What would a BYOM desktop between the mini and Mac Pro look like? [Archive]

View Full Version : What would a BYOM desktop between the mini and Mac Pro look like?

BurtonCCC

Mar 19, 2007, 03:24 AM

My quick five-minute take on it.

On the inside:
Dual Xeons.
Dual display support.
More ports, more ports, more ports.
Dual slot-loading SuperDrives.
Removable and upgradeable graphics.

Daniel.

pknz

Mar 19, 2007, 03:37 AM

EricNau

Mar 19, 2007, 03:40 AM

Sorry, but that's plain ugly (and unrealistic - you can't put those components in a case with limited cooling).

zap2

Mar 19, 2007, 06:49 AM

Dual Xeons? No way...those are to much money and to hot you the smal case you gave.

There is no room for a Consumer Desktop is Apple's current line up...iMac have 1k-2k, Mac Mini have Sub 1k and Mac Pro has 2.5K+. If you put its bewteen the iMac and Mac Pro, they price difference would be about 200USD from a much better computer. Under 1K would make it to close to the Mini, and start to eat the Mini's sales. The only possible spot would be for Apple to drop the low end 17'' iMac, and sell the consumer tower for 1099 , and drop Mini prices down to 499 and 699

iW00t

Mar 19, 2007, 07:18 AM

Rather than having the Mac Mini come in just 2 configurations, they should just have 2 logic board types and allow buyers to select and match processors.

So on one hand they have logic boards with integrated graphics for budget users, on the other hand they have boards with something like a x1300 for slightly more $ users.

Also having the ability to customise the processors in these will eliminate the whole waiting for update nonsense altogether. I am starting to get quite sick of playing Apple's stupid games. People want to buy now, people have the money, why force them to wait?

iW00t

Mar 19, 2007, 07:19 AM

FleurDuMal

Mar 19, 2007, 07:40 AM

BenRoethig

Mar 19, 2007, 07:57 AM

Why would a consumer tower have two SuperDrives?

Anyway, ain't gonna happen. Not until Apple overhaul their product line.

Consumers are more likely to use twin optical drives than the pros. It's very handy to have a game or piece of software you use frequently in the bottom drive while using the primary for burning and general use items.

nplima

Mar 19, 2007, 08:18 AM

Consumers are more likely to use twin optical drives than the pros. It's very handy to have a game or piece of software you use frequently in the bottom drive while using the primary for burning and general use items.

well, if that CD/DVD is used *that* often the user might as well keep it handy as a ISO file on the hard drive, right?

As for the rest of the specs, I agree, they might be too close to the Mac Pro to make this a reasonable business proposition...
Perhaps this mac semi-pro could be built like 2 Minis stacked up. The first box would fit the graphics card (hot air would flow to the top, I guess...), the 2nd box at the bottom would be the rest of the computer.

BenRoethig

Mar 19, 2007, 08:23 AM

well, if that CD/DVD is used *that* often the user might as well keep it handy as a ISO file on the hard drive, right?

As for the rest of the specs, I agree, they might be too close to the Mac Pro to make this a reasonable business proposition...

Considering that prosumer machines out number professional workstation greatly, I think it would make a very wise business propositions. Apple's "cripple and move up" strategy for the desktops looses a lot of potential users.

JDN

Mar 19, 2007, 08:25 AM

BenRoethig

Mar 19, 2007, 08:52 AM

This is becoming something of an age old topic/discussion on these forums.

I agree that Apple won't add another model to the line up of a long time to come, but i would still like to see one.

It could be Cube sized, makes sense. But then have the same processor options as the iMac and one super drive. The main thing i think people want to see is some upgradeability. Upgradeable graphics card, and an extra hard drive bay.

It didn't use to be, Apple used to have some of the best prosumer towers on the planet. Since then the entry level desktops (I consider the AIO to be it's own category) prices have risen close to $1000 since the MDD G4s to the highest point since the the 600 series PowerPCs. Apple has been literally pricing some long time users right off the platform. The MacPro is way outside my budget and the iMac isn't something that interests me at all, so where am I? I'd be lying if I didn't say I was intrigued by some of the hardware options on the PC side.

mrgreen4242

Mar 19, 2007, 09:11 AM

My quick five-minute take on it.

On the inside:
Dual Xeons.
Dual display support.
More ports, more ports, more ports.
Dual slot-loading SuperDrives.
Removable and upgradeable graphics.

Daniel.
Agree with the general consensus that that's not only unrealistic in the sense of why would Apple do it, but there's no way way to get it into a case a whole lot smaller than the current Mac Pro is (well, the Mac Pro is pretty huge, but that machine couldn't be much smaller). Plus, it would cost a fortune.

Dual Xeons? No way...those are to much money and to hot you the smal case you gave.

There is no room for a Consumer Desktop is Apple's current line up...iMac have 1k-2k, Mac Mini have Sub 1k and Mac Pro has 2.5K+. If you put its bewteen the iMac and Mac Pro, they price difference would be about 200USD from a much better computer. Under 1K would make it to close to the Mini, and start to eat the Mini's sales. The only possible spot would be for Apple to drop the low end 17'' iMac, and sell the consumer tower for 1099 , and drop Mini prices down to 499 and 699

I disagree COMPLETELY. There's LOTS of room for another machine in the line up. Something to sell to mini owners, for one. People look at the current line up all wrong. The mini and the Pro are the only two REAL desktop models, and there's a $1200 gap between them.

The iMac is merely the ultimate desktop replacement laptop. Think about it. It's a laptop with a GIANT screen, a full sized HDD, and no battery.

There's a gap in the pricing structure right where you pointed out, as well. That $999 + options range is perfect for a consumer tower. You can get a 17" iMac for that price, OR you can get this more configurable tower with out a display. It's actually very Apple-like marketing.

Rather than having the Mac Mini come in just 2 configurations, they should just have 2 logic board types and allow buyers to select and match processors.

So on one hand they have logic boards with integrated graphics for budget users, on the other hand they have boards with something like a x1300 for slightly more $ users.

Also having the ability to customise the processors in these will eliminate the whole waiting for update nonsense altogether. I am starting to get quite sick of playing Apple's stupid games. People want to buy now, people have the money, why force them to wait?

That would be alright, but not solve the ultimate problem with the mini's: Laptop components. Ya, a mini with an x1300 would be OK now, but I'd much rather pay a few hundred extra so I can drop in a bigger, cheaper HDD in a year or two, a new GPU in two or three years, etc.

It didn't use to be, Apple used to have some of the best prosumer towers on the planet. Since then the entry level desktops (I consider the AIO to be it's own category) prices have risen close to $1000 since the MDD G4s to the highest point since the the 600 series PowerPCs. Apple has been literally pricing some long time users right off the platform. The MacPro is way outside my budget and the iMac isn't something that interests me at all, so where am I? I'd be lying if I didn't say I was intrigued by some of the hardware options on the PC side.

I agree with this. The Mac Pro, no matter how I slice it is a terrible fit for me. I don't need quad cores. I don't need 5 HDDs (well, it'd be nice to have that option, but not at that price or the giant case). I CAN'T spend $2000 on a new computer, either. I DEFINITELY can't spend what they are asking for that RAM. I have no need for an integrated LCD, either. Nor do I have any desire to buy what I feel is a flawed design (the iMac G5 design is just a bad idea, imo).

I think what will happen is the Mac Pro will get a new case design, making it a bit smaller and less expensive (more plastic, less aluminum, etc). They will continue to offer a quad core Xeon based system, similar to what they have right now but with standard speed bumbs, but they will also offer a "Mac Pro" with a C2D and similar base specs to the iMac. Keep the configurable setup they are using now for the Mac Pro's, just with two starting points. Starting price $1100 or 1200, because it's in the Mac Pro case. If they put it in it's own box they would go down $100.

BenRoethig

Mar 19, 2007, 09:33 AM

Agree with the general consensus that that's not only unrealistic in the sense of why would Apple do it, but there's no way way to get it into a case a whole lot smaller than the current Mac Pro is (well, the Mac Pro is pretty huge, but that machine couldn't be much smaller). Plus, it would cost a fortune.

I disagree COMPLETELY. There's LOTS of room for another machine in the line up. Something to sell to mini owners, for one. People look at the current line up all wrong. The mini and the Pro are the only two REAL desktop models, and there's a $1200 gap between them.

The iMac is merely the ultimate desktop replacement laptop. Think about it. It's a laptop with a GIANT screen, a full sized HDD, and no battery.

There's a gap in the pricing structure right where you pointed out, as well. That $999 + options range is perfect for a consumer tower. You can get a 17" iMac for that price, OR you can get this more configurable tower with out a display. It's actually very Apple-like marketing. [/quote]

That's what they used to do. The single CPU G5 was the iMac's U3L platform fitted to a tower form.

I agree with this. The Mac Pro, no matter how I slice it is a terrible fit for me. I don't need quad cores. I don't need 5 HDDs (well, it'd be nice to have that option, but not at that price or the giant case). I CAN'T spend $2000 on a new computer, either. I DEFINITELY can't spend what they are asking for that RAM. I have no need for an integrated LCD, either. Nor do I have any desire to buy what I feel is a flawed design (the iMac G5 design is just a bad idea, imo).

The iMac isn't a bad design it's just aimed at consumers or other who want a set up in go machine. The mistake is trying to push it on the prosumer crowd.

I think what will happen is the Mac Pro will get a new case design, making it a bit smaller and less expensive (more plastic, less aluminum, etc). They will continue to offer a quad core Xeon based system, similar to what they have right now but with standard speed bumbs, but they will also offer a "Mac Pro" with a C2D and similar base specs to the iMac. Keep the configurable setup they are using now for the Mac Pro's, just with two starting points. Starting price $1100 or 1200, because it's in the Mac Pro case. If they put it in it's own box they would go down $100.

I don't know how much smaller it can get. It's pretty lean for what it does. Plus, the last time they redesigned the tower, they came up with a design that was larger and less practical than the one it replaced. It took the Mac Pro to reach and surpass the MDD G4.

mrgreen4242

Mar 19, 2007, 10:39 AM

That's what they used to do. The single CPU G5 was the iMac's U3L platform fitted to a tower form.

The iMac isn't a bad design it's just aimed at consumers or other who want a set up in go machine. The mistake is trying to push it on the prosumer crowd.

I don't know how much smaller it can get. It's pretty lean for what it does. Plus, the last time they redesigned the tower, they came up with a design that was larger and less practical than the one it replaced. It took the Mac Pro to reach and surpass the MDD G4.

Yup, the single G5 PowerMac was a pretty decent buy, at the time. $1400 or so if I recall?

The MacPro is HUGE. We've got one at work, and it's a big computer. There's a lot of space in there that you could take out... go to just room for 2 HDDs, not 4 or 5 or whatever it is, drop one of the optical drives... a machine built around the C2D would be smaller, as it's a single CPU, not two, less power requirements, so small PSU and less need for ventilation, etc.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the MacPro case exactly the same as the PowerMac G5 case?

eXan

Mar 19, 2007, 10:57 AM

Yup, the single G5 PowerMac was a pretty decent buy, at the time. $1400 or so if I recall?

The MacPro is HUGE. We've got one at work, and it's a big computer. There's a lot of space in there that you could take out... go to just room for 2 HDDs, not 4 or 5 or whatever it is, drop one of the optical drives... a machine built around the C2D wouldn't be smaller, as it's a single CPU, not two, less power requirements, so small PSU and less need for ventilation, etc.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the MacPro case exactly the same as the PowerMac G5 case?

Yes, it has the same dimentions, its just heavier

chaosbunny

Mar 19, 2007, 11:03 AM

My quick ten-minute take on it.

70461

miloblithe

Mar 19, 2007, 11:17 AM

CptnJustc

Mar 19, 2007, 11:28 AM

Can't we just have a Mac Pro with a Core 2 Duo (x2 possibly) and DDR2? :(

chaosbunny

Mar 19, 2007, 11:28 AM

Well, I'm torn between a 17" iMac and a Mac Pro. I have a 21" Eizo monitor that's way better than any iMacs screen, so why pay for a large screen I do not need for slightly better performance?

The question is, drop less money and replace it after 2 years, or drop more money and keep it for 4-5 years? The ideal option would be, drop a little more than less money and keep it for 3-4 years.^^

Dual 2,6 or 3 ghz, and an option for a 512 mb gfx card. For 1500 - 1700 € maximum.

BenRoethig

Mar 19, 2007, 11:29 AM

The question for Apple is one of gains vrs losses. I think that a smaller tower would help them gain new customers and especially be more attactive to businesses. But iMacs are probably easier to sell at the price points Apple wants. Apple is perfectly content to sell fewer high-margin machines if the alternative is to sell more low-margin machines and make less in total profits.

Outside the Mac crowd, it's pretty hard to sell a machine such as the iMac at those prices. The intended audience is below it price wise and for the users who can afford it, the lack of expansion and credible graphics options makes it almost a non-starter. That's why you see pretty much all the switcher gain come by way of laptop.

From me, they have little to gain by this move (except my gratitude). I'm going to buy another Mac as my next computer, virtually regardless of what models Apple makes available. I am currently torn between the mini (I prefer the price) and the iMac (I like having two screens and like the idea of the full size HD and graphics card). If the option were available, I'd buy a mid-tower and then probably another Dell monitor. Why would Apple prefer that?

The more of the PC prosumers they get, the more people they advise would get the 17" iMac or the eMac instead of a HP or Dell.

BenRoethig

Mar 19, 2007, 11:30 AM

Can't we just have a Mac Pro with a Core 2 Duo (x2 possibly) and DDR2? :(

That would make way too much sense.

Pressure

Mar 19, 2007, 12:06 PM

Can't we just have a Mac Pro with a Core 2 Duo (x2 possibly) and DDR2? :(

Core 2 Duo processors cannot be run in tandem like their Xeon brethren.

While I agree that Apple could quite easily make a machine that uses Core 2 Duo E6xx0 processors with DDR2 memory it would instantly kill some of their iMac sales.
On the other hand they would get a much larger market penetration because that unit would sell like hot cakes.

I suppose they could make a slimmed down Mac Pro tower that had slightly smaller dimensions for this but since this is Apple the starting price would be around $1499 (I do believe a lot of people would still buy it though).

My ugly hack...although disregard two drive bays.

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/pressure/MacCon.jpg

I can see it happen as Intel should release E6420 and E6320 and other processors in the coming month.

mrgreen4242

Mar 19, 2007, 12:21 PM

My quick ten-minute take on it.

70461
I like that. I'd buy it! :D

Core 2 Duo processors cannot be run in tandem like their Xeon brethren.

While I agree that Apple could quite easily make a machine that uses Core 2 Duo E6x00 processors with DDR2 memory it would instantly kill some of their iMac sales.
On the other hand they would get a much larger market penetration because that unit would sell like hot cakes.

I suppose they could make a slimmed down Mac Pro tower that had slightly smaller dimensions for this but since this is Apple the starting price would be around $1499 (I do believe a lot of people would still buy it though).

I just don't get how anyone thinks a headless system would "kill iMac sales" or that even if it did it would matter.

Let's just assume that people who would have bought an iMac would buy this instead (which is an extremely faulty assumption). So what? Apple sells them a machine with about the same profit margin either way.

The only sales it would hurt are the mini, which wouldn't matter since it'd be a higher profit machine anyways, and the Mac Pro, which would probably take a slight beating from people who justified the expense of the machine because it was the only option to get what they wanted.

The latter would be offset by people who "upgraded" from the mini to the midrange tower, or bought a Mac who wouldn't have otherwise.

Bowshock

Mar 19, 2007, 12:23 PM

Hi Everyone!!

First post on this board, although I've been a lurker for a couple of months. I don't own an Apple machine right now, but I plan to have one by the end of June (depends on when the updates come through). I haven't decided on a Pro or iMac yet. For me the iMac is a little underpowered (specifically in the video card area), and the Mac Pro is WAY over powered.

Since we're just making guesses right now, why not think outside the box.....literally. How about a set of component systems (based on the mini form factor) that the user could just stack together to upgrade the system. For example, you could buy base mini system and the upgraded video card would be in a similar enclosure that simply stacks onto the base system....like (dare I say it) LEGOS!!

You want 2 processors? Buy two minis and stack them. You want two processors and an updated video card? Buy two minis and a video card enclosure....and stack those babies!! Extra hard drive? Stack it!! Or just buy a USB/Firewire drive.

Just for kicks, Let's say the mini stackers run about $900 for the base system, then add $500 for an upgraded video card....total system about $1400 and it's in a form factor that's about 4 inches tall and 6.5" in the other dimensions. Hello cube. Plus you just made upgrading your system easy enough for the average person to do it.

I know the interface technology doesn't exist right now, but I bet it isn't impossible to do.

Thanks for listening to a future Apple user who has no real OSX experience.

miloblithe

Mar 19, 2007, 12:35 PM

I like the idea of stackable minis, but I think the heat issues and diffuculty in designing modular systems would make it impractical.

BurtonCCC

Mar 19, 2007, 12:52 PM

My quick ten-minute take on it.

70461

Wow, I really like that.

And to all you "ARG! THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN! OMGLOLROFL!!!!!one!!!111!!!eleven!!!" I was just having a little fun and making something I would mind seeing. :)

And I think two optical drives is very useful. Sorrrrrrrrrry. :rolleyes:

Daniel.

FleurDuMal

Mar 19, 2007, 12:58 PM

Wow, I really like that.

And to all you "ARG! THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN! OMGLOLROFL!!!!!one!!!111!!!eleven!!!" I was just having a little fun and making something I would mind seeing. :)

And I think two optical drives is very useful. Sorrrrrrrrrry. :rolleyes:

Daniel.

Sorry, but I've always assumed that when someone posts on a forum, they're open to some sort of discussion. People have an annoying habit of posting their own views on these sorts of things. ;)

zero2dash

Mar 19, 2007, 12:58 PM

mrgreen4242

Mar 19, 2007, 01:09 PM

I've gotta think that they'll do a middle line "headless iMac" sooner than later; they've got to realize that people want something like that.

Whether they do or not...who knows.
All's I know is that Mac Pro is overkill for me + too pricey, and an iMac is nice yet I don't need the monitor and the light upgradability turns me off...so I don't know what to do. I'm hoping they do come up with a smaller tower designed computer with a single C2D (E6600)...if they don't, I may just build a PC of those types of specs (for around $1100) and muck it through the Windows world for awhile longer. :o

I'm in the same boat, except I won't go back to Windows. :/ What's likely is that I buy a refurb mini, or at best the cheapest new mini I can get with a SD. I would have likely spent a lot more money for a machine that was what I wanted, but now I'll probably end up spending as little as I can on a Mac and getting a new display (from Dell or another manufacturer) and an Xbox360 or a Wii or something.

Yvan256

Mar 19, 2007, 01:10 PM

People want to buy now, people have the money, why force them to wait?

Actually, a lot of people who buy the Mac mini do so because of money constraints. Since Leopard is only a few months away, even if Apple updated the Mac mini with a Core 2 Duo and X1300 GPU, most would still wait to buy until Leopard and iLife '07 shipped. So maybe they're waiting for that to upgrade the Mac mini.

Also, the high-end Mac mini is 900$CAD and the low-end GMA950 17" iMac is 1100$CAD. Seriously, a 200$CAD difference is way too small, especially for the hardware differences between the two computers. For only 200$CAD more you get a faster drive, more storage space, a better CPU, a widescreen LCD, a keyboard and mouse... Either the low-end iMac is priced too low or the high-end Mac mini is priced too high.

JDN

Mar 19, 2007, 01:13 PM

I like both the designs and would quite happily have either.

It is a shame all of this is just conjecture.

BurtonCCC

Mar 19, 2007, 01:43 PM

Actually, a lot of people who buy the Mac mini do so because of money constraints. Since Leopard is only a few months away, even if Apple updated the Mac mini with a Core 2 Duo and X1300 GPU, most would still wait to buy until Leopard and iLife '07 shipped. So maybe they're waiting for that to upgrade the Mac mini.

I'm in that boat. I've got a G4 PowerBook that a friend is offering me a large sum of money for because it's in flawless condition with a lot of design software, but I'm not well-off enough to upgrade right away to the MacBook Pro that I want. So my thought is that I'm going to go fully-upgraded Mac mini with a 24" Dell panel. Altogether, this costs less than $1,900, only about $1,600 if I get the job with Apple. The lack of the "2" between the words "Core" and "Duo" is holding me back though. Also, I think the clock speeds could be a great deal higher in the next update, or even Apple should recognize that there needs to be a third configuration with more upgrades. There's really no need for the speeds in the top configuration to be under 2.0 GHz in the next mini. And no freaking need for a Combo Drive.

Daniel.

thefnshow

Mar 19, 2007, 02:53 PM

two superdrives for disc to disc coping

pknz

Mar 19, 2007, 03:12 PM

Can't we just have a Mac Pro with a Core 2 Duo (x2 possibly) and DDR2? :(

The current Mac Pro's use DDR2 RAM, dont they?

mrgreen4242

Mar 19, 2007, 03:26 PM

The current Mac Pro's use DDR2 RAM, dont they?

Well, yes, it's DDR2, but it's fully buffered ECC memory, which means it's really, really expensive. Stupidly expensive for any kind of desktop machine.

It's one of the main things keeping me from at least considering a min. spec refurb Mac Pro... adding another gig of RAM is several hundred dollars, as opposed to <$100 like it would be with standard DDR2 memory.

BenRoethig

Mar 19, 2007, 03:49 PM

Well, yes, it's DDR2, but it's fully buffered ECC memory, which means it's really, really expensive. Stupidly expensive for any kind of desktop machine.

It's one of the main things keeping me from at least considering a min. spec refurb Mac Pro... adding another gig of RAM is several hundred dollars, as opposed to <$100 like it would be with standard DDR2 memory.

FB-DIMMs are really nice to have for the super high pros the Mac Pro is actually meant for as it's a workstation. The problem comes from Apple not replacing the desktop segment the PowerMacs formerly resided in.

princealfie

Mar 19, 2007, 03:51 PM

Please bring back a colored Mac Pro mini seriously. A mini tower with 2 PCI slots would be sweet.

mrgreen4242

Mar 19, 2007, 09:07 PM

FB-DIMMs are really nice to have for the super high pros the Mac Pro is actually meant for as it's a workstation. The problem comes from Apple not replacing the desktop segment the PowerMacs formerly resided in.

Shrug, I suppose that if you are trying to eek out every possible bit of performance at any cost it's great... but like you said it's just one more thing that pushes the Mac Pro out of the reach of the more "average" consumer.

Sun Baked

Mar 19, 2007, 09:51 PM

Sorry, but that's plain ugly (and unrealistic - you can't put those components in a case with limited cooling).Does this fall into the more money than brains scenario?

Of course Apple is closely aligned with Disney these days, and if you want a server/workstation in a nifty case -- I'm all for the Mickey Mouse theme.

That way when you talk about the Mickey Mouse Macs ... or the Goofy Mac cases.

nplima

Mar 21, 2007, 06:22 AM

FB-DIMMs are really nice to have for the super high pros the Mac Pro is actually meant for as it's a workstation.

And what is the difference between these and the cheap kind? performance? failure rate?

Nuno

BenRoethig

Mar 21, 2007, 07:25 AM

And what is the difference between these and the cheap kind? performance? failure rate?

Nuno

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FB-DIMM

Everything you need to know is right here.

shikimo

Mar 21, 2007, 12:12 PM

Outside the Mac crowd, it's pretty hard to sell a machine such as the iMac at those prices. The intended audience is below it price wise and for the users who can afford it, the lack of expansion and credible graphics options makes it almost a non-starter. That's why you see pretty much all the switcher gain come by way of laptop.

I think you make a good point about the iMac: the primary audience is people who want to pull a nice-looking machine out of the box, plug in a couple of things and have it work. Not that there aren't thousands of iMacs doing prosumer work, but they are, quite naturally, over-represented on this forum. It is dreadfully un-upgradeable, not to mention married to a monitor that isn't as good as it could be.

Can you provide a reference for your last point? I'm not arguing--I don't know any better--but I'm surprised that a majority of switchers are coming in via laptops. I would've guessed iMacs purchased by people fed up with the vagaries of Windows and the beige boxes and searching for something that works better would make up the biggest portion of switchers, but I don't have any evidence to support that.

iW00t

Mar 21, 2007, 02:51 PM

Also, the high-end Mac mini is 900$CAD and the low-end GMA950 17" iMac is 1100$CAD. Seriously, a 200$CAD difference is way too small, especially for the hardware differences between the two computers. For only 200$CAD more you get a faster drive, more storage space, a better CPU, a widescreen LCD, a keyboard and mouse... Either the low-end iMac is priced too low or the high-end Mac mini is priced too high.

You also lose the DVD burner, and get a screen that you may or may not want.

In fact, why not offer the Mini in the low end iMac's processor speed as well?

BenRoethig

Mar 21, 2007, 02:53 PM

You also lose the DVD burner, and get a screen that you may or may not want.

In fact, why not offer the Mini in the low end iMac's processor speed as well?

Because they're purposely crippling the Mini so they can sell the more expensive iMac.

MacBass

Apr 14, 2007, 06:43 PM

My quick ten-minute take on it.

70461

This would be a great design for a mini. There would be room for a 5.25" optical drive, a 3.5" 7200 RPM HDD, and room for an expansion slot or two. If given 2 PCI express slots and X300, you could install a graphics card in one bay and still have some expandability. This would answer all the clamor about not having a SD standard and having slow small hard drives, etc. Plus, the mini would fit the design scheme of the Mac Pro and ACD, and probably result in Apple selling more ACD's.

MacBass

Apr 14, 2007, 06:44 PM

You also lose the DVD burner, and get a screen that you may or may not want.

In fact, why not offer the Mini in the low end iMac's processor speed as well?

High end mini has a 1.83 CD, and the low end iMac has a 1.83 GHz C2D, not much of a difference.

balamw

Apr 14, 2007, 07:07 PM

High end mini has a 1.83 CD, and the low end iMac has a 1.83 GHz C2D, not much of a difference.

By the time you upgrade the high-end Mini to be reasonably comparable to the lowest SuperDrive 17" iMac, (1 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD, KB & Mouse) you're at $1152 for the mini and $1199 for the iMac, which is now a 2.0 GHz C2D and has all the other advantages of the larger form factor (3.5" vs 2.5", dedicated graphics card, iSight, ... ) which all seem worth $40 to me. Nevermind that you also get a monitor as part of the deal.

The mini isn't a very cost effective "cheap Mac" I sure hope they come up with something more appealing to replace the current Mini when Santa Rosa hits.

B