Eh? The fact that the slot are connectted to three different controllers is different than the single ones in the 2006-8 era means they are not the same. Again superficial observation of generic DIMM slots is the only thing driving "sameness" here.
I'm refering to the fact that nitpicking over the specifics of the RAM controller asside, the Mac Pro used to have RAM that worked in multiples of 2, now it's multiples of 3 yet the RAM slots remain in multiples of 2 making 1 in 4 slots redundant unless you want to sacrifice RAM speed and drop down to dual channel.
The SATA III (6Gb/s) standard was not even presented in draft form until July 2008 and ratified later that year. The 2009 Mac Pro probably had frozen specs at that point. The 2010 reuses 2009 infrastructure, just like all other vendors in this class. There were other workstations with more SATA connectors but not necessarily faster ones.
The other Macs in their range have being SATA III (6Gb/s) for several years now, the Mac Pro's basic connectivity hasn't improved for it's entire lifespan. Whether this is Intel or Apple's responsibility is debatable, I'd go with Intel.
It isn't the same. The value, not the price point is the primary problem. They are a very overdue for a refresh. Given Apple's uncharacteristic forward looking comments likely indicates that they know it.
Well if you wanted Mac Pro' to come standard with just 1GB of RAM I suspect you'd find most prospective Mac Pro users at issue with that configuration. The offset to lower component prices is to provide more. Instead of 1GB standard RAM in 2006 the 2012 Models come with 6GB. That is a 6x increase for your 5x decrease. That is indicative of providing value not the lack of it.
Likewise the 2006 Mac Pro came with 250GB HDD and the 2012 models come with 1TB ones ( a 4x improvement). You could downgrade the 2006 Model with just a 160GB HDD. That is a 6x improvement in capacity. HDD prices are not cratering right now.
You probably do pay around the same now for a 1Tb drive as a 250Gb drive of the same spec was in 2006 so there's little in the way of value there and as far as RAM cost is concerned, they've simply provided an amount of RAM that reflects the current costs so they're not spending much more on RAM to ship systems with 3 or 6Gb than they did in 2006 to ship with 1Gb.
It's difficult to find 512Mb DIMMs these days but judging by crucial's RAM prices as of today, a 2 x 2Gb kit for a 2006 Mac Pro is £127 yet it's £47.99 for a 2 x 2Gb kit for the 2012 models. This price difference is even more apparent if you consider that 2 x 4Gb is over £240 for the 2006 Mac Pro and only £57 for the 2012 models. These savings on Apple's part have not being passed onto consumers and I doubt the CPU and Motherboard Chipset improvements over the years justify a price hike of £350+
They just need to update. An Xeon E5 1620 4 core model would not have a problem putting a small amount of distance between the upper end iMac and the entry Mac Pro.
SNIP
Going "down" in price points means changing Mac models. If want to follow more affordable components then user needs to transition to a another model.
The Mac Pro has drifted. Apple should try to an entry (or BTO downgrade) back into the $2100-2300 range (before taxes ) but haven't so far.
I agree, even if the BTO option simply pushes it into the £1,500 price range and has minimal RAM, it's enough for some people to budget for instead of having to buy an iMac.
