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.)
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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 don?t 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 can?t input a second computer into the iMac?s 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 haven?t 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 isn?t a gap in a product line, I don?t 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 doesn?t 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 Intel?s 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).
Don?t 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 don?t 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?.
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.
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 Intel?s 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).
Don?t 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 don?t 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.
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.
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.
"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.
Comments
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.)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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 don?t 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 can?t input a second computer into the iMac?s 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 haven?t 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 isn?t a gap in a product line, I don?t 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 doesn?t 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 Intel?s 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).
Don?t 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 don?t 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
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 Intel?s 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).
Don?t 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 don?t 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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.