[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

I sure don't. It would save the buyer maybe $100.

So a consumer wants to save a meager $100 and has to sacrifice 2 extra drive bays, 3 PCI slots, a second optical media slot and 4 RAM slots.

Sounds like you guys just want a fashion tower. Again, that was the G4 Cube.

[freakboy2]

I want a low end machine that has a video card, no monitor, 4 ram slots and real hard drives in it.

thats all.

that machine would be cheaper than an imac, and a lot cheaper than the xeon based pros. again 600x2=1200$ of cpu in the pros vs 300x1 = 300$ in the non-pro.. that's 900$ difference. I'd like to save that 900 bucks.

Maybe even just put out a single xeon box that's a few hundred bucks cheaper.

and before anyone says 'the single g5 was a dud'.. there is a certain amount of diminishing returns with adding extra cores to a computer. One is required, two is great, 3,4,5,6... will rarely get used.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

You really think taking out a couple PCI slots and drive bays will save Apple $500?

No, but taking out a CPU and using cheaper CPUs/chipsets/logic boads will.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by mduell

No, but taking out a CPU and using cheaper CPUs/chipsets/logic boads will.

You can get top of the line logic boards for $90 retail. Taking out a CPU hardly made the mini much cheaper.

What kind of cheaper chipsets you want? something more fire prone?

[Chuckit]

The mini didn't take out a CPU.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

You can get top of the line logic boards for $90 retail. Taking out a CPU hardly made the mini much cheaper.

What kind of cheaper chipsets you want? something more fire prone?

Good dual socket logic boards are about 4 times the price of good single socket logic boards. Part of the price difference is that the chipsets for single socket systems are cheaper than the chipsets for multiple socket systems.

There is no option to put zero or two CPUs in the mini, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

[Rolling Musubi]

Did a quick and rough mockup using the Power Mac G5/Mac Pro form factor taking into account 1 optical, 2 HD's, 1 4-slot RAM card, Core 2 Duo (Conroe), 1 double wide PCIe, 1 free PCIe.



I shrunk the case down as much as possible so that the graphics card would fit then just pasted the other components (some of the edits are pretty horrible) back in including some fugly looking fans out front and an honest to goodness Intel sticker on the CPU cover. Naturally, this whole layout doesn't even take into account optimal/adequate cooling. The Mac Pro is just to show the scale of "Mac Pro Mini" which would probably be a little smaller than the El Capitan case on the B&W G3 and G4's. This is something I was originally hoping for since the Mac Pro is overkill for me but eh, I can't wait much longer....

P.S. the "Mac Pro Junior" on the image is a joke as homage to my first computer, an IBM PCjr (ugh)

[G5man]

That is not a bad photoshop but I think the processor is a bit on the large side unless it needs some big *ss fans. I would downsize the power supply a bit more to fit cards in the remaining PCIe's and get rid of the FB-DIMMs. Overall not a bad PS.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Rolling Musubi

Did a quick and rough mockup using the Power Mac G5/Mac Pro form factor taking into account 1 optical, 2 HD's, 1 4-slot RAM card, Core 2 Duo (Conroe), 1 double wide PCIe, 1 free PCIe.

That layout together with Chuckit's specs sounds very decent.

Of course the case would be modified and the Al would be swapped for white plastic to suggest this is not a 'pro' box. Names? It's a shame the mini wasn't called nano. Haven't heard smart suggestions that don't contain 'Pro', 'iMac', or 'mini' yet.

Btw, Apple would likely charge no less than $1699 for that box. Now how many here would sacrifice all the MP's additional goodies for a mere $300? I certainly wouldn't. I'd pay maybe $1300, but then again, Apple would never sell you this kind of box for the price of a 17" iMac. And this is again the issue with such a Mac. At the price people would buy it, Apple won't sell it. And at the price Apple would sell it, it would flop like the Cube. My 2¢.

[Dzokayi]

Nice Photoshop!

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Simon

That layout together with Chuckit's specs sounds very decent.

... Names? It's a shame the mini wasn't called nano. Haven't heard smart suggestions that don't contain 'Pro', 'iMac', or 'mini' yet.

That does seem to be big issue in getting the thing out the door. I haven't heard or come up with anything decent. Just "Mac", as many have pointed out, would be confusing. Mac Plus? Mac midi? I got nothing'

Btw, Apple would likely charge no less than $1699 for that box. Now how many here would sacrifice all the MP's additional goodies for a mere $300?

Just to split hairs here, the cheapest Mac Pro config is over $2100, so we're talking a "mere" $400 now. To a lot of people that's not chump change, and if they're not gonna use the additional goodies, they might want to put that towards 2 nanos or a hooker or several delicious meals.

I certainly wouldn't. I'd pay maybe $1300, but then again, Apple would never sell you this kind of box for the price of a 17" iMac. And this is again the issue with such a Mac. At the price people would buy it, Apple won't sell it. And at the price Apple would sell it, it would flop like the Cube. My 2¢.

I don't know, it seems like Apple changes its mind a lot on whether to price things in a way that the rest of the world thinks is reasonable. With the Mac Pro, they made sure to point out how the price/spec combination is competitive with Dell. They might decide that people will buy a lower-end tower if they advertise it as priced like a Dell, made like a Mac.

[ssegaric]

Check out http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/08/....and.home.pcs/ a story on Macnn's front page where the author reviews and praises the Mac Pro and then suggests that "The Cupertino-based company's primary challenge moving forward is to offer a system beneath the Mac Pro which includes high-end features without the added cost of quad Xeons or expensive memory, according to Electronista".

I don't understand all those saying that a prosumer machine would take away from iMac/Mac Pro sales, and that Apple wouldn't want that. Granted, Apple doesn't want to loose money, but if you're still buying a Mac then Apple still gets the money. I'm sure that Apple could design and sell a Mac where they would make healthy margins.

R M your mock-up rocks, how about some black MacBook-like side panels!?

Steve

[Simon]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

Just to split hairs here, the cheapest Mac Pro config is over $2100, so we're talking a "mere" $400 now.

You're absolutely right. Darn, I must have still had the G5 $1999 in my head.

I don't know, it seems like Apple changes its mind a lot on whether to price things in a way that the rest of the world thinks is reasonable. With the Mac Pro, they made sure to point out how the price/spec combination is competitive with Dell. They might decide that people will buy a lower-end tower if they advertise it as priced like a Dell, made like a Mac.

That's a good point. The new MP and the way they introduced it show that Apple has noticed that even Mac buyers are price conscious. If you recall the first mini at $499 was really a bug surprise too. OTOH, they dropped the lowest end config and price point with the Core Solo mini. I'm not quite sure how consistent this 'new' Apple pricing approach is. Maybe they are getting more reasonable. Maybe the Intel boards are making cheaper prices possible. I'm anxious to see where this will go.

It recently occurred to me that there's also a considerable gap between the MB and MBP in terms of price. Maybe this is some kind of new Apple strategy to have a larger gap between consumer and professional lines.

[Rolling Musubi]

Originally Posted by G5man

That is not a bad photoshop but I think the processor is a bit on the large side unless it needs some big *ss fans. I would downsize the power supply a bit more to fit cards in the remaining PCIe's and get rid of the FB-DIMMs. Overall not a bad PS.

Yeah, the CPU, memory cage, and power supply could probably be a tad smaller but I was lazy to find the scale for those and edit them down any further.

The thing is even with this cut down case, there's several different configurations one could come up with including keeping 4 HD's or 2 HD's/2 opticals (only limited by cooling and a capable power supply). If you up the case size just a little to around the same size as El Capitan, there is flexibility for 2 free PCIe slots (or 2 double wides). None of this would likely happen though since Apple marketing with plenty of prodding by Jobs probably insists on a very clear product segmentation and that means not encroaching too closely on the Mac Pro's strengths/specs. One can dream though....

Originally Posted by Simon

Btw, Apple would likely charge no less than $1699 for that box. Now how many here would sacrifice all the MP's additional goodies for a mere $300? I certainly wouldn't.

For myself, it would depend. An E6600 in such a box would be competitive with what Dell and Gateway offers (averaged around $1650 when I configured the other week; the Gateway was just a tad under $1600 and the Dell closer to $1700 in a 1GB RAM, 250GB SATA, optical burner, decent base graphics card, XP Pro). An E6400 (2.13GHz) would probably hit some pricing sweet spots for many. Of course, Apple would constraint the expansion capabilties by comparison but even for myself, I'd sacrifice that to save several hundred dollars not purchasing a Mac Pro which I could then use to max out the RAM (HD space I don't have to worry since I already have spare 500GB drives to use).

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

That does seem to be big issue in getting the thing out the door. I haven't heard or come up with anything decent. Just "Mac", as many have pointed out, would be confusing.

Tech support: which model do you have?
Customer: Mac
Tech support: Mini or Pro?
Customer: Mac, Mac Mac
Tech support: (silently curses at Apple product marketers)

One thing that can be certain though, if something like this ever sees the light of day, the inevitable bitching about the name is something I'm going to pull up a chair for along with some popcorn.

Originally Posted by ssegaric

R M your mock-up rocks, how about some black MacBook-like side panels!?

I added a scaled Power Mac G5/Mac Pro case profile. I'm no good at Photoshop outside of the very basics though so I couldn't get it to look right in black. I settled for this darker pewter but I'm sure if Apple were to do this, they'd make the case out of something cheaper as a means of further product differentiation....

Originally Posted by Simon

It recently occurred to me that there's also a considerable gap between the MB and MBP in terms of price. Maybe this is some kind of new Apple strategy to have a larger gap between consumer and professional lines.

What Apple does with the iMac in the next few weeks should be telling as far as this gap. If they use Conroe in it, this would be a good indicator of their desktop product strategy; enough to put this prosumer tower dream to rest. If on the otherhand, they use Merom, then there is a good chance they are leaving the door open or they are actually in the process of utilizing the flexibility of Intel's chip offerings to once again, expand their product matrix just slightly in the future (i.e. designing systems to take advantage of each processors thermal envelope).

For the time being though, they know there are customers like myself who were making do with their Power Mac G4's and are dangling some very enticing Mac Pro's in front of us. If I were Apple, I'd do exactly the same and hold off until the initial buying spree of the Mac Pro's has tapered off. Additionally, they would probably update the remainder of the lines destined for Core 2 first and reap the sales of those products before modifying their hardware stratification scheme and introducing those new systems.

[Simon]

I definitely agree. If they put Merom in the iMac, I'd expect a big surprise at the latest by MWSF. OTOH if they use Conroe, I doubt they would chose a good enough GPU to hush the 'gamers'. Not to mention the headless community...

[thunderous_funker]

So, there isn't a market for the headless wonder-Mac, but that non-existant market might catastrophically canabalize MP or iMac sales?? Curious logic.

While I'll admit that Apple may have business reasons for not dividing the product line, I don't see how there can be any question at all about the existence of a market for such a product.

How can I be so sure? Well, because the only PC company in the known universe that stubbornly does not offer ANY computer with a user upgradable GPU for under $2500 is the company with the tiny (albeit loyal) market share.

What some of you continue to dismiss out of hand as some kind of unicorn creature of our fantasies actually describes that vast majority of computers for sale that don't have Apple logos on them.

Again, all spec-wishing aside, the core feature that keeps this coming up after every new product anouncement is a user-upgradable GPU and no built in display at a lower price point than the 64bit, 4 core, uber-workstation.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

So, there isn't a market for the headless wonder-Mac, but that non-existant market might catastrophically canabalize MP or iMac sales?? Curious logic...

To be fair, I think at least a few folks here are only arguing one of these points and not the other. Or they're saying that one or the other scenario will happen depending on the pricing.

Some people just seem really irritated when you speculate on a product that isn't a shoo-in.

At least you've hit on a good naming idea finally. I'm all set to order a Headless Wonder Mac as soon as they come out.

[GSixZero]

I don't deny that there's a market for a powerful machine with an upgradable GPU. I'd love a single xeon MP for $1399. The problem is that Apple won't ever build it. I don't think there is a market for the machine that apple would actually produce in that slot. It'll end up crippled and over priced.

[Captain Curt]

When the time comes, I think Apple can anticipate brisk sales of.....MacPro 2.0 refurbs.

[Oozinator]

Honestly, I think it's a dumb idea. here's a better one:

iMac with just ONE pcie slot for a graphics card. It doesn't have to hold 2 hard drives, it doesn't need anything else.... the socketed cpu is already upgradable, everything else is fine about the new imac.... but I will NEVER get a machine with onboard, non-upgradable video EVER again. I learned my lesson with the first imac. It sucks ass.

[Oozinator]

Originally Posted by GSixZero

I don't deny that there's a market for a powerful machine with an upgradable GPU. I'd love a single xeon MP for $1399. The problem is that Apple won't ever build it. I don't think there is a market for the machine that apple would actually produce in that slot. It'll end up crippled and over priced.

Buy the cheapest mac pro possible. Then sell the CPUs on ebay, and throw in something else. Cheap CPUs.

Would that work?

[Oozinator]

According to wikipedia, chips designed for the 603 socket will work in a 604 socket. So theoretically, if apple didn't do anything 'funny', you should be able to plug in cheaper chips, and sell the xeons.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Oozinator

According to wikipedia, chips designed for the 603 socket will work in a 604 socket. So theoretically, if apple didn't do anything 'funny', you should be able to plug in cheaper chips, and sell the xeons.

Except that the 603/604 hole socket was deprecated a while ago in favor of a 771 pin land grid array. Of course you can still buy cheaper LGA771 chips.

[rnicoll]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

You can get top of the line logic boards for $90 retail. Taking out a CPU hardly made the mini much cheaper.

Where? Last time I looked at multiprocessor server class motherboards (which is what we're talking about for Xeon CPUs) they cost closer to $500. Specifically, looking at Scan (where I normally shop)'s range of Xeon motherboards ( from Computer hardware and software at amazing prices, available online from Scan Computers UK ) they _start_ at about £200, which is about $400 these days (yes, there are cheaper motherboards listed, they're all single CPU).

Also, what do you mean taking a CPU out hardly made the Mac Mini cheaper? It's close to a quarter the price!

[freakboy2]

Yeah, people who are denying this are smoking crack. Everyone I've talked to about the mac pros, even people who are seriously consider buying them say that the same thing:

Why do I need 4 cores?

Apple needs to sell a dual core desktop machine that doesn't have a built in monitor, but has real hard drives and a slot for a GPU. There is a huge market for it. A market of people who won't buy a mac until that machine exists.

In the recent arstechnica review, they end the review by saying "hey guys where is the next step down for normal people?!?" Where is the machine that everyone on this forum who has expressed interest as well as all the people that I know in real life are asking for?!?

[rnicoll]

Originally Posted by freakboy2

Yeah, people who are denying this are smoking crack. Everyone I've talked to about the mac pros, even people who are seriously consider buying them say that the same thing:

Why do I need 4 cores?

Apple needs to sell a dual core desktop machine that doesn't have a built in monitor, but has real hard drives and a slot for a GPU. There is a huge market for it. A market of people who won't buy a mac until that machine exists.

In the recent arstechnica review, they end the review by saying "hey guys where is the next step down for normal people?!?" Where is the machine that everyone on this forum who has expressed interest as well as all the people that I know in real life are asking for?!?

In particular, it doesn't even need to be much cheaper, it just has to be that I'm going to use everything I'm paying for. For example a Mac Pro, but with a single Conroe CPU, would suit me perfectly. I could pay for a system with dual server class CPUs, but I do very very little that is ever CPU bound, it would be a waste.

[chatam]

And what about approaching the problem the other way 'round?

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08...le_conroe_sff/

it being understood that a way remains to be found in order to have Tiger or Leopard run on a PC machine. But that's not so hard, compared to Apple's marketing harsh.

[freakboy2]

Originally Posted by chatam

And what about approaching the problem the other way 'round?

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/08...le_conroe_sff/

it being understood that a way remains to be found in order to have Tiger or Leopard run on a PC machine. But that's not so hard, compared to Apple's marketing harsh.

if running osx on pc hardware ever becomes a reasonable solution then apple will see immediately why they need a prosumer mac.

[fishguy]

Is it possible to buy components separately so that an enterprising DIYer could buy a Mini-G external SATA case (Macupgrades.com) and build a mini Mac tower? There would'nt be a "woodcrest option" right now but some other Core 2 processor?

Wold this end up costing as much as a base MacPro or can you DIY for less?

Just curious...

[OldSkuel]

Originally Posted by freakboy2

if running osx on pc hardware ever becomes a reasonable solution then apple will see immediately why they need a prosumer mac.

Indeed. I'd love to build my own tower. It'd be cheap, it's play games well, and it'd be really easy to expand/upgrade.

[Crusoe]

Solution (as devised in another thread), buy a 2.66 Mac Pro, sell both processors for say $1000, buy a single 1.6Ghz to 3.0 Woodcrest. Probably get a MacPro for ~$1599 with an aggresive sell price on your original processors.

[freakboy2]

Originally Posted by Crusoe

Solution (as devised in another thread), buy a 2.66 Mac Pro, sell both processors for say $1000, buy a single 1.6Ghz to 3.0 Woodcrest. Probably get a MacPro for ~$1599 with an aggresive sell price on your original processors.

i don't know if its true but someone said that the mac pro MB needs dual cpus.. it won't work if you take one out.

but wouldn't it be nice if apple would just save us the trouble of ebaying procs we don't need and sell us what we want?

[Judge_Fire]

On a related note, Shuttle just introduced their Core 2 Duo case, the SD37P2.

Compact, but roomy enough for a modern GPU. If only there was a Mac like this

[freakboy2]

yep and that shuttle comes out around 1500-1600 bucks all decked out.

[rnicoll]

Originally Posted by Judge_Fire

On a related note, Shuttle just introduced their Core 2 Duo case, the SD37P2.

Compact, but roomy enough for a modern GPU. If only there was a Mac like this

Looks near ideal - Apple, if you're listening, I want one of those, in white, with OS X, ASAP

[brokenjago]

Intel Core Duo 1.86/2.16/2.67 Ghz
1 PCI-E 16x Slot (Graphics)
1 PCI-E 8x Slot (Expansion)
2 DDR2 RAM Slots (Full size DIMMs for up to 4 GB of RAM)
Combo Drive/Super Drive Bay
2 HDD bays (For up to 2 TB of storage)
$1299 for base model.

This, I think, doesn't infringe too much on the Mac Pro line. It may eat up iMac sales, however. I also this this is reasonable, not like some of the pie-in-the-sky things some people want to happen.

Oh, and if Apple came out with an Apple version of the Shuttle, that would be perfect. But here's an alternative I guess...

Oh, and I said up to 2 TB of storage because by the time Apple comes out with this, 1 TB drives will undoubtedly be on the market.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by brokenjago

This, I think, doesn't infringe too much on the Mac Pro line. It may eat up iMac sales, however. I also this this is reasonable, not like some of the pie-in-the-sky things some people want to happen.

I don't think so. I think they appeal to very different sets of potential buyers. The AIO design has very real appeal for all kinds of users. People who really want the simplicity, elegance, footprint, appliance experience from their PC will get the iMac. Those who are looking for expansion and probably plan on doing some upgrading and putting it together with 3rd party peripherals and don't really care as much for the AIO aesthetic will go for the headless wonder-mac.

I mean, there might be some market over-lap simply based on price point, but I really think that AIO and non-AIO buyers are very different cats who want very different things even if they plan on spending the same amount of money.

[Judge_Fire]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

I don't think so. I think they appeal to very different sets of potential buyers. The AIO design has very real appeal for all kinds of users.

I agree. However, I think some of my switcher 'BYOKMD' friends who went for an Intel Mini might have given the HWM some extra thought. And that might not have been a bad deal for Apple.


Now, IMHO this thread seems to have two slightly differing views of such a machine.

Everybody appears to agree on the GPU upgradability issue. One group, however, seems keen on some internal expansion, such as a second PCI slot and two HDD bays. Another group, which I count myself in, would be ok with using external expansion options for such needs.

I'm not sure what the price difference would be, perhaps the costs of internal expansion ports are trivial. Personally, I'd prefer a more compact machine, but then again, 99% percent of the electronics I own are more compact than a Mac Pro


So, which one for you?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by Judge_Fire

So, which one for you?

I'm one of the BYOKMD people. I was determined to switch back to Mac (after a long weary windows stint) but was waiting on a headless mac with an AGP slot for less than $2K. Eventually my PC died and they announced the mini so I went with that figuring it was as good as it was gonna get.

The mini has been great, but I've always wanted more umpgh and a great GPU. Every time they announce stuff, I'm waiting for the HWM and keep getting dissappointed.

As for which camp i'm in, either one. User upgradable GPU is not gonna get compromised again no matter what. I'll hack OS X onto off the shelf parts before I buy another Mac with a GPU I can't upgrade (that isn't a laptop). Extra PCI slots would be nice, but its not a deal breaker for me. Small form factor would be nice, but not a deal breaker.

In fact, I said earlier in this thread I'd be happy buying a Mac Pro tower if I could get a single CPU option and save some $$. I'd be willing to pay $1500-1700 for one. $2500 is just out of my price range. That's a workstation, and I just need a solid PC.

[ndptal85]

I've already said this once in this thread and aside from the people wanting a small form factor, listen up.

The current Mac Pros will be around $1500 in a year on the used market. So just wait 12 months and you'll be all set for your "missing prosumer Mac tower".

[freakboy2]

Originally Posted by ndptal85

I've already said this once in this thread and aside from the people wanting a small form factor, listen up.

The current Mac Pros will be around $1500 in a year on the used market. So just wait 12 months and you'll be all set for your "missing prosumer Mac tower".

if apple had a prosumer computer now, then a year from now it would blow the doors off a year old mac pro.

We don't want mac pros. It's too big and its overkill. We want what everyone here is talking about.

Basically, a slightly more useful cube-sized enclosure.. 1 or 2 hard drives, video card.

That's it.

2 cores instead of 4. 4 dimms instead of 2 or 8. right between the imacs and the mac pros.

[Judge_Fire]

Yeah, the Mac Pro is truly a workstation level computer. Awesome, fully featured. I'll be happy to use them at work.

It's not something I'd want for home though. And mind you, I have an iMac (TV) and a G4 Mini (home office) already, so I know about 'home' choices. I'm looking for something modern to replace the Mini and my gaming Shuttle PC, but the features, size and price of the Mac Pro are a bit more than required.

As for used computers, well, I enjoy my warranty. And I wouldn't want to buy a computer with less performance over a similarly priced faster one. (Assuming processor + bus speed keeps advancing at currently projected pace.)

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by freakboy2

if apple had a prosumer computer now, then a year from now it would blow the doors off a year old mac pro.

We don't want mac pros. It's too big and its overkill. We want what everyone here is talking about.

Basically, a slightly more useful cube-sized enclosure.. 1 or 2 hard drives, video card.

That's it.

2 cores instead of 4. 4 dimms instead of 2 or 8. right between the imacs and the mac pros.

So...$200 less than the Mac Pro, way less power? That's the only slot between the iMac and Mac Pro. Who's going to buy that?

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So...$200 less than the Mac Pro, way less power? That's the only slot between the iMac and Mac Pro. Who's going to buy that?

People who, at the time of purchase, value two hundred dollars more than the power gained from the Mac Pro.

Of course, most people hypothesizing here are talking about a range of prices topping off around $1800, which makes for at least $300 in savings vs. the Mac Pro. I don't know why you think your idea is the only possible price.

[SirCastor]

I wonder what the return on such a machine would be. The R&D for a new computer would a year or two and millions on dollars... How fast would that be re-couped? (is that spelled right?)

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

People who, at the time of purchase, value two hundred dollars more than the power gained from the Mac Pro.

Of course, most people hypothesizing here are talking about a range of prices topping off around $1800, which makes for at least $300 in savings vs. the Mac Pro. I don't know why you think your idea is the only possible price.

I would like to see something between $1,000 (or less) to $1,500 myself. $1,800 would have to be really "high-end". Even at that price though, I wouldn't buy a Mac Pro instead, because it just isn't an option for me, and I might still be tempted to go for it, depending on the specs.

Also, what some of the nay-sayers don't seem to realize is that this product would offer its own advantages over an iMac and a Mac Pro for its expansion and size/ It's definitely a machine for its own audience, many of who would probably not go for either the iMac or Mac Pro in the first place.

Originally Posted by SirCastor

I wonder what the return on such a machine would be. The R&D for a new computer would a year or two and millions on dollars... How fast would that be re-couped? (is that spelled right?)

Seems most here are overly concerned for Apple's bottom line and not concerned enough with consumer choices. Now I understand that the former needs to be weighed in for the probability that Apple would release such a desktop and continue to successfully sell it, however I continue to see this as good for both Apple and users.

If Apple won't release such a machine, it will be more for paranoid greed over missed Mac Pro or iMac sales, not over legitimate reasons. R&D for such a machine wouldn't be considerable, in my opinion, because the technology is already there and proven. All they need to do is mix and match it appropriately. The return will be more/bigger sales from Mac users and otherwise PC users.

[rnicoll]

Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales

I would like to see something between $1,000 (or less) to $1,500 myself. $1,800 would have to be really "high-end". Even at that price though, I wouldn't buy a Mac Pro instead, because it just isn't an option for me, and I might still be tempted to go for it, depending on the specs.

I'm more thinking in the $1,000-$2,000 range, covering specs from equivalent to a headless 1.83Ghz iMac, up to beyond iMac range (say, single 2.6Ghz dual core CPU, 1Gb RAM as default). I'm also really looking to have better graphics options available.

Originally Posted by Gabriel Morales

Also, what some of the nay-sayers don't seem to realize is that this product would offer its own advantages over an iMac and a Mac Pro for its expansion and size/ It's definitely a machine for its own audience, many of who would probably not go for either the iMac or Mac Pro in the first place.

Yes, agree completely; an iMac isn't suitable for me, because I want to upgrade my computer a lot more frequently than my display, and I'm looking for better graphics than are available on the iMac. On the other hand, a Mac Pro is overkill; I don't use anything that will use that much CPU time.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug

People who, at the time of purchase, value two hundred dollars more than the power gained from the Mac Pro.

Of course, most people hypothesizing here are talking about a range of prices topping off around $1800, which makes for at least $300 in savings vs. the Mac Pro. I don't know why you think your idea is the only possible price.

The iMac prices are $1300 and $1700. The price difference between the high-end iMac and the low-end Mac Pro is actually the same as the difference between those. A price right between the iMac and the Mac Pro would be $1900.

[slugslugslug]

Luring switchers is a totally different game now, too, and in fact the Headless Wonder Mac seems like a more important thing to have in the lineup than the Mac mini. When the latter was introduced the idea was that somebody who was thinking of switching could try it out with relatively small investment (though, really, 500 bucks isn't chump change for something you might not like). The beauty of the Intel transition is that if someone tries a Mac and just doesn't "get" OS X, they can keep the Apple hardware as their full-time Windows machine (I know, ugh). So the risk is even lower if they were in the market for a computer anyway, but the scenario plays out best if Apple offers hardware comparable to what the Windows user would have bought anyway. The MacBook family is great in this regard, providing beautiful and capable machines in some of the most popular price points and sizes. But as desktops go, PC buyers are probably buying mid-range towers far more than tiny desktops, all-in-ones, or massive decked-out workstations.

[slugslugslug]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The iMac prices are $1300 and $1700. The price difference between the high-end iMac and the low-end Mac Pro is actually the same as the difference between those. A price right between the iMac and the Mac Pro would be $1900.

Yes, but is someone saying the HWM has to be priced exactly between the endpoints of the iMac and Mac Pro range? Are a lot of people saying that? I don't think it'd kill Apple to have different products with overlapping price ranges, since different people will have different priorities on what features they want for their money.