Actually, I just want to use my existing monitor and the Macintosh OS for less than $1299. Currently the Apple lineup does not support this price point.
Respectfully,
-Antithesis
I believe I'm in this camp with you. Just thought I'd add that I've used the signiture below for a long long long time, yet, I still buy Apple computers, sigh.
I believe I'm in this camp with you. Just thought I'd add that I've used the signiture below for a long long long time, yet, I still buy Apple computers, sigh.
Well, I cannot condemn you for buying Macintoshes. Up until a year ago, I was an avid Macintosh user (since 1985, actually).
But because the Macintosh line could not support my computing needs, I was forced to switch to a Windows platform. And while Windows XP functions much better than its predecessors, I'm afraid that it requires much more daily maintenance and caution than the MacOS.
What would it take to woo me over to the Macintosh side again? Well, if I could get the MacOS to run on hardware that was as powerful, as customizable, and affordable as PC hardware, I'd make a purchase today.
One of the best reasons to have expansion slots in low cost machines is to allow the use of lowcost expansion cards. Things such as parallel cards and A to D cards. The type of things found in labratories and automation.
Such cards are not likely to be implemented in a G5 class machine due to implementation issues with cost and space. Generally you want your lab computers to be small, reasonably powerfull, and cheap. Apple really has never had a machine that plays well in these markets.
What I see doing the trick is a mini me compact tranportable computer. Imagine a G5 shruck down so it is about the hieght of a CDROM drive mounted on end, then add enough width to accomodate 2 half length PCI slots and the other required guts. I've already seen many examples that come close to meeting the design requirements, both imagined on this board and real life examples.
I'm not even that excited about the AGP slot, as long as Apple supplies a good on board GPU who really cares. One thing that all should admit to is that Apple does produce very reliable hardware. High integration leads to that reliability, it is not something that should be given up to satisfy a random desire for future video upgrades.
Thanks
Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by Chagi
Amorph has an excellent point in that internal expansion has largely become moot, at least for the Mac platform (where Apple has complete control over what ships). With the current level of integration (i.e. video, network port, etc. onboard) and the viability of high speed external devices via USB2 & Firewire variants, there are actually few reasons that I can think of for even having a PCI slot in a low to mid-range Mac.
I think Apple realizes that there's a market for an expandable machine in the $1k-2k range (and the G5 1.6 only BARELY counts), otherwise they wouldn't be selling Powermac G4s for $1299. The market is there. Apple just has to build a price/performance competitive machine to serve it. Personally, I hope that what ever Apple decides to bring out will have (at a minimum) a standard AGP slot. Having at least one PCI slot would be a bonus, but for what I plan on doing with the machine, it wouldn't be a necessity.
...Actually, I just want to use my existing monitor and the Macintosh OS for less than $1299. Currently the Apple lineup does not support this price point.
Rubbish. Go to Apple Store, they have refurb PowerMac G4's for $979.
Insist on a G5? Well, you can't get an Athlon64 or Opteron with WinXP Pro for $1299 either. (Make sure you include equivalent hardware and price of WinXP Pro.)
Here, I'll play the PC troll game: (whining) I can get an iBook G4 for $1099. Why doesn't Dell sell a 12" laptop with good graphics (not shared memory crap) and a Pentium IV 3.2GHz processor for the same price, and with the same battery life? It's shameful how high their prices are! I'd love to transition back to Windows, but the prices are too high!
Rubbish. Go to Apple Store, they have refurb PowerMac G4's for $979.
Insist on a G5? Well, you can't get an Athlon64 or Opteron with WinXP Pro for $1299 either. (Make sure you include equivalent hardware and price of WinXP Pro.)
Here, I'll play the PC troll game: (whining) I can get an iBook G4 for $1099. Why doesn't Dell sell a 12" laptop with good graphics (not shared memory crap) and a Pentium IV 3.2GHz processor for the same price, and with the same battery life? It's shameful how high their prices are! I'd love to transition back to Windows, but the prices are too high!
Ahem.
I see this is going to be a heated argument for you, cubist. Let's see if we can keep this civil, eh?
Yes, if you want to compare refurbs to new machines, we can make the analogy that the Macintosh platform has the potential to be in line with PC pricing. Of course, if you're going to go along that line, then we have to compare refurbed Macintoshes to refurbed PCs. And once we do that, we'll have to be very savvy about choosing a refurbished Macintosh because the models vary depending on stock and time of day and cycle of the moon. Please note, also, that there are none of the models at the price point you mention in the "special deals" section of the Apple web page as of the time of this post.
Might I also say that I made so such assumption about needing a G5 processor. I think you'll find that if you search through the thread (after you've calmed down a bit), my original post mentions a G4. I believe another thread poster mentioned that a G5 costs the same to produce as a G4, NOT ME.
So, instead of calling me a 'troll', you might want to calm down, go back through all of the posts, and try to come up with a link to that $979 G4 tower with ALL of the specifications I've mentioned in my first post (yes, a superdrive, too).
Insist on a G5? Well, you can't get an Athlon64 or Opteron with WinXP Pro for $1299 either. (Make sure you include equivalent hardware and price of WinXP Pro.)
Why is the only viable competition for the G5 an Opteron/Athlon64/Itanium? You can call up Dell & get an Optiplex GX270 with a P4 2.6GHz w/ 512MB RAM, 80GB HD for about $1200. Why not try and compete with that? I think a G5 1.6GHz in a similar enclosure, with similar specs, at a similar price would be pretty competitive. I think Apple can produce such a machine, and I'm hoping they do sometime early next year.
.. So, instead of calling me a 'troll', you might want to calm down, go back through all of the posts, and try to come up with a link to that $979 G4 tower with ALL of the specifications I've mentioned in my first post (yes, a superdrive, too)...
I didn't specifically call YOU a troll, I said that is the "PC troll game".
For that matter, you should have been able to build a new G4 tower with a Superdrive for no more than $1500. I find it very remarkable that anyone would switch platforms, with all the costs that entails, to save a mere $200. Why, XP Pro itself costs $200. (At this point, most PC trolls trot out a story about how they built the PC themselves, from parts they found all over the country, for a mere $674 and thirty hours of their time.)
BTW, I like Windows 2000 Pro a lot better than XP. XP does have a couple of features that W2K lacks, but W2K is lots more stable and IMHO easier to use. You may wish to consider it.
Personally, I have a G4 Cube. It's small, sufficiently expandable for me, does what I want very well, and sold, when new, for $1299. I think if Apple had sold them at that price from the beginning, they'd still be selling Cubes to this day. The Cube was not a "mistake" that Apple should be loath to repeat, it was a good machine at an attractive price point (eventually) that filled a gap in their line. That gap has reopened and not been refilled since.
But points that caught my eye were excellently made by Jade, Bunge and Matsu amongst others!
"It would be better to do away with one of the AIO ranges and replace it with a headless machine."
(That certainly applys to the iMac2/eMac line...)
I think there's room to drop the 1.6 and 1.8 single G5 Towers into the G4 tower price bracket and have the San Fran' Jan' PowerMac G5 'all dual' bumps at current prices.
That leaves a solid Tower for gamer (not to be discounted...lots of Mac folks like myself play games too! And the Mac has never had it so good with games at the moment...or graphics cards!) to edu to serious pro'. All in the £1K-just over £2k range.
The mini-tower? Well...I think the single G5 tower at the current G4 tower prices would begin to cover that.
But a Cube with single 1.6 and 1.8 under the 1K mark would cover the rest! Hey, the PC market has already done the research (R&D) for how a shuttle (I mean, 'Cube') should be done...
Where does this leave the iMac2? Dunno. I guess we'll have to wait for the iMac3 to be sure. But as a G5 based product? A powerful AIO for those who want that. And plenty do. Just as plenty more want laptops and powerful(!) towers (as Kasper's breaking story proves...)
The iMac2 and eMac are on borrowed time. My opinion.
I think next year will see a serious re-adjustment in Apple's desktop line. They've done the r&d over the last few years. They have 70 Apple stores which show what is selling and what not.
Look at the recent quarter sales figures. You'll see where the weakness is. And I know Apple under Jobs will address that. Sooner or later...
But because the Macintosh line could not support my computing needs, I was forced to switch to a Windows platform. And while Windows XP functions much better than its predecessors, I'm afraid that it requires much more daily maintenance and caution than the MacOS.
What would it take to woo me over to the Macintosh side again? Well, if I could get the MacOS to run on hardware that was as powerful, as customizable, and affordable as PC hardware, I'd make a purchase today.
Regards,
-Antithesis
What exactly are your computing needs? What is so customizable on the PC side of the pool than the mac side? I've never seen one platform be able to run, photoshop, office, and a unix terminal at once. Personally I find windows much more working against the user than making itself customizable. the only windows excels in is, video games, and I think personally database stuff (but then I don't know much about those sorta things) The sad thing is what a person thinks they need (want) with whats available. Why does dell sell you a monitor with your computer or try really really hard too? because that lets them increase the price that much more. Percieved value. We need an AIO, for the majority, and a headless computer at the same time.
For that matter, you should have been able to build a new G4 tower with a Superdrive for no more than $1500. I find it very remarkable that anyone would switch platforms, with all the costs that entails, to save a mere $200. Why, XP Pro itself costs $200. (At this point, most PC trolls trot out a story about how they built the PC themselves, from parts they found all over the country, for a mere $674 and thirty hours of their time.)
Perhaps, like many of us, he thinks that the existing G4 simply has such a horrible price/performance ratio that it isn't worth his time? Apple has a hole in their line for a competitive headless machine between $1-2k. Personally, I don't really think it can be filled with a G4. The sooner Apple can get G5's out in this range the better.
Well, if the new rumor on the front page is true, the initial rush of sales of the $1299 PowerMac G4 were pretty much a one-shot snapping up by OS 9 users, and the PM G4 is currently selling about half as well as the Cube did in its last quarter (curiously, the Cube also sold for $1299 at that time).
That changes my working hypothesis somewhat. Apple is currently selling 50 iMacs for every PM G4, which means that the line could go gently into that good night and the loss would hardly be a blip amid burgeoning PMG5 sales and (if another rumor is true) iMac G5 sales.
It seems to me that the iMac is going to be the prosumer machine.
It seems to me that the iMac is going to be the prosumer machine.
yeah, if the iMac goes single G5 at 1.6 and 1.8GHz with a 20 inch lcd and a nice graphics card (ATI 9200 with option for a 9600) and large HD and superdrive, that sure sounds like a prosumer machine to me....
leave the iBook and eMac for the newbies and kids, the PM for the pros and give us yuppie posers a G5 iMac and huge floating screen to compensate for our extremely limited attention spans and tiny peni.....anyway....
It seems to me that the iMac is going to be the prosumer machine.
I suspect that Apple is going to come to the same conclusion, but I'm hoping that they'd come out with a G5 "pizza-box" machine starting around $1k. Who cares if it competes with the iMac? It's not like Apple is completely averse to different lines overlapping-- look at the 12" Powerbook & iBook.
You know, it occurs to me that mac-heads adopt an entirely ridiculous rhetorical frame even when they're trying to be critical of Apple. "Is there a need for a new prosumer line?"
Huh? Think about that question for a second... A "need." Whose need? Apple's or ours? And who cares? We should be asking instead whether there's a "want" for said particular product. We don't work for Apple -- well except for Amorph -- and really shouldn't give a damn, neither about what Apple "needs" to sell, nor what people think we "need." I only care about what I want to buy and I can find the vendors who want to sell it and buy from them. It doesn't have to be Apple. 97.7% of the computer buying public affirms that reality every quarter.
You know, it occurs to me that mac-heads adopt an entirely ridiculous rhetorical frame even when they're trying to be critical of Apple. "Is there a need for a new prosumer line?"
Well, if you're trying to predict what Apple will do, it's not entirely ridiculous.
Quote:
Huh? Think about that question for a second... A "need." Whose need? Apple's or ours? And who cares? We should be asking instead whether there's a "want" for said particular product.
Actually, you could swap "want" in for "need" in my posts and nothing would change. After all, we're talking about what in world terms are luxury items.
Quote:
We don't work for Apple -- well except for Amorph
Quote:
I only care about what I want to buy and I can find the vendors who want to sell it and buy from them. It doesn't have to be Apple. 97.7% of the computer buying public affirms that reality every quarter.
So? Buy what you want and be happy. End of discussion.
But if you want to speculate about future Apple hardware, you do have to start hypothesizing about markets and wants and needs.
I know it galls you that I don't believe people choose towers because they want or need towers, but I do, and I can back it up pretty well. The absolute #1 obstacle to Mac adoption is the fear of learning a whole new system, the fear of not having what all their friends have, of not being able to share documents and use the Web and so forth. I'm quite confident that if Apple could wave a magic wand and dispel those fears, Apple AIOs would sell in droves.
I don't disagree with you about the psychology of platfom adoption. I've had a few people ask seemingly bonehead questions about my PB. "Is it compatible?" Though the answer is not always a clear yes, "YES, it runs Office, and even XP in a pinch," I have to tell them.
I've even had the idiots at Office Place relucant to sell me RAM, because "You need Apple RAM." That was just last month.
However... When presented with the option, windows users routinely choose a cheaper, better specified tower. And, in what is becoming typically frustrating fashion for Apple, if there is an alternate desktop form factor that's gaining momentum, it's the Shuttle-type (cube-ish) systems, not AIOs.
Good logic and good argument are respectable commodities, but once they fail their empirical tests, we have to reconsider them, though not discard them. Otherwise they become polemics of no greater value than that which they seek to discard.
However... When presented with the option, windows users routinely choose a cheaper, better specified tower.
Except for when they choose the costlier, more anemic notebook.
That's the only metric I consider relevant, because you can 100% rule out the Fear of Incompatibility. Even though there are only two kinds of PC laptops (flimsy and expensive) they're flying off the shelves.
Given what's known about how those laptops are used, I think this trend speaks favorably to something like the iMac. A tower + monitor is hilariously bulky and overdetermined for what it has to do in 99% of cases.
Quote:
Good logic and good argument are respectable commodities, but once they fail their empirical tests, we have to reconsider them, though not discard them. Otherwise they become polemics of no greater value than that which they seek to discard.
Right. The anti-AIO polemic does not, in my estimation, stand up to observation. That's my argument.
A little sophistic re-assignment of passages there, no? Ah well, by their own words...
I confined myself to PC's, yes, to rule out the fear of incompatibility arguments, but also to limit myself to the question of desktops. Any notebook, while an AIO, is not an AIO desktop. Even the desktop replacement models that you can't really use much when untethered have the advantage of being easily transportable. It's this appeal that drives the adoption of laptops, not their AIO-ed-ness, so to speak, but their mobility. The AIO is sold (or not) on the intrinsic merits of integration; the laptop is sold on the intrinsic merits of mobility, AIO integration is secondary in its case, and should not be taken as evidence of the possible popularity of desktop AIOs. People buying laptops aren't buying either iMacs or towers.
In the case of PC towers versus PC AIOs, towers win by a large margin, and, interestingly, PC makers often run into the same pricing problems afflicting Apple's AIO models -- they can't build 'em to compete with their own towers either. However, since they have very good towers in that space, they really don't need to.
PS, I do prefer to speak of what people want, and I do not assume, if we refer back to laptops, that people really need mobility, but they want it and are willing to trade power to get it. They do not seem to me to be as willing to trade power to get integration.
A little sophistic re-assignment of passages there, no? Ah well, by their own words...
Clarify?
Quote:
I confined myself to PC's, yes, to rule out the fear of incompatibility arguments, but also to limit myself to the question of desktops. Any notebook, while an AIO, is not an AIO desktop. Even the desktop replacement models that you can't really use much when untethered have the advantage of being easily transportable. It's this appeal that drives the adoption of laptops, not their AIO-ed-ness, so to speak, but their mobility.
Do you know this for an absolute fact or do you assume it?
A great many laptops are plunked down on a table, and they stay there.
Quote:
In the case of PC towers versus PC AIOs, towers win by a large margin, and, interestingly, PC makers often run into the same pricing problems afflicting Apple's AIO models -- they can't build 'em to compete with their own towers either. However, since they have very good towers in that space, they really don't need to.
Funny, I think we've been here before.
Actually, PC AIOs suck so horribly relative to any alternative that I'm still not sure why they're offered in the first place. Their lack of appeal explains itself. The iMac cannot be compared to them, because it actually exploits its AIOness to do something nothing else can do, and it doesn't have a loud fan or "integrated Intel graphics with 0MB VRAM" or any of the other afflictions of PC AIOs. Even the eMac uses its AIO nature more intelligently, though not like the iMac does.
There is no analogy to the iMac on the PC side.
Quote:
PS, I do prefer to speak of what people want, and I do not assume, if we refer back to laptops, that people really need mobility, but they want it and are willing to trade power to get it. They do not seem to me to be as willing to trade power to get integration.
I don't think it's obvious at all that people are only buying laptops to get mobility.
Comments
Originally posted by Antithesis
Actually, I just want to use my existing monitor and the Macintosh OS for less than $1299. Currently the Apple lineup does not support this price point.
Respectfully,
-Antithesis
I believe I'm in this camp with you. Just thought I'd add that I've used the signiture below for a long long long time, yet, I still buy Apple computers, sigh.
Originally posted by rickag
I believe I'm in this camp with you. Just thought I'd add that I've used the signiture below for a long long long time, yet, I still buy Apple computers, sigh.
Well, I cannot condemn you for buying Macintoshes. Up until a year ago, I was an avid Macintosh user (since 1985, actually).
But because the Macintosh line could not support my computing needs, I was forced to switch to a Windows platform. And while Windows XP functions much better than its predecessors, I'm afraid that it requires much more daily maintenance and caution than the MacOS.
What would it take to woo me over to the Macintosh side again? Well, if I could get the MacOS to run on hardware that was as powerful, as customizable, and affordable as PC hardware, I'd make a purchase today.
Regards,
-Antithesis
Such cards are not likely to be implemented in a G5 class machine due to implementation issues with cost and space. Generally you want your lab computers to be small, reasonably powerfull, and cheap. Apple really has never had a machine that plays well in these markets.
What I see doing the trick is a mini me compact tranportable computer. Imagine a G5 shruck down so it is about the hieght of a CDROM drive mounted on end, then add enough width to accomodate 2 half length PCI slots and the other required guts. I've already seen many examples that come close to meeting the design requirements, both imagined on this board and real life examples.
I'm not even that excited about the AGP slot, as long as Apple supplies a good on board GPU who really cares. One thing that all should admit to is that Apple does produce very reliable hardware. High integration leads to that reliability, it is not something that should be given up to satisfy a random desire for future video upgrades.
Thanks
Dave
Originally posted by Chagi
Amorph has an excellent point in that internal expansion has largely become moot, at least for the Mac platform (where Apple has complete control over what ships). With the current level of integration (i.e. video, network port, etc. onboard) and the viability of high speed external devices via USB2 & Firewire variants, there are actually few reasons that I can think of for even having a PCI slot in a low to mid-range Mac.
I believe I'm in this camp with you.
<Curly>Me three!</Curly>
I think Apple realizes that there's a market for an expandable machine in the $1k-2k range (and the G5 1.6 only BARELY counts), otherwise they wouldn't be selling Powermac G4s for $1299. The market is there. Apple just has to build a price/performance competitive machine to serve it. Personally, I hope that what ever Apple decides to bring out will have (at a minimum) a standard AGP slot. Having at least one PCI slot would be a bonus, but for what I plan on doing with the machine, it wouldn't be a necessity.
Originally posted by Antithesis
...Actually, I just want to use my existing monitor and the Macintosh OS for less than $1299. Currently the Apple lineup does not support this price point.
Rubbish. Go to Apple Store, they have refurb PowerMac G4's for $979.
Insist on a G5? Well, you can't get an Athlon64 or Opteron with WinXP Pro for $1299 either. (Make sure you include equivalent hardware and price of WinXP Pro.)
Here, I'll play the PC troll game: (whining) I can get an iBook G4 for $1099. Why doesn't Dell sell a 12" laptop with good graphics (not shared memory crap) and a Pentium IV 3.2GHz processor for the same price, and with the same battery life? It's shameful how high their prices are! I'd love to transition back to Windows, but the prices are too high!
Originally posted by cubist
Rubbish. Go to Apple Store, they have refurb PowerMac G4's for $979.
Insist on a G5? Well, you can't get an Athlon64 or Opteron with WinXP Pro for $1299 either. (Make sure you include equivalent hardware and price of WinXP Pro.)
Here, I'll play the PC troll game: (whining) I can get an iBook G4 for $1099. Why doesn't Dell sell a 12" laptop with good graphics (not shared memory crap) and a Pentium IV 3.2GHz processor for the same price, and with the same battery life? It's shameful how high their prices are! I'd love to transition back to Windows, but the prices are too high!
Ahem.
I see this is going to be a heated argument for you, cubist. Let's see if we can keep this civil, eh?
Yes, if you want to compare refurbs to new machines, we can make the analogy that the Macintosh platform has the potential to be in line with PC pricing. Of course, if you're going to go along that line, then we have to compare refurbed Macintoshes to refurbed PCs. And once we do that, we'll have to be very savvy about choosing a refurbished Macintosh because the models vary depending on stock and time of day and cycle of the moon. Please note, also, that there are none of the models at the price point you mention in the "special deals" section of the Apple web page as of the time of this post.
Might I also say that I made so such assumption about needing a G5 processor. I think you'll find that if you search through the thread (after you've calmed down a bit), my original post mentions a G4. I believe another thread poster mentioned that a G5 costs the same to produce as a G4, NOT ME.
So, instead of calling me a 'troll', you might want to calm down, go back through all of the posts, and try to come up with a link to that $979 G4 tower with ALL of the specifications I've mentioned in my first post (yes, a superdrive, too).
Warm wishes,
-Antithesis
Insist on a G5? Well, you can't get an Athlon64 or Opteron with WinXP Pro for $1299 either. (Make sure you include equivalent hardware and price of WinXP Pro.)
Why is the only viable competition for the G5 an Opteron/Athlon64/Itanium? You can call up Dell & get an Optiplex GX270 with a P4 2.6GHz w/ 512MB RAM, 80GB HD for about $1200. Why not try and compete with that? I think a G5 1.6GHz in a similar enclosure, with similar specs, at a similar price would be pretty competitive. I think Apple can produce such a machine, and I'm hoping they do sometime early next year.
Originally posted by Antithesis
.. So, instead of calling me a 'troll', you might want to calm down, go back through all of the posts, and try to come up with a link to that $979 G4 tower with ALL of the specifications I've mentioned in my first post (yes, a superdrive, too)...
I didn't specifically call YOU a troll, I said that is the "PC troll game".
For that matter, you should have been able to build a new G4 tower with a Superdrive for no more than $1500. I find it very remarkable that anyone would switch platforms, with all the costs that entails, to save a mere $200. Why, XP Pro itself costs $200. (At this point, most PC trolls trot out a story about how they built the PC themselves, from parts they found all over the country, for a mere $674 and thirty hours of their time.)
BTW, I like Windows 2000 Pro a lot better than XP. XP does have a couple of features that W2K lacks, but W2K is lots more stable and IMHO easier to use. You may wish to consider it.
Personally, I have a G4 Cube. It's small, sufficiently expandable for me, does what I want very well, and sold, when new, for $1299. I think if Apple had sold them at that price from the beginning, they'd still be selling Cubes to this day. The Cube was not a "mistake" that Apple should be loath to repeat, it was a good machine at an attractive price point (eventually) that filled a gap in their line. That gap has reopened and not been refilled since.
But points that caught my eye were excellently made by Jade, Bunge and Matsu amongst others!
"It would be better to do away with one of the AIO ranges and replace it with a headless machine."
(That certainly applys to the iMac2/eMac line...)
I think there's room to drop the 1.6 and 1.8 single G5 Towers into the G4 tower price bracket and have the San Fran' Jan' PowerMac G5 'all dual' bumps at current prices.
That leaves a solid Tower for gamer (not to be discounted...lots of Mac folks like myself play games too! And the Mac has never had it so good with games at the moment...or graphics cards!) to edu to serious pro'. All in the £1K-just over £2k range.
The mini-tower? Well...I think the single G5 tower at the current G4 tower prices would begin to cover that.
But a Cube with single 1.6 and 1.8 under the 1K mark would cover the rest! Hey, the PC market has already done the research (R&D) for how a shuttle (I mean, 'Cube') should be done...
Where does this leave the iMac2? Dunno. I guess we'll have to wait for the iMac3 to be sure. But as a G5 based product? A powerful AIO for those who want that. And plenty do. Just as plenty more want laptops and powerful(!) towers (as Kasper's breaking story proves...)
The iMac2 and eMac are on borrowed time. My opinion.
I think next year will see a serious re-adjustment in Apple's desktop line. They've done the r&d over the last few years. They have 70 Apple stores which show what is selling and what not.
Look at the recent quarter sales figures. You'll see where the weakness is. And I know Apple under Jobs will address that. Sooner or later...
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by Antithesis
But because the Macintosh line could not support my computing needs, I was forced to switch to a Windows platform. And while Windows XP functions much better than its predecessors, I'm afraid that it requires much more daily maintenance and caution than the MacOS.
What would it take to woo me over to the Macintosh side again? Well, if I could get the MacOS to run on hardware that was as powerful, as customizable, and affordable as PC hardware, I'd make a purchase today.
Regards,
-Antithesis
What exactly are your computing needs? What is so customizable on the PC side of the pool than the mac side? I've never seen one platform be able to run, photoshop, office, and a unix terminal at once. Personally I find windows much more working against the user than making itself customizable. the only windows excels in is, video games, and I think personally database stuff (but then I don't know much about those sorta things) The sad thing is what a person thinks they need (want) with whats available. Why does dell sell you a monitor with your computer or try really really hard too? because that lets them increase the price that much more. Percieved value. We need an AIO, for the majority, and a headless computer at the same time.
Originally posted by cubist
For that matter, you should have been able to build a new G4 tower with a Superdrive for no more than $1500. I find it very remarkable that anyone would switch platforms, with all the costs that entails, to save a mere $200. Why, XP Pro itself costs $200. (At this point, most PC trolls trot out a story about how they built the PC themselves, from parts they found all over the country, for a mere $674 and thirty hours of their time.)
Perhaps, like many of us, he thinks that the existing G4 simply has such a horrible price/performance ratio that it isn't worth his time? Apple has a hole in their line for a competitive headless machine between $1-2k. Personally, I don't really think it can be filled with a G4. The sooner Apple can get G5's out in this range the better.
That changes my working hypothesis somewhat. Apple is currently selling 50 iMacs for every PM G4, which means that the line could go gently into that good night and the loss would hardly be a blip amid burgeoning PMG5 sales and (if another rumor is true) iMac G5 sales.
It seems to me that the iMac is going to be the prosumer machine.
Originally posted by Amorph
It seems to me that the iMac is going to be the prosumer machine.
yeah, if the iMac goes single G5 at 1.6 and 1.8GHz with a 20 inch lcd and a nice graphics card (ATI 9200 with option for a 9600) and large HD and superdrive, that sure sounds like a prosumer machine to me....
leave the iBook and eMac for the newbies and kids, the PM for the pros and give us yuppie posers a G5 iMac and huge floating screen to compensate for our extremely limited attention spans and tiny peni.....anyway....
yeahhhhh iMac G5....bring it on
g
It seems to me that the iMac is going to be the prosumer machine.
I suspect that Apple is going to come to the same conclusion, but I'm hoping that they'd come out with a G5 "pizza-box" machine starting around $1k. Who cares if it competes with the iMac? It's not like Apple is completely averse to different lines overlapping-- look at the 12" Powerbook & iBook.
Huh? Think about that question for a second... A "need." Whose need? Apple's or ours? And who cares? We should be asking instead whether there's a "want" for said particular product. We don't work for Apple -- well except for Amorph -- and really shouldn't give a damn, neither about what Apple "needs" to sell, nor what people think we "need." I only care about what I want to buy and I can find the vendors who want to sell it and buy from them. It doesn't have to be Apple. 97.7% of the computer buying public affirms that reality every quarter.
Originally posted by Matsu
You know, it occurs to me that mac-heads adopt an entirely ridiculous rhetorical frame even when they're trying to be critical of Apple. "Is there a need for a new prosumer line?"
Well, if you're trying to predict what Apple will do, it's not entirely ridiculous.
Huh? Think about that question for a second... A "need." Whose need? Apple's or ours? And who cares? We should be asking instead whether there's a "want" for said particular product.
Actually, you could swap "want" in for "need" in my posts and nothing would change. After all, we're talking about what in world terms are luxury items.
We don't work for Apple -- well except for Amorph
I only care about what I want to buy and I can find the vendors who want to sell it and buy from them. It doesn't have to be Apple. 97.7% of the computer buying public affirms that reality every quarter.
So? Buy what you want and be happy. End of discussion.
But if you want to speculate about future Apple hardware, you do have to start hypothesizing about markets and wants and needs.
I know it galls you that I don't believe people choose towers because they want or need towers, but I do, and I can back it up pretty well.
I've even had the idiots at Office Place relucant to sell me RAM, because "You need Apple RAM." That was just last month.
However... When presented with the option, windows users routinely choose a cheaper, better specified tower. And, in what is becoming typically frustrating fashion for Apple, if there is an alternate desktop form factor that's gaining momentum, it's the Shuttle-type (cube-ish) systems, not AIOs.
Good logic and good argument are respectable commodities, but once they fail their empirical tests, we have to reconsider them, though not discard them. Otherwise they become polemics of no greater value than that which they seek to discard.
Originally posted by Matsu
However... When presented with the option, windows users routinely choose a cheaper, better specified tower.
Except for when they choose the costlier, more anemic notebook.
That's the only metric I consider relevant, because you can 100% rule out the Fear of Incompatibility. Even though there are only two kinds of PC laptops (flimsy and expensive) they're flying off the shelves.
Given what's known about how those laptops are used, I think this trend speaks favorably to something like the iMac. A tower + monitor is hilariously bulky and overdetermined for what it has to do in 99% of cases.
Good logic and good argument are respectable commodities, but once they fail their empirical tests, we have to reconsider them, though not discard them. Otherwise they become polemics of no greater value than that which they seek to discard.
Right. The anti-AIO polemic does not, in my estimation, stand up to observation. That's my argument.
I confined myself to PC's, yes, to rule out the fear of incompatibility arguments, but also to limit myself to the question of desktops. Any notebook, while an AIO, is not an AIO desktop. Even the desktop replacement models that you can't really use much when untethered have the advantage of being easily transportable. It's this appeal that drives the adoption of laptops, not their AIO-ed-ness, so to speak, but their mobility. The AIO is sold (or not) on the intrinsic merits of integration; the laptop is sold on the intrinsic merits of mobility, AIO integration is secondary in its case, and should not be taken as evidence of the possible popularity of desktop AIOs. People buying laptops aren't buying either iMacs or towers.
In the case of PC towers versus PC AIOs, towers win by a large margin, and, interestingly, PC makers often run into the same pricing problems afflicting Apple's AIO models -- they can't build 'em to compete with their own towers either. However, since they have very good towers in that space, they really don't need to.
PS, I do prefer to speak of what people want, and I do not assume, if we refer back to laptops, that people really need mobility, but they want it and are willing to trade power to get it. They do not seem to me to be as willing to trade power to get integration.
Originally posted by Matsu
A little sophistic re-assignment of passages there, no? Ah well, by their own words...
Clarify?
I confined myself to PC's, yes, to rule out the fear of incompatibility arguments, but also to limit myself to the question of desktops. Any notebook, while an AIO, is not an AIO desktop. Even the desktop replacement models that you can't really use much when untethered have the advantage of being easily transportable. It's this appeal that drives the adoption of laptops, not their AIO-ed-ness, so to speak, but their mobility.
Do you know this for an absolute fact or do you assume it?
A great many laptops are plunked down on a table, and they stay there.
In the case of PC towers versus PC AIOs, towers win by a large margin, and, interestingly, PC makers often run into the same pricing problems afflicting Apple's AIO models -- they can't build 'em to compete with their own towers either. However, since they have very good towers in that space, they really don't need to.
Funny, I think we've been here before.
Actually, PC AIOs suck so horribly relative to any alternative that I'm still not sure why they're offered in the first place. Their lack of appeal explains itself. The iMac cannot be compared to them, because it actually exploits its AIOness to do something nothing else can do, and it doesn't have a loud fan or "integrated Intel graphics with 0MB VRAM" or any of the other afflictions of PC AIOs. Even the eMac uses its AIO nature more intelligently, though not like the iMac does.
There is no analogy to the iMac on the PC side.
PS, I do prefer to speak of what people want, and I do not assume, if we refer back to laptops, that people really need mobility, but they want it and are willing to trade power to get it. They do not seem to me to be as willing to trade power to get integration.
I don't think it's obvious at all that people are only buying laptops to get mobility.