Would you buy a midrange mac tower?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by iMacZealot, Feb 28, 2007.

?

Would you buy a midrange mac tower?

  1. In a heartbeat!

    79 vote(s)
    41.1%
  2. I'd consider it.

    79 vote(s)
    41.1%
  3. That's crazytalk!

    34 vote(s)
    17.7%
  1. iMacZealot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    #1
    Well, would you?

    I know I would in a heartbeat. I think Apple should discontinue the 24" iMac because prosumers want the expandability of the mac pro, but at a better pricepoint with not so many unnecessary features. Here's what I'd like to see:

    >either a 2.33 GHz C2D or 2.0 GHz Xeon
    >1 superdrive (don't think anybody NEEDS two, plus it'd cut down on the size)
    >2 hard disk bays for up to 1.5 TB, base model 250 GB
    >1 GB RAM standard, but certainly 16 GB is not necessary for the maximum
    >NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT (probably just 128 MB, maybe 256)
    >2 FW400, 1 FW800, 4 USB, 2 on keyboard
    >No PCI express (prosumers don't need 8 30 inch Cinemas)
    >Would be nice if they threw in AirPort card, but not necesary
    >$1799-$1999 for base model

    Would you buy that?
     
  2. DaveP macrumors 6502

    DaveP

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    #2
    YES!!!

    But apparently it isn't in Apple's marketing plan....
     
  3. Eclipse278 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
  4. SkyBell macrumors 604

    SkyBell

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    Texas, unfortunately.
    #4
    Not.A.Chance.In.Hell.

    Macs were NOT meant to be towers in my opinion.

    Remember, it's not just the OS that makes Macs Different, it's also the design.

    And a tower is too pc-ish.

    (Don't even try the MP or the Powermacs; they weren't meant to be either.)
     
  5. TheAnswer macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #5
    I used to be for the midrange tower, but now I think the 24" iMac fills the space. First, it's a much easier upsell from the other iMacs than a midrange tower would be. Second, the storage issue was taken out of the equation by the fact that the 24" iMac has FW800... additional rapid storage for prosumer needs is met through that.
     
  6. Allotriophagy macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    #6
    It should be a sphere. Or a pyramid. Or a wang.
     
  7. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #7
    :D I know a few people whod buy one...
     
  8. SkyBell macrumors 604

    SkyBell

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    Texas, unfortunately.
    #8
    A Sphere would be awesome.

    When your Mac is not in use, you can play soccer with it.:D :eek: ;) :)
     
  9. SBik2 macrumors 6502a

    SBik2

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2006
    Location:
    /private/var/root
    #9
    i agree with you all the way
     
  10. iMacZealot thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    #10
    While I do agree that all-in-ones and the design of macs are very important, all-in-ones are not practical for the prosumer and pros. I think the iMac is a great machine for the average consumer who wants the ultimate, all-in-one digital hub. However, it's not a good solution for prosumers like me. The 24" iMac is trying to fill that space, but I don't think it does. Sure, you can buy external hard disks, but any mac can do that, and it seems like all I buy now are those. It'd be nice to just have 1TB+ of space in my iMac G5. I know the G5 couldn't, but maybe the new Intels can, but I'd really like the ability to do an extended desktop. And, no, I don't need a ton of PCI express slots to hook up 8 30" Cinemas, I just want 2 20" or 23" displays (or one of each.) And I certainly could use more than 2 FW ports.

    Yes, I think it'd be a terrible idea if Apple's flagship computer was not an all-in-one like the PC companies because consumers don't need expandability nor the ability to upgrade his or her screen, but a prosumer/pro does.
     
  11. hayduke macrumors 65816

    hayduke

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    is a state of mind.
    #11
    Not a chance. I just got me a Mac Pro!!!!

    Not only that, but I think the Mac Mini will see some reasonable upgrades that will make it a better all around machine. The pro level machines are for...pros. If you don't need a MacPro, then you need something else. Not trying to be snooty, I just think there are other good price points out there for the market at large...which differs from the macrumors market...which is more strong affected by reality distortion fields and more compelled to buy what they want, not what they need.
     
  12. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #12
    They had their chance.

    B
     
  13. iMacZealot thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    #13
    I partially agree with this. When I bought my iMac G5 nearly two years ago, it suited my needs, but my needs are growing at a strong rate because I've made a career out of my filmmaking, and I'm a little worried about how Final Cut Studio would run on it. I'm constantly running out of disk space (275 GB out of 340 GB full), and the 17" display is very limiting. I'm planning on saving up for a Mac Pro, which I'll be able to buy in about 15 months, but I wish Apple offered either a midrange tower or lower end Mac Pro that was more affordable because the Mac Pro has a lot of features I don't need, but the iMac doesn't have the features I want anymore.
     
  14. SkyBell macrumors 604

    SkyBell

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    Texas, unfortunately.
    #15
    Something like this would fill the gap. (Just update it's technology and it's look, and possibibly make it a little bit smaller.)
     
  15. suneohair macrumors 68020

    suneohair

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    #16
    Typical zealot.
     
  16. iMacZealot thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    #17
    Yeah, by "tower", I mean something half the height of the Mac Pro and half the length. Nothing like the Cube, as cool as it looked. It also would be priced between the "best" iMac and "good" Mac Pro, unlike the Cube's mistake of being priced the same as a "better" PowerMac G4.
     
  17. mashinhead macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2003
    #18
    I totally see your point but i'm been thinking about the way people use computers and how they upgrade. And for some reason my current opinion (also after reading about SR and the Graphics Capabitilites with it) that it would be better to just offer 3 towers (mac mini, something new, and mac pro) that support multiple screens. i'm not sure, that you can hook up another screen to an imac (if you ever needed to down the road), but they look really bad next to each other. they could then expand their monitor range in sizes which would result in cheaper costs and give you the flexibility to customize your setup (say you bought a 20" imac and 3 months later you decide you need more real estate) better because they are the type of product that has a long life you don't need to upgrade them often. I know it seems PC ish, but apple would find a way to make it apple.

    i just think, economically, and also with the obscelecene of technology, that it just makes more sense. instead of having to buy something new and repay for compontents you already have, that do not need to be upgraded or replaced.a set up like that is ideal. you can customize how many displays you want. It will be cheaper to upgrade. It will all look the same design wise. upgrading would be easier, cheaper, and faster.

    Actully ideally it would be cool to devise a system where you can swap out processor components, or the core of what you need fast, the way you would a hard drive. That would be the future i think. don't know how i got off on to that.
     
  18. suneohair macrumors 68020

    suneohair

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    #19
    >either a 2.33 GHz C2D or 2.0 GHz Xeon
    >1 superdrive (don't think anybody NEEDS two, plus it'd cut down on the size)
    >2 hard disk bays for up to 1.5 TB, base model 250 GB
    >1 GB RAM standard, but certainly 16 GB is not necessary for the maximum
    >NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT (probably just 128 MB, maybe 256)
    >2 FW400, 1 FW800, 4 USB, 2 on keyboard
    >No PCI express (prosumers don't need 8 30 inch Cinemas)
    >Would be nice if they threw in AirPort card, but not necesary
    >$1799-$1999 for base model

    Definetly not a Xeon. Xeons don't perform as well outside of an MP setup. C2D Desktop version is fine.

    As long as they have the option for higher end cards. A 7300GT is not going to attract much. 7600 minimum with x1900adn beyond in reach.

    PCI express, at least 1 is a must. That defeats the point of a mid tower completely.

    Airport and BT optional just as in the Mac Pro.

    Those prices are way too high. Give me a break. I am all for Apple design, but charging 2k for less of a machine than a Mac Pro which you can get at 2.0 for $2k is foolish.

    Don't even consider the iMac in determining the price for something like this. It is irrelevant. This is basically a bigger Mac Mini.

    $1299 for the base model is a good price. No more than $1500.
     
  19. roland.g macrumors 603

    roland.g

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Location:
    One mile up and soaring
    #20
    I too would like to see one, don't know if Apple will do it. I bought my Mini to hold off on the iMac because while I like the 24" I really like the 23" ACD better. The silver polished look is great. I just want a better box than the Mini to hook it too. And the Mac Pro is overkill for my needs. At one point Apple offered G5 towers in 1.8, dual 2.0 and dual 2.3s or so. The 1.8 was an affordable single cpu option. Now the low end Mac Pro, especially with the price of RAM isn't an option. Not to mention the form factor is too big. I would like 2 full size 3.5" HDD bays and room for 4GB RAM. As far as PCI Express I don't care. I also want dedicated graphics. The other thing about the iMac that turns me off is the white. If it came in silver or black that would be great. I will get a 24" in white if that's my only option when Leopard comes out. But if a mid tower comes out at WWDC or next January at MWSF, I will sell that 24" and get it instead.
     
  20. iMacZealot thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    #21
    Well, each Mac is targeted towards a different user -- the Mac Mini is designed for people who've never owned a Mac that have a PC on its last legs, but have a perfectly working monitor, keyboard, and mouse, and it's a simple, easy way for them to test out the Mac and get a good computer. I think the iMac is designed for those people that've tried the Mac and love it, and want the ultimate digital hub -- what the iMac's always been about. That group doesn't need the ability to upgrade their hard disk or display. And the Mac Pro is intended for professionals who need the top-of-the-line power mac (sorry, but it sounded like the right adjective to use -- I don't really mean the PowerMacintosh.)

    But what about us Prosumers? There hasn't really been a good solution for us. The 24" iMac, I believe, is intended for us prosumers with the big screen and FW800, but that's not what the iMac's been about. The iMac's always been about being the ultimate digital hub for the average consumer-- not the prosumer. Prosumers (at least, this is what I want) want the ability to upgrade or add on to their mac. I'm a film editor, and I would LOVE an extended desktop and more disk space on the inside. I don't need the top-of-the-line mac like what professionals need.
     
  21. iMacZealot thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    #22
    I guess I forgot to mention this, but I did in another thread. I think that it'd be a good idea if Apple got rid of the 2.0 GHz Xeon altogether and increasingly billed the Mac Pro as an even more pro machine whereas this prosumer computer would fill the lower end's Mac Pro place while delivering more of what prosumers want at a better price.
     
  22. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #23
    well, you're certainly not aiming overly high with the features/price. Usually when people ask these kinds of questions they want all the bells and whistles starting at $1000. :rolleyes:

    But actually, I think you've gone too far the other way - what you propose isn't a very good buy compared to the 2.0 Ghz mac pro currently offered. We're losing a moderate amount of functionality and saving a pretty marginal amount of money. That's not to say nobody would prefer this to the 2.0 MP, but I hardly see it targeting a different market.

    If apple were to do a midrange tower, which it won't, it should be $1500 or so. A nice $1500 headless option would bridge the gap between a stripped down mac pro ($2121) and a high end mini with a gig of RAM ($874).
     
  23. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #24
    honestly, i would love to see a tower with around the same specs as the iMac for the same price point as their corresponding models (display not included).

    so i would like to see for the high end Mac Pro Mini;
    -2.16GHz C2D standard, 2.33GHz C2D optional
    -1GB RAM standard, up to 4GB optional
    -2 SATA HDD bays, 250GB in one bay standard, up to 1.5TB optional
    -superdrive, superduperdrive (blu-ray or HDDVD) optional
    -1 FW 400, 1 FW 800, 4 USB
    -some mid-range GPU in a PCI slot, 2 slots in total
    -BT and APE standard
    -FrontRow

    for $3000 aussie dollars
     
  24. hayduke macrumors 65816

    hayduke

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    is a state of mind.
    #25
    That's like, what? US$1.20? Just kidding...

    That would be a nicely spec'd machine. I just think the market is pretty narrow for this machine and that is one reason Apple won't bother.
     

Share This Page