The Mac Mini's one flaw is that it's based around a laptop hard drive instead of a desktop processor. It's nearest volume competitor, the HP S7600 series is 9.75x wide x 13.125 deep x 4.375 tall laying flat. This includes an internal power supply, desktop memory, full height optical drive, half height PCI slot, and card reader. A simple enlargement of the existing mini to allow for a desktop hard drive would produce a better and more commercially viable machine while still being far smaller than even the best Slimline desktop on the PC side.
It would also be noisier, produce more heat and require more power. At that point, you could as well argue it should have a desktop CPU. Then you could argue it should use desktop RAM. Both cheaper yet more powerful.
It would also be noisier, produce more heat and require more power. At that point, you could as well argue it should have a desktop CPU. Then you could argue it should use desktop RAM. Both cheaper yet more powerful.
Do you find the iMac, which uses a desktop hard drive to be noisy?
Do you find the iMac, which uses a desktop hard drive to be noisy?
Naturally not, as the iMac has a much bigger case, allowing for much better means of dealing with the noise.
You called the 2.5-inch hard drive a "flaw", implying it is some kind of bug that will be corrected. It was, I'm sure, a deliberate design decision. Virtually all of the Mac mini's components are laptop-like. The goal was to make the case as small, quiet and non-obtrusive as possible. They have achieved that.
Using a 3.5-inch drive would add much more capacity. Using a desktop CPU would add much more performance. Using desktop RAM would cut off much of the price. But all of them would ever-so-slightly increase the Mac mini's form factor, and that would be completely against its nature.
I don't think any of that is hard to understand. What you want is not an altered mini, what you want is a different computer altogether.
Naturally not, as the iMac has a much bigger case, allowing for much better means of dealing with the noise.
You called the 2.5-inch hard drive a "flaw", implying it is some kind of bug that will be corrected. It was, I'm sure, a deliberate design decision. Virtually all of the Mac mini's components are laptop-like. The goal was to make the case as small, quiet and non-obtrusive as possible. They have achieved that.
Using a 3.5-inch drive would add much more capacity. Using a desktop CPU would add much more performance. Using desktop RAM would cut off much of the price. But all of them would ever-so-slightly increase the Mac mini's form factor, and that would be completely against its nature.
I don't think any of that is hard to understand. What you want is not an altered mini, what you want is a different computer altogether.
It is a flaw that needs to be corrected. It severely limits both the sales as an entry level Mac and its potential secondary use as a home media center. That hard drive can me the difference between done deal and forget Apple I'm buying a PC. Storage space is king these days
The Mac Mini's one flaw is that it's based around a laptop hard drive instead of a desktop processor. It's nearest volume competitor, the HP S7600 series is 9.75x wide x 13.125 deep x 4.375 tall laying flat. This includes an internal power supply, desktop memory, full height optical drive, half height PCI slot, and card reader.
The one problem is the depth of this and the shuttle (12.79"). The 6.5" depth of the mini is nice because it fits even on 12" deep bookshelves with cabling. A relatively rare installation issue but for some folks this is great.
That said you should be able to cram a 3.5" drive (about 5.8" deep) into a 6.5" mini but the connector will likely need to be flush. Unit will end up taller and that does make it somewhat less attractive from the current 2" height.
But frankly, who cares? Get a NAS. Its not like those aren't handy even for desktop users if you're dealing with a media library.
But the original 1998 iMac sold for $1,299. Today's iMacs start at $999. So I'm afraid you're exactly wrong.
You haven't proved me wrong. In 1998 iMacs were priced as an entry level computer for the masses. What you are missing is that computer prices have tumbled considerably, far more than the dollar amount would indicated because of inflation. Consider, what would be the price of today's entry level tower with a 17 inch display, in 1998 dollars? So, taking market conditions into account, an entry level iMac today should sell for around $600.
The big mini with desktop CPU and drives should sell for around $499 in its minimum price configuration. Add a cheap display and it is in the ballpark. The advantage of this two piece iMac-like computer is that it can be had cheap, but because it is designed to look great with an Apple display sitting on top, it will stimulate sales of displays for Apple.
For those with engineering concerns about heat in a small package, my latest suggestion of 3.25 inches high, 14 inches wide and 11 inches deep should be adequate. This package gives about the same volume as a PS3, with it powerful cell processor. (Shape of PS3 gives it less volume than its height, width and depth dimensions would indicate.)
$1199 or $1249 for the 2.40 xMac OK $50, why the odd price?
$1499 or $1699 for the 2.66 xMac, why the $450 premium? Should be $220-300 max.
$1999 or $2499 for the 2.93 xMac, why the $800 premium? Should be $470-500 max. And why the $2499 price tag that's already the 2.66 Mac Pro slot.
I got those prices from looking at what competitors were charging for similar systems, and looking at how Apple configures and prices its other computers.
I'm looking at what Apple is most likely to do. Not totally at what I wish they would do.
Not necessarily the two only share the same name they are not the same computer.
The entry level iMac of 2006 has design and functionality that would have cost considerably more than $1299 in 1998.
You are right, the early iMac and today's iMac are the same in name only. That is what I said in my original post up the page a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
. . . the original iMac had something that the G4 and newer iMacs lack, a low price. The original was an entry level computer that attracted many. Now it is sold as a more upscale, prosumer Mac . . .
I was taken to task for saying that the first iMac had a low price tag and was more of an entry level Mac. In defense of my position, I was simply showing that by market conditions, or the current selling price of computers, the original iMac would be worth about $600 today. It was an entry level Mac with a average display for the time.
Yes, the iMac has since been upscaled by Apple to be its "prosumer" model.
My original proposal, then, was to achieve an iMac like computer in two pieces, which could serve the entry level market, and sell with or without a display.
You haven't proved me wrong. In 1998 iMacs were priced as an entry level computer for the masses.
No, it wasn't. The PC competitors were several hundred dollars less. Packard Bell and eMachines were very inexpensive. iMacs NEVER were priced as entry level computers and repeated assertions to that doesn't make it a fact. There were even cheaper Macs than the iMac at around $700 or whatever (its in a previous post).
Edit: found it - Performa 450 was $750 and eMachine eTower @ $499 in 1998. The 2006 equivalent to the headless Performa 450 is the Mini. Yes, Apple's pricing hasn't slipped as much as PC pricing has. That's a GOOD thing for Apple and for OSX users. Apple has to maintain an OS while Dell outsources that to Microsoft or perhaps Linux.
No, it wasn't. The PC competitors were several hundred dollars less. Packard Bell and eMachines were very inexpensive. iMacs NEVER were priced as entry level computers and repeated assertions to that doesn't make it a fact. There were even cheaper Macs than the iMac at around $700 or whatever (its in a previous post).
Edit: found it - Performa 450 was $750 and eMachine eTower @ $499 in 1998. The 2006 equivalent to the headless Performa 450 is the Mini. Yes, Apple's pricing hasn't slipped as much as PC pricing has. That's a GOOD thing for Apple and for OSX users. Apple has to maintain an OS while Dell outsources that to Microsoft or perhaps Linux.
Vinea
If you call having to go online to find software and being one business decision by abode from being out of business a good thing. Apple may have record profits, but the platform is far too close to the edge for comfort.
I'd like to offer my personal observation on the iMac. For several years after its introduction in 1998, the iMac was very popular. I knew those who were computer phobic who said, "If I ever were to get a computer, it would be an iMac."
That iMac captured the hearts and minds of many, and resulted in a good sales increase for Apple. This popularity didn't last very many years, and Apple has been trying to win it back ever since, with the G4, G5 and current iMacs. The eMac took the place of the original iMac for a while, but it was never as popular, or as cute. Here is what our favorite encyclopedia say about the original iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Having discontinued the consumer-targeted Performa series, Apple needed a replacement for the Performa's price point. The company announced the iMac on 7 May 1998, and started shipping the iMac on 15 August 1998. The launch of the iMac was a landmark event for its time, and had a massive impact on both the company and the computer industry.
The glory days of the iMac are over, however, and likely nothing will bring them back. Rather than chasing a dream, Apple should be looking for the next big thing, which is not an AIO in my view. So, what was the iMac beside an AIO computer?
First of all it was Apple's entry-level product. As quoted above, Apple had discontinued its consumer-targeted Performa series. It was also Apple lowest price computer. The dictionary say an entry-level product is "suitable for a beginner or first time user," which certainly describes the original iMac. Apple even showed off how easily it could be set up and used, compared to a typical Windows PC.
I have a feeling that Apple's strategy has been to move iMac users up, from their former entry level iMacs to more of a prosumer iMac. It has worked to some degree, but not very well. Possibly entry level iMac users went on to buy Power Macs, or today the Mac Pro.
Today, Apple's entry level Mac is the Mini. It actually has captured a little of the original iMac mind share, but not enough to have "a massive impact on both the company and the computer industry." I believe that the possibility for such impact is still there, waiting for Apple to find that right product.
It's been my hope that this thread would bring out such ideas. Sure, I've got a few ideas, but I believe there is so much more potential with all the readers and contributors of AI. Nothing would make me happier than to see someone else come up with a terrific entry level Mac that could recapture the aura of the original iMac.
I like the mini tower Mac idea too, for the prosumers, a word which my dictionary says means "an amateur who purchases equipment with quality or features suitable for professional use." But my favorite is the entry level, to give Apple a better shot at general consumers and business alike.
If you call having to go online to find software and being one business decision by abode from being out of business a good thing. Apple may have record profits, but the platform is far too close to the edge for comfort.
Yes, this is why you can buy OSX at CompUSA and why Best Buy is going to expand Mac sales beyond their pilot stores...because the Mac is on the verge of extinction, Apple is executing poorly and has zero mindshare.
What did you think in Q4 2000 when Apple was unprofitable, had a staggeringly bad 1.8% (current year) share, 659K unit sales, just bombed on the Cube and there was no iPod?
The Intel transition has certainly been a major success for Apple as much as the 1999 iMac. Adobe isn't going to make an adverse "business decision" based on the past 3 years performance and even if they did, while it would be a major blow to the platform, it would only be likely if Apple offered a product that made the Creative Suite uncompetitive in the Apple market. That ain't happening anytime soon.
Here is what our favorite encyclopedia say about the original iMac.
Yes, they replaced a $750 with a $1299 one. And it was more popular. Which means price isn't everything nor is Apple required to compete in the entry level market at entry level prices.
Quote:
The glory days of the iMac are over, however, and likely nothing will bring them back. Rather than chasing a dream, Apple should be looking for the next big thing, which is not an AIO in my view.
Yes, its called a notebook computer and we have more unit sales than we had in 1999 with the iMac mania (1.38M sales).
Quote:
First of all it was Apple's entry-level product. As quoted above, Apple had discontinued its consumer-targeted Performa series. It was also Apple lowest price computer.
But not a competitor in the entry level market against the likes of Packard Bell and eMachines.
Quote:
The dictionary say an entry-level product is "suitable for a beginner or first time user," which certainly describes the original iMac. Apple even showed off how easily it could be set up and used, compared to a typical Windows PC.
And the Cayman is Porsche's least expensive "entry-level" product. It ain't cheap and it doesn't compete with the Toyota Corolla either.
Today, Apple's entry level Mac is the Mini. It actually has captured a little of the original iMac mind share, but not enough to have "a massive impact on both the company and the computer industry." I believe that the possibility for such impact is still there, waiting for Apple to find that right product.
If you call having to go online to find software and being one business decision by abode from being out of business a good thing.
You make it sound as though Adobe has the upper hand. Software and platform are a symbiotic relationship. Adobe's fortunes are directly tied to the success of Apple.
As much as 40% of Adobe's professional products are sold to Mac users who only account for about 3% of the worlds computer market.
Logic dictates that apple will have to release a machine inbetween the dual core, unexpandable iMac and the soon to be octo core Mac Pro. I mean I know the above has been stated before but it just can't be said enough in my opinion.
In MY opinion, it can and it HAS been said more than enough! About 20 forum pages more than enough! Not to mention all the comments in every vaguely related thread on this forum. There's no reason to keep on saying things like this over and over when it's already been rehashed again and again.....
In MY opinion, it can and it HAS been said more than enough! About 20 forum pages more than enough! Not to mention all the comments in every vaguely related thread on this forum. There's no reason to keep on saying things like this over and over when it's already been rehashed again and again.....
Maybe we are simply hoping Apple will eventually take notice. Not all troops are happy with the Mac desktop product selection. I see nothing wrong with presenting ideas and saying what we want in a desktop computer. Anyone who is not interest should skip this thread. It's not the longest thread. The Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD thread is much longer, having gone on since creation of the universe, almost.
I gave my opinion on the current iMacs not long ago. In my opinion, Apple has been upgrading it to more of a prosumer Mac, from G3 to G4 to G5 and now the current Intel chip. Yet many of us don't want the iMac. The affluent buy the Mac Pro while the rest of us unhappy souls buy from eBay.
Comments
The Mac Mini's one flaw is that it's based around a laptop hard drive instead of a desktop processor. It's nearest volume competitor, the HP S7600 series is 9.75x wide x 13.125 deep x 4.375 tall laying flat. This includes an internal power supply, desktop memory, full height optical drive, half height PCI slot, and card reader. A simple enlargement of the existing mini to allow for a desktop hard drive would produce a better and more commercially viable machine while still being far smaller than even the best Slimline desktop on the PC side.
It would also be noisier, produce more heat and require more power. At that point, you could as well argue it should have a desktop CPU. Then you could argue it should use desktop RAM. Both cheaper yet more powerful.
It would also be noisier, produce more heat and require more power. At that point, you could as well argue it should have a desktop CPU. Then you could argue it should use desktop RAM. Both cheaper yet more powerful.
Do you find the iMac, which uses a desktop hard drive to be noisy?
Do you find the iMac, which uses a desktop hard drive to be noisy?
Naturally not, as the iMac has a much bigger case, allowing for much better means of dealing with the noise.
You called the 2.5-inch hard drive a "flaw", implying it is some kind of bug that will be corrected. It was, I'm sure, a deliberate design decision. Virtually all of the Mac mini's components are laptop-like. The goal was to make the case as small, quiet and non-obtrusive as possible. They have achieved that.
Using a 3.5-inch drive would add much more capacity. Using a desktop CPU would add much more performance. Using desktop RAM would cut off much of the price. But all of them would ever-so-slightly increase the Mac mini's form factor, and that would be completely against its nature.
I don't think any of that is hard to understand. What you want is not an altered mini, what you want is a different computer altogether.
Naturally not, as the iMac has a much bigger case, allowing for much better means of dealing with the noise.
You called the 2.5-inch hard drive a "flaw", implying it is some kind of bug that will be corrected. It was, I'm sure, a deliberate design decision. Virtually all of the Mac mini's components are laptop-like. The goal was to make the case as small, quiet and non-obtrusive as possible. They have achieved that.
Using a 3.5-inch drive would add much more capacity. Using a desktop CPU would add much more performance. Using desktop RAM would cut off much of the price. But all of them would ever-so-slightly increase the Mac mini's form factor, and that would be completely against its nature.
I don't think any of that is hard to understand. What you want is not an altered mini, what you want is a different computer altogether.
It is a flaw that needs to be corrected. It severely limits both the sales as an entry level Mac and its potential secondary use as a home media center. That hard drive can me the difference between done deal and forget Apple I'm buying a PC. Storage space is king these days
The Mac Mini's one flaw is that it's based around a laptop hard drive instead of a desktop processor. It's nearest volume competitor, the HP S7600 series is 9.75x wide x 13.125 deep x 4.375 tall laying flat. This includes an internal power supply, desktop memory, full height optical drive, half height PCI slot, and card reader.
The one problem is the depth of this and the shuttle (12.79"). The 6.5" depth of the mini is nice because it fits even on 12" deep bookshelves with cabling. A relatively rare installation issue but for some folks this is great.
That said you should be able to cram a 3.5" drive (about 5.8" deep) into a 6.5" mini but the connector will likely need to be flush. Unit will end up taller and that does make it somewhat less attractive from the current 2" height.
But frankly, who cares? Get a NAS. Its not like those aren't handy even for desktop users if you're dealing with a media library.
Vinea
But the original 1998 iMac sold for $1,299. Today's iMacs start at $999. So I'm afraid you're exactly wrong.
You haven't proved me wrong.
The big mini with desktop CPU and drives should sell for around $499 in its minimum price configuration. Add a cheap display and it is in the ballpark. The advantage of this two piece iMac-like computer is that it can be had cheap, but because it is designed to look great with an Apple display sitting on top, it will stimulate sales of displays for Apple.
For those with engineering concerns about heat in a small package, my latest suggestion of 3.25 inches high, 14 inches wide and 11 inches deep should be adequate. This package gives about the same volume as a PS3, with it powerful cell processor. (Shape of PS3 gives it less volume than its height, width and depth dimensions would indicate.)
$1199 or $1249 for the 2.40 xMac OK $50, why the odd price?
$1499 or $1699 for the 2.66 xMac, why the $450 premium? Should be $220-300 max.
$1999 or $2499 for the 2.93 xMac, why the $800 premium? Should be $470-500 max. And why the $2499 price tag that's already the 2.66 Mac Pro slot.
I got those prices from looking at what competitors were charging for similar systems, and looking at how Apple configures and prices its other computers.
I'm looking at what Apple is most likely to do. Not totally at what I wish they would do.
So, taking market conditions into account, an entry level iMac today should sell for around $600.
Not necessarily the two only share the same name they are not the same computer.
The entry level iMac of 2006 has design and functionality that would have cost considerably more than $1299 in 1998.
Not necessarily the two only share the same name they are not the same computer.
The entry level iMac of 2006 has design and functionality that would have cost considerably more than $1299 in 1998.
You are right, the early iMac and today's iMac are the same in name only. That is what I said in my original post up the page a bit.
. . . the original iMac had something that the G4 and newer iMacs lack, a low price. The original was an entry level computer that attracted many. Now it is sold as a more upscale, prosumer Mac . . .
I was taken to task for saying that the first iMac had a low price tag and was more of an entry level Mac. In defense of my position, I was simply showing that by market conditions, or the current selling price of computers, the original iMac would be worth about $600 today. It was an entry level Mac with a average display for the time.
Yes, the iMac has since been upscaled by Apple to be its "prosumer" model.
My original proposal, then, was to achieve an iMac like computer in two pieces, which could serve the entry level market, and sell with or without a display.
You haven't proved me wrong.
No, it wasn't. The PC competitors were several hundred dollars less. Packard Bell and eMachines were very inexpensive. iMacs NEVER were priced as entry level computers and repeated assertions to that doesn't make it a fact. There were even cheaper Macs than the iMac at around $700 or whatever (its in a previous post).
Edit: found it - Performa 450 was $750 and eMachine eTower @ $499 in 1998. The 2006 equivalent to the headless Performa 450 is the Mini. Yes, Apple's pricing hasn't slipped as much as PC pricing has. That's a GOOD thing for Apple and for OSX users. Apple has to maintain an OS while Dell outsources that to Microsoft or perhaps Linux.
Vinea
No, it wasn't. The PC competitors were several hundred dollars less. Packard Bell and eMachines were very inexpensive. iMacs NEVER were priced as entry level computers and repeated assertions to that doesn't make it a fact. There were even cheaper Macs than the iMac at around $700 or whatever (its in a previous post).
Edit: found it - Performa 450 was $750 and eMachine eTower @ $499 in 1998. The 2006 equivalent to the headless Performa 450 is the Mini. Yes, Apple's pricing hasn't slipped as much as PC pricing has. That's a GOOD thing for Apple and for OSX users. Apple has to maintain an OS while Dell outsources that to Microsoft or perhaps Linux.
Vinea
If you call having to go online to find software and being one business decision by abode from being out of business a good thing. Apple may have record profits, but the platform is far too close to the edge for comfort.
I'd like to offer my personal observation on the iMac. For several years after its introduction in 1998, the iMac was very popular. I knew those who were computer phobic who said, "If I ever were to get a computer, it would be an iMac."
That iMac captured the hearts and minds of many, and resulted in a good sales increase for Apple. This popularity didn't last very many years, and Apple has been trying to win it back ever since, with the G4, G5 and current iMacs. The eMac took the place of the original iMac for a while, but it was never as popular, or as cute. Here is what our favorite encyclopedia say about the original iMac.
Having discontinued the consumer-targeted Performa series, Apple needed a replacement for the Performa's price point. The company announced the iMac on 7 May 1998, and started shipping the iMac on 15 August 1998. The launch of the iMac was a landmark event for its time, and had a massive impact on both the company and the computer industry.
The glory days of the iMac are over, however, and likely nothing will bring them back. Rather than chasing a dream, Apple should be looking for the next big thing, which is not an AIO in my view. So, what was the iMac beside an AIO computer?
First of all it was Apple's entry-level product. As quoted above, Apple had discontinued its consumer-targeted Performa series. It was also Apple lowest price computer. The dictionary say an entry-level product is "suitable for a beginner or first time user," which certainly describes the original iMac. Apple even showed off how easily it could be set up and used, compared to a typical Windows PC.
I have a feeling that Apple's strategy has been to move iMac users up, from their former entry level iMacs to more of a prosumer iMac. It has worked to some degree, but not very well. Possibly entry level iMac users went on to buy Power Macs, or today the Mac Pro.
Today, Apple's entry level Mac is the Mini. It actually has captured a little of the original iMac mind share, but not enough to have "a massive impact on both the company and the computer industry." I believe that the possibility for such impact is still there, waiting for Apple to find that right product.
It's been my hope that this thread would bring out such ideas. Sure, I've got a few ideas, but I believe there is so much more potential with all the readers and contributors of AI. Nothing would make me happier than to see someone else come up with a terrific entry level Mac that could recapture the aura of the original iMac.
I like the mini tower Mac idea too, for the prosumers, a word which my dictionary says means "an amateur who purchases equipment with quality or features suitable for professional use." But my favorite is the entry level, to give Apple a better shot at general consumers and business alike.
If you call having to go online to find software and being one business decision by abode from being out of business a good thing. Apple may have record profits, but the platform is far too close to the edge for comfort.
Yes, this is why you can buy OSX at CompUSA and why Best Buy is going to expand Mac sales beyond their pilot stores...because the Mac is on the verge of extinction, Apple is executing poorly and has zero mindshare.
What did you think in Q4 2000 when Apple was unprofitable, had a staggeringly bad 1.8% (current year) share, 659K unit sales, just bombed on the Cube and there was no iPod?
http://www.systemshootouts.org/mac_sales.html
You must have really been gloomy then.
The Intel transition has certainly been a major success for Apple as much as the 1999 iMac. Adobe isn't going to make an adverse "business decision" based on the past 3 years performance and even if they did, while it would be a major blow to the platform, it would only be likely if Apple offered a product that made the Creative Suite uncompetitive in the Apple market. That ain't happening anytime soon.
Vinea
Here is what our favorite encyclopedia say about the original iMac.
Yes, they replaced a $750 with a $1299 one. And it was more popular. Which means price isn't everything nor is Apple required to compete in the entry level market at entry level prices.
The glory days of the iMac are over, however, and likely nothing will bring them back. Rather than chasing a dream, Apple should be looking for the next big thing, which is not an AIO in my view.
Yes, its called a notebook computer and we have more unit sales than we had in 1999 with the iMac mania (1.38M sales).
First of all it was Apple's entry-level product. As quoted above, Apple had discontinued its consumer-targeted Performa series. It was also Apple lowest price computer.
But not a competitor in the entry level market against the likes of Packard Bell and eMachines.
The dictionary say an entry-level product is "suitable for a beginner or first time user," which certainly describes the original iMac. Apple even showed off how easily it could be set up and used, compared to a typical Windows PC.
And the Cayman is Porsche's least expensive "entry-level" product. It ain't cheap and it doesn't compete with the Toyota Corolla either.
http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/articles/cayman_27.asp
Today, Apple's entry level Mac is the Mini. It actually has captured a little of the original iMac mind share, but not enough to have "a massive impact on both the company and the computer industry." I believe that the possibility for such impact is still there, waiting for Apple to find that right product.
It's called the MacBook.
Vinea
If you call having to go online to find software and being one business decision by abode from being out of business a good thing.
You make it sound as though Adobe has the upper hand. Software and platform are a symbiotic relationship. Adobe's fortunes are directly tied to the success of Apple.
As much as 40% of Adobe's professional products are sold to Mac users who only account for about 3% of the worlds computer market.
...it just can't be said enough in my opinion.
In MY opinion, it can and it HAS been said more than enough! About 20 forum pages more than enough! Not to mention all the comments in every vaguely related thread on this forum. There's no reason to keep on saying things like this over and over when it's already been rehashed again and again.....
In MY opinion, it can and it HAS been said more than enough! About 20 forum pages more than enough! Not to mention all the comments in every vaguely related thread on this forum. There's no reason to keep on saying things like this over and over when it's already been rehashed again and again.....
Maybe we are simply hoping Apple will eventually take notice. Not all troops are happy with the Mac desktop product selection. I see nothing wrong with presenting ideas and saying what we want in a desktop computer. Anyone who is not interest should skip this thread. It's not the longest thread. The Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD thread is much longer, having gone on since creation of the universe, almost.
I gave my opinion on the current iMacs not long ago. In my opinion, Apple has been upgrading it to more of a prosumer Mac, from G3 to G4 to G5 and now the current Intel chip. Yet many of us don't want the iMac. The affluent buy the Mac Pro while the rest of us unhappy souls buy from eBay.