Of course I just got my new Mac Pro, and now they're going to release a new models. Of course I knew full well this would happen, but couldn't pursuade my IT guy to hold off on the purchase for a few months. Sigh... at least I got the $10 Leopard upgrade.
Lame. I should hope it gets a redesign. I've had enough of the cheese grater, even without having to look at one every day. BTW, what has happened to Apple's design since the G4 days? We had awesome-looking products back then: the acrylic-footed LCDs, the swivel-neck iMac G4, and the master of all, the G4 Cube. What strikingly beautiful machines. Then they started this whole "minimalist" movement which leave the products looking simple and clean, yes, but also very bland.
I stongly hesitate to say that I value form over function, but since the above-listed machines had a healthy balance of BOTH, I almost feel inclined to! So what, if they're borderline-gaudy? They looked like a million bucks seven years ago and they still do today. Ive's design has shifted too much and I am not a fan.
Lame. I should hope it gets a redesign. I've had enough of the cheese grater, even without having to look at one every day. BTW, what has happened to Apple's design since the G4 days? We had awesome-looking products back then: the acrylic-footed LCDs, the swivel-neck iMac G4, and the master of all, the G4 Cube. What strikingly beautiful machines. Then they started this whole "minimalist" movement which leave the products looking simple and clean, yes, but also very bland.
I stongly hesitate to say that I value form over function, but since the above-listed machines had a healthy balance of BOTH, I almost feel inclined to! So what, if they're borderline-gaudy? They looked like a million bucks seven years ago and they still do today. Ive's design has shifted too much and I am not a fan.
Perhaps others disagree.
I am fine with the current look. The functionality isn't necessarily all there either, I think they could have hot-swap drives relatively easily, though there's a risk that the user would yank the current system drive, negating the benefit of hot-swap.
While a change would probably be nice, the most I'd expect this time around is maybe a bit of a rearrangement or change of the ports. If the 2007 iMac presentation is any indicator, they are still pushing aluminum as a "pro" look.
Steve: "Ladies and gentlemen, I called this press conference today to announce to the known universe that Apple... under the veil of complete secrecy, mind you... in addition to working on our super-secret Intel compatible OSX software...... (dramatic pause and wheezing deep breath)... we have been working in parallel on an AMD-compatible version of our astounding OSX!"
Steve: "Ladies and gentlemen, I called this press conference today to announce to the known universe that Apple... under the veil of complete secrecy, mind you... in addition to working on our super-secret Intel compatible OSX software...... (dramatic pause and wheezing deep breath)... we have been working in parallel on an AMD-compatible version of our astounding OSX!"
Wow, I wish that only made sense. All they'd need is different hardware, not new software.
...unless you're joking, of course, in which case, "teehee."
I remember Jobs' statement about aluminium being the "pro" look... which is what confuses me: Why is it on an iMac, an entry-level desktop machine?
In short, I don't know.
Pros do use iMacs though.
With respect to the whole market, iMac is kind a high-end consumer machine (or luxury, in some ways, like B&O audio stuff where looks and sleek form factors are at least as important as functionality), or roughly entry level pro. Its "entry" model is about twice the cost of the industry's average sale price.
That explanation doesn't work on the mini, so that kind of shoots down the whole thing.
This doesn't really sound pleasant. I sold my Quad G5 last week and await the comming of the new mac pro's. I sold it before they came so the value didn't drop too much.
When the G5 alsmost ended, there were duals, and last came a Quad. Then the next revision were all quads. Now there came an 8-core, and this article claims the next revision are gonna bu quads with the high end an 8-core?
This would suck. Reading the original article claiming apple is seizing the high-end Xeons, they think according to the supposed price tag, that the standard could be a 8-core 2.86Ghz. Which would seem much more Apple than remaining quads of 3.3 or something.
Also, when the latest G5's came out, it was dual 2.3 dual 2.5 and quad 2.5. The formar G5 went up to 2.7.
Every time apple updated it's high end line, it introduced new GPU's. Mostly the higher ends of the moment. And mostly those cards are already old in the PC world. So a 8800GT is most logical.
But, with the comming of the Quad G5, and i know, i had to wait a month before i even could order it with the 7800GT in it. And till today the 7800 was never sold seperatly. Now the X1900 is, but it costs a rediculous price of over 400?. Are they out of their freaking mind? That lame 7300 even costs a 150? or so. If you check the PC GPU prices you would be even crazy enough to buy this stuff.
and ps. the other articles claims the top end Xeon is a 3.16 GHz
and so far i haven't heard much rumors of Dual Core Penryn Xeons. Only low-ends. So why would apple even bother with quad cores unless to create an even cheaper Mac Pro for those who don't need the power.
Apple really is starting to get on my nerves with their hardware. Looks like iMacs and Macbooks is all they care about.
Lame. I should hope it gets a redesign. I've had enough of the cheese grater, even without having to look at one every day. BTW, what has happened to Apple's design since the G4 days? We had awesome-looking products back then: the acrylic-footed LCDs, the swivel-neck iMac G4, and the master of all, the G4 Cube. What strikingly beautiful machines. Then they started this whole "minimalist" movement which leave the products looking simple and clean, yes, but also very bland.
I stongly hesitate to say that I value form over function, but since the above-listed machines had a healthy balance of BOTH, I almost feel inclined to! So what, if they're borderline-gaudy? They looked like a million bucks seven years ago and they still do today. Ive's design has shifted too much and I am not a fan.
Perhaps others disagree.
-Clive
I totally agree. It's time for a new look. Even the new iMacs weren't enough of a change to turn my head. I'm really craving some of that beautiful, original Apple design like the cube or the Titanium PowerBook, or any G4 for that matter - only completely different, of course.
This doesn't really sound pleasant. I sold my Quad G5 last week and await the comming of the new mac pro's. I sold it before they came so the value didn't drop too much.
When the G5 alsmost ended, there were duals, and last came a Quad. Then the next revision were all quads. Now there came an 8-core, and this article claims the next revision are gonna bu quads with the high end an 8-core?
This would suck. Reading the original article claiming apple is seizing the high-end Xeons, they think according to the supposed price tag, that the standard could be a 8-core 2.86Ghz. Which would seem much more Apple than remaining quads of 3.3 or something.
Also, when the latest G5's came out, it was dual 2.3 dual 2.5 and quad 2.5. The formar G5 went up to 2.7.
Every time apple updated it's high end line, it introduced new GPU's. Mostly the higher ends of the moment. And mostly those cards are already old in the PC world. So a 8800GT is most logical.
But, with the comming of the Quad G5, and i know, i had to wait a month before i even could order it with the 7800GT in it. And till today the 7800 was never sold seperatly. Now the X1900 is, but it costs a rediculous price of over 400€. Are they out of their freaking mind? That lame 7300 even costs a 150€ or so. If you check the PC GPU prices you would be even crazy enough to buy this stuff.
and ps. the other articles claims the top end Xeon is a 3.16 GHz
and so far i haven't heard much rumors of Dual Core Penryn Xeons. Only low-ends. So why would apple even bother with quad cores unless to create an even cheaper Mac Pro for those who don't need the power.
Apple really is starting to get on my nerves with their hardware. Looks like iMacs and Macbooks is all they care about.
Apple's product releases coincide with their attempting to have the greatest impact on their company's stock price, IMO. If the market is constantly flooded with new Apple product, the impact and the anticipation by consumers and the press would be minimal.
I'm in the market for an XServe or two as well. Amazing how hard they have become to find on Apple's store site. Here's to hoping they get upgraded soon as well. (A $500 price cut would go a good way as well... I can dream...)
Apple itself is considered a luxury company. You have to be a fool not to see that. $1300 for the lowest end small notebook line, $2000 for the lowest end, average sized notebook line. $1100 is their cheapest computer. $150 for the cheapest music player (shuffle doesn't count because it sucks). $179 for a router, when you can buy a perfectly good Wireless-N Linksys for under $100. Jesus (and it was $179 even before Gigabit Ethernet). If you want cheap crap, go to PCs.
Apple itself is considered a luxury company. You have to be a fool not to see that. $1300 for the lowest end small notebook line, $2000 for the lowest end, average sized notebook line. $1100 is their cheapest computer. $150 for the cheapest music player (shuffle doesn't count because it sucks). $179 for a router, when you can buy a perfectly good Wireless-N Linksys for under $100.
Apple's AEx is not just a router though. Does that sub-$100 work as a NAS or a print server? Linksys WRT150N is on Amazon for $98, but its switch is 10/100 and no print server or NAS capabilities. If you don't need any of that, then it's pretty fair to say that the cheaper one will probably suit you better. That's the unfortunate thing, you get a bunch of features that you may never need. If you need those features, then it's definitely a fair price.
With respect to the whole market, iMac is kind a high-end consumer machine, or roughly entry level pro. Its "entry" model is about twice the cost of the industry's average sale price.
That explanation doesn't work on the mini, so that kind of shoots down the whole thing.
Wow, I respectfully disagree. I like the top-level iMac - it has a decent CPU, good amount of RAM, and a spacious HDD - but it has a few fatal flaws that prevent it from being a really great machine. All of them boil down to a lack of longevity. If you're a prosumer, you don't need this year's newest technology, only last year's. The iMac's internals are made up entirely of last year's technology, which is fine and good... and might be fine in two years when the user wants to upgrade the RAM. but in years 3 - 6, it needs a new graphics card (it needs that anyway), a new BluRay Reader / DVD burner, and a bigger HDD. Solution: throw the computer out the window and buy a new one beacuse you can't upgrade the damn thing.
Plus another fault of the iMac is that you pay for a screen whether you want it or not. The 24" model is $2300. I would estimate that $600 (or more) of that price is going towards the LCD That would put the cost of the rest of the hardware at $1700. That leaves an $800 hardware gap between the iMac and the Pro. There's so much room to fill in Apple's line-up and it needs a machine designed for prosumers.
The determining factor in purchasing one of these bad boys for most is going to be graphics cards. Apple is going to have to pull out some of the stops along the way to get a better choice of cards for users not only upon release, but for future upgrades.
They also need something fresh, and I think that will not be a problem. Apple usually comes through with some great cards from Nvidia. But the 8800 GTX by January is going to be yesterdays card. I imagine we'll be seeing something next Gen. from Nvidia hopefully, and some cards from ATI's to cover the mid range, although I would prefer an all Nvidia path. If Apple just goes with the high-end Nvidia GTX card all the whining little bitches will come out and cry about price, and why can't there be a GT or some shit. Some times I hate being a Mac user. Just thinking about the whining times to come is already annoying.
Comments
Of course I just got my new Mac Pro, and now they're going to release a new models. Of course I knew full well this would happen, but couldn't pursuade my IT guy to hold off on the purchase for a few months. Sigh... at least I got the $10 Leopard upgrade.
HAHAHA 1 WORD... LOSER.
Isn't that just a standard Mac Pro guts-shot with logos photoshopped into the CPU heat sink cover?
Yes.
Lame. I should hope it gets a redesign. I've had enough of the cheese grater, even without having to look at one every day. BTW, what has happened to Apple's design since the G4 days? We had awesome-looking products back then: the acrylic-footed LCDs, the swivel-neck iMac G4, and the master of all, the G4 Cube. What strikingly beautiful machines. Then they started this whole "minimalist" movement which leave the products looking simple and clean, yes, but also very bland.
I stongly hesitate to say that I value form over function, but since the above-listed machines had a healthy balance of BOTH, I almost feel inclined to! So what, if they're borderline-gaudy? They looked like a million bucks seven years ago and they still do today. Ive's design has shifted too much and I am not a fan.
Perhaps others disagree.
-Clive
Isn't that just a standard Mac Pro guts-shot with logos photoshopped into the CPU heat sink cover?
I agree, that doesn't sound credible to me. I am still have hope Apple will refresh the design of the MacPro as well as the displays.
Yes.
Lame. I should hope it gets a redesign. I've had enough of the cheese grater, even without having to look at one every day. BTW, what has happened to Apple's design since the G4 days? We had awesome-looking products back then: the acrylic-footed LCDs, the swivel-neck iMac G4, and the master of all, the G4 Cube. What strikingly beautiful machines. Then they started this whole "minimalist" movement which leave the products looking simple and clean, yes, but also very bland.
I stongly hesitate to say that I value form over function, but since the above-listed machines had a healthy balance of BOTH, I almost feel inclined to! So what, if they're borderline-gaudy? They looked like a million bucks seven years ago and they still do today. Ive's design has shifted too much and I am not a fan.
Perhaps others disagree.
I am fine with the current look. The functionality isn't necessarily all there either, I think they could have hot-swap drives relatively easily, though there's a risk that the user would yank the current system drive, negating the benefit of hot-swap.
While a change would probably be nice, the most I'd expect this time around is maybe a bit of a rearrangement or change of the ports. If the 2007 iMac presentation is any indicator, they are still pushing aluminum as a "pro" look.
If the 2007 iMac presentation is any indicator, they are still pushing aluminum as a "pro" look.
I remember Jobs' statement about aluminium being the "pro" look... which is what confuses me: Why is it on an iMac, an entry-level desktop machine?
-Clive
Steve: "Ladies and gentlemen, I called this press conference today to announce to the known universe that Apple... under the veil of complete secrecy, mind you... in addition to working on our super-secret Intel compatible OSX software...... (dramatic pause and wheezing deep breath)... we have been working in parallel on an AMD-compatible version of our astounding OSX!"
Wow, I wish that only made sense. All they'd need is different hardware, not new software.
...unless you're joking, of course, in which case, "teehee."
-Clive
Um.... no.
Yah-huh!
I remember Jobs' statement about aluminium being the "pro" look... which is what confuses me: Why is it on an iMac, an entry-level desktop machine?
In short, I don't know.
Pros do use iMacs though.
With respect to the whole market, iMac is kind a high-end consumer machine (or luxury, in some ways, like B&O audio stuff where looks and sleek form factors are at least as important as functionality), or roughly entry level pro. Its "entry" model is about twice the cost of the industry's average sale price.
That explanation doesn't work on the mini, so that kind of shoots down the whole thing.
When the G5 alsmost ended, there were duals, and last came a Quad. Then the next revision were all quads. Now there came an 8-core, and this article claims the next revision are gonna bu quads with the high end an 8-core?
This would suck. Reading the original article claiming apple is seizing the high-end Xeons, they think according to the supposed price tag, that the standard could be a 8-core 2.86Ghz. Which would seem much more Apple than remaining quads of 3.3 or something.
Also, when the latest G5's came out, it was dual 2.3 dual 2.5 and quad 2.5. The formar G5 went up to 2.7.
Every time apple updated it's high end line, it introduced new GPU's. Mostly the higher ends of the moment. And mostly those cards are already old in the PC world. So a 8800GT is most logical.
But, with the comming of the Quad G5, and i know, i had to wait a month before i even could order it with the 7800GT in it. And till today the 7800 was never sold seperatly. Now the X1900 is, but it costs a rediculous price of over 400?. Are they out of their freaking mind? That lame 7300 even costs a 150? or so. If you check the PC GPU prices you would be even crazy enough to buy this stuff.
and ps. the other articles claims the top end Xeon is a 3.16 GHz
and so far i haven't heard much rumors of Dual Core Penryn Xeons. Only low-ends. So why would apple even bother with quad cores unless to create an even cheaper Mac Pro for those who don't need the power.
Apple really is starting to get on my nerves with their hardware. Looks like iMacs and Macbooks is all they care about.
Yes.
Lame. I should hope it gets a redesign. I've had enough of the cheese grater, even without having to look at one every day. BTW, what has happened to Apple's design since the G4 days? We had awesome-looking products back then: the acrylic-footed LCDs, the swivel-neck iMac G4, and the master of all, the G4 Cube. What strikingly beautiful machines. Then they started this whole "minimalist" movement which leave the products looking simple and clean, yes, but also very bland.
I stongly hesitate to say that I value form over function, but since the above-listed machines had a healthy balance of BOTH, I almost feel inclined to! So what, if they're borderline-gaudy? They looked like a million bucks seven years ago and they still do today. Ive's design has shifted too much and I am not a fan.
Perhaps others disagree.
-Clive
I totally agree. It's time for a new look. Even the new iMacs weren't enough of a change to turn my head. I'm really craving some of that beautiful, original Apple design like the cube or the Titanium PowerBook, or any G4 for that matter - only completely different, of course.
This doesn't really sound pleasant. I sold my Quad G5 last week and await the comming of the new mac pro's. I sold it before they came so the value didn't drop too much.
When the G5 alsmost ended, there were duals, and last came a Quad. Then the next revision were all quads. Now there came an 8-core, and this article claims the next revision are gonna bu quads with the high end an 8-core?
This would suck. Reading the original article claiming apple is seizing the high-end Xeons, they think according to the supposed price tag, that the standard could be a 8-core 2.86Ghz. Which would seem much more Apple than remaining quads of 3.3 or something.
Also, when the latest G5's came out, it was dual 2.3 dual 2.5 and quad 2.5. The formar G5 went up to 2.7.
Every time apple updated it's high end line, it introduced new GPU's. Mostly the higher ends of the moment. And mostly those cards are already old in the PC world. So a 8800GT is most logical.
But, with the comming of the Quad G5, and i know, i had to wait a month before i even could order it with the 7800GT in it. And till today the 7800 was never sold seperatly. Now the X1900 is, but it costs a rediculous price of over 400€. Are they out of their freaking mind? That lame 7300 even costs a 150€ or so. If you check the PC GPU prices you would be even crazy enough to buy this stuff.
and ps. the other articles claims the top end Xeon is a 3.16 GHz
and so far i haven't heard much rumors of Dual Core Penryn Xeons. Only low-ends. So why would apple even bother with quad cores unless to create an even cheaper Mac Pro for those who don't need the power.
Apple really is starting to get on my nerves with their hardware. Looks like iMacs and Macbooks is all they care about.
Apple's product releases coincide with their attempting to have the greatest impact on their company's stock price, IMO. If the market is constantly flooded with new Apple product, the impact and the anticipation by consumers and the press would be minimal.
Apple itself is considered a luxury company. You have to be a fool not to see that. $1300 for the lowest end small notebook line, $2000 for the lowest end, average sized notebook line. $1100 is their cheapest computer. $150 for the cheapest music player (shuffle doesn't count because it sucks). $179 for a router, when you can buy a perfectly good Wireless-N Linksys for under $100.
Apple's AEx is not just a router though. Does that sub-$100 work as a NAS or a print server? Linksys WRT150N is on Amazon for $98, but its switch is 10/100 and no print server or NAS capabilities. If you don't need any of that, then it's pretty fair to say that the cheaper one will probably suit you better. That's the unfortunate thing, you get a bunch of features that you may never need. If you need those features, then it's definitely a fair price.
In short, I don't know.
Pros do use iMacs though.
With respect to the whole market, iMac is kind a high-end consumer machine, or roughly entry level pro. Its "entry" model is about twice the cost of the industry's average sale price.
That explanation doesn't work on the mini, so that kind of shoots down the whole thing.
Wow, I respectfully disagree. I like the top-level iMac - it has a decent CPU, good amount of RAM, and a spacious HDD - but it has a few fatal flaws that prevent it from being a really great machine. All of them boil down to a lack of longevity. If you're a prosumer, you don't need this year's newest technology, only last year's. The iMac's internals are made up entirely of last year's technology, which is fine and good... and might be fine in two years when the user wants to upgrade the RAM. but in years 3 - 6, it needs a new graphics card (it needs that anyway), a new BluRay Reader / DVD burner, and a bigger HDD. Solution: throw the computer out the window and buy a new one beacuse you can't upgrade the damn thing.
Plus another fault of the iMac is that you pay for a screen whether you want it or not. The 24" model is $2300. I would estimate that $600 (or more) of that price is going towards the LCD That would put the cost of the rest of the hardware at $1700. That leaves an $800 hardware gap between the iMac and the Pro. There's so much room to fill in Apple's line-up and it needs a machine designed for prosumers.
uh... where was I going with this?
Oh yeah. iMacs shouldn't be aluminium.
-Clive
They also need something fresh, and I think that will not be a problem. Apple usually comes through with some great cards from Nvidia. But the 8800 GTX by January is going to be yesterdays card. I imagine we'll be seeing something next Gen. from Nvidia hopefully, and some cards from ATI's to cover the mid range, although I would prefer an all Nvidia path. If Apple just goes with the high-end Nvidia GTX card all the whining little bitches will come out and cry about price, and why can't there be a GT or some shit. Some times I hate being a Mac user. Just thinking about the whining times to come is already annoying.