There is simply NO reason to use a Xeon in a single processor machine.
There's also no reason not to offer it as a BTO option for those that want a cheaper tower.
Quote:
Just how many iMacs is Apple selling a year anyway? Not all that many. There is pretty much no growth there. They should be willing to try other avenues.
Given the majority of desktop sale will be iMacs...on the order of 2M machines/year.
Apple enjoys the highest ASPs in the business. Reduction of the ASPs by offering a $799-$999 tower that would eliminate high ASP iMac sales without a corresponding increase in volume (either of desktops or monitors) would significantly reduce Apple's profitability and revenues.
Since you came late to the party I'll repeat the same challenge:
Show me a high-end PC maker that still offers mid-priced towers at high margins and I'll agree that Apple should offer an mid priced ($999-$1299) tower.
IBM, Sony and Toshiba have exitted the tower market. Sony has the most in common with Apple and their VAIO line has been reduced to...an AIO and a round Mini. No more towers.
Personally, if I were Apple I would completely update the desktops. The replacement for the Mac Mini would be slightly larger to use less expensive desktop E43/4400 CPUs, G965 motherboards, and 3.5" hard drives. As a notebook optical drive would be used and there would not be any PCI-e slots, the form factor would still be much smaller than even the smallest PCs such as the HP slimline series.
The iMacs would be updated (but still use merom) to the PM965 chipset, and include an updated iPhone inspired form factor with the latest 19" (1440x900), 22" (1680x1050) and 24 in (1920x1200) panels. Cinema displays in the same sizes plus 30" would also come.
At the high end, a Mac Pro Core 2 Duo would come into play with a 2.13ghz core 2 duo E6420, 1GB of memory, and a Geforce 8300GT for $1299. BTO options would include 2.4 and 2.67ghz CPUs, 8600GT and 8800GTS CPUs, and up to 4GB of RAM on 4 DIMM slots.
Such a desktop lineup would make Apple a serious contender in education, business, and all aspects of the home market. It would be even more of a contender if were to acquire Elgato to match the full media center capabilities as windows.
I basically agree with that.
I do think the small form factor is overrated. There is no solid evidence that I know of that shows that the majority of people who do buy the Mini are doing so because of that form factor rather than the price.
19, 22, and 24" iMacs are much too close in size. There is no easy to define difference between them. A 20 and a 24 would be enough, except the for school market, for which the 17 is still a better choice, in my experience.
I don't see the higher end box being a Mac Pro though. I don't think that label should be used for what would be a mid-level average performance machine.
We might see gamers buy this machine, as well as home users, businesses, and for some school users, as well as for low end pro customers. I think the price should be kept below that as well, certainly in the beginning.
My ideas on this is that it should end up below the cost of the 20 and 24" iMacs once a low cost Apple monitor is added.
There's also no reason not to offer it as a BTO option for those that want a cheaper tower.
Besides the $500-1000 in added expenses a single xeon adds over a single conroe
Quote:
Given the majority of desktop sale will be iMacs...on the order of 2M machines/year.
That isn't saying much considering the sad state of Mac desktops. The Mac Mini is completely uncompetitive due to the exclusive use of laptop parts and buying a workstation to get a desktop takes fanatical loyalty.
I do think the small form factor is overrated. There is no solid evidence that I know of that shows that the majority of people who do buy the Mini are doing so because of that form factor rather than the price.
I think something has to be said for a smaller package, but it also has to be useful to the user. I think my idea is a happy balance between the two.
Quote:
19, 22, and 24" iMacs are much too close in size. There is no easy to define difference between them. A 20 and a 24 would be enough, except the for school market, for which the 17 is still a better choice, in my experience.
Not in mine. 19" and 22" are the most popular LCDs sizes out there at the moment. There is also the resolution difference. Then again if Apple wants to contine with 17, 20, 24 and possible lose sales because of it that is their right.
Quote:
I don't see the higher end box being a Mac Pro though. I don't think that label should be used for what would be a mid-level average performance machine.
Something Mac pro sized is more likely to attract the full ATX PC crowd than a cube MKII. Work with what's tried and true and available. Plus when I say desktop I mean tower that sits under my desk instead of wasting space on it.
There's also no reason not to offer it as a BTO option for those that want a cheaper tower.
There is, because as far as I know, it requires a different mobo entirely. That would drive the cost up too much for the limited numbers they would sell into.
Don't forget there is nothing drop-in about the Xeono vs the Conroe.
Quote:
Given the majority of desktop sale will be iMacs...on the order of 2M machines/year.
That's probably a decent estimate, but it's a small number, and one that doesn't seem to be doing any real growth. In other words, it's stagnent. Apple has to shake up their desktop segment.
Quote:
Apple enjoys the highest ASPs in the business. Reduction of the ASPs by offering a $799-$999 tower that would eliminate high ASP iMac sales without a corresponding increase in volume (either of desktops or monitors) would significantly reduce Apple's profitability and revenues.
I don't think so. The Mini doesn't have a high ASP, neither do the iPods, and probably the ATv doesn't either.
Besides, the more machines Apple sells, the more software they sell, and software has a VEERY high ASP. It could easily make up for it.
Quote:
Since you came late to the party I'll repeat the same challenge:
Show me a high-end PC maker that still offers mid-priced towers at high margins and I'll agree that Apple should offer an mid priced ($999-$1299) tower.
IBM, Sony and Toshiba have exitted the tower market. Sony has the most in common with Apple and their VAIO line has been reduced to...an AIO and a round Mini. No more towers.
Vinea
I would have to think more about it to give a complete answer.
But, there is no reason why a tower doesn't have to be a decent profit center. There is nothing special about any type of model that ensures that. It's merely a matter of cost vs selling price.
The iMacs are not cheap to produce, and may have a higher return rate because of the defects that can come with the built-in screen.
Also, most PC manufacturers offer many accessories with the computers at the point of sale. Speakers, printers, monitors, and other gadgets are often given away for free, or at almost free prices. Apple doesn't do that. Those giveaways are so often what drives the profitability of these systems down. They also change their models much more often then Apple does, lowering prices as they go on current models. Something that starts out at $1,295 may cost $999 several months later, and $795 before it is replaced. These companies also tend to offer many SKU's. Apple hasn't done that for its consumer machines, the options are much more limited. That keeps the cost up for them, and down for Apple, ergo, greater profitability.
Many people may say that an all-in-one will cost more to produce, and so should lead to lower profitability.
I don't see, from my experience as both an electronics designer, and manufacturer, why Apple could not come out with a machine in that price range, and make a decent profit on it.
Not in mine. 19" and 22" are the most popular LCDs sizes out there at the moment. There is also the resolution difference. Then again if Apple wants to contine with 17, 20, 24 and possible lose sales because of it that is their right.
I doubt Apple is losing sales because they don't have a tightly bunched series of machines. It's less confusing this way.
It's one thing to sell monitors in many sizes, but selling an entire machine that way is, I think, not helpful. The pricing would have to be too close, and the size of the machines would be too similiar.
Quote:
Something Mac pro sized is more likely to attract the full ATX PC crowd than a cube MKII. Work with what's tried and true and available. Plus when I say desktop I mean tower that sits under my desk instead of wasting space on it.
I never said cube. I said mini tower. I've been saying the exact same thing since the first G5 tower came out. It would be a mini version of that, minus the handles and feet, as well as being smaller all around.
I don't think that Apple's hardware offering makes a lot of sense at the moment. I'm particularly worried about the RAM ceilings:
Mac mini, 2GB
iMac, 2-3GB
MacBook, 2GB
MacBook Pro, 3GB
The only machine that supports more than 3GB is the top of the range, expensive FB-DIMM based Mac Pro. That's just crazy.
I don't anticipate future software releases getting any less memory hungry.
If we assume that the majority of users operate on a three year buying cycle, how useless is 2GB going to be in two years time? Are you trying to tell me that the only people that will require more than 3GB of RAM over the next three years should be considered Pro users? Bollocks.
My 'obsolete' PMG5 with 8GB of RAM is going to be far more capable in three years time than todays top of the range iMac with a paltry 3GB of RAM. That just doesn't make much sense to me.
Apple needs a headless desktop machine that can support 4-16GB of RAM via standard DIMMs. I'm not bothered about graphics cards vs. GMA, but the machine does need to have a 3.5" HDD.
I think that illustrates the xMac debate far better than 1000 posts have thus far. Perhaps I'll photoshop this later as I'm sure someday these will just be dead links.
Till then...Finis.
Vinea
PS Sorry to bail on you Melgross. I'm sure your feelings aren't too hurt...
I don't think that Apple's hardware offering makes a lot of sense at the moment. I'm particularly worried about the RAM ceilings:
Mac mini, 2GB
iMac, 2-3GB
MacBook, 2GB
MacBook Pro, 3GB
The only machine that supports more than 3GB is the top of the range, expensive FB-DIMM based Mac Pro. That's just crazy.
I don't anticipate future software releases getting any less memory hungry.
If we assume that the majority of users operate on a three year buying cycle, how useless is 2GB going to be in two years time? Are you trying to tell me that the only people that will require more than 3GB of RAM over the next three years should be considered Pro users? Bollocks.
My 'obsolete' PMG5 with 8GB of RAM is going to be far more capable in three years time than todays top of the range iMac with a paltry 3GB of RAM. That just doesn't make much sense to me.
Apple needs a headless desktop machine that can support 4-16GB of RAM via standard DIMMs. I'm not bothered about graphics cards vs. GMA, but the machine does need to have a 3.5" HDD.
The iMac is the only one you are incorrect about, as far as I know. As you know, 4GB RAM can be put in the machine. It's possible that Leopard will allow that last GB.
Unless it needs Santa Rosa. I've forgotten whether the chipset currently is a limitation, being 32 bit.
I think that illustrates the xMac debate far better than 1000 posts have thus far. Perhaps I'll photoshop this later as I'm sure someday these will just be dead links. Ask the people at ILM or those running photoshop for a living if they buy Apple as a kind of luxury item. They buy it because OSX is the best tool for the job.
Till then...Finis.
Vinea
PS Sorry to bail on you Melgross. I'm sure your feelings aren't too hurt...
Yeah that sound about right. You're looking some kind decadent show of wealth. We're looking for a better tool.
The iMac is the only one you are incorrect about, as far as I know. As you know, 4GB RAM can be put in the machine. It's possible that Leopard will allow that last GB.
Unless it needs Santa Rosa. I've forgotten whether the chipset currently is a limitation, being 32 bit.
4GB can be put in, but the mobile controller only supports 3GB. 2GB SO-DIMMs are also prohibitively expensive, especially when you consider that you either have to throw away the existing memory or pay Apple's sky high prices right off the bat.
4GB can be put in, but the mobile controller only supports 3GB. 2GB SO-DIMMs are also prohibitively expensive, especially when you consider that you either have to throw away the existing memory or pay Apple's sky high prices right off the bat.
If you need the memory, then you have to be willing to pay for it. Buy non-Apple memory for the second DIMM.
I'm not really sure if the chipset does indeed lead to the limitation. We had a long discussion about this once, and from what I remember, we came to no conclusion, because people were giving evidence for both views. Offhand, I don't see why it wouldn't support 4 GB, but then...
People who buy Mac Pros buy them like a commodity item.
They buy them to do a job, and they really don't give a toss whether the machine has a beautiful aircraft-grade aluminium enclosure or not. I've yet to meet a business owner who bought a Mac Pro because of its enclosure. They buy Mac Pros because it's the best tool for the job. Stick the guts of a Mac Pro in a tupperware box and slash $100 of the price and they'd buy them instead.
There are a very small number of people who buy a Mac Pro so they can sit in their room and rub their cock all over it. But the fact of the matter is that regardless of how Apple markets the Mac Pro, and regardless of how they art direct the marketing photography, the Mac Pro isn't an M series BMW ? it's a JCB.
It's the people who recognise the Mac Pro as a JCB, that drive M series cars in real life...
If you need the memory, then you have to be willing to pay for it. Buy non-Apple memory for the second DIMM.
I'm not really sure if the chipset does indeed lead to the limitation. We had a long discussion about this once, and from what I remember, we came to no conclusion, because people were giving evidence for both views. Offhand, I don't see why it wouldn't support 4 GB, but then...
Actually, the chipset does support up to 4GB according to the official intel specs PDF I just looked up. Still there is a $100 premium over desktop memory.
If you need the memory, then you have to be willing to pay for it.
I for one am more than happy to pay for the memory. There are very few components in the world of computing that offer as much bang-for-the-buck as RAM.
What I'm not happy about, is having to buy the top of the range tower in order to get that kind of capacity. 4GB isn't out of the ordinary nowadays, and it certainly won't be out of the ordinary in two years time. And I'm not happy about having to go down the slower and more expensive FB-DIMM route.
Actually, the chipset does support up to 4GB according to the official intel specs PDF I just looked up. Still there is a $100 premium over desktop memory.
Ok, good to know.
This is where we come to the mini tower. As I said, if you need the memory, then you have to pay for it. If you are paying $1,600 to over $2,000 for an iMac, and you really need the memory, another $100 shouldn't be a problem.
But, if you also need upgradability, and expandability, with the mini tower you get both, as well as cheaper memory, as long as the machine has a Conroe.
But, Intel is rapidly moving to DDR3, where the prices will be higher for a while.
I for one am more than happy to pay for the memory. There are very few components in the world of computing that offer as much bang-for-the-buck as RAM.
What I'm not happy about, is having to buy the top of the range tower in order to get that kind of capacity. 4GB isn't out of the ordinary nowadays, and it certainly won't be out of the ordinary in two years time. And I'm not happy about having to go down the slower and more expensive FB-DIMM route.
4GB+ ISN'T a Pro feature.
Well, I can go with that.
The Mac Pro is just what the name implies.
A mini tower shouldn't be nearly so onerous to purchase. I wouldn't label it as a pro machine, though it could be used that way.
The question, if it were to be produced, would be whether there would be room on the mobo for more than two memory slots. Just who would be buying this machine in the largest numbers?
4 GB IS out of the ordinary now. Most people are just beginning to think about 2 Gb.
Even two years from now, 4 Gb RAM would be more than enough for most people. For many pro purposes, even 4 GB is more than enough.
It would be a cost/performance issue, as it always is.
The Mac Pro is just what the name implies. . . . A mini tower shouldn't be nearly so onerous to purchase. . .
The question, if it were to be produced, would be whether there would be room on the mobo for more than two memory slots. Just who would be buying this machine in the largest numbers?
Depends on how mini it is. I've seen some very small towers. I hope Apple would not make one so small, but just a cut down Mac Pro, mostly shorter. In this way, why not four memory slots? It would be a prosumer, so most buyers would want it to look like a professional machine, and the really small ones look like toys.
Depends on how mini it is. I've seen some very small towers. I hope Apple would not make one so small, but just a cut down Mac Pro, mostly shorter. In this way, why not four memory slots? It would be a prosumer, so most buyers would want it to look like a professional machine, and the really small ones look like toys.
It's not just a matter of adding slots. The mobo would have to be larger, which means greater cost, etc.
Comments
There is simply NO reason to use a Xeon in a single processor machine.
There's also no reason not to offer it as a BTO option for those that want a cheaper tower.
Just how many iMacs is Apple selling a year anyway? Not all that many. There is pretty much no growth there. They should be willing to try other avenues.
Given the majority of desktop sale will be iMacs...on the order of 2M machines/year.
Apple enjoys the highest ASPs in the business. Reduction of the ASPs by offering a $799-$999 tower that would eliminate high ASP iMac sales without a corresponding increase in volume (either of desktops or monitors) would significantly reduce Apple's profitability and revenues.
Since you came late to the party I'll repeat the same challenge:
Show me a high-end PC maker that still offers mid-priced towers at high margins and I'll agree that Apple should offer an mid priced ($999-$1299) tower.
IBM, Sony and Toshiba have exitted the tower market. Sony has the most in common with Apple and their VAIO line has been reduced to...an AIO and a round Mini. No more towers.
Vinea
Personally, if I were Apple I would completely update the desktops. The replacement for the Mac Mini would be slightly larger to use less expensive desktop E43/4400 CPUs, G965 motherboards, and 3.5" hard drives. As a notebook optical drive would be used and there would not be any PCI-e slots, the form factor would still be much smaller than even the smallest PCs such as the HP slimline series.
The iMacs would be updated (but still use merom) to the PM965 chipset, and include an updated iPhone inspired form factor with the latest 19" (1440x900), 22" (1680x1050) and 24 in (1920x1200) panels. Cinema displays in the same sizes plus 30" would also come.
At the high end, a Mac Pro Core 2 Duo would come into play with a 2.13ghz core 2 duo E6420, 1GB of memory, and a Geforce 8300GT for $1299. BTO options would include 2.4 and 2.67ghz CPUs, 8600GT and 8800GTS CPUs, and up to 4GB of RAM on 4 DIMM slots.
Such a desktop lineup would make Apple a serious contender in education, business, and all aspects of the home market. It would be even more of a contender if were to acquire Elgato to match the full media center capabilities as windows.
I basically agree with that.
I do think the small form factor is overrated. There is no solid evidence that I know of that shows that the majority of people who do buy the Mini are doing so because of that form factor rather than the price.
19, 22, and 24" iMacs are much too close in size. There is no easy to define difference between them. A 20 and a 24 would be enough, except the for school market, for which the 17 is still a better choice, in my experience.
I don't see the higher end box being a Mac Pro though. I don't think that label should be used for what would be a mid-level average performance machine.
We might see gamers buy this machine, as well as home users, businesses, and for some school users, as well as for low end pro customers. I think the price should be kept below that as well, certainly in the beginning.
My ideas on this is that it should end up below the cost of the 20 and 24" iMacs once a low cost Apple monitor is added.
There's also no reason not to offer it as a BTO option for those that want a cheaper tower.
Besides the $500-1000 in added expenses a single xeon adds over a single conroe
Given the majority of desktop sale will be iMacs...on the order of 2M machines/year.
That isn't saying much considering the sad state of Mac desktops. The Mac Mini is completely uncompetitive due to the exclusive use of laptop parts and buying a workstation to get a desktop takes fanatical loyalty.
I basically agree with that.
I do think the small form factor is overrated. There is no solid evidence that I know of that shows that the majority of people who do buy the Mini are doing so because of that form factor rather than the price.
I think something has to be said for a smaller package, but it also has to be useful to the user. I think my idea is a happy balance between the two.
19, 22, and 24" iMacs are much too close in size. There is no easy to define difference between them. A 20 and a 24 would be enough, except the for school market, for which the 17 is still a better choice, in my experience.
Not in mine. 19" and 22" are the most popular LCDs sizes out there at the moment. There is also the resolution difference. Then again if Apple wants to contine with 17, 20, 24 and possible lose sales because of it that is their right.
I don't see the higher end box being a Mac Pro though. I don't think that label should be used for what would be a mid-level average performance machine.
Something Mac pro sized is more likely to attract the full ATX PC crowd than a cube MKII. Work with what's tried and true and available. Plus when I say desktop I mean tower that sits under my desk instead of wasting space on it.
There's also no reason not to offer it as a BTO option for those that want a cheaper tower.
There is, because as far as I know, it requires a different mobo entirely. That would drive the cost up too much for the limited numbers they would sell into.
Don't forget there is nothing drop-in about the Xeono vs the Conroe.
Given the majority of desktop sale will be iMacs...on the order of 2M machines/year.
That's probably a decent estimate, but it's a small number, and one that doesn't seem to be doing any real growth. In other words, it's stagnent. Apple has to shake up their desktop segment.
Apple enjoys the highest ASPs in the business. Reduction of the ASPs by offering a $799-$999 tower that would eliminate high ASP iMac sales without a corresponding increase in volume (either of desktops or monitors) would significantly reduce Apple's profitability and revenues.
I don't think so. The Mini doesn't have a high ASP, neither do the iPods, and probably the ATv doesn't either.
Besides, the more machines Apple sells, the more software they sell, and software has a VEERY high ASP. It could easily make up for it.
Since you came late to the party I'll repeat the same challenge:
Show me a high-end PC maker that still offers mid-priced towers at high margins and I'll agree that Apple should offer an mid priced ($999-$1299) tower.
IBM, Sony and Toshiba have exitted the tower market. Sony has the most in common with Apple and their VAIO line has been reduced to...an AIO and a round Mini. No more towers.
Vinea
I would have to think more about it to give a complete answer.
But, there is no reason why a tower doesn't have to be a decent profit center. There is nothing special about any type of model that ensures that. It's merely a matter of cost vs selling price.
The iMacs are not cheap to produce, and may have a higher return rate because of the defects that can come with the built-in screen.
Also, most PC manufacturers offer many accessories with the computers at the point of sale. Speakers, printers, monitors, and other gadgets are often given away for free, or at almost free prices. Apple doesn't do that. Those giveaways are so often what drives the profitability of these systems down. They also change their models much more often then Apple does, lowering prices as they go on current models. Something that starts out at $1,295 may cost $999 several months later, and $795 before it is replaced. These companies also tend to offer many SKU's. Apple hasn't done that for its consumer machines, the options are much more limited. That keeps the cost up for them, and down for Apple, ergo, greater profitability.
Many people may say that an all-in-one will cost more to produce, and so should lead to lower profitability.
I don't see, from my experience as both an electronics designer, and manufacturer, why Apple could not come out with a machine in that price range, and make a decent profit on it.
Not in mine. 19" and 22" are the most popular LCDs sizes out there at the moment. There is also the resolution difference. Then again if Apple wants to contine with 17, 20, 24 and possible lose sales because of it that is their right.
I doubt Apple is losing sales because they don't have a tightly bunched series of machines. It's less confusing this way.
It's one thing to sell monitors in many sizes, but selling an entire machine that way is, I think, not helpful. The pricing would have to be too close, and the size of the machines would be too similiar.
Something Mac pro sized is more likely to attract the full ATX PC crowd than a cube MKII. Work with what's tried and true and available. Plus when I say desktop I mean tower that sits under my desk instead of wasting space on it.
I never said cube. I said mini tower. I've been saying the exact same thing since the first G5 tower came out. It would be a mini version of that, minus the handles and feet, as well as being smaller all around.
Mac mini, 2GB
iMac, 2-3GB
MacBook, 2GB
MacBook Pro, 3GB
The only machine that supports more than 3GB is the top of the range, expensive FB-DIMM based Mac Pro. That's just crazy.
I don't anticipate future software releases getting any less memory hungry.
If we assume that the majority of users operate on a three year buying cycle, how useless is 2GB going to be in two years time? Are you trying to tell me that the only people that will require more than 3GB of RAM over the next three years should be considered Pro users? Bollocks.
My 'obsolete' PMG5 with 8GB of RAM is going to be far more capable in three years time than todays top of the range iMac with a paltry 3GB of RAM. That just doesn't make much sense to me.
Apple needs a headless desktop machine that can support 4-16GB of RAM via standard DIMMs. I'm not bothered about graphics cards vs. GMA, but the machine does need to have a 3.5" HDD.
is this:
instead of this:
I think that illustrates the xMac debate far better than 1000 posts have thus far. Perhaps I'll photoshop this later as I'm sure someday these will just be dead links.
Till then...Finis.
Vinea
PS Sorry to bail on you Melgross. I'm sure your feelings aren't too hurt...
I don't think that Apple's hardware offering makes a lot of sense at the moment. I'm particularly worried about the RAM ceilings:
Mac mini, 2GB
iMac, 2-3GB
MacBook, 2GB
MacBook Pro, 3GB
The only machine that supports more than 3GB is the top of the range, expensive FB-DIMM based Mac Pro. That's just crazy.
I don't anticipate future software releases getting any less memory hungry.
If we assume that the majority of users operate on a three year buying cycle, how useless is 2GB going to be in two years time? Are you trying to tell me that the only people that will require more than 3GB of RAM over the next three years should be considered Pro users? Bollocks.
My 'obsolete' PMG5 with 8GB of RAM is going to be far more capable in three years time than todays top of the range iMac with a paltry 3GB of RAM. That just doesn't make much sense to me.
Apple needs a headless desktop machine that can support 4-16GB of RAM via standard DIMMs. I'm not bothered about graphics cards vs. GMA, but the machine does need to have a 3.5" HDD.
The iMac is the only one you are incorrect about, as far as I know. As you know, 4GB RAM can be put in the machine. It's possible that Leopard will allow that last GB.
Unless it needs Santa Rosa. I've forgotten whether the chipset currently is a limitation, being 32 bit.
Some folks believe that
is this:
instead of this:
I think that illustrates the xMac debate far better than 1000 posts have thus far. Perhaps I'll photoshop this later as I'm sure someday these will just be dead links. Ask the people at ILM or those running photoshop for a living if they buy Apple as a kind of luxury item. They buy it because OSX is the best tool for the job.
Till then...Finis.
Vinea
PS Sorry to bail on you Melgross. I'm sure your feelings aren't too hurt...
Yeah that sound about right. You're looking some kind decadent show of wealth. We're looking for a better tool.
Till then...Finis.
Vinea
PS Sorry to bail on you Melgross. I'm sure your feelings aren't too hurt...
There's no time limitation here, unless, when you go away for more than a day or so, you leave the old discussions, as I do.
The iMac is the only one you are incorrect about, as far as I know. As you know, 4GB RAM can be put in the machine. It's possible that Leopard will allow that last GB.
Unless it needs Santa Rosa. I've forgotten whether the chipset currently is a limitation, being 32 bit.
4GB can be put in, but the mobile controller only supports 3GB. 2GB SO-DIMMs are also prohibitively expensive, especially when you consider that you either have to throw away the existing memory or pay Apple's sky high prices right off the bat.
4GB can be put in, but the mobile controller only supports 3GB. 2GB SO-DIMMs are also prohibitively expensive, especially when you consider that you either have to throw away the existing memory or pay Apple's sky high prices right off the bat.
If you need the memory, then you have to be willing to pay for it. Buy non-Apple memory for the second DIMM.
I'm not really sure if the chipset does indeed lead to the limitation. We had a long discussion about this once, and from what I remember, we came to no conclusion, because people were giving evidence for both views. Offhand, I don't see why it wouldn't support 4 GB, but then...
They buy them to do a job, and they really don't give a toss whether the machine has a beautiful aircraft-grade aluminium enclosure or not. I've yet to meet a business owner who bought a Mac Pro because of its enclosure. They buy Mac Pros because it's the best tool for the job. Stick the guts of a Mac Pro in a tupperware box and slash $100 of the price and they'd buy them instead.
There are a very small number of people who buy a Mac Pro so they can sit in their room and rub their cock all over it. But the fact of the matter is that regardless of how Apple markets the Mac Pro, and regardless of how they art direct the marketing photography, the Mac Pro isn't an M series BMW ? it's a JCB.
It's the people who recognise the Mac Pro as a JCB, that drive M series cars in real life...
If you need the memory, then you have to be willing to pay for it. Buy non-Apple memory for the second DIMM.
I'm not really sure if the chipset does indeed lead to the limitation. We had a long discussion about this once, and from what I remember, we came to no conclusion, because people were giving evidence for both views. Offhand, I don't see why it wouldn't support 4 GB, but then...
Actually, the chipset does support up to 4GB according to the official intel specs PDF I just looked up. Still there is a $100 premium over desktop memory.
If you need the memory, then you have to be willing to pay for it.
I for one am more than happy to pay for the memory. There are very few components in the world of computing that offer as much bang-for-the-buck as RAM.
What I'm not happy about, is having to buy the top of the range tower in order to get that kind of capacity. 4GB isn't out of the ordinary nowadays, and it certainly won't be out of the ordinary in two years time. And I'm not happy about having to go down the slower and more expensive FB-DIMM route.
4GB+ ISN'T a Pro feature.
Actually, the chipset does support up to 4GB according to the official intel specs PDF I just looked up. Still there is a $100 premium over desktop memory.
Ok, good to know.
This is where we come to the mini tower. As I said, if you need the memory, then you have to pay for it. If you are paying $1,600 to over $2,000 for an iMac, and you really need the memory, another $100 shouldn't be a problem.
But, if you also need upgradability, and expandability, with the mini tower you get both, as well as cheaper memory, as long as the machine has a Conroe.
But, Intel is rapidly moving to DDR3, where the prices will be higher for a while.
I for one am more than happy to pay for the memory. There are very few components in the world of computing that offer as much bang-for-the-buck as RAM.
What I'm not happy about, is having to buy the top of the range tower in order to get that kind of capacity. 4GB isn't out of the ordinary nowadays, and it certainly won't be out of the ordinary in two years time. And I'm not happy about having to go down the slower and more expensive FB-DIMM route.
4GB+ ISN'T a Pro feature.
Well, I can go with that.
The Mac Pro is just what the name implies.
A mini tower shouldn't be nearly so onerous to purchase. I wouldn't label it as a pro machine, though it could be used that way.
The question, if it were to be produced, would be whether there would be room on the mobo for more than two memory slots. Just who would be buying this machine in the largest numbers?
4 GB IS out of the ordinary now. Most people are just beginning to think about 2 Gb.
Even two years from now, 4 Gb RAM would be more than enough for most people. For many pro purposes, even 4 GB is more than enough.
It would be a cost/performance issue, as it always is.
The Mac Pro is just what the name implies. . . . A mini tower shouldn't be nearly so onerous to purchase. . .
The question, if it were to be produced, would be whether there would be room on the mobo for more than two memory slots. Just who would be buying this machine in the largest numbers?
Depends on how mini it is. I've seen some very small towers. I hope Apple would not make one so small, but just a cut down Mac Pro, mostly shorter. In this way, why not four memory slots? It would be a prosumer, so most buyers would want it to look like a professional machine, and the really small ones look like toys.
Depends on how mini it is. I've seen some very small towers. I hope Apple would not make one so small, but just a cut down Mac Pro, mostly shorter. In this way, why not four memory slots? It would be a prosumer, so most buyers would want it to look like a professional machine, and the really small ones look like toys.
It's not just a matter of adding slots. The mobo would have to be larger, which means greater cost, etc.