For the record I don't consider a mid tower a consumer machine but
rather a prosumer machine. Thus I'd expect that its purchasers be
savvy about data protection features like RAID and also understand the
benefit of shared storage.
I think for those people that just want a large hard drive and don't want
to leverage data protection via RAID are poor candidates for a mid tower.
Where exactly aren't their needs being met by an iMac?
Hell I think the Mac Pro is almost there in pricing. I'd have like the Quad if it
was $1999.
Prosumer machines are a mix of some apparent pro features in what is really just a jazzed up home product.
I wish you were right about what a pro knows.
There are two kinds of pros. The first is the computer pro, (s)he knows all about what you are talking about, and would benefit from those features.
But, most pros are not computer pros. In fact, most know very little about computers at all. They simply want to use their programs. We have people coming to these forums all the time as you know from giving them advice, just as I have. These people are graphics design people, Photoshop users, video editors and such.
Why do they come here for advice on which machine to use? Because they are pros, and as pros, they know little about computers.
They don't under what NAS means, or SAS, or any RAID above 1. They don't know how much RAM to use, or which video card. How many cpu's or cores? They don't even know how big a HDD they need.
These pros aren't going to be able to take advantage of these advanced features, because not only are they ignorant of them, but when told about them, are too afraid to use them.
It's not only "consumers" who need Time Machine for backups, but pros as well.
This is absolutely true. I think a lot of people on these boards don't work with companies that use high end computers.
When I'm working with post production companies in New York and Los Angeles, no one is sitting around talking about dual or quad core CPU's, comparing the performance of graphic cards, or the number of hard drive bays.
When these companies are looking to upgrade equipment they are primarily looking at it from the standpoint of improving service to their clients. Will new equipment allow them to provide either new or improved service to their clients. Many times this can be accomplished with new software over new hardware.
For some functions I've seen post houses using surprising old computers. Primarily because that machine can still accomplish the necessary function so there is no need to buy a new one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
But, most pros are not computer pros. In fact, most know very little about computers at all. They simply want to use their programs. We have people coming to these forums all the time as you know from giving them advice, just as I have. These people are graphics design people, Photoshop users, video editors and such.
This is absolutely true. I think a lot of people on these boards don't work with companies that use high end computers.
When I'm working with post production companies in New York and Los Angeles, no one is sitting around talking about dual or quad core CPU's, comparing the performance of graphic cards, or the number of hard drive bays.
When these companies are looking to upgrade equipment they are primarily looking at it from the standpoint of improving service to their clients. Will new equipment allow them to provide either new or improved service to their clients. Many times this can be accomplished with new software over new hardware.
For some functions I've seen post houses using surprising old computers. Primarily because that machine can still accomplish the necessary function so there is no need to buy a new one.
As someone who really really would like to get a Mac, but is getting a DIY Shuttle K48 (<$400) machine instead due to VPN compatibility issues with the wife's work and due to cost, Apple's desktop line consists of 3 specialty computers: a boutique AIO; an up-sell and introductory machine, and a multimedia editing machine. Their vision of consumer desktop computing is the iMac. And that's that. That one machine. The Mac Pro is for their niche multimedia creation market. The Mac mini is just a machine to try to get people to try a Mac. They are not for gaming, it's not for hobbyists, they are not for people who want this or that.
On top of that, Apple is a luxury computer maker where you're paying and additional $100 to $500 for design and packaging. This matters to how we interface with computers, so it isn't frivolous, and it does cost money. It's just that not many people recognize it.
If you're a consumer, and want a desktop Mac, you're spending $1500 to $1800 for a somewhat nice machine (iMac) performance-wise, or $1000 if you want a low cost Mac (Mac mini + 3rd party monitor or iMac 20"). You really can't get a new Mac for anything lower. However, if you get a PC, you certainly don't get close to the design and form factor. I can't find anything as small and compact as the Mac mini, desktop friendly as an iMac. Even the keyboards are nice. A nice keyboard with a USB hub is expensive. For laptops, you can't find laptops as thin.
An xMac is totally anathema to their desktop strategy. I don't think it's going to change until Jobs is long and gone.
As someone who really really would like to get a Mac, but is getting a DIY Shuttle K48 (<$400) machine instead due to VPN compatibility issues with the wife's work and due to cost, Apple's desktop line consists of 3 specialty computers: a boutique AIO; an up-sell and introductory machine, and a multimedia editing machine. Their vision of consumer desktop computing is the iMac. And that's that. That one machine. The Mac Pro is for their niche multimedia creation market. The Mac mini is just a machine to try to get people to try a Mac. They are not for gaming, it's not for hobbyists, they are not for people who want this or that.
On top of that, Apple is a luxury computer maker where you're paying and additional $100 to $500 for design and packaging. This matters to how we interface with computers, so it isn't frivolous, and it does cost money. It's just that not many people recognize it.
If you're a consumer, and want a desktop Mac, you're spending $1500 to $1800 for a somewhat nice machine (iMac) performance-wise, or $1000 if you want a low cost Mac (Mac mini + 3rd party monitor or iMac 20"). You really can't get a new Mac for anything lower. However, if you get a PC, you certainly don't get close to the design and form factor. I can't find anything as small and compact as the Mac mini, desktop friendly as an iMac. Even the keyboards are nice. A nice keyboard with a USB hub is expensive. For laptops, you can't find laptops as thin.
An xMac is totally anathema to their desktop strategy. I don't think it's going to change until Jobs is long and gone.
The Mac Pro is the favored machine for the pharmaceutical R&D industry, as well as for many more scientific, and engineering areas. It's no more "niche" than any other workstation in its class.
As Dell, Sony, Hp, and Acer all have lines of AIO's, they can hardly be called "boutique.
The Mac Pro is the favored machine for the pharmaceutical R&D industry, as well as for many more scientific, and engineering areas. It's no more "niche" than any other workstation in its class.
I'm fine with calling it a workstation. You and I have different definitions of what boutique is, but suffice it to say, the Mac Pro is quite targeted at its market. It really isn't a consumer machine of any kind. Even the single processor variant is strictly targeted at its market, and it's really out of the price range for consumers who want more power than the iMac (be it CPU or GPU).
Quote:
As Dell, Sony, Hp, and Acer all have lines of AIO's, they can hardly be called "boutique.
All these PC manufacturers also sell regular desktops that greatly outsell their all-in-ones though. The slab AIO design is essentially a laptop posing as a desktop, and has the same corresponding weaknesses. It leaves a lot of potential performance and flexibility in favor of design. The Dell, HP Sony AIOs have the same kind of issues. I think that is boutique. The iMac is the best of the lot in terms of design, performance, and functionality, but one is paying $200 to $400 for the design and the OS. That's tough to swallow for a lot of people. That's why xMac always will live on as dream for Apple fans.
I'm fine with that. That's Apple's strategy and they are making mountains of cash, so no one need advise them on business strategies.
I'm fine with calling it a workstation. You and I have different definitions of what boutique is, but suffice it to say, the Mac Pro is quite targeted at its market. It really isn't a consumer machine of any kind. Even the single processor variant is strictly targeted at its market, and it's really out of the price range for consumers who want more power than the iMac (be it CPU or GPU).
Totally!
Quote:
All these PC manufacturers also sell regular desktops that greatly outsell their all-in-ones though. The slab AIO design is essentially a laptop posing as a desktop, and has the same corresponding weaknesses. It leaves a lot of potential performance and flexibility in favor of design. The Dell, HP Sony AIOs have the same kind of issues. I think that is boutique. The iMac is the best of the lot in terms of design, performance, and functionality, but one is paying $200 to $400 for the design and the OS. That's tough to swallow for a lot of people. That's why xMac always will live on as dream for Apple fans.
Really though, what does the average consumer need in terms of performance? Video games? Well, almost all of them work just dandy at 60 fps. even the highest spec machines can't play all of them at highest setting. Most people are more than happy to play them at modest settings. Only hardcore gamers care more.
Internet usage? how much processing power is needed for that? not much, going by todays standards.
Office? Same there.
iPhoto? Nope!
iMovie? Same there.
The truth is that there is very little that consumers need that an iMac can't provide, and thats the main market, along with schools, where the same thing applies.
We're techies, and we're never satisfied, but most people are.
The iMac, according to everyone I've shown them to, is a stunning machine, much better looking than the competition, because it's simple and yet graceful.
With more people putting their machines out in the public areas of their houses, they no longer want these ugly PCs. iMacs are expensive to produce, and so Apple did do what they could to keep the cost down this time around, instead of bringing the power up much.
Quote:
I'm fine with that. That's Apple's strategy and they are making mountains of cash, so no one need advise them on business strategies.
Really though, what does the average consumer need in terms of performance? Video games? Well, almost all of them work just dandy at 60 fps. even the highest spec machines can't play all of them at highest setting. Most people are more than happy to play them at modest settings. Only hardcore gamers care more.
Internet usage? how much processing power is needed for that? not much, going by todays standards.
Office? Same there.
iPhoto? Nope!
iMovie? Same there.
The truth is that there is very little that consumers need that an iMac can't provide, and thats the main market, along with schools, where the same thing applies.
I'm sorry but I don't agree with some of your examples. iPhoto, especially the last release with Faces, can use more power. Even on my dual 2.66GHz imac, it took 180 minutes to process the whole library. When importing a full 4GB card full of images from our camera it takes a couple minutes to process those faces. I'm sure a quad core or faster machine would benefit.
iMovie can be sped up greatly and don't get me started on iDVD. It's torture to make home movies or creating DVD slideshows. Any speedup they can get the better.
Let the mini be the started machine and have 2 levels of upward transition; the iMac and the xMac.
Nope, quad core wouldn't help this situation. iPhoto cannot take advantage of four cores. A 2.66GHz quad core would not be able to process those faces any faster. Faster processors would only help that situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider
Even on my dual 2.66GHz imac, it took 180 minutes to process the whole library. When importing a full 4GB card full of images from our camera it takes a couple minutes to process those faces. I'm sure a quad core or faster machine would benefit.
Nope, quad core wouldn't help this situation. iPhoto cannot take advantage of four cores. A 2.66GHz quad core would not be able to process those faces any faster. Faster processors would only help that situation.
I believe he's saying that current machines aren't powerful enough (or more powerful machines would be welcomed) for some of these common tasks that an average ordinary consumer could be expected to do.
Its a false claim by many that the average Mac user could never benefit from machines more powerful than the ones we have today. That's just not true.
It'll be interesting to see if Apple will harness the power of GC and Open Gl in their own apps. Certainly some of them would benefit greatly. Lets hope they take the lead and show the benefits of GC and Open Cl.
Its always possible to point to the task that would be improved with more power. But most people are not going to need to use faces in iPhoto very often or encode video or burn DVD's. Most of the time the average person is on the internet or typing documents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
Its a false claim by many that the average Mac user could never benefit from machines more powerful than the ones we have today. That's just not true.
Its always possible to point to the task that would be improved with more power. But most people are not going to need to use faces in iPhoto very often or encode video or burn DVD's. Most of the time the average person is on the internet or typing documents.
Really? Someone should tell Apple because they are pushing it hard. We use iPhoto every other day, iMovie and iDVD once a week, and then for hours on end after we get back from vacations. If all certain people do is "type up documents" or web and email, even the mini is overkill. If that's all I did, I wouldn't bother with a Mac at all; I'd get a cheap PC.
Essentially no I don't believe the average computer user are using CPU intensive apps very often. Professionals who often use rendering and image manipulation apps are used to waiting for them to do their job.
At the same time this is all a sliding scale. There will always be machines that perform a task faster than other machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outsider
Really? Someone should tell Apple because they are pushing it hard. We use iPhoto every other day, iMovie and iDVD once a week, and then for hours on end after we get back from vacations. If all certain people do is "type up documents" or web and email, even the mini is overkill. If that's all I did, I wouldn't bother with a Mac at all; I'd get a cheap PC.
Most of the time the average person is on the internet or typing documents.
Those people don't need to pay extra to be on the Mac platform.
Those tasks are easily and done equally as well on Linux and Windows.
The advantage of the Mac platform, IMO, is that iLife and other Mac apps make difficult tasks (video editing in particular and photo editing and management) easier and more enjoyable.
The Mac does make difficult media tasks easier, but that does not necessarily mean it can make rendering media happen instantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
The advantage of the Mac platform, IMO, is that iLife and other Mac apps make difficult tasks (video editing in particular and photo editing and management) easier and more enjoyable.
The Mac does make difficult media tasks easier, but that does not necessarily mean it can make rendering media happen instantly.
Of course not.
But Apple keep adding features that are more resource intensive. It's only natural that users would then desire more powerful machines to do these tasks.
Apple can and arguable should provide better tools to do this. The technology already exists. They don't have to go to the drawing board to develop the cpus to do this. They *already* exist.
Comments
Nice rebuttal Melgross.
For the record I don't consider a mid tower a consumer machine but
rather a prosumer machine. Thus I'd expect that its purchasers be
savvy about data protection features like RAID and also understand the
benefit of shared storage.
I think for those people that just want a large hard drive and don't want
to leverage data protection via RAID are poor candidates for a mid tower.
Where exactly aren't their needs being met by an iMac?
Hell I think the Mac Pro is almost there in pricing. I'd have like the Quad if it
was $1999.
Prosumer machines are a mix of some apparent pro features in what is really just a jazzed up home product.
I wish you were right about what a pro knows.
There are two kinds of pros. The first is the computer pro, (s)he knows all about what you are talking about, and would benefit from those features.
But, most pros are not computer pros. In fact, most know very little about computers at all. They simply want to use their programs. We have people coming to these forums all the time as you know from giving them advice, just as I have. These people are graphics design people, Photoshop users, video editors and such.
Why do they come here for advice on which machine to use? Because they are pros, and as pros, they know little about computers.
They don't under what NAS means, or SAS, or any RAID above 1. They don't know how much RAM to use, or which video card. How many cpu's or cores? They don't even know how big a HDD they need.
These pros aren't going to be able to take advantage of these advanced features, because not only are they ignorant of them, but when told about them, are too afraid to use them.
It's not only "consumers" who need Time Machine for backups, but pros as well.
I respectfully disagree. I don't think there's any real consensus on what xMac should be which is why it's a mythical "dream" product.
We hear it from both ends.
Some want a dumbed down Mac Pro, and some want a more expandable headless iMac or Mini.
I think that most of the demand is coming from the lower end.
We hear it from both ends.
Some want a dumbed down Mac Pro, and some want a more expandable headless iMac or Mini.
I think that most of the demand is coming from the lower end.
I feel its mostly the low end too.
I don't suppose a compromise is possible?
base machine non-expandable (but same housing), with upper level machines costing more and being expandable?
Seems like confusing/not "neat" enough in Apple's eyes though.
When I'm working with post production companies in New York and Los Angeles, no one is sitting around talking about dual or quad core CPU's, comparing the performance of graphic cards, or the number of hard drive bays.
When these companies are looking to upgrade equipment they are primarily looking at it from the standpoint of improving service to their clients. Will new equipment allow them to provide either new or improved service to their clients. Many times this can be accomplished with new software over new hardware.
For some functions I've seen post houses using surprising old computers. Primarily because that machine can still accomplish the necessary function so there is no need to buy a new one.
But, most pros are not computer pros. In fact, most know very little about computers at all. They simply want to use their programs. We have people coming to these forums all the time as you know from giving them advice, just as I have. These people are graphics design people, Photoshop users, video editors and such.
I feel its mostly the low end too.
I don't suppose a compromise is possible?
base machine non-expandable (but same housing), with upper level machines costing more and being expandable?
Seems like confusing/not "neat" enough in Apple's eyes though.
WE can compromise, but as we're not actually coming up with a product from Apple, it doesn't matter.
This is absolutely true. I think a lot of people on these boards don't work with companies that use high end computers.
When I'm working with post production companies in New York and Los Angeles, no one is sitting around talking about dual or quad core CPU's, comparing the performance of graphic cards, or the number of hard drive bays.
When these companies are looking to upgrade equipment they are primarily looking at it from the standpoint of improving service to their clients. Will new equipment allow them to provide either new or improved service to their clients. Many times this can be accomplished with new software over new hardware.
For some functions I've seen post houses using surprising old computers. Primarily because that machine can still accomplish the necessary function so there is no need to buy a new one.
Exactly!
As someone who really really would like to get a Mac, but is getting a DIY Shuttle K48 (<$400) machine instead due to VPN compatibility issues with the wife's work and due to cost, Apple's desktop line consists of 3 specialty computers: a boutique AIO; an up-sell and introductory machine, and a multimedia editing machine. Their vision of consumer desktop computing is the iMac. And that's that. That one machine. The Mac Pro is for their niche multimedia creation market. The Mac mini is just a machine to try to get people to try a Mac. They are not for gaming, it's not for hobbyists, they are not for people who want this or that.
On top of that, Apple is a luxury computer maker where you're paying and additional $100 to $500 for design and packaging. This matters to how we interface with computers, so it isn't frivolous, and it does cost money. It's just that not many people recognize it.
If you're a consumer, and want a desktop Mac, you're spending $1500 to $1800 for a somewhat nice machine (iMac) performance-wise, or $1000 if you want a low cost Mac (Mac mini + 3rd party monitor or iMac 20"). You really can't get a new Mac for anything lower. However, if you get a PC, you certainly don't get close to the design and form factor. I can't find anything as small and compact as the Mac mini, desktop friendly as an iMac. Even the keyboards are nice. A nice keyboard with a USB hub is expensive. For laptops, you can't find laptops as thin.
An xMac is totally anathema to their desktop strategy. I don't think it's going to change until Jobs is long and gone.
Not sure what more could be said.
As someone who really really would like to get a Mac, but is getting a DIY Shuttle K48 (<$400) machine instead due to VPN compatibility issues with the wife's work and due to cost, Apple's desktop line consists of 3 specialty computers: a boutique AIO; an up-sell and introductory machine, and a multimedia editing machine. Their vision of consumer desktop computing is the iMac. And that's that. That one machine. The Mac Pro is for their niche multimedia creation market. The Mac mini is just a machine to try to get people to try a Mac. They are not for gaming, it's not for hobbyists, they are not for people who want this or that.
On top of that, Apple is a luxury computer maker where you're paying and additional $100 to $500 for design and packaging. This matters to how we interface with computers, so it isn't frivolous, and it does cost money. It's just that not many people recognize it.
If you're a consumer, and want a desktop Mac, you're spending $1500 to $1800 for a somewhat nice machine (iMac) performance-wise, or $1000 if you want a low cost Mac (Mac mini + 3rd party monitor or iMac 20"). You really can't get a new Mac for anything lower. However, if you get a PC, you certainly don't get close to the design and form factor. I can't find anything as small and compact as the Mac mini, desktop friendly as an iMac. Even the keyboards are nice. A nice keyboard with a USB hub is expensive. For laptops, you can't find laptops as thin.
An xMac is totally anathema to their desktop strategy. I don't think it's going to change until Jobs is long and gone.
The Mac Pro is the favored machine for the pharmaceutical R&D industry, as well as for many more scientific, and engineering areas. It's no more "niche" than any other workstation in its class.
As Dell, Sony, Hp, and Acer all have lines of AIO's, they can hardly be called "boutique.
The Mac Pro is the favored machine for the pharmaceutical R&D industry, as well as for many more scientific, and engineering areas. It's no more "niche" than any other workstation in its class.
I'm fine with calling it a workstation. You and I have different definitions of what boutique is, but suffice it to say, the Mac Pro is quite targeted at its market. It really isn't a consumer machine of any kind. Even the single processor variant is strictly targeted at its market, and it's really out of the price range for consumers who want more power than the iMac (be it CPU or GPU).
As Dell, Sony, Hp, and Acer all have lines of AIO's, they can hardly be called "boutique.
All these PC manufacturers also sell regular desktops that greatly outsell their all-in-ones though. The slab AIO design is essentially a laptop posing as a desktop, and has the same corresponding weaknesses. It leaves a lot of potential performance and flexibility in favor of design. The Dell, HP Sony AIOs have the same kind of issues. I think that is boutique. The iMac is the best of the lot in terms of design, performance, and functionality, but one is paying $200 to $400 for the design and the OS. That's tough to swallow for a lot of people. That's why xMac always will live on as dream for Apple fans.
I'm fine with that. That's Apple's strategy and they are making mountains of cash, so no one need advise them on business strategies.
I'm fine with calling it a workstation. You and I have different definitions of what boutique is, but suffice it to say, the Mac Pro is quite targeted at its market. It really isn't a consumer machine of any kind. Even the single processor variant is strictly targeted at its market, and it's really out of the price range for consumers who want more power than the iMac (be it CPU or GPU).
Totally!
All these PC manufacturers also sell regular desktops that greatly outsell their all-in-ones though. The slab AIO design is essentially a laptop posing as a desktop, and has the same corresponding weaknesses. It leaves a lot of potential performance and flexibility in favor of design. The Dell, HP Sony AIOs have the same kind of issues. I think that is boutique. The iMac is the best of the lot in terms of design, performance, and functionality, but one is paying $200 to $400 for the design and the OS. That's tough to swallow for a lot of people. That's why xMac always will live on as dream for Apple fans.
Really though, what does the average consumer need in terms of performance? Video games? Well, almost all of them work just dandy at 60 fps. even the highest spec machines can't play all of them at highest setting. Most people are more than happy to play them at modest settings. Only hardcore gamers care more.
Internet usage? how much processing power is needed for that? not much, going by todays standards.
Office? Same there.
iPhoto? Nope!
iMovie? Same there.
The truth is that there is very little that consumers need that an iMac can't provide, and thats the main market, along with schools, where the same thing applies.
We're techies, and we're never satisfied, but most people are.
The iMac, according to everyone I've shown them to, is a stunning machine, much better looking than the competition, because it's simple and yet graceful.
With more people putting their machines out in the public areas of their houses, they no longer want these ugly PCs. iMacs are expensive to produce, and so Apple did do what they could to keep the cost down this time around, instead of bringing the power up much.
I'm fine with that. That's Apple's strategy and they are making mountains of cash, so no one need advise them on business strategies.
That's the truth.
Really though, what does the average consumer need in terms of performance? Video games? Well, almost all of them work just dandy at 60 fps. even the highest spec machines can't play all of them at highest setting. Most people are more than happy to play them at modest settings. Only hardcore gamers care more.
Internet usage? how much processing power is needed for that? not much, going by todays standards.
Office? Same there.
iPhoto? Nope!
iMovie? Same there.
The truth is that there is very little that consumers need that an iMac can't provide, and thats the main market, along with schools, where the same thing applies.
I'm sorry but I don't agree with some of your examples. iPhoto, especially the last release with Faces, can use more power. Even on my dual 2.66GHz imac, it took 180 minutes to process the whole library. When importing a full 4GB card full of images from our camera it takes a couple minutes to process those faces. I'm sure a quad core or faster machine would benefit.
iMovie can be sped up greatly and don't get me started on iDVD. It's torture to make home movies or creating DVD slideshows. Any speedup they can get the better.
Let the mini be the started machine and have 2 levels of upward transition; the iMac and the xMac.
Even on my dual 2.66GHz imac, it took 180 minutes to process the whole library. When importing a full 4GB card full of images from our camera it takes a couple minutes to process those faces. I'm sure a quad core or faster machine would benefit.
Nope, quad core wouldn't help this situation. iPhoto cannot take advantage of four cores. A 2.66GHz quad core would not be able to process those faces any faster. Faster processors would only help that situation.
I believe he's saying that current machines aren't powerful enough (or more powerful machines would be welcomed) for some of these common tasks that an average ordinary consumer could be expected to do.
Its a false claim by many that the average Mac user could never benefit from machines more powerful than the ones we have today. That's just not true.
It'll be interesting to see if Apple will harness the power of GC and Open Gl in their own apps. Certainly some of them would benefit greatly. Lets hope they take the lead and show the benefits of GC and Open Cl.
Its a false claim by many that the average Mac user could never benefit from machines more powerful than the ones we have today. That's just not true.
Its always possible to point to the task that would be improved with more power. But most people are not going to need to use faces in iPhoto very often or encode video or burn DVD's. Most of the time the average person is on the internet or typing documents.
Really? Someone should tell Apple because they are pushing it hard. We use iPhoto every other day, iMovie and iDVD once a week, and then for hours on end after we get back from vacations. If all certain people do is "type up documents" or web and email, even the mini is overkill. If that's all I did, I wouldn't bother with a Mac at all; I'd get a cheap PC.
At the same time this is all a sliding scale. There will always be machines that perform a task faster than other machines.
Really? Someone should tell Apple because they are pushing it hard. We use iPhoto every other day, iMovie and iDVD once a week, and then for hours on end after we get back from vacations. If all certain people do is "type up documents" or web and email, even the mini is overkill. If that's all I did, I wouldn't bother with a Mac at all; I'd get a cheap PC.
Most of the time the average person is on the internet or typing documents.
Those people don't need to pay extra to be on the Mac platform.
Those tasks are easily and done equally as well on Linux and Windows.
The advantage of the Mac platform, IMO, is that iLife and other Mac apps make difficult tasks (video editing in particular and photo editing and management) easier and more enjoyable.
The advantage of the Mac platform, IMO, is that iLife and other Mac apps make difficult tasks (video editing in particular and photo editing and management) easier and more enjoyable.
The Mac does make difficult media tasks easier, but that does not necessarily mean it can make rendering media happen instantly.
Of course not.
But Apple keep adding features that are more resource intensive. It's only natural that users would then desire more powerful machines to do these tasks.
Apple can and arguable should provide better tools to do this. The technology already exists. They don't have to go to the drawing board to develop the cpus to do this. They *already* exist.