Then your talking about making a 3rd entirely different motherboard just for IDE drives; and for what configuration? The solo processor configuration, or the Dual Proc-config? Both? You just can have that much inventory laying around.
I'm NOT advocating IDE drives for Mac Pros. You've misunderstood my post.
While the choices and number of cards doesn't diminish the new machines (at least not much), they aren't exactly bragging point either. The Nvidia 8800 gt and Quadra 5600 are excellent choices, but the ati 2600 is a very pedestrian and weak choice. Especially since there are other better entry level cards that aren't much more expensive, like the 3850 or nvidia 8600. I 'm not aware of any positive reviews of the 2600 series of cards.
This is, after all, Apple's most powerful and technically advanced machine. And why not both or all three (3850, 2600 and 8600) to go with the high end cards? Is it that hard to develop drivers for these?
I'd argue with a starting price of £1755 for the Octo entry, a GT should be included as standard in the price. No. Really. The price of entry has highered. The 2600xt would be ok in the iMac. But not as a base card for an Octo station Mac Pro.
Gt. As standard. Still, at £130? It's cheaper as an option than at most stores to buy. So...
Let's face it. The GT isn't that far behind the GTX. The intro' of the 9800 is imminent. So Apple couldn't and shouldn't wait for it to ship in Feb/March.
Expect the 'uber' 9800 'die shrinked' 8800GTX to become an option then.
Or wait for leaked benches.
Not too much moaning. The GT is a great card for the money. It's blazingly fast.
Case was redesigned internally on the intel swap over. Does the outside need a redesign.
Only in terms of aesthetic fashion and not functionality...
I don't want to blow it out of perspective because the Mac Pro is a powerful machine that is probably ideal for those who need the ultimate in processing power.
But if a user is unable to discern the difference between a 2600 card and the 'competitors' then do they really need a Mac Pro?
Because not everyone that needs a workstation class machine needs high 3D performance?
Because not everyone that needs a workstation class machine needs high 3D performance?
I not saying that the Mac Pro shouldn't have a midlevel graphic card for the entry level machine but at least make it best in class. The 2600 is inferior to both the 3850 and nvidia 8600.
I not saying that the Mac Pro shouldn't have a midlevel graphic card for the entry level machine but at least make it best in class. The 2600 is inferior to both the 3850 and nvidia 8600.
Exactly. It doesn't matter what people expect. It's an Octo-Station. It costs £1750 entry.
DECENT mid level should be the least of what we expect. The 2600XT is not really a mid range card. It's a low mid or low end one.
HEck. It's in the iMac. After a fashion.
Yeesh. The GT only costs £130 (and how much to Apple in bulk?) and blows it out the park and is only behidn the GTX in a few higher resolution benches.
Shrugs.* What's the problem? Just include it as standard. Make the tower cost £1830. Let's face it. You can't rationally call them 'towers' at these kind of prices any more. They're workstations and yes, the expectation is that you have a 'real' card in there. If you're paying £1700, why not £1800. ?
And if the time for Apple to make a mid-tower was ten years ago? Then it's def' time now! A yawning £600 pounds (that's 1200 US...) smackers between the entry 24 inch iMac and the entry Octo. Quad. GT. Lose the iMac's monitor? You got heaven. PC owners at OVerclockers.co.uk can get a Quad rig with GT for £950-ish. A good 600 quid less than the quad Pro with GT as option. Ouch. Conroe would really help with Quad pricing.
Go on. Tell me we can't have a quad conroe range at much more humane prices...
Octo across the line. So right. Weak entry GPUs? So wrong.
Feeling in my water is that Apple is going to...release a rather special inbetween desktop. The time has never been riper.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Programmer is right when he says Apple has hit the right notes in terms of selection of GPUs...but I think we'll see the 9800 and Ati's riposte shortly as BTO.
You don't get it. Apple still has only 3 cards. You either get stuck with the ATi 2600 or BTO for a $200 bump or a $2850 bump.
nVidia offers more than 2 cards and ATi as well.
Three cards to certify for I/O Kit is embarrassing. We did a dozen back when we were pissant NeXT and had 3 devs doing it.
This is a strategic maneuver. Apple won't release support for more cards until Vista SP1 opens up the market demand for UEFI.
ATi and nVidia are in the drivers seat, until then.
Until UEFI is a reality, I'll wait on buying a Mac Pro.
...and...
Quote:
I don't want to blow it out of perspective because the Mac Pro is a powerful machine that is probably ideal for those who need the ultimate in processing power.
But if a user is unable to discern the difference between a 2600 card and the 'competitors' then do they really need a Mac Pro? Why not offer cheaper IDE drives on the entry level model? With the other components of the Mac Pro being of a professional caliber the 2600 card seems out of place and overmatched. If the 2600 series of cards have received positive reviews, I'm unaware of them.
For the iMac the 2600 is a fine and appropriate choice. But for the Mac Pro, no, not IMO. I would agree that Apple probably got a good deal on them and that is why they are there.
1. Programmer makes a fair point that gpus are more capable than ever. ANd a few per cent in an artificial bench here or there is meh. Ok. Programmer just has a few years on him. I guess (as a former c64 owner...) I could also take the long view and say, well, every GPU is awesome compared to...fill in blank. BUt I'd conceed. The xt isn't a bad entry card. Better than the Pro in the iMac. So...uhm. Why isn't it in the iMac then? I'd say we're ahead in some ways eg CPU. But behind, still, as standard...in GPUs. Heh. But the GT is a great card.
2. But equally, the Mac Pro is not an entry level anything at it's prices. And you'll pushed to find a PC rig at many vendors offering a 2600 XT as an entry level gpu for a rig at £1750.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mac Pro. Walk the talk. HD. Memory. CPU. Case. Everything is cool. Bar the gpu as standard. I don't Apple's problem with it. :? Back to Mac makes excellent point re: the components you'd expect in said rig aimed at said market. The 2600xt just isn't appropriate. It would be ok in the iMac. That's it. BUt in a machine costing £300? or £600 more? GT should come as standard. It's not much more than an XT price wise? But it blows it out the water performance wise. See Apple's own benches...
3. Another excellent point is the lack of true next gen and maybe M$'s role in that? Instead of being 2 years behind with gpus? We're in the same boat as PC users. Hee. They're still waiting for the yearly refresh which DIDN'T happen before X-Mas. Hah. The 9800. The die shrunk 8800GTX or the Ati 700 (A true next gen part scheduled for May?) It's a waiting game. And how much more fps will they offer to justify the wait..? If they offer twice the performance? When no game except Crysis takes ad' of it? It seems they're waiting for M$ and Direct. Shrugs. If the leaked benches of 9800 are nominal over the GTX. I'd say go with the GT. It really is an excellent card. That with the 2.8 Octo? Rig of choice. Octo as an option is a good £900 cheaper than it was a weak ago. ANd the diff' between 2.8 and 3.2 is not worth the premium? I'm so temped to pull the trigger...but..
4. Why hasn't Apple got jiggy with their out of date displays? What's going on?
5. My friend has a 22inch Samsung display. Cost him just over a few hundred. Alot cheaper than the 20 inch Apple display.
6. Will I buy after 8 years of waiting.
7. Possibly. If the 9800 GTX has been in there? With new displays and a skin refresh?
Hmm. 8 Cores on Light wave would make a big difference to me. And I'm a big fan of the GT. I may just go with that and 8 gigs of ram. I'm seriously thinking this could be the one.
Sure it's not got the 9800, a new display, a new skin. But do those really stop me?
Actually I've now developed this feeling that they are going to do something new in the mid-range space. I don't know what it is, and I don't think it'll be just-another-tower... but a single quad core Penyrn with DDR2 makes loads of sense now that the MacPro is all 8-core. Why announce the MacPro early? The iMacs are still relatively fresh (6 months), so just switching up to Penyrn's doesn't seem to justify a MacWorld keynote all by themselves (or even along with the MB/MBPs as well). How are they going to spin it to justify their usual margins? How are they going to deliver the expected Apple panache?
Actually I've now developed this feeling that they are going to do something new in the mid-range space.
Cube.
I'd actually like a Cube with a single slot. My quicksilver takes up a lot of space and as much as I like my Mac Pro at work, I wouldn't want one at home. Even a slim tower.
I want something no larger than a Shuttle SFF PC and quiet as heck.
I'd actually like a Cube with a single slot. My quicksilver takes up a lot of space and as much as I like my Mac Pro at work, I wouldn't want one at home. Even a slim tower.
I want something no larger than a Shuttle SFF PC and quiet as heck.
The cube was a very attractive design IMO.
What 'internals' would it have? Would it use a mobile or desktop cpu?
Actually I've now developed this feeling that they are going to do something new in the mid-range space. ...
IMHO, if(re: mighty big if) they do something in the mid range, I'd expect something along the lines of centralized home computer/entertainment center. It will not be expandable, it will not have slots, but will have the most up to date 802 streaming capability and the will tie in with the updated Apple TV.
I know, I know, but add me to the list of people who thinks that something will appear between the iMac and the Mac Pro. Both machines are great, it's just that the Mac Pro is running away from everything else in the lineup in terms of raw performance. (It must be nice not to have to delimit your pro and consumer lineups by 50Hz.)
I distinctly recall that the xMac was supposed to go between the mini and the iMac, so it won't be an xMac. But there's definitely room for something in there.
I've wanted an excuse to posit the 30" iMac HD for some time now. The huge case allows for a quad core chip and a better GPU. AirPort Express functionality built in so that you can play music wirelessly either through its built-in speakers or through whatever you've hooked up to it. They could roll out a 24" version as well.
I'm happy to be wrong. I just want to see a 30" iMac.
Perhaps... but I don't know that they'd backtrack like that. I agree that it might have only 1 slot, to allow BTO GPUs. A pair of hard drive bays (the second for time machine) and an optical bay. I think it'll have desktop parts (i.e. drives, optical tray, memory, CPUs, GPU), not mobile ones, so it will need better cooling than the Cube had. Maybe a variety of BTO CPU options, but only 1 chip (be it dual or quad core).
Perhaps... but I don't know that they'd backtrack like that. I agree that it might have only 1 slot, to allow BTO GPUs. A pair of hard drive bays (the second for time machine) and an optical bay. I think it'll have desktop parts (i.e. drives, optical tray, memory, CPUs, GPU), not mobile ones, so it will need better cooling than the Cube had. Maybe a variety of BTO CPU options, but only 1 chip (be it dual or quad core).
That sounds more like the 12 inch cube that MOSR was talking about way back when than the 8 inch cube that eventually appeared. Maybe Apple could release it in a black magnesium alloy case?
8" is a sleek machine. 12" is an imposition and it still couldn't take the biggest cards. I'd say, given that there are still cards that take up an additional slot just for clearance, are 12" long, and run off external power supplies, that Apple is best served bringing something like the original Cube back. They've gotten better at cooling, so they could make it quiet if not silent. A 7" graphics card slot, dual-dual core or (more likely) single quad core CPU and three or four non-ECC full-size DIMM slots, and it would also occupy a middle ground between the iMac and the Mac Pro. This time, unlike the first time, there actually is some middle ground between the iMac and the Mac Pro and Apple knows better than to charge a cool tax on a desktop computer, no matter what it looks like.
If they can find a way to cool it, an eight core option would give the Pro desktop line a lot of versatility: You could choose between decent power and total expandability (4-core Mac Pro), decent power and compact size/lower price (4-core Cube), maximum power and total expandability (Mac Pro) and maximum power and compact size/lower price (8-core Cube). The only thing you couldn't have is a compact machine with a Quadro FX 5600. But if you've ever looked at the size, space and power requirements of one of those beasts that's a fair enough tradeoff.
If anything like this actually appears I wouldn't expect it to look too much like the original Cube, whose design language is now dated. But it's not hard to imagine its basic form looking sharp in aluminum and glass.
NB: This could theoretically be a gaming machine, but unless Apple has some really serious announcements to make about games being ported over I wouldn't get too excited about this... well, unless there are so many PC gamers fed up with gaming in Vista that they're willing to buy a Mac to play PC games. I'm not sure that's one of Apple's core constituencies, although if Apple did make a machine that appealed to them I'd never stop laughing. The irony would be too rich.
Actually I've now developed this feeling that they are going to do something new in the mid-range space. I don't know what it is, and I don't think it'll be just-another-tower...
I got this 'now-or-never' kind of feeling. If I don't see a mid-range desktop on this MW I'm officially giving up hope on ever seeing one...
I'd rather have free RAM slots than a PCIe slot though, even if that would mean onboard (or even integrated) graphics.
Two drive bays would be sweat too, but mabe a little cramped..?
That sounds more like the 12 inch cube that MOSR was talking about way back when than the 8 inch cube that eventually appeared. Maybe Apple could release it in a black magnesium alloy case?
How about 8"x8" but taller? Or not square, more like the monolith from 2001.
Quote:
Apple knows better than to charge a cool tax on a desktop computer, no matter what it looks like.
More than the usual Apple tax, you mean? I maintain that they don't want to get into the low margin wars that the rest of the PC market fights over at the $1500 and below price points.
Quote:
maximum power and compact size/lower price (8-core Cube).
That will only happen when Intel has a single 8 core chip. This Cube-thing would only support a single CPU chip. Then next year with Nehlam (or however you spell it) they'll ditch the northbridge and be down to just 2 chips on the motherboard.
Quote:
The only thing you couldn't have is a compact machine with a Quadro FX 5600.
I dunno, the high end GPUs put out a lot of heat. Cooling in a compact case (along with the multi-core CPU and northbridge) would be a major problem.
Quote:
If anything like this actually appears I wouldn't expect it to look too much like the original Cube, whose design language is now dated. But it's not hard to imagine its basic form looking sharp in aluminum and glass.
I agree, except that I'd be surprised if it was even a Cube. A slab... something a bit bigger and less rounded than a PS3. Aluminum... not sure where they'd put glass on a displayless machine.
Quote:
NB: This could theoretically be a gaming machine.
No. It wouldn't be a "gaming machine" except insofar as any PC with those specs is a gaming machine. Doing that would narrow the market for the machine too much. The less they characterize this machine, the better. Its the kind of thing that people who want it will just "get it". If you walk in and know you don't want an iMac, and a MacPro is too much, and the mini is not enough, and you don't want a notebook... you just want a computer, damnit! And there it is. It'll sell itself, and if the margins are lower then Apple won't want to hype it at all because it'll already cut into higher margin sales. The gamble (in that case) is that it'll sell many more units to switchers than it'll cut into.
How about 8"x8" but taller? Or not square, more like the monolith from 2001.
I'd vote for that. But I wouldn't buy one for myself.
Quote:
No. It wouldn't be a "gaming machine" except insofar as any PC with those specs is a gaming machine. Doing that would narrow the market for the machine too much. The less they characterize this machine, the better. Its the kind of thing that people who want it will just "get it". If you walk in and know you don't want an iMac, and a MacPro is too much, and the mini is not enough, and you don't want a notebook... you just want a computer, damnit! And there it is. It'll sell itself, and if the margins are lower then Apple won't want to hype it at all because it'll already cut into higher margin sales. The gamble (in that case) is that it'll sell many more units to switchers than it'll cut into.
I agree with you, up to the point where you suggest it has a lower profit margin. Why not up the price and sell fewer of these mid-range Macs? To me, it's a no brainer. A MacPro is too much for many of us, but we want something peppy with several expansion slots Two desktop hard drives is enough, and one 4-core, desktop CPU chip. Glorious!
It's my faint hope for such a Mac at MWSF that keeps me from ordering the low-end MacPro right now.
I agree with you, up to the point where you suggest it has a lower profit margin.
Please note that I said if. Its up to Apple how they price it. They could attach the "Apple tax" and get slammed for it, or price it cheap and not get the margins.
Comments
Then your talking about making a 3rd entirely different motherboard just for IDE drives; and for what configuration? The solo processor configuration, or the Dual Proc-config? Both? You just can have that much inventory laying around.
I'm NOT advocating IDE drives for Mac Pros. You've misunderstood my post.
While the choices and number of cards doesn't diminish the new machines (at least not much), they aren't exactly bragging point either. The Nvidia 8800 gt and Quadra 5600 are excellent choices, but the ati 2600 is a very pedestrian and weak choice. Especially since there are other better entry level cards that aren't much more expensive, like the 3850 or nvidia 8600. I 'm not aware of any positive reviews of the 2600 series of cards.
This is, after all, Apple's most powerful and technically advanced machine. And why not both or all three (3850, 2600 and 8600) to go with the high end cards? Is it that hard to develop drivers for these?
I'd argue with a starting price of £1755 for the Octo entry, a GT should be included as standard in the price. No. Really. The price of entry has highered. The 2600xt would be ok in the iMac. But not as a base card for an Octo station Mac Pro.
Gt. As standard. Still, at £130? It's cheaper as an option than at most stores to buy. So...
Let's face it. The GT isn't that far behind the GTX. The intro' of the 9800 is imminent. So Apple couldn't and shouldn't wait for it to ship in Feb/March.
Expect the 'uber' 9800 'die shrinked' 8800GTX to become an option then.
Or wait for leaked benches.
Not too much moaning. The GT is a great card for the money. It's blazingly fast.
Case was redesigned internally on the intel swap over. Does the outside need a redesign.
Only in terms of aesthetic fashion and not functionality...
LEmon Bon Bon.
I don't want to blow it out of perspective because the Mac Pro is a powerful machine that is probably ideal for those who need the ultimate in processing power.
But if a user is unable to discern the difference between a 2600 card and the 'competitors' then do they really need a Mac Pro?
Because not everyone that needs a workstation class machine needs high 3D performance?
Because not everyone that needs a workstation class machine needs high 3D performance?
I not saying that the Mac Pro shouldn't have a midlevel graphic card for the entry level machine but at least make it best in class. The 2600 is inferior to both the 3850 and nvidia 8600.
I not saying that the Mac Pro shouldn't have a midlevel graphic card for the entry level machine but at least make it best in class. The 2600 is inferior to both the 3850 and nvidia 8600.
Exactly. It doesn't matter what people expect. It's an Octo-Station. It costs £1750 entry.
DECENT mid level should be the least of what we expect. The 2600XT is not really a mid range card. It's a low mid or low end one.
HEck. It's in the iMac. After a fashion.
Yeesh. The GT only costs £130 (and how much to Apple in bulk?) and blows it out the park and is only behidn the GTX in a few higher resolution benches.
Shrugs.* What's the problem? Just include it as standard. Make the tower cost £1830. Let's face it. You can't rationally call them 'towers' at these kind of prices any more. They're workstations and yes, the expectation is that you have a 'real' card in there. If you're paying £1700, why not £1800. ?
And if the time for Apple to make a mid-tower was ten years ago? Then it's def' time now! A yawning £600 pounds (that's 1200 US...) smackers between the entry 24 inch iMac and the entry Octo. Quad. GT. Lose the iMac's monitor? You got heaven. PC owners at OVerclockers.co.uk can get a Quad rig with GT for £950-ish. A good 600 quid less than the quad Pro with GT as option. Ouch. Conroe would really help with Quad pricing.
Go on. Tell me we can't have a quad conroe range at much more humane prices...
Octo across the line. So right. Weak entry GPUs? So wrong.
Feeling in my water is that Apple is going to...release a rather special inbetween desktop. The time has never been riper.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Programmer is right when he says Apple has hit the right notes in terms of selection of GPUs...but I think we'll see the 9800 and Ati's riposte shortly as BTO.
You don't get it. Apple still has only 3 cards. You either get stuck with the ATi 2600 or BTO for a $200 bump or a $2850 bump.
nVidia offers more than 2 cards and ATi as well.
Three cards to certify for I/O Kit is embarrassing. We did a dozen back when we were pissant NeXT and had 3 devs doing it.
This is a strategic maneuver. Apple won't release support for more cards until Vista SP1 opens up the market demand for UEFI.
ATi and nVidia are in the drivers seat, until then.
Until UEFI is a reality, I'll wait on buying a Mac Pro.
...and...
I don't want to blow it out of perspective because the Mac Pro is a powerful machine that is probably ideal for those who need the ultimate in processing power.
But if a user is unable to discern the difference between a 2600 card and the 'competitors' then do they really need a Mac Pro? Why not offer cheaper IDE drives on the entry level model? With the other components of the Mac Pro being of a professional caliber the 2600 card seems out of place and overmatched. If the 2600 series of cards have received positive reviews, I'm unaware of them.
For the iMac the 2600 is a fine and appropriate choice. But for the Mac Pro, no, not IMO. I would agree that Apple probably got a good deal on them and that is why they are there.
1. Programmer makes a fair point that gpus are more capable than ever. ANd a few per cent in an artificial bench here or there is meh. Ok. Programmer just has a few years on him. I guess (as a former c64 owner...) I could also take the long view and say, well, every GPU is awesome compared to...fill in blank. BUt I'd conceed. The xt isn't a bad entry card. Better than the Pro in the iMac. So...uhm. Why isn't it in the iMac then? I'd say we're ahead in some ways eg CPU. But behind, still, as standard...in GPUs. Heh. But the GT is a great card.
2. But equally, the Mac Pro is not an entry level anything at it's prices. And you'll pushed to find a PC rig at many vendors offering a 2600 XT as an entry level gpu for a rig at £1750.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mac Pro. Walk the talk. HD. Memory. CPU. Case. Everything is cool. Bar the gpu as standard. I don't Apple's problem with it. :? Back to Mac makes excellent point re: the components you'd expect in said rig aimed at said market. The 2600xt just isn't appropriate. It would be ok in the iMac. That's it. BUt in a machine costing £300? or £600 more? GT should come as standard. It's not much more than an XT price wise? But it blows it out the water performance wise. See Apple's own benches...
3. Another excellent point is the lack of true next gen and maybe M$'s role in that? Instead of being 2 years behind with gpus? We're in the same boat as PC users. Hee. They're still waiting for the yearly refresh which DIDN'T happen before X-Mas. Hah. The 9800. The die shrunk 8800GTX or the Ati 700 (A true next gen part scheduled for May?) It's a waiting game. And how much more fps will they offer to justify the wait..? If they offer twice the performance? When no game except Crysis takes ad' of it? It seems they're waiting for M$ and Direct. Shrugs. If the leaked benches of 9800 are nominal over the GTX. I'd say go with the GT. It really is an excellent card. That with the 2.8 Octo? Rig of choice. Octo as an option is a good £900 cheaper than it was a weak ago. ANd the diff' between 2.8 and 3.2 is not worth the premium? I'm so temped to pull the trigger...but..
4. Why hasn't Apple got jiggy with their out of date displays? What's going on?
5. My friend has a 22inch Samsung display. Cost him just over a few hundred. Alot cheaper than the 20 inch Apple display.
6. Will I buy after 8 years of waiting.
7. Possibly. If the 9800 GTX has been in there? With new displays and a skin refresh?
Hmm. 8 Cores on Light wave would make a big difference to me. And I'm a big fan of the GT. I may just go with that and 8 gigs of ram. I'm seriously thinking this could be the one.
Sure it's not got the 9800, a new display, a new skin. But do those really stop me?
Tweaks Programmers keyboard...playfully...
I wonder if Onlooker will buy or wait the 9800.
*Sweaty palms over wallet...
Lemon BOn Bon
IMpressive that the 2.8 edges past the old octo 3 gigger in every area bar FPU!
Lemon Bon Bon.
6. Will I buy after 8 years of waiting.
Lemon, I think I gave up on you ever actually buying a couple years ago
Tweaks Programmers keyboard...playfully...
Actually I've now developed this feeling that they are going to do something new in the mid-range space. I don't know what it is, and I don't think it'll be just-another-tower... but a single quad core Penyrn with DDR2 makes loads of sense now that the MacPro is all 8-core. Why announce the MacPro early? The iMacs are still relatively fresh (6 months), so just switching up to Penyrn's doesn't seem to justify a MacWorld keynote all by themselves (or even along with the MB/MBPs as well). How are they going to spin it to justify their usual margins? How are they going to deliver the expected Apple panache?
I wait with bated breath...
Actually I've now developed this feeling that they are going to do something new in the mid-range space.
Cube.
I'd actually like a Cube with a single slot. My quicksilver takes up a lot of space and as much as I like my Mac Pro at work, I wouldn't want one at home. Even a slim tower.
I want something no larger than a Shuttle SFF PC and quiet as heck.
Cube.
I'd actually like a Cube with a single slot. My quicksilver takes up a lot of space and as much as I like my Mac Pro at work, I wouldn't want one at home. Even a slim tower.
I want something no larger than a Shuttle SFF PC and quiet as heck.
The cube was a very attractive design IMO.
What 'internals' would it have? Would it use a mobile or desktop cpu?
Actually I've now developed this feeling that they are going to do something new in the mid-range space. ...
IMHO, if(re: mighty big if) they do something in the mid range, I'd expect something along the lines of centralized home computer/entertainment center. It will not be expandable, it will not have slots, but will have the most up to date 802 streaming capability and the will tie in with the updated Apple TV.
I distinctly recall that the xMac was supposed to go between the mini and the iMac, so it won't be an xMac. But there's definitely room for something in there.
I've wanted an excuse to posit the 30" iMac HD for some time now. The huge case allows for a quad core chip and a better GPU. AirPort Express functionality built in so that you can play music wirelessly either through its built-in speakers or through whatever you've hooked up to it. They could roll out a 24" version as well.
I'm happy to be wrong. I just want to see a 30" iMac.
Cube.
Perhaps... but I don't know that they'd backtrack like that. I agree that it might have only 1 slot, to allow BTO GPUs. A pair of hard drive bays (the second for time machine) and an optical bay. I think it'll have desktop parts (i.e. drives, optical tray, memory, CPUs, GPU), not mobile ones, so it will need better cooling than the Cube had. Maybe a variety of BTO CPU options, but only 1 chip (be it dual or quad core).
Perhaps... but I don't know that they'd backtrack like that. I agree that it might have only 1 slot, to allow BTO GPUs. A pair of hard drive bays (the second for time machine) and an optical bay. I think it'll have desktop parts (i.e. drives, optical tray, memory, CPUs, GPU), not mobile ones, so it will need better cooling than the Cube had. Maybe a variety of BTO CPU options, but only 1 chip (be it dual or quad core).
That sounds more like the 12 inch cube that MOSR was talking about way back when than the 8 inch cube that eventually appeared. Maybe Apple could release it in a black magnesium alloy case?
8" is a sleek machine. 12" is an imposition and it still couldn't take the biggest cards. I'd say, given that there are still cards that take up an additional slot just for clearance, are 12" long, and run off external power supplies, that Apple is best served bringing something like the original Cube back. They've gotten better at cooling, so they could make it quiet if not silent. A 7" graphics card slot, dual-dual core or (more likely) single quad core CPU and three or four non-ECC full-size DIMM slots, and it would also occupy a middle ground between the iMac and the Mac Pro. This time, unlike the first time, there actually is some middle ground between the iMac and the Mac Pro and Apple knows better than to charge a cool tax on a desktop computer, no matter what it looks like.
If they can find a way to cool it, an eight core option would give the Pro desktop line a lot of versatility: You could choose between decent power and total expandability (4-core Mac Pro), decent power and compact size/lower price (4-core Cube), maximum power and total expandability (Mac Pro) and maximum power and compact size/lower price (8-core Cube). The only thing you couldn't have is a compact machine with a Quadro FX 5600. But if you've ever looked at the size, space and power requirements of one of those beasts that's a fair enough tradeoff.
If anything like this actually appears I wouldn't expect it to look too much like the original Cube, whose design language is now dated. But it's not hard to imagine its basic form looking sharp in aluminum and glass.
NB: This could theoretically be a gaming machine, but unless Apple has some really serious announcements to make about games being ported over I wouldn't get too excited about this... well, unless there are so many PC gamers fed up with gaming in Vista that they're willing to buy a Mac to play PC games. I'm not sure that's one of Apple's core constituencies, although if Apple did make a machine that appealed to them I'd never stop laughing. The irony would be too rich.
Actually I've now developed this feeling that they are going to do something new in the mid-range space. I don't know what it is, and I don't think it'll be just-another-tower...
I got this 'now-or-never' kind of feeling. If I don't see a mid-range desktop on this MW I'm officially giving up hope on ever seeing one...
I'd rather have free RAM slots than a PCIe slot though, even if that would mean onboard (or even integrated) graphics.
Two drive bays would be sweat too, but mabe a little cramped..?
That sounds more like the 12 inch cube that MOSR was talking about way back when than the 8 inch cube that eventually appeared. Maybe Apple could release it in a black magnesium alloy case?
How about 8"x8" but taller? Or not square, more like the monolith from 2001.
Apple knows better than to charge a cool tax on a desktop computer, no matter what it looks like.
More than the usual Apple tax, you mean? I maintain that they don't want to get into the low margin wars that the rest of the PC market fights over at the $1500 and below price points.
maximum power and compact size/lower price (8-core Cube).
That will only happen when Intel has a single 8 core chip. This Cube-thing would only support a single CPU chip. Then next year with Nehlam (or however you spell it) they'll ditch the northbridge and be down to just 2 chips on the motherboard.
The only thing you couldn't have is a compact machine with a Quadro FX 5600.
I dunno, the high end GPUs put out a lot of heat. Cooling in a compact case (along with the multi-core CPU and northbridge) would be a major problem.
If anything like this actually appears I wouldn't expect it to look too much like the original Cube, whose design language is now dated. But it's not hard to imagine its basic form looking sharp in aluminum and glass.
I agree, except that I'd be surprised if it was even a Cube. A slab... something a bit bigger and less rounded than a PS3. Aluminum... not sure where they'd put glass on a displayless machine.
NB: This could theoretically be a gaming machine.
No. It wouldn't be a "gaming machine" except insofar as any PC with those specs is a gaming machine. Doing that would narrow the market for the machine too much. The less they characterize this machine, the better. Its the kind of thing that people who want it will just "get it". If you walk in and know you don't want an iMac, and a MacPro is too much, and the mini is not enough, and you don't want a notebook... you just want a computer, damnit! And there it is. It'll sell itself, and if the margins are lower then Apple won't want to hype it at all because it'll already cut into higher margin sales. The gamble (in that case) is that it'll sell many more units to switchers than it'll cut into.
How about 8"x8" but taller? Or not square, more like the monolith from 2001.
I'd vote for that.
No. It wouldn't be a "gaming machine" except insofar as any PC with those specs is a gaming machine. Doing that would narrow the market for the machine too much. The less they characterize this machine, the better. Its the kind of thing that people who want it will just "get it". If you walk in and know you don't want an iMac, and a MacPro is too much, and the mini is not enough, and you don't want a notebook... you just want a computer, damnit! And there it is. It'll sell itself, and if the margins are lower then Apple won't want to hype it at all because it'll already cut into higher margin sales. The gamble (in that case) is that it'll sell many more units to switchers than it'll cut into.
I agree with you, up to the point where you suggest it has a lower profit margin. Why not up the price and sell fewer of these mid-range Macs? To me, it's a no brainer. A MacPro is too much for many of us, but we want something peppy with several expansion slots Two desktop hard drives is enough, and one 4-core, desktop CPU chip. Glorious!
It's my faint hope for such a Mac at MWSF that keeps me from ordering the low-end MacPro right now.
I agree with you, up to the point where you suggest it has a lower profit margin.
Please note that I said if. Its up to Apple how they price it. They could attach the "Apple tax" and get slammed for it, or price it cheap and not get the margins.