Argument for a midrange Mac

[kajitox]

I have seen this mentioned here and elsewhere - what is the argument for a midrange Mac, something better than the iMac but not quite as intense as a Mac Pro? And my main question is why doesn't the iMac fit the description of a midrange Mac?

Remember this is coming from somebody who has never owned an iMac or a Mac Pro.

 

[roland.g]

The argument is the a lot of PC users who are use to building their own machines or simply still own peripherals, monitor etc., want the upgradability of changing graphics cards, having a PCI slot, and more than one internal HDD bay. There are many Mac users in this camp as well. The Mac Mini is too underpowered for their liking and doesn't offer those options, as well as carrying a notebook 2.5" drive. The Mac Pro while a workhorse is overkill and too much $$ for most people's needs. Most proponents of the midrange are also gamers, so choosing a video card is a big deal. The term prosumer also gets thrown around.

I was in this camp for a long time, wanting the expandability as I am not a gamer, but wanted to HDDs etc. And I really wanted a 23/24" Apple display as I really like the aluminum of the Pro machines. But I didn't want a notebook, a la the 15" MacBook Pro with display, keyboard, and mouse setup. I wanted a desktop. I said that if Apple came out with an aluminum "Pro" version of the the iMac, maybe just the high end model that would be perfect for me, as the reality of expanding/upgrading probably isn't as real as the desire.

So when the 24" 2.8Ghz iMac came out last August, I bought one and have been very happy with it.

 

[GoKyu]

While it is expensive, I felt the Mac Pro was the only way for me to go. I have so much data (RAW photos, lots of videos) over several hard drives, that a Mac mini is definitely underpowered, an even a 2.8 iMac, while a good machine, just was too limited in expandability for my needs.

I use Photoshop CS3 as my main app, and I wanted to future proof myself for awhile, so I got the octo-core 2.8 and I've recently ordered an extra 4 gigs of RAM, because the machine actually runs slower with the current RAM configuration.

I'm figuring to keep this machine for a minimum of 5-7 years, and with all the upgrades, I should be able to sell it after that for at least half of what I paid, if not a bit more.

-Bryan

 

[emptyCup]

And my main question is why doesn't the iMac fit the description of a midrange Mac?

Because they want a machine they can upgrade and expand. The better question is why the $2299 quad processor Mac Pro does not fit the description. It is the same price as the top dual processor iMac and has huge expandability.

After wading through thousands of posts on this topic I have concluded that people who argue for this machine want exactly what they want and don't want to pay for anything else. In other words, they want something that works twice as hard but costs half as much. Which, strangely, is exactly what their bosses say about them

 

[MIDI_EVIL]

Because they want a machine they can upgrade and expand. The better question is why the $2299 quad processor Mac Pro does not fit the description. It is the same price as the top dual processor iMac and has huge expandability.

After wading through thousands of posts on this topic I have concluded that people who argue for this machine want exactly what they want and don't want to pay for anything else. In other words, they want something that works twice as hard but costs half as much. Which, strangely, is exactly what their bosses say about them

Perfect!

 

[IEatApples]

Because they want a machine they can upgrade and expand. The better question is why the $2299 quad processor Mac Pro does not fit the description. It is the same price as the top dual processor iMac and has huge expandability.

After wading through thousands of posts on this topic I have concluded that people who argue for this machine want exactly what they want and don't want to pay for anything else. In other words, they want something that works twice as hard but costs half as much. Which, strangely, is exactly what their bosses say about them

Nicely put! And I agree that the quad Mac Pro is the right machine, but since it doesn't include a screen it's still just a little bit too expensive…

 

[nplima]

The better question is why the $2299 quad processor Mac Pro does not fit the description. It is the same price as the top dual processor iMac and has huge expandability.

After wading through thousands of posts on this topic I have concluded that people who argue for this machine want exactly what they want and don't want to pay for anything else. In other words, they want something that works twice as hard but costs half as much. Which, strangely, is exactly what their bosses say about them

yeah, that's it. Spec by spec most people agree that the Mac Pro is fine and well worth the (from) US$2299 you mentioned. People considering the benefits of all-in-one package that the iMac offers are also happy with its specs and price range.

However, if you shop around, there are other manufacturers providing solid desktop PCs with good components that are not necessarily so high end as the Mac Pro and still tick all the other boxes: high performance with desktop parts, expandable storage, replaceable graphics card, re-use existing screen(s). All that without going all the way up to (from) US$2299 and without having exactly 2x the performance as the iMac.

Apple is doing fine without touching certain market segments, good for them. Can't please everyone anyway, so better to please the folks who can pay for Mac Pros.