That is a great idea! Are the G5's able to run OS X?
Thanks for the suggestion,
FOXPhotog
Opps, one more potential lost sale for a new Apple computer, as the used market seems the best competition against Apple's own mid to upper end computers.
As hard as it is to imagine, some of us remember Apple before Steve Jobs took over as CEO from Gil Amelio in July of 1997. Let's take a trip down memory lane.
<<SNIP>>
All of that turbulent history is very true. We are not asking for all of or even any of that bad business model.
Rather, it seems most of us would be ok with a MacPro with more "upgrade friendly" features. Meaning that I would gladly buy a base MacPro with Conroe or equivalent architecture. One that would allow the user to swap in (aftermarket) drives, graphics cards etc.
We're not asking Apple to hit every niche out there, rather to make a machine that niche folks can adjust for themselves.
Quote:
But even if Apple did release a mid range Mac tower, you *still* would have people upset because Apple would charge more for their towers than Dell, HP, <insert PC manufacturer here>. You'd *still* see these boards dominated by posts saying, "I could get a Dell that has the exact same specs as the 'xMac' for $300 cheaper OMFG".
True. You will also have people who drink bong water.
Some folks cannot be pleased, ever. But that is not about whom we are speaking.
Quote:
If you're looking for Apple to release a machine that is more powerful, less expensive, and more upgradeable than other custom PCs, you're going to be waiting for a heck of a long time because it's not going to happen.
How about powerful, upgradeable, lower priced than the MacPro. Based on the MacPro architecture maybe???
Apple had chances in the 80s and right after the original iMac was released to gain and keep a significant marketshare. Both times they let their arrogance get the best of them and they slipped into unprofitability. If they squander this really big chance with that same arrogance, they might not get a 4th.
It's was Apple's plays for Mac marketshare that got them into trouble in the first place. Heck, I used to think and hope that Apple would turn things around and start making major gains in market share for the Mac. After all, increased market share meant increased software support for the Mac. But to a certain extent, I was all wrong. When developers were abandoning Mac support in the mid to late 1990s, it was because 'Apple was doomed'. There was the real possibility that Apple was not going to turn things around and developers didn't want to waste time developing for a system that wasn't going to be around for much longer. But once Apple proved to developers that it wasn't going anywhere and Mac OS X was released, developers came back to the Mac.
Apple is in a good place right now and making tons of money. Why would they jeopardize this by trying to undercut HP/Dell/etc.? That's what it would take to gain significant market share. Heck, Microsoft loses money on every Xbox/Xbox 360 they sell, all in the name of market share. Is that the road we want Apple to head down?
Quote:
Actually, the machine we wanted apple already made and was $200 cheaper. It was called the PowerMac g4. The cube was a failed attempt to reshape the medium to high end desktop market. Like with the upper range iMacs, apple is trying to change a market that doesn't want or need change. As a result, notebooks are flying off the shelfs, but the desktops are remaining stagnant.
We're going in circles here. Just a few posts ago, you were saying that no rational person would 'give up their PC' for the Mac Pro I listed. I said that if Apple offered a solo Xeon instead of a dual processor Mac Pro, it might help fit the gap in the lineup people are talking about. Now you are saying that the machine you wanted was already offered in the solo processor Power Mac G4 when Apple was offering dual processors in the rest of the lineup. $1599 got you a 400 MHz G4, 64 MB of RAM, and a 20 GB Hard Drive. So yes, it needed to be upgraded out of the box just like most people would do with the Mac Pro I posted.
Anyway, this discussion continues to be all over the place with some people insisting the xMac has to start at $999 while others say they are looking at the $1200-$1800 range. There's never going to be a consensus here and even if Apple released a mid range tower, it's going to be more expensive than people think/want. The comparisons between Apple and HP/Dell/etc. need to stop because we all know that Apple is going to charge more.
How about powerful, upgradeable, lower priced than the MacPro. Based on the MacPro architecture maybe???
Did you miss the post I made about this?
One 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5130
1 GB RAM (512 MB x2)
250 GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA Hard Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB
One 16x SuperDrive
No Built in Wireless (Airport/Bluetooth)
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse (Wired)
Mac OS X 10.4.9
No Monitor
$1699
That's the Mac Pro with the same type of processor, but only one, and everything else is direct from the stock 2.66 GHz Mac Pro. Same architecture, same case, the same possible upgrades, but only one processor. But we've already heard from people in this thread that it's not what they want.
That's the Mac Pro with the same type of processor, but only one, and everything else is direct from the stock 2.66 GHz Mac Pro. Same architecture, same case, the same possible upgrades, but only one processor. But we've already heard from people in this thread that it's not what they want.
That's the Mac Pro with the same type of processor, but only one, and everything else is direct from the stock 2.66 GHz Mac Pro. Same architecture, same case, the same possible upgrades, but only one processor. But we've already heard from people in this thread that it's not what they want.
And you don't seem to understand why. 2.0ghz CPU and insanely expensive high latency memory. 2.33ghz is a the minimum I would go for at that price. Of course Apple doesn't use those and it wouldn't involve sacrificing your own requirements for the benefit of Apple. Apple has a case, intel has a cpu and motherboard platform specifically designed for desktops, close to 97% of desktops sold are towers. This is not that hard to figure out. Disconnect from Apple's hive mind people and start thinking for yourselves for a minute or too. This is not that hard to figure out.
That is a great idea! Are the G5's able to run OS X?
Thanks for the suggestion,
FOXPhotog
Yes, but its dead technology. You're better off buying a Mac Pro and ebaying the extra Xeon if you are inclined toward the single Xeon model that has been suggested.
No rational person is going to buy a single Xeon Dell Precision? I wonder why they offer it as a BTO then?
Vinea
They call them low end professional workstations and the conroe ones outnumber the xeon ones by a large majority in the single CPU arena. Why do they offer them in single CPU configurations then? They allow the user to choose for themselves instead of insisting on trying to think for them. We are also talking desktops, not workstations. Different users, different requirements.
Oh and given the cost difference between Apple and Dell at the dual 2.66Ghz range it seems that Apple could offer a single Xeon 2.66Ghz at $1699 ($50 cheaper than dell).
Vinea
PS FB-DIMMs have the advantage of being able to have more memory...its a design decision of increased latency vs vm.
They call them low end professional workstations and the conroe ones outnumber the xeon ones by a large majority in the single CPU arena. Why do they offer them in single CPU configurations then? They allow the user to choose for themselves instead of insisting on trying to think for them. We are also talking desktops, not workstations. Different users, different requirements.
Oddly...I use my mac pro as a desktop with no ill effects. There's no difference between a "desktop" and a "workstation" except cost. What "different requirements" OTHER than price?
There's nothing that a single xeon Mac Pro couldn't do that a conroe based Mac Pro could except slightly slower (but with better expansion to 8 cores).
Oh and given the cost difference between Apple and Dell at the dual 2.66Ghz range it seems that Apple could offer a single Xeon 2.66Ghz at $1699 ($50 cheaper than dell).
Vinea
PS FB-DIMMs have the advantage of being able to have more memory...its a design decision of increased latency vs vm.
You're comparing Dell prices to third party FB-DIMMS.
At newegg.com, the most expensive price for 2GB (2x1GB kit) DDR667 memory is $245 for super high end gaming ram. The normal stuff is around $100. You're paying between between $240-350 for the same amount of memory (4x512 since Apple does not offer 2x1GB) on sale.
That money might seem insignificant to you because you apparently have no budget, but for those of use who are not insanely rich, it adds up.
Oddly...I use my mac pro as a desktop with no ill effects. There's no difference between a "desktop" and a "workstation" except cost. What "different requirements" OTHER than price?
There's nothing that a single xeon Mac Pro couldn't do that a conroe based Mac Pro could except slightly slower (but with better expansion to 8 cores).
Vinea
True there is no consumer task a xeon workstation can't do and do well, there is no disputing that. However, a Conroe desktop can do those same tasks at nearly half the price. And yes there is an ill effect, workstation = waiting a much longer time and not getting an ibook replacement as well.
As my sig says, it's like having to buy one of these:
And you don't seem to understand why. 2.0ghz CPU and insanely expensive high latency memory. 2.33ghz is a the minimum I would go for at that price. Of course Apple doesn't use those and it wouldn't involve sacrificing your own requirements for the benefit of Apple. Apple has a case, intel has a cpu and motherboard platform specifically designed for desktops, close to 97% of desktops sold are towers. This is not that hard to figure out. Disconnect from Apple's hive mind people and start thinking for yourselves for a minute or too. This is not that hard to figure out.
So because people are playing devil's advocate, they're somehow connected to 'Appe's hive mind' and are unable to think for themselves?
The point that is always made by this topic is that people don't want to pay so much for Apple's Power Mac or Mac Pro towers. People want the same expandability, similar speed, the same options, and sometimes even the same case. But they want this at half of the price of the existing towers. People point to Dell, IBM, HP, etc. to make their point about why Apple should offer that machine at the price they want. People also say that it will increase Mac market share and that 'everyone' will want to buy one. Yet despite all of the great moves that Apple has made since 1997, they don't make this machine. Do you think they know something that we don't?
My PowerBook G4 is almost dead and I'm in the market for a new computer. I've been saving money for quite some time and I can't decide whether I want a Mac Pro or a MacBook Pro. On the one hand, I like owning a portable, but on the other hand, I want a computer that's going to last a long time and I know the Mac Pro will. While the Mac Pro might be overkill for what I'm doing now, it won't be overkill 4 years from now. Definitely keep that in mind when you consider the prices of Mac towers.
That is a great idea! Are the G5's able to run OS X?
Thanks for the suggestion,
Yes, and both the G4 and G5 should run Mac OS X for many years to come. Apple's Universal software lets applications run natively on either a PPC (G5 etc.) or Intel processor. There is a down side only if you need the speed and power of new Intel chips, or if you need to run Windows applications on the same computer.
I'm not running anything more demanding than Logic, Apple's professional music application, and for a few Windows applications, I have an older PC in the basement. The bottom line is that Apple provides my OS and updates, plus several of my important applications. My hardware comes from eBay.
I don't know whether you have purchased computers on eBay? I have been doing it for six or seven years now. I've discovered that if I am patient and do my research, I can get a very good deal. I'm running three Power Mac towers now, and will like wait two years before getting a Xeon Mac Pro from eBay. Plans could change if Apple begins to make a prosumer mini tower.
The point that is always made by this topic is that people don't want to pay so much for Apple's Power Mac or Mac Pro towers. People want the same expandability, similar speed, the same options, and sometimes even the same case. But they want this at half of the price of the existing towers.
Me thinks you exaggerate too greatly. Most of us who want a prosumer tower would be happy with a single Xeon Mac Pro, except for price. It's been mentioned over and over that a Mac Pro has excess cost built into it, in the form of a more expensive CPU, more costly RAM, four HDD bays when two would be enough, and an overkill power supply for a single CPU mini tower.
If Apple made a prosumer tower and priced it with typical Apple margins, it would provide a lot more value for Mac users who only need and/or want a prosumer tower. Why should we pay for a workstation just to get 3 PCIe cards, two HDDs and two optical drives? If Apple offered a mini tower, fewer people would point to what Dell, IBM, HP, etc. offer. And yes, it will increase Mac market share.
Does Apple know something that we don't? No, but they're in denial.
Well that Open Letter to Steve Jobs on digg's website is up to 3541 duggs.
At least those of us that have posted our desire for a mythical xMac can console ourselves that we're not alone, and not the "few pot bangers" that has been suggested here and on other threads.
True there is no consumer task a xeon workstation can't do and do well, there is no disputing that. However, a Conroe desktop can do those same tasks at nearly half the price. And yes there is an ill effect, workstation = waiting a much longer time and not getting an ibook replacement as well.
As my sig says, it's like having to buy one of these:
Comments
That is a great idea! Are the G5's able to run OS X?
Thanks for the suggestion,
FOXPhotog
Opps, one more potential lost sale for a new Apple computer, as the used market seems the best competition against Apple's own mid to upper end computers.
As hard as it is to imagine, some of us remember Apple before Steve Jobs took over as CEO from Gil Amelio in July of 1997. Let's take a trip down memory lane.
<<SNIP>>
All of that turbulent history is very true. We are not asking for all of or even any of that bad business model.
Rather, it seems most of us would be ok with a MacPro with more "upgrade friendly" features. Meaning that I would gladly buy a base MacPro with Conroe or equivalent architecture. One that would allow the user to swap in (aftermarket) drives, graphics cards etc.
We're not asking Apple to hit every niche out there, rather to make a machine that niche folks can adjust for themselves.
But even if Apple did release a mid range Mac tower, you *still* would have people upset because Apple would charge more for their towers than Dell, HP, <insert PC manufacturer here>. You'd *still* see these boards dominated by posts saying, "I could get a Dell that has the exact same specs as the 'xMac' for $300 cheaper OMFG".
True. You will also have people who drink bong water.
Some folks cannot be pleased, ever. But that is not about whom we are speaking.
If you're looking for Apple to release a machine that is more powerful, less expensive, and more upgradeable than other custom PCs, you're going to be waiting for a heck of a long time because it's not going to happen.
How about powerful, upgradeable, lower priced than the MacPro. Based on the MacPro architecture maybe???
Apple had chances in the 80s and right after the original iMac was released to gain and keep a significant marketshare. Both times they let their arrogance get the best of them and they slipped into unprofitability. If they squander this really big chance with that same arrogance, they might not get a 4th.
It's was Apple's plays for Mac marketshare that got them into trouble in the first place. Heck, I used to think and hope that Apple would turn things around and start making major gains in market share for the Mac. After all, increased market share meant increased software support for the Mac. But to a certain extent, I was all wrong. When developers were abandoning Mac support in the mid to late 1990s, it was because 'Apple was doomed'. There was the real possibility that Apple was not going to turn things around and developers didn't want to waste time developing for a system that wasn't going to be around for much longer. But once Apple proved to developers that it wasn't going anywhere and Mac OS X was released, developers came back to the Mac.
Apple is in a good place right now and making tons of money. Why would they jeopardize this by trying to undercut HP/Dell/etc.? That's what it would take to gain significant market share. Heck, Microsoft loses money on every Xbox/Xbox 360 they sell, all in the name of market share. Is that the road we want Apple to head down?
Actually, the machine we wanted apple already made and was $200 cheaper. It was called the PowerMac g4. The cube was a failed attempt to reshape the medium to high end desktop market. Like with the upper range iMacs, apple is trying to change a market that doesn't want or need change. As a result, notebooks are flying off the shelfs, but the desktops are remaining stagnant.
We're going in circles here. Just a few posts ago, you were saying that no rational person would 'give up their PC' for the Mac Pro I listed. I said that if Apple offered a solo Xeon instead of a dual processor Mac Pro, it might help fit the gap in the lineup people are talking about. Now you are saying that the machine you wanted was already offered in the solo processor Power Mac G4 when Apple was offering dual processors in the rest of the lineup. $1599 got you a 400 MHz G4, 64 MB of RAM, and a 20 GB Hard Drive. So yes, it needed to be upgraded out of the box just like most people would do with the Mac Pro I posted.
Anyway, this discussion continues to be all over the place with some people insisting the xMac has to start at $999 while others say they are looking at the $1200-$1800 range. There's never going to be a consensus here and even if Apple released a mid range tower, it's going to be more expensive than people think/want. The comparisons between Apple and HP/Dell/etc. need to stop because we all know that Apple is going to charge more.
How about powerful, upgradeable, lower priced than the MacPro. Based on the MacPro architecture maybe???
Did you miss the post I made about this?
One 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5130
1 GB RAM (512 MB x2)
250 GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA Hard Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB
One 16x SuperDrive
No Built in Wireless (Airport/Bluetooth)
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse (Wired)
Mac OS X 10.4.9
No Monitor
$1699
That's the Mac Pro with the same type of processor, but only one, and everything else is direct from the stock 2.66 GHz Mac Pro. Same architecture, same case, the same possible upgrades, but only one processor. But we've already heard from people in this thread that it's not what they want.
Did you miss the post I made about this?
One 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5130
1 GB RAM (512 MB x2)
250 GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA Hard Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB
One 16x SuperDrive
No Built in Wireless (Airport/Bluetooth)
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse (Wired)
Mac OS X 10.4.9
No Monitor
$1699
That's the Mac Pro with the same type of processor, but only one, and everything else is direct from the stock 2.66 GHz Mac Pro. Same architecture, same case, the same possible upgrades, but only one processor. But we've already heard from people in this thread that it's not what they want.
Looking better. This is what I'd go for!
FOXPhotog
No rational person is going to give up their PC for that.
No rational person is going to buy a single Xeon Dell Precision? I wonder why they offer it as a BTO then?
Vinea
Did you miss the post I made about this?
One 2.0 GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5130
1 GB RAM (512 MB x2)
250 GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA Hard Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB
One 16x SuperDrive
No Built in Wireless (Airport/Bluetooth)
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse (Wired)
Mac OS X 10.4.9
No Monitor
$1699
That's the Mac Pro with the same type of processor, but only one, and everything else is direct from the stock 2.66 GHz Mac Pro. Same architecture, same case, the same possible upgrades, but only one processor. But we've already heard from people in this thread that it's not what they want.
And you don't seem to understand why. 2.0ghz CPU and insanely expensive high latency memory. 2.33ghz is a the minimum I would go for at that price. Of course Apple doesn't use those and it wouldn't involve sacrificing your own requirements for the benefit of Apple. Apple has a case, intel has a cpu and motherboard platform specifically designed for desktops, close to 97% of desktops sold are towers. This is not that hard to figure out. Disconnect from Apple's hive mind people and start thinking for yourselves for a minute or too. This is not that hard to figure out.
That is a great idea! Are the G5's able to run OS X?
Thanks for the suggestion,
FOXPhotog
Yes, but its dead technology. You're better off buying a Mac Pro and ebaying the extra Xeon if you are inclined toward the single Xeon model that has been suggested.
Vinea
No rational person is going to buy a single Xeon Dell Precision? I wonder why they offer it as a BTO then?
Vinea
They call them low end professional workstations and the conroe ones outnumber the xeon ones by a large majority in the single CPU arena. Why do they offer them in single CPU configurations then? They allow the user to choose for themselves instead of insisting on trying to think for them. We are also talking desktops, not workstations. Different users, different requirements.
2.0ghz CPU and insanely expensive high latency memory.
Apple Mac Pro DDR2 PC2-5300 4GB Kit = $497.99
Dell Precision 390 (Conroe) DDR2 PC2-5300 4GB kit = $355.99
http://www.crucial.com/store/listpar...%284%2Dcore%29
Insanely Expensive = $142 difference
Gotcha.
Oh and given the cost difference between Apple and Dell at the dual 2.66Ghz range it seems that Apple could offer a single Xeon 2.66Ghz at $1699 ($50 cheaper than dell).
Vinea
PS FB-DIMMs have the advantage of being able to have more memory...its a design decision of increased latency vs vm.
They call them low end professional workstations and the conroe ones outnumber the xeon ones by a large majority in the single CPU arena. Why do they offer them in single CPU configurations then? They allow the user to choose for themselves instead of insisting on trying to think for them. We are also talking desktops, not workstations. Different users, different requirements.
Oddly...I use my mac pro as a desktop with no ill effects. There's no difference between a "desktop" and a "workstation" except cost. What "different requirements" OTHER than price?
There's nothing that a single xeon Mac Pro couldn't do that a conroe based Mac Pro could except slightly slower (but with better expansion to 8 cores).
Vinea
Apple Mac Pro DDR2 PC2-5300 4GB Kit = $497.99
Dell Precision 390 (Conroe) DDR2 PC2-5300 4GB kit = $355.99
http://www.crucial.com/store/listpar...%284%2Dcore%29
Insanely Expensive = $142 difference
Gotcha.
Oh and given the cost difference between Apple and Dell at the dual 2.66Ghz range it seems that Apple could offer a single Xeon 2.66Ghz at $1699 ($50 cheaper than dell).
Vinea
PS FB-DIMMs have the advantage of being able to have more memory...its a design decision of increased latency vs vm.
You're comparing Dell prices to third party FB-DIMMS.
At newegg.com, the most expensive price for 2GB (2x1GB kit) DDR667 memory is $245 for super high end gaming ram. The normal stuff is around $100. You're paying between between $240-350 for the same amount of memory (4x512 since Apple does not offer 2x1GB) on sale.
That money might seem insignificant to you because you apparently have no budget, but for those of use who are not insanely rich, it adds up.
Oddly...I use my mac pro as a desktop with no ill effects. There's no difference between a "desktop" and a "workstation" except cost. What "different requirements" OTHER than price?
There's nothing that a single xeon Mac Pro couldn't do that a conroe based Mac Pro could except slightly slower (but with better expansion to 8 cores).
Vinea
True there is no consumer task a xeon workstation can't do and do well, there is no disputing that. However, a Conroe desktop can do those same tasks at nearly half the price. And yes there is an ill effect, workstation = waiting a much longer time and not getting an ibook replacement as well.
As my sig says, it's like having to buy one of these:
http://www.freightlinertrucks.com/tr...el/M2-100-106/
To do the work of one of these:
http://www.dodge.com/en/ram_1500/index.html
And you don't seem to understand why. 2.0ghz CPU and insanely expensive high latency memory. 2.33ghz is a the minimum I would go for at that price. Of course Apple doesn't use those and it wouldn't involve sacrificing your own requirements for the benefit of Apple. Apple has a case, intel has a cpu and motherboard platform specifically designed for desktops, close to 97% of desktops sold are towers. This is not that hard to figure out. Disconnect from Apple's hive mind people and start thinking for yourselves for a minute or too. This is not that hard to figure out.
So because people are playing devil's advocate, they're somehow connected to 'Appe's hive mind' and are unable to think for themselves?
The point that is always made by this topic is that people don't want to pay so much for Apple's Power Mac or Mac Pro towers. People want the same expandability, similar speed, the same options, and sometimes even the same case. But they want this at half of the price of the existing towers. People point to Dell, IBM, HP, etc. to make their point about why Apple should offer that machine at the price they want. People also say that it will increase Mac market share and that 'everyone' will want to buy one. Yet despite all of the great moves that Apple has made since 1997, they don't make this machine. Do you think they know something that we don't?
My PowerBook G4 is almost dead and I'm in the market for a new computer. I've been saving money for quite some time and I can't decide whether I want a Mac Pro or a MacBook Pro. On the one hand, I like owning a portable, but on the other hand, I want a computer that's going to last a long time and I know the Mac Pro will. While the Mac Pro might be overkill for what I'm doing now, it won't be overkill 4 years from now. Definitely keep that in mind when you consider the prices of Mac towers.
That is a great idea! Are the G5's able to run OS X?
Thanks for the suggestion,
Yes, and both the G4 and G5 should run Mac OS X for many years to come. Apple's Universal software lets applications run natively on either a PPC (G5 etc.) or Intel processor. There is a down side only if you need the speed and power of new Intel chips, or if you need to run Windows applications on the same computer.
I'm not running anything more demanding than Logic, Apple's professional music application, and for a few Windows applications, I have an older PC in the basement. The bottom line is that Apple provides my OS and updates, plus several of my important applications. My hardware comes from eBay.
I don't know whether you have purchased computers on eBay? I have been doing it for six or seven years now. I've discovered that if I am patient and do my research, I can get a very good deal. I'm running three Power Mac towers now, and will like wait two years before getting a Xeon Mac Pro from eBay. Plans could change if Apple begins to make a prosumer mini tower.
The point that is always made by this topic is that people don't want to pay so much for Apple's Power Mac or Mac Pro towers. People want the same expandability, similar speed, the same options, and sometimes even the same case. But they want this at half of the price of the existing towers.
Me thinks you exaggerate too greatly. Most of us who want a prosumer tower would be happy with a single Xeon Mac Pro, except for price. It's been mentioned over and over that a Mac Pro has excess cost built into it, in the form of a more expensive CPU, more costly RAM, four HDD bays when two would be enough, and an overkill power supply for a single CPU mini tower.
If Apple made a prosumer tower and priced it with typical Apple margins, it would provide a lot more value for Mac users who only need and/or want a prosumer tower. Why should we pay for a workstation just to get 3 PCIe cards, two HDDs and two optical drives? If Apple offered a mini tower, fewer people would point to what Dell, IBM, HP, etc. offer. And yes, it will increase Mac market share.
Does Apple know something that we don't? No, but they're in denial.
Me thinks you exaggerate too greatly.
Given the number of times I've read a thread on this topic in the last 8 years, I can safely say I'm not exaggerating.
At least those of us that have posted our desire for a mythical xMac can console ourselves that we're not alone, and not the "few pot bangers" that has been suggested here and on other threads.
You're comparing Dell prices to third party FB-DIMMS.
Both prices are from crucial.
At newegg.com, the most expensive price for 2GB (2x1GB kit) DDR667 memory is $245 for super high end gaming ram.
Which means the 4GB set for the Mac Pro from Crucial is the same price.
So much for insanely expensive.
And no, no-name ram from new egg is not the same as comparing ram from crucial. The price delta is a $100.
Vinea
True there is no consumer task a xeon workstation can't do and do well, there is no disputing that. However, a Conroe desktop can do those same tasks at nearly half the price. And yes there is an ill effect, workstation = waiting a much longer time and not getting an ibook replacement as well.
As my sig says, it's like having to buy one of these:
http://www.freightlinertrucks.com/tr...el/M2-100-106/
To do the work of one of these:
http://www.dodge.com/en/ram_1500/index.html
No...its a lot more like whining that you can't get a 5 series BMW for Chevy Malibu prices because BMW doesn't make a low end sedan.
Vinea