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.
Mac Pro To Continue Quad-Core Tradition? Woodcrest?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
~Shard~ said:Unfortunately I fear a couple of those names might already be taken by products in a completely different industry...
As long as it's in a non competing industry we're all good. Bring on the woddy's!!!
As long as the Meroms are on their way by August I'll have one.
yeh i don't think there's any chance we'll be going back to the G3/G4 formfactors. i really did like the latest powermac g4 formfactor though (MDD)...i think folks are forgetting G5 is designed so because of it's heat issues to which intel is no stranger. take a look at the dual xeon machines from ibm or dell- they're pretty sizeable. and i doubt apple's going to split their 'pro' line up into 'mac' and 'mac pro' simply because the 'mac' would be too close to the imac, aside from expansion capabiltiies to which you'd get a lower end powermac anyway...
milo said:
Id hate to break it too you, but most switchers are first drawn to apple by their interested and sleek designs, and the OS second. Many first time mac buyers are not even aware of the advantages and differences of OS X before they purchase a mac, the only thing they know is that it exists, and that if they want (now) they can run windows.
Design will always drive sales for a majority of first time buyers, this is probably not the case with those on this forum, who are more well versed, but average Joe Switcher, he likes the pretty MBP case.
Quads all the way .. because...
Hi !
There will be Quads all the way in the Mac Pro series ...
2 x Woodcrest ...
Why ?
Because If Apple is going to make Pro users or any user switch to a intel-based mac pro system they need to give users mind blowing stuff ... because users need to buy universal software of there current software .. and in some cases that not cheap ...
and its possible in any aspect that the Mac Pro will be more expansive that the G5 price tag .. so what ... the Mac Pro is a PRO computer ...
PS.
To you people who keeps on talking about 2 x Conroe setups I will soon take the nearest flight and SLAP YOU IN YOUR FACE !!! ... its getting anoying ... its NOT POSSIBLE TO USE 2 Conroe processors on the same motherbord .. ok ! ... its a standalone dual-Core processor ... ONLY Woodcrest have the possebility for 2x processor setup ... (MP )
DS.
give me my Mac Pro now ... !
Hi !
There will be Quads all the way in the Mac Pro series ...
2 x Woodcrest ...
Why ?
Because If Apple is going to make Pro users or any user switch to a intel-based mac pro system they need to give users mind blowing stuff ... because users need to buy universal software of there current software .. and in some cases that not cheap ...
and its possible in any aspect that the Mac Pro will be more expansive that the G5 price tag .. so what ... the Mac Pro is a PRO computer ...
PS.
To you people who keeps on talking about 2 x Conroe setups I will soon take the nearest flight and SLAP YOU IN YOUR FACE !!! ... its getting anoying ... its NOT POSSIBLE TO USE 2 Conroe processors on the same motherbord .. ok ! ... its a standalone dual-Core processor ... ONLY Woodcrest have the possebility for 2x processor setup ... (MP )
DS.
give me my Mac Pro now ... !
~Shard~ said:
From my point of view the G5 case isn't that nice after all. That's because I have to repair them (work at a service provider). Changing anything in a G3/G4 case was much easier to do. Of course I understand the idea of the G5 case (airflow), but I think it could be done even better. Anyone who has changed the Power Supply of a PM Quad knows what I'm talking about.
However, I do think the current case design would be a good way to continue with, by making only small enhancements one of them being making it a bit smaller.
~Shard~ said:
A BIT of a facelift?
Dude, other than being clad in white polycarb (and for the vain and profligate there's the matte black), it's a new machine from stem to stern......screen to keyboard...inputs to outs (iSight, digital optical, non-mirrored screen)...processor to optical drives.
What do you consider new???
Conroes for the "Mac Amateur"
But, what will Apple call it mid-winter, when the Mac Amateur is upgraded to a quad-core Kentsfield?
So, when the new form-factor 64-bit Conroe shows up, it will have to be called the Mac Amateur to distinguish it from the Woodies.Tussen69 said:Hi !
There will be Quads all the way in the Mac Pro series ...
2 x Woodcrest ...
But, what will Apple call it mid-winter, when the Mac Amateur is upgraded to a quad-core Kentsfield?
Packard automobiles were the choice for those who appreciated a vehicle designed by engineers without compromise. As a consequence they cost 50% more than a comparable car from a competing manufacturer. And their cars always sold.
When the depression hit, they started to crank out competitve "affordable" vehicles which, although just as carefully enginereed, were nevertheless basic consumer products. Eventually they lost the one feature that made them stand out: the recognition of being truly "special" automobiles. The buying public lost interest, and by the late 50's, Packard was out of busniess.
I'd hate to see this happen at Apple.
When the depression hit, they started to crank out competitve "affordable" vehicles which, although just as carefully enginereed, were nevertheless basic consumer products. Eventually they lost the one feature that made them stand out: the recognition of being truly "special" automobiles. The buying public lost interest, and by the late 50's, Packard was out of busniess.
I'd hate to see this happen at Apple.
How many SKU's? How many market segments?
This thread seems to run from blinkered thinking to blue sky thinking. It's instructive to see what Apple's done to gather what it may consider doing.
The revived Apple has has been a master at SKU management -- a carefully limited number of differentiated products to cover the segments it's decided to play in which stay fairly stable for up to a year or more. And in each segment, there are both premium high design features and limitations.
This is as opposed to the huge hodge podge of overlapping ever-changing products from your Dells and HP's that seem to change monthly or more often.
One can argue this limits Apple's market share potential. One can also argue it's been frustrating not to be able to add options one might want within an SKU (e.g., before the current models being able to have multiple monitor views on iMacs and iBooks). And one can argue (quite wrongly in my opinion) as people have here that this is irrelevant and it's all about the OS and not the hardware at all. But one can't argue that a sinking and very shaky company has become a solid, hi-buzz, profitable and growing corporation widely seen as the BMW or Lexus of an industry where far more Camrys and Chevvies are sold. Without slapping its name on shoddy knockoffs of itself as so many once prestigious companies have done.
And one can't argue that Apple hasn't practiced brilliant inventory management with this carefully cultivated set of SKU's and control over the press over new and phasing out products which has enhanced their financials. Nor that industry-wide mobile computers will continue to take market share from desktops in terms of sheer numbers as notebooks become capable enough to handle the tasks the great majority of users, even pros, need to accomplish with the added benefits of portability. Nor that more demanding users HAVE noticed the developments around BootCamp and Parallels.
What does this tell us about Woodcrest, Conroe and the future of Mac desktops?? Well, no crystal ball here, but my sense is that Apple's grown enough and become a hot enough company to GRADUALLY increase the number of SKU's they offer and move into new markets at both the top (of the desktop line) and bottom of the industry (e.g., some of the constantly speculated on "iPhones," eMac replacements, media centers, "thinbooks" "game books" and unknown whatnots), becoming a more full-line complete computing solution company.
Thus it seems logical, if not right at the outset, that Apple's pro desktop line facing limited potential for unit growth in a shrinking market, will segment into two main lines of relatively high-margin machines. (If not for the runaway success of notebooks, I'd say three and endorse some notion of the mini-towers advocated elsewhere in this thread.)
In this scenario, one could be a Conroe line similar to if a quantam performance leap up from today's Powermacs on universal apps. The other, which may debut up to a year from now, would be a new workstation level SKU positioned between the "MacPro" and X-Serve lines (tho' it may cost more than many X-Serves) that will appeal to deep-pocketed ($4-8K or more) highly demanding users (some individual, but primarily corporate) in the video, photographic, graphic design, scientific, statistical, engineering, animation, FX and "power users with massive ego needs" fields.
None of these machines will be huge mass movers nor nudge market share notably through their own sales in the short run, but both could be relatively popular, profitable and critical to Apple's overall image and strategy as a computing company in the longer run.
And if Apple's an elephant in the room driving the industry from a 3-4% market share position, I think they'd be more than happy to aim not at Dell-like figures for the next decade but for a reasonable chance to double that share while maintaining margins and design leadership.
mcnaugha said:
This thread seems to run from blinkered thinking to blue sky thinking. It's instructive to see what Apple's done to gather what it may consider doing.
The revived Apple has has been a master at SKU management -- a carefully limited number of differentiated products to cover the segments it's decided to play in which stay fairly stable for up to a year or more. And in each segment, there are both premium high design features and limitations.
This is as opposed to the huge hodge podge of overlapping ever-changing products from your Dells and HP's that seem to change monthly or more often.
One can argue this limits Apple's market share potential. One can also argue it's been frustrating not to be able to add options one might want within an SKU (e.g., before the current models being able to have multiple monitor views on iMacs and iBooks). And one can argue (quite wrongly in my opinion) as people have here that this is irrelevant and it's all about the OS and not the hardware at all. But one can't argue that a sinking and very shaky company has become a solid, hi-buzz, profitable and growing corporation widely seen as the BMW or Lexus of an industry where far more Camrys and Chevvies are sold. Without slapping its name on shoddy knockoffs of itself as so many once prestigious companies have done.
And one can't argue that Apple hasn't practiced brilliant inventory management with this carefully cultivated set of SKU's and control over the press over new and phasing out products which has enhanced their financials. Nor that industry-wide mobile computers will continue to take market share from desktops in terms of sheer numbers as notebooks become capable enough to handle the tasks the great majority of users, even pros, need to accomplish with the added benefits of portability. Nor that more demanding users HAVE noticed the developments around BootCamp and Parallels.
What does this tell us about Woodcrest, Conroe and the future of Mac desktops?? Well, no crystal ball here, but my sense is that Apple's grown enough and become a hot enough company to GRADUALLY increase the number of SKU's they offer and move into new markets at both the top (of the desktop line) and bottom of the industry (e.g., some of the constantly speculated on "iPhones," eMac replacements, media centers, "thinbooks" "game books" and unknown whatnots), becoming a more full-line complete computing solution company.
Thus it seems logical, if not right at the outset, that Apple's pro desktop line facing limited potential for unit growth in a shrinking market, will segment into two main lines of relatively high-margin machines. (If not for the runaway success of notebooks, I'd say three and endorse some notion of the mini-towers advocated elsewhere in this thread.)
In this scenario, one could be a Conroe line similar to if a quantam performance leap up from today's Powermacs on universal apps. The other, which may debut up to a year from now, would be a new workstation level SKU positioned between the "MacPro" and X-Serve lines (tho' it may cost more than many X-Serves) that will appeal to deep-pocketed ($4-8K or more) highly demanding users (some individual, but primarily corporate) in the video, photographic, graphic design, scientific, statistical, engineering, animation, FX and "power users with massive ego needs" fields.
None of these machines will be huge mass movers nor nudge market share notably through their own sales in the short run, but both could be relatively popular, profitable and critical to Apple's overall image and strategy as a computing company in the longer run.
And if Apple's an elephant in the room driving the industry from a 3-4% market share position, I think they'd be more than happy to aim not at Dell-like figures for the next decade but for a reasonable chance to double that share while maintaining margins and design leadership.
SPUY767 said:
If they're not a commodity, it's because they are the only boxes that can (legally) run OSX. I honestly don't think the box being pretty is that much of a selling point, if apple thinks that is what will gain them market share (and make more profit), we're in big trouble.
Core Trio said:
Assuming that's the case, the design concious buyer will STILL be attracted to the imac, mini, and laptops. But why not make a model in addition to those that has more flexibility and better bang for buck, for users who care about the OS more than design?
Tussen69 said:Because If Apple is going to make Pro users or any user switch to a intel-based mac pro system they need to give users mind blowing stuff ... because users need to buy universal software of there current software .. and in some cases that not cheap ...
But some users don't WANT mind blowing stuff, they want the features of a tower but don't need top speed. Your idea is horrible, it would alienate all users but those with the deepest pockets. Apple does have to blow people's minds...but only on the "best" model.
Think about what you're saying. By your logic, would it make sense for apple to have only come out with the quad G5s? No models at $1999 and $2499, just a model at $3299 and nothing cheaper? I think that's a dismal idea, and that's what you're proposing for the next generation.
8thMan said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
8thMan said:
Excellent comparison. Shame I didn't think of it; my other passion is cars.
Milo said:
Because doing that would cannibalize sales of the big MP. That would therefore drive the whole brand downmarket as Apple saw outstanding sales of the mini towers. As Apple shifted its brand downmarket, it would divert resources away from its bread and butter, the top tier of the market. After that, Apple would be trying to compete in the same realm as Dell, and when the only differentiating factor is the OS, I'm sorry, but most people are not going to be paying the premiums that Apple is asking.
On a sidenote, I would like to extoll what an absolute failure Vista is going to be. After having used two other Pre-Release versions, I must say, things have gone down hill. I installed, or should I say attempted to install, this on my (XBOX) as I like to call it. Beta 2 will not even install. I boot up from the CD, get into the installer, and guess what it tells me. "There is no CD in the Drive. Please insert the Windows Vista Installer CD to continue." Brilliant. If the product that hits the market is no more polished than this, MS is in trouble. Riots. Seriously. You know, basic bugs like this, probably should have been found in oh, alpha 1? Go figure. . .
SPUY767 said:
So you think a model that would have "outstanding sales" is a bad thing?? Why are people so afraid of apple selling more computers? And I don't see that as shifting the brand more downmarket. Did the mini wreck apple's brand image? Did the shuffle, probably the most budget concious apple product in a long time, hurt the market for pricy ipods?
I think the whole notion of cannibalizing sales is overblown. If you don't offer a product that appeals to consumers, they're not going to buy an apple that's a bad fit, they'll just buy a computer from someone else.
And I really doubt that towers are apple's bread and butter, don't most of the cheaper models outsell it? If anything, the towers are likely apple's smallest niche.
Like it or not, apple is always competing with dell. I don't see how ignoring entire segments of the market is supposed to help them compete better.
SPUY767 said:
Well, this is not surprising when we talk about MS...the company has been ALREADY going downhill for a long time, and Vista will only extend such trend...Apple has a golden chance now to dethrone MS from OS market domintation, as Vista brings absolutely NOTHING that OS X doesn't have already.
Leopard will just be cherry on the cake, trust me...
bigpics said:
I like what you wrote in your post. It got me to thinking - what would stop Apple from doing two completely separate lines of desktop/towers? So, instead of doing two lines of "relatively high-margin machines," as you suggested, Apple would clearly split high-end from the consumer/enthusiast. For the Professional Line, we would initially get Woodcrest based computers based on the current (but slightly redesigned) G5 towers. The designate market is for professionals with large processing needs and big budgets. The second line of desktop/tower computers, with a completely new design, would be targeted for home/small business/consumers. These would include a small form factor media center, and two versions of a small to mid-sized tower with Conroe processor.
By splitting the line-up into separate Professional/Consumer areas, it would differentiate the Professional line and allow Apple to compete with other vendors in the high-end market. Apple already has a "Pro" section on their website. Why not feature all of the Pro computers to go along with their Pro apps? If they do that, then they don't need to be hobbled by trying to accomodate the entry-level "pro" market. I'm talking about the crippled $1999 base machine that no one wants to buy anyway. If they go with an all pro-line, then we might see 3 new machines with prices of $2500, $4000 and up to $6000 for the top-end G5 Quad killer. If someone can't afford a $2500 MacPro, they can buy a $1500 pizza-box or mid-sized tower Conroe consumer "Mac" instead. Further, they could build Pro machines that are tuned to run applications such as Shake or FCS (like Boxx does with the machines they feature). Apple might offer bundled software/hardware and service deals as incentive for studios that want to migrate to OSX, or existing studios that want to update to Intel.
The more I think about it, I believe that if Apple were to create a NEW "Professional" division, like they did with the iPod-iTunes, then that would allow for specific development (and better relations with vendors) and less over-all confusion in their computer line-up.
THX1139 said:
Yeah, this is my dream...something beefier than an iMac but less than the 20" model because its got no screen and a more industrial design with hopefully room for 8 ram slots, a second HDD and at leats one PCI slot...The powermacs are going to be sossman based NOT woodcrest
THere already a Dual -Dual Core option available from intel in the form of sossman i.e. Dual Core Xeon LV ( exactly same as yonah i.e Core Duo). So that is what it is going to run on. And yes sossman does not have EMT64 support. Which anyway none of the macs have and will not be a huge issue. It will be interesting how apple will stop (even if) ... powermacs to be ugraded to Merom derivatives given they are pin compatible? (may be a bios lock of some sort)
THere already a Dual -Dual Core option available from intel in the form of sossman i.e. Dual Core Xeon LV ( exactly same as yonah i.e Core Duo). So that is what it is going to run on. And yes sossman does not have EMT64 support. Which anyway none of the macs have and will not be a huge issue. It will be interesting how apple will stop (even if) ... powermacs to be ugraded to Merom derivatives given they are pin compatible? (may be a bios lock of some sort)
Apple Computer Divisions
Apple Software
System Software
Mac Software
Mac Pro Software
Trusted Vendor Software
3rd Party Software
Apple Entertainment
iTunes
iVideo
iPod
Mac-Media Center
iTV
ACD
Mac Computer
Mac-mini (Merom)
iMac(s) (Merom)
Mac-Media Center (Conroe)
Mac-Computer (Conroe)
Mac Mobile
iPod
Macbook(s)
MacbookPro(s)
Apple Professional
Mac-Pro Workstations:
#1 5130 Dual, Dual-Core Xeon 2.0 ($2999)
#2 5140 Dual, Dual-Core Xeon 2.3 ($3500)
#3 5160 Dual, Dual-Core Xeon 3.0 (????)
X-Serve
MacBookPro(s)
ACD
MacPro Software
Apple Certified Vendors
Apple Software
System Software
Mac Software
Mac Pro Software
Trusted Vendor Software
3rd Party Software
Apple Entertainment
iTunes
iVideo
iPod
Mac-Media Center
iTV
ACD
Mac Computer
Mac-mini (Merom)
iMac(s) (Merom)
Mac-Media Center (Conroe)
Mac-Computer (Conroe)
Mac Mobile
iPod
Macbook(s)
MacbookPro(s)
Apple Professional
Mac-Pro Workstations:
#1 5130 Dual, Dual-Core Xeon 2.0 ($2999)
#2 5140 Dual, Dual-Core Xeon 2.3 ($3500)
#3 5160 Dual, Dual-Core Xeon 3.0 (????)
X-Serve
MacBookPro(s)
ACD
MacPro Software
Apple Certified Vendors
bigpics said:
A BIT of a facelift?
Dude, other than being clad in white polycarb (and for the vain and profligate there's the matte black), it's a new machine from stem to stern......screen to keyboard...inputs to outs (iSight, digital optical, non-mirrored screen)...processor to optical drives.
What do you consider new???
Put a G4 iBook and white MacBook next to each other, and (iSight aside) do they really look that much different? I guess there are some subtle differences... All I was meaning was that there wasn't a complete aesthetic redesign like the G4 PowerMac to the G5 PowerMac, or the G4 iMac to the G5 iMac. If you classify the iBook=>MacBook "redesign" to be as significant as one of those, then you need your glasses checked.
BigPics Is Right - MacBook Is A Total Redesign
My eyes are fine and I think MacBook is one of the biggest redesigns in mobile history. Just because it's the same color doesn't make it the same in any other way which it isn't.~Shard~ said:Put a G4 iBook and white MacBook next to each other, and (iSight aside) do they really look that much different? I guess there are some subtle differences... All I was meaning was that there wasn't a complete aesthetic redesign like the G4 PowerMac to the G5 PowerMac, or the G4 iMac to the G5 iMac. If you classify the iBook=>MacBook "redesign" to be as significant as one of those, then you need your glasses checked.
FWIW,
I've just learned that the Greencreek chipset, which is part of the Glidewell platform for workstation implementations of dual Woodcrest sockets...
(As opposed to the Blackford chipset, which is part of the Bensley platform for server implementations of dual Woodcrest sockets.)
(I think I've got that right.)
Anyway, "Greencreek will offer dual X16 PCI Express for running multiple workstation graphic cards."
I'd thought earlier that Glidewell would only take one graphics card.
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772&p=2
Also interesting is the prediction that the dual independent bus will only be fully utilized when using dual four-core Clovertown chips, suggesting the bus won't be as much of a bottleneck for Clovertowns as I've seen suggested elsewhere.
I've just learned that the Greencreek chipset, which is part of the Glidewell platform for workstation implementations of dual Woodcrest sockets...
(As opposed to the Blackford chipset, which is part of the Bensley platform for server implementations of dual Woodcrest sockets.)
(I think I've got that right.)
Anyway, "Greencreek will offer dual X16 PCI Express for running multiple workstation graphic cards."
I'd thought earlier that Glidewell would only take one graphics card.
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772&p=2
Also interesting is the prediction that the dual independent bus will only be fully utilized when using dual four-core Clovertown chips, suggesting the bus won't be as much of a bottleneck for Clovertowns as I've seen suggested elsewhere.
THX1139 said:
I know plenty of people who have purchased the $1999 base machine. Many of whom are students and need a desktop for editing/graphics, whatever.
I still don't think the "pizza box" is going to happen right away. I'd like to be wrong though.
Also, THX1139, isn't every Apple computer sort of a "media center" with the addition of Front Row? Why would Apple need to make another computer for that reason?
I find this to be a more likely scenario than the pizza boxes;
"In this scenario, one could be a Conroe line similar to if a quantam performance leap up from today's Powermacs on universal apps. The other, which may debut up to a year from now, would be a new workstation level SKU positioned between the "MacPro" and X-Serve lines (tho' it may cost more than many X-Serves) that will appeal to deep-pocketed ($4-8K or more) highly demanding users (some individual, but primarily corporate) in the video, photographic, graphic design, scientific, statistical, engineering, animation, FX and "power users with massive ego needs" fields."