1) What specifically this mid-range Mac should be like (looks, specs, etc.)
Smaller FF than the current Mac Pro (as if you threw it in the dryer.) No damned cutsey cube thingy either! Core 2 Duo Extreme thru Single Xeon CPU, up to 8GB Ram, Superdrive, 2-4 PCI Express and decent video card, 250GB HD - whatever sizeGB.
Stock config COULD be similar to the iMac 24 top end model.
Quote:
2) What affect this mid-range Mac would have on the sale of other Macs.
This is less of a concern. If Apple makes a tower whose popularity eclipses any part of the current lineup then let the market forces do what they will. Better long term business model to let people buy what they want and keep 'em coming back with a FAR superior product. Apple doing this size tower would by definition better than anything available in the PC world.
Quote:
3) Who each line of Macs would be marketed to if the mid-range Mac goes on sale.
Mid range marketed to the "prosumer" small-business creative folks who want need more than a Mini or iMac but really don't want/need to buy the behemoth Mac Pro. Similar groups as Sony, JVC and Canon market their sub 10K video cameras. Think wedding photographers/videographers, freelance graphics designers... you get the gist. Also the switchers from Vista.
Quote:
4) What this mid-range Mac would cost (think like Apple does).
BEST GUESSES HERE---
Starting at $1599, whatever it would take to build that box for that price spec wise would be OK. Top end model $2800-ish ball park. These numbers are off the top of my bald head and are just quick guesstimates.
Thank you for asking that in such a constructive manner. That was a good post sir.
I'm a Mac Pro user to the end. As long as Apple eventually comes out with a good one, but looks wise I think it should look like a Mac Pro but about half as thick, and a little shorter. Like a slim tower.
• Quad Core Conroe Processor (Or the current single intel desktop Processor)
• 1 Graphics 16x PCI-E, but with an option for a Single Geforce SLI card like a new version of a GeForce 7950 GX2.
• 2 PCI-E lanes
• 2 Hot swappable Drive bays - Or what ever the current Mac Pro has.
• USB2.0 X 4
• Firewire 400 X 2
• Firewire 800 X1
• Bluetooth.
That's a ballpark guess, but that's approximately what I think a Mid tower desktop should have. And that would be the best configuration. Configure a Mac Pro if you want more than that. Although Apple would have to make a better (more configurable graphic options) Mac pro.
Smaller FF than the current Mac Pro (as if you threw it in the dryer.) No damned cutsey cube thingy either! Core 2 Duo Extreme thru Single Xeon CPU, up to 8GB Ram, Superdrive, 2-4 PCI Express and decent video card, 250GB HD - whatever sizeGB.
Why smaller? Optimally Apple allows you to drop another CPU in there if you're going to start at the $1599 price range anyway. The only downside of the current case is that it isn't rackable. The only downside of Woodcrest/Cloverton over Conroe/Kentsfield is the FB-DIMMs. And gee...the difference between the two for things like H.264 encode is 2 min vs 2.1 mins from the old Anandtech benches and no diff on Cinebench XCPU diffs.
The only time the FB-DIMMs caused a real slowdown (10%) was in office productivity tests. BFD. The other SYSMark benches came in pretty much even.
"The breakdown of the SYSMark scores follows below, as you will see there are some benchmarks where the extra two cores really help the Mac Pro out and others where the memory subsystem is at fault for reducing performance. Overall, based on the SYSMark 2004 results, the Mac Pro at 3.0GHz ends up performing like a similarly clocked Core 2 machine, which isn't bad at all."
Think Green. I want a smaller power supply that only drives one Quad CPU, one video card and two to four hard drives. Something less than the 1000 watts powersupply in the Mac Pro. I want to pay the air conditioning bills on the monitors. Let me drive two 30" monitors.
I still think Apple will come out with this machine and it is almost time.
That starts at $1,379. Apple wouldn't likely go below $1599 which could get you a 2.0Ghz or 2.66 Ghz depending on how much Apple wants to compete against Dell in this segment.
Of course folks STILL whine that it's a Xeon, uses FB-DIMMS blah blah blah.
Like who cares? It's better than you got now.
Vinea
This is not an option anymore Vinea, given the entry price of the Mac Pro with a Xeon chipset and Xeon chips, it is too expensive:
Take the current, barebone, dual dual 2.0GHz ($2200), remove one of the cpus ($300, even $400) what you get is a very expandable dual-core 2.0GHz Tower for $1800/1900.
I don't think that's what people here are waiting for, and that's exactly why the Cube and the 2nd gen single processor PM G5 failed. Apple wouldn't likely go below $1599 because they can't using this plateform.
More realistically, if I were to do it now, I would make it in an enclosure like this one, and use the price points left by the changes in the line-up brought by the new iMacs:
And in the meantime, I'll make all the models of Mac Pros 8-cores taking advantage of Intel's price cuts on quad Xeons.
This would certainly make me not buy an iMac/Mac mini/Mac Pro, but I wasn't gonna to anyway.
And those would certainly compete very well against the single processor Dell mentionned above.
Vinea, I just saw you other reply and it is based on the assumption that a single Xeon processor Mac Pro would cost $1599, and it is not realistic. Like I said, it would cost around $1899 for a dual-core 2.0GHz. You would have better performances with a 2.4GHz iMac (and a display too). This would qualify as a beautiful/expensive piece of junk. Just like your Dell workstation with a single dual-core 1.6GHz Xeon for $1379. That is the kind of approach that made the Cube and the SP G5 fail (again).
driving themselves out of business usually implies that they're putting their own business at risk rather than that they're driving themselves out of the business market. in any case, they were never really IN the enterprise, so i don't see how they're driving themselves out of it more than just preventing it from happening.
But the mini is still over priced next to other systems with DESKTOP PARTS and other systems are easer to open up.
This is not an option anymore Vinea, given the entry price of the Mac Pro with a Xeon chipset and Xeon chips, it is too expensive:
Take the current, barebone, dual dual 2.0GHz ($2200), remove one of the cpus ($300, even $400) what you get is a very expandable dual-core 2.0GHz Tower for $1800/1900.
I don't think that's what people here are waiting for, and that's exactly why the Cube and the 2nd gen single processor PM G5 failed. Apple wouldn't likely go below $1599 because they can't using this plateform.
More realistically, if I were to do it now, I would make it in an enclosure like this one, and use the price points left by the changes in the line-up brought by the new iMacs:
And in the meantime, I'll make all the models of Mac Pros 8-cores taking advantage of Intel's price cuts on quad Xeons.
[/URL]
$999 is much for on board video and only 1gb of ram $1200 is even more of a rip 2gb of good ddr 800 desktop ram is UNDER $100
start it the mini price of $599.00 or the higer end mini price of $799 with desktop parts and with on board video with a video card upgrade as BTO options at all price levels.
low end Intel Core 2 Duo desktop cpu, 1GB memory 2gb for $799 system, 80GB hard drive, Superdrive.
Why smaller? Optimally Apple allows you to drop another CPU in there if you're going to start at the $1599 price range anyway. The only downside of the current case is that it isn't rackable. The only downside of Woodcrest/Cloverton over Conroe/Kentsfield is the FB-DIMMs. And gee...the difference between the two for things like H.264 encode is 2 min vs 2.1 mins from the old Anandtech benches and no diff on Cinebench XCPU diffs.
I'm sure that is really impressive to someone who understands all of the nomenclature. I however do not.
So to your other question why smaller? Less expensive. Less expensive and upgradeable is what we're looking for. It's really no harder to explain than that.
And keep in mind it really appears that you are advocating that maintaining the status quo is fine. Maybe not outright, but that appears to be the undercurrent of your post.
I maintain that Apple has in the past branched out, to its benefit. Many believe they should again. Not merely say to us, "...what we offer is fine. We know best. If you want Apple this is what you must buy."
For those who have a Monitor already. It could still be used in an AIO situation as Dual Monitor Config.
The problem with AIO is not only upgrablity. It is also he problem of Heat Disserpation and Power. I would think if the new iMac came with a Geforce 8800 Graphics power a lot of people wont be complainning any more. And if it isn't so hot people in Hot Asia area wont be complainning as much.
And personally i am quite scared of using iMac ( or notebook ) to do encoding Clips and other heavy usage task. MacPro is too expensive. And Apple hasn't got the machine for what i call Prosumer Segment.
Sometimes i think apple are deliberately not investing so much into Gfx company and wait for Intel to have their own proper Gfx solution. ( aka Labrabee )
That would kind of surprise me. Most Businesses I have seen use computers for email, word processing, and as clients to a database, which is exactly the sort of work a Mac Mini is suited for.
If you read his quote you would realize that that he said most businesses would need the mac mini like you said, but the businesses that really need power, want a low end mac pro instead of an xMac. And I said that they want a low end mac pro, but cheaper. So, in conclusion (of my 2 sentences), most businesses really only need a mac mini, but those that need more power still don't need the xMac.
Quote:
I think that most businesses would gladly buy a Mac Mini instead of a tower. They don't need a second hard drive, and they don't need a second monitor. The businesses that say they want an xMac really want a low-end Mac Pro (single-socket Quad-Core, 4 DDR2 slots, 2-4 HDDs, 2 PCIe slots)
This is not an option anymore Vinea, given the entry price of the Mac Pro with a Xeon chipset and Xeon chips, it is too expensive:
Take the current, barebone, dual dual 2.0GHz ($2200), remove one of the cpus ($300, even $400) what you get is a very expandable dual-core 2.0GHz Tower for $1800/1900.
Current pricing hasn't changed despite Intel price drops. Assuming that Apple was at 28% when it first released the current margins are much higher and contribute the the 35% (I think 35...I forget now) margins Apple currently enjoys.
New enclosure, new motherboard, price that destroys the iMac. Not likely. Its a bit hopeful for a single CPU BTO option on the Mac Pro. You can give this one right up while Jobs is CEO.
Quote:
Vinea, I just saw you other reply and it is based on the assumption that a single Xeon processor Mac Pro would cost $1599, and it is not realistic.
Dell can and Apple is price competitive with Dell in workstations. Check the link. $1379 for a single Xeon 5110. With Dual 5150s the Dell price is $2,800. Higher than the $2500 of the Mac Pro with dual 5150s (2.66Ghz).
I'm sure that is really impressive to someone who understands all of the nomenclature. I however do not.
It says a single Xeon Mac Pro is just as fast as what you propose, is the same price as you propose, is as expandable as you want and a lot easier for Apple to do since its just a variation on what they offer today.
Quote:
So to your other question why smaller? Less expensive. Less expensive and upgradeable is what we're looking for. It's really no harder to explain than that.
You quote the same $1599 price target. And the Mac Pro without one CPU is more expandable than what you suggest because...you can add a second CPU...
Quote:
And keep in mind it really appears that you are advocating that maintaining the status quo is fine. Maybe not outright, but that appears to be the undercurrent of your post.
The current status quo does not include a single CPU BTO for the Mac Pro for $1599 that would meet 90% of your requirements...everything but a slightly smaller form factor.
Of course someone will whine about the price of FB-DIMMs soon.
Smaller FF than the current Mac Pro (as if you threw it in the dryer.) No damned cutsey cube thingy either! Core 2 Duo Extreme thru Single Xeon CPU, up to 8GB Ram, Superdrive, 2-4 PCI Express and decent video card, 250GB HD - whatever sizeGB.
Stock config COULD be similar to the iMac 24 top end model.
I think the Mac Pro is way too big and it would need more than a slimming down. I want something that borders on 1/4 the size of a Mac Pro and a cube would be a design win and unique among other PC desktops.
Quad CPUs are ok but I don't see why they'd have to be in a mid-tower when the Mac Pro has quad CPUs. You are asking for what people would criticize, which is basically a cheaper Mac Pro.
A mid-tower IMO should cover the range from $599 up to $2000.
Maybe the high end one could have the quad 2GHz chip but I think most of the lineup would be Core 2 Duo. If they put the Mini spec in the low end with desktop parts, it should be cheaper to build than a Mini but they will sell at the same price, meaning more profit.
Then there could be a wide range of graphics cards that could go in one PCI slot. 4GB Ram support is enough for most people in this range, after all the price of any more Ram is outside the budget of people buying these machines anyway.
I'd say one 3.5" hard drive stock and one optical drive but you'd be able to choose between having two optical drives or two hard drives.
eSATA, 4xUSB2, 1xFW400, 1xFW800 (this would increase FW800 support).
A mid-tower IMO should cover the range from $599 up to $2000.
Then there could be a wide range of graphics cards that could go in one PCI slot. 4GB Ram support is enough for most people in this range, after all the price of any more Ram is outside the budget of people buying these machines anyway.
I'd say one 3.5" hard drive stock and one optical drive but you'd be able to choose between having two optical drives or two hard drives.
eSATA, 4xUSB2, 1xFW400, 1xFW800 (this would increase FW800 support).
dual display support.
Marvin hit the nail almost right on the head.
There is no reason that a basic mini-tower form-factor could not span a wide price range, with the internals determining the price.
The form-factor would probably be something cube-like. I'm not a designer or a photoshopper so I can't do a mock-up , but I have absolute confidence that Ive and his team could come up with something you'd be proud to have on your desk rather than under it.
I envisage something very similar to Marvin, but with small differences:
The form-factor would have room for two internal HDDs, but one optical drive.
A starting price of $499 (including keyboard and mouse). This would have an integrated GPU, possibly no bluetooth or WiFi if this was necessary to meet the price point. There would be two PCIe slots, allowing for an upgrade to the GPU (higher-priced standard configs would use the PCIe slot to deliver higher-performance graphics) and the installation of one other card - e.g. sound card (the motherboard would of course have on-board audio, but a dedicated card can deliver higher performance), TV tuner card etc.
The range could top out at $2200 with a quad 2.4 GHz Conroe, 4 GB RAM, 2 HDDs, high-performance GPU etc.
Think Green. I want a smaller power supply that only drives one Quad CPU, one video card and two to four hard drives. Something less than the 1000 watts powersupply in the Mac Pro. I want to pay the air conditioning bills on the monitors. Let me drive two 30" monitors.
I still think Apple will come out with this machine and it is almost time.
Unfortunately, Steve Jobs completely disagrees with you, as he uncategorically declared in this last media event.
This won't mean much to me personally, I'll either buy an iMac or a used tower. However, from what I've been reading, these new iMacs may be even more difficult to work on. I read the screen has to be removed in order to just replace the harddrive. This makes it even harder on their own support staff to repair a computer. When it comes time to upgrade I'll have to consider such factors.
We will ask and ask and ask for a Mac Pro Cube and they will ignore us until finally Steve will come out with it as if nobody was even thinking about it, and it's so innovative, and wow we should be so surprised. It is an obvious hole that Apple should fill because they force many customers into a Mac Pro (a big empty box that I don't need cluttering up my overcrowded workspace) or an iMac (a finicky glorified laptop).
Current pricing hasn't changed despite Intel price drops. Assuming that Apple was at 28% when it first released the current margins are much higher and contribute the the 35% (I think 35...I forget now) margins Apple currently enjoys.
Dell can do a single CPU precision for $1400.
New enclosure, new motherboard, price that destroys the iMac. Not likely. Its a bit hopeful for a single CPU BTO option on the Mac Pro. You can give this one right up while Jobs is CEO.
Dell can and Apple is price competitive with Dell in workstations. Check the link. $1379 for a single Xeon 5110. With Dual 5150s the Dell price is $2,800. Higher than the $2500 of the Mac Pro with dual 5150s (2.66Ghz).
Vinea
OK Vinea, maybe you don't know that, but recent Intel's price cuts didn't included the dual-core Xeons (except for the... 5110, used in your Dell example, that went from $209 to $177), all other dual-core Xeon cpus are still at the same price as they were when announced/launched. This is also the case for the mobile Core Duo and Core 2 Duos, their prices are still the same as LAST YEAR. The Santa Rosa Meroms have been priced a little under the previous gen mobile chips: from $209 to $530 instead of $209 to $623, clock for clock Santa Rosa+Merom is cheaper than Napa+Merom. The bulk of the price cuts have been on real desktop chips and quad-core Xeons. The Official Intel price list is available on their web site, just look at it if you don't believe.
Given Apple's current price structure they can't offer a single 2.0GHz Mac Pro at $1599 without changing also the prices of the rest of the line-up. I'll give you just one reason: people would buy the SP model and add a second cpu for less than $400 to make it a $2000 instead of $2200 for Apple's identical model. Since the cpu prices haven't change, and RAM prices are quite stable these days and competition hasn't catch up yet with the Mac Pro (per your Dell example), there is no reason why Apple should lower the prices on any Mac Pro. What they could do is move almost to an all octo-core lineup without much changes in the prices (if they wanted to).
But who would buy a dual-core 1.6GHz monster for $1400 (Dell) or a dual-core 2.0GHz for $1600 (Vinea/Apple) just for the sake of the expansion possibilities? When Acer, HP and Gateway and certainly others offer quad-core desktops cheaper than that (and better equipped), Acer for around $899, HP for $1099 or so...
Have you seen the prices of desktop quad-core chips recently? For half the price of the cpu inside the new $1499 iMac, you can have twice the cores and a faster FSB...
Apple (SJ) said Apple is in the business of making the best personal computers, and I agree they are doing just that in the segment they choosed (VSFF, AIO, notebooks, workstations). If they were to enter the "regular" desktop market to make the best computer in this area you have to choose the best platform and today it's clearly Conroe/Kentsfiel and the 30 series chipset. Given the prices of those parts it is clear that you could reach the price points I've already mentionned and make very good margins.
When people here are asking for a midrange Mac, xMac or whatever, I believe they want a smaller Mac that the Mac Pro but bigger than the mini and more powerful than the mini. Conroe/Kentsfield, the 30 series chipset and a new enclosure would give them just that.
You also realize that when then created the new iMac, Apple made 2 (or 3) new motherboards and 2 new expensive enclosures and give them MBP like specs, no wonder why they forecasted a decrease in margins for this quarter! I've also noted that Apple shares decreased 10$ or so since the announcement... But maybe it's not related.
If I go back to the title of the thread: "Mac Pro minitower next year!", and while it was been said that "We live in a AIO world.", Apple sometimes changes gears: they said that they will not enter the phone market and they did, thay said that they don't believe in the convergence of products, and they released the 3-in-1 iPhone, they say we live in a AIO world...
Since there will not be a mobile quad-core chip before mid 2008 and according to what we can see on the iMac, only the 24" model has enough internal volume too cool efficently extreme editions of mobile chips, we can suppose that mobile quad-core chips will not be largely used on Macs since they are getting thinner and thinner, so at one point, we will have on one side octo-core Mac Pros and on the other side mostly dual-core Macs (mini, iMac, MB, MBP). Don't you see something's missing?
Since I would like the Mac to be more widely used (I'm a fan), for the sake of it, I would wait until the Mac Pro is octo-core and I would release a smaller quad-core Mac at the price points left free by the iMac (whatever they would be at that time). And by the way I'll give the iMac and Expresscard slot on the next revision, that would make it even more attractive!
PS: my apologies to the others for this long post.
It says a single Xeon Mac Pro is just as fast as what you propose, is the same price as you propose, is as expandable as you want and a lot easier for Apple to do since its just a variation on what they offer today.
I'm still waiting for them to offer it...
Quote:
You quote the same $1599 price target. And the Mac Pro without one CPU is more expandable than what you suggest because...you can add a second CPU...
Where is that config avaliable?
Again, this sounds more like pushing what we should buy rather than offering a product that is sooooo good that we want to buy it.
Quote:
The current status quo does not include a single CPU BTO for the Mac Pro for $1599 that would meet 90% of your requirements...everything but a slightly smaller form factor.
Comments
Somebody please explain...
1) What specifically this mid-range Mac should be like (looks, specs, etc.)
Smaller FF than the current Mac Pro (as if you threw it in the dryer.) No damned cutsey cube thingy either! Core 2 Duo Extreme thru Single Xeon CPU, up to 8GB Ram, Superdrive, 2-4 PCI Express and decent video card, 250GB HD - whatever sizeGB.
Stock config COULD be similar to the iMac 24 top end model.
2) What affect this mid-range Mac would have on the sale of other Macs.
This is less of a concern. If Apple makes a tower whose popularity eclipses any part of the current lineup then let the market forces do what they will. Better long term business model to let people buy what they want and keep 'em coming back with a FAR superior product. Apple doing this size tower would by definition better than anything available in the PC world.
3) Who each line of Macs would be marketed to if the mid-range Mac goes on sale.
Mid range marketed to the "prosumer" small-business creative folks who want need more than a Mini or iMac but really don't want/need to buy the behemoth Mac Pro. Similar groups as Sony, JVC and Canon market their sub 10K video cameras. Think wedding photographers/videographers, freelance graphics designers... you get the gist. Also the switchers from Vista.
4) What this mid-range Mac would cost (think like Apple does).
BEST GUESSES HERE---
Starting at $1599, whatever it would take to build that box for that price spec wise would be OK. Top end model $2800-ish ball park. These numbers are off the top of my bald head and are just quick guesstimates.
Thank you for asking that in such a constructive manner. That was a good post sir.
FOXPhotog
• Quad Core Conroe Processor (Or the current single intel desktop Processor)
• 1 Graphics 16x PCI-E, but with an option for a Single Geforce SLI card like a new version of a GeForce 7950 GX2.
• 2 PCI-E lanes
• 2 Hot swappable Drive bays - Or what ever the current Mac Pro has.
• USB2.0 X 4
• Firewire 400 X 2
• Firewire 800 X1
• Bluetooth.
That's a ballpark guess, but that's approximately what I think a Mid tower desktop should have. And that would be the best configuration. Configure a Mac Pro if you want more than that. Although Apple would have to make a better (more configurable graphic options) Mac pro.
Smaller FF than the current Mac Pro (as if you threw it in the dryer.) No damned cutsey cube thingy either! Core 2 Duo Extreme thru Single Xeon CPU, up to 8GB Ram, Superdrive, 2-4 PCI Express and decent video card, 250GB HD - whatever sizeGB.
Why smaller? Optimally Apple allows you to drop another CPU in there if you're going to start at the $1599 price range anyway. The only downside of the current case is that it isn't rackable. The only downside of Woodcrest/Cloverton over Conroe/Kentsfield is the FB-DIMMs. And gee...the difference between the two for things like H.264 encode is 2 min vs 2.1 mins from the old Anandtech benches and no diff on Cinebench XCPU diffs.
The only time the FB-DIMMs caused a real slowdown (10%) was in office productivity tests. BFD. The other SYSMark benches came in pretty much even.
"The breakdown of the SYSMark scores follows below, as you will see there are some benchmarks where the extra two cores really help the Mac Pro out and others where the memory subsystem is at fault for reducing performance. Overall, based on the SYSMark 2004 results, the Mac Pro at 3.0GHz ends up performing like a similarly clocked Core 2 machine, which isn't bad at all."
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2832
It'll cost more but the max is 16GB from the 8 slots.
Vinea
Why smaller?
Vinea
Think Green. I want a smaller power supply that only drives one Quad CPU, one video card and two to four hard drives. Something less than the 1000 watts powersupply in the Mac Pro. I want to pay the air conditioning bills on the monitors. Let me drive two 30" monitors.
I still think Apple will come out with this machine and it is almost time.
I still think Apple will come out with this machine and it is almost time.
Optimist!
Apple has a tower. All it needs is a single CPU BTO to fill the need for a lower end tower.
Will it? Who knows, its not hard to do, there's no engineering required. It would compete against this:
http://www.dell.com/content/products...=04&l=en&s=bsd
That starts at $1,379. Apple wouldn't likely go below $1599 which could get you a 2.0Ghz or 2.66 Ghz depending on how much Apple wants to compete against Dell in this segment.
Of course folks STILL whine that it's a Xeon, uses FB-DIMMS blah blah blah.
Like who cares? It's better than you got now.
Vinea
This is not an option anymore Vinea, given the entry price of the Mac Pro with a Xeon chipset and Xeon chips, it is too expensive:
Take the current, barebone, dual dual 2.0GHz ($2200), remove one of the cpus ($300, even $400) what you get is a very expandable dual-core 2.0GHz Tower for $1800/1900.
I don't think that's what people here are waiting for, and that's exactly why the Cube and the 2nd gen single processor PM G5 failed. Apple wouldn't likely go below $1599 because they can't using this plateform.
More realistically, if I were to do it now, I would make it in an enclosure like this one, and use the price points left by the changes in the line-up brought by the new iMacs:
$999 2.40GHz quad-core Q6600, 1GB RAM, 250HD, Superdrive, G33 integrated graphics
$1299 2.66GHz quad-core Q6700, 1GB RAM, 320HD, Superdrive, G33 integrated graphics
$1999 3.00GHz quad-core QX6850, 2GB RAM, 320HD, Superdrive, G33+dedicated graphics (whatever)
And in the meantime, I'll make all the models of Mac Pros 8-cores taking advantage of Intel's price cuts on quad Xeons.
This would certainly make me not buy an iMac/Mac mini/Mac Pro, but I wasn't gonna to anyway.
And those would certainly compete very well against the single processor Dell mentionned above.
Vinea, I just saw you other reply and it is based on the assumption that a single Xeon processor Mac Pro would cost $1599, and it is not realistic. Like I said, it would cost around $1899 for a dual-core 2.0GHz. You would have better performances with a 2.4GHz iMac (and a display too). This would qualify as a beautiful/expensive piece of junk. Just like your Dell workstation with a single dual-core 1.6GHz Xeon for $1379. That is the kind of approach that made the Cube and the SP G5 fail (again).
This ugly PC is what the xMac should be compared with.
driving themselves out of business usually implies that they're putting their own business at risk rather than that they're driving themselves out of the business market. in any case, they were never really IN the enterprise, so i don't see how they're driving themselves out of it more than just preventing it from happening.
But the mini is still over priced next to other systems with DESKTOP PARTS and other systems are easer to open up.
This is not an option anymore Vinea, given the entry price of the Mac Pro with a Xeon chipset and Xeon chips, it is too expensive:
Take the current, barebone, dual dual 2.0GHz ($2200), remove one of the cpus ($300, even $400) what you get is a very expandable dual-core 2.0GHz Tower for $1800/1900.
I don't think that's what people here are waiting for, and that's exactly why the Cube and the 2nd gen single processor PM G5 failed. Apple wouldn't likely go below $1599 because they can't using this plateform.
More realistically, if I were to do it now, I would make it in an enclosure like this one, and use the price points left by the changes in the line-up brought by the new iMacs:
$999 2.40GHz quad-core Q6600, 1GB RAM, 250HD, Superdrive, G33 integrated graphics
$1299 2.66GHz quad-core Q6700, 1GB RAM, 320HD, Superdrive, G33 integrated graphics
$1999 3.00GHz quad-core QX6850, 2GB RAM, 320HD, Superdrive, G33+dedicated graphics (whatever)
And in the meantime, I'll make all the models of Mac Pros 8-cores taking advantage of Intel's price cuts on quad Xeons.
[/URL]
$999 is much for on board video and only 1gb of ram $1200 is even more of a rip 2gb of good ddr 800 desktop ram is UNDER $100
start it the mini price of $599.00 or the higer end mini price of $799 with desktop parts and with on board video with a video card upgrade as BTO options at all price levels.
low end Intel Core 2 Duo desktop cpu, 1GB memory 2gb for $799 system, 80GB hard drive, Superdrive.
Why smaller? Optimally Apple allows you to drop another CPU in there if you're going to start at the $1599 price range anyway. The only downside of the current case is that it isn't rackable. The only downside of Woodcrest/Cloverton over Conroe/Kentsfield is the FB-DIMMs. And gee...the difference between the two for things like H.264 encode is 2 min vs 2.1 mins from the old Anandtech benches and no diff on Cinebench XCPU diffs.
I'm sure that is really impressive to someone who understands all of the nomenclature. I however do not.
So to your other question why smaller? Less expensive. Less expensive and upgradeable is what we're looking for. It's really no harder to explain than that.
And keep in mind it really appears that you are advocating that maintaining the status quo is fine. Maybe not outright, but that appears to be the undercurrent of your post.
I maintain that Apple has in the past branched out, to its benefit. Many believe they should again. Not merely say to us, "...what we offer is fine. We know best. If you want Apple this is what you must buy."
FOXPhotog
Broadcast Video Professional
The problem with AIO is not only upgrablity. It is also he problem of Heat Disserpation and Power. I would think if the new iMac came with a Geforce 8800 Graphics power a lot of people wont be complainning any more. And if it isn't so hot people in Hot Asia area wont be complainning as much.
And personally i am quite scared of using iMac ( or notebook ) to do encoding Clips and other heavy usage task. MacPro is too expensive. And Apple hasn't got the machine for what i call Prosumer Segment.
Sometimes i think apple are deliberately not investing so much into Gfx company and wait for Intel to have their own proper Gfx solution. ( aka Labrabee )
That would kind of surprise me. Most Businesses I have seen use computers for email, word processing, and as clients to a database, which is exactly the sort of work a Mac Mini is suited for.
If you read his quote you would realize that that he said most businesses would need the mac mini like you said, but the businesses that really need power, want a low end mac pro instead of an xMac. And I said that they want a low end mac pro, but cheaper. So, in conclusion (of my 2 sentences), most businesses really only need a mac mini, but those that need more power still don't need the xMac.
I think that most businesses would gladly buy a Mac Mini instead of a tower. They don't need a second hard drive, and they don't need a second monitor. The businesses that say they want an xMac really want a low-end Mac Pro (single-socket Quad-Core, 4 DDR2 slots, 2-4 HDDs, 2 PCIe slots)
This is not an option anymore Vinea, given the entry price of the Mac Pro with a Xeon chipset and Xeon chips, it is too expensive:
Take the current, barebone, dual dual 2.0GHz ($2200), remove one of the cpus ($300, even $400) what you get is a very expandable dual-core 2.0GHz Tower for $1800/1900.
Current pricing hasn't changed despite Intel price drops. Assuming that Apple was at 28% when it first released the current margins are much higher and contribute the the 35% (I think 35...I forget now) margins Apple currently enjoys.
Dell can do a single CPU precision for $1400.
$999 2.40GHz quad-core Q6600, 1GB RAM, 250HD, Superdrive, G33 integrated graphics
...
New enclosure, new motherboard, price that destroys the iMac. Not likely. Its a bit hopeful for a single CPU BTO option on the Mac Pro. You can give this one right up while Jobs is CEO.
Vinea, I just saw you other reply and it is based on the assumption that a single Xeon processor Mac Pro would cost $1599, and it is not realistic.
Dell can and Apple is price competitive with Dell in workstations. Check the link. $1379 for a single Xeon 5110. With Dual 5150s the Dell price is $2,800. Higher than the $2500 of the Mac Pro with dual 5150s (2.66Ghz).
Vinea
I'm sure that is really impressive to someone who understands all of the nomenclature. I however do not.
It says a single Xeon Mac Pro is just as fast as what you propose, is the same price as you propose, is as expandable as you want and a lot easier for Apple to do since its just a variation on what they offer today.
So to your other question why smaller? Less expensive. Less expensive and upgradeable is what we're looking for. It's really no harder to explain than that.
You quote the same $1599 price target. And the Mac Pro without one CPU is more expandable than what you suggest because...you can add a second CPU...
And keep in mind it really appears that you are advocating that maintaining the status quo is fine. Maybe not outright, but that appears to be the undercurrent of your post.
The current status quo does not include a single CPU BTO for the Mac Pro for $1599 that would meet 90% of your requirements...everything but a slightly smaller form factor.
Of course someone will whine about the price of FB-DIMMs soon.
Vinea
Smaller FF than the current Mac Pro (as if you threw it in the dryer.) No damned cutsey cube thingy either! Core 2 Duo Extreme thru Single Xeon CPU, up to 8GB Ram, Superdrive, 2-4 PCI Express and decent video card, 250GB HD - whatever sizeGB.
Stock config COULD be similar to the iMac 24 top end model.
I think the Mac Pro is way too big and it would need more than a slimming down. I want something that borders on 1/4 the size of a Mac Pro and a cube would be a design win and unique among other PC desktops.
Quad CPUs are ok but I don't see why they'd have to be in a mid-tower when the Mac Pro has quad CPUs. You are asking for what people would criticize, which is basically a cheaper Mac Pro.
A mid-tower IMO should cover the range from $599 up to $2000.
Maybe the high end one could have the quad 2GHz chip but I think most of the lineup would be Core 2 Duo. If they put the Mini spec in the low end with desktop parts, it should be cheaper to build than a Mini but they will sell at the same price, meaning more profit.
Then there could be a wide range of graphics cards that could go in one PCI slot. 4GB Ram support is enough for most people in this range, after all the price of any more Ram is outside the budget of people buying these machines anyway.
I'd say one 3.5" hard drive stock and one optical drive but you'd be able to choose between having two optical drives or two hard drives.
eSATA, 4xUSB2, 1xFW400, 1xFW800 (this would increase FW800 support).
dual display support.
A mid-tower IMO should cover the range from $599 up to $2000.
Then there could be a wide range of graphics cards that could go in one PCI slot. 4GB Ram support is enough for most people in this range, after all the price of any more Ram is outside the budget of people buying these machines anyway.
I'd say one 3.5" hard drive stock and one optical drive but you'd be able to choose between having two optical drives or two hard drives.
eSATA, 4xUSB2, 1xFW400, 1xFW800 (this would increase FW800 support).
dual display support.
Marvin hit the nail almost right on the head.
There is no reason that a basic mini-tower form-factor could not span a wide price range, with the internals determining the price.
The form-factor would probably be something cube-like. I'm not a designer or a photoshopper so I can't do a mock-up
I envisage something very similar to Marvin, but with small differences:
The form-factor would have room for two internal HDDs, but one optical drive.
A starting price of $499 (including keyboard and mouse). This would have an integrated GPU, possibly no bluetooth or WiFi if this was necessary to meet the price point. There would be two PCIe slots, allowing for an upgrade to the GPU (higher-priced standard configs would use the PCIe slot to deliver higher-performance graphics) and the installation of one other card - e.g. sound card (the motherboard would of course have on-board audio, but a dedicated card can deliver higher performance), TV tuner card etc.
The range could top out at $2200 with a quad 2.4 GHz Conroe, 4 GB RAM, 2 HDDs, high-performance GPU etc.
Apart from the overpriced and underperforming iMacs, you mean?
Ars Tech thinks otherwise.
Think Green. I want a smaller power supply that only drives one Quad CPU, one video card and two to four hard drives. Something less than the 1000 watts powersupply in the Mac Pro. I want to pay the air conditioning bills on the monitors. Let me drive two 30" monitors.
I still think Apple will come out with this machine and it is almost time.
Unfortunately, Steve Jobs completely disagrees with you, as he uncategorically declared in this last media event.
This won't mean much to me personally, I'll either buy an iMac or a used tower. However, from what I've been reading, these new iMacs may be even more difficult to work on. I read the screen has to be removed in order to just replace the harddrive. This makes it even harder on their own support staff to repair a computer. When it comes time to upgrade I'll have to consider such factors.
Current pricing hasn't changed despite Intel price drops. Assuming that Apple was at 28% when it first released the current margins are much higher and contribute the the 35% (I think 35...I forget now) margins Apple currently enjoys.
Dell can do a single CPU precision for $1400.
New enclosure, new motherboard, price that destroys the iMac. Not likely. Its a bit hopeful for a single CPU BTO option on the Mac Pro. You can give this one right up while Jobs is CEO.
Dell can and Apple is price competitive with Dell in workstations. Check the link. $1379 for a single Xeon 5110. With Dual 5150s the Dell price is $2,800. Higher than the $2500 of the Mac Pro with dual 5150s (2.66Ghz).
Vinea
OK Vinea, maybe you don't know that, but recent Intel's price cuts didn't included the dual-core Xeons (except for the... 5110, used in your Dell example, that went from $209 to $177), all other dual-core Xeon cpus are still at the same price as they were when announced/launched. This is also the case for the mobile Core Duo and Core 2 Duos, their prices are still the same as LAST YEAR. The Santa Rosa Meroms have been priced a little under the previous gen mobile chips: from $209 to $530 instead of $209 to $623, clock for clock Santa Rosa+Merom is cheaper than Napa+Merom. The bulk of the price cuts have been on real desktop chips and quad-core Xeons. The Official Intel price list is available on their web site, just look at it if you don't believe.
Given Apple's current price structure they can't offer a single 2.0GHz Mac Pro at $1599 without changing also the prices of the rest of the line-up. I'll give you just one reason: people would buy the SP model and add a second cpu for less than $400 to make it a $2000 instead of $2200 for Apple's identical model. Since the cpu prices haven't change, and RAM prices are quite stable these days and competition hasn't catch up yet with the Mac Pro (per your Dell example), there is no reason why Apple should lower the prices on any Mac Pro. What they could do is move almost to an all octo-core lineup without much changes in the prices (if they wanted to).
But who would buy a dual-core 1.6GHz monster for $1400 (Dell) or a dual-core 2.0GHz for $1600 (Vinea/Apple) just for the sake of the expansion possibilities? When Acer, HP and Gateway and certainly others offer quad-core desktops cheaper than that (and better equipped), Acer for around $899, HP for $1099 or so...
Have you seen the prices of desktop quad-core chips recently? For half the price of the cpu inside the new $1499 iMac, you can have twice the cores and a faster FSB...
Apple (SJ) said Apple is in the business of making the best personal computers, and I agree they are doing just that in the segment they choosed (VSFF, AIO, notebooks, workstations). If they were to enter the "regular" desktop market to make the best computer in this area you have to choose the best platform and today it's clearly Conroe/Kentsfiel and the 30 series chipset. Given the prices of those parts it is clear that you could reach the price points I've already mentionned and make very good margins.
When people here are asking for a midrange Mac, xMac or whatever, I believe they want a smaller Mac that the Mac Pro but bigger than the mini and more powerful than the mini. Conroe/Kentsfield, the 30 series chipset and a new enclosure would give them just that.
You also realize that when then created the new iMac, Apple made 2 (or 3) new motherboards and 2 new expensive enclosures and give them MBP like specs, no wonder why they forecasted a decrease in margins for this quarter! I've also noted that Apple shares decreased 10$ or so since the announcement... But maybe it's not related.
If I go back to the title of the thread: "Mac Pro minitower next year!", and while it was been said that "We live in a AIO world.", Apple sometimes changes gears: they said that they will not enter the phone market and they did, thay said that they don't believe in the convergence of products, and they released the 3-in-1 iPhone, they say we live in a AIO world...
Since there will not be a mobile quad-core chip before mid 2008 and according to what we can see on the iMac, only the 24" model has enough internal volume too cool efficently extreme editions of mobile chips, we can suppose that mobile quad-core chips will not be largely used on Macs since they are getting thinner and thinner, so at one point, we will have on one side octo-core Mac Pros and on the other side mostly dual-core Macs (mini, iMac, MB, MBP). Don't you see something's missing?
Since I would like the Mac to be more widely used (I'm a fan), for the sake of it, I would wait until the Mac Pro is octo-core and I would release a smaller quad-core Mac at the price points left free by the iMac (whatever they would be at that time). And by the way I'll give the iMac and Expresscard slot on the next revision, that would make it even more attractive!
PS: my apologies to the others for this long post.
It says a single Xeon Mac Pro is just as fast as what you propose, is the same price as you propose, is as expandable as you want and a lot easier for Apple to do since its just a variation on what they offer today.
I'm still waiting for them to offer it...
You quote the same $1599 price target. And the Mac Pro without one CPU is more expandable than what you suggest because...you can add a second CPU...
Where is that config avaliable?
Again, this sounds more like pushing what we should buy rather than offering a product that is sooooo good that we want to buy it.
The current status quo does not include a single CPU BTO for the Mac Pro for $1599 that would meet 90% of your requirements...everything but a slightly smaller form factor.
Ok that's fine. Any bets on if they do it?
FOXPhotog