I'm asking myself why Apple is so expensive compared to this. I might go on and buy this, even if there is no Wifi or bluetooth, and even if I can't run Mac OS X. I'd probably go for the Pro... ohhh.... I just wish Apple would release something like this!
I was just looking at Psystar's computers today, and the prices is what really blew me away!
With the Open Computer Pro you could get:
Memory: 8GB DDR2 RAM (+ $200.00)
Processor: Core2Quad/2.6GHz Q9450 (+ $400.00)
Hard Drive: 1 TB 7200RPM SATA (+ $150.00)
Video Card: GeForce 8800GT 512MB (+ $230.00)
Case: Black
Operating System: Ubuntu Linux 8.04
For $1,979.99
I'd buy that any day! That is like my dream computer!
Then I recommend going to HP and getting a d4999t with a Q9450, 8GB RAM, 1TB 7200 SATA HDD (2x500GB), GeForce 8800GT (2 DVI and TV out), 802.11 a/b/g/n, 16x SuperDrive, 15-1 card reader + 1394 firewire for:
$1,779 and free shipping.
Of course you'd have to install Ubuntu to dual boot but you should be able to play games out of the box using Vista. I'm not certain why you'd get a 8800GT if you didn't want to play games...
But the word from ATI is that if this does well on the Mac, we can expect more again.
How well can it do, best case? Eat nVidia's 8800GT upgrade sales, and that's it. Mac Pro users are a really small market to begin with and most of them don't need graphics power over what they already have. The only thing that could make this market considerably more attractive is a compatible mass-market computer from Apple.
Quote:
There aren't even any more high end cards around. Nvidia is trying to put two 8800's on one card. not too good.
"Trying"? The 9800GX2 benches a lot above 8800 Ultra. New chip generations are expected in summer, I think.
Don't forget, Rick, that anyone can make a joke about the word "assume". But what you're saying are also assumptions, even if you don't use the word itself.
Everything we are saying here are our assumptions.
You could also substitute the word with "guess".
Duely noted, I should have stressed that I make assumptions and/or guesses just like everyone else. Even if they won't admit it, to either us or themselves. Thank you for the clarification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Which has zero to do with the question of if AIOs was taking share from desktops. Answer: it is.
I make no assumptions and you are free to draw your own conclusions.
I do find it interesting that Dell now offers an AIO along with Sony and Gateway. I'm not sure they would bother if they didn't see some growth in that area so in effect your test has occured in the reverse where a tower maker has added an AIO and have thus far kept it.
Also note that Sony no longer makes a tower.
And note that Apple has made more affordable towers in the past even under Steve as you point out. The G4 and G5 ones. They see no compelling economic reasons to do so any longer.
Exactly, it has "zero to do with the question of if AIOs was taking share from desktops."
Just where did I infer, imply or even suggest that the iMac was not taking away share from "nonAIO" desktops. Which, if you think about, is exactly my point(assumption or guess) that Apple could offer an xMac and increase sales at a very good margin.
And who cares if Dell, Sony and any other manufacturer sells an AIO or not or a tower or not?
The mere fact there exists a flourishing hackintosh community, a company fighting all odds in offering the Open Computer, these xMac threads(re: here and on any other Mac centric board) and the recent appearance of a hackintosh on ebay proves there is a market. How big, we don't know and you don't know, you like me make assumptions/guesses. I think it to be bigger than you suggest.
I say, free the xMac Apple, test the market, it wouldn't present any significant risk to Apple and it's shareholders.(I like that, a new slogan "Free the xMac").
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur
Do you recall this Mini someone designed. It was in several threads last year. I love it. I drool over it. I dream about it. I want it. Please Apple, make this a reality.
Then we won't have to concern ourselves about clones. Don't drive some of us to crappy clones.
I don't know the dimensions of this mockup, but I assume it's half or less the size of a MacPro or about 4 times the size of a Mini.
Now that is an impressive design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
...But again, if the industry is increasing desktop sales at a 12% rate (from Gartner) ...
Thank you for this information. Not saying you ever said it, but many people on other boards continually say the desktop market is dying. Well, er, um, I guess not its' sales increased 12%,
How well can it do, best case? Eat nVidia's 8800GT upgrade sales, and that's it. Mac Pro users are a really small market to begin with and most of them don't need graphics power over what they already have. The only thing that could make this market considerably more attractive is a compatible mass-market computer from Apple."Trying"? The 9800GX2 benches a lot above 8800 Ultra. New chip generations are expected in summer, I think.
I've been saying for a long time, that until the MacPro's sales reach a certain point, we won't see third party cards. This, then, is an important step. If ATI feels that sales are enough for them to get bck into the market, then we will benefit.
As for the duo card from Nvidia, it uses so much power, is so hot and noisy, that it isn't really worth it. That's why I said try. the sales aren't supposed to be anything much.
Thank you for this information. Not saying you ever said it, but many people on other boards continually say the desktop market is dying. Well, er, um, I guess not its' sales increased 12%,
Here is the most recent AI article quoting data from NPD...
The Mac maker also saw robust demand for its desktop systems, which grew 55 percent on a 68 percent increase in revenues, compared to the overall retail segment which saw unit sales decline 5 percent on a 2 percent drop in revenues.
Perhaps its in that previous paragraph you didn't requote here? Nah. Couldn't be because you made a snarky comment about how many cords there were.
Did you maybe consider that the "you" was the generic you and not you in specific? Parse that sentence again.
I give up. You are completely in your own little world and we're expected to read your mind. You write about a bunch of equipment and "one cord" and we're supposed to know that you meant one power cord on the iMac. And now you write that you didn't mean "you" you, but "you" in the general sense, rather than "he," which would have been specific. You're a real piece of work.
Your answered your own question, "PC desktop sales increased 12%..." so those are not declining.
Again, if you use numbers from a limited segment (55% in the consumer market), you don't get the right picture (which is a 37% increase Y/Y for desktop Macs, and for Apple's notebooks it is 61% - thanks to the MB Air). Apple publishes their numbers every quarter...
If you don't know, the ratio between desktops and notebooks in PCs is still very close to 50/50 which is different from the Apple world: 60% for notebooks and 40% for desktops. Intel thinks that the notebooks sales will surpass the desktops sales in 2009/2010.
The growth of the top 5 manufacturers is still between 15 and 25%, not bad for people who are still selling towers (most of them anyway).
Solipsism,
You are also using Retail numbers for the US only, which do not represent the global computers sales.
While growth is certainly important, the global market share is too, right now Apple's share worldwide is less than 4% and the iMac represents about 1% of the computers sold. Wherever the iMac takes its sales from, it is insignificant since the industry itself is still growing in all segments.
I've been saying for a long time, that until the MacPro's sales reach a certain point, we won't see third party cards. This, then, is an important step. If ATI feels that sales are enough for them to get bck into the market, then we will benefit.
As for the duo card from Nvidia, it uses so much power, is so hot and noisy, that it isn't really worth it. That's why I said try. the sales aren't supposed to be anything much.
The card might not be elegant but having more performance than anything else in one slot, it's not a failure and not a "try". It bridges the gap between the 8800 Ultra and the next high end. High end never sells in large volumes, and it doesn't need to. Power draw is in line with SLI solutions, not large enough to be a concern for the target market. Noise is apparently high, but lower than the 2900XT's, which was considered a successful product for ATi.
The real issue is that a momentary lull at the graphics high end doesn't mean the graphics market is standing still. You now get nearly the old 8800 Ultra high end's worth of performance in the 9800GTX for less than the low end original 8800 was at introduction, a "stopgap" high end in the GX2, and the new high end is about to come out. There's no breather in this for Apple. They are still getting left behind about the same they always have, and if they want to change that, the only way is to up the volume through a new machine that is not a workstation. Their choice.
The card might not be elegant but having more performance than anything else in one slot, it's not a failure and not a "try". It bridges the gap between the 8800 Ultra and the next high end. High end never sells in large volumes, and it doesn't need to. Power draw is in line with SLI solutions, not large enough to be a concern for the target market. Noise is apparently high, but lower than the 2900XT's, which was considered a successful product for ATi.
The real issue is that a momentary lull at the graphics high end doesn't mean the graphics market is standing still. You now get nearly the old 8800 Ultra high end's worth of performance in the 9800GTX for less than the low end original 8800 was at introduction, a "stopgap" high end in the GX2, and the new high end is about to come out. There's no breather in this for Apple. They are still getting left behind about the same they always have, and if they want to change that, the only way is to up the volume through a new machine that is not a workstation. Their choice.
Power draw is, what, on the order of 225-275 watts? Too much.
They won't sell more than a thousand of these cards, and likely, less.
It's a desperate gamble until they come out with their new chips.
They're not making it for practical reasons, but to say that they have the fastest card, even though it's not something great.
Apple has it's own problems that are driven by Apple. They could have much better cards, if they wanted to, after all, they make their own cards. They just don't want to.
Personally, if I were running Apple, I'd offer these much better cards even if I took a loss on them, just to drive Mac Pro machines into the hands of those who won't buy the machines otherwise. Apple would more than make it up by the sales of those machines, upgrades to the OS, and in other areas.
Enough gamers would buy these machines now that Windows can be run at full speed through booting. After all, Alienware, Voodoo, and others, didn't make their success in selling cheap machines to these people. Apple wouldn't have to sell millions, just a couple of hundred thousand extra a year. That's a lot of money.
Power draw is, what, on the order of 225-275 watts? Too much.
If that's too much, then all SLI combos are too much. Why does every manufacturer offer a SLI mobo? Why are they stocked at stores? I read that as "there are people out there using SLI".
Quote:
They won't sell more than a thousand of these cards, and likely, less.
It's a desperate gamble until they come out with their new chips.
They're not making it for practical reasons, but to say that they have the fastest card, even though it's not something great.
So call it advertising, market research, feasibility study. I don't see anything desperate about it. "Desperate" is hacking together something ugly and crude that will hurt your rep, and selling it at a near-loss in an attempt to turn the tide on competition that is steamrolling you. But nVidia has owned the high end for a long time now. ATi can't touch them at least until the next round of entirely new chips.
Quote:
Apple has it's own problems that are driven by Apple. They could have much better cards, if they wanted to, after all, they make their own cards. They just don't want to.
Personally, if I were running Apple, I'd offer these much better cards even if I took a loss on them, just to drive Mac Pro machines into the hands of those who won't buy the machines otherwise. Apple would more than make it up by the sales of those machines, upgrades to the OS, and in other areas.
Enough gamers would buy these machines now that Windows can be run at full speed through booting. After all, Alienware, Voodoo, and others, didn't make their success in selling cheap machines to these people. Apple wouldn't have to sell millions, just a couple of hundred thousand extra a year. That's a lot of money.
I agree as far as that Apple should make sure that their professional workstation can take the newest, most powerful cards, so that it's competetive with other workstations. What I don't believe in is some mass exodus of hardware enthusiasts (we can drop the "gamer" because these people are nothing like an average PC gamer) would suddenly start buying untweakable Apple boxes. They already have quality hardware, know what they want and how to look for it. I don't see how Apple could possibly sell to them without changing *everything* about the way they do business and design their product, and how it could possibly be worth it for Apple to do so.
What Apple *can* accommodate, however, is the 95% of PC gamers who just want a reasonably powerful machine and graphics. That they can do without changing anything about their business logic.
If that's too much, then all SLI combos are too much. Why does every manufacturer offer a SLI mobo? Why are they stocked at stores? I read that as "there are people out there using SLI".
That's a very interesting question. According to the game sites, almost no one is using either SLI or Crossover. I don't know what the big deal is.
Quote:
So call it advertising, market research, feasibility study. I don't see anything desperate about it. "Desperate" is hacking together something ugly and crude that will hurt your rep, and selling it at a near-loss in an attempt to turn the tide on competition that is steamrolling you.
That's about what this card does.
Quote:
But nVidia has owned the high end for a long time now.
What high end? That's been gone for some time. Neither company has produced anything new and exciting for some time.
Quote:
ATi can't touch them at least until the next round of entirely new chips.
Pehaps.
Quote:
I agree as far as that Apple should make sure that their professional workstation can take the newest, most powerful cards, so that it's competetive with other workstations. What I don't believe in is some mass exodus of hardware enthusiasts (we can drop the "gamer" because these people are nothing like an average PC gamer) would suddenly start buying untweakable Apple boxes. They already have quality hardware, know what they want and how to look for it. I don't see how Apple could possibly sell to them without changing *everything* about the way they do business and design their product, and how it could possibly be worth it for Apple to do so.
Well, they are gamers. I didn't say they were the average gamer. The 200 thousand machines I think Apple can sell to them shows what I mean. Alienware sold about 100 thousand machines a year. VooDoo sold about 75 thousand, and the others sold less. A total market for these expensive machines was estimated to be about 350 thousand machines a year.
Quote:
What Apple *can* accommodate, however, is the 95% of PC gamers who just want a reasonably powerful machine and graphics. That they can do without changing anything about their business logic.
I've been saying for a long time, that until the MacPro's sales reach a certain point, we won't see third party cards. This, then, is an important step. If ATI feels that sales are enough for them to get bck into the market, then we will benefit.
Sales of Mac Pros will never be high enough to drive the graphics card market.
On the other hand, a mid range consumer Mac where the user can choose his own video card definitely would do that.
What high end? That's been gone for some time. Neither company has produced anything new and exciting for some time.
High end ≠ new and exciting. High end is just the fastest stuff that is out. nVidia has held the crown for a long time now. They are not in a position where they *can* be desperate.
Quote:
How?
Isn't this obvious? Desktop with desktop parts. The average gamer only wants sufficient performance to run games, not the overkill of the high end graphics parts, or absolute waste like the Mac Pro's workstation parts and cores games will never use. It's easy to get sufficient performance and typical Apple margins into a 1100€ box with integrated graphics and one open slot, or 1300€ box with 8800/3870 class graphics built in. I'm certain of that, because I just bought a computer like that with nothing but quality parts, and the total without OS was 850€. I'd have paid a couple hundred more to make the machine a Mac with the option of running OS X officially, but there's no way I'd pay two and half times as much and only get the same performance (Mac Pro).
Thank you for this information. Not saying you ever said it, but many people on other boards continually say the desktop market is dying. Well, er, um, I guess not its' sales increased 12%,
Actually, since it is 12% growth for the entire PC market and it isn't broken out and we know that laptop sales growth exceeds desktop growth is at best it is 12%. Likely it is far lower or possibly negative growth as reported in the other article.
I guess I could look for a NPD or Garner article later.
I give up. You are completely in your own little world and we're expected to read your mind. You write about a bunch of equipment and "one cord" and we're supposed to know that you meant one power cord on the iMac. And now you write that you didn't mean "you" you, but "you" in the general sense, rather than "he," which would have been specific. You're a real piece of work.
Awww...if someone is complaining about the number of cords on his iMac which freaking cords should you count? Gee, I dunno, how about the cords on the iMac?
Comments
Another MacWorld benchmarking of a Psyster machine compared to a 2GHz Mac mini, 2.4GHz (2008) iMac, and Rob Griffith's Quad-core OSx86 "Frankenmac".
I wonder what percentage of their sales have gone to reviewers vs consumers.
With the Open Computer Pro you could get:
Memory: 8GB DDR2 RAM (+ $200.00)
Processor: Core2Quad/2.6GHz Q9450 (+ $400.00)
Hard Drive: 1 TB 7200RPM SATA (+ $150.00)
Video Card: GeForce 8800GT 512MB (+ $230.00)
Case: Black
Operating System: Ubuntu Linux 8.04
For $1,979.99
Then with the regular Open Computer you can get:
Case Model: Black/Silver v2
Intel Processor: Core2Duo/2.66GHz E6750 (+ $90.00)
Hard Drive: 500GB 7200RPM SATA (+ $60.00)
Graphics Processor: GeForce 8600GT 256MB (+ $110.00)
Firewire: 3 x IEEE 1394 (+ $50.00)
Operating System: Ubuntu Linux 8.04
Memory: 4GB DDR2 (+ $75.00)
for $784.99
I'm asking myself why Apple is so expensive compared to this.
I was just looking at Psystar's computers today, and the prices is what really blew me away!
With the Open Computer Pro you could get:
Memory: 8GB DDR2 RAM (+ $200.00)
Processor: Core2Quad/2.6GHz Q9450 (+ $400.00)
Hard Drive: 1 TB 7200RPM SATA (+ $150.00)
Video Card: GeForce 8800GT 512MB (+ $230.00)
Case: Black
Operating System: Ubuntu Linux 8.04
For $1,979.99
Then I recommend going to HP and getting a d4999t with a Q9450, 8GB RAM, 1TB 7200 SATA HDD (2x500GB), GeForce 8800GT (2 DVI and TV out), 802.11 a/b/g/n, 16x SuperDrive, 15-1 card reader + 1394 firewire for:
$1,779 and free shipping.
Of course you'd have to install Ubuntu to dual boot but you should be able to play games out of the box using Vista. I'm not certain why you'd get a 8800GT if you didn't want to play games...
http://point.princeton.edu/tigertrad...3&fromlist=yes
Hackintosh is evidently possible on the d4999ts. Have fun.
A Radeon HD 3870 will be coming to the Mac Pro sometime soon, supposedly by the end of May, according to ATI.
That's a very good card. It will run on Macs and PCs.
It should help.
Slower than 8800GT, does nothing to change the fact a hardware enthusiast-gamer won't buy a Mac Pro.
Slower than 8800GT, does nothing to change the fact a hardware enthusiast-gamer won't buy a Mac Pro.
A bit, true.
But the word from ATI is that if this does well on the Mac, we can expect more again.
There aren't even any more high end cards around. Nvidia is trying to put two 8800's on one card. not too good.
A bit, true.
But the word from ATI is that if this does well on the Mac, we can expect more again.
How well can it do, best case? Eat nVidia's 8800GT upgrade sales, and that's it. Mac Pro users are a really small market to begin with and most of them don't need graphics power over what they already have. The only thing that could make this market considerably more attractive is a compatible mass-market computer from Apple.
There aren't even any more high end cards around. Nvidia is trying to put two 8800's on one card. not too good.
"Trying"? The 9800GX2 benches a lot above 8800 Ultra. New chip generations are expected in summer, I think.
Don't forget, Rick, that anyone can make a joke about the word "assume". But what you're saying are also assumptions, even if you don't use the word itself.
Everything we are saying here are our assumptions.
You could also substitute the word with "guess".
Duely noted, I should have stressed that I make assumptions and/or guesses just like everyone else. Even if they won't admit it, to either us or themselves. Thank you for the clarification.
Which has zero to do with the question of if AIOs was taking share from desktops. Answer: it is.
I make no assumptions and you are free to draw your own conclusions.
I do find it interesting that Dell now offers an AIO along with Sony and Gateway. I'm not sure they would bother if they didn't see some growth in that area so in effect your test has occured in the reverse where a tower maker has added an AIO and have thus far kept it.
Also note that Sony no longer makes a tower.
And note that Apple has made more affordable towers in the past even under Steve as you point out. The G4 and G5 ones. They see no compelling economic reasons to do so any longer.
Exactly, it has "zero to do with the question of if AIOs was taking share from desktops."
Just where did I infer, imply or even suggest that the iMac was not taking away share from "nonAIO" desktops. Which, if you think about, is exactly my point(assumption or guess) that Apple could offer an xMac and increase sales at a very good margin.
And who cares if Dell, Sony and any other manufacturer sells an AIO or not or a tower or not?
The mere fact there exists a flourishing hackintosh community, a company fighting all odds in offering the Open Computer, these xMac threads(re: here and on any other Mac centric board) and the recent appearance of a hackintosh on ebay proves there is a market. How big, we don't know and you don't know, you like me make assumptions/guesses. I think it to be bigger than you suggest.
I say, free the xMac Apple, test the market, it wouldn't present any significant risk to Apple and it's shareholders.(I like that, a new slogan "Free the xMac").
Do you recall this Mini someone designed. It was in several threads last year. I love it. I drool over it. I dream about it. I want it. Please Apple, make this a reality.
Then we won't have to concern ourselves about clones. Don't drive some of us to crappy clones.
I don't know the dimensions of this mockup, but I assume it's half or less the size of a MacPro or about 4 times the size of a Mini.
Now that is an impressive design.
...But again, if the industry is increasing desktop sales at a 12% rate (from Gartner) ...
Thank you for this information. Not saying you ever said it, but many people on other boards continually say the desktop market is dying. Well, er, um, I guess not its' sales increased 12%,
How well can it do, best case? Eat nVidia's 8800GT upgrade sales, and that's it. Mac Pro users are a really small market to begin with and most of them don't need graphics power over what they already have. The only thing that could make this market considerably more attractive is a compatible mass-market computer from Apple."Trying"? The 9800GX2 benches a lot above 8800 Ultra. New chip generations are expected in summer, I think.
I've been saying for a long time, that until the MacPro's sales reach a certain point, we won't see third party cards. This, then, is an important step. If ATI feels that sales are enough for them to get bck into the market, then we will benefit.
As for the duo card from Nvidia, it uses so much power, is so hot and noisy, that it isn't really worth it. That's why I said try. the sales aren't supposed to be anything much.
Thank you for this information. Not saying you ever said it, but many people on other boards continually say the desktop market is dying. Well, er, um, I guess not its' sales increased 12%,
Here is the most recent AI article quoting data from NPD...
The Mac maker also saw robust demand for its desktop systems, which grew 55 percent on a 68 percent increase in revenues, compared to the overall retail segment which saw unit sales decline 5 percent on a 2 percent drop in revenues.
Perhaps its in that previous paragraph you didn't requote here? Nah. Couldn't be because you made a snarky comment about how many cords there were.
Did you maybe consider that the "you" was the generic you and not you in specific? Parse that sentence again.
I give up. You are completely in your own little world and we're expected to read your mind. You write about a bunch of equipment and "one cord" and we're supposed to know that you meant one power cord on the iMac. And now you write that you didn't mean "you" you, but "you" in the general sense, rather than "he," which would have been specific. You're a real piece of work.
Your answered your own question, "PC desktop sales increased 12%..." so those are not declining.
Again, if you use numbers from a limited segment (55% in the consumer market), you don't get the right picture (which is a 37% increase Y/Y for desktop Macs, and for Apple's notebooks it is 61% - thanks to the MB Air). Apple publishes their numbers every quarter...
If you don't know, the ratio between desktops and notebooks in PCs is still very close to 50/50 which is different from the Apple world: 60% for notebooks and 40% for desktops. Intel thinks that the notebooks sales will surpass the desktops sales in 2009/2010.
The growth of the top 5 manufacturers is still between 15 and 25%, not bad for people who are still selling towers (most of them anyway).
Solipsism,
You are also using Retail numbers for the US only, which do not represent the global computers sales.
While growth is certainly important, the global market share is too, right now Apple's share worldwide is less than 4% and the iMac represents about 1% of the computers sold. Wherever the iMac takes its sales from, it is insignificant since the industry itself is still growing in all segments.
I've been saying for a long time, that until the MacPro's sales reach a certain point, we won't see third party cards. This, then, is an important step. If ATI feels that sales are enough for them to get bck into the market, then we will benefit.
As for the duo card from Nvidia, it uses so much power, is so hot and noisy, that it isn't really worth it. That's why I said try. the sales aren't supposed to be anything much.
The card might not be elegant but having more performance than anything else in one slot, it's not a failure and not a "try". It bridges the gap between the 8800 Ultra and the next high end. High end never sells in large volumes, and it doesn't need to. Power draw is in line with SLI solutions, not large enough to be a concern for the target market. Noise is apparently high, but lower than the 2900XT's, which was considered a successful product for ATi.
The real issue is that a momentary lull at the graphics high end doesn't mean the graphics market is standing still. You now get nearly the old 8800 Ultra high end's worth of performance in the 9800GTX for less than the low end original 8800 was at introduction, a "stopgap" high end in the GX2, and the new high end is about to come out. There's no breather in this for Apple. They are still getting left behind about the same they always have, and if they want to change that, the only way is to up the volume through a new machine that is not a workstation. Their choice.
The card might not be elegant but having more performance than anything else in one slot, it's not a failure and not a "try". It bridges the gap between the 8800 Ultra and the next high end. High end never sells in large volumes, and it doesn't need to. Power draw is in line with SLI solutions, not large enough to be a concern for the target market. Noise is apparently high, but lower than the 2900XT's, which was considered a successful product for ATi.
The real issue is that a momentary lull at the graphics high end doesn't mean the graphics market is standing still. You now get nearly the old 8800 Ultra high end's worth of performance in the 9800GTX for less than the low end original 8800 was at introduction, a "stopgap" high end in the GX2, and the new high end is about to come out. There's no breather in this for Apple. They are still getting left behind about the same they always have, and if they want to change that, the only way is to up the volume through a new machine that is not a workstation. Their choice.
Power draw is, what, on the order of 225-275 watts? Too much.
They won't sell more than a thousand of these cards, and likely, less.
It's a desperate gamble until they come out with their new chips.
They're not making it for practical reasons, but to say that they have the fastest card, even though it's not something great.
Apple has it's own problems that are driven by Apple. They could have much better cards, if they wanted to, after all, they make their own cards. They just don't want to.
Personally, if I were running Apple, I'd offer these much better cards even if I took a loss on them, just to drive Mac Pro machines into the hands of those who won't buy the machines otherwise. Apple would more than make it up by the sales of those machines, upgrades to the OS, and in other areas.
Enough gamers would buy these machines now that Windows can be run at full speed through booting. After all, Alienware, Voodoo, and others, didn't make their success in selling cheap machines to these people. Apple wouldn't have to sell millions, just a couple of hundred thousand extra a year. That's a lot of money.
Power draw is, what, on the order of 225-275 watts? Too much.
If that's too much, then all SLI combos are too much. Why does every manufacturer offer a SLI mobo? Why are they stocked at stores? I read that as "there are people out there using SLI".
They won't sell more than a thousand of these cards, and likely, less.
It's a desperate gamble until they come out with their new chips.
They're not making it for practical reasons, but to say that they have the fastest card, even though it's not something great.
So call it advertising, market research, feasibility study. I don't see anything desperate about it. "Desperate" is hacking together something ugly and crude that will hurt your rep, and selling it at a near-loss in an attempt to turn the tide on competition that is steamrolling you. But nVidia has owned the high end for a long time now. ATi can't touch them at least until the next round of entirely new chips.
Apple has it's own problems that are driven by Apple. They could have much better cards, if they wanted to, after all, they make their own cards. They just don't want to.
Personally, if I were running Apple, I'd offer these much better cards even if I took a loss on them, just to drive Mac Pro machines into the hands of those who won't buy the machines otherwise. Apple would more than make it up by the sales of those machines, upgrades to the OS, and in other areas.
Enough gamers would buy these machines now that Windows can be run at full speed through booting. After all, Alienware, Voodoo, and others, didn't make their success in selling cheap machines to these people. Apple wouldn't have to sell millions, just a couple of hundred thousand extra a year. That's a lot of money.
I agree as far as that Apple should make sure that their professional workstation can take the newest, most powerful cards, so that it's competetive with other workstations. What I don't believe in is some mass exodus of hardware enthusiasts (we can drop the "gamer" because these people are nothing like an average PC gamer) would suddenly start buying untweakable Apple boxes. They already have quality hardware, know what they want and how to look for it. I don't see how Apple could possibly sell to them without changing *everything* about the way they do business and design their product, and how it could possibly be worth it for Apple to do so.
What Apple *can* accommodate, however, is the 95% of PC gamers who just want a reasonably powerful machine and graphics. That they can do without changing anything about their business logic.
If that's too much, then all SLI combos are too much. Why does every manufacturer offer a SLI mobo? Why are they stocked at stores? I read that as "there are people out there using SLI".
That's a very interesting question. According to the game sites, almost no one is using either SLI or Crossover. I don't know what the big deal is.
So call it advertising, market research, feasibility study. I don't see anything desperate about it. "Desperate" is hacking together something ugly and crude that will hurt your rep, and selling it at a near-loss in an attempt to turn the tide on competition that is steamrolling you.
That's about what this card does.
But nVidia has owned the high end for a long time now.
What high end? That's been gone for some time. Neither company has produced anything new and exciting for some time.
ATi can't touch them at least until the next round of entirely new chips.
Pehaps.
I agree as far as that Apple should make sure that their professional workstation can take the newest, most powerful cards, so that it's competetive with other workstations. What I don't believe in is some mass exodus of hardware enthusiasts (we can drop the "gamer" because these people are nothing like an average PC gamer) would suddenly start buying untweakable Apple boxes. They already have quality hardware, know what they want and how to look for it. I don't see how Apple could possibly sell to them without changing *everything* about the way they do business and design their product, and how it could possibly be worth it for Apple to do so.
Well, they are gamers. I didn't say they were the average gamer. The 200 thousand machines I think Apple can sell to them shows what I mean. Alienware sold about 100 thousand machines a year. VooDoo sold about 75 thousand, and the others sold less. A total market for these expensive machines was estimated to be about 350 thousand machines a year.
What Apple *can* accommodate, however, is the 95% of PC gamers who just want a reasonably powerful machine and graphics. That they can do without changing anything about their business logic.
How?
I've been saying for a long time, that until the MacPro's sales reach a certain point, we won't see third party cards. This, then, is an important step. If ATI feels that sales are enough for them to get bck into the market, then we will benefit.
Sales of Mac Pros will never be high enough to drive the graphics card market.
On the other hand, a mid range consumer Mac where the user can choose his own video card definitely would do that.
What high end? That's been gone for some time. Neither company has produced anything new and exciting for some time.
High end ≠ new and exciting. High end is just the fastest stuff that is out. nVidia has held the crown for a long time now. They are not in a position where they *can* be desperate.
How?
Isn't this obvious? Desktop with desktop parts. The average gamer only wants sufficient performance to run games, not the overkill of the high end graphics parts, or absolute waste like the Mac Pro's workstation parts and cores games will never use. It's easy to get sufficient performance and typical Apple margins into a 1100€ box with integrated graphics and one open slot, or 1300€ box with 8800/3870 class graphics built in. I'm certain of that, because I just bought a computer like that with nothing but quality parts, and the total without OS was 850€. I'd have paid a couple hundred more to make the machine a Mac with the option of running OS X officially, but there's no way I'd pay two and half times as much and only get the same performance (Mac Pro).
Thank you for this information. Not saying you ever said it, but many people on other boards continually say the desktop market is dying. Well, er, um, I guess not its' sales increased 12%,
Actually, since it is 12% growth for the entire PC market and it isn't broken out and we know that laptop sales growth exceeds desktop growth is at best it is 12%. Likely it is far lower or possibly negative growth as reported in the other article.
I guess I could look for a NPD or Garner article later.
I give up. You are completely in your own little world and we're expected to read your mind. You write about a bunch of equipment and "one cord" and we're supposed to know that you meant one power cord on the iMac. And now you write that you didn't mean "you" you, but "you" in the general sense, rather than "he," which would have been specific. You're a real piece of work.
Awww...if someone is complaining about the number of cords on his iMac which freaking cords should you count? Gee, I dunno, how about the cords on the iMac?
Buh bye sweetheart.