or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Component report pins MacBook overhaul for third quarter
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Component report pins MacBook overhaul for third quarter - Page 2

post #41 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue View Post

The 3.06 iMac is the absolutely perfect specification/price machine for me, and if it wasn't for the glossy screen I would be writing this on one already. I understand why they do it, it is a clearly defined and canny bit of strategy, but its not doing me any favours.

Why not get the 3.06 iMac and a second non-glossy display?
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #42 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by kb9uwu View Post

BS... I bought the single processor mac pro because I needed the internal expandability and didn't need the insane power of 8 cores. The extra $ I saved helped pay for internal audio processing cards for Logic Pro. You can't add a second processor to the BTO single processor without installing a new motherboard... so those looking to save some $ and upgrade to a dual engine in the future are screwed.

Are you sure? In other threads, maybe on the Apple support forum too, people noted that there was only one board part number, not two as a board without a second socket would suggest. Do you know if someone went inside and find solder points instead of a socket?

So far, I've not found any photos of the pieces of the machine. I think that would settle the ambiguity, or if you prefer, the argument.
post #43 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobo28 View Post

Actually I think you are close to what Steve has in mind. A combination of an Xserve, Time Capsule and Apple TV: a "whole home server" seems like Apples near future. Set it up and go from anywhere in the house. Laptops, desk tops , iphones/ipods can all access it . Set top boxes or adapters ( wifi/or whatever) for TV's/monitors, appliences , even your car, etc.

That would be very useful, although I'd hope they put in a DVR if they go to all that trouble. Have you seen the Apple DVR patent? Great stuff.

But I'd be worried that Apple would sell it as a Home Media Appliance, not a more 'general purpose' XServe SOHO. I'd personally want it to have several internal drive bays, and it better run OS X Server.

I had planned to use my old G4 as a file server, but it got killed by the 800MHz Leopard requirement change.


- Matt
post #44 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue View Post

There is so much to admire about Apple, and watching the Jobs Plan for World Domination unfold is fascinating as an intellectual exercise if nothing else. However, they are ruthless at times. They know their market extremely well, and their desktop range shows this. The minis for entry level or second computer, the iMac for consumers and the pro range for professionals, and as the large majority of their customers fit into one of those broad categories it works well for both parties. However, if you sit in between two of those categories it is something of a dilemma, as is the case with me. I produce artwork on my aged (but beloved) G4 iMac, and could be described as a serious hobbyist/prosumer. What I do is for my own creative satisfaction, and for friends, and perhaps in time there may be some modest commercial possibilities with what I do. The top of the range iMac (which this was when I bought it) is the ideal machine for me, except that I really do not want a glossy screen, because accurate colour is essential to my work. On the other hand, I really cannot justify the cost of a Mac Pro and decent monitor so I am stuck betwixt and between, hence by default my trusty G4 has to keep trundling away.

I think this is why they have made all iMacs with glossy screens, and why I fear they will not change it despite being asked to by their customers. The top iMac, particularly since the fourth 'extreme' model was introduced, was turning up in a number of professional graphic studios, but as we know they are supposed to buy Pros (and ideally an ACD), and so now if they want colour accuracy they are compelled to move up a level. The 3.06 iMac is the absolutely perfect specification/price machine for me, and if it wasn't for the glossy screen I would be writing this on one already. I understand why they do it, it is a clearly defined and canny bit of strategy, but its not doing me any favours.

Have you considered getting a refurbished last gen iMac? I saw some good prices for the white 24" models on the store the other day. This might be your best bet right now.
post #45 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macd-to-death View Post

I was under the impression that the 'third quarter' was April to June, not July to September (which is usually called 4Q). Doesn't the fiscal year begin in October?
Do they mean 'third quarter' or July-September?

The way that AppleInsider wrote the article, it refers to the Calendar year which is January 1st to December 31st, not to Apple's fiscal (financial) year which for simplicity runs from October through September.

As such, the article's reference to "third quarter" would cover the calendar period of July, August and September, which corresponds to Apple's fourth (fiscal) quarter (Q4).

Most companies set their first fiscal year on the first of the month in which they were incorporated. Usually they start on the first day of the month, but it isn't necessary as Apple demonstrates.

A company can change their fiscal year period. Most often it is set to end when the inventories are at their seasonally lowest level. Apple was incorporated on Jan 4, 1977, but later changed its fiscal to start at the end of September (year unknown).
post #46 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

I hope they come out with a mid-range desktop too, such as a mid-tower.

As I see it the main reason people want a mid range tower so they can spec it out with cheap parts at a low cost. But the problems are Apple loses out on cost of the parts (because they will inevitably be purchased somewhere cheaper and people are less inclined to upgrade the whole system) and because people will put in a multitude parts (which increases the number of permutations apple must code for) of low potentially quality (which gives the perception that OS X performs poorly when it is really the hardware that is at fault). Also the idea of separate towers and monitors and cords and shit is the kind of thing Apple does not want muddying up it's designer image. I get the impression that steve barely tolerates the mac mini which is why it remains small and for all intensive purposes unupgradeable by a regular consumer. If a mid tower was released cheaper than the iMac it would quickly become the only Mac everyone purchased as computer purchasers have been trained into thinking "price" and "customiseability". Apple is slowly re-educating the masses to think about "uniformity" and "deep integration". Being able to look at any iMac and know exactly what software is on it and what it is capable of is a beautiful thing that should not be underestimated.
post #47 of 91
it still amazes me that in the discussion about an article purely about laptops, both the first post and the majority of the posting that follows is about a completely different product that doesn't exist - all of which is a re-hash of the same old stuff.

it is unlikely to happen, but i wish we could confine all the pining for an xMac/whatever-the-heck-it-would-be-called to a single thread. it could be just as enthralling as the HD vs BR thread....
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #48 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

I hope they come out with a mid-range desktop too, such as a mid-tower.

Let's put this all together, shall we?

Reason #1 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:

Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

...the kind of people who upgrade their computers are also the ones that hang out in places like this (forums) and complain...

But, seriously, how many of the millions of Apple and PC users upgrade their computers beyond RAM and possibly a hard disk...

__________________________________________________ ________

Reason #2 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MFago View Post

We use laptops at home and I need a home file server, call it an XServe SOHO. Take the mainboard from a Mini, add 4 drive bays, perhaps one PCI slot and beef up the power supply and fans etc. Put it in a very cute mini-tower case. I'd think $999-$1299 wouldn't be unreasonable.

The closest thing I can get to this is a Mac Mini with an external drive enclosure(s) using Firewire 400 (not really meant for a server), or $2500 for a Mac Pro (way overkill). So guess what? I haven't bought anything ...

Apple wants us to get all of our music/TV/Movies over iTunes, but won't sell us any place to put it!

Put a Mini, a Time Capsule, and an Apple TV together and you've got all the functionality you mention here, in about the same price range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reallynotnick View Post

The reason I want a cheap tower is not so much for it's upgradability but it's power/price ratio.
The iMac has a mobile CPU and a mobile GPU which to me is the most important part of the machine. By increasing the case size and just using desktop chips you could have a considerably faster computer for the exact same price.
The Mac Pro's are really out of that golden power per dollar ratio as they use the latest and greatest chips which cost a pretty penny.

If you want something that is this type of machine, you're saying that you don't need the power of the full Mac Pro, but want more power than an iMac, then you should just get the single quad-core processor MacPro and save yourself $500. You get the expandability you want, the horsepower level you want, and you're not paying the full $2700. It may not be as cheap as you want, but it does give you all of the things you're asking for.
__________________________________________________ _________

Reason #3 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:

Quote:
Originally Posted by zanshin View Post

Exactly why Apple doesn't want to build one. Why add additional product design and management, component and finished product inventory, mfg. lines, and potentially massive support issues tied to third party DIY upgrades, just to make razor-thin margins so you can compete with all the other beige-box systems? That is not the road to shareholder happy-land.

...The name of the game is profitable sales leading to consistent share price growth, not pleasing every possible market segment.

Let's not forget that computers are appliances now, not much different than GPS's, MP3/Audio players, toasters, etc. The evolution of the technology and the market has moved to the point where people who want to tinker and upgrade and all of that are living in the past. Seriously, take an old Dual G5 tower, like a Quicksilver, or an MDD, and there is absolutely no way you can get the same functionality and power out of one of those by upgrading it and spend less money than buying a new machine. Those who refuse to accept such basic facts and stubbornly cling to the idea of a box they can progressively upgrade, etc. are in denial. Computers are no longer specialized technology that such an approach makes sense with anymore... again, they're appliances now.
__________________________________________________ __________

Reason #4 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:

Quote:
Originally Posted by suhail View Post

Exactly!
I need a mid-tower because I'd like to have two 20" monitors and a 12" Wacom. MacPro starts at a whopping $2,700, it's insane! iMac and the Mac-mini cannot serve my needs.

If that doesn't happen soon, I'll be forced to buy a nice PC box, install hackintosh, and slowly migrate to the dark, and more flexible, side. It'll be sad... been an Apple user since 1981.

See comment #2 above.

If you want that kind of power/set-up, then your requirements fall into the PRO category... again, it's not rocket science. If you don't want to pony up $2700, go to a single quad-processor. You'll get all that you want and it wont cost you as much.

If you want to try doing Hackintosh, give it your best shot... I'd be willing to be a sizable amount of money that you'll end up spending more in time (and money) just making the thing run and keeping it running than you'd save by buying the cheaper hardware and hacking 10.5 to run on it.

Also factor in the cost of not being able to run routine security upgrades, 10.5.X updates, etc. and your cost increases even further. You end up cutting off your nose to try and spite Apple. You're just complaining that you can't be a cheap-skate.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Reason #5 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

As I see it the main reason people want a mid range tower so they can spec it out with cheap parts at a low cost.

Suhail and Reallynotnick above fall exactly into this category as I mention at the end of #4 above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

But the problems are Apple loses out on cost of the parts (because they will inevitably be purchased somewhere cheaper and people are less inclined to upgrade the whole system) and because people will put in a multitude parts (which increases the number of permutations apple must code for) of low potentially quality (which gives the perception that OS X performs poorly when it is really the hardware that is at fault).

Also the idea of separate towers and monitors and cords and shit is the kind of thing Apple does not want muddying up it's designer image.

Exactly. Jobs would go postal with an Uzi in Cupertino before he let something like this happen... This also goes along with my statement above that computers are appliances now. When your toaster craps out on you, you go down to the Home Depot and buy a new one. Same with computers now days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

Apple is slowly re-educating the masses to think about "uniformity" and "deep integration". Being able to look at any iMac and know exactly what software is on it and what it is capable of is a beautiful thing that should not be underestimated.

Here again, Jobs would go Postal with some type of fully automatic firearm before he back-slid on developing this model for Apple's products.

The bottom line is, that there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple. I'm not saying that the idea doesn't have it's merits, it does. But the simple fact is that for so many reasons it simply does not make sense economically, nor does it fall into the broader vision Apple has for its products. So GET OVER IT ALREADY.
post #49 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by MFago View Post

I had planned to use my old G4 as a file server, but it got killed by the 800MHz Leopard requirement change.

Why do you think it needs to run Leopard in order to do that job well?
post #50 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post

Let's put this all together, shall we?

Reason #1 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:


__________________________________________________ ________

Reason #2 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:



Put a Mini, a Time Capsule, and an Apple TV together and you've got all the functionality you mention here, in about the same price range.



If you want something that is this type of machine, you're saying that you don't need the power of the full Mac Pro, but want more power than an iMac, then you should just get the single quad-core processor MacPro and save yourself $500. You get the expandability you want, the horsepower level you want, and you're not paying the full $2700. It may not be as cheap as you want, but it does give you all of the things you're asking for.
__________________________________________________ _________

Reason #3 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:



Let's not forget that computers are appliances now, not much different than GPS's, MP3/Audio players, toasters, etc. The evolution of the technology and the market has moved to the point where people who want to tinker and upgrade and all of that are living in the past. Seriously, take an old Dual G5 tower, like a Quicksilver, or an MDD, and there is absolutely no way you can get the same functionality and power out of one of those by upgrading it and spend less money than buying a new machine. Those who refuse to accept such basic facts and stubbornly cling to the idea of a box they can progressively upgrade, etc. are in denial. Computers are no longer specialized technology that such an approach makes sense with anymore... again, they're appliances now.
__________________________________________________ __________

Reason #4 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:



See comment #2 above.

If you want that kind of power/set-up, then your requirements fall into the PRO category... again, it's not rocket science. If you don't want to pony up $2700, go to a single quad-processor. You'll get all that you want and it wont cost you as much.

If you want to try doing Hackintosh, give it your best shot... I'd be willing to be a sizable amount of money that you'll end up spending more in time (and money) just making the thing run and keeping it running than you'd save by buying the cheaper hardware and hacking 10.5 to run on it.

Also factor in the cost of not being able to run routine security upgrades, 10.5.X updates, etc. and your cost increases even further. You end up cutting off your nose to try and spite Apple. You're just complaining that you can't be a cheap-skate.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Reason #5 why there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple:



Suhail and Reallynotnick above fall exactly into this category as I mention at the end of #4 above.



Exactly. Jobs would go postal with an Uzi in Cupertino before he let something like this happen... This also goes along with my statement above that computers are appliances now. When your toaster craps out on you, you go down to the Home Depot and buy a new one. Same with computers now days.



Here again, Jobs would go Postal with some type of fully automatic firearm before he back-slid on developing this model for Apple's products.

The bottom line is, that there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple. I'm not saying that the idea doesn't have it's merits, it does. But the simple fact is that for so many reasons it simply does not make sense economically, nor does it fall into the broader vision Apple has for its products. So GET OVER IT ALREADY.

1. The mini is over priced and under powered.

2. The build in screen in the imac are not that good.

3. The older g4 and g5 started at $1200 - $2000 the mac pro starts at $2200.

4. Apple has no laptop with a 15" screen under $2000

5. Apple has no laptop with any kind of better video card then the Intel GMA POS under $2000
post #51 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

As I see it the main reason people want a mid range tower so they can spec it out with cheap parts...

Sorry but you're seeing it wrong.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #52 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

Why not get the 3.06 iMac and a second non-glossy display?

I suspect that is what I will end up doing, but the only reason for getting a second monitor (with cost implications) is because there is not that tick box on the order form - glossy or matte.
So I, the customer, have to adjust what I do to suit the wishes of the company, which isn't how it's supposed to work really is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KD86 View Post

Have you considered getting a refurbished last gen iMac? I saw some good prices for the white 24" models on the store the other day. This might be your best bet right now.

That would be an option, except I live in the south of Portugal, where the Apple presence is very minimal. There is one reseller in my province, but it is really a repair shop with a very basic retail side, and there is no Apple shop in the country. About 18 months ago an apple.com/pt page did appear, but as of now (and I just checked) there are zero refurbs available there!

It is frustrating, that 3.06 looks so damn tasty...
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #53 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post

Let's put this all together, shall we?

If you want that kind of power/set-up, then your requirements fall into the PRO category... again, it's not rocket science. If you don't want to pony up $2700, go to a single quad-processor. You'll get all that you want and it wont cost you as much.

If you want to try doing Hackintosh, give it your best shot... I'd be willing to be a sizable amount of money that you'll end up spending more in time (and money) just making the thing run and keeping it running than you'd save by buying the cheaper hardware and hacking 10.5 to run on it.

Also factor in the cost of not being able to run routine security upgrades, 10.5.X updates, etc. and your cost increases even further. You end up cutting off your nose to try and spite Apple. You're just complaining that you can't be a cheap-skate.

That is not true, Apple had the Mac-IIci as an alternative to the overpriced Mac-II. The IIci used the same quality components and was considerably cheaper, for people who couldn't afford a Mac II the IIci was perfect. Then in the early 90's Apple came out with the Quadra-700 which was also an alternative to the overpriced Quadra-950 and both machines were one of Apple's most successful ones, they both put Apple in the pro print arena and gave people a glimpse into the future of video. The mac IIci was still selling strong until it was replaced with a faster but horribly packaged mac IIcx.

So if Apple brings out a computer that is half the size of the MacPro it will cost less not because it will have cheaper components but because it will use less desktop components, a smaller power-supply, weighs less, less cooling fans, smaller circuit board, but can still handle a couple of PCI cards. And I'm not being a "cheap-skate", if Apple made a mid-sized mac all I'd do is add RAM and two fast graphic cards, and I would upgrade them whenever I feel the need to do so.

You cannot compare the MacPro to a mid-tower PC because the PC will be much cheaper no matter what you add to it; however, you can compare the MacPro to a full-tower PC and get similar prices. Heck, some of the full-tower PCs have hot-swappable RAID bays which makes them more attractive to some.

Quote:
The bottom line is, that there will NEVER be a mid-tower from Apple. I'm not saying that the idea doesn't have it's merits, it does. But the simple fact is that for so many reasons it simply does not make sense economically, nor does it fall into the broader vision Apple has for its products. So GET OVER IT ALREADY.

Says you.
post #54 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

The way that AppleInsider wrote the article, it refers to the Calendar year which is January 1st to December 31st, not to Apple's fiscal (financial) year which for simplicity runs from October through September.

As such, the article's reference to "third quarter" would cover the calendar period of July, August and September, which corresponds to Apple's fourth (fiscal) quarter (Q4).

Most companies set their first fiscal year on the first of the month in which they were incorporated. Usually they start on the first day of the month, but it isn't necessary as Apple demonstrates.

A company can change their fiscal year period. Most often it is set to end when the inventories are at their seasonally lowest level. Apple was incorporated on Jan 4, 1977, but later changed its fiscal to start at the end of September (year unknown).

Thanks for clearing it up.
I suppose I can wait a little longer for the new macbooks. I've been waiting for four years ever since I got my sh**ty dell and regretted it within a month. Plus, fingers crossed I will have the new iPhone to comfort me while I wait!
post #55 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon View Post

1. The mini is over priced and under powered.

2. The build in screen in the imac are not that good.

3. The older g4 and g5 started at $1200 - $2000 the mac pro starts at $2200.

4. Apple has no laptop with a 15" screen under $2000

5. Apple has no laptop with any kind of better video card then the Intel GMA POS under $2000

Agreed on all points. I find it bordering on insane that anyone could possibly defend Apple's current lineup. The only products that are any good are prohibitively expensive, while the only affordable offerings are complete and utter garbage.

I paid $1600 for my old G4. It served me very well specifically because I was able to upgrade it along the way as my needs changed. Computer prices have dropped considerably since then, yet the only comparable replacement to it Apple has now is three grand? That is stupid. I ended up getting an Aluminum iMac only because it was the only choice Apple offered in a reasonable price range, and I could not be any less happy with this piece of junk.

__________________________________________________ _________________


I'm also wondering who these people are that DON'T upgrade their computers? Outside of claims on this forum, I don't know any PC users that don't. When it used to be possible on a Mac, I didn't know any Mac users that didn't either. Video card, CPU, RAM, and additional drives were the minimum. I know I swapped out a lot of parts on my G4, and it was easy to do with generic parts at my local "build your own PC" mart. 95 % of all computer users can do this, Apple users are stupid if they just accept it that they can't.
post #56 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

Agreed on all points. I find it bordering on insane that anyone could possibly defend Apple's current lineup. The only products that are any good are prohibitively expensive, while the only affordable offerings are complete and utter garbage.

I paid $1600 for my old G4. It served me very well specifically because I was able to upgrade it along the way as my needs changed. Computer prices have dropped considerably since then, yet the only comparable replacement to it Apple has now is three grand? That is stupid. I ended up getting an Aluminum iMac only because it was the only choice Apple offered in a reasonable price range, and I could not be any less happy with this piece of junk.

__________________________________________________ _________________


I'm also wondering who these people are that DON'T upgrade their computers? Outside of claims on this forum, I don't know any PC users that don't. When it used to be possible on a Mac, I didn't know any Mac users that didn't either. Video card, CPU, RAM, and additional drives were the minimum. I know I swapped out a lot of parts on my G4, and it was easy to do with generic parts at my local "build your own PC" mart. 95 % of all computer users can do this, Apple users are stupid if they just accept it that they can't.

Well said bsenka. Today's average computer user is more advanced and capable than yesterday's user, and the imac is a black-box.
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #57 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaple View Post

Until software is more widely available for download and movies are available at faster speeds, I just don't see it. As it stands, to install most software, you would need either a second computer (which most users don't have) or an external optical drive (which is annoying). Again, I think it's coming, but not for a few years. No way Apple releases the Air and then a Macbook - optical drive a year later. That would massively cannibalize Air sales and Apple isn't stupid enough to do that.

The only time that you really need a CD Drive is to install big apps like Office and Adobe Suits, but colleges and companies now have network repositories for stuff like that. so that leaves CDs...rip some DVDs and CDs to the HDD and be done with it...give me an external DVD drive and take a an lb or two out of it...or add that many more cells to the battery...anyone want a 15-20 hour battery? would be easy with SSD, LED, no CD, and all the recoverd space filled with new cells.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #58 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Why do you think it needs to run Leopard in order to do that job well?

Ubuntu PPC edition would work better than any flavor of OSX for that...gotta use the right tool for the right job, and OSX is NEVER the right tool for a server...NEVER
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #59 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

Ubuntu PPC edition would work better than any flavor of OSX for that...gotta use the right tool for the right job, and OSX is NEVER the right tool for a server...NEVER

Why is that?
post #60 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

Agreed on all points. I find it bordering on insane that anyone could possibly defend Apple's current lineup. The only products that are any good are prohibitively expensive, while the only affordable offerings are complete and utter garbage.

I paid $1600 for my old G4. It served me very well specifically because I was able to upgrade it along the way as my needs changed. Computer prices have dropped considerably since then, yet the only comparable replacement to it Apple has now is three grand? That is stupid. I ended up getting an Aluminum iMac only because it was the only choice Apple offered in a reasonable price range, and I could not be any less happy with this piece of junk.

__________________________________________________ _________________


I'm also wondering who these people are that DON'T upgrade their computers? Outside of claims on this forum, I don't know any PC users that don't. When it used to be possible on a Mac, I didn't know any Mac users that didn't either. Video card, CPU, RAM, and additional drives were the minimum. I know I swapped out a lot of parts on my G4, and it was easy to do with generic parts at my local "build your own PC" mart. 95 % of all computer users can do this, Apple users are stupid if they just accept it that they can't.

95%? Really? No way 95% of computer users would feel comfortable upgrading their own computer. I won't throw out a number, but I'd be surprised if it's even a majority of users.
post #61 of 91
Apple will never make a video iPod. Nobody wants to watch video on a iPod.

Apple will never enter the cell phone market.

Apple will never switch to Intel processors.
post #62 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Sorry but you're seeing it wrong.

I felt my comments were logical. Care to clarify?
post #63 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks View Post

I felt my comments were logical. Care to clarify?

Let me clarify for suhail, you claim that people want a mid-sized Mac so they can spec it with cheap parts, which is totally absurd. Mac users seek a mid-sized tower to cost less than the full-tower so they can install faster graphic cards than the MacMini, more and faster performing memory than the iMac, and faster performing 3.5" HDD than the iMac or the MacMini. The MacPro is very expensive, it may have a great value for some users who can afford it, but somewhere between a MacPro and a MacMini would make many Mac users very happy.

You Mac that?
bb
Reply
bb
Reply
post #64 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaple View Post

95%? Really? No way 95% of computer users would feel comfortable upgrading their own computer. I won't throw out a number, but I'd be surprised if it's even a majority of users.

I said 95% of them CAN do it. As in, their machine is capable of being upgraded. Sure, some people are skittish about doing themselves. Those people can just bring it in and pay someone else to upgrade it for them. Apple doesn't even give anyone THAT option.
post #65 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Why is that?

1: OSX Desktop versions are resource hogs...a gig of ram and a new proc are required for the system to run...and you shouldnt use a server as a desktop/workstation, a server is to be a dedicated box that does nothing but serve so that stuff doesnt matter.

2: a proper server OS from apple is availible for $1000, and even then, lots of frills and overhead, a server os should have the lest overhead possible, as sad as it makes me to say this, Windows 2003 is a great example of what a server OS should be...basic, fast, efficient and yet very powerful.

3: Mac OS Server unlimited CAL: $1000, and you get basicly a collection of uix admin tools with a nice gui
UBUNTU: Unlimited CALS (dua) gives you the same unix tools with usable front ends for managment...and it is FREE and can run on a fraction of the hardware.
4 Updates and support: Apple has already quit patching any pre 10.5 os builds, so you would be running an out of life and, going forward, patchless box, with Ubuntu LTS, you get a brand new build with 3 years of patches and updates
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #66 of 91
Using your numbers I would say that 95% of computer users are skittish about upgrading their computers themselves. And only a small percentage will actually upgrade. Many of which will be done by either the geek down the street or the family nerd. Half of which will walk away saying, "Sorry about that."
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #67 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

I said 95% of them CAN do it. As in, their machine is capable of being upgraded. Sure, some people are skittish about doing themselves. Those people can just bring it in and pay someone else to upgrade it for them. Apple doesn't even give anyone THAT option.

Ah. Gotcha. That makes more sense. I was envisioning my mom trying to upgrade her own computer...not good.
post #68 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

1: OSX Desktop versions are resource hogs...a gig of ram and a new proc are required for the system to run...and you shouldnt use a server as a desktop/workstation, a server is to be a dedicated box that does nothing but serve so that stuff doesnt matter.

OSX is able to boot headless. You can likely turn off many of the "resource hogs" you don't want.

http://mrblog.org/tag/apple/

Quote:
2: a proper server OS from apple is availible for $1000, and even then, lots of frills and overhead, a server os should have the lest overhead possible, as sad as it makes me to say this, Windows 2003 is a great example of what a server OS should be...basic, fast, efficient and yet very powerful.

Win 2K3 server does come with no server components actually enabled. Which is kinda nice.

I don't have OSX server so I dunno how minimal you can make it. But hey, since YOU are making the claim that OSX Server is bloated why don't you provide what the minimal set is from the installer?

Then we can discuss how bloated it really is.

Quote:
4 Updates and support: Apple has already quit patching any pre 10.5 os builds, so you would be running an out of life and, going forward, patchless box, with Ubuntu LTS, you get a brand new build with 3 years of patches and updates

Apple updates the two most recent OS X releases. This means that 10.3 is EOL'd but 10.4 is still getting updates. My 10.4 box has been getting updates.

Quote:
OSX is NEVER the right tool for a server...NEVER

Gee...and if I wanted to run Final Cut Server I should install it on Ubuntu LTS or Win 2K3?
post #69 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Gee...and if I wanted to run Final Cut Server I should install it on Ubuntu LTS or Win 2K3?

Well...just use Premiere Pro, it is better anyway <ducks>

But really, I never really thought about FCS, because untill now, OSX hasnt had any special server apps, just unix services and a fancy implementation of VNC called ARD, which costs extra.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #70 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_greer View Post

1: OSX Desktop versions are resource hogs...a gig of ram and a new proc are required for the system to run...and you shouldnt use a server as a desktop/workstation, a server is to be a dedicated box that does nothing but serve so that stuff doesnt matter.

2: a proper server OS from apple is availible for $1000, and even then, lots of frills and overhead, a server os should have the lest overhead possible, as sad as it makes me to say this, Windows 2003 is a great example of what a server OS should be...basic, fast, efficient and yet very powerful.

3: Mac OS Server unlimited CAL: $1000, and you get basicly a collection of uix admin tools with a nice gui
UBUNTU: Unlimited CALS (dua) gives you the same unix tools with usable front ends for managment...and it is FREE and can run on a fraction of the hardware.
4 Updates and support: Apple has already quit patching any pre 10.5 os builds, so you would be running an out of life and, going forward, patchless box, with Ubuntu LTS, you get a brand new build with 3 years of patches and updates

Frankly, those are all irrelevant ivory tower type concerns for the purposes of this discussion. For home use (in case you missed what we were talking about), you don't need to buy "Server" or use a special machine. Apple hasn't really stopped patching Tiger. Updates do come when there's a security flaw that's been exposed. Even then, for home use behind a firewall with no one using the machine to access the internet, not a problem. As memory is dirt cheap, taking a gig wouldn't even be a concern. I do run services from one of my desktops as it's not worth the electricity to run a dedicated machine.

And no, you don't need to use Apple Remote Desktop, you can link in with any VNC software, though I use Vine Server + Chicken of the VNC for my VNC software.
post #71 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

I'm also wondering who these people are that DON'T upgrade their computers? Outside of claims on this forum, I don't know any PC users that don't. When it used to be possible on a Mac, I didn't know any Mac users that didn't either. Video card, CPU, RAM, and additional drives were the minimum. I know I swapped out a lot of parts on my G4, and it was easy to do with generic parts at my local "build your own PC" mart. 95 % of all computer users can do this, Apple users are stupid if they just accept it that they can't.

I have found it more cost-effective and rewarding to replace a $1,500 computer with a new one of the same price every two years, as opposed to buying a $3k computer and trying to string it out for 6 years via upgrades. There's so much more that changes beyond just graphics card and processor performance; new, faster ports come along, faster wireless standards, faster optical drives or new formats (like Blu-Ray), faster system busses, faster hard drive connections, and so on. For all the things that can't be upgraded, spending several hundred dollars to upgrade the things you can just seems like a waste, compared to eBaying the old and putting the money toward a new.

That said, you say 95% of all computer users are competent enough to swap out computer components and install new ones. I'd say about 99% of computer users have no desire to do so. The only people I know who upgrade hardware components inside their machine are people who have a day job in IT. People are as likely to crack their computer case open as they are to take apart their television.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

I paid $1600 for my old G4. It served me very well specifically because I was able to upgrade it along the way as my needs changed. Computer prices have dropped considerably since then, yet the only comparable replacement to it Apple has now is three grand? That is stupid. I ended up getting an Aluminum iMac only because it was the only choice Apple offered in a reasonable price range, and I could not be any less happy with this piece of junk.

What exactly is the problem with your aluminum iMac? Or are you just disgruntled because you won't be able to frankenstein it along for 8 years? The current iMacs are far superior machines in terms of bang for the buck than any G4-based machine ever was in it's time.
post #72 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

I have found it more cost-effective and rewarding to replace a $1,500 computer with a new one of the same price every two years, as opposed to buying a $3k computer and trying to string it out for 6 years via upgrades.

You do realize that it's only a $3000 computer because that's all Apple offers that's remotely like it? They can offer a $1500 tower and make a good profit on it.

And you'd be willing to replace the entire computer for $1500 rather than. for instance, drop in a $50 USB 3 card?
post #73 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

You do realize that it's only a $3000 computer because that's all Apple offers that's remotely like it at a fairer price, right? They can offer a $1500 tower and make a good profit on it.

Yes, I realize Apple could offer a stripped down tower without eight cores and all that other insanely-fast stuff that most people won't ever need, and sell it for $1,500. But I imagine they've concluded that the market for such a product is so miniscule it's not worth addressing. They need to add the option for a matte screen on the iMac and MacBook far more than they need to offer an inexpensive, upgradeable tower.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

And you'd be willing to replace the entire computer for $1500 rather than drop in a $50 USB 3 card?

I just make it my mentality that a $1,500 computer purchased for professional work should get replaced in two years with one of equal cost. Upgrading individual components saves you money on the short term, but when you add it all up over the course of four years, you may be spending close to what it would have cost to replace your computer entirely every two years, so long as you sell the old one.

A $1,500 computer could probably be sold for at least $900 in two years, which means your cost of replacing it with another $1,500 computer is only $600. Alternatively, if you were to hang on to that computer for 4 years, you'd probably spend close to $600 in hardware and software upgrades that would have come standard on the new model. $100-$200 for a hard drive upgarde, $250 for a graphics card upgrade, $200 for the Blu-Ray upgrade, $300 for a processor swap, $50 for a USB 3 card, $50 for a Firewire 1200 card, $100 for the new flavor of Wifi, $130 for OS X 10.6, $80 for iLife '09. And all that money spent on upgrades still doesn't get you a computer that's up to date, because things like system bus, SATA, etc cannot be replaced unless you could swap out the entire motherboard. Plus, it's old and dirty

Like I said, I find it more cost-effective, and more personally rewarding, to just sell and repurchase every two years. And the only upgrade I have to worry about is doubling the RAM Apple includes standard.
post #74 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Let me clarify for suhail, you claim that people want a mid-sized Mac so they can spec it with cheap parts, which is totally absurd. Mac users seek a mid-sized tower to cost less than the full-tower so they can install faster graphic cards than the MacMini, more and faster performing memory than the iMac, and faster performing 3.5" HDD than the iMac or the MacMini. The MacPro is very expensive, it may have a great value for some users who can afford it, but somewhere between a MacPro and a MacMini would make many Mac users very happy.

You Mac that?

With all due respect, installing more powerful components than the mac mini at less than the cost of an equivalent setup on a mac pro is exactly what I meant when I said spec it out with cheap parts. I don't know what you think I was saying but there appears to be some miscommunication.

I'm not the guy responsible for Apple not marketing a tower. I'm just saying if Apple were planning to make a mid sized tower they could have done it by now. I agree that a mid tower that offered some of the flexibility of a mac pro closer to a mac mini price would be a very popular addition to the desktop lineup. Therefore there must be a reason why they haven't done it.

I think the mac mini is intentionally so small that it can't be upgraded component-by-component, whereas the mac pro is priced intentionally high to force home users out of the custom-machine market. That leads me to think maybe Apple is afraid of it canabalising it's iMac lineup or maybe they are afraid of having to code for all the different parts or maybe they are afraid of losing the brand image. That is the contribution I'm bringing to the discussion.

Does that clear things up?
post #75 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory Bauer View Post

Yes, I realize Apple could offer a stripped down tower without eight cores and all that other insanely-fast stuff that most people won't ever need, and sell it for $1,500. But I imagine they've concluded that the market for such a product is so miniscule it's not worth addressing. They need to add the option for a matte screen on the iMac and MacBook far more than they need to offer an inexpensive, upgradeable tower.


I just make it my mentality that a $1,500 computer purchased for professional work should get replaced in two years with one of equal cost. Upgrading individual components saves you money on the short term, but when you add it all up over the course of four years, you may be spending close to what it would have cost to replace your computer entirely every two years, so long as you sell the old one.

A $1,500 computer could probably be sold for at least $900 in two years, which means your cost of replacing it with another $1,500 computer is only $600. Alternatively, if you were to hang on to that computer for 4 years, you'd probably spend close to $600 in hardware and software upgrades that would have come standard on the new model. $100-$200 for a hard drive upgarde, $250 for a graphics card upgrade, $200 for the Blu-Ray upgrade, $300 for a processor swap, $50 for a USB 3 card, $50 for a Firewire 1200 card, $100 for the new flavor of Wifi, $130 for OS X 10.6, $80 for iLife '09. And all that money spent on upgrades still doesn't get you a computer that's up to date, because things like system bus, SATA, etc cannot be replaced unless you could swap out the entire motherboard. Plus, it's old and dirty

Like I said, I find it more cost-effective, and more personally rewarding, to just sell and repurchase every two years. And the only upgrade I have to worry about is doubling the RAM Apple includes standard.

I agree with Cory. I myself do know how to replace components (yes, I work in IT), but I agree that it's more cost-effective and personally rewarding to replace the machine every two years. And on top of that, it's FUN to get a brand-spanking new Mac!
post #76 of 91
"AppleTV 1.0 was not what people wanted" - Steve Jobs
post #77 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar View Post

"AppleTV 1.0 was not what people wanted" - Steve Jobs

"Teenagers are not what people wanted" - A Parent
post #78 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by delreyjones View Post

I myself do know how to replace components (yes, I work in IT), but I agree that it's more cost-effective and personally rewarding to replace the machine every two years. And on top of that, it's FUN to get a brand-spanking new Mac!

I could too. But it is too costly.

Basically, the machine is as weakest as its weakest link. Considering that every moment something is being advanced, there is no hope that one could build there own Mac and be in the now without some undue heavey costs. Admittedly however, if you have nothing to do and monies are not a factor, it may appear to be a bargain, but for most, time is money. It just won't add up.

Good articles in David Alison's Blog site which is now one of our favorite bookmarks to recommend, in particular the newly switched. Heck, even for us oldies who like to think we know everything) (http://www.davidalison.com/

In particular, Common Myths for the Macintosh (obviously a newbee) http://www.davidalison.com/2008/05/c...macintosh.html and

Why I bailed out on Windows and switched to Macintosh http://www.davidalison.com/2008/04/w...ndows-and.html
post #79 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by delreyjones View Post

I agree with Cory. I myself do know how to replace components (yes, I work in IT), but I agree that it's more cost-effective and personally rewarding to replace the machine every two years. And on top of that, it's FUN to get a brand-spanking new Mac!

The problem with the Mac lineup is that the Mini isn't getting enough refreshes for this strategy to work well at the lower price point.

I used to buy a new $600-700 Dell every year or two vs a high end box adding nothing but a mid grade $100-$150 video card and maybe some memory.

At the $700 level you haven't been able to do that the last couple years with the Mac. CPU wise, it's been mostly fine but not going to Santa Rosa on the mini hurt even given the crappy X3100 drivers from intel and moving to merom late also sucked.

If they rev'd the mini as often as the macbook, that's be better from the pespective of "buy cheap, replace often".
post #80 of 91
I hope this is a complete refresh. The iBook/Macbook really hasn't had one in five years.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Component report pins MacBook overhaul for third quarter