Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Poll: the midrange headless poll
- Thread starter cube
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Personally I would love to see something between the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini. I already have a nice LCD, so I wouldn't want an iMac. But the slow hard drive and only one firewire port keep me from getting a Mini. And after spending a TON of $$ on my Mac Pro, I won't be getting another to match it for a VERY long time!
Instead of a midrange headless they could always put in a 7,200 RPM drive in the Mac Mini and add another firewire port. That would be awesome!
If they had one higher end Mini with all the things I mentioned above, I would be a happy man. (if the price was right)
Instead of a midrange headless they could always put in a 7,200 RPM drive in the Mac Mini and add another firewire port. That would be awesome!
If they had one higher end Mini with all the things I mentioned above, I would be a happy man. (if the price was right)
Personally, I just don't get all of the people complaining about their not being a headless mid-range mac. The resale values on Macs are so high that it really doesn't matter that you can't reuse the monitor. Also, LCD displays (at least 17" ones) these days are at such a low price that they are practically disposable. You guys should just bite the bullet and get an iMac and sell it on ebay when you want to upgrade. Trust me, it feels much better to have a nice new computer on your desk than to prop up your old one for a few more years...
The imac looks like a wonderful computer but doesn't it use mostly laptop componets on the inside? Wouldn't a headless mini tower made with desktop components be much less expensive per point of performance? Be this a minority opinion in the Apple community but inexpensive doesn't always mean crap.
piltupso said:
The only laptop component that I'm aware of in the iMac is the processor and ram. The funny thing is that I think the laptop graded processors are the same ones as the desktop ones. They are just rated to run at a lower wattage. (don't flame me if I'm wrong about this as I'm not 100% sure). You do pay a premium because the iMac is an all-in-one but go compare it to the price of a Sony all-in-one PC and you will se that it isn't that bad of a deal.
A headless midd ranged mac is *not* *going* *to* *happen*. From Apple's point of view consumers now have three perfectly good sized screens to choose from, the processors are upgradeable and the graphics card is upgradeable in the 24". Why on Earth would they bother releasing anything else? They've got the range covered.
You don't seem to understand the difference in 'upgradeable' and 'removable.'
The graphics card is removable - it isn't user-upgradeable.
Since I do not own a separate monitor, buying a headless machine would mean making a further, possibly expensive, purchase of a monitor.
Unless the headless machine was so cheap that I would be able to buy a large monitor of at least 23", there would be no point in doing so. And even then, the components would need to be of sufficient power to suit my needs - even if they can be upgraded by myself, that does not mean that I can afford those upgrades or that future upgrades will be commensurate with my needs or even forthcoming at all. The main issue being GPUs - I can only buy and use cards which are Apple compatible, the general rule seems to be so far.
As it is, the 24" iMac is so competitively priced and well specified that any other machine is just not a viable choice financially. Sure, I could get the most basic Mac Pro for a little more, but again - adding on the price of a good monitor (which is also aesthetically pleasing, as that is a factor I would consider too) takes it back out of my league.
Unless the headless machine was so cheap that I would be able to buy a large monitor of at least 23", there would be no point in doing so. And even then, the components would need to be of sufficient power to suit my needs - even if they can be upgraded by myself, that does not mean that I can afford those upgrades or that future upgrades will be commensurate with my needs or even forthcoming at all. The main issue being GPUs - I can only buy and use cards which are Apple compatible, the general rule seems to be so far.
As it is, the 24" iMac is so competitively priced and well specified that any other machine is just not a viable choice financially. Sure, I could get the most basic Mac Pro for a little more, but again - adding on the price of a good monitor (which is also aesthetically pleasing, as that is a factor I would consider too) takes it back out of my league.
I was looking at Dell line up(a Magizine came and since Apple and Dell use Intel chips now, I was looking at what they had, and Apple didn't or vice versus. I didn't see a Xeon Dell(but i know there are, but Apple Xeon Macs can be had at a normal price, Dells are high, to high for most people) Dell's iMac, was more expensive then the iMac, so I think Apple bet them there. Laptop wise, Apple and Dell are similar, Apple look better and have more extras, but Dells are a little cheaper. But there were Cone 2 Extremes and Conroe based Dell which Apple doesn't have anything to sell at that level. They should, then their line up would be able to take on Dell(and the rest of the PC world) by saying "We have all of what they have, and then some!
I'm in the "I need more then one Mac, an a Headless mid range is one of the" group. I have a Mini which is fast, but I'd like a headless Core 2 Extreme Mac to replace the Mini once it gets a little older. My other is a Laptop but my iBook is fine for my needs on the go
I'm in the "I need more then one Mac, an a Headless mid range is one of the" group. I have a Mini which is fast, but I'd like a headless Core 2 Extreme Mac to replace the Mini once it gets a little older. My other is a Laptop but my iBook is fine for my needs on the go
It will happen when Apple can support a 3rd chipset ... aka, not in the immediate future.
Right now the XServe and Mac Pro share a chipset and core design.
The MacBooks, Mini, and iMac also share a chipset and core design.
Focusing on two basic designs keeps costs low, when there is enough volume for Apple to add a 3rd concurrent design to the mix Apple likely with do it.
Apple is a wiz at making one set of guts look like a bunch of vastly different machines -- and they are still doing it. But they've been doing it for years because they couldn't afford not to do it.
---
Intel is making the chipsets these days ... but will spending a bit of change on the churn and burn inherent in Intels chipset turnover also.
Right now the XServe and Mac Pro share a chipset and core design.
The MacBooks, Mini, and iMac also share a chipset and core design.
Focusing on two basic designs keeps costs low, when there is enough volume for Apple to add a 3rd concurrent design to the mix Apple likely with do it.
Apple is a wiz at making one set of guts look like a bunch of vastly different machines -- and they are still doing it. But they've been doing it for years because they couldn't afford not to do it.
---
Intel is making the chipsets these days ... but will spending a bit of change on the churn and burn inherent in Intels chipset turnover also.
Apple needs to throw all the imacs componets into a little cube I mean box
Mac mini's video kind of sucks, iMac built in screens sucks for the billions of folks who own perfectly fine monitors. Cube or MaxMini Apple has a hole in the lineup you could drive an aircraft carrier through.
Mac mini's video kind of sucks, iMac built in screens sucks for the billions of folks who own perfectly fine monitors. Cube or MaxMini Apple has a hole in the lineup you could drive an aircraft carrier through.
Dont Hurt Me said:Apple needs to throw all the imacs componets into a little cube I mean box
Those people who have perfectly good monitors can either sell them and put the money toward the iMac or run multiple monitors. For 15-17" monitors they aren't worth much anyway. When you go to get a new computer, the iMac will sell for far more than any competing desktop which is worth more than getting to keep your monitor IMO...
I'll get a 24" iMac because the Mac Pro RAM is to much $$ and the machine is overkill. I want a midtower to hook up a 23" ACD to. I want to put in a 2nd HDD. I wouldn't mind 4 RAM slots but I'd take 2. I don't need an extra PCI-E slot, just the ability to take out the graphics card and change it. The Mini has a slow drive, can only drive 1 screen though I would only use 1. It has crappy graphics. Me I want iMac specs without the built in screen. The 23" ACD is sexy. An aluminum cube, a la the Pro but smaller would look great on a desk with it. The white iMac is just not ultimately attractive. I'm not a fan of the chin. The midtower/cube/Mac Pro Jr could be to have 2 HDD spots and still not be too upgradable to take away Mac Pro sales.
roland.g said:
I feel your pain on the lack of expandability but do you realize that the upper end iMac can get 3Gb of Ram now? Hopefully it will be 4Gb with the next model. Also, you can get a 500Gb hard drive as well. How much internal storage do you really need if you aren't a pro?
I agree that the chin is not attractive on the iMac but I can look past that. Keeping the 20 or 23" display could be nice, but then again, selling the iMac and getting 3/4 of what you payed for it a couple of years later is nice too. What other desktop PC can say that?
ddrueckhammer said:
I don't actually have a 23" ACD but that is what I would get with a Pro Jr. I can look past the chin too, but still have trouble with the white. And I have a 6 1/2 year old G4 450 sawtooth that is worth $150, and hasn't been worth much more than that for some time. While I agree that the iMac will still have good value in 2 years, not 75%.
Those of you who aren't interested don't need to buy one, but there is definitely a market for those of us who want more than a mini but less than a Mac Pro. Basically an iMac without a screen with an upgradeable video card, single Conroe chip, 2-4 of DDR RAM slots, preferably space for 2 hard drives, full size optical drive, etc. That's about 90% of the PCs out there and Apple could compete if they wanted. Sure, some people could do with a mini or iMac (or a laptop), but if the Mac Pro is overkill, how many people are going to spend that much on one?
Tell people to drop it and just go buy a Dell, and they probably will. Um, as an Apple fan, that's not a good thing. I still don't get all the hate towards those wanting something perfectly reasonable.
Tell people to drop it and just go buy a Dell, and they probably will. Um, as an Apple fan, that's not a good thing. I still don't get all the hate towards those wanting something perfectly reasonable.
Yeah...used to be a headless fan.
But the new 24 inch iMac and its expandability really took away a good chunk of what I feel was the headless market. The rest of the market are those that want 1 or 2 or 3 PCI cards, so basically people who need a lower end Mac Pro (a version like the old single G5 PowerMac) but might not have the space for it.
But the new 24 inch iMac and its expandability really took away a good chunk of what I feel was the headless market. The rest of the market are those that want 1 or 2 or 3 PCI cards, so basically people who need a lower end Mac Pro (a version like the old single G5 PowerMac) but might not have the space for it.
I really don't understand the need for a midrange Mac either. Is the problem cost? The base Xeon costs $2000, the high end mac mini costs what $800 so are we talking about a $1400 computer here? If so get a refurb or a used one. A used Dual 2.5ghz G5 will cost you about that and it will be much faster than what apple would give you for $1400.
Think of it this way. Apple releases a $1400 mac. A single core 2 duo. Now the Mac Pro is twice as fast as that would be. So you buy the $1400 Mac and then in a few years upgrade to the new $1400 mac which is the same speed as the xeon is today. Why not save yourself the trouble and just get the Mac Pro now? Doesn't make sense to me.
Think of it this way. Apple releases a $1400 mac. A single core 2 duo. Now the Mac Pro is twice as fast as that would be. So you buy the $1400 Mac and then in a few years upgrade to the new $1400 mac which is the same speed as the xeon is today. Why not save yourself the trouble and just get the Mac Pro now? Doesn't make sense to me.
roland.g said:
You have a point...iMacs and all Apples probably won't sell for quite as much since they switched to Intel. Also, the higher end models depreciate faster. I was basing my claim on my recent sale (earlier this year) of my 12" Powerbook which I got $1100 for after over 2 years of use. This is probably a bad example though as the iBooks/Powerbooks were so mistreated for so many years. Basically, they only got a 100-300Mhz speed bump every 6 months...
I do think that the collector value of older Macs (iMac G4s and iBook G3s) helps artifically raise the price of all Macs though...
macenforcer said:
I think you have a point but many non-pros would just as soon have the nice zero footprint iMac as a few extra PCIe slots. How many consumers (non-gamers) do you actually think change out cards in their PCs? If they even know what they are, many times they are better off just getting the newest model...The reason why you upgrade is the same reason people trade cars after 3 years. People like the feeling of having something new every now and again. It is something to look forward to.
macenforcer said:
Because some of us dont need xeon power now, nor do we need a LCD now, its also nice saying its only $2000, but for a lot of us (me including) $800 is a lot, saving for $1400 for a "acceptable" machine is much more likely to happen than me saving for a $2000 machine that is overkills for my needs.
Because some people have a smaller budget and less need. It's easier to spend ~$1500 now, and then upgrade when you need to in a few years, than it is to buy a ~$3000 computer that's overkill for now and will be "outdated" when you're ready to buy again anyway. People are not going to spend over $2000 for a stripped down Mac Pro when all they need is something slightly better than a mini they can upgrade so they don't have to buy a new computer. Which is probably why Apple doesn't sell them.macenforcer said:
I still don't get why people can't see why we'd want something like that.