Intel will sell more mobile CPUs than desktop processors this year, the chip giant's CEO claimed this week.
"The crossover from the desktop to the notebook [is] happening essentially a year sooner than we first had thought," said Paul Otellini at Intel's earnings conference.
It's not that long ago that Intel and others were looking out to 2010 for the point at which more laptops are sold than desktops, a state towards which the computer market has been clearly heading for the best part of a decade.
Intel will sell more mobile CPUs than desktop processors this year, the chip giant's CEO claimed this week.
"The crossover from the desktop to the notebook [is] happening essentially a year sooner than we first had thought," said Paul Otellini at Intel's earnings conference.
It's not that long ago that Intel and others were looking out to 2010 for the point at which more laptops are sold than desktops, a state towards which the computer market has been clearly heading for the best part of a decade.
I can't think of too many "major" ones besides of the Gateway One and the Sony TL. The Mini PCs from Aopen and the like don't sell at all and the slimlines from HP and Dell, plus the XPS one use desktop parts. The slimlines used to use mobile chipsets, but the the desktop Core 2s can be easily cooled even by the smaller case.
We're talking about different types of gamers, if you haven't noticed.
I keep saying that I'm not talking about the average gamer, but the one so devoted that they are willing to spend upwards of $3,000 for a rig, exclusive of monitor. But you keep trying to steer the conversation back to those that are not relevant here.
I understand you completely, and if putting the absolute fastest single graphics card in the Mac Pro can really get those people to buy, great. Like I said, Apple should offer that for their pro users no matter what. I just think the group you're describing won't bite, because at upwards of $3,000 that single card is not enough. When $3000 buys you a machine that sports two top cards in SLI or Crossfire, how are you going to up-sell from that to a machine with decidedly weaker graphics performance? An extreme gaming HW person will also put priority on highly clocked processors over a multitude of cores, so it seems to me a manufacturer that gives them a high, guaranteed factory OC on a quadcore will win over one with workstation tech. Of course multi-card support built into a Mac Pro could change things a good deal.
(Out of interest, where does this rich gamer/HW enthusiast posse gather? I follow hardware enthusiast sites, but nothing where people buy Alienware et al.)
Quote:
Most of these gamers are NOT building their own boxes. If they were, then Alienware, VooDoo and others wouldn't have had that hi end market.
There are several hundred thousand of those every year. If Apple does this right, there is no reason why they can't cherry pick a substantial number of those from the hi end PC manufacturers.
Why do you think Dell bought Alienware, and Hp followed by buying VooDoo?
It wasn't for their business customers. They have their own higher end PCs for that market, as well as workstations, and servers.
It was for the hi end gaming market, and the caché they thought they would get by catering to them.
But, on the game sites, plenty of these people have been saying since Apple moved to Intel that they would get a Mac, and often, specifically a MacPro, if only the right cards were available.
Anyway. This is no reason not to *also* go for the market I was talking about. Apple can fit its margin in there so any iMac sales eaten are more or less equal trades. All mini upsells are a huge win. And I really, honestly do not believe in Mac Pro being currently bought much by "stragglers" that would want to go down a notch for their next purchase. If you buy something that expensive, you have a real reason to, and probably stand to make the cost back with business.
The size of the "average non-casual gamer" market is big. Tens of times more, I believe, than folks that would buy a workstation and high end cards for gaming, so I think it should bring in more revenue overall and have the potential for a large marketshare claim as well. It'd also really give a shot in the arm of Mac add-on card business, which would be healthy for the Mac Pro. Mac Pros being sold to a new Windows-based niche -> some extra money. A midrange gaming-enabled computer -> some extra money, but also serious long-term development that could even end up in OS X itself seeing some incoming games as the amount of OS X -running machines with respectable graphics would multiply.
The size of the "average non-casual gamer" market is big. Tens of times more, I believe, than folks that would buy a workstation and high end cards for gaming, so I think it should bring in more revenue overall and have the potential for a large marketshare claim as well..
How many Mac Pro buyers would they lose if Final Cut users buy an xMac instead? Keep in mind that Apple has 1 million active Final Cut Studio users.
How many Mac Pro buyers would they lose if Final Cut users buy an xMac instead? Keep in mind that Apple has 1 million active Final Cut Studio users.
How many more Mac and FCS users would they gain if PC+Avid users could switch to Mac+FCT at a reasonable cost ($2500-3000 per station instead of $4000-4500, computer+FCS) and using the same PCIe cards (if needed) as with the Mac Pro???
How many Pro recording studios will use Macs in all their suites instead of ONE Mac Pro and multiple PCs to run Pro Tools or other multi-platform DAW (because only desktop PCs and Mac Pros can receive PCI/PCIe audio and DSP cards)? Some users may even switch to Logic Studio for the price, or just have it in the case of...
Specially in the recording studios where screen real estate is important, having two or more identical displays (1-edition 2-mixer 3-plug ins, etc...), the iMac is not a good choice, Apple doesn't even sell a matching stand alone 24" display, nor a 20" by the way (same size but different panel).
How many more Mac and FCS users would they gain if PC+Avid users could switch to Mac+FCT at a reasonable cost ($2500-3000 per station instead of $4000-4500, computer+FCS) and using the same PCIe cards (if needed) as with the Mac Pro???
How many Pro recording studios will use Macs in all their suites instead of ONE Mac Pro and multiple PCs to run Pro Tools or other multi-platform DAW (because only desktop PCs and Mac Pros can receive PCI/PCIe audio and DSP cards)? Some users may even switch to Logic Studio for the price, or just have it in the case of...
Specially in the recording studios where screen real estate is important, having two or more identical displays (1-edition 2-mixer 3-plug ins, etc...), the iMac is not a good choice, Apple doesn't even sell a matching stand alone 24" display, nor a 20" by the way (same size but different panel).
How many ???
I don't think the price difference is a big factor here. Final Cut Studio is less than half the price of just Avid Media Composer, so the cost savings are gone right there. For the most part, it's a preference thing and I'm sure they do plenty of Mac-version sales based on that alone.
The other issues is the overall cost savings. Video is very time consuming, as we all know, so saving a whopping grand or two on a slower machine that is less upgradable will affect your company's bottom line very little when you consider that the machine will be used for at least a year and generate revenue in multiples well beyond any initial savings. It's even possible that by saving a grand or two on slower hardware may have negatively impacted your potential net profit because the slower machine will slow down your production times.
I understand you completely, and if putting the absolute fastest single graphics card in the Mac Pro can really get those people to buy, great. Like I said, Apple should offer that for their pro users no matter what. I just think the group you're describing won't bite, because at upwards of $3,000 that single card is not enough. When $3000 buys you a machine that sports two top cards in SLI or Crossfire, how are you going to up-sell from that to a machine with decidedly weaker graphics performance? An extreme gaming HW person will also put priority on highly clocked processors over a multitude of cores, so it seems to me a manufacturer that gives them a high, guaranteed factory OC on a quadcore will win over one with workstation tech. Of course multi-card support built into a Mac Pro could change things a good deal.
But even these guys aren't using SLI or Crossfire. I'm amazed at all the stuff I read about which one is better, easier, etc, only to then read in the same publications that it's estimated that no more than a few tens of thousands of people are actually using them. I'm not really surprised though.
The interesting thing though, is that it's the gamers themselves on these gaming sites that are saying that they would move to the Mac if the boards were there. I'm as interested as you are to find out why, other than it seems like it would bring them caché. Gamers aren't logical about this after all.
These are the guys who buy LED feet for their machines, and memory cards with neon lighting, and who cut holes of the covers of their machines and put clear panels with decals on them in instead.
They are also the same people who buy Alienware machines that LOOK like aliens!
You know, we're not dealing with people with a full deck.
Quote:
(Out of interest, where does this rich gamer/HW enthusiast posse gather? I follow hardware enthusiast sites, but nothing where people buy Alienware et al.)
Anyway. This is no reason not to *also* go for the market I was talking about. Apple can fit its margin in there so any iMac sales eaten are more or less equal trades. All mini upsells are a huge win. And I really, honestly do not believe in Mac Pro being currently bought much by "stragglers" that would want to go down a notch for their next purchase. If you buy something that expensive, you have a real reason to, and probably stand to make the cost back with business.
I don't follow the gaming world too closely unless something interesting comes up.
One of the sites, while it's not strictly a gaming site, is here:
The size of the "average non-casual gamer" market is big. Tens of times more, I believe, than folks that would buy a workstation and high end cards for gaming, so I think it should bring in more revenue overall and have the potential for a large marketshare claim as well. It'd also really give a shot in the arm of Mac add-on card business, which would be healthy for the Mac Pro. Mac Pros being sold to a new Windows-based niche -> some extra money. A midrange gaming-enabled computer -> some extra money, but also serious long-term development that could even end up in OS X itself seeing some incoming games as the amount of OS X -running machines with respectable graphics would multiply.
That's true, maybe even bigger than ten times.
The iMac is perfect for them. Casual gaming really needs little in the way of graphics performance.
My wife is a perfect example of what they mean. She plays Java and Flash games on the internet all the time. These require nothing in the way of graphics.
Some of those sites, and I don't have the names as I don't go to them, have a huge number of people.
How many more Mac and FCS users would they gain if PC+Avid users could switch to Mac+FCT at a reasonable cost ($2500-3000 per station instead of $4000-4500, computer+FCS) and using the same PCIe cards (if needed) as with the Mac Pro???
How many Pro recording studios will use Macs in all their suites instead of ONE Mac Pro and multiple PCs to run Pro Tools or other multi-platform DAW (because only desktop PCs and Mac Pros can receive PCI/PCIe audio and DSP cards)? Some users may even switch to Logic Studio for the price, or just have it in the case of...
Specially in the recording studios where screen real estate is important, having two or more identical displays (1-edition 2-mixer 3-plug ins, etc...), the iMac is not a good choice, Apple doesn't even sell a matching stand alone 24" display, nor a 20" by the way (same size but different panel).
How many ???
Avid users, and by that I don't mean Avid Express users, but Avid workstation users, are mostly now using Mac Pros. The Windows versions have never been as popular.
Those studios don't care so much about the price of the equipment. Don't forget that they use Avid certified video cards and HDDs. Those cost much more than what most others would pay. A Mac Pro is not expensive to them.
When some of these companies do use PCs, they use BOXX, or other workstation level machines. They don't run out and buy run of the mill equipment.
Their equipment table/workstations alone cost thousands of dollars. The video recorders cost tens of thousands very often, and other equipment also costs in the thousands each. The computer is just another industrial level tool.
In fact, the production grade monitors used can cost from $15,000 to over $20,000.
Another fact is that the bigger studios fill their computers with Apple RAM. The cost is not important, as the system is then considered to be certified.
Believe me, the cost of the computers are trivial.
Avid users, and by that I don't mean Avid Express users, but Avid workstation users, are mostly now using Mac Pros. The Windows versions have never been as popular.
Also, Avid Express ( or Xpress Pro, or whatever) has been discontinued as they restructured their product line. I think the minimum software suite you can get now that is "Avid" is $2500. Other than what was axed, I think the prices in general were cut in half relative to what they were a few months ago.
Also, Avid Express ( or Xpress Pro, or whatever) has been discontinued as they restructured their product line. I think the minimum software suite you can get now that is "Avid" is $2500. Other than what was axed, I think the prices in general were cut in half relative to what they were a few months ago.
I haven't kept track of the Avid software as of late. The last package I remember that rivaled FCP Studio cost $1,600.
The iMac is perfect for them. Casual gaming really needs little in the way of graphics performance.
My wife is a perfect example of what they mean. She plays Java and Flash games on the internet all the time. These require nothing in the way of graphics.
You missed a crucial word in my post and took it completely in reverse. I was talking about the average *non-casual* gamer, not the microscopic hardware enthusiast niche that buys workstation class gear to play games.
The casual market, which you addressed in your reply and which indeed needs no graphics ability from the computer at all, is several times larger still, but not tenfold.
The iMac represents abysmal value to the average non-casual gamer.
The interesting thing though, is that it's the gamers themselves on these gaming sites that are saying that they would move to the Mac if the boards were there. I'm as interested as you are to find out why, other than it seems like it would bring them caché. Gamers aren't logical about this after all.
These are the guys who buy LED feet for their machines, and memory cards with neon lighting, and who cut holes of the covers of their machines and put clear panels with decals on them in instead.
Poor aesthetic sense is different than being made out of money. The costs of this sort of modding are generally in the tens of dollars.
Quote:
I don't follow the gaming world too closely unless something interesting comes up.
One of the sites, while it's not strictly a gaming site, is here:
You missed a crucial word in my post and took it completely in reverse. I was talking about the average *non-casual* gamer, not the microscopic hardware enthusiast niche that buys workstation class gear to play games.
The casual market, which you addressed in your reply and which indeed needs no graphics ability from the computer at all, is several times larger still, but not tenfold.
The iMac represents abysmal value to the average non-casual gamer.
Well, the numbers support for casual gamers is against your average non casual gamer, not the hard core gamer. There the numbers would be much larger.
And as far as the iMac goes, no it doesn't offer an abysmal value to the average gamer. It's not a gaming powerhouse, but I've seen people play good PC games ported over without a problem.
Poor aesthetic sense is different than being made out of money. The costs of this sort of modding are generally in the tens of dollars.
Hi performance memory, and other mods with these cute "extras" run more than tens of dollars. The people who do this are rarely those who don't take games seriously. they are the same ones buying high power machines. That's why I mentioned it.
Quote:
I took a look, also looked at the forums, and the ratio of average non-casual gamers and stuff for them versus the Alienware buyers was like 100:1.
You'll have to be clearer. Which way are you going with this? 100:1 FOR the casual gamer, or AGAINST them?
Well, the numbers support for casual gamers is against your average non casual gamer, not the hard core gamer. There the numbers would be much larger.
I have no idea where you are going with the "hardcore" can of worms, but please shed the notion that it has a lot to do with hardware.
Quote:
And as far as the iMac goes, no it doesn't offer an abysmal value to the average gamer. It's not a gaming powerhouse, but I've seen people play good PC games ported over without a problem.
Okay, you got me there. It's just very poor value for gaming, not abysmal. Otherwise I'd run out of adjectives if they somehow made it an even worse deal.
(Hint: my extensive one-minute investigation located a Dell that sports a 3.0GHz Penryn and a 8800GT for $1300, 20" display included.)
Comments
Which one was that, and what happened to it?
X1900:
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/ATI%2...ies/100435854/
Maybe they were discontinued, I don't know, their supply is supposedly very limited now.
X1900:
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/ATI%2...ies/100435854/
Maybe they were discontinued, I don't know, their supply is supposedly very limited now.
Yeah, that was discontinued.
"The crossover from the desktop to the notebook [is] happening essentially a year sooner than we first had thought," said Paul Otellini at Intel's earnings conference.
It's not that long ago that Intel and others were looking out to 2010 for the point at which more laptops are sold than desktops, a state towards which the computer market has been clearly heading for the best part of a decade.
reghardware
Intel will sell more mobile CPUs than desktop processors this year, the chip giant's CEO claimed this week.
"The crossover from the desktop to the notebook [is] happening essentially a year sooner than we first had thought," said Paul Otellini at Intel's earnings conference.
It's not that long ago that Intel and others were looking out to 2010 for the point at which more laptops are sold than desktops, a state towards which the computer market has been clearly heading for the best part of a decade.
reghardware
Is it really this simple?
I don't think so. Many more desktops other that Macs now use mobile chips and chipsets. What proportion of those chip sales go to them?
We're talking about different types of gamers, if you haven't noticed.
I keep saying that I'm not talking about the average gamer, but the one so devoted that they are willing to spend upwards of $3,000 for a rig, exclusive of monitor. But you keep trying to steer the conversation back to those that are not relevant here.
I understand you completely, and if putting the absolute fastest single graphics card in the Mac Pro can really get those people to buy, great. Like I said, Apple should offer that for their pro users no matter what. I just think the group you're describing won't bite, because at upwards of $3,000 that single card is not enough. When $3000 buys you a machine that sports two top cards in SLI or Crossfire, how are you going to up-sell from that to a machine with decidedly weaker graphics performance? An extreme gaming HW person will also put priority on highly clocked processors over a multitude of cores, so it seems to me a manufacturer that gives them a high, guaranteed factory OC on a quadcore will win over one with workstation tech. Of course multi-card support built into a Mac Pro could change things a good deal.
(Out of interest, where does this rich gamer/HW enthusiast posse gather? I follow hardware enthusiast sites, but nothing where people buy Alienware et al.)
Most of these gamers are NOT building their own boxes. If they were, then Alienware, VooDoo and others wouldn't have had that hi end market.
There are several hundred thousand of those every year. If Apple does this right, there is no reason why they can't cherry pick a substantial number of those from the hi end PC manufacturers.
Why do you think Dell bought Alienware, and Hp followed by buying VooDoo?
It wasn't for their business customers. They have their own higher end PCs for that market, as well as workstations, and servers.
It was for the hi end gaming market, and the caché they thought they would get by catering to them.
But, on the game sites, plenty of these people have been saying since Apple moved to Intel that they would get a Mac, and often, specifically a MacPro, if only the right cards were available.
Anyway. This is no reason not to *also* go for the market I was talking about. Apple can fit its margin in there so any iMac sales eaten are more or less equal trades. All mini upsells are a huge win. And I really, honestly do not believe in Mac Pro being currently bought much by "stragglers" that would want to go down a notch for their next purchase. If you buy something that expensive, you have a real reason to, and probably stand to make the cost back with business.
The size of the "average non-casual gamer" market is big. Tens of times more, I believe, than folks that would buy a workstation and high end cards for gaming, so I think it should bring in more revenue overall and have the potential for a large marketshare claim as well. It'd also really give a shot in the arm of Mac add-on card business, which would be healthy for the Mac Pro. Mac Pros being sold to a new Windows-based niche -> some extra money. A midrange gaming-enabled computer -> some extra money, but also serious long-term development that could even end up in OS X itself seeing some incoming games as the amount of OS X -running machines with respectable graphics would multiply.
The size of the "average non-casual gamer" market is big. Tens of times more, I believe, than folks that would buy a workstation and high end cards for gaming, so I think it should bring in more revenue overall and have the potential for a large marketshare claim as well..
How many Mac Pro buyers would they lose if Final Cut users buy an xMac instead? Keep in mind that Apple has 1 million active Final Cut Studio users.
How many Mac Pro buyers would they lose if Final Cut users buy an xMac instead? Keep in mind that Apple has 1 million active Final Cut Studio users.
How many more Mac and FCS users would they gain if PC+Avid users could switch to Mac+FCT at a reasonable cost ($2500-3000 per station instead of $4000-4500, computer+FCS) and using the same PCIe cards (if needed) as with the Mac Pro???
How many Pro recording studios will use Macs in all their suites instead of ONE Mac Pro and multiple PCs to run Pro Tools or other multi-platform DAW (because only desktop PCs and Mac Pros can receive PCI/PCIe audio and DSP cards)? Some users may even switch to Logic Studio for the price, or just have it in the case of...
Specially in the recording studios where screen real estate is important, having two or more identical displays (1-edition 2-mixer 3-plug ins, etc...), the iMac is not a good choice, Apple doesn't even sell a matching stand alone 24" display, nor a 20" by the way (same size but different panel).
How many ???
How many more Mac and FCS users would they gain if PC+Avid users could switch to Mac+FCT at a reasonable cost ($2500-3000 per station instead of $4000-4500, computer+FCS) and using the same PCIe cards (if needed) as with the Mac Pro???
How many Pro recording studios will use Macs in all their suites instead of ONE Mac Pro and multiple PCs to run Pro Tools or other multi-platform DAW (because only desktop PCs and Mac Pros can receive PCI/PCIe audio and DSP cards)? Some users may even switch to Logic Studio for the price, or just have it in the case of...
Specially in the recording studios where screen real estate is important, having two or more identical displays (1-edition 2-mixer 3-plug ins, etc...), the iMac is not a good choice, Apple doesn't even sell a matching stand alone 24" display, nor a 20" by the way (same size but different panel).
How many ???
I don't think the price difference is a big factor here. Final Cut Studio is less than half the price of just Avid Media Composer, so the cost savings are gone right there. For the most part, it's a preference thing and I'm sure they do plenty of Mac-version sales based on that alone.
The other issues is the overall cost savings. Video is very time consuming, as we all know, so saving a whopping grand or two on a slower machine that is less upgradable will affect your company's bottom line very little when you consider that the machine will be used for at least a year and generate revenue in multiples well beyond any initial savings. It's even possible that by saving a grand or two on slower hardware may have negatively impacted your potential net profit because the slower machine will slow down your production times.
I understand you completely, and if putting the absolute fastest single graphics card in the Mac Pro can really get those people to buy, great. Like I said, Apple should offer that for their pro users no matter what. I just think the group you're describing won't bite, because at upwards of $3,000 that single card is not enough. When $3000 buys you a machine that sports two top cards in SLI or Crossfire, how are you going to up-sell from that to a machine with decidedly weaker graphics performance? An extreme gaming HW person will also put priority on highly clocked processors over a multitude of cores, so it seems to me a manufacturer that gives them a high, guaranteed factory OC on a quadcore will win over one with workstation tech. Of course multi-card support built into a Mac Pro could change things a good deal.
But even these guys aren't using SLI or Crossfire. I'm amazed at all the stuff I read about which one is better, easier, etc, only to then read in the same publications that it's estimated that no more than a few tens of thousands of people are actually using them. I'm not really surprised though.
The interesting thing though, is that it's the gamers themselves on these gaming sites that are saying that they would move to the Mac if the boards were there. I'm as interested as you are to find out why, other than it seems like it would bring them caché. Gamers aren't logical about this after all.
These are the guys who buy LED feet for their machines, and memory cards with neon lighting, and who cut holes of the covers of their machines and put clear panels with decals on them in instead.
They are also the same people who buy Alienware machines that LOOK like aliens!
You know, we're not dealing with people with a full deck.
(Out of interest, where does this rich gamer/HW enthusiast posse gather? I follow hardware enthusiast sites, but nothing where people buy Alienware et al.)
Anyway. This is no reason not to *also* go for the market I was talking about. Apple can fit its margin in there so any iMac sales eaten are more or less equal trades. All mini upsells are a huge win. And I really, honestly do not believe in Mac Pro being currently bought much by "stragglers" that would want to go down a notch for their next purchase. If you buy something that expensive, you have a real reason to, and probably stand to make the cost back with business.
I don't follow the gaming world too closely unless something interesting comes up.
One of the sites, while it's not strictly a gaming site, is here:
http://www.hexus.net/index.php?itemType=13
go to the top menu for gaming.
The size of the "average non-casual gamer" market is big. Tens of times more, I believe, than folks that would buy a workstation and high end cards for gaming, so I think it should bring in more revenue overall and have the potential for a large marketshare claim as well. It'd also really give a shot in the arm of Mac add-on card business, which would be healthy for the Mac Pro. Mac Pros being sold to a new Windows-based niche -> some extra money. A midrange gaming-enabled computer -> some extra money, but also serious long-term development that could even end up in OS X itself seeing some incoming games as the amount of OS X -running machines with respectable graphics would multiply.
That's true, maybe even bigger than ten times.
The iMac is perfect for them. Casual gaming really needs little in the way of graphics performance.
My wife is a perfect example of what they mean. She plays Java and Flash games on the internet all the time. These require nothing in the way of graphics.
Some of those sites, and I don't have the names as I don't go to them, have a huge number of people.
How many more Mac and FCS users would they gain if PC+Avid users could switch to Mac+FCT at a reasonable cost ($2500-3000 per station instead of $4000-4500, computer+FCS) and using the same PCIe cards (if needed) as with the Mac Pro???
How many Pro recording studios will use Macs in all their suites instead of ONE Mac Pro and multiple PCs to run Pro Tools or other multi-platform DAW (because only desktop PCs and Mac Pros can receive PCI/PCIe audio and DSP cards)? Some users may even switch to Logic Studio for the price, or just have it in the case of...
Specially in the recording studios where screen real estate is important, having two or more identical displays (1-edition 2-mixer 3-plug ins, etc...), the iMac is not a good choice, Apple doesn't even sell a matching stand alone 24" display, nor a 20" by the way (same size but different panel).
How many ???
Avid users, and by that I don't mean Avid Express users, but Avid workstation users, are mostly now using Mac Pros. The Windows versions have never been as popular.
Those studios don't care so much about the price of the equipment. Don't forget that they use Avid certified video cards and HDDs. Those cost much more than what most others would pay. A Mac Pro is not expensive to them.
When some of these companies do use PCs, they use BOXX, or other workstation level machines. They don't run out and buy run of the mill equipment.
Their equipment table/workstations alone cost thousands of dollars. The video recorders cost tens of thousands very often, and other equipment also costs in the thousands each. The computer is just another industrial level tool.
In fact, the production grade monitors used can cost from $15,000 to over $20,000.
Another fact is that the bigger studios fill their computers with Apple RAM. The cost is not important, as the system is then considered to be certified.
Believe me, the cost of the computers are trivial.
Believe me, the cost of the computers are trivial.
Oh yeah. When you're paying the person clicking the keys 35k & up a year there's not really a concern for the whole $3500 vs. $4500 computer question.
Avid users, and by that I don't mean Avid Express users, but Avid workstation users, are mostly now using Mac Pros. The Windows versions have never been as popular.
Also, Avid Express ( or Xpress Pro, or whatever) has been discontinued as they restructured their product line. I think the minimum software suite you can get now that is "Avid" is $2500. Other than what was axed, I think the prices in general were cut in half relative to what they were a few months ago.
Also, Avid Express ( or Xpress Pro, or whatever) has been discontinued as they restructured their product line. I think the minimum software suite you can get now that is "Avid" is $2500. Other than what was axed, I think the prices in general were cut in half relative to what they were a few months ago.
I haven't kept track of the Avid software as of late. The last package I remember that rivaled FCP Studio cost $1,600.
That's true, maybe even bigger than ten times.
The iMac is perfect for them. Casual gaming really needs little in the way of graphics performance.
My wife is a perfect example of what they mean. She plays Java and Flash games on the internet all the time. These require nothing in the way of graphics.
You missed a crucial word in my post and took it completely in reverse. I was talking about the average *non-casual* gamer, not the microscopic hardware enthusiast niche that buys workstation class gear to play games.
The casual market, which you addressed in your reply and which indeed needs no graphics ability from the computer at all, is several times larger still, but not tenfold.
The iMac represents abysmal value to the average non-casual gamer.
The interesting thing though, is that it's the gamers themselves on these gaming sites that are saying that they would move to the Mac if the boards were there. I'm as interested as you are to find out why, other than it seems like it would bring them caché. Gamers aren't logical about this after all.
These are the guys who buy LED feet for their machines, and memory cards with neon lighting, and who cut holes of the covers of their machines and put clear panels with decals on them in instead.
Poor aesthetic sense is different than being made out of money. The costs of this sort of modding are generally in the tens of dollars.
I don't follow the gaming world too closely unless something interesting comes up.
One of the sites, while it's not strictly a gaming site, is here:
http://www.hexus.net/index.php?itemType=13
go to the top menu for gaming.
I took a look, also looked at the forums, and the ratio of average non-casual gamers and stuff for them versus the Alienware buyers was like 100:1.
You missed a crucial word in my post and took it completely in reverse. I was talking about the average *non-casual* gamer, not the microscopic hardware enthusiast niche that buys workstation class gear to play games.
The casual market, which you addressed in your reply and which indeed needs no graphics ability from the computer at all, is several times larger still, but not tenfold.
The iMac represents abysmal value to the average non-casual gamer.
Well, the numbers support for casual gamers is against your average non casual gamer, not the hard core gamer. There the numbers would be much larger.
And as far as the iMac goes, no it doesn't offer an abysmal value to the average gamer. It's not a gaming powerhouse, but I've seen people play good PC games ported over without a problem.
Poor aesthetic sense is different than being made out of money. The costs of this sort of modding are generally in the tens of dollars.
Hi performance memory, and other mods with these cute "extras" run more than tens of dollars. The people who do this are rarely those who don't take games seriously. they are the same ones buying high power machines. That's why I mentioned it.
I took a look, also looked at the forums, and the ratio of average non-casual gamers and stuff for them versus the Alienware buyers was like 100:1.
You'll have to be clearer. Which way are you going with this? 100:1 FOR the casual gamer, or AGAINST them?
You'll have to be clearer. Which way are you going with this? 100:1 FOR the casual gamer, or AGAINST them?
Read it over until "non-casual" sinks in. Casual gamers are on neither side of that comparison.
Well, the numbers support for casual gamers is against your average non casual gamer, not the hard core gamer. There the numbers would be much larger.
I have no idea where you are going with the "hardcore" can of worms, but please shed the notion that it has a lot to do with hardware.
And as far as the iMac goes, no it doesn't offer an abysmal value to the average gamer. It's not a gaming powerhouse, but I've seen people play good PC games ported over without a problem.
Okay, you got me there. It's just very poor value for gaming, not abysmal. Otherwise I'd run out of adjectives if they somehow made it an even worse deal.
(Hint: my extensive one-minute investigation located a Dell that sports a 3.0GHz Penryn and a 8800GT for $1300, 20" display included.)