Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Logic7 has the ability to use other computers as processor power through gigabit ethernet. Post from osxaudio many moons ago:

*********************************

nodes...

couldn't apple make a cheap small box with no video, pci, or anything else but the chips and a small board? (with memory)(about the size of the old cube would do)

$800-$1000? Add them as you need the power for your system.

Seems a waste to have g5 computers stacked up and the xservs start at $3000

Apple Nodes - Need More Power? Buy one Today!

Of course apple doesn't want this to happen, maybe, they want you to buy more computers...

**************************

These are cool but upgrade these little puppies to G5's and it would be a dream to audio users...
 
Wow, look at all of the comments, I wonder if this would sell or not?

The "buzz" is iPod worthy.
 
Sir_Giggles said:
Heh, Apple did change their homepage when the Columbia Shuttle disintegrated during re-rentry.

Apple, at the time, were advertising the new line-up of Cinema Displays including intro'ing the 23" display. On the display, they had a picture of the Space Shuttle blasting off the pad. Upon news of the disaster, Apple changed the pictures to a city skyline.

Slight correction...Apple introduced the 20" display, and slashed the price on the 17" and 23" models. I think the 23" went down to $1999, which was more than a $1,000 price drop.

[Praying for Mac Jeopardy....]
 
Sir_Giggles said:
This headless iMac has GOT TO BE expandable. You got to give consumers a reason to care. Expandable graphics, HD and memory. And I think $499 is reasonable, considering a iPod photo costs about the same.

Cheap enough, I might just get one myself and use it as a server or media centre PC.

It probably will have no or limited expandability. I'm guessing 1 or 2 slots for RAM and you can replace the HD if you want. It's going ot be the ipod of computers... simple, to the point and AFFORDABLE... Right at the same price point of the ipod. People buying htis computer are going to do music, surf the web and do email... maybe handle some basic imovie stuff. A G5 will do all of this no problem. Maybe they'll even put TV out..... or build tv out into airport express. 802.11g is fast enough to do acceptable quality video, right?
 
(This and the post just one below were originally one post. It was just too long to be posted as one. So, I divided it into two.)

Well, I got to the 12th page, and gave up on reading every single post before making my own. It was just taking too long.

I'm going to go into this (my first post at MacRumors) by saying that I understand my situation is not the most typical, and I'll try addressing that.

I'm a PC user. I've been a PC user as long as I can remember. I still use Windows XP on my desktop primarily, and I'm currently making this post from my father's new Dell laptop. I'm also a power user. I built my machine with more than simple knowledge of how to put the parts together. I checked that every part I got was the best I could get as long as I didn't have any personal preference. I, like most power users, have certain prejudices for and against certain companies (I prefer AMD and ATI), but I am COMPLETELY willing to go with another company's solution if it proves to be a better choice (My dad's Dell laptop is a Pentium M system, and I recommended it because Pentium Ms are solid processors).

Because of my status as a PC hardware enthusiast, I will not be switching from the PC to the Mac any time soon. The newest hardware simply isn't available on the Mac, and that's undeniable (I have had a Radeon X800 XT PE on my desktop since July. Mac users still don't have them). HOWEVER, this "hardware enthusiasm" only goes so far. It only really applies to my primary, bleeding-edge system. I enjoy any time I spend with Mac OS X. I don't need to be able to tweak every little thing in a secondary system. I wanted to get an iMac G4 for a long time (I loved the design), but didn't have the funds. In addition, this hardware enthusiasim doesn't apply at all to the notebook market. It's just not feasible to build your own notebook. As such, I'm currently in the market for a notebook, and will not get a PC notebook for myself before I get a Mac. In order to kill two birds with one stone, I've wanted to get a Powerbook G4 for a long time, but they're just not where I want them to be as far as the price/performance ratio is concerned. As such, I'm simply biding my time until the upcoming MW. If Apple makes a huge upgrade to the Powerbooks, then they'll have a new Apple notebook owner. It doesn't seem like that's going to happen though. Considering the absence of what I consider to be a good deal on Powerbooks, this "headless" Mac is great news. I, personally, prefer high-quality CRTs to LCDs because I do lots of gaming. My $400 CRT absolutely annihilates any LCD I would consider affordable as far as gaming is concerned. To add to this, I do all my console gaming on my monitor. I live in a small college dorm and saving space by avoiding a TV was very important to me. I have a TV-Tuner box through which I play my PS2, and I play my Gamecube via a spliced VGA cable on my monitor in progressive scan (which would work absolutely horribly on a low-end LCD or not-at-all on a high-end because of the Gamecube's 640x480 resolution). I already have everything set up on the same high-quality monitor using a system that works well for me via a KVM, a router, etc. Any all-in-one Mac won't do because I just don't have the room for another display (and won't replace my CRT with an LCD to make room for the aforesaid reasons). A headless Mac, however, would be able to just be another box around my desk and would be absolutely painless to set up, requiring minimal room (which is all I really have). If this headless Mac turns out to be true, I'll be ordering on the day of announcement so it can tide me over until the next big change in Powerbooks comes around. I can later give it to my family in hopes of converting them (all average-joe-users) to the Mac (I've always argued that anybody who's not a big-time hardware enthusiast would be better off with a Mac).

I'm sure some of you have noticed a small discrepancy in what I've written. I just said that I believe average users are better suited to the Mac, but I also previously said I recommended my father get this Dell laptop. This is only because my father is far too stubborn a man for me to easily switch with words only. My mother, on the other hand, is a far different story. I came back from a trip with my parents two days ago. On that trip we met up with some of my parents' friends, among which was a Mac user with his new 15" Powerbook. My mom saw how effortlessly her friend plugged his digital camera into the laptop, opened iPhoto, showed the pictures off in a slideshow, and then immediately sent the photos to her e-mail account in mail. My mom didn't think it was all that amazing. Yesterday my mom came to me with her digital camera (which she'd had on the trip) and asked me to show her how to get the pictures from it, make a slideshow, and send the pictures in an e-mail on the family's aging P4 1.6GHz WinXP machine. I had her sit down and started walking her through. After about 30 seconds, my mom desperately asked "Why was it so much easier for [her friend's name here]?" I simply replied, "He has a Mac." After reading this, I asked my mom if she would be interested in getting a Mac if a cheap one came out. She was like "Well, if it is the same for the internet and I can do Microsoft Word, but it's so much better for doing the only other thing I want to do, then sure![/]" Now my dad will have pressure from both my mother and myself to get the family a Mac for the next computer, and he'll be much more willing to bend on the issue if it's so cheap (he is a firm believer in purchasing the cheapo systems). I am confident that showing my father by his own experience (instead of making him take my word for it) that this cheap Mac gives him an easier time with his everyday tasks will convert my family, once-and-for-all, to a family of Mac users. My mom wants one after merely seeing her friend use one, but my dad might need to have his own experiences over time convert him completely. The next time my dad is ready to make the plunge for an expensive system, it will almost assuredly be a Mac. This all, of course, hinges on the validity of the rumor.

Above I think I've addressed how this system will help Apple get Macs into the hands of two distinctly different types of computer consumers. I showed how having a cheap Mac available will give incentive to power users like myself to buy a Mac immediately (instead of later), although this applies to the admittedly very small market of open-minded power PC users. I also explained how it will help Apple get average computer users to purchase a cheap Mac now. Getting a cheap Mac now, as an additional computer, will definitely convert many PC users over to Mac-Only computer purchases later by providing a superior computing experience.
 
Well, this and the above was all one post, but it was too long, so here's the rest:

Now that I've addressed that, I want to address some other small things that I read in other people's posts.

1) I don't think this is going to be some kind of set-top-box. I'm not saying that Apple putting one out is out of the question, I'm simply saying that this probably isn't it. Why? Because this has much that is simply unnecessary, even wasteful, for a set-top-box. First, a modem would be pretty much worthless for a set-top-box. Sure, they could use it for some weird method of dialing somewhere to get access for a program granted or something, but that's highly unlikely. Secondly, a 1.25GHz G4 is absolute overkill for something like this. Like others have said, an embedded G3, or some sort of specialized CPU would be much more suited to the task of running a set-top-box because, as great as it is, Mac OS X would be remarkably inneficient and daunting for a simple box to control your TV media.

2) Those people who say that they can build a PC for $300 are right. And they wouldn't have to spend any money on software because people who build their own cheap machines are often either a)pirates or b)capable of using linux and other open-source software. I myself boot into linux alot because I enjoy using it more than Windows (but Windows is the OS with all the software support, support for the newest hardware, and games). Those people, however, tend not to really want such an underpowered system for normal desktop usage. They'll either use it in a cluster (such a weak system can't really run desktop linux all that well anymore), or they'll have it to use as a dedicated device (a router, a webserver, etc.). They probably won't use the system as a desktop machine for web-browsing, e-mail, and so-on because desktop linux has become rather bloated (it really does require more hardware than Windows XP to run smoothly for the newest iterations of KDE and GNOME... as sad as that is). If they want to stick with one of the older versions of KDE or GNOME (full desktop solutions), or if they want to go with one of the less popular but less monstrous window managers like IceWM or Blackbox (not desktop suites, merely window managers), then more power to them and they can have fun with less eye-candy and a less intuitive interface.

3) Finally, those of you mentioning the incentive for switching provided by the current news about Adware, Spyware, and virii are both right and wrong. For inexperience users who find the prospect of having to "protect" their machine, this is absolutely right. Those people should definitely switch over because those are the people most likely to be affected. You also, however, have users like my family and myself. I know how to protect and clean a system. I do it whenever my family purchases a system, and I do it for my own. My system has no slowdown as a cause of adware or spyware, and I've never had a virus. The same is true of all my family's machines. Some of you then go on to talk about the overhead involved in running certain protection programs in the background at all times. This is where you definitely go wrong. If a company built system is cleaned properly upon purchase (most of my time spent "protecting" a system upon initial start-up actually consists of cleaning the system of muck put onto it by the manufacturer) there should be very minimal running in the background on a Windows XP machine. Then you install an anti-adware/spyware program to stop the stuff from getting on in the first place (separate from the stuff to clean it). Finally, you add antivirus software that actually works. Right now, on my dad's laptop, all my prevention software is hovering somewhere between 0 to 2 percent of CPU usage. That's not that bad. Couple this with using Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird instead of Internet Explorer and Outlook, and you have a system that requires very little cleaning and runs very smoothly. For an experienced user, the full preparation of the system to run smoothly and to stay clean on a long-term basis takes about 30 minutes (that's about how long it takes me). Then you can bring up the issue of having to periodically run system checks because things can still get on, even with prevention measures in place. I have everything automated so that things run at obscure times when the computers will be on, but not in use.
Still, I understand that not everyone is a power user, and not everyone has a power-user on hand to set their system up for them. Remember though, I did say I think average users are definitely best-suited to the Mac.
I suppose I'm just trying to say that while I agree that ad/spyware and virii will combine as incentive with the low price-point to convert people over to the Mac, I'm trying to show that some of the other peoples' statements are over-assuming and... well... wrong.

*sigh*
By posting replies to all the small off-topic things I've seen, I've probably produced the most off-topic post in the thread. Still, at least I've tried to stretch for ties back to the original post.

All in all, I think this headless Mac is a good thing if it's true (and I hope so), and I'm definitely looking forward to it. Apple will have me as a new customer sooner than it would otherwise, and it will have my family shortly after it has me (I'll be able to use a Mac to convince my dad they're better for the family).
 
budugu said:
I can understand your zeal but YOUR TESTING THE LIMITS. A 2.53 Ghz Celeron (325J -533FSB) is fast enough at least boots solaris 10 in less time than my 1.33 Ghz G4 power book can boot. when i am free i will get you the exact timing... when was the last time you have seen benchmarks? spec integer or floating point and any other damn test you please... donot come back with some useless subjective argument (non valid psychophysically) that it is feel that is important! It you who cannot put it to use... My P4 (still waiting the 6600Gt card) with JUST INTEL 915G CHIPSET can play Quake/UT faarrrrrrr better than my powerbook! Some one should wake you up out of your dream!

IT is 600 and DOES NOT have a ipod doc....

If your main concerns are the time it takes to boot Solaris, or fps in Quake, you'd have to be really dumb to buy this computer, IMHO. This is for mom and dad and grandma, they'll get more use out of great easy to use multimedia software than they will a PC with better benchmarks. At least that's the way I see it.
 
Mainyehc said:
YES! That's just it! I have an ageing PIII 450MHz w/ 64MB of RAM, 10GB HD, Riva 128 ZX and an amazingly crappy 48x cd-rom drive from Creative running Windows 2000 ( :eek: ), and needless to say, it's slow as hell (not Dell, Hell!). It has to be put into "hibernation mode" because it takes too much time to turn on, and it can't even run Firefox decently, so my parents are going nuts with it. They just refuse to use the thing, and I can't blame them......**rant cut off*** :p

I think it is clear from many of us that the first thing we think of is something for our parents... Because for the past several years we've been trying to show them how cool macs are but they've just been too expensive... until they start using one and even though they claim "you, know, we just need something simple, not too fancy, just email and internet" they end up on the Mac all the time if they get their hands on one... especially with broadband :D

40+ 50+ age group would be a major demographic on this... because they have the cash but they're not willing to spend it all out if they aren't big into computers and they see themselves as 'basic' users... ;)
 
spinko said:
even the casual PC user will think this machine is too slow if it will be running at 1.25 Mhz...

no, this IS on topic, no worries.. many people have been discussing this..
there is quite a number that says it is alright, for example me :cool:

it would be perfect if we could drop a poll right into this :D

"Which speed do you think is best at this price for WinDoze switchers"
[A] 1.25 ghz
1.50 ghz
[C] 1.75 ghz
[D] I don't care it's just a bloody g4 for gods sake

.... :D
 
AnimeUnrivaled said:
I live in a small college dorm and saving space by avoiding a TV was very important to me.

Yes and I suppose your gaming CRT saves more space than a high quality 17" Cinema Display. CRTs are so bulky and last centuries technology. LCD are so sleek and cool. In college, you needs to be cool. :D
 
spinko said:
even the casual PC user will think this machine is too slow if it will be running at 1.25 Mhz...

Slow for what? :mad:

We've already ruled it out as a gaming machine. So basically for word processing, surfing the net, emails, managing photos and music, it is more than fast enough. Heck, at 1.25Ghz, its fast enough to edit 3 streams of realtime DV video in Final Cut Pro, and fast enough to encode mpeg2 for DVDs, or make music.
 
headless Mac lame? Come on

Why do people consider such a system to be lame or even pathetic? Granted, it's not the latest and greatest system available. But let me tell you I use my Rev. B 12" PB as my primary computer and it's fast enough for everything I throw at it. I'm fully aware that's a bit underpowered when it comes to things like MPEG2 encoding but I hardly ever do such things so I don't care. Don't forget there are lot of people who only use their PCs for emailing, surfing and writing letters. Such a system would be a perfect choice for those folks because they wouldn't have to worry about spyware, adware, malware, worms, viruses, etc. If you throw another 512 Megs of RAM (to match the RAM in my PB) it will easily outperform my little darling. So please, Apple, let's this be true!
 
I have my powerbook beside me when I listen to internet radio. the PB is nice and quiet, and it helps me to sleep. Also use it to listen to anthony robbins audiobooks while I cry myself to sleep thinking about how to change my pathetic life. :eek:
 
spinko said:
even the casual PC user will think this machine is too slow if it will be running at 1.25 Mhz...

Like I said before, it's not to slow for what most people use their computers for. But I agree that many PC users who might be tempted to buy such a system might decide otherwise because they think 1.25 GHz is to slow because except for Pentium M based notebooks, sub 2 GHz CPUs are already history in the PC world. Don't forget most people still buy their PCs based on the clock speed of the CPU. Sad but true. Still, I strongly believe such a system would become the best selling Mac ever in terms of units sold.
 
Well 17 pages to this new thread...can't say I read them all. Anyway if true this is excellent news for Mac and PC users alike. I hope it has a DVD upgrade option, a 160 gig HDD and Airport, then it would make an excellent home base station to my PB.
 
Culture shift

For Apple to effectively market this machine, they simply need to do what they do best. Market the SOLUTIONS, not the speed.

Show what this machine can do. iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, Word Pro, surfing, email, etc.

Whenever I see a commercial for Dell on TV selling something at a 'special' price, they just hammer out the specs. They don't tell you what you can do with the machine. I've never asked him, but I am sure that when my dad sees a commercial like this, it goes right over his head. How many times have YOU been asked by a friend to help you spec a machine "I see this one in the paper, is it good?" Apple needs to change this mindset.

Show what it can do. Show people how easy it is. Show the integration of the apps. Offer a 14 day money back guarantee. Bundle in some free instruction to get going for newbies. Include a nice DVD showing people how to use the machine and get the most from it. THIS is the kind of thing Apple does really well.

By the way, speaking of PC commercials on TV, you see the ones lately of the guy who is in bed, and he keeps calling Dell support, checking that someone will be there? He goes through all the holidays and non holidays, and the guy at Dell says someone will always be there.

I have always thought that commerical was a double edged sword. Sure, its good to know support is always available, but....

Apple could run this very same ad with one minor change at the end. A simple tag line that says "Dell support, always there for you 24/7. Because you're going to NEED them. Count on it."
 
Avicdar said:
Apple could run this very same ad with one minor change at the end. A simple tag line that says "Dell support, always there for you 24/7. Because you're going to NEED them. Count on it."

I have a feeling SJ would not go for an ad like that. He prolly feels Apple is better than to stoop to that level. Apple just needs to create a catchy ad like those ubiquitous iPod ads for their rumored uMac/xMac/iMac mini.

Wonder why ads on TV and in magazines never show an actual screenshot of a product?
 
An errant thought. If this was a 1.25Ghz or so G5, given all the PB, iMac and PM lines are higher GHz machines, then this would be a really exciting release. Do we think Apple have a lot of low end G5 chips they can't use? (I know nix about chip production)
 
Sir_Giggles said:
Yes and I suppose your gaming CRT saves more space than a high quality 17" Cinema Display. CRTs are so bulky and last centuries technology. LCD are so sleek and cool. In college, you needs to be cool. :D


First of all, the 17" Cinema Display would not be as good for gaming as my 19" CRT, would be more expensive, and would require me to also have a TV in the dorm. I would no longer be able to play my Gamecube in Progressive Scan (which makes a huge difference) unless I had an Extended Definition or High Definition TV (which would drive the cost up even more). Having a TV (pro-scan capable or not) in addition to the display would have also canceled out any space-saving benefits of having the Cinema Display in the first place. So, yes, my gaming CRT saves more space than a high quality 17" Cinema Display.

Thanks for adding the tongue-in-cheek coolness thing at the end. (Sorry if that sounds sarcastic, I'm not trying to be sarcastic) I like arguing and debating without taking things too seriously or personally.
 
At 1.25 Ghz it wouldn't sell as a premium product, but we are talking about a price that will be around $500 or so. $500 or so for an Apple, with the added value of OSX and other Mac Apps. I think the price negates the question of processor speed. For around the same price Wal Mart is offering a Linux PC. OSX is far nicer than Linux, and you are getting an Apple, not a Wal Mart PC. If 1.25 Ghz is too slow, wouldn't the next step be a slightly more expensive eMac? This move actually creates an affordable line of Apple Computers, and 1.25 Ghz is enough to efficiently run OSX which adapts to processor speed doesn't it? If Apple can maintain its lead in not having as big a problem with spam and spyware it will have powerful sales points to promote.

Also, without the advantage of large volumes of sales, it makes no sense for Apple to compete with anything other than high end displays which they have arguably done better with. I say that because people who can afford high end Apple products can usually afford high end screens, and will go with a product that matchs the high end computer they just bought if the price is not absolutely ridiculous. Just converting consumers to Apple products will be advantageous as I predict the first thing they will want if they are happy with the product is a better Apple computer.
 
svejar said:
After +-650 threads, I would have to say that the headless iMac would be a killer.

What doomed the Cube was the high price. Thats about it. Hope Steve learned from that. So yeah, if Apple can release a Mac for under $500, even if it turns out to be a stinky piece of dog ****, it will sell like hotcakes.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.