What apple needs (from a pc user) - Page 2

[quote]What the heck are you talking about? powermacs have been able to take 4GB of RAM for the longest time.<hr></blockquote>

not even close. The highest capacity PowerMac for RAM is the Sawtooth G4 motherboard which will take 2 GBs (4X 512MB) and that will only show up in OS X. 1 GB DIMMS are not compatible at all.

[quote]It's designed for someone who wants a basic computer. That's the entire idea around the imac. You can pick up an older G4 model that's only slightly slower for around the price of an iMac.<hr></blockquote>

1.) if that's the entire idea around the iMac than it shouldn't be topped out at a "prosumer" price of 1499 and there should be something between it and the powermac.
2.) Pick up an older G4 model? is that a joke. I want to spend 1600 dollars on a new mac that I get to have expansion for in the future and that includes a display of my size and choice. Not a discontinued tower that still goes for way more than its worth.

[quote]Have you seen the screen before? Once people see it, they tend to stop complaining about the screen.<hr></blockquote>

lowend iBook at 1299 is fine with 12.1 inch

for 1700 bucks you should be getting a 13.3 inch display not a 12.1.

[quote]Have you tried using OSX on an iBook? Not enough screen for the OS.
<hr></blockquote>

there sure is enough. how is there not enough when the majority of mac users are running 1024 x 768? it fits perfectly.

[quote]Do you understand the point he was making? A HD on a laptop [5400rpm to be charitable] CANNOT saturate a 100bit ethernet connection. Not enough throughput. Gigabit on a laptop = marketing, or something Apple hasn't given us yet.
<hr></blockquote>

1.) the drive can saturate 100mb/sec. 100mb/sec also is lower than its theoretical peak do to overhead. 1000mb/sec will raise that capacity even with the overhead increasing transfer speeds.
2.) the main advantage of gigabit ethernet on the Powerbook is that the network disk is FASTER to use and access than the internal drive. So you could be using and storing all your media for a FCP project on a server with a RAID and be editing it through gigabit on your Powerbook. the internal hard drive doesn't slow that down and that is exactly what Apple has been advertising gigabit for.

[quote]Sadly MS did it's homework with XP and MacOS X is said to be default from January on. As someone who used X11, KDE/Gnome(Linux), Win 3.11-XP and MacOS 8.5-X (X only a little) I can only say that though MacOS X looks nice the interface itself is inconsistent and unusable, plus the dock takes away more space than needed. And OS X is a resource hog, which doesn't help Apple if the new iMac is using a G3 still..<hr></blockquote>

1.) what are you trying to say by making a point that OS X will only become default January?
2.) How is the interface "unusuable". Certainly is more than usuable here and elsewhere. I think its great to tell you the truth. XP's looks like crap. it really does. what a poor design.
3.) the dock takes up as much space as you want it to. it scales to any size and can be hidden as well.
4.) any proof of OS X being a resource hog other than the interface being unresponsive on computers that don't have 2d acceleration enabled?

[quote]You must be kidding - low volume? 100.000 iMacs a month is low volume? wow.<hr></blockquote>

1.) the rates are lower than that now
2.) yes 100,000 is very low for the iMac. that's 300,000 a quarter. that is pathetic. Apple use to sell 500,000.

I get annoyed myself at having to compare Macs to PC's, but we have to and Apple has to at every point.

Being the developer of the software and hardware is not an excuse or banner to be waved, it is a business model. A business model that has advantages and disadvantages in a business where only the very high-end companies can run both soft and hardware development.

Apple has to use its advantages and compensate for its disadvantages.

The question is what is the goal. To remain at 5% of the market or to be a serious alternative on an industry-wide basis. In this time of economic recession world-wide, it may not be a bad thing to make a play for the bigger market share.

So here are my thoughts:

Apple already lost the 95% of the market that doesn't use Altivec or understand the quality of pdf integration within the OS. And nothing we think of as Mac users makes any difference. As Apple pushes its standards, and pushes the codecs in QuickTime and finds ways of leveraging its unix core, it also has to come up with a $500 machine that surfs the net, writes email and also happens to use OS X on the side.
I think this can be done and has been done with the iMac. An all-in-one with the minimum requirements and the ability to be upgraded with USB and Firewire connectivity. There is nothing wrong with that model. The only problems are, now, a small screen and slow processor speeds that couldn't be upgraded easily. But those weren't big deals and the iMac sold very well and won over some PC folks. The design didn't hurt either.
The real problem to me is that the iMac has not gotten down to the $500 level that Steve Jobs claimed strive for. If there is a new iMac with LCD screen and stuff, I hope it is so different that they change the name and keep the current iMac (with upgraded mobo and processors) around for the $500 crowd and education.

The percieved problem with the PowerMac G4's, are legitimate when you talk about limited drive bays and they are a little pricey, but lets be honest. A $1000 difference in a workstation is not significant for a big design firm. If it is a Mac place, it will stay a Mac place. If it is PC based, it will remain PC based until something significant happens. $1000 IS significant for the individual developer or designer and that is much of Apple's traditional core and so Apple needs to be proactive in making its products accessible for those folks with special deals or bundles or whatever.

The Megahurts thing is only a temporary problem in the long-term so I think it is really premature to think that the last year or so or REAL and last 2 years or so of PERCIEVED slow processors is a real problem. The landscape will be far different in 8 months. The only ones who are pissed off are the ones that have needed to buy this year....not a big market share...so stop whining.

The iBooks and PowerBooks are pretty much on the mark, but I agree Apple has to loosen up and let things become more expandible and work on returning to the things they pioneered, like drive bays that can also house extra batteries.

I am optimistic for a couple of reasons:
1. There is no big new thing and no company is making money getting new customers so Apple is not losing ground now.
2. The PC makers will knock each other around and the industry will continue to consolidate, but that like everything else will be temporary. Someone (hopefully Apple) will get things churned up again and new startups will come on-line to make more computers. The industry could not sustain having just Dell and Compag/HP as the only big manufacturers.
3. Apple has only scratched the surface with its Unix foundation.
4. Apple has only scratched the surface with its software/hardware interoperablility.
5. iPod is a first step.
6. At some point even Microsoft will have to break up, either by the market forces or by an administration that DOESN'T bends over for big business.

So have cheer and start hacking emulators for XBox!

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: MacGregor ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by JasonPP:
<strong>Apple did use a cheapish screen in the iMac.

it's junk.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I just got one at school. The biggest problem is actually that I have 500MHZ one with only 128 RAM....it is a bit of a dog at OSX...adequate but bad in classic apps.

Screen is kinda crappy.....

[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>

[quote]As I see it, there is bottom range, iMac, then nothing until $1699 for the powermac (without monitor) There is surely a lot of people out there who have had a couple of computers before, can't afford to spend all the money on a PM G4, or mightn't want a PM G4, but feel they are limited too much by the iMac. The cube was supposed to fix this, but it was way too expensive, and offered very little over the iMac.
<hr></blockquote>

Brad, you speak the truth!

I have been saying this for over a year! Apple has no midrange computer. It's either pay ~$2200 for a Powermac w/display (and that's a stripped down powermac in need of upgrades), or pay $1300 and get stuck with a dinky 15" CRT that's ugly and tiny. Smurf tiny.

The cube was the perfect computer to fill Apple's midrange. It had an expandable video card. You could choose your own display. It had a similar motherboard to the powermac, sans the PCI slots. It was perfect. But Apple got greedy, priced it HIGHER than the low end powermac, and it was a bust (well, duhhh).

If the Cube had been constructed out of cheaper materials, with cheaper manufacturing costs, ie, didn't look quite so Bang&Olufson, then it would have been a bitchin' success. Price it at $999, $1199, $1399, add a $500 display and the total for the system comes out to $1500, 1700, 1900, RIGHT IN THE GAPING HOLE IN APPLE'S LINEUP!

I still cannot fathom how the designers at Apple were so incredibly stupid that they couldn't figure this one out. It doesn't make ANY sense to me.

Meanwhile, we're left with a dismal desktop lineup for Apple.

Here are the primary problems as I see them:

Powermacs:

Case: needs 2 extra drive expansion bays.
Needs USB and Firewire ports on the front of the computer (hot swapable, anyone?).
Needs a flat-top so that peripherals can be stacked upon it.

Motherboard: Needs to be updated to 2001, from 1996. Needs a G5. Needs competitive speeds.

Cost: Needs to drop in price.

In summary, the Powermac needs more expandability, and less cost.

Vent: I KNOW the real reason for lack of expandable drive bay: Firewire. Apple gets royalties off Firewire, so for every Powermac owner who's forced to buy a Firewire peripheral, it's money in the bank for Apple. An extra drive bay in the Powermac would cut into Apple's Firewire royalties. So everytime you plug in a Firewire peripheral, think of the extra cash you blew on it because Apple could pony up an extra drive bay in their POWERmac, that is supposedly a computer made for POWERusers, graphicsPROS, and other PROPOWER types that typically would have the need for extra drive bays.

Next: iMac:

Where to start?!?!

The screen! It's sucks! The iMac has the most pitiful display of any computer for sale in America today! It sucks so hard that other companies don't even bother to try sucking harder! 13.8" viewable, on a convex, fuzzy, ugly-ass CRT. WTF!!!

And no, a 15" LCD isn't going to fix it. The iMac comes with only one display, there is no choice in the matter. As long as one is stuck with a display, it should be a GOOD display, meaning, at least 16" viewable, like a 17" CRT. Anything smaller is an insult to the consumer.

Let's think Apple: What do consumers like to do?
A. Play games.
B. Make iMovies
C. Sort their MP3s.
D. All of the above!!!

Yeah, it's D! And what do each of these choices need? Lots of display area. All of these tasks are more enjoyable on a larger display.

No matter how fucking good OS X is, nobody will want to use it if they have to play with it on some dinky 15" display. My cock is bigger than that!

New rule: no computer display should be smaller than my erect cock.

If Apple followed this rule, then everyone would be happy!

What else is wrong with the iMac?

No expandable video card! Yeah, Apple, get a clue. Offer it with some cheesy granny card, then when a gamer buys one, they rip it out and slip in something worthwhile. Otherwise, with lame video cards and no way to upgrade them, the iMac is merely a toy--not a gaming machine, a toy. It's not really good for anything.

And while they're at it, give it room for an extra HD. WTF, it's a desktop computer, not a lampshade. Extra HD, upgradeable video card, 16" viewable display...are these features gonna kill ya, Apple? 'Cause they would make the iMac a hell of a lot more competitive in the real world.

If Apple really wanted to make the next iMac a screaming success, this is what they would do:

Make a standard base unit. agp slot, room for one extra HD, G4, and lots of ports (don't forget the audio ports, Steve, not all of us went deaf listening to rock and roll while tripping acid.).

Now, here's the tricky part for Apple: Make two different displays for the standard base unit, and have them connect to it via a proprietary plug, like ADC, but it would be nice and sturdy, and swivel.

so here's the deal: The customer buys the base unit. They're all the same speed, 1 GHz, they just differ in drive configurations.

Then they select a display to plug into the base unit. It can be either a A)15" LCD display, or a B)17" LCD display.

Instant bonus!!! This not only superscedes the iMac, but it fills the hole in Apple's desktop lineup. Someone can get a nice, 17" display Mac system for around $1600, OR, they can be a panzy and get an iMac with the dinky 15" display, and spend only $999. It would be the perfect solution. And it would also be fun to pick and choose between different displays and base units. Sort of like a "choose your own adventure" book, but with computer hardware.

[quote]
so here's the deal: The customer buys the base unit. They're all the same speed, 1 GHz, they just differ in drive configurations.

Then they select a display to plug into the base unit. It can be either a A)15" LCD display, or a B)17" LCD display. <hr></blockquote>

Could you bring a bit more passion to your posts please? All I can say is I agree with you.

Chris

1st
You can compare specs until you turn blue in the face. The truth is that Macintosh computers work. They don't need babysitting, or configuring, or optimizing. I was seriously pissed off when I blew CAN$420 on my ASUS Geforce Deluxe card, when the GPU was first released only to find my games worse off than before. When the card works, it rocks, but it's probably got bad memory or something. I replaced it once, the second time i went to replace it, the store had gone outta business. Capture video? Forget it. Pentiums drop frames like stink. Don't get me started on Windows. I can't transfer files back and forth from school (G4 867s) to home (PII450) because my USB digital camera conflicts with my PARRALLEL zip drive. I mean that is BS. I decided one day that I'd try and get the pics off my camera at school. Here's what happened: I plugged the camera into the KEYBOARD (no reaching behind), a little drive icon appears, and voila! Suddenly I have a portable crossplatform USB flash drive in addition to my camera.

2nd
DON'T TELL ME MY (dual-usb rev.B) IBOOK SCREEN IS TOO SMALL YOU KLUDGY SPEC-SHEET ELITIST! I bought it for the small footprint, compactness, and intuitiveness of the hardware design. Show me a 4.9lb, firewire-equipped, combo-drive, AV out PC notebook with the sub-notebook size of the ibook.

oh yeah and 5h battery life too

sod off,

C

[quote]Originally posted by preston:
<strong>1st
2nd
DON'T TELL ME MY (dual-usb rev.B) IBOOK SCREEN IS TOO SMALL YOU KLUDGY SPEC-SHEET ELITIST! I bought it for the small footprint, compactness, and intuitiveness of the hardware design. Show me a 4.9lb, firewire-equipped, combo-drive, AV out PC notebook with the sub-notebook size of the ibook.

sod off,
C</strong><hr></blockquote>

I tought we were complaining about iMac screen size, not iBook? iBook is a laptop computer and is perfectly fine, imho.

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>

no they wouldn't be able to drop their margins 5-10%. they would be bleeding money if they did. they lose money selling computers as it is. Apple hasn't turned a profitable operating expense quarter in over a year now I believe. their profits come from the interest on their 4 billion dollar cash reserve and constantly selling off their never ending ARM supply</strong><hr></blockquote>
a profit margin, is by definition the difference between the cost of fabrication, the R&D investiment, the advertising, the cost of gestion and the prize Apple sell his products.
It means for each 100 $ of sales, Apple win 25 $ if is profit margin in 25 %.
After that apple has to pay tax (profit taxation, i suppose it exist in USA like in any other states) on it, the rest is divided between the owners (actions) of Apple and the future investissement.

[quote] DON'T TELL ME MY (dual-usb rev.B) IBOOK SCREEN IS TOO SMALL YOU KLUDGY SPEC-SHEET ELITIST! <hr></blockquote>
What a moron.

Screen size isn't a "spec-sheet" phenomenon, it's one of the most important things about a comptuer! You stupid dolt, if your iBook had a larger screen you would like it even more!

[quote]
For $1700 again you are right, 13" would be a good idea, but I wouldn't be too keen about increasing the resolution, a lot of people don't have perfect eyes<hr></blockquote>

oh definitely. however, the Powerbooks should AT LEAST have equal DPI as the iBook standard. they don't now. the powerbooks should also have a higher rez screen for BTO. If people are willing to pay (which they seem to be) Apple should offer it.

[quote]
100mb/sec is not going to saturate the hdd. <a href="http://www.storagereview.com" target="_blank">www.storagereview.com</a> shows that most desktop hdd's are peaking out at 30-35mb/sec, these are 7200rpm hdds that are full 3.5" drives. I doubt many laptop hdd's would go anywhere near 15mb/sec<hr></blockquote>

100mb/sec sure is going to saturate the drive. you are confusing units. 100mb/sec Ethernet is 100 megaBITS per second. Hard drives are measured in MegaBYTES. so 100mb/sec Ethernet is really around 12 Megabytes. Well within the range of modern hard drives

[quote]Originally posted by Brad:
<strong><a href="http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/cart/product.asp?productid=1216" target="_blank">http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/cart/product.asp?productid=12 16</a>

<a href="http://store.apple.com/133-622/WebObjects/australiastore.woa/821/wo/bhHHh1iy7BSVPY4vi/1.3.0.3.30.29.1.2.19.3.0.1.3.1.1.0?29,21" target="_blank">http://s tore.apple.com/133-622/WebObjects/australiastore.woa/821/wo/bhHHh1iy7BSVPY4vi/1.3.0.3.30.29.1.2.19.3.0.1.3.1.1.0?29,21</a>


think carefully....

anyway, replying to applenut, yes the PB G4 does need a bigger res, many pc laptops have had 1600x1200 for quite some time in a 15" screen.


100/8 = 12.5mb/sec for ethernet. But you will find any normal transfer of files is going to be much less than that unless your file is perfectly organised right on the outer regions of your hdd. It can saturate it, but normally there isn't a chance of it happening</strong><hr></blockquote>


sorry, but I just don't see that. transfer speed is more limited by the software than the hard drive. the move from appletalk to IP drastically improved speeds and OS 9-&gt;10.1 did even bigger difference. Both my Powerbook G4 and PowerMac G4 have no problem surpassing 12.5 MB/sec writes.

not sure what the Powerbook exactly gets but I believe its in the 20s and the PowerMac gets 36mb/sec on 7200 RPM drive and 30 on the 5400 RPM

While OS X is definate resource hog, the 10.1.2 update should cut it resource usage by about 30% as it now compresses the backgroud window buffers. There was a conflict in this and some carbon appz apearently, so it was disabled until now. But there are many reports of 10.1.2 serving up an additional 30 Megs of free RAM on a 128 system.

Don't have an OS X box yet, however, so this is only going on other peoples say. [side note]I miss my old job; I got to use all of Apple latest and greatest, and report on how to use it, if it was worth the money, etc... Got to set up the first OS X server for QT streaming, then got to hack it to see what it's security was like. definatly the best job I've ever had. Oh, well, the one I have now pays better &lt;sigh&gt;. Damn economy.

The iBook screen is appropriate for a notebook, labtop. What is the problem.

I agree with lots of what JYD said except his assertion as to the minimum screen size for a desktop...a palm pilot is bigger than that.

Upgrades and reconfiguring are a necessity to get all of those unix geeks to jump on the OSX bandwagon. We are going to need them.

But a good crt at $500 is a good idea too.