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.
Teardown of New Mac Pro Reveals Surprising Amount of Accessibility, Circular Daughterboard
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
App Store - download - install. I did forget I installed a ssd too last year... That probably helps...Pretty easy, but you need a suction cup
Oh, ok, so you don't have to get a disc or otherwise DL Mountain/Lion first? He's still on Leopard.
It's not only about the power... although that is a big part of it.
You can add RAM and hard drives easily to the Mac Mini... but the processor and graphics are underpowered.
The iMac is more powerful... but the screen is fixed and you can only upgrade the RAM if you pay $1,800 for the 27" model.
People don't have a problem with the power of the iMac... it's the attached screen that caused concerns.
What people want is something faster than the Mac Mini... with the same level of upgradability... but without a monitor. And that's what the mythical xMac would represent.
Your suggestion is if the 4" iPhone is too small... to jump up to an 8" tablet?
You don't think there could be something in between those two?
One inch would make a lot of difference. I'd buy one... so that's one person who sees the value in it.
I wouldn't bet on replacements for GFX Cards.
It's not only the propriety, non-standard connector here (which 3rd party vendors = NVIDIA would need to build into their cards), but also they need to add an SSD slot, so you can actually attach and harddrive to it.
The latter is rather unusual for GFX cards.
From engineering point of view the nMacPro is a really nice machine. Not so much when it comes to upgrade-ability (with 3rd party equipment) I guess.
It's not only the propriety, non-standard connector here (which 3rd party vendors = NVIDIA would need to build into their cards), but also they need to add an SSD slot, so you can actually attach and harddrive to it.
The latter is rather unusual for GFX cards.
From engineering point of view the nMacPro is a really nice machine. Not so much when it comes to upgrade-ability (with 3rd party equipment) I guess.
call me crazy but it sounds like you're saying people want a mac pro.
Yes. Many consumer would like to buy a MacPro but without the Pro parts. Without the Xeon part, without the FirePro cards, without ECC RAM. Most importantly without the $2999 price tag.
Would people buy an iMac if Apple sells something like MacPro with i7 CPU and GTX 780 for $1999? Would iMac or Mac mini even be needed at all?
If anything, that kind of Mac would drive people to also buy an Apple display. Another sale! Everybody happy.
Can I buy it directly from Apple, anytime?
Can I get it brand new as any iMac could?
Preowned market is not exactly come and grab situation. Not to mention it's an old computer no matter how you spin it. Of course it's going to be cheaper.
call me crazy but it sounds like you're saying people want a mac pro.
I meant people want a consumer Mac without a screen... but that is better than the Mac Mini.
Nowhere did I suggest a $3000 workstation Mac Pro.
Imagine a computer with the guts of an iMac... but without the screen. That's what I'm talking about.
The iMac has great hardware... but its all-in-one form-factor is not always desirable.
Hell... the Mac Mini would be a fine machine if it just had dedicated graphics. But that's not the case.
You have to step up to the the iMac to get that... but then you're stuck with the built-in screen. That's the struggle.
yeah.. but i'm saying something different in those posts than what it seems.
all of you xmac talkers come across as "oh.oh.. apple.. they just sell overpriced shiny stuff but we're utilitarians. our main want is a computer which gets the job done first&foremost.. we want the parts -- not the pizazz" (or whatever) ..a noble position
so let's say you got a letter from apple-- "dear Mr. uSay.. we invite you to cupertino to test our new xmac." ..so you go and are told it's to be a blind test and the xmac is inside the sealed cabinet.. load up your programs and do a typical day work on it etc..
so you go back to macrumors and hype up this sweet headless mac you had an opportunity to test and that people should be excited b/c apple is finally making all their dreams come true.. it's better than a mac mini and not quite a mac pro but it's going to be priced in between the two.
come to find out, the computer in the cabinet was that computer pictured in my last post..
so now, you and the other xmac_ers are fully bummed..
why? because it's not new and shiny.. that's why.
i guess my whole point is this-- when you all make these xmac demands, can you at least say it for what it really is?
"we want new and shiny macintoshes but we don't want to pay new and shiny prices"
because really, that's all you're saying.
-----------------
right.. but what if the new mac pro was called xmac and cost $1799..
is that not the exact computer you're dreaming of? would that make you happy? (or whatever)
because here's the thing.. computers are more expensive than any of us want them to be..
and generally, macs are even more expensive than any of us want them to be..
this is pretty well known for the past couple decades.. even you know this but there's something preventing you from adding 2&2 together in this case which allows you to see " ****, macs are expensive"..
i mean, it's not that apple isn't making the computers you want.. it's that they're priced beyond your threshold of what you're willing to consider reasonable or willing to spend.
("you" meaning you in general)
Last edited:
It's not really about price... it's what you can get in the form-factor.
You can get a headless Mac in the form of an underpowered Mac Mini... or jump all the way up to a workstation.
The sweet-spot in hardware is the iMac... but then you're stuck with a non-removable screen.
I'm talking about taking the same desktop-level hardware that's in the iMac... but subtracting the iMac's screen.
In other words... a machine between the Mac Mini and iMac... NOT between the iMac and Mac Pro.
The iMac has excellent hardware. But it also comes with that pesky screen.
cool.. then just buy the mac pro and be done with it.
you'd be psyched using that one, right?
"Furthermore, the logic board, dual graphics cards, and I/O port board found on the machine appear to connect to a single daughterboard, or interconnect board, found at the base of the machine. However, unlike the other parts of the computer, the daughterboard appears to use a tight cable routing system and various new proprietary connectors."
Times sure have changed. The term daughterboard used to refer to a board that piggybacks another board. Since all of the main boards insert into this board, using the term daughterboard is just plain wrong (if you go by old school standards). This type of set up is more in line with active and passive plane architecture which has been around quite a long while. I'll say it is a rather slick implementation to be sure but still can't get around to calling it a daughterboard.
Times sure have changed. The term daughterboard used to refer to a board that piggybacks another board. Since all of the main boards insert into this board, using the term daughterboard is just plain wrong (if you go by old school standards). This type of set up is more in line with active and passive plane architecture which has been around quite a long while. I'll say it is a rather slick implementation to be sure but still can't get around to calling it a daughterboard.
The Mac Pro is a wonderful machine... if you need a workstation.
The Mac Mini is a great starter Mac... but it's lacking in the hardware department.
The iMac is the perfect balance of desktop hardware... but you're stuck with the screen.
That's why I suggested an additional Mac in the lineup. One that uses the guts of an iMac... in a headless desktop chassis.
you're dodging the question--
you-- "It's not really about price..."
me-- "cool.. then just buy the mac pro and be done with it.
you'd be psyched using that one, right?"
?
If you already had the perfect monitor and needed a new mid-range system, which would you choose:
1. - Tiny
4GB 1600MHz DDR3 RAM, 1TB HDD @ 5400 rpm for $900 (current Mini)
2. - A bigger box of some sort, between a Mini and a Mac Pro, with 3.5GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz, 8GB 1600MHz DDR3 RAM, 1TB HDD @ 7200 rpm, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 775M 2GB GDDR5, Apple Magic Mouse and Wireless Keyboard for $1200 (current iMac without a screen, $2200-1000)
3. - The new tube with 3.7GHz quad-core with 10MB of L3 cache, 12GB of 1866MHz DDR3 ECC RAM, 256GB PCIe-based flash storage, Dual AMD FirePro D300 GPUs with 2GB of GDDR5 VRAM each for $3000 (current base Mac Pro)
If the dual GPUs aren't needed, it makes the mythical xMac look really, really good. You would get the discrete GPU, a much better CPU, more RAM, better HDD, presumably better cooling in a mid-size box, mouse and keyboard for only $300 more than the Mini. Decent power for far less than the Mac Pro.
Now that they have the mega-delicious machine that presses the Mac Pro tubes, they could even put this i7 thing into the same tube, color it plain silver instead of "space grey", bump up the price to $1800 for the "tube factor"... and still make a fortune.
I think they won't make it simply because it's not fantastic enough. It's just plain sensible, and they vowed never to compete in that segment. They have to remain the fancy underdog.
Last edited:
Freaking awesome. I'm selling a lot of my old Tech and Both my Macs to get one. This is going to be my do it all machine.
So, in short you're just agreeing with all the things Apple does? You're not .. like .. having your own opinion or idea?
I know xMac is not real, it might never be. But to me, and I believe to many people it would be great if it could. Have some imagination. Or you're just happy because MP is expensive because it's shiny and at least you can show off to your friends and families?
This xMac would be great for someone in audio/video line of work but don't want to spend so many for a Xeon MP. It would also be great for ocassional gaming session without having a screen attached like the iMac. It would be great for whatever things the iMac is great for.
So it's your turn .. Can you at least tell us what good is a quad core Xeon really is, compared to quad i7? Do you really, really, really needit?
Last edited:
The funny thing about this whole 'surprising' amount of accessibility is, it ships with a lock switch and the whole lid comes off. It shouldn't really be surprising at all, since all the components are right there, accessible as hell. Every other mac is screwed in.
But on the subject of an xMac - obviously they are geniuses at market segmentation and product fragmentation - they wouldn't be where they are if it weren't for that. I think they ship the iMac to make more money. If they sold you the option of the iMac without the display, that would be basically like saying "buy a monitor from someone else", because obviously buying the xMac plus a Thunderbolt display would be more expensive than an iMac, making the iMac a no-brainer - and thus the xMac dead in the water.
Try tricking out a Mac Mini and adding a thunderbolt display - it very quickly gets more expensive for that setup than buying a 27" iMac outright. And thats with no dedicated graphics and a slower CPU.
Going by that I'd say there's no room in their current lineup for an xMac. The best option is a base Mac Pro.
Or maybe, a refresh of the mini will add a dedicated GPU at some point, and that will be closer to what you want. I hope they do this for the 13" rMBP at some point too.
But on the subject of an xMac - obviously they are geniuses at market segmentation and product fragmentation - they wouldn't be where they are if it weren't for that. I think they ship the iMac to make more money. If they sold you the option of the iMac without the display, that would be basically like saying "buy a monitor from someone else", because obviously buying the xMac plus a Thunderbolt display would be more expensive than an iMac, making the iMac a no-brainer - and thus the xMac dead in the water.
Try tricking out a Mac Mini and adding a thunderbolt display - it very quickly gets more expensive for that setup than buying a 27" iMac outright. And thats with no dedicated graphics and a slower CPU.
Going by that I'd say there's no room in their current lineup for an xMac. The best option is a base Mac Pro.
Or maybe, a refresh of the mini will add a dedicated GPU at some point, and that will be closer to what you want. I hope they do this for the 13" rMBP at some point too.
Last edited:
My full quote was: "It's not really about price... it's what you can get in the form-factor." Let me explain.
Someone could afford an iMac (price)... and be happy with its desktop horsepower and dedicated graphics which is much better than the Mac Mini. But they might not want to pay for the screen (all-in-one form-factor)
The reason we want an xMac is to get decent desktop performance without being stuck with the iMac's screen. Not everyone likes all-in-ones (there's the form-factor again)
That's been my whole point this whole time: iMac hardware without its screen.
Yes... I would be psyched to own a Mac Pro... but it's too expensive for regular desktop use. I like the iMac's performance... but I don't want the screen.
Which, once again, makes me wish for an xMac.
Your fantasy second choice is unlikely to ever happen though and if it did it would cost a lot more than the $1200 you have suggested.
It *would* cost more, but not because it would have to. Apple would find a way to justify a huge price hike, such as an extra $600 for the tube shape, as I suggested. Apple cannot compete without putting "wow" into it, which is why they don't dare. Too much talk about being special forbids them from building an xMac.
I know it won't happen, and it's a shame.
It's hard to answer, since this motto exists only in your head. Mac Pros/Powermacs have always been upgradeable. There's no need to be surprised.
True, but you get to used the display again for your next mini-based system, which consequently becomes much cheaper.
Last edited: