Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iMac with separate computer (aka Mac Pro)

W

Whiz

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 22, 2008
12
0
Just one quick question, why haven´t Apple done any newer middlerange desktops with with separate computer and screen? To me, where size isn´t important, it feels like a waste of money to buy a computer with small components (and more expensive components) just to make it fit in a thin screen. Or is the difference not as big as I imagine?

This makes me more interested of a Mac Pro, even though it by a rather large margin both exceeds my need and budget... Let us hear some opinions!
 
people have wanted this almost forever, yet apple doesn't seem interested in acting on this desire.

would be nice though!
 
vandozza said:
lol, well that is correct!

however i (for some reason) assumed the OP was after the midi-mac, something headless that fits in the product lineup between the mini and the mac pro.
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly. Something in the same pricerange as the current iMacs but with slightly better specs...
 
Well even then it will still cost me about 2000$ right? And it´s not very easy to find an old Mac Pro with the desired specs (or one at all) here in sweden.

How much of a drawback is this size of the iMac? Are they even comparable when it comes to performance to a Pc at the same price?
 
I guess they deliberately want to keep the Mac Pro as the top shelf, expensive "pro" equipment, aimed more at companies rather than individuals.

I can see the appeal of the iMac. It's compact and powerful enough for most people. In fact if I were getting a new computer I just might buy one. But I've got several good monitors already clogging my tables so the iMac is useless to me and the Mac Pro is kinda overpriced.

The biggest drawback I see with the iMac is the graphics card is never top of the range due to the mobile parts. If one wants to run Windows for gaming then the iMac isn't the most futureproof choice since for a regular PC you can just upgrade the graphics card these days and have it run all the latest and greatest since the dual core processors are already fast enough for most things.
 
There will never be a midrange tower. All-in-one is better if you're a consumer, and if you're a "pro" then the Mac Pro is what Apple says you need. If you want an upgradeable inexpensive tower then go buy a Dell or an HP or something.
 
queshy said:
There will never be a midrange tower. All-in-one is better if you're a consumer, and if you're a "pro" then the Mac Pro is what Apple says you need. If you want an upgradeable inexpensive tower then go buy a Dell or an HP or something.
Click to expand...

Forgive me but I think that was a pretty naive comment. I´m not interested of Mac because of the hardware (or, mostly not).

But, after reading some more and looking at benchmarks it seem that the difference between the 3,06 GHz iMac and the 2x2,8 Quad Mac Pro is not so big. How can they possibly pack something that powerful into a computer that thin?
 
Whiz said:
Forgive me but I think that was a pretty naive comment. I´m not interested of Mac because of the hardware (or, mostly not).

But, after reading some more and looking at benchmarks it seem that the difference between the 3,06 GHz iMac and the 2x2,8 Quad Mac Pro is not so big. How can they possibly pack something that powerful into a computer that thin?
Click to expand...

No clue how they do it!

If you just want the software, then build a hackintosh.

Because Apple will probably never make its own cheaper hardware. Apple doesn't need to compete in the "midrange tower" i.e. <$1000 market.
 
queshy said:
There will never be a midrange tower. All-in-one is better if you're a consumer, and if you're a "pro" then the Mac Pro is what Apple says you need. If you want an upgradeable inexpensive tower then go buy a Dell or an HP or something.
Click to expand...

This is true though, The iMac is Apple's flag ship desktop and making a mid-sized tower would kill their sales, and further confusing consumers (i.e. people who generally know nothing about computers) from telling the difference between product lines. Apple is in a business to make money, so hurting sales is not a option they will take.

So the all in one is perfect for most consumers, and if you need more power/expandability then Apple knows that your going to have to bite the bullet and get high end parts.
 
Cave Man said:
I built my 3.2 gHz quad-core hackintosh for about $1100. That includes two 750 gb hard drives, 256 mb NVidia 8600 (dual-link, dual-monitor), 4 gb RAM, DVD burner, gigabit ethernet, FW400, USB2x8, eSATAx2 and as nearly as quiet tower as you can buy. It screams.
Click to expand...

If I were to build an own computer including a 24" lcd panel in would cost me almost the same as a iMac (the 3,06 version). The screen is pretty expensive if you are to buy a good one. And this option would probably not be as high quality as a Mac.
How difficult is it to run hacintosh?

Mind you that I live in sweden, so the prices may vary. I´m also not a pro when it comes to computer components so it is probably possible to find a little cheaper alternative to my setup.
 
Whiz said:
If I were to build an own computer including a 24" lcd panel in would cost me almost the same as a iMac (the 3,06 version). The screen is pretty expensive if you are to buy a good one. And this option would probably not be as high quality as a Mac.
How difficult is it to run hacintosh?
Click to expand...

The keys are good mobo and intel processor. Check the osx86 hcl for those. All else is pretty much easy.

IroquoisPliskin said:
Unfortunately its too easy to make a hackintrash.
Click to expand...

Just can't hide that temper, eh Lord..., uh IroquoisPliskin. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back