You forgot hard drives, CD drives, case, power supply, and assembly.
DVD burner $30
Hard drive $75
Power supply constant, maybe less if the quad core is using a power supply.
Case and assembly constant. Probably less than what it was six years as the G5 because they're made by foxconn in china now.
Quote:
Does your graphics card support displayPort? If apple is an early adopter of displayPort (I don't know if they are or not), then those cards will cost more.
Its the same graphics chipset in the Mac Pro. The GT120 is a slightly updated 9500GT which is actually father down the ladder the old 2600XT was (closer to the 2400XT).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I'm not sure I completely understood that. Would you please reword it?
Where would Apple lose sales to? They're the only ones selling Mac OS X machines. A lot of pros have more invested in software than they do the machine. Apple knows they have them hooked, which is why they can pull stuff like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Well the iMac helped save Apple in 1998. Apple had its best desktop sales the quarter right after Apple launched the current aluminum iMac.
The iMac didn't save anything, it sold well for two years and then fizzled with Apple having three very lean years afterwards. The real saviors are the iPod and the white iBook.
Where would Apple lose sales to? They're the only ones selling Mac OS X machines. A lot of pros have more invested in software than they do the machine. Apple knows they have them hooked, which is why they can pull stuff like this.
Apple was the only one selling OS X when people first invested in the platform. Why would anyone expect the situation to change?
Quote:
The iMac didn't save anything, it sold well for two years and then fizzled with Apple having three very lean years afterwards. The real saviors are the iPod and the white iBook.
Those were two crucial years that Apple needed the iMac to sell well.
The lean years you are talking about is the bursting of the over inflated Web bubble which hurt the stock market. Additionally the 9/11 attacks that pushed the entire economy into a recession. Those lean years?
Not to dismiss the HD4870, since it's my favourite GPU for the moment, but I really hope Apple reconsiders it's GPU strategy. AMD has just set the MSRP of the 512MB HD4870 at $149 making $200 for the Mac version expensive although not unexpected. My prime concern though is that the HD4870 is a mid-range GPU. It's basically filling the same price point in AMD's lineup as the HD2600XT did when it was initially introduced. But the HD4870 is Apple's fastest GPU option. This means that Apple and the Mac Pro no longer has a high-end GPU option. The 8800GT wasn't spectacular when it was released but at least it was in the performance segment, which no longer seems to exist on a Mac.
I can understand Apple not wanting to bother with the complexity of SLI or Crossfire, but they could offer the GTX285. Isn't that what Apple's relationship with nVidia should result in rather than the $60 low-end GT120 which is a rebranded 9500GT which is a rebranded 8600GT or in other words is a shrink of a 2 year old part? At the very least Apple could have went with the 1GB HD4870.
and...
Quote:
For the desktop single-socket parts that have been publicly released since November, the most comparable would be the 2.66 GHz.
Comparing a Core i7 920 at 2.66 GHz to a Core 2 Quad Q9550 at 2.83 GHz, the i7 920 is the *clear* winner. Indeed, the i7 920 is better at very many tasks than the previous ultra-high-end QX9770, which is a 3.2 GHz part with a faster front-side bus than the Q9550. (And is comparable to the 3.2 GHz Xeon in the previous Mac Pro.) What few things the QX9770 beats the i7 920 at, it is by less than 10%. At video encoding that has extensions for the i7, the i7 absolutely smokes the Core 2 line.
Indeed, for some tasks, the Core i7 965 is faster than a *PAIR* of Core 2 Extreme QX9775s! Which is why I was *REALLY* hoping that Apple would release an iMac with the desktop i7, and why I'm disappointed with the $2499 Mac Pro, which is basically equivalent to a $1019 Dell XPS Studio (i7 920, 3 GB RAM, 640 GB drive, Radeon 4670 (the closest Dell offers to the GeForce 120.)) Sorry, the Mac Pro chassis and ECC RAM are nice, but it's not worth $1500.
While I don't doubt that the dual-socket systems will compare very well to the equivalent Dell Precision Workstation; the single-socket Mac Pro is abysmal. Sorry, but I built the equivalent of that for *WAY* less back in December. The dual-socket system is absolutely incredible, and is, indeed, an excellent value. But the single-socket system should be $1499 (like the single-socket Power Mac G5 was,) not $2499.
and...
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by daver11
You people whining about price have no idea what it used to be like. In 1990, Apple introduced the Mac IIfx. This powerhouse had a "wicked fast" 40 MHz (that's MEGA-hertz, not GIGA-hertz) processor, could hold a max of 128MB of RAM, and had a whopping 160MB hard drive!!
All this could be yours, in 1990, for between $9,000 and $12,000, depending on configuration. Monitor, keyboard and mouse were extra.
That's because some of us weren't crazy enough to use a Mac then when it was underpowered, underwhelming and had a miserable operating system (only my opinion of course). In 1991, I had an Amiga 3000, which cost me around $2500 (barely used) with 350MB of hard drive space, 18MB of ram, a 25MHz 68030 and I'm reasonably certain it would have kicked the pants off that Mac in many respects in its day.
Quote:
Today, we get machines with literally thousands of times the power for less than one-third the price. Adjusted for inflation, it's more like one-sixth the price.
So your argument is to compare getting royally RIPPED OFF in 1990 with getting ripped off "less" in 2009 by way of comparison. But paying too much is paying too much in any decade. Apple's current hardware is the SAME as Dell's hardware and they charge 2x as much and your arguement is that you USED TO pay 5x as much so it's all good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pprior
Ummm, that's called "Free market economics." Google it.
Why are you here? if you want cheap PCs there are plenty of places to buy.
Why is it fanboys always take this attitude of, if you don't like getting ripped off, go buy a Windows PC? It's pretty flipping OBVIOUS why I'm here. I like the current Mac Operating System. That doesn't mean I like getting RIPPED OFF on the hardware side of things. But you seem to eat it up so enjoy paying the new prices. My next "Mac" will be a Hackintosh (unless Apple changes their prices and attitude between now and then).
Just some sentiments I picked up on some other boards. But they kind of sum up how I feel right now.
Not to dismiss the HD4870, since it's my favourite GPU for the moment, but I really hope Apple reconsiders it's GPU strategy. AMD has just set the MSRP of the 512MB HD4870 at $149 making $200 for the Mac version expensive although not unexpected. My prime concern though is that the HD4870 is a mid-range GPU. It's basically filling the same price point in AMD's lineup as the HD2600XT did when it was initially introduced. But the HD4870 is Apple's fastest GPU option. This means that Apple and the Mac Pro no longer has a high-end GPU option. The 8800GT wasn't spectacular when it was released but at least it was in the performance segment, which no longer seems to exist on a Mac.
I can understand Apple not wanting to bother with the complexity of SLI or Crossfire, but they could offer the GTX285. Isn't that what Apple's relationship with nVidia should result in rather than the $60 low-end GT120 which is a rebranded 9500GT which is a rebranded 8600GT or in other words is a shrink of a 2 year old part? At the very least Apple could have went with the 1GB HD4870.
and...
Quote:
For the desktop single-socket parts that have been publicly released since November, the most comparable would be the 2.66 GHz.
Comparing a Core i7 920 at 2.66 GHz to a Core 2 Quad Q9550 at 2.83 GHz, the i7 920 is the *clear* winner. Indeed, the i7 920 is better at very many tasks than the previous ultra-high-end QX9770, which is a 3.2 GHz part with a faster front-side bus than the Q9550. (And is comparable to the 3.2 GHz Xeon in the previous Mac Pro.) What few things the QX9770 beats the i7 920 at, it is by less than 10%. At video encoding that has extensions for the i7, the i7 absolutely smokes the Core 2 line.
Indeed, for some tasks, the Core i7 965 is faster than a *PAIR* of Core 2 Extreme QX9775s! Which is why I was *REALLY* hoping that Apple would release an iMac with the desktop i7, and why I'm disappointed with the $2499 Mac Pro, which is basically equivalent to a $1019 Dell XPS Studio (i7 920, 3 GB RAM, 640 GB drive, Radeon 4670 (the closest Dell offers to the GeForce 120.)) Sorry, the Mac Pro chassis and ECC RAM are nice, but it's not worth $1500.
While I don't doubt that the dual-socket systems will compare very well to the equivalent Dell Precision Workstation; the single-socket Mac Pro is abysmal. Sorry, but I built the equivalent of that for *WAY* less back in December. The dual-socket system is absolutely incredible, and is, indeed, an excellent value. But the single-socket system should be $1499 (like the single-socket Power Mac G5 was,) not $2499.
and...
Quote:
Originally Posted by daver11
You people whining about price have no idea what it used to be like. In 1990, Apple introduced the Mac IIfx. This powerhouse had a "wicked fast" 40 MHz (that's MEGA-hertz, not GIGA-hertz) processor, could hold a max of 128MB of RAM, and had a whopping 160MB hard drive!!
All this could be yours, in 1990, for between $9,000 and $12,000, depending on configuration. Monitor, keyboard and mouse were extra.
That's because some of us weren't crazy enough to use a Mac then when it was underpowered, underwhelming and had a miserable operating system (only my opinion of course). In 1991, I had an Amiga 3000, which cost me around $2500 (barely used) with 350MB of hard drive space, 18MB of ram, a 25MHz 68030 and I'm reasonably certain it would have kicked the pants off that Mac in many respects in its day.
Quote:
Today, we get machines with literally thousands of times the power for less than one-third the price. Adjusted for inflation, it's more like one-sixth the price.
So your argument is to compare getting royally RIPPED OFF in 1990 with getting ripped off "less" in 2009 by way of comparison. But paying too much is paying too much in any decade. Apple's current hardware is the SAME as Dell's hardware and they charge 2x as much and your arguement is that you USED TO pay 5x as much so it's all good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pprior
Ummm, that's called "Free market economics." Google it.
Why are you here? if you want cheap PCs there are plenty of places to buy.
Why is it fanboys always take this attitude of, if you don't like getting ripped off, go buy a Windows PC? It's pretty flipping OBVIOUS why I'm here. I like the current Mac Operating System. That doesn't mean I like getting RIPPED OFF on the hardware side of things. But you seem to eat it up so enjoy paying the new prices. My next "Mac" will be a Hackintosh (unless Apple changes their prices and attitude between now and then).
Just some sentiments I picked up on some other boards. But they kind of sum up how I feel right now.
Lemon Bon Bon.
-----------
Sorry, I had to change it a bit for visual clarity. However, it sure would be nice if multi-level quoting had different backgrounds.
Where would Apple lose sales to? They're the only ones selling Mac OS X machines. A lot of pros have more invested in software than they do the machine. Apple knows they have them hooked, which is why they can pull stuff like this.
Well, that's wrong. Apple is competing to take away the Windows, and Unix workstation business from others, and they are competing to take it away from Apple.
They haven't "pulled" any "stuff". This machine is competitive with anything that will play in the same market. You have to stop comparing it to,machines that are not competing with it in the market for cheap home machines. Once you finally understand that, then you will know what's really happening.
Quote:
The iMac didn't save anything, it sold well for two years and then fizzled with Apple having three very lean years afterwards. The real saviors are the iPod and the white iBook.
Thats not true either.
Again, you miss the situation.
In the years leading up to the 2000 computer date crisis, IT, and others were buying new equipment like crazy. IMac sales were significant. Once that was over in 2001, the entire computer industry crashed. No one was buying computers for some time at close to the rates they were buying them before, and that included home computer buyers.
Then the recession hit in 2002, and computer sales all over remained low. When the recession ended, about late 2003, early 2004, computer sales moved up again, and Apple's sales started to zoom. This was BEFORE the Intel Macs. It included higher sales for the iMacs as well.
The 6 months leading to the Intel Mac introduction, after it was announced, were a time when Apple's sales increase slowed down. Shortly after the Intel machines came out, sales zoomed again.
The number one problem as I see it with these updates is that there is not one version of the iMac with a quad core processors which should have been Apples primary goal for this update. It is just that Apple is now engaged in selling desktops that have no chance at all of leveraging Snow Leopard which is so near release. This is what I see that is pathetic. The low end iMac isn't all that bad and neither is the Mini, but lets face it if you are clued into where Apple is going with its OS you will not want to have a dual core machine in the near future. That makes most of the new iMac line up an incredibly bad value for informed purchasers.
In any event it is not a question of reflecting on what the industry was like a year ago or 5 years ago, but rather it is a question of looking at the hardware and seeing how it fits in with Apples documented future software systems. If you know deep down that you are going to keep the platform for any reasonable length of time you will want that platform to work well with the next OS release which is only a few months away. I think this is where many people have failed to grasp what the hell Apple is up to with this rev of the iMac.
Now - there is a gap to be closed by apple, named "Core 2 Quad" (4 Threads). Perfect fit for a mid-range Tower or new Apple Cube.
We have had hundreds of people here say that over the past few years.
The idea is nothing new.
But when we discuss it, it's becoming a waste of time. If we could sit down with Apple and discuss it, maybe that would matter.
But all we do is to complain to each other about the injustice of it.
The only way Apple MIGHT care, is if thousands of people wrote them letters about it, and not a form letter, because that doesn't work, but individually written letters, by snail mail.
I would love an aluminum cube, with a fast 4-core non-server processor, and with room for two hard drives and the new ATI graphics card. It would be a very popular product - I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
I would love an aluminum cube, with a fast 4-core non-server processor, and with room for two hard drives and the new ATI graphics card. It would be a very popular product - I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
The number one problem as I see it with these updates is that there is not one version of the iMac with a quad core processors which should have been Apples primary goal for this update. It is just that Apple is now engaged in selling desktops that have no chance at all of leveraging Snow Leopard which is so near release. This is what I see that is pathetic. The low end iMac isn't all that bad and neither is the Mini, but lets face it if you are clued into where Apple is going with its OS you will not want to have a dual core machine in the near future. That makes most of the new iMac line up an incredibly bad value for informed purchasers.
In any event it is not a question of reflecting on what the industry was like a year ago or 5 years ago, but rather it is a question of looking at the hardware and seeing how it fits in with Apples documented future software systems. If you know deep down that you are going to keep the platform for any reasonable length of time you will want that platform to work well with the next OS release which is only a few months away. I think this is where many people have failed to grasp what the hell Apple is up to with this rev of the iMac.
Dave
I'm not so sure that these machines can't leverage the newer OS's. I'm sure Apple must have thought about this. There's no way that they would make such a big deal about Grand Central and Open CL if these machines wouldn't benefit from it.
How much will they see we don't know.
I do agree that a quad would have been nice, but as has been pointed out, the power requirements would be too much right now.
About thinness. I agree that too much emphasis has been placed on it, but consumers really like it. When people come over here, they look at my daughter's or my wife's machine and love it.
"Wow! That's beautiful!"
"Gee, that's thin!".
Those are common expressions I get. A number of people have bought them after seeing them.
I don't care if they were an inch thicker, but, who knows?
I'm not so sure that these machines can't leverage the newer OS's. I'm sure Apple must have thought about this. There's no way that they would make such a big deal about Grand Central and Open CL if these machines wouldn't benefit from it.
How much will they see we don't know.
I do agree that a quad would have been nice, but as has been pointed out, the power requirements would be too much right now.
About thinness. I agree that too much emphasis has been placed on it, but consumers really like it. When people come over here, they look at my daughter's or my wife's machine and love it.
"Wow! That's beautiful!"
"Gee, that's thin!".
Those are common expressions I get. A number of people have bought them after seeing them.
I don't care if they were an inch thicker, but, who knows?
Its this kind of aesthetic fetishism that would make Marx roll in his grave!
I think you are right: apple sells based on OSX and aesthetics, not best dollar-to-features ratio or by producing computers to fit ALL sections of the sectors and based on their growth/profit, who are we to tell them otherwise (except depressed apple-users who want an xmac)
Its this kind of aesthetic fetishism that would make Marx roll in his grave!
I think you are right: apple sells based on OSX and aesthetics, not best dollar-to-features ratio or by producing computers to fit ALL sections of the sectors and based on their growth/profit, who are we to tell them otherwise (except depressed apple-users who want an xmac)
That's basically it.
Most computer companies make machines for the bedroom or rec room. Apple makes computers for the livingroom.
The first computer ever featured in Architectural Digest was the first series of iMacs. Never before had they done that. They even remove wiring from the pictures!
Now, I see a Mac in pictures in that magazine every couple of months, but never any other.
Apple is doing what they think they should be. As long as they are successful at it, we can't tell them otherwise, even if some people here want something else.
We'll see what happens during this recession. If their computer sales drop more than the average of other computer companies, then we'll see that they must do something. but if it doesn't, well...
Comments
I think the AIO is a good system up to a certain point and then it gets silly. Apple has never proven that AIO designs are desired by consumers.
You forgot hard drives, CD drives, case, power supply, and assembly.
DVD burner $30
Hard drive $75
Power supply constant, maybe less if the quad core is using a power supply.
Case and assembly constant. Probably less than what it was six years as the G5 because they're made by foxconn in china now.
Does your graphics card support displayPort? If apple is an early adopter of displayPort (I don't know if they are or not), then those cards will cost more.
Its the same graphics chipset in the Mac Pro. The GT120 is a slightly updated 9500GT which is actually father down the ladder the old 2600XT was (closer to the 2400XT).
I'm not sure I completely understood that. Would you please reword it?
Where would Apple lose sales to? They're the only ones selling Mac OS X machines. A lot of pros have more invested in software than they do the machine. Apple knows they have them hooked, which is why they can pull stuff like this.
Well the iMac helped save Apple in 1998. Apple had its best desktop sales the quarter right after Apple launched the current aluminum iMac.
The iMac didn't save anything, it sold well for two years and then fizzled with Apple having three very lean years afterwards. The real saviors are the iPod and the white iBook.
Where would Apple lose sales to? They're the only ones selling Mac OS X machines. A lot of pros have more invested in software than they do the machine. Apple knows they have them hooked, which is why they can pull stuff like this.
Apple was the only one selling OS X when people first invested in the platform. Why would anyone expect the situation to change?
The iMac didn't save anything, it sold well for two years and then fizzled with Apple having three very lean years afterwards. The real saviors are the iPod and the white iBook.
Those were two crucial years that Apple needed the iMac to sell well.
The lean years you are talking about is the bursting of the over inflated Web bubble which hurt the stock market. Additionally the 9/11 attacks that pushed the entire economy into a recession. Those lean years?
Those were two crucial years that Apple needed the iMac to sell well.
You're right there. It helped save Apple or buy them time.
Lemon Bon Bon.
250 million PC sold. Plenty of those were towers. The market is there.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Not to dismiss the HD4870, since it's my favourite GPU for the moment, but I really hope Apple reconsiders it's GPU strategy. AMD has just set the MSRP of the 512MB HD4870 at $149 making $200 for the Mac version expensive although not unexpected. My prime concern though is that the HD4870 is a mid-range GPU. It's basically filling the same price point in AMD's lineup as the HD2600XT did when it was initially introduced. But the HD4870 is Apple's fastest GPU option. This means that Apple and the Mac Pro no longer has a high-end GPU option. The 8800GT wasn't spectacular when it was released but at least it was in the performance segment, which no longer seems to exist on a Mac.
I can understand Apple not wanting to bother with the complexity of SLI or Crossfire, but they could offer the GTX285. Isn't that what Apple's relationship with nVidia should result in rather than the $60 low-end GT120 which is a rebranded 9500GT which is a rebranded 8600GT or in other words is a shrink of a 2 year old part? At the very least Apple could have went with the 1GB HD4870.
and...
For the desktop single-socket parts that have been publicly released since November, the most comparable would be the 2.66 GHz.
Comparing a Core i7 920 at 2.66 GHz to a Core 2 Quad Q9550 at 2.83 GHz, the i7 920 is the *clear* winner. Indeed, the i7 920 is better at very many tasks than the previous ultra-high-end QX9770, which is a 3.2 GHz part with a faster front-side bus than the Q9550. (And is comparable to the 3.2 GHz Xeon in the previous Mac Pro.) What few things the QX9770 beats the i7 920 at, it is by less than 10%. At video encoding that has extensions for the i7, the i7 absolutely smokes the Core 2 line.
Indeed, for some tasks, the Core i7 965 is faster than a *PAIR* of Core 2 Extreme QX9775s! Which is why I was *REALLY* hoping that Apple would release an iMac with the desktop i7, and why I'm disappointed with the $2499 Mac Pro, which is basically equivalent to a $1019 Dell XPS Studio (i7 920, 3 GB RAM, 640 GB drive, Radeon 4670 (the closest Dell offers to the GeForce 120.)) Sorry, the Mac Pro chassis and ECC RAM are nice, but it's not worth $1500.
While I don't doubt that the dual-socket systems will compare very well to the equivalent Dell Precision Workstation; the single-socket Mac Pro is abysmal. Sorry, but I built the equivalent of that for *WAY* less back in December. The dual-socket system is absolutely incredible, and is, indeed, an excellent value. But the single-socket system should be $1499 (like the single-socket Power Mac G5 was,) not $2499.
and...
Quote:
Originally Posted by daver11
You people whining about price have no idea what it used to be like. In 1990, Apple introduced the Mac IIfx. This powerhouse had a "wicked fast" 40 MHz (that's MEGA-hertz, not GIGA-hertz) processor, could hold a max of 128MB of RAM, and had a whopping 160MB hard drive!!
All this could be yours, in 1990, for between $9,000 and $12,000, depending on configuration. Monitor, keyboard and mouse were extra.
That's because some of us weren't crazy enough to use a Mac then when it was underpowered, underwhelming and had a miserable operating system (only my opinion of course). In 1991, I had an Amiga 3000, which cost me around $2500 (barely used) with 350MB of hard drive space, 18MB of ram, a 25MHz 68030 and I'm reasonably certain it would have kicked the pants off that Mac in many respects in its day.
Quote:
Today, we get machines with literally thousands of times the power for less than one-third the price. Adjusted for inflation, it's more like one-sixth the price.
So your argument is to compare getting royally RIPPED OFF in 1990 with getting ripped off "less" in 2009 by way of comparison. But paying too much is paying too much in any decade. Apple's current hardware is the SAME as Dell's hardware and they charge 2x as much and your arguement is that you USED TO pay 5x as much so it's all good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pprior
Ummm, that's called "Free market economics." Google it.
Why are you here? if you want cheap PCs there are plenty of places to buy.
Why is it fanboys always take this attitude of, if you don't like getting ripped off, go buy a Windows PC? It's pretty flipping OBVIOUS why I'm here. I like the current Mac Operating System. That doesn't mean I like getting RIPPED OFF on the hardware side of things. But you seem to eat it up so enjoy paying the new prices. My next "Mac" will be a Hackintosh (unless Apple changes their prices and attitude between now and then).
Just some sentiments I picked up on some other boards. But they kind of sum up how I feel right now.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Not to dismiss the HD4870, since it's my favourite GPU for the moment, but I really hope Apple reconsiders it's GPU strategy. AMD has just set the MSRP of the 512MB HD4870 at $149 making $200 for the Mac version expensive although not unexpected. My prime concern though is that the HD4870 is a mid-range GPU. It's basically filling the same price point in AMD's lineup as the HD2600XT did when it was initially introduced. But the HD4870 is Apple's fastest GPU option. This means that Apple and the Mac Pro no longer has a high-end GPU option. The 8800GT wasn't spectacular when it was released but at least it was in the performance segment, which no longer seems to exist on a Mac.
I can understand Apple not wanting to bother with the complexity of SLI or Crossfire, but they could offer the GTX285. Isn't that what Apple's relationship with nVidia should result in rather than the $60 low-end GT120 which is a rebranded 9500GT which is a rebranded 8600GT or in other words is a shrink of a 2 year old part? At the very least Apple could have went with the 1GB HD4870.
and...
For the desktop single-socket parts that have been publicly released since November, the most comparable would be the 2.66 GHz.
Comparing a Core i7 920 at 2.66 GHz to a Core 2 Quad Q9550 at 2.83 GHz, the i7 920 is the *clear* winner. Indeed, the i7 920 is better at very many tasks than the previous ultra-high-end QX9770, which is a 3.2 GHz part with a faster front-side bus than the Q9550. (And is comparable to the 3.2 GHz Xeon in the previous Mac Pro.) What few things the QX9770 beats the i7 920 at, it is by less than 10%. At video encoding that has extensions for the i7, the i7 absolutely smokes the Core 2 line.
Indeed, for some tasks, the Core i7 965 is faster than a *PAIR* of Core 2 Extreme QX9775s! Which is why I was *REALLY* hoping that Apple would release an iMac with the desktop i7, and why I'm disappointed with the $2499 Mac Pro, which is basically equivalent to a $1019 Dell XPS Studio (i7 920, 3 GB RAM, 640 GB drive, Radeon 4670 (the closest Dell offers to the GeForce 120.)) Sorry, the Mac Pro chassis and ECC RAM are nice, but it's not worth $1500.
While I don't doubt that the dual-socket systems will compare very well to the equivalent Dell Precision Workstation; the single-socket Mac Pro is abysmal. Sorry, but I built the equivalent of that for *WAY* less back in December. The dual-socket system is absolutely incredible, and is, indeed, an excellent value. But the single-socket system should be $1499 (like the single-socket Power Mac G5 was,) not $2499.
and...
Originally Posted by daver11
You people whining about price have no idea what it used to be like. In 1990, Apple introduced the Mac IIfx. This powerhouse had a "wicked fast" 40 MHz (that's MEGA-hertz, not GIGA-hertz) processor, could hold a max of 128MB of RAM, and had a whopping 160MB hard drive!!
All this could be yours, in 1990, for between $9,000 and $12,000, depending on configuration. Monitor, keyboard and mouse were extra.
That's because some of us weren't crazy enough to use a Mac then when it was underpowered, underwhelming and had a miserable operating system (only my opinion of course). In 1991, I had an Amiga 3000, which cost me around $2500 (barely used) with 350MB of hard drive space, 18MB of ram, a 25MHz 68030 and I'm reasonably certain it would have kicked the pants off that Mac in many respects in its day.
Today, we get machines with literally thousands of times the power for less than one-third the price. Adjusted for inflation, it's more like one-sixth the price.
So your argument is to compare getting royally RIPPED OFF in 1990 with getting ripped off "less" in 2009 by way of comparison. But paying too much is paying too much in any decade. Apple's current hardware is the SAME as Dell's hardware and they charge 2x as much and your arguement is that you USED TO pay 5x as much so it's all good.
Originally Posted by pprior
Ummm, that's called "Free market economics." Google it.
Why are you here? if you want cheap PCs there are plenty of places to buy.
Why is it fanboys always take this attitude of, if you don't like getting ripped off, go buy a Windows PC? It's pretty flipping OBVIOUS why I'm here. I like the current Mac Operating System. That doesn't mean I like getting RIPPED OFF on the hardware side of things. But you seem to eat it up so enjoy paying the new prices. My next "Mac" will be a Hackintosh (unless Apple changes their prices and attitude between now and then).
Just some sentiments I picked up on some other boards. But they kind of sum up how I feel right now.
Lemon Bon Bon.
-----------
Sorry, I had to change it a bit for visual clarity. However, it sure would be nice if multi-level quoting had different backgrounds.
Where would Apple lose sales to? They're the only ones selling Mac OS X machines. A lot of pros have more invested in software than they do the machine. Apple knows they have them hooked, which is why they can pull stuff like this.
Well, that's wrong. Apple is competing to take away the Windows, and Unix workstation business from others, and they are competing to take it away from Apple.
They haven't "pulled" any "stuff". This machine is competitive with anything that will play in the same market. You have to stop comparing it to,machines that are not competing with it in the market for cheap home machines. Once you finally understand that, then you will know what's really happening.
The iMac didn't save anything, it sold well for two years and then fizzled with Apple having three very lean years afterwards. The real saviors are the iPod and the white iBook.
Thats not true either.
Again, you miss the situation.
In the years leading up to the 2000 computer date crisis, IT, and others were buying new equipment like crazy. IMac sales were significant. Once that was over in 2001, the entire computer industry crashed. No one was buying computers for some time at close to the rates they were buying them before, and that included home computer buyers.
Then the recession hit in 2002, and computer sales all over remained low. When the recession ended, about late 2003, early 2004, computer sales moved up again, and Apple's sales started to zoom. This was BEFORE the Intel Macs. It included higher sales for the iMacs as well.
The 6 months leading to the Intel Mac introduction, after it was announced, were a time when Apple's sales increase slowed down. Shortly after the Intel machines came out, sales zoomed again.
Certainly, the case for a mid-tower is stronger than ever.
250 million PC sold. Plenty of those were towers. The market is there.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Yes, it is there.
There are few here that would dispute the "fact" that a mid tower xMac would sell.
But, for whatever the reason, Apple so far has shown no interest.
They have their reasons, and we don't know nearly enough to dispute them. We can only say "I wish they produced an xMac".
and...
and...
Just some sentiments I picked up on some other boards. But they kind of sum up how I feel right now.
Lemon Bon Bon.
That was a lot of yap yap yap.
The 4870 is NOT a midrange GPU. If you compare it to the dual 4870, then yes.
But right now, it's about the most powerful GPU out there.
Nvidia's latest offering is being criticized all over.
Mac Mini: Core 2 Duo (2 Threads)
iMac: Core 2 Duo (2 Threads)
MacBook (Pro): Core 2 Duo (2 Threads)
Mac Pro: Quad and 8-core (8 and 16 Threads)
Now - there is a gap to be closed by apple, named "Core 2 Quad" (4 Threads). Perfect fit for a mid-range Tower or new Apple Cube.
In any event it is not a question of reflecting on what the industry was like a year ago or 5 years ago, but rather it is a question of looking at the hardware and seeing how it fits in with Apples documented future software systems. If you know deep down that you are going to keep the platform for any reasonable length of time you will want that platform to work well with the next OS release which is only a few months away. I think this is where many people have failed to grasp what the hell Apple is up to with this rev of the iMac.
Dave
i thought about apples' actual product line.
Mac Mini: Core 2 Duo (2 Threads)
iMac: Core 2 Duo (2 Threads)
MacBook (Pro): Core 2 Duo (2 Threads)
Mac Pro: Quad and 8-core (8 and 16 Threads)
Now - there is a gap to be closed by apple, named "Core 2 Quad" (4 Threads). Perfect fit for a mid-range Tower or new Apple Cube.
We have had hundreds of people here say that over the past few years.
The idea is nothing new.
But when we discuss it, it's becoming a waste of time. If we could sit down with Apple and discuss it, maybe that would matter.
But all we do is to complain to each other about the injustice of it.
The only way Apple MIGHT care, is if thousands of people wrote them letters about it, and not a form letter, because that doesn't work, but individually written letters, by snail mail.
I would love an aluminum cube, with a fast 4-core non-server processor, and with room for two hard drives and the new ATI graphics card. It would be a very popular product - I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Hey I'm not gonna fight you on it
The number one problem as I see it with these updates is that there is not one version of the iMac with a quad core processors which should have been Apples primary goal for this update. It is just that Apple is now engaged in selling desktops that have no chance at all of leveraging Snow Leopard which is so near release. This is what I see that is pathetic. The low end iMac isn't all that bad and neither is the Mini, but lets face it if you are clued into where Apple is going with its OS you will not want to have a dual core machine in the near future. That makes most of the new iMac line up an incredibly bad value for informed purchasers.
In any event it is not a question of reflecting on what the industry was like a year ago or 5 years ago, but rather it is a question of looking at the hardware and seeing how it fits in with Apples documented future software systems. If you know deep down that you are going to keep the platform for any reasonable length of time you will want that platform to work well with the next OS release which is only a few months away. I think this is where many people have failed to grasp what the hell Apple is up to with this rev of the iMac.
Dave
I'm not so sure that these machines can't leverage the newer OS's. I'm sure Apple must have thought about this. There's no way that they would make such a big deal about Grand Central and Open CL if these machines wouldn't benefit from it.
How much will they see we don't know.
I do agree that a quad would have been nice, but as has been pointed out, the power requirements would be too much right now.
About thinness. I agree that too much emphasis has been placed on it, but consumers really like it. When people come over here, they look at my daughter's or my wife's machine and love it.
"Wow! That's beautiful!"
"Gee, that's thin!".
Those are common expressions I get. A number of people have bought them after seeing them.
I don't care if they were an inch thicker, but, who knows?
I'm not so sure that these machines can't leverage the newer OS's. I'm sure Apple must have thought about this. There's no way that they would make such a big deal about Grand Central and Open CL if these machines wouldn't benefit from it.
How much will they see we don't know.
I do agree that a quad would have been nice, but as has been pointed out, the power requirements would be too much right now.
About thinness. I agree that too much emphasis has been placed on it, but consumers really like it. When people come over here, they look at my daughter's or my wife's machine and love it.
"Wow! That's beautiful!"
"Gee, that's thin!".
Those are common expressions I get. A number of people have bought them after seeing them.
I don't care if they were an inch thicker, but, who knows?
Its this kind of aesthetic fetishism that would make Marx roll in his grave!
I think you are right: apple sells based on OSX and aesthetics, not best dollar-to-features ratio or by producing computers to fit ALL sections of the sectors and based on their growth/profit, who are we to tell them otherwise (except depressed apple-users who want an xmac)
Its this kind of aesthetic fetishism that would make Marx roll in his grave!
I think you are right: apple sells based on OSX and aesthetics, not best dollar-to-features ratio or by producing computers to fit ALL sections of the sectors and based on their growth/profit, who are we to tell them otherwise (except depressed apple-users who want an xmac)
That's basically it.
Most computer companies make machines for the bedroom or rec room. Apple makes computers for the livingroom.
The first computer ever featured in Architectural Digest was the first series of iMacs. Never before had they done that. They even remove wiring from the pictures!
Now, I see a Mac in pictures in that magazine every couple of months, but never any other.
Apple is doing what they think they should be. As long as they are successful at it, we can't tell them otherwise, even if some people here want something else.
We'll see what happens during this recession. If their computer sales drop more than the average of other computer companies, then we'll see that they must do something. but if it doesn't, well...
Notebooks are projected to sell 155.6 million units this year.
Desktops are projected to sell 81 million units this year.
These projections don't help encourage Apple to create another desktop line.
Certainly, the case for a mid-tower is stronger than ever.
250 million PC sold. Plenty of those were towers. The market is there.
Lemon Bon Bon.