[365]

Originally Posted by Zoom

I am now solidly left out of the Apple market. I fall precisely in the category discussed by others with the same beef. I am a prosumer. I need more than an iMac or Mac mini, but way less than the new Mac Pros. Someone already said it, but I'll repeat the requirements:

• headless
• extra HD bay
• single CPU (dual-core option)
• quiet, cool - lower CPU speeds
• fair number of ports (everyone needs these)
• upgradeable GPU
• upgradeable optical drive
• 1-2 PCI slots
• built-in BT and wifi

And let me guess you want it for $1199?

It isn't going to happen. Apple made the mistake of over complicated product lines before and it nearly broke the company. They now have six very well defined product lines (macbook, macbook pro, mac mini, imac, mac pro, xserve) the last thing they need is to invent a new line just to pacify users that still have issues about graphics card. I say that because that is the only thing in your list that can't be addressed with the iMac.

Why do you need PCI slots in a consumer Mac?

[MaxPower]

There is a spot in the linup for a $1400-2000 headless shuttle sized Mac with limited expansion (IE 1 GPU slot) . For every one of you iMac apologists out there, there are 3 switchers waiting for one of these.

And really, have you talked to anyone who 1) likes macs and 2) likes games? They fit in that price bracket and need upgradeable vidcards. Why would you tow the line that there are none of those people?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

As for me, as a moderator *cough* participating in this discussion, you have zero say over whether or not I do. And if you'd like to persist in claiming that you do, I'd be happy to put you in time out for a few days until WWDC blows over.

I'm not telling you what to do, I'm suggesting an improvement. You disagree. Fine, so be it.

But there's no need for any threats. No harm has been done at all. Lighten up, it's WWDC!

[Steve Bosell]

What are the "expansion cards" are you pronsumers are claiming that you need? I could see an audio pro needing PCI slots, maybe that is why it is called the Mac Pro…….

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by Simon

I'm not telling you what to do, I'm suggesting an improvement. You disagree. Fine, so be it.

But there's no need for any threats. No harm has been done at all. I think you need to calm down and relax. It's WWDC, lighten up!

Oh, fear not. All is well.

I just don't particularly appreciate being berated for expression of opinion simply because I'm wearing blue. And it's not just you, either. It seems to be a problem forum-wide.

I was a member long before I was a moderator and until something crops up around here that actually requires me to use my moderator powers, I surf the forum with the mentality of a regular member with a few self-imposed leashes.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by 365

The fact that you can achieve what you have to on the dual G4 just kills your argument. The difference between your machine and a dual core iMac is light years but let me guess you need more graphic power and the iMac only has a crappy Intel graphics chip set. Crappy says who? says all of the other moaners that have never even tried it.

I'll point out that the iMac has dedicated ATi graphics, not Intel integrated.

Originally Posted by Lateralus

B) Far more powerful? An X1600 with 128MBs in the iMac vs an X1600 Mobility with 256MBs of RAM in the MacBook Pro? Are you on something?

Performance is about the same (link link link), but the low-end MacBook Pro has 128MB and the 20" iMac has a 256MB option.

[MaxPower]

I think they are called video cards. You can charge a premium for the latest and greatest and gamers will buy them.

[365]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

For all you iMac apologists out there, there are 3 switchers waiting for one of these.

And really, have you talked to anyone who 1) likes macs and 2) likes games? They fit in that price bracket and need upgradeable vidcards. Why would you tow the line that there are none of those people?

Wow, three switchers, why didn't you say! That's going to swing it isn't it.

Originally Posted by MaxPower

And really, have you talked to anyone who 1) likes macs and 2) likes games? They fit in that price bracket and need upgradeable vidcards. Why would you tow the line that there are none of those people?

I didn't want to mention it but that's the crux of the matter, the G word. Well sorry but the Mac is NOT nor will it ever be a games machine. Microsoft, Sony and to a lesser degree Nintendo have that market firmly sewn up.

[365]

Originally Posted by mduell

I'll point out that the iMac has dedicated ATi graphics, not Intel integrated.

I know forgive me, think how confused I'd be with another product line

[Simon]

Lateralus, I'm interested in your opinion. Absolutely. I was merely suggesting we could move the headless midrange Mac discussion to another thread so this one doesn't go completely OT. It was really just about setting a good example (that's where the mod comment came in) etc. That said, I'll post wherever the discussion is.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by 365

And let me guess you want it for $1199?

It isn't going to happen. Apple made the mistake of over complicated product lines before and it nearly broke the company. They now have six very well defined product lines (macbook, macbook pro, mac mini, imac, mac pro, xserve) the last thing they need is to invent a new line just to pacify users that still have issues about graphics card. I say that because that is the only thing in your list that can't be addressed with the iMac.

What are you smoking? The iMac has a good graphics card, but it's not headless.

[365]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What are you smoking? The iMac has a good graphics card, but it's not headless.

But it can run an external monitor and the graphics chipset is not upgradeable and that's what they all want.

[MaxPower]

Originally Posted by 365

Wow, three switchers, why didn't you say! That's going to swing it isn't it.

Lovely that you take my typo and run with it. Nice work there.

Originally Posted by 365

I didn't want to mention it but that's the crux of the matter, the G word. Well sorry but the Mac is NOT nor will it ever be a games machine. Microsoft, Sony and to a lesser degree Nintendo have that market firmly sewn up.

You have a point! I am a Mac user, and have a PC box for gaming. Since we are all on the same fricking chipset, why WOULDNT Apple want to take money off of the hands of people that dual box like this? And I am not talking about the same price as a Macbook, or low end iMac. I'm talking about that grey area north of 1500 dollars. Is it just me or do you also see theres a hole in the lineup.

And dont talk to me about how 'Apple had a diverse product line and it almost killed the company', Until they have 6+ model designations of each like they did with the Quadra, Centris, and Performas.

And please, 365. Try to keep your discourse civil without personal attacks. Theres no reason for that.

[Todd Madson]

Sigh. My understanding is that Apple underclocks the graphics cards in their tower
boxes for one reason only:

If you underclock something, you might be able to get away with using a heat sink
on something instead of a fan.

And Jobs, as we all know, is ultrasensitive to noise.

I've use ATIcellerator to clock the 9600 XT in my box to its true clock and it
works fine.

[365]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

Lovely that you take my typo and run with it. Nice work there.




You have a point! I am a Mac user, and have a PC box for gaming. Since we are all on the same fricking chipset, why WOULDNT Apple want to take money off of the hands of people that dual box like this? And I am not talking about the same price as a Macbook, or low end iMac. I'm talking about that grey area north of 1500 dollars. Is it just me or do you also see theres a hole in the lineup.

And dont talk to me about how 'Apple had a diverse product line and it almost killed the company', Until they have 6+ model designations of each like they did with the Quadra, Centris, and Performas.

I'm not saying it's right, I hate being forced to buy Apple but it's the lesser of two evils for me. I know that in Windows land there is a market for this kind of box but they're commodity boxes and Apple can't compete in that market.

[ChrisB]

I can't believe so many of you are complaining about this new Mac.

Quite simply, this is one of the best Macs that Apple has ever released. It is a value and a steal for what you are getting. Plus, we get to have multiple drive bays again.

Seems like no one is thankful anymore. Sheesh

[Todd Madson]

I don't know - $2400 is expensive, no lie - I spent that much for my 2.5 G5 dual
last summer - I knew stuff was in the pipeline but I honestly couldn't wait - the
G4 I used so heavily was literally on the verge of falling apart.

So why don't some of you who are balking at price - sell your old machines,
or wait for some of the machines to hit the refresh bucket or the like.

[365]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

And please, 365. Try to keep your discourse civil without personal attacks. Theres no reason for that.

Someone just asked me what I was smoking, hardly civil I'd say. From my experience of MacNN is anything other than civil. I go to Macrumors if i want civil and well informed debate

[MaxPower]

$350-700 is commodity box. $1400+ dollars is not a commodity box. Especially if we are talking about iMac equivalent box with no head and GPU on removable card.

[MaxPower]

You can either be part of the problem, or part of the solution. Do you like the state of MacNN forums? If not, then set an example and encourage other to do so.

[365]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

$350-700 is commodity box. $1400+ dollars is not a commodity box. Especially if we are talking about iMac equivalent box with no head and GPU on removable card.

Do you really believe they'd be happy to pay $1400 for the machine they're describing. The problem is the market that we're talking about here has a BROAD range of requirements and that includes price.

As for your other point, I'm forty years old and I've been civil all my life but looking back the only thing that being civil has got me is being walked all over, so I now treat people with the same regard that they treat me. I've not been uncivil with you have I, I was a little condescending in one of my replies and I apologise for that.

[devmage]

Seeing how this is based on intel technology could I go out and buy a Geforce 7900GT and stick it in this puppy or are we still locked into video cards with apple?

[MaxPower2k3]

I just noticed that the Mac Pro doesn't come with a Front Row remote (not a huge surprise) or any option of adding one. I assume that means there's not even a receiver for it in the case? I wonder if Apple will release it as an option for these towers. I wouldn't mind having the option of using Front Row in my dorm if I get a Mac Pro.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by devmage

Seeing how this is based on intel technology could I go out and buy a Geforce 7900GT and stick it in this puppy or are we still locked into video cards with apple?

We don't know yet (EFI may throw a wrench in things), but the Apple Store has the X1900 XT for Mac Pros for $499, which is only about a $50 premium rather than the usual 50% premium.

[devmage]

Originally Posted by mduell

We don't know yet (EFI may throw a wrench in things), but the Apple Store has the X1900 XT for Mac Pros for $499, which is only about a $50 premium rather than the usual 50% premium.

I have an Original Dual G5 with a GF6800GT in it I was thinking of upgrading to the new Mac Pro. By all accounts that I read the GF7300GT should be quite a bit faster than my 6800 so I could probably live with that for a while reguardless. The videocard is the only issue I'm still debating before my order.

[Dzokayi]

The Cinema displays just took a nice price cut. I reckon the next revision will have built-in iSights and IR receivers, in addition to enhanced image quality.

[Don Pickett]

Looks like a good machine, but I think I will wait until the 2G comes out.

edit: forgot to say I will probably get one the same way I got my G5, from Apple's refurb site.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by devmage

I have an Original Dual G5 with a GF6800GT in it I was thinking of upgrading to the new Mac Pro. By all accounts that I read the GF7300GT should be quite a bit faster than my 6800 so I could probably live with that for a while reguardless. The videocard is the only issue I'm still debating before my order.

What accounts? That's complete and utter nonsense. The 6800GT is quite a bit faster (2-3x) than the 7300GT.
The X1900XT, on the other hand, is quite a bit faster (again, 2-3x) than the 6800GT.

edit: The X1900XTX is 2-3x faster than the 6800GT... I can't find X1900XT benchmarks on PCs.

[venom600]

Originally Posted by Steve Bosell

What are the "expansion cards" are you pronsumers are claiming that you need? I could see an audio pro needing PCI slots, maybe that is why it is called the Mac Pro…….

What does it matter to you? People want them, it isn't an unreasonable request, and that should be enough.

What I want to know is where all of the Apple apologists are getting this inside information that says there there is no market for a machine between the iMac and the MacPro. Have you taken a poll of the market, seen some confidential market research, or are you just making this up?

[Mike Pither]

Originally Posted by venom600

What does it matter to you? People want them, it isn't an unreasonable request, and that should be enough.

What I want to know is where all of the Apple apologists are getting this inside information that says there there is no market for a machine between the iMac and the MacPro. Have you taken a poll of the market, seen some confidential market research, or are you just making this up?

I don't think anyone here can demonstrate market research or poll figures that show that there either is, or is not a market for a Mac between the iMac/mini & the MacPro.

[awcopus]

Couple of years ago I bitched and moaned about the massive G5 enclosure having so little expandability. As far as I'm concerned, this new machine is absolutely beautiful precisely because of all of its expandability, which brings it up to par with the dual 1.42 G4 (2 optical drives, 4 internal HDs)... and then beats it because, of course, PCI Express is superior and the RAM handingling ability of the Mac Pro is simply awesome.

I'm sitting pretty with a thoroughly maxed Quad G5 at this point but will look to upgrade by the end of the year (tax savings, thank you very much). Also psyched about the 30" price drop. I think I'm headed towards a pretty sweet system in December.

I am mystified by the complaints about Apple's pricing. There is extraordinary flexibility with this MacPro offering. Surely professionals won't sweat the tax-deduction for such a significant gain in productivity. I imagine there are people who want the power of these Macs at a lower price but do not need a Mac (as a core necessity in their businesses). I understand that desire. Thankfully there are many opportunities to make extra money on the side to finance expensive tastes. :-)

[mac128k-1984]

I had a question on the video cards. That is one area that I get so confused at.

So apple's ProMac configuration shows
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)
2 x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
3 x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB (2 x dual-link DVI)
4 x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI)

I assume the 2x and 3x GeForce cards are 2 or 3 seperate video cards right?

How does the GF7300 stack up against the ATI card. I've been an ATI fan for my powermacs in the past because I think they've had better written drivers but how is the X1900?

Choosing the 2.66GHz, and the ATI causes the price to jump to 3k (just under it actually).

As I said in this thread and others, I've been pretty happy with the mini but aperture is pokey on it, so I've been saving my pennies for this day now its more money then I first budgeted (I thought I'd get a mid range PM for 2200 to 2500).

[mduell]

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

I had a question on the video cards. That is one area that I get so confused at.

So apple's ProMac configuration shows
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)
2 x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
3 x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB (2 x dual-link DVI)
4 x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI)

I assume the 2x and 3x GeForce cards are 2 or 3 seperate video cards right?

How does the GF7300 stack up against the ATI card. I've been an ATI fan for my powermacs in the past because I think they've had better written drivers but how is the X1900?

Choosing the 2.66GHz, and the ATI causes the price to jump to 3k (just under it actually).

As I said in this thread and others, I've been pretty happy with the mini but aperture is pokey on it, so I've been saving my pennies for this day now its more money then I first budgeted (I thought I'd get a mid range PM for 2200 to 2500).

Yes, they mean seperate cards in seperate slots.
X1900XT is about 4-6x faster than the 7300GT.

edit: scratch that, Apple says it's only 2.1-2.4x faster... something weird there.
edit2: oh, it looks like their benchmark isn't entirely GPU bound (relatively low resolution)... so the answer is 2-6x, depending on what you're doing

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally Posted by mduell

Yes, they mean seperate cards in seperate slots.
X1900XT is about 4-6x faster than the 7300GT.

how much of a boost does the XT model generally get over the standard model? Might give an idea of what the X1900XT is capable of. I'm in the same boat as mac128k, trying to decide on the graphics card upgrade. I'm thinking it's probably a good idea to spring for the ATI... I don't play a ton of games, but I have a feeling i'll regret it if I don't, especially if it's 4-6 times faster as you say.


edit: you edited your post while i was posting. does that mean you found a company who does make a X1900XT?

edit2: you edited again. good to know. 2x speed for $350 wouldn't be worth it, i don't think, but if it'll really shine on games and such then it's probably worth it.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by MaxPower2k3

how much of a boost does the XT model generally get over the standard model? Might give an idea of what the X1900XT is capable of. I'm in the same boat as mac128k, trying to decide on the graphics card upgrade. I'm thinking it's probably a good idea to spring for the ATI... I don't play a ton of games, but I have a feeling i'll regret it if I don't, especially if it's 4-6 times faster as you say.


edit: you edited your post while i was posting. does that mean you found a company who does make a X1900XT?

edit2: you edited again. good to know. 2x speed for $350 wouldn't be worth it, i don't think, but if it'll really shine on games and such then it's probably worth it.

The GPU/VRAM clockrates -
X1900 XT: 625/1450
X1900 XTX: 640/1550

Apple's two benchmarks are both for iD software games at moderate resolutions. You'll see more of a performance difference at high resolutions, and probably with other games.

Yea, there's an ATi-branded card based on X1900 XT. Sapphire has one too (since they produce the cards for ATi and resell them on their own).

[MaxPower2k3]

so if i'd be using this on a 1920x1200 monitor, it sounds like the ATI is the better choice. wouldn't want to waste this wonderful monitor by having to crank down the resolution for it to run well

[DeathMan]

I think 365's contestation of all these mid-range complaints is spot on. Apple isn't interested in haggling on price for a $1100 shuttle that you'll complain is already too expensive. If you absolutely need expansion slots and upgradeable graphics, you're a pro, or a gamer, and obviously, Apple isn't interested in that type of gamer.

I can't think of anyone who isn't a pro or a gamer for whom a 20" iMac or even a mac mini with a 20" screen isn't more than enough box.

But prove me wrong.

[ChrisB]

If you take a look at comparitive marketplace pricing, for similar technology the new MacPro is a steal, compared to a Dell that is similarly configured.

For what we're getting in a PRO level Mac - not a normal consumer box, Apple's giving us a deal.

My editing facility just paid over $4K for a new Quad G5 a couple of months ago - and that is with our normal Apple Enterprise discount off of MSRP.

And again, look at what you're getting in the iMacs - dual processors and fast internal infrastructure - making those practically pro level boxes as well. Despite the expandability issue with an iMac, you're getting screaming fast technology and a bargain price, if you factor in that you're basically paying for the screen and getting a Mac for $800 or so.

[Big Mac]

I find it interesting that Apple has been able to preserve ATI offerings, in spite of its relationship with Intel. In contrast, HP dropped its ATI BTO options from its Intel machines, AFAIK.

[ChrisB]

I'm glad they are still offering ATI cards. I recently purchased a 9800PRO AGP and the thing has revived my Sawtooth G4.

[Zoom]

Originally Posted by 365

And let me guess you want it for $1199?

It isn't going to happen. Apple made the mistake of over complicated product lines before and it nearly broke the company. They now have six very well defined product lines (macbook, macbook pro, mac mini, imac, mac pro, xserve) the last thing they need is to invent a new line just to pacify users that still have issues about graphics card. I say that because that is the only thing in your list that can't be addressed with the iMac.

Why do you need PCI slots in a consumer Mac?

I've moved this to the other thread. But I feel the need to reply...

There were many things in my list that can't be addressed by the iMac (PCI slots, upgradeable GPU, upgradeable optical drive, extra HD bay).

And yes, $1199 would be fine - or less. This model would be very flexible with lots of BTO options. The price could range from $599 to $1299 easily.

As for a "complicated" product line... Look at all the other PC companies. Dell has more options than Apple and they're doing just fine. And frankly, I think the iMac is a niche product that should not be part of the main product line. You listed six products... what's one more? They have two types of laptops. The have one type of server. They have three desktops, and the iMac is very different than the other two (being AIO design). It's hard to differentiate laptops that much, so two levels is fine. But with desktops, you can have all sorts of options.

I think the mini is a great entry level Mac. It's damn near perfect, except that it's maybe a bit expensive for what you get (compared to a larger system with regular components). You're paying a premium for the small size there. That's fine.

The Mac Pro is great, too. All sort of power and finally has plenty of expansion options, all for a very reasonable price.

But there's nothing between the two and the iMac isn't it. The iMac is a niche thing, but right now it's the only thing that beefier than a mini and less expensive than a Mac Pro. If it didn't have the attached LCD, it would basically be a super-mini.

[Zoom]

Originally Posted by ChrisB

And again, look at what you're getting in the iMacs - dual processors and fast internal infrastructure - making those practically pro level boxes as well. Despite the expandability issue with an iMac, you're getting screaming fast technology and a bargain price, if you factor in that you're basically paying for the screen and getting a Mac for $800 or so.

The screen is the problem. What if you don't want that screen? Or if you now want a bigger screen? Or if the screen fails? It's like buying a TV with a built-in receiver/amp. Sure, that might appeal to a small segment of the market (the people who probably also want the speakers built into the TV, too) .... but most people want to buy the two things separately. It's much more flexible.

And the mid-level market really demands some amount of upgradeability - even if they don't use it, they want to know they can do it. In my case, I absolutely use it. But from Apple's perspective, it means that people will buy a new Mac less often because they can incrementally upgrade it for years. And maybe that's really why the don't make such a thing.

[MindFad]

...dp...

[MindFad]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I find it interesting that Apple has been able to preserve ATI offerings, in spite of its relationship with Intel. In contrast, HP dropped its ATI BTO options from its Intel machines, AFAIK.

So interesting, it hurts.

[24klogos]

Xeons never looked so good....

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Zoom

The screen is the problem. What if you don't want that screen? Or if you now want a bigger screen? Or if the screen fails? It's like buying a TV with a built-in receiver/amp. Sure, that might appeal to a small segment of the market (the people who probably also want the speakers built into the TV, too) .... but most people want to buy the two things separately.

Most people do want the speakers built in…

[rnicoll]

Originally Posted by MaxPower

You have a point! I am a Mac user, and have a PC box for gaming. Since we are all on the same fricking chipset, why WOULDNT Apple want to take money off of the hands of people that dual box like this? And I am not talking about the same price as a Macbook, or low end iMac. I'm talking about that grey area north of 1500 dollars. Is it just me or do you also see theres a hole in the lineup.

YES! For example, me. Love Macs, but have a PC for my desktop at home, so it can run games. The new Macs are nice, but... well, lets start with quad core. Yaaaaay. I've only ever heard of ONE game that was multi-threaded, Quake 3. Not 4, 3. So, that'll leave the other cores doing nothing until games start catching up with the technology.

It's not even as if I want anything particularly complex; I'd like a Mac Pro spec computer, but with a single (2.6Ghz, maybe 3Ghz) CPU. Maybe Xeon, but probably best if it's not. I don't however want to have to pay for a monitor when I have one already (iMac), or a CPU I'll never use (Mac Pro current configuration).

Now, personally, I wouldn't touch 1st release anyway, and figure they'll add a single CPU config to the range soon enough, but... please people, we're out here, don't forget us.

[Arju]

I find this pricing arguement a little ridiculous... didn't the single CPU G5 flop miserably?

This rig is a bargain... an AMAZING bargain. I remember when a Pro level computer cost double that. I think the lineup is good as it is right now. Core 2 Duo for the MBP and the iMac, Core Duo for the MacBook and the Mini and its all good.

I switched this summer with a MacBook and next year I WILL get a Mac Pro. Its too droolworthy to ignore.

[waxcrash]

What I find interesting is the fastest quad Xeon you can buy from Dell has the 3.73GHz dual core 5080, yet Apple only offers the 3Ghz 5050 chip. How long until Apple offers the faster processors?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Arju

I think the lineup is good as it is right now. Core 2 Duo for the MBP and the iMac, Core Duo for the MacBook and the Mini and its all good.

The Core 2 Duo isn't in any Macs.