or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again? - Page 2

post #41 of 1658
A Mac Pro is a Mac. A Macbook is a Mac.

Too much confusion.
post #42 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyastronaut

not again.
...
you can't have it both ways. cheap and high end don't usually go together.

Who said anything about cheap?

The original post mentioned a price of $1200. Do you consider that cheap? Heck, the Mac mini isn't even cheap, it's just a niche product.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #43 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placebo

A Mac Pro is a Mac. A Macbook is a Mac.

Too much confusion.

AppleCare: Hello how can I help you?

Customer: My Mac won't boot up.

AppleCare: Which model do you have?

Customer: A Mac.

AppleCare: Yes I know, but which model?

Customer: A MAC.

AppleCare: I understand that,but we have many different models, which one do you have?

Customer: A MAC STUPID.

Customer hangs up out of frustration, customer service satisfaction tanks. I can see this, but not sure that it would be as much a problem as most people think.
post #44 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyastronaut

not again.

OMG i really want a powermac but it's too expensive, so we need the headless MacCheapo with 800 USB ports and dedicated graphics arrrghblaraghs for 799 damn you apple

it's quite simple:

on a budget? get the mini.
have some buck to spend? get an imac.
need more power/expandability? mac pro. YES ITS EXPENSIVE but so are lamborghinis and they kick assss

you can't have it both ways. cheap and high end don't usually go together.

What do you not understand?

We are asking for a pro-sumer level machine. In case you don't know, that is a computer that has decent/easy expandability, a mid-range processor and graphics, and a price that won't brake the bank, such as $1799 CAD.

No one is asking for a cheapo $800 headless mac. Please read the argument before you fill the board with your uselessness and waste other peoples time.

I would be perfectly happy with an iMac if I can put 1 TB of storage in it, 4 GBs or ram, wasn't bound to a 17/20" screen, it had a dual-core Conroe, and most importantly, didn't run on laptop hardware.

The Mac Pro is a workstation, it is beyond hi-end, it is a server dressed up in a desktop.

Sheesh, is it that hard to comprehend?

Noah
post #45 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag

If it weren't so sad, it'd be comical. This very same topic reappears over and over again on virtually all Mac centric web sites, especially before and after Apple events.

It's deja vu isn't it and that's what I propose we call this missing link, I say we call it the Mac Deja Vu.
post #46 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah93

What do you not understand?

We are asking for a pro-sumer level machine. In case you don't know, that is a computer that has decent/easy expandability, a mid-range processor and graphics, and a price that won't brake the bank, such as $1799 CAD.

No one is asking for a cheapo $800 headless mac. Please read the argument before you fill the board with your uselessness and waste other peoples time.

I would be perfectly happy with an iMac if I can put 1 TB of storage in it, 4 GBs or ram, wasn't bound to a 17/20" screen, it had a dual-core Conroe, and most importantly, didn't run on laptop hardware.

The Mac Pro is a workstation, it is beyond hi-end, it is a server dressed up in a desktop.

Sheesh, is it that hard to comprehend?

Noah

Just to agree with you, here's something I wrote elsewhere today (prices are in US$ not CAD$, sorry...):

Now that the transition is "over", I think the next big thing for Apple is MARKET SHARE. We can already see improvements in the notebooks area (12% in june in the US), but the desktop area has been very slow for the last few YEARS. Really, I don't care if a new headless Apple computer will cannibalize sales of the mini/iMac/Mac Pro as long as it also cannibalize sales of Dell/HP/Gateway mid-tower PCs. Conroe (core 2 Duo desktop) is the perfect chip to realize that. Let the mini and iMac stay with Yonah (Core Duo) and Merom (Core 2 Duo mobile) so they keep being cool and silent, great in a room, small office... Keep the Mac Pro with 2x2 cores be the ultimate WORKSTATION, and bring some mid-range power to the masses, small and big businesses, schools, etc...

I wouldn't mind the same concept as the Mac Pro: one "standard" configuration and up and down BTO options: Conroe 2.40GHz, 1GB RAM, 160 HD, Superdrive, keyboard and mouse, nvidia 7300GT for $1299?

Differences with the Mac Pro: only 1 optical drive, only 2 HD spaces, only 4 RAM slots, DDR2 RAM, maybe only 3 PCIe slots, and only one processor, smaller case (at least in height).

Price examples:
1.86GHz, 512MB RAM (1299-125-100)=$1074
2.13GHz, 512MB RAM (1299-75-100)=$1124
2.13GHz, 1GB RAM (1299-75)=$1224
2.40GHz, 1GB RAM, HD160 = $1299
2.66GHz, 1GB RAM, (1299+250) = $1549
2.93GHz, 1GB RAM, (1299+700) = $1999

Nothing here would cannibalize sales of the mini/iMac, add a 20" Apple display to any configuration and you're more expensive than the 20" iMac. As for the Mac Pro, the quad 2.0GHz is only $200 more...

PS: US$1299 is 1449CAD...
post #47 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard

It's deja vu isn't it and that's what I propose we call this missing link, I say we call it the Mac Deja Vu.

I like it.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #48 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon

Conroe uses much cheaper ram.

Yes, that's nice and all but the Mac Pro is still the better machine for $600 more.

Its not like the Conroe box we're talking about is half the price for half the processing capability. Price the Mac competitively and you are cannibalizing iMac sales. Price it high enough to equal both margin and total revenue vs cannibalized sales and its not competitive (presumably how we got to the $1500 mark)/good bang for the buck.

Macs started as AIO that were not user expandable. Even if some college buddies and I had a side business converting Macs to Fat Macs way back when with RAM and a little butterfly fan.

/shrug

Vinea
post #49 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea

Yes, that's nice and all but the Mac Pro is still the better machine for $600 more.

Its not like the Conroe box we're talking about is half the price for half the processing capability. Price the Mac competitively and you are cannibalizing iMac sales. Price it high enough to equal both margin and total revenue vs cannibalized sales and its not competitive (presumably how we got to the $1500 mark)/good bang for the buck.

Macs started as AIO that were not user expandable. Even if some college buddies and I had a side business converting Macs to Fat Macs way back when with RAM and a little butterfly fan.

/shrug

Vinea

You may be right, I don't know. But with Apple now using x-86, the options for model variation/differentiation have increased dramatically. I'm hoping Apple can find the right mix to offer a computer more in line what the typical upper end consumer expects.

Also, if Apple stays with its' current product mix, they should quit making statements in press releases and at quarterly conference calls about how they want to increase market share. They should instead pound home the fact that in their niche market profits are excellent and stress that they will produce more entertainment devices to satiate the stock holders desire for potential future growth.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #50 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyastronaut

not again.

OMG i really want a powermac but it's too expensive, so we need the headless MacCheapo with 800 USB ports and dedicated graphics arrrghblaraghs for 799 damn you apple

it's quite simple:

on a budget? get the mini.
have some buck to spend? get an imac.
need more power/expandability? mac pro. YES ITS EXPENSIVE but so are lamborghinis and they kick assss

you can't have it both ways. cheap and high end don't usually go together.

There are ~$1000 PCs with a PentiumD, PCIe GPU, 3.5 inch desktop HDDs, and one extra HDD slot: these are NOT pro/workstation features: they are DESKTOP features...
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #51 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah93

What do you not understand?

We are asking for a pro-sumer level machine. In case you don't know, that is a computer that has decent/easy expandability, a mid-range processor and graphics, and a price that won't brake the bank, such as $1799 CAD.

No one is asking for a cheapo $800 headless mac. Please read the argument before you fill the board with your uselessness and waste other peoples time.

I would be perfectly happy with an iMac if I can put 1 TB of storage in it, 4 GBs or ram, wasn't bound to a 17/20" screen, it had a dual-core Conroe, and most importantly, didn't run on laptop hardware.

The Mac Pro is a workstation, it is beyond hi-end, it is a server dressed up in a desktop.

Sheesh, is it that hard to comprehend?

Noah


ohmygawd! just listen to yourself, stop babbling all your wet dreams about terabytes of storage on "mid-range" machines. we're not there yet. apple won't offer this anytime soon.

an imac will never do that. it was not built for expandability or terabytes of storage. you people just want mac pro features at elcheapo prices. not happening. fork over the cash and stop whinning. get a mac pro. enough already.

Please think before you fill the board with your uselessness and wet dreams.
post #52 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anklosaur

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

No it's not! Even if what you want existed, it had better have a beter name than "Mac" or Macintosh. It's like saying we need just a "Pod".

It's not creative, if a "Mac" existed the entire marketing team that came up with that name would need to be shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #53 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking

No it's not! Even if what you want existed, it had better have a beter name than "Mac" or Macintosh. It's like saying we need just a "Pod".

It's not creative, if a "Mac" existed the entire marketing team that came up with that name would need to be shot.

True; "the macintosh" started as a computer: it has exploded into a platform: at this point naming a product "mac" would be like naming a car "Ford" or "Buick"
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #54 of 1658
The Conroe "headless" Mac is coming. Steve is just trying to figure out how to add enough Apple pixie dust and RDF to make people think that it isn't just another "PC". Remember that there was an iMac that never saw the light of day because it did not meet Steve's approval.

Extreme Edition Conroes were immediately available back in July when Intel first announced the Conroe but the other Conroe chips werent. At the local Fry's these chips were advertised to be available on August 7th. A date that doesn't sound like an accident. Maybe a date that was set between Intel and Apple back when Apple first announced that WWDC would be pushed back a month.

Intel is giving Apple a sweet deal on Woodcrest chips (2499 for a machine that Dell sells for 3200?) and Intel and Apple agreed on a release date for the Conroe chips so that Apple could announce new Macs on the release date of the chips. Something happened on the way to the Forum.

The new "smaller motherboard" and single chip Mac Pro or headless Macs with Conroe chips missed the party. I will bet that there is some scrambling going on in Cupertino or Oregon.

Besides WWDC isn't over yet until "One more thing".
post #55 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix

Price examples:
1.86GHz, 512MB RAM (1299-125-100)=$1074
2.13GHz, 512MB RAM (1299-75-100)=$1124
2.13GHz, 1GB RAM (1299-75)=$1224
2.40GHz, 1GB RAM, HD160 = $1299
2.66GHz, 1GB RAM, (1299+250) = $1549
2.93GHz, 1GB RAM, (1299+700) = $1999

I like it, but I think your prices are too low on the high end: specifically, the 2.93ghz from Intel is $999 per unit in quantities of 1,000. Now, I know Apple orders in higher quantities than that (and thus gets higher discounts), but that's a good baseline to take into consideration Apple's margin requirements.

$999, for simplicity's sake, is 50% of $1999. That leaves Apple $1000 with which to build a computer, and maintain, let's say, 30% margins on it AFTER labor. 30% margin would be about $600. So my question to you folks who know something is: could Apple build a computer (that sells for $1999) to complement a $999 processor for $400, and assemble and ship it, too?
"In Xanadu did Kubla Kahn a stately pleasure-dome decree."
Reply
"In Xanadu did Kubla Kahn a stately pleasure-dome decree."
Reply
post #56 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyastronaut

ohmygawd! just listen to yourself, stop babbling all your wet dreams about terabytes of storage on "mid-range" machines. we're not there yet. apple won't offer this anytime soon.

an imac will never do that. it was not built for expandability or terabytes of storage. you people just want mac pro features at elcheapo prices. not happening. fork over the cash and stop whinning. get a mac pro. enough already.

Please think before you fill the board with your uselessness and wet dreams.

Are you effin retarded? What I am asking for is a basic DESKTOP. Something that has 2 drive bays, 2 ram slots a decent proc and decent graphics. I am not asking much, saying that my 5 year old, $600 dell can handle that request.

There is a huge gap between a Yonah in a non-expandable enclosure and a Dual-Woodcrest set-up.

And just so your puny mind can handle that, I'll break down Apple's desktop lines for you:

Mac Mini [both]: An entry level, budget system, based on laptop components, with no [very difficult] expandability; for replacing granny's dell

iMac [both]: Your average joe desktop system good for video chatting and web surfing, based on laptop compenents, little expandability

Mac Pro: A quad-core, ├╝ber high end workstation/server for high end video studios/people with lots of money to waste.

Now where is there expandability in that list, aside from the Mac Pro? And here's a fact, I don't need a quad-core production house, nor does most anyone else buying this machine. People are buying it because it is what they offer.

I am looking for a US$1699 Mac Pro Mini. It is priced the same as the 20" iMac, and would likely yeild a higher margin and it is desktop components, rather than laptop, and does not include a screen. So if it canniablizes 20" iMacs, Apple would be happy.

To me, and any other business man with decent sense, More $$$ == better.

And if you don't think a 'Mac Pro Mini' is gonna happen, why don't you bring any valid arguments into the game, instead of arguing that it is outrageuos for Apple to have a desktop [not workstation] that runs on desktop components?
post #57 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah93

Are you effin retarded?

No. He understands Apple's business model. You don't.
post #58 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

No. He understands Apple's business model. You don't.

Apple's current business model, as regards its desktop machines, seems to be to gouge the absolute hell out of its customers and make them pay $2500 for basic functionality that every other computer manufacturer will give you even in their cheapass $350 boxes. You don't see just a little something wrong with that?

When you demand that customers "fork over the cash and stop whining" when they can get a machine with PCI slots and an extra hard disk bay from Dell for $350 vs. $2500 for the Mac Pro, you're just going to lose the sale, because they're going to buy the Dell. Hell, nowadays you can hack a Dell to run OS X on it.
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #59 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

When you demand that customers "fork over the cash and stop whining" when they can get a machine with PCI slots and an extra hard disk bay from Dell for $350 vs. $2500 for the Mac Pro, you're just going to lose the sale, because they're going to buy the Dell.

Of course, you're conveniently overlooking that, when that happens, neither Apple nor Dell would particularly care to have that particular customer.
post #60 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Of course, you're conveniently overlooking that, when that happens, neither Apple nor Dell would particularly care to have that particular customer.

If we are defining "that particular customer" as any customer who expects to get some sort of basic expandability without having to plunk down 2.5 grand, then "that particular customer" is probably about 90% of the desktop market.

If no one else wanted all those customers, then it wouldn't be that every company other than Apple lets people have those features at normal, sane prices. Hell, even Apple used to offer a Power Mac G4 for $1299.

edit: I should point out for the reading-comprehension impaired that I am not trying to argue that Apple should have a mini-tower for $350. What I am pointing out is that a feature is not a high-end feature, or even close to one, if all the competitors are offering it in their $350 machines.
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #61 of 1658
If apple was really the so called personal computer of the average or "cool" guy as the tv campaign has us believe, they would offer a computer with a kickass everything at a very reasonable price. It makes a lot of sense to offer reasonable computing power for a relatively cheap price, if your out there to benefit people. The mini is a piece of crap, the imac is really pushing how much apple can get away with. The mac pro is just some lame extremist's machine that will make all these apple lemings work till they die just to get a reasonable apple machine. I hope all you lemings of the apple community don't use up your left nut getting a mac pro. Apple computer tower for 1400. Im the first one to get it.
post #62 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

If we are defining "that particular customer" as any customer who expects to get some sort of basic expandability without having to plunk down 2.5 grand, then "that particular customer" is probably about 90% of the desktop market.

You couldn't be more wrong.
post #63 of 1658
Apple simply isn't about commodity ATX boxes running ubiquitious OS.

As much as we like the idea of "internal" expandability the reality is most of those PC with the PCI slots and AGP slots do not get upgraded.

If I purchase an iMac I have little limitations. Sure I can't upgrade the graphics but a very small percentage of people actually upgrade their graphics. Sometimes its perceived as not worth the effort.

I can run extended desktops so dual monitor support is fine. I have USB and Firewire ports for adding more storage.

Look inside a Mac Pro. You don't get that level of engineering in a sub $1k PC. I LOVE my Mac mini. It's quiet and powerful and takes up so little space. Apple's been slowly but surely trying to redefine what people expect and want from a computer system. While many "do" want upgradability many people, after looking at their computing history, realize that they've been through multiple computers and rarely upgraded anything. Apple takes advantage of this by delivering a system that is tailored towards someone who wants a computer unencumbered by the commoditized and inflexible PC standards of today.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #64 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

You couldn't be more wrong.

Wow, what a great rebuttal. I'm utterly convinced by that.

There may have once been a market for non-expandable desktop machines, but nowadays those customers are increasingly going for laptops instead. If what you're getting is functionally equivalent to a laptop anyway, why not just get a laptop and have that portability?

Let me try to explain this in a way that you might understand. Now I know that there are a bunch of people who insist that any analogy automatically sucks if it has a car in it. To those people I say just bear with me for a minute, okay? Try to listen to what I have to say, and maybe even understand it.

Suppose you have a well-beloved car company with a fanatical user base. This car company offers a wide range of automobiles, until one day when they decide to offer only these choices: 1) a cheap, tiny, Smart Car-like vehicle (yes, I know that real Smart Cars aren't that cheap. Bear with me for a moment) which is very efficient but has no frills, no luxuries, a V4 engine, and no cargo space or passenger space to speak of (Mac mini), 2) a mid-range sports car with lots of creature comforts, great handling and speed, but still no cargo space or passenger space (iMac), and 3) a massive, Hummer-sized tank with a V10 engine, way more space than most people would ever need, terrible fuel economy, tons of really expensive luxuries including built-in entertainment systems and everything, and costing the price of a small house.

Now, consider your average Joe customer. He's not rich, but he has maybe a couple of kids that he needs to drive to school and back, so he needs a car with a back seat, which neither the Smart car nor the sports car have, and maybe he wants to go to the grocery store once in a while to buy food and other generic supplies. Is he going to mortgage his house just to be able to afford the Hummer, or is he going to go buy a normal freaking car from one of the company's competitors? And what would this mean for the company? Ultimately, this company would have a low market share made up primarily of 1) the most basic users who don't need anything more than what the lowest-end car offers, and 2) their existing fanatical enthusiast user base, who will either a) just suck it up and buy the Hummer to get access to basic abilities that the competitors offer in normal cars costing less than our company's mid-range sports car, or b) settle for the sports car, install a spoiler on it, and just force the kids to sit on the back of the car and hang onto the spoiler real tight. Of course, some of these enthusiasts are going to get fed up and go to the competition, causing a gradual dwindling in market share, and the company's not going to gain much market share, because the other car companies' users are going to be turned off by the lack of features in the first two models that they can get from the other guys for a tiny percentage of the price of the Hummer. If this car company would offer a normal, non-huge car with a little non-monstrous amount of space, for a reasonable price, a lot of the other guys' customers might actually be able to buy one instead of only being tempted.

Look at Apple's recent market share gains - I'll bet that most of those gains are attributable to laptops, the one market segment where none of this matters. Apple's desktop machines haven't sold all that well for some time now. The reason is that Apple doesn't deliver what people expect in a desktop machine. Sometimes you just want a normal freaking car.
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #65 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah93

What do you not understand?

No one is asking for a cheapo $800 headless mac. Please read the argument before you fill the board with your uselessness and waste other peoples time.

I wouldn't talk if I where you...

Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer

Why the hell cant they package a core 2 duo, 4 ram slots, 2 HDD (desktop size) bays, 1 PCIe GPU slot, one PCIe expantion slot and standard I/O be sold for the price of the dual core Mini or even $500 more?

Let me see... the price for a dual core mac Mini is, my gosh $799, someone did ask for it at that price

Next time please read before you fill the board with your uselessness and waste other peoples time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

When you demand that customers "fork over the cash and stop whining" when they can get a machine with PCI slots and an extra hard disk bay from Dell for $350 vs. $2500 for the Mac Pro, you're just going to lose the sale, because they're going to buy the Dell. Hell, nowadays you can hack a Dell to run OS X on it.

hahahahahaha... thats some funny shit, I never knew that a $350 junk box that offers nothing but obsolete parts could compare with a workstation that is geared at high end professionals.

You see a person who needs a workstation computer will NEVER buy a $350 computer and if they do buy a workstation from Dell or HP it's going to be a lot more expensive...

Quote:
At the WWDC keynote, Phil Shiller, Apple's senior VP of marketing, told us that the "standard" Mac Pro configuration is about $1,000 less than a similarly configured Dell. A Mac Pro with dual 2.6GHz Xeons, 1GB of 667MHz RAM, a 250GB hard drive spinning at 7,200rpm, and an Nvidia GeForce 7300GT video card with 256MB of dedicated video memory is $2,499 on Apple's site, as promised. A Dell Precision 690 workstation with the same specs except for an Nvidia Quadro NVS 285 video card will run you $3,709. An HP Workstation xw8400 with that same Quadro NVS 285 hits $3,791. So if our elementary-school arithmetic is correct, the Mac Pro is $1,210 less than the Dell and $1,292 less than the HP. With Apple's free Boot Camp utility that lets you run Windows on a Mac, it's easy to imagine folks opting for the Mac Pro even if they never plan to use Mac OS X. Obviously, Apple hopes that the price differential will get more power users onto the Mac platform to at least give OS X a spin.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4531-10921_7-6625581.html

See thats were Apple (and the Mac Pro) is competing, not with $350 computers... and from the info from the quote above Apple is doing extremely well

btw when your using your hacked version of OS X on your $350 computer, every time it's time to update the system the hack is broken and you have to do it all over again... heck it's so bad I rather run windows 98
MacBook 1.83GHz, 1GB of Ram --> A more elegant notebook, for a more civilized age

An apple a day, keeps Microsoft away
Reply
MacBook 1.83GHz, 1GB of Ram --> A more elegant notebook, for a more civilized age

An apple a day, keeps Microsoft away
Reply
post #66 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Apple

Let me see... the price for a dual core mac Mini is, my gosh $799, someone did ask for it at that price

Again, the Mini is not adequate for some people's needs.

Quote:
hahahahahaha... thats some funny shit, I never knew that a $350 junk box that offers nothing but obsolete parts could compare with a workstation that is geared at high end professionals.

You see a person who needs a workstation computer will NEVER buy a $350 computer and if they do buy a workstation from Dell or HP it's going to be a lot more expensive...

Um, I thought I've made it pretty much clear that I'm not talking about people who need workstation-class machines. In fact, I was pretty clearly talking about people for whom the entire point is that they don't need workstation-class machines.

Having an extra drive bay and a PCI slot are not workstation-class features, and it is ridiculous to expect people to buy a workstation-class machine in order to get these basic things. The fact that other manufacturers offer these abilities all the way down to the $350 shitboxes proves this.

Quote:
See thats were Apple (and the Mac Pro) is competing, not with $350 computers... and from the info from the quote above Apple is doing extremely well

Exactly. These machines are designed only for the most extreme high-end users who would buy that decked-out Dell if they were buying a PC. That is not most users, though.

Quote:
btw when your using your hacked version of OS X on your $350 computer, every time it's time to update the system the hack is broken and you have to do it all over again... heck it's so bad I rather run windows 98

Yeah, I know. The point is that for a large segment of the userbase, pretty much all the options currently suck for them on the Mac platform...
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
Proud member of AppleInsider since before the World Wide Web existed.
Reply
post #67 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah93

iMac [both]: Your average joe desktop system good for video chatting and web surfing, based on laptop compenents, little expandability


Stop insulting my iMac
Have you ever actually used one??
What exactly do you want TO DO with your computer that you believe the iMac is not capable of??

Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.

Just don't go around and say the iMac is a low capability computer because it's more powerfull than any pentium-based dell out there. Shure, you can buy some tower with better specs on paper, but in practice the current iMacs just flies. Encoding video's, playing games, multitasking.
If you have ANY computing requirements the iMac is not capable of, you are going to NEED a MAC pro, cause if the iMac won't handle it, your dream 'mac' also won't.
post #68 of 1658
An iMac may fill the bill toady but what if it does not do that next year. A PM 7500/100 as an exampel of a plain mac, could get a good Radeon PCI card, USB and Firewire PCI card, IDE card and drives CD Burern and a much faster G3 CPU. This both extended its usable life far beyond any old iMac, it also enabled the user to tweak the computer in different directions. Like gaming GPU/CPU and RAM upgrades or server: Disks and perhaps USB/FW for external drives.

It is not only the matter of performance (and price) gap between the i/miniMac and the Pro but extending the useful life of the computer. More than 6 years ago I bought a G4/400. Thanks to upgrading to a 1.2 GHz G4 and a ATI 8500 OS X became nice and games up to Call of Duty have been running nicely. 6 years old and it only stalls at things like Quake 4

Had I bought a iMac at the same time I would have had the 400 MHz G3 512k L2 and a ATI 128 card with 8 MB RAM. OS X would allways be dog slow, and gaming would have stooped years earlier. Marathon and Unreal would work but UT that came out 5 years ago or so would have been the end.

With the current iMac the ATI 1600 128 MB RAM is a decent midrange card but how about in 2 or 3 years? There is a need for 1K computer with some upgrade/tweak options. I am not asking for a 400 dollar box with paper thin profit but a segment were HP, Fujitsu-Simens and Dell are happy to sell
post #69 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBoar

An iMac may fill the bill toady but what if it does not do that next year. A PM 7500/100 as an exampel of a plain mac, could get a good Radeon PCI card, USB and Firewire PCI card, IDE card and drives CD Burern and a much faster G3 CPU. This both extended its usable life far beyond any old iMac, it also enabled the user to tweak the computer in different directions. Like gaming GPU/CPU and RAM upgrades or server: Disks and perhaps USB/FW for external drives.

It is not only the matter of performance (and price) gap between the i/miniMac and the Pro but extending the useful life of the computer. More than 6 years ago I bought a G4/400. Thanks to upgrading to a 1.2 GHz G4 and a ATI 8500 OS X became nice and games up to Call of Duty have been running nicely. 6 years old and it only stalls at things like Quake 4

Had I bought a iMac at the same time I would have had the 400 MHz G3 512k L2 and a ATI 128 card with 8 MB RAM. OS X would allways be dog slow, and gaming would have stooped years earlier. Marathon and Unreal would work but UT that came out 5 years ago or so would have been the end.

With the current iMac the ATI 1600 128 MB RAM is a decent midrange card but how about in 2 or 3 years? There is a need for 1K computer with some upgrade/tweak options. I am not asking for a 400 dollar box with paper thin profit but a segment were HP, Fujitsu-Simens and Dell are happy to sell

OK, I see your point here, you want to be able to update your pc to keep the ability to run the latest games. I'm guessing that following this reasoning you're also begging microsoft and sony to release upgradable XBOXES en playstations. Right
I'm just happy that in 6 years my iMac will still be completely capable to do everything it can do today and just as fast or faster (with optimized OS's)
post #70 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear


Stop insulting my iMac
Have you ever actually used one??
What exactly do you want TO DO with your computer that you believe the iMac is not capable of??

Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.

Just don't go around and say the iMac is a low capability computer because it's more powerfull than any pentium-based dell out there. Shure, you can buy some tower with better specs on paper, but in practice the current iMacs just flies. Encoding video's, playing games, multitasking.
If you have ANY computing requirements the iMac is not capable of, you are going to NEED a MAC pro, cause if the iMac won't handle it, your dream 'mac' also won't.

I agree fullheartedly.

The only thing I can think of is an stripped down Conroe sporting Mac Pro. (Mac Pro light)
Same casing as the MacPro, less expandable.
Same price as an similar configered iMac.
alles sal reg kom
Reply
alles sal reg kom
Reply
post #71 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

OK, I see your point here, you want to be able to update your pc to keep the ability to run the latest games. I'm guessing that following this reasoning you're also begging microsoft and sony to release upgradable XBOXES en playstations. Right
I'm just happy that in 6 years my iMac will still be completely capable to do everything it can do today and just as fast or faster (with optimized OS's)

Exactly, Games are the only reason most people upgrade machines, or more likely install beefier graphics card. Windows XP is now 5 years old, and every computer that was capable to run XP when it came out, is still capable to run it today. I think 5 year lifespan in any technology is very admirable.

Expandability would be nice but, and I think the price point around 1700$, someone suggested here earlier, is something Apple could stil afford to get reasonable profits. Let's have a poll how many of you who absolutely want this kind of apple made generic computer would be willing to pay 1700$ for it, I quess not that many.

I don't undertand why the 350$ computer always comes up in these conversations, let's face it, Apple could not afford to produce one, and according to Dells profitability, neither can they. It's there just to lure people in, they'd rather not sell it.

Apple caters high profitability niche market, If you are not in that segment, too bad for you. Sounds harch, but that is something neither you or I can change.
post #72 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

OK, I see your point here, you want to be able to update your pc to keep the ability to run the latest games. ...

I basically did the same thing, however, I did it so that I could run Mac OS X and Final Cut Express.

Also, what about those consumers that won't be able to utilize core technologies because their graphics cards don't support it? Might they be willing to invest $100 in a graphics card.

And for all those people upset that ATI and Nvidia don't offer options for their towers, well, what do you expect when the lowest %age of computers that Apple sells even have graphics cards. Not much of an incentive is it.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #73 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyastronaut

ohmygawd! just listen to yourself, stop babbling all your wet dreams about terabytes of storage on "mid-range" machines. we're not there yet. apple won't offer this anytime soon.

an imac will never do that. it was not built for expandability or terabytes of storage. you people just want mac pro features at elcheapo prices. not happening. fork over the cash and stop whinning. get a mac pro. enough already.

Please think before you fill the board with your uselessness and wet dreams.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...9&postcount=49

No, we want a reasonably priced upper end consumer machine with a modest amount of expandability.

Whether or not most people do indeed upgrade their computers is a moot point. Although I expect many, if not most consumers do indeed upgrade at the time of purchase. It is what is expected in a computer and it is what currently sells to the vast majority of people. Remember that perception is everything.

And if Apple's business model is to remain the same, then Apple's top executives need to stop saying they wish to increase market share, really, they do, because until they offer more that niche market products(the iMac and Mac mini) they will remain a niche player.
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #74 of 1658
Quote:
I'm just happy that in 6 years my iMac will still be completely capable to do everything it can do today and just as fast or faster (with optimized OS's)

I actually can try a G3/350 such as the iMac and my Sawtooth side by side. It is not only games that is lacking. Any GUI stuff in OS X is slow on the iMac due to CPU/GPU limitations. Having 2 Mbit connection at home and then have to wait on the computer instead of a slow modem....Switching back to OS 9 is a relif with such computers. Try typing really fast Word on such an iMac and it will lagg

Current iMacs are far better also in rellative terms than than those 1999/2000 iMacs, but tell me in 20012 if you are still happy with your iMac8) . My point is not that the current iMac _now_ is not able to handle everything but rather that if it becomes unable in a couple of years there is nothing you can do about that
post #75 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrBoar

An iMac may fill the bill toady but what if it does not do that next year. A PM 7500/100 as an exampel of a plain mac, could get a good Radeon PCI card, USB and Firewire PCI card, IDE card and drives CD Burern and a much faster G3 CPU. This both extended its usable life far beyond any old iMac, it also enabled the user to tweak the computer in different directions. Like gaming GPU/CPU and RAM upgrades or server: Disks and perhaps USB/FW for external drives.


Had I bought a iMac at the same time I would have had the 400 MHz G3 512k L2 and a ATI 128 card with 8 MB RAM. OS X would allways be dog slow, and gaming would have stooped years earlier. Marathon and Unreal would work but UT that came out 5 years ago or so would have been the end.


Here's the problem with this. If you purchased a 7500/100 over an iMac then you spent nigh $3000. Nothings changed...you can get an iMac if your needs are relatively modest and save money or you can spend $2500 and get the internal expandability that you need.

I have to employ dutch pears setiments. What exactly are people missing out on with the iMac. GPU upgradability the abiltity to add another internal drive. Nice features to have but for the masses not as important IMO. There's a point where people realize that they need to be sure they aren't spending half the price of a new computer upgrading something old.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #76 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlesS

Apple's current business model, as regards its desktop machines, seems to be to gouge the absolute hell out of its customers and make them pay $2500 for basic functionality that every other computer manufacturer will give you even in their cheapass $350 boxes. You don't see just a little something wrong with that?

When you demand that customers "fork over the cash and stop whining" when they can get a machine with PCI slots and an extra hard disk bay from Dell for $350 vs. $2500 for the Mac Pro, you're just going to lose the sale, because they're going to buy the Dell. Hell, nowadays you can hack a Dell to run OS X on it.


Frankly, I think that if the number of PCI slots on your machine is your deciding point between a Dell and an Apple computer, then you must have seriously overlooked the advantages of the Mac platform, but that's another topic.

Hacking a Dell to run OS X on it is just ugly and probably not even legal. But again, that's yet another topic.
post #77 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah93

Are you effin retarded? What I am asking for is a basic DESKTOP. Something that has 2 drive bays, 2 ram slots a decent proc and decent graphics. I am not asking much, saying that my 5 year old, $600 dell can handle that request.

And just so your puny mind can handle that, I'll break down Apple's desktop lines for you:

And if you don't think a 'Mac Pro Mini' is gonna happen, why don't you bring any valid arguments into the game, instead of arguing that it is outrageuos for Apple to have a desktop [not workstation] that runs on desktop components?

No I am not retarded.

First understand that, in Apple's view of things, "prosumers" don't exist. Either you are a regular Joe who needs a computer that's easy to use, edit your videos from your last vacation, etc. (iMac) or you're a professional who needs expandability, PCI slots, extra hard drives and whatnot (Mac Pro). Prosumers are just geeks who want great high end tech at low prices. Not happening, remember this is Apple.

Apple won't release a desktop headless mid range macintosh because it doesn't fit any of the "user roles" I just described above. I do understand you want that machine you describe, but unfortunately that's not happening because for Apple does not care about the prosumer market. It is WAY more profitable for apple to make you buy a Mac Pro. That's smarter. A lot of people that now buy mac pros will end up SPENDING LESS and buying your headless midrange mac. That is not good business.
post #78 of 1658
Allow me to quote this. 3 times, for effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

Stop insulting my iMac
Have you ever actually used one??
What exactly do you want TO DO with your computer that you believe the iMac is not capable of??

Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.

Just don't go around and say the iMac is a low capability computer because it's more powerfull than any pentium-based dell out there. Shure, you can buy some tower with better specs on paper, but in practice the current iMacs just flies. Encoding video's, playing games, multitasking.
If you have ANY computing requirements the iMac is not capable of, you are going to NEED a MAC pro, cause if the iMac won't handle it, your dream 'mac' also won't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

Stop insulting my iMac
Have you ever actually used one??
What exactly do you want TO DO with your computer that you believe the iMac is not capable of??

Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.

Just don't go around and say the iMac is a low capability computer because it's more powerfull than any pentium-based dell out there. Shure, you can buy some tower with better specs on paper, but in practice the current iMacs just flies. Encoding video's, playing games, multitasking.
If you have ANY computing requirements the iMac is not capable of, you are going to NEED a MAC pro, cause if the iMac won't handle it, your dream 'mac' also won't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

Stop insulting my iMac
Have you ever actually used one??
What exactly do you want TO DO with your computer that you believe the iMac is not capable of??

Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.

Just don't go around and say the iMac is a low capability computer because it's more powerfull than any pentium-based dell out there. Shure, you can buy some tower with better specs on paper, but in practice the current iMacs just flies. Encoding video's, playing games, multitasking.
If you have ANY computing requirements the iMac is not capable of, you are going to NEED a MAC pro, cause if the iMac won't handle it, your dream 'mac' also won't.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #79 of 1658
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

Shure, you LIKE expandability, but it just happens to be apple's belief that for consumers, the days of internal expandability are over. Exactly like you're not supposed to open up your television and replace the channel changing electronics.

Bingo. That's the Apple way. They are changing the paradigms of the consumer computers. You shouldn't have to open them to add more stuff. They should be small, lean, quiet, convenient. Not big boxes with a bunch of PCI slots and with a pound of dust inside.
post #80 of 1658
Arguments against a midrange Mac are a lot of wind with no substance. A 20 inch iMac is essentially $1700. A Mac Pro with a 20 inch display is $3200. There is ample room for a mini tower Mac at $1700, which is about in the middle, and costs $2400 with a 20 inch display. Now, who is going to argue that such a Mac will take sales away from the iMac or Mac Pro?

Who would buy such a mid range Mac? First of all, those of us who already have an excellent monitor and don't want to pay for another monitor by buying an iMac. Or those who don't like the chunky look of the iMac, or for some reason simply want or need the monitor detached from the computer. Also, there are less demanding applications that require a PCI or PCI-e card or cards. An iMac does not meet such needs and a Mac Pro is overkill.

The reason this topic keeps coming up is that it's a good idea and Apple has not yet addressed this very large market. I have found a solution that works for me, but does not help Apple's financial statement. I have a dual 1.25 GHz G4 PowerMac running a music workstation that is based on Apple's Logic software. Good old eBay to the rescue.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Isn't it time for a plain old Macintosh again?