Is this the entire Intel Mac lineup?

R

Rocketpig

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 6, 2004
Messages
1,427
I'm curious to hear what you guys think about the introduction of the Mac Pro... For me, it's complete overkill and it's about $600-$1000 more than I want to spend for a machine.

I'm a graphic designer who occasionally games. When I lived in the PC world (I run a 2003 server and my last "PC" was a 1.8 P4), I built my own machines and customized them as necessary. While I'm not a tech-freak, I have maintained a 20+ computer network and know my way around a machine pretty damned well. When I started buying Apples (when I got into the design industry), I always knew the customizing would be limited.

Anyway, back to the point. While I currently own an Intel iMac, it was never meant to be a permanent machine for me. Why? Because I want a tower. Something that I can change around and most importantly, something that allows me to buy my own monitor(s) and change them at will, replace them, etc.

There is absolutely nothing in Apple's lineup for me right now and I'm damned disappointed about it. The Mac Pro is just too much money and machine for what I need and the iMac is an all-in-one solution. The Mini isn't powerful enough.

So, how many of you think that Apple will be coming out with a stand-alone computer in the $1299-1999 price range? With the Intel switch, it seems obvious to me that they are missing a huge portion of the market here. A Core 2 Duo with an *upgradable* video card would fit the bill nicely. And yes, I'd be willing to pay the "Apple Tax" for it.

Who else is waiting for a machine like this? I can't be the only one...
 
I'm sure there is a bit of demand for a machine like that, although I don't know if Apple will satisfy that demand...
 
You know, you can dual boot a PC now to run OSX. You don't have to go with proprietary overpriced mac/apple hardware. ;)
 
w1retap said:
You know, you can dual boot a PC now to run OSX. You don't have to go with proprietary overpriced mac/apple hardware. ;)
Click to expand...

Considering that I make my living using Mac software, you'll pardon me if I want to stay away from open source, hare-brained solutions.
 
Rocketpig said:
w1retap said:
You know, you can dual boot a PC now to run OSX. You don't have to go with proprietary overpriced mac/apple hardware.;)
Click to expand...
Considering that I make my living using Mac software, you'll pardon me if I want to stay away from open source, hare-brained solutions.
Click to expand...
not to mention it is ILLEGAL

seriously, can we get a sticky about this or something?! Kaos...please?
 
Rocketpig said:
Considering that I make my living using Mac software, you'll pardon me if I want to stay away from open source, hare-brained solutions.
Click to expand...
The new way of doing it is actually running it native.. no VMWare, no emulators, etc. Its a true dual boot with no open source bs. =)

http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=11339

edit: How could it be illegal if you use a legit copy of OSX? My buddy installed on his pc using his OSX disk. Just make sure its at least version 10.4.6.
 
Heh, no offense but this was all I needed:

"While many people had success with my guide, there are some failures. Dual-booting Windows with OSX x86 is an advanced operation, and so many factors are invloved to make it work, so I can't guarantee you a success with my guide."
 
I don't know. It seems to me that a machine that fills the niche that the G4 cube filled is probably in order.

I'm guessing that Apple will probably bring out something that fills the gap between the iMac and the Pro once Tiger arrives and "killer apps" like the Adobe Creative Suite are universal. If you need a tower now, and don't need the ability to run Windows, you could always pick up a used G5 Power Mac.
 
Rocketpig said:
Heh, no offense but this was all I needed:

"While many people had success with my guide, there are some failures. Dual-booting Windows with OSX x86 is an advanced operation, and so many factors are invloved to make it work, so I can't guarantee you a success with my guide."
Click to expand...
Ok. Just saying there are other ways instead of buying overpriced hardware. For amatures it might be hard to get working, but its pretty simple if you have been around computers for a while. I can see you aren't interested. Good day.
 
w1retap said:
How could it be illegal if you use a legit copy of OSX? My buddy installed on his pc using his OSX disk. Just make sure its at least version 10.4.6.
Click to expand...

It's against the EULA to run it on non-Apple hardware.

BTW, way to ruin a perfectly good thread with junk that's against the rules. The OP had a legitimate question and now the thread's just gonna be locked when Kaos comes around.
 
w1retap said:
Ok. Just saying there are other ways instead of buying overpriced hardware. For amatures it might be hard to get working, but its pretty simple if you have been around computers for a while. I can see you aren't interested. Good day.
Click to expand...

It's not that the project is not interesting... It is. And I'm sure I could do it.

But I need a machine that is dead-reliable... I can't afford to spend time tweaking settings or replacing hardware and then finding out it's not compatible.

If it was a hobby machine, I might give it a go.
 
w1retap said:
Ok. Just saying there are other ways instead of buying overpriced hardware. For amatures it might be hard to get working, but its pretty simple if you have been around computers for a while. I can see you aren't interested. Good day.
Click to expand...
Overpriced? :rolleyes:



At any rate, I agree. There is a $1499 tower model lacking. A Core 2 Duo tower. It would be very welcome, and I think many people would buy it. Not every needs dual Xeons (I do, but I can't afford 'em).
 
I've thought that apple should have a stand alone shuttle form factor system or a mini tower now for awhile. You peg *exactly* the segment of the market where there is a huge pricing/setup gap. I want to use or buy my own monitor, but dont want a 2xdual core system at the price point of the pro, but would like some of the pros expandability and upgradeability.

Apple, are you freaking listening?
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
At any rate, I agree. There is a $1499 tower model lacking. A Core 2 Duo tower. It would be very welcome, and I think many people would buy it. Not every needs dual Xeons (I do, but I can't afford 'em).
Click to expand...

I'm the exact opposite. I could afford the system but don't want it. I don't enjoy spending money just for the sake of spending it (and that's what a Mac Pro would be for me).

Besides, for gaming the Mac Pro isn't going to be that great. I'd rather have one dual core processor (NOT a Xeon) and non-ECC RAM (for obvious freakin' reasons) in a well-outfitted but reasonably priced machine.

It. Just. Makes. Sense.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Awesome, then you could send me some money for a Mac Pro! ;)
Click to expand...

Heh, not to say that it wouldn't squeeze my wallet but since I'd be using it solely (well, mostly) for work, I can write it off, somewhat negating the price hit.
 
CEpeep said:
G4 Cube.
Click to expand...

yeah but you couldnt swap video in a cube, which is why a shuttle or a mid tower makes a lot more sense. The cube was really nothing more than what the mini is today, in a slightly different form factor.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
They did have the pretty crappy and very over-priced single-CPU PMG5s for a while...
Click to expand...

The Pro Macs are actually a pretty good deal (considering the hardware) and they're not massively overpriced like some of Apple's older towers.

The single CPU G5s stand out in my mind, as do the single CPU G4 PowerMacs.

Apple really needs something in between.

In my mind, the Mac Pro is more of a server or a power workstation for video editing than it is a consumer computer.

The ECC RAM is what really keeps me away. $440 for 2 GB of memory is ridiculous. I know that it was probably Intel's call to use it but Apple needs another consumer machine that uses normal RAM modules.
 
Tutelary said:
yeah but you couldnt swap video in a cube, which is why a shuttle or a mid tower makes a lot more sense. The cube was really nothing more than what the mini is today, in a slightly different form factor.
Click to expand...
Sure you can swap out the video card in the Cube. People have even been putting 9800s in them. You can also bump up the CPU in the cube to dual 1.8 GHz G4s or something such.

Pretty nifty.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
Sure you can swap out the video card in the Cube. People have even been putting 9800s in them. You can also bump up the CPU in the cube to dual 1.8 GHz G4s or something such.

Pretty nifty.
Click to expand...

I'd even settle for a revised Cube if it brought a few things to the table:

-Capable of holding 4 GB of RAM
-Full-size HD (two slots optimal)
-Core 2 Duo chip
-Swappable vid card

I don't need complete customization... Just a few things I might want to swap around.
 
I'll agree with you on that. I feel that the differential in terms of power and performance is far too large between the iMac and the Mac Pro, as well as between the Macbook and Macbook Pro.

Apple should make a midrange tower solution (same parts as the iMac, but in a tower) and also make a Macbook with dedicated graphics and perhaps a larger screen.
 
Bona Fide said:
I'll agree with you on that. I feel that the differential in terms of power and performance is far too large between the iMac and the Mac Pro, as well as between the Macbook and Macbook Pro.

Apple should make a midrange tower solution (same parts as the iMac, but in a tower) and also make a Macbook with dedicated graphics and perhaps a larger screen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, even the gap between the MB and the MBP was annoying me when I decided to buy the MB... I wanted better video than the MB offered but since I don't use it that much, I didn't want to spend $2k on the MBP.

Overall I can't complain about the MB (other than the discolored plastic I'll get fixed soon). In fact, I'm typing on it now. It's a good little machine but another video option would be nice.
 
Rocketpig said:
I'm curious to hear what you guys think about the introduction of the Mac Pro... For me, it's complete overkill and it's about $600-$1000 more than I want to spend for a machine.

I'm a graphic designer who occasionally games.
<snip>
Who else is waiting for a machine like this? I can't be the only one...
Click to expand...

It's the only way I'd consider purchasing a Mac. I had thought about getting a Mini, just to get aquainted with OSX, then they went up $100 for the base model when they went Intel, so I just decided to upgrade the PC in my sig, new mobo, processor and vid card on the way. I'll just have to wait to learn OSX on a Mac when some good $1500 hardware and 10.7 Sabretooth comes out, cuz no way I can run X on my Performa 6400.

If you design for the web, the Mac Pros are definitely overkill, but should you get into design for print, one could be well justified. They stand up well pricewise to what Dell has to offer in similarly specced machines -
article here.
 
CEpeep said:
G4 Cube.
Click to expand...

Cube was more expensive then the entry level PowerMac G4 and lacked the real expandability (smaller video cards, no usb2.0 etc).
 
LesterOfPuppets said:
If you design for the web, the Mac Pros are definitely overkill, but should you get into design for print, one could be well justified. They stand up well pricewise to what Dell has to offer in similarly specced machines -
article here.
Click to expand...

I do both. Even InDesign doesn't require THAT much processing power. Photoshop can be a handful but once it goes Universal, it won't be that bad. I don't have any serious issues with it now under Rosetta.

Actually IMO Illustrator is the worst under Rosetta. PS isn't that bad.
 
Rocketpig said:
Actually IMO Illustrator is the worst under Rosetta. PS isn't that bad.
Click to expand...
While I've never used anything in Rosetta, I can imagine that this is true. On my iBook, I've even edited 10+ megapixel images with no real performance issues. Sure, a 100 pixel gaussian blur would take for-fucking-ever, but the clone stamp, levels adjustments, etc (you know, the tools you actually use) were all pretty speedy. Illustrator, on the other hand, feels kind of slow.
 
Black Morty Rackham said:
While I've never used anything in Rosetta, I can imagine that this is true. On my iBook, I've even edited 10+ megapixel images with no real performance issues. Sure, a 100 pixel gaussian blur would take for-fucking-ever, but the clone stamp, levels adjustments, etc (you know, the tools you actually use) were all pretty speedy. Illustrator, on the other hand, feels kind of slow.
Click to expand...

I had a 500mhz G4 DP running 10.3... And under Rosetta on my iMac, Illustrator is the same speed... Slow. Photoshop and the other CS programs are a little faster on the iMac though.

I've never understood Illustrator. It's far and away Adobe's sloppiest program. Every computer I've used it on crashes every once in a while when it's open (not the computer, just Illustrator). It used to be better (vers. 8) but it's steadily gone downhill as they've added features.

I have a serious love/hate relationship with Illy.
 
I'm a CorelDraw freak when it comes to vector art, it rules the screenprinting world.

When I'm setting up 6 color separations for screenprinting in Photoshop, or Corel, I need all the CPU power and RAM I can get my hands on. Well, maybe not ALL the RAM, 4 Gigs would be nice, however.
 
LesterOfPuppets said:
I'm a CorelDraw freak when it comes to vector art, it rules the screenprinting world.

When I'm setting up 6 color separations for screenprinting in Photoshop, or Corel, I need all the CPU power and RAM I can get my hands on. Well, maybe not ALL the RAM, 4 Gigs would be nice, however.
Click to expand...

ACK! Corel!

Heheh, just kidding... I know a few screenprinters and they swear by Corel.

It seems that while Illy is preferred by designers and "regular" printers, large format printers prefer Corel.
 
maybe they'll do a single CPU version of the MacPro with the 3000-series Xeons that are coming out.
 
the low end Mac Pro is $2124. thats only $125 more than the top end of the range you are looking for.

Lack said:
Cube was more expensive then the entry level PowerMac G4 and lacked the real expandability (smaller video cards, no usb2.0 etc).
Click to expand...

i agree, the Cube was a cool idea but it failed because it was too damn expensive. you could get a dual processor G4 tower for the same price as the Cube.

i imagine Apple will release a single dual core machine in the future, but it will be limited in some other way. similar to the last version of the single 1.8GHz G5 that had the 600MHz FSB.
 
The Cube was never meant to fill the slot between the iMac and the PowerMac though, it was an Apple foray into making a stylish computer you could have in your living room, and priced at a premium point (far too money considering the hardware inside) because of the style factor. If anything, the Cube is the conceptual successor to the 20th Anniversary Macintosh, a machine that was slow for the money, but did look very good.

I have been saying forever that Apple really needs to release a tower system similar to the iMac. The iMac would be perfect for my needs, but I can't deal with having only a 20" widescreen display, and dual monitor setups just bug me.

Even adding some new options to the Mac Pro line would work, a low end Core 2 Duo system and the addition of some mid-range graphics cards (x1600 or 7600gt) would be a good compromise. Right now the graphics card options seem a bit silly, you have either a very low end card in the 7300gt, or go straight to high end pricey cards with the x1900xt or the Quadro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top