[Simon]

Originally Posted by Richard Richard 

oh dear...

Intel to delay launch of three 45nm quad-core CPUs on poor AMD performance

Nothing to worry about there. The delayed CPUs are Yorkfields, IOW quad-core Penryns for single-CPU boxes. Apple will almost certainly go with Harpertown quad-core Penryns because it will allow them to build dual-CPU (IOW eight-core) MPs.

The Xeons we're waiting for are selling already (at least some of them). Intel's pretty much ready. The ball is in Apple's court.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by mduell 

So what will the new Mac Pro be? My guess: Dual quad 2.66Ghz Xeon, upgrade to 3Ghz or downgrade to 2.33Ghz*

Mark, what about the 3.2Ghz?

Originally Posted by mduell 

...capable of 8x8GB (if you can find it)

Is anyone making 8x8GB B-DIMMs yet? Is anyone close?

Originally Posted by mduell 

...150GB or 300GB 15k SAS options (requires RAID card)

Sweet. This is virtually assured right?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Mark, what about the 3.2Ghz?

They've been launched, but I have yet to see them for sale anywhere, much less shipping. Even the lower clockrate 1600Mhz FSB models (E5462/72) are nary to be seen.

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Is anyone making 8x8GB B-DIMMs yet? Is anyone close?

I haven't seen any. The focus seems to be more on speed than density these days since Windows makes the 64-bit transition so painful.

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Sweet. This is virtually assured right?

Which part?
The current RAID card for the Mac Pro adds SAS support.
Apple may or may not choose to offer SAS drives as a BTO/CTO option.

[cube-dude]

A hint of things to come: Mac Pro BTOs at the Apple Store just slipped from the usual 2-4 days to 4-6 days.

At first, I thought the holidays were to blame, but then I realized other Mac BTOs seem not to be affected.

[Jesus On Cheese]

I sold my dual G5 2GHz back in October expecting the new Mac Pro 'any time now'. Since then I've bought a PowerMac G5 1.6 and a Mac Mini 2GHz as a stop gap. The longer it goes on the harder it is to justify buying a Mac Pro.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Jesus On Cheese 

I sold my dual G5 2GHz back in October expecting the new Mac Pro 'any time now'. Since then I've bought a PowerMac G5 1.6 and a Mac Mini 2GHz as a stop gap. The longer it goes on the harder it is to justify buying a Mac Pro.

That makes no sense to me, but you must have your own reasons. For me the longer it goes I just need a new MP more.

-Allen Wicks

[Bwa]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

That makes no sense to me, but you must have your own reasons. For me the longer it goes I just need a new MP more.

-Allen Wicks

Yep, I agree. If we don't get new Mac Pros at MWSF, I will just buy the current model. I've been waiting since May, but I cannot wait any more.

[musicforme]

For Christmas next year, I'm sending Steve a stocking full of coal! I hoped to find a nice and shiney new refreshed Mac Pro under my Christmas tree.

I did get a Stevie Ray Vaughan cd I requested, so at least I can listen to the blues while having the Mac Pro waiting blues.

[goMac]

Ok, so I know I predicted new Mac Pros today, but at the last moment they realized that they didn't want to ship so close to New Years. So the new Mac Pros will ship next Tuesday.

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Ok, so I know I predicted new Mac Pros today, but at the last moment they realized that they didn't want to ship so close to New Years. So the new Mac Pros will ship next Tuesday.

[Simon]

Seconded.

[ninahagen]

Dudes, gomac is just playing.

I heard that Steve was reading a grinch tale from Dr. Suess, and decided to play the green killjoy, but on Tuesday got served a great dinner by Larry Ellison (in red leather assless chaps and a white bow tie) & Steve Ballmer (in just a lace apron), warming his mood considerably, so he decided to release the new MP on Jan 3, to get people's mind's off the Iowa primary.

Can't wait.

[goMac]

I thought it was obvious that it was satire, given that I cited New Years as the reason Apple didn't ship a new Mac on Christmas day.

Anyway, yeah, I'm sure we'll get new Mac Pros next Tuesday.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I thought it was obvious that it was satire...

Of course that was obvious. However, it just wasn't quite as commical as you had hoped.

[cube-dude]

Thing is, odds are one of these Tuesdays he'll be right!

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by cube-dude 

Thing is, odds are one of these Tuesdays he'll be right!

I cannot tell if what the world considers 'happiness' is happiness or not. All I know is that when I consider the way they go about attaining it, I see them carried away headlong, grim and obsessed, in the general onrush of the human herd, unable to stop themselves or to change their direction. All the while they claim to be just on the point of attaining happiness....Chuang-tzu.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Of course that was obvious. However, it just wasn't quite as commical as you had hoped.

Well, I apologize then. Getting up at 7 in the mourning on Christmas doesn't lead to good jokes apparently.

[kklein]

I apologize for arriving to the speculation/whining party late, but I'd like to reply to some of the sentiment regarding the current Mac Pro's video cards' gaming performance being irrelevant.

I don't think it's irrelevant.

I am a new convert (okay, old convert who switched to PCs because of games many years ago), and the only reason I'm looking at the Mac Pro is that it is the only machine that would arguably allow me to get rid of my PC and just use Boot Camp to play games. Right now, the graphic card choices are abysmal.

I do some audio engineering and a lot of statistics. I'm accustomed to having a decent PC for these things. A PC I can avoid replacing for many years at a time. A PC with multiple hard drives. A PC whose graphics card I can swap out once a year. For these reasons, an iMac or Mini are just not options. I need a real tower-type case. I need multiple drive bays. And I don't wish to replace my entire computer (and monitor!) when I want to change one thing about it.

Apple could have my $3k today, if they only realized that there is one and only one reason to have a Windows machine at this point: games. With the advent of Intel-based Macs, I really thought it would be a number of months before we'd see a full suite of cards available for the Mac (I've read that it's the EFI that is holding them back...), and just about everyone I know would be switching. No one, you see, really likes Windows.

By only offering a 3-year-old gaming-class video card, and not grooming an aftermarket ecosystem for them, Apple holds itself back.

Furthermore, I seriously question the decision to only offer super-high-end Mac Pros. At this point, I have the option of replacing everything I own to get a decent system that still doesn't work well for gaming or audio engineering (iMac), or making due with an overpriced toy system that lets me keep my monitor but works even worse for gaming and audio engineering (Mini), or having a reasonably-priced-for-what-it-is-but-way-more-than-I-need monster (Mac Pro). The Mac product line goes Consumer, Consumer, Pixar. Where is the "prosumer?" Where is the product that fills the hole that used to be occupied by the $1k low-end PPC PowerMacs? Maybe with a single Core 2 Duo? Where is the machine that will really replace my PC?

I am waiting with bated breath for the MWSF show here in a couple weeks. I think they basically have to do something with the Mac Pro line. It is a laughable insult. I don't entertain any delusions about Apple introducing a machine that is exactly as I described, but I would buy any machine that had a decent gaming card that will work under Boot Camp.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by kklein 

Where is the product that fills the hole that used to be occupied by the $1k low-end PPC PowerMacs?

There never was a $1k Power Mac. The cheapest (new, non-refurbished) Power Mac I can remember was the $1299 1.25GHz MDD Power Mac. It was sold next to dual G4 PMs and the new PM G5. Before that there was a 1GHz FW800 Power Mac sold at $1499. It didn't do well at all and Apple canned it after just four months.

Re: the rest of your post, it has been discussed dozens of times here already. Apple (for whatever reason) has simply chosen not to cater to the expandable mid-range market. People like you won't find a perfectly suitable Mac: the iMac isn't expandable enough, the MP is overkill. What you are waiting for is basically the HEM and ever since the Power Mac 6500 (back in 1997; it was definitely a pre-Steve Mac) Apple has stayed away from that 'prosumer' market.

The way I see it you basically have three options: Declare that hardware is more important than OS/software and chose a PC with Windows, buy an iMac or MP and deal with it, or keep on hoping. I know quite a few people who chose the latter. Personally, I'd love to see Apple do a HEM, but for business reasons I can understand why they don't. Anyway, I wouldn't hold my breath. Fortunately I need a portable Mac to get my work done so I'll happily stick with the MBP.

[Aegis]

I don't really need all the CPU muscle but I do need most everything else. So I look at it as room to grow.
Also, remember that you can pop in an 8800 (or whatever) for use under BootCamp as things are now. Or you can buy a refurb of the current MP when the update comes 'round. That's what I may do, then just update the GPU.

[Macadvo]

Out of curiosity, if I were to put an 8800 in my MP what would be the best way to set up the PCI-E lanes?

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by kklein 

regarding the current Mac Pro's video cards' gaming performance being irrelevant. ...I don't think it's irrelevant. ...Right now, the graphic card choices are abysmal. ...an iMac or Mini are just not options. I need a real tower-type case... Apple could have my $3k today...

By only offering a 3-year-old gaming-class video card, and not grooming an aftermarket ecosystem for them, Apple holds itself back.

Furthermore, I seriously question the decision to only offer super-high-end Mac Pros...

I am waiting with bated breath for the MWSF show here in a couple weeks. I think they basically have to do something with the Mac Pro line. It is a laughable insult. I don't entertain any delusions about Apple introducing a machine that is exactly as I described, but I would buy any machine that had a decent gaming card that will work under Boot Camp.

Most of us here are also "waiting with bated breath for the MWSF show here in a couple weeks."

Many folks here agree with most of what you said, certainly I do, and I am not a gamer. I thought Apple would finally address gaming at the Jan 2007 Mac Expo; hopefully they will finally get to it in two weeks. Pro Apple apps like Aperture and FCP during 2006-2007 have been developed to heavily utilize graphics card power, so the extension to facilitate gaming is logical.

The only issue that I sort of disagree with is your argument about only high end Macs. The lowest end MP is $2200 right now, not really a "super-high-end Mac Pro." Properly selected Apple towers have excellent life cycles, often longer than the 3 years you reference even for heavy graphics apps users like me. Life cycle cost of ownership already is better than most PC choices.

I have attended pretty much all the SF Mac Expos and I never have been as expectant as I am for this one.

-Allen Wicks

[yikes600]

My feeling is that with Apple's success in the consumer market... comes less and less attention to the pro market. It's been about 1.5 years since a Mac Pro was updated so it better be a redesign rather than a simple speed bump. The Mac Pro has been neglected forever but Apple's stock price has never been higher. I think Apple is realizing that we don't matter as much as we once did, and their R&D budgeting reflects this.

[SierraDragon]

I agree that the slow MP updating is deplorable, but IMO at this point we should wait and see what comes out of Expo. What "redesign" means I don't know. Personally I consider the case design, for instance, just fine, no changes needed unless perhaps for tech reasons.

I do not think a "simple speed bump" is any kind of a possible option because too much tech has changed since the MP came out. CPUs, GPUs, mass storage - all kinds of things are much evolved today but the physical case may not need to change at all for the guts to evolve.

-Allen Wicks

[glideslope]

Originally Posted by yikes600 

My feeling is that with Apple's success in the consumer market... comes less and less attention to the pro market. It's been about 1.5 years since a Mac Pro was updated so it better be a redesign rather than a simple speed bump. The Mac Pro has been neglected forever but Apple's stock price has never been higher. I think Apple is realizing that we don't matter as much as we once did, and their R&D budgeting reflects this.

I wish I could disagree with you.

[kklein]

Indeed, as I typed that, I started thinking $1k seemed low, but $1300 is still a lot better than $2200.

As for the point about "room to grow," I am of the same mind. But the GPU is the sticking point. Even as it is now, I don't replace my mobo/CPU on my PC as often as I used to. Software just hasn't kept up with hardware. I haven't felt any performance squeeze at all with the CPU I've had for the past 3 years, and I am doing multitrack audio and things like many-facet Rasch modeling (statistics for assessment, etc.).

As for the 8800 comment... How would one set that up? I'd be fine with having a Mac card and a gaming-class card for Boot Camp. I just read that it wasn't possible due to the Mac's use of EFI.

[iDaver]

Like the rest of you, I'd like to see a new Mac Pro soon. A slightly smaller enclosure and a few minor improvements might inspire me replace my two year old G5 Power Mac.

Instead of a lack of R&D, I suspect the slowness of Mac Pro upgrades is that Apple just doesn't think they are necessary. A typical comment I see about the Mac tower is that its lifespan is several years. If that's the case, why would Apple feel it needs upgrading more than every couple of years?

As for graphics cards, isn't that largely dependent on what NVIDIA and ATI decide to do; not Apple?

Like a lot of people, I'm in between Apple's consumer and pro offerings. A mini works fine under my TV but not as my main computer. An iMac is out of the question for several reasons. But since those are the only desktop choices I will end up having to buy a Mac Pro. Apple knows this. They probably don't lose too many sales not having a mid-range tower.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by kklein 

Indeed, as I typed that, I started thinking $1k seemed low, but $1300 is still a lot better than $2200.

That $1300 is much more in today's money, much closer to $2000. So, we are paying, in inflation-adjusted dollars an extra few hundred for the snazzy aluminum case and a bundle of free software (well worth it, at least to me).

Originally Posted by kklein 

As for the 8800 comment... How would one set that up? I'd be fine with having a Mac card and a gaming-class card for Boot Camp. I just read that it wasn't possible due to the Mac's use of EFI.

It gets even better if you are serious about gaming. Mount a 15k rpm 300GB Seagate Cheetah SAS drive in your second optical drive bay for Windows and your gaming (& other Windows) apps. (you will need a PCIe card for that — Serial Attached SCSI Adapter - ExpressSAS H308 | ATTO Technology). Add the best vid card, setting it up exclusively for the windows HD, and you will have a screaming setup. In fact, depending on how nutty you are, with Apple's RAID card you could set up 2~4 SAS drives in RAID 0 in your HD bays and have the fastest gaming machine on planet earth. (if you use all your hard drives for gaming though, you will be left with a single optical drive bay to put your system/scratch/file drive into. I would go with one or two dedicated HDs.

BUT, as Sierra Dragon said, "Thou shalt wait until Mac World to do anything."

[Cadaver]

While I have no need for a whole new desktop (4-core 2.66GHz Mac Pro w/ 6GB of RAM), I do need a new video card. Through a stupid oversight on my part, I do not have AppleCare for my Mac Pro, so of course the X1900XT in it decided to die, so I'm stuck with the nVidia 7300. But before I spend any money on a replacement, I need to see what options Apple has in store. Unless of course Apple cheaps-out and doesn't offer a separately available video card upgrade like they do currently with the X1900XT.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

That $1300 is much more in today's money, much closer to $2000.

Um, back in the Carter administration, maybe.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by iDaver 

Um, back in the Carter administration, maybe.

We were both imprecise:

$1300 in 1978 would be $4326 mid-2007, perhaps $4400 by year end 2007.

$1300 in 1992 would be $1480 mid-2007, perhaps $1500 by year end 2007.

Tom's Inflation Calculator

In my case, the software that Apple bundles now means I don't have to buy MS Office. Back then I think office was around $400. Inflation adjusts to $450 in today's money. I still need Word though, so subtract say $100, so apples-to-apples we are looking at $1850 or so in today's money. Whatever small difference I have to pay for the great aluminum case and to stay current is peanuts.

Also, the low priced G4s were on the market for just a few months, most of us paid around $2000 then for our base G4 machines, $2277+ in today's money, almost what they cost now. (our accountant's is a single processor G4 MDD 1Ghz, and I think we paid $1900 or so).

Just can't bear the whining. If price is so important to you, buy a PC. Don't stand in a Ferrari dealership and complain about the gas mileage, or that they don't produce a family sedan.

[iDaver]

In the early part of this decade, there were several Power Macs available for $1600-1700. As mentioned, the single processor MDD briefly dropped to $1299 before being discontinued.

Now the lowest priced (downgraded) pro model is $2200.

So regardless of the low inflation rate since then, you can't get a nice expandable Mac for what you could before.

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Just can't bear the whining. If price is so important to you, buy a PC.

I love it when people say that, as if it's an option, when I already have bunches of Mac software and wouldn't touch a WinPC with a 10 foot pole.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by iDaver 

In the early part of this decade, there were several Power Macs available for $1600-1700.
Now the lowest priced (downgraded) pro model is $2200.
So regardless of the low inflation rate since then, you can't get a nice expandable Mac for what you could before.

OK, so let's take $1700 in 2002. On the link I gave you, that's $1935 in 2007 money.

Isn't the aircraft grade aluminum case and/or all the free software worth $265 lousy bucks to you?

Would you rather pay that $265 and have a full fledged MP, or save $335 and have some average HEM? If you wouldn't touch windows, why have a PC mentality?

[iDaver]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

Isn't the aircraft grade aluminum case and/or all the free software worth $265 lousy bucks to you?

Frankly, I preferred the old Power Mac case. I didn't have to move the furniture to make room for it.

And you can get the free software with a Mac mini for $599.

I was only agreeing with an earlier poster who said that you can't get a pro machine for what you could before. I didn't mean to get into details of inflation, aluminum, etc.

[goMac]

Waitasecond. Don't need Microsoft Office? Apple doesn't bundle the full version of iWork with any Mac, only the 30 day trial.

[MallyMal]

You can call it PC mentality if you want to but I'm not going to spend an extra $265.00 if I don't have to. That's money that I can spend elsewhere. However, in my case, I need full-fledged MP.

[kklein]

Apple isn't Ferrari. It's Volkswagen. It costs a little more for a more satisfying experience that is also rife with idiosyncrasies that make no sense, but which is nonetheless adored by its adherents. I'd like to point out, however, that Volkswagen makes a full product line. Complaining about price and selection isn't a "PC mindset;" it's a consumer mindset.

I rather suspect that Apple's findings are just as described. Anyone wanting an HEM machine is just going to suck it up and get the MP. I know I am going to do that. I just need to work out the particulars.

As for the iWork-MS Office comparison, it just doesn't work that way. It isn't free, and it doesn't replace MS Office at all. I bought it because Keynote is worth the price of admission. You can bang together a much more professional-looking presentation in Keynote than you can in PPT in the same amount of time. As an academic who has to do conference presentations on a regular basis, this is worth it right there. But as an academic who has to do a lot of collaborative text-creation, layout, etc. with people who are using Word, Pages is kind of a joke. And as an academic who does much of his research work in Excel, Numbers isn't even worth mentioning. It's a bit like talking to Linux folks who seem to actually think that OO.o is an Office replacement. As ridiculous a position as that is, I'd still take OO.o over iWork if I had to choose. Luckily, I don't have to, as MS Office works reasonably well on the Mac.

As for games, I'm not a super-serious gamer, especially since an Xbox 360 with an HDTV provides as good an experience without the cost or fuss of PC gaming, but there are still some games I play with friends that are PC-only. So I ask again: Could someone point me to instructions on setting up a video card solution such as Nina suggested? I have devoted quite a bit of time Googling for such a solution, but have yet to find one. All I've found are suggestions to others with the same question to do as Nina described--no instructions on how to do it, and paying $3k just to run the experiment seems a little... Risky.

[boston_errol]

Couldn't wait any longer. Just bought a used Mac pro 2Ghz BTO for $1500 with applecare left. Hope I don't feel sad after macworld. Nice machine, much better designed than my G5.

[MallyMal]

Originally Posted by boston_errol 

Couldn't wait any longer. Just bought a used Mac pro 2Ghz BTO for $1500 with applecare left. Hope I don't feel sad after macworld. Nice machine, much better designed than my G5.

They have any more?

[himself]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

...Also, the low priced G4s were on the market for just a few months, most of us paid around $2000 then for our base G4 machines, $2277+ in today's money, almost what they cost now. (our accountant's is a single processor G4 MDD 1Ghz, and I think we paid $1900 or so)...

One reason why the current Mac Pros cost more than past Power Macs: The Intel processors cost more than the G3s, G4s and G5s did, relative to their times (even in the volume that Apple is buying). A lot of people expected prices to drop when Apple went Intel since Intel produces so many more desktop chips than Motorola and IBM (combined, probably), but Intel's chip prices have always been high.

Another note on Apple never having a model in between consumer and pro lines... the 7X00 series and later the first G3 models were desktop machines that offered expansion and upgradeability equal to the towers. Those desktop models were discontinued (likely because their specs were too close the beige G3 towers) not long before the BW G3 towers were released.

I'd venture that Apple won't release a new machine between the iMac and Mac Pro anytime soon, because it will do nothing more than cannibalize Mac Pro sales, and we see how poorly the Mac Pros are faring now next to the iMacs and Mac Books in terms of upgrades and attention from Apple. Throw a prosumer model in the mix, and the Mac Pro's may go twice as long without an update.

I'm in the market for a Mac Pro, and I really need one badly. I've resolved to wait until they bring out new models (which they will do sometime in 2008). I have my Mac Pro at work to fill in until the new models are released, but it has been well past time for Apple to bring this upgrade... but it will be a serious slap in the face if they announce new Mac Pros with outdated graphics cards. If that happens, I'll work on spamming Mr. Jobs' email with casino, penis enhancement and porn spam at volume unseen by any human a never to be matched ever again in history...


And Happy New Year, everyone!

[boston_errol]

Originally Posted by MallyMal 

They have any more?

Negative, it was a one time craigslist type of deal.

[ninahagen]

Originally Posted by kklein 

Apple isn't Ferrari.

The Mac Pro is a Ferrari. If you were a graphics pro, you would know that. If you want a full line, buy a Fiat (mini or iMac) or VW (dell or hp). Just stop whining.

Originally Posted by kklein 

So I ask again: Could someone point me to instructions on setting up a video card solution such as Nina suggested? I have devoted quite a bit of time Googling for such a solution, but have yet to find one. All I've found are suggestions to others with the same question to do as Nina described--no instructions on how to do it, and paying $3k just to run the experiment seems a little... Risky.

There was a thread awhile ago wherein someone reported an office mate having done this successfully. I will start a new thread on this very cool topic later today (so it doesn't stay buried here). I am certain it works, we just have to find someone who knows the details.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by iDaver 

A typical comment I see about the Mac tower is that its lifespan is several years. If that's the case, why would Apple feel it needs upgrading more than every couple of years?

Because the individual life cycle of any given buyer's individual box and a vendor's product upgrade cycle are two entirely different things. Tech vendors need to keep their offered products current with the latest technology to remain market-competitive. Individual buyers buy individual boxes to run applications for years before those individual boxes no longer run the required apps well enough. Two totally different things.

-Allen Wicks

[kklein]

Just stop whining.

Yikes! Well, 明けましておめでとうございます to you, too!　

I will start a new thread on this very cool topic later today (so it doesn't stay buried here). I am certain it works, we just have to find someone who knows the details.

Cheers for that. 今年も宜しくお願いします！

[rnicoll]

Originally Posted by himself 

One reason why the current Mac Pros cost more than past Power Macs: The Intel processors cost more than the G3s, G4s and G5s did, relative to their times (even in the volume that Apple is buying). A lot of people expected prices to drop when Apple went Intel since Intel produces so many more desktop chips than Motorola and IBM (combined, probably), but Intel's chip prices have always been high.

It doesn't help that Apple's using a server chip in a desktop system. The "Extreme" chips are intended for this, not the Xeons.

[rnicoll]

Originally Posted by ninahagen 

The Mac Pro is a Ferrari. If you were a graphics pro, you would know that.

Did you just reduce computer users to graphics professionals and everyone else? I'm sorry, clearly only graphics professionals are important, and those of us whose needs are poorly handled by both the iMac and Mac Pro ranges will just go stand quietly in the corner.

For easily parallelisable tasks, I have a beowulf cluster available. For my desktop, I'm looking for two fairly fast cores. Per-CPU cache isn't a major requirement, as data sets are small. This makes the Mac Pro about twice the price of a PC that would perform as well, in terms of speed (with a little care, I reckon I could do a PC for a third the cost of a Mac Pro that would perform as well for me).

I am not going to spend twice what I need to, to get OS X, however much I may want to strangle Microsoft at times (I'm in fact here to rant while I wait for Windows to fix itself). A Mac Pro with either a single dual-core Xeon, or ideally a "Extreme" desktop CPU would suit me ideally, and be priced at least sensibly for what I want to do with it. Let it be a hidden option that you have to know to ask for, sure, but as it stands I'm going to be sticking to PCs for my desktop until Apple provide something with a price/performance ratio that's at least vaguely comparable.

[bballe336]

Originally Posted by rnicoll 

It doesn't help that Apple's using a server chip in a desktop system. The "Extreme" chips are intended for this, not the Xeons.

It isn't just any old desktop, it's a professional workstation. Go take a look at ANY PC manufacturer's professional workstations and you'll see that they are using the same xeons that apple is. Go look at any high end video editing system, any high end professional graphics machine, any high end animation machine, all of these computers use xeons. These types of machines have been using the xeons for years now, and it isn't going to change just because it's too much power for you.

Apple isn't building the mac pro as a consumer level desktop, they are building it for professionals, and professionals don't want consumer level processors.

[rnicoll]

Originally Posted by bballe336 

It isn't just any old desktop, it's a professional workstation. Go take a look at ANY PC manufacturer's professional workstations and you'll see that they are using the same xeons that apple is. Go look at any high end video editing system, any high end professional graphics machine, any high end animation machine, all of these computers use xeons. These types of machines have been using the xeons for years now, and it isn't going to change just because it's too much power for you.

Apple isn't building the mac pro as a consumer level desktop, they are building it for professionals, and professionals don't want consumer level processors.

Okay, you're right, the Xeon 5000s are workstation class, my bad: Intel� Workstation Processors

However, they're the absolutely top of the line workstation processors. There is a gigantic gap between the iMacs and the Mac Pros, which would be fantastically served by something with a single Core2Extreme.

[goMac]

Although I've raised this same point before, I've seen many many workstations for HP and Dell that use Xeons. In fact, I went to a college once with Xeon labs. Saying that the Xeon is only a server processor is ridiculous.