[MacKayaker]

I find it amazing how opinionated people can be, when they seem so unconnected to users interests/needs beyond their own.

While it would be fine if Apple wanted to lower the price on the Mini, in truth, the Mini needs the processor and RAM bumps the iMac and MacBooks have received - it hasn't seen any real upgrades in close to a year, if memory serves. And the Mini is a perfect system for many more users than most replying seem to have a sense for. If you worked with a wide range of Mac users, as I do, you would be surprised how many don't use their systems to work with photos, video, or games - but instead email, some internet browsing and some text-based document creation are all they use their computer for. The iMac can be overkill, due to price, for some I deal with - yet the Mini is a perfect fit - in features and form.

While many people are into laptops these days, for many, it really isn't need driven. Laptops are poor investments - but necessary for some users. The same money invested in a desktop system will provide much more that leads to a better user experience and without the high price penalty for portability. Laptops are a necessary evil, but not very many "business" people have or need them, as some posters are suggesting.

A mid-sized tower would cannabalize Mac Pro sales for sure, but it is way more system than most need. Yet, the iMac is clearly not enough - so a mid-sized a priced tower is more about providing a system that better serves customers. The Mac Pro really is overkill for many who end up getting it, but they have no option - so they are stuck. People seem to be into car analogies - so it's like having the need for a two door car that provides average trunk space and decent gas mileage and being required to purchase a diesel truck with a crew cab and long bed. If you need the truck, then fine - but most don't. And in those instances, I see most people choosing to get less system than they need, by getting an iMac, then experiencing frustration because it's not up to the tasks it was purchased to perform - though it was in the budget range. A mid-sized tower is about meeting customer need and allowing a user to decide what kind of display they want - not being limited to Apple's couple of choices and being stuck with a system that can't be easily, or cheaply upgraded.

[rcpmac]

Once you add in mouse kbd and display to a cheap mid tower then what does the $ formula look like? My brother uses a 600 MHz 7 year old ibook.
Works great, has wireless, he replaced the battery via ebay merchant for $38 although he could have just plugged it in and did for a couple of months. He has no inclination to upgrade. He emails shops writes and watches youtube on it. They cost about $300 on craigslist and there are hundreds of them sold on ebay for around $300. search ibook completed auctions. So what is it that you need that isn't currently available?

[MacKayaker]

You can get a good keyboard and (better three-button + scroll wheel) mouse for $50-75. Display is $150-300 depending on size and quality and more if one really needs higher end.

The challenge with the older system depends on the needs of the user. If it's a person who does a lot of internet stuff on newer sites or sites that update regularly and especially if there is buying, accounts. etc. involved, then one really needs to be with the last version or two of the operating system to be able to stay current on Java, etc. If just basic email and not much need to work with attachments other than the occasional JPG, then that can be handled okay on older systems, even Mac OS 9.
Today I dealt with a user with an Intel iMac running Mac OS 10.4.7 and they were having problems working with selling items through a site - to the degree that their browser would crash. Once I updated them to 10.4.11 and that included two major Java updates - service was restored and turned out to be even better than before.

Cheaper mid-tower is more about getting a system with at least two internal hard drives - four slots for RAM for 8-16GB - a video card that can be replaced/upgraded, if desired, etc. Leave the MacPro with four HD bays, eight RAM slots, and multiple expansion slots. That's my thinking. And around 90% of the people that I work with that currently have MacPros would get them and probably 25-50% of those getting iMacs would get the mid-tower, as it would be a better fit for their resource needs.

[rcpmac]

If the point is economy, you have already out spent my $300 proposal just in your accessories. Extra internal hard drive? That is so 20th century and really not necessary especially with 160GB portable USB models priced at $75 and on sale for less. Any white g3 imac can run osx well and you don't need the latest version.
Regarding your client's problems posting ad's, using software update and repairing permissions is 99% sufficient to fix such issues. What most miss is that repairing permissions should be done after booting from the OSX install disk. Teaching a mac user these 2 small maintenance methods will keep them trouble free. I still fail to see any justification for this mid tower thing.

[MacKayaker]

Well - from a performance perspective - a second internal drive isn't "so 20th century." External drives take up more space and surprisingly enough can be a challenge for customers who really don't understand their system and how things work with them - which is a lot of people - so when it doesn't mount, while it's certainly easy enough to deal with, for me - a number of those who I have encouraged to go that route have found it unworkable - yet because of the storage needs they require, they really need more space. Also, for those doing heavier video or audio stuff (consumer level, not pro) they still really benefit from using the stock drive for system and apps and using a second drive for capture. The consumer level apps don't like to capture to an external and most of the manuals recommend against it. The same performance gain is had for those using desktop publishing apps, yet most doing that kind of work don't need all the capacity of a Mac Pro.
I'll agree about the situation with using software update and repairing permissions. The catch is that Apple does release duds once in awhile and so I don't think it's safe to leave software update on to run automatically - especially when, as a matter of prevention, people should do some things in preparation for system upgrades, etc. You would be surprised at how few are willing to mess with such things - they would rather not learn a "few steps" and be responsible for the results. Honestly - you really would be surprised.

I feel strongly about the mid-tower as much about price and performance as anything else - why should a customer have to spend $3K for a system when if there were a decent one at under $2K that would do the job, they could get that AND the RAM they should get - instead of being forced to get the $3K system, or spend $2k and be stuck with limited or expensive upgrades and a display they may not want, if they had the choice. I guarantee a mid-tower like many have proposed would provide a realistic step between the iMac and the MacPro. The iMac tops out at 4GB of RAM, and that is woefully inadequate for most publishing users, yet most don't need the 32 GB capacity of the MacPro, nor four internal hard drives. A mid-tower is about a system that hits far more of the users than is currently addressed by any other system in the line-up - perhaps other than the Mac Mini.

All one has to do is spend a bit of time talking with users and check out Activity Monitor to know when more RAM and/or more internal storage would be a huge benefit. It really does come down to customer need - which is measurable - not just theoretical. It's about designing a system to have the resources that the system will need to perform the tasks it's used for - well. There isn't such a system for the "pro-sumer" user, nor the publishing market, as the current MacPros really are designed for video work at this point. Don't get me wrong - they are sweet for publishing - but their high cost can be a hard sell for business or consumer needing more than what an iMac is capable of.

[rcpmac]

Really, a 24-inch: 3.06GHz imac won't handle publishing? I am surprised to hear that! I run Photoshop and Vectorworks 12 CAD software as well as a safari and word all simultaneously with out a glitch on my 24" 2.4GHz imac with 4gb. The display is unbeatable and I can plug in a second if I want for menus and scratch windows. In my experience the portable hard drive is just as simple as a thumb drive to use.
If your users are that power demanding, they should be willing to spend and tax write off the extra grand or go to the used or refurb market to save that grand.
Example I paid $1150 for my 24" 2.4GHz imac which was an open box Best Buy return and came with full warranty.
i believe the suggestion you are making would be harmful to the structure of apple's line. I see no reason why they would do this as it would cannibalize tower sales and I for one would prefer to see the company remain in the black as they basically are doing all of the legwork in researching and shaping the interface experience for the entire industry.

[rcpmac]

Here, buy it from a discount house. http://ctistore.com/product/1/code,MA970LLA.html

[MacKayaker]

I didn't say an iMac wouldn't handle publishing at all - but for most, it won't handle it well. Most people I work with doing desktop publishing have Word, Entourage, browser of choice, Photoshop, Illustrator, and layout program of choice open all at the same time - as a minimum. Let's see Photoshop can use 3GB of RAM by itself, Illustrator at least 2GB and I'm not sure what InDesign or Quark will consume these days - that is well past what the iMac will handle well, and it doesn't address scratch disk space, which is always best from a second drive. This is the kind of thing that is easily document by how muchor little a person sees the beachball, how much delay there is between program switches, and a visit to the Activity Monitor to see page ins/page outs.You can haul a horse trailer with a Toyota Corolla - I wouldn't recommend it, but you can do it. When time is money and people are typically dealing with a lot of deadlines, then it's best to choose a system that is designed to meet their needs. And I've worked with a number of people who have chosen iMacs for publishing work - then called me to address the slowness, delays, etc. I didn't say one couldn't do publishing work with an iMac - it can be done - but each situation has to be evaluated on it's own needs before I would say it's a wise option to do so.

For many an external drive can be no big deal (I have six in my collection) - like you say - as simple as a thumb drive - but older users don't always get the simplicity and especially when things don't work as they are supposed to - then it gets frustrating for them. And having an external isn't just a matter of plugging in and leaving it - it adds elements to the high road of maintenance that many don't want to be aware of, or hassle with. And when people do have problems with their externals because they chose not to understand best use practices, they call me to "fix it."

While the 24" screen may work well for you - and I have a number of customers with them that are also equally happy - it would drive me nuts, as an issue of ergonomics. Two 20" displays works far better for me - for print/web publishing and everyone for whom I've set up a system like it (that was doing DTP as their main work has loved it. And of the customers I have that have the 24" iMac - none of them are DTP or publishing people - they are all consumers, who love the screen real estate for when they use iPhoto

I can respect that you feel a mid-line tower would be harmful to Apple's product line. As I have already said - I just don't think people should be forced to choose a Mac truck simply because that's the only option they have if they have anything but average needs. As I have already said - for the wide range of customers I currently have - a mid-sized tower would serve their needs and budget far better than what most have currently. There are a handful that use and benefit from the power and options of the Mac Pro, but for most it is overkill - while the iMac options are inadequate, as they currently exist. PC users have infinite variety available to them and I don't think it's too much to ask for an Apple originated system that better serves a large segment of the user base than current offerings.

[moose_n_squirrel]

rcpmac said:

Extra internal hard drive? That is so 20th century and really not necessary especially with 160GB portable USB models priced at $75 and on sale for less.

For general users you might be right. For much of Apple's core market you are wrong because the second hard drive is not used for linear expansion but for parallel access. Anyone heavy into audio, video, or Photoshop knows that having a separate mechanism handling media data streams (audio/video/photo source files) is much, much faster than hammering a single hard drive by making it do both system and application disk access.

Even if you're a casual user, you might want to have a Time Machine drive in an internal bay rather than use up another power outlet, data port, and desk space. No, additional internal drives are still massively useful in this century. If Apple put a second hard drive into the MacBook Pros I would consider that a major feature.

[rcpmac]

Well that's a very interesting user profile. To me it just sounds like a pro-machine requirement. The link I posted had the pro at $25XX. If you are in business this is peanuts as a primary tool investment that will last you 6 years. It also seems that the demand you are describing is a long way from a mini. What price level would you expect for a mid tower.
Regarding the imac screen, as I mentioned the display port handles an additional display. I would be tempted to network dual entry level imacs together.

[MacKayaker]

It is a Pro-machine requirement currently - only because we have no other option.

I would also observe that six years is likely an unrealistic range to expect from that system, as a primary system - for a consumer perhaps, but not a business - not if time is a key factor in the work they do. Personally, I get six to eight years out of a system, but I have two main systems and my main creative system is replaced every three or four years, then becomes the slave system, which is used primarily for the less intense stuff and for the purpose of a division of labor. Been doing it for a number of cycles and it works well for me. I know shops that replace their main creative systems every two to three years, as they have lots of bucks and anything that saves them time pays for itself in short order.

The iMac will handle a second display, but the video card really isn't so strong as to really handle that well. It has the ability, but that doesn't mean it can do it well.

The demand I described is a way long way from a Mini. Especially currently, the iMac would be a better choice than the Mini. The Mini is great for people with basic needs and/or office scenarios - okay for photos (basic user) - okay for music (basic iTunes user), though if much of either, might need external storage, depending on the model purchased, iPods owned, cameras used, etc.. The big issue with the Mini is that it hasn't seen any real improvement in a year, or so - so still stuck with older procesor speeds and limited to 2 GB of RAM. Each version of the OS requires more RAM - just to run the OS well, leaving less for apps, so it really would be nice to see that go to 4, and allow the iMac to go to 8 - along with a mid-tower that could go to 8 or 16.

[Neil_Anderson]

That's quite the graph. Very nice pictorial representation of how Macs took off since 2004.

[Neil_Anderson]

Apple has a good chance of hitting 10 million Mac sales for this year. I suspect they're having a great back-to-school sale with a free iPod touch thrown in.

[vulpine]

Biallystock said:

I love how many posters have rated the new iMac glossy as just what the market wanted, proved by increasing Mac sales.

Not one poster in this thread up to the time you posted said one word about that.

Quote

A quick look at the graph shows the growth is all in the laptops and in fact desktop sales, including the iMacs have fallen.

I think you'd better look at that graph again. While desktops sales are slightly smaller than FY'06 they are higher than FY'07. My guess is that the desktop machines haven't changed enough to attract new buyers since that rather large jump in '05 and '06.

Quote

IF and only IF Apple actually shaped its products to customer demand rather than their own fashion peccadilloes, the desktop market could take off just as much as the laptop market. Key products would be a better pricepoint mini, a better mini at the mini's pricepoint, a headless midi which has always been the computer of choice for business and studios, and finally a non-glossy iMac for the designer market.

Ummm... huh? So what do you want them to strip out of the Mini? Bluetooth? Wireless? RAM? For what it's got the Mini is already the least expensive machine on the market. I will admit that there are a number of people who want a "headless midi," but do you really think there's enough demand for it? After all, you'd still have to buy a new display for it unless you're coming off a PC and the higher-end Mini fills that gap, or at least part of it.

Quote

After all in the forums the split for and against the glossy iMac is 50/50 with it appears as most of the for being non-professionals. Need I point out that amateurs usually only buy one machine for themselves. Professional studios buy multiple machines.

And I'm a professional freelancer who happens to appreciate the glossy screen over the matte one.