What is Digg?98 Comments
- HypocriteDigg, on 10/11/2007, -3/+27I wonder if digg users who say "digg me down" actually think it somehow legitimizes their dumbass comments?
- dbalaski, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18Also -- one apple system they left out of the article:
The XServe http://www.apple.com/xserve/ - Flashman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16Nerdy. On Digg.
That's like criticizing a sandpit in Egypt. - SpongeBad, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17This a recurring theme...I hope Apple is listening...
- troon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10No, you COULDN'T care less.
Think about the meaning, people! - HunterTV, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15iJail?
- Firehed, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12@HerrEisenheim - Did you even read the article? Anyone who wants something a little better than the iMac (or even just an equivalent) without paying for a display they already own. I'd absolutely love to have an iMac since I hate using a notebook for daily use, but there's no way I'm buying one while I already own both a 20" and 24" LCD. The Mac Pro isn't really an option, for quite a number of reasons (most notably, the price tag). I mean, yeah, a four- or eight-way system would be awesome, but dual-core suits me fine, but buying another large display doesn't. I just don't do work that requires that much horsepower, but I certainly do work that benefits from the extra screen space that I can't get from the single output of the Mini.
I could care less about the gaming. I have a pretty high-spec Windows box that serves no other purpose anymore besides gaming. If I could run OS X on it, I would (and believe me, I've tried), as it's exactly that between-the-iMac-and-Mac-Pro-spec that I'm looking for. Reasonably expandable, powerful enough, and doesn't force me into paying for hardware I don't need, like another big-ass display. - Midnightbrewer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Honestly, I don't see your average enthusiast having dual 30" monitors. What this guy is complaining about is that he wants a professional-level machine at a price he can feel enthusiastic about. He uses the processor as the cornerstone of his argument, but I think this misses the point; Apple could produce the very machine he's asking for, and he'd probably still complain that it didn't *quite* live up to his expectations. While I agree that I'm not a fan of all-in-one PCs like the iMac, what this guy really wants is to be able to build his own machine and then run OSX on it; he doesn't really care if the hardware comes from Apple, he just wants access to their OS and software on the box of his choice.
As for Apple's current line-up, I find Apple's new fixation with over-compensating for their past processor speed deficiencies is the real problem now; as a professional, I appreciate a four-core system, but a dual-core system at the previous $2,000 price point would fit my needs nicely, too. I'm going to be on the dual G5 tower and MacBook Pro for a while, it seems. - Azio, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11The lack of a headless, upgradeable, customizable, mid-range enthusiast desktop is literally the only thing preventing me from buying a Macintosh.
- Cerealkillr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Well there you see it.....
Every apple story has to start with the two words....
Steve ...... Jobs..... - dreadstar, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12iMac needs alot more of that, and alot less of the built in monitor
- LoganT, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9The Apple Mac (which is what I would call it) is seriously needed (IMO) at Apple. People say that a mid-ranged Mac would eat up sales of the Mac Pro and the iMac. First of all, who cares? Who's to say that since Apple isn't offering this, they aren't just going to Dell, HP, Gateway, etc? And secondly, I don't think it compromise sales of the Mac Pro or the iMac. Normal users would by the iMac, as it looks nice and has a built in screen. Professionals would still buy the Mac Pro as it has more power. So here's my idea for the Apple Mac:
1 HD Slot (Want a bigger one? Upgrade it yourself.)
1 Optical Drive Slot (Want a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD slot? Upgrade it youself.)
1 PCI X 16 Slot
1 PCI Slot
Up to 4GB's of ram
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 to the E6700
$1200-$1999
This would force people who need more power to buy the Mac Pro. - rickcarson, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13Oh please. I'm so sick of hearing people whining like this.
This ***** wants something that is almost exactly like the current Mac Pro - except with a slower processor, and uh... two hard drive bays and only one optical bay. What a frigging retard.
Newsflash: Apple sells the Mac Pro with a slower CPU!!!! OMG!!!!WTF!!!!BBQ!!!1111
And its .... wait for it .... actually cheaper than their base model! Amazing! Who would have thought!!!????
So anyway, the 2Ghz Xeon is $2200 from Apple. How to get it cheaper? Either get a refurb from Apple, or refurb from other Apple retailer, or have a poke around on Ebay. For relatively new stuff Apple knocks off about 13% for a refurb, so that would make it $1914.
Or, in other words, this whole fscking storm in a tea cup is over a piddly $114 difference in price. And yet people in his comments are saying things like - "At that price I'd buy two!"
And for that piddly $114 you get an extra two hard drive bays and one extra optical drive bay.
Damn you Apple, making me pay an extra $114 for what is basically empty air!!! *shakes fist angrily*
Suck it up you wieners and go get a second hand Mac Pro. It does everything you want and more, and better yet... "the price is right" - jellomizer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I doubt it. Sure the idea is Good and a bunch of people will get them but I don't see Apple doing this.
1. Apple is not Dell. There business model is actually very different. Dell sells a wide verity of systems with a huge amount of configurations if they work in windows great but they make no promises. Apple makes sure that OS X and the System they sell work hand and hand no missing drivers if you reinstall the OS having to use the CD , or connect to the internet (many times with a different PC) to get drivers.More systems makes this harder to accomplish this goal.
2. Apples model is closer to say Toyotas model and Dell and many of the others have more of GM model. Meaning they may not make a system that is perfect for everyone but they focus on making systems good for the majority. I know as a customer I like choice but giving customer 100% choice is extremely expensive. Apple is a business not a not for profit their goal is to make money. If it cost them 5 million to come with every new spot on a matrix and it takes them multiple years to recoup the costs it may not be worth it.
3. Apple tried some thing similar a while back the G4 Cube. It was a rather upgradable upper-mid range system that was headless. It didn't sell very well. It was a great system people tend to love it. But apple retired it because it wasn't profitable enough. People wanted faster iMacs, not cubes. - maxlew, on 10/11/2007, -8/+15Why is he complaining about dual monitor support on mid to low end machines? Dual monitors for people doing professional work
- ascalonx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I can see so many reasons why an offering in between the iMac and the Mac Pro would be successful. Sure, there's the gaming afforded by having an upgradeable video card, but that would be the least of my reasons. I honestly don't give a flying rats behind about PC gaming. Sure, I played a little bit of Civ IV back in college, but that was a different time...we were encouraged to experiment. I digress. The biggest market I see for a mid-range Mac is in business.
Where I work (doing Java web development) there are a lot of people that would love to get Mac desktops. But, honestly, iMacs and Mac Minis wouldn't work for our environment. Everyone has dual 19" monitors because, let's face it, dual monitors are incredible for productivity. No one wants to be married to the monitor that comes with the iMac and it would be ridiculous to throw out the investment made in those 19" monitors. Not being able to upgrade also poses a problem as it's often cheaper to upgrade than buy new.
On the other hand, we have a few people that do have a Mac Pro (or older powermac), but these are all graphics design or video people. However, I can't imagine the cost if we were to try to outfit every developer with a Mac Pro. That would be great, but I don't see that working its way into our budget.
So, everyone that doesn't need an uber machine like a Mac Pro ends up with a Dell. Not knocking the Dells, they're nice machines with dual core processors and a good amount of memory, but I don't exactly prefer that other OS that comes with them (perhaps the Ubuntu on Dell offerings will help some of that).
That's where a mid-range mac comes in. Then, everyone has a choice. You want the standard Dell with that one OS or do you want a Mac? The price is right, so the accountants can sleep at night.
I guess that does come down to what 'tomis' said:
"Basically the minority who keep bitching about Apple not having a mid-range tower want a Mac Pro, but they're too cheep to buy one."
But, isn't that the point. If there are this many people expressing interest in a product at this price point, shouldn't Apple consider it? It's ridiculous to me that one would think that because someone's "too cheap" to shell out the money for a Mac Pro that they should settle for an iMac. I just bought an HDTV so let me offer this analog. Say you went to Best Buy (God forbid) and you have to spend $1500 and you want a 37" LCD. The Best Buy dude says, "Jesus Christ, you're cheap. I can't believe you don't want to pay $2500 for a 42". We don't have any 37" tv's so, here's a 32" for $1000, you'll just have to settle for that."
Let me end by saying that I can't see anything but profit and an enormous amount of 'switchers' (including me) if they were to introduce a mid-range product. I know I have further arguments that I could make, but I've already spent far too much time making this comment. - piznut, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Mac zealots, please don't get your panties in a bunch over this...its not an assault on your lifestyle. It's a request for a machine targeting a large number of people that Apple's current product matrix is completely missing.
I think the gap here is best described as a 'Prosumer' model. Its that grey area between the only adequately performing iMac and the way too expensive Mac Pro. Its not rocket science. It *is* a large market that apple is completely missing. The requirements arent stiff. It needs to be relatively inexpensive (think between mac mini and iMac) and be able to use an off the shelf video card, or ship with one that is worth a damn. - HerrEisenheim, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7"Why is he complaining about dual monitor support on mid to low end machines? Dual monitors for people doing professional work"
Or people who play WoW so they can have internet & Ventrillo on the other screen. - sruffelman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7My friend and I who both own Macbook Pros always complain about this. We are both power users who need some expandibility and more power than the iMacs. This is the perfect solution for us. The only thing holding me back from getting a Mac desktop in the near future is the fact that they have no computer offered that would suit my standards. The Mac Pro is far too expensive. The iMac is not expandable, adaptable, etc.
- superal1394, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Well, if Apple made a box that was quite a capable gaming rig, it would gain the attention of alot of windows users who want to make the jump, but are holding off because of their games. Not all of us can afford having two computers.
Also, if it gained steam, it may encourage developers to push up priority on OSX and macs. Also, if it gained a good foothold, Apple may upgrade from the hokey graphics they have been putting in the iMacs and their laptops. - c0d3z3r0, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I wish apple does listen to this request because it would be a perfect Mac.
I do agree that *if this Mac would come out, gaming on a mac would be better, This would be a great mac for the person that wants expandability of a Mac Pro, but doesnt want to pay the huge price tag.
I have a Macbook Pro, My only problem with it is space, I cant install all of Final Cut Pro because the hard drive on it isnt big enough, With this Mac I could install everything on the system without having to worry about the disks if I need something that is not installed on the system(Like Templets, and Audio Loops), because I dont want to Install them on an external drive, The only thing I use an external drive for is to have the Capture Scratch on it. - Stephenjobs, on 10/11/2007, -10/+15this makes so little sense. The gap between iMac and Mac Pro is extremely small.
You can have "a machine that can crunch through iMovie and iDVD nice and fast, want to play a few games in Boot Camp, want to run dual 30" monitors (it's more productive)[you can do dual 24"s, and if you want dual 30"s, come on, get a Mac Pro], want to use 4GB of RAM[get real, virtually nobody needs more than 2GB of RAM, those who do need a Mac Pro anyway, but you can get 3GB in an iMac or Mac Mini if you really need to have it] or wants to run a RAID-0 or RAID-1[I've done it with external drives].
Apple doesn't really see a gap in their offering,because there isn't one. - slalomskier, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Ok apple, LISTEN TO ME, AND EVERY OTHER 12 INCH POWERBOOK LOVER OUT THERE.
I am pissed, real pissed.
What we all want is simple, a macbook pro in a macbook case. We want small, powerful, with good graphics. You are loosing customers as i look online for old 12 powerbooks instead of buying a new machine. I want small, we all do. I dont care about a phone ipod combination, i have a phone, and i have a nano, and i am not going to spend $600 for you to combine them unless both of my current devices die. I want 64 bit processing in my 12 inch power book.
Look steve, we know you loved the 12 inch powerbook. You probably have a 12 inch macbook pro in your bag, and you just wont tell us about it.
I want it now, right now, i am tired of my ram-deficient G4 and i am tired of running osx86 on my thinkpad.
Apple, you make me want to cry.
Ohh, and by the way. i still love you - aDJsavedmylife, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Suck it up.
- inkswamp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I'm curious to know how much processing power you really need on-the-go for your work? I can understand if you were an photographer or a film editor, but do you really run apps so processor-intensive doing sales work that one of the MacBooks wouldn't fit your needs?
BTW, I just went to Apple's site and saw that you can configure a MacBook the way you specify except it's 2 lbs. heavier. I can't imagine how 2 lbs. would be a deal-breaker if you really want OS X on your next machine as badly as you claim. - SaintStryfe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Dude, my MacBook is 13.3 widescreen, it can handle 2 gigs of memory, can go for any SATA 2.5 HD you want, and a Dual-Core Intel Core 2 Duo processor. The difference is 3 pounds, but the screen is bigger (which I think is nicer), and it has a full dual-layer DVD burner, firewire, bluetooth and Airport Extreme N in it.
It's not THAT far off. - Balanced, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I think the Matrix grew beyond 4 squares years ago.. Reference the Mini.
- LoganT, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The Cube was a really bad idea; price wise. It was basically made for Apple enthusiasts. It cost more than the base PowerMac G4.
- Simplex42, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4> Someone tell me again why he couldn't build that himself and load up OS X?
Oh you can. With all the ease of getting Linux up and running on new hardware, and all the convenience of pirated windows updates. There's just so much ***** about with installing and maintaining OSX on generic x86 machines compared to turning a real Mac on and just using it, then clicking Update when software update pops up, that it somewhat defeats the purpose of using a Mac. - Misaiato, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5I just want to see game companies start releasing their titles for both Windows and OS X. Apple took 9.9% of the notebook market for Q1 (I read that somewhere) - and a fair few of those sales were most certainly to young college kids. If Blizzard can release games for both platforms - I don't really see what the holdup is. Starcraft II is going to look amazing when it comes out - and it'll be sim-released. WoW is obviously an intense game for a computer to crunch in it's more extreme modes (massive PVP, large Raids, etc.)
If they make the games - there will be switchers. - capran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I want this machine. I've been saying I want this machine for probably 2 years now. My only Mac right now is a G4 Mini, which is anemic to say the least. I'd like a better Mac, but I also want to be able to play games, and that means a gaming-class video card, which should be easily replaceable with off the shelf parts. Right now the only Mac that can take such a card is the Mac Pro. It's a freaking WORKSTATION, built with expensive server CPUs and RAM.
I can't afford the Mac Pro, and it's not a gaming computer in the first place (FB-DIMMs suck, see the Anandtech review from last year.) So for now, I'm pretty much stuck with a pokey old Mini and a hobbled together gaming PC sharing my 20" LCD, USB devices and speakers with a KVM.
I'd rather just have a single computer on the desk, and dual-boot OS X and Windows as needed (the ideal solution would be to use OS X for games as well, but that's another discussion.)
Why won't Apple sell me this machine? I truly don't get it. OS X (and even Ubuntu Linux) are a breathe of fresh air compared to Windows. Why must I choose between having my games, and having the OS and computer brand I'd like? Other computer makers sell machines that are priced under $2000 US (and some under $1000!) that have 16x PCI-E slots and Core 2 Duo Conroe CPUs, so why in the hell does Apple have to "think different"?
Why does Apple hate gamers? - miccet, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I would SO buy it, I'd get the mid one, but please no ATI, throw a 7950GT or something in there instead.
- Balanced, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They also released the mini as a 5th product.
- rdas7, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I never thought I'd see the day when someone argued for Apple to release LESS powerful machines.
Seriously, "I don't want to spend $5k on a Mac Pro, I just want a machine to run my dual 30" monitors, 4GB+ RAM, and RAID, do high speed audio and video work ." So what you're really asking for isn't a new product, but a drop in prices? There's news. - JasonDelta, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@rickcarson
Um...dude, the author wasn't complaining about something he wanted specifically. If you read the post/article, he was merely suggesting a lucrative business proposition, which was in the form of a mid-range desktop that a consumer could purchase with EASE from apple.com or a retailer without having to resort to back-routes that the average joe schmoe wouldn't normally know about or consider (ebay, refurb, etc). Don't be a ***** douche. Thanks. - timusca, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I'd buy one in a heartbeat... I want a nice desktop but not an all-in-one and surely not an expensive machine like a Mac Pro.
- LoganT, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Apple technically doesn't even have a desktop.
-Laptop Parts
Macbook
Macbook Pro
Mac Mini
iMac
-Server Parts
Mac Pro
-Desktop
?? - capran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Perhaps what they should do is make an iMac that has a modular monitor and computer unit. Just slide/snap off the old computer and slap on a new one when upgrade time comes.
- morpheus69, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Just in case Steve Jobs is listening... I have been working in international sales for 10 years, I practically live on airplanes. During that entire time, I have carried an IBM ThinkPad running Windows. However, with Windows Vista out, I've put my foot down and decided my next computer will definitely not be running Windows. I would REALLY REALLY love my next computer to be running OSX. The big problem is that Apple needs to design a real business notebook... made for road warriors. My ThinkPad X60s has a dual core processor, 2 GB of RAM and a 13 inch LCD screen, yet weighs less than 3 pounds and is less than an inch thick. If Jobs gave me that option, price would not be an object.
- yelow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2heh, this just won't die, but then again, neither did the iPhone, and now it's real, so...
but anyway, do a cross-search between yelowpunk and headless mac on the MacLife.com message boards to see how long ago and how many times I've posted on the subject.
it'd be great though.
-Tim - Chrontius, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@ rickcarson: sorry, you're getting dugg down. it's not just 'a slower processor' it's also "I want to use faster, cheaper, and negligably less reliable RAM since half-life is not mission-critical". Besides, the GPU selection on mac pros is kinda sucktacular at the moment. GeForce 8800 please?
Mind you, I appreciate the overengineering that went into the Mac Pro. I also appreciate that it's not overengineering when it's necessary or not being appreciated specifically *for* that overengineering. But sometimes you just get tired of maintaining a Wintendo box. - capran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2...if by that you mean an iMac that uses desktop CPUs and GPUs (upgradeable!!!), then yes. What's so bad about that? I know what I want to buy, but Apple won't sell me it.
- EggoTrip, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Agree with the article completely.
I've wanted pretty much exactly the recommendation stated since before the Mac Pro was announced. I did buy a Mac Pro - I love the machine, I have added 4 hard drives, I added a second windows only video card for gaming, I will be going to 4 gigs of RAM - but it is all overkill. The justification is that I won't be upgrading to another machine until further down the road, but I can't recommend a Mac to someone who likes PC gaming more than just casually. - udahlen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Apple should add one, possible more, products to the matrix. They now sell so many Macs and make so much money, it isn't necessary to have a very restricted product portfolio. I hope they add a cheaper Mac Pro.
- acomj, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1APPLE used to have a computer like this. The low end of the "Pro" line was often under 2000$ (usually 1700$ or something). They could and should do it. I bought a used mac-pro which is amazing, but honestly way over powered for what I need (which is a lot of photoshop). the Pro is also very very big for us apartment dewellers. But if you like 3.5 inch drives and need a lot of storage space for photos the mini just doesn't cut it.
- lbdwag, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Apple needs a gaming machine. Something that is easily upgradeable, around the price point of an iMac would be good. This is 1 market that Apple has ignored completely.
- Chrontius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No - we want a Mac with a slot for an Nvidia 8800 GT. And a 9900 GT. And a 10100 GT. And...
Even if I bought a Mac Pro, I couldn't use any of those cards, even the one that's been invented. - MacParrot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I wouldn't completely disagree, I think you're just missing the point. Most of what I've read here isn't that we want a Mac Pro lite, just an iMac Pro. A tower machine with the same specs as the iMac, just without the monitor.
- z1freeride, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think people just want an iMac without the built-in monitor.
- thepol, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Amen -- instead of cannibalizing sales of iMacs and Mac Pros, I think it would actually encourage a lot of people to switch over to the mac.
-
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is