See...you're saying the Mac Pro sucks again because, hey, if most things don't use 4 cores then the $2200 2.0 Ghz Dual Mac Pro almost equally sucks. And for $1600 you get a single 2.0 Ghz Xeon 5130 Precision 490 workstation from Dell. Offering the SAME option to Mac Pro buyers hurts how?
I'm not talking about the Mac Pro. It has 4-cores and is designed to be used with programs that support that many cores. I'm saying a 2.0ghz dual core machine sucks compared to a 2.4ghz quad core or a 2.66ghz dual core for the same money. The server parts don't make the computer faster, it would be pretty similar to the bottom of the line iMac, what they do is make it several hundred dollars more expensive.
As for the single CPU machines, Apple actually used a different motherboard in the G5s. Using the dual CPU board was not cost effective, so they used the consumer U3L as used on the iMac. They would be doing the same thing here. The xeon 5000 series are not some kind of entirely different chip, they are a variant of the desktop core 2 modified for a multi-cpu environment. Dell may offer single cpu xeon setups, but very few of them are sold. Those who want a single cpu machine order a core 2 duo/ 975x (now x38) machine.
Desktop sales 817,000 units for $1,195,000,000 in earnings
Notebooks sales 1,347,000 units for $1,908,000,000 in earnings
Total 2,164,000 units for $3,103,000,000 in earnings
If you are not meeting the markets demands with an effective strategy your sales and revenue don't continue to climb so steeply and so successfully. Apple's strength is obviously in its notebook line, in where they are making far more revenue than any other computer company on the planet.
Apples Desktop sales are up 817,000 from 634,000. Thats a damn good increase in desktops. The Desktop market is definitely not dead it just has limited potential because of the lack there of, one real desktop. They could easily become the top selling computer manufacturer this coming year if they had one, and I have no doubts about that. Boot-camp, and virtualization would play a big role in that, but what does it matter when your hardware is selling like wildfire.
Apples Desktop sales are up 817,000 from 634,000. Thats a damn good increase in desktops. The Desktop market is definitely not dead it just has limited potentail because of the lack there of, one real desktop.
I'm sure Steve is not saying, but I would love to know what the breakdown on desktop sales is: Mini, IMac, Mac Pro.
Apples Desktop sales are up 817,000 from 634,000. Thats a damn good increase in desktops.
Especially with the median price of your desktop line around $1500.
Quote:
The Desktop market is definitely not dead it just has limited potential because of the lack there of, one real desktop. They could easily become the top selling computer manufacturer this coming year if they had one
I agree with a point Vinea made a while ago. HP and Dell dominate the commodity desktop market. There is little reason for Apple to play to their strengths. Apple is dominating the growth of notebook sales. Apple is in a good position to dominate the handset market with the iPhone and iPod Touch, a market no one has a solid lock on. Looking towards the future is the theme.
I agree with a point Vinea made a while ago. HP and Dell dominate the commodity desktop market. There is little reason for Apple to play to their strengths. Apple is dominating the growth of notebook sales.
Apple has a LONG way to go before they are beating Dell and HP in laptop sales.
Especially with the median price of your desktop line around $1500.
I agree with a point Vinea made a while ago. HP and Dell dominate the commodity desktop market. There is little reason for Apple to play to their strengths. Apple is dominating the growth of notebook sales. Apple is in a good position to dominate the handset market with the iPhone and iPod Touch, a market no one has a solid lock on. Looking towards the future is the theme.
Who says Apple has to play them? I don't see other PC manufacturers as opposition. I see them as a gauge as to where the market has potential growth for Apple. There are obviously an enormous amount of Mac and PC users that want a regular Mac desktop. It's foolish to ignore the growth potential.
That's just an update not a new desktop. Chances are about 98% that the mini is going to be updated. Your essentially throwing off our poll.
The Mac Mini is a desktop, with laptop components. I agree maybe I shouldn't of "skewed" the numbers with my vote but if the "rumors" are true, Mac Mini might be gone.
My iteration may not be called Mac Mini, but I like the form factor of the Mac Mini.
Besides there is only 8 votes for others and almost 60 true desktop...I don't think I tipped the balance...
I voted for other: Mac Mini updated using the GM965 platform...maybe FW800?
And went to a slightly larger 8x8x3 form factor. It would still be significantly smaller than other entry level machines, yet with a desktop hard drive it would actually be be competitive for a change. However, this machine is for the email readers and web surfers only. The machine is above the iMac and below the Mac Pro.
So what Apple has here is:
Mac Mini: entry level machine for novices (2GB RAM)
iMac: low to medium end general purpose family machine. (4GB RAM)
Giant hole: machine aimed at lighter professionals and higher end consumers (8GB)
Mac Pro: Workstation aimed at high end professionals (16GB ram)
And went to a slightly larger 8x8x3 form factor. It would still be significantly smaller than other entry level machines, yet with a desktop hard drive it would actually be be competitive for a change. However, this machine is for the email readers and web surfers only. The machine is above the iMac and below the Mac Pro.
So what Apple has here is:
Mac Mini: entry level machine for novices (2GB RAM)
Say what? Novices? You can run CS3 on a Mini. Of course, you're not getting far without the 2GB installed and even then you're hurting for memory but there's lots of stuff you can do with a Mini. Yes, all it has is a GMA950 but novices? Please.
It's also a prefectly adequate dev machine if you aren't working on DX or OGL stuff.
Quote:
iMac: low to medium end general purpose family machine. (4GB RAM)
Giant hole: machine aimed at lighter professionals and higher end consumers (8GB)
Mac Pro: Workstation aimed at high end professionals (16GB ram)
There's damn little you CAN'T do with an iMac. The 4GB RAM difference is really the only thing and then its an issue of speed for some apps.
The number of folks that MUST have 8GB but CAN'T afford a Mac Pro are pretty slim. Sure, there's a hole but not so huge as you make it out to be. The number of folks it really impacts is pretty small.
Just to add some more fuel to the single CPU workstations, today Sun released these.
Quote:
The Intel system is based on the single-socket Garlow platform supporting six different processors ? the dual-cores E4400, E6750 and E6850 (2.0 GHz ? 3.0 GHz) as well as the quad-cores Q6600, Q6700 and QX6850 (2.4 GHz ? 3.0 GHz).
The base configuration comes with the E4400, 512 MB of memory, a 250 GB SATA hard drive, Nvidia?s NVS290 workstation graphics card as well as Solaris 10 as operating system for $995. The E6850 model with a FX1700 card lists for $1835. The base quad-core configuration with the Q6600 CPU, 1 GB of memory, a 250 GB SATA hard drive and the NVS290 card sells for $1445, while the QX6850 version with 2 GB of memory is available for $2335.
A low-end $995 workstation, and up to $2335 (quad 3.0GHz).
That makes my suggestions above very consistent with that market:
Apple $1499 quad 2.50GHz vs Sun $1445 quad 2.40GHz
Apple $1999 quad 2.80GHz vs Sun $1835 quad 2.66GHz (it's a guess, I couldn't find the real price)
Apple $2499 quad 3.20GHz vs Sun $2335 quad 3.00GHz
Let's hope that last quater's desktop results make Apple more interested in desktop computers (room to grow) instead of thinking they have a "good enough" line-up with the Mac mini/iMac/MacPro as it is.
Say what? Novices? You can run CS3 on a Mini. Of course, you're not getting far without the 2GB installed and even then you're hurting for memory but there's lots of stuff you can do with a Mini. Yes, all it has is a GMA950 but novices? Please.
It's also a prefectly adequate dev machine if you aren't working on DX or OGL stuff.
The mini on board video eats up system ram and put more load on the cpu as well the rest of the chipset also the slower laptop ram, cpu, and HD also slow things down even more.
Say what? Novices? You can run CS3 on a Mini. Of course, you're not getting far without the 2GB installed and even then you're hurting for memory but there's lots of stuff you can do with a Mini. Yes, all it has is a GMA950 but novices? Please.
It's also a prefectly adequate dev machine if you aren't working on DX or OGL stuff.
That's the problem though. When you hit those conditions, you have to step up a model and then you have to consider an iMac and it has a built in glossy screen and the lowest end is twice the price of the lowest Mini so you are essentially paying double for a fairly poor GPU as you don't need the screen and the CPU is pretty much the same.
The Mini hard drives are really quite poor too btw. They make odd clicking sounds on almost all models I've tried and I really believe they have some sort of manufacturing defect because the solution to get round it is to sleep/wake the computer but I've had so many freezes from doing that it's crazy. I got a kernel panic yesterday because of it.
If you decide the iMac is not worth it (and it isn't) and look for a quad core, the next step up is 4 times the price of the Mini. So for the sake of a $200 GPU and a $200 CPU, with Apple you are paying a ridiculous and unnecessary amount of money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The number of folks that MUST have 8GB but CAN'T afford a Mac Pro are pretty slim. Sure, there's a hole but not so huge as you make it out to be. The number of folks it really impacts is pretty small.
Well we don't know how many people it impacts as they could be using PCs, which when you can get a quad core machine at 1/3 of the price of Apple's lowest quad you can't really blame them.
If you decide the iMac is not worth it (and it isn't) and look for a quad core, the next step up is 4 times the price of the Mini. So for the sake of a $200 GPU and a $200 CPU, with Apple you are paying a ridiculous and unnecessary amount of money.QUOTE]
Could it be that that's Apple's intention? Nooooooo. Couldn't be! Not Apple.
Just letting you know... Sarcasm does not go far on these boards
My sarcasm was aimed at Apple, not this forum.
BTW, maybe it's because I'm 'technically challenged', but I see the 'gaping hole' in Apple's line up as between the Mini and the iMac - even between the Mini and the Mac Pro. I don't see the iMac, an AIO, as other than a niche player.
I feel the same way about printer AIO's. The lineup zigzagged instead of maintaining a lineal progression.
I was saying on these boards in general... no one seems to understand sarcasm.
Quote:
BTW, maybe it's because I'm 'technically challenged', but I see the 'gaping hole' in Apple's line up as between the Mini and the iMac - even between the Mini and the Mac Pro. I don't see the iMac, an AIO, as other than a niche player.
I feel the same way about printer AIO's. The lineup zigzagged instead of maintaining a lineal progression.
Comments
See...you're saying the Mac Pro sucks again because, hey, if most things don't use 4 cores then the $2200 2.0 Ghz Dual Mac Pro almost equally sucks. And for $1600 you get a single 2.0 Ghz Xeon 5130 Precision 490 workstation from Dell. Offering the SAME option to Mac Pro buyers hurts how?
I'm not talking about the Mac Pro. It has 4-cores and is designed to be used with programs that support that many cores. I'm saying a 2.0ghz dual core machine sucks compared to a 2.4ghz quad core or a 2.66ghz dual core for the same money. The server parts don't make the computer faster, it would be pretty similar to the bottom of the line iMac, what they do is make it several hundred dollars more expensive.
As for the single CPU machines, Apple actually used a different motherboard in the G5s. Using the dual CPU board was not cost effective, so they used the consumer U3L as used on the iMac. They would be doing the same thing here. The xeon 5000 series are not some kind of entirely different chip, they are a variant of the desktop core 2 modified for a multi-cpu environment. Dell may offer single cpu xeon setups, but very few of them are sold. Those who want a single cpu machine order a core 2 duo/ 975x (now x38) machine.
Desktop sales 817,000 units for $1,195,000,000 in earnings
Notebooks sales 1,347,000 units for $1,908,000,000 in earnings
Total 2,164,000 units for $3,103,000,000 in earnings
If you are not meeting the markets demands with an effective strategy your sales and revenue don't continue to climb so steeply and so successfully. Apple's strength is obviously in its notebook line, in where they are making far more revenue than any other computer company on the planet.
Apples Desktop sales are up 817,000 from 634,000. Thats a damn good increase in desktops. The Desktop market is definitely not dead it just has limited potentail because of the lack there of, one real desktop.
I'm sure Steve is not saying, but I would love to know what the breakdown on desktop sales is: Mini, IMac, Mac Pro.
I voted for other: Mac Mini updated using the GM965 platform...maybe FW800?
That's just an update not a new desktop. Chances are about 98% that the mini is going to be updated. Your essentially throwing off our poll.
Apples Desktop sales are up 817,000 from 634,000. Thats a damn good increase in desktops.
Especially with the median price of your desktop line around $1500.
The Desktop market is definitely not dead it just has limited potential because of the lack there of, one real desktop. They could easily become the top selling computer manufacturer this coming year if they had one
I agree with a point Vinea made a while ago. HP and Dell dominate the commodity desktop market. There is little reason for Apple to play to their strengths. Apple is dominating the growth of notebook sales. Apple is in a good position to dominate the handset market with the iPhone and iPod Touch, a market no one has a solid lock on. Looking towards the future is the theme.
I agree with a point Vinea made a while ago. HP and Dell dominate the commodity desktop market. There is little reason for Apple to play to their strengths. Apple is dominating the growth of notebook sales.
Apple has a LONG way to go before they are beating Dell and HP in laptop sales.
Apple has a LONG way to go before they are beating Dell and HP in laptop sales.
You mean desktop sales.
Especially with the median price of your desktop line around $1500.
I agree with a point Vinea made a while ago. HP and Dell dominate the commodity desktop market. There is little reason for Apple to play to their strengths. Apple is dominating the growth of notebook sales. Apple is in a good position to dominate the handset market with the iPhone and iPod Touch, a market no one has a solid lock on. Looking towards the future is the theme.
Who says Apple has to play them? I don't see other PC manufacturers as opposition. I see them as a gauge as to where the market has potential growth for Apple. There are obviously an enormous amount of Mac and PC users that want a regular Mac desktop. It's foolish to ignore the growth potential.
That's just an update not a new desktop. Chances are about 98% that the mini is going to be updated. Your essentially throwing off our poll.
The Mac Mini is a desktop, with laptop components. I agree maybe I shouldn't of "skewed" the numbers with my vote but if the "rumors" are true, Mac Mini might be gone.
My iteration may not be called Mac Mini, but I like the form factor of the Mac Mini.
Besides there is only 8 votes for others and almost 60 true desktop...I don't think I tipped the balance...
I voted for other: Mac Mini updated using the GM965 platform...maybe FW800?
And went to a slightly larger 8x8x3 form factor. It would still be significantly smaller than other entry level machines, yet with a desktop hard drive it would actually be be competitive for a change. However, this machine is for the email readers and web surfers only. The machine is above the iMac and below the Mac Pro.
So what Apple has here is:
Mac Mini: entry level machine for novices (2GB RAM)
iMac: low to medium end general purpose family machine. (4GB RAM)
Giant hole: machine aimed at lighter professionals and higher end consumers (8GB)
Mac Pro: Workstation aimed at high end professionals (16GB ram)
And went to a slightly larger 8x8x3 form factor. It would still be significantly smaller than other entry level machines, yet with a desktop hard drive it would actually be be competitive for a change. However, this machine is for the email readers and web surfers only. The machine is above the iMac and below the Mac Pro.
So what Apple has here is:
Mac Mini: entry level machine for novices (2GB RAM)
Say what? Novices? You can run CS3 on a Mini. Of course, you're not getting far without the 2GB installed and even then you're hurting for memory but there's lots of stuff you can do with a Mini. Yes, all it has is a GMA950 but novices? Please.
It's also a prefectly adequate dev machine if you aren't working on DX or OGL stuff.
iMac: low to medium end general purpose family machine. (4GB RAM)
Giant hole: machine aimed at lighter professionals and higher end consumers (8GB)
Mac Pro: Workstation aimed at high end professionals (16GB ram)
There's damn little you CAN'T do with an iMac. The 4GB RAM difference is really the only thing and then its an issue of speed for some apps.
The number of folks that MUST have 8GB but CAN'T afford a Mac Pro are pretty slim. Sure, there's a hole but not so huge as you make it out to be. The number of folks it really impacts is pretty small.
The Intel system is based on the single-socket Garlow platform supporting six different processors ? the dual-cores E4400, E6750 and E6850 (2.0 GHz ? 3.0 GHz) as well as the quad-cores Q6600, Q6700 and QX6850 (2.4 GHz ? 3.0 GHz).
The base configuration comes with the E4400, 512 MB of memory, a 250 GB SATA hard drive, Nvidia?s NVS290 workstation graphics card as well as Solaris 10 as operating system for $995. The E6850 model with a FX1700 card lists for $1835. The base quad-core configuration with the Q6600 CPU, 1 GB of memory, a 250 GB SATA hard drive and the NVS290 card sells for $1445, while the QX6850 version with 2 GB of memory is available for $2335.
A low-end $995 workstation, and up to $2335 (quad 3.0GHz).
That makes my suggestions above very consistent with that market:
Apple $1499 quad 2.50GHz vs Sun $1445 quad 2.40GHz
Apple $1999 quad 2.80GHz vs Sun $1835 quad 2.66GHz (it's a guess, I couldn't find the real price)
Apple $2499 quad 3.20GHz vs Sun $2335 quad 3.00GHz
Let's hope that last quater's desktop results make Apple more interested in desktop computers (room to grow) instead of thinking they have a "good enough" line-up with the Mac mini/iMac/MacPro as it is.
Say what? Novices? You can run CS3 on a Mini. Of course, you're not getting far without the 2GB installed and even then you're hurting for memory but there's lots of stuff you can do with a Mini. Yes, all it has is a GMA950 but novices? Please.
It's also a prefectly adequate dev machine if you aren't working on DX or OGL stuff.
The mini on board video eats up system ram and put more load on the cpu as well the rest of the chipset also the slower laptop ram, cpu, and HD also slow things down even more.
Say what? Novices? You can run CS3 on a Mini. Of course, you're not getting far without the 2GB installed and even then you're hurting for memory but there's lots of stuff you can do with a Mini. Yes, all it has is a GMA950 but novices? Please.
It's also a prefectly adequate dev machine if you aren't working on DX or OGL stuff.
That's the problem though. When you hit those conditions, you have to step up a model and then you have to consider an iMac and it has a built in glossy screen and the lowest end is twice the price of the lowest Mini so you are essentially paying double for a fairly poor GPU as you don't need the screen and the CPU is pretty much the same.
The Mini hard drives are really quite poor too btw. They make odd clicking sounds on almost all models I've tried and I really believe they have some sort of manufacturing defect because the solution to get round it is to sleep/wake the computer but I've had so many freezes from doing that it's crazy. I got a kernel panic yesterday because of it.
If you decide the iMac is not worth it (and it isn't) and look for a quad core, the next step up is 4 times the price of the Mini. So for the sake of a $200 GPU and a $200 CPU, with Apple you are paying a ridiculous and unnecessary amount of money.
The number of folks that MUST have 8GB but CAN'T afford a Mac Pro are pretty slim. Sure, there's a hole but not so huge as you make it out to be. The number of folks it really impacts is pretty small.
Well we don't know how many people it impacts as they could be using PCs, which when you can get a quad core machine at 1/3 of the price of Apple's lowest quad you can't really blame them.
If you decide the iMac is not worth it (and it isn't) and look for a quad core, the next step up is 4 times the price of the Mini. So for the sake of a $200 GPU and a $200 CPU, with Apple you are paying a ridiculous and unnecessary amount of money.QUOTE]
Could it be that that's Apple's intention? Nooooooo. Couldn't be! Not Apple.
Just letting you know... Sarcasm does not go far on these boards
My sarcasm was aimed at Apple, not this forum.
BTW, maybe it's because I'm 'technically challenged', but I see the 'gaping hole' in Apple's line up as between the Mini and the iMac - even between the Mini and the Mac Pro. I don't see the iMac, an AIO, as other than a niche player.
I feel the same way about printer AIO's. The lineup zigzagged instead of maintaining a lineal progression.
My sarcasm was aimed at Apple, not this forum.
I was saying on these boards in general... no one seems to understand sarcasm.
BTW, maybe it's because I'm 'technically challenged', but I see the 'gaping hole' in Apple's line up as between the Mini and the iMac - even between the Mini and the Mac Pro. I don't see the iMac, an AIO, as other than a niche player.
I feel the same way about printer AIO's. The lineup zigzagged instead of maintaining a lineal progression.
Agreed...