No way Apple releases the Air and then a Macbook - optical drive a year later. That would massively cannibalize Air sales and Apple isn't stupid enough to do that.
That could only be the case if everybody was buying both.
Who buys laptops? Those who like or need portability over additional functionality.
Of those who buy laptops:
Who buys the Air over the Macbook? Those who want exceptional portability over functionality
Who buys the Macbook over the Air? Those who want additional functionality over portability.
There is so much to admire about Apple, and watching the Jobs Plan for World Domination unfold is fascinating as an intellectual exercise if nothing else. However, they are ruthless at times. They know their market extremely well, and their desktop range shows this. The minis for entry level or second computer, the iMac for consumers and the pro range for professionals, and as the large majority of their customers fit into one of those broad categories it works well for both parties. However, if you sit in between two of those categories it is something of a dilemma, as is the case with me. I produce artwork on my aged (but beloved) G4 iMac, and could be described as a serious hobbyist/prosumer. What I do is for my own creative satisfaction, and for friends, and perhaps in time there may be some modest commercial possibilities with what I do. The top of the range iMac (which this was when I bought it) is the ideal machine for me, except that I really do not want a glossy screen, because accurate colour is essential to my work. On the other hand, I really cannot justify the cost of a Mac Pro and decent monitor so I am stuck betwixt and between, hence by default my trusty G4 has to keep trundling away.
I think this is why they have made all iMacs with glossy screens, and why I fear they will not change it despite being asked to by their customers. The top iMac, particularly since the fourth 'extreme' model was introduced, was turning up in a number of professional graphic studios, but as we know they are supposed to buy Pros (and ideally an ACD), and so now if they want colour accuracy they are compelled to move up a level. The 3.06 iMac is the absolutely perfect specification/price machine for me, and if it wasn't for the glossy screen I would be writing this on one already. I understand why they do it, it is a clearly defined and canny bit of strategy, but its not doing me any favours.
I'd like to see the MacBooks in aluminum and the MacBook Pros in some sort of black titanium/carbon enclosures.
You do realize that titanium is still a relatively expensive metal, and that carbon fibers are prohibitively expensive. Sure, CF is cheaper than it was a few years ago, but to make an affordable laptop with the material, it isn't quite yet feasible. Carbon fiber production hasn't yet been ramped up enough. Plus, I believe Aluminum is still more eco-friendly, since carbon composites require a resin base that is typically made from a petroleum based substance.
Other than colors on the Macbook, I think the lone distinctions will be screen size and the hardware specs.
I totally agree with this. Think about the potential benefits of a mid-tower vs. an iMac: customizable display and greater potential for storage and upgrades. I might be missing something, but what percentage of the average computer user really needs these but not the additional perks of the Mac Pro (better everything, extensive customization and upgrade possibilities, more cores, etc.)? I would guess that it's a rather low %. For most consumers that need a desktop, the iMac is a powerful, appealing, and simple all-in-one solution, and the power users that need more would stick with a Mac Pro anyways, methinks.
We use laptops at home and I need a home file server, call it an XServe SOHO. Take the mainboard from a Mini, add 4 drive bays, perhaps one PCI slot and beef up the power supply and fans etc. Put it in a very cute mini-tower case. I'd think $999-$1299 wouldn't be unreasonable.
The closest thing I can get to this is a Mac Mini with an external drive enclosure(s) using Firewire 400 (not really meant for a server), or $2500 for a Mac Pro (way overkill). So guess what? I haven't bought anything ...
Apple wants us to get all of our music/TV/Movies over iTunes, but won't sell us any place to put it!
We use laptops at home and I need a home file server, call it an XServe SOHO. Take the mainboard from a Mini, add 4 drive bays, perhaps one PCI slot and beef up the power supply and fans etc. Put it in a very cute mini-tower case. I'd think $999-$1299 wouldn't be unreasonable.
The closest thing I can get to this is a Mac Mini with an external drive enclosure(s) using Firewire 400 (not really meant for a server), or $2500 for a Mac Pro (way overkill). So guess what? I haven't bought anything ...
Apple wants us to get all of our music/TV/Movies over iTunes, but won't sell us any place to put it!
Glad to see I'm not the only one thinking the same...
We use laptops at home and I need a home file server, call it an XServe SOHO. Take the mainboard from a Mini, add 4 drive bays, perhaps one PCI slot and beef up the power supply and fans etc. Put it in a very cute mini-tower case. I'd think $999-$1299 wouldn't be unreasonable.
The closest thing I can get to this is a Mac Mini with an external drive enclosure(s) using Firewire 400 (not really meant for a server), or $2500 for a Mac Pro (way overkill). So guess what? I haven't bought anything ...
Apple wants us to get all of our music/TV/Movies over iTunes, but won't sell us any place to put it!
Kind of like a cross between a Time Capsule and an Xserve?
The reason I want a cheap tower is not so much for it's upgradability but it's power/price ratio.
The iMac has a mobile CPU and a mobile GPU which to me is the most important part of the machine. By increasing the case size and just using desktop chips you could have a considerably faster computer for the exact same price.
The Mac Pro's are really out of that golden power per dollar ratio as they use the latest and greatest chips which cost a pretty penny.
I do have to worry about wireless signal strength with the aluminum cases, couldn't the signal go through the screen front side of the screen though? I suppose not as it's a know fact that the MBP's have worse wireless then the MB's, I hope they can alleviate this problem especially if apple wants to go all wireless which I would love.
Kind of like a cross between a Time Capsule and an Xserve?
Actually I think you are close to what Steve has in mind. A combination of an Xserve, Time Capsule and Apple TV: a "whole home server" seems like Apples near future. Set it up and go from anywhere in the house. Laptops, desk tops , iphones/ipods can all access it . Set top boxes or adapters ( wifi/or whatever) for TV's/monitors, appliences , even your car, etc.
We use laptops at home and I need a home file server,
Not sure how you plan to use it, but I have 6 Macs at home and set up a wireless Mac File Server using a Mini as described here http://www.macinstruct.com/node/181.
The 15 inch aluminum Powerbook G4 and 15 inch MacBook Pro seem to get a lot of dents around the DVD slot. I see customers bringing these in all the time for busted DVD slots.
I have a cheap plastic speck snap-on cover (red) for my MBP. It protects the case from scratches, dents, and presumably from busted DVD slots too. It also looks cool
1. New MacBook line-up condenses both MacBook Pro and MacBook into a single model range offered in three screen sizes 13", 15" and 17". Each model will be available in a Pro configuration, offering faster chips, higher res screens, high end GPUs and extra memory. All will come with in-built DVD drive. All will have aircraft grade aluminum enclosures.
2. New macBook products announced on Monday 9th June by SJ and on sale by 30th June.
3. Mac sales will go through the roof.
4. I will have a shiny new MacBook book sitting on my desk in a matter of days to match my brand new 3G iPhone.
I was under the impression that the 'third quarter' was April to June, not July to September (which is usually called 4Q). Doesn't the fiscal year begin in October?
.....or you stick with a PC because Apple won't address the Grand Canyon sized hole in its desktop lineup. Apple has always offered a true single processor tower and now that hardly anyone really need dual processors (even a lot of high end apps can't handle more than four cores), that's the only option. And no, the single Xeon Mac Pro configuration doesn't count- it's really just a crippled dual processor setup (all the added costs but no benfits aside from having the option of adding a second chip down the line).
BS... I bought the single processor mac pro because I needed the internal expandability and didn't need the insane power of 8 cores. The extra $ I saved helped pay for internal audio processing cards for Logic Pro. You can't add a second processor to the BTO single processor without installing a new motherboard... so those looking to save some $ and upgrade to a dual engine in the future are screwed.
I was under the impression that the 'third quarter' was April to June, not July to September (which is usually called 4Q). Doesn't the fiscal year begin in October?
Do they mean 'third quarter' or July-September?
Every jurisdiction in the U.S. (primarily the states) have slightly different rules. However, generally a corporation can start its fiscal year any time "it" wants to. For the most part, large publicly traded corporations like Apple start their fiscal year in January. I believe all of the U.S. exchanges still require this as a condition of listing. (In order to maintain consistency of reporting, etc.) Usually, it is smaller privately held corporations that start their fiscal year at different times of the calendar year.
Apples quarters are: Q1. Jan. Feb. March. Q2. April May June Q3. July, August, Sept. Q4. Oct. Nov. Dec. I would guess that the new laptops will ship Aug/Sept, but be announced earlier, perhaps at WWDC or in July. This makes them available for Education ordering and Student back to school planning and purchasing. Then again, its Steve and Apple so you never know . . . hope that helps.
Every jurisdiction in the U.S. (primarily the states) have slightly different rules. However, generally a corporation can start its fiscal year any time "it" wants to. For the most part, large publicly traded corporations like Apple start their fiscal year in January. I believe all of the U.S. exchanges still require this as a condition of listing. (In order to maintain consistency of reporting, etc.) Usually, it is smaller privately held corporations that start their fiscal year at different times of the calendar year.
Apples quarters are: Q1. Jan. Feb. March. Q2. April May June Q3. July, August, Sept. Q4. Oct. Nov. Dec. I would guess that the new laptops will ship Aug/Sept, but be announced earlier, perhaps at WWDC or in July. This makes them available for Education ordering and Student back to school planning and purchasing. Then again, its Steve and Apple so you never know . . . hope that helps.
From Apple's Investor Relations FAQ:
Q: What is Apple's fiscal year?
A: Apple's fiscal year 2008 runs from September 30, 2007 to September 27, 2008.
So the question remains. Is Q3 the calendar Q3 or is it Apple's Fiscal Q3?
The reason I want a cheap tower is not so much for it's upgradability (sic) but it's power/price ratio.
Exactly why Apple doesn't want to build one. Why add additional product design and management, component and finished product inventory, mfg. lines, and potentially massive support issues tied to third party DIY upgrades, just to make razor-thin margins so you can compete with all the other beige-box systems? That is not the road to shareholder happy-land.
The vast majority of the market for low-cost computers will likely stay with Windows because it's what they "know" how to use from work at the office. The rest of us who want a mid-tower Mac only have to look at Apple's history to know that too many product lines stretched resources too thin, and no one was happy, so Steve's gonna keep it on the money road. The name of the game is profitable sales leading to consistent share price growth, not pleasing every possible market segment.
Every jurisdiction in the U.S. (primarily the states) have slightly different rules. However, generally a corporation can start its fiscal year any time "it" wants to. For the most part, large publicly traded corporations like Apple start their fiscal year in January. I believe all of the U.S. exchanges still require this as a condition of listing. (In order to maintain consistency of reporting, etc.) Usually, it is smaller privately held corporations that start their fiscal year at different times of the calendar year.
Apples quarters are: Q1. Jan. Feb. March. Q2. April May June Q3. July, August, Sept. Q4. Oct. Nov. Dec. I would guess that the new laptops will ship Aug/Sept, but be announced earlier, perhaps at WWDC or in July. This makes them available for Education ordering and Student back to school planning and purchasing. Then again, its Steve and Apple so you never know . . . hope that helps.
BTW, the exchanges do not require any specificity as far as Fiscal Year dates for when they list. Apple even chooses to not do it on the 1st of a month, which helps them visually smooth the trend-lines, and also affects holidays. I.E. - if they started their "quarter" on 9/30/08, which means their Q1 end was probably just before New Years, so they could close out prior to the New Years/end of year rush that everyone else is in.
Also, given Apple's dependence on the school market up until the mid 90's, being able to close the year in September closed out their year with the retail rush for new computers on top of the already-signed institutional contracts with school districts and universities that would have been done in the spring of that given year.
Incidentally, Sun's fiscal year starts July 1. This ties them closer to the Fed fiscal year and reduces end-of-year dependence on sales, traditionally allowing them to do a Christmas-to-New Years shutdown.
BS... I bought the single processor mac pro because I needed the internal expandability and didn't need the insane power of 8 cores. The extra $ I saved helped pay for internal audio processing cards for Logic Pro. You can't add a second processor to the BTO single processor without installing a new motherboard... so those looking to save some $ and upgrade to a dual engine in the future are screwed.
Exactly!
I need a mid-tower because I'd like to have two 20" monitors and a 12" Wacom. MacPro starts at a whopping $2,700, it's insane! iMac and the Mac-mini cannot serve my needs.
If that doesn't happen soon, I'll be forced to buy a nice PC box, install hackintosh, and slowly migrate to the dark, and more flexible, side. It'll be sad... been an Apple user since 1981.
Not sure how you plan to use it, but I have 6 Macs at home and set up a wireless Mac File Server using a Mini as described here http://www.macinstruct.com/node/181.
I would like a Home Server that worked with iTunes, iPhoto, Address Book and iCal. These would be multi-user, master libraries that individual clients could sync with, use subsets of and edit. Particularly as my iTunes and iPhoto libraries are now to large to fit on my MacBook.
The 3.06 iMac is the absolutely perfect specification/price machine for me, and if it wasn't for the glossy screen I would be writing this on one already. I understand why they do it, it is a clearly defined and canny bit of strategy, but its not doing me any favours.
Why not get the 3.06 iMac and a second non-glossy display?
Comments
No way Apple releases the Air and then a Macbook - optical drive a year later. That would massively cannibalize Air sales and Apple isn't stupid enough to do that.
That could only be the case if everybody was buying both.
Who buys laptops? Those who like or need portability over additional functionality.
Of those who buy laptops:
Who buys the Air over the Macbook? Those who want exceptional portability over functionality
Who buys the Macbook over the Air? Those who want additional functionality over portability.
Who buys 2 laptops? Nobody.
I think this is why they have made all iMacs with glossy screens, and why I fear they will not change it despite being asked to by their customers. The top iMac, particularly since the fourth 'extreme' model was introduced, was turning up in a number of professional graphic studios, but as we know they are supposed to buy Pros (and ideally an ACD), and so now if they want colour accuracy they are compelled to move up a level. The 3.06 iMac is the absolutely perfect specification/price machine for me, and if it wasn't for the glossy screen I would be writing this on one already. I understand why they do it, it is a clearly defined and canny bit of strategy, but its not doing me any favours.
I'd like to see the MacBooks in aluminum and the MacBook Pros in some sort of black titanium/carbon enclosures.
You do realize that titanium is still a relatively expensive metal, and that carbon fibers are prohibitively expensive. Sure, CF is cheaper than it was a few years ago, but to make an affordable laptop with the material, it isn't quite yet feasible. Carbon fiber production hasn't yet been ramped up enough. Plus, I believe Aluminum is still more eco-friendly, since carbon composites require a resin base that is typically made from a petroleum based substance.
Other than colors on the Macbook, I think the lone distinctions will be screen size and the hardware specs.
I totally agree with this. Think about the potential benefits of a mid-tower vs. an iMac: customizable display and greater potential for storage and upgrades. I might be missing something, but what percentage of the average computer user really needs these but not the additional perks of the Mac Pro (better everything, extensive customization and upgrade possibilities, more cores, etc.)? I would guess that it's a rather low %. For most consumers that need a desktop, the iMac is a powerful, appealing, and simple all-in-one solution, and the power users that need more would stick with a Mac Pro anyways, methinks.
We use laptops at home and I need a home file server, call it an XServe SOHO. Take the mainboard from a Mini, add 4 drive bays, perhaps one PCI slot and beef up the power supply and fans etc. Put it in a very cute mini-tower case. I'd think $999-$1299 wouldn't be unreasonable.
The closest thing I can get to this is a Mac Mini with an external drive enclosure(s) using Firewire 400 (not really meant for a server), or $2500 for a Mac Pro (way overkill). So guess what? I haven't bought anything ...
Apple wants us to get all of our music/TV/Movies over iTunes, but won't sell us any place to put it!
We use laptops at home and I need a home file server, call it an XServe SOHO. Take the mainboard from a Mini, add 4 drive bays, perhaps one PCI slot and beef up the power supply and fans etc. Put it in a very cute mini-tower case. I'd think $999-$1299 wouldn't be unreasonable.
The closest thing I can get to this is a Mac Mini with an external drive enclosure(s) using Firewire 400 (not really meant for a server), or $2500 for a Mac Pro (way overkill). So guess what? I haven't bought anything ...
Apple wants us to get all of our music/TV/Movies over iTunes, but won't sell us any place to put it!
Glad to see I'm not the only one thinking the same...
--Dave
We use laptops at home and I need a home file server, call it an XServe SOHO. Take the mainboard from a Mini, add 4 drive bays, perhaps one PCI slot and beef up the power supply and fans etc. Put it in a very cute mini-tower case. I'd think $999-$1299 wouldn't be unreasonable.
The closest thing I can get to this is a Mac Mini with an external drive enclosure(s) using Firewire 400 (not really meant for a server), or $2500 for a Mac Pro (way overkill). So guess what? I haven't bought anything ...
Apple wants us to get all of our music/TV/Movies over iTunes, but won't sell us any place to put it!
Kind of like a cross between a Time Capsule and an Xserve?
The iMac has a mobile CPU and a mobile GPU which to me is the most important part of the machine. By increasing the case size and just using desktop chips you could have a considerably faster computer for the exact same price.
The Mac Pro's are really out of that golden power per dollar ratio as they use the latest and greatest chips which cost a pretty penny.
I do have to worry about wireless signal strength with the aluminum cases, couldn't the signal go through the screen front side of the screen though? I suppose not as it's a know fact that the MBP's have worse wireless then the MB's, I hope they can alleviate this problem especially if apple wants to go all wireless which I would love.
Kind of like a cross between a Time Capsule and an Xserve?
Actually I think you are close to what Steve has in mind. A combination of an Xserve, Time Capsule and Apple TV: a "whole home server" seems like Apples near future. Set it up and go from anywhere in the house. Laptops, desk tops , iphones/ipods can all access it . Set top boxes or adapters ( wifi/or whatever) for TV's/monitors, appliences , even your car, etc.
We use laptops at home and I need a home file server,
Not sure how you plan to use it, but I have 6 Macs at home and set up a wireless Mac File Server using a Mini as described here http://www.macinstruct.com/node/181.
The 15 inch aluminum Powerbook G4 and 15 inch MacBook Pro seem to get a lot of dents around the DVD slot. I see customers bringing these in all the time for busted DVD slots.
I have a cheap plastic speck snap-on cover (red) for my MBP. It protects the case from scratches, dents, and presumably from busted DVD slots too. It also looks cool
1. New MacBook line-up condenses both MacBook Pro and MacBook into a single model range offered in three screen sizes 13", 15" and 17". Each model will be available in a Pro configuration, offering faster chips, higher res screens, high end GPUs and extra memory. All will come with in-built DVD drive. All will have aircraft grade aluminum enclosures.
2. New macBook products announced on Monday 9th June by SJ and on sale by 30th June.
3. Mac sales will go through the roof.
4. I will have a shiny new MacBook book sitting on my desk in a matter of days to match my brand new 3G iPhone.
5. I will never use VIsta again.
Do they mean 'third quarter' or July-September?
.....or you stick with a PC because Apple won't address the Grand Canyon sized hole in its desktop lineup. Apple has always offered a true single processor tower and now that hardly anyone really need dual processors (even a lot of high end apps can't handle more than four cores), that's the only option. And no, the single Xeon Mac Pro configuration doesn't count- it's really just a crippled dual processor setup (all the added costs but no benfits aside from having the option of adding a second chip down the line).
BS... I bought the single processor mac pro because I needed the internal expandability and didn't need the insane power of 8 cores. The extra $ I saved helped pay for internal audio processing cards for Logic Pro. You can't add a second processor to the BTO single processor without installing a new motherboard... so those looking to save some $ and upgrade to a dual engine in the future are screwed.
I was under the impression that the 'third quarter' was April to June, not July to September (which is usually called 4Q). Doesn't the fiscal year begin in October?
Do they mean 'third quarter' or July-September?
Every jurisdiction in the U.S. (primarily the states) have slightly different rules. However, generally a corporation can start its fiscal year any time "it" wants to. For the most part, large publicly traded corporations like Apple start their fiscal year in January. I believe all of the U.S. exchanges still require this as a condition of listing. (In order to maintain consistency of reporting, etc.) Usually, it is smaller privately held corporations that start their fiscal year at different times of the calendar year.
Apples quarters are: Q1. Jan. Feb. March. Q2. April May June Q3. July, August, Sept. Q4. Oct. Nov. Dec. I would guess that the new laptops will ship Aug/Sept, but be announced earlier, perhaps at WWDC or in July. This makes them available for Education ordering and Student back to school planning and purchasing. Then again, its Steve and Apple so you never know . . . hope that helps.
Every jurisdiction in the U.S. (primarily the states) have slightly different rules. However, generally a corporation can start its fiscal year any time "it" wants to. For the most part, large publicly traded corporations like Apple start their fiscal year in January. I believe all of the U.S. exchanges still require this as a condition of listing. (In order to maintain consistency of reporting, etc.) Usually, it is smaller privately held corporations that start their fiscal year at different times of the calendar year.
Apples quarters are: Q1. Jan. Feb. March. Q2. April May June Q3. July, August, Sept. Q4. Oct. Nov. Dec. I would guess that the new laptops will ship Aug/Sept, but be announced earlier, perhaps at WWDC or in July. This makes them available for Education ordering and Student back to school planning and purchasing. Then again, its Steve and Apple so you never know . . . hope that helps.
From Apple's Investor Relations FAQ:
Q: What is Apple's fiscal year?
A: Apple's fiscal year 2008 runs from September 30, 2007 to September 27, 2008.
So the question remains. Is Q3 the calendar Q3 or is it Apple's Fiscal Q3?
The reason I want a cheap tower is not so much for it's upgradability (sic) but it's power/price ratio.
Exactly why Apple doesn't want to build one. Why add additional product design and management, component and finished product inventory, mfg. lines, and potentially massive support issues tied to third party DIY upgrades, just to make razor-thin margins so you can compete with all the other beige-box systems? That is not the road to shareholder happy-land.
The vast majority of the market for low-cost computers will likely stay with Windows because it's what they "know" how to use from work at the office. The rest of us who want a mid-tower Mac only have to look at Apple's history to know that too many product lines stretched resources too thin, and no one was happy, so Steve's gonna keep it on the money road. The name of the game is profitable sales leading to consistent share price growth, not pleasing every possible market segment.
Every jurisdiction in the U.S. (primarily the states) have slightly different rules. However, generally a corporation can start its fiscal year any time "it" wants to. For the most part, large publicly traded corporations like Apple start their fiscal year in January. I believe all of the U.S. exchanges still require this as a condition of listing. (In order to maintain consistency of reporting, etc.) Usually, it is smaller privately held corporations that start their fiscal year at different times of the calendar year.
Apples quarters are: Q1. Jan. Feb. March. Q2. April May June Q3. July, August, Sept. Q4. Oct. Nov. Dec. I would guess that the new laptops will ship Aug/Sept, but be announced earlier, perhaps at WWDC or in July. This makes them available for Education ordering and Student back to school planning and purchasing. Then again, its Steve and Apple so you never know . . . hope that helps.
BTW, the exchanges do not require any specificity as far as Fiscal Year dates for when they list. Apple even chooses to not do it on the 1st of a month, which helps them visually smooth the trend-lines, and also affects holidays. I.E. - if they started their "quarter" on 9/30/08, which means their Q1 end was probably just before New Years, so they could close out prior to the New Years/end of year rush that everyone else is in.
Also, given Apple's dependence on the school market up until the mid 90's, being able to close the year in September closed out their year with the retail rush for new computers on top of the already-signed institutional contracts with school districts and universities that would have been done in the spring of that given year.
Incidentally, Sun's fiscal year starts July 1. This ties them closer to the Fed fiscal year and reduces end-of-year dependence on sales, traditionally allowing them to do a Christmas-to-New Years shutdown.
BS... I bought the single processor mac pro because I needed the internal expandability and didn't need the insane power of 8 cores. The extra $ I saved helped pay for internal audio processing cards for Logic Pro. You can't add a second processor to the BTO single processor without installing a new motherboard... so those looking to save some $ and upgrade to a dual engine in the future are screwed.
Exactly!
I need a mid-tower because I'd like to have two 20" monitors and a 12" Wacom. MacPro starts at a whopping $2,700, it's insane! iMac and the Mac-mini cannot serve my needs.
If that doesn't happen soon, I'll be forced to buy a nice PC box, install hackintosh, and slowly migrate to the dark, and more flexible, side. It'll be sad... been an Apple user since 1981.
Not sure how you plan to use it, but I have 6 Macs at home and set up a wireless Mac File Server using a Mini as described here http://www.macinstruct.com/node/181.
I would like a Home Server that worked with iTunes, iPhoto, Address Book and iCal. These would be multi-user, master libraries that individual clients could sync with, use subsets of and edit. Particularly as my iTunes and iPhoto libraries are now to large to fit on my MacBook.
The 3.06 iMac is the absolutely perfect specification/price machine for me, and if it wasn't for the glossy screen I would be writing this on one already. I understand why they do it, it is a clearly defined and canny bit of strategy, but its not doing me any favours.
Why not get the 3.06 iMac and a second non-glossy display?