or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Why do you want a minitower?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do you want a minitower? - Page 3

Poll Results: Why a minitower as opposed to a Mac Pro?

This is a multiple choice poll
  • 24% (26)
    Take up less desk space
  • 36% (38)
    Cost (but what should be missing cf the Pro?)
  • 22% (24)
    Don't need the power of a Pro (but why not a Mini then?)
  • 16% (17)
    Other reason (please reply)
105 Total Votes  
post #81 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Royboy View Post

A lot of people blame this on Steve Jobs, but I thought I read somewhere that the IMac was already in development when he came back to Apple.

I'm talking about G5 and later. The original iMac was more or less a more stylish follow up to the all in one Performas. Jobs has a tendency when he has a major success to become overly bold and overreach. He did so after the success of the G3 iMac. Apple was barely breaking even until the iPod showed up and caught on.
post #82 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

The iMac is like the BMW sedan. What we're really looking for is a full size pickup.

I find the iMac is like a Toyota Corolla and nothing like a BMW. When you drive the Corolla, you get the feeling the parts are cheap and chintzy and you feel like you're in a beer can or go cart when you really want to be cruising at speed. The Cube was the BMW M6 of computers. We desperately need a new M6. Enough with the Big Ugly Box (BUB) and stop giving us chintziness with iMac. (New iMac keyboard is awful too, hope that doesn't come with the Mac Pro, the Pro needs a Pro keyboard.)
post #83 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerapp View Post

I find the iMac is like a Toyota Corolla and nothing like a BMW. When you drive the Corolla, you get the feeling the parts are cheap and chintzy and you feel like you're in a beer can or go cart when you really want to be cruising at speed. The Cube was the BMW M6 of computers. We desperately need a new M6. Enough with the Big Ugly Box (BUB) and stop giving us chintziness with iMac. (New iMac keyboard is awful too, hope that doesn't come with the Mac Pro, the Pro needs a Pro keyboard.)

I love that keyboard
post #84 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerapp View Post

I find the iMac is like a Toyota Corolla and nothing like a BMW. When you drive the Corolla, you get the feeling the parts are cheap and chintzy and you feel like you're in a beer can or go cart when you really want to be cruising at speed....

Even though I'm an xMac advocate, I disagree with this sentiment. I own a G5 iMac iSight and find it anything but "cheap and chintzy" and don't feel like I'm in a beer can or gocart.

That said, I find it frustrating that Apple seems to have abandoned what I believe to be a significant part of the consumer market, well, not abandoned, but left with product choices that are constrained in their flexibility.
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 #85 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

You mean the one were apple is not perfect.

No, the one where instead of being another putz on the block you're a marketing genius and ineffable business analyst. You make these bold claims, but all evidence points against them.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #86 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

I'm talking about G5 and later. The original iMac was more or less a more stylish follow up to the all in one Performas. Jobs has a tendency when he has a major success to become overly bold and overreach. He did so after the success of the G3 iMac. Apple was barely breaking even until the iPod showed up and caught on.

You didn't think that line of BS was going to slip past us all did you? Apple was not only growing since the introduction of the iMac, but again OS X brought them to another level. Your misinformed. Apple started making money again almost to the day that Steve Jobs took over, and has grown steadily ever since.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #87 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerapp View Post

I find the iMac is like a Toyota Corolla and nothing like a BMW. When you drive the Corolla, you get the feeling the parts are cheap and chintzy and you feel like you're in a beer can or go cart when you really want to be cruising at speed. The Cube was the BMW M6 of computers. We desperately need a new M6. Enough with the Big Ugly Box (BUB) and stop giving us chintziness with iMac. (New iMac keyboard is awful too, hope that doesn't come with the Mac Pro, the Pro needs a Pro keyboard.)

The Humanity. THE CUBE: A BMW. THE IMAC: A TOYOTA CORROLA. Listen to your self. Get a grip.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #88 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

You didn't think that line of BS was going to slip past us all did you? Apple was not only growing since the introduction of the iMac, but again OS X brought them to another level. Your misinformed. Apple started making money again almost to the day that Steve Jobs took over, and has grown steadily ever since.

I think you're blocking out the G4 days. If you want proof, research the financial from Apple. From Q1 2001 to Q2 2005, the profits were modest at best and at the low points were a nearly $200 million loss in Q1 2001 and and a $45 million loss in Q4 2002. The big loss was at the height of the cube fiasco. When the iPod took off, Apple began seeing major profits, literally jumping from about $14 million to over $300 million.
post #89 of 241
The G4 cube was perhaps the most remarkable Apple computer ever built. I know, I bought one. The only problem I ever had is the HD died, under warranty, and was easy to replace. I've yet to own another computer that had a handle to pull the guts out.

Steve Jobs has an obsession with cube shaped computers. When he left Apple he started NeXT and built, that's right, a black cube computer. When he returned to Apple he built an even smaller cube. I think the only delay in the dual Intel core2 duo cube is that Steve is insisting it be 6" cube instead of 8".

post #90 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerapp View Post

The G4 cube was perhaps the most remarkable Apple computer ever built. I know, I bought one. The only problem I ever had is the HD died, under warranty, and was easy to replace. I've yet to own another computer that had a handle to pull the guts out.

Steve Jobs has an obsession with cube shaped computers. When he left Apple he started NeXT and built, that's right, a black cube computer. When he returned to Apple he built an even smaller cube. I think the only delay in the dual Intel core2 duo cube is that Steve is insisting it be 6" cube instead of 8".


For a feature filled SFF, it was remarkable, but when you get into the prosumer ranks, the desire for a SFF machine is very small. Compared to the G4 tower, it was less powerful, less expandable, and more expensive.
post #91 of 241
Well duh it was less expandable, that's the whole point -- it's a computer that has everything therefore you don't need to expand it. And the cube is the same computer but 1/4 the size of the tower because you sacrifice that cavernous expansion space.
post #92 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerapp View Post

The G4 cube was perhaps the most remarkable Apple computer ever built. I know, I bought one. The only problem I ever had is the HD died, under warranty, and was easy to replace. I've yet to own another computer that had a handle to pull the guts out.

Steve Jobs has an obsession with cube shaped computers. When he left Apple he started NeXT and built, that's right, a black cube computer. When he returned to Apple he built an even smaller cube. I think the only delay in the dual Intel core2 duo cube is that Steve is insisting it be 6" cube instead of 8".

Questions:
1. Was the Cube made of Lexan?
2. Was the G4 tower made of Lexan?
Lexan is used for bullet resistance in some cases. History Channel or maybe Discovery had a segment about Lexan showing how it could stop bullets.
Rumor has it that the G4 tower was bullet resistant, ergo:
3. Could the Cube or tower protect you in case of....

This is tongue in cheek. No flaming, please.
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #93 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerapp View Post

The G4 cube was perhaps the most remarkable Apple computer ever built. I know, I bought one. The only problem I ever had is the HD died, under warranty, and was easy to replace. I've yet to own another computer that had a handle to pull the guts out.

Steve Jobs has an obsession with cube shaped computers. When he left Apple he started NeXT and built, that's right, a black cube computer. When he returned to Apple he built an even smaller cube. I think the only delay in the dual Intel core2 duo cube is that Steve is insisting it be 6" cube instead of 8".


That thing is absolutely amazing looking. For some reason, I've never liked the Mac Pro/G5 design but it must have been the sheer bulk of it. In that form factor, that design looks very nice indeed and look at all those USB ports on the front and possibly a power button. This is exactly the kind of thing Apple need to be selling. How could anyone think that is a bad idea? That thing looks much better than an iMac. If Apple had released that at the press event, there would have been a distinct gasp as people sat in awe of the beauty wondering how they could have used a tacky plastic tower for so long. The logo on that one looks like an ideal size too - the one on the current towers is much too big.
post #94 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerapp View Post

Well duh it was less expandable, that's the whole point -- it's a computer that has everything therefore you don't need to expand it. And the cube is the same computer but 1/4 the size of the tower because you sacrifice that cavernous expansion space.

I wouldn't call a lower end video card, only two dimm slots, one hard to get hard drive bay, and a single notebook optical drive all a computer needs. I'd call it pretty barebones. It might be all you need, but there are people that want the extra bells and whistles. It's more a headless iMac than an actual desktop.
post #95 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerapp View Post

Well duh it was less expandable, that's the whole point -- it's a computer that has everything therefore you don't need to expand it. And the cube is the same computer but 1/4 the size of the tower because you sacrifice that cavernous expansion space.

But the reason it didn't sell was because your statement is false.
Quote:
it's a computer that has everything therefore you don't need to expand it.

It didn't have everything. It desperately needed expansion, user upgradability, and your choice of graphics. Those are hallmarks of great computers. The cube could not out run time. No computer can, but good computers can resist it with upgradability. Some of the many reasons why Apple needs to try something better. Fuck that stupid AIO design! Just make a clean looking thin semi-Pro Mac and they'll hit the sweet spot they missed last time.. The Mac's they are making now do not accommodate everyone. They are totally missing the true desktop. And that is the real sweet spot.

Just like this. The ability to run Mac OS, and Windows in a computer that looks something like that and you'll have sales gallore.


[edit] That G5/Cube mod design is OK looking, but it's been done. (and personally I think it's tired) Apple will probably do something that they have not done before when they do it.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #96 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

That thing is absolutely amazing looking. For some reason, I've never liked the Mac Pro/G5 design but it must have been the sheer bulk of it. In that form factor, that design looks very nice indeed and look at all those USB ports on the front and possibly a power button. This is exactly the kind of thing Apple need to be selling. How could anyone think that is a bad idea? That thing looks much better than an iMac. If Apple had released that at the press event, there would have been a distinct gasp as people sat in awe of the beauty wondering how they could have used a tacky plastic tower for so long. The logo on that one looks like an ideal size too - the one on the current towers is much too big.


I have read this thread with great interest, as I would LOVE a headless Mac that was somewhere in-between the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini. I have a Mac Mini (2 GB ram, 2.0 GHz Core Duo, 120 GB internal HD and 500 GB LaCie HD/Hub) and I love it. However, with the extra overhead of Leopard coming up and with me using both Parallels and Fusion, I long for something with more horsepower, a lot more ram and a decent video GPU w/ dedicated video ram, again without going to the overkill of a Mac Pro. And, if there is ANYTHING I dont need is another monitor (I have three Samsung 21, one Samsung 24 widescreen, and one Samsung 27 widescreen), not to mention the fact that I hate the idea of buying another 24 monitor that has a built-in laptop (the iMac), because I rarely upgrade a computer and a monitor at the same time (the iMac would force one to replace both in order to upgrade/replace either the computer or the monitor). Lastly, the fact that you cant input a second computer into the iMacs screen and switch between the iMac and a external computer is a deal-killer for me as far as the iMac goes (my desks are only SO big). So that is why I would love to see an xMac.

One point that I havent heard in this thread is the fact that Apple currently does NOT make a single computer with a desktop processor. The Mac Pro uses Intel SERVER processors, and EVERYTHING else uses Intel LAPTOP processors and chipsets. If that isnt a gap in a product line, I dont know what is. Although I am more drawn to the morphed mini Mac Pro cube design that is in the some of the posts above, over the Dell Inspiron Slim 530 series form factor (it just doesnt seem classy enough for a Mac), either way, I would just like to see at least ONE Mac with a choice of Intel DESKTOP processors and without a server sized case.

In other words, Apple, PLEASE make a headless Mac with several DESKTOP Intel processors (Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad) available, 4 ram sockets supporting up to 8 GB of ram (just like Intels own desktop PC motherboards), space for at least two 3 ½ HDs and at least one optical drive, and with capable GPU options. I would buy it in a heartbeat, even if it looked like a Dell Inspiron (though I would much prefer the mini Mac Pro cube design).

Dont agree with me? That only means that Apple already makes a model that meets your needs. The fact that this thread exists means that there is a gap in the Mac product line. I mean, NOT a single Mac with a Desktop processor??? I already have a dual Xeon server. I dont need another one just to have a Mac that is more capable than a laptop.

My $.02 worth. To get more than $.02, Apple will have to build an xMac.

Jim
post #97 of 241
What is with the mini/Cube mockups? They look hideous. If I get an Apple minitower, it needs to be an actual tower. Something the size and basic shape of the PowerMac G4. Now that was a nice case.
Apple Product Professional
Apple Certified Macintosh Technician
Reply
Apple Product Professional
Apple Certified Macintosh Technician
Reply
post #98 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimwa View Post


In other words, Apple, PLEASE make a headless Mac with several DESKTOP Intel processors (Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad) available, 4 ram sockets supporting up to 8 GB of ram (just like Intels own desktop PC motherboards), space for at least two 3 ½ HDs and at least one optical drive, and with capable GPU options. I would buy it in a heartbeat, even if it looked like a Dell Inspiron (though I would much prefer the mini Mac Pro cube design).

Dont agree with me? That only means that Apple already makes a model that meets your needs. The fact that this thread exists means that there is a gap in the Mac product line. I mean, NOT a single Mac with a Desktop processor??? I already have a dual Xeon server. I dont need another one just to have a Mac that is more capable than a laptop.

My $.02 worth. To get more than $.02, Apple will have to build an xMac.

Jim

Amen, brother Jimwa. Prior to the debut of the new iMac, many AI members were hoping, pleading, begging, dying for a headless Mac similar to what you described. Apple just doesn't listen. Reminds me of my mother: "Eat your carrots; I don't care if you like them or not". Jobs is in his ivory tower and doesn't care about end users. "This is what you'll get or else you can leave the table." Where do we go if we leave the 'table'? Windows? Hell no. I'll just muddle through with my G4 with Panther.

like you, I have a couple of large monitors on my desk and another one would be overkill. Furthermore, with only one DVI out, I would only be able to use one of my monitors.
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #99 of 241
Yes I agree the minitower/cube computer must use desktop components, not laptop parts. I already have a laptop, I don't need more laptop parts in a desktop.

The reason that the G4 cube failed is that the majority of its professional customers were dot-com companies and in 2000/2001 they were busy imploding and laying people off, not buying new desktop equipment. As for home consumers, they were being laid off by dot-com companies and were not likely in the market to buy an expensive computer.

Obviously different people have different needs, but there is an obvious need for something between an iMac and a Mac Pro, the gap is huge. I'd like to see a cube that is extremely configurable in a build-to-order fashion -- you should get to pick any harddrive, any memory configuration, and any graphics card that you want. Once it's perfectly configured for your needs, you don't ever need to crack the case. Obviously future iterations of computers will have newer iterations of CPUs or more harddrive space or newer graphics cards, so what, it doesn't take away functionality of the computer that was perfectly designed at the time. Just like driving a 7-year-old Lexus that you've not replaced the engine or drivetrain, it works just the same as it did when purchased new. I just read an article about a woman using a 15-year old Mac IIci to do her radio station's invoicing, her mouse button died. Funny how for 15 years she still seemed to be able to do the company's books/invoicing just like she did when the machine was new.
post #100 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerapp View Post

Yes I agree the minitower/cube computer must use desktop components, not laptop parts. I already have a laptop, I don't need more laptop parts in a desktop.

The reason that the G4 cube failed is that the majority of its professional customers were dot-com companies and in 2000/2001 they were busy imploding and laying people off, not buying new desktop equipment. As for home consumers, they were being laid off by dot-com companies and were not likely in the market to buy an expensive computer.

They were not likely to buy it because except for the very mall SFF minority, the G4 tower was a better computer and less expensive. Not that many really wanted to buy it.

Quote:
Obviously different people have different needs, but there is an obvious need for something between an iMac and a Mac Pro, the gap is huge. I'd like to see a cube that is extremely configurable in a build-to-order fashion -- you should get to pick any harddrive, any memory configuration, and any graphics card that you want. Once it's perfectly configured for your needs, you don't ever need to crack the case.

The problem with that logic is that a lot of users want things a cube cannot offer like a higher end video card or want to upgrade to the latest and greatest (especially in optical drives). There's also the issue of future proofing/ You're on the lower end of of the traditional desktop market as far as what you want.
post #101 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post


"This is what you'll get or else you can leave the table." Where do we go if we leave the 'table'? Windows? Hell no. I'll just muddle through with my G4 with Panther.


Tiger works great on all my G4s, and my one G5. Then, getting Leopard will almost be like a new computer to me.

We could have a pool about when Apple will finally announce a prosumer, headless desktop Mac. Winner take all. Put me down for January 2009.

post #102 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

Tiger works great on all my G4s, and my one G5. Then, getting Leopard will almost be like a new computer to me.

We could have a pool about when Apple will finally announce a prosumer, headless desktop Mac. Winner take all. Put me down for January 2009.


I think you're an optimist. Jobs couldn't care less about what we want or need. I think he's already proved that.
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #103 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy View Post

We could have a pool about when Apple will finally announce a prosumer, headless desktop Mac. Winner take all. Put me down for January 2009.


Put me down for January 2008. Leopard, Penryn and market share are all enablers.

Definition of xMac will be essential as the Mac Pro may drop to this area or the Mac Mini may be enhanced. Does this mean that Apple has to have a three tiered offering?
post #104 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silverdog View Post

Put me down for January 2008. Leopard, Penryn and market share are all enablers.

Definition of xMac will be essential as the Mac Pro may drop to this area or the Mac Mini may be enhanced. Does this mean that Apple has to have a three tiered offering?

Are those dates when you realistically believe it'll happen or when you WISH it'll happen? I'm pessimistic about it happening - PERIOD. I hope I'm wrong.
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #105 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by sequitur View Post


Are those dates when you realistically believe it'll happen or when you WISH it'll happen? I'm pessimistic about it happening - PERIOD. I hope I'm wrong.


For my two cents, I believe it will eventually happen -- it has to. But this coming January is too optimistic.

post #106 of 241
January is nice timing...

what we got
new iMac
new iPhone
new iPod - next month
MacBook and Pro - just speed bumps i believe thats it, unless scientist find lighter than Alu MBP will not redesigned for longer time

so left with something to do with Mac Pro, Tower or cube

and one another thing much lighter note book

MSWF 2008, something will be new, but we do not know what is the "NEW"?

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply

Nov '09 | iMac 21.5" C2D 3.06 Ghz | Intel 330 240GB SSD | ATI

Sep '12| Toshiba 14" 1366 x 768! | i5 3rd Gen 6GB| Intel x25-m 120GB SSD | Win 7|  Viewsonic VX2255wmb 22" LCD
iPhone 4S| iPad 2 wifi

Reply
post #107 of 241
Jobs will have to have a "One More Thing" for MWSF, his ego demands it. The glaring hole in his lineup is between the iMac and the Mac Pro, especially when the Mac Pro will be running two quad-core 3.16 GHz processors.

Why some readers of this forum insist that a cube computer can't have performance puzzles me. Suggest Apple has it build-to-order only, and at the online apple store you get to specify exactly which processor and which graphics card you want in it. Of course you could end up making a very expensive computer if you select top components.

There is still considerable passion for the cube -- check out this website where someone rebuilds a cube from a Mac Mini http://www.123macmini.com/macminicube/.
post #108 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerapp View Post


Jobs will have to have a "One More Thing" for MWSF, his ego demands it. The glaring hole in his lineup is between the iMac and the Mac Pro, especially when the Mac Pro will be running two quad-core 3.16 GHz processors.

Why some readers of this forum insist that a cube computer can't have performance puzzles me. . . .


First off, that remake of the Cube is awesome IMHO. Yet, I have a different take on where it should be positioned in the Mac product lineup. I don't see it as a prosumer Mac.

A prosumer model needs to to have several PCI-e slots for graphics and specialty functionality. It also needs two HDD bays. The design I like is the chopped Mac Pro picture you showed, above.

The black cube you showed has the makings of a low end Mac, to replace the Mac Mini. It is larger than the Mini, and so can provide much more cooling air, for using cheaper desktop chips, rather than laptop. It also has room for a desktop HDD and optical drive. The savings on component cost could offset the added cost of the fancy cube enclosure.

Thinking logically, I would prefer a low end Mac as short as a mini but twice as wide and a little deeper. In this way, my LCD monitor could sit on top of it for conserving desk space. Yet, given the choice of this design or the fancy cube, the cube would win. It has so much more appeal.

post #109 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerapp View Post

Jobs will have to have a "One More Thing" for MWSF, his ego demands it. The glaring hole in his lineup is between the iMac and the Mac Pro, especially when the Mac Pro will be running two quad-core 3.16 GHz processors.

Why some readers of this forum insist that a cube computer can't have performance puzzles me. Suggest Apple has it build-to-order only, and at the online apple store you get to specify exactly which processor and which graphics card you want in it. Of course you could end up making a very expensive computer if you select top components.

There is still considerable passion for the cube -- check out this website where someone rebuilds a cube from a Mac Mini http://www.123macmini.com/macminicube/.

Yes, but BTO options have to be in accordance with the laws of physics. The smaller the case, the less space you have and the less cooling potential you have. Lets say you want Two full size optical drives, two hard drives, and a Radeon HD2900XT. Using the 8" cube dimensions you can only have one half speed notebook optical drive, one hard drive, and cooling the 2900XT is completely out of the question. Not only you will you have to deal with the same basic specs as the iMac, you'll also have to deal with the army of external devices, you'll have to deal with the cube taking up desk space as well because it's too small to mount under the desk. If you want something portable that's decently powerful, it's good option, but compared to ether the iMac for the space saving ability or a real tower for power and expandability, it doesn't make much sense. That's why the G4 Cube failed.
post #110 of 241
I think what that mod demonstrates (although it was cool to watch) is the strict limitations you have when using the cube form factor. In the end It's just a mini shoved up inside a cube. You can't actually get much more in there. Graphics are out of the question, more than one drive is out of the question. THe limits of that form are too restrictive. That's why it failed the first time.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #111 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker View Post

I think what that mod demonstrates (although it was cool to watch) is the strict limitations you have when using the cube form factor. In the end It's just a mini shoved up inside a cube. You can't actually get much more in there. Graphics are out of the question, more than one drive is out of the question. THe limits of that form are too restrictive. That's why it failed the first time.

Maybe it just demonstrates that the guy wasn't able to redesign the computer but just add bits on and throw it in a bigger case. Obviously Apple would design the computer to fit the enclosure. The fact remains the cube is probably around double the size of the Mini or more and that extra space is more than enough for another hard drive and a proper GPU.

Of course you don't have to take my word for it, there are PC cubes out there that have multiple optical drives and high end GPUs. They obviously didn't find the enclosure too restrictive.
post #112 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Maybe it just demonstrates that the guy wasn't able to redesign the computer but just add bits on and throw it in a bigger case. Obviously Apple would design the computer to fit the enclosure. The fact remains the cube is probably around double the size of the Mini or more and that extra space is more than enough for another hard drive and a proper GPU.

Of course you don't have to take my word for it, there are PC cubes out there that have multiple optical drives and high end GPUs. They obviously didn't find the enclosure too restrictive.

Those Cubes are not 8 x 8 x 8-inch. They are no where near the size of the Apple cube. Different enclosure = different ballgame. The Apple mission is lost in those cubes. Usual PC cube dimensions are (DxWxH): 14.7" x 11.2" x 9" [edit] That's over 1.5 Cubic Feet BTW.

It's not even a cube at those dimensions when you think about it.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #113 of 241
I am not interested in having more than one optical drive and more than one HD in my cube. If I wanted a buttload of drives, I'd have a Mac Pro.
post #114 of 241
I think two HD's is a happy compromise. Allows Time Machine inside your case, allows a striped or mirrored RAID. The first time you need more HD space, you don't need to immediately toss the HD that came with the machine.

I don't remember when I'd have last seen a machine with more than one optical drive.. at least, one that wasn't a dedicated deployment / burner machine at work.
post #115 of 241
Honestly I wouldn't want the restrictions of another cube either way.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #116 of 241
What if the Mini were cubed: 6 x 6 x 6 ? That's three times the current space. What could it hold?
ADS
Reply
ADS
Reply
post #117 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerapp View Post

I am not interested in having more than one optical drive and more than one HD in my cube. If I wanted a buttload of drives, I'd have a Mac Pro.

Which is a workstation, not a desktop. The server class components double the price. What we want is the sweet spot between the severe overkill of the Mac Pro and the severe underkill of the iMac or a Cube.
post #118 of 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

I think two HD's is a happy compromise. Allows Time Machine inside your case, allows a striped or mirrored RAID. The first time you need more HD space, you don't need to immediately toss the HD that came with the machine.

I don't remember when I'd have last seen a machine with more than one optical drive.. at least, one that wasn't a dedicated deployment / burner machine at work.

Go out to desktop section at best buy. The only single drive model they sell is the HP slimlines. Believe me, having that second drive is very handy.
post #119 of 241
There's no reason you couldn't fit 3 drive bays (1 slimline optical, 2 HDD) into a cube sized computer given that the mini is only 2" x 6.5" x 6.5" vs 9.8" x 7.7" x 7.7" of the cube (or 7.7 all around ignoring the feet).

The miniG 4 drive enclousre is only 8.75" tall feet and handles. That would make a pretty home server although the case is a bit narrow.

http://www.transintl.com/store/categ...egory=2597#top

I would buy a 2007 Mac Cube (same dimensions as the old but looking like the baby Mac Pro above) with 2 x 3.5" HDD drive bays, mobile CPU (merom/penryn), GMA X3100, 802.11N, BT, GigE, 2xFW400, FW800, 6xUSB, DVI and HDMI w/HDCP support and expresscard slot. It would make a nice little home server for $1299.

All the expansion you really need short of the Mac Pro level of expansion.
post #120 of 241
How do you figure vinea? Where is the graphics card going to go? If you tell me some shpeil about how good integrated graphics are I'll throw you out a window. ( ) Forget the cube form. Go for slim tower. The restrictions are freed up, and you can make more people happy with it rather than just people that want a Mini with a second hard-drive. Crap, if you want that there are great after market stackable products that look perfect with mini's.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Why do you want a minitower?