why no lower-spec mac pro?

[localoid]

... A C2D desktop at $1500 would compare very favorably to the $2500 Xeon machines, on a dollar for dollar basis.

The "desktop" C2D, socket T, cpus are certainly a better bang per buck right now, offering up to quad-core performance, at somewhat lower prices per Ghz than the socket M "mobile" cpus Apple makes use of in its minis, iMacs, and notebooks. But Apple's only been making use of Intel cpus for a little over a year now. Thus, Apple's has an extremely small "track record" for us to draw on in regards to how they'd made use of Intel's products.

If Apple announced a new system based on Socket T "desktop" cpus I really wouldn't view it as a "radical" new shift in Apple's Intel computer line, since that line is really just in its beginning stage when you consider the bigger scheme of things... yet there's always "experts" that claim such a thing would never happen. I think such folks are living in a pre-Intel world, however.

I think there's hope that Apple may expand its Mac line... especially when you consider the fact that Apple is really just beginning to figure out its potential market for the entire Mac line. But whether or not Apple might (or might not) do that is anyone's guess...

Personally, I wish they would. I don't want a "all in one" system designed to look like something from a Zen Garden. Function is much more important to me than form. And since computers are how I make a living, and I own the business I'm not going to pay (waste) >$3000 for a "pro" computer that will be outdated in a year or two. The biggest bang per buck in computers is always in the mid-range, not in the high or low. In other words, why pay 4 times the price for only 2 times the processing power, if you don't *need* that power?

Right now, I can do >95% of my work on my old G4 DA @ 1.6Ghz. And that means I won't be in the market for a new Mac unless my old G4 dies or Apple decides to make a suitable (non-all-in-one) replacement for it. I can get by until then by making use of more powerful machines I own running Linux and Windows in the few cases where the G4 won't handle what I need to do.

 

[trainguy77]

Well the problem with a mid range tower from apples view is can they make it fit as its own line up. Think about it all the other systems can be customized or has different models. You create a mid tower that requires a complete re-design just for a single CPU model. Is that really worth it?

 

[mrgreen4242]

Well the problem with a mid range tower from apples view is can they make it fit as its own line up. Think about it all the other systems can be customized or has different models. You create a mid tower that requires a complete re-design just for a single CPU model. Is that really worth it?

I don't understand what you are saying. Almost none of Apple's computers have any customization, except the MacPro. The 24" iMac has a swappable GPU. The rest of the models have just more RAM, bigger HDD options. You can get more VRAM on the 20", but that's likely the same logic board with a spot for them to add more VRAM.

A mini tower, though, would be, if designed right, a pretty basic unit that had a great deal of customization available without much work. There's lots of CPUs that use the same socket design, especially desktop chips, so you could just drop in a CPU. Video cards all use the same PCI-X slot, so you just pop in the one the customer orders. New CPUs and GPUs get released? No problem, just start stocking those and chuck them into the same box.

The iMac is a stupid design in this sense because it has a GPU that is part of the Logic Board, so in order for them to upgrade the video system they have to completely redesign and re-manufacture the whole system. A mini-tower would solve that flaw.

Again, I really don't understand what you are trying to say.

 

[trainguy77]

I don't understand what you are saying. Almost none of Apple's computers have any customization, except the MacPro. The 24" iMac has a swappable GPU. The rest of the models have just more RAM, bigger HDD options. You can get more VRAM on the 20", but that's likely the same logic board with a spot for them to add more VRAM.

A mini tower, though, would be, if designed right, a pretty basic unit that had a great deal of customization available without much work. There's lots of CPUs that use the same socket design, especially desktop chips, so you could just drop in a CPU. Video cards all use the same PCI-X slot, so you just pop in the one the customer orders. New CPUs and GPUs get released? No problem, just start stocking those and chuck them into the same box.

The iMac is a stupid design in this sense because it has a GPU that is part of the Logic Board, so in order for them to upgrade the video system they have to completely redesign and re-manufacture the whole system. A mini-tower would solve that flaw.

Again, I really don't understand what you are trying to say.

Well the imac for example has what 4 models(can't remember the number) the mac mini also has a couple. But with a mini tower, Yes you could have more CPUs but not many people would buy the low end mini towers as it would have the same CPU power as the mac mini. So the target for the mini tower would be the middle somewhere, as those wanting more power would go to the mac pro. So your really only looking at 1 cpu type maybe two. And this requires a whole new design of the motherboard, case,etc for a market that i don't think would be huge. Don't get me wrong i would like a mid tower but i don't think it will happen with a company as "small" as apple.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Well the imac for example has what 4 models(can't remember the number) the mac mini also has a couple. But with a mini tower, Yes you could have more CPUs but not many people would buy the low end mini towers as it would have the same CPU power as the mac mini. So the target for the mini tower would be the middle somewhere, as those wanting more power would go to the mac pro. So your really only looking at 1 cpu type maybe two. And this requires a whole new design of the motherboard, case,etc for a market that i don't think would be huge. Don't get me wrong i would like a mid tower but i don't think it will happen with a company as "small" as apple.

There real desire for the mid-tower Mac has nothing to do with CPU power. The CPU in the mini would be FINE for most people, if it was built into a more ... practical system. The real thing people want is a better, upgradeable GPU, full sized HDDs that are user replaceable, expansion slots for whatever they want to add in a year from now, the choice to use their own display with a mid-power system (basically the iMac).

 

[tangel]

So the target for the mini tower would be the middle somewhere, as those wanting more power would go to the mac pro. So your really only looking at 1 cpu type maybe two. And this requires a whole new design of the motherboard, case,etc for a market that i don't think would be huge. Don't get me wrong i would like a mid tower but i don't think it will happen with a company as "small" as apple.

I'm sure there's many people out there like me that don't require (and don't want to pay for) 2xdual core Xeons, but don't like the integrated models. What would be so hard about offering Mac Pro with the same exact specs as the current one, but using only one processor? That is, retain the dual-socket main board, giving some upgrade capacity. Put and cheaper video card in it and you have a system that's say $500-600 less than the current Pro, and has room for expansion... unlike the integrated systems we're stuck with at that price point.

I know the answer - Apple long ago figured out that they can get away with not offering the consumer what they want, but offering only those things that make the best sense for their bottom line. Makes no financial sense to offer a mid-range upgradeable Pro if they can (because of the gap in the lineup) force people to either pay more for the current Pros, or buy an iMac with no expansion capacity and which therefore is going to be replaced in a few years. (repeat business!)

So it looks like I will get a refurb Mac Pro - but now the 2gig model I was looking at is not available. Bugger! I may have to go for the 2.66. What are the odds that as soon as I buy it Apple will come out with new Mac Pros, including just the model I'm looking for

Trevor

 

[dkoralek]

I'm sure there's many people out there like me that don't require (and don't want to pay for) 2xdual core Xeons, but don't like the integrated models. What would be so hard about offering Mac Pro with the same exact specs as the current one, but using only one processor? That is, retain the dual-socket main board, giving some upgrade capacity. Put and cheaper video card in it and you have a system that's say $500-600 less than the current Pro, and has room for expansion... unlike the integrated systems we're stuck with at that price point.

I know the answer - Apple long ago figured out that they can get away with not offering the consumer what they want, but offering only those things that make the best sense for their bottom line. Makes no financial sense to offer a mid-range upgradeable Pro if they can (because of the gap in the lineup) force people to either pay more for the current Pros, or buy an iMac with no expansion capacity and which therefore is going to be replaced in a few years. (repeat business!)

So it looks like I will get a refurb Mac Pro - but now the 2gig model I was looking at is not available. Bugger! I may have to go for the 2.66. What are the odds that as soon as I buy it Apple will come out with new Mac Pros, including just the model I'm looking for

Trevor

I would have to think that the market for a single dual core xeon workstation from the Apple perspective has to be incredibly small. A core 2 duo based tower, on the other hand has a bigger market.

As you have alluded to, Apple is looking at it's bottom line (and why shouldn't they???). But the "get away with" comment is a wee bit loaded. The issue is this, sure Apple would sell a few more machines if they had a mid range tower. But they would also lose some sales of both the iMac and the Mac Pro (and maybe some of the mini). The Mini is a bit of an annomally in this discussion because it (at least to me) seems to have been completely designed as a second computer, etc., and other than usb, firewire, etc. doesn't need to be all that expandable. Would the cost of developing such a mid range machine, justify the extra sales and the decreased profitability of other machines? I've got to think that Apple probably knows its market better than any of us.

One of Jobs' great strengths was his streamlining of the product line. Apple, though, has an interesting dual identity in the pc marketplace. It caters to both scientific and creative professionals with the pro line, but also to the less adventurous folks with the iMac/Macbook line. But doesn't have the appeal in the middle of that. Now that does bring up is it the chicken or the egg (do they not have that market appeal because they don't have a product there, or do they not have a product there because they don't have a market for it). My guess is that the strategy is to move into that space by squeezing from both sides. Time will tell, I guess.

cheers.

 

[baleensavage]

Apple has been really hesitant to offer a "prosumer" computer since the Cube flopped. For a little while they had a $1500 single processor G4, but that only lasted one or two revisions. Other than that, it's been iMac or Pro computer. I think in general, Apple is skiddish to break into this market since bad marketing, etc. got them burned on the Cube. Their current approach has been the 24" iMac, which is a great computer but is still an all-in-one.

Personally, I have been wishing Apple would offer a mid-range tower for quite a while, for one simple reason: I'm sick of having a stack of USB or Firewire hard drives. I need lots of hard drives to store all my files (and back up all those files) and I would love to be able to have them inside the computer. Who knows, maybe I could even set up a RAID array. I'd get a MacPro, but I can't afford to drop $2500 on a new computer. Especially when the apps I use (Creative Suite and 3D Programs) cost so much money. As a freelance artist, I know I am not alone. I also know a number of PC users who cite customizabilty as one of the main reasons they like PCs. Not every computer users needs can fit into an iMac box.

 

[zero2dash]

So since I detest the integrated nature of the iMac - and the previous one gave us so much grief (and Apple's "support" policies don't help) - I'm inclined to go for a the cheapest Mac Pro I can find. Which is a 2Ghz Apple refurb @ $1899. Can anyone recommend a (say) $300/20" monitor to go with it?

The alternative is a refurb 24" iMac for $1699 which relieves me of the monitor decision but will be slower and back to being integrated...

Considering you're upgrading from a iMac G5, either computer will be faster at your tasks.

I'd get the iMac myself, that's what I'm aiming to do after Leopard is released and/or they do a hardware update. I want the 24" refurb iMac for $1699, figure I'll spend the extra money to boost the ram to 2gig and just roll with that. Should end up costing around $1900, if I get approved for enough Apple Credit (assuming I'm approved ) I may get an iPod as well finally.

Originally I was going to build a Core2 system for around $1100 but frankly, I'm sick of dealing with Windows and IMO Vista is trash. I'm allocating myself $2000 for a Mac system (ideally, with monitor).

I'd like a Pro for the upgradability, but 2 Core2s is more than I need for the cost. I'd rather get the 24" iMac with the 2g ram upgrade for the price of a refurb Pro and have to stick with the monitors I have now (2 21" Dell Trinitron crts that are on their last legs) and also have to pay out the wazoo for the FB-DIMM memory.

And as others have said...just because your iMac experience has been less than stellar doesn't mean iMacs are flawed or anything; just an unfortunate experience, that's all.

 

[dartzorichalcos]

A low spec Mac Pro should be this:
1.86Ghz E6320 Conroe
1GB RAM and the max is 8GB
ATI Radeon X1700 and an option of ATI Radeon X1950
100GB 7200 rpm harddrive and is upgradeble to 500GB Harddrive
2 internal Harddrive bays
1 Firewire 400 and 800
1 16x superdrive and is upgradeable to Blue-ray drive
$1799

 

[trainguy77]

A low spec Mac Pro should be this:
1.86Ghz E6320 Conroe
1GB RAM and the max is 8GB
ATI Radeon X1700 and an option of ATI Radeon X1950
100GB 7200 rpm harddrive and is upgradeble to 500GB Harddrive
2 internal Harddrive bays
1 Firewire 400 and 800
1 16x superdrive and is upgradeable to Blue-ray drive
$1799

I think that system is overpriced...Secondly the video card is over kill for some people. Maybe it would be easiest for apple just to offer a single CPU system with the same motherboard etc.

 

[tangel]

As you have alluded to, Apple is looking at it's bottom line (and why shouldn't they???). But the "get away with" comment is a wee bit loaded.

Damn, you detected my anti-Apple bias! OK, I'm coming clean now... from my (admittedly fairly limited) experience, it seems that Apple are always ready to screw over the customer, in large part because they have a monopoly on the hardware/operating system combination. If you're on the Apple track, you're options are very limited. Say what you will about Windows/PC's, but at least if I don't like my hardware vendor I have a million others to choose from, and if you really don't like Windows there are any number of Linux flavors that will work well enough.

Yes, they should look after their bottom line, but I think they take unfair advantage of their monopoly position. This is the main reason I would never buy a Mac by choice, and the only reason I'm buying one now is because it's required by our (book) production department. And I wouldn't be buying this one if the existing iMac had been more reliable!

But this is not that kind of thread, so pretend I didn't say that...!

Trevor

 

[trainguy77]

And I wouldn't be buying this one if the existing iMac had been more reliable!

Good job with the grammar! But for some reason you think the iMac is less reliable then the mac pro?

 

[dkoralek]

Damn, you detected my anti-Apple bias! OK, I'm coming clean now... from my (admittedly fairly limited) experience, it seems that Apple are always ready to screw over the customer, in large part because they have a monopoly on the hardware/operating system combination. If you're on the Apple track, you're options are very limited. Say what you will about Windows/PC's, but at least if I don't like my hardware vendor I have a million others to choose from, and if you really don't like Windows there are any number of Linux flavors that will work well enough.

Yes, they should look after their bottom line, but I think they take unfair advantage of their monopoly position. This is the main reason I would never buy a Mac by choice, and the only reason I'm buying one now is because it's required by our (book) production department. And I wouldn't be buying this one if the existing iMac had been more reliable!

But this is not that kind of thread, so pretend I didn't say that...!

Trevor

I think that you neglect to understand what has driven Apple in recent years. The company was on its last legs when Jobs came back. The product line was broad and unfocused. Even with their recent success, they are still a small player in the pc market. To broaden their product line too quickly would just put them in the same position as before.

Sure, Dell and the like have a wider range of options and you have competition with other manufacturers. The question of opening up OS X to mutliple manufacturers is an age old debate. It is both a blessing and a curse for Apple. You limit the OS market share, but you gain not only financially but in being able to lmit the hardware that OS X has to be compatible with (which increases stability, etc.). To call Apple having a monopoly is a bit far fetched. Microsoft is much more of a monopoly than Apple is. After all there is a wide variety of software out there that will only run under Windows. With Apple, you have competition (as you have stated) with other manufacturers and OSes. If you have a beef with some software that you can only use on a Mac, the problem is with the software producer, not that Apple isn't building the computers you want at the prices you want.

If you were Apple, what would you honestly do? I mean, do you honestly belive that Steve Jobs, et al. are saying, "let's see how we can screw our customers?" You just come off seeming a little bitter that you've had a bad experience, can't get exactly what you want, and feel like it is Apple just trying to screw you over.

cheers.

 

[tangel]

I think that you neglect to understand what has driven Apple in recent years.

Actually I don't really care what drives Apple. I don't buy into the whole Apple mystique, I just want my people to be able to get their work done.

Unfortunately, for some of them that means they have to use a Mac. (which is another point of contention, given most cross-platform compatibility issues are a thing of the past - at least for the apps we use.)

You just come off seeming a little bitter that you've had a bad experience, can't get exactly what you want, and feel like it is Apple just trying to screw you over.

Bitter, no. But I fail to see why I should pay a premium of 50-100% for the "priviledge" of using an Apple. And why then I should accept, after paying the premium, being given the runaround to get a simple repair done.

The iMac G5's had a known problem with power supply. Ours failed out of warranty. We don't have Applecare. Apple would replace the part free, but I have to make an appt. with a "Genius" (ha!). I spend 3 hours of my day to take the iMac to see the Genius. Genius doesn't fix, iMac fails again. Frustrated I ask Apple to just send me the part, I'll pay for it, I'll install it. I just want the thing up an running again. "Are you a certified Apple technician?" of course not, but I've been working on computers for 20 years and I think I can change a PSU. "Sorry, we can't sell you the part". So even if I take full responsibilty for something I do to an out-or-warranty machine, they won't sell me the part. No choice but to go back to the "Genius". Can't get an appt. "Can I just drop it off?" No.

And on and on. Total downtime for the iMac, 5 days, and about 2 days of my time. If it was a problem on a PC, I would have had it fixed within the hour (I have a number of spare PSU's just lying around...)

It would have been easier if I'd had Applecare, but not much. Maybe I just had bad luck, but I really can't stand their precious attitude... And yes I feel like they screwed me over, and treated me as if my time isn't worth anything. If I'm reluctant to repeat the experience, you can understand can't you?

Actually if something like this happened again I'd use an independent Apple service provider, rather than Apple themselves, but it would still cost me (much) more and take longer to fix than if I had the same problem on a PC.

Trevor