[mduell]

Originally Posted by P 

Software development means compile time means single-threaded performance

What retarded environment are you thinking of where compiling software is a single thread?

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

IMO Apple is right to go after the high end, but they must improve value.

-Allen

Their stellar financial performance shows they need do nothing to their prices.

[P]

Originally Posted by mduell 

What retarded environment are you thinking of where compiling software is a single thread?

Bad phrasing. I know compiling uses more than one thread, but not evenly, so one or a small number of threads tend to be heavily loaded, meaning that single thread performance becomes the deciding factor in this comparison (I doubt that it will efficiently use more than 4 threads unless it's a big task, and it doesn't sound like it).

[mduell]

Originally Posted by P 

Bad phrasing. I know compiling uses more than one thread, but not evenly, so one or a small number of threads tend to be heavily loaded, meaning that single thread performance becomes the deciding factor in this comparison (I doubt that it will efficiently use more than 4 threads unless it's a big task, and it doesn't sound like it).

If it's not a big task it shouldn't take too long anyway. There's typically enough files to be compiled and linked that you can effectively use threads = 1.5*cpus. I ran buildworld with 100 threads the other day since I had 64 vcores/32 pcores (Xeon E7). 500+ minutes of user time in 25 minutes of real time is about 20 threads effectively used.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Their stellar financial performance shows they need do nothing to their prices.

I was referring to MP value, and I suspect MP sales are not that good. When MP value is poor folks are forced to building Win boxes or tolerating the limitations of MBPs and iMacs.

Unfortunately Apple may conclude that MPs don't sell, but part of the issue is that overpriced MPs do not sell.

-Allen

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

I was referring to MP value, and I suspect MP sales are not that good. When MP value is poor folks are forced to building Win boxes or tolerating the limitations of MBPs and iMacs.

Unfortunately Apple may conclude that MPs don't sell, but part of the issue is that overpriced MPs do not sell.

-Allen

Okay, for the last time: desktop sales are flat across the industry. Desktop sales currently account for only about 25 to 30% of total computer sales in the US in general (depending on who's doing the counting), which pretty much matches Apple's own sales breakdown. The issue here isn't that the Mac Pros are overpriced. The issue is most consumers don't want to buy desktops any more, because they don't need them. This is true in the corporate world as well: desktop machines are being replaced by laptops and, more and more, tablets. This is true in the Windows world as well: laptops make up ~75% of sales, and climbing.

You may remember the presentation of the PPC/Intel switch, during which Jobs essentially bet the company's future on laptops. Turns out he was right.

[Big Mac]

Here's what I'm wondering then, Don: If desktops are as dead as dead and heroin is coming back in a big way... Scratch that (Pulp Fiction reference for those not with it). If desktops are truly dead, why is it that there's still a healthy enough end-consumer market to sell individual components to, to build your own tower? Last time I checked, there's still a very healthy build your own PC market, and many sources online indicate that this market has been increasingly in popularity over the last decade, not decreasing.

I think you're doing a very good job of apologizing for the gaping hole in Apple's lineup. I just don't think it's worth apologizing for. Apple's leaving a lot of customers out in the cold by not serving the traditional desktop market. Heck, Mac OS X would likely still be my primary OS if Apple still had a mid-range tower option, but instead I learned how to build a PC and have acclimated myself to primary reliance on Windows 7.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Here's what I'm wondering then, Don: If desktops are as dead as dead and heroin is coming back in a big way... Scratch that (Pulp Fiction reference for those not with it). If desktops are truly dead, why is it that there's still a healthy enough end-consumer market to sell individual components to, to build your own tower? Last time I checked, there's still a very healthy build your own PC market, and many sources online indicate that this market has been increasingly in popularity over the last decade, not decreasing.

I'd have to see figures to believe that one: I'd bet that home built desktops are less than 1% of the market. Show me something which says different.

I think you're doing a very good job of apologizing for the gaping hole in Apple's lineup.

From a purely financial perspective, I don't see a gaping hole in Apple's lineup, and I think their financials--and the lackluster results of other computer makers--back that up. I do think they saw the coming change before anyone else and, with the iPhone and iPad, spurred it along. Let me turn your assertion around: what would it benefit Apple to sell a product for which their is declining demand across an entire industry? The idea that Apple offering a less expensive Mac Pro resulting in higher sales isn't backed up by the overall computer sales record, which shows desktop sales have been on a steady decline, industry wide, for years.

Now, I know that, should Apple stop making desktops, there will be an enormous disruption across what were once its core segments, including the stuff I do to make money. But Apple is just the kind of company which takes those gambles.

More importantly, I'm not apologizing: I'm explaining a mechanism and what I see is the logic behind it. I've said, more than once, that I don't want Apple to stop making desktops, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do. Furthermore, I've said here and other places that I think the desktop is dying the same way that mainframes and high-end workstations did--they've shrunk down to specialist markets. I've never said I want desktops to die, merely that, looking at trends, their death seems inevitable to me. Just because I can see a change coming doesn't mean I want that change to happen. However, when you look at the larger trends in an industry which is rapidly evolving into one which puts mobile computing front and center, it's difficult to see any other outcome.

Tangentially related: here's a guy whose job is programming for supercomputers. He doesn't use a Mac Pro. He doesn't use a MacBook Pro. He uses an iPad.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Uh, I work, and have worked, in ad agencies, printing plants and prepress shops for almost 20 years. It's still a Mac-dominated industry. We have two Windows machines: they're RIPs.

Yeah, I meant the Mac towers were being replaced with iMacs. Who said anything about Windows?

[Waragainstsleep]

There is no gaping hole in the lineup.

Its not rocket science. An affordable tower is a headless iMac in an ATX case. Priced fairly, this would eat into iMac sales while running massively inferior margins. Priced unfairly, it won't sell at all.

An affordable tower is just a rebadged PC. Apple has had an overly diverse product lineup of square beige boxes before. They almost went bankrupt because of it.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yeah, I meant the Mac towers were being replaced with iMacs. Who said anything about Windows?

Sorry: thought you meant Macs being replaced by Windows machines.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its not rocket science. An affordable tower is a headless iMac in an ATX case. Priced fairly, this would eat into iMac sales while running massively inferior margins. Priced unfairly, it won't sell at all.

I don't think it would sell any differently than the current line up.

[Don Pickett]

Food for thought: Scaling down the Mac Pro – Marco.org

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

I don't think it would sell any differently than the current line up.

If you want a smaller, cheaper desktop Mac with less processing power you have the Mac Mini.
If you need something more powerful than an iMac you have the Mac Pro.
If you just want an iMac stuffed into a tower with no display, then you have to reduce the price.
Since the 27" display alone is $1000, should you be able to get a 2.7GHz Quad Core i5 xMac for $700? Apple is obviously never going to do that but if you look at the cheapest Mac Mini + 27" ACD = $1700 = Entry 27" iMac.

Even if you knock off $200 from the 21.5" iMac, I guarantee you Apple isn't paying $200 for that screen. You are cutting into your margins. The only way to avoid risking iMac sales is to price this tower at over $1000 in which case most people may as well buy the 21.5" iMac so they get the screen and the xMac tower becomes a niche product which won't sell in any numbers. You have spent all that R&D building a new logic board and a new case etc etc to sell a few thousand units a quarter. Its not worth it.

[P]

Originally Posted by mduell 

If it's not a big task it shouldn't take too long anyway. There's typically enough files to be compiled and linked that you can effectively use threads = 1.5*cpus. I ran buildworld with 100 threads the other day since I had 64 vcores/32 pcores (Xeon E7). 500+ minutes of user time in 25 minutes of real time is about 20 threads effectively used.

Agreed, a buildworld will use lots of threads. I wasn't thinking about that case - I was thinking about the case where you're developing a minor app, alone, and recompiling every now and then after making a few changes, fixing bugs etc. In that case it's usually a small number of files that need to be recompiled, and you're limited by single threaded performance.

(Unless that wasn't clear: I'm not much of a programmer, but on occasion I dabble. Not recently, though.)

Just a note...32 pcore E7 means a 4 socket machine where each CPU alone costs about the same as a high-end iMac. Right?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If desktops are truly dead, why is it that there's still a healthy enough end-consumer market to sell individual components to, to build your own tower? Last time I checked, there's still a very healthy build your own PC market, and many sources online indicate that this market has been increasingly in popularity over the last decade, not decreasing.

Really? More and more people who used to own desktops have switched to notebooks over the last 5-6 years. I almost know nobody who exclusively owns a desktop, even those who build PCs themselves.

Intels business strategy has shifted likewise: it focusses on reducing power consumption and introduces notebook parts first. We still have to wait for the Sandy Bridge-based Xeons for the Mac Pros.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Apple's leaving a lot of customers out in the cold by not serving the traditional desktop market. Heck, Mac OS X would likely still be my primary OS if Apple still had a mid-range tower option, but instead I learned how to build a PC and have acclimated myself to primary reliance on Windows 7.

I don't think they are. The New Apple cares about survival, meaning that if a business isn't profitable, they're not afraid to exit it. I can think of quite a few usage scenarios that Apple hasn't covered.

[lpkmckenna]

I hope Apple isn't stupid enough to cancel the Mac Pro. The creative pros who use them for audio, video, and 3d cannot be adequately served by iMacs or Mac minis. Ending the Mac Pros will also destroy the professional market for Logic Pro and Final Cut Pro.

I could see Apple cancelling the Mac Pro and replacing it with a line of towers with non-Xenon, i7 chips in them, which might not be a disaster, as the ECC element of the Xenons might be superfluous, I really don't know.

Apple would be stupid and shortsighted to abandon their branding as the choice platform for creative pros just because the fickle consumer market currently favours them.

[Don Pickett]

More food for thot: According to Horace Dediu at Asymco, in the last quarter, Lenovo shipped more computers than Dell.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by P 

Agreed, a buildworld will use lots of threads. I wasn't thinking about that case - I was thinking about the case where you're developing a minor app, alone, and recompiling every now and then after making a few changes, fixing bugs etc. In that case it's usually a small number of files that need to be recompiled, and you're limited by single threaded performance.

Sure, but most build environments these days will cache the object code for unchanged files, so the compile time is quick. And you can still run 1 thread per changed file. I don't really know where this discussion is going.

Originally Posted by P 

Just a note...32 pcore E7 means a 4 socket machine where each CPU alone costs about the same as a high-end iMac. Right?

Yea, the CPUs list for $2280. Hell of a db server without having to resort to big iron.

[Eden Aurora]

If Apple regularly updated its MacPro like it does the MacBook lines, the MacPro would easily be faster and superior.
Stop the debate that the current iMacs are more powerful. We all acknowledge that Apple has neglected its MacPro consumers.

With that said, the MacPro must continue on! There is a group of hard core video editors who need the speed that a MacPro offers (or at least should offer over an iMac). Also, the ability to have 4+ internal hard drives and far more powerful graphics is also key.

I recognize that most people are content with iMacs, but the PRO users (of which many exist) are going to be screwed.

Another question. Is Apple losing money on the MacPro line? or are they just not selling many? there is a difference. While the MacPro isn't making them a ton of money, if it's not LOSING them money, they should keep it.

[Waragainstsleep]

The only thing the Mac Pro now has going for it is the Xeon CPUs and Apple is reliant on Intel to supply new ones. They haven't, so the Mac Pro has stagnated a bit.

Having 4 internal drives is no longer a big deal with Thunderbolt.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Eden Aurora 

If Apple regularly updated its MacPro like it does the MacBook lines, the MacPro would easily be faster and superior.

How is Apple supposed to update the Mac Pro when Intel hasn't updated the processors it uses?

[P]

Well, they could update the base RAM and GPU and bump the base model to a sixcore, for instance.

[Feathers]

I was in a recording studio yesterday and was (un)surprised to see an old silver Powermac G4 sitting at the heart of the set-up. If you're running ProTools with a rake of cards and an expansion chassis, it's not something you can replace with an iMac.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by P 

Well, they could update the base RAM and GPU and bump the base model to a sixcore, for instance.

Not that I disagree, but, economically, no compelling reason for them to do this.

[P]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Not that I disagree, but, economically, no compelling reason for them to do this.

Well, what is the reason to update the MP ever, then? An update like this would be cheap and easy to do. 18 months are far above a good cycle time, so at least one such boost half way through would have been logical.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

How is Apple supposed to update the Mac Pro when Intel hasn't updated the processors it uses?

A few ways:
1) Reflect Intel's price drops
2) New GPUs
3) More base RAM, cheaper and higher capacity upgrades
4) Larger base disk, higher capacity upgrades

[SierraDragon]

5) Loss-leader priced SSDs, like on the top MBPs.

But reflecting Intel's price drops and more RAM capacity are the biggies. RAM modules, GPUs and HDDs folks buy third-party anyway.

And for gawd's sake lose the embarrassing way, way undervalue Quad.

-Allen

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Having 4 internal drives is no longer a big deal with Thunderbolt.

Actually IMO it still is. Thunderbolt is still inelegant and pricey compared to 4 internal drives, 5 if you use the extra optical drive bay. A tower with 15 TB of internal HDD capacity can sit on the floor.

-Allen

[Waragainstsleep]

Buying 8TB from Apple is $450 less than the 8TB Promise Pegasus. Throw in the AppleeRAID card and the Promise rig is cheaper and more versatile. One could make an argument for 3rd party drives but I know how fond you are of fully supported configurations.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Buying 8TB from Apple is $450 less than the 8TB Promise Pegasus. Throw in the AppleeRAID card and the Promise rig is cheaper and more versatile. One could make an argument for 3rd party drives but I know how fond you are of fully supported configurations.

I agree that for a fast hardware RAID the Pegasus setups are best versatility and good value.

I was fond of fully supported SSDs as third-party SSDs worked out the kinks but today IMO even third party is pretty solid. No one looking to optimize value, which is what we are discussing, buys 8 TB of HDD from Apple. 3x2=6 TB from Apple is $900, 2x3=6 TB from OWC is $400, 6 TB Promise Pegasus is $1630.

If standard SATA 7200 rpm drives and software RAID are adequate, 15 TB in a MP case is only $1000. My personal choice if I was configuring a MP today would be (4) 3-TB HDDs plus one SSD for boot and scratch. 128 GB would be fine for the SSD, but Apple in its current ridiculous-value-MPs mode only offers a 512 GB SSD for $1250 - unlike the nice $100 cost of a 128 GB SSD on a MBP.

-Allen

[mduell]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

5) Loss-leader priced SSDs, like on the top MBPs.

I don't see any loss leaders here (high-end 15" or 17" MBP options):
750GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
128GB Solid State Drive [Add $100.00]
256GB Solid State Drive [Add $500.00]
512GB Solid State Drive [Add $1,100.00]

Valuing the base drive at say $100 (hard to say due to the Thailand flooding, but Apple charges a $100 premium over the 500GB so it's a reasonable lower bound) puts the price of the 128GB at $200, 256GB at $600, and 512GB at $1200... a solid 30-50% markup over current retail. Perhaps not the 100% margins they make on shinier consumer electronics, but nowhere near a loss leader.

[SierraDragon]

When I bought my MBP a 128 GB third-party SSD cost more than $200, making the +$100 SSD IMO a loss leader, especially compared to Apple's usual +50% markups on mass storage. I guess SSD prices have fallen a lot since February, but even today a 120 GB OWC MBP SSD is $275. I do still consider the Apple-supported SSD at +$100 in a MBP a righteous deal.

Note that NewEgg's latest SSD deal is not something I would buy or compare prices to. I gotta have a known well-supported product when dealing with data storage. But that is just me; I respect the fact that other folks with more tech competence can safely select better deals than I can.

-Allen

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

I agree that for a fast hardware RAID tNo one looking to optimize value, which is what we are discussing, buys 8 TB of HDD from Apple. 3x2=6 TB from Apple is $900, 2x3=6 TB from OWC is $400, 6 TB Promise Pegasus is $1630.

I was including the Apple RAID card @ $700. You can use 3rd party drives with the Apple RAID card, but Apple won't touch it as far as support goes if you do. I used to think matching supported disks and firmwares was just a big con but I have come around somewhat in recent years.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Note that NewEgg's latest SSD deal is not something I would buy or compare prices to. I gotta have a known well-supported product when dealing with data storage. But that is just me; I respect the fact that other folks with more tech competence can safely select better deals than I can.

And I'm not. I'm comparing to the known well-supported OCZ drives with SandForce controllers. Way better than the Toshiba or Samsung Apple ships.

[QuadG5Man]

Apple should redesign the Mac Pro. It has been years since the MP has received any of Apple's design love that most of all their other products have. Mr. Ive should be salivating at the opportunity to redesign the MP and I can only hope he has been giving it some time through the years, and an introduction is imminent.

As for the design, an innovative power supply would cut down the size. Forget 3.5" drives. 2-4 2.5" drives would be fine internally, thanks to TB. Keep full-sized graphics and best CPUs. Could even have two sizes, one with smaller graphics for clusters, to compete with the computing power of racked Mac Minis.

Ship it in early December!!!!!! ;-)

[P]

Moving to 2.5" drives seems like a very bad idea. Also, I'm fairly sure that Apple has said that this is the Christmas lineup - January is the earliest we'll see an update, and it makes sense to wait for Sandy Bridge-EP anyway.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by QuadG5Man 

Apple should redesign the Mac Pro.

• The existing case design is excellent in both form and function and does not need redesign. The folks who need MPs do not buy based on newer/cuter. Add a rack mountable version if needed.

• The power supply is proven, no need to change it unless to add value.

• 2.5" drives have lower capacity and perform poorly, totally inappropriate for a pro tower. Folks who want low end have the Mini.

What the MP needs is support for huge amounts of RAM and value pricing. Not building a new case design should save on design/testing/support costs.

-Allen

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

• 2.5" drives have lower capacity and perform poorly, totally inappropriate for a pro tower. Folks who want low end have the Mini.

That's not entirely true: in the server space, 2.5" SAS drives have become very popular and they do have faster seek times and transfer speeds. But I don't think Apple will use 2.5" SAS drives in the successor to the current Mac Pro, all it would do is make the machine more expensive.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

• The existing case design is excellent in both form and function and does not need redesign. The folks who need MPs do not buy based on newer/cuter. Add a rack mountable version if needed.

• The power supply is proven, no need to change it unless to add value.

• 2.5" drives have lower capacity and perform poorly, totally inappropriate for a pro tower. Folks who want low end have the Mini.

What the MP needs is support for huge amounts of RAM and value pricing. Not building a new case design should save on design/testing/support costs.

-Allen

The current Mac Pro case was designed for the G5 with its massive heat sinks and thermal zones. Everything in it is therefore designed around a case built for a very different system.

2.5" SSDs might not be a bad idea. TB for bigger volumes.
Having up to two PSUs for redundancy would be a nice option for server usage. Maybe Apple could utilise its lithium-polymer tech to build in a UPS, that would be innovative.
I think there is far more chance of it being replaced by a rackable case than there is of Apple adding one. Adding one would just be a new Xserve.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The current Mac Pro case was designed for the G5 with its massive heat sinks and thermal zones. Everything in it is therefore designed around a case built for a very different system.

True. But it's still useful. I've pushed my CPU temp up to 160F with all six cores working hard. Even at that temp the machine stays much quieter than my G5.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

True. But it's still useful. I've pushed my CPU temp up to 160F with all six cores working hard. Even at that temp the machine stays much quieter than my G5.

Wasn't the G5 a turbo diesel CPU

[Twilly Spree]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

It's not perceived: people aren't buying desktops, period. They're buying laptops and iPads.

Actually plenty of people are, and Apple and many a fanboy in fact go out of their way to mention that Apple is selling more Macs (desktops included) than at any time in their history and that their desktop sales are growing faster than anyone elses.

People are buying iMacs. Which is all well and fine, but Mac Pros are probably not moving so well - but that's perceived, not real, since Apple doesn't really update the Mac Pros except every 18+ months.

Which naturally will diminish any interest in said machines, especially since they're priced exactly the same now as they day they were released, almost a year and a half ago.

During the fiscal year ending 3Q11, Apple sold about 16.5 million Macs, 72.29 million iPhones, 32.39 million iPads and 42.62 million iPods.

Once again: the desktop is dying.

I bet you'll die before the desktop does.

[Twilly Spree]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

It's not just Mac Pro sales: 75% of Apple's sales are laptops. The single most popular Mac model? The MacBook Air.

The cheapest model is the biggest seller???????

Pinch me, I must be dreaming.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Twilly Spree 

Actually plenty of people are, and Apple and many a fanboy in fact go out of their way to mention that Apple is selling more Macs (desktops included) than at any time in their history and that their desktop sales are growing faster than anyone elses.

For the last quarter reported, Apple laptop sales grew 37% while desktop sales grew 3%. So while Mac sales are at record highs, almost all of the growth is in the laptop side of things. Furthermore, the percentage of desktop sales has been steadily dropping for years, and this is not just an Apple thing: it's indusitry-wide.

Here's a transcript of the lats earnings report sales call if you're interested.

. . but Mac Pros are probably not moving so well - but that's perceived, not real. . .

Please provide data to back up your claims.

I bet you'll die before the desktop does.

If you'd read the thread you would've seen me say that the desktop will shrink down to a niche market.

[shabbasuraj]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Only a rumor, but it doesn't surprise me.

AppleInsider | Despite new CPU options, Apple reportedly questioning future of Mac Pro

This thread is basically a part II of this thread.

http://forums.macnn.com/65/mac-deskt...isplaying-mac/

Back then I thought the future prospects of the Pro line were doomed, and now my thoughts remain the same.

iMac it is.....?

[lpkmckenna]

I was just in an Apple Store yesterday getting an iPhone, and they did have a Mac Pro on display. It was even running Final Cut.

[SierraDragon]

Given the important place MPs hold in the product mix, and how easy it is to evolve the beautifully designed and real-world tested MPs, it would be nuts to kill them. Since new Intel CPUs are not yet available, evolution item #1 would have been to drop the price concomitant with component price drops. But since Apple has not already done that it appears to me that some marketing exec has been seriously screwing up, already killing the MP line with grossly inappropriate pricing.

It actually seems intentional: causing reduced sales by overpricing (duh), then using the reduced sales as a justification to kill the MP.

The ridiculous-since-day-one Quad pricing further supports that premise. Until the responsible Apple exec either figures it out or is replaced what happens with the MP may continue to be irrational.

Note that I am not one of those folks who claim an inexpensive X box is necessary, even though all us geeks would like it. IMO the Mini is adequate for that. But the high end is an important perception point in the product mix that needed attention months ago, including fair pricing.

Evolution item #2 would have been to double the RAM slots, making high amounts of RAM cheaper to obtain. Those 2 evolution items could have been done months ago, helping to keep the MP line real.

-Allen

[bearcatrp]

Apple could add another option, an i7 processor instead of xeon. Would bring costs down for regular folks that can afford them and doesn't need xeon power. Could even trim down the size of the Mac pro. I know it would cut into iMac/mini sales. But apple will loose customers by dropping the Mac pro. I left after selling my 2008 Mac pro. Couldn't afford the next generation. Built my own. Still have my 2010 mini but will probably be my last. Not sure though. I like OS X. Guess time will tell.

[P]

Originally Posted by bearcatrp 

Apple could add another option, an i7 processor instead of xeon. Would bring costs down for regular folks that can afford them and doesn't need xeon power.

Not really. Take a look at Intel's price list. Compare the prices between the Xeon 3500/3600 series (what's in the single CPU MP) and the comparable Core i7 900 series. They cost the same, or very very close, and the only difference in features is the support for ECC RAM. The BOM is not the reason for the price discrepancy.

Originally Posted by bearcatrp 

Could even trim down the size of the Mac pro. I know it would cut into iMac/mini sales.

By being smaller - no. They need to drop the price. They might if they drop the price, but I doubt the price

Originally Posted by bearcatrp 

But apple will loose customers by dropping the Mac pro. I left after selling my 2008 Mac pro. Couldn't afford the next generation. Built my own. Still have my 2010 mini but will probably be my last. Not sure though. I like OS X. Guess time will tell.

Of course they will lose customers. The question is if the number of customers is big enough to bother with - especially if they add a matte version of the top iMac.