Will Apple ever make this machine? - Page 9

Ok, you got me there. I wasn't as clear as I should have been. That later post should have cleared that up, as it was meant to do.


Again, I thought I cleared that up. If more is being done, then the program requires more coding. While these programs aren't coded the way ordinary programs are, they still take time, and must be completely de-bugged. Sometimes the debugging isn't complete until the production line is tested. The more steps, the more time, the more money.


It's confusing because you aren't allowing fo the extra work that's being done.


No not 30 amps. 3 amps would be more like 30 watts. Remember, I said "easily" Often it's much more than that. 100 watts would be 10 amps. That's an extreme, it's true, but not out of the question. If we are using DDR2, then 3 amps would be about right30 watts. But if we are using a Xeon as some here think Apple should, then it would be more, as FB-DIMMS use a fair amount more power.


It's just that giving it that type of name leads one to all sorts of expectations for a machine that would be the same as every other PC in the same catagory.

It's really too bad that the Xeons REQUIRE FB-DIMMS. That really adds to the cost of a machine. It it didn't, then it could be used in a machine like this, and perhaps then, it could be given some other name such as the Mac Mini Pro, or somesuch name.


If I'm wrong, I'd welcome an explanation -- as a chance to learn something new.

[/QUOTE]

They require buffering chips to eliminate parasitic capacitance, and other problems. They also require de-coupling caps.

Really, the added programming steps for inserting components for 2 RAM strips and one PCIe slot would be quite small compared to programming the whole motherboard. On top of that, this small cost would be amortized over the total number of Mac mini towers. The cost allocated to a single Mac would be pennies.




So what voltage do these RAM strips run at, 10 volts? Forgive the ignorance of an analog engineer, but it's my impression that CMOS runs at 3.3 Volts or less today. CPUs are down in the 2 volt range, no?




So buffering is not part of the chip set? Okay. Decoupling caps are fairly cheap. I forgot about them.

The list is getting smaller.

I'm not going to keep arguing with you about this. You are quite simply wrong.

When you've had more experience on the production line, come back.

I'm curious; it sounds like your job is in production, no? I spent almost 10 years in design engineering and worked on many projects, including a motherboard and a power supply. We constantly interfaced with manufacturing people when going into a pilot run. I was working on an MBA for a few years, went into marketing when I finished the degree program, and then, when I really didn't care for it, I went back into engineering. My job this time included programming automated test equipment for the manufacturing lines, and redesigning equipment that didn't perform well.

I say this to let you know I do have some experience, and this is why I find our disagreement so frustrating. At least it is down to two items.

Regarding the cost of programming machine insertion for two RAM strips and one added PCIe card, plus associated components, really would be trivial in my opinion. I guess these parts are less than 2 percent of the motherboard. By comparison, if I had to program my test equipment for 2 percent more testing it would take maybe a day at most. Divide that by the number of products built and it really is trivial, pennies.

Add the components, and it is under $5 I'd guess. So, the majority of the costs is in the larger power supply. I'll let you say what that would be. I was simply marking up your 425 Watt estimate an extra 100 Watts. Which brings us to power consumption.

What looks like a glaring error in your calculations is the power requirements of the added two RAM strips. I did mostly analog design, but it has been years since anyone used 10 Volt CMOS. Yet I'm familiar with logic circuitry, not memory. You say 3 Amperes. Multiplying by supply voltage to get power, I got 9 Watts using a 3 Volt supply. If the supply is 10 Volts, than it would be the 30 Watts you say.

Even then, the added $80 dollars you estimate would not be much for a mini tower of this caliber, which is the bottom line I guess.

I was a partner in a professional audio manufacturing firm. I designed products from speaker drivers for our own models, to pre-amps, power amps, and rf circuitry. Because of my position, I was highly involved in costing analysis.

We sold that company, and I've also been a partner in a commercial pho lab, where we were one of the first to do digital editing and compositing, starting with the Crossfield system.

I've also designed, and built, numerous digital devices for companies such as Showtime.

We had our own production lines for years, though later we decided to close them and outsource most of the non speaker related production.

My bio here gives some of that info.

we can disagree about some of the particulars, but the expense is still considerable, when one considers the marketing problems of adding another $60 to $80 to the price. That would be anywhere from $6 to 10% of the total, if you are trying to keep it down to a reasonable level.

The reason why it costs is not only related to the price of the parts, and programming and debugging, but also to the extra pickoff stations that must be used, as well as at least one more diverter line for defective boards. Extra board test connections and time also costs as well. So will the higher reject rates due to the greater component count and extra trace defect rate.Extra inventory, ordering, etc also count to a price increase. Two high quality DIMM sockets in the ten thousand and up pricing catagory will still cost about $4. Add an extra 50 cents for the rest, and the product price has moved up by at lest $10, and possibly $15. That doesn't include any of the other costs.

You have to also remember that the mobo will have to be at least 1.5 inches higher. That will add a good $10 to Apple's cost, if not more. Apple's mobo's have always cost far more than those in the PC industry.

But, look, we are not going to agree.

Thanks for the info. on your background. I've always worked for large companies, but would have liked to have had my own business. Also, building my own audio gear was my hobby, so it is interesting to hear you did it professionally.

I believe we disagree on the effect of a $60 to $80 price increase for a fairly high performance mini tower. I don't believe it will make much difference, and you do. But then, I think my price range may be higher than yours. I'd say $999 to $1999. Anything much less than that could be satisfied by an upgraded Mac Mini with desktop components and larger case.

The other thing that had me puzzled is the power rating of the RAM, but that is a side issue I will gladly set aside and forget.

So I think we have gotten fairly close.

just to chip in and stir the pot . . . when speccing up a system and figuring out what size of power supply to get, some guidelines reckon on applying typically 15W per gigabyte on the memory side of things. obviously thats a rough figure, but at least its a ball park.

Free Software Download

That's a nice link.

Instant bookmark. I need to share it on del.icio.us.

I'm curious. Why bother, when you can select "OSX software" from the Apple menu to get the same stuff?

Because it's easier this way. I know what I can find on my bookmarks, and therefore I know which one to go to for anything specific.

When going to "OSX Software", it takes longer to find what I need.

Apple should build a mini-tower because it makes sense.
Thousands of existing Mac users like me want one and probably aren't contributing a dime to Apple right now because we're buying used towers.

Start with a Conroe or Kentsfield CPU. A motherboard for that will automatically have only one CPU socket and a limited RAM ceiling which will keep the Pro buyers away from it. By default they get some empty PCI Express slots and chances are it'll have on-board video. That would allow Apple to ship a low end version with no video card and a higher model with a GeForce 7600 board that's good enough for the casual gamer and already has Mac drivers because the 7600 is available in the 24" iMac. It'll be a standard size board able to fit in a mini-tower or desktop case. All Apple needs to do is have the BIOS replaced with Apple EFI and it's a Mac.

Put the board in a small tower case with 3 drive bays: stock HD, stock DVD-RW and one empty one. Keep everyone happy by making the empty bay large enough for a Blu-ray drive, but include a mounting tray for a 3.5" HD.

Yes it would compete directly with the iMac, but I honestly believe that there's room for both. Buyers would have the choice of an integrated LCD or a box with some expansion capability and somewhat faster components.

I think it would be a winner because it would get me to buy a new Mac for the first time since 2002 (I've bought three used towers since then) and because it would be attractive to switchers and potential switchers who might like to try a stylish computer that can run any operating system. If Nvidia made the GeForce 8800 available it might even attract a few gamers.

Yes it is somewhat ironic that one of Apple's biggest competitors seems to be their own used machines.
a few years ago I bought a 7500, upgraded it with Sonnet G4, ATI Rage and Firewire/USB cards. At the time I could really justify buying a used G4 tower since the price hadn't dropped significantly due to the high demand for used Apple computers.\

Hello everyone,

I found this thread by doing a Google search for "Mid Range Mac" because my Windows tower is starting to get a little long in the tooth, and I'm considering upgrading. I've been watching the Macs ever since Apple announced the switch to Intel (and was on the verge of purchasing a Mac Mini for tinkering and as a HTPC when the announcement was made).

This fictional "xMac" everyone is talking about is geared perfectly toward me. I have a very nice 22" widescreen LCD monitor connected to my PC already, and I prefer to do my own RAM upgrades (Apple's RAM is ludicrously expensive, even for notebook memory - and I'd like the ability to have 4GB of RAM, mostly for Vista).

I've looked at the iMacs, and honestly, the spec (at least the ones with the x1600 graphic chipset) is good enough for what I want. I would prefer a better graphics chipset, but could live with the x1600 (especially if it were upgradeable later). What I don't want is the LCD monitor, and I'd prefer it use desktop parts so I could upgrade my components at a lower cost. I've already got a really good monitor, and I'd like the ability to pick up a separate OEM SATA drive and stick it in my computer (I like to do some video work on the side, and prefer to do all my capture onto a separate device).

The price point on the iMacs is in the range I'd like to be, but I hate the thought of spending part of that price point on a monitor I don't want or need. I'd rather a computer be available at the same price point with an upgraded spec and more expandability. I want the ability to run both MacOS and Windows Vista well. I'm perfectly OK with rebooting to play some Windows games.

The Mac Pro is out of the question. Sorry, the thing is overkill for what I need and the FB-DIMMs make putting a reasonable amount of RAM (Apple or otherwise) in it a very expensive proposition.

The form factor of the Mac Pro is OK, but I'd honestly prefer something smaller. A Shuttle sized PC would be about right.

The Mac Mini is out of the question for two reasons: it's a nightmare to upgrade (even the RAM), and it's ridiculously overpriced considering how low the spec is on it.

I've considered the MacBook Pro, but it requires paying a lot for portability I'm not interested in and limits my uprgade options. The MacBook uses the integrated Intel graphics chipset, so it's out of the question, because as I mentioned, I like to play some Windows games.

Here's a note for Apple: I am a potential switcher who is not switching because the machine I want does not exist. I highly doubt I am alone. Now that you've made the switch to Intel processors, we are looking closely at your machines. The hole in your lineup may seem small to many of the Mac faithful. To us Windows users, it's the Grand Canyon. If the missing machine were announced tomorrow, I would pre-order my first Mac.

Amen to that!

QQ

Here's a note for Apple: I am a potential switcher who is not switching because the machine I want does not exist. I highly doubt I am alone. Now that you've made the switch to Intel processors, we are looking closely at your machines. The hole in your lineup may seem small to many of the Mac faithful. To us Windows users, it's the Grand Canyon. If the missing machine were announced tomorrow, I would pre-order my first Mac.[/QUOTE]
Having read the other threads, you must be aware that your concern is felt by a lot of old Mac hands, also.
My two daughters (PC users) and I (five year Mac user) are waiting for that Mini tower to appear - and for the same reason you have for not jumping in at this time - because the existing Macs do not meet our needs

I am a Mac User, but not a switcher. I will not get rid of my PC that I can build myself until apple releases a Mid Range mac.

So I guess we are all in the same sinking boat together.

I second that Marine.

I decided to blog and Digg this story again, to try and bring it back to Apple's attention. I know it's been said a thousand times, but I'd appreciate anyone who would like this gap in Apple's product line filled to Digg the story and fill out the poll on my blog. Maybe enough responses will get Apple's attention.

Blog:
http://blog.pixelperfectproductions.com/?p=41

Digg:
http://www.digg.com/apple/Apple_Are_..._Poll_Included
(but you can Digg from the blog, as well).

Be prepared for the hate mail though. Unfortunately, those who question Apple's decision and raise the possibility that they can be wrong get it.

In my browser the poll questions are white on white and can't be read. The mockup of a Mac mini tower is very nice BTW.

If it gets me the Mac I want, I'm OK with the hate mail.

Which browser? I want to guess Safari, because it's the one browser I haven't been able to test.

Nicely done! I've written directly to Apple about the very same thing myself.


I'm using Safari and experienced the same. The text is white on a white background hence hard to read, howver, I was only able to read it by selecting the text.

Cheers!

I'm using WordPress for the blog, apparently they fixed the Safari problems in the latest version, but I haven't had an opportunity to upgrade.

For those who haven't seen it there was another similar Blog

http://www.sendmike2space.com/

It pretty much stopped at 4500 diggs.

Surprise, and potentially good news if this report is true, because Apple would replace the Mac Mini with something else. I'm sure Apple has marketing information indicating what Mac users, businesses, schools and potential switchers prefer in place of a Mini. Our discussion here may not be so hypothetical after all.

I hope you're right, Snoopy. I'd love to see something sooner rather than later...

The impetus behind this discussion, and many like it, may soon be satisfied with the realization of a Mac Mini Tower. At least that is my hope now, in light of the report suggesting the demise of the Mac Mini.

I suspect this move is the result of much market investigation. Also, if the goal was to have just one new Mac that will satisfy the most demands of both potential switchers and Mac users alike, a small tower or expandable cube is the most likely choice of design. Here is what I think we will see.

Two versions, with different motherboards. Both will have two HDD bays and one or two optical drive bays. The Mini replacement, $599 to $899, will have on-board graphics and no PCIe slots. The prosumer version, $999 to $1799, will have a choice of PCIe graphics cards, and two or three expansion slots. The cheaper motherboard will have a desktop dual core chip, while the upper end board will have a four core desktop processor.

Such a Mac can satisfy a broad range of computer needs and desires. If Apple builds it, it will fly off the shelves.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/30/s...e-from-d-2007/


There is hope, small but hope. For an xMac or xMac like computer.

It would be nice. In fact, one might interpret "massive investments in desktops" as more than one desktop. Yet Steve may have just used the wrong word.

He also said that before long Apple may be selling 80 to 90 percent laptops. That would leave just 10 to 20 percent of Macs as desktops - - not a very promising balance for us that want a new desktop Mac.

God willing this means a G33/Allendale based Mini replacement, and a P35 prosumer Mac running Conroe and Kentsfield in addition to a all cloverton Mac Pro lineup. Unfortunately, this is Apple and probably just means a 30" iMac or something

Believe it or not, I see this easily happening. As laptop technology starts to catch up to the expansion and capability of desktops, there will begin to be less and less of a need for desktop computing. I don't think this will happen anytime extremely soon, but eventually a laptop will be able to do everything a desktop can do, so you might as well go with a laptop. This includes processor speed, HDD, and disc drives. Maybe I'm thinking to far out, but it is a thought.

On the other hand, right here and now, we are nowhere near that place. Although a lot closer than we were 5-10 years ago, laptops still see a significant performance and expandability gap from desktops (slower performance due to heat conscious processors, smaller and slower hard drives, and its hard for HD drive technology to fit an apple laptop). I vote give us a new mid-range tower now until technology catches up!

Maybe some company (hopefully Apple) will produce a computer that's half way between a laptop and a desktop: a portable like one of the old portables of the '80's - but about the size of an attache case with a separate monitor in the top half. You could carry it around the house from room to room.

Naw, it would be too heavy to travel with. However, I would never be satisfied with a laptop size monitor. I have two 22" monitors on my desk and am thinking of adding another. I guess a laptop and a docking station would be the way to go.

Ha ha!

I guess I am thinking of a future where monitors are all around us (maybe processors too!), we just carry a portable storage side with us and hook up everywhere we go. That is really far out ahead of us, but there are baby steps along the way. In this step, we start seeing a lot more laptops and less desktops because we want to take everything with us!

Talk about Minority Report!!

For me, and I'm sure some others, the laptop is not acceptable unless I need a portable computer.

1) I dislike the laptop keyboard. It is awkward to use, and I have difficulty typing on it. I've had to use a laptop often enough to become accustom to it, so it's not something I would eventually get used to, much less like. I hate it.

2) I dislike the track-pad too. When I use it I can't wait to get back to a mouse.

3) The laptop display is too small. I much prefer a 19 to 24 inch display.

4) I've heard the argument that I can use an external monitor, keyboard and mouse with a laptop, but that would be a makeshift mess on my desk. If I need a laptop on occasions, I'll keep it separate and synchronized with my desktop.

So far, my exposure to a laptop has been in running a sound board for musical and multimedia performances. We have a Mac Book for this, by the way. I much prefer being on stage playing drums or singing, than using the laptop, and I don't like the spotlight.

we can have things like that now useing the Hyper Transport bus. Intel FSB is too old of things like that.

In general, I was speaking about a future where there are large monitors, mice, and keyboards you hook up to wherever you want (in the mall, on the subway, at a friends house, etc.).

For something like today, I agree with you. I prefer a desktop over a laptop as well. However, my point is that sometime in the distant future, hopefully desktops will not have any technological advantage over portables other than the things you mentioned.

Who knows, by then we may be using touch sensitive displays instead of a keyboard and mouse!

It will a long time before laptops are as easy to open up and put new parts in as a desktop is also space / heat and battery life will keep super high end parts from be a good choice for a laptop.