<strong>Apple has a bad tendency to make you buy features you dont want. Like the combo drive; for a low end model, I know plenty of people who would get by with a simply CD-RW and save the cash. </strong><hr></blockquote>
i think apple is starting a trend here...
soon they will put their bundled apps on DVDs not CDs and will even start selling DVD versions of their software.
soon the iBook Low-End will have a DVD-ROM drive and will be a kick-ass machine
The deeper question is how to attract new buyers, who have no idea what they can do so easily on a Mac, or how much easier what they do is on a Mac.
The ONLY think easier and better right now on a Mac are the iApps (which, I agree, is a lot!). Everything else (like Office, Adobe, Macromedia, etc), is slow, unstable and barely useable -- even on the fastest hardware. This is the issue Apple (and its developers) need to address for switchers to this new OS. And this is the reason I keep saying my Dell is better -- all of this 3rd party software currently runs better on a PC (XP in particular). It may not always be this way, but it is at the momment. I cannot in good concious recommend an Apple computer right now for anyone who needs to use these Apps to earn a living.
to those calling people complaining about the lack of fw800 and some other things and dismissing it has "unneccessary" for consumers......
people obviously want that. there is demand for it. apple's job is to provide what people want. fw800 may be a "marketing gimmick" at this point for a consumer machine. so what. people want it and are upset its not there. obviously apple screwed up. i cant imagine it being costly to include.
and its not good for acceptance of the new standard. you dont limit the market for a peripheral interface by limiting it to your high end machines. it will most certainly be doomed that way.
I think the general consensus is that the upgrades aren't bad... I mean, how can reducing the price of a product while making it better be bad? However, if this had happened at MWNY at the introduction of the 17" iMac, things would have probably turned out much better. After over a year of waiting, this is a huge letdown.
This update would be better if the only difference between the two models was the screen... $1299 for the same system as the current 17" version, but with a 15" screen instead. Hell, cut out a couple of features but leave it basically the same (1000 MHz with 133 MHz bus). That would be good. On the other hand, that would steal more sales away from the single GHz PowerMac, but so what? That one was doomed from the start.
[quote]Apple is still selling new models with less than a 1Ghz processor. Thats not just sad, its pathetic...................... <hr></blockquote>
If you had any clue with what is happening, you would realize the fastest processor Apple is currently shipping is 1.25 GHZ and that is in a "Pro" machine.
If you had any clue with what is happening, you would realize the fastest processor Apple is currently shipping is 1.25 GHZ and that is in a "Pro" machine.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
if you had any clue with what is happening, you would relaize the fastest processor Apple is selling is a 1.42 Ghz G4 which is in a dual configuration. the 1.2 is in a dual config as well
never mind the fact that the powermacs offer considerable advantages in addition to clockspeed.
really no reason to have the 800 and no reason the high end couldnt be 1.2
I really don't understand why people say stuff like this. If a person likes their Dell then good for them. It's all a matter of opinion. Let people decide for themselves if they want a Dell or a PC that they built.
I think everyone will agree that the base iMac sucks. There is no way around that fact. Heck, the base emac sucks as well. It is disgracful that Apple still sell computer with only 128 MB ram (that barely runs its OS) and 5400 RPM HD. That is the sad part.
Now, the new 17 inch iMac is nice. They key points are 133 bus and a 64 MB gf4 MX wiht 4X AGP. That fact alone will make it handle OS X better. It should have 512 ram and a 7200 RPM HD and it would be a killer computer.
Also, I have been looking back today... in an old article, I read that a 1 GHz PowerPC would probably be coming out in 2000... well, it didn't come out until early 2002, and a year later still only 1/3 of Mac models have a 1 GHz or faster processor. One iMac, two of the PowerBooks, and all three PowerMacs. Meanwhile, the CRT iMac, the other LCD iMac, both eMacs, all three iBooks, and two of the PowerBooks use 600-867 MHz processors.
600 MHz is, well, twice what Apple had in their top end laptop five years ago. Pretty sad and pathetic if you ask me. Though the CRT iMac is on the way out, and the eMac will probably move up to 800 MHz on the low end at least fairly soon.
I think my questions bear repeating, because no one has made the slightest attempt to answer them:
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>How much does incorporating FW2 into the motherboards, and the case design cost? What about Bluetooth and Airport Extreme? Does the small size and unusual shape of the hardware present any challenges?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
Apple provides terrific software, and OS X shines.
I believe Apple is alwyas woth any extra.
The deeper question is how to attract new buyers, who have no idea what they can do so easily on a Mac, or how much easier what they do is on a Mac.
My rwo cents,
Sincerely,
Dr. L
<strong>Apple has a bad tendency to make you buy features you dont want. Like the combo drive; for a low end model, I know plenty of people who would get by with a simply CD-RW and save the cash. </strong><hr></blockquote>
i think apple is starting a trend here...
soon they will put their bundled apps on DVDs not CDs and will even start selling DVD versions of their software.
soon the iBook Low-End will have a DVD-ROM drive and will be a kick-ass machine
[QB]
The deeper question is how to attract new buyers, who have no idea what they can do so easily on a Mac, or how much easier what they do is on a Mac.
The ONLY think easier and better right now on a Mac are the iApps (which, I agree, is a lot!). Everything else (like Office, Adobe, Macromedia, etc), is slow, unstable and barely useable -- even on the fastest hardware. This is the issue Apple (and its developers) need to address for switchers to this new OS. And this is the reason I keep saying my Dell is better -- all of this 3rd party software currently runs better on a PC (XP in particular). It may not always be this way, but it is at the momment. I cannot in good concious recommend an Apple computer right now for anyone who needs to use these Apps to earn a living.
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by hledgard:
[QB]
I cannot in good concious....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think I meant my conscience, actually <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Just curious.
Thanks.
The bad news: These updates are fairly sucky.
The good news: Speculation of "Summer iMacs"
The reasons: The 15" is obviously a holdover.
people obviously want that. there is demand for it. apple's job is to provide what people want. fw800 may be a "marketing gimmick" at this point for a consumer machine. so what. people want it and are upset its not there. obviously apple screwed up. i cant imagine it being costly to include.
and its not good for acceptance of the new standard. you dont limit the market for a peripheral interface by limiting it to your high end machines. it will most certainly be doomed that way.
This update would be better if the only difference between the two models was the screen... $1299 for the same system as the current 17" version, but with a 15" screen instead. Hell, cut out a couple of features but leave it basically the same (1000 MHz with 133 MHz bus). That would be good. On the other hand, that would steal more sales away from the single GHz PowerMac, but so what? That one was doomed from the start.
Man, if you are going to go with a PC, at least build your own.
No way in hell would I buy a Dell.
Just say <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> to Dell.
[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: msantti ]</p>
If you had any clue with what is happening, you would realize the fastest processor Apple is currently shipping is 1.25 GHZ and that is in a "Pro" machine.
<strong>
If you had any clue with what is happening, you would realize the fastest processor Apple is currently shipping is 1.25 GHZ and that is in a "Pro" machine.
if you had any clue with what is happening, you would relaize the fastest processor Apple is selling is a 1.42 Ghz G4 which is in a dual configuration. the 1.2 is in a dual config as well
never mind the fact that the powermacs offer considerable advantages in addition to clockspeed.
really no reason to have the 800 and no reason the high end couldnt be 1.2
<strong>
Man, if you are going to go with a PC, at least build your own.
No way in hell would I buy a Dell.
Just say <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> to Dell.
[ 02-04-2003: Message edited by: msantti ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I really don't understand why people say stuff like this. If a person likes their Dell then good for them. It's all a matter of opinion. Let people decide for themselves if they want a Dell or a PC that they built.
Now, the new 17 inch iMac is nice. They key points are 133 bus and a 64 MB gf4 MX wiht 4X AGP. That fact alone will make it handle OS X better. It should have 512 ram and a 7200 RPM HD and it would be a killer computer.
Also, I have been looking back today... in an old article, I read that a 1 GHz PowerPC would probably be coming out in 2000... well, it didn't come out until early 2002, and a year later still only 1/3 of Mac models have a 1 GHz or faster processor. One iMac, two of the PowerBooks, and all three PowerMacs. Meanwhile, the CRT iMac, the other LCD iMac, both eMacs, all three iBooks, and two of the PowerBooks use 600-867 MHz processors.
600 MHz is, well, twice what Apple had in their top end laptop five years ago. Pretty sad and pathetic if you ask me. Though the CRT iMac is on the way out, and the eMac will probably move up to 800 MHz on the low end at least fairly soon.
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>How much does incorporating FW2 into the motherboards, and the case design cost? What about Bluetooth and Airport Extreme? Does the small size and unusual shape of the hardware present any challenges?</strong><hr></blockquote>
These are of course, leading questions.
<strong>I think the general consensus is that the upgrades aren't bad...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the general consensus is this:
17" iMac and PowerMac =
15" iMac and eMac =
Barto
It probably wouldn't add more than $50 to the computer.
Barto
<strong>FireWire 800 doesn't cost much. All it involves is replacing the FireWire physical layer chip.
It probably wouldn't add more than $50 to the computer.
Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>
i think 50 dollars is a bit extreme.
i've read that firewire (400) costs a couple bucks for the chip.
now, im sure fw800 is more money but i dont think anywhere near something like 50 bucks