But what if you want a bigger screen. I may not want to upgrade in a year or 2 but want an iMac power computer with a 23 - 30" screen - I can only do this via a PM & I don't need all that performance or such a big machine.....
But what if you want a bigger screen. I may not want to upgrade in a year or 2 but want an iMac power computer with a 23 - 30" screen - I can only do this via a PM & I don't need all that performance or such a big machine.....
You can span your desktop to a second display. (I do this with my 20" Intel iMac (to a 21" monitor) and I highly recommend it!)
You think that a good option, if you want a ONE 23" or 30" screen, is to by an iMac and connect said screen to it? What a kludge!
Why not? The kind of user that's going to splash out on a 30" Cinema Display isn't going to buy a low or mid range computer. If they really need that kind of screen real estate then spanning two screens is a very good idea.
Then again, if they really do need that kind of screen real estate, I suspect they'd also need a PowerMac.
Really, I think these arguments are silly and come back to people wanting a PowerMac for Mac mini money. Not going to happen.
Why not? The kind of user that's going to splash out on a 30" Cinema Display isn't going to buy a low or mid range computer. If they really need that kind of screen real estate then spanning two screens is a very good idea.
Then again, if they really do need that kind of screen real estate, I suspect they'd also need a PowerMac.
Really, I think these arguments are silly and come back to people wanting a PowerMac for Mac mini money. Not going to happen.
O.K.
I'm sorry, you're right, a 23" and 30" display is high-end. Someone who's in the market for a 30" display isn't in the market for a low-mid range computer.
I should have gone with smaller display sizes. It is conceivable that someone might want a 15" or 17" display, which is separate from their computer.
And no, this has got nothing to do with wanting a Power Mac for Mac mini money. Of course that isn't going to happen, it is not financially feasible. The kind of machine I and others are suggesting bears no resemblance to Power Mac specifications.
The mini is not low-end. The machine I suggest is low-end.
15" display is low-end, I grant you.
17" displays are also mid-range, used extensively, I am sure, by people who don't like the idea of integrated graphics.
It's low end when they finish off the lineup with a Celeron 4xx model, and I bet they will.
People who don't like the idea of integrated graphics yet won't buy an iMac are a very small percentage of the market. Last year, Intel had 47% of the graphics market. Most people really don't care.
IMHO the Mini doesn't really make sense. It's too expensive for the low end, beaten by the iMac soundly in the middle, and too slow for the high end. Size is it's only plus point. As a switchers box or second PC it has some merit.
I doubt if Apple can reach 10% with the current product line. It's a mac users dream, but the vast majority don't think like Mac users.
I agree. It will take some new products. A tablet pc maybe? Also I think that in order to expand market share the emphasis will come from the software side. Now that intel is in macs there are fewer ways to distinguish macs from pcs. Sure design is one way. But what's to stop dell from making a imac clone running windows? They already have small form pcs a la mac mini, although they are a terrible attempt copying the mini. Just my 2 cents.
It seems one of the big arguments for some $399 machine is "increase market share and thus increase developer support."
It's not just that the kind of machine I think Apple should produce would start at $399. It would also be much more configurable and therefore able to appeal to a much wider range of users.
Increased market share would also help to stem the tide of moronic websites, government portals, etc. that only work on Windows IE.
But what's to stop dell from making a imac clone running windows?
Nothing. However, so far their designers aren't a patch on Apple's designers. The Dell name isn't exactly a designer label either. Dell does what it does well, Apple does it's thing well. Expecting either of the two to suddenly change that is wishful thinking.
It'd be a risk for Dell to try and market on design against Apple.
It'd be a risk for Apple to try and compete with Dell in the budget PC arena.
That's happening anyway as web designers get more of a clue and IE's market share drops. A $399 mac won't really change that.
Significantly increased market share would. Note that web designers are only beginning to wake up to this since Firefox and Safari combined hit 10% market share. Significantly increased market share would come from an expanded range of more-configurable hardware that more people want to buy.
PureEdge recognizes that Macintosh is a popular operating system and that support for the Mac is often required by our customers.
In most cases, this means offering support for the PureEdge Viewer on the MacIntosh platform. With this in mind, PureEdge is offering support to MacIntosh users by embracing recent developments in Microsoft?s direction. With the release of Office 10 Professional, Microsoft has begun bundling Virtual PC for Mac with their office software as well as providing it as a separate product. Virtual PC is a Windows emulator that allows users to run PC software on a MacIntosh platform. By bundling Virtual PC with it's Office software, Microsoft has ensured broad distribution of the Virtual PC emulator, since most users rely on Microsoft Office to meet their day to day needs. Furthermore, it is clear that Microsoft will continue to support and update this product as needed. Given this large install base and on-going development by Microsoft, PureEdge has decided to adopt the Virtual PC emulator as it's primary means of providing support for MacIntosh computers
As I understand it, a native viewer is being worked on, but christ! They really did originally think that that was acceptable. They wouldn't have if Apple's market share was 10%.
IMHO the Mini doesn't really make sense. It's too expensive for the low end, beaten by the iMac soundly in the middle, and too slow for the high end. Size is it's only plus point. As a switchers box or second PC it has some merit.
Mac Mini 1.66Ghz, 1GB Ram $899 - does 1080p streams (we think)
Sceptre 37" LCD HDTV $1,499 - does 1080p from DVI
$2398 + Tax and Shipping & bluetooth keyboard + mouse.
It's completely wireless except for power and DVI to the TV (and cable to the TV). 802.11g to the router. Bluetooth to the keyboard/mouse.
You want to be reasonably close to the TV when using it as a PC but you can be around 4' and almost be about the same as 2' with a 20" display.
Would better graphics be good? Sure. But as long as the Mini can handle 1080p streams and do reasonable scaling to 1080p for DVDs its not a bad little media center PC out of the box for Q1 2006.
Much better than the old mini. No DVR but it does have photocasting and all the other nice little features of .mac as well as iTunes.
Significantly increased market share would. Note that web designers are only beginning to wake up to this since Firefox and Safari combined hit 10% market share.
No, most of us take pride in making websites cross browser compatible and have done for years. It's not difficult. There's very little that isn't cross browser compatible today and what isn't, is well known. The problem isn't usually the designer but the technologist pulling the strings behind it. That said, you do get .net monkeys that build sites in MS's toolset blissfully unaware of other browsers. I don't think that will ever change though.
I'd bet the grants.gov site uses active-x and an entirely microsoft back end. Once you start down that path, the outcome at the end may be incredibly difficult to make cross browser compatible. I'm not sure market share will change that as it still takes an enlightened manager somewhere along the path that knows of things other than Microsoft.
Comments
Originally posted by drnat
But what if you want a bigger screen. I may not want to upgrade in a year or 2 but want an iMac power computer with a 23 - 30" screen - I can only do this via a PM & I don't need all that performance or such a big machine.....
So buy a 23 or 30" screen. Problem solved.
Originally posted by drnat
But what if you want a bigger screen. I may not want to upgrade in a year or 2 but want an iMac power computer with a 23 - 30" screen - I can only do this via a PM & I don't need all that performance or such a big machine.....
You can span your desktop to a second display. (I do this with my 20" Intel iMac (to a 21" monitor) and I highly recommend it!)
Originally posted by aegisdesign
So buy a 23 or 30" screen. Problem solved.
Did you actually just say that?
You think that a good option, if you want a ONE 23" or 30" screen, is to by an iMac and connect said screen to it? What a kludge!
Originally posted by Mr. H
Did you actually just say that?
You think that a good option, if you want a ONE 23" or 30" screen, is to by an iMac and connect said screen to it? What a kludge!
You're just being overly argumentative. If you want more desktop real estate, spanning is a real option (and a decent one at that!).
Yes, you are locked into that primary iMac display...and if that is a problem for some users, they should definitely not go with the iMac.
Like I said before...perhaps we wait and see what Apple does with the revamped PowerMac line.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Did you actually just say that?
You think that a good option, if you want a ONE 23" or 30" screen, is to by an iMac and connect said screen to it? What a kludge!
Why not? The kind of user that's going to splash out on a 30" Cinema Display isn't going to buy a low or mid range computer. If they really need that kind of screen real estate then spanning two screens is a very good idea.
Then again, if they really do need that kind of screen real estate, I suspect they'd also need a PowerMac.
Really, I think these arguments are silly and come back to people wanting a PowerMac for Mac mini money. Not going to happen.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Why not? The kind of user that's going to splash out on a 30" Cinema Display isn't going to buy a low or mid range computer. If they really need that kind of screen real estate then spanning two screens is a very good idea.
Then again, if they really do need that kind of screen real estate, I suspect they'd also need a PowerMac.
Really, I think these arguments are silly and come back to people wanting a PowerMac for Mac mini money. Not going to happen.
O.K.
I'm sorry, you're right, a 23" and 30" display is high-end. Someone who's in the market for a 30" display isn't in the market for a low-mid range computer.
I should have gone with smaller display sizes. It is conceivable that someone might want a 15" or 17" display, which is separate from their computer.
And no, this has got nothing to do with wanting a Power Mac for Mac mini money. Of course that isn't going to happen, it is not financially feasible. The kind of machine I and others are suggesting bears no resemblance to Power Mac specifications.
Originally posted by Mr. H
I should have gone with smaller display sizes. It is conceivable that someone might want a 15" or 17" display, which is separate from their computer.
And that's low end and is exactly where the Mac Mini is.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
And that's low end and is exactly where the Mac Mini is.
The mini is not low-end. The machine I suggest is low-end.
15" display is low-end, I grant you.
17" displays are also mid-range, used extensively, I am sure, by people who don't like the idea of integrated graphics.
Originally posted by melgross
If Apple can reach 10%, and I think they can, then I think the mindshare of people will tilt further, and Apple will continue to rise.
It's already easier than it was, I notice. The more people that have Macs, the easier it is for someone else to consider one.
I doubt if Apple can reach 10% with the current product line. It's a mac users dream, but the vast majority don't think like Mac users.
Originally posted by Mr. H
The mini is not low-end. The machine I suggest is low-end.
15" display is low-end, I grant you.
17" displays are also mid-range, used extensively, I am sure, by people who don't like the idea of integrated graphics.
It's low end when they finish off the lineup with a Celeron 4xx model, and I bet they will.
People who don't like the idea of integrated graphics yet won't buy an iMac are a very small percentage of the market. Last year, Intel had 47% of the graphics market. Most people really don't care.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
IMHO the Mini doesn't really make sense. It's too expensive for the low end, beaten by the iMac soundly in the middle, and too slow for the high end. Size is it's only plus point. As a switchers box or second PC it has some merit.
My exact thoughts.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
I doubt if Apple can reach 10% with the current product line. It's a mac users dream, but the vast majority don't think like Mac users.
I agree. It will take some new products. A tablet pc maybe? Also I think that in order to expand market share the emphasis will come from the software side. Now that intel is in macs there are fewer ways to distinguish macs from pcs. Sure design is one way. But what's to stop dell from making a imac clone running windows? They already have small form pcs a la mac mini, although they are a terrible attempt copying the mini. Just my 2 cents.
But do people that spend $399 on a computer actually buy much of any software?
It seems unlikely. It would help with maybe getting better video compatability on the web for macs, but beyond that I don't think I see it.
Originally posted by Flounder
It seems one of the big arguments for some $399 machine is "increase market share and thus increase developer support."
It's not just that the kind of machine I think Apple should produce would start at $399. It would also be much more configurable and therefore able to appeal to a much wider range of users.
Increased market share would also help to stem the tide of moronic websites, government portals, etc. that only work on Windows IE.
Originally posted by backtomac
But what's to stop dell from making a imac clone running windows?
Nothing. However, so far their designers aren't a patch on Apple's designers. The Dell name isn't exactly a designer label either. Dell does what it does well, Apple does it's thing well. Expecting either of the two to suddenly change that is wishful thinking.
It'd be a risk for Dell to try and market on design against Apple.
It'd be a risk for Apple to try and compete with Dell in the budget PC arena.
Originally posted by Mr. H
Increased market share would also help to stem the tide of moronic websites, government portals, etc. that only work on Windows IE.
That's happening anyway as web designers get more of a clue and IE's market share drops. A $399 mac won't really change that.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
That's happening anyway as web designers get more of a clue and IE's market share drops. A $399 mac won't really change that.
Significantly increased market share would. Note that web designers are only beginning to wake up to this since Firefox and Safari combined hit 10% market share. Significantly increased market share would come from an expanded range of more-configurable hardware that more people want to buy.
From a thread I linked to earlier:
PureEdge Support for the Mac
PureEdge recognizes that Macintosh is a popular operating system and that support for the Mac is often required by our customers.
In most cases, this means offering support for the PureEdge Viewer on the MacIntosh platform. With this in mind, PureEdge is offering support to MacIntosh users by embracing recent developments in Microsoft?s direction. With the release of Office 10 Professional, Microsoft has begun bundling Virtual PC for Mac with their office software as well as providing it as a separate product. Virtual PC is a Windows emulator that allows users to run PC software on a MacIntosh platform. By bundling Virtual PC with it's Office software, Microsoft has ensured broad distribution of the Virtual PC emulator, since most users rely on Microsoft Office to meet their day to day needs. Furthermore, it is clear that Microsoft will continue to support and update this product as needed. Given this large install base and on-going development by Microsoft, PureEdge has decided to adopt the Virtual PC emulator as it's primary means of providing support for MacIntosh computers
As I understand it, a native viewer is being worked on, but christ! They really did originally think that that was acceptable. They wouldn't have if Apple's market share was 10%.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
It'd be a risk for Dell to try and market on design against Apple.
B]
I think its risky for dell not to. They have to copy good original design. They certainly aren't going to come up with it on their own.
It'd be a risk for Apple to try and compete with Dell in the budget PC arena.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you here 100%.
Originally posted by aegisdesign
IMHO the Mini doesn't really make sense. It's too expensive for the low end, beaten by the iMac soundly in the middle, and too slow for the high end. Size is it's only plus point. As a switchers box or second PC it has some merit.
Mac Mini 1.66Ghz, 1GB Ram $899 - does 1080p streams (we think)
Sceptre 37" LCD HDTV $1,499 - does 1080p from DVI
$2398 + Tax and Shipping & bluetooth keyboard + mouse.
It's completely wireless except for power and DVI to the TV (and cable to the TV). 802.11g to the router. Bluetooth to the keyboard/mouse.
You want to be reasonably close to the TV when using it as a PC but you can be around 4' and almost be about the same as 2' with a 20" display.
Would better graphics be good? Sure. But as long as the Mini can handle 1080p streams and do reasonable scaling to 1080p for DVDs its not a bad little media center PC out of the box for Q1 2006.
Much better than the old mini. No DVR but it does have photocasting and all the other nice little features of .mac as well as iTunes.
Vinea
Originally posted by Mr. H
Significantly increased market share would. Note that web designers are only beginning to wake up to this since Firefox and Safari combined hit 10% market share.
No, most of us take pride in making websites cross browser compatible and have done for years. It's not difficult. There's very little that isn't cross browser compatible today and what isn't, is well known. The problem isn't usually the designer but the technologist pulling the strings behind it. That said, you do get .net monkeys that build sites in MS's toolset blissfully unaware of other browsers. I don't think that will ever change though.
I'd bet the grants.gov site uses active-x and an entirely microsoft back end. Once you start down that path, the outcome at the end may be incredibly difficult to make cross browser compatible. I'm not sure market share will change that as it still takes an enlightened manager somewhere along the path that knows of things other than Microsoft.