What if .... [the iMac doesn't exist]

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by shaunp, Dec 16, 2013.

  1. shaunp macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    #1
    Imagine for a second that the iMac doesn't exist and just for the sake of argument can never exist. It's not possible to make an all-in-one Mac only stand alone models. Just pretend this is true please.

    With that in mind if you look at the current Mac desktop line up we have the Mini and the Pro. Nothing between these two but a huge performance, and price, gap. What would you like to see fill this gap?
     
  2. hudson1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #2
    "What if there were no hypothetical questions?" (Steven Wright)
     
  3. opinio macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    #3
    I would fill the gap with silicon sealant. Preferably mold resistant and clear. I prefer it than white sealant. If you want to paint the gap then use a paintable sealant - not silicon.
     
  4. shaunp thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    #4
    The reason for the hypothetical question is that Apple have a poor desktop line up. At the consumer end you have the mini or an all in one. Neither has decent graphics. At the 'Professional' end you have a product that is too expensive for consumers - it's aimed at the professional market. I want an Apple desktop, but there isn't currently a product I would buy.

    ----------

    Or that expanding foam stuff. :D
     
  5. Pakaku macrumors 68000

    Pakaku

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    #5
    Hackintosh... buy the computer for your work purposes, not for brand-loyalty.
     
  6. antonis macrumors 68000

    antonis

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    #6
    There's always the MBP to fill the gap. Decent GPU, great performance, full SSD, with an external monitor etc.
     
  7. shaunp thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    #7
    I've got one. Two in fact. They are good for VMware, photoshop and all my general stuff. Where they fall down flat is 1440p gaming. I have a PC with a GTX 780 and it's a great gaming platform. I would prefer to have a single OS on all my machines however.

    ----------

    I'm always put off by lack of hardware support by going down this route. I don't want a platform that could break at any minute because of an update. For me one of the best features of the Mac is it just works. With Hackintosh I wouldn't be so sure.
     
  8. hudson1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #8
    If you're looking for an ideal gaming machine, a game console is going to cost you much less than the $1500 or so for this computer you want. Most other people will recognize this, too, which means they'll buy a console instead. Probably the main reason Apple hasn't bothered to offer the "gap" machine.
     
  9. shaunp, Dec 16, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2013

    shaunp thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    #9
    I'm not looking for the perfect gaming device - I want one device that can do everything. I have recognised the console option, I have one. I also have a PC that does everything. I want a Mac that is capable of doing everything so I can get rid of all my other crap. Is that so difficult to understand? I also don't care about the price, I'm not looking for something that can 'do everything for £500' like a lot of PC users do when comparing PC to Mac.

    However, this wasn't my question. What would you fill the gap with? That was the question. And Apple haven't filled the gap, because they only want to sell the iMac as their high-end consumer device.
     
  10. Schnort macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #10
    I suggested in another thread a toaster sized device that had a desktop CPU with built in graphics, a few 3.5" drive bays, and a single PCIEx16 slot adding an aftermarket discrete GPU.

    I think it could be priced the same as a base mini (the desktop CPUs are cheaper than the mobile ones and the lack of extreme layout required to fit the mini form factor would bring the price down). it's not as 'elegant' as the mini or iMac, but it's a whole lot more practical.
     
  11. shaunp thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    #11
    Sounds good.

    Thanks for answering the question. :D
     
  12. hudson1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #12
    Looks like you want a new Mac Pro.
     
  13. shaunp thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    #13
    They look nice, but they are aimed too much at the professional graphics market. Rather than a Mac Pro, I'd want a Mac - same form factor, i7 based and high-end gaming graphics.
     
  14. corvus32 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #14
    Even if I could afford the nMP, I still wouldn't want one. It's way overpriced for consumers.

    Besides I'm smart enough to know I don't need Xeon processors, ECC memory, or workstation graphics.

    I just wish Apple would offer something below $1500 with similar specs as this.

    And, something like a complete NUC D54250 for around $600.

    How hard could it be?
     
  15. hudson1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #15
    The Mac Pro is targeted toward graphics professionals. Probably doubles as a killer gaming machine for those willing to pay the price.
    The iMac is targeted toward home users who want a powerful yet stylish machine.
    The mini is targeted toward home/office computing with a secondary target of server usage.

    It sounds like you want a gaming-centric Mac but Apple has probably concluded that that market segment is smaller than the four listed above and not worth designing a separate desktop computer for.
     
  16. shaunp thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    #16
    Interesting that, like many others, you completely avoid the question.
     
  17. blanka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #17
    What if there IS NO huge gap. Because there isn't. OK, some people drool over the GPU in the iMac, but hey, WTF does a mac need a GPU for? Gaming? Seriously?
    The iMac is basically an overpriced gap-filler with quite a bad reputation screen attached and quite a nice GPU in the case it happened to be a Windows laptop in disguise.
    If there would be no iMac, the profits of Apple would be not as good, and people will finally appreciate the Mini. Because it basically is an iMac that lets you buy a decent better priced display yourself.
    And there would be less testosterone on desktops, especially with teenage internet startup firms.
     
  18. corvus32 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #18
    I use a custom PC with an i5-3570k and GTX 680 to fill the gap.

    I spent about $1800 building it a year and a half ago.

    It's great for gaming, but that's not how I use it 90% of the time.

    You can get even more performance today for less money in a smaller form factor.

    If Apple came out with something similar, I would sell it and my Mini tomorrow.

    Gaming consoles and iMac's don't interest me.
     
  19. shaunp thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2010
    #19
    You are joking right? There is a huge gap between the mini and the pro in terms of both performance and price. The mini doesn't have dedicated graphics, so it's definitely not a an iMac without the screen - I had one, it was too slow. As for the iMac been bad, that's my point.

    The Mac does need a GPU for gaming. Absolutely. Why shouldn't I be able to play games on a Mac? It's not a gaming platform, because Apple have never aimed it at the gaming market. However it wasn't that long ago that mobile phones weren't considered any good for gaming either.
     
  20. Schnort macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #20
    No, it's actually a pretty mediocre gaming machine, and a horrible bang for the buck proposition.[/QUOTE]
     
  21. blanka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #21
    The only reason a Mini feels slow is because it came with a 5400RPM 2,5inch HD. iMacs always came with a pretty decent 3,5 inch drive, only the last few 21 inch models have "mini" HD's.
    With all the rest, comparing speed since the Sandy bridge models is splitting hairs. A Mini with SSD will perform rougly equal to most iMacs on normal tasks (non gaming).
     
  22. hudson1, Dec 16, 2013
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2013

    hudson1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #22
    [/QUOTE]

    It (nMP) hasn't even been released yet and you're already calling it a mediocre gaming machine?
     
  23. Schnort macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #23
    From what we know about the video cards, yes.

    It's not horrible, but it isn't going to be a top end gaming machine and certainly won't be the best bang for the buck.
     
  24. fig macrumors 6502a

    fig

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #24
    Interesting that you come off as totally condescending towards those who want to create discussion rather than answer your kind of silly question.

    I'd actually really like to see a Mini with a GPU but that would immediately start to cannibalize the Mac Pro market share. The iMac is a bit pricey for what it is but makes sense in a lot of ways.
     
  25. barkmonster macrumors 68020

    barkmonster

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2001
    Location:
    Lancashire
    #25
    From the Desktop G3s to the very first Intel Mac Pro Apple have always offered a lower end, expandable system based on slower GPU/CPU options but almost as expandable as the higher end offerings. With the original 2006 Mac Pro, there was a downgrade option to dual 2Ghz Xeons which filled the void left in their line up but never really approached the pricing of the PowerPC days because it was still a full Mac Pro with just lower end CPUs so the base price had to higher.

    I agree, there's nothing between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro to make up for this. There hasn't for years and no matter how many people shoot me down with presumptions over what system people are allowed to buy based on their definition of what "Pro" means, there's no need for a gap of over £1700 between the high end Mac Mini and low end Mac Pro when for people who will always ignore an all-in-one like the iMac, the Mac Pro is simply an expensive quad core system that for threaded tasks (audio plug-ins, multi-tasking) is 20% faster than the BTO Mac Mini at best and that's with 1866Mhz vs 1600Mhz RAM and a 3.7Ghz Quad Xeon with 3.9Ghz Turbo Boost vs 2.6Ghz Quad i7 with 3.6Ghz Turbo Boost.

    Once the Mac Mini inherits the GPU/CPU combination of at least the Iris Pro Macbook Pro, the CPUs will scale like the laptop equivalents (2Ghz Haswell will offer at least the current 2.3Ghz performance etc...) and the Mac Mini will represent even better value compared with the Mac Pro. Especially if it adds Thunderbolt 2 into the equation, with or without sacrificing Firewire 800 or dual Thunderbolt 2 ports.
     

Share This Page