Also for the ultraportable ... the screen needs to be significantly less than 13 inches to be anything more portable than a Macbook. 10" or a little less in widescreen gets you good size and small enough screen to not use up lots of battery power, which you are also saving with flash memory and "always on" functionality. Basically a clamshelled tablet with reasonable keyboard and ebook abilities. Blow Folio out of the water.
Widescreen would be a bad idea. It increases the width while reducing the height significantly. In planes, trains and automobiles you have plenty of height but little precious width. A 4:3 ratio is best for a sub-notebook.
This is also why Apple won't make a minitower, no matter how much we all want one (as can be seen from the fact they've yet to do it, despite demand). It would confuse people. They like their 4 squares (OK, 6 now). They like to dumb things down to their simplest, because, as mac users, or prospective mac users, we're just too stupid to be able to compare specifications and pick what we need/want.
I agree that Apple should make a mini-tower. They could even resurrect the Cube monikor and design style for this Mac Mini-like device with one or two PCI-e slots and room for an additional HDD.
I'd like to see it larger than the original cube to allow for desktop grade RAM, HDD, and optical drive to reduce cost and continue their current competitive pricing. I'd also like to see a single Xeon—not a C2D like others have suggested—as to exceed the 4GB RAM limit of the 965 chipset.
The Mac Mini is inexpensive when you build your own using AOpen's Mac Mini knock-off. The problem lies when comparing it to other mini-towers which utilize faster/higher capacity desktop grade parts for less money.
I don't agree with your assessment that Apple's simple, efficient options are to cater to stupid Mac users. If that is what sold more machines then Dell and HP would surely be doing it.
<rant>How stupid do you have to be to think running Windows Vista on a $400 HP with a Pentium grade CPU and 512MB RAM is a good idea? In all fairness, that isn't stupidity, but ignorance on the part of the buyer. I can't tell you how many machines I've converted to XP despite HP, Sony and Dell (at the time) not listing any XP drivers for their Vista machines.</rant>
Apple isn't holding off a mini-tower because they think that their userbase is too stupid to make a couple choices. Adding the option for a 2nd HDD or to chose your own graphics card is not a big deal. You can already do that with the iMac.
Have you built a machine on Dell's site? They go out of their way to confuse their customers. It's the antithesis of user friendly, unless adding 'recommended' next to the option they profit most from counts.
I think we will see this new iteration of a headless Mac. And I think it is most likely when Apple releases new Cinema Displays with integrated iSights and IR receivers.
PS: I think the new iMacs will have an option for a second internal HDD. This will allow internal Time Machine usage. A feature Apple seems to be pushing, without the need for an un-Apple-like external solution.
This is also why Apple won't make a minitower, no matter how much we all want one (as can be seen from the fact they've yet to do it, despite demand). It would confuse people. They like their 4 squares (OK, 6 now). They like to dumb things down to their simplest, because, as mac users, or prospective mac users, we're just too stupid to be able to compare specifications and pick what we need/want.
It's not so much that... Apple doesn't really think its users are all stupid. It's more that Steve loves minimalism (in all things, apparently, including product lines), plus it saves on inventory costs.
Regardless, it would be smart of them to do one. It'd be attractive to potential Windows switchers (many of whom are used to buying towers on the PC side), and there seems to be significant pent-up demand for one on the longtime Mac user side too, judging from responses on this site and others.
Can't really blame 'em. Some people just want a tower, but most don't want to pay $2200+ for one.
Wine would be great if you could get it to work. I have tried it under Linux though and it is just far too difficult to get it to work with anything but the most mainstream applications. I don't think that would fit with Apple's focus on ease of use.
Wine works fine in Linux and OSX (Intel) maybe you should read the appdb to learn how to make things tick? Thats what it is there for you know
Ohh wait thats right mac users want everything on a silver platter and people who go against anything that is the status quo from apple are to be crucified.
But thats the way it goes I am waiting for OSX on the dreaded beige box and thats about it. Then I can use OSX finally without having to drop money on a non upgradeable apple again. My G5 is slow as a dog turd skidding down the wall.
/me waits for Sebastian to say OMGZOR NO!!! they are a hardware company... Yet just the other day Steve Jobs said they are a "Software Company" things be a changing me thinks.
Wine works fine in Linux and OSX (Intel) maybe you should read the appdb to learn how to make things tick? Thats what it is there for you know
No, it doesn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlicerDicer
Ohh wait thats right mac users want everything on a silver platter and people who go against anything that is the status quo from apple are to be crucified.
After spending all day working on computers I do like to come home to a machine that is intuitive, stable and secure without any hassle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlicerDicer
But thats the way it goes I am waiting for OSX on the dreaded beige box and thats about it. Then I can use OSX finally without having to drop money on a non upgradeable apple again. My G5 is slow as a dog turd skidding down the wall.
G5 slow is some BS. benchmarking still shows it's quite competitive in many areas.
BTW, OSx86 Project has been running OS X on x86 for quite some time. If you are waiting for Apple to offer you this then you are sadly mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlicerDicer
they are a hardware company... Yet just the other day Steve Jobs said they are a "Software Company" things be a changing me thinks.
Things haven't changed. If you define a company by where they make the majority of its profit then they are a HW company. If you define a company by where they put the majority of their R&D then they are a SW company. If you think a company can't be both a SW and a HW company they you are major douche.
After spending all day working on computers I do like to come home to a machine that is intuitive, stable and secure without any hassle.
G5 slow is some BS. benchmarking still shows it's quite competitive in many areas.
BTW, OSx86 Project has been running OS X on x86 for quite some time. If you are waiting for Apple to offer you this then you are sadly mistaken.
Things haven't changed. If you define a company by where they make the majority of its profit then they are a HW company. If you define a company by where they put the majority of their R&D then they are a SW company. If you think a company can't be both a SW and a HW company they you are major douche.
Response to First. Yes it does till you can prove otherwise with debug logs proving crashes with programs that are known to work then I call BS. Wine is a great product and getting better by the day and with each release. And by the way if you dont like it fix it yourself you can do that you know.
Response to Second. Valid point.
Response to Third. I cannot play HDTV video, Had to kill dashboard as it sucks too much power. Cannot run games at decent frames such as Civ 4 and AOE3. Many Many performance problems on the 2.1ghz G5 iMac. In short its a glorified turd that is only good for browsing I must leave my true computing to my "Beige Boxes" that slaughter it in performace at a fraction of the cost.
OSX86 sure its nice and all but the legality of it is questionable. It runs on a metric ton of hardware from what I have read so the question of support is kinda nil in that regard.
Offering OSX I have heard the battle cry far to many times NEVER NEVER when the exact opposite happens. Apple first and foremost is a company and their company is going to do whatever is best for the company. That in turn recently was switching to Intel and I myself was a debunker of that I said NEVER NEVER. However I was proven very wrong and the proof is in my iMac that was purchased just 4 weeks before the Intel Release. Ignorance is bliss eh?
Sure they can be both a hardware and software company but the main theme here is Apple is a Hardware Company is always the response. Steve said just the other day they are a Software company this makes me think. Steve always referred to apple making shiny boxes to sell their software. I have never denied this but what is interesting is that they are calling them self a Software Company.
iPods and various other consumer electronics are starting to make up more and more of their profit margins therefore the apple computer line is suffering as the lay person cannot afford a mac. Think about it I can get a dual core system with a nice monitor for the cost of a Mac Mini not to mention its slated to be killed if rumors are right.
I see no reason for apple not to offer OSX for sale at the right pricepoint and make a killing. I know I would buy it as stocking stuffers for family and many many friends would buy it. Underestimate people who think budget and cannot justify cost for sleekness yeah.
So point being in order for apple to achieve any marketshare of note it will need to open OSX and I have a feeling they will if not now they WILL guaranteed.
And by using the word ignorance I was not saying anybody was stupid. I do not want it to be construed that way I was describing my own lack of knowledge or foresight in what would happen. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=ignorance <-- Defined
.OSX86 sure its nice and all but the legality of it is questionable. It runs on a metric ton of hardware from what I have read so the question of support is kinda nil in that regard.
iPods and various other consumer electronics are starting to make up more and more of their profit margins therefore the apple computer line is suffering as the lay person cannot afford a mac. Think about it I can get a dual core system with a nice monitor for the cost of a Mac Mini not to mention its slated to be killed if rumors are right.
I see no reason for apple not to offer OSX for sale at the right pricepoint and make a killing. I know I would buy it as stocking stuffers for family and many many friends would buy it. Underestimate people who think budget and cannot justify cost for sleekness yeah.
So point being in order for apple to achieve any marketshare of note it will need to open OSX and I have a feeling they will if not now they WILL guaranteed.
And by using the word ignorance I was not saying anybody was stupid. I do not want it to be construed that way I was describing my own lack of knowledge or foresight in what would happen. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=ignorance <-- Defined
1) OSx86 does run on a fair amount of hardware. More and more every day but most of isn't optimized well, if at all. I have a friend whose OSx86 PC has a gigabit ethernet card that only gets about 5MB/sec. His other two NICs aren't even recognized. Prior to the release of OSx86 10.4.8 none of them worked.
2) Of course the Mac mini costs more than towers from other OEMS using a CD CPU. The Mac mini has 1000BAE-T, Bluetooth, a 2.5" HDD, RAM usually associated with notebooks, and a slim optical drive. That really isn't a far comparison since you are referring to desktop grade hardware which is faster/more capacity at a lower price point. If you price out a comparable AOpen machine you find that the Mac mini ain't so bad.
3) Yes, Apple could sell OS X and it would make money. Yes, it would increase their OS marketshare. But Apple is obviously not concerned with a BS gauge like marketshare if it's at the expense of the the "Mac experience." There is a lot MS can't do with Windows that Apple can do because of the number of device MS has to support. Apple is valued at 1/3 of MS now and Macs are selling faster than ever before. If Apple was going to license OS X to OEMs—who have asked in order to get out from under MS' grip—they would have done it years ago. It just isn't going to happen.
Agreed on first point however I do not know about the nic issue that could be cleared up rather simply I would assume though.
Mac Mini small yes made with laptop components yes. Unupgradable yes.
I do not speak of OEM boxes I speak of buying parts from newegg that will get bang for buck. I really see no reason for a computer that small its just a slow upgradeable box.
I never said Licence OSX to OEM's either. I am talking for sale to the enthusiast to install on their own personal machine. Such as I walk into applestore and buy OSX and install it not buy from dell that would make me very angry
Ohh wait thats right mac users want everything on a silver platter and people who go against anything that is the status quo from apple are to be crucified.
Two different points of view. If you want to continue the other extreme, then there's the crowd within the Linux community that, instead of even trying to be polite about it, have an attitude of RTFMGTFO.
Quote:
Wine is a great product and getting better by the day and with each release. And by the way if you dont like it fix it yourself you can do that you know.
Can you honestly say that you've contributed code to a project anything nearly as big as Wine? I haven't, but the way you say it makes it seem as if it's trivial to contribute, but a program like that is highly technical. You should understand that the number of people that are that talented in the skills necessary to do that work are very few. Personally, if I'm going to spend that much time and energy on software, I'd much rather have it be my own pet project with a goal of having another product to sell.
3) Yes, Apple could sell OS X and it would make money. Yes, it would increase their OS marketshare. But Apple is obviously not concerned with a BS gauge like marketshare if it's at the expense of the the "Mac experience." There is a lot MS can't do with Windows that Apple can do because of the number of device MS has to support. Apple is valued at 1/3 of MS now and Macs are selling faster than ever before. If Apple was going to license OS X to OEMs?who have asked in order to get out from under MS' grip?they would have done it years ago. It just isn't going to happen.
If Apple required an EFI ROM and only included currently shipping chipsets from the big three (Intel, AMD, Nvidia) the hardware requirement wouldn't be that bad. The trouble is the legacy hardware dating back to God knows when. I think Mac users underestimate how many different parts Apple actually uses on their Macs and how streamlined the PC world has actually become. Then again, if Apple would step up to the plate and offer top notch traditional hardware again, nobody would be looking elsewhere.
The Mac Mini is inexpensive when you build your own using AOpen's Mac Mini knock-off. The problem lies when comparing it to other mini-towers which utilize faster/higher capacity desktop grade parts for less money.
Yah...even the older Shuttle X100 is $1,061. Granted it has a 250Gb drive and 1 GB RAM but only a 1.6Ghz Core Duo. The X200 Barebones with the 1.6Ghz Celeron M 420 is $380 which is not too bad (no OS, no RAM, no HDD).
A cube would be nice but really, a shuttle sized cube SHOULD only run like $800-$900 at the low end (2.13 Ghz Core 2 Duo, 1GB RAM, 250GB HDD) but would destroy iMac sales which means Apple would price it around $1200...which wouldn't play that well in reviews.
Comments
Also for the ultraportable ... the screen needs to be significantly less than 13 inches to be anything more portable than a Macbook. 10" or a little less in widescreen gets you good size and small enough screen to not use up lots of battery power, which you are also saving with flash memory and "always on" functionality. Basically a clamshelled tablet with reasonable keyboard and ebook abilities. Blow Folio out of the water.
Widescreen would be a bad idea. It increases the width while reducing the height significantly. In planes, trains and automobiles you have plenty of height but little precious width. A 4:3 ratio is best for a sub-notebook.
This is also why Apple won't make a minitower, no matter how much we all want one (as can be seen from the fact they've yet to do it, despite demand). It would confuse people. They like their 4 squares (OK, 6 now). They like to dumb things down to their simplest, because, as mac users, or prospective mac users, we're just too stupid to be able to compare specifications and pick what we need/want.
I agree that Apple should make a mini-tower. They could even resurrect the Cube monikor and design style for this Mac Mini-like device with one or two PCI-e slots and room for an additional HDD.
I'd like to see it larger than the original cube to allow for desktop grade RAM, HDD, and optical drive to reduce cost and continue their current competitive pricing. I'd also like to see a single Xeon—not a C2D like others have suggested—as to exceed the 4GB RAM limit of the 965 chipset.
The Mac Mini is inexpensive when you build your own using AOpen's Mac Mini knock-off. The problem lies when comparing it to other mini-towers which utilize faster/higher capacity desktop grade parts for less money.
I don't agree with your assessment that Apple's simple, efficient options are to cater to stupid Mac users. If that is what sold more machines then Dell and HP would surely be doing it.
<rant>How stupid do you have to be to think running Windows Vista on a $400 HP with a Pentium grade CPU and 512MB RAM is a good idea? In all fairness, that isn't stupidity, but ignorance on the part of the buyer. I can't tell you how many machines I've converted to XP despite HP, Sony and Dell (at the time) not listing any XP drivers for their Vista machines.</rant>
Apple isn't holding off a mini-tower because they think that their userbase is too stupid to make a couple choices. Adding the option for a 2nd HDD or to chose your own graphics card is not a big deal. You can already do that with the iMac.
Have you built a machine on Dell's site? They go out of their way to confuse their customers. It's the antithesis of user friendly, unless adding 'recommended' next to the option they profit most from counts.
I think we will see this new iteration of a headless Mac. And I think it is most likely when Apple releases new Cinema Displays with integrated iSights and IR receivers.
PS: I think the new iMacs will have an option for a second internal HDD. This will allow internal Time Machine usage. A feature Apple seems to be pushing, without the need for an un-Apple-like external solution.
This is also why Apple won't make a minitower, no matter how much we all want one (as can be seen from the fact they've yet to do it, despite demand). It would confuse people. They like their 4 squares (OK, 6 now). They like to dumb things down to their simplest, because, as mac users, or prospective mac users, we're just too stupid to be able to compare specifications and pick what we need/want.
It's not so much that... Apple doesn't really think its users are all stupid. It's more that Steve loves minimalism (in all things, apparently, including product lines), plus it saves on inventory costs.
Regardless, it would be smart of them to do one. It'd be attractive to potential Windows switchers (many of whom are used to buying towers on the PC side), and there seems to be significant pent-up demand for one on the longtime Mac user side too, judging from responses on this site and others.
Can't really blame 'em. Some people just want a tower, but most don't want to pay $2200+ for one.
.
Who grabbed this ad? It looks great, thanks for posting specs and such.
Me (I created it)- yay!
Wine would be great if you could get it to work. I have tried it under Linux though and it is just far too difficult to get it to work with anything but the most mainstream applications. I don't think that would fit with Apple's focus on ease of use.
Wine works fine in Linux and OSX (Intel) maybe you should read the appdb to learn how to make things tick? Thats what it is there for you know
Ohh wait thats right mac users want everything on a silver platter and people who go against anything that is the status quo from apple are to be crucified.
But thats the way it goes I am waiting for OSX on the dreaded beige box and thats about it. Then I can use OSX finally without having to drop money on a non upgradeable apple again. My G5 is slow as a dog turd skidding down the wall.
/me waits for Sebastian to say OMGZOR NO!!! they are a hardware company... Yet just the other day Steve Jobs said they are a "Software Company" things be a changing me thinks.
Wine works fine in Linux and OSX (Intel) maybe you should read the appdb to learn how to make things tick? Thats what it is there for you know
No, it doesn't.
Ohh wait thats right mac users want everything on a silver platter and people who go against anything that is the status quo from apple are to be crucified.
After spending all day working on computers I do like to come home to a machine that is intuitive, stable and secure without any hassle.
But thats the way it goes I am waiting for OSX on the dreaded beige box and thats about it. Then I can use OSX finally without having to drop money on a non upgradeable apple again. My G5 is slow as a dog turd skidding down the wall.
G5 slow is some BS. benchmarking still shows it's quite competitive in many areas.
BTW, OSx86 Project has been running OS X on x86 for quite some time. If you are waiting for Apple to offer you this then you are sadly mistaken.
they are a hardware company... Yet just the other day Steve Jobs said they are a "Software Company" things be a changing me thinks.
Things haven't changed. If you define a company by where they make the majority of its profit then they are a HW company. If you define a company by where they put the majority of their R&D then they are a SW company. If you think a company can't be both a SW and a HW company they you are major douche.
No, it doesn't.
After spending all day working on computers I do like to come home to a machine that is intuitive, stable and secure without any hassle.
G5 slow is some BS. benchmarking still shows it's quite competitive in many areas.
BTW, OSx86 Project has been running OS X on x86 for quite some time. If you are waiting for Apple to offer you this then you are sadly mistaken.
Things haven't changed. If you define a company by where they make the majority of its profit then they are a HW company. If you define a company by where they put the majority of their R&D then they are a SW company. If you think a company can't be both a SW and a HW company they you are major douche.
Response to First. Yes it does till you can prove otherwise with debug logs proving crashes with programs that are known to work then I call BS. Wine is a great product and getting better by the day and with each release. And by the way if you dont like it fix it yourself you can do that you know.
Response to Second. Valid point.
Response to Third. I cannot play HDTV video, Had to kill dashboard as it sucks too much power. Cannot run games at decent frames such as Civ 4 and AOE3. Many Many performance problems on the 2.1ghz G5 iMac. In short its a glorified turd that is only good for browsing I must leave my true computing to my "Beige Boxes" that slaughter it in performace at a fraction of the cost.
OSX86 sure its nice and all but the legality of it is questionable. It runs on a metric ton of hardware from what I have read so the question of support is kinda nil in that regard.
Offering OSX I have heard the battle cry far to many times NEVER NEVER when the exact opposite happens. Apple first and foremost is a company and their company is going to do whatever is best for the company. That in turn recently was switching to Intel and I myself was a debunker of that I said NEVER NEVER. However I was proven very wrong and the proof is in my iMac that was purchased just 4 weeks before the Intel Release. Ignorance is bliss eh?
Sure they can be both a hardware and software company but the main theme here is Apple is a Hardware Company is always the response. Steve said just the other day they are a Software company this makes me think. Steve always referred to apple making shiny boxes to sell their software. I have never denied this but what is interesting is that they are calling them self a Software Company.
iPods and various other consumer electronics are starting to make up more and more of their profit margins therefore the apple computer line is suffering as the lay person cannot afford a mac. Think about it I can get a dual core system with a nice monitor for the cost of a Mac Mini not to mention its slated to be killed if rumors are right.
I see no reason for apple not to offer OSX for sale at the right pricepoint and make a killing. I know I would buy it as stocking stuffers for family and many many friends would buy it. Underestimate people who think budget and cannot justify cost for sleekness yeah.
So point being in order for apple to achieve any marketshare of note it will need to open OSX and I have a feeling they will if not now they WILL guaranteed.
And by using the word ignorance I was not saying anybody was stupid. I do not want it to be construed that way I was describing my own lack of knowledge or foresight in what would happen. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=ignorance <-- Defined
.OSX86 sure its nice and all but the legality of it is questionable. It runs on a metric ton of hardware from what I have read so the question of support is kinda nil in that regard.
iPods and various other consumer electronics are starting to make up more and more of their profit margins therefore the apple computer line is suffering as the lay person cannot afford a mac. Think about it I can get a dual core system with a nice monitor for the cost of a Mac Mini not to mention its slated to be killed if rumors are right.
I see no reason for apple not to offer OSX for sale at the right pricepoint and make a killing. I know I would buy it as stocking stuffers for family and many many friends would buy it. Underestimate people who think budget and cannot justify cost for sleekness yeah.
So point being in order for apple to achieve any marketshare of note it will need to open OSX and I have a feeling they will if not now they WILL guaranteed.
And by using the word ignorance I was not saying anybody was stupid. I do not want it to be construed that way I was describing my own lack of knowledge or foresight in what would happen. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=ignorance <-- Defined
1) OSx86 does run on a fair amount of hardware. More and more every day but most of isn't optimized well, if at all. I have a friend whose OSx86 PC has a gigabit ethernet card that only gets about 5MB/sec. His other two NICs aren't even recognized. Prior to the release of OSx86 10.4.8 none of them worked.
2) Of course the Mac mini costs more than towers from other OEMS using a CD CPU. The Mac mini has 1000BAE-T, Bluetooth, a 2.5" HDD, RAM usually associated with notebooks, and a slim optical drive. That really isn't a far comparison since you are referring to desktop grade hardware which is faster/more capacity at a lower price point. If you price out a comparable AOpen machine you find that the Mac mini ain't so bad.
3) Yes, Apple could sell OS X and it would make money. Yes, it would increase their OS marketshare. But Apple is obviously not concerned with a BS gauge like marketshare if it's at the expense of the the "Mac experience." There is a lot MS can't do with Windows that Apple can do because of the number of device MS has to support. Apple is valued at 1/3 of MS now and Macs are selling faster than ever before. If Apple was going to license OS X to OEMs—who have asked in order to get out from under MS' grip—they would have done it years ago. It just isn't going to happen.
Mac Mini small yes made with laptop components yes. Unupgradable yes.
I do not speak of OEM boxes I speak of buying parts from newegg that will get bang for buck. I really see no reason for a computer that small its just a slow upgradeable box.
I never said Licence OSX to OEM's either. I am talking for sale to the enthusiast to install on their own personal machine. Such as I walk into applestore and buy OSX and install it not buy from dell that would make me very angry
Ohh wait thats right mac users want everything on a silver platter and people who go against anything that is the status quo from apple are to be crucified.
Two different points of view. If you want to continue the other extreme, then there's the crowd within the Linux community that, instead of even trying to be polite about it, have an attitude of RTFMGTFO.
Wine is a great product and getting better by the day and with each release. And by the way if you dont like it fix it yourself you can do that you know.
Can you honestly say that you've contributed code to a project anything nearly as big as Wine? I haven't, but the way you say it makes it seem as if it's trivial to contribute, but a program like that is highly technical. You should understand that the number of people that are that talented in the skills necessary to do that work are very few. Personally, if I'm going to spend that much time and energy on software, I'd much rather have it be my own pet project with a goal of having another product to sell.
3) Yes, Apple could sell OS X and it would make money. Yes, it would increase their OS marketshare. But Apple is obviously not concerned with a BS gauge like marketshare if it's at the expense of the the "Mac experience." There is a lot MS can't do with Windows that Apple can do because of the number of device MS has to support. Apple is valued at 1/3 of MS now and Macs are selling faster than ever before. If Apple was going to license OS X to OEMs?who have asked in order to get out from under MS' grip?they would have done it years ago. It just isn't going to happen.
If Apple required an EFI ROM and only included currently shipping chipsets from the big three (Intel, AMD, Nvidia) the hardware requirement wouldn't be that bad. The trouble is the legacy hardware dating back to God knows when. I think Mac users underestimate how many different parts Apple actually uses on their Macs and how streamlined the PC world has actually become. Then again, if Apple would step up to the plate and offer top notch traditional hardware again, nobody would be looking elsewhere.
The Mac Mini is inexpensive when you build your own using AOpen's Mac Mini knock-off. The problem lies when comparing it to other mini-towers which utilize faster/higher capacity desktop grade parts for less money.
Yah...even the older Shuttle X100 is $1,061. Granted it has a 250Gb drive and 1 GB RAM but only a 1.6Ghz Core Duo. The X200 Barebones with the 1.6Ghz Celeron M 420 is $380 which is not too bad (no OS, no RAM, no HDD).
A cube would be nice but really, a shuttle sized cube SHOULD only run like $800-$900 at the low end (2.13 Ghz Core 2 Duo, 1GB RAM, 250GB HDD) but would destroy iMac sales which means Apple would price it around $1200...which wouldn't play that well in reviews.
I'd like a cube but I'm not holding my breath.
Vinea