Mac Mini End Of Life?

[gregorsamsa]

Yes, if you take away all the reasons they are a fad, then they are not a fad.

Touche! A good reply, I grant (but one that I feel many Mac users making a living from their Macs would reject). You may like Apple to start making sub-$800/£400 base units , but you'll know it's a non-starter under Steve Jobs.

I'd like Apple to either update the Mini or even offer a decent mid-tower, but when you look at the typical specs of consumer-priced PC mid-towers, I have the greatest doubts that Apple's mid-tower Mac would be anywhere near as viable compared to their iMac range. It'd surely risk having either low-sales or unacceptably low profit-margins.

Compare today's consumer iMacs with PC AIOs & we find Apple offers an excellent deal for the price, even without OS X. But PC mid-towers, unlike PC AIOs, are a very small profit-margin product indeed. This would pose immense problems for Apple's general philosophy.

If Apple released a mid-tower, then in order to maintain viable profit margins according to Apple's business plan & still remain price-competitive, it'd be seriously under-specced compared to their PC counterparts.

Imagine the scenario: Apple releases mid-tower Mac with middling video card, no BR, less this, less that, etc. compared to most similarly-priced PCs equipped with 8800 cards, BR drives, etc. This could seriously backfire. The Mini, though under-specced, holds it own partly because of it's unique size. An Apple mid-tower is unlikely to have that appeal, certainly not without all sorts of extra bells & whistles, & then it risks being seriously over-priced.

Releasing a mid-tower Mac would certainly satisfy a small, but significant segment of the Mac market, but it'd either have to be over-priced to maintain Mac profit margins, or else it'd be seriously compromised. Thus, IMO, an updated Mini with better BTO options may be a better way of catering for those presently dissatisfied with the Mac range.

FWIW, even though 1 of my 2 Macs is an iMac, if Apple released a mid-tower, I'd consider buying one. I'm not saying it wouldn't be personally desirable. I'd love to see it happen just to see how the consumer market responds. I'm just giving an opinion as to why it'll never happen under Apple's/SJ's current thinking.

 

[saltyzoo]

Touche! A good reply, I grant (but one that I feel many Mac users making a living from their Macs would reject). You may like Apple to start making sub-$800/£400 base units , but you'll know it's a non-starter under Steve Jobs.

I'd like Apple to either update the Mini or even offer a decent mid-tower, but when you look at the typical specs of consumer-priced PC mid-towers, I have the greatest doubts that Apple's mid-tower Mac would be anywhere near as viable compared to their iMac range. It'd surely risk having either low-sales or unacceptably low profit-margins.

Compare today's consumer iMacs with PC AIOs & we find Apple offers an excellent deal for the price, even without OS X. But PC mid-towers, unlike PC AIOs, are a very small profit-margin product indeed. This would pose immense problems for Apple's general philosophy.

If Apple released a mid-tower, then in order to maintain viable profit margins according to Apple's business plan & still remain price-competitive, it'd be seriously under-specced compared to their PC counterparts.

Imagine the scenario: Apple releases mid-tower Mac with middling video card, no BR, less this, less that, etc. compared to most similarly-priced PCs equipped with 8800 cards, BR drives, etc. This could seriously backfire. The Mini, though under-specced, holds it own partly because of it's unique size. An Apple mid-tower is unlikely to have that appeal, certainly not without all sorts of extra bells & whistles, & then it risks being seriously over-priced.

Releasing a mid-tower Mac would certainly satisfy a small, but significant segment of the Mac market, but it'd either have to be over-priced to maintain Mac profit margins, or else it'd be seriously compromised. Thus, IMO, an updated Mini with better BTO options may be a better way of catering for those presently dissatisfied with the Mac range.

FWIW, even though 1 of my 2 Macs is an iMac, if Apple released a mid-tower, I'd consider buying one. I'm not saying it wouldn't be personally desirable. I'd love to see it happen just to see how the consumer market responds. I'm just giving an opinion as to why it'll never happen under Apple's/SJ's current thinking.

I don't disagree with you. Personally, I think we're saying the same thing for the most part. I'm just adding the "I think Apple is making a mistake" factor. I think Apple is wrong in it's philosophy of avoiding the small profit margin market forever. I think it was wise to do so when they were a complete nobody. I don't think it is wise to do so if they want to continue to make money long term.

The vast majority of the market still considers Macs to be a fad. And those consumers will continue to do so as long as Apple provides no offering in the largest market segment out there.

I think Apple is at a turning point. If they weren't, I wouldn't own one. Depending on how they go from here will determine if they remain a fad, or if they become mainstream. If they continue their philosophy of limited offerings aimed more at the "bling" crowd, than at the "real users", I probably will end up moving toward something with more flexibility (linux perhaps will fill that hole someday?). If they continue to offer more solutions then they'll have a customer for life.

I mean, the main reason to love Macs is that "they just work". If you can't find one that "just works" for what you are doing, what's the point?

 

[takao]

Compare today's consumer iMacs with PC AIOs & we find Apple offers an excellent deal for the price, even without OS X. But PC mid-towers, unlike PC AIOs, are a very small profit-margin product indeed. This would pose immense problems for Apple's general philosophy.

PC AIO don't sell any units whatsoever .. at least i have never seen a single unit

If Apple released a mid-tower, then in order to maintain viable profit margins according to Apple's business plan & still remain price-competitive, it'd be seriously under-specced compared to their PC counterparts.

Imagine the scenario: Apple releases mid-tower Mac with middling video card, no BR, less this, less that, etc. compared to most similarly-priced PCs equipped with 8800 cards, BR drives, etc. This could seriously backfire. The Mini, though under-specced, holds it own partly because of it's unique size. An Apple mid-tower is unlikely to have that appeal, certainly not without all sorts of extra bells & whistles, & then it risks being seriously over-priced.

so they would be under-specced and overpriced compared to under-specced, overpriced and non-extensible like it is now
to me that is a clear improvement

Releasing a mid-tower Mac would certainly satisfy a small, but significant segment of the Mac market, but it'd either have to be over-priced to maintain Mac profit margins, or else it'd be seriously compromised. Thus, IMO, an updated Mini with better BTO options may be a better way of catering for those presently dissatisfied with the Mac range.

FWIW, even though 1 of my 2 Macs is an iMac, if Apple released a mid-tower, I'd consider buying one. I'm not saying it wouldn't be personally desirable. I'd love to see it happen just to see how the consumer market responds. I'm just giving an opinion as to why it'll never happen under Apple's/SJ's current thinking.

i still don't get the compromising thing with apple ... compromising about hard ware, compromising about price, compromising about this that etc.

i don't care about apple's margin or shareholders i want good computers and currently with apple all you have to do is compromise just to use OS X


personally i have a mac mini with a G4 (running a 22" screen) and what i'm i supposed to do now ? ...
mini: too little power, crap 3d performance, too little HD space, no multiple screen outputs
imac: AIO and still only one internal HD
mac pro: crap server chipset, power consumption, priced obscene for a desktop

 

[Koola]

personally i have a mac mini with a G4 (running a 22" screen) and what i'm i supposed to do now ? ...
mini: too little power, crap 3d performance, too little HD space, no multiple screen outputs
imac: AIO and still only one internal HD
mac pro: crap server chipset, power consumption, priced obscene for a desktop

HACKINTOSH

 

[gregorsamsa]

I don't disagree with you. Personally, I think we're saying the same thing for the most part. I'm just adding the "I think Apple is making a mistake" factor. I think Apple is wrong in it's philosophy of avoiding the small profit margin market forever. I think it was wise to do so when they were a complete nobody. I don't think it is wise to do so if they want to continue to make money long term.

The vast majority of the market still considers Macs to be a fad. And those consumers will continue to do so as long as Apple provides no offering in the largest market segment out there.

I think Apple is at a turning point. If they weren't, I wouldn't own one. Depending on how they go from here will determine if they remain a fad, or if they become mainstream. If they continue their philosophy of limited offerings aimed more at the "bling" crowd, than at the "real users", I probably will end up moving toward something with more flexibility (linux perhaps will fill that hole someday?). If they continue to offer more solutions then they'll have a customer for life.

I quite agree with some of what you say, but bearing in mind that Mac market-share & the user base has been increasing for years now & that, despite their longevity, many existing Mac owners will replace their older Macs for newer models (something feasible with Macs, but less so with PCs, because of the high value 2nd hand Macs tend to maintain), I don't see how they won't "continue to make money" with their current philosophy. That's without even adding iPhone & iPod revenues.

Even in the worst case scenario, ie. if Windows 7 proves to be a much better accomplishment than Vista, I don't see how Apple can come unstuck anytime soon as long as they don't start compromising on quality & customer service (& despite a some claiming they already have, Apple still consistently comes out either first or close enough in all consumer opinion polls). As for "flexibility", despite the lack of a mid-tower, today's Macs capable of running any OS are in some ways the most flexible computers out there.

Unfortunately, the perception of Apple aiming at "the bling crowd" will remain to a degree until Apple offers the kind of consumer Mac people such as yourself (& I) want. But for every switcher from Mac to PC because of such perceptions, the opposite is gathering a much greater momentum.

I mean, the main reason to love Macs is that "they just work". If you can't find one that "just works" for what you are doing, what's the point?

Personally, I don't rule out buying a cheap PC to mess around with in future, but as long as Macs serve most of my computing needs & "just work" for me, I'll be staying with Apple. But I wouldn't seriously expect anyone to do so if that's no longer the case for them. - Before buying my iMac I actually considered a PC instead, but after some research I figured that a new Vista PC would be a much bigger compromise than buying an iMac & Boot Camping it for a few games & other things.

 

[gregorsamsa]

PC AIO don't sell any units whatsoever .. at least i have never seen a single unit



so they would be under-specced and overpriced compared to under-specced, overpriced and non-extensible like it is now
to me that is a clear improvement

That's just it though, today's iMacs compared to PC AIOs (just Google for them), really aren't under-specced or over-priced. Though by no means cheap, they still offer quite outstanding value for money. That seems to be a quite general perception amongst consumers, hence why they sell so well.

i still don't get the compromising thing with apple ... compromising about hard ware, compromising about price, compromising about this that etc.

i don't care about apple's margin or shareholders i want good computers and currently with apple all you have to do is compromise just to use OS X


personally i have a mac mini with a G4 (running a 22" screen) and what i'm i supposed to do now ? ...
mini: too little power, crap 3d performance, too little HD space, no multiple screen outputs
imac: AIO and still only one internal HD
mac pro: crap server chipset, power consumption, priced obscene for a desktop

I also don't much care about Apple's profit margins or shareholders, but they already offer "good computers", just not consumer mid-towers. I wish they would, but I seriously doubt that the market for them is that huge. A fairly cheap, low-end Mac tower may sell much better, but on top of reduced margins, Apple would have to deal with all sorts of maintenance issues with extra returns, breakdowns, faults, etc. compared to Minis & iMacs. Just look at how Dell has suffered from an avalanche of similar problems with their cheap PCs.

Re what you're "supposed to do now": I wrestled with this for months before buying an iMac. Frankly, short of waiting for a new Mini (which will probably have no more than X3100 & minor spec bumps), I agree with "Koola". Have you considered going the Hackintosh way (something bounced around by a number of posters here)?

 

[dhuff]

Re what you're "supposed to do now": I wrestled with this for months before buying an iMac. Frankly, short of waiting for a new Mini (which will probably have no more than X3100 & minor spec bumps), I agree with "Koola". Have you considered going the Hackintosh way (something bounced around by a number of posters here)?

Exactly my point above. Apple can either gain some sales by coming out with an updated Mini that's good enough to attract potential buyers, or lose those sales to Psystar or various Hackintosh solutions. Simple enough, really. (Note: obviously a Mini won't satisfy the "I want an affordable, expandable mid-tower xMac" crowd, but my guess is that this group is small compared to the "I want an affordable Mac of some sort" group)

And mind you, I'm perfectly capable of building a Hackintosh myself. Built 3 or 4 PCs and it's not that hard. I'd just rather use my fairly precious spare time for something else. Well, that, and not have to spend time finding workarounds for system updates, etc..., or acting as my own warranty support (more spare time better used elsewhere).

 

[saltyzoo]

Exactly my point above. Apple can either gain some sales by coming out with an updated Mini that's good enough to attract potential buyers, or lose those sales to Psystar or various Hackintosh solutions. Simple enough, really. (Note: obviously a Mini won't satisfy the "I want an affordable, expandable mid-tower xMac" crowd, but my guess is that this group is small compared to the "I want an affordable Mac of some sort" group)

And mind you, I'm perfectly capable of building a Hackintosh myself. Built 3 or 4 PCs and it's not that hard. I'd just rather use my fairly precious spare time for something else. Well, that, and not have to spend time finding workarounds for system updates, etc..., or acting as my own warranty support (more spare time better used elsewhere).

Or more likely, just run windows.

 

[takao]

Re what you're "supposed to do now": I wrestled with this for months before buying an iMac. Frankly, short of waiting for a new Mini (which will probably have no more than X3100 & minor spec bumps), I agree with "Koola". Have you considered going the Hackintosh way (something bounced around by a number of posters here)?

if i go with building a PC myself i would rather go with windows directly because that can do pretty much the same thing without the driver hassle

sad but true but in the desktop apple is again falling in behind because of their obsession with laptop components compared to desktop components

 

[snberk103]

What is "unsustainable" or "short-lived" about Apple?

Not trying to pick on Apple, just that this is an Apple product forum.

"Sustainable": Are they using up raw resources they need so quickly that those resources will become unavailable to Apple, or any other company, or to generations yet to come. On a recent "green report card" I came across Apple fared pretty badly. Again, not picking on Apple specifically.

"Longevity": Who knows. Lets wait 50 years and see if Apple still around. Usually companies that are built by a visionary fade out once that person leaves. IBM has longevity, Pet rocks don't (the company - not the pet. Those suckers will be around forever, eh? ).

Some companies are set up to create wealth for the core group of investors - the "insiders". When they get rich enough the company starts to fail. The common shareholders get burned. Other companies are setup for the longterm - as in generations. Where Apple falls in this range, I don't know. I haven't travelled to the future, nor am I an business major with the tools and knowledge to analyze Apples business. But I wouldn't buy Apple stock for my grandkids (if I had any).

ps I have an older Intel mini. It got retired to jukebox duty earlier this year. Yesterday when my wife's MBP wouldn't boot up (beware the latest security patch/Quicktime update - read the Apple forum threads!) the mini was unmothballed and used to resurrect the MBP. Thank goodness we had a spare Mac around. When I picked it up, I was once again impressed at what an amazing machine it is. It would be wonderful if Apple brought the specs up, but it won't affect me. And, my wife's MBP was upgraded from Tiger to Leopard. It fixed the problem.

 

[snberk103]

As long as they continue to avoid the midtower market and the midtower market continues to be the mainstream market, they are a fad. The only argument against my statement is their very nice line of notebook offerings, notebooks which are becoming a larger part of the market segment every day, but still lag far behind mid towers by a long stretch.

Not a fad, a niche. Rolls Royce, not a fad - less market share than Apple. Aga stoves. Been around forever. Smaller market share than Rolls Royce, I'll bet. Definite niche.

Fad is something that comes from nowhere, skyrockets in popularity, then disappears. We won't know if Apple is currently a fad for another 10 years.

 

[spatlese44]

This thread, and my wait for a new mini, have been going on so long I'm starting to re-think if I want a mini or not. Essentially, it will be an expensive video recorder. The computer it's replacing does get used for surfing, word processing etc., but nothing major.

So here's the big question: as a video recorder, how well will an external drive work for storage? I started thinking Hackintosh, for simplicity and speed of storage. I've got 450 GB of hard drives sitting around. I could even put in a quad-core for $100 extra, unlike the $2000 extra to get a MacPro. That really would be an expensive video recorder. Good arguments for Hackintosh.

My first Mac is my Macbook, which I only got 9 months ago. I love it and I'm really happy I switched. Somehow, a Hackintosh sounds like it would cheapen the Mac experience. MacMini performance may not be stellar, but $600 isn't a fortune either. I could just buy a mini and an external drive and be done with it. Or could I? How much am I giving up with non-quad-core and USB connection to storage? Should it be firewire, or....

maybe external SATA. Hmm. Probably the most useful upgrade they could do.

 

[saltyzoo]

Not a fad, a niche. Rolls Royce, not a fad - less market share than Apple. Aga stoves. Been around forever. Smaller market share than Rolls Royce, I'll bet. Definite niche.

Fad is something that comes from nowhere, skyrockets in popularity, then disappears. We won't know if Apple is currently a fad for another 10 years.

Semantics. I don't totally disagree with you. You're technically correct. I'm arbitrarily using the label fad. I considered using niche, but I really don't think Macs are a niche. They are more of a spontaneous purchase (fad) than a well thought out purchase of a well known product like Rolls Royce.

More importantly to the conversation however is: Who makes more money for their shareholders? Rolls Royce or Toyota..........

 

[Westsider 4 Mac]

well...

Exactly. Which is why I made the remark about Psystar being a "canary in the coal mine" earlier

It's easy enough to see someone at Apple thinking, "Hmmm...this Psystar thing is bad - gotta squash it." But I'd be much more impressed if they thought, "Hmmm...this Psystar thing seems to indicate a hole in our product lineup. Maybe we should do something about that."

Apple DID do something...Steve killed the clone market. Fact was, the old Power Tower from Power Computing was a better Tower than anything Apple was putting out. Apple could not compete so they Killed the licensing deal. Now how does this relate to the Mac Mini? Apple is, once again, choosing not to compete. No true consumer headless tower= not competing in a major retail space. The absolute maiming, spec wise, of what should have been a product full of potential in the Mac Mini is poor product positioning at best. What is truly tragic as a business plan is the fact that it would not take much to bring the Mac Mini back to a respectable entry level desktop at a entry desktop price point. Apple simply chooses to ignore the Mac Mini. Frankly, I would rather Apple say that they are just not interested in the entry desktop space and quit wasting resources on the underpowered, overpriced mini. That way we consumers can look elsewhere instead of hoping that Apple does the consumers right.

 

[snberk103]

More importantly to the conversation however is: Who makes more money for their shareholders? Rolls Royce or Toyota..........

Aackk! - I'm in the wrong conversation.... I thought we were trying to get this thread up to 2000 posts!

You make a good point about RR and Toyota. However.... and this is directed at others, not yourself.

Why won't Apple will ever release a mid-tower? Because then people will want to mix 'n match components, causing crashes and glitches due to unexpected/unforeseen hardware conflicts. Even a small increase in bad experiences will badly tarnish Apple's image of "It just works". Why did I buy my wife a MBP? Because I didn't want to be tech support to a Window's machine.

Why doesn't Apple upgrade the Mini? Who knows! The better question is, why are they still selling it? If it sucks as much as some people think, then they must be losing money on it. So, either it doesn't suck that bad, or it is a loss leader. I assume that Apple has a good reason to sell the current version. They have amply demonstrated that they understand the market as it exists today.

We shall see. IF there is an update or a replacement, I predict it will come in the fall - in time for the holidays. OR, released with Snow Leopard because there will be a "new feature" in SL that works with a Mini (upgraded or replaced).... Think Time Capsule.

Now that I think about it, and this was off the cuff initially. Apple would be hard-pressed to justify charging the standard $129 (or local currency equivalent) just for an optimized Leopard. BUT what if they could introduce a cool OS feature that worked with a new piece of hardware (the new mini). That would drive sales for each. Hmmm.... We'll have to think about that one, eh?

 

[Eidorian]

Why won't Apple will ever release a mid-tower? Because then people will want to mix 'n match components, causing crashes and glitches due to unexpected/unforeseen hardware conflicts. Even a small increase in bad experiences will badly tarnish Apple's image of "It just works". Why did I buy my wife a MBP? Because I didn't want to be tech support to a Window's machine.

Ignore the Mac Pro then. Professionals won't make such mistakes, right?

 

[saltyzoo]

Why won't Apple will ever release a mid-tower? Because then people will want to mix 'n match components, causing crashes and glitches due to unexpected/unforeseen hardware conflicts. Even a small increase in bad experiences will badly tarnish Apple's image of "It just works". Why did I buy my wife a MBP? Because I didn't want to be tech support to a Window's machine.

This is definitely part of it. Added to the small margins and that flexibility means it will be harder to keep a stranglehold on the upgrade market and you're pretty much where good ole stevie is.

Why doesn't Apple upgrade the Mini? Who knows! The better question is, why are they still selling it? If it sucks as much as some people think, then they must be losing money on it. So, either it doesn't suck that bad, or it is a loss leader.

I think both are true.

 

[dhuff]

Or more likely, just run windows.

Heh, true

Apple most assuredly needs something in their product line to attract the proverbial "Switchers." And with a cost/benefit ratio getting worse by the day, the current Mini ain't it. I mean really, have you seen the price on entry-level boxes at Dell lately ? Compare that to the higher end Mini

And the sad thing is that it wouldn't take too much of a H/W update for the Mini to fill that role again. Penryn CPU, bit larger hard drive, update the graphics a tad (nuthin' fancy, an Intel GMA X3100 would do) and Superdrives all around. Maybe shave $100 off the price. Even though they'd still be priced a hundred or so above the cheapest Dell boxes, I bet they'd sell well and make a tidy, if not bloated, profit for the company.

But maybe Apple isn't so keen on this market segment anymore... (?)

 

[Westsider 4 Mac]

Thinking Differently...

I enjoyed Apple's commercial failures ( Cube) as well as successes as the company was at least challenging consumer perseptions of what a computing desktop could become. I just cannot support the current Mac Mini because of its near complete lack of acceptable specs for a 2008 model year desktop for $599 plus tax.

Combo Drive :
1.83GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB memory
80GB hard drive

To even suggest that I pay above $600 for ANY computer with a combo drive is laughable at best. When will decide to get serious about making the Mac Mini competative?

 

[oldwatery]

I think it might be the other way around. Here's what I understand the Mini to do -- attract switchers into the Apple store. Hey, you can in the door for $600! It's the low price for a Mac that gets them thinking about buying, but the prices are so well placed (along with features) that it's a pretty easy upsell to an iMac or MacBook once you've got them in the store.

In fact, it's to Apple's benefit to keep older hardware in the Mini, as it makes them 1.) cheaper to make and 2.) easier to upsell to something else.

I can't wait for the Mini to be updated as I'm in the category the fake Fusion targets, specially a hobbyist, low-cash Apple developer that'd like to join the Mactel ranks. But that's *not* Apple's intended use for the Mini.

Btw, how fast a proc could you swap into the Mini as it stands? How much of an at-home upgrade could you perform?

I agree. There is no doubt the Mini was designed and marketed as a switch machine. But over the years it became a computer with a much broader appeal.

I have not read all the posts here but there seems to be several types of users bemoaning it's pending doom.

The original switchers.
People such as yourself who want a low cost machine for sw development and other pro uses.
Users wanting a small and inexpensive server for music and internet use.
Cross platform users who want a Windows machine but don't want to put the dreaded OS on their main computer.
Folk who want a headless Mac (but not the gargantuan Pro) so that they can spec their own peripherals and not be tied into Apples choices of monitors etc.
And people who just don't want to spend or don't have the money to spend on a iMac or portable.
Plus many more I'm sure.

What I fail to undersatnd with Apple's stance is they seem to be demonstrating a belief that these buyers will move up to one of their other computers if the Mini dies.
This is just plain wrong.
I for one want a Mini as a music server and part time Windows box (actually to run Amiga OS!)
So buying an iMac etc is just not gonna happen for me.
Reading the posts I'm not alone in this reaction.

No, it seems like Apple is being bloody minded (again) and profit motivated (again).

Bloody mindedness is one of Steve's traits. "You will take what I say is good for you!" And profit motivated is just what they have to do to satisfy the greedy pigs on Wall Street.

At least thats what I think

But I still hold onto my hope for a new Mini, although with no word this last week my hope is starting to waver.

 

[maccompaq]

I enjoyed Apple's commercial failures ( Cube) as well as successes as the company was at least challenging consumer perseptions of what a computing desktop could become. I just cannot support the current Mac Mini because of its near complete lack of acceptable specs for a 2008 model year desktop for $599 plus tax.

I am going to venture a wild statement saying that the Cube was way overpriced and not very expandable, hence the low demand. Had the price been reasonable, it probably would have been a success. I would love to see it resurrected using the same case but with modern guts and a price of $999.

 

[Cave Man]

I've posted a poll in the iMac and Mini forum that might be of interest to readers of this thread.

 

[CWallace]

I considered using niche, but I really don't think Macs are a niche. They are more of a spontaneous purchase (fad) than a well thought out purchase of a well known product like Rolls Royce.

The Macintosh has been around for over two decades. Not what I'd consider the timeframe of a "fad".

And speaking for myself, I researched my Mac purchases much more then I ever did a Windows PC purchase.

 

[snberk103]

Ignore the Mac Pro then. Professionals won't make such mistakes, right?

Partly, perhaps. But more importantly.... does Apple officially support anything you put into a Mac Pro that didn't come from therm. I don't know the answer, but I know that when you order MP the options are limited. I don't think there is a lot of mixing and matching with MPs, so no driver issues. There a limited set of graphic cards that the manufacturers say work with OSX. Hard drives don't really have drivers anymore, so a non-issue. I don't know about wireless cards....

If the manufacturer doesn't support OSX, then I don't think Apple is worried about too many people installing that particular piece of hardware. Not enough numbers to warrant it.

 

[Eidorian]

Partly, perhaps. But more importantly.... does Apple officially support anything you put into a Mac Pro that didn't come from therm. I don't know the answer, but I know that when you order MP the options are limited. I don't think there is a lot of mixing and matching with MPs, so no driver issues. There a limited set of graphic cards that the manufacturers say work with OSX. Hard drives don't really have drivers anymore, so a non-issue. I don't know about wireless cards....

If the manufacturer doesn't support OSX, then I don't think Apple is worried about too many people installing that particular piece of hardware. Not enough numbers to warrant it.

You should be more well versed in hardware.

http://macwireless.com/

http://www.sonnettech.com/

http://www.macsales.com/