Will Apple release a regular Desktop PC??

[BlizzardBomb]

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.

Well with today's technology, Apple should be able to fit everything nicely into a case like the Cube's.

 

[fblack]

Well with today's technology, Apple should be able to fit everything nicely into a case like the Cube's.

Now that would be sweet.

The cube was ahead of its time, with continued shrinking of tech it wouldn't surprise me to see it again with all the bells and whistles. I've seen some people manage to squeeze a radeon 9700 into it after removing the plate (?).

 

[solvs]

with continued shrinking of tech it wouldn't surprise me to see it again with all the bells and whistles.

It already returned that way, as the mini. Minus a lot of bells and whistles. But a lot cheaper.

They have all the bases covered.

As you can see by most of the other posts in this thread, that is not the case. Mid range is where it's at. I have the same complaint about camcorders nowadays. Everyone is going after the consumer and high end prosumer, but the mid range stuff is either seriously crippled (like Canon's new "low end" HD model that doesn't have a mic jack, but still costs nearly 2 grand duh) or nonexistent. Sure you get people who will buy the high end stuff that'll be overkill for what they need, but not as many as would if they had a decent model at the right price.

It seems a few people have Mac Pro dreams on Mac Mini budgets.

No, they want something better than a mini but less than the Pro at a price somewhere in between. It's not asking for too much, it's completely feasible. Costs a little more, get a little more. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand even if they aren't the market.

If you can’t afford it, buy a crappy Dell.

Which is what people do. Some of us would rather not, but there it is. What Apple has now is nice and all, but there is obviously a market for something in between.

Is $1999 really THAT much below $2000 to qualify as a mid-range tower?

They had a $1500 model at one time, but it was seriously crippled and other than being expandable, was equal to or worse than the $1299 iMac at the time in a lot of ways. Plus $1999 is a good number psychologically, like $999 and $499. Which I hope to see the next versions of the MacBook and mini at.

 

[milozauckerman]

Is $1999 really THAT much below $2000 to qualify as a mid-range tower?

Better questions:
Is $1999 really THAT much below $2199? Yes.

Is $1999 plus $100 to upgrade to 2GB memory (absolutely necessary - the Mac Pro I toyed with today crapped itself running Aperture, Pages and Safari at the same time) really THAT much less than $2199 plus $300? YES.

Psychology or no, the cost of entry to upgradeable Mac Land is much higher today than it was last year.

 

[Erasmus]

OK, for all those people who don't know much about what is actually in a cube:

I wouldn't say it is that expandable. Yes, every part of it can be replaced, but I wouldn't want to replace the hard drive. When mine died, I got it professionally done, and they said they found it difficult. Compare this to changing the HDD of the Macbook or Mac Pro.

The cube and Mini obviously have some similarities. The cube is much more powerful however (in relation to the fact its six years old. The cube was far faster than an iMac six years ago, but now, an iMac crushes any Mac Mini) and had a top of the line GPU.

The cube is approximately three times bigger than a mini, and its power supply is external (and huge, about the same size as a Mini, probably larger)

It uses convection cooling. When I look into the large grille at the top, it is quite clear that at least half of the volume of the computer is empty space used for cooling.

IF Apple were to start with the housing of the cube, and the innards of a Mac Mini, upgrade it to a conroe, four RAM slots, a full size HDD and dedicated graphics, there would be PLENTY of room for any sort of cooling.

Clearly convection cooling is completely redundant at the moment.

It is my belief that Apple could very cheaply design a new computer. I don't care if it's a cube or not. This could cater for the needs of countless trillions of current PC users. Who cares if it cannibalises Mac Mini sales? It won't impact Mac Pro sales, because if you need dual Woodcrests, you need dual Woodies. It would cater for anyone who would now buy a mini, as Integrated graphics could be an option. It would cater for heavy gamers who want an OK CPU and an awesome GPU, and it would cater for anyone in between. The iMac would be kept for educational institutions.

Think how the Macbooks and Macbooks are arranged. Does it not make sense to have the Mac Mini as the desktop equivalent to the Macbook, and a bigger, (aluminium) minitower or pizza box as the Macbook Pro equivalent?

Apple should do this.

Again, I am for the choice of choice.

 

[balamw]

Think how the Macbooks and Macbooks are arranged. Does it not make sense to have the Mac Mini as the desktop equivalent to the Macbook, and a bigger, (aluminium) minitower or pizza box as the Macbook Pro equivalent?

Amen, but as some would point out. The iMac is the MBP equivalent (in terms of specs currently).

I'm still hoping for a media oriented box when the Movie store is finally unveiled.

B

 

[ibilly]

What if you had half a Mac Pro, in less than Half the space?

Two expansion slots (graphics cards change a LOT over time and I feel cramped by the standard # of ports, and hubs kill bandwidth)

Two Hard Drives. I'm sure that both users and apple marketing would love 1TB of storage in a small enclosure

One Xeon. LOTSa performance, higher clocks than an iMac, not $1400 in intel chips.

One drive. Most people probably don't even buy the second one

~4 RAM slots. Good room and power, but not taking up a load of space.


This could be fairly compact, but the main restriction being several HDs and the PCI. I'd bite... would fit my needs quite well.

 

[BlizzardBomb]

Better questions:
Is $1999 really THAT much below $2199? Yes.

Is $1999 plus $100 to upgrade to 2GB memory (absolutely necessary - the Mac Pro I toyed with today crapped itself running Aperture, Pages and Safari at the same time) really THAT much less than $2199 plus $300? YES.

Psychology or no, the cost of entry to upgradeable Mac Land is much higher today than it was last year.

Remember that your $1999 only included a single-dual core processor and only 512MB RAM.

 

[cube]

I wouldn't say it is that expandable. Yes, every part of it can be replaced, but I wouldn't want to replace the hard drive. When mine died, I got it professionally done, and they said they found it difficult. Compare this to changing the HDD of the Macbook or Mac Pro.

Then they were not pros. Changing the hard drive of the Cube is easy.

 

[mojohanna]

The lowest reasonably future-proofed prosumer Mac Pro I can price out is just a shade over $3k with sales tax with the educational discount.

2GB of RAM (since OWC is the only third-party available currently, and they're actually higher), x1900XT, 160GB HD, Bluetooth/Wireless, 2.66 (looking at benchmarks for the 2.0 vs. 2.66, the difference is noticeable and should only get larger over time), one drive, etc.. Once you actually take advantage of the Mac Pro's space (two hard drives, another superdrive or Blu-Ray drive whenever, extra RAM), you're talking about a $4000+ computer.

At that kind of price target, Apple has to sell something more reasonable - a $1500-1800 mid-range desktop (Conroe based) with more expandability or at least a Conroe iMac with two HDs.

I priced out what I think is a decent Mac Pro for my needs and onl ended up with about a $2500 sticker. I just don't see the need for wireless and bt in a desktop (that is just for my needs and my current desk space). Also, I don't see the need for 2g of ram at the time. If and when I need it, I buy more as the price comes down.

I will agree though that if Apple made a Mac Pro that was just as configurble for sub $2000, you would attract more.

 

[milozauckerman]

Remember that your $1999 only included a single-dual core processor and only 512MB RAM.

Um, yeah, a single-dual core processor (or a dual processor), like the majority of the G5 line. What's your point?

Most people - including 'pros,' and most certainly the home prosumer market and small businesses don't need a quad. That's the problem - if you want expandability, you're being forced into a machine that starts out $200+ more than the previous model's entry, and that's pretending you only need 1GB of RAM.

 

[milozauckerman]

Also, I don't see the need for 2g of ram at the time. If and when I need it, I buy more as the price comes down.

What are you going to do with a Mac Pro that's going to chug along fine with 1GB of memory until 'prices come down' (in late 2007)?

 

[wowowowanimac!!]

i have been wishing that for a while they need something faster than the mini but slower than the mac pro

 

[BlizzardBomb]

Um, yeah, a single-dual core processor (or a dual processor), like the majority of the G5 line. What's your point?

The point is in the post no?

 

[fblack]

It already returned that way, as the mini. Minus a lot of bells and whistles. But a lot cheaper.

I liked the cube design better. Besides the mini looks more like a square to me.

As you can see by most of the other posts in this thread, that is not the case. Mid range is where it's at. I have the same complaint about camcorders nowadays. Everyone is going after the consumer and high end prosumer, but the mid range stuff is either seriously crippled (like Canon's new "low end" HD model that doesn't have a mic jack, but still costs nearly 2 grand duh) or nonexistent. Sure you get people who will buy the high end stuff that'll be overkill for what they need, but not as many as would if they had a decent model at the right price.

No, they want something better than a mini but less than the Pro at a price somewhere in between. It's not asking for too much, it's completely feasible. Costs a little more, get a little more. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand even if they aren't the market.

Which is what people do. Some of us would rather not, but there it is. What Apple has now is nice and all, but there is obviously a market for something in between.

They had a $1500 model at one time, but it was seriously crippled and other than being expandable, was equal to or worse than the $1299 iMac at the time in a lot of ways. Plus $1999 is a good number psychologically, like $999 and $499. Which I hope to see the next versions of the MacBook and mini at.

I'm right with you there. I think there is demand for something in the midrange, not just desktop but laptop too.

 

[greenmac]

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.

I'm a little slow to reply, but here goes.
Thats why I said they could put merom in iMac, as far as I know thats a simple swap, as for conroe put that in a prosumer model, and keep xeons in the pro model, this differentiates between the 3 models well, I think.

With conroe, as far as I know you don't need FB ECC ram, so it should be more than just a "bit more" for a mac pro.

No monitor or iSight, well I don't care, and I'm sure a lot of other people, especially those coming from the dark side don't care, as I/they have a monitor already, which will probably last longer than the computer, and can be upgraded bigger than 20", some of us like a bigger screen, but dont necessarily want to use 2.

Oh and I'm sure people would pay more for it than an iMac.