Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again? - Page 34

Tenobell, let me rephrase...
You can find a faster/cheaper Conroe for any Merom chips available.
the 2.66 Conroe cheaper than the 2.33 Merom
the 2.40 Conroe cheaper than the 2.16 Merom
the 2.13 Conroe cheaper than the 2.00 and the 1.83 Merom
the 1.86 Conroe cheaper than the 1.66 Merom

Only the 2.93 Conroe and Quad-core Kentsfield are more expensive than Merom (but they also are another class).

I don't think the xMac needs to sit exactly between the iMac and the Mac Pro, to have to be clocked more than the iMac and less than the Mac Pro...? Even at YOUR prices there will be compared...

But anyway:
$1199 or $1249 for the 2.40 xMac OK $50, why the odd price?
$1499 or $1699 for the 2.66 xMac, why the $450 premium? Should be $220-300 max.
$1999 or $2499 for the 2.93 xMac, why the $800 premium? Should be $470-500 max. And why the $2499 price tag that's already the 2.66 Mac Pro slot.

I think that the 2.93 or quad xMac (using 2.66 Kentsfield $999), has be cheaper than the quad 2.66 Xeon Mac Pro.

Anyway, having a couple of xMacs in the $1199-1699 range, would be good enough for me!

PS: don't forget the additional HD bays and (at YOUR price) no less than 3 PCIe slots (one being 16x is enough, nothing too fancy).

Cool, a canadian using USD prices. that's rare on these boards

It's because I am not canadian. How dare you!


But maybe that's why I still want the prices of the xMac to be as low as possible...
1.00 USD\t= 1.14183 CAD today

28% for Apple margins + 14% for currency exchange + 14% for taxes, I have to count every penny...

I am talking about HIGH END GAMING SYSTEM Apple needs to some thing to get the games off of windows and on to osx and $2000 system with sever cpus and ram with a low end video card and no SLI or cross fire is not the way to it.

The intel chip sets suck next to the ATI and Nvidia ones.

On the last page I suggested what I called a micro tower, no more than 8 inches high and based on a proposal by Mr. H. The case might be a strong white plastic, rather than, say, a metallic case for the prosumer mini tower.

I have been sketching what it might look like and have a problem with the aesthetics. A tower would normally have to be at least 6.5 inches wide to accommodate a standard optical drive. It turns out that something about 8 inches high and 6.5 inches wide looks clunky, even ugly. That's bad news. The low profile lets it be consider a micro, but it must be narrower to have a tower like look to it.

Forgetting normal design rules, I sketched something that looks good, and has a micro tower feel to it, whatever that might be. I came up with 7.25 inches high and 4.5 inches wide. We could bicker about the very best dimensions, but this is close enough for starters. It's depth could be whatever it needs to be, likely about 14 inches.

You no doubt see the problem. It's too narrow for an optical drive. The only solution I see is to mount the optical drive vertically. Then everything would fit I think.

To review other details, it would have just one PCI-e card, two HDD bays, use a low cost desktop CPU, and integrated graphics, which could be upgraded with the PCI-e slot, if it is not used for something else. The power supply would not need to be as large as the prosumer tower, with only one PCI-e slot.

I'd welcome any comments, but what I am especially interested in are the pros and cons of a vertically mounted optical drive. What percent of optical drives are capable of operating this way, and does it add to the cost? Such details I know little about. This is supposed to be an entry level Mac, at very low cost. All thoughts welcome, even very negative ones.

Apple doesn't design to the Golden Ratio but rectangular boxy things are said to look best when designed to this ratio (length to width is 1:1.618034). Any ratio close to this tends to work pretty well. There are things in nature that are close to the Golden Ratio but not quite so this could be why this looks good to us.

http://www.jimloy.com/poll/results1.htm

http://www.jimloy.com/poll/results2.htm

Vinea

I am no artist, but during these discussions it would be nice to make a simple drawing from time to time. I downloaded Google SketchUp but did not like it. It seems to be oriented to larger scale architectural drawing, with a vanishing point for perspective. Plus, it is difficult to learn and use, for me, though it claims to be easy.

Anyone have a suggestion? The choices are pretty overwhelming. Thinking about it, I'd like to make an orthogonal drawing, front view, top view, left and right side views, and optionally a bottom view. It should allow panels to be made opaque and colored. When the drawing is complete, the application should produce a 3D image that can be rotated on any axis and then printed or saved as a file.

I am hoping too much for a simple shareware program? This will be my first time ever drawing program.

Having a 3D model appear from several drawn 2D images is a little too much to ask from any software, I think. You could try Blender which is a free 3D modeling app, but it will likely be a little complicated, or you can do simple sketches with any 2D drawing app which won't look "cool" but you'll still be able to better describe your ideas, which I think is the thing that matters.

Thank you. I'll try that, and I also got feedback that leads me to think I rejected SketchUp to quickly, before working with it more. I'll try both.

What's fun is to remember the Apple ][. One of the things that really drove its adoption was the presence of expansion slots (a whopping eight). There's a lot of popular demand for upgrading and improving computers.

I suppose, however, it was the Mac Pro of its day, because in 2005 dollars, it cost from $4,211.99 to $8,560.26 ($1298 ~$2638 ) at a time when real per capita income was lower than today. Still, it was hailed as the breakthrough computer for the middle class family, small business, and classroom. Amazing, eh?

I think you'd have a lot more room for aesthetic fun with a horizontal enclosure. I know that in the LCD era it doesn't make as much sense to have that large of a desktop footprint as it did when you needed a broad and strong base to hold up a heavy CRT, but you could still produce some interesting designs.

Or how about the classic keyboard all-in-one look, Apple II style? I think this, for example, is an interesting jumping-off point. A bit thicker and you'd have room for expansion slots, like the Apple II, which had eight.

I believe you've mistaken expansion slots for VisiCalc.

Good point - the original killer app.

I am trying to remember what I had in the slots of my Apple ][e..

1. 5.25 floppy controller card
2. Video
3. Z80 processor card to run CP/M
4. Printer
5. Real-time clock
6. and 7. 300 baud modem with 1200 baud expansion card

I think sound would have added another one. Wups - no room for the A/D converter. No ethernet, no AppleTalk, no FireWire, no USB.

Today, all of those functions are on the mobo or custom modules, except in the Mac Pro.

It was fun making your own circuit board and plugging that in, though. We did that to add a little Schmidt trigger circuit to clean up a fetal heart rate monitor's output pulses into square waves so that they could be used to simulate the processor's NMI interrupt signal. This let us write an interrupt routine in 6502 assembler which would get branched to with every fetal heart beat. In the interrupt routine, we calculated the time elapsed since the last heart beat.

I was suggesting an horizontal enclosure earlier, as a replacement for the Mac Mini eventually, or simply an additional model in the Apple product line. It could be about 3.25 inches high, 14 inches wide and 11 inches deep. If the footprint is large enough, an Apple cinema display can sit on top, and if the enclosure's style is right, the display and computer will look like they belong together.

To review my previous posting, this entry-level to mid-range Mac would use standard hard and optical drives and have two HDD bays. It would also use a desktop CPU for lower cost.

That PC on your link looks like a Commodore 64.

Sorry I missed that.


It might inspire taunting from Weird Al: "You think your Commodore 64 is really neato; what kinda chip you got in there, a Dorito?"

The same company until recently sold a prior model that had more of the Apple II hardware look and feel. Lacking the current trackpad and mouse buttons, and with true desktop keyboard full-height keys (rather than the current laptop-style half-height), it was available not only in black but also in a beige scheme. Its streamlined, "sharp" look made me think of the Apple II, although the ZPC did not have the trademark Apple II overhanging front.

Just a thought:


It's not a "plain old Macintosh," but the original iMac had something that the G4 and newer iMacs lack, a low price. The original was an entry level computer that attracted many. Now it is sold as a more upscale, prosumer Mac, and the Mac Mini has taken the place of the original iMac.

What I didn't emphasize in my suggested bigger mini is that it can serve as a low end iMac style computer. If you think about the G4 iMac, it had a base which housed the computer hardware. The LCD display sat on top. Now, a larger flat box mini would be the base and the display sits on top of it. For the really low end, a customer purchases just the base and adds an inexpensive LCD display. Same effect -- less clutter on the desk. The only penalty is two more cords, power and display.

An advantage to Apple would be achieved by designing the computer box to look great with an Apple display. More display sales to those willing to spend a little more for aesthetics. Apple could even offer their displays with short cords to plug into the big mini. This would not be a problem for customers who want longer cords in the future. A normal length power cord is easy to come by, and Apple can sell an extender cord to make the display cable longer.

But the original 1998 iMac sold for $1,299. Today's iMacs start at $999. So I'm afraid you're exactly wrong.

And inflation makes you even wronger. The 1998 iMac cost $1,505.24 in 2005 dollars, and today's entry-level iMacs are $862.12 in 1998 dollars, a reduction of over one-third in constant dollars.

So iMac prices are falling significantly. Furthermore if iMacs had remained essentially unchanged for an eleven year long production run (like the Apple //e) these price reductions would be impressive all by themselves. And yet we've seen incredible leaps forward in technology in the last eight years, for one-third less of a price.

And all that is without considering the option of the mini.

The original iMac was new and different, it caught people's attention, the current one is an LCD monitor with a large chin. It's time for Apple to refresh the look of their systems anyway now that the intel transition is done (hardware-wise anyway). So here's what I'd like to see.

The all new iMac is it an AIO or not? You decide.

Base units would be an iMac Cube and an iMac Tower, both would have connectors for an LCD display to attach to them (I believe Apple could pull this off nicely). When ordering one could choose for it to be pre-attached. The Mac Mini would be gone, the Cube would start near it's price range w/o a monitor.
iMac Displays would have the option of being mounted on either the iMacs or a base if one prefers their display to be seperate.

The iMac Cube would be their entry level system with savings when one bought an iMac Display and bigger savings for select bundles. The iMac Tower would be their prosumer line starting in the $999 to $1299 range sans monitor, as w/ the Cube buying iMac Displays and select bundles would give price breaks.

The displays would only have extra wires when attached to a display base, when attached to either iMac they'd gain power, usb and such from the iMac.

This would give Apple both a simplistic line-up (iMac Cube, iMac Tower, and Macpro) while allowing them to market systems to the greatest range of consumers all while keeping the iMac alive and healthy. Keep in mind that Jobs likes cubes and AIO's and that consumers tend to prefer headless systems, you want to change their minds? Make it easier for them. This addresses nearly? every concern I and others have with AIO's.

So here's hoping Apple can think different.

The Mac Mini's one flaw is that it's based around a laptop hard drive instead of a desktop processor. It's nearest volume competitor, the HP S7600 series is 9.75x wide x 13.125 deep x 4.375 tall laying flat. This includes an internal power supply, desktop memory, full height optical drive, half height PCI slot, and card reader. A simple enlargement of the existing mini to allow for a desktop hard drive would produce a better and more commercially viable machine while still being far smaller than even the best Slimline desktop on the PC side.

It would also be noisier, produce more heat and require more power. At that point, you could as well argue it should have a desktop CPU. Then you could argue it should use desktop RAM. Both cheaper yet more powerful.

Do you find the iMac, which uses a desktop hard drive to be noisy?

Naturally not, as the iMac has a much bigger case, allowing for much better means of dealing with the noise.

You called the 2.5-inch hard drive a "flaw", implying it is some kind of bug that will be corrected. It was, I'm sure, a deliberate design decision. Virtually all of the Mac mini's components are laptop-like. The goal was to make the case as small, quiet and non-obtrusive as possible. They have achieved that.

Using a 3.5-inch drive would add much more capacity. Using a desktop CPU would add much more performance. Using desktop RAM would cut off much of the price. But all of them would ever-so-slightly increase the Mac mini's form factor, and that would be completely against its nature.

I don't think any of that is hard to understand. What you want is not an altered mini, what you want is a different computer altogether.

It is a flaw that needs to be corrected. It severely limits both the sales as an entry level Mac and its potential secondary use as a home media center. That hard drive can me the difference between done deal and forget Apple I'm buying a PC. Storage space is king these days

The one problem is the depth of this and the shuttle (12.79"). The 6.5" depth of the mini is nice because it fits even on 12" deep bookshelves with cabling. A relatively rare installation issue but for some folks this is great.

That said you should be able to cram a 3.5" drive (about 5.8" deep) into a 6.5" mini but the connector will likely need to be flush. Unit will end up taller and that does make it somewhat less attractive from the current 2" height.

But frankly, who cares? Get a NAS. Its not like those aren't handy even for desktop users if you're dealing with a media library.

Vinea

You haven't proved me wrong. In 1998 iMacs were priced as an entry level computer for the masses. What you are missing is that computer prices have tumbled considerably, far more than the dollar amount would indicated because of inflation. Consider, what would be the price of today's entry level tower with a 17 inch display, in 1998 dollars? So, taking market conditions into account, an entry level iMac today should sell for around $600.

The big mini with desktop CPU and drives should sell for around $499 in its minimum price configuration. Add a cheap display and it is in the ballpark. The advantage of this two piece iMac-like computer is that it can be had cheap, but because it is designed to look great with an Apple display sitting on top, it will stimulate sales of displays for Apple.

For those with engineering concerns about heat in a small package, my latest suggestion of 3.25 inches high, 14 inches wide and 11 inches deep should be adequate. This package gives about the same volume as a PS3, with it powerful cell processor. (Shape of PS3 gives it less volume than its height, width and depth dimensions would indicate.)

I got those prices from looking at what competitors were charging for similar systems, and looking at how Apple configures and prices its other computers.

I'm looking at what Apple is most likely to do. Not totally at what I wish they would do.

Not necessarily the two only share the same name they are not the same computer.

The entry level iMac of 2006 has design and functionality that would have cost considerably more than $1299 in 1998.

You are right, the early iMac and today's iMac are the same in name only. That is what I said in my original post up the page a bit.


I was taken to task for saying that the first iMac had a low price tag and was more of an entry level Mac. In defense of my position, I was simply showing that by market conditions, or the current selling price of computers, the original iMac would be worth about $600 today. It was an entry level Mac with a average display for the time.

Yes, the iMac has since been upscaled by Apple to be its "prosumer" model.

My original proposal, then, was to achieve an iMac like computer in two pieces, which could serve the entry level market, and sell with or without a display.

No, it wasn't. The PC competitors were several hundred dollars less. Packard Bell and eMachines were very inexpensive. iMacs NEVER were priced as entry level computers and repeated assertions to that doesn't make it a fact. There were even cheaper Macs than the iMac at around $700 or whatever (its in a previous post).

Edit: found it - Performa 450 was $750 and eMachine eTower @ $499 in 1998. The 2006 equivalent to the headless Performa 450 is the Mini. Yes, Apple's pricing hasn't slipped as much as PC pricing has. That's a GOOD thing for Apple and for OSX users. Apple has to maintain an OS while Dell outsources that to Microsoft or perhaps Linux.

Vinea

If you call having to go online to find software and being one business decision by abode from being out of business a good thing. Apple may have record profits, but the platform is far too close to the edge for comfort.

I'd like to offer my personal observation on the iMac. For several years after its introduction in 1998, the iMac was very popular. I knew those who were computer phobic who said, "If I ever were to get a computer, it would be an iMac."

That iMac captured the hearts and minds of many, and resulted in a good sales increase for Apple. This popularity didn't last very many years, and Apple has been trying to win it back ever since, with the G4, G5 and current iMacs. The eMac took the place of the original iMac for a while, but it was never as popular, or as cute. Here is what our favorite encyclopedia say about the original iMac.



The glory days of the iMac are over, however, and likely nothing will bring them back. Rather than chasing a dream, Apple should be looking for the next big thing, which is not an AIO in my view. So, what was the iMac beside an AIO computer?

First of all it was Apple's entry-level product. As quoted above, Apple had discontinued its consumer-targeted Performa series. It was also Apple lowest price computer. The dictionary say an entry-level product is "suitable for a beginner or first time user," which certainly describes the original iMac. Apple even showed off how easily it could be set up and used, compared to a typical Windows PC.

I have a feeling that Apple's strategy has been to move iMac users up, from their former entry level iMacs to more of a prosumer iMac. It has worked to some degree, but not very well. Possibly entry level iMac users went on to buy Power Macs, or today the Mac Pro.

Today, Apple's entry level Mac is the Mini. It actually has captured a little of the original iMac mind share, but not enough to have "a massive impact on both the company and the computer industry." I believe that the possibility for such impact is still there, waiting for Apple to find that right product.

It's been my hope that this thread would bring out such ideas. Sure, I've got a few ideas, but I believe there is so much more potential with all the readers and contributors of AI. Nothing would make me happier than to see someone else come up with a terrific entry level Mac that could recapture the aura of the original iMac.

I like the mini tower Mac idea too, for the prosumers, a word which my dictionary says means "an amateur who purchases equipment with quality or features suitable for professional use." But my favorite is the entry level, to give Apple a better shot at general consumers and business alike.

Yes, this is why you can buy OSX at CompUSA and why Best Buy is going to expand Mac sales beyond their pilot stores...because the Mac is on the verge of extinction, Apple is executing poorly and has zero mindshare.

What did you think in Q4 2000 when Apple was unprofitable, had a staggeringly bad 1.8% (current year) share, 659K unit sales, just bombed on the Cube and there was no iPod?

http://www.systemshootouts.org/mac_sales.html

You must have really been gloomy then.

The Intel transition has certainly been a major success for Apple as much as the 1999 iMac. Adobe isn't going to make an adverse "business decision" based on the past 3 years performance and even if they did, while it would be a major blow to the platform, it would only be likely if Apple offered a product that made the Creative Suite uncompetitive in the Apple market. That ain't happening anytime soon.

Vinea

Yes, they replaced a $750 with a $1299 one. And it was more popular. Which means price isn't everything nor is Apple required to compete in the entry level market at entry level prices.


Yes, its called a notebook computer and we have more unit sales than we had in 1999 with the iMac mania (1.38M sales).


But not a competitor in the entry level market against the likes of Packard Bell and eMachines.


And the Cayman is Porsche's least expensive "entry-level" product. It ain't cheap and it doesn't compete with the Toyota Corolla either.

http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/articles/cayman_27.asp


It's called the MacBook.

Vinea

You make it sound as though Adobe has the upper hand. Software and platform are a symbiotic relationship. Adobe's fortunes are directly tied to the success of Apple.

As much as 40% of Adobe's professional products are sold to Mac users who only account for about 3% of the worlds computer market.

Logic dictates that apple will have to release a machine inbetween the dual core, unexpandable iMac and the soon to be octo core Mac Pro. I mean I know the above has been stated before but it just can't be said enough in my opinion.

In MY opinion, it can and it HAS been said more than enough! About 20 forum pages more than enough! Not to mention all the comments in every vaguely related thread on this forum. There's no reason to keep on saying things like this over and over when it's already been rehashed again and again.....

Sheesh!!!! \

LOL gosh man someone needs a drink.