or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple unveils Mac mini Core Duo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple unveils Mac mini Core Duo - Page 10

post #361 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
to a certain extent, I agree with both you and Ben.

I think they are trying, but don't want to use anything that's older. They want everything new.

What bothers me about this, in some areas, because basically, I don't see a problem (look at iLife!) with it all of the time, is that they sometimes ignore an important market that they own already!

We're talking about Appleworks. That's a perfect example. Many people don't realise this, but it has been a standard in schools almost from when it first came out. That's for both PC's and Macs, because it's (was?) cross platform. It ALWAYS recieved better reviews that MS Works, also cross platform (not now though, I think).

So, schools used that program as a standard. But Aple let it lapse over the past five years or so, and now it's fallen out of favor.

The worst mistake Steve Jobs made since returning was spliting up Claris and putting CW under Apple's thumb. When left alone, they made a great product and Apple reaped the benefits. Since then it hasn't been really updated, MS Works has become a better product, and its "replacement" doesn't exactly do the same thing. I move we continue this discussion in a seperate thread.
post #362 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by bitemymac
Well, here's some wake up calls for those who thinks new imac will be a good HTPC or playing back any video format for that matter. The current intel IGP just plain sucks for all video play backs. You probably shouldn't even want to play 480i DVD titles on them.

see it for yourself:
http://www.principledtechnologies.co...A/VidPlay1.pdf

Mmm...a NVidia commissioned study shows NVidia beating ATI. Surprise surprise. I actually do think NVidia is a little ahead at the moment as the HTPC forum on AVS seems to use the GeForce in their builds as much as Radeons. That wasn't true a year ago I don't think.

On the other hand you need to look at the software component and not the chipset for the HQV benchmarks. Many of the features tested depend on the scaler/playback software being used. For example I suspect that all three solutions would have scored much higher on some elements given DScaler/FFDShow + Zoomplayer or TheaterTek.

PureVideo does win in deinterlacing wierd and poorly mastered video but most movies (say LOTR, SW, etc) wont have those issues.

The 945 scored the same on picture detail (5) and outscored Nvidia on Color Bar/Vertical detail (10 vs 5). Its a little weird that no one but NVidea did 3:2 detection in their tests.

In any case, using PowerDVD for the 945G was a handicap in these tests. In addition they were unable to do 1080i given their ADD2 media expansion card not necessarily a limitation on the 950GMA. Not that it mattered much as the test display was 720p. The 1080i tests probably measured the display's abilities more than anything else. All DVI tests should have been 720p to eliminate as much as possible the influence of the display.

It was futher hamstrung by the selection of the Samsung LCD HDTV for the tests. 22" diagonal 720p TV is hardly a good selection.

They sat at the wrong distance for the tests and were outside both HDTV specifications and normal seating distances. (55" vs 35" for HDTV and probably 96" is a good average for most living rooms).

The tests were not stated to be double blind tests and are subjective scorings based on HQV guidelines.

All in all a very poor test of the respective technologies. No tests with a scope, color analyzer or pretty much anything.

Short answer: That whitepaper is useless except to show that PowerDVD decoder sucks and Principled Technology is pretty clueless about video.

Vinea
post #363 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross

-snip-My point was that *GAMERS* buy those $3,000 machines. I'm sure you know the type. They get LED feet for the machine. Memory cards with lights. They string those neon cords around and in the machine. They saw a hole in the panel so they can put a clear (illegal, no shielding) panel in to show all of their wonderful handiwork.

The Mini should be able to handle games that aren't first person shooters. Those are the worst. The rest, at least most of them, don't have as much of a graphics requirement.

Actually, it is only the rich or obsessive gamers that have the $3000 computers with $500 video cards. The vast majority of computer gamers use cheap computers and low to mid range graphics cards.

And it is no longer just first person shooters that need good 3d rendering capabilities: extremely popular games like world of warcraft needs a decent video card to get a playable frame rate. Even turn based strategy games like the Civilization IV are using beautiful 3D animations - which takes rendering power.

Consumer computers should be able to satisfy the needs of the casual gamer, and if the mini had a BTO option for a video card that would allow it to do so, 90% of all the complaints would vanish.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
post #364 of 782
Has anybody tried OpenOffice on an Intel Mac? I know X11 is slow on PowerPC but not so on x86, at least under Linux. Version 2.02 RC4 for Intel based Macs is available for testing. I wish I had an Intel Mac to test it with.
post #365 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by BenRoethig
, MS Works has become a better product,

You gotta be kidding me. You really like MS works better than Claris works? My wife still has trouble writing simple letters in MS works. Needs my help all the time. Fold the spreadsheet and database into iworks and you've got a winner. Even better get a stripped down version of filemaker as your database.
post #366 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Res
Actually, it is only the rich or obsessive gamers that have the $3000 computers with $500 video cards. The vast majority of computer gamers use cheap computers and low to mid range graphics cards.

And it is no longer just first person shooters that need good 3d rendering capabilities: extremely popular games like world of warcraft needs a decent video card to get a playable frame rate. Even turn based strategy games like the Civilization IV are using beautiful 3D animations - which takes rendering power.

Consumer computers should be able to satisfy the needs of the casual gamer, and if the mini had a BTO option for a video card that would allow it to do so, 90% of all the complaints would vanish.

I have to tell you that it's not just rich gamers. Obsessive one's, sure. But that what's keeping Alien and Voodo afloat. The new hi end machines from Dell are also aimed at this crowd. There are a lot more of them out there than you think.

Every gaming site has declared anything but the fastest machines with the fastest ot almost the fastest video cards to incapable of properly playing these games.

So, obsessive? Yes! But those are the true gamers, usually males between 17 and 29.
post #367 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
You really like MS office better than Claris works? My wife still has trouble writing simple letters in MS works.

Er... why is everyone using MS Works and MS Office interchangeably? The two are completely different products.

MS works has a feature set similar to AppleWorks and is awful. MS Office is vastly more powerful than AppleWorks.

If you think AppleWorks is better than Office, then you are not Office's target market.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #368 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
You gotta be kidding me. You really like MS office better than Claris works? My wife still has trouble writing simple letters in MS works. Needs my help all the time. Fold the spreadsheet and database into iworks and you've got a winner. Even better get a stripped down version of filemaker as your database.

From using Works 8.0, the current version is a much better product. It works a lot like an office lite. Back in the day CW/AW was a much better product, but it's been seven years since its been updated. As for Pages, I find it to be a very good entry level page layout app. As a word processor, saying that it leaves a lot to be desired is putting it mildly.
post #369 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by kukito
Has anybody tried OpenOffice on an Intel Mac? I know X11 is slow on PowerPC but not so on x86, at least under Linux. Version 2.02 RC4 for Intel based Macs is available for testing. I wish I had an Intel Mac to test it with.

The open source suites are out of the realm of possibility for the Mini's target crowd.
post #370 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by kukito
Has anybody tried OpenOffice on an Intel Mac? I know X11 is slow on PowerPC but not so on x86, at least under Linux. Version 2.02 RC4 for Intel based Macs is available for testing. I wish I had an Intel Mac to test it with.

It works ok, though it's a bit sluggish. Ver. 2 should be better, if they ever get it finished on the Mac. It seems as though they aren't getting enough volunteers for Mac porting.

The main problem is that the interface looks like it came straight from Win 95 or something in that era.

It's so hard to look at, that I can't find myself using it for more than a few minutes. I know that sounds silly, but it's true.

If you are used to Windows, then it will look fine. But it's been criticised for having ugly fonts as well, and it's true. It's just hard to look at.

The Quartz version (Neo Office) is easier to work with for that reason (it doesn't use X11), but it's behind the other version. If they ever get that to ver 2, then all bets are off.

http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/oo...downloads.html
post #371 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by kukito
Has anybody tried OpenOffice on an Intel Mac? I know X11 is slow on PowerPC but not so on x86, at least under Linux.

There's also NeoOffice, without the X11 dependency. I've never used it (or OpenOffice, except briefly on Solaris many years ago).

[edit: foo, Mel beat me to it... sometimes I wish he'd slow down a bit. ]
post #372 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by sjk
There's also NeoOffice, without the X11 dependency. I've never used it (or OpenOffice, except briefly on Solaris many years ago).

[edit: foo, Mel beat me to it... sometimes I wish he'd slow down a bit. ]

I'm going down to my shop for an hour or so, you can squeeze something in there.
post #373 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by BenRoethig
The open source suites are out of the realm of possibility for the Mini's target crowd.

Out of the realm of possibility???? isn't part of the audience for the mini people who don't have a lot of money for computers? They are the ones who don't have the money for MS Office or iWork, and actually need the open source suites.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Reply
post #374 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Er... why is everyone using MS Works and MS Office interchangeably? The two are completely different products.

MS works has a feature set similar to AppleWorks and is awful. MS Office is vastly more powerful than AppleWorks.

If you think AppleWorks is better than Office, then you are not Office's target market.

You are right I meant works. I am generally not that stupid but I do have my moments.
post #375 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by sjk
My Mac-using friends either do know better or simply don't known (or care) enough about hardware specs to be misleadingly influenced by them. When I've helped the latter make purchasing choices they're most interested in (and ask questions about) software-related issues that might apply to what they want to do with the system. Any hardware-related interest has to do with peripherals (e.g. will their printer work).

It's obvious that people making significant purchases owe it to themselves to be accurately informed about influential factors they're unsure of. It's challenging to make that a less intimating and time-consuming process with complex products. It's easiest (and often fun) helping someone who's actively looking for sufficient pre-purchase assistance but not everyone realizes they may need it. And not everyone is prepared or qualified to help even if they'd like to.

I don't have patience with anyone's helpless habit of stubbornly shirking responsibility for cluelessly presumptuous purchasing decisions and blaming someone else for their ineptness.

Oh, yeah, there's a Mac mini update...

Those are Mac-users you are referring to. I am referring to PC users which Apple must continue to convert to the Mac.
post #376 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Apple could make a $499 computer with the same margin as the $599 one. When the Celeron 4xx comes out, they could do $449 or perhaps even $399 at the same margin.

Really I don't get the mini. Hardly anyone buys it because it is really, really small. They buy it because it is inexpensive. Secondary attractions are the fact that it's smaller than a normal tower (note that it needn't be really, really small to be smaller than a normal tower), and it is quiet.

If Apple had made the mini big enough to contain a full-size hard-drive and optical drive, they still could have made it run quiet and smaller than a normal tower. The component costs would also have been lower, and much better hard-drive options would be available. There would also be enough room for full-size RAM dimms.

You are correct. Jobs is a genius at some things and a moron at others. He has never been a very intelligent businessman, ala Bill Gates.
He needs to put someone else in charge of hardware, someone who GETS the consumer.
post #377 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
You are correct. Jobs is a genius at some things and a moron at others. He has never been a very intelligent businessman, ala Bill Gates.
He needs to put someone else in charge of hardware, someone who GETS the consumer.


What's "your" Net Worth compared to Steve Jobs'?
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #378 of 782
Look, I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but as long as people display an inability to read a thread properly, I guess I'm going to have to repeat myself.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bergermeister
This whole thing is out of control. Nothing Apple could have presented would have satisfied everyone.

Actually, in the context of the Mac Mini, Apple could have produced a machine to satisfy everyone.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bergermeister
When the new mini hits people's desks we will see how the integrated graphics work; I bet they will be more than satisfactory for the people who buy the mini because they are not geeks like us. If you aren't happy with IG on a mini, you have the option of a Quad with a Quadro FX 4500. Jane and Joe Average don't know the difference and probably couldn't care less.

I agree, apart from the crazy comment about "if you don't like it, get a Quad with a Quadro". Hello?? Surely there is some middle ground here, that Apple is failing to cover for no good reason?

Quote:
Originally posted by Bergermeister
The mini's price is also fine. If you want a 399 box, go get one. Based on specs, you can get something faster and cheaper. By the time you add in software on par with the mini's (there is none that I am aware of that is all made by the same maker and therefore interconnected and intuitive) you will surpass the mini's cost with these extra ghost costs.

Again, no-one said the Mini was overpriced. Yes, $399 PCs do not offer the features of a $599 mini, and therefore the mini is worth the extra $200, but only if you want those extra features.

I'm willing to take Melgross's points about production lines on board, they are not as sophisticated as I would like. But the fact remains that if Dell can produce a computer with loads of BTO options, then Apple should be able to do the same. Last time I checked, Dell makes huge profits every quarter, so all this talk about inexpensive PCs being unprofitable is bunk. Apple shot themselves in the foot by not designing the mini so that it would be easier to customise.

The machine they should have produced is:

Something just big enough to fit in a motherboard, full-size HD, full-size optical drive, and one full-length PCI-E card slot. This machine would still be much smaller than a normal tower, and could be made to run quietly.

The base configuration, for $399, could then be:

40 gig HD; 512 MB RAM; CD-RW drive; Celeron 4xx; integrated graphics; IR receiver, but no remote. edit: analogue audio out, no audio in /edit. Apple would make a profit off that.

The BTO options should then be:

More RAM
Bigger hard drives
Better optical drives (combo, super)
CPU: Solo or Duo
GPU: Any graphics card that fits in the PCI-E slot.
Airport
Bluetooth
edit: Digital audio I/O /edit

If people want to use Front Row, they would need to buy the Apple Remote separately, or they could control Front Row with a wireless keyboard and mouse if they prefer.

People have talked about buyers of $399 machines "clogging up support lines". As far as I know, Apple only allow a limited number of free calls to support, and they start charging after that.

There are plenty of people who just don't need the additional power of machines costing more than $399. There are also plenty of people who may want a slightly better graphics card, but already have a monitor etc, so why should they buy an iMac? It just makes so much sense to have a basic, configurable machine that lets users pick and choose the specs they want. I don't understand what is stopping Apple doing that.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #379 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
What's "your" Net Worth compared to Steve Jobs'?

What does that have to do with anything? I told you I thought he was a genius in many ways.
He just cannot bring himself to produce a worthy low end Computer for the common man.
post #380 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
What does that have to do with anything? I told you I thought he was a genius in many ways.
He just cannot bring himself to produce a worthy low end Computer for the common man.

Steve that doesn't make him a moron. You guys think the pathway to profits is just cutting the price down. It's always a balancing act.

Celeron? You would have heard bigger howls from the Mac faithful.

Would I like a Shuttle sized Mac mini with a PCI Express 16x slot and a 3.5" HD. Yup...but that wouldn't have had the same effect as the first time you lay your eyes on a Mac mini and think "That can't be the whole computer"

I respect Jobs for his keen ability to tread that line between art and the common tool.

We all want Apple to focus more on saving us money but hell I think the same thing everytime I get a bill.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #381 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
What's "your" Net Worth compared to Steve Jobs'?

What's "his" Net Worth compared to Bill Gates? Geez, some people look at the world and decide that a good entrepreneur is measured by his/her Net Worth.

'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #382 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
What does that have to do with anything? I told you I thought he was a genius in many ways.
He just cannot bring himself to produce a worthy low end Computer for the common man.

Mercedes doesn't make $12,000 subcompacts. If your most important feature is price look elsewhere. Macs have never been as cheap as pcs.
post #383 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Mercedes doesn't make $12,000 subcompacts. If your most important feature is price look elsewhere. Macs have never been as cheap as pcs.

Yeah but, Mercedes smokes the crap out of any "cheap" car out there. Can't say the same thing about Apple computers unfortunately.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #384 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Look, I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but as long as people display an inability to read a thread properly, I guess I'm going to have to repeat myself.
Actually, in the context of the Mac Mini, Apple could have produced a machine to satisfy everyone.
I agree, apart from the crazy comment about "if you don't like it, get a Quad with a Quadro". Hello?? Surely there is some middle ground here, that Apple is failing to cover for no good reason?

Again, no-one said the Mini was overpriced. Yes, $399 PCs do not offer the features of a $599 mini, and therefore the mini is worth the extra $200, but only if you want those extra features.

I'm willing to take Melgross's points about production lines on board, they are not as sophisticated as I would like. But the fact remains that if Dell can produce a computer with loads of BTO options, then Apple should be able to do the same. Last time I checked, Dell makes huge profits every quarter, so all this talk about inexpensive PCs being unprofitable is bunk. Apple shot themselves in the foot by not designing the mini so that it would be easier to customise.

The machine they should have produced is:

Something just big enough to fit in a motherboard, full-size HD, full-size optical drive, and one full-length PCI-E card slot. This machine would still be much smaller than a normal tower, and could be made to run quietly.

The base configuration, for $399, could then be:

40 gig HD; 512 MB RAM; CD-RW drive; Celeron 4xx; integrated graphics; IR receiver, but no remote. edit: analogue audio out, no audio in /edit. Apple would make a profit off that.

The BTO options should then be:

More RAM
Bigger hard drives
Better optical drives (combo, super)
CPU: Solo or Duo
GPU: Any graphics card that fits in the PCI-E slot.
Airport
Bluetooth
edit: Digital audio I/O /edit

If people want to use Front Row, they would need to buy the Apple Remote separately, or they could control Front Row with a wireless keyboard and mouse if they prefer.

People have talked about buyers of $399 machines "clogging up support lines". As far as I know, Apple only allow a limited number of free calls to support, and they start charging after that.

There are plenty of people who just don't need the additional power of machines costing more than $399. There are also plenty of people who may want a slightly better graphics card, but already have a monitor etc, so why should they buy an iMac? It just makes so much sense to have a basic, configurable machine that lets users pick and choose the specs they want. I don't understand what is stopping Apple doing that.

Here's portable macmini from dell:

Dell Home has the new Dell Inspiron E1505 Dual Core Notebook priced at $979 - $250 rebate = $729 with free shipping. Free Dell Color Printer 720.

Intel Core Duo 1.66GHz, 15.4" WXGA, 512MB DDR2, 40GB SATA, 24x CDRW/DVD

10/100 + 56k + 802.11g, Intel 950 Video, 53 WHr Battery, XP Media Center


This is good value for $725 + printer + 15" LCD + portability... Okay it runs on XP so add another $100 in inconvenience, so all this for $825.... and it will get fast and cheaper......
always a newbie
Reply
always a newbie
Reply
post #385 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Steve that doesn't make him a moron. You guys think the pathway to profits is just cutting the price down. It's always a balancing act.

Celeron? You would have heard bigger howls from the Mac faithful.

Would I like a Shuttle sized Mac mini with a PCI Express 16x slot and a 3.5" HD. Yup...but that wouldn't have had the same effect as the first time you lay your eyes on a Mac mini and think "That can't be the whole computer"

I respect Jobs for his keen ability to tread that line between art and the common tool.

We all want Apple to focus more on saving us money but hell I think the same thing everytime I get a bill.

I think the mistake he made was trying to make the Mini more than it can or should be.
The Mini came out as an easy and cheap way to go on the internet, play a few games, and just get to experience the Mac.
What I was expecting and hoping to get was basically the same thing as before, with a 64 mb Graphics Chip (certainly not integrated crap), same RAM of 512Mb, a faster Intel Chip, a faster larger Hard Drive, and iWork, for the same $499 price point.
The Modem should still be inside, I think thats more important than a remote control.
Had Apple done this, I think the new Mini would have been an unqualified hit. As is, I think he made a big mistake. JMHO.
post #386 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah but, Mercedes smokes the crap out of any "cheap" car out there. Can't say the same thing about Apple computers unfortunately.

You can't but I can
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #387 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Mercedes doesn't make $12,000 subcompacts. If your most important feature is price look elsewhere. Macs have never been as cheap as pcs.

And the Mini never was, but it was close enough to get people to buy them without having to worry about it.
post #388 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
You can't but I can

Seeing as you don't own an Apple computer yet (from what you've been saying around in these boards) - I'm not surprised.

Wait 'til you get that mini and compare it to an Athlon X2 with 2GB of RAM and a 256MB card (about the same price as a core duo mini), then you will.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #389 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Look, I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, but as long as people display an inability to read a thread properly, I guess I'm going to have to repeat myself.



Actually, in the context of the Mac Mini, Apple could have produced a machine to satisfy everyone.



I agree, apart from the crazy comment about "if you don't like it, get a Quad with a Quadro". Hello?? Surely there is some middle ground here, that Apple is failing to cover for no good reason?



Again, no-one said the Mini was overpriced. Yes, $399 PCs do not offer the features of a $599 mini, and therefore the mini is worth the extra $200, but only if you want those extra features.

I'm willing to take Melgross's points about production lines on board, they are not as sophisticated as I would like. But the fact remains that if Dell can produce a computer with loads of BTO options, then Apple should be able to do the same. Last time I checked, Dell makes huge profits every quarter, so all this talk about inexpensive PCs being unprofitable is bunk. Apple shot themselves in the foot by not designing the mini so that it would be easier to customise.

The machine they should have produced is:

Something just big enough to fit in a motherboard, full-size HD, full-size optical drive, and one full-length PCI-E card slot. This machine would still be much smaller than a normal tower, and could be made to run quietly.

The base configuration, for $399, could then be:

40 gig HD; 512 MB RAM; CD-RW drive; Celeron 4xx; integrated graphics; IR receiver, but no remote. edit: analogue audio out, no audio in /edit. Apple would make a profit off that.

The BTO options should then be:

More RAM
Bigger hard drives
Better optical drives (combo, super)
CPU: Solo or Duo
GPU: Any graphics card that fits in the PCI-E slot.
Airport
Bluetooth
edit: Digital audio I/O /edit

If people want to use Front Row, they would need to buy the Apple Remote separately, or they could control Front Row with a wireless keyboard and mouse if they prefer.

People have talked about buyers of $399 machines "clogging up support lines". As far as I know, Apple only allow a limited number of free calls to support, and they start charging after that.

There are plenty of people who just don't need the additional power of machines costing more than $399. There are also plenty of people who may want a slightly better graphics card, but already have a monitor etc, so why should they buy an iMac? It just makes so much sense to have a basic, configurable machine that lets users pick and choose the specs they want. I don't understand what is stopping Apple doing that.

Don't kid yourself about making a computer that everyone would like. Complaints vary from price to features. Anyone whose been around long enough, knows you can't make everyone happy. AS far as the celeron 4xx, it os not currently available. When it comes out maybe it will be a BTO at a lower price. Franky, I don't understand what market the mini is after. It isn't cheap enough to appeal to price sensitve buyers and not really feature rich enough for die hard enthusiasts. That's probably why it generates as much discussion as it does. IMO Apple should forget the low end buyer anyway. As Murch has mentioned they just aren't worth it.
post #390 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yeah but, Mercedes smokes the crap out of any "cheap" car out there. Can't say the same thing about Apple computers unfortunately.

But it's not all about speed. If you truly enjoy the windows experience, why are you here? BTW I could buy a ford mustang gt and smoke the crap out of an s500. Does that make the mustang better? It's a matter of opinion and taste but I know what I think.
post #391 of 782
We don't know what Apple could have done for $399, or $499.

I imagine that they weren't any happier about raising the price than many here are. But, these days WiFi and Bluetooth are becoming marketing necessities. They don't add that much to the price either. Broadcom is charging $5-$7 for their WiFi chips. Other companies are charging (don't have the names here) $4-$6 for Bluetooth 2 chips. A couple bucks for a small circuit board and resistors, capacators, coils, etc. round up the rest. If you don't believe it, look up those prices.

We know that the chips cost much more than the G4's they replace. The extra features also add up. I'm sure Apple didn't want to use IG, but felt they had to. for this class of machine it should be fine.

Arguing about what Dell has, or doesn't have, has no bearing on the issue. If someone wants to buy a Mac, they will buy a Mac. Why do you think the iMacs are so popular with switchers? And, if you don't believe that either, read the PC mag sites.
post #392 of 782
If Apple is paying more for Intel chips than what the hell did they switch for?
post #393 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Arguing about what Dell has, or doesn't have, has no bearing on the issue.

Huh? It has plenty bearing on the issue. Dell make computers. So does Apple. Now, Apple even uses the same platform as Dell. Your comment would have made more, although not total, sense, in the PPC days.

Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
If someone wants to buy a Mac, they will buy a Mac.

Only if the Macs that are available have the features that they want.

Apple have so much to gain from increasing their market share, and they could do it really quite easily. Don't forget that Apple are the only company that make computers that will edit legitimately/legally /edit run OS X. If Apple want to increase market share (and if they don't there's something very wrong with them), they are going to have to broaden their appeal on the hardware side. There are plenty of people who like OS X, but don't consider the benefits of it great enough to purchase hardware that has more features than they want for more money than they can afford/are willing to spend.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #394 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by steve666
If Apple is paying more for Intel chips than what the hell did they switch for?

Better performance/watt, Intel R&D, platform standardisation to name but a few.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #395 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Seeing as you don't own an Apple computer yet (from what you've been saying around in these boards) - I'm not surprised.

Wait 'til you get that mini and compare it to an Athlon X2 with 2GB of RAM and a 256MB card (about the same price as a core duo mini), then you will.

I have older Mac 7200, 7500 with no OS X and that sucks because I've used XP for years now and it's just a bland OS.

I'll build an Athlon based system to run Vista by 2007. However right now PCs are all go...no show.

Quote:
We don't know what Apple could have done for $399, or $499.

Me either. Best Buy sells Blue Tooth adapters for like $40. Most PC desktops still have wireless as an option. Any cuts would have been met with

"Apple sucks!!...no xxxx included!"


I think that there's a fundamental disconnect here revolving around what "Mac" fans think Apple should do versus what Apple actually does and why.

Apple has always marketed themselves as "the computer for the rest of us" That means many things but it doesn't mean cheap. If you notice...Job's is a perfectionist when it comes to looks. Ultra cheap stuff generally has to eschew good looks to hit the low price. A Jobs' led Apple is simply not going to do that. Every announcement we get the same whining about price.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #396 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
[B

Apple have so much to gain from increasing their market share, [/B]

Why does Apple have to increase market share? To attract 3rd party developers? Apple is pushing the apps out the door not adobe and MS. Why give computers away just to get market share? It doesn't make sense to me. As long as Apple is profitable, they can continue to develope products that mac users will want. Thats all that counts.
post #397 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
I have older Mac 7200, 7500 with no OS X and that sucks because I've used XP for years now and it's just a bland OS.

Oh man ... I've got a PM 6500/225. Sucker still runs great ... for an older OS 9 machine. Computers get passed down in my family, and now since there's a G3, G4 and now a G5 iMac in the house, the 6500 (8 years later) is now relegated his original box in the closet.


Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
I think that there's a fundamental disconnect here revolving around what "Mac" fans think Apple should do versus what Apple actually does and why.

Apple has always marketed themselves as "the computer for the rest of us" That means many things but it doesn't mean cheap. If you notice...Job's is a perfectionist when it comes to looks. Ultra cheap stuff generally has to eschew good looks to hit the low price. A Jobs' led Apple is simply not going to do that. Every announcement we get the same whining about price.

Oh man, I hear you there. I really do get tired of listening to the doomsayers and chepos complain about that after EVERY announcement. They keep adding more features and keep it at the same price level. WHat's wrong with that?

I think this year will seriously define where Apple is headed and how well it is going to do. We're halfway through the transitions and we're only in March. COME ON PEOPLE ... there are 9 months left, and just because it didn't happen at a really small even at HQ doesn't mean Apple is doomed or Apple isn't listening to their customers. Jobs is a CEO, but he is also a master showman with Apple as his stage. People complain because Apple get's 5% market share, but 95% of the press. I've always thought that was because you never knew what Apple was going to do. No one knows what Steve will have up his sleeve when he gets on stage. A DVR Mini? A New iPod? A computer that will fit into the Palm of your hand and will revolutionize the way you organize your life and digital media (but for only $199) ? Being the showman that he is, I think Steve WANTED to disappoint people with the 2-28 event. It lowers yearly expectations keeps the stock from fluctuating drastically and blindsides people to new products and new releases in the future. Don't forget ... he said "We'll see you all soon" at the end ... is this the new "One more thing..." ... we'll know soon enough.
MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR3 SDRAM, 320GB HDD
iPod 5th Generation, 30GB
iPhone 4, 32GB
Reply
MacBook Pro 15" 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR3 SDRAM, 500GB HDD
Mac mini 2.26 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR3 SDRAM, 320GB HDD
iPod 5th Generation, 30GB
iPhone 4, 32GB
Reply
post #398 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by backtomac
Why does Apple have to increase market share? To attract 3rd party developers? Apple is pushing the apps out the door not adobe and MS. Why give computers away just to get market share? It doesn't make sense to me. As long as Apple is profitable, they can continue to develope products that mac users will want. Thats all that counts.

So as long as everyone moves to the music and movie industries, Apple will be fine. Adobe and Micrsoft make app types which are much more commonly used in business, which believe it or not has a much high userbase than the creative fields.
post #399 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by Mr. H
Better performance/watt, Intel R&D, platform standardisation to name but a few.

They should be cheaper, not more expensive.
Wasn't everyone saying Macs were more expensive because they were paying more for their chips?
Why doesn't Apple just use AMD Chips?
post #400 of 782
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
I think that there's a fundamental disconnect here revolving around what "Mac" fans think Apple should do versus what Apple actually does and why.

Yeah, that's why some of us are so frustrated.

Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple has always marketed themselves as "the computer for the rest of us" That means many things but it doesn't mean cheap.

I never said Apple should produce a "cheap computer". The specs I listed in my previous post are sold by the likes of Dell for just under $299. That extra $100 can be spent on more aesthetically pleasing casework.

And, what is all this rubbish about "we don't know what Apple could do for $399"? We know what they can do for $499 with the G4 Mini, and what they can do for $599 with the Intel Mini. Take the Intel Mini, take out the wireless (yes, I know that the cost comes to about $10 - $15 for the components + PCB, but that is a significant percentage of the Mini's component costs), the Apple Remote, a full-size hard drive and full-size optical drive (significantly cheaper than their laptop equivalents), and desktop RAM, and you easily have a $499 machine. Put in smaller-capacity hard drive, lower capability optical drive, and a cheaper CPU, and you have a $399 machine. But you don't have a "cheap" machine. It could easily have Apple's trademark style.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple unveils Mac mini Core Duo