Will Apple fill their infamous gaping lineup hole? [Archive]

QuantumLo0p

Dec 22, 2008, 12:42 PM

Tallest Skil

Dec 22, 2008, 12:43 PM

There will be NO xMac.

Not until Steve Jobs dies.

End of thread.

dukebound85

Dec 22, 2008, 12:49 PM

There will be NO xMac.

Not until Steve Jobs dies.

End of thread.

um and who are you to say this? do you work at apple? didnt think so

i dont want a "desktop" with laptop parts and not upgradeable like the mini or imac nor do i need a worstation like a mac pro

i hope they release a true desktop and they should. end of thread:rolleyes:

iDAG

Dec 22, 2008, 12:50 PM

Apple has no hole in their lineup. It's called the iMac. :)

tersono

Dec 22, 2008, 12:50 PM

oh Gawd. Not this old chestnut....

Give it up, man....

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 12:52 PM

Apple has no hole in their lineup. It's called the iMac. :)

Stop trolling with your pathetic all-in-one.

themoonisdown09

Dec 22, 2008, 12:53 PM

Here we go again. This gets brought up so much.

I don't see a hole in the lineup. The only hole people see is that there is no headless Mac where the iMac is.

dukebound85

Dec 22, 2008, 12:55 PM

Apple has no hole in their lineup. It's called the iMac. :)

i dont want an all in one. i already have nice monitors and i like the ability to potentially change the video card or hard drive easily. i dont want laptop parts in a supposed "desktop" like the imac

on the other hand, the mac pro is not a desktop. it is a workstation that while is a value for its market, is way too costly for those who dont want workstation performance yet still want a desktop

because of that, a hackintosh is my only real option

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 12:55 PM

I don't see a hole in the lineup. The only hole people see is that there is no headless Mac where the iMac is.

So you admit there is a hole.

Courtaj

Dec 22, 2008, 12:55 PM

It's no secret Apple has a huge hole in their lineup, between the mini and proI see a solution within your own analysis. Move the mini next to the pro, so that they're touching. Voila! No hole.

Now go away.

RTiii320

Dec 22, 2008, 12:56 PM

There will be NO xMac.

Not until Steve Jobs dies.

End of thread.

Why are you so quick to assume any of this. 10 Years ago did you ever see Apple releasing an iPhone?

I feel that they see the iMac as feeling this hole, maybe in a few years we may see some type of product to fit this "hole". But I don't see it happening without a larger demand.

Courtaj

Dec 22, 2008, 12:57 PM

I feel that they see the iMac as feeling this holeThings just took a turn for the more suggestive . . .

bigjnyc

Dec 22, 2008, 12:57 PM

Stop trolling with your pathetic all-in-one.

lol the iMac is anything but pathetic, it does the job for the majority of people who dont want a tower and a million wires behind their desk. has sufficient power and a beautiful huge screen. not everyone needs constant upgradeability, or whatever other advantage a tower provides.

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 12:58 PM

I feel that they see the iMac as feeling this hole, maybe in a few years we may see some type of product to fit this "hole". But I don't see it happening without a larger demand.

The iMac can't fill the hole for a midrange tower.

Who said there's not a large demand for such machines? Just look at the cheap PCs people buy.

RTiii320

Dec 22, 2008, 12:58 PM

Things just took a turn for the more suggestive . . .

Oh, Im sorry. I was under the impression that this whole forum was a place for our suggestive thoughts.

dukebound85

Dec 22, 2008, 12:58 PM

Why are you so quick to assume any of this. 10 Years ago did you ever see Apple releasing an iPhone?

I feel that they see the iMac as feeling this hole, maybe in a few years we may see some type of product to fit this "hole". But I don't see it happening without a larger demand.

yea or even the move to intel

i remember on these very boards, people were yelling blasphemy and then worried about viruses suddenly affecting thier macs because they would be intel

seriously, why do people state claims with such certainty but with no rational to back it up is beyond me:cool:

themoonisdown09

Dec 22, 2008, 12:58 PM

So you admit there is a hole.

No. I was just pointing out what other people say.

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 12:59 PM

lol the iMac is anything but pathetic, it does the job for the majority of people who dont want a tower and a million wires behind their desk. has sufficient power and a beautiful huge screen. not everyone needs constant upgradeability, or whatever other advantage a tower provides.

It is pathetic when Apple gives no option for a normal desktop at a reasonable price.

Courtaj

Dec 22, 2008, 01:00 PM

Oh, Im sorry. I was under the impression that this whole forum was a place for our suggestive thoughts.Suggestive, sure; salacious, no. You typed "feeling this hole." Did you mean "filling"?

Tallest Skil

Dec 22, 2008, 01:00 PM

So you admit there is a hole.

What part of "where the iMac is" was unclear? There is no hole and Apple would not make a mid-range tower unless Steve leaves.

What argument against the xMac do you want this time?

Apple doesn't make computers to cater to the beige-box crowd.
Apple doesn't want people using their own hardware and then blaming Apple when it doesn't work.
OS X relies on integration of known hardware and software to make it work.

Take your pick.

Courtaj

Dec 22, 2008, 01:01 PM

Take your pick.I'll have the combo.

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 01:01 PM

No. I was just pointing out what other people say.

If some people express such requirement the hole does exist.

RTiii320

Dec 22, 2008, 01:01 PM

Suggestive, sure; salacious, no. You typed "feeling this hole." Did you mean "filling"?

haha... why yes i did. Was typing so fast i never realiezed

my mistake:p

themoonisdown09

Dec 22, 2008, 01:03 PM

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/troll_web.jpg

dukebound85

Dec 22, 2008, 01:06 PM

What part of "where the iMac is" was unclear? There is no hole and Apple would not make a mid-range tower unless Steve leaves.

What argument against the xMac do you want this time?

Apple doesn't make computers to cater to the beige-box crowd.
Apple doesn't want people using their own hardware and then blaming Apple when it doesn't work.
OS X relies on integration of known hardware and software to make it work.

Take your pick.

what part of "i dont want an all in one that uses laptops parts" is unclear?

what arguments against the imac do you want this time?

1) theres no desktop option to run osx. i dont want a laptop component desktop that makes even say, hard drive swapping more difficult than it should be
2) theres a market for people who dont want all in ones yet dont require a mac pro but want more power than a mini
3) the markt is there as evidence of the hackintosh scene as well the complaints on these boards about the lack of one

take your pick

Apple doesn't want people using their own hardware and then blaming Apple when it doesn't work.
OS X relies on integration of known hardware and software to make it work.

um what? for your first "argument, how would a desktop be handeled any different than the macpro in terms of additional hardware? some people dont need workstation performance

for your second argument, who is to say that a desktop made by apple wont integrate the hardware and osx?

Apple would not make a mid-range tower unless Steve leaves.

once again, you are not apple and you have no idea what they will do. please stop acting otherwise

i dont get why people feel the need to always say apple is always right with their products. just because you may not need it doesnt mean i dont

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 01:06 PM

Apple doesn't make computers to cater to the beige-box crowd.

Why do you confuse normal desktop with beige box?

Courtaj

Dec 22, 2008, 01:07 PM

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/troll_web.jpgI'm no gynaecologist, but I see no hole there.

themoonisdown09

Dec 22, 2008, 01:08 PM

I'm no gynaecologist, but I see no hole there.

Oh... just keep looking. It will appear sooner or later.

ChrisA

Dec 22, 2008, 01:09 PM

Remember the last teleconference? Jobs said clearly "We choose not to serve some customers".

What that means, very clearly to me, is that Apple will not enter markets where people shop by price. They will stick to selling speciality computers and ignore the mainstream.

Cabbit

Dec 22, 2008, 01:11 PM

What would you do with a mid range headless mac.
The software out there is ether professional suited to a workstation or consumer that the mini and imac handle well.
The only use for a mid range headless upgradable mac would be for games but i don't see any new Graphics cards showing face nor anything else a consumer would want to upgrade as there is no consumer internal hardware components so what would you do with the expansion.

Courtaj

Dec 22, 2008, 01:12 PM

what part of "i dont want an all in one that uses laptops parts" is unclear?For me, it was the "s" on "laptops" - completely threw me.

dukebound85

Dec 22, 2008, 01:13 PM

For me, it's the "s" on "laptops" - completely threw me.

lol my bad. i admit im not the best typist nor claim to be

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 01:15 PM

People would not be shopping by price. They would buy such a reasonable desktop for OSX and quality hardware.

I also don't like the optical bays of the Mac Pro. I just want a pair of 5.25" holes (maybe with a big door that does not prevent just putting in any random drive).

Courtaj

Dec 22, 2008, 01:30 PM

I just want a pair of 5.25" holesThis is getting weird.

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 01:32 PM

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 01:41 PM

I did not describe the Mac mini. The Mac mini is an expensive fashion item built up from notebook parts, not a reasonable desktop.

dukebound85

Dec 22, 2008, 01:42 PM

BTW, the midrange Mac should be CHEAPER that the iMac because it has no screen, and it uses desktop parts. I guess even if it were quad-core and the iMac remained dual-core, at least if it were not based on the crazy priced i7 platform.

i mean theres no reason to not have say a q6600 or other quad core chip desktop once the macpro goes i7

themoonisdown09

Dec 22, 2008, 01:43 PM

I did not describe the Mac mini. The Mac mini is an expensive fashion item built up from notebook parts, not a reasonable desktop.

I had my post deleted once I realized you were talking about desktop parts... sorry.

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 01:45 PM

i mean theres no reason to not have say a q6600 or other quad core chip desktop once the macpro goes i7

You could even have a pricey single processor i7 midrange, as the Mac Pro would still be expensive server-based overkill for most people.

Joe The Dragon

Dec 22, 2008, 01:57 PM

i mean theres no reason to not have say a q6600 or other quad core chip desktop once the macpro goes i7

How about a $1200-$1500 base price core i7 tower with a $2300 - $2500+ 2 cpu core i7 system as well.

The core i7 1 cpu tower can be as high $1800 - $2200+ with dual high end video cards.

So you can have good desktop with high video power at it's high end. and a tower with high cpu power 2 core i7 and high-low to mid range video as well.

Over lap will not be a issue as a 1 cpu tower with good high end video at about $1800 with about 6gb ram (non ecc) vs a 2 cpu system with mid range video and 6+ gb of ECC ram is in differnt areas.

Joe The Dragon

Dec 22, 2008, 01:58 PM

You could even have a pricey single processor i7 midrange, as the Mac Pro would still be expensive server-based overkill for most people.
a core i7 system at the old g4 - g5 tower prices of $1200 - $1500 will be a good fit.

Sun Baked

Dec 22, 2008, 02:06 PM

Apple has no hole in their lineup. It's called the iMac. :)

If the new iMac comes in with the desktop CPU and RAM, the hole will be plugged.

Might not be expandable, but the performance gap will narrow between the iMacs and the tower.

if they move the guts inside around to look a bit more like the ease of replacing the HD like the unibodies. People will be slighty happier.

Edit: no orgasms over the iMac, but a little less sacrifice at the price.

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 02:16 PM

If the new iMac comes in with the desktop CPU and RAM, the hole will be plugged.

It's the whole concept of the iMac which creates the hole. This is not fixed simply by replacing notebook by desktop parts.

themoonisdown09

Dec 22, 2008, 02:19 PM

It's the whole concept of the iMac which creates the hole. This is not fixed simply by replacing notebook by desktop parts.

That just goes to show you that Apple will never make everybody happy unless they have 100 different models. Then they will go back to how it was in the early to mid-90s.

IJ Reilly

Dec 22, 2008, 02:23 PM

That just goes to show you that Apple will never make everybody happy unless they have 100 different models. Then they will go back to how it was in the early to mid-90s.

Geeks rule.

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 02:23 PM

That just goes to show you that Apple will never make everybody happy unless they have 100 different models. Then they will go back to how it was in the early to mid-90s.

People were happy with just PowerMacs in addition to iMacs. They were not overkill like the Mac Pro.

themoonisdown09

Dec 22, 2008, 02:24 PM

People were happy with just PowerMacs in addition to iMacs. They were not overkill like the Mac Pro.

Yet PowerMacs and Mac Pros are basically the same price. Maybe give or take $1,000. :D

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 02:28 PM

Yet PowerMacs and Mac Pros are basically the same price.

Computers get cheaper over time. Many people don't want to pay for 8 cores and FB-DIMMs that they don't need (getting a single CPU Mac Pro is not an option, as you're still paying all the dual processor overhead).

nick9191

Dec 22, 2008, 02:33 PM

It's been this way for 10 years since Steve returned and it isn't changing now. Save up/buy a refurb/buy a G5.

briansolomon

Dec 22, 2008, 02:34 PM

it does the job for the majority of people who dont want a tower and a million wires behind their desk. has sufficient power and a beautiful huge screen.

an Apple tower desktop could be just as neat. Why would it need anymore wires than your iMac aside from the monitor

iJed

Dec 22, 2008, 02:34 PM

I too would love a proper desktop from Apple. I have no need for a quad or eight core Xeon based system like the Mac Pro but I want to be able to choose the display and graphics card myself.

Unfortunately it looks unlikely that Apple will add this missing Mac in the lineup any time soon. Therefore my only choice will be to go for the new mini which has far from ideal laptop parts and no upgradability.

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 02:48 PM

Save up/buy a refurb/buy a G5.

So, forced to wait and reward a company for not giving you what you need.
Or buy old stuff.

Great reasoning.

nick9191

Dec 22, 2008, 02:48 PM

I did not describe the Mac mini. The Mac mini is an expensive fashion item built up from notebook parts, not a reasonable desktop.

That is exactly not what it is. Apple doesn't market the Mac Mini at all, not even when they update it to they mention it on their front page.

Power per cubic inch, it is extremely powerful, and extremely affordable for many situations. Macminicolo.net runs an entire business around Mac Mini servers, and they are absolutely perfect, about 1/20th the size of a normal desktop and yet packs in a Core 2.

QuantumLo0p

Dec 22, 2008, 02:50 PM

Did not intend to start a thread war, just some dialog on the subject. Nothing bad intended towards iMac fans.

I suppose the comparison between the iMac and the Mini is inevitable. Who knows, perhaps both models will see a decent improvement and close up the hole a bit. Many people, including myself, are simply not in the market for a all-in-one iMac. I have decent peripherals and would like to see some bang for my dollar in the cpu.

One thing is for sure, there is a lot of support for a non-all-in-one desktop that performs well and doesn't cost a fortune.

nick9191

Dec 22, 2008, 02:55 PM

So, forced to wait and reward a company for not giving you what you need.
Or buy old stuff.

Great reasoning.

I never said I agreed. I said if you want an Apple tower, either save up, buy a refurb, or buy a G5. I'm basing this off the last 10 years. Apple can give you exactly what you need, but like all Apple products you will have to pay more.

Buy a Mac Pro, you will thank me in 5 years when your still running the current version of OS X and you don't need to buy a new system. The extra initial expenditure is easily recouped.

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 02:57 PM

I never said I agreed. I said if you want an Apple tower, either save up, buy a refurb, or buy a G5. I'm basing this off the last 10 years. Apple can give you exactly what you need, but like all Apple products you will have to pay more.

Buy a Mac Pro, you will thank me in 5 years when your still running the current version of OS X and you don't need to buy a new system. The extra initial expenditure is easily recouped.

If Apple gave me what I need, I would have long replaced my 8-year old Cube.

QuantumLo0p

Dec 22, 2008, 02:58 PM

You could even have a pricey single processor i7 midrange, as the Mac Pro would still be expensive server-based overkill for most people.

Exactly. An i7 940 would be my choice but it may be similar to the old problem that Apple was not able to put a G5 in a PowerBook.

The i7 uses a lot more power than a Core 2.
:(

WPB2

Dec 22, 2008, 03:02 PM

well just for the record, I'd like to see a scaled down version of the pro, for about 1400.00 usd. A little smaller, because the pro is a beast.

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 03:05 PM

Exactly. An i7 940 would be my choice but it may be similar to the old problem that Apple was not able to put a G5 in a PowerBook.

The i7 uses a lot more power than a Core 2.
:(

I thought you wanted a tower. There's no problem to put an i7 in a tower, unless you want something like a Cube (but without funny gfx size).

NT1440

Dec 22, 2008, 03:08 PM

Now are the people calling for it to be a tower simply because they dont want an all in one? Or is it for something like expandability, which apple isnt a huge fan of.

kasakka

Dec 22, 2008, 04:02 PM

Now are the people calling for it to be a tower simply because they dont want an all in one? Or is it for something like expandability, which apple isnt a huge fan of.

I also understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are often no OSX drivers for the latest and greatest graphics cards anyway, so the expandability thing goes kinda out of the window.

For me at least having the display integrated into the computer is really the main issue. If I already didn't have two quality monitors on my desktop, something like the iMac 24" would be right up my alley. It's a very convenient unit that fits the needs of lots of people.

MSI recently had a very cool idea where they have a netbook type computer but mounted on a VESA 100 compatible display stand. This is essentially what the iMac is, so an iMac where you can mount your favorite monitor would probably be a pretty nice product. Of course it would probably look a bit strange since the monitor and computer in the back wouldn't match in design.

zombie1210

Dec 22, 2008, 04:10 PM

I did not describe the Mac mini. The Mac mini is an expensive fashion item built up from notebook parts, not a reasonable desktop.

Total BS. I have a Mini that has been running for 4 years, and still going strong. It replaced a PC, and has been a DESKTOP all this time.

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 04:19 PM

Total BS. I have a Mini that has been running for 4 years, and still going strong. It replaced a PC, and has been a DESKTOP all this time.

It is not a REASONABLE desktop, as I said. The only use of such a form factor is to be put in a car dashboard, which is not the intended market for this computer.

zombie1210

Dec 22, 2008, 04:26 PM

It is not a REASONABLE desktop, as I said. The only use of such a form factor is to be put in a car dashboard, which is not the intended market for this computer.

Total gibberish from an obvious troll.

Tell ME what I'm missing here? My Mini has served as a DESKTOP for over 4 years. It sits on the corner of my DESK and it DOES EVERYTHING I NEED IT TO. I upgraded the RAM but otherwise, no upgrade was needed.

I'm guessing you are a gamerboy.

Go away.

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 04:28 PM

Total gibberish from an obvious troll.

Tell ME what I'm missing here? My Mini has served as a DESKTOP for over 4 years. It sits on the corner of my DESK and it DOES EVERYTHING I NEED IT TO. I upgraded the RAM but otherwise, no upgrade was needed.

I'm guessing you are a gamerboy.

Go away.

I only need to tell you ONE thing: Can you put a TB drive in it? NO.

Much more could be said.

IJ Reilly

Dec 22, 2008, 04:30 PM

Geeks rule.

Oh wait... I said that already. I guess it must still be true!

iDAG

Dec 22, 2008, 04:30 PM

Stop trolling with your pathetic all-in-one.

Trust me, I'm no troll. :mad: Notebook parts these days are on par with their desktop counterparts. The iMac is the perfect solution to those people who want a desktop computer. Most people don't need to change parts in their computers. Only the high end professionals do that. :)

zombie1210

Dec 22, 2008, 04:31 PM

I only need to tell you ONE thing: Can you put a TB drive in it? NO.

Much more could be said.

Why would I want to? I already use an external FW drive.

You have absolutely no clue about the Mini. Or the iMac. Or much of anything it would seem.

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 04:33 PM

Why would I want to? I already use an external FW drive.

You have absolutely no clue about the Mini. Or the iMac. Or much of anything it would seem.

Wow. So elegant your Mac mini with 2 external drives and cables (1 for data, 1 for backup).

Concept: FAIL

zombie1210

Dec 22, 2008, 04:38 PM

Wow. So elegant your Mac mini with 2 external drives and cables (1 for data, 1 for backup).

Concept: FAIL

Listen up son...I did not say the Mini is my only computer.

I have 3 PC's and 3 Macs. The Mini does just fine.

Now, could you take your FAIL'ed attitude somewhere else.

You obviously are only trolling because you know nothing about Minis.

BTW...one ext drive, gameboy.

zombie1210

Dec 22, 2008, 04:42 PM

Just for fun, read this article.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10124019-17.html

If you read, that is.

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 04:42 PM

BTW...one ext drive, gameboy.

OK, lose your data.

The Mac mini is not the solution for the people looking for 1, all-round computer without an embedded monitor. That's all I need to know.

Hugh

Dec 22, 2008, 04:43 PM

Not this again. How many times do we need to complain that Apple doesn't have an xMac?

What is it that you are going to be doing that you will need to up grade the graphics card? Games? Well I would think most of the software cos. would write software for the most graphics base. PC games? You should get a PC then, not a Mac. Its where most of the games are.

As for the iMac, I too thought I shouldn't buy and iMac because I had a great 19" LCD hooked upped to my MacMini. But I tell you, I am glad I did. I'm enjoying my 24" iMac a lot. Now I am thinking of putting the monitor next to the iMac so I have even more desktop space (screen). :D

Hugh

Demosthenes X

Dec 22, 2008, 04:43 PM

IJ Reilly

Dec 22, 2008, 04:50 PM

Not this again. How many times do we need to complain that Apple doesn't have an xMac?

Until geeks rule.

akm3

Dec 22, 2008, 04:51 PM

I used to believe there was a hole in the lineup, coming from the PC world. Of course I wanted an xMac because I was used to it.

But now, as an AAPL shareholder, building one would cause Apple nothing but pain, lose them money, hurt sales on the higher margin products AND if it was upgradeable, cause more tech support issues.

There is zero business reason for Apple to WANT to build an xMac, despite many people who want to buy one. The people who want one either don't get a Mac, get a Mac, or get a hackintosh. <B>Apple is hurt less by these three options then if they did make an xMac, and they sleep just fine at night with their decision!</B>

akm3

Dec 22, 2008, 04:53 PM

Hey here is an analogy.

If you were a dating site like eHarmony.com, and someone got on who was gay, and really uspset because eHarmony.com didn't cater to gays - do you think eHarmony should make a gayHarmony website (if they want) or just do what they are good at (if they want)?

I say, if they don't want to make a gay website, they don't have to! In my example, unfortunately, they were sued and FORCED to offer a gayHarmony site, but that is ridiculous. Businesses should be able to make and sell the products they choose to, as long as the products aren't accidentally killing anyone or anything.

The xMac is Apple's gayHarmony.

ProwlingTiger

Dec 22, 2008, 05:06 PM

So, forced to wait and reward a company for not giving you what you need.
Or buy old stuff.

Great reasoning.

Um, no one's forcing you to buy Apple. Want a computer for x amount of dollars, go to a PC, or better yet, build your own, control your own cost,...the possibilities are ENDLESS! Why pretend like you, 1 customer, should control a company's actions? Control your own, it's far easier!

Seriously, until you own a majority of Apple, I believe Apple will build what they believe THEY need.

cube

Dec 22, 2008, 05:09 PM

Um, no one's forcing you to buy Apple. Want a computer for x amount of dollars, go to a PC, or better yet, build your own, control your own cost,...the possibilities are ENDLESS! Why pretend like you, 1 customer, should control a company's actions? Control your own, it's far easier!

Seriously, until you own a majority of Apple, I believe Apple will build what they believe THEY need.

If Linux had adequate commercial software support, I would have left Apple's lock-in platform a long time ago.

PcBgone

Dec 22, 2008, 05:22 PM

I believe Henry Ford said it best when he was building the Model T.

" A customer can have any color they want, so long as it's black"

Apple chooses what it produces. If you dont like what it produces dont buy it. It is simple as that. Their are competitors you know? Theres Linux, Windows and others. Or better yet, build your own! Why complain about what they dont offer, crying that they dont cater to people. They arent in the business to cater to people. They are in business to make money. And according to their profit reports, they are making plenty of money so what incentive do they have?

I personally hope to never see an xMac, and hope to God Apple Nails psytar to the wall.. Why? I dont want the OS X stability and efficiency to go downhill. Thats what is wrong with Windows. They have allowed so many companies to make so many different products that requires so many different drivers that conflicts with each other.

Schtumple

Dec 22, 2008, 05:24 PM

Will newbies ever stop posting these threads?

The flame wars here are so dull.

Courtaj

Dec 22, 2008, 05:49 PM

The flame wars here are so dull.No they're NOT!

Oh, alright then . . . they are.

dukebound85

Dec 22, 2008, 06:22 PM

decksnap

Dec 22, 2008, 06:28 PM

nick9191

Dec 22, 2008, 06:28 PM

I only need to tell you ONE thing: Can you put a TB drive in it? NO.

Much more could be said.

I can daisy chain about 50 1tb externals off it, which is a hell of a lot more than a firewire-less PC.

dukebound85

Dec 22, 2008, 06:30 PM

I can daisy chain about 50 1tb externals off it, which is a hell of a lot more than a firewire-less PC.

firewire can be added on pretty easily via pci-e...

zombie1210

Dec 22, 2008, 06:39 PM

I used to have to have the latest and greatest hardware. Did that for 15 years or so. I wasted tons of money thinking like that. I've probably owned 10 PC's in my quest for speed.

Most of my quest involved GAMES. PC games designed to force you you upgrade. Gotta have the latest video card, etc....newest motherboard, etc.

If a gaming PC lasted two years, you were fortunate.

I still have a PC for gaming, an Alienware Area 51 that I paid way too much for, but it IS upgradable. It is my son's machine, as gaming bores me to tears these days. Its all pretty much been done before....ho hum....

Then I switched to Macs. My Mini was my first, and its still running. Still playing music, and browsing the internet. Does my taxes. Keeps a photo library. Plays DVD's. One of the best purchases I have made.

I've added an iMac, and I don't feel any need to upgrade anything. No point to it. I don't play games on it.

For non gamers, there simply is NO NEED to play the upgrade scenario all the time. Sure new Macs are faster, but there is very little that FORCES you to give up a perfectly good computer. The life of a Mac far eclipses any PC.

Joe The Dragon

Dec 22, 2008, 06:52 PM

I also understand (correct me if I'm wrong) that there are often no OSX drivers for the latest and greatest graphics cards anyway, so the expandability thing goes kinda out of the window.

and how hard will it be for ATI and NVIDIA to make them?

tonyl

Dec 22, 2008, 06:55 PM

um and who are you to say this? do you work at apple? didnt think so

i dont want a "desktop" with laptop parts and not upgradeable like the mini or imac nor do i need a worstation like a mac pro

i hope they release a true desktop and they should. end of thread:rolleyes:

Actually I agree with him. With that Mac, iMac and Mac Pro sales will surely decrease a lot.

Tallest Skil

Dec 22, 2008, 06:56 PM

and how hard will it be for ATI and NVIDIA to make them?

Obviously very. Remember the months-long 8800GT EFI32 ROM debacle? Where Apple was delayed in providing a working 8800GT for owners of the first Mac Pro? Eventually someone e-mailed Steve and got the reply, "nVidia didn't come through, so we're having to do it. It'll be another month or so yet."

So either nVidia sucks at something that should be idiotically simple or it's harder than you're thinking it is to be able to provide drivers for a an entire range of cards for an entirely new OS.

But personally, I won't discount the "sucks at something idiotically simple" option.

NT1440

Dec 22, 2008, 06:57 PM

For non gamers, there simply is NO NEED to play the upgrade scenario all the time. Sure new Macs are faster, but there is very little that FORCES you to give up a perfectly good computer. The life of a Mac far eclipses any PC.

Very true in my experience, but there are a few instances for which an upgrade is needed outside of gaming, mostly capacity related.

Demosthenes X

Dec 22, 2008, 06:59 PM

Trust me, I'm no troll. :mad: Notebook parts these days are on par with their desktop counterparts. The iMac is the perfect solution to those people who want a desktop computer. Most people don't need to change parts in their computers. Only the high end professionals do that. :)

Yeah... I guess I was a "high end professional" in grade 12 when I had to swap a dead harddrive out of my PC. :rolleyes:

There are lots of reasons Apple probably will not make a mid-range tower. But that only "high end professionals" replace parts is not one of them. If that were true, Apple wouldn't have purposely made the harddrive and RAM in the new MacBooks easier to replace. Hell, if that were true, they would have soldered it to the logic board in the MB...

November

Dec 22, 2008, 07:01 PM

Just build a hackintosh, that'll fill your gaping hole.

dukebound85

Dec 22, 2008, 07:03 PM

Actually I agree with him. With that Mac, iMac and Mac Pro sales will surely decrease a lot.

i will say they lost one such sale to me as i opted for no mac and built my own. i know im not alone

Sun Baked

Dec 22, 2008, 07:05 PM

Just build a hackintosh, that'll fill your gaping hole.

And please wear some black briefs until you do, that thong doesn't provide enough coverage. :o

tonyl

Dec 22, 2008, 07:17 PM

i will say they lost one such sale to me as i opted for no mac and built my own. i know im not alone

Most people can't wait that long. For me, I have to buy a Mac Pro.

czachorski

Dec 22, 2008, 07:45 PM

If not for ___________________, I would have left Apple's lock-in platform a long time ago.

Fill in the blank for millions of users out there, and you start to get the picture of why Apple has not done the xMac. Until the industry can offer other solutions that eliminate the "if not for the...." dilemma, from a business/profit/share value, Apple's behavior is very obviously in their own best interest right now.

zombie1210

Dec 22, 2008, 07:50 PM

What Apple does best is convince people to buy new models, when they aren't really neccessary.

ProwlingTiger

Dec 22, 2008, 10:16 PM

bugfaceuk

Dec 23, 2008, 01:47 AM

Here we go again. This gets brought up so much.

I don't see a hole in the lineup. The only hole people see is that there is no headless Mac where the iMac is.

I think I agree with you, but I have to be honest... the fact it comes up a lot is at least suggestive of a market expectation.

However, Apple has a history of giving people what they need, not what they want and Steve's simplification of the product line was one of the critical steps he took in order to get things back into some kind of shape.

I say leave the product line, but the perception of a gap is real, even if the gap itself isn't.

cube

Dec 23, 2008, 04:00 AM

Fill in the blank for millions of users out there, and you start to get the picture of why Apple has not done the xMac. Until the industry can offer other solutions that eliminate the "if not for the...." dilemma, from a business/profit/share value, Apple's behavior is very obviously in their own best interest right now.

How is it in their best interest when I haven't bought another Mac in 8 years? I would be about my second replacement by now.

Hellhammer

Dec 23, 2008, 04:12 AM

Apple has planned their porducts for at least 5 years. my dad have been party with big people in nokia and they said that every company like nokia and apple has products for years and years... but the updates the products just a little bit at a time, no big updates or new product every week. like this iPhone nano thing, it will come someday but apple will first take all off iPhone and then release the nano

mastershakess

Dec 23, 2008, 08:06 AM

Its very simple guys:
Mini=Low
iMac=Mid
Pro=High

Where is there room for something else? Anything cheaper than iMac would take away sales from the iMac/Mini and anything more expensive would take away sales from the Pro/iMac.

Do you honestly see them gimping their own lineup when they sell fine right now?

czachorski

Dec 23, 2008, 06:13 PM

How is it in their best interest when I haven't bought another Mac in 8 years? I would be about my second replacement by now.

Obviously because YOU don't represent their target market. This may come as a surprise to you, but their world does not revolve around YOUR needs.

Schtumple

Dec 23, 2008, 06:20 PM

Why is this thread still here??

There must be one mod willing to wasteland this tired, over done, over discussed, beating to death topic based thread.

Hugh

Dec 23, 2008, 08:51 PM

Why is this thread still here??

There must be one mod willing to wasteland this tired, over done, over discussed, beating to death topic based thread.

I know that I am not helping but (And I agree with you.).....

and how hard will it be for ATI and NVIDIA to make them?

Why/Will they want to, is the question. NVIDIA didn't come though on one card so far, what's saying that it doesn't happen again.

Hugh

dukebound85

Dec 23, 2008, 08:54 PM

Why is this thread still here??

There must be one mod willing to wasteland this tired, over done, over discussed, beating to death topic based thread.

dont like the thread? dont have to participate:cool:

Live Steam

Dec 23, 2008, 09:22 PM

i dont want an all in one. i already have nice monitors and i like the ability to potentially change the video card or hard drive easily. i dont want laptop parts in a supposed "desktop" like the imac

on the other hand, the mac pro is not a desktop. it is a workstation that while is a value for its market, is way too costly for those who dont want workstation performance yet still want a desktop

because of that, a hackintosh is my only real option

Yes. Build a hackintosh. It's pretty easy and you can configure it the way you want and upgrade as you need. Just buy a legit copy of OS X. Pretty simple and much cheaper. I have read that home built systems out-benchmark anything A has put out too.

Maxington

Dec 23, 2008, 10:14 PM

/ponder this is an interesting discussion with the iMac and mini possible receiving updates soon.

dukebound85

Dec 23, 2008, 10:16 PM

Yes. Build a hackintosh. It's pretty easy and you can configure it the way you want and upgrade as you need. Just buy a legit copy of OS X. Pretty simple and much cheaper. I have read that home built systems out-benchmark anything A has put out too.

exactly, apple isnt proving the solution i need so i went out and built one about a year ago

no regrets. should have built it sooner.

Live Steam

Dec 23, 2008, 10:54 PM

exactly, apple isnt proving the solution i need so i went out and built one about a year ago

no regrets. should have built it sooner.

I bought an eeePC 1000H netbook and hacked it. I also installed an Airport Extreme card and it works perfectly for my mobile needs. I would have liked to have gne with the Dell or HO, but it didn't fit the budget it set. Very pleased though.

Saladinos

Dec 24, 2008, 12:03 AM

I admit I'd like to have a computer to play the latest games when I boot in to Windows, yet I'd like to run OSX for everything else without going to a hackintosh. I'd buy a Mac Mini if the GPU was from the Macbook Pro instead of the Macbook, but the best solution would be a machine with an exchangeable GPU.

The compromise solution would be give the Mac Mini a BTO graphics card option. That would let you put the latest GPU in, without creating the confusion that arises when non-technical people buy a new graphics card meant for Windows that doesn't work in OSX. It would add to the size of the machine, but expand the target market. So I could buy it with the latest NVidia card, and 6 months down the line take it to the Apple Store to get the new card fitted, for example.

That said, I don't expect Apple to make a machine that caters to what I want. They haven't done it yet, and seem to have some ideological distaste to the idea.

robanga

Dec 24, 2008, 12:15 AM

What is a "normal desktop" these days? With both Apple and HP selling all in one PC's and laptops outselling desktops. You have to wonder if the old mini-tower is fading away.

fohawk17

Dec 24, 2008, 11:46 AM

are we seriously on the old thread again? how many can be found about this same topic? o well, i guess thats life on mac rumors.

now, i think that unless the mini is upgraded, there will always be a hole. the imac doesnt count, so dont say it. we alll know there is the entry level, the mini, and the big bad daddy, the pro.

now if only something in the middle. something that about half the size of the pro, but with say 4gb of ram, 120gb hd, and a super drive, or better yet, blu-ray

ditzy

Dec 24, 2008, 01:06 PM

Apple are not obligated to make the computer that you want. Just as you are not obligated to buy from them. The only people who can decide what apple should do are the people who work there. They are also the only people who can decide if there is a hole in their product line. Every indication suggests that they don't see one.

Eddyisgreat

Dec 24, 2008, 03:03 PM

Apple will not cater to this crowd because its already a crowded field. If you are good at what you do (low end, all in one, and workstation class) you are much better off staying out of the low budget class.

Apple has decided, yes-for you, that if you wish to swap out video cards, have a super sweet raid setup and overall expandibility, you fit their workstation class customer , and as such your product selection will be the Mac Pro. Thats just, i mean thats just it. There is no iffs ands or butts. If you are clammoring that the Mac Pro is "overkill" then perhaps Apple isn't suited for your needs.

Apple chooses to be a minimalist company because time and time again things just seem to work better without clutter. Its just easier to keep fewer products on the table instead of a massive lake of computing options. I'll stick with the Mac Mini, the iMac, and the Mac Pro, versus the Mac Mini, The iMac, the Mac Pro and:
The xMac Lite
The xMac Lite Premium
The xMac Lite Premium Pro DV edition
The xMac Pro Lite
The xMac Pro Medium Lite Premium XSIv2923891
The xMac Pro Medium Lite Premium XVQv9018055

just no.

t0mat0

Dec 24, 2008, 03:09 PM

It's no secret Apple has a huge hole in their lineup, between the mini and pro, and anything less than a significant mini upgrade will leave mini fans out in the cold and very angry. What changes do you think Apple will reveal about the new mini? Better graphics and a larger disk and/or SSD are assumed but what else?

Quad core i7? (no Core2's need apply, thank you)
Larger RAM maximum? (at least 4GB but hopefully 8GB)
Drop Firewire ports? (Sorry folks but this is not a Pro)

What would you like to see?

Recognition of the iMac.
The core i7 in a mythical mid tower Mac.

Apple has said as such that they go after certain areas of the market, specifically. It isn't a hole, so much as a place they haven't gone into in that light.

dukebound85

Dec 24, 2008, 03:12 PM

Apple will not cater to this crowd because its already a crowded field. If you are good at what you do (low end, all in one, and workstation class) you are much better off staying out of the low budget class.

crowded field? what if i want to use osx. theres no competitirs and hence not crowded

Apple has decided, yes-for you, that if you wish to swap out video cards, have a super sweet raid setup and overall expandibility, you fit their workstation class customer , and as such your product selection will be the Mac Pro. Thats just, i mean thats just it. There is no iffs ands or butts. If you are clammoring that the Mac Pro is "overkill" then perhaps Apple isn't suited for your needs.

why do you assume their buisness model now will never change? i remember when people on these forumes thought the ipod was a stupid venture as well as the iphone. look how that has turned out

Apple chooses to be a minimalist company because time and time again things just seem to work better without clutter. Its just easier to keep fewer products on the table instead of a massive lake of computing options. I'll stick with the Mac Mini, the iMac, and the Mac Pro, versus the Mac Mini, The iMac, the Mac Pro and:
The xMac Lite
The xMac Lite Premium
The xMac Lite Premium Pro DV edition
The xMac Pro Lite
The xMac Pro Medium Lite Premium XSIv2923891
The xMac Pro Medium Lite Premium XVQv9018055

just no.

lol um ok. why do you think there will be 6 models of xmacs? i just want a desktop thats not as crazy as the mac pro. you dont see 6 mac pro computers do you?

i dont need a mb capable of godly amounts of ram upgradeability. but i would want ability to swap out graphics cards (like how the mac pro can) and be able to add more than one internal hard drive. cap it at 2 and not however many the mac pro can use. those are just some ideas how you could differentiate from it

i mean heck, the entry price for an imac is 1199. the mac pro entry price is 2799. quite the jump

Yaris

Dec 24, 2008, 04:53 PM

i mean heck, the entry price for an imac is 1199. the mac pro entry price is 2299. quite the jump

Fixed.

dukebound85

Dec 24, 2008, 04:56 PM

Fixed.

good call i forgot they have 8 cores as standard

still its like 2x as much for that step up

i personally feel they should just alter the mini to make it more expandable

iParis

Dec 24, 2008, 05:04 PM

LEAVE THE CURRENT LINE UP.
There is nothing wrong with it.
All I'm hoping for is a current an updated Mini.

Ok, just say Apple does release a product between the iMac and Mac Pro...
- It won't be for a couple years
- The iMac would have to go down a couple hundred dollars
- The Mac Pro would have to go up a couple hundred dollars.
- And the high end iMac and standard Mac Pro's specs would have to be so far enough so there is actually room for another product in between.

dukebound85

Dec 24, 2008, 05:17 PM

LEAVE THE CURRENT LINE UP.
There is nothing wrong with it.

Your opinion

All I'm hoping for is a current an updated Mini.

I'm eager for that to happen too

Ok, just say Apple does release a product between the iMac and Mac Pro...
- It won't be for a couple years

For all we know, they have one ready to be released at the next event. Could very well be the reason why they haven't been upgrading the mini

- The iMac would have to go down a couple hundred dollars
- The Mac Pro would have to go up a couple hundred dollars.

Why would the pricing structure have to change? Have it be 1499 or something

- And the high end iMac and standard Mac Pro's specs would have to be so far enough so there is actually room for another product in between.

They are already. Offer a quad core (say q6600 option) limited to 8 gigs of ram and 2 hard drive bays and a more limited motherboard than a macpro

I don't need a machine with 32+gigs of ram upgradability, or one that has 4 hard drive bays for example or even the motherboard capability for 8 cores

If apple were to make a machine like that, that would be the only mac id ever buy apart from a notebook

Demosthenes X

Dec 24, 2008, 05:23 PM

I'd love to see the mythical xMac. I don't think Apple will offer one anytime soon, for reasons that have been well stated.

But as long as we're hypothesizing about what it would look like...

Single, quad core processor. The cheapest Mac Pro with four cores would no longer be offered - all Pros would be eight core (or more, in the future...).

Two internal hard drive bays, a single internal superdrive, and one or two expansion slots. Essentially, exactly what the Mac Pro is, but cut in half.

And I think it would sell very, very well. The thing is, I think it would sell well to people that are already Apple customers. I don't think it would do well outside that core group, and (kind of perversely) Apple isn't interested in its current customers - they're interested in attracting new customers.

robanga

Dec 24, 2008, 05:36 PM

iObama

Dec 24, 2008, 05:51 PM

I think Apple needs to realize that no one asked for a small-ass desktop computer. We want one that has the same price as the mini, but we can sacrifice size for half-decent specs!

iObama

Dec 24, 2008, 05:53 PM

Things just took a turn for the more suggestive . . .

You are correct. I was just about to post a "That's What She Said" before I read your post.

akm3

Dec 24, 2008, 06:03 PM

good call i forgot they have 8 cores as standard

still its like 2x as much for that step up

i personally feel they should just alter the mini to make it more expandable

What is in it for Apple doing what you want? (I mean, what business sense does it make for Apple to make a machine that people will happily settle for when today they instead purchase a more expensive machine?)

dukebound85

Dec 24, 2008, 06:12 PM

What is in it for Apple doing what you want? (I mean, what business sense does it make for Apple to make a machine that people will happily settle for when today they instead purchase a more expensive machine?)

I didnt purchase a more expensive machine. They lost a sale to me and I doubt im the only one

How do you know people happily settle for a higher priced machine? sounds like a conjecture to me. The question that needs to be asked is how many sales has apple lost out on because of no mid range mac

Once again, I'll ask why do people feel that Apple will never change its lineup and what they have now is the perfect solution? Don't you remember when people thought apple had no business going into the music or phone industry?

Outsider

Dec 24, 2008, 09:06 PM

Mac Pro, Mac mini, meet your long lost middle sibling; Mac.

http://s153350075.onlinehome.us/nuCube.jpg
;)

akm3

Dec 24, 2008, 10:28 PM

I didnt purchase a more expensive machine. They lost a sale to me and I doubt im the only one

How do you know people happily settle for a higher priced machine? sounds like a conjecture to me. The question that needs to be asked is how many sales has apple lost out on because of no mid range mac

Once again, I'll ask why do people feel that Apple will never change its lineup and what they have now is the perfect solution? Don't you remember when people thought apple had no business going into the music or phone industry?

I don't know if YOU happily settled but the numbers are growing rapidly and $25 billion in the bank says the strategy is working. I suppose you could argue it COULD have been $35 billion, but I think if they offered that product it would massively cannibalize sales of their high profit items and do more harm to profit margins than they would gain in additional sales that are currently 'lost'.

Both sides are conjecture, but they obviously are choosing not to do it and they must have a good reason for doing it, despite our pleas for an xMac (and trust me, I'd want one also)

tonyl

Dec 24, 2008, 11:59 PM

Mac Pro, Mac mini, meet your long lost middle sibling; Mac.

Sorry, this thing looks ugly.

czachorski

Dec 25, 2008, 08:00 AM

I didnt purchase a more expensive machine. They lost a sale to me and I doubt im the only one

A sale lost to you on a low-end and likely low-margin machine, versus how many cannibalized sales of higher-end units at higher margins? A question I am sure that has been pondered in Cupertino.

Schtumple

Dec 25, 2008, 08:03 AM

Mac Pro, Mac mini, meet your long lost middle sibling; Mac.

http://s153350075.onlinehome.us/nuCube.jpg
;)

Google PowerMac G4 Cube, that is why Apple won't go down that route again...

iDAG

Dec 25, 2008, 08:06 AM

Google PowerMac G4 Cube, that is why Apple won't go down that route again...

That product just did not sell because no one wanted a mid-range tower from Apple then. I have a feeling that it won't work now. :rolleyes:

Cave Man

Dec 25, 2008, 08:14 AM

A sale lost to you on a low-end and likely low-margin machine, versus how many cannibalized sales of higher-end units at higher margins? A question I am sure that has been pondered in Cupertino.

We'd be happy to pay the cost of an iMac 20" (sans display) in a mini-tower with room for two hard drives and two video ports. Heck, you can even build it on Santa Rosa or 9400m. Give us a socketed 775 mobo or the like and we'd even pay a few hundred bucks more. That would preserve Apple's profit margin just fine. Few of us need server-grade processors in our desktop computers.

czachorski

Dec 26, 2008, 01:53 PM

We'd be happy to pay the cost of an iMac 20" (sans display) in a mini-tower with room for two hard drives and two video ports. Heck, you can even build it on Santa Rosa or 9400m. Give us a socketed 775 mobo or the like and we'd even pay a few hundred bucks more. That would preserve Apple's profit margin just fine. Few of us need server-grade processors in our desktop computers.

Apple has done in this in the past and it simply didn't sell. Check out the history on the single processor G5 PowerMac. People like you say that this is all that Apple needs to do, and in the past when they have tried the market has spoken and rejected the price point. And therein lies the slippery slope.

Cave Man

Dec 26, 2008, 04:35 PM

Apple has done in this in the past and it simply didn't sell. Check out the history on the single processor G5 PowerMac.

The PMG5 is equivalent to today's Mac Pro. It is a full sized tower that we're not interested in. We want a mid-tower that can accommodate two 3.5" SATA drives and provide dual output.

People like you say that this is all that Apple needs to do, and in the past when they have tried the market has spoken and rejected the price point. And therein lies the slippery slope.

If you're still thinking in terms of 2003, then you will never get it. Markets change, and they have changed dramatically for Apple since then. Back then, there were few people who would consider switching from Windows. Now, because of Vista and the halo effect, many more people are willing to give Macs a try. Apple has Microsoft by the jugular, and it's going to let them go.

NT1440

Dec 26, 2008, 04:48 PM

Cave Man

Dec 26, 2008, 04:58 PM

Yea, apples just going to die without releasing a mid tower.....

:rolleyes:

Show me where I made such a statement. You shouldn't go around making $h!t up.

As for "having microsoft by the jugular", somehow I dont think a mid tower is going to kill microsoft.

Those who are not switching are those who cannot get a mid-size tower, which is the great majority of PC users.

Apple is apparantly perfectly content putting out the products they want to and enjoying the fact that this strategy, going it out the way they want, is still gaining them marketshare.

Yeah, you mean like the App Store? Apple only came up with that because of the iPhone Dev Team jailbreaking the iPhone. Once that occurred, people were writing remarkable apps that people could install and run without having to abide by Apple's anemic "web" apps. Apple learned their lesson. Maybe us hackintoshers will make Apple realize the error in their ways in the Mac market. But I'm not holding my breath.

dukebound85

Dec 26, 2008, 05:00 PM

Yea, apples just going to die without releasing a mid tower.....

:rolleyes:

As for "having microsoft by the jugular", somehow I dont think a mid tower is going to kill microsoft. Apple is apparantly perfectly content putting out the products they want to and enjoying the fact that this strategy, going it out the way they want, is still gaining them marketshare.

they were perfectly content putting out products before they decided to release an ipod

they were perfectly content with thier offerings before they released the iphone

they were perfectly content with their offerings before they released the apple tv

they were perfectly content with their offerings before they released a 17in powerbook

they were perfectly ok with no apps added to iphones before the app store

do i need to make the point some more? apple will not stagnate in terms of its offerings and any notion that they will from here on out is silly

why is it unbelievable to want apple to release a mid range mac? is it just because they dont have one out now and because they dont have one out now, that means they never will?

NT1440

Dec 26, 2008, 05:04 PM

Show me where I made such a statement. You shouldn't go around making $h!t up.

My god you are confrontational, where in my post was that directed to you?

It was meant for all the people in here that are constantly predicting the death of apple if it doesnt make a product x, y , or z.

As for errors in their ways, ITS WORKING! Apple is making money hand over fist. They are well aware of the potential out there, just because they don't want to capitalize on it doesn't mean they are making a mistake.

they were perfectly content putting out products before they decided to release an ipod

they were perfectly content with thier offerings before they released the iphone

they were perfectly content with their offerings before they released the apple tv

they were perfectly content with their offerings before they released a 17in powerbook

they were perfectly ok with no apps added to iphones before the app store

do i need to make the point some more? apple will not stagnate in terms of its offerings and any notion that they will from here on out is silly

why is it unbelievable to want apple to release a mid range mac? is it just because they dont have one out now and because they dont have one out now, that means they never will?

All I've been trying to do is point out the ridiculous claims of those that apple will fail without releasing one. I've taken no stance for or against a mid tower.

dukebound85

Dec 26, 2008, 05:05 PM

My god you are confrontational, where in my post was that directed to you?

It was meant for all the people in here that are constantly predicting the death of apple if it doesnt make a product x, y , or z.

i have yet to read any such notion for this "claim"

no one is saying apple is failing:rolleyes:

As for errors in their ways, ITS WORKING! Apple is making money hand over fist. They are well aware of the potential out there, just because they don't want to capitalize on it doesn't mean they are making a mistake.

lol ok, id beg to differ

All I've been trying to do is point out the ridiculous claims of those that apple will fail without releasing one. I've taken no stance for or against a mid tower.

where are you reading that apple will fail if they dont make a mid tower? i know i do not think that way at all yet merely wishing apple will provide a solution

i have read in this thread that any such "support/reasoning" for a mid tower mac is instantly shot down by die hard apple lovers who think apple can do no wrong and since they have no mid tower now, there clearly is no need and thus wanting one is foolish

Cadallin

Dec 27, 2008, 03:03 AM

That product just did not sell because no one wanted a mid-range tower from Apple then. I have a feeling that it won't work now. :rolleyes:

An $1800 (or $2200!) desktop was "midrange"? In 2001?

The only midrange product Apple makes in the Mini, and its a mid priced, but Boutique item, pushing size and styling far over functionality.

The Cube failed because it was priced at least 30% too high. It was deeply compromised compared to the low end Powermac, yet only slightly less expensive.

Shockingly, no-one would want to buy the much demanded xMac if it was equivalently priced today around $2200.

Luftwaffles

Dec 27, 2008, 03:12 AM

Mac Pro, Mac mini, meet your long lost middle sibling; Mac.
;)

Um, is there any reason it only has 3 DDR3 sockets?

Whoever rendered that mockup should do a little bit of research on dual-channel RAM and stop pulling numbers out of their unseen orifaces. :p

CP123

Dec 27, 2008, 09:19 AM

The argument that most people who use PCs aren't switching to Apple because Apple hasn't made a mini-tower is inaccurate. The truer argument is that most PC users who are leaning towards getting a Mac, that want expandability, that haven't gotten one yet, won't get one until Mac makes a mini-tower. And even that statement is not totally accurate.

The one thing people are most resistant to is change. We live in a PC world, where Mac is mostly misunderstood by the masses of people. I bought my first Mac for my son 2 years ago, and since then bought a MacBook for myself and an Imac for the family this year. I will never go back to PC. However, I've had plenty of arguments, with friends, about buying a Mac. I've heard many reasons not to buy, including: Too expensive, Don't want to learn how to use a new system, I'm accustomed to Windows and like Windows, etc. I have never heard the mini-tower argument.

Tallest Skil

Dec 27, 2008, 09:22 AM

Um, is there any reason it only has 3 DDR3 sockets?

Whoever rendered that mockup should do a little bit of research on dual-channel RAM and stop pulling numbers out of their unseen orifaces. :p

Yeah, Nehalem uses tri-channel RAM. Whoever thinks that dual-channel is still cutting edge should do a little bit of research on Nehalem.

Dont Hurt Me

Dec 27, 2008, 09:27 AM

zombie1210

Dec 27, 2008, 09:35 AM

An $1800 (or $2200!) desktop was "midrange"? In 2001?

The only midrange product Apple makes in the Mini, and its a mid priced, but Boutique item, pushing size and styling far over functionality.

The Cube failed because it was priced at least 30% too high. It was deeply compromised compared to the low end Powermac, yet only slightly less expensive.

Shockingly, no-one would want to buy the much demanded xMac if it was equivalently priced today around $2200.

Your comments on the Mini are total BS.

The one I've had for over 4 years has served as a desktop and it has done a fine job. This forum needs a BS meter....it would be pegged in this thread.

Tallest Skil

Dec 27, 2008, 09:36 AM

I wonder why Apple even bothers with Mac Pro with what imac can do.

This statement is utter fail. You've obviously never even seen a Mac Pro.

smartalic34

Dec 27, 2008, 09:54 AM

I think apple should scrap the mac mini and instead make a smaller-than-a-macpro tower, with many options, so as to fill in the mini's market as well as push upward iand fill the current "hole"

czachorski

Dec 27, 2008, 10:49 AM

The PMG5 is equivalent to today's Mac Pro. It is a full sized tower that we're not interested in. We want a mid-tower that can accommodate two 3.5" SATA drives and provide dual output.

If you're still thinking in terms of 2003, then you will never get it. Markets change, and they have changed dramatically for Apple since then. Back then, there were few people who would consider switching from Windows. Now, because of Vista and the halo effect, many more people are willing to give Macs a try. Apple has Microsoft by the jugular, and it's going to let them go.

Since 2003, the PC market has become more commodity, not less. Those conditions would make it harder now than in 2003 for Apple to release such a machine at price point that preserves similar margins as other Macs up the line-up, and have it sell well. The market spoke clearly in 2003 when conditions were better than they are now for such a machine.

If Apple released such a box, a few fringe folks like yourself would get one, and the market would largely ignore it. It would be way more expensive than comparable PC towers, and for you to make your case that such a machine would be a MS killer, you need to explain how selling a very expensive tower into the commodity PC tower market place is going to sell like hot cakes. Personally, I just don't see it.

Cadallin

Dec 28, 2008, 01:08 PM

Your comments on the Mini are total BS.

The one I've had for over 4 years has served as a desktop and it has done a fine job. This forum needs a BS meter....it would be pegged in this thread.

Yes. Total BS.

That GMA 950 is such an amazing GPU, it is no wonder every $800 desktop uses it. :rolleyes:

zombie1210

Dec 28, 2008, 01:50 PM

Yes. Total BS.

That GMA 950 is such an amazing GPU, it is no wonder every $800 desktop uses it. :rolleyes:

Gamerboys need not reply.
:p

Yaris

Dec 28, 2008, 02:32 PM

Mac Pro, Mac mini, meet your long lost middle sibling; Mac.

http://s153350075.onlinehome.us/nuCube.jpg
;)

I think apple should do exactly this, but with Mac Pro aluminum handles instead of x shaped fins.

queshy

Dec 28, 2008, 05:37 PM

The gap will never be filled. It's an all-in-one world, remember?

ButtUglyJeff

Dec 28, 2008, 05:43 PM

The conspiracy theorist in me says, "The new 24" ACD was made with a midpoint desktop in mind, because it costs more than a mac mini, and the polished glass and isight camera isn't appealing to professionals."

But the realist in me says, "Apple has long since tried to satisfy Apple fanboys and girls. And unless there's a way to be cool and have mass market appeal, a useful to me device of a 3/4 Mac Pro will not happen."

Tallest Skil

Dec 28, 2008, 05:46 PM

The conspiracy theorist in me says, "The new 24" ACD was made with the new laptops in mind, because it has a fricking MagSafe that will hang useless when plugged into a desktop, and the polished glass and isight camera matches the new MacBook line."

The Man In Black in me covers up your conspiracy theory with reality. :D

ButtUglyJeff

Dec 28, 2008, 05:50 PM

The Man In Black in me covers up your conspiracy theory with reality. :D

True, but believe me when I say I already know a consumer desktop will never happen..........

Cole Slaw

Dec 28, 2008, 05:50 PM

Steve Jobs doesn't believe in filling "Gaping Holes".

old-wiz

Dec 28, 2008, 05:58 PM

With laptops outselling desktops, Apple's not likely to add another model or make big changes to the desktop line.

Cadallin

Dec 29, 2008, 01:09 AM

Gamerboys need not reply.
:p

Yes. Just keep telling yourself that. GPUs don't matter for 3D accelerated GUIs, video playback accleration, or a host of new emerging, completely non-gaming related tasks.

zombie1210

Dec 29, 2008, 07:50 AM

Yes. Just keep telling yourself that. GPUs don't matter for 3D accelerated GUIs, video playback accleration, or a host of new emerging, completely non-gaming related tasks.

Gamerboys need not reply.

Vista is calling you....or is that your momma?

millerj123

Dec 29, 2008, 08:34 AM

I think apple should scrap the mac mini and instead make a smaller-than-a-macpro tower, with many options, so as to fill in the mini's market as well as push upward iand fill the current "hole"

Why would it have to be one or the other?

I have a mini, and it works great. I just wish I could have gotten a headless desktop, and not a headless laptop. The cheapest Pro is $2200, so I'll never bother with one.

They could add a half-pro, but unfortunately, I don't think this will happen.

j5045096

Dec 29, 2008, 09:00 AM

j5045096

Dec 29, 2008, 09:02 AM

Mac Pro, Mac mini, meet your long lost middle sibling; Mac.
;)

That is the ugliest thing I have ever seen. Only HP could design something so hideous and of course they'd stick a Compaq name plate on it.

dukebound85

Dec 29, 2008, 09:04 AM

then get a hackintosh.

thats what i did a year ago:cool:

reebzor

Dec 29, 2008, 09:18 AM

iMacs rule and have more then enough juice for most folks. I wonder why Apple even bothers with MacPro with what imac can do. A new Mini & iMac makes for a great lineup.
The all i one imac sure makes for a clean desk, ends all the cable clutter and still has more then enough power to enjoy even AAA gaming.:apple:
The iMac doesn't count. I dont mind the hardware in the iMac, but it doesnt make for such a clean desk when I have a nice monitor and setup already, now I have a huge thin box on my desk with a screen that I don't need or want to use. A mini tower and an All-In-One are not the same thing.

Gamerboys need not reply.
:p

I forgot that gamers are the only people that need/want better GPU's. I've read a lot of ignorance on this forum, but you take the cake. I've got two things to say to you: First, what do you have against gamers anyway? Are people that play games not allowed to use macs (http://www.apple.com/games/)? Maybe you've also heard of this piece of software. (http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/finalcutpro/)
Second, research Snow Leopard a bit before you go writing off people wanting a better GPU, GPU utilization of highly parallel tasks generally done on a CPU. You sound very uninformed.

For the recond, I'm not even a gamer. I'm just trying to make a point.

Cadallin

Dec 29, 2008, 12:25 PM

For the recond, I'm not even a gamer. I'm just trying to make a point.

You know the hilarious part? I'm not a PC gamer either. I quit gaming on computers long before I switched to Macs, its one of the things that made the decision, but since that time, GPUs have steadily become more important for a wide variety of computing tasks. Core Video? Core Image? Anybody?

The flat out denial and Apple apologia is really sad.

The expected Mini revision with rumored Nvidia chipset should definitely be an improvement. It should at least bring the Mini up to basic modern video capability.
The much speculated removal of firewire, however, is going to hurt.

I'll probably end up concocting some bizarre hydra, with a Mini desktop connected a linux server over Gigibit ethernet (which bloody well better still be there, but I've learned to fear the worst in what Apple may decide to remove). An arrangement which will be a mess, and a royal pain, but still worth the $1000 it will save.

If Gigabit ethernet isn't included, or the Mini revision is otherwise even more heavily neutered than expected, Apple can go jump in a lake.

sporadicMotion

Dec 29, 2008, 01:35 PM

Mac Pro, Mac mini, meet your long lost middle sibling; Mac.

http://s153350075.onlinehome.us/nuCube.jpg
;)

that looks like the bastard child of an old sun box, a mac of some kind and an ugly stick... good specs though

zombie1210

Dec 29, 2008, 06:06 PM

To listen to some of you guys rambling on about video, GPU's etc....its ABSOLUTELY AMAZING that anything can be done on an iMac or a Mini.

ABSOLUTELY AMAZING.

They must be great for playing chess and using e-mail. Thats why they sell as well as they do.

NT1440

Dec 29, 2008, 06:14 PM

Tallest Skil

Dec 29, 2008, 06:15 PM

:confused:

I have no idea what this post is trying to say.

The GMA950 is pathetic.

And he's wrong.

oli2140

Dec 29, 2008, 06:15 PM

:confused:

I have no idea what this post is trying to say.

I think its a reference to pawn

zombie1210

Dec 29, 2008, 06:21 PM

:confused:

I have no idea what this post is trying to say.

Its called sarcasm.

People are poo pooing the Mini that don't have a clue....hence the sarcasm.

I'd have to say that this is the 8th dumbest discussion I've ever read, and I'm glad to be part of it.

(see above, re:sarcasm)

How OLD are you boys?

I'm guessing pretty young.

dukebound85

Dec 29, 2008, 09:44 PM

Its called sarcasm.

People are poo pooing the Mini that don't have a clue....hence the sarcasm.

I'd have to say that this is the 8th dumbest discussion I've ever read, and I'm glad to be part of it.

(see above, re:sarcasm)

How OLD are you boys?

I'm guessing pretty young.

just because you dont need it doesnt mean i dont have any need for it:rolleyes:

this discussion is about should apple provide a solution. if you dont like the thread, stay out of it:cool:

zombie1210

Dec 29, 2008, 10:06 PM

You would like for Apple to shoot itself in the foot.

I see.

reebzor

Dec 29, 2008, 10:37 PM

People are poo pooing the Mini that don't have a clue....hence the sarcasm.

Are you kidding, See my sig: I clearly own a Mini. I have a clue, much more of one than you do.

zombie1210

Dec 29, 2008, 10:40 PM

Are you kidding, See my sig: I clearly own a Mini. I have a clue, much more of one than you do.

Then you really have no excuse for being ignorant.
:eek:

NT1440

Dec 29, 2008, 10:51 PM

Then you really have no excuse for being ignorant.
:eek:

I'm still confused on where you stand with the mini.

zombie1210

Dec 29, 2008, 10:56 PM

I'm still confused on where you stand with the mini.

Of course you are.
:apple:

NT1440

Dec 29, 2008, 11:01 PM

Of course you are.
:apple:

djsghkl;sfhaghjslK; JESUS U CONFUSE ME:p

Are you saying the mini is crap or not!?

dukebound85

Dec 30, 2008, 12:43 AM

You would like for Apple to shoot itself in the foot.

I see.

and you know this how again? lol

zombie1210

Dec 30, 2008, 07:57 AM

lol
:rolleyes:

dukebound85

Dec 30, 2008, 03:52 PM

lol
:rolleyes:

your posts are so insightful lol

zombie1210

Dec 30, 2008, 05:47 PM

your posts are so insightful lol

As insightful as yours are silly.
:rolleyes:

julienko3

Dec 30, 2008, 09:48 PM

both of you,

;asdfnaklsjdnfakdsjf

dukebound85

Dec 30, 2008, 10:00 PM

As insightful as yours are silly.
:rolleyes:

i forgot that mentioning something apple does not do currently is blasphemy on these boards:rolleyes:

i love how some think apple can do no wrong and whatever they are doing at the moment is perfect with no room at all for improvement.....

instead of making blanket statements on my comments being silly, how about you back your views up with reason for a change as opposed to just saying its silly/stupid/whatnot

Trip.Tucker

Dec 30, 2008, 10:03 PM

It's no secret Apple has a huge hole in their lineup, between the mini and pro, and anything less than a significant mini upgrade will leave mini fans out in the cold and very angry. What changes do you think Apple will reveal about the new mini? Better graphics and a larger disk and/or SSD are assumed but what else?

Quad core i7? (no Core2's need apply, thank you)
Larger RAM maximum? (at least 4GB but hopefully 8GB)
Drop Firewire ports? (Sorry folks but this is not a Pro)

What would you like to see?

I see no hole in the lineup whatsoever. There is no secret.

zombie1210

Dec 31, 2008, 05:10 PM

I see no hole in the lineup whatsoever. There is no secret.

WE HAVE A WINNER!
:D

Schtumple

Dec 31, 2008, 06:55 PM

WE HAVE A WINNER!
:D

SRSLY DUDE, your opinion does not equal fact... To some there is a hole, to others there isn't, does that make either side right? No, it's opinion, not fact.

zombie1210

Dec 31, 2008, 06:59 PM

SRSLY DUDE, your opinion does not equal fact... To some there is a hole, to others there isn't, does that make either side right? No, it's opinion, not fact.

You must have learned that on the internet.

Schtumple

Jan 5, 2009, 01:30 PM

You must have learned that on the internet.

What that opinion doesn't equal fact?

Ok then, Theme Hospital is the best computer game ever made, that is fact, because it is my opinion. Prove me wrong.

nickane

Jan 6, 2009, 03:44 AM

I started a thread like this one at work yesterday cos my search for xmac didn't unearth this one. All i got was angry detractors. It amazes me that for every xmac hopeful (however pragmatic, altho admittedly most seem to expect a mac pro that's half the size for $99), there are 10 apple fans so passionate about apple's decision to force an AIO on the midrange desktop buyer (who still accounts for the MAJORITY of computer purchases, i'm told, despite rising notebook marketshare) and the genius of higher margins and regular upgrades of planned obsolescence that they become furious at anyone who thinks apple should stoop to something so obvious and mainstream.

If u don't like the topic of the thread, don't f&£k:@g post.

Personally, i think a mini with dual display support and fw800 will be as good as an xmac (altho i still doubt those rumours heavily), yet the hope of dedicated gfx at the hi-end (1199$) or even a distinct product line (cube 2) are the ridiculous hopes i'm clinging to. If u want an apple tablet/camera/media centre/netbook feel free to do the same without expecting the vast amount of vitriol heaped upon u that us xmaccers are used to :)

zombie1210

Jan 6, 2009, 07:43 AM

Give it up.

Trip.Tucker

Jan 6, 2009, 07:44 AM

millerj123

Jan 6, 2009, 08:02 AM

Give it up.

Why do you hang in the thread?

I'd still love to see a $1000 headless desktop. That doesn't exist, but could.

skipjakk

Jan 23, 2009, 07:39 PM

Maybe it would be better to ask if there is a segment or population of users that Apple is not currently building systems for? Despite what others have said on this thread, there does seem to be some demand for a headless mac, I think the question is whether its large enough. Keep in mind the best selling desktops in the PC world are NOT all-in-one computers......
Just my take, if Apple is keen to switch people, a headless mac that runs OS X and XP/Vista/7 might be an attractive alternative to a PC box......

sonofmof

Jan 24, 2009, 06:23 AM

I know i'm taking my life into my hands by posting this but....

I agree with many that the signs are there..... if you're open minded enough to look.

The new 24" ACD has some strange features if as currently advertised it is built only as a Notebook display.

Why the iSight ? all Mac laptops have one.

I believe that the new mini will have mag safe power supply, same as the macbooks, and will use the screen as a selling partner in a bundle if required. adding iSight, speakers and additional ports.

In this type of package it also allows for the fabled xmac, as a stand alone it could be cheaper than the iMac, with equal or slighly higher spec for those that already have a nice display, with the display it would be better than the imac interms of user upgradeability for those that want to buy both together, but cheaper than the mac pros for those of us that really dont need them.

Home users want the ability to add HDD space and upgrade VGA cards occasionally, take it from someone that knows, an iMac with 2 USB drives hanging off it is not a pretty site :-(

wawanarchist

Jan 24, 2009, 06:34 AM

I'll try taking a stab at this too...

Lets see, Apple has 3 desktop machines out, the mini, imac, and mac pro. All are pretty configurable, and in my opinion they cover pretty much the whole range, from a base mini being an underpowered websurfer, to the mac pro being a video happy monster.

That being said, there is a hole in the lineup. Many actually. This is true for every computer maker. There are consumers out there that want a $200 machine from apple and say the lack of that is a hole. Others want a midrange tower, and say that is a hole, others wand an unholy behemoth that rivals a super computer, and say the lack of that is a hole.

I'm no econ major, but I do know that consumers drive the marketplace, so if a consumer feels there is a hole in a lineup, then that hole exists, even if its just for that one person, and the more people who agree, the more likely it is that Apple will do something about it.

So in conclusion, there are holes in apples lineup, there are holes in every lineup. Calling them gaping is an overstatement, saying they don't exist is an understatement. I'm happily writing this on my iMac, and I see no need for a midrange desktop, but just because I don't need it does not mean nobody does and applying our own needs and wants to others situations is wrong and nonsensical.

sonofmof

Jan 24, 2009, 06:45 AM

I have been a mac user for several years now and am on my 3rd Mac.

I've owned an eMac, then the mini, now the 17" iMac I use daily.

Currently my wife has the mini as her desktop, (the eMac died a death) and I have the iMac, but its a few years old and I would like an upgrade. I have however found the iMac restricting, I upgraded the HDD and ram in the eMac and the Mini but am not willing to disassemble the iMac to try the HDD upgrade I feel it badly needs, 120GB is not a lot these days.

I simply can't afford or justify a Mac Pro, but would by an ACD 24" and an xMac it it were available, this would generate more revenue for Apple, (I would pay more for this config than for a 24" iMac).

Frankly, if the new Mini adds a spec higher than my iMac I may even move to that, which would be a cheap upgrade for me and a potential loss of much more to Apple.

I also believe that many switchers are holding back because they already have nice 19" displays and don't want the underpowered mini, or the expense of the iMac which would leave them with a redundant screen.

robanga

Jan 24, 2009, 10:28 AM

scanlanlee

Jan 24, 2009, 11:35 AM

You could always use the extra display as a second display for your iMac assuming you have the desk real estate.

I have a nice 22" screen, my wife has a mini and i have a (reasonably) high speced PC both connected to a KVM as i also connect various friends/family PC's for repair/disinfecting etc.
It's at this point that a mini doesn't have the clout i want as a mac user, but the Pro is vastly over speced (and priced) for the same jobs.
I would love to give Apple some more of my money, they need it, but i need a computer that fit for purpose....which is why i have a PC :( this makes me very sad but i can't/wont spend 2000euro on a Pro.

The original poster was RIGHT there is a whole, Apple may not fill it, but it does exist.

Mactagonist

Jan 24, 2009, 12:24 PM

The iMac is to near and dear to Steves heart. I dont think he wants a mid tower that would compete with it. Maybe Tim Cook can sneak it out the door while Steve is gone! :)

Haemorrage

Jan 24, 2009, 01:59 PM

I also believe that many switchers are holding back because they already have nice 19" displays and don't want the underpowered mini, or the expense of the iMac which would leave them with a redundant screen.

I'm in that situation right now. I have a 24" LCD Widescreen monitor and also being a starving university student means that getting an iMac is a deal breaker for me at the moment. Furthermore, I don't like how Apple is forcing the consumer to pay more for the next model up by making the base model have less than desirable features (such as a combo drive, a tiny 80GB HDD and a 1.83GHz CPU). The base model iMac is the sort of specs I do like but it would have to be at least $200 cheaper for me to consider buying one.

Haemorrage

Jan 24, 2009, 02:41 PM

If there is a hole that apple could fill with their lineup, they should make a 25th anniversary mac of some sort.

Tallest Skil

Jan 24, 2009, 02:41 PM

If there is a hole that apple could fill with their lineup, they should make a 25th anniversary mac of some sort.

Do you... want another $9,999 computer? :confused::eek::D

Haemorrage

Jan 24, 2009, 02:52 PM

Do you... want another $9,999 computer? :confused::eek::D

The only reason the 20th anniversary mac costed that much is because of the concierge service that came with it. The price dropped to $1,995 when they got rid of the concierge service.

I was thinking of something along the lines of a Mac Mini on steroids (same specs as a middle model iMac) but have it at a reasonable price :)

zmttoxics

Jan 24, 2009, 04:16 PM

Meh.

If you really want one you can look to a PC and put Linux on it. There was a time when Apple attempted to cater to every market and had something like 20 different variations of the same product. They simplified things, encouraged the user and convinced them it was simple - and it worked. Profits are at an all time high, and they are growing. This is now the staple formula - there is no reason to change it.

The minis are pretty good for the cost. Very small, well built, and affordable. The second they get updated I am putting it on my to buy list.

Also, stop bashing Tallest Skil, hes been waiting for his right Mac Pro for a long time but you don't see him running around starting pointless threads about it.

robanga

Jan 24, 2009, 04:46 PM

The only reason the 20th anniversary mac costed that much is because of the concierge service that came with it. The price dropped to $1,995 when they got rid of the concierge service.

I was thinking of something along the lines of a Mac Mini on steroids (same specs as a middle model iMac) but have it at a reasonable price :)

For $ 8000 concierge service they had better of come in and provided dinner and a swedish massage as well.

Haemorrage

Jan 24, 2009, 11:06 PM

For $ 8000 concierge service they had better of come in and provided dinner and a swedish massage as well.

LOL! I hope the dinner included a giant bottle of Dom Perignon Champagne :D

czachorski

Jan 25, 2009, 09:19 AM

I'm in that situation right now. I have a 24" LCD Widescreen monitor and also being a starving university student means that getting an iMac is a deal breaker for me at the moment. Furthermore, I don't like how Apple is forcing the consumer to pay more for the next model up by making the base model have less than desirable features (such as a combo drive, a tiny 80GB HDD and a 1.83GHz CPU). The base model iMac is the sort of specs I do like but it would have to be at least $200 cheaper for me to consider buying one.

Sell your monitor and put $200 of the proceeds towards the iMac - poof - the iMac just got $200 cheaper.