More unofficial Mac clones up for sale on eBay - Page 8

Mkay, granted that the US isn't the world but the Desktop sales are projected to be in decline. So that does substantiate the articles that talk about declining desktop sales. They simply are only talking about the US.

Europe also shows declining desktop sales.

http://www.computerweekly.com/Articl...es-decline.htm

1.7% decline in desktop sales in Western Europe year-on-year.

So predominately desktop sales are increasing only in developing markets (Central Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa - CEMA and Asia) and likely dominated by the low profit margin, low cost segment.

This is not an area that Apple wants to compete in.

In their primary market (US) desktops are in decline. In their secondary market (Western Europe) desktops are also in decline.


The mini could use an update. Hopefully the rumors of one are true.

They might offer a home server although their moves with Time Capsule seems to indicate otherwise.

I could see a cubish Mini with 2 3.5" drive bays. I think they would limit it with integrated graphics to keep from impacting iMac sales.

I don't see a tower. I'd buy a tower but I don't see one happening and I don't have a problem with that. I'll likely get a next rev mini and some kind of console to meet my gaming needs.

X1900:

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/ATI%2...ies/100435854/

Maybe they were discontinued, I don't know, their supply is supposedly very limited now.

Yeah, that was discontinued.

Is it really this simple?

I don't think so. Many more desktops other that Macs now use mobile chips and chipsets. What proportion of those chip sales go to them?

I can't think of too many "major" ones besides of the Gateway One and the Sony TL. The Mini PCs from Aopen and the like don't sell at all and the slimlines from HP and Dell, plus the XPS one use desktop parts. The slimlines used to use mobile chipsets, but the the desktop Core 2s can be easily cooled even by the smaller case.

I understand you completely, and if putting the absolute fastest single graphics card in the Mac Pro can really get those people to buy, great. Like I said, Apple should offer that for their pro users no matter what. I just think the group you're describing won't bite, because at upwards of $3,000 that single card is not enough. When $3000 buys you a machine that sports two top cards in SLI or Crossfire, how are you going to up-sell from that to a machine with decidedly weaker graphics performance? An extreme gaming HW person will also put priority on highly clocked processors over a multitude of cores, so it seems to me a manufacturer that gives them a high, guaranteed factory OC on a quadcore will win over one with workstation tech. Of course multi-card support built into a Mac Pro could change things a good deal.

(Out of interest, where does this rich gamer/HW enthusiast posse gather? I follow hardware enthusiast sites, but nothing where people buy Alienware et al.)

Anyway. This is no reason not to *also* go for the market I was talking about. Apple can fit its margin in there so any iMac sales eaten are more or less equal trades. All mini upsells are a huge win. And I really, honestly do not believe in Mac Pro being currently bought much by "stragglers" that would want to go down a notch for their next purchase. If you buy something that expensive, you have a real reason to, and probably stand to make the cost back with business.

The size of the "average non-casual gamer" market is big. Tens of times more, I believe, than folks that would buy a workstation and high end cards for gaming, so I think it should bring in more revenue overall and have the potential for a large marketshare claim as well. It'd also really give a shot in the arm of Mac add-on card business, which would be healthy for the Mac Pro. Mac Pros being sold to a new Windows-based niche -> some extra money. A midrange gaming-enabled computer -> some extra money, but also serious long-term development that could even end up in OS X itself seeing some incoming games as the amount of OS X -running machines with respectable graphics would multiply.

How many Mac Pro buyers would they lose if Final Cut users buy an xMac instead? Keep in mind that Apple has 1 million active Final Cut Studio users.

How many more Mac and FCS users would they gain if PC+Avid users could switch to Mac+FCT at a reasonable cost ($2500-3000 per station instead of $4000-4500, computer+FCS) and using the same PCIe cards (if needed) as with the Mac Pro???

How many Pro recording studios will use Macs in all their suites instead of ONE Mac Pro and multiple PCs to run Pro Tools or other multi-platform DAW (because only desktop PCs and Mac Pros can receive PCI/PCIe audio and DSP cards)? Some users may even switch to Logic Studio for the price, or just have it in the case of...

Specially in the recording studios where screen real estate is important, having two or more identical displays (1-edition 2-mixer 3-plug ins, etc...), the iMac is not a good choice, Apple doesn't even sell a matching stand alone 24" display, nor a 20" by the way (same size but different panel).

How many ???

I don't think the price difference is a big factor here. Final Cut Studio is less than half the price of just Avid Media Composer, so the cost savings are gone right there. For the most part, it's a preference thing and I'm sure they do plenty of Mac-version sales based on that alone.

The other issues is the overall cost savings. Video is very time consuming, as we all know, so saving a whopping grand or two on a slower machine that is less upgradable will affect your company's bottom line very little when you consider that the machine will be used for at least a year and generate revenue in multiples well beyond any initial savings. It's even possible that by saving a grand or two on slower hardware may have negatively impacted your potential net profit because the slower machine will slow down your production times.

But even these guys aren't using SLI or Crossfire. I'm amazed at all the stuff I read about which one is better, easier, etc, only to then read in the same publications that it's estimated that no more than a few tens of thousands of people are actually using them. I'm not really surprised though.

The interesting thing though, is that it's the gamers themselves on these gaming sites that are saying that they would move to the Mac if the boards were there. I'm as interested as you are to find out why, other than it seems like it would bring them caché. Gamers aren't logical about this after all.

These are the guys who buy LED feet for their machines, and memory cards with neon lighting, and who cut holes of the covers of their machines and put clear panels with decals on them in instead.

They are also the same people who buy Alienware machines that LOOK like aliens!

You know, we're not dealing with people with a full deck.


I don't follow the gaming world too closely unless something interesting comes up.

One of the sites, while it's not strictly a gaming site, is here:

http://www.hexus.net/index.php?itemType=13

go to the top menu for gaming.


That's true, maybe even bigger than ten times.

The iMac is perfect for them. Casual gaming really needs little in the way of graphics performance.

My wife is a perfect example of what they mean. She plays Java and Flash games on the internet all the time. These require nothing in the way of graphics.

Some of those sites, and I don't have the names as I don't go to them, have a huge number of people.

Avid users, and by that I don't mean Avid Express users, but Avid workstation users, are mostly now using Mac Pros. The Windows versions have never been as popular.

Those studios don't care so much about the price of the equipment. Don't forget that they use Avid certified video cards and HDDs. Those cost much more than what most others would pay. A Mac Pro is not expensive to them.

When some of these companies do use PCs, they use BOXX, or other workstation level machines. They don't run out and buy run of the mill equipment.

Their equipment table/workstations alone cost thousands of dollars. The video recorders cost tens of thousands very often, and other equipment also costs in the thousands each. The computer is just another industrial level tool.

In fact, the production grade monitors used can cost from $15,000 to over $20,000.

Another fact is that the bigger studios fill their computers with Apple RAM. The cost is not important, as the system is then considered to be certified.

Believe me, the cost of the computers are trivial.

Oh yeah. When you're paying the person clicking the keys 35k & up a year there's not really a concern for the whole $3500 vs. $4500 computer question.

Also, Avid Express ( or Xpress Pro, or whatever) has been discontinued as they restructured their product line. I think the minimum software suite you can get now that is "Avid" is $2500. Other than what was axed, I think the prices in general were cut in half relative to what they were a few months ago.

I haven't kept track of the Avid software as of late. The last package I remember that rivaled FCP Studio cost $1,600.

You missed a crucial word in my post and took it completely in reverse. I was talking about the average *non-casual* gamer, not the microscopic hardware enthusiast niche that buys workstation class gear to play games.
The casual market, which you addressed in your reply and which indeed needs no graphics ability from the computer at all, is several times larger still, but not tenfold.

The iMac represents abysmal value to the average non-casual gamer.

Poor aesthetic sense is different than being made out of money. The costs of this sort of modding are generally in the tens of dollars.
I took a look, also looked at the forums, and the ratio of average non-casual gamers and stuff for them versus the Alienware buyers was like 100:1.

Well, the numbers support for casual gamers is against your average non casual gamer, not the hard core gamer. There the numbers would be much larger.

And as far as the iMac goes, no it doesn't offer an abysmal value to the average gamer. It's not a gaming powerhouse, but I've seen people play good PC games ported over without a problem.

Hi performance memory, and other mods with these cute "extras" run more than tens of dollars. The people who do this are rarely those who don't take games seriously. they are the same ones buying high power machines. That's why I mentioned it.


You'll have to be clearer. Which way are you going with this? 100:1 FOR the casual gamer, or AGAINST them?

Read it over until "non-casual" sinks in. Casual gamers are on neither side of that comparison.

I have no idea where you are going with the "hardcore" can of worms, but please shed the notion that it has a lot to do with hardware.
Okay, you got me there. It's just very poor value for gaming, not abysmal. Otherwise I'd run out of adjectives if they somehow made it an even worse deal.

(Hint: my extensive one-minute investigation located a Dell that sports a 3.0GHz Penryn and a 8800GT for $1300, 20" display included.)

Sorry, I meant to say non-casual. so which is it?

Actually, it has a lot to do with hardware. As you say, a decent "non-casual" gaming rig is a mere $1300 with a desktop 3.0Ghz CPU and a 8800GT offered by companies with a lot of desktop sales.

Apple isn't going to compete with this on a [b]gaming value[b] basis.

Taking cost out of the equation the iMac 24" 2.8Ghz 8800GS at $1,950K is an acceptable non-casual gamer machine. Just more expensive in comparison to the Dell. If the advantages for OSX are important and gaming a nice second then an iMac is just fine.

"Non-casual" players play largely the same games as "hardcore" with the difference measured in FPS IMHO. The ratio is likely 100-1 non-casual vs hardcore and again 100-1 casual vs non-casual. The difference between an iMac and the Dell is measured in some FPS in the most demanding games at the highest settings. Not playability where most folks dial down settings anyway.

Sims 2 and WoW sold/sells a heck of a lot more than any other gaming genre. Granted many WoW players are "non-casual" but there are also a lot of casual WoW (non-raiding, non-PVP) players and the iMac is prefectly fine for WoW.

So Apple catering mostly to casual gamers is a prefectly fine strategy for Apple. Even there I would assume the 20" iMac runs many "non-casual" games at acceptable frame rates with the right settings. Heck, Crysis runs on a Alu 20" iMac at lower rez and medium settings.

Yep, but I was commenting specifically on gaming value.

The Dell was just the very first machine I ran into - if you looked for a 8800GS or 9600GT machine to match the iMac in power, and spent more than one minute looking, I'm guessing you'd find one for $1000. After counting in the Windows license, the Mac has almost exactly half the price/performance.
Already agreed.

However, how about just saying "hardware enthusiast" since it's unambiguous? I personally take "hardcore gamer" to mean something else - broadly put, someone who takes the game seriously in one way or another, and plays it at a deep level or is highly skilled. What I don't associate with it is hardware. It's exactly because different folks tend to have so varying interpretations for the word, I find it more distracting than useful in a discussion these days.
I'm not saying you *can't* play with them, just that they are poor value for it. Also not saying it's bad strategy that the iMacs are geared for light gaming - obviously going much further than 8800GS would risk compromising the iMac's strengths instead of just adding to its abilities.

Ah...I kinda got that but you kinda have to conceed automatically that the iMac represents poor gaming value.


It still depends on your definition of hardcore gamer. A player that plays WoW and raids 2-3 nights a week is IMHO a hardcore gamer...even though it's only one game in a not particularly demanding genre. The iMac serves as an adequate gaming box for some segment of the "hardcore" market IF that's your definition.

It can also be argued (probably not by me, that you can be a "hardcore" Sims 2 or Bejeweled player in as much as the casual market has a significant "hardcore" base of customers that spend an inordinate number of hours playing. Heck some have game ladders every bit as competitive as traditional "hardcore" games (like RTS ladders).

So even here, definitions vary among participants even within the industry on casual vs hardcore and of course, potential revenue streams from both. What's that quote? Regardless of (game) genre you don't want YOUR users to be casual. Or something like that.

Hardware or genre might be more useful a differentiator than time/skill in defining casual from non-casual gamers as markets given some casual gamers have the same commitment in time and skill (depends on the game of course...but many card game casual games have a significant skill component).

What I would consider "hardcore" genres to be are: FPS, RTS, RPG, Simulations, wargames, 4X games and maybe a couple others that I forget.

MMOs are halfway.

But it's all rather academic given that Macs will be a poor gaming value as long as games are largely windows native running in boot-camp.

Just a few random thoughts.

I'm not a casual nor hardcore gamer. I don't like tinkering with computers, in fact, it irritates me no end when I have to, it is quite literally a pain in the butt.

I do appreciate the basic premise for the iMac, I own one.

I also regret that wireless technology has passed my machine behind. To upgrade, I guess I could create more clutter and add an external whatever, but it would be more expensive than a card. Firewire 400 is OK but I'd like Firewire 800 or now the newer Sata external drive options, here to my knowledge, I'm totally out of luck. Who knows what is in store for USB.

But, I do appreciate and desire a tower with slots, both video and PCI. I do appreciate the fact that the monitor is separate with a tower, the computer and monitor rarely need to be replaced at the same time, which allows the better use of my resources. The ability to upgrade the video card is important, but not the be all and end all for me, but it would be a relatively inexpensive way to either @ the time of purchase or later upgrade.

PCI slots would help me maintain my computer as technology changes and it appears that there is no reasonable end in sight to the constant changing in technology. USB, Firewire, Sata, wireless, bluetooth, etc. technologies [i]are not standing still, they are changing. PCI, for little expense to computer manufacturers add flexibility/upgradability to computers. Heck, I'd guess that Apples controller in the iMac could currently handle PCI slots, just run some traces and a plug in point.

Maybe I'm the odd duck, but there seems to be a market for a mid to upper end tower as evidenced by the hackintosh community, and the existence of Pystar. People can rant and rave, call other posters whiners and what not, but in the end, there is a market for us odd ducks.

At the very least Apple could offer some ExpressCard slots in the iMac (and the Mac mini as well).
3 PCIe lanes are unused as well as many USB ports (since ExpressCard slots use PCIe+USB).
This would be better than nothing.
- Mac mini updated to Montevina + one ExpressCard slot (in june/july)
- iMac updated to Montevina (including a quad-core model in september) + two ExpressCard slots

Sorry for the big images.

Yes, that was on my wishlist for the next mini...an expresscard slot. Heck one slot on the iMac would be great, much less two.

I wouldn't mind a 54mm slot for the iMac either.

I wrote a huge reply and then Safari crashed on me. Once again. Why can't they put that Flash plugin into another thread instead of letting it kill the whole browser?
I certainly call this hardcore.
Depends. ROI on both casual games and pure hardcore games can be good. Joe Gamer titles are obviously the most lucrative per title.
I don't see a point in labeling genres hardcore. It's all in individual players' attitudes towards individual games. Simulation and strategy are more hardcore oriented than most. The average FPS, RTS and RPG players aren't that hardcore or taking the game very seriously. They want to shoot something, build a nice base, or see what comes next in the plot rather than not shoot, learn to use basic units right or be a good tourist.

Where the current 8800GS iMac sits at 1/2 the value of a gaming-focused PC, a Mac with desktop graphics could reach 3/4 even with Windows license and Apple margins. That's not great, but it's a lot better than 1/2.

Well geez, I thought we were having a semi-serious conversation but anyone that thinks nethack is more hardcore than Crysis is a kook even in jest.

But hey, if that's your criteria the Mac Mini is one hardcore gaming machine.

You yourself named RPGs as a "hardcore" genre. I said RPGs are not that hardcore in general. Most people play something like NWN or FF, quicksaving every minute and clicking a button once in a while to hit stuff. They aren't after challenge so much as they want to see more plot. If you can't beat something by facerolling, you just wander off to slay random stuff until you have enough gear and stats. You basically can't fail. It is not very "hardcore".

Nethack is a sudden death game. This dude on youtube played over twelve hours in real time, with the worst character of the game, and beat it. I'm not a Nethack player, but I have tried it enough to know you need a serious amount of knowledge of the game, as well as concentration, as well as luck, not to die. I died to hitting one wrong monster once. I died to eating poisoned food. I died to not finding enough food to eat. You name it, a Nethack player has died to it. Most gamers wouldn't get through the game if they tried. How is Nethack *not* hardcore as far as RPGs go?

The same with most FPSs. They are not that hardcore in general. It doesn't take a hardcore player to slug through almost any FPS at Easy while mashing quicksave, or to go on public servers on the net to hurrdurrdeathmatch and get a few kills. The ninja defuse clip shows everything the average FPS player is not.

Yah, because NetHack = Oblivion. Why hardware is not a differentiator at all and you can play Oblivion on your mini...just like NetHack.


Wow...you were serious.

I said this a few posts back. Maybe you didn't read it?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here and what Oblivion has to do with anything.

Yea, I read it. So you wrote it must be the truth eh?


Because Oblivion, for it's time, was hardware intensive. Oh, yeah...requiring a pretty decent gaming rig to run. So folks with so-so rigs couldn't really play Oblivion till they upgraded their graphics cards.

Oh wait, that seems to contradict your "hardware doesn't mean anything" assertion.

I told you what I mean by the term "hardcore gamer" or "hardcore gaming". That is called a definition. They are neither true or untrue.

I have never, ever asserted that hardware does not mean anything. If you feel otherwise, point out where I say so. And please read it a couple times first to make sure you have understood.

If you want to use your own definition of "hardcore gamer", please do, but define it first. Don't assume I'm telepathic.

You have been an ass three out of three last posts. Reading comprehension FTW. Seriously. This feels like talking to someone with mild autism. They often just skip some facts or logical steps in an argument and carry on as if the other person could look in their head.

So this is why you keep telling melgross that hardware is not part of the definition? If they are neither true nor untrue then his definition is just as valid (if not more so) than yours and hardcore gamer can be defined by...hardware.


Here you go:



I did. Then you said I was wrong:


Oh wait, definitions aren't true or untrue. But somehow definitions that disagree with yours has "no point" or should be" shed".

Gee.


Yep, I can read so I've been responding in kind. Mel is more polite.


Yeah...because if you simply ignore the other side's point then they never wrote it. Hey look! A quoting mechanism:


But I never wrote that. Doesn't exist. Nope...in actuality the readers of this post are all telepathic and looked in my head...

Alas, you are the only one not so gifted.

Depends on how many desktops use mobile chips. I doubt its anywhere near the number of actual notebooks.

My plan was to have one, facing up, at the top of the machine, in the middle, with a pop off ventiation slot, for an Express 2 graphics card.

But, the card couldn't be a high power card, as those consume over 200 watts.

No, of course not, not with laptops being about 60% of the total.

But it is a fair percentage, and growing.

At first Intel was against it, but once the trend became unstoppable, they embraced it.