Macinchat's MWSF rumors - Page 4

I want to make one minor point, as a Cube owner. I bought the Cube, not because it was cheap (it wasn't), not because it was expandable (it's kind of expandable, but not much), not because it was silent (I have a hearing loss anyway), not because I could use any monitor (altho I liked that), but because it was small.

I haven't bought a PowerMac, not because it's too expensive, not because it only has one optical drive, not because 64-bit OSs are not available yet, or anything like that, but simply because it's too big.

Really, $1799 isn't too much money for a good computer. Refurbs are available for as little as $1399. But the tower is enormous! And if you get a single processor, a lot of that space is empty, permanently wasted, because the machine is not upgradable.

But as mentioned earlier, I'm a geek, I have no idea what would sell or not. Amorph pointed out in another thread that the top-selling Mac right now is the 17" iMac - it's outselling the G5, even with its antique G4 processor.

Horsepower/speed is overrated.

I'd wager a vital organ or two that 96% of the members here at AI - myself included - would be forever MORE than served by a 1GHz G4.

We just like to talk and pretend otherwise.

Maybe so, but if you've ever worked in the publishing biz, having a computer that runs faster PhotoShop filters, burns CD-Rs faster, and lets you deal with all your 500MB project files, you pay for it! Hence the best-selling status of the dual 2GHz G5.

Now if only Apple could speed up Mac OS X Finder so that it's as responsive as Mac OS 9, then I'd switch, but Quark 4 won't like it...
whoops, wrong thread!

I think you'd be surprised. At one of the companies I work for, in an office with 300 people, I know at least a dozen people who occasionally use Autocad who's workstations are Pentium III machines. Not everyone who uses autocad is a balls-to-the-wall CAD operator. Same thing for ESRI products-- at that same company, there are probably at least two dozen people who've got a use for ArcInfo & ArcMap, but their desktop machines are pretty low end machines by today's standards. A mid-market machine with upgradable video would serve these people well.

I DO work in the "publishing biz", mister.

And I'm more than aware of all the reasons you cite.

I'm speaking more on a individual level, at-home kinda stuff.

Yes, at work - where I'm working on large, high-res Photoshop stuff, doing magazine covers at 9x12 with 10 or so layers, effects, etc. a dual 2GHz G5 would indeed be pretty nifty.

Here at home, surfing, e-mailing, writing, iTunes, Illustrator, low-res RGB Photoshop stuff, iApps, etc.? It would be a bit of ridiculous, space-wasting overkill.

That's all I'm saying.

I'd LOVE to have a G5 at work...it makes sense there!

s/Amelio/Spindler/

Amelio was the one that actually made Jobs' return possible, with the acquisition of NeXT. It was Amelio who axed the Performa line among many other products...like the Newton.

Amelio spun off the Newton devision as Newton Inc and started to show a profit. When Jobs came back he brought it back under the Apple name then proceeded to kill it off and promise that there would be a Mac based solution to replace it.

I am looking to get a G5 in the next few months for home... once VPC is updated to work with it. I'm an architect, and we use AutoCAD at my office. But trying to run ACAD in VPC on my G4 is painful.

Although it's overkill for Safari, VPC is one area where having the G5 would make perfect sense. It makes a lot more sense than breaking down and buying a PC -- I don't want to have 2 machines sucking up power and space in my home office.

This debate on whether a headless mac is needed or not will go on for months long after MWSF (if it doesn't show up there).

I do think there is a niche market for one. Not sure if it's big enough to justify development and possibly throw the Mac product line all out of whack. But certainly it would turn some PC heads, for sure.

Now I'm not a techie, but today I installed an internal CDR-W into my old Sawtooth G4 tower and now have a fast 52x burner. I must say that having the ability to breathe new life into an old machine is a great. Doing that to a smaller affordable headless mac would have been just as easy to do.
Something I couldn't do with the G5 towers (because I can't afford one) or my iMac AIO since it's not expandable.

This is a common misconception. Expandable does not equal upgradable. If you had an iMac that was made after they went to the slot loading drive you could attach a firewire burner to your iMac to breath as much new life in it as you did your Sawtooth. For non-tekies this is a better solution because it requires no tinkering with the internals of the computer and most likely requires no software either.

Well yes, mostly all computers are upgradable.

It's just much simpler to crack open a tower than an iMac. Plus, what's the beauty of an AIO when you've got a bunch of peripherals hanging off of it.

...it'd be cheaper to buy a cheap PC mini tower and a KVM switch, that is if your time is money. The PC can sleep when you aren't using it. You can even find a really cheap Shuttle XPC form factor and hide it somewhere out of sight. It'll be 10x faster than using VPC.

RDC connection to a hidden networked PC works well enough for me for office duty, but the slight lag would be a bitch trying to do CAD.

Seriously. Cheap PC hidden under your desk so no one knows your dirty little secret.

Good points in your post. Yeah, I considered going the shuttle/kvm route a little while ago, but when I price out the kvm switch, pc, and graphics card that would be required to hook up to my existing DVI monitor, it doesn't make financial sense versus selling my G4 and going with a G5.

My main concerns -- even over time -- is power consumption and space. I'm within walking distance of my office, so if my deadline is that pressing, I can go over there and work if necessary.

Besides, the G5 means I'd be good for another few years before having to revisit the computer upgrade situation. I'd still be stuck with the aging G4/450 if I bought a PC!

...no need to say anything further. Dual G5 it is!

I truely use to believe that as I had been ruuning my Linux machine for a long time on a 500MHz celeron. Then a upgrade was done a while back, frankly have been kicking my self for waiting so long.

The reality is that as I'vebecome more acustomed to what a real computer can do for a person the more I crave the responsivness that only a truely fast machine can provide. Thus my craving for a G5. Well that and OS/X without which the hardware would be utterly useless.

Hopefully the day will come when I cna afford the machine. The only good thing about the forced wait is that they just keep getting faster.

Thanks
dave

640K oughta be enough for anybody!

No it's not.

Lemon Bon Bon

Yup, it sure is.

Ooh, looks like I hit a sensitive spot. Sissies.

If you're paid by the hour, a slower computer is better.

Regardless, you'll still want a PC to maximize your pay per finished job.

I completely agree that speed is over-rated...for example, I could go with an $867.00 ABS Awesome 2300 with:

- Athlon XP 2600 Barton 333 FSB
- 512 MB DDR 400 RAM
- 160 GB 7200RPM SATA drive
- Sapphire ATI Radeon 9200SE 8X AGP Video Card
- 16X DVD-ROM/48 X CD-ROM
- 4X DVD+/RW Recorder
- On Board 10/100 Ethernet
- On Board Sound

But I'd much rather spend the extra $432.00 on Apple's entry level, $1,299.00 G4 tower with:

-Single 1.25GHz PowerPC G4 w/ 1MB L3 cache
-256MB DDR333 SDRAM
-80GB Ultra ATA drive
-Combo-Drive
-ATI Radeon 9000 Pro 4X AGP Video Card
-On Board 10/100/1000 Ethernet
-On Board Sound

The 1 Ghz, $1099 eMac isn't a bad solution, but then I'd have to find a place for my 19" monitor. Ditto the 1 Ghz, $1299.00, 15" iMac.

To bring this back to MWSF, I'll be buying a new dektop January 6, 2004. With any luck, I'll be back to Mac after a 2 year hiatus. More likely, the marketing geniuses at Apple will ensure I settle for another cheap PC.

Don't be stupid. People will be wondering why it took you so long!?

Faster is better because you can charge more for getting more done in that hour.


-- Clive

And you won't have the customer sitting over your shoulder, breathing down your neck when the project is not done, is falling behind schedule and costing them more to reschedule events that rely on your part of the project. Yes, speed is good!

You're right, the slapped together PC is faster, cheaper AND I wouldn't have to spend money buying an OSX version of Microsoft Office. Still...I'd be willing to pony up if Apple decided to sell a non-AIO for $999.

206K in 04Q1.

Oopsies!

And, told you so!

Oh look! Right around 800K units sold this quarter! Magical!

expanding the product line right now would just slice up that 800K number a few more ways, not add to it. Apple has to convince people to buy their CORE offerings before making new niche offerings.

hmmmm, so you like tooting your own horn so much that the two other threads weren't enough, you had to dig up a thread that died two weeks ago?
Jeez.....

Yes, because I was called out on it. So I'm calling them out on it now. How far away does 5M Macs a year sound now? Tooot tooooot!

Besides, in this thread, I'm arguing against adding more Mac product lines into the mix whereas in the others I'm just laying down the facts.

Mooseman dude I used to service those imacs, none of them had a logic board replaced, they have another card that latchs on to the logic board, the cost is about 75 as i remember for the parts usually.

I agree...

Check out my thoughts in Half-Depth cases for new Macs (?)

Here-- highlighted for clarity:


Looks like the rumor wasn't true, right, Eugene? But if it makes you feel better, you were right, and I was wrong, on this mostly irrelevant side issue...


Can't you just feel the schadenfreude?


Let me get this straight, Eugene-- you're actually HAPPY Apple's not in a position to expand their desktop offerings?


Yeah, look at what happened with the laptops. Last year, they introduced two new laptop models, and as a direct result, they lost money, just like last year. Oh, wait, unlike in the fall of 2002 when they only had one Powerbook model, not only did they sell damn near twice as many units, and their revenue was up 70%-- but they managed to make a $63 million profit, as well! So much for expanding lines eating into profits.

No, I'm happy they don't listen to the geek minority who selfishly demand something they want, but nobody else really cares for. If Apple did as so many here have suggested and developed the Cube 2.0, where do you think it would be this quarter financially?

And you're trying to compare the expansion of the PowerBook line-up with bigger and smaller screens to creating an entirely new product family? Please...

Accept the fact that a headless iMac or mini-Power Mac currently has no place in the line-up and move on.

I smell a catfight...

Given that an expanded Powerbook line didn't adversely effect their bottom line, I have no reason to believe cheaper G5 machines between $1k - $2k would, either.


Right-- because it'd be nearly the same thing. Think about it-- what did Apple have to design for the 12" & 17" Powerbooks? New motherboards, and new enclosures. What would they have to redesign for a "Cube 2.0"? New motherboards & new enclosures... Seems like a fair comparison to me.


Accept the fact that that ain't gonna happen, and move on yourself. There's a REASON this thread died two weeks ago, Eugene...

*Meaw*

Cheaper G5s, between $1000 and $2000. You mean like the low-end G5 already occupies...and the G5 iMac when it'll be released?

I'm sure Apple could release such a G5, if they axe the iMac, but is that what you really want?

*or*

They could make a headless iMac with a G4 while all the other desktops move on to the G5. That's obviously not what you want.

*or*

Apple gets more economical on volume and shrinks the current Power Mac tower down to a respectable mini-tower size. This is still targetting the same audience as before, except it's perhaps slightly cheaper by virtue of time passed. They then release a full-tower with 5 expansion slot. ECC support, two 5.25" bays and two hot swap 3.5" bays (+two internal)...a 'workstation' with an Xsomething name. Xstation?

The latter two options aren't shoehorning a prosumer product in between. In one you're getting a bargain-bin Mac with yesteryear's tech. In the other, you're creating a true professional workstation for those who demand it. In both the dollar spectrum is widened.

The only real feasible option, IMO, is the last one. The Power Mac G5, as an all new replacement for the Power Mac G4 costs a lot to manufacture. There's no way in hell Apple will just continue to leave all that empty space inside. Those big-ass heatsinks and cooling zones? They can be replaced by smaller heatsinks with fans that blow directly onto them. The current Power Mac G5 could be about 4 inches shorter, at least.

*Hiss*