[moose_n_squirrel]

[quote name='n8mac']
>

hayesk said:

> 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.
Think about what you are saying. You stated that those who want a mini tower are a small group. You then state that that's what every other PC manufacturer sells. Have you seen the sales numbers of those other manufacturer's vs. Apples?

Those saying it's a "small market" are probably misstating it. Apple probably knows it's a large market. Apple probably thinks that, the way they work out the numbers, the mid-range tower cannot be priced to return higher margins than another product they believe would provide higher returns for the same investment. I'll bet that's what it comes down to. Apple does not like to play a straight low-price/volume game, we know that. They might say "We have x many products, a finite number, so which mix returns the highest margins?" and the mid tower margins may come in below, say, a MacBook Air.

Some say it's a fear of cannibalization, but that is easily disproven. Apple has no fear of adding formerly pro features to the MacBook, or adding the MacBook Air to the lineup, or replacing the bestselling iPod mini with the uncharted iPod nano. All signs point to it something other than market size or cannibalization, so a likely candidate is projected margins. Apple has a margin to protect for its shareholders; high-margin products go to the front of the line. Maybe that's why the mini went up $100 and never went back down.

n8mac said:

Regarding using an iMac/Macbook Pro for two screens vs. a Mac Pro. Remember that when using two screens on a AIO both screens share the same non-replaceable graphics card, very limiting especially down the road. Using a tower means each monitor gets it's own card.

For most work, the graphics cards in today's laptops and desktops is more than adequate. When the base model MacBook Pro can drive the biggest monitor Apple has, that's pretty good video. Also, I have a Mac Pro and plug two monitors into the single video card that it came with. The real reason isn't each monitor getting its own card, it's the possibility to add more or newer cards. Actually, from a video standpoint, I didn't need a Mac Pro, I still have three free slots. I got this thing for the RAM capacity and drive bays.

[Podesta]

The new iMacs have me considering a desktop computer for the first time in several years. I have been using two laptops, previously a PowerBook G4 and a MacBook Pro (2.16 Ghz), recently that MBP and my MacBook Air. Since I no longer carry my MBP anyway, I could use a desktop computer as a replacement for it at home. The additional power and big, television comparable, HD compatible monitor of the 24-inch iMac would be assets.

I think the people who want to spend as little money as possible are likely to be annoyed with Apple because of its modest stable of products. Someone like technolawyer would be better served by Windows compatible low-end computer sellers.

[Jarmo]

Or to rephrase the article.

I'm a pro user so I need a powerful desktop tower.

Answer: Tough break, Apple doesn't make those.
Only heavy duty workstations or design products made out of laptop parts available.
You'll have to make do somehow.

[technolawyer]

Podesta said:

I think the people who want to spend as little money as possible are likely to be annoyed with Apple because of its modest stable of products. Someone like technolawyer would be better served by Windows compatible low-end computer sellers.

Where did I say I was looking for a bargain? And why would I switch to Windows when I stated that I've bought a new Mac every two years since 1999? Plus I've used a Mac since 1990 and before that the Apple II series. Not to mention buying Windows versions of the software I use would cost more than a Mac Pro.

If I were looking for a bargain, I'd get a mini. We have two in the office. A colleague uses one and the other is a file server that will be replaced next week with a Mac Pro tricked out with Apple RAID card and 4 1 TB hard drives (we did not buy the drives from Apple).

[alexrest]

i never fully appreciated how wonderful it is to sync data with the iPhone until my sister got a RAZR2. it felt so archaic to try to send contacts back and forth, trying to sync photos. music and video felt so laborious, i have a lot more respect for the ease-of-use that the iPhone brings right out of the box on your first day.

[lajka]

Interesting article, although I have few thoughts:
- I guess its a mistake not to mention power consumption these days. Buying a Mac pro for home seems to be crazy. It's eating amazing amount of energy comparing an iMac, not to mention a MacBook. Wake up people, compute responsibly: you don't need 8 cores to browse the web nor running graphic apps.
- Photoshop wasn't only for Power Mac/Mac pro. In my carrier I've using mostly consumer macs and never had speed issues.
- As other reader mention - glossy screen is an issue. I have to add, if you really concerned about color works, LCD might be an even bigger problem. Just pick a light yellow in PS, fill a layer and set opacity to 10%. Eyedropper will see how many color left there, unlike you. You'll see white. This is even a bigger issue with the entry level iMac with color dithering.
- If you're a really serious gamer, you'll get an xBox or PS anyway. Casual games runs just fine on a low-end mac. Choosing a Mac by it's graphics subsystem is a little silly, except you're a 3D artist. For the majority of people, - and I mean it's like 90% - a GPU witch can do Core graphic just fine. It's not even making sense: an iMac and an xBox 360 is still cheeper than a Mac Pro ? eats a lot less energy too. I mean you won't fire a monster graphic card for hours while you read this article.

[dfs]

With one exception, I agree with this article's conclusions, but it has one major flaw. Yes, the Mac Pro is rapidly evolving into a workstation aimed at professional users in terms of what it includes, what it omits, and its price point (I guess that's why it's called a Mac Pro), leaving the iMac as Mac's high-end product aimed at the general consumer. If I were buying a Mac for the first time, I'd no doubt choose an iMac. But here's my problem -- I already own a very nice 23" Cinema Display. If I choose an iMac what exactly am I supposed to do with it??? There are two ways Apple could help me out with this problem: market a headless mini-tower or put a port on the iMac that would allow it to drive a second monitor. If they won't do either, I don't see how I could ever justify buying an iMac, so my next Mac (which I probably won't be buying for a number of years) will in all probability be another Mac Pro.

[lajka]

Check out iMac spec again. It CAN drive an external 23". It has a connector called mini DVI. All you need is a little mini DVI to DVI dongle. It's like 30 USD at apple store.

[natmusak]

n8mac said:

Think about what you are saying. You stated that those who want a mini tower are a small group. You then state that that's what every other PC manufacturer sells. Have you seen the sales numbers of those other manufacturer's vs. Apples?

Should we all just give up on a tried and true formula just because we are Mac users? I bet you many a PC user wanting to switch to OS X has stopped in their tracks when they found they couldn't purchase a computer like they already owned.

Alright, a couple things here. First, I have seen the sales for PC vendors. They're in the toilet. PC sales are nearly stagnant, increasing by a measly 3% each year while Apple's Macs are increasing by 30% each year. Apple's completely outpacing the PC world in terms of sales BECAUSE OF THEIR DIFFERENTIATED PRODUCTS. People buy an iMac because they want something different. For those who need their new Mac to slightly resemble their old Dell or HP, they have the Mac mini (which can serve tons of casual computer users) and the Mac Pro (it may be overkill, but I wouldn't doubt PC gamers are more into it). Most consumers though, would be more than well suited by an iMac. Powerful, looks cool, saves space, resembles a TV, has a remote (Front Row totally kills all those lame "Media Center" PCs), allows one to go almost completely wireless, except for the power chord obviously. If I didn't need portability, I'd buy an iMac today. And on the subject of laptops, while Apple does produce laptops that somewhat resemble the competitions, you really can recognize a Mac in the crowd. The Air, which will be my next laptop when they offer a larger hard drive or solid state drive at a reasonable price, is another example of how case differentiation make Apple's products so sought after while the competition continues to push the old mini tower and rectangular, chunky laptop.

[sigma8]

I'm assuming that "Good" is better than "Fair", right? How is it that the MacBook has an expandability of "Good", but the MacBook Pro has an expandability of "Fair"? The MBP has an ExpressCard slot and FW800. The MB does not. The MBP also lets you use DVI straight away while the MB requires an adapter. All other ports are identical between the two machines.
The way my math works, it says that the MBP is more expandable than the MB, thus should have a higher rating than the MB.

[Gee4orce]

I spotted that one too - I'm guessing it's because you can very easily replace the hard drive in a Macbook, but it's a serious process to do that in a Pro. Running out of disk space is something everybody does - but attaching a FW800 device or a PC card is probably only something a few people do.

I'd argue that both these machines should share a 'Good' rating, but for different reasons...

[technolawyer]

Quote

{quote}Alright, a couple things here. First, I have seen the sales for PC vendors. They're in the toilet. PC sales are nearly stagnant, increasing by a measly 3% each year while Apple's Macs are increasing by 30% each year.

You're confusing growth with volume. The volume of mini towers sold far exceeds Apple's sales numbers. And the slowing growth is likely the result of factors other than the mini tower design. Like another person said, wouldn't you trust Ives to design a mini tower the likes of which the world has never seen? I would.

[bpaskin]

I agree with natmusak. I switched from Linux and Windows to Mac a few months ago. I still use Linux for a variety of things.
My problem was choosing which Mac was the best for me. Since I have several computers I did not need one with a screen and the Mac Mini was not powerful enough. The article points out that using USB or Firewire to hook up other devices is a good idea, but not practical for my needs. And the Mac Pro is too much power and over priced ($500 for 2 GB of ECC RAM!).
What I did was to create my own Mac. I bought everything, including OS X, but I put the machine together myself. I would have bought one, if Apple had the foresight to make such a machine, but they seem not to want market share.
My machine is like a Mac Pro, though the Quad processor is not a Xeon and the 4 GB of RAM is not ECC. However, for $1000 less than Apple is selling their low end Mac Pro, it is well worth it. I have 2 internal DVD burners, as well as 2 hard drives, expandable up to 6.
Maybe one day Apple will realize that they are losing some of the battle because they refuse to make a machine that is upgradeable for the average consumer.

[moose_n_squirrel]

bpaskin said:

>$500 for 2 GB of ECC RAM!).

Geez, where were you shopping for RAM, from the computer maker itself (Apple)? I wouldn't do that for a Mac or a PC.

2GB of Mac Pro RAM should cost $113 (macsales.com). For your $500, you should be getting 12GB of RAM!