An idea for a mid-range tower.

[LoganT]

They're more likely to solder the graphics chips than they are the CPUs. Most people would be more interested in upgradeable CPUs anyway (i.e. most consumers, not you or me). I honestly think something like a mini with an MXM is the most we could possibly hope for from Apple.



Not going to happen. Ultra320 SCSI is Pro stuff - Buy a Pro machine instead of wanting a consumer machine to do the job for you (that'll be Apple's view). FW800? Not a chance. ESATA? The Mac Pro doesn't even have that. No way.

Edit: Logan, you're original post said "But it seems to me that, the people who are asking for it, are asking for too much. They basically want the same expandability as a Mac Pro but cheaper. No my idea is: Don't make it expandable. Make it upgradeable.". Anything with PCIe slots is expandable and asking for FW800 and PCI slots is asking too much imo.

What if that PCI Slot was filled with USB ports, and if you removed it you wouldn't have anymore USB ports. People who would want to put something in that slot would have to sacrifice those USB ports.

 

[Fahrwahr]

If it's not fully upgradeable it's not a midrange tower. It's garbage. They could just keep the Mini.

Yes, you could argue that a true mid-range tower would have better upgrade options. I'm more inclined to think that a mini replacement tower need only address the primary shortcomings of the current enclosure: no room for full-size components, and a pain in the rear to upgrade anything. The mini wouldn't have to grow TOO much to have room for a 3.5" hard disk, but the design would have to be modified to prevent the need for a putty knife.

While we're at it, why can't we add a USB port and a headphone jack to the front? I know Apple's obsessed with clean lines these days, but when you're plugging and unplugging peripherals on a regular basis (USB flash drives and headphones), reaching around back amongst all the other cables is pretty inconvenient.

I guess you can tell from what I've posted here that I'm not necessarily asking for a "mid-range" tower to replace the mini -- I'm more interested in a modular desktop enclosure that addresses what I see as the current shortcomings in the mini. I'm sure that if Apple thought it profitable, it could release a line of which the lower-end models have soldered, low-end CPUs and graphics, whereas the higher-end models have socketed, mid-range CPUs and graphics (compare the low-end 17" iMac with integrated graphics to the 17" iMac with discrete graphics in the same enclosure).

I'm still not understanding why it would be so problematic to "hurt" iMac or Mac Pro sales if the margins on this new mini replacement were comparable. I seriously doubt Apple would price any new products in such a way that the margins aren't up to par -- historically Apple has had few such "loss leader" products.

 

[iDave]

I guess you can tell from what I've posted here that I'm not necessarily asking for a "mid-range" tower to replace the mini -- I'm more interested in a modular desktop enclosure that addresses what I see as the current shortcomings in the mini.

Such a move might make the mini worth the $799 asking price.

 

[cube]

Here you have, Apple. Take care of the EFI thing and sell a computer.

 

[cube]

If you think microATX is too big, you can wait for this:

http://www.dtxpc.org/

 

[AppleMan101]

I don't know why you say that. Nearly every WinPC computer sold that's not a portable is more upgradeable than any iMac or Mac mini. WinPCs command more than 90% of the market, so that's a heckuva lot of upgradeable systems being purchased.

Admittedly, not everyone who can upgrade a WinPC does upgrade, but the options are there. Why shouldn't those same options be available on the Mac side to those who want them, without having to spend $2500 for a pro system?

People buy a winPC because it's their way of life, dull and dreary; why look somewhere else, outside the box if you will, if you can get something that just does the job? (read that as just or just, however you see fit)

What I'm trying to elude to is that most winPC buyers don't necessarily buy a PC for its upgradability, they buy it because it will do its job for the next three years or so before buying another one. Unlike with macs, there is no emotional attatchment to a PC, which I think is one of the biggest differences between mac-folk and the ignorant...windows users.

The generic PC user will buy a generic box every few years because it's easier than upgrading, I think it's wrong to think that every PC user upgrades just because he can.

EDIT: I realise I'm in agreement with you now I've read your 2nd paragraph properly

 

[iDave]

The generic PC user will buy a generic box every few years because it's easier than upgrading, I think it's wrong to think that every PC user upgrades just because he can.

EDIT: I realise I'm in agreement with you now I've read your 2nd paragraph properly

And some that I know will buy a new box every time theirs gets so infected with malware that it won't work anymore.

 

[AppleMan101]

And some that I know will buy a new box every time theirs gets so infected with malware that it won't work anymore.

you must be one of the only ones ever to think of a your-pc-is-rubbish-compared-to-mac joke like that, good one

 

[iDave]

Removed the smiley in my post above. I shouldn't smile at others' misfortune. What I said is just the sad truth.

 

[Dustman]

Apple is not going to sell a computer with an Intel Celeron chip.

Which is stupid because it's not like OS X would be unusable on a Celeron chip. I think its absolutely retarded that they stick a Core Duo in whats supposed to be a basic, low end computer. if they put in a fast celeron (2.0 ghz or so) and kept the other specs the same, they could easily sell it for cheaper and more people would be willing to buy it. i have no clue why people think they somehow need a high-end processor with multiple cores to be able to accomplish an easy task now adays. Here's to running OS X Tiger Flawlessly on a 700Mhz G3!

 

[volvoben]

Which is stupid because it's not like OS X would be unusable on a Celeron chip. I think its absolutely retarded that they stick a Core Duo in whats supposed to be a basic, low end computer. if they put in a fast celeron (2.0 ghz or so) and kept the other specs the same, they could easily sell it for cheaper and more people would be willing to buy it. i have no clue why people think they somehow need a high-end processor with multiple cores to be able to accomplish an easy task now adays. Here's to running OS X Tiger Flawlessly on a 700Mhz G3!

Agreed! The new celerons which are expected to be announced/released june 4th or so are just single core conroe chips, and intel already make yonah based celerons. Try out the old core solo mini with 2gb in it. It's FINE for many folks, namely most people looking at the mini: basic users who surf, use word and organize their photos. The new conroe celerons cost $39-59 for 1.6-2.0ghz models...CHEAP! that 2.0 ghz model will run OSX fine, better than the last generation of G5 imacs no doubt. I think ram holds back OSX more than CPU power, especially since a G3 imac with 512+ will run tiger fine. I guess Apple's allergic to affordable computers to some extent, perhaps they prefer selling fewer high price machines.

On a side note, I was talking to a financial fellow recently about computers and I said I thought Apple should notice that their used rigs are overpriced and they're losing potential profit to people reselling their old machines. Essentially he said yes, for most organizations that situation would make them consider selling cheaper models to suck up that gravy that consumers are willing to spend on overpriced used machines, but Apple's model is different. Essentially he said Apple's using the Bentley approach: sell only high end cars, ignore the overpriced used models because that bloated market only helps sustain your ability to overprice your own current products. If Bentley sold a lower end car that mopped up the consumers who WANT a Bentley but can't quite afford it, they'd lose their original market of overpriced, high margin vehicles. The guy used the example of Hummer, who made the H1, then the H2 which was cheaper and attracted more consumers but at lower prices. Then they released the H3 which was even cheaper, and by then they had stopped even making the high-profit H1 because the brand was diluded and they're stuck making mediocre mid-upper range SUVs in a crowded market.

In other words, Apple makes luxury products and refuses to leave their small but profitable market. I love OSX and apple's hardware is pretty, but I really wish they'd stick to a more level and fair ~10% "Apple tax", you'd think they could still turn a decent profit.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Try out the old core solo mini with 2gb in it. It's FINE for many folks, namely most people looking at the mini: basic users who surf, use word and organize their photos. The new conroe celerons cost $39-59 for 1.6-2.0ghz models...CHEAP! that 2.0 ghz model will run OSX fine, better than the last generation of G5 imacs no doubt. I think ram holds back OSX more than CPU power, especially since a G3 imac with 512+ will run tiger fine.

You've hit the problem with celerons there without realising. OS X (and Windows for that matter) can be really held back by RAM. However, the main aspect in which celerons are usually made to perform worse than their full blown brethren is by limiting the on board cache. Cache is like on-chip RAM.

In layman's terms, when your computer wants to do something it checks the CPUs cache to see if what it needs is there. If its not, then it goes to check if its in the system RAM (which is considerably slower). If its not there then it goes to check the hard drive (considerably slower again).
A celeron holds a computer back in a very similar way to how a machine with an inadequate amount of RAM is held back.
You end up with a machine that is fast for doing certain tasks but for other tasks or running multiple applications, it runs significantly slower because it has to check the RAM for stuff more than on a regular system. Having had celeron systems before, the way it felt was that it was fast but lacked any oomph. This doesn't just affect users like myself. This would affect the kid running iTunes while using Word and browsing the net, working on a project. Not good.
So basically, Apple's decision not to use celerons is a very good thing.

What you said about the Bentley model sounds about right and I'm pretty happy with that. For what you get from your money, Apple's aren't overpriced, they're very competetively priced, its just that they don't bother with the whole bottom end market, which is a good thing imo.

 

[scottlinux]

A similar discussion at Ars of the xMac if you are interested:

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/8300945231/m/208009973831

 

[Dustman]

You've hit the problem with celerons there without realising. OS X (and Windows for that matter) can be really held back by RAM. However, the main aspect in which celerons are usually made to perform worse than their full blown brethren is by limiting the on board cache. Cache is like on-chip RAM.

In layman's terms, when your computer wants to do something it checks the CPUs cache to see if what it needs is there. If its not, then it goes to check if its in the system RAM (which is considerably slower). If its not there then it goes to check the hard drive (considerably slower again).
A celeron holds a computer back in a very similar way to how a machine with an inadequate amount of RAM is held back.
You end up with a machine that is fast for doing certain tasks but for other tasks or running multiple applications, it runs significantly slower because it has to check the RAM for stuff more than on a regular system. Having had celeron systems before, the way it felt was that it was fast but lacked any oomph. This doesn't just affect users like myself. This would affect the kid running iTunes while using Word and browsing the net, working on a project. Not good.
So basically, Apple's decision not to use celerons is a very good thing.

What you said about the Bentley model sounds about right and I'm pretty happy with that. For what you get from your money, Apple's aren't overpriced, they're very competetively priced, its just that they don't bother with the whole bottom end market, which is a good thing imo.

Thats not my point. My point is that i'd rather pay a hundred or so dollars less and experience a little bit of lag. I dont need the core arcatechture, i dont mind having to wait a few seconds some times, and since apple released the mini to encourage consumers on a budget to switch to mac, you'd think they'd start with a model lower in specs than the current mini.

 

[cube]

The new Celerons are Core architecture.
You need Core because the Pentium architecture is too hot for the mini.

 

[volvoben]

You've hit the problem with celerons there without realising. OS X (and Windows for that matter) can be really held back by RAM. However, the main aspect in which celerons are usually made to perform worse than their full blown brethren is by limiting the on board cache. Cache is like on-chip RAM.

In layman's terms, when your computer wants to do something it checks the CPUs cache to see if what it needs is there. If its not, then it goes to check if its in the system RAM (which is considerably slower). If its not there then it goes to check the hard drive (considerably slower again).
A celeron holds a computer back in a very similar way to how a machine with an inadequate amount of RAM is held back.
You end up with a machine that is fast for doing certain tasks but for other tasks or running multiple applications, it runs significantly slower because it has to check the RAM for stuff more than on a regular system. Having had celeron systems before, the way it felt was that it was fast but lacked any oomph. This doesn't just affect users like myself. This would affect the kid running iTunes while using Word and browsing the net, working on a project. Not good.
So basically, Apple's decision not to use celerons is a very good thing.

What you said about the Bentley model sounds about right and I'm pretty happy with that. For what you get from your money, Apple's aren't overpriced, they're very competetively priced, its just that they don't bother with the whole bottom end market, which is a good thing imo.

I'll have to agree with Dustman on this one, I understand caching and in this case it makes a minimal difference. The Celeron M 500 series has 1mb L2 cache for its 1 core. That's the same as the core solo processor if I remember correctly. The current 1.83 c2d uses 2mb shared cache between its 2 cores. Intel does cripple its low end processors to some extent (no speedstep, no virtualization), but the L2 cache simply isn't going to matter to someone browsing the internet, writing email or typing in word.

I personally hate waiting for a slower computer, but I used a core solo mini at work for a time and for basic email/word/browsing tasks I was never frustrated with its performance (luckily it had 2gb ram so it didn't have to dig into the slow HDD).

Essentially my argument is that despite not being a 'basic user' myself, I wish Apple would cater to their basic users just a bit more and offer at least 1 model which can be decently equipped for under $500. If I was designing this low end model myself I'd be satisfied with the mini as it currently exists, except with a redesign to carry a 3.5" HDD, possibly desktop components in a larger box, 1gb ram standard and a price of $500 for the 1.66 CD model.

Since Apple hasn't dropped the price of the mini, I'm just speculating as to how they could cut off fat and still deliver a computer which runs OSX well, and intel's newest celeron chips would seem to be one method to achieve this.

EDIT: I hadn't heard of this chip yet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_E

I'd put a pile of money against Apple ever using Intel's 'budget' chips, but this one's not only conroe based but also dual core.

 

[Grenadier]

I only really want two things-


1.PCI-E X16 slot.
2.LG 775 socket.

I dont care for extra HDD bays,
I dont care for 'headlessness',
I dont care for room for 8GB of memory.

I just want to be able to change my damned GPU and perhaps my CPU !
Come on Apple...is this too much to ask ?!

Some time ago, I seriously considered getting a Mac Pro -
hell, I almost brought one !

Not because of its dual Woodcrests, not because of its 4 drive bays, but because of its upgradability. I was ready to fork out £4500.

But I noticed that why should I be waste so much money just for the option of perhaps installing a 8800GTS ?

No, damn it, I decided to hold out. And I WILL keep holding out until atleast a decent GPU is offered in the iMac line.

Come on...a 7600GT ? Ptsh. Dont make me laugh.


I dont even NEED a 775 socket (although it would be nice).
I just however beg for a PCI-E X16 slot.

If Apple gave such a gift, I would be one happy guy.




Im DEFINATELY buying something after this WWDC though. My G4 Sunflower has more than shown its age. A 700MHz CPU with 384MB of RAM, married to a GeForce 2 MX just doesnt cut it anymore...