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.
What are we asking for in a consumer Apple tower?
- Thread starter atheos13
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is a market for such a computer, the size of that market and its effect on Apple's bottom line are what's debatable. Yes I agree Apple only cares about pros and know-nothing consumers, and as such isn't likely to build the mythical mid range tower (defined at a ~$1200 - $2000 price point). Just because it isn't probable doesn't mean those of us that want one are going to stop asking for one. After all Apple has said "never gonna happen" only to reverse themselves on several occasions.
You're right I don't
However when a piece of hardware fails, I care a lot.
You're right I don't
However when a piece of hardware fails, I care a lot.
I just want a Mac Mini that has a built-in screen, 16 RAM slots, in case I need them, an easily changeable hard drive, a dedicated GPU (Maybe a couple of Gfx card slots, you know, in case I ever need to do some harccore gaming with 6GB of Dedicated Video Memory), but it also has to have four slots for external monitors, that way I am not stuck with my same monitor in 5 years. It's obvious that the average consumer wants this type of machine, and it better not be more than $1000. Is that too much to ask? Damn you, Apple!
Not going to happen.
Steve isn't into "open" systems. The only one is the high-end Mac system (Mac II back in the day, and Mac Pro today). All other Macs are closed....
Interim Macs had only one slot (LC, IIsi, Centris 610, etc.), but people never really used the slot to the fullest.
Sorry....
Steve isn't into "open" systems. The only one is the high-end Mac system (Mac II back in the day, and Mac Pro today). All other Macs are closed....
Interim Macs had only one slot (LC, IIsi, Centris 610, etc.), but people never really used the slot to the fullest.
Sorry....
That... has a chance of happening and I think it's really possible.
I doubt it's going to be something like a GeForce 8800 Ultra but it should have something along the times of an ATI X1600 (what the previous iMacs had), I'm not sure if that's better or worse than the GMA they have now.
Boy I'm polarizing today....
The Minis tend to match what the MacBooks are. The MacBooks use the Intel Integrated Graphics. So the new Minis will use the X3100...
For me:
Must have: Fast CPU, fast bus, fast hard drive, fast (and upgradable) graphics card, and (ideally) small form factor.
No need for: Lots of expansion slots, expansion bays, built-in display, massive hard drives, second DVD/DVD burner drive. WiFi as standard, Bluetooth as standard.
Must have: Fast CPU, fast bus, fast hard drive, fast (and upgradable) graphics card, and (ideally) small form factor.
No need for: Lots of expansion slots, expansion bays, built-in display, massive hard drives, second DVD/DVD burner drive. WiFi as standard, Bluetooth as standard.
I have always wanted a miniature mac pro style computer like this:
forgive the crappy mock-up done at school in about 10 minutes left of class after typing up my language arts paper.
forgive the crappy mock-up done at school in about 10 minutes left of class after typing up my language arts paper.
Well, someone already built a mini Mac Pro case, and put a G4 Cube into it. Unfortunately, I can't find a link right now; but it looked great. Shame about the innards though!
A mini with a 2.4 GHz C2D and the ability to run dual monitors would be a giant step in the right direction.
Mid price upgradeable tower
I'm in agreement. It's frustrating for me that the iMac comes with a graphics card that isn't very good for 3D games, etc. I don't want to spend $3500 on a Mac Pro and monitor just so I can play the odd game. I also get frustrated when I have to buy a new computer instead of upgrading my current one. When you buy an iMac all you can do is add more RAM - if it isn't already at the max. There's just no room for intermediate upgrades.
I would buy a mid price upgradeable tower in an instant if Apple came out with one. Let's start a list of people who would buy one.
I'm in agreement. It's frustrating for me that the iMac comes with a graphics card that isn't very good for 3D games, etc. I don't want to spend $3500 on a Mac Pro and monitor just so I can play the odd game. I also get frustrated when I have to buy a new computer instead of upgrading my current one. When you buy an iMac all you can do is add more RAM - if it isn't already at the max. There's just no room for intermediate upgrades.
I would buy a mid price upgradeable tower in an instant if Apple came out with one. Let's start a list of people who would buy one.
I got tired of waiting and wishing for the iMac to come out with a better GPU and ordered a Mac Pro yesterday. I went with the single 2.8 quad core (still faster than the 2.8 extreme iMac) but upgraded the graphics card to the Nvidia 8800 GT. I also upped the main drive to 500GB to match what the iMac has and will upgrade the RAM with aftermarket stuff. I opted for the airport extreme and wireless keyboard and mouse. All this came to $2736.30 Canadian (includes taxes and free shipping/I'm a teacher so I saved almost $200) with no monitor. The price before the graphics card was the same as the 2.8 iMac but just didn't include the monitor. Basically I've traded the iMac monitor for a slightly faster CPU, the ability to upgrade the graphics card, RAM and CPU, and more usb and firewire ports. I can now get any quality and price monitor I want but sure won't get the very expensive Apple monitor. I expect to pay $450-$600 for a monitor.
Basically the Mac Pro cost the same as the iMac but does not have a monitor. Yes I would have rather bought an iMac with a better graphics card than they now offer or a mid price tower or 'headless' mac. Oh well, I still have OS X and that's what we all have Macs for anyway. We'll gladly pay more $ to have OS X or is it just that we want anything but what Bill Gates is offering?
Basically the Mac Pro cost the same as the iMac but does not have a monitor. Yes I would have rather bought an iMac with a better graphics card than they now offer or a mid price tower or 'headless' mac. Oh well, I still have OS X and that's what we all have Macs for anyway. We'll gladly pay more $ to have OS X or is it just that we want anything but what Bill Gates is offering?
Here is what I'd like. I'll say it two ways:
(1) I have an Apple G4 Powermac. It sold in the 1990's brand new for $1500. It had a then current CPU, lots of slots for expansion and could hold multiple internal disks. It was easy to open up and service, no tools required. One would think that with the price of electronics failing Apple could offer a $1,500 tower again.
(2) My son just bought a PC from HP. It has an Intel quad core CPU room for lots of RAM, lots of open slots and a nice 20" LCD monitor, wireless K/B and mouse The price was $1,500 complete. Would be nice if Apple had something to compete with that.
Currently Apple has nothing that you'd call a "normal mainstream" desktop.
(1) I have an Apple G4 Powermac. It sold in the 1990's brand new for $1500. It had a then current CPU, lots of slots for expansion and could hold multiple internal disks. It was easy to open up and service, no tools required. One would think that with the price of electronics failing Apple could offer a $1,500 tower again.
(2) My son just bought a PC from HP. It has an Intel quad core CPU room for lots of RAM, lots of open slots and a nice 20" LCD monitor, wireless K/B and mouse The price was $1,500 complete. Would be nice if Apple had something to compete with that.
Currently Apple has nothing that you'd call a "normal mainstream" desktop.
Count me in as another consumer willing to purchase a midtower mac. I currently have a PC with a dual monitor setup, so the iMac would be totally unecessary, the Mac Pro is well out of my price range (and overpowered for my needs), and the Mini is underpowered and doesn't meet my expandability needs.
I'm glad I'm not alone in this. I have a couple of other friends who currently have G4 towers who are reluctantly being railroaded into one of 3 imperfect choices.
I'm glad I'm not alone in this. I have a couple of other friends who currently have G4 towers who are reluctantly being railroaded into one of 3 imperfect choices.
I'm not sure why people get so defensive when Apple is criticized, especially when the criticism is valid. The completely obvious problem with the example you cite is that the Mac Pro comes with no display and therefore is not, for any practical purpose, cheaper.
That's great for you, but the criticism that Apple is failing to offer a computer to a vast number of people is right on target. Most consumers want the following in a home machine: a) a moderately powerful machine (i.e., low- to mid-range iMac speeds) with b) a reasonable level of upgradability and c) the ability to select a different display or one they won't have to throw out with the machine should it ever die or become obsolete.
My point is that we're talking about a consumer-level machine so what you're saying makes little sense. Most home users are not looking to spend $2299 on a home computer to begin with, but beyond that, it completely ignores the fact that the Mac Pro comes with no display with is going to run you somewhere between $599-899 to bring it up to what the iMac has.
There's really no excuse for this. Apple has an obvious gap in their product line. Go look around at discussion forums other than MacRumors and you'll see that there are a lot of people out there who are rightly unimpressed with the Mac Mini, the only headless, consumer-level machine Apple offers. And that's just friggin' pathetic. A low-end, $1000-1500 Mac tower should have been added to the line-up ages ago.
I suspect Apple does it for fear of cannibalizing sales of other products, but what they don't get or are ignoring is that a lot of people out there aren't even looking at Macs because of that omission.
Money in the bank
inkswamp, you are so right on! It boggles my mind when I read stuff like this. A SALE IS A SALE. It's income for Apple. What part of that don't the Apple marketing gurus understand?
inkswamp, you are so right on! It boggles my mind when I read stuff like this. A SALE IS A SALE. It's income for Apple. What part of that don't the Apple marketing gurus understand?
I wouldn't be so hard on Apple's "marketing gurus." My guess
is that there's only one roadblock. I won't mention any names,
but his initials are...
...Steve Jobs!
LK
The reason Apple have refrained from a typical computer without a monitor is that it would not be financially profitable.
Apple charge a premium on each product, and, deliberate or not, there is a hidden feature (or factor) within each product that silently justifies the price. Although you may think it is Mac OS X, it is not
For the Mac Mini, it is the form factor.
For the iMac, it is the 'all in one' factor.
And for the Mac Pro, it is the sheer power and expandability factor (and the 'look at me, I got a Mac Pro')
If Apple were to produce a basic tower, with only upgradeable parts, it wouldn't take people long to tot up the $ total of all parts and say "Hey, Apple is essentially charging $500 for Mac OS X" on this computer.
Apple wants you to buy the iMac as an average consumer (and tbh, it is a great computer for average consumers). The Mac Mini is to persuade those already with a set up not to say no because they already spent $$$ on accessories, and the Mac Pro really is for professionals.
What I believe you all really want is the form factor of the mini with the power of the iMac and the upgradeability of the Mac Pro. Sorry, but
knows this would kill sales of all its current range of desktop computers.
As it stands, everyone puts up with the situation and buys what they can afford. For what reason would Apple's accountants recommend diversification? To please 0.2% of Mac users? It would be a pretty crazy fiscal policy
Apple charge a premium on each product, and, deliberate or not, there is a hidden feature (or factor) within each product that silently justifies the price. Although you may think it is Mac OS X, it is not
For the Mac Mini, it is the form factor.
For the iMac, it is the 'all in one' factor.
And for the Mac Pro, it is the sheer power and expandability factor (and the 'look at me, I got a Mac Pro')
If Apple were to produce a basic tower, with only upgradeable parts, it wouldn't take people long to tot up the $ total of all parts and say "Hey, Apple is essentially charging $500 for Mac OS X" on this computer.
Apple wants you to buy the iMac as an average consumer (and tbh, it is a great computer for average consumers). The Mac Mini is to persuade those already with a set up not to say no because they already spent $$$ on accessories, and the Mac Pro really is for professionals.
What I believe you all really want is the form factor of the mini with the power of the iMac and the upgradeability of the Mac Pro. Sorry, but
knows this would kill sales of all its current range of desktop computers.As it stands, everyone puts up with the situation and buys what they can afford. For what reason would Apple's accountants recommend diversification? To please 0.2% of Mac users? It would be a pretty crazy fiscal policy
Apple has made expandability only for the Pro series.
The expandable ports they've put in the older budget and mid-range machines (LC, IIsi, Quadra) no one really used.
So, their feeling is, if you want an expandable mid-range computer, you probably want to run a lot of games on it - go buy a Windows machine. There's more games and options for that platform anyways...
It would cost Apple too much money to make an mid-range "open Mac" and not really worth the companies to create things such as budget or mid-range graphics boards for it anyways.
The expandable ports they've put in the older budget and mid-range machines (LC, IIsi, Quadra) no one really used.
So, their feeling is, if you want an expandable mid-range computer, you probably want to run a lot of games on it - go buy a Windows machine. There's more games and options for that platform anyways...
It would cost Apple too much money to make an mid-range "open Mac" and not really worth the companies to create things such as budget or mid-range graphics boards for it anyways.
we need to get a "baby" version of the mac pro thats priced like the imac so people can do what ever they want with it upgrade the screen... or hook it up to there 60" hd plasma display in their living room
Thet's exactly the problem: "Apple wants" -- or more precisely, "Steve wants!"
...how 'bout paying attention to what customers want?
LK
What I believe you all really want is the form factor of the mini with the power of the iMac and the upgradeability of the Mac Pro. Sorry, but
Not so. What I want is the power of the iMac, in a mini tower. I don't want (nor do I need) to buy a new monitor. And I don't want all-in-one. I'm not looking for upgradability. That's done through replacement of hardware every (in my case) 7 to 8 years.
Seems to me the iMac should be the low end, entry level machine, with an upgraded mini (or mini-tower) being the mid-range.
Real simple....
Fast CPU, two to four card slots, one HD bay, easy access to the inside/memory , mid range video card, built in network card/wifi/BT, Superdrive. Basically, a Dell that runs OS X.
Fast CPU, two to four card slots, one HD bay, easy access to the inside/memory , mid range video card, built in network card/wifi/BT, Superdrive. Basically, a Dell that runs OS X.