Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > The missing prosumer Mac tower

The missing prosumer Mac tower (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 02:02 PM
 
yeah i don't know why chuckit is stuck on 1900$. Make the base model 1300 and BTO from there. Even just a headless imac would be 200-300$ less than what its listed.

As for R&D, apple can use off the shelf motherboards with minor modifications, their R&D is being done for them now by intel and all the other MB chipset makers out there.

fb
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 02:11 PM
 
I'm stuck on $1900 because Apple generally has set price points that they put products in, not set products that they put prices on (e.g., CPU-wise, 17" PowerBook > 15" PowerBook > 12" PowerBook). Two products for the same price is probably asking too much.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit
I'm stuck on $1900 because Apple generally has set price points that they put products in, not set products that they put prices on (e.g., CPU-wise, 17" PowerBook > 15" PowerBook > 12" PowerBook). Two products for the same price is probably asking too much.
yeah for it to make sense they would have to overlap prices. Again, i don't see why that's a problem since the imac has a screen built in.. the products aren't the same. just like a powerbook and a mac pro aren't the same. (But have overlapping prices).

Anyway, it would completely defeat the purpose to price it at 1900$.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by SirCastor
I wonder what the return on such a machine would be. The R&D for a new computer would a year or two and millions on dollars... How fast would that be re-couped? (is that spelled right?)
If they used the Mac Pro design as a base, and reduced its size, like Rolling Musubi's image...
Originally Posted by Rolling Musubi
...then a lot of the R&D is done, the design for the RAM riser cards, drive bays, cooling and arrangement of the parts is there already. The same way that the 17" and 20" iMac or 15" and 17" MacBook Pro are similar designs.

If there was a smaller Mac tower, as said in this thread with a Core 2 Conroe chip, a couple of drive bays, one optical drive and 2 or 3 PCIe slots, I'd be happy. I'd also be happy with an iMac Core 2, but I prefer towers because you are less locked in to the level of tech in the computer when you buy it, and are at least a bit futureproofed.

My G4 quicksilver now has 802.11g wireless, 2 hard drives and a USB 2.0 added into the case, and a 24" screen plugged into it. If I had bought an iMac 5 years ago I'd be stuck with 802.11b wireless, USB 1 and have external drive cases, and the built in screen (in 2001 I'd also have a G3 not a G4 but hey...).

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 06:48 PM
 
Ah, it would make a wonderful conversation with Steve:

"We've got a great new idea for hardware!"
"What?"
"A mid-range desktop/mini-tower!"
"Who is it for?"
"People who don't need a Mac Pro!"
"iMac."
"They don't like the iMac!"
"Mac Pro"
"The don't need it but they want faster CPU's and upgradeable graphics."
"Just like the Mac Pro."
"But they want it cheaper! And not -as- fast, and not -as big-, and not -as upgradeable-."
"So we should pollute the product line to accommodate people who don't like Macs?"
"Err, yeah, that's it, that's the ticket!"
"You did bring your badge with you, right?"
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 08:37 PM
 
meh, this argument's been around for ages. in the end it doesnt fit mac's image or purpose. they want to provide machines that are either..
a. sleek, fashinable, minimalistic (imac/mini) for avg home users (and they're PLENTY fast enough for 99% of users - you want to upgrade, buy RAM and external firewire/usb components) - or
b. incredibly powerful machines for power users/creative professionals.

end of story. this has always been their marketing stance. people LIKE both of these options. the minute apple releases a midrange tower they're releasing an AVERAGE machine that looks much like a power mac/mac pro but doesnt have the same balls. this cheapens the image of mac towers, which have always been examples of peak technology. only my personal opinion of course..
Hear and download my debut EP 'Ice Pictures' for free here
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 08:49 PM
 
actually i might revise the above post.. if the tower had same similar enough specs in terms of processor/memory performance to the mac pro, but a smaller form factor.. maybe it would be a welcome addition. but i think it would be a big mistake to spec it down to a midrange intel desktop chip. power is, and always will be, the image of the mac tower
Hear and download my debut EP 'Ice Pictures' for free here
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 08:50 PM
 
i just don't agree. I have a cube which is the best mac ever built and it wasn't the top of the line or the bottom. it was right in the middle.

It had 3/4 of the upgradeability that i'd want. If it could have just fit full sized video cards, it would have had 4/4.

We're not talking about reinventing the wheel, we're talking about apple providing a product which makes up 99% of the rest of the world's desktop computer sales. IE headless desktop machine.

What is so hard for people to comprehend about this?

Think Imac w/o monitor, with a case you can open. And it's kind of funny. there really is a prosumer market out there. I don't need the top of the line digital SLR, but i love my rebel. It does 95% of what the top of the line does but it's affordable.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Capitol City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 09:56 PM
 
when the cube came out it was right near the top of the line. it even had a superdrive option.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 10:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by ajprice
If they used the Mac Pro design as a base, and reduced its size, like Rolling Musubi's image...


...then a lot of the R&D is done, the design for the RAM riser cards, drive bays, cooling and arrangement of the parts is there already. The same way that the 17" and 20" iMac or 15" and 17" MacBook Pro are similar designs.
I suspect that removing a few bays and risers does not represent with any good reason much of R&D. It's a smaller space, the cooling concept I would highly doubt is scalable, and I would expect that simply because of the size, a new motherboard design would be necessary. It would be kind of cool if it was something that could just be shrunk down, but that's not the way electronics work.
2008 iMac 3.06 Ghz, 2GB Memory, GeForce 8800, 500GB HD, SuperDrive
8gb iPhone on Tmobile
     
Baninated
Join Date: Aug 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 21, 2006, 10:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Landos Mustache
So a consumer wants to save a meager $100 and has to sacrifice 2 extra drive bays, 3 PCI slots, a second optical media slot and 4 RAM slots.

Sounds like you guys just want a fashion tower. Again, that was the G4 Cube.
No, I just want an iMac with an upgradable GPU. I'd like to get an intel mac, but I won't buy one unless I can upgrade the GPU, since GPUs make a computer VERY LIMITING very quickly. It sucks to spend $2000 on a machine, then 6 months later, having it SUCK at games, and having no way to improve it's performance other than throwing it out and getting a whole new one. It blows ass.

I don't NEED two optical drives. I don't NEED four hard drives. I don't NEED a huge tower. I don't NEED four ****ing processors. I don't NEED xeon processors.

I just want a decent CPU, 1 hard drive, some ram, 1 optical drive, and a freaking graphics slot so I can improve it's gaming performance later on if I feel like it. I do NOT need a 'professional' system.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: netherlands
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2006, 06:14 AM
 
I might be caught up in "Steve's Realisty Distortion Field" but I have the strong feeling that Apple is really on the rise... Looking at the keynotes where after a few years Apple dares to attack Microsoft and act like they are the no. #1 PC maker I think they are really trying to use the current upbeat around the brand to create more market share. Somewhere I even believe 10% was mentioned.

Considering that Apple wants to significantly increase their worldwide marker share it would make sense to broaden the product offerings with a model that fits the MacPro-Mini descriptions. Percentage wise it might be a smaller market than the iMac and MacPro markets, but it is still a big market indeed.

So in order to grow their market share beyond the 2,3,4,6,8 whatever is is now, they will need make their products complete. IMHO it is not complete with something pricewise around the iMac and below the MacPro.
MacBook Pro 13"/2.66 (09/2010), Mac Mini c2d/1.83 (01/2008)
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2006, 08:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by rnicoll
I'm more thinking in the $1,000-$2,000 range, covering specs from equivalent to a headless 1.83Ghz iMac, up to beyond iMac range (say, single 2.6Ghz dual core CPU, 1Gb RAM as default). I'm also really looking to have better graphics options available.
Well, there are some possible variations on price and specs. But it needs to stay competitive. What Apple can't do is rig it so that this Mac is the most expensive/worst value Mac of all. Surely, they can mark it up to a point, but not to where it compromises the point of having the model, which is what Apple has done before (but didn't repeat with the Mac mini)

Originally Posted by Chuckit
The iMac prices are $1300 and $1700. The price difference between the high-end iMac and the low-end Mac Pro is actually the same as the difference between those. A price right between the iMac and the Mac Pro would be $1900.
This hypothetical Mac doesn't have to be priced right between the iMac and Mac Pro, but rather be priced according to its own specs and features to fit in the spot between the iMac and the Mac Pro. Even if some config of the "Mac Pro mini" or whatnot is cheaper than an iMac, a buyer seeking an all-in-one solution will probably go with the iMac instead. Same goes for someone goign for a workstation.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2006, 01:22 PM
 
I'd assume the price point to be somewhere between the Mini and the Mac Pro.

I'll go with the view already stated here that the iMac is a different product line, which more closely resembles the Macbooks, which are AIO machines, too.

Macs, iMacs and Macbooks. Towers, all-in-ones and portable all-in-ones.
(xServe purposefully omitted from this comparison).
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2006, 03:03 AM
 
Nevertheless I'd expect Apple to price this proposed Mac somewhat similar to the iMac.

It can't be much cheaper w/o cannibalizing other sales and it can't be much more expensive in order to avoid a Cube-like failure. You could argue that the added expansion capabilities and increased CPU/GPU performance are roughly of equal value as the iMac's included TFT screen.

Depending on the feature set I'd expect such a Mac to cost somewhere between $1300 and $1700. So basically right between the Mm and the MP.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2006, 06:34 AM
 
The problem with the pricing of a mid range tower mac is that when compared to the iMac, people will add $700 to the price to the mid tower to allow for a Cinema Display and say its overpriced. People getting a Mac now often compare a mini and Cinema Display to an iMac, and they end up with a 20" and Mac mini for about the same as a 17" iMac. Do that with a mid tower and you have the same situation as the Cube had - "Why get this when I can get a proper Mac tower?', and that is the question that killed the Cube.

It'll be much easier if you just comply.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 1980s
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2006, 09:27 AM
 
But the cube was WAAYYYY overpriced. I don't need 4 cpus, 4 hds, and tons of slots. Honestly, if apple would just throw a graphics slot on the iMac I'd TOTALLY be happy.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2006, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by ajprice
The problem with the pricing of a mid range tower mac is that when compared to the iMac, people will add $700 to the price to the mid tower to allow for a Cinema Display and say its overpriced. People getting a Mac now often compare a mini and Cinema Display to an iMac, and they end up with a 20" and Mac mini for about the same as a 17" iMac. Do that with a mid tower and you have the same situation as the Cube had - "Why get this when I can get a proper Mac tower?', and that is the question that killed the Cube.
the first part of this makes sense. When compared to an imac, the proposed prosumer tower would seem more expensive. you'd be paying for more expandabillity.

when compared to a quad-zeon, it would probably be 1000$ less. Add a 20 inch monitor to both and it would still be 1000$ less.

I go to the apple store, and i pick a mac pro. I get the minimum specs that I would have (2 gigs of ram, 1 hd, maybe the good video card) and it comes out to 3k minimum. Apple has to offer a desktop machine for less than that. The suggestions here have outlined many possible cost savings..

maybe 200$ for a 1 vs 2 cpu motherboard.. 200-400$ per cpu savings on the cpu itself. We're not talking a 200$ difference, it's more like 600-1000$.

And that 800 would buy you a slightly slower machine with a RAID and 4 gigs of ram.

re: cubes: the original cubes for the same specs were more expensive than the towers. It wasn't even an even on choice.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2006, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
It can't be much cheaper w/o cannibalizing other sales and it can't be much more expensive in order to avoid a Cube-like failure.
Well, cannibalizing is typically good. It refreshes the product line in an evolutionary way. Better do it yourself before the competition eats you up, the saying usually goes.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2006, 06:03 PM
 
I think the real issue is not that the prosumer tower is too close to the iMac in price terms, but the 20" iMacs are too close to the price point a prosumer tower should be in (because they have to be that expensive to pay for the 20" LCD display).
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2006, 01:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by ajprice
The problem with the pricing of a mid range tower mac is that when compared to the iMac, people will add $700 to the price to the mid tower to allow for a Cinema Display and say its overpriced. People getting a Mac now often compare a mini and Cinema Display to an iMac, and they end up with a 20" and Mac mini for about the same as a 17" iMac. Do that with a mid tower and you have the same situation as the Cube had - "Why get this when I can get a proper Mac tower?', and that is the question that killed the Cube.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make much sense. If consumers did this, then they would also have to add $700 to the Mac Pro price tag. Also, to the target audience this hypothetical Mac we speak of would be a "proper" Mac, even more so than the Mac Pro. Also, decent 20" and larger displays are available for much less than $700 and consumers know this. Don't underestimate consumers.

And I've had it with Cube comparisons. What most proponents of this headless, expandable Mac propose puts it no where near the Cube's status/situation.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2006, 02:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Judge_Fire
Well, cannibalizing is typically good.
Not if you're Apple. They will certainly earn more from a $2124 MP than from a $1300 priced prosumer tower. Unless they are certain that they can sell about two to three prosumer towers for every lost MP sale, they won't do it. And I assume that's exactly the reason why Apple hasn't done the prosumer tower yet.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2006, 03:25 AM
 
Personally, I'd be happy with a Mini with user-upgradeable graphics. I wonder if any of the mobile graphics solutions would work with the current form-factor? Do something like what Alienware does with laptop graphics and make it upgradeable. Certainly there are mobile graphics cards that are powerful enough to work for most games.

The lack of upgradeable graphics is a handicap of 80% of the Mac line, and is not something most PC users experience. Then again, Steve Jobs doesn't seem interested in the gaming market the same way others are. I wonder if their numbers paint a different picture than our perception? Myself, I don't see any compelling reason why the Mac shouldn't become the best gaming platform, other than a lack of will on Apple's part.
DC 2.0 GHz PM G5/2.5 GB RAM/750 GB HD/ATI x1900 G5-Edition
Athlon 2500+/1 GB RAM/2x500 GB RAID/Radeon 9700
14" 1.42 GHz iBook G4/1.5 GB RAM/60 GB HD
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2006, 03:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales
And I've had it with Cube comparisons. What most proponents of this headless, expandable Mac propose puts it no where near the Cube's status/situation.
I think the most important connection with the Cube has to do with why the Cube failed, and why any attempt at re-creating it or any other "midrange headless prosumer Mac" will also fail.

It's because Apple hasn't changed one bit since 2000.

Actually, Apple hasn't really changed ever. Sure, they've undergone restructurings and re-evaluations, but there's one thing about Apple that has endured since the earliest days of the Mac. It's even more of an ingrained tradition than the one-button mouse, competition with IBM, competition with Microsoft, or the refusal to sell anything for less than $999. It's their stubbornness in keeping the consumer from doing anything to their computer.

The Mac Plus was the first Mac to have upgradable RAM, and the first Mac to have a SCSI port. It didn't come out until Steve Jobs was fired from Apple. He would have never allowed it - as far as Jobs was concerned, Macs were supposed to be appliances, and god damn it, every single one of their customers was going to be so freaking happy with their Mac that they'd never, ever want to change anything about it (until, of course, the latest and greatest model comes along). It took Jobs' leaving the company in order to get a Mac with a user-configurable RAM complement and a high-speed external bus.

Remember the first Mac that came out once Jobs returned to Apple? The iMac. Woefully difficult to upgrade the memory (in fact, upgrading the memory in one of these beasts was just as easy as upgrading the hard drive and optical drive, meaning not very easy at all), and it only had USB ports, meaning there was no high-speed external bus. That meant no peripherals outside of slow things like printers, keyboards, floppy drives, etc.

Bottom line - Apple HATES letting customers configure every last aspect of their computer. They HATE it when users poke around inside their computers. Even today, you can't easily upgrade the RAM in the cheapest available Mac, the Mini. It's almost as hard as upgrading the RAM in an original iMac.

As others have pointed out, if Apple were to reintroduce some kind of tribute to the Cube, it would fail due to all the same stupid decisions. They wouldn't make it expandable enough, they'd create too many functional compromises for the sake of a cool design, and it would cost the same as an iMac despite having equal specs and no display. And it almost inevitably wouldn't have enough slots to be useful, and it wouldn't be large enough to accommodate a full-sized graphics card.

I'd love it if Apple would just release a small tower about the same size as a MicroATX PC, with 3-4 PCIe slots (one x16) and two hard drive bays. It would be fully upgradable, both through Apple and on your own. Prices would start at $799 (replacing the overpriced Core Duo Mac Mini) with a 1.66 GHz Core Duo and integrated graphics, but you would be able to replace the graphics card with one of several options. Customization options would be similar to the Mac Pro.

I'd love that. But it'll never happen, because Apple will never learn. Or at least I don't think they will. Who knows? They've done all sorts of other weird stuff lately, maybe they'll shitcan one of their oldest traditions and actually give their customers a wide range of options at all price points. But I'm not holding my breath.

"That's Mama Luigi to you, Mario!" *wheeze*
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Somewhere in ハワイ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 24, 2006, 06:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by ajprice
The problem with the pricing of a mid range tower mac is that when compared to the iMac, people will add $700 to the price to the mid tower to allow for a Cinema Display and say its overpriced.
There will always be that perceived value conundrum when it comes to a headless system versus an AIO as each headless system would need to also go through the same exercise. Using the Core Duo Mini as an example, even if you add in a lower cost 20" display from Dell, the total cost is fairly close to the 17" iMac. Aside from the smaller display, the rest of the specs on the iMac (faster processor, larger form factor HD with higher capacity, better graphics, iSight, keyboard, mouse) makes it look like a better overall value. Of course, some of the Mini's specs are related to the packaging constraints due to its size (which is an exercise of form over function; one of my pet peeves with Apple). Those differences however are inconsequential for those who a) don't care and want something small, b) don't have the budget for even an iMac and are factoring BYODKM into the equation. This same process will happen with a prosumer tower injected in approximately the same price point where the 20" iMac resides as well as those considering the low end Mac Pro. The main considerations will be higher processor/graphics performance and better expandability versus those who will find the 20" iMac a better value because a) it is more than enough to meet their needs versus either tower, b) it has a nice display with a built-in iSight, c) other design related aspects of the iMac.

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno
I think the most important connection with the Cube has to do with why the Cube failed, and why any attempt at re-creating it or any other "midrange headless prosumer Mac" will also fail.
The Cube situation however was a bit different because one of the major "problems" Apple had to deal with at the time was designing computers with a limited selection of G4 processors where the performance delta between them weren't great. The products therefore had to be stratified primarily by features and that normally meant reducing some options. In the case of the Cube, the design of its compact size (again, form over function) and near silent operation were key selling points as far as Apple was concerned (and who knows how many engineering hours were spent developing that latch). It was never about performance since it still shared the same G4 chip and the same bus speed as used in the tower.

The starting price point established in August 2000 missed the boat completely though because at $1799, the 450MHz Cube with its limited expandability (single internal drive, constrained dimensions for the graphics card, no expansion slots) ended up being $200 more than the bottom end but more expandable Power Mac G4 (Gigabit Ethernet) 400MHz tower. Again, the performance delta between 400 and 450MHz is minimal and the price premium Apple was asking for was out of touch with reality. Most consumers rightfully voted with their pocketbook and chose the more cheaper (low end) and functional tower. Poor Cube sales led to the price cuts and feature changes that took place in December ($1499 on the low end). This was too late in coming as the damage was done as far the Cube's value perception was concerned. The second repricing in February 2001 of the low end config to $1299 is what Apple should have done in the first place and much sooner than the initial December changes. I bought my Cube with an additional discount after the first price cut. Apple/Jobs completely misjudged what people would be willing to pay for a small silent computer (the irony is that future G4 towers became progressively louder).

Intel on the otherhand has families of processors and chipsets which are targeted for distinct markets and therefore offers hardware vendors much more flexibility from a design perspective. If Apple does eventually fill this gap between the iMac and Mac Pro, they could create a system which isn't limited by the constraints imposed by limited processor/chipset choices. I would expect them to continue with limiting some features/expandability (but not as much as the past; time will tell if Apple really is serious about gaining marketshare as they could build more compelling products that speak to those who aren't currently Mac users if there was a little more overlap and less compromising with regards to expandability) compared to the Mac Pro as a means of segmenting those two product lines beyond the single versus multisocket motherboard. It would therefore have less expansion than similar systems from Dell, Gateway, or HP (which will continue the tradition of providing something for people to complain about ). That doesn't bother me at all so long as the pricing is comparable/competitive with those other vendors which means a $1599-$1699 range for the standard configuration (again, this price range is about what I get from configuring an E6600 with 1GB RAM, 250GB HD, decent graphics card from Dell or Gateway).

While they could come in at even lower price points by utilizing Allendale; Conroe with 2MB L2 cache instead of 4MB; E6300 (1.86GHz) or E6400 (2.13GHz), I doubt they would pursue that lower price target and instead use the E6600 (2.4GHz) for the standard and the E6700 (2.67GHz) in a high end configuration as a way to distinguish it from a Core 2 Duo (Merom) iMac. The iMac in this case would probably use the T7200 (2GHz), T7400 (2.17GHz) and top out with a T7600 (2.33GHz). The Mini would be differentiated further from the iMac by using the Core 2 Duo T5500 (1.67GHz) at the low end and T5600 (1.83GHz) at the high end; both have 2MB L2 cache versus the 4MB in the T7X00 series.

Going back to Allendale, since it is a smaller die than Conroe (recovered from the smaller cache) and therefore produces less heat, Apple could theoretically use those (if there wasn't such a hangup about cannibalization to such an extreme level) in the future for something like a double height Mini (not necessarily a Cube because going back to that form factor would have many thinking about that disaster) with a 3.5" HD and 4 RAM slots, single PCIe for graphics card. Something like this could play in the $1199 space (E6400) where the main differentiation from the iMac would be the faster FSB, two more RAM slots, upgradable graphics, no LCD, no iSight. The main differentiation from a prosumer tower would be lower processor performance, lack of a free PCIe slot, lack of a double wide PCIe for graphics, a single internal 3.5" HD. Something like this is probably unlikely though since Apple would not have a comfortable price point to place such a product and because of that backassward way of pricing and products, it would definitely end up becoming more of a niche system reminiscent of the Cube.

The above was just meant to illustrate the flexibility that the Intel Core 2 architecture provides and how it could allow Apple to design and differentiate computer systems around the different processor offerings. Whether or not Apple does do anything to break out of their current product matrix will probably be known over the next few months. Apple could just end up sticking Allendale/Conroe into the iMac and be done with it. However, one thing I've learned in life is to never say never. Many said Apple would never release something like a Mini and they did just that. Many said Apple would never use Intel processors and look where we are now.
rolling musubi gathers no nori.... (only dirt)
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2006, 11:27 PM
 
I think important missing point here is differentiation between price and value.

Speaking from the viewpoint on computer usability, a good question is why AIO units are always have LESS value than normal headless+display combinations despite having HIGHER price (as reflecting higher costs of combining everything into AIO unit as witnessed by pricing of Sony Vaio AIO and so on).

The answer is AIO and headless computer are for different markets.

AIO are good for non-techie people who just want it to work - eg home appliance. Apple is pretty good at it, and AIO because of higher costs of engineering and higher comfort of usage, have higher prices. However, the next question is DO they have higher Value over years?

Taking into account that this is consumer unit, AIO have 2 weak points: upgradability of GPU (almost impossible in all cases, not only Apple) and limited storage. Since consumer WILL play games on it, you end with the iMac type machines becoming obsolete with the speed of evolution of graphic cards. And we know that GPUs evolve at neck-breaking speed. Which means that AIO unit is going to be obsolete in almost all cases in 1 year. And cost and noise and energy considerations will never allow inclusion of higher end GPU into AIO.

Secondly, storage: surely you can have Firewire and USB external drives extending your storage. But then this makes the whole concept of AIO unit meaningless. You buy AIO precisely because you do not want ANYTHING external, cables and so on. With even 1 drives you have at least 2 boxes on table, 2 more cables and so on.

So, AIO concept's strength (all in one, compact and so on) is defeated compeletely when it comes to using AIO for a longer than 1 year period. It loses its AIO meaning by allowing for external storage because of natural storage limits, it loses its consumer value by having obsolete GPU, CPU. Which means that AIO is basically like a disposable computer. You cannot even reuse its LCD, basically. So, having high price, AIO ends up having its concept losing meaning and having overall low value over time.


So, while AIO seem to have good value NOW, its not true for longer period of time. It is in fact, a bad investment, after all, which caters to non-technie segment generally and has low OVERALL value (eg article here: Drastic Fall in the Price of G3 iMacs Sold on Ebay Visit the Site - ( vectronicsappleworld.com) – Article by John Ward describing the current value of G3 iMacs. "..some significant changes have taken place that fundamentally changes the market for used Macs. G3 (or CRT) iMacs have become very inexpensive, giving collectors a wide variety of collecting options. Their value has dropped to less than 10 cents for every dollar.." (23 days ago) Drastic Fall in the Price of G3 iMacs Sold on Ebay Netscape.com

Now, headless desktops (towers) may have lower prices at the beginning looking like having less value but over time, they allow expanding or modifying of components which age most: storage, GPU and CPU and screens (you can change your monitor). And this is priceless. It allows the computer to serve longer still not losing its meaning and fulfilling its objectives. So consumers in long run will be always better off with headless desktops. Thats allows your initial investment to keep its usefulness and value over time, of course, with some additional investments into hardware. All in all, we start from lower prices, lower costs and end up with higher overall value.


Companies would love to have consumers buy new computers as often as possible. AIO units value degrade quickly so its very profitable for the company and I have no doubt that iMacs is a very profitable computer for Apple, giving that Apple is now pricing its desktops competitively. In order to move its iiMacs, Apple specially created huge gaps on both sides of iMacs: not allowing middle towers and not allowing higher end minis. All this done for iMacs to sell. I do UNDERSTAND the motives behind it but as a consumer i cannot justify it.

Apple should really hard look into computer market figures: whats is percentage of headless towers in total computer sales. I would bet it is majority of computers, say 80%. If so, then this is the total market Apple is losing in order to have a higher profits on low volume of AIO sales.

Apple is not consistent with its own strategy here. Having competitively priced macbooks shows how much market share gain can be taken by having right pricing on right hardware. Yet Apple does not follow it on desktops, leaving a HUGE gap in desktop line and substituting it by AIO unit. Meanwhile, competitively priced and reasonably expandable headless tower could capture potentially 80% of market. What is even more important it would not kill sales of AIO iMacs; they cater to non-techie segment which WILL still prefer AIO simply because they have less hassle with cables, drivers and so on and will pay a small premium for AIO comfort.

Headless middle towers can be a deciding factor in taking a huge market share, while still being profitable (though not as highly as iMacs), without hurting much AIO sales, and pushing Apple market share into double digits in desktops.

Minis do not cut precisely of reasons applied above to AIO - limits in upgradability and storage, killing its very own goals of minimizing and simplifying it.

Therefore, the real push in desktops should start from abandoning the view that AIO present best value for consumers (which is not true as we saw and consumers KNOW it) and can replace the whole missing desktop midtowers line and present a line of REAL middle desktops with limited, but available upgradability. By limiting number of additional hard drives to 2, for example, Mac Pros sales will not be hurt.

Introduction of middle tower line asks a question where is position of Mini? I have no answer expect of being it extremely low priced as to cater to minimal computing needs. Therefore, its price should be lowered back to 499 or even 399 if possible which will reflect its true LOW value and make it competitive.

It means higher end new Mini (Pro Mini?) should fill the gaps from 699 to 1699, perhaps, with less expansion possibiilities than Mac Pro and more than Mini.

I would like to see 3 options:
1. High end Mini 599 with initially more storage, onboard GPU BUT possible to have GPU upgraded ie one PCI slot

2. Low end Middle tower 799-899 - normal CPU, GPU card (maybe of low end), limited expansion possibilities - say to 2 gig of ram, no more than 1 DVD drive, no more than 1-2 hard drives.

3. High end Middle tower 1200-1599: good GPU, good CPU, same expansion possibilities.

You want more power and more expansion? - Mac Pro is waiting for you. You want less price - Mini is available. You do not want hassle with cables? - iMac is waiting for you (with its very good pricing on its own)

So we have total desktop line lined (sorry for pun), all reflecting their value in market prices, all filling the gaps in demand, all serving to different segments.

And this will skyrocket Apple sales so it will compensate for any possible slump in iMac sales (which I do not believe comparatively good anyway)
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Rochester,NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2006, 10:15 AM
 
As a former Mac user, current Dell user, and soon-to-be Mac user, I too would love a midrange headless Mac.

I was thinking a "Mac" line using single Woodcrests and a shrunken aluminum case,
starting at say 1399, 1699, and 1999.

I find the cannibalizing argument strange. If the margin on these machines is the same as on the IMac, who cares where the sales go to? Apple would still be making the same amount of money on each purchase.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2006, 10:23 AM
 
It's not about the sales not making Apple any money, it's about convience for the majority of consumers, and a functional price grouping for apple (I made that term up...). With no mid-range machine, the majority of 'power-users' are going to opt up to the Mac Pro, rather than rely on the iMac or Mac Mini. With this paradigm, Apple makes more money, and that's what's important to investors...
2008 iMac 3.06 Ghz, 2GB Memory, GeForce 8800, 500GB HD, SuperDrive
8gb iPhone on Tmobile
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2006, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by SirCastor
It's not about the sales not making Apple any money, it's about convience for the majority of consumers, and a functional price grouping for apple (I made that term up...). With no mid-range machine, the majority of 'power-users' are going to opt up to the Mac Pro, rather than rely on the iMac or Mac Mini. With this paradigm, Apple makes more money, and that's what's important to investors...
actually, most of them probably wait until such a machine arrives.

your math is flawed. calculate in maybe 50-75% of the people who won't buy anything given that choice and you'll see you are better off selling machines with a slightly lower margin.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2006, 11:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by asaturno
AI was thinking a "Mac" line using single Woodcrests and a shrunken aluminum case, starting at say 1399, 1699, and 1999.
Single CPU systems will use Conroe, not Woodcrest. Woodcrest only makes sense if you need SMP.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2006, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by freakboy2
your math is flawed. calculate in maybe 50-75% of the people who won't buy anything given that choice and you'll see you are better off selling machines with a slightly lower margin.
Why should his math be flawed? It's the same math Apple has been doing. And they as well obviously came to the conclusion that they earn more from MP upsale than they lose due to lost headless midrange Mac sales.

Apple is a business. Rest assured they will not do whatever generates more profit.
( Last edited by Simon; Aug 28, 2006 at 11:25 AM. )
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2006, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
Why should his math be flawed? It's the same math Apple has been doing. And they as well obviously came to the conclusion that they earn more from MP upsale than they lose due to lost headless midrange Mac sales.

Apple is a business. Rest assured they will not do whatever generates more profit.
which is why you guys are all going to eat hay when they release the machine we all want.

     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Rochester,NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2006, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by SirCastor
It's not about the sales not making Apple any money, it's about convience for the majority of consumers, and a functional price grouping for apple (I made that term up...). With no mid-range machine, the majority of 'power-users' are going to opt up to the Mac Pro, rather than rely on the iMac or Mac Mini. With this paradigm, Apple makes more money, and that's what's important to investors...

Actually you have no idea how many of these people actually buy a Mac pro versus buying nothing.

I'm saying given similar margins across the product lines, cannibalization becomes a non-argument.

And adding a midrange Mac line would increase the customer base, IMHO.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2006, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by asaturno
Actually you have no idea how many of these people actually buy a Mac pro versus buying nothing.

I'm saying given similar margins across the product lines, cannibalization becomes a non-argument.

And adding a midrange Mac line would increase the customer base, IMHO.
here is a good example of a situation:

a person has 2200$ to spend.

right now they could buy the lowest end tower pro.. or they could buy an imac and have 500$ left over.

if they could spend 1500$ on a tower and then 700$ for more ram, HDs etc. they would have a much more useful machine for their money. They've still given apple 2200$. How does that hurt apple?
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2006, 03:46 PM
 
hey, maybe apple was waiting for merom to release a mid-tower.

they'd be perfect for a machine like that.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2006, 03:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by freakboy2
here is a good example of a situation:

a person has 2200$ to spend.

right now they could buy the lowest end tower pro.. or they could buy an imac and have 500$ left over.

if they could spend 1500$ on a tower and then 700$ for more ram, HDs etc. they would have a much more useful machine for their money. They've still given apple 2200$. How does that hurt apple?
The argument we're giving is that given a person has $2200, they're likely to go with a) an iMac OR b) spend more money on a more powerful Mac Pro. Without any numerical figures or statistics, I'm betting that most consumers are NOT going to buy a baseline Mac Pro and will end up getting a better machine. Thus, Apple is making more money off not having a middle-of-the-line option.
2008 iMac 3.06 Ghz, 2GB Memory, GeForce 8800, 500GB HD, SuperDrive
8gb iPhone on Tmobile
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2006, 04:50 PM
 
yeah i guess my point was that say someone like me: I wouldn't buy the low end mac pro w/ min specs, because i'd want more ram, HDs etc. Apple isn't giving me a way to spend the 2200$ in my pocket on what I'd want to buy.

You say that I would somehow find another 500-1000$ to get a machine with specs that I'd accept, I say that I'd just not buy one.

From a biz standpoint, you're generally better off making a little less profit today than you are making a little more profit a year from now.

The choice that I'm proposing is that apple gets 2200 of my $$$ or they get zero. I'm not interested in the imac b/c i want multiple internal HDs and an upgradeable GPU. I'm not interested in the mac pro because its 1) more than 2200$ and 2) overkill on the CPU front and 3) underkill on the GPU/hd/ram front.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Salt Lake City, UT USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2006, 04:59 PM
 
Your logic makes sense to me, but I think that Apple's Marketing folks have found that they have a larger profit margin to gain from the first set of people than they do from people like you.

Mac users have a history of return buying (or whatever that's called when someone buys again.) Apple knows that they really can squeeze the extra $500-1000 out of people. These are premium priced computers here...
2008 iMac 3.06 Ghz, 2GB Memory, GeForce 8800, 500GB HD, SuperDrive
8gb iPhone on Tmobile
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2006, 05:06 PM
 
castor, yeah i think you're right. Also, I think apple has gotten very deliberate about their product lines. They don't want to haphazardly come out with products. So I can see why they don't do it. I just see a really big hole in their product line.

As it is, I'm going to end up getting a macbook, the 2nd cheapest machine they sell. Instead of a 1000$ more expensive machine. Too bad for them.

Given all the strong selling points apple has on its side right now, i'd just like to see them gain marketshare as fast as possible. It'd be nice to have developers say "wow we need to dev for OSX!!"

If apple still has in their mind that what they need right now are huge margins on a 2% marketshare, then it makes me sad.
     
mduell  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2006, 07:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by freakboy2
hey, maybe apple was waiting for merom to release a mid-tower.

they'd be perfect for a machine like that.
Merom makes absolutely no sense for a tower Mac, even a smallish one. Conroe is far cheaper at the same clockrate, clocks higher, and has an acceptable TDP.
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 28, 2006, 07:52 PM
 
yeah ok, that's what i meant, sorry i get the names all mixed up.. whatever the core2duo desktop chip is.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2006, 10:36 AM
 
I believe the cube (or some derivative - think out with the plastic of 2000 and in with the brushed metal of the MP) will make a reappearance to fill the prosumer spot. I feel Apple really learned their lesson about pricing so they are not going to make that mistake this time.
Pismo 400 | Powerbook 1.5 GHz | MacPro 2.66/6GB/7300GT
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2006, 11:29 AM
 
News flash: the laptop line is cannibalizing sales from the iMac.

When I got my iMac G5, I got it because the laptops were all stuck on the G4 processor, and I wanted a processor that didn't completely suck. I also liked the fact that the iMac's back came off, giving way easier access to the hard drive, etc. than the 'Books provided, should something need to be replaced (Nowadays, of course, that situation is reversed, with the HD being much easier to replace on the MacBook than on the nigh impossible iMac). So what do we have here in the iMac? A non-portable laptop that has no expansion, the same processor as the MacBook, the same features as the MacBook, and largely the same abilities as the MacBook. What advantages does it have? Well, it has a larger screen, although the base 17" model isn't all that big really. It has a bigger hard drive, but given how easy HDs are to replace in the MacBook, who cares? It has a dedicated GPU, but the iMac's target market largely doesn't care about that. In exchange for these features, the MacBook has one really huge feature - portability! So what reason does the average iMac customer, whose needs typically amount to something simple, in one piece, easy to set up, and hassle-free, have not to go get a MacBook instead? Not a whole lot! The Mac mini is also a poor deal compared to the MacBook unless you're really strapped on cash. Therefore, I propose my hypothesis as to why laptop sales are way up and desktop sales are down:

The desktop customers are all buying laptops instead.

Obviously, something must be done about the laptop line sucking the lifeblood of the sacred cow which is the iMac. I propose immediately killing the MacBook since it just competes too directly. The MacBook Pro, also, should be raised in price to $300,000,000,000,000,000,000 in order not to be too close in price to the 20" iMac and kill its sales. Because after all, it's not about increasing overall market share - it's about getting your tiny number of fanatical loyalists to buy whatever model you tell them they want.[/color][/quote]CharlesS is obviously being sarcastic here. Let's see if I notice![quote][color=white]

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 29, 2006, 12:00 PM
 
hahah charles.. yeah dead on!!

that's why these arguments are so ludicrous.. i was gonna maybe buy a desktop machine, but apple doesn't make on that i want. so i'll buy a macbook and a monitor.

lolz.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2006, 04:07 AM
 
I think the difference is that apple has data about who's not buying their computers and for what reasons. They do market research and focus groups to grind every nitty gritty detail about what people are/aren't buying.

The market shifts constantly, so they could come out with the holy headless iMac sometime soon, but I think they made the decision that the profit made from people upgrading to MacPro/PowerMac is outweighs the number of mid range headless machines they'd sell.

I think there are four groups of people who come into the equation:
1) Those who will buy whatever is most expensive/most powerful. Buying MacPro today.
2) Those who are good candidates for MacPro, but probably don't need all the power, and cost isn't too much of a concern. These people are buying MacPros today.
3) People who want some midrange machine since they don't have (or want to spend) the cash for MacPro. These people aren't buying anything. I don't see this as a huge segment.
4) Group 4 would buy a midrange machine, but end up buying something else similarly priced instead. (iMac, *Book, etc) Apple doesn't care what these people do since profit margins are similar across all the $1000-$1500 machines.

I think it breaks down this way when the mythical midrange machine (MMM) comes out. Group 1 buys MacPro no matter what. Group 2 splits with part buying macPro and and part opting for the MMM. The group 3 buys the MMM. Group 4 buys the MMM but takes sales from the other lines.

OK, since the towers are expensive and don't really compete on price, I wouldn't be surprised if they pack two or three times more profit into them than they would get out of a mid range machine. (Say three times as much for the sake of my argument.)

If apple sees that more than a third of group 2 stays with MacPro, there's no reason to introduce the MMM. Anymore attrition than 33% to the MMM will cost apple money. I consider all the people in group 3 as apple's incentive towards development/support/supply chain costs of having an additional model. Maybe group 2's attrition rate could be as high as 40% if you factor group 3's purchases.

ImpulseResponse
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2006, 06:17 AM
 
While I think the post above is good, I think it got too long, so here are the cliff notes.

There's too much profit in a $3000 computer to risk having people buy a $1500 computer instead.

Not enough new people will buy the $1500 version to cover the cost of those who would have spent $3000 but aren't now because they're spending $1500

ImpulseResponse
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Durham, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2006, 08:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by GSixZero
Not enough new people will buy the $1500 version...
Except the goddamn people who just won't buy a $3k machine. You're acting as though there are all these customers for whom $1500 is chump change. Somebody who was budgeting $1500, total, for the box is not going to just shrug off spending twice as much.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2006, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by slugslugslug
Except the goddamn people who just won't buy a $3k machine. You're acting as though there are all these customers for whom $1500 is chump change. Somebody who was budgeting $1500, total, for the box is not going to just shrug off spending twice as much.
Hear hear.

I talked about this with some of my (PC using) friends last week. They would LOVE to switch to the Mac but they told me, every single one of them, that

A) The Mac mini is a joke. It's overpriced. Case closed. You can get PCs that cost the same and kill it feature wise.
B) The iMac is somewhat cool if you need an LCD with it but most of them already have nice monitors or want to chose something themselves. But thanks to the zero expandability it's not an option.
C) Mac Pro, great but they laugh at the idea of a 2500+ computer. PC users aren't used to such prices and would never consider spending that much. They called me nuts when I paid 3k for my PowerBook.
D) we want that MythMac. That's all. No PC switcher is going to drop +2k on a computer.

I guess Apple's "focus groups" and market research groups don't know what they are doing. The market for such a machine is huge. Seriously, look at all the PCs being sold, 90% of them are in that category.

I'm personally really thinking of getting some pc hardware when Leopard is out and put it on that PC hardware. But I don't want to deal with the compatibility issues.. Or maybe I'll just leave the mac altogether. They offer nothing that suits me. I don't want an AIO, I don't NEED a portable computer (why does everybody insist that this is a good alternative? It isn't), I don't need a Quad workstation. I just need OSX on a normal machine. If Apple insists that you buy their hardware then they should at least offer something for everyone. Not what they want you to have. **** margins, I honestly can't believe that the margins on a lower spec midi tower are that much less than on a MacPro. And it would offer a huge sales potential.

I could understand their strategy during the PPC days. They didn't have enough different chips. But now with Intel they have all sorts of chips from low end to dedicated server chips.

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Charleston, SC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2006, 11:58 AM
 
I'm in the same predicament. I'm planning on the purchase of a new Mac in the coming Spring, but there's not a single machine in the current lineup that meets my needs. The mini isn't fast enough with it's integrated graphics to run many of the games I want to play (either natively or in Windows), nor is it expandable or upgradable. The iMac is more powerful, yes, but the GPU is non upgradable and I already have a pretty nice monitor that I want to keep.

The MacPro, on the other hand, is completely expandable and upgradable, and it's certainly powerful enough to run what I want - way, way, too powerful, in fact. I don't need, as others have said, four Xeon processors, four hard drives, two optical bays, and whatever the heck kind of uber-memory it uses. The whole thing is just far too overpowered and way too expensive for me to justify a purchase.

So, where does that leave me. I'll tell you where. I'm seriously considering keeping my massively-upgraded Quicksilver PowerMac around for a few more years as a web use/word processing/movies viewing machine, and buying a PC for around $1000 just to play games on. In that scenario, Apple gets no new money from me at all. On the other hand, if someone else figures out how to get Leopard running on non-Apple hardware, Apple will get my ~$125 and someone else will get the $1500-$1800 I've budgeted for a new computer, and I'll dual-boot on that one.

This is ridiculous. I can remember when a low-end PowerMac started around $1400. I suppose I can understand why they don't sell at that price point any more, but if they just took out one of those dual-core Xeon beasts and gave us a single-processor (but still dual core) option, they could probably still reasonably sell it for $2000. With my educators discount, that brings me to $1800. Sweet.
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 31, 2006, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell
Merom makes absolutely no sense for a tower Mac, even a smallish one. Conroe is far cheaper at the same clockrate, clocks higher, and has an acceptable TDP.
Arrrrgh, megahertz myth!

Okay, better now. Seriously, though, can we not talk about clock rates, and instead about benchmark performance? Please?
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:28 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2