To those who say iMacs aren't upgradeable...

[Sdashiki]

But the OP is right in that the vast majority of computer buyers never upgrade aything more than RAM, if that. That's why Apple sees no need for a midrange tower.

precisely. this was more a comment on the computing world in general, as I work in a PC environment with a couple mac users sprinkled in for good measure.

the argument that iMacs arent upgradeable and the mac pro is too much money just to be able to upgrade, just doesnt hold water. sure its a good future-proof method to be able to slap another PCI card in there or another internal HDD, but most people just dont ever do this. and those that do, are the ones who could use the power of the MacPro.

 

[volvoben]

precisely. this was more a comment on the computing world in general, as I work in a PC environment with a couple mac users sprinkled in for good measure.

the argument that iMacs arent upgradeable and the mac pro is too much money just to be able to upgrade, just doesnt hold water. sure its a good future-proof method to be able to slap another PCI card in there or another internal HDD, but most people just dont ever do this. and those that do, are the ones who could use the power of the MacPro.

Ya know, this is actually quite a good point. I'm one of those users who could use a mac pro, but the problem as I see it is that I can't afford $2800 to get a base mac pro (edu through girlfriend) plus a second HDD and 2gigs of ram. Heck, I can't afford the $2200 for a base refurb. at $1900 for a refurb 2.0 we're starting to get there, but the cure to my problem (beyond my current plan of hogging the girlfriend's computer and never going out/buying lunch at work/eating out/traveling until i have the $$$ saved up to get the mac pro) would be a single processor mac pro with regular memory. Same case, same slots, same hdd bays, same cooling, just different mother/logicboard, a dual/quad core conroe and regular old ddr2 $80/gig memory.

$1400 for a refurb dual core 3.0 conroe or slower quad. I'd buy it tomorrow (ok, in a week when i get another paycheck...). add 2 more gigs of ram (also Apple could probably get away with 4 ram slots on these) and a $150 500gb hdd and I'm in at about $1700, over $1000 or 35% less. Real power users will still want a dual processor machine, bulk buyers like ad agencies, print houses etc. will still buy xeons, and with the cheaper desktop components in the single proc. models Apple will still be making a good profit margin on them anyway. The 24" iMac won't be threatened because the cheapest Mac Pro plus a 23/24" ACD (or even Dell/Gateway etc) will still be well in excess of the iMac.

The iMac is a great design, and most people who ask me "what computer should I buy" and don't want a portable are pointed towards an iMac. could have some small changes to make it more appealing, namely the easy serviceability of the first G5 iMacs, a little spot for a second HDD (even if just on the models physically large enough to make the space, 24 and perhaps 20"), and more than 2 ram slots. I would have added more ram and second HDD to my girlfriend's 20" CD iMac already if it was possible.

 

[Sdashiki]

im all for the iMac taking 8GB shouldnt be asking too much, its just 4 slots. having two is nice, but when its a bajillion dollars for a 2GB chip, why bother....not to mention the 3GB limit of the iMac....8GB might be overkill for the demographic of iMac buyers, but its another shield for future-proofing.

 

[dops7107]

Look, Apple want to sell the maximum number of computers it can. Perhaps it is afraid that a mid-range headless would simply divert sales from other Mac models. This may or may not be true, but I assume they have market research people to figure this out. I think they're still scared about getting their fingers burnt after the Cube flopped. Or they like to think that if anyone is that desperate to upgrade, they'll fork out for a Pro. Or buy a wasteful new iMac every three years. Good for business perhaps, but not the best deal for the consumer - or the environment for that matter, a point I see no-one has tried to dispute.

Rough with the smooth I suppose, capitalism at its best. Just don't see why Apple can't do what practically every other computer manufacturer allows: upgrading in mid-range computers.

 

[mgargan1]

Lots of good points on this thread. I have had three iMac's. The 20" 1.8GHz iMac G5, which i upgraded to 2GB of RAM. The machine broke, but before it did, it was a great machine! It was all I needed at the time. Then, I gave that to my brother, and got the 17" C2D iMac. I got that because I was on a budget, and by the time i got a macmini up to what I wanted, I may have well just purchased an iMac.

Then Apple sent me a replacement for my 20" iMac G5. So I'm using a 20" C2D, which is great... but here's the problem. I wanted to pay for an upgrade to 256MB VRAM. Unfortunately, they had already shipped the machine by the time i asked. So, due to the inability to upgrade my iMac, I am stuck with 128MB. I don't notice any difference yet, since I don't play many, if any, games... but I wanted 256 to future-proof myself for Leopard and 10.6.

The new iMac's do allow you to upgrade the processor, since it's a socket and not soldered on the Logic Board.