Apple Quietly Adds 3.33 GHz Quad-Core Option to Mac Pro

[Terminal.app]

Competition is fierce for laptops, and margins are thin - yet Apple's doing fine ignoring the under $1000 segment. (Fry's recently had a 15.6" dual core laptop with Win7 and 3 GiB RAM for $277....)

$277? I would run away screaming in the opposite direction. What was the processor speed, 1.83 GHz? Sounds like the CPU was also 32-bit due to the 3 GiB of RAM. Do not want...

Bigger? The Apple maxi-tower is already the Hummer of computers....

Yes, bigger! It only has 6 RAM slots! The Dell Precision T7500 has (I believe) 12 slots and can hold up to 128 GiB. There needs to be a Mac Pro version of this. With more drive bays.

 

[DMann]

$277? I would run away screaming in the opposite direction. What was the processor speed, 1.83 GHz? Sounds like the CPU was also 32-bit due to the 3 GiB of RAM. Do not want...

Same here - it seems that some people are willing to compromise at great lengths, just for the sake of attempting to justify their utterly ridiculous rants.

The notion of anyone vying to shill crap, such as this, as a viable option, speaks volumes about his own sensibility, as well as his general underestimation of others, and their needs.

User experience, therefore, need not be considered, especially since someone else's peculiar agenda dictates that you should, instead, be willing to settle for less, for less.

 

[CQd44]

Same here - it seems that some people are willing to compromise at great lengths, just for the sake of attempting to justify their utterly ridiculous rants.

The notion of anyone vying to shill crap, such as this, as a viable option, speaks volumes about his own sensibility, as well as his general underestimation of others, and their needs.

User experience, therefore, need not be considered, especially since someone else's peculiar agenda dictates that you should, instead, be willing to settle for less, for less.

$277 is reaaaally cheap. My lenovo laptop was $500 and it runs like a champ :]

2 ghz dual core, 64 bit, windows 7, 4 GB ram

couldn't really ask for more with the pricetag it had.

 

[VoR]

But Apple doesn’t play in the cheap laptop segment where cheap rules - where the competition is fierce and margins are slim. They participate in the segment where competition is less vigorous are profits are almost guaranteed. There are different portions of the overall markets.

Hear this so many times on this forum.
I assume the point the previous poster was trying to make was that hardware is cheap. You get a c2d (32bit, because of the ram quantity according to some genius), some ram, a hard disk, a screen, in a little box.
Apple are competing in a different segment? It's just the 'same' hardware, a different OS, a poor warranty/service, and an expensive logo. You can try and convince yourself that an aluminium case and internal battery are revolutionary and planet saving, I certainly don't think they are.

The 'segment' you're talking about is really just a different word for 'price bracket'? Marketing focus? Are they really hugely different products from a $277 dollar laptop? Granted, often cheap laptops seem to be designed to look as bad as possible, but it's not always the case. Every time someone mentions the case, the keyboard, the panel model, the battery, the cpu whatever, I can think of an example that's been done earlier, better and cheaper.

I blame my irritating post on the irritating post by the guy that was comparing apple care to enterprise warranty (and the rest...)

 

[KnightWRX]

BS.

Competition is fierce for laptops, and margins are thin - yet Apple's doing fine ignoring the under $1000 segment. (Fry's recently had a 15.6" dual core laptop with Win7 and 3 GiB RAM for $277....)

Laptops account for 75% of Apple's hardware sales. They view it as a cash cow. The Mac Pro is in the other 25% along with iMacs and Mac Minis. And it's probably the lowest selling of all their products.

No rational person would expect a $400 Apple mini-tower. But a well-built Core i5/i7 mini-tower for $1000 to $1200 would sell well, and meet Apple's margin goals (since it would have the same components that Dell puts in their $750 systems).

If Apple sold a 1000$ tower, it would have the same components as a Dell 1000$ tower, same as laptops and minis. The thing is Dell will sell you the same system without Bluetooth, gigabit ethernet, with less RAM, and a lesser Celeron processor to sell it cheaper, Apple won't.

And again, Apple was in the 1000$-2000$ tower game. They stepped out. You're telling us that you're a better market analyst than they are ?

Hear this so many times on this forum.
I assume the point the previous poster was trying to make was that hardware is cheap. You get a c2d (32bit, because of the ram quantity according to some genius), some ram, a hard disk, a screen, in a little box.
Apple are competing in a different segment? It's just the 'same' hardware, a different OS, a poor warranty/service, and an expensive logo.

But as was shown time and time again, Apple isn't out of the price loop. Configure Dells, HPs or Sonys to the same specs (with bluetooth, Wireless-N, Gigabit, same processors) and you get about the same price or very close. Apple just doesn't compromise and gives you everything in the box. You can get the same from a different vendor, but then you pay the same also. If you don't need everything that's in a Mac, then yes, you overpaid for your machine. It doesn't mean the machine is overpriced.

 

[AidenShaw]

But Apple doesn’t play in the cheap laptop segment where cheap rules - where the competition is fierce and margins are slim. They participate in the segment where competition is less vigorous are profits are almost guaranteed. There are different portions of the overall markets.

Then you understand my point - Apple wouldn't have to play in the cheap mini-tower market. Apple could define this high-end mini-tower market too, and go against the business machines like OptiPlex/Precision. No stripped models, and an expensive stylish case.

You get a c2d (32bit, because of the ram quantity according to some genius), some ram, a hard disk, a screen, in a little box....)

Some models of Atoms are the only x86-only CPUs in the Intel stable. All of the current Core, Pentium and Celeron chips are x64. And, many systems with less than 4 GiB of RAM are shipping with Windows 7 x64 so that a point-of-sale memory upgrade to 4 GiB or higher will work without OS tinkering. There's very little reason to install an x86 version of the OS on a new system with an x64 CPU - it's no cheaper. (For example, 3 GiB HP with Win7 x64 at OfficeMax - http://www.officemax.com/technology/computers/laptop-computers-and-tablet-pcs/product-prod2760044 .)

And again, Apple was in the 1000$-2000$ tower game. They stepped out. You're telling us that you're a better market analyst than they are ?

You're assuming that they "stepped out" due to a market analysis. It's just as likely they stepped out because The Steve thinks everyone should have an all-in-one, so he killed affordable towers.

Anyway, we've all covered this ground before - some people want a mini-tower, others say that they shouldn't be allowed to have them.

 

[VoR]

But as was shown time and time again, Apple isn't out of the price loop. Configure Dells, HPs or Sonys to the same specs (with bluetooth, Wireless-N, Gigabit, same processors) and you get about the same price or very close. Apple just doesn't compromise and gives you everything in the box. You can get the same from a different vendor, but then you pay the same also. If you don't need everything that's in a Mac, then yes, you overpaid for your machine. It doesn't mean the machine is overpriced.

A site like dell has 1000s of different combinations of models and components and often have deals and misprices (that dell honour). I'm speaking for myself when I'm comparing prices, not some computer illiterate consumer (who I'm sure does get a better deal - assuming they want the 'extras' - pretty hard to find laptops without gigabit, bluetooth and wireless-N now though?).
It's very easy to choose a custom configuration to suit an argument. Every company charges over the odds for very cheap components (you're examples; gb,bt,wireless N,etc are barely a few dollars combined at retail).

 

[Eidorian]

It's very easy to choose a custom configuration to suit an argument. Every company charges over the odds for very cheap components (you're examples; gb,bt,wireless N,etc are barely a few dollars combined at retail).

I think the rage over the 3.33 GHz Xeons and 2 TB hard drive BTO prices from Apple is enough.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

But as was shown time and time again, Apple isn't out of the price loop. Configure Dells, HPs or Sonys to the same specs (with bluetooth, Wireless-N, Gigabit, same processors) and you get about the same price or very close. Apple just doesn't compromise and gives you everything in the box. You can get the same from a different vendor, but then you pay the same also. If you don't need everything that's in a Mac, then yes, you overpaid for your machine. It doesn't mean the machine is overpriced.

I'm sorry but that just isn't true. Mac Pros are substantially more expensive than Dells or HP workstations with exactly the same hardware inside. Check the prices out for yourself. The 2006 and 2008 Mac Pros were a little cheaper than the competition but for the 2009 Mac Pro line Apple jacked up their profit margins by about $1000 across the MP line.

Also, Mac Pros do *not* ship with wireless or bluetooth as standard.

Apple Mac Pro 3.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (Nehalem) with 3GB RAM, 640GB HDD, GeForce GT 120 - $3699.
Dell Precision T3500 3.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (Nehalem) with 3GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Quadro NVS 295 - $2494

Apple Mac Pro 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (Nehalem) with 3GB RAM, 640GB HDD, GeForce GT 120 - $2499
Dell Precision T3500 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (Nehalem) with 3GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Quadro NVS 295 - $1264

Apple Mac Pro 2.26GHz Octo-Core Intel Xeon (Nehalem) with 6GB RAM, 640GB HDD, GeForce GT 120 - $3299
Dell Precision T5500 2.26GHz Octo-Core Intel Xeon (Nehalem) with 6GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Quadro NVS 295 - $2666

 

[Eidorian]

The 2006 and 2008 Mac Pros were a little cheaper than the competition but for the 2009 Mac Pro line Apple jacked up their profit margins by about $1000 across the MP line.

Apple Mac Pro 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (Nehalem) with 3GB RAM, 640GB HDD, GeForce GT 120 - $2499
Dell Precision T3500 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (Nehalem) with 3GB RAM, 500GB HDD, Quadro NVS 295 - $1264

$1,499 - 1,699 for the base 2.66 GHz single socket Mac Pro would win over even some gamers.

I have no clue where they got $2,499 from and that's still the price today. The costs for Nehalem platform based workstations has dropped greatly. The only big issue with the iMac is I/O being limited to FireWire 800.

 

[pdjudd]

Then you understand my point - Apple wouldn't have to play in the cheap mini-tower market. Apple could define this high-end mini-tower market too, and go against the business machines like OptiPlex/Precision. No stripped models, and an expensive stylish case.

I don’t know if they can really do that anymore - not only is the tower market marred with the definition of “cheap” in a race to the bottom approach that consumers go for - there is also the question of that to do with the iMac - it gets in the way of setting a proper price point when the whole shebang costs around 1200 - its hard to sell something headless for around that price point or above unless you want to get into workstation territory.

Simply put, I don’t think Apple can convince people to spend money on towers like they can with their Laptops. For Apple, their laptops are a huge moneymaker - Its just another obstacle to get across. I just doubt there is enough consumer demand for consumers to buy nice looking box thats going to be hidden on their desk to get OSX when there are too many choices much cheaper. Why bother when Apple would rather sell you an iMac that looks so much better?

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Laptops account for 75% of Apple's hardware sales. They view it as a cash cow. The Mac Pro is in the other 25% along with iMacs and Mac Minis. And it's probably the lowest selling of all their products.



If Apple sold a 1000$ tower, it would have the same components as a Dell 1000$ tower, same as laptops and minis. The thing is Dell will sell you the same system without Bluetooth, gigabit ethernet, with less RAM, and a lesser Celeron processor to sell it cheaper, Apple won't.

Now days just about all systems have gig-e and why should I be foreced to pay more for Bluetooh? WIFI in a desktop?

also apple did put carp in there systems like the **** intel gma video and apple was selling $2000 systems with 1gb of ram and not that long ago all there systems did not have that much ram in them.

And again, Apple was in the 1000$-2000$ tower game. They stepped out. You're telling us that you're a better market analyst than they are ?

But as was shown time and time again, Apple isn't out of the price loop. Configure Dells, HPs or Sonys to the same specs (with bluetooth, Wireless-N, Gigabit, same processors) and you get about the same price or very close. Apple just doesn't compromise and gives you everything in the box. You can get the same from a different vendor, but then you pay the same also. If you don't need everything that's in a Mac, then yes, you overpaid for your machine. It doesn't mean the machine is overpriced.

I don't want to be locked in to a screen with a imac and the mini is carp laptop cpu, on board video, slow and small laptop HDD at $600-$800?

and the $1200 mini has on board video? you can build a corei5 system for under $1000 with a real video card and bigger HDD.

The $1500 is not much better as for about $1000-$1100 you can get corei7 + a better video card with more vram and 6gb or 8gb of ram. and have about $200-$400 left for your own screen and pci / pci-e slots are good for usb 3.0 / fire wire 1600 / 3200 and tv cards / cable card / sli / cross fire and other stuff. also the imac does not have e-sata or the room for more then HDD
and you can get fire wire 800 pci-e cards for under $100.

 

[seedster2]

Sorry but comparing an Enterprise grade SLA to Applecare is even more ridiculous than it sounds. I cant believe some will try to make that comparison. While I dont work in an IT capacity, I have seen the kind of support they receive from vendors and Applecare isn't in the zip code.

Mac Hardware upgrades have always been overpriced, but this is borderline laughable. Especially when you still only get a one year warranty from apple for the 2TB upgrades. Might as well by two of your own and take chances.

Mac Pro's are the only really user upgradeable Mac desktops. As a result, Apple charges a premium. But they need to take a look at the competition's price points. If the premium gets too high, it will welcome migration to a more price friendly platform.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

But how much is the cost of the tool compared to the value of the product it creates? Downtime is expensive - you have an idle computer, an idle project and an idle employee.

Also, by buying everything from Apple, it's all covered under one warranty. If you buy the PC from Apple, the RAM from OWC, the HDDs from Newegg and the display from ZipZoomFly, when something breaks, you first need to find out who you bought it from and then contact them. And then you have different warranty periods and different support channels and all that jazz.

You might pay 2-3x as much to get it all from Apple, but when it breaks, there is only one number to call and one vendor to deal with and if they can get your computer, employee and project back to work faster, that could easily pay for itself.

Our problematic iMac, with Applecare, was reformatted 3 times (under direction of Applecare support staff) in the past two weeks to address truly bizarre issues. Our latest call to Applecare resulted in this bit of advice: do a 7 pass erase and another OS re-install.

That's a lot of downtime from a computer and employee stand point.

When we asked to speak to a manager (another reinstall is ridiculous), after 35 minutes of waiting, we got told that we had two options: do a 7 pass erase ("we're sure this will work!") or take it to an Apple store. Given the long list of issues with this machine, it seems prudent to take it in. Closest one is an hour away.

I've not been impressed at all with Applecare for desktop models. It made me more hesitant about getting a new 27" iMac.

 

[AidenShaw]

...we got told that we had two options: do a 7 pass erase ("we're sure this will work!") or take it to an Apple store. Given the long list of issues with this machine, it seems prudent to take it in.

So, you think that the 7-pass erase idea sounds silly too?

Has anyone else received the recommendation to do a 7-pass erase to fix a problematic machine?

 

[VoR]

Our latest call to Applecare resulted in this bit of advice: do a 7 pass erase and another OS re-install

I'd ask for my money back

 

[MorphingDragon]

So, you think that the 7-pass erase idea sounds silly too?

Has anyone else received the recommendation to do a 7-pass erase to fix a problematic machine?

What would a 7-Pass fix that a Single pass wouldn't? (Apart from security for some stange reason).

 

[PeterQVenkman]

What would a 7-Pass fix that a Single pass wouldn't? (Apart from security for some stange reason).

I have no idea. The previous erases were pretty hardcore- the apple guys had us erase the disk with a 1 pass, then partition the drive to 2 chunks, then partition it back to 1 and install.

Our Applecare service with our apple office laptops has been fantastic, but I would imagine that's because we can just box it up and send it in.

 

[wordoflife]

What are you, some kind of Dell Troll?? Go buy your "clunky" and "junky" 2TB drive from some "box assembler".

Apple usually affixes an Apple sticker to whatever brand hard drives they use. They are "just gorgeous" and look "oh so delicious" inside the case. Of course, no one should ever open the case of an Apple computer because Apple doesn't cater to "tinkerers".

Apple's price may seem $300 high to you "Apple Haters", but allowing them to install their Apple stickered HDD is a very "elegant" solution, and something us "REAL" Apple fans will gladly pay.

I don't think a silly sticker matters to many people like myself.

 

[09iMac=Fail]

The price to upgrade a $2499 machine from a $284 processor (W3520) to a $999 (W3580) processor is only $1200 from Apple!!! Nice Job!!!

/sarcasm

Intel® Processor Pricing

Sweet! So the $2499 price includes the $284 you're paying for the W3520. If you upgrade, the W3520 is not being purchased anymore, but the price goes up an additional $1,200. So in reality, you are paying $1,484 for the processor. Suckers!

 

[blackhand1001]

These silent processor updates mean no new GPU options for BTO either.

An 8600GT in 2010? Only with Apple.

Actually its even worse. The GT120 is a rebranded 9500gt. A freaking joke to be put in such an expensive machine. This card can be bought in a single quantity for under $45. Just imagine how much less apple pays. Apples hardware choices are a joke.

 

[Eidorian]

Actually its even worse. The GT120 is a rebranded 9500gt. A freaking joke to be put in such an expensive machine. This card can be bought in a single quantity for under $45. Just imagine how much less apple pays. Apples hardware choices are a joke.

How is the 8600GT better than the 9500GT?

 

[blackhand1001]

How is the 8600GT better than the 9500GT?

The the first number refers to when the series came out. The 100 number refers to how high end it is.

Results on Passmark video card benchmark.
GeForce 9500 GT - 252
GeForce 8600 GT - 397

 

[blackhand1001]

$277? I would run away screaming in the opposite direction. What was the processor speed, 1.83 GHz? Sounds like the CPU was also 32-bit due to the 3 GiB of RAM. Do not want...



Yes, bigger! It only has 6 RAM slots! The Dell Precision T7500 has (I believe) 12 slots and can hold up to 128 GiB. There needs to be a Mac Pro version of this. With more drive bays.

I doubt that the computer was 32bit cpu. Its probably had 3 gig because its cheaper that way. Thats probably a good deal. Any core 2 based processor, including the celerons dual cores will blow through most tasks including photoshop.

 

[Eidorian]

The the first number refers to when the series came out. The 100 number refers to how high end it is.

Results on Passmark video card benchmark.
GeForce 9500 GT - 252
GeForce 8600 GT - 397

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7897548/