My Idea for a New Mac Pro

[nanofrog]

At this point though, there is a difference between "need PCI-e expansion" and "need PCI-e slot form factor expansion" . There are many people still stuck on the physical form factor and not the core benefits of the PCI-e solution.

I see your point, but I'm not sure how extensive "I want a slot" is in the OS X environment.

And given a lot of low bandwidth products are usually found with USB 2.0/FW800 interfaces, it has been reducing in the Windows environment as well IMO (USB card readers, external HDD's are commonly found as USB only, ...). Please understand I'm not saying it's reached the point of non-issue though (just getting better vs. early in the PCI - PCIe transition for example; I still recall PCI audio chips + PCIe bridge to make PCIe audio cards used in boards with both PCI and PCIe slots).

For me, the bigger issue with PCIe cards these days, is when low bandwidth cards, such as 1x lane based are run in say an 8x or 16x lane slot (1x lane card in 4x lane slots are much more understandable).

But this can be either a misunderstanding of PCIe technology by the user (just stuff the card in any open slot without paying attention to their electrical configurations for example), or the particular PCIe slot configuration of the board in combination with the cards being used forces the use of a larger bandwidth slot (multiple 1x or 4x lane cards, and not enough 1 or 4x slots to accommodate them).

Hope this makes sense (trying to keep it short, but still readable).

 

[tamvly]

I proposed a form factor that allowed for two slots - without any real idea of what a second slot might be used for. A second video card to support more monitors? Almost certainly not.

With multiple TB ports I wonder if a second would be needed. Better to have a spare than not, I suppose.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I proposed a form factor that allowed for two slots - without any real idea of what a second slot might be used for. A second video card to support more monitors? Almost certainly not.

With multiple TB ports I wonder if a second would be needed. Better to have a spare than not, I suppose.

I would say that a second one would be needed just to provide versatility. Otherwise, what you really have is a . . . . . . headless iMac (xMac) . . . . the same thing Mac users have been clamoring for since Mac towers jumped into the $1999 price range.

** I remember when I could get a 1.42GHz Power Mac G4 for $1299 **

Not having PCI slots would basically put make the monitor the sole issue for needing a headless Mac, and not everyone hates the glossy. The xMac would need to have expansion, and not just an extra HDD or more RAM, which the iMac handles nicely. It would need to have PCI, user serviceable parts throughout, and enough power to handle any extra parts I'd feel like shoving inside.

Media pros may opt for the xMac as a second machine, or a render box, and would need that PCI to connect various things, like eSATA or a capture card. Fibre channel if a user wanted to opt for an xMac instead of a Mac mini. Beefier WiFi card or even a 4G PCI connect for a tower in a mobile rack.

Just to name a few.

 

[xgman]

Two Superdrives? OK then the tamvly configuration isn't for you. I have never used two at a time.

.

Two? I will be very happy when DVD drives go the way of the floppy.

 

[nanofrog]

I proposed a form factor that allowed for two slots - without any real idea of what a second slot might be used for. A second video card to support more monitors? Almost certainly not.

With multiple TB ports I wonder if a second would be needed. Better to have a spare than not, I suppose.

Thunderbolt controller chips use PCIe lanes (4x of them) to attach to the system, so there's a trade-off. Either use the lanes for slots which will reduced or even eliminate TB port counts, or vice-versa.

 

[Freyqq]

I love the 2 superdrives, but I would not mind them being external. What i will not do without is a xeon processor. That is the main reason i use Mac Pro

is one xeon processor with ECC ram really faster than a core i7 with non-ECC ram? I actually think it is slower for most tasks.

 

[nanofrog]

is one xeon processor with ECC ram really faster than a core i7 with non-ECC ram? I actually think it is slower for most tasks.

It depends on the specifics (what CPUID's you're comparing, and what sort of software is being used).

But for the equivalent models (same socket & architecture, core count, and clock frequency), they're the same. ECC memory can slow you down a bit at times, but very little software can leverage the memory controller's bandwidth anyway on LGA1366 parts (i.e. can't leverage triple channel bandwidth, so more memory in a dual channel configuration makes more sense since the additional capacity can be utilized).

 

[tamvly]

nanofrog actually makes my point: if there is negligible performance difference between i7 and Zeon at equal clock speeds, why bother in a mid range offering. and why wait for a Zeon if equivalent desktop processors are available sooner at a similar price point.

 

[derbothaus]

nanofrog actually makes my point: if there is negligible performance difference between i7 and Zeon at equal clock speeds, why bother in a mid range offering. and why wait for a Zeon if equivalent desktop processors are available sooner at a similar price point.

By this answer you have found yours. You do not need a Xeon. Few do.
Generally they are higher binned, more stable, can overclock higher (not that in a Mac it matters), certified for servers and generally last longer before errors.

 

[Umbongo]

nanofrog actually makes my point: if there is negligible performance difference between i7 and Zeon at equal clock speeds, why bother in a mid range offering. and why wait for a Zeon if equivalent desktop processors are available sooner at a similar price point.

Why wouldn't they sell them with Xeons? First it costs Apple more to have a Core i7/Xeon split between UP and DP workstations. There is no loss in performance for customers and you get the use of ECC memory if you need it - larger capacities too remember, not just the ECC functionality. Apple aren't in a rush to push out Mac Pros, they will want to dwindle current inventory as much as possible. The 6 month wait in 2010 shows this. Just because Core i7s may come earlier, doesn't mean there will be an abundance of them.

 

[deconstruct60]

nanofrog actually makes my point: if there is negligible performance difference between i7 and Zeon at equal clock speeds, why bother in a mid range offering.

If they cost exactly the same amount of money. Then putting an equivalent i7 in the SP model does nothing. It doesn't reduce costs. The performance is exactly the same. Since Apple rounds prices to the nearest $xx99, only a $50-100 savings would make a difference (depending upon where Apple rounded up the real cost+markup from).

and why wait for a Zeon if equivalent desktop processors are available sooner at a similar price point.

The equivalent Sandy Bridge i7's are not shipping right now either. They may come to market a 30-40 days before the Xeons, but that isn't significant. it is the same set of transistors that Intel ships in the offerings that are equivalent.

A month or two is hardly a good reason to drive up the R&D costs (i.e., not maximizing design overlap with the DP components. ). One of the primary reasons the Xeon slightly lags behind the i7 "extreme" in release time is that the Xeon system vendors put the Xeon through more testing. Similar to the the shakeouts that probably found the bug that is part of the current delay.


The equivalents are not released substantially earlier. What is released earlier are non-equivalent CPU packages that have more limited abilities but , as of late, tend to clock a bit higher (due to fewer cores on the die). However, if not doing small scale workload may not see a difference (fewer memory channels , small cache, smaller bandwidth). There may be 6-7 month windows where the highest cranked up next gen midrange i7 moves slightly out front of the lowest end, previous generation (or previous two generations in the current Mac Pro case). However, that is just a temporary hiccup. The second 6-5 months the Xeon would be back on top. This is factor that is systemic to all PCs. Wait 6-12 months and there will be a faster new model out.

 

[Garamond]

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...reportedly_questioning_future_of_mac_pro.html

So, at best, we can see a 2012 Mac Pro - but no more.

 

[deconstruct60]

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...reportedly_questioning_future_of_mac_pro.html

So, at best, we can see a 2012 Mac Pro - but no more.

Actually not necessarily. If the 2012 Mac Pro actually grew in year over year unit sales over the course of the whole year then it would stick around. The reason why it is on the chopping block is because the sales are either down or relatively flat (compare with other Mac growth) over a long extended period of time. That makes the ROI bad and hence probably on trial for a death sentence.

It depends upon how long this drop has been happening. If started well before the Intel hiccups over last two years then the risk adverse in Apple many not want to play out 2012 to see if can reverse the trend.


If sales are off there are two solutions for Apple.

1. Make it a 'great product' again and the sales numbers go up. ( note I didn't say just chop the price. If there is no value add then this is a dead end)

2. Kill the product and invest in higher returns.


I think the E5 1600 covering the entry to high single package end makes a difference. Even more so because the clock frequencies are in "reverse order" (entry level highest).

It would be shocking if the Mac Pro numbers were not dropping over the last two years. Intel "blanked" on a diverse 3600 series offering forcing the Mac Pro to limp forward with two year old tech in the entry and mid single package offering. Of course the upper level iMacs caught up on largely in cache, CPU benchmarks. But that was largely a vendor SNAFU by Intel. If Intel had delivered the components the rest of the Mac Pro infrastructure would have delivered better results.

Likewise this shifting of the launch date from Spring to Fall and now to Winter .... that too has thrown up lots of FUD so there probably are a significant number of people idling on the sidelines. Throw in spillover FUD from the FCPX launch and duh .... sales are down.

 

[thekev]

It would be shocking if the Mac Pro numbers were not dropping over the last two years. Intel "blanked" on a diverse 3600 series offering forcing the Mac Pro to limp forward with two year old tech in the entry and mid single package offering. Of course the upper level iMacs caught up on largely in cache, CPU benchmarks. But that was largely a vendor SNAFU by Intel. If Intel had delivered the components the rest of the Mac Pro infrastructure would have delivered better results.

Likewise this shifting of the launch date from Spring to Fall and now to Winter .... that too has thrown up lots of FUD so there probably are a significant number of people idling on the sidelines. Throw in spillover FUD from the FCPX launch and duh .... sales are down.

It was partially a vendor snafu. Many of those processors dropped off in price quite a bit though. Apple could have used that to do a mid cycle bump and even out sales. They did stuff like this pre intel. These days it doesn't happen. Apple gets a discount, and everyone gets to pay full price for yesterday's tech.

You're right though, two year old tech does in fact suck. The line has been sporadic since its inception though. Remember how 2007 only added a high end model?

 

[tamvly]

I am wondering if articles in the last few days on the "end of the Mac Pro" actually increase the likelihood of a "mid-desktop" such as I describe. I'd be OK with such as a development even if power users would most decidedly not.

What I am most curious about is why, with $60B in the cash, Apple needs to be so persnickety about the profitability in the Mac Pro line. I find it hard to believe that Apple loses much, if anything in this market segment.

Seems to me that some of this could be redirected to building good will with a segment of the market that is usually quite vocal (developers and pro users). Same goes for "Pro" apps.

Clearly, no one is going to buy a sightly faster Mac Mini to replace a Mac Pro.

Oh, well.

 

[gglockner]

What I am most curious about is why, with $60B in the cash, Apple needs to be so persnickety about the profitability in the Mac Pro line. I find it hard to believe that Apple loses much, if anything in this market segment.

Maintaining a product line has many fixed expenses, so if the volume is low, this can easily become unprofitable.

The handwriting on the wall is that portables are the future, and the iMac will continue to improve in terms of power.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Likewise this shifting of the launch date from Spring to Fall and now to Winter .... that too has thrown up lots of FUD so there probably are a significant number of people idling on the sidelines. Throw in spillover FUD from the FCPX launch and duh .... sales are down.

All good points. FUD is definitely the main cause as is buyer frustration. It's the same for other platforms but those usually have quicker turn around times and smaller numbers of users that also demand aesthetics over function.

Also agree about the FCPX snafu that Apple could have avoided. I am not in this camp but there is a vocal minority questioning Apples commitment to the pro market.

Seems to me that some of this could be redirected to building good will with a segment of the market that is usually quite vocal (developers and pro users). Same goes for "Pro" apps.

Clearly, no one is going to buy a sightly faster Mac Mini to replace a Mac Pro.

Oh, well.

True, but I have a feeling that Apple knows that it will need that $60B for other projects or situation in the future. Apple was never a company to spend it's billions on something that is in fact pretty stable. For example, Palm wasting millions on that Foleo when it's hardware was already as stable as it could have been for 2005. It was that company's downfall.

Now on the other hand, Apple hasn't spent too much R&D in the Mac Pro market, the case and general design has been the same since the Power Mac G5 introduction, only slight design changes to the case have been made for almost 8 years.

What Apple needs to do is go back to a trend that it did pre Intel days. Release a new product at price point "X" Hold product there for 6 months. Introduce a faster higher end product as CTO and push the prices down on the other models to "X-$200" That's when we all knew that another 6 months from now there'd be a new product and the price would go back to "X"

Maintaining a product line has many fixed expenses, so if the volume is low, this can easily become unprofitable.

The handwriting on the wall is that portables are the future, and the iMac will continue to improve in terms of power.

I would agree but the iMac has no upgradeability/expansion and no way to get Fibre channel for even the most simplest of high bandwidth application. I myself have considered the iMac simply for it's price and proc. power. I've repaired iMac before so even repair costs isn't an issue. The main and only issue a pro will always have with an AIO is upgradeability/expansion.

Even in the laptop world there's express card 34. An iMac with that and eSATA would go a long way.

 

[tamvly]

I would agree but the iMac has no upgradeability/expansion and no way to get Fibre channel for even the most simplest of high bandwidth application. I myself have considered the iMac simply for it's price and proc. power. I've repaired iMac before so even repair costs isn't an issue. The main and only issue a pro will always have with an AIO is upgradeability/expansion.

Even in the laptop world there's express card 34. An iMac with that and eSATA would go a long way.

Lack of upgrade/expansion for the iMac and NO WAY TO GET RID OF THE MONITOR.

Express card 34? Give me a break.

 

[potatis]

OK, I follow the "what is happening with the new Pac Pro...

Pac Pro eh... sounds like a game.

 

[deconstruct60]

I am wondering if articles in the last few days on the "end of the Mac Pro" actually increase the likelihood of a "mid-desktop" such as I describe.

In so far as the rise in FUD levels cause even more folks to abandon Mac towers and run to the risk adverse haven of Windows PC land, no. Apple then sees the numbers drop off even faster in their weekly unit sales review meeting. Actually decreases the likelihood. If the Mac Pro gets killed it is even more doubtful that Apple will release another box that carves into the iMac zone. If dropped Mac Pro due to lack in growth in units why introduce another model that will inhibit grown in the Mac products have left over (iMac) ????? That just puts another product on probation status.


In so far as Apple decides that they have to move closer to the $2,000 price point to boost sales. Perhaps. (I'll loop back to this below )

I'd be OK with such as a development even if power users would most decidedly not.

Well another move Apple could make is actually a price increase. You probably wouldn't like it but the power user with money would grugingly take it.

Apple dumps the single package model altogether. They tack another $200 (or so ) onto the dual package models can continue to sell less units at higher prices. Some of the complexity is going to drop out because only have to make one daughter card instead of two. They could also come out with the box which offered four 16x slots which power users would buy into (value offsetting price increase somewhat. )

All the single package folks who have to move to iMac or out ( just as if the whole Mac Pro line up disappeared. )

I suspect you wouldn't be happy. Classically, this is exactly what happens as high prices machines go into cash cow mode. Fewer customers pay higher prices. Over time that bleeds off more customers so the even fewer customers pay even higher prices. Apple can play that game for 3-4 years until the iMac is some crazy 16 core 128GB monster with 100Gb TB connectors which satisfies 98% of most needs.

What I am most curious about is why, with $60B in the cash, Apple needs to be so persnickety about the profitability in the Mac Pro line.

It is not the cash horde it is the stock price. No growth means the price doesn't go up. If the price doesn't go up then the executives (i.e., the people making the decisions) and stockholders don't get more weathly. Additionally, as long as the stock price keeps rising the stockholders will let the exec keep control of that huge pile of money. Once the stock flattens out they are going to demand that money be handed over. It will disappear from the coffers.

So the primariy issue is how to invest the 60B into projects that show the highest return on investment. Not the projects which will product flat growth (i.e., exchange iMac owners for mid-tower-Mac owners) .

I find it hard to believe that Apple loses much, if anything in this market segment.

It has nothing to do with loss. The article driving the current set of rumors said " the Mac Pro is no longer a particularly profitable operation for Apple " . That is not about loss. That is about not high enough profits.
Even if the profit amount of Mac Pro is high, if the number of units shrinks then the profit generated can actually go down.

$500/unit and 100,000 units ==> $50M
$500/unit and 60,000 units ==> $30M

That is still in the black, but it is a negative 40% growth rate. If every other Mac product is showing a 10-12% growth rate...... do you see the problem???

If reassigning those Mac Pro engineers and designers can make the average growth among the other positively trending Mac products increase to 15-20% growth rate then it is a no-brainer.


The can triage the bleed if boost to $700/unit which would be $42M and only a -16% drop off.

Seems to me that some of this could be redirected to building good will with a segment of the market that is usually quite vocal (developers and pro users). Same goes for "Pro" apps.

Money (paying for systems) talks and ..... walks.

Clearly, no one is going to buy a sightly faster Mac Mini to replace a Mac Pro.

Clearly false. Some people are. That why the Mac Pro unit numbers are very likely not growing. Also clearly false because the last 60 years of computer history says otherwise. The smaller computers always "eat" into the bigger computer in additional to expanding the market.

This isn't about whether Apple can move all of the current Mac Pro users to products toward the lower end of the price scale. It is about whether they can move enough. They don't have to get all to continue growth because the lower price products also create growth by reaching an expanded market. Lower price , higher demand... Econ 101.


So back to what Apple could do with a "mid Tower". Apple could use a "mid Tower" to fill in the $2,000 < x < $2,499 space that the current line-up leaves empty.

So a Mac Pro S , Mac Pro T , and Mac Pro TN . This is similar to how the MBP has three models of different sizes. S "small, short" , T "tower" , and TN "Tower NUMA" .

S model prices around 1,799 , 1,999 , and 2,199 would leave room for

T model priced 2,599, 2,999 and 3,799

TX 3,599 , etc.


Apple could throw the Xeon E3 into the S model if wanted to keep the processor family uniform. To max R&D cost savings though just build the case around a minor modification of the iMac motherboard ( e.g., iMac motherboard with one PCI-e slot attached to one side to minimize board layout changes. ) .

In the latter case, it is what some folks wanted: a headless iMac. Pick your own monitor. Add your own video card. But it is not a really solving Mac Pro level workload problems. By making 95% (or more) of the components the same as the iMacs somewhat neutralizes any cannibalize effects. However, the folks in a "huff" about $1,200 Windows PC models they think are better value are going to still leave. That is no change, which is fine. Those who just wanted a sub $2,000 "headless" box will stay.

Can probably even "reuse" most iMac board if the just set up to take ECC RAM and optional southbridge. (pretty sure what is left of the southbridge is essentially the same. That will even more so be the case when the follow on to Ivy Bridge comes to market.) That gets the volume purchases up on some Mac Pro components which will help that part of the line up last longer.

[Where this model beomes much more problematical is where the board R&D overlap is much smaller than the other mac models. It isn't going to have anywhere near enough volume to justify a separate design team. Piggybacking off the higher volume iMac will help.

Conceptually, could also piggyback off of full sized T/TN board. Just a different daughtercard (like the other two, but a bunch of unused pins) and chopped down to one PCI-e slot (perhaps a bit easier than adding one to the iMac board). ]


So could have:

Mac Pro S
E3 1225 3.1GHz 4GB HD3000 [***] 1TB HDD 2 port Thunderbolt controller (coupled to HD3000 ) open 16x PCI-e slot.

E3 1235 3.2GHz ditto other stuff.

E3 1245 3.3GHz " " "


Mac Pro T

E5 1620 3.6GHz 8GB [****] embedded 1TB HDD AMD 6770 (from iMacs) hooked to dual port TB controller plus a entry video card.

E5 1650 3.2 GHz " " "

E5 1660 3.3 GHz " " "


Mac Pro TX

E5 2620 similar embedded graphics to flush out TB controller Display port needs and completely decoupling the PCI-e socket based card from the issue.

E5 2640
E5 .....


The only quirky thing would be the updates came at different times of the year. The E3 based S would update in Spring when those release and the E5 based T and TX would update in the late Fall. However, that keeps the "no action for six months .... sign of doom and apocalypse" folks happier.


*** yes that is integrated graphics standard. If need more, buy your own video card without the "Apple Tax" attached to it. And yes that will drive the total system costs higher than an iMac: ($70 vid card + $130 monitor) > $1,999. However, Mac Pro line up stretches $200 back into the iMac's $1,000-2,000 zone as much as the iMacs penetrates into the Mac Pros ($2,199 for its i7). Seems fair to me. The E3 due in April-May has Ivy Bridge with a 50-60% improvement in graphics. There are a fair amount of folks who will settle for that really need something else in that PCI-e slot and don't need fancy 3D graphics. ]

edit
**** 8 memory slots on a SP model would help differentiate it while adding value. ( one package on the daughtercard should allow for some space. They get 8 DIMMs on the DP version with the same surface area. ). Change to daughtercard socket could allow DP version to go 4 x16 electrical on PCI-e lanes while he SP version comes up much shorter.

 

[deconstruct60]

Also agree about the FCPX snafu that Apple could have avoided. I am not in this camp but there is a vocal minority questioning Apples commitment to the pro market.

They couldn't avoid the FUD. It was going to get slung by their competitors even they had communicated a bit better. It was a matter of how deep the river flowed.

There are numerous "Avid fans but economics forced me to go FCP" fans out there just itching for an excuse to rain FUD down on Apple and the advocates. Likewise, there have been many over promising what Apple was going to do.

The option of sitting on FCPX until every single feature of FCP was replicated was a non-starter from the get go. There was always going to be some people who were going to throw a hissy fit because their favorite feature 63 wasn't present at the initial launch.

Finally, there was also always going to be the highly risk adverse contingent who was going to march and protest and form petitions that the old 10 year code base be perpetuated forever.

What Apple needs to do is go back to a trend that it did pre Intel days.

You mean where the Mac market share was falling every year (or stuck in single digit growth)? I bet you are going to have a hard time getting any executive at Apple to buy into that strategy.

Release a new product at price point "X" Hold product there for 6 months. Introduce a faster higher end product as CTO and push the prices down on the other models to "X-$200" That's when we all knew that another 6 months from now there'd be a new product and the price would go back to "X"

This is exactly the strategy of vendors who have almost no value to add to their product. The products are non-differentiated and poorly matched to the target market ( who will be value on features offer).

Apple did churn like crazy for a while because the core of the PC market was significantly outgrowing it. They didn't have BootCamp and were a "oddball" (relative to mainstream) architecture that if you needed to bail on Mac OS for any reason .... you didn't have any other viable options.

I would agree but the iMac has no upgradeability/expansion and no way to get Fibre channel for even the most simplest of high bandwidth application.

There is a huge difference between cannot and "I don't like the solutions".

Err.... recently released .. FC TB adapter

http://www.promise.com/storage/raid_series.aspx?region=en-global&m=192&rsn1=40&rsn3=49

Or ExpressCard

http://www.sonnettech.com/product/thunderbolt/index.html


There are no eSATA adapters yet. At the moment, you have to buy the SATA card bundled inside the disk array to get external SATA expansion. Of course you were going to need an external box anyway if getting a new enclosure.

The primary thing holding back eSATA adapters is the arrival of "Port Ridge" 2nd generation controller.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news...lt-controller-could-broaden-reach-of-spec.ars

What the external , single connector, "dongle" like adapters need is a lowest possible cost TB controller to hook a SATA controller to. That will arrive next spring.

Everything needed by the iMac on its side of the TB cable is already present.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Lack of upgrade/expansion for the iMac and NO WAY TO GET RID OF THE MONITOR.

Express card 34? Give me a break.

Forgot about the monitor issue! I personally don't mind the glossy screen, but I can SO see how some wouldn't be able to get used to it.

It's either going to be Express card or nothing at all. I doubt anyone at Apple is good enough to get a standard sized PCIe lane in an AIO type design.

 

[Digital Skunk]

They couldn't avoid the FUD. It was going to get slung by their competitors even they had communicated a bit better. It was a matter of how deep the river flowed.

There are numerous "Avid fans but economics forced me to go FCP" fans out there just itching for an excuse to rain FUD down on Apple and the advocates. Likewise, there have been many over promising what Apple was going to do.

The option of sitting on FCPX until every single feature of FCP was replicated was a non-starter from the get go. There was always going to be some people who were going to throw a hissy fit because their favorite feature 63 wasn't present at the initial launch.

Finally, there was also always going to be the highly risk adverse contingent who was going to march and protest and form petitions that the old 10 year code base be perpetuated forever.

The biggest problem is that there are a lot of people that don't understand that a professional won't waste their time whining about a product update that didn't cut the snuff with them. I wouldn't touch FCPX for the same reasons as the whiners, but there's no way I am going to whine about it when there are at the very least 4 other options available to editors, one of them being NOT upgrading and keeping FCS3.

You mean where the Mac market share was falling every year (or stuck in single digit growth)? I bet you are going to have a hard time getting any executive at Apple to buy into that strategy.

No, check the archive of the pages. Their market-share was growing fast due to the iPod alone anyway, not product release cycles.

This is exactly the strategy of vendors who have almost no value to add to their product. The products are non-differentiated and poorly matched to the target market ( who will be value on features offer).

Apple did churn like crazy for a while because the core of the PC market was significantly outgrowing it. They didn't have BootCamp and were a "oddball" (relative to mainstream) architecture that if you needed to bail on Mac OS for any reason .... you didn't have any other viable options.

This doesn't apply to any computer vendor that I know of, especially not Apple in the early 2000's. And compared to what you just said Apple's current offering is in that category . . . it's been over a year since Apple has added any value to anything save the iMac.

Apple wasn't following the release trend then either though, the PC market would announce a new product before they enough volume to ship every time they changed the design or updated the specs. And many times their would be different cycles for the three or four different models of laptops a vendor had. Apple's approach in 2003-Intel was pretty much magnificent.

There is a huge difference between cannot and "I don't like the solutions".

Err.... recently released .. FC TB adapter

http://www.promise.com/storage/raid_series.aspx?region=en-global&m=192&rsn1=40&rsn3=49

Or ExpressCard

http://www.sonnettech.com/product/thunderbolt/index.html


There are no eSATA adapters yet. At the moment, you have to buy the SATA card bundled inside the disk array to get external SATA expansion. Of course you were going to need an external box anyway if getting a new enclosure.

The primary thing holding back eSATA adapters is the arrival of "Port Ridge" 2nd generation controller.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news...lt-controller-could-broaden-reach-of-spec.ars

What the external , single connector, "dongle" like adapters need is a lowest possible cost TB controller to hook a SATA controller to. That will arrive next spring.

Everything needed by the iMac on its side of the TB cable is already present.

True for anyone that wants/needs a solution that requires 3rd party hardware that will need troubleshooting and support. Not so for the user that wants the one stop shop at Apple.

Remember, people choose Apple for many different reasons, one of the biggest ones that brought me over from the other side was the full support for hardware and software. I was an Avid user, still think Avid is king, but their support is terrible. FCP for the price gave me just as much plus the full support. I can get top to bottom support for my hardware, software, and services. No other company has figured that out yet.

Now, I don't want a solution that has me looking to a third party to get EC34 or PCI or even Fibre channel. It would be a support nightmare in a data center I am sure. For the average freelancer or production house, it becomes a financial headache.

No, it's not about preference, it's really about what a user needs. Again, I'd personally go with the iMac, I don't mind the glossy screen and lack of expansion. TB devices from Black Magic will be suitable for myself and my small side business, but for the university I work for no it's a none starter.

 

[Bubba Satori]

Two? I will be very happy when DVD drives go the way of the floppy.

Why do they have to be eliminated for everybody because you don't want them?

Make it a freaking option. Is that too difficult for the largest corporation on the planet?

 

[tamvly]

Forgot about the monitor issue! I personally don't mind the glossy screen, but I can SO see how some wouldn't be able to get used to it.

It's either going to be Express card or nothing at all. I doubt anyone at Apple is good enough to get a standard sized PCIe lane in an AIO type design.

It has nothing to do with getting used to the monitor. I don't want it. Period.