Well. I'd argue that the 'X-Mac/Mid-Tower' Mac should be where the Mac Pro used to be and where the iMac high end currently is.
Apple sneakily drifted the Mac Pro's entry price with the G5 and the hike went further with Intel. Guess what sneaked up hill with it. The iMac.
There's a yawning gap of £1000-£1700 where the real tower Mac should be. Plenty of room for PC tower switchers, artists, small business etc to buy a machine that won't tear off your arm or force you to dig up your granny.
Melgross can state teh Mac Pro is this and that. It probably is. Nothing like stating the obvious. We all waxed lyrical about how we didn't have enough cpu choice with the G5/G4. Now we have that choice Apple is playing the oddball again. Offering a differing mobo/cpu in teh same case can't be that costly. The components are there. Use them and give buyers the choice.
Yeah...I didn't express myself very well. As far as the Mac Pros, and this is only as it relates to my needs and wants, the cost / performance / GPU options just don't work out. I realize that I am probably (possibly?) not the best target market for Apple.
Well. It seems Apple would rather sell fewer towers at an obscene profit...and even fewer now there's a credit crunch. They just don't seem to 'get it'. They could offer a 'Mac Pro' for people who are living in the real world. It's credit crunch time. The fact that I'd like a Mac Pro based on the cheaper but better performing bang for buck i7 doesn't make anyone any less a 'Pro' than Melgross or anyone else. I've known plenty of 'Pros' (musicians, artists..) who don't subscribe to paying through the nose for it just because Apple says they have to.
None of what I said invalidates the dual processor market at the top end. Equally so. The Xeon doesn't invalidate the need for a tower for mortals.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS.
Quote:
I agree with almost everything here save for one point. Mac Pros are still state of the art for dual processor workstations until workstations based off of Nehalem Xeons come out.
Well. The cpus are. The ram, hd and gpus suck. Ergo: my sig'.
I wonder whether Steve Jobs' self-imposed recovery time also leaves him enough time to rethink Apple's product lines. Taking into account recent shifts in user needs, why certain Mac products do better than others, emerging technologies, etc.
He might even find some time to browse these forums (yeah, right... ).
Yet I wouldn't be surprised if he comes back full of ideas on what to do next. And in that respect his recovery time could be the best thing that happened to Apple since the iMac.
I wouldn't be surprised.
With rumors of Apple introducing a TV set of their own with built in Apple TV I wonder whether this heralds the break up of the iMac line into 3 products:
- Apple TV set with built in 'Apple TV', perhaps DVD or Blu-Ray player, plus online movie rentals
- 19" or 20" laptop for people who want (some) mobility but a larger screen
- midrange tower, something with a single quad-core CPU and one or two PCI slots and which can plug into the Apple 24" LED display (and perhaps a 30" LED once introduced).
I really think the days of the iMac should be numbered.
To watch movies LCD TVs are cheap enough these days and they're bigger.
People who don't have the desk space for a tower look to a laptop + external LCD monitor.
And people who want a small modular system don't have an offering in the iMac at all.
A revival of the cube would be nice. Slightly bigger to fit high-end GPUs, yet something elegant, distinct while still being mid-range.
Valid arguments. Your 1st argument hit the nail on the head. I don't think Steve can see past the iPhone. The Mac desktop line has stagnated...not just in specs, price etc...but the line up is...well. Stale. It doesn't meet the needs of all the switchers they are gaining the interest of with iPod/iPhone etc.
Interesting ideas. I agree with the latter one so much. Lament the Cube. Lament.
The iMac lacks performance and flexibility while the Mac Pro is way too much CPU power and money for my needs while completely defeating itself on the GPU flexibility.
While Apple may be consciously ignoring the market segment that I represent, they may be missing out on a significant opportunity. I know I'm not the only Windows user in this situation.
Ironically, not much has really changed in 20 years. As was the case then, I guess I'm looking at another PC.
Ok. Hats off. You kinda of said it with less waffle than I. You nailed the Mac Pro to the cross.
What's really damning to Apple's desktop strategy is the fact you say not much has changed in 20 years (re: Apple and Desktops...not when it comes to choice.)
Yeesh. It's kinda true. Disappointing when you consider the same company makes the iPhone...
I want my xMac because all I need to upgrade is the GPU (besides RAM and HD). But seeing the limited GPU options for the Mac Pro anyways... I don't think the xMac is going to happen.
Why can't Apple just update the iMacs with Nvidia 9600 already!!!! And the Mac Mini with 9400M!!! ARHGHG
Oh, congrats melgross on your new moderator powers! Use them wisely...
Valid arguments. Your 1st argument hit the nail on the head. I don't think Steve can see past the iPhone. The Mac desktop line has stagnated...not just in specs, price etc...but the line up is...well. Stale. It doesn't meet the needs of all the switchers they are gaining the interest of with iPod/iPhone etc.
Interesting ideas. I agree with the latter one so much. Lament the Cube. Lament.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Well, Apple has been making good strides with iPod and iTunes Store. The iPhone was a big gamble and it is fantastic. They haven't forgotten the Mac line, but their thoughts on focusing so much on laptops, yeah, the Mac desktop has been left to dwindle this past year.
Like I said, all Apple needs to do is bring the Mac Mini to DDR3 9400M chipset, iMac to 9400M with 9600 and 22" LED backlit.
No need to invent a whole new manufacturing paradigm or re-engineer their entire karmic universal philosophy.
JUST SIMPLE UPDATES TO THE BLOODY MAC MINI AND IMAC. That's all I'm asking for. Simple.
Like I said, all Apple needs to do is bring the Mac Mini to DDR3 9400M chipset, iMac to 9400M with 9600 and 22" LED backlit.
No need to invent a whole new manufacturing paradigm or re-engineer their entire karmic universal philosophy.
JUST SIMPLE UPDATES TO THE BLOODY MAC MINI AND IMAC. That's all I'm asking for. Simple.
It won't be enough, I'm afraid. The next mini, or mini replacement, needs to be a radical update to make up for it being ignored for so long. The iMac can get away with the minor speed bumps people have been clamoring for. The mini is just too small to take any decent processor that doesn't cost an arm and a leg (mobile processors).
Back on topic, I hope Apple lets people get the Quadro CX for it's Mac Pros.
Well. It seems Apple would rather sell fewer towers at an obscene profit...and even fewer now there's a credit crunch. They just don't seem to 'get it'. They could offer a 'Mac Pro' for people who are living in the real world. It's credit crunch time. The fact that I'd like a Mac Pro based on the cheaper but better performing bang for buck i7 doesn't make anyone any less a 'Pro' than Melgross or anyone else. I've known plenty of 'Pros' (musicians, artists..) who don't subscribe to paying through the nose for it just because Apple says they have to...
What I do want Apple to do is drop the prices a little on Macbook Alu and update the Mac Mini, Mac Mini can stay at the same price point.
I'm just *not* seeing real value in the Mac line at this time. Only thing is the 9400M MacBook White. But I really don't want another white Mac... ever.
It won't be enough, I'm afraid. The next mini, or mini replacement, needs to be a radical update to make up for it being ignored for so long. The iMac can get away with the minor speed bumps people have been clamoring for. The mini is just too small to take any decent processor that doesn't cost an arm and a leg (mobile processors).
Back on topic, I hope Apple lets people get the Quadro CX for it's Mac Pros.
They can just update the Mini to a 2.0ghz Penryn and GPU 9400M, DDR3 board and RAM. That is still a viable, viable, fast machine. For what it needs to do. Forget about the two models and just have one with 2ghz Penryn and SuperDrive. 2ghz Penryn, 4GB RAM max, 9400M, DDR3, that's a decent, slim, portable machine right there! In the face of all sorts of crazy big power hungry ugly CPU boxes.
It won't be enough, I'm afraid. The next mini, or mini replacement, needs to be a radical update to make up for it being ignored for so long. The iMac can get away with the minor speed bumps people have been clamoring for. The mini is just too small to take any decent processor that doesn't cost an arm and a leg (mobile processors).
Back on topic, I hope Apple lets people get the Quadro CX for it's Mac Pros.
Why hasn't the Mac Pro been released with an Nvidia GTX 280 or 260 option? Between 8800GT and a Quadro is a hell of a big price/performance gap. Or an ATI 4870 should be an option. *sigh* ...There is that argument for Pro level stuff the Mac Pro is just designed to do what it's meant to do for years and years, don't mess with it too much. Still...
Why hasn't the Mac Pro been released with an Nvidia GTX 280 or 260 option? Between 8800GT and a Quadro is a hell of a big price/performance gap. Or an ATI 4870 should be an option. *sigh* ...There is that argument for Pro level stuff the Mac Pro is just designed to do what it's meant to do for years and years, don't mess with it too much. Still...
I agree...In the next revision Apple has to put in a HI-end Nvidia card. Given Apple's pnchant for going with midrange cards in the lastest generation (then skipping the next generation...LOL), I'd say that It will be the GTX 260.
I agree...In the next revision Apple has to put in a HI-end Nvidia card. Given Apple's pnchant for going with midrange cards in the lastest generation (then skipping the next generation...LOL), I'd say that It will be the GTX 260.
The bizarre thing to me is that Nvidia has had unified drivers on the PC side for years (one driver supports all cards over several generations). I don't understand why this can't be done on the OSX side.
I also don't understand why NVidia can't write drivers for OSX and leave Apple out of the picture. Are the graphics drivers that integrated into the OS that they can't be patched/updated without a recompile of the kernal or something?
Perhaps with Apple adopting Nvidia chips on the Macbook products, and then hopefully with the iMacs, we will see a unified Nvidia driver for OSX that covers the entire range of Nvidia graphics platforms with updates in every release of the OS.
...Perhaps with Apple adopting Nvidia chips on the Macbook products, and then hopefully with the iMacs, we will see a unified Nvidia driver for OSX that covers the entire range of Nvidia graphics platforms with updates in every release of the OS.
That makes great sense. Which in the Apple world, tragically, means it's not going to happen.
Seriously though, it could happen in Snow Leopard, what is Snow Leopard's strategy when it comes with drivers? Download on demand or something, right? So it doesn't need to install 3GB of printer drivers or somethin...
I'm just *not* seeing real value in the Mac line at this time. Only thing is the 9400M MacBook White. But I really don't want another white Mac... ever.
Why hasn't the Mac Pro been released with an Nvidia GTX 280 or 260 option? Between 8800GT and a Quadro is a hell of a big price/performance gap. Or an ATI 4870 should be an option. *sigh* ...There is that argument for Pro level stuff the Mac Pro is just designed to do what it's meant to do for years and years, don't mess with it too much. Still...
And that's part of my biggest beef for a machine that's offering supposedly 'Pro Power' when it can't get out of bed for the latest gpus. It's not like the 4850 isn't dirt cheap. It should be included as standard. WHERE are the 280s? Yeesh. So. i7 server isn't ready. What stopped Apple offering BTO for a 280 8 months ago?!?
I can't defend that to my PC owning friend. No wonder he went with 'another' PC. Sigh.
The bizarre thing to me is that Nvidia has had unified drivers on the PC side for years (one driver supports all cards over several generations). I don't understand why this can't be done on the OSX side.
I also don't understand why NVidia can't write drivers for OSX and leave Apple out of the picture. Are the graphics drivers that integrated into the OS that they can't be patched/updated without a recompile of the kernal or something?
Perhaps with Apple adopting Nvidia chips on the Macbook products, and then hopefully with the iMacs, we will see a unified Nvidia driver for OSX that covers the entire range of Nvidia graphics platforms with updates in every release of the OS.
Shrugs. WHo knows... They have industry standard parts now. Ram. HD. What's keeping us from just plopping ANY Nvidia card in there?
Obtuse Apple. That's what.
I'm hoping that Tim Cook will have a fresh look at the product lines. Desktop particularly. It's antiquated in industry terms. It needs a fresh perspective.
They can just update the Mini to a 2.0ghz Penryn and GPU 9400M, DDR3 board and RAM. That is still a viable, viable, fast machine. For what it needs to do. Forget about the two models and just have one with 2ghz Penryn and SuperDrive. 2ghz Penryn, 4GB RAM max, 9400M, DDR3, that's a decent, slim, portable machine right there! In the face of all sorts of crazy big power hungry ugly CPU boxes.
Let's make our kit so small and slender for desktops that we can't use cheap, powerful parts. But instead charge are customers extra because we look 'Kool'. Fine for laptops. Not as fine for desktops. It would be fine for desktops if that didn't exclude the said option for cheaper and more powerful boxes.
Make the desktops slightly bigger. Offer the i7 desktop. Make the desktop cheaper. They can still make a profit on selling the LCDs they charge too much for. They can still look 'Kool'. An Alu 8x8 cube...a slightly shrunk Mac Pro tower option. They are a 25 billion company for Pete's sake.
Apple and desktops? Look at their ancient Cinema display line. That says it all.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. I'll probably be appeased when the iMac and Mac Pro are released next month? But it won't invalidate many of these arguments on this forum.
Let's make our kit so small and slender for desktops that we can't use cheap, powerful parts. But instead charge are customers extra because we look 'Kool'. Fine for laptops. Not as fine for desktops. It would be fine for desktops if that didn't exclude the said option for cheaper and more powerful boxes.
Make the desktops slightly bigger. Offer the i7 desktop. Make the desktop cheaper. They can still make a profit on selling the LCDs they charge too much for. They can still look 'Kool'. An Alu 8x8 cube...a slightly shrunk Mac Pro tower option. They are a 25 billion company for Pete's sake.
Apple and desktops? Look at their ancient Cinema display line. That says it all.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. I'll probably be appeased when the iMac and Mac Pro are released next month? But it won't invalidate many of these arguments on this forum.
LBB, I don't know how long you've been at this, but you might as well just realize, that in the last 20 years, Apple has refused to offer an affordable (albeit premium) flexible product similar to what PC users have been enjoying since it's debut.
While I completely agree with you, that they are missing out on a significant market segment... I honestly don't think they will ever do it. Otherwise, they could have done so long before now.
LBB, I don't know how long you've been at this, but you might as well just realize, that in the last 20 years, Apple has refused to offer an affordable (albeit premium) flexible product similar to what PC users have been enjoying since it's debut.
While I completely agree with you, that they are missing out on a significant market segment... I honestly don't think they will ever do it. Otherwise, they could have done so long before now.
To be honest, no one really can really predict what Apple will or won't do. After all no one thought that they'd ever switch to Intel architecture either. You never know what they have up their sleeve.
Comments
I want my xMac
Well. I'd argue that the 'X-Mac/Mid-Tower' Mac should be where the Mac Pro used to be and where the iMac high end currently is.
Apple sneakily drifted the Mac Pro's entry price with the G5 and the hike went further with Intel. Guess what sneaked up hill with it. The iMac.
There's a yawning gap of £1000-£1700 where the real tower Mac should be. Plenty of room for PC tower switchers, artists, small business etc to buy a machine that won't tear off your arm or force you to dig up your granny.
Melgross can state teh Mac Pro is this and that. It probably is. Nothing like stating the obvious. We all waxed lyrical about how we didn't have enough cpu choice with the G5/G4. Now we have that choice Apple is playing the oddball again. Offering a differing mobo/cpu in teh same case can't be that costly. The components are there. Use them and give buyers the choice.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Yeah...I didn't express myself very well. As far as the Mac Pros, and this is only as it relates to my needs and wants, the cost / performance / GPU options just don't work out. I realize that I am probably (possibly?) not the best target market for Apple.
Well. It seems Apple would rather sell fewer towers at an obscene profit...and even fewer now there's a credit crunch. They just don't seem to 'get it'. They could offer a 'Mac Pro' for people who are living in the real world. It's credit crunch time. The fact that I'd like a Mac Pro based on the cheaper but better performing bang for buck i7 doesn't make anyone any less a 'Pro' than Melgross or anyone else. I've known plenty of 'Pros' (musicians, artists..) who don't subscribe to paying through the nose for it just because Apple says they have to.
None of what I said invalidates the dual processor market at the top end. Equally so. The Xeon doesn't invalidate the need for a tower for mortals.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS.
I agree with almost everything here save for one point. Mac Pros are still state of the art for dual processor workstations until workstations based off of Nehalem Xeons come out.
Well. The cpus are. The ram, hd and gpus suck. Ergo: my sig'.
I wonder whether Steve Jobs' self-imposed recovery time also leaves him enough time to rethink Apple's product lines. Taking into account recent shifts in user needs, why certain Mac products do better than others, emerging technologies, etc.
He might even find some time to browse these forums (yeah, right... ).
Yet I wouldn't be surprised if he comes back full of ideas on what to do next. And in that respect his recovery time could be the best thing that happened to Apple since the iMac.
I wouldn't be surprised.
With rumors of Apple introducing a TV set of their own with built in Apple TV I wonder whether this heralds the break up of the iMac line into 3 products:
- Apple TV set with built in 'Apple TV', perhaps DVD or Blu-Ray player, plus online movie rentals
- 19" or 20" laptop for people who want (some) mobility but a larger screen
- midrange tower, something with a single quad-core CPU and one or two PCI slots and which can plug into the Apple 24" LED display (and perhaps a 30" LED once introduced).
I really think the days of the iMac should be numbered.
To watch movies LCD TVs are cheap enough these days and they're bigger.
People who don't have the desk space for a tower look to a laptop + external LCD monitor.
And people who want a small modular system don't have an offering in the iMac at all.
A revival of the cube would be nice. Slightly bigger to fit high-end GPUs, yet something elegant, distinct while still being mid-range.
Valid arguments. Your 1st argument hit the nail on the head. I don't think Steve can see past the iPhone. The Mac desktop line has stagnated...not just in specs, price etc...but the line up is...well. Stale. It doesn't meet the needs of all the switchers they are gaining the interest of with iPod/iPhone etc.
Interesting ideas. I agree with the latter one so much. Lament the Cube. Lament.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The iMac lacks performance and flexibility while the Mac Pro is way too much CPU power and money for my needs while completely defeating itself on the GPU flexibility.
While Apple may be consciously ignoring the market segment that I represent, they may be missing out on a significant opportunity. I know I'm not the only Windows user in this situation.
Ironically, not much has really changed in 20 years. As was the case then, I guess I'm looking at another PC.
Ok. Hats off. You kinda of said it with less waffle than I. You nailed the Mac Pro to the cross.
What's really damning to Apple's desktop strategy is the fact you say not much has changed in 20 years (re: Apple and Desktops...not when it comes to choice.)
Yeesh. It's kinda true. Disappointing when you consider the same company makes the iPhone...
Lemon Bon Bon.
Those buying these machines want the highest performance
That's ironic.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Why can't Apple just update the iMacs with Nvidia 9600 already!!!! And the Mac Mini with 9400M!!!
Oh, congrats melgross on your new moderator powers!
Valid arguments. Your 1st argument hit the nail on the head. I don't think Steve can see past the iPhone. The Mac desktop line has stagnated...not just in specs, price etc...but the line up is...well. Stale. It doesn't meet the needs of all the switchers they are gaining the interest of with iPod/iPhone etc.
Interesting ideas. I agree with the latter one so much. Lament the Cube. Lament.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Well, Apple has been making good strides with iPod and iTunes Store. The iPhone was a big gamble and it is fantastic. They haven't forgotten the Mac line, but their thoughts on focusing so much on laptops, yeah, the Mac desktop has been left to dwindle this past year.
Like I said, all Apple needs to do is bring the Mac Mini to DDR3 9400M chipset, iMac to 9400M with 9600 and 22" LED backlit.
No need to invent a whole new manufacturing paradigm or re-engineer their entire karmic universal philosophy.
JUST SIMPLE UPDATES TO THE BLOODY MAC MINI AND IMAC. That's all I'm asking for. Simple.
Like I said, all Apple needs to do is bring the Mac Mini to DDR3 9400M chipset, iMac to 9400M with 9600 and 22" LED backlit.
No need to invent a whole new manufacturing paradigm or re-engineer their entire karmic universal philosophy.
JUST SIMPLE UPDATES TO THE BLOODY MAC MINI AND IMAC. That's all I'm asking for. Simple.
It won't be enough, I'm afraid. The next mini, or mini replacement, needs to be a radical update to make up for it being ignored for so long. The iMac can get away with the minor speed bumps people have been clamoring for. The mini is just too small to take any decent processor that doesn't cost an arm and a leg (mobile processors).
Back on topic, I hope Apple lets people get the Quadro CX for it's Mac Pros.
Well. It seems Apple would rather sell fewer towers at an obscene profit...and even fewer now there's a credit crunch. They just don't seem to 'get it'. They could offer a 'Mac Pro' for people who are living in the real world. It's credit crunch time. The fact that I'd like a Mac Pro based on the cheaper but better performing bang for buck i7 doesn't make anyone any less a 'Pro' than Melgross or anyone else. I've known plenty of 'Pros' (musicians, artists..) who don't subscribe to paying through the nose for it just because Apple says they have to...
What I do want Apple to do is drop the prices a little on Macbook Alu and update the Mac Mini, Mac Mini can stay at the same price point.
I'm just *not* seeing real value in the Mac line at this time. Only thing is the 9400M MacBook White. But I really don't want another white Mac... ever.
It won't be enough, I'm afraid. The next mini, or mini replacement, needs to be a radical update to make up for it being ignored for so long. The iMac can get away with the minor speed bumps people have been clamoring for. The mini is just too small to take any decent processor that doesn't cost an arm and a leg (mobile processors).
Back on topic, I hope Apple lets people get the Quadro CX for it's Mac Pros.
They can just update the Mini to a 2.0ghz Penryn and GPU 9400M, DDR3 board and RAM. That is still a viable, viable, fast machine. For what it needs to do. Forget about the two models and just have one with 2ghz Penryn and SuperDrive. 2ghz Penryn, 4GB RAM max, 9400M, DDR3, that's a decent, slim, portable machine right there! In the face of all sorts of crazy big power hungry ugly CPU boxes.
It won't be enough, I'm afraid. The next mini, or mini replacement, needs to be a radical update to make up for it being ignored for so long. The iMac can get away with the minor speed bumps people have been clamoring for. The mini is just too small to take any decent processor that doesn't cost an arm and a leg (mobile processors).
Back on topic, I hope Apple lets people get the Quadro CX for it's Mac Pros.
Why hasn't the Mac Pro been released with an Nvidia GTX 280 or 260 option? Between 8800GT and a Quadro is a hell of a big price/performance gap. Or an ATI 4870 should be an option. *sigh* ...There is that argument for Pro level stuff the Mac Pro is just designed to do what it's meant to do for years and years, don't mess with it too much. Still...
Why hasn't the Mac Pro been released with an Nvidia GTX 280 or 260 option? Between 8800GT and a Quadro is a hell of a big price/performance gap. Or an ATI 4870 should be an option. *sigh* ...There is that argument for Pro level stuff the Mac Pro is just designed to do what it's meant to do for years and years, don't mess with it too much. Still...
I agree...In the next revision Apple has to put in a HI-end Nvidia card. Given Apple's pnchant for going with midrange cards in the lastest generation (then skipping the next generation...LOL), I'd say that It will be the GTX 260.
I agree...In the next revision Apple has to put in a HI-end Nvidia card. Given Apple's pnchant for going with midrange cards in the lastest generation (then skipping the next generation...LOL), I'd say that It will be the GTX 260.
The bizarre thing to me is that Nvidia has had unified drivers on the PC side for years (one driver supports all cards over several generations). I don't understand why this can't be done on the OSX side.
I also don't understand why NVidia can't write drivers for OSX and leave Apple out of the picture. Are the graphics drivers that integrated into the OS that they can't be patched/updated without a recompile of the kernal or something?
Perhaps with Apple adopting Nvidia chips on the Macbook products, and then hopefully with the iMacs, we will see a unified Nvidia driver for OSX that covers the entire range of Nvidia graphics platforms with updates in every release of the OS.
...Perhaps with Apple adopting Nvidia chips on the Macbook products, and then hopefully with the iMacs, we will see a unified Nvidia driver for OSX that covers the entire range of Nvidia graphics platforms with updates in every release of the OS.
That makes great sense. Which in the Apple world, tragically, means it's not going to happen.
Seriously though, it could happen in Snow Leopard, what is Snow Leopard's strategy when it comes with drivers? Download on demand or something, right? So it doesn't need to install 3GB of printer drivers or somethin...
I'm just *not* seeing real value in the Mac line at this time. Only thing is the 9400M MacBook White. But I really don't want another white Mac... ever.
That's fair comment.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
Why hasn't the Mac Pro been released with an Nvidia GTX 280 or 260 option? Between 8800GT and a Quadro is a hell of a big price/performance gap. Or an ATI 4870 should be an option. *sigh* ...There is that argument for Pro level stuff the Mac Pro is just designed to do what it's meant to do for years and years, don't mess with it too much. Still...
And that's part of my biggest beef for a machine that's offering supposedly 'Pro Power' when it can't get out of bed for the latest gpus. It's not like the 4850 isn't dirt cheap. It should be included as standard. WHERE are the 280s? Yeesh. So. i7 server isn't ready. What stopped Apple offering BTO for a 280 8 months ago?!?
I can't defend that to my PC owning friend. No wonder he went with 'another' PC. Sigh.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The bizarre thing to me is that Nvidia has had unified drivers on the PC side for years (one driver supports all cards over several generations). I don't understand why this can't be done on the OSX side.
I also don't understand why NVidia can't write drivers for OSX and leave Apple out of the picture. Are the graphics drivers that integrated into the OS that they can't be patched/updated without a recompile of the kernal or something?
Perhaps with Apple adopting Nvidia chips on the Macbook products, and then hopefully with the iMacs, we will see a unified Nvidia driver for OSX that covers the entire range of Nvidia graphics platforms with updates in every release of the OS.
Shrugs. WHo knows... They have industry standard parts now. Ram. HD. What's keeping us from just plopping ANY Nvidia card in there?
Obtuse Apple. That's what.
I'm hoping that Tim Cook will have a fresh look at the product lines. Desktop particularly. It's antiquated in industry terms. It needs a fresh perspective.
Lemon Bon Bon.
They can just update the Mini to a 2.0ghz Penryn and GPU 9400M, DDR3 board and RAM. That is still a viable, viable, fast machine. For what it needs to do. Forget about the two models and just have one with 2ghz Penryn and SuperDrive. 2ghz Penryn, 4GB RAM max, 9400M, DDR3, that's a decent, slim, portable machine right there! In the face of all sorts of crazy big power hungry ugly CPU boxes.
Let's make our kit so small and slender for desktops that we can't use cheap, powerful parts. But instead charge are customers extra because we look 'Kool'. Fine for laptops. Not as fine for desktops. It would be fine for desktops if that didn't exclude the said option for cheaper and more powerful boxes.
Make the desktops slightly bigger. Offer the i7 desktop. Make the desktop cheaper. They can still make a profit on selling the LCDs they charge too much for. They can still look 'Kool'. An Alu 8x8 cube...a slightly shrunk Mac Pro tower option. They are a 25 billion company for Pete's sake.
Apple and desktops? Look at their ancient Cinema display line. That says it all.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. I'll probably be appeased when the iMac and Mac Pro are released next month? But it won't invalidate many of these arguments on this forum.
Let's make our kit so small and slender for desktops that we can't use cheap, powerful parts. But instead charge are customers extra because we look 'Kool'. Fine for laptops. Not as fine for desktops. It would be fine for desktops if that didn't exclude the said option for cheaper and more powerful boxes.
Make the desktops slightly bigger. Offer the i7 desktop. Make the desktop cheaper. They can still make a profit on selling the LCDs they charge too much for. They can still look 'Kool'. An Alu 8x8 cube...a slightly shrunk Mac Pro tower option. They are a 25 billion company for Pete's sake.
Apple and desktops? Look at their ancient Cinema display line. That says it all.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. I'll probably be appeased when the iMac and Mac Pro are released next month? But it won't invalidate many of these arguments on this forum.
LBB, I don't know how long you've been at this, but you might as well just realize, that in the last 20 years, Apple has refused to offer an affordable (albeit premium) flexible product similar to what PC users have been enjoying since it's debut.
While I completely agree with you, that they are missing out on a significant market segment... I honestly don't think they will ever do it. Otherwise, they could have done so long before now.
LBB, I don't know how long you've been at this, but you might as well just realize, that in the last 20 years, Apple has refused to offer an affordable (albeit premium) flexible product similar to what PC users have been enjoying since it's debut.
While I completely agree with you, that they are missing out on a significant market segment... I honestly don't think they will ever do it. Otherwise, they could have done so long before now.
To be honest, no one really can really predict what Apple will or won't do. After all no one thought that they'd ever switch to Intel architecture either. You never know what they have up their sleeve.