Will Apple ever make this machine?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
First of all: yes, this is about a mid-range tower...



I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.



In fact they don't even make a Mac with a desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro uses server chips, and every other Mac uses laptop chips.



What do you think the chances are of Apple producing such a machine? I think the iMac is not a good candidate for Kentsfield since it currently uses a laptop chip (heat, power consumption issues). I know it used a G5 in the past, but it seems that one of the most important features of the iMac is the quiet, cool operation.



I think the Mac Pro enclosure is pretty perfect, just use 1xKentsfield rather than 2xWoodcrest/2xClovertown.



The Kentsfield machine could offer many things, such as faster RAM than the Woodcrest/Clovertown Mac Pros, and lower cost...



2.4 GHz Kentsfield (Q6600)

1 GB RAM (should be 2 GB)

250 GB HD

(whatever graphics they choose to use)

Superdrive

(all the usual stuff)



$1999



Any chance?
«13456719

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 362
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    Pffft.. No.
  • Reply 2 of 362
    sandausandau Posts: 1,230member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dulcimer47 View Post




    2.4 GHz Kentsfield (Q6600)

    1 GB RAM (should be 2 GB)

    250 GB HD

    (whatever graphics they choose to use)

    Superdrive

    (all the usual stuff)



    $1999



    Any chance?



    what's the point. you're already past the $1500 mark at 2k, whats 499 more to get a Mac Pro that kills those specs?



    Apple needs a headless 1k computer, not a headless 2k computer, imho. anything else has a screen parked in it or a crappy on board graphics chip.
  • Reply 3 of 362
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dulcimer47 View Post


    I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.



    Because dozens of other manufacturers already do.
  • Reply 4 of 362
    ipeonipeon Posts: 1,122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker View Post


    Because dozens of other manufacturers already do.



    I wasn't aware that other manufacturers made Macs.
  • Reply 5 of 362
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,354member
    They could easily do it but the question is "will they?"



    I think eventually they'll have to. I love the iMac but some people will need a bit more grunt. Apple has to deliver both IMO.
  • Reply 6 of 362
    kenaustuskenaustus Posts: 916member
    I'm one of the supporters of a headless mid-range for several reasons.



    The first is the Mac mini users who bought one to "try a Mac". They are ready to move up, but don't want to give up their current display and don't want to pay the price of a Mac Pro. When you remember Apple saying that half of the Mac buyers in their stores are new to Macs it appears that an upgrade path to a mid range would be rather successful.



    For me, I have a PB attached to a 23" display, which I prefer to the imac at home. Not having a chin puts the 23" lower and is more comfortable for me. I would go with a mid range that is a lot smaller, but I'm done with large towers. I'll wait for the mid-range, which I bet is a slightly taller version of the Apple TV. I'm also betting tht there will be a nice range of processors and video cards to choose from. Unfortunately it probably won't come for another 3 - 5 years!
  • Reply 7 of 362
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dulcimer47 View Post


    I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.



    In fact they don't even make a Mac with a desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro uses server chips, and every other Mac uses laptop chips.



    many years ago (or even NOT that many years ago) we had desktop computers mini computers and main frame computers.



    those lines became blurred and indeed sound archaic today, likewise i think the thought of a "desktop CPU" versus a "laptop chip" or a "server chip" is getting almost as redundant.



    after all, the G4 chips..what were they? we saw them first in the powermac (desktop line) but soon they became laptop ONLY.. so what were they? the definition is blurred already.



    Apple are seeing more growth in their computer range than any other computer manufacturer, so perhaps they dont actually NEED to bother with an xMac. maybe indeed they ARE doing something right after all.



    not to say i wouldnt be interested to see what they came up with and where it was priced
  • Reply 8 of 362
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dulcimer47 View Post


    First of all: yes, this is about a mid-range tower...



    I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.



    In fact they don't even make a Mac with a desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro uses server chips, and every other Mac uses laptop chips.



    What do you think the chances are of Apple producing such a machine? I think the iMac is not a good candidate for Kentsfield since it currently uses a laptop chip (heat, power consumption issues). I know it used a G5 in the past, but it seems that one of the most important features of the iMac is the quiet, cool operation.



    I think the Mac Pro enclosure is pretty perfect, just use 1xKentsfield rather than 2xWoodcrest/2xClovertown.



    The Kentsfield machine could offer many things, such as faster RAM than the Woodcrest/Clovertown Mac Pros, and lower cost...



    2.4 GHz Kentsfield (Q6600)

    1 GB RAM (should be 2 GB)

    250 GB HD

    (whatever graphics they choose to use)

    Superdrive

    (all the usual stuff)



    $1999



    Any chance?



    I doubt it. I've been waiting years to see a true desktop Mac and Apple has not come through. Unfortunately Apple just doesn't just want your money anymore, they want you to think as they do. In their mind your either a high priced professional who needs a quad or 8-core workstation or a very low end consumer who needs an all in one. They're incapable of seeing anything in the middle.
  • Reply 9 of 362
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    A headless iMac topic? Has it really been a week and a half already?



    Since this topic has already been beaten to death, I'll do a quick recap of why I don't think this will happen.



    First, Apple already offered a mid range Mac with no built in screen a few years ago. It offered the top of the line processor at the time and you could upgrade the optical drive, the graphics card, add a larger hard drive, and add more RAM. It was called the Power Mac G4 Cube. At the time, people looked at the Power Mac G4 towers and said, "Wow, that's really expensive. If I spend a few hundred dollars more, I could get a more expandable Power Mac G4 tower!"



    So that brings us back to now. When people say they want a 'Mid range tower', what most of them mean is, "I want a computer that is almost as fast as the current top of the line Pro tower with almost all of the expandability and features but I want it at half of the price of the current low end Pro tower".



    Apple has the 'desktop' market pretty well covered. You have the low end Mac Mini starting at $599, the high end Mac Mini at $799, the low end 17" iMac at $999, the high end 17" iMac at $1199, the 20" 2.16 GHz iMac at $1499, the 20" 2.33 GHz iMac at $1749, the 24" iMac at $1999, the DPDC 2.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2200, the DPDC 2.66 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2499, the DPDC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3298, and the DPQC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3997.



    If Apple was to re-release the Cube today at $1999 or even $1799, it would not sell. People would complain that it is too expensive and that for a few hundred dollars more they could get a Mac Pro. Apple already proved there wasn't a market for this kind of Mac, I hope they don't make the same mistake twice.
  • Reply 10 of 362
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Given that Apple has probably deliberately misinterpreted requests for headless desktop Macs by introducing the Cube and Mini, I don't see it happening. They've barely tolerated the $1499 single processor G5 model when it existed.
  • Reply 11 of 362
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sandau View Post


    what's the point. you're already past the $1500 mark at 2k, whats 499 more to get a Mac Pro that kills those specs?



    Apple needs a headless 1k computer, not a headless 2k computer, imho. anything else has a screen parked in it or a crappy on board graphics chip.





    Does a 2.66 2xWoodcrest machine "kill" a 2.4 Kentsfield? Probably, but what about a 2.66 or 2.93 Kentsfield.



    I suppose the question is: Which is preferable? Dual Dual or Single Quad?



    Also, with the Octo announcement, it seems as if Octo-core is the new standard for Mac Pro towers, and to buy a Quad (really dual-dual) is misguided.



    When iMacs have quad-core chips in 2008 (next year), dual-dual towers will be very out of date...
  • Reply 12 of 362
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kenaustus View Post


    I'm one of the supporters of a headless mid-range for several reasons.



    The first is the Mac mini users who bought one to "try a Mac". They are ready to move up, but don't want to give up their current display and don't want to pay the price of a Mac Pro. When you remember Apple saying that half of the Mac buyers in their stores are new to Macs it appears that an upgrade path to a mid range would be rather successful.



    For me, I have a PB attached to a 23" display, which I prefer to the imac at home. Not having a chin puts the 23" lower and is more comfortable for me. I would go with a mid range that is a lot smaller, but I'm done with large towers. I'll wait for the mid-range, which I bet is a slightly taller version of the Apple TV. I'm also betting tht there will be a nice range of processors and video cards to choose from. Unfortunately it probably won't come for another 3 - 5 years!



    Well, i think people that bought a mini just to "try one" without actually needing it probably have the cash to upgrade to mac pro...



    The people that bought it because they need it would probably have initially bought an iMac or MacPro if they needed the extra power.



    Since the average person is changing computers maybe every 3.5-4 years, I don't think there are too many freaking out over not being able to use their 4 year old monitor, at least not enough to make it of interest to Apple.



    It is irritating, though, that the only option for non-laptop processors is Mac Pro. It's lame to have the lower performance of a laptop chip in the iMac desktops, especially considering they're pretty huge anyways... I mean an extra half inch thickness to get rid of the heat wouldn't be such a huge deal if it meant much better performance...
  • Reply 13 of 362
    Dont think so
  • Reply 14 of 362
    Don't think of it as a new machine, a mid-range tower, or headless iMac.



    Think of it as a Mac Pro.



    1xKentsfield instead of 2xWoodcrest.



    Starting at $1799 (rather than the current $2299 for a Mac Pro).



    The Mac Pro line would range from Kentsfield to Woodcrest to Clovertown...
  • Reply 15 of 362
    rickagrickag Posts: 1,626member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dulcimer47 View Post


    First of all: yes, this is about a mid-range tower...



    I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a mid-range tower (or low-end Mac Pro) using the Kentsfield (single-CPU, quad-core) chipset.



    In fact they don't even make a Mac with a desktop CPU in it. The Mac Pro uses server chips, and every other Mac uses laptop chips.



    What do you think the chances are of Apple producing such a machine? I think the iMac is not a good candidate for Kentsfield since it currently uses a laptop chip (heat, power consumption issues). I know it used a G5 in the past, but it seems that one of the most important features of the iMac is the quiet, cool operation.



    I think the Mac Pro enclosure is pretty perfect, just use 1xKentsfield rather than 2xWoodcrest/2xClovertown.



    The Kentsfield machine could offer many things, such as faster RAM than the Woodcrest/Clovertown Mac Pros, and lower cost...



    2.4 GHz Kentsfield (Q6600)

    1 GB RAM (should be 2 GB)

    250 GB HD

    (whatever graphics they choose to use)

    Superdrive

    (all the usual stuff)



    $1999



    Any chance?



    Replace Kentsfield with Conroe, lower base price to $779 - $899 and it might sell a lot. Chances of Apple introducing either machine = slim to none



    They don't want this business for some reason known only to them.
  • Reply 16 of 362
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fran441 View Post


    A headless iMac topic? Has it really been a week and a half already?



    Since this topic has already been beaten to death, I'll do a quick recap of why I don't think this will happen.



    First, Apple already offered a mid range Mac with no built in screen a few years ago. It offered the top of the line processor at the time and you could upgrade the optical drive, the graphics card, add a larger hard drive, and add more RAM. It was called the Power Mac G4 Cube. At the time, people looked at the Power Mac G4 towers and said, "Wow, that's really expensive. If I spend a few hundred dollars more, I could get a more expandable Power Mac G4 tower!"



    So that brings us back to now. When people say they want a 'Mid range tower', what most of them mean is, "I want a computer that is almost as fast as the current top of the line Pro tower with almost all of the expandability and features but I want it at half of the price of the current low end Pro tower".



    Apple has the 'desktop' market pretty well covered. You have the low end Mac Mini starting at $599, the high end Mac Mini at $799, the low end 17" iMac at $999, the high end 17" iMac at $1199, the 20" 2.16 GHz iMac at $1499, the 20" 2.33 GHz iMac at $1749, the 24" iMac at $1999, the DPDC 2.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2200, the DPDC 2.66 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $2499, the DPDC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3298, and the DPQC 3.0 GHz Xeon Mac Pro at $3997.



    If Apple was to re-release the Cube today at $1999 or even $1799, it would not sell. People would complain that it is too expensive and that for a few hundred dollars more they could get a Mac Pro. Apple already proved there wasn't a market for this kind of Mac, I hope they don't make the same mistake twice.



    Yep they got it covered fine as long as you're either insanely rich or are willing to make severe capability sacrifices in order to meet with Jobs thinks a computer should be and should do. Yes they do keep making a mistake repeatedly, but it's listening only to a small niche group and leaving everyone else, including Mac Prosumers, high and dry. when I became a Mac user I didn't have a difficult time finding a Mac at all. The last couple I've had a very hard time finding a Mac that meets my needs. If it wasn't for the $1000 tax Apple levies for a 24" display to get so much as a GeForce 7600GT Apple would be getting two machines out of me. Now, they'll be lucky if they get one.
  • Reply 17 of 362
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rickag View Post


    Replace Kentsfield with Conroe, lower base price to $779 - $899 and it might sell a lot. Chances of Apple introducing either machine = slim to none



    They don't want this business for some reason known only to them.



    it would be more like $1499-1699, but I would buy it in a heartbeat.
  • Reply 18 of 362
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Quote:

    Yep they got it covered fine as long as you're either insanely rich or are willing to make severe capability sacrifices in order to meet with Jobs thinks a computer should be and should do. Yes they do keep making a mistake repeatedly, but it's listening only to a small niche group and leaving everyone else, including Mac Prosumers, high and dry. when I became a Mac user I didn't have a difficult time finding a Mac at all. The last couple I've had a very hard time finding a Mac that meets my needs. If it wasn't for the $1000 tax Apple levies for a 24" display to get so much as a GeForce 7600GT Apple would be getting two machines out of me. Now, they'll be lucky if they get one.



    I said this in another post a few weeks ago and it's worth posting again.



    Apple made $1 billion last quarter, Dell made $673 million. Heck, HP is #1 in the PC world right now and they made $1.5 billion (partially because of excellent printer sales). Apple seems to know what they are doing.



    In 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997, Apple posted huge losses. At the time, Apple was trying to expand into different markets while also trying to have every possible segment of the Mac market covered. Needless to say, it didn't work. There were too many Performas and Power Macs out at the same time that covered the same markets.



    When Jobs took over, he simplified the Mac product line down to the Power Mac, iMac, PowerBook, and eventually the iBook. We saw the Cube fail in a 5th product line but the Mac Mini looks to be doing well as an entry level Mac.



    So the Mac lineup is still virtually the same as before, with the Mac Pro, iMac, MacBook Pro, and MacBook, along with the entry level Mac Mini.



    My suggestion is this: If you need a 'mid range' Mac tower, buy the last generation Mac Pro tower. We're in an odd spot right now with the Intel switch and the last few G5 towers being in demand due to people still using Classic apps, but once the next Mac Pro tower comes out, the existing Mac Pro towers will drop in price and fit your basic needs. Just my 2 cents.
  • Reply 19 of 362
    rickagrickag Posts: 1,626member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post


    it would be more like $1499-1699, but I would buy it in a heartbeat.



    I was using pricing for base models that currently exist. I've found desktop computers using a single Conroe ranging from a low of ~$799 to pricing higher than $1699, some higher than $3000.



    Oh well, we'll most likely never see Apple enter this market. For those that either need it or want it, Apple relegates them to the used tower market.
  • Reply 20 of 362
    benroethigbenroethig Posts: 2,782member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rickag View Post


    I was using pricing for base models that currently exist. I've found desktop computers using a single Conroe ranging from a low of ~$799 to pricing higher than $1699, some higher than $3000.



    Oh well, we'll most likely never see Apple enter this market. For those that either need it or want it, Apple relegates them to the used tower market.



    Or the Macbook/ PC desktop market.
Sign In or Register to comment.