23-inch iMac on September 12th?

[baxterbrittle]

Processor...yes. How about the rest of it? (I'm not being sarcastic as I truly don't know.) I successfully upgraded both the optical drive and the hard drive in my iMac G4. Ironically, I've never done that to a PC.

-Squire

HDD is quite easy, RAM very easy, Processor easyish, Optical drive harder because of notebook drive but can very easily be done through FW/USB. If you've pulled apart a G4 iMac then these shouldn't be too much harder, just a matter of following instructions available on the net. Of course none of which are supported by Apple but quite easily done none the less. There is also some talk of easy overclocking through EFI, but don't know enough about that one yet to comment.

 

[dropadrop]

A X1900xt produces 100W of heat when under 3d load, and a X1900GT produces over 70W of heat. Pair that up with a Conroe producing 60W of heat, and suddenly you want to remove 120-160W of heat from a pizzabox.

 

[Evangelion]

then the truth of the matter is this: You are not one of us. You aren't sold on the Mac platform, and therefore you sold out to PC. I look sometimes over the fence at the PC platform and the deals i can get, and then I actually bought one 2 months ago, and sold it in 2 weeks since I despised the OS. I applaud you for making a choice, I am just sad to see a person on MacRumors who wasn't 100% sold on Mac.

Is this the "Mac-fanboy koolaid-dispencer"-forum? Fact of the matter is that you do NOT have to be a foaming-at-the-mouth Mac-fanatic to be on these forums. There are quite a fe people who use and appreciate Macs and OS X, yet don't soil themselves whenever Steve Jobs says something. I'm one of them.

Yes, there are LOTS of people who would love to buy a Mac, but they can't since Apple does not have a suitable machine for them. And the machine that would fit their needs is that "midrange tower" you despise so much. Apple WANTS people to buy Macs instead of PC's. They WANT "switchers". And switchers are not Mac-fanboys. After all, they used a PC not long ago. They could go back to the PC.

Most computers sold today are minitowers, and for a good reason. They are expandable and versatile. Apple does offer such a system, but their offering costs way over 2000 bucks, and has four CPU-cores in it. Most users don't need nor want something like that. They would like a machine in the iMac-pricerange, that would be versatile and expandable. Apple does not have ANY product for them. None whats-o-ever. So what should they do? Buy a machine that does not meet their criteria, or buy a machine which is complete overkill for their needs? Those are their options, if they plan to buy a Mac. Instead of doing that, they just buy a tower-PC and be done with it. And that means lost sales for Apple.

Hell, since Macs run Windows these days, there might be a sizable number of peopl who bought Macs in order to run Windows on them!

 

[Peace]

WOW...

A little over a year ago the only arguments were about when and if another 100MHz would be coming out.A year?..Nah..6 months..No way dude! PPC has reached it's max..If only Apple would switch to Intel..or AMD..We would be in dreamland those machines have 800MHz FSB compared to this paltry 167 MHz.


Now folks sit here complaining about not getting more every six months..


Good reading!! Keep it up..Goes great with my morning coffee

 

[50548]

Is this the "Mac-fanboy koolaid-dispencer"-forum? Fact of the matter is that you do NOT have to be a foaming-at-the-mouth Mac-fanatic to be on these forums. There are quite a fe people who use and appreciate Macs and OS X, yet don't soil themselves whenever Steve Jobs says something. I'm one of them.

Yes, there are LOTS of people who would love to buy a Mac, but they can't since Apple does not have a suitable machine for them. And the machine that would fit their needs is that "midrange tower" you despise so much. Apple WANTS people to buy Macs instead of PC's. They WANT "switchers". And switchers are not Mac-fanboys. After all, they used a PC not long ago. They could go back to the PC.

Most computers sold today are minitowers, and for a good reason. They are expandable and versatile. Apple does offer such a system, but their offering costs way over 2000 bucks, and has four CPU-cores in it. Most users don't need nor want something like that. They would like a machine in the iMac-pricerange, that would be versatile and expandable. Apple does not have ANY product for them. None whats-o-ever. So what should they do? Buy a machine that does not meet their criteria, or buy a machine which is complete overkill for their needs? Those are their options, if they plan to buy a Mac. Instead of doing that, they just buy a tower-PC and be done with it. And that means lost sales for Apple.

Hell, since Macs run Windows these days, there might be a sizable number of peopl who bought Macs in order to run Windows on them!

Most computers sold today are minitowers because NO ONE besides Apple knows how to make them, that's a given (unless you consider fugly eMachines models good rivals for the iMac). People go to Apple Stores to BUY iMacs, not boxes that cannot function without a lot of ancillary products. I bought my iMac and I carry it everywhere without having to mind about a bulky LCD or a stupid beige box...that's what Macs are for.

And I yet have to see an average user worried about swapping a blabla X1906GTY to a blabla X14567GTZ...it's NOT gonna happen, and MR isn't a good display of market needs by a LONG shot...let's accept it and bury this silly discussion once and for all.

 

[Evangelion]

The headless Mac is rabidly desired by a select few here in MR, but has no bearing whatsoever on the normal and SMASHING majority of consumers out there.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but, overwhelming majority of consumers are buying those headless systems. Most desktop-PC's are those headless systems, that according to you, are not bought by anyone, since everyone is buying all-in-ones. I bet that there are about 100 minitower-PC's sold for every Mac (all models included) sold.

The minitower is THE best selling type of computer there is. Period. All-in-ones are a miniscule minority in comparison.

The need for expansion has always been a lame excuse, especially when you can do practically EVERYTHING with an AIO Mac.

And when the time comes that you CAN'T do everything with it, you need to get rid of the entire computer AND the screen.

FW is there, USB is there, mike/cam/speakers are there...want more? There is a very good GPU which is enough for years to come.

"a very good GPU"? I would say that it has a mediocre GPU, which would have problems with some games right now, not to mention in the future.

There is a HD with 250Gb, more than suitable for any average user.

And when it gets full (and it WILL get full), what do you do? Add in cumbersome external hard-drives? Ugh, no thank you.

Sorry, almost nobody needs a double-SLI card or a fiber channel interface...

That's a strawman-argument, and you know it. No-one is asking for quad-GPU's or fiber-channel interfaces.

Apple is wise in following that path, instead of bowing to a few crazy geeks that have no clue about market strategy. It has suffered the Performa/pizza box syndrome before, and the headless Mac would be no more than a redux of that

Their previous attempt did not fail because of the form-factor. It failed because of other reasons (confusing product-lines with nothing differentiating them, among other things)

it would pose a dilemma on every consumer out there, confused between a great AIO desktop, a reasonable box, and an expensive tower.

Consumers are already confused by Apple's product-line. An AIO that comes with mediocre specs (with no way to improve upon them) and a screen they do not need, or a quad-core workstation which is too expensive for them, and totally overkill.

 

[mccldwll]

Agree w/ BRLawyer. Most of target demographic doesn't care about chips etc.. Imac works because of software/hardware simplicity. I'm in that demographic, but won't buy an imac because of the chin. Can't stand staring at that big glaring hunk of plastic (plus the proportions are way off, compared to the mock-up 23" on this site). I want to see a display form like on the imac G4. Don't expect to see an articulated arm because too expensive. Put the computor on the back like in the transparent mock-up, or in a cube-like plug-in display base (again, to transport to tv room without dragging along the display--display next to tv = poor design).

 

[FFTT]

Most of the consumer budget grade Windows towers never see an upgrade
before they are retired and the vast majority of office users aren't even allowed to touch their machines.
An even great number are leased.

Some people love to noodle about with their machines or actually need to perform necessary upgrades, but most people don't want to be bothered.

Some people also enjoy tweaking their favorite sports car, while the majority just want their cars to work effortlessly.

These iMacs are damn powerful and capable machines for the majority of
average users.
They will run and then they will probably be handed down to other family members when they decide to buy another Mac.

 

[dropadrop]

Consumers are already confused by Apple's product-line. An AIO that comes with mediocre specs (with no way to improve upon them) and a screen they do not need, or a quad-core workstation which is too expensive for them, and totally overkill.

I'm sure consumers just looking for "a computer" are confused, but maby it's not Apples intention to produce a computer that will appeal to everyone. The iMac is a niche product, but a growing niche. I don't think it's a coincidence that the 17" imac was rated as the most silent "out of the box" computer by silentpcreview, and that's important for alot of people. Maby Apple are not trying to compete with Dell in specs, rather making a computer that is balanced in estetics (looks and sound) and performance. To achieve this, you generally can't use top of the line components (before mobile components where available most people building a silent computer undervolted and underclocked desktop components to achieve the same outcome).

I can understand people here being upset that Apple is not offering a gamers solution (which most people here seem to be wanting). What I can't understand is that most of the partisipients in this thread seem to want them to make the gaming rig out of something which is clearly not intended for it.

When has the iMac had high end components in it? Never. People keep saying that the Conroe is finally cool enough to use in the imac, but that simply is not true. At 60-65W the Conroe is about as hot as low-mid range Amd processors have been during the last years, and those have not worked in fully silent computers without undervolting. Sure the Conroe produces alot less heat then a P4, but that is not really a factor to take into account here. The nice thing about the Conroe is that while producing as much heat as low-mid range AMD processors do, it outperforms high end AMD and Intel processors by a large margine.

Apple used a G5 in the iMac because they did'nt have anything else as an option. It was not a top end G5 because those would have been too hot. Now we are in a similar situation. Apple can't use a top end Intel desktop processor in the iMac because it will produce too much heat. This might change when Intel moves to 45nm manufacturing process, but that remains to be seen.

 

[Evangelion]

Most computers sold today are minitowers because NO ONE besides Apple knows how to make them

Since Apple does not make minitowers, how do you know that only Apple knows how to make them? And if those companies that sell minitowers do not know how to make them, why do people buy them? I'm not following your logic here....

that's a given (unless you consider fugly eMachines models good rivals for the iMac).

To many people, that "fugly eMachines" IS a rival to the iMac. Yes, iMac might look pretty, but most people don't really care about that.

If iMac is SO great, why does eMachines outsell the iMac by about 10:1? Why aren't they buying iMacs instead?

People go to Apple Stores to BUY iMacs, not boxes that cannot function without a lot of ancillary products.

So Apple sells only iMacs, Mac Mini and Mac Pro are just figments of my imagination?

There are no Apple Stores in Finland, but I have visited authorized Apple resellers. And I didn't go there to buy iMacs. Apple sells A LOT of other stuff besides iMacs in their stores.

I bought my iMac and I carry it everywhere without having to mind about a bulky LCD or a stupid beige box...that's what Macs are for.

So Mac Mini and Mac Pro do not really exist?

Seriously: Your argument seems to be that "minitowers that are sold today are just beige boxes, therefore Apple should not make one". What makes you think that Apple-minitower would look ANYTHING like a beige box? It could look like Mac Pro if they wanted to!

To YOU that all-in-one might be the best thing since sliced bread. But for many people it's NOT. It has it's disadvantages that can't be removed, and some people do not want them. Is your argument basically "I like iMac, therefore iMac is the perfect computer, and everyone who wants something else is an idiot!"?

And I yet have to see an average user worried about swapping a blabla X1906GTY to a blabla X14567GTZ...it's NOT gonna happen, and MR isn't a good display of market needs by a LONG shot...let's accept it and bury this silly discussion once and for all.

"I disagree with you, and therefore you need to shut up about this!".

Seriously, I DO see those upgrades happen all the time. Take my in-laws for example. They have one of those dreadful beige minitower-PC's. I have recycled my old monitor to them, which made the system much more pleasant to use, since the old monitor was starting to show it's age. I have also added a new HD in there, since the old one was getting full. I also updated the vid-card because their kid asked me to do it, so he could play never games. Had they owned an iMac, they would have had to buy a new computer. But since they had a expandable machine, the usable lifespan of the machine has been extended by several years, with miniscule financial investments.

 

[sigamy]

Yes, there are LOTS of people who would love to buy a Mac, but they can't since Apple does not have a suitable machine for them. And the machine that would fit their needs is that "midrange tower" you despise so much. Apple WANTS people to buy Macs instead of PC's. They WANT "switchers". And switchers are not Mac-fanboys. After all, they used a PC not long ago. They could go back to the PC.

Most computers sold today are minitowers, and for a good reason. They are expandable and versatile. Apple does offer such a system, but their offering costs way over 2000 bucks, and has four CPU-cores in it. Most users don't need nor want something like that. They would like a machine in the iMac-pricerange, that would be versatile and expandable. Apple does not have ANY product for them. None whats-o-ever. So what should they do? Buy a machine that does not meet their criteria, or buy a machine which is complete overkill for their needs? Those are their options, if they plan to buy a Mac. Instead of doing that, they just buy a tower-PC and be done with it. And that means lost sales for Apple.

Hell, since Macs run Windows these days, there might be a sizable number of peopl who bought Macs in order to run Windows on them!

Most computer sold today are minitowers because that is what Dell and Gateway ship to the $499 and under masses!

You really think these people care how many PCI slots, drive bays, RAM slots are in these machines? These things still have integrated graphics and PS/2 ports! These are sold to the average joe in your neighborhood and to large corporations. Both of these customer bases have no desire to upgrade ANYTHING in the computer. At most they may get an extra stick of RAM when their newphew installs the latest Microsoft OS every two years or so...

It's been said countless times in this thread--the vast majority of people buying computers DO NOT UPGRADE them. They just don't.

Now, your frame of reference is yourself, your peers, people who play games, people on forums. Forget those people. They make up about 1%. Think of a typical mom, a 30-something guy/girl who does finance or marketing or accounting, a photography buff, a musician, etc. These people want machines that work. They want to store their photos, maybe create movies and DVDs. They want to compose a song, do a term paper or proposal, do the household budget in Excel. iLife apps, Office, web/email, maybe an occasional game.

These are the people for the iMac. And this is a vast majority of the customer base. Apple wants to sell you the whole damn thing. Steve Jobs and Apple think they know best. They removed floppy drives, added USB, Firewire, combo drives. They basically say, "here is all you need. It is well designed. It is beautiful. It will work for years. Enjoy. Be produtive. Have fun." Steve jobs is obessed with design and complete solutions. He considers delivering a box that is *supposed* to be upgraded as an incomplete design and probably a failure.

Does it suck that people are paying $1200-$1700 for a computer with a soon to be outdated graphics card? Maybe. If they bought the machine to play games then, yes. The customer should have done more research and/or the sales rep shouldn't have sold them an iMac. I just don't think may gamers even consider the iMac.

As for the missing piece in Apple's product line...Again, Apple will probably introduce a single processor Mac Pro in a few months. They did this with the G5 lineup a few times. If and when that machine comes out I hope everyone here asking for it do go out and buy it.

I'm now off to a BMW forum to ask why BMW hasn't made a luxury full size 8 ton pickup truck.

 

[Evangelion]

I can understand people here being upset that Apple is not offering a gamers solution (which most people here seem to be wanting). What I can't understand is that most of the partisipients in this thread seem to want them to make the gaming rig out of something which is clearly not intended for it.

Well, I don't. I would like them to make an expandable minitower or pizzabox-machine with NO built-in screen. That wouldn't be a iMac, now would it? What would the machine be like? Well, here's a rule of thumb:

Take Mac Pro. Make the case smaller. Halve the number of drive-bays, drop one of the optical drive-bays, give it dual-core Conroe and 4 memory-slots. There. the dreaded minitower-Mac is finished.

 

[dsnort]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but, overwhelming majority of consumers are buying those headless systems. Most desktop-PC's are those headless systems, that according to you, are not bought by anyone, since everyone is buying all-in-ones. I bet that there are about 100 minitower-PC's sold for every Mac (all models included) sold.

But what came first, the chicken or the egg? Are all those people buying minitower PCs because that is the form factor they prefer? Or are they buying minitower PCs because it is the most common form of a desktop PC? And I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the best selling PCs are the ones that come bundled with a monitor, and maybe a printer, all for $499.99.

Consumers are already confused by Apple's product-line. An AIO that comes with mediocre specs (with no way to improve upon them) and a screen they do not need, or a quad-core workstation which is too expensive for them, and totally overkill.

First, I take exception to your assertion that the specs of my 20" iMac are "mediocre". IMO this is a damn fine machine.

Second, I think it unlikely that Apple is operating in a vacuum here, just quessing as to what it is that the customers wants. I am sure they employ people whose job it is to do market research. If these market research people are doing their jobs properly then the most compelling argument against Apple making a minitower, is that Apple doesn't make a minitower! If there is a significant market for it, they will build it.

 

[dropadrop]

Well, I don't. I would like them to make an expandable minitower or pizzabox-machine with NO built-in screen. That wouldn't be a iMac, now would it? What would the machine be like? Well, here's a rule of thumb:

Take Mac Pro. Make the case smaller. Halve the number of drive-bays, drop one of the optical drive-bays, give it dual-core Conroe and 4 memory-slots. There. the dreaded minitower-Mac is finished.

I think that would be a great product, and sell like buttercakes. And also handle heat alot better then the imac (due to possibility to use 120mm fans).

 

[Evangelion]

Most computer sold today are minitowers because that is what Dell and Gateway ship to the $499 and under masses!

Apple offers a similarly priced machine: the Mini. Why isn't it selling in the millions?

You really think these people care how many PCI slots, drive bays, RAM slots are in these machines? These things still have integrated graphics and PS/2 ports!

There are LOTS of people who DO care about those things, and there are LOTS of machines that ship with good graphics and processors! Hell, PC's are the biggest gaming-platform in the world, and uses of these machines are NOT resticted to just gaming.

It's been said countless times in this thread--the vast majority of people buying computers DO NOT UPGRADE them. They just don't.

And there are lots of people who do. And there are lots of people who already have a good screen they would like to use. There are lots of people who hate the idea that iff they want a new computer, they have t get rid of the screen as well. Or if they want a new screen, they have to get rid of the computer as well.

Now, your frame of reference is yourself, your peers, people who play games, people on forums. Forget those people. They make up about 1%.

My frame of reference includes my in-laws and their 11-year old kid, my brother and my "peers". And in case you didn't know: There are MILLIONS of people playing games on PC's. The numbers are absolutely HUGE.

Think of a typical mom, a 30-something guy/girl who does finance or marketing or accounting, a photography buff, a musician, etc. These people want machines that work.

Is there ANYTHING in the design of a minitower that makes it "not work"? Anything at all? Mac Pro's work, don't they? What makes you think that shrinked Mac Pro would NOT "just work"?

And it's quite convenient of you to artificually limit the market to "typical moms" and the like, when in reality the market is in fact A LOT wider than that!

These are the people for the iMac. And this is a vast majority of the customer base.

So, people who want an all-in-one computer to run iLife are the vast majority of iMacs customer-base? Well duh!

Apple wants to sell you the whole damn thing. Steve Jobs and Apple think they know best. They removed floppy drives, added USB, Firewire, combo drives. They basically say, "here is all you need. It is well designed. It is beautiful. It will work for years. Enjoy. Be produtive. Have fun." Steve jobs is obessed with design and complete solutions. He considers delivering a box that is *supposed* to be upgraded as an incomplete design and probably a failure.

Which is why Apple just announced that they stopped selling Mac Pro's?

Does it suck that people are paying $1200-$1700 for a computer with a soon to be outdated graphics card? Maybe. If they bought the machine to play games then, yes. The customer should have done more research and/or the sales rep shouldn't have sold them an iMac. I just don't think may gamers even consider the iMac.

No, they would consider getting a Dell instead. Lost sales for Apple. Fact is that Apple has NO presence in the biggest segment of the market. No presence at all.

I'm now off to a BMW forum to ask why BMW hasn't made a luxury full size 8 ton pickup truck.

A completely pointless comment, if I may say so.

 

[Manic Mouse]

Completely agree Evangelion.

There is a simple way that Apple could cater to us all, mostly:

Use standard PCIe graphics cards in the iMac. If they go with 20" and 23" screens like we think they will and remove the internal powersupply for an external I don't see why that (along with Conroe) wouldn't be possible. They could include a budget (and fanless) card as standard to keep people like BRLAWYER happy, but still offer upgrades for people like me and evangelion. By using nothing but desktop components the iMac would also be cheaper to produce for Apple. With such big cases and without an internal power supply taking up space and generating heat it might be possible...

As for BRLAWER claiming there isn't a market for a decently specced desktop, or an upgradable one. You are just so wrong. There are plenty of tech savy customers out there, and as time goes on the percentage of customers who are will go up. The Mac community has been crying out for one for years, and many potential switchers (like myself) will overlook the Mac because Apple simply doesn't have a well priced and specced desktop.

For me the iMac simply isn't enough (at the moment). The Mac Pro is too much. What am I, and others like me supposed to buy? A PC? That's a Mac sale lost. And I want to get a Mac, I really do. I just don't want to compromise with the Mac I get, I want a Mac that is right for me.

A mid-tower Mac would do me nicely. Or an iMac with Conroe and decent graphics. There is no reason for Apple to have the huge gaping hole in it's product lineup that it has, because any consumers that need a machine within that range will have to look elsewhere even if they want to get a Mac. Apple are literally turning customers away because they don't have a complete lineup.

 

[Evangelion]

But what came first, the chicken or the egg? Are all those people buying minitower PCs because that is the form factor they prefer? Or are they buying minitower PCs because it is the most common form of a desktop PC?

There are AIO-PC's out there, and there's nothing preventing consumers from buying them. But for some reason they are NOT buying them. WHy is that?

And I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the best selling PCs are the ones that come bundled with a monitor, and maybe a printer.

Propably, but they are NOT all-in-one's, they are those dreaded minitowers. Of course when people buy a desktop-computer, they want to use a monitor with it. So they get a monitor, they just don't want the monitor in the computer.

First, I take exception to your assertion that the specs of my 20" iMac are "mediocre". IMO this is a damn fine machine.

Compared to typical PC's in the same price-range, it is quite mediocre. Yes the design kicks ass (if you like AIO's that is), but it's GPU (for example) is quite slow.

Second, I think it unlikely that Apple is operating in a vacuum here, just quessing as to what it is that the customers wants. I am sure they employ people whose job it is to do market research. If these market research people are doing their jobs properly then the most compelling argument against Apple making a minitower, is that Apple doesn't make a minitower! If there is a significant market for it, they will build it.

That is the exact same argument people used when discussing the possibility of a cheap Mac. "Apple knows what they are doing, nobody wants a cheap Mac". Then they released Mac Mini. And Apple has released products in the past that didn't sell. The Cube anyone? So Apple doing something, or not doing something is not the ultimate argument for or against something. They might release the "Mac pro Mini", they just haven't done it YET. And just because Apple does something, does not mean that people actually want it (like the Cube).

If Apple released the minitower two weeks from now (for example), would all your arguments fly out the window?

 

[tringo]

Completely agree Evangelion.

There is a simple way that Apple could cater to us all, mostly:

Use standard PCIe graphics cards in the iMac. If they go with 20" and 23" screens like we think they will and remove the internal powersupply for an external I don't see why that (along with Conroe) wouldn't be possible. They could include a budget (and fanless) card as standard to keep people like BRLAWYER happy, but still offer upgrades for people like me and evangelion. By using nothing but desktop components the iMac would also be cheaper to produce for Apple. With such big cases and without an internal power supply taking up space and generating heat it might be possible...

As for BRLAWER claiming there isn't a market for a decently specced desktop, or an upgradable one. You are just so wrong. There are plenty of tech savy customers out there, and as time goes on the percentage of customers who are will go up. The Mac community has been crying out for one for years, and many potential switchers (like myself) will overlook the Mac because Apple simply doesn't have a well priced and specced desktop.

For me the iMac simply isn't enough (at the moment). The Mac Pro is too much. What am I, and others like me supposed to buy? A PC? That's a Mac sale lost. And I want to get a Mac, I really do. I just don't want to compromise with the Mac I get, I want a Mac that is right for me.

A mid-tower Mac would do me nicely. Or an iMac with Conroe and decent graphics. There is no reason for Apple to have the huge gaping hole in it's product lineup that it has, because any consumers that need a machine within that range will have to look elsewhere even if they want to get a Mac. Apple are literally turning customers away because they don't have a complete lineup.

The answer is a hackintosh. Build a normal PC then install Mac OS X on it.

 

[ergle2]

The answer is a hackintosh. Build a normal PC then install Mac OS X on it.

For me, it's not.

The whole point of buying a Mac is to reduce hassles, and keeping a hacked up OS X up to date is a chore.

 

[sigamy]

Is there ANYTHING in the design of a minitower that makes it "not work"? Anything at all? Mac Pro's work, don't they? What makes you think that shrinked Mac Pro would NOT "just work"?

So, people who want an all-in-one computer to run iLife are the vast majority of iMacs customer-base? Well duh!

Which is why Apple just announced that they stopped selling Mac Pro's?

No, they would consider getting a Dell instead. Lost sales for Apple. Fact is that Apple has NO presence in the biggest segment of the market. No presence at all.

Thanks for the line-by-line commentary, it look me 20 minutes to write that post (kids keep calling me) so I'm glad someone read it...

I'm not considering the current Mac Pros. Those are for, ready for it? Pros. Apple also sells tons of software, services and training to pros. Apple has it's Pro hw/sw business and it's consumer hw/sw business. No news there.

You guys are just in denial. This supposed huge market just isn't there. Please, if you need a machine today, and have certain requirements that are not met by Apple, then please go buy a Dell. Please!

If Apple came out with a mini tower nothing would change except for the fact that a very small percentage of people who are interested in a mini tower would go and buy one. Big deal. This is not going to change Apple's market share, position in the computing world, etc.

This argument is now at least 5 years old. It started after the intro of the iMac G4. For some reason Apple is has not released a mini tower. Let's try to list out the reasons. Here are some. Please add more:
1. The market is too small to care about.
2. Steve Jobs is obsessed with design/athestics and selling the whole widget.
3. Apple can't successfuly compete in this market.

 

[ergle2]

It's been said countless times in this thread--the vast majority of people buying computers DO NOT UPGRADE them. They just don't.

Now, your frame of reference is yourself, your peers, people who play games, people on forums. Forget those people. They make up about 1%. Think of a typical mom, a 30-something guy/girl who does finance or marketing or accounting, a photography buff, a musician, etc. These people want machines that work. They want to store their photos, maybe create movies and DVDs. They want to compose a song, do a term paper or proposal, do the household budget in Excel. iLife apps, Office, web/email, maybe an occasional game.

30-somethings? You just described myself and my peer group. I have a rather diverse group of friends. Some of us are even in marketting or finance. Some of us have kids, others will no doubt follow soon. We've got decent jobs and husbands/wives/girlfriends/boyfriends. Most of us play video games.

We grew up with them. We played Space Invaders when it was new. We remember Pac-Man mania. The C64, the Nintendo NES, the Commodore Amiga, we owned them all.

Some of us own consoles too, but everyone owns a computer.
Today the average console owner today is a twenty-something. Video games are mainstream.

More of us are gamers than photography buffs (vs point-n-clickers) or musicians, but some are. They like games, too.

We're mostly not hardcore $3K system gamers -- said other halves wouldn't stand for that in most cases. We are, however, people that look at what we're buying.

We're not buying systems that we throw away in two years time because it can't run the new games acceptably.

Of course, the majority of us aren't Apple users, iPod aside.

Perhaps that too is self-selecting, with those that want games as an option staying well away because Apple doesn't sell systems that suit their needs.

In this group, the ones who know more about computers are "leaders"; people come to us to see what we use, to ask what they should buy. People will follow our lead. Those who are technically adept advise those who aren't.

There's not a $400 Dell in sight. The people buying those seem to be the over-50's. (Curiously, they play Bejewelled, so they too are gamers after a fashion, albeit ones that could live happily on the Mac side of the fence.)

Apple's free to ignore our preferences, of course. I see it as their loss. After all, its our kids who are learning to use Windows and not MacOS right now.

 

[sbarton]

Don't worry... As previously mentioned, the overall percentage that's into hardcore gaming and/or upgrades is an extrememly small portion of the Mac's target market. They represent a much larger demographic on this board than they do in the overall market.

Apple has always been about "how can we make things less complicated. How can we do it with fewer buttons? How can we make things smaller or more integrated?" Remember the "how many steps to set up an iMac ad?" The whole thing was "there is no step 3." This is the core of Apple's brand strategy.

If you don't like it, there are PLENTY of PC alternatives. Many are cheaper, too!! Upgrading a graphics card and swapping a processor??? That would be waaaaay past step 3. More like step #125.

Yes, there ARE other alternatives and the gaping hole in Apple's product line is a realativley NEW development. There has always been a reasonably priced upgradable tower in Apple's product matrix. Even when the G3 imac was out, you could get an upgradable G3 tower for less than $1700.

I'm really sick of this bullsh*t "well it meets my needs so go somewhere else" attitude from some of you guys. I've been a Mac user for 15 years. I'm watching and waiting for the new x86 product matrix to unfold. I think Apple has done a stunning job of this task to date. But when it's all said and done and I have to chose between paying $1700 for an iMac that only does 90% of what "I WANT", or $2500 + monitor for something I "DONT NEED" then I absolutley will start looking at alternatives - I really don't need anyone to tell me.

 

[MRU]

I'd love it to be true,

But how many of us have received the email with the 'our line up is complete' ???? I've recieved 4 of these since the macpro.....

chances for another imac, slim.....

 

[sbarton]

I'm sure consumers just looking for "a computer" are confused, but maby it's not Apples intention to produce a computer that will appeal to everyone. The iMac is a niche product, but a growing niche. I don't think it's a coincidence that the 17" imac was rated as the most silent "out of the box" computer by silentpcreview, and that's important for alot of people. Maby Apple are not trying to compete with Dell in specs, rather making a computer that is balanced in estetics (looks and sound) and performance. To achieve this, you generally can't use top of the line components (before mobile components where available most people building a silent computer undervolted and underclocked desktop components to achieve the same outcome).

I can understand people here being upset that Apple is not offering a gamers solution (which most people here seem to be wanting). What I can't understand is that most of the partisipients in this thread seem to want them to make the gaming rig out of something which is clearly not intended for it.

When has the iMac had high end components in it? Never. People keep saying that the Conroe is finally cool enough to use in the imac, but that simply is not true. At 60-65W the Conroe is about as hot as low-mid range Amd processors have been during the last years, and those have not worked in fully silent computers without undervolting. Sure the Conroe produces alot less heat then a P4, but that is not really a factor to take into account here. The nice thing about the Conroe is that while producing as much heat as low-mid range AMD processors do, it outperforms high end AMD and Intel processors by a large margine.

Apple used a G5 in the iMac because they did'nt have anything else as an option. It was not a top end G5 because those would have been too hot. Now we are in a similar situation. Apple can't use a top end Intel desktop processor in the iMac because it will produce too much heat. This might change when Intel moves to 45nm manufacturing process, but that remains to be seen.

Since when did wanting to play games on a computer denote that they need a "Gamers Rig". Hell I just want to use Xplane and play Warbirds a few times a week. These arent even cutting edge but require a nice upper mid-range card to give best results with reasonable settings. Do you people really think that OttoMattic is a game of normal complexity and everything else is just "crazy geek stuff"?

And yes, I think what most are saying is that the "iMac" doesn't necessarily need to have a different video card in it so much as they are saying that Apple current consumer computer doesn't cut it for everyone.

But then, some here seem to have the "your either with us or against us" attitude for some reason. Where have I heard that before..

 

[sbarton]

You guys are just in denial. This supposed huge market just isn't there. Please, if you need a machine today, and have certain requirements that are not met by Apple, then please go buy a Dell. Please!.

Who are you to tell ME, a Mac user of 15 years that I need to go buy a DELL?? I have hundreds, if not thousands of dollars invested in software for the Mac and your going to tell me to pony up the $2500 for some 65lb monster that I dont need and just "get over it" and go buy a Dell?

The arrogance in some of these comments is just stunning.