Well do you honestly feel it would business wise to have a major refresh now when the PC market is projected to have a terrible year? Or wait until people are ready to spend money and launch a major refresh to meet pent up demand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Maybe not, but on the other hand should we also believe, as another member posted, that Apple is merely holding back because of the world-wide recession? Should we be expected to be that naive?
The fact is that for the iMacs and MacPro lower end products are equivalent in speed with the previous versions next level up. Therefore you get the same performance for a cheaper price. To me that is significant.
Add in the improved graphics in the mini makes the product more compelling. I want one but would prefer to pay $499 rather than $599.
Video encoding is done by the cpu isn't it? At least with HB it is. I imagine its the same with iDVD.
These tests (on the previous generation) show, or at least imply, that iMovie and iDVD do take advantage of the GPU — in some cases rather heavily (although not across the board).
And while OSX (at least since 10.4 or so?) uses the GPU for some UI stuff, which benefits all applications, it's set to off-load even more to the GPU with Snow Leopard.
My point is, these updates might not look that great right now, but Apple is making their entire line-up Snow Leopard-ready. They'll look better soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogGone
The fact is that for the iMacs and MacPro lower end products are equivalent in speed with the previous versions next level up. Therefore you get the same performance for a cheaper price. To me that is significant.
Add in the improved graphics in the mini makes the product more compelling. I want one but would prefer to pay $499 rather than $599.
Wait for Snow Leopard, and you're saving $129 right there. It's like you're buying it for $479! Okay, not really.
I hope that its a great as you expect it to be. Time will tell.
I don't have to wait for the general release of Snow Leopard to see how much better and faster runs everything, even if it is not written yet for it.
I beta test software among other things and have one iMac and one Mac Pro running Snow Leopard. In a month will get the new Mac Pro that should uber pwn the Mac Pro I use.
Well do you honestly feel it would business wise to have a major refresh now when the PC market is projected to have a terrible year? Or wait until people are ready to spend money and launch a major refresh to meet pent up demand?
Yes, I do, If it's ready- release it. I feel a major refresh would sell well because many of us iMac users have been waiting so long and this minor update, especially in this bad economic time, will not persuade us to upgrade. We will either wait or buy something else. Sure there will be new buyers but not as many replacement buyers as there might have been.
Well do you honestly feel it would business wise to have a major refresh now when the PC market is projected to have a terrible year? Or wait until people are ready to spend money and launch a major refresh to meet pent up demand?
I don't recall R&D turnaround on a computer ever being fast enough to make a difference so soon, if there was a gangbusters product developed and ready for the "go" signal, its work probably began years ago. If it happens to be ready in a down economy, well, that's the way things go, forecasts that long ago can't really say when they happen or how long or severe they are.
Also, as far as I recall, the time to recoup your R&D investment is as soon as it's ready, especially for electronics. You get what you can out of it. If you postpone the release for a year, you've just squandered any value you could have derived from the development, by then, you will need to replace it with yet another product generation anyway.
So snow Leopard will work faster on these than last year's model? Why is that? He stated a whole slew of items that take forever-NOW.
Simple, the better GPU and components bus/transfer frequency, the faster it will run.
Snow Leopard is faster, the way it handles the data, how the components communicates with each other and how manage in and outs from the different memory banks. Not to mention that it use part of the GPU as another processor pipe.
A good example will come out soon when they run benchmarks of 2nd generation Mac Pro vs the last one with Nehalem. Once all the lines has Nehalem derivates they should look like theses charts.
As such, the test developer warns that those solely interested in clock speed may want to avoid buying new.?
However, Primate also acknowledges that Geekbench only tests CPU- and memory speed-intensive features such as floating point math, not video performance. As a result, it's possible for the systems to be much faster in 3D and other areas that depend as much or more on graphics processing, such as the Mac mini's 5X speed-up in moving from the Intel GMA 950 chipset to NVIDIA's GeForce 9400M. The iMac's GeForce 9400M and GT120 are also claimed to accelerate performance over the Radeon HD 2400 and 2600 in older versions.
The tests also downplay disk-related factors such as newer hard drives and more RAM; most of the new Macs have twice as much memory as their predecessors and don't have to page to disk as often as earlier systems.
Primate reported the same results a year ago. And as they imply, what they don't test is probably why Macworld's benchmark test methods demonstrate otherwise.
Reviewing Primate's test reports over the past few years, the bars as they are presented are quite predictable, i.e., a 2.9 Ghz clocks higher than a 2.8. Considering how the tests are done, I would certainly hope so.
Actually, you should include the Mac Pro. They removed the only professional video card from the list of BTO options. In addition, they are only offering a single PCIe 16X slot. This is not acceptable for a machine that's targeted at scientific computing, high-end video compositing and 3D design.
Actually there a 4 slots - 2 PCIE 16X and 2 PCIE 4X.
It is just that one of the 16X slots has to be filled with the base graphics card. After you order the system you could insert the base graphics card into the last 4X slot(it will accept a 16X card but run it at 4X speeds) and then have two 16X card slots to use for Tesla adapters
That of course would double the cost of the machine as you would have to buy the 2 C1060 Tesla cards for 3400$ to 3600$
That is of course assuming you could keep the power consumption below 300 Watts for all three cards. - Which you can not with the internal Tesla solution as each C1060 has a peak power usage of >200 Watts
Therefore you would have to use the Tesla S1070 - which is much more expensive that the Mac Pro will ever be.
Actually there a 4 slots - 2 PCIE 16X and 2 PCIE 4X.
It is just that one of the 16X slots has to be filled with the base graphics card. After you order the system you could insert the base graphics card into the last 4X slot(it will accept a 16X card but run it at 4X speeds) and then have two 16X card slots to use for Tesla adapters
That of course would double the cost of the machine as you would have to buy the 2 C1060 Tesla cards for 3400$ to 3600$
That is of course assuming you could keep the power consumption below 300 Watts for all three cards. - Which you can not with the internal Tesla solution as each C1060 has a peak power usage of >200 Watts
Therefore you would have to use the Tesla S1070 - which is much more expensive that the Mac Pro will ever be.
Copy Pasted from the technical specifications site of the Mac Pro 3rd gen.
PCI Express expansion
Three open full-length PCI Express expansion slots5
One PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot
Two PCI Express 2.0 x4 slots
All slots provide mechanical support for 16-lane cards
When it?s time to upgrade, a quick slide of the retention bar frees up the four expansion card slots for easy access. Thanks to a thumbscrew PCI bracket, you can swap out cards without any tools. All four slots are now PCI Express 2.0 for up to twice the performance of the previous generation. And since the graphics slot in the Mac Pro is double-wide, your graphics card won?t cover an adjacent slot.
I don't recall R&D turnaround on a computer ever being fast enough to make a difference so soon, if there was a gangbusters product developed and ready for the "go" signal, its work probably began years ago. If it happens to be ready in a down economy, well, that's the way things go, forecasts that long ago can't really say when they happen or how long or severe they are.
Also, as far as I recall, the time to recoup your R&D investment is as soon as it's ready, especially for electronics. You get what you can out of it. If you postpone the release for a year, you've just squandered any value you could have derived from the development, by then, you will need to replace it with yet another product generation anyway.
They may have made the determination that they would NOT be able to recoup the R&D
investment for this generation of upgrades, due to poor projected sales. They may have
decided it was financially preferable to write off one generation of upgrades in their
pipeline, than to release the upgrades and incur the cost of significant manufacturing
changes and inventory buildup.
You are correct that there will be another generation of products coming along,
and Apple may have decided that the market will be much more receptive at that time.
They are fortunate to have the financial strength to be able to write off R&D efforts they
project to be unprofitable. (They also are counting on their often stated view that Apple
customers would rather wait for the Apple computer they want than to switch to
Bloody hell they should have just benched something like Left4Dead, Crysis to test the GPU, and encoding, Photoshop filters, Etc. for CPU/FSB. Synthetic benchmarks = Fail.
When it’s time to upgrade, a quick slide of the retention bar frees up the four expansion card slots for easy access. Thanks to a thumbscrew PCI bracket, you can swap out cards without any tools. All four slots are now PCI Express 2.0 for up to twice the performance of the previous generation. And since the graphics slot in the Mac Pro is double-wide, your graphics card won’t cover an adjacent slot.
Jumping ahead of what?
I simply pasted the specs trying to support your post in some way, then u reply to me in that form. bad bad bad
Anyways, for the whatever00 dude that is so insulted by Apple's video card options..
You can place 2 Ati 4870 for 1gb video ram, that is enough power to super run some apps.
Take in consideration that the memory is DDR 5 and this card has a lot of very nice reviews.
I agree. R&D wasted because every other Tom-Dick-and-Harry will have compelling offers in the desktop space throughout this year.
However, Apple has made the choice to operate at their usual (or increased?) gross profit margins by offering slightly bumped hardware at similar, less, or increased (for international) prices.
But clearly Apple has projected and accepted poorer sales for desktop in almost all markets for 2009. And without Steve in the picture do deliver a recession-gut-busting Boom!... All Apple can do is hold the fort and look to Tim Cook to keep things ticking.
BTW iLife'09 and iWork'09 are great. It's a pity the desktop hardware ain't delivering the bang-for-buck for most people, the real value's at MacBook Alu and MacBook White. MacBook Pro, well, that's premium stuff, and like I mentioned before I'm not a big fan of Apple focusing a lot on premium consumers at the expense of mainstream switchers that *can* afford Macs.
As for the Airport, Time Capsule upgrades, clearly they're some good R&D and technical improvements, but its a real pity consumers won't really grasp the fantastic value (I'm not even sure of it) of dual-band wireless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
They may have made the determination that they would NOT be able to recoup the R&D
investment for this generation of upgrades, due to poor projected sales. They may have
decided it was financially preferable to write off one generation of upgrades in their
pipeline, than to release the upgrades and incur the cost of significant manufacturing
changes and inventory buildup.
You are correct that there will be another generation of products coming along,
and Apple may have decided that the market will be much more receptive at that time.
They are fortunate to have the financial strength to be able to write off R&D efforts they
project to be unprofitable. (They also are counting on their often stated view that Apple
customers would rather wait for the Apple computer they want than to switch to
Well do you honestly feel it would business wise to have a major refresh now when the PC market is projected to have a terrible year? Or wait until people are ready to spend money and launch a major refresh to meet pent up demand?
It depends. There are risks both ways. Less compelling products could mean fewer sales... As in, fewer sales than you expect to have even in a soft market. Which results in lower revenues so you play it even "more" safe with a simpler update the next time, and so on.
I suggest "defeatist" thinking is not helpful, companies should think about how to deliver high-perceived-value-and-high-value products produced at lower or similar cost. Companies should think about market segments they could enter to compensate for issues. Companies should look at existing markets and think about cross-sell and up-sell opportunities.
Why are people buying less PCs? What sort of technology spending would people do? Most importantly for Apple, how do they deal with the competition? There are a lot of ways Apple can go about things instead of just this update they did. Which was due a few months ago anyways, IMO.
This is of course me talking kinda CEO-type blah blah and of course Apple should manage risks, who knows what Apple is really thinking.
I would like to point out in any case is without Steve really in the picture full-time that "extra" level of insight, perception and obsession is simply not there.
iLife and iWork only at MacWorld and iMac bumps, do not a Boom! make.
Nehalem Mac Pros are Boom! Why didn't they milk more out of the branding/PR/etc opportunities of some really killer hardware? But even then no Quadro option. Even then hampered by display options (30-inch LED-backlit display)? And I think without Steve most of Apple is somewhat confused on the greener options (no LED backlit on iMacs? For most of this year?)..
...Anyways, for the whatever00 dude that is so insulted by Apple's video card options... You can place 2 Ati 4870 for 1gb video ram, that is enough power to super run some apps... Take in consideration that the memory is DDR 5 and this card has a lot of very nice reviews.
But you can't run it in SLI (sorry, Crossfire) on the Mac Pros... AFAIK. Also no more Quadro option in Mac Pros.
Two ATI 4870s in Crossfire, or the ATI 4870X2 (single card), serious GPU horsepower there.
I suppose with 2 ATI 4870 in two slots on the Mac Pro ~ one question, how would the system know which card to use for what application? Just based on which output monitor the application is driving? Hmm...
The fact is that for the iMacs and MacPro lower end products are equivalent in speed with the previous versions next level up. Therefore you get the same performance for a cheaper price. To me that is significant.
Yes but in international markets which are significant for Apple, the prices have almost all gone up due to the strength of the US dollar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogGone
Add in the improved graphics in the mini makes the product more compelling. I want one but would prefer to pay $499 rather than $599.
That Mac Mini is definitely compelling with 9400M. Could even be a nice little PC/Mac gaming device with overal graphic/gaming horsepower somewhere between a Wii and XBox360 (very roughly)...
But yeah, in the global economy, $499 in the US and lower prices than before for International markets, would seal the deal easily for a lot of people.
Comments
Maybe not, but on the other hand should we also believe, as another member posted, that Apple is merely holding back because of the world-wide recession? Should we be expected to be that naive?
Add in the improved graphics in the mini makes the product more compelling. I want one but would prefer to pay $499 rather than $599.
Video encoding is done by the cpu isn't it? At least with HB it is. I imagine its the same with iDVD.
These tests (on the previous generation) show, or at least imply, that iMovie and iDVD do take advantage of the GPU — in some cases rather heavily (although not across the board).
http://www.theandyzone.com/computer/...ilife-and.html
http://www.barefeats.com/imp03.html
And while OSX (at least since 10.4 or so?) uses the GPU for some UI stuff, which benefits all applications, it's set to off-load even more to the GPU with Snow Leopard.
My point is, these updates might not look that great right now, but Apple is making their entire line-up Snow Leopard-ready. They'll look better soon.
The fact is that for the iMacs and MacPro lower end products are equivalent in speed with the previous versions next level up. Therefore you get the same performance for a cheaper price. To me that is significant.
Add in the improved graphics in the mini makes the product more compelling. I want one but would prefer to pay $499 rather than $599.
Wait for Snow Leopard, and you're saving $129 right there. It's like you're buying it for $479!
Yes I'm aware of open cl.
I hope that its a great as you expect it to be. Time will tell.
I don't have to wait for the general release of Snow Leopard to see how much better and faster runs everything, even if it is not written yet for it.
I beta test software among other things and have one iMac and one Mac Pro running Snow Leopard. In a month will get the new Mac Pro that should uber pwn the Mac Pro I use.
Well do you honestly feel it would business wise to have a major refresh now when the PC market is projected to have a terrible year? Or wait until people are ready to spend money and launch a major refresh to meet pent up demand?
Yes, I do, If it's ready- release it. I feel a major refresh would sell well because many of us iMac users have been waiting so long and this minor update, especially in this bad economic time, will not persuade us to upgrade. We will either wait or buy something else. Sure there will be new buyers but not as many replacement buyers as there might have been.
Well do you honestly feel it would business wise to have a major refresh now when the PC market is projected to have a terrible year? Or wait until people are ready to spend money and launch a major refresh to meet pent up demand?
I don't recall R&D turnaround on a computer ever being fast enough to make a difference so soon, if there was a gangbusters product developed and ready for the "go" signal, its work probably began years ago. If it happens to be ready in a down economy, well, that's the way things go, forecasts that long ago can't really say when they happen or how long or severe they are.
Also, as far as I recall, the time to recoup your R&D investment is as soon as it's ready, especially for electronics. You get what you can out of it. If you postpone the release for a year, you've just squandered any value you could have derived from the development, by then, you will need to replace it with yet another product generation anyway.
So snow Leopard will work faster on these than last year's model? Why is that? He stated a whole slew of items that take forever-NOW.
Simple, the better GPU and components bus/transfer frequency, the faster it will run.
Snow Leopard is faster, the way it handles the data, how the components communicates with each other and how manage in and outs from the different memory banks. Not to mention that it use part of the GPU as another processor pipe.
A good example will come out soon when they run benchmarks of 2nd generation Mac Pro vs the last one with Nehalem. Once all the lines has Nehalem derivates they should look like theses charts.
http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html
As such, the test developer warns that those solely interested in clock speed may want to avoid buying new.?
However, Primate also acknowledges that Geekbench only tests CPU- and memory speed-intensive features such as floating point math, not video performance. As a result, it's possible for the systems to be much faster in 3D and other areas that depend as much or more on graphics processing, such as the Mac mini's 5X speed-up in moving from the Intel GMA 950 chipset to NVIDIA's GeForce 9400M. The iMac's GeForce 9400M and GT120 are also claimed to accelerate performance over the Radeon HD 2400 and 2600 in older versions.
The tests also downplay disk-related factors such as newer hard drives and more RAM; most of the new Macs have twice as much memory as their predecessors and don't have to page to disk as often as earlier systems.
Primate reported the same results a year ago. And as they imply, what they don't test is probably why Macworld's benchmark test methods demonstrate otherwise.
Reviewing Primate's test reports over the past few years, the bars as they are presented are quite predictable, i.e., a 2.9 Ghz clocks higher than a 2.8. Considering how the tests are done, I would certainly hope so.
Actually, you should include the Mac Pro. They removed the only professional video card from the list of BTO options. In addition, they are only offering a single PCIe 16X slot. This is not acceptable for a machine that's targeted at scientific computing, high-end video compositing and 3D design.
Actually there a 4 slots - 2 PCIE 16X and 2 PCIE 4X.
It is just that one of the 16X slots has to be filled with the base graphics card. After you order the system you could insert the base graphics card into the last 4X slot(it will accept a 16X card but run it at 4X speeds) and then have two 16X card slots to use for Tesla adapters
That of course would double the cost of the machine as you would have to buy the 2 C1060 Tesla cards for 3400$ to 3600$
That is of course assuming you could keep the power consumption below 300 Watts for all three cards. - Which you can not with the internal Tesla solution as each C1060 has a peak power usage of >200 Watts
Therefore you would have to use the Tesla S1070 - which is much more expensive that the Mac Pro will ever be.
Actually there a 4 slots - 2 PCIE 16X and 2 PCIE 4X.
It is just that one of the 16X slots has to be filled with the base graphics card. After you order the system you could insert the base graphics card into the last 4X slot(it will accept a 16X card but run it at 4X speeds) and then have two 16X card slots to use for Tesla adapters
That of course would double the cost of the machine as you would have to buy the 2 C1060 Tesla cards for 3400$ to 3600$
That is of course assuming you could keep the power consumption below 300 Watts for all three cards. - Which you can not with the internal Tesla solution as each C1060 has a peak power usage of >200 Watts
Therefore you would have to use the Tesla S1070 - which is much more expensive that the Mac Pro will ever be.
Copy Pasted from the technical specifications site of the Mac Pro 3rd gen.
PCI Express expansion
Three open full-length PCI Express expansion slots5
One PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot
Two PCI Express 2.0 x4 slots
All slots provide mechanical support for 16-lane cards
300W combined maximum for all PCI Express slots
Copy Pasted from the technical specifications site of the Mac Pro 3rd gen.
PCI Express expansion
Three open full-length PCI Express expansion slots5
One PCI Express 2.0 x16 slot
Two PCI Express 2.0 x4 slots
All slots provide mechanical support for 16-lane cards
300W combined maximum for all PCI Express slots
OPEN as in the first slot is CLOSED
The base NVIDIA graphics card is shipped in the first 16X slot. There are 4 slots because you customize the box to have 4 graphics cards.
got to:
http://www.apple.com/macpro/design.html#graphics
and read the following blurb VERY CAREFULLY:
Tool-less PCI.
When it?s time to upgrade, a quick slide of the retention bar frees up the four expansion card slots for easy access. Thanks to a thumbscrew PCI bracket, you can swap out cards without any tools. All four slots are now PCI Express 2.0 for up to twice the performance of the previous generation. And since the graphics slot in the Mac Pro is double-wide, your graphics card won?t cover an adjacent slot.
I don't recall R&D turnaround on a computer ever being fast enough to make a difference so soon, if there was a gangbusters product developed and ready for the "go" signal, its work probably began years ago. If it happens to be ready in a down economy, well, that's the way things go, forecasts that long ago can't really say when they happen or how long or severe they are.
Also, as far as I recall, the time to recoup your R&D investment is as soon as it's ready, especially for electronics. You get what you can out of it. If you postpone the release for a year, you've just squandered any value you could have derived from the development, by then, you will need to replace it with yet another product generation anyway.
They may have made the determination that they would NOT be able to recoup the R&D
investment for this generation of upgrades, due to poor projected sales. They may have
decided it was financially preferable to write off one generation of upgrades in their
pipeline, than to release the upgrades and incur the cost of significant manufacturing
changes and inventory buildup.
You are correct that there will be another generation of products coming along,
and Apple may have decided that the market will be much more receptive at that time.
They are fortunate to have the financial strength to be able to write off R&D efforts they
project to be unprofitable. (They also are counting on their often stated view that Apple
customers would rather wait for the Apple computer they want than to switch to
something else.)
OPEN as in the first slot is CLOSED
The base NVIDIA graphics card is shipped in the first 16X slot. There are 4 slots because you customize the box to have 4 graphics cards.
got to:
http://www.apple.com/macpro/design.html#graphics
and read the following blurb VERY CAREFULLY:
Tool-less PCI.
When it’s time to upgrade, a quick slide of the retention bar frees up the four expansion card slots for easy access. Thanks to a thumbscrew PCI bracket, you can swap out cards without any tools. All four slots are now PCI Express 2.0 for up to twice the performance of the previous generation. And since the graphics slot in the Mac Pro is double-wide, your graphics card won’t cover an adjacent slot.
Jumping ahead of what?
I simply pasted the specs trying to support your post in some way, then u reply to me in that form. bad bad bad
Anyways, for the whatever00 dude that is so insulted by Apple's video card options..
You can place 2 Ati 4870 for 1gb video ram, that is enough power to super run some apps.
Take in consideration that the memory is DDR 5 and this card has a lot of very nice reviews.
However, Apple has made the choice to operate at their usual (or increased?) gross profit margins by offering slightly bumped hardware at similar, less, or increased (for international) prices.
But clearly Apple has projected and accepted poorer sales for desktop in almost all markets for 2009. And without Steve in the picture do deliver a recession-gut-busting Boom!... All Apple can do is hold the fort and look to Tim Cook to keep things ticking.
BTW iLife'09 and iWork'09 are great. It's a pity the desktop hardware ain't delivering the bang-for-buck for most people, the real value's at MacBook Alu and MacBook White. MacBook Pro, well, that's premium stuff, and like I mentioned before I'm not a big fan of Apple focusing a lot on premium consumers at the expense of mainstream switchers that *can* afford Macs.
As for the Airport, Time Capsule upgrades, clearly they're some good R&D and technical improvements, but its a real pity consumers won't really grasp the fantastic value (I'm not even sure of it) of dual-band wireless.
They may have made the determination that they would NOT be able to recoup the R&D
investment for this generation of upgrades, due to poor projected sales. They may have
decided it was financially preferable to write off one generation of upgrades in their
pipeline, than to release the upgrades and incur the cost of significant manufacturing
changes and inventory buildup.
You are correct that there will be another generation of products coming along,
and Apple may have decided that the market will be much more receptive at that time.
They are fortunate to have the financial strength to be able to write off R&D efforts they
project to be unprofitable. (They also are counting on their often stated view that Apple
customers would rather wait for the Apple computer they want than to switch to
something else.)
Well do you honestly feel it would business wise to have a major refresh now when the PC market is projected to have a terrible year? Or wait until people are ready to spend money and launch a major refresh to meet pent up demand?
It depends. There are risks both ways. Less compelling products could mean fewer sales... As in, fewer sales than you expect to have even in a soft market. Which results in lower revenues so you play it even "more" safe with a simpler update the next time, and so on.
I suggest "defeatist" thinking is not helpful, companies should think about how to deliver high-perceived-value-and-high-value products produced at lower or similar cost. Companies should think about market segments they could enter to compensate for issues. Companies should look at existing markets and think about cross-sell and up-sell opportunities.
Why are people buying less PCs? What sort of technology spending would people do? Most importantly for Apple, how do they deal with the competition? There are a lot of ways Apple can go about things instead of just this update they did. Which was due a few months ago anyways, IMO.
This is of course me talking kinda CEO-type blah blah and of course Apple should manage risks, who knows what Apple is really thinking.
I would like to point out in any case is without Steve really in the picture full-time that "extra" level of insight, perception and obsession is simply not there.
iLife and iWork only at MacWorld and iMac bumps, do not a Boom! make.
Nehalem Mac Pros are Boom! Why didn't they milk more out of the branding/PR/etc opportunities of some really killer hardware? But even then no Quadro option. Even then hampered by display options (30-inch LED-backlit display)? And I think without Steve most of Apple is somewhat confused on the greener options (no LED backlit on iMacs? For most of this year?)..
But I ramble on... will stop now.
...Anyways, for the whatever00 dude that is so insulted by Apple's video card options... You can place 2 Ati 4870 for 1gb video ram, that is enough power to super run some apps... Take in consideration that the memory is DDR 5 and this card has a lot of very nice reviews.
But you can't run it in SLI (sorry, Crossfire) on the Mac Pros... AFAIK. Also no more Quadro option in Mac Pros.
Two ATI 4870s in Crossfire, or the ATI 4870X2 (single card), serious GPU horsepower there.
I suppose with 2 ATI 4870 in two slots on the Mac Pro ~ one question, how would the system know which card to use for what application? Just based on which output monitor the application is driving? Hmm...
I'm very curious what this "pleasant surprise" that Apple has up their sleeve will be...
Unfortunately I don't think it will have a "happy ending" for me...
The fact is that for the iMacs and MacPro lower end products are equivalent in speed with the previous versions next level up. Therefore you get the same performance for a cheaper price. To me that is significant.
Yes but in international markets which are significant for Apple, the prices have almost all gone up due to the strength of the US dollar.
Add in the improved graphics in the mini makes the product more compelling. I want one but would prefer to pay $499 rather than $599.
That Mac Mini is definitely compelling with 9400M. Could even be a nice little PC/Mac gaming device with overal graphic/gaming horsepower somewhere between a Wii and XBox360 (very roughly)...
But yeah, in the global economy, $499 in the US and lower prices than before for International markets, would seal the deal easily for a lot of people.