The sequential growth from 634,000 to 817,000 in desktop sales guarrantees Apple will not consider an xMac. Any one hoping for a mid to upper end flexible desktop with any expansion ability is dreaming, it's dead.
The sequential growth from 634,000 to 817,000 in desktop sales guarrantees Apple will not consider an xMac. Any one hoping for a mid to upper end flexible desktop with any expansion ability is dreaming, it's dead.
The sequential growth from 634,000 to 817,000 in desktop sales guarrantees Apple will not consider an xMac. Any one hoping for a mid to upper end flexible desktop with any expansion ability is dreaming, it's dead.
I hate to rejoin this discussion but...
I think as Mac sales gain momentum the likelihood of and xMac increases. Apple will need to address more market segments in order to increase sales. As well they will be purchasing components in greater volumes allowing for discounts. It gets easier IMO.
I also am beginning to wonder if the iPhone won't dent laptop sales. I'm a big advocate of laptop machines but the iPhone has give me reason to reconsider my strategy. In the past I've felt that a laptop with an external monitor and keyboard and mouse is the 'optimal' configuration. It is costly however.
2.2 ghz MBP, 2gbs Ram and 120 gb HDD $1999.
Apple Care $349
Monitor 20" $250 (approximately)
Keyboard, (Apple wired keyboard) $49
Mouse $29
RAZR free
vs.
iMac 20" 2.4 ghz, 2gbs Ram, 320gb HDD $1649
Apple Care $169
iPhone $399
Apple Care $69
So that's $2676 for the MBP setup and $2286 for the iMac and iPhone setup. To me both sets are different but comparable. The iMac setup is cheaper though. When it comes upgrading my Mac this may be the setup scenario I choose. I wonder if others see it similarly.
Apple has a LONG way to go before they are beating Dell and HP in laptop sales.
In growth and profits Apple is beating Dell and HP's pants off.
Quote:
Who says Apple has to play them? I don't see other PC manufacturers as opposition. I see them as a gauge as to where the market has potential growth for Apple. There are obviously an enormous amount of Mac and PC users that want a regular Mac desktop. It's foolish to ignore the growth potential.
They are competitors because the majority of desktop sales are not business to consumer they are business to business. Dell and HP's advantage is selling large volumes of cheap PC boxes. Apple has little chance of prying those cheap crap PC boxes from most business that would buy them in large volume. If Apple cannot sell to high volume business then its desktop sales will not see the growth that its notebook line enjoys.
In growth and profits Apple is beating Dell and HP's pants off.
Yes but we're talking market share / unit sales per quarter.
Quote:
They are competitors because the majority of desktop sales are not business to consumer they are business to business. Dell and HP's advantage is selling large volumes of cheap PC boxes. Apple has little chance of prying those cheap crap PC boxes from most business that would buy them in large volume. If Apple cannot sell to high volume business then its desktop sales will not see the growth that its notebook line enjoys.
True... so does apple just leave the business market alone forever? I think that's not very bright.
Yes but we're talking market share / unit sales per quarter.
Lets break it down this way. If we only looked at Dell and HP notebooks priced over $1099 in comparison to Apple. Who would have the better marketshare and unit sales quarter?
Quote:
so does apple just leave the business market alone forever? I think that's not very bright.
At this point for Apple to have any chance in business they would have to sell $400 Windows boxes. What do you suggest they do to get around this?
My point is instead of competing in a market that is all but conquered. Apple is competing in markets that play to their strength and conquering those markets.
Could it be that that's Apple's intention? Nooooooo. Couldn't be! Not Apple.
The thing is, I don't know if it's *just* shameless profiteering (though there seems to be some of that in there) or just using the wrong chips in the Mac Pro. They are using two dual core Xeons in the lower end. Take for example the 2.66 model. It uses two Xeon 5150s, which each cost $690 = $1380.
Now a quad core 2.66 Xeon (X5355) costs $744.
A dual 5130 = 2 x $316 = $632 = 2GHz Mac Pro
But a quad E5335 2.0 costs $316
so the Mac Pro could straight away drop by at least $300 in the 2GHz and $500 in the 2.66. The quad E5335 isn't far off the price of the Core 2 Quad assuming a 2GHz Xeon matches a 2.4GHz Core 2 CPU.
I couldn't find a 2.5GHz Xeon for $316 as in BenRoethig's lineup, the only quad Xeon for $316 was the 2.0GHz E5335 judging by Intel's September prices.
One of the big issues is still this phoney tax Apple keep adding onto non-US sales.
In the US, the lowest Mac Pro is $2200, which translated to the UK including tax should be £1260 but Apple have it as £1509.
If you use the single quad, that should come to £1089. If Apple included 2GB Ram and had a price point of maybe £1099 then being able to get a Core 2 Quad PC with a weak GPU for £660 vs getting a quad Xeon Mac with a 7300GT for £1099 wouldn't really be so bad.
The thing is, I don't know if it's *just* shameless profiteering (though there seems to be some of that in there) or just using the wrong chips in the Mac Pro. They are using two dual core Xeons in the lower end. Take for example the 2.66 model. It uses two Xeon 5150s, which each cost $690 = $1380.
Now a quad core 2.66 Xeon (X5355) costs $744.
A dual 5130 = 2 x $316 = $632 = 2GHz Mac Pro
But a quad E5335 2.0 costs $316
so the Mac Pro could straight away drop by at least $300 in the 2GHz and $500 in the 2.66. The quad E5335 isn't far off the price of the Core 2 Quad assuming a 2GHz Xeon matches a 2.4GHz Core 2 CPU.
I couldn't find a 2.5GHz Xeon for $316 as in BenRoethig's lineup, the only quad Xeon for $316 was the 2.0GHz E5335 judging by Intel's September prices.
One of the big issues is still this phoney tax Apple keep adding onto non-US sales.
In the US, the lowest Mac Pro is $2200, which translated to the UK including tax should be £1260 but Apple have it as £1509.
If you use the single quad, that should come to £1089. If Apple included 2GB Ram and had a price point of maybe £1099 then being able to get a Core 2 Quad PC with a weak GPU for £660 vs getting a quad Xeon Mac with a 7300GT for £1099 wouldn't really be so bad.
First, I don't like bragging, but it is my lineup not Ben's.
Second, I choose to use the upcoming penryn Xeons (Harpertown) because they will be available very soon (mid-november) and they are faster and/or cheaper than any current versions (5100 or 5300 series). Pricing info
Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP - 1600 MHz FSB
Model Frequency\tTDP Cache Price
X5482 3.2 GHz 120W 12MB $???? ($1,172 or more)
E5472 3.0 GHz 80W 12MB $958
E5462 2.8 GHz 80W 12MB $797
Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP - 1333 MHz FSB
Model Frequency\tTDP Cache Price
X5460 3.16 GHz 120W 12MB $1,172
E5450 3.00 GHz 80W 12MB $851\t
E5440 2.83 GHz 80W 12MB $690\t
E5430 2.66 GHz 80W 12MB $455\t
E5420 2.50 GHz 80W 12MB $316\t
E5410 2.33 GHz 80W 12MB $256\t
E5405 2.00 GHz 80W 12MB $209
The fact that :
- the Seaburg chipset will also be released soon and that
- Apple is rumored to have bought most of the high-end models of the upcoming Harpertown cpus
made the lineup I suggested more pertinent than using current Xeon chips/chipsets.
Still I agree that using desktop chip/chipsets would make the cost lower, but this is Apple and they may keep their line-up as it is today: Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro.
What has been suggested was to expand the Mac Pro line-up towards single CPU workstations instead of releasing a brand new headless desktop. Using the same chips/chipsets/enclosure/RAM/etc... would allow for a certain economy of scale for Mac Pro computers (more chip/chipsets bought by Apple, better prices from Intel).
Like I wrote earlier, Sun has single quad-core workstations starting at $1400, so a similar model from Apple at $1499 wouldn't be so bad.
I feel for you about the currently exchange chaos, even at a lesser degree, we also have the same problem just north of the US, in Canada, while the USD has been lower than CND for some time, we still have to pay a premium.
......................... we also have the same problem just north of the US, in Canada, while the USD has been lower than CND for some time, we still have to pay a premium.
First, I don't like bragging, but it is my lineup not Ben's.
Ah, ok sorry about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
Second, I choose to use the upcoming penryn Xeons (Harpertown) because they will be available very soon (mid-november) and they are faster and/or cheaper than any current versions (5100 or 5300 series). Pricing info
Thanks for posting the new prices. Very interesting indeed.
Now typically, Apple like to maintain certain price brackets so with those prices, that makes me wonder if instead of bringing the Mac Pro down in price, they will just make it 8 cores across the board.
I wouldn't like that at all - the iMac would surely have to go quad core but it's already been updated. The gap between the iMac and Mac Pro would be huge if the iMac stayed dual core.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
Like I wrote earlier, Sun has single quad-core workstations starting at $1400, so a similar model from Apple at $1499 wouldn't be so bad.
Definitely, one big question though would be when could they introduce it? I read Penryn has a November 11th release date so hopefully new Mac Pros before Christmas.
At this point for Apple to have any chance in business they would have to sell $400 Windows boxes. What do you suggest they do to get around this?
How about by making the Mini just slightly larger to make it competitive and new 17" and 20" displays that aren't twice as expensive as the competition or how about a new 19" eMac. Apple had a good concept with the mini, they just went overboard. Most of the office/education computer I see these days are low profile Dell Optiplexes.
First, I don't like bragging, but it is my lineup not Ben's.
Second, I choose to use the upcoming penryn Xeons (Harpertown) because they will be available very soon (mid-november) and they are faster and/or cheaper than any current versions (5100 or 5300 series). Pricing info
Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP - 1600 MHz FSB
Model Frequency\tTDP Cache Price
X5482 3.2 GHz 120W 12MB $???? ($1,172 or more)
E5472 3.0 GHz 80W 12MB $958
E5462 2.8 GHz 80W 12MB $797
Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP - 1333 MHz FSB
Model Frequency\tTDP Cache Price
X5460 3.16 GHz 120W 12MB $1,172
E5450 3.00 GHz 80W 12MB $851\t
E5440 2.83 GHz 80W 12MB $690\t
E5430 2.66 GHz 80W 12MB $455\t
E5420 2.50 GHz 80W 12MB $316\t
E5410 2.33 GHz 80W 12MB $256\t
E5405 2.00 GHz 80W 12MB $209
The fact that :
- the Seaburg chipset will also be released soon and that
- Apple is rumored to have bought most of the high-end models of the upcoming Harpertown cpus
made the lineup I suggested more pertinent than using current Xeon chips/chipsets.
Still I agree that using desktop chip/chipsets would make the cost lower, but this is Apple and they may keep their line-up as it is today: Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro.
What has been suggested was to expand the Mac Pro line-up towards single CPU workstations instead of releasing a brand new headless desktop. Using the same chips/chipsets/enclosure/RAM/etc... would allow for a certain economy of scale for Mac Pro computers (more chip/chipsets bought by Apple, better prices from Intel).
Like I wrote earlier, Sun has single quad-core workstations starting at $1400, so a similar model from Apple at $1499 wouldn't be so bad.
I feel for you about the currently exchange chaos, even at a lesser degree, we also have the same problem just north of the US, in Canada, while the USD has been lower than CND for some time, we still have to pay a premium.
That Sun is exactly the kind machine I've been looking for. Core 2 Duo/Quad with x38 chipset. It would be a very nice addition to the xeon 5400/Seaburg 8-core Mac Pros.
How about by making the Mini just slightly larger to make it competitive and new 17" and 20" displays that aren't twice as expensive as the competition or how about a new 19" eMac. Apple had a good concept with the mini, they just went overboard. Most of the office/education computer I see these days are low profile Dell Optiplexes.
I don't mind any of the newer Dell models (Inspirons, Dimensions, Latitudes, etc), but after working in my university's IT department for the past few months, I totally hate Optiplexes, even the standard mid-tower size, because those use non-standard monitor connections.
The low-profile Optiplexes seems to have issues with overheating and blown capacitors. The only nice thing, is that Dell Premier service is top notch.
Gateways are usually fine too, I like their Tablet PC's, and Vista has improved functionally it that regard.
And as an aside, I also help support the Macs on campus, and the prices that Apple charges for hard drive and RAM upgrades is just murder - they wanted $1000 for 4 GB to put in a MBP, whereas we got the same amount for about $300 from Crucial.
Apple could claim that their boxes have a longer shelf life than the typical Windows machine, but they could still offer a lot better EDU discounts then they do right now...I was amazed that we actually got Leopard discs for $69.
I've seen quite a few Mini's and iMacs around (in labs), with a lot of students using MB's around campus, the occational MBP, and only a couple of Mac Pro's.
How about by making the Mini just slightly larger to make it competitive and new 17" and 20" displays that aren't twice as expensive as the competition or how about a new 19" eMac. Apple had a good concept with the mini, they just went overboard. Most of the office/education computer I see these days are low profile Dell Optiplexes.
The poll, and rest of the internet, reflects that more people are interested in a larger than iMac but smaller than Mac Pro, not slightly larger than mini.
The poll, and rest of the internet, reflects that more people are interested in a larger than iMac but smaller than Mac Pro, not slightly larger than mini.
If internet polls were actually valid, 47% of users would be using Mac OS X. Most sales are either entry level or business machines.
First, I don't like bragging, but it is my lineup not Ben's.
Well if you're going to brag, I've been preaching single Xeon Mac Pros for a while now. The relative difference between the Harpertowns vs Wolfdale will remain about the same as Woodcrest vs Conroe.
What's different? Oh, the fact that the Penryns are now on the horizon rather than a year in the distance...
Quote:
Still I agree that using desktop chip/chipsets would make the cost lower, but this is Apple and they may keep their line-up as it is today: Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro.
Well glad you got on board and I can stop being the only one getting beat on for suggesting such xMac heresy.
That everyone now agrees that single CPU Harpertown Mac Pro's as acceptable is funny as hell though.
Well if you're going to brag, I've been preaching single Xeon Mac Pros for a while now. The relative difference between the Harpertowns vs Wolfdale will remain about the same as Woodcrest vs Conroe.
What's different? Oh, the fact that the Penryns are now on the horizon rather than a year in the distance...
Uh, no. Woodcrest/cloverton were significantly more expensive. What you expected is users to happily accept a machine (I'm talking about this proposed model, not the Mac Pro line befoere you try to start that B.S. argument again.) that is 400mhz slower and has half as many cores as its conroe counterpart for the same money. You're nore going to find too many takers when the machine is not only non-competitive with others machines but lines up pretty well on specs with Apple's own low end 20" iMac. The next generation of the penryn family and the seaburg family narrow that gap considerable to a point where they are more expensive than the desktop versions, but not by much.
Quote:
That everyone now agrees that single CPU Harpertown Mac Pro's as acceptable is funny as hell though.
When the difference in component prices drops from over a grand to about $250 it makes a large difference of those of us who have five digit incomes and therefore a finite amount of money.
Comments
The sequential growth from 634,000 to 817,000 in desktop sales guarrantees Apple will not consider an xMac. Any one hoping for a mid to upper end flexible desktop with any expansion ability is dreaming, it's dead.
Within one year. Marked.
Within one year. Marked.
Onlooker = glass half full
rickag = glass half empty and leaking
The sequential growth from 634,000 to 817,000 in desktop sales guarrantees Apple will not consider an xMac. Any one hoping for a mid to upper end flexible desktop with any expansion ability is dreaming, it's dead.
I hate to rejoin this discussion but...
I think as Mac sales gain momentum the likelihood of and xMac increases. Apple will need to address more market segments in order to increase sales. As well they will be purchasing components in greater volumes allowing for discounts. It gets easier IMO.
I also am beginning to wonder if the iPhone won't dent laptop sales. I'm a big advocate of laptop machines but the iPhone has give me reason to reconsider my strategy. In the past I've felt that a laptop with an external monitor and keyboard and mouse is the 'optimal' configuration. It is costly however.
2.2 ghz MBP, 2gbs Ram and 120 gb HDD $1999.
Apple Care $349
Monitor 20" $250 (approximately)
Keyboard, (Apple wired keyboard) $49
Mouse $29
RAZR free
vs.
iMac 20" 2.4 ghz, 2gbs Ram, 320gb HDD $1649
Apple Care $169
iPhone $399
Apple Care $69
So that's $2676 for the MBP setup and $2286 for the iMac and iPhone setup. To me both sets are different but comparable. The iMac setup is cheaper though. When it comes upgrading my Mac this may be the setup scenario I choose. I wonder if others see it similarly.
backtomac = glass half full
rickag = glass half empty and slightly leaking
backtomac, sounds logical, but well, this argument has been logical for some time in my mind.
Apple has a LONG way to go before they are beating Dell and HP in laptop sales.
In growth and profits Apple is beating Dell and HP's pants off.
Who says Apple has to play them? I don't see other PC manufacturers as opposition. I see them as a gauge as to where the market has potential growth for Apple. There are obviously an enormous amount of Mac and PC users that want a regular Mac desktop. It's foolish to ignore the growth potential.
They are competitors because the majority of desktop sales are not business to consumer they are business to business. Dell and HP's advantage is selling large volumes of cheap PC boxes. Apple has little chance of prying those cheap crap PC boxes from most business that would buy them in large volume. If Apple cannot sell to high volume business then its desktop sales will not see the growth that its notebook line enjoys.
In growth and profits Apple is beating Dell and HP's pants off.
Yes but we're talking market share / unit sales per quarter.
They are competitors because the majority of desktop sales are not business to consumer they are business to business. Dell and HP's advantage is selling large volumes of cheap PC boxes. Apple has little chance of prying those cheap crap PC boxes from most business that would buy them in large volume. If Apple cannot sell to high volume business then its desktop sales will not see the growth that its notebook line enjoys.
True... so does apple just leave the business market alone forever? I think that's not very bright.
... so does apple just leave the business market alone forever? I think that's not very bright.
Agreed.
Yes but we're talking market share / unit sales per quarter.
Lets break it down this way. If we only looked at Dell and HP notebooks priced over $1099 in comparison to Apple. Who would have the better marketshare and unit sales quarter?
so does apple just leave the business market alone forever? I think that's not very bright.
At this point for Apple to have any chance in business they would have to sell $400 Windows boxes. What do you suggest they do to get around this?
My point is instead of competing in a market that is all but conquered. Apple is competing in markets that play to their strength and conquering those markets.
Could it be that that's Apple's intention? Nooooooo. Couldn't be! Not Apple.
The thing is, I don't know if it's *just* shameless profiteering (though there seems to be some of that in there) or just using the wrong chips in the Mac Pro. They are using two dual core Xeons in the lower end. Take for example the 2.66 model. It uses two Xeon 5150s, which each cost $690 = $1380.
Now a quad core 2.66 Xeon (X5355) costs $744.
A dual 5130 = 2 x $316 = $632 = 2GHz Mac Pro
But a quad E5335 2.0 costs $316
so the Mac Pro could straight away drop by at least $300 in the 2GHz and $500 in the 2.66. The quad E5335 isn't far off the price of the Core 2 Quad assuming a 2GHz Xeon matches a 2.4GHz Core 2 CPU.
I couldn't find a 2.5GHz Xeon for $316 as in BenRoethig's lineup, the only quad Xeon for $316 was the 2.0GHz E5335 judging by Intel's September prices.
One of the big issues is still this phoney tax Apple keep adding onto non-US sales.
In the US, the lowest Mac Pro is $2200, which translated to the UK including tax should be £1260 but Apple have it as £1509.
If you use the single quad, that should come to £1089. If Apple included 2GB Ram and had a price point of maybe £1099 then being able to get a Core 2 Quad PC with a weak GPU for £660 vs getting a quad Xeon Mac with a 7300GT for £1099 wouldn't really be so bad.
The thing is, I don't know if it's *just* shameless profiteering (though there seems to be some of that in there) or just using the wrong chips in the Mac Pro. They are using two dual core Xeons in the lower end. Take for example the 2.66 model. It uses two Xeon 5150s, which each cost $690 = $1380.
Now a quad core 2.66 Xeon (X5355) costs $744.
A dual 5130 = 2 x $316 = $632 = 2GHz Mac Pro
But a quad E5335 2.0 costs $316
so the Mac Pro could straight away drop by at least $300 in the 2GHz and $500 in the 2.66. The quad E5335 isn't far off the price of the Core 2 Quad assuming a 2GHz Xeon matches a 2.4GHz Core 2 CPU.
I couldn't find a 2.5GHz Xeon for $316 as in BenRoethig's lineup, the only quad Xeon for $316 was the 2.0GHz E5335 judging by Intel's September prices.
One of the big issues is still this phoney tax Apple keep adding onto non-US sales.
In the US, the lowest Mac Pro is $2200, which translated to the UK including tax should be £1260 but Apple have it as £1509.
If you use the single quad, that should come to £1089. If Apple included 2GB Ram and had a price point of maybe £1099 then being able to get a Core 2 Quad PC with a weak GPU for £660 vs getting a quad Xeon Mac with a 7300GT for £1099 wouldn't really be so bad.
First, I don't like bragging, but it is my lineup not Ben's.
Second, I choose to use the upcoming penryn Xeons (Harpertown) because they will be available very soon (mid-november) and they are faster and/or cheaper than any current versions (5100 or 5300 series). Pricing info
Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP - 1600 MHz FSB
Model Frequency\tTDP Cache Price
X5482 3.2 GHz 120W 12MB $???? ($1,172 or more)
E5472 3.0 GHz 80W 12MB $958
E5462 2.8 GHz 80W 12MB $797
Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP - 1333 MHz FSB
Model Frequency\tTDP Cache Price
X5460 3.16 GHz 120W 12MB $1,172
E5450 3.00 GHz 80W 12MB $851\t
E5440 2.83 GHz 80W 12MB $690\t
E5430 2.66 GHz 80W 12MB $455\t
E5420 2.50 GHz 80W 12MB $316\t
E5410 2.33 GHz 80W 12MB $256\t
E5405 2.00 GHz 80W 12MB $209
The fact that :
- the Seaburg chipset will also be released soon and that
- Apple is rumored to have bought most of the high-end models of the upcoming Harpertown cpus
made the lineup I suggested more pertinent than using current Xeon chips/chipsets.
Still I agree that using desktop chip/chipsets would make the cost lower, but this is Apple and they may keep their line-up as it is today: Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro.
What has been suggested was to expand the Mac Pro line-up towards single CPU workstations instead of releasing a brand new headless desktop. Using the same chips/chipsets/enclosure/RAM/etc... would allow for a certain economy of scale for Mac Pro computers (more chip/chipsets bought by Apple, better prices from Intel).
Like I wrote earlier, Sun has single quad-core workstations starting at $1400, so a similar model from Apple at $1499 wouldn't be so bad.
I feel for you about the currently exchange chaos, even at a lesser degree, we also have the same problem just north of the US, in Canada, while the USD has been lower than CND for some time, we still have to pay a premium.
......................... we also have the same problem just north of the US, in Canada, while the USD has been lower than CND for some time, we still have to pay a premium.
That's what you get for being a Canuck.
First, I don't like bragging, but it is my lineup not Ben's.
Ah, ok sorry about that.
Second, I choose to use the upcoming penryn Xeons (Harpertown) because they will be available very soon (mid-november) and they are faster and/or cheaper than any current versions (5100 or 5300 series). Pricing info
Thanks for posting the new prices. Very interesting indeed.
Now typically, Apple like to maintain certain price brackets so with those prices, that makes me wonder if instead of bringing the Mac Pro down in price, they will just make it 8 cores across the board.
I wouldn't like that at all - the iMac would surely have to go quad core but it's already been updated. The gap between the iMac and Mac Pro would be huge if the iMac stayed dual core.
Like I wrote earlier, Sun has single quad-core workstations starting at $1400, so a similar model from Apple at $1499 wouldn't be so bad.
Definitely, one big question though would be when could they introduce it? I read Penryn has a November 11th release date so hopefully new Mac Pros before Christmas.
At this point for Apple to have any chance in business they would have to sell $400 Windows boxes. What do you suggest they do to get around this?
How about by making the Mini just slightly larger to make it competitive and new 17" and 20" displays that aren't twice as expensive as the competition or how about a new 19" eMac. Apple had a good concept with the mini, they just went overboard. Most of the office/education computer I see these days are low profile Dell Optiplexes.
First, I don't like bragging, but it is my lineup not Ben's.
Second, I choose to use the upcoming penryn Xeons (Harpertown) because they will be available very soon (mid-november) and they are faster and/or cheaper than any current versions (5100 or 5300 series). Pricing info
Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP - 1600 MHz FSB
Model Frequency\tTDP Cache Price
X5482 3.2 GHz 120W 12MB $???? ($1,172 or more)
E5472 3.0 GHz 80W 12MB $958
E5462 2.8 GHz 80W 12MB $797
Penryn Quad-Core Xeon DP - 1333 MHz FSB
Model Frequency\tTDP Cache Price
X5460 3.16 GHz 120W 12MB $1,172
E5450 3.00 GHz 80W 12MB $851\t
E5440 2.83 GHz 80W 12MB $690\t
E5430 2.66 GHz 80W 12MB $455\t
E5420 2.50 GHz 80W 12MB $316\t
E5410 2.33 GHz 80W 12MB $256\t
E5405 2.00 GHz 80W 12MB $209
The fact that :
- the Seaburg chipset will also be released soon and that
- Apple is rumored to have bought most of the high-end models of the upcoming Harpertown cpus
made the lineup I suggested more pertinent than using current Xeon chips/chipsets.
Still I agree that using desktop chip/chipsets would make the cost lower, but this is Apple and they may keep their line-up as it is today: Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro.
What has been suggested was to expand the Mac Pro line-up towards single CPU workstations instead of releasing a brand new headless desktop. Using the same chips/chipsets/enclosure/RAM/etc... would allow for a certain economy of scale for Mac Pro computers (more chip/chipsets bought by Apple, better prices from Intel).
Like I wrote earlier, Sun has single quad-core workstations starting at $1400, so a similar model from Apple at $1499 wouldn't be so bad.
I feel for you about the currently exchange chaos, even at a lesser degree, we also have the same problem just north of the US, in Canada, while the USD has been lower than CND for some time, we still have to pay a premium.
That Sun is exactly the kind machine I've been looking for. Core 2 Duo/Quad with x38 chipset. It would be a very nice addition to the xeon 5400/Seaburg 8-core Mac Pros.
How about by making the Mini just slightly larger to make it competitive and new 17" and 20" displays that aren't twice as expensive as the competition or how about a new 19" eMac. Apple had a good concept with the mini, they just went overboard. Most of the office/education computer I see these days are low profile Dell Optiplexes.
I don't mind any of the newer Dell models (Inspirons, Dimensions, Latitudes, etc), but after working in my university's IT department for the past few months, I totally hate Optiplexes, even the standard mid-tower size, because those use non-standard monitor connections.
The low-profile Optiplexes seems to have issues with overheating and blown capacitors. The only nice thing, is that Dell Premier service is top notch.
Gateways are usually fine too, I like their Tablet PC's, and Vista has improved functionally it that regard.
And as an aside, I also help support the Macs on campus, and the prices that Apple charges for hard drive and RAM upgrades is just murder - they wanted $1000 for 4 GB to put in a MBP, whereas we got the same amount for about $300 from Crucial.
Apple could claim that their boxes have a longer shelf life than the typical Windows machine, but they could still offer a lot better EDU discounts then they do right now...I was amazed that we actually got Leopard discs for $69.
I've seen quite a few Mini's and iMacs around (in labs), with a lot of students using MB's around campus, the occational MBP, and only a couple of Mac Pro's.
How about by making the Mini just slightly larger to make it competitive and new 17" and 20" displays that aren't twice as expensive as the competition or how about a new 19" eMac. Apple had a good concept with the mini, they just went overboard. Most of the office/education computer I see these days are low profile Dell Optiplexes.
The poll, and rest of the internet, reflects that more people are interested in a larger than iMac but smaller than Mac Pro, not slightly larger than mini.
The poll, and rest of the internet, reflects that more people are interested in a larger than iMac but smaller than Mac Pro, not slightly larger than mini.
If internet polls were actually valid, 47% of users would be using Mac OS X. Most sales are either entry level or business machines.
First, I don't like bragging, but it is my lineup not Ben's.
Well if you're going to brag, I've been preaching single Xeon Mac Pros for a while now. The relative difference between the Harpertowns vs Wolfdale will remain about the same as Woodcrest vs Conroe.
What's different? Oh, the fact that the Penryns are now on the horizon rather than a year in the distance...
Still I agree that using desktop chip/chipsets would make the cost lower, but this is Apple and they may keep their line-up as it is today: Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro.
Well glad you got on board and I can stop being the only one getting beat on for suggesting such xMac heresy.
That everyone now agrees that single CPU Harpertown Mac Pro's as acceptable is funny as hell though.
Well if you're going to brag, I've been preaching single Xeon Mac Pros for a while now. The relative difference between the Harpertowns vs Wolfdale will remain about the same as Woodcrest vs Conroe.
What's different? Oh, the fact that the Penryns are now on the horizon rather than a year in the distance...
Uh, no. Woodcrest/cloverton were significantly more expensive. What you expected is users to happily accept a machine (I'm talking about this proposed model, not the Mac Pro line befoere you try to start that B.S. argument again.) that is 400mhz slower and has half as many cores as its conroe counterpart for the same money. You're nore going to find too many takers when the machine is not only non-competitive with others machines but lines up pretty well on specs with Apple's own low end 20" iMac. The next generation of the penryn family and the seaburg family narrow that gap considerable to a point where they are more expensive than the desktop versions, but not by much.
That everyone now agrees that single CPU Harpertown Mac Pro's as acceptable is funny as hell though.
When the difference in component prices drops from over a grand to about $250 it makes a large difference of those of us who have five digit incomes and therefore a finite amount of money.