This is comparable with the base Quad '09 MP.
Quite a price difference, and pricing over the phone is cheaper yet.Frome Dell's site:
This compares with the base '09 Octad (2x E5520's) as closely as possible, as absolute parity isn't possible (i.e. 640GB HDD in the MP, vs. 750GB in the Dell, as well as graphics cards) when you add in the additional Apple Care, which brings the base Octad's price to $3548.
yeah, that's the point. I continue to be shocked at the balls Apple has to price the Pro's the way they do... unless what they are doing is forcing potential buyers to take a 2nd look at the better priced iMacs. Which the more I think about it, is exactly what I believe they are aiming to do. And that doesn't bode well for the future of the Pro line IMO.This is comparable with the base Quad '09 MP.
Frome Dell's site:
This compares with the base '09 Octad (2x E5520's) as closely as possible, as absolute parity isn't possible (i.e. 640GB HDD in the MP, vs. 750GB in the Dell, as well as graphics cards) when you add in the additional Apple Care, which brings the base Octad's price to $3548.
That's a $630USD savings, which is from the web pricing.
That's part of it IMO, as they don't want Quad MP's sales cutting into the iMac line. They want to make sure that the Quad MP is still more than the best iMac, as a user is likely to already have a monitor that can be used (and if by chance an adapter is needed, all the better, as they can sell that tooyeah, that's the point. I continue to be shocked at the balls Apple has to price the Pro's the way they do... unless what they are doing is forcing potential buyers to take a 2nd look at the better priced iMacs. Which the more I think about it, is exactly what I believe they are aiming to do. And that doesn't bode well for the future of the Pro line IMO.
).
True. I think we'll see a widening of the gap between iMac & Pro next go-around. With the quad Pro being dropped altogether. RandomGenius: "You want a quad? Have you seen the iMac? Look at that screen!"
I don't think they'll drop the SP Mac Pro, but I do expect it be more expensive than the LGA1156 iMacs, as is currently the case.
yeah, that's the point. I continue to be shocked at the balls Apple has to price the Pro's the way they do... unless what they are doing is forcing potential buyers to take a 2nd look at the better priced iMacs. Which the more I think about it, is exactly what I believe they are aiming to do. And that doesn't bode well for the future of the Pro line IMO.
Of those you list, I only see the case and OS as truly unique. They're using Intel, so the CPU's and supporting chipsets are the same (X58/5520 and ICH10R). The mainboard is sort of unique in the sense it's a daughter board configuration, but the basic design is the same (more likely to be found in a server than workstation, and is done for space reasons). Some of the peripheral components on the board may differ (namely features, such as FW, eSATA, additional SATA ports, SAS controller,...).
There are other characteristics that can increase the value of a system. And in the past, it was there, and was fairly obvious to see/feel (i.e. user experience). Especially with the OS. But things have shifted with Apple not only going with Intel parts, but outsourcing design and manufacturing (QC slipping), as well as OS X has lost quite a bit of it's competitive edge (harder to justify for some, and Win7 has helped with this).
If someone can demonstrate a pro app that is constrained by a GTX285, I'll buy this argument. However, I know full well, you're just wishing to play games.I see this argument pop up fairly often, but I'm not sure what apps take advantage of a GPU... never mind the power of a GTX285?!
I see it as more to do with what software is able to do. That is, professional cards haven't really shown up, as there's no support in the software for them to really bother.
Another, perhaps better example is Canon... I recently purchased the iMac equivalent (a Canon T1i) for $700. It doesn't surprise me that Canon charges $6000 for the 1Ds... and you don't hear pro photographers constantly complaining about the price of the 1Ds even though the feature set is only incrementally better than the lower end products. You also don't even see amateur photographers complaining about Canon's Pro product pricing strategy... it's just accepted that pro products cost more - which is why there are products at all price points - buy what you need or can afford.
Another, perhaps better example is Canon... I recently purchased the iMac equivalent (a Canon T1i) for $700. It doesn't surprise me that Canon charges $6000 for the 1Ds... and you don't hear pro photographers constantly complaining about the price of the 1Ds even though the feature set is only incrementally better than the lower end products. You also don't even see amateur photographers complaining about Canon's Pro product pricing strategy... it's just accepted that pro products cost more - which is why there are products at all price points - buy what you need or can afford.
hardware and software, not to mention the years of experience working with their pro aps and yet I only have one option for a computer, a MP, as accessing my numerous HD through a single FW800 port is not an option, not to mention capturing all my video through that port also. All I need in a comp is an upgrade in speed from my G5 and decent access to Hds. Having a choice of one comp, is not a choice at all.
Sorry, but this is not a good example either. I literally have dozens of cameras to choose from for the work that I do. The line between what is pro & what isn't in still cameras is a little fuzzy IMO, as I've done magazine covers with my ancient Canon G2 and was specifically contacted by a PBS station that thanked me for the high quality promotion stills of which most were simple manipulated SD video frame grabs. I am completely satisfied with camera choices, and the various companies have to compete for my business. A 1D is only necessary for a certain type of pro.
I have much invested in
IMO, many corporations focus on their bottom line and their share holders and forget the people that have put them there. Also IMO all of us here are share holders and it is healthy to remind companies to take care of their customers. At this point I'd love to see another Co. building hard ware for mac OS, as I'd like to have the choices I have in cameras, with comps.
I just don't think that this is an unreasonable request.
Perhaps the statement results from an extensive software investment?
).. I've turned dozens of people to , but in truth I don't see much reason to do that any more. when they could rather easily be doing better, is only supporting mediocrity IMO
