An idea for a mid-range tower.

[LoganT]

I know, I know; this has been posted many times. But it seems to me that, the people who are asking for it, are asking for too much. They basically want the same expandability as a Mac Pro but cheaper. No my idea is:

Don't make it expandable.
Make it upgradeable.

1 HD Slot (If you want a bigger one, then you will have to replace your current one)
1 PCI X16 slot
1 FW800
3 USB 2.0
Intel Core 2 Duo (starts at the E6400, can go up to the E6600)
Up to 3 GB of ram (maybe 4)

So now, the people who want more expandability will be forced to buy the Mac Pro.

[mags631]

But it seems to me that, the people who are asking for it, are asking for too much.

I think the issue is that Apple has taken a different route with the segmentation of their products.

I'm curious how many people who have mini-towers in PC-Land have actually put anything in them after the purchase... and no, I'm not talking about the folks here...

[LoganT]

I think the issue is that Apple has taken a different route with the segmentation of their products.

I'm curious how many people who have mini-towers in PC-Land have actually put anything in them after the purchase... and no, I'm not talking about the folks here...

Well right now I am using an Emachines T6532. So far I've upgraded the PSU and the graphics card.

[zap2]

no FW 400?



also lets make it fanless and call it the Mac Pro cube :rolleyes:

[zap2]

. So far I've upgraded the PSU and the graphics card.

He said "not from here"

[iW00t]

I hate to say this, but if you need a mid-range tower, you are after something that Apple doesn't offer.

Go check out the *illegal options*, they are illegal, but yeah they do work.

I am not advocating that you break the law and become a felon however... so just suck it up like the rest of us and buy a Mac Pro :P

[mpw]

He said "not from here"

You mean, like, alien?

[LoganT]

no FW 400?



also lets make it fanless and call it the Mac Pro cube :rolleyes:

Number 1 badass.

Why FW 400? Why not FW 800?

And why not just call it the "Mac"?

[c.joe.go]

i actually would see the next imac to be called, the "mac". and as has been said, what is the point of this type of offering from apple?.... don't they have their markets covered?

[sas76]

I hate to say this, but if you need a mid-range tower, you are after something that Apple doesn't offer.

Go check out the *illegal options*, they are illegal, but yeah they do work.

I am not advocating that you break the law and become a felon however... so just suck it up like the rest of us and buy a Mac Pro :P

What are the illegal optoins ? just a web site will do. I don't want to get you in trouble.

[iW00t]

What are the illegal optoins ? just a web site will do. I don't want to get you in trouble.

Some clever people managed to make OS X run on regular PCs. Since I never figured out how to get it working I won't post any links, but you can google for it and find forums on how to make that happen.

[szsiddiq]

Intel Core 2 Duo (starts at the E6400, can go up to the E6600)
Up to 3 GB of ram (maybe 4)

So now, the people who want more expandability will be forced to buy the Mac Pro.

If they released a mini tower there's no reason why they'd be restricted to Core2Duos when they could easily use Core2Extremes

[roland.g]

I think there are two midrange tower options.

1. Get the Mac Pro and don't use all your cores.

2. Get a MacBook Pro, a 23" ACD and an external drive, plus wireless keyboard and mouse, and maybe a hub and rarely unplug, but still have portability when you want it. If you don't dual screen, especially since the high low can be annoying, close the lid.

I think I may end up going #2 depending on what WWDC, brings. Either that or a 24" iMac. I just don't like the white.

[szsiddiq]

I just don't like the white.

Spray paint :p

[roland.g]

Spray paint :p

Or Colorware. Except those things are way expensive and you can't get all the options. If I get a 24", I'm going 2.33 2GB 500GB 7600GT 256 BT MM & KB. But I have a friend at Apple so I can get a slightly better than edu discount. I just really like the sexy 23" ACD in silver. I wish they would do the iMac like that or black. But I also hear that the 24" iMac has issues with disc burning speed. Something to do with the vertical drive, though I guess that would affect all the iMacs.

I bought a Mini in Oct to get me through to Leopard and now will just upgrade at WWDC. I would love something cube size or a bit bigger. I had a G4 PowerMac for 6 1/2 years and the Mac Pros are even a bit larger, no thanks, not to mention it is way overkill for my needs. I don't know that I like the idea of all the desk clutter of a MBP, drive, screen, etc, not to mention price. That will add up. So I may just get the 24" iMac.

[roland.g]

I know people say it won't happen b/c too many business won't allow them, but with the iSight gone, I'd like to see the ACDs updated with built in iSights like the iMacs and notebooks before I get one.

[sas76]

I'm curious how many people who have mini-towers in PC-Land have actually put anything in them after the purchase... and no, I'm not talking about the folks here...[/QUOTE]



My first mac was a G3 power mac, I still have it and only ever upgraded the ram. ( I now own an ibook ) I will wait for leopard and buy an iMac or mini and in a few years upgrade to another Mac and so on.........

But I am sure there are plenty of people who would like to be able to upgrade there computers or just as important to me newer bigger monitors/TV's. But I supose apple TV is addressing this point.

[LoganT]

If they released a mini tower there's no reason why they'd be restricted to Core2Duos when they could easily use Core2Extremes

Well they could solder the chip in, so you can't upgrade that.

[4JNA]

i like the idea, and they could use the old IBM naming trick and call it a...

MacJr. :) for the masses, limited but not crippled, and comes with a 'fun' keyboard.

now if it only came with micro channel architecture...

[dongmin]

i actually would see the next imac to be called, the "mac". and as has been said, what is the point of this type of offering from apple?.... don't they have their markets covered?

1. You should be able to upgrade your graphics card in a system under $1000.

2. You should be able to run your boot partition off a decent-sized 7200 rpm hard drive and not rely on a notebook drive.

3. And you should be able to match your system with whatever LCD you want.

The iMac fails in #3 and partly #1. The Mini fails in #1 and #2. These aren't grand ambitions. These options should be available in a consumer-grade machine. A re-introduced Cube (or slab) would meet all these requirements, given that it's under $1000. Really, it's not that much of a reach from what they already have: just make the Mini wider to allow room for a 3.5" HD and discrete, upgradable graphics card. $800-$1000 should be the price range, pushing the Mini to the $500-700 price range.

[IrishMac]

I think Apple is making a mistake by not providing a mini tower. I have a 3+ year old 2ghz G5 at work. It will need replacing at the end of the year. I know for a fact that if I asked my boss to get a MacPro he would take one look at the price tag and scream. Thats even with a University purchase price (edu discount and minus VAT as well). And why would he react like this? Because we can get special price Core2 Duo Dells for about £600-800 (usually with a screen as well). I'm a web designer so a tower is an ideal rig. I need to have dual screens, ram/hard drive upgrade abilities. The iMac doesn't really cut it. I have a 24" iMac at home and while its nice to do design work on, having a 2nd display next to it is clunky. I have two 17" NEC's at work and they sit fine on the desk. And work would never order an iMac as they'd see it as just a toy computer.

Surely Apple can come up with a Dimension/Optiplex like mini tower that fits nicely between the iMac and the MacPro?

[gkarris]

He said "not from here"

Then, how would we know?

I got 2 Compaq Presario's dirt cheap on closeout. One I use as a server and I added a 2nd hard drive and a second DVD RW drive.

The other I use for light gaming and flight sims and added a PCI-E graphics card.

I added more memory to both.

Don't get me started, I would love to have a minitower Mac with iMac specs (integrated Intel graphics with a graphics card slot...)

Where is it? (and the widescreen iPod too...):mad:

[theheyes]

Believe me, I'd jump for joy if they offered something like this, but I cant see it happening. At least not for a while.

What I'm (realistically) hoping for when the new iMac design comes out is a) easy DIY upgrades for the RAM/HD and b) a decent graphics card option in the 24" model. And by decent I mean a top-end mainstream card. The x1600 and the 7600 dont cut it.

At the moment its either a compromise (iMac) or overkill (Pro). And theres _NO_WAY_ I'm paying for a Pro. Dont get me wrong, I think OS X is great, but I have my limits.

[iDave]

If Apple offered a mini tower for around $1000, their Mac Pro sales would drop by 90%. That's why they're not doing it.

But I want one too.

[LoganT]

If they released a mini tower there's no reason why they'd be restricted to Core2Duos when they could easily use Core2Extremes

They should solder the chips so you can't change it.

[iW00t]

I think Apple is making a mistake by not providing a mini tower. I have a 3+ year old 2ghz G5 at work. It will need replacing at the end of the year. I know for a fact that if I asked my boss to get a MacPro he would take one look at the price tag and scream. Thats even with a University purchase price (edu discount and minus VAT as well). And why would he react like this? Because we can get special price Core2 Duo Dells for about £600-800 (usually with a screen as well). I'm a web designer so a tower is an ideal rig. I need to have dual screens, ram/hard drive upgrade abilities. The iMac doesn't really cut it. I have a 24" iMac at home and while its nice to do design work on, having a 2nd display next to it is clunky. I have two 17" NEC's at work and they sit fine on the desk. And work would never order an iMac as they'd see it as just a toy computer.

Surely Apple can come up with a Dimension/Optiplex like mini tower that fits nicely between the iMac and the MacPro?

It is precisely for this reason why we won't see a mid-range tower. Why have it eat into Mac Pro sales?

[IrishMac]

Indeed but PowerMac/MacPro sales have been declining for some time. Would such a mac kill MacPro sales? Most people using those machines are doing heavy video/graphics work. I doubt they would drop to a Core 2 Duo as it would not help them productivity wise. Sure it will effect their overheads but only for a short time (as in saving money on getting a cheaper mac). I wanted to get a MacPro but after looking at it closely I realised it was massive over kill for me. So I went for the iMac. I love it but I'm not happy that the only thing with easy access is the memory.

[szsiddiq]

They should solder the chips so you can't change it.

what? i mean apple shud configure a tower with a desktop processor, like the Core 2 Extreme, rather than a laptop processor like the Core2Duo.

[iDave]

Most people using those machines are doing heavy video/graphics work.
I'm sure a lot are. I'm also sure a lot of people like me are buying Mac Pros (G5 in my case) because there is no other choice. When I bought mine, it was to replace my Mac mini, which could barely drive a 23" display at the time. I wanted the ability to get a big hard drive (or two), use any display I like (currently in the market for a 30" model) and up the RAM beyond the paltry limit on the mini.

I really hate its giant size and its price. Otherwise, I'm much happier with the G5 than I was with the mini. But it'll be years before I think about replacing it because it is so expensive. (Normally I would get a new Mac about every two years.)

The fact remains, the mini is an entry level computer. Anyone who wants a better Mac and hates all-in-ones like me, buys a Mac Pro (or buys nothing). I expect there are a lot of Mac Pros out there that are not being worked very hard. (A Core 2 Duo based mini tower would be just fine.)

[LoganT]

what? i mean apple shud configure a tower with a desktop processor, like the Core 2 Extreme, rather than a laptop processor like the Core2Duo.

A Core 2 duo is a desktop chip, it's also the name of the laptop chip. The desktop is called Conroe, and the mobile is called Merom.

[RedDragon870503]

no FW 400?



also lets make it fanless and call it the Mac Pro cube :rolleyes:

Right... also leave out the whole spontaneous combustion part too.

[Pressure]

Apple already tried this with the Cube and it was a great failure.

Perhaps the time wasn't right or the market simply does not want it.

[LoganT]

Apple already tried this with the Cube and it was a great failure.

Perhaps the time wasn't right or the market simply does not want it.

That's because the cube wasn't that much less expensive then the PowerMac.

[iDave]

Apple already tried this with the Cube and it was a great failure.
The cube was severely overpriced for what it was. I think Apple was hoping people would pay a lot for the "cuteness" of the cube. If it had been priced according to what it was worth as a computer or even slightly more, I believe it would have sold well.

[toru173]

I've got (or am getting, still waiting on parts) exactly what you just described. Commell (http://www.commell.com.tw/Product/SBC/LV-674.HTM) mini-itx motherboard plus Cubit 3 (http://www.hoojum.com/new/html/more_c3.htm) case. I payed AUD5400, but that's with a 23", 2.66 1066mhz fsb 4mb L2 cache, 2 gig ram, 500 gig hdd, 7950gt 512mb (special one from EVGA <3), dvd-ram etc burner, wireless bluetooth+mouse etc. All the trimmings. I'm sure apple could do better in volume even IF they bought everything elsewhere (which isn't the apple way).

Come on Apple!

[RRK]

The iMac fails in #3.

Like I just said in another thread you can add an external monitor to the iMacs.


I think Apple should put out some sort of product that would satisfy everyone that wants a mid tower because sheesh Im tired of hearing about it.;)

[trule]

You could spec a PC tower using similar chipsets to the Mac and then install OSX onto that. There are a few websites with details how:

http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

As for a midrange tower from Apple...Apple makes its profit from selling 1500$ computers for 2000$, and the only way it can put this of is if it sells to a narrow market - all in ones, people who are sick of Windows and pro users. Midrange towers just don't fit the Apple model :D

[chaosbunny]

Like I just said in another thread you can add an external monitor to the iMacs.


I think Apple should put out some sort of product that would satisfy everyone that wants a mid tower because sheesh Im tired of hearing about it.;)

They could at least make the 2,33 ghz c2d an option for the 17" modell too, and the better video card of the 24" iMac for the 17" and 20" as an option. People without a large monitor would still buy the 24" iMac.

I have a 21" Eizo lcd that's way better than every iMacs screen in terms of colour calibration and accuracy. And I refuse to pay for a 24" palette monitor. I'd pay for a 17" palette monitor though.

[asmith3006]

I want a mini tower so I can have two hard drives in RAID 1. I certainly can't afford or justify a MacPro :(

[Mord]

I'd like a pony, however, unfortunately it is not going to happen.

[MacBass]

If they released a mini tower there's no reason why they'd be restricted to Core2Duos when they could easily use Core2Extremes

Core2Extremes would drive the price up to nearly the price of a Mac Pro, when everything is said and done.

i like the idea, and they could use the old IBM naming trick and call it a...

MacJr. for the masses, limited but not crippled, and comes with a 'fun' keyboard.

now if it only came with micro channel architecture...

Would this fun keyboard tickle you while you work?

[shikimo]

Indeed but PowerMac/MacPro sales have been declining for some time. Would such a mac kill MacPro sales? Most people using those machines are doing heavy video/graphics work. I doubt they would drop to a Core 2 Duo as it would not help them productivity wise....

This is a good point; a key to a potential successful mini-tower would be to keep both specs and price sufficiently distinct...

The cube was severely overpriced for what it was. I think Apple was hoping people would pay a lot for the "cuteness" of the cube. If it had been priced according to what it was worth as a computer or even slightly more, I believe it would have sold well.

...which, as iDave points out, is the primary reason the Cube failed: right amount of computer, fun and attractive form factor, but so close to the Pro machines in price that it was for the most part a non-Pro-fanboys-only machine. I was so happy and so sad all at once the day I saw my first Cube. I was ready to buy it without even looking at the pricetag and then had a hissy fit when I finally noticed what they wanted for it.

I'd like a pony, however, unfortunately it is not going to happen.

I love it when people know the future with such certainty...after the Cube II comes out we can file your post with those of other posters who made some of us feel so stupid for suggesting that Leopard might not be a 100% bet-the-ranch sure thing for WWDC :rolleyes: .

Besides, who says you can't have a pony? Lisa Simpson even had one for a little while. I think his name was Clip-Clop, but I'm not sure.

[RRK]

I have a 21" Eizo lcd that's way better than every iMacs screen in terms of colour calibration and accuracy. And I refuse to pay for a 24" palette monitor. I'd pay for a 17" palette monitor though.

If you are talking palette monitors then you are a pro user and therefore deserve a Macpro. Apple doesn't design the iMac for you. Then you can get all of the stuff you want.

I am guessing that price is actually your problem with Apple's computer line.

[Mord]

This is a good point; a key to a potential successful mini-tower would be to keep both specs and price sufficiently distinct...



...which, as iDave points out, is the primary reason the Cube failed: right amount of computer, fun and attractive form factor, but so close to the Pro machines in price that it was for the most part a non-Pro-fanboys-only machine. I was so happy and so sad all at once the day I saw my first Cube. I was ready to buy it without even looking at the pricetag and then had a hissy fit when I finally noticed what they wanted for it.



I love it when people know the future with such certainty...after the Cube II comes out we can file your post with those of other posters who made some of us feel so stupid for suggesting that Leopard might not be a 100% bet-the-ranch sure thing for WWDC :rolleyes: .

Besides, who says you can't have a pony? Lisa Simpson even had one for a little while. I think his name was Clip-Clop, but I'm not sure.


I have a cube and I love it to bits. I still use it as my primary mac desktop admittedly because it's so damn pretty sitting on my desk but it still does the job.

The thing is that apple will never compete in a market where it'll get it's arse spanked and the pro/consumer tower is one where it just will, 99% of pc's are of this forum factor and most of them are unebievably cheaply made and shoddy. Apple just can't compete with this and I don't honestly think they should no matter how much I or any of you would like a "cube II".

[chaosbunny]

If you are talking palette monitors then you are a pro user and therefore deserve a Macpro. Apple doesn't design the iMac for you. Then you can get all of the stuff you want.

I am guessing that price is actually your problem with Apple's computer line.

Me no need a MacPro to do vector graphics & illustrations in Adobe Illustrator, which is about 60&#37; of my work. Apart from that I run photoshop, indesign, and more and more cinema 4D (hence the "need" for a decent video card.).

I've thought about getting one, and maybe could afford one although it would be stretching the budget. But since I often freelance for agencies and work outdoors, I'll need a new mbp within the next 1-2 years (I want to keep my 2 year old powerbook for as long as possible, it still performs rather ok for most of my needs and I don't want to sell it, because I like keeping a later generation ppc machine for classic apps & non universal software & games I have).

And I don't have the money to buy a MacPro now and a mbp next year. So I thought about getting an iMac to have a desktop. Some sort of a minitower would be more than welcome. Let's see what wwdc brings.:)

Please, not because someone earns his money with his mac in some creative field and therefore is a "pro" means he needs 4 cores of pure processing power. This only applies to audio & video "pros". Take a type designer for example, all he needs to run is Fontographer and maybe some version of Illustrator or Freehand. The conclusion "hey you are a pro you need a macpro" is often false. That's why I never liked the term "pro" tied to a product.^^

[RRK]

Me no need a MacPro to do vector graphics & illustrations in Adobe Illustrator.

I don't know what you "need" but Apple designs the iMac for consumer users and you are complaining that it is not designed perfectly for you because of your work. You are producing with your mac and for that Apple has designed the Macpro (unless you are planning on using iLife).
I know illustrators and they use Macpros and Powermacs. I have an iMac and I have used it professionally but I also know that its generally the wrong tool for the situation.

[chaosbunny]

I'm just "complaining" that in order to have a somewhat decent gfx card I have to either buy one 2,66 ghz dual core chip or a 24" monitor I do not need.

What's the point in buying a MacPro if one of the 2 dual core processors is just sitting around doing nothing all the time? What's the point in buying a 24" monitor just to fill up desk space in the office?

Don't get me wrong, I like apples computers and os very much, would never buy a windows machine and would love to have an intel mac now that Adobe CS3 is out. But imo apple does not offer a machine that suits my needs perfectly. So I'll try to wait as long as possible to see what happens, since I refuse to pay 1000 bucks for stuff I do not need. Maybe in the US "pros" have money to throw out of the window, here in Austria they don't.

[RRK]

What's the point in buying a MacPro if one of the 2 dual core processors is just sitting around doing nothing all the time? What's the point in buying a 24" monitor just to fill up desk space in the office?

I think CS3 takes advantage of multiple cores and processors, and OS X certainly will so I don't think the dual duals will be as worthless as you are imagining, not to mention doing a little future proofing. Also, the point of buying the highest end iMac is that you are trying to squeeze, what is IMO, professional results out of a consumer level product so it requires the maxed-out model.

Maybe in the US "pros" have money to throw out of the window, here in Austria they don't.

As I thought your real problem is with the price. I could probably buy a new Dell every other year but instead I buy a good iMac every 4 years. Most of us will agree that there is a monetary price we pay to gain the advantages that Apple offers us over other companies. Professionals generally consider it a small price to pay as an investment in their business.

Anyway we have been going back and forth quite a bit but if I were you I would get the 24" iMac because I think the screen is beautiful. If you continue to feel disappointed with the disadvantages the iMac has as compared to the Macpro then you should just accept the fact that Apple has decided that it would satisfy your needs with the Macpro. :)

[chaosbunny]

Of course you are right, and as I said I gladly pay the price for my macs from the day I bought my first one, my still operational G4 cube.

I'll just wait for the next imacs and decide then, atm I guess an imac this summer & a low end mbp next year would be a wiser investment than a mp.

Sorry for somewhat hijacking this thread.^^

[Apple Architect]

I'd like a pony, however, unfortunately it is not going to happen.


I'd like a pony as well. One like John Wayne used to ride, brown and white. I am sure they have a name.

[shikimo]

I have a cube and I love it to bits. I still use it as my primary mac desktop admittedly because it's so damn pretty sitting on my desk but it still does the job.

The thing is that apple will never compete in a market where it'll get it's arse spanked and the pro/consumer tower is one where it just will, 99% of pc's are of this forum factor and most of them are unebievably cheaply made and shoddy. Apple just can't compete with this and I don't honestly think they should no matter how much I or any of you would like a "cube II".

Your logic is certainly sound, and you will probably be proven correct...but you know as well as I do that there are always surprises, good and bad, with Apple product releases. That was my only real point...and of course to possibly revive your long-ignored desire to own a small horse :cool: .

[whooleytoo]

I'm just "complaining" that in order to have a somewhat decent gfx card I have to either buy one 2,66 ghz dual core chip or a 24" monitor I do not need.

What's the point in buying a MacPro if one of the 2 dual core processors is just sitting around doing nothing all the time? What's the point in buying a 24" monitor just to fill up desk space in the office?

Don't get me wrong, I like apples computers and os very much, would never buy a windows machine and would love to have an intel mac now that Adobe CS3 is out. But imo apple does not offer a machine that suits my needs perfectly. So I'll try to wait as long as possible to see what happens, since I refuse to pay 1000 bucks for stuff I do not need. Maybe in the US "pros" have money to throw out of the window, here in Austria they don't.

I'd agree very much. To me, Apple's problem isn't pricing so much as choice. They need to make a profit on the pro machines, but also need to sell a lot of Macs. And they need to be careful that people don't buy the low-cost, low-margin Macs and use them instead of pro Macs. Hence, they've had to design ("limit"?) their ranges to differentiate them as much as possible.

Obviously, this is a key reason why gaming on the Mac has always struggled.

For me, I'd just need:
- upgradable CPU.
- upgradable GPU (with a choice of cards to buy!)
- a reasonable max RAM capacity.

and have no need for:
- a massive screen.
- a massive hard disk.
- loads of drive bays.
- DVD burners.
- lots of expansion slots.

I think they could make something like that quite cheap. They just don't seem to see an incentive.

[RRK]

I think they could make something like that quite cheap. They just don't seem to see an incentive.

I think Jobs' goal with Apple has always been to change the world and he is willing to force us to like what he thinks we should. He would like to force one button mice on us, he forced us to give up floppy drives, he wants to force us to use an all in one design and he wants to force big/hd monitors. I don't know iSights, Blueray, Multi-touch...

I love it all but I will still purchase my mice from Logitech, thank you. :) ;)

[Apple Architect]

...have no need for:
- a massive screen.
- a massive hard disk.
- loads of drive bays.
- DVD burners.
- lots of expansion slots.

I think they could make something like that quite cheap. They just don't seem to see an incentive.

I would agree with this. Think about it as a Mini on steroids rather than a cut down pro.

One card slot
One drive bay
One graphics card
One optical drive
....and a striking industrial design.

Drag people up from the mini rather than down from the pro. That said, I guess the impact on the margins they make on the AIO could be extreme. No margin on the screens.

[trevorlsciact]

I think the product line is just the way they want it right now there is no room for an addition except maybe an ultra-portable. But for the desktops its complete, you have the mini, covering the people who want a "cheap" Mac; then the iMac takes over for the majority, with a nice bell curve leading to the 24" prosumer targeted iMac; then the professionals use the Mac Pros. There is no gap in the coverage, it may not be exactly what YOU are looking for, but is what most people, and Apple, are looking for.

[iDave]

...but is what most people, and Apple, are looking for.
I disagree. "Most people" who buy desktop computers are buying WinPCs that are affordable expandable towers with separate monitors; not all-in-one Macs, or any Macs for that matter. There's plenty of "room" for Apple to go after those people.

[miloblithe]

I think that Apple will only build a mid-priced monitorless computer when they start selling monitors at competitive prices. Otherwise, they have little incentive to do so because basically it allows people to buy a cheaper iMac and but their monitor from another company. Why would Apple be interested in that arrangement?

Step one: cheaper monitors.

[trevorlsciact]

I disagree. "Most people" who buy desktop computers are buying WinPCs that are affordable expandable towers with separate monitors; not all-in-one Macs, or any Macs for that matter. There's plenty of "room" for Apple to go after those people.

I think Apple's Philosophy behind their lineup is that as long as we have the left to right covered we don't need to cover the up and down. They have all the price ranges that they want, and are reluctant to expand to offer different options at each price point.

[shikimo]

I think that Apple will only build a mid-priced monitorless computer when they start selling monitors at competitive prices. Otherwise, they have little incentive to do so because basically it allows people to buy a cheaper iMac and but their monitor from another company. Why would Apple be interested in that arrangement?

Step one: cheaper monitors.

Than what of the wildly successful, if badly in need of an update, Mini? Before Mini I would've agreed with you, but it's been a few years since Apple has seemed intent on making everyone except professionals buy an all-in-one. I agree that Apple could kick some serious butt with some affordable monitors, but I don't see it as a reason to stay out of additional headless hardware.

I think Apple's Philosophy behind their lineup is that as long as we have the left to right covered we don't need to cover the up and down. They have all the price ranges that they want, and are reluctant to expand to offer different options at each price point.

Nah, I'm with iDave here: the rhetoric of being the BMW of computers (i.e. "less than 5% of the market but doing fine, thank you") is good marketing and not a complete lie, but Apple is in business to increase market share just like everybody else. I think the real question is whether they think a midrange tower is going to lure people away from cognate Windows machines, as opposed to being a matter of sticking to the niche markets where they already do well. So far, the Cube misadventure is our only evidence that anyone at Apple thought this would work (see rest of this increasingly long thread for more discussion of that), but who knows what's going on over there in Cali these days. Besides, in the computer industry price ranges shift so rapidly it's obligatory to revisit pricing strategies in all sectors regularly, so that's no reason to bag out on a midrange headless gig; it could always be worked in above the Minis, below the Pros and outside the iMac.

I tend to agree with the people who say that too many lower-end pro users would buy it and tune it like a '72 Nova instead of buying a MacPro, a task for which the Mini is altogether too small and weak...but again, who knows.

[zero2dash]

I want a tower (mid or full) because I don't want to be tethered to a monitor. Yes of course you can add a 2nd monitor to an iMac but what do you do then if you want to use the 2nd as the primary and not use the built in at all? Put the 2nd in front of the iMac? That's an awful lot of desk space going to waste.

I like iMacs, they're great computers. I was going for a 24" but I think I've settled on the 2.66 Mac Pro. I'm wishy-washy as to whether or not I need all that power, but I do know that I'd love to have it (+ 2 SuperDrives) for ripping/encoding and burning dvds, so...I'll pay the extra to get it.

I do wish there were more choices, but I don't think we'll see it anytime soon. Seems like Apple believes that most users can either use a Mini or iMac and those who need lots of power will get the most out of the Mac Pro. The problem is, they're forgetting the people who want the expandability, not necessarily the power of a Mac Pro.

As for the question on upgrading a current system -
granted, the extent of my upgrading has been HD, but nevertheless...I went from -2- 80gig ATA Samsungs to those + a 320gig SATA Seagate in my XP PC. I refuse to put money elsewhere into the computer because I will be buying a Mac Pro in the next year. I don't PC game much at all so there's no reason to upgrade from my Radeon 9500, besides my mobo does not have PCI-e and AGP video cards are dinosaurs at this point in time. My 500w PSU is adequate (always has been), my 8x LiteOn dvd burner is adequate enough...1gig of ram is adequate enough (I'd like to have at least 2gigs but again, I'm not sinking money into this computer any more unless it's something that can go into a Mac Pro like the 320gig SATA Seagate I bought recently).

[RRK]

The problem is, they're forgetting the people who want the expandability, not necessarily the power of a Mac Pro.

I don't think they are forgetting. I think they just did some research and found out hardly anyone upgrades anymore they just buy a new cheap disposable Dell. I think with all of the technologies advancing so quickly it isn't so simple as upgrading the graphics card and hard drive. By the time you upgrade one everything else is outdated as well. Those who do upgrades are mostly pro's and "elite gamers". Of which they don't really care about the small yet vocal gaming group.

[zero2dash]

I don't think they are forgetting. I think they just did some research and found out hardly anyone upgrades anymore they just buy a new cheap disposable Dell. I think with all of the technologies advancing so quickly it isn't so simple as upgrading the graphics card and hard drive. By the time you upgrade one everything else is outdated as well. Those who do upgrades are mostly pro's and "elite gamers". Of which they don't really care about the small yet vocal gaming group.

Yeah, I agree...I don't think people 'upgrade' as much these days as they used to. At least I sure don't. ;) My first several computers...added cd burners (several), ram upgrades, graphics cards, new hard drives, added PCI cards. Nowadays it's like you buy what you'll need and roll with it. :o

I think most Mac owners don't upgrade much anyway, at least not out of the realm of what's available. Memory and hard drive, that's about it...and I'm sure Apple sees this and says "we'll put that expandability into all our systems and it will suffice" and it typically does.

I dunno. The more I think about it, the less I'm upset about paying the extra money for a Mac Pro. Will I ever use all that cpu usage with CS2/CS3? Highly unlikely (minus those rare times when I use a Photoshop filter or import a high res graphic). But when I do work with video, it will be a godsend. And not only that...the computer itself is more future proof. When I built my P4, I wanted to build something that would last a long time and it has. If it weren't for Vista being crap (IMO) and wanting a Mac at home again, I think my P4 would be the last computer I own. Then again, I say that now... :D

[iDave]

I don't think they are forgetting. I think they just did some research and found out hardly anyone upgrades anymore they just buy a new cheap disposable Dell.
There's an idea! I'll get a cheap disposable Dell instead of a Mac. :eek:

[RRK]

There's an idea! I'll get a cheap disposable Dell instead of a Mac. :eek:

If you would like to be a member of the majority. ;)

[Dustman]

For me, personally, i dont really care about cpu as much as i care about gpu and ram, so i'd want:

-2.0ghz Intel Celeron (no need for other cores, and really, i dont do anything processor intensive)

-Intergrated Graphics (whatever the santa rosa's supposed to be using) or low(ish)-end 128mb graphics card.

-1 gb of ram standard (max 4 gb)

-250 gb hard disk

and a few pci slots to add soundcards, usb cards, video cards and so on.. and make it the size of maybe 2 or 3 minis stacked ontop of eachother. If they kept the price the same as the mini with the same specs, id buy it in a heart beat just for upgradability.

Someone please agree with me hahaha

[LoganT]

For me, personally, i dont really care about cpu as much as i care about gpu and ram, so i'd want:

-2.0ghz Intel Celeron (no need for other cores, and really, i dont do anything processor intensive)

-Intergrated Graphics (whatever the santa rosa's supposed to be using) or low(ish)-end 128mb graphics card.

-1 gb of ram standard (max 4 gb)

-250 gb hard disk

and a few pci slots to add soundcards, usb cards, video cards and so on.. and make it the size of maybe 2 or 3 minis stacked ontop of eachother. If they kept the price the same as the mini with the same specs, id buy it in a heart beat just for upgradability.

Someone please agree with me hahaha

Apple is not going to sell a computer with an Intel Celeron chip.

[Cormier6083]

Two Laptops...

Two Desktops.

Thats how it's always been (in the beginning) and always will be.

And that sub-notebook idea... might want to think again.

:apple:
Think Different

[sikkinixx]

I would love Mac OS to work on any old PC, but since that isn't going to happen I guess I will buy a Mac again :)

My boss just bought a 20" iMac after years of buying PC's for home and for our office and he told me the best part was the limited selection. He LIKED only having to choose 1) Screen Size 2) Ram 3) Processor 4) HDD. Compare that to the avalanche of options Dell gives you and I can see his point, what Apple has now is simple and unconfusing (well Mac Pro has a lot of options I suppose but thats for Pro users so..). Sure it won't please everyone but it won't overwhelm people either.

Personally, I just want Apple to release a 12" or smaller laptop. I don't care if it is slow with only a Core Duo I just want small. A headless iMac would be groovy as well because I would rather spend $350 on a 20" Ultrasharp and be able to use it for a desktop, laptop and other stuff than be tied to the 20" iMac monitor :( ah well...

[psychofreak]

Two Laptops...

Two Desktops.

Thats how it's always been (in the beginning) and always will be.

And that sub-notebook idea... might want to think again.
Yes two desktops: the mac mini, the iMac and the Mac Pro...

With a text/spreadsheet app on the iPhone, it could become an ultraportable...

[Cormier6083]

Yes two desktops: the mac mini, the iMac and the Mac Pro...

Oy.... never mind. Machalla!

[LoganT]

Two Laptops...

Two Desktops.

Thats how it's always been (in the beginning) and always will be.

And that sub-notebook idea... might want to think again.

:apple:
Think Different


You mean 4 laptops and 1 server.

[Spanky Deluxe]

You mean 4 laptops and 1 server.

No. Just because a machine uses some laptop components does not make it a laptop and the last time I checked, the Mac Pro was a workstation. Now what with the rumours that the mini will be discontinued floating around, the chances of a mid-ranged tower are becoming a big bigger, i.e. from no chance to slim chance. A mid-ranged tower would shoot Apple in the foot and I sincerely hope they don't create one.

[LoganT]

No. Just because a machine uses some laptop components does not make it a laptop and the last time I checked, the Mac Pro was a workstation. Now what with the rumours that the mini will be discontinued floating around, the chances of a mid-ranged tower are becoming a big bigger, i.e. from no chance to slim chance. A mid-ranged tower would shoot Apple in the foot and I sincerely hope they don't create one.

I know. But it's like laptop power in a desktop form. The desktop should be more powerful then the laptop. And how would making a mid-range tower be shooting themselves in the foot?

[Spanky Deluxe]

I know. But it's like laptop power in a desktop form. The desktop should be more powerful then the laptop. And how would making a mid-range tower be shooting themselves in the foot?

If they used desktop components in the iMacs then they couldn't get them *that* much faster, they'd run hotter and they'd have to spend lots of R&D $$$s on designing a third hardware platform so its not worth it.

Why would making a mid-range tower be shooting themselves in the foot?

Well, a mid ranged tower of equal power to the iMacs would make people considering an iMac buy a mid ranged tower and buy displays elsewhere, less money for Apple. An easily upgradeable cheap Mac would mean people upgrading their machines more with parts from other companies instead of buying a new machine for Apple (less money for Apple). A mid-ranged tower would have to be very competetively priced with the competition out there. IMacs and Minis don't have this problem as much since the competition is slim, a mid-ranged tower would complete with all the Dells, HPs out there, i.e. nearly every other PC. What with all the R&D necessary to build such a new machine with a new platform, it just wouldn't worth the money to Apple.

Now what I *would* like to see, although still very unlikely, is a Mac Mini with an MXM graphics module. Unfortunately, I don't think this would fit inside the current case of the Mini and I doubt Apple would want to release a slightly taller mini. They could maybe do something like they did with the MacBook over the iBook though, make it flatter but wider. A Mac Mini with an MXM graphics module would be enough for those with the inclination to be able to upgrade everything they want while still remaining a clearly different piece of kit to what the competition has to offer.
The big problem is that a mid-sized tower is *asking to be upgraded* which Apple don't want. Something like an MXM capable Mini *could* be upgraded but its a bit of a hassle and most people wouldn't bother.

[iDave]

Well, a mid ranged tower of equal power to the iMacs would make people considering an iMac buy a mid ranged tower and buy displays elsewhere, less money for Apple. An easily upgradeable cheap Mac would mean people upgrading their machines more with parts from other companies instead of buying a new machine for Apple (less money for Apple).
Are you a stockholder or just an Apple employee? :D

This thread is about hopes for a reasonably priced mid-range tower which would be great for Mac fans who hate all-in-ones and pro towers they can't afford. Apple is doing very well; better I think than any time in their history. Do they need to continue to be greedy or should they give the people what they want and increase the user base in the process? More Mac users means more available software, less expensive hardware and a healthier Apple. All good, in my opinion.

[Fahrwahr]

Two Laptops...

Two Desktops.

Thats how it's always been (in the beginning) and always will be.

And that sub-notebook idea... might want to think again.

:apple:
Think Different


Err, what beginning are you talking about? Apple didn't start making laptops until what, the early nineties? The Macintosh Portable (ONE laptop) was the beginning, but it was kind of a flop. The PowerBook 100, 140, and 170 (is that one laptop or three?) were the first in Apple's "modern" portable strategy.

If you're talking about desktop and portable LINES, you may be right: consumer and professional lines of desktop and laptop form factors. Unfortunately, we're seeing a contraction of options within these lines. If the rumor holds true, the next revision of the iMac will move the baseline to 20" -- that may be too large to be practical for some users. The Power Mac towers used to sell for as low as $1499, but the Pro raises the minimum by a grand. The MacBook (13") replaces the iBook line that in recent years had two sizes (12" and 14"), and the MacBook Pro (15" and 17") dropped the PowerBook's smallest size (12").

Is this a good thing? I guess it depends on whether Apple feels it's better to simplify the product line at the expense of customers who want more options. It may help them in terms of retail placement, but at what cost in terms of retail sales? Right now it probably means that some of the Apple faithful will choose to get by on what hardware they have now, when they might have made the jump to new hardware had there been a compelling option. (The Mac mini threads are full of people who were waiting for the mini to at least make it to C2D.)

Don't count Apple out of testing an expansion to the product line (iPod, iPhone anyone?). Just because one foray proves unsuccessful doesn't mean Apple won't try another. (Would we have seen a mini after the failure of the Cube if Apple weren't willing to try again?)

[LoganT]

Well, a mid ranged tower of equal power to the iMacs would make people considering an iMac buy a mid ranged tower and buy displays elsewhere, less money for Apple.

But people are already buying Mac Minis and buying the displays elsewhere.

An easily upgradeable cheap Mac would mean people upgrading their machines more with parts from other companies instead of buying a new machine for Apple (less money for Apple).

When you upgrade things like ram, or graphics card in the Mac Pro you are probably buying them from other companies. Less money for Apple.

A mid-ranged tower would have to be very competetively priced with the competition out there.

Not necessarily.

IMacs and Minis don't have this problem as much since the competition is slim,

True.

a mid-ranged tower would complete with all the Dells, HPs out there, i.e. nearly every other PC.

Well the Mac Mini competes with the lowend PC's, and the Mac Pro competes with the very high-end PC's. I don't see how they couldn't compete with the in-between.

What with all the R&D necessary to build such a new machine with a new platform, it just wouldn't worth the money to Apple.

I think it would. Every forum and site I've been on with this subject has about 90% of the people agreeing.

Now what I *would* like to see, although still very unlikely, is a Mac Mini with an MXM graphics module.

They should of had this from the start. But I do agree.

Unfortunately, I don't think this would fit inside the current case of the Mini and I doubt Apple would want to release a slightly taller mini. They could maybe do something like they did with the MacBook over the iBook though, make it flatter but wider

Ala Apple TV.

A Mac Mini with an MXM graphics module would be enough for those with the inclination to be able to upgrade everything they want while still remaining a clearly different piece of kit to what the competition has to offer.

To be honest, if Apple did that I would probably be happy with just that.

The big problem is that a mid-sized tower is *asking to be upgraded* which Apple don't want.

The thing is though, there really isn't that much hardware made for the Mac. I mean you can't just throw any old Windows graphics card in there.

Something like an MXM capable Mini *could* be upgraded but its a bit of a hassle and most people wouldn't bother.

I think what needs to happen is, get NVidia to start selling MXM cards retail.

[Spanky Deluxe]

Are you a stockholder or just an Apple employee? :D

This thread is about hopes for a reasonably priced mid-range tower which would be great for Mac fans who hate all-in-ones and pro towers they can't afford. Apple is doing very well; better I think than any time in their history. Do they need to continue to be greedy or should they give the people what they want and increase the user base in the process? More Mac users means more available software, less expensive hardware and a healthier Apple. All good, in my opinion.

But most people don't want/care for an upgradeable system so the only people for whom a Mid-range Tower would be for would be for the very small minority of people like yourselves. I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice, it just would make bad business sense. One of the biggest selling points for Apple is the simplicity of their line up like other people have mentioned.

I honestly think the best thing we could hope for would be something like the mini but with an MXM graphics card. Basically the guts of an iMac 24" just with a notebook hard drive and a slower (but socketed) CPU. A machine like that would allow 3rd party graphics cards to come out down the line, could take better processors, faster hard drives, more RAM etc etc. The only thing it wouldn't have that some people want is a PCI-X slot although to be honest, we're getting to the age where internal cards other than hard drive controllers are few and far between. Everything's USB these days.

[Spanky Deluxe]

Mac Minis are designed for switchers who already have a display etc. Most people looking at buying a Mac Mini + a display, keyboard, mouse etc from someone else will see that getting an iMac would be a better deal and is simpler. Mac Pros have a much higher profit margin than any of the other products and besides which. A Mac Pro customer is expected by Apple to keep their machine for a long time. An iMac or Mac Mini customer is expected to replace their machine on a much more regular basis which counteracts the smaller profit margin these machines have.
Although yes, most people that reply to these kinds of threads are really for an upgradeable mini tower, most people who think its a lost cause or a silly idea don't bother posting in these threads. Quite a few threads like these pop up every now and again and I hardly ever bother posting in them because they go around in circles and we all firmly believe its not going to happen.

While no MXM cards are widely available in the retail outlets right now, its still a fledgling standard. Hopefully as it gains more support and use we'll start to see some cards available, particularly via part orders from the likes of Dell, which could then be flashed for Mac use if a similar chipset is used in a Mac.

[iDave]

But most people don't want/care for an upgradeable system...
I don't know why you say that. Nearly every WinPC computer sold that's not a portable is more upgradeable than any iMac or Mac mini. WinPCs command more than 90% of the market, so that's a heckuva lot of upgradeable systems being purchased.

Admittedly, not everyone who can upgrade a WinPC does upgrade, but the options are there. Why shouldn't those same options be available on the Mac side to those who want them, without having to spend $2500 for a pro system?

[LoganT]

It's not that people want all the features of the Mac Pro for cheap. Right now I can afford a Mac Pro, but I don't buy it because I can't justify spending that much money when I probably won't use the full power of it.

[Cormier6083]

Err, what beginning are you talking about? Apple didn't start making laptops until what, the early nineties? The Macintosh Portable (ONE laptop) was the beginning, but it was kind of a flop. The PowerBook 100, 140, and 170 (is that one laptop or three?) were the first in Apple's "modern" portable strategy.

If you're talking about desktop and portable LINES, you may be right: consumer and professional lines of desktop and laptop form factors. Unfortunately, we're seeing a contraction of options within these lines. If the rumor holds true, the next revision of the iMac will move the baseline to 20" -- that may be too large to be practical for some users. The Power Mac towers used to sell for as low as $1499, but the Pro raises the minimum by a grand. The MacBook (13") replaces the iBook line that in recent years had two sizes (12" and 14"), and the MacBook Pro (15" and 17") dropped the PowerBook's smallest size (12").

Is this a good thing? I guess it depends on whether Apple feels it's better to simplify the product line at the expense of customers who want more options. It may help them in terms of retail placement, but at what cost in terms of retail sales? Right now it probably means that some of the Apple faithful will choose to get by on what hardware they have now, when they might have made the jump to new hardware had there been a compelling option. (The Mac mini threads are full of people who were waiting for the mini to at least make it to C2D.)

Don't count Apple out of testing an expansion to the product line (iPod, iPhone anyone?). Just because one foray proves unsuccessful doesn't mean Apple won't try another. (Would we have seen a mini after the failure of the Cube if Apple weren't willing to try again?)

Well in Stevey J's beginning.

What I'm trying to say is that any computer product outside of the four square (Macbook, iMac, MacBook Pro, Mac Pro) is going to hurt the square.
Ex: Sub-Notebook: MacBook

Apple will experiment but it will not last.

[Fahrwahr]

Well in Stevey J's beginning.

What I'm trying to say is that any computer product outside of the four square (Macbook, iMac, MacBook Pro, Mac Pro) is going to hurt the square.
Ex: Sub-Notebook: MacBook

Apple will experiment but it will not last.

What would you call the original iMac? It was pretty daring -- no floppy, none of the legacy ports from the Mac line (ADB, SCSI, Mac serial), and not in a "serious" computer color. It marked a significant departure from the model-crazy years of the Performa and pre-G3 Power Mac lines. It stuck.

Yes, the current four-square lineup seems to be working for Apple -- for now. But who knows what form factors and technologies will come about in the future? We may not be too far from the day when we see a Mac Pod -- a pocketable computer that connects to whatever display you have on hand. Apple might have some quality issues that lead the buying public to distrust the lineup, requiring a major revamp to get the consumer to forget the past mistakes. Tablet technology could mature. Another company could come up with a form factor that sweeps the tech world off its feet. The list goes on and on.

Daring to "think outside the square" is only bad if it's done in such a way to hurt the company, and I think Steve is smart enough not to let that happen. Yes, the "square" may lose sales, but if the company as a whole gains, what's the problem?

[Cormier6083]

What would you call the original iMac? It was pretty daring -- no floppy, none of the legacy ports from the Mac line (ADB, SCSI, Mac serial), and not in a "serious" computer color. It marked a significant departure from the model-crazy years of the Performa and pre-G3 Power Mac lines. It stuck.

Yes, the current four-square lineup seems to be working for Apple -- for now. But who knows what form factors and technologies will come about in the future? We may not be too far from the day when we see a Mac Pod -- a pocketable computer that connects to whatever display you have on hand. Apple might have some quality issues that lead the buying public to distrust the lineup, requiring a major revamp to get the consumer to forget the past mistakes. Tablet technology could mature. Another company could come up with a form factor that sweeps the tech world off its feet. The list goes on and on.

Daring to "think outside the square" is only bad if it's done in such a way to hurt the company, and I think Steve is smart enough not to let that happen. Yes, the "square" may lose sales, but if the company as a whole gains, what's the problem?


The problem is that if Apple makes a upgradeable Mini-Tower, more people are going to buy third party parts which hurt Apple.
I would now like to spank Quotey Deluxe

Well, a mid ranged tower of equal power to the iMacs would make people considering an iMac buy a mid ranged tower and buy displays elsewhere, less money for Apple. An easily upgradeable cheap Mac would mean people upgrading their machines more with parts from other companies instead of buying a new machine for Apple (less money for Apple). A mid-ranged tower would have to be very competetively priced with the competition out there. IMacs and Minis don't have this problem as much since the competition is slim, a mid-ranged tower would complete with all the Dells, HPs out there, i.e. nearly every other PC. What with all the R&D necessary to build such a new machine with a new platform, it just wouldn't worth the money to Apple.

[LoganT]

Yes, the current four-square lineup seems to be working for Apple -- for now.

I think the reason why it's working is because you don't have a choice. People buy Mac's for Mac OS X not for Macs. When you don't have options, you kind of just have to accept it, even though you don't want to.

[Cormier6083]

I think the reason why it's working is because you don't have a choice. People buy Mac's for Mac OS X not for Macs. When you don't have options, you kind of just have to accept it, even though you don't want to.

Not entierly true. This is why Apple may be taking away the Mac Mini, because people don't want that "Mac". :[]

God knows I don't want that crapola. It's underpowered and it's a trap.

[iDave]

I think the reason why it's working is because you don't have a choice. People buy Mac's for Mac OS X not for Macs. When you don't have options, you kind of just have to accept it, even though you don't want to.
I agree, and people also continue to buy used Macs because they don't have the choice they want in a new one. Why else do used Macs keep their value for so long? It's obvious to me that people want something they're not getting from Apple (or that they can't afford) so rather than buy new, they buy used. That isn't exactly good for Apple, is it?

The problem is that if Apple makes a upgradeable Mini-Tower, more people are going to buy third party parts which hurt Apple.
I just don't understand that point at all. Does the massive market for iPod accessories hurt Apple? So what if you can upgrade your Mac with third party products. Is that worse than buying a used Mac to get what you want?

[Cormier6083]

I just don't understand that point at all. Does the massive market for iPod accessories hurt Apple? So what if you can upgrade your Mac with third party products. Is that worse than buying a used Mac to get what you want?

Ask the person who initial stated that. Thats what I think.

More accessible= more third party hard drives, ram, etc.

[iDave]

More accessible= more third party hard drives, ram, etc.
Cool, and Macs will become more popular because people can do what they want with them!

[Spanky Deluxe]

Not entierly true. This is why Apple may be taking away the Mac Mini, because people don't want that "Mac". :[]

God knows I don't want that crapola. It's underpowered and it's a trap.

The Mac Mini's not *that* bad a seller. The 1.66Ghz Model is the 22nd most sold Computer or Computer Add On (http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/ref=pd_ts_pc_nav/104-1059016-9770367?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=left-1&pf_rd_r=12750Q4CY9XVRPHZZFHY&pf_rd_t=2101&pf_rd_p=221591101&pf_rd_i=home) on Amazon. Its selling better than the 17" iMac (although yes, I realise that's on the hit list too for being cut).

It does need an update though. If they put Santa Rosa in it with the X 3000 and a C2D 1.83 and 2.0 then it would be a massive seller again.

[Fahrwahr]

The problem is that if Apple makes a upgradeable Mini-Tower, more people are going to buy third party parts which hurt Apple.
I would now like to spank Quotey Deluxe

I'm not going to touch that phrasing…

Anyway, when a current Mac user wants to upgrade the hard disk or memory, do they always go to Apple? The memory and hard disk on at least some of the consumer models (the MacBook in particular) are known to be user-replacable, so Apple already sells machines that are upgradable with parts you can obtain from someone else.

I do get your point -- Apple wouldn't (and shouldn't) make a machine that is so upgradable you never buy a new Mac again. Easy enough: solder the CPU to the motherboard. Don't put in PCI slots that would allow support for new ports or networking technology. A video card slot would be nice, but it's not a dealbreaker (for me anyway). The point is to have a machine that's not as powerful or expandable as the Mac Pro but is reasonably powerful and expandable (full-size / desktop components) for its mid-end price.

The one question I have about what you quoted from Spanky's post: is there any way to know how much of a margin Apple gets off the display component of an iMac? For all we know it might be more of a headache to include the display simply because if it breaks down under warranty, it's on Apple's dime. Remember that Apple doesn't MAKE the LCD screens -- you can find several online discussions over whether the quality of the screen from one supplier exceeds that of another -- so Apple's having to pay the going rate. Elegant? Yes. Profitable? Hard to know.

[Cormier6083]

I do get your point -- Apple wouldn't (and shouldn't) make a machine that is so upgradable you never buy a new Mac again. Easy enough: solder the CPU to the motherboard. Don't put in PCI slots that would allow support for new ports or networking technology.

Thats my point. Then it's not a full featured machine. People want a desktop that acts like a desktop, not a notebook without a screen. And if Apple give that to them, Mac Pro sales hurt, iMac sales hurt etc and then it wouldn't be a "mini" tower... it would be too expensive. It would be easier to buy an iMac or a Mac Pro if you want another monitor. So I take it back... it would only hurt itself... ;) Actually, I think my mind just explod. I need rest.

What do I know, I've never even used a Mac!

What I think Apple needs to do is to keep it under par with the rest of the Macs but not so underpowered and over priced.
The Mini-Tower idea would hurt the Mac line but if you make it unaccesible yet appealing, it would do great. This also fits in with the sub-notebook.

The Apple Rectangle is now complete.



:apple:
Think Expensive

[Cormier6083]

It does need an update though. If they put Santa Rosa in it with the X 3000 and a C2D 1.83 and 2.0 then it would be a massive seller again.

I agree. The thing is that the Mini has to stay underpowered and unacessible for the Macintosh ecosystem to function properly.

:apple:
Think Confusing

[Spanky Deluxe]

I'm not going to touch that phrasing…

Anyway, when a current Mac user wants to upgrade the hard disk or memory, do they always go to Apple? The memory and hard disk on at least some of the consumer models (the MacBook in particular) are known to be user-replacable, so Apple already sells machines that are upgradable with parts you can obtain from someone else.

I do get your point -- Apple wouldn't (and shouldn't) make a machine that is so upgradable you never buy a new Mac again. Easy enough: solder the CPU to the motherboard. Don't put in PCI slots that would allow support for new ports or networking technology. A video card slot would be nice, but it's not a dealbreaker (for me anyway). The point is to have a machine that's not as powerful or expandable as the Mac Pro but is reasonably powerful and expandable (full-size / desktop components) for its mid-end price.

The one question I have about what you quoted from Spanky's post: is there any way to know how much of a margin Apple gets off the display component of an iMac? For all we know it might be more of a headache to include the display simply because if it breaks down under warranty, it's on Apple's dime. Remember that Apple doesn't MAKE the LCD screens -- you can find several online discussions over whether the quality of the screen from one supplier exceeds that of another -- so Apple's having to pay the going rate. Elegant? Yes. Profitable? Hard to know.

You've hit the nail on the head with your second paragraph. Expandability is fine as long as there's one thing that holds it back. Now people moan about Bus speed but at the end of the day, that's not the biggest hold back these days. The best things to hold back are graphics cards and processors. You can upgrade a Mac Mini all you want but at some point that graphics chip just isn't going to cut it in plain old OS X anymore. Same goes for processors. A mid-ranged tower would have a much longer lifespan if everything was upgradeable. If everything wasn't upgrdaeable, it wouldn't be a true mid-ranged tower anymore.

The Mac Pros are different because they're for professionals who aren't the ones usually inclined to bother upgrading the processor of a machine anyway. Their more powerful so as to have a longer life and at that point its not worth the 'professional''s time to bother upgrading. Incidentally, while Apple have made upgrading the memory, hard drives and graphics cards as simple as pi in the Mac Pro, getting to the processors, while doable, is a mission and a half.

[cube]

If it's not fully upgradeable it's not a midrange tower. It's garbage. They could just keep the Mini.

[Cormier6083]

If it's not fully upgradeable it's not a midrange tower. It's garbage. They could just keep the Mini.

Merci Beaucoup


This makes me realize how devoted we are to Apple....



:apple:
Just stop all the thinking...

[LoganT]

Like I said in my original post:

1 HD Slot (If you want a bigger one, then you will have to replace your current one)
1 PCI X16 slot
1 FW800 (FW400 probably)
3 USB 2.0
Intel Core 2 Duo (starts at the E6400, can go up to the E6600)-Soder it.
Up to 3 GB of ram (maybe 4)

[cube]

No.

- At least 2 PCIe slots. One x16, the other at least x4 for Ultra320 SCSI.
- No aberrations like CPU soldering
- FW800, eSATA
- 4 DDR2 RAM slots, 8GB.
- Socket 775, Kentsfield compatible. Phenom better
- Desktop optical drive.

[Spanky Deluxe]

Like I said in my original post:

1 HD Slot (If you want a bigger one, then you will have to replace your current one)
1 PCI X16 slot
1 FW800 (FW400 probably)
3 USB 2.0
Intel Core 2 Duo (starts at the E6400, can go up to the E6600)-Soder it.
Up to 3 GB of ram (maybe 4)

They're more likely to solder the graphics chips than they are the CPUs. Most people would be more interested in upgradeable CPUs anyway (i.e. most consumers, not you or me). I honestly think something like a mini with an MXM is the most we could possibly hope for from Apple.

No.

- At least 2 PCIe slots. One x16, the other at least x4 for Ultra320 SCSI.
- No aberrations like CPU soldering
- FW800, eSATA
- 4 DDR2 RAM slots, 8GB.
- Socket 775, Kentsfield compatible. Phenom better
- Desktop optical drive.

Not going to happen. Ultra320 SCSI is Pro stuff - Buy a Pro machine instead of wanting a consumer machine to do the job for you (that'll be Apple's view). FW800? Not a chance. ESATA? The Mac Pro doesn't even have that. No way.

Edit: Logan, you're original post said "But it seems to me that, the people who are asking for it, are asking for too much. They basically want the same expandability as a Mac Pro but cheaper. No my idea is: Don't make it expandable. Make it upgradeable.". Anything with PCIe slots is expandable and asking for FW800 and PCI slots is asking too much imo.

[cube]

Not going to happen. Ultra320 SCSI is Pro stuff - Buy a Pro machine instead of wanting a consumer machine to do the job for you (that'll be Apple's view). FW800? Not a chance. ESATA? The Mac Pro doesn't even have that. No way.


It just has to have the additional slot for putting anything I want. In this case, for basic mandatory, not pro stuff (tape backup). Ultra320 is overkill for now, and you could do with some slower SCSI, but the only other option is x1, and which chipset has 17 PCIe lanes? They have at least 20.

No problem with FW800, it's not like it would be expensive.

The chipset probably has more than 2 SATA ports, like 4 at least. Why waste them and not provide two external ports (just the connector and cable change for eSATA)?

You can get a cheap eSATA bracket for the Mac Pro to route internal ports.

[LoganT]

They're more likely to solder the graphics chips than they are the CPUs. Most people would be more interested in upgradeable CPUs anyway (i.e. most consumers, not you or me). I honestly think something like a mini with an MXM is the most we could possibly hope for from Apple.



Not going to happen. Ultra320 SCSI is Pro stuff - Buy a Pro machine instead of wanting a consumer machine to do the job for you (that'll be Apple's view). FW800? Not a chance. ESATA? The Mac Pro doesn't even have that. No way.

Edit: Logan, you're original post said "But it seems to me that, the people who are asking for it, are asking for too much. They basically want the same expandability as a Mac Pro but cheaper. No my idea is: Don't make it expandable. Make it upgradeable.". Anything with PCIe slots is expandable and asking for FW800 and PCI slots is asking too much imo.

What if that PCI Slot was filled with USB ports, and if you removed it you wouldn't have anymore USB ports. People who would want to put something in that slot would have to sacrifice those USB ports.

[Fahrwahr]

If it's not fully upgradeable it's not a midrange tower. It's garbage. They could just keep the Mini.

Yes, you could argue that a true mid-range tower would have better upgrade options. I'm more inclined to think that a mini replacement tower need only address the primary shortcomings of the current enclosure: no room for full-size components, and a pain in the rear to upgrade anything. The mini wouldn't have to grow TOO much to have room for a 3.5" hard disk, but the design would have to be modified to prevent the need for a putty knife.

While we're at it, why can't we add a USB port and a headphone jack to the front? I know Apple's obsessed with clean lines these days, but when you're plugging and unplugging peripherals on a regular basis (USB flash drives and headphones), reaching around back amongst all the other cables is pretty inconvenient.

I guess you can tell from what I've posted here that I'm not necessarily asking for a "mid-range" tower to replace the mini -- I'm more interested in a modular desktop enclosure that addresses what I see as the current shortcomings in the mini. I'm sure that if Apple thought it profitable, it could release a line of which the lower-end models have soldered, low-end CPUs and graphics, whereas the higher-end models have socketed, mid-range CPUs and graphics (compare the low-end 17" iMac with integrated graphics to the 17" iMac with discrete graphics in the same enclosure).

I'm still not understanding why it would be so problematic to "hurt" iMac or Mac Pro sales if the margins on this new mini replacement were comparable. I seriously doubt Apple would price any new products in such a way that the margins aren't up to par -- historically Apple has had few such "loss leader" products.

[iDave]

I guess you can tell from what I've posted here that I'm not necessarily asking for a "mid-range" tower to replace the mini -- I'm more interested in a modular desktop enclosure that addresses what I see as the current shortcomings in the mini.
Such a move might make the mini worth the $799 asking price.

[cube]

Here (http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=3&l2=11&l3=371&l4=0&model=1421&modelmenu=2) you have, Apple. Take care of the EFI thing and sell a computer.

[cube]

If you think microATX is too big, you can wait for this:

http://www.dtxpc.org/

[AppleMan101]

I don't know why you say that. Nearly every WinPC computer sold that's not a portable is more upgradeable than any iMac or Mac mini. WinPCs command more than 90% of the market, so that's a heckuva lot of upgradeable systems being purchased.

Admittedly, not everyone who can upgrade a WinPC does upgrade, but the options are there. Why shouldn't those same options be available on the Mac side to those who want them, without having to spend $2500 for a pro system?

People buy a winPC because it's their way of life, dull and dreary; why look somewhere else, outside the box if you will, if you can get something that just does the job? (read that as just or just, however you see fit)

What I'm trying to elude to is that most winPC buyers don't necessarily buy a PC for its upgradability, they buy it because it will do its job for the next three years or so before buying another one. Unlike with macs, there is no emotional attatchment to a PC, which I think is one of the biggest differences between mac-folk and the ignorant...windows users.

The generic PC user will buy a generic box every few years because it's easier than upgrading, I think it's wrong to think that every PC user upgrades just because he can.

EDIT: I realise I'm in agreement with you now I've read your 2nd paragraph properly

[iDave]

The generic PC user will buy a generic box every few years because it's easier than upgrading, I think it's wrong to think that every PC user upgrades just because he can.

EDIT: I realise I'm in agreement with you now I've read your 2nd paragraph properly
And some that I know will buy a new box every time theirs gets so infected with malware that it won't work anymore. :eek:

[AppleMan101]

And some that I know will buy a new box every time theirs gets so infected with malware that it won't work anymore. :eek: :D

:D you must be one of the only ones ever to think of a your-pc-is-rubbish-compared-to-mac joke like that, good one :D

[iDave]

Removed the smiley in my post above. I shouldn't smile at others' misfortune. What I said is just the sad truth.

[Dustman]

Apple is not going to sell a computer with an Intel Celeron chip.

Which is stupid because it's not like OS X would be unusable on a Celeron chip. I think its absolutely retarded that they stick a Core Duo in whats supposed to be a basic, low end computer. if they put in a fast celeron (2.0 ghz or so) and kept the other specs the same, they could easily sell it for cheaper and more people would be willing to buy it. i have no clue why people think they somehow need a high-end processor with multiple cores to be able to accomplish an easy task now adays. Here's to running OS X Tiger Flawlessly on a 700Mhz G3!

[volvoben]

Which is stupid because it's not like OS X would be unusable on a Celeron chip. I think its absolutely retarded that they stick a Core Duo in whats supposed to be a basic, low end computer. if they put in a fast celeron (2.0 ghz or so) and kept the other specs the same, they could easily sell it for cheaper and more people would be willing to buy it. i have no clue why people think they somehow need a high-end processor with multiple cores to be able to accomplish an easy task now adays. Here's to running OS X Tiger Flawlessly on a 700Mhz G3!

Agreed! The new celerons which are expected to be announced/released june 4th or so are just single core conroe chips, and intel already make yonah based celerons. Try out the old core solo mini with 2gb in it. It's FINE for many folks, namely most people looking at the mini: basic users who surf, use word and organize their photos. The new conroe celerons cost $39-59 for 1.6-2.0ghz models...CHEAP! that 2.0 ghz model will run OSX fine, better than the last generation of G5 imacs no doubt. I think ram holds back OSX more than CPU power, especially since a G3 imac with 512+ will run tiger fine. I guess Apple's allergic to affordable computers to some extent, perhaps they prefer selling fewer high price machines.

On a side note, I was talking to a financial fellow recently about computers and I said I thought Apple should notice that their used rigs are overpriced and they're losing potential profit to people reselling their old machines. Essentially he said yes, for most organizations that situation would make them consider selling cheaper models to suck up that gravy that consumers are willing to spend on overpriced used machines, but Apple's model is different. Essentially he said Apple's using the Bentley approach: sell only high end cars, ignore the overpriced used models because that bloated market only helps sustain your ability to overprice your own current products. If Bentley sold a lower end car that mopped up the consumers who WANT a Bentley but can't quite afford it, they'd lose their original market of overpriced, high margin vehicles. The guy used the example of Hummer, who made the H1, then the H2 which was cheaper and attracted more consumers but at lower prices. Then they released the H3 which was even cheaper, and by then they had stopped even making the high-profit H1 because the brand was diluded and they're stuck making mediocre mid-upper range SUVs in a crowded market.

In other words, Apple makes luxury products and refuses to leave their small but profitable market. I love OSX and apple's hardware is pretty, but I really wish they'd stick to a more level and fair ~10% "Apple tax", you'd think they could still turn a decent profit.

[Spanky Deluxe]

Try out the old core solo mini with 2gb in it. It's FINE for many folks, namely most people looking at the mini: basic users who surf, use word and organize their photos. The new conroe celerons cost $39-59 for 1.6-2.0ghz models...CHEAP! that 2.0 ghz model will run OSX fine, better than the last generation of G5 imacs no doubt. I think ram holds back OSX more than CPU power, especially since a G3 imac with 512+ will run tiger fine.


You've hit the problem with celerons there without realising. OS X (and Windows for that matter) can be really held back by RAM. However, the main aspect in which celerons are usually made to perform worse than their full blown brethren is by limiting the on board cache. Cache is like on-chip RAM.

In layman's terms, when your computer wants to do something it checks the CPUs cache to see if what it needs is there. If its not, then it goes to check if its in the system RAM (which is considerably slower). If its not there then it goes to check the hard drive (considerably slower again).
A celeron holds a computer back in a very similar way to how a machine with an inadequate amount of RAM is held back.
You end up with a machine that is fast for doing certain tasks but for other tasks or running multiple applications, it runs significantly slower because it has to check the RAM for stuff more than on a regular system. Having had celeron systems before, the way it felt was that it was fast but lacked any oomph. This doesn't just affect users like myself. This would affect the kid running iTunes while using Word and browsing the net, working on a project. Not good.
So basically, Apple's decision not to use celerons is a very good thing.

What you said about the Bentley model sounds about right and I'm pretty happy with that. For what you get from your money, Apple's aren't overpriced, they're very competetively priced, its just that they don't bother with the whole bottom end market, which is a good thing imo.

[scottlinux]

A similar discussion at Ars of the xMac if you are interested:

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8300945231/m/208009973831

[Dustman]

You've hit the problem with celerons there without realising. OS X (and Windows for that matter) can be really held back by RAM. However, the main aspect in which celerons are usually made to perform worse than their full blown brethren is by limiting the on board cache. Cache is like on-chip RAM.

In layman's terms, when your computer wants to do something it checks the CPUs cache to see if what it needs is there. If its not, then it goes to check if its in the system RAM (which is considerably slower). If its not there then it goes to check the hard drive (considerably slower again).
A celeron holds a computer back in a very similar way to how a machine with an inadequate amount of RAM is held back.
You end up with a machine that is fast for doing certain tasks but for other tasks or running multiple applications, it runs significantly slower because it has to check the RAM for stuff more than on a regular system. Having had celeron systems before, the way it felt was that it was fast but lacked any oomph. This doesn't just affect users like myself. This would affect the kid running iTunes while using Word and browsing the net, working on a project. Not good.
So basically, Apple's decision not to use celerons is a very good thing.

What you said about the Bentley model sounds about right and I'm pretty happy with that. For what you get from your money, Apple's aren't overpriced, they're very competetively priced, its just that they don't bother with the whole bottom end market, which is a good thing imo.

Thats not my point. My point is that i'd rather pay a hundred or so dollars less and experience a little bit of lag. I dont need the core arcatechture, i dont mind having to wait a few seconds some times, and since apple released the mini to encourage consumers on a budget to switch to mac, you'd think they'd start with a model lower in specs than the current mini.

[cube]

The new Celerons are Core architecture.
You need Core because the Pentium architecture is too hot for the mini.

[volvoben]

You've hit the problem with celerons there without realising. OS X (and Windows for that matter) can be really held back by RAM. However, the main aspect in which celerons are usually made to perform worse than their full blown brethren is by limiting the on board cache. Cache is like on-chip RAM.

In layman's terms, when your computer wants to do something it checks the CPUs cache to see if what it needs is there. If its not, then it goes to check if its in the system RAM (which is considerably slower). If its not there then it goes to check the hard drive (considerably slower again).
A celeron holds a computer back in a very similar way to how a machine with an inadequate amount of RAM is held back.
You end up with a machine that is fast for doing certain tasks but for other tasks or running multiple applications, it runs significantly slower because it has to check the RAM for stuff more than on a regular system. Having had celeron systems before, the way it felt was that it was fast but lacked any oomph. This doesn't just affect users like myself. This would affect the kid running iTunes while using Word and browsing the net, working on a project. Not good.
So basically, Apple's decision not to use celerons is a very good thing.

What you said about the Bentley model sounds about right and I'm pretty happy with that. For what you get from your money, Apple's aren't overpriced, they're very competetively priced, its just that they don't bother with the whole bottom end market, which is a good thing imo.

I'll have to agree with Dustman on this one, I understand caching and in this case it makes a minimal difference. The Celeron M 500 series has 1mb L2 cache for its 1 core. That's the same as the core solo processor if I remember correctly. The current 1.83 c2d uses 2mb shared cache between its 2 cores. Intel does cripple its low end processors to some extent (no speedstep, no virtualization), but the L2 cache simply isn't going to matter to someone browsing the internet, writing email or typing in word.

I personally hate waiting for a slower computer, but I used a core solo mini at work for a time and for basic email/word/browsing tasks I was never frustrated with its performance (luckily it had 2gb ram so it didn't have to dig into the slow HDD).

Essentially my argument is that despite not being a 'basic user' myself, I wish Apple would cater to their basic users just a bit more and offer at least 1 model which can be decently equipped for under $500. If I was designing this low end model myself I'd be satisfied with the mini as it currently exists, except with a redesign to carry a 3.5" HDD, possibly desktop components in a larger box, 1gb ram standard and a price of $500 for the 1.66 CD model.

Since Apple hasn't dropped the price of the mini, I'm just speculating as to how they could cut off fat and still deliver a computer which runs OSX well, and intel's newest celeron chips would seem to be one method to achieve this.

EDIT: I hadn't heard of this chip yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_E

I'd put a pile of money against Apple ever using Intel's 'budget' chips, but this one's not only conroe based but also dual core.

[Grenadier]

I only really want two things-


1.PCI-E X16 slot.
2.LG 775 socket.

I dont care for extra HDD bays,
I dont care for 'headlessness',
I dont care for room for 8GB of memory.

I just want to be able to change my damned GPU and perhaps my CPU !
Come on Apple...is this too much to ask ?!

Some time ago, I seriously considered getting a Mac Pro -
hell, I almost brought one !

Not because of its dual Woodcrests, not because of its 4 drive bays, but because of its upgradability. I was ready to fork out &#163;4500.

But I noticed that why should I be waste so much money just for the option of perhaps installing a 8800GTS ?

No, damn it, I decided to hold out. And I WILL keep holding out until atleast a decent GPU is offered in the iMac line.

Come on...a 7600GT ? Ptsh. Dont make me laugh.


I dont even NEED a 775 socket (although it would be nice).
I just however beg for a PCI-E X16 slot.

If Apple gave such a gift, I would be one happy guy.




Im DEFINATELY buying something after this WWDC though. My G4 Sunflower has more than shown its age. A 700MHz CPU with 384MB of RAM, married to a GeForce 2 MX just doesnt cut it anymore...