Originally Posted by
melgross 
There is simply NO reason to use a Xeon in a single processor machine.
The Xeon is specifically designed for machines with two or more processors. The extra cost doesn't add to speed, or much anything else in a single processor machine, just to a higher cost. The high end Conroe's have the same bus speeds as well, so you don't gain anything there either.
While I have nothing against choice, and if manufacturers wish to offer them, that's fine by me, but I don't see any good reason for buying one.
But, Apple could offer a machine for $999 with one Conroe, two memory slots, two card slots, spaced apart so that a double slot space graphics card could be fit. and many of the other features they have now.
A machine like that can use a 425 watt power supply instead of the 980 watt one, which would be enough for even the highest end video card, with enough left over for everything else. It can have room for two HD, and one external drive slot.
Apple can produce a machine like this. It's only because they don't want to that they don't.
How many times have we gone over this?
Perhaps it's time for Apple to discontinue their 17" iMac, except for schools, and offer these instead. There is also no excuse for Apple's lack of presence in the low cost monitor business.
The stubbornness of Apple here is absurd. It's difficult to believe that they don't see all of the sales they are losing in monitors because they refuse to compete in the biggest monitor segment. I know PC people who would not hesitate to buy a $200 17", or a $350 22" from Apple. They don't have to be in aluminum, they can be in aluminum colored plastic.
How many people buying a Mini who don't have a computer already, or have an old crt they want to get rid of, will buy a current Apple monitor? Why should all of these other companies get those sales?
It makes no sense.
A mini tower would cover a lot of ground.
The truth is that if Apple does come out with these machines and monitors, and it does impact on iMac sales, what's the difference?
Just how many iMacs is Apple selling a year anyway? Not all that many. There is pretty much no growth there. They should be willing to try other avenues.
If they kept the 24", and possibly the 20", with the 17" reserved for schools, insomuch as few people will spend that much for a 17" machine for home these days, at that price, particularly for an all-in-one, they might not lose much in sales at all.
These machines wouldn't be competing directly with the higher end iMacs, which are being bought specifically because they are all-in-one's, for a fashion statement, as much as for any other reason.
The box could go for $799 to perhaps $1,099. Any higher, and they might begin to compete too much with the iMacs, though, again, it might not matter, because those are very likely two entirely different buying groups.
Pro's on the lower rungs of the ladder would prefer these machines as well. As they couldn't afford Apple's Mac Pro's, there would be little, if no, impact there.
The machine impacted the most would possibly be the high end Mini. But the Mini's don't seem to be selling that well anyway.
