You know, sometimes its good to read the product specs page before buying something!
From MBP's specs page:
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.
Open letter to Steve Jobs. Re: Mac Mini Pro
- Thread starter inkswamp
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You know, sometimes its good to read the product specs page before buying something!
From MBP's specs page:
Agreed with the letter, but I'm not sure why it has to be a small computer.
It seems since the PowerMac G5 Apple has killed off that mid ranged tower market. The PowerMac G4 always seemed to have (and this is just off me watching older keynotes in my free time) a ~ $1,500 tower for people who would don't need the emence power of the higher ends but just wanted the expandability over the iMacs.
Apple seems to have dropped this market and is now hammering in this "Pro vs Consumer" mentality to everyone.
They think it's a black and white issue. There is a reason most PC makers offer so many models, because there are so many different customers. Sure, you lose simplicity but in the end I'm not sure that's a big factor in people's purchase anyway.
Apple may think "If it's not broken don't fix it, our sales are great" yes this may be true in most situations but the system is broke and I know plenty of people who want a Mac but are unable/unwilling to compromise to the iMac and lose expandability and customization. Simplicity is good in a lot of areas, sales isn't one of them.
It seems since the PowerMac G5 Apple has killed off that mid ranged tower market. The PowerMac G4 always seemed to have (and this is just off me watching older keynotes in my free time) a ~ $1,500 tower for people who would don't need the emence power of the higher ends but just wanted the expandability over the iMacs.
Apple seems to have dropped this market and is now hammering in this "Pro vs Consumer" mentality to everyone.
They think it's a black and white issue. There is a reason most PC makers offer so many models, because there are so many different customers. Sure, you lose simplicity but in the end I'm not sure that's a big factor in people's purchase anyway.
Apple may think "If it's not broken don't fix it, our sales are great" yes this may be true in most situations but the system is broke and I know plenty of people who want a Mac but are unable/unwilling to compromise to the iMac and lose expandability and customization. Simplicity is good in a lot of areas, sales isn't one of them.
I dunno, this guy seems to hit the nail on the head.
Being a PC guy who just recently bought a Macbook for school, I tend to side on the PC front here because its more cost efficient. I used to build PC's all the time and 4 years ago when I did I would always buy AMD, because it was cheaper, much cheaper than intel, and the intel chips weren't so much better that it justified the extra cash.
This seems like the case to me here. Sure he could buy a new Mac Pro, but by the time he upgrades it to where it needs to be, it'll be so expensive and massive that it wouldn't be worth it. It'd be a lot cheaper to buy a powerhouse PC.
Being a PC guy who just recently bought a Macbook for school, I tend to side on the PC front here because its more cost efficient. I used to build PC's all the time and 4 years ago when I did I would always buy AMD, because it was cheaper, much cheaper than intel, and the intel chips weren't so much better that it justified the extra cash.
This seems like the case to me here. Sure he could buy a new Mac Pro, but by the time he upgrades it to where it needs to be, it'll be so expensive and massive that it wouldn't be worth it. It'd be a lot cheaper to buy a powerhouse PC.
You make a very good point my friend, I've often wondered this myself. The 4 core Mac Pro is $2299 ($500 saving) which is only $100 more than the high end iMac!
If people saw how close the price was I'm sure there'd be some who'd just say, "Hmmm, I might as well as go the whole hog and just get the Mac Pro." Apple could do what they do with the iMac's and show a few different model configurations on the Mac Pro store page.
Mac Pro's starting from just $2299 has a nice ring to it after all ...
But that high-end iMac comes with a 24" S-IPS or H-IPS panel in it. If you pick up one of those for your 4-core, that'll set you back another $600 or more.
But what if you ALREADY own a high quality monitor or monitors?
What if you need a non-glossy display?
What if you don't want to risk having gradient and backlight bleeding issues?
What if you want to use a 30" ACD?
Besides you get so many other advantages in choosing a Mac Pro over an iMac, here's a small example list:
- Faster and higher number of processors
- Larger maximum memory capacity
- Ability to add multiple internal hard disk drives
- Being able to connect at least 2x30" ACD's and add multiple graphics cards
The Mac Pro definitely isn't for everyone and way more powerful than most people's needs. But if Apple advertised that the Mac Pro's started at $2299 some people may find themselves better off choosing one over an iMac.
How about the Macbook Pro? It can drive a 30" ACD, has FW800, plus it's portable. It's also a little cheaper than the low end Mac Pro and will save you a few bucks on your electricity bill.
The person asked about a MACBOOK not a MacBook Pro....
(it is still possible with a MacBook dual DVI)
Oh yeah, I'm with you on that one mate. That's why I bought a MBP before and why I'm waiting patiently for the Summer redesign for my replacement. I always thought of a MBP as a portable desktop (especially the 17" Hi-Res model) which along with an external monitor gives you the best of both worlds.
(Although the heat and fan noise when playing a game can be a bit much ...)
Again though it's personal preferences and individual usage requirements that dictate what you should buy. As great as the MBP's and iMac's are, they're limited when it comes to upgradeability if that's what you need. And with the iMac you're left with a perfectly working monitor, which you can't use elsewhere, when you've outgrown the rest of the hardware.
Ain't THAT the truth!!! I've got a number of white 20" iMacs with the best displays I've ever seen... but the computers are reaaally pokey by todays standards... 2.0 GHz Core Duos. Otherwise I TOTALLY love my white iMacs! Wish I could use the monitors with newer brains!!!
But the issue is there's no "in-between" mid-tower in the $1500 range, which is what this thread started out about. If I can build a computer with off-the-shelf components that exceed the performance of Apple's $2,300 quad-core Mac Pro for $1,000, then surely Apple could do the same for $1,500. But that would cut into Apple's profit margin, which I'm beginning to suspect is around $1,000 for that $2,300 Mac Pro.
You make good points. You're right with the $1500 range. Even if Apple simply released an iMac with exactly the same specifications as they have now, minus the monitor, most people would be happy.
They'd actually make MORE profit than they do now. As people have said the monitors they use in the iMacs are expensive. Yet Apple could sell a headless iMac without reducing the price by the full cost of the monitor and it would still sell.
But until they do that, what can people do? A single processor Mac Pro is as close as they'll get with a Mac Mini just being too much of a compromise for most people.
Do you think Apple really make a $1000 profit from the Mac Pro? That's amazing if true, no wonder Apple are doing so well despite more expensive products! But aren't the Intel Xeon processors supposed to be quite expensive?
The high end spec MacBook is the best choice we've got right now for a mid-range desktop brain. (Faster than mini, less costly than Pro and MBP). Nice thing is the MacBook doubles as a great portable laptop when you want to move the party to the sofa, bed, or Starbucks in Cancun.
You're right, they do use Harpertown server cpus in the Mac Pros. That processor is about $500 more than the Q6600 (a Kentsfield), so I guess their profit per unit might be in the $500-$700 area. The Harpertown has a bigger L2 cache (12 mb vs 4 mb), requires less voltage, support SSE4 and has a 1333 mHz fsb (vs. 1066 mHz).
Apart for the expense (for those of us who do not have an existing monitor), the sheer size of the Mac Pro puts me off. If Apple offered something that was expandable but not as large or pricey as the Mac Pro, I would go for one immediately.
The Mac Pro IS big, in fact bigger than you expect it to be when you see it in person. I think it's even slightly bigger than my custom made PC case. This at a time when many PC manufacturers are making pretty small and slim cases, such as Dell, for example.
Making it say, 60-65% the size would make it a lot more desirable for those with limited space. Of course if you're gonna simply have the case under your desk then for most people it shouldn't really matter how big it is. I'm sure I was reading somewhere though that the G4's were smaller than the G5 / Mac Pro's, right?
Poor analogy, at least on the BMW 1 series front-- the 1 series borrows an engine from the M3 and defeats its own big brother (3 series) in 0-60 and in horsepower, in a lighter package. It's a serious sleeper of a car.
But I digress. There is a 2.66 Quad mac pro available for $1999. That was most likely targeted at this type of user. The size of the casing is a separate grievance.
Yeah... you keep thinking that. They may not be spectacular for professional work anymore, but they're not slow in the least.
I am more than thrilled with my 20" White 2.0 GHz CoreDuo iMacs (I have three of them)... in my opinion they were the pinnacle of the iMac, which went downhill (at least from a display standpoint) shortly thereafter. I'm still tryly amazed today by the quality of the display.... stunningly superb image quality. I soooo wish I could just upgrade the processor and the RAM capacity because in every other respect, I am extremely happy with them. And you're right, the 2.0 GHz CoreDuo speed isn't exactly slooooow... but when you run a filter in Photoshop, things sure seem to poke along compared with the 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo.
I used to hope that Apple would come out with a Cube II. I probably held onto that dream for 2 or 3 years. Then I decided to go Hackintosh, and I never want to go backintosh.
