Due to issues with the new Mac OS 10.8 (Mountain Lion) and the recent update to Mac OS 10.7.5, SpectraView II is not able to communicate with the displays on some systems with Nvidia based video chipsets when connected to the DVI inputs on a display. This includes both Thunderbolt (miniDisplayPort) video outputs when using a miniDisplayPort to DVI cable, and DVI to DVI connections. This impacts all MultiSync 80 series, MultiSync 90 series, and the MultiSync P221W models. NEC is currently working with Apple to resolve this issue, which is expected to be fixed in future updates to Mac OS.
The NEC MultiSync PA series and newer MultiSync P series models can utilize a USB connection to the display if necessary.
Customers with impacted systems currently using OS 10.7.4 or earlier are encouraged not to update to OS 10.7.5, or OS 10.8 at this point.
I have NOT been able to resolve the problem - even with a graphics card update - and I have put the NEC color sensor on the shelf.
Dick
Blah so it broke DDC functionality. Speaking of the PA displays, they were a significant improvement over the 90s series. They've reduced pricing on them a couple times at this point, which is typically a sign that they're nearing the end of their cycle. They hit the 3 year mark this year, so I suspect we'll see new models either this year or the first half of next year. Desktop displays change pretty slowly in general, especially those designed for professional use. The validation process is more time consuming. I kind of suspect they'll move toward the use of LED backlighting too, given that colorimeters are up to the task at this point, and the luminance values tend to have a much longer half life. Second generation 10 bit panels would also likely make it easier to fully stabilize black levels independent of brightness as backlight brightness adjustments would be less essential in bringing the brightest values to the desired range without problems in quantization. What I mean is that they may be able to offer further control of white and black points without banding.
I would have thought Mail.app wouldn't still be so slow when moving from message to another with my new iMac. I don't have the top BTO option but I have the top standard build but with a 3.1TB FD. I guess I can't say it's because it's my 2010 13" MBP's fault anymore.
The issue with this is and always has been, I don't want cables, boxes, hard drives, etc all over my desk or else the pretty iMac will end p looking like the Dell shown below which is precisely what Apple tries to prevent. If I have a tower, I can put everything inside it where it should be.
So many here will never get it. Apple goes through a huge amount of time and effort in making its products look good, But with no consumer level desktop computer with internal expansion that look that Apple worked so hard for is ruined by having to resort to non matching third party external devices.
Sometimes I think even Apple doesn't get it.
I'm all for Apple having a Mac Pro. But that still doesn't do anything about the gap in the product line. The consumer is still left choosing between IMac/mini with either no monitor choice or no expansion and the expensive (but only desktop Apple makes that offers monitor choice AND internal expansion) Mac Pro.
So many here will never get it. Apple goes through a huge amount of time and effort in making its products look good, But with no consumer level desktop computer with internal expansion that look that Apple worked so hard for is ruined by having to resort to non matching third party external devices.
Sometimes I think even Apple doesn't get it.
I'm all for Apple having a Mac Pro. But that still doesn't do anything about the gap in the product line. The consumer is still left choosing between IMac/mini with either no monitor choice or no expansion and the expensive (but only desktop Apple makes that offers monitor choice AND internal expansion) Mac Pro.
We get it. I think Apple gets it. Understanding your wants doesn't entail compliance to satisfying those wants. Knowing there's a market doesn't mean the market is big enough to be worth chasing. They've chosen not to enter the "xMac" market. They've left that market roughly eight years ago, and market for tower desktops is diminishing.
I think the future demand for an xMac is questionable anyway, the available selection of add-in cards for Macs has always been pretty weak even going back 20 years, and generally painfully more expensive than equivalent cards for Windows boxes. A "tinkerer's" Mac doesn't sound like a big draw either, as MacOS really isn't a tinkerer's OS, there's Linux for that, and Windows is often a power tinkerer's choice OS too. Really, xMac isn't a consumer product but rather an enthusiast product. Kind of like how Alienware is now the Enthusiast's Dell computer. I don't think tinkerers and gamers are enough for Apple, especially as it easily cannibalizes their workstation line.
I'm all for Apple having a Mac Pro. But that still doesn't do anything about the gap in the product line. The consumer is still left choosing between IMac/mini with either no monitor choice or no expansion and the expensive (but only desktop Apple makes that offers monitor choice AND internal expansion) Mac Pro.
What gap?
I always buy the desktop (G3/G4G5//MP) but that's mainly because I don't want a glossy screen and the mini is too underpowered. Now I learn that the iMac is no where near as glossy as it used to be and the mini has become really powerful. I'd say my options expended over time as tech has evolved and any gap there might have been is now being sent into oblivion.
I say buy what you need and ignore the price. If you can't afford it, save for it if you need that particular Mac. And maybe, just perhaps, if you really need a powerful machine but think a MP is too expensive there is the option to choose Windows or Linux. But looking at a Dell Workstation it doesn't seem that much cheaper to me.
But maybe I'm looking at this wrong, and someone can enlighten me.
But looking at a Dell Workstation it doesn't seem that much cheaper to me.
I think he wants more of a consumer desktop. That product category has been dying for years due to lack of profitability. I'm not sure whether the do it yourself market will hold out longer there. I suggested on another thread that if this was a critical point for Apple, it would seem more logical to work from what they have. The imac could have been designed with room for greater storage capacity and service options in mind there rather than a thinned out design. I disagree with some about materials. It's a few dollars worth of material savings at best on something that starts in the $1200 range. I would say their lower configurations are also somewhat stingy in certain areas. I do think the idea of the mac pro somehow being too expensive to build and creeping down toward imac territory by reducing its material costs shows a lack of comprehension of the potential goals for the product line. If the price to performance ratio is out of alignment, it would make more sense to boost the specs of the current base level machine there. While it's unlikely that they'll ever reverse strategies on margins like that, something like a 6 core at the starting level would be much more attractive. The other oems tend to price single package quad cpu workstations much lower with comparable internal expansion and the same C6XX chipsets. The arguments that Apple is locked to the cost of dual socket parts or that they should move to i7s also shows a misunderstanding. The dual versions carry very high margins as long as they meet the minimum volume to be worth it. This strategy is also used by other oems as you've noted. In Apple's case they re-use the same backplane without the expensive dual components in their quad and six core workstations. Development costs are likely spread as efficiently as possible here in spite of the perceived higher pricing model, which I still think is strategic. I would not expect pricing to drop below a baseline of $2500 outside of refurbished units as a strategic move, where hardware could be bumped appropriately to the price target.
Anyway if you're looking at Dell or Lenovo, you can spec out a decent rig assuming single socket parts around $2500-2800 excluding ram and hard drive upgrades, while their base quad core models with low end workstation gpus (something that's becoming less common) can be purchased anywhere from $900-1500 depending on what brand and excluding smaller specialty vendors. It would be more likely to me to see a static price target with tuning made at the configuration and possibly case design levels. Airflow could be improved relative to the configurations Apple uses today, assuming those remain the same. I would be truly shocked if they expanded their desktop offerings in the $1000-2000 range. I still have imac complaints. If the screen gets to a point where I can live with it, I will test thunderbolt backup boot drives for smoothness, given the sealed box mentality. That is me personally. It would still have to be a top spec one based on today's hardware, as sometimes I need the power.
Well, things can change, they do expand. But the philosophy remains. Desktop/Laptop Consumer/Professional
Can't find the right screendump, but you remember Steve's 1on1 I presume. I understand people wanting a Mac Pro, but cheaper. Since there isn't, I buy a Mac Pro. Always have. What are you going to do? Wait? That's not an option, save for it and then buy one. It's last longer than an iMac or mini, and you'll be happy with the upgradability.
They should look at it as payback for us getting them through the 90s.
You mean payback for driving the company to the verge of bankruptcy half way through the 90s, which the iMac saved them from? Investing in the iMac and pushing the consumer towers out of the way looks like payback.
I seriously beg to different. People keep looking at this through the eyes of the regular consumer. I support tens of thousand of Macs across the world for a very large company that supports many clients. And what difference does it make if it's proprietary software?? Again there is a huge difference between a workstation and a desktop. HP, IBM, Lenovo, Dell all major computer hardware companies have workstations. This thing is a truck not a desktop big difference. If you want something small and pretty for your desk buy an iMac.
I seriously beg to different. People keep looking at this through the eyes of the regular consumer. I support tens of thousand of Macs across the world for a very large company that supports many clients. And what difference does it make if it's proprietary software?? Again there is a huge difference between a workstation and a desktop. HP, IBM, Lenovo, Dell all major computer hardware companies have workstations. This thing is a truck not a desktop big difference. If you want something small and pretty for your desk buy an iMac.
Couldn't agree more. People wanting a desktop should by a MP, if you want something cheap get an iMac or Mini. I don't see the problem either.
I seriously beg to different. People keep looking at this through the eyes of the regular consumer. I support tens of thousand of Macs across the world for a very large company that supports many clients. And what difference does it make if it's proprietary software?? Again there is a huge difference between a workstation and a desktop. HP, IBM, Lenovo, Dell all major computer hardware companies have workstations. This thing is a truck not a desktop big difference. If you want something small and pretty for your desk buy an iMac.
I wasn't personally questioning the functionality of such a thing. It's typically very cost effective relative to performance. My point remains that the companies you mentioned have tried to de-emphasize basic desktop machines for years due to high levels of commoditization and shrinking profits. If there are enough users that would potentially switch to Mac with such an offering, the reasonable solution would be to better accommodate such users within the lines they currently have available. The unfortunate thing is that recent changes seem to be highly focused on aesthetics to the point of being potentially myopic. Apple is severely dependent on the iphone as most of their operating income comes from it as opposed to being somewhat balanced between their various product groups.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. First off the iMac is an All-In-One and as such it Is not a desktop platform. This one little concept seems to extremely difficult for many to grasp.
As to the Mac Pro being a truck that is simply a rehash of Apple marketing crap. Further you are just repeating a failed position that a "pro" computer has to look a certain way. A pro computer should be about performance and flexibility, delivering that doesn't require the big box the Mac Pro comes in.
Frankly I don't know what in the hell is wrong with people that insist that Apple keep selling a failed product. I don't know if it is a case of being self asorbed or simply lacking in business sense, but if you want to see future "PRO" level computers from Apple they absolutely need to change up the Mac Pro formula. It is pretty simple really, if Apple can't get sales turned around we won't be seeing any desktop computers coming from Apple that could be considered "PRO" machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elderloc
I seriously beg to different. People keep looking at this through the eyes of the regular consumer. I support tens of thousand of Macs across the world for a very large company that supports many clients. And what difference does it make if it's proprietary software?? Again there is a huge difference between a workstation and a desktop. HP, IBM, Lenovo, Dell all major computer hardware companies have workstations. This thing is a truck not a desktop big difference. If you want something small and pretty for your desk buy an iMac.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. First off the iMac is an All-In-One and as such it Is not a desktop platform. This one little concept seems to extremely difficult for many to grasp.
Being an AIO doesn't mean it's not a desktop, that's a silly distinction. iMac is a desktop. all-in-one desktop. What you're looking for is "tower desktop". That is not very complicated and less contrived than your notion that it's not a desktop. I think it's more likely the tower form factor isn't really a desktop, given that its form factor is more suited for placement under the desk, either by floor, a little shelf or hanging, which I've done with towers for over a decade. Making towers notably less desktop-y than AIOs.
Frankly I don't know what in the hell is wrong with people that insist that Apple keep selling a failed product. I don't know if it is a case of being self asorbed or simply lacking in business sense, but if you want to see future "PRO" level computers from Apple they absolutely need to change up the Mac Pro formula.
Consumer towers are a minority market and declining, why keep insisting Apple makes them? The main market for consumer towers are enthusiasts, be it gamers and tinkerers, and Apple has too much of an uphill climb with those crowds. At least with a Mac Pro, it's very profitable. Consumer towers aren't a very profitable market outside of the enthusiasts.
It is pretty simple really, if Apple can't get sales turned around we won't be seeing any desktop computers coming from Apple that could be considered "PRO" machines.
Like whether YOU consider it a pro machine, those with a less rigid conception of the idea doesn't necessarily need the form factor. Somebody needing more number crunching than an iMac can easily justify a Mac Pro. Meanwhile, I can do better with an iMac than I could with my previous dual socket workstation, be it CAD, CAM, illustration, whatever.
First off the iMac is an All-In-One and as such it Is not a desktop platform.
That's just crazy talk. There are two primary PC categories: Desktop and portable. Desktops are designed to be used at a desk or some station and have battery or built-in accessories that allow them to be portable. Portable machines have a built-in battery, keyboard and pointing device so it can be used on your lap, slide into a travel bag, etc. Notebooks are technically AIOs by design but they are not AIOs by name as that designation is reserved for desktop machines that contain the PC within the display.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigPhotos
There is a page at NEC on the problem with Mac OS 10.8:
http://www.necdisplay.com/support-and-services/spectra-view-II/Compatibility
Important compatibility notice:
Due to issues with the new Mac OS 10.8 (Mountain Lion) and the recent update to Mac OS 10.7.5, SpectraView II is not able to communicate with the displays on some systems with Nvidia based video chipsets when connected to the DVI inputs on a display. This includes both Thunderbolt (miniDisplayPort) video outputs when using a miniDisplayPort to DVI cable, and DVI to DVI connections. This impacts all MultiSync 80 series, MultiSync 90 series, and the MultiSync P221W models. NEC is currently working with Apple to resolve this issue, which is expected to be fixed in future updates to Mac OS.
The NEC MultiSync PA series and newer MultiSync P series models can utilize a USB connection to the display if necessary.
Customers with impacted systems currently using OS 10.7.4 or earlier are encouraged not to update to OS 10.7.5, or OS 10.8 at this point.
I have NOT been able to resolve the problem - even with a graphics card update - and I have put the NEC color sensor on the shelf.
Dick
Blah so it broke DDC functionality. Speaking of the PA displays, they were a significant improvement over the 90s series. They've reduced pricing on them a couple times at this point, which is typically a sign that they're nearing the end of their cycle. They hit the 3 year mark this year, so I suspect we'll see new models either this year or the first half of next year. Desktop displays change pretty slowly in general, especially those designed for professional use. The validation process is more time consuming. I kind of suspect they'll move toward the use of LED backlighting too, given that colorimeters are up to the task at this point, and the luminance values tend to have a much longer half life. Second generation 10 bit panels would also likely make it easier to fully stabilize black levels independent of brightness as backlight brightness adjustments would be less essential in bringing the brightest values to the desired range without problems in quantization. What I mean is that they may be able to offer further control of white and black points without banding.
The new iMac is a work of art.
I have the top end sitting right in front of me.
Power.
Stunning.
Art and Technology.
Apple style.
You don't get this from Dell. Hp. Or Lenny.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I would have thought Mail.app wouldn't still be so slow when moving from message to another with my new iMac. I don't have the top BTO option but I have the top standard build but with a 3.1TB FD. I guess I can't say it's because it's my 2010 13" MBP's fault anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
The issue with this is and always has been, I don't want cables, boxes, hard drives, etc all over my desk or else the pretty iMac will end p looking like the Dell shown below which is precisely what Apple tries to prevent. If I have a tower, I can put everything inside it where it should be.
So many here will never get it. Apple goes through a huge amount of time and effort in making its products look good, But with no consumer level desktop computer with internal expansion that look that Apple worked so hard for is ruined by having to resort to non matching third party external devices.
Sometimes I think even Apple doesn't get it.
I'm all for Apple having a Mac Pro. But that still doesn't do anything about the gap in the product line. The consumer is still left choosing between IMac/mini with either no monitor choice or no expansion and the expensive (but only desktop Apple makes that offers monitor choice AND internal expansion) Mac Pro.
We get it. I think Apple gets it. Understanding your wants doesn't entail compliance to satisfying those wants. Knowing there's a market doesn't mean the market is big enough to be worth chasing. They've chosen not to enter the "xMac" market. They've left that market roughly eight years ago, and market for tower desktops is diminishing.
I think the future demand for an xMac is questionable anyway, the available selection of add-in cards for Macs has always been pretty weak even going back 20 years, and generally painfully more expensive than equivalent cards for Windows boxes. A "tinkerer's" Mac doesn't sound like a big draw either, as MacOS really isn't a tinkerer's OS, there's Linux for that, and Windows is often a power tinkerer's choice OS too. Really, xMac isn't a consumer product but rather an enthusiast product. Kind of like how Alienware is now the Enthusiast's Dell computer. I don't think tinkerers and gamers are enough for Apple, especially as it easily cannibalizes their workstation line.
What gap?
I always buy the desktop (G3/G4G5//MP) but that's mainly because I don't want a glossy screen and the mini is too underpowered. Now I learn that the iMac is no where near as glossy as it used to be and the mini has become really powerful. I'd say my options expended over time as tech has evolved and any gap there might have been is now being sent into oblivion.
I say buy what you need and ignore the price. If you can't afford it, save for it if you need that particular Mac. And maybe, just perhaps, if you really need a powerful machine but think a MP is too expensive there is the option to choose Windows or Linux. But looking at a Dell Workstation it doesn't seem that much cheaper to me.
But maybe I'm looking at this wrong, and someone can enlighten me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
But looking at a Dell Workstation it doesn't seem that much cheaper to me.
I think he wants more of a consumer desktop. That product category has been dying for years due to lack of profitability. I'm not sure whether the do it yourself market will hold out longer there. I suggested on another thread that if this was a critical point for Apple, it would seem more logical to work from what they have. The imac could have been designed with room for greater storage capacity and service options in mind there rather than a thinned out design. I disagree with some about materials. It's a few dollars worth of material savings at best on something that starts in the $1200 range. I would say their lower configurations are also somewhat stingy in certain areas. I do think the idea of the mac pro somehow being too expensive to build and creeping down toward imac territory by reducing its material costs shows a lack of comprehension of the potential goals for the product line. If the price to performance ratio is out of alignment, it would make more sense to boost the specs of the current base level machine there. While it's unlikely that they'll ever reverse strategies on margins like that, something like a 6 core at the starting level would be much more attractive. The other oems tend to price single package quad cpu workstations much lower with comparable internal expansion and the same C6XX chipsets. The arguments that Apple is locked to the cost of dual socket parts or that they should move to i7s also shows a misunderstanding. The dual versions carry very high margins as long as they meet the minimum volume to be worth it. This strategy is also used by other oems as you've noted. In Apple's case they re-use the same backplane without the expensive dual components in their quad and six core workstations. Development costs are likely spread as efficiently as possible here in spite of the perceived higher pricing model, which I still think is strategic. I would not expect pricing to drop below a baseline of $2500 outside of refurbished units as a strategic move, where hardware could be bumped appropriately to the price target.
Anyway if you're looking at Dell or Lenovo, you can spec out a decent rig assuming single socket parts around $2500-2800 excluding ram and hard drive upgrades, while their base quad core models with low end workstation gpus (something that's becoming less common) can be purchased anywhere from $900-1500 depending on what brand and excluding smaller specialty vendors. It would be more likely to me to see a static price target with tuning made at the configuration and possibly case design levels. Airflow could be improved relative to the configurations Apple uses today, assuming those remain the same. I would be truly shocked if they expanded their desktop offerings in the $1000-2000 range. I still have imac complaints. If the screen gets to a point where I can live with it, I will test thunderbolt backup boot drives for smoothness, given the sealed box mentality. That is me personally. It would still have to be a top spec one based on today's hardware, as sometimes I need the power.
I just want a machine with desktop parts. Not a Xeon workstation, not a laptop on a stick. Not a Mac Pro, a Mac Mini, or an iMac.
Just a Mac. I want a regular Mac. They should look at it as payback for us getting them through the 90s.
Well, things can change, they do expand. But the philosophy remains.
Desktop/Laptop
Consumer/Professional
Can't find the right screendump, but you remember Steve's 1on1 I presume. I understand people wanting a Mac Pro, but cheaper. Since there isn't, I buy a Mac Pro. Always have. What are you going to do? Wait? That's not an option, save for it and then buy one. It's last longer than an iMac or mini, and you'll be happy with the upgradability.
You are wrong a Mac Mini can last for years if it is taken care of properly and not abused.
The iMac only has laptop GPUs, which are pretty fast but everything else is desktop. You get a nice display bundled with it too.
You mean payback for driving the company to the verge of bankruptcy half way through the 90s, which the iMac saved them from? Investing in the iMac and pushing the consumer towers out of the way looks like payback.
Originally Posted by Daemonk
They should look at it as payback for us getting them through the 90s.
Apple is a company. They sell product, you buy product. They owe you NOTHING.
And just to clarify, they owe ME nothing for my '90s purchases, either.
I seriously beg to different. People keep looking at this through the eyes of the regular consumer. I support tens of thousand of Macs across the world for a very large company that supports many clients. And what difference does it make if it's proprietary software?? Again there is a huge difference between a workstation and a desktop. HP, IBM, Lenovo, Dell all major computer hardware companies have workstations. This thing is a truck not a desktop big difference. If you want something small and pretty for your desk buy an iMac.
Couldn't agree more. People wanting a desktop should by a MP, if you want something cheap get an iMac or Mini. I don't see the problem either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elderloc
I seriously beg to different. People keep looking at this through the eyes of the regular consumer. I support tens of thousand of Macs across the world for a very large company that supports many clients. And what difference does it make if it's proprietary software?? Again there is a huge difference between a workstation and a desktop. HP, IBM, Lenovo, Dell all major computer hardware companies have workstations. This thing is a truck not a desktop big difference. If you want something small and pretty for your desk buy an iMac.
I wasn't personally questioning the functionality of such a thing. It's typically very cost effective relative to performance. My point remains that the companies you mentioned have tried to de-emphasize basic desktop machines for years due to high levels of commoditization and shrinking profits. If there are enough users that would potentially switch to Mac with such an offering, the reasonable solution would be to better accommodate such users within the lines they currently have available. The unfortunate thing is that recent changes seem to be highly focused on aesthetics to the point of being potentially myopic. Apple is severely dependent on the iphone as most of their operating income comes from it as opposed to being somewhat balanced between their various product groups.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. First off the iMac is an All-In-One and as such it Is not a desktop platform. This one little concept seems to extremely difficult for many to grasp.
As to the Mac Pro being a truck that is simply a rehash of Apple marketing crap. Further you are just repeating a failed position that a "pro" computer has to look a certain way. A pro computer should be about performance and flexibility, delivering that doesn't require the big box the Mac Pro comes in.
Frankly I don't know what in the hell is wrong with people that insist that Apple keep selling a failed product. I don't know if it is a case of being self asorbed or simply lacking in business sense, but if you want to see future "PRO" level computers from Apple they absolutely need to change up the Mac Pro formula. It is pretty simple really, if Apple can't get sales turned around we won't be seeing any desktop computers coming from Apple that could be considered "PRO" machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elderloc
I seriously beg to different. People keep looking at this through the eyes of the regular consumer. I support tens of thousand of Macs across the world for a very large company that supports many clients. And what difference does it make if it's proprietary software?? Again there is a huge difference between a workstation and a desktop. HP, IBM, Lenovo, Dell all major computer hardware companies have workstations. This thing is a truck not a desktop big difference. If you want something small and pretty for your desk buy an iMac.
Being an AIO doesn't mean it's not a desktop, that's a silly distinction. iMac is a desktop. all-in-one desktop. What you're looking for is "tower desktop". That is not very complicated and less contrived than your notion that it's not a desktop. I think it's more likely the tower form factor isn't really a desktop, given that its form factor is more suited for placement under the desk, either by floor, a little shelf or hanging, which I've done with towers for over a decade. Making towers notably less desktop-y than AIOs.
Consumer towers are a minority market and declining, why keep insisting Apple makes them? The main market for consumer towers are enthusiasts, be it gamers and tinkerers, and Apple has too much of an uphill climb with those crowds. At least with a Mac Pro, it's very profitable. Consumer towers aren't a very profitable market outside of the enthusiasts.
Like whether YOU consider it a pro machine, those with a less rigid conception of the idea doesn't necessarily need the form factor. Somebody needing more number crunching than an iMac can easily justify a Mac Pro. Meanwhile, I can do better with an iMac than I could with my previous dual socket workstation, be it CAD, CAM, illustration, whatever.
Ivy Bridge Xeon E5 V2 isn't due until 3rd quarter 2013, which jibes with Cook's comment about new Mac Pros in late 2013.
Maybe Apple has a special arrangement with Intel on the latest Xeons?