But, Apple has likely done surveys of their own customers. It's very possible that most Mac users ARE on broadband.
This is always a tough decision for a company to make. Have most of your customers that don't use a feature, pay for it, or not include it, so that the smaller percentage that DO use it, pay for it.
But they are trying to get new users. The Modem should be in there for them. I would think its more important for the modem to be in there than bluetooth on a low end machine.
They aren't packaged modules, but raw chips on the boards.
Are you sure about that? I suspect that you are right, but the G4 mini had the wireless on a daughter card. Until someone takes one of these apart, we don't know for sure.
Most of the gamers out there would laugh you silly for using a $600 PC to play games, and you know it.
That's why Alien, and other companies sell those $3,000+ machines.
This is a family machine. If that seems to be derogatory, that's sad. Most machines these days are bought for family use.
Never claimed to be a hard-core gamer, just disputing the idea that a $600 computer can't game. All I could afford, sorry to disappoint you!
I would buy a Mini for my family to replace my iMac G4, if I could be certain it could handle the occasional game the kids or myself would throw at it better than the iMac. Have to wait for the benchmarks to start showing up...
The 213 million people who don't play games also still buy PC's with Celerons in them, so go figure....
But they are trying to get new users. The Modem should be in there for them. I would think its more important for the modem to be in there than bluetooth on a low end machine.
I don't know. Bluetooth is a HOT thing now. Someone might prefer to have one of the new wireless headphones than a built-in modem.
This would be true especially if your machine was in the bedroom, and your spouse (or whatever) is sleeping. Same for a dorm.
Are you sure about that? I suspect that you are right, but the G4 mini had the wireless on a daughter card. Until someone takes one of these apart, we don't know for sure.
It could be a daughter card. That's why I said boards. The packaging costs more than you might think. The naked board would be much cheaper. And if there is no socket, even better.
You want to complain that Apple is not making architecture choices based on the uninformed customers who simply belives a higher clock number is better?
You want to complain that Apple is not making architecture choices based on the uninformed customers who simply belives a higher clock number is better?
Hey he has 666 in his handle for a reason. Evil personified ...jk
Never claimed to be a hard-core gamer, just disputing the idea that a $600 computer can't game. All I could afford, sorry to disappoint you!
I would buy a Mini for my family to replace my iMac G4, if I could be certain it could handle the occasional game the kids or myself would throw at it better than the iMac. Have to wait for the benchmarks to start showing up...
The 213 million people who don't play games also still buy PC's with Celerons in them, so go figure....
I'm not criticising you for not buying a $3,000 machine. We all make our choices, and you have just as much right to decide how you allocate your funds. But, your machine is not a $600 one, as someone pointed out. From the store, as most people's machines are, it would cost closer to $1,000.
My point was that *GAMERS* buy those $3,000 machines. I'm sure you know the type. They get LED feet for the machine. Memory cards with lights. They string those neon cords around and in the machine. They saw a hole in the panel so they can put a clear (illegal, no shielding) panel in to show all of their wonderful handiwork.
The Mini should be able to handle games that aren't first person shooters. Those are the worst. The rest, at least most of them, don't have as much of a graphics requirement.
Oh sorry, misunderstood. You were talking about things like plastic, polystyrene and cardboard?
Whatever, there's no way the parts cost of the 802.11 and bluetooth is $100. Apple would have to remove more than that to bring the price down to $499.
I don't know. Bluetooth is a HOT thing now. Someone might prefer to have one of the new wireless headphones than a built-in modem.
This would be true especially if your machine was in the bedroom, and your spouse (or whatever) is sleeping. Same for a dorm.
The modem is small, it just hangs off the back.
But its extra. A former PC user having to pay extra for a modem, while also having to buy a keyboard and mouse, may be a turn off to them. I would think it would be a turn off especially with the higher price.
You want to complain that Apple is not making architecture choices based on the uninformed customers who simply belives a higher clock number is better?
Who is Apple selling to, scientists?
I think we all thought the move to Intel would enable Apple to sell more computers based on being at least equal to PC computers speed wise. The Mini was slower than a similar priced PC, architecture or not.
Now, when PCs are advertised at 3 Ghz, Apple just releases a Intel based computer at 1.5Ghz.
Apple is a company that is trying to sell computers to consumers and grow its base. If they are going to some in at 1.5 Ghz (is this chip as fast as a P4 3Ghz?), then the price most certainly shouldn't go up.
Sometimes I wonder whether you guys realize that Apple needs to reach the consumer mindset when trying to sell machines.
I think we all thought the move to Intel would enable Apple to sell more computers based on being at least equal to PC computers speed wise. The Mini was slower than a similar priced PC, architecture or not.
Now, when PCs are advertised at 3 Ghz, Apple just releases a Intel based computer at 1.5Ghz.
Apple is a company that is trying to sell computers to consumers and grow its base. If they are going to some in at 1.5 Ghz (is this chip as fast as a P4 3Ghz?), then the price most certainly shouldn't go up.
Sometimes I wonder whether you guys realize that Apple needs to reach the consumer mindset when trying to sell machines.
Whilst I'm a very strong advocate of Apple giving consumers more choice, and expanding their market that way, I am glad that they are not doing what you suggest.
It is insane to suggest that Apple should use outdated technology just so that morons will buy their machines.
Once Intel's next-generation desktop chips arrive, the Pentium 4 will disappear and ridiculous clock-rates will be gone for a while.
Oh sorry, misunderstood. You were talking about things like plastic, polystyrene and cardboard?
Whatever, there's no way the parts cost of the 802.11 and bluetooth is $100. Apple would have to remove more than that to bring the price down to $499.
I'm also talking about things like a molded case for the board, or boards. PCI sockets, etc. A finished product, like one that can be installed easily is more than just the board and chips. That part might be no more than half the cost. These chips only cost a few bucks today. Even my external Bluetooth USB adapter I'm using only costs $29.95, including the packaging, molded case, etc. WiFi chips aren't much more. Look at the price for an entire WiFi router, with four 100MB ports, antenna's, power supply, packaging, etc?$39.95!
It doesn't cost Apple much to include this stuff as a built-in.
It costs far more to add as a build-to-order, because now they have to have these on hand, sitting on the shelves, installed by hand, and done as an off-line service.
Kodak used to offer transparancy film either mounted, or unmounted. You would think that mounting would cost more. But it didn't. They charged $1.25 more for having it unmounted.
It would have to be tagged, then the film would be removed from the work line. A person would then have to wrap the film, with a strip of paper, around a cardboard core, tape the end, and it insert into a special box. It then would have to get back into the work line after the mounting steps had been completed. I think Kodak lost money on every roll handled this way.
So you seemed to be getting less, when you were really getting more labor, and special materials.
It costs far more to add as a build-to-order, because now they have to have these on hand, sitting on the shelves, installed by hand, and done as an off-line service.
If the wireless were on a daughter card, I don't see why it would have to be fitted by hand. Surely you can fit a daughter card with a robot?
And, if the wireless is straight on the motherboard, you can either place the chips, or not place the chips. Not hard.
It was a 1080p Quicktime clip. It was choppy, like one or two frames every second. I think a core duo would be pushed to the limit as well. Better but not enough. It should be okay for 1080i MPEG2 or at least I hope so. Maybe someone here will do more involved testing when they get theirs.
Well, here's some wake up calls for those who thinks new imac will be a good HTPC or playing back any video format for that matter. The current intel IGP just plain sucks for all video play backs. You probably shouldn't even want to play 480i DVD titles on them.
If the wireless were on a daughter card, I don't see why it would have to be fitted by hand. Surely you can fit a daughter card with a robot?
And, if the wireless is straight on the motherboard, you can either place the chips, or not place the chips. Not hard.
When most of the orders are one way, and some are the other, those have to be removed from the ass'y lines and have the additions placed by other methods. The lines are constructed for the mass production of standard items. Anything that isn't standard has to be done seperately. Very often, this means hand placement.
The build-to-order products have their "specials" assembled off-line.
The ass'y line looks like a tree. Every time the product comes to a branch where a "special" must be done, it exits the line at that point. It's complex. But it works.
The equipment is not as verstile as you think. They do a run. The entire run must be the same. At the end of the line is the test jig. It tests the boards. All boards must be the same. That's the way mass production works.
Well, here's some wake up calls for those who thinks new imac will be a good HTPC or playing back any video format for that matter. The current intel IGP just plain sucks for all video play backs. You probably shouldn't even want to play 480i DVD titles on them.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
Slightly under 50%.
But, Apple has likely done surveys of their own customers. It's very possible that most Mac users ARE on broadband.
This is always a tough decision for a company to make. Have most of your customers that don't use a feature, pay for it, or not include it, so that the smaller percentage that DO use it, pay for it.
But they are trying to get new users. The Modem should be in there for them. I would think its more important for the modem to be in there than bluetooth on a low end machine.
Originally posted by melgross
They aren't packaged modules, but raw chips on the boards.
Are you sure about that? I suspect that you are right, but the G4 mini had the wireless on a daughter card. Until someone takes one of these apart, we don't know for sure.
Originally posted by melgross
Most of the gamers out there would laugh you silly for using a $600 PC to play games, and you know it.
That's why Alien, and other companies sell those $3,000+ machines.
This is a family machine. If that seems to be derogatory, that's sad. Most machines these days are bought for family use.
Never claimed to be a hard-core gamer, just disputing the idea that a $600 computer can't game. All I could afford, sorry to disappoint you!
I would buy a Mini for my family to replace my iMac G4, if I could be certain it could handle the occasional game the kids or myself would throw at it better than the iMac. Have to wait for the benchmarks to start showing up...
The 213 million people who don't play games also still buy PC's with Celerons in them, so go figure....
Originally posted by steve666
But they are trying to get new users. The Modem should be in there for them. I would think its more important for the modem to be in there than bluetooth on a low end machine.
I don't know. Bluetooth is a HOT thing now. Someone might prefer to have one of the new wireless headphones than a built-in modem.
This would be true especially if your machine was in the bedroom, and your spouse (or whatever) is sleeping. Same for a dorm.
The modem is small, it just hangs off the back.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Are you sure about that? I suspect that you are right, but the G4 mini had the wireless on a daughter card. Until someone takes one of these apart, we don't know for sure.
It could be a daughter card. That's why I said boards. The packaging costs more than you might think. The naked board would be much cheaper. And if there is no socket, even better.
You want to complain that Apple is not making architecture choices based on the uninformed customers who simply belives a higher clock number is better?
Originally posted by TenoBell
So Steve666 lets get this straight.
You want to complain that Apple is not making architecture choices based on the uninformed customers who simply belives a higher clock number is better?
Hey he has 666 in his handle for a reason. Evil personified ...jk
:P
Originally posted by iPoster
Never claimed to be a hard-core gamer, just disputing the idea that a $600 computer can't game. All I could afford, sorry to disappoint you!
I would buy a Mini for my family to replace my iMac G4, if I could be certain it could handle the occasional game the kids or myself would throw at it better than the iMac. Have to wait for the benchmarks to start showing up...
The 213 million people who don't play games also still buy PC's with Celerons in them, so go figure....
I'm not criticising you for not buying a $3,000 machine. We all make our choices, and you have just as much right to decide how you allocate your funds. But, your machine is not a $600 one, as someone pointed out. From the store, as most people's machines are, it would cost closer to $1,000.
My point was that *GAMERS* buy those $3,000 machines. I'm sure you know the type. They get LED feet for the machine. Memory cards with lights. They string those neon cords around and in the machine. They saw a hole in the panel so they can put a clear (illegal, no shielding) panel in to show all of their wonderful handiwork.
The Mini should be able to handle games that aren't first person shooters. Those are the worst. The rest, at least most of them, don't have as much of a graphics requirement.
Originally posted by melgross
The packaging costs more than you might think.
Oh sorry, misunderstood. You were talking about things like plastic, polystyrene and cardboard?
Whatever, there's no way the parts cost of the 802.11 and bluetooth is $100. Apple would have to remove more than that to bring the price down to $499.
Originally posted by melgross
I don't know. Bluetooth is a HOT thing now. Someone might prefer to have one of the new wireless headphones than a built-in modem.
This would be true especially if your machine was in the bedroom, and your spouse (or whatever) is sleeping. Same for a dorm.
The modem is small, it just hangs off the back.
But its extra. A former PC user having to pay extra for a modem, while also having to buy a keyboard and mouse, may be a turn off to them. I would think it would be a turn off especially with the higher price.
Originally posted by TenoBell
So Steve666 lets get this straight.
You want to complain that Apple is not making architecture choices based on the uninformed customers who simply belives a higher clock number is better?
Who is Apple selling to, scientists?
I think we all thought the move to Intel would enable Apple to sell more computers based on being at least equal to PC computers speed wise. The Mini was slower than a similar priced PC, architecture or not.
Now, when PCs are advertised at 3 Ghz, Apple just releases a Intel based computer at 1.5Ghz.
Apple is a company that is trying to sell computers to consumers and grow its base. If they are going to some in at 1.5 Ghz (is this chip as fast as a P4 3Ghz?), then the price most certainly shouldn't go up.
Sometimes I wonder whether you guys realize that Apple needs to reach the consumer mindset when trying to sell machines.
Originally posted by steve666
Who is Apple selling to, scientists?
I think we all thought the move to Intel would enable Apple to sell more computers based on being at least equal to PC computers speed wise. The Mini was slower than a similar priced PC, architecture or not.
Now, when PCs are advertised at 3 Ghz, Apple just releases a Intel based computer at 1.5Ghz.
Apple is a company that is trying to sell computers to consumers and grow its base. If they are going to some in at 1.5 Ghz (is this chip as fast as a P4 3Ghz?), then the price most certainly shouldn't go up.
Sometimes I wonder whether you guys realize that Apple needs to reach the consumer mindset when trying to sell machines.
Whilst I'm a very strong advocate of Apple giving consumers more choice, and expanding their market that way, I am glad that they are not doing what you suggest.
It is insane to suggest that Apple should use outdated technology just so that morons will buy their machines.
Once Intel's next-generation desktop chips arrive, the Pentium 4 will disappear and ridiculous clock-rates will be gone for a while.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Oh sorry, misunderstood. You were talking about things like plastic, polystyrene and cardboard?
Whatever, there's no way the parts cost of the 802.11 and bluetooth is $100. Apple would have to remove more than that to bring the price down to $499.
I'm also talking about things like a molded case for the board, or boards. PCI sockets, etc. A finished product, like one that can be installed easily is more than just the board and chips. That part might be no more than half the cost. These chips only cost a few bucks today. Even my external Bluetooth USB adapter I'm using only costs $29.95, including the packaging, molded case, etc. WiFi chips aren't much more. Look at the price for an entire WiFi router, with four 100MB ports, antenna's, power supply, packaging, etc?$39.95!
It doesn't cost Apple much to include this stuff as a built-in.
It costs far more to add as a build-to-order, because now they have to have these on hand, sitting on the shelves, installed by hand, and done as an off-line service.
Kodak used to offer transparancy film either mounted, or unmounted. You would think that mounting would cost more. But it didn't. They charged $1.25 more for having it unmounted.
It would have to be tagged, then the film would be removed from the work line. A person would then have to wrap the film, with a strip of paper, around a cardboard core, tape the end, and it insert into a special box. It then would have to get back into the work line after the mounting steps had been completed. I think Kodak lost money on every roll handled this way.
So you seemed to be getting less, when you were really getting more labor, and special materials.
Originally posted by melgross
It costs far more to add as a build-to-order, because now they have to have these on hand, sitting on the shelves, installed by hand, and done as an off-line service.
If the wireless were on a daughter card, I don't see why it would have to be fitted by hand. Surely you can fit a daughter card with a robot?
And, if the wireless is straight on the motherboard, you can either place the chips, or not place the chips. Not hard.
Originally posted by neumac
Cinebench Scores from the poster on MacNN
A bit of an improvement over an iMac G4 1Ghz/GeForce4MX anyway...
****************************************
Rendering (Single CPU): 81 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): --- CB-CPU
Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 101 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 257 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 118 CB-GFX
OpenGL Speedup: 2.55
Originally posted by 1984
It was a 1080p Quicktime clip. It was choppy, like one or two frames every second. I think a core duo would be pushed to the limit as well. Better but not enough. It should be okay for 1080i MPEG2 or at least I hope so. Maybe someone here will do more involved testing when they get theirs.
Well, here's some wake up calls for those who thinks new imac will be a good HTPC or playing back any video format for that matter. The current intel IGP just plain sucks for all video play backs. You probably shouldn't even want to play 480i DVD titles on them.
see it for yourself:
http://www.principledtechnologies.co...A/VidPlay1.pdf
Originally posted by Mr. H
If the wireless were on a daughter card, I don't see why it would have to be fitted by hand. Surely you can fit a daughter card with a robot?
And, if the wireless is straight on the motherboard, you can either place the chips, or not place the chips. Not hard.
When most of the orders are one way, and some are the other, those have to be removed from the ass'y lines and have the additions placed by other methods. The lines are constructed for the mass production of standard items. Anything that isn't standard has to be done seperately. Very often, this means hand placement.
The build-to-order products have their "specials" assembled off-line.
The ass'y line looks like a tree. Every time the product comes to a branch where a "special" must be done, it exits the line at that point. It's complex. But it works.
The equipment is not as verstile as you think. They do a run. The entire run must be the same. At the end of the line is the test jig. It tests the boards. All boards must be the same. That's the way mass production works.
Originally posted by bitemymac
Well, here's some wake up calls for those who thinks new imac will be a good HTPC or playing back any video format for that matter. The current intel IGP just plain sucks for all video play backs. You probably shouldn't even want to play 480i DVD titles on them.
see it for yourself:
http://www.principledtechnologies.co...A/VidPlay1.pdf
That's for the 945G. The 950 is a much better chip. The 950 is certified for Vista, I don't think the 945G is. Correct that, if I'm wrong.
Originally posted by melgross
That's for the 945G. The 950 is a much better chip. The 950 is certified for Vista, I don't think the 945G is. Correct that, if I'm wrong.
The PDF states "945G chipset with the 950 graphics media accelerator".
Originally posted by Mr. H
The PDF states "945G chipset with the 950 graphics media accelerator".
Well, then. You have corrected me.