Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple needs a MID Tower.....
- Thread starter tmuller
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
By a few thousand geeks yes.
By a normal consumer, or someone with an understanding on how Apple's product strategy works, no.
I'm sorry but if you need Quad core processing, or more than 1tb Internal storage then your either a pro user, or your massively over estimating the specs you need.
Buy the 2300 dollar Pro. It will last you a hell of a lot longer than a mid tower that needs replacing every few years, and will probably save you money in the long run.
Not entirely true, IMO.
I am not a professional user, but I want a Mac Pro. Why? Because I want to convert my DVD collection to digital video because I love the convenience of having converted my CD collection to digital audio. The datasets involved require a great deal of CPU power to do quickly and a great deal of storage space to contain.
Now, my MacBook Pro can rip and convert those DVDs and I can daisy-chain a bunch of 1TB Studio Editions via FW800, but a Mac Pro will convert much faster and the ability to put 4-6TB of HDD space inside the machine is more convenient then having it arranged on my desk.
And a single Core 2 Quad CPU would be much quicker then my Core 2 Duo at performing the work, even if it wasn't as fast as two Xeon Quad CPUs. And a minitower with two HDD bays would mean I only need two 1TB studio editions instead of four or six. And while it will take longer to stream a movie to my AppleTV via Gigabit Ethernet using a Mac MiniTower vs. a Mac Pro, I can pop some popcorn while I wait.
Or I can buy the Mac Pro, even if it is $1000 more, and need not suffer any compromises.
There's a counter argument:
Macs aren't good for gaming -> Apple doesn't focus on gamers -> Developers ignore the Mac.
in 1997, Jobs said Apple needed to concentrate on its most profitable markets (like education) to get themselves out of crisis. Nobody would attempt to argue that Apple are in any crisis right now. Apple would be more sensible to try and tempt developers to OSX by releasing macs better suited for gaming, than trying to pump some life out of the Mac Mini or AppleTV.
I'm not implying the Mac Pro has a usable lifetime of 2 years, I'm implying the iMac does for a power user who can't justify the comparatively huge outlay of a Mac Pro.
1TB isn't really all that much anymore. Yes, Joe Average User can easily get by on it, but Joe Average User wouldn't be the target for a midtower.
Yup. People who need more than an iMac, but not something as overkill as a Mac Pro. But again, Apple hates their customers and potential customers.
I'd buy tomorrow if it had 3 x 3.5" Bays.
One disk for Boot/Apps and two 1tb in a raid 1 for protected data!
One disk for Boot/Apps and two 1tb in a raid 1 for protected data!
But it honestly isn't that huge of an outlay, especially if you are a "power user" who wants/needs a PC that lasts more then a few years.
Many focus on how much more expensive the Mac Pro is, while ignoring how much more effective it is. And also ignoring how the PowerMacs were also positioned just as high-up the food chain compared to the PowerPC iMacs.
The Mac Pro is 14% more expensive then the PowerMac and yet it crushes a PowerMac in CPU performance, GPU performance, memory performance, HDD performance, and network performance by far more then 14%.
I personally believe the people who most clamor for a Mac MiniTower are Windows users who now want to move to the Mac, but have become conditioned by the low prices competition has brought about in the Wintel market. It's difficult to pay $2000 for a Wintel PC, much less $3000, so they can't comprehend why Apple charges $2300-2700 for what, to them, would be the "mainstream" desktop product. Based on their experiences with Wintel parts and pricing, using workstation parts in a desktop is just not done.
And I am in no way, shape, or form implying or stating these people are "cheap" with my beliefs. I had sticker shock when I switched from Wintel to the Mac, as well. I wanted a Mac Pro, but when faced with a $4000 system I balked and paid $2000 for a 24" iMac. So I fully understand where these folks are coming from because a year ago, I was in the same position they were now.
But in that intervening year, I have come to understand how Apple approaches the market. And what at first looked like an abject cash-grab in fact turned out to be a pretty competent addressing of the market they operate in - and choose to operate in.
Apple could save a great deal of money using desktop CPUs and chipsets. This would involve larger cases with louder fans to offset the significantly higher power draw and heat generation that such components bring to the table. The 2.8GHz Xeon in the Mac Pro has a TDP 15 watts lower then the 2.83 GHz Core 2 Quad desktop CPU. So you are not going to be able to put an Intel Q9650 and an nVidia 9000 series GPU in a Mac Cube. It's going to need a large case with a number of 120mm fans to keep it running cool enough. And before someone points out their Hackintosh running at 4GHz with a single 80mm fan (
), Apple would need to design their PCs for a wide range of environments, including ones with high ambient temperatures as well as assuming people will never, ever clean out their case so they need to take into account what three years of dust accumulation is going to do to the thermal loads, in order to protect themselves as much as possible from warranty claims.Compared to a $1999 24" 2.8GHz iMac with a 500GB HDD and an nVidia 8800GS GPU, a $2549 2.8GHz Mac Pro with a 500GB HDD and an nVidia 8800GT card is expensive. Especially when you need to add a monitor on top of that.
But that Mac Pro's 2.8GHz CPU is more powerful and will get work done quicker. And the GPU is faster, as well. And you can add up to 6TB of internal storage to the Mac Pro, vs. 1TB for the iMac. And if you don't like glossy displays or need something larger then 24", you have that option with the Mac Pro which you do not with the iMac (since it lacks a dual-DVI output). And it will have significantly better network throughput over Gigabit Ethernet.
It differentiates itself from the iMac on many levels which is what helps Apple sell it. Just as the iMac differentiates itself from the Mac Mini on many levels, which is what helps Apple sell it, as well. There really is method to their seeming product line madness.
And HP hates their customers because they want $1500 more for an xw8600 configured exactly as a Mac Pro.
And Dell... They make HP look magnanimous in pricing for what they want compared to a Mac Pro. They really hate their customers.
So were all the PowerMacs. What's different now?
One guy might have limited space, want to use the LCD TV screen for TV and for the computer
Another might not want to use a glossy screen
Another could want to 3 LCD screens with DVI connectors
Another might need 6 USB ports, external hubs won't do with the peripherals already owned
Another might dual boot and will not use the same HDD for different OSs
just some ideas...
And you know, video/media corporations, scientists, audio engineers...
I went to a small business in london for some work experience where they had 25 mac pros, the majority were used for video work, some just basic word processing and emailing, but they paid the extra so during peak amounts of work, they had the performance in the machines to get the work done...
Apple doesn't just make computers for consumers looking to play UT on bootcamp...
So were all the PowerMacs. What's different now?
Power Macs were not octocore and did not use server chips, server RAM.
If you're going to argue you can get a quad-core Mac Pro, they waste all that server stuff.
Minitower
boy this discussion topic really raises tempers, and I agree it has been discussed thousands of times across many forums. Apple went with the simplified product layout to save costs, save display space in retails settings, save distributors from stocking multiple configurations, and just plain offer great computers that work. I also wish Apple had a midtower or middle model between the imac and macpro that offered expansion capability along with external monitor(s) but for now, Apple will stick with (1) Pro machine (2) imac and/or macmini with notebook hardware (3) notebooks. This strategy has worked, and until there is enough demand for a mid model prosumer machine, keep on wishing..... Plus imagine how much apple saves on buying basically two intel chip and chipset lines (xeons and mobile core2 chips) in volume, that is how they offer a 2.8 1600fsb machine at $800-1500 less than the competition.
Noushy
boy this discussion topic really raises tempers, and I agree it has been discussed thousands of times across many forums. Apple went with the simplified product layout to save costs, save display space in retails settings, save distributors from stocking multiple configurations, and just plain offer great computers that work. I also wish Apple had a midtower or middle model between the imac and macpro that offered expansion capability along with external monitor(s) but for now, Apple will stick with (1) Pro machine (2) imac and/or macmini with notebook hardware (3) notebooks. This strategy has worked, and until there is enough demand for a mid model prosumer machine, keep on wishing..... Plus imagine how much apple saves on buying basically two intel chip and chipset lines (xeons and mobile core2 chips) in volume, that is how they offer a 2.8 1600fsb machine at $800-1500 less than the competition.
Noushy
Technology advances and Intel's technology advanced faster then the AIM Alliance's. As such, PowerMacs were not octo-core because there is no octo-core PowerPC. Heck, there is no quad-core PowerPC, for that matter (that I can find). POWER7 is supposed to have eight cores, so I suppose if Apple had stayed with PPC, we'd might see an 8-core PowerMac in 2009 or 2010. And I bet it would cost a great deal more then $2700.
Which is why I can't comprehend why so many average professionals have Apple Macs...
I work in aerospace. We do a lot of heavy computing. And our average professional has a 2GHz Core 2 Duo in their small form factor desktop (not mini-tower) and it seems to work fine for them. Yes, the heavy hitters (myself included) have 8-core Xeons, but we're by far the minority.
Can this just be pasted into all of these threads, then the threads be closed, makes everything so much easier.
Ten years old, and the operative phrase occurs at 4:28. There's a hole in Apple's lineup and if they come to the conclusion that filling that hole would benefit their bottom line, they'll do it.