I agree, what the OP want seems to be a price drop...of course this would likely result in each model moving down a pricepoint, and the high end Mac Pro would be "replaced" with new spec, which are not currnetly avaible on the Mac Pro
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.
Rant: This is getting ridiculous!
- Thread starter suneohair
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree, what the OP want seems to be a price drop...of course this would likely result in each model moving down a pricepoint, and the high end Mac Pro would be "replaced" with new spec, which are not currnetly avaible on the Mac Pro
agree to disagree
It sounds to me like suneohair simply wants the current Mac Pro "features" (cpu, ram, video card, hard drive, etc.) brought up to date.
Many of the base Mac Pro "features" are not as up to date as the base features on the (new) MacBook Pro. Most people would expect the base professional workstation "features" to be better than the professional laptop "features".
The base Mac Pro system price with the current "features" was up to date 1 year ago and at a reasonable price. Now these same dated "features" are no longer reasonable at the same price.
This is how it has worked in the computer business for decades (sort of like Moore's law).
The cost to Apple for these "features" has dropped considerably (anyone denying this needs to visit NewEgg, OWC, RamJet, etc.).
So, now anyone buying the current Mac Pro is paying the same premium price for 1 year old technology, while much newer up to date technology is available today at the same price the old technology was 1 year ago.
To me, suneohair is not asking for a "price drop"; he is asking for the technology to match the price.
I understand Apple likes to maintain a particular entry price for their systems. But hopefully, Apple will upgrade the "features" set of the Mac Pro to match the price.
I think some people just like to disagree.
It sounds to me like suneohair simply wants the current Mac Pro "features" (cpu, ram, video card, hard drive, etc.) brought up to date.
Many of the base Mac Pro "features" are not as up to date as the base features on the (new) MacBook Pro. Most people would expect the base professional workstation "features" to be better than the professional laptop "features".
The base Mac Pro system price with the current "features" was up to date 1 year ago and at a reasonable price. Now these same dated "features" are no longer reasonable at the same price.
This is how it has worked in the computer business for decades (sort of like Moore's law).
The cost to Apple for these "features" has dropped considerably (anyone denying this needs to visit NewEgg, OWC, RamJet, etc.).
So, now anyone buying the current Mac Pro is paying the same premium price for 1 year old technology, while much newer up to date technology is available today at the same price the old technology was 1 year ago.
To me, suneohair is not asking for a "price drop"; he is asking for the technology to match the price.
I understand Apple likes to maintain a particular entry price for their systems. But hopefully, Apple will upgrade the "features" set of the Mac Pro to match the price.
I think some people just like to disagree.
Of course, Business 101 might also teach about market share, and how valuable that is.
A reasonably priced Mac minitower would add a lot of new Mac users ... who would buy Apple software and peripherals and upgrade their OS and subscribe to .mac. Plus, more developers would make Mac software, which would make all Mac hardware more valuable!
Maybe $700 is too optimistic, but at least give us something decent in the $1000 to $1500 range.
Personally that's my biggest frustration with Apple. I don't have a Mac at the moment, but would probably buy one at that point.
(Yes I've had a Mac in the past and will probably get one again next year ... so I'm not a complete troll.
)
It sounds to me like suneohair simply wants the current Mac Pro "features" (cpu, ram, video card, hard drive, etc.) brought up to date.
Many of the base Mac Pro "features" are not as up to date as the base features on the (new) MacBook Pro. Most people would expect the base professional workstation "features" to be better than the professional laptop "features".
The base Mac Pro system price with the current "features" was up to date 1 year ago and at a reasonable price. Now these same dated "features" are no longer reasonable at the same price.
This is how it has worked in the computer business for decades (sort of like Moore's law).
The cost to Apple for these "features" has dropped considerably (anyone denying this needs to visit NewEgg, OWC, RamJet, etc.).
So, now anyone buying the current Mac Pro is paying the same premium price for 1 year old technology, while much newer up to date technology is available today at the same price the old technology was 1 year ago.
To me, suneohair is not asking for a "price drop"; he is asking for the technology to match the price.
I understand Apple likes to maintain a particular entry price for their systems. But hopefully, Apple will upgrade the "features" set of the Mac Pro to match the price.
I think some people just like to disagree.
My g/f says I should tell you I love you because you actually can read and understand instead of blindly defending Apple.
I LOVE YOU!
I agree, it's kinda sad. Apple bills themselves as a hardware & software company that focuses on "cutting edge" hardware.
They don't pander to the "affordable desktop" market and they don't offer a midrange, yet fast and powerful market either.
With apple, it's laptops or workstations (though they'll put your laptop in a box that sits on your desk perma attached to a lcd if you like).
I'm fine with this. I'll spend the premium for overkill in the CPU department for folks that don't do particle physics simulations, MRI image processing, or professional rendering in exchange for an upgradeable desktop.
But please keep them as current as a cheapo OEM PC. It literally takes zero developement to put a base config ram in line with the market. If the drivers for the 8xxx series were written for the laptop line, they could have been written for the desktop line in the same time (probably less, I imagine there's a lot of cross over).
Right now, desktop linux users with a fraction of the market share and just a little, largely uncoordinated, decentralized pressure have better and more current hardware support then mac users. We have the weight and consolidated focus of a major player in the desktop market and still lag behind.
I'd wager it's probably not the card manufacturers holding us back, but Apple Inc. who doesn't want them offering standalone purchases before it's a Built to Order option. As soon as the mac 8800XT's hit the shelves at newegg.com, no one would buy the 1900XT except avid ATI fans.
They don't pander to the "affordable desktop" market and they don't offer a midrange, yet fast and powerful market either.
With apple, it's laptops or workstations (though they'll put your laptop in a box that sits on your desk perma attached to a lcd if you like).
I'm fine with this. I'll spend the premium for overkill in the CPU department for folks that don't do particle physics simulations, MRI image processing, or professional rendering in exchange for an upgradeable desktop.
But please keep them as current as a cheapo OEM PC. It literally takes zero developement to put a base config ram in line with the market. If the drivers for the 8xxx series were written for the laptop line, they could have been written for the desktop line in the same time (probably less, I imagine there's a lot of cross over).
Right now, desktop linux users with a fraction of the market share and just a little, largely uncoordinated, decentralized pressure have better and more current hardware support then mac users. We have the weight and consolidated focus of a major player in the desktop market and still lag behind.
I'd wager it's probably not the card manufacturers holding us back, but Apple Inc. who doesn't want them offering standalone purchases before it's a Built to Order option. As soon as the mac 8800XT's hit the shelves at newegg.com, no one would buy the 1900XT except avid ATI fans.
A classic Business 101 Story:
Marketing Geek: We need to price our new product at $x.
Finance Geek: But we'll lose $1 per unit!
Marketing Geek: No problem - we'll make it up on volume.
Apple is a hardware company (repeat that 3 times). It should only sell high-margin products since once you take the discount road there's no going back. (Want to buy a high-end eMachine?)
Part of the problem too is the entire computer industry as a whole is moving away from desktops and moving more towards laptops then ever before, now that the component prices are cheap, and the demand for them. Apple of course wants to stay competitive, so they spend a lot of time retooling their laptop lines.
Ok, sold. Please give us the best hardware available. . . even if it's at a premium. (not last year's best, the best right now)
The inner mac freak inside me wanted new hardware just cos it's something else to think about, but...
As far as I can see, there's no real upgrade route at the moment. The iMac represents good value and a load of very up to date technologies. It's a consumer mac so at moment you're not going to see blue ray, hd dvd or some quadro fx graphics card. It wouldn't make marketing sense.
So in my eyes, i'm not that annoyed they didn't upgrade because what was there really to upgrade?
As far as I can see, there's no real upgrade route at the moment. The iMac represents good value and a load of very up to date technologies. It's a consumer mac so at moment you're not going to see blue ray, hd dvd or some quadro fx graphics card. It wouldn't make marketing sense.
So in my eyes, i'm not that annoyed they didn't upgrade because what was there really to upgrade?
It's short-sighted to say that Apple is a hardware company. In fact, many people consider a Mac to be an expensive dongle to the best consumer OS available. To me, that says that Apple is primarily a software company, especially considering how close a Mac's innards are to a PC's.
Yes, they are also a hardware company, but software is what makes them great. Many people made portable MP3 players, but iTunes sold the iPod. iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, Garageband, OS X... those are the primary things which are selling Macs... software first.
If Apple sold the Mac Pro bundled with Windows and no Mac OS or software, they wouldn't sell. Apple is a software company first and foremost.
No, it's a technology company that makes computer hardware, consumer products (iPod), an operating system and software. Dell is a hardware company, HP is a hardware company etc.
After all, Apple changed it name from Apple Computers Inc not that long ago, the implication of which was debated by more than a few journalists and industry commentators.
Too much arguing here...
But anyway, the mac pro's NEED a price drop AND an update.
The 8 core 'update' left the others untouched. Honestly offering anything less than 2gb minimum is a joke.
And why can't I see a nvidia 8 series card. Honestly the quadro is the fastest card apple can come up with? Its a freaking 7950gtx... sure its fast but only half as fast as a 8800gtx.
I can't see anyone buying a mac pro based on its specs. Honestly you'd be stupid to.
But anyway, the mac pro's NEED a price drop AND an update.
The 8 core 'update' left the others untouched. Honestly offering anything less than 2gb minimum is a joke.
And why can't I see a nvidia 8 series card. Honestly the quadro is the fastest card apple can come up with? Its a freaking 7950gtx... sure its fast but only half as fast as a 8800gtx.
I can't see anyone buying a mac pro based on its specs. Honestly you'd be stupid to.
well if an imac is a laptop in a box on a desk (and i'm not saying it ain't..i wish it was on MY desk right now!) why don't they update it like all the other laptops! ... i've been waiting a long time and it's a little frustrating to say the least....
While the 8800 series are supposed to be faster in some features (viewpoint redraws for example) the Quadro FX4500 (for it's intended use, read: not games) is still generally superior with it's features, I have also seen many reports of 8800s causing crashes and having bugs with pro 3d apps. Also bare in mind that for Pro 3D apps the current cards are more than suitable, most people are still going to be using the processors for nearly everything. The biggest reason people want 8800s seems to be for games, and they are dreaming if they think Apple care about gamers buying Mac Pros or about appeasing that market.
I don't see how anyone would be stupid to buy a MP, plenty of people aren't hung up on specs like many on here seem to be. It still offers amazing performance under OSX. Yes it's likely that there will be adjustments to the line around the time of the July price drops, but buyin now isn't some crazy sin against the pocketbook. The MP is still competative against other workstations, prices in this area don't drop like the mass consumer components and machines do between new technology as some seem to think.
I also don't really get the constant request for new prices, new features. It's falling on deaf ears. We know know Apple don't update their lines regular and we also know that there are two things approaching concerning the MP: intel price drops and new xeon chips and workstation platform later in the year/early next year, that Apple have to accomodate from a logical business point of view. The biggest purchasing quandry surely being that how close will these things overlap and thus will Apple react to both. Expecting any big change before July the 22nd is just setting one's self up for dissapointment. From Apple's perspective and what appear to be static desktop sales I doubt they are in any kind of hurry.
As for iMacs, these are consumer machines (hence nothing at WWDC) and I doubt santa rosa components are in high availability at the moment. It would make sense with the huge growth in notebooks to make sure those lines are fufilled first, then look at the iMacs. Even if sourcing components isn't an issue, Apple do things on their terms at their pace, and noone really knows what will be happening with them, it's all just speculation.
And that is what has always puzzled me about Apple. It is as if they want the world to switch to the mac and yet push people away by not offering a competitive option to the PC. Now please do not try and slam me for this, I as you can see from my sig am a Mac guy, and from here on out will be such, but this is ridiculous.
My choices when buying a Mac were a mini or a Mac Pro. Yes I could have bought an iMac but what I was looking for was a desktop option that did not include a monitor as I already have LCD screens that i want to use. Base price on the Mac Pro was not an option, and the Mac Mini did not work because I wanted to be able to expand it more than it was capable of, just like a PC. What i wanted was an in between option, a Mac Pro Mini if you will, and I don't think that was asking too much.
I think the "average" person wants to have an option besides what is offered and you know how i can tell? Because they only have 5% of the market for desktops. (I bet however that if the average user gave the Mini a chance they would have all the computer they need, but hey you can lead a horse to water . . .)
I agree with some of the posts it would be nice to be able to have the hardware that PC users have, but I guess this is what we have chosen as Mac users an either we will have to keep putting up with it, or vote with our checkbooks.
what i'm missing (i know it's unrealistic and not the right time but this is a rant thread ):
mac pro update
blue ray drives
ilife07/08
iwork07/08
mac mini update to C2D
macbook santa rosa
new case design for MBP
ultraportable MBP or 12"-13"MBP
midrange tower with 2.93 GHz Quadcore C2D
Hybrid HD's or solid state HD's
Cinema display updates
ipod updates
airport express update to N
.mac update/complete revamp
webbased interfaces for ical, adressbook (like mail)
iweb update
pricedrop in refurb macs
imac update/new case
isight
macwrite pro and mac draw pro in some form in iwork
what i got:
transparent menue bar (in an OS 4 month down the road)
safari for windows (who cares? there is firefox)
a cell phone (i have already 4 cell phones that all still work)
i told you, it's a rant
):mac pro update
blue ray drives
ilife07/08
iwork07/08
mac mini update to C2D
macbook santa rosa
new case design for MBP
ultraportable MBP or 12"-13"MBP
midrange tower with 2.93 GHz Quadcore C2D
Hybrid HD's or solid state HD's
Cinema display updates
ipod updates
airport express update to N
.mac update/complete revamp
webbased interfaces for ical, adressbook (like mail)
iweb update
pricedrop in refurb macs
imac update/new case
isight
macwrite pro and mac draw pro in some form in iwork
what i got:
transparent menue bar (in an OS 4 month down the road)
safari for windows (who cares? there is firefox)
a cell phone (i have already 4 cell phones that all still work)
i told you, it's a rant
I stand by my statement, Apple is a hardware company. It writes superior software that makes its hardware attractive but that doesn't make it a software company. The iPod is hardware, so is Airport and Apple TV. If they licensed the iPod GUI then I'd agree they were in part a software company but they don't. OS-X is used to sell their hardware. iLife is available by itself but don't you think it's bundled free to sell hardware?
I agree that the Mac Pro is in need of an update.
At the very least, the standard model should come with 2GB RAM and a video card that's better than the 7300.
Once that happens, I'm buying. I hope I'm not waiting too long. (or, maybe I'll save some money and get an iMac if they ever get updated)
At the very least, the standard model should come with 2GB RAM and a video card that's better than the 7300.
Once that happens, I'm buying. I hope I'm not waiting too long. (or, maybe I'll save some money and get an iMac if they ever get updated)
Um, upgrade to Santa Rosa, support for 4GB RAM, speed bump the CPU, possible graphics upgrade like the MBP, and as rumored, the nice new industrial design, probably an aluminum case, slightly less chin.
I fully agree with the second part of your post...I'd take care of the laptop business too if I were SJ. But desktops ain't goin' anywhere, they still make up an important part of Apple's sales--not to mention its image--and I think it's a bad move to abandon, or even appear to abandon, the desktops for laptops and iToys, as cool as they are.
Everyone knows why the Cube failed...I don't think it even represents an honest effort to tap into the headless market. And the mini has done so well, even with really limited power and expandability. I think they have chosen to leave this market mostly untouched for reasons unknown but probably marketing-oriented, and not out of a negative reaction to their rare and half-hearted attempts and mid-range tower glory.
In the end this is a huge part of the whole debate: Apple adores its self-created image as the BMW of computers (i.e. 5% of the market and doing just fine, thank you), and going after market share at any cost would undermine this considerably. This is one reason I fear for the future of the Mac mini, especially because I'd like to buy one that isn't an utter trip to the cleaners.
8800 faster in SOME features? SOME? It tends to be more than TWICE as fast. The 8800 would run rings around the fx4500 in opengl rendering, just by using its raw speed. In directx rendering (yeah I know, bad example but most comparable) the 8800 works out 2.5-3x faster. While the performance difference may be smaller in opengl, it would still be VERY significant.
The reason behind this is the FX 4500 is based on an outdated G70 or G71 core. It has nowhere near the memory bandwidth and is much less versatile (none of those programmable pipelines). And much fewer 'pipelines' (not really comparable).
The FX 4500 is not superior to the 8800 in performance terms. The only thing it has are some certifications for use with development programs. Honestly its an embarrassment for apple that they don't have it yet. Everyone else does.
I agree
A Mini w/ Santa Rosa, some graphics horsepower, and a 7200RPM HDD, and Leopard, which will mean what October??? BANG! wasat?? Apple shooting themselves in the foot. I'd like to switch-swhat I'm waiting for!
A Mini w/ Santa Rosa, some graphics horsepower, and a 7200RPM HDD, and Leopard, which will mean what October??? BANG! wasat?? Apple shooting themselves in the foot. I'd like to switch-swhat I'm waiting for!
It is ridiculous that the iMac has not been updated yet...at the same price(w/upgrades to 2gb ram, 500gb hd) as a 15" Macbook pro(stock) that has higher technology(up to 4gb ram, newer processor set, led screen though that's the last of my concern).
Yes I know one is a "professional" computer and one is a "consumer" user but to me I'm just a guy with cash to give
who is examining my options.
I really want a desktop though because 160gb of hard drive space just doesn't do it for me, and I don't want to keep attached external drives to a laptop I'd use as my main computer.
Yes I know one is a "professional" computer and one is a "consumer" user but to me I'm just a guy with cash to give
who is examining my options.I really want a desktop though because 160gb of hard drive space just doesn't do it for me, and I don't want to keep attached external drives to a laptop I'd use as my main computer.
Right then.
Taking some SPECViewpref 9.0.3 benchmarks from various articles, I've compiled this for people to read. I don't work with pro 3d apps, I am aware that for a number of tasks and methods in which people work it probably wouldn't really much matter which decent GPU they had, however for those who need GPU performance in said pro apps, it might be worth a read. Though I am a believer that those who are working day in day out with such software are either well aware of what the benefits are of various GPUs, or have someone working with them who is. For those wanting to know more about SPECViewpref there is a wealth of information here: http://www.spec.org/gpc/opc.static/vp9info.html
X-bit labs test machine: Intel E6800 at 3.0GHz with 1333MHz processor system bus speed (confusing, possibly an E6850, or maybe 2.93GHz at 1066MHz FSB), 2GB DDR2 1066Mhz [link] (SPECViewpref benchmarks and commentry start on page 17.)
3D Professor: Intel E6700, 2.66GHz, 1066Mhz FSB, 2GB DDR2 1066Mhz [link]
Dell 390: Intel Core2 Extreme Processor X6800, 2.93 GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 2GB DDR2 667MHz [link]
Fujitsu Siemens CELSIUS R540: 1 x Xeon 5160 3GHz, 1333MHz FSB, DDR2 FB-DIMM 667MHz [link]
I think X-bit labs conclusion sums it up well: