The need for MacPros is diminishing.
Diminishing, but will never be gone. Some of us need (or really really want) lots of internal storage. This means multiple 3.5" drive bays. And if you need to share a single display with multiple computers (e.g. because there isn't enough desk space for multiple displays,) something with a built-in display (like an iMac) is out of the question.
For my next purchase, I can really only choose between a Mini and a Pro, because I have no room for another display on my desk. With the mini, I'll need external Firewire drives for storage. With the Pro, I can have all the storage I'm likely to ever need internal to the case. (No, this isn't the only reason to want a Pro, just the one I'm mentioning here. See below for another.)
We have been, however, at a point for quite some time where consumer-grade software is "fast-enough" on entry level computers that $2,000+ is simply unjustifiable for a majority of people.
Today, a cheap Mac (like a mini) is more than fast enough for today's software. Larger systems are nice for high-power apps (like video work), but are only necessary if you need a lot of storage (since a mini's 2.5" hard drive tops out at 500GB.)
But there's the issue of longevity. When I got my PowerMac in 2002, it was a top-end system (cost about $3500). I'm still using it today, nearly 10 years later, and it still does everything I need. It's only now, with Adobe and Mozilla dropping the PPC architecture that I now consider myself forced to upgrade. I plan on upgrading to some version of Mac Pro (probably the base $2500 model) with the expectation of getting 8-10 years of useful service out of it. Amortized over 8-10 years, the price isn't that bad, especially if a cheaper system is going to need to be replaced every 2-3 years.
Imagine a Mac Mini, a Mac Micro if you will, that did not contain the hard drive or optical drive, with those drives residing in external Thunderbolt enclosures. ...
This sounds like the way things were in the 70's. When you used an Apple II, your floppy drives were external. So was your hard drive, if you could afford to own one.
While it makes upgrades and repairs easy, I think most people would prefer to not have all those boxes, which all have to be set up and attached correctly (and probably all require separate power cables.) I think most of the "geek squad" customers would prefer something all-in-one, like an iMac or a laptop, which can be set up and moved easily, even if it does mean requiring a skilled tech to repair/replace components.
eSATA and SATA are electrically and protocol-wise the same. eSATA is just a shielded connector for running SATA signals external to the case.
Yes and no.
On the physical side, eSATA's connector is designed to survive repeated insertion/removal. An internal SATA connector isn't, and doesn't always last long if you attach/remove it a lot.
On the electrical/protocol side, the two may or may not be identical. I believe eSATA devices are required to support several features that are optional for internal SATA devices, including hot-pluggability and support for port multipliers. People who extend a motherboard SATA port to an external connector often find out about these differences the hard way.
and intel cannot include eSata, much cheaper and I believe you can boot from it as well.
