I was asking this in a previous post, but maybe it was missed (or maybe no one cares to answer )
What do people use on their Macs (at home and at work). At work I am using Quark (and sometimes InDesign) and Photoshop. Of course I am also using the web, an office suite and email client.
I find I have so many things running at any one time that I use all four Spaces to organize it all into something that can be managed with some logic.
My iMac is a couple of years old and I have no problems with speed and capacity.
What are others using their Macs for that the new models just don't have enough power for them?
I just remembered something. It's "a long shot" but what if Snow Leopard's development is delayed? Considering this possible, making this "speed bump" and an upgrade later could be their way of getting money in their pockets. After all, people like us, that care more about the hardware on the machine, are a minority. I bet most people will see "NEW" on the Apple Store and will buy it anyway because it's "NEW". And a lot of people don't even know about Snow Leopard (we tech enthusiasts are a minority). Remember, a lot of people get more attracted to Macs because of the looks of them.
Another thing was that Apple made the availability of the high-end iMac (before the "speed bump") even lower than on the low-end. Old iMacs go off for lower prices and I do recall reading that the 24" model was already sold out in some places.
It's like: you can get the OLD 20" model cheaper, but if you want a better graphics card you'll just have to buy the NEW 20" with the 9400M.
My iMac is a couple of years old and I have no problems with speed and capacity.
[/B][/QUOTE
I also run many Apps at the same time, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator etc etc and my system does slow down a little (Mac is 3 years old)
But i think the main issue people are getting at in Europe, but particularly in the UK is, that we are not being offered much in the way of additional/or improved features on the iMac compared to 2 years ago for the money, for instance the price for the 3.06Ghz model has gone up by £440
Why should people pay £440 when they are not being offered anything extra (apart from the usual Ram and hard drive increase)
They expect a 'next generation' machine for that kind of money, not a repackaged 2-3 year old one.
"Why should people pay £440 when they are not being offered anything extra (apart from the usual Ram and hard drive increase)"
They shouldn't! If the speed and capacity you have is good, why buy a new Mac just because it is a new Mac?
My Mac at work is a couple of years old and so if the company is wanting to upgrade, well, the new models do offer more ram etc.
It ever was thus - Macs are more expensive than PCs. We pay more because...
a) they are solid machines that don't break down often
b) they have the best OS (in my opinion)
c) they are wonderful to look and wonderful to work with
People often slate reason 'c'... why? I spend (at home and at work) about 10 hours a day in front of my Mac... why shouldn't I like the hardware and software that takes up so much of my life?
My mistake was in telling my PC neighbor (for years) how much better the Mac is.
He's decided to take the plunge, but, now, he wants me to answer all of his Mac questions. I think I've opened a can of worms. I told him to go to AI for answers, but you guys have scared him away. He's afraid he'll say something dumb, and you'll jump all over him. It happened to me as a new member way back in the olden days, '06.
Anyway, he's looking at a 24" iMac and his main questions are:
1. Does the iMac monitor equal the (@) $900 24" ACD?
2. What is the difference between the two?
3. Is the ACD a better monitor?
4. Which set up would be the most bang for the buck: An iMac or -- a Mini and an ACD.
It seems like the prices (24" iMac vs. Mini w/24" ACD) are not too far apart.
He's all hung up about the two monitors and afraid he'll make a mistake.
He's been using PC's for 20 years, so he's not a computer novice.
I suggested a new Mini and another brand 24" monitor, but am I giving him bad advice?
I haven't read the posts in this thread as I'm only interested in a Mini, so maybe the questions have been answered. If so, please just point them out.
I was a little disappointed with this update, I must say. The things I value in an iMac are the operating system, iLife and the compact design (just one cable...). However, I also like playing games, and am particularly keen on Empire: Total War and Rise of Flight, the latter of which in particular is apparently hugely helped by a quad core processor (to the tune of 30-40% increase in speed, according to the devs). I'd hoped that the new iMac would sort out my dilemma, but to pay £1900 for a 3.06Ghz 4GB iMac with a 4850 card when for £1500 I can get a quad-core i7 overclocked to 3.8Ghz with 6GB and a 4870X2 just seems such a huge premium for the convenience of an all-in-one and the benefits of OS/X...
I think that if the top iMac had a quad core chip in it I might have just decided to make the plunge and accept that I won't be playing those two games at great quality, but now - I can't make my mind up.
I recognise that it's not fair to compare an all-in-one with a desktop - but Apple leaves me no choice, the only desktop computer they make is the Mac Pro, which is aimed at the professional graphics designer. There I lose the compact design (it's a full tower), I pay £2100 and get the i7 with no overclocking, 3GB instead of 6GB and a 4870 instead of a 4870X2 - so it costs £600 more for significantly less power and OS/X. That's a pretty heft O/S premium. I daresay there are other benefits to the Pro, but not ones I would be utilising.
I am wondering if the 24" is the higher quality LCD - the IPS kind with true 'millions' and better color rendition, not dithered as in TN LCD, and without the yellow color-shifting that happens off-axis left and right in the TN.
I know there was considerable discussion of the LCD diffs in the original Alum iMacs between the TN in lowerend iMac and apparent IPS in higher end iMac.
Back then, my in-store checking showed lots of yellow cast just slightly off axis on the previous gen lowerend iMac.
(Guess I will have to get over to an Apple store sometime to check.)
Does anyone know if the LED type of display that Steve stated will eventually come to all Apple displays -and the iMac someday we presume...- is in the IPS 'better' category?
The 24'' display is the same as before, i.e. a considerably better display than the dismal 20'' TN LCD. You can see that clearly just looking at the viewing angles in the specs page. The thing is, even the 24'' has been known for frequent lack of uniformity issues (left-right brightness gradient, yellow tinges here and there, and so on...). I will definitely never upgrade my iMac before they switch to LED.
It still puzzles me why most people don't complain about this situation or even refuse to acknowledge it exists. The displays in iMacs are NOT good at all!
Have to say that this update was nothing short of a kick in the teeth for UK users. The price of a new Mac is now far beyond reasonable especially in times of such economic turbulence. I've beena mac user and owner for 10 years and I've been aching to upgrade from a consumer unit to a pro Desktop since I first clapped eyes on the G5 but I can safely say that with Apple jacking the prices up instead of bringing them down I'll be waiting for a long time still. Furthermore it's a complete phallacy that the foreign market prices reflect the "strong" dollar. If you take the prices and convert them back into dollars through XE you'll see what a shocking difference there really is, especially since the Mac Pro is assembled in Ireland for Christ sake. Ireland is a stones throw from us UK mainlanders and the global cost of fuel has fallen dramatically so it's not additional transport costs being factored in. It's Apple screwing it's non domestic user base to offset offering them cheaper at home. Everything that was revised today has gone up in price and I personally won't pay the extra for such marginal improvements.I've been waiting for nine months to upgrade my desktop and I'll quite happily wait till third party distributors get their stock and buy a last gen Pro instead at a reduced price.
Ps does anyone know if the new Raedon 4870 card will be backward compatible with older Mac Pro's?
I'm not sure you have done the correct calculations.
The price in the UK for the top spec iMac is £1799 including Taxes.
If you remove the taxes that is £1564.
Convert that to US$ and it is $2206.
The Apple US site has the same model priced at $2199 ex Taxes.
Therefore there is only a $7 difference between the US and UK.
The top spec Mac Mini in the UK is £649.
Remove the Taxes = £564
Convert to US$ = $795
The US Price is $799 ex Taxes.
So in the UK it is $4 cheaper.
Top Spec Mac Pro in UK is £2499
Remove the Taxes = £2173
Convert to US$ = $3065
The US Price is $3299
So in the UK is is $234 cheaper.
What you are seeing here is that Apple are selling at basically the same price in the UK and US. What you have forgotten is that we have in fact been getting a great deal for the past year or so when Apple did not put up prices.
They are not making more money out of us, far from it.
This is not possible in the current iMac form factor. Even the "low power" quad core CPU's are hotter than an iMac can ideally handle. And then comes the cost. A low cost quad core is usually a high-power desktop part that just cannot go into the iMac.
From all of you complaining about the lack of quad cores in this update, can anyone show me the prices of these chips consuming less than 60 W (if you find anything)? Or even better, can anyone prepare a table with the available quad's (along with power consumption) and their prices?
"Why should people pay £440 extra when they are not being offered anything extra"
Totally agree with your quote MacMad "why buy a new Mac just because it is a new Mac?", there is totally no reason to!!.
In my case i need to update, but now if i have to spend £440 extra, on top of the original £1,359 price to buy the same 3.06Ghz iMac which was available last week
So do i save the money and by a Mac clone that has an ugly PC box (tower) but does everything else just as well or better for a lot less, even when ive bought a monitor im saving £700-800
Totally agree with your quote MacMad "why buy a new Mac just because it is a new Mac?", there is totally no reason to!!.
In my case i need to update, but now if i have to spend £440 extra, on top of the original £1,359 price to buy the same 3.06Ghz iMac which was available last week
So do i save the money and by a Mac clone that has an ugly PC box (tower) but does everything else just as well or better for a lot less, even when ive bought a monitor im saving £700-800
While it is true you are paying more for the new machines you are actually only paying the same as US shoppers. Apple have not increased the machines price in $, they have simply applied the current exchange rate to the price, resulting in the big increase.
If you had bought an machine last week then you would have been buying it at a significantly cheaper price to customers in the USA.
I don't remember seeing people shouting from the roof tops over the last few months when Apple machines have been significantly cheaper here than in the USA.
Right now we are paying the same in the UK and the USA.
Just price the same machine on the USA Apple Store (remember their prices do NOT include taxes), then price the same machine on the UK store and deduct the VAT. You will see that the prices are more or less identical (as I demonstrated above).
We are still getting great deals on iPods, much cheaper here than in the USA.
Maybe US shoppers should be flying to the UK to buy iPods and then take them back to the USA and sell them for a profit! We save £35 on the price of a 32GB iPod touch.
Yes Apple did not drop prices with the strong pound in the past, but they are running a business not a charity, did you see ANY manufacturer drop prices due to the srong £ - NO.
This is the reality of business, at the moment Imports are going to get more expensive, get over it. If it is too much then don't buy one.
Totally agree with your quote MacMad "why buy a new Mac just because it is a new Mac?", there is totally no reason to!!.
In my case i need to update, but now if i have to spend £440 extra, on top of the original £1,359 price to buy the same 3.06Ghz iMac which was available last week
So do i save the money and by a Mac clone that has an ugly PC box (tower) but does everything else just as well or better for a lot less, even when ive bought a monitor im saving £700-800
Well, it's a personal decision that's for sure. If you were willing to pay £1,359 last week and you love the experience of using a Mac, then I would say bite the bullet and pay the extra £440. Just save up a little longer to do so.
If you really, really want to save the £700-800 and can live with using a clone of OS X in a PC body... well, that's the best choice for you.
All I know, based on my own experience, is that I hate using PC hardware because 10 hours per day spent in front of fugly equipment is a depressing thing. I, personally, would rather pay more for the Mac OS running on a real Mac machine.... at heart, all Mac users are in love with their hardware, how could we not be?
Judging from the apps you said you use, you are a designer. As an editor, design is very important to me too. I've got to love what I'm using from a design perspective.
As a silly example... I have loads of fountain pens at home. They all write well, but I love using the Mont Blanc best. Love the look and feel of it as much as I do the writing quality of the nib.
Where do you get 40%? 2599 - 2199 = 400 / 2199 = 18%, which is less than the current exchange rate. They are pricing at an $0.85 dollar, which is way better than the current exchange rate (now below 80).
Apple's Canada-US spread has always been very fair (except for .Mac, which was fixed when they moved to MobileMe)
Love the look and feel of it as much as I do the writing quality of the nib
Interesting perspective MacMad.
I am as you say, a designer, and therefore do like an aesthetically designed machine. I also have a PC
However, we have an OLD saying in the UK (which mainly pertains to women)
"You don't notice the mantlepiece while you poking the fire"
It will be interesting to see if, or indeed, how many designers decide to jump ship, or stick with what they have because of this pricing structure/poor upgrade
As for me i'm on the fence, and im waiting for a small breeze to push me one way or the other
What are others using their Macs for that the new models just don't have enough power for them?
That is not the point. Apple cannot sell products in a vacuum. If we go by your logic ALONE, then Apple will never have to upgrade its computers for another 10 years. And sales will not suffer, because hey there's more than enough power to spare.
The specs aren't a big deal to me either. But I'm surprised that they didn't improve the 20" simply back to the quality of the old 20" screen in the white iMacs, and also integrated graphics in a $1499 24" model is pretty shoddy IMO. That 9400M might be like a gift from heaven in the new Mac Mini considering what used to be in it. But it doesn't cut it in a $1500 computer.
Comments
What do people use on their Macs (at home and at work). At work I am using Quark (and sometimes InDesign) and Photoshop. Of course I am also using the web, an office suite and email client.
I find I have so many things running at any one time that I use all four Spaces to organize it all into something that can be managed with some logic.
My iMac is a couple of years old and I have no problems with speed and capacity.
What are others using their Macs for that the new models just don't have enough power for them?
Another thing was that Apple made the availability of the high-end iMac (before the "speed bump") even lower than on the low-end. Old iMacs go off for lower prices and I do recall reading that the 24" model was already sold out in some places.
It's like: you can get the OLD 20" model cheaper, but if you want a better graphics card you'll just have to buy the NEW 20" with the 9400M.
I think they were smart, very smart...
My iMac is a couple of years old and I have no problems with speed and capacity.
[/B][/QUOTE
I also run many Apps at the same time, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator etc etc and my system does slow down a little (Mac is 3 years old)
But i think the main issue people are getting at in Europe, but particularly in the UK is, that we are not being offered much in the way of additional/or improved features on the iMac compared to 2 years ago for the money, for instance the price for the 3.06Ghz model has gone up by £440
Why should people pay £440 when they are not being offered anything extra (apart from the usual Ram and hard drive increase)
They expect a 'next generation' machine for that kind of money, not a repackaged 2-3 year old one.
They shouldn't! If the speed and capacity you have is good, why buy a new Mac just because it is a new Mac?
My Mac at work is a couple of years old and so if the company is wanting to upgrade, well, the new models do offer more ram etc.
It ever was thus - Macs are more expensive than PCs. We pay more because...
a) they are solid machines that don't break down often
b) they have the best OS (in my opinion)
c) they are wonderful to look and wonderful to work with
People often slate reason 'c'... why? I spend (at home and at work) about 10 hours a day in front of my Mac... why shouldn't I like the hardware and software that takes up so much of my life?
He's decided to take the plunge, but, now, he wants me to answer all of his Mac questions. I think I've opened a can of worms. I told him to go to AI for answers, but you guys have scared him away. He's afraid he'll say something dumb, and you'll jump all over him. It happened to me as a new member way back in the olden days, '06.
Anyway, he's looking at a 24" iMac and his main questions are:
1. Does the iMac monitor equal the (@) $900 24" ACD?
2. What is the difference between the two?
3. Is the ACD a better monitor?
4. Which set up would be the most bang for the buck: An iMac or -- a Mini and an ACD.
It seems like the prices (24" iMac vs. Mini w/24" ACD) are not too far apart.
He's all hung up about the two monitors and afraid he'll make a mistake.
He's been using PC's for 20 years, so he's not a computer novice.
I suggested a new Mini and another brand 24" monitor, but am I giving him bad advice?
I haven't read the posts in this thread as I'm only interested in a Mini, so maybe the questions have been answered. If so, please just point them out.
Thanks
I think that if the top iMac had a quad core chip in it I might have just decided to make the plunge and accept that I won't be playing those two games at great quality, but now - I can't make my mind up.
I recognise that it's not fair to compare an all-in-one with a desktop - but Apple leaves me no choice, the only desktop computer they make is the Mac Pro, which is aimed at the professional graphics designer. There I lose the compact design (it's a full tower), I pay £2100 and get the i7 with no overclocking, 3GB instead of 6GB and a 4870 instead of a 4870X2 - so it costs £600 more for significantly less power and OS/X. That's a pretty heft O/S premium. I daresay there are other benefits to the Pro, but not ones I would be utilising.
I am wondering if the 24" is the higher quality LCD - the IPS kind with true 'millions' and better color rendition, not dithered as in TN LCD, and without the yellow color-shifting that happens off-axis left and right in the TN.
I know there was considerable discussion of the LCD diffs in the original Alum iMacs between the TN in lowerend iMac and apparent IPS in higher end iMac.
Back then, my in-store checking showed lots of yellow cast just slightly off axis on the previous gen lowerend iMac.
(Guess I will have to get over to an Apple store sometime to check.)
Does anyone know if the LED type of display that Steve stated will eventually come to all Apple displays -and the iMac someday we presume...- is in the IPS 'better' category?
The 24'' display is the same as before, i.e. a considerably better display than the dismal 20'' TN LCD. You can see that clearly just looking at the viewing angles in the specs page. The thing is, even the 24'' has been known for frequent lack of uniformity issues (left-right brightness gradient, yellow tinges here and there, and so on...). I will definitely never upgrade my iMac before they switch to LED.
It still puzzles me why most people don't complain about this situation or even refuse to acknowledge it exists. The displays in iMacs are NOT good at all!
Very little mention is made of the fact that the 24 inch iMac has gone from 1900 pixels to 1680, e.g. same resolution as the 20 inch model.
Where did you see that? Here it says otherwise.
Have to say that this update was nothing short of a kick in the teeth for UK users. The price of a new Mac is now far beyond reasonable especially in times of such economic turbulence. I've beena mac user and owner for 10 years and I've been aching to upgrade from a consumer unit to a pro Desktop since I first clapped eyes on the G5 but I can safely say that with Apple jacking the prices up instead of bringing them down I'll be waiting for a long time still. Furthermore it's a complete phallacy that the foreign market prices reflect the "strong" dollar. If you take the prices and convert them back into dollars through XE you'll see what a shocking difference there really is, especially since the Mac Pro is assembled in Ireland for Christ sake. Ireland is a stones throw from us UK mainlanders and the global cost of fuel has fallen dramatically so it's not additional transport costs being factored in. It's Apple screwing it's non domestic user base to offset offering them cheaper at home. Everything that was revised today has gone up in price and I personally won't pay the extra for such marginal improvements.I've been waiting for nine months to upgrade my desktop and I'll quite happily wait till third party distributors get their stock and buy a last gen Pro instead at a reduced price.
Ps does anyone know if the new Raedon 4870 card will be backward compatible with older Mac Pro's?
I'm not sure you have done the correct calculations.
The price in the UK for the top spec iMac is £1799 including Taxes.
If you remove the taxes that is £1564.
Convert that to US$ and it is $2206.
The Apple US site has the same model priced at $2199 ex Taxes.
Therefore there is only a $7 difference between the US and UK.
The top spec Mac Mini in the UK is £649.
Remove the Taxes = £564
Convert to US$ = $795
The US Price is $799 ex Taxes.
So in the UK it is $4 cheaper.
Top Spec Mac Pro in UK is £2499
Remove the Taxes = £2173
Convert to US$ = $3065
The US Price is $3299
So in the UK is is $234 cheaper.
What you are seeing here is that Apple are selling at basically the same price in the UK and US. What you have forgotten is that we have in fact been getting a great deal for the past year or so when Apple did not put up prices.
They are not making more money out of us, far from it.
Ian
What? No quad-core? No Core i7?
This is not possible in the current iMac form factor. Even the "low power" quad core CPU's are hotter than an iMac can ideally handle. And then comes the cost. A low cost quad core is usually a high-power desktop part that just cannot go into the iMac.
From all of you complaining about the lack of quad cores in this update, can anyone show me the prices of these chips consuming less than 60 W (if you find anything)? Or even better, can anyone prepare a table with the available quad's (along with power consumption) and their prices?
the exchange rate is a farce! These prices are fucked!
Actually you are. The prices are identical in the UK and the USA if you exclude Taxes.
Do the maths before you shout your mouth off.
Yes the prices went up, BUT they are not more than the US are paying.
I thought not!
Just look at the iPod prices we get compaired to the USA.
iPod Nano 16GB
UK Price excluding Taxes = £126
£126 = $177
US Price excluding Taxes = $199
Saving in the UK $22 (£15.50)
iPod Classic 16GB
UK Price excluding Taxes = £152
£152 = $214
US Price excluding Taxes = $249
Saving in the UK $35 (£25)
iPod Touch 32GB
UK Price excluding Taxes = £246
£246 = $347
US Price excluding Taxes = $399
Saving in the UK $52 (£37)
Now please explain to me how we are being 'Ripped Off'?
Ian
"Why should people pay £440 extra when they are not being offered anything extra"
Totally agree with your quote MacMad "why buy a new Mac just because it is a new Mac?", there is totally no reason to!!.
In my case i need to update, but now if i have to spend £440 extra, on top of the original £1,359 price to buy the same 3.06Ghz iMac which was available last week
So do i save the money and by a Mac clone that has an ugly PC box (tower) but does everything else just as well or better for a lot less, even when ive bought a monitor im saving £700-800
https://www.pearc.de/product_info.ph...3aa699638ea55c
Totally agree with your quote MacMad "why buy a new Mac just because it is a new Mac?", there is totally no reason to!!.
In my case i need to update, but now if i have to spend £440 extra, on top of the original £1,359 price to buy the same 3.06Ghz iMac which was available last week
So do i save the money and by a Mac clone that has an ugly PC box (tower) but does everything else just as well or better for a lot less, even when ive bought a monitor im saving £700-800
https://www.pearc.de/product_info.ph...3aa699638ea55c
While it is true you are paying more for the new machines you are actually only paying the same as US shoppers. Apple have not increased the machines price in $, they have simply applied the current exchange rate to the price, resulting in the big increase.
If you had bought an machine last week then you would have been buying it at a significantly cheaper price to customers in the USA.
I don't remember seeing people shouting from the roof tops over the last few months when Apple machines have been significantly cheaper here than in the USA.
Right now we are paying the same in the UK and the USA.
Just price the same machine on the USA Apple Store (remember their prices do NOT include taxes), then price the same machine on the UK store and deduct the VAT. You will see that the prices are more or less identical (as I demonstrated above).
We are still getting great deals on iPods, much cheaper here than in the USA.
Maybe US shoppers should be flying to the UK to buy iPods and then take them back to the USA and sell them for a profit! We save £35 on the price of a 32GB iPod touch.
Yes Apple did not drop prices with the strong pound in the past, but they are running a business not a charity, did you see ANY manufacturer drop prices due to the srong £ - NO.
This is the reality of business, at the moment Imports are going to get more expensive, get over it. If it is too much then don't buy one.
Totally agree with your quote MacMad "why buy a new Mac just because it is a new Mac?", there is totally no reason to!!.
In my case i need to update, but now if i have to spend £440 extra, on top of the original £1,359 price to buy the same 3.06Ghz iMac which was available last week
So do i save the money and by a Mac clone that has an ugly PC box (tower) but does everything else just as well or better for a lot less, even when ive bought a monitor im saving £700-800
https://www.pearc.de/product_info.ph...3aa699638ea55c
Well, it's a personal decision that's for sure.
If you really, really want to save the £700-800 and can live with using a clone of OS X in a PC body... well, that's the best choice for you.
All I know, based on my own experience, is that I hate using PC hardware because 10 hours per day spent in front of fugly equipment is a depressing thing.
Judging from the apps you said you use, you are a designer. As an editor, design is very important to me too. I've got to love what I'm using from a design perspective.
As a silly example... I have loads of fountain pens at home. They all write well, but I love using the Mont Blanc best. Love the look and feel of it as much as I do the writing quality of the nib.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/105708
NO JOBS = NO APPLES!
NO LED? NO BLU RAY? WHAT IS APPLE DOING?
the price of 2199$ US is 2599$ CDN LOL
NO THANKS!
Ps The exchange rate difference is not 40%
Where do you get 40%? 2599 - 2199 = 400 / 2199 = 18%, which is less than the current exchange rate. They are pricing at an $0.85 dollar, which is way better than the current exchange rate (now below 80).
Apple's Canada-US spread has always been very fair (except for .Mac, which was fixed when they moved to MobileMe)
Love the look and feel of it as much as I do the writing quality of the nib
Interesting perspective MacMad
I am as you say, a designer, and therefore do like an aesthetically designed machine. I also have a PC
However, we have an OLD saying in the UK (which mainly pertains to women)
"You don't notice the mantlepiece while you poking the fire"
It will be interesting to see if, or indeed, how many designers decide to jump ship, or stick with what they have because of this pricing structure/poor upgrade
As for me i'm on the fence, and im waiting for a small breeze to push me one way or the other
What are others using their Macs for that the new models just don't have enough power for them?
That is not the point. Apple cannot sell products in a vacuum. If we go by your logic ALONE, then Apple will never have to upgrade its computers for another 10 years. And sales will not suffer, because hey there's more than enough power to spare.
The specs aren't a big deal to me either. But I'm surprised that they didn't improve the 20" simply back to the quality of the old 20" screen in the white iMacs, and also integrated graphics in a $1499 24" model is pretty shoddy IMO. That 9400M might be like a gift from heaven in the new Mac Mini considering what used to be in it. But it doesn't cut it in a $1500 computer.
They are not making more money out of us, far from it.
Ian
That would ultimately depend on their margin... and we all know that it is not small.