But no, I’m sure you know better than Apple what sells and what doesn’t. I’m sure you know what people were buying and what percentage of the market that was. No, you’ve seen “a lot” of professionals with 17” MacBook Pros, so obviously it was the best-selling computer Apple had and discontinuing it was only to “shaft” professionals and not because it was wasting money. Yeah, you’re right.
That's not what I said or even implied. If you're going to use quotation marks, at least put them around something that I actually said.
AFAIK, Apple has never released sales figures by screen size. How the 17" model sold compared to, say, the Mac Pro is unknown. If Apple are now willing to resurrect the Mac Pro then why not the 17" MBP too? There was obviously a big enough market for it to exist at some point in its lifetime.
Anyone else remember that old "Buy a Mac" ads where they made fun of Vista for having so many configurations?
Well, I guess now it's coming back to bite them in the ass. Apple does the same stuff as everyone else; they just want you to think it's different
That's the opposite of good point right there.
Having to choose which OS version to buy based on vaguely outlined differences is one thing. This is hardware, and you can't necessarily go back and upgrade to a different CPU or a wider monitor.
Microsoft has made even more confusing OS versions now with Windows RT and the like.
I don't want to be a thin-skinned fandroid -- I just want to point out that we want choice on hardware -- that's a benefit, and if the OS just does everything without us figuring out a license scheme -- that's a benefit.
Guess they’d better get used to never buying a new computer ever again, then. Not sure how they plan to stay competitive.
I'd like a 17"+ laptop. Even though it might be a small group in the numbers -- it's still likely a significant group. Seems to me that a larger laptop is much easier to build than a smaller one.
People who go on the road and have to work a convention, or do some video editing on location -- it's hard to drag along a 2nd monitor, but it's OK to have an extra pound and 2 more inches for the larger laptop. Retina screens do alleviate some of the issue of "lot's of controls on screen" -- but not really for older professionals.
It doesn't make sense to argue against someone saying "I want this" -- as if you can compel people to not want what they want.
Even on Amazon I'm seeing PCIe SSDs at over $1000. Here is only that is less than half of 1TB and it's over $1,100. They also make one that is 960GB but I haven't been able to locate anyone selling it. edit: Looks like the 960GB version was $3,300 when it launched.
Still, these are cards, Apple simply installs the chips which should make it cheaper, albeit slightly.
If were someone buying this new Mac Pro in the next 6 months, it's likely the ONLY viable source is Apple. I expect they did a lot of research and tweaking and basically bought up the market. Doesn't surprise me if third party offerings are both slower and more expensive -- as Apple soaked up the manufacturing capacity with deals for at least the next year.
And do you wish to share these numbers with the class?
IN the past two years, Apple has sold ZERO 17" monitors!
I'm fairly sure that Apple probably cut off this segment because it wasn't a LOT of money and they wanted to pair down manufacturing. However, their manufacturing customization and procurement has gotten a lot better -- and my bet is they could do it for a lot less money today. I also think they should make some, not because it's going to make them a lot of money -- but because these people are power users in consulting positions and more likely to influence sales.
I'd like to see the single-core benchmarks for the QC vs 6C vs 8C vs 12C are like. Having 12C is the hoots for video and a few other specialize apps, but most of my apps are single threaded and I'm wondering if it's really worth the price for the few times I use a highly parallelizable application.
No I'm not a video pro. No, I don't need one of these. But one would be cool to have. Just wondering if there is any real benefit to the high-end units if you don't render video all day long.
HP allows you to configure a z820 workstations with a choice of operating systems, power supplies, optional water cooling, a much wider selection of processors (single or dual processors, up to 24 cores total), some 16 different graphics card options (times 3, given that you could can put in up to three cards), the possibility of adding additional CUDA processor cards, more than a dozen memory configurations (up two 512GB with dual processors), and more than 200 different storage configurations.
I didn't bother to figure out all the possible valid combinations, but my rough estimate came to over 600,000 different possible configurations. I guess that makes HP 3,000 times more committed to professionals...
I didn't bother to figure out all the possible valid combinations, but my rough estimate came to over 600,000 different possible configurations. I guess that makes HP 3,000 times more committed to professionals...
I really hate marketing lines that talk about the matrix of configuration options, as it's misleading. The most rudimentary knowledge of statistics can be used to show that the total number of configurations will balloon very quickly as a few options are added on.
When HP manages to get hardware this fast, that size with one fan, you let us know. Until then, don’t bother posting again.
Apparently the intended tongue-in-cheek humor of my post was lost on you. I was attempting to illustrate the stupidity of multiplying out the all the possible options as a demonstration of "commitment," particularly give that Apple does not fair well in a comparison of this measure to its competitors (and HP has been the primary beneficiary of Apple's neglect of the workstation market).
My point was that 200 different configurations hardly represents any astonishing commitment to the type of professionals that actually want Xeon-based workstations; in fact, compared to other Xeon-based workstations (and even its predecessors), the new Mac Pro offers a paltry few options for configuring. The article is making a big deal over something that is not a big deal at all.
The new Pro is a nice bit of form-factor engineering, and I hope that single fan does keep it cool under high loads. But what business benefit does that small form factor provide? What problem does it solve? Is a small form factor and a single fan really a bigger benefit than being able to have more memory, more cores, in-cabinet raid storage, and a more flexible upgrade path? I don't think so. Besides, if I have to add an external raid array to it to have decent storage, the form-factor is all but immaterial.
Most high-end users care about things like expandability and upgradeability. The old Mac Pro was a good design for that. This new design abandons most of the traditional goals of workstation design. It's more a super-charged reincarnation of the G4 Cube than it is a workstation. That doesn't mean it is a bad machine, but it seems to me to be focused more on addressing Apple's design whims than it does the needs of the type of folks who buy high-end workstations. YMMV.
Apparently the intended tongue-in-cheek humor of my post was lost on you. I was attempting to illustrate the stupidity of multiplying out the all the possible options as a demonstration of "commitment," particularly give that Apple does not fair well in a comparison of this measure to its competitors (and HP has been the primary beneficiary of Apple's neglect of the workstation market).
My point was that 200 different configurations hardly represents any astonishing commitment to the type of professionals that actually want Xeon-based workstations; in fact, compared to other Xeon-based workstations (and even its predecessors), the new Mac Pro offers a paltry few options for configuring. The article is making a big deal over something that is not a big deal at all.
The new Pro is a nice bit of form-factor engineering, and I hope that single fan does keep it cool under high loads. But what business benefit does that small form factor provide? What problem does it solve? Is a small form factor and a single fan really a bigger benefit than being able to have more memory, more cores, in-cabinet raid storage, and a more flexible upgrade path? I don't think so. Besides, if I have to add an external raid array to it to have decent storage, the form-factor is all but immaterial.
Most high-end users care about things like expandability and upgradeability. The old Mac Pro was a good design for that. This new design abandons most of the traditional goals of workstation design. It's more a super-charged reincarnation of the G4 Cube than it is a workstation. That doesn't mean it is a bad machine, but it seems to me to be focused more on addressing Apple's design whims than it does the needs of the type of folks who buy high-end workstations. YMMV.
He got what you were trying to say, but what you were saying is that 200 different options isn't proof of any commitment when another vendors offers more options, which simply isn't valid on two distinct levels.
Comments
Best be joking.
But no, I’m sure you know better than Apple what sells and what doesn’t. I’m sure you know what people were buying and what percentage of the market that was. No, you’ve seen “a lot” of professionals with 17” MacBook Pros, so obviously it was the best-selling computer Apple had and discontinuing it was only to “shaft” professionals and not because it was wasting money. Yeah, you’re right.
That's not what I said or even implied. If you're going to use quotation marks, at least put them around something that I actually said.
AFAIK, Apple has never released sales figures by screen size. How the 17" model sold compared to, say, the Mac Pro is unknown. If Apple are now willing to resurrect the Mac Pro then why not the 17" MBP too? There was obviously a big enough market for it to exist at some point in its lifetime.
Anyone else remember that old "Buy a Mac" ads where they made fun of Vista for having so many configurations?
Well, I guess now it's coming back to bite them in the ass. Apple does the same stuff as everyone else; they just want you to think it's different
That's the opposite of good point right there.
Having to choose which OS version to buy based on vaguely outlined differences is one thing. This is hardware, and you can't necessarily go back and upgrade to a different CPU or a wider monitor.
Microsoft has made even more confusing OS versions now with Windows RT and the like.
I don't want to be a thin-skinned fandroid -- I just want to point out that we want choice on hardware -- that's a benefit, and if the OS just does everything without us figuring out a license scheme -- that's a benefit.
Fact, actual sales numbers, reality…
Again with the anecdotes.
Guess they’d better get used to never buying a new computer ever again, then. Not sure how they plan to stay competitive.
I'd like a 17"+ laptop. Even though it might be a small group in the numbers -- it's still likely a significant group. Seems to me that a larger laptop is much easier to build than a smaller one.
People who go on the road and have to work a convention, or do some video editing on location -- it's hard to drag along a 2nd monitor, but it's OK to have an extra pound and 2 more inches for the larger laptop. Retina screens do alleviate some of the issue of "lot's of controls on screen" -- but not really for older professionals.
It doesn't make sense to argue against someone saying "I want this" -- as if you can compel people to not want what they want.
$1,199 at OWC:
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSDPHWE2R960/
Still, these are cards, Apple simply installs the chips which should make it cheaper, albeit slightly.
$1,199 at OWC:
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/OWC/SSDPHWE2R960/
Still, these are cards, Apple simply installs the chips which should make it cheaper, albeit slightly.
If were someone buying this new Mac Pro in the next 6 months, it's likely the ONLY viable source is Apple. I expect they did a lot of research and tweaking and basically bought up the market. Doesn't surprise me if third party offerings are both slower and more expensive -- as Apple soaked up the manufacturing capacity with deals for at least the next year.
And do you wish to share these numbers with the class?
IN the past two years, Apple has sold ZERO 17" monitors!
I'm fairly sure that Apple probably cut off this segment because it wasn't a LOT of money and they wanted to pair down manufacturing. However, their manufacturing customization and procurement has gotten a lot better -- and my bet is they could do it for a lot less money today. I also think they should make some, not because it's going to make them a lot of money -- but because these people are power users in consulting positions and more likely to influence sales.
It's STRATEGIC.
If Apple are now willing to resurrect the Mac Pro then why not the 17" MBP too?
Because there’s nothing being resurrected. The Mac Pro has never been discontinued. It was not brought back from any state of not being sold.
There’s no way you can think the cases are similar.
Having 12C is the hoots for video and a few other specialize apps, but most of my apps are single threaded and I'm wondering if it's really worth the price for the few times I use a highly parallelizable application.
No I'm not a video pro. No, I don't need one of these. But one would be cool to have. Just wondering if there is any real benefit to the high-end units if you don't render video all day long.
HP allows you to configure a z820 workstations with a choice of operating systems, power supplies, optional water cooling, a much wider selection of processors (single or dual processors, up to 24 cores total), some 16 different graphics card options (times 3, given that you could can put in up to three cards), the possibility of adding additional CUDA processor cards, more than a dozen memory configurations (up two 512GB with dual processors), and more than 200 different storage configurations.
I didn't bother to figure out all the possible valid combinations, but my rough estimate came to over 600,000 different possible configurations. I guess that makes HP 3,000 times more committed to professionals...
The new Mac Pro is cuter, though.
I didn't bother to figure out all the possible valid combinations, but my rough estimate came to over 600,000 different possible configurations. I guess that makes HP 3,000 times more committed to professionals...
I really hate marketing lines that talk about the matrix of configuration options, as it's misleading. The most rudimentary knowledge of statistics can be used to show that the total number of configurations will balloon very quickly as a few options are added on.
When HP manages to get hardware this fast, that size with one fan, you let us know. Until then, don’t bother posting again.
I think he's referring to the fan issue, and therefore technically correct:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156051/mac-pro-no-longer-available-from-european-online-apple-stores
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/156051/mac-pro-no-longer-available-from-european-online-apple-stores
Ah, is that what the 17-inch crowd calling it these days, their “fan issue”.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
He’s not; one was discontinued entirely, the other had idiots telling engineers what is and is not safe.
The 17" may have been discontinued, but I don't get why they whine about that; they've been given a MBP with an even larger screen in a smaller FF.
Yes that fan issue was the most ridiculous thing I've seen in
tech, neeEurope, neeboard decision, nee ...whatever“Let’s completely encase and obstruct an internal fan designed to facilitate airflow!”
When HP manages to get hardware this fast, that size with one fan, you let us know. Until then, don’t bother posting again.
Apparently the intended tongue-in-cheek humor of my post was lost on you. I was attempting to illustrate the stupidity of multiplying out the all the possible options as a demonstration of "commitment," particularly give that Apple does not fair well in a comparison of this measure to its competitors (and HP has been the primary beneficiary of Apple's neglect of the workstation market).
My point was that 200 different configurations hardly represents any astonishing commitment to the type of professionals that actually want Xeon-based workstations; in fact, compared to other Xeon-based workstations (and even its predecessors), the new Mac Pro offers a paltry few options for configuring. The article is making a big deal over something that is not a big deal at all.
The new Pro is a nice bit of form-factor engineering, and I hope that single fan does keep it cool under high loads. But what business benefit does that small form factor provide? What problem does it solve? Is a small form factor and a single fan really a bigger benefit than being able to have more memory, more cores, in-cabinet raid storage, and a more flexible upgrade path? I don't think so. Besides, if I have to add an external raid array to it to have decent storage, the form-factor is all but immaterial.
Most high-end users care about things like expandability and upgradeability. The old Mac Pro was a good design for that. This new design abandons most of the traditional goals of workstation design. It's more a super-charged reincarnation of the G4 Cube than it is a workstation. That doesn't mean it is a bad machine, but it seems to me to be focused more on addressing Apple's design whims than it does the needs of the type of folks who buy high-end workstations. YMMV.
He got what you were trying to say, but what you were saying is that 200 different options isn't proof of any commitment when another vendors offers more options, which simply isn't valid on two distinct levels.
Lol. Brussel might take this new model off the European market again after they got someone to stick their hand inside. Wait...