Will Apple ever make this machine?

Originally Posted by dulcimer47


2.4 GHz Kentsfield (Q6600)
1 GB RAM (should be 2 GB)
250 GB HD
(whatever graphics they choose to use)
Superdrive
(all the usual stuff)

$1999

Any chance?

Originally Posted by dulcimer47

I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.

Originally Posted by Chucker

Because dozens of other manufacturers already do.

Originally Posted by dulcimer47

I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.

In fact they don't even make a Mac with a desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro uses server chips, and every other Mac uses laptop chips.

Originally Posted by dulcimer47

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

I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.

In fact they don't even make a Mac with a desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro uses server chips, and every other Mac uses laptop chips.

What do you think the chances are of Apple producing such a machine? I think the iMac is not a good candidate for Kentsfield since it currently uses a laptop chip (heat, power consumption issues). I know it used a G5 in the past, but it seems that one of the most important features of the iMac is the quiet, cool operation.

I think the Mac Pro enclosure is pretty perfect, just use 1xKentsfield rather than 2xWoodcrest/2xClovertown.

The Kentsfield machine could offer many things, such as faster RAM than the Woodcrest/Clovertown Mac Pros, and lower cost...

2.4 GHz Kentsfield (Q6600)
1 GB RAM (should be 2 GB)
250 GB HD
(whatever graphics they choose to use)
Superdrive
(all the usual stuff)

$1999

Any chance?

Originally Posted by kenaustus

I'm one of the supporters of a headless mid-range for several reasons.

The first is the Mac mini users who bought one to "try a Mac". They are ready to move up, but don't want to give up their current display and don't want to pay the price of a Mac Pro. When you remember Apple saying that half of the Mac buyers in their stores are new to Macs it appears that an upgrade path to a mid range would be rather successful.

For me, I have a PB attached to a 23" display, which I prefer to the imac at home. Not having a chin puts the 23" lower and is more comfortable for me. I would go with a mid range that is a lot smaller, but I'm done with large towers. I'll wait for the mid-range, which I bet is a slightly taller version of the Apple TV. I'm also betting tht there will be a nice range of processors and video cards to choose from. Unfortunately it probably won't come for another 3 - 5 years!

Originally Posted by dulcimer47

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

I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.

In fact they don't even make a Mac with a desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro uses server chips, and every other Mac uses laptop chips.

What do you think the chances are of Apple producing such a machine? I think the iMac is not a good candidate for Kentsfield since it currently uses a laptop chip (heat, power consumption issues). I know it used a G5 in the past, but it seems that one of the most important features of the iMac is the quiet, cool operation.

I think the Mac Pro enclosure is pretty perfect, just use 1xKentsfield rather than 2xWoodcrest/2xClovertown.

The Kentsfield machine could offer many things, such as faster RAM than the Woodcrest/Clovertown Mac Pros, and lower cost...

2.4 GHz Kentsfield (Q6600)
1 GB RAM (should be 2 GB)
250 GB HD
(whatever graphics they choose to use)
Superdrive
(all the usual stuff)

$1999

Any chance?

Originally Posted by Fran441

A headless iMac topic? Has it really been a week and a half already?

Since this topic has already been beaten to death, I'll do a quick recap of why I don't think this will happen.

First, Apple already offered a mid range Mac with no built in screen a few years ago. It offered the top of the line processor at the time and you could upgrade the optical drive, the graphics card, add a larger hard drive, and add more RAM. It was called the Power Mac G4 Cube. At the time, people looked at the Power Mac G4 towers and said, "Wow, that's really expensive. If I spend a few hundred dollars more, I could get a more expandable Power Mac G4 tower!"

So that brings us back to now. When people say they want a 'Mid range tower', what most of them mean is, "I want a computer that is almost as fast as the current top of the line Pro tower with almost all of the expandability and features but I want it at half of the price of the current low end Pro tower".

Apple has the 'desktop' market pretty well covered. You have the low end Mac Mini starting at $599, the high end Mac Mini at $799, the low end 17" iMac at $999, the high end 17" iMac at $1199, the 20" 2.16 GHz iMac at $1499, the 20" 2.33 GHz iMac at $1749, the 24" iMac at $1999, the DPDC 2.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2200, the DPDC 2.66 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2499, the DPDC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3298, and the DPQC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3997.

If Apple was to re-release the Cube today at $1999 or even $1799, it would not sell. People would complain that it is too expensive and that for a few hundred dollars more they could get a Mac Pro. Apple already proved there wasn't a market for this kind of Mac, I hope they don't make the same mistake twice.

Originally Posted by rickag

Replace Kentsfield with Conroe, lower base price to $779 - $899 and it might sell a lot. Chances of Apple introducing either machine = slim to none

They don't want this business for some reason known only to them.

Yep they got it covered fine as long as you're either insanely rich or are willing to make severe capability sacrifices in order to meet with Jobs thinks a computer should be and should do. Yes they do keep making a mistake repeatedly, but it's listening only to a small niche group and leaving everyone else, including Mac Prosumers, high and dry. when I became a Mac user I didn't have a difficult time finding a Mac at all. The last couple I've had a very hard time finding a Mac that meets my needs. If it wasn't for the $1000 tax Apple levies for a 24" display to get so much as a GeForce 7600GT Apple would be getting two machines out of me. Now, they'll be lucky if they get one.

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

it would be more like $1499-1699, but I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Originally Posted by rickag

I was using pricing for base models that currently exist. I've found desktop computers using a single Conroe ranging from a low of ~$799 to pricing higher than $1699, some higher than $3000.

Oh well, we'll most likely never see Apple enter this market. For those that either need it or want it, Apple relegates them to the used tower market.

Originally Posted by Fran441

I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.

Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.

In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.

When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.

So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.

My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by Fran441

I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.

Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.

In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.

When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.

So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.

My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

The lineup is not the same. They replaced the desktops with workstations that at $700 more expensive at the low end. Furthermore, I refuse to buy obsolete machines to justify Apple's shortsightedness. Unlike a Mac users, to me it's a platform, not a religion.

The lineup is not the same. They replaced the desktops with workstations that at $700 more expensive at the low end. Furthermore, I refuse to buy obsolete machines to justify Apple's shortsightedness. Unlike a Mac users, to me it's a platform, not a religion.

I fear, unfortunately, that you're feelings are shared by many more consumers than Apple realizes.

Originally Posted by Fran441


. . . look at the fact that Apple made much more money than Dell last quarter and was also competitive with #1 PC maker HP. Apple seems to be doing just fine without a midrange Mac

I've seen this topic come up too many times now and know that even if Apple did come out with a 'mid range' Mac, people would still complain about it not having enough features, expandability, processing power, and the price. You can't keep all of the people happy all of the time.

Originally Posted by dulcimer47

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

I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.

In fact they don't even make a Mac with a desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro uses server chips, and every other Mac uses laptop chips.

What do you think the chances are of Apple producing such a machine? I think the iMac is not a good candidate for Kentsfield since it currently uses a laptop chip (heat, power consumption issues). I know it used a G5 in the past, but it seems that one of the most important features of the iMac is the quiet, cool operation.

I think the Mac Pro enclosure is pretty perfect, just use 1xKentsfield rather than 2xWoodcrest/2xClovertown.

The Kentsfield machine could offer many things, such as faster RAM than the Woodcrest/Clovertown Mac Pros, and lower cost...

2.4 GHz Kentsfield (Q6600)
1 GB RAM (should be 2 GB)
250 GB HD
(whatever graphics they choose to use)
Superdrive
(all the usual stuff)

$1999

Any chance?

Originally Posted by Fran441

I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.

Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.

In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.

When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.

So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.

My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.

Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon

business want system that are easy to open the mini is not that kind of system.

Originally Posted by Fran441

A headless iMac topic? Has it really been a week and a half already?

Since this topic has already been beaten to death, I'll do a quick recap of why I don't think this will happen.

First, Apple already offered a mid range Mac with no built in screen a few years ago. It offered the top of the line processor at the time and you could upgrade the optical drive, the graphics card, add a larger hard drive, and add more RAM. It was called the Power Mac G4 Cube. At the time, people looked at the Power Mac G4 towers and said, "Wow, that's really expensive. If I spend a few hundred dollars more, I could get a more expandable Power Mac G4 tower!"

So that brings us back to now. When people say they want a 'Mid range tower', what most of them mean is, "I want a computer that is almost as fast as the current top of the line Pro tower with almost all of the expandability and features but I want it at half of the price of the current low end Pro tower".

Apple has the 'desktop' market pretty well covered. You have the low end Mac Mini starting at $599, the high end Mac Mini at $799, the low end 17" iMac at $999, the high end 17" iMac at $1199, the 20" 2.16 GHz iMac at $1499, the 20" 2.33 GHz iMac at $1749, the 24" iMac at $1999, the DPDC 2.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2200, the DPDC 2.66 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2499, the DPDC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3298, and the DPQC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3997.

If Apple was to re-release the Cube today at $1999 or even $1799, it would not sell. People would complain that it is too expensive and that for a few hundred dollars more they could get a Mac Pro. Apple already proved there wasn't a market for this kind of Mac, I hope they don't make the same mistake twice.

Originally Posted by achaney


. . . I needed a mac and going to the store, I examined the imac (too weak), the tower (didn't need card slots and a huge footprint), the cube (PERFECT!!!!). It had a small footprint, serious power, . . .

Today times for me are tight. Now price is a huge factor. Given the same set of options and the pricing structure was the same, you're right, I woud eiher buy the imac or the tower, but I STILL WANT A CUBE.

Originally Posted by iPeon

You make very good points Fran, however, let me ask you this, what is the most popular PC that Dell or HP sell? Is it an all in one, is it a mid range upgradable tower, is it an high end tower?

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

They also want something that a disgruntled employee can't stick in their briefcase.

Originally Posted by shanmugam

another price cut from intel

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7006

desktop CPU prices sweet, sweet ...

only heat and noise were perfect we shall see them in iMac, thats not gonna happen next couple years.

with these CPUs, Mac Mini can be priced lower