The fact that Apple doesn't already realize that the iMac is cutting into Mac Pro sales is kind of disturbing, but at the same time this is Apple's own doing.
When I update from my PowerMac G5 I am seriously looking at the 24" iMac. The Mac Pro has nothing really special to it except for the extra HDD bays and the ability to have more than 2 displays hooked up to it. Most of the software out there won't take advantage of 4 cores let alone 8.
A Quad Core iMac makes the most sense for a computer that Apple appears to only want to sell. The mini and pro were left out to pasture a long time ago.
Apple now markets the Mac Pro strictly for the "Professional." They didn't do that with the Power Mac G series. I went from the Beige G3 to the iMac G5 and I am very happy with the iMac. The Beige G3 was too big on the desk and too noisy. The iMac is much nicer. The external hard drive I added to my iMac is much more versatile. Although not as easy, I can still upgrade the hard drive in my iMac. My next upgrade will be another iMac. And you can connect two displays to the iMac and extend your Desktop, if needed. The Mac Pro does seem to be overkill for most home users, especially at the price.
If Apple has technical problems right now about what chip to use or cooling system, I wont be making the jump into purchasing it. Apple is famous for major design problems during its first cycle....
IE: iPhone light leaks
24" iMac gradient displays - uneven backlighting
20" iMac suffer colour shifting from top to bottom of LCD
I have a 2.0 GHz 20" iMac G5 and a 1.86 GHz MacBook (first generation combo drive).
The iMac is getting quite long in the tooth; I need an Intel machine for decent performance of software (Office '08, Adobe CS3) as well as for running Parallels. I also want a 24" display.
I was planning on replacing the G5 iMac with whatever new 24" iMac they came out with at MacWorld, and was thrown for a loop when they didn't do so. Now I'm in a holding pattern. My options include:
1. Upgrade current MacBook w/larger 3rd-party hard drive & DVD burner, get a 24" LCD, and sell the G5 iMac on eBay.
COST: appx. $300 for upgrades, $300 for LCD, minus $500 for the iMac sale = appx. $100, but with a lot of nervousness about ripping apart the MacBook. Dirt cheap but the system would still be very low-end by MacIntel-era standards.
2. Replace current MacBook with the new $1,000 model + LCD; sell off *both* the iMac and current MacBook.
COST: appx. $1,000 MacBook, $250 AppleCare, $100 for HD upgrade, $300 for LCD = $1,650, minus perhaps $500 each for the two systems = around $650.
3. Say "screw it" and buy the *current* 24" iMac, sell the G5 iMac and keep the current MacBook.
COST: appx. $1,550 (refurb) + $250 AppleCare = $1,800 - $500 for selling off the G5 iMac = around $1,300.
The third option has the ever-present risk that they'll release the iMac upgrade after all a couple of weeks after I buy it, of course.
Apple's next-generation iMacs are being held up for business reasons and a minor technical obstacle, according to one Wall Street analyst.
"We wanted to give an update on the Mac business from what we are picking up from our latest supply chain checks," Kaufman Bros. analyst Shaw Wu wrote in a report to clients Monday. " . . .
Wu, Wu, Wu. We only read your material for entertainment purposes now.
Let me summarize for those who have not followed the Wu-ness for long . . .
The iMacs are being delayed for some kind of business reasons.
Or maybe it's a technical obstacle.
The cases might be slightly changed, or might not.
The air venting might be slightly changed, or might not.
They might be quad-core, or might not.
It's like reading a horoscope -- after some event happens in a month or two,
Wu can tell his clients how right he was, and it'll almost look like he was,
It is not useless. It is a Pro desktop machine. Those of us that actually need a Pro system use software that uses the extra cores. Any developer using Xcode for instance takes full advantage of every core the system offers. 8 cores cuts compile times almost in half compared to a 4 core system. This adds up to significant time savings.
The Mac Pro is easily the best desktop Mac Apple has ever produced (and I've used Macs since the Mac 128K). I'm about to add 1TB drive to the system for example. Because I have 4 HD bays I can simply order an internal drive and not have to add an external like someone with an iMac will.. (saving $50-$100 right there). and taking advantage of the SATA interface.
Correct, as a Pro user, the Mac Pro works great for your needs. Most consumers are not developers, so a Mac Pro would be useless to them since the majority of software doesn't take advantage of 8 cores. Yet some people claim they need all the cores they can get, just for bragging rights, yet the software they use doesn't run any faster. I can add 1 TB to an iMac and take advantage of SATA as well. Everytime there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it for some reason or another.
i reckon i am probably the only person on this forum that is happy to see the iMac being held back, if we are to believe what we have heard.
main reason being is that if they release a new iMac soon, i will feel inclined to purchase sed mac, which would not really benefit me in the long term as a result of a rather piss poor economic climate.
so i reckon a march release would do me quite nicely, well, my parents.
I wonder what the hold-up is for the new Mac Mini now. Snow Leopard or Quad Cores?
Apple probably doesn't want to update the mini until the new iMac is available. A new mini would probably stack up pretty nicely against the current iMac and eat into iMac sales. So they need the new iMac ready to go before the new mini can be released.
So they need to hurry up wtih the new iMac so I can get my new mini!!
Then again, if the reports I've read about the new mDP not playing nice with 3rd party monitors is true, that will have to be resolved first since the minis will very likely be hooked up to many non-Apple screens (vs MB and iMacs which are seldom hooked up to any other monitors).
If Apple has technical problems right now about what chip to use or cooling system, I wont be making the jump into purchasing it. Apple is famous for major design problems during its first cycle....
IE: iPhone light leaks
24" iMac gradient displays - uneven backlighting
20" iMac suffer colour shifting from top to bottom of LCD
Macbook unibody hinge from LCD is loose.
So where is your proof? What is an iPhone light leak? I have seen many first generation iPhones (and I own one) and there is no such thing as an iPhone light leak. The choice of LCD displays in an iMac is a not a "major design problem." It is the choice of LCD panel used. If you claim your MacBook hinge is loose, go to Apple and use your warranty.
The use of a chip is primarily concerned with availability. Cooling hasn't been a problem since the liquid cooled G5's in 2005.
The Mac Pro is such a small sales number, I just don't buy the cannibalization idea. Make the iMac as good as possible, because it sells in much larger numbers, and then release the i7 mac pro.
And release a displayPort card for the mac pro, and a displayPort 30" monitor.
I agree. Remember that for most folks considering a MacPro, the biggest reason is that it supports a lot more than the 4GB max that the iMacs have. So even if someone buys a single 4-core Xeon, it will still outperform an iMac (theoretically) if you do a lot of high-end work requiring lots of memory. And of course, using a lot more internal drives too.
I'm waiting to see what the iMac and MacPro will look like and then purchase one accordingly. Should be really interesting!
It makes perfect sense for Apple to up the iMac to a quad-core chip. It is the midrange desktop system, therefor it should be a quad. Snow Leopard will shine on a quad core I bet, and then just make low-end Mac Pro an 8 core, so it can still be the king of the desktop hill. What do you all think?
I also can't see why Apple would think a quad-core iMac would hurt MacPro sales. There are far more reasons to get a MacPro than just a quad-core processor. Too many to go into details.
I agree. They need to upgrade the whole line and continue to differentiate the iMac and Mac Pro by putting more power in the Pro too. I guess at some point though even the lowest configuration is going to be plenty powerful enough for 90% of the buyers. Only video editors, engineers or scientists will have a need for high end super computers.
I'm sorry, do you mean Firewire 400, 800, 1600 or 3200?
I'm sure that FW400 will be dropped from all Mac desktops in favour of just FW800. Anything faster will not be ready yet. And I'd reckon that FW800 will be on the new Mini too since I feel that the removal of FW400 on the Mac notebooks was do to space constraints.
"While Leopard would take advantage of multiple cores, Snow Leopard takes it to the next level with better support for multi-core, multi-processors, and OpenCL, with enhanced graphics capability," Wu wrote.
I believe OS X has always been able to use more than one processor/core. The efficiency, however, has been improving with each release, and Snow Leopard will take this to a new level.
Correct, as a Pro user, the Mac Pro works great for your needs. Most consumers are not developers, so a Mac Pro would be useless to them since the majority of software doesn't take advantage of 8 cores. Yet some people claim they need all the cores they can get, just for bragging rights, yet the software they use doesn't run any faster. I can add 1 TB to an iMac and take advantage of SATA as well. Everytime there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it for some reason or another.
Eight cores will be a huge advantage once Snow Leopard arrives. The software will definitely run faster then.
Correct, as a Pro user, the Mac Pro works great for your needs. Most consumers are not developers, so a Mac Pro would be useless to them since the majority of software doesn't take advantage of 8 cores. Yet some people claim they need all the cores they can get, just for bragging rights, yet the software they use doesn't run any faster. I can add 1 TB to an iMac and take advantage of SATA as well. Everytime there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it for some reason or another.
The reason why every time there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it is because there no Mac model in between the iMac and Mac Pro. The Mac Mini is not that model. It should have been, and that's what people were hoping for. But clearly it isn't. If you admit admit that the Mac Pro is not for everyone, then you should also be able to admit that the iMac is not for everyone either. Furthermore, it does not necessarily mean that people who don't need a Mac Pro will automatically be better off with an iMac. If you don't like Mac Pro owners forcing themselves on everyone, then iMac owners shouldn't do it either. It's ironic that people who like to preach tolerance for those with different needs are also the ones who get dismissive every time someone asks for a midrange Mac tower or an iMac without a built in monitor.
Comments
What about the itanium chips?
Maybe for a the iBarbecuer.
Seriously, we have 1300 servers and are slowly dumping Itanium. Too expensive to support and Intel's x64 is just as good for our needs.
I wonder what the hold-up is for the new Mac Mini now. Snow Leopard or Quad Cores?
The fact that Apple doesn't already realize that the iMac is cutting into Mac Pro sales is kind of disturbing, but at the same time this is Apple's own doing.
When I update from my PowerMac G5 I am seriously looking at the 24" iMac. The Mac Pro has nothing really special to it except for the extra HDD bays and the ability to have more than 2 displays hooked up to it. Most of the software out there won't take advantage of 4 cores let alone 8.
A Quad Core iMac makes the most sense for a computer that Apple appears to only want to sell. The mini and pro were left out to pasture a long time ago.
Apple now markets the Mac Pro strictly for the "Professional." They didn't do that with the Power Mac G series. I went from the Beige G3 to the iMac G5 and I am very happy with the iMac. The Beige G3 was too big on the desk and too noisy. The iMac is much nicer. The external hard drive I added to my iMac is much more versatile. Although not as easy, I can still upgrade the hard drive in my iMac. My next upgrade will be another iMac. And you can connect two displays to the iMac and extend your Desktop, if needed. The Mac Pro does seem to be overkill for most home users, especially at the price.
If Apple has technical problems right now about what chip to use or cooling system, I wont be making the jump into purchasing it. Apple is famous for major design problems during its first cycle....
IE: iPhone light leaks
24" iMac gradient displays - uneven backlighting
20" iMac suffer colour shifting from top to bottom of LCD
Macbook unibody hinge from LCD is loose.
I have a 2.0 GHz 20" iMac G5 and a 1.86 GHz MacBook (first generation combo drive).
The iMac is getting quite long in the tooth; I need an Intel machine for decent performance of software (Office '08, Adobe CS3) as well as for running Parallels. I also want a 24" display.
I was planning on replacing the G5 iMac with whatever new 24" iMac they came out with at MacWorld, and was thrown for a loop when they didn't do so. Now I'm in a holding pattern. My options include:
1. Upgrade current MacBook w/larger 3rd-party hard drive & DVD burner, get a 24" LCD, and sell the G5 iMac on eBay.
COST: appx. $300 for upgrades, $300 for LCD, minus $500 for the iMac sale = appx. $100, but with a lot of nervousness about ripping apart the MacBook. Dirt cheap but the system would still be very low-end by MacIntel-era standards.
2. Replace current MacBook with the new $1,000 model + LCD; sell off *both* the iMac and current MacBook.
COST: appx. $1,000 MacBook, $250 AppleCare, $100 for HD upgrade, $300 for LCD = $1,650, minus perhaps $500 each for the two systems = around $650.
3. Say "screw it" and buy the *current* 24" iMac, sell the G5 iMac and keep the current MacBook.
COST: appx. $1,550 (refurb) + $250 AppleCare = $1,800 - $500 for selling off the G5 iMac = around $1,300.
The third option has the ever-present risk that they'll release the iMac upgrade after all a couple of weeks after I buy it, of course.
I say Option 2.
Apple's next-generation iMacs are being held up for business reasons and a minor technical obstacle, according to one Wall Street analyst.
"We wanted to give an update on the Mac business from what we are picking up from our latest supply chain checks," Kaufman Bros. analyst Shaw Wu wrote in a report to clients Monday. " . . .
Wu, Wu, Wu. We only read your material for entertainment purposes now.
Let me summarize for those who have not followed the Wu-ness for long . . .
The iMacs are being delayed for some kind of business reasons.
Or maybe it's a technical obstacle.
The cases might be slightly changed, or might not.
The air venting might be slightly changed, or might not.
They might be quad-core, or might not.
It's like reading a horoscope -- after some event happens in a month or two,
Wu can tell his clients how right he was, and it'll almost look like he was,
no matter what happens.
iLaugh
It is not useless. It is a Pro desktop machine. Those of us that actually need a Pro system use software that uses the extra cores. Any developer using Xcode for instance takes full advantage of every core the system offers. 8 cores cuts compile times almost in half compared to a 4 core system. This adds up to significant time savings.
The Mac Pro is easily the best desktop Mac Apple has ever produced (and I've used Macs since the Mac 128K). I'm about to add 1TB drive to the system for example. Because I have 4 HD bays I can simply order an internal drive and not have to add an external like someone with an iMac will.. (saving $50-$100 right there). and taking advantage of the SATA interface.
Correct, as a Pro user, the Mac Pro works great for your needs. Most consumers are not developers, so a Mac Pro would be useless to them since the majority of software doesn't take advantage of 8 cores. Yet some people claim they need all the cores they can get, just for bragging rights, yet the software they use doesn't run any faster. I can add 1 TB to an iMac and take advantage of SATA as well. Everytime there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it for some reason or another.
main reason being is that if they release a new iMac soon, i will feel inclined to purchase sed mac, which would not really benefit me in the long term as a result of a rather piss poor economic climate.
so i reckon a march release would do me quite nicely, well, my parents.
I wonder what the hold-up is for the new Mac Mini now. Snow Leopard or Quad Cores?
Apple probably doesn't want to update the mini until the new iMac is available. A new mini would probably stack up pretty nicely against the current iMac and eat into iMac sales. So they need the new iMac ready to go before the new mini can be released.
So they need to hurry up wtih the new iMac so I can get my new mini!!
Then again, if the reports I've read about the new mDP not playing nice with 3rd party monitors is true, that will have to be resolved first since the minis will very likely be hooked up to many non-Apple screens (vs MB and iMacs which are seldom hooked up to any other monitors).
One thing is certain...
If Apple has technical problems right now about what chip to use or cooling system, I wont be making the jump into purchasing it. Apple is famous for major design problems during its first cycle....
IE: iPhone light leaks
24" iMac gradient displays - uneven backlighting
20" iMac suffer colour shifting from top to bottom of LCD
Macbook unibody hinge from LCD is loose.
So where is your proof? What is an iPhone light leak? I have seen many first generation iPhones (and I own one) and there is no such thing as an iPhone light leak. The choice of LCD displays in an iMac is a not a "major design problem." It is the choice of LCD panel used. If you claim your MacBook hinge is loose, go to Apple and use your warranty.
The use of a chip is primarily concerned with availability. Cooling hasn't been a problem since the liquid cooled G5's in 2005.
The Mac Pro is such a small sales number, I just don't buy the cannibalization idea. Make the iMac as good as possible, because it sells in much larger numbers, and then release the i7 mac pro.
And release a displayPort card for the mac pro, and a displayPort 30" monitor.
I agree. Remember that for most folks considering a MacPro, the biggest reason is that it supports a lot more than the 4GB max that the iMacs have. So even if someone buys a single 4-core Xeon, it will still outperform an iMac (theoretically) if you do a lot of high-end work requiring lots of memory. And of course, using a lot more internal drives too.
I'm waiting to see what the iMac and MacPro will look like and then purchase one accordingly. Should be really interesting!
I also can't see why Apple would think a quad-core iMac would hurt MacPro sales. There are far more reasons to get a MacPro than just a quad-core processor. Too many to go into details.
I agree. They need to upgrade the whole line and continue to differentiate the iMac and Mac Pro by putting more power in the Pro too. I guess at some point though even the lowest configuration is going to be plenty powerful enough for 90% of the buyers. Only video editors, engineers or scientists will have a need for high end super computers.
Firewire or no sale!!!!
I'm sorry, do you mean Firewire 400, 800, 1600 or 3200?
I'm sorry, do you mean Firewire 400, 800, 1600 or 3200?
I'm sure that FW400 will be dropped from all Mac desktops in favour of just FW800. Anything faster will not be ready yet. And I'd reckon that FW800 will be on the new Mini too since I feel that the removal of FW400 on the Mac notebooks was do to space constraints.
I believe OS X has always been able to use more than one processor/core. The efficiency, however, has been improving with each release, and Snow Leopard will take this to a new level.
Correct, as a Pro user, the Mac Pro works great for your needs. Most consumers are not developers, so a Mac Pro would be useless to them since the majority of software doesn't take advantage of 8 cores. Yet some people claim they need all the cores they can get, just for bragging rights, yet the software they use doesn't run any faster. I can add 1 TB to an iMac and take advantage of SATA as well. Everytime there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it for some reason or another.
Eight cores will be a huge advantage once Snow Leopard arrives. The software will definitely run faster then.
Thompson
What about the itanium chips?
Itanium is a different architecture than x86 and intended for servers. It's been an utter failure to date.
Correct, as a Pro user, the Mac Pro works great for your needs. Most consumers are not developers, so a Mac Pro would be useless to them since the majority of software doesn't take advantage of 8 cores. Yet some people claim they need all the cores they can get, just for bragging rights, yet the software they use doesn't run any faster. I can add 1 TB to an iMac and take advantage of SATA as well. Everytime there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it for some reason or another.
The reason why every time there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it is because there no Mac model in between the iMac and Mac Pro. The Mac Mini is not that model. It should have been, and that's what people were hoping for. But clearly it isn't. If you admit admit that the Mac Pro is not for everyone, then you should also be able to admit that the iMac is not for everyone either. Furthermore, it does not necessarily mean that people who don't need a Mac Pro will automatically be better off with an iMac. If you don't like Mac Pro owners forcing themselves on everyone, then iMac owners shouldn't do it either. It's ironic that people who like to preach tolerance for those with different needs are also the ones who get dismissive every time someone asks for a midrange Mac tower or an iMac without a built in monitor.