Like it or not if you leave the slots out of a consumer grade machine there are far fewer ways for the user to screw up his machine. Especially with rugged I/O through connectors like USB.
There's a bit of a limit though. With these USB sticks for memory or networking that stick out 2", that makes me very nervous, so I end up feeling like I have to go cautiously, like stepping around broken glass. The length basically acts like a lever.
The other problem PCs had with interrupts was that there weren't enough of them. The way Apple handled it solved the problem.
We constantly get this call for slots, but people rarely use them when they have them. The consumer Macs are being aimed at a group that never used the slots.
Apple knows that they're not going to get 70% of the PC business, so they can afford to ignore those who want slots. There are a vast sea of people out there who will move to a Mac, or not, solely because of the OS, and the way the machine looks.
This is true for people who are demanding a higher performing machine.
Good points. Personally speaking, the only reason I would upgrade a current machine is to upgrade the graphics card, and I think I'm more an exception than a rule.
The other problem PCs had with interrupts was that there weren't enough of them. The way Apple handled it solved the problem.
Some of those cards never go away. I still work on and configure machines at work using ISA cards.
Quote:
We constantly get this call for slots, but people rarely use them when they have them. The consumer Macs are being aimed at a group that never used the slots.
I agree with the idea that they are being aimed at consumers but the very lack of slots eliminates them from use in non consummer applications. Even with slots the Mac Pro is way to large for many commercial applications.
A slot or two may mean very little for a machine marketed to consummers but it is often required for commercial sales. Even in a commercial environment the slots don't always get used but the people maintaining the machine ls like to keep the mix of hardware to a minimal. Thus swapping around computers often is just a software change and sometimes a card change or two.
In any event the lack of a slot takes Apple out of the running for many organizations as they see it as a requirement. Since effectively there is little difference between a consummer machine and a corporate machine the lack of a low cost slotted machine is a huge problem for Apple when it comes to commercial sales.
Quote:
Apple knows that they're not going to get 70% of the PC business, so they can afford to ignore those who want slots. There are a vast sea of people out there who will move to a Mac, or not, solely because of the OS, and the way the machine looks.
Yes this is true from the standpoint of the consummer. It is not however the case when it comes to winning corporate sales. Right or wrong many expect a slot or two
Would Apple win those sales if it had such hardware. I can't say but there was a lot if frustration with MS that could have opened more doors if Apple had an economical model. With Windows 7 that door will Close a little bit.
Quote:
This is true for people who are demanding a higher performing machine.
What is true? That people will move to Apple hardware if the performance is terrible? I think not. In fact Windows 7 running on modern eight thread processors could easily revers that trend because the one thing people won't put up with is really bad performance. Especially when in Snow Leopard we have an OS that was explicitly desgned to leverage the new generation of processors. If Apple can't deliver hardware to leverage that software they are screwed. Why deal with a company that delivers half solutions?
Yes this is true from the standpoint of the consummer. It is not however the case when it comes to winning corporate sales. Right or wrong many expect a slot or two
Very few people care about slots anymore. Even audio guys have moved on.
Corporations love the whole 'sealed box' approach, since it minimizes support costs.
The only good reason to buy a consumer/prosumer machine with slots in 2009 is to get Light Peak in 2010.
but people / Corporations want to have there own screen.
and the mini is too weak / over priced and the mac pro is over the top / over priced as well.
and the you need a video card for many things as well and I don't see taking over pci-e bus for stuff on board.
What do most people in a corporation do? Sure, there will be some that need powerful computers. However, outside of IT, engineering and the creative media people, it looks to me that most people just need to run Office, email and web browsing type tasks. Some jobs only need a virtual TTY terminal, which only requires all the processing power of a freaking graphing calculator.
Heck, I just retired a dual 500MHz Xeon only because the hard drive was acting up, before that, it was doing everything the user needed. A Mac mini could have done what the old machine did just fine, but with far less electricity consumption. The user simply didn't need anything fancy.
Some of those cards never go away. I still work on and configure machines at work using ISA cards.
I agree with the idea that they are being aimed at consumers but the very lack of slots eliminates them from use in non consummer applications. Even with slots the Mac Pro is way to large for many commercial applications.
A slot or two may mean very little for a machine marketed to consummers but it is often required for commercial sales. Even in a commercial environment the slots don't always get used but the people maintaining the machine ls like to keep the mix of hardware to a minimal. Thus swapping around computers often is just a software change and sometimes a card change or two.
In any event the lack of a slot takes Apple out of the running for many organizations as they see it as a requirement. Since effectively there is little difference between a consummer machine and a corporate machine the lack of a low cost slotted machine is a huge problem for Apple when it comes to commercial sales.
Yes this is true from the standpoint of the consummer. It is not however the case when it comes to winning corporate sales. Right or wrong many expect a slot or two
Would Apple win those sales if it had such hardware. I can't say but there was a lot if frustration with MS that could have opened more doors if Apple had an economical model. With Windows 7 that door will Close a little bit.
What is true? That people will move to Apple hardware if the performance is terrible? I think not. In fact Windows 7 running on modern eight thread processors could easily revers that trend because the one thing people won't put up with is really bad performance. Especially when in Snow Leopard we have an OS that was explicitly desgned to leverage the new generation of processors. If Apple can't deliver hardware to leverage that software they are screwed. Why deal with a company that delivers half solutions?
Dave
I've not denied the desire for a slot from some groups, be they business or not. But as I've also said, Apple can afford to ignore them.
The fact is that Apple is interested in doing what they want to do. They can do that because in those areas, they are apparently doing as well as they want, and expect to.
We can say that there are groups that won't buy the machines because of that, and that's correct. But, so what? If Apple doesn't care, that's that.
I really think that we have to forget this. Apple has a plan for years in advance.
We've been calling for an xMac for years, myself included, if you remember. I even had a design I submitted to my friends there.
Lets not kid ourselves. Everything we've said here has been thought of at Apple. They've very likely done the math.
They aren't interested in pursuing business if business wants them to move from their plan. Business is actually responding. Use in large corporations has more than doubled in the past three years. It's a small number, but it's been increasing.
If business will come to Apple, then they are obviously happy to let it.
Meanwhile 30% of consumer computers bought in the US in the past 100 days have been Mac laptops. If you include the rest, it's likely close to 35%.
That's quite a number. If their revisions will be somewhat cheaper, that number could rise.
What more do people here want? That's success.
Just because people with technical demands aren't getting what they want doesn't mean that Apple is doing the wrong thing.
Since there are pros who do use the iMac line, it shows that it's good enough for much of that segment as well.
I've called for a graphics slot in iMacs since the first white flat models came out. But it is what it is. I've bought two 24" for my family, and they love them.
I'd like to see an i7 model with a couple of slots, but Apple isn't interested, and so that's that. We can argue until the cows come home.
but people / Corporations want to have there own screen.
and the mini is too weak / over priced and the mac pro is over the top / over priced as well.
and the you need a video card for many things as well and I don't see taking over pci-e bus for stuff on board.
The truth is that businesses don't need slots.
Really, what are they going to put in one?
Business doesn't run 3D software. They don't play 3D games. Most computers are on the desks of secretaries.
The graphics on these models is more that adequate. How much RAM do they need? Not much. HDD's? Big enough.
It's a myth about what business NEEDS. Yes, what some of them WANT is a different story. And that's really just the IT department.
But the truth is that the hardware is less important than the OS. It's the OS that's holding business back.
When all the software they need is available for the Mac, and the backend operations can run on Macs with the home written applications they use, then switching will be easier, and more will do it.
But until then, it will be a struggle. Only in the past two years have we seen some significant movement from major software makers for business, moving their apps over. This includes heavy duty network management software and the like.
But those very big apps that have been developed by IT staff over time isn't going to be ported over any time soon. And for many large corporations, that's the straw that breaks the camel's back. Without that, many operations can't be done on Macs.
Virtualization software, and Bootcamp are not enough for those companies.
What do most people in a corporation do? Sure, there will be some that need powerful computers. However, outside of IT, engineering and the creative media people, it looks to me that most people just need to run Office, email and web browsing type tasks. Some jobs only need a virtual TTY terminal, which only requires all the processing power of a freaking graphing calculator.
Heck, I just retired a dual 500MHz Xeon only because the hard drive was acting up, before that, it was doing everything the user needed. A Mac mini could have done what the old machine did just fine, but with far less electricity consumption. The user simply didn't need anything fancy.
but the mini is a bad buy for it's hardware at it's price and only 1gb of ram??
also the hdd need to be easier to get to. I don't corporations sending out a hd that may have data on it to some out side corporation to get fixed.
"— If PCs for example, had 1) hard drive interface (instead of IDE, SATA, SCSI, etc) 1) video interface and 1) network interface we could reduce kernel code size of Linux by 30%"
"? If PCs for example, had 1) hard drive interface (instead of IDE, SATA, SCSI, etc) 1) video interface and 1) network interface we could reduce kernel code size of Linux by 30%"
Motherboard complexity is related.
Right now you might have a case that can have up to four drives. Maybe a user will want three DVD's and a single big HD, or maybe three HD's and a a single DVD, etc. Since you don't know, you need to put on four of each connector, for a total of eight. That's in spite of the fact that you can only physically add four drives.
With a new connector that runs both, you need four connectors total. So the MB space used up goes down. And since the new connector is much smaller, it goes down even more. So now you start to get some real space savings in the case.
"? If PCs for example, had 1) hard drive interface (instead of IDE, SATA, SCSI, etc) 1) video interface and 1) network interface we could reduce kernel code size of Linux by 30%"
I thought the kernel was modular so you only load in the code that's needed.
Comments
Like it or not if you leave the slots out of a consumer grade machine there are far fewer ways for the user to screw up his machine. Especially with rugged I/O through connectors like USB.
There's a bit of a limit though. With these USB sticks for memory or networking that stick out 2", that makes me very nervous, so I end up feeling like I have to go cautiously, like stepping around broken glass. The length basically acts like a lever.
The other problem PCs had with interrupts was that there weren't enough of them. The way Apple handled it solved the problem.
We constantly get this call for slots, but people rarely use them when they have them. The consumer Macs are being aimed at a group that never used the slots.
Apple knows that they're not going to get 70% of the PC business, so they can afford to ignore those who want slots. There are a vast sea of people out there who will move to a Mac, or not, solely because of the OS, and the way the machine looks.
This is true for people who are demanding a higher performing machine.
Good points. Personally speaking, the only reason I would upgrade a current machine is to upgrade the graphics card, and I think I'm more an exception than a rule.
The other problem PCs had with interrupts was that there weren't enough of them. The way Apple handled it solved the problem.
Some of those cards never go away. I still work on and configure machines at work using ISA cards.
We constantly get this call for slots, but people rarely use them when they have them. The consumer Macs are being aimed at a group that never used the slots.
I agree with the idea that they are being aimed at consumers but the very lack of slots eliminates them from use in non consummer applications. Even with slots the Mac Pro is way to large for many commercial applications.
A slot or two may mean very little for a machine marketed to consummers but it is often required for commercial sales. Even in a commercial environment the slots don't always get used but the people maintaining the machine ls like to keep the mix of hardware to a minimal. Thus swapping around computers often is just a software change and sometimes a card change or two.
In any event the lack of a slot takes Apple out of the running for many organizations as they see it as a requirement. Since effectively there is little difference between a consummer machine and a corporate machine the lack of a low cost slotted machine is a huge problem for Apple when it comes to commercial sales.
Apple knows that they're not going to get 70% of the PC business, so they can afford to ignore those who want slots. There are a vast sea of people out there who will move to a Mac, or not, solely because of the OS, and the way the machine looks.
Yes this is true from the standpoint of the consummer. It is not however the case when it comes to winning corporate sales. Right or wrong many expect a slot or two
Would Apple win those sales if it had such hardware. I can't say but there was a lot if frustration with MS that could have opened more doors if Apple had an economical model. With Windows 7 that door will Close a little bit.
This is true for people who are demanding a higher performing machine.
What is true? That people will move to Apple hardware if the performance is terrible? I think not. In fact Windows 7 running on modern eight thread processors could easily revers that trend because the one thing people won't put up with is really bad performance. Especially when in Snow Leopard we have an OS that was explicitly desgned to leverage the new generation of processors. If Apple can't deliver hardware to leverage that software they are screwed. Why deal with a company that delivers half solutions?
Dave
Yes this is true from the standpoint of the consummer. It is not however the case when it comes to winning corporate sales. Right or wrong many expect a slot or two
Very few people care about slots anymore. Even audio guys have moved on.
Corporations love the whole 'sealed box' approach, since it minimizes support costs.
The only good reason to buy a consumer/prosumer machine with slots in 2009 is to get Light Peak in 2010.
Very few people care about slots anymore. Even audio guys have moved on.
Corporations love the whole 'sealed box' approach, since it minimizes support costs.
The only good reason to buy a consumer/prosumer machine with slots in 2009 is to get Light Peak in 2010.
but people / Corporations want to have there own screen.
and the mini is too weak / over priced and the mac pro is over the top / over priced as well.
and the you need a video card for many things as well and I don't see taking over pci-e bus for stuff on board.
but people / Corporations want to have there own screen.
and the mini is too weak / over priced and the mac pro is over the top / over priced as well.
and the you need a video card for many things as well and I don't see taking over pci-e bus for stuff on board.
What do most people in a corporation do? Sure, there will be some that need powerful computers. However, outside of IT, engineering and the creative media people, it looks to me that most people just need to run Office, email and web browsing type tasks. Some jobs only need a virtual TTY terminal, which only requires all the processing power of a freaking graphing calculator.
Heck, I just retired a dual 500MHz Xeon only because the hard drive was acting up, before that, it was doing everything the user needed. A Mac mini could have done what the old machine did just fine, but with far less electricity consumption. The user simply didn't need anything fancy.
Some of those cards never go away. I still work on and configure machines at work using ISA cards.
I agree with the idea that they are being aimed at consumers but the very lack of slots eliminates them from use in non consummer applications. Even with slots the Mac Pro is way to large for many commercial applications.
A slot or two may mean very little for a machine marketed to consummers but it is often required for commercial sales. Even in a commercial environment the slots don't always get used but the people maintaining the machine ls like to keep the mix of hardware to a minimal. Thus swapping around computers often is just a software change and sometimes a card change or two.
In any event the lack of a slot takes Apple out of the running for many organizations as they see it as a requirement. Since effectively there is little difference between a consummer machine and a corporate machine the lack of a low cost slotted machine is a huge problem for Apple when it comes to commercial sales.
Yes this is true from the standpoint of the consummer. It is not however the case when it comes to winning corporate sales. Right or wrong many expect a slot or two
Would Apple win those sales if it had such hardware. I can't say but there was a lot if frustration with MS that could have opened more doors if Apple had an economical model. With Windows 7 that door will Close a little bit.
What is true? That people will move to Apple hardware if the performance is terrible? I think not. In fact Windows 7 running on modern eight thread processors could easily revers that trend because the one thing people won't put up with is really bad performance. Especially when in Snow Leopard we have an OS that was explicitly desgned to leverage the new generation of processors. If Apple can't deliver hardware to leverage that software they are screwed. Why deal with a company that delivers half solutions?
Dave
I've not denied the desire for a slot from some groups, be they business or not. But as I've also said, Apple can afford to ignore them.
The fact is that Apple is interested in doing what they want to do. They can do that because in those areas, they are apparently doing as well as they want, and expect to.
We can say that there are groups that won't buy the machines because of that, and that's correct. But, so what? If Apple doesn't care, that's that.
I really think that we have to forget this. Apple has a plan for years in advance.
We've been calling for an xMac for years, myself included, if you remember. I even had a design I submitted to my friends there.
Lets not kid ourselves. Everything we've said here has been thought of at Apple. They've very likely done the math.
They aren't interested in pursuing business if business wants them to move from their plan. Business is actually responding. Use in large corporations has more than doubled in the past three years. It's a small number, but it's been increasing.
If business will come to Apple, then they are obviously happy to let it.
Meanwhile 30% of consumer computers bought in the US in the past 100 days have been Mac laptops. If you include the rest, it's likely close to 35%.
That's quite a number. If their revisions will be somewhat cheaper, that number could rise.
What more do people here want? That's success.
Just because people with technical demands aren't getting what they want doesn't mean that Apple is doing the wrong thing.
Since there are pros who do use the iMac line, it shows that it's good enough for much of that segment as well.
I've called for a graphics slot in iMacs since the first white flat models came out. But it is what it is. I've bought two 24" for my family, and they love them.
I'd like to see an i7 model with a couple of slots, but Apple isn't interested, and so that's that. We can argue until the cows come home.
but people / Corporations want to have there own screen.
and the mini is too weak / over priced and the mac pro is over the top / over priced as well.
and the you need a video card for many things as well and I don't see taking over pci-e bus for stuff on board.
The truth is that businesses don't need slots.
Really, what are they going to put in one?
Business doesn't run 3D software. They don't play 3D games. Most computers are on the desks of secretaries.
The graphics on these models is more that adequate. How much RAM do they need? Not much. HDD's? Big enough.
It's a myth about what business NEEDS. Yes, what some of them WANT is a different story. And that's really just the IT department.
But the truth is that the hardware is less important than the OS. It's the OS that's holding business back.
When all the software they need is available for the Mac, and the backend operations can run on Macs with the home written applications they use, then switching will be easier, and more will do it.
But until then, it will be a struggle. Only in the past two years have we seen some significant movement from major software makers for business, moving their apps over. This includes heavy duty network management software and the like.
But those very big apps that have been developed by IT staff over time isn't going to be ported over any time soon. And for many large corporations, that's the straw that breaks the camel's back. Without that, many operations can't be done on Macs.
Virtualization software, and Bootcamp are not enough for those companies.
What do most people in a corporation do? Sure, there will be some that need powerful computers. However, outside of IT, engineering and the creative media people, it looks to me that most people just need to run Office, email and web browsing type tasks. Some jobs only need a virtual TTY terminal, which only requires all the processing power of a freaking graphing calculator.
Heck, I just retired a dual 500MHz Xeon only because the hard drive was acting up, before that, it was doing everything the user needed. A Mac mini could have done what the old machine did just fine, but with far less electricity consumption. The user simply didn't need anything fancy.
but the mini is a bad buy for it's hardware at it's price and only 1gb of ram??
also the hdd need to be easier to get to. I don't corporations sending out a hd that may have data on it to some out side corporation to get fixed.
http://www.ranum.com/security/comput...polis-2005.pdf
Slide 33...
The real advantage of lightpeak:
http://www.ranum.com/security/comput...polis-2005.pdf
Slide 33...
"— If PCs for example, had 1) hard drive interface (instead of IDE, SATA, SCSI, etc) 1) video interface and 1) network interface we could reduce kernel code size of Linux by 30%"
"? If PCs for example, had 1) hard drive interface (instead of IDE, SATA, SCSI, etc) 1) video interface and 1) network interface we could reduce kernel code size of Linux by 30%"
Motherboard complexity is related.
Right now you might have a case that can have up to four drives. Maybe a user will want three DVD's and a single big HD, or maybe three HD's and a a single DVD, etc. Since you don't know, you need to put on four of each connector, for a total of eight. That's in spite of the fact that you can only physically add four drives.
With a new connector that runs both, you need four connectors total. So the MB space used up goes down. And since the new connector is much smaller, it goes down even more. So now you start to get some real space savings in the case.
Maury
"? If PCs for example, had 1) hard drive interface (instead of IDE, SATA, SCSI, etc) 1) video interface and 1) network interface we could reduce kernel code size of Linux by 30%"
I thought the kernel was modular so you only load in the code that's needed.