The Intel Powermac / Powermac Conroe / Mac Pro thread - Page 3

There has, of course, been much previous discussion of this topic. It seems to me that Apple has tried this twice, once with the Cube, and again with the single processor G5 tower. Neither was successful. I think that there are 2 reasons. One is that I think that the price of these machines would be higher than most people would think acceptable. A 20" iMac minus the screen would cost $1700 - $400 = $1300. From there, add the costs of more memory slots, or upgradeable graphics, or a faster PowerMac-like CPU, or FW800, or whatever PowerMac feature you think the computer should have, and the computer will cost nearly as much as a PowerMac. The second reason is that no two people agree exactly which features should be present. While you want the graphics, others want more memory slots and, in G5 days, a PowerMac-speed FSB. Apple apparently has concluded that they can't make money designing & selling this computer.

Like so many other things in this world.

The single cpu tower failed because the way Apple decided to impliment it was bound to have that result.

The entire machine was designed around the idea of two chips. From the power supply to the case.

If Apple designed a tower for one chip, it would have been smaller, cooler, lighter, and cheaper.

Of the items in your list, smaller and cheaper would seem to be most important for potential buyers. A re-designed single-cpu tower would have been smaller, but the initial price would have had to reflect the cost of the re-design. More important, I think, is that many "I want a PowerMac-like computer" requesters wanted 2 CPUs (in those days there were no duals) but fewer PCI slots and perhaps fewer memory slots to make it smaller. There wasn't enough agreement on what the computer really should be for enough units to be sold.

I've gone through this in the past.

I came up with a design (I used to own a hi end pro audio manufacturing company) that I sent to my friends in Apple engineering management that they though was doable, but that upper management wouldn't be interested in.

You don't need to eliminate slots. The mobo is 3 1/2 inches taller than it needs to be for only one chip. That can be cut dowm. Allow 4GB RAM. That's enough for anyone needing a one chip machine.

The power supply is then too large for this machine, and can be made smaller as well.

Remove the handles, top, and feet on the bottom. That is VERY expensive metal work.

Those, and some other changes could have brought the machine to $999, a price that would have had them walking out the door by themselves.

Uh-huh.

M-hm.

Yeah, I remember when I governed a country, led a $50 billion dollar company and frequently chatted with the bosses of Apple and HP and sent them some designed I thought up. It got boring after a while, so I decided to frequent AppleInsider instead.

Dude, what are you trying to prove?

1) I was talking about both user replacable/upgradable, and BTO options.

2) But the largest portion of consumers isn't stuck with an ATI Radeon X1600 graphics as their "only" option either. Sure it maybe possible that what comes with a machine dies with a machine, but those who do buy bought it knowing full well that the choice was theirs, and they also had the choice to use a better card BTO that in many of those cases would have died with that machine. So it really depends what they chose to put in that machine to die with it doesn't it?
You seem to be referring to surfing, and email only consumers as your majority. I really was not. It seems your also referring to the largest portion that will also keep a system for 10+ years on end. I was not.
The portion I am referring to actually buys computers, and/or parts regularly. The people who's thoughts on systems, and personal reviews influence new buyers, and other companies purchases based on the reliability of these systems. The upgradeable, and pro market is far more vocal, and influential than any other. The creative professional, and gamer is the reason companies pushed for extreme advancements in graphics, and speed over the past 20 years. And is probably solely responsible for the existence of Nvidia, and other specialized tech companies.
Weather a person decides to upgrade the system or not is irrelevant anyways. Knowing it's there is what makes the PC market more attractive on the hardware side.
Macs have red flags all over them saing that this and that are not available to you if you make this choice.

Dupe.

The portion of the market that you are referring to, i.e. those who tinker with their systems and prefer to build together component by component,

• is not interesting for Apple, because it prefers quantity (low price) over quality, whereas Apple is a company shooting for high margin, and, as such, quality over quantity. It does not value the attention to detail which is one of Apple's pivotal strengths.
• does not care very much about complete systems, which is the only thing Apple has ever sold, currently sells and will likely continue to exclusively sell
• is exaggerated in volume, i.e. there's far fewer such people than these threads kinds of threads would have you believe.

That's why the "Apple should make a headless customizable low-cost machine" thesis is a tired, pointless one. Apple won't do that because there's no way they could maintain a high margin while at the same time attracting the very customers that want this machine so much. And even if they could, such buyers would be few and far between, despite what it may seem like.

Considering that the next Intel chip in the Core Duo lineage has hyperthreading (as do all projected chips after it), I'd say you're wrong. Adding MT support takes very little circuitry, especially on Intel's chips, and can help performance substantially in some situations -- particularly in an OS where there are lots of threads running. It is all about improving utilization of the on-chip resources due to inefficient software, and most software is inefficient so most of the time it pays off and when it doesn't a smart OS can turn it off at little cost.


Because it is cheap to do, and if your software is supporting >2 cores it probably supports 8-16 just as well. Hardware usually leads software. Software guys typically will not implement something until the hardware support is widespread. This means that until the hardware guys put it out there and evangelise the crap out of it, software isn't going to pay any attention. If they do put it out there and flog it, then eventually software will follow.


Bad assumption: multi-cores tend to be about applying more brute force, MT tends to be about applying the brute for more efficiently in the face of bottlenecks. So in this light MT is more sensible that multi-core. The best answer is typically a mix.




If I/O bandwidth is more plentiful then servers would rather have more cores. Servers like MT because it maximizes their utilization in environments where the bottlenecks are external and the tasks at hand are typically inefficient little pieces of code.


You're right in that it is a freebie (or nearly so).

I don't know where you guy's get off with this "Apple is all about high margins" BS. Have you priced an Apple vs. a PC with similar specs in the past 2 to 3 years? Because of it you also contradict your self when you start rambling on about how Apple likes "low prices" (Quantity) rather than (Quality) so the high margin line is not fooling anyone. The list of three "excuses" is absolute rubbish because[list=a][*] Apple already offers BTO options on computers, and will continue to sell BTO systems. (contrary to your beliefs) [*] Because of A - It's hardly a problem for them to offer options on graphics cards in a future MacBook, or the iMac. This move starts in the design phase, and what the current design has means nothing. [*] How few people there are in need of a better solution that use this board is completely irrelevant. This board is completely atypical, and has no absolute user demographic. [/list=a]

Ok, so I bashed on your excuses for not offering graphics options in iMacs, and MacBooks a bit, but this is because of the ridiculous " "Apple should make a headless customizable low-cost machine" thesis ". Even though I agree it's a tired, and pointless case there are big holes in the Apple lineup. The iMac isn't suitable for a 3D hobbyist and average, or above average gaming because there are stricter, and tighter graphics requirements with every crop of new games. The life of the iMac is over after one season for gamers, and the iMac life for 3D hobbyists doesn't even exist. That is a big hole especially now with boot-camp, and for that kind of money it shouldn't be. If Apple want's to use boot-camp to gather windows switchers to the platform via average gamers, without a BTO, and an upgradable future for graphics in the iMac; this will always leave an empty space for the headless Mac argument.
I personally think its a better idea to improve the lineup they have to make it look more attractive rather than cutting off existing lines with a "half way there" computer that will cut into both the PowerMac, and the iMac lines.

I agree with Onlooker

There has existed a hole in Apple's line-up for quite some time. Hopefully, Apple has had some valid reason???, but now that they appear to be more aggressively courting more market share they will introduce a new model aimed directly at me.


\\/ \\/ \\/ \\/

Apple offers far fewer BTO options than most vendors do. Just go ahead and compare the options you get with an MBP to the ones you get with a Dell Latitude. Apple also charges very high margins for these very BTO options, be it RAM, hard disk upgrades, or something else (granted, so do other manufacturers, but that's not the point).


Except that they never have, and there's no reason to believe they will change this. You can't currently order a MacBook Pro 1.83 with 256 MB VRAM, nor a MacBook Pro 2.00 with 128 MB VRAM. Heck, you can't even order a MacBook Pro 2.00 with 512 MB of RAM; it's 1 GB or more. You totally can't go for a different GPU, such as something nVidia-branded. And while the iMac's CPU is socketed, Apple offers you no replacement options for that either. Same thing again.


That, if you missed it, was precisely my point.


If Apple intended to fill them, why haven't they? There hasn't been a consumer-type non-AIO customizable desktop in almost a decade, namely the Performa/PowerMac 6x00. That's pre-G3, folks. It's also pre-iMac. It's also pre-anything-OS X. And perhaps most importantly, it's at the very beginning of Jobs, so it's not hard to connect the dots and conclude that Jobs personally doesn't care to see that line continued or revived.


Nobody argues that.


Why would they? A gamer is not a lucrative customer for Apple. A gamer wants cheap options, a gamer has no brand loyalty whatsoever, a gamer doesn't care about the OS as long as it runs the games, and a gamer doesn't care about the hardware either as long as it works fast. Apple offers no cheap options, being brand, Apple requires strong brand loyalty from its customers (the iPod is clear proof of this), Apple very much builds upon its OS and Apple also very much builds upon its hardware's design and specifics.

Why do you see any kind of similarities between gamers and Apple? Why do you see a gamer wanting to become an Apple customer, and why do you see Apple wanting to adjust for gamers?

Chucker

You bring up some good points re: gamers. I've sold computers for quite some time and honestly I've seen Gamers hyped a bit too much as far as being a force that must be catered to.

If you're a gamer..er Hardcore Gamer then you're not on Mac. If you enjoy the light and midrange games then a Mac might work out for your needs.

Runrate business is what pays the bills. Developing and maintaining relationships and you've hit the bullseye about lack of loyalty. Gamers are loyal to speed and the neverending quest.

I don't think Apple really needs a lowend headless upgradable tower as much anymore. Primarily because in the iMac you have the ability to run a larger monitor now via spanning. If consumers maintained their computers via some sort of life cycle they'd not have to worry about upgrades as much. Grab Applecare which is 3yrs at the end of the warranty sell the computer and purchase a new one. Eventually the hot and "must have" item is integrated on the motherboard.

I think Justin Rattner doesn't agree with you.
And he should know it!

What kind of asinine post was that supposed to be?

Without a doubt there is some segment of the market that could use a small cheaper tower with two expansion slots. The PowerMac is too expensive, too big, and has more capability than what's really needed, the iMac is not expandable and you have no choice of which monitor you can use, the Mac mini is not expandable and limits on its component upgradeability because of its small size.

The iMac will support on up to a 23" LCD so I'd have to disagree about the monitor choice. You have no choice in eschewing a monitor with an iMac purchase but you do indeed have the choice to add another.

Actually you lost the point. That doesn't even address what I summarized in my paragraph. You can try to make it look like it does by tearing it up into pieces, but it doesn't give a recapitulation of the facts.



Which was an opposition on logical consequence from other facts. What they offered in the current MBP was never my point. What they don't offer also serves to set up a ground reason why they should offer it.


Personally I think the "why" is obvious. Apple is in the business of selling to the customers they believe they can; based on projections.
Now that they have switched to intel (something comfortable with the other 95+% of the computer buying public) Then add in the popularity of the iPod, and iTunes music store that has given the Apple name far more credibility, and popularity with this other 95+%, (PC users), and to top it off now the introduction of Boot-Camp. Apples projected selling strategy of previous machines went completely out the door. They have far more areas that they can take advantage of, and early adopters/switchers are going to be their best advertisement that they play well in any field, and are making absolutely fabulous products that meet the needs of the possible switcher.
And it sure as shit doesn't hurt to satisfy the ache that current existing Mac user base has had.


We are not talking about hardcore gamers, strictly "I buy a computer only to play games on" gamers (if there is such a thing- and seems to be the user your talking about) or home build gamers. Home builders probably never look at Apple, HP, or DELL as their provider, but I'm sure there is a small percentage that would like to use Mac OS if there entire life was not all about gaming.

There is a huge percentage of PC users that either plays games regularly, occasionally, or just plays the hottest game on the market at a particular time to see what all the fuss is about. (that one is me) Like Half LIfe 2, UT2K7, DOOM, QUAKE.
Included in this group is a lot of Mac users that I watched switch to PC because the wanted to play the occasional game, and at least have the option of upgrading available to them.



Because Apple opened a door to let them in with Boot-Camp, and it's obvious they introduced Boot-Camp to attract more users to the platform. To attract as many users as possible they'll need good word of mouth advertisement, and they will need to make minor adjustments to their lineup to meet the demand, or be damned, and let the once possible Mac sale they could have had go elsewhere.
Anyway. I have to cut it short because Ms. Marvell #2, and Super Skrull #1 comes out Today. See yas.

It really seems like this topic comes up repeatedly on almost all Mac centric sites I visit. Around and around it goes, where it stops nobody knows, well...er ... umm... yea, it'll stop when Apple begins selling a reasonably priced SFF/tower that isn't overpriced.

An argument can be made that the vast majority of computer buyers, for whatever reason, do not want an AIO and do want some upgradability. The Windows world has tried the AIO, it didn't sell. AOpen now has a Mac Mini clone, albeit priced $100 more than the equivalently equipped Mac Mini, it was just introduced so the jury is out on this direct comparison.

If the above argument holds any validity, I think it does, and Apple does actually intend to aggressively go after increased market share they will have to introduce a computer to fill this void.

And I believe Apple does intend to try and increase market share aggressively. It was about two years ago that, I believe it was Schiller, Apple voiced their desire to increase market share in a quarterly report. Now, Apple has explicitly stated that to some extent Bootcamp is an attempt to increase market share. It is my contention that if Apple is truly serious about market share they need to offer a model that, IMHO, targets the largest market segment that buys computers and it isn't AIO nor mini.

By the way, I own a G5 iSight iMac, but it isn't nor would be my first choice if Apple filled this void in their line-up, however, I'm addicted to OS X and don't have any choice. If you're reading this Steve, options are good, I like options too.

This subject comes up on Mac sites because Mac sites are filled with computer enthusiasts.

A low cost expandable headless Mac isn't going to increase Marketshare. Apple has copious amounts of data and that data is likely going to show that no matter what you do for a desktop it's not going to affect much sales change because PEOPLE WANT LAPTOPS.

The people that want desktops generally have an ideal selection of specs they want. If an AIO meets those specs then they will generally have no apprehension towards buying it. Once I told potential iMac purchasers that they weren't locked out of better monitor choices they were more at ease.

I really think the days of a big roomy box with loud fans is coming to an end. Workstations will always exist but then again people who need workstations aren't really complaining vociferously about price.

2 things.

#1) I have yet to figure out the acronym AIO so I'm feeling in the dark on that.

#2) "PEOPLE WANT LAPTOPS".. I am in the minority on that one. I still like my PowerMacs. I would buy an Apple tablet that had a swivel screen that doubled as a Laptop, but I like the PowerMacs. I agree though that the laptop seems to be the more popular computer at present. Personally I like the added performance, and speed of the workstation.

[edit] All In One - got it. Duh!

A slightly larger computer with a similar Mac mini form factor with 3.5 HDD, 4 GB of RAM, replaceable GPU, and an extra expansion slot for $1250. That's not too much to ask for.


Its true the laptop market is growing faster than the desktop market. I'm sure more people have desktops and laptops than people who only have laptops. The laptop can't replace everything about a desktop.


Yes this is wonderful if monitor spanning fits into your workflow. If someone only needs one monitor and wants something other than the monitor offered on the iMac my money says they would choose a different computer.

Apple isn't like Dell, trying to please every customer segment.

The problem here is that Apple, esp. with Jobs in charge, is not in the business of giving certain groups of people what they want.

There is a philosophy that exists at Apple about what they will sell, and why.

for whatever reason, there is a catagory of product that they simply won't bother with.

this goes back to the statement I wrote about earlier with Jobs refusing to make 6 slot Powermacs because it was "only" 5% of their customers $1.1 billion dollars of business at the time. Much more than 5% in terms of dollars, even though is was only 5% of their customers asking for it. The most profitable 5% too.

So what does that say about these products that we would like to see?

How many of that 5% have never bought PowerMacs at all because of two less slots?

In my business PowerMacs are everywhere. If it weren't for the Windows only software PC's would probably be even less common. Boot Camp will take care of this though.

Any way, another way to look at it.

The future Intel PowerMacs on the high end needs to be far different in functionality than the current PowerMacs. Most people won't need SLI, Crossfire, dual optical bays, 16 GB of RAM, or multiple expansion slots. Nor will most be able to pay the high price tag.

But at the same time the Mac mini or iMac don't totally fulfill the functionality of the current PowerMac. There needs to be something between.

A small tower with one expansion port would lower the price of entry for individuals or small shops who want to use Final Cut Studio and Black Magic Decklink I/O cards or AJA Kona cards. That would be a really sweet set up. The same with Pro Tools and Logic with digital audio I/O. These are two significant markets for Apple.

Further down the market chain into an area Apple has shown some interest. A small tower with a replaceable GPU and one expansion port would create a market that would allow Elgato, Miglia, and anyone else to make and sell PCI cards instead of only external boxes. Functionally outside of the PowerMac this would make for a much better Media Center and Gaming machine than anything thing else Apple offers. Form wise this would be smaller than the PowerMac.

Exactly!

A lot of people in the audio/video business looked at the XServes (powerful, 2 PCI slots, 2/3 internal drives...) but it was/is too expensive and LOUD!
People who think that everything in PCI format as an equivalent in USB or Firewire can't understand. Like the difference between ProTools TDM/HD (PCI/PCI Express) and ProTools LE (USB/Firewire): those are two very different worlds!!!
Expectations from the audio Pros I know are bigger PowerMacs (+6 slots) for their main station AND smaller PowerMacs (2 slots) for alternate/regular stations. Currently, PowerMacs are in between: too big/expensive for a regular station and not enough expansions for a main station (have to buy external slots enclosures).

With the Intel switch Apple has/will have access to a lot of different processors in terms of power and price, and if Apple wants to have more market share they need to address different needs/clients, people who use to buy Macs will still buy Macs, but the others will need to feel save in buying a new computer (having what they want, not only what Apple marketing wants to sell).

If Apple has right now around 4% of the worldwide PC market share, that means (roughly) that 2% of the PCs sold are iBooks/PowerBooks and 2% are desktop Macs, let say 1% iMacs, and .5% Mac minis and another .5% for PowerMacs (more or less, nobody knows the exact numbers except Apple). Apple may be able to rise a little all the numbers (for the current lines), I hope they'll do, but they also could release new lines (like another in-between desktop Mac) that will bring new customers/more switchers.

They can't play the 'we need to protect our iMac line' game anymore if they want to have more market share, they need to provide what is going to sell for the markets they are in and for the markets they want to conquer. They don't have to become Dell but they need to expand their offerings.
Again, I think that for the 1st time in Apple history, they will have access to different processors, for different types of computers with many different price points: they could cover all the needs of computer users and some...

You make a decent argument at the end mjteix, but I think it's too soon to just blow the horn, and come running in from all sides. For once I believe Apple had the right idea with the iMac being their consumer desktop. I think improving the lines they currently have without stepping on the toes of their existing products is a best cautious first step to test the waters. As long as it's an ambitious step, and users get the idea that they are truly playing for real it would give a better indication of what will be needed in the future.
Sure we all think we know Apple is going to be a huge hit with the addition, and advancements of intel, and Boot-Camp, but we are in an economic rescission, and if we were not, and this were towards the end of the first Bush administration (first bush as in the father) I would say yes, go for it, but I think from a shareholders POV, and inventory management POV I would prefer to proceed with caution, and take the appropriate steps on improving what they currently have, and see what else, or more the users are asking for, and seeking from them afterwards that will give them a better indication of what to provide for the next wave. Like you said. Intel is going to have a lot of cool stuff for them in relatively sort time. They really don't need, or can afford to get ahead of them self's at such a critical time. Remember. Slow and steady wins the race.

You would be surprised why video editing is as popular on Windows as it is.

One big reason is that in the late '90's as the big Mac's (ugh!) dropped their slots, certain video editing platforms that were out required at least three slots just for those boards. that left no room for anything else. These companies didn't make their solutions available to Mac users. The companies that had less hardware to put into the machine were fine. But some high end solutions were simply not available. That's one of the reasons we were seeing chassis being sold that plugged into the computer, and gave us more slots. But they were clumsy, and expensive. Even Avid needed one for a while.

And some people simply wouldn't buy a machine that didn't have 6 slots.

It's not that Mac users wouldn't buy the machine. People and companies that were starting up would look at what was useful to them. If a solution that they wanted wasn't available on the Mac, well, then they would use PC's.

Most pro's and businesses don't really care what machine they use, as long as it does what they need.

EDIT:

I just remembered one problem I had. One Targa board I used took up two slots, there were two boards. That took three slots. But, I also had a Digidesign audio board, and a raid SCSI board. That was five slots right there.

When Jobs killed those machines, that type of solution was no longer available.

To me, a lot of the arguments for Apple to build a smaller PowerMac can be re-phrased as, "Apple should delete all that stuff that I don't need in the PowerMacs, redesign the case to something small and spiffy, and sell it to me for a really low price." For example, mjteix argues for a computer with 2 fewer PCI slots and 4 fewer memory slots than a PowerMac. No CPU is mentioned--and at this time it's impossible to be clear about which processor will go in which Mac when--but starting from a PowerMac, how much would be saved by these 2 economies? Enough to make a difference to any significant number of users? That is, as TenoBell pointed out earlier, are there enough people who will buy computers from other manufacturers if Apple doesn't make such a computer? If 60% of the prospective buyers of this computer buy the next higher Apple and 20% buy the next lower Apple, Apple will make more than if they designed a middle grade computer.

I am skeptical that Apple could make a $1000 tower that would sell well, as melgross wrote earlier. Guessing the costs... Starting from a $1300 iMac, deleting the screen ($150), the iSight, the keyboard, the mouse, Airport, and Bluetooth ($150, for $300 total), gives a $1000 computer, and there's more potential savings if you would like to put the components into a beige box. (You could also get to these numbers by going up from the Mini.) I don't know how to guess the costs of adding back just the essential things: memory slots, expansion slots, and maybe FW800. This is probably a $1200 or $1300 computer, and it has a low-end processor.

You wouldn't have to eliminate all of that stuff.

Don't forget that Apple had a single cpu tower G5 for $1,500. Just making the changes I suggested would have brought that down to $999. This didn't have anything to do with the iMac. And, it would have kept a shorter aluminum case. I did some costing at the time.

Of course, this was shortly after the G5's first came out.

Apple has a bit over 2.5% of the world market right now. They have a bit over 4% of the US market, which is a little more than 33% of the total.

I believe that that was a 4-memory slot computer with a 1.8 GHz G5. Perhaps it had PCI slots instead of PCI-x?? $500 in savings--1/3 of the cost of the computer--would come from deleting 2 PCI slots, smaller power supply, fewer fans, and a lower style case. I expect that this would satisfy some of the small-tower advocates, but there would be more who wanted something slightly different, 2xG5 or a 2.5 GHz G5 and only a slot for the graphics card, or something.

It didn't need to lose 2 slots. It needed to lose the 3 1/2" of mobo that was occupied by the second cpu and cooling system.

Yes, it had 4 memory slots, and PCI slots. Fine for the person who needed a less expensive machine. That was the point.

A dual G5 machine would be the same sixe. No way to really do much there. Removing two slots would just reduce the mobo by 1 1/2", not enough to make much difference in the overall machine. With just a graphics slot, no one would buy it. Itwould be back to the cube. But, even that had one unused slot in addition to the graphics slot.

That, and cutting two slots does not cut any cost.

Another thing is that the Single Processor Socket PowerMac isn't something that was discontinued. It's probably just on hiatus again. Apple usually brings one back towards the end of a cycle. It was never a one time thing. They've been doing that for like 5 years.

Now they are doing it with one dual core chip instead of two.

All I can say is that I passed up on the Quad because the new tower is so close. I just hope it's worth the wait.

I am one of those guys who need more options than the mini can offer but needs less options than are available in the PowerMacs. And I am always dreading for this or that. But guess what I am no market for Apple to desinge a computer to my needs. Maybe there are 1% of Mac owners/buyers with similar needs as I have - multiply that with 2,5% marketshare; now you know that Apple will do squat to cater me. I don't like it, but I have to come over it.
The funny thing for Apple is they will sell now 2 computers, not only one. I will now turn down my expectations, so I can work with a mini. In 12 to 16 month from now I will buy a PowerMac, although it will incorporate options that I don't need.

ah yes, the never ending "expansion slots" argument...

I think we could all agree on that perhaps selling a proMac with an expandability option for more slots would be a good idea. Perhaps 2 could be built in and then you could buy some sort of add on for 4 more.

Two (including the graphics card) seems enough for most people seeing as how a single graphics card can power two monitors and there are lots of firewire and USB options. People that absolutely need 6 could get the add-on.

The new tower has probably already been designed.

Do any of the Intel boards support something like this? What about AMD? The answer may get us back to the original point of this thread.

support what, six slots?

the new intel-powermacs will probably (?) use a chipset with the ich8 southbridge.
i dont know much about that one, but ich7 found in for example the 975x chipset got support for one 16x-lane pci-e or two 8x-lane, six 1x-lane pci-e and six 'regular' pci slots.
(and you'll get a free tpm too, no extra cost!)

i dont think the ich8 will be much worse...


edit: now (after writing all that) i think i get what you're asking.

i guess you could 'route' some of the pci-e lanes in some kind of extension cable to a break-out slot-box, but i dont think it'll be pretty...
offering two sizes to begin with would probably save apple a lot of headache...

Two questions.
1) Is there a PC that has exactly the expansion space that you need. What is it, and why?
2) Is it a cost issue that keeps you looking at the Mini instead of the iMac?

Because if your looking for less than an iMac, but more than a mini, That space will probably never be filled by Apple.