Dude, we are struggling to scratch the money together for our next lunch because we shoved it into Jobs bank account. No money left for Gold and stuff
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Introduces New Mac Pro with Nehalem Xeon Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Dude, we are struggling to scratch the money together for our next lunch because we shoved it into Jobs bank account. No money left for Gold and stuff
It's like Gamerbao is psychic and knows that, even with the best of intentions, I'm going to end up setting aside the Final Cut and Logic projects I should be working on with my shiny new Mac Pro, and play WoW instead... I hate that guy...
I think Apple could use an Core i7 - 920 Quadcore processor in the lower specced machine with only one CPU, they both should be LGA 1366 and the 2,66 GHz Core i7 920 is only about 350$ instead of 958$ for the Xeon 2,66GHz. But yet again they use a Xeon......
...
It's not about what someone "needs" or even wants. People want to feel that they are getting a fair value for their money. The fact is, even by Apple's standards, you just got completely ripped off. Why you are particularly happy about that is beyond me...
Ok, will now try out H4ck1nt0shing my Kubuntu box...
Huh? We're talking about Apple here. A company that doesn't know the first thing about professional business support.
You meant to say "in favor of the elitist professional market". Because the biggest part of Apple's professional market only needs ECC because Apple says so.
Who is talking about home video editing? Even if you do professional video editing, you don't need ECC.
You're right!! But why stop there? Why don't we all share 20% of our profit with Apple? It's their hardware and software that we are using after all!!
Demand does not determine Apple's offerings, greed does. They figured out a long time ago that people who want Macs will pay just about anything. So they dropped the mid-range, crippled their products and adjusted pricing so that people will buy the most expensive hardware they can or cannot afford.
Err, you mean, without ECC?
When Apple built their top 10 Linpack cluster, Apple fanboys were rigorously defending the company for using non-ECC parts. Isn't it ironic that a few years later, the same kind of people are defending the company for using ECC in a consumer-level machine just to milk their customers...
I have a 2007 2.66 quad core MP and I get on just fine with all flavours of XDCAM. For bread and butter editing the 8 core machines wouldn't really give me much more. Obviously for rendering out Prores etc a faster machine would be better.
The new prices on these machines is absurd, especially in the UK. I priced up one of them to what I would consider to be a good base spec for FCP use, and the final price for the computer alone was almost the same as what I paid for my quad core box plus 30" CD, 23" CD, Matrox MXO etc!
I think I'll skip this generation. It can't be long until they release a true 16 core version anyway, and by that time Snow Leopard will be tried and tested and hopefully FCP Studio 3 will have been released.
True, but I said per GHz. You do have a valid point though, and you're right about misleading. Guess I'm still stuck in those pre-release speculations in the Gainestown thread.I'm going to keep re-posting this chart until I stop hearing people misleading everyone.. (purposefully or not)
Only the highest end CPU is more, and only by ~8% .. The other two are actually cheaper.
It's not about what the "majority" (lowest common denominator) "needs"; it's about charging a ridiculous premium for being perceived, rightly or wrongly, as "cutting edge" for high-end workstation pro users.
If Apple wants to become the Tiffany of this Depression, it had damn well be cutting edge. And that's Blu-ray, and has been for quite some time, like it or not.
Apple can see quite clearly what reaction they are getting from NOT being cutting edge and charging ridiculous prices from the newbie Macboi iCrap crowd.
Value or the new Mac pro
This is the first useful link i found for the 2009 Mac pro analisys
http://lowendmac.com/musings/09mm/2009-mac-pro-value.html
Looks pretty good to me
Flavio
This is the first useful link i found for the 2009 Mac pro analisys
http://lowendmac.com/musings/09mm/2009-mac-pro-value.html
Looks pretty good to me
Flavio
Oh sure, just like it's vastly improved the Dell ownership experience (rolls eyes). You couldn't GIVE me a dell computer to use, and I'll pay twice the price and thereby upgrade 1/2 as frequently if that's what it takes.
In this world there are people who focus on price whether it's out of need or just personality. There are people who focus on quality, whether they have money to or not, and there are people who struggle to find a balance between the two.
Mac users are generally NOT in the first camp (though by reading this thread I doubt that a bit), and Mac Pro users are generally in the second. With the recent influx of PC users into the mac experience there are more and more in the last group, and right now those people are struggling with two opposite anc competing desires - Apple experience vs. price.
What you people need to understand is that Apple (as SJ as expressed multiple times) is NOT desiring to compete on price.
what makes you even more silly is you haven't even seen the performance specs on this machine yet.
Ummm, that's called "Free market economics." Google it.
Why are you here? if you want cheap PCs there are plenty of places to buy.
They have to take care of the software side themselves or sacrifice features and performance.
The free market means that Apple is free to offer whatever they feel is best, and you are free to buy whatever you feel is best. It doesn't mean that they have to provide you with all the choices you could ever want and you get to pick between them. A cheaper OS X PC [sic] isn't among the offerings Apple feels is best for them to offer. You can either choose to accept their offerings or go somewhere else for your equipment. If Apple feels that it's best for them to offer a computer more along the lines of what you want later, then all the better, but they certainly don't have to.
jW
Which is a shame, considering the economic situation.
You don't need to see the performance numbers to know you are being charged way too much for the hardware.
It really shocks me to see the total lack of education as it applies to economic systems that our youth have today. You see things like "they DON"T CARE" about you... and the above.
Listen people: Of -course- apple doesn't care about you. they are a business. Their job is to make money for shareholders. They do that by maximizing margins and sales and apple has traditionally made money on margins rather than volume.
All the whiners here are complaining apple doesn't have a Dell pricing structure of competing on price aggressively, but all you have to do is look at the balance sheets to see who is winning that battle.
Of course -I- would like to pay less for a new mac pro, but as a shareholder I think Apple has done a great job in creating the 20 billion in cash they sit on currently.
You people complaining about the lack of a mid range tower have been doing that for probably 10 years - it hasn't happened and there is no reason to think it will happen. apple has no responsibility to provide what YOU want, they have a responsibility to provide what the MARKET wants while maximizing profits. And looking at their results when compared with other computer companies I think they've done a good job of that.
It has happened in the past, Apple had a range of Power Macintosh computers, e.g. there was the: 6000 series (US$1820), 7000 series ($2900), 8000 series ($4250). Later they also introduced a cheap 4000 ($1500) series (performa replacement) and a super dupa 9000 series.
Which were quite reasonable prices for back then, as computers were a lot more expensive in those days.
Even newer Power Mac G4s were more reasonably priced.
2003 Ranging from US$1299 to US$2699
Power Mac G5s
2005 Ranging from $1999 to $3299
Now its:
US$2499 to US$3299 (more expensive with options obviously)
I obtained the prices from Everymac.com
The MacPro has the lowest sales numbers of any mac. According to the sales numbers, the MARKET doesn't really want the MacPro (by comparison).
Yeah, Apple is doing well. But it's the iPod, iPhone, iTunes, and MacBook lines you have to thank for that, not these ridiculous towers.
My mid range G5 dual 2.3 cost me $2300 just a few years back. Now that doesn't even buy me the cheapest tower. The mid range model is $3300 now. That's quite a jump.
Apple always had lower end towers with the PowerMac G4s that were reasonably priced. I miss those days. It's really only been with the Mac Pros they've moved away from that. I think this update makes it even more clear Apple's decided they don't want to compete in the consumer desktop tower market.
It probably makes sense from their business standpoint because it doesn't seem like Apple wants to seriously go after the sub $1000 market and the talking heads claim the consumer market for desktops over $1000 is cratering.
True to a degree. I am very happy with Apple's past performance as a shareholder.
However the 10 years thing is way off base because Apple used to offer a mid range tower. The G3, G4 and G5 systems all had standard models for < $2k and some less than $1.5k. When they moved to Intel that all changed. It was the hope to me as a customer when Apple moved to Intel that would open the door for MORE options including lower priced options. Instead just the opposite has happened...
They are. The Xeon 3500-series is the same as the i7. The single-socket machine is using a processor that is about 99% identical to the i7 920, only it has ECC added to the memory controller.
According to Fudzilla, the chip (Xeon W3520,) will cost $285 in bulk. This compares to the Core i7 920, which is $284 in bulk. (Per http://xtreview.com/review232.htm.)
So for the processor itself, you're looking at $1 for adding ECC support.
And both the Xeon 3500-series and 5500-series are LGA1366 parts. The 3500 (as with the i7) just have one QPI link, while the 5500 have two QPI links. (Which is what allows dual-socket operation.)
Finally, the 5500-series parts (other than the highest end 3.2 GHz part,) are lower power than the 3500-series and i7. The 3500-series, i7, and 3.2 GHz 5500-series are all 130 W parts; while the rest of the 5500-series are only 95 W. You pay more for the same speed in a lower-power-consumption package.
Fair enough, though inflation would push those numbers up.
Personally -I- think a midrange mac tower would be great, I would probably buy one for my kids.
But apple has obviously concluded their business model is the imac for that crowd. While I respect difference of opinion, the complaining about pricing and that apple somehow owes us (a reflection of the socialist thought pervading our society) something else is what is bothering.
Does anyone here really think they're smarter than the people who run the numbers at apple? Do you really think you know more about the computer market than professionals at a multibillion dollar company? If you do, why aren't you making more money than you are now?
Personally -I- think a midrange mac tower would be great, I would probably buy one for my kids.
But apple has obviously concluded their business model is the imac for that crowd. While I respect difference of opinion, the complaining about pricing and that apple somehow owes us (a reflection of the socialist thought pervading our society) something else is what is bothering.
Does anyone here really think they're smarter than the people who run the numbers at apple? Do you really think you know more about the computer market than professionals at a multibillion dollar company? If you do, why aren't you making more money than you are now?
Power Mac G4 MDD
When I bought my middle of the range model PowerMac G4 MDD dual 1Ghz 7 or so years ago it cost me in the region of £1899. It was one of the fastest Macs Apple had ever made at that point.
The base model MacPro is now £1899, allowing for inflation you're getting a hell of a lot more Mac for your money, such is technology.
Prices for the base PowerMac/MacPro models have remained broadly the same. The upgrades are INSANE as of this week.
The fact that the base model appears crippled means it shouldn't be called a MacPro in my opinion (8gb RAM max does not a pro machine make for starters).
By the way, my G4 still makes me money running CS3 and Quark, just not as fast as I'd like. ;-)
When I bought my middle of the range model PowerMac G4 MDD dual 1Ghz 7 or so years ago it cost me in the region of £1899. It was one of the fastest Macs Apple had ever made at that point.
The base model MacPro is now £1899, allowing for inflation you're getting a hell of a lot more Mac for your money, such is technology.
Prices for the base PowerMac/MacPro models have remained broadly the same. The upgrades are INSANE as of this week.
The fact that the base model appears crippled means it shouldn't be called a MacPro in my opinion (8gb RAM max does not a pro machine make for starters).
By the way, my G4 still makes me money running CS3 and Quark, just not as fast as I'd like. ;-)
Inflation is not applicable to computers it is one of the few things that has DEFLATED in price. The average cost of a computer is less than 1/2 of what it was 4-5 years ago - well except from Apple...