Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
That's a joke right? A 1.25 G4 was a dinosaur compared to what intel what putting out.

Ummm... I'm not talking about Intel here. That 1.25 G4 was exactly what everyone is talking about - a headless, expandable iMac. The iMacs at the time ranged from 1.0 to 1.25 GHz (they were still G4s) and were considerably less flexible than the G4s. And guess what, the "headless iMac" debate is as old as the iMac G3. G5 iMacs didn't appear until well after the G4 towers were discontinued in mid 2004.

Also, its debatable how "prehistoric" a 1.25 GHz G4 would be compared to Intel offerings at the time. Remember, the whole point of the Core Duos was to reverse the ancient rotting horrible unsightly marketing-driven architectural path Intel had gone down with the Pentium 4s... hence the significantly lower clock speed upon CD's introduction. The G4s were available with dual processors back then, and seeing as how the dual processor G4s had been available (and quite popular) since 2000, much of the Mac OS and many Mac apps were well optimized for them... something that certainly could not be said about any iteration of the Pentium 4.

Ah, fond memories of the PPC vs. x86 days... those were fun times.
 
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.

Well, I would say I'm almost CONSTANTLY downloading something, plus I set myself to Busy on msn so I can be contacted, but not disturbed.

I also use the application Alarm Clock to get me up! So it's quite convenient for me to keep my Mac on!
 
im also in that group , why open my computer? I only open it to clean up from times to times or upgrade the RAM , ect.
 
I would LOVE a "headless iMac"

Here is my dilemma: I use Final Cut Pro and I will continue to use Final Cut Pro until they stop making it. Period.

I like the suite, I get a student discount, and I like the Mac OS better than M$'s POS.

Now I have had a PowerBook G4 for exactly 3 years this Jan. 1st. And the only problem I have ever had with this machine was when 10.4.10 KOed Final Cut, which was fixt with a simple downgrade.

Now I want, no NEED, a newer machine to keep up with the times, and my APP is done.


I do not need a laptop again, so I was going back and forth between the Mac Mini and the iMac. The Mac Pro has too much power. Yeah, I said it. I'm not making a two hour movie or documentary so I do not need 2TB of storage space of 16GB of ram. I just dont.

Now the iMacs only come in a glossy screen, which I hate, and the Mac Mini's have an integrated GPU so Final Cut and a lot of games will not even run on it. Great.

So now I am left with having to get a laptop on a stand, which I would just have to settle for.

If there was a headless iMac, it would be a great replacement for the Mac Mini and fit nicely into their scheme. Right now I see the line up as going like this for their desktops: Mac Mini | iMac | Mac Pro

If they did some upgrading to the Mini, gave it a bit better processor, I mean 2.0 is fine but 2.0 and 2.4 options would be nice, up to 4GB of RAM, same video card as in 20in iMac options I could see this line up working:

iMac | New Mac Mini | Mac Pro.

Apple would be wise to kind of market the new Mac Mini still as that PC replacement computer, but give it some more under the hood.

I think now a days if people are gonna switch to a Mac, they are gonna get a Mac Book. Because it seems more 'flexible' and it comes in two colors.
 
...and the Mac Mini's have an integrated GPU so Final Cut and a lot of games will not even run on it.

All apps from Final Cut Studio, except Motion, run just fine on Macs with integrated video. This has been discussed a million times in Mac net.
 
Which is because Final Cut Pro and such don't have anything to do with the video card at all. Only Motion does.

OK, and I use Motion, and it does say on apple's website that FCP 6 will not work with GPU's that are apart of the Intel MOBOS's

An AGP or PCI Express Quartz Extreme graphics card (Final Cut Studio is not compatible with integrated Intel graphics processors)

That was directly from apple's website.
 
OK, and I use Motion...

Motion is a pro software and you are expecting it to work an a 600$ etry-level machine?

Use are using 1300$ software and cant buy a Mac that was made specifically to run such demanding apps?

:rolleyes:
 
Motion is a pro software and you are expecting it to work an a 600$ etry-level machine?

Use are using 1300$ software and cant buy a Mac that was made specifically to run such demanding apps?

:rolleyes:

So is Final Cut, and since I have a student discount it is $700 software, and for what I am doing with the software I do not need the power of a Mac Pro, I just don't need it, its wasted money.

And I don't own a Mac Mini, I have a PowerBook, which has about the same specs of the iMac's of its day...btw.
 
So is Final Cut, and since I have a student discount it is $700 software, and for what I am doing with the software I do not need the power of a Mac Pro, I just don't need it, its wasted money.

Motion and FCP both require as much power as your computer can give.
 
Desktops should be flexible. I should be able to get a new monitor without buying a new computer. I should be able to get a new CD drive without buying a new computer. I should be able to get a new graphics card without buying a new computer. The list goes on.

Right now the only Mac that can offers that is the Powermac, which has a $2499 starting price. Apple needs to make these capabilities more accessible, and stop treating its customers like dupes.

I don't necessarily disagree with some of the things you're saying here, but you also have to be very careful what you wish for.

Changing graphics cards, optical drives, and other components at will now means more configurations that OS/X has to run, and run well. Who is supposed to support that, Apple? Third party vendors? Do we then get into the finger-pointing BS between companies when something doesn't go quite right.

That's one of the biggest reasons why I switched AWAY from Wintel and to a Mac.

And when Apple introduces a new OS, will it have to run on everybody's configuration out there? There's a perfectly good reason why Microsoft takes eons to release a new OS when Apple comes out with one every couple of years or so.

And let's be quite honest here - Apple WANTS you to buy a new system from them every few years. They want to entice you with new hardware and software features put together in a beautiful package that will make you forget about your old system. That's their business model. It does them no good for you to hold onto 3 year old hardware, making component manufacturers rich by upgrading video cards, hard drives, optical drives, etc., then fielding questions why problems arise with all those configurations.

Apple is about "just working." Don't spend money on Tech Support fixing issues, but rather R&D developing new solutions. This - IMO - is the essence of "think different."

An open mini-tower that will ultimately be compared to sub $700 Windows towers having little to no margins, with the potential to create more tech support issues just won't happen. I just don't see Apple opening themselves up to this.

The compromise, IMO, is easy accessibility to the stuff that users would and could upgrade themselves over time - RAM and hard drives (which also don't require drivers) - and everything else built to high quality standards that lasts the life of the machine (say 3-5 years.)

Open MacPro configurations are different because 1) they are going into higher-end professional markets where they keep their systems longer and require flexible configurations and 2) they have budgets and willing to spend money with maintenance contracts and upgrade strategies.

Give me a Mac Mini with fairly easy access to memory and hard drive (like my Macbook), HDMI output, external expandability, and enough balls to run whatever software Apple will come up with over the next three years and I'll be happy.

Keep those Windows issues on their side.
 
Motion and FCP both require as much power as your computer can give.

I have used Final Cut on everything from a 867mhz Power Mac G4 to a 2Ghz PowerMac G5 tower with 2gig of RAM, and it is not worth the extra grand, grand and a half, two grand to take render time from an hour to 45minutes, it just isn't. Sure its nice to have that raw power ready to go, but 9 times out of 10 that power is not being used. If you have a 15 line timeline it is gonna be sluggish on whatever you have.

I run the FCP Suite that has FCP 4 HD, the original Motion, DVD Studio Pro 3, Live Type and Soundtrack without a problem on my PowerBook, but I want something with an intel processor and is ready for the future of computing. Right now I see an excellent chance for a headless iMac to come back on the scene with people getting into video production through sights like YouTube, MetaCafe, etc.

Changing graphics cards, optical drives, and other components at will now means more configurations that OS/X has to run, and run well. Who is supposed to support that, Apple? Third party vendors? Do we then get into the finger-pointing BS between companies when something doesn't go quite right.

That's one of the biggest reasons why I switched AWAY from Wintel and to a Mac.


Exactly, but I think there are options out there that have a good middle ground. I don't see why Apple cannot have a Mac Mini that is basically the guts of a Mac Book Pro. The iMac is basically a bigger MBP and they would be smart to offer something that does not have a screen attached to it with that much power.

The way I see it is that two types of people use Macs; Grandmas and Media Professionals. The Grandma types that dont know their gigabyte from a hole in the wall want products like the Mac Book and iMac, things that offer an all in one package with no fuss.

Media Professionals want the comfort that is just going to work, but still have the raw power to get ***** done. This is where products like the MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, and a beefier Mac Mini would satisfy that need.
 
The way I see it is that two types of people use Macs; Grandmas and Media Professionals. The Grandma types that dont know their gigabyte from a hole in the wall want products like the Mac Book and iMac, things that offer an all in one package with no fuss.

Media Professionals want the comfort that is just going to work, but still have the raw power to get ***** done. This is where products like the MacBook Pro, Mac Pro, and a beefier Mac Mini would satisfy that need.

I know A LOT of media professionals who use iMacs, Mac minis and MacBooks.

Not every Pro needs a Mac with "Pro" at the end of the name. ALL of them are satisfied with Macs they have.

BTW, what would you want to upgrade in a Mac tower?

RAM beyond 4 GB? Only very high-end tasks require that much RAM. You shouldn't be using a consumer tower if 4 GB ram isn't enough for you.

A graphics card? You know that the graphics card upgrade in Mac towers is very limited - only 1-2 cards available, and those cost 3-4 more than PC versions.

2 hard drives? Is probably nice, especially if you dont like having external drive on your desk. But don't expect more than 2 HDs option, or it will be very close to MP with it's 4 drive bays.

CPU? Current CPUs change their sockets too fast. (for example you can't upgrade a Core Duo to Core 2 Quad, while upgrading to a Core 2 Duo isnt worth it)

And by the time you need to upgrade your Mac, it would probably be cheaper to get a new one instead. You also dont need to throw away your old one - just sell it. There are a lot of people who would buy a Mac that is 2 or 3 years old because they don't need the latest and greatest for their needs.
 
OK I think what Im not communicating is that I dont want to upgrade, I want to buy what is going to work.

I would be perfectly happy with the current guts of a 2.4GHz iMac with 2GB of RAM in a Mac Mini. In fact, if the computer held up for long enough, I would keep it forever and a day. I know that a machine like that could handle FCP 6, and I can boot into Windows b/c of the Intel chip.

And i'm sure that people are happy with their MB's and iMacs, I never said they would be. But granny is not gonna buy a Mac Pro, and the analogy was just used to separate the two classes of computer users as I see them.
 
OK I think what Im not communicating is that I dont want to upgrade, I want to buy what is going to work.

I would be perfectly happy with the current guts of a 2.4GHz iMac with 2GB of RAM in a Mac Mini. In fact, if the computer held up for long enough, I would keep it forever and a day. I know that a machine like that could handle FCP 6, and I can boot into Windows b/c of the Intel chip.

So your only problem is the screen of the iMac?

Because the only advantage of having a tower is that you can easily upgrade it.
 
So your only problem is the screen of the iMac?

Because the only advantage of having a tower is that you can easily upgrade it.

Only advantage. That the main and best advantage. I mean if screen dies it coats 1000 dollars or so. Even 500 is a lot since I got my 19 inch wide lcd for only 200.

Plus I don't want to pay a 1000 dollars for a computer and then

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/11/30/imac.screen.failure/

the screen fails. Especially since most things tend to fail right after the warentee expires.

At least my mini allows me to upgrade the screen if it breaks. Its not built-in. It is also 400 cheaper but at least if it breaks I'm not stuck with a bad computer and I can just buy a new LCD.

Now if I could just replace the video card and cpu I'd be set. Plus HD ram and other thing that'll eventually break are not user serviceable in a imac either and who knows how much that'll be. Plus laptop hds are more expensive also.

You can do it your self but if you break anything you void the warentee.

So it'd be nice to do it all my self like I do my custom buit PCs. Instead of paying a huge premium to replace things that only the factory or apple can do now adays.

ivnj
 
Only advantage. That the main and best advantage. I mean if screen dies it coats 1000 dollars or so. Even 500 is a lot since I got my 19 inch wide lcd for only 200.

Plus I don't want to pay a 1000 dollars for a computer and then

http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/11/30/imac.screen.failure/

the screen fails. Especially since most things tend to fail right after the warentee expires.

At least my mini allows me to upgrade the screen if it breaks. Its not built-in. It is also 400 cheaper but at least if it breaks I'm not stuck with a bad computer and I can just buy a new LCD.

Now if I could just replace the video card and cpu I'd be set. Plus HD ram and other thing that'll eventually break are not user serviceable in a imac either and who knows how much that'll be. Plus laptop hds are more expensive also.

You can do it your self but if you break anything you void the warentee.

So it'd be nice to do it all my self like I do my custom buit PCs. Instead of paying a huge premium to replace things that only the factory or apple can do now adays.

ivnj

If Apple doesnt make the screen-less iMac, there is just not enough demand for it. As shown in this thread, Apple did make such Macs before, but they never became popular enough to justify selling it.

It's obvious that the majority of people dont upgrade their computers' internals (many dont even bother with RAM upgrades).

BTW, iMacs have desktop HDs.
 
If Apple doesnt make the screen-less iMac, there is just not enough demand for it.

Lies. There is enough demand to keep the Mini around for 2 years, and it was a rush job to get a computer under $800 out and about in the beginning. I think Apple is priming themselves to either give the Mini a real GPU or just redo the whole midrange computer idea.

I see the Mac Pro as an headless iMac.

Then you are seriously uninformated. The Mac Pro has WAY more power and expansion options than an All-in-Wonder.
 
If Apple doesnt make the screen-less iMac, there is just not enough demand for it. As shown in this thread, Apple did make such Macs before, but they never became popular enough to justify selling it.

It's obvious that the majority of people dont upgrade their computers' internals (many dont even bother with RAM upgrades).

BTW, iMacs have desktop HDs.

There may not have been enough demand for such products back in the PPC days, but that was before you could run windows natively. Whether that changes things to the degree that Apple would be willing to put something out only time will tell, but it definatly changes the playing field from before.

I think the most likely thing that could happen in the next year is a single processor (quad core) "Mac Pro", but even that seems unlikely.
 
After all the pros and cons ... there still is gap in the Apple line up.

In my wife's office, they all have dual screen setups. (PCs)

MacPros can handle dual screen, but are big and expensive for this task.
MacMini can't do dual screen, otherwise would be fine.
iMac can do dual screen but the second screen doesn't look like the primary screen (iMac). This would look like a patch job.
 
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.
I never leave my computers (Macs & Windows) on overnight. Electronic components are like light bulbs, they only have a certain time life, so I preserve mine by shutting down. There is also the problem of memory fragmentation (now called memory leakage). The only way to recover the memory fragmentation is to restart the computer. Even though I am a Mac fanatic, I find that Windows recovers from memory fragmentation much better than a Mac without the need to restart.
 
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...

The start up time? Say what? Start up time of 45 seconds is too much time to wait?

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?
You must not have seen the performance charts of processors. There is not one AMD processor that is faster than the slowest Core 2 Duo in an iMac for the price you are indicating.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.