Not sure how much you're keeping up on the Quad SLI, but all tests so far have rendered NO increase in performance. Refer to Maximum PC last month. They weren't sure if it was a driver issue or a software issue or a hardware issue. But they were pretty underwhelmed.
I really don't know how often mac users will even use SLI. I can see 3d developers use it. And the gamers that use windows on their macs. Also I see absolutely no reason to go with AMD over intel. The cpu's are about the same price yet intel stomps on amd in performance. AMD x2 5000+ is about the same price as the e6600. Why would apple want to kill their quantity discount with intel in order to have a weaker desktop? BTW this is coming from an ex-amd fan. The sound card is interesting. I do think apple needs a better sound processor. Realtek just doesn't cut it.
I am talking about HIGH END GAMING SYSTEM Apple needs to some thing to get the games off of windows and on to osx and $2000 system with sever cpus and ram with a low end video card and no SLI or cross fire is not the way to it.
The intel chip sets suck next to the ATI and Nvidia ones.
Microsoft could also impact the desktop space. Imagine if MS made a "Pro" version of the 360 and sold MS Office as a $200 "game" for it? The 360 makes a heck of a thin client. It's already a MCE.
So parents don't have to buy a desktop computer and a console...just a 360. MS can tout reduced TCO to businesses because of the "new" thin client architecture. Big Windows servers in the back, thrifty user (and virus) safe consoles in the front. Ellison gnashes his teeth as MS beats Oracle to the network computer. Intel has kittens.
Too gutsy for MS and too fraught with danger. But 10 years is a long time to not expect some paradigm shift. We're overdue I think.
Vinea
This is a very intriguing line of thought. It's no secret that Microsoft wants to own the desktop, not just the applications we run on it. I think it would be safe to bet your next paycheck that this line of thought is under constant careful scrutiny by Microsoft (and possibly others) for a viable method of implementation. I agree that a paradigm shift is overdue... and with increasing processing power coupled with near ubiquitous highspeed broadband, the pieces for a viable thin client model may finally be falling into place.
On the last page I suggested what I called a micro tower, no more than 8 inches high and based on a proposal by Mr. H. The case might be a strong white plastic, rather than, say, a metallic case for the prosumer mini tower.
I have been sketching what it might look like and have a problem with the aesthetics. A tower would normally have to be at least 6.5 inches wide to accommodate a standard optical drive. It turns out that something about 8 inches high and 6.5 inches wide looks clunky, even ugly. That's bad news. The low profile lets it be consider a micro, but it must be narrower to have a tower like look to it.
Forgetting normal design rules, I sketched something that looks good, and has a micro tower feel to it, whatever that might be. I came up with 7.25 inches high and 4.5 inches wide. We could bicker about the very best dimensions, but this is close enough for starters. It's depth could be whatever it needs to be, likely about 14 inches.
You no doubt see the problem. It's too narrow for an optical drive. The only solution I see is to mount the optical drive vertically. Then everything would fit I think.
To review other details, it would have just one PCI-e card, two HDD bays, use a low cost desktop CPU, and integrated graphics, which could be upgraded with the PCI-e slot, if it is not used for something else. The power supply would not need to be as large as the prosumer tower, with only one PCI-e slot.
I'd welcome any comments, but what I am especially interested in are the pros and cons of a vertically mounted optical drive. What percent of optical drives are capable of operating this way, and does it add to the cost? Such details I know little about. This is supposed to be an entry level Mac, at very low cost. All thoughts welcome, even very negative ones.
It turns out that something about 8 inches high and 6.5 inches wide looks clunky, even ugly.
Apple doesn't design to the Golden Ratio but rectangular boxy things are said to look best when designed to this ratio (length to width is 1:1.618034). Any ratio close to this tends to work pretty well. There are things in nature that are close to the Golden Ratio but not quite so this could be why this looks good to us.
I am no artist, but during these discussions it would be nice to make a simple drawing from time to time. I downloaded Google SketchUp but did not like it. It seems to be oriented to larger scale architectural drawing, with a vanishing point for perspective. Plus, it is difficult to learn and use, for me, though it claims to be easy.
Anyone have a suggestion? The choices are pretty overwhelming. Thinking about it, I'd like to make an orthogonal drawing, front view, top view, left and right side views, and optionally a bottom view. It should allow panels to be made opaque and colored. When the drawing is complete, the application should produce a 3D image that can be rotated on any axis and then printed or saved as a file.
I am hoping too much for a simple shareware program? This will be my first time ever drawing program.
I am no artist, but during these discussions it would be nice to make a simple drawing from time to time. I downloaded Google SketchUp but did not like it. It seems to be oriented to larger scale architectural drawing, with a vanishing point for perspective. Plus, it is difficult to learn and use, for me, though it claims to be easy.
Anyone have a suggestion? The choices are pretty overwhelming. Thinking about it, I'd like to make an orthogonal drawing, front view, top view, left and right side views, and optionally a bottom view. It should allow panels to be made opaque and colored. When the drawing is complete, the application should produce a 3D image that can be rotated on any axis and then printed or saved as a file.
I am hoping too much for a simple shareware program? This will be my first time ever drawing program.
Having a 3D model appear from several drawn 2D images is a little too much to ask from any software, I think. You could try Blender which is a free 3D modeling app, but it will likely be a little complicated, or you can do simple sketches with any 2D drawing app which won't look "cool" but you'll still be able to better describe your ideas, which I think is the thing that matters.
You could try Blender which is a free 3D modeling app, but it will likely be a little complicated, or you can do simple sketches with any 2D drawing app which won't look "cool" but you'll still be able to better describe your ideas, which I think is the thing that matters.
Thank you. I'll try that, and I also got feedback that leads me to think I rejected SketchUp to quickly, before working with it more. I'll try both.
What's fun is to remember the Apple ][. One of the things that really drove its adoption was the presence of expansion slots (a whopping eight). There's a lot of popular demand for upgrading and improving computers.
I suppose, however, it was the Mac Pro of its day, because in 2005 dollars, it cost from $4,211.99 to $8,560.26 ($1298 ~$2638 ) at a time when real per capita income was lower than today. Still, it was hailed as the breakthrough computer for the middle class family, small business, and classroom. Amazing, eh?
I'd welcome any comments, but what I am especially interested in are the pros and cons of a vertically mounted optical drive. What percent of optical drives are capable of operating this way, and does it add to the cost? Such details I know little about. This is supposed to be an entry level Mac, at very low cost. All thoughts welcome, even very negative ones.
I think you'd have a lot more room for aesthetic fun with a horizontal enclosure. I know that in the LCD era it doesn't make as much sense to have that large of a desktop footprint as it did when you needed a broad and strong base to hold up a heavy CRT, but you could still produce some interesting designs.
Or how about the classic keyboard all-in-one look, Apple II style? I think this, for example, is an interesting jumping-off point. A bit thicker and you'd have room for expansion slots, like the Apple II, which had eight.
What's fun is to remember the Apple ][. One of the things that really drove its adoption was the presence of expansion slots (a whopping eight). There's a lot of popular demand for upgrading and improving computers.
I suppose, however, it was the Mac Pro of its day, because in 2005 dollars, it cost from $4,211.99 to $8,560.26 ($1298 ~$2638) at a time when real per capita income was lower than today. Still, it was hailed as the breakthrough computer for the middle class family, small business, and classroom. Amazing, eh?
I believe you've mistaken expansion slots for VisiCalc.
I am trying to remember what I had in the slots of my Apple ][e..
1. 5.25 floppy controller card
2. Video
3. Z80 processor card to run CP/M
4. Printer
5. Real-time clock
6. and 7. 300 baud modem with 1200 baud expansion card
I think sound would have added another one. Wups - no room for the A/D converter. No ethernet, no AppleTalk, no FireWire, no USB.
Today, all of those functions are on the mobo or custom modules, except in the Mac Pro.
It was fun making your own circuit board and plugging that in, though. We did that to add a little Schmidt trigger circuit to clean up a fetal heart rate monitor's output pulses into square waves so that they could be used to simulate the processor's NMI interrupt signal. This let us write an interrupt routine in 6502 assembler which would get branched to with every fetal heart beat. In the interrupt routine, we calculated the time elapsed since the last heart beat.
I think you'd have a lot more room for aesthetic fun with a horizontal enclosure. I know that in the LCD era it doesn't make as much sense to have that large of a desktop footprint as it did when you needed a broad and strong base to hold up a heavy CRT, but you could still produce some interesting designs.
I was suggesting an horizontal enclosure earlier, as a replacement for the Mac Mini eventually, or simply an additional model in the Apple product line. It could be about 3.25 inches high, 14 inches wide and 11 inches deep. If the footprint is large enough, an Apple cinema display can sit on top, and if the enclosure's style is right, the display and computer will look like they belong together.
To review my previous posting, this entry-level to mid-range Mac would use standard hard and optical drives and have two HDD bays. It would also use a desktop CPU for lower cost.
I was suggesting an horizontal enclosure earlier, as a replacement for the Mac Mini eventually, or simply an additional model in the Apple product line.
Sorry I missed that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snoopy
That PC on your link looks like a Commodore 64.
It might inspire taunting from Weird Al: "You think your Commodore 64 is really neato; what kinda chip you got in there, a Dorito?"
The same company until recently sold a prior model that had more of the Apple II hardware look and feel. Lacking the current trackpad and mouse buttons, and with true desktop keyboard full-height keys (rather than the current laptop-style half-height), it was available not only in black but also in a beige scheme. Its streamlined, "sharp" look made me think of the Apple II, although the ZPC did not have the trademark Apple II overhanging front.
It's not a "plain old Macintosh," but 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, and the Mac Mini has taken the place of the original iMac.
What I didn't emphasize in my suggested bigger mini is that it can serve as a low end iMac style computer. If you think about the G4 iMac, it had a base which housed the computer hardware. The LCD display sat on top. Now, a larger flat box mini would be the base and the display sits on top of it. For the really low end, a customer purchases just the base and adds an inexpensive LCD display. Same effect -- less clutter on the desk. The only penalty is two more cords, power and display.
An advantage to Apple would be achieved by designing the computer box to look great with an Apple display. More display sales to those willing to spend a little more for aesthetics. Apple could even offer their displays with short cords to plug into the big mini. This would not be a problem for customers who want longer cords in the future. A normal length power cord is easy to come by, and Apple can sell an extender cord to make the display cable longer.
It's not a "plain old Macintosh," but 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, and the Mac Mini has taken the place of the original iMac.
But the original 1998 iMac sold for $1,299. Today's iMacs start at $999. So I'm afraid you're exactly wrong.
And inflation makes you even wronger. The 1998 iMac cost $1,505.24 in 2005 dollars, and today's entry-level iMacs are $862.12 in 1998 dollars, a reduction of over one-third in constant dollars.
So iMac prices are falling significantly. Furthermore if iMacs had remained essentially unchanged for an eleven year long production run (like the Apple //e) these price reductions would be impressive all by themselves. And yet we've seen incredible leaps forward in technology in the last eight years, for one-third less of a price.
And all that is without considering the option of the mini.
The original iMac was new and different, it caught people's attention, the current one is an LCD monitor with a large chin. It's time for Apple to refresh the look of their systems anyway now that the intel transition is done (hardware-wise anyway). So here's what I'd like to see.
The all new iMac is it an AIO or not? You decide.
Base units would be an iMac Cube and an iMac Tower, both would have connectors for an LCD display to attach to them (I believe Apple could pull this off nicely). When ordering one could choose for it to be pre-attached. The Mac Mini would be gone, the Cube would start near it's price range w/o a monitor.
iMac Displays would have the option of being mounted on either the iMacs or a base if one prefers their display to be seperate.
The iMac Cube would be their entry level system with savings when one bought an iMac Display and bigger savings for select bundles. The iMac Tower would be their prosumer line starting in the $999 to $1299 range sans monitor, as w/ the Cube buying iMac Displays and select bundles would give price breaks.
The displays would only have extra wires when attached to a display base, when attached to either iMac they'd gain power, usb and such from the iMac.
This would give Apple both a simplistic line-up (iMac Cube, iMac Tower, and Macpro) while allowing them to market systems to the greatest range of consumers all while keeping the iMac alive and healthy. Keep in mind that Jobs likes cubes and AIO's and that consumers tend to prefer headless systems, you want to change their minds? Make it easier for them. This addresses nearly? every concern I and others have with AIO's.
It's not a "plain old Macintosh," but 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, and the Mac Mini has taken the place of the original iMac.
What I didn't emphasize in my suggested bigger mini is that it can serve as a low end iMac style computer. If you think about the G4 iMac, it had a base which housed the computer hardware. The LCD display sat on top. Now, a larger flat box mini would be the base and the display sits on top of it. For the really low end, a customer purchases just the base and adds an inexpensive LCD display. Same effect -- less clutter on the desk. The only penalty is two more cords, power and display.
An advantage to Apple would be achieved by designing the computer box to look great with an Apple display. More display sales to those willing to spend a little more for aesthetics. Apple could even offer their displays with short cords to plug into the big mini. This would not be a problem for customers who want longer cords in the future. A normal length power cord is easy to come by, and Apple can sell an extender cord to make the display cable longer.
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.
Comments
Cool, a canadian using USD prices. that's rare on these boards
It's because I am not canadian. How dare you!
But maybe that's why I still want the prices of the xMac to be as low as possible...
1.00 USD\t= 1.14183 CAD today
28% for Apple margins + 14% for currency exchange + 14% for taxes, I have to count every penny...
Not sure how much you're keeping up on the Quad SLI, but all tests so far have rendered NO increase in performance. Refer to Maximum PC last month. They weren't sure if it was a driver issue or a software issue or a hardware issue. But they were pretty underwhelmed.
I really don't know how often mac users will even use SLI. I can see 3d developers use it. And the gamers that use windows on their macs. Also I see absolutely no reason to go with AMD over intel. The cpu's are about the same price yet intel stomps on amd in performance. AMD x2 5000+ is about the same price as the e6600. Why would apple want to kill their quantity discount with intel in order to have a weaker desktop? BTW this is coming from an ex-amd fan. The sound card is interesting. I do think apple needs a better sound processor. Realtek just doesn't cut it.
I am talking about HIGH END GAMING SYSTEM Apple needs to some thing to get the games off of windows and on to osx and $2000 system with sever cpus and ram with a low end video card and no SLI or cross fire is not the way to it.
The intel chip sets suck next to the ATI and Nvidia ones.
Microsoft could also impact the desktop space. Imagine if MS made a "Pro" version of the 360 and sold MS Office as a $200 "game" for it? The 360 makes a heck of a thin client. It's already a MCE.
So parents don't have to buy a desktop computer and a console...just a 360. MS can tout reduced TCO to businesses because of the "new" thin client architecture. Big Windows servers in the back, thrifty user (and virus) safe consoles in the front. Ellison gnashes his teeth as MS beats Oracle to the network computer. Intel has kittens.
Too gutsy for MS and too fraught with danger. But 10 years is a long time to not expect some paradigm shift. We're overdue I think.
Vinea
This is a very intriguing line of thought. It's no secret that Microsoft wants to own the desktop, not just the applications we run on it. I think it would be safe to bet your next paycheck that this line of thought is under constant careful scrutiny by Microsoft (and possibly others) for a viable method of implementation. I agree that a paradigm shift is overdue... and with increasing processing power coupled with near ubiquitous highspeed broadband, the pieces for a viable thin client model may finally be falling into place.
I have been sketching what it might look like and have a problem with the aesthetics. A tower would normally have to be at least 6.5 inches wide to accommodate a standard optical drive. It turns out that something about 8 inches high and 6.5 inches wide looks clunky, even ugly. That's bad news. The low profile lets it be consider a micro, but it must be narrower to have a tower like look to it.
Forgetting normal design rules, I sketched something that looks good, and has a micro tower feel to it, whatever that might be.
You no doubt see the problem. It's too narrow for an optical drive. The only solution I see is to mount the optical drive vertically. Then everything would fit I think.
To review other details, it would have just one PCI-e card, two HDD bays, use a low cost desktop CPU, and integrated graphics, which could be upgraded with the PCI-e slot, if it is not used for something else. The power supply would not need to be as large as the prosumer tower, with only one PCI-e slot.
I'd welcome any comments, but what I am especially interested in are the pros and cons of a vertically mounted optical drive. What percent of optical drives are capable of operating this way, and does it add to the cost? Such details I know little about. This is supposed to be an entry level Mac, at very low cost. All thoughts welcome, even very negative ones.
It turns out that something about 8 inches high and 6.5 inches wide looks clunky, even ugly.
Apple doesn't design to the Golden Ratio but rectangular boxy things are said to look best when designed to this ratio (length to width is 1:1.618034). Any ratio close to this tends to work pretty well. There are things in nature that are close to the Golden Ratio but not quite so this could be why this looks good to us.
http://www.jimloy.com/poll/results1.htm
http://www.jimloy.com/poll/results2.htm
Vinea
Anyone have a suggestion? The choices are pretty overwhelming. Thinking about it, I'd like to make an orthogonal drawing, front view, top view, left and right side views, and optionally a bottom view. It should allow panels to be made opaque and colored. When the drawing is complete, the application should produce a 3D image that can be rotated on any axis and then printed or saved as a file.
I am hoping too much for a simple shareware program? This will be my first time ever drawing program.
I am no artist, but during these discussions it would be nice to make a simple drawing from time to time. I downloaded Google SketchUp but did not like it. It seems to be oriented to larger scale architectural drawing, with a vanishing point for perspective. Plus, it is difficult to learn and use, for me, though it claims to be easy.
Anyone have a suggestion? The choices are pretty overwhelming. Thinking about it, I'd like to make an orthogonal drawing, front view, top view, left and right side views, and optionally a bottom view. It should allow panels to be made opaque and colored. When the drawing is complete, the application should produce a 3D image that can be rotated on any axis and then printed or saved as a file.
I am hoping too much for a simple shareware program? This will be my first time ever drawing program.
Having a 3D model appear from several drawn 2D images is a little too much to ask from any software, I think. You could try Blender which is a free 3D modeling app, but it will likely be a little complicated, or you can do simple sketches with any 2D drawing app which won't look "cool" but you'll still be able to better describe your ideas, which I think is the thing that matters.
You could try Blender which is a free 3D modeling app, but it will likely be a little complicated, or you can do simple sketches with any 2D drawing app which won't look "cool" but you'll still be able to better describe your ideas, which I think is the thing that matters.
Thank you. I'll try that, and I also got feedback that leads me to think I rejected SketchUp to quickly, before working with it more. I'll try both.
I suppose, however, it was the Mac Pro of its day, because in 2005 dollars, it cost from $4,211.99 to $8,560.26 ($1298 ~$2638 ) at a time when real per capita income was lower than today. Still, it was hailed as the breakthrough computer for the middle class family, small business, and classroom. Amazing, eh?
I'd welcome any comments, but what I am especially interested in are the pros and cons of a vertically mounted optical drive. What percent of optical drives are capable of operating this way, and does it add to the cost? Such details I know little about. This is supposed to be an entry level Mac, at very low cost. All thoughts welcome, even very negative ones.
I think you'd have a lot more room for aesthetic fun with a horizontal enclosure. I know that in the LCD era it doesn't make as much sense to have that large of a desktop footprint as it did when you needed a broad and strong base to hold up a heavy CRT, but you could still produce some interesting designs.
Or how about the classic keyboard all-in-one look, Apple II style? I think this, for example, is an interesting jumping-off point. A bit thicker and you'd have room for expansion slots, like the Apple II, which had eight.
What's fun is to remember the Apple ][. One of the things that really drove its adoption was the presence of expansion slots (a whopping eight). There's a lot of popular demand for upgrading and improving computers.
I suppose, however, it was the Mac Pro of its day, because in 2005 dollars, it cost from $4,211.99 to $8,560.26 ($1298 ~$2638) at a time when real per capita income was lower than today. Still, it was hailed as the breakthrough computer for the middle class family, small business, and classroom. Amazing, eh?
I believe you've mistaken expansion slots for VisiCalc.
I believe you've mistaken expansion slots for VisiCalc.
Good point - the original killer app.
1. 5.25 floppy controller card
2. Video
3. Z80 processor card to run CP/M
4. Printer
5. Real-time clock
6. and 7. 300 baud modem with 1200 baud expansion card
I think sound would have added another one. Wups - no room for the A/D converter. No ethernet, no AppleTalk, no FireWire, no USB.
Today, all of those functions are on the mobo or custom modules, except in the Mac Pro.
It was fun making your own circuit board and plugging that in, though. We did that to add a little Schmidt trigger circuit to clean up a fetal heart rate monitor's output pulses into square waves so that they could be used to simulate the processor's NMI interrupt signal. This let us write an interrupt routine in 6502 assembler which would get branched to with every fetal heart beat. In the interrupt routine, we calculated the time elapsed since the last heart beat.
I think you'd have a lot more room for aesthetic fun with a horizontal enclosure. I know that in the LCD era it doesn't make as much sense to have that large of a desktop footprint as it did when you needed a broad and strong base to hold up a heavy CRT, but you could still produce some interesting designs.
I was suggesting an horizontal enclosure earlier, as a replacement for the Mac Mini eventually, or simply an additional model in the Apple product line. It could be about 3.25 inches high, 14 inches wide and 11 inches deep. If the footprint is large enough, an Apple cinema display can sit on top, and if the enclosure's style is right, the display and computer will look like they belong together.
To review my previous posting, this entry-level to mid-range Mac would use standard hard and optical drives and have two HDD bays. It would also use a desktop CPU for lower cost.
That PC on your link looks like a Commodore 64.
I was suggesting an horizontal enclosure earlier, as a replacement for the Mac Mini eventually, or simply an additional model in the Apple product line.
Sorry I missed that.
That PC on your link looks like a Commodore 64.
It might inspire taunting from Weird Al: "You think your Commodore 64 is really neato; what kinda chip you got in there, a Dorito?"
The same company until recently sold a prior model that had more of the Apple II hardware look and feel. Lacking the current trackpad and mouse buttons, and with true desktop keyboard full-height keys (rather than the current laptop-style half-height), it was available not only in black but also in a beige scheme. Its streamlined, "sharp" look made me think of the Apple II, although the ZPC did not have the trademark Apple II overhanging front.
It's not a "plain old Macintosh," but 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, and the Mac Mini has taken the place of the original iMac.
What I didn't emphasize in my suggested bigger mini is that it can serve as a low end iMac style computer. If you think about the G4 iMac, it had a base which housed the computer hardware. The LCD display sat on top. Now, a larger flat box mini would be the base and the display sits on top of it. For the really low end, a customer purchases just the base and adds an inexpensive LCD display. Same effect -- less clutter on the desk. The only penalty is two more cords, power and display.
An advantage to Apple would be achieved by designing the computer box to look great with an Apple display. More display sales to those willing to spend a little more for aesthetics. Apple could even offer their displays with short cords to plug into the big mini. This would not be a problem for customers who want longer cords in the future. A normal length power cord is easy to come by, and Apple can sell an extender cord to make the display cable longer.
Just a thought:
It's not a "plain old Macintosh," but 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, and the Mac Mini has taken the place of the original iMac.
But the original 1998 iMac sold for $1,299. Today's iMacs start at $999. So I'm afraid you're exactly wrong.
And inflation makes you even wronger.
So iMac prices are falling significantly. Furthermore if iMacs had remained essentially unchanged for an eleven year long production run (like the Apple //e) these price reductions would be impressive all by themselves. And yet we've seen incredible leaps forward in technology in the last eight years, for one-third less of a price.
And all that is without considering the option of the mini.
The all new iMac is it an AIO or not? You decide.
Base units would be an iMac Cube and an iMac Tower, both would have connectors for an LCD display to attach to them (I believe Apple could pull this off nicely). When ordering one could choose for it to be pre-attached. The Mac Mini would be gone, the Cube would start near it's price range w/o a monitor.
iMac Displays would have the option of being mounted on either the iMacs or a base if one prefers their display to be seperate.
The iMac Cube would be their entry level system with savings when one bought an iMac Display and bigger savings for select bundles. The iMac Tower would be their prosumer line starting in the $999 to $1299 range sans monitor, as w/ the Cube buying iMac Displays and select bundles would give price breaks.
The displays would only have extra wires when attached to a display base, when attached to either iMac they'd gain power, usb and such from the iMac.
This would give Apple both a simplistic line-up (iMac Cube, iMac Tower, and Macpro) while allowing them to market systems to the greatest range of consumers all while keeping the iMac alive and healthy. Keep in mind that Jobs likes cubes and AIO's and that consumers tend to prefer headless systems, you want to change their minds? Make it easier for them. This addresses nearly? every concern I and others have with AIO's.
So here's hoping Apple can think different.
Just a thought:
It's not a "plain old Macintosh," but 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, and the Mac Mini has taken the place of the original iMac.
What I didn't emphasize in my suggested bigger mini is that it can serve as a low end iMac style computer. If you think about the G4 iMac, it had a base which housed the computer hardware. The LCD display sat on top. Now, a larger flat box mini would be the base and the display sits on top of it. For the really low end, a customer purchases just the base and adds an inexpensive LCD display. Same effect -- less clutter on the desk. The only penalty is two more cords, power and display.
An advantage to Apple would be achieved by designing the computer box to look great with an Apple display. More display sales to those willing to spend a little more for aesthetics. Apple could even offer their displays with short cords to plug into the big mini. This would not be a problem for customers who want longer cords in the future. A normal length power cord is easy to come by, and Apple can sell an extender cord to make the display cable longer.
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.