Demoted from Mac Pro to iMac or Hackintosh :(

[dimensional]

Anyone feel like they've been priced out of the Mac Pro? I priced out an iMac to the closest Mac Pro config I could find and it was about $3400.

If an iMac with non-Xeons is this expensive, I have to believe that even a single processor westmere Mac Pro with a decent Ghz is going to break $4-5K. It's just hard to justify spending that much on a computer. I've bought three aluminum Mac Pros before and it was always mid-$3000s.

Kind of depressing. My main issue with the iMac is the graphics card isn't upgradable and I worry about the I/O bandwidth on it (I'm not sure if that is a valid concern or not with the i7 860s -- is it?).

So expensive. The cynical side of me thinks they're pricing it so high so that the market share goes down enough so that they can justify killing the product off. Pretty frustrating.

I wish they'd take the iMac, stick it in a mid-size aluminum case, give it two card slots, and ditch the monitor. Yeah, I know this will never happen.

I mean, I don't even know what I'm going to do with my existing 30" Cinema Display if I end up going iMac. Seems like such a waste.

[Hellhammer]

Quad core Mac Pro is 2499$ and six-core will likely be ~3500$. Then add ~200$ for 5870 upgrade and another hundred for more RAM. What is your usage anyway? Do you need that much speed? Who not to use your older Mac Pros?

[dimensional]

Quad core Mac Pro is 2499$ and six-core will likely be ~3500$. Then add ~200$ for 5870 upgrade and another hundred for more RAM. What is your usage anyway? Do you need that much speed? Who not to use your older Mac Pros?

I really want a 32nm westmere, I hate that there is no price break on the almost-two-year-old 45nm Nehelams. So that basically means one six-core westmere which is outrageously expensive (I think it's like $1400 from newegg for just the processor from Intel, that's $1400 before the Apple tax).

I also want a 256GB SSD for the OS. I've read so much positive news about how having your OS and your apps on an SSD makes such a big difference. It just seems malevolent to spend $4000+ on a computer these days that doesn't have an SSD. Apple's 256GB SSD on the iMac is a $750 add on. Between the SSD and the single Westmere Xeon and a decent amount of RAM (probably 9GB for i7 900s, maybe 12GB if it isn't too expensive), and the upgrade to the 5870 I'm certain I'll be clearing $5K.

The aluminum powermacs I bought were the 2004 G5 Alum, the 2006 one (that's the one I use), and a 2007? which I bought for a coworker and which I do not own. So the most recent one I have is the 2006. It's been four years since I upgraded and I have the money to upgrade. The 2006 bogs down on a lot of development stuff.

My usage is mostly development and lots of analysis so it's pretty I/O and CPU-intensive. I also do casual gaming but I like visual eye-candy so even though I'm casual I like good visuals.

[Spanky Deluxe]

The target market of the Mac Pro's not the same now as it was for the '06-'08 Mac Pros. Back then it was the prosumer machine of choice but now Apple believes the top end iMac fits that purpose instead. For those that already have a nice screen and want a bit more upgradability in the future, a hackintosh does seem the only route and it's getting easier and easier to do.

[hugodrax]

The Mac Pro is a work computer, it is not a consumer desktop.

No one who needs a proper workstation will bitch about a 4K computer when the software costs are x10 times more etc..

80% of the people on this forum probably should not even be looking at Mac Pro workstations to begin with.

Those who do, The Mac Pro pays for itself the first few days it gets put to use.

[snouter]

The iMac is just not an option.

Can't replace the hard drives and are stuck with the screen. Can't add USB 3 or eSata cards.

I thought this post summed it up very well.

http://www.marco.org/868606627

I also run a $1250 home built i7 920 with 12Gb of ram, and have been VERY pleased with it.

All Apple would have to do is base their SP machines on non-Xeon parts and use 6 ram slots and price it at $1999 and they'd have a SMASH hit on their hands.

[dimensional]

The Mac Pro is a work computer, it is not a consumer desktop.

No one who needs a proper workstation will bitch about a 4K computer when the software costs are x10 times more etc..

80% of the people on this forum probably should not even be looking at Mac Pro workstations to begin with.

Yeah, they should be looking at hackintosh. It's the only really viable solution since the iMac is shackled to a medicore graphics card.

Wish I knew why Apple hated the power-user desktop crowd so much.

[snouter]

The target market of the Mac Pro's not the same now as it was for the '06-'08 Mac Pros. Back then it was the prosumer machine of choice but now Apple believes the top end iMac fits that purpose instead.

The Mac Pro is a work computer, it is not a consumer desktop.

No one who needs a proper workstation will bitch about a 4K computer when the software costs are x10 times more etc..

80% of the people on this forum probably should not even be looking at Mac Pro workstations to begin with.

Those who do, The Mac Pro pays for itself the first few days it gets put to use.

True and true.

Basically, the Mac Pro is for agencies or people who do mid to high-end paying work, and even then, I bet there is a lot of agitation to start considering Windows machines since in some situations they can be as much as 50% cheaper.

My main software of choice is Cinema 4d and Adobe Production Premium CS5. Both of which run perfectly fine on Windows.

[dimensional]

I also run a $1250 home built i7 920 with 12Gb of ram, and have been VERY pleased with it.


Do you run OS X on it? Do you have a list of the parts you used? Or do you know of "cookbook" of sorts that contain a list of parts that work well together and are known to work with OS X? I'm new to the hackintosh scene but not new to building my own PCs.


All Apple would have to do is base their SP machines on non-Xeon parts and use 6 ram slots and price it at $1999 and they'd have a SMASH hit on their hands.

Yep.

Another thing they could do would be to make a small external aluminum box that has two expansion slots in it that can connect to an iMac or ideally a MacBook Pro.

[Spanky Deluxe]

Do you run OS X on it? Do you have a list of the parts you used? Or do you know of "cookbook" of sorts that contain a list of parts that work well together and are known to work with OS X? I'm new to the hackintosh scene but not new to building my own PCs.

Have a look over at InsanelyMac. There are loads of guides for pre-tested hardware. I think the gigabyte boards are the best bet. Mine took a bit longer to do since I went for a less common mATX ASUS board since I wanted to build my Hackintosh into my old Mac Pro's case. It took a while to set up but it was completely worth it. I've now got an i7 running at 4GHz, 12GB of RAM, 8TB over 5 standard drives, a 256GB SSD boot drive and a 5970 graphics card. It does the job! :D

[Mackilroy]

Do you run OS X on it? Do you have a list of the parts you used? Or do you know of "cookbook" of sorts that contain a list of parts that work well together and are known to work with OS X? I'm new to the hackintosh scene but not new to building my own PCs.
Go here (http://www.tonymacx86.com/index.php) or here (http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/). Lots of good information about building hackintoshes at those two sites.

[snouter]

Wish I knew why Apple hated the power-user desktop crowd so much.

Apple believes that the desktop is dead.

They have pushed sales to laptops. Until VERY recently, the iMac was mostly made of laptop parts, only differing in the use of video cards and 3.5" hard drives. The i5 and i7 iMacs are the first ones to at least give users the more powerful desktop CPU.

The market for the Mac pro, as has been stated, is for agencies and people doing well paid work.

Apple is also betting the farm on the mobile device future and therefore resources have been shifted to iPhone, iPad and iOS.

They were in no rush to upgrade the Mac Pro, because the market it caters to does not care about the processor that just came out last week. They care about machines that do billable hours.

[Icaras]

Yup, I wanted the Westmere Mac Pro as well and the 27" LED display to go with it, but it will be priced at around 5K, like you mentioned. Although I was planning on it, I am most definitely pushed out of the Mac Pro range with these prices. Like a lot of people on these forums have already suggested, Apple is out to get the super high end professional with this Mac line.

I've stopped arguing with myself and just ordered my i7 iMac and I know I'll be happy with it. I keep spouting this in other threads, but the real deal breaker for me was the SSD+HDD combo. It's a perfect basic setup for the working prosumer or high paying consumer who wants a fast boot drive and extra mechanical drive for storage of media and work files. I think the non upgradeable GPU is a definite downside, but thank god Macs have high resell values anyway. I just plan on selling the machine in 3-5 years time for a new one anyway.

As for your 30" ACD, why not just make it a double display for your iMac? :)

[hugodrax]

True and true.

Basically, the Mac Pro is for agencies or people who do mid to high-end paying work, and even then, I bet there is a lot of agitation to start considering Windows machines since in some situations they can be as much as 50% cheaper.

My main software of choice is Cinema 4d and Adobe Production Premium CS5. Both of which run perfectly fine on Windows.

Adobe can run on a regular 500 dollar desktop fine.

Anyhow I am not sure if an equivalent dual physical CPU dell workstation is going to be 50% cheaper.


The cost of a desktop is trivial in the scope of things, 4-5 grand for a desktop is nothing really. And downgrading to windows and using a cheap chopchop box is a false economy.

I cannot risk all the BS involved with windows, the Sapping of I/O performance because of AV having to intercede every request,etc.. Potential crashes, fingerpointing between vendors etc..

Now what I do on my mac is Derivatives/equity trading and I run some complex workloads on it as well. I run several apps on this thing that is getting realtime market feeds (CBOE/etc..)

Time is money.

I still have my old Sun Ultra2 creator, that thing cost 25 Grand back when I got it. We are getting so much bang for the buck today it is not even funny.

[cube]

Mac Pro was never a prosumer machine. PowerMacs were prosumer machines.

[DaveP]

Mac Pro was never a prosumer machine. PowerMacs were prosumer machines.

Sadly true. And iMacs originally started as an "I want to just to do basic computing" type machines before slowly evolving to target a higher level market. Unfortunately, the limitations of the iMac form factor is very annoying to a lot of prosumers.

I wonder what sort of analysis was done in making this shift or if it was just a Steve Jobs gut feeling decision.

[maflynn]

Apple believes that the desktop is dead.

So true. If they thought otherwise, they'd be dedicating more time, energy and resources to providing a richer set of solutions.

I agree with the other sentiments however in that Mac Pro is really geared towards the professional who needs a full blown workstation. The iMacs are plenty powerful to handle the prosumer and high end consumer needs.

[hbryan]

Well, the price isn't stopping me, it is slowing down my purchasing cycle. I am one of those "high end" consumers.

I haven't updated since I got my 1st MacPro (1,1), because the software I use hasn't caught up to the hardware (yet). I do expect it to catch up in the next 12 - 18 months, so I will be upgrading.

My next MacPro will have to go for at least 5 years (if not longer).

[Spanky Deluxe]

Mac Pro was never a prosumer machine. PowerMacs were prosumer machines.

The 2006 and 2008 Mac Pros were prosumer machines as well as workstations - they were competitively priced with the PC competition. '09 onwards, $1000 more than the competition across the board and prosumers were priced out.

[Cave Man]

Anyone feel like they've been priced out of the Mac Pro?

Build yourself a hackintosh around the GA-P55A-UD4P mobo. It's about the easiest thing to do, according to the tonymacx86 forums. It'll take i3, i5 or i7 LGA1156 cpus, do hyperthreading, 16 GB RAM and all that. Plus, your video card options are far greater with a hackintosh than with any Mac.

[cube]

The 2006 and 2008 Mac Pros were prosumer machines as well as workstations - they were competitively priced with the PC competition. '09 onwards, $1000 more than the competition across the board and prosumers were priced out.

Xeon is not prosumer. Xeon is professional, like Opteron.

Phenom is prosumer.

Core is more consumer that Athlon. Some people could argue that Athlon is cheap prosumer.

[cube]

The iMacs are plenty powerful to handle the prosumer and high end consumer needs.

The iMacs may be powerful, but they can't satisfy the prosumer needs, which are not limited to power.

[DaveP]

The iMacs may be powerful, but they can't satisfy the prosumer needs, which are not limited to power.

Exactly. Such as, if you are working with HD video or similarly sized files the multiple external hard drives get really annoying. The CPU specs are plenty fast (particularly the i7s) for most prosumers.

[dimensional]

Mac Pro was never a prosumer machine. PowerMacs were prosumer machines.

I picked up a 2006 Intel Mac Pro for mid-$3000, it was mostly maxed out except for RAM. For me, mid-$3000 is kind of the upper limit. So I'd say that the 2006 Intel Mac Pro was "prosumer".

[maflynn]

The iMacs may be powerful, but they can't satisfy some prosumer needs, which are not limited to power.

Fixed it for you. Many prosumers, can and do find the iMac satisfactory. Sure there are some that it will not but that's just the nature of the beast.

[cube]

I picked up a 2006 Intel Mac Pro for mid-$3000, it was mostly maxed out except for RAM. For me, mid-$3000 is kind of the upper limit. So I'd say that the 2006 Intel Mac Pro was "prosumer".

It's not prosumer engineering. It's professional engineering.

[Penn Jennings]

The Mac Pro is a work computer, it is not a consumer desktop.

No one who needs a proper workstation will bitch about a 4K computer when the software costs are x10 times more etc..

80% of the people on this forum probably should not even be looking at Mac Pro workstations to begin with.

Those who do, The Mac Pro pays for itself the first few days it gets put to use.

80%! Are you mad! I'd say 95% shouldn't be look at Mac Pros. You are far too generous my friend. :)

[cube]

Yes, but they have nothing else to look at.

[snouter]

80%! Are you mad! I'd say 95% shouldn't be look at Mac Pros. You are far too generous my friend. :)

True.

For most people an i5 or i7 iMac will be fine. You can even attach an external drive or two and not be too put out.

However, for professional work flows, where you want to swap the drives out, add a USB3 card, eSata card, video capture or audio card- you'll need to go Mac Pro.

Also while the i5 or i7 chips in the iMac are pretty powerful, video and audio compressing and preview renders, etc will greatly benefit from the multi-CPU set-up.

For most people though, the high school or college kid learning 3d or editing or audio, the iMac should suffice. When it's time to get paid, and you can't afford production work flows that lead to missed deadlines or painful workarounds, the Mac Pro becomes evident.

Before the i5 and i7 in the iMac this was a MUCH bigger problem as there was a much bigger performance gulf.

[cube]

The problem with the iMac has never been the performance, but the stupid screen.

[freeman727]

One clue that they are not getting rid of the Mac Pro is that they have not added eSATA, FW3200 or USB 3.0 to the iMac. If you want expansion, you'll have to go to the Mac Pro. However they now have the dual drive setup and drives are getting larger and larger. When they finally put light peak (or at the very least USB 3.0) on the iMac, then you'll know that Mac Pro's days are over.

[Hellhammer]

The problem with the iMac has never been the performance, but the stupid screen.

Not usually the screen. More often it's the lack of upgradeability

[cube]

Not usually the screen. More often it's the lack of upgradeability

Both. But the screen is worse.

[Spanky Deluxe]

Both. But the screen is worse.

Now that they come in good sizes, the screen's a plus. If I didn't already have a 30" ACD I'd be all over the 27" iMac. That screen is incredible. It's just not as nice as a 30" ACD at the mo.

[cube]

Now that they come in good sizes, the screen's a plus. If I didn't already have a 30" ACD I'd be all over the 27" iMac. That screen is incredible. It's just not as nice as a 30" ACD at the mo.

- It's a mess to upgrade a hard drive in the iMac and it voids the warranty.
- You can't connect 3 or 4 computers with a variety of connectors plus the mandatory Blu Ray drive to the iMac screen.
- When the computer is obsolete, you also have to dispose of the screen.

[Spanky Deluxe]

- It's a mess to upgrade a hard drive in the iMac and it voids the warranty.
- You can't connect 3 or 4 computers with a variety of connectors plus the mandatory Blu Ray drive to the iMac screen.
- When the computer is obsolete, you also have to dispose of the screen.

Even the first generation iMacs aren't obsolete yet by a long shot yet they only had 17" and 20" screens. If you're buying a newer iMac you'll buy one with a larger screen to replace the last one. Since when is blu ray mandatory? You can't even play them on macs! Most people who can afford a $2000 computer will have already have a large HDTV that they'd rather watch films on. I've got a Bluray drive in my hackintosh and I've used the bluray feature once to get a few screengrabs from my favourite films and haven't used it again since.

[cube]

Even the first generation iMacs aren't obsolete yet by a long shot yet they only had 17" and 20" screens. If you're buying a newer iMac you'll buy one with a larger screen to replace the last one. Since when is blu ray mandatory? You can't even play them on macs! Most people who can afford a $2000 computer will have already have a large HDTV that they'd rather watch films on. I've got a Bluray drive in my hackintosh and I've used the bluray feature once to get a few screengrabs from my favourite films and haven't used it again since.

A dedicated Blu Ray player is mandatory because you can't play Blu Rays in Macs properly.

[Hellhammer]

- You can't connect 3 or 4 computers with a variety of connectors plus the mandatory Blu Ray drive to the iMac screen.

You can't do that with 27" ACD either

[cube]

You can't do that with 27" ACD either

You can do it with good third party monitors, not with Apple's crap.

[Spanky Deluxe]

You can do it with good third party monitors, not with Apple's crap.

You can't do it at all on Macs without rebooting into Windows. Incidentally, you can watch blurays on an iMac if booted into Windows and using a USB bluray drive.

I don't understand your beef with bluray being the reason why iMacs are rubbish. I don't know a single person that watches Blurays on their PC or even watches films on their Macs, everyone I know would rather watch them on TV. I know a couple of people who watch TV episodes on their computers whilst doing other things but no one that watches films. Who wants to sit at a desk watching a film on a 27" screen when they could watch a film on a 32"+ TV in their lounge while relaxing on a sofa??

[cube]

You can't do it at all on Macs without rebooting into Windows. Incidentally, you can watch blurays on an iMac if booted into Windows and using a USB bluray drive.

I don't understand your beef with bluray being the reason why iMacs are rubbish. I don't know a single person that watches Blurays on their PC or even watches films on their Macs, everyone I know would rather watch them on TV. I know a couple of people who watch TV episodes on their computers whilst doing other things but no one that watches films. Who wants to sit at a desk watching a film on a 27" screen when they could watch a film on a 32"+ TV in their lounge while relaxing on a sofa??

I don't do Windows. I have a Blu Ray drive, and I don't watch movies with it because of OSX's lack of support.

I didn't say Blu Ray is THE reason making iMacs rubbish. I noted MULTIPLE reasons.

[wolfpacker]

There seems to be a good size market between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro for people who already have monitors and need some level of upgradeability without the full blown Mac Pro level.

For my Lightroom/Photoshop work, I would love a machine with the speed of the i7 iMac that didn't have a screen built in (since I already have 2 24" ACDs). Doesn't need to take as much RAM or have the number of bays that the Mac Pro has. Preferably a much smaller machine.

[hexagonheat]

There seems to be a good size market between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro for people who already have monitors and need some level of upgradeability without the full blown Mac Pro level.

For my Lightroom/Photoshop work, I would love a machine with the speed of the i7 iMac that didn't have a screen built in (since I already have 2 24" ACDs). Doesn't need to take as much RAM or have the number of bays that the Mac Pro has. Preferably a much smaller machine.

Exactly. People can say that Apple are geniuses at marketing etc. but they just lost my sale. I don't need Xeon processors and ECC ram but I need more expandability and upgradeability than the iMac offers. Not to mention that I hate the iMac screen with a passion.

I'm voting with my dollars and buying an awesome linux box for my work with win7 for games and stray programs I can't run in my main OS.

Apple does not have a machine that meets my requirements and I refuse to support their company until they fill this massive (and obvious) void in their lineup.

[Chupa Chupa]

Wish I knew why Apple hated the power-user desktop crowd so much.

I'm in the same boat as you -- probably will look for a discontinued '09 in a few weeks. I see no value in the '10 lineup for the prosumer, but a discounted '09 should.

That said, I don't think Apple "hates" the power-user crowd. It's just not a big enough market to spend resources on. I would love it if they made a Mac Pro mini of sorts, but that is what 1% or less of the market. We are an odd breed and just have to either suck it up and pay more for less or be content w/ an iMac. I briefly considered the latter, but the reality of a bevy of external drives made chills run down my spin.

[dimensional]

It's just not a big enough market to spend resources on.

It's got to be a far, far bigger market than the Xeon processors.

Although I think Apple has to have a $5K+ computer to maintain their "luxury" brand status.

They just need to make a Mac Maxi. Smallest possible Aluminum box that can still hold two drive slots and two card slots. Or heck, even one card slot would make most people happy. Most people just want to plug in a graphics card and I'm guessing most people don't do SLI/Crossfire. If people want to plug in eSata, etc. that does seem like more a Mac Pro market.

[gotzero]

These arguments are getting ridiculous. If the iMac was ever a consideration for you, you do not need a Mac Pro. If you just need the expandability, that is what the 4 and 6 core versions are for.

The Mac Pro does not now cost $5k. The 12-core version costs $5k... A week ago, the 2.66 8-core was $4700.

If Apple is only going to use one chipset for the Mac Pro, I would sure prefer Xeons...

[Spanky Deluxe]

It's a far smaller market than you'd think. This site has a disproportionate share of that market. Apple knows very well how big the market is and it is obviously not worth their time. Such a machine would likely eat into their entry level Mac Pro market a little and more seriously, would take people away from buying iMacs. Apple would rather power users buy all in ones and replace them every three years rather than buying a Mac 'Midi' and having the user upgrade it with third party hardware year after year.

Looking at what people say on this site, it's very easy to get a distorted view of the Mac buyer market. People on here have been saying for years that Apple will be releasing a mid ranged mac because there's a massive market for it. They've also been saying for years that the mac mini is dead because no one's buying it and they've also been saying that Apple is trying to kill of the Mac Pro. In reality, the mac mini has been one of Apple's most succesful product lines. It has dominated the bestseller lists on the likes of Amazon for many years now - even when it hadn't been updated for months and months. It's just that most buyers of Mac Minis have no intention of posting on web forums like this. The biggest market for Mac Pro users also have no intention of posting on web forums like this - the target market is either the busy professional who makes serious money with their computer or it's a big design studio / corporate office who bulk buys in a chunk of units in one go.

Apple certainly doesn't need to launch a mid sized Mac and, to be honest, it would make very bad business sense if they did. They can afford to lose the *very* small minority of users who either want such a machine or nothing at all. Most people clamouring after such a machine will just go and buy an iMac like Apple wants or go and buy a Mac Pro and grumble about the cost (while Apple laugh all the way to the bank). Of the small minority that are left, a good chunk of them will be prosumers with the time on their hands to tinker with machines and are likely to go off and build hackintoshes with a lot of those still buying licensed copies of OSX and buying things like Apple keyboards, mice and even laptops. I'm sure that Apple knows what it's doing.

[Chupa Chupa]

It's got to be a far, far bigger market than the Xeon processors.

Although I think Apple has to have a $5K+ computer to maintain their "luxury" brand status.

They just need to make a Mac Maxi. Smallest possible Aluminum box that can still hold two drive slots and two card slots. Or heck, even one card slot would make most people happy. Most people just want to plug in a graphics card and I'm guessing most people don't do SLI/Crossfire. If people want to plug in eSata, etc. that does seem like more a Mac Pro market.

Designing that box takes resources -- engineers, testers, etc. It's too tiny of a market compared to the rest of Apple's business to be viable. Most customers neatly fit into the consumer or pro box. Those of us caught in the middle are freaks or maybe as Jobs would put it "hobbyists."

I wish Apple would make a prosumer headless box but realistically there just isn't any real money there to justify it. It's clear by Apple's cutting the Cinema Display line down to a single 27" monitor the middle market is dead to Apple. Personally, I'm happy w/ the low end MP, it's the price I have issue with. It's expensive even by Apple's standard. It's practically a bare bones machine and should be $1999, but that conflicts w/ the high end iMacs.

As for the $5K price tag of the top line, those are clearly pro machines. $5K is nothing to a pro would can harness the power of those machines. It's not the BMW of the Mac line, it's the Mack truck, and it's not about luxury it's about faster work flow.

[Cave Man]

These arguments are getting ridiculous. If the iMac was ever a consideration for you, you do not need a Mac Pro. If you just need the expandability, that is what the 4 and 6 core versions are for. The Mac Pro does not now cost $5k. The 12-core version costs $5k... A week ago, the 2.66 8-core was $4700. If Apple is only going to use one chipset for the Mac Pro, I would sure prefer Xeons...

One of the best reasons why hackintoshes are so popular.

[brentsg]

- It's a mess to upgrade a hard drive in the iMac and it voids the warranty.
- You can't connect 3 or 4 computers with a variety of connectors plus the mandatory Blu Ray drive to the iMac screen.
- When the computer is obsolete, you also have to dispose of the screen.

-True
-I'm not sure why anyone would connect 3-4 computers to 1 display anyways, and a Blu-ray drive is far from "mandatory" imo. I've got one on my PC but would never watch a movie on it.
-When the computer is obsolete the iMac screen can be used as a display for another computer, for recent models... no?

[chaos86]

So what's wrong with the iMac's "stupid" screen?

Is it just that it only has 1 external input? Because I'd guess that less than one in a thousand users plug in more than one external video feed.

Apart from that I think the iMacs have great screens.


Apart from the ridiculous iMac hating in this thread, I do agree that it would be nice for Apple to expand the Mac Pro's BTO options downward. They already tout the fact that all Mac Pros a BTO, couldn't they broaden all the options, so you start with a dual dual core, configurable up to a dual six core? I'm sure they'd need more motherboard/socket variations, but they've already done the engineering for dual LGA775 and dual LGA1156 socket machines a few years back when they were top of the line, so they could just keep producing those ones until people stop buying them. Those old combos have much cheaper RAM now too.

[wolfpacker]

My problem is that the iMac has a screen at all. I already have 2 screens, so see no reason to spend extra to buy a computer that has one.

[angelneo]

I myself find iMac specs to be good enough for my programming work, but I really dislike having the all-in-one package of iMac. I wanted to settle for low end Mac Pro but the price doesn't make sense for me. I have given up waiting for a mid range tower and built myself a hackintosh, works pretty well.

[wolfpacker]

My problem is that the iMac has a screen at all. I already have 2 screens, so see no reason to spend extra to buy a computer that has one.

I also just found out that the iMac ONLY has the glossy screen. So that alone completely rules it out for Photography-oriented uses. It is essential that the picture on the screen matches what it will look like in print.

[parakiet]

you CAN hang a second screen on an imac an use it as a primary

with that new ssd option on imacs.. i think they rock.