My G4 is the model before the Mirrored Drive Doors (not the Blue & White model), and I think it's the "cat's whiskers". No offense, Duddits. I liked being able to pull that 'ring' and having the entire guts out where it's easy to upgrade. While the G5 doesn't "spill it's guts", it's even easier to modify.
When I first saw the G5/ Mac Pro case, I thought it was too utilitarian looking.
However, it's grown on me and I think of it now as 'futuristic/minimalist'. No matter what changes are made,
I hope making upgrades remains as easy as in the current case.
It's too bad that other Apple products aren't as easy to modify.
According to the poll, so far 63 people want a computer smaller than the Mac Pro. I don't know how many people actually read this thread and decided not to vote for a smaller form factor, but I bet it's less than 63.
And if I understand correctly, those that object to a smaller computer want multiple PCI cards, drive bays, multiple optical drives, and so on... exactly what the current Mac Pro offers. So for those of you that need or want all that expandability, your needs are being met already!
This thread is for the people who don't want a big empty box, but a nice compact good-looking powerful computer on their desk. Too bad we won't get it -- as proof, Apple's lawyers would have already pulled this thread off the internet if it were in the works.
According to the poll, so far 63 people want a computer smaller than the Mac Pro. I don't know how many people actually read this thread and decided not to vote for a smaller form factor, but I bet it's less than 63.
And if I understand correctly, those that object to a smaller computer want multiple PCI cards, drive bays, multiple optical drives, and so on... exactly what the current Mac Pro offers. So for those of you that need or want all that expandability, your needs are being met already!
This thread is for the people who don't want a big empty box, but a nice compact good-looking powerful computer on their desk. Too bad we won't get it -- as proof, Apple's lawyers would have already pulled this thread off the internet if it were in the works.
According to the poll, so far 63 people want a computer smaller than the Mac Pro. I don't know how many people actually read this thread and decided not to vote for a smaller form factor, but I bet it's less than 63.
And if I understand correctly, those that object to a smaller computer want multiple PCI cards, drive bays, multiple optical drives, and so on... exactly what the current Mac Pro offers. So for those of you that need or want all that expandability, your needs are being met already!
This thread is for the people who don't want a big empty box, but a nice compact good-looking powerful computer on their desk. Too bad we won't get it -- as proof, Apple's lawyers would have already pulled this thread off the internet if it were in the works.
At $2200, the Mac Pro is prohibitively expensive. At 2ghz, for the Apps that can't take advantage of 4+ cores, it's also not much faster than the low end iMac. Take a look at a Mac Pro, than take a look at something from Gateway, there's a good six inch difference between the two. You're lumping all tower users into one generic category. Asking users to choose between you cube (aka iMac without display) and the Mac Pro is like asking users to choose between a Jetta and an 18-wheeler. There's lots of room in between.
Wrong. The cube is the Mac Pro without the empty space.
And without a full speed DVD burner, possibility for a decent video card etc, It might be empty space to you, but as I've been trying to tell you are very low end and yet are trying to pass yourself off as some ultimate authority as to what desktop buyers want.
Quote:
The big difference is that the cube uses all desktop components found in the Mac Pro, not the laptop stuff found in the iMac.
The motherboard, CPU, and hard drive may fit, but you're not going to be much better than an iMac in terms of Graphics, memory, and optical drive. I think you confuse the capabilitiies of Apple's Cube (8x8x8) with one of the Cube like computers from Shuttle (8.7x8.3x12.8)
Maybe 'ole Steve just wants to make sure that if we are able to open up a Mac's case and add/upgrade hardware that may be purchased from a manufacturer other than Apple, he gets plenty of our money UP FRONT, ala the MacPro.
This thread is for the people who don't want a big empty box, but a nice compact good-looking powerful computer on their desk. Too bad we won't get it -- as proof, Apple's lawyers would have already pulled this thread off the internet if it were in the works.
No it's not. You didn't start this thread. it's not about a big empty box at all. That's not even a poll question. It's about those who think apple could make a real desktop, driven by a desktop processor, that is somewhere between an iMac, and a Mac Pro. They still want some upgradability, but believe Apple can trim the costs by trimming some of the more excessive features of the Mac pro in half. Don't you read?
At $2200, the Mac Pro is prohibitively expensive. At 2ghz, for the Apps that can't take advantage of 4+ cores, it's also not much faster than the low end iMac.
If the iMac isn't much slower than the 2Ghz Mac Pro then the mobile parts are not the huge speed hit you claim them to be because the Xeon workstations have benched pretty close to their Conroe counterparts at the same clock speeds.
There were a couple games that saw a hit from the FB-DIMMS but pretty much its a wash. For every game that took a hit there's some app that can do 4 cores worth of work.
Quote:
Take a look at a Mac Pro, than take a look at something from Gateway, there's a good six inch difference between the two. You're lumping all tower users into one generic category. Asking users to choose between you cube (aka iMac without display) and the Mac Pro is like asking users to choose between a Jetta and an 18-wheeler. There's lots of room in between.
Dude, seriously...go get an Acer and get OSx86. If Apple made a mid-tower you'd STILL find something to bitch about. It could be a weaker power supply than you wanted or the lack of a drive bay or EFI limiting graphics cards or SOMETHING.
Even introducing a mid-tower that you wants lumps all tower users into one generic category leaving out everyone else that wants a smaller headless mac slightly better than the mini.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
And without a full speed DVD burner, possibility for a decent video card etc, It might be empty space to you, but as I've been trying to tell you are very low end and yet are trying to pass yourself off as some ultimate authority as to what desktop buyers want.
And you're narrow minded in your pursuit in transforming Apple into Gateway. Every time someone suggests an 80-90% solution you whine that its not 100%.
Wah.
Quote:
The motherboard, CPU, and hard drive may fit, but you're not going to be much better than an iMac in terms of Graphics, memory, and optical drive. I think you confuse the capabilitiies of Apple's Cube (8x8x8) with one of the Cube like computers from Shuttle (8.7x8.3x12.8)
If Alienware can make a dual SLI M7950 17" laptop I bet you can do dual SLI cube in a 8x8x8 form factor and still fit in 4GB RAM and two 3.5" bays. Wouldn't be on a PCIe card though but who cares? 8x8x8 is 512 in^3. 1.5x15.56x11.75 is 275 in^3 and fits a keyboard and 17" LCD and 3 drives.
2.8Ghz X7900
Dual NVidia GeForce Go M7950 GTX (SLI)
4GB RAM
Blu-Ray burner
3.5" HDD
expresscard slot
802.11N
Gigabit Ethernet
FW 400 and 800
4 USB 2.0
That's hardly low end. Of course its likely also $5000 but you'd have an awesome LAN party computer.
A dual 8800GTX SLI, E6850, BluRay, 4GB rig will run you close to $4000 anyway from Alienware.
At $2200, the Mac Pro is prohibitively expensive. .
It's interesting what some people think is prohibitively expensive. The first (cheap) IBM clones with only 20 or 30 MB HDD's and about 8 mHz cost somewhere between $2000 and $3000 (in 1980's dollars) and users seemed to have no qualms about putting out that much. I recall the gurus saying that a (competent) computer with monitor and software would cost around $5000 and that $5000 price was a fact through the 80's and possibly into the 90"s. Look at how the price of cars, houses, etc. has soared in the past few years. A top quality computer like the Mac Pro selling for $2200 is CHEAP.
Not wanting that big box and it's unused space is something else.
If the iMac isn't much slower than the 2Ghz Mac Pro then the mobile parts are not the huge speed hit you claim them to be because the Xeon workstations have benched pretty close to their Conroe counterparts at the same clock speeds.
There were a couple games that saw a hit from the FB-DIMMS but pretty much its a wash. For every game that took a hit there's some app that can do 4 cores worth of work.
What they hell are you talking about? I'm not talking about some huge speed decrease. I'm saying that a $2200 2ghz xeon Mac Pro with a Geforce 7300GT should be be pretty close to a $1200 2ghz iMac with Radeon 2400XT in single threaded consumer apps. The only huge anything is the price increase because of server parts. Needed for people running mathmatica, unnecessary for people running games or photoshop.
Quote:
Dude, seriously...go get an Acer and get OSx86. If Apple made a mid-tower you'd STILL find something to bitch about. It could be a weaker power supply than you wanted or the lack of a drive bay or EFI limiting graphics cards or SOMETHING.
Nope, I was very happy with my G3. Then steve jobs decided he needed to start building computers for people who by them as a status symbol instead for those who appreciate how much OSX kicks windows' booty.
Quote:
Even introducing a mid-tower that you wants lumps all tower users into one generic category leaving out everyone else that wants a smaller headless mac slightly better than the mini.
They can build a machine for them too.
Quote:
And you're narrow minded in your pursuit in transforming Apple into Gateway.
No, I'm trying to turn Apple back into Apple. Instead of the computer equivalent of some designer jean company, And if you want to talked narrow minded, I'm not the one trying to restrict Apple to only its current clientele.
Quote:
Every time someone suggests an 80-90% solution you whine that its not 100%.
You're 80% solutions are more like 50% solutions and usually involve little more than removing the display from the iMac.
Quote:
If Alienware can make a dual SLI M7950 17" laptop I bet you can do dual SLI cube in a 8x8x8 form factor and still fit in 4GB RAM and two 3.5" bays. Wouldn't be on a PCIe card though but who cares? 8x8x8 is 512 in^3. 1.5x15.56x11.75 is 275 in^3 and fits a keyboard and 17" LCD and 3 drives.
2.8Ghz X7900
Dual NVidia GeForce Go M7950 GTX (SLI)
4GB RAM
Blu-Ray burner
3.5" HDD
expresscard slot
802.11N
Gigabit Ethernet
FW 400 and 800
4 USB 2.0
That's hardly low end. Of course its likely also $5000 but you'd have an awesome LAN party computer.
A dual 8800GTX SLI, E6850, BluRay, 4GB rig will run you close to $4000 anyway from Alienware.
1. You're looking at $3000 starting.
2. Nobody ever said anything about SLI. It and crossfire don't do enough good to justify the extreme costs.
3. We don't really care about another attempt at seeing how much Apple can stuff into a confined space. What we need is a consumer version of the Mac Pro, a machine that is full featured, powerful, reliable, and innovative in its own categories. Exactly what the PowerMac was before they canned to move the iMac upscale.
It's interesting what some people think is prohibitively expensive. The first (cheap) IBM clones with only 20 or 30 MB HDD's and about 8 mHz cost somewhere between $2000 and $3000 (in 1980's dollars) and users seemed to have no qualms about putting out that much. I recall the gurus saying that a (competent) computer with monitor and software would cost around $5000 and that $5000 price was a fact through the 80's and possibly into the 90"s. Look at how the price of cars, houses, etc. has soared in the past few years. A top quality computer like the Mac Pro selling for $2200 is CHEAP.
Not wanting that big box and it's unused space is something else.
The 90s didn't have close to $200 in monthly telecommunications bills either. For a Professional, the Mac Pro is an exceptional deal. For a consumer forced into a Mac Pro, you're paying roughly twice the price for the same capability.
What they hell are you talking about? I'm not talking about some huge speed decrease. I'm saying that a $2200 2ghz xeon Mac Pro with a Geforce 7300GT should be be pretty close to a $1200 2ghz iMac with Radeon 2400XT in single threaded consumer apps. The only huge anything is the price increase because of server parts. Needed for people running mathmatica, unnecessary for people running games or photoshop.
The reason its $2200 is because of the second CPU. Were it BTO for a single 2.0Ghz Xeon and $1600-$1700 then it's only a little more for the expansion capabilities.
That's a 90% solution to your needs. You continually reject it because of "server parts" being "too slow".
Quote:
Nope, I was very happy with my G3. Then steve jobs decided he needed to start building computers for people who by them as a status symbol instead for those who appreciate how much OSX kicks windows' booty.
Then you should abandon Apple until Jobs retires since you don't like status symbol computers. That's ALL Apple will make EVEN if it decided to make a Conroe based mid-tower.
Quote:
No, I'm trying to turn Apple back into Apple. Instead of the computer equivalent of some designer jean company, And if you want to talked narrow minded, I'm not the one trying to restrict Apple to only its current clientele.
You're trying to turn Apple back to a commodity company as existed when you bought your G3. A company that was one foot in the grave and fading fast.
No thanks.
Quote:
You're 80% solutions are more like 50% solutions and usually involve little more than removing the display from the iMac.
Or a CPU from the Mac Pro. But one point of a headless iMac is...well removing the display. Not everyone makes Conroe or low prices a requirement. Making Conroe and low prices a requirement arguable makes it Not Apple.
Quote:
3. We don't really care about another attempt at seeing how much Apple can stuff into a confined space. What we need is a consumer version of the Mac Pro, a machine that is full featured, powerful, reliable, and innovative in its own categories. Exactly what the PowerMac was before they canned to move the iMac upscale.
Not everyone is in your "we" category. There had been multiple postings about the cube form factor long before I posted so obviously SOMEONE else in this thread cares.
You aren't getting what you "need" from Apple. You aren't likely EVER to get what you "need" from Apple so long as Jobs is CEO.
The PowerMac became the Mac Pro. I have a QuickSilver and a Mac Pro and while the Mac Pro is a bit bigger than the QuickSilver in reality the only difference between the two is that Apple used to offer a single CPU version of the QuickSilver and PowerMac G5 and doesn't yet with the Mac Pro.
The PowerMac has never really been priced for consumers.
The 90s didn't have close to $200 in monthly telecommunications bills either. For a Professional, the Mac Pro is an exceptional deal. For a consumer forced into a Mac Pro, you're paying roughly twice the price for the same capability.
Please. That you elect to spend $200 a month in telecom bills doesn't mean the Mac Pro is out of your reach. Its simply much lower on your priority list to save for so you don't.
A single Xeon 5130 2.0Ghz Dell Precision 690 costs $1509. So the real cost delta between the equivalent "capabilities" is $500 between a Conroe based Dimension and a Xeon based Precision.
There's no way Apple is going to charge $1100 for an eqivalent to the $1100 Dimension so you're looking at $1300-$1400 anyway for the OSX/Apple tax.
So barring not having a single CPU Mac Pro option for $1499 the difference between Apple's line up today and the QuickSilver of 2002 is a few inches of case dimension.
If size it the major differentiator and we only hope for ONE new mac then a Cube + 1 CPU BTO option for the Mac Pro is likely a 90% solution for the entire set xMac users.
The reason its $2200 is because of the second CPU. Were it BTO for a single 2.0Ghz Xeon and $1600-$1700 then it's only a little more for the expansion capabilities.
That's a 90% solution to your needs. You continually reject it because of "server parts" being "too slow".
It's not a a 90% solution, it's a 200% solution. I continually reject it because all the server parts do is add $1500 to the price. For consumers it's not a 2x 2.0ghz system, it's just a 2.0ghz system.
Quote:
You're trying to turn Apple back to a commodity company as existed when you bought your G3. A company that was one foot in the grave and fading fast.
No thanks.
Apple was very profitable between the point when the iMac and B&W G3 were released and the point where the Cube was released. The G4 fiasco and the introduction of the afore mentioned good looking dud changed all that.
Quote:
Or a CPU from the Mac Pro. But one point of a headless iMac is...well removing the display. Not everyone makes Conroe or low prices a requirement. Making Conroe and low prices a requirement arguable makes it Not Apple.
And such people are already served by Apple with the iMac. Also, I never said anything about low prices. Such a machine would be in the $1000+ range to compete with other high end prosumer systems (not budger or gamer), instead of the $2000+ plus ultra professional range the Mac Pro sits in.
Quote:
You aren't getting what you "need" from Apple. You aren't likely EVER to get what you "need" from Apple so long as Jobs is CEO.
With all the higher end desktop users he's slamming the door on, I don't the share holders are getting what they need from Steve Jobs either. Can you imagine what the stock prices would be if he actually wised up?
Quote:
The PowerMac became the Mac Pro. I have a QuickSilver and a Mac Pro and while the Mac Pro is a bit bigger than the QuickSilver in reality the only difference between the two is that Apple used to offer a single CPU version of the QuickSilver and PowerMac G5 and doesn't yet with the Mac Pro.
There in lies the Problem.
Quote:
The PowerMac has never really been priced for consumers.
$1299 is priced for prosumers really? That sounds like the sweet spot to me for entry level. Then again you seem to have trouble telling Prosumers from the budget Dell/HP users.
Please. That you elect to spend $200 a month in telecom bills doesn't mean the Mac Pro is out of your reach. Its simply much lower on your priority list to save for so you don't.
A single Xeon 5130 2.0Ghz Dell Precision 690 costs $1509. So the real cost delta between the equivalent "capabilities" is $500 between a Conroe based Dimension and a Xeon based Precision.
There's no way Apple is going to charge $1100 for an eqivalent to the $1100 Dimension so you're looking at $1300-$1400 anyway for the OSX/Apple tax.
So barring not having a single CPU Mac Pro option for $1499 the difference between Apple's line up today and the QuickSilver of 2002 is a few inches of case dimension.
If size it the major differentiator and we only hope for ONE new mac then a Cube + 1 CPU BTO option for the Mac Pro is likely a 90% solution for the entire set xMac users.
Vinea
They wouldn't not going after the people who want the Prescision 690, they'd be going after the crowd who wants the 390/ XPS410 or even more reliable systems from Velocity Micro, Polywell, and the like. Professional workstations are not some kind of status symbol that make you look cool, rich, ec. They're expensive professional tools that add absolutely nothing in the consumer arena except cost. That's why the desktop Core 2 and the 3-series chipsets were created.
It's not a a 90% solution, it's a 200% solution. I continually reject it because all the server parts do is add $1500 to the price. For consumers it's not a 2x 2.0ghz system, it's just a 2.0ghz system.
Which part of $1500-$1600 for a single CPU BTO is confusing? Oh the part where you want to keep ranting on the "workstation parts doubles the cost" part.
Quote:
$1299 is priced for prosumers really? That sounds like the sweet spot to me for entry level. Then again you seem to have trouble telling Prosumers from the budget Dell/HP users.
$1299 hasn't been "entry level" for a long long time. A $1299 PC is not entry level consumer. $400ish is "budget". $700-$800 gets you a decent consumer machine. $1299puts you well into the prosumer/gamer range.
From www.Apple-History.com. I remember a $1299 model but I missed seeing it while clicking through the PowerMac models. That was for what? A year?
A $1499-$1599 2.0Ghz Single CPU Mac Pro would fit the historical model for Apple. This is only $200-$300 above your desired price point so yes, its a 90% solution for prosumers. Maybe 80% if you really dislike FB-DIMMs.
$1499 PCs are definately in the prosumer price range...can you get more bang for the buck using Conroe? For sure. It it a completely new machine that apple has to design, build and ship? Yep. Is it likely? Nope.
Anyone remember back to mid 2003, when the first PowerMac G5 was released? I think, in terms of a full-featured Apple desktop selection, this was primetime. The selection went as follows:
iMac G4 (15- or 17-inch display)
1.0 (15") or 1.25 (17") GHz PPC G4
80-160GB HD
256MB RAM
Combo (15") or SuperDrive (17")
$1299 (15") or $1799 (17")
PowerMac G4 MDD
1.25 or dual 1.25 GHz PPC G4
80-160GB HD
256MB RAM
Combo Drive
$1299 standard
PowerMac G5
1.6, 1.8, or dual 2.0 GHz PPC G5
80-250GB HD
256 (1.6) or 512MB (1.8 or dual 2.0) RAM
SuperDrive
$1999 (1.6), $2399 (1.6), or $2999 (dual 2.0)
My point here is that they offered the iMac for the all-in-one nuts, the PowerMac G5 for the super professionals, and the PowerMac G4 for the consumers who wanted the upgradability of a tower but without the two-grand pricetag.
Adjust the specs for present-day, and this would be a nice lineup still.
Comments
When I first saw the G5/ Mac Pro case, I thought it was too utilitarian looking.
However, it's grown on me and I think of it now as 'futuristic/minimalist'. No matter what changes are made,
I hope making upgrades remains as easy as in the current case.
It's too bad that other Apple products aren't as easy to modify.
And if I understand correctly, those that object to a smaller computer want multiple PCI cards, drive bays, multiple optical drives, and so on... exactly what the current Mac Pro offers. So for those of you that need or want all that expandability, your needs are being met already!
This thread is for the people who don't want a big empty box, but a nice compact good-looking powerful computer on their desk. Too bad we won't get it -- as proof, Apple's lawyers would have already pulled this thread off the internet if it were in the works.
According to the poll, so far 63 people want a computer smaller than the Mac Pro. I don't know how many people actually read this thread and decided not to vote for a smaller form factor, but I bet it's less than 63.
And if I understand correctly, those that object to a smaller computer want multiple PCI cards, drive bays, multiple optical drives, and so on... exactly what the current Mac Pro offers. So for those of you that need or want all that expandability, your needs are being met already!
This thread is for the people who don't want a big empty box, but a nice compact good-looking powerful computer on their desk. Too bad we won't get it -- as proof, Apple's lawyers would have already pulled this thread off the internet if it were in the works.
Excellent point!
According to the poll, so far 63 people want a computer smaller than the Mac Pro. I don't know how many people actually read this thread and decided not to vote for a smaller form factor, but I bet it's less than 63.
And if I understand correctly, those that object to a smaller computer want multiple PCI cards, drive bays, multiple optical drives, and so on... exactly what the current Mac Pro offers. So for those of you that need or want all that expandability, your needs are being met already!
This thread is for the people who don't want a big empty box, but a nice compact good-looking powerful computer on their desk. Too bad we won't get it -- as proof, Apple's lawyers would have already pulled this thread off the internet if it were in the works.
At $2200, the Mac Pro is prohibitively expensive. At 2ghz, for the Apps that can't take advantage of 4+ cores, it's also not much faster than the low end iMac. Take a look at a Mac Pro, than take a look at something from Gateway, there's a good six inch difference between the two. You're lumping all tower users into one generic category. Asking users to choose between you cube (aka iMac without display) and the Mac Pro is like asking users to choose between a Jetta and an 18-wheeler. There's lots of room in between.
Asking users to choose between you cube (aka iMac without display)
Wrong. The cube is the Mac Pro without the empty space.
The big difference is that the cube uses all desktop components found in the Mac Pro, not the laptop stuff found in the iMac.
Wrong. The cube is the Mac Pro without the empty space.
And without a full speed DVD burner, possibility for a decent video card etc, It might be empty space to you, but as I've been trying to tell you are very low end and yet are trying to pass yourself off as some ultimate authority as to what desktop buyers want.
The big difference is that the cube uses all desktop components found in the Mac Pro, not the laptop stuff found in the iMac.
The motherboard, CPU, and hard drive may fit, but you're not going to be much better than an iMac in terms of Graphics, memory, and optical drive. I think you confuse the capabilitiies of Apple's Cube (8x8x8) with one of the Cube like computers from Shuttle (8.7x8.3x12.8)
This thread is for the people who don't want a big empty box, but a nice compact good-looking powerful computer on their desk. Too bad we won't get it -- as proof, Apple's lawyers would have already pulled this thread off the internet if it were in the works.
No it's not. You didn't start this thread. it's not about a big empty box at all. That's not even a poll question. It's about those who think apple could make a real desktop, driven by a desktop processor, that is somewhere between an iMac, and a Mac Pro. They still want some upgradability, but believe Apple can trim the costs by trimming some of the more excessive features of the Mac pro in half. Don't you read?
At $2200, the Mac Pro is prohibitively expensive. At 2ghz, for the Apps that can't take advantage of 4+ cores, it's also not much faster than the low end iMac.
If the iMac isn't much slower than the 2Ghz Mac Pro then the mobile parts are not the huge speed hit you claim them to be because the Xeon workstations have benched pretty close to their Conroe counterparts at the same clock speeds.
There were a couple games that saw a hit from the FB-DIMMS but pretty much its a wash. For every game that took a hit there's some app that can do 4 cores worth of work.
Take a look at a Mac Pro, than take a look at something from Gateway, there's a good six inch difference between the two. You're lumping all tower users into one generic category. Asking users to choose between you cube (aka iMac without display) and the Mac Pro is like asking users to choose between a Jetta and an 18-wheeler. There's lots of room in between.
Dude, seriously...go get an Acer and get OSx86. If Apple made a mid-tower you'd STILL find something to bitch about. It could be a weaker power supply than you wanted or the lack of a drive bay or EFI limiting graphics cards or SOMETHING.
Even introducing a mid-tower that you wants lumps all tower users into one generic category leaving out everyone else that wants a smaller headless mac slightly better than the mini.
And without a full speed DVD burner, possibility for a decent video card etc, It might be empty space to you, but as I've been trying to tell you are very low end and yet are trying to pass yourself off as some ultimate authority as to what desktop buyers want.
And you're narrow minded in your pursuit in transforming Apple into Gateway. Every time someone suggests an 80-90% solution you whine that its not 100%.
Wah.
The motherboard, CPU, and hard drive may fit, but you're not going to be much better than an iMac in terms of Graphics, memory, and optical drive. I think you confuse the capabilitiies of Apple's Cube (8x8x8) with one of the Cube like computers from Shuttle (8.7x8.3x12.8)
If Alienware can make a dual SLI M7950 17" laptop I bet you can do dual SLI cube in a 8x8x8 form factor and still fit in 4GB RAM and two 3.5" bays. Wouldn't be on a PCIe card though but who cares? 8x8x8 is 512 in^3. 1.5x15.56x11.75 is 275 in^3 and fits a keyboard and 17" LCD and 3 drives.
2.8Ghz X7900
Dual NVidia GeForce Go M7950 GTX (SLI)
4GB RAM
Blu-Ray burner
3.5" HDD
expresscard slot
802.11N
Gigabit Ethernet
FW 400 and 800
4 USB 2.0
That's hardly low end. Of course its likely also $5000 but you'd have an awesome LAN party computer.
A dual 8800GTX SLI, E6850, BluRay, 4GB rig will run you close to $4000 anyway from Alienware.
Lets get back to reality here. That's never gonna happen.
Neither is a mini-tower.
He said you couldn't do it because of space. I found a dual SLI machine using less space.
At $2200, the Mac Pro is prohibitively expensive. .
It's interesting what some people think is prohibitively expensive. The first (cheap) IBM clones with only 20 or 30 MB HDD's and about 8 mHz cost somewhere between $2000 and $3000 (in 1980's dollars) and users seemed to have no qualms about putting out that much. I recall the gurus saying that a (competent) computer with monitor and software would cost around $5000 and that $5000 price was a fact through the 80's and possibly into the 90"s. Look at how the price of cars, houses, etc. has soared in the past few years. A top quality computer like the Mac Pro selling for $2200 is CHEAP.
Not wanting that big box and it's unused space is something else.
If the iMac isn't much slower than the 2Ghz Mac Pro then the mobile parts are not the huge speed hit you claim them to be because the Xeon workstations have benched pretty close to their Conroe counterparts at the same clock speeds.
There were a couple games that saw a hit from the FB-DIMMS but pretty much its a wash. For every game that took a hit there's some app that can do 4 cores worth of work.
What they hell are you talking about? I'm not talking about some huge speed decrease. I'm saying that a $2200 2ghz xeon Mac Pro with a Geforce 7300GT should be be pretty close to a $1200 2ghz iMac with Radeon 2400XT in single threaded consumer apps. The only huge anything is the price increase because of server parts. Needed for people running mathmatica, unnecessary for people running games or photoshop.
Dude, seriously...go get an Acer and get OSx86. If Apple made a mid-tower you'd STILL find something to bitch about. It could be a weaker power supply than you wanted or the lack of a drive bay or EFI limiting graphics cards or SOMETHING.
Nope, I was very happy with my G3. Then steve jobs decided he needed to start building computers for people who by them as a status symbol instead for those who appreciate how much OSX kicks windows' booty.
Even introducing a mid-tower that you wants lumps all tower users into one generic category leaving out everyone else that wants a smaller headless mac slightly better than the mini.
They can build a machine for them too.
And you're narrow minded in your pursuit in transforming Apple into Gateway.
No, I'm trying to turn Apple back into Apple. Instead of the computer equivalent of some designer jean company, And if you want to talked narrow minded, I'm not the one trying to restrict Apple to only its current clientele.
Every time someone suggests an 80-90% solution you whine that its not 100%.
You're 80% solutions are more like 50% solutions and usually involve little more than removing the display from the iMac.
If Alienware can make a dual SLI M7950 17" laptop I bet you can do dual SLI cube in a 8x8x8 form factor and still fit in 4GB RAM and two 3.5" bays. Wouldn't be on a PCIe card though but who cares? 8x8x8 is 512 in^3. 1.5x15.56x11.75 is 275 in^3 and fits a keyboard and 17" LCD and 3 drives.
2.8Ghz X7900
Dual NVidia GeForce Go M7950 GTX (SLI)
4GB RAM
Blu-Ray burner
3.5" HDD
expresscard slot
802.11N
Gigabit Ethernet
FW 400 and 800
4 USB 2.0
That's hardly low end. Of course its likely also $5000 but you'd have an awesome LAN party computer.
A dual 8800GTX SLI, E6850, BluRay, 4GB rig will run you close to $4000 anyway from Alienware.
1. You're looking at $3000 starting.
2. Nobody ever said anything about SLI. It and crossfire don't do enough good to justify the extreme costs.
3. We don't really care about another attempt at seeing how much Apple can stuff into a confined space. What we need is a consumer version of the Mac Pro, a machine that is full featured, powerful, reliable, and innovative in its own categories. Exactly what the PowerMac was before they canned to move the iMac upscale.
It's interesting what some people think is prohibitively expensive. The first (cheap) IBM clones with only 20 or 30 MB HDD's and about 8 mHz cost somewhere between $2000 and $3000 (in 1980's dollars) and users seemed to have no qualms about putting out that much. I recall the gurus saying that a (competent) computer with monitor and software would cost around $5000 and that $5000 price was a fact through the 80's and possibly into the 90"s. Look at how the price of cars, houses, etc. has soared in the past few years. A top quality computer like the Mac Pro selling for $2200 is CHEAP.
Not wanting that big box and it's unused space is something else.
The 90s didn't have close to $200 in monthly telecommunications bills either. For a Professional, the Mac Pro is an exceptional deal. For a consumer forced into a Mac Pro, you're paying roughly twice the price for the same capability.
What they hell are you talking about? I'm not talking about some huge speed decrease. I'm saying that a $2200 2ghz xeon Mac Pro with a Geforce 7300GT should be be pretty close to a $1200 2ghz iMac with Radeon 2400XT in single threaded consumer apps. The only huge anything is the price increase because of server parts. Needed for people running mathmatica, unnecessary for people running games or photoshop.
The reason its $2200 is because of the second CPU. Were it BTO for a single 2.0Ghz Xeon and $1600-$1700 then it's only a little more for the expansion capabilities.
That's a 90% solution to your needs. You continually reject it because of "server parts" being "too slow".
Nope, I was very happy with my G3. Then steve jobs decided he needed to start building computers for people who by them as a status symbol instead for those who appreciate how much OSX kicks windows' booty.
Then you should abandon Apple until Jobs retires since you don't like status symbol computers. That's ALL Apple will make EVEN if it decided to make a Conroe based mid-tower.
No, I'm trying to turn Apple back into Apple. Instead of the computer equivalent of some designer jean company, And if you want to talked narrow minded, I'm not the one trying to restrict Apple to only its current clientele.
You're trying to turn Apple back to a commodity company as existed when you bought your G3. A company that was one foot in the grave and fading fast.
No thanks.
You're 80% solutions are more like 50% solutions and usually involve little more than removing the display from the iMac.
Or a CPU from the Mac Pro. But one point of a headless iMac is...well removing the display. Not everyone makes Conroe or low prices a requirement. Making Conroe and low prices a requirement arguable makes it Not Apple.
3. We don't really care about another attempt at seeing how much Apple can stuff into a confined space. What we need is a consumer version of the Mac Pro, a machine that is full featured, powerful, reliable, and innovative in its own categories. Exactly what the PowerMac was before they canned to move the iMac upscale.
Not everyone is in your "we" category. There had been multiple postings about the cube form factor long before I posted so obviously SOMEONE else in this thread cares.
You aren't getting what you "need" from Apple. You aren't likely EVER to get what you "need" from Apple so long as Jobs is CEO.
The PowerMac became the Mac Pro. I have a QuickSilver and a Mac Pro and while the Mac Pro is a bit bigger than the QuickSilver in reality the only difference between the two is that Apple used to offer a single CPU version of the QuickSilver and PowerMac G5 and doesn't yet with the Mac Pro.
The PowerMac has never really been priced for consumers.
Vinea
The 90s didn't have close to $200 in monthly telecommunications bills either. For a Professional, the Mac Pro is an exceptional deal. For a consumer forced into a Mac Pro, you're paying roughly twice the price for the same capability.
Please. That you elect to spend $200 a month in telecom bills doesn't mean the Mac Pro is out of your reach. Its simply much lower on your priority list to save for so you don't.
A single Xeon 5130 2.0Ghz Dell Precision 690 costs $1509. So the real cost delta between the equivalent "capabilities" is $500 between a Conroe based Dimension and a Xeon based Precision.
There's no way Apple is going to charge $1100 for an eqivalent to the $1100 Dimension so you're looking at $1300-$1400 anyway for the OSX/Apple tax.
So barring not having a single CPU Mac Pro option for $1499 the difference between Apple's line up today and the QuickSilver of 2002 is a few inches of case dimension.
If size it the major differentiator and we only hope for ONE new mac then a Cube + 1 CPU BTO option for the Mac Pro is likely a 90% solution for the entire set xMac users.
Vinea
The reason its $2200 is because of the second CPU. Were it BTO for a single 2.0Ghz Xeon and $1600-$1700 then it's only a little more for the expansion capabilities.
That's a 90% solution to your needs. You continually reject it because of "server parts" being "too slow".
It's not a a 90% solution, it's a 200% solution. I continually reject it because all the server parts do is add $1500 to the price. For consumers it's not a 2x 2.0ghz system, it's just a 2.0ghz system.
You're trying to turn Apple back to a commodity company as existed when you bought your G3. A company that was one foot in the grave and fading fast.
No thanks.
Apple was very profitable between the point when the iMac and B&W G3 were released and the point where the Cube was released. The G4 fiasco and the introduction of the afore mentioned good looking dud changed all that.
Or a CPU from the Mac Pro. But one point of a headless iMac is...well removing the display. Not everyone makes Conroe or low prices a requirement. Making Conroe and low prices a requirement arguable makes it Not Apple.
And such people are already served by Apple with the iMac. Also, I never said anything about low prices. Such a machine would be in the $1000+ range to compete with other high end prosumer systems (not budger or gamer), instead of the $2000+ plus ultra professional range the Mac Pro sits in.
You aren't getting what you "need" from Apple. You aren't likely EVER to get what you "need" from Apple so long as Jobs is CEO.
With all the higher end desktop users he's slamming the door on, I don't the share holders are getting what they need from Steve Jobs either. Can you imagine what the stock prices would be if he actually wised up?
The PowerMac became the Mac Pro. I have a QuickSilver and a Mac Pro and while the Mac Pro is a bit bigger than the QuickSilver in reality the only difference between the two is that Apple used to offer a single CPU version of the QuickSilver and PowerMac G5 and doesn't yet with the Mac Pro.
There in lies the Problem.
The PowerMac has never really been priced for consumers.
$1299 is priced for prosumers really? That sounds like the sweet spot to me for entry level. Then again you seem to have trouble telling Prosumers from the budget Dell/HP users.
Please. That you elect to spend $200 a month in telecom bills doesn't mean the Mac Pro is out of your reach. Its simply much lower on your priority list to save for so you don't.
A single Xeon 5130 2.0Ghz Dell Precision 690 costs $1509. So the real cost delta between the equivalent "capabilities" is $500 between a Conroe based Dimension and a Xeon based Precision.
There's no way Apple is going to charge $1100 for an eqivalent to the $1100 Dimension so you're looking at $1300-$1400 anyway for the OSX/Apple tax.
So barring not having a single CPU Mac Pro option for $1499 the difference between Apple's line up today and the QuickSilver of 2002 is a few inches of case dimension.
If size it the major differentiator and we only hope for ONE new mac then a Cube + 1 CPU BTO option for the Mac Pro is likely a 90% solution for the entire set xMac users.
Vinea
They wouldn't not going after the people who want the Prescision 690, they'd be going after the crowd who wants the 390/ XPS410 or even more reliable systems from Velocity Micro, Polywell, and the like. Professional workstations are not some kind of status symbol that make you look cool, rich, ec. They're expensive professional tools that add absolutely nothing in the consumer arena except cost. That's why the desktop Core 2 and the 3-series chipsets were created.
It's not a a 90% solution, it's a 200% solution. I continually reject it because all the server parts do is add $1500 to the price. For consumers it's not a 2x 2.0ghz system, it's just a 2.0ghz system.
Which part of $1500-$1600 for a single CPU BTO is confusing? Oh the part where you want to keep ranting on the "workstation parts doubles the cost" part.
$1299 is priced for prosumers really? That sounds like the sweet spot to me for entry level. Then again you seem to have trouble telling Prosumers from the budget Dell/HP users.
$1299 hasn't been "entry level" for a long long time. A $1299 PC is not entry level consumer. $400ish is "budget". $700-$800 gets you a decent consumer machine. $1299puts you well into the prosumer/gamer range.
And the PowerMac hasn't been $1299 very often.
1999 PowerMac G3 $1599 (Blue and White)
2000 PowerMac G4 $1599 (GigE)
2001 PowerMac G4 $1699 (Digital Audio)
2001 PowerMac G4 $1699 (QuickSilver)
2002 PowerMac G4 $1599 (QuickSilver 2002)
2003 PowerMac G4 $1499 (FW800)
2003 PowerMac G5 $1799 (Single 1.6)
2004 PowerMac G5 $1499 (Single 1.8)
2005 PowerMac G5 $1499 (Single 1.8)
2005 PowerMac G5 $1999 (dual 2.0 - 1.8 discontinued)
2006 Mac Pro $2200 (dual 2.0)
From www.Apple-History.com. I remember a $1299 model but I missed seeing it while clicking through the PowerMac models. That was for what? A year?
A $1499-$1599 2.0Ghz Single CPU Mac Pro would fit the historical model for Apple. This is only $200-$300 above your desired price point so yes, its a 90% solution for prosumers. Maybe 80% if you really dislike FB-DIMMs.
$1499 PCs are definately in the prosumer price range...can you get more bang for the buck using Conroe? For sure. It it a completely new machine that apple has to design, build and ship? Yep. Is it likely? Nope.
Vinea
iMac G4 (15- or 17-inch display)
1.0 (15") or 1.25 (17") GHz PPC G4
80-160GB HD
256MB RAM
Combo (15") or SuperDrive (17")
$1299 (15") or $1799 (17")
PowerMac G4 MDD
1.25 or dual 1.25 GHz PPC G4
80-160GB HD
256MB RAM
Combo Drive
$1299 standard
PowerMac G5
1.6, 1.8, or dual 2.0 GHz PPC G5
80-250GB HD
256 (1.6) or 512MB (1.8 or dual 2.0) RAM
SuperDrive
$1999 (1.6), $2399 (1.6), or $2999 (dual 2.0)
My point here is that they offered the iMac for the all-in-one nuts, the PowerMac G5 for the super professionals, and the PowerMac G4 for the consumers who wanted the upgradability of a tower but without the two-grand pricetag.
Adjust the specs for present-day, and this would be a nice lineup still.