[Macworld]

Post your comments for Psystar sells a $399 Mac clone here

[chase]

You forgot to include the size of the hard drive??

[Jeter2Fan93]

{quote}?Why spend $1999 to get the least expensive Apple computer with a decent video card when you can pay less than a fourth of that for an equivalent sleek and small form-factor desktop with the same hardware,? says a note on the company Web site.{quote}

So what, my 20" iMac that costs' $1199 isn't least expensive? May not have the best video card, but it gets the job done. Can't wait to see the cease and desist order from Apple.

[lwdesign]

I think this, hopefully, may spur Apple to come out with a mid-range tower that I and many others in several different forums (forae?) have been asking for. How about a cabinet about 1/3 to 1/2 the size of a MacPro with room for 2 internal SATA hard drives, a single Superdrive, 2 to 4 RAM slots capable of up to 4GB, a video card slot with a decent video card, 1 or 2 expansion card slots, and built-in Airport and Bluetooth. Would be sweet at about $850 - $1000. Then reduce the price of the mini. The new midiMac would sell like hotcakes.

[hillstones]

For $399, you get a POS with no software. What a bargain. All the bells and whistles, including Mac OS X, cost extra.

[dreyfus]

Fully agree with Iwdesign. And it is "fora" :-)
Even if such a machine would be 1200-1300 USD, we would replace 25 administration PCs immediately. The Mini is chocking on Leopard (running 10.5 and Word from Office 2008 results in page outs to a slow disk - worst performance possible, 2 GB RAM are not enough) and we calculate admin workstations for a 5-year cycle, w/o an accessible HD and a possibility to put a better GPU in if needed, no deal. We cannot use the current iMacs because of the glossy screens (no discussions needed - they will not be approved) and no way we will buy Mac Pros for these positions. Apple: Move.

[Gorthaur42]

I agree with lwdesign, at least on the computer. But I'm pretty sure forae isn't a word. I don't think that Apple clones are a good idea, but hopefully it'll wake Apple up a bit. What I want; a tower alternative to the 20" iMac. Same specs, but in a tower, which, correct me if I'm wrong, would allow Apple to sell it at a reduced price. Something to fill up that space between the Mac mini and the iMacs. Which isn't to say that I'd buy one of these clones over a Mac. I'll fork over the cash for an iMac, I'd just rather not have to.

[plentyofpaper654]

We really pay a lot for Machines that can run our OS of choice. You can find competitors that charge similar rates for comparable models to what Apple has, but if you build a computer to match what Apple offers with it's desktops, you can shave a huge amount off of the price. Seems like you can build a Mac Mini equivalent for around $250 (that's a pretty rough estimate just looking at stuff from newegg.com. I won't pretend I made no mistakes in coming up with the number. It would be a miracle if the hardware I looked at actually worked when put together. But I don't think the number is too far off.) I really wish I could run OSX on something like that. I'd gladly sacrifice Apple's nice looking hardware design for a couple hundred bucks.
The OS on the other hand I feel is easily worth it's price.

[mdawson]

I agree with this point except that the missing Mac that people have been discussing is not a sub-$1000 consumer-level system. Apple has the consumer space well covered with the Mac mini for casual users and the iMac for a range of consumer-grade computer users; Apple does not cater to the bargain basement market so the Mac mini is as low as it goes. Apple actually designs each system for a given market, so they do not strip down higher-end systems to sell them on the cheap. As Apple’s consumer-level systems goes, Apple actually recognizes that most in the market for a consumer-level system will not perform hardware upgrades beyond maybe adding RAM and have designed the iMac and Mac mini accordingly. Truly comparable Wintel PCs cost just as much as any given iMac and Wintel Mac mini clones typically cost $100 to $200 more than a comparable Mac mini.

The missing Mac is a prosumer/professional system that should be comparable to the Mac Pro in terms of processing power, less expandable than a full-sized tower like the Mac Pro, but expandable all the same unlike the iMac that is and has always been designed to suit the home/education market where hardware upgrades are of minimal concern. Thus, your specs are mostly correct:

* A chassis that is 1/3 to 1/2 the volume of the Mac Pro;
* A single, fast Core Duo for the low-end or a single quad-core Xeon for the higher-end models (this would of course mean two different motherboards);
* 2 internal SATA drive bays;
* a single SuperDrive (moving to SATA would be nice, but even the fastest optical drives are far from pushing the envelope of ATA-100);
* 4 FB-DIMM slots allowing up to 16 GB RAM (4GB is a minimum for many pro users);
* At least two PCIe slots (one for the video card); and,
* Built-in AirPort and Bluetooth.

Such a system would sell in the $1600 to $2600 range with Core Duo systems selling for up to $2000/2100 and the Xeons on the more expensive models. Where the Mac Pro is well suited to pro users that need to add specialized hardware out-of-the-box while maintaining room to grow, those that have large, on-demand, independent storage needs or those needing workstation-level processing capabilities, such users are actually in the minority of the pro market. The other group that benefits from a system like the Mac Pro are hardcore gamers, but the inexcusable lack of variety of cards available for the Mac and the fact that even the most powerful Mac-compatible graphics cards are typically lax compared to Wintel cards precludes the Mac Pro from competing against Wintel gaming rigs.

A constituency of pro users that generally do not perform processor-intensive tasks can get by just fine with something like the iMac. A minority of pro users in highly specialized fields need a system like the Mac Pro, but a large number, if not the majority of pro users, would be best suited by the missing Mac.

[plentyofpaper654]

The missing mac is an iMac without so much built into it. The all in one computer is just a bad idea in terms of functionality. It looks nice and cuts down on user intimidation (don't have to connect anything.) but you have to throw out everything when you get a new computer. I don't want to throw out a perfectly good computer monitor just because the computer is attached to is showing it's age. I want to give the computer to a friend, get myself a new computer, and hook it up to the old monitor. Cuts off maybe a couple hundred dollars from the computer price and creates far less waste.

[williambraski]

Violating the EULA would be on the part of the operator, not the vendor. Second, EULA's really haven't tested in court. On their face, they're a poor example of a solid contractual obligation.
I know people running OS X on off the shelf PC's with no mods to the OS. Apple would have to a sue many more vendors than just these guys.

[folklore]

They seem to imply that their $399 model includes a better video card than the Mini, but the base model actually includes Intel's GMA 950. Adding a GeForce 8600GT (512mb) costs $155, adding FireWire costs $50, and Leopard costs $155 (from them, installed).
So, in order to have a roughly comparable system to a Mini but with better graphics, one has to spend $659.
Hardly the bargain the marketing materials suggest.
Add to that cost the hassles of probable driver issues, broken updates, etc - and the fact that you're breaking the EULA - and it's pretty clear that this product isn't going to save folks that much money.

[mdawson]

You point has been brought to the table numerous times in the past and simply put, it is obviously not a concern for most people. Laptops, which are also all-in-one designs, currently outsell desktops, so having to replace everything when it is time to replace a system is apparently of less concern to most than the convenience that all-in-one's provide. The more technically inclined and IT types are more concerned with servicing issues involved with all-in-ones, the average user is not.

So, as I stated previously, the missing Mac is a system that fills the gap between the iMac and Mac Pro. It is that system that has been discussed here previously. In the past there was much discussion about a headless iMac, but it has been established that there is little need for Apple to design such a system for the iMac?s target market. Consumer-level Macs are all about convenience and the all-in-one design is about as convenient as it gets for people for whom having a plethora separate components taking over their desk is not desirable, as is the case for most home users.

[dreyfus]

"Consumer-level Macs are all about convenience and the all-in-one design is about as convenient as it gets for people for whom having a plethora separate components taking over their desk is not desirable, as is the case for most home users."
While I agree with you otherwise... If this would be true, why are some 99% of desktop computers not all-in-one? Compaq and IBM (and maybe others) had all-in-one designs in the late 80s and early 90s - I had an old Compaq all-in-one (looking fairly similar to the CRT iMac, except for the colourful design) with a slim keyboard as early as 1990... Nobody wanted them. People know they need new hardware with every new OS (and OS X is absolutely no difference - try some CoreImage stuff like the Fire-effect in Keynote or just the entry-effect of Dashboard on a Mini), every new version of Office software and (if that applies) with every new generation of games. The lifetime of an LCD Panel in at least 5 years, but you need more RAM and HD space all the time and more and more GPU power is required at least every 24 months. Expecting people to move to an AIO and switch OSs at the same time is a huge barrier - Apple is loosing switchers because of a lack of "more conventional" hardware. Make it good looking, get your margin, but stop telling people what they want, need or trust.