Headless Mac?
Shameless lift from MacRumors.
So would you buy it? What do you think? Personally I think the extra option can only be good.
Quote:
A last minute tip indicates that Apple will also be introducing a new PowerMac G5 model as early as tomorrow alongside the rumored iBook updates.
The new PowerMac G5 will be a low end single processor 1.8GHz machine with 256MB of RAM, 80GB HD, GeForce FX 5200, and SuperDrive for $1499.
The new machines provides Apple with a lower end "headless" Mac. In comparison, the (less expandable) 1.8GHz iMac with built-in 17" LCD is also priced at $1499.
A last minute tip indicates that Apple will also be introducing a new PowerMac G5 model as early as tomorrow alongside the rumored iBook updates.
The new PowerMac G5 will be a low end single processor 1.8GHz machine with 256MB of RAM, 80GB HD, GeForce FX 5200, and SuperDrive for $1499.
The new machines provides Apple with a lower end "headless" Mac. In comparison, the (less expandable) 1.8GHz iMac with built-in 17" LCD is also priced at $1499.
So would you buy it? What do you think? Personally I think the extra option can only be good.
Comments
They apparently think the iPod is filling the role of the low-end computer now. The problem with that thinking is that potential switchers aren't comparing $700 PCs to iPods, they're comparing them to iMacs. If they want more people to buy their Macs, they have to at least put up some competition in that range. This wouldn't do it.
Anyways...
I think you guys are missing the point. This headless option is what is needed. It is a g5!! I mean this same machine a little less than a year ago was 2500usd.
This machine is what switchers will like to have. There are a lot of complaints about lack of upgradable video cards... NOW THERE IS A CHEAP WAY!!
This is perfect IMO. I know plenty of PC users that would purchase this machine. Apple doesn't need to get much lower than this for a professional upgradable machine. This is the "gaming" machine that everyone has been wanting. This is the machine that you can slap a 9800xt or 6800ultra in and be very happy!! In all honesty its the same machine as the dual 1.8 without a processor... how much cheaper do you think it should be lacking only a single cpu? That cpu isn't even worth close to 500usd... I say its priced just right... I can see maybe 1299... but nothing less than that.
If this comes true my pc buddies will be first in line for gaming.
Originally posted by emig647
If this comes true my pc buddies will be first in line for gaming.
I just find it hard to believe that someone would plunk down that much money for gaming. But even if you're willing to pay that much, why would someone switch from PC to Mac in order to play games? Macs only have a small fraction of the available PC games, and they usually come out later for Mac. They're much better off sticking with their PCs if they want to play all the current games.
Originally posted by BRussell
I just find it hard to believe that someone would plunk down that much money for gaming. But even if you're willing to pay that much, why would someone switch from PC to Mac in order to play games? Macs only have a small fraction of the available PC games, and they usually come out later for Mac. They're much better off sticking with their PCs if they want to play all the current games.
Not being able to play games now for under 2k is what is keeping them from buying the mac. Not that they would buy the mac just to play games. But they want a computer that they can work on and play games. They love OS X but won't buy it because of how costly it is to play games on the machine... now that its 500 cheaper (or probably 700 with edu discount) they have no reason to complain. Now they can have OSX and play games.
Originally posted by jherrling
I would say the price would have to drop for it not to be another cube.
Well, IMHO $1.5k is a bit too much. Presuming that its architecture is nothing new for Apple, it might be cheaper. However, not to cannibalize dual G5 PM sales it will be priced accordingly.
Anyways... for those who think apple should lower their price to half of what it is now... you should look at this link... AGAIN THIS HAS BEEN REPEATED. Apple definitely IS NOT going to produce a machine for cheaper than 800 dollars for a long time if ever. No machine below $800
Originally posted by costique
Well, IMHO $1.5k is a bit too much. Presuming that its architecture is nothing new for Apple, it might be cheaper. However, not to cannibalize dual G5 PM sales it will be priced accordingly.
How much cheaper do you think it should be??? All its lacking is a cpu. A $100 dollar part.
Originally posted by emig647
How much cheaper do you think it should be??? All its lacking is a cpu. A $100 dollar part.
I expect it actually uses the iMac processor and memory controller too. Still even if that is true $500 is a substantial reduction on current PowerMacs.
The only difference on the iMac is the motherboard... which has been clocked down. Obviously it was be idiotic to use the iMac motherboard in the Powermac. The powermac motherboard will be the same as the dual 1.8. 4 Ram slots, 900mhz FSB. The ONLY difference will be 1 processor instead of 2. Memory controller will be the same etc.
Only difference between this mac and the dual 1.8 is lack of a cpu... which IMO is worth about 100 bucks. But 500 is a good price cut because you lose a good chunk of performance going from dual to single... about 33-50% to be exact.
At the current price points, you definitely need a third party display to make this an affordable system. Apple's style seems to be to offer full solutions, rather than partial, so I would expect some sort of display to go along with it.
Originally posted by jnrjr79
If Apple wants to make waves in the mid-level headless market, I think they should drop the tower price by a couple hundred bucks. What really would be key though would be to offer some sort of affordable 17'' monitor.
At the current price points, you definitely need a third party display to make this an affordable system. Apple's style seems to be to offer full solutions, rather than partial, so I would expect some sort of display to go along with it.
THanks for reminding me... I meant to make this point earlier...
Apple displays are WAY overpriced... especially their 20". You can get 2 20" 2001fp Dell 16ms etc displays for 100 more than the 20" apple display costs. I mean that is some HEFTY markup apple is dealing with. Yah they have a better enclosure and look and are widescreen... but they are really expensive.
I for one will never EVER buy an apple display while they are that much more money. I have a dual 2.0 g5 connected to dual p95f+ 19" viewsonic monitors. These monitors were 200 each... 400 for this set up is awesome.
So tell me... why would you want an apple display? To match? Matching isn't worth it in my book.
But my point is: the whole point of the headless option is not to pay apple's markup on displays. Go buy what is really the best bang for the buck.
Originally posted by jnrjr79
If Apple wants to make waves in the mid-level headless market, I think they should drop the tower price by a couple hundred bucks.
Well, you may get your wish (or at least partly):
From MacRumors:
"A last minute tip indicates that Apple will also be introducing a new PowerMac G5 model as early as tomorrow alongside the rumored iBook updates.
The new PowerMac g5 will be a low end single processor 1.8GHz machine with 256MB of RAM, 80GB HD, GeForce FX 5200, and SuperDrive for $1499.
The new machines provides Apple with a lower end "headless" Mac. However, a (less expandable) 1.8GHz iMac with built-in 17" LCD is priced at $1499 and otherwise comparable specs."
Originally posted by emig647
THanks for reminding me... I meant to make this point earlier...
Apple displays are WAY overpriced... especially their 20". You can get 2 20" 2001fp Dell 16ms etc displays for 100 more than the 20" apple display costs. I mean that is some HEFTY markup apple is dealing with. Yah they have a better enclosure and look and are widescreen... but they are really expensive.
Put them side by side and compare them.
A cheap LCD is low quality, period. As with most things, you get what you pay for. Apple makes high-quality monitors... go compare a *high* end flat panel from somewhere else, and you'll find the price differential to be much less, if at all.
Originally posted by Kickaha
A cheap LCD is low quality, period. As with most things, you get what you pay for. Apple makes high-quality monitors... go compare a *high* end flat panel from somewhere else, and you'll find the price differential to be much less, if at all.
The general message here is that Apple makes quality products that don't include items in the "budget catagory". The implications for a headless Mac are that Apple will not relase some cut down super budget CPU. IMHO. Low end CPU at $1499 looks like it. If you want budget, go with the eMac or even an iBook with a monitor on your desk.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Put them side by side and compare them.
A cheap LCD is low quality, period. As with most things, you get what you pay for. Apple makes high-quality monitors... go compare a *high* end flat panel from somewhere else, and you'll find the price differential to be much less, if at all.
Dell's 2001fp 20" monitors are NOT low quality. If you ask me they are among the top large LCD monitors out there. And you will NEVER catch me saying that about dell for any product... but in this case dell doesn't make the lcd... they basically resell it.
The quality on the 2001fp is on par with the 20" Aluminum from apple. Both are 16ms, both are 250 cd/m2 brightness, both are .25 dot pitch, both are 400:1 contrast ratio, both are DVI.. I've seen both and I would take either one.
But the dell is nearly half the cost. You don't get widescreen (which I would rather have full 4:3 ratio) and you don't get an aluminum enclosure. Hardly worth the other 500-600 dollars.
Again... dell isn't the only one keeping up with Apple and beating their price into the dirt. Sony, Viewsonic, Samsung are all in this category too.
Point being... people don't like paying apple's extra money for their displays when they can pay nearly half for the same quality display.
Originally posted by BRussell
Doesn't go far enough though. The thing is still $1499, and the cheapest Apple Display is $1299.
Isn't the whole point about the "headless iMac" whiners that you don't HAVE to buy a display from Apple?
Originally posted by iDave
This would be a step in the right direction. This rumored new single processor Power Mac would still be too big, too expandable and too expensive. What is needed is a "consumer" headless for about $1000.
Splitting hairs at that point aren't we?
We do need another mac I guess. Just hope we don't open old wounds by trying to create another cube. That design had too many problems. If they can come out with a nice little mini tower... I guess that would be cool. Single 2.0ghz g5 minitower... 4gb ram. NVidia 6600.