blu-ray drives are cheaper. i saw one at newegg last week for $58. If apple buys 5 million a year then say $20 per drive for them. or maybe less
I doubt component price is a high consern to a company whos lowest end tower has 2 very pricey quad core xeons, they sell those as "movie production" machines...and here we are 3 years after Blueray really got started, and about 1.5 years since its competition pretty much died, and Apple just now embraced it in their "pro" video tools? sounds about like the right timing for Apple to launch a BD drive, coming next year: Betamax...
Not sure the diff between notebook memory and mac memory. Crucial has 4GBx2 for $760 (Yes, it was $1100 a few weeks ago..)
the number you put in is accurate for the new macbooks, his numbers are for the older macbooks, the difference is DDR2 vs DDR3, ddr 3 isnt as widely used yet, so it is a little more expensive, particularly the 4gb modules...and for the record, never buy "mac memory" it is a markup scheme by the ram resellers to pry an extra 10-25% out of you...just put the ram specs into crucial; or newegg and buy what comes up, thats never failed me...2x4gb Crucial brand ram from newegg is $600 (2 separate $300 items)
if you wish to contribute your savings to the "help me buy a new computer because mine is 2 years old and slow" fund, I wouldnt say no
Now there's blasphemy if I ever heard it. :-) You can never have too much memory...
Often true. But my Mac Pro has 10GB and right now has 6.7GB free despite having 25 programs running. My MacBook Pro doesn't see that kind of use. I figured I could put off the extra upgrade, my MBP can only use 6GB anyway.
Apple doesn't have a desktop computer with a desktop CPU. The Mac Pro is a workstation with 2 quad-core server CPUs.
As I see it, the next iMac will be a "Make or brake" model which will save the Apple brand of computers or sink it for good. Because Apple doesn't license its operating system, the only way for students, families and companies to get a computer that could pass off for a desktop substitute is to buy an iMac. And the iMac must have competitive features and a competitive price. And not turn off buyers with a mirror, glossy, reflecting monitor.
Nowadays, you can get an HP desktop computer with a quad-core desktop CPU from Intel or AMD and a Blu-Ray drive for less than $1000, including a monitor and printer.
I thoroughly agree. And many potential Apple customers do too.
I'm still critical of the lack of mid-tower option. Critical of the lack of affordable quad core and critical of Apple's supposed 'low end' solution, the 'mini'. Vista was Apple's opportunity to put M$ to the sword for me. '7' reduces that window of opportunity.
I think they could have been more aggressive in pricing. Don't have to be cheapest in class...but cheaper than they are now. Especially in the UK.
*Shrugs.
It's the stagnation of the desktop line...that annoys me.
Still hopeful that things might change going forwards. But I doubt it. 'Blah, blah', I guess.
I don't agree that the next iMac is make or break, but I think it carries too much of the burden of desktop sales. When the mid-range is crying out for a more 'standard' response/product...to help in the battle against the forces of darkness.
But the recent price hike of the Macbook before they 'climbed down' and made it the 'pro' low end laptop...showed that Apple can't afford to be arrogant or disregard price despite their vaunted premium status....where their momentum had stalled for the first time in years. Ironic that their 'climb down' proved there is a 'glass ceiling' on what 'switchers' will pay.
"Compelling" is a relative thing. I don't think any features would interest me in buying an iMac. The only place I see for an AIO desktop is the kitchen computer, and that has to be dirt cheap.
This article was stoopid. In other news "Technology moves forward with the passing of time". I think I will write my novel now.
The only thing compelling me to an iMac would be complete upgrade access. Meaning they would have to NOT use laptop motherboards with soldered procs. I want sockets and PCI slots and it has to be 1.5" thin or less cuz... Well no reason at all.
I've been pondering about memory in general. With Snow Leopard and nearly infinite memory coming around: while 2GB DIMMS are cheap, 4GB DIMMS are killer expensive. What good is unlimited memory if it costs more than the computer itself?? Or do they expect all the orders for higher memory start driving the costs down?
Leopard can address more RAM than people will need, the limitation is still in the hardware for consumer machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmcboston
Now there's blasphemy if I ever heard it. :-) You can never have too much memory...
THis used to be true when adding RAM meant sticks that were 16MB, 32MB, 64MB, ? or even 256MB, but when sticks of RAM are now at 2GB each for the cheap stuff then having too much RAM can actually be a waste of money for consumers. That is not to say that we will never need that much RAM as I?m certain 8GB will eventually be the cheap and the norm. But unlike the a decade ago where a slow machine was likely most benefited from adding more RAM we have OSes and apps that haven?t exponentially used more RAM in correlation to my increase.
Like JeffDM, I have 4GB of RAM and only use it to it?s full potential when I have VMWare with a virtual machine using 2GB. Unless I needed more virtual machines running at once or used images and videos that were 4GB in size it?s just not required for the consumer. Unless 8GB was dirt cheap I don?t see a need to go past 4GB for quite awhile, and then only if I were to get a new machine.
Personally, I could see Apple putting a Blu-ray writer in the iMacs and Mac Pros, but I think that would cater more towards the professionals. An awesome consumer iMac feature would obviously be a multi-touch screen. Even if offered only on a high end iMac that cost ~$3K, it would probably be pretty compelling. I mean, people are plunking down 1K to get 8GB of ram, why not an extra 1500 for a 24" multi-touch iMac?
Why would a multi-touch screen cost 1500 ? Its the same screen just with a reactive layer.
I thoroughly agree. And many potential Apple customers do too.
I'm still critical of the lack of mid-tower option. Critical of the lack of affordable quad core and critical of Apple's supposed 'low end' solution, the 'mini'. Vista was Apple's opportunity to put M$ to the sword for me. '7' reduces that window of opportunity.
I think they could have been more aggressive in pricing. Don't have to be cheapest in class...but cheaper than they are now. Especially in the UK.
*Shrugs.
It's the stagnation of the desktop line...that annoys me.
Still hopeful that things might change going forwards. But I doubt it. 'Blah, blah', I guess.
I don't agree that the next iMac is make or break, but I think it carries too much of the burden of desktop sales. When the mid-range is crying out for a more 'standard' response/product...to help in the battle against the forces of darkness.
But the recent price hike of the Macbook before they 'climbed down' and made it the 'pro' low end laptop...showed that Apple can't afford to be arrogant or disregard price despite their vaunted premium status....where their momentum had stalled for the first time in years. Ironic that their 'climb down' proved there is a 'glass ceiling' on what 'switchers' will pay.
Lemon Bon Bon.
i had my eyes on a MBP until i saw the new Dell laptops. light, thin and more powerful hardware than a MBP. and at least 30% cheaper
I've been pondering about memory in general. With Snow Leopard and nearly infinite memory coming around: while 2GB DIMMS are cheap, 4GB DIMMS are killer expensive. What good is unlimited memory if it costs more than the computer itself?? Or do they expect all the orders for higher memory start driving the costs down?
i remember the days of $150 for a 16MB RAM upgrade. the price will drop.
they could also merge the apple tv with a mac mini - sell it as a home server for the same price as the low end imac.
hdmi + blue ray in that device + the ability to stream from and to other devices content which is not necessarily in itunes. My ps3 functions very well as such a device, pity apple can't figure out this market. Oh and preferably with the psu built into the unit.
i'll definitely be considering a hackintosh as my next desktop if apple don't deliver a decent tower. i don't want to go down that road but apple isn't leaving me and others much choice. the equation is simple
a desktop class machine which is slightly expandable and lets me choose my own monitor.
another thing - i've had lousy experience with all in ones and apple hw. So far - original imac blueberry - bye bye. 17" imac at work has developed multicolour lines across the screen - our solution was to add an ext monitor. the 20" imac has some weird dirt between the outer glass and screen which we can't remove. 20" LCD cinema display (ADC connector) is usable but the backlight went twice even after repaired. G5 1.8 single cpu g5 psu went poof. Admittedly after 5-6 years and on a questionable socket but the price to repair the part is ridiculous vis a vis the pc component.
don't get me wrong i'm a mac fan and love the design and thought and build quality of the products but i don't feel like risking 2000 euro on a new tower which might not even last me that long.
The lap-tops that HP sells are also nowhere near as thin or light as the ones Apple produces. There is currently no Blu-Ray drive that will fit in the MacBook line. That may change in the future, but right now the desktops are really the only machines capable of supporting the feature.
That said, my personal opinion is that Blu-Ray is worthless for all but burning content on computers. Unless your a college student or the like, there's really no reason you wouldn't have a much larger and more functional HDTV to watch that content on. And BD output on lap-tops is a joke because they all start to choke on a TV over 32".
my 5 year old Dell is big and bulky. i checked today's Dell and HP laptops and the difference is very small. my current HP laptop is 8 ounces heavier than an MBP and a half inch wider. its actually smaller in length than a MBP. and it's almost 2 years old. new dell laptops are small and light as well.
i'll definitely be considering a hackintosh as my next desktop if apple don't deliver a decent tower. i don't want to go down that road but apple isn't leaving me and others much choice. the equation is simple
a desktop class machine which is slightly expandable and lets me choose my own monitor.
I've gone Hackintosh and won't go back. I love having the ability to change out my processor (currently a quad core desktop class), or graphics cards, use desktop drives, 4 gb RAM for 40 bucks? This machine runs cool, quiet and such. I have my own monitor (of which I've upgraded over time) and I still have some PCI slots to add in other upgrades. Do your research if you go Hackintosh. There are motherboards out there that are extremely close to Apple's builds. If you go with those, the chances you can run a full retail OS X (instead of downloading a hacked version) are much better. I run full retail OS X, and the only thing I had to do was install a boot loader and audio drivers. Everything else "just works" for about 600 bucks (and that's including updates without hacks). And its better than the current iMac mid-offering. Its also extremely stable. Haven't had one crash or problem in OS X.
To me, its a well worth the investment. I hope for others it is too. The thing you don't get: the Apple logo engraved on your machine, and the cool thin looks of Apples.
Personally, I could see Apple putting a Blu-ray writer in the iMacs and Mac Pros, but I think that would cater more towards the professionals. An awesome consumer iMac feature would obviously be a multi-touch screen. Even if offered only on a high end iMac that cost ~$3K, it would probably be pretty compelling. I mean, people are plunking down 1K to get 8GB of ram, why not an extra 1500 for a 24" multi-touch iMac?
Touch screen on a desktop computer? You really want to interact with your desktop computer by greasing the screen? Luckily Apple is not that silly and will never do such a thing.
I've gone Hackintosh and won't go back. I love having the ability to change out my processor (currently a quad core desktop class), or graphics cards, use desktop drives, 4 gb RAM for 40 bucks? This machine runs cool, quiet and such. I have my own monitor (of which I've upgraded over time) and I still have some PCI slots to add in other upgrades. Do your research if you go Hackintosh. There are motherboards out there that are extremely close to Apple's builds. If you go with those, the chances you can run a full retail OS X (instead of downloading a hacked version) are much better. I run full retail OS X, and the only thing I had to do was install a boot loader and audio drivers. Everything else "just works" for about 600 bucks (and that's including updates without hacks). And its better than the current iMac mid-offering. Its also extremely stable. Haven't had one crash or problem in OS X.
To me, its a well worth the investment. I hope for others it is too. The thing you don't get: the Apple logo engraved on your machine, and the cool thin looks of Apples.
And you also don't get stability. And you also don't get confidence: Should I download and install that latest security update, or will it completely obliterate my system? If you wanted a tinkerers OS you might as well installed Linux.
I thoroughly agree. And many potential Apple customers do too.
I'm still critical of the lack of mid-tower option. Critical of the lack of affordable quad core and critical of Apple's supposed 'low end' solution, the 'mini'. Vista was Apple's opportunity to put M$ to the sword for me. '7' reduces that window of opportunity.
I think they could have been more aggressive in pricing. Don't have to be cheapest in class...but cheaper than they are now. Especially in the UK.
*Shrugs.
It's the stagnation of the desktop line...that annoys me.
Still hopeful that things might change going forwards. But I doubt it. 'Blah, blah', I guess.
I don't agree that the next iMac is make or break, but I think it carries too much of the burden of desktop sales. When the mid-range is crying out for a more 'standard' response/product...to help in the battle against the forces of darkness.
But the recent price hike of the Macbook before they 'climbed down' and made it the 'pro' low end laptop...showed that Apple can't afford to be arrogant or disregard price despite their vaunted premium status....where their momentum had stalled for the first time in years. Ironic that their 'climb down' proved there is a 'glass ceiling' on what 'switchers' will pay.
Lemon Bon Bon.
It's puzzling as to why Apple refuses to build the desktop computer many of us clearly want and need. I have a Mini, yes, but I never asked Apple for an incredibly small computer. I opted for the Mini because the Mac Pro is overkill for my uses – I don't need anything close that sort of expandability – and the iMac is an all-in-one which is fine if we're talking laptop but makes no sense for a desktop system.
In other words, the Mini isn't really what I wanted from Apple but it was the best option at the time. A good old-fashioned tower with a little less expandability and power to compliment the Mac Pro would suit me just fine. I could live with a bigger form factor if it meant cheaper, faster hard drives, etc. i.e. less expensive components than the laptop parts Apple is forced to use in order to keep the Mini so small.
About all I can figure is that making the Mini so compact has allowed it to be desirable for assorted applications which can benefit from that compact form factor. But it bugs me that Apple has the arrogance to imagine that if Steve Jobs likes the iMac as a consumer desktop solution, it must mean the rest of us share that view. I don't want the iMac, not because it's a poor product. It's a rather impressive one. But the idea of combining a long-lasting monitor with less durable computer bits and pieces simply doesn't strike me as a good idea.
The Mini is rumoured to be on the way out (has been for quite some time) and if it was phased out but replaced with a sort of Mac Pro Lite, I for one would be very pleased. It's what I really want from Apple, even if such a device would check in midway between the Mini and Mac Pro in price. I think the choice should not be between the Mini for less money and the more expensive iMac that adds a monitor, keyboard etc. It should be between two comparably priced units, one the iMac for those who want such an all-in-one and for the rest of us, a smallish tower that offers, for similar money, more performance but no monitor.
Come on Apple. Just for a change, build the computer many of us want, rather than the one you insist we should all have. Certainly give us the choice. Is that too much to ask?
By the way, would it not be possible to continue making the Mini and introduce the tower many have requested? After all, for many of the applications in which the Mini is a good fit, upgrading the hardware any time soon is not necessary. If the numbers justify continuing production, fine, if not, no great loss.
I was all for eSATA until I researched the thing a bit wanting to buy an eSATA dock for boxless hard disks. As it is now, it is interesting only for fixed external storage: you must have your external hard disks on when you startup your Mac, you cannot hotswap, etc.
So I rather have them implement USB 3 as soon as possible (mind you, eSATA would be nice anyway, but it is no faster FW or USB substitute).
As I see it, the next iMac will be a "Make or brake" model which will save the Apple brand of computers or sink it for good.
The word is "break" and time and time again, the way "you see it" and post it... appears to be just more of the same... stupid.
Quote:
Because Apple doesn't license its operating system.....
....they have a unique competitive advantage over all the other PC makers.
Quote:
the only way for students, families and companies to get a computer that could pass off for a desktop substitute is to buy an iMac.
Well your demographic selection include almost ALL computer buyers... perhaps you missed out single guys, with no families living in basements.
Quote:
Microsoft has already released to manufacturing and group licensing clients its next operating system, Windows 7.
And what has that got to do with towers vs AIOs?
Quote:
The reviews are very good and official launch will be on October 22, 2009, for every new computer in store.
Emphasis mine. Yep. And if those stores are in the US... and the latest NPD stats are correct... then 80% of those in store computers are going to be... laptops.
About 18 months ago Gartner and IDC announced that sales of laptops had overtaken desktops.
NPD now puts US desktop retail sales at around 20%
The large majority of those desktops (that are towers) cost $600 dollars or less.
Apple doesn't specifically target the corporate, Windows and Exchange dominated market. (who buy the rest of those towers)
Dell, HP, Sony, Gateway, Lenovo and others now ALL have iMac like products.ie. AIOs!
How is it that you guys cannot see the facts and stats that are right in front of your eyes?
Quote:
Apple must have a compelling desktop computer offering or it will disappear as a computer hardware manufacturer.
Apple has gained market share slowly but steadily for nearly SIX years. Simply by ignoring your advice.
Quote:
Sure, there are MacBooks, but a portable computer is not for everyone.
Comments
blu-ray drives are cheaper. i saw one at newegg last week for $58. If apple buys 5 million a year then say $20 per drive for them. or maybe less
I doubt component price is a high consern to a company whos lowest end tower has 2 very pricey quad core xeons, they sell those as "movie production" machines...and here we are 3 years after Blueray really got started, and about 1.5 years since its competition pretty much died, and Apple just now embraced it in their "pro" video tools? sounds about like the right timing for Apple to launch a BD drive, coming next year: Betamax...
http://www.dankalinowski.com/iMac_Refresh.jpg
Not sure the diff between notebook memory and mac memory. Crucial has 4GBx2 for $760 (Yes, it was $1100 a few weeks ago..)
the number you put in is accurate for the new macbooks, his numbers are for the older macbooks, the difference is DDR2 vs DDR3, ddr 3 isnt as widely used yet, so it is a little more expensive, particularly the 4gb modules...and for the record, never buy "mac memory" it is a markup scheme by the ram resellers to pry an extra 10-25% out of you...just put the ram specs into crucial; or newegg and buy what comes up, thats never failed me...2x4gb Crucial brand ram from newegg is $600 (2 separate $300 items)
if you wish to contribute your savings to the "help me buy a new computer because mine is 2 years old and slow" fund, I wouldnt say no
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820148289
Now there's blasphemy if I ever heard it. :-) You can never have too much memory...
Often true. But my Mac Pro has 10GB and right now has 6.7GB free despite having 25 programs running. My MacBook Pro doesn't see that kind of use. I figured I could put off the extra upgrade, my MBP can only use 6GB anyway.
I share your concerns.
Apple doesn't have a desktop computer with a desktop CPU. The Mac Pro is a workstation with 2 quad-core server CPUs.
As I see it, the next iMac will be a "Make or brake" model which will save the Apple brand of computers or sink it for good. Because Apple doesn't license its operating system, the only way for students, families and companies to get a computer that could pass off for a desktop substitute is to buy an iMac. And the iMac must have competitive features and a competitive price. And not turn off buyers with a mirror, glossy, reflecting monitor.
Nowadays, you can get an HP desktop computer with a quad-core desktop CPU from Intel or AMD and a Blu-Ray drive for less than $1000, including a monitor and printer.
I thoroughly agree. And many potential Apple customers do too.
I'm still critical of the lack of mid-tower option. Critical of the lack of affordable quad core and critical of Apple's supposed 'low end' solution, the 'mini'. Vista was Apple's opportunity to put M$ to the sword for me. '7' reduces that window of opportunity.
I think they could have been more aggressive in pricing. Don't have to be cheapest in class...but cheaper than they are now. Especially in the UK.
*Shrugs.
It's the stagnation of the desktop line...that annoys me.
Still hopeful that things might change going forwards. But I doubt it. 'Blah, blah', I guess.
I don't agree that the next iMac is make or break, but I think it carries too much of the burden of desktop sales. When the mid-range is crying out for a more 'standard' response/product...to help in the battle against the forces of darkness.
But the recent price hike of the Macbook before they 'climbed down' and made it the 'pro' low end laptop...showed that Apple can't afford to be arrogant or disregard price despite their vaunted premium status....where their momentum had stalled for the first time in years. Ironic that their 'climb down' proved there is a 'glass ceiling' on what 'switchers' will pay.
Lemon Bon Bon.
So, meh.
The only thing compelling me to an iMac would be complete upgrade access. Meaning they would have to NOT use laptop motherboards with soldered procs. I want sockets and PCI slots and it has to be 1.5" thin or less cuz... Well no reason at all.
I've been pondering about memory in general. With Snow Leopard and nearly infinite memory coming around: while 2GB DIMMS are cheap, 4GB DIMMS are killer expensive. What good is unlimited memory if it costs more than the computer itself?? Or do they expect all the orders for higher memory start driving the costs down?
Leopard can address more RAM than people will need, the limitation is still in the hardware for consumer machines.
Now there's blasphemy if I ever heard it. :-) You can never have too much memory...
THis used to be true when adding RAM meant sticks that were 16MB, 32MB, 64MB, ? or even 256MB, but when sticks of RAM are now at 2GB each for the cheap stuff then having too much RAM can actually be a waste of money for consumers. That is not to say that we will never need that much RAM as I?m certain 8GB will eventually be the cheap and the norm. But unlike the a decade ago where a slow machine was likely most benefited from adding more RAM we have OSes and apps that haven?t exponentially used more RAM in correlation to my increase.
Like JeffDM, I have 4GB of RAM and only use it to it?s full potential when I have VMWare with a virtual machine using 2GB. Unless I needed more virtual machines running at once or used images and videos that were 4GB in size it?s just not required for the consumer. Unless 8GB was dirt cheap I don?t see a need to go past 4GB for quite awhile, and then only if I were to get a new machine.
Personally, I could see Apple putting a Blu-ray writer in the iMacs and Mac Pros, but I think that would cater more towards the professionals. An awesome consumer iMac feature would obviously be a multi-touch screen. Even if offered only on a high end iMac that cost ~$3K, it would probably be pretty compelling. I mean, people are plunking down 1K to get 8GB of ram, why not an extra 1500 for a 24" multi-touch iMac?
Why would a multi-touch screen cost 1500 ? Its the same screen just with a reactive layer.
I thoroughly agree. And many potential Apple customers do too.
I'm still critical of the lack of mid-tower option. Critical of the lack of affordable quad core and critical of Apple's supposed 'low end' solution, the 'mini'. Vista was Apple's opportunity to put M$ to the sword for me. '7' reduces that window of opportunity.
I think they could have been more aggressive in pricing. Don't have to be cheapest in class...but cheaper than they are now. Especially in the UK.
*Shrugs.
It's the stagnation of the desktop line...that annoys me.
Still hopeful that things might change going forwards. But I doubt it. 'Blah, blah', I guess.
I don't agree that the next iMac is make or break, but I think it carries too much of the burden of desktop sales. When the mid-range is crying out for a more 'standard' response/product...to help in the battle against the forces of darkness.
But the recent price hike of the Macbook before they 'climbed down' and made it the 'pro' low end laptop...showed that Apple can't afford to be arrogant or disregard price despite their vaunted premium status....where their momentum had stalled for the first time in years. Ironic that their 'climb down' proved there is a 'glass ceiling' on what 'switchers' will pay.
Lemon Bon Bon.
i had my eyes on a MBP until i saw the new Dell laptops. light, thin and more powerful hardware than a MBP. and at least 30% cheaper
I've been pondering about memory in general. With Snow Leopard and nearly infinite memory coming around: while 2GB DIMMS are cheap, 4GB DIMMS are killer expensive. What good is unlimited memory if it costs more than the computer itself?? Or do they expect all the orders for higher memory start driving the costs down?
i remember the days of $150 for a 16MB RAM upgrade. the price will drop.
hdmi + blue ray in that device + the ability to stream from and to other devices content which is not necessarily in itunes. My ps3 functions very well as such a device, pity apple can't figure out this market. Oh and preferably with the psu built into the unit.
i'll definitely be considering a hackintosh as my next desktop if apple don't deliver a decent tower. i don't want to go down that road but apple isn't leaving me and others much choice. the equation is simple
a desktop class machine which is slightly expandable and lets me choose my own monitor.
another thing - i've had lousy experience with all in ones and apple hw. So far - original imac blueberry - bye bye. 17" imac at work has developed multicolour lines across the screen - our solution was to add an ext monitor. the 20" imac has some weird dirt between the outer glass and screen which we can't remove. 20" LCD cinema display (ADC connector) is usable but the backlight went twice even after repaired. G5 1.8 single cpu g5 psu went poof. Admittedly after 5-6 years and on a questionable socket but the price to repair the part is ridiculous vis a vis the pc component.
don't get me wrong i'm a mac fan and love the design and thought and build quality of the products but i don't feel like risking 2000 euro on a new tower which might not even last me that long.
The lap-tops that HP sells are also nowhere near as thin or light as the ones Apple produces. There is currently no Blu-Ray drive that will fit in the MacBook line. That may change in the future, but right now the desktops are really the only machines capable of supporting the feature.
That said, my personal opinion is that Blu-Ray is worthless for all but burning content on computers. Unless your a college student or the like, there's really no reason you wouldn't have a much larger and more functional HDTV to watch that content on. And BD output on lap-tops is a joke because they all start to choke on a TV over 32".
my 5 year old Dell is big and bulky. i checked today's Dell and HP laptops and the difference is very small. my current HP laptop is 8 ounces heavier than an MBP and a half inch wider. its actually smaller in length than a MBP. and it's almost 2 years old. new dell laptops are small and light as well.
i'll definitely be considering a hackintosh as my next desktop if apple don't deliver a decent tower. i don't want to go down that road but apple isn't leaving me and others much choice. the equation is simple
a desktop class machine which is slightly expandable and lets me choose my own monitor.
I've gone Hackintosh and won't go back. I love having the ability to change out my processor (currently a quad core desktop class), or graphics cards, use desktop drives, 4 gb RAM for 40 bucks? This machine runs cool, quiet and such. I have my own monitor (of which I've upgraded over time) and I still have some PCI slots to add in other upgrades. Do your research if you go Hackintosh. There are motherboards out there that are extremely close to Apple's builds. If you go with those, the chances you can run a full retail OS X (instead of downloading a hacked version) are much better. I run full retail OS X, and the only thing I had to do was install a boot loader and audio drivers. Everything else "just works" for about 600 bucks (and that's including updates without hacks). And its better than the current iMac mid-offering. Its also extremely stable. Haven't had one crash or problem in OS X.
To me, its a well worth the investment. I hope for others it is too. The thing you don't get: the Apple logo engraved on your machine, and the cool thin looks of Apples.
Personally, I could see Apple putting a Blu-ray writer in the iMacs and Mac Pros, but I think that would cater more towards the professionals. An awesome consumer iMac feature would obviously be a multi-touch screen. Even if offered only on a high end iMac that cost ~$3K, it would probably be pretty compelling. I mean, people are plunking down 1K to get 8GB of ram, why not an extra 1500 for a 24" multi-touch iMac?
Touch screen on a desktop computer? You really want to interact with your desktop computer by greasing the screen? Luckily Apple is not that silly and will never do such a thing.
I've gone Hackintosh and won't go back. I love having the ability to change out my processor (currently a quad core desktop class), or graphics cards, use desktop drives, 4 gb RAM for 40 bucks? This machine runs cool, quiet and such. I have my own monitor (of which I've upgraded over time) and I still have some PCI slots to add in other upgrades. Do your research if you go Hackintosh. There are motherboards out there that are extremely close to Apple's builds. If you go with those, the chances you can run a full retail OS X (instead of downloading a hacked version) are much better. I run full retail OS X, and the only thing I had to do was install a boot loader and audio drivers. Everything else "just works" for about 600 bucks (and that's including updates without hacks). And its better than the current iMac mid-offering. Its also extremely stable. Haven't had one crash or problem in OS X.
To me, its a well worth the investment. I hope for others it is too. The thing you don't get: the Apple logo engraved on your machine, and the cool thin looks of Apples.
And you also don't get stability. And you also don't get confidence: Should I download and install that latest security update, or will it completely obliterate my system? If you wanted a tinkerers OS you might as well installed Linux.
I thoroughly agree. And many potential Apple customers do too.
I'm still critical of the lack of mid-tower option. Critical of the lack of affordable quad core and critical of Apple's supposed 'low end' solution, the 'mini'. Vista was Apple's opportunity to put M$ to the sword for me. '7' reduces that window of opportunity.
I think they could have been more aggressive in pricing. Don't have to be cheapest in class...but cheaper than they are now. Especially in the UK.
*Shrugs.
It's the stagnation of the desktop line...that annoys me.
Still hopeful that things might change going forwards. But I doubt it. 'Blah, blah', I guess.
I don't agree that the next iMac is make or break, but I think it carries too much of the burden of desktop sales. When the mid-range is crying out for a more 'standard' response/product...to help in the battle against the forces of darkness.
But the recent price hike of the Macbook before they 'climbed down' and made it the 'pro' low end laptop...showed that Apple can't afford to be arrogant or disregard price despite their vaunted premium status....where their momentum had stalled for the first time in years. Ironic that their 'climb down' proved there is a 'glass ceiling' on what 'switchers' will pay.
Lemon Bon Bon.
It's puzzling as to why Apple refuses to build the desktop computer many of us clearly want and need. I have a Mini, yes, but I never asked Apple for an incredibly small computer. I opted for the Mini because the Mac Pro is overkill for my uses – I don't need anything close that sort of expandability – and the iMac is an all-in-one which is fine if we're talking laptop but makes no sense for a desktop system.
In other words, the Mini isn't really what I wanted from Apple but it was the best option at the time. A good old-fashioned tower with a little less expandability and power to compliment the Mac Pro would suit me just fine. I could live with a bigger form factor if it meant cheaper, faster hard drives, etc. i.e. less expensive components than the laptop parts Apple is forced to use in order to keep the Mini so small.
About all I can figure is that making the Mini so compact has allowed it to be desirable for assorted applications which can benefit from that compact form factor. But it bugs me that Apple has the arrogance to imagine that if Steve Jobs likes the iMac as a consumer desktop solution, it must mean the rest of us share that view. I don't want the iMac, not because it's a poor product. It's a rather impressive one. But the idea of combining a long-lasting monitor with less durable computer bits and pieces simply doesn't strike me as a good idea.
The Mini is rumoured to be on the way out (has been for quite some time) and if it was phased out but replaced with a sort of Mac Pro Lite, I for one would be very pleased. It's what I really want from Apple, even if such a device would check in midway between the Mini and Mac Pro in price. I think the choice should not be between the Mini for less money and the more expensive iMac that adds a monitor, keyboard etc. It should be between two comparably priced units, one the iMac for those who want such an all-in-one and for the rest of us, a smallish tower that offers, for similar money, more performance but no monitor.
Come on Apple. Just for a change, build the computer many of us want, rather than the one you insist we should all have. Certainly give us the choice. Is that too much to ask?
By the way, would it not be possible to continue making the Mini and introduce the tower many have requested? After all, for many of the applications in which the Mini is a good fit, upgrading the hardware any time soon is not necessary. If the numbers justify continuing production, fine, if not, no great loss.
So I rather have them implement USB 3 as soon as possible (mind you, eSATA would be nice anyway, but it is no faster FW or USB substitute).
As I see it, the next iMac will be a "Make or brake" model which will save the Apple brand of computers or sink it for good.
The word is "break" and time and time again, the way "you see it" and post it... appears to be just more of the same... stupid.
Because Apple doesn't license its operating system.....
....they have a unique competitive advantage over all the other PC makers.
the only way for students, families and companies to get a computer that could pass off for a desktop substitute is to buy an iMac.
Well your demographic selection include almost ALL computer buyers... perhaps you missed out single guys, with no families living in basements.
Microsoft has already released to manufacturing and group licensing clients its next operating system, Windows 7.
And what has that got to do with towers vs AIOs?
The reviews are very good and official launch will be on October 22, 2009, for every new computer in store.
Emphasis mine. Yep. And if those stores are in the US... and the latest NPD stats are correct... then 80% of those in store computers are going to be... laptops.
About 18 months ago Gartner and IDC announced that sales of laptops had overtaken desktops.
NPD now puts US desktop retail sales at around 20%
The large majority of those desktops (that are towers) cost $600 dollars or less.
Apple doesn't specifically target the corporate, Windows and Exchange dominated market. (who buy the rest of those towers)
Dell, HP, Sony, Gateway, Lenovo and others now ALL have iMac like products.ie. AIOs!
How is it that you guys cannot see the facts and stats that are right in front of your eyes?
Apple must have a compelling desktop computer offering or it will disappear as a computer hardware manufacturer.
Apple has gained market share slowly but steadily for nearly SIX years. Simply by ignoring your advice.
Sure, there are MacBooks, but a portable computer is not for everyone.
No not everyone... just most everyone.
The next iMac will make or brake Apple.
No it won't and the word is "break".