many Windows users are. For example, most do buy a 300$ POS and then "it gets slow" so they buy another 300$ POS in a year.
Also, the other day I was talking to a friend-of-a-friend who goes to Harvard. He was looking at buying a mac laptop, but felt that the macBookPros were to expensive. "Did you look at the macBooks?" "No..." To make matters worse, he told me he ended up buying a "deal from dell." -- A factory refurbished laptop for 800$.
HUH!? Can you compare a MacBookPro to factory refurbished? No. Did He look at used Apples? No. Refurbished Apples? No.
It seems to me that Apple is suffering simply because people "feel" that Macs are too expensive for them. Apple desperately needs to advertise using two simple tricks from dell. "Computers Starting at 599$!!" and "Hurry <insert deal sounding phrase> this week only!"
In terms of other machines "smoking" a Mac Pro thats when you look at all around performance. I have never understood Apples design then it comes to this. I build mainframes for a living have for a few decades now and building a system is all about balance. My point being you don't build a quad core machine (which most software can't take advantage of anyways) and then only supply it with 1gig of ram and a 7300 gpu as standard equipment.
If Apple was going to intro a new Mac Pro they should have a profession addition one that costs 7k and one for the home user that is 2500.00 but uses balance throughout the machine. I guess this goes back to he whole it would be nice if they finally wised up and created a mid tower for the advanced home user, not junk but a solid mid tower that can be upgraded by the end user.
I agree it wouldn't have been a very good choice to produce a new Mac Pro that didn't should solid improvments over the previous version.
A mainframe is a very different beast from a workstation.
Many people, and even companies, choose to buy a workstation with minimal RAM, and other support, and upgrade as they need to.
One can always order a machine all decked out, if one wishes to. So your argument there is incorrect. Apple doesn't have a need to list a $7,000 machine.
I would hope that anyone doing work that requires 8 GB RAM and such, understands that, and purchases the machine that way.
For work that I and my company did, a 7300 board would have been quite adequate. At the same time, the more cpu power, the better.
As you should know, from your own work, the one area in which workstation purchases and mainfeame purscases are similar, is in building enough headroom for the future.
Even though PS, and some other programs may not use more than two cpu's for the present, it's much cheaper to buy up from that, and as PS, and others accomodate the machines, hace enough horsepower to not have to constantly opurchase new machines.
Large companies are willing to spend vast amounts to increase their mainframe capacity bt 10% because they so oftewn work close to total load.
We don't do that most of the time.
Apple has a suitable range for these machines. Perhaps you don't realise, when you say that Apple should have one for the home for $2,500, that home machines average less than $1,000.
Comments
Huh? Apple needs to make it's products available to anyone who's willing to buy them, anywhere, at any time.
Another thing Apple should change is allowing their authorized resellers to give student and teacher discounts. The only place you can get these discounts is online or at an apple store. They should also allow the apple store to have in stock Mac with the most popular upgrades, best example ram and video card upgrades.
If someone has to wait or has to go home and order online to get what they want in many cases that will end up as a sale lost.
I agree with you and most here do too. There has been many discussions about this. It's a mystery as to why Apple doesn't offer a consumer mini tower. I would have bought one long ago. I'm not spending $2400 for a tower and the Mac mini is not upgradable - not what I want.
It's a mystery.
There are a billion threads on this, so if you're really interested in the wide variety of opinions on this, search the archives.
I'll only say what I've said before: that Apple is extremely fiscally conservative. Each model they have requires overhead for production, transport, support, advertising, etc. They will only do this when their marketshare grows to a size that can support another model without unduly canibalizing sales of other products.
And remember, people who actually upgrade their computers are a tiny portion of the population. They may be a large portion of people who populate chat rooms, but their market size is quite small. (Most people say they want their computers to be upgradeable, but few people actually do upgrade them.)
Now, having said that, a "headless iMac" is probably next line (or maybe next after a tablet-style comp) in Apple's roadmap...if only to kill the perenial complaints.
Quite worthwhile.
3) Bundle Parallels? I'm sure Parallels could live comfortably on $5/mac if it was bundled on every Mac. VMWare might get annoyed though.
What else?
This is what they should do. Bootcamp is nice but all it does is allow dual booting your machine with a different os which is something we've done on PCs since the dawn of time (linux, windows, etc...)
But with Parallels and it's Coherence mode I can launch any windows application from my OSX dock and not have to switch to a windows desktop.
Running windows applications right on OSX is where it is at.
The next step would be for Apple to BUY Parallels and have them integrate virtualization tightly into the OS. I'd like to launch ANY application from any platform with a click of the mouse.
This is what they should do. Bootcamp is nice but all it does is allow dual booting your machine with a different os which is something we've done on PCs since the dawn of time (linux, windows, etc...)
But with Parallels and it's Coherence mode I can launch any windows application from my OSX dock and not have to switch to a windows desktop.
Running windows applications right on OSX is where it is at.
The next step would be for Apple to BUY Parallels and have them integrate virtualization tightly into the OS. I'd like to launch ANY application from any platform with a click of the mouse.
I don't think it's such a good idea.
We get back to the problem Apple has with Windows being too ubiquitous. We don't want companies to be thinking that as every Mac comes with an easy way to install Windows, they don't have to write Mac software. This is an old debate.
Let those who really want it, buy it. Boot Camp is enough.
Also, Parallels is part of a bigger company that has a plan in mind here. It's doubtful that Apple could buy them even if they wanted to.
I agree with you and most here do too. There has been many discussions about this. It's a mystery as to why Apple doesn't offer a consumer mini tower. I would have bought one long ago. I'm not spending $2400 for a tower and the Mac mini is not upgradable - not what I want.
It's a mystery.
Mystery? No, not really.
Its an old story in fact... Apple choosing margins over marketshare. Steve has something of a rep for being a risk taker, but when it comes to stuff like this, he's more conservative than a Texas Republican speaking at a Baptist revival.
Now to vamoose, before I get gang-tackled by the Apple Apologista Squad?, who always insist that $2500 towers are the way to go.
.
Mystery? No, not really.
Its an old story in fact... Apple choosing margins over marketshare. Steve has something of a rep for being a risk taker, but when it comes to stuff like this, he's more conservative than a Texas Republican speaking at a Baptist revival.
Now to vamoose, before I get gang-tackled by the Apple Apologista Squad?, who always insist that $2500 towers are the way to go.
.
A 2500.00 tower isnt that much of an issue as long as it has 2500.00 worth of hardware. Lets jump into reality here 1gig of ram, 250gig harddrive and a 7300 gpu just isn't going to cut it. When people talk about the iMac they can at least argue design but the Macpro as the exact same intel, Nvidia hardware you can find in any computer. Its a 2500.00 system that most can have built for 1500.00.
A 2500.00 tower isnt that much of an issue as long as it has 2500.00 worth of hardware. Lets jump into reality here 1gig of ram, 250gig harddrive and a 7300 gpu just isn't going to cut it. When people talk about the iMac they can at least argue design but the Macpro as the exact same intel, Nvidia hardware you can find in any computer. Its a 2500.00 system that most can have built for 1500.00.
You are, of course, talking about the same Mac Pro that's so much cheaper than equivalent Dells that a rep from Dell, when questioned, only managed to squeak out, "It is what it is," right?
That's what I thought.
You are, of course, talking about the same Mac Pro that's so much cheaper than equivalent Dells that a rep from Dell, when questioned, only managed to squeak out, "It is what it is," right?
That's what I thought.
I don't buy Dell computers so I wouldn't know if it's cheaper than a Dell. I think you have been watching Steve's keynote far too often if you believe there is 2500.00 worth of hardware in a Mac Pro.
You can go on pricewatch, newegg or pretty much anywhere else and price it out yourself.
Actually I just went to Dells site and priced a a system that would smoke the Mac Pro with a 24" flatscreen for less than the Mac Pro alone. With one exception I used a Core 2 Duo chip instead of a Xeon. Ya who needs a server chip in their home system.
It's an unbalanced system, which is what Apple seesm to be buiding lately. You don't use a Xeon chip and then give the standard config a low end gpu and only 1 gig of Ram.
As an example why not use a Core 2 Duo chip 6600, give it a Nvida 8800 Dx10 card and 2 gigs of Ram. Then you have a balanced system that is worth 2400.00. You can even do crazy things like add sound cards that support up to 7.1, throw in a dual tv tuner, you know like everyone else configs their systems.
Its niced they configed the system to use four harddrives thats fine but to config a system to use four 7300 cards thats like buiding a corvette and putting four 1970 pinto tires on it.
Let me also add your example is a joke, that article is not your standard desktop config at 7500.00 - 8500.00 your a tad out of the ballpark.
Actually I just went to Dells site and priced a a system that would smoke the Mac Pro with a 24" flatscreen for less than the Mac Pro alone. With one exception I used a Core 2 Duo chip instead of a Xeon. Ya who needs a server chip in their home system.
2 quick points
1) If it was a Core2Duo, then it wasn't a quad-core machine (they require a Xeon). Apple's MacPro has 2 x Xeon (Dual Core) chips. Xeons also have faster buses etc. I'm sure what you priced was a nice machine, but it didn't "smoke" the Mac Pro.
2) Apple was, in many ways, forced to use Xeons. When they replaced any of their single processor machines (Mac Mini, PowerBook, iMac) with the Core2Duo, having a dual processor gave them some head room so that the new systems were both more responsive than the old and could still perform well with older software (via Rosetta emulation). This was more difficult with the professional desktops - they had Power Mac G5s that were very fast, dual core, and even quad core. They had to make sure their new machines were as fast or faster and a Core2Duo wouldn't have done that.
I would have liked a standard C2D desktop, it would match my needs, but Apple needed more speed, and had to avoid articles that showed the new MacPro was slower than the old PowerMacs for many tasks. Hopefully we'll see some desktop C2D (or equivalent) systems in the not too distant future (who knows).
Another thing Apple should change is allowing their authorized resellers to give student and teacher discounts. The only place you can get these discounts is online or at an apple store. They should also allow the apple store to have in stock Mac with the most popular upgrades, best example ram and video card upgrades.
If someone has to wait or has to go home and order online to get what they want in many cases that will end up as a sale lost.
The apple stores do the basic upgrades in-store (memory and video cards) they do not do processor swaps or HD Upgrades just so you know. also if you want to go crazy an totaly customize your mac, you can do it at one of the computers in the store, and have it shiped for free I have seen people at an apple store decide to go with a mac, choose their upgrades and order them from the store to have them shiped to their house. They have their concers so they go to the store to get answers and if they decide foor a model with an upgrade the store doesnt do (processor) they just order it online right at the store.
2 quick points
1) If it was a Core2Duo, then it wasn't a quad-core machine (they require a Xeon). Apple's MacPro has 2 x Xeon (Dual Core) chips. Xeons also have faster buses etc. I'm sure what you priced was a nice machine, but it didn't "smoke" the Mac Pro.
2) Apple was, in many ways, forced to use Xeons. When they replaced any of their single processor machines (Mac Mini, PowerBook, iMac) with the Core2Duo, having a dual processor gave them some head room so that the new systems were both more responsive than the old and could still perform well with older software (via Rosetta emulation). This was more difficult with the professional desktops - they had Power Mac G5s that were very fast, dual core, and even quad core. They had to make sure their new machines were as fast or faster and a Core2Duo wouldn't have done that.
In terms of other machines "smoking" a Mac Pro thats when you look at all around performance. I have never understood Apples design then it comes to this. I build mainframes for a living have for a few decades now and building a system is all about balance. My point being you don't build a quad core machine (which most software can't take advantage of anyways) and then only supply it with 1gig of ram and a 7300 gpu as standard equipment.
If Apple was going to intro a new Mac Pro they should have a profession addition one that costs 7k and one for the home user that is 2500.00 but uses balance throughout the machine. I guess this goes back to he whole it would be nice if they finally wised up and created a mid tower for the advanced home user, not junk but a solid mid tower that can be upgraded by the end user.
I would have liked a standard C2D desktop, it would match my needs, but Apple needed more speed, and had to avoid articles that showed the new MacPro was slower than the old PowerMacs for many tasks. Hopefully we'll see some desktop C2D (or equivalent) systems in the not too distant future (who knows).
I agree it wouldn't have been a very good choice to produce a new Mac Pro that didn't should solid improvments over the previous version.
The apple stores do the basic upgrades in-store (memory and video cards) they do not do processor swaps or HD Upgrades just so you know. also if you want to go crazy an totaly customize your mac, you can do it at one of the computers in the store, and have it shiped for free I have seen people at an apple store decide to go with a mac, choose their upgrades and order them from the store to have them shiped to their house. They have their concers so they go to the store to get answers and if they decide foor a model with an upgrade the store doesnt do (processor) they just order it online right at the store.
You can upgrade your ram that day but everything else has to wait unit they order it. What I was trying to say was it would be nice if they have models in stock that already had the most popular upgrades. Also to use the iMac as an example if you want to upgrade in the store it cost the full price of the upgrade and you are left with ram modules that are useless seeing the imac only has two ram slots. Its very expensive to upgrade most mac computers once you have purchased the standard config because most of the time all the slots have been used, its rarely an addon its always a replacement.
remember they will still be making their own software, wich will run better and more stable than anything out there... remember the transition b2ing os9 and osX?... at first it was dual boot...hmmmmm
You can upgrade your ram that day but everything else has to wait unit they order it. What I was trying to say was it would be nice if they have models in stock that already had the most popular upgrades. Also to use the iMac as an example if you want to upgrade in the store it cost the full price of the upgrade and you are left with ram modules that are useless seeing the imac only has two ram slots. Its very expensive to upgrade most mac computers once you have purchased the standard config because most of the time all the slots have been used, its rarely an addon its always a replacement.
no longer the case... like i said if you want the ram upgrade or vid card you can have it done wile you wait, and even if you have left over modules of ram they match the on-line pricing for the ram upgrade, so you get the ram you want at the on-line price and have modules left over. not a bad deal since now i can sell the extra modules on ebay for some xtra change.
On another note... most people have forgoten that apple and microsoft had a licence exchane agreement for 5 years thus apple now has legal rights to use micosoft apis in their os (wine has been rewriting windows apis so they can run windows software on a mac) since mac can legaly use the windows apis, and are running a stable os on intel (x86) chips, whats stoping apple from implementing this so that mac OSX is able to run winblows software natively?...
I've read this in forums many times, and from a couple of opinion sites. Do we have anything firmer confirming Apple has this right?
I really can't imagine that 7 years ago Microsoft gave Apple the right to simpy build their then-current APIs into Mac products. They'd have had a lot to lose if Apple had done it and sold it for any hardware.
building a system is all about balance. My point being you don't build a quad core machine (which most software can't take advantage of anyways) and then only supply it with 1gig of ram and a 7300 gpu as standard equipment.
Yeah I think part of their need was raw processor power to run emulated apps. Especially for the graphics crowd. That need is almost gone.
Hopefully we will see better balance in future. Preferably both a simpler CPU in some (for me?), and the 8-core plus all the bells and whistles a graphic artist or videographer needs in the other?
no longer the case... like i said if you want the ram upgrade or vid card you can have it done wile you wait, and even if you have left over modules of ram they match the on-line pricing for the ram upgrade, so you get the ram you want at the on-line price and have modules left over. not a bad deal since now i can sell the extra modules on ebay for some xtra change.
Not here in Atlanta. We have an Apple Store at Northpoint Mall and the only upgrade they can do without ordering is ram and its a fairly decent size store and its always packed with many users just looking for a good reason to switch. Even during Christmas the only iMacs they had in stock at the store were standard configs and I even asked about vid upgrades they they told me I would have to order online.
Meh... People who are stupid enough to fall for gimmics don't deserve to use Apple products. After a year or two when they finally realize they wasted $300 on a P.O.S. they turn around and buy an iPod/Mac.
-Clive
I wish this were true. But the classic example of consumer stupidity is Windows itself. "Oh this version of windows isn't so bad - it's better than the last... and I'm gonna upgrade when the next POS comes out."
In my experience, it is astonishing how stupid consumer-wise many Windows users are. For example, most do buy a 300$ POS and then "it gets slow" so they buy another 300$ POS in a year.
Also, the other day I was talking to a friend-of-a-friend who goes to Harvard. He was looking at buying a mac laptop, but felt that the macBookPros were to expensive. "Did you look at the macBooks?" "No..." To make matters worse, he told me he ended up buying a "deal from dell." -- A factory refurbished laptop for 800$.
HUH!? Can you compare a MacBookPro to factory refurbished? No. Did He look at used Apples? No. Refurbished Apples? No.
It seems to me that Apple is suffering simply because people "feel" that Macs are too expensive for them. Apple desperately needs to advertise using two simple tricks from dell. "Computers Starting at 599$!!" and "Hurry <insert deal sounding phrase> this week only!"
Wow. Could this be an analyst who actually looks beyond the surface?
Hmm. Much as I'm flattered to see someone post such an intelligent thought (ie see my post 4 in this thread)...
If you look at victoria's other posts, looks to be a Forum Spam Bot. Not that I know what I'm talking about, but still take a look... Weird
In terms of other machines "smoking" a Mac Pro thats when you look at all around performance. I have never understood Apples design then it comes to this. I build mainframes for a living have for a few decades now and building a system is all about balance. My point being you don't build a quad core machine (which most software can't take advantage of anyways) and then only supply it with 1gig of ram and a 7300 gpu as standard equipment.
If Apple was going to intro a new Mac Pro they should have a profession addition one that costs 7k and one for the home user that is 2500.00 but uses balance throughout the machine. I guess this goes back to he whole it would be nice if they finally wised up and created a mid tower for the advanced home user, not junk but a solid mid tower that can be upgraded by the end user.
I agree it wouldn't have been a very good choice to produce a new Mac Pro that didn't should solid improvments over the previous version.
A mainframe is a very different beast from a workstation.
Many people, and even companies, choose to buy a workstation with minimal RAM, and other support, and upgrade as they need to.
One can always order a machine all decked out, if one wishes to. So your argument there is incorrect. Apple doesn't have a need to list a $7,000 machine.
I would hope that anyone doing work that requires 8 GB RAM and such, understands that, and purchases the machine that way.
For work that I and my company did, a 7300 board would have been quite adequate. At the same time, the more cpu power, the better.
As you should know, from your own work, the one area in which workstation purchases and mainfeame purscases are similar, is in building enough headroom for the future.
Even though PS, and some other programs may not use more than two cpu's for the present, it's much cheaper to buy up from that, and as PS, and others accomodate the machines, hace enough horsepower to not have to constantly opurchase new machines.
Large companies are willing to spend vast amounts to increase their mainframe capacity bt 10% because they so oftewn work close to total load.
We don't do that most of the time.
Apple has a suitable range for these machines. Perhaps you don't realise, when you say that Apple should have one for the home for $2,500, that home machines average less than $1,000.