Why is there a Mac truck sized hole in the Apple desktop product line?

[toru173]

That "completely new mobo architecture" would be a standard and very easily designed one. They could just reuse the mini or iMac mobo and make some minor tweaks, or even use one of the standard intel reference designs and do a little bit to make it more "mac". But it's a case of reinventing the wheel, the work has already been done. Cases are easy, especially a midtower, and support shouldn't be much different than any other mac they sell, since it would offer no features that aren't already available in other macs, just in different combinations.

I have to disagree here. Apple's current products don't use the components that would be put into a prosumer tower such as we're suggesting. They couldn't re-use anything from the Mini or the Pro. Although - as you suggest - a lot of reference designs are availible, it still means a completely new line of logic boards and supporting components. Apple has to source these components, integrate them and write EFI support for them - not to mention the hundreds of little tweaks they would have to do to differentiate from a reference design. Take the Mac Pro memory boards, for example. When I first saw them I wondered how Apple was able to implement them without signal degradation. It must have taken some smart cookies to figure all that out.

Many case designs exist, granted, but Apple has always tried to excel in this arena. They are constantly on the lookout for new manufacturing methods, and often regularly consult manufacturers to see what new processes they have in the works. I'm sure there's a large R&D section in Apple responsible for things like the now famous translucent acrylic casings, the two-toned (gloss and colour) plastic, the seemless aluminium shells - just about any feature that makes a Mac a unique piece of machinery. IF Apple were to re-use standard PC manufacturing techniques for their MPL we would be bitterly disappointed. If they choose to re-use a design theme they already have in production (let's say a half-height Mac Pro aluminium enclosure) they would still need to design and build the new tools that would produce these enclosures. The tools themselves aren't cheap, and considering they would need to still maintain their old tools (for the remaining product lines) this is more additional cost that the user doesn't see.

I challange any user on these forums to create a case similar in quality to a Mac Pro, iMac or even Mac Mini. I suggest you would need access to an industrial CAD-CAM machine, not to mention considerable skills.

I may come across as strongly anti-MPL, but on the contrary I would love for Apple to produce one more then anything. I have seen many good arguments against it, and I'm choosing to back the "against" side. Incidently, I find that the worst argument against is that it will "eat in to" other products. If Apple has a shred of business sense, it can quite easily tweak features and prices of these products so that there is no contention over a market - increasing the specs and price of the Mac Pro, for example.

 

[milo]

I have to disagree here. Apple's current products don't use the components that would be put into a prosumer tower such as we're suggesting. They couldn't re-use anything from the Mini or the Pro. Although - as you suggest - a lot of reference designs are availible, it still means a completely new line of logic boards and supporting components. Apple has to source these components, integrate them and write EFI support for them - not to mention the hundreds of little tweaks they would have to do to differentiate from a reference design. Take the Mac Pro memory boards, for example. When I first saw them I wondered how Apple was able to implement them without signal degradation. It must have taken some smart cookies to figure all that out.

I don't see why you don't think they couldn't use an existing design as a starting point. Aren't the iMac mobos compatible with desktop C2D's, specifically isn't the socket able to accept intel's desktop version (better bang for the buck). And aren't pretty much all drive busses capable of handling two drives by default? Apple didn't go to the trouble of designing a unique hard drive bus for that box that only supported one, did they? The only thing keeping out a second drive is space inside the box, and a different drive cable.

While apple might choose to make hundreds of changes from a standard PC board, that would be something they chose to do, not something they had to do. This is demonstrated by the fact that leopard was so quickly and easily hacked to run on PC hardware. I think the design and manufacture issues are overblown, especially since apple already outsources most of their hardware manufacture, pretty much all to companies that also build PCs.

As far as cases are concerned, if apple can't reuse R&D they've already done they're doing something wrong. Given that apple went to the trouble of designing components and case for the appleTV, which hasn't sold much at all, or even the apple HIFI, which sold even less, I don't think they'd have any trouble coming up with a new computer and breaking even on the relatively low design costs.

 

[toru173]

With respect to re-using the iMac designs - it's not possible. The iMac uses a very specialised physical layout to fit within the case, and had to be designed accordingly. Apple couldn't fit desktop processors anyway, since the iMac is a laptop-centric design. This is one of the main complaints that people have with it ^_^

Apple can re-use it's R&D, and I'm sure they would intend to, but the fact remains that they would have to find someone ready to build their cases for them. That isn't as easy as walking into a store and picking up the nice-looking case you see on the shelf.

I believe that these are only secondary issues, though. The main reasons Apple won't produce a MPL is not cost related. They've been shrugged out of a market they weren't particular keen on in the first place, and can't be bothered going back. THAT is the main issue.

 

[milo]

With respect to re-using the iMac designs - it's not possible. The iMac uses a very specialised physical layout to fit within the case, and had to be designed accordingly. Apple couldn't fit desktop processors anyway, since the iMac is a laptop-centric design. This is one of the main complaints that people have with it ^_^

Obviously, they wouldn't just take the existing board and stick it in a new case. They could take the same components and lay them out on a board that's a different shape and size (and with less constraints, making the job easier). They'd also add memory slots and a couple expansion slots, neither of which is a huge design challenge. It's not that apple couldn't fit desktop processors, it's that the imac and mini cases didn't allow room for cooling of those, which wouldn't be an issue in a bigger case. So of course there would be some design required, but it would much much less than designing a board from scratch, and much easier than designing the mini or imac boards.

 

[toru173]

Obviously, they wouldn't just take the existing board and stick it in a new case. They could take the same components and lay them out on a board that's a different shape and size (and with less constraints, making the job easier). They'd also add memory slots and a couple expansion slots, neither of which is a huge design challenge. It's not that apple couldn't fit desktop processors, it's that the imac and mini cases didn't allow room for cooling of those, which wouldn't be an issue in a bigger case. So of course there would be some design required, but it would much much less than designing a board from scratch, and much easier than designing the mini or imac boards.

Not exactly. Desktop and notebook processors don't just have different sockets, they have completely different supporting architectures. You need different northbridges, different southbridge, different power subsystems - a whole heap. You may be able to re-use about 15-20% of the components, but they would have to be laid out in a totally new fashion. They would basically need to start from scratch.

 

[VespR]

Someone hit on the head earlier when they said Apple just doesn't want to make this product.

For all the garb, about costs designing and maintaing a product line, manufacturing tools for cases and all that crap. Let's get one thing out the way, Apple has BILLIONS of dollars in LIQUID CASH. There is no real obstruction in their way. And before anyone mentions stuff about designing a new motherboard and all the hard work it would entail. Well, Apple has been making computers for the past 30 years, I think they could whip one up, and if not just poach some engineers from Asus or whoever and get to it. It's not a difficult task for them, especially when they're one of the most successful computer designers in the world. They simply do not want to enter this market.

Which is a crying shame coz it's the Mac I would love to own.

 

[Umbongo]

Do Apple even design their own logicboards? I've seen it mentioned that Intel design them for Apple (using their workstation board with modifications as requested) and then Foxconn just manufacture them. At least as far as the Mac Pro was concerned.

 

[VespR]

Do Apple even design their own logicboards? I've seen it mentioned that Intel design them for Apple (using their workstation board with modifications as requested) and then Foxconn just manufacture them. At least as far as the Mac Pro was concerned.

Wouldn't surprise me. Apple could make a killer desktop with a Q6600 "Energy Efficient SLACR 95W Edition", sitting in their DX38BT (http://www.intel.com/products/motherboard/DX38BT/index.htm) with BTO options on 1-4gb of ram et hard drives. An nvidia's new 8800GT. But sadly I am dreaming.

 

[MacVault]

Why is there a Mac truck sized hole in the Apple desktop product line?

Same reason for the iPhone being locked, Mac OS X being locked to Apple only hardware, etc..... BECAUSE Steve Jobs is full of himself and is a control freak!

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Same reason for the iPhone being locked, Mac OS X being locked to Apple only hardware, etc..... BECAUSE Steve Jobs is full of himself and is a control freak!

Looks like you just figured it all out...

 

[Eidorian]

Looks like you just figured it all out...

I knew learned this simple fact when I had to do a report and presentation on Steve Jobs, dress as him and replicating his mannerisms.

Ah the halcyon days.

 

[toru173]

I knew learned this simple fact when I had to do a report and presentation on Steve Jobs, dress as him and replicating his mannerisms.

Ah the halcyon days.

OMG just saw your icon. I have an Asuka doll sitting in front of me right now >_<

Anyways - I believe Apple asked Intel to design their Mac Pro logicboards because they were running short on time, and the modifications they requested weren't too difficult (it's pretty standard). The iMac and Mini, on the other hand, are products of the brilliant minds at Apple.

I was stunned the first time I opened an Apple computer and found chips not only on the "component" side but on the "solder" side as well, using the case as a heatsink! It was so brilliant. No standard Intel board would do that, because they don't make the hardware the board goes in to and can't guarentee that there will be enough contact with any case the board does go in to.

I completely agree with VespR - Apple isn't in this market because they don't want to be, not because they don't think it lucrative. That sentance had too many negatives >_<

 

[Evergreen]

At the moment,presenting MPL would be the deathblow to MP,as most programs would practically run as fast on it as on MP.

Consumer programs don't use multiple cores because, for the most part, they don't need them. Pro-apps do use MP, so I wouldn't expect the demand for MPs to ever go away.

I've never before seen the marketing of an unwanted product deemed a successful business strategy. I always thought the goal was to find a void in the market and fill it with a good product. Apple cannot compete with itself; and as the multiple iPod models demonstrate, it pays to offer people choices.

I hope Apple will open OS X to run on 3rd party hardware if they aren't going to build a consumer tower. As it is, the lack of a midtower is forcing PC users to use hacked versions of the OS on their systems.

 

[Can]

Quote=
I hope Apple will open OS X to run on 3rd party hardware if they aren't going to build a consumer tower. As it is, the lack of a midtower is forcing PC users to use hacked versions of the OS on their systems.
/



I never really get this whole mid-tower thing. It seems like people have these patches on their eyes that make them blind. Just because they have been using a PC since they was born, and they come in a tower setup. They believe that every machine must come in a tower setup, without thinking of what the point of a "tower" really is.

Yes because what is the point? Why not go for a integrated all in one iMac? or a MacPro?
If you decide against a MacPro it is clear that money is the issue.

So you are on a limited budget, why don't you like the iMac?

- I don't like CPU/Graphic card. I want to play games!
Newsflash, the current iMac's deliver excellent performance on recent titles released on OSX. 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme is a decent processor that suits both gaming and multi tasking applications.

- I have a problem with the RAM
You do? Thats strange, the iMac can handle 4GB of ram. Should be enough for any "mid-tower" user. You can even change ram yourself without destroying any warranty or screwing up the entire case, works just as a "mid-tower".

- I want to mess around with Hard drives!
The iMac can serve you a HD up to 1 TB. You can also connect external HD's trough USB or the quicker FireWire 800 port that provides you excellent HD speed. Should suit your "mid-tower" needs pretty well.

Things that would be superior on a iMac compared to a "mid-tower".
A mid tower would likely loose the IR function. (front row going down)
Integrated iSight camera going down!
A lot more mess with cables !
Not following Apples out of the box standard when it comes to consumer products.

So what are actually the benefits of having a "mid-tower"?

 

[hakuryuu]

Quote=
I hope Apple will open OS X to run on 3rd party hardware if they aren't going to build a consumer tower. As it is, the lack of a midtower is forcing PC users to use hacked versions of the OS on their systems.
/



I never really get this whole mid-tower thing. It seems like people have these patches on their eyes that make them blind. Just because they have been using a PC since they was born, and they come in a tower setup. They believe that every machine must come in a tower setup, without thinking of what the point of a "tower" really is.

Yes because what is the point? Why not go for a integrated all in one iMac? or a MacPro?
If you decide against a MacPro it is clear that money is the issue.

So you are on a limited budget, why don't you like the iMac?

- I don't like CPU/Graphic card. I want to play games!
Newsflash, the current iMac's deliver excellent performance on recent titles released on OSX. 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme is a decent processor that suits both gaming and multi tasking applications.

- I have a problem with the RAM
You do? Thats strange, the iMac can handle 4GB of ram. Should be enough for any "mid-tower" user. You can even change ram yourself without destroying any warranty or screwing up the entire case, works just as a "mid-tower".

- I want to mess around with Hard drives!
The iMac can serve you a HD up to 1 TB. You can also connect external HD's trough USB or the quicker FireWire 800 port that provides you excellent HD speed. Should suit your "mid-tower" needs pretty well.

Things that would be superior on a iMac compared to a "mid-tower".
A mid tower would likely loose the IR function. (front row going down)
Integrated iSight camera going down!
A lot more mess with cables !
Not following Apples out of the box standard when it comes to consumer products.

So what are actually the benefits of having a "mid-tower"?

The video card in the iMac is nowhere near what you need for more up to date games at all. The gaming selection on OS X isn't exactly as dependent on having a newer generation card and most people wanting to game on a Mac plan on loading windows for new games which are video card dependent. The processor isn't as much of an issue though a single quad core chip based system would be ideal.

This point alone is reason enough to not want an iMac. I am waiting on a processor and video card update to the Mac Pro myself because even though I want a more mid range piece of hardware instead of going low end(iMac) or high end(Mac Pro), I know that middle ground isn't coming any time soon.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I hope Apple will open OS X to run on 3rd party hardware if they aren't going to build a consumer tower. As it is, the lack of a midtower is forcing PC users to use hacked versions of the OS on their systems.

Nobody's twisting your arm, for Pete's sake.

I'd argue that, on balance, the current Mac lineup will satisfy 80-90% of the people who play games on theor computer. The hardcore 10-20% (myself included) who would be willing to shell out for silly things like overclocked high-end GPUs and CPUs and goofy Raptor drives with windows on them are on the fringe...Apple's sales juggernaut rolls on undisturbed by our whining, and will continue to do so.

If you are enough of an Apple fan that you're willing to buy a Mac Pro to get good gaming performance (I will, though I need it for professional reasons as well), do so. If you are hung up on the lack of bleeding edge components for cheap DIY gaming towers then build a PC and enjoy your gaming experience...there's no irresistible impulse that is "forcing" people to pirate OSs into buggy, illegal machines.

Whatever you do, just don't buy one of those PC cases shaped like a transformer head.

 

[Eidorian]

If you are enough of an Apple fan that you're willing to buy a Mac Pro to get good gaming performance (I will, though I need it for professional reasons as well), do so. If you are hung up on the lack of bleeding edge components for cheap DIY gaming towers then build a PC and enjoy your gaming experience...there's no irresistible impulse that is "forcing" people to pirate OSs into buggy, illegal machines.

Whatever you do, just don't buy one of those PC cases shaped like a transformer head.

Macbook and a Q6600 minitower. <3

 

[takao]

Yes because what is the point? Why not go for a integrated all in one iMac? or a MacPro?

reason 1: screen included

- I don't like CPU/Graphic card. I want to play games!
Newsflash, the current iMac's deliver excellent performance on recent titles released on OSX. 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme is a decent processor that suits both gaming and multi tasking applications.

newsflash: the CPU hasn't been the limiting factor in PC games since >10 years

- I have a problem with the RAM
You do? Thats strange, the iMac can handle 4GB of ram. Should be enough for any "mid-tower" user. You can even change ram yourself without destroying any warranty or screwing up the entire case, works just as a "mid-tower".

yeah in whooping 2 slots

- I want to mess around with Hard drives!
The iMac can serve you a HD up to 1 TB. You can also connect external HD's trough USB or the quicker FireWire 800 port that provides you excellent HD speed. Should suit your "mid-tower" needs pretty well.

how much does a fw800 case for external harddisks cost ? are there actually any available without integrated harddisk ?
also external devices clutter up the desktop with way more cables

that said i agree the iMac is a great computer but it's a computer aimed at my mother

 

[network23]

I never really get this whole mid-tower thing. It seems like people have these patches on their eyes that make them blind. Just because they have been using a PC since they was born, and they come in a tower setup. They believe that every machine must come in a tower setup, without thinking of what the point of a "tower" really is.

I owned Macs long before I bought my first "PC". In 11 years, there has never been a time where a Mac was not in my house. To me, a "tower" is a computer without a built-in monitor.

Yes because what is the point? Why not go for a integrated all in one iMac? or a MacPro?
If you decide against a MacPro it is clear that money is the issue.

Don't assume you know my budgetary parameters. I will most likely buy a Mac Pro if they are announced 11/13, but it will be overkill for my needs.

So you are on a limited budget, why don't you like the iMac?

Again, not on a limited budget.

Singlemost reason? I already have two monitors. I don't want to pay for an expensive built-in peripheral I don't need.

- I don't like CPU/Graphic card. I want to play games!
Newsflash, the current iMac's deliver excellent performance on recent titles released on OSX. 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme is a decent processor that suits both gaming and multi tasking applications.

Yes, I do want to play Windows games. Funny how you talk about the CPU and not the graphics card. I am really not sure how the iMac card compares to the current line of graphic cards.

- I have a problem with the RAM
You do? Thats strange, the iMac can handle 4GB of ram. Should be enough for any "mid-tower" user. You can even change ram yourself without destroying any warranty or screwing up the entire case, works just as a "mid-tower".

I may be wrong, but I think the iMac uses laptop-formfactor memory cards which are more expensive than same-size standard memory cards. Again, I'd be paying more for something I shouldn't need to.

- I want to mess around with Hard drives!
The iMac can serve you a HD up to 1 TB. You can also connect external HD's trough USB or the quicker FireWire 800 port that provides you excellent HD speed. Should suit your "mid-tower" needs pretty well.

Hard drives are not an issue for me.

Things that would be superior on a iMac compared to a "mid-tower".
A mid tower would likely loose the IR function. (front row going down)

This would not be my HTPC, so no need for Front Row

Integrated iSight camera going down!

I have my own external iSight.

A lot more mess with cables !
Not following Apples out of the box standard when it comes to consumer products.

Same cable issue that comes with the Mac Pro. Hmmm, same "out-of-box standard" too.

So what are actually the benefits of having a "mid-tower"?

See above.

 

[Silverhawk]

I can't stress enough that if Apple is really serious about the Gaming segment, the should dump the Mac Mini and really fill in that huge gap from iMac to Mac Pro.

They claimed they would try to get more games over to the Mac (with EA to support this move, even though major delays on their promised titles)

I know this topic is beaten like a dead horse but seriously us gamers would like to have the power of the iMac 24" internally (option included an Intel Core2 Extreme chip!!!) but not have an all in one like Mac Pro with self upgradeable capabilities.

 

[krunk]

- I don't like CPU/Graphic card. I want to play games!
Newsflash, the current iMac's deliver excellent performance on recent titles released on OSX. 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme is a decent processor that suits both gaming and multi tasking applications.

Excellent if you play pong. The card in the previous version of the iMac (7900 GT) out performs the 2600 HD (current card) in every single game. Not by "negligible" levels either, the 2600's are 25-100% slower then the older iMacs...even with their faster CPU speeds (a clear indication of a video card bottleneck).

In this category, the new iMac is the very definition of a downgrade with frame rates at the "borderline playable" level for current games. That means the next round of games will likely be "unplayable".

So, to be completely fair. The more accurate statement would be:

Newsflash, the current iMacs solidly economy/budget performance on current mac game titles. If anyone plans on playing new titles on this machine for the next year or two, they should think twice. Especially given the inability to upgrade gpu's for future titles.

barefeats.com source of all benchmarking claims.

 

[Mackilroy]

Excellent if you play pong. The card in the previous version of the iMac (7900 GT) out performs the 2600 HD (current card) in every single game. Not by "negligible" levels either, the 2600's are 25-100% slower then the older iMacs...even with their faster CPU speeds (a clear indication of a video card bottleneck).

That's a 7600 GT, not a 7900.

 

[contoursvt]

Maybe you're the one thats 'blind' since you just cant seem to get it. Let me break it down for you.

mid tower = computer that can support add on PCI / PCI-E slots which means the ability to upgrade internal components which are not pathetic weak notebook based items. If I'm not mistaken, the FSB on the iMac CPUs are 800Mhz vs 1333Mhz for the new desktop ones. 99% of new desktop boards are expandable to 8GB using cheaper RAM. I can have 8GB for the price the the laptop 4GB RAM.

mid tower = additional hard drive space without the need to sprawl out boxes and cables on a desk. Externals are slower and in general cause drives to run hotter than internal drives in a mid tower case...one that has proper cooling as opposed to the hard drive frying oven which is the imac.

mid tower = the proper thermal surroundings to support real fast and powerful desktop PCI-E cards such as the 8800 series which are about 10x faster than whats in an imac. Same goes for the power supply. The imac will have the necessary power supply to barely run itself let alone be able to support anything else even if a card could be used (unless you want an external power supply the size of a toaster).

mid tower = no built in monitor. When you grow tired of your imac monitor and want a new one, you need to throw your imac in the garbage or waste time wheeling and dealing trying to pawn it off on someone. If the monitor dies, then you're toast anyway unless you like the *ss raping that is soon to follow if the machine is out of warranty.

mid tower = the ability to keep a good monitor and be able to change the computer. I still run the same pair of 21" Trinitron screens from like '1999 and they are still fantastic. I've changed computers 3 times since then. Imagine having to replace monitors every one of those times and possibly getting something thats even worse (ie glossy reflective panels anyone)

Quote=

I never really get this whole mid-tower thing. It seems like people have these patches on their eyes that make them blind. Just because they have been using a PC since they was born, and they come in a tower setup. They believe that every machine must come in a tower setup, without thinking of what the point of a "tower" really is.

Yes because what is the point? Why not go for a integrated all in one iMac? or a MacPro?
If you decide against a MacPro it is clear that money is the issue.

So you are on a limited budget, why don't you like the iMac?

- I don't like CPU/Graphic card. I want to play games!
Newsflash, the current iMac's deliver excellent performance on recent titles released on OSX. 2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme is a decent processor that suits both gaming and multi tasking applications.

- I have a problem with the RAM
You do? Thats strange, the iMac can handle 4GB of ram. Should be enough for any "mid-tower" user. You can even change ram yourself without destroying any warranty or screwing up the entire case, works just as a "mid-tower".

- I want to mess around with Hard drives!
The iMac can serve you a HD up to 1 TB. You can also connect external HD's trough USB or the quicker FireWire 800 port that provides you excellent HD speed. Should suit your "mid-tower" needs pretty well.

Things that would be superior on a iMac compared to a "mid-tower".
A mid tower would likely loose the IR function. (front row going down)
Integrated iSight camera going down!
A lot more mess with cables !
Not following Apples out of the box standard when it comes to consumer products.

So what are actually the benefits of having a "mid-tower"?

 

[contoursvt]

That's a 7600 GT, not a 7900.

And the 7600GT still absolutely slaughters the 2600 in nearly everything and its got a considerably slower CPU too!
http://www.barefeats.com/imacal.html

 

[Lord Blackadder]

And the 7600GT still absolutely slaughters the 2600 in nearly everything and its got a considerably slower CPU too!
http://www.barefeats.com/imacal.html

...but mature drivers (which make a HUGE difference) and no DX 10 support...

But I do agree that the HD 2600 is, at least currently, a step down from the 7600GT