Is it safe for me to infer, from all of the complaints about the iMac video chip, that the primary concern is about playing games?
P.S. When I go to the NVIDIA website...it lists the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra as a GPU for "mainstream", "value", "gamer" and "enthusiast" users. Now I realize that this is NVIDIA's site...but many people seem to be acting as if Apple had just reverted back to VGA graphics or something.
it's called marketing. do you believe everything you read?
up until a week ago, Apple's website still claimed the iMac Generation 2 was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
So many assert this without really supporting their argument. Why does everyone assume that the upgradeable GPU is the key to Apple's growth? I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that Apple likely knows its (overall) customers better than most of us on this board.
really? they knew them well enough that the Cube tanked...and the imac LCD generation 2 successfully killed consumer desktop sales.
The upgradeable GPU is not the key.....but it is a very popular issue that is making people think twice about buying or preventing sales. It's stupid that is has gone on this long.
IonYz, I don't believe the current GPU is "horrible" either. If it were horrible, NVidia most certainly wouldn't want to have their name associated with it. Not only is Apple's name on the thing, but Apple is kind enough to make sure that everyone knows that when it comes to graphics, you can either thank NVidia for the experience, or you can loath them for it. I doubt it's a mistake that Apple is making sure everyone knows what's in it. Could be a push to have NVidia cough up something better.
When it comes to buying an a current Rev. iMac I'm not going to spend money on something that can't even handle the current Mac games released. That's just plain absurd. Imagine PS2 or X-Box doing that. Actually, I'd rather enjoy seeing Windows users cry because they finally had to deal with the fact that something was infact designed above the capabilities of their brand new hardware. It would bring tears of joy to my eye. The iMac ought to be held to a standard, just like everything else in this world. It ought to play every 2004 game make, period. I can understand new advances in '05, and '06, etc., but we're talking the very same model year. That's not a prosumer demand, that's a consumer demand. If people weren't worried about specs and how well this new iMac runs everything current, they'd be using old Mac's. I'm sure you've heard of plenty people on here using old beige boxes, or first gen iMacs. Those computers still work and still handle nearly all things a normal consumer do on a daily basis surprisingly enough. So what's the reason to upgrade to a new iMac? The reason ought to be form, & function. Not just form.
The last thing I'd like to add is that this is most certainly speculation on all of our parts. we haven't even gotten our hands on these things yet and it's entirely possible that Apple has figured out a way to get the GPU to really perform in this thing. Until we get people on here that actually own one and actually play Doom 3 and URT2004, we won't really know how it will perform considering that many of us are skeptical of many benchmarks offered. Yet, if we hear, "The new iMac I just bought didn't skip a beat when it came to playing Doom 3!", then we'll know that all of this complaining was in vain. Hopefully that will be the case, but it's going to be one hell of a rabbit for Apple to pull out of the hat.
When it comes to buying an a current Rev. iMac I'm not going to spend money on something that can't even handle the current Mac games released. That's just plain absurd.
If your look at it from a gamer perspective your right, and it is absurd except to Apple. They may have a game trailer section and promote games on their site, but their gut feelings have always been lukewarm. If they wanted the "Mac Gaming Experience" could turn around in a second but I'm sure there is dissension in the ranks.
Apple Lacky: I was thinking, shouldn't we strengthen our gaming initiative?
Apple Higher-up: Nah. But if you'd like you can voice your concerns to Steve. He will make a special appointment for you in the elevator.
In Apple's eyes their GPU offerings allow people to play games, just not at an "enthusiasts" level. Low settings (med?), low resolution or at least nothing native to the displays they game on.
Quote:
Imagine PS2 or X-Box doing that.
Sorry, can't compare a computer company to a game company. Their boxes are out and last many years (3-6, long time in techland) and are geared to gaming only. They also have many talented developers used to shrinking things down to the lower-speced boxes, thanks to strong money reserves (Microsoft), other successful products (Nintendo, where Gameboy feeds other R&D), or massive market share (Sony).
Console also have the benefit of working only at broadcast resolutions or more, and barebones system software. Its really tough to compare Macs to consoles except when it comes to baseline components. Apple does a good job of "keeping hardware choices simple" so developers don't have hundreds of hardware combos to code to.
Quote:
Actually, I'd rather enjoy seeing Windows users cry because they finally had to deal with the fact that something was infact designed above the capabilities of their brand new hardware.
Like most the bottom-feeding PC owners? You expect the guy that picked up his Dell on special for $600 can play Doom 3 well? Hahaha. To get the most out of Doom 3 you need some nice hardware PC side, something you won't find it OEMs without spending money comparable to an iMac G5 or more.
really? they knew them well enough that the Cube tanked...and the imac LCD generation 2 successfully killed consumer desktop sales.
Fair enough but they have also had more hits than misses. Furthermore, I would say that it is a dead certainty that Apple knows its engineering, manufacturing and cost constraints better than anyone here, and it could well be those things that has driven decisions NOT to do a BTO option as has been suggested here.
Fair enough but they have also had more hits than misses. Furthermore, I would say that it is a dead certainty that Apple knows its engineering, manufacturing and cost constraints better than anyone here, and it could well be those things that has driven decisions NOT to do a BTO option as has been suggested here.
considering their last 2 attempts at the 1299-2000 price range have tanked I'd say they don't have a good record at all.
with a user name like "i-bent-my-wookie" and the tone of your posts its hard to take you as an adult and seriously.
you know what is embarrassing? people here thinking they are so holier than thou because they own a mac. it's bullshit. what's embarrassing? someone suggesting something or complaining about something and then being told to go buy a PC or stop whining and go pay twice as much. it's this elitist bullshit that is embarrassing. you have a problem with me for pointing that out or telling someone that...... big deal. life goes on. i really don't value your opinion and you come across just as pompous and elitist as the sorry bastards you are defending.
no i don't. history has shown "steve-o" has done some seriously stupid things and made some dumb decisions just because of his ideals and ego.
speaking from experience i see.
not holier than thou... well maybe you, but i am loathe to draw conclusions from a few posts. Perhaps your a stalwart volunteer in your community, give blood regularly and snatch kittens from high perches in trees on a regular basis. so who would i be to judge you based on a few posts.
Remember this:
"Winning an argument on internet is like a popcorn fart... except you can hear and smell a popcorn fart"
Anyways, at what point did i suggest buying a PC? I only brought up the pc at all to tought the merits of the game Far Cry, seriously you have to play it (well, on second thought a game based on a sustained stalking and killing spree may not be the best medicine for you, disregard).
Anyways, trying to get back on topic... apple has made a decision and these are not the same decisions facing any other pc company in the industry. They have a monopoloy on system hardware (econ 102 textbook, page 97). They have chosen to maintain their hardware monopoly in order to finance OS and software development and R&D (reference the clone wars, you remember them dont you?). PC companies on the other hand are in a near perfectly competitive environment (close anyways) where at the low end of the price range there is very little differentiating once white-box from another. They do their R&D by reading Tom's Hardware Guide. When they can differentiate they are successful, hence Dell and their service model, but a small white-box manufacturer can not afford to set up a world-wide support model like Dell. So you have all these options they offer to their potential customers instead.
Ever wonder why your Great Aunt Suzie is completely confused about buying a pc? because the pc sales person your Aunt talked to at bestbuy/futureshop/Joe's PC-haus said specifically you need an ABC videon card with at least 128motherboards (64 will not be enough!) and a hard drive with 200 kiloWatts and monitor with a dot-pinch of 22microphones... or its garbage by next spring . Its a confusopoly for those not technically oriented. How could they expect to make a rational decision faced with all these choices?
The imac directly addresses this market, its a computer that works. you can do photos, play video, even surf the interweb for anti-firewall software virus stuff (ok, thanks Auntie suzie, thats enough for now, you did great ). that was the essence of the original imac, 1 plug from computer to wall and maybe a modem cord if you were internet enabled. plug in a mouse and keyboard and go. It was the first pc that could ship with a small manual and not be called horrendously under-documented. It did not have to dominate a whole section of a room with a tangle of cords or constant whirring and chattering. Thats why i am buying an imac, so the computer can just disappear into the background when not in use, you forget its there. Like many on this board i also work in IT so i am literally around computers for 12+ hours a day.
back to the monopoly point, apple only competes with themselves on system hardware; make the perfect all upgradeable super imac and cannibalize some powermac sales undoubtably. That is the hardware strategy they have taken, if you want more upgradeability the only option is the powermac. Your excellent point about the powerbook really drives it home, yes the powerbook has the video option because it is a pro-level offering from apple. but do you think your aunt is going to go for the powerbook? probably an ibook instead, although she is interested in this firewire 800, it may help with her roach problem in the basement she thinks. And that gigabit ethernet might be just the thing to patch that broken screen door (ok auntie, a shot of bourbon and down for your nap).
I am not TELLING you to buy a computer at twice the price, of course that is rediculous if you cant afford it. I am TELLING you if you want the computer you desire its going to cost twice as much (maybe not twice but you get the idea). Apple does not make the big margins on the cheapest machines (well, cheapest once the emac folds anyways). Its pretty simple, the imac is a consumer level computer and will never have a top of the line video card. It will never be fully upgradeable (cpu, gpu) and it will never be anything but an all-in-one. they may replace the imac line but the name imac stands for something, simplicity. It stands for the computer your Aunt was proud to buy because she was able to make the decision almost by herself, im sure you prodded her to go for a mac instead of a pc
Now, simplifying their product lines allows them to get their great margins at a lower cost to us. These great margins are what finance a lot of software development. iTunes is not free, its payed by you and i through the apple tax... we even subsidize windows users! similar for iphoto, etc... although now you only get 1 version free of those now, they jack you for upgrades and call it iLife (but hey you get a box).. But it also funds the extensive research and development that has given birth to revolutionary products like the imac or the ipod for instance.
cage the rage, man... and save up $$$ for that powermac.
cage the rage, man... and save up $$$ for that powermac.
Is the video card enough justification for someone to buy a two CPU workstation? Apple is trying to protect it's margins on the PowerMac and it is making an effort to prevent the iMac from eating into PowerMac sales. The simplicity of an iMac shouldn't be targetted only towards senior citizens.
p>s> I tried hard to make sense out of your signature. The suckers may have authority, but what does that change? Do you expect people to bow down to authority?
i just dont think we should expect every mac made to be the ultimate powerhouse. the imac is built for a specific market... easy to use and powerful for the casual computer user. It more than fills this requirement which makes it an absolute success for mac.
they've come along way. i still have my first generation imac that i stood in line to buy on the very first day of release=] piece of junk! it was pewrfect for the time. cheap and very powerful for my family.... and i was young and didnt do stuff i do today.
the imac is a great machine as is for what it was meant to do. need super preformance? get a power mac.
I have a suggestion for those that wish Apple would introduce the mythical headless Mac(aka SFF desktop).
Method:
1. Spec out a reasonable SFF machine and price.
2. Start a poll on a website asking 2 simple questions.
.....Would you buy this machine in the next month?
.....Which OS is your primary OS currently used?
3. Require the persons name.
4. In a month when the list exceeds 10 million signatures, forward to Apple.
I know no one will do this, but surely Apple Marketing has at least investigated this, haven't they? If they haven't, why are they still with Apple?
Is my frustration showing? Has anyone read my signature? Is Apple listening? What in the h@## is so hard to understand about offering a SFF desktop without an expensive LCD monitor pricing out of many consumers budgets and including one lousy, stinking standard size 8X AGP slot?
Anyone comparing a SFF desktop to the "ill fated Cube failure" will immediately be riduculed endlessly as a Mac zealot worthy of only contempt.
i just dont think we should expect every mac made to be the ultimate powerhouse. the imac is built for a specific market... easy to use and powerful for the casual computer user. It more than fills this requirement which makes it an absolute success for mac.
Truer words ne'er spoken. Problem is the "specific market" is too dang small.
Apple stated they would like to build market share, bull tacos, you don't limit your target market to a niche market and expect to grow market share.
disclaimer: don't get me wrong, I liked the iLamp and I like the new iMac, but.......
i just dont think we should expect every mac made to be the ultimate powerhouse. the imac is built for a specific market... easy to use and powerful for the casual computer user. It more than fills this requirement which makes it an absolute success for mac.
they've come along way. i still have my first generation imac that i stood in line to buy on the very first day of release=] piece of junk! it was pewrfect for the time. cheap and very powerful for my family.... and i was young and didnt do stuff i do today.
the imac is a great machine as is for what it was meant to do. need super preformance? get a power mac.
1299 is a specific market. when a product ranges in price from 1299-1899 the technology should scale to adapt to the new market. you can't honestly tell me that the 1299 model and 1899 serve the same market.
also, apple completely ignored advancement in computer skills by their users. fine, a family bought an iMac DV. They learned how to do a lot of advanced stuff, they know how to use a computer now, they have an idea about what the components are, their teens may even play games....GASP. So, what does Apple offer. the Same intro to computing or a 2000 dollar monitor not included workstation. makes no sense
Comments
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And you have something to back up this assertion...other than "gut feel"?
care to back up how it would not or is that just your "gut feel"
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Is it safe for me to infer, from all of the complaints about the iMac video chip, that the primary concern is about playing games?
P.S. When I go to the NVIDIA website...it lists the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra as a GPU for "mainstream", "value", "gamer" and "enthusiast" users. Now I realize that this is NVIDIA's site...but many people seem to be acting as if Apple had just reverted back to VGA graphics or something.
it's called marketing. do you believe everything you read?
up until a week ago, Apple's website still claimed the iMac Generation 2 was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So many assert this without really supporting their argument. Why does everyone assume that the upgradeable GPU is the key to Apple's growth? I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that Apple likely knows its (overall) customers better than most of us on this board.
really? they knew them well enough that the Cube tanked...and the imac LCD generation 2 successfully killed consumer desktop sales.
The upgradeable GPU is not the key.....but it is a very popular issue that is making people think twice about buying or preventing sales. It's stupid that is has gone on this long.
When it comes to buying an a current Rev. iMac I'm not going to spend money on something that can't even handle the current Mac games released. That's just plain absurd. Imagine PS2 or X-Box doing that. Actually, I'd rather enjoy seeing Windows users cry because they finally had to deal with the fact that something was infact designed above the capabilities of their brand new hardware. It would bring tears of joy to my eye. The iMac ought to be held to a standard, just like everything else in this world. It ought to play every 2004 game make, period. I can understand new advances in '05, and '06, etc., but we're talking the very same model year. That's not a prosumer demand, that's a consumer demand. If people weren't worried about specs and how well this new iMac runs everything current, they'd be using old Mac's. I'm sure you've heard of plenty people on here using old beige boxes, or first gen iMacs. Those computers still work and still handle nearly all things a normal consumer do on a daily basis surprisingly enough. So what's the reason to upgrade to a new iMac? The reason ought to be form, & function. Not just form.
The last thing I'd like to add is that this is most certainly speculation on all of our parts. we haven't even gotten our hands on these things yet and it's entirely possible that Apple has figured out a way to get the GPU to really perform in this thing. Until we get people on here that actually own one and actually play Doom 3 and URT2004, we won't really know how it will perform considering that many of us are skeptical of many benchmarks offered. Yet, if we hear, "The new iMac I just bought didn't skip a beat when it came to playing Doom 3!", then we'll know that all of this complaining was in vain. Hopefully that will be the case, but it's going to be one hell of a rabbit for Apple to pull out of the hat.
Originally posted by Brian Green
When it comes to buying an a current Rev. iMac I'm not going to spend money on something that can't even handle the current Mac games released. That's just plain absurd.
If your look at it from a gamer perspective your right, and it is absurd except to Apple. They may have a game trailer section and promote games on their site, but their gut feelings have always been lukewarm. If they wanted the "Mac Gaming Experience" could turn around in a second but I'm sure there is dissension in the ranks.
Apple Lacky: I was thinking, shouldn't we strengthen our gaming initiative?
Apple Higher-up: Nah. But if you'd like you can voice your concerns to Steve. He will make a special appointment for you in the elevator.
In Apple's eyes their GPU offerings allow people to play games, just not at an "enthusiasts" level. Low settings (med?), low resolution or at least nothing native to the displays they game on.
Imagine PS2 or X-Box doing that.
Sorry, can't compare a computer company to a game company. Their boxes are out and last many years (3-6, long time in techland) and are geared to gaming only. They also have many talented developers used to shrinking things down to the lower-speced boxes, thanks to strong money reserves (Microsoft), other successful products (Nintendo, where Gameboy feeds other R&D), or massive market share (Sony).
Console also have the benefit of working only at broadcast resolutions or more, and barebones system software. Its really tough to compare Macs to consoles except when it comes to baseline components. Apple does a good job of "keeping hardware choices simple" so developers don't have hundreds of hardware combos to code to.
Actually, I'd rather enjoy seeing Windows users cry because they finally had to deal with the fact that something was infact designed above the capabilities of their brand new hardware.
Like most the bottom-feeding PC owners? You expect the guy that picked up his Dell on special for $600 can play Doom 3 well? Hahaha.
Originally posted by applenut
care to back up how it would not or is that just your "gut feel"
YOU'RE the one that made the assertion. I only asked if you had something to substantiate it. Sorry.
Originally posted by applenut
really? they knew them well enough that the Cube tanked...and the imac LCD generation 2 successfully killed consumer desktop sales.
Fair enough but they have also had more hits than misses. Furthermore, I would say that it is a dead certainty that Apple knows its engineering, manufacturing and cost constraints better than anyone here, and it could well be those things that has driven decisions NOT to do a BTO option as has been suggested here.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Fair enough but they have also had more hits than misses. Furthermore, I would say that it is a dead certainty that Apple knows its engineering, manufacturing and cost constraints better than anyone here, and it could well be those things that has driven decisions NOT to do a BTO option as has been suggested here.
considering their last 2 attempts at the 1299-2000 price range have tanked I'd say they don't have a good record at all.
Originally posted by applenut
with a user name like "i-bent-my-wookie" and the tone of your posts its hard to take you as an adult and seriously.
you know what is embarrassing? people here thinking they are so holier than thou because they own a mac. it's bullshit. what's embarrassing? someone suggesting something or complaining about something and then being told to go buy a PC or stop whining and go pay twice as much. it's this elitist bullshit that is embarrassing. you have a problem with me for pointing that out or telling someone that...... big deal. life goes on. i really don't value your opinion and you come across just as pompous and elitist as the sorry bastards you are defending.
no i don't. history has shown "steve-o" has done some seriously stupid things and made some dumb decisions just because of his ideals and ego.
speaking from experience i see.
not holier than thou... well maybe you, but i am loathe to draw conclusions from a few posts. Perhaps your a stalwart volunteer in your community, give blood regularly and snatch kittens from high perches in trees on a regular basis. so who would i be to judge you based on a few posts.
Remember this:
"Winning an argument on internet is like a popcorn fart... except you can hear and smell a popcorn fart"
Anyways, at what point did i suggest buying a PC? I only brought up the pc at all to tought the merits of the game Far Cry, seriously you have to play it (well, on second thought a game based on a sustained stalking and killing spree may not be the best medicine for you, disregard).
Anyways, trying to get back on topic... apple has made a decision and these are not the same decisions facing any other pc company in the industry. They have a monopoloy on system hardware (econ 102 textbook, page 97). They have chosen to maintain their hardware monopoly in order to finance OS and software development and R&D (reference the clone wars, you remember them dont you?). PC companies on the other hand are in a near perfectly competitive environment (close anyways) where at the low end of the price range there is very little differentiating once white-box from another. They do their R&D by reading Tom's Hardware Guide. When they can differentiate they are successful, hence Dell and their service model, but a small white-box manufacturer can not afford to set up a world-wide support model like Dell. So you have all these options they offer to their potential customers instead.
Ever wonder why your Great Aunt Suzie is completely confused about buying a pc? because the pc sales person your Aunt talked to at bestbuy/futureshop/Joe's PC-haus said specifically you need an ABC videon card with at least 128motherboards (64 will not be enough!) and a hard drive with 200 kiloWatts and monitor with a dot-pinch of 22microphones... or its garbage by next spring
The imac directly addresses this market, its a computer that works. you can do photos, play video, even surf the interweb for anti-firewall software virus stuff (ok, thanks Auntie suzie, thats enough for now, you did great
back to the monopoly point, apple only competes with themselves on system hardware; make the perfect all upgradeable super imac and cannibalize some powermac sales undoubtably. That is the hardware strategy they have taken, if you want more upgradeability the only option is the powermac. Your excellent point about the powerbook really drives it home, yes the powerbook has the video option because it is a pro-level offering from apple. but do you think your aunt is going to go for the powerbook? probably an ibook instead, although she is interested in this firewire 800, it may help with her roach problem in the basement she thinks. And that gigabit ethernet might be just the thing to patch that broken screen door (ok auntie, a shot of bourbon and down for your nap).
I am not TELLING you to buy a computer at twice the price, of course that is rediculous if you cant afford it. I am TELLING you if you want the computer you desire its going to cost twice as much (maybe not twice but you get the idea). Apple does not make the big margins on the cheapest machines (well, cheapest once the emac folds anyways). Its pretty simple, the imac is a consumer level computer and will never have a top of the line video card. It will never be fully upgradeable (cpu, gpu) and it will never be anything but an all-in-one. they may replace the imac line but the name imac stands for something, simplicity. It stands for the computer your Aunt was proud to buy because she was able to make the decision almost by herself, im sure you prodded her to go for a mac instead of a pc
Now, simplifying their product lines allows them to get their great margins at a lower cost to us. These great margins are what finance a lot of software development. iTunes is not free, its payed by you and i through the apple tax... we even subsidize windows users! similar for iphoto, etc... although now you only get 1 version free of those now, they jack you for upgrades and call it iLife (but hey you get a box).. But it also funds the extensive research and development that has given birth to revolutionary products like the imac or the ipod for instance.
cage the rage, man... and save up $$$ for that powermac.
Originally posted by I-bent-my-wookie
cage the rage, man... and save up $$$ for that powermac.
Is the video card enough justification for someone to buy a two CPU workstation? Apple is trying to protect it's margins on the PowerMac and it is making an effort to prevent the iMac from eating into PowerMac sales. The simplicity of an iMac shouldn't be targetted only towards senior citizens.
p>s> I tried hard to make sense out of your signature. The suckers may have authority, but what does that change? Do you expect people to bow down to authority?
they've come along way. i still have my first generation imac that i stood in line to buy on the very first day of release=] piece of junk! it was pewrfect for the time. cheap and very powerful for my family.... and i was young and didnt do stuff i do today.
the imac is a great machine as is for what it was meant to do. need super preformance? get a power mac.
Method:
1. Spec out a reasonable SFF machine and price.
2. Start a poll on a website asking 2 simple questions.
.....Would you buy this machine in the next month?
.....Which OS is your primary OS currently used?
3. Require the persons name.
4. In a month when the list exceeds 10 million signatures, forward to Apple.
I know no one will do this, but surely Apple Marketing has at least investigated this, haven't they? If they haven't, why are they still with Apple?
Is my frustration showing? Has anyone read my signature? Is Apple listening? What in the h@## is so hard to understand about offering a SFF desktop without an expensive LCD monitor pricing out of many consumers budgets and including one lousy, stinking standard size 8X AGP slot?
Anyone comparing a SFF desktop to the "ill fated Cube failure" will immediately be riduculed endlessly as a Mac zealot worthy of only contempt.
Originally posted by earthtoandy
i just dont think we should expect every mac made to be the ultimate powerhouse. the imac is built for a specific market... easy to use and powerful for the casual computer user. It more than fills this requirement which makes it an absolute success for mac.
Truer words ne'er spoken. Problem is the "specific market" is too dang small.
Apple stated they would like to build market share, bull tacos, you don't limit your target market to a niche market and expect to grow market share.
disclaimer: don't get me wrong, I liked the iLamp and I like the new iMac, but.......
rant over have a nice day
Originally posted by earthtoandy
i just dont think we should expect every mac made to be the ultimate powerhouse. the imac is built for a specific market... easy to use and powerful for the casual computer user. It more than fills this requirement which makes it an absolute success for mac.
they've come along way. i still have my first generation imac that i stood in line to buy on the very first day of release=] piece of junk! it was pewrfect for the time. cheap and very powerful for my family.... and i was young and didnt do stuff i do today.
the imac is a great machine as is for what it was meant to do. need super preformance? get a power mac.
1299 is a specific market. when a product ranges in price from 1299-1899 the technology should scale to adapt to the new market. you can't honestly tell me that the 1299 model and 1899 serve the same market.
also, apple completely ignored advancement in computer skills by their users. fine, a family bought an iMac DV. They learned how to do a lot of advanced stuff, they know how to use a computer now, they have an idea about what the components are, their teens may even play games....GASP. So, what does Apple offer. the Same intro to computing or a 2000 dollar monitor not included workstation. makes no sense