And people will buy the iMac instead. Apple has tried this time and time again and the sales simply aren't there. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this too. I think people just "think" that want expandability. When it comes down to it, beyond RAM and possibly a hard drive most will never get inside it anyways. I guess its just a comfort thing.
The above quote was in response to:
A post by hmurchison
Apple mid tower
Single Socket Nehalem
Three 2.5" bays
4 RAM slots
PCI-Express graphics card with another open slot
GigE, Wifi
FW800 (two ports)
$1699
I think macxpress is right; however, for those few (?) who do want RAM and HDD EASY upgradeable Macs, hmurchison's model would be just about perfect. Not being tech savvie, that configuration would make it easy for me to make changes. I can and have pulled open a side panel and installed RAM and a new HDD (twice when the HDD died). I'd think twice about using a putty knife to perform those operations. NOOOO, I wouldn't do it at all. I'd be too afraid of screwing something up and/or voiding the warranty.
An absolute plus factor is that hmurchison's configuration would let me decide on what monitor I WANT, not something foisted on me by Apple.
There is NO better configuration in my estimation. IMHO, the Mini, iMac, and MacPro ARE NOT for the average savvy Mac user.
Further, if all you want to do is use Office, email, and net surf, you don't need OS X - get a PC.
My most humble apologies if my definition of "average savvy Mac user" doesn't fit you.
And people will buy the iMac instead. Apple has tried this time and time again and the sales simply aren't there. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this too. I think people just "think" that want expandability. When it comes down to it, beyond RAM and possibly a hard drive most will never get inside it anyways. I guess its just a comfort thing.
I'm gonna guess Apple sold a lot more Quicksilvers and other $1699 powermacs than $2500+ Mac Pros. I didn't follow the Mac Pro pricing the last rev so I don't recall which was the cheapest.
I think one criticism is justified. If apple was going to do a different motherboard anyway, they could have easily have just used an iCore7 vs Xeon and left a quad Mac Pro at $2100. Now, the odds are they didn't is because by going all Xeon they get a slight bump in their volumes and they did manage to get the Nehalem Xeons early.
If they made it $1600 then they'd lose all their high end iMac sales and a good number of mid end ones too. 24" monitors are just not that expensive anymore.
Right now the iMacs are particularly bad buys because they didn't go with the penryn quads and the nehalem mobiles aren't out yet. This is why there's such a big gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro and such a little gap between the Mini and the iMac.
Oddly, we see articles about how bad the mini is and how good the iMac is value wise and I think those folks are on crack.
Since we are talking about a mid-tower I will set my sights a little lower.
1 Core 2 Duo E8700 (3.5GHz)
4 RAM slots (8GB max)
1 PCIe x16 graphics slot
3 PCIe x1 or (2 x1, 1 x4) slots
2 hard drive bays
2 FireWire 800 (1 front, 1 back)
5 USB (2 front, 3 back)
1 Ethernet port
1 Superdrive
2 spare bay
audio ports (front and back)
Yes, I am sure "everything" is going quad-core, but dual-core is just fine since this is not supposed to compete with the Mac Pro. This machine should easily stomp the Mac mini, leave the two low-end iMac models in the dust, and pull away from the two high-end iMac models.
People, desktop computers are dying industry wide. They're a 20th century form factor ill suited for modern consumer use. The netbook explosion is proof of this. Every single netbook on the market is a clunky, ugly, underpowered piece of junk running an inferior OS, and consumers still want them just for the form factor and portability.
The age of the $500-$1500 consumer/enthusiast tower is over, and Apple is completley correct to not go anywhere near it.
The only people who want such a Mac are geeks who (incorrectly) imagine themselves to be pros, but don't want to pay the price for a proper workstation.
If we instead, talk about what kind of computer we'll see on a typical worker's desk in business, I guarantee you it won't be a laptop. It's also not likely to be an AIO.
I've read articles year after year in Computerworld and Infoworld, where they interviewed IT managers at many companies. One of the big reasons they are leery of moving to Macs is because THEY want a mid tower. They don't like AIOs. While some business change the monitor each time they change the box, some don't like to work that way, holding one or the other for two generations of upgrades.
I suspect that during this time of economic downturn, not only will companies be putting off some of these upgrades, but monitors will be even lower on their list, unless they aren't adequate.
The average business computer costs $1,000 sans monitor, according to these same articles, if Apple had a line without monitor that was at about that price level, they would sell them to businesses that don't want iMacs, or Minis. Consumer sales would be icing on the cake.
My daughter has quite a collection of Sims games but on Windows.
They don't look very resource intensive so I bet that they could be played in windows even as a virtual machine. Especially if both cores are enable but perhaps even with just one core enabled.
I could always just install windows via boot camp but I actually feel the machine will be easier to take care of and trouble shoot if I run windows via VMware.
I have been looking at Mac Pros at eBay. They seem to hold their value very well. The first gen Mac Pros look like they can be bought fro about $1500. I was hoping to get a second gen MP for that amount but that looks very unlikely from what I'm seeing thus far. As well the size is a bit large for the location where we currently have our pc. Its not a deal breaker but not ideal either.
Even the newest doesn't require much in the way of graphics, which is good. I just used to hate when the guy burned himself up everytime we tried to get him to cook something. I LIKE cooking!
Macs, as a rule, do hold their value until the natural loss of usefulness as they become incapable of running the latest OS version, which sometimes means the latest software versions. Which is to be expected. Even so, I'm still amazed that I get old G4 towers to run 10.5. We're talking 8 years old!!!
I don't agree with the triple the margin on the low end PM too, but I disagree with your assertion that Apple wouldn't
waste big R&D money because of stupid decisions.
The Cube is a product that digested a lot of R&D money and was sent to retail hell just by pricing it out of any reality.
It had it's design and engineering flaws too, but the reason for it's nose dive was the price.
But that statement doesn't say anything useful.
You are also making the incorrect assumption that Apple is pricing products out of line with costs. That's a very bad assumption, and you can't justify it at all.
The Cube WAS priced too high. But that wasn't because Apple was inflating the margins. If you knew about the arguments that were flying around at the time, you would know that. The problem was that when the G4 was still expensive, Apple could have intro'd that machine with the much cheaper G3, and cut maybe $300 off the price. But Apple thought of this as a higher end machine.
The other big reason for its demise was that Apple failed to market it properly.
I keep reading posts, even now, from people who obviously know little about the machine, saying that it wasn't upgradable, when it was very much so, in every way, including one open slot!
Apple was so intrigued by its beauty, and was coming off the closed iMac era, that they were unwilling to make a big deal of this expandability, and upgradability, other than showing that at the announcement. People kept writing that if it was upgradable, and expandable, they would buy it. Apple screwed up there. Sheesh!
Quote:
Furthermore I think Apple is riding the crisis quite comfortably now, because they sell to the trendy consumer. It took them
several years to reach this point and I agree that you can account this to the iPod and the iBook, more than to the iMac.
Partly so.
Quote:
I think if this crisis keeps going strong for the whole 2009 people will realize that being trendy won't buy them food or a house
(or pay their rent). This could hit Apple badly. To my mind Apple will see the same losses in retail volume as the other manufactures,
I think macxpress is right; however, for those few (?) who do want RAM and HDD EASY upgradeable Macs, hmurchison's model would be just about perfect. Not being tech savvie, that configuration would make it easy for me to make changes. I can and have pulled open a side panel and installed RAM and a new HDD (twice when the HDD died). I'd think twice about using a putty knife to perform those operations. NOOOO, I wouldn't do it at all. I'd be too afraid of screwing something up and/or voiding the warranty.
An absolute plus factor is that hmurchison's configuration would let me decide on what monitor I WANT, not something foisted on me by Apple.
There is NO better configuration in my estimation. IMHO, the Mini, iMac, and MacPro ARE NOT for the average savvy Mac user.
Further, if all you want to do is use Office, email, and net surf, you don't need OS X - get a PC.
My most humble apologies if my definition of "average savvy Mac user" doesn't fit you.
I agree with one open slot.
I don't agree with the three 2.5" drive bays. We're talking about lower cost, and high capacity. Going to 2.5 is several years too early. What would be needed is two 3.5" bays. Why not be able to put two 2 TB drives inside, instead of three expensive, lower performing 500 MB 2.5" units?
I'm not even sure if WiFi should be included. It's not yet nearly as popular as is thought. Make it an option.
The base price could be lower. A machine like that, even from Apple could retail right now for $1,099 to $1,899, depending on the cpu, video card, and HDD.
Yes, since I'm focused on the Mini; however, I think it should hold true for all Macs. Why make (non-techie) users struggle?
I realize that it would mean some changes in the current configuration of the
Mini. Okay, make it into the Cube or xMac, but make it easy to upgrade RAM and HDD's. Then, I would be able to make an easier decision for my next Mac.
Yes, since I'm focused on the Mini; however, I think it should hold true for all Macs. Why make (non-techie) users struggle?
I realize that it would mean some changes in the current configuration of the
Mini. Okay, make it into the Cube or xMac, but make it easy to upgrade RAM and HDD's. Then, I would be able to make an easier decision for my next Mac.
It's not too difficult on the iMac. One screw, and they come right out.
The Mini is different. The problem here is that Apple would have to redesign the entire machine. There is simply no room to make this happen. If Apple raised the height, they could have re-arranged the insides so the a slot on the botton (NEVER the top, too tacky), like the iMac would grant access.
They could have made a two part cover, fastened to the rear with two screws, and slid off, allowing inside access to the HDD, and such. Why they didn't, I don't know. I would have designed it that way.
You are also making the incorrect assumption that Apple is pricing products out of line with costs. That's a very bad assumption, and you can't justify it at all.
The Cube WAS priced too high. But that wasn't because Apple was inflating the margins. If you knew about the arguments that were flying around at the time, you would know that. ...
I wanted to say that Apple has not tripled it's margin at the low end PM. Sorry if my English was too bad to send that image correctly.
I also never said that the Cube was priced too high because of margin, if the price was necessary by design they possibly were looking for the wrong niche to position it to.
But nevertheless they wasted R&D money, and I know its easier to say this after seeing the outcome.
I also never said that the Cube was priced too high because of margin, if the price was necessary by design they possibly were looking for the wrong niche to position it to.
But nevertheless they wasted R&D money, and I know its easier to say this after seeing the outcome.
I agree, the Cube was priced too high. But I also believe that the Cube did not justify the high price it commanded because of the materials it used or the R&D. I've examined it and it does have a lot of engineering thought put into it, and it was put together nicely, but not any more so than the mini is. The cube should have been $999 (for a 350MHz & smaller HDD version) to $1299 (actual version) out of the gate.
I don't agree with the three 2.5" drive bays. We're talking about lower cost, and high capacity. Going to 2.5 is several years too early. What would be needed is two 3.5" bays. Why not be able to put two 2 TB drives inside, instead of three expensive, lower performing 500 MB 2.5" units?
I'm not even sure if WiFi should be included. It's not yet nearly as popular as is thought. Make it an option.
The base price could be lower. A machine like that, even from Apple could retail right now for $1,099 to $1,899, depending on the cpu, video card, and HDD.
The reason is two-fold for the 2.5" drives.
1. You can get a half terabyte in a 2.5" size
2. 2.5" drives are more sturdy and use much less power.
You need 3 drives in a desktop/workstation because you need the minimum amount for parity striping.
Having two drive bays 3.5" would indeed allow you install 4TB of data but at that size you're likely better off with extran direct attach or NAS. Plus there's no performance really in the large 72k HDD. SSD in 2009 is going to deliver sequential writes that HDD can't tough (200+ MBps) and 2010 the idea of using a dog slow HDD drive will seem downright foolish when you have 300MBps SSD available.
What's the use of putting a quad core CPU in your computer and hobbling it with a slow
I agree, the Cube was priced too high. But I also believe that the Cube did not justify the high price it commanded because of the materials it used or the R&D. I've examined it and it does have a lot of engineering thought put into it, and it was put together nicely, but not any more so than the mini is. The cube should have been $999 (for a 350MHz & smaller HDD version) to $1299 (actual version) out of the gate.
I don't agree with you there.
You can't compare a computer made in that era with one made today. Even five years is too long a time.
The Cube was a much more complex model than is the Mini. They aren't comparable in any way. Th Cube is also many times larger than the Mini.
The Mini is a very simple machine, while the Cube was a very complex machine. The Mini is basically a small circuit board, small power supply and that's about it, other than the memory, HDD and DVD that plugs into it.
The Cube, however, was a full fledged, expandable machine. The CPU was on a replaceable board just like Apple's towers, it had a slot for a graphics card. It had an open slot. Several memory slots. In other words, the machine had a complete backplane, which the Mini does not.
The reason why it was priced where it was, was, as I said, because it used the newer G4, which at the time was much more expensive than the older G3.
It was noted, at the time, that if Apple would have gone with the G3 instead, during the time of a recession, it would have been able to lower the price by a good $300, and it would have sold.
But, as usual, Apple instead chose to discontinue it rather than to lower the specs.
It's difficult to understand how you could actually look inside that machine and think that it's not more than the Mini in the way it was put together. You could easily fit five Mini's inside by cubic volume, and the Mini has no hardware when compared to the Cube. I cant think that you actually compared the two. They are completely different..
2. 2.5" drives are more sturdy and use much less power.
There is no "sturdiness" advantage to drives in a desktop which is not being moved around. The MBTF is better on the 3.5" drives than on the 2.5" drives, and in a desktop, that's what matters. Power issues in a desktop are, again, not at issue for drives. The graphics card could very easily use five or more times the power.
Quote:
You need 3 drives in a desktop/workstation because you need the minimum amount for parity striping.
This isn't a workstation. It's a home computer. Most people buying a home computer don't even know what a RAID is. They certainly won't be intending to use one. At best, they will use a second drive for Time Machine.
Quote:
Having two drive bays 3.5" would indeed allow you install 4TB of data but at that size you're likely better off with extran direct attach or NAS. Plus there's no performance really in the large 72k HDD. SSD in 2009 is going to deliver sequential writes that HDD can't tough (200+ MBps) and 2010 the idea of using a dog slow HDD drive will seem downright foolish when you have 300MBps SSD available.
Again, you're taking what will primarily be a home machine, and trying to stretch it into some low version of a workstation, which it would not be. No in their right mind uses a machine without EEC RAM for a serious workstation, or server.
Quote:
What's the use of putting a quad core CPU in your computer and hobbling it with a slow
storage subsystem?
For HOME use, a terabyte drive is more than fast enough. Processing speed, esp. when used with the appropriate RAM, will do what is needed quite nicely.
Even for the low end pro work some might buy this for, that would be true. No one would buy a machine like this for the functions you seem to be proposing it for. If that's the intent, then the single core Mac Pro would be a much better choice, and would cost less than a thousand more than your configuration. Plus, you would have the reliability that a workstation or server really calls for, both in memory, and electro-mechanically. Anyone really needing that would not balk at the additional cost.
The main argument for an xMac is for a consumer desktop that allow for some expandability and option of monitor. You are now trying to move the bar in favor of it becoming more like a mini Mac Pro. Apple absolutely would not make a mid-tower that directly competes with the Mac Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Nice rebuttal Melgross.
For the record I don't consider a mid tower a consumer machine but
rather a prosumer machine. Thus I'd expect that its purchasers be
savvy about data protection features like RAID and also understand the
benefit of shared storage.
I think for those people that just want a large hard drive and don't want
to leverage data protection via RAID are poor candidates for a mid tower.
Where exactly aren't their needs being met by an iMac?
The main argument for an xMac is for a consumer desktop that allow for some expandability and option of monitor. You are now trying to move the bar in favor of it becoming more like a mini Mac Pro. Apple absolutely would not make a mid-tower that directly competes with the Mac Pro.
I respectfully disagree. I don't think there's any real consensus on what xMac should be which is why it's a mythical "dream" product.
Comments
And people will buy the iMac instead. Apple has tried this time and time again and the sales simply aren't there. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this too. I think people just "think" that want expandability. When it comes down to it, beyond RAM and possibly a hard drive most will never get inside it anyways. I guess its just a comfort thing.
The above quote was in response to:
A post by hmurchison
Apple mid tower
Single Socket Nehalem
Three 2.5" bays
4 RAM slots
PCI-Express graphics card with another open slot
GigE, Wifi
FW800 (two ports)
$1699
I think macxpress is right; however, for those few (?) who do want RAM and HDD EASY upgradeable Macs, hmurchison's model would be just about perfect. Not being tech savvie, that configuration would make it easy for me to make changes. I can and have pulled open a side panel and installed RAM and a new HDD (twice when the HDD died). I'd think twice about using a putty knife to perform those operations. NOOOO, I wouldn't do it at all. I'd be too afraid of screwing something up and/or voiding the warranty.
An absolute plus factor is that hmurchison's configuration would let me decide on what monitor I WANT, not something foisted on me by Apple.
There is NO better configuration in my estimation. IMHO, the Mini, iMac, and MacPro ARE NOT for the average savvy Mac user.
Further, if all you want to do is use Office, email, and net surf, you don't need OS X - get a PC.
My most humble apologies if my definition of "average savvy Mac user" doesn't fit you.
Further, if all you want to do is use Office, email, and net surf, you don't need OS X - get a PC.
Macs: Serious Business!
And people will buy the iMac instead. Apple has tried this time and time again and the sales simply aren't there. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see this too. I think people just "think" that want expandability. When it comes down to it, beyond RAM and possibly a hard drive most will never get inside it anyways. I guess its just a comfort thing.
I'm gonna guess Apple sold a lot more Quicksilvers and other $1699 powermacs than $2500+ Mac Pros. I didn't follow the Mac Pro pricing the last rev so I don't recall which was the cheapest.
I think one criticism is justified. If apple was going to do a different motherboard anyway, they could have easily have just used an iCore7 vs Xeon and left a quad Mac Pro at $2100. Now, the odds are they didn't is because by going all Xeon they get a slight bump in their volumes and they did manage to get the Nehalem Xeons early.
If they made it $1600 then they'd lose all their high end iMac sales and a good number of mid end ones too. 24" monitors are just not that expensive anymore.
Right now the iMacs are particularly bad buys because they didn't go with the penryn quads and the nehalem mobiles aren't out yet. This is why there's such a big gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro and such a little gap between the Mini and the iMac.
Oddly, we see articles about how bad the mini is and how good the iMac is value wise and I think those folks are on crack.
1 Core 2 Duo E8700 (3.5GHz)
4 RAM slots (8GB max)
1 PCIe x16 graphics slot
3 PCIe x1 or (2 x1, 1 x4) slots
2 hard drive bays
2 FireWire 800 (1 front, 1 back)
5 USB (2 front, 3 back)
1 Ethernet port
1 Superdrive
2 spare bay
audio ports (front and back)
Yes, I am sure "everything" is going quad-core, but dual-core is just fine since this is not supposed to compete with the Mac Pro. This machine should easily stomp the Mac mini, leave the two low-end iMac models in the dust, and pull away from the two high-end iMac models.
SJ must LOL at the way he makes Mac users work at installation. Sadism? Mind games?
People, desktop computers are dying industry wide. They're a 20th century form factor ill suited for modern consumer use. The netbook explosion is proof of this. Every single netbook on the market is a clunky, ugly, underpowered piece of junk running an inferior OS, and consumers still want them just for the form factor and portability.
The age of the $500-$1500 consumer/enthusiast tower is over, and Apple is completley correct to not go anywhere near it.
The only people who want such a Mac are geeks who (incorrectly) imagine themselves to be pros, but don't want to pay the price for a proper workstation.
If we instead, talk about what kind of computer we'll see on a typical worker's desk in business, I guarantee you it won't be a laptop. It's also not likely to be an AIO.
I've read articles year after year in Computerworld and Infoworld, where they interviewed IT managers at many companies. One of the big reasons they are leery of moving to Macs is because THEY want a mid tower. They don't like AIOs. While some business change the monitor each time they change the box, some don't like to work that way, holding one or the other for two generations of upgrades.
I suspect that during this time of economic downturn, not only will companies be putting off some of these upgrades, but monitors will be even lower on their list, unless they aren't adequate.
The average business computer costs $1,000 sans monitor, according to these same articles, if Apple had a line without monitor that was at about that price level, they would sell them to businesses that don't want iMacs, or Minis. Consumer sales would be icing on the cake.
My daughter has quite a collection of Sims games but on Windows.
They don't look very resource intensive so I bet that they could be played in windows even as a virtual machine. Especially if both cores are enable but perhaps even with just one core enabled.
I could always just install windows via boot camp but I actually feel the machine will be easier to take care of and trouble shoot if I run windows via VMware.
I have been looking at Mac Pros at eBay. They seem to hold their value very well. The first gen Mac Pros look like they can be bought fro about $1500. I was hoping to get a second gen MP for that amount but that looks very unlikely from what I'm seeing thus far. As well the size is a bit large for the location where we currently have our pc. Its not a deal breaker but not ideal either.
Even the newest doesn't require much in the way of graphics, which is good. I just used to hate when the guy burned himself up everytime we tried to get him to cook something. I LIKE cooking!
Macs, as a rule, do hold their value until the natural loss of usefulness as they become incapable of running the latest OS version, which sometimes means the latest software versions. Which is to be expected. Even so, I'm still amazed that I get old G4 towers to run 10.5. We're talking 8 years old!!!
I don't agree with the triple the margin on the low end PM too, but I disagree with your assertion that Apple wouldn't
waste big R&D money because of stupid decisions.
The Cube is a product that digested a lot of R&D money and was sent to retail hell just by pricing it out of any reality.
It had it's design and engineering flaws too, but the reason for it's nose dive was the price.
But that statement doesn't say anything useful.
You are also making the incorrect assumption that Apple is pricing products out of line with costs. That's a very bad assumption, and you can't justify it at all.
The Cube WAS priced too high. But that wasn't because Apple was inflating the margins. If you knew about the arguments that were flying around at the time, you would know that. The problem was that when the G4 was still expensive, Apple could have intro'd that machine with the much cheaper G3, and cut maybe $300 off the price. But Apple thought of this as a higher end machine.
The other big reason for its demise was that Apple failed to market it properly.
I keep reading posts, even now, from people who obviously know little about the machine, saying that it wasn't upgradable, when it was very much so, in every way, including one open slot!
Apple was so intrigued by its beauty, and was coming off the closed iMac era, that they were unwilling to make a big deal of this expandability, and upgradability, other than showing that at the announcement. People kept writing that if it was upgradable, and expandable, they would buy it. Apple screwed up there. Sheesh!
Furthermore I think Apple is riding the crisis quite comfortably now, because they sell to the trendy consumer. It took them
several years to reach this point and I agree that you can account this to the iPod and the iBook, more than to the iMac.
Partly so.
I think if this crisis keeps going strong for the whole 2009 people will realize that being trendy won't buy them food or a house
(or pay their rent). This could hit Apple badly. To my mind Apple will see the same losses in retail volume as the other manufactures,
just time schifted 6 to 12 months.
You're pretty much alone there.
The above quote was in response to:
A post by hmurchison
Apple mid tower
Single Socket Nehalem
Three 2.5" bays
4 RAM slots
PCI-Express graphics card with another open slot
GigE, Wifi
FW800 (two ports)
$1699
I think macxpress is right; however, for those few (?) who do want RAM and HDD EASY upgradeable Macs, hmurchison's model would be just about perfect. Not being tech savvie, that configuration would make it easy for me to make changes. I can and have pulled open a side panel and installed RAM and a new HDD (twice when the HDD died). I'd think twice about using a putty knife to perform those operations. NOOOO, I wouldn't do it at all. I'd be too afraid of screwing something up and/or voiding the warranty.
An absolute plus factor is that hmurchison's configuration would let me decide on what monitor I WANT, not something foisted on me by Apple.
There is NO better configuration in my estimation. IMHO, the Mini, iMac, and MacPro ARE NOT for the average savvy Mac user.
Further, if all you want to do is use Office, email, and net surf, you don't need OS X - get a PC.
My most humble apologies if my definition of "average savvy Mac user" doesn't fit you.
I agree with one open slot.
I don't agree with the three 2.5" drive bays. We're talking about lower cost, and high capacity. Going to 2.5 is several years too early. What would be needed is two 3.5" bays. Why not be able to put two 2 TB drives inside, instead of three expensive, lower performing 500 MB 2.5" units?
I'm not even sure if WiFi should be included. It's not yet nearly as popular as is thought. Make it an option.
The base price could be lower. A machine like that, even from Apple could retail right now for $1,099 to $1,899, depending on the cpu, video card, and HDD.
A simple way to snap in RAM and/or a HDD and I'd be satisfied. How difficult would it be to engineer?
For which machine, the Mini?
For which machine, the Mini?
Yes, since I'm focused on the Mini; however, I think it should hold true for all Macs. Why make (non-techie) users struggle?
I realize that it would mean some changes in the current configuration of the
Mini. Okay, make it into the Cube or xMac, but make it easy to upgrade RAM and HDD's. Then, I would be able to make an easier decision for my next Mac.
Yes, since I'm focused on the Mini; however, I think it should hold true for all Macs. Why make (non-techie) users struggle?
I realize that it would mean some changes in the current configuration of the
Mini. Okay, make it into the Cube or xMac, but make it easy to upgrade RAM and HDD's. Then, I would be able to make an easier decision for my next Mac.
It's not too difficult on the iMac. One screw, and they come right out.
The Mini is different. The problem here is that Apple would have to redesign the entire machine. There is simply no room to make this happen. If Apple raised the height, they could have re-arranged the insides so the a slot on the botton (NEVER the top, too tacky
They could have made a two part cover, fastened to the rear with two screws, and slid off, allowing inside access to the HDD, and such. Why they didn't, I don't know. I would have designed it that way.
But that statement doesn't say anything useful.
You are also making the incorrect assumption that Apple is pricing products out of line with costs. That's a very bad assumption, and you can't justify it at all.
The Cube WAS priced too high. But that wasn't because Apple was inflating the margins. If you knew about the arguments that were flying around at the time, you would know that. ...
I wanted to say that Apple has not tripled it's margin at the low end PM. Sorry if my English was too bad to send that image correctly.
I also never said that the Cube was priced too high because of margin, if the price was necessary by design they possibly were looking for the wrong niche to position it to.
But nevertheless they wasted R&D money, and I know its easier to say this after seeing the outcome.
I also never said that the Cube was priced too high because of margin, if the price was necessary by design they possibly were looking for the wrong niche to position it to.
But nevertheless they wasted R&D money, and I know its easier to say this after seeing the outcome.
I agree, the Cube was priced too high. But I also believe that the Cube did not justify the high price it commanded because of the materials it used or the R&D. I've examined it and it does have a lot of engineering thought put into it, and it was put together nicely, but not any more so than the mini is. The cube should have been $999 (for a 350MHz & smaller HDD version) to $1299 (actual version) out of the gate.
I agree with one open slot.
I don't agree with the three 2.5" drive bays. We're talking about lower cost, and high capacity. Going to 2.5 is several years too early. What would be needed is two 3.5" bays. Why not be able to put two 2 TB drives inside, instead of three expensive, lower performing 500 MB 2.5" units?
I'm not even sure if WiFi should be included. It's not yet nearly as popular as is thought. Make it an option.
The base price could be lower. A machine like that, even from Apple could retail right now for $1,099 to $1,899, depending on the cpu, video card, and HDD.
The reason is two-fold for the 2.5" drives.
1. You can get a half terabyte in a 2.5" size
2. 2.5" drives are more sturdy and use much less power.
You need 3 drives in a desktop/workstation because you need the minimum amount for parity striping.
Having two drive bays 3.5" would indeed allow you install 4TB of data but at that size you're likely better off with extran direct attach or NAS. Plus there's no performance really in the large 72k HDD. SSD in 2009 is going to deliver sequential writes that HDD can't tough (200+ MBps) and 2010 the idea of using a dog slow HDD drive will seem downright foolish when you have 300MBps SSD available.
What's the use of putting a quad core CPU in your computer and hobbling it with a slow
storage subsystem?
I agree, the Cube was priced too high. But I also believe that the Cube did not justify the high price it commanded because of the materials it used or the R&D. I've examined it and it does have a lot of engineering thought put into it, and it was put together nicely, but not any more so than the mini is. The cube should have been $999 (for a 350MHz & smaller HDD version) to $1299 (actual version) out of the gate.
I don't agree with you there.
You can't compare a computer made in that era with one made today. Even five years is too long a time.
The Cube was a much more complex model than is the Mini. They aren't comparable in any way. Th Cube is also many times larger than the Mini.
The Mini is a very simple machine, while the Cube was a very complex machine. The Mini is basically a small circuit board, small power supply and that's about it, other than the memory, HDD and DVD that plugs into it.
The Cube, however, was a full fledged, expandable machine. The CPU was on a replaceable board just like Apple's towers, it had a slot for a graphics card. It had an open slot. Several memory slots. In other words, the machine had a complete backplane, which the Mini does not.
The reason why it was priced where it was, was, as I said, because it used the newer G4, which at the time was much more expensive than the older G3.
It was noted, at the time, that if Apple would have gone with the G3 instead, during the time of a recession, it would have been able to lower the price by a good $300, and it would have sold.
But, as usual, Apple instead chose to discontinue it rather than to lower the specs.
It's difficult to understand how you could actually look inside that machine and think that it's not more than the Mini in the way it was put together. You could easily fit five Mini's inside by cubic volume, and the Mini has no hardware when compared to the Cube. I cant think that you actually compared the two. They are completely different..
The reason is two-fold for the 2.5" drives.
1. You can get a half terabyte in a 2.5" size
2. 2.5" drives are more sturdy and use much less power.
There is no "sturdiness" advantage to drives in a desktop which is not being moved around. The MBTF is better on the 3.5" drives than on the 2.5" drives, and in a desktop, that's what matters. Power issues in a desktop are, again, not at issue for drives. The graphics card could very easily use five or more times the power.
You need 3 drives in a desktop/workstation because you need the minimum amount for parity striping.
This isn't a workstation. It's a home computer. Most people buying a home computer don't even know what a RAID is. They certainly won't be intending to use one. At best, they will use a second drive for Time Machine.
Having two drive bays 3.5" would indeed allow you install 4TB of data but at that size you're likely better off with extran direct attach or NAS. Plus there's no performance really in the large 72k HDD. SSD in 2009 is going to deliver sequential writes that HDD can't tough (200+ MBps) and 2010 the idea of using a dog slow HDD drive will seem downright foolish when you have 300MBps SSD available.
Again, you're taking what will primarily be a home machine, and trying to stretch it into some low version of a workstation, which it would not be. No in their right mind uses a machine without EEC RAM for a serious workstation, or server.
What's the use of putting a quad core CPU in your computer and hobbling it with a slow
storage subsystem?
For HOME use, a terabyte drive is more than fast enough. Processing speed, esp. when used with the appropriate RAM, will do what is needed quite nicely.
Even for the low end pro work some might buy this for, that would be true. No one would buy a machine like this for the functions you seem to be proposing it for. If that's the intent, then the single core Mac Pro would be a much better choice, and would cost less than a thousand more than your configuration. Plus, you would have the reliability that a workstation or server really calls for, both in memory, and electro-mechanically. Anyone really needing that would not balk at the additional cost.
For the record I don't consider a mid tower a consumer machine but
rather a prosumer machine. Thus I'd expect that its purchasers be
savvy about data protection features like RAID and also understand the
benefit of shared storage.
I think for those people that just want a large hard drive and don't want
to leverage data protection via RAID are poor candidates for a mid tower.
Where exactly aren't their needs being met by an iMac?
Hell I think the Mac Pro is almost there in pricing. I'd have like the Quad if it
was $1999.
Nice rebuttal Melgross.
For the record I don't consider a mid tower a consumer machine but
rather a prosumer machine. Thus I'd expect that its purchasers be
savvy about data protection features like RAID and also understand the
benefit of shared storage.
I think for those people that just want a large hard drive and don't want
to leverage data protection via RAID are poor candidates for a mid tower.
Where exactly aren't their needs being met by an iMac?
The main argument for an xMac is for a consumer desktop that allow for some expandability and option of monitor. You are now trying to move the bar in favor of it becoming more like a mini Mac Pro. Apple absolutely would not make a mid-tower that directly competes with the Mac Pro.
I respectfully disagree. I don't think there's any real consensus on what xMac should be which is why it's a mythical "dream" product.