Will Apple release a regular Desktop PC??

[fblack]

It seems a few people have Mac Pro dreams on Mac Mini budgets. Get over it. The Mac Pro is priced extremely competively. If you desperately need those features, then buy a Mac Pro. You can pick them up for just over $2100. If you can’t afford it, buy a crappy Dell. Then you can struggle with poor quality, viruses, all the upgrade costs, and end up with a machine that isn’t 1/10 of what a Mac Pro is. But a least you save a few hundred dollars.

Oh, how witty. Sorry, but I'm just not overflowing with money, dont have rich relatives, and don't own a graphic design house. Some of us are professionals who nevertheless have a budget, families, and would benefit from a machine between the imac and pro models.

But you would doom us to "a crappy dell." How compassionate, it certainly wont bring increased market share.

Unfortunately, I dont think they will put out something in between imac and pro. Not when 20ich imac is $1700 and Low Pro is about $2200. I'm not sure apple would see it as having room between those 2 price points. Something in between might sell well enough to undercut the popularity of the imac and the price of the pro line. I think they do better by forcing you to make that jump from imac to pro.

 

[9Charms]

I don't think Apple will ever sell a midrange computer because their userbase doesn't require it and it probably wouldn't sell.
....
Then you have the pro consumer, and those are split into two groups. The "I'm already in Mac heaven and I use x app (ie FCP) so I'll never stop buying the G5/MacPro line etc", and the other group that is indifferent and (much like the cheap end group) says "I can get more bells and whistles for less money if I purchase a PC so I'll go that route".

I've been a long-time Mac user/fan, but I'm now married with kids on the way. Cash is a big deal at this point my life. That extra $1000 difference between a PC tower and a Mac Pro would sure go a long way. Which is why I'm seriously considering going to Windows. I use windows extensively at work, so I don't have virus and spyware problems because I know what I'm doing. And Premier Elements seems to be a suitable replacement for Final Cut Express... and at half the cost... for that matter, PC software is much cheaper all around.

If Apple sold a midrange, sure, their fans would buy it. Most likely though, there wouldn't be a mass exodus of switchers throwing their Dell Optiplexs and Dimensions out the window screaming "free at last, I'm off to the Apple store" because they have no reason to switch.

I think it would sell, especially now since if you ended up not liking the Mac OS, you can run it as windows. It's almost no risk at all. The only thing holding most people back is the hardware.

Remember, people thought the Mac Mini wouldn't sell either...

aside: I think the current Mini's are over priced since you can build a wicked PC for a couple hundred more (than the core duo mini). It's kinda in a no-man's land where it's positioned at the moment: Too expensive for people at the cheap end, and too limited for people with the cash.

 

[zero2dash]

I've been a long-time Mac user/fan, but I'm now married with kids on the way. Cash is a big deal at this point my life. That extra $1000 difference between a PC tower and a Mac Pro would sure go a long way. Which is why I'm seriously considering going to Windows. I use windows extensively at work, so I don't have virus and spyware problems because I know what I'm doing. And Premier Elements seems to be a suitable replacement for Final Cut Express... and at half the cost... for that matter, PC software is much cheaper all around.

I don't really find any problem with software on either platform, but apparently a lot of people on both sides of the fence like to spread FUD at the same time.

I've used practically everything Adobe has released in the last 10 years on both Mac and Windows and found nothing changed other than getting used to the Apple key being next to the space bar versus the Control key on a Windows keyboard being under the Shift keys. Big whoopie. The programs work equally well on both and support the same file formats. The only problem you'll ever have is the times when you have Mac specific fonts and you either have to find Windows equivalents or just be screwed and choose a different font. Or you call the client and tell them to convert the type to outlines or send you a font embedded PDF; problem solved.

You save that $1000 on non-Apple hardware and it gives you either more money in the bank or more money to spend on upgrades, take your pick. I would like a Mac at home but the price stigma is a serious turn off.

I think it would sell, especially now since if you ended up not liking the Mac OS, you can run it as windows. It's almost no risk at all. The only thing holding most people back is the hardware.

Running Windows on a Mac that you primarily bought to be a Mac in the first place? Great idea.

Paying several hundreds of dollars more for a computer just to run both if you're already a Windows fan and/or don't have a problem with the Windows environment? Dumbest idea on the planet.

Windows users won't buy Macs to run Windows on just like Mac users don't buy Macs to run Windows on. Boot Camp is a nice feature that people will use and get a use out of, but as for it being a selling point - I think it's seriously overrated. It's a bullet point that belongs in Apple's sales brochures, but it's not a "make or break" selling point at the cash register. Besides, they'll never convince Windows users to spend the money on a Mac just because they can also run OS X versus being stuck with Windows only (or dual booting with *nix if they've got a "dual boot" soft spot) and saving the cash.

Remember, people thought the Mac Mini wouldn't sell either...

I have no idea how Mini sales are or have been, but I'm sure they are still far off from the cheaper cost PC market. People value their money too much to spend the extra money on a Mini when they can get a BTO Dell for the same price with a lot more included. Again - the Mac premium price is Apple's biggest problem to overcome, and who knows if they ever will. I think Apple is keen to just stick with what they know and keep the fans they have, just like Nintendo is/how they march along to the drum of their own beat. Apple doesn't need more market share to be profitable; they've singlehandedly taken over the portable music player market, so no matter what they ever do or don't do, iPods are still their gold mine. (Just like Nintendo with the Game Boy. Apple + Nintendo have a lot in common if you really think about it.)

aside: I think the current Mini's are over priced since you can build a wicked PC for a couple hundred more (than the core duo mini). It's kinda in a no-man's land where it's positioned at the moment: Too expensive for people at the cheap end, and too limited for people with the cash.

I don't think Minis are "too expensive", I think they're too restrictive. That $600 doesn't go too far if you buy a Mini, but it goes leaps and bounds if you decide to purchase a Windows machine.

Apple's the epitome of a double edged sword.
You love them for their operating system, but hate them for their price tag. (At least I do.)

 

[BlizzardBomb]

God no, not in my opinion - I was just agreeing with the poster !

The fact is - Apple created an even larger hole between the iMac and the Mac Pro / Mac Pro and Mac Mini than was there beforehand.

That's fair enough. I just think if Apple made the Mac Mini a little bigger and had a reasonably strong high-end model (e.g 2 GHz Merom, soldered Mobility X1400 which would be cool and quiet, 3.5" Hard Drive for $999) then had a single Woodcrest Mac Pro option at say $1799 it would even up the line nicely.

 

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

That's fair enough. I just think if Apple made the Mac Mini a little bigger and had a reasonably strong high-end model (e.g 2 GHz Merom, soldered Mobility X1400 which would be cool and quiet, 3.5" Hard Drive for $999) then had a single Woodcrest Mac Pro option at say $1799 it would even up the line nicely.

I agree - that graphics card is a serious selling point to people (whether they actually use it or not is a different question - I know I'll never use my graphics card in my MacBook Pro).

Additionally, they should at minimum allow the processor to be upgraded (like the Mac Pro) to different speeds.

 

[lasuther]

Oh, how witty. Sorry, but I'm just not overflowing with money, dont have rich relatives, and don't own a graphic design house. Some of us are professionals who nevertheless have a budget, families, and would benefit from a machine between the imac and pro models.

But you would doom us to "a crappy dell." How compassionate, it certainly wont bring increased market share.

You can’t put anything in between the iMac and Pro. It would most likely have fewer features than a iMac and be more expensive, which no one wants.

The Mac Mini was made for people who are tight on money. The iMac is a feature rich product, at a low cost and attractive package. The Mac Pro is a powerful computer that is upgradeable. They have all the bases covered.

This expectation that Apple should make a powerful, upgradeable, cheap computer just might be a bit unrealistic. The extra cost of making a customizable machine at the price point people want might mean putting out a computer that is worse than an iMac. At which point you have a customizable computer no one is buying because for the same cost the iMac is a much better value.

 

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

Running Windows on a Mac that you primarily bought to be a Mac in the first place? Great idea.

Paying several hundreds of dollars more for a computer just to run both if you're already a Windows fan and/or don't have a problem with the Windows environment? Dumbest idea on the planet.

Windows users won't buy Macs to run Windows on just like Mac users don't buy Macs to run Windows on. Boot Camp is a nice feature that people will use and get a use out of, but as for it being a selling point - I think it's seriously overrated. It's a bullet point that belongs in Apple's sales brochures, but it's not a "make or break" selling point at the cash register. Besides, they'll never convince Windows users to spend the money on a Mac just because they can also run OS X versus being stuck with Windows only (or dual booting with *nix if they've got a "dual boot" soft spot) and saving the cash.

I know anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much, but a few of my friends' colleges required Windows - they ended up buying the Macbook (because it really is a decent deal compared to Dells) and loading Windows exclusively (that's right - they deleted OS X).

 

[cube]

That's fair enough. I just think if Apple made the Mac Mini a little bigger and had a reasonably strong high-end model (e.g 2 GHz Merom, soldered Mobility X1400 which would be cool and quiet, 3.5" Hard Drive for $999) then had a single Woodcrest Mac Pro option at say $1799 it would even up the line nicely.

Even Sun can sell you an SLI-capable "workstation" with a 2.2GHz dual-core server chip and a $250 Quadro for $1500 with next business day hardware support.

 

[zero2dash]

I know anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much, but a few of my friends' colleges required Windows - they ended up buying the Macbook (because it really is a decent deal compared to Dells) and loading Windows exclusively (that's right - they deleted OS X).

Now there's something I never thought I'd ever hear.
I stand corrected.

Even Sun can sell you an SLI-capable "workstation" with a 2.2GHz dual-core server chip and a $250 Quadro for $1500 with next business day hardware support.

Not to piss on your Sun workstation idea, but dude, who's really stopping the presses with a Sun workstation. Comparing a Sun workstation to anything else is (literally) apples to oranges; just because it's a computer like the rest of them doesn't mean you'll get the same upgrade support, hardware support, or software support. Are they cheap? Sure. If you want to run Sun's OS. Who wants to do that? I think there's probably more people running OS2/Warp left in the world than the Sun OS, but lord only knows.

 

[cube]

Not to piss on your Sun workstation idea, but dude, who's really stopping the presses with a Sun workstation. Comparing a Sun workstation to anything else is (literally) apples to oranges; just because it's a computer like the rest of them doesn't mean you'll get the same upgrade support, hardware support, or software support. Are they cheap? Sure. If you want to run Sun's OS. Who wants to do that? I think there's probably more people running OS2/Warp left in the world than the Sun OS, but lord only knows.

What's the OS got to do? It's a PC. Apple sells PCs. If Sun can sell such a machine for $1500, more so Apple.

And no hacks needed to run Linux or Windows on Sun's PCs.

BTW, there have been 5 million downloads of OpenSolaris in the first year of its existence.

 

[fblack]

You can’t put anything in between the iMac and Pro. It would most likely have fewer features than a iMac and be more expensive, which no one wants.

The Mac Mini was made for people who are tight on money. The iMac is a feature rich product, at a low cost and attractive package. The Mac Pro is a powerful computer that is upgradeable. They have all the bases covered.

This expectation that Apple should make a powerful, upgradeable, cheap computer just might be a bit unrealistic. The extra cost of making a customizable machine at the price point people want might mean putting out a computer that is worse than an iMac. At which point you have a customizable computer no one is buying because for the same cost the iMac is a much better value.

Ok, I will agree with you that the macpro is competitively priced versus other quads out there. No argument from me there, and I'm not moaning for quad SLI tech or a physX accelarator either.

I think there is an argument to be made that apple, even though its doing well (ipod,etc), still has to pick and choose what they can offer as far as computers. They cant offer everything, but I disagree with some of their choices.

However, all that being said I would like to point out that the 2005 20" imac G5 (isight) was $1700 and was only $300 cheaper than the G5 2.0 dual core at $1999. This made the dual-core very attractive and I dont think that this was "a computer that is worse than the imac." This certainly would make the jump for a pro or semi-pro from Imac to G5 easier. So they've done it before and with the move to Intel something less than a quad (like a core Duo) without the expensive ram but with the expandibility of a tower would bring the price down to maybe $1899-1999 range. Very attractive indeed. Do I think they'll do this? No.

Me, I'm probably gonna go with a macbook pro 1.83 or 2ghz, refurbished. I think its a pretty good deal. The monitor on my QS died and i had to replace it + a new scanner and some software upgrades does not leave room in the budget for a macpro. Oh, well...

 

[thejadedmonkey]

we need a shuttle sized thing with a 16x pcie slot two HD bays and 4x ram slots that uses conroe, but it's not going to happen as apple was burnt by the cube.

I wasn't around than.. How was apple burnt by the cube?

 

[greenmac]

You can’t put anything in between the iMac and Pro. It would most likely have fewer features than a iMac and be more expensive, which no one wants.

How?! put a conroe in it(only needs 1 V's 2 woodcrests in Pro) get rid of the fully buffered ecc ram, using only standard ram, no screen, should be priced in between iMac and MacPro. Apple may even keep Merom in iMac. This would be a great prosumer machine, however I'm not holding my breath, thats why I've purchased the MacPro, it's more than I need, but I don't want to be held back by the limited expandability of the iMac.

Apple was burned by the cube because no one bought it, they lost money on it. But it's a different era now and with the use of digital cameras/camcorders and the wants of people who are dabbling with them on their computers i believe their is a need for a machine in the middle.

 

[lasuther]

How?! put a conroe in it(only needs 1 V's 2 woodcrests in Pro) get rid of the fully buffered ecc ram, using only standard ram, no screen, should be priced in between iMac and MacPro. Apple may even keep Merom in iMac. This would be a great prosumer machine, however I'm not holding my breath, thats why I've purchased the MacPro, it's more than I need, but I don't want to be held back by the limited expandability of the iMac.

Apple was burned by the cube because no one bought it, they lost money on it. But it's a different era now and with the use of digital cameras/camcorders and the wants of people who are dabbling with them on their computers i believe their is a need for a machine in the middle.

Because Apple might want to put the Conroe in a iMac. Then you have a box that is more expensive than the iMac, doesn't have iSight, a Monitor, and it's more expensive. The graphics card, ram, and hard drive wouldn't be any better. It won't sell.

Any why would someone want to buy that machine when they could spend a little bit more and get a lot more in a Mac Pro. Apple has seperates above and below the iMac. Thier product line up is very good right now.

 

[Demoman]

I don't really find any problem with software on either platform, but apparently a lot of people on both sides of the fence like to spread FUD at the same time.

I've used practically everything Adobe has released in the last 10 years on both Mac and Windows and found nothing changed other than getting used to the Apple key being next to the space bar versus the Control key on a Windows keyboard being under the Shift keys. Big whoopie. The programs work equally well on both and support the same file formats. The only problem you'll ever have is the times when you have Mac specific fonts and you either have to find Windows equivalents or just be screwed and choose a different font. Or you call the client and tell them to convert the type to outlines or send you a font embedded PDF; problem solved.

You save that $1000 on non-Apple hardware and it gives you either more money in the bank or more money to spend on upgrades, take your pick. I would like a Mac at home but the price stigma is a serious turn off.




Running Windows on a Mac that you primarily bought to be a Mac in the first place? Great idea.

Paying several hundreds of dollars more for a computer just to run both if you're already a Windows fan and/or don't have a problem with the Windows environment? Dumbest idea on the planet.

Windows users won't buy Macs to run Windows on just like Mac users don't buy Macs to run Windows on. Boot Camp is a nice feature that people will use and get a use out of, but as for it being a selling point - I think it's seriously overrated. It's a bullet point that belongs in Apple's sales brochures, but it's not a "make or break" selling point at the cash register. Besides, they'll never convince Windows users to spend the money on a Mac just because they can also run OS X versus being stuck with Windows only (or dual booting with *nix if they've got a "dual boot" soft spot) and saving the cash.



I have no idea how Mini sales are or have been, but I'm sure they are still far off from the cheaper cost PC market. People value their money too much to spend the extra money on a Mini when they can get a BTO Dell for the same price with a lot more included. Again - the Mac premium price is Apple's biggest problem to overcome, and who knows if they ever will. I think Apple is keen to just stick with what they know and keep the fans they have, just like Nintendo is/how they march along to the drum of their own beat. Apple doesn't need more market share to be profitable; they've singlehandedly taken over the portable music player market, so no matter what they ever do or don't do, iPods are still their gold mine. (Just like Nintendo with the Game Boy. Apple + Nintendo have a lot in common if you really think about it.)



I don't think Minis are "too expensive", I think they're too restrictive. That $600 doesn't go too far if you buy a Mini, but it goes leaps and bounds if you decide to purchase a Windows machine.

Apple's the epitome of a double edged sword.
You love them for their operating system, but hate them for their price tag. (At least I do.)

Just about everything you wrote is BS.

 

[devincco]

I'm all for a mid level headless Mac

I'd like to pt my 2 cents in. I would consider myself a prosumer user and I am new to the Mac world. I have yet to buy one, but have been looking for the past couple of months. I've looked at all of the Mac's available to me and none of them really fit my needs. I don't do any gaming, just a lot of photo editing, home movie editing, and other "student/business? items. I would really like to see something in the $1200 range and I think it would be easily possible.

My take on the line up...

Mac Mini - It has a nice small compact design, some decent processing power, decent price. But, the crappy graphics that can't be upgraded & small (size and space) laptop HD that is expensive to upgrade isn't very attractive to me. I've got 160GB worth of data on my PC right now. I'd have to get 2 external HD's (one for backup) and connect them to the mini.

iMac (17" & 20") - Nice all-in-one, decent power, monitor included, and a real HD that I can swap for a decent price when I fill it up. But, it's a all-in-one. Only thing I can really upgrade is HD & RAM. Plus, what do I do with my 19" LCD that I really like. Don't have the desk space to do a dual display. Still need an external HD for my backups.

Mac Pro - Great price for what you get. Very upgradable, lots of options, lots of power. But for me the thing is expensive for what I would use it for. Plus, I don't think I could ever really fully utilize the 2 dual core processors. Kind of a waste of power for me. And I wouldn't even entertain the idea of removing a processor and selling it on e-bay to make up some of the money. RAM is expensive.

Laptops - While they may be in the power range that I need, etc. I don't need a laptop. I don't need the portability. Plus, the HD size, etc. just like the mini.

For me, something the physical size of the XPC design. You'd be able to have a Core 2 processor, 1 optical drive bay, 2 3.5" drive bays for HD's (1 would be standard), 2 or 4 RAM slots that use real RAM, 1 PCIe slot for a decent video card, and 1 PCI slot for additional upgrades. Pricing something like this in the $1200 range would be a perfect fit for me. And having the Mac boot to Widows is a very attractive feature for me, as I do need it for work, etc. So that is a selling point to me.

At least I now have decided to wait to purchase a Mac. The main reason? Software. The main application I would use is Adobe Photoshop Elements and Premiere. Until Adobe gets off their butt and gets it coded over, its kind of pointless for me to buy a new Mac now, and use it under Rosetta and take the performance hit. And going to buy a PPC model, well why would I want to do that when everything is changing to Intel now. So I'm gonna wait. Maybe, just maybe there might be something in the works. One can only hope.

 

[fblack]

Because Apple might want to put the Conroe in a iMac. Then you have a box that is more expensive than the iMac, doesn't have iSight, a Monitor, and it's more expensive. The graphics card, ram, and hard drive wouldn't be any better. It won't sell.

Any why would someone want to buy that machine when they could spend a little bit more and get a lot more in a Mac Pro. Apple has seperates above and below the iMac. Thier product line up is very good right now.

ok, so you really like like your imac. That's fine. Its very attractive looking, but I dont like all in one solutions. I dont like its limitations. My last 19" monitor lasted me 6+ years and 2 macs. I had another monitor that lasted me 10yrs. I have the flexibilty and savings to use my monitors with new devices. I cant take the imac monitor and reuse it, same with the isight and I cant upgrade the GPU. Its basically a throwaway consumer device after a few years, and to me that's a waste.

I like the flexibility of having my raid setup in my tower, its neat and clean. I have an isight that I can use with any mac, and I have the flexibility to turn it any way I want and still be looking at the screen. I can use my isight with quicktime broadcaster to capture video and with a laptop I can take it outdoors and have an easier time setting up a scene than using a built in isight. I can get a 24" monitor or 30" and not be limited by imacs built in monitor.

This is flexibility that I can get in a tower or mini-tower solution. I cant get that with an imac. Do I really need a quad for photoshop, illustrator or small videos? No. Its abit of overkill. I'd like to have a mac pro, but my needs and budget would be satisfied by something less. However, the only thing that really exists below the macpro is the imac. So I am limited by these artificial categories/boxes that apple has created. If apple did create some other solution I'd buy it.

 

[fblack]

I wasn't around than.. How was apple burnt by the cube?

It didn't sell well. It was aimed at the pro market, but had no expandibility and was considered by some to be too expensive. I really liked it and wanted one, but design does not always trump practicality even in an apple.

 

[cube]

It didn't sell well. It was aimed at the pro market, but had no expandibility and was considered by some to be too expensive. I really liked it and wanted one, but design does not always trump practicality even in an apple.

It was not aimed at the pro market. It was an expensive consumer machine.

 

[BlizzardBomb]

It didn't sell well. It was aimed at the pro market, but had no expandibility and was considered by some to be too expensive. I really liked it and wanted one, but design does not always trump practicality even in an apple.

Not expandable? You might want to check again. Its price point was what killed it though.

 

[ibilly]

I'm not sure just how mini you guys are expecting this to be... "Full Size" components are quite large.

All of these are very close to proper scale, and would be about 2" tall. (the CD/DVD would be about 1.5, and the PCI accounting for the rest.

After these components, you have to add a motherboard with a hot, powerful processor, loads of easily accessible RAM slots, and loads of ports.

EDIT: I'm actually reconsidering: a 14x14x3 platter would actually be pretty slick. My vote goes to single (dual core) Xeons, and this setup of PCI, Superdrives, and HDs.

 

[fblack]

It was not aimed at the pro market. It was an expensive consumer machine.

One of the major criticisms of the cube was that it had no clear market. Its price tag was aimed at a pro or at least business market ($1799 price tag w/no screen), but its lack of expandibility turned these groups off and its price doomed it for normal consumers. People ended up buying G4 (GigabitEthernet) towers that were $200 less, because they had expandibility.

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_42/b3703040.htm

"Guernsey Research analyst Chris LeTocq said Apple had aimed the Cube as an entry point to its professional G4 line, but the market Apple found was limited and largely consisted of upscale consumers."

http://news.com.com/Apple+discontinues+Cube/2100-1040_3-269436.html

"It doesn't turn out to be all that cool. Although praised for Jonathan Ive's innovative industrial design, the Cube fails to catch on with creative professionals because it's too expensive ($1,800), not powerful enough (450 MHz) and hard to upgrade. The Cube is put on ice in July 2001."

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/mac/0,70546-0.html?tw=wn_index_4

 

[fblack]

Not expandable? You might want to check again. Its price point was what killed it though.

I apologize if my statement was too quick and generalized. How about limited expandibility? Its true people have done awesome things to keep their cubes running, and yes you could stick more ram in it, but they had no PCI slots and there wasn't room for full length AGP. That would kind of put a damper on the pro market wouldn't it?

But youre right ultimately it was the price point that killed it.

 

[beige matchbox]

i'd be happy with a Mac *not quite so* Pro.

Keep the G5 ish case, stick a core 2 duo in there, a PCIe x16, get rid of the second ethernet port and use standard DDR2

Something like that anyway, i'd love a mac pro, could replace my Gaming PC (yes i game , and no an xbox 360 isn't good enough) and my powerbooks desktop duties in one go, however my Mac *not quite so* pro would also be just the job, it'd handle my photoshopping and other 2D bits and bobs just fine and with the aid of a nVidia 7900 it would also run all my game using boot camp

I'm sure theres many other who would like a spec something like that, a bit better than an iMac, runs all the apps most people would want nice and quick... Perfik

 

[daneoni]

Agreed with some points here. I've looked at the entire Mac line and none really fit my needs perfectly.

MacPro is a nice concept but its overkill for midline users

MacMini is just too weak...waaayy too weak..lowest dual core chip, cheap graphics and fragile notebook HDD

iMac is too white and too restricted, i need adjustability and upgradeability and i need long lasting reusable displays all of which the iMac significantly fails to deliver i.e its too everyday home user consumerish.

Laptops are too hot and fragile but thats general. The MacBooks are hampered with the GMA graphics and various issues, the pro laptops are too expensive and too fragile to gamble all that money with.

Although the laptop line, i think, is fair.....the BlackBook & 2.0GHz MBP are very good prosumer laptops and the 2.16 models are good for highend whilst the WhiteBooks are good for low end consumers. So no beef there, beef is with quality control.

Apple needs to either soup up the mini or etch a new line between the MacPro and iMac....even if it means scrapping the the MacMini line (which i think is pointless and just a stripped down laptop).I bought a mini but sold it immediately it just wasn't working for my needs. Also a refresh of the current displays with good adjustibility options, more ports and competitive pricing would be nice and i'll be flashing my card in a heartbeat.

For now though the mac hardware line just seems/feels "incomplete" to me, i look around and i can't pick any...you're either over-paying or over-sacrificing on features