It stacks up pretty well against this dell box. The dell has an inferior AMD processor but most would think it's more powerful because it's a tower.
It doesn't even compare to the dell box. With Vista Ultimate, a 2GHz AMD Athalon X2 (which actually performs better than the Mini's mobile C2D) a gig of RAM and a 160GB HD (over the Mini's base 80GB) it still costs less than $500, verses the Mini's starting price of $600. Price vs Performance wise it blows the Mini out of the water.
Over $100 dollars for something that looks better than it performs and the Mac OS experience.
Why buy a 1980's DeLorean when you can get a better 1980's Corvette for less?
Oh? The iMac is great for power users who don't need PCI expansion. That amounts to MOST power users. The iMac's specs are as good as those of the stratospheric workstations of 2 years ago, and, in most cases, the use-cases of power users haven't changed that much since then.
I think you'd be surprised to find just how much stuff gets designed on laptops. Even laptop HD's, which seem to be a point of discontention, don't really hold much back if you've put enough memory in it (which would seem to be an apt choice for a power user). The iMac is at least as powerful a tool as any laptop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Well I'm not a prosumer but, it seems like prosumers like or think they need three things not addressed by the iMac.
1) PCI expansion
2) Better gpu options
3) Flexibility on monitors.
It's not me. I'm easily satisfied by the iMac. I may purchase one this fall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
4) Full size full speed optical drive
5) room for second hard drive.
6) Easily accessible and abundant front ports.
The idea that the iMac isn't for prosumers isn't entirely off base.
While numbers 1, 2, 3 and 6 above can be easily dismissed, 4 and 5 are good points.
In addition, I've been looking at the iMac to replace my G4 and I've dismissed the idea.
The power is there and I don't mind the RAM and monitor limitations.
But the inability to replace the hard drive myself is a deal killer for me. I'm not dragging my main work machine to the dealer anytime I decide I need a bigger/faster hard drive. That's ridiculous.
I'm going with a second-hand Mac Pro, probably when the new ones are announced.
The idea that the iMac isn't for prosumers isn't entirely off base.
While numbers 1, 2, 3 and 6 above can be easily dismissed, 4 and 5 are good points.
In addition, I've been looking at the iMac to replace my G4 and I've dismissed the idea.
The power is there and I don't mind the RAM and monitor limitations.
But the inability to replace the hard drive myself is a deal killer for me. I'm not dragging my main work machine to the dealer anytime I decide I need a bigger/faster hard drive. That's ridiculous.
I'm going with a second-hand Mac Pro, probably when the new ones are announced.
What makes you think 1, 2, 3, and 6 are so easily dismissed? Have you not read the thread? Obviously you can not just dismiss a large group of posters because you don't need 1, 2, 3, and 6. This isn't all about what frank wants.
What makes you think 1, 2, 3, and 6 are so easily dismissed? Have you not read the thread? Obviously you can not just dismiss a large group of posters because you don't need 1, 2, 3, and 6. This isn't all about what frank wants.
1. FireWire and USB2 are now the Apple-preferred mode of system expansion. Deal with it.
In eight months, we'll celebrate a whole decade since the original iMac. Time's up.
2. The iMac GPU is sufficient for the overwhelming majority of buyers. Jobs isn't going to mess with the iMac's clean 'no screws' form factor for a few gamers who should buy a console anyway.
3. The iMacs have an amazing screen and the fact its hardwired won't deter too many at its price.
6. It's not particularly hard to reach the iMacs' rear ports. The fact that unsightly wires aren't protruding from the front is a feature, not a bug. Front ports are necessary on the Mac Pro because swivelling around the whole machine is...difficult - to say the least.
And yes, it's all about what I want. (which is a user-replaceable hard drive!!!)
6. It's not particularly hard to reach the iMacs' rear ports. The fact that unsightly wires aren't protruding from the front is a feature, not a bug. Front ports are necessary on the Mac Pro because swivelling around the whole machine is...difficult - to say the least.
I use a "usb tree." There's a USB hub strung into it, and iPods and cameras and stuff sit in the branches. My scanners are too big for the USB tree and sit on a nearby table.
It doesn't even compare to the dell box. With Vista Ultimate, a 2GHz AMD Athalon X2 (which actually performs better than the Mini's mobile C2D) a gig of RAM and a 160GB HD (over the Mini's base 80GB) it still costs less than $500, verses the Mini's starting price of $600. Price vs Performance wise it blows the Mini out of the water.
Over $100 dollars for something that looks better than it performs and the Mac OS experience.
Why buy a 1980's DeLorean when you can get a better 1980's Corvette for less?
Totally untrue. The Athlon is NOT faster than the C2D, even the mobile variant. Why don't you configure the Dell box with blue tooth and wireless(standard on the mini) and a software bundle equivalent to iLife 08 and get back to us.
And you really think the 'box' is more attractive than the mini?
The 2ghz Athlon is significantly slower than the 1.86 ghz C2D. While this is a desktop chip the only difference is the FSB and that probaly only accounts for a 5% difference in performance. In other words the 2 ghz mobile C2D is at least as fast as the desktop 1.86 ghz C2D.
Core 2 chips in all of their flavors are much faster than Athlon chips.(clock for clock)
No Mac user should have to suffer Wintel PC envy. It's supposed to be the other way around, right?
That's exactly it. I shouldn't be wishing I had PC hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel
As I know it, "prosumer" is basically just a code word for young-ish gamers. If you want to be able to replace the video card and install big disks for usage in games and media hoarding, just come out and say it. For that purpose, I agree it would be nice to have a cheap tower mac.
It's not just about being able to do upgrades on the user end, I'd like to configure a machine that suits my needs exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel
The argument about "why have a desktop iMac that's only as good as a laptop" is kind of dumb. The iMac is cheap and comes with a big screen and disk.
The iMac isn't cheap compared to an equivalent PC because you pay for the screen too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel
I also like this line: "prosumers are struggling to get work done on lame hardware." What are you guys working on? I'm working on an iMac and a PC laptop, designing industrial radio products. The work involves 3D CAD, programming, circuit design, and a fair amount of document making in Adobe. I don't require more feature-rich hardware. What do you work on?
Where I work, we have iMacs, Minis, Macbooks, Macbook Pros and older G5 towers. The towers were expensive and so we didn't have enough money to get everyone one. The Minis and iMacs, although capable CPU-wise are just not ideal. The Mini doesn't have good GPUs so fails with 3D and the iMacs have built-in screens, which isn't cost effective for a number of reasons, not least when it comes to repairs. Home users I can understand but not in a business where having a display go down and losing a machine for a period of time is just not viable.
Now, the people who use the towers don't use the towers to their full capacity all the time - it's only when rendering heavy graphics. So, the obvious and ideal solution would be for us to get rid of all the iMacs, Minis and towers and get everyone a mid-range tower (spread the cost evenly). I really want to get a 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme but like I say, I don't want it stuck behind an expensive 24" screen I don't want. It's not a case of saying that you get a 24" screen bundled with it, it's included in the price and you have to pay for it.
The Mac Pros are probably closest to what we need as we use matching dual displays on the towers - the only issue really is bulk. It takes two people to move the towers without damaging them. That's perhaps minor but cost is also a factor - if there was a tower priced midway between the Mini and Mac Pro then after adding up all the value of Mac hardware we have, we'd be able to get everyone a mid-range tower if it was close to £800-900.
They don't sell because they are very poorly designed and the components are usually poor quality to help keep the cost at a price point that PC users are accustomed to. By doing this their products are nothing short of crap. That is why they don't sell.
Sony have probably come the closest, but charge a premium over other PC makers. Even so (and I have owned a Vaio in the past) they don't match the quality and value of Macs.
Poorly designed is your opinion. No they didn't use poorly designed components, in fact the AIO Compac outperformed Apple's competitor at the time. Don't you remember the Compac leapfrogging the iMac in the nationally televised commercial?
It didn't sell because on the Windows side, consumers had options and they exercised them.
1. FireWire and USB2 are now the Apple-preferred mode of system expansion. Deal with it.
In eight months, we'll celebrate a whole decade since the original iMac. Time's up.
2. The iMac GPU is sufficient for the overwhelming majority of buyers. Jobs isn't going to mess with the iMac's clean 'no screws' form factor for a few gamers who should buy a console anyway.
3. The iMacs have an amazing screen and the fact its hardwired won't deter too many at its price.
6. It's not particularly hard to reach the iMacs' rear ports. The fact that unsightly wires aren't protruding from the front is a feature, not a bug. Front ports are necessary on the Mac Pro because swivelling around the whole machine is...difficult - to say the least.
And yes, it's all about what I want. (which is a user-replaceable hard drive!!!)
1. is the biggest load of crap I've read in here yet.
I'll stop at 1. because pointing out that your totally ridiculous isn't necessary. The second you start exclaiming that the way Apple does things is some bound, and true law that must be adhered to it becomes obvious to everyone that you're quite brainwashed. Obviously you are easily effected by the jedi mind trick. Good luck with your psychosis.
Totally untrue. The Athlon is NOT faster than the C2D, even the mobile variant. Why don't you configure the Dell box with blue tooth and wireless(standard on the mini) and a software bundle equivalent to iLife 08 and get back to us.
And you really think the 'box' is more attractive than the mini?
The 2ghz Athlon is significantly slower than the 1.86 ghz C2D. While this is a desktop chip the only difference is the FSB and that probaly only accounts for a 5% difference in performance. In other words the 2 ghz mobile C2D is at least as fast as the desktop 1.86 ghz C2D.
Core 2 chips in all of their flavors are much faster than Athlon chips.(clock for clock)
the Integrated NVIDIA GeForce 6150 graphics GPU is A LOT better then the mini GMA 950 and you can add a better video card to the DELL.
From the poll #'s of this thread It seems that here at AI there is a larger group of users that would prefer a machine feature wise between the iMac and the Mac Pro than feature wise between the MIni, and the iMac. Although the MIni and iMac people were never part of the question, they seemed to drop in here and mess with my poll all the same.
From the poll #'s of this thread It seems that here at AI there is a larger group of users that would prefer a machine feature wise between the iMac and the Mac Pro than feature wise between the MIni, and the iMac. Although the MIni and iMac people were never part of the question, they seemed to drop in here and mess with my poll all the same.
Just shrink down the height of the Mac Pro about 20 percent and I will be happy. A lower price would be nice, but a shorter Mac Pro would be ideal for me.
I use a "usb tree." There's a USB hub strung into it, and iPods and cameras and stuff sit in the branches. My scanners are too big for the USB tree and sit on a nearby table.
Easy access to USB ports and crazy stylish.
Shit, I should go to market with this gem.
I need that tree. What is it made of? How is it set up? If you don't want it noised about, how about describing it in a PM. Thanks.
Your absolutely correct, and a great point you have made. I think AIO people are just AIO people. Just like I have always been PowerMac user. I can't imagine buying any other computer from Apple. (probably because I use every square inch of it) Needless to say that I think you are right in that a $1599 Semi pro machine would not compete with an AIO. They are computers for different people with two totally different needs, and brands of thinking all together.
Actually that's not the point I'm making at all. I'm saying that it wouldn't do well because of the iMac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waffle911
[....edited 100000 word response to here]
Ok, now you're just being ignorant. The whole point of the statement is that the Mac Pro is not cost effective for the application. My whole setup costs well less than $700 new, is perfectly sufficient, and a used Mac Pro that's still worth a damn (performs anywhere close to my setup) costs over $1000 without peripherals. Not to mention my games don't even run on Mac.
You're comparing Windows machines. They are cheaper. We're talking Macs. What is your point?
Quote:
I'm saying relatively, they should have already introduced LED backlights to their products.
Why?
Quote:
They were the first ones to put dual-core in a mainstream laptop
False
Quote:
...and they were the first ones to put 64-bit dual core into a laptop.
Pretty sure that's false.
Quote:
Not only that, but they did so while maintaining a form factor little more than an inch thin.
Ahh..Apple marketing speak. It is a nice form factor, though.
Quote:
To stay competitive, they need to have LED in laptops now and work their way up. End of 2008 is a little late in the game.
To stay competitive? You're on crack apparently. They are selling MBs like crazy. They're kicking ass. There is no crisis here.
Quote:
That's the thing, not only would a mid-pro be dual core instead of a single core older Pro/Power tower, but in the PC market upgradeability to extend life life is somewhere on the order of 5-8 years starting under $1000.
5-8 years is not a realistic figure. And, there's still no reason not to get a 1 year old MP with dual core processors for the same price. It's more expandable too.
Quote:
Again, cost effectiveness. Entry level is less than $600 for a complete system that does all the basics, even burning DVD's. Macs start at $600 for an incredibly inferior Mini that has less than half the power and can't even burn DVD's.
Again, Mac vs. PC. Is this debate about people that are going to jump ship? Apple doesn't compete in that market. And a midpro wouldn't cost $600 anyway.
Quote:
The point is totally the car. Audi is a direct competitor to BMW (placing it in the same exact bracket for brand/market position), and produces better cars that do more things right than a BMW. All BMW's can do is drive well, and in the rain they can't even do that much (Thus they are compared to Alienware). That makes Apple more like Audi. Talk about metaphors that don't apply.
Dude, don't be obtuse. The point is not the car unless you live in bizzaro world. The point is the market position. I don't care about the intricacies of who makes a better car. Just stop.
Quote:
I said specifically the hardware was outdone. For one, the Japanese/Koreans make far better screens and disk drives. Samsung and Sony for example. Also, take a look at the kind of laptops they use in Japan, and you'll see why they are so far superior in hardware quality, limited only by their OS. Try Dynamism.com, and ignore the prices; that's because they are pretty much the only importers to the US and have a monopoly on the import market, so they can jack up the price alot more than they would in Japan. Toshiba and Panasonic are particularly good examples of superior hardware.
So, Apple is outmatched by hardware no one buys? Or, are you only talking about the Asian marketplace? Even if you're not, I don't see from your link that the hardware looks much better. Sure, one can buy better spec'd windows laptops for less money, but that's been the case for years. You're buying more than just the specs with Apple. This is off topic anyway...we're talking about the midpro.
Quote:
Well, above I explained why I believe they are not in that market segment and why the Mini sucks. Particularly, the cost to make and buy is too high because it uses laptop parts instead of desktop parts, because that would make it "big and unsightly," even though it would put price/performance back into proportion. The Mini is an anachronistic attempt to make an entry-level computer.
It didn't seem that you were making that point, since you relied on the comparison between the two markets so heavily. I fail to see why you'd do that when you say you realize that they are not in the same market. They could be...they just choose not to be.
Quote:
You appear to have limited knowledge/experience with windows-based PCs as well as the automotive industry. You should do a little more research before blindly supporting 90% of Apple's decisions, i.e. why everyone who whines here needs a Mac Pro when price vs. performance wise in the prosumer segment it doesn't make sense and is a totally unreasonable choice.
OK, now you're really being an ass. I use a Windows PC every day at work. I would also venture that I know a lot more about the auto industry than you, given the fact that you can't grasp the point I made about market position, instead focusing on details about the actual vehicles that don't matter whatsoever.
And I never said it was an unreasonable choice. I said it's not going to happen, that the market is not big enough, and that most people don't really "need" what they think they do.
SNOOPY:
Quote:
Most can. The universe is not shrinking, for example. Just state the opposite of the positive, or something mutually exclusive. If you prove one side, and you've proved the other. Maybe that's cheating. Hee, hee.
Probably. I'm tired of that argument at the moment anyway, so...
Quote:
Well, I'd do it that way too, but there are stories of successful companies that spend nothing on market research. The owner understands the market well enough, and makes all the marketing decisions.
But the point is they KNOW the market.
Quote:
I've been asking myself that question for years now!
Laugh it up, funny man. The point remains. Obviously Apple knows more than you do.
Quote:
I've given a reasonable proof, but you don't accept it.
You've not offered proof at all. You've offered flawed logic and supposition. You've offered [i]no proof[i], actually.
Quote:
The Windows mini tower sells quite well, so a Mac mini tower should also.
Ridiculous. There are far too many variables affecting the outcome. If that was the case, why didn't the old Power Mac minitowers sell well and life Apple out of the doldrums? Yes, I know...it's not the same. That's the point.
Quote:
I contend that hardware preferences of Mac users is essentially the same as Windows users. You see it differently.
I contend because that's the way it is. There are a lot of different reasons why.
Quote:
You say that on the Windows side there is no compelling alternative . . . an equivalent of the iMac. I say it is not there because there is insufficient market for the AIO. That is why I said the iMac is not mainstream.
There you go again. "Not mainstream?" What does that even mean? It's a consumer level machine. It sells very well. There is no backing up that assertion you've made. It can't be done.
Quote:
Sure there is more of a Mac market for an AIO. It has been around for years now.
I thought you said there wasn't and difference?
Quote:
I On the Windows side, if one company were to push an AIO like Apple does, it would sell about like the iMac, I expect. Why isn't anyone doing it? The market is not big enough to tempt an HP or Dell.
Ah, so that's it. It's a question of "pushing" now. They have tried to copy the iMac and it hasn't caught on. People are used to their formerly beige (and now black) boxes.
Quote:
We are at an impasse here, so the whole discussion is deadlocked. Neither of us will budge on this point.
I won't budge because you have failed to prove your point that there is a market for the midpro. You've offered one piece of supposition (the Windows market) and nothing more.
Quote:
I really like it, especially since the redesign. and I'll probably get one some day. Right now it is not high on my priority list. I actually can afford it, but I also just paid for a cruise to Alaska, which put a dent in the wallet. We're leaving Thursday for Vancouver to board. So we've got to wind down the discussion.
Have fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
Every major OEM on the Windows side has indeed in the past and currently some are providing an AIO form factor computer. But they just don't sell, they didn't sell in the past and it looks like they won't sell in the near future.
True. Next...
Quote:
And any response similar to, well the Compac or Sony or etc. AIOs look awful won't cut it. I seem to remember many negative comments concerning every AIO design Apple has presented. Gumdrop, titMac, iBoob, the large chin etc.
Well, they've sold well, so the reaction couldn't be too bad. Except for the flower power iMac, that is. Puke. [/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickag
You apparently don't personally know any of the posters here and could not know what their needs or wants truly are.
I don't need to know them personally. That is not a requirement for this discussion. As to needs, well if I don't know, that's a failing of those who won't enumerate them. I've asked specifically. They won't do so because "deep down in places they don't talk about at parties," they know they don't really "need" the machine at all. So their anger towards Apple is really based on their "wants." And it's pretty clear what they want.
Quote:
The comment above has to be one of the most condescending arrogant posts I've ever seen in the years I've visited Appleinsider.
Then you either haven't been around long enough, or you have incredibly thin skin. I think you know my comment is correct though, which is why it bothers you so much.
Actually that's not the point I'm making at all. I'm saying that it wouldn't do well because of the iMac............
But the point was made none the less, and me and people just like me are perfect examples of it. So in the end you contradicted your self all on your own. Way to go!
And this really sums up the reason Apple hasn't made a mid-pro.
Most people blithely assume that Apple does what most companies do, and looks at the cost of production, the competition and adds a markup to get a sticker price. That couldn't be further from the truth.
We all know Apple meticulously plans the form factor, colour, design and material choices involved in a product. Lesser known is that the same care is applied to product segments, naming and pricing.
Apple doesn't just make it up as they go along. Detailed studies are commissioned to study consumer habits and desires, and how the market will react to various products and pricing.
The iPod is probably the best example of this, with the product line first taking every high end dollar available and then diversifying to meet the average consumer. A lot of people balked at the iPod's price when it was announced, and had to eat crow later.
Market studies are generally conducted under the radar, using companies that don't even mention the name Apple and the questioners probably don't even know who the research is being done for. (If memory serves, Aperture is the one recent product where it became widely known that Apple was looking into the market segment, and that news kicked Adobe into overdrive.)
The bottom line is that Apple has likely looked into the mid-pro market a few times since the demise of the Cube, and found that not enough consumers in the segment would recognize the value inherent in the Mac OS itself. It would simply lead to them comparing the Mac unfavourably to low-end PCs. Hence, they let the second-hand and clearance market deal with those consumers for now.
It's not just about being able to do upgrades on the user end, I'd like to configure a machine that suits my needs exactly.
The iMac isn't cheap compared to an equivalent PC because you pay for the screen too.
Where I work, we have iMacs, Minis, Macbooks, Macbook Pros and older G5 towers. . . . .
I think there's a continuous failure to communicate here. I don't think anyone has a problem with a cheap mac. The discussion is, and has always been, that doing so is not marketable for Apple, and that has been proven.
But I don't get that much why you think iMacs are so expensive. You get a screen, yes. What do you plan on dong with a screenless computer? You can run it as a server, but servers don't need video cards. Servicing them is also fairly trivial, on account that hard disks don't fail very often.
Lastly, you told me what you have "at work," but I still have no idea what it is that you do at work. Apparently, you need fast GPUs, and the only explanation I can figure is that you must be part of some commune that sells World of Warcraft items on eBay.
Comments
It stacks up pretty well against this dell box. The dell has an inferior AMD processor but most would think it's more powerful because it's a tower.
It doesn't even compare to the dell box. With Vista Ultimate, a 2GHz AMD Athalon X2 (which actually performs better than the Mini's mobile C2D) a gig of RAM and a 160GB HD (over the Mini's base 80GB) it still costs less than $500, verses the Mini's starting price of $600. Price vs Performance wise it blows the Mini out of the water.
Over $100 dollars for something that looks better than it performs and the Mac OS experience.
Why buy a 1980's DeLorean when you can get a better 1980's Corvette for less?
Oh? The iMac is great for power users who don't need PCI expansion. That amounts to MOST power users. The iMac's specs are as good as those of the stratospheric workstations of 2 years ago, and, in most cases, the use-cases of power users haven't changed that much since then.
I think you'd be surprised to find just how much stuff gets designed on laptops. Even laptop HD's, which seem to be a point of discontention, don't really hold much back if you've put enough memory in it (which would seem to be an apt choice for a power user). The iMac is at least as powerful a tool as any laptop.
Well I'm not a prosumer but, it seems like prosumers like or think they need three things not addressed by the iMac.
1) PCI expansion
2) Better gpu options
3) Flexibility on monitors.
It's not me. I'm easily satisfied by the iMac. I may purchase one this fall.
4) Full size full speed optical drive
5) room for second hard drive.
6) Easily accessible and abundant front ports.
The idea that the iMac isn't for prosumers isn't entirely off base.
While numbers 1, 2, 3 and 6 above can be easily dismissed, 4 and 5 are good points.
In addition, I've been looking at the iMac to replace my G4 and I've dismissed the idea.
The power is there and I don't mind the RAM and monitor limitations.
But the inability to replace the hard drive myself is a deal killer for me. I'm not dragging my main work machine to the dealer anytime I decide I need a bigger/faster hard drive. That's ridiculous.
I'm going with a second-hand Mac Pro, probably when the new ones are announced.
The idea that the iMac isn't for prosumers isn't entirely off base.
While numbers 1, 2, 3 and 6 above can be easily dismissed, 4 and 5 are good points.
In addition, I've been looking at the iMac to replace my G4 and I've dismissed the idea.
The power is there and I don't mind the RAM and monitor limitations.
But the inability to replace the hard drive myself is a deal killer for me. I'm not dragging my main work machine to the dealer anytime I decide I need a bigger/faster hard drive. That's ridiculous.
I'm going with a second-hand Mac Pro, probably when the new ones are announced.
What makes you think 1, 2, 3, and 6 are so easily dismissed? Have you not read the thread? Obviously you can not just dismiss a large group of posters because you don't need 1, 2, 3, and 6. This isn't all about what frank wants.
What makes you think 1, 2, 3, and 6 are so easily dismissed? Have you not read the thread? Obviously you can not just dismiss a large group of posters because you don't need 1, 2, 3, and 6. This isn't all about what frank wants.
1. FireWire and USB2 are now the Apple-preferred mode of system expansion. Deal with it.
In eight months, we'll celebrate a whole decade since the original iMac. Time's up.
2. The iMac GPU is sufficient for the overwhelming majority of buyers. Jobs isn't going to mess with the iMac's clean 'no screws' form factor for a few gamers who should buy a console anyway.
3. The iMacs have an amazing screen and the fact its hardwired won't deter too many at its price.
6. It's not particularly hard to reach the iMacs' rear ports. The fact that unsightly wires aren't protruding from the front is a feature, not a bug.
And yes, it's all about what I want.
6. It's not particularly hard to reach the iMacs' rear ports. The fact that unsightly wires aren't protruding from the front is a feature, not a bug.
I use a "usb tree." There's a USB hub strung into it, and iPods and cameras and stuff sit in the branches. My scanners are too big for the USB tree and sit on a nearby table.
Easy access to USB ports and crazy stylish.
Shit, I should go to market with this gem.
3. The iMacs have an amazing screen and the fact its hardwired won't deter too many at its price.
The 24" has a pretty good screen, although it doesn't fit my needs at all.
The 20" is very far away from being a good screen.
I will stick with my MDD for a while longer, until the Mini becomes good enough, or is replaced with something good enough. (or the xMac comes out)
It doesn't even compare to the dell box. With Vista Ultimate, a 2GHz AMD Athalon X2 (which actually performs better than the Mini's mobile C2D) a gig of RAM and a 160GB HD (over the Mini's base 80GB) it still costs less than $500, verses the Mini's starting price of $600. Price vs Performance wise it blows the Mini out of the water.
Over $100 dollars for something that looks better than it performs and the Mac OS experience.
Why buy a 1980's DeLorean when you can get a better 1980's Corvette for less?
Totally untrue. The Athlon is NOT faster than the C2D, even the mobile variant. Why don't you configure the Dell box with blue tooth and wireless(standard on the mini) and a software bundle equivalent to iLife 08 and get back to us.
And you really think the 'box' is more attractive than the mini?
See this link.
The 2ghz Athlon is significantly slower than the 1.86 ghz C2D. While this is a desktop chip the only difference is the FSB and that probaly only accounts for a 5% difference in performance. In other words the 2 ghz mobile C2D is at least as fast as the desktop 1.86 ghz C2D.
Core 2 chips in all of their flavors are much faster than Athlon chips.(clock for clock)
No Mac user should have to suffer Wintel PC envy. It's supposed to be the other way around, right?
As I know it, "prosumer" is basically just a code word for young-ish gamers. If you want to be able to replace the video card and install big disks for usage in games and media hoarding, just come out and say it. For that purpose, I agree it would be nice to have a cheap tower mac.
It's not just about being able to do upgrades on the user end, I'd like to configure a machine that suits my needs exactly.
The argument about "why have a desktop iMac that's only as good as a laptop" is kind of dumb. The iMac is cheap and comes with a big screen and disk.
The iMac isn't cheap compared to an equivalent PC because you pay for the screen too.
I also like this line: "prosumers are struggling to get work done on lame hardware." What are you guys working on? I'm working on an iMac and a PC laptop, designing industrial radio products. The work involves 3D CAD, programming, circuit design, and a fair amount of document making in Adobe. I don't require more feature-rich hardware. What do you work on?
Where I work, we have iMacs, Minis, Macbooks, Macbook Pros and older G5 towers. The towers were expensive and so we didn't have enough money to get everyone one. The Minis and iMacs, although capable CPU-wise are just not ideal. The Mini doesn't have good GPUs so fails with 3D and the iMacs have built-in screens, which isn't cost effective for a number of reasons, not least when it comes to repairs. Home users I can understand but not in a business where having a display go down and losing a machine for a period of time is just not viable.
Now, the people who use the towers don't use the towers to their full capacity all the time - it's only when rendering heavy graphics. So, the obvious and ideal solution would be for us to get rid of all the iMacs, Minis and towers and get everyone a mid-range tower (spread the cost evenly). I really want to get a 2.8GHz Core 2 Extreme but like I say, I don't want it stuck behind an expensive 24" screen I don't want. It's not a case of saying that you get a 24" screen bundled with it, it's included in the price and you have to pay for it.
The Mac Pros are probably closest to what we need as we use matching dual displays on the towers - the only issue really is bulk. It takes two people to move the towers without damaging them. That's perhaps minor but cost is also a factor - if there was a tower priced midway between the Mini and Mac Pro then after adding up all the value of Mac hardware we have, we'd be able to get everyone a mid-range tower if it was close to £800-900.
They don't sell because they are very poorly designed and the components are usually poor quality to help keep the cost at a price point that PC users are accustomed to. By doing this their products are nothing short of crap. That is why they don't sell.
Sony have probably come the closest, but charge a premium over other PC makers. Even so (and I have owned a Vaio in the past) they don't match the quality and value of Macs.
Poorly designed is your opinion. No they didn't use poorly designed components, in fact the AIO Compac outperformed Apple's competitor at the time. Don't you remember the Compac leapfrogging the iMac in the nationally televised commercial?
It didn't sell because on the Windows side, consumers had options and they exercised them.
1. FireWire and USB2 are now the Apple-preferred mode of system expansion. Deal with it.
In eight months, we'll celebrate a whole decade since the original iMac. Time's up.
2. The iMac GPU is sufficient for the overwhelming majority of buyers. Jobs isn't going to mess with the iMac's clean 'no screws' form factor for a few gamers who should buy a console anyway.
3. The iMacs have an amazing screen and the fact its hardwired won't deter too many at its price.
6. It's not particularly hard to reach the iMacs' rear ports. The fact that unsightly wires aren't protruding from the front is a feature, not a bug.
And yes, it's all about what I want.
1. is the biggest load of crap I've read in here yet.
I'll stop at 1. because pointing out that your totally ridiculous isn't necessary. The second you start exclaiming that the way Apple does things is some bound, and true law that must be adhered to it becomes obvious to everyone that you're quite brainwashed. Obviously you are easily effected by the jedi mind trick. Good luck with your psychosis.
Totally untrue. The Athlon is NOT faster than the C2D, even the mobile variant. Why don't you configure the Dell box with blue tooth and wireless(standard on the mini) and a software bundle equivalent to iLife 08 and get back to us.
And you really think the 'box' is more attractive than the mini?
See this link.
The 2ghz Athlon is significantly slower than the 1.86 ghz C2D. While this is a desktop chip the only difference is the FSB and that probaly only accounts for a 5% difference in performance. In other words the 2 ghz mobile C2D is at least as fast as the desktop 1.86 ghz C2D.
Core 2 chips in all of their flavors are much faster than Athlon chips.(clock for clock)
the Integrated NVIDIA GeForce 6150 graphics GPU is A LOT better then the mini GMA 950 and you can add a better video card to the DELL.
From the poll #'s of this thread It seems that here at AI there is a larger group of users that would prefer a machine feature wise between the iMac and the Mac Pro than feature wise between the MIni, and the iMac. Although the MIni and iMac people were never part of the question, they seemed to drop in here and mess with my poll all the same.
Just shrink down the height of the Mac Pro about 20 percent and I will be happy. A lower price would be nice, but a shorter Mac Pro would be ideal for me.
I use a "usb tree." There's a USB hub strung into it, and iPods and cameras and stuff sit in the branches. My scanners are too big for the USB tree and sit on a nearby table.
Easy access to USB ports and crazy stylish.
Shit, I should go to market with this gem.
I need that tree. What is it made of? How is it set up? If you don't want it noised about, how about describing it in a PM. Thanks.
I need that tree. What is it made of? How is it set up? If you don't want it noised about, how about describing it in a PM. Thanks.
He should go to market with that...but here's something else that might help:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/24/d...eless-usb-kit/
personally I want one of these:
http://www.phatphones.com/usb-missile-launcher.htm
PC only unfortunately...but shouldn't be too hard to figure out...
Your absolutely correct, and a great point you have made. I think AIO people are just AIO people. Just like I have always been PowerMac user. I can't imagine buying any other computer from Apple. (probably because I use every square inch of it) Needless to say that I think you are right in that a $1599 Semi pro machine would not compete with an AIO. They are computers for different people with two totally different needs, and brands of thinking all together.
Actually that's not the point I'm making at all. I'm saying that it wouldn't do well because of the iMac.
[....edited 100000 word response to here]
Ok, now you're just being ignorant. The whole point of the statement is that the Mac Pro is not cost effective for the application. My whole setup costs well less than $700 new, is perfectly sufficient, and a used Mac Pro that's still worth a damn (performs anywhere close to my setup) costs over $1000 without peripherals. Not to mention my games don't even run on Mac.
You're comparing Windows machines. They are cheaper. We're talking Macs. What is your point?
I'm saying relatively, they should have already introduced LED backlights to their products.
Why?
They were the first ones to put dual-core in a mainstream laptop
False
...and they were the first ones to put 64-bit dual core into a laptop.
Pretty sure that's false.
Not only that, but they did so while maintaining a form factor little more than an inch thin.
Ahh..Apple marketing speak. It is a nice form factor, though.
To stay competitive, they need to have LED in laptops now and work their way up. End of 2008 is a little late in the game.
To stay competitive? You're on crack apparently. They are selling MBs like crazy. They're kicking ass. There is no crisis here.
That's the thing, not only would a mid-pro be dual core instead of a single core older Pro/Power tower, but in the PC market upgradeability to extend life life is somewhere on the order of 5-8 years starting under $1000.
5-8 years is not a realistic figure. And, there's still no reason not to get a 1 year old MP with dual core processors for the same price. It's more expandable too.
Again, cost effectiveness. Entry level is less than $600 for a complete system that does all the basics, even burning DVD's. Macs start at $600 for an incredibly inferior Mini that has less than half the power and can't even burn DVD's.
Again, Mac vs. PC. Is this debate about people that are going to jump ship? Apple doesn't compete in that market. And a midpro wouldn't cost $600 anyway.
The point is totally the car. Audi is a direct competitor to BMW (placing it in the same exact bracket for brand/market position), and produces better cars that do more things right than a BMW. All BMW's can do is drive well, and in the rain they can't even do that much (Thus they are compared to Alienware). That makes Apple more like Audi. Talk about metaphors that don't apply.
Dude, don't be obtuse. The point is not the car unless you live in bizzaro world. The point is the market position. I don't care about the intricacies of who makes a better car. Just stop.
I said specifically the hardware was outdone. For one, the Japanese/Koreans make far better screens and disk drives. Samsung and Sony for example. Also, take a look at the kind of laptops they use in Japan, and you'll see why they are so far superior in hardware quality, limited only by their OS. Try Dynamism.com, and ignore the prices; that's because they are pretty much the only importers to the US and have a monopoly on the import market, so they can jack up the price alot more than they would in Japan. Toshiba and Panasonic are particularly good examples of superior hardware.
So, Apple is outmatched by hardware no one buys? Or, are you only talking about the Asian marketplace? Even if you're not, I don't see from your link that the hardware looks much better. Sure, one can buy better spec'd windows laptops for less money, but that's been the case for years. You're buying more than just the specs with Apple. This is off topic anyway...we're talking about the midpro.
Well, above I explained why I believe they are not in that market segment and why the Mini sucks. Particularly, the cost to make and buy is too high because it uses laptop parts instead of desktop parts, because that would make it "big and unsightly," even though it would put price/performance back into proportion. The Mini is an anachronistic attempt to make an entry-level computer.
It didn't seem that you were making that point, since you relied on the comparison between the two markets so heavily. I fail to see why you'd do that when you say you realize that they are not in the same market. They could be...they just choose not to be.
You appear to have limited knowledge/experience with windows-based PCs as well as the automotive industry. You should do a little more research before blindly supporting 90% of Apple's decisions, i.e. why everyone who whines here needs a Mac Pro when price vs. performance wise in the prosumer segment it doesn't make sense and is a totally unreasonable choice.
OK, now you're really being an ass. I use a Windows PC every day at work. I would also venture that I know a lot more about the auto industry than you, given the fact that you can't grasp the point I made about market position, instead focusing on details about the actual vehicles that don't matter whatsoever.
And I never said it was an unreasonable choice. I said it's not going to happen, that the market is not big enough, and that most people don't really "need" what they think they do.
SNOOPY:
Most can. The universe is not shrinking, for example. Just state the opposite of the positive, or something mutually exclusive. If you prove one side, and you've proved the other. Maybe that's cheating. Hee, hee.
Probably. I'm tired of that argument at the moment anyway, so...
Well, I'd do it that way too, but there are stories of successful companies that spend nothing on market research. The owner understands the market well enough, and makes all the marketing decisions.
But the point is they KNOW the market.
I've been asking myself that question for years now!
Laugh it up, funny man. The point remains. Obviously Apple knows more than you do.
I've given a reasonable proof, but you don't accept it.
You've not offered proof at all. You've offered flawed logic and supposition. You've offered [i]no proof[i], actually.
The Windows mini tower sells quite well, so a Mac mini tower should also.
Ridiculous. There are far too many variables affecting the outcome. If that was the case, why didn't the old Power Mac minitowers sell well and life Apple out of the doldrums? Yes, I know...it's not the same. That's the point.
I contend that hardware preferences of Mac users is essentially the same as Windows users. You see it differently.
I contend because that's the way it is. There are a lot of different reasons why.
You say that on the Windows side there is no compelling alternative . . . an equivalent of the iMac. I say it is not there because there is insufficient market for the AIO. That is why I said the iMac is not mainstream.
There you go again. "Not mainstream?" What does that even mean? It's a consumer level machine. It sells very well. There is no backing up that assertion you've made. It can't be done.
Sure there is more of a Mac market for an AIO. It has been around for years now.
I thought you said there wasn't and difference?
I On the Windows side, if one company were to push an AIO like Apple does, it would sell about like the iMac, I expect. Why isn't anyone doing it? The market is not big enough to tempt an HP or Dell.
Ah, so that's it. It's a question of "pushing" now. They have tried to copy the iMac and it hasn't caught on. People are used to their formerly beige (and now black) boxes.
We are at an impasse here, so the whole discussion is deadlocked. Neither of us will budge on this point.
I won't budge because you have failed to prove your point that there is a market for the midpro. You've offered one piece of supposition (the Windows market) and nothing more.
I really like it, especially since the redesign. and I'll probably get one some day. Right now it is not high on my priority list. I actually can afford it, but I also just paid for a cruise to Alaska, which put a dent in the wallet. We're leaving Thursday for Vancouver to board. So we've got to wind down the discussion.
Have fun.
Every major OEM on the Windows side has indeed in the past and currently some are providing an AIO form factor computer. But they just don't sell, they didn't sell in the past and it looks like they won't sell in the near future.
True. Next...
And any response similar to, well the Compac or Sony or etc. AIOs look awful won't cut it. I seem to remember many negative comments concerning every AIO design Apple has presented. Gumdrop, titMac, iBoob, the large chin etc.
Well, they've sold well, so the reaction couldn't be too bad. Except for the flower power iMac, that is. Puke. [/quote]
You apparently don't personally know any of the posters here and could not know what their needs or wants truly are.
I don't need to know them personally. That is not a requirement for this discussion. As to needs, well if I don't know, that's a failing of those who won't enumerate them. I've asked specifically. They won't do so because "deep down in places they don't talk about at parties," they know they don't really "need" the machine at all. So their anger towards Apple is really based on their "wants." And it's pretty clear what they want.
The comment above has to be one of the most condescending arrogant posts I've ever seen in the years I've visited Appleinsider.
Then you either haven't been around long enough, or you have incredibly thin skin. I think you know my comment is correct though, which is why it bothers you so much.
Actually that's not the point I'm making at all. I'm saying that it wouldn't do well because of the iMac............
But the point was made none the less, and me and people just like me are perfect examples of it. So in the end you contradicted your self all on your own. Way to go!
But the point is they KNOW the market.
And this really sums up the reason Apple hasn't made a mid-pro.
Most people blithely assume that Apple does what most companies do, and looks at the cost of production, the competition and adds a markup to get a sticker price. That couldn't be further from the truth.
We all know Apple meticulously plans the form factor, colour, design and material choices involved in a product. Lesser known is that the same care is applied to product segments, naming and pricing.
Apple doesn't just make it up as they go along. Detailed studies are commissioned to study consumer habits and desires, and how the market will react to various products and pricing.
The iPod is probably the best example of this, with the product line first taking every high end dollar available and then diversifying to meet the average consumer. A lot of people balked at the iPod's price when it was announced, and had to eat crow later.
Market studies are generally conducted under the radar, using companies that don't even mention the name Apple and the questioners probably don't even know who the research is being done for. (If memory serves, Aperture is the one recent product where it became widely known that Apple was looking into the market segment, and that news kicked Adobe into overdrive.)
The bottom line is that Apple has likely looked into the mid-pro market a few times since the demise of the Cube, and found that not enough consumers in the segment would recognize the value inherent in the Mac OS itself. It would simply lead to them comparing the Mac unfavourably to low-end PCs. Hence, they let the second-hand and clearance market deal with those consumers for now.
It's not just about being able to do upgrades on the user end, I'd like to configure a machine that suits my needs exactly.
The iMac isn't cheap compared to an equivalent PC because you pay for the screen too.
Where I work, we have iMacs, Minis, Macbooks, Macbook Pros and older G5 towers. . . . .
I think there's a continuous failure to communicate here. I don't think anyone has a problem with a cheap mac. The discussion is, and has always been, that doing so is not marketable for Apple, and that has been proven.
But I don't get that much why you think iMacs are so expensive. You get a screen, yes. What do you plan on dong with a screenless computer? You can run it as a server, but servers don't need video cards. Servicing them is also fairly trivial, on account that hard disks don't fail very often.
Lastly, you told me what you have "at work," but I still have no idea what it is that you do at work. Apparently, you need fast GPUs, and the only explanation I can figure is that you must be part of some commune that sells World of Warcraft items on eBay.