Computerworld picked up this story in all its glory. Actually I did a full rewrite with the editors and using your insightful (and insiteful) comments think we've turned out a pretty solid wishlist.
Hit the link for the goods:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&...
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Comments
and a great...what? A great
and a great...what? A great what!?!?
A MacPro for $1499?!?
A MacPro for $1499?!? Hmmm,...
Yeah! Wait,... what?!?
Dream, you can keep
Dream, you can keep dreaming!
But you are living in the
But you are living in the same world as I do, is it?
Liquid cooling? I certainly
Liquid cooling? I certainly hope not. Fans don't leak.
Thanks for the update. Many
Thanks for the update. Many of us have been hoping that the Mac Pro with Harpertown would come in November/December. Sounds like a Macworld release to me, but at least we will get a quieter, smaller redesign! Good news despite the disappointment of having to wait even longer. Thanks! Netdog.
You are asking for too much
You are asking for too much for $1499. Stop dreaming. They should sell that for $2499 to have a really good top of the line system, and have a new Mac line up (headless) that is around the current MacPro specs are maybe a little lesser for around $1099-1299.
Liquid cooling was a
Liquid cooling was a disaster. FORGET THAT. The fans are fine. The rest are good ideas.
It's like number 10 ignores
It's like number 10 ignores all the previous requests. A single quad core chip is $1k, so how do you expect to get all that and more in under $1500 and AAPL would still make a profit? Honestly, dude.
Low end could be a less
Low end could be a less expensive chip - one in the $280 range. The whole line doesn't have to have THE most expensive chip
Don't forget the PCI Express
Don't forget the PCI Express possibility to use two or more videocards together!!!!
(forgot the code name...SLI?)
ciao
@
Ha! Pricing specs hardly
Ha! Pricing specs hardly ever change. Best case scenario.
2x 2.66 Ghz Dual core gets pushed down 2,199
2x 3.0 Ghz dual core get pushed down to the 2,499 price
2x 3.2 Ghz dual core add the 799 to make it 3,298
2x 3.2 Ghz Quad core add additional 699 to make it a whooping 3,997 (3,999 apples preffered method)
Now the older chip can be used in smaller enclosures to provide a sub 2,499 it may also have a slight bump in frontside bus to justify prices. Bigger hard drives, more ram usual suspects.2.0 Ghz and 2.6 and possible 2.8 (my guess overclocked 2.6 to 2.8) If its aimed at gamers or middle of the road prices may be:
2.0 Ghz for 1,699
2.6 Ghz for 1,899
2.8 Ghz for 2,199
2x 2.8 Ghz for 2,399
You always need that buffer to decide bigger and better or medium with power.
HDMI out? You can do this
HDMI out? You can do this with a trivial DVI to HDMI adapter. This isn't a big deal.
I envisioned a system that
I envisioned a system that is at a higher pricepoint than a 24" iMac and comes with a Extreme processor but a lower pricepoint than the MacPro.
It is physically smaller than the MacPro and has room for only 2 hard drives, one optical drive bay and one or two PCI slots. The clincher is 2 PCI Express slots for video that can work in a SLI config.
In essence it will have an internal configuration similar to a PowerMac G5 but with better ergonomic access to swap out the drives, memory and optical drive and easy installation of PCI cards.
It is going to be a machine that will appeal to gamers and tinkerers primarily.
err, HDTV's are
err, HDTV's are significantly lower resolution than the 30" display that apple already ships. all macpro's macbookpro's (and probably some of the lower spec machines too) can support HDMI connected HDTV's at maximum 1080p resolution by means of a cheap dvi-hdmi cable.
the only thing Mac's don't have is the HDMI security/encryption/blahblahblah chips which are required to play commercial encrypted bluray and hd-dvd video disks. and before you start saying we all want that, do some research into the topic and you'll find its one big mess that you don't want OSX to get into.
HDTV's are lower
HDTV's are lower resolution than a 30" cinema display, you're right. Was that the point? No. The point is 56" HDTV > 30" ACD for showing clients their videos. Size, not resolution, is the issue, especially when the videos to be shown are sized at 1080 in the first place.
Either way though you're right about the easy adapter solution. I don't really see why no HDMI out is an issue.
my comment about 30" being a
my comment about 30" being a higher resolution was just: the video card in a current rev MacPro or MacBookPro is plenty capable of running any HDTV at maximum resolution.
>> the only thing Mac's
>> the only thing Mac's don't have is the HDMI security/encryption/blahblahblah chips which are required to play commercial encrypted bluray and hd-dvd video disks.
All you need is the player, a current gen video card (like the iMac and Powerbook Pro now have), a display that supports HDCP (very common now on LCD monitors), and the OS to route the video from the player to the video card while obscuring the data. So with this player the only missing piece on a refreshed Mac Pros is OSX.
In fact I'd be a bit surprised if you couldn't Boot Camp a Aug 2007 iMac/MBPro to Vista and play a Blu-ray movie on one of these discs. The cockblock would be the display. What alternate video output ports are there?
>>and before you start saying we all want that, do some research into the topic and you'll find its one big mess that you don't want OSX to get into.
What? A big mess of being able to play commerical HD dics without having to use a SlySoft to crack it?
Yes when playing video from the HD disc there is overhead. But until the movie distributors can be convinced otherwise your other options are playing cat-and-mouse cracking games or not playing the movie in HD.
still though, why not just
still though, why not just give people options?
whats the problem with delivering a more "gaming" machine with a decent (x1950 pro or better) graphics card, and a slower cpu?
then let people who want to spend more have another option?
its not like theres only one configuration of any other of apples desktops.
if it started at 1000 dollars and had a pci express slot, and a basic dual core, i certainly would buy one.
10GB Ethernet? What for
10GB Ethernet? What for exactly? Knowing that Apple was one of the first to introduce Gigabit Ethernet doesn't change the fact that even desktop hdds do not come close to this transfer rate. Even if they put a raid0 setup into the new MB Pros it would be the most pointless upgrade ever.
you guys must come from
you guys must come from windoze or somethin.
you want everything and then it should cost nothing.
go hug a dell-computer.
MacPros to start at $1499
MacPros to start at $1499 and MacExtreme to go the super-high end. My wish anyway.
Give us a real video card
Give us a real video card already and most would be happy.
Liquid cooling no way!! That was a disaster already.
How come Dell can offer RAID
How come Dell can offer RAID way cheaper than Apple can?
because dell >
because dell > apple...obviously
[quote=macmanager]How come
[quote=macmanager]How come Dell can offer RAID way cheaper than Apple can?[/quote]
Not all RAIDs are made equal. The RAID card option in the Mac Pro is something very different than what comes bundled on your PC mobo. Of course the features of the Mac Pro are total overkill for somebodies desktop machine but that's a completely different issue.
its Ok
Dell is offering due to high competition.....
What color is the sky in
What color is the sky in your world?
I'd settle for a halfway
I'd settle for a halfway decent video card. . .
iMacs are great, but how
iMacs are great, but how about a prosumer machine without a built-in monitor? A mini-tower is sorely missing from the line up. What we need is half of a MacPro. (single quad core, 2 disk drives, 1 optical drive, configurable video card, smaller enclosure, half the cost.) I'm not buying any more Macs for our company until this is available.
Post new comment