2GB FB-DIMM RAM standard, ATI X1900XT (or newer) standard
Mac Pro Single (Conroe/Kentsfield)
base model dual 2.66 $1499
better model quad 2.40 $1699
best model quad 2.66 $1999
1GB DDR2-800 RAM standard, nVidia 7300GT (or newer) standard
@ MacWorld SF January 2007
If they did that I'd cry tears of joy. But all I really want to see is a nice base at 1499 or 1600(even if used Core 2 Duo Extreme) ad then a 2499 base mac pro.
Then it's all gravy, everyone is set and I can edit my movie on the cheap. If it started at 1499 I'd probably config it up to 1699 and call it a day.
For DNA sequence analysis the Quad core take a day or so to do some computations (using 4 cores), 8 would be sweet for the guy doing this work down the corridore
Why don't they just sell an interfacethat would allow two or three or four or (you get the picture) MacPros to interconnect and make a mini cluster? If a super computer can be configured from 1100 Macs, why can't you configure 3 Macs and get that much power?
I’m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It’s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don’t have a Mac pro, but I’d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
I’m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It’s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don’t have a Mac pro, but I’d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
They did this last year. iMac and PowerBook was updated in Nov 2005, three months before the replacement was announed. It was under three months that the iMac was replaced with CD, four before the 15" was replaced with the 15" MBP. There wasn't much of an outroar that I remember. Mac Pro would be updated about three or so months after its introduction. The processor is just a drop-in part anyway, only a little harder to drop in than the 750GB drive just added to the configurator.
I?m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It?s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don?t have a Mac pro, but I?d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
Honestly, What's the problem here? Your going to cry because apple is keeping on the cutting edge of technology? It is a shame we would want others to be behind in technology just because of our own jealously.
From it software to its hardware Apple is about making the best product possible. There is no shame in that.
I’m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It’s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don’t have a Mac pro, but I’d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
It's not about "respect," it's about advancements in technology.. We're in a whole different ballgame now than we were with IBM.. From here on out, we will be seeing upgrades as soon as the underlying technology becomes available... If it's every three months, so be it.. If Apple doesn't put Intel's latest chips in it's machines, someone else will.. I'd rather see Apple leading the game than say Dell or HP.
I?m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It?s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don?t have a Mac pro, but I?d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
Nonsense. You buy a machine when you need it and you pick the machine that meets your expectations. A faster, better, cheaper machine arriving a month or even just a week later doesn't change the fact that what you bought was clearly already good enough for you, or else you wouldn't have bought it.
How do you think how this will affect the Mac Pro line?
Two dual-core and two quad-core offerings and adjustment in pricing for the current ones? I imagine the beast at the top will run a pretty penny.
I was wondering what would be happening to the Pro line since I'm thinking near or just past the holidays for a purchase. It's a bit early since the current line hasn't really collected any dust but it'll take me till then to make the proper purchase.
It may just be a BTO upgrade, much the same way that they currently offer a single standard system, then you decide what upgrades / downgrades you want.
I?m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It?s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don?t have a Mac pro, but I?d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
This is me disagreeing with you.
1) Apple *probably* won't release an upgrade until early 2007... I mean look at how long it took them to incorporate C2D into their product line.
2) Apple will likely offer it as an upgrade option. Like the article says, the current low-end model is the same price as a 3.0 GHz upgrade, the high-end $300 more than that.
3) In order to compete on a higher level with the likes of Dell and HP, Apple must begin offering upgrades at the rate at which they are available. You don't see Dell sitting on their hands when there is a new processor. They announce a product the next day, practically. Of course, I appreciate the quality testing that Apple does, but seriously, the time they take... is unwarranted.
Why don't they just sell an interfacethat would allow two or three or four or (you get the picture) MacPros to interconnect and make a mini cluster? If a super computer can be configured from 1100 Macs, why can't you configure 3 Macs and get that much power?
I?m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It?s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don?t have a Mac pro, but I?d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
welcome to the world of Intel chips. I thought this would happen, I predict about 2 or 3 of these updates per year, maybe more, which I think is awesome. All this upgrading means a bigger used market and cheap used mac's.
I?m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It?s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don?t have a Mac pro, but I?d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
First of all, get over it. Technology marches on. If a buyer is so sensitive about being on the bleeding edge they can do their own Internet "research" and determine when Intel is likely to have the next round of chips available for Apple to drop into their top-of-the-line machines. Given all the whining about how Apple updates so slowly, I don't want to hear any crap about how they update too quickly. Sheesh.
Second, doubling the core count (especially with this first chip from Intel) doesn't come cheaply and don't expect it to be swapped into the current lineup for free. These things are actually 2 chips in one package so the pricing has to account for doubling the die count and the effort required to wire them together and mount them in the same package. The rest of the machine might not change, but they aren't going to appear at the current prices so they aren't likely to replace the existing lineup. More options is good.
Third, for those people wondering what apps take advantage of >2 (or >4, or whatever) cores... it is a classic technology chicken-and-egg problem. Happens all the time. Software developers can't afford to write software speculatively for hardware that is going to show up some day, and they certainly can't test against it. They can take a design approach that is more likely to be scaleable, depending on their problem domain and how smart they are. So there are probably a few applications around already that will leverage lots of cores, but they won't be tuned ideally for them (of course some software never gets that kind of tuning, but if somebody needs that many cores they are probably concerned about tuning). Most of the software doesn't currently leverage this many cores, then again most software doesn't need to and never will. In between there are apps that could but don't, and over time they will be improved to do so or replaced by developers who can capitalize on the new hardware as their chance to break into the market.
So in short, don't worry about it... buy the machine, rejoice in the glory of an octomac, and be happy as the software catches up (again). The OS will also move to take advantage of greater numbers of cores because Apple knows that the future holds more cores, not less.
1) Apple *probably* won't release an upgrade until early 2007... I mean look at how long it took them to incorporate C2D into their product line.
2) Apple will likely offer it as an upgrade option. Like the article says, the current low-end model is the same price as a 3.0 GHz upgrade, the high-end $300 more than that.
3) In order to compete on a higher level with the likes of Dell and HP, Apple must begin offering upgrades at the rate at which they are available. You don't see Dell sitting on their hands when there is a new processor. They announce a product the next day, practically. Of course, I appreciate the quality testing that Apple does, but seriously, the time they take... is unwarranted.
-Clive
Clive, actually the time Apple took for C2D was completely warranted.. Until now, there simply were not enough C2D chips available from Intel..
Clive, actually the time Apple took for C2D was completely warranted.. Until now, there simply were not enough C2D chips available from Intel..
It seems like it took them a long time to move to C2D because other companies had C2D machines out long before Apple. This is mainly because people dont relize that the Mobile C2Ds came out quite a bit after the desktop C2Ds. Apple isnt using any of the Desktop C2Ds, just the Mobile versions. They actually got the iMac with the mobile C2D out quite a bit before most companies, even Dell, had any machines (laptops) out with the chip.
I really did wish Apple would sell a machine with the Desktop version of the C2D instead of just sticking to the Xeon version of it in the Mac Pro.
Comments
Mac Pro Dual (Xeon 5100/5300)
base model dual-dual 2.66 $2499
better model dual-quad 2.33 $2999
best model dual-quad 2.66 $3499
2GB FB-DIMM RAM standard, ATI X1900XT (or newer) standard
Mac Pro Single (Conroe/Kentsfield)
base model dual 2.66 $1499
better model quad 2.40 $1699
best model quad 2.66 $1999
1GB DDR2-800 RAM standard, nVidia 7300GT (or newer) standard
@ MacWorld SF January 2007
$1499.... stop trying to get us excited
Throw in a built-in Blu-ray drive,...I'm your huckleberry.
OT
Thank the gods for Val Kilmer in Tombstone. My fav line of the movie.
Mac Pro Dual (Xeon 5100/5300)
base model dual-dual 2.66 $2499
better model dual-quad 2.33 $2999
best model dual-quad 2.66 $3499
2GB FB-DIMM RAM standard, ATI X1900XT (or newer) standard
Mac Pro Single (Conroe/Kentsfield)
base model dual 2.66 $1499
better model quad 2.40 $1699
best model quad 2.66 $1999
1GB DDR2-800 RAM standard, nVidia 7300GT (or newer) standard
@ MacWorld SF January 2007
If they did that I'd cry tears of joy. But all I really want to see is a nice base at 1499 or 1600(even if used Core 2 Duo Extreme) ad then a 2499 base mac pro.
Then it's all gravy, everyone is set and I can edit my movie on the cheap. If it started at 1499 I'd probably config it up to 1699 and call it a day.
I don’t have a Mac pro, but I’d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
I’m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It’s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don’t have a Mac pro, but I’d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
They did this last year. iMac and PowerBook was updated in Nov 2005, three months before the replacement was announed. It was under three months that the iMac was replaced with CD, four before the 15" was replaced with the 15" MBP. There wasn't much of an outroar that I remember. Mac Pro would be updated about three or so months after its introduction. The processor is just a drop-in part anyway, only a little harder to drop in than the 750GB drive just added to the configurator.
I?m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It?s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don?t have a Mac pro, but I?d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
Honestly, What's the problem here? Your going to cry because apple is keeping on the cutting edge of technology? It is a shame we would want others to be behind in technology just because of our own jealously.
From it software to its hardware Apple is about making the best product possible. There is no shame in that.
I’m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It’s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don’t have a Mac pro, but I’d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
It's not about "respect," it's about advancements in technology.. We're in a whole different ballgame now than we were with IBM.. From here on out, we will be seeing upgrades as soon as the underlying technology becomes available... If it's every three months, so be it.. If Apple doesn't put Intel's latest chips in it's machines, someone else will.. I'd rather see Apple leading the game than say Dell or HP.
I?m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It?s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don?t have a Mac pro, but I?d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
Nonsense. You buy a machine when you need it and you pick the machine that meets your expectations. A faster, better, cheaper machine arriving a month or even just a week later doesn't change the fact that what you bought was clearly already good enough for you, or else you wouldn't have bought it.
How do you think how this will affect the Mac Pro line?
Two dual-core and two quad-core offerings and adjustment in pricing for the current ones? I imagine the beast at the top will run a pretty penny.
I was wondering what would be happening to the Pro line since I'm thinking near or just past the holidays for a purchase. It's a bit early since the current line hasn't really collected any dust but it'll take me till then to make the proper purchase.
It may just be a BTO upgrade, much the same way that they currently offer a single standard system, then you decide what upgrades / downgrades you want.
I?m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It?s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don?t have a Mac pro, but I?d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
This is me disagreeing with you.
1) Apple *probably* won't release an upgrade until early 2007... I mean look at how long it took them to incorporate C2D into their product line.
2) Apple will likely offer it as an upgrade option. Like the article says, the current low-end model is the same price as a 3.0 GHz upgrade, the high-end $300 more than that.
3) In order to compete on a higher level with the likes of Dell and HP, Apple must begin offering upgrades at the rate at which they are available. You don't see Dell sitting on their hands when there is a new processor. They announce a product the next day, practically. Of course, I appreciate the quality testing that Apple does, but seriously, the time they take... is unwarranted.
-Clive
Why don't they just sell an interfacethat would allow two or three or four or (you get the picture) MacPros to interconnect and make a mini cluster? If a super computer can be configured from 1100 Macs, why can't you configure 3 Macs and get that much power?
xGrid does this
I?m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It?s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don?t have a Mac pro, but I?d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
welcome to the world of Intel chips. I thought this would happen, I predict about 2 or 3 of these updates per year, maybe more, which I think is awesome. All this upgrading means a bigger used market and cheap used mac's.
I?m all for faster machines, but an update to a Mac that was just introduced two months ago strikes me as poor planning, silly, or both. It?s also disrespectful to consumers.
I don?t have a Mac pro, but I?d be very unhappy if I did and then read this story... Sure, we expect and wants Macs to be updated... once a year seems reasonable... but two or three months later? ???
First of all, get over it. Technology marches on. If a buyer is so sensitive about being on the bleeding edge they can do their own Internet "research" and determine when Intel is likely to have the next round of chips available for Apple to drop into their top-of-the-line machines. Given all the whining about how Apple updates so slowly, I don't want to hear any crap about how they update too quickly. Sheesh.
Second, doubling the core count (especially with this first chip from Intel) doesn't come cheaply and don't expect it to be swapped into the current lineup for free. These things are actually 2 chips in one package so the pricing has to account for doubling the die count and the effort required to wire them together and mount them in the same package. The rest of the machine might not change, but they aren't going to appear at the current prices so they aren't likely to replace the existing lineup. More options is good.
Third, for those people wondering what apps take advantage of >2 (or >4, or whatever) cores... it is a classic technology chicken-and-egg problem. Happens all the time. Software developers can't afford to write software speculatively for hardware that is going to show up some day, and they certainly can't test against it. They can take a design approach that is more likely to be scaleable, depending on their problem domain and how smart they are. So there are probably a few applications around already that will leverage lots of cores, but they won't be tuned ideally for them (of course some software never gets that kind of tuning, but if somebody needs that many cores they are probably concerned about tuning). Most of the software doesn't currently leverage this many cores, then again most software doesn't need to and never will. In between there are apps that could but don't, and over time they will be improved to do so or replaced by developers who can capitalize on the new hardware as their chance to break into the market.
So in short, don't worry about it... buy the machine, rejoice in the glory of an octomac, and be happy as the software catches up (again). The OS will also move to take advantage of greater numbers of cores because Apple knows that the future holds more cores, not less.
This is me disagreeing with you.
1) Apple *probably* won't release an upgrade until early 2007... I mean look at how long it took them to incorporate C2D into their product line.
2) Apple will likely offer it as an upgrade option. Like the article says, the current low-end model is the same price as a 3.0 GHz upgrade, the high-end $300 more than that.
3) In order to compete on a higher level with the likes of Dell and HP, Apple must begin offering upgrades at the rate at which they are available. You don't see Dell sitting on their hands when there is a new processor. They announce a product the next day, practically. Of course, I appreciate the quality testing that Apple does, but seriously, the time they take... is unwarranted.
-Clive
Clive, actually the time Apple took for C2D was completely warranted.. Until now, there simply were not enough C2D chips available from Intel..
Clive, actually the time Apple took for C2D was completely warranted.. Until now, there simply were not enough C2D chips available from Intel..
It seems like it took them a long time to move to C2D because other companies had C2D machines out long before Apple. This is mainly because people dont relize that the Mobile C2Ds came out quite a bit after the desktop C2Ds. Apple isnt using any of the Desktop C2Ds, just the Mobile versions. They actually got the iMac with the mobile C2D out quite a bit before most companies, even Dell, had any machines (laptops) out with the chip.
I really did wish Apple would sell a machine with the Desktop version of the C2D instead of just sticking to the Xeon version of it in the Mac Pro.