Will Apple ever make this machine?

[vinea]

Huh? If you object having to pay $1000 in extra workstation parts just to get the same capability as a high end PC, you are cheap? This platform is not reserved only for the super wealthy.

Mmm...you mean like super wealthy high school kids that can clear $3K in a summer flipping burgers to get an uber gaming rig (or a really beat up car)?

Those super wealthy folks?

But yes, Apple is a premium brand and more pricey. Not Gulfstream IV pricey though.

Vinea

[vinea]

OSX is worth a lot, but it isn't worth twice the price of a high end PC.

Because $2499 is double the price over $1499? And the Mac Pro will be faster than the "high end" PC you listed with faster clock speed and double the cores.

Or you can get a mini for $600.

Vinea

[BenRoethig]

Mmm...you mean like super wealthy high school kids that can clear $3K in a summer flipping burgers to get an uber gaming rig (or a really beat up car)?

Those super wealthy folks?

But yes, Apple is a premium brand and more pricey. Not Gulfstream IV pricey though.

Vinea

Those high school kids don't have bills to pay like rent/mortage, college loans, auto loan, health insurance, car insurance, food, fuel, water, heat, electrical, cable, phone, cell phone, etc. It would really go up if I had kids. ...and if you want a tower, it's more like Gulfstream V

[vinea]

No it's not and your argument above is silly.


Its silly because comparing the Mac Pro to a semi is less silly? Or simply that you disagree.

Quit acting like Apple makes BMW's, they make mid to upper end consumer computers with the same insides as the other mid to upper end manufacturers, except they make AIO and Mac mini that are less flexible. They get their parts, cpus, harddrives, video chips, wireless chips etc. from the same manufacturers as Dell and HP.

And you say I'm negative about Apple. Yes, I equate Apple to BMW in terms of quality, attention to detail and performance. BMW offers a "driving experience" as Apple offers a "computing experience".

There will always be folks that whine that BMW doesn't offer a car like the WRX that, spec wise, blows the doors off a BMW and is cheaper.

The Mac Pro is powerhouse with the fastest clocked Xeons available on custom EFI motherboards in an elegant case running a superbly tuned operating system.

Damn straight Apple is the BMW or Porsche of the computing world. Power with refinement. If you guys don't even believe that we really have no common ground.

Vinea

[BenRoethig]

Its silly because comparing the Mac Pro to a semi is less silly? Or simply that you disagree.

Vinea

The Mac Pro is a heavy lifter, it's a lot like a commercial duty truck.

[rickag]

Its silly because comparing the Mac Pro to a semi is less silly? Or simply that you disagree.



And you say I'm negative about Apple. Yes, I equate Apple to BMW in terms of quality, attention to detail and performance. BMW offers a "driving experience" as Apple offers a "computing experience".

There will always be folks that whine that BMW doesn't offer a car like the WRX that, spec wise, blows the doors off a BMW and is cheaper.

The Mac Pro is powerhouse with the fastest clocked Xeons available on custom EFI motherboards in an elegant case running a superbly tuned operating system.

Damn straight Apple is the BMW or Porsche of the computing world. Power with refinement. If you guys don't even believe that we really have no common ground.

Vinea
I'm not negative about Apple, heck I have stock in the company, but I'm not blind and I can see failings in Apple.
You're negativity revolves around what Apple can't do. My optimism revolves around what Apple can do, but for reasons neither you nor I know, seems that Apple at present is unwilling to do.
It's silly because you keep using the word whining. It's silly because you keep saying the iMac and Mac mini can be compared to BMWs, when in fact any Windows computer with the same hardware features can be considered BMWs. It's the software that keeps many of us staying with Apple. Many of us do appreciate the build quality of Apple computers, we just object to the narrow focus of Apple's consumer line and are optimistic that Apple could indeed increase market share without sacrificing margins to accomplish this.

The fact that the iMac and Mac mini place a very large part of their focus on desktop space does not make them BMWs and to make this assertion is silly.

[BenRoethig]

I'm not negative about Apple, heck I have stock in the company, but I'm not blind and I can see failings in Apple.
You're negativity revolves around what Apple can't do. My optimism revolves around what Apple can do, but for reasons neither you nor I know, seems that Apple at present is unwilling to do.
It's silly because you keep using the word whining. It's silly because you keep saying the iMac and Mac mini can be compared to BMWs, when in fact any Windows computer with the same hardware features can be considered BMWs. It's the software that keeps many of us staying with Apple. Many of us do appreciate the build quality of Apple computers, we just object to the narrow focus of Apple's consumer line and are optimistic that Apple could indeed increase market share without sacrificing margins to accomplish this.

The fact that the iMac and Mac mini place a very large part of their focus on desktop space does not make them BMWs and to make this assertion is silly.

In fact, a better designed Mac Mini and a Core 2 Tower with the same margins as Apple's other machines would only enhance the profits as more would be inclined to buy them.

[snoopy]

In fact, a better designed Mac Mini and a Core 2 Tower with the same margins as Apple's other machines would only enhance the profits as more would be inclined to buy them.

And I, for one, will buy on eBay until Apple does offer such models as these.

:lol:

[snoopy]

I just checked. Over 4000 responses to digg.com open letter to Steve. By the way, I'm not too bright when it comes to some problems with applications. Whenever I go to digg.com I get a spinning beach ball for a long time. The quickest solution is to force quit Safari and relaunch it. Any suggestions?

:???:

Both Safari and Camino have this problem, but not FireFox. Well, maybe FireFox will soon be my browser of choice.

[melgross]

There is simply NO reason to use a Xeon in a single processor machine.

The Xeon is specifically designed for machines with two or more processors. The extra cost doesn't add to speed, or much anything else in a single processor machine, just to a higher cost. The high end Conroe's have the same bus speeds as well, so you don't gain anything there either.

While I have nothing against choice, and if manufacturers wish to offer them, that's fine by me, but I don't see any good reason for buying one.

But, Apple could offer a machine for $999 with one Conroe, two memory slots, two card slots, spaced apart so that a double slot space graphics card could be fit. and many of the other features they have now.

A machine like that can use a 425 watt power supply instead of the 980 watt one, which would be enough for even the highest end video card, with enough left over for everything else. It can have room for two HD, and one external drive slot.

Apple can produce a machine like this. It's only because they don't want to that they don't.

How many times have we gone over this?

Perhaps it's time for Apple to discontinue their 17" iMac, except for schools, and offer these instead. There is also no excuse for Apple's lack of presence in the low cost monitor business.

The stubbornness of Apple here is absurd. It's difficult to believe that they don't see all of the sales they are losing in monitors because they refuse to compete in the biggest monitor segment. I know PC people who would not hesitate to buy a $200 17", or a $350 22" from Apple. They don't have to be in aluminum, they can be in aluminum colored plastic.

How many people buying a Mini who don't have a computer already, or have an old crt they want to get rid of, will buy a current Apple monitor? Why should all of these other companies get those sales?

It makes no sense.

A mini tower would cover a lot of ground.

The truth is that if Apple does come out with these machines and monitors, and it does impact on iMac sales, what's the difference?

Just how many iMacs is Apple selling a year anyway? Not all that many. There is pretty much no growth there. They should be willing to try other avenues.

If they kept the 24", and possibly the 20", with the 17" reserved for schools, insomuch as few people will spend that much for a 17" machine for home these days, at that price, particularly for an all-in-one, they might not lose much in sales at all.

These machines wouldn't be competing directly with the higher end iMacs, which are being bought specifically because they are all-in-one's, for a fashion statement, as much as for any other reason.

The box could go for $799 to perhaps $1,099. Any higher, and they might begin to compete too much with the iMacs, though, again, it might not matter, because those are very likely two entirely different buying groups.

Pro's on the lower rungs of the ladder would prefer these machines as well. As they couldn't afford Apple's Mac Pro's, there would be little, if no, impact there.

The machine impacted the most would possibly be the high end Mini. But the Mini's don't seem to be selling that well anyway.

[BenRoethig]

There is simply NO reason to use a Xeon in a single processor machine.

The Xeon is specifically designed for machines with two or more processors. The extra cost doesn't add to speed, or much anything else in a single processor machine, just to a higher cost. The high end Conroe's have the same bus speeds as well, so you don't gain anything there either.

While I have nothing against choice, and if manufacturers wish to offer them, that's fine by me, but I don't see any good reason for buying one.

But, Apple could offer a machine for $999 with one Conroe, two memory slots, two card slots, spaced apart so that a double slot space graphics card could be fit. and many of the other features they have now.

A machine like that can use a 425 watt power supply instead of the 980 watt one, which would be enough for even the highest end video card, with enough left over for everything else. It can have room for two HD, and one external drive slot.

Apple can produce a machine like this. It's only because they don't want to that they don't.

How many times have we gone over this?

Perhaps it's time for Apple to discontinue their 17" iMac, except for schools, and offer these instead. There is also no excuse for Apple's lack of presence in the low cost monitor business.

The stubbornness of Apple here is absurd. It's difficult to believe that they don't see all of the sales they are losing in monitors because they refuse to compete in the biggest monitor segment. I know PC people who would not hesitate to buy a $200 17", or a $350 22" from Apple. They don't have to be in aluminum, they can be in aluminum colored plastic.

How many people buying a Mini who don't have a computer already, or have an old crt they want to get rid of, will buy a current Apple monitor? Why should all of these other companies get those sales?

It makes no sense.

A mini tower would cover a lot of ground.

The truth is that if Apple does come out with these machines and monitors, and it does impact on iMac sales, what's the difference?

Just how many iMacs is Apple selling a year anyway? Not all that many. There is pretty much no growth there. They should be willing to try other avenues.

If they kept the 24", and possibly the 20", with the 17" reserved for schools, insomuch as few people will spend that much for a 17" machine for home these days, at that price, particularly for an all-in-one, they might not lose much in sales at all.

These machines wouldn't be competing directly with the higher end iMacs, which are being bought specifically because they are all-in-one's, for a fashion statement, as much as for any other reason.

The box could go for $799 to perhaps $1,099. Any higher, and they might begin to compete too much with the iMacs, though, again, it might not matter, because those are very likely two entirely different buying groups.

Pro's on the lower rungs of the ladder would prefer these machines as well. As they couldn't afford Apple's Mac Pro's, there would be little, if no, impact there.

The machine impacted the most would possibly be the high end Mini. But the Mini's don't seem to be selling that well anyway.

Personally, if I were Apple I would completely update the desktops. The replacement for the Mac Mini would be slightly larger to use less expensive desktop E43/4400 CPUs, G965 motherboards, and 3.5" hard drives. As a notebook optical drive would be used and there would not be any PCI-e slots, the form factor would still be much smaller than even the smallest PCs such as the HP slimline series.

The iMacs would be updated (but still use merom) to the PM965 chipset, and include an updated iPhone inspired form factor with the latest 19" (1440x900), 22" (1680x1050) and 24 in (1920x1200) panels. Cinema displays in the same sizes plus 30" would also come.

At the high end, a Mac Pro Core 2 Duo would come into play with a 2.13ghz core 2 duo E6420, 1GB of memory, and a Geforce 8300GT for $1299. BTO options would include 2.4 and 2.67ghz CPUs, 8600GT and 8800GTS CPUs, and up to 4GB of RAM on 4 DIMM slots.

Such a desktop lineup would make Apple a serious contender in education, business, and all aspects of the home market. It would be even more of a contender if were to acquire Elgato to match the full media center capabilities as windows.

[vinea]

There is simply NO reason to use a Xeon in a single processor machine.

There's also no reason not to offer it as a BTO option for those that want a cheaper tower.


Just how many iMacs is Apple selling a year anyway? Not all that many. There is pretty much no growth there. They should be willing to try other avenues.


Given the majority of desktop sale will be iMacs...on the order of 2M machines/year.

Apple enjoys the highest ASPs in the business. Reduction of the ASPs by offering a $799-$999 tower that would eliminate high ASP iMac sales without a corresponding increase in volume (either of desktops or monitors) would significantly reduce Apple's profitability and revenues.

Since you came late to the party I'll repeat the same challenge:

Show me a high-end PC maker that still offers mid-priced towers at high margins and I'll agree that Apple should offer an mid priced ($999-$1299) tower.

IBM, Sony and Toshiba have exitted the tower market. Sony has the most in common with Apple and their VAIO line has been reduced to...an AIO and a round Mini. No more towers.

Vinea

[melgross]

Personally, if I were Apple I would completely update the desktops. The replacement for the Mac Mini would be slightly larger to use less expensive desktop E43/4400 CPUs, G965 motherboards, and 3.5" hard drives. As a notebook optical drive would be used and there would not be any PCI-e slots, the form factor would still be much smaller than even the smallest PCs such as the HP slimline series.

The iMacs would be updated (but still use merom) to the PM965 chipset, and include an updated iPhone inspired form factor with the latest 19" (1440x900), 22" (1680x1050) and 24 in (1920x1200) panels. Cinema displays in the same sizes plus 30" would also come.

At the high end, a Mac Pro Core 2 Duo would come into play with a 2.13ghz core 2 duo E6420, 1GB of memory, and a Geforce 8300GT for $1299. BTO options would include 2.4 and 2.67ghz CPUs, 8600GT and 8800GTS CPUs, and up to 4GB of RAM on 4 DIMM slots.

Such a desktop lineup would make Apple a serious contender in education, business, and all aspects of the home market. It would be even more of a contender if were to acquire Elgato to match the full media center capabilities as windows.

I basically agree with that.

I do think the small form factor is overrated. There is no solid evidence that I know of that shows that the majority of people who do buy the Mini are doing so because of that form factor rather than the price.

19, 22, and 24" iMacs are much too close in size. There is no easy to define difference between them. A 20 and a 24 would be enough, except the for school market, for which the 17 is still a better choice, in my experience.

I don't see the higher end box being a Mac Pro though. I don't think that label should be used for what would be a mid-level average performance machine.

We might see gamers buy this machine, as well as home users, businesses, and for some school users, as well as for low end pro customers. I think the price should be kept below that as well, certainly in the beginning.

My ideas on this is that it should end up below the cost of the 20 and 24" iMacs once a low cost Apple monitor is added.

[BenRoethig]

There's also no reason not to offer it as a BTO option for those that want a cheaper tower.

Besides the $500-1000 in added expenses a single xeon adds over a single conroe

Given the majority of desktop sale will be iMacs...on the order of 2M machines/year.

That isn't saying much considering the sad state of Mac desktops. The Mac Mini is completely uncompetitive due to the exclusive use of laptop parts and buying a workstation to get a desktop takes fanatical loyalty.

[BenRoethig]

I basically agree with that.

I do think the small form factor is overrated. There is no solid evidence that I know of that shows that the majority of people who do buy the Mini are doing so because of that form factor rather than the price.

I think something has to be said for a smaller package, but it also has to be useful to the user. I think my idea is a happy balance between the two.

19, 22, and 24" iMacs are much too close in size. There is no easy to define difference between them. A 20 and a 24 would be enough, except the for school market, for which the 17 is still a better choice, in my experience.

Not in mine. 19" and 22" are the most popular LCDs sizes out there at the moment. There is also the resolution difference. Then again if Apple wants to contine with 17, 20, 24 and possible lose sales because of it that is their right.

I don't see the higher end box being a Mac Pro though. I don't think that label should be used for what would be a mid-level average performance machine.

Something Mac pro sized is more likely to attract the full ATX PC crowd than a cube MKII. Work with what's tried and true and available. Plus when I say desktop I mean tower that sits under my desk instead of wasting space on it.

[melgross]

There's also no reason not to offer it as a BTO option for those that want a cheaper tower.

There is, because as far as I know, it requires a different mobo entirely. That would drive the cost up too much for the limited numbers they would sell into.

Don't forget there is nothing drop-in about the Xeono vs the Conroe.


Given the majority of desktop sale will be iMacs...on the order of 2M machines/year.

That's probably a decent estimate, but it's a small number, and one that doesn't seem to be doing any real growth. In other words, it's stagnent. Apple has to shake up their desktop segment.


Apple enjoys the highest ASPs in the business. Reduction of the ASPs by offering a $799-$999 tower that would eliminate high ASP iMac sales without a corresponding increase in volume (either of desktops or monitors) would significantly reduce Apple's profitability and revenues.

I don't think so. The Mini doesn't have a high ASP, neither do the iPods, and probably the ATv doesn't either.

Besides, the more machines Apple sells, the more software they sell, and software has a VEERY high ASP. It could easily make up for it.


Since you came late to the party I'll repeat the same challenge:

Show me a high-end PC maker that still offers mid-priced towers at high margins and I'll agree that Apple should offer an mid priced ($999-$1299) tower.

IBM, Sony and Toshiba have exitted the tower market. Sony has the most in common with Apple and their VAIO line has been reduced to...an AIO and a round Mini. No more towers.

Vinea

I would have to think more about it to give a complete answer.

But, there is no reason why a tower doesn't have to be a decent profit center. There is nothing special about any type of model that ensures that. It's merely a matter of cost vs selling price.

The iMacs are not cheap to produce, and may have a higher return rate because of the defects that can come with the built-in screen.

Also, most PC manufacturers offer many accessories with the computers at the point of sale. Speakers, printers, monitors, and other gadgets are often given away for free, or at almost free prices. Apple doesn't do that. Those giveaways are so often what drives the profitability of these systems down. They also change their models much more often then Apple does, lowering prices as they go on current models. Something that starts out at $1,295 may cost $999 several months later, and $795 before it is replaced. These companies also tend to offer many SKU's. Apple hasn't done that for its consumer machines, the options are much more limited. That keeps the cost up for them, and down for Apple, ergo, greater profitability.

Many people may say that an all-in-one will cost more to produce, and so should lead to lower profitability.

I don't see, from my experience as both an electronics designer, and manufacturer, why Apple could not come out with a machine in that price range, and make a decent profit on it.

[melgross]

Not in mine. 19" and 22" are the most popular LCDs sizes out there at the moment. There is also the resolution difference. Then again if Apple wants to contine with 17, 20, 24 and possible lose sales because of it that is their right.

I doubt Apple is losing sales because they don't have a tightly bunched series of machines. It's less confusing this way.

It's one thing to sell monitors in many sizes, but selling an entire machine that way is, I think, not helpful. The pricing would have to be too close, and the size of the machines would be too similiar.


Something Mac pro sized is more likely to attract the full ATX PC crowd than a cube MKII. Work with what's tried and true and available. Plus when I say desktop I mean tower that sits under my desk instead of wasting space on it.

I never said cube. I said mini tower. I've been saying the exact same thing since the first G5 tower came out. It would be a mini version of that, minus the handles and feet, as well as being smaller all around.

[Messiah]

I don't think that Apple's hardware offering makes a lot of sense at the moment. I'm particularly worried about the RAM ceilings:

Mac mini, 2GB
iMac, 2-3GB

MacBook, 2GB
MacBook Pro, 3GB

The only machine that supports more than 3GB is the top of the range, expensive FB-DIMM based Mac Pro. That's just crazy.

I don't anticipate future software releases getting any less memory hungry.

If we assume that the majority of users operate on a three year buying cycle, how useless is 2GB going to be in two years time? Are you trying to tell me that the only people that will require more than 3GB of RAM over the next three years should be considered Pro users? Bollocks.

My 'obsolete' PMG5 with 8GB of RAM is going to be far more capable in three years time than todays top of the range iMac with a paltry 3GB of RAM. That just doesn't make much sense to me.

Apple needs a headless desktop machine that can support 4-16GB of RAM via standard DIMMs. I'm not bothered about graphics cards vs. GMA, but the machine does need to have a 3.5" HDD.

[vinea]

Some folks believe that

http://images.apple.com/macpro/gallery/images/macpro03_20060810.jpg

is this:

http://www.freightliner.com/images/news/mediaroom-images/products/freightlinertrucks/lo-res/FL10917_l.jpg

instead of this:

http://www.autothing.com/images/Fun%20Things/Spy%20Shots/SS-2005/05%20BMW%20M5/SS-05-BMW-M5-C6.jpg

I think that illustrates the xMac debate far better than 1000 posts have thus far. Perhaps I'll photoshop this later as I'm sure someday these will just be dead links.

Till then...Finis.

Vinea

PS Sorry to bail on you Melgross. I'm sure your feelings aren't too hurt...

[melgross]

I don't think that Apple's hardware offering makes a lot of sense at the moment. I'm particularly worried about the RAM ceilings:

Mac mini, 2GB
iMac, 2-3GB

MacBook, 2GB
MacBook Pro, 3GB

The only machine that supports more than 3GB is the top of the range, expensive FB-DIMM based Mac Pro. That's just crazy.

I don't anticipate future software releases getting any less memory hungry.

If we assume that the majority of users operate on a three year buying cycle, how useless is 2GB going to be in two years time? Are you trying to tell me that the only people that will require more than 3GB of RAM over the next three years should be considered Pro users? Bollocks.

My 'obsolete' PMG5 with 8GB of RAM is going to be far more capable in three years time than todays top of the range iMac with a paltry 3GB of RAM. That just doesn't make much sense to me.

Apple needs a headless desktop machine that can support 4-16GB of RAM via standard DIMMs. I'm not bothered about graphics cards vs. GMA, but the machine does need to have a 3.5" HDD.

The iMac is the only one you are incorrect about, as far as I know. As you know, 4GB RAM can be put in the machine. It's possible that Leopard will allow that last GB.

Unless it needs Santa Rosa. I've forgotten whether the chipset currently is a limitation, being 32 bit.

[BenRoethig]

Some folks believe that

http://images.apple.com/macpro/gallery/images/macpro03_20060810.jpg

is this:

http://www.freightliner.com/images/news/mediaroom-images/products/freightlinertrucks/lo-res/FL10917_l.jpg

instead of this:

http://www.autothing.com/images/Fun%20Things/Spy%20Shots/SS-2005/05%20BMW%20M5/SS-05-BMW-M5-C6.jpg

I think that illustrates the xMac debate far better than 1000 posts have thus far. Perhaps I'll photoshop this later as I'm sure someday these will just be dead links. Ask the people at ILM or those running photoshop for a living if they buy Apple as a kind of luxury item. They buy it because OSX is the best tool for the job.

Till then...Finis.

Vinea

PS Sorry to bail on you Melgross. I'm sure your feelings aren't too hurt...

Yeah that sound about right. You're looking some kind decadent show of wealth. We're looking for a better tool.

[melgross]

Till then...Finis.

Vinea

PS Sorry to bail on you Melgross. I'm sure your feelings aren't too hurt...

There's no time limitation here, unless, when you go away for more than a day or so, you leave the old discussions, as I do.

[BenRoethig]

The iMac is the only one you are incorrect about, as far as I know. As you know, 4GB RAM can be put in the machine. It's possible that Leopard will allow that last GB.

Unless it needs Santa Rosa. I've forgotten whether the chipset currently is a limitation, being 32 bit.

4GB can be put in, but the mobile controller only supports 3GB. 2GB SO-DIMMs are also prohibitively expensive, especially when you consider that you either have to throw away the existing memory or pay Apple's sky high prices right off the bat.

[melgross]

4GB can be put in, but the mobile controller only supports 3GB. 2GB SO-DIMMs are also prohibitively expensive, especially when you consider that you either have to throw away the existing memory or pay Apple's sky high prices right off the bat.

If you need the memory, then you have to be willing to pay for it. Buy non-Apple memory for the second DIMM.

I'm not really sure if the chipset does indeed lead to the limitation. We had a long discussion about this once, and from what I remember, we came to no conclusion, because people were giving evidence for both views. Offhand, I don't see why it wouldn't support 4 GB, but then...

[Messiah]

People who buy Mac Pros buy them like a commodity item.

They buy them to do a job, and they really don't give a toss whether the machine has a beautiful aircraft-grade aluminium enclosure or not. I've yet to meet a business owner who bought a Mac Pro because of its enclosure. They buy Mac Pros because it's the best tool for the job. Stick the guts of a Mac Pro in a tupperware box and slash $100 of the price and they'd buy them instead.

There are a very small number of people who buy a Mac Pro so they can sit in their room and rub their cock all over it. But the fact of the matter is that regardless of how Apple markets the Mac Pro, and regardless of how they art direct the marketing photography, the Mac Pro isn't an M series BMW – it's a JCB.

It's the people who recognise the Mac Pro as a JCB, that drive M series cars in real life...

[BenRoethig]

If you need the memory, then you have to be willing to pay for it. Buy non-Apple memory for the second DIMM.

I'm not really sure if the chipset does indeed lead to the limitation. We had a long discussion about this once, and from what I remember, we came to no conclusion, because people were giving evidence for both views. Offhand, I don't see why it wouldn't support 4 GB, but then...

Actually, the chipset does support up to 4GB according to the official intel specs PDF I just looked up. Still there is a $100 premium over desktop memory.

[Messiah]

If you need the memory, then you have to be willing to pay for it.

I for one am more than happy to pay for the memory. There are very few components in the world of computing that offer as much bang-for-the-buck as RAM.

What I'm not happy about, is having to buy the top of the range tower in order to get that kind of capacity. 4GB isn't out of the ordinary nowadays, and it certainly won't be out of the ordinary in two years time. And I'm not happy about having to go down the slower and more expensive FB-DIMM route.

4GB+ ISN'T a Pro feature.

[melgross]

Actually, the chipset does support up to 4GB according to the official intel specs PDF I just looked up. Still there is a $100 premium over desktop memory.

Ok, good to know.

This is where we come to the mini tower. As I said, if you need the memory, then you have to pay for it. If you are paying $1,600 to over $2,000 for an iMac, and you really need the memory, another $100 shouldn't be a problem.

But, if you also need upgradability, and expandability, with the mini tower you get both, as well as cheaper memory, as long as the machine has a Conroe.

But, Intel is rapidly moving to DDR3, where the prices will be higher for a while.

[melgross]

I for one am more than happy to pay for the memory. There are very few components in the world of computing that offer as much bang-for-the-buck as RAM.

What I'm not happy about, is having to buy the top of the range tower in order to get that kind of capacity. 4GB isn't out of the ordinary nowadays, and it certainly won't be out of the ordinary in two years time. And I'm not happy about having to go down the slower and more expensive FB-DIMM route.

4GB+ ISN'T a Pro feature.

Well, I can go with that.

The Mac Pro is just what the name implies.

A mini tower shouldn't be nearly so onerous to purchase. I wouldn't label it as a pro machine, though it could be used that way.

The question, if it were to be produced, would be whether there would be room on the mobo for more than two memory slots. Just who would be buying this machine in the largest numbers?

4 GB IS out of the ordinary now. Most people are just beginning to think about 2 Gb.

Even two years from now, 4 Gb RAM would be more than enough for most people. For many pro purposes, even 4 GB is more than enough.

It would be a cost/performance issue, as it always is.

[snoopy]

The Mac Pro is just what the name implies. . . . A mini tower shouldn't be nearly so onerous to purchase. . .

The question, if it were to be produced, would be whether there would be room on the mobo for more than two memory slots. Just who would be buying this machine in the largest numbers?




Depends on how mini it is. I've seen some very small towers. I hope Apple would not make one so small, but just a cut down Mac Pro, mostly shorter. In this way, why not four memory slots? It would be a prosumer, so most buyers would want it to look like a professional machine, and the really small ones look like toys.

:)

[melgross]

Depends on how mini it is. I've seen some very small towers. I hope Apple would not make one so small, but just a cut down Mac Pro, mostly shorter. In this way, why not four memory slots? It would be a prosumer, so most buyers would want it to look like a professional machine, and the really small ones look like toys.

:)

It's not just a matter of adding slots. The mobo would have to be larger, which means greater cost, etc.

[snoopy]

It's not just a matter of adding slots. The mobo would have to be larger, which means greater cost, etc.




The motherboard needs to be big enough to hold the components, but no bigger, regardless of case size. However, even if the motherboard were bigger, board square inches cost very little more without added components.

I'm not advocating a case larger than necessary, but a case with room for easy air flow. When air flow is restricted, the fans or blowers must produce higher pressure to move the same volume of cooling air, which is noisier.

[melgross]

The motherboard needs to be big enough to hold the components, but no bigger, regardless of case size. However, even if the motherboard were bigger, board square inches cost very little more without added components.

I'm not advocating a case larger than necessary, but a case with room for easy air flow. When air flow is restricted, the fans or blowers must produce higher pressure to move the same volume of cooling air, which is noisier.

You know, it's one little thing here, and one little thing there.

A bigger board would cost a few bucks more, the two extra sockets would cost a few bucks more, inserting the sockets would cost a few cents more, a slightly larger power supply for them would cost a bit more, a bigger fan would cost a couple of bucks more, possibly a slightly bigger case would be needed, costing a few bucks more. It would all weigh more, costing more for shipping, the packing would be larger, and cost more, fewer boxes would fit on a pallet, etc.

It could easily end up costing Apple $30 more. That translates to at least $60 retail, possibly $80.

You would be surprised at how much must be taken into account when making a change as small as that may, at first, seem to be.

When we changed our designs we had to take all of that into consideration.

[emig647]

I'll chime in and say this.

I got fed up waiting for this computer to come out. So I built it myself. Before I built it, I had a 2.33mbp. Great machine! But it isn't a work station / server computer. Which is what I needed. There is no way in hell I was going to pay 2500+ (gotta have more than a 7300gt) for a freaking computer. I needed something that was fast, had desktop components, dual dvi for dual 20" lcds, could hold more than 1 harddrive, could expand to more than 4 gigs of ram (since the imac and mbp can't even hit 4 gigs), had a faster graphics card than a x1600 or 7600gt (256bit at least), had eSATA, had a regular mic input, etc etc etc

I am one of the people that built his xMac. I am running 10.4.9 with the 8.9.1 kernel and loving it. I have hit 1 tiny issue so far, and that was with CS3.

................. Long story short this machine screams. Is rock solid stable, and does everything I need it to...........................

This is my comment to apple. If apple released a similar machine under 1500, I would purchase it from them. I'm not about to shell out 2500+ dollars for a machine that fits me perfectly for 1500 less. Obviously not many people have done what I have done, but apple needs to consider how many of us they have lost because of their gapping hole in the product line up. It's ignorance as far as I'm concerned. So many people on forums and irc related to hackintosh have admitted they would purchase from apple if they made it available.

Apple needs to wake up, because this community isn't going to disappear. It's not extremely easy setting up these machines. You have to know what you're doing. So if this many people are doing it, imagine how many people aren't doing it because they don't know how, yet they aren't buying machines from apple because apple doesn't offer what they want.

For now I'm perfectly fine with what I have. My mbp is a great machine and goes with me wherever I go. This hackintosh is my main work machine and runs 24/7 as a web server for my clients. It's time for a change apple.

[iPeon]

To put it in perspective, if what I want is not an AIO Mac, these are my options:

Mac mini
1.66GHz Intel Core Duo
512MB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x256
60GB Serial ATA drive
$599.00

Mac mini
1.83GHz Intel Core Duo
512MB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x256
80GB Serial ATA drive
SuperDrive 8x (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Mac OS X - U.S. English
Intel GMA 950 graphics
$799.00

The least expensive tower I can get is this:

Mac Pro
Two 2.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
1GB (2 x 512MB)
250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)
One 16x SuperDrive
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
$2,200.00

From where I stand, there's something missing here. There's no valid "excuse" for this missing mid range tower. End of story.

[snoopy]

You know, it's one little thing here, and one little thing there. . . . When we changed our designs we had to take all of that into consideration.




Yeah, I know. I did that for a living for too many years.





A bigger board would cost a few bucks more, the two extra sockets would cost a few bucks more, inserting the sockets would cost a few cents more, a slightly larger power supply for them would cost a bit more, . . .




Sockets are likely machine inserted, almost no added cost over the socket cost. A couple more square inches of a raw board is likely less than a dollar. Larger power supply, if it's needed for the addition RAM strips, would be the most costly item in your list.





. . . a bigger fan would cost a couple of bucks more, possibly a slightly bigger case would be needed, costing a few bucks more.




A bigger fan would not be need for a couple RAM strips, if there is enough cooling for the much hotter CPU and graphics board. Actually, when the case is large enough for generous air space, the job of cooling becomes easier, and the fans are less taxed.





It would all weigh more, costing more for shipping, the packing would be larger, and cost more, fewer boxes would fit on a pallet, etc.




To build a mini tower that looks professional does require a larger case, no doubt about that. Those tiny towers look like a toy, as does the Mac Mini. In addition to a good prosumer mini tower, Apple needs to redo the Mini too.





You would be surprised at how much must be taken into account when making a change as small as that may, at first, seem to be.




The little effort it takes to add two ram strips to the motherboard is trivial, when compared with the manufacturing cost of a single Xeon Mac Pro for the prosumer market.

I think the Mac mini tower should also have at least two PCIe slots, in addition to the graphics card slot. Also, it needs two HDDs and two optical drives. We may agree on that. For a long time I figured one optical drive was enough, but after reading what other say, I changed my mind. It means a slightly bigger case, but almost no cost involved.

:)

[CDonG4]

One question on my mind is where is the average consumer going to put all that iTunes movie and tv show content?

Right now it doesnt seem to be that big of a deal, but with the apple TV and a shift from owning a DVD to owning the file...we are going to need either larger hard drives in smaller sizes or the ability to hold multiple hard drives without cluttering the desk with externals!

Lets not forget about Time Machine... if you thought that you were on the front of a storage crisis with your content libraries, lets take the potential storage black hole of Time Machine.

I think a headless mac somewhere between the Mac mini and Mac Pro needs to come into play.

Perhaps...

1 or 2 HDD bays
1 Optical Drive
Single Processor
1 expansion slot for Graphics Cards
1 PCIe slot

It would be appealing to see a desktop that was more capable than a Mac mini (faster / larger HDs, expandability etc) but something simply smaller in size. Not everyone needs 4 HDD bays, 2 optical drive bays, 8 DIMM slots, and 4 PCI Express slots.

Then again if Apple were to do this, I'm sure it would cut into the Mac Pro sales and would allow for less frequent upgrades of systems than current desktop users. Be it Mac mini users who do not have much room for significant upgrades and will most likely move on to a newer machine when ready, or be it Mac Pro users who are more likely to upgrade to a bigger and better behemoth for sheer power reasons.

[melgross]

Sockets are likely machine inserted, almost no added cost over the socket cost. A couple more square inches of a raw board is likely less than a dollar. Larger power supply, if it's needed for the addition RAM strips, would be the most costly item in your list.

They are machine inserted. That's why it only costs a few cents to do it. Auto insert was the way our equipment was made. every component on the board cost extra. Some think that auto insert is no big deal, but it is. Every time a program change has to be made, it costs thousands of dollars. Every surface mount resistor, diode, and cap costs money to insert. The assy line is custom made for that particular product. It is then broken down and re assembled into another configuration. Adding two more sockets also involves adding other components. It isn't just a matter of adding sockets. As many as a dozen more steps may be involved, and that costs money, as well as adding to the time of assembly, and to the extra testing steps involved. I may have been low in my estimate.


A bigger fan would not be need for a couple RAM strips, if there is enough cooling for the much hotter CPU and graphics board. Actually, when the case is large enough for generous air space, the job of cooling becomes easier, and the fans are less taxed.

A couple of extra 2 GB DIMMS can easily add 3 amps to the power draw. They can put out a lot of heat. don't kid yourself about that.


To build a mini tower that looks professional does require a larger case, no doubt about that. Those tiny towers look like a toy, as does the Mac Mini. In addition to a good prosumer mini tower, Apple needs to redo the Mini too.

I agree with that.


The little effort it takes to add two ram strips to the motherboard is trivial, when compared with the manufacturing cost of a single Xeon Mac Pro for the prosumer market.

It would still add $60 to $80 to the final cost of the machine.

No way that a Xeon would be used for a single cpu machine. There are no advantages, and several disadvantages.

The first is cost. The second is the more expensive memory with the greater latency.

FB-DIMMs are simply not needed on a machine like this. The advantages of them can't be utilized. The greater latency slows memory access, and with less memory than a Mac Pro can handle, the greater amount of memory the FB design is intended for isn't being utilized.


I think the Mac mini tower should also have at least two PCIe slots, in addition to the graphics card slot. Also, it needs two HDDs and two optical drives. We may agree on that. For a long time I figured one optical drive was enough, but after reading what other say, I changed my mind. It means a slightly bigger case, but almost no cost involved.

:)

Again it depends on the cost, and the more you add, the higher the cost.

Just remember that for every slot you add, you have to increase the size of the power supply. The same thing for extra memory, and again, the same for an extra optical slot. The Mac Pro has a 980 watt supply. The only difference between what that is and what you want is two estra drives 4 extra memory slots and the additional cpu.

Now, I know that it sounds like a lot, and it is, but using some knowledge of the power requirements of the components, I estimate that removing everything from that machine to get to yours would still require 600 watts. Going with two slots, two memory slots, and one optical drive, we can get to 425.

It would also cost a good deal less.

[WelshDog]

This idea reminds me of my old beloved IIci. It was such a workhorse. A computer like that with a modern CPU and gfx would be perfect. It would need slots - that is the one thing that bugs me about the iMacs.

[evilboz]

I have one simple question... Why does Apple force me to spend over $2000 on a system just so that I can have the option to upgrade my video card sometime down the road? I really don't get it. Especially when this option is available pretty much on any $500+ desktop PC out there.

[sennen]

I have one simple question... Why does Apple force me to spend over $2000 on a system just so that I can have the option to upgrade my video card sometime down the road? I really don't get it. Especially when this option is available pretty much on any $500+ desktop PC out there.

apple does not want to be "any $500+ desktop PC out there".

[melgross]

I have one simple question... Why does Apple force me to spend over $2000 on a system just so that I can have the option to upgrade my video card sometime down the road? I really don't get it. Especially when this option is available pretty much on any $500+ desktop PC out there.

That's not so simple a question.

Apple was accused, in the mid to late '90's, of having too many models. It was confusing the consumer, so it was said. When Jobs came back, he reduced the models to consumer desktop and laptop, and pro desktop and laptop lines. One line of each. Now, of course, he added the Mini.


Now, I'm not saying that I agree with Apple on this, but their concept is what they are, so far, going with.

Apple figures that if you are a real pro, you will need, and not mind spending the money for, a Mac Pro.

They also figure that if you are not, and most are not, then you won't get one for both reasons. Therefore, an iMac is just what you need, and for the low end, a Mini.

Again, I'm not saying I agree, but that's what they think.

How many sales are they losing because of this? Who knows?

Some will spend the big bucks, and go for the Mac Pro. Some will stick to the iMac, and some will either buy a used Mac Pro, or even—buy a PC.

If Apple figures they are losing too few customers to matter, and that the machine you and others want wouldn't bring them enough sales, they won't come out with it.

It would take much more than a few people on fan websites whining about it to change their minds. That's for sure.

And while I don't want one for myself, I might get one for my daughter, though my wife prefers the 24" iMac.

Therefore, for that, and other reasons, I include myself as one of the whiners. :)

[iPeon]

I have one simple question... Why does Apple force me to spend over $2000 on a system just so that I can have the option to upgrade my video card sometime down the road? I really don't get it. Especially when this option is available pretty much on any $500+ desktop PC out there.

No one outside of Apple really knows.

Apple goes back and fourth on this. The common denominator seems to be this, every time Apple switches processors the base tower model gets dropped.

This happened from the G3 to the G4 transition, from the G4 to the G5 and now from the G5 to Intel. Every time! It's just a transition stage best I can see. That's all it is.

[rageous]

To put it in perspective, if what I want is not an AIO Mac, these are my options:

Mac mini
1.66GHz Intel Core Duo
512MB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x256
60GB Serial ATA drive
$599.00

Mac mini
1.83GHz Intel Core Duo
512MB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x256
80GB Serial ATA drive
SuperDrive 8x (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Mac OS X - U.S. English
Intel GMA 950 graphics
$799.00

The least expensive tower I can get is this:

Mac Pro
Two 2.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
1GB (2 x 512MB)
250GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB (single-link DVI/dual-link DVI)
One 16x SuperDrive
Apple Keyboard and Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
$2,200.00

From where I stand, there's something missing here. There's no valid "excuse" for this missing mid range tower. End of story.

The "excuse" is that Apple really sees very little difference between towers and AIOs. They recognize that most people who use computers are using email, youtube, myspace, iTunes, and p2p networks. Every Mac sold today is more than capable of handling those tasks. They don't see the need for a mini-tower to compete directly with the iMac.

I'm sure they've conducted many internal studies on the feasibility of having two products compete at the same price point. Given that they continue to let the iMac remain in the lineup unchallenged, it would seem to me they've decided it's not a good idea for the products and/or the bottom line to go this route.

[BenRoethig]

The "excuse" is that Apple really sees very little difference between towers and AIOs. They recognize that most people who use computers are using email, youtube, myspace, iTunes, and p2p networks. Every Mac sold today is more than capable of handling those tasks. They don't see the need for a mini-tower to compete directly with the iMac.

I'm sure they've conducted many internal studies on the feasibility of having two products compete at the same price point. Given that they continue to let the iMac remain in the lineup unchallenged, it would seem to me they've decided it's not a good idea for the products and/or the bottom line to go this route.

To me it's pure and simple arrogance. Jobs thinks he's right and the 97% of desktop owners who don't want an all in one are wrong. If they can't see the difference between all in ones and desktops, this company is going to continue to grossly under perform according to their talents. Then again why make billions per quarter when you can make millions instead. Four things are holding this company back from major marketshare.

1. No 15" or 17" entry level notebook. Apple's portables are doing great without an entry in the most popular notebook category. Try to imagine how well they'd be doing if they had one.

2. The absence of a competitive Mac Mini. Yes we know it's all small and stuff and Mac user will buy it simple for the Apple logo on top. Make it competitive and so will a lot of other people.

3. Lack of a mid to high end tower. There is no way in hell you're going to get prosumers to buy into the Mac OS as long as the options you give them include a xeon workstation or a laptop connected to an expensive, but out of date 24" display. They're to intelligent for that. Converting them will have more effect on converting those around them than all the get a Mac ads in the world.

4. Lack of full media center capabilities. Let me get this straight, Apple wants to risk a close to $2000 computer sale and possibly an iTV so they can sell me an episode of bones that I missed instead of me taping it? Just buy Elgato for peanuts and be done with it.

[rickag]

...

Apple enjoys the highest ASPs in the business. Reduction of the ASPs by offering a $799-$999 tower that would eliminate high ASP iMac sales without a corresponding increase in volume (either of desktops or monitors) would significantly reduce Apple's profitability and revenues.

Vinea

You keep saying that without a shread of evidence. In fact, the only evidence we have is the relatively large increase in market share for Apple laptop sales, until the most recent quarter, may indicate that it may indeed be possible to sell enough towers in the $799 - $1699 price range.

I changed the price range to reflect the reality of the price range for a single Conroe processor tower as they are currently being marketed. In fact, I may have shorted them, I have seen them priced at above ~$3000.8-)

[BenRoethig]

You keep saying that without a shread of evidence. In fact, the only evidence we have is the relatively large increase in market share for Apple laptop sales, until the most recent quarter, may indicate that it may indeed be possible to sell enough towers in the $799 - $1699 price range.

I changed the price range to reflect the reality of the price range for a single Conroe processor tower as they are currently being marketed. In fact, I may have shorted them, I have seen them priced at above ~$3000.8-)

All I know is this I can get a computer that does what I want it to from a quality PC maker (I'm not talking HP or Dell here) from under $1700. If I buy from Apple I can either spend $2600 plus $120 for a external DVD burner and $150 for eyeTV or a Mac pro for $3100 plus a $150 for eyeTV. If Vinea is right and OSX isn't any better than windows vista (which we know it is), what incentive does that give us to buy from Apple? You get the same "BMW factor" as he likes to say, you get the same quality, VM's Lian-Li towers look a lot like Apple's but take up less space. I'm willing to pay more for Apple. But over $1000 more than a hand built premium PC is beyond nuts. The last time the price/performance ratio was this bad, Mac users were defecting in mass to Power Computing.

[Fran441]

The last time the price/performance ratio was this bad, Mac users were defecting in mass to Power Computing.

This is a little overdramatic I think. You make it sound like the sky is going to fall if Apple doesn't offer the Mac you want.

Meanwhile, Apple just posted a record $770 million profit for the March quarter and sold over 1.5 million Macs. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/25results.html

[BenRoethig]

This is a little overdramatic I think. You make it sound like the sky is going to fall if Apple doesn't offer the Mac you want.

Meanwhile, Apple just posted a record $770 million profit for the March quarter and sold over 1.5 million Macs. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/25results.html

60% of those were laptops and nearly 100% of the gains came from the laptop market where the machines are in line with customer expectations. Also a lot of that $770 million came from the iPod ranks which are also in line with customer expectations. So, in other words Apple makes lots of money on the products users want to buy. On the products that the users don't want to buy (the desktops), they are stagnate. Makes you wonder how big that profit would be if the desktops were in line with Apple's other offerings. I don't think 1.5 billion is that far out of reach.

[vinea]

You keep saying that without a shread of evidence.

That was written unclearly...you can read it two ways but the way I meant is was if you lower your ASPs by introducing more popular items that take away sales from your high priced items without also increasing volume then your profits go down.

There should be no controversy with that statement.

If Vinea is right and OSX isn't any better than windows vista (which we know it is), what incentive does that give us to buy from Apple?


I have never said this. I'm bowing out of this thread because it's just tiresome but don't put words in my mouth because I'm leaving. I said that OSX is better but not enough to make a significant difference because XP and Vista are "good enough" for most folks.

I'm still reading the thread because melgross and I have been exchanging PMs and I was curious what he was saying. Beyond that (and this clarification) y'all enjoy the thread.

Vinea

[rickag]

That was written unclearly...you can read it two ways but the way I meant is was if you lower your ASPs by introducing more popular items that take away sales from your high priced items without also increasing volume then your profits go down.

There should be no controversy with that statement.
Vinea
That is true.

Let's look at the price ranges for the current iMac
$999 to $1999

The current price range for single Conroe towers
$799 - > $1699( some at ~$3000)

The $799 model is bare bones low end with no monitor, integrated graphics, 512 MBs ram and 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo. Adding a graphics card ups it ~$120.($799 + $120 =$919). Bump the ram to 1GB add ~$90($919 + $90 = $999).
Well, there you go, you're at the base iMac model price. And since these do not have a monitor as do the iMacs, I'd venture to say Apple could make similar if not greater margins.


I have never said this. I'm bowing out of this thread because it's just tiresome but don't put words in my mouth because I'm leaving. I said that OSX is better but not enough to make a significant difference because XP and Vista are "good enough" for most folks.

I'm still reading the thread because melgross and I have been exchanging PMs and I was curious what he was saying. Beyond that (and this clarification) y'all enjoy the thread.

Vinea
Sorry to see you go.

[Joe_the_dragon]

That is true.

Let's look at the price ranges for the current iMac
$999 to $1999

The current price range for single Conroe towers
$799 - > $1699( some at ~$3000)

The $799 model is bare bones low end with no monitor, integrated graphics, 512 MBs ram and 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo. Adding a graphics card ups it ~$120.($799 + $120 =$919). Bump the ram to 1GB add ~$90($919 + $90 = $999).

the $999 imac has the gma 950 and 512mb with a cd-rw
you can get a system with 1gb of ram, DVD+/-RW Drive, a real video card, free Display.

apple should have a low cost keyboard + mouse for the mini as a add on $78 is too high.

[rickag]

the $999 imac has the gma 950 and 512mb with a cd-rw
you can get a system with 1gb of ram, DVD+/-RW Drive, a real video card, free Display.

apple should have a low cost keyboard + mouse for the mini as a add on $78 is too high.
I haven't been able to find a Windows tower with a real video card, 1GB ram and a monitor for $799. Then again, I just go to Intel's website and go to the where to buy section and enter the price range at $669 - $999.

[BenRoethig]

the $999 imac has the gma 950 and 512mb with a cd-rw
you can get a system with 1gb of ram, DVD+/-RW Drive, a real video card, free Display.

apple should have a low cost keyboard + mouse for the mini as a add on $78 is too high.

Mac ally does make a really good combo set, but I do agree.

[BenRoethig]

I haven't been able to find a Windows tower with a real video card, 1GB ram and a monitor for $799. Then again, I just go to Intel's website and go to the where to buy section and enter the price range at $669 - $999.

You can BTO, but still it isn't anything great.

[Joe_the_dragon]

I haven't been able to find a Windows tower with a real video card, 1GB ram and a monitor for $799. Then again, I just go to Intel's website and go to the where to buy section and enter the price range at $669 - $999.

the systems out there at the mini price range come with gma x3000 or gma 3000 video 1gb or more of ram and a dvd-rw drive with a slots for video and other cards.

[evilboz]

Looks like PC Magazine is asking the same question now as well...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130994-page,3-c,macs/article.html

"Neither the Mac Mini nor the iMac accepts internal upgrades beyond more memory, so to get a system that will accept additional components later, you'll have to spring for a dual-processor Mac Pro, which starts at a steep $2200." :\

[Dan Wells]

One thing that the Mac Pro has in its favor for some of these applications (where it's really too much, but no other Mac is enough) is that it is silent. I hadn't realized HOW quiet it is until last week, because I had only used them in rooms with other computers. Using a Mac Pro in a room with no other computer, I was amazed that it has no noticeable fan noise. This is very different from any other tower I'm aware of (except for specialized audio editing computers), and goes a long way towards counteracting the size issue (doesn't do anything about the price, though!).

-dan

[synp]

One thing that the Mac Pro has in its favor for some of these applications (where it's really too much, but no other Mac is enough) is that it is silent. I hadn't realized HOW quiet it is until last week, because I had only used them in rooms with other computers. Using a Mac Pro in a room with no other computer, I was amazed that it has no noticeable fan noise. This is very different from any other tower I'm aware of (except for specialized audio editing computers), and goes a long way towards counteracting the size issue (doesn't do anything about the price, though!).

-dan

Don't see how it counteracts anything. The Mac Pro doesn't fit some of the brackets that people attach to desks to hold towers. People would need to place it on the floor, where it's vulnerable to children, pets, water.

Others want a cube / maxi-mini. They don't want a computer under the desk at all. The Mac Pro would look very conspicuous standing on the desktop.

[PB]

Looks like PC Magazine is asking the same question now as well...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,130994-page,3-c,macs/article.html

"Neither the Mac Mini nor the iMac accepts internal upgrades beyond more memory, so to get a system that will accept additional components later, you'll have to spring for a dual-processor Mac Pro, which starts at a steep $2200." :\
Keep the pressure going guys. Apple may finally release an "iMac" with upgradeable graphics in addition to RAM. Was not the Cube the last non-Power Mac Macintosh that offered that option?

[BenRoethig]

The cube was a PowerMac

[PB]

The cube was a PowerMac
Let me rephrase: non-Power Mac-sized Macintosh. :)

[melgross]

Don't see how it counteracts anything. The Mac Pro doesn't fit some of the brackets that people attach to desks to hold towers. People would need to place it on the floor, where it's vulnerable to children, pets, water.

Others want a cube / maxi-mini. They don't want a computer under the desk at all. The Mac Pro would look very conspicuous standing on the desktop.

Brackets have nothing to do with it.

When a computer is in a bracket, it is subject to children, pets, and water. Anytime you have enough water in your room that it threatens the computer, you're in trouble anyway.

Most of us with large computers put them under the desk.

[BenRoethig]

To be perfectly honest, at this point, I'd pull the trigger if they offered the MXM solution in the 20". I just need something at this point. Windows is not an option.

[snoopy]

I was amazed that it has no noticeable fan noise. This is very different from any other tower I'm aware of (except for specialized audio editing computers), and goes a long way towards counteracting the size issue. . .







Don't see how it counteracts anything. . .




Obviously, the larger size means greater air space inside, so fans can turn slower. Cooling the same power components in a small enclosures requires higher air pressure to deliver the same volume of cooling air, resulting in noisier fans.

[melgross]

I saw this over a week ago somewhere else, Anand's, I think, and posted it.

I'm posting it again, but from MacCentral, as they are now out.

How long will we wait for Apple's version?

Will Apple skip the current Core 2 Meroms?

Will we wait until Penyrn?

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/05/09/santarosa/index.php

[ryaxnb]

Yes, but its dead technology. You're better off buying a Mac Pro and ebaying the extra Xeon if you are inclined toward the single Xeon model that has been suggested.

Vinea PowerPCs may be dead but they still have a very happy four or five years ahead of them. A g5 will be supported for a long time to come. And the Classic Mac OS is supported on them, not to mention other fun projects.

[snoopy]

. . . Some think that auto insert is no big deal, but it is. Every time a program change has to be made, it costs thousands of dollars. Every surface mount resistor, diode, and cap costs money to insert. The assy line is custom made for that particular product. It is then broken down and re assembled into another configuration. . .




You are describing the economics of a modification, but we are discussing a new product. All manufacturing procedures must be set up initially for the first pilot run. There is no added cost here.




Just remember that for every slot you add, you have to increase the size of the power supply. The same thing for extra memory, and again, the same for an extra optical slot. . . A couple of extra 2 GB DIMMS can easily add 3 amps to the power draw. . .




So less than 10 Watts for two extra DIMMS and maybe 90 Watts for a second optical drive and PCI card. That would up your 425 Watt supply to 525 Watts. Still a long way from the 980 Watts of a Mac Pro.




Now, I know that it sounds like a lot, and it is, but using some knowledge of the power requirements of the components, I estimate that removing everything from that machine to get to yours would still require 600 watts.




I believe you are overlooking the fact that the Xeon and its memory draw higher current than the equivalent desktop CPU and memory. I like my 525 Watts better than your 600 Watt estimate that you got by working down.

The point is, I wouldn't like to see Apple cut out too much on a prosumer Mac tower. It needs at least 2 PCIe cards, in addition to the graphics card. No one will object to having one or two more slots than they actually need, or an extra optical drive bay. The place to skimp would be a low end Mac Mini replacement.




It would still add $60 to $80 to the final cost of the machine. . . Again it depends on the cost, and the more you add, the higher the cost.




The cost of 2 RAM socks, one PCIe socket and a cable to an empty optical drive bay is trivial. The bulk of the cost would be going from your 425 Watt supply to a 525 Watt supply. That would likely add less than $40. But even if it were an $80 price increase, I think that is not too much for a prosumer Mac mini tower, provided Apple improves the Mac Mini.

The upper end Mac Mini needs higher performance graphics and CPU, plus a full size desktop drive and optical drive.

:)

[melgross]

You are describing the economics of a modification, but we are discussing a new product. All manufacturing procedures must be set up initially for the first pilot run. There is no added cost here.

no, these costs all exist from the beginning. It's costs extra for the extra programming time to set the lines uop for extra components, and it costs more to insert them.

You are in denial here.

[quote]
So less than 10 Watts for two extra DIMMS and maybe 90 Watts for a second optical drive and PCI card. That would up your 425 Watt supply to 525 Watts. Still a long way from the 980 Watts of a Mac Pro.

Try 50 to 100 watts for two 2 GB DIMMS.



I believe you are overlooking the fact that the Xeon and its memory draw higher current than the equivalent desktop CPU and memory. I like my 525 Watts better than your 600 Watt estimate that you got by working down.

You might like it, but it's too low anyway.


The point is, I wouldn't like to see Apple cut out too much on a prosumer Mac tower. It needs at least 2 PCIe cards, in addition to the graphics card. No one will object to having one or two more slots than they actually need, or an extra optical drive bay. The place to skimp would be a low end Mac Mini replacement.

Your first mistake is in calling this a "prosumer" machine. It's not. It's just a lower cost mini tower.


The cost of 2 RAM socks, one PCIe socket and a cable to an empty optical drive bay is trivial. The bulk of the cost would be going from your 425 Watt supply to a 525 Watt supply. That would likely add less than $40. But even if it were an $80 price increase, I think that is not too much for a prosumer Mac mini tower, provided Apple improves the Mac Mini.

You're just guessing. Come up with prices on those sockets, and then find out what other components are rrquired, and price them out as well. You'd be surprised at what they cost.


The upper end Mac Mini needs higher performance graphics and CPU, plus a full size desktop drive and optical drive.

:)

That's a different story.

[snoopy]

no, these costs all exist from the beginning. It's costs extra for the extra programming time to set the lines uop for extra components, and it costs more to insert them.

You are in denial here.




Go back and read what you wrote. You said, ". . . Some think that auto insert is no big deal, but it is. Every time a program change has to be made, it costs thousands of dollars. . . The assy line is custom made for that particular product. It is then broken down and re assembled into another configuration. . ."

Here it is clear to me that you are speaking of changing the auto insertion program, which is what happen when a product is modified. However, our discussion is a new product, and insertion programs must be set up in the beginning for all new products -- the ones you describe as well as the ones I describe. I had said in my reply to you, "All manufacturing procedures must be set up initially for the first pilot run. There is no added cost here."

Why is this point confusing? I thought it was clear and simple.





Try 50 to 100 watts for two 2 GB DIMMS.




:???: I was using your numbers. "A couple of extra 2 GB DIMMS can easily add 3 amps to the power draw. . ." Did you mean 30 Amperes? Power = Voltage * current. Looks like it's your error.





Your first mistake is in calling this a "prosumer" machine. It's not. It's just a lower cost mini tower.




Why? It has a high performance CPU and would be capable of running most professional software. It's between low cost computers and workstations. If it's not a prosumer machine, then what the heck is?




You're just guessing. Come up with prices on those sockets, and then find out what other components are required, and price them out as well. You'd be surprised at what they cost.




I don't design computers, but I've always thought that additional RAM sockets simply attached to the memory bus. LIkewise, a second PCIe card slot connects to a controller chip. These sockets don't require added parts. The Intel chip-set takes care of them.

If I'm wrong, I'd welcome an explanation -- as a chance to learn something new.

:)

[melgross]

Go back and read what you wrote. You said, ". . . Some think that auto insert is no big deal, but it is. Every time a program change has to be made, it costs thousands of dollars. . . The assy line is custom made for that particular product. It is then broken down and re assembled into another configuration. . ."

Ok, you got me there. I wasn't as clear as I should have been. That later post should have cleared that up, as it was meant to do.


Here it is clear to me that you are speaking of changing the auto insertion program, which is what happen when a product is modified. However, our discussion is a new product, and insertion programs must be set up in the beginning for all new products -- the ones you describe as well as the ones I describe. I had said in my reply to you, "All manufacturing procedures must be set up initially for the first pilot run. There is no added cost here."

Again, I thought I cleared that up. If more is being done, then the program requires more coding. While these programs aren't coded the way ordinary programs are, they still take time, and must be completely de-bugged. Sometimes the debugging isn't complete until the production line is tested. The more steps, the more time, the more money.


Why is this point confusing? I thought it was clear and simple.

It's confusing because you aren't allowing fo the extra work that's being done.


:???: I was using your numbers. "A couple of extra 2 GB DIMMS can easily add 3 amps to the power draw. . ." Did you mean 30 Amperes? Power = Voltage * current. Looks like it's your error.

No not 30 amps. 3 amps would be more like 30 watts. Remember, I said "easily" Often it's much more than that. 100 watts would be 10 amps. That's an extreme, it's true, but not out of the question. If we are using DDR2, then 3 amps would be about right—30 watts. But if we are using a Xeon as some here think Apple should, then it would be more, as FB-DIMMS use a fair amount more power.


Why? It has a high performance CPU and would be capable of running most professional software. It's between low cost computers and workstations. If it's not a prosumer machine, then what the heck is?

It's just that giving it that type of name leads one to all sorts of expectations for a machine that would be the same as every other PC in the same catagory.

It's really too bad that the Xeons REQUIRE FB-DIMMS. That really adds to the cost of a machine. It it didn't, then it could be used in a machine like this, and perhaps then, it could be given some other name such as the Mac Mini Pro, or somesuch name.


I don't design computers, but I've always thought that additional RAM sockets simply attached to the memory bus. LIkewise, a second PCIe card slot connects to a controller chip. These sockets don't require added parts. The Intel chip-set takes care of them.

If I'm wrong, I'd welcome an explanation -- as a chance to learn something new.

:)[/QUOTE]

They require buffering chips to eliminate parasitic capacitance, and other problems. They also require de-coupling caps.

[snoopy]

If more is being done, then the program requires more coding. While these programs aren't coded the way ordinary programs are, they still take time, and must be completely de-bugged. Sometimes the debugging isn't complete until the production line is tested. The more steps, the more time, the more money.




Really, the added programming steps for inserting components for 2 RAM strips and one PCIe slot would be quite small compared to programming the whole motherboard. On top of that, this small cost would be amortized over the total number of Mac mini towers. The cost allocated to a single Mac would be pennies.





No not 30 amps. 3 amps would be more like 30 watts. Remember, I said "easily" Often it's much more than that. 100 watts would be 10 amps. That's an extreme, it's true, but not out of the question. If we are using DDR2, then 3 amps would be about right—30 watts. But if we are using a Xeon as some here think Apple should, then it would be more, as FB-DIMMS use a fair amount more power.




So what voltage do these RAM strips run at, 10 volts? Forgive the ignorance of an analog engineer, but it's my impression that CMOS runs at 3.3 Volts or less today. CPUs are down in the 2 volt range, no?





They require buffering chips to eliminate parasitic capacitance, and other problems. They also require de-coupling caps.




So buffering is not part of the chip set? Okay. Decoupling caps are fairly cheap. I forgot about them.

The list is getting smaller. :lol:

[melgross]

Really, the added programming steps for inserting components for 2 RAM strips and one PCIe slot would be quite small compared to programming the whole motherboard. On top of that, this small cost would be amortized over the total number of Mac mini towers. The cost allocated to a single Mac would be pennies.





So what voltage do these RAM strips run at, 10 volts? Forgive the ignorance of an analog engineer, but it's my impression that CMOS runs at 3.3 Volts or less today. CPUs are down in the 2 volt range, no?





So buffering is not part of the chip set? Okay. Decoupling caps are fairly cheap. I forgot about them.

The list is getting smaller. :lol:

I'm not going to keep arguing with you about this. You are quite simply wrong.

When you've had more experience on the production line, come back.

[snoopy]

I'm not going to keep arguing with you about this. You are quite simply wrong.

When you've had more experience on the production line, come back.




I'm curious; it sounds like your job is in production, no? I spent almost 10 years in design engineering and worked on many projects, including a motherboard and a power supply. We constantly interfaced with manufacturing people when going into a pilot run. I was working on an MBA for a few years, went into marketing when I finished the degree program, and then, when I really didn't care for it, I went back into engineering. My job this time included programming automated test equipment for the manufacturing lines, and redesigning equipment that didn't perform well.

I say this to let you know I do have some experience, and this is why I find our disagreement so frustrating. At least it is down to two items.

Regarding the cost of programming machine insertion for two RAM strips and one added PCIe card, plus associated components, really would be trivial in my opinion. I guess these parts are less than 2 percent of the motherboard. By comparison, if I had to program my test equipment for 2 percent more testing it would take maybe a day at most. Divide that by the number of products built and it really is trivial, pennies.

Add the components, and it is under $5 I'd guess. So, the majority of the costs is in the larger power supply. I'll let you say what that would be. I was simply marking up your 425 Watt estimate an extra 100 Watts. Which brings us to power consumption.

What looks like a glaring error in your calculations is the power requirements of the added two RAM strips. I did mostly analog design, but it has been years since anyone used 10 Volt CMOS. Yet I'm familiar with logic circuitry, not memory. You say 3 Amperes. Multiplying by supply voltage to get power, I got 9 Watts using a 3 Volt supply. If the supply is 10 Volts, than it would be the 30 Watts you say.

Even then, the added $80 dollars you estimate would not be much for a mini tower of this caliber, which is the bottom line I guess.

:)

[melgross]

I'm curious; it sounds like your job is in production, no? I spent almost 10 years in design engineering and worked on many projects, including a motherboard and a power supply. We constantly interfaced with manufacturing people when going into a pilot run. I was working on an MBA for a few years, went into marketing when I finished the degree program, and then, when I really didn't care for it, I went back into engineering. My job this time included programming automated test equipment for the manufacturing lines, and redesigning equipment that didn't perform well.

I say this to let you know I do have some experience, and this is why I find our disagreement so frustrating. At least it is down to two items.

Regarding the cost of programming machine insertion for two RAM strips and one added PCIe card, plus associated components, really would be trivial in my opinion. I guess these parts are less than 2 percent of the motherboard. By comparison, if I had to program my test equipment for 2 percent more testing it would take maybe a day at most. Divide that by the number of products built and it really is trivial, pennies.

Add the components, and it is under $5 I'd guess. So, the majority of the costs is in the larger power supply. I'll let you say what that would be. I was simply marking up your 425 Watt estimate an extra 100 Watts. Which brings us to power consumption.

What looks like a glaring error in your calculations is the power requirements of the added two RAM strips. I did mostly analog design, but it has been years since anyone used 10 Volt CMOS. Yet I'm familiar with logic circuitry, not memory. You say 3 Amperes. Multiplying by supply voltage to get power, I got 9 Watts using a 3 Volt supply. If the supply is 10 Volts, than it would be the 30 Watts you say.

Even then, the added $80 dollars you estimate would not be much for a mini tower of this caliber, which is the bottom line I guess.

:)

I was a partner in a professional audio manufacturing firm. I designed products from speaker drivers for our own models, to pre-amps, power amps, and rf circuitry. Because of my position, I was highly involved in costing analysis.

We sold that company, and I've also been a partner in a commercial pho lab, where we were one of the first to do digital editing and compositing, starting with the Crossfield system.

I've also designed, and built, numerous digital devices for companies such as Showtime.

We had our own production lines for years, though later we decided to close them and outsource most of the non speaker related production.

My bio here gives some of that info.

we can disagree about some of the particulars, but the expense is still considerable, when one considers the marketing problems of adding another $60 to $80 to the price. That would be anywhere from $6 to 10% of the total, if you are trying to keep it down to a reasonable level.

The reason why it costs is not only related to the price of the parts, and programming and debugging, but also to the extra pickoff stations that must be used, as well as at least one more diverter line for defective boards. Extra board test connections and time also costs as well. So will the higher reject rates due to the greater component count and extra trace defect rate.Extra inventory, ordering, etc also count to a price increase. Two high quality DIMM sockets in the ten thousand and up pricing catagory will still cost about $4. Add an extra 50 cents for the rest, and the product price has moved up by at lest $10, and possibly $15. That doesn't include any of the other costs.

You have to also remember that the mobo will have to be at least 1.5 inches higher. That will add a good $10 to Apple's cost, if not more. Apple's mobo's have always cost far more than those in the PC industry.

But, look, we are not going to agree.

[snoopy]

. . . But, look, we are not going to agree.




Thanks for the info. on your background. I've always worked for large companies, but would have liked to have had my own business. Also, building my own audio gear was my hobby, so it is interesting to hear you did it professionally.

I believe we disagree on the effect of a $60 to $80 price increase for a fairly high performance mini tower. I don't believe it will make much difference, and you do. But then, I think my price range may be higher than yours. I'd say $999 to $1999. Anything much less than that could be satisfied by an upgraded Mac Mini with desktop components and larger case.

The other thing that had me puzzled is the power rating of the RAM, but that is a side issue I will gladly set aside and forget.

So I think we have gotten fairly close.

:D

[fisha]

just to chip in and stir the pot . . . when speccing up a system and figuring out what size of power supply to get, some guidelines reckon on applying typically 15W per gigabyte on the memory side of things. obviously thats a rough figure, but at least its a ball park.

[aynecott]

Free Software Download

[melgross]

Free Software Download

That's a nice link.

[Chucker]

That's a nice link.

Instant bookmark. I need to share it on del.icio.us.

[snoopy]

Instant bookmark. I need to share it on del.icio.us.




I'm curious. Why bother, when you can select "OSX software" from the Apple menu to get the same stuff?

:???:

[melgross]

I'm curious. Why bother, when you can select "OSX software" from the Apple menu to get the same stuff?

:???:

Because it's easier this way. I know what I can find on my bookmarks, and therefore I know which one to go to for anything specific.

When going to "OSX Software", it takes longer to find what I need.

[Bregalad]

Apple should build a mini-tower because it makes sense.
Thousands of existing Mac users like me want one and probably aren't contributing a dime to Apple right now because we're buying used towers.

Start with a Conroe or Kentsfield CPU. A motherboard for that will automatically have only one CPU socket and a limited RAM ceiling which will keep the Pro buyers away from it. By default they get some empty PCI Express slots and chances are it'll have on-board video. That would allow Apple to ship a low end version with no video card and a higher model with a GeForce 7600 board that's good enough for the casual gamer and already has Mac drivers because the 7600 is available in the 24" iMac. It'll be a standard size board able to fit in a mini-tower or desktop case. All Apple needs to do is have the BIOS replaced with Apple EFI and it's a Mac.

Put the board in a small tower case with 3 drive bays: stock HD, stock DVD-RW and one empty one. Keep everyone happy by making the empty bay large enough for a Blu-ray drive, but include a mounting tray for a 3.5" HD.

Yes it would compete directly with the iMac, but I honestly believe that there's room for both. Buyers would have the choice of an integrated LCD or a box with some expansion capability and somewhat faster components.

I think it would be a winner because it would get me to buy a new Mac for the first time since 2002 (I've bought three used towers since then) and because it would be attractive to switchers and potential switchers who might like to try a stylish computer that can run any operating system. If Nvidia made the GeForce 8800 available it might even attract a few gamers.

[rickag]

Apple should build a mini-tower because it makes sense.
Thousands of existing Mac users like me want one and probably aren't contributing a dime to Apple right now because we're buying used towers.

Start with a Conroe or Kentsfield CPU. A motherboard for that will automatically have only one CPU socket and a limited RAM ceiling which will keep the Pro buyers away from it. By default they get some empty PCI Express slots and chances are it'll have on-board video. That would allow Apple to ship a low end version with no video card and a higher model with a GeForce 7600 board that's good enough for the casual gamer and already has Mac drivers because the 7600 is available in the 24" iMac. It'll be a standard size board able to fit in a mini-tower or desktop case. All Apple needs to do is have the BIOS replaced with Apple EFI and it's a Mac.

Put the board in a small tower case with 3 drive bays: stock HD, stock DVD-RW and one empty one. Keep everyone happy by making the empty bay large enough for a Blu-ray drive, but include a mounting tray for a 3.5" HD.

Yes it would compete directly with the iMac, but I honestly believe that there's room for both. Buyers would have the choice of an integrated LCD or a box with some expansion capability and somewhat faster components.

I think it would be a winner because it would get me to buy a new Mac for the first time since 2002 (I've bought three used towers since then) and because it would be attractive to switchers and potential switchers who might like to try a stylish computer that can run any operating system. If Nvidia made the GeForce 8800 available it might even attract a few gamers.
Yes it is somewhat ironic that one of Apple's biggest competitors seems to be their own used machines.
a few years ago I bought a 7500, upgraded it with Sonnet G4, ATI Rage and Firewire/USB cards. At the time I could really justify buying a used G4 tower since the price hadn't dropped significantly due to the high demand for used Apple computers.:\

[KenPierce]

Hello everyone,

I found this thread by doing a Google search for "Mid Range Mac" because my Windows tower is starting to get a little long in the tooth, and I'm considering upgrading. I've been watching the Macs ever since Apple announced the switch to Intel (and was on the verge of purchasing a Mac Mini for tinkering and as a HTPC when the announcement was made).

This fictional "xMac" everyone is talking about is geared perfectly toward me. I have a very nice 22" widescreen LCD monitor connected to my PC already, and I prefer to do my own RAM upgrades (Apple's RAM is ludicrously expensive, even for notebook memory - and I'd like the ability to have 4GB of RAM, mostly for Vista).

I've looked at the iMacs, and honestly, the spec (at least the ones with the x1600 graphic chipset) is good enough for what I want. I would prefer a better graphics chipset, but could live with the x1600 (especially if it were upgradeable later). What I don't want is the LCD monitor, and I'd prefer it use desktop parts so I could upgrade my components at a lower cost. I've already got a really good monitor, and I'd like the ability to pick up a separate OEM SATA drive and stick it in my computer (I like to do some video work on the side, and prefer to do all my capture onto a separate device).

The price point on the iMacs is in the range I'd like to be, but I hate the thought of spending part of that price point on a monitor I don't want or need. I'd rather a computer be available at the same price point with an upgraded spec and more expandability. I want the ability to run both MacOS and Windows Vista well. I'm perfectly OK with rebooting to play some Windows games.

The Mac Pro is out of the question. Sorry, the thing is overkill for what I need and the FB-DIMMs make putting a reasonable amount of RAM (Apple or otherwise) in it a very expensive proposition.

The form factor of the Mac Pro is OK, but I'd honestly prefer something smaller. A Shuttle sized PC would be about right.

The Mac Mini is out of the question for two reasons: it's a nightmare to upgrade (even the RAM), and it's ridiculously overpriced considering how low the spec is on it.

I've considered the MacBook Pro, but it requires paying a lot for portability I'm not interested in and limits my uprgade options. The MacBook uses the integrated Intel graphics chipset, so it's out of the question, because as I mentioned, I like to play some Windows games.

Here's a note for Apple: I am a potential switcher who is not switching because the machine I want does not exist. I highly doubt I am alone. Now that you've made the switch to Intel processors, we are looking closely at your machines. The hole in your lineup may seem small to many of the Mac faithful. To us Windows users, it's the Grand Canyon. If the missing machine were announced tomorrow, I would pre-order my first Mac.

[QuarterQuack]

Here's a note for Apple: I am a potential switcher who is not switching because the machine I want does not exist. I highly doubt I am alone. Now that you've made the switch to Intel processors, we are looking closely at your machines. The hole in your lineup may seem small to many of the Mac faithful. To us Windows users, it's the Grand Canyon. If the missing machine were announced tomorrow, I would pre-order my first Mac.


Amen to that!

QQ

[sequitur]

Here's a note for Apple: I am a potential switcher who is not switching because the machine I want does not exist. I highly doubt I am alone. Now that you've made the switch to Intel processors, we are looking closely at your machines. The hole in your lineup may seem small to many of the Mac faithful. To us Windows users, it's the Grand Canyon. If the missing machine were announced tomorrow, I would pre-order my first Mac.[/QUOTE]
Having read the other threads, you must be aware that your concern is felt by a lot of old Mac hands, also.
My two daughters (PC users) and I (five year Mac user) are waiting for that Mini tower to appear - and for the same reason you have for not jumping in at this time - because the existing Macs do not meet our needs

[USMC2Hard4U]

I am a Mac User, but not a switcher. I will not get rid of my PC that I can build myself until apple releases a Mid Range mac.

So I guess we are all in the same sinking boat together.

[BenRoethig]

I am a Mac User, but not a switcher. I will not get rid of my PC that I can build myself until apple releases a Mid Range mac.

So I guess we are all in the same sinking boat together.


I second that Marine.

[KenPierce]

I decided to blog and Digg this story again, to try and bring it back to Apple's attention. I know it's been said a thousand times, but I'd appreciate anyone who would like this gap in Apple's product line filled to Digg the story and fill out the poll on my blog. Maybe enough responses will get Apple's attention.

Blog:
http://blog.pixelperfectproductions.com/?p=41

Digg:
http://www.digg.com/apple/Apple_Are_You_Listening_Open_Letter_to_Steve_Jobs_ Poll_Included
(but you can Digg from the blog, as well).

[BenRoethig]

I decided to blog and Digg this story again, to try and bring it back to Apple's attention. I know it's been said a thousand times, but I'd appreciate anyone who would like this gap in Apple's product line filled to Digg the story and fill out the poll on my blog. Maybe enough responses will get Apple's attention.

Blog:
http://blog.pixelperfectproductions.com/?p=41

Digg:
http://www.digg.com/apple/Apple_Are_You_Listening_Open_Letter_to_Steve_Jobs_ Poll_Included
(but you can Digg from the blog, as well).

Be prepared for the hate mail though. Unfortunately, those who question Apple's decision and raise the possibility that they can be wrong get it.

[snoopy]

I'd appreciate anyone who would like this gap in Apple's product line filled to . . . fill out the poll on my blog.




In my browser the poll questions are white on white and can't be read. The mockup of a Mac mini tower is very nice BTW.

:D

[KenPierce]

Be prepared for the hate mail though. Unfortunately, those who question Apple's decision and raise the possibility that they can be wrong get it.

If it gets me the Mac I want, I'm OK with the hate mail.

[KenPierce]

In my browser the poll questions are white on white and can't be read. The mockup of a Mac mini tower is very nice BTW.

:D

Which browser? I want to guess Safari, because it's the one browser I haven't been able to test. :D

[iPeon]

I decided to blog and Digg this story again, to try and bring it back to Apple's attention. I know it's been said a thousand times, but I'd appreciate anyone who would like this gap in Apple's product line filled to Digg the story and fill out the poll on my blog. Maybe enough responses will get Apple's attention.

Nicely done! I've written directly to Apple about the very same thing myself.

Which browser? I want to guess Safari, because it's the one browser I haven't been able to test. :D

I'm using Safari and experienced the same. The text is white on a white background hence hard to read, howver, I was only able to read it by selecting the text.

Cheers!

[KenPierce]

Nicely done! I've written directly to Apple about the very same thing myself.



I'm using Safari and experienced the same. The text is white on a white background hence hard to read, howver, I was only able to read it by selecting the text.

Cheers!

I'm using WordPress for the blog, apparently they fixed the Safari problems in the latest version, but I haven't had an opportunity to upgrade.

[rickag]

For those who haven't seen it there was another similar Blog

http://www.sendmike2space.com/

It pretty much stopped at 4500 diggs.

[snoopy]

Ladies and gentlemen, AppleInsider believes in all sincerity that the Mac mini is dead. . . . sources, for whom AppleInsider holds the utmost respect, are now pointing towards the mini's impending demise.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=74767




Surprise, and potentially good news if this report is true, because Apple would replace the Mac Mini with something else. I'm sure Apple has marketing information indicating what Mac users, businesses, schools and potential switchers prefer in place of a Mini. Our discussion here may not be so hypothetical after all.

8-)

[KenPierce]

Surprise, and potentially good news if this report is true, because Apple would replace the Mac Mini with something else. I'm sure Apple has marketing information indicating what Mac users, businesses, schools and potential switchers prefer in place of a Mini. Our discussion here may not be so hypothetical after all.

8-)
I hope you're right, Snoopy. I'd love to see something sooner rather than later...

[snoopy]

First of all: yes, this is about a mid-range tower. . .

I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower . . . In fact [Apple doesn't] even make a Mac with a desktop CPU in it. . . What do you think the chances are of Apple producing such a machine?




The impetus behind this discussion, and many like it, may soon be satisfied with the realization of a Mac Mini Tower. :D At least that is my hope now, in light of the report suggesting the demise of the Mac Mini.

I suspect this move is the result of much market investigation. Also, if the goal was to have just one new Mac that will satisfy the most demands of both potential switchers and Mac users alike, a small tower or expandable cube is the most likely choice of design. Here is what I think we will see.

Two versions, with different motherboards. Both will have two HDD bays and one or two optical drive bays. The Mini replacement, $599 to $899, will have on-board graphics and no PCIe slots. The prosumer version, $999 to $1799, will have a choice of PCIe graphics cards, and two or three expansion slots. The cheaper motherboard will have a desktop dual core chip, while the upper end board will have a four core desktop processor.

Such a Mac can satisfy a broad range of computer needs and desires. If Apple builds it, it will fly off the shelves.


:)

[rickag]

http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/30/steve-jobs-live-from-d-2007/

12:23pm - Funny question: this is your gradual exit out of the computer business with the name change?

No. If you come to WWDC we're rolling out our new version of OSX -- massive investments in desktops. You'll love it.

There is hope, small but hope. For an xMac or xMac like computer.

[snoopy]

http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/30/steve-jobs-live-from-d-2007/

There is hope, small but hope. For an xMac or xMac like computer.




It would be nice. :) In fact, one might interpret "massive investments in desktops" as more than one desktop. :D Yet Steve may have just used the wrong word.

He also said that before long Apple may be selling 80 to 90 percent laptops. That would leave just 10 to 20 percent of Macs as desktops - - not a very promising balance for us that want a new desktop Mac.

:(

[BenRoethig]

God willing this means a G33/Allendale based Mini replacement, and a P35 prosumer Mac running Conroe and Kentsfield in addition to a all cloverton Mac Pro lineup. Unfortunately, this is Apple and probably just means a 30" iMac or something

[irahodges]

He also said that before long Apple may be selling 80 to 90 percent laptops. That would leave just 10 to 20 percent of Macs as desktops - - not a very promising balance for us that want a new desktop Mac.

:(

Believe it or not, I see this easily happening. As laptop technology starts to catch up to the expansion and capability of desktops, there will begin to be less and less of a need for desktop computing. I don't think this will happen anytime extremely soon, but eventually a laptop will be able to do everything a desktop can do, so you might as well go with a laptop. This includes processor speed, HDD, and disc drives. Maybe I'm thinking to far out, but it is a thought.

On the other hand, right here and now, we are nowhere near that place. Although a lot closer than we were 5-10 years ago, laptops still see a significant performance and expandability gap from desktops (slower performance due to heat conscious processors, smaller and slower hard drives, and its hard for HD drive technology to fit an apple laptop). I vote give us a new mid-range tower now until technology catches up!

[sequitur]

Believe it or not, I see this easily happening. As laptop technology starts to catch up to the expansion and capability of desktops, there will begin to be less and less of a need for desktop computing. I don't think this will happen anytime extremely soon, but eventually a laptop will be able to do everything a desktop can do, so you might as well go with a laptop. This includes processor speed, HDD, and disc drives. Maybe I'm thinking to far out, but it is a thought.

On the other hand, right here and now, we are nowhere near that place. Although a lot closer than we were 5-10 years ago, laptops still see a significant performance and expandability gap from desktops (slower performance due to heat conscious processors, smaller and slower hard drives, and its hard for HD drive technology to fit an apple laptop). I vote give us a new mid-range tower now until technology catches up!

Maybe some company (hopefully Apple) will produce a computer that's half way between a laptop and a desktop: a portable like one of the old portables of the '80's - but about the size of an attache case with a separate monitor in the top half. You could carry it around the house from room to room.

Naw, it would be too heavy to travel with. However, I would never be satisfied with a laptop size monitor. I have two 22" monitors on my desk and am thinking of adding another. I guess a laptop and a docking station would be the way to go.

[irahodges]

Maybe some company (hopefully Apple) will produce a computer that's half way between a laptop and a desktop: a portable like one of the old portables of the '80's - but about the size of an attache case with a separate monitor in the top half. You could carry it around the house from room to room.

Naw, it would be too heavy to travel with. However, I would never be satisfied with a laptop size monitor. I have two 22" monitors on my desk and am thinking of adding another. I guess a laptop and a docking station would be the way to go.

Ha ha!

I guess I am thinking of a future where monitors are all around us (maybe processors too!), we just carry a portable storage side with us and hook up everywhere we go. That is really far out ahead of us, but there are baby steps along the way. In this step, we start seeing a lot more laptops and less desktops because we want to take everything with us!

Talk about Minority Report!!

[snoopy]

. . . eventually a laptop will be able to do everything a desktop can do, so you might as well go with a laptop. This includes processor speed, HDD, and disc drives.




For me, and I'm sure some others, the laptop is not acceptable unless I need a portable computer.

1) I dislike the laptop keyboard. It is awkward to use, and I have difficulty typing on it. I've had to use a laptop often enough to become accustom to it, so it's not something I would eventually get used to, much less like. I hate it.

2) I dislike the track-pad too. When I use it I can't wait to get back to a mouse.

3) The laptop display is too small. I much prefer a 19 to 24 inch display.

4) I've heard the argument that I can use an external monitor, keyboard and mouse with a laptop, but that would be a makeshift mess on my desk. If I need a laptop on occasions, I'll keep it separate and synchronized with my desktop.

So far, my exposure to a laptop has been in running a sound board for musical and multimedia performances. We have a Mac Book for this, by the way. I much prefer being on stage playing drums or singing, than using the laptop, and I don't like the spotlight.

:D

[Joe_the_dragon]

Ha ha!

I guess I am thinking of a future where monitors are all around us (maybe processors too!), we just carry a portable storage side with us and hook up everywhere we go. That is really far out ahead of us, but there are baby steps along the way. In this step, we start seeing a lot more laptops and less desktops because we want to take everything with us!

Talk about Minority Report!!

we can have things like that now useing the Hyper Transport bus. Intel FSB is too old of things like that.

[irahodges]

For me, and I'm sure some others, the laptop is not acceptable unless I need a portable computer.

1) I dislike the laptop keyboard. It is awkward to use, and I have difficulty typing on it. I've had to use a laptop often enough to become accustom to it, so it's not something I would eventually get used to, much less like. I hate it.

2) I dislike the track-pad too. When I use it I can't wait to get back to a mouse.

3) The laptop display is too small. I much prefer a 19 to 24 inch display.

4) I've heard the argument that I can use an external monitor, keyboard and mouse with a laptop, but that would be a makeshift mess on my desk. If I need a laptop on occasions, I'll keep it separate and synchronized with my desktop.

So far, my exposure to a laptop has been in running a sound board for musical and multimedia performances. We have a Mac Book for this, by the way. I much prefer being on stage playing drums or singing, than using the laptop, and I don't like the spotlight.

:D

In general, I was speaking about a future where there are large monitors, mice, and keyboards you hook up to wherever you want (in the mall, on the subway, at a friends house, etc.).

For something like today, I agree with you. I prefer a desktop over a laptop as well. However, my point is that sometime in the distant future, hopefully desktops will not have any technological advantage over portables other than the things you mentioned.

Who knows, by then we may be using touch sensitive displays instead of a keyboard and mouse!

[Joe_the_dragon]

In general, I was speaking about a future where there are large monitors, mice, and keyboards you hook up to wherever you want (in the mall, on the subway, at a friends house, etc.).

For something like today, I agree with you. I prefer a desktop over a laptop as well. However, my point is that sometime in the distant future, hopefully desktops will not have any technological advantage over portables other than the things you mentioned.

Who knows, by then we may be using touch sensitive displays instead of a keyboard and mouse!

It will a long time before laptops are as easy to open up and put new parts in as a desktop is also space / heat and battery life will keep super high end parts from be a good choice for a laptop.

[melgross]

we can have things like that now useing the Hyper Transport bus. Intel FSB is too old of things like that.

Hypertransport is not that special.

Besides, Intel has their own version coming out next year.

[Joe_the_dragon]

Hypertransport is not that special.

Besides, Intel has their own version coming out next year.

you can use it to have a laptop dock with cpus and a lot of pci-e lanes maybe even sli / crossfire with raid hardware cards all over the same bus.