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 > New iMac is here!

New iMac is here! (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 9, 2009, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by driven View Post
Is eSata really THAT much faster than FW800? (I have eSata on my Dell E6400 ... doesn't seem to be a huge diff from the FW800 I used to use on my MBP)
For a single 7200 rpm consumer drive it shouldn't usually make a huge difference, but with RAIDed drives or max transfer rates, eSATA can be substantially faster.

More importantly though, eSATA enclosures are ubiquitous these days, and thus are very inexpensive. Firewire 800, not so much.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 05:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by JRobinson View Post
But that's the thing, the MacBook Pro is for Professionals, but the iMac was never intended for Professionals.
Of course the iMac is intended for professionals. Apple is pitching it to them all the time as Eug points out above. Apple has no other choice actually. Seeing as the only other thing they have to offer is a workstation which is way beyond many professionals' budget.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 05:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by driven View Post
Sorry. I thought the iMac had Firewire or FW800 ....
Cute.

Unfortunately as every pro knows FW800 and USB simply don't cut the mustard when it comes to high-performance storage. As soon as the bridge comes into play you're screwed because no matter how fast the drive, you're being bottlenecked. Now before you point out to me that 800Mbps is more than what a regular disk offers, I'll leave you with these thoughts:

• 800Mbps is the theoretical max of the bus; the bridge could bottleneck you at much lower speeds
• nowadays performance desktop drives easily hit or exceed 800Mbps (even notebook drives have just reached 800Mbps)
• who said you need just one disk? What about two, three, etc.? What about arrays? What about RAID? Forget about FW800 there.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 05:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by JRobinson View Post
The iMac does have a single Firewire 800 port and I'm grateful for that. I wish they did the same for the MacBook. I have no idea why they demo Final Cut on the iMac though. Are people really using that app on the iMac professionally?
What else should they do? Do you know how many professionals simply cannot afford a $3299 workstation. It's Apple's choice to push the MP to the high-end workstation market. Now they're stuck with pitching the iMac to everybody else (which appens to be the large majority of the crowd). So obviously the iMac is going to have to suit professional demand to some extent. Unless of course, you want to start telling all those pros they'd be better of with a Dell.

Still, it would be really nice if Apple either dropped the price of the Mac Pro or created a model between the iMac and the Mac Pro.
Absolutely. But unfortunately Apple isn't doing that. We've been discussing it for ages already. We are stuck with what they offer now. And that is a high-end workstation, a miniature budget desktop, and the iMac for everything else. It sucks to be the iMac. So many demands to cater to. But it was Apple's choice to move themselves into that corner. I'm anxious to see how they try to get out. If ever.

I wonder how much it would cost to make a Mac Pro that has an quad core processor that isn't a Xeon?
It's not just the Xeon. Actually the quad-core Gainestown they're using now in the low-end MP is very cheap. The 1k price is just $284. It's the cheapest Xeon Apple has so far used. That makes it even more disturbing to see that it has ended up in the most expensive entry-level MP they have ever made. But, as I said, it's not just the Xeon. The board with all those PCIe slots and the daughter board extensions is expensive. The daughter boards are expensive. The fancy case with all those disk bays is expensive. The massive power supply is expensive.

The Mac Pro is a beautifully engineered machine. But it is very expensive to manufacture. That's fine for an expensive workstation (here Apple can also justify huge margins), but it's not appropriate for the midrange desktop market. Check the discussion I linked to above if you're interested in reading what such a Mac could look like.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 05:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
Originally Posted by driven
Sorry. I thought the iMac had Firewire or FW800 ....
Simon knows that. He said that the iMac always requires a bridge to external storage - either a USB bridge or a Firewire bridge.
Yeah, I do. I guess that comment was supposed to be smart.

Sure, the bridge is one part of the problem. Every bridge imposes a limit. If you don't get a really good Oxford bridge, the bridge will definitely impose a bottleneck below the bus' throughput rating. And even if you get an excellent bridge, 800Mbps is nothing special when you look at the performance of the latest HDDs. And let's not even mention SSDs.

And as others have also correctly pointed out, the bridge concern is just one. As soon as you move to multiple external disks and RAID the bus itself becomes far too limiting.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 05:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by driven View Post
Is eSata really THAT much faster than FW800? (I have eSata on my Dell E6400 ... doesn't seem to be a huge diff from the FW800 I used to use on my MBP)
If you see no difference it's because your disk isn't up to it. If you get a decent desktop drive that can push 130MB/s (like the 1TB Barracuda 7200.12) it's quite simple. It will give you its 130MB/s over SATA. It will not over FW800. Actually, over FW800 you'll get about half that.

SATA is 3Gbps. FW800 is 800Mbps. That's almost a factor 4 difference.

And 6GBps SATA has just been demo'ed.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 05:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
More importantly though, eSATA enclosures are ubiquitous these days, and thus are very inexpensive. Firewire 800, not so much.
Yes, indeed.

It's no surprise either. eSATA to SATA is basically just wiring. You're connecting the drive through its native interface to the computer. Nothing in between. FW/USB to SATA requires a bridge. Apart from being a possible bottleneck this is a cost factor. No wonder you can get a $14 eSATA case that destroys a much more expensive FW800 case in terms of performance.
     
JRobinson
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 10:18 AM
 
If Apple really wanted the low-end professional market, they would make a mini-tower, period. The iMac might be promoted to professionals, but it is an afterthought, in my opinion. They really want people to shell out $2,500 on a server-class Mac Pro.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 10:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by JRobinson View Post
If Apple really wanted the low-end professional market, they would make a mini-tower, period. The iMac might be promoted to professionals, but it is an afterthought, in my opinion. They really want people to shell out $2,500 on a server-class Mac Pro.
I'm afraid that's the case. But it's more than doubtful that everybody who wants to do pro work will cough up north of $2500 during an economic crisis. I wonder how many lost MP sales will go to the iMac/Mac mini and how many to Dell.
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 11:28 AM
 
Actually wasn't trying to be "cute" or "smart". I thought you were saying they removed FW from the new iMac as they did from the MacBooks. (Was too lazy to look).

In all honesty guys .... if you need something faster than FW800, or RAID or what not, you really should be on the Mac Pro anyway. I don't think $2500 is bad for what you get, *if* you need it. (Just my opinion, you are entitled to disagree.)
- MacBook Air M2 16GB / 512GB
- MacBook Pro 16" i9 2.4Ghz 32GB / 1TB
- MacBook Pro 15" i7 2.9Ghz 16GB / 512GB
- iMac i5 3.2Ghz 1TB
- G4 Cube 500Mhz / Shelf display unit / Museum display
     
JRobinson
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 11:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by driven View Post
Actually wasn't trying to be "cute" or "smart". I thought you were saying they removed FW from the new iMac as they did from the MacBooks. (Was too lazy to look).

In all honesty guys .... if you need something faster than FW800, or RAID or what not, you really should be on the Mac Pro anyway. I don't think $2500 is bad for what you get, *if* you need it. (Just my opinion, you are entitled to disagree.)
I think there are few people who need quad-core Xeon computers, period. However, there are people who need expandability and are forced to choose between Mac Pro overkill, sacrificing needed expandability on an iMac, or leaving the Mac realm altogether. I think there might be a small but valuable cadre of people who are opting out of Mac as a result.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 11:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by driven View Post
Actually wasn't trying to be "cute" or "smart". I thought you were saying they removed FW from the new iMac as they did from the MacBooks. (Was too lazy to look).

In all honesty guys .... if you need something faster than FW800, or RAID or what not, you really should be on the Mac Pro anyway. I don't think $2500 is bad for what you get, *if* you need it. (Just my opinion, you are entitled to disagree.)
The cheapest current Mac Pro is actually $2900. And it also takes up a fair amount of space too.

Also, eSATA is actually cheaper than FW800, something that consumers like.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 11:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by driven View Post
In all honesty guys .... if you need something faster than FW800, or RAID or what not, you really should be on the Mac Pro anyway. I don't think $2500 is bad for what you get, *if* you need it. (Just my opinion, you are entitled to disagree.)
$2500 for all you get isn't that bad, if you need all the workstation extras.

But if you only need a single one of those extras (like one PCIe slot, or quad-cores, or >8GB RAM) it's an incredibly steep price to pay compared to an iMac or compared to what a suitable PC desktop would cost. There simply isn't enough choice. And the price gap is far too large to tell people to 'just suck it up'.
     
JRobinson
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 12:32 PM
 
As someone said earlier, an ExpressCard/34 slot would solve some of these problems. I don't know why Apple just doesn't put one in the iMac. Also, I would rather they replaced that FireWire 400 with an eSATA port than another USB port.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 12:45 PM
 
Because to get an expansion slot Apple wants you to spend at least $2000 MSRP - that's the Apple way.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
JRobinson
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 07:05 PM
 
Thank again, for everone's input. I think I'll go with the $1,500 iMac and call it a day. It will get the job done until the economy turns around, plus it will consume much less energy than my old PowerMac G5 and put out much less heat. It's not the perfect solution, but it is definitely and elegant one.
     
pliny
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under about 12 feet of ash from Mt. Vesuvius
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 10, 2009, 09:23 PM
 
One of the Apple stores here only has the 1500 iMac out on display. It seemed to work fine..even snappy™....of course I wasn't playing "The Quake LXIII omg!!!!111!" on it so it really could be horrible.
i look in your general direction
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 09:19 AM
 
Is no eSATA really THAT big a deal? I checked newegg just now: there are only 9 eSATA only parts. Half are DVR expanders - they probably work as regular HDs, but that's not their purpose - and the other half are external RAID cabinets. Hardly a consumer product.

Besides, both iMac and MB/MBP has an industry standard storage connection with higher (theoretical) bandwidth than Firewire 800.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 09:40 AM
 
Sure eSATA is a big deal.

If you want a really fast disk you need eSATA. If you want several fast disks you need eSATA. If you want RAID you need eSATA.

Consumer grade NAS or USB disks don't come even close. FW800 disks come closer, but they're expensive and performance is sub-par. Why would anyone not want eSATA storage when you get better performance for less money?
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 10:47 AM
 
Exactly. eSATA wins on both counts: Performance and cost.

Even if you don't think the peformance metric is as important for "consumers", cost definitely is. And so is availability. Finding FW 800 drives locally can be a pain sometimes (especially if you want one that doesn't cost an arm and a leg). FW has advantages, but the advantages are flexibility for use for devices other than drives, like high end audio devices and what not.

Given the above, I'd argue that FW800 is more the "pro" feature than eSATA is, which is why I understand why they removed it from the MacBook (as much as I don't like that fact).
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Exactly. eSATA wins on both counts: Performance and cost.

Even if you don't think the peformance metric is as important for "consumers", cost definitely is. And so is availability. Finding FW 800 drives locally can be a pain sometimes (especially if you want one that doesn't cost an arm and a leg). FW has advantages, but the advantages are flexibility for use for devices other than drives, like high end audio devices and what not.
AND BUS POWER!

Unless eSATA begets a standard bus-powered connector and the capability of being used for media devices the same way Firewire is (is this possible using the SATA protocols?), it can NOT replace Firewire.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug View Post
Exactly. eSATA wins on both counts: Performance and cost.

Even if you don't think the peformance metric is as important for "consumers", cost definitely is. And so is availability. Finding FW 800 drives locally can be a pain sometimes (especially if you want one that doesn't cost an arm and a leg).
But almost any eSATA device you can find also has USB 2.0, and the number of USB only devices is even larger. If performance is not important (and I'd argue that it's not, in a consumer machine - witness USB vs. Firewire), use USB 2.0.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 12:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Sure eSATA is a big deal.

If you want a really fast disk you need eSATA. If you want several fast disks you need eSATA. If you want RAID you need eSATA.

Consumer grade NAS or USB disks don't come even close. FW800 disks come closer, but they're expensive and performance is sub-par. Why would anyone not want eSATA storage when you get better performance for less money?
Consider why a consumer would buy an external HD. Because the internal is out of space? Unlikely, unless the machine is years old - 1 TB is a LOT of space, and even my 5 year old box had a 250 gig drive in it - and if the machine truly has run out of space, I'm going to guess that it's because a huge media library that needs to move off the main disk. For those, a USB 2.0 drive works very well, and a NAS might be preferable as you can share it with another computer.

A more likely scenario is backup, and that is also a spot where a USB 2.0 drive or a NAS will work well. Another is as a portable drive, where eSATA is right out because it is not yet that widespread. Bus power also means quieter drives - no PSU to cool, so no fan noise.

Sure eSATA might be nice for the prosumer - and if Apple is taking the iMac in that direction, as it seems to be doing with the pricing of the MP, maybe it should be added - but it's hardly a dealbreaker. Considering the prices of those external eSATA-only RAID cabinets, you'd be better off with even that horribly overpriced low-end MP stuffed full with HDs than getting an iMac and a potential eSATA RAID cabinet.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by JRobinson View Post
You guys are truly the reason why Apple needs to make a mini-tower Mac. Your needs are robust and you all deserve better than the Mac mini or iMac, in my opinion.
And that subject has been beaten to death here. Yes, many people here and various other consumers can benefit from a mid range apple [headless] desktop. No apple is not going to release one. Many reasons why apple isn't doing it have been bantered around, some valid, some not so much. The bottom line, apple hasn't done it, so we are boxed into using an iMac, or a Mac Pro.

Personally I'm using a MacBook Pro because it provides sufficient power and mobility, but I am lusting after the Mac Pro desktop.
~Mike
     
JRobinson
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 01:42 PM
 
I have a MacBook Pro, also. My iMac is on the way, though.

Getting back to the mini-tower conundrum, we are apparently a small minority. Laptops outsell desktops now, and that's especially true for consumers. There is probably relatively little demand in the Mac world for a mini-tower versus demand for MacBooks. That's too bad, though.
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by JRobinson View Post
I have a MacBook Pro, also. My iMac is on the way, though.

Getting back to the mini-tower conundrum, we are apparently a small minority. Laptops outsell desktops now, and that's especially true for consumers. There is probably relatively little demand in the Mac world for a mini-tower versus demand for MacBooks. That's too bad, though.
They'd sell at least 10 or 15 to the folks here. :-)
- MacBook Air M2 16GB / 512GB
- MacBook Pro 16" i9 2.4Ghz 32GB / 1TB
- MacBook Pro 15" i7 2.9Ghz 16GB / 512GB
- iMac i5 3.2Ghz 1TB
- G4 Cube 500Mhz / Shelf display unit / Museum display
     
JRobinson
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 01:53 PM
 
I'd buy one! Although I must admit, I admire the iMac's environmental friendliness.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 02:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
But almost any eSATA device you can find also has USB 2.0, and the number of USB only devices is even larger. If performance is not important (and I'd argue that it's not, in a consumer machine - witness USB vs. Firewire), use USB 2.0.
So because Apple didn't feel like the iMac needs any expansion people should just use slow and expensive drives? Are you kidding?

This is a classic example of what makes the iMac so limited. Because it has no expansion, you either give up on stuff or you lower your expectations.

Macs used to be special, they offered more or better. But now I read here that people should use slower and more expensive disks to make up for the fact that Apple only has one limited midrange computer. Only a fanboi would buy that. A lot of other people will simply not consider an iMac.
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 02:22 PM
 
I use Macs for OSX. Simple as that.
- MacBook Air M2 16GB / 512GB
- MacBook Pro 16" i9 2.4Ghz 32GB / 1TB
- MacBook Pro 15" i7 2.9Ghz 16GB / 512GB
- iMac i5 3.2Ghz 1TB
- G4 Cube 500Mhz / Shelf display unit / Museum display
     
JRobinson
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 02:32 PM
 
I guess I'm one helluva fanboi, because my iMac should arrive tomorrow :-)

Actually, Macs are still special, just not in the way that we techies expect. For example, I have two friends who are writers. They swear by their Macs and won't go back. Why? Because Macs are simple for them to figure out, to use, and to maintain. What we see as a lack of options, they see as a sea of simplicity. One of them has both a MacBook Pro (I sold her my old one) and an iMac. She doesn't think about external drives and thinks RAID is bug spray. And if she ever gets an external drive, she'll probably just get whatever external USB drive is on sale at Target so she can get it while buying some other stuff at the store. That's how the majority of the folks treat their computers, and that's why Apple continues to thrive.

Of course, the fact that the iMac looks like a gigantic iPhone helps, too. :-)
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 05:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
So because Apple didn't feel like the iMac needs any expansion people should just use slow and expensive drives? Are you kidding?

This is a classic example of what makes the iMac so limited. Because it has no expansion, you either give up on stuff or you lower your expectations.

Macs used to be special, they offered more or better. But now I read here that people should use slower and more expensive disks to make up for the fact that Apple only has one limited midrange computer. Only a fanboi would buy that. A lot of other people will simply not consider an iMac.
I'm talking about the regular consumer here. I'm saying that the regular consumer will pick the cheapest drive without considering the performance. Said consumer would pick out the cheapest one with the right capacity and plug it in. Right now, that is likely to be a USB 2.0 drive. At least newegg doesn't have any cheaper eSATA only drives - and why would they, really? eSATA needs a PSU, USB needs a bridge chip. Which is more expensive?

eSATA is being portrayed around these forums as this huge new interface that Apple simply has to support, the way USB 2.0 became. There is simply no evidence for that it is that yet - it's a niche interface for semi-high performance external storage, between USB 2.0 and a SAS/FibreChannel solution. Sure it would be nice, but it isn't critical at this point.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
JRobinson
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 05:47 PM
 
I don't see any mention of SAS/FibreChannel in Apple's documentation. How does the iMac support it?
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 05:49 PM
 
What's critical? If USB is good enough for everything, what's FW doing there? I'd argue FW800 isn't 'critical' either because it's a pro interface (audio).

The point is the iMac has to cater to everybody but the highest end. But obviously it can never achieve that because it's at best an AIO consumer device. It's a non-portable MBP without the EC expansion slot. This would all be of no concern if people actually had a desktop choice. But Apple has removed that choice. And so people are stuck with the iMac.

I agree that your grandma as a regular 'consumer' would probably be fine with the $1199 consumer iMac. But the folks spending $1799 on a computer expect more. And rightly so. Especially from Apple.
     
JRobinson
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 05:58 PM
 
Does the iMac really have to be everything? That's like saying the Porsche 911 needs to be a sports car, a front-wheel drive sedan, an SUV and a motocycle. Some products are meant to be niche products. I'm sure people who are spending $1,800 iMac are expecting an expensive iMac, nothing more. People who expect "value," meaning more options and gizmos for their money aren't going to look at the iMac, period.

A mini-tower would be great, but I don't see it coming, especially when the market for mini-tower home computers seems to be shrinking and the remaining models seem to be racing to the bottom price-wise.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 06:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by JRobinson View Post
Does the iMac really have to be everything?
Unfortunately Apple thinks so. There's the ultra-compact budget Mac mini at $599 and the 'workstation' MP at $2499. That leaves the iMac to take care of about 95% of the actual desktop market. Now if it had expansion options it might be a whole different story, but since it has none it's really nothing more than a non-portable MBP without the EC slot.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
What's critical? If USB is good enough for everything, what's FW doing there? I'd argue FW800 isn't 'critical' either because it's a pro interface (audio).

The point is the iMac has to cater to everybody but the highest end. But obviously it can never achieve that because it's at best an AIO consumer device. It's a non-portable MBP without the EC expansion slot. This would all be of no concern if people actually had a desktop choice. But Apple has removed that choice. And so people are stuck with the iMac.
Well, I can agree that the iMac isn't quite the prosumer Mac that Apple seems to be pushing it towards, but an eSATA port does no prosumer Mac make. The insane price of the low-end MP leaves a gaping hole that the iMac can never fill. I just find eSATA, out of all things, an odd thing to focus on.

FW was put there because of home video cameras, and the upgrade to FW 800 was a logical progression to limit the number of different interfaces.

Originally Posted by JRobinson
I don't see any mention of SAS/FibreChannel in Apple's documentation. How does the iMac support it?
As pro interfaces, they're found as BTO options on the Mac Pro (SAS is on the RAID card).
( Last edited by P; Mar 12, 2009 at 06:16 PM. )
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
JRobinson
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Unfortunately Apple thinks so. There's the ultra-compact budget Mac mini at $599 and the 'workstation' MP at $2499. That leaves the iMac to take care of about 95% of the actual desktop market. Now if it had expansion options it might be a whole different story, but since it has none it's really nothing more than a non-portable MBP without the EC slot.
Maybe Apple is just willing to sacrifice that part of the market that needs the level of expansion that a mini-tower can provide. After all, the consumer desktop market is shrinking, from what I understand. Consumers are increasingly turning to laptop computers. In fact, many consumers are turning to larger, heavier notebook computers that aren't all that portable. So why would they want a computer that isn't very expandable or portable? Because such computers are easier to set up and maintain. You're right, the iMac is basically a big laptop computer that just happens to sit on a desk. However, that's what many consumers want, to some extent. It might be unfortunate, but that's the nature of "regular" folks.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 06:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by JRobinson View Post
Maybe Apple is just willing to sacrifice that part of the market that needs the level of expansion that a mini-tower can provide. After all, the consumer desktop market is shrinking, from what I understand. Consumers are increasingly turning to laptop computers. In fact, many consumers are turning to larger, heavier notebook computers that aren't all that portable. So why would they want a computer that isn't very expandable or portable? Because such computers are easier to set up and maintain. You're right, the iMac is basically a big laptop computer that just happens to sit on a desk. However, that's what many consumers want, to some extent. It might be unfortunate, but that's the nature of "regular" folks.
EXACTLY!

Now, there is a gap at the top because Apple pushed the low-end MP too high, but the iMac works very well at the low-end and middle of its current range. Maybe the high-end is needed as the premium model that lends prestige to the others, but there is no reason why the iMac and the MP cannot overlap.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
JRobinson
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
EXACTLY!

Now, there is a gap at the top because Apple pushed the low-end MP too high, but the iMac works very well at the low-end and middle of its current range. Maybe the high-end is needed as the premium model that lends prestige to the others, but there is no reason why the iMac and the MP cannot overlap.
If Apple wanted to, they could easily rectify this issue by offering a Mac Pro that uses desktop processors instead of server-class processors. That would probably knock a few hundred off the price, putting a Mac Pro in the same range as the high-end iMac.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 06:20 PM
 
The unfortunate thing is that Apple did give us the prosumer desktop Mac. It's the new entry level quad Mac Pro. Unfortunately, it's $1000 too expensive.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 06:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by JRobinson View Post
Maybe Apple is just willing to sacrifice that part of the market that needs the level of expansion that a mini-tower can provide. After all, the consumer desktop market is shrinking, from what I understand. Consumers are increasingly turning to laptop computers.
OK, I've heard that before. That's the 'the desktop is dead' argument.

You're right, the iMac is basically a big laptop computer that just happens to sit on a desk. However, that's what many consumers want, to some extent. It might be unfortunate, but that's the nature of "regular" folks.
OK, so now many consumers want a desktop. Heard that before too, it's the 'the iMac is the ideal desktop' argument.

So which is it now? And BTW, you are the only one here talking about mini towers.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 06:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by JRobinson View Post
If Apple wanted to, they could easily rectify this issue by offering a Mac Pro that uses desktop processors instead of server-class processors. That would probably knock a few hundred off the price, putting a Mac Pro in the same range as the high-end iMac.
As has been pointed out before that is not the case. The quad uses W35x0 series Xeons. They're basically Bloomfields rebadged as Xeons. They are desktop chips. The X/E55x0 series is the dual-socket version. That's what you might actually call a workstation grade CPU. They're also the really expensive CPus. But the quads are cheap. Heck, the 2.66 GHz Xeon in the quad MP costs less than the MBP's Penryn!

The quad MP is expensive to manufacture because of its case, its massive PS, and its expansion options. It's expensive to buy because of that and because Apple thought it could raise its margins during a recession and nobody would notice.
     
JRobinson
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 06:29 PM
 
At no point did I state that the desktop was dead or that the iMac was ideal. I think that is a bit of hyperbole. However, laptops do outsell desktops now and that is more pronounced in the consumer market than the business market. Also, the main appeal of an iMac is that it is easy to set up and maintain like a laptop, but offers a large screen like a more traditional desktop. For many consumers, especially those who buy iMacs and other All-In-One computers, the computer is an applicance like a toaster. Adding to many options to such a device would add complexity and price to the iMac, which would reduce its appeal to many consumers.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 06:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
The unfortunate thing is that Apple did give us the prosumer desktop Mac. It's the new entry level quad Mac Pro. Unfortunately, it's $1000 too expensive.
Yep. There's the answer. Short and simple.
     
pliny
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: under about 12 feet of ash from Mt. Vesuvius
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 12, 2009, 10:53 PM
 
I dunno. I think the iMac is a fine prosumer desktop. Some of the graphics components of the OS tend to make up for some hardware. We have several of them for heavy production and they hold up better than the G5s. I forget the specs on the G5s.

Here's what you guys want--a medium priced expandable tower deal.

Here's what Apple wants--your money every several years.
i look in your general direction
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2009, 04:09 AM
 
Agreed.

And considering how well iMacs hold their value on the used market, that's actually a pretty good deal.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2009, 07:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
The quad MP is expensive to manufacture because of its case, its massive PS, and its expansion options. It's expensive to buy because of that and because Apple thought it could raise its margins during a recession and nobody would notice.
I doubt that the manufacturing costs are that much larger than your average high-end desktop. If they were, Apple would have lost money on the old low-end quad. The component prices look to have dropped quite a bit, and even if the motherboard might be slightly more expensive, the drop in RAM and CPU prices should translate into a significant margin increase even at the old price point.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2009, 09:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I doubt that the manufacturing costs are that much larger than your average high-end desktop. If they were, Apple would have lost money on the old low-end quad. The component prices look to have dropped quite a bit, and even if the motherboard might be slightly more expensive, the drop in RAM and CPU prices should translate into a significant margin increase even at the old price point.
I agree with that. Apple is using an inexpensive CPU and buying components at low prices. At the same time they have raised MP prices. This should translates to a massive increase in margin. Were they to sell a lot of these Macs this would make for a lot of revenue. Unfortunately they won't sell many. I'm anxious how long it will take Apple to make corrections.
     
JRobinson
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 13, 2009, 01:46 PM
 
Are the new Nehalem Xeons considered inexpensive CPUs? Also, I would think the cases for the Mac Pros would be a little bit more expensive considering the engineering that went into them.
     
Simon  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 14, 2009, 03:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by JRobinson View Post
Are the new Nehalem Xeons considered inexpensive CPUs?
Compared to the previous Harpertowns, yes. Especially the single socket Xeons (which are essentially rebadged Bloomfields).

Here are the 1k prices (Apple obviously gets a discount on top of that).

Mac Pro Nehalems
X5570, 2.93 GHz, dual socket, $1386
X5550, 2.66 GHz, dual socket, $958
E5520, 2.26 GHz, dual socket, $373
W3540, 2.93 GHz, single socket, $562
W3520, 2.66 GHz, single socket, $284

Mac Pro Harpertowns
X5482, 3.2 GHz, dual socket, $1279
E5472, 3.0 GHz, dual socket, $1022
E5462, 2.8 GHz, dual socket, $797

Previously $2299 bought you a 2.8 GHz quad-core system with an E5462 ($797). Now the cheapest MP you can buy is the quad 2.66 GHz for $2499 (its W3520 CPU costs $284).
( Last edited by Simon; Mar 14, 2009 at 03:38 AM. )
     
 
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
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:53 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,