[natmusak]

I don't understand how rolling out a mid-tower Mac would be considered "different." That's what Apple's competition (Dell, HP, Gateway, Alienware, etc.) have pushed for years. There's no place for one in the Mac lineup. The Mac mini is for people on a serious budget, the iMac is for those who want a nice, all-in-one system at a reasonable price, and the Mac Pro is for the serious, scientific or movie making professional. Where would a midsize tower fit in? What would it cost? How could they...Apple-ify it?

Also, how does buying a pre-configured, mid-tower Mac make you a do-it-yourselfer? Even if Apple created such a thing, what would be so vital in terms of customization? RAM? That's upgradeable on all desktops and laptops, save the MacBook Air. Hard drive? Again, upgradeable on all desktops. Processors? No Macs in recent history have allowed for processor upgrades. Motherboard? Same as processors. Graphics cards? I'm guessing this is what's holding you back from an iMac, or any other Mac for that matter. But don't forget, while the Mac Pro does allow for graphics card upgrades, only Apple-certified cards will work. There aren't many of those. That means the newest, cheapest, or most expensive cards that come out every few months AREN'T Mac Pro compatible. If you're a gamer and this is holding you back from almost everything but a Mac Pro (which is probably too expensive and/or overpowered), I'd give it up. I've learned to be OK with not being at the bleeding edge in terms of graphics cards. I have a 360, Wii, and will probably nab a PS3 in the future. That's where video games are moving because PC gaming is such a pain and expense.

Finally, how are the iPhone and iPod touch not following Apple's "think different" mantra? There's nothing comparable on the market. :D Touch screen phones have been around a few years, but they really are pathetic, running WinCE or Symbian, requiring styluses. They lack sufficient storage space and while they appear cheaper, they end up costing more than the iPhone thanks to their more expensive contracts and subsidizing.

[adobephile]

natmusak said:

Finally, how are the iPhone and iPod touch not following Apple's "think different" mantra? There's nothing comparable on the market. :D Touch screen phones have been around a few years, but they really are pathetic, running WinCE or Symbian, requiring styluses. They lack sufficient storage space and while they appear cheaper, they end up costing more than the iPhone thanks to their more expensive contracts and subsidizing.

I agree. Another point which seems to be lost on many is the value of the integration of the iPhone with the Mac. Seamless syncing of address book and calendar data and music and videos. This is a great time saver.

And I think the Safari browser on the iPhone's generous screen is quite useable. I hope Adobe gets Flash to work on the iPhone soon, though.

I think the general market world-wide has recognized the genius of the iPhone, too, as witnessed by its proliferation on more continents and areas.

It's also a bit of marketing genius to bring the Mac experience to more millions via the iPhone. It is most likely making more people into Mac switchers.

[hayesk]

CPTKILLER said:

The article while interesting sounds like a sound bite from Apple Marketing. In your own editorial staff there is a group that thinks a mini tower is a good thing. It covers a hole in the system that is needed for upgrades, configuration changes, and the concept of doing things my way. The existing Mac's are OK but are hardly innovative any longer. Maybe it is time for Apple to smell the roses (of innovation) again for something other than iPhones and iPods. The latest updates are evolutionary, not the THINK DIFFERENT matra that many of us miss.

I don't buy that at all. Sure there is a group that want a mini tower, but let's face it, it's a very small group. Too small for even Apple to pursue. People who post on MacWorld and other forums are a self-selecting group of keen power users that aren't necessarily representative of the Mac-buying public at large.

I also think it's funny that you think Apple should "THINK DIFFERENT" and produce a mini tower - isn't that's what every PC manufacturer does - sell minitowers?

[hayesk]

This rule should be added to the article: When you decide to buy a Mac, you should already accept that in two weeks a cheaper or better model will come along at the same price. If you can not accept that, don't buy.

[dalegg]

The problem with this article is now I have a lot more damn choices. Used to be, I'd just buy the best Mac I could possibly afford. Now I have a whole slew of stinkin' computers to choose from!
This was very timely for me as I am looking to replace my old G5 dual tower and G4 Powerbook...just about exactly the old $2,500 computers I've always gotten. I may have to wander down to the Apple store and check out the latest Macbook pro and a SINGLE replacement. Or maybe an iMac really would work for the desktop. I'm dubious, but....

[natmusak]

hayesk,

Do HP, Dell, or most of the other PC vendors tell when they're going to launch a new version of their desktops or laptops?

Also, companies that yack about what's coming out BEFORE whatever it is actually comes out run the risk of missing their release date and deflating interest. Apple also has to worry about cloners - legitimate and illegitimate companies that try to replicate their products. If Apple bragged about their next Macs, maybe detailing some new enclosure, cloners would put out a look alike before Apple released their product. Look at Microsoft with Vista, and just about everything else they've ever tried to sell. They use their products to distract from their competition, but I can't remember a MS press conference when they said "and you can take one of these home...today!"

Apple doesn't have to tell it's customers to wait for the next iPhone because they really don't kill support for the previous generation. Their products are so good, most people don't mind either keeping what they have or buying the next iteration. Their products are so sought after, people can easily sell their old iPhone or Mac on eBay. An iMac I bought for $1000 at our university's tech shop went for $1500 on eBay, which got me closer to buying a 15" PowerBook G4.

Nobody's forcing anyone to go buy the upcoming 3G iPhone. Apple's still supporting 867GHz PowerPC Macs with Leopard, so that should give you a good measure on how long they'll support the first gen iPhone. When people make the mistake of buying when a new product will probably be released shortly, Apple generally stalls their order and replaces the product for free or charge a negligible restocking fee. If you miss the window of return, hey, that's the world of technology. :D

[fitz]

What I found interesting about the article is the implication that if you are not someone who does computationally-intense work, you have no business owning a Mac Pro. Maybe I don't need a Mac Pro, but since I can afford it and wanted it, I bought it. Sure, my Mac Pro 2.8GHz (with 14GB RAM, 3.5TB hard drive and GT8800) cost quite a bit more than an iMac, but it absolutely screams. It also makes me feel good owning such a high-powered work of art (that pride thing someone mentioned). Kind of like preferring a Lexus over a Hyundai - both will get you from point A to point B. One just does it with more style.

[iSeeXiMac]

You could use Qemu witch is free. I got Windows 2000 and it runs great. Why pay for something? Find the free route. :-)

[CPTKILLER]

You and I can agree to disagree. I'm engineer and started on a Fat Mac when it was something unique. That said, I still want a mini tower that I can change configuration based on my changing needs or budget restraints. As an example, I might by a low end mini tower and later add a better graphics card. That has been my norm often. The other part is a potential CPU upgrade assuming that it can be replaced without swapping the motherboard. I agree that iPhone and iPod are unique.

I don't see a lot of engineering innovation coming out of Apple. Some ideas from Apple are great and some weren't. In my case, I bought a Cube because it was innovative. It unfortunately was released prematurely and proved in my case to be unreliable. I was using it for a small engineering consulting business. I almost got into some difficulty except for some excellent Apple response for warranty repair. At that point I realized the limitations of: one machine does all without expansion capability, poor engineering at Apple, and other features that limited my work. Apple must have agreed and dropped the Cube although some of the engineering probably led to the Mini. For my money, I like the iMac but it doesn't meet my needs.

[shoaf]

Regarding expandability: My biggest concern before I bought my C2D iMac (white/non-glossy) was the expandability issue. My previous G4 PowerMac had lasted several years and I made good use of the ability to upgrade the internal components -- HD, , vid card, RAM, and Optical drive, as well as adding on a couple new ones (like a USB 2.0 card). My rationale for going with the iMac (which obviously runs circles around the G4) was that the lower price would make it easier to justify a new machine sooner. Instead of spending money to upgrade a tower for 5-6 years, I'll just get a whole new computer in 2-3 years instead.
At this point a MacBook Pro looks like the most likely successor, while the iMac will probably go to my son.

[lwdesign]

When my aging, but still terrific, Apple 22" Cinema Display died 3 weeks ago, I went out an bought a brand new 30" Cinema Display that I'm running with my now also aging G5 tower. I considered getting a 24" iMac which was the same price as the 30" monitor but I do graphic design work and the glossy screen just won't work for proper color retouching. This is my only beef with the current round of iMacs: they're only produced with glossy glass screens, and that leaves out many serious artists who need the matte screen for more accurate color. THIS is why a mid-tower Mac would be terrific, so it could be used with a matte Cinema Display.

[shoaf]

lwdesign said:

I considered getting a 24" iMac which was the same price as the 30" monitor but I do graphic design work and the glossy screen just won't work for proper color retouching. This is my only beef with the current round of iMacs: they're only produced with glossy glass screens, and that leaves out many serious artists who need the matte screen for more accurate color. THIS is why a mid-tower Mac would be terrific, so it could be used with a matte Cinema Display.

I agree a thousand percent. I'm glad I got my iMac before they went with the glossy screen.

[Archiform_3D]

Actually, I have nothing but praise for the MacMini. I bought one out of sheer desperation as a temporary render server for a week and now I use it as a little central admin device in the office. I run a Filemaker database off it and a whole stack of things that was taking up precious time and space on my MacBook Pro. Definitely a fine little machine and one worthwile for everyday use - and a nice alternative to wanting your own external screen. Hard to belive it's really a computer in there and not just a DVD burner!

Steve Bell


Archiform 3D

[Gee4orce]

Don't forget though, that a lot of the colour shifting problem isn't because the screens are glossy, but because Apple have been using inferior 6-bit displays with the 20" models. I can't pretend to have first hand experience of doing a side-by-side comparison, but the 24" models are supposed to exhibit less in the way of colour shifting.

Don't forget that you can probably also run your existing monitor off the iMac as well as it's internal display, and use the second monitor for that super-colour critical work.

It amazes me how few people ever even bother calibrating their display though ! it's the first thing I do on a Mac....