The problem with Apples low end ( the Mini) is that it is designed to be expensive.
The CPU might be "green" but it also costs perhaps 3-4 times as much as say E5200 that would be as fast and really not bad even in heat output.
The 2.5" is sligtly more expensive than the 3.5
A slotloaded DVD burner is 3 times as expensive as a standard tray. So a macmini one inch higher with room for those standard components would cost 200 dollars less to make and still be a true mini.
I do not suggest any bottom of the barrel celeron and intel integrated graphics
Or better yet leverage the network and deliver a model without the optical drive.
Sticking with a 2.5" drive makes sense since SSD will be the dominant desktop/laptop storage tech in a scant few years.
Apple doesn't care about optical drives anymore so a cheaper full size drive means nothing.
Basically all Apple has to do is wait for Arrandale and other highly consolidated parts. The Netbook craze is fueled by the fact that most computers are just big internet surfing boxes.
The problem with Apples low end ( the Mini) is that it is designed to be expensive.
You have it backwards. It's expensive because of the design. It isn't specifically designed to be expensive.
Quote:
The CPU might be "green" but it also costs perhaps 3-4 times as much as say E5200 that would be as fast and really not bad even in heat output.
The 2.5" is sligtly more expensive than the 3.5
A slotloaded DVD burner is 3 times as expensive as a standard tray. So a macmini one inch higher with room for those standard components would cost 200 dollars less to make and still be a true mini.
The Mini is not a budget computer it is a minimalistic design object. It Apple wish they could make a nicely designed budget computer at the price of then killing the market for the current macmini and probably inflict some damage on the lowend imac as well.
I do not suggest any bottom of the barrel celeron and intel integrated graphics
It is what it is. It's not really expensive, but you can get cheap PCs for less.
It costs what it does, because the parts used are more expensive, where required, so that it could be made so small.
...The Netbook craze is fueled by the fact that most computers are just big internet surfing boxes...
Hopefully it says something positive about my life, work and play that I need my PC and Mac to perform much more than Facebooking on a 10" screen. Maybe that or I'm antisocial.
Hopefully it says something positive about my life, work and play that I need my PC and Mac to perform much more than Facebooking on a 10" screen. Maybe that or I'm antisocial.
Well you never show up to my parties
I think today computers are too "cookie cutter" with redundant parts. The whole BTO process is a sham. It's a lot like Ford telling me I can have any color I want for my Model T as long as its black.
I'm told I can build a custom system that matches my needs so long as my needs also include an optical drive, certain sized hard drive and RAM.
Today's computers give you the illusion of choice but unless they're selling zero/zero configuration barebones computers the choices I have are merely tweaking a few products here and there.
That all brings us right back to the topic at hand. We don't have cheaper more affordable Macs because this is anti-thetical to what Apple wants. They want higher revenue and higher margin.
Or better yet leverage the network and deliver a model without the optical drive.
Sticking with a 2.5" drive makes sense since SSD will be the dominant desktop/laptop storage tech in a scant few years.
Apple doesn't care about optical drives anymore so a cheaper full size drive means nothing.
Basically all Apple has to do is wait for Arrandale and other highly consolidated parts. The Netbook craze is fueled by the fact that most computers are just big internet surfing boxes.
But SSD's aren't dominant yet, so sticking with a 2.5" drive is sort of pointless, less it's 7200 RPM, but then, you're still limited by capacity (laptop drives and SSD are still smaller than drives, the largest 2.5" drive is maybe 500 GB, 3.5" drives are up to 2 TB).
The Mini is a odd duck, really to get the most out of it, you need an external HD, in order to use TM, or add additional storage, as a 120/320 GB in the standard Mini's are nothing to write home about. So then you've got a another cable, and another HD, power brick hanging out the back, more cables, which somewhat defeat the point in small, indiscrete PC. And I'm not about to go backing up to the network wirelessly, especially since Apple doesn't have a great track record with 802.11n.
.
Biggest issue I have with it, is that it's a pain to open. HDs fail, 3-5 years and they're just about toast. So rather than making it easy, lemme go grab that putty knife...unlike most Dells, my PCs or even older PowerMacs, I can't just pop down the side, and slide out the faulty drive. Boo.
Make it couple inches bigger in X,Y,Z, and they could put in a real hard drive, and perhaps a real DVD burner (8x?).
I don't trust my backups enough to HD's just yet, nor do I have enough of Comcast's bandwidth to dick around and download GB files all the time).
My guess, is that Apple had a bunch of old Mini shells laying around, and it was easy as pie to swap out the GBU/northbridge/CPU and make it fit.
I like my Mini, but it could be so much better. But it's Apple only headless Mac that isn't over $2000.
To clarify my point with regard to design and price.
Apple could have aimed for a entry level desktop. A size less than half of the Cube. A nice design. And a price at least 200 dollars less than the current one.
Instead they made it even smaller, requiring the use of far more expensive components.
Do anyone believe that a one inch higher mini would be disliked by the consumer for being "to large"??
They started the Mini with a single G4 at 1.2 GHz to cram 4 GHz into the same enclosure they have to use the much more expensive laptop CPUs. But from a buyers point of wiev what is the point?
Sure the optical drive can go, that is, when you getOS X on a bootable USBstick from Apple and all apps can be bought online or on a USB stick as well, not before.
But SSD's aren't dominant yet, so sticking with a 2.5" drive is sort of pointless, less it's 7200 RPM, but then, you're still limited by capacity (laptop drives and SSD are still smaller than drives, the largest 2.5" drive is maybe 500 GB, 3.5" drives are up to 2 TB).
The Mini is a odd duck, really to get the most out of it, you need an external HD, in order to use TM, or add additional storage, as a 120/320 GB in the standard Mini's are nothing to write home about. So then you've got a another cable, and another HD, power brick hanging out the back, more cables, which somewhat defeat the point in small, indiscrete PC. And I'm not about to go backing up to the network wirelessly, especially since Apple doesn't have a great track record with 802.11n.
.
Biggest issue I have with it, is that it's a pain to open. HDs fail, 3-5 years and they're just about toast. So rather than making it easy, lemme go grab that putty knife...unlike most Dells, my PCs or even older PowerMacs, I can't just pop down the side, and slide out the faulty drive. Boo.
Make it couple inches bigger in X,Y,Z, and they could put in a real hard drive, and perhaps a real DVD burner (8x?).
I don't trust my backups enough to HD's just yet, nor do I have enough of Comcast's bandwidth to dick around and download GB files all the time).
My guess, is that Apple had a bunch of old Mini shells laying around, and it was easy as pie to swap out the GBU/northbridge/CPU and make it fit.
I like my Mini, but it could be so much better. But it's Apple only headless Mac that isn't over $2000.
For most people, even a 320HDD will be enough. Is speed, again for most people, really an issue? I don't think so.
...I think today computers are too "cookie cutter" with redundant parts. The whole BTO process is a sham. It's a lot like Ford telling me I can have any color I want for my Model T as long as its black.
I'm told I can build a custom system that matches my needs so long as my needs also include an optical drive, certain sized hard drive and RAM.
Today's computers give you the illusion of choice but unless they're selling zero/zero configuration barebones computers the choices I have are merely tweaking a few products here and there.
That all brings us right back to the topic at hand. We don't have cheaper more affordable Macs because this is anti-thetical to what Apple wants. They want higher revenue and higher margin.
I had this issue and thought about it long and hard. I want a portable all-in-one computer. Or, I want a 15" laptop in which I can have a decent graphics card and components I can choose. Not just the limited Dell configs with rubbish graphics cards. Or, expensive CPUs which are not necessary, you need a good GPU but only an average (like Merom 2ghz) CPU for gaming.
In the end I went with the shop-assembled (with a bit of my own assembly) PC desktop. And a refurb MacBook Alu.
The HP Voodoo and Dells are interesting. But they didn't come close to what I wanted, even if price was not really an issue.
So I went PC desktop (big hot box) and ["expensive"] Mac laptop (that ain't even a MacBook Pro)... \
I'm happy about my choices and the value I'm getting out of it though. Took a lot of research, at the end of the day I've returned to PC-Mac duality. PC gaming desktop, and just in the past week, MacBook Alu 2ghz refurb ~ with my own 7200rpm 2.5" drive. Snappy enough without needing 4GB. Thanks to the 9400M Photoshop CS4 *FINALLY* scales images cleanly when viewing outside of 100%, 50%, 25% etc. Naice!
I've given up on a Mac that can do anything close at any reasonable price to what a big hot noisy box PC desktop can do. Which is not to say that the PC desktop can do anything close to what a Mac can.
For most people, even a 320HDD will be enough. Is speed, again for most people, really an issue? I don't think so.
An 8x DVD burner is now standard in all Minis.
For most people, speed is not an issue. As for me though, I ain't ever going back to anything less than a 7,200rpm drive or equivalent speed in a laptop or desktop.
In 2008 when I had RAID0 running with 2 drives on my PC desktop... Loading up games and in between levels, almost twice as fast. Minimal delay between getting ready to game and being right in the action.
On a Mac laptop, I find a 7200rpm drive with 2GB of RAM feels faster when "medium-loaded" with running apps, compared to a Mac laptop with 5400rpm drive with 4GB of RAM... All other specifications being the same.
Of course, 7200rpm drive with 4GB or 6GB of DDR3 RAM on the latest MacBook/Pro Aluminiums, ah... Well, is that 4GB MacBook/Pro RAM issue fixed already or what?
On a Mac laptop, I find a 7200rpm drive with 2GB of RAM feels faster when "medium-loaded" with running apps, compared to a Mac laptop with 5400rpm drive with 4GB of RAM... All other specifications being the same.
All other specs the same, yes the 7200RPM would be faster, but since you get considerably more capacity with the 5400RPM drive I find this to be the best option if it's your sole drive, as opposed to just being your boot drive.
It was just a boot drive I'd go for the fastest drive, maybe an SSD, but for a notebook I would go for the largest drive since I know it will get filled. Since the writing starts on the outside and works its way in the benefits of faster speeds reduces as the drive fills up so eventually, depending on the drive capacities compared can have a 5400RPM drive out perform a 7200RPM drive once you reach x-many GB filled. For example, a 500GB 7200RPM drive filled 50% with 250GB could be more responsive than a 320GB 7200RPM drive filled 80% with the same 250GB.
I'm always going to defer to speed vs size when it comes to hard drives.
I see people obsess about whether they want to buy the 2.2Ghz model or the 2.4Ghz model which yields likely a 10% max benefit in performance in the same processor family.
Then they stick with the same old 5400 rpm drive it came with which costs them more performance than the processor upgrade brings.
SSD are expensive but they're expensive because they perform and what's the point of buying a shiny new computer if you're hobbling it with slow spinning rust?
Seagate and Western Digital have the right idea. Both companies are working on large high areal density drives that spin at lower rates to conserve power. NAS vendors are using low wattage Freescale, ARM and Intel chips for their boxes. The movement is towards scalable external storage either direct attached or network attached and fast (SSD) storage for the desktop.
Optical drives are not really a necessity anymore for many people and should be optional. I'd rather bump in processor speed or RAM in lieu of yet another slow crappy optical drive being crammed down my gullet.
Affordability is perception based on a ratio of performance/cost. When you begin to see a bunch of features you have no use for the affordability of said device drops.
1) You have actually beaten out Lemon Bon Bon for having the most anoying posting style on these forums.
I'm surprised you left yourself out. But if it's any consolation, you're catching me up.
(I thought you'd have at least looked up the 'meaning' of 'what's a lemon bon bon?' in the dictionary...)
Macs are overpriced in the UK. It's a fact.
Macs don't have to be 'cheap'. They have to be 'not' overpriced.
Which they are.
I'm with the 'bullseye', Marv' in this one. It's not like Macs are 'cheap'.
£900 starting price isn't cheap. £329 wintel laptop is 'cheap'.
For those incapable of seeing the 'middle' ground here (especially in this economy...) I refer you Silly Solipses great argument winner 'Aren't Apple entitled (as a greedy, 30 Billion $ in the bank) to make a profit?'.
It works everytime. In fact. I'm hoping Apple put their prices up another £1000 instead of $400 this time. That way even Melgross maybe priced out of the entry model as opposed to the 'too expensive even for him' top end model.
Do Apple need to join reality on their entry pricing? Discuss.
Well, Mel'. Maybe 'most' people disagree with you? Seeing as they make up the majority of the PC market where value for money is abundant and where getting 'stiffed' on pricing for less spec is 'less' apparent.
Did you know you can actually get a 'crap' quad core for less than £1895? Yeh. Was a shock to my system...what with me being an Apple fan boi an' all...
It sure wasn't designed to be inexpensive, though.
Funny that. Maybe that's part of the design process that needs a little look at.
*Thinks of the market share penetration of the iPod line. That actually saved the Mac line from obscurity. Maybe we could have a Mac we could 'wear' like the shuffle. Hmm. The Mini is perhaps a bit too big...though...
For most people, speed is not an issue. As for me though, I ain't ever going back to anything less than a 7,200rpm drive or equivalent speed in a laptop or desktop.
In 2008 when I had RAID0 running with 2 drives on my PC desktop... Loading up games and in between levels, almost twice as fast. Minimal delay between getting ready to game and being right in the action.
On a Mac laptop, I find a 7200rpm drive with 2GB of RAM feels faster when "medium-loaded" with running apps, compared to a Mac laptop with 5400rpm drive with 4GB of RAM... All other specifications being the same.
Of course, 7200rpm drive with 4GB or 6GB of DDR3 RAM on the latest MacBook/Pro Aluminiums, ah... Well, is that 4GB MacBook/Pro RAM issue fixed already or what?
While some are, a lot of us here don't match the "average user" profile.
For them, the situation is different. They don't play many first person shooters. They don't do video or photo editing. They do little that requires a big, fast HDD. Even when they download MP3s, a 320 HDD is more than enough.
Comments
The problem with Apples low end ( the Mini) is that it is designed to be expensive.
The CPU might be "green" but it also costs perhaps 3-4 times as much as say E5200 that would be as fast and really not bad even in heat output.
The 2.5" is sligtly more expensive than the 3.5
A slotloaded DVD burner is 3 times as expensive as a standard tray. So a macmini one inch higher with room for those standard components would cost 200 dollars less to make and still be a true mini.
I do not suggest any bottom of the barrel celeron and intel integrated graphics
Or better yet leverage the network and deliver a model without the optical drive.
Sticking with a 2.5" drive makes sense since SSD will be the dominant desktop/laptop storage tech in a scant few years.
Apple doesn't care about optical drives anymore so a cheaper full size drive means nothing.
Basically all Apple has to do is wait for Arrandale and other highly consolidated parts. The Netbook craze is fueled by the fact that most computers are just big internet surfing boxes.
The problem with Apples low end ( the Mini) is that it is designed to be expensive.
You have it backwards. It's expensive because of the design. It isn't specifically designed to be expensive.
The CPU might be "green" but it also costs perhaps 3-4 times as much as say E5200 that would be as fast and really not bad even in heat output.
The 2.5" is sligtly more expensive than the 3.5
A slotloaded DVD burner is 3 times as expensive as a standard tray. So a macmini one inch higher with room for those standard components would cost 200 dollars less to make and still be a true mini.
The Mini is not a budget computer it is a minimalistic design object. It Apple wish they could make a nicely designed budget computer at the price of then killing the market for the current macmini and probably inflict some damage on the lowend imac as well.
I do not suggest any bottom of the barrel celeron and intel integrated graphics
It is what it is. It's not really expensive, but you can get cheap PCs for less.
It costs what it does, because the parts used are more expensive, where required, so that it could be made so small.
...The Netbook craze is fueled by the fact that most computers are just big internet surfing boxes...
Hopefully it says something positive about my life, work and play that I need my PC and Mac to perform much more than Facebooking on a 10" screen. Maybe that or I'm antisocial.
You have it backwards. It's expensive because of the design. It isn't specifically designed to be expensive...
It sure wasn't designed to be inexpensive, though.
It sure wasn't designed to be inexpensive, though.
As inexpensive as Apple could figure out how to make one.
Hopefully it says something positive about my life, work and play that I need my PC and Mac to perform much more than Facebooking on a 10" screen. Maybe that or I'm antisocial.
Well you never show up to my parties
I think today computers are too "cookie cutter" with redundant parts. The whole BTO process is a sham. It's a lot like Ford telling me I can have any color I want for my Model T as long as its black.
I'm told I can build a custom system that matches my needs so long as my needs also include an optical drive, certain sized hard drive and RAM.
Today's computers give you the illusion of choice but unless they're selling zero/zero configuration barebones computers the choices I have are merely tweaking a few products here and there.
That all brings us right back to the topic at hand. We don't have cheaper more affordable Macs because this is anti-thetical to what Apple wants. They want higher revenue and higher margin.
Or better yet leverage the network and deliver a model without the optical drive.
Sticking with a 2.5" drive makes sense since SSD will be the dominant desktop/laptop storage tech in a scant few years.
Apple doesn't care about optical drives anymore so a cheaper full size drive means nothing.
Basically all Apple has to do is wait for Arrandale and other highly consolidated parts. The Netbook craze is fueled by the fact that most computers are just big internet surfing boxes.
But SSD's aren't dominant yet, so sticking with a 2.5" drive is sort of pointless, less it's 7200 RPM, but then, you're still limited by capacity (laptop drives and SSD are still smaller than drives, the largest 2.5" drive is maybe 500 GB, 3.5" drives are up to 2 TB).
The Mini is a odd duck, really to get the most out of it, you need an external HD, in order to use TM, or add additional storage, as a 120/320 GB in the standard Mini's are nothing to write home about. So then you've got a another cable, and another HD, power brick hanging out the back, more cables, which somewhat defeat the point in small, indiscrete PC. And I'm not about to go backing up to the network wirelessly, especially since Apple doesn't have a great track record with 802.11n.
.
Biggest issue I have with it, is that it's a pain to open. HDs fail, 3-5 years and they're just about toast. So rather than making it easy, lemme go grab that putty knife...unlike most Dells, my PCs or even older PowerMacs, I can't just pop down the side, and slide out the faulty drive. Boo.
Make it couple inches bigger in X,Y,Z, and they could put in a real hard drive, and perhaps a real DVD burner (8x?).
I don't trust my backups enough to HD's just yet, nor do I have enough of Comcast's bandwidth to dick around and download GB files all the time).
My guess, is that Apple had a bunch of old Mini shells laying around, and it was easy as pie to swap out the GBU/northbridge/CPU and make it fit.
I like my Mini, but it could be so much better. But it's Apple only headless Mac that isn't over $2000.
Do they really care about DVD burners anymore?
Perhaps given certain circumstances but a multi computer dwelling needs the same sort of network resources that business moved to two decades ago.
HDD can't keep up with SSD today and in 3 years they'll be 3-4x behind in performance.
Let's skate to where the puck is going.
Apple could have aimed for a entry level desktop. A size less than half of the Cube. A nice design. And a price at least 200 dollars less than the current one.
Instead they made it even smaller, requiring the use of far more expensive components.
Do anyone believe that a one inch higher mini would be disliked by the consumer for being "to large"??
They started the Mini with a single G4 at 1.2 GHz to cram 4 GHz into the same enclosure they have to use the much more expensive laptop CPUs. But from a buyers point of wiev what is the point?
Sure the optical drive can go, that is, when you getOS X on a bootable USBstick from Apple and all apps can be bought online or on a USB stick as well, not before.
But SSD's aren't dominant yet, so sticking with a 2.5" drive is sort of pointless, less it's 7200 RPM, but then, you're still limited by capacity (laptop drives and SSD are still smaller than drives, the largest 2.5" drive is maybe 500 GB, 3.5" drives are up to 2 TB).
The Mini is a odd duck, really to get the most out of it, you need an external HD, in order to use TM, or add additional storage, as a 120/320 GB in the standard Mini's are nothing to write home about. So then you've got a another cable, and another HD, power brick hanging out the back, more cables, which somewhat defeat the point in small, indiscrete PC. And I'm not about to go backing up to the network wirelessly, especially since Apple doesn't have a great track record with 802.11n.
.
Biggest issue I have with it, is that it's a pain to open. HDs fail, 3-5 years and they're just about toast. So rather than making it easy, lemme go grab that putty knife...unlike most Dells, my PCs or even older PowerMacs, I can't just pop down the side, and slide out the faulty drive. Boo.
Make it couple inches bigger in X,Y,Z, and they could put in a real hard drive, and perhaps a real DVD burner (8x?).
I don't trust my backups enough to HD's just yet, nor do I have enough of Comcast's bandwidth to dick around and download GB files all the time).
My guess, is that Apple had a bunch of old Mini shells laying around, and it was easy as pie to swap out the GBU/northbridge/CPU and make it fit.
I like my Mini, but it could be so much better. But it's Apple only headless Mac that isn't over $2000.
For most people, even a 320HDD will be enough. Is speed, again for most people, really an issue? I don't think so.
An 8x DVD burner is now standard in all Minis.
...I think today computers are too "cookie cutter" with redundant parts. The whole BTO process is a sham. It's a lot like Ford telling me I can have any color I want for my Model T as long as its black.
I'm told I can build a custom system that matches my needs so long as my needs also include an optical drive, certain sized hard drive and RAM.
Today's computers give you the illusion of choice but unless they're selling zero/zero configuration barebones computers the choices I have are merely tweaking a few products here and there.
That all brings us right back to the topic at hand. We don't have cheaper more affordable Macs because this is anti-thetical to what Apple wants. They want higher revenue and higher margin.
I had this issue and thought about it long and hard. I want a portable all-in-one computer. Or, I want a 15" laptop in which I can have a decent graphics card and components I can choose. Not just the limited Dell configs with rubbish graphics cards. Or, expensive CPUs which are not necessary, you need a good GPU but only an average (like Merom 2ghz) CPU for gaming.
In the end I went with the shop-assembled (with a bit of my own assembly) PC desktop. And a refurb MacBook Alu.
The HP Voodoo and Dells are interesting. But they didn't come close to what I wanted, even if price was not really an issue.
So I went PC desktop (big hot box) and ["expensive"] Mac laptop (that ain't even a MacBook Pro)...
I'm happy about my choices and the value I'm getting out of it though.
I've given up on a Mac that can do anything close at any reasonable price to what a big hot noisy box PC desktop can do. Which is not to say that the PC desktop can do anything close to what a Mac can.
For most people, even a 320HDD will be enough. Is speed, again for most people, really an issue? I don't think so.
An 8x DVD burner is now standard in all Minis.
For most people, speed is not an issue. As for me though, I ain't ever going back to anything less than a 7,200rpm drive or equivalent speed in a laptop or desktop.
In 2008 when I had RAID0 running with 2 drives on my PC desktop... Loading up games and in between levels, almost twice as fast. Minimal delay between getting ready to game and being right in the action.
On a Mac laptop, I find a 7200rpm drive with 2GB of RAM feels faster when "medium-loaded" with running apps, compared to a Mac laptop with 5400rpm drive with 4GB of RAM... All other specifications being the same.
Of course, 7200rpm drive with 4GB or 6GB of DDR3 RAM on the latest MacBook/Pro Aluminiums, ah... Well, is that 4GB MacBook/Pro RAM issue fixed already or what?
On a Mac laptop, I find a 7200rpm drive with 2GB of RAM feels faster when "medium-loaded" with running apps, compared to a Mac laptop with 5400rpm drive with 4GB of RAM... All other specifications being the same.
All other specs the same, yes the 7200RPM would be faster, but since you get considerably more capacity with the 5400RPM drive I find this to be the best option if it's your sole drive, as opposed to just being your boot drive.
It was just a boot drive I'd go for the fastest drive, maybe an SSD, but for a notebook I would go for the largest drive since I know it will get filled. Since the writing starts on the outside and works its way in the benefits of faster speeds reduces as the drive fills up so eventually, depending on the drive capacities compared can have a 5400RPM drive out perform a 7200RPM drive once you reach x-many GB filled. For example, a 500GB 7200RPM drive filled 50% with 250GB could be more responsive than a 320GB 7200RPM drive filled 80% with the same 250GB.
I see people obsess about whether they want to buy the 2.2Ghz model or the 2.4Ghz model which yields likely a 10% max benefit in performance in the same processor family.
Then they stick with the same old 5400 rpm drive it came with which costs them more performance than the processor upgrade brings.
SSD are expensive but they're expensive because they perform and what's the point of buying a shiny new computer if you're hobbling it with slow spinning rust?
Seagate and Western Digital have the right idea. Both companies are working on large high areal density drives that spin at lower rates to conserve power. NAS vendors are using low wattage Freescale, ARM and Intel chips for their boxes. The movement is towards scalable external storage either direct attached or network attached and fast (SSD) storage for the desktop.
Optical drives are not really a necessity anymore for many people and should be optional. I'd rather bump in processor speed or RAM in lieu of yet another slow crappy optical drive being crammed down my gullet.
Affordability is perception based on a ratio of performance/cost. When you begin to see a bunch of features you have no use for the affordability of said device drops.
1) You have actually beaten out Lemon Bon Bon for having the most anoying posting style on these forums.
I'm surprised you left yourself out. But if it's any consolation, you're catching me up.
(I thought you'd have at least looked up the 'meaning' of 'what's a lemon bon bon?' in the dictionary...)
Macs are overpriced in the UK. It's a fact.
Macs don't have to be 'cheap'. They have to be 'not' overpriced.
Which they are.
I'm with the 'bullseye', Marv' in this one. It's not like Macs are 'cheap'.
£900 starting price isn't cheap. £329 wintel laptop is 'cheap'.
For those incapable of seeing the 'middle' ground here (especially in this economy...) I refer you Silly Solipses great argument winner 'Aren't Apple entitled (as a greedy, 30 Billion $ in the bank) to make a profit?'.
It works everytime. In fact. I'm hoping Apple put their prices up another £1000 instead of $400 this time. That way even Melgross maybe priced out of the entry model as opposed to the 'too expensive even for him' top end model.
Do Apple need to join reality on their entry pricing? Discuss.
Lemon Bon Bon.
anoying
I've been told I'm 'Annoying' before. But not 'anoying'. That's a new one on me. But I'll take it. It's free.
Lemon Bon Bon.
most
Well, Mel'. Maybe 'most' people disagree with you? Seeing as they make up the majority of the PC market where value for money is abundant and where getting 'stiffed' on pricing for less spec is 'less' apparent.
Did you know you can actually get a 'crap' quad core for less than £1895? Yeh. Was a shock to my system...what with me being an Apple fan boi an' all...
Lemon Bon Bon.
It sure wasn't designed to be inexpensive, though.
Funny that. Maybe that's part of the design process that needs a little look at.
*Thinks of the market share penetration of the iPod line. That actually saved the Mac line from obscurity. Maybe we could have a Mac we could 'wear' like the shuffle. Hmm. The Mini is perhaps a bit too big...though...
Lemon Bon Bon.
In certain areas of the desktop line. Less evident in the laptop line.
Lemon Bon Bon.
For most people, speed is not an issue. As for me though, I ain't ever going back to anything less than a 7,200rpm drive or equivalent speed in a laptop or desktop.
In 2008 when I had RAID0 running with 2 drives on my PC desktop... Loading up games and in between levels, almost twice as fast. Minimal delay between getting ready to game and being right in the action.
On a Mac laptop, I find a 7200rpm drive with 2GB of RAM feels faster when "medium-loaded" with running apps, compared to a Mac laptop with 5400rpm drive with 4GB of RAM... All other specifications being the same.
Of course, 7200rpm drive with 4GB or 6GB of DDR3 RAM on the latest MacBook/Pro Aluminiums, ah... Well, is that 4GB MacBook/Pro RAM issue fixed already or what?
While some are, a lot of us here don't match the "average user" profile.
For them, the situation is different. They don't play many first person shooters. They don't do video or photo editing. They do little that requires a big, fast HDD. Even when they download MP3s, a 320 HDD is more than enough.
And, gasp! They actually THROW THINGS AWAY!!!