I've seen suggestions along this line for years . . .since for a lot of people the Mac Pro is too much expansion/cost . . .and suggesting that Apple would sell a lot of machines say twice the size of a mini with single slot and a 3.5 inch drive (or possibly 2 drive bays).
While there's something to be said for that configuration since it could use "desktop components instead of laptop components" . . .my guess is that Apple's focus group and marketing studies indicated that the actual market for that config isn't big enough to make it worthwhile . . .hence the mini and iMac are left to fit the bill. On Feb 16, 2010, at 9:27 PM, Jonathon Kuo wrote: > I was thinking about the design trade-offs involved. The iMac can have > high-end components (mobo + gpu) because it can accommodate full-size cards & > drives behind the screen, whereas the Mac mini has to compromise to fit into > a tiny square box. Fair 'nuf. If they made a Mac midi, where the guts were in > sort of a small pizza box, and you just hook up your monitor, it could fill > the power gap between mini and tower. That's one reason we didn't go with the > mini -- it's just *too* underpowered. The MacPros can be a bit overkill (and > pricey!) for a lot of things. The only thing (currently) in the middle is the > iMac. > ----------------------------------------------- There are only three kinds of stress; your basic nuclear stress, cooking stress, and A$$hole stress. The key to their relationship is Jello. neil _______________________________________________ MacOSX-talk mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-talk
