BS... I bought the single processor mac pro because I needed the internal expandability and didn't need the insane power of 8 cores. The extra $ I saved helped pay for internal audio processing cards for Logic Pro. You can't add a second processor to the BTO single processor without installing a new motherboard... so those looking to save some $ and upgrade to a dual engine in the future are screwed.
Are you sure? In other threads, maybe on the Apple support forum too, people noted that there was only one board part number, not two as a board without a second socket would suggest. Do you know if someone went inside and find solder points instead of a socket?
So far, I've not found any photos of the pieces of the machine. I think that would settle the ambiguity, or if you prefer, the argument.
Actually I think you are close to what Steve has in mind. A combination of an Xserve, Time Capsule and Apple TV: a "whole home server" seems like Apples near future. Set it up and go from anywhere in the house. Laptops, desk tops , iphones/ipods can all access it . Set top boxes or adapters ( wifi/or whatever) for TV's/monitors, appliences , even your car, etc.
That would be very useful, although I'd hope they put in a DVR if they go to all that trouble. Have you seen the Apple DVR patent? Great stuff.
But I'd be worried that Apple would sell it as a Home Media Appliance, not a more 'general purpose' XServe SOHO. I'd personally want it to have several internal drive bays, and it better run OS X Server.
I had planned to use my old G4 as a file server, but it got killed by the 800MHz Leopard requirement change.
There is so much to admire about Apple, and watching the Jobs Plan for World Domination unfold is fascinating as an intellectual exercise if nothing else. However, they are ruthless at times. They know their market extremely well, and their desktop range shows this. The minis for entry level or second computer, the iMac for consumers and the pro range for professionals, and as the large majority of their customers fit into one of those broad categories it works well for both parties. However, if you sit in between two of those categories it is something of a dilemma, as is the case with me. I produce artwork on my aged (but beloved) G4 iMac, and could be described as a serious hobbyist/prosumer. What I do is for my own creative satisfaction, and for friends, and perhaps in time there may be some modest commercial possibilities with what I do. The top of the range iMac (which this was when I bought it) is the ideal machine for me, except that I really do not want a glossy screen, because accurate colour is essential to my work. On the other hand, I really cannot justify the cost of a Mac Pro and decent monitor so I am stuck betwixt and between, hence by default my trusty G4 has to keep trundling away.
I think this is why they have made all iMacs with glossy screens, and why I fear they will not change it despite being asked to by their customers. The top iMac, particularly since the fourth 'extreme' model was introduced, was turning up in a number of professional graphic studios, but as we know they are supposed to buy Pros (and ideally an ACD), and so now if they want colour accuracy they are compelled to move up a level. The 3.06 iMac is the absolutely perfect specification/price machine for me, and if it wasn't for the glossy screen I would be writing this on one already. I understand why they do it, it is a clearly defined and canny bit of strategy, but its not doing me any favours.
Have you considered getting a refurbished last gen iMac? I saw some good prices for the white 24" models on the store the other day. This might be your best bet right now.
I was under the impression that the 'third quarter' was April to June, not July to September (which is usually called 4Q). Doesn't the fiscal year begin in October?
Do they mean 'third quarter' or July-September?
The way that AppleInsider wrote the article, it refers to the Calendar year which is January 1st to December 31st, not to Apple's fiscal (financial) year which for simplicity runs from October through September.
As such, the article's reference to "third quarter" would cover the calendar period of July, August and September, which corresponds to Apple's fourth (fiscal) quarter (Q4).
Most companies set their first fiscal year on the first of the month in which they were incorporated. Usually they start on the first day of the month, but it isn't necessary as Apple demonstrates.
A company can change their fiscal year period. Most often it is set to end when the inventories are at their seasonally lowest level. Apple was incorporated on Jan 4, 1977, but later changed its fiscal to start at the end of September (year unknown).
I hope they come out with a mid-range desktop too, such as a mid-tower.
As I see it the main reason people want a mid range tower so they can spec it out with cheap parts at a low cost. But the problems are Apple loses out on cost of the parts (because they will inevitably be purchased somewhere cheaper and people are less inclined to upgrade the whole system) and because people will put in a multitude parts (which increases the number of permutations apple must code for) of low potentially quality (which gives the perception that OS X performs poorly when it is really the hardware that is at fault). Also the idea of separate towers and monitors and cords and shit is the kind of thing Apple does not want muddying up it's designer image. I get the impression that steve barely tolerates the mac mini which is why it remains small and for all intensive purposes unupgradeable by a regular consumer. If a mid tower was released cheaper than the iMac it would quickly become the only Mac everyone purchased as computer purchasers have been trained into thinking "price" and "customiseability". Apple is slowly re-educating the masses to think about "uniformity" and "deep integration". Being able to look at any iMac and know exactly what software is on it and what it is capable of is a beautiful thing that should not be underestimated.
it still amazes me that in the discussion about an article purely about laptops, both the first post and the majority of the posting that follows is about a completely different product that doesn't exist - all of which is a re-hash of the same old stuff.
it is unlikely to happen, but i wish we could confine all the pining for an xMac/whatever-the-heck-it-would-be-called to a single thread. it could be just as enthralling as the HD vs BR thread....
Reason #2 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MFago
We use laptops at home and I need a home file server, call it an XServe SOHO. Take the mainboard from a Mini, add 4 drive bays, perhaps one PCI slot and beef up the power supply and fans etc. Put it in a very cute mini-tower case. I'd think $999-$1299 wouldn't be unreasonable.
The closest thing I can get to this is a Mac Mini with an external drive enclosure(s) using Firewire 400 (not really meant for a server), or $2500 for a Mac Pro (way overkill). So guess what? I haven't bought anything ...
Apple wants us to get all of our music/TV/Movies over iTunes, but won't sell us any place to put it!
Put a Mini, a Time Capsule, and an Apple TV together and you've got all the functionality you mention here, in about the same price range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reallynotnick
The reason I want a cheap tower is not so much for it's upgradability but it's power/price ratio.
The iMac has a mobile CPU and a mobile GPU which to me is the most important part of the machine. By increasing the case size and just using desktop chips you could have a considerably faster computer for the exact same price.
The Mac Pro's are really out of that golden power per dollar ratio as they use the latest and greatest chips which cost a pretty penny.
If you want something that is this type of machine, you're saying that you don't need the power of the full Mac Pro, but want more power than an iMac, then you should just get the single quad-core processor MacPro and save yourself $500. You get the expandability you want, the horsepower level you want, and you're not paying the full $2700. It may not be as cheap as you want, but it does give you all of the things you're asking for.
Reason #3 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin
Exactly why Apple doesn't want to build one. Why add additional product design and management, component and finished product inventory, mfg. lines, and potentially massive support issues tied to third party DIY upgrades, just to make razor-thin margins so you can compete with all the other beige-box systems? That is not the road to shareholder happy-land.
...The name of the game is profitable sales leading to consistent share price growth, not pleasing every possible market segment.
Let's not forget that computers are appliances now, not much different than GPS's, MP3/Audio players, toasters, etc. The evolution of the technology and the market has moved to the point where people who want to tinker and upgrade and all of that are living in the past. Seriously, take an old Dual G5 tower, like a Quicksilver, or an MDD, and there is absolutely no way you can get the same functionality and power out of one of those by upgrading it and spend less money than buying a new machine. Those who refuse to accept such basic facts and stubbornly cling to the idea of a box they can progressively upgrade, etc. are in denial. Computers are no longer specialized technology that such an approach makes sense with anymore... again, they're appliances now.
Reason #4 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
Quote:
Originally Posted by suhail
Exactly!
I need a mid-tower because I'd like to have two 20" monitors and a 12" Wacom. MacPro starts at a whopping $2,700, it's insane! iMac and the Mac-mini cannot serve my needs.
If that doesn't happen soon, I'll be forced to buy a nice PC box, install hackintosh, and slowly migrate to the dark, and more flexible, side. It'll be sad... been an Apple user since 1981.
If you want that kind of power/set-up, then your requirements fall into the PRO category... again, it's not rocket science. If you don't want to pony up $2700, go to a single quad-processor. You'll get all that you want and it wont cost you as much.
If you want to try doing Hackintosh, give it your best shot... I'd be willing to be a sizable amount of money that you'll end up spending more in time (and money) just making the thing run and keeping it running than you'd save by buying the cheaper hardware and hacking 10.5 to run on it.
Also factor in the cost of not being able to run routine security upgrades, 10.5.X updates, etc. and your cost increases even further. You end up cutting off your nose to try and spite Apple. You're just complaining that you can't be a cheap-skate.
Reason #5 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks
As I see it the main reason people want a mid range tower so they can spec it out with cheap parts at a low cost.
Suhail and Reallynotnick above fall exactly into this category as I mention at the end of #4 above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks
But the problems are Apple loses out on cost of the parts (because they will inevitably be purchased somewhere cheaper and people are less inclined to upgrade the whole system) and because people will put in a multitude parts (which increases the number of permutations apple must code for) of low potentially quality (which gives the perception that OS X performs poorly when it is really the hardware that is at fault).
Also the idea of separate towers and monitors and cords and shit is the kind of thing Apple does not want muddying up it's designer image.
Exactly. Jobs would go postal with an Uzi in Cupertino before he let something like this happen... This also goes along with my statement above that computers are appliances now. When your toaster craps out on you, you go down to the Home Depot and buy a new one. Same with computers now days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks
Apple is slowly re-educating the masses to think about "uniformity" and "deep integration". Being able to look at any iMac and know exactly what software is on it and what it is capable of is a beautiful thing that should not be underestimated.
Here again, Jobs would go Postal with some type of fully automatic firearm before he back-slid on developing this model for Apple's products.
The bottom line is, that there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple. I'm not saying that the idea doesn't have it's merits, it does. But the simple fact is that for so many reasons it simply does not make sense economically, nor does it fall into the broader vision Apple has for its products. So GET OVER IT ALREADY.
Reason #2 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
Put a Mini, a Time Capsule, and an Apple TV together and you've got all the functionality you mention here, in about the same price range.
If you want something that is this type of machine, you're saying that you don't need the power of the full Mac Pro, but want more power than an iMac, then you should just get the single quad-core processor MacPro and save yourself $500. You get the expandability you want, the horsepower level you want, and you're not paying the full $2700. It may not be as cheap as you want, but it does give you all of the things you're asking for.
Reason #3 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
Let's not forget that computers are appliances now, not much different than GPS's, MP3/Audio players, toasters, etc. The evolution of the technology and the market has moved to the point where people who want to tinker and upgrade and all of that are living in the past. Seriously, take an old Dual G5 tower, like a Quicksilver, or an MDD, and there is absolutely no way you can get the same functionality and power out of one of those by upgrading it and spend less money than buying a new machine. Those who refuse to accept such basic facts and stubbornly cling to the idea of a box they can progressively upgrade, etc. are in denial. Computers are no longer specialized technology that such an approach makes sense with anymore... again, they're appliances now.
If you want that kind of power/set-up, then your requirements fall into the PRO category... again, it's not rocket science. If you don't want to pony up $2700, go to a single quad-processor. You'll get all that you want and it wont cost you as much.
If you want to try doing Hackintosh, give it your best shot... I'd be willing to be a sizable amount of money that you'll end up spending more in time (and money) just making the thing run and keeping it running than you'd save by buying the cheaper hardware and hacking 10.5 to run on it.
Also factor in the cost of not being able to run routine security upgrades, 10.5.X updates, etc. and your cost increases even further. You end up cutting off your nose to try and spite Apple. You're just complaining that you can't be a cheap-skate.
Reason #5 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
Suhail and Reallynotnick above fall exactly into this category as I mention at the end of #4 above.
Exactly. Jobs would go postal with an Uzi in Cupertino before he let something like this happen... This also goes along with my statement above that computers are appliances now. When your toaster craps out on you, you go down to the Home Depot and buy a new one. Same with computers now days.
Here again, Jobs would go Postal with some type of fully automatic firearm before he back-slid on developing this model for Apple's products.
The bottom line is, that there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple. I'm not saying that the idea doesn't have it's merits, it does. But the simple fact is that for so many reasons it simply does not make sense economically, nor does it fall into the broader vision Apple has for its products. So GET OVER IT ALREADY.
1. The mini is over priced and under powered.
2. The build in screen in the imac are not that good.
3. The older g4 and g5 started at $1200 - $2000 the mac pro starts at $2200.
4. Apple has no laptop with a 15" screen under $2000
5. Apple has no laptop with any kind of better video card then the Intel GMA POS under $2000
Why not get the 3.06 iMac and a second non-glossy display?
I suspect that is what I will end up doing, but the only reason for getting a second monitor (with cost implications) is because there is not that tick box on the order form - glossy or matte.
So I, the customer, have to adjust what I do to suit the wishes of the company, which isn't how it's supposed to work really is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KD86
Have you considered getting a refurbished last gen iMac? I saw some good prices for the white 24" models on the store the other day. This might be your best bet right now.
That would be an option, except I live in the south of Portugal, where the Apple presence is very minimal. There is one reseller in my province, but it is really a repair shop with a very basic retail side, and there is no Apple shop in the country. About 18 months ago an apple.com/pt page did appear, but as of now (and I just checked) there are zero refurbs available there!
It is frustrating, that 3.06 looks so damn tasty...
If you want that kind of power/set-up, then your requirements fall into the PRO category... again, it's not rocket science. If you don't want to pony up $2700, go to a single quad-processor. You'll get all that you want and it wont cost you as much.
If you want to try doing Hackintosh, give it your best shot... I'd be willing to be a sizable amount of money that you'll end up spending more in time (and money) just making the thing run and keeping it running than you'd save by buying the cheaper hardware and hacking 10.5 to run on it.
Also factor in the cost of not being able to run routine security upgrades, 10.5.X updates, etc. and your cost increases even further. You end up cutting off your nose to try and spite Apple. You're just complaining that you can't be a cheap-skate.
That is not true, Apple had the Mac-IIci as an alternative to the overpriced Mac-II. The IIci used the same quality components and was considerably cheaper, for people who couldn't afford a Mac II the IIci was perfect. Then in the early 90's Apple came out with the Quadra-700 which was also an alternative to the overpriced Quadra-950 and both machines were one of Apple's most successful ones, they both put Apple in the pro print arena and gave people a glimpse into the future of video. The mac IIci was still selling strong until it was replaced with a faster but horribly packaged mac IIcx.
So if Apple brings out a computer that is half the size of the MacPro it will cost less not because it will have cheaper components but because it will use less desktop components, a smaller power-supply, weighs less, less cooling fans, smaller circuit board, but can still handle a couple of PCI cards. And I'm not being a "cheap-skate", if Apple made a mid-sized mac all I'd do is add RAM and two fast graphic cards, and I would upgrade them whenever I feel the need to do so.
You cannot compare the MacPro to a mid-tower PC because the PC will be much cheaper no matter what you add to it; however, you can compare the MacPro to a full-tower PC and get similar prices. Heck, some of the full-tower PCs have hot-swappable RAID bays which makes them more attractive to some.
Quote:
The bottom line is, that there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple. I'm not saying that the idea doesn't have it's merits, it does. But the simple fact is that for so many reasons it simply does not make sense economically, nor does it fall into the broader vision Apple has for its products. So GET OVER IT ALREADY.
The way that AppleInsider wrote the article, it refers to the Calendar year which is January 1st to December 31st, not to Apple's fiscal (financial) year which for simplicity runs from October through September.
As such, the article's reference to "third quarter" would cover the calendar period of July, August and September, which corresponds to Apple's fourth (fiscal) quarter (Q4).
Most companies set their first fiscal year on the first of the month in which they were incorporated. Usually they start on the first day of the month, but it isn't necessary as Apple demonstrates.
A company can change their fiscal year period. Most often it is set to end when the inventories are at their seasonally lowest level. Apple was incorporated on Jan 4, 1977, but later changed its fiscal to start at the end of September (year unknown).
Thanks for clearing it up.
I suppose I can wait a little longer for the new macbooks. I've been waiting for four years ever since I got my sh**ty dell and regretted it within a month. Plus, fingers crossed I will have the new iPhone to comfort me while I wait!
2. The build in screen in the imac are not that good.
3. The older g4 and g5 started at $1200 - $2000 the mac pro starts at $2200.
4. Apple has no laptop with a 15" screen under $2000
5. Apple has no laptop with any kind of better video card then the Intel GMA POS under $2000
Agreed on all points. I find it bordering on insane that anyone could possibly defend Apple's current lineup. The only products that are any good are prohibitively expensive, while the only affordable offerings are complete and utter garbage.
I paid $1600 for my old G4. It served me very well specifically because I was able to upgrade it along the way as my needs changed. Computer prices have dropped considerably since then, yet the only comparable replacement to it Apple has now is three grand? That is stupid. I ended up getting an Aluminum iMac only because it was the only choice Apple offered in a reasonable price range, and I could not be any less happy with this piece of junk.
I'm also wondering who these people are that DON'T upgrade their computers? Outside of claims on this forum, I don't know any PC users that don't. When it used to be possible on a Mac, I didn't know any Mac users that didn't either. Video card, CPU, RAM, and additional drives were the minimum. I know I swapped out a lot of parts on my G4, and it was easy to do with generic parts at my local "build your own PC" mart. 95 % of all computer users can do this, Apple users are stupid if they just accept it that they can't.
Agreed on all points. I find it bordering on insane that anyone could possibly defend Apple's current lineup. The only products that are any good are prohibitively expensive, while the only affordable offerings are complete and utter garbage.
I paid $1600 for my old G4. It served me very well specifically because I was able to upgrade it along the way as my needs changed. Computer prices have dropped considerably since then, yet the only comparable replacement to it Apple has now is three grand? That is stupid. I ended up getting an Aluminum iMac only because it was the only choice Apple offered in a reasonable price range, and I could not be any less happy with this piece of junk.
I'm also wondering who these people are that DON'T upgrade their computers? Outside of claims on this forum, I don't know any PC users that don't. When it used to be possible on a Mac, I didn't know any Mac users that didn't either. Video card, CPU, RAM, and additional drives were the minimum. I know I swapped out a lot of parts on my G4, and it was easy to do with generic parts at my local "build your own PC" mart. 95 % of all computer users can do this, Apple users are stupid if they just accept it that they can't.
Well said bsenka. Today's average computer user is more advanced and capable than yesterday's user, and the imac is a black-box.
Until software is more widely available for download and movies are available at faster speeds, I just don't see it. As it stands, to install most software, you would need either a second computer (which most users don't have) or an external optical drive (which is annoying). Again, I think it's coming, but not for a few years. No way Apple releases the Air and then a Macbook - optical drive a year later. That would massively cannibalize Air sales and Apple isn't stupid enough to do that.
The only time that you really need a CD Drive is to install big apps like Office and Adobe Suits, but colleges and companies now have network repositories for stuff like that. so that leaves CDs...rip some DVDs and CDs to the HDD and be done with it...give me an external DVD drive and take a an lb or two out of it...or add that many more cells to the battery...anyone want a 15-20 hour battery? would be easy with SSD, LED, no CD, and all the recoverd space filled with new cells.
Why do you think it needs to run Leopard in order to do that job well?
Ubuntu PPC edition would work better than any flavor of OSX for that...gotta use the right tool for the right job, and OSX is NEVER the right tool for a server...NEVER
Ubuntu PPC edition would work better than any flavor of OSX for that...gotta use the right tool for the right job, and OSX is NEVER the right tool for a server...NEVER
Agreed on all points. I find it bordering on insane that anyone could possibly defend Apple's current lineup. The only products that are any good are prohibitively expensive, while the only affordable offerings are complete and utter garbage.
I paid $1600 for my old G4. It served me very well specifically because I was able to upgrade it along the way as my needs changed. Computer prices have dropped considerably since then, yet the only comparable replacement to it Apple has now is three grand? That is stupid. I ended up getting an Aluminum iMac only because it was the only choice Apple offered in a reasonable price range, and I could not be any less happy with this piece of junk.
I'm also wondering who these people are that DON'T upgrade their computers? Outside of claims on this forum, I don't know any PC users that don't. When it used to be possible on a Mac, I didn't know any Mac users that didn't either. Video card, CPU, RAM, and additional drives were the minimum. I know I swapped out a lot of parts on my G4, and it was easy to do with generic parts at my local "build your own PC" mart. 95 % of all computer users can do this, Apple users are stupid if they just accept it that they can't.
95%? Really? No way 95% of computer users would feel comfortable upgrading their own computer. I won't throw out a number, but I'd be surprised if it's even a majority of users.
Comments
BS... I bought the single processor mac pro because I needed the internal expandability and didn't need the insane power of 8 cores. The extra $ I saved helped pay for internal audio processing cards for Logic Pro. You can't add a second processor to the BTO single processor without installing a new motherboard... so those looking to save some $ and upgrade to a dual engine in the future are screwed.
Are you sure? In other threads, maybe on the Apple support forum too, people noted that there was only one board part number, not two as a board without a second socket would suggest. Do you know if someone went inside and find solder points instead of a socket?
So far, I've not found any photos of the pieces of the machine. I think that would settle the ambiguity, or if you prefer, the argument.
Actually I think you are close to what Steve has in mind. A combination of an Xserve, Time Capsule and Apple TV: a "whole home server" seems like Apples near future. Set it up and go from anywhere in the house. Laptops, desk tops , iphones/ipods can all access it . Set top boxes or adapters ( wifi/or whatever) for TV's/monitors, appliences , even your car, etc.
That would be very useful, although I'd hope they put in a DVR if they go to all that trouble. Have you seen the Apple DVR patent? Great stuff.
But I'd be worried that Apple would sell it as a Home Media Appliance, not a more 'general purpose' XServe SOHO. I'd personally want it to have several internal drive bays, and it better run OS X Server.
I had planned to use my old G4 as a file server, but it got killed by the 800MHz Leopard requirement change.
- Matt
There is so much to admire about Apple, and watching the Jobs Plan for World Domination unfold is fascinating as an intellectual exercise if nothing else. However, they are ruthless at times. They know their market extremely well, and their desktop range shows this. The minis for entry level or second computer, the iMac for consumers and the pro range for professionals, and as the large majority of their customers fit into one of those broad categories it works well for both parties. However, if you sit in between two of those categories it is something of a dilemma, as is the case with me. I produce artwork on my aged (but beloved) G4 iMac, and could be described as a serious hobbyist/prosumer. What I do is for my own creative satisfaction, and for friends, and perhaps in time there may be some modest commercial possibilities with what I do. The top of the range iMac (which this was when I bought it) is the ideal machine for me, except that I really do not want a glossy screen, because accurate colour is essential to my work. On the other hand, I really cannot justify the cost of a Mac Pro and decent monitor so I am stuck betwixt and between, hence by default my trusty G4 has to keep trundling away.
I think this is why they have made all iMacs with glossy screens, and why I fear they will not change it despite being asked to by their customers. The top iMac, particularly since the fourth 'extreme' model was introduced, was turning up in a number of professional graphic studios, but as we know they are supposed to buy Pros (and ideally an ACD), and so now if they want colour accuracy they are compelled to move up a level. The 3.06 iMac is the absolutely perfect specification/price machine for me, and if it wasn't for the glossy screen I would be writing this on one already. I understand why they do it, it is a clearly defined and canny bit of strategy, but its not doing me any favours.
Have you considered getting a refurbished last gen iMac? I saw some good prices for the white 24" models on the store the other day. This might be your best bet right now.
I was under the impression that the 'third quarter' was April to June, not July to September (which is usually called 4Q). Doesn't the fiscal year begin in October?
Do they mean 'third quarter' or July-September?
The way that AppleInsider wrote the article, it refers to the Calendar year which is January 1st to December 31st, not to Apple's fiscal (financial) year which for simplicity runs from October through September.
As such, the article's reference to "third quarter" would cover the calendar period of July, August and September, which corresponds to Apple's fourth (fiscal) quarter (Q4).
Most companies set their first fiscal year on the first of the month in which they were incorporated. Usually they start on the first day of the month, but it isn't necessary as Apple demonstrates.
A company can change their fiscal year period. Most often it is set to end when the inventories are at their seasonally lowest level. Apple was incorporated on Jan 4, 1977, but later changed its fiscal to start at the end of September (year unknown).
I hope they come out with a mid-range desktop too, such as a mid-tower.
As I see it the main reason people want a mid range tower so they can spec it out with cheap parts at a low cost. But the problems are Apple loses out on cost of the parts (because they will inevitably be purchased somewhere cheaper and people are less inclined to upgrade the whole system) and because people will put in a multitude parts (which increases the number of permutations apple must code for) of low potentially quality (which gives the perception that OS X performs poorly when it is really the hardware that is at fault). Also the idea of separate towers and monitors and cords and shit is the kind of thing Apple does not want muddying up it's designer image. I get the impression that steve barely tolerates the mac mini which is why it remains small and for all intensive purposes unupgradeable by a regular consumer. If a mid tower was released cheaper than the iMac it would quickly become the only Mac everyone purchased as computer purchasers have been trained into thinking "price" and "customiseability". Apple is slowly re-educating the masses to think about "uniformity" and "deep integration". Being able to look at any iMac and know exactly what software is on it and what it is capable of is a beautiful thing that should not be underestimated.
it is unlikely to happen, but i wish we could confine all the pining for an xMac/whatever-the-heck-it-would-be-called to a single thread. it could be just as enthralling as the HD vs BR thread....
I hope they come out with a mid-range desktop too, such as a mid-tower.
Let's put this all together, shall we?
Reason #1 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
...the kind of people who upgrade their computers are also the ones that hang out in places like this (forums) and complain...
But, seriously, how many of the millions of Apple and PC users upgrade their computers beyond RAM and possibly a hard disk...
__________________________________________________ ________
Reason #2 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
We use laptops at home and I need a home file server, call it an XServe SOHO. Take the mainboard from a Mini, add 4 drive bays, perhaps one PCI slot and beef up the power supply and fans etc. Put it in a very cute mini-tower case. I'd think $999-$1299 wouldn't be unreasonable.
The closest thing I can get to this is a Mac Mini with an external drive enclosure(s) using Firewire 400 (not really meant for a server), or $2500 for a Mac Pro (way overkill). So guess what? I haven't bought anything ...
Apple wants us to get all of our music/TV/Movies over iTunes, but won't sell us any place to put it!
Put a Mini, a Time Capsule, and an Apple TV together and you've got all the functionality you mention here, in about the same price range.
The reason I want a cheap tower is not so much for it's upgradability but it's power/price ratio.
The iMac has a mobile CPU and a mobile GPU which to me is the most important part of the machine. By increasing the case size and just using desktop chips you could have a considerably faster computer for the exact same price.
The Mac Pro's are really out of that golden power per dollar ratio as they use the latest and greatest chips which cost a pretty penny.
If you want something that is this type of machine, you're saying that you don't need the power of the full Mac Pro, but want more power than an iMac, then you should just get the single quad-core processor MacPro and save yourself $500. You get the expandability you want, the horsepower level you want, and you're not paying the full $2700. It may not be as cheap as you want, but it does give you all of the things you're asking for.
__________________________________________________ _________
Reason #3 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
Exactly why Apple doesn't want to build one. Why add additional product design and management, component and finished product inventory, mfg. lines, and potentially massive support issues tied to third party DIY upgrades, just to make razor-thin margins so you can compete with all the other beige-box systems? That is not the road to shareholder happy-land.
...The name of the game is profitable sales leading to consistent share price growth, not pleasing every possible market segment.
Let's not forget that computers are appliances now, not much different than GPS's, MP3/Audio players, toasters, etc. The evolution of the technology and the market has moved to the point where people who want to tinker and upgrade and all of that are living in the past. Seriously, take an old Dual G5 tower, like a Quicksilver, or an MDD, and there is absolutely no way you can get the same functionality and power out of one of those by upgrading it and spend less money than buying a new machine. Those who refuse to accept such basic facts and stubbornly cling to the idea of a box they can progressively upgrade, etc. are in denial. Computers are no longer specialized technology that such an approach makes sense with anymore... again, they're appliances now.
__________________________________________________ __________
Reason #4 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
Exactly!
I need a mid-tower because I'd like to have two 20" monitors and a 12" Wacom. MacPro starts at a whopping $2,700, it's insane! iMac and the Mac-mini cannot serve my needs.
If that doesn't happen soon, I'll be forced to buy a nice PC box, install hackintosh, and slowly migrate to the dark, and more flexible, side. It'll be sad... been an Apple user since 1981.
See comment #2 above.
If you want that kind of power/set-up, then your requirements fall into the PRO category... again, it's not rocket science. If you don't want to pony up $2700, go to a single quad-processor. You'll get all that you want and it wont cost you as much.
If you want to try doing Hackintosh, give it your best shot... I'd be willing to be a sizable amount of money that you'll end up spending more in time (and money) just making the thing run and keeping it running than you'd save by buying the cheaper hardware and hacking 10.5 to run on it.
Also factor in the cost of not being able to run routine security upgrades, 10.5.X updates, etc. and your cost increases even further. You end up cutting off your nose to try and spite Apple. You're just complaining that you can't be a cheap-skate.
__________________________________________________ ______________
Reason #5 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
As I see it the main reason people want a mid range tower so they can spec it out with cheap parts at a low cost.
Suhail and Reallynotnick above fall exactly into this category as I mention at the end of #4 above.
But the problems are Apple loses out on cost of the parts (because they will inevitably be purchased somewhere cheaper and people are less inclined to upgrade the whole system) and because people will put in a multitude parts (which increases the number of permutations apple must code for) of low potentially quality (which gives the perception that OS X performs poorly when it is really the hardware that is at fault).
Also the idea of separate towers and monitors and cords and shit is the kind of thing Apple does not want muddying up it's designer image.
Exactly. Jobs would go postal with an Uzi in Cupertino before he let something like this happen... This also goes along with my statement above that computers are appliances now. When your toaster craps out on you, you go down to the Home Depot and buy a new one. Same with computers now days.
Apple is slowly re-educating the masses to think about "uniformity" and "deep integration". Being able to look at any iMac and know exactly what software is on it and what it is capable of is a beautiful thing that should not be underestimated.
Here again, Jobs would go Postal with some type of fully automatic firearm before he back-slid on developing this model for Apple's products.
The bottom line is, that there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple. I'm not saying that the idea doesn't have it's merits, it does. But the simple fact is that for so many reasons it simply does not make sense economically, nor does it fall into the broader vision Apple has for its products. So GET OVER IT ALREADY.
I had planned to use my old G4 as a file server, but it got killed by the 800MHz Leopard requirement change.
Why do you think it needs to run Leopard in order to do that job well?
Let's put this all together, shall we?
Reason #1 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
__________________________________________________ ________
Reason #2 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
Put a Mini, a Time Capsule, and an Apple TV together and you've got all the functionality you mention here, in about the same price range.
If you want something that is this type of machine, you're saying that you don't need the power of the full Mac Pro, but want more power than an iMac, then you should just get the single quad-core processor MacPro and save yourself $500. You get the expandability you want, the horsepower level you want, and you're not paying the full $2700. It may not be as cheap as you want, but it does give you all of the things you're asking for.
__________________________________________________ _________
Reason #3 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
Let's not forget that computers are appliances now, not much different than GPS's, MP3/Audio players, toasters, etc. The evolution of the technology and the market has moved to the point where people who want to tinker and upgrade and all of that are living in the past. Seriously, take an old Dual G5 tower, like a Quicksilver, or an MDD, and there is absolutely no way you can get the same functionality and power out of one of those by upgrading it and spend less money than buying a new machine. Those who refuse to accept such basic facts and stubbornly cling to the idea of a box they can progressively upgrade, etc. are in denial. Computers are no longer specialized technology that such an approach makes sense with anymore... again, they're appliances now.
__________________________________________________ __________
Reason #4 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
See comment #2 above.
If you want that kind of power/set-up, then your requirements fall into the PRO category... again, it's not rocket science. If you don't want to pony up $2700, go to a single quad-processor. You'll get all that you want and it wont cost you as much.
If you want to try doing Hackintosh, give it your best shot... I'd be willing to be a sizable amount of money that you'll end up spending more in time (and money) just making the thing run and keeping it running than you'd save by buying the cheaper hardware and hacking 10.5 to run on it.
Also factor in the cost of not being able to run routine security upgrades, 10.5.X updates, etc. and your cost increases even further. You end up cutting off your nose to try and spite Apple. You're just complaining that you can't be a cheap-skate.
__________________________________________________ ______________
Reason #5 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:
Suhail and Reallynotnick above fall exactly into this category as I mention at the end of #4 above.
Exactly. Jobs would go postal with an Uzi in Cupertino before he let something like this happen... This also goes along with my statement above that computers are appliances now. When your toaster craps out on you, you go down to the Home Depot and buy a new one. Same with computers now days.
Here again, Jobs would go Postal with some type of fully automatic firearm before he back-slid on developing this model for Apple's products.
The bottom line is, that there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple. I'm not saying that the idea doesn't have it's merits, it does. But the simple fact is that for so many reasons it simply does not make sense economically, nor does it fall into the broader vision Apple has for its products. So GET OVER IT ALREADY.
1. The mini is over priced and under powered.
2. The build in screen in the imac are not that good.
3. The older g4 and g5 started at $1200 - $2000 the mac pro starts at $2200.
4. Apple has no laptop with a 15" screen under $2000
5. Apple has no laptop with any kind of better video card then the Intel GMA POS under $2000
As I see it the main reason people want a mid range tower so they can spec it out with cheap parts...
Sorry but you're seeing it wrong.
Why not get the 3.06 iMac and a second non-glossy display?
I suspect that is what I will end up doing, but the only reason for getting a second monitor (with cost implications) is because there is not that tick box on the order form - glossy or matte.
So I, the customer, have to adjust what I do to suit the wishes of the company, which isn't how it's supposed to work really is it?
Have you considered getting a refurbished last gen iMac? I saw some good prices for the white 24" models on the store the other day. This might be your best bet right now.
That would be an option, except I live in the south of Portugal, where the Apple presence is very minimal. There is one reseller in my province, but it is really a repair shop with a very basic retail side, and there is no Apple shop in the country. About 18 months ago an apple.com/pt page did appear, but as of now (and I just checked) there are zero refurbs available there!
It is frustrating, that 3.06 looks so damn tasty...
Let's put this all together, shall we?
If you want that kind of power/set-up, then your requirements fall into the PRO category... again, it's not rocket science. If you don't want to pony up $2700, go to a single quad-processor. You'll get all that you want and it wont cost you as much.
If you want to try doing Hackintosh, give it your best shot... I'd be willing to be a sizable amount of money that you'll end up spending more in time (and money) just making the thing run and keeping it running than you'd save by buying the cheaper hardware and hacking 10.5 to run on it.
Also factor in the cost of not being able to run routine security upgrades, 10.5.X updates, etc. and your cost increases even further. You end up cutting off your nose to try and spite Apple. You're just complaining that you can't be a cheap-skate.
That is not true, Apple had the Mac-IIci as an alternative to the overpriced Mac-II. The IIci used the same quality components and was considerably cheaper, for people who couldn't afford a Mac II the IIci was perfect. Then in the early 90's Apple came out with the Quadra-700 which was also an alternative to the overpriced Quadra-950 and both machines were one of Apple's most successful ones, they both put Apple in the pro print arena and gave people a glimpse into the future of video. The mac IIci was still selling strong until it was replaced with a faster but horribly packaged mac IIcx.
So if Apple brings out a computer that is half the size of the MacPro it will cost less not because it will have cheaper components but because it will use less desktop components, a smaller power-supply, weighs less, less cooling fans, smaller circuit board, but can still handle a couple of PCI cards. And I'm not being a "cheap-skate", if Apple made a mid-sized mac all I'd do is add RAM and two fast graphic cards, and I would upgrade them whenever I feel the need to do so.
You cannot compare the MacPro to a mid-tower PC because the PC will be much cheaper no matter what you add to it; however, you can compare the MacPro to a full-tower PC and get similar prices. Heck, some of the full-tower PCs have hot-swappable RAID bays which makes them more attractive to some.
The bottom line is, that there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple. I'm not saying that the idea doesn't have it's merits, it does. But the simple fact is that for so many reasons it simply does not make sense economically, nor does it fall into the broader vision Apple has for its products. So GET OVER IT ALREADY.
Says you.
The way that AppleInsider wrote the article, it refers to the Calendar year which is January 1st to December 31st, not to Apple's fiscal (financial) year which for simplicity runs from October through September.
As such, the article's reference to "third quarter" would cover the calendar period of July, August and September, which corresponds to Apple's fourth (fiscal) quarter (Q4).
Most companies set their first fiscal year on the first of the month in which they were incorporated. Usually they start on the first day of the month, but it isn't necessary as Apple demonstrates.
A company can change their fiscal year period. Most often it is set to end when the inventories are at their seasonally lowest level. Apple was incorporated on Jan 4, 1977, but later changed its fiscal to start at the end of September (year unknown).
Thanks for clearing it up.
I suppose I can wait a little longer for the new macbooks. I've been waiting for four years ever since I got my sh**ty dell and regretted it within a month. Plus, fingers crossed I will have the new iPhone to comfort me while I wait!
1. The mini is over priced and under powered.
2. The build in screen in the imac are not that good.
3. The older g4 and g5 started at $1200 - $2000 the mac pro starts at $2200.
4. Apple has no laptop with a 15" screen under $2000
5. Apple has no laptop with any kind of better video card then the Intel GMA POS under $2000
Agreed on all points. I find it bordering on insane that anyone could possibly defend Apple's current lineup. The only products that are any good are prohibitively expensive, while the only affordable offerings are complete and utter garbage.
I paid $1600 for my old G4. It served me very well specifically because I was able to upgrade it along the way as my needs changed. Computer prices have dropped considerably since then, yet the only comparable replacement to it Apple has now is three grand? That is stupid. I ended up getting an Aluminum iMac only because it was the only choice Apple offered in a reasonable price range, and I could not be any less happy with this piece of junk.
__________________________________________________ _________________
I'm also wondering who these people are that DON'T upgrade their computers? Outside of claims on this forum, I don't know any PC users that don't. When it used to be possible on a Mac, I didn't know any Mac users that didn't either. Video card, CPU, RAM, and additional drives were the minimum. I know I swapped out a lot of parts on my G4, and it was easy to do with generic parts at my local "build your own PC" mart. 95 % of all computer users can do this, Apple users are stupid if they just accept it that they can't.
Agreed on all points. I find it bordering on insane that anyone could possibly defend Apple's current lineup. The only products that are any good are prohibitively expensive, while the only affordable offerings are complete and utter garbage.
I paid $1600 for my old G4. It served me very well specifically because I was able to upgrade it along the way as my needs changed. Computer prices have dropped considerably since then, yet the only comparable replacement to it Apple has now is three grand? That is stupid. I ended up getting an Aluminum iMac only because it was the only choice Apple offered in a reasonable price range, and I could not be any less happy with this piece of junk.
__________________________________________________ _________________
I'm also wondering who these people are that DON'T upgrade their computers? Outside of claims on this forum, I don't know any PC users that don't. When it used to be possible on a Mac, I didn't know any Mac users that didn't either. Video card, CPU, RAM, and additional drives were the minimum. I know I swapped out a lot of parts on my G4, and it was easy to do with generic parts at my local "build your own PC" mart. 95 % of all computer users can do this, Apple users are stupid if they just accept it that they can't.
Well said bsenka. Today's average computer user is more advanced and capable than yesterday's user, and the imac is a black-box.
Until software is more widely available for download and movies are available at faster speeds, I just don't see it. As it stands, to install most software, you would need either a second computer (which most users don't have) or an external optical drive (which is annoying). Again, I think it's coming, but not for a few years. No way Apple releases the Air and then a Macbook - optical drive a year later. That would massively cannibalize Air sales and Apple isn't stupid enough to do that.
The only time that you really need a CD Drive is to install big apps like Office and Adobe Suits, but colleges and companies now have network repositories for stuff like that. so that leaves CDs...rip some DVDs and CDs to the HDD and be done with it...give me an external DVD drive and take a an lb or two out of it...or add that many more cells to the battery...anyone want a 15-20 hour battery? would be easy with SSD, LED, no CD, and all the recoverd space filled with new cells.
Why do you think it needs to run Leopard in order to do that job well?
Ubuntu PPC edition would work better than any flavor of OSX for that...gotta use the right tool for the right job, and OSX is NEVER the right tool for a server...NEVER
Ubuntu PPC edition would work better than any flavor of OSX for that...gotta use the right tool for the right job, and OSX is NEVER the right tool for a server...NEVER
Why is that?
Agreed on all points. I find it bordering on insane that anyone could possibly defend Apple's current lineup. The only products that are any good are prohibitively expensive, while the only affordable offerings are complete and utter garbage.
I paid $1600 for my old G4. It served me very well specifically because I was able to upgrade it along the way as my needs changed. Computer prices have dropped considerably since then, yet the only comparable replacement to it Apple has now is three grand? That is stupid. I ended up getting an Aluminum iMac only because it was the only choice Apple offered in a reasonable price range, and I could not be any less happy with this piece of junk.
__________________________________________________ _________________
I'm also wondering who these people are that DON'T upgrade their computers? Outside of claims on this forum, I don't know any PC users that don't. When it used to be possible on a Mac, I didn't know any Mac users that didn't either. Video card, CPU, RAM, and additional drives were the minimum. I know I swapped out a lot of parts on my G4, and it was easy to do with generic parts at my local "build your own PC" mart. 95 % of all computer users can do this, Apple users are stupid if they just accept it that they can't.
95%? Really? No way 95% of computer users would feel comfortable upgrading their own computer. I won't throw out a number, but I'd be surprised if it's even a majority of users.
Apple will never enter the cell phone market.
Apple will never switch to Intel processors.