That's close to impossible. It would have to be hardware encoded, and they haven't done that yet.
That could be broken too; like WGA with XP/Vista, or OGA with Office, or the countless hardware dongle hacks for Autocad and 3D Studio Max - they'll all get broken sooner or later.
And IIRC with the hacked OSX images, all they did was replace or remove a couple of files.
As for the Psystar Hackintosh, I like the case actually, but I rather build my own - Apple needs to get with the program, and build a better Mini/xMac, the iMac is good for some, but others still want a sub-$1000 tower, like the Psystar, just not as flaky. And the Mini is getting long in the tooth.
In other respects, I'd say it'd be wiser to load up Ubuntu/Kubuntu 8.04 on a PC, if purely looking for an alternative to Windows, but getting OSX on a cheap tower has its advantages too.
I get your point. Actually there are quite a few of us here, on these boards, who WOULD like to see an xMac, whatever that may mean.
The question is whether Apple would sell enough of them to make up for the loss in sales from all the other desktop lines.
I think that business would be the biggest possibility, not the consumer. But, Apple isn't much interested in that yet.
Maybe if they do decide to get back into that market, we will see one.
I can tell you this, unless Apple does have a proper $1500 PowerMac replacement, they've lost my business when it comes to desktops (I'll stick with a macbook though). I can afford neither three grand for a Mac Pro and accessories nor the severe loss of capability I've had with the iMac.
And yet you replied and quoted MY message, not his, accusing ME of whining. If you're going to use language like that, you'd better make damn sure you're addressing the right person.
I was responding to your post. Who's post should I quote? I was addressing YOU that was defending HIM with non-sequitors.
Presuming that you don't like wireless devices (as you state) then you wouldn't therefore whine about wires like the OP and we have no point of contention.
I therefore suggest you make "damn sure" of the points you choose to defend if you don't like folks responding to you. Because I was "damn sure" that the point that there were 4 total cords in the system was an idiotic rejoinder to the fact there was only ONE cord actually attached to the iMac.
If you want an uncluttered iMac it is possible even with lots of expansions.
Quote:
Nobody said otherwise.
HE said otherwise. YOU defended him and his silly assertion.
Quote:
I just don't want to pay extra for wireless this, that and the other thing when wired works perfectly for me.
So don't. Apple doesn't force you to.
Quote:
Wireless keyboards cost more, as do wireless mice, printers, drives, Airport Express, etc. I also don't like the idea of broadcasting any data I access on my hard drive, WPA2 or no WPA2.
I'm happy for you. So exactly why did you inject yourself into this little debate?
Quote:
Just where is this data that AIOs are stealing market share at the expense of towers? Citation, please.
Apple desktops sales are growing faster than the market I believe it was stated somewhere. If true then Apple, who makes largely AIOs, is taking share from traditional desktop makers who largely makes towers.
I can tell you this, unless Apple does have a proper $1500 PowerMac replacement, they've lost my business when it comes to desktops (I'll stick with a macbook though). I can afford neither three grand for a Mac Pro and accessories nor the severe loss of capability I've had with the iMac.
Jeez, you've been saying that since 2005 when I got here. Have you bought a desktop in three bloody years? If not, pray tell why Apple cares about your business?
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and buy a Psystar? I would if I wanted a cheap mac tower so badly.
No desktop, just an ALU iMac. I gave Apple the benefit of the doubt and got burned. Seriously, why are you so adamant that nobody gets their needs served so doesn't think exactly like you?
No desktop, just an ALU iMac. I gave Apple the benefit of the doubt and got burned. Seriously, why are you so adamant that nobody gets their needs served so doesn't think exactly like you?
I'm not adamant that Apple SHOULDN'T make an xMac. I think they should and I'd like one.
I'm adamant that Apple doesn't NEED to make an xMac to be successful and serving its desired customer base.
Apple has diverged from your needs. They aren't likely to change anytime soon. So you can stay and be constantly bitter as you sound. Or you can get a different computer from some other vendor. OSX is just an operating system. A nice one, but nothing to pine over.
You don't like you iMac, I'm sure you can sell it on eBay and get a better desktop from Dell since you feel so "burned".
I can tell you this, unless Apple does have a proper $1500 PowerMac replacement, they've lost my business when it comes to desktops (I'll stick with a macbook though). I can afford neither three grand for a Mac Pro and accessories nor the severe loss of capability I've had with the iMac.
My 733 MHz G4 PowerMac was replaced by a used G5. Now I've got Leopard running in my office. I did buy a Time Capsule and it's great. I'm writing a book and I can look back at any revision. Plus the wireless let's me use a laptop in bed and access all the G5 files. I like to be lazy.
There's a big difference between an AIO and a notebook. A notebook has one big advantage: it's portable. People think they're going to take it places or that it'll be easier to take down to the shop if it needs service. So they think. I know several people who bought laptops for just those reasons. Not desktop replacements, just low-end laptops. The laptops never leave their desks. Just where is this data that AIOs are stealing market share at the expense of towers? Citation, please.
Yes, there is, but it regards to the debate on whether customers want a simple, all encompassing machine or one they can upgrade over the years notebooks and AIO desktops are increasing marketshare while PC towers are falling. There is plenty of articles supporting this data. AI has plenty of articles on the subject.
I'd like to see official estimates on people whoa re buying notebooks for thei primary machine without the intention of moving it from it's primary location. I know of too many people who use Windows, Linux or OS X who have replaced a tower with a notebook just to keep on their desk.
I was responding to your post. Who's post should I quote? I was addressing YOU that was defending HIM with non-sequitors.
Presuming that you don't like wireless devices (as you state) then you wouldn't therefore whine about wires like the OP and we have no point of contention.
I wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Not everyone likes so many wireless devices. For one thing, there's a risk of interference. For another, wired connections are almost always faster than wireless. You can keep 802.11n at a theoretical 248Mbps. I'd rather have SATA drives at a theoretical 3Gbps.
Which you quoted and replied with:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Well gee...if you don't like wireless devices why would you whine about having wires? You wouldn't. One extra cable to a dorbo or firewire enclosure isn't going to make much difference.
Just where was I "defending" him? I just wrote that I didn't care for wireless and you suddenly ask why am I whining. Your clearly sarcastic tone doesn't help get your point across.
Quote:
I'm happy for you. So exactly why did you inject yourself into this little debate?
I see. So instead of a public forum, this is now just a private little debate between you and him? Did you maybe consider that I was replying to you, not to you replying to him replying to you replying to him?
Quote:
Apple desktops sales are growing faster than the market I believe it was stated somewhere. If true then Apple, who makes largely AIOs, is taking share from traditional desktop makers who largely makes towers.
Is this the extent of your evidence? This precious article of yours lumps together iMacs and Mac Pros in its "higher sales" figures. It does not in any way, shape or form say the iMacs were devastating the Mac Pros. And even if they were, you don't think the fact that Mac Pros cost twice as much as iMacs might have anything to do with that sales disparity?
That could be broken too; like WGA with XP/Vista, or OGA with Office, or the countless hardware dongle hacks for Autocad and 3D Studio Max - they'll all get broken sooner or later.
It's possible, but maybe not. A dongle isn't what I meant. Apple could now (with PA) design a chip that would go into their machines that would have functionality that the OS requires, and that couldn't be duplicated with software. That's very possible. there are timing situations that software simply can't simulate.
I happen to have my Monaco dongle here sitting next to my keyboard.
Quote:
And IIRC with the hacked OSX images, all they did was replace or remove a couple of files.
Yes, but again, that's not what I meant.
Quote:
As for the Psystar Hackintosh, I like the case actually, but I rather build my own - Apple needs to get with the program, and build a better Mini/xMac, the iMac is good for some, but others still want a sub-$1000 tower, like the Psystar, just not as flaky. And the Mini is getting long in the tooth.
In other respects, I'd say it'd be wiser to load up Ubuntu/Kubuntu 8.04 on a PC, if purely looking for an alternative to Windows, but getting OSX on a cheap tower has its advantages too.
Right after the G5 Powermac came out, I called for a mini tower configuration. At the time, I could see it for $999. If I still had my manufacturing company, I could have done it myself, except, of course, for the compatibility.
That compatibility is why only Apple can do this right.
I'm willing to have Apple take the chance on it, but, apparently, they are not.
I can tell you this, unless Apple does have a proper $1500 PowerMac replacement, they've lost my business when it comes to desktops (I'll stick with a macbook though). I can afford neither three grand for a Mac Pro and accessories nor the severe loss of capability I've had with the iMac.
I'm not against you on this. Read my post just above.
Just where was I "defending" him? I just wrote that I didn't care for wireless and you suddenly ask why am I whining. Your clearly sarcastic tone doesn't help get your point across.
Perhaps its in that previous paragraph you didn't requote here? Nah. Couldn't be because you made a snarky comment about how many cords there were.
In addition you were directly responding to this statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The problem with some folks is that they don't upgrade to the latest wireless technologies but whine about wires anyway.
So again, if you don't like wireless technologies, you naturally wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) whine about wires on your desk. Meaning you probably have no dog in this fight. So why would anyone care in the context of this discussion that you don't like wireless technology?
Clive: Apple makes slim machines but you need to clutter them up with wires to expand them. This is silly.
Vinea: You can use wireless technologies to avoid the wires.
Kolchak: I don't like fruit.
WTF?
Quote:
Did you maybe consider that I was replying to you, not to you replying to him replying to you replying to him?
Did you maybe consider that the "you" was the generic you and not you in specific? Parse that sentence again.
Quote:
Is this the extent of your evidence? This precious article of yours lumps together iMacs and Mac Pros in its "higher sales" figures. It does not in any way, shape or form say the iMacs were devastating the Mac Pros. And even if they were, you don't think the fact that Mac Pros cost twice as much as iMacs might have anything to do with that sales disparity?
You asked solipsism for a citation so I linked the first one for you found from a simple google search you seem incapable of doing yourself. Apple sales of desktops is growing faster than the sales of desktops by other makers. Therefore AIOs are gaining share at the expense of towers because why? Because Apple sells more AIOs than they do towers. Therefore if Apple is gaining desktop share then AIOs are also gaining desktop share. Who can AIOs take share away from? Gee, towers.
Which is exactly the evidence you asked for. However, I guess if you can't accept that both notebooks AND AIOs can both gain share at the expense of towers then the logic is too difficult for you to follow.
Mac Pro vs iMac sales doesn't come into play at all except for you confuse yourself with.
I'm going to clear the air. I can tell you exactly what Cupertino thinks about clones/hacked machines how they are now.
They don't think about them.
Mr. Jobs & CO personally don't care if people install OS X on machines like this. While they would never publicly endorse it, these hacks don't work well, often becoming outdated with each new OS revision or even a simple update.
All it does is create a user who loves OS X, and longs for a real Mac.
No harm, No foul.
If it happened on a large quality scale Apple would win, enterprise will support the real thing.
Apple doesn't worry about this. I know for a fact there are several windows generic machines used to run OS X on at Apple's headquarters. Mostly for testing, but often strangely OS X includes video drivers for cards that it never uses... OS X dev group has machines sitting under desk.
I get your point. Actually there are quite a few of us here, on these boards, who WOULD like to see an xMac, whatever that may mean.
The question is whether Apple would sell enough of them to make up for the loss in sales from all the other desktop lines.
I don't think there's any question at all. The xMac would be just like the iPod Nano. Both Apple and many of their sycophants loudly proclaimed that there was no need or market for flash based iPods, that HDs are where it's at. Then the shuffle and Nano came out, and Apple's only problem was keeping up with demand.
I have no doubt whatsoever that if Apple produced a machine that roughly equalled the specs of the Psystar, even at twice the price, that they would not be able to keep up with the damand for that product either.
Besides that, so what if it took from some of the iMac sales? They'd be still selling units, and since standard desktop parts cost less, they could actually make more money per unit sold. I know in my case, I'm still extremely bitter about my iMac purchase a couple months ago. Apple presented me with no acceptable options. I only bought the iMac because it was the least bad offering Apple had. The difference had there been an xMac for me to buy would not have been a lost sale from someone who otherwise wanted an iMac, but from someone who was forced to buy something he didn't want in the first place. I don't see the whole "but we can force them to buy things they don't want, and if we give them what they want, they might buy it instead of what we are forcing on them" as a valid argument.
Apple desktops sales are growing faster than the market I believe it was stated somewhere. If true then Apple, who makes largely AIOs, is taking share from traditional desktop makers who largely makes towers.
The fact that Apple's desktop market share(re: probably due to iMac sales) is growing faster than the rest of the industry, does not in and of itself contradict any assertion that an xMac might accelerate this growth or even affect the bottom line.
Anyone can assume anything and you know what they say about "ass-u-me".
The quickest and easiest way to determine this, would be for Apple to introduce an xMac style computer, gauge the sales and bottom line. If it adversely affects the company, discontinue it just as they have with the previous G3, G4 and G5 versions.
note: ain't happening though, because it apparently goes against some basic philosophy for consumer desktop computer design Apple holds dearly.
I don't think there's any question at all. The xMac would be just like the iPod Nano. Both Apple and many of their sycophants loudly proclaimed that there was no need or market for flash based iPods, that HDs are where it's at. Then the shuffle and Nano came out, and Apple's only problem was keeping up with demand.
I have no doubt whatsoever that if Apple produced a machine that roughly equalled the specs of the Psystar, even at twice the price, that they would not be able to keep up with the damand for that product either.
Besides that, so what if it took from some of the iMac sales? They'd be still selling units, and since standard desktop parts cost less, they could actually make more money per unit sold. I know in my case, I'm still extremely bitter about my iMac purchase a couple months ago. Apple presented me with no acceptable options. I only bought the iMac because it was the least bad offering Apple had. The difference had there been an xMac for me to buy would not have been a lost sale from someone who otherwise wanted an iMac, but from someone who was forced to buy something he didn't want in the first place. I don't see the whole "but we can force them to buy things they don't want, and if we give them what they want, they might buy it instead of what we are forcing on them" as a valid argument.
I don't consider the iMac to be a "bad" choice. I just bought two 24" 3.06 GHz models, for my wife and daughter. I wouldn't have bought them if I thought they were a bad choice.
But, would I have bought a mini tower with one dual core chip, an Express 2 bus with one 16x slot and one 4x slot with a graphics card, space for two HDD's, and eight GB RAM instead? For my daughter, sure. for my wife, maybe.
But, then, we aren't the average consumers, are we?
I mostly (I emphasize the word "mostly".) agree with this new Macworld article that just surfaced today:
The fact that Apple's desktop market share(re: probably due to iMac sales) is growing faster than the rest of the industry, does not in and of itself contradict any assertion that an xMac might accelerate this growth or even affect the bottom line.
Anyone can assume anything and you know what they say about "ass-u-me".
The quickest and easiest way to determine this, would be for Apple to introduce an xMac style computer, gauge the sales and bottom line. If it adversely affects the company, discontinue it just as they have with the previous G3, G4 and G5 versions.
note: ain't happening though, because it apparently goes against some basic philosophy for consumer desktop computer design Apple holds dearly.
Don't forget, Rick, that anyone can make a joke about the word "assume". But what you're saying are also assumptions, even if you don't use the word itself.
Everything we are saying here are our assumptions.
It has its points, but there are things I do disagree with. CPU speed is not the problem. The new machines are plenty fast enough in clock speed and in most cases the Apps are not going to be able to take advantage of quad cores. In most cases, the 2.8ghz and 3.0ghz iMacs are going to be as fast as Mac Pros. If you're running things that are mostly CPU intensive, the iMac is going to be a very good option.
There are other things to consider though. Anyone who thinks there is anything as too much RAM is kidding themselves. In fact, the ceiling of how much memory you can put in a machine will have more to do with with how long you keep your computer than your CPU. It was RAM starved at 1GB, I don't feel too safe at 2GB and this computer was bought in the fall.
Then there is the optical drive. As much as Apple wants to think we're in a post optical disc world, they're only half right. Music for the most part is, video is years away from the place. You're going to have to burn your iMovie or FCE productions onto a disk. The iMac can do this if you're willing to wait a little longer for the 8x drive. In some cases, it can be a major pain. However, speed aside the slot loading variant has one fatal flaw, it cannot use the increasingly popular 3.5" camcorder DVDs and as far as I know there is no adaptor. That means if you're working if those DVDs for either a client or a family member, you either need them to bring in the camcorder or spend a $100, some desk space, a port, and an outlet on an external DVD burner. In most cases you're going to need to use on of the all to few USB2.0 ports because drives with a firewire port are becoming very rare.
Hard drive space. Occasionally, we (or our computer manufacturer) will lowball our requirements for space, especially when it comes to video. If you find yourself running out of room, you have two choices. First, you can get an external hard drive and add more desk clutter. Second, you drive a couple hours to the nearest Apple store and have them do it for you. Either one is going to be expensive.
Sad part is that is who Apple used to be the company for.
Apple was never for the average consumer. Never!
Their consumer machines were always terrible, the performas in particular.
They were always for the geeks (Apple II), and later, the professional, schools, and artists.
Quote:
It has its points, but there are things I do disagree with. CPU speed is not the problem. The new machines are plenty fast enough in clock speed and in most cases the Apps are not going to be able to take advantage of quad cores. In most cases, the 2.8ghz and 3.0ghz iMacs are going to be as fast as Mac Pros. If you're running things that are mostly CPU intensive, the iMac is going to be a very good option.
Exactly.
Quote:
There are other things to consider though. Anyone who thinks there is anything as too much RAM is kidding themselves. In fact, the ceiling of how much memory you can put in a machine will have more to do with with how long you keep your computer than your CPU. It was RAM starved at 1GB, I don't feel too safe at 2GB and this computer was bought in the fall.
Let me tell you something about RAM. RAM is overhyped.
The iMac can take 4GB. Believe it or not, that's more than enough for most professional users. If you are a PS user, you just have to go to the bottom of the image window, and check efficiency. If that's at 100%, then you're fine, no matter what else you may have running.
More RAM won't matter. If you do video editing with FCP, you don't even need 4 GB.
The few people who actually do need more RAM are users who also need the extra cores, and other features of a Mac Pro. But, there are fewer of them than you may think.
Feeling "safe" isn't an issue. It's whether you actually do need the memory, which is different.
If you're talking about a Mini, then it really isn't intended for work that might require more than 2 GB, which is all most people need.
If we see an upgrade to them, they may very well take 4GB, and that would end that argument.
Quote:
Then there is the optical drive. As much as Apple wants to think we're in a post optical disc world, they're only half right. Music for the most part is, video is years away from the place. You're going to have to burn your iMovie or FCE productions onto a disk. The iMac can do this if you're willing to wait a little longer for the 8x drive. In some cases, it can be a major pain. However, speed aside the slot loading variant has one fatal flaw, it cannot use the increasingly popular 3.5" camcorder DVDs and as far as I know there is no adaptor. That means if you're working if those DVDs for either a client or a family member, you either need them to bring in the camcorder or spend a $100, some desk space, a port, and an outlet on an external DVD burner. In most cases you're going to need to use on of the all to few USB2.0 ports because drives with a firewire port are becoming very rare.
Those "increasingly popular" camcorders aren't so popular. What we're going to see is the increased proliferation of camcorders that use Flash for storage, now that it has become cheap, and large enough. One hour of MiniDv at highest quality requires 11 GB of storage, and it doesn't need fast Flash either.
Quote:
Hard drive space. Occasionally, we (or our computer manufacturer) will lowball our requirements for space, especially when it comes to video. If you find yourself running out of room, you have two choices. First, you can get an external hard drive and add more desk clutter. Second, you drive a couple hours to the nearest Apple store and have them do it for you. Either one is going to be expensive.
Adding an external is what most PC'ers do when they buy more drives for their "upgradable" machines. I don't see that as an issue. You can put it behind the thin computer, if it's an iMac, or buy one of those neat devices that adds 1.5inches to the bottom of a Mini and allows one terabyte per case.
The fact that Apple's desktop market share(re: probably due to iMac sales) is growing faster than the rest of the industry, does not in and of itself contradict any assertion that an xMac might accelerate this growth or even affect the bottom line.
Anyone can assume anything and you know what they say about "ass-u-me".
The quickest and easiest way to determine this, would be for Apple to introduce an xMac style computer, gauge the sales and bottom line. If it adversely affects the company, discontinue it just as they have with the previous G3, G4 and G5 versions.
note: ain't happening though, because it apparently goes against some basic philosophy for consumer desktop computer design Apple holds dearly.
Which has zero to do with the question of if AIOs was taking share from desktops. Answer: it is.
I make no assumptions and you are free to draw your own conclusions.
I do find it interesting that Dell now offers an AIO along with Sony and Gateway. I'm not sure they would bother if they didn't see some growth in that area so in effect your test has occured in the reverse where a tower maker has added an AIO and have thus far kept it.
Also note that Sony no longer makes a tower.
And note that Apple has made more affordable towers in the past even under Steve as you point out. The G4 and G5 ones. They see no compelling economic reasons to do so any longer.
Comments
That's close to impossible. It would have to be hardware encoded, and they haven't done that yet.
That could be broken too; like WGA with XP/Vista, or OGA with Office, or the countless hardware dongle hacks for Autocad and 3D Studio Max - they'll all get broken sooner or later.
And IIRC with the hacked OSX images, all they did was replace or remove a couple of files.
As for the Psystar Hackintosh, I like the case actually, but I rather build my own - Apple needs to get with the program, and build a better Mini/xMac, the iMac is good for some, but others still want a sub-$1000 tower, like the Psystar, just not as flaky. And the Mini is getting long in the tooth.
In other respects, I'd say it'd be wiser to load up Ubuntu/Kubuntu 8.04 on a PC, if purely looking for an alternative to Windows, but getting OSX on a cheap tower has its advantages too.
I get your point. Actually there are quite a few of us here, on these boards, who WOULD like to see an xMac, whatever that may mean.
The question is whether Apple would sell enough of them to make up for the loss in sales from all the other desktop lines.
I think that business would be the biggest possibility, not the consumer. But, Apple isn't much interested in that yet.
Maybe if they do decide to get back into that market, we will see one.
I can tell you this, unless Apple does have a proper $1500 PowerMac replacement, they've lost my business when it comes to desktops (I'll stick with a macbook though). I can afford neither three grand for a Mac Pro and accessories nor the severe loss of capability I've had with the iMac.
And yet you replied and quoted MY message, not his, accusing ME of whining. If you're going to use language like that, you'd better make damn sure you're addressing the right person.
I was responding to your post. Who's post should I quote? I was addressing YOU that was defending HIM with non-sequitors.
Presuming that you don't like wireless devices (as you state) then you wouldn't therefore whine about wires like the OP and we have no point of contention.
I therefore suggest you make "damn sure" of the points you choose to defend if you don't like folks responding to you. Because I was "damn sure" that the point that there were 4 total cords in the system was an idiotic rejoinder to the fact there was only ONE cord actually attached to the iMac.
If you want an uncluttered iMac it is possible even with lots of expansions.
Nobody said otherwise.
HE said otherwise. YOU defended him and his silly assertion.
I just don't want to pay extra for wireless this, that and the other thing when wired works perfectly for me.
So don't. Apple doesn't force you to.
Wireless keyboards cost more, as do wireless mice, printers, drives, Airport Express, etc. I also don't like the idea of broadcasting any data I access on my hard drive, WPA2 or no WPA2.
I'm happy for you. So exactly why did you inject yourself into this little debate?
Just where is this data that AIOs are stealing market share at the expense of towers? Citation, please.
Apple desktops sales are growing faster than the market I believe it was stated somewhere. If true then Apple, who makes largely AIOs, is taking share from traditional desktop makers who largely makes towers.
Here you go:
http://www.techradar.com/news/comput...ebruary-268369
I can tell you this, unless Apple does have a proper $1500 PowerMac replacement, they've lost my business when it comes to desktops (I'll stick with a macbook though). I can afford neither three grand for a Mac Pro and accessories nor the severe loss of capability I've had with the iMac.
Jeez, you've been saying that since 2005 when I got here. Have you bought a desktop in three bloody years? If not, pray tell why Apple cares about your business?
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and buy a Psystar? I would if I wanted a cheap mac tower so badly.
No desktop, just an ALU iMac. I gave Apple the benefit of the doubt and got burned. Seriously, why are you so adamant that nobody gets their needs served so doesn't think exactly like you?
I'm not adamant that Apple SHOULDN'T make an xMac. I think they should and I'd like one.
I'm adamant that Apple doesn't NEED to make an xMac to be successful and serving its desired customer base.
Apple has diverged from your needs. They aren't likely to change anytime soon. So you can stay and be constantly bitter as you sound. Or you can get a different computer from some other vendor. OSX is just an operating system. A nice one, but nothing to pine over.
You don't like you iMac, I'm sure you can sell it on eBay and get a better desktop from Dell since you feel so "burned".
I can tell you this, unless Apple does have a proper $1500 PowerMac replacement, they've lost my business when it comes to desktops (I'll stick with a macbook though). I can afford neither three grand for a Mac Pro and accessories nor the severe loss of capability I've had with the iMac.
My 733 MHz G4 PowerMac was replaced by a used G5. Now I've got Leopard running in my office. I did buy a Time Capsule and it's great. I'm writing a book and I can look back at any revision. Plus the wireless let's me use a laptop in bed and access all the G5 files. I like to be lazy.
Jerry
There's a big difference between an AIO and a notebook. A notebook has one big advantage: it's portable. People think they're going to take it places or that it'll be easier to take down to the shop if it needs service. So they think. I know several people who bought laptops for just those reasons. Not desktop replacements, just low-end laptops. The laptops never leave their desks. Just where is this data that AIOs are stealing market share at the expense of towers? Citation, please.
Yes, there is, but it regards to the debate on whether customers want a simple, all encompassing machine or one they can upgrade over the years notebooks and AIO desktops are increasing marketshare while PC towers are falling. There is plenty of articles supporting this data. AI has plenty of articles on the subject.
I'd like to see official estimates on people whoa re buying notebooks for thei primary machine without the intention of moving it from it's primary location. I know of too many people who use Windows, Linux or OS X who have replaced a tower with a notebook just to keep on their desk.
I was responding to your post. Who's post should I quote? I was addressing YOU that was defending HIM with non-sequitors.
Presuming that you don't like wireless devices (as you state) then you wouldn't therefore whine about wires like the OP and we have no point of contention.
I wrote:
Not everyone likes so many wireless devices. For one thing, there's a risk of interference. For another, wired connections are almost always faster than wireless. You can keep 802.11n at a theoretical 248Mbps. I'd rather have SATA drives at a theoretical 3Gbps.
Which you quoted and replied with:
Well gee...if you don't like wireless devices why would you whine about having wires? You wouldn't. One extra cable to a dorbo or firewire enclosure isn't going to make much difference.
Just where was I "defending" him? I just wrote that I didn't care for wireless and you suddenly ask why am I whining. Your clearly sarcastic tone doesn't help get your point across.
I'm happy for you. So exactly why did you inject yourself into this little debate?
I see. So instead of a public forum, this is now just a private little debate between you and him? Did you maybe consider that I was replying to you, not to you replying to him replying to you replying to him?
Apple desktops sales are growing faster than the market I believe it was stated somewhere. If true then Apple, who makes largely AIOs, is taking share from traditional desktop makers who largely makes towers.
Here you go:
http://www.techradar.com/news/comput...ebruary-268369
Is this the extent of your evidence? This precious article of yours lumps together iMacs and Mac Pros in its "higher sales" figures. It does not in any way, shape or form say the iMacs were devastating the Mac Pros. And even if they were, you don't think the fact that Mac Pros cost twice as much as iMacs might have anything to do with that sales disparity?
That could be broken too; like WGA with XP/Vista, or OGA with Office, or the countless hardware dongle hacks for Autocad and 3D Studio Max - they'll all get broken sooner or later.
It's possible, but maybe not. A dongle isn't what I meant. Apple could now (with PA) design a chip that would go into their machines that would have functionality that the OS requires, and that couldn't be duplicated with software. That's very possible. there are timing situations that software simply can't simulate.
I happen to have my Monaco dongle here sitting next to my keyboard.
And IIRC with the hacked OSX images, all they did was replace or remove a couple of files.
Yes, but again, that's not what I meant.
As for the Psystar Hackintosh, I like the case actually, but I rather build my own - Apple needs to get with the program, and build a better Mini/xMac, the iMac is good for some, but others still want a sub-$1000 tower, like the Psystar, just not as flaky. And the Mini is getting long in the tooth.
In other respects, I'd say it'd be wiser to load up Ubuntu/Kubuntu 8.04 on a PC, if purely looking for an alternative to Windows, but getting OSX on a cheap tower has its advantages too.
Right after the G5 Powermac came out, I called for a mini tower configuration. At the time, I could see it for $999. If I still had my manufacturing company, I could have done it myself, except, of course, for the compatibility.
That compatibility is why only Apple can do this right.
I'm willing to have Apple take the chance on it, but, apparently, they are not.
I can tell you this, unless Apple does have a proper $1500 PowerMac replacement, they've lost my business when it comes to desktops (I'll stick with a macbook though). I can afford neither three grand for a Mac Pro and accessories nor the severe loss of capability I've had with the iMac.
I'm not against you on this. Read my post just above.
Just where was I "defending" him? I just wrote that I didn't care for wireless and you suddenly ask why am I whining. Your clearly sarcastic tone doesn't help get your point across.
Perhaps its in that previous paragraph you didn't requote here? Nah. Couldn't be because you made a snarky comment about how many cords there were.
In addition you were directly responding to this statement:
The problem with some folks is that they don't upgrade to the latest wireless technologies but whine about wires anyway.
So again, if you don't like wireless technologies, you naturally wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) whine about wires on your desk. Meaning you probably have no dog in this fight. So why would anyone care in the context of this discussion that you don't like wireless technology?
Clive: Apple makes slim machines but you need to clutter them up with wires to expand them. This is silly.
Vinea: You can use wireless technologies to avoid the wires.
Kolchak: I don't like fruit.
WTF?
Did you maybe consider that I was replying to you, not to you replying to him replying to you replying to him?
Did you maybe consider that the "you" was the generic you and not you in specific? Parse that sentence again.
Is this the extent of your evidence? This precious article of yours lumps together iMacs and Mac Pros in its "higher sales" figures. It does not in any way, shape or form say the iMacs were devastating the Mac Pros. And even if they were, you don't think the fact that Mac Pros cost twice as much as iMacs might have anything to do with that sales disparity?
You asked solipsism for a citation so I linked the first one for you found from a simple google search you seem incapable of doing yourself. Apple sales of desktops is growing faster than the sales of desktops by other makers. Therefore AIOs are gaining share at the expense of towers because why? Because Apple sells more AIOs than they do towers. Therefore if Apple is gaining desktop share then AIOs are also gaining desktop share. Who can AIOs take share away from? Gee, towers.
Which is exactly the evidence you asked for. However, I guess if you can't accept that both notebooks AND AIOs can both gain share at the expense of towers then the logic is too difficult for you to follow.
Mac Pro vs iMac sales doesn't come into play at all except for you confuse yourself with.
They don't think about them.
Mr. Jobs & CO personally don't care if people install OS X on machines like this. While they would never publicly endorse it, these hacks don't work well, often becoming outdated with each new OS revision or even a simple update.
All it does is create a user who loves OS X, and longs for a real Mac.
No harm, No foul.
If it happened on a large quality scale Apple would win, enterprise will support the real thing.
Apple doesn't worry about this. I know for a fact there are several windows generic machines used to run OS X on at Apple's headquarters. Mostly for testing, but often strangely OS X includes video drivers for cards that it never uses... OS X dev group has machines sitting under desk.
I get your point. Actually there are quite a few of us here, on these boards, who WOULD like to see an xMac, whatever that may mean.
The question is whether Apple would sell enough of them to make up for the loss in sales from all the other desktop lines.
I don't think there's any question at all. The xMac would be just like the iPod Nano. Both Apple and many of their sycophants loudly proclaimed that there was no need or market for flash based iPods, that HDs are where it's at. Then the shuffle and Nano came out, and Apple's only problem was keeping up with demand.
I have no doubt whatsoever that if Apple produced a machine that roughly equalled the specs of the Psystar, even at twice the price, that they would not be able to keep up with the damand for that product either.
Besides that, so what if it took from some of the iMac sales? They'd be still selling units, and since standard desktop parts cost less, they could actually make more money per unit sold. I know in my case, I'm still extremely bitter about my iMac purchase a couple months ago. Apple presented me with no acceptable options. I only bought the iMac because it was the least bad offering Apple had. The difference had there been an xMac for me to buy would not have been a lost sale from someone who otherwise wanted an iMac, but from someone who was forced to buy something he didn't want in the first place. I don't see the whole "but we can force them to buy things they don't want, and if we give them what they want, they might buy it instead of what we are forcing on them" as a valid argument.
....
Apple desktops sales are growing faster than the market I believe it was stated somewhere. If true then Apple, who makes largely AIOs, is taking share from traditional desktop makers who largely makes towers.
Here you go:
http://www.techradar.com/news/comput...ebruary-268369
The fact that Apple's desktop market share(re: probably due to iMac sales) is growing faster than the rest of the industry, does not in and of itself contradict any assertion that an xMac might accelerate this growth or even affect the bottom line.
Anyone can assume anything and you know what they say about "ass-u-me".
The quickest and easiest way to determine this, would be for Apple to introduce an xMac style computer, gauge the sales and bottom line. If it adversely affects the company, discontinue it just as they have with the previous G3, G4 and G5 versions.
note: ain't happening though, because it apparently goes against some basic philosophy for consumer desktop computer design Apple holds dearly.
I don't think there's any question at all. The xMac would be just like the iPod Nano. Both Apple and many of their sycophants loudly proclaimed that there was no need or market for flash based iPods, that HDs are where it's at. Then the shuffle and Nano came out, and Apple's only problem was keeping up with demand.
I have no doubt whatsoever that if Apple produced a machine that roughly equalled the specs of the Psystar, even at twice the price, that they would not be able to keep up with the damand for that product either.
Besides that, so what if it took from some of the iMac sales? They'd be still selling units, and since standard desktop parts cost less, they could actually make more money per unit sold. I know in my case, I'm still extremely bitter about my iMac purchase a couple months ago. Apple presented me with no acceptable options. I only bought the iMac because it was the least bad offering Apple had. The difference had there been an xMac for me to buy would not have been a lost sale from someone who otherwise wanted an iMac, but from someone who was forced to buy something he didn't want in the first place. I don't see the whole "but we can force them to buy things they don't want, and if we give them what they want, they might buy it instead of what we are forcing on them" as a valid argument.
I don't consider the iMac to be a "bad" choice. I just bought two 24" 3.06 GHz models, for my wife and daughter. I wouldn't have bought them if I thought they were a bad choice.
But, would I have bought a mini tower with one dual core chip, an Express 2 bus with one 16x slot and one 4x slot with a graphics card, space for two HDD's, and eight GB RAM instead? For my daughter, sure. for my wife, maybe.
But, then, we aren't the average consumers, are we?
I mostly (I emphasize the word "mostly".) agree with this new Macworld article that just surfaced today:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1331...macbuying.html
The fact that Apple's desktop market share(re: probably due to iMac sales) is growing faster than the rest of the industry, does not in and of itself contradict any assertion that an xMac might accelerate this growth or even affect the bottom line.
Anyone can assume anything and you know what they say about "ass-u-me".
The quickest and easiest way to determine this, would be for Apple to introduce an xMac style computer, gauge the sales and bottom line. If it adversely affects the company, discontinue it just as they have with the previous G3, G4 and G5 versions.
note: ain't happening though, because it apparently goes against some basic philosophy for consumer desktop computer design Apple holds dearly.
Don't forget, Rick, that anyone can make a joke about the word "assume". But what you're saying are also assumptions, even if you don't use the word itself.
Everything we are saying here are our assumptions.
You could also substitute the word with "guess".
But, then, we aren't the average consumers, are we?
Sad part is that is who Apple used to be the company for.
I mostly (I emphasize the word "mostly".) agree with this new Macworld article that just surfaced today:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1331...macbuying.html
It has its points, but there are things I do disagree with. CPU speed is not the problem. The new machines are plenty fast enough in clock speed and in most cases the Apps are not going to be able to take advantage of quad cores. In most cases, the 2.8ghz and 3.0ghz iMacs are going to be as fast as Mac Pros. If you're running things that are mostly CPU intensive, the iMac is going to be a very good option.
There are other things to consider though. Anyone who thinks there is anything as too much RAM is kidding themselves. In fact, the ceiling of how much memory you can put in a machine will have more to do with with how long you keep your computer than your CPU. It was RAM starved at 1GB, I don't feel too safe at 2GB and this computer was bought in the fall.
Then there is the optical drive. As much as Apple wants to think we're in a post optical disc world, they're only half right. Music for the most part is, video is years away from the place. You're going to have to burn your iMovie or FCE productions onto a disk. The iMac can do this if you're willing to wait a little longer for the 8x drive. In some cases, it can be a major pain. However, speed aside the slot loading variant has one fatal flaw, it cannot use the increasingly popular 3.5" camcorder DVDs and as far as I know there is no adaptor. That means if you're working if those DVDs for either a client or a family member, you either need them to bring in the camcorder or spend a $100, some desk space, a port, and an outlet on an external DVD burner. In most cases you're going to need to use on of the all to few USB2.0 ports because drives with a firewire port are becoming very rare.
Hard drive space. Occasionally, we (or our computer manufacturer) will lowball our requirements for space, especially when it comes to video. If you find yourself running out of room, you have two choices. First, you can get an external hard drive and add more desk clutter. Second, you drive a couple hours to the nearest Apple store and have them do it for you. Either one is going to be expensive.
Sad part is that is who Apple used to be the company for.
Apple was never for the average consumer. Never!
Their consumer machines were always terrible, the performas in particular.
They were always for the geeks (Apple II), and later, the professional, schools, and artists.
It has its points, but there are things I do disagree with. CPU speed is not the problem. The new machines are plenty fast enough in clock speed and in most cases the Apps are not going to be able to take advantage of quad cores. In most cases, the 2.8ghz and 3.0ghz iMacs are going to be as fast as Mac Pros. If you're running things that are mostly CPU intensive, the iMac is going to be a very good option.
Exactly.
There are other things to consider though. Anyone who thinks there is anything as too much RAM is kidding themselves. In fact, the ceiling of how much memory you can put in a machine will have more to do with with how long you keep your computer than your CPU. It was RAM starved at 1GB, I don't feel too safe at 2GB and this computer was bought in the fall.
Let me tell you something about RAM. RAM is overhyped.
The iMac can take 4GB. Believe it or not, that's more than enough for most professional users. If you are a PS user, you just have to go to the bottom of the image window, and check efficiency. If that's at 100%, then you're fine, no matter what else you may have running.
More RAM won't matter. If you do video editing with FCP, you don't even need 4 GB.
The few people who actually do need more RAM are users who also need the extra cores, and other features of a Mac Pro. But, there are fewer of them than you may think.
Feeling "safe" isn't an issue. It's whether you actually do need the memory, which is different.
If you're talking about a Mini, then it really isn't intended for work that might require more than 2 GB, which is all most people need.
If we see an upgrade to them, they may very well take 4GB, and that would end that argument.
Then there is the optical drive. As much as Apple wants to think we're in a post optical disc world, they're only half right. Music for the most part is, video is years away from the place. You're going to have to burn your iMovie or FCE productions onto a disk. The iMac can do this if you're willing to wait a little longer for the 8x drive. In some cases, it can be a major pain. However, speed aside the slot loading variant has one fatal flaw, it cannot use the increasingly popular 3.5" camcorder DVDs and as far as I know there is no adaptor. That means if you're working if those DVDs for either a client or a family member, you either need them to bring in the camcorder or spend a $100, some desk space, a port, and an outlet on an external DVD burner. In most cases you're going to need to use on of the all to few USB2.0 ports because drives with a firewire port are becoming very rare.
Those "increasingly popular" camcorders aren't so popular. What we're going to see is the increased proliferation of camcorders that use Flash for storage, now that it has become cheap, and large enough. One hour of MiniDv at highest quality requires 11 GB of storage, and it doesn't need fast Flash either.
Hard drive space. Occasionally, we (or our computer manufacturer) will lowball our requirements for space, especially when it comes to video. If you find yourself running out of room, you have two choices. First, you can get an external hard drive and add more desk clutter. Second, you drive a couple hours to the nearest Apple store and have them do it for you. Either one is going to be expensive.
Adding an external is what most PC'ers do when they buy more drives for their "upgradable" machines. I don't see that as an issue. You can put it behind the thin computer, if it's an iMac, or buy one of those neat devices that adds 1.5inches to the bottom of a Mini and allows one terabyte per case.
The fact that Apple's desktop market share(re: probably due to iMac sales) is growing faster than the rest of the industry, does not in and of itself contradict any assertion that an xMac might accelerate this growth or even affect the bottom line.
Anyone can assume anything and you know what they say about "ass-u-me".
The quickest and easiest way to determine this, would be for Apple to introduce an xMac style computer, gauge the sales and bottom line. If it adversely affects the company, discontinue it just as they have with the previous G3, G4 and G5 versions.
note: ain't happening though, because it apparently goes against some basic philosophy for consumer desktop computer design Apple holds dearly.
Which has zero to do with the question of if AIOs was taking share from desktops. Answer: it is.
I make no assumptions and you are free to draw your own conclusions.
I do find it interesting that Dell now offers an AIO along with Sony and Gateway. I'm not sure they would bother if they didn't see some growth in that area so in effect your test has occured in the reverse where a tower maker has added an AIO and have thus far kept it.
Also note that Sony no longer makes a tower.
And note that Apple has made more affordable towers in the past even under Steve as you point out. The G4 and G5 ones. They see no compelling economic reasons to do so any longer.