Apple Store Visit Confirms: No Mac Exists

[JAT]

But yes, I like the idea of a small tower, although I see it killing Mac Pro sales.

So? It's still Apple. Forcing regular consumers into a high-priced Pro machine isn't good business sense. The problem is that Apple seems to think the iMac is enough in the middle. They really just need a version without built-in screen, and with a LITTLE more adaptibility.

I had to go with a Mini, but add on external stuff.

 

[bbrosemer]

They could call it aMac,
because that wouldnt be confusing at all...

 

[GimmeSlack12]

I've never heard anyone call gMail gay...?

gMail is so gay.


There, someone said it

As for the Mac thing, I think that would be really lame and confusing. There has never been a "Mac" (even th 128Kb and the likes had a distinguishing name).

No Mac exists? gee whiz, mark another thing on the board of pointless complaints about Apple.

 

[stevo86]

I think that if they made the Mini a bit bigger, they could put a 1.86 GHz Conroe in (which is cheaper than a Core Solo, with much better performance), a 3.5" Hard Drive (more storage for less money) and a GMA X3000, then added a single Woodcrest option to the Mac Pro, it would eliminate the need for a mid-range Mac.

i really like this sound of this... but i think the mini should be kept at its small stature. maybe just give it a faster core duo chip and stick with the smaller hdd. either way let the customer customize the mini so it can be more powerful, and customize the mac pro so it can be less powerful.

 

[virus1]

Mac Plus sounds good to me, or maybe the gMac (for games)?

ha now we know why you don't work for apple's marketing department.

 

[topgunn]

Mac Standard seems wrong. Maybe Mac Stand? No, sounds like an iCurve competitor. Mac STD? YES!! Come and get your fresh, hot Mac STD's.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

How about Macintosh?

 

[dan-o-mac]

I think if they were to do this it would probably end up with a fairly uninspiring name like "Mac Standard" or something. I think we're safe, though, because as much as we want it, Apple doesn't seem to want to give us a machine like that.
QUOTE]

Could someone please explain why Apple doesn't want to give us a mid range mac?

 

[Macky-Mac]

Could someone please explain why Apple doesn't want to give us a mid range mac?

probably they figure the imac is their mid range mac

 

[someguy]

Could someone please explain why Apple doesn't want to give us a mid range mac?

What do you call the iMac?

 

[milo]

Having a midrange model is a great idea, hope it happens soon.

Naming it "mac" is a terrible idea. Too confusing.

What do you call the iMac?

I assume he meant apple doesn't have a *headless* mid range mac.

 

[someguy]

I assume he meant apple doesn't have a *headless* mid range mac.

Mac mini?

 

[dejo]

Mac mini?

I assume he meant Apple doesn't have a *headless* *easily upgradeable* (can swap out an optical drive / hard drive / memory / cpu / ???? on a moment's notice) *more upgradeable* (multiple optical drive bays / multiple HDD bays / plenty of memory slots / plenty of PCI slots / ????) mid range mac.

 

[mmmcheese]

very funny haha That's also on of the reasons why I hated newer versions that just add a 2 (playstation 2, call of duty 2, home alone 2, etc)

Pretend to be French...

Playstation deux.

hehe

 

[dan-o-mac]

Mac mini?

I guess I should have been more specific and said an ugradeable headless mid range mac. a mini tower or dare I say it, a cube.

 

[milo]

Mac mini?

The mini isn't a midrange computer by any stretch of the imagination. It's a barebones budget machine. And since its release, it has become overpriced and underpowered.

Apple needs a midrange machine. Bad.

 

[osustudent]

Honestly, this has got to be one of the more absurd postings I've seen in awhile. I'm not sure what it says that I've read through all of them, but ...

Since Apple hasn't had a mid-range tower in recent years, I don't see them heading towards it. All of their current products, Mac Pro aside, have to do with being small, different, unique. Mac minis' are smaller than most external hard drives. iMacs' have the whole computer in a monitor. Macbooks' and Macbook Pros' are the best designed, most efficent laptops designed. And Mac Pro is simply so powerful. Then what, the "Mac" is, um, well, let's see, perfect because, it just works!

Also, I think there would be a monitor issue; Apple would need to look at selling less expensive monitors with that option. I'm not sure how comfortable most computer users would be paying $1200+ for a computer with no monitor. It works with the Mac Mini because the computer is relatively cheap. It works with the Mac Pro because you're shelling out over $2000 for it, what's an extra $600+ for a flat panel monitor? But, with a mid-range tower, the monitor issue would need to be tackled for it to work.

 

[milozauckerman]

Since Apple hasn't had a mid-range tower in recent years, I don't see them heading towards it.

Of course they have. The Dual 2GHz G5 was under $2000 - $1799 EDU if you go that route, had four RAM slots (maybe the last versions had eight again?), the same number of hard-drive bays and PCI slots as the quad. It also didn't require absurdly expensive RAM that won't benefit most users. Given the lower cost of doing business with Intel, a comparable machine should be an easy possibility for $1799 retail.

And before that, of course, there was the single-processor G5, which wasn't a terrible machine in its own right.

 

[pianoman]

"I've got a new gMac."
"Haha, you're gay you bought a gayMac."
**

is this supposed to be a potential conversation between two people or just the thoughts running through your head? this is so ridiculous i almost didn't want to comment on it.

 

[dan-o-mac]

Honestly, this has got to be one of the more absurd postings I've seen in awhile. I'm not sure what it says that I've read through all of them, but ...

Since Apple hasn't had a mid-range tower in recent years, I don't see them heading towards it. All of their current products, Mac Pro aside, have to do with being small, different, unique. Mac minis' are smaller than most external hard drives. iMacs' have the whole computer in a monitor. Macbooks' and Macbook Pros' are the best designed, most efficent laptops designed. And Mac Pro is simply so powerful. Then what, the "Mac" is, um, well, let's see, perfect because, it just works!

Also, I think there would be a monitor issue; Apple would need to look at selling less expensive monitors with that option. I'm not sure how comfortable most computer users would be paying $1200+ for a computer with no monitor. It works with the Mac Mini because the computer is relatively cheap. It works with the Mac Pro because you're shelling out over $2000 for it, what's an extra $600+ for a flat panel monitor? But, with a mid-range tower, the monitor issue would need to be tackled for it to work.

Other than the name whats so absurd? Why wouldn't the mac mini's BYOKDM apply? Price wise it would mach up well against a 20" iMac.

 

[zap2]

No, Mac "Pro" is saying its the "Pro" computer of the Mac Line, Mac Mini is the "Mini"(low end) computer in the line up... if you add Mac, then you start to attack the name for all of Apple's computer... it would not work .. but i do like the type of Mac it would make(headless middle of the road computer)

 

[zap2]

And before that, of course, there was the single-processor G5, which wasn't a terrible machine in its own right.

Ya, i remeber when Apple upgraded the iMac, and they were faster then it, and i though Apple should just get rid of it... looking back, i think Apple should have upgraded it.. i'd love a 1499 Mac Pro of some type(Core 2, Conroe anyone?)

 

[bbrosemer]

wait here is another name mid-Mac, or umac, or Mac Midi, or Mac in the Middle, Average Mac, median mac... just a few ideas...

 

[LBmacman]

what about naming it the TowerMac?

 

[Origin]

... and what about the TowerMacWithoutTheDamnedSeventeenInchesCrappyLCDDisplay

Désolé
(sorry... for english speaking geeks)