8-Core MacPro released

[Qion]

Originally Posted by MacFreak

I've ordered it! Restless to get one..

Yeah, 'cause it looks like you really need the extra power!

[MacFreak]

Originally Posted by Qion

Yeah, 'cause it looks like you really need the extra power!

Oh yes, for film editing!! I hate rendering and hope it will solve this problem.

[ScottW]

Sadly, I don't need 8 cores, I really probably don't even need 4 cores, if I didn't have this nagging desire to run Parallels for linux development servers and <holding up shield> Windows. (sorry, didn't want any viruses or attacks)

I'd be best off just getting a iMac, add a second screen picking up two cheap Intel systems off Craigslist, one for linux and the other for windows. I already have a KVM DVI with 4 available connections.

[Yesurbius]

Originally Posted by fryke

I wonder, though... Apple's clearly shown that they can expand the line _upwards_ with this 8-core monster. But the middle-end, if there's such a thing, is left to the iMac completely. I'm still all for a low-end desktop _other_ than the Mac mini, although I sadly believe Apple thinks there's no need for one.

IMHO:

Apple needs an toned down version of the Mac pro. Swappable graphics card, memory and harddrive - but not necessary the power of a dual-cpu monster. The Mac Pro is server-class .. they need a workstation class other than the iMac

[Mikuro]

Just when I stopped drooling over the quad...

Originally Posted by fryke

I'm still all for a low-end desktop _other_ than the Mac mini, although I sadly believe Apple thinks there's no need for one.

Ditto. Put the guts of a Mini in the shape of a Mac Pro and I'd be happy. All I want is a little upgradability and expandability. Oh, and a multi-piece design. All-in-one designs just don't make sense to me; one part will always die or become obsolete before the rest. Tying a $900 monitor to a non-upgradable machine just seems crazy!

[Timotheos]

(I know its abit off topic)

But I dont understand some of these things, If a mac mini isnt good enough for you, even tho it is highly capably of most things, and you can afford a to fork out the extra for an iMac, surely you can afford to fix the screen or whatever when it dies.
It doesnt take too much to put money away for that.

And I dont see the point of low end MacPro. The 24' iMac is insainly good and in most situations, you wouldnt really need anything more than that. And if you do (a.k.a sientific number crunching stuff) then you obviously need a rediculously high spec machine, not something thats half arsed.

...And I really do see apples reason for not having a low spec mini mac or mac in general. If you get the lowest spec mac mini. she is still going to last you practicaly forever if your just surfing the web and check emails at home. Why sell something thats on the border line of being to slow to sell? Its like telling apple that theres no reason to make amazingly design machines, it doesnt improve speed and makes macs more expensive. Buying something that is great quality and pretty damn fast for a low enough price that will last ages sounds like a good deal to me

[fryke]

It's not about the screen dying, rather it's about the processor becoming too old much faster than the beautiful display. See: In two years, that 24" display (not 24 feet, btw., but rather inches) would still be perfect for most uses, whereas the CPU would be less than perfect. If you could buy a cheaper Mac desktop with a nice display, you could replace parts of it or the whole machine without having to also replace the display.

All-in-ones have the typical problem of "weakest link syndrome". If there's a revolution in CPU, display or harddrive design, you have to replace _all_ of it in order to gain access to that new thing. Even replacing the optical drive is a much bigger - and more expensive - issue.
With a notebook, I accept this. It's the price I'm paying for its mobility. The iMac, however, doesn't give me that. With the iMac, you're paying this for style alone.

[doemel]

Originally Posted by fryke

It's not about the screen dying, rather it's about the processor becoming too old much faster than the beautiful display. See: In two years, that 24" display (not 24 feet, btw., but rather inches) would still be perfect for most uses, whereas the CPU would be less than perfect. If you could buy a cheaper Mac desktop with a nice display, you could replace parts of it or the whole machine without having to also replace the display.

All-in-ones have the typical problem of "weakest link syndrome". If there's a revolution in CPU, display or harddrive design, you have to replace _all_ of it in order to gain access to that new thing. Even replacing the optical drive is a much bigger - and more expensive - issue.
With a notebook, I accept this. It's the price I'm paying for its mobility. The iMac, however, doesn't give me that. With the iMac, you're paying this for style alone.

That's an easy one: Sell your iMac on eBay or somewhere else and get the latest model. That's what I usually do and considering how slow the prices of second hand Macs usually drop it's the best strategy. Why keep a system for 4 years if you can sell it after 2 years for over half its original price (well, that depends on what model exacly, sometimes it might be less than 1/2 the initial price) and put that money towards the latest model. That way you don't have tons of obsolete equipment taking up space plus you have the latest hardware at decent intervals. Somebody will be able and willing to use that old iMac for another 2-4 years.

Heck, take a look at the prices the old G4 Mac Minis fetch on eBay today. You'll see that their not selling that much cheaper than todays cheapest Intel Mac Mini.

Don't get me wrong though, I would welcome a mid range tower/desktop system in the line of, say the PM8100 or even just PM6100 (the PM6100 was the last non-iMac desktop I owned). Or the original grey G3 boxes to give a "more recent" example.