I mentioned that they will have less costs because of no memory controller chip, otherwise known as an Integrated Memory Controller (from Intel), or a Northbridge (from about everyone else) which is expensive, and requires heatsinking.
[...]
The i7, is a cheaper chip, as it is for mass market desktops.
The i7, is a cheaper chip, as it is for mass market desktops.
How ironic in light of Apple's bleating of not selling enough Mac Pros.
Quote:
Currently you can buy a Core i7 PC tower for about $1,200 with an ATI 4850 Core i7 Tower That computer easily blows away the current top of the line iMac and probably would even beat the Mac Pro in raw speed at certain tasks. With all the talk about about the new iMac using a quad core, I have heard nothing about the possibility of that being an i7 quad core. How can Apple possibly compete if it sticks with the slower and older Intel line and completely ignores the i7? I am not trolling, I honestly want to know if anyone else is concerned that due to the emphasis on slim form factor we may be missing out on this incredible CPU.
Currently you can buy a Core i7 PC tower for about $1,200 with an ATI 4850 Core i7 Tower That computer easily blows away the current top of the line iMac and probably would even beat the Mac Pro in raw speed at certain tasks.
Heh. The 4850 spanks the standard Mac 'Pro' gpu and the 'GT' you have to pay 'extra' for in bang for buck. How absurd it is that Apple are using a lame, cheap ass, old gpu in their 'flagship' computer. It's the shame of the I.T industry.
Sure we can throw stones over Vista. But the specs of Apple's desktop line are a disgrace in ram spec, hd spec AND particularly the GPU spec. Oh. We're still on dual cores a year later. I wonder if Steve Jobs truly cares about that fact the next time he's show boating with the bloody iphone.
Adding to that. I'd like to think with Tim Cook in charge that they'd at least change these abhorrent facts and at least round out the skeletal desktop line.
Adding to that. I'd like to think with Tim Cook in charge that they'd at least change these abhorrent facts and at least round out the skeletal desktop line.
I won't hold my breath.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Unfortunately if Steve recovers until June completely (which I wish to him from a personal point) Tim will not be long enough in the driver's seat to do any good to the desktops.
Apple tries to ride the financial crises on the mobile side and being hip and fashionable. If the crises expands a bit longer and shows no sign of recovery until mid 2009, Apple will fail and have to reconsider and act fast (my personal opinion).
How ironic in light of Apple's bleating of not selling enough Mac Pros.
It has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Well. That says it all.
Lemon Bon Bon.
That doesn't say anything either.
Right now, before the new 5570's arrive, EVERY i7 machine out there will beat any single chip workstation or server, no matter who makes it. That includes Dell, Hp, IBM, Boxx, Sun, and all other PC manufacturers.
Once the new Xeons are out, that will change.
It's absurd to say that the Mac Pro is any different. It's more than competitive with every other machine in its class, as it will be with the new chips.
Unfortunately if Steve recovers until June completely (which I wish to him from a personal point) Tim will not be long enough in the driver's seat to do any good to the desktops.
Apple tries to ride the financial crises on the mobile side and being hip and fashionable. If the crises expands a bit longer and shows no sign of recovery until mid 2009, Apple will fail and have to reconsider and act fast (my personal opinion).
You guys are making the assumption that there is a difference in opinion between Jobs and Cook.
You know nothing of the sort.
Do you really think that there would be such a difference in opinion between them that Jobs would have Cook in that job?
It's not likely.
They have their plans, whatever they may be, and they will stick to them.
Some of the shortfall is due to the terrible economic situation, and has nothing to do with the machines themselves.
I think that if newer desktops had come out, we would have still seen most of the sales drop, but not all of it. If the economic situation was not so dire, we would have seen a modest sales drop.
No matter how you look at it, it's different today than it used to be in the "bad old days". Then, if Apple didn't have new products available in a certain timeframe, instead of waiting many people and businesses would move to PC's. There's little evidence of that happening today. They will just wait longer to upgrade.
I'm not so sure how much business Apple has actually lost from this in the long run, other than to see the figures from last quarter. When Apple does come out with new machines, those sales will likely be made up.
Don't forget that desktops are being pounded all over, and that a lot of new PC sales are these notebooks, which many users are disappointed in after the sale is made, according to a survey, and anecdotal evidence being reported on (mostly the Linux boxes).
While I've been supporting the idea of a mini xMac tower for years, I really don't see that having anything to do with the Mac Pro. It's a separate issue. It would much more affect iMac sales. most users of the Mac Pro want that power.
Is exactly what the Mac Pro spec sheet is. Other PC vendors have i7 desktop options. Apple doesn't. It doesn't excuse them for not having that option because other vendors have similarly prices workstations (probably with better standard ram, hd and gpu...). Well. Duh.
We don't and you don't know that either. Unless it's against the moderator's rule book to make assumptions or have wishful thinking. Times are desperate for the 'fan' of Apple desktops.
Some of the shortfall is due to the terrible economic situation, and has nothing to do with the machines themselves.
I think that if newer desktops had come out, we would have still seen most of the sales drop, but not all of it. If the economic situation was not so dire, we would have seen a modest sales drop.
No matter how you look at it, it's different today than it used to be in the "bad old days". Then, if Apple didn't have new products available in a certain timeframe, instead of waiting many people and businesses would move to PC's. There's little evidence of that happening today. They will just wait longer to upgrade.
I'm not so sure how much business Apple has actually lost from this in the long run, other than to see the figures from last quarter. When Apple does come out with new machines, those sales will likely be made up.
Don't forget that desktops are being pounded all over, and that a lot of new PC sales are these notebooks, which many users are disappointed in after the sale is made, according to a survey, and anecdotal evidence being reported on (mostly the Linux boxes).
While I've been supporting the idea of a mini xMac tower for years, I really don't see that having anything to do with the Mac Pro. It's a separate issue. It would much more affect iMac sales. most users of the Mac Pro want that power.
There's so much nonsense in that waffle...I'll need time to pick through it.
Is exactly what the Mac Pro spec sheet is. Other PC vendors have i7 desktop options. Apple doesn't. It doesn't excuse them for not having that option because other vendors have similarly prices workstations (probably with better standard ram, hd and gpu...). Well. Duh.
Lemon Bon Bon.
You're missing the point.
You are trying to make two things that have nothing to do with each other merge into one issue, when they are not one issue.
You can insist on it all you want to, but that still doesn't make it correct.
Over the years here, we've seen far more people consider this to be an iMac, xMac issue than a Powermac, Mac Pro, xMac issue, though there are a few.
People who want a dual processor machine are not going to buy a single processor machine.
Apple offered single processor Powermacs and people didn't buy them very much after the dual chip machines came out once OS X was available. This was especially true with the G5 machines. This is one reason Apple went for the dual socket solution.
An xMac wouldn't do much for the Mac Pro crowd.
I'm not saying it wouldn't sell, as you seem to be assuming I am. It would sell to different people.
As I said, I've been one of the first advocates of one, but having been in the commercial photo/publishing business for many years, I haven't seen much demand from pros for a cheaper, less powerful machine.
I have seen some pine for an xMac instead of an iMac though.
The fact is that Apple are in no way competitive in the consumer desktop space.
But they look Kool and they run 'X'.
Quote:
bad old days
At least they or we had an excuse then. ie Moto and IBM dragging feet on chip development. Apple have the cheaper desktop chips, cheaper ram than ever before, dirt cheap HDs, dirt cheap and powerful gpus yet they don't give us the option of having them. Instead...they make stuff that's thin with overpriced 'low-power' components. Fine if you want 'boutique' but 'some' (how long is that piece of string) us would like some choice or the option to buy what our Wintel 'brothers' can. ie a decent quad desktop with a decent gpu without digging up our dead grannies to help with the mortgage on it.
There's so much nonsense in that waffle...I'll need time to pick through it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Your whole argument is waffle.
If you can;t understand what is happening now in economics and the computer situation in general, there's no point in even bothering to discuss it with you.
Ergo: it's a moot point. As there will be no choice anyhow by the looks of things. As for 'dual', Apple only ever started offering that when their PPC chips speed stalled. There's no need not to deploy a proper range of 'Power Towers' with explosive i7 power. With a decent price range. That would in no way effect the 'dual' range considering sales are in the toilet (through no fault of Apple's own, of course...)
The fact is that Apple are in no way competitive in the consumer desktop space.
But they look Kool and they run 'X'.
For you, probably not. but you seem to think that one thing you think is required accounts for everything. It doesn't.
Apple has never tried to be competitive in every area of anything. That doesn't mean they're not competitive where they do compete.
Hp's computer sales were up 3% last quarter. Dell's were down, I think, about 13%.
Both had big drops in desktop sales.
Apples were up 12%. And that's with the lower desktop sales.
Quote:
At least they or we had an excuse then. ie Moto and IBM dragging feet on chip development. Apple have the cheaper desktop chips, cheaper ram than ever before, dirt cheap HDs, dirt cheap and powerful gpus yet they don't give us the option of having them. Instead...they make stuff that's thin with overpriced 'low-power' components. Fine if you want 'boutique' but 'some' (how long is that piece of string) us would like some choice or the option to buy what our Wintel 'brothers' can. ie a decent quad desktop with a decent gpu without digging up our dead grannies to help with the mortgage on it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
That's thats not fact, just your opinion. Many others don't agree. You think that the laptops are overpriced, but their sales last quarter went up far more than anyone else's laptops, if you exclude the notebook class of machine which is obviously very different.
If you can;t understand what is happening now in economics and the computer situation in general, there's no point in even bothering to discuss it with you.
Don't be petulant and patronising because I don't agree with you. (Yeah, I know it's credit crunch time! But what happened to the Apple that always 'innovated its way through recession? That doesn't apply to its desktops, does it?)
Apple's desktops are not competitive.
Simple. No fat. No waffle.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Note how when Apple does upate its desktops...the sales figures, historically, squeeze much closer to desktops. It's ingenuine to say that we only sell 30% of desktops when specs are in the toilet and haven't been given a moderate 'spec' bump in all that time. Who buys crap like that? I don't.
If you can;t understand what is happening now in economics and the computer situation in general, there's no point in even bothering to discuss it with you.
Don't be petulant and patronising because I don't agree with you. (Yeah, I know it's credit crunch time! But what happened to the Apple that always 'innovated its way through recession? That doesn't apply to its desktops, does it?)
Apple's desktops are not competitive.
Simple. No fat. No waffle.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Note how when Apple does upate its desktops...the sales figures, historically, squeeze much closer to desktops. It's ingenuine to say that we only sell 30% of desktops when specs are in the toilet and haven't been given a moderate 'spec' bump in all that time. Who buys crap like that? I don't.
Comments
I mentioned that they will have less costs because of no memory controller chip, otherwise known as an Integrated Memory Controller (from Intel), or a Northbridge (from about everyone else) which is expensive, and requires heatsinking.
[...]
The i7, is a cheaper chip, as it is for mass market desktops.
Thanks for the reply and links.
The i7, is a cheaper chip, as it is for mass market desktops.
How ironic in light of Apple's bleating of not selling enough Mac Pros.
Currently you can buy a Core i7 PC tower for about $1,200 with an ATI 4850 Core i7 Tower That computer easily blows away the current top of the line iMac and probably would even beat the Mac Pro in raw speed at certain tasks. With all the talk about about the new iMac using a quad core, I have heard nothing about the possibility of that being an i7 quad core. How can Apple possibly compete if it sticks with the slower and older Intel line and completely ignores the i7? I am not trolling, I honestly want to know if anyone else is concerned that due to the emphasis on slim form factor we may be missing out on this incredible CPU.
Well. That says it all.
Lemon Bon Bon.
How can Apple possibly compete if it sticks with the slower and older Intel line and completely ignores the i7?
God knows. Design cul-de-sacs are what they do best.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Currently you can buy a Core i7 PC tower for about $1,200 with an ATI 4850 Core i7 Tower That computer easily blows away the current top of the line iMac and probably would even beat the Mac Pro in raw speed at certain tasks.
Heh. The 4850 spanks the standard Mac 'Pro' gpu and the 'GT' you have to pay 'extra' for in bang for buck. How absurd it is that Apple are using a lame, cheap ass, old gpu in their 'flagship' computer. It's the shame of the I.T industry.
Sure we can throw stones over Vista. But the specs of Apple's desktop line are a disgrace in ram spec, hd spec AND particularly the GPU spec. Oh. We're still on dual cores a year later. I wonder if Steve Jobs truly cares about that fact the next time he's show boating with the bloody iphone.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I won't hold my breath.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Adding to that. I'd like to think with Tim Cook in charge that they'd at least change these abhorrent facts and at least round out the skeletal desktop line.
I won't hold my breath.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Unfortunately if Steve recovers until June completely (which I wish to him from a personal point) Tim will not be long enough in the driver's seat to do any good to the desktops.
Apple tries to ride the financial crises on the mobile side and being hip and fashionable. If the crises expands a bit longer and shows no sign of recovery until mid 2009, Apple will fail and have to reconsider and act fast (my personal opinion).
How ironic in light of Apple's bleating of not selling enough Mac Pros.
It has nothing to do with it.
Well. That says it all.
Lemon Bon Bon.
That doesn't say anything either.
Right now, before the new 5570's arrive, EVERY i7 machine out there will beat any single chip workstation or server, no matter who makes it. That includes Dell, Hp, IBM, Boxx, Sun, and all other PC manufacturers.
Once the new Xeons are out, that will change.
It's absurd to say that the Mac Pro is any different. It's more than competitive with every other machine in its class, as it will be with the new chips.
Unfortunately if Steve recovers until June completely (which I wish to him from a personal point) Tim will not be long enough in the driver's seat to do any good to the desktops.
Apple tries to ride the financial crises on the mobile side and being hip and fashionable. If the crises expands a bit longer and shows no sign of recovery until mid 2009, Apple will fail and have to reconsider and act fast (my personal opinion).
You guys are making the assumption that there is a difference in opinion between Jobs and Cook.
You know nothing of the sort.
Do you really think that there would be such a difference in opinion between them that Jobs would have Cook in that job?
It's not likely.
They have their plans, whatever they may be, and they will stick to them.
Some of the shortfall is due to the terrible economic situation, and has nothing to do with the machines themselves.
I think that if newer desktops had come out, we would have still seen most of the sales drop, but not all of it. If the economic situation was not so dire, we would have seen a modest sales drop.
No matter how you look at it, it's different today than it used to be in the "bad old days". Then, if Apple didn't have new products available in a certain timeframe, instead of waiting many people and businesses would move to PC's. There's little evidence of that happening today. They will just wait longer to upgrade.
I'm not so sure how much business Apple has actually lost from this in the long run, other than to see the figures from last quarter. When Apple does come out with new machines, those sales will likely be made up.
Don't forget that desktops are being pounded all over, and that a lot of new PC sales are these notebooks, which many users are disappointed in after the sale is made, according to a survey, and anecdotal evidence being reported on (mostly the Linux boxes).
While I've been supporting the idea of a mini xMac tower for years, I really don't see that having anything to do with the Mac Pro. It's a separate issue. It would much more affect iMac sales. most users of the Mac Pro want that power.
nothing
Everything.
absurd
Is exactly what the Mac Pro spec sheet is. Other PC vendors have i7 desktop options. Apple doesn't. It doesn't excuse them for not having that option because other vendors have similarly prices workstations (probably with better standard ram, hd and gpu...). Well. Duh.
Lemon Bon Bon.
You know nothing of the sort.
We don't and you don't know that either. Unless it's against the moderator's rule book to make assumptions or have wishful thinking. Times are desperate for the 'fan' of Apple desktops.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Some of the shortfall is due to the terrible economic situation, and has nothing to do with the machines themselves.
I think that if newer desktops had come out, we would have still seen most of the sales drop, but not all of it. If the economic situation was not so dire, we would have seen a modest sales drop.
No matter how you look at it, it's different today than it used to be in the "bad old days". Then, if Apple didn't have new products available in a certain timeframe, instead of waiting many people and businesses would move to PC's. There's little evidence of that happening today. They will just wait longer to upgrade.
I'm not so sure how much business Apple has actually lost from this in the long run, other than to see the figures from last quarter. When Apple does come out with new machines, those sales will likely be made up.
Don't forget that desktops are being pounded all over, and that a lot of new PC sales are these notebooks, which many users are disappointed in after the sale is made, according to a survey, and anecdotal evidence being reported on (mostly the Linux boxes).
While I've been supporting the idea of a mini xMac tower for years, I really don't see that having anything to do with the Mac Pro. It's a separate issue. It would much more affect iMac sales. most users of the Mac Pro want that power.
There's so much nonsense in that waffle...I'll need time to pick through it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Everything.
Is exactly what the Mac Pro spec sheet is. Other PC vendors have i7 desktop options. Apple doesn't. It doesn't excuse them for not having that option because other vendors have similarly prices workstations (probably with better standard ram, hd and gpu...). Well. Duh.
Lemon Bon Bon.
You're missing the point.
You are trying to make two things that have nothing to do with each other merge into one issue, when they are not one issue.
You can insist on it all you want to, but that still doesn't make it correct.
Over the years here, we've seen far more people consider this to be an iMac, xMac issue than a Powermac, Mac Pro, xMac issue, though there are a few.
People who want a dual processor machine are not going to buy a single processor machine.
Apple offered single processor Powermacs and people didn't buy them very much after the dual chip machines came out once OS X was available. This was especially true with the G5 machines. This is one reason Apple went for the dual socket solution.
An xMac wouldn't do much for the Mac Pro crowd.
I'm not saying it wouldn't sell, as you seem to be assuming I am. It would sell to different people.
As I said, I've been one of the first advocates of one, but having been in the commercial photo/publishing business for many years, I haven't seen much demand from pros for a cheaper, less powerful machine.
I have seen some pine for an xMac instead of an iMac though.
But they look Kool and they run 'X'.
bad old days
At least they or we had an excuse then. ie Moto and IBM dragging feet on chip development. Apple have the cheaper desktop chips, cheaper ram than ever before, dirt cheap HDs, dirt cheap and powerful gpus yet they don't give us the option of having them. Instead...they make stuff that's thin with overpriced 'low-power' components. Fine if you want 'boutique' but 'some' (how long is that piece of string) us would like some choice or the option to buy what our Wintel 'brothers' can. ie a decent quad desktop with a decent gpu without digging up our dead grannies to help with the mortgage on it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
There's so much nonsense in that waffle...I'll need time to pick through it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Your whole argument is waffle.
If you can;t understand what is happening now in economics and the computer situation in general, there's no point in even bothering to discuss it with you.
An xMac wouldn't do much for the Mac Pro crowd.
You don't 'know' that.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The fact is that Apple are in no way competitive in the consumer desktop space.
But they look Kool and they run 'X'.
For you, probably not. but you seem to think that one thing you think is required accounts for everything. It doesn't.
Apple has never tried to be competitive in every area of anything. That doesn't mean they're not competitive where they do compete.
Hp's computer sales were up 3% last quarter. Dell's were down, I think, about 13%.
Both had big drops in desktop sales.
Apples were up 12%. And that's with the lower desktop sales.
At least they or we had an excuse then. ie Moto and IBM dragging feet on chip development. Apple have the cheaper desktop chips, cheaper ram than ever before, dirt cheap HDs, dirt cheap and powerful gpus yet they don't give us the option of having them. Instead...they make stuff that's thin with overpriced 'low-power' components. Fine if you want 'boutique' but 'some' (how long is that piece of string) us would like some choice or the option to buy what our Wintel 'brothers' can. ie a decent quad desktop with a decent gpu without digging up our dead grannies to help with the mortgage on it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
That's thats not fact, just your opinion. Many others don't agree. You think that the laptops are overpriced, but their sales last quarter went up far more than anyone else's laptops, if you exclude the notebook class of machine which is obviously very different.
If you can;t understand what is happening now in economics and the computer situation in general, there's no point in even bothering to discuss it with you.
Don't be petulant and patronising because I don't agree with you. (Yeah, I know it's credit crunch time! But what happened to the Apple that always 'innovated its way through recession? That doesn't apply to its desktops, does it?)
Apple's desktops are not competitive.
Simple. No fat. No waffle.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Note how when Apple does upate its desktops...the sales figures, historically, squeeze much closer to desktops. It's ingenuine to say that we only sell 30% of desktops when specs are in the toilet and haven't been given a moderate 'spec' bump in all that time. Who buys crap like that? I don't.
If you can;t understand what is happening now in economics and the computer situation in general, there's no point in even bothering to discuss it with you.
Don't be petulant and patronising because I don't agree with you. (Yeah, I know it's credit crunch time! But what happened to the Apple that always 'innovated its way through recession? That doesn't apply to its desktops, does it?)
Apple's desktops are not competitive.
Simple. No fat. No waffle.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Note how when Apple does upate its desktops...the sales figures, historically, squeeze much closer to desktops. It's ingenuine to say that we only sell 30% of desktops when specs are in the toilet and haven't been given a moderate 'spec' bump in all that time. Who buys crap like that? I don't.
For you, probably not. but you seem to think that one thing you think is required accounts for everything. It doesn't.
Your reply is not fact. It's just you opinion.
And I can be backed up by going to any PC vendor. Apple's desktops are out of date.
No quad consumer desktop option. Fact.
No recent gpu. Fact.
Stingy ram and hd. Fact.
Apple charging top dollar for old specs? Fact.
Mac Pro. Not updated when a more powerful option eg i7 and a 280 gpu...which are out there! Fact.
Lemon Bon Bon.