That's your point, but everybody already knows a new Intel chip could go into almost any kind of product Apple wishes to make. We don't need you to explain that to us. However, that was not my point. Please notice the difference between what Apple COULD build and what Apple WILL build. The link I posted is what some people speculate could be Apple's next marketing push, business.
Maybe you should get over the fact that not everyone is impressed by what you post, and stop being sarcastic to those who disagree with you. It would make these discussions much more pleasant.
That's your point, but everybody already knows a new Intel chip could go into almost any kind of product Apple wishes to make.
The original poster however was asking why Apple hadn't used Conroe and the simple answer is because it doesn't fit in to any of Apple's lineup. Sure, it could fit in to some future other machine but that's a given. A "Duh" if you like.
You may as well be arguing for a Core 2 Duo ULV sub notebook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
We don't need you to explain that to us. However, that was not my point. Please notice the difference between what Apple COULD build and what Apple WILL build. The link I posted is what some people speculate could be Apple's next marketing push, business.
You're arguing what Apple COULD or WILL build but unless you're Apple you know squit.
And the answer there is that
a) the iMac is more than just fine for most businesses. So is the Mini for that matter.
b) Apple won't use vPro as a marketing term. They don't use Centrino or ViiV so why would they use vPro?
Plus, why would they start a marketing push on businesses when none of the major business packages are Intel native. It just doesn't make any sense. None whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
Maybe you should get over the fact that not everyone is impressed by what you post, and stop being sarcastic to those who disagree with you. It would make these discussions much more pleasant.
Jeez, perhaps you should fly your kennel a bit more and chill out.
There used to (G3-G4 days) be a $1200-1500 Power Mac. That got dropped when the G5s came around (no cheap G5s back then), but Apple tended to occaisonally keep around older models to try to preserve a semi-low-end, but that ended with the Intel switch.
Back then though the iMac wasn't a dual processor beast with a 24" screen that would suit most mid to high end users needs if they could only get over the "it's a consumer model" snobbery.
Back then though the iMac wasn't a dual processor beast with a 24" screen that would suit most mid to high end users needs if they could only get over the "it's a consumer model" snobbery.
This is true. But the guy I was replying to asked if there ever was a mid-range tower. I truthfully told him that there was one, but hasn't really been since the G4 days
Back then though the iMac wasn't a dual processor beast with a 24" screen that would suit most mid to high end users needs if they could only get over the "it's a consumer model" snobbery.
Which gets us back to the argument that it is much easier to sell a customer what they think they need than to edumacate them.
The original poster however was asking why Apple hadn't used Conroe and the simple answer is because it doesn't fit in to any of Apple's lineup. . .
Well, you are arguing against many who post to these discussions here. A number of those posting in other topics have complained that the Conroe should have been used in the updated iMacs, just to name one product in Apple's lineup.
Others are asking for a Conroe in the Mac Pro, as an entry level tower. Again, theses are products in Apple's lineup. These are not my ideas, but those of others here. I would like a mini tower, which is a future possible machine, so it's a "duh" as you say.
My original reply, which got you started on this sarcastic rant, is that still others in the media are speculating that Apple will go into the business market with a new Intel chip-set, especially designed for business application. And again, this is not my idea, but an idea of others, like analysts. It's not what I'm predicting, and not what I would especially want. It seems your beef should be with someone else, not me.
Quote:
You're arguing what Apple COULD or WILL build but unless you're Apple you know squit.
Isn't that what these forums are for, speculating on what Apple will build or arguing what Apple should build?
Quote:
a) the iMac is more than just fine for most businesses. So is the Mini for that matter.
Many beside me would disagree here. Business likes expandability, from what I have read and what others say.
Quote:
b) Apple won't use vPro as a marketing term. They don't use Centrino or ViiV so why would they use vPro?
Because business wants it, duh. That is what matters in that marketplace.
Quote:
Plus, why would they start a marketing push on businesses when none of the major business packages are Intel native. It just doesn't make any sense. None whatsoever.
It's not my idea. Read the article if you want to know who to complain to.
Quote:
Jeez, perhaps you should fly your kennel a bit more and chill out.
Glad to see you are still up to your sarcastic self!
Im totally against a "Cube like" product, i think the mac mini, imac and mac pro fit the bill quite well. But i did like the potential of a low end Mac Pro using the Conroe/Extreme, i guess the problem there is its unlikely to be much cheaper than the $2,199 2GHz Xeon?
But a couple of Conroe models at the $1200-1500, now i would buy immediatley, i have a Dull 24" - only a few months old, so right now its either replace the PB 1.25 with a Black MB or sell the Dell/PB for an iMac 24"?.
Well, you are arguing against many who post to these discussions here. A number of those posting in other topics have complained that the Conroe should have been used in the updated iMacs, just to name one product in Apple's lineup.
And they are wrong. TDP of Conroe is 65W. TDP of Merom/Yonah is 35W. Max Power for the 970FX G5 was 39W at 2Ghz. Conroe just does not fit in an iMac if Apple wants to keep it as cool or quiet as the current product. It's abundantly clear they want to and that's fine by most people other than gamer geeks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
Others are asking for a Conroe in the Mac Pro, as an entry level tower. Again, theses are products in Apple's lineup. These are not my ideas, but those of others here. I would like a mini tower, which is a future possible machine, so it's a "duh" as you say.
It's clear that Apple are positioning the MacPro as a professional workstation. For Pros, the price of a MacPro is neither here nor there. It is IMHO a bargain, especially the middle one. I'm sorry if you can't afford one. Try an iMac. You'll find it's perfectly capable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
My original reply, which got you started on this sarcastic rant, is that still others in the media are speculating that Apple will go into the business market with a new Intel chip-set, especially designed for business application. And again, this is not my idea, but an idea of others, like analysts. It's not what I'm predicting, and not what I would especially want. It seems your beef should be with someone else, not me.
Intel has no chip set especially designed for business applications. vPro is a marketing push just as Centrino was. vPro is the exact same chips currently used in the iMac but with Conroe instead of Merom.
Come on. Those journos and analysts have swallowed the Intel marketing pill. You don't have to. Apple don't either as is evidenced by them not sticking Intel badges or Centrino spiel on their laptops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
Isn't that what these forums are for, speculating on what Apple will build or arguing what Apple should build?
And this thread is about a possible Cube. Does every thread have to divert off into 'I want a mini tower and there must be one because Apple doesn't use the Conroe yet'. Tiresome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
Many beside me would disagree here. Business likes expandability, from what I have read and what others say.
Business likes Windows. Most are that tied in to that mindset that an iMac looks an entirely alien proposition. If you painted an iMac beige and stuck an empty PC case next to it they'd be happier.
What would 'Business' do with this expandability? I've worked in computer software, publishing and design firms for 20+ years and not once, ever, has someone from tech support come round and 'expanded' my computer. If you're lucky, you wait your turn for the next round of new computers or for a colleague who is leaving and nab their slightly better model before tech support spot it.
For normal office staff, what would they add to their computer that isn't included already in an iMac or Mini ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
Because business wants it, duh. That is what matters in that marketplace.
Slapping vPro on the outside of a Mac won't sell any more Macs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
It's not my idea. Read the article if you want to know who to complain to.
It's The Register. I don't have to. Your link was dead anyway.
The Modem and VGA ports give that away as a G4 Cube in a new aluminum enclosure. As does the black USB cable on top leading to the front mounted USB hub.
It's a very nice idea and I bet they could sell a few to fit old cube in to. Shame there isn't a space for the power brick.
And they are wrong. TDP of Conroe is 65W. TDP of Merom/Yonah is 35W. Max Power for the 970FX G5 was 39W at 2Ghz. Conroe just does not fit in an iMac if Apple wants to keep it as cool or quiet as the current product. It's abundantly clear they want to and that's fine by most people other than gamer geeks.
It's clear that Apple are positioning the MacPro as a professional workstation. For Pros, the price of a MacPro is neither here nor there. It is IMHO a bargain, especially the middle one. I'm sorry if you can't afford one. Try an iMac. You'll find it's perfectly capable.
Thank you for clearly addressing the issues. I agree and have agreed with your general assessment of the iMac and Mac Pro here. I didn't have the power figures on processors for the iMac, however, so thanks for posting it. Regarding the Mac Pro, I can afford one but don't want one, yet. My G5 is still adequate.
Quote:
Intel has no chip set especially designed for business applications. vPro is a marketing push just as Centrino was. vPro is the exact same chips currently used in the iMac but with Conroe instead of Merom.
Come on. Those journos and analysts have swallowed the Intel marketing pill. You don't have to. Apple don't either as is evidenced by them not sticking Intel badges or Centrino spiel on their laptops.
Interesting! I didn't know that about the vPro. So, in reality, Apple is already using this "chip set," but simply does not make a point of it. I think a lot of folks in these discussions are unaware of this fact. I was.
Quote:
And this thread is about a possible Cube. Does every thread have to divert off into 'I want a mini tower and there must be one because Apple doesn't use the Conroe yet'. Tiresome.
My original comment was about our right to speculate about what we don't know, which you didn't address here, but that's okay. The answer is obvious, so the question was rhetorical.
Regarding this thread being about the Cube, I responded to a comment, albeit second hand, that was off topic. Are we to just to ignore such comments? I notice you responded. Regarding the mini tower, I made but a passing reference to it, that I preferred it. There, I said it again. Bad me.
Quote:
Business likes Windows. Most are that tied in to that mindset that an iMac looks an entirely alien proposition. If you painted an iMac beige and stuck an empty PC case next to it they'd be happier.
What would 'Business' do with this expandability? I've worked in computer software, publishing and design firms for 20+ years and not once, ever, has someone from tech support come round and 'expanded' my computer. If you're lucky, you wait your turn for the next round of new computers or for a colleague who is leaving and nab their slightly better model before tech support spot it.
Ha, Ha. I like your first comment here.
Regarding "What would 'Business' do with this expandability?" it does not matter. If they want it, you better have it or they won't buy. That not 100% true, but true enough to matter.
Regarding "What would 'Business' do with this expandability?" it does not matter. If they want it, you better have it or they won't buy. That not 100% true, but true enough to matter.
IME they never use this expandability and neither do most home users either. The big boxes are a home for dust bunnies and not much more. Really, just what would you need to 'expand' in a business computer. RAM maybe, which is easy enough in an iMac. Diskspace? That's what servers are for and Tech Support love servers anyway. Graphics cards? yeah right, let's see you get an X1900XTX past your boss for running Excel.
I've been at one company which uses a 3270 terminal card in every PC and Token Ring but that was back in the 80s.
Once you get over the psychological step that you don't need to upgrade anything really then an iMac, mini or a laptop are fine for most users. I don't know about the USA but in the UK you can write off equipment purchases against tax in 3 years (at one point it was 1 year), which is roughly when it's time for a new computer. Many of the businesses I know lease their computers too.
. . . Once you get over the psychological step that you don't need to upgrade anything really then an iMac, mini or a laptop are fine for most users.
I agree that many people don't use PCI cards, extra HDD bays and optical bays or change their graphics card. But unless business actually does get over the "psychological" need for it, they will want it and buy it. However, in a past discussion about this topic, someone who actually worked in the business of caring for business computers said PCI slots were use to "fix" damaged I/O ports, rather than replacing the motherboard.
I can see the iMac used in a business that isn't stuck to doing things the way they have always been done, but I can''t see business using a Mac Mini, which looks like a boutique item. Too small. A small desk top of some kind that uses normal drives and has a built-in power supply would be more practical. But that's just my opinion. Maybe a bigger Cube even, since that's our official topic.
I can see the iMac used in a business that isn't stuck to doing things the way they have always been done, but I can''t see business using a Mac Mini, which looks like a boutique item. Too small. A small desk top of some kind that uses normal drives and has a built-in power supply would be more practical. But that's just my opinion. Maybe a bigger Cube even, since that's our official topic.
People use laptops with exactly the same hardware as in a Mini without complaint.
I agree that many people don't use PCI cards, extra HDD bays and optical bays or change their graphics card. But unless business actually does get over the "psychological" need for it, they will want it and buy it. However, in a past discussion about this topic, someone who actually worked in the business of caring for business computers said PCI slots were use to "fix" damaged I/O ports, rather than replacing the motherboard.
even the people who don't chagne things do not want A AIO and the mini is too under powered.
even the people who don't chagne things do not want A AIO and the mini is too under powered.
Obviously that is untrue as Apple wouldn't have sold any if it was. Plus you're forgetting which little AIO computer saved Apple from the brink or which little AIO computer from 1984 was the basis of where we're at today.
People use laptops with exactly the same hardware as in a Mini without complaint.
I know, but the bigger stuff is cheaper to replace. Also, I was referring to the look of it. Business likely thinks the Mac Mini is a toy computer, yet it likely sells okay as a home computer. Not my home however.
And they are wrong. TDP of Conroe is 65W. TDP of Merom/Yonah is 35W. Max Power for the 970FX G5 was 39W at 2Ghz. Conroe just does not fit in an iMac if Apple wants to keep it as cool or quiet as the current product. It's abundantly clear they want to and that's fine by most people other than gamer geeks.
.
Advocates of Merom seem to miss out on the potential benefits of conroe. Yes merom keeps it quite and cool. But a g5 chip has a similar power requirement and heat output and these powered iMacs proior to the Intel transition. The trade off is the added cost of Merom and limited 'upside' to upgrades in the future. The 24" iMac (2.1 ghz) starts at $1900. Add the 2.3 ghz chip and tack on another $250. With conroe apple could have priced the 2.4 ghz conroe 24" iMac at $1900 and for $250 bucks go up to 2.6 ghz.
Comments
It is entirely the point, Duh!
Get over it.
That's your point, but everybody already knows a new Intel chip could go into almost any kind of product Apple wishes to make. We don't need you to explain that to us. However, that was not my point. Please notice the difference between what Apple COULD build and what Apple WILL build. The link I posted is what some people speculate could be Apple's next marketing push, business.
Maybe you should get over the fact that not everyone is impressed by what you post, and stop being sarcastic to those who disagree with you. It would make these discussions much more pleasant.
That's your point, but everybody already knows a new Intel chip could go into almost any kind of product Apple wishes to make.
The original poster however was asking why Apple hadn't used Conroe and the simple answer is because it doesn't fit in to any of Apple's lineup. Sure, it could fit in to some future other machine but that's a given. A "Duh" if you like.
You may as well be arguing for a Core 2 Duo ULV sub notebook.
We don't need you to explain that to us. However, that was not my point. Please notice the difference between what Apple COULD build and what Apple WILL build. The link I posted is what some people speculate could be Apple's next marketing push, business.
You're arguing what Apple COULD or WILL build but unless you're Apple you know squit.
And the answer there is that
a) the iMac is more than just fine for most businesses. So is the Mini for that matter.
b) Apple won't use vPro as a marketing term. They don't use Centrino or ViiV so why would they use vPro?
Plus, why would they start a marketing push on businesses when none of the major business packages are Intel native. It just doesn't make any sense. None whatsoever.
Maybe you should get over the fact that not everyone is impressed by what you post, and stop being sarcastic to those who disagree with you. It would make these discussions much more pleasant.
Jeez, perhaps you should fly your kennel a bit more and chill out.
There used to (G3-G4 days) be a $1200-1500 Power Mac. That got dropped when the G5s came around (no cheap G5s back then), but Apple tended to occaisonally keep around older models to try to preserve a semi-low-end, but that ended with the Intel switch.
Back then though the iMac wasn't a dual processor beast with a 24" screen that would suit most mid to high end users needs if they could only get over the "it's a consumer model" snobbery.
Back then though the iMac wasn't a dual processor beast with a 24" screen that would suit most mid to high end users needs if they could only get over the "it's a consumer model" snobbery.
This is true. But the guy I was replying to asked if there ever was a mid-range tower. I truthfully told him that there was one, but hasn't really been since the G4 days
Back then though the iMac wasn't a dual processor beast with a 24" screen that would suit most mid to high end users needs if they could only get over the "it's a consumer model" snobbery.
Which gets us back to the argument that it is much easier to sell a customer what they think they need than to edumacate them.
The original poster however was asking why Apple hadn't used Conroe and the simple answer is because it doesn't fit in to any of Apple's lineup. . .
Well, you are arguing against many who post to these discussions here. A number of those posting in other topics have complained that the Conroe should have been used in the updated iMacs, just to name one product in Apple's lineup.
Others are asking for a Conroe in the Mac Pro, as an entry level tower. Again, theses are products in Apple's lineup. These are not my ideas, but those of others here. I would like a mini tower, which is a future possible machine, so it's a "duh" as you say.
My original reply, which got you started on this sarcastic rant, is that still others in the media are speculating that Apple will go into the business market with a new Intel chip-set, especially designed for business application. And again, this is not my idea, but an idea of others, like analysts. It's not what I'm predicting, and not what I would especially want. It seems your beef should be with someone else, not me.
You're arguing what Apple COULD or WILL build but unless you're Apple you know squit.
Isn't that what these forums are for, speculating on what Apple will build or arguing what Apple should build?
a) the iMac is more than just fine for most businesses. So is the Mini for that matter.
Many beside me would disagree here. Business likes expandability, from what I have read and what others say.
b) Apple won't use vPro as a marketing term. They don't use Centrino or ViiV so why would they use vPro?
Because business wants it, duh. That is what matters in that marketplace.
Plus, why would they start a marketing push on businesses when none of the major business packages are Intel native. It just doesn't make any sense. None whatsoever.
It's not my idea. Read the article if you want to know who to complain to.
Jeez, perhaps you should fly your kennel a bit more and chill out.
Glad to see you are still up to your sarcastic self!
But a couple of Conroe models at the $1200-1500, now i would buy immediatley, i have a Dull 24" - only a few months old, so right now its either replace the PB 1.25 with a Black MB or sell the Dell/PB for an iMac 24"?.
Well, you are arguing against many who post to these discussions here. A number of those posting in other topics have complained that the Conroe should have been used in the updated iMacs, just to name one product in Apple's lineup.
And they are wrong. TDP of Conroe is 65W. TDP of Merom/Yonah is 35W. Max Power for the 970FX G5 was 39W at 2Ghz. Conroe just does not fit in an iMac if Apple wants to keep it as cool or quiet as the current product. It's abundantly clear they want to and that's fine by most people other than gamer geeks.
Others are asking for a Conroe in the Mac Pro, as an entry level tower. Again, theses are products in Apple's lineup. These are not my ideas, but those of others here. I would like a mini tower, which is a future possible machine, so it's a "duh" as you say.
It's clear that Apple are positioning the MacPro as a professional workstation. For Pros, the price of a MacPro is neither here nor there. It is IMHO a bargain, especially the middle one. I'm sorry if you can't afford one. Try an iMac. You'll find it's perfectly capable.
My original reply, which got you started on this sarcastic rant, is that still others in the media are speculating that Apple will go into the business market with a new Intel chip-set, especially designed for business application. And again, this is not my idea, but an idea of others, like analysts. It's not what I'm predicting, and not what I would especially want. It seems your beef should be with someone else, not me.
Intel has no chip set especially designed for business applications. vPro is a marketing push just as Centrino was. vPro is the exact same chips currently used in the iMac but with Conroe instead of Merom.
Come on. Those journos and analysts have swallowed the Intel marketing pill. You don't have to. Apple don't either as is evidenced by them not sticking Intel badges or Centrino spiel on their laptops.
Isn't that what these forums are for, speculating on what Apple will build or arguing what Apple should build?
And this thread is about a possible Cube. Does every thread have to divert off into 'I want a mini tower and there must be one because Apple doesn't use the Conroe yet'. Tiresome.
Many beside me would disagree here. Business likes expandability, from what I have read and what others say.
Business likes Windows. Most are that tied in to that mindset that an iMac looks an entirely alien proposition. If you painted an iMac beige and stuck an empty PC case next to it they'd be happier.
What would 'Business' do with this expandability? I've worked in computer software, publishing and design firms for 20+ years and not once, ever, has someone from tech support come round and 'expanded' my computer. If you're lucky, you wait your turn for the next round of new computers or for a colleague who is leaving and nab their slightly better model before tech support spot it.
For normal office staff, what would they add to their computer that isn't included already in an iMac or Mini ?
Because business wants it, duh. That is what matters in that marketplace.
Slapping vPro on the outside of a Mac won't sell any more Macs.
It's not my idea. Read the article if you want to know who to complain to.
It's The Register. I don't have to. Your link was dead anyway.
shanmugam thats not a mock up
here is the bulder !!!!
http://www.conf.co.jp/new_folder/gallery/g5cube.html
The Modem and VGA ports give that away as a G4 Cube in a new aluminum enclosure. As does the black USB cable on top leading to the front mounted USB hub.
It's a very nice idea and I bet they could sell a few to fit old cube in to. Shame there isn't a space for the power brick.
And they are wrong. TDP of Conroe is 65W. TDP of Merom/Yonah is 35W. Max Power for the 970FX G5 was 39W at 2Ghz. Conroe just does not fit in an iMac if Apple wants to keep it as cool or quiet as the current product. It's abundantly clear they want to and that's fine by most people other than gamer geeks.
It's clear that Apple are positioning the MacPro as a professional workstation. For Pros, the price of a MacPro is neither here nor there. It is IMHO a bargain, especially the middle one. I'm sorry if you can't afford one. Try an iMac. You'll find it's perfectly capable.
Thank you for clearly addressing the issues. I agree and have agreed with your general assessment of the iMac and Mac Pro here. I didn't have the power figures on processors for the iMac, however, so thanks for posting it. Regarding the Mac Pro, I can afford one but don't want one, yet. My G5 is still adequate.
Intel has no chip set especially designed for business applications. vPro is a marketing push just as Centrino was. vPro is the exact same chips currently used in the iMac but with Conroe instead of Merom.
Come on. Those journos and analysts have swallowed the Intel marketing pill. You don't have to. Apple don't either as is evidenced by them not sticking Intel badges or Centrino spiel on their laptops.
Interesting! I didn't know that about the vPro. So, in reality, Apple is already using this "chip set," but simply does not make a point of it. I think a lot of folks in these discussions are unaware of this fact. I was.
And this thread is about a possible Cube. Does every thread have to divert off into 'I want a mini tower and there must be one because Apple doesn't use the Conroe yet'. Tiresome.
My original comment was about our right to speculate about what we don't know, which you didn't address here, but that's okay. The answer is obvious, so the question was rhetorical.
Regarding this thread being about the Cube, I responded to a comment, albeit second hand, that was off topic. Are we to just to ignore such comments? I notice you responded. Regarding the mini tower, I made but a passing reference to it, that I preferred it. There, I said it again. Bad me.
Business likes Windows. Most are that tied in to that mindset that an iMac looks an entirely alien proposition. If you painted an iMac beige and stuck an empty PC case next to it they'd be happier.
What would 'Business' do with this expandability? I've worked in computer software, publishing and design firms for 20+ years and not once, ever, has someone from tech support come round and 'expanded' my computer. If you're lucky, you wait your turn for the next round of new computers or for a colleague who is leaving and nab their slightly better model before tech support spot it.
Ha, Ha. I like your first comment here.
Regarding "What would 'Business' do with this expandability?" it does not matter. If they want it, you better have it or they won't buy. That not 100% true, but true enough to matter.
Regarding "What would 'Business' do with this expandability?" it does not matter. If they want it, you better have it or they won't buy. That not 100% true, but true enough to matter.
IME they never use this expandability and neither do most home users either. The big boxes are a home for dust bunnies and not much more. Really, just what would you need to 'expand' in a business computer. RAM maybe, which is easy enough in an iMac. Diskspace? That's what servers are for and Tech Support love servers anyway. Graphics cards? yeah right, let's see you get an X1900XTX past your boss for running Excel.
I've been at one company which uses a 3270 terminal card in every PC and Token Ring but that was back in the 80s.
Once you get over the psychological step that you don't need to upgrade anything really then an iMac, mini or a laptop are fine for most users. I don't know about the USA but in the UK you can write off equipment purchases against tax in 3 years (at one point it was 1 year), which is roughly when it's time for a new computer. Many of the businesses I know lease their computers too.
. . . Once you get over the psychological step that you don't need to upgrade anything really then an iMac, mini or a laptop are fine for most users.
I agree that many people don't use PCI cards, extra HDD bays and optical bays or change their graphics card. But unless business actually does get over the "psychological" need for it, they will want it and buy it. However, in a past discussion about this topic, someone who actually worked in the business of caring for business computers said PCI slots were use to "fix" damaged I/O ports, rather than replacing the motherboard.
I can see the iMac used in a business that isn't stuck to doing things the way they have always been done, but I can''t see business using a Mac Mini, which looks like a boutique item. Too small. A small desk top of some kind that uses normal drives and has a built-in power supply would be more practical. But that's just my opinion. Maybe a bigger Cube even, since that's our official topic.
I can see the iMac used in a business that isn't stuck to doing things the way they have always been done, but I can''t see business using a Mac Mini, which looks like a boutique item. Too small. A small desk top of some kind that uses normal drives and has a built-in power supply would be more practical. But that's just my opinion. Maybe a bigger Cube even, since that's our official topic.
People use laptops with exactly the same hardware as in a Mini without complaint.
I agree that many people don't use PCI cards, extra HDD bays and optical bays or change their graphics card. But unless business actually does get over the "psychological" need for it, they will want it and buy it. However, in a past discussion about this topic, someone who actually worked in the business of caring for business computers said PCI slots were use to "fix" damaged I/O ports, rather than replacing the motherboard.
even the people who don't chagne things do not want A AIO and the mini is too under powered.
even the people who don't chagne things do not want A AIO and the mini is too under powered.
Obviously that is untrue as Apple wouldn't have sold any if it was. Plus you're forgetting which little AIO computer saved Apple from the brink or which little AIO computer from 1984 was the basis of where we're at today.
People use laptops with exactly the same hardware as in a Mini without complaint.
I know, but the bigger stuff is cheaper to replace. Also, I was referring to the look of it. Business likely thinks the Mac Mini is a toy computer, yet it likely sells okay as a home computer. Not my home however.
Which gets us back to the argument that it is much easier to sell a customer what they think they need than to edumacate them.
So are you saying it's better to give consumers what they want rather than tell them what they want?
And they are wrong. TDP of Conroe is 65W. TDP of Merom/Yonah is 35W. Max Power for the 970FX G5 was 39W at 2Ghz. Conroe just does not fit in an iMac if Apple wants to keep it as cool or quiet as the current product. It's abundantly clear they want to and that's fine by most people other than gamer geeks.
.
Advocates of Merom seem to miss out on the potential benefits of conroe. Yes merom keeps it quite and cool. But a g5 chip has a similar power requirement and heat output and these powered iMacs proior to the Intel transition. The trade off is the added cost of Merom and limited 'upside' to upgrades in the future. The 24" iMac (2.1 ghz) starts at $1900. Add the 2.3 ghz chip and tack on another $250. With conroe apple could have priced the 2.4 ghz conroe 24" iMac at $1900 and for $250 bucks go up to 2.6 ghz.
http://www.electronista.com/articles...e.cube.patent/
No. There isn't a Mac it fits.
There isn't a Mac with a Celeron M in either. Does that mean Apple are about to come out with a beige econobox?
no. that would be utterly disgusting.
but there no Mac in the market running a Conroe.
i'm just sayin...