Well, my PC owning buddy is going from an Athlon to a Nehalem soon (heh, soon lost his Athlon fan-boi ness when he saw what Core 2 and Nehalem i7 can do...).
The spec for an i7 2.66 desktop with, 3 gigs of ram, a 1TB HD and a Radeon 4870, no OS, blue ray etc is around £1300-ish inc VAT.
If that was a Mac Pro? I'd pay it. He's umming and ahh-ring. With Sterling falling against the dollar, that rig he's been waiting for isn't going to get cheaper.
And I suspect he's pining for more ram (+£150), the Radeon 4870 x2 (+£150) and a cooler running case (ironic but +£100) and I guess he'll want his future proof Vista 64bit at (+£50-100 whatever it is...) and the price I came out with at Overclockers for his 'dream rig' is around £1945-ish inc VAT. I told him to buy before X-mas and be happy. Play his Conan Mmorg. Be content. But he's going to have to pay to be fashionable. And that's the desktop version.
On the other hand...he could get a 3 gig quad core PEnryn with loads of ram and an x2 4870 with 2 gigs of on board ram...for about a £1000-ish.
Fashion costs I guess.
Still., that's his choice. Mine will have to be a Mac Pro. Here's hoping for Jan'.09.
I did point out to him that for the money he wants to pay he may as well get a Mac Pro.
I did point out to him that for the money he wants to pay he may as well get a Mac Pro.
But I don't think he can see it.
Unless he's installing it with all free/stolen SW and/or needs some unusual HW configuration, the Mac Pro is competitively priced.
Here is an example from a real tech site doing a comparison, though in all honestly many longtime AnandTech readers do feel he's a bit of an "Apple fanboy" with his growing preference toward using Macs for everyday tasks.
The mac pro is competitively priced in the $2220 + market but not for the $1000 to $1900 one. The video is a little weak there. They should boost the ram to 4gb but FB-dimms cost a lot.
So, they're more or less just jacking up the price on the xeons.
The Xeons are subsidizing their cheaper processors. And since Nehalem Xeons will be the fastest server processors ever made, businesses will pay whatever.
The mac pro is competitively priced in the $2220 + market but not for the $1000 to $1900 one. The video is a little weak there. They should boost the ram to 4gb but FB-dimms cost a lot.
It's not priced competitively in the $1,000 to $1,900 market, because it isn't IN that market. It doesn't compete there, so it can't be compared with what does compete there.
That's like saying that a truck doesn't compete in the sedan market. Well, of course not! It's not a sedan.
The Mac Pro isn't a "home" computer, nor is it a low end enthusiasts computer.
It's a serious workstation, for users who need such a thing, and for those who are simply willing to pay for one.
It competes with comparable machines from other makers.
Look, we all know that Apple has a hole in its line-up. But pretending that the Mac Pro is intended to be all things to all people, but is just priced too high, and so doesn't compete, doesn't help the argument.
Who knows, maybe Apple is signaling something to us when it announced the new 24" monitor. That doesn't seem to fit into their normal line of monitors. I can't believe it's just there for the MB. Very few MB owners buy a 24" monitor as well. And if they did, it wouldn't likely be one for $900!
It's not priced competitively in the $1,000 to $1,900 market, because it isn't IN that market. It doesn't compete there, so it can't be compared with what does compete there.
That's like saying that a truck doesn't compete in the sedan market. Well, of course not! It's not a sedan.
The Mac Pro isn't a "home" computer, nor is it a low end enthusiasts computer.
It's a serious workstation, for users who need such a thing, and for those who are simply willing to pay for one.
It competes with comparable machines from other makers.
Look, we all know that Apple has a hole in its line-up. But pretending that the Mac Pro is intended to be all things to all people, but is just priced too high, and so doesn't compete, doesn't help the argument.
Who knows, maybe Apple is signaling something to us when it announced the new 24" monitor. That doesn't seem to fit into their normal line of monitors. I can't believe it's just there for the MB. Very few MB owners buy a 24" monitor as well. And if they did, it wouldn't likely be one for $900!
That is the problem. Apple plugged the void left by the 9000-series PowerMac with the Mac Pro, but they created another below that in a market they were previously very successful in with the G3,4,and 5 series. The question is what should we do about it. Should we run off loyal Mac users, call them whiners, and expect them to conform to hardware like the iMac which is below their needs or the Mac Pro which is well above both their needs and budget because Apple chose to abandon them? Or should we put the pressure of Apple on offer some them sort of solution?
The Xeons are subsidizing their cheaper processors. And since Nehalem Xeons will be the fastest server processors ever made, businesses will pay whatever.
Based on the initial reports, they're not much faster per megahertz than the Yorkfield/Harpertown line.
That is the problem. Apple plugged the void left by the 9000-series PowerMac with the Mac Pro, but they created another below that in a market they were previously very successful in with the G3,4,and 5 series. The question is what should we do about it. Should we run off loyal Mac users, call them whiners, and expect them to conform to hardware like the iMac which is below their needs or the Mac Pro which is well above both their needs and budget because Apple chose to abandon them? Or should we put the pressure of Apple on offer some them sort of solution?
This has become an old argument. Apple has never had a run of such epic proportions as it's been having the past few years. With people moving to the Mac in record numbers, and Apple's products in general, it's difficult to really say they've made a mistake here. That would have to be proven, and without the so called xMac around to compare sales to, we really have no idea.
Would I have replaced my daughters G4 Powermac with another less expensive tower rather than the 3.06 GHz 24" iMac this year? Maybe.
But, really, what would that have accomplished for Apple? Nothing in my case.
One would still have to prove, an impossible task, that Apple is losing significant sales because of this lack.
And if Apple has good reason to believe that such sales would come at the expense of the lesser Mac Pros, they may have good financial reasons for not having them. The Mac Pro is their most profitable machine after all.
Apple isn't trying to be all things to all people. As long as we understand that, we can stop fighting about what they do and don't sell.
Without any of us here being privy to Apple's internal information, we don't know if such products would be good or bad for them.
I know what I would like to see, but Apple apparently sees it differently.
While I'm not defending their product line, I am saying that they have their reasons, and we don't know what they are, or how it affects them.
As long as sales are better than the PC industry in general, as they've been, by far, we do have to wonder if their judgement isn't correct after all.
It's a lot like the iPod. People were saying that they couldn't do that well because they lacked FM, Ogg Vorbis, easy voice recording, etc.
They were all wrong, because while they were, and still are, very vocal about it, they are also a small number of people.
Based on the initial reports, they're not much faster per megahertz than the Yorkfield/Harpertown line.
Initial reports? Quite a few sites have been benchmarking the production desktop chips for a couple of weeks now. Ars Technica has a good review, as always. The performance improvement is impressive, to me at least. Considering how efficient the Penryn architecture is.
Actually, QPI is thought of as being better than HT.
Thought of? Please. They are solutions to the same problem, from slightly different approaches.
Intel has a vested interest in PCI-Express and QPI dominating the market, regardless whether or not it's best of breed.
Fortunately for HyperTransport 3, Intel is playing catchup and won't even be on-par, but HT 3.1 is about to enter into the picture with HTX3 slot connector that is compatible with PCI-Express.
What get's real tiresome in this industry is that 5 years is nearly 20 years in technology.
We'll be tossing hardware out as archaic in 5 years that we now think is the cat's meow.
We're still not making the amount of work we accomplish anywhere near as vast as these changes in hardware.
We see advanced IPS displays introduced in 1996 and we're still milking them in 2008 and have flooded the market with inferior products to reduce "sale price."
I can't wait to see how they the typical $4k for a decent OLED 22" display or 27" display when they surface.
Thought of? Please. They are solutions to the same problem, from slightly different approaches.
Intel has a vested interest in PCI-Express and QPI dominating the market, regardless whether or not it's best of breed.
Fortunately for HyperTransport 3, Intel is playing catchup and won't even be on-par, but HT 3.1 is about to enter into the picture with HTX3 slot connector that is compatible with PCI-Express.
What get's real tiresome in this industry is that 5 years is nearly 20 years in technology.
We'll be tossing hardware out as archaic in 5 years that we now think is the cat's meow.
We're still not making the amount of work we accomplish anywhere near as vast as these changes in hardware.
We see advanced IPS displays introduced in 1996 and we're still milking them in 2008 and have flooded the market with inferior products to reduce "sale price."
I can't wait to see how they the typical $4k for a decent OLED 22" display or 27" display when they surface.
It get's f'n old.
Yeah, I read those. It doesn't matter though. AMD now has no advantages left over Intel. None at all. The i7's even have better memory bandwidth, and less latency.
AMDs new chips barely equal Intel's fading generation. They aren't close to the i7. Ther are plenty of tests around now that the NDA is up. They all show the same thing. Nothing AMD has can keep up. They are even behind in power efficiency now.
They have a while until Intel replaces it's last Penyrn chips with the new ones.
FWIW, Dell has launched its Studio XPS desktop, with Core i7 920/940 cpus, 3GB RAM starting at $949 @2.66GHz, +$470 for 2.93GHz. Other specs = 500GB HDD, 256MB ATI Radeon HD 3450, "superdrive", Vista home premium SP1 64-bit (whatever that means).
It's true that there is absolutly no sign that Apple will add anything to the current desktop lines, but I wouldn't mind paying $1499 for a Core i7 920 based Mac "Pro" with the hardware specs above.
It's not priced competitively in the $1,000 to $1,900 market, because it isn't IN that market. It doesn't compete there, so it can't be compared with what does compete there.
That's like saying that a truck doesn't compete in the sedan market. Well, of course not! It's not a sedan.
The Mac Pro isn't a "home" computer, nor is it a low end enthusiasts computer.
It's a serious workstation, for users who need such a thing, and for those who are simply willing to pay for one.
It competes with comparable machines from other makers.
Look, we all know that Apple has a hole in its line-up. But pretending that the Mac Pro is intended to be all things to all people, but is just priced too high, and so doesn't compete, doesn't help the argument.
Who knows, maybe Apple is signaling something to us when it announced the new 24" monitor. That doesn't seem to fit into their normal line of monitors. I can't believe it's just there for the MB. Very few MB owners buy a 24" monitor as well. And if they did, it wouldn't likely be one for $900!
Car analogies suck. Your last paragraph is intriguing. A bit of expansion on what kind of 'hint' you think it is? Mind you, I can't put it past Apple to make the 24 incher the 'middle' of it's new all LED line up. £550 quid for a 24 inch monitor is outrageous. I may as well plump the rest down for a 30 incher...and suck it up.
Mac Pro being a workstation is an obvious statement. It is. And it is more than competitively priced against other vendors.
However, I disagree that it doesn't have competition. Every desktop has competition of monies. Do I go for the iMac or the Pro. Or ideally the hole in the middle supplied by the Dell i7 that's recently become available. Said desktop will comfortably beat the iMac to snot and give the Mac Pro a fringe pull.
Is it competition? I think it is. And if Apple offered it in it's line up alongside the 'ageing' Mac Pro I think that competition would elect i7 desktop the winner. Meh. It's an academic argument.
And your iPod comparison holds some water. If Apple sells giant iPod iMac Macs to consumers who are feeling the spa waters of the Mac experience then who says they're wrong, eh?
Just me and the other handful of Mini-tower wannabees.
*Watches sky for Mac Pro update.
Lemon Bon Bon. *(Now wearing a very long beard waiting for his 9-year and waiting Mac of his dreams....)
Hey, I got one. That's like saying a 'Fairy Cake' isn't a Momma Poppa sized Coffee cake.
Sure Fair Cakes aint as good as Coffee cakes. But hey, I'm the only person who thinks in the niche of hundreds of millions of PC desktop tower users so I must be wrong. Ask Apple.
Car analogies suck. Your last paragraph is intriguing. A bit of expansion on what kind of 'hint' you think it is? Mind you, I can't put it past Apple to make the 24 incher the 'middle' of it's new all LED line up. £550 quid for a 24 inch monitor is outrageous. I may as well plump the rest down for a 30 incher...and suck it up.
I normally don't like them either, but sometimes they do work, if they are stated properly. I think this one works.
We can't be making comparisons between LED BL monitors and non LED BL monitors, because of the large price difference.
Apple's "packaging" of the monitor costs too. The aluminum foot, shell, and removable glass front certainly add to the cost. even the more complex stands of some other models don't cost as much to build.
Quote:
Mac Pro being a workstation is an obvious statement. It is. And it is more than competitively priced against other vendors.
Yes it should be, but to some people, you just have to say it. This was for the forum in general, not to you particularly.
Quote:
However, I disagree that it doesn't have competition. Every desktop has competition of monies. Do I go for the iMac or the Pro. Or ideally the hole in the middle supplied by the Dell i7 that's recently become available. Said desktop will comfortably beat the iMac to snot and give the Mac Pro a fringe pull.
I didn't say it doesn't have competition, just that the competition is mostly from other workstations.
Sure, a very few might upgrade from the idea of buying an iMac, and far less likely, from a Mini, but most people won't. In general, it's not competition for either of those.
Is it competition? I think it is. And if Apple offered it in it's line up alongside the 'ageing' Mac Pro I think that competition would elect i7 desktop the winner. Meh. It's an academic argument.
Quote:
And your iPod comparison holds some water. If Apple sells giant iPod iMac Macs to consumers who are feeling the spa waters of the Mac experience then who says they're wrong, eh?
Exactly!
Quote:
Just me and the other handful of Mini-tower wannabees.
Now, you see, you are talking to one of the very first to call for a mini tower version of the Powermac G5! I even gave some plans I drew up to a couple of my friends in Apple's engineering management. Since they know my background, they looked them over, and said it would work, but was not in the plans of Apple to do one.
Quote:
*Watches sky for Mac Pro update.
As you know by now, me too!
I've been wondering if this new monitor may just signal a new line of machines, perhaps the very ones we've been talking about for so long now.
It does seem expensive for a MB buyer. If the Mini gets the interface, it would be expensive for it as well.
It's not expensive for the MBP of course, but that seems to me to be such a limited market for a new monitor, I can't help but wonder.
I suppose it would be good for new Mac Pros, and they, along with other machines, will be available shortly.
New Intel cpu's, but not i7's will be out in early January, which could indicate new iMacs and Mini's about the time of Macworld, second week of January.
It wouldn't be uncommon for Apple to announce new machines for a few weeks after the announcement.
Hey, I got one. That's like saying a 'Fairy Cake' isn't a Momma Poppa sized Coffee cake.
Sure Fair Cakes aint as good as Coffee cakes. But hey, I'm the only person who thinks in the niche of hundreds of millions of PC desktop tower users so I must be wrong. Ask Apple.
Sure, a very few might upgrade from the idea of buying an iMac, and far less likely, from a Mini, but most people won't.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. We don't know how many buy the iMac because they really want an iMac and how many bought one because Apple gave them no other option in their price range. Trust me, I didn't buy the iMac for the elegance and simplicity of an all in one. And if I had an option of another form factor, I would have taken it in a heartbeat. No matter how good you try and make it, an all in one will always have certain weaknesses. Many of the things I did not like about my performa 5200 are still there 13 years later in the iMac.
The advantage of shoehorning your users into where you want them to be is that it makes it very easy to justify your own philosophy. They can't make a decision other than the one you want if you don't give a choice.
Mind you, I can't put it past Apple to make the 24 incher the 'middle' of it's new all LED line up. £550 quid for a 24 inch monitor is outrageous. I may as well plump the rest down for a 30 incher...and suck it up.
It is expensive, but there isn't anything to compare it against yet. Most of the cheap desktop displays have very poor viewing angles. Maybe it's not a selling point for you, but there aren't a whole lot of monitors with a camera & mic in them, many don't have speakers, all those hook up with a single connector on this new display. LEDs seem to allow for a lot more even backlighting. And frankly, I think the looks of the product should come into play. If you don't care, that's fine, but I think all these should at least be acknowledged. There isn't anything that says you have to buy Apple's model either, Macs will work with just about any display out there.
Comments
Yes. All the diagrams I've seen of i7 processors- the single-socket desktop CPU- show a second disabled QPI link. The silicon is the same.
So, they're more or less just jacking up the price on the xeons.
The spec for an i7 2.66 desktop with, 3 gigs of ram, a 1TB HD and a Radeon 4870, no OS, blue ray etc is around £1300-ish inc VAT.
If that was a Mac Pro? I'd pay it. He's umming and ahh-ring. With Sterling falling against the dollar, that rig he's been waiting for isn't going to get cheaper.
And I suspect he's pining for more ram (+£150), the Radeon 4870 x2 (+£150) and a cooler running case (ironic but +£100) and I guess he'll want his future proof Vista 64bit at (+£50-100 whatever it is...) and the price I came out with at Overclockers for his 'dream rig' is around £1945-ish inc VAT. I told him to buy before X-mas and be happy. Play his Conan Mmorg. Be content. But he's going to have to pay to be fashionable. And that's the desktop version.
On the other hand...he could get a 3 gig quad core PEnryn with loads of ram and an x2 4870 with 2 gigs of on board ram...for about a £1000-ish.
Fashion costs I guess.
Still., that's his choice. Mine will have to be a Mac Pro. Here's hoping for Jan'.09.
I did point out to him that for the money he wants to pay he may as well get a Mac Pro.
But I don't think he can see it.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I did point out to him that for the money he wants to pay he may as well get a Mac Pro.
But I don't think he can see it.
Unless he's installing it with all free/stolen SW and/or needs some unusual HW configuration, the Mac Pro is competitively priced.
Here is an example from a real tech site doing a comparison, though in all honestly many longtime AnandTech readers do feel he's a bit of an "Apple fanboy" with his growing preference toward using Macs for everyday tasks.
So, they're more or less just jacking up the price on the xeons.
The Xeons are subsidizing their cheaper processors. And since Nehalem Xeons will be the fastest server processors ever made, businesses will pay whatever.
The mac pro is competitively priced in the $2220 + market but not for the $1000 to $1900 one. The video is a little weak there. They should boost the ram to 4gb but FB-dimms cost a lot.
It's not priced competitively in the $1,000 to $1,900 market, because it isn't IN that market. It doesn't compete there, so it can't be compared with what does compete there.
That's like saying that a truck doesn't compete in the sedan market. Well, of course not! It's not a sedan.
The Mac Pro isn't a "home" computer, nor is it a low end enthusiasts computer.
It's a serious workstation, for users who need such a thing, and for those who are simply willing to pay for one.
It competes with comparable machines from other makers.
Look, we all know that Apple has a hole in its line-up. But pretending that the Mac Pro is intended to be all things to all people, but is just priced too high, and so doesn't compete, doesn't help the argument.
Who knows, maybe Apple is signaling something to us when it announced the new 24" monitor. That doesn't seem to fit into their normal line of monitors. I can't believe it's just there for the MB. Very few MB owners buy a 24" monitor as well. And if they did, it wouldn't likely be one for $900!
It's not priced competitively in the $1,000 to $1,900 market, because it isn't IN that market. It doesn't compete there, so it can't be compared with what does compete there.
That's like saying that a truck doesn't compete in the sedan market. Well, of course not! It's not a sedan.
The Mac Pro isn't a "home" computer, nor is it a low end enthusiasts computer.
It's a serious workstation, for users who need such a thing, and for those who are simply willing to pay for one.
It competes with comparable machines from other makers.
Look, we all know that Apple has a hole in its line-up. But pretending that the Mac Pro is intended to be all things to all people, but is just priced too high, and so doesn't compete, doesn't help the argument.
Who knows, maybe Apple is signaling something to us when it announced the new 24" monitor. That doesn't seem to fit into their normal line of monitors. I can't believe it's just there for the MB. Very few MB owners buy a 24" monitor as well. And if they did, it wouldn't likely be one for $900!
That is the problem. Apple plugged the void left by the 9000-series PowerMac with the Mac Pro, but they created another below that in a market they were previously very successful in with the G3,4,and 5 series. The question is what should we do about it. Should we run off loyal Mac users, call them whiners, and expect them to conform to hardware like the iMac which is below their needs or the Mac Pro which is well above both their needs and budget because Apple chose to abandon them? Or should we put the pressure of Apple on offer some them sort of solution?
The Xeons are subsidizing their cheaper processors. And since Nehalem Xeons will be the fastest server processors ever made, businesses will pay whatever.
Based on the initial reports, they're not much faster per megahertz than the Yorkfield/Harpertown line.
That is the problem. Apple plugged the void left by the 9000-series PowerMac with the Mac Pro, but they created another below that in a market they were previously very successful in with the G3,4,and 5 series. The question is what should we do about it. Should we run off loyal Mac users, call them whiners, and expect them to conform to hardware like the iMac which is below their needs or the Mac Pro which is well above both their needs and budget because Apple chose to abandon them? Or should we put the pressure of Apple on offer some them sort of solution?
This has become an old argument. Apple has never had a run of such epic proportions as it's been having the past few years. With people moving to the Mac in record numbers, and Apple's products in general, it's difficult to really say they've made a mistake here. That would have to be proven, and without the so called xMac around to compare sales to, we really have no idea.
Would I have replaced my daughters G4 Powermac with another less expensive tower rather than the 3.06 GHz 24" iMac this year? Maybe.
But, really, what would that have accomplished for Apple? Nothing in my case.
One would still have to prove, an impossible task, that Apple is losing significant sales because of this lack.
And if Apple has good reason to believe that such sales would come at the expense of the lesser Mac Pros, they may have good financial reasons for not having them. The Mac Pro is their most profitable machine after all.
Apple isn't trying to be all things to all people. As long as we understand that, we can stop fighting about what they do and don't sell.
Without any of us here being privy to Apple's internal information, we don't know if such products would be good or bad for them.
I know what I would like to see, but Apple apparently sees it differently.
While I'm not defending their product line, I am saying that they have their reasons, and we don't know what they are, or how it affects them.
As long as sales are better than the PC industry in general, as they've been, by far, we do have to wonder if their judgement isn't correct after all.
It's a lot like the iPod. People were saying that they couldn't do that well because they lacked FM, Ogg Vorbis, easy voice recording, etc.
They were all wrong, because while they were, and still are, very vocal about it, they are also a small number of people.
The same thing may be true here as well.
Based on the initial reports, they're not much faster per megahertz than the Yorkfield/Harpertown line.
About 25%, on average.
Based on the initial reports, they're not much faster per megahertz than the Yorkfield/Harpertown line.
Initial reports? Quite a few sites have been benchmarking the production desktop chips for a couple of weeks now. Ars Technica has a good review, as always. The performance improvement is impressive, to me at least. Considering how efficient the Penryn architecture is.
Actually, QPI is thought of as being better than HT.
Thought of? Please. They are solutions to the same problem, from slightly different approaches.
Intel has a vested interest in PCI-Express and QPI dominating the market, regardless whether or not it's best of breed.
Fortunately for HyperTransport 3, Intel is playing catchup and won't even be on-par, but HT 3.1 is about to enter into the picture with HTX3 slot connector that is compatible with PCI-Express.
http://www.hypertransport.org/defaul...Specifications
HTX3:
http://www.hypertransport.org/defaul...Specifications
Having Hypertransport around gives Apple future options, not to mention keeps AMD and it's upcoming CPU options extremely competitive with Intel.
This White Paper (PDF) explains how come HTX is important:
http://www.hypertransport.org/docs/u...hite_Paper.pdf
This is what they've improved on for HTX3:
http://www.hypertransport.org/docs/u...ifications.pdf
What get's real tiresome in this industry is that 5 years is nearly 20 years in technology.
We'll be tossing hardware out as archaic in 5 years that we now think is the cat's meow.
We're still not making the amount of work we accomplish anywhere near as vast as these changes in hardware.
We see advanced IPS displays introduced in 1996 and we're still milking them in 2008 and have flooded the market with inferior products to reduce "sale price."
I can't wait to see how they the typical $4k for a decent OLED 22" display or 27" display when they surface.
It get's f'n old.
Thought of? Please. They are solutions to the same problem, from slightly different approaches.
Intel has a vested interest in PCI-Express and QPI dominating the market, regardless whether or not it's best of breed.
Fortunately for HyperTransport 3, Intel is playing catchup and won't even be on-par, but HT 3.1 is about to enter into the picture with HTX3 slot connector that is compatible with PCI-Express.
http://www.hypertransport.org/defaul...Specifications
HTX3:
http://www.hypertransport.org/defaul...Specifications
Having Hypertransport around gives Apple future options, not to mention keeps AMD and it's upcoming CPU options extremely competitive with Intel.
This White Paper (PDF) explains how come HTX is important:
http://www.hypertransport.org/docs/u...hite_Paper.pdf
This is what they've improved on for HTX3:
http://www.hypertransport.org/docs/u...ifications.pdf
What get's real tiresome in this industry is that 5 years is nearly 20 years in technology.
We'll be tossing hardware out as archaic in 5 years that we now think is the cat's meow.
We're still not making the amount of work we accomplish anywhere near as vast as these changes in hardware.
We see advanced IPS displays introduced in 1996 and we're still milking them in 2008 and have flooded the market with inferior products to reduce "sale price."
I can't wait to see how they the typical $4k for a decent OLED 22" display or 27" display when they surface.
It get's f'n old.
Yeah, I read those. It doesn't matter though. AMD now has no advantages left over Intel. None at all. The i7's even have better memory bandwidth, and less latency.
AMDs new chips barely equal Intel's fading generation. They aren't close to the i7. Ther are plenty of tests around now that the NDA is up. They all show the same thing. Nothing AMD has can keep up. They are even behind in power efficiency now.
They have a while until Intel replaces it's last Penyrn chips with the new ones.
It's true that there is absolutly no sign that Apple will add anything to the current desktop lines, but I wouldn't mind paying $1499 for a Core i7 920 based Mac "Pro" with the hardware specs above.
It's not priced competitively in the $1,000 to $1,900 market, because it isn't IN that market. It doesn't compete there, so it can't be compared with what does compete there.
That's like saying that a truck doesn't compete in the sedan market. Well, of course not! It's not a sedan.
The Mac Pro isn't a "home" computer, nor is it a low end enthusiasts computer.
It's a serious workstation, for users who need such a thing, and for those who are simply willing to pay for one.
It competes with comparable machines from other makers.
Look, we all know that Apple has a hole in its line-up. But pretending that the Mac Pro is intended to be all things to all people, but is just priced too high, and so doesn't compete, doesn't help the argument.
Who knows, maybe Apple is signaling something to us when it announced the new 24" monitor. That doesn't seem to fit into their normal line of monitors. I can't believe it's just there for the MB. Very few MB owners buy a 24" monitor as well. And if they did, it wouldn't likely be one for $900!
Car analogies suck. Your last paragraph is intriguing. A bit of expansion on what kind of 'hint' you think it is? Mind you, I can't put it past Apple to make the 24 incher the 'middle' of it's new all LED line up. £550 quid for a 24 inch monitor is outrageous. I may as well plump the rest down for a 30 incher...and suck it up.
Mac Pro being a workstation is an obvious statement. It is. And it is more than competitively priced against other vendors.
However, I disagree that it doesn't have competition. Every desktop has competition of monies. Do I go for the iMac or the Pro. Or ideally the hole in the middle supplied by the Dell i7 that's recently become available. Said desktop will comfortably beat the iMac to snot and give the Mac Pro a fringe pull.
Is it competition? I think it is. And if Apple offered it in it's line up alongside the 'ageing' Mac Pro I think that competition would elect i7 desktop the winner. Meh. It's an academic argument.
And your iPod comparison holds some water. If Apple sells giant iPod iMac Macs to consumers who are feeling the spa waters of the Mac experience then who says they're wrong, eh?
Just me and the other handful of Mini-tower wannabees.
*Watches sky for Mac Pro update.
Lemon Bon Bon. *(Now wearing a very long beard waiting for his 9-year and waiting Mac of his dreams....)
Sure Fair Cakes aint as good as Coffee cakes. But hey, I'm the only person who thinks in the niche of hundreds of millions of PC desktop tower users so I must be wrong. Ask Apple.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Hey. It's tastier than his car story.
Car analogies suck. Your last paragraph is intriguing. A bit of expansion on what kind of 'hint' you think it is? Mind you, I can't put it past Apple to make the 24 incher the 'middle' of it's new all LED line up. £550 quid for a 24 inch monitor is outrageous. I may as well plump the rest down for a 30 incher...and suck it up.
I normally don't like them either, but sometimes they do work, if they are stated properly. I think this one works.
We can't be making comparisons between LED BL monitors and non LED BL monitors, because of the large price difference.
Apple's "packaging" of the monitor costs too. The aluminum foot, shell, and removable glass front certainly add to the cost. even the more complex stands of some other models don't cost as much to build.
Mac Pro being a workstation is an obvious statement. It is. And it is more than competitively priced against other vendors.
Yes it should be, but to some people, you just have to say it. This was for the forum in general, not to you particularly.
However, I disagree that it doesn't have competition. Every desktop has competition of monies. Do I go for the iMac or the Pro. Or ideally the hole in the middle supplied by the Dell i7 that's recently become available. Said desktop will comfortably beat the iMac to snot and give the Mac Pro a fringe pull.
I didn't say it doesn't have competition, just that the competition is mostly from other workstations.
Sure, a very few might upgrade from the idea of buying an iMac, and far less likely, from a Mini, but most people won't. In general, it's not competition for either of those.
Is it competition? I think it is. And if Apple offered it in it's line up alongside the 'ageing' Mac Pro I think that competition would elect i7 desktop the winner. Meh. It's an academic argument.
And your iPod comparison holds some water. If Apple sells giant iPod iMac Macs to consumers who are feeling the spa waters of the Mac experience then who says they're wrong, eh?
Exactly!
Just me and the other handful of Mini-tower wannabees.
Now, you see, you are talking to one of the very first to call for a mini tower version of the Powermac G5! I even gave some plans I drew up to a couple of my friends in Apple's engineering management. Since they know my background, they looked them over, and said it would work, but was not in the plans of Apple to do one.
*Watches sky for Mac Pro update.
As you know by now, me too!
I've been wondering if this new monitor may just signal a new line of machines, perhaps the very ones we've been talking about for so long now.
It does seem expensive for a MB buyer. If the Mini gets the interface, it would be expensive for it as well.
It's not expensive for the MBP of course, but that seems to me to be such a limited market for a new monitor, I can't help but wonder.
I suppose it would be good for new Mac Pros, and they, along with other machines, will be available shortly.
New Intel cpu's, but not i7's will be out in early January, which could indicate new iMacs and Mini's about the time of Macworld, second week of January.
It wouldn't be uncommon for Apple to announce new machines for a few weeks after the announcement.
Hey, I got one. That's like saying a 'Fairy Cake' isn't a Momma Poppa sized Coffee cake.
Sure Fair Cakes aint as good as Coffee cakes. But hey, I'm the only person who thinks in the niche of hundreds of millions of PC desktop tower users so I must be wrong. Ask Apple.
Lemon Bon Bon.
PS. Hey. It's tastier than his car story.
Sigh! Tsk, tsk.
Sure, a very few might upgrade from the idea of buying an iMac, and far less likely, from a Mini, but most people won't.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. We don't know how many buy the iMac because they really want an iMac and how many bought one because Apple gave them no other option in their price range. Trust me, I didn't buy the iMac for the elegance and simplicity of an all in one. And if I had an option of another form factor, I would have taken it in a heartbeat. No matter how good you try and make it, an all in one will always have certain weaknesses. Many of the things I did not like about my performa 5200 are still there 13 years later in the iMac.
The advantage of shoehorning your users into where you want them to be is that it makes it very easy to justify your own philosophy. They can't make a decision other than the one you want if you don't give a choice.
Mind you, I can't put it past Apple to make the 24 incher the 'middle' of it's new all LED line up. £550 quid for a 24 inch monitor is outrageous. I may as well plump the rest down for a 30 incher...and suck it up.
It is expensive, but there isn't anything to compare it against yet. Most of the cheap desktop displays have very poor viewing angles. Maybe it's not a selling point for you, but there aren't a whole lot of monitors with a camera & mic in them, many don't have speakers, all those hook up with a single connector on this new display. LEDs seem to allow for a lot more even backlighting. And frankly, I think the looks of the product should come into play. If you don't care, that's fine, but I think all these should at least be acknowledged. There isn't anything that says you have to buy Apple's model either, Macs will work with just about any display out there.