Since video cards are the big way that Apple distinguishes its products...

The big difference between a regular Mac and this is the video card and the ease of changing it out to upgrade in the future.

I agree with many of the comments here with one notable exception and missed point...

Not only hobbyists will buy this clone, so also will gamers because Apple does not offer such a product that can play the latest games well with the possible exception of the highest end iMac and the Mac Pros, both way above the price range of this Mac, which allows you to swap out to the best gamers' video card you can find practically!

If Apple offered this mythical mid-range slightly expandable gamers type tower, Psystar would be out of business like yesterday. But alas, Steve Jobs is stubborn and refuses to offer such a Mac, so I expect Psystar to sell more of these than people think.

I'm even thinking of buying one myself, of course not as my everyday work computer, but just for games, both Windows and Mac. It seems like the perfect machine for this purpose, with a little hassle of course, but how ELSE can you get such a Mac?

Earth to Steve Jobs...

I can think of a couple of reasons not to compare the Open Computer with a mini. First, as the article pointed out, you can add a dedicated graphics card to it, but you cannot on the Mini. That reason alone gives a huge advantage to the Open Computer. If you're not sure about that, take a look at any of Macworld's speed test between a Mini and an iMac, and the numbers show a clear advantage to machines with the graphics card.

The second reason is the parts used between the two. You are getting a regular desktop hard drive on the OC. The Mini can only fit a laptop HD with it. That limits the size of the drive and generally, the performance.

The third reason is with the OC, you can put up to 4 gigs of ram in it, whereas you're limited to 2 with the Mini.

Of course, with the Mini, you do have that awesome form factor that the OC would never touch, as well as the lack of hassles using a bona fide Mac.

Thanks for getting an Open Computer for testing.

I understand the mid tower Mac requests that folks have. I wish Apple would come out with one for all those folks looking for one, even though my days of wanting one are long since past. I want my computer to be a toaster, as my wife has put it. I just want it to work, and I don't want to have to upgrade computer hardware, ever.

I am going to throw out an idea that I am sure has been written somewhere, but I have not read it. Do you think that Apple is reluctant to put out a mid tower, because Mac Pro users will go for the high end limited graphics card variability, etc. while mid tower users would be all over the map with what they were trying to put in the mid tower, especially the "switchers"? Put that way, for the mid tower Mac sounds like a lot of work for a limited market, because let's face it, most desktop users will still be happier with the iMac. And remember, more and more people are buying laptops, not desktops, as their sole computer.

this just shows there is a demand for a midi tower from apple that is easy to expand, why is Apple so against building one themselves?

---

This question has been asked thousands of times over the last few years. During the pre-Jobsian times, the Mac lineup became dispersed with many different models. When Steve came back he simplified the Mac lineup. I'm thinking that there is concern that a midi tower would eat up sales from both the iMac and the Mac Pro, which it would, but I think it would offer a broad range of consumers the exact Mac many have been looking for.

The midi tower should be about half the size of the current Mac Pro, have a separate AGP or PCI video card (replaceable), enough slots for up to 4GB of RAM, at least 2 additional PCI slots, space for 2 internal 3.5" hard drives, a Superdrive, and a range of dual and quad core CPUs. The stock video card should be able to run any of Apple's 20", 23" and 30" monitors. It should cost about $200 than a similarly equipped iMac (depending on configuration of course).

This would be, in my humble opinion, the perfect Mac for at least 50% - 70% of users who want a desktop Mac but don't want the all-in-one iMac.

From Apple's point of view, a mid tower doesn't make sense for the reasons stated. The iMac is plenty of power for most, and the Pro is all business. The lineup is pretty good for the marketplace, as evidenced in sales.

That said, I really don't believe that there are really all that many Mac users who really give much of a damn about games, despite the vocal nature of the crowd. While that market appears hot now, it is guaranteed to decline for good reasons: computers are general purpose devices and games are better addressed with consoles. Over time, I expect PC-based gaming to go away except for low level, simple games, especially as mobile computing begins to dominate.

I'll wager Steve Jobs thinks so, too.

Agreed, Reading everyones comments I can't say at one point I disagree. It would be nice if Apple offered such a mid-range tower for the average consumer, but they won't. Not when they can post profits like they have. Maybe it's me but I hear the word "mac" and "apple" being used in tech talk a lot more day to day. So with that said I think this open computer is going to open up a new market share to apple in an indirect way, based upon the success or failure of the open computer (this obviously ignoring Apple's possible lawsuit). Just my opinion but if I bought this machine and saw a comparable iMac or Mac Pro I would definitely drool over the look and feel of the hardware, not also to mention it would be supported and come with a warrantee. and maybe just drool enough to make the purchase to the real thing. So that being said it could either attract people to purchasing the authentic Mac experience, or could justify to the consumer to pinch a few pennies and get the cheaper alternative...only time will tell.

Besides we needed someway to get the world off that diseased ridden OS whose name i won't mention...