Editorial: Does Apple have the mettle to fight for Mac success in the Pro market?

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 112
    lkrupp said:
    gatorguy said:
    ElCapitan said:
    And that was the village idiot comment of the day!
    Please don't abuse the comments section with insults that do not add anything to the discussion. Aim higher up on the hierarchy of the disagreement.


    What a nice chart! It should hang right next to some people's keyboards as a reminder. Not seen this one before, have you had that pyramid long?
    Except that we rarely see that chart in use. In these forums the “explicitly refutes the central point” usually begins with Siri sucks, Apple sucks, or AirPods are useless. You know, personal opinion expressed as unassailable, indisputable fact. Hard to use the chart when debate starts like that.
    In all seriousness, are you really that unaware that you are one of the primary sources of the exact type of negativity that makes that chart hard to use? You typically always start a thread with a general insult -unprompted btw- consisting of some imagined haters who've slighted Apple in some way.  I've said it before.  You contribute nothing of substance to threads; You don't even try.  I used to think it was an act. - Imma internet tough guy Apple sheriff act. - After your nearly 7500 posts, I've come to a different conclusion.  I think you've convinced yourself that since you think you're defending Apple, what you do doesn't count as negativity (it is and it does).  I think you think you're one of the good guys, but your contributions to AI are primarily and decidedly from the bottom of that pyramid.  
    edited October 2019 ElCapitanavon b7chemengin1ctt_zhmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 82 of 112
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,488member
    ecarlseen said:
    blastdoor said:
    ecarlseen said:
    I'm happy that Apple is still addressing the pro market, but it's unfortunate they missed so badly using Intel Xeon CPUs instead of AMD Epyc CPUs for this generation. The additional cores and PCIe bandwidth would be massively useful, especially if they could shave some serious money off the price at the same time.
    Yeah, Rome is looking pretty good, and maybe that would have been better. 

    But, I can think of three reasons why the path they chose might be ok:

    1. AVX 512 --- the AltiVec of our day. Xeon has it, Epyc doesn't. 
    2. AMD is historically an unreliable supplier on the CPU side of things
    3. Intel has already announced that Cascade Lake Xeon Ws will be much cheaper than their Skylake predecessors. That could mitigate the Epyc price advantage. 

    "Pretty good" is a bit of an understatement. Epyc Rome thrashes Xeon Cascade Lake more badly than Apple's A-series CPUs beat Qualcomm's Snapdragon. It's all just flat-out annihilation with the exception of single-threaded loads on low core-count CPUs, where Intel maintains a very slight edge. On the top end, Epyc's multi-core performance is about 260% of Skylake at less than half the price. I don't expect this to change until 2022 unless Intel gets incredibly lucky. Their 10nm performance is still utter crap - stuff coming off the line right now is slower than 14nm unless they bump the TDP, and who wants to use more power for the same speed? Intel is still excellent at core and uncore design, but they can't manufacture at a competitive level so it doesn't matter. Ultimately, this is a leadership issue. AMD has a fairly brilliant engineer (Lisa Su) running things, and Intel has been trying to cost-cut itself to death (turns out that dumping engineering resources while bringing up 10nm cost them several orders of magnitude more that it "saved"). Anyway, if early-silicon Ice Lake vs. early-silicon Milan is anything to go by, it only gets worse in the near term. Much, much worse.

    AVX512 is a distinct advantage in single-threaded loads (and how many of those are there for AVX512?), but I don't think it overcomes the massive overall performance differential (assuming one doesn't dump those loads to a GPU anyway). 

    With regards to reliability - AMD had their shot back in that Athlon64 / Opteron days and promptly fumbled the opportunity because they couldn't match Intel in IPC or performance-per-watt. Both of these issues have been overcome with Rome. AMD's Naples was a solid performer for the money (I bought a few of their servers to play with), Rome is awesome, and Milan is looking great. In the meantime, Intel has basically screwed things up fairly consistently for the past seven years (14nm was a mess and 10nm is  still deeply problematic unless magic happens). Furthermore, AMD gambled heavily on their "chiplet" solution for scaling core count in a single package and it payed off perfectly. Intel doesn't have anything to compete with that in the near term, and even if they started their own project in the last year or two then they're still likely looking at a 2022 shipment timeframe (in line with when they expect 7nm to start volume production, assuming all goes well).

    Intel will have to cut Cascade Lake prices to stay in the game, but it doesn't matter because except in a very few edge cases the performance will not be close. The 56-core Cascade Lake part is a joke - it requires water cooling, offers only one DIMM per channel, and nobody other than Intel is even bothering to make motherboards for it. AMD's 64-core Rome beats it soundly with air cooling, a full load of memory, massively more PCIe bandwidth, and for far less money. Even if Intel matches the price, they can't do anything about the performance (or lack thereof). 

    The only reason I can see for Apple to stay with Xeon for their Mac Pros is if macOS so heavily optimized for Intel's architecture that adjusting for AMD's Zen2 / Zen3 cores is too problematic to be worth the effort. AMD still isn't terribly competitive in the mobile / laptop space, which is where Apple sells most of their Intel-based machines (although there are some interesting APU possibilities there).

    Ultimately, I don't care whether Intel or AMD supplies the CPUs - I just need some serious performance bumps. We've been treading water in the industry for over half a decade now, and it's getting very stale. 
    Regarding avx512, check this out:

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/14694/amd-rome-epyc-2nd-gen/14

    thats 56 Xeon cores vs 128 Rome cores and the version compiled with avx512 allows the xeons to win.

    if Apple has optimized FCP, CreateML, and their other first party “pro” apps for avx512, then that could justify the choice of intel over AMD. It’s not crazy to think they have made such optimizations. A lot of the things Apple touts the Mac Pro for are vector friendly 
    razorpitdocno42
  • Reply 83 of 112
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,407moderator
    The next segment will undoubtedly be about use of all that power to develop and test AR apps for the iOS ecosystem, which should soon include AR glasses.  Those apps are going to require a hefty development tool like these new Mac Pros.  
    edited October 2019 tenthousandthingsmuthuk_vanalingamrazorpitfastasleep
  • Reply 84 of 112
    rain22rain22 Posts: 132member
    rain22 said:
    Apple basically gave the middle finger to pro’s with the new Mac Pro. 
    The Mac Pro IS NOT for pros at all - it’s for a niche market of video content creators.
    A ‘pro’ computer would service all professionals, not just one small segment
    The cheese grater was the last truly ‘pro’ computer. 
    Nope. Since there is no such thing as one professional user, there can be no one computer for all said users. That’s why Apple makes several computers. There are even three with the name “Pro” in them, including also the MBP and the iMac Pro, which is way more machine even than I need as a pro software developer. I elected for a maxed out iMac 5K, which is all the power I need. My 5K does more work than the old cheese grater could for its time. 

    But what you really mean to say is, “I want slots!” Not having slots doesn’t make the iMac Pro or even my 5K less of a solution for professionals. 

    https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Diagnostic_Port.txt
    No, what I really want is the option to install more HDD's and upgrade my video card. 
    Ever look into what it takes to install bootcamp on a thunderbolt 3 enclosure? 

    I bought the same thing you did. 
    The GPU is mediocre right now... think of where it will be in 2 years. 
    ElCapitandocno42
  • Reply 85 of 112
    rain22 said:
    Apple basically gave the middle finger to pro’s with the new Mac Pro. 
    The Mac Pro IS NOT for pros at all - it’s for a niche market of video content creators.
    A ‘pro’ computer would service all professionals, not just one small segment
    The cheese grater was the last truly ‘pro’ computer. 

    Like many others, I bought the iMac after they announced this thing and it will probably be my last as I’m buying a Windows box to test out that playground for possible transition out of the Apple environment. 
    This is after 28 years and an entire career with Apple. 

    Another point to consider - is after Apple's track record of support, you have to be a gambler to invest 10k into a single desktop that could very well be unsupported a few short years later. 
    Where to start... middle finger? You must be joking. 

    You’re 100% wrong. Apple gave pros exactly what many were asking for: a highly expandable box. And I t’s a nice box. With lots of industry-standard slots and PCIe lanes. 12 DIMM slots with 1.5TB max RAM, and a CPU that maxes out at 28 cores/56 threads. It’s also quiet—even under load—with great cooling and a huge power supply. Of course, it has plenty of I/O too, with four Thunderbolt 3 slots, two 10Gb Ethernet ports and even a couple USB3 ports thrown in for good measure. 

    In what world does any professional user who needs an expandable Mac consider the 2019 model anything but a gift from the Mac Pro gods? It’s a truly outstanding platform, as good—or even better—for one-person shops or small businesses as it is for larger corp and enterprise requirements. 

    Please enlighten me as to which pros are not well served by the soon-to-be-released model.
    edited October 2019 fastasleep
  • Reply 86 of 112
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,429member
    rain22 said:
    Apple basically gave the middle finger to pro’s with the new Mac Pro. 
    The Mac Pro IS NOT for pros at all - it’s for a niche market of video content creators.
    A ‘pro’ computer would service all professionals, not just one small segment
    The cheese grater was the last truly ‘pro’ computer. 
    Nope. Since there is no such thing as one professional user, there can be no one computer for all said users. That’s why Apple makes several computers. There are even three with the name “Pro” in them, including also the MBP and the iMac Pro, which is way more machine even than I need as a pro software developer. I elected for a maxed out iMac 5K, which is all the power I need. My 5K does more work than the old cheese grater could for its time. 

    But what you really mean to say is, “I want slots!” Not having slots doesn’t make the iMac Pro or even my 5K less of a solution for professionals. 

    https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Diagnostic_Port.txt
    I was tempted to max out an iMac 5K last year just for a bridge until the Mac Pro is available but there is no T2 chip.  
  • Reply 87 of 112
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,429member

    wizard69 said:
    lkrupp said:
    Well written as usual. Unfortunately the crowd that incessantly clamors for the slotted tower of olden days at a consumer level price will not be convinced even though they have had the Hackintosh option for years now. It’s a shrinking niche as pointed out but that niche is angry and vocal so we have to put up with all the bullshit about it.
    It has little to do with being a niche or even angry.   Rather it is the stupidity of trying to market a machine with limited appeal to the wider “pro” market.   In the end, over time the new Mac Pro will not ship enough machines to justify its production.  Combine that with nothing else in Apples line up that could be considered by a pro in need of a desktop and you end up with zero pro interest.  

    As for slots a midstream “pro” computer these days only really needs one slot and that would be for a GPU card.   By the way a standard GPU card.   The great failing of the trash can is no capacity for a standard off the shelf video card.   Such a card slot would have allowed a pro to configure the video card to his specific needs.  

    You can make excuses for Apple but the reality is this new pro has huge obsticals to over come.    If Apple takes the same path as the trash can they will not even have an entire system on offer.  
    It actually isn't just the lack of a slot in my 2013 Mac Pro for a GPU that has been the limiting factor, it's not having a slot to stick a USB-c or Thunderbolt 3 card in.  It is very I/O bound and no solution.  Even my 2012 Dell T110 II servers now sport USB-c ports that cost a whopping $27 each for dual ports.
  • Reply 88 of 112
    sandorsandor Posts: 591member
    blastdoor said:
    digitol said:
    Ugh! Such a Love/Hate relation with Apple. It's clear Apple wants to go the direction of tablets and phones only. However, until an ipad can do EVERYTHING a mac pro can do . . . (where is my Xcode) then I will always be somewhat at odds. A very wise man once said "PCs are going to be like trucks. They’re still going to be around, they’re still going to have a lot of value, but they’re going to be used by one out of X people.”
    One funny thing about that truck quote is that trucks are actually pretty popular. Ford and GM have almost entirely stopped making cars, at least for the US market. Of course, what's even more popular than trucks is the SUV -- something in between a truck and a car. 
    42 years.

    That is how long the Ford F-150 has been the top selling vehicle in the US.
    Selling almost the same number as 2 & 3 combined...the Chevy Silverado & Dodge Ram.

    1, 2, 3 - trucks.
    blastdoor
  • Reply 89 of 112
    sflocal said:
    Most folks - and this is a proven fact - will never open up a computer once the initial purchase is made.  Fact.  Been beaten to death multiple times.

    Might be statistically true. “Proven fact”, is hyperbole in this case. And yet, most people might be just the biggest segment of all users or 51% of users, I don’t know the statistics, but I can see anecdotally that it makes sense. 

    When that time does come to upgrade, from a cost perspective - whether you like it or not - it's better to buy a new machine with newer technology, then to mix-and-match old tech, with new tech in an expandable system and not get the entire benefit.  Fact.
    That’s an opinion, not a fact. CPU and memory hasn’t evolved the same speeds GPUs have. A high end CPU 10 years ago is still quite usable, mid to lower tier in today’s level. In GPU aspect 4-5 year old cards are comparatively scored.  Motherboards generally age very well, pciExpress 3.0 is about 10 years old and 4.0 has only just to come out. 

    So buying just one piece of hardware that ages faster than replacing the whole thing is way more cost effective. Or just change a broken part instead of replacing the whole system... It just makes more sense, economically and environmentally. And all that was an opinion too. 


    So give it a rest.  We all would love an "affordable" Mac Pro, but the reality is for most of Apple's customers, an iMac, or Mini works just fine.  Folks like you represent such a small blip on Apple's P&L that it's more a rounding-error than anything else.  
    This is one of those: “your needs are not as important as most of ours”, and you even say that “we would love an affordable Mac Pro”.

    I don’t see the problem, he’s not happy about something, Apple makes products, maybe they’ll hear and provide so there might be a “affordable” Mac Pro we all would love.

    Apple products have such a long lifespan - and better resale value than the competition.   They last 5+ years for most folks.  WHY on earth would someone want to upgrade certain components when the rest of the tech is technically obsolete?

    Just let it go.

    Components age at different paces, they degrade in different paces, why on earth would someone not want to upgrade a certain component that might be substantially worse than the one coming out next year, if it is an option? No we all won’t even if it was an option. And it might even lengthen the long lifespan even more. That’s more bang for buck. 

    It makes sense, that’s why people don’t just let it go. And I don’t understand why it’s offensive or unpopular idea/opinion not to be supported. 
    muthuk_vanalingamElCapitandocno42
  • Reply 90 of 112
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,959member
    sflocal said:
    KidGloves said:
    Blah, Blah, Blah Daniel... For all the money Apple generates from Mac sales you would think they could offer an option in the middle ground between the Mini and the Pro. Dell, HP and the rest can sell LOADS of different product lines and still make a profit. A Mac user has only one place to go to buy a Mac and Apple offers severely limited choices. Imagine if BMW offered only the 1 Series, 2 Series, and the 7 Series. That's the state of desktop Mac options. 

    I'm sick reading you banging on about how smart and profitable Apple is. As you say, the Mac division on its own would be a Fortune 500 company. When did they last truly innovate? Have you seen some of the recent PC hardware? It might not all be perfect but they try. Apple design for me has been getting lazy for years. The whole trash can Mac Pro was possibly the worst bit of design in Apple's history. All the users wanted was a powerful box they could stick under their desks, maybe fit some cards into for specialist pro tasks, and not really think about at all. Instead, they got something that's beautiful to look (well at least until it has wires spewing out all over the place) but not much more useful than a Mac Mini for professional tasks. It's then left for years without a single update. Absolutely crazy for a Fortune 500 sized outfit.

    The new Pro looks amazing but it's targeted at a very small niche audience. I and a lot of people like me need something bigger than a Mini and smaller than a Pro. A Mac Middle if you will...
    Most folks - and this is a proven fact - will never open up a computer once the initial purchase is made.  Fact.  Been beaten to death multiple times.

    When that time does come to upgrade, from a cost perspective - whether you like it or not - it's better to buy a new machine with newer technology, then to mix-and-match old tech, with new tech in an expandable system and not get the entire benefit.  Fact.

    So give it a rest.  We all would love an "affordable" Mac Pro, but the reality is for most of Apple's customers, an iMac, or Mini works just fine.  Folks like you represent such a small blip on Apple's P&L that it's more a rounding-error than anything else.  

    Apple products have such a long lifespan - and better resale value than the competition.   They last 5+ years for most folks.  WHY on earth would someone want to upgrade certain components when the rest of the tech is technically obsolete?

    Just let it go.
    Curious. I'd say a very high percentage of buyers of such a machine would do the exact opposite of what you are saying and that upgrading the machine down the line would be a key factor in their purchase decision. That, and not having a screen bolted on.

    They would able to get around the 'buy the RAM and storage you need from us at purchase time' (because it's soldered on) and upgrade as needed at a better price/GB.


    ElCapitanphilboogiedocno42
  • Reply 91 of 112
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    The next segment will undoubtedly be about use of all that power to develop and test AR apps for the iOS ecosystem, which should soon include AR glasses.  Those apps are going to require a hefty development tool like these new Mac Pros.  
    Good point. I thought the new Pro was overkill if that’s such a thing in computers, but this could explain why.avon b7 said:
    sflocal said:
    KidGloves said:
    Blah, Blah, Blah Daniel... For all the money Apple generates from Mac sales you would think they could offer an option in the middle ground between the Mini and the Pro. Dell, HP and the rest can sell LOADS of different product lines and still make a profit. A Mac user has only one place to go to buy a Mac and Apple offers severely limited choices. Imagine if BMW offered only the 1 Series, 2 Series, and the 7 Series. That's the state of desktop Mac options. 

    I'm sick reading you banging on about how smart and profitable Apple is. As you say, the Mac division on its own would be a Fortune 500 company. When did they last truly innovate? Have you seen some of the recent PC hardware? It might not all be perfect but they try. Apple design for me has been getting lazy for years. The whole trash can Mac Pro was possibly the worst bit of design in Apple's history. All the users wanted was a powerful box they could stick under their desks, maybe fit some cards into for specialist pro tasks, and not really think about at all. Instead, they got something that's beautiful to look (well at least until it has wires spewing out all over the place) but not much more useful than a Mac Mini for professional tasks. It's then left for years without a single update. Absolutely crazy for a Fortune 500 sized outfit.

    The new Pro looks amazing but it's targeted at a very small niche audience. I and a lot of people like me need something bigger than a Mini and smaller than a Pro. A Mac Middle if you will...
    Most folks - and this is a proven fact - will never open up a computer once the initial purchase is made.  Fact.  Been beaten to death multiple times.

    When that time does come to upgrade, from a cost perspective - whether you like it or not - it's better to buy a new machine with newer technology, then to mix-and-match old tech, with new tech in an expandable system and not get the entire benefit.  Fact.

    So give it a rest.  We all would love an "affordable" Mac Pro, but the reality is for most of Apple's customers, an iMac, or Mini works just fine.  Folks like you represent such a small blip on Apple's P&L that it's more a rounding-error than anything else.  

    Apple products have such a long lifespan - and better resale value than the competition.   They last 5+ years for most folks.  WHY on earth would someone want to upgrade certain components when the rest of the tech is technically obsolete?

    Just let it go.
    Curious. I'd say a very high percentage of buyers of such a machine would do the exact opposite of what you are saying and that upgrading the machine down the line would be a key factor in their purchase decision. That, and not having a screen bolted on.

    They would able to get around the 'buy the RAM and storage you need from us at purchase time' (because it's soldered on) and upgrade as needed at a better price/GB.


    Yes to this. They memory was upgraded on day 1. I’m on my third drive on my 2012 Mini. The first replacement was on Apple (ironically they broke the IR board and forgot to properly setup the Fusion drive on the replacement). OWC handled the second and third replacements. There was no way in hell I was going to try and do it myself. This 9 year old machine is only 2 generations behind what is being sold today.
    docno42
  • Reply 92 of 112
    dysamoria said:

    One criticism: “Machine Learning” and  “AI” don’t exist. It won’t exist for a very long time, unless someone makes a monumental discovery in how brains work. Everything under the banner of AI/machine learning today isn’t remotely Artificial Intelligence. It’s cleverly written algorithms and scripting that uses monstrous amounts of statistical data to plot potential paths. Nothing learns, nothing is intelligent, and nothing can think, at this time, other than a living brain. We don’t even have quality text prediction or voice recognition.
    Off topic, but since you brought it up...  Nonsense.

    There is a reason "artificial intelligence" includes the word "artificial."  Would you argue that there is no such thing as "artificial heart" or an "artificial Christmas tree" because you can name dozens of things that differentiate them from their real counterparts?  Of course not.  Every year people are using AI to accomplish tasks that previously that could only be done by a person.  Name a characteristic of "intelligence" and there is probably someone making progress on simulating that using AI.

    Likewise, "machine learning" is a very apt term.  How is it misleading to use that term to describe a process whereby an algorithm adapts and improves through the iterative consumption of more data?  For example, a team has used machine learning to teach a computer how to master a real-time first-person shooter (capture the flag mode).  After a few thousand plays the computer could barely move around the maze; after 50,000 plays it was regularly beating human experts.  It's strategy changed over time as it "searched" for the optimal strategy.  That's pretty much the definition of "learning."  And it's a machine.  Hence the term "machine learning."

    https://deepmind.com/blog/article/capture-the-flag-science
    For a verbal summary of this, tune into the 20:21 mark of this podcast:  https://www.dicetower.com/game-podcast/dice-tower/dice-tower-episode-624-h-hype
  • Reply 93 of 112
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 2,488member
    The next segment will undoubtedly be about use of all that power to develop and test AR apps for the iOS ecosystem, which should soon include AR glasses.  Those apps are going to require a hefty development tool like these new Mac Pros.  
    That makes sense. The new Mac Pro is essentially a very high end machine for Final cut pro users and/or people developing content for Apple platforms.
    randominternetperson
  • Reply 94 of 112
    Nope. 

    Based on past history of just abandoning anything that takes a modicum of effort 
    it would be unwise for those who are not of the Apple Sheep cloth to put much faith 
    in Apple being consistent with any product at this level.    You only need look at 

    1.  The demise of the Xserve server and RAID 
    2.  Apple acquiring and doing nothing with PowerSchool. 
    3.  The neglect of iBook Author despite the small but fanatical fan base  
    4.  Aperture’s slow decaying death 
    5.  OS X Server turning into a toy 

    Apple’s spent their money on AI companies and other ancillary technologies but they haven’t spent much effort 
    into growing their Pro apps beyond routine small features and maintenance updates. 

    I’d trust Apple if I had a few workstations to purchase but I’d be wary with committing to anything more than that. 
    I don't think Apple abandoned the Mac Pro.  They thought themselves clever and went with a design that bottled them and the user in.  The trashcan couldn't be changed/upgraded.  This new design is maneuverable for future changes/upgrades so it's my opinion that the new Mac Pro is here to stay for at least 2 decades.  I suspect that a lot of private companies are itching to create hardware to push into all those slots, e.g. the Pegasus Raid.  The original Mac Pro was really a company level machine and it had the price to go with it.  Same with this new one.  Also, I would not compare Mac Pro with iBook Author as being on the same produce level.  
    ~Cheers.
    hmurchisonfastasleep
  • Reply 95 of 112
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,660member
    I still want an xMac - the spiritual successor to the IIcx/IIci.  Give me a mini tower that can hold a couple of hard drives and a couple of slots.  Shouldn't be too hard!
    razorpit
  • Reply 96 of 112
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,660member
    hmurchison said:
    I'm really curious as to why Aperture was killed.  
    Me too - there still isn't anything remotely like it.  And no, I don't consider Lightroom a replacement.  You can force it to work but Aperture was brilliant.  It could be used to easily store and catalog more than pictures too :disappointed: 

    razorpithmurchison
  • Reply 97 of 112
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,660member
    We CAN actually do everything we want, we just may not like it cuz it isn't "pretty" or "clean". 
    eGPU is max 4x PCI express lanes.  Native slots offer up to 16x - it's not remotely the same.
    razorpit
  • Reply 98 of 112
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,660member
    cpsro said:
    Somebody here stated that professionals have had the hackintosh to work with for many years. 
    I saw that too but as you noted that's not a solution for a true professional at all.  And even as a prosumer/hobbiest it's not a solution either for those who want to compute and not tinker.
    PickUrPoisonrazorpit
  • Reply 99 of 112
    docno42 said:
    I still want an xMac - the spiritual successor to the IIcx/IIci.  Give me a mini tower that can hold a couple of hard drives and a couple of slots.  Shouldn't be too hard!
    It wouldn’t be hard at all. Apple could even save a few hundred dollars in parts cost. 

    But who would be willing to pay $5k for it, when the full size model is only $6k?
    edited October 2019
  • Reply 100 of 112
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,671member
    docno42 said:
    I still want an xMac - the spiritual successor to the IIcx/IIci.  Give me a mini tower that can hold a couple of hard drives and a couple of slots.  Shouldn't be too hard!
    It wouldn’t be hard at all. Apple could even save a few hundred dollars in parts cost. 

    But who would be willing to pay $5k for it, when the full size model is only $6k?
    Which is only a grand cheaper than the matte monitor with a stand 😃
Sign In or Register to comment.