Let me clarify for suhail, you claim that people want a mid-sized Mac so they can spec it with cheap parts, which is totally absurd. Mac users seek a mid-sized tower to cost less than the full-tower so they can install faster graphic cards than the MacMini, more and faster performing memory than the iMac, and faster performing 3.5" HDD than the iMac or the MacMini. The MacPro is very expensive, it may have a great value for some users who can afford it, but somewhere between a MacPro and a MacMini would make many Mac users very happy.
95%? Really? No way 95% of computer users would feel comfortable upgrading their own computer. I won't throw out a number, but I'd be surprised if it's even a majority of users.
I said 95% of them CAN do it. As in, their machine is capable of being upgraded. Sure, some people are skittish about doing themselves. Those people can just bring it in and pay someone else to upgrade it for them. Apple doesn't even give anyone THAT option.
1: OSX Desktop versions are resource hogs...a gig of ram and a new proc are required for the system to run...and you shouldnt use a server as a desktop/workstation, a server is to be a dedicated box that does nothing but serve so that stuff doesnt matter.
2: a proper server OS from apple is availible for $1000, and even then, lots of frills and overhead, a server os should have the lest overhead possible, as sad as it makes me to say this, Windows 2003 is a great example of what a server OS should be...basic, fast, efficient and yet very powerful.
3: Mac OS Server unlimited CAL: $1000, and you get basicly a collection of uix admin tools with a nice gui
UBUNTU: Unlimited CALS (dua) gives you the same unix tools with usable front ends for managment...and it is FREE and can run on a fraction of the hardware.
4 Updates and support: Apple has already quit patching any pre 10.5 os builds, so you would be running an out of life and, going forward, patchless box, with Ubuntu LTS, you get a brand new build with 3 years of patches and updates
Using your numbers I would say that 95% of computer users are skittish about upgrading their computers themselves. And only a small percentage will actually upgrade. Many of which will be done by either the geek down the street or the family nerd. Half of which will walk away saying, "Sorry about that."
I said 95% of them CAN do it. As in, their machine is capable of being upgraded. Sure, some people are skittish about doing themselves. Those people can just bring it in and pay someone else to upgrade it for them. Apple doesn't even give anyone THAT option.
Ah. Gotcha. That makes more sense. I was envisioning my mom trying to upgrade her own computer...not good.
1: OSX Desktop versions are resource hogs...a gig of ram and a new proc are required for the system to run...and you shouldnt use a server as a desktop/workstation, a server is to be a dedicated box that does nothing but serve so that stuff doesnt matter.
OSX is able to boot headless. You can likely turn off many of the "resource hogs" you don't want.
2: a proper server OS from apple is availible for $1000, and even then, lots of frills and overhead, a server os should have the lest overhead possible, as sad as it makes me to say this, Windows 2003 is a great example of what a server OS should be...basic, fast, efficient and yet very powerful.
Win 2K3 server does come with no server components actually enabled. Which is kinda nice.
I don't have OSX server so I dunno how minimal you can make it. But hey, since YOU are making the claim that OSX Server is bloated why don't you provide what the minimal set is from the installer?
Then we can discuss how bloated it really is.
Quote:
4 Updates and support: Apple has already quit patching any pre 10.5 os builds, so you would be running an out of life and, going forward, patchless box, with Ubuntu LTS, you get a brand new build with 3 years of patches and updates
Apple updates the two most recent OS X releases. This means that 10.3 is EOL'd but 10.4 is still getting updates. My 10.4 box has been getting updates.
Quote:
OSX is NEVER the right tool for a server...NEVER
Gee...and if I wanted to run Final Cut Server I should install it on Ubuntu LTS or Win 2K3?
Gee...and if I wanted to run Final Cut Server I should install it on Ubuntu LTS or Win 2K3?
Well...just use Premiere Pro, it is better anyway <ducks>
But really, I never really thought about FCS, because untill now, OSX hasnt had any special server apps, just unix services and a fancy implementation of VNC called ARD, which costs extra.
1: OSX Desktop versions are resource hogs...a gig of ram and a new proc are required for the system to run...and you shouldnt use a server as a desktop/workstation, a server is to be a dedicated box that does nothing but serve so that stuff doesnt matter.
2: a proper server OS from apple is availible for $1000, and even then, lots of frills and overhead, a server os should have the lest overhead possible, as sad as it makes me to say this, Windows 2003 is a great example of what a server OS should be...basic, fast, efficient and yet very powerful.
3: Mac OS Server unlimited CAL: $1000, and you get basicly a collection of uix admin tools with a nice gui
UBUNTU: Unlimited CALS (dua) gives you the same unix tools with usable front ends for managment...and it is FREE and can run on a fraction of the hardware.
4 Updates and support: Apple has already quit patching any pre 10.5 os builds, so you would be running an out of life and, going forward, patchless box, with Ubuntu LTS, you get a brand new build with 3 years of patches and updates
Frankly, those are all irrelevant ivory tower type concerns for the purposes of this discussion. For home use (in case you missed what we were talking about), you don't need to buy "Server" or use a special machine. Apple hasn't really stopped patching Tiger. Updates do come when there's a security flaw that's been exposed. Even then, for home use behind a firewall with no one using the machine to access the internet, not a problem. As memory is dirt cheap, taking a gig wouldn't even be a concern. I do run services from one of my desktops as it's not worth the electricity to run a dedicated machine.
And no, you don't need to use Apple Remote Desktop, you can link in with any VNC software, though I use Vine Server + Chicken of the VNC for my VNC software.
I'm also wondering who these people are that DON'T upgrade their computers? Outside of claims on this forum, I don't know any PC users that don't. When it used to be possible on a Mac, I didn't know any Mac users that didn't either. Video card, CPU, RAM, and additional drives were the minimum. I know I swapped out a lot of parts on my G4, and it was easy to do with generic parts at my local "build your own PC" mart. 95 % of all computer users can do this, Apple users are stupid if they just accept it that they can't.
I have found it more cost-effective and rewarding to replace a $1,500 computer with a new one of the same price every two years, as opposed to buying a $3k computer and trying to string it out for 6 years via upgrades. There's so much more that changes beyond just graphics card and processor performance; new, faster ports come along, faster wireless standards, faster optical drives or new formats (like Blu-Ray), faster system busses, faster hard drive connections, and so on. For all the things that can't be upgraded, spending several hundred dollars to upgrade the things you can just seems like a waste, compared to eBaying the old and putting the money toward a new.
That said, you say 95% of all computer users are competent enough to swap out computer components and install new ones. I'd say about 99% of computer users have no desire to do so. The only people I know who upgrade hardware components inside their machine are people who have a day job in IT. People are as likely to crack their computer case open as they are to take apart their television.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka
I paid $1600 for my old G4. It served me very well specifically because I was able to upgrade it along the way as my needs changed. Computer prices have dropped considerably since then, yet the only comparable replacement to it Apple has now is three grand? That is stupid. I ended up getting an Aluminum iMac only because it was the only choice Apple offered in a reasonable price range, and I could not be any less happy with this piece of junk.
What exactly is the problem with your aluminum iMac? Or are you just disgruntled because you won't be able to frankenstein it along for 8 years? The current iMacs are far superior machines in terms of bang for the buck than any G4-based machine ever was in it's time.
I have found it more cost-effective and rewarding to replace a $1,500 computer with a new one of the same price every two years, as opposed to buying a $3k computer and trying to string it out for 6 years via upgrades.
You do realize that it's only a $3000 computer because that's all Apple offers that's remotely like it? They can offer a $1500 tower and make a good profit on it.
And you'd be willing to replace the entire computer for $1500 rather than. for instance, drop in a $50 USB 3 card?
You do realize that it's only a $3000 computer because that's all Apple offers that's remotely like it at a fairer price, right? They can offer a $1500 tower and make a good profit on it.
Yes, I realize Apple could offer a stripped down tower without eight cores and all that other insanely-fast stuff that most people won't ever need, and sell it for $1,500. But I imagine they've concluded that the market for such a product is so miniscule it's not worth addressing. They need to add the option for a matte screen on the iMac and MacBook far more than they need to offer an inexpensive, upgradeable tower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
And you'd be willing to replace the entire computer for $1500 rather than drop in a $50 USB 3 card?
I just make it my mentality that a $1,500 computer purchased for professional work should get replaced in two years with one of equal cost. Upgrading individual components saves you money on the short term, but when you add it all up over the course of four years, you may be spending close to what it would have cost to replace your computer entirely every two years, so long as you sell the old one.
A $1,500 computer could probably be sold for at least $900 in two years, which means your cost of replacing it with another $1,500 computer is only $600. Alternatively, if you were to hang on to that computer for 4 years, you'd probably spend close to $600 in hardware and software upgrades that would have come standard on the new model. $100-$200 for a hard drive upgarde, $250 for a graphics card upgrade, $200 for the Blu-Ray upgrade, $300 for a processor swap, $50 for a USB 3 card, $50 for a Firewire 1200 card, $100 for the new flavor of Wifi, $130 for OS X 10.6, $80 for iLife '09. And all that money spent on upgrades still doesn't get you a computer that's up to date, because things like system bus, SATA, etc cannot be replaced unless you could swap out the entire motherboard. Plus, it's old and dirty
Like I said, I find it more cost-effective, and more personally rewarding, to just sell and repurchase every two years. And the only upgrade I have to worry about is doubling the RAM Apple includes standard.
Let me clarify for suhail, you claim that people want a mid-sized Mac so they can spec it with cheap parts, which is totally absurd. Mac users seek a mid-sized tower to cost less than the full-tower so they can install faster graphic cards than the MacMini, more and faster performing memory than the iMac, and faster performing 3.5" HDD than the iMac or the MacMini. The MacPro is very expensive, it may have a great value for some users who can afford it, but somewhere between a MacPro and a MacMini would make many Mac users very happy.
You Mac that?
With all due respect, installing more powerful components than the mac mini at less than the cost of an equivalent setup on a mac pro is exactly what I meant when I said spec it out with cheap parts. I don't know what you think I was saying but there appears to be some miscommunication.
I'm not the guy responsible for Apple not marketing a tower. I'm just saying if Apple were planning to make a mid sized tower they could have done it by now. I agree that a mid tower that offered some of the flexibility of a mac pro closer to a mac mini price would be a very popular addition to the desktop lineup. Therefore there must be a reason why they haven't done it.
I think the mac mini is intentionally so small that it can't be upgraded component-by-component, whereas the mac pro is priced intentionally high to force home users out of the custom-machine market. That leads me to think maybe Apple is afraid of it canabalising it's iMac lineup or maybe they are afraid of having to code for all the different parts or maybe they are afraid of losing the brand image. That is the contribution I'm bringing to the discussion.
Yes, I realize Apple could offer a stripped down tower without eight cores and all that other insanely-fast stuff that most people won't ever need, and sell it for $1,500. But I imagine they've concluded that the market for such a product is so miniscule it's not worth addressing. They need to add the option for a matte screen on the iMac and MacBook far more than they need to offer an inexpensive, upgradeable tower.
I just make it my mentality that a $1,500 computer purchased for professional work should get replaced in two years with one of equal cost. Upgrading individual components saves you money on the short term, but when you add it all up over the course of four years, you may be spending close to what it would have cost to replace your computer entirely every two years, so long as you sell the old one.
A $1,500 computer could probably be sold for at least $900 in two years, which means your cost of replacing it with another $1,500 computer is only $600. Alternatively, if you were to hang on to that computer for 4 years, you'd probably spend close to $600 in hardware and software upgrades that would have come standard on the new model. $100-$200 for a hard drive upgarde, $250 for a graphics card upgrade, $200 for the Blu-Ray upgrade, $300 for a processor swap, $50 for a USB 3 card, $50 for a Firewire 1200 card, $100 for the new flavor of Wifi, $130 for OS X 10.6, $80 for iLife '09. And all that money spent on upgrades still doesn't get you a computer that's up to date, because things like system bus, SATA, etc cannot be replaced unless you could swap out the entire motherboard. Plus, it's old and dirty
Like I said, I find it more cost-effective, and more personally rewarding, to just sell and repurchase every two years. And the only upgrade I have to worry about is doubling the RAM Apple includes standard.
I agree with Cory. I myself do know how to replace components (yes, I work in IT), but I agree that it's more cost-effective and personally rewarding to replace the machine every two years. And on top of that, it's FUN to get a brand-spanking new Mac!
I myself do know how to replace components (yes, I work in IT), but I agree that it's more cost-effective and personally rewarding to replace the machine every two years. And on top of that, it's FUN to get a brand-spanking new Mac!
I could too. But it is too costly.
Basically, the machine is as weakest as its weakest link. Considering that every moment something is being advanced, there is no hope that one could build there own Mac and be in the now without some undue heavey costs. Admittedly however, if you have nothing to do and monies are not a factor, it may appear to be a bargain, but for most, time is money. It just won't add up.
Good articles in David Alison's Blog site which is now one of our favorite bookmarks to recommend, in particular the newly switched. Heck, even for us oldies who like to think we know everything) (http://www.davidalison.com/
I agree with Cory. I myself do know how to replace components (yes, I work in IT), but I agree that it's more cost-effective and personally rewarding to replace the machine every two years. And on top of that, it's FUN to get a brand-spanking new Mac!
The problem with the Mac lineup is that the Mini isn't getting enough refreshes for this strategy to work well at the lower price point.
I used to buy a new $600-700 Dell every year or two vs a high end box adding nothing but a mid grade $100-$150 video card and maybe some memory.
At the $700 level you haven't been able to do that the last couple years with the Mac. CPU wise, it's been mostly fine but not going to Santa Rosa on the mini hurt even given the crappy X3100 drivers from intel and moving to merom late also sucked.
If they rev'd the mini as often as the macbook, that's be better from the pespective of "buy cheap, replace often".
Comments
Sorry but you're seeing it wrong.
I felt my comments were logical. Care to clarify?
I felt my comments were logical. Care to clarify?
Let me clarify for suhail, you claim that people want a mid-sized Mac so they can spec it with cheap parts, which is totally absurd. Mac users seek a mid-sized tower to cost less than the full-tower so they can install faster graphic cards than the MacMini, more and faster performing memory than the iMac, and faster performing 3.5" HDD than the iMac or the MacMini. The MacPro is very expensive, it may have a great value for some users who can afford it, but somewhere between a MacPro and a MacMini would make many Mac users very happy.
You Mac that?
95%? Really? No way 95% of computer users would feel comfortable upgrading their own computer. I won't throw out a number, but I'd be surprised if it's even a majority of users.
I said 95% of them CAN do it. As in, their machine is capable of being upgraded. Sure, some people are skittish about doing themselves. Those people can just bring it in and pay someone else to upgrade it for them. Apple doesn't even give anyone THAT option.
Why is that?
1: OSX Desktop versions are resource hogs...a gig of ram and a new proc are required for the system to run...and you shouldnt use a server as a desktop/workstation, a server is to be a dedicated box that does nothing but serve so that stuff doesnt matter.
2: a proper server OS from apple is availible for $1000, and even then, lots of frills and overhead, a server os should have the lest overhead possible, as sad as it makes me to say this, Windows 2003 is a great example of what a server OS should be...basic, fast, efficient and yet very powerful.
3: Mac OS Server unlimited CAL: $1000, and you get basicly a collection of uix admin tools with a nice gui
UBUNTU: Unlimited CALS (dua) gives you the same unix tools with usable front ends for managment...and it is FREE and can run on a fraction of the hardware.
4 Updates and support: Apple has already quit patching any pre 10.5 os builds, so you would be running an out of life and, going forward, patchless box, with Ubuntu LTS, you get a brand new build with 3 years of patches and updates
I said 95% of them CAN do it. As in, their machine is capable of being upgraded. Sure, some people are skittish about doing themselves. Those people can just bring it in and pay someone else to upgrade it for them. Apple doesn't even give anyone THAT option.
Ah. Gotcha. That makes more sense. I was envisioning my mom trying to upgrade her own computer...not good.
1: OSX Desktop versions are resource hogs...a gig of ram and a new proc are required for the system to run...and you shouldnt use a server as a desktop/workstation, a server is to be a dedicated box that does nothing but serve so that stuff doesnt matter.
OSX is able to boot headless. You can likely turn off many of the "resource hogs" you don't want.
http://mrblog.org/tag/apple/
2: a proper server OS from apple is availible for $1000, and even then, lots of frills and overhead, a server os should have the lest overhead possible, as sad as it makes me to say this, Windows 2003 is a great example of what a server OS should be...basic, fast, efficient and yet very powerful.
Win 2K3 server does come with no server components actually enabled. Which is kinda nice.
I don't have OSX server so I dunno how minimal you can make it. But hey, since YOU are making the claim that OSX Server is bloated why don't you provide what the minimal set is from the installer?
Then we can discuss how bloated it really is.
4 Updates and support: Apple has already quit patching any pre 10.5 os builds, so you would be running an out of life and, going forward, patchless box, with Ubuntu LTS, you get a brand new build with 3 years of patches and updates
Apple updates the two most recent OS X releases. This means that 10.3 is EOL'd but 10.4 is still getting updates. My 10.4 box has been getting updates.
OSX is NEVER the right tool for a server...NEVER
Gee...and if I wanted to run Final Cut Server I should install it on Ubuntu LTS or Win 2K3?
Gee...and if I wanted to run Final Cut Server I should install it on Ubuntu LTS or Win 2K3?
Well...just use Premiere Pro, it is better anyway <ducks>
But really, I never really thought about FCS, because untill now, OSX hasnt had any special server apps, just unix services and a fancy implementation of VNC called ARD, which costs extra.
1: OSX Desktop versions are resource hogs...a gig of ram and a new proc are required for the system to run...and you shouldnt use a server as a desktop/workstation, a server is to be a dedicated box that does nothing but serve so that stuff doesnt matter.
2: a proper server OS from apple is availible for $1000, and even then, lots of frills and overhead, a server os should have the lest overhead possible, as sad as it makes me to say this, Windows 2003 is a great example of what a server OS should be...basic, fast, efficient and yet very powerful.
3: Mac OS Server unlimited CAL: $1000, and you get basicly a collection of uix admin tools with a nice gui
UBUNTU: Unlimited CALS (dua) gives you the same unix tools with usable front ends for managment...and it is FREE and can run on a fraction of the hardware.
4 Updates and support: Apple has already quit patching any pre 10.5 os builds, so you would be running an out of life and, going forward, patchless box, with Ubuntu LTS, you get a brand new build with 3 years of patches and updates
Frankly, those are all irrelevant ivory tower type concerns for the purposes of this discussion. For home use (in case you missed what we were talking about), you don't need to buy "Server" or use a special machine. Apple hasn't really stopped patching Tiger. Updates do come when there's a security flaw that's been exposed. Even then, for home use behind a firewall with no one using the machine to access the internet, not a problem. As memory is dirt cheap, taking a gig wouldn't even be a concern. I do run services from one of my desktops as it's not worth the electricity to run a dedicated machine.
And no, you don't need to use Apple Remote Desktop, you can link in with any VNC software, though I use Vine Server + Chicken of the VNC for my VNC software.
I'm also wondering who these people are that DON'T upgrade their computers? Outside of claims on this forum, I don't know any PC users that don't. When it used to be possible on a Mac, I didn't know any Mac users that didn't either. Video card, CPU, RAM, and additional drives were the minimum. I know I swapped out a lot of parts on my G4, and it was easy to do with generic parts at my local "build your own PC" mart. 95 % of all computer users can do this, Apple users are stupid if they just accept it that they can't.
I have found it more cost-effective and rewarding to replace a $1,500 computer with a new one of the same price every two years, as opposed to buying a $3k computer and trying to string it out for 6 years via upgrades. There's so much more that changes beyond just graphics card and processor performance; new, faster ports come along, faster wireless standards, faster optical drives or new formats (like Blu-Ray), faster system busses, faster hard drive connections, and so on. For all the things that can't be upgraded, spending several hundred dollars to upgrade the things you can just seems like a waste, compared to eBaying the old and putting the money toward a new.
That said, you say 95% of all computer users are competent enough to swap out computer components and install new ones. I'd say about 99% of computer users have no desire to do so. The only people I know who upgrade hardware components inside their machine are people who have a day job in IT. People are as likely to crack their computer case open as they are to take apart their television.
I paid $1600 for my old G4. It served me very well specifically because I was able to upgrade it along the way as my needs changed. Computer prices have dropped considerably since then, yet the only comparable replacement to it Apple has now is three grand? That is stupid. I ended up getting an Aluminum iMac only because it was the only choice Apple offered in a reasonable price range, and I could not be any less happy with this piece of junk.
What exactly is the problem with your aluminum iMac? Or are you just disgruntled because you won't be able to frankenstein it along for 8 years? The current iMacs are far superior machines in terms of bang for the buck than any G4-based machine ever was in it's time.
I have found it more cost-effective and rewarding to replace a $1,500 computer with a new one of the same price every two years, as opposed to buying a $3k computer and trying to string it out for 6 years via upgrades.
You do realize that it's only a $3000 computer because that's all Apple offers that's remotely like it? They can offer a $1500 tower and make a good profit on it.
And you'd be willing to replace the entire computer for $1500 rather than. for instance, drop in a $50 USB 3 card?
You do realize that it's only a $3000 computer because that's all Apple offers that's remotely like it at a fairer price, right? They can offer a $1500 tower and make a good profit on it.
Yes, I realize Apple could offer a stripped down tower without eight cores and all that other insanely-fast stuff that most people won't ever need, and sell it for $1,500. But I imagine they've concluded that the market for such a product is so miniscule it's not worth addressing. They need to add the option for a matte screen on the iMac and MacBook far more than they need to offer an inexpensive, upgradeable tower.
And you'd be willing to replace the entire computer for $1500 rather than drop in a $50 USB 3 card?
I just make it my mentality that a $1,500 computer purchased for professional work should get replaced in two years with one of equal cost. Upgrading individual components saves you money on the short term, but when you add it all up over the course of four years, you may be spending close to what it would have cost to replace your computer entirely every two years, so long as you sell the old one.
A $1,500 computer could probably be sold for at least $900 in two years, which means your cost of replacing it with another $1,500 computer is only $600. Alternatively, if you were to hang on to that computer for 4 years, you'd probably spend close to $600 in hardware and software upgrades that would have come standard on the new model. $100-$200 for a hard drive upgarde, $250 for a graphics card upgrade, $200 for the Blu-Ray upgrade, $300 for a processor swap, $50 for a USB 3 card, $50 for a Firewire 1200 card, $100 for the new flavor of Wifi, $130 for OS X 10.6, $80 for iLife '09. And all that money spent on upgrades still doesn't get you a computer that's up to date, because things like system bus, SATA, etc cannot be replaced unless you could swap out the entire motherboard. Plus, it's old and dirty
Like I said, I find it more cost-effective, and more personally rewarding, to just sell and repurchase every two years. And the only upgrade I have to worry about is doubling the RAM Apple includes standard.
Let me clarify for suhail, you claim that people want a mid-sized Mac so they can spec it with cheap parts, which is totally absurd. Mac users seek a mid-sized tower to cost less than the full-tower so they can install faster graphic cards than the MacMini, more and faster performing memory than the iMac, and faster performing 3.5" HDD than the iMac or the MacMini. The MacPro is very expensive, it may have a great value for some users who can afford it, but somewhere between a MacPro and a MacMini would make many Mac users very happy.
You Mac that?
With all due respect, installing more powerful components than the mac mini at less than the cost of an equivalent setup on a mac pro is exactly what I meant when I said spec it out with cheap parts. I don't know what you think I was saying but there appears to be some miscommunication.
I'm not the guy responsible for Apple not marketing a tower. I'm just saying if Apple were planning to make a mid sized tower they could have done it by now. I agree that a mid tower that offered some of the flexibility of a mac pro closer to a mac mini price would be a very popular addition to the desktop lineup. Therefore there must be a reason why they haven't done it.
I think the mac mini is intentionally so small that it can't be upgraded component-by-component, whereas the mac pro is priced intentionally high to force home users out of the custom-machine market. That leads me to think maybe Apple is afraid of it canabalising it's iMac lineup or maybe they are afraid of having to code for all the different parts or maybe they are afraid of losing the brand image. That is the contribution I'm bringing to the discussion.
Does that clear things up?
Yes, I realize Apple could offer a stripped down tower without eight cores and all that other insanely-fast stuff that most people won't ever need, and sell it for $1,500. But I imagine they've concluded that the market for such a product is so miniscule it's not worth addressing. They need to add the option for a matte screen on the iMac and MacBook far more than they need to offer an inexpensive, upgradeable tower.
I just make it my mentality that a $1,500 computer purchased for professional work should get replaced in two years with one of equal cost. Upgrading individual components saves you money on the short term, but when you add it all up over the course of four years, you may be spending close to what it would have cost to replace your computer entirely every two years, so long as you sell the old one.
A $1,500 computer could probably be sold for at least $900 in two years, which means your cost of replacing it with another $1,500 computer is only $600. Alternatively, if you were to hang on to that computer for 4 years, you'd probably spend close to $600 in hardware and software upgrades that would have come standard on the new model. $100-$200 for a hard drive upgarde, $250 for a graphics card upgrade, $200 for the Blu-Ray upgrade, $300 for a processor swap, $50 for a USB 3 card, $50 for a Firewire 1200 card, $100 for the new flavor of Wifi, $130 for OS X 10.6, $80 for iLife '09. And all that money spent on upgrades still doesn't get you a computer that's up to date, because things like system bus, SATA, etc cannot be replaced unless you could swap out the entire motherboard. Plus, it's old and dirty
Like I said, I find it more cost-effective, and more personally rewarding, to just sell and repurchase every two years. And the only upgrade I have to worry about is doubling the RAM Apple includes standard.
I agree with Cory. I myself do know how to replace components (yes, I work in IT), but I agree that it's more cost-effective and personally rewarding to replace the machine every two years. And on top of that, it's FUN to get a brand-spanking new Mac!
"AppleTV 1.0 was not what people wanted" - Steve Jobs
"Teenagers are not what people wanted" - A Parent
I myself do know how to replace components (yes, I work in IT), but I agree that it's more cost-effective and personally rewarding to replace the machine every two years. And on top of that, it's FUN to get a brand-spanking new Mac!
I could too. But it is too costly.
Basically, the machine is as weakest as its weakest link. Considering that every moment something is being advanced, there is no hope that one could build there own Mac and be in the now without some undue heavey costs. Admittedly however, if you have nothing to do and monies are not a factor, it may appear to be a bargain, but for most, time is money. It just won't add up.
Good articles in David Alison's Blog site which is now one of our favorite bookmarks to recommend, in particular the newly switched. Heck, even for us oldies who like to think we know everything) (http://www.davidalison.com/
In particular, Common Myths for the Macintosh (obviously a newbee) http://www.davidalison.com/2008/05/c...macintosh.html and
Why I bailed out on Windows and switched to Macintosh http://www.davidalison.com/2008/04/w...ndows-and.html
I agree with Cory. I myself do know how to replace components (yes, I work in IT), but I agree that it's more cost-effective and personally rewarding to replace the machine every two years. And on top of that, it's FUN to get a brand-spanking new Mac!
The problem with the Mac lineup is that the Mini isn't getting enough refreshes for this strategy to work well at the lower price point.
I used to buy a new $600-700 Dell every year or two vs a high end box adding nothing but a mid grade $100-$150 video card and maybe some memory.
At the $700 level you haven't been able to do that the last couple years with the Mac. CPU wise, it's been mostly fine but not going to Santa Rosa on the mini hurt even given the crappy X3100 drivers from intel and moving to merom late also sucked.
If they rev'd the mini as often as the macbook, that's be better from the pespective of "buy cheap, replace often".
I hope this is a complete refresh. The iBook/Macbook really hasn't had one in five years.
off topic