I just installed a 7200rpm drive in my MBP last month. I love it, but battery life has definitely taken a hit.
The Mini is a desktop (or at least it's supposed to be), so Apple doesn't have to worry about battery life.
As long as the 7200rpm drives stay within the heat threshold, Apple should be clear to include one in the higher end of the Mini range.
Whenever I have seen actual numbers, the actual system power consumption usually varied by less than 5% between a 5400 rpm and 7200 rpm-equipped laptop (and sometimes the 7200 rpm drives consumed less than the 5400 rpm drives). Try to find some (non-anecdotal) numbers, and you'll see the difference is for most drives negligible.
(BTW, I had for roughly the last eight years always 7200 rpm drives in my laptops.)
Like others here I think it is a disgrace that the price of entry for a "desktop" Mac is around $2500. The Mini and iMac are completely underpowered for the price you pay. There are Core i7 PC's going for as little as $900! Why Apple is obsessed with thin cases for a vertical desktop is beyond me. The gap in power between a Mac Pro and an iMac is big enough to fly a 747 through. Surely there is room for a desktop class Mac between the laptop like iMac and server class Mac Pro.
I even have the perfect name for it, simply call it the "Mac" Give it a Core i7 or i5. Allow for up to 12GB of Ram, two hard drives, and a PCIe slot for a real GPU. Make it easy to access and upgrade the Ram/HD/GPU. Surely if PC makers can make this for $900 Apple could do it for at least $1500?
I have a feeling if every single person that wants this Mac would send feedback to Apple directly we would already have one by now. They certainly do not read these boards.
Like others here I think it is a disgrace that the price of entry for a "desktop" Mac is around $2500.
The iMac is $1399 CDN. $1199 US. That's the price of entry for a "desktop" Mac. You're getting caught up in the tinkering-inside-the-case Windows/PC paradigm.
Wanting an in-between desktop option, with expandability, etc., is all well and good. But given Apple's numbers and the lack of demand for desktops these days, it would be a diffcult case to make. The reason you don't see that neato headless "mini" Mac Pro is because there just isn't enough demand for one. No one off these boards really cares about the issue. And in terms of economics, Apple doesn't see a need for such a system. Given current numbers plus the dismal state of desktop sales, I can't say I'm surprised. To the vast majority of Apple's market, a "computer" is an appliance. Appliances aren't expanded or upgraded beyond memory and hard drives. They're used "as is" until they're done and then they're replaced. To be honest, I'm perfectly fine with that. Leaves room to do other things.
When you make an argument for this Mac Pro "mini" system, you need to justify it to Apple, not just to yourselves.
You guys really need to think outside of yourselves. The AppleInsider/MacRumors bubble is insular. We don't represent Apple's market at large, and really, I so no reason why we necessarily should.
The iMac is $1399 CDN. $1199 US. That's the price of entry for a "desktop" Mac. You're getting caught up in the tinkering-inside-the-case Windows/PC paradigm.
Wanting an in-between desktop option, with expandability, etc., is all well and good. But given Apple's numbers and the lack of demand for desktops these days, it would be a diffcult case to make. The reason you don't see that neato headless "mini" Mac Pro is because there just isn't enough demand for one. No one off these boards really cares about the issue. And in terms of economics, Apple doesn't see a need for such a system. Given current numbers plus the dismal state of desktop sales, I can't say I'm surprised. To the vast majority of Apple's market, a "computer" is an appliance. Appliances aren't expanded or upgraded beyond memory and hard drives. They're used "as is" until they're done and then they're replaced. To be honest, I'm perfectly fine with that. Leaves room to do other things.
When you make an argument for this Mac Pro "mini" system, you need to justify it to Apple, not just to yourselves.
You guys really need to think outside of yourselves. The AppleInsider/MacRumors bubble is insular. We don't represent Apple's market at large, and really, I so no reason why we necessarily should.
No demand just look at psystar computer and others.
also the mac pro used to cost $2000 and then apple jacked it up to $2500.
You guys really need to think outside of yourselves. The AppleInsider/MacRumors bubble is insular. We don't represent Apple's market at large, and really, I so no reason why we necessarily should.
The Apple eco system is insular. Look outside it and prices are cheaper, more competitive and offer more choice. AND more bang for buck.
Quote:
No demand just look at psystar computer and others.
also the mac pro used to cost $2000 and then apple jacked it up to $2500.
Heh. Good catch. Why would Psystar bother if there was no profit in it? Just to annoy Apple zealots? Perhaps because Apple is a greedy, insular computing monopoly and Pystar can make a good enough profit on less sizeable margins and far less volume...
How ironic.
Psystar's presence dispproves the naysayers from Apple's PR dept. I don't approve of Psystar but...there presence tells us a few things...
ie that Apple weren't competitive when there were Apple clones. They certainly aren't now re: desktops.
The Apple eco system is insular. Look outside it and prices are cheaper, more competitive and offer more choice. AND more bang for buck.
Heh. Good catch. Why would Psystar bother if there was no profit in it? Just to annoy Apple zealots? Perhaps because Apple is a greedy, insular computing monopoly and Pystar can make a good enough profit on less sizeable margins and far less volume...
How ironic.
Psystar's presence dispproves the naysayers from Apple's PR dept. I don't approve of Psystar but...there presence tells us a few things...
ie that Apple weren't competitive when there were Apple clones. They certainly aren't now re: desktops.
Lemon Bon Bon.
You're overstating the case. Psystar isn't exactly scrambling to meet skyrocketing demand. There is no evidence to suggest that as of yet there is any real market in Mac ripoffs.
In fact, Psystar can't make a good enough profit, and they haven't.
So it took a shot at developing a PC that could command a respectable premium -- something that distinguished it from its competition, enabling it to increase its margins. But in this market and this economy, the gamble hasn't paid off.
"Debtor [Psystar] sales have been greatly affected by the decrease in consumer spending. The financial crisis has also caused creditors to tighten up their terms and become more demanding for immediate payment," last Thursday's petition reads. "Debtor's vendors due to their own financial problems are not being able to supply all necessary items to allow Debtor to produce their product, thus, forcing Debtor to pay higher prices for parts in order to fulfill customer orders in a timely manner and to assure satisfaction with the product. These factors seriously contribute to the Debtor not being able to turn a significant profit in each sale."
Psystar's profits were "diminutive" during the bad economy, it goes on, with the hopes of a turnaround on the horizon. That hasn't happened, and while the company now seeks time and space to make a fresh start of things, its plan so far is to build again around its "valuable intellectual property" -- no doubt a reference to its ability to produce Mac work-alikes.
And in a recession, no less, people are lining up to buy Macs and hand Apple record quarters. Apple has shown unheard of grwoth during this recession. They continue to sell *more* Macs. Not bad for a "greedy, insular computing monopoly."
Psystar's presence doesn't prove or disprove anything. It simply shows they're making an attempt to do something. The success of this attempt, however, is an entirely different question. And if this is how they plan on rolling in profits, they're doing a pretty lousy job. NO ONE IS BUYING THEIR GARBAGE. There is no currently viable Mac ripoff market because there is simply not enough demand for one. Note that in the presence of lower-cost, faster, allegedy high-value alterntives, Apple's Mac business is thriving. In a recession! And Apple's Mac business continues to grow. Apple's market isn't exactly looking around for cheaper alternatives.
Your contentions have no basis in reality. And as we gradually move out of the recession, guess where Apple's target market is going to spend their dollars in even greater numbers?
A couple of years ago, someone came up with this design for a Mid-tower. Would this work for a new Mac Pro? Unfortunately, I can't find the dimensions, but this is the rundown for the mid-tower:
I have wanted to buy a lower priced Mac desktop for years now, but Apple is fixated on making me choose from products I have no interest in, thus have purchased nothing. An iMac is nothing but a non-portable notebook computer. I have absolutely no interest in it at all. I want a kick-ass personal computer constructed from desktop components at an affordable price, not an AIO; and I don't need a full-blown workstation. My dream box would be a scaled down Mac Pro having a Xeon CPU with QuickPath and 6 RAM slots, with a focus on power but having limited ports and expandability to keep the costs down but margins high.
I have wanted to buy a lower priced Mac desktop for years now, but Apple is fixated on making me choose from products I have no interest in, thus have purchased nothing. An iMac is nothing but a non-portable notebook computer. I have absolutely no interest in it at all. I want a kick-ass personal computer constructed from desktop components at an affordable price, not an AIO; and I don't need a full-blown workstation. My dream box would be a scaled down Mac Pro having a Xeon CPU with QuickPath and 6 RAM slots, with a focus on power but having limited ports and expandability to keep the costs down but margins high.
No kidding. Apple are more interested in up sell. Excessive profits. Lack of choice. Laptop parts. Expensive parts forcing the consumer to artificially pay more when cheaper components are available. Also, forcing the user to have less powerful options...
You want quad core? You have to pay £1800+ for it.
PC land? £400 entry fee.
That isn't choice, Apple are offering. It's limiting.
I bought a G4 tower and a 22" ACD 7 years ago. The ACD is still like new while the G4 is a dinosaur. That convinced me not to buy an iMac.
Let's think about that a moment. I don't have the 2002 prices but in 2001 Apple was asking $2499 for the 22" ACD. So today you can get a 24" iMac for $2199 with an H-IPS screen...but that's bad because in 2016 you want to keep using that 24" screen?
Eh. That 22" ACD may be like when it was new but not like new monitors today given the panel technology is from around 2000 (60ms IPS) when it got discontinued in 2003.
So for what will be a <$300 monitor in 2016 you wont get an iMac over a Mini even though you might have wanted a faster CPU/GPU combo? Yah...that may make sense at an emotional level but when weighed against the value of electronics after 7 years I don't think it's quite as compelling.
What I would have learned is buy the cheapest you can live with and not worry about reusing old hardware. My G4 tower is no more expandable or useful than a G4 mini. Likewise a circa 2002 monitor is not all that useful to me except to pass along with the circa 2002 computer.
Like others here I think it is a disgrace that the price of entry for a "desktop" Mac is around $2500. The Mini and iMac are completely underpowered for the price you pay. There are Core i7 PC's going for as little as $900! Why Apple is obsessed with thin cases for a vertical desktop is beyond me. The gap in power between a Mac Pro and an iMac is big enough to fly a 747 through. Surely there is room for a desktop class Mac between the laptop like iMac and server class Mac Pro.
I even have the perfect name for it, simply call it the "Mac" Give it a Core i7 or i5. Allow for up to 12GB of Ram, two hard drives, and a PCIe slot for a real GPU. Make it easy to access and upgrade the Ram/HD/GPU. Surely if PC makers can make this for $900 Apple could do it for at least $1500?
I have a feeling if every single person that wants this Mac would send feedback to Apple directly we would already have one by now. They certainly do not read these boards.
Let's think about that a moment. I don't have the 2002 prices but in 2001 Apple was asking $2499 for the 22" ACD. So today you can get a 24" iMac for $2199 with an H-IPS screen...but that's bad because in 2016 you want to keep using that 24" screen?
Right. the 22" ACD was selling for $2499 in 2002, too; however, I bought from a Mac warehouse on sale for under $1900. And yes, by 2016, the computer and the monitor may not have lived the same life. One or the other may have to be replaced long before 1016. NO iMac, please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
. That 22" ACD may be like when it was new but not like new monitors today given the panel technology is from around 2000 (60ms IPS) when it got discontinued in 2003.
A nice monitor especially at that price. BTW, is there a way to determine whether a monitor is an IPS other than the viewing angle - 178 or greater? Do manufacturers indicate in any way whether the monitor is a TN or IPS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
for what will be a <$300 monitor in 2016 you wont get an iMac over a Mini even though you might have wanted a faster CPU/GPU combo? Yah...that may make sense at an emotional level but when weighed against the value of electronics after 7 years I don't think it's quite as compelling.
I don't understand your first sentence. An iMac shouldn't be in the equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
I would have learned is buy the cheapest you can live with and not worry about reusing old hardware. My G4 tower is no more expandable or useful than a G4 mini. Likewise a circa 2002 monitor is not all that useful to me except to pass along with the circa 2002 computer.
I did buy the cheapest I could live with: a Mini. But that wasn't the deciding factor. It was the ONLY computer (that Apple markets) that I could live with. I'm not concerned with price - only a good bang for the buck. For my needs, that eliminates the iMac and the Mac Pro.
BTW, I made the above multiple quote by copying the individual quotes one at a time. Is there a better way to do multiple quotes.
A nice monitor especially at that price. BTW, is there a way to determine whether a monitor is an IPS other than the viewing angle - 178 or greater? Do manufacturers indicate in any way whether the monitor is a TN or IPS?
Some do. Some don't. Dell does, if you read under "Tech Specs". Usually if a manufacturer makes an IPS monitor, they point out that fact. Also look at companies' more expensive business lines.
Right. the 22" ACD was selling for $2499 in 2002, too; however, I bought from a Mac warehouse on sale for under $1900. And yes, by 2016, the computer and the monitor may not have lived the same life. One or the other may have to be replaced long before 1016. NO iMac, please.
I guess the question is why no iMac if at the end of the cycle we're talking about a component (the display) with little remaining market value.
Quote:
A nice monitor especially at that price. BTW, is there a way to determine whether a monitor is an IPS other than the viewing angle - 178 or greater? Do manufacturers indicate in any way whether the monitor is a TN or IPS?
I use google...someone always knows. You can kinda tell by spec but you don't know PVA vs IPS, etc.
Quote:
I don't understand your first sentence. An iMac shouldn't be in the equation.
The question is why the iMac isn't in the equation. You postulated a good reason: reusing the monitor. For one cycle maybe. For two? Eh. Of course, if I had bought the 3.06Ghz iMac over the Mini + monitor I'd expect to get 2 cycles out of it.
Quote:
I did buy the cheapest I could live with: a Mini. But that wasn't the deciding factor. It was the ONLY computer (that Apple markets) that I could live with. I'm not concerned with price - only a good bang for the buck. For my needs, that eliminates the iMac and the Mac Pro.
IMHO the current mini is an aberration caused by the delay in Clarksfield. In a few weeks (or hopefully days) the performance delta will greatly favor the iMac again. At least at the top end and then again at the entry level while the mini stays C2D and the low end iMac goes Arrandale.
Right now the mini is an exception buy within the current mac lineup and the low end iMac pretty bad. Historically, it's the other way around and with Arrandale it will be again.
Quote:
BTW, I made the above multiple quote by copying the individual quotes one at a time. Is there a better way to do multiple quotes.
Sure...use the quote tag function...select the text then hit the quote button above (4th from the right, between insert image and code). Tooltip works so hover will show you.
Comments
That's true, but there's a reason for that.
I just installed a 7200rpm drive in my MBP last month. I love it, but battery life has definitely taken a hit.
The Mini is a desktop (or at least it's supposed to be), so Apple doesn't have to worry about battery life.
As long as the 7200rpm drives stay within the heat threshold, Apple should be clear to include one in the higher end of the Mini range.
Whenever I have seen actual numbers, the actual system power consumption usually varied by less than 5% between a 5400 rpm and 7200 rpm-equipped laptop (and sometimes the 7200 rpm drives consumed less than the 5400 rpm drives). Try to find some (non-anecdotal) numbers, and you'll see the difference is for most drives negligible.
(BTW, I had for roughly the last eight years always 7200 rpm drives in my laptops.)
I even have the perfect name for it, simply call it the "Mac" Give it a Core i7 or i5. Allow for up to 12GB of Ram, two hard drives, and a PCIe slot for a real GPU. Make it easy to access and upgrade the Ram/HD/GPU. Surely if PC makers can make this for $900 Apple could do it for at least $1500?
I have a feeling if every single person that wants this Mac would send feedback to Apple directly we would already have one by now. They certainly do not read these boards.
Like others here I think it is a disgrace that the price of entry for a "desktop" Mac is around $2500.
The iMac is $1399 CDN. $1199 US. That's the price of entry for a "desktop" Mac. You're getting caught up in the tinkering-inside-the-case Windows/PC paradigm.
Wanting an in-between desktop option, with expandability, etc., is all well and good. But given Apple's numbers and the lack of demand for desktops these days, it would be a diffcult case to make. The reason you don't see that neato headless "mini" Mac Pro is because there just isn't enough demand for one. No one off these boards really cares about the issue. And in terms of economics, Apple doesn't see a need for such a system. Given current numbers plus the dismal state of desktop sales, I can't say I'm surprised. To the vast majority of Apple's market, a "computer" is an appliance. Appliances aren't expanded or upgraded beyond memory and hard drives. They're used "as is" until they're done and then they're replaced. To be honest, I'm perfectly fine with that. Leaves room to do other things.
When you make an argument for this Mac Pro "mini" system, you need to justify it to Apple, not just to yourselves.
You guys really need to think outside of yourselves. The AppleInsider/MacRumors bubble is insular. We don't represent Apple's market at large, and really, I so no reason why we necessarily should.
Sold.
I'm sold.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Time for a 13" Mac Pro.
Very sold.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The iMac is $1399 CDN. $1199 US. That's the price of entry for a "desktop" Mac. You're getting caught up in the tinkering-inside-the-case Windows/PC paradigm.
Wanting an in-between desktop option, with expandability, etc., is all well and good. But given Apple's numbers and the lack of demand for desktops these days, it would be a diffcult case to make. The reason you don't see that neato headless "mini" Mac Pro is because there just isn't enough demand for one. No one off these boards really cares about the issue. And in terms of economics, Apple doesn't see a need for such a system. Given current numbers plus the dismal state of desktop sales, I can't say I'm surprised. To the vast majority of Apple's market, a "computer" is an appliance. Appliances aren't expanded or upgraded beyond memory and hard drives. They're used "as is" until they're done and then they're replaced. To be honest, I'm perfectly fine with that. Leaves room to do other things.
When you make an argument for this Mac Pro "mini" system, you need to justify it to Apple, not just to yourselves.
You guys really need to think outside of yourselves. The AppleInsider/MacRumors bubble is insular. We don't represent Apple's market at large, and really, I so no reason why we necessarily should.
No demand just look at psystar computer and others.
also the mac pro used to cost $2000 and then apple jacked it up to $2500.
You guys really need to think outside of yourselves. The AppleInsider/MacRumors bubble is insular. We don't represent Apple's market at large, and really, I so no reason why we necessarily should.
The Apple eco system is insular. Look outside it and prices are cheaper, more competitive and offer more choice. AND more bang for buck.
No demand just look at psystar computer and others.
also the mac pro used to cost $2000 and then apple jacked it up to $2500.
Heh. Good catch. Why would Psystar bother if there was no profit in it? Just to annoy Apple zealots? Perhaps because Apple is a greedy, insular computing monopoly and Pystar can make a good enough profit on less sizeable margins and far less volume...
How ironic.
Psystar's presence dispproves the naysayers from Apple's PR dept. I don't approve of Psystar but...there presence tells us a few things...
ie that Apple weren't competitive when there were Apple clones. They certainly aren't now re: desktops.
Lemon Bon Bon.
The Apple eco system is insular. Look outside it and prices are cheaper, more competitive and offer more choice. AND more bang for buck.
Heh. Good catch. Why would Psystar bother if there was no profit in it? Just to annoy Apple zealots? Perhaps because Apple is a greedy, insular computing monopoly and Pystar can make a good enough profit on less sizeable margins and far less volume...
How ironic.
Psystar's presence dispproves the naysayers from Apple's PR dept. I don't approve of Psystar but...there presence tells us a few things...
ie that Apple weren't competitive when there were Apple clones. They certainly aren't now re: desktops.
Lemon Bon Bon.
You're overstating the case. Psystar isn't exactly scrambling to meet skyrocketing demand. There is no evidence to suggest that as of yet there is any real market in Mac ripoffs.
In fact, Psystar can't make a good enough profit, and they haven't.
http://www.betanews.com/article/Psys...lan/1243450183
So it took a shot at developing a PC that could command a respectable premium -- something that distinguished it from its competition, enabling it to increase its margins. But in this market and this economy, the gamble hasn't paid off.
"Debtor [Psystar] sales have been greatly affected by the decrease in consumer spending. The financial crisis has also caused creditors to tighten up their terms and become more demanding for immediate payment," last Thursday's petition reads. "Debtor's vendors due to their own financial problems are not being able to supply all necessary items to allow Debtor to produce their product, thus, forcing Debtor to pay higher prices for parts in order to fulfill customer orders in a timely manner and to assure satisfaction with the product. These factors seriously contribute to the Debtor not being able to turn a significant profit in each sale."
Psystar's profits were "diminutive" during the bad economy, it goes on, with the hopes of a turnaround on the horizon. That hasn't happened, and while the company now seeks time and space to make a fresh start of things, its plan so far is to build again around its "valuable intellectual property" -- no doubt a reference to its ability to produce Mac work-alikes.
And in a recession, no less, people are lining up to buy Macs and hand Apple record quarters. Apple has shown unheard of grwoth during this recession. They continue to sell *more* Macs. Not bad for a "greedy, insular computing monopoly."
Psystar's presence doesn't prove or disprove anything. It simply shows they're making an attempt to do something. The success of this attempt, however, is an entirely different question. And if this is how they plan on rolling in profits, they're doing a pretty lousy job. NO ONE IS BUYING THEIR GARBAGE. There is no currently viable Mac ripoff market because there is simply not enough demand for one. Note that in the presence of lower-cost, faster, allegedy high-value alterntives, Apple's Mac business is thriving. In a recession! And Apple's Mac business continues to grow. Apple's market isn't exactly looking around for cheaper alternatives.
Your contentions have no basis in reality. And as we gradually move out of the recession, guess where Apple's target market is going to spend their dollars in even greater numbers?
A couple of years ago, someone came up with this design for a Mid-tower. Would this work for a new Mac Pro? Unfortunately, I can't find the dimensions, but this is the rundown for the mid-tower:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2052/...58e698ea_o.jpg
I have wanted to buy a lower priced Mac desktop for years now, but Apple is fixated on making me choose from products I have no interest in, thus have purchased nothing. An iMac is nothing but a non-portable notebook computer. I have absolutely no interest in it at all. I want a kick-ass personal computer constructed from desktop components at an affordable price, not an AIO; and I don't need a full-blown workstation. My dream box would be a scaled down Mac Pro having a Xeon CPU with QuickPath and 6 RAM slots, with a focus on power but having limited ports and expandability to keep the costs down but margins high.
No kidding. Apple are more interested in up sell. Excessive profits. Lack of choice. Laptop parts. Expensive parts forcing the consumer to artificially pay more when cheaper components are available. Also, forcing the user to have less powerful options...
You want quad core? You have to pay £1800+ for it.
PC land? £400 entry fee.
That isn't choice, Apple are offering. It's limiting.
Lemon Bon Bon.
A couple of years ago, someone came up with this design for a Mid-tower. Would this work for a new Mac Pro?
No.
A mid-tower will not have any slots, and the Mac Pro is never going to be that small.
I bought a G4 tower and a 22" ACD 7 years ago. The ACD is still like new while the G4 is a dinosaur. That convinced me not to buy an iMac.
Let's think about that a moment. I don't have the 2002 prices but in 2001 Apple was asking $2499 for the 22" ACD. So today you can get a 24" iMac for $2199 with an H-IPS screen...but that's bad because in 2016 you want to keep using that 24" screen?
Eh. That 22" ACD may be like when it was new but not like new monitors today given the panel technology is from around 2000 (60ms IPS) when it got discontinued in 2003.
The Dell 22" 2209WA IPS monitor is $289.
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...4&sku=320-7825
So for what will be a <$300 monitor in 2016 you wont get an iMac over a Mini even though you might have wanted a faster CPU/GPU combo? Yah...that may make sense at an emotional level but when weighed against the value of electronics after 7 years I don't think it's quite as compelling.
What I would have learned is buy the cheapest you can live with and not worry about reusing old hardware. My G4 tower is no more expandable or useful than a G4 mini. Likewise a circa 2002 monitor is not all that useful to me except to pass along with the circa 2002 computer.
Like others here I think it is a disgrace that the price of entry for a "desktop" Mac is around $2500. The Mini and iMac are completely underpowered for the price you pay. There are Core i7 PC's going for as little as $900! Why Apple is obsessed with thin cases for a vertical desktop is beyond me. The gap in power between a Mac Pro and an iMac is big enough to fly a 747 through. Surely there is room for a desktop class Mac between the laptop like iMac and server class Mac Pro.
I even have the perfect name for it, simply call it the "Mac" Give it a Core i7 or i5. Allow for up to 12GB of Ram, two hard drives, and a PCIe slot for a real GPU. Make it easy to access and upgrade the Ram/HD/GPU. Surely if PC makers can make this for $900 Apple could do it for at least $1500?
I have a feeling if every single person that wants this Mac would send feedback to Apple directly we would already have one by now. They certainly do not read these boards.
If they built it I would buy it!
Let's think about that a moment. I don't have the 2002 prices but in 2001 Apple was asking $2499 for the 22" ACD. So today you can get a 24" iMac for $2199 with an H-IPS screen...but that's bad because in 2016 you want to keep using that 24" screen?
Right. the 22" ACD was selling for $2499 in 2002, too; however, I bought from a Mac warehouse on sale for under $1900. And yes, by 2016, the computer and the monitor may not have lived the same life. One or the other may have to be replaced long before 1016. NO iMac, please.
. That 22" ACD may be like when it was new but not like new monitors today given the panel technology is from around 2000 (60ms IPS) when it got discontinued in 2003.
The Dell 22" 2209WA IPS monitor is $289.
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/p...4&sku=320-7825
A nice monitor especially at that price. BTW, is there a way to determine whether a monitor is an IPS other than the viewing angle - 178 or greater? Do manufacturers indicate in any way whether the monitor is a TN or IPS?
for what will be a <$300 monitor in 2016 you wont get an iMac over a Mini even though you might have wanted a faster CPU/GPU combo? Yah...that may make sense at an emotional level but when weighed against the value of electronics after 7 years I don't think it's quite as compelling.
I don't understand your first sentence. An iMac shouldn't be in the equation.
I would have learned is buy the cheapest you can live with and not worry about reusing old hardware. My G4 tower is no more expandable or useful than a G4 mini. Likewise a circa 2002 monitor is not all that useful to me except to pass along with the circa 2002 computer.
I did buy the cheapest I could live with: a Mini. But that wasn't the deciding factor. It was the ONLY computer (that Apple markets) that I could live with. I'm not concerned with price - only a good bang for the buck. For my needs, that eliminates the iMac and the Mac Pro.
BTW, I made the above multiple quote by copying the individual quotes one at a time. Is there a better way to do multiple quotes.
A nice monitor especially at that price. BTW, is there a way to determine whether a monitor is an IPS other than the viewing angle - 178 or greater? Do manufacturers indicate in any way whether the monitor is a TN or IPS?
Some do. Some don't. Dell does, if you read under "Tech Specs". Usually if a manufacturer makes an IPS monitor, they point out that fact. Also look at companies' more expensive business lines.
Right. the 22" ACD was selling for $2499 in 2002, too; however, I bought from a Mac warehouse on sale for under $1900. And yes, by 2016, the computer and the monitor may not have lived the same life. One or the other may have to be replaced long before 1016. NO iMac, please.
I guess the question is why no iMac if at the end of the cycle we're talking about a component (the display) with little remaining market value.
A nice monitor especially at that price. BTW, is there a way to determine whether a monitor is an IPS other than the viewing angle - 178 or greater? Do manufacturers indicate in any way whether the monitor is a TN or IPS?
I use google...someone always knows.
I don't understand your first sentence. An iMac shouldn't be in the equation.
The question is why the iMac isn't in the equation. You postulated a good reason: reusing the monitor. For one cycle maybe. For two? Eh. Of course, if I had bought the 3.06Ghz iMac over the Mini + monitor I'd expect to get 2 cycles out of it.
I did buy the cheapest I could live with: a Mini. But that wasn't the deciding factor. It was the ONLY computer (that Apple markets) that I could live with. I'm not concerned with price - only a good bang for the buck. For my needs, that eliminates the iMac and the Mac Pro.
IMHO the current mini is an aberration caused by the delay in Clarksfield. In a few weeks (or hopefully days) the performance delta will greatly favor the iMac again. At least at the top end and then again at the entry level while the mini stays C2D and the low end iMac goes Arrandale.
Right now the mini is an exception buy within the current mac lineup and the low end iMac pretty bad. Historically, it's the other way around and with Arrandale it will be again.
BTW, I made the above multiple quote by copying the individual quotes one at a time. Is there a better way to do multiple quotes.
Sure...use the quote tag function...select the text then hit the quote button above (4th from the right, between insert image and code). Tooltip works so hover will show you.
Arrandale sucks weaker video then 9400m.
Which means that Apple will pair it with a cheap dedicated GPU on the low end that is as good or better than the 9400M. For the iMac anyway.
Which means that Apple will pair it with a cheap dedicated GPU on the low end that is as good or better than the 9400M. For the iMac anyway.
Crosses fingers.