[okipapa]

Well, I would buy an iMac. Really, I would, but only if I could have a nVidia 9800GTX or 280GTX in it. I would even settle for Radeon 4850... I am a new convert to Mac. I am a once-a-while gamer, but when I manage to find the time to play a game, I expect the highest level of visual experience. So, I love my new MacBook, I am amazed and enthralled with iPhoto, iMovie, and especially with .Mac, but I will keep my home built Intel 4GHz with nVidia 8800 GTS 512 PC for many years to come for gaming and for tinkering with hardware.

I understand that by not supporting open source architecture Apple avoids many of Windows performance and stability issues. Moreover, I short experience with Mac convinced me that this approach, however restrictive, may be the way to go. But, there is a simple solution: REVERSE BOOTCAMP! Please, Apple, allow me to run OS X in Virtual Machine on my PC. Pretty please, with cherry on top?! I will settle for slightly lower performance. I will settle for generic video drivers, which will but slightly affect photo and video editing. I will not play my games on OS X, but I will do everything else on OS X, and I will be happy as a lark.

[mac_user21]

I find my iMac do well on games as WoW and AoE3 and Battleship midway battle. though it use radeon HD 2600 and 2.4 ghz. it do well. but again, I am not fussy with video too much. butt, Apple would never let its OS X run on other computer since it would kill them like mid 1990. Only thaqt it survive b/c Steve set new EULA on new OS that prevent clone to make apple computer.

[Dan Frakes]

MacCheetah3 said:

Hi
I don't know if there is a market for an offering between iMac and Mac Pro. Could be... Let's be honest though, most consumers don't upgrade even the memory in a personal computer much less add PCI cards, extra hard drives, ...Even I thought that I would upgrade the GPU, ... in my Power Mac G5 back when but I always ended up putting that $$$ aside for a completely new Mac. I purchased it "off he bat" to suit my needs and it lasted me through the few years to get a totally new machine. Quite frankly, if there is a market it isn't huge.

It may not be huge, but I think it's more than big enough to be worth doing. See this article for the reasoning:

http://www.macworld....idrangemac.html

[Dan Frakes]

n8mac said:

Back on topic, consoles are great but only go so far. Some in-depth games require keyboards and mice.

I'm still amazed that none of the console vendors have added keyboard/mouse support. There are some games, especially FPS titles, that many of us simply refuse to play with a console controller.

[Wilddragon]

I predict that there will never be any midrange tower -- and that Apple is smart to ignore this market.

The future of home computers, like that of consumer electronics generally, is the everything-built-in closed box. The vast majority of consumers aren't interested in mixing and matching components, they want something that just works. As prices continue to drop, the possible saving from building a custom box decreases. Sure, there will always be hobbiests out there, but they aren't the mainstream of the consumer market. (The business market is different because a few professionals can customize and configure computers for the whole enterprise.)

Apple is targeting this market with the iMac, which has been hugely successful, and will become even more successful as hardware prices continue to drop. Building standardized all-in-one boxes generates economies of scale that make sense in the consumer market.

So why does Apple sell the Pro and the Mini?

The Pro serves as a prototype for the next generation of IMacs. The economics of the high-end market don't support closed boxes (yet?) and Apple wants both to keep visibility in the high-end market and also to maintain hands-on familiarity with the technology that will be in the next generation of IMacs.

The Mini is a foot-in-the door strategy for Windows users. It is designed to replace a PC box at minimal cost. It doesn't need to make much money, the profits will come when those users upgrade to iMacs.

So couldn't Apple also sell a midrange tower and pick up a little extra cash while pleasing the hobbiests?

Well, how many of those tower sales would NOT be from people who otherwise would have bought a different Mac? Enough to offset the overhead of creating and maintaining an additional product line that serves no strategic purpose? Not very likely. A midrange tower would canabalize other Mac sales far more than it would cut into Windows' consumer market. A midrange tower might make sense as part of a strategy to win commercial sales -- but Apple isn't focusing on the business market.

So there's no good reason for Apple to build a midrange tower, even though some of us -- including me -- would very much like to have one.

Dan Holdgreiwe