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.
Would you buy a midrange mac tower?
- Thread starter iMacZealot
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wouldn't buy it for $2000, no. for $300 more (2500-200 amazon rebate) I could have a mac pro at my door. the only disadvantage after that is the ram costs 1.8x as much.
Anyone who thinks towers are 'too PC-ish' needs to take a step back, release a few pounds of zealotry, then reconsider. Towers exist because they're efficient, versatile, inexpensive and well suited for expansion. Apple can make them look like Macs, please suck it up and realize that PCs have an advantage: price. For most computer users, this is the #1 reason they don't own a mac.
For 1500 I'd probably abandon my savings for a mac pro, and suggest it to other people as well. The problem with the lack of a consumer tower can be illustrated perfectly by my family's experience:
In 2001 I was in college, and my family needed a new computer. I suggested an Apple, and for their budget, an iMac G3 was really the only option. The cheapest model was $999, or about $1250 with ram and HDD upgrades (that I would do for them, not from apple). They didn't take my advice though, and got a dell with an early Pentium 4 1.8 for the same price with 17" monitor and printer.
Time passed, windows ME was a complete &$*#(&&ing disaster, so my mother got XP through her school for about $35.
Time passed, HDD filled up with music of my sister's. OK, i supplemented the 40G HDD with another 80G drive for about $100 in 2003.
Time passed, computer slowed down, I threw in 2 256mb sticks of pc2100 for about $110 in 2003, to make 640. Much improvement.
Time passed, gave my mother a Nikon D50, drives full again. No problem, took out the second CD drive that no one used and threw in a 200G HDD for $100 in 2005.
Time passed, graphics card started giving some static after the cat got tangled in the cords behind the machine. No problem, bought a $40 AGP card from newegg and we're back in business.
3 family members still use the computer daily, photoshop elements still runs fine, and now my sister uses her laptop to browse her photos and enormous music collection on the desktop, print etc. They're thinking of giving it to my grandparents whose ancient computer finally died, but if they buy a new computer they already have a monitor, giving them many more (and cheaper) options. I may end up donating my Sempron Linux server to the cause when, someday, I blow all my savings on a Mac Pro which can hold the 3HDDs currently in the server.
Moral of the story: if they had bought the Mac as I suggested, they would have needed at least 2 external drives at increased price and decreased performance, still would have needed to buy OS 10.3 or more for compatibility, would have had to tear the whole thing apart to add ram (and wouldn't have been able to use more than 2 sticks), and would have been SOL if anything like a graphics card died inside.
yup, the upgrades cost money, a little under $400 over the years, but that's somewhat less than it would cost to keep an iMac usable, and a whoooole lot less than a new computer. The dell is pretty hideous, but it's been a great computer for them and still has another few years of life in it. The 500mhz iMac would be pretty darn close to useless at this point, my girlfriend has a very similar model and despite its 768mb of ram, it sits in her childhood bedroom collecting dust next to a performa.
Moral: A desktop tower with expandability options is a much smarter investment in the long term than an all-in-one.
If you sell your computer after 2-3 years, buy an all-in-one.
If you need a small form factor for a tight place, buy an all-in-one.
If you want a pretty design with a nice monitor built right in, buy an all-in-one.
These are proper uses for an all-in-one, but these examples only describe a part of the desktop market, perhaps 50%. The other 50% would prefer a cheaper alternative and/or one that will hold up better in the long-term.
It should be noted that I own (OK, fine, my girlfriend owns it) an iMac 20" CD and thoroughly enjoy it. But I would have advised a desktop and 20" dell monitor if one had been available with similar-to-iMac specs, price and just a few other options (2 HDDs, 4 memory slots).
Anyone who thinks towers are 'too PC-ish' needs to take a step back, release a few pounds of zealotry, then reconsider. Towers exist because they're efficient, versatile, inexpensive and well suited for expansion. Apple can make them look like Macs, please suck it up and realize that PCs have an advantage: price. For most computer users, this is the #1 reason they don't own a mac.
For 1500 I'd probably abandon my savings for a mac pro, and suggest it to other people as well. The problem with the lack of a consumer tower can be illustrated perfectly by my family's experience:
In 2001 I was in college, and my family needed a new computer. I suggested an Apple, and for their budget, an iMac G3 was really the only option. The cheapest model was $999, or about $1250 with ram and HDD upgrades (that I would do for them, not from apple). They didn't take my advice though, and got a dell with an early Pentium 4 1.8 for the same price with 17" monitor and printer.
Time passed, windows ME was a complete &$*#(&&ing disaster, so my mother got XP through her school for about $35.
Time passed, HDD filled up with music of my sister's. OK, i supplemented the 40G HDD with another 80G drive for about $100 in 2003.
Time passed, computer slowed down, I threw in 2 256mb sticks of pc2100 for about $110 in 2003, to make 640. Much improvement.
Time passed, gave my mother a Nikon D50, drives full again. No problem, took out the second CD drive that no one used and threw in a 200G HDD for $100 in 2005.
Time passed, graphics card started giving some static after the cat got tangled in the cords behind the machine. No problem, bought a $40 AGP card from newegg and we're back in business.
3 family members still use the computer daily, photoshop elements still runs fine, and now my sister uses her laptop to browse her photos and enormous music collection on the desktop, print etc. They're thinking of giving it to my grandparents whose ancient computer finally died, but if they buy a new computer they already have a monitor, giving them many more (and cheaper) options. I may end up donating my Sempron Linux server to the cause when, someday, I blow all my savings on a Mac Pro which can hold the 3HDDs currently in the server.
Moral of the story: if they had bought the Mac as I suggested, they would have needed at least 2 external drives at increased price and decreased performance, still would have needed to buy OS 10.3 or more for compatibility, would have had to tear the whole thing apart to add ram (and wouldn't have been able to use more than 2 sticks), and would have been SOL if anything like a graphics card died inside.
yup, the upgrades cost money, a little under $400 over the years, but that's somewhat less than it would cost to keep an iMac usable, and a whoooole lot less than a new computer. The dell is pretty hideous, but it's been a great computer for them and still has another few years of life in it. The 500mhz iMac would be pretty darn close to useless at this point, my girlfriend has a very similar model and despite its 768mb of ram, it sits in her childhood bedroom collecting dust next to a performa.
Moral: A desktop tower with expandability options is a much smarter investment in the long term than an all-in-one.
If you sell your computer after 2-3 years, buy an all-in-one.
If you need a small form factor for a tight place, buy an all-in-one.
If you want a pretty design with a nice monitor built right in, buy an all-in-one.
These are proper uses for an all-in-one, but these examples only describe a part of the desktop market, perhaps 50%. The other 50% would prefer a cheaper alternative and/or one that will hold up better in the long-term.
It should be noted that I own (OK, fine, my girlfriend owns it) an iMac 20" CD and thoroughly enjoy it. But I would have advised a desktop and 20" dell monitor if one had been available with similar-to-iMac specs, price and just a few other options (2 HDDs, 4 memory slots).
The 9600 and the G3 still look better than most of today's towers.
IF and WHEN Apple release a prosumer machine is when im buying another Mac.
DOn't want to be stuck with another closed system like the iMac again.
IF and WHEN Apple release a prosumer machine is when im buying another Mac.
DOn't want to be stuck with another closed system like the iMac again.
No.
If I did the only reason would be to have a system that is upgradable. I think Apple should just make the iMac upgradable, but they won't.
For me, a mid-range system means that the computer will do more than I need it to do (for low requirement applications like web-browsers) or it will be underpowered for high-end applications (graphics). I'm saving my pennies for a MacPro.
If I did the only reason would be to have a system that is upgradable. I think Apple should just make the iMac upgradable, but they won't.
For me, a mid-range system means that the computer will do more than I need it to do (for low requirement applications like web-browsers) or it will be underpowered for high-end applications (graphics). I'm saving my pennies for a MacPro.
Memory and CPU are upgradeable in every computer. Those aren't relevant, especially since the iMac could be socketed or the headless iMac could be soldered. As for graphics cards, there aren't that many for Macs to begin with, but I'd certainly welcome the option. I don't think there's enough demand to justify a change, though, from a business perspective.
With improvements in integrated graphics and programmable GPUs as we have now, there's even less incentive to offer an expansion slot for low- to mid-range products.
Thats funny as heck, Dell & HP are thriving selling these, the only reason Apples Market is Narrow is because they have forced this issue by all in ones and workstations and no mid grade towers. Hard to have a market for a product you dont make and dont want to so you can sell your all in ones. Displays last for years, longer then the computer.
Your story is a perfect example why I personally find Apple's desktop line lacking as well, but hey, from some other MR members' perspective we are just squares and paper pushers who can't think outside the box.
If being a conformist involves not having to scrap my car because a bird pooped on the roof of it (because it is made with some new fangled "Über Cool" material that disintegrates the minute it goes into a car wash) or own a computer with "no cables" out of the box but requires 20 miles of cables to hook up external drives after a year.... then count me in. Screw "think different" and get your own life and own identity man.
Of course, will Apple care? Apple doesn't care, and again your story is a perfect example. Had they sold an iMac with replaceable graphics cards it would have saved you from an unnecessary upgrade (or a $2000 logic board replacement levy whichever you prefer) when a minor component in your computer system dies.
Exactly. Macs are low to mid range performance PeeCees with high performance pricing.
You know, Apple could have prevented a lot of threads like this one if they had used a standard MXM slot on the 24" iMac which they released new cards for.
But noooooooooooooo.
But noooooooooooooo.
really? is that your opinion or is that in a dictionary somewhere? i think it's only as simple as one being one or the other. prosumer is just another fixated word by society to fit 2 ideas into 1 for the simplicity of being lazy.
i think it's defined by money making. if you make money or are paid money, then you're a professional. if you don't, you're a 'consumer'. that is simple.
it doesn't matter what they want to use their machine for. if they're not making money, they're not a professional imho.
i don't know why this bothers me so much, but it really drives me nuts.
i agree. this seems to back it up:
According to Pacific Crest Securities (reported by AppleInsider), Mac sales grew over 100% year over year during the month of January.
The firm based its numbers on recent NPD data which had implied that "year-over-year growth in Mac unit sales accelerated in January to 101 percent, up from 55 percent in December." More specifically, Mac notebook sales jumped 194% year over year in January.
Additionally, the average selling price (ASP) for Macs appears to be increasing, which consequently is increasing revenues for Apple.
stronger avg selling price probably means apple doesn't have to come up with midtower.
regardless of what we think, time will tell
really? is that your opinion or is that in a dictionary somewhere? i think it's only as simple as one being one or the other. prosumer is just another fixated word by society to fit 2 ideas into 1 for the simplicity of being lazy.
i think it's defined by money making. if you make money or are paid money, then you're a professional. if you don't, you're a 'consumer'. that is simple.
it doesn't matter what they want to use their machine for. if they're not making money, they're not a professional imho.
i don't know why this bothers me so much, but it really drives me nuts.
I think a prosumer is someone that demands more than a consumer, but not as much as a professional. I like to consider myself a prosumer. For example, I use Final Cut Express instead of iMovie because I'm demanding more than the average user. I think prosumers also care a little more about what kind of hardware and software they use more than the average consumer who's fine with the lower end MacBooks and iMacs with ComboDrives and slower processors. On the other hand, however, prosumers don't need the power of a Mac Pro, as they are not that demanding.
Now that I've put more thought into it, I guess the prosumer marketspace is narrower than the consumer and professional marketspace. Plus, it'd be hard to make such a product without cannibalizing the sales of the iMac or Mac Pro. And there are some prosumers that are fine with a 24" iMac, for they don't feel expandability is an important factor, but there are prosumers that do. However, the more demanding prosumers still don't demand as much as a professional and can get by with a 2.0 GHz Mac Pro.
I've also realized that when I switched to a mac nearly 3 years ago, I was a consumer and could get by with iMovie. However, two years ago, when I bought my iMac, I began to demand more, so I bought Final Cut Express and became more of a prosumer. However, now, I feel that my iMac is too underpowered, too cramped for storage, and its screen is too small for my needs. Final Cut Express is even beginning to limit me, so I guess I'm turning into more of a professional. So, now that I can use *most* of the power of the Mac Pro and also have the money (or at least will have) to buy one (since I'm now more of a professional and am making a living off my work), it's a better option for me than a 24" iMac or a midrange tower that would probably begin to limit my needs sooner than a Mac Pro. I think prosumers should evaluate whether expandability is important to them and what they can afford, as well as what sort of screen they want. If a prosumer like me a year ago just wants to do FCE work and feel no need for screen upgrade options and can buy a small external hard disk when they need one, then the iMac is still a great option for them. If a prosumer does want to be able to store a lot on their mac and upgrade their screen and get more power than the iMac, then a lower end Mac Pro is a good option for them.
However, I think Apple needs to bring back a smaller pro portable. I was considering on buying a MacBook a month or two ago, but the limited graphics card (than can't run Final Cut Studio) and glossy screen found on the "high end" BlackBook can't replace the 12" PowerBook G4. I know I'd buy a 13" Mac Book Pro with a glossy display in a heartbeat (you know, if I wasn't broke) if Apple offered one. I've come to the conclusion that that is the missing link in Apple's Macintosh lineup.
From the Dictionary app...just to clear things up:
prosumer noun
1 an amateur who purchases equipment with quality or features suitable for professional use : the magazine is aimed at the prosumer who uses a $10,000 camera to make home movies of his dog.
2 a prospective consumer who is involved in the design, manufacture, or development of a product or service : a panel of prosumers weighed in on the plans for the new shampoo.
• a person who designs or produces a product for personal use or for sale : she's a driven prosumer with one idea: to make a better-smelling toothpaste.
• a well-informed and proactive consumer : prosumers read labels, sometimes obsessively.
ORIGIN blend of professional or producer or proactive and consumer.
not at all.
this issue comes up from time to time.
i think what needs to happen is that the word 'prosumer' needs to be tick tacked to a bullseye at a rifle range and shot full of holes.
prosumer, shoshumer! bah!
one is either a 'consumer' or a 'professional'. how in God's name can anyone be in between??? imho, if you make MONEY or use a mac for work, you're a professional. anyone else is a consumer.
[...]
i hate that word
Cheers,
Keebler
Fine, but your solution causes more problems than it solves. For example: I'm a writer, I make my living via OpenOffice documents and deal with editors via web applications, things that use the barest minimum of a computer's ability. Does this make me a Professional Mac User? Hardly. However I (used to and will again--currently between Macs) use my Mac for all sorts of other things that require substantial performance and more versatility than the iMac offers but don't want to spend the dough for a MacPro that offers more than I need. If you don't like "prosumer," what do you want to call people like me and all the others like me on this board?
Both these ideas seem dead-on to me. The market is there, the product makes sense...perhaps the truth may lie the earlier poster's observation that a mid-range headless would hurt MacPro sales, as currently most of the people who really can't get by with an iMac or a maxed-out mini are stuck between Dell and MacPro.
One reason for the limited number of Mac graphics cards is certainly that graphics cards can only be replaced in the top of the line Macs (Mac Pro). So an already small market (Macs) is reduced even further to an even smaller one (Mac Pros).
The only problem is that the variety of producs offered by Apple is very limited. So even people who don't need the power, but other features of the Mac Pro, need to pay for the power of the Mac Pro. Or, in other words, the requirements are more diverse than just the three different lines of desktop computer offered by Apple cover.
Of course for Apple the situation might be fine right now because the some of the customers buying Mac Pros now, would be perfectly fine with a midrange tower as well.
regardless of what we think, time will tell
About that we can certainly agree.
And that's the way it will stay for the foreseeable future. There are always more complex desires than any one company can offer, so it becomes a matter of degrees. Apple has defined itself successfully by carving a niche and sticking to a relatively simple plan. Even in branching out, there are specific limits.
With the iPod, there's no FM radio or feature x that other players boast. The Apple TV is a DVR without a TV tuner. The Mac is a computer without an endless array of minute options. The iPhone isn't a Swiss Army Knife, Mad TV skit aside. They focus on a cohesive, appealing, specific product that does exactly what it's intended to do and does it well. Nothing else is relevant to their pursuit.
The argument that they could pick up another 10,000 customers if only they added option y to product z doesn't work with Apple. They're not out to make everyone happy and they're not aiming to be Microsoft or Dell. If they wanted maximum revenue, they'd be structured completely differently. Instead, they produce great products that work for a lot of people and everyone looking for something else can buy something else. A lot of that is Apple ego channeled from Jobs, but frankly I find it a more satisfying strategy than the pathetic pandering that most businesses undertake.
I buy Apple products when they do what I'm looking for them to do. If Apple doesn't offer what I need, I get it elsewhere (e.g. I have a MythTV setup for my TV recording needs but will buy an
TV for iTunes portability and the convenience of the interface). That's what Apple wants, and that's what's best for me. I don't understand the desire people express for Apple to bend to their wishes as though there's nothing else out there and life as we know it will end if Apple doesn't do something or other.And that's the way it will stay for the foreseeable future. There are always more complex desires than any one company can offer, so it becomes a matter of degrees. Apple has defined itself successfully by carving a niche and sticking to a relatively simple plan. Even in branching out, there are specific limits.
With the iPod, there's no FM radio or feature x that other players boast. The Apple TV is a DVR without a TV tuner. The Mac is a computer without an endless array of minute options. The iPhone isn't a Swiss Army Knife, Mad TV skit aside. They focus on a cohesive, appealing, specific product that does exactly what it's intended to do and does it well. Nothing else is relevant to their pursuit.
The argument that they could pick up another 10,000 customers if only they added option y to product z doesn't work with Apple. They're not out to make everyone happy and they're not aiming to be Microsoft or Dell. If they wanted maximum revenue, they'd be structured completely differently. Instead, they produce great products that work for a lot of people and everyone looking for something else can buy something else. A lot of that is Apple ego channeled from Jobs, but frankly I find it a more satisfying strategy than the pathetic pandering that most businesses undertake.
I buy Apple products when they do what I'm looking for them to do. If Apple doesn't offer what I need, I get it elsewhere (e.g. I have a MythTV setup for my TV recording needs but will buy an
Wow...help yourself to another cup of Apple-flavored Kool-Aid
.Seriously, interseting post, but I think it's a bit much to suggest that Apple is interested in anything BUT "maximum revenue." Are they a 1000X more interesting, creative, dynamic and fun than Microsoft? Hell yeah...but they're in it for the money first and foremost. Nothing wrong with that, but no use suggesting we're dealing with an artists' cooperative here.
I also think one of Apple's great strengths--in fact the only thing that kept it alive during the lean years--is the willingness to take risks in attacking and creating new markets where other companies dare not tread, and one can make a convincing argument that a wacky and interesting headless Mac could go where the Shuttle (by Soltek, I think) form factor was not able to in the PC world. From this perspective it's got Apple written all over it...
While Ive found the bickering about prosumer to be highly entertaining, Im also intrigued by those who insist that Apple is ignoring the mid-range headless market because it would cannibalize sales of either the iMac or the MacPro.
Apple, like all good companies, should be interested in profit, not in protecting the popularity of its product lines as if they were children. If there are more dollars to be made by introducing a mid-range system they should do so.
Do you really believe that all of the folks desiring the mid-range simply choose from either the iMac or the Pro? Many do nothing while others stick with a Windows machine.
If marginal profits are similar, Apple should want to serve this slice of the market as well as those it already has. Their profits and market share will both increase. Its that simple.
Of course I dont want them to have 57 flavors of machines (like Dell, HP, and many others) but there is obviously a gap in their product line or else we wouldnt be discussing this (over and over and over...).
Just my $.02.
Apple, like all good companies, should be interested in profit, not in protecting the popularity of its product lines as if they were children. If there are more dollars to be made by introducing a mid-range system they should do so.
Do you really believe that all of the folks desiring the mid-range simply choose from either the iMac or the Pro? Many do nothing while others stick with a Windows machine.
If marginal profits are similar, Apple should want to serve this slice of the market as well as those it already has. Their profits and market share will both increase. Its that simple.
Of course I dont want them to have 57 flavors of machines (like Dell, HP, and many others) but there is obviously a gap in their product line or else we wouldnt be discussing this (over and over and over...).
Just my $.02.
Seems that the problem is the price not the machines. Mac make it easy for moderate users to have a nice system. If your a pro then get a Pro.
Remember that the prosumer machine 2 yrs ago was the G5 1.8. It was sub $2000, while the dual 2.0 and dual 2.3, were the definite pro machine. They dropped the single G5 from the lineup at some point. Aside from the FB-DIMM price issue, if the Mac Pro came in a Quad 2.66 and 3.0 but the low end was offered as a Dual Core 2.0 rather than a Quad Core 2.0, they could price it sub $2000. But still I don't need 4 HDD bays, 16GB of expensive RAM, or a tower that big, but I do want a 23" ACD and something bigger than the Mini with a notebook drive.
