I couldn't vote, since I don't see the need for a minitower--which I assume has the power of a pro without the expandability. Huh? Most power users--most, mind you--need power and expandability. That's how the Mac Pro got where it is...and why the Cube died a prematurely embarrasing death.
The round up of some of what I've noticed that people ask for is.
• They don't need two processors.
• They need some expandability.
• They need graphics options.
• They don't need all the Mac Pro features, just some basic ones.
• They want a desktop not driven buy Laptop parts, but not as big as the Mac Pro
• They want a smaller case, but it still has to have some drive, and graphics expandability.
• They don't want to pay as much as what a base Mac Pro costs for what you get because the price of the case, and second processor (that they don't need) is keeping them from affording some other options that they would prefer, that they do need.
• The size is just too big.
There are a lot more but I'm busy working.
The general consensus is the iMac uses laptop parts. is not expandable, and has poor graphics, or no graphics options. The Mini is worse. It has no graphics whatsoever, and has no expandability what so ever. THe Mac Pro is just too much in all aspects. Cost, Size, Power, but still lacks graphics options again.
The main thing is that the cheapest skeleton of a Mac Pro costs fully two times as much as my desired hardware spec built with nothing but high quality retail parts.
Dump the Xeons for good bang-for-buck Conroes like the E4400 and Q6600, dump the special memory for plain ol' DDR2-800, dump the oversized cooling and power that was needed to keep the Xeons running, and a big part of the price gap is gone right there.
I'm not getting another external drive and I'm dumping the one I have as soon as possible. I want minimal wires and dangling parts, a neat setup you don't need to hide (not that I have anyplace to hide my stuff, anyway). With a good quality desktop chassis it is possible to silence the mechanical noise from HD's almost completely. That's another thing I want from any piece of hardware that is not a speaker: silence. I sleep practically with my ear to the electronics pile.
Mac Mini - not expandable enough (ie video card options, internal hds)
iMac - I'd rather buy monitor and system seperately for a variety of reasons, also has the same expandability problems as the mini.
Mac Pro - too expensive, starts over 2 grand. Don't need/want Xeons and don't need 4-8 cores, 2-4 would be fine. Only need room for 2 slots, 2 hds, 4 gig ram, 1-2 cds.
People want a sensible system at a reasonable price, no one expects to see a quad 3 ghz system for $799.
People want a sensible system at a reasonable price, no one expects to see a quad 3 ghz system for $799.
Interestingly enough, you can have just that by overclocking a Core 2 Quad Q6600. The Internet seems to agree that 2.8GHz is no sweat for pretty much any individual Q6600, and with careful part selection 3GHz is likely on air cooling. Even stock clock is 2.4GHz.
Just an observation. I'm not about to build one, but I think it's cool so much power is possible for so little.
I want three desktop drive bays, two PCIe slots and a choice of graphic cards. I don't need the option of octo-core, 16GB RAM, a second Gigabit ethernet port or the workstation size and price of the Mac Pro.
Alright, I can see the rationale of a couple of slots. (Although what you'd put in them is kind of lost on me.) I can see the desire to upgrade the graphics card. (Although I also realize that there basically *aren't* any retail Mac graphics cards to speak of... the folks asking for an upgradeable graphics card *do* realize this, right?)
But internal drive bays? I have *never* understood this. The same folks who complain that the AIO iMac is putting form over function by uncluttering the cables from the desktop now insist that *they* need less cables? Seriously, what's wrong with slapping an external drive (or three) on it?
The round up of some of what I've noticed that people ask for is.
? They don't need two processors.
? They need some expandability.
? They need graphics options.
? They don't need all the Mac Pro features, just some basic ones.
? They want a desktop not driven buy Laptop parts, but not as big as the Mac Pro
? They want a smaller case, but it still has to have some drive, and graphics expandability.
? They don't want to pay as much as what a base Mac Pro costs for what you get because the price of the case, and second processor (that they don't need) is keeping them from affording some other options that they would prefer, that they do need.
? The size is just too big.
There are a lot more but I'm busy working.
The general consensus is the iMac uses laptop parts. is not expandable, and has poor graphics, or no graphics options. The Mini is worse. It has no graphics whatsoever, and has no expandability what so ever. THe Mac Pro is just too much in all aspects. Cost, Size, Power, but still lacks graphics options again.
That's a good summary IMO.
I don't know why people have such a problem understanding these basic concepts even when they have been spelled out in such detail time and time again.
My question in response to the question posed by the thread is why *don't* people want a mini tower? What is the problem with it? The last one failed because Apple made a big mistake with the price and spec. As they've demonstrated with the Mini, they are quite capable of making reasonably priced, popular, powerful and small headless Macs.
The Mac Mini is a beautiful machine and my favorite Mac ever designed (besides the stupid clips that hold it together). But it's nowhere near powerful enough in the graphics department for me and I'm willing to pay more for the privilege of an upgrade even with a markup on top. I am very picky about what displays I am comfortable using as a lot of people are and I don't see why I should have to suffer out using Apple's choice of proven low quality screens or even pay for them.
There are people who own HDTVs who I'm sure would love a headless Mac to not only do general stuff like email and web browsing but also gaming. Consoles are ok but they still haven't managed the PC gaming experience, which is different. People love to play things like Counterstrike online and older games that don't require great hardware but capable hardware.
Imagine people sitting on their sofa with their new silver wireless Apple keyboard and a wireless mouse that isn't a Mighty Mouse playing Gears of War when it comes out on their super high resolution 1920x1080 display (supported because of the good GPU) and then switching out of it (possibly using expose) to launch safari or itunes or transfer songs to their ipod, which is docked at the side.
Whether Apple like it or not (and it's clear they are considering it more given the WWDC), games are a major part in the digital lifestyle. Would I pay double the price of an XBox 360 in order to get a headless Mac with a decent GPU? YES and a lot of other people would too. People buy Wiis at the same price as a 360 for the kind of games. I love point and click games and you don't get those on a console - you can say the Mini covers this as they have low requirements but people will never hook up a Mini as a dedicated gaming, music, movie machine with such a limited GPU.
Imagine if you said to someone that you could take a headless Mac and hook it to your HDTV and play the Half-Life 2 trilogy with a keyboard and mouse in Hi-Def and Apple style for £600-700. They'd be over the moon. It's true that it won't appeal to the imac fans because they are a different market altogether and in a small niche but that's why there's no problem at all. If people like the iMac great, let them have it. Let the majority have what they want too though and we can co-exist somewhat peacefully.
The gaming example is not a popular one with the mid-tower haters because macs don't do games but how about a graphics design pro who wants a nice 30" Apple cinema display. The Mini can't handle it and it's completely stupid to attach it to an iMac because you'd need to use mirroring if the 30" was the main display and then you'd be looking at duplicate screens. I work beside graphics designers and although they like the iMac design for some bizarre reason, they like to use their own displays. One of them has opted for a Mini because of this but struggles with the 2.5" drives and since he also dabbles in 3D, finds the GMA pretty limiting.
The mid-tower isn't just for gamers, it covers a huge range of applications.
In web servers, it would be way easier to upgrade a mid-tower hard drive than a Mini.
In gaming, it's much more preferable to have an upgradable GPU and no built-in screen.
In design, again the separate display is better and the form factor with performance is more desirable than a Mac pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickaha
Alright, I can see the rationale of a couple of slots. (Although what you'd put in them is kind of lost on me.)
I agree there, which is why I'd only like one for a replaceable GPU. Some poeple say TV tuners or capture cards but I think firewire and USB solutions cover these adequately. Maybe not on a cost level though but I'd stick with one in the interests of saving space.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickaha
I also realize that there basically *aren't* any retail Mac graphics cards to speak of... the folks asking for an upgradeable graphics card *do* realize this, right?
Yep, there aren't any because there is no demand for any because the only people who can use them are owners of Mac Pros who make up a very small part of the Mac community. The same used to be said about virtualization solutions for the Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickaha
But internal drive bays? I have *never* understood this. The same folks who complain that the AIO iMac is putting form over function by uncluttering the cables from the desktop now insist that *they* need less cables? Seriously, what's wrong with slapping an external drive (or three) on it?
You kind of answered it, internal drive bays don't compromise function in the interests of saving space, AIOs do.
The problem with external drives is really the extra power cables. I have 2 external HDs and an external DVD burner. I'd love to have either two internal opticals or two internal HDs (preferably the former as I like my backup HD offline).
Speed and cost. Include the advantages of the Mac Pro without the hinderances:
A minitower would still allow for 2 hard drives in RAID0 to double the speed of the hard drive bottleneck which plagues computers today. Also it would still allow for a decent video card.
Adantages over the Pro:
A minitower could use DDR2 800 MHz or 1000 MHz non-parity RAM which would be faster than what the Mac Pro uses, yet cheaper. In order to be able to handle so many Gigs at once, the Mac Pro uses a type of Ram which sacrifices RAM speed and price.
A single Quad core Core2 CPU (non-Xeon) would be just as fast as a Mac Pro Quad with 2 Xeons yet much cheaper, and since most software doesn't support multiple cores yet, it would even be as fast as the Mac Pro Octo in many areas. By the time you do need an Octo, all you would have to buy is a single Core2 Octo chip to replace your CPU, instead of two very expensive Xeon chips to get an upgrade.
As PC users flounder with Vista, Apple has the potential at this time to grab business away from the PC if they offer something comparable. Right now they only offer a great compact and a great high end, but they don't offer anything comparable to the middle of the road type of desktop PC that the average computer geek would have. If you don't have the computer geeks, you won't have the techs and the people who make technology desicions for large organizations.
I just ordered an iMac 2.8, but I'd Much rather have one with RAID0 hard drives because the difference is very noticeable. If it were available that's what I would have bought instead.
But internal drive bays? I have *never* understood this. The same folks who complain that the AIO iMac is putting form over function by uncluttering the cables from the desktop now insist that *they* need less cables? Seriously, what's wrong with slapping an external drive (or three) on it?
Just four spots above your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon
I'm not getting another external drive and I'm dumping the one I have as soon as possible. I want minimal wires and dangling parts, a neat setup you don't need to hide (not that I have anyplace to hide my stuff, anyway). With a good quality desktop chassis it is possible to silence the mechanical noise from HD's almost completely. That's another thing I want from any piece of hardware that is not a speaker: silence. I sleep practically with my ear to the electronics pile.
So... reading previous posts FTW?
I'd think Time Machine, backups, RAID and other things are also good reasons to have space for a couple HD's, but getting rid of cords and achieving a silent setup are #1 for me. I live in a small space. The only way to make those few square meters spacious and comfy enough is that they are tidy and clean. That's why I only have one display. That's why I want a desktop machine that looks good and can hold some hardware inside besides, instead of being small and kinda cute and spilling unholy dust-gathering sound-emitting peripheral vomit everywhere in the vicinity.
I have no problem with iMac other than that it's too expensive, especially after dropping the 17" and bumping processors that were already faster than 90% of actual users care about. It just doesn't fit my situation in any way. I'm actually keeping an eye out on a used iMac for the folks.
Golly, Gon, apologies all around for not catching that detail in the morass that is this thread, during a work day. Shall I wear the hair shirt, or would floggings do?
Noise suppression. Got it. Oddly, my fanless Cube makes more noise than the four external drives sitting next to it, but whatever works for you.
-2 FW 400 (one on front), 1 FW 800, 5 USB 2.0 (one on front)
-1GB on low end 2GB on high end DDR2 Ram upgradeable to 8GB
-Digital audio in/out
-IR receiver
-STATUS LED
In a size about 1/2 that of the Mac Pro. And Starting around 1299 $ (???)
I like this configuration but my changes are:
- two RAM slots for a total of 4GB
- no FireWire 800
- 3 USB 2.0 ports
- optical drive with LightScribe capabilities
- 802.11n wireless
- 1 model, like the Mac Pro, that can be customized.
My reason for the 4GB RAM limit is to prevent the cannibalization of Mac Pro sales by people that want or need more than 4GB RAM but do not need the power of the Mac Pro. No FireWire 800 removes another "pro" feature and gives the iMac a point in its favor since it does have it. The processor could be either a speed that the Mac Pro doesn't have or match the lowest one, and of course, it won't be a Xeon.
When Apple redesigns the mac Pro they shrink it down (without compromising expandability, the four HD bays or features) give it a new form factor to make this possible, and offer a stripped down version with the exact same new, sleek design for 1,000 bucks?
So you could buy a powerful one, and do as you do now, or buy the toned down version with the same shape, expandability, and structural hardware, but without some of the guts contained in the more Pro versions.
I don't see Apple offering two expandable desktops, ever, so they could just make their next Mac Pro small enough to take on both roles. The high end professional desktop machine, and the Jim-will-fix-it machine.
Comments
Just checking. Think "as opposed to a mac pro".
Be nice to add a choice - 'Don't want'
What is the big spiel about a mini tower? They already make the mini and you can dress it out with lots of add ons.
Mac Pro minus an optical drive bay, expansion slots, and hard drive bays... hmm.
the mac pro is too over powered for a lot of people and the cost is high.
FB-dimms have a high cost and it only comes with 1gb of ram and 7300gt video in the base system.
A minitower with desktop parts is need.
• They don't need two processors.
• They need some expandability.
• They need graphics options.
• They don't need all the Mac Pro features, just some basic ones.
• They want a desktop not driven buy Laptop parts, but not as big as the Mac Pro
• They want a smaller case, but it still has to have some drive, and graphics expandability.
• They don't want to pay as much as what a base Mac Pro costs for what you get because the price of the case, and second processor (that they don't need) is keeping them from affording some other options that they would prefer, that they do need.
• The size is just too big.
There are a lot more but I'm busy working.
The general consensus is the iMac uses laptop parts. is not expandable, and has poor graphics, or no graphics options. The Mini is worse. It has no graphics whatsoever, and has no expandability what so ever. THe Mac Pro is just too much in all aspects. Cost, Size, Power, but still lacks graphics options again.
Dump the Xeons for good bang-for-buck Conroes like the E4400 and Q6600, dump the special memory for plain ol' DDR2-800, dump the oversized cooling and power that was needed to keep the Xeons running, and a big part of the price gap is gone right there.
I'm not getting another external drive and I'm dumping the one I have as soon as possible. I want minimal wires and dangling parts, a neat setup you don't need to hide (not that I have anyplace to hide my stuff, anyway). With a good quality desktop chassis it is possible to silence the mechanical noise from HD's almost completely. That's another thing I want from any piece of hardware that is not a speaker: silence. I sleep practically with my ear to the electronics pile.
iMac - I'd rather buy monitor and system seperately for a variety of reasons, also has the same expandability problems as the mini.
Mac Pro - too expensive, starts over 2 grand. Don't need/want Xeons and don't need 4-8 cores, 2-4 would be fine. Only need room for 2 slots, 2 hds, 4 gig ram, 1-2 cds.
People want a sensible system at a reasonable price, no one expects to see a quad 3 ghz system for $799.
People want a sensible system at a reasonable price, no one expects to see a quad 3 ghz system for $799.
Interestingly enough, you can have just that by overclocking a Core 2 Quad Q6600. The Internet seems to agree that 2.8GHz is no sweat for pretty much any individual Q6600, and with careful part selection 3GHz is likely on air cooling. Even stock clock is 2.4GHz.
Just an observation. I'm not about to build one, but I think it's cool so much power is possible for so little.
But internal drive bays? I have *never* understood this. The same folks who complain that the AIO iMac is putting form over function by uncluttering the cables from the desktop now insist that *they* need less cables?
The round up of some of what I've noticed that people ask for is.
? They don't need two processors.
? They need some expandability.
? They need graphics options.
? They don't need all the Mac Pro features, just some basic ones.
? They want a desktop not driven buy Laptop parts, but not as big as the Mac Pro
? They want a smaller case, but it still has to have some drive, and graphics expandability.
? They don't want to pay as much as what a base Mac Pro costs for what you get because the price of the case, and second processor (that they don't need) is keeping them from affording some other options that they would prefer, that they do need.
? The size is just too big.
There are a lot more but I'm busy working.
The general consensus is the iMac uses laptop parts. is not expandable, and has poor graphics, or no graphics options. The Mini is worse. It has no graphics whatsoever, and has no expandability what so ever. THe Mac Pro is just too much in all aspects. Cost, Size, Power, but still lacks graphics options again.
That's a good summary IMO.
I don't know why people have such a problem understanding these basic concepts even when they have been spelled out in such detail time and time again.
My question in response to the question posed by the thread is why *don't* people want a mini tower? What is the problem with it? The last one failed because Apple made a big mistake with the price and spec. As they've demonstrated with the Mini, they are quite capable of making reasonably priced, popular, powerful and small headless Macs.
The Mac Mini is a beautiful machine and my favorite Mac ever designed (besides the stupid clips that hold it together). But it's nowhere near powerful enough in the graphics department for me and I'm willing to pay more for the privilege of an upgrade even with a markup on top. I am very picky about what displays I am comfortable using as a lot of people are and I don't see why I should have to suffer out using Apple's choice of proven low quality screens or even pay for them.
There are people who own HDTVs who I'm sure would love a headless Mac to not only do general stuff like email and web browsing but also gaming. Consoles are ok but they still haven't managed the PC gaming experience, which is different. People love to play things like Counterstrike online and older games that don't require great hardware but capable hardware.
Imagine people sitting on their sofa with their new silver wireless Apple keyboard and a wireless mouse that isn't a Mighty Mouse playing Gears of War when it comes out on their super high resolution 1920x1080 display (supported because of the good GPU) and then switching out of it (possibly using expose) to launch safari or itunes or transfer songs to their ipod, which is docked at the side.
Whether Apple like it or not (and it's clear they are considering it more given the WWDC), games are a major part in the digital lifestyle. Would I pay double the price of an XBox 360 in order to get a headless Mac with a decent GPU? YES and a lot of other people would too. People buy Wiis at the same price as a 360 for the kind of games. I love point and click games and you don't get those on a console - you can say the Mini covers this as they have low requirements but people will never hook up a Mini as a dedicated gaming, music, movie machine with such a limited GPU.
Imagine if you said to someone that you could take a headless Mac and hook it to your HDTV and play the Half-Life 2 trilogy with a keyboard and mouse in Hi-Def and Apple style for £600-700. They'd be over the moon. It's true that it won't appeal to the imac fans because they are a different market altogether and in a small niche but that's why there's no problem at all. If people like the iMac great, let them have it. Let the majority have what they want too though and we can co-exist somewhat peacefully.
The gaming example is not a popular one with the mid-tower haters because macs don't do games but how about a graphics design pro who wants a nice 30" Apple cinema display. The Mini can't handle it and it's completely stupid to attach it to an iMac because you'd need to use mirroring if the 30" was the main display and then you'd be looking at duplicate screens. I work beside graphics designers and although they like the iMac design for some bizarre reason, they like to use their own displays. One of them has opted for a Mini because of this but struggles with the 2.5" drives and since he also dabbles in 3D, finds the GMA pretty limiting.
The mid-tower isn't just for gamers, it covers a huge range of applications.
In web servers, it would be way easier to upgrade a mid-tower hard drive than a Mini.
In gaming, it's much more preferable to have an upgradable GPU and no built-in screen.
In design, again the separate display is better and the form factor with performance is more desirable than a Mac pro.
Alright, I can see the rationale of a couple of slots. (Although what you'd put in them is kind of lost on me.)
I agree there, which is why I'd only like one for a replaceable GPU. Some poeple say TV tuners or capture cards but I think firewire and USB solutions cover these adequately. Maybe not on a cost level though but I'd stick with one in the interests of saving space.
I also realize that there basically *aren't* any retail Mac graphics cards to speak of... the folks asking for an upgradeable graphics card *do* realize this, right?
Yep, there aren't any because there is no demand for any because the only people who can use them are owners of Mac Pros who make up a very small part of the Mac community. The same used to be said about virtualization solutions for the Mac.
But internal drive bays? I have *never* understood this. The same folks who complain that the AIO iMac is putting form over function by uncluttering the cables from the desktop now insist that *they* need less cables? Seriously, what's wrong with slapping an external drive (or three) on it?
You kind of answered it, internal drive bays don't compromise function in the interests of saving space, AIOs do.
The problem with external drives is really the extra power cables. I have 2 external HDs and an external DVD burner. I'd love to have either two internal opticals or two internal HDs (preferably the former as I like my backup HD offline).
A minitower would still allow for 2 hard drives in RAID0 to double the speed of the hard drive bottleneck which plagues computers today. Also it would still allow for a decent video card.
Adantages over the Pro:
A minitower could use DDR2 800 MHz or 1000 MHz non-parity RAM which would be faster than what the Mac Pro uses, yet cheaper. In order to be able to handle so many Gigs at once, the Mac Pro uses a type of Ram which sacrifices RAM speed and price.
A single Quad core Core2 CPU (non-Xeon) would be just as fast as a Mac Pro Quad with 2 Xeons yet much cheaper, and since most software doesn't support multiple cores yet, it would even be as fast as the Mac Pro Octo in many areas. By the time you do need an Octo, all you would have to buy is a single Core2 Octo chip to replace your CPU, instead of two very expensive Xeon chips to get an upgrade.
As PC users flounder with Vista, Apple has the potential at this time to grab business away from the PC if they offer something comparable. Right now they only offer a great compact and a great high end, but they don't offer anything comparable to the middle of the road type of desktop PC that the average computer geek would have. If you don't have the computer geeks, you won't have the techs and the people who make technology desicions for large organizations.
I just ordered an iMac 2.8, but I'd Much rather have one with RAID0 hard drives because the difference is very noticeable. If it were available that's what I would have bought instead.
But internal drive bays? I have *never* understood this. The same folks who complain that the AIO iMac is putting form over function by uncluttering the cables from the desktop now insist that *they* need less cables?
Just four spots above your post:
I'm not getting another external drive and I'm dumping the one I have as soon as possible. I want minimal wires and dangling parts, a neat setup you don't need to hide (not that I have anyplace to hide my stuff, anyway). With a good quality desktop chassis it is possible to silence the mechanical noise from HD's almost completely. That's another thing I want from any piece of hardware that is not a speaker: silence. I sleep practically with my ear to the electronics pile.
So... reading previous posts FTW?
I'd think Time Machine, backups, RAID and other things are also good reasons to have space for a couple HD's, but getting rid of cords and achieving a silent setup are #1 for me. I live in a small space. The only way to make those few square meters spacious and comfy enough is that they are tidy and clean. That's why I only have one display. That's why I want a desktop machine that looks good and can hold some hardware inside besides, instead of being small and kinda cute and spilling unholy dust-gathering sound-emitting peripheral vomit everywhere in the vicinity.
I have no problem with iMac other than that it's too expensive, especially after dropping the 17" and bumping processors that were already faster than 90% of actual users care about. It just doesn't fit my situation in any way. I'm actually keeping an eye out on a used iMac for the folks.
-1 Socket for Core2 Duo or Quad
-2 HD bays
-1 Optical drive bay
-1 pci-e 16x for graphics (8500 GT, 8600 GT, 8800 GTS)
-1 empty 4x pci-e
-2 FW 400 (one on front), 1 FW 800, 5 USB 2.0 (one on front)
-1GB on low end 2GB on high end DDR2 Ram upgradeable to 8GB
-Digital audio in/out
-IR receiver
-STATUS LED
In a size about 1/2 that of the Mac Pro. And Starting around 1299 $ (???)
Just four spots above your post:
So... reading previous posts FTW?
Golly, Gon, apologies all around for not catching that detail in the morass that is this thread, during a work day. Shall I wear the hair shirt, or would floggings do?
Noise suppression. Got it. Oddly, my fanless Cube makes more noise than the four external drives sitting next to it, but whatever works for you.
I see something like this being great.
-1 Socket for Core2 Duo or Quad
-2 HD bays
-1 Optical drive bay
-1 pci-e 16x for graphics (8500 GT, 8600 GT, 8800 GTS)
-1 empty 4x pci-e
-2 FW 400 (one on front), 1 FW 800, 5 USB 2.0 (one on front)
-1GB on low end 2GB on high end DDR2 Ram upgradeable to 8GB
-Digital audio in/out
-IR receiver
-STATUS LED
In a size about 1/2 that of the Mac Pro. And Starting around 1299 $ (???)
I like this configuration but my changes are:
- two RAM slots for a total of 4GB
- no FireWire 800
- 3 USB 2.0 ports
- optical drive with LightScribe capabilities
- 802.11n wireless
- 1 model, like the Mac Pro, that can be customized.
My reason for the 4GB RAM limit is to prevent the cannibalization of Mac Pro sales by people that want or need more than 4GB RAM but do not need the power of the Mac Pro. No FireWire 800 removes another "pro" feature and gives the iMac a point in its favor since it does have it. The processor could be either a speed that the Mac Pro doesn't have or match the lowest one, and of course, it won't be a Xeon.
When Apple redesigns the mac Pro they shrink it down (without compromising expandability, the four HD bays or features) give it a new form factor to make this possible, and offer a stripped down version with the exact same new, sleek design for 1,000 bucks?
So you could buy a powerful one, and do as you do now, or buy the toned down version with the same shape, expandability, and structural hardware, but without some of the guts contained in the more Pro versions.
I don't see Apple offering two expandable desktops, ever, so they could just make their next Mac Pro small enough to take on both roles. The high end professional desktop machine, and the Jim-will-fix-it machine.