Could be done with desktop hardware (p35 / x38 mainboard), ddr2 (dirt cheap) instead of fbdimm and such. I would welcome such an entry level model bc it wouldn´t be entry model at all. QuadCore Penryn, 8Gig DDR2 cap, possibly 8800 /3870 VGA option. Apple can definitely do it for 1500. Whether they do it is another question.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will Apple come out with a desktop called the "Mac"?
- Thread starter ErikAndre
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Could be done with desktop hardware (p35 / x38 mainboard), ddr2 (dirt cheap) instead of fbdimm and such. I would welcome such an entry level model bc it wouldn´t be entry model at all. QuadCore Penryn, 8Gig DDR2 cap, possibly 8800 /3870 VGA option. Apple can definitely do it for 1500. Whether they do it is another question.
1. This is almost exactly what the single processor G5 PowerMac was...and nobody bought it. All they did was complain about it being crippled relative to the PowerMac and over priced relative to the iMac. Search the forums.
2. The cheapest Mac Pro is $2200 when you downgrade the processor, so you are basically there.
I saw a picture of this in an elevator recently. I think we might see this at MWSF.
Fixed again!
Fixed again!
I'd be happy to see something like that appear. But perhaps somewhat larger than that image appears to be (it looks about the same size as the mini looking at that optical drive. Something looking rather like that, but around the size of one of those micro-tower type things which Dell, NEC and others make would be great. Something with a dedicated video slot and other PCI(-ex) via a riser or something, one dual/quad CPU and 4 banks of "normal" RAM - DDR2 I would guess?
You guys are killing me. This has been done: http://www.macworld.com/article/40129/2004/10/powermac.html
The single 1.8 GHz model had four RAM slots for a maximum of 4 GB of RAM, and three 33 MHz, 64-bit PCI slots. The 1.8 GHz model had a 64 NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra card with a single-link DVI and ADC ports, an 8x SuperDrive, a standard 56 kbps modem, and weighed 38 lbs.
And nobody bought it. Nobody wants a "crippled" Mac Pro.
The single 1.8 GHz model had four RAM slots for a maximum of 4 GB of RAM, and three 33 MHz, 64-bit PCI slots. The 1.8 GHz model had a 64 NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra card with a single-link DVI and ADC ports, an 8x SuperDrive, a standard 56 kbps modem, and weighed 38 lbs.
And nobody bought it. Nobody wants a "crippled" Mac Pro.
you can
"Base price 600 or something like that. Then I can add my own memory, vidoe card, etc later when I'm ready. Cuz my mini doesn't allow this without woiding warentee.
ivnj "
you can upgrade the ram in the mini, you just cant break anything in the process, or else you will void the warranty.
"Base price 600 or something like that. Then I can add my own memory, vidoe card, etc later when I'm ready. Cuz my mini doesn't allow this without woiding warentee.
ivnj "
you can upgrade the ram in the mini, you just cant break anything in the process, or else you will void the warranty.
Times have changed. A "crippled" Mac Pro could be quad core from 2.5GHz to 3.16GHz, support 8GB of memory and the same graphics cards used in the MP. Being that those potential specifications outclass the vast majority of current mac workstations out there and will be more than enough for many users who need a workstation I think you'd find people would buy it and it would sell well. Not that I expect to ever see such a thing.
Apple cleaned up the line when Steve came back, we had PowerMac's Performas etc.. it was confusing having so many lines and the naming system was like Dell I like the clean Pro/Consumer lines that Apple has had. I think that simply adding more BTO options for the Mac Pro would be better than adding another line much like the the single G5 PowerMac, I would be happy if they added the core 2 duo extreme as a cheaper BTO option, I dont need 4 Core Xeons.
Excuse me, my cat just so happens to be named Achmed Jan Abdullah AlJazar van der Sloot - do you have a problem with that?
Not at all sir
Please do wish your cat merry christmas! And stay tuned on AlJazar, live, in afganistan.price is not the issue. Size is. At least for me. I don't have a lot of desk spacce. So I don't have room for a PRO tower. So the mini is great. But doesn't have dedicated video which I can live without.
But if all those cute pictures you guys keep making are true. Or at least one of them. Then it would be awsome. Power and size in one neat package. Even if price was 500 more if I was allowed to replace cpu video and other things I can't in my current mini then its worth it.
ivnj
If apple repeated the G5 headless iMac, it wouldn't be a crippled Mac Pro ...
It would be an iMac in a Mac Pro case sold at Mac Pro prices.
At least with the G5 you got the same CPU with the consumer iMac chipset, operating with a slower FSB ...
These days you would need a desktop chipset and a desktop CPU, to really get away from the iMac RAM limit and get you into a nice 8-16GB RAM machine.
Since the iMac is unlikely to switch to a desktop chipset, the chances are bleak for the middle machine -- so far while Apple is concentrating on the Centrinoesque end of the market.
It would be an iMac in a Mac Pro case sold at Mac Pro prices.
At least with the G5 you got the same CPU with the consumer iMac chipset, operating with a slower FSB ...
These days you would need a desktop chipset and a desktop CPU, to really get away from the iMac RAM limit and get you into a nice 8-16GB RAM machine.
Since the iMac is unlikely to switch to a desktop chipset, the chances are bleak for the middle machine -- so far while Apple is concentrating on the Centrinoesque end of the market.
Some people just want to be cheap bastards, and keep their monitor for more than 5 years. Computers nowadays are throw-away, when they start to show their age, just give them away to some charity and have the guts to get a new one. I plan to do this with the 24" iMac I bought two months ago, when a newer better model comes along.
Joking aside, you're all forgetting that for an entire year after the original Power Mac G5s were released we had exactly what everyone asked for in a headless iMac - it was called the Power Mac G4 1.25, which was released around when G5 came out, and continued to be sold for a bargain price of $1299 until June of 2004.
It was big, fast, expandable, and everything that everybody claimed to have wanted, and still nobody bought it.
http://support.apple.com/specs/powermac/Power_Mac_G4_Mirrored_Drive_Doors_2003.html
The "Hardware" section of Apple's web site looked like this in April of 2004:
A very inexpensive eMac was also available at the time.
It's interesting to note the last G4 towers were discontinued merely six months before Apple announced it's planned move to Intel processors.
It was big, fast, expandable, and everything that everybody claimed to have wanted, and still nobody bought it.
http://support.apple.com/specs/powermac/Power_Mac_G4_Mirrored_Drive_Doors_2003.html
The "Hardware" section of Apple's web site looked like this in April of 2004:
A very inexpensive eMac was also available at the time.
It's interesting to note the last G4 towers were discontinued merely six months before Apple announced it's planned move to Intel processors.
Maybe they'd reintroduce the "eMac" name?
Or call it a "Mac Classic", after all they have an iPod Classic, I mean it'd be pretty easy to distinguish from the old Mac Classic anyway
It'd seem odd for them to release a headless Mac now though, so soon after taking the mickey out of PCs with their wires trailing everywhere.
Interesting that they've done it before and nobody bought it, I guess that makes sense. What's pretty unique about Apple's line-up is that if you start at the lower end, even if that's what you wanted to begin with, you tend to think "well for just £/$100 more I could have the next model up which is a *far* better machine", and you tempt yourself into paying the extra. That's why I think they never sold any. They guide you upwards all the time.
Now, if this Mac had something special about it like a particularly cute form factor, it might change this concept. Then again, we had the Cube...
Or call it a "Mac Classic", after all they have an iPod Classic, I mean it'd be pretty easy to distinguish from the old Mac Classic anyway
It'd seem odd for them to release a headless Mac now though, so soon after taking the mickey out of PCs with their wires trailing everywhere.
Interesting that they've done it before and nobody bought it, I guess that makes sense. What's pretty unique about Apple's line-up is that if you start at the lower end, even if that's what you wanted to begin with, you tend to think "well for just £/$100 more I could have the next model up which is a *far* better machine", and you tempt yourself into paying the extra. That's why I think they never sold any. They guide you upwards all the time.
Now, if this Mac had something special about it like a particularly cute form factor, it might change this concept. Then again, we had the Cube...
For all those who already have a screen to use. When people say "headless iMac" they just mean they want iMac's specs but not in a non-upgradeable AIO.
no, that's the whole point about the new mac, you can only turn it on and off with your power cord.. because nobody really turns off their computer anymore
Am I really the only person who turns off my computer. I turn mine off almost every night, and when I don't it's because I'm leting something download over night instead of patiently waiting for it to download in the day. That's maybe once a month or less. Otherwise it goes off everynight I didn't realise that I was unusual in this.
Its really not worth the start up time...the power surge at start up isn't great for the electronics, and it uses about as much power as keeping the Mac on sleep during the night...
That's a joke right? A 1.25 G4 was a dinosaur compared to what intel what putting out. That box should have been less than $1000. The mac mini 1.25 ghz debuted in Jan 2005 for $500.
You can reasonably build a iMac-spec computer for less than $1000. I just put together an AMD system for $600 that likely kicks the crap out of the lower-end iMac. Granted I don't have to pay factory workers, or have my computer shipped to China once I build it, but Apple receives prices less than the retail I paid for my hardware.
Apple won't put out a budget system because the profit margin isn't there. Dell and others are making slim profits on their machines at that price. Why would Apple enter a shrinking market?
