why no lower-spec mac pro?

[tangel]

I don't think ours is an unusual situation - we are running business apps and Quark with a bit of photoshop work. Nothing too heavy-duty. We've been using a G5 iMac, which has been unreliable as well as not especially fast. Time for a change, but after the experience with this iMac I'm reluctant to get another one, even given that it would be a Core 2 Duo with better performance. I don't like the modular design with few upgrade options either.

The cheapest Mac Pro is a quad-core Xeon at around $2500 - without monitor. I just bought a fully loaded Dell server for that! Why should I pay that much for a desktop with a lot more power than I need?

ON the other hand a Pro with a Core 2 Duo that would take more RAM and give me a choice of graphics cards, for about the same price as the 20" iMac ($1500) would suit me nicely. Would still have to get a monitor so would end up more expensive than the iMac, but I'd be happy to pay just so I can have my choice of monitors.

I guess the lack of such a machine is a deliberate strategy by Apple, but not sure why? Pro sales are slow, seems a lower-end Pro would be a good seller? Maybe they could start a new line - call it the Semi-Pro! ;-)

Trevor

 

[Keebler]

I don't think ours is an unusual situation - we are running business apps and Quark with a bit of photoshop work. Nothing too heavy-duty. We've been using a G5 iMac, which has been unreliable as well as not especially fast. Time for a change, but after the experience with this iMac I'm reluctant to get another one, even given that it would be a Core 2 Duo with better performance. I don't like the modular design with few upgrade options either.

The cheapest Mac Pro is a quad-core Xeon at around $2500 - without monitor. I just bought a fully loaded Dell server for that! Why should I pay that much for a desktop with a lot more power than I need?

ON the other hand a Pro with a Core 2 Duo that would take more RAM and give me a choice of graphics cards, for about the same price as the 20" iMac ($1500) would suit me nicely. Would still have to get a monitor so would end up more expensive than the iMac, but I'd be happy to pay just so I can have my choice of monitors.

I guess the lack of such a machine is a deliberate strategy by Apple, but not sure why? Pro sales are slow, seems a lower-end Pro would be a good seller? Maybe they could start a new line - call it the Semi-Pro! ;-)

Trevor

hi trevor,

this comes up alot - the idea of a mid range tower. conduct a search and you'll find plenty of posts.

i'd like to know how you think pro sales are slow? seems alot of folks have them. i could be wrong, but...

 

[Pathetique]

Dig Deeper

The cheapest is 2,121.00. Try custom configuring it.

 

[MetalFace]

err i think that the 24 inch imac is ment to be the bridge between the imac and the mac pro.

core2duo

has a decent graphics card upgradable to the 256mb 7600gt

huge screen

up to 3 or 4 gig ram (cant remember)

 

[dmw007]

There has been a lot of discussion and requests for Apple to release what would essentially be a 'headless iMac'.

 

[killmoms]

Pro sales are low because of no CS3, mostly. And the lowest-priced Mac Pro is $2200—reduce the CPUs to 2.0GHz.

Like it or not, there just isn't a Core 2 Duo E-series offering from Apple, and if past history has anything to say about it, there won't be either. It's either consumer all-in-one, consumer mini mini, or pro workstation.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Pro sales are low because of no CS3, mostly. And the lowest-priced Mac Pro is $2200—reduce the CPUs to 2.0GHz.

Like it or not, there just isn't a Core 2 Duo E-series offering from Apple, and if past history has anything to say about it, there won't be either. It's either consumer all-in-one, consumer mini mini, or pro workstation.

Up until recently Apple has always offered an affordable PowerMac. The single CPU G5 was ~$1500, and the G4 PowerMacs mostly had a model that was $1500-1700 (and as prices for computers in general have come down in the last 10 years, that was a pretty reasonable price when the machines were new).

I'm hoping they see the hole in their lineup and fix it, but we'll see.

 

[killmoms]

Up until recently Apple has always offered an affordable PowerMac. The single CPU G5 was ~$1500, and the G4 PowerMacs mostly had a model that was $1500-1700 (and as prices for computers in general have come down in the last 10 years, that was a pretty reasonable price when the machines were new).

I'm hoping they see the hole in their lineup and fix it, but we'll see.

The single CPU $1500 PowerMac G5 was part of the line for exactly one rev and then killed due to low sales. I don't think that makes much of an argument for bringing it back.

 

[Eidorian]

The single CPU $1500 PowerMac was part of the line for exactly one rev and then killed due to low sales. I don't think that makes much of an argument for bringing it back.

The iMac G5 helped kill it too. The only thing the Power Mac had was expansion.

 

[chaosbunny]

err i think that the 24 inch imac is ment to be the bridge between the imac and the mac pro.

core2duo

has a decent graphics card upgradable to the 256mb 7600gt

huge screen

up to 3 or 4 gig ram (cant remember)

err that's the 24 inch problem. I have an Eizo lcd monitor that's way better than the iMacs screen. Why should I pay for a 24" screen when 1.) I'd only use it as a palette monitor and 2.) don't have desk space for that thing AND my Eizo.

I'd be ok if they made the better gfx card and 2,33 ghz processor an option in the 17" imac too. A 17" palette monitor would be nice and doesn't add so much cost. For around 1500 bucks that would be a sweet system.

 

[mrgreen4242]

The single CPU $1500 PowerMac G5 was part of the line for exactly one rev and then killed due to low sales. I don't think that makes much of an argument for bringing it back.

It was more, imo, the fact that the Single G5 wasn't much of a machine, dollar for dollar, compared to the low end dual G5. A C2D desktop at $1500 would compare very favorably to the $2500 Xeon machines, on a dollar for dollar basis.

 

[tangel]

Thanks for the great responses - glad I'm not the only one who sees the gap in the lineup.... I'm sure Apple has their reasons for not filling it...

So since I detest the integrated nature of the iMac - and the previous one gave us so much grief (and Apple's "support" policies don't help) - I'm inclined to go for a the cheapest Mac Pro I can find. Which is a 2Ghz Apple refurb @ $1899. Can anyone recommend a (say) $300/20" monitor to go with it?

The alternative is a refurb 24" iMac for $1699 which relieves me of the monitor decision but will be slower and back to being integrated...

thanks

Trevor

 

[statikcat]

Yes it simply sucks. The Imac has no PCI card slots and no second monitor support. The Macmini suffering similar issues. I need these two things in my desktop which forces me to buy a really expensive machine. I really don't NEED the second cpu at all.. not that it doesn't come in handy.

I think a lot of people buy really expensive Macs for longevity. Since we will be able to upgrade the processors in our Macs I think Apple may fear everyone buying the cheaper model and just upgrading the processors through intel every year or every other year.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Thanks for the great responses - glad I'm not the only one who sees the gap in the lineup.... I'm sure Apple has their reasons for not filling it...

So since I detest the integrated nature of the iMac - and the previous one gave us so much grief (and Apple's "support" policies don't help) - I'm inclined to go for a the cheapest Mac Pro I can find. Which is a 2Ghz Apple refurb @ $1899. Can anyone recommend a (say) $300/20" monitor to go with it?

The alternative is a refurb 24" iMac for $1699 which relieves me of the monitor decision but will be slower and back to being integrated...

thanks

Trevor

I've considered the same thing, but decided against it because of the insane RAM prices for the FB-DIMMS the MacPro uses... Make sure you take a look at the cost of RAM before you buy one. I know I want 2gb+ on my next machine, and that extra gig gets expensive on a MP. I'm also not thrilled with the AIO deisgn, so iMac is not a great choice for me.

I'm trying to keep my next machine to about $1000, sans display, since I already have one, and Apple really doesn't give you a whole lot of value in that price range, which is unfortunate since that's a price point I think a lot of the "prosumer" crowd targets.

You can get a refurb Dell 2007 20" LCD (very nice display, comparable to the ACD) for $279.

Yes it simply sucks. The Imac has no PCI card slots and no second monitor support. The Macmini suffering similar issues. I need these two things in my desktop which forces me to buy a really expensive machine. I really don't NEED the second cpu at all.. not that it doesn't come in handy.

While I agree with you that the lack of upgradability in the iMac is a big flaw, they do support dual monitors just fine. You can connect another display to them along side the integrated one.

 

[Sun Baked]

The iMac G5 helped kill it too. The only thing the Power Mac had was expansion.

Well it was an iMac with expansion...

Had the iMac G5 chipset with some slots attached.

 

[Fuzzy Orange]

Well, the abolute lowest you can get a new Mac Pro is for $1959. Not OMG-ICANTBELIEVETHISISTHATEXPENSIVE expensive, but not too cheap, either. Of course, you can always get a refurb for even less (around $1800, I think). Also, you can check out the refurb Power Macs if you are hell-bent on getting one.

 

[statikcat]

While I agree with you that the lack of upgradability in the iMac is a big flaw, they do support dual monitors just fine. You can connect another display to them along side the integrated one.

Really? I spent some short time on an Imac and did not see an output for a second monitor. Reguardless no second monitor would look good next to it and monitor-in-computer is a big turn off for most people in general.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Really? I spent some short time on an Imac and did not see an output for a second monitor. Reguardless no second monitor would look good next to it and monitor-in-computer is a big turn off for most people in general.

Agreed that it wouldn't be as aesthetically pleasing as two matching displays, but it'd work. Also, you didn't see the output because you probably weren't looking for the "right thing". The iMac has a mini-DVI out, and you need to buy a $20 adaptor to connect it to a standard DVI display. So, the plug looks different than you expect.

 

[TheAnswer]

I'm dead set against a mini-tower, but I'm hoping that the Mac Pro refresh will see Apple adding to the high end while keeping the current low end specs at a lower price (say $1750)...then figure either a student discount or take the refurb route and that machine hits the sweet spot for many people calling for a mini-tower.

 

[mrgreen4242]

I'm dead set against a mini-tower, but I'm hoping that the Mac Pro refresh will see Apple adding to the high end while keeping the current low end specs at a lower price (say $1750)...then figure either a student discount or take the refurb route and that machine hits the sweet spot for many people calling for a mini-tower.

Why? What would it hurt? You want a cheap MacPro, how can you be "dead set against a mini-tower"?

 

[zap2]

err that's the 24 inch problem. I have an Eizo lcd monitor that's way better than the iMacs screen. Why should I pay for a 24" screen when 1.) I'd only use it as a palette monitor and 2.) don't have desk space for that thing AND my Eizo.

I'd be ok if they made the better gfx card and 2,33 ghz processor an option in the 17" imac too. A 17" palette monitor would be nice and doesn't add so much cost. For around 1500 bucks that would be a sweet system.

The iMac 24'' is only a few 100 less then the low end Mac Pro...make it have Xeon 2.0GHz and 160Gb harddrive, or buy an iMac. You had one bad iMac, that doesn't mean the whole iMac line is bad, and the Mac Pros always work flawlessly, they are after all only a Computer.

 

[TheAnswer]

Why? What would it hurt? You want a cheap MacPro, how can you be "dead set against a mini-tower"?

I want a cheap MacPro available for people that want the mini-tower, but I'm against Apple increasing its production costs to add another product with a different power supply, cooling system, motherboard, assembly-line or what-have-you in order to make one.

I've seen too many diverse "wants" and "must haves" expressed for a mini-tower design...some are as simple as they want something smaller, some want to just be able to change out the video card, others want slots (some 1, others 2 or 3), others want more storage (and of course depending on the amount of expandability they want, they all have a specific price-point they expect Apple to meet). I think the mini-tower crowd is splintered so much, that an Apple mini-tower solution couldn't satisfy even the majority of the people that say they want one...so I'd prefer that Apple offer a lower-end fully expandable tower at a lower cost.

 

[product26]

mac PRO

professional

 

[cervaro]

I'd like the equivalent of my 24" Imac in a mini-tower format to give it some degree of expandability. Alternatively, why not make the Imac with a removable rear cover in part so that things like the graphics card, hard drive, etc. could be upgraded to keep the machine up to date with changes in hardware. In addition, Apple could have a proprietary port on the higher end Imacs for a limited card expansion box, say with space for 2-3 cards max. That would give those of us who like tinkering the facility to do so without affecting the Mac Pro line, and who don't need multiple dual/quad core processors, etc.

 

[iMeowbot]

I'm hoping they see the hole in their lineup and fix it, but we'll see.

I think that will come back eventually. For the shorter term, Apple had something bigger to worry about: don't scare off customers with the architecture change. They took pains to make the new models look just like the old ones, and they needed nice benchmarks to throw around so that there weren't many doubts that the move away from the G5 was a step forward. This is especially important image-wise while major software is still relying on Rosetta. After CS3 and a nice big chunk of customers get over the hump, things can settle down on that front.