And with the resale value of a 4 year old mac vs a PC the IT Budget stays lower, then you have IT support and I can tell you first hand the most IT does with Mac's on site is call to check if everything is going well... THAT's a first! IT calling the user checking for problems!
The Windows PCs where I used to work were more than 4 yrs old and never had problems. The only time I called IT support was when I wanted more permissions to install things. Half our room was Mac and half PC...the Macs had endless problems with file and disc compatibility, things mysteriously disappearing after being saved, latest versions of documents failing to appear, spreadsheet issues, optical drive issues with the iMacs, etc. Plus IT support had better knowledge of PCs, which I would assume is fairly standard. I would say overall that the company spent far more on buying and maintaining Macs than PCs.
I guess proper businesses also schedule their disasters to coincide with stock availability. Can i have your crystal ball, please?
Wait a second. You allow for disaster management in any company but you don't allow for apple to be short of stock for a week or two? When most of their retailers have at the same time ample stock to cater for almost any need by and large? That's strange... Wouldn't it be perfectly natural for any company to cater to their imminent needs with the available apple equipment and then buy in a few days better and cheaper equipment just out?
An analogous argument has been repeatedly made in the past and it has always turned out to be wrong. You could be right this time, you may very well be, but why should anyone count on the chance that you are.
And yes, I understand that rendering HD video is extremely demanding, but I don't think that by itself makes the argument. There have always been "extremely demanding" tasks, supplanted by more demanding tasks, and so on.
But, even if we assume that there will never be a more demanding task than rendering HD video (which, frankly, seems unlikely), wouldn't we want to be able to do it faster, or to do something else, like render 2 or even 3 HD videos at the same time, or multiple other things, at the same time.
As an argument, it just isn't convincing. It's not convincing because past personal experience and everything they hear and read (true or not) contradicts it.
And, from a marketing standpoint, it's just not a good idea for Apple to let the perception take hold (again) that Macs are slower. In this regard, "fast enough" doesn't matter. No, most Mac users aren't going to switch to Windows because of this, but it would likely deter significant numbers from switching from Windows. And, even if it only adds, say, 6 months to the average time between upgrades for Mac users, it would have a significant impact on Apples revenue.
I think to some extent we've seen a shift regarding how CPU horsepower is viewed by the average person. There was a time when every few months processor speed leapt forward rather dramatically and being as CPUs a few years ago were way underpowered for anything more strenuous than word processing, everyone was anxious to get their hands on the latest and greatest. I don't think that's the case any longer. Processor upgrades these days bring incremental improvements to the point where sitting out a couple of rounds is no big deal.
The 9400M GPU is a good example of where we are now. It's a decent GPU that is the starting point in Apple's line of computers. When I had my G4 Tower that cost in excess of $6000 Cdn I had to spend more than $300 for a GPU upgrade that got me a GPU that was dramatically inferior to the 9400M.
These days people want to buy a computer that just works and for the most part, that's easy enough to get even with the lower range of Apple's product line.
...From a marketing standpoint, it's just not a good idea for Apple to let the perception take hold (again) that Macs are slower. In this regard, "fast enough" doesn't matter. No, most Mac users aren't going to switch to Windows because of this, but it would likely deter significant numbers from switching from Windows. And, even if it only adds, say, 6 months to the average time between upgrades for Mac users, it would have a significant impact on Apples revenue.
Right now for the iMacs it is not a huge deal but I am getting a bit concerned if in 2010 the iMacs become far behind Core i5 levels of CPU power and ATI mid-5000 series level of GPU power.
Unless all iMacs are 24" and 28" only and have BluRay drives then it becomes more of a entertainment desktop... Then design and function and form becomes centrestage, being a "desktop computer" becomes less important.
I would most definitely pay the restocking fee and wait. It will most likely be worth it.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I still have about 6 days to return it and want to wait to see how beefy the new mini is. I can still return it when new mini is out, right?
Agreed, but no computer company can survive if it can't offer customers a reason to upgrade from their perfectly adequate old machines to something new. It's not about what customers need it's about making them want something new.
And the iMac does that very well. Keeping one for more than 18 months is pushing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog
Couldn't this just mean that he Mini has finally been dropped?
If they're replacing it with a new eMac, it wouldn't be a bad idea. Apple can't make a lot of improvements without making it larger and making it larger could require admitting mistakes were made. Each generation of LCD display however, gives you a little more room to work with.
I think to some extent we've seen a shift regarding how CPU horsepower is viewed by the average person.
Yes, that is the main point of your argument, with which I disagree. I think you may be correct for some tech people, but I think you are absolutely wrong as to the average person. The so-called "average person" doesn't know anything about cores or hyperthreading or how fast computing power is increasing. The average person still thinks MHz are an absolute measure of computing power and that quad is obviously twice as fast as duo. It's not that the average person is dumb, it's that the average person doesn't really bother to think or know about this stuff at all: I don't mean rarely thinks about it, I mean never.
The average person's view of computer horsepower has not changed at all. The average person has no view on CPU horsepower whatsoever and if you ask them what their view is, they may well respond, "Is that the new car from Honda?"
EDIT:
It occurs to me that it might be useful to look at this from the perspective of an analogy from biology. Evolution works through two different forms of selection: natural and sexual. Natural selection acts on an organism's fitness for the conditions of life: its ability to obtain food, defend itself, evade predators, etc. in order to live to reproduce. Sexual selection acts on an organisms direct success in reproduction: its ability to find, attract, and retain a mate (or mates).
The argument that current CPUs are just fine for current and foreseeable computing needs is equivalent to saying that an organism is well adapted to its environment. But, from a marketing perspective, it's equally, or even more, important that a computer be able to compete with its rivals for the affections of the users. So, while quad cores, better GPUs, bigger hard drives, more RAM, etc. may not be strictly necessary for performing normal computing tasks, they are essential in courting buyers, no less so than industrial design.
It would be soooo cool if they took the 30" display and made an iMac out of it. Either way, it will be interesting to see what the new models look like. I've got a newer 20" iMac at home... and an old G5 at the office. The G5 used to seem like such a screamer....LOL. But isn't that the story with any computer we end up buying. There's no such thing as fast enough or a screen that's big enough.
I was on the Apple Store website, maybe two weeks ago, and I was shocked to see the Mini's default memory at 4GB! In the configuration wizard, you could choose a smaller amounts of RAM (1 or 2 I believe) and it was money OFF the base price then for each smaller RAM amount.
Evidently I just happened to hit it when Apple was live-testing the new specs.
Too bad I didn't order right then... I wonder if Apple would have honored the sale....
I really didn't want to have to crack that case to add more RAM myself.
IMO you should save the money on the restocking fee. You just need to put a 7200rpm drive and 4GB RAM in that Mini and you're good to go for another 2 years at least. Oh and get Snow Leopard.
I wouldn't even put the 7200rpm drive in the Mini. Just buy a FW800 external enclosure and you will be fine.
If you have some experience upgrading regular PC's you can upgrade the RAM in the Mini at a reasonable fear-level.
I was on the Apple Store website, maybe two weeks ago, and I was shocked to see the Mini's default memory at 4GB! In the configuration wizard, you could choose a smaller amounts of RAM (1 or 2 I believe) and it was money OFF the base price then for each smaller RAM amount.
And the iMac does that very well. Keeping one for more than 18 months is pushing it.
Now I know you're kidding.
Without a suite of demanding software and a stop watch it's impossible to tell the current iMac from the 18 month old ones. The only significant change Apple made this year was finally including RAM and hard drive equal in size to those found in $500 desktop PCs.
I wouldn't even put the 7200rpm drive in the Mini. Just buy a FW800 external enclosure and you will be fine.
If you have some experience upgrading regular PC's you can upgrade the RAM in the Mini at a reasonable fear-level.
Your second Mini will be easy.
I completely agree. When my G5 died all I could afford was a refurbished mini. I watched a video showing how to open a 2009 mini and did a RAM upgrade myself. I didn't bother changing the internal HD because notebook drives lack sufficient storage capacity. I boot from an external 1TB drive in a FW800 case.
Why wouldn't they redesign the Mini case at the same time as the iMac? Maybe they will match.
Because there's no point. They're not going to shave any more volume off the Mini until the SuperDrive is replaced by an SDXC card. Which won't happen until next year.
As mentioned above, the logical candidates for a CPU switch don't arrive until next year.
They just updated the IO ports, which again won't need to be changed until Light Peak debuts late next year.
My guess is the Mac mini upgrades will come before the new iMac. I would think the Mac mini update would arrive on or before Wednesday, October 7th. I think the mini upgrade will be minor. A trickling down the line of components, where the 2.0GHz with 320GB HD and 2GB RAM is standard at $599. Followed by the 2.26GHz, 500GB HD, and 4GB RAM at $799.
The new iMac is coming at an Apple special event around Tuesday, October 13th.
It will be updated design that uses the quad core "Core i7" processors.
SD card slots are almost a given.
As I brought up earlier this year, I think that Apple will begin its transition to 16:9 displays here by introducing a 21.5-inch iMac and a 25.5-inch iMac. Both LG and Samsung, Apple's favorite LCD panel makers, produce 16:9 displays of this size.
What else may get updated at this Mac special event (which is what I think they'll call it) is questionable. Again, if they are updating the MacBook family, I think this line, too, will transition itself away from 16:9 displays and over to 16:10 displays. The timing for this with the rumored MacBook redesign would be perfect. Quad-core Core i7 chips for the MacBook? That's the $64,000 question.
Because there's no point. They're not going to shave any more volume off the Mini until the SuperDrive is replaced by an SDXC card. Which won't happen until next year.
As mentioned above, the logical candidates for a CPU switch don't arrive until next year.
They just updated the IO ports, which again won't need to be changed until Light Peak debuts late next year.
Seeing a pattern here?
Where do people keep getting the idea that the optical drive will be replaced by SD cards? This seems like fantasy to me. I wasn't aware any store was selling software on SD. Until a vast majority of them have ditched the CD, DVD, or BD as the medium to sell their software on, you will continue to see optical drives. Has everyone forgotten the dreaded floppy? It took decades to go away even when better media was available.
Where do people keep getting the idea that the optical drive will be replaced by SD cards? This seems like fantasy to me. I wasn't aware any store was selling software on SD. Until a vast majority of them have ditched the CD, DVD, or BD as the medium to sell their software on, you will continue to see optical drives. Has everyone forgotten the dreaded floppy? It took decades to go away even when better media was available.
Since this is the internet, people like to reveal their innermost fantasies. We would all like to see optical media permanently replaced by SS memory, but outside of the new PSP Go, I'm not aware of any major device that has completely done away with optical storage --unless the device were SS in the first place, such as the current DS Lite.
BRD movies are already expensive. Can people actually imagine a 2009 or 2010 world in which 30-50Gb BRD movies are sold on memory cards? Can you say $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?
I completely agree. When my G5 died all I could afford was a refurbished mini. I watched a video showing how to open a 2009 mini and did a RAM upgrade myself. I didn't bother changing the internal HD because notebook drives lack sufficient storage capacity. I boot from an external 1TB drive in a FW800 case.
Does SL fix the horrible problem of hard drives being improperly ejected if the machine is either manually or automatically put to sleep?
I don't like to USE external HDDs as my main or even secondary drive (I use one just for back-ups) because I've had too much data become corrupted when I forgot to eject the drive, and my Mac went to sleep!
Where do people keep getting the idea that the optical drive will be replaced by SD cards? This seems like fantasy to me. I wasn't aware any store was selling software on SD. Until a vast majority of them have ditched the CD, DVD, or BD as the medium to sell their software on, you will continue to see optical drives. Has everyone forgotten the dreaded floppy? It took decades to go away even when better media was available.
Quote:
Originally Posted by applebook
Since this is the internet, people like to reveal their innermost fantasies. We would all like to see optical media permanently replaced by SS memory, but outside of the new PSP Go, I'm not aware of any major device that has completely done away with optical storage --unless the device were SS in the first place, such as the current DS Lite.
BRD movies are already expensive. Can people actually imagine a 2009 or 2010 world in which 30-50Gb BRD movies are sold on memory cards? Can you say $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?
Apple didn't put in the engineering effort to put SD drives on laptops and make them bootable for nothing.
The MacBook Air ditches the CD drive already.
A newer, faster SD is around the corner.
Yes, it's conjecture. But that's why this is "Future Hardware"
Comments
And with the resale value of a 4 year old mac vs a PC the IT Budget stays lower, then you have IT support and I can tell you first hand the most IT does with Mac's on site is call to check if everything is going well... THAT's a first! IT calling the user checking for problems!
The Windows PCs where I used to work were more than 4 yrs old and never had problems. The only time I called IT support was when I wanted more permissions to install things. Half our room was Mac and half PC...the Macs had endless problems with file and disc compatibility, things mysteriously disappearing after being saved, latest versions of documents failing to appear, spreadsheet issues, optical drive issues with the iMacs, etc. Plus IT support had better knowledge of PCs, which I would assume is fairly standard. I would say overall that the company spent far more on buying and maintaining Macs than PCs.
I guess proper businesses also schedule their disasters to coincide with stock availability. Can i have your crystal ball, please?
Wait a second. You allow for disaster management in any company but you don't allow for apple to be short of stock for a week or two? When most of their retailers have at the same time ample stock to cater for almost any need by and large? That's strange... Wouldn't it be perfectly natural for any company to cater to their imminent needs with the available apple equipment and then buy in a few days better and cheaper equipment just out?
This is some very pecurial logic.
An analogous argument has been repeatedly made in the past and it has always turned out to be wrong. You could be right this time, you may very well be, but why should anyone count on the chance that you are.
And yes, I understand that rendering HD video is extremely demanding, but I don't think that by itself makes the argument. There have always been "extremely demanding" tasks, supplanted by more demanding tasks, and so on.
But, even if we assume that there will never be a more demanding task than rendering HD video (which, frankly, seems unlikely), wouldn't we want to be able to do it faster, or to do something else, like render 2 or even 3 HD videos at the same time, or multiple other things, at the same time.
As an argument, it just isn't convincing. It's not convincing because past personal experience and everything they hear and read (true or not) contradicts it.
And, from a marketing standpoint, it's just not a good idea for Apple to let the perception take hold (again) that Macs are slower. In this regard, "fast enough" doesn't matter. No, most Mac users aren't going to switch to Windows because of this, but it would likely deter significant numbers from switching from Windows. And, even if it only adds, say, 6 months to the average time between upgrades for Mac users, it would have a significant impact on Apples revenue.
I think to some extent we've seen a shift regarding how CPU horsepower is viewed by the average person. There was a time when every few months processor speed leapt forward rather dramatically and being as CPUs a few years ago were way underpowered for anything more strenuous than word processing, everyone was anxious to get their hands on the latest and greatest. I don't think that's the case any longer. Processor upgrades these days bring incremental improvements to the point where sitting out a couple of rounds is no big deal.
The 9400M GPU is a good example of where we are now. It's a decent GPU that is the starting point in Apple's line of computers. When I had my G4 Tower that cost in excess of $6000 Cdn I had to spend more than $300 for a GPU upgrade that got me a GPU that was dramatically inferior to the 9400M.
These days people want to buy a computer that just works and for the most part, that's easy enough to get even with the lower range of Apple's product line.
...From a marketing standpoint, it's just not a good idea for Apple to let the perception take hold (again) that Macs are slower. In this regard, "fast enough" doesn't matter. No, most Mac users aren't going to switch to Windows because of this, but it would likely deter significant numbers from switching from Windows. And, even if it only adds, say, 6 months to the average time between upgrades for Mac users, it would have a significant impact on Apples revenue.
Right now for the iMacs it is not a huge deal but I am getting a bit concerned if in 2010 the iMacs become far behind Core i5 levels of CPU power and ATI mid-5000 series level of GPU power.
Unless all iMacs are 24" and 28" only and have BluRay drives then it becomes more of a entertainment desktop... Then design and function and form becomes centrestage, being a "desktop computer" becomes less important.
I would most definitely pay the restocking fee and wait. It will most likely be worth it.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I still have about 6 days to return it and want to wait to see how beefy the new mini is. I can still return it when new mini is out, right?
Agreed, but no computer company can survive if it can't offer customers a reason to upgrade from their perfectly adequate old machines to something new. It's not about what customers need it's about making them want something new.
And the iMac does that very well. Keeping one for more than 18 months is pushing it.
Couldn't this just mean that he Mini has finally been dropped?
If they're replacing it with a new eMac, it wouldn't be a bad idea. Apple can't make a lot of improvements without making it larger and making it larger could require admitting mistakes were made. Each generation of LCD display however, gives you a little more room to work with.
I think to some extent we've seen a shift regarding how CPU horsepower is viewed by the average person.
Yes, that is the main point of your argument, with which I disagree. I think you may be correct for some tech people, but I think you are absolutely wrong as to the average person. The so-called "average person" doesn't know anything about cores or hyperthreading or how fast computing power is increasing. The average person still thinks MHz are an absolute measure of computing power and that quad is obviously twice as fast as duo. It's not that the average person is dumb, it's that the average person doesn't really bother to think or know about this stuff at all: I don't mean rarely thinks about it, I mean never.
The average person's view of computer horsepower has not changed at all. The average person has no view on CPU horsepower whatsoever and if you ask them what their view is, they may well respond, "Is that the new car from Honda?"
EDIT:
It occurs to me that it might be useful to look at this from the perspective of an analogy from biology. Evolution works through two different forms of selection: natural and sexual. Natural selection acts on an organism's fitness for the conditions of life: its ability to obtain food, defend itself, evade predators, etc. in order to live to reproduce. Sexual selection acts on an organisms direct success in reproduction: its ability to find, attract, and retain a mate (or mates).
The argument that current CPUs are just fine for current and foreseeable computing needs is equivalent to saying that an organism is well adapted to its environment. But, from a marketing perspective, it's equally, or even more, important that a computer be able to compete with its rivals for the affections of the users. So, while quad cores, better GPUs, bigger hard drives, more RAM, etc. may not be strictly necessary for performing normal computing tasks, they are essential in courting buyers, no less so than industrial design.
Evidently I just happened to hit it when Apple was live-testing the new specs.
Too bad I didn't order right then... I wonder if Apple would have honored the sale....
I really didn't want to have to crack that case to add more RAM myself.
I can't remember if the CPU speed was different.
IMO you should save the money on the restocking fee. You just need to put a 7200rpm drive and 4GB RAM in that Mini and you're good to go for another 2 years at least. Oh and get Snow Leopard.
I wouldn't even put the 7200rpm drive in the Mini. Just buy a FW800 external enclosure and you will be fine.
If you have some experience upgrading regular PC's you can upgrade the RAM in the Mini at a reasonable fear-level.
Your second Mini will be easy.
I was on the Apple Store website, maybe two weeks ago, and I was shocked to see the Mini's default memory at 4GB! In the configuration wizard, you could choose a smaller amounts of RAM (1 or 2 I believe) and it was money OFF the base price then for each smaller RAM amount.
Sorry but the entry Mini is still 1GB.
And in Austria availability is 24h.
And the iMac does that very well. Keeping one for more than 18 months is pushing it.
Now I know you're kidding.
Without a suite of demanding software and a stop watch it's impossible to tell the current iMac from the 18 month old ones. The only significant change Apple made this year was finally including RAM and hard drive equal in size to those found in $500 desktop PCs.
I wouldn't even put the 7200rpm drive in the Mini. Just buy a FW800 external enclosure and you will be fine.
If you have some experience upgrading regular PC's you can upgrade the RAM in the Mini at a reasonable fear-level.
Your second Mini will be easy.
I completely agree. When my G5 died all I could afford was a refurbished mini. I watched a video showing how to open a 2009 mini and did a RAM upgrade myself. I didn't bother changing the internal HD because notebook drives lack sufficient storage capacity. I boot from an external 1TB drive in a FW800 case.
Why wouldn't they redesign the Mini case at the same time as the iMac? Maybe they will match.
Because there's no point. They're not going to shave any more volume off the Mini until the SuperDrive is replaced by an SDXC card. Which won't happen until next year.
As mentioned above, the logical candidates for a CPU switch don't arrive until next year.
They just updated the IO ports, which again won't need to be changed until Light Peak debuts late next year.
Seeing a pattern here?
The new iMac is coming at an Apple special event around Tuesday, October 13th.
It will be updated design that uses the quad core "Core i7" processors.
SD card slots are almost a given.
As I brought up earlier this year, I think that Apple will begin its transition to 16:9 displays here by introducing a 21.5-inch iMac and a 25.5-inch iMac. Both LG and Samsung, Apple's favorite LCD panel makers, produce 16:9 displays of this size.
What else may get updated at this Mac special event (which is what I think they'll call it) is questionable. Again, if they are updating the MacBook family, I think this line, too, will transition itself away from 16:9 displays and over to 16:10 displays. The timing for this with the rumored MacBook redesign would be perfect. Quad-core Core i7 chips for the MacBook? That's the $64,000 question.
Because there's no point. They're not going to shave any more volume off the Mini until the SuperDrive is replaced by an SDXC card. Which won't happen until next year.
As mentioned above, the logical candidates for a CPU switch don't arrive until next year.
They just updated the IO ports, which again won't need to be changed until Light Peak debuts late next year.
Seeing a pattern here?
Where do people keep getting the idea that the optical drive will be replaced by SD cards? This seems like fantasy to me. I wasn't aware any store was selling software on SD. Until a vast majority of them have ditched the CD, DVD, or BD as the medium to sell their software on, you will continue to see optical drives. Has everyone forgotten the dreaded floppy? It took decades to go away even when better media was available.
Where do people keep getting the idea that the optical drive will be replaced by SD cards? This seems like fantasy to me. I wasn't aware any store was selling software on SD. Until a vast majority of them have ditched the CD, DVD, or BD as the medium to sell their software on, you will continue to see optical drives. Has everyone forgotten the dreaded floppy? It took decades to go away even when better media was available.
Since this is the internet, people like to reveal their innermost fantasies. We would all like to see optical media permanently replaced by SS memory, but outside of the new PSP Go, I'm not aware of any major device that has completely done away with optical storage --unless the device were SS in the first place, such as the current DS Lite.
BRD movies are already expensive. Can people actually imagine a 2009 or 2010 world in which 30-50Gb BRD movies are sold on memory cards?
I completely agree. When my G5 died all I could afford was a refurbished mini. I watched a video showing how to open a 2009 mini and did a RAM upgrade myself. I didn't bother changing the internal HD because notebook drives lack sufficient storage capacity. I boot from an external 1TB drive in a FW800 case.
Does SL fix the horrible problem of hard drives being improperly ejected if the machine is either manually or automatically put to sleep?
I don't like to USE external HDDs as my main or even secondary drive (I use one just for back-ups) because I've had too much data become corrupted when I forgot to eject the drive, and my Mac went to sleep!
Where do people keep getting the idea that the optical drive will be replaced by SD cards? This seems like fantasy to me. I wasn't aware any store was selling software on SD. Until a vast majority of them have ditched the CD, DVD, or BD as the medium to sell their software on, you will continue to see optical drives. Has everyone forgotten the dreaded floppy? It took decades to go away even when better media was available.
Since this is the internet, people like to reveal their innermost fantasies. We would all like to see optical media permanently replaced by SS memory, but outside of the new PSP Go, I'm not aware of any major device that has completely done away with optical storage --unless the device were SS in the first place, such as the current DS Lite.
BRD movies are already expensive. Can people actually imagine a 2009 or 2010 world in which 30-50Gb BRD movies are sold on memory cards?
Apple didn't put in the engineering effort to put SD drives on laptops and make them bootable for nothing.
The MacBook Air ditches the CD drive already.
A newer, faster SD is around the corner.
Yes, it's conjecture. But that's why this is "Future Hardware"