what yhou should have said is "now we know we're waiting on apple and not the processor manufacturer".
Quite right. That is a more accurate way of putting it.
I think apple likes the occasional big release schedule, and always has. It means there's more hype and likability to products when they announce them (and they're in the news, etc), so people have a positive image in their mind. Then, at the end of the product lifecycle, there's a nice profit margin, because the parts have gotten cheaper, but apple hasn't updated. People still buy because the good image persists, and they can't get apple without paying for it, so they do. It's a way for apple to squeeze more money out of people that it's competitors don't/can't. Not to mention, it makes people come to places like this to figure out when to buy, which makes them major mac heads.
Again, well put.
I do agree with that quite a lot.
My main reasons for not considering the Mac Pro at this point:
1) I really don't need the highest end machine. It is a bit over-kill for me. So, I'd rather have a mid-range system. But, I absolutely do not want and could not make-do with an iMac (need to open it up periodically to blow the dust out and also don't want to be replacing the monitor I have).
2) If I am going to be stuck buying the Mac Pro just to get something that is at least a mid-range without a built-in monitor, then:
- I don't want to pay full price for a machine which should have been updated several months ago.
- since I'm looking at spending almost $3000 anyway, I want more for my money than the system offers now. $3000 is a lot of money to me, and the current configuration does not equate to $3000 worth of usefulness to me.
- The value of the configuration is not that great when you consider that Intel released better processors a month after the machine was introduced that offered more power at the same price points as the current chips (of course, that assumes a 4-core 2.66 GHz taking the place of a 2-core 3.0 GHz). So, the price we would pay now really should provide us with dual quad-cores.
- They need to re-introduce the $1500 to $1600 PowerMac (naturally called MacPro now). With the dual quad cores going into the high-end, and the $1600 model using dual dual-cores (or a single quad-core).
And, of course, I don't want to pay full-price at the end of a manufacturing cycle.
If Apple kept bumping their specs on a monthly basis, they would not have these slow-downs where people like me wait for the next release. We'd just buy when we need the machine instead of waiting for the next release to get the most for our money.
But, we know a better machine is coming. We know the price will be similar. And, we don't want to waste our money buying at the end of a cycle.
I purchased my first iMac G5 for top dollar before I realized that a revision B was coming out. And, I paid about $2200 as it was configured. But, the revision B came out, and for the exact same specs, I could get it for about $1400 (they upped the standard specs significantly). I learned right then that if you are going to pay top dollar, don't buy an Apple that hasn't just been updated the day before you purchase. Otherwise, you'll find you spent too much for too little value when they update tomorrow.
If they were constantly updating the systems with better processors as they came available, then they wouldn't suffer these constant buying freezes that are common once a machine has been out for 4 to 5 months. Customers would just buy the machine that is available then instead of holding-out and waiting.
It's not like they'd have to redesign the machine constantly. Just bump the CPU specs as they come available.
This would give them a steady revenue instead of a month or two of heavy buying and then 4 months of increasingly slower buying, and then 2 months of heavy buying, and 4 months of slower buying, etc.
I guess that's just the way I see it. It makes sense to me.
home page. You can't get 3 of them from 
.
