[aceshelman]

Your time isn't worth that much money unless you're actually burning normal work hours to build your frankenmac (and then it is only worth what -YOU- are worth, not what some super-expesive consultant is worth). I for one do all of my home computer goofing during times when I might otherwise be recreating; I don't sacrifice my money-making time to play with my PC or Macs, neither does he, neither would you. Quoting >$100/hour "value" for time spent building your own computer is disingenuous.

[shadow99]

I've install Mac OSX under VMWare and while it works okay, it's certainly not the same as owning Apple hardware. I'd love to buy a Mac, but there really isn't one that fills my needs. I don't need a Mac Pro, but I don't want a limited (expansion) iMac, and the Mac Mini is over priced / underpowered in my opinion. Why not have a complete build it yourself tower model? That starts off with less expensive Core 2 Duo processors instead of Xeons. $1000.00 to $1500.00 I can justify, but starting at $2799.00, no way... Come on Jobs, see the light!! There are a bunch of folks interested in a mid-level tower unit.

[icerabbit]

What type of consultant are you describing? And exactly what % of people does that represent?

You know this type of thing is clearly aimed at hobbyists, geeks, students ... etc with some spare time, interest and limited budget. Pros just order the tools they need & want.

Anyhow.

This again proves the point that there is a need for an OS X machine with some expandability to fit between the mini & mac pro, at a consumer friendly price.

( to me the iMac doesn't exist / count because it has that glare magnet sub standard monitor built-in )

[vbetts]

micxmac wrote:
My E8400 Core 2 Duo Frankenmac is overclocked to 4ghz. Does Apple have a 4ghz machine?



No, however when multitasking which is why Apple chose to go with a quad core solution, a quad core 2.8 ghz Xeon will fare out better. As well as when the Macpro has the option for 8 cores, now 2 corex against 8 cores, unless the dual core is clocked high, and a program is only using one core(which most cpu intense programs only use one core unless multithreaded) the 8 core will win. Let's take doom 3, if each core and memory and a video card could seperate into an indivual machine(if you had an extreme amount of ram that could devide into atleast 1 gb of ram evenly, and could have up to 8 video cards if it were possible like that) then Doom 3 could be ran 16 times on the same machine, at once. Maybe 8 though honestly, to be more realistic. You talk about heatsinks? You overclock on heatsinks? For the ram, a heatspreader is fine, but the chipset, and bus and everything, out of your mind. Your memory only goes so far, since it's not the high quality ram that the Mac pro uses. I forget what it's called though.

Plus looking at Apple and Intels past together, if there was a 4 ghz quad core chip coming out, considering they were the first to use the Core duo then the core 2 duo, then the higher end Xeons, I'm pretty sure that the Mac pro would get a 4 ghz upgrade.

[wrecklass]

Six hours is a long time. A consultant can bill almost $1000 for six hours of work. It seems to me, just purchasing a supported machine would be a better and more economic choice.

Ex Squeeze Me? If you have the money to pay $1000 per hour for consultants, you don't really care how much a Mac costs.

Me I am ye old minimum wage S/W Engineer at around $50/hr. Thus the hours I might spend to build a machine would be peanuts compared to the amount I'd save over buying a Mac Pro at Apple's prices. And I'd have a machine I could repair myself because I know how to build good reliable computers. Been doing it for over a dozen years.

As others have said, you can buy an off the shelf machine for $800-$1500 and install OS X with very little pain. I have never spent more than 3 hours putting together one of my systems and the numbers say that is money well spent. Whether comparing to Dell or to Apple, but especially when comparing to Apple. Apple makes a better product, but it isn't worth the money for most of us. They need to recognize a very big gap in their product line, and a real perception problem with their pricing. Naturally, if they can make ends meet selling a few computers at luxury car price tags that's fine. But I think they are missing a big opportunity right now.

[nchase]

If their RAM is not significantly different from my RAM, there is a 1000% markup on their RAM, and it doesn't come with a lifetime warranty, but mine does.

I wrote more about that here.


I think that's incredibly unfair, and I do not fault the people who are selling these sorts of machines. In this day and age, it's not exactly hard to build a Frankenmac, so the value of the official Mac components is in question.

[khurt]

If you are willing to spend $1000 why not add $200 more and get an iMac.

[griffman]

I didn't want a bundled monitor.
I wanted to add more internal hard drives.
I wanted more than one internal CD/DVD burner.
I wanted a faster machine than an iMac.
I wanted the ability to replace the video card down the road.
I wanted the ability to replace the CPU down the road.

Other than those reasons, an iMac would've been perfect :)

-rob.

[vbetts]

Because an Imac is a very basic machine, no matter how you look at it. You can't do anything new to it, you can upgrade your ram, harddrive, and a couple of other things, but that's it. There is no moving from dual core to quad core in one Imac. There is no replacing the 20' screen with a 30' screen. There is no replacing the superdrive with a Bluray drive. For someone like me, I want to feel like this is my machine, this is how I made it. That I completely own it. With a hackintosh, I can go dual core to quad core, I can easily change the screen. For a PC enthusiaist, you don't have to agree with me, but the Imac just doesn't cut it. Secondly, the Imac is a laptop. Marketed as a desktop, but everything besides a full sized harddrive. Which the mobile platform of the core 2 duo is okay, but not great, and costs more, which rises prices up. I'm certain that Apple can use an LGA775 socket with efficient cooling inside the Imac. Why they don't do it, who knows.



I have a Hackintosh because I enjoy it. I enjoyed setting it up, getting it to work, messing around with it, fixing it, everything. I won't lie, it takes time and knowledge. A real mac is probably easier than a hack. But I love mine. Paired with XBMC, it's pretty great. That would probably be the only thing I'd buy a real Mac for, Mac Mini. Not even a new one, a core duo one. But then for that price, might as well buy an apple TV.

[khurtwilliams]

vbetts said:

I have a Hackintosh because I enjoy it. I enjoyed setting it up, getting it to work, messing around with it, fixing it, everything. I won't lie, it takes time and knowledge.

90% of computers users have neither the knowledge nor the time to do what you admittedly claim you like doing. They just want a computer that works. Just like most of us are happy to go to Toyota or Honda and buy a whole car package instead of slapping together transportation from kits parts.

[aceshelman]

Your point, mister Williams?

I don't think anyone here is suggesting apple stop making imacs and tell everyone to just build their own tower and install OS X on it.

[wrecklass]

Exactly, the point isn't whether or not Apple can make good products. The questions are: Why can't they make them at a more competitive price and why don't they recognize the gap in their product line. A sub $1500 tower Mac with lots of expandibility would be a great addition to the product mix. I suspect Apple won't do that because expandibility means longetivity. And according to some people here, many Mac customers like buying an all new machine whenever they need an upgrade. Even though a new video card would have probably done the job.

[khurtwilliams]

I'm not saying Apple does or does not have a market for a user configurable Mac and the longevity argument you make is indeed a good one. I am offering a rationale for why they most likely won't do it. I do not think Apple wants to support a lower cost machine that a user ( or their really smart brother-in-law ) can "hack" and then call Apple for support. I think it's a cost of support issue. I have owned both Honda and Acuras. When I took my Acura for service the technicians even repaired the after market items I place in the car. With the Honda it was "we're not touching that". The cars are made by the same manufacturer but at widely different price points.

[Basshead]

I see two barriers to Apple building a mid range upgradable box.

1. Support is a major factor. Apple currently supplies the hardware and software so has control over the package, experience, whatever you want to call it. Stability and reliability improve with this approach. The only Mac's that are upgradable, the Mac Pro's, are aimed at high end users who value stability and reliabiliy so aren't likely to mess around with something that works. The mid range mac would attract a completely different buyer who want to upgrade the graphics card. Manufacturers would supply these cards with their own drivers, and the problems start. Technical support for a wide range of configurations gets harder with every option.

2. Does Apple want to go head to head with other manufacturers in the largest market? Apple currently compares well in the compact, all-in-one, laptop and workstation markets, how well would it compare in the 'box' market? Since everyone is using x86 processors a head to head with the same hardware is possible and price becomed the only difference (assuming comparable build quality). Apple enters markets when it want to, and I suspect entering the mini tower race would pit it directly against Microsoft.