The 17
Everyone does not need more screen space. Certainly, everyone does not have the desire, or even the ability, to pay for it. Apple has traditionally kept the screen size of its smallest iMacs reasonable. In 1998, the original G3 iMacs had 15" screens, while some may have said that this was too small for its time. In 2002, the G4 iMacs were introduced with 15" flat screens. The G5, Core Duo, and original Core 2 Duo iMacs, all had 17" flat screens available as a lower-priced option. With the release of the 2007 iMacs, the least expensive 17" option has disappeared, without replacement, and without a similarly-priced alternative.
The 17" Intel iMac: Power, aesthetics, affordability and forced into early retirement.
The Midrange Desktop Tower Issue
It’s been years since Apple has had a desktop tower available at a midrange price. Right now, the one and only tower that Apple has for sale, or in other words, the one and only truly user-configurable computer that Apple has for sale, is the Mac Pro. Default configuration price: $2,499.00. And since this is a tower, not an iMac, that’s the price without a monitor (I take a closer look at the Mac Pro below).
Just as everyone does not need a 20" display, everyone does not need a $2,500 tower. However, it’s been years since Apple has provided anything other than the high-end Mac Pro as its only available tower. In fact, the Mac Pro, always at the starting price of $2,499.00, is the only tower Apple has ever offered with an Intel processor.
Apple’s pre-Intel "PowerPC" G5, a configurable desktop tower, was the predecessor to the Mac Pro.
Apple’s loss, however, has been the computer reseller’s gain. Four-year-old Apple "PowerPC" G5 Towers have retained much of their original value, typically bringing in over $1,200 on reseller sites, which is about the same amount that Apple could and should be charging for a midrange tower. Which makes one wonder: Why aren’t they?
Inside, the G5 provided room to grow. The large "G5" units protect the dual processors and heat sinks. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
- Previous page Analysis Of The 2007 IMacs
- Next page Apple's Top-Of-The-Line Desktop: The...
- How to Build Your Own Solar Powered PC, Part 2
- Green Computing Options
- Overclocking Marathon Day 2 - A Home Brew
- System Builder Marathon (Overclocking) Day 1
- HP TouchSmart IQ770 Media PC Reviewed
- Computex 2007 Summary
- Computex 2007: Storage, 4+ GHz Quad Cores and Systems
- Dell's XPS 710 H2C Hot and Cool
- Vista: Benchmarking or Benchmarketing?
- Overindulge Yourself with QX6800
owww..., apple got OWNED
When you criticise the the mac pro remember this machine has been available for over a year now and it works just as well now as it did then. IF it was a PC running Vista then no, 1gb would be no use but with the Mac it's fine. Yes, more would be nice, but more would always be nice! and those who need it will buy it. Apple have no need to get involved in the PC spec race, and nor should they, and neither do people who use macs. If you want to you can, you can upgrade the mac pro to your heart's content. Or just not bother.
So clearly the fact that the Mac pro offers up to 750 gb drive configurations compared to 1tb for the imac is simply because thats what was available then compared to whats available now. I know you're going to say they should update the spec and maybe they should but does it matter that much? The majority of serious users of the Pro will be using external storage anyway.
It's not really a fair comparison to show a chart of all the Graphics cards released over the last 16 months when the chart would have looked very different at the time the Pro was released...also the radeon1900xt is available as an option but you didnt mention that...look where it falls on the chart.. a bit more respectable... but again i say that apple aren't in that race so what does it matter? If you want a better card then buy one....(isnt that what Tomshardware is all about anyway?)
Saying that Airport and Bluetooth belong in the pro is to misunderstand the market the pro is aimed at. The majority of bigger companies (like the one i work for) are suspicous (and in fact are afraid) of wireless comms so won't touch them so making these an option for a professional machine makes sense.
As for dobby's coment that without ipod and iphone Apple would be dead? Have you looked at Apple's PC market share? 5.6% of the US market? Joint 3rd largest PC maker in the US? I wish i had a company like that!
How did Apple get pwned when it's an *NVidia* card? Apple supply it but they don't make it...