You got that right! You could add a herd of turtles and still have room for a game of touch football. I have always thought Apple's floor-standing computers were larger than they have to be. I mean... Come on! If it is technologically possible to build the tiny Mac mini, why on earth does the "pro" model have to be twenty times larger???
For the most part, the pro tower design doesn't make compromises that sacrifice speed or capabilities for size. The mini is the polar opposite, it doesn't compromise on size, but does on speed and capabilities. Looking at the layout in the Mac pro, maybe it can be 3"-4" shorter if you only took two HDDs and one optical drive. Dropping a CPU doesn't seem to offer much space savings here. Switching to notebook hard drives and optical drives would allow it to be smaller, but that's compromising speed or capacity on the hard drives, choose one, and they are generally more expensive parts to generally get lower performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut
Ever heard of freelancing? All you need is the right computer, a home office, and talent (and of course luck and connections).
Let's say you're the lucky artist who can combine artistry, a brain for complex software, and can find a niche market?3D artist. Work at home in your 3rd bedroom and enjoy your spouse's health insurance. You want the power of the tower but small.
I've had to work out of my bedroom at times, the size of the tower wasn't a problem.
My mini core duo is getting a little long in the tooth. A slight upgrade would be appreciated. I use mine for running an HDTV. A little faster processor speed, say 2.4, and a fixed digital output port so I don't get kernel panics. I need firewire for eyetv and usb for my other tuner. 4GB of memory is fine, user upgradeable. 320gb 7200 drive would be fine. HDMI port would be nice, although the DVI port works for me. Blu-ray drive option would help. Please don't kill it.
I do know that than $4 grand G5 Tower would not be a bad down payment for an entry level Mac Pro at $2299.
Except that Mac Pro is more than I need. A great deal on a Porche when all you need is Honda is not a very good deal. Think about it. Graphics card, bus, cache etc. aside, my G5 processor of yester-year is comparable to a current mini. Every year computers get exponentially more powerful. If you need a mid level machine, but buy the high level one instead, you are paying a premium for technology that is on it's way out the day you buy it. It's also an opportunity cost. Buying a workstation today when you don't need one means you can't buy the lower end model of the future as soon, the low end of the future will be more powerful than your workstation of today. Buying more than you need in the way of a computer is a really dumb move, in essence you're buying an over abundance of current technology which hampers you ability to buy future technology at a much cheaper price per performance. When you think of the number of computers you will buy over a lifetime, you see that continually buying more computer than you need is a fool's errand. This is not coincidence, it's Apples marketing strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
I do know that it is more economical to have a local trade printer output colour prints especially if you can't charge back the bad copies directly to the client.
Depends on the nature, volume, turn around and purpose. If someone is in your office and wants to walk a way with something, you need a printer in house. If you need to deliver comps in short turn around, you need a printer in-house. If you need to see your own work printed as you're designing so you can get a real world ideal of how it will look at scale and printed, you need a pinter in-house. If you just want to print a binder insert for presentation materials when you need it, you need a printer in-house. Do you really know of any body doing graphic design that can function without a printer of their own? Not replacing a printer I need when I need to so that I can buy a computer that's more than I need is, well, stupid. Again, it's about buying what you need when you need it, not being forced to adjust your needs to fit what a company wants to steer you towards buying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
I do know that it was more expensive to have a colour printer in-house, attempting to match the desktop, maintaining, calibrating, servicing, purchasing, inventorying and storing ink supplies, as well as and controlling outputs/costs than going outside.
See above
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
I do know how to set up our monitors and/room so that reflection or glare is not a problem.
You know how to set YOUR room up so that it is not a problem. Can you move the door and windows in my room? I'm not going to black out my room so that I have to work in a cave just so I can buy a monitor I don't want in the first place. Anyone who says universally that they can control all lighting situations has never seen all lighting situations. You might want to visit some forums around and see how many designers don't want a glossy screen, anecdotally, it's the majority. Bottom line, you can't tell me what is comfortable for my eyes. Did you know that glossy screens are officially considered to be a health hazard in Europe? I guess a continent full of people are simply clueless. Many many companies offer the monitor I want. If apple insists on putting the monitor I can't use on an iMac, than they are making their computer useless to me. They have lost a sale. Put the iMac specs in a headless computer that lets me use whatever monitor I want or need. It's a computer Apple can sell to more people. It's also the thing just about every editorial page on Mac oriented mags have called for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
I do know that the Apple displays are at the near top of the quality pile and I do know that the best of them are a lot more monies (I bought a few).
You might want to google issues with pink casts, uneven color, and compare warranties. Again, I don't want a glossy monitor. For just a bit more, I can get a monitor that is suited for digital pre-press. I don't need that at the moment. I have a monitor. I don't want to buy another monitor built into an iMac to get the iMac guts that I want. A monitor will last a long time. How well your monitor and how well your computer continue to fit your needs aren't on the exact same time frame. I don't want the decision of when to replace my computer to tied to whether or not I need a new monitor or vice a verse. That is just plain dumb. Again, Steve J likes the iMac because it's a good idea for Apple, it's not such a hot idea for users if you look at it logically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
I do know that a Macbook Pro can do everything that any 2 year old or older Mac Pro could do better and faster.
I don't want or need a laptop. If you need that portability, great. If you don't you are paying a premium for miniaturization that you don't need. Also google laptop issues. You will find that laptops have a much higher rate of failure. Ahem, glossy screen again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core
I do know that G5 of yours can do everything most studios can do today. Lets face it, Michelangelo wouldn't trade his hammer and chisel for a pneumatic today even if he got it for free.
I don't paint murals on cathedral ceilings for a living, I use a computer. Adobe Director 11, no longer works on PPC, Latest version of After Effects, no longer works on PPC. Latest version of ZBrush 3 (that I waited over a year to finally be released) doesn't work on PPC. The list will only get bigger. It doesn't matter to me what most studios are doing. What matters to me is what I am doing. No offense, but It doesn't matter to me that you like the reflective screen either, great for you that you do, you lucked out—Apple is making the stuff you want. What if they went the route that I like, you'd be out in the cold using the dull old matte monitor I prefer. The point is, it isn't a frivolous preference. It's major, so Apple should offer their customers a choice. What matters to me is that I can run the software I need to run on the equipment that suits my needs. When OS X 10.6 comes out, my PPC won't run it. When the next version of Adobe products come out, my PPC won't run it. Apple and Adobe will make my G5 PPC (top of the line when I bought it with the top of the line price tag) virtually unusable. I don't want to replace it. It works just fine. If it were up to me, I'd use it like I use my car. When it stops running or becomes too costly to operate, I'll get another one. Which brings me to my original point. Buying more computer than you need when you buy it is not a good idea because future technology is cheaper. Your not really dealing with the cost of any single computer. You are dealing with the cost of ALL the computers you will buy. You want to maximize your total purchases over time.
This is my problem with Apple. They are not making the computer most designers want because they want all designers to buy more than they need whether they need it or not. The iMac is designed to wow consumers with a shiny screen and a cool form factor to warrant a premium price and to push designers towards the Mac Pro and the highest price tag. Apple has adopted the marketing strategy of steering customers to the next highest price level rather than offering products that actually give you a choice to fit your needs. Why do you think the mini has not gotten a refresh in so long? It's because as far as computing power goes, the mini with a decent graphics card and more RAM is a computer that a lot of people now paying 3 times as much for the entry Mac Pro would buy instead. If I can run large photoshop files on my 2 gig G5, I can work with large files on a Mac Mini if it had the same RAM and a dedicated graphics card. I could keep the monitor I have it runs just fine. Of course, Apple wants me to buy the Mac Pro. That's why the iMac is what it is. Apple itself has recently stated they need to move to a lower profit margin. They would be much better off having at least one computer that's sales are driven by volume, rather than having their entire line driven by premium.
Nehalem (Bloomfield) is coming in November. MWSF09 may be the best place for a Mac Pro update with Nehalem. 2-processors, 8-cores, and 16-virtual cores of goodness. It is going to be the biggest leap in x86 performance since the introduction of the Core 2 Duo.
And this is why I'm wondering why people see an iMac release soon and not a Mac Pro. Macworld (as many people have kindly reminded me in the past) is more consumer oriented. So why not a Mac Pro now, and an iMac then?
The 8-core mac pro was introduced in April 2007. Keeping my fingers crossed for an update soon.
The 8 core mac you're talking about was a processor drop in, a single price point added above the rest of the line. *nothing* changed in the configuration other than a new, very expensive processor addition. Not the bus, not the ram, not the disk, not the vid cards, not the optical drives or ports, *nothing*.
It wasnt even a speed bump per se, just an added processor config. That's not a refresh. The first real update to the mac pro was indeed 17months later, the jan '08 model I have sitting under my desk right now
I have been an Apple user/fanatic since 1990... which means I know the frustration of being an Apple devotee; and it means I have been through the "dark years", when there were daily predictions of Apple's death. As a side note, I still maintain that it was the loyalty of Apple's users alone that kept Apple alive during those years, not anything the company did.
Now on to the point: Apple has had The Macintosh for 24 years, and the best they have done is 8% market share?! That's pretty embarrassing. You gotta NOT want to sell computers to have only 8% market share after 24 years with a dramatically superior product the whole time.
Hey, anybody wanna "storm the gates"? Anyone ready to pester the crap out of Apple?
I have been an Apple user/fanatic since 1990... which means I know the frustration of being an Apple devotee; and it means I have been through the "dark years", when there were daily predictions of Apple's death. As a side note, I still maintain that it was the loyalty of Apple's users alone that kept Apple alive during those years, not anything the company did.
Now on to the point: Apple has had The Macintosh for 24 years, and the best they have done is 8% market share?! That's pretty embarrassing. You gotta NOT want to sell computers to have only 8% market share after 24 years with a dramatically superior product the whole time.
Hey, anybody wanna "storm the gates"? Anyone ready to pester the crap out of Apple?
Hombrephaty
You're going to have to literally, physically, storm the gates. They're feed back policy states they do not except suggestions or feedback about anything other than their current offerings and presently available features. In short, they tell you not to bother making feature or product requests or basically suggestions in general because they will be ignored.
The 8 core mac you're talking about was a processor drop in, a single price point added above the rest of the line. *nothing* changed in the configuration other than a new, very expensive processor addition. Not the bus, not the ram, not the disk, not the vid cards, not the optical drives or ports, *nothing*.
I could care less, I'm just hoping for new Mac Pros with the Nehalem release in mid-November. Apple does *something* to their Mac Pro line more than once a year. Hoping they do *something* in the next month.
If Apple were preparing a Mini refresh, I would have thought we would have heard some solid rumours by now, weve had nothing at all really....since the last update.
I really am starting to think it's not going to be refreshed.
The Mac mini needs to be updated so it can get the mini DisplayPort so users can buy a Mac and the new 24" Cinema Display. My guess is Apple has already redesigned the Mac mini and they are just waiting to release the specs to whatever factory will be making it. If it doesn't get a mention at MWSF2009 then it will get a silent update and we will hear about it through the grape vine.
This is the flaw in the imac. It's essentially a vertical laptop anchored to a desk. It's appeal is footprint and price. Price only because as Mac's go, it's a desktop that doesn't cost as much as a Mac Pro. Price is high for what you get.
I've never been bothered by the price. Yeah it is high but not excessively so.
Quote:
Put the guts in a more practical but still small horizontal format. Divorce if from the built in monitor (really a bad idea if you weigh the merits of a computer and a monitor connected like Siamese twins).
Really you don't need to do that. It is not the concept of the iMac I object to it is he construction of the unit that bothers me. Give me an iMac with room to service with standard components and I'd be much happier with what Apple offers.
Quote:
The iMac has the shortcomings of a laptop and missing the power of a desktop crammed into a bizarre hybrid that doesn't use the best of both. WTF? Lose the built in monitor, make the guts accessible?now you have the computer everyone wants.
No then you would have the Mini. What Apple needs to do is to find a way to upgrade the performance significantly while keeping thermals under control.
Quote:
I have no idea why apple hasn't done this. Remember the IIci? Take that format which today's technology could make considerably thinner and smaller, there you have it?gold for Apple share holders and customers alike.
Now that is a throw back. Again this is a bit like the Mini. Apples problems of late have been letting form overtake function on many of its products, with the Mini being a good example. Imagine what the Mini could be in an even slightly larger case.
The good thing with Apple's new note book releases is that they seem to be paying a little more attention to function. Yes I know about firewire, but if one can remove that concern from their evaluation of the Mac Book I think people will see that it is a very innovative and highly functional machine.
Now could Apple re imagine the iMac in that manner - I don't really know. I do know that for me personally they are a hard sell as they are today! Like many I want a machine that meets varying needs and and frankly Apple just doesn't have a low end offering that addresses this.
Really you don't need to do that. It is not the concept of the iMac I object to it is he construction of the unit that bothers me. Give me an iMac with room to service with standard components and I'd be much happier with what Apple offers.
Dave
The issue is that there is no headless midrange product. I already have a two monitor set up. There's no point in buying a third monitor in the form of the one built into the iMac (plus I don't like that monitor anyway). The specs of the iMac minus the monitor fit my needs and price. Even if I didn't already have 2 monitors, I wouldn't want the monitor attached to the CPU. I've never had a CPU that's outlived my monitors in usefulness or longevity and I want the option to deal with replacing monitor and CPU separately. The Apple CPU has what I really want, the Apple OS. A monitor is a "free agent".
Apple should make the Mini big enough for a normal dedicated graphics card and more memory (it could still have a very small footprint). Or, Apple should offer a new product in the form of a midrange headless mac. To use a political analogy, Apple's pricing and product lineup is like our current political system. It has much to offer if your on the far end of either spectrum, if you're in the middle, you have to pick a party that doesn't fit your philosophy or choose not to vote.
Think about it, don't you get a slight flutter of kinship when you see someone sitting there with a Mac laptop?
I used to.........but not in the last couple of years. It used to be the tool of professionals. If you saw someone with a mac, you knew they were doing something that might warrant a conversation. Now it's just the cool thing to have.
On the other, the benefits of a Mac ubiquity have been great, wider support from the developers of hardware and software! Plus as a stock holder, I've loved the bump[and split] since 2001 when i began to purchase.
An art director at an interactive design studio thingy in San Francisco told me several years back, about some agencies that are "like prostitutes". It opened my eyes... I was like, you mean you could actually *choose* what projects to take on?
Similarly in recent times, my manager talked about purposely quoting higher for certain business, so that you'd "turn it away" without blatantly telling the client you're too good for them.
As for your current predicament, I don't know what to say, except, sometimes, people just want to see what they want to see. It's not *your* ugly creation, it's somebody else's desires. You could always try educating them on design principles, but if you're staring at cheesball gradients then that could be a very long process.
Here's an idea, try to convince them that everything will look 10x better if it was all purely in Silver coloured tones...
Good luck...
A definate thank you for your reply and concern! Actually I'm under contract to a number of print and packaging houses as a freelancer/small biz for many years now. As far as I'm concerned, definately the way to go. When I was starting out and taking individual clients, I got tired of spending my time training the clients, and ran into the same problems as you stated to get rid of the few (many?) "time and money wasters".
Actually, all in all I can't complain, considering I make many times what my employee colleagues make... and yes, I do have the ability at times to refuse a project (however I'm very loyal to my contract, as well as to my colleagues, knowing "someone's gotta do it").
Regardless, training essentially print salesmen to be design "Account Execs" has been futile in most cases... most will take any and everything to get the comm.... and that's where we as designers get stuck in this kind of setup, as a middleman to keep both the salesman happy and the client... and turn out decent designs to keep up our image both for the company as well as ourselves for future marketability.
Sorry for the off-topic post... just wanted to say thanks again to the other concerned designers.\\\\
PS: GMHut... great posts and writing style!!! Your bustin' me up with your replies.... especially the wipper-snapper one! Funny stuff! Keep it comin' and stay pationate Ol' colleague... it's what makes us old designers marketable, and dare I say, special. That headless Mac is gonna come some day... some day...
AWESOME black iMac mockup there. If it were true... Damn... Nice stuff.
The base of the new iMacs will probably be a little more sculpted like the new 24" LED Cinema Display. The current iMac base looks a little chunky, perhaps. In this anorexic IT world.
Get the new entry-level 15" MacBook Pro ... ... You can add the 24" Cinema Display if you want some nice TV/big screen viewing on your desktop locations somewhere down the line...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koukalaka
So, here's a question from a newbie. I've used PCs ever since about 1990 when I actually enjoyed messing around with DOS and dialup BBSs, but I've always been fascinated by the simplicity and coolness factor of Macs, especially since I inherited my mom's old Powerbook 180 and a Mac Classic. Our PC is outdated, and after buying a laptop with Windows Vista last year and experiencing constant Microsoft frustration (), I'm ready to switch. With three little kids and a somewhat grueling work schedule, I have no time to screw around getting things to work.
The question is this...should I buy an iMac now, or wait for the update? I almost bought one a few days ago, but held off after perusing this site and Macrumors.com. If the new screens will be significantly better or the new processors/chipsets/etc. will be significantly faster, I suppose I should wait. On the other hand, if the new version ends up being more expensive, or if it lacks FireWire and I end up wishing I had that (I have no idea...my wife and I will really just use this as our basic home desktop computer), I might end up kicking myself that I didn't buy now.
If I do buy one before the update, I probably won't shell out the dough for the 24" screen (I looked at both at Fry's Electronics and realized that even the 20" is huge and pretty to me, moving up from an old-school 17" non-flat-screen monitor). Macmall has some pretty decent rebates right now...plus no sales tax...and I'm tempted to bite.
(Is it rude to ask for advice like this? First post, you know. )
So, here's a question from a newbie. I've used PCs ever since about 1990 when I actually enjoyed messing around with DOS and dialup BBSs, but I've always been fascinated by the simplicity and coolness factor of Macs, especially since I inherited my mom's old Powerbook 180 and a Mac Classic. Our PC is outdated, and after buying a laptop with Windows Vista last year and experiencing constant Microsoft frustration (), I'm ready to switch. With three little kids and a somewhat grueling work schedule, I have no time to screw around getting things to work.
The question is this...should I buy an iMac now, or wait for the update? I almost bought one a few days ago, but held off after perusing this site and Macrumors.com. If the new screens will be significantly better or the new processors/chipsets/etc. will be significantly faster, I suppose I should wait. On the other hand, if the new version ends up being more expensive, or if it lacks FireWire and I end up wishing I had that (I have no idea...my wife and I will really just use this as our basic home desktop computer), I might end up kicking myself that I didn't buy now.
If I do buy one before the update, I probably won't shell out the dough for the 24" screen (I looked at both at Fry's Electronics and realized that even the 20" is huge and pretty to me, moving up from an old-school 17" non-flat-screen monitor). Macmall has some pretty decent rebates right now...plus no sales tax...and I'm tempted to bite.
(Is it rude to ask for advice like this? First post, you know. )
Besides refurbished also check out their clearance section after an upgrade- the previous models (factory fresh) at a price reduction . Price reduction not as much as refurbished but cheaper nonetheless.
Beautiful, amazing!- I'll keep my fingers crossed. Get rid of the ugly racoon look and I will upgrade. Maybe make the back silver. And change the stand into something more versatile (vertical adjustability) .
Comments
You got that right! You could add a herd of turtles and still have room for a game of touch football. I have always thought Apple's floor-standing computers were larger than they have to be. I mean... Come on! If it is technologically possible to build the tiny Mac mini, why on earth does the "pro" model have to be twenty times larger???
For the most part, the pro tower design doesn't make compromises that sacrifice speed or capabilities for size. The mini is the polar opposite, it doesn't compromise on size, but does on speed and capabilities. Looking at the layout in the Mac pro, maybe it can be 3"-4" shorter if you only took two HDDs and one optical drive. Dropping a CPU doesn't seem to offer much space savings here. Switching to notebook hard drives and optical drives would allow it to be smaller, but that's compromising speed or capacity on the hard drives, choose one, and they are generally more expensive parts to generally get lower performance.
Ever heard of freelancing? All you need is the right computer, a home office, and talent (and of course luck and connections).
Let's say you're the lucky artist who can combine artistry, a brain for complex software, and can find a niche market?3D artist. Work at home in your 3rd bedroom and enjoy your spouse's health insurance. You want the power of the tower but small.
I've had to work out of my bedroom at times, the size of the tower wasn't a problem.
I do know that than $4 grand G5 Tower would not be a bad down payment for an entry level Mac Pro at $2299.
Except that Mac Pro is more than I need. A great deal on a Porche when all you need is Honda is not a very good deal. Think about it. Graphics card, bus, cache etc. aside, my G5 processor of yester-year is comparable to a current mini. Every year computers get exponentially more powerful. If you need a mid level machine, but buy the high level one instead, you are paying a premium for technology that is on it's way out the day you buy it. It's also an opportunity cost. Buying a workstation today when you don't need one means you can't buy the lower end model of the future as soon, the low end of the future will be more powerful than your workstation of today. Buying more than you need in the way of a computer is a really dumb move, in essence you're buying an over abundance of current technology which hampers you ability to buy future technology at a much cheaper price per performance. When you think of the number of computers you will buy over a lifetime, you see that continually buying more computer than you need is a fool's errand. This is not coincidence, it's Apples marketing strategy.
I do know that it is more economical to have a local trade printer output colour prints especially if you can't charge back the bad copies directly to the client.
Depends on the nature, volume, turn around and purpose. If someone is in your office and wants to walk a way with something, you need a printer in house. If you need to deliver comps in short turn around, you need a printer in-house. If you need to see your own work printed as you're designing so you can get a real world ideal of how it will look at scale and printed, you need a pinter in-house. If you just want to print a binder insert for presentation materials when you need it, you need a printer in-house. Do you really know of any body doing graphic design that can function without a printer of their own? Not replacing a printer I need when I need to so that I can buy a computer that's more than I need is, well, stupid. Again, it's about buying what you need when you need it, not being forced to adjust your needs to fit what a company wants to steer you towards buying.
I do know that it was more expensive to have a colour printer in-house, attempting to match the desktop, maintaining, calibrating, servicing, purchasing, inventorying and storing ink supplies, as well as and controlling outputs/costs than going outside.
See above
I do know how to set up our monitors and/room so that reflection or glare is not a problem.
You know how to set YOUR room up so that it is not a problem. Can you move the door and windows in my room? I'm not going to black out my room so that I have to work in a cave just so I can buy a monitor I don't want in the first place. Anyone who says universally that they can control all lighting situations has never seen all lighting situations. You might want to visit some forums around and see how many designers don't want a glossy screen, anecdotally, it's the majority. Bottom line, you can't tell me what is comfortable for my eyes. Did you know that glossy screens are officially considered to be a health hazard in Europe? I guess a continent full of people are simply clueless. Many many companies offer the monitor I want. If apple insists on putting the monitor I can't use on an iMac, than they are making their computer useless to me. They have lost a sale. Put the iMac specs in a headless computer that lets me use whatever monitor I want or need. It's a computer Apple can sell to more people. It's also the thing just about every editorial page on Mac oriented mags have called for.
I do know that the Apple displays are at the near top of the quality pile and I do know that the best of them are a lot more monies (I bought a few).
You might want to google issues with pink casts, uneven color, and compare warranties. Again, I don't want a glossy monitor. For just a bit more, I can get a monitor that is suited for digital pre-press. I don't need that at the moment. I have a monitor. I don't want to buy another monitor built into an iMac to get the iMac guts that I want. A monitor will last a long time. How well your monitor and how well your computer continue to fit your needs aren't on the exact same time frame. I don't want the decision of when to replace my computer to tied to whether or not I need a new monitor or vice a verse. That is just plain dumb. Again, Steve J likes the iMac because it's a good idea for Apple, it's not such a hot idea for users if you look at it logically.
I do know that a Macbook Pro can do everything that any 2 year old or older Mac Pro could do better and faster.
I don't want or need a laptop. If you need that portability, great. If you don't you are paying a premium for miniaturization that you don't need. Also google laptop issues. You will find that laptops have a much higher rate of failure. Ahem, glossy screen again.
I do know that G5 of yours can do everything most studios can do today. Lets face it, Michelangelo wouldn't trade his hammer and chisel for a pneumatic today even if he got it for free.
I don't paint murals on cathedral ceilings for a living, I use a computer. Adobe Director 11, no longer works on PPC, Latest version of After Effects, no longer works on PPC. Latest version of ZBrush 3 (that I waited over a year to finally be released) doesn't work on PPC. The list will only get bigger. It doesn't matter to me what most studios are doing. What matters to me is what I am doing. No offense, but It doesn't matter to me that you like the reflective screen either, great for you that you do, you lucked out—Apple is making the stuff you want. What if they went the route that I like, you'd be out in the cold using the dull old matte monitor I prefer. The point is, it isn't a frivolous preference. It's major, so Apple should offer their customers a choice. What matters to me is that I can run the software I need to run on the equipment that suits my needs. When OS X 10.6 comes out, my PPC won't run it. When the next version of Adobe products come out, my PPC won't run it. Apple and Adobe will make my G5 PPC (top of the line when I bought it with the top of the line price tag) virtually unusable. I don't want to replace it. It works just fine. If it were up to me, I'd use it like I use my car. When it stops running or becomes too costly to operate, I'll get another one. Which brings me to my original point. Buying more computer than you need when you buy it is not a good idea because future technology is cheaper. Your not really dealing with the cost of any single computer. You are dealing with the cost of ALL the computers you will buy. You want to maximize your total purchases over time.
This is my problem with Apple. They are not making the computer most designers want because they want all designers to buy more than they need whether they need it or not. The iMac is designed to wow consumers with a shiny screen and a cool form factor to warrant a premium price and to push designers towards the Mac Pro and the highest price tag. Apple has adopted the marketing strategy of steering customers to the next highest price level rather than offering products that actually give you a choice to fit your needs. Why do you think the mini has not gotten a refresh in so long? It's because as far as computing power goes, the mini with a decent graphics card and more RAM is a computer that a lot of people now paying 3 times as much for the entry Mac Pro would buy instead. If I can run large photoshop files on my 2 gig G5, I can work with large files on a Mac Mini if it had the same RAM and a dedicated graphics card. I could keep the monitor I have it runs just fine. Of course, Apple wants me to buy the Mac Pro. That's why the iMac is what it is. Apple itself has recently stated they need to move to a lower profit margin. They would be much better off having at least one computer that's sales are driven by volume, rather than having their entire line driven by premium.
Nehalem (Bloomfield) is coming in November. MWSF09 may be the best place for a Mac Pro update with Nehalem. 2-processors, 8-cores, and 16-virtual cores of goodness. It is going to be the biggest leap in x86 performance since the introduction of the Core 2 Duo.
And this is why I'm wondering why people see an iMac release soon and not a Mac Pro. Macworld (as many people have kindly reminded me in the past) is more consumer oriented. So why not a Mac Pro now, and an iMac then?
The 8-core mac pro was introduced in April 2007. Keeping my fingers crossed for an update soon.
The 8 core mac you're talking about was a processor drop in, a single price point added above the rest of the line. *nothing* changed in the configuration other than a new, very expensive processor addition. Not the bus, not the ram, not the disk, not the vid cards, not the optical drives or ports, *nothing*.
It wasnt even a speed bump per se, just an added processor config. That's not a refresh. The first real update to the mac pro was indeed 17months later, the jan '08 model I have sitting under my desk right now
I have been an Apple user/fanatic since 1990... which means I know the frustration of being an Apple devotee; and it means I have been through the "dark years", when there were daily predictions of Apple's death. As a side note, I still maintain that it was the loyalty of Apple's users alone that kept Apple alive during those years, not anything the company did.
Now on to the point: Apple has had The Macintosh for 24 years, and the best they have done is 8% market share?! That's pretty embarrassing. You gotta NOT want to sell computers to have only 8% market share after 24 years with a dramatically superior product the whole time.
Hey, anybody wanna "storm the gates"? Anyone ready to pester the crap out of Apple?
Hombrephaty
I agree with GMHut (post #18).
I have been an Apple user/fanatic since 1990... which means I know the frustration of being an Apple devotee; and it means I have been through the "dark years", when there were daily predictions of Apple's death. As a side note, I still maintain that it was the loyalty of Apple's users alone that kept Apple alive during those years, not anything the company did.
Now on to the point: Apple has had The Macintosh for 24 years, and the best they have done is 8% market share?! That's pretty embarrassing. You gotta NOT want to sell computers to have only 8% market share after 24 years with a dramatically superior product the whole time.
Hey, anybody wanna "storm the gates"? Anyone ready to pester the crap out of Apple?
Hombrephaty
You're going to have to literally, physically, storm the gates. They're feed back policy states they do not except suggestions or feedback about anything other than their current offerings and presently available features. In short, they tell you not to bother making feature or product requests or basically suggestions in general because they will be ignored.
that?
http://applediario.com/2008/10/18/ha...-de-los-imacs/
The 8 core mac you're talking about was a processor drop in, a single price point added above the rest of the line. *nothing* changed in the configuration other than a new, very expensive processor addition. Not the bus, not the ram, not the disk, not the vid cards, not the optical drives or ports, *nothing*.
I could care less, I'm just hoping for new Mac Pros with the Nehalem release in mid-November. Apple does *something* to their Mac Pro line more than once a year. Hoping they do *something* in the next month.
If Apple were preparing a Mini refresh, I would have thought we would have heard some solid rumours by now, weve had nothing at all really....since the last update.
I really am starting to think it's not going to be refreshed.
The Mac mini needs to be updated so it can get the mini DisplayPort so users can buy a Mac and the new 24" Cinema Display. My guess is Apple has already redesigned the Mac mini and they are just waiting to release the specs to whatever factory will be making it. If it doesn't get a mention at MWSF2009 then it will get a silent update and we will hear about it through the grape vine.
This is the flaw in the imac. It's essentially a vertical laptop anchored to a desk. It's appeal is footprint and price. Price only because as Mac's go, it's a desktop that doesn't cost as much as a Mac Pro. Price is high for what you get.
I've never been bothered by the price. Yeah it is high but not excessively so.
Put the guts in a more practical but still small horizontal format. Divorce if from the built in monitor (really a bad idea if you weigh the merits of a computer and a monitor connected like Siamese twins).
Really you don't need to do that. It is not the concept of the iMac I object to it is he construction of the unit that bothers me. Give me an iMac with room to service with standard components and I'd be much happier with what Apple offers.
The iMac has the shortcomings of a laptop and missing the power of a desktop crammed into a bizarre hybrid that doesn't use the best of both. WTF? Lose the built in monitor, make the guts accessible?now you have the computer everyone wants.
No then you would have the Mini. What Apple needs to do is to find a way to upgrade the performance significantly while keeping thermals under control.
I have no idea why apple hasn't done this. Remember the IIci? Take that format which today's technology could make considerably thinner and smaller, there you have it?gold for Apple share holders and customers alike.
Now that is a throw back. Again this is a bit like the Mini. Apples problems of late have been letting form overtake function on many of its products, with the Mini being a good example. Imagine what the Mini could be in an even slightly larger case.
The good thing with Apple's new note book releases is that they seem to be paying a little more attention to function. Yes I know about firewire, but if one can remove that concern from their evaluation of the Mac Book I think people will see that it is a very innovative and highly functional machine.
Now could Apple re imagine the iMac in that manner - I don't really know. I do know that for me personally they are a hard sell as they are today! Like many I want a machine that meets varying needs and and frankly Apple just doesn't have a low end offering that addresses this.
Dave
Really you don't need to do that. It is not the concept of the iMac I object to it is he construction of the unit that bothers me. Give me an iMac with room to service with standard components and I'd be much happier with what Apple offers.
Dave
The issue is that there is no headless midrange product. I already have a two monitor set up. There's no point in buying a third monitor in the form of the one built into the iMac (plus I don't like that monitor anyway). The specs of the iMac minus the monitor fit my needs and price. Even if I didn't already have 2 monitors, I wouldn't want the monitor attached to the CPU. I've never had a CPU that's outlived my monitors in usefulness or longevity and I want the option to deal with replacing monitor and CPU separately. The Apple CPU has what I really want, the Apple OS. A monitor is a "free agent".
Apple should make the Mini big enough for a normal dedicated graphics card and more memory (it could still have a very small footprint). Or, Apple should offer a new product in the form of a midrange headless mac. To use a political analogy, Apple's pricing and product lineup is like our current political system. It has much to offer if your on the far end of either spectrum, if you're in the middle, you have to pick a party that doesn't fit your philosophy or choose not to vote.
Think about it, don't you get a slight flutter of kinship when you see someone sitting there with a Mac laptop?
I used to.........but not in the last couple of years. It used to be the tool of professionals. If you saw someone with a mac, you knew they were doing something that might warrant a conversation. Now it's just the cool thing to have.
On the other, the benefits of a Mac ubiquity have been great, wider support from the developers of hardware and software! Plus as a stock holder, I've loved the bump[and split] since 2001 when i began to purchase.
So I guess maybe I shouldn't complain
An art director at an interactive design studio thingy in San Francisco told me several years back, about some agencies that are "like prostitutes". It opened my eyes... I was like, you mean you could actually *choose* what projects to take on?
Similarly in recent times, my manager talked about purposely quoting higher for certain business, so that you'd "turn it away" without blatantly telling the client you're too good for them.
As for your current predicament, I don't know what to say, except, sometimes, people just want to see what they want to see. It's not *your* ugly creation, it's somebody else's desires. You could always try educating them on design principles, but if you're staring at cheesball gradients then that could be a very long process.
Here's an idea, try to convince them that everything will look 10x better if it was all purely in Silver coloured tones...
Good luck...
A definate thank you for your reply and concern! Actually I'm under contract to a number of print and packaging houses as a freelancer/small biz for many years now. As far as I'm concerned, definately the way to go. When I was starting out and taking individual clients, I got tired of spending my time training the clients, and ran into the same problems as you stated to get rid of the few (many?) "time and money wasters".
Actually, all in all I can't complain, considering I make many times what my employee colleagues make... and yes, I do have the ability at times to refuse a project (however I'm very loyal to my contract, as well as to my colleagues, knowing "someone's gotta do it").
Regardless, training essentially print salesmen to be design "Account Execs" has been futile in most cases... most will take any and everything to get the comm.... and that's where we as designers get stuck in this kind of setup, as a middleman to keep both the salesman happy and the client... and turn out decent designs to keep up our image both for the company as well as ourselves for future marketability.
Sorry for the off-topic post... just wanted to say thanks again to the other concerned designers.\\\\
PS: GMHut... great posts and writing style!!! Your bustin' me up with your replies.... especially the wipper-snapper one! Funny stuff! Keep it comin' and stay pationate Ol' colleague... it's what makes us old designers marketable, and dare I say, special. That headless Mac is gonna come some day... some day...
I have heard that the new iMacs could incorporate LED displays and even there will be a version in black. Somebody knows anything about
that?
http://applediario.com/2008/10/18/ha...-de-los-imacs/
AWESOME black iMac mockup there. If it were true... Damn... Nice stuff.
The base of the new iMacs will probably be a little more sculpted like the new 24" LED Cinema Display. The current iMac base looks a little chunky, perhaps. In this anorexic IT world.
So, here's a question from a newbie. I've used PCs ever since about 1990 when I actually enjoyed messing around with DOS and dialup BBSs, but I've always been fascinated by the simplicity and coolness factor of Macs, especially since I inherited my mom's old Powerbook 180 and a Mac Classic. Our PC is outdated, and after buying a laptop with Windows Vista last year and experiencing constant Microsoft frustration (
The question is this...should I buy an iMac now, or wait for the update? I almost bought one a few days ago, but held off after perusing this site and Macrumors.com. If the new screens will be significantly better or the new processors/chipsets/etc. will be significantly faster, I suppose I should wait. On the other hand, if the new version ends up being more expensive, or if it lacks FireWire and I end up wishing I had that (I have no idea...my wife and I will really just use this as our basic home desktop computer), I might end up kicking myself that I didn't buy now.
If I do buy one before the update, I probably won't shell out the dough for the 24" screen (I looked at both at Fry's Electronics and realized that even the 20" is huge and pretty to me, moving up from an old-school 17" non-flat-screen monitor). Macmall has some pretty decent rebates right now...plus no sales tax...and I'm tempted to bite.
(Is it rude to ask for advice like this? First post, you know.
I hope the firewire ports survive the refresh...
I now have a bad feeling about the FW ports on the 20" iMac...
So, here's a question from a newbie. I've used PCs ever since about 1990 when I actually enjoyed messing around with DOS and dialup BBSs, but I've always been fascinated by the simplicity and coolness factor of Macs, especially since I inherited my mom's old Powerbook 180 and a Mac Classic. Our PC is outdated, and after buying a laptop with Windows Vista last year and experiencing constant Microsoft frustration (
The question is this...should I buy an iMac now, or wait for the update? I almost bought one a few days ago, but held off after perusing this site and Macrumors.com. If the new screens will be significantly better or the new processors/chipsets/etc. will be significantly faster, I suppose I should wait. On the other hand, if the new version ends up being more expensive, or if it lacks FireWire and I end up wishing I had that (I have no idea...my wife and I will really just use this as our basic home desktop computer), I might end up kicking myself that I didn't buy now.
If I do buy one before the update, I probably won't shell out the dough for the 24" screen (I looked at both at Fry's Electronics and realized that even the 20" is huge and pretty to me, moving up from an old-school 17" non-flat-screen monitor). Macmall has some pretty decent rebates right now...plus no sales tax...and I'm tempted to bite.
(Is it rude to ask for advice like this? First post, you know.
Besides refurbished also check out their clearance section after an upgrade- the previous models (factory fresh) at a price reduction . Price reduction not as much as refurbished but cheaper nonetheless.
I have heard that the new iMacs could incorporate LED displays and even there will be a version in black. Somebody knows anything about
that?
http://applediario.com/2008/10/18/ha...-de-los-imacs/
Beautiful, amazing!- I'll keep my fingers crossed. Get rid of the ugly racoon look and I will upgrade. Maybe make the back silver. And change the stand into something more versatile (vertical adjustability) .