Forums | MacLife

Back when the Powermac line wasn't so PRO-AWESOME!!1!1, did a lot of you have cheaper MDD G4s, perhaps the single processor G5?

Just curious. That single processor G5 seemed to appease a lot of you iirc.


Apple's attitude towards people is in conflict with the IDEA of a consumer tower. They have pretty much made a pledge since the induction of the iMac and Apple Stores that the consumer should be messing with the innards of his computer as little as possible, also involving as few 3rd party upgrades as possible.

This means they want you bringing in your computer for 1)ram upgrades, 2)yearly tune-ups, 3)data transfer from one computer to another, and the now outdates services of 4)airport/bluetooth upgrades on eMacs and the like.

Creating a tower with expandability marketed towards consumers completely defeats the purpose of the services of the apple store and the entire business model that Apple has created for consumer computing.

On the other hand, Apple has also said (and especially more recently with this Mac Pro!) that if you have the serious money that is needed to purchase a Mac Pro, then you are definitely a serious professional user, and they trust you with essentially a gutted out tower for you to install things yourself.

Apple is giving you MacLife faux-pro-users that want this consumer tower two choices:
1) Admit that for your computing needs, you are a consumer, and you should only be responsible for the mouse and keyboard to montior interaction on your computer, with Apple taking care of everything else.
2) Shell out the money to convince Apple that you are a professional user, and get the freedom to create a computer how you want it.

The people here that are asking for a consumer tower in my opinion are an exception to the rule. You guys have the skillz needed to be professional users, but you don't use your pro skills with your computer to make your primary income, so it is hard to justify the purchase of a Mac Pro.

And then lets remember to put everything in perspective again: most consumer towers on the PC side probably (even after expanding them) only have half the longevity of a Mac tower, and you are probably also going to pay more than half the price of that Mac tower for a PC consumer tower. You are getting what you pay for, and probably more, because you use a Macintosh.

ConnertheCat wrote:

People always complain about lack of upgradeability, but how often do you guys actually do it?  My three year old G5 tower has gotten a few RAM upgrades, and a new harddrive - both of which can be done on an iMac…

My G5 tower has two internal hard drives and four external.  3GB of ram.  It has an external CD burner in addition to the internal Superdrive... which I upgraded with a Dual-Layer drive.  I've tried to add more USB & Firewire ports, but it seems to only take this PCI-X crap that nobody makes and isn't compatible with anything, so I've got two daisy-chained USB hubs.  I'm dual monitoring, and I have an USB iMic (external Soundcard) that lets me route the sound away from the speakers and into some headphones.

How often?  Not often.  I'm out of expansion options nonetheless, and it WAS the pro machine.

robco wrote:

Actually no, it was a standard AGP - just a short card, rather than a longer card.  So no top-o'-the-line cards, but several Cube owners have successfully upgraded to better cards over the years.  The Shuttle SFF PCs can accommodate full-sized cards, but no dual-slot cards (although two models do support dual-card setups).

My main issue with the Cube was the USB-only audio, that was retarded.  Not to mention the difficulty accessing ports on the bottom of the machine (and the corresponding cable clutter).

Yeah, I'm glad they got over USB audio. That was really kind of stupid.

HackerJax wrote:

Every PC I've owned has outlived the few macs I've had. A big part of that is that they are upgradable. My last AIO mac (performa 577) had a CRT failure and I tossed it. My 486 from 1994 is running happily to this day and I have no idea where the original CRT is even at. It dosen't matter because I can plug in any monitor to the thing.

You know why people *think* macs last so long? Because historically macs have such limited upgrade options and cost enough that you don't want to replace the thing very often.

Apple's business practices and product offerings force you into being stuck with a machine 2 generations behind while your friends replace a PC every 2 years or upgrade the machines they use.

Limited options does not mean something lasts longer, it means you have less options so you tend to use the thing to death to avoid paying through the nose for new hardware.

Now you're drinking the PC Kool-Aid.  How many PC's get replaced because of Win-Rot and an owner who think its because his "machine is getting old"?  Most people who buy consumer Windows towers DO NOT expand the life of their machines by major upgrades.  These are some major holes in your arguments.

My PowerMac is going on 5 years old, and call me crazy, but it does not feel at all like a 5 year old PC would.  It edits video, works with my Photos, manages my music just like it did 5 years ago.  Would I be able to say the same about a 5 year old PC?  Highly doubtful.  Macs last longer because they continue to adequately perform the functions they were purchased for longer than Windows PCs.

Last edited by Czachorski (2007-04-11 4:20 pm)

A big problem is that video card manufactures insist on screwing the mac market.

Damn few of them and many inferior to their PC counterparts.

And I'll continue to have a Windows box in addition to my MacBook...

ConnertheCat wrote:

People always complain about lack of upgradeability, but how often do you guys actually do it?  My three year old G5 tower has gotten a few RAM upgrades, and a new harddrive - both of which can be done on an iMac…

My G4 has 3 internal HDDs, 1.128 gig of ram in the form of 4 sticks, an additional USB card, an additional Firewire card, a 3rd party wireless card, an upgraded VidCard, a 3rd party 900mhz  cpu and a standard DVD/CD/r drive (as opposed to an oddball, half assed, sideways mounted slot loader). I also have my choice of monitor which matters to me.
So, yeah...I get my moneys worth out of a tower.

Last edited by Pariah (2007-04-11 5:34 pm)

Pariah wrote:

ConnertheCat wrote:

People always complain about lack of upgradeability, but how often do you guys actually do it?  My three year old G5 tower has gotten a few RAM upgrades, and a new harddrive - both of which can be done on an iMac…

My G4 has 3 internal HDDs, 1.128 gig of ram in the form of 4 sticks, an additional USB card, an additional Firewire card, a 3rd party wireless card, an upgraded VidCard, a 3rd party 900mhz  cpu and a standard DVD/CD/r drive (as opposed to an oddball, half assed, sideways mounted slot loader). I also have my choice of monitor which matters to me.
So, yeah...I get my moneys worth out of a tower.

Not to discount your upgrade philosophy on your tower, but aside from the upgraded video and your choice of monitor, what edge exactly does your highly upgraded tower have over the iMac?  Everything else you added is available stock on the iMac.

Now, I don't have any problems with upgrades, but in my experience, consumer upgrades typically aren't done until a machine is past it's peak usable life.  The majority of upgrades are done when the user can't get a new piece of hardware or software to function on their old system.  Problem is, the upgrades are often hampered by some architectural issue.  In other cases, upgrade costs just don't make sense when the price vs. performance ratio is applied.  Why drop SATA HD's in an old G4?  Why throw in a high end video card in an AGP slot?

High end users need the power of the Mac Pro to begin with, and they need expansion options to provide functionality that is unavailable in any other way.  Apple is catering to these people in a very real and practical way with the Mac Pro.

I think this argument is really only about gaming.  Those crying for a consumer tower are really just wanting an all-purpose Mac/Windows gaming machine with the ability to upgrade the video card.  I don't really have an issue with that, except that Apple has already provided you with two very nice gaming options.  The 24" iMac and the Mac Pro.  The iMac is a very capable gaming machine.  This isn't the old G5 days...iMacs are actually decently outfitted now.  If you "need" greater video card expandibility, then there is the Mac Pro...just pay up!  Stop pretending the options aren't available to you just because you don't like the price point.

Would I like a consumer tower?  Sure, but to pretend that Apple has "nothing" in their lineup to suit your needs until they produce one is foolish.

Last edited by volk (2007-04-11 6:37 pm)

The 24" iMac is capable.  It's not great, but it's capable.  Now.  In another year or two, it will be less capable.  I could spend a couple hundred bucks to drop another video card in - oh wait, it's an iMac, I can't.  Well, I'll buy another machine, but at least I don't have to pay for a new monitor since I already have one, oh wait, it's an iMac, I have to replace the whole thing.  The Mac Pro is overkill.  Most people don't need a quad core machine.  Not to mention that the Mac Pro's memory architecture is actually ill-suited to general computing (especially gaming).  It's also huge, sucks massive amounts of power and is quite expensive.  Talk about using a sledgehammer as a flyswatter.

The iMac gives the drawbacks of a laptop without the benefit of mobility.  It's a desktop, with none of the advantages a desktop has over a laptop.  I had one.  I wanted to upgrade the video card and I did (years ago, Rev/A, I installed a Voodoo 2 card), but only so much.  I wanted a bigger display, SOL.  I did upgrade the RAM and HD, but neither was for the faint of heart.  I simply outgrew the iMac.  Others will too and there is no product to fill that void.  There's a huge chasm between the iMac and Mac Pro.  It would be like a car company (tired analogy, I know) offering a subcompact or a full-sized SUV with no other options.

HackerJax wrote:

There is a multi-billion dollar industry around upgrades....

I could care less if its a minority that actually do it, the option needs to be there regardless.

My wife is on a machine I built in 2002 and it still does everything it did the day I built it.

And how do any of these points support your claim that the reason Macs last longer than PCs is "macs have such limited upgrade options and cost enough that you don't want to replace the thing very often"?  That is what I was calling bs on.  The size of the upgrade market for PCs, the need to have the option to upgrade available, and the fact that your wife is still using a PC from 2002 really do not support your claim.  Is that 2002 PC doing video editing?  Is it running the latest version of Windows?  Is it running the latest versions of the programs she runs?  Is she managing a large media library with it?  How much time/effort have you spent properly "maintaining" it?  Have you reinstalled the OS or had to erradicate a virus/spyware infestation?

I routinely edit video on an almost 5 year old Mac.  I am managing a larger media library now than I was 5 years ago (18,000 songs, 15,000 photos) using the latest versons of iTunes and iPhoto.  I am running the latest Mac OS on a nearly 5 year old Mac.  I have never had a slow down on my nearly 5 year old Mac from viruses or spyware.  I have never had to reinstall the OS on my nearly 5 year old Mac.  The only reason I am looking to upgrade is to add new functionality like HD editing.  Can similar claims be made about that PC fro 2002?  Doubtful.  These items support my claim that Macs last longer because they continue to adequately perform the functions they were purchased for longer than Windows PCs.

robco wrote:

The 24" iMac is capable.  It's not great, but it's capable.  Now.  In another year or two, it will be less capable.  I could spend a couple hundred bucks to drop another video card in - oh wait, it's an iMac, I can't.  Well, I'll buy another machine, but at least I don't have to pay for a new monitor since I already have one, oh wait, it's an iMac, I have to replace the whole thing.  The Mac Pro is overkill.  Most people don't need a quad core machine.  Not to mention that the Mac Pro's memory architecture is actually ill-suited to general computing (especially gaming).  It's also huge, sucks massive amounts of power and is quite expensive.  Talk about using a sledgehammer as a flyswatter.

This is why I will never understand this argument.  You say you want to pay a couple hundred for a new graphics card, but what good is that?  You aren't going to get better performance for that kind of money.  If you want cutting edge gaming, you have to pay BIG money on graphics cards that would bring a cheap tower squarely into Mac Pro territory.  Unfortunately, within two years, that $700+ card will be bottom end for the latest games, and you have half the machine of a Mac Pro to upgrade with yet another rediculously expensive card.  How does this really make any sense at all?

In that same time, the iMac you have labeled as "decent" for gaming will have gone through another revision with massive architecture upgrades creating a better overall performance package making it perfectly suitable for all the games available at the time.  The upside is, your existing iMac will likely still have enough re-sale value to get into the next iMac for under the cost of the latest and greatest graphics card.

Just how long do you really expect the usable life to be on any machine designed for gaming that you think a consumer tower would slow your upgrade cycle, anyway?  Besides, as Sci already stated, what makes you so sure no one will build a card for the upgradable graphics slot in the 24" iMac anyway? 

robco wrote:

The iMac gives the drawbacks of a laptop without the benefit of mobility.  It's a desktop, with none of the advantages a desktop has over a laptop.  I had one.  I wanted to upgrade the video card and I did (years ago, Rev/A, I installed a Voodoo 2 card), but only so much.  I wanted a bigger display, SOL.  I did upgrade the RAM and HD, but neither was for the faint of heart.  I simply outgrew the iMac.  Others will too and there is no product to fill that void.  There's a huge chasm between the iMac and Mac Pro.  It would be like a car company (tired analogy, I know) offering a subcompact or a full-sized SUV with no other options.

I realize the iMac isn't for everyone, but I hardly see how your experience with a 1st gen iMac really translates the the Core 2 models.  The iMac can be upgraded by anyone willing to open the case, or better yet, expanded through Firewire 800.  This machine is easily better than a 2 year cycle.  As to the comment about outgrowing the iMac, are you under the impression that you won't outgrow a tower?  Rediculous.  The 24" is hardly a "huge chasm" jump from the Mac Pro...in fact, in some ways it offers superior performance.

You need to get on the Intel bandwagon...it really is a brave new world for Apple performance.