[Mac Donald]

The new Mac Mini is it. So now we no longer have to hear the constant, monthly whine about how Apple needs to come out with one. Look, you buy a core duo 1.67 with superdrive, add in an external hard-drive specifically made for the Mini, and for under a grand you have a pretty smoking computer capable of doing a lot of things.

So I don't want here any more about how Apple doesn't have a mid-range desktop. OK. Glad to clear that up.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Mac Donald The new Mac Mini is it. So now we no longer have to hear the constant, monthly whine about how Apple needs to come out with one. Look, you buy a core duo 1.67 with superdrive, add in an external hard-drive specifically made for the Mini, and for under a grand you have a pretty smoking computer capable of doing a lot of things. So I don't want here any more about how Apple doesn't have a mid-range desktop. OK. Glad to clear that up.

um....no.

Show me a midrange desktop that has a decent graphic card.

Also, once you add a keyboard, mouse and display to the mini it's not exactly cheap.

[ZachPruckowski]

Bingo, BU. A midrange desktop would have a graphics card. that's what keeps this from being in the iMac ballpark.

[MINK]

soooo..... the iMac is the midrange. below it the mini, above it the pro.
am i missing something?
ohhh... you want to pay $500 less and run windows? off you go....

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by MINK soooo..... the iMac is the midrange. below it the mini, above it the pro. am i missing something? ohhh... you want to pay $500 less and run windows? off you go....

NO, we want to pay $500 less so we can use a different monitor. Some of us already have really good monitors and don't want to just throw them away to use an iMac.

[Banana]

Didn't the new iMacs now support spanning?

Yep, they got mini-DV and some more, so I am thinking yes. Ergo, people with a nice monitors can get iMac and have two display galore.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Banana Didn't the new iMacs now support spanning?

Does it matter? If you don't like/want the iMac's built in screen or if it is damaged or goes bad, you have a large and expensive paperweight.

[MINK]

you know anything about ebay.com? it's this cool place where you can sell your monitor and buy an iMac.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by MINK you know anything about ebay.com? it's this cool place where you can sell your monitor and buy an iMac.

What if you don't want to sell your monitor? What if your monitor is better than the iMac display?

Honestly, I'm amazed people think that the iMac's display is such a must-have thing.

[Banana]

Brad,

If the screen went bad, Applecare will fix it. If it's due to age, a LCD replacement can be had.

Besides, iMac screen are of better quality compared to Cinema Displays, no?

Edit= Honestly I'm amazed people think that the iMac's display is such a liability.

[sunrain]

Originally Posted by Banana Besides, iMac screen are of better quality compared to Cinema Displays, no?

I was always under the impression that the 20" iMac and Cinema Display had the exact same screen. I can't tell a quality difference between the two of them if they aren't.

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by Banana If the screen went bad, Applecare will fix it. If it's due to age, a LCD replacement can be had.

Some of us still need something different, though. Take college students, for example. I'm getting ready to move back into the dorms, and my monitor (even though it's a mediocre-at-best 15") has a TV-tuner built in. That eliminates some big, bulky TV for me. People in my situation have four options: Buy a mini, buy a Power Mac (or its Intel replacement), have a big TV taking up space (or give up TV altogether), or buy a midrange PC on which they can't run OS X. Personally, I never want to give up OS X again, but Apple makes it hard on people. The updated mini is helpful, but some of us still want some more serious expandibility.

[Banana]

Originally Posted by sunrain I was always under the impression that the 20" iMac and Cinema Display had the exact same screen. I can't tell a quality difference between the two of them if they aren't.

Actually that was supposed to be a tongue in cheek comment WRT 23" pink hues.

Fcrgiz, I'd bet you that if you were to pose that problem to Apple, they'd say get a iMac. It's all sleek, and can do all what you want, and you don't need your crappy monitor.

Yes, that didn't solve your problem, but I'm just thinking that Apple has made a decision not to have a midrange motherboard because iMac is perceived to be end-it-all solution. Are they right? Not for me to say.

I'd like to ask you while we're at it; would you even consider a G4 tower? Last time I heard, it can do all what you will need today.

[Mac Donald]

Originally Posted by Brad What if you don't want to sell your monitor? What if your monitor is better than the iMac display? Honestly, I'm amazed people think that the iMac's display is such a must-have thing.

Yes. And that's why Brad is in charge.

[Robo]

Doesn't this thread belong in Speculation & Rumors?

But anyway - I don't think the new Mac mini decreases the possibility of a mid-range Mac in the future. It's still not very upgradable. It still uses notebook parts. And now, it's got integrated graphics. A $999 "headless iMac" would still find buyers.

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by Banana Fcrgiz, I'd bet you that if you were to pose that problem to Apple, they'd say get a iMac. It's all sleek, and can do all what you want, and you don't need your crappy monitor.

That's exactly what they would say. And they'd be right about my monitor being crappy. It is. However, it has a built-in tuner that doesn't require me to boot my computer to watch the Weather Channel. If Apple released an ACD with a tuner, I'd be all over it. It's also a bit much to ask people to buy a monitor every time they buy a computer. I think that's one thing the PC world has right--almost any PC you buy today comes without a monitor (or can be purchased cheaper without one). They recognize that plenty of people have monitors that they already like, or at least that they should have a choice of what display to get. The iMac display is beautiful, but I don't want to spend an extra $400-500 every time I buy a computer for a display I don't need. I'd rather buy an ACD once and then just upgrade the computer when necessary (I tire of computers long before I tire of displays).

Yes, that didn't solve your problem, but I'm just thinking that Apple has made a decision not to have a midrange motherboard because iMac is perceived to be end-it-all solution. Are they right? Not for me to say.

Again, I agree. It just gets on my nerves a little to see them not offer a more diverse product line. I don't really want to settle or over-spend for my next Mac (I settled when I bought my mini).

I'd like to ask you while we're at it; would you even consider a G4 tower? Last time I heard, it can do all what you will need today.

It also gets to me that for people who want what Brad and I want, the solution is to buy an old, soon to be antiquated machine. I know Apple isn't obligated to provide a computer for every market (maybe Jobs makes fun of Dell for having too many computers the way I make fun of Microsoft for having too many versions of Vista), but it just seems like a logical hole to try and fill.