I (and many others) have been clamoring for a lower-cost Mac tower for... oh... only 15 years now.
C'mon, Steve. Don't blow your chance at market share (for the hundredth time)
Now is a rare chance to increase market share. Which I would note to the person laughing about this overtaking Microsoft, increasing market share doesn't mean that - hombrephaty never suggested overtaking Microsoft. So lay off!
Microsoft is about to close the "Vista hole" with Windows 7. I've used recent builds of 7.
It isn't Leopard, but it's a world of difference from Vista. It is stable and very usable.
Apple would be foolish not to fill a couple more niches and get a few more switchers before 7 arrives.
Actually, they're only selling a computer that can run OSX along with any other OS of your choosing. Some linux apps can handle 24 cores now, although admitedly not very many that the general public would care about have been written with parallel processing in mind. Then again, a 24 core system probably isn't targeted at the general public.
And why are so many people clamoring for a Mac they can upgrade? You're a v. small audience in the entire computing world. Proof: the growing proportion of laptops (of which a small minority can be upgraded at all) compared to desktops that are being sold. Suck it up and accept that you'll either have to pay more for the Mac Pro (and probably won't need to ever upgrade) or get an iMac and upgrade more often.
Next I want you to claim to be a gamer and "happy". Go.
I have a Mac at home that started of at Jaguar (10.2) and is now running Leopard (10.5). Imagine how many people would be pissed off if a Mac they bought today couldn't run 10.7?
You forget my friend those who regularly upgrade are among the minority. I sincerely doubt a high enough percentage of the affected users would would make enough noise to even noticeable on most forums.
Besides, people who bought machines in late '05 are seeing this happen already. Snow Leopard (10.6) will be Intel only. Point me to the riots.
the question of what the dongle is and does has not been answered--at least not to my knowledge in this forum.
EFiX calls it a "Boot Processing Unit" or BPU. Basically, it's a bootable USB device that is the first "drive" booted when you start the PC. It then presents an EFI interface to the other drives in the system, tweaked to look exactly like what OS X expects to see (although you can install any OS on it, not that there would be any point to that).
Here's an interview with a couple of people who created EFiX. It's a fascinating little gizmo.
Nonetheless, the sole intent (like the mod chips) is to circumvent the protection of the software in question whether OSX or XBOX/OS... However, they should be dropped hard in regards to the EFI-X module. The sale of that module is in fact an obvious violation of Apple's IP protections.
Wrong. You don't know what Extensible Firmware Interface is, do you? It's Intel's replacement to the BIOS, an outdated 80s concept. Apple switched to EFI with the Intel Macs, every Intel Mac uses EFI.
Windows Vista was originally planned to launch with EFI support. I believe Vista SP1 may have it now. Windows 7 most certainly will.
That is all they're providing in that module and it is perfectly legal for them to do so. People may have legitimate need for the module without OS X in mind, for beyond these two well known operating systems, there are others out there that support EFI. We are too self centered here. Mac OS X requires no modification to run on a system with EFI.
The IP issue here is therefore not the module, but encouraging users to break their EULAs by advertising OS X compatibility.
EFiX calls it a "Boot Processing Unit" or BPU. Basically, it's a bootable USB device that is the first "drive" booted when you start the PC. It then presents an EFI interface to the other drives in the system, tweaked to look exactly like what OS X expects to see (although you can install any OS on it, not that there would be any point to that).
Here's an interview with a couple of people who created EFiX. It's a fascinating little gizmo.
Their duplicity about who should and who should not be able to sell computers capable of running Mac OS X is noteworthy--and silly. (They obviously feel it's OK for them to do so. ;-) And what they claim is legal might only be legal under certain limited circumstances. We are also still left with an incomplete description--basically no information about how the dongle interacts with Mac OS X.
...a midrange tower and I *swear* I won't buy a competitor's hardware. I *like* your hardware. I just want something I can upgrade that doesn't cost a bazillion dollars.
Porsche doesn't make sub-$35K sports cars...same dilemma.
The solution is to simply buy used. A used Porsche, or a used Mac Pro tower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hombrephaty
I (and many others) have been clamoring for a lower-cost Mac tower for... oh... only 15 years now.
C'mon, Steve. Don't blow your chance at market share (for the hundredth time)
By some reports, 70% of all sales are currently laptops. Just how "huge" do you think that your slice-of-a-slice-of-a-slice is really going to be?
Don't forget that all of those that really want a lower cost yet still respectable Mac tower can simply buy used: a dual-dual core 2.7GHz G5 with 4.5GM RAM just sold last night on eBay for less than $1000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archipellago
count me in and happy to be a dimwit. Apple sell ridiculously overpriced hardware ...
The last time that I looked, the Dell equivalent of the default configuration Mac Pro cost $4000, which is a mere $1000 more than the "overpriced" Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut
. . . Apple doesn't make a computer that fits the target market that so many Mac users are clammering for... Consumers would just get a genuine Apple that suits their needs and their budget.
The clambering is from a very small - - but LOUD - - group. And we also have a Catch-22 because the crux of the argument demanding a mini-tower is because of their budget: they want to modernize in small incremental upgrade steps, which ultimately means that this demographic intends to buy _fewer_ new sets of hardware. So where's all of the tons of growth going to then come from?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog
Thank you! Many people have been voicing this huge gap in Apple's product line on these forums for years and yet, they've been continuously trashed by Apple fanbois. However, I do have to semi-disagree with you on one point here. An xMac may cut into the MacPro sales a little bit but the xMac will sell like a crazy monkey!
First off, its not the MacPro that is threatened by an xMac, but rather, the iMac.
Second, since the facts are that desktops are ~30% of the market (and continuing to decline), the trend is towards laptops, so the xMac isn't in a growth segment. Since Mac buyers are also generally trend-setters, consider what that really means for the future of ALL desktops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
that target audience is very small compared to all the folks that have bought what is being offered without complaint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDonG4
Your numbers have no basis and are nothing but a (poor) assumption.
The first time that revenue from notebook PC sales passed that of desktop PCs at US retail stores happened back in May 2003. On a unit basis, the tipping point occurred in 2005 (cite).
In the second quarter (2007), U.S. retail desktop sales were down 10 percent compared to the same period last year, while notebook sales rose 43 percent over the same period, according to figures published in July (07) by Current Analysis West. The decline pushed the share of desktops for the total U.S. PC market down to an all-time low of 31 percent, with notebooks holding the remaining 69 percent.
Translation: as of a year ago, the market segment that you're promoting was only 31% of the total market, and losing ground at a rate of 10% per year.
Business buyers accounted for 77 percent of desktop sales during the period, with home users accounting for the remaining 23 percent.
Quote:
People have been wanting a mid-range headless desktop since Apple stopped making them, the AI forums have been proof of this(for about 9-10 years now). I think now if anytime there is more and more of a need for this since there are other people trying to capitalize on Apple's oversight of not offering a headless mid-range Mac.
As per the above, it seems reasonable to project that the total consumer desktop market is 23% of 31%, which is 7% of the total. That's already split that up amongst the mini, the iMac, and the MacPro ... and you want to split it further by adding the xMac?
Sure, I'd love to have a cheap xMac too, but naive wishful thinking isn't going to make it happen. It did make sense ~15 years ago (and we had 7600's), but it simply doesn't make economic sense today. Them's the breaks.
Is the EFi-X really unstoppable? Couldn't Apple simply bring out an EFI update to all Macs that say adds some proprietary power management code that would obviously be optimized for Mac hardware and be critical to OS X functionality. That isn't necessarily malicious since it may make sense to place power management code at such a low level and may be useful during pre-boot and for Boot Camp, but EFi-X can't copy it without infringement. And Psystar computers presumably still use a BIOS so couldn't really implement the code at all.
All this fuss, it makes you wonder why Apple didn't just implement TPM on every Intel Mac and avoid this issue from the beginning.
The reason this happens is there is no such thing as Apple hardware, Macs use identical PC chipsets from Intel & Nvidia, in the old days it was IBM non-X86 hardware which noone else used so it was easy to lock down osx.
The sad truth is with an EFIX Apple are screwed, even altering hardware now will not stop people continuing to use Leopard on PCs. Unless snow Leopard goes to town with activation and serial Apple are screwed.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "updated," but the EFI-X dongle probably wouldn't do anything if you plugged it into a PPC Mac.
What would it take to upgrade my G4 800 MHz Mac, so that I could use Leopard (Snow Leopard)?
SJ saw fit to cut Macs off from using Leopard (at 800 MHz). If it's possible to make a Hackintosh, what would I have to do to accomplish this using my old computer? New motherboard? And an
The last time that I looked, the Dell equivalent of the default configuration Mac Pro cost $4000, which is a mere $1000 more than the "overpriced" Apple.
The clambering is from a very small - - but LOUD - - group. And we also have a Catch-22 because the crux of the argument demanding a mini-tower is because of their budget: they want to modernize in small incremental upgrade steps, which ultimately means that this demographic intends to buy _fewer_ new sets of hardware. So where's all of the tons of growth going to then come from?
First off, its not the MacPro that is threatened by an xMac, but rather, the iMac.
-hh
But the $2300 1 cpu mac pro is overpriced next to 775 Xeon systems as 2 cpu board and FB-dimms add a lot of cost that you don't need.
The $2800 mac pro is priced good next to other systems but the video card is out of date next to them in cost terms.
The iMac will be good for some people IF IT HAD A MATE SCREEN also a easier to get to HD + room for 2 of them will help.
The imac will be better if screen size was not tied to cpu / gpu power so you can get a bigger screen with out paying for a faster cpu or get a smaller screen with better cpu / video power.
A $900 - $1200 - $1500 + range desktop system with a 2 cpu mac pro at $2300 + should work good with $1500 being 1 higher end cpu + good video card maybe even SLI or cross fire.
As you can have a high cpu power system and a good gameing system without the high cost of sever parts. With a good mid level desktop system.
What would it take to upgrade my G4 800 MHz Mac, so that I could use Leopard (Snow Leopard)?
SJ saw fit to cut Macs off from using Leopard (at 800 MHz). If it's possible to make a Hackintosh, what would I have to do to accomplish this using my old computer? New motherboard? And an
EFI-X dongle? What else?
You wouldn't be able to reuse ANYTHING from your G4. Nothing. Not even the case. You would basically have to make a PC from the approved motherboards listed on their site. use an ATX case, serial optical drive and a compatible graphics card and it should work with the EFI-x dongle. I've been an iMac G5 user for about 4 years... and if SL doesn't cut it on PPC I have to get a new computer when I upgrade. I don't know what I'll do if presented with the choice of a mini or Mac Pro. I'm not going the iMac (All in one) route again. No way.
What would it take to upgrade my G4 800 MHz Mac, so that I could use Leopard (Snow Leopard)?
SJ saw fit to cut Macs off from using Leopard (at 800 MHz). If it's possible to make a Hackintosh, what would I have to do to accomplish this using my old computer? New motherboard? And an
EFI-X dongle? What else?
EFI-X only works on Intel-based computers, EFI is not used on PPC Macs.
There is a way to bypass that limitation so you can use a newer version of OS X than Apple supports on the machine. I think the program was called Ex Post Facto or something like that, I think I have the name wrong because it doesn't show up on a search. I've never done it myself, and I don't know if it supports Leopard.
I really don't see it to be that big of a deal. I have a Leopard notebook and a Leopard capable tower, the tower is still running Tiger. I have a spare Leopard licence, but see no reason to spend any time installing it when I have a working Tiger installation.
Their duplicity about who should and who should not be able to sell computers capable of running Mac OS X is noteworthy--and silly. (They obviously feel it's OK for them to do so. ;-) And what they claim is legal might only be legal under certain limited circumstances. We are also still left with an incomplete description--basically no information about how the dongle interacts with Mac OS X.
There's no duplicity. Their little device does nothing illegal. The fact that a person might use it to install OS X isn't their problem, as OS X's EULA is between the user and Apple.
If the developer preview requires an Intel processor, I would pretty much guess that the final release will too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdfisher
I think you mean "not even 3 years old." The G5 iMacs were discontinued in January 2006.
I wouldn't bother being upset. Snow Leopard is not really looking like a big deal. It's focus seems to be removing legacy code. PowerPC is part of that. I suspect 10.5 will be active for quite some time yet.
CDonG4 / sdfisher
My mistake, yes my iMac is going on 3 years old, I bought in December 2005. I'll still be upset at being left behind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
Because they (clone makers) know that they are not and cannot provide the Apple experience but they use it anyway to sell their products. To get Apple experience you need Apple computer, Apple service and support, Apple Mac OS, Apple iLife, and not worrying about your computer being bricked. What they give you is only Mac OS.
The points you make above only strengthen the argument that the clone makers(re: Psystar) believe there is a demand for a computer Apple doesn't make and that they can make a profit doing so.
Think about it, consumers should know going in when buying a hackintosh they will not get Apple support, etc. yet these same clone makers think the market is big enough to make a profit.
bandalay's statement still stands, "It shows an underlying desire by a larger and larger segment of the population to have the Apple experience without paying for Apple hardware. The halo works."
"It shows an underlying desire by a larger and larger segment of the population to have the Apple experience without paying for Apple hardware. The halo works."
That's exactly right. I would really love to buy and install OSX on my computer. I will *not* buy any of Apple's hardware - it is hugely overpriced in comparison to my home built PC. If Apple refuse to provide me with the product I want, I shall just have to find other ways to acquire and use it. It's Apple just cutting of their nose to spite their face, and their loss at the end of the day. I resent it being indicated that I am not the sort of customer Apple want - they are a business, they want (and need) me and my money more than I want their product.
You wouldn't be able to reuse ANYTHING from your G4. Nothing. Not even the case. You would basically have to make a PC from the approved motherboards listed on their site. use an ATX case, serial optical drive and a compatible graphics card and it should work with the EFI-x dongle. I've been an iMac G5 user for about 4 years... and if SL doesn't cut it on PPC I have to get a new computer when I upgrade. I don't know what I'll do if presented with the choice of a mini or Mac Pro. I'm not going the iMac (All in one) route again. No way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
EFI-X only works on Intel-based computers, EFI is not used on PPC Macs.
There is a way to bypass that limitation so you can use a newer version of OS X than Apple supports on the machine. I think the program was called Ex Post Facto or something like that, I think I have the name wrong because it doesn't show up on a search. I've never done it myself, and I don't know if it supports Leopard.
I really don't see it to be that big of a deal. I have a Leopard notebook and a Leopard capable tower, the tower is still running Tiger. I have a spare Leopard licence, but see no reason to spend any time installing it when I have a working Tiger installation.
Thanks guys. If I hadn't asked and you hadn't answered, I'd still be in the dark. This forum is a learning center for me. Learning from those "who have been there" is a lot better than manuals.
The fact that a person might use it to install OS X isn't their problem, as OS X's EULA is between the user and Apple.
We really have no idea how the dongle works, so none of us can say it isn't a problem for EFi-X. But it seems you agree there are potential issues for people who use the dongle to install Mac OS X. And if those issues exist, the implications may spread all the way back to EFi-X.
But the $2300 1 cpu mac pro is overpriced next to 775 Xeon systems as 2 cpu board and FB-dimms add a lot of cost that you don't need.
Apple has habitually hamstrung the bottom-most tower configuration, which frequently makes them a poor value. In any event, going to Dell's website and configuring a Dell Precision R5400 to roughly equivalent specs, the Dell's price after $150 instant rebate is $2870, which means that its $570 more expensive than the stripped-bare $2300 Mac Pro.
Quote:
The $2800 mac pro is priced good next to other systems but the video card is out of date next to them in cost terms.
And yet the price differentials of $500-$1000 versus the comparable Dell still aren't adequate enough margins with which to cover differences in upgrade prices on the video cards? Granted, Apple does want a whopping $2850 for the 1.5GB NVIDIA Quadro FX5600, but Dell's asking $3580 for the 4GB version. Even if we take the Dell's 1.5GB FX4800 for $1400, all this essentially does is make the prices roughly a wash: $5650 vs $5470.
Quote:
The iMac will be good for some people IF IT HAD A MATE SCREEN also a easier to get to HD + room for 2 of them will help.
I don't understand the Glossy/Matt screen issues either, so I'm not going to defend them.
For storage, the general dilemma here is that ~70% of buyers are laptop-oriented, not desktop, so there's pragmatically no real provision for a 2nd HD other than to go to Network storage (Time Capsule) and other aspects of "Cloud".
Similarly, I see that the users who are generally "running out" of space aren't particularly in the 'casual' power class, so we need to see to what degree we're looking at the 20% of the 80/20 rule (Pareto Principle).
FWIW, what I would personally like very much to see to help us out (yes, I'm a power user of sorts; still photography) is an easy & clean OS X Utility (Control Panel) that helps the Admin to painlessly relocate a "big" user account off of the boot drive onto secondary drive(s). This can be done at the Terminal prompt, but its not particularly painless - - plus you'll never know when a random OS update could break it.
Quote:
The imac will be better if screen size was not tied to cpu / gpu power so you can get a bigger screen with out paying for a faster cpu or get a smaller screen with better cpu / video power.
I understand what you're asking for, but that's a Catch-22 requirement in some ways, plus you're asking for the return of the 1990s "Performa Line" problems of excessive proliferation, which drives manufacturing costs up in order to try to save you a dime or two. Until Apple is bigger than Dell, it simply doesn't make good business sense.
Quote:
A $900 - $1200 - $1500 + range desktop system with a 2 cpu mac pro at $2300 + should work good with $1500 being 1 higher end cpu + good video card maybe even SLI or cross fire.
As you can have a high cpu power system and a good gameing system without the high cost of sever parts. With a good mid level desktop system.
Ignore the gaming requirement and the middle of the iMac line does just fine ... although at $1500 and $1800, its just not at the price points you want.
Sure, I'd want them all to cost a lot less, but when it comes to choosing how to spend any free wishes laying around, a new Porsche 911 at a $35K price point is a vastly higher priority.
And personally, I don't have a particular beef with the $2700 price point for the Mac Pro, as I know that its a lot of rendering horsepower that I'll use(!) and that it will easily go 5 years, so it amortizes out to roughly $50/month.
And the question of being willing to pay more for "server grade" parts ultimately comes back to the question of how much do you believe that your data is worth.
In my case, the data that I want to preserve is personal photography and while its not my business, it is a serious hobby. In my case, the computer's costs can quickly pale in comparison to the other costs involved, such as the price of an airline ticket to wherever I'm taking a "Photo Safari" type of vacation. Back at home, I've already added 3TB worth of storage this year and really need to add 2TB more, in order to get fully redundant backups of my photos.
Apple has habitually hamstrung the bottom-most tower configuration, which frequently makes them a poor value. In any event, going to Dell's website and configuring a Dell Precision R5400 to roughly equivalent specs, the Dell's price after $150 instant rebate is $2870, which means that its $570 more expensive than the stripped-bare $2300 Mac Pro.
R5400 is rack mount system not a desktop tower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -hh
And yet the price differentials of $500-$1000 versus the comparable Dell still aren't adequate enough margins with which to cover differences in upgrade prices on the video cards? Granted, Apple does want a whopping $2850 for the 1.5GB NVIDIA Quadro FX5600, but Dell's asking $3580 for the 4GB version. Even if we take the Dell's 1.5GB FX4800 for $1400, all this essentially does is make the prices roughly a wash: $5650 vs $5470.
The base ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB is poor at the price of $130.00 as that is what they want to add 1 more also add $150 for a 8800gt? makeing it a $280 video card BIG RIP off.
I don't understand the Glossy/Matt screen issues either, so I'm not going to defend them.
For storage, the general dilemma here is that ~70% of buyers are laptop-oriented, not desktop, so there's pragmatically no real provision for a 2nd HD other than to go to Network storage (Time Capsule) and other aspects of "Cloud".
Similarly, I see that the users who are generally "running out" of space aren't particularly in the 'casual' power class, so we need to see to what degree we're looking at the 20% of the 80/20 rule (Pareto Principle).
FWIW, what I would personally like very much to see to help us out (yes, I'm a power user of sorts; still photography) is an easy & clean OS X Utility (Control Panel) that helps the Admin to painlessly relocate a "big" user account off of the boot drive onto secondary drive(s). This can be done at the Terminal prompt, but its not particularly painless - - plus you'll never know when a random OS update could break it.
I understand what you're asking for, but that's a Catch-22 requirement in some ways, plus you're asking for the return of the 1990s "Performa Line" problems of excessive proliferation, which drives manufacturing costs up in order to try to save you a dime or two. Until Apple is bigger than Dell, it simply doesn't make good business sense.
Ignore the gaming requirement and the middle of the iMac line does just fine ... although at $1500 and $1800, its just not at the price points you want.
[/QUOTE]
The lack of a mate display is putting people off of the imac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by -hh
Sure, I'd want them all to cost a lot less, but when it comes to choosing how to spend any free wishes laying around, a new Porsche 911 at a $35K price point is a vastly higher priority.
And personally, I don't have a particular beef with the $2700 price point for the Mac Pro, as I know that its a lot of rendering horsepower that I'll use(!) and that it will easily go 5 years, so it amortizes out to roughly $50/month.
And the question of being willing to pay more for "server grade" parts ultimately comes back to the question of how much do you believe that your data is worth.
-hh
But most people don't need that much power then need some better then the mini and the imac AIO with NO mate display does not work for them.
Comments
An interesting side effect of all this is that we may be seeing more companies selling EFI systems, and other OS's like Linux supporting EFI.
I thought Windows Vista SP1 was going to support EFI? Of course, Vista was supposed to at launch and didn't. Anyone know the status on this?
I (and many others) have been clamoring for a lower-cost Mac tower for... oh... only 15 years now.
C'mon, Steve. Don't blow your chance at market share (for the hundredth time)
Now is a rare chance to increase market share. Which I would note to the person laughing about this overtaking Microsoft, increasing market share doesn't mean that - hombrephaty never suggested overtaking Microsoft. So lay off!
Microsoft is about to close the "Vista hole" with Windows 7. I've used recent builds of 7.
It isn't Leopard, but it's a world of difference from Vista. It is stable and very usable.
Apple would be foolish not to fill a couple more niches and get a few more switchers before 7 arrives.
Actually, they're only selling a computer that can run OSX along with any other OS of your choosing. Some linux apps can handle 24 cores now, although admitedly not very many that the general public would care about have been written with parallel processing in mind. Then again, a 24 core system probably isn't targeted at the general public.
And why are so many people clamoring for a Mac they can upgrade? You're a v. small audience in the entire computing world. Proof: the growing proportion of laptops (of which a small minority can be upgraded at all) compared to desktops that are being sold. Suck it up and accept that you'll either have to pay more for the Mac Pro (and probably won't need to ever upgrade) or get an iMac and upgrade more often.
Next I want you to claim to be a gamer and "happy". Go.
I have a Mac at home that started of at Jaguar (10.2) and is now running Leopard (10.5). Imagine how many people would be pissed off if a Mac they bought today couldn't run 10.7?
You forget my friend those who regularly upgrade are among the minority. I sincerely doubt a high enough percentage of the affected users would would make enough noise to even noticeable on most forums.
Besides, people who bought machines in late '05 are seeing this happen already. Snow Leopard (10.6) will be Intel only. Point me to the riots.
the question of what the dongle is and does has not been answered--at least not to my knowledge in this forum.
EFiX calls it a "Boot Processing Unit" or BPU. Basically, it's a bootable USB device that is the first "drive" booted when you start the PC. It then presents an EFI interface to the other drives in the system, tweaked to look exactly like what OS X expects to see (although you can install any OS on it, not that there would be any point to that).
Here's an interview with a couple of people who created EFiX. It's a fascinating little gizmo.
Nonetheless, the sole intent (like the mod chips) is to circumvent the protection of the software in question whether OSX or XBOX/OS... However, they should be dropped hard in regards to the EFI-X module. The sale of that module is in fact an obvious violation of Apple's IP protections.
Wrong. You don't know what Extensible Firmware Interface is, do you? It's Intel's replacement to the BIOS, an outdated 80s concept. Apple switched to EFI with the Intel Macs, every Intel Mac uses EFI.
Windows Vista was originally planned to launch with EFI support. I believe Vista SP1 may have it now. Windows 7 most certainly will.
That is all they're providing in that module and it is perfectly legal for them to do so. People may have legitimate need for the module without OS X in mind, for beyond these two well known operating systems, there are others out there that support EFI. We are too self centered here. Mac OS X requires no modification to run on a system with EFI.
The IP issue here is therefore not the module, but encouraging users to break their EULAs by advertising OS X compatibility.
EFiX calls it a "Boot Processing Unit" or BPU. Basically, it's a bootable USB device that is the first "drive" booted when you start the PC. It then presents an EFI interface to the other drives in the system, tweaked to look exactly like what OS X expects to see (although you can install any OS on it, not that there would be any point to that).
Here's an interview with a couple of people who created EFiX. It's a fascinating little gizmo.
Their duplicity about who should and who should not be able to sell computers capable of running Mac OS X is noteworthy--and silly. (They obviously feel it's OK for them to do so. ;-) And what they claim is legal might only be legal under certain limited circumstances. We are also still left with an incomplete description--basically no information about how the dongle interacts with Mac OS X.
...a midrange tower and I *swear* I won't buy a competitor's hardware. I *like* your hardware. I just want something I can upgrade that doesn't cost a bazillion dollars.
Porsche doesn't make sub-$35K sports cars...same dilemma.
The solution is to simply buy used. A used Porsche, or a used Mac Pro tower.
I (and many others) have been clamoring for a lower-cost Mac tower for... oh... only 15 years now.
C'mon, Steve. Don't blow your chance at market share (for the hundredth time)
By some reports, 70% of all sales are currently laptops. Just how "huge" do you think that your slice-of-a-slice-of-a-slice is really going to be?
Don't forget that all of those that really want a lower cost yet still respectable Mac tower can simply buy used: a dual-dual core 2.7GHz G5 with 4.5GM RAM just sold last night on eBay for less than $1000.
count me in and happy to be a dimwit. Apple sell ridiculously overpriced hardware ...
The last time that I looked, the Dell equivalent of the default configuration Mac Pro cost $4000, which is a mere $1000 more than the "overpriced" Apple.
. . . Apple doesn't make a computer that fits the target market that so many Mac users are clammering for... Consumers would just get a genuine Apple that suits their needs and their budget.
The clambering is from a very small - - but LOUD - - group. And we also have a Catch-22 because the crux of the argument demanding a mini-tower is because of their budget: they want to modernize in small incremental upgrade steps, which ultimately means that this demographic intends to buy _fewer_ new sets of hardware. So where's all of the tons of growth going to then come from?
Thank you! Many people have been voicing this huge gap in Apple's product line on these forums for years and yet, they've been continuously trashed by Apple fanbois. However, I do have to semi-disagree with you on one point here. An xMac may cut into the MacPro sales a little bit but the xMac will sell like a crazy monkey!
First off, its not the MacPro that is threatened by an xMac, but rather, the iMac.
Second, since the facts are that desktops are ~30% of the market (and continuing to decline), the trend is towards laptops, so the xMac isn't in a growth segment. Since Mac buyers are also generally trend-setters, consider what that really means for the future of ALL desktops.
that target audience is very small compared to all the folks that have bought what is being offered without complaint.
Your numbers have no basis and are nothing but a (poor) assumption.
The first time that revenue from notebook PC sales passed that of desktop PCs at US retail stores happened back in May 2003. On a unit basis, the tipping point occurred in 2005 (cite).
If you want a 2007 link, try this one, which says: Translation: as of a year ago, the market segment that you're promoting was only 31% of the total market, and losing ground at a rate of 10% per year.
And for an additional piece of insight, this 23 month old article states:
People have been wanting a mid-range headless desktop since Apple stopped making them, the AI forums have been proof of this(for about 9-10 years now). I think now if anytime there is more and more of a need for this since there are other people trying to capitalize on Apple's oversight of not offering a headless mid-range Mac.
As per the above, it seems reasonable to project that the total consumer desktop market is 23% of 31%, which is 7% of the total. That's already split that up amongst the mini, the iMac, and the MacPro ... and you want to split it further by adding the xMac?
Sure, I'd love to have a cheap xMac too, but naive wishful thinking isn't going to make it happen. It did make sense ~15 years ago (and we had 7600's), but it simply doesn't make economic sense today. Them's the breaks.
-hh
Is the EFi-X really unstoppable? Couldn't Apple simply bring out an EFI update to all Macs that say adds some proprietary power management code that would obviously be optimized for Mac hardware and be critical to OS X functionality. That isn't necessarily malicious since it may make sense to place power management code at such a low level and may be useful during pre-boot and for Boot Camp, but EFi-X can't copy it without infringement. And Psystar computers presumably still use a BIOS so couldn't really implement the code at all.
All this fuss, it makes you wonder why Apple didn't just implement TPM on every Intel Mac and avoid this issue from the beginning.
The reason this happens is there is no such thing as Apple hardware, Macs use identical PC chipsets from Intel & Nvidia, in the old days it was IBM non-X86 hardware which noone else used so it was easy to lock down osx.
The sad truth is with an EFIX Apple are screwed, even altering hardware now will not stop people continuing to use Leopard on PCs. Unless snow Leopard goes to town with activation and serial Apple are screwed.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "updated," but the EFI-X dongle probably wouldn't do anything if you plugged it into a PPC Mac.
What would it take to upgrade my G4 800 MHz Mac, so that I could use Leopard (Snow Leopard)?
SJ saw fit to cut Macs off from using Leopard (at 800 MHz). If it's possible to make a Hackintosh, what would I have to do to accomplish this using my old computer? New motherboard? And an
EFI-X dongle? What else?
The last time that I looked, the Dell equivalent of the default configuration Mac Pro cost $4000, which is a mere $1000 more than the "overpriced" Apple.
The clambering is from a very small - - but LOUD - - group. And we also have a Catch-22 because the crux of the argument demanding a mini-tower is because of their budget: they want to modernize in small incremental upgrade steps, which ultimately means that this demographic intends to buy _fewer_ new sets of hardware. So where's all of the tons of growth going to then come from?
First off, its not the MacPro that is threatened by an xMac, but rather, the iMac.
-hh
But the $2300 1 cpu mac pro is overpriced next to 775 Xeon systems as 2 cpu board and FB-dimms add a lot of cost that you don't need.
The $2800 mac pro is priced good next to other systems but the video card is out of date next to them in cost terms.
The iMac will be good for some people IF IT HAD A MATE SCREEN also a easier to get to HD + room for 2 of them will help.
The imac will be better if screen size was not tied to cpu / gpu power so you can get a bigger screen with out paying for a faster cpu or get a smaller screen with better cpu / video power.
A $900 - $1200 - $1500 + range desktop system with a 2 cpu mac pro at $2300 + should work good with $1500 being 1 higher end cpu + good video card maybe even SLI or cross fire.
As you can have a high cpu power system and a good gameing system without the high cost of sever parts. With a good mid level desktop system.
What would it take to upgrade my G4 800 MHz Mac, so that I could use Leopard (Snow Leopard)?
SJ saw fit to cut Macs off from using Leopard (at 800 MHz). If it's possible to make a Hackintosh, what would I have to do to accomplish this using my old computer? New motherboard? And an
EFI-X dongle? What else?
You wouldn't be able to reuse ANYTHING from your G4. Nothing. Not even the case. You would basically have to make a PC from the approved motherboards listed on their site. use an ATX case, serial optical drive and a compatible graphics card and it should work with the EFI-x dongle. I've been an iMac G5 user for about 4 years... and if SL doesn't cut it on PPC I have to get a new computer when I upgrade. I don't know what I'll do if presented with the choice of a mini or Mac Pro. I'm not going the iMac (All in one) route again. No way.
What would it take to upgrade my G4 800 MHz Mac, so that I could use Leopard (Snow Leopard)?
SJ saw fit to cut Macs off from using Leopard (at 800 MHz). If it's possible to make a Hackintosh, what would I have to do to accomplish this using my old computer? New motherboard? And an
EFI-X dongle? What else?
EFI-X only works on Intel-based computers, EFI is not used on PPC Macs.
There is a way to bypass that limitation so you can use a newer version of OS X than Apple supports on the machine. I think the program was called Ex Post Facto or something like that, I think I have the name wrong because it doesn't show up on a search. I've never done it myself, and I don't know if it supports Leopard.
I really don't see it to be that big of a deal. I have a Leopard notebook and a Leopard capable tower, the tower is still running Tiger. I have a spare Leopard licence, but see no reason to spend any time installing it when I have a working Tiger installation.
Their duplicity about who should and who should not be able to sell computers capable of running Mac OS X is noteworthy--and silly. (They obviously feel it's OK for them to do so. ;-) And what they claim is legal might only be legal under certain limited circumstances. We are also still left with an incomplete description--basically no information about how the dongle interacts with Mac OS X.
There's no duplicity. Their little device does nothing illegal. The fact that a person might use it to install OS X isn't their problem, as OS X's EULA is between the user and Apple.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=498339
If the developer preview requires an Intel processor, I would pretty much guess that the final release will too.
I think you mean "not even 3 years old." The G5 iMacs were discontinued in January 2006.
I wouldn't bother being upset. Snow Leopard is not really looking like a big deal. It's focus seems to be removing legacy code. PowerPC is part of that. I suspect 10.5 will be active for quite some time yet.
CDonG4 / sdfisher
My mistake, yes my iMac is going on 3 years old, I bought in December 2005. I'll still be upset at being left behind.
Because they (clone makers) know that they are not and cannot provide the Apple experience but they use it anyway to sell their products. To get Apple experience you need Apple computer, Apple service and support, Apple Mac OS, Apple iLife, and not worrying about your computer being bricked. What they give you is only Mac OS.
The points you make above only strengthen the argument that the clone makers(re: Psystar) believe there is a demand for a computer Apple doesn't make and that they can make a profit doing so.
Think about it, consumers should know going in when buying a hackintosh they will not get Apple support, etc. yet these same clone makers think the market is big enough to make a profit.
bandalay's statement still stands, "It shows an underlying desire by a larger and larger segment of the population to have the Apple experience without paying for Apple hardware. The halo works."
"It shows an underlying desire by a larger and larger segment of the population to have the Apple experience without paying for Apple hardware. The halo works."
That's exactly right. I would really love to buy and install OSX on my computer. I will *not* buy any of Apple's hardware - it is hugely overpriced in comparison to my home built PC. If Apple refuse to provide me with the product I want, I shall just have to find other ways to acquire and use it. It's Apple just cutting of their nose to spite their face, and their loss at the end of the day. I resent it being indicated that I am not the sort of customer Apple want - they are a business, they want (and need) me and my money more than I want their product.
You wouldn't be able to reuse ANYTHING from your G4. Nothing. Not even the case. You would basically have to make a PC from the approved motherboards listed on their site. use an ATX case, serial optical drive and a compatible graphics card and it should work with the EFI-x dongle. I've been an iMac G5 user for about 4 years... and if SL doesn't cut it on PPC I have to get a new computer when I upgrade. I don't know what I'll do if presented with the choice of a mini or Mac Pro. I'm not going the iMac (All in one) route again. No way.
EFI-X only works on Intel-based computers, EFI is not used on PPC Macs.
There is a way to bypass that limitation so you can use a newer version of OS X than Apple supports on the machine. I think the program was called Ex Post Facto or something like that, I think I have the name wrong because it doesn't show up on a search. I've never done it myself, and I don't know if it supports Leopard.
I really don't see it to be that big of a deal. I have a Leopard notebook and a Leopard capable tower, the tower is still running Tiger. I have a spare Leopard licence, but see no reason to spend any time installing it when I have a working Tiger installation.
Thanks guys. If I hadn't asked and you hadn't answered, I'd still be in the dark. This forum is a learning center for me. Learning from those "who have been there" is a lot better than manuals.
There's no duplicity.
It seems you didn't read the interview.
Their little device does nothing illegal.
That's your claim.
The fact that a person might use it to install OS X isn't their problem, as OS X's EULA is between the user and Apple.
We really have no idea how the dongle works, so none of us can say it isn't a problem for EFi-X. But it seems you agree there are potential issues for people who use the dongle to install Mac OS X. And if those issues exist, the implications may spread all the way back to EFi-X.
But the $2300 1 cpu mac pro is overpriced next to 775 Xeon systems as 2 cpu board and FB-dimms add a lot of cost that you don't need.
Apple has habitually hamstrung the bottom-most tower configuration, which frequently makes them a poor value. In any event, going to Dell's website and configuring a Dell Precision R5400 to roughly equivalent specs, the Dell's price after $150 instant rebate is $2870, which means that its $570 more expensive than the stripped-bare $2300 Mac Pro.
The $2800 mac pro is priced good next to other systems but the video card is out of date next to them in cost terms.
And yet the price differentials of $500-$1000 versus the comparable Dell still aren't adequate enough margins with which to cover differences in upgrade prices on the video cards? Granted, Apple does want a whopping $2850 for the 1.5GB NVIDIA Quadro FX5600, but Dell's asking $3580 for the 4GB version. Even if we take the Dell's 1.5GB FX4800 for $1400, all this essentially does is make the prices roughly a wash: $5650 vs $5470.
The iMac will be good for some people IF IT HAD A MATE SCREEN also a easier to get to HD + room for 2 of them will help.
I don't understand the Glossy/Matt screen issues either, so I'm not going to defend them.
For storage, the general dilemma here is that ~70% of buyers are laptop-oriented, not desktop, so there's pragmatically no real provision for a 2nd HD other than to go to Network storage (Time Capsule) and other aspects of "Cloud".
Similarly, I see that the users who are generally "running out" of space aren't particularly in the 'casual' power class, so we need to see to what degree we're looking at the 20% of the 80/20 rule (Pareto Principle).
FWIW, what I would personally like very much to see to help us out (yes, I'm a power user of sorts; still photography) is an easy & clean OS X Utility (Control Panel) that helps the Admin to painlessly relocate a "big" user account off of the boot drive onto secondary drive(s). This can be done at the Terminal prompt, but its not particularly painless - - plus you'll never know when a random OS update could break it.
The imac will be better if screen size was not tied to cpu / gpu power so you can get a bigger screen with out paying for a faster cpu or get a smaller screen with better cpu / video power.
I understand what you're asking for, but that's a Catch-22 requirement in some ways, plus you're asking for the return of the 1990s "Performa Line" problems of excessive proliferation, which drives manufacturing costs up in order to try to save you a dime or two. Until Apple is bigger than Dell, it simply doesn't make good business sense.
A $900 - $1200 - $1500 + range desktop system with a 2 cpu mac pro at $2300 + should work good with $1500 being 1 higher end cpu + good video card maybe even SLI or cross fire.
As you can have a high cpu power system and a good gameing system without the high cost of sever parts. With a good mid level desktop system.
Ignore the gaming requirement and the middle of the iMac line does just fine ... although at $1500 and $1800, its just not at the price points you want.
Sure, I'd want them all to cost a lot less, but when it comes to choosing how to spend any free wishes laying around, a new Porsche 911 at a $35K price point is a vastly higher priority.
And personally, I don't have a particular beef with the $2700 price point for the Mac Pro, as I know that its a lot of rendering horsepower that I'll use(!) and that it will easily go 5 years, so it amortizes out to roughly $50/month.
And the question of being willing to pay more for "server grade" parts ultimately comes back to the question of how much do you believe that your data is worth.
In my case, the data that I want to preserve is personal photography and while its not my business, it is a serious hobby. In my case, the computer's costs can quickly pale in comparison to the other costs involved, such as the price of an airline ticket to wherever I'm taking a "Photo Safari" type of vacation. Back at home, I've already added 3TB worth of storage this year and really need to add 2TB more, in order to get fully redundant backups of my photos.
-hh
Apple has habitually hamstrung the bottom-most tower configuration, which frequently makes them a poor value. In any event, going to Dell's website and configuring a Dell Precision R5400 to roughly equivalent specs, the Dell's price after $150 instant rebate is $2870, which means that its $570 more expensive than the stripped-bare $2300 Mac Pro.
R5400 is rack mount system not a desktop tower.
And yet the price differentials of $500-$1000 versus the comparable Dell still aren't adequate enough margins with which to cover differences in upgrade prices on the video cards? Granted, Apple does want a whopping $2850 for the 1.5GB NVIDIA Quadro FX5600, but Dell's asking $3580 for the 4GB version. Even if we take the Dell's 1.5GB FX4800 for $1400, all this essentially does is make the prices roughly a wash: $5650 vs $5470.
The base ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB is poor at the price of $130.00 as that is what they want to add 1 more also add $150 for a 8800gt? makeing it a $280 video card BIG RIP off.
I don't understand the Glossy/Matt screen issues either, so I'm not going to defend them.
For storage, the general dilemma here is that ~70% of buyers are laptop-oriented, not desktop, so there's pragmatically no real provision for a 2nd HD other than to go to Network storage (Time Capsule) and other aspects of "Cloud".
Similarly, I see that the users who are generally "running out" of space aren't particularly in the 'casual' power class, so we need to see to what degree we're looking at the 20% of the 80/20 rule (Pareto Principle).
FWIW, what I would personally like very much to see to help us out (yes, I'm a power user of sorts; still photography) is an easy & clean OS X Utility (Control Panel) that helps the Admin to painlessly relocate a "big" user account off of the boot drive onto secondary drive(s). This can be done at the Terminal prompt, but its not particularly painless - - plus you'll never know when a random OS update could break it.
I understand what you're asking for, but that's a Catch-22 requirement in some ways, plus you're asking for the return of the 1990s "Performa Line" problems of excessive proliferation, which drives manufacturing costs up in order to try to save you a dime or two. Until Apple is bigger than Dell, it simply doesn't make good business sense.
Ignore the gaming requirement and the middle of the iMac line does just fine ... although at $1500 and $1800, its just not at the price points you want.
[/QUOTE]
The lack of a mate display is putting people off of the imac.
Sure, I'd want them all to cost a lot less, but when it comes to choosing how to spend any free wishes laying around, a new Porsche 911 at a $35K price point is a vastly higher priority.
And personally, I don't have a particular beef with the $2700 price point for the Mac Pro, as I know that its a lot of rendering horsepower that I'll use(!) and that it will easily go 5 years, so it amortizes out to roughly $50/month.
And the question of being willing to pay more for "server grade" parts ultimately comes back to the question of how much do you believe that your data is worth.
-hh
But most people don't need that much power then need some better then the mini and the imac AIO with NO mate display does not work for them.