The desktop market is DYING. It's in the basement. You honestly think shoving quad cores and big GPUs into iMacs will change anything? You honestly think shoving big specs in the consumer's face will do anything? It's hard enough for the generic box-makers to sell them at lower prices.
Spot-on. I have no need for the fastest CPU, nor do I want to pay more for it. All one needs to do to confirm Apple's strategy is look at the sales numbers and GP% vs. the Dells and white-box systems out there.. the numbers don't lie, the path that Apple has chosen is the right one.
Spot-on. I have no need for the fastest CPU, nor do I want to pay more for it. All one needs to do to confirm Apple's strategy is look at the sales numbers and GP% vs. the Dells and white-box systems out there.. the numbers don't lie, the path that Apple has chosen is the right one.
Notice where you said "I have no need". Don't start thinking you speak for everyone. Many people do have a need.
Just because apple is doing well with their current strategy doesn't mean that can't do better. And the PC market is VASTLY larger than the apple market. So obviously there is room for apple to improve. Competition is a good thing.
The fastest CPU is a desktop CPU. You would not be paying more for it, you would be paying less. The CPU's in imacs are laptops processors and are more expensive.
An imac with desktop parts would be alittle bit larger but it would also be cheaper. And more powerful for those who do need it.
I have a 24" iMac purchased in July '08 and I don't seem to have any problems. What problems are you referring to? Do you even own an iMac or do you just spout some drivel you read on the internet.
He might be referring the reported problems people had with condensation forming inside the glass screen they put on to make the display nice and glossy
He could also be speculating that if they make it thinner they'll have the same problems the air and some other macbooks had with overheating - where Apple's 'fix' was a firmware upgrade that merely made the system run slower.
A few things first. The Mac Mini is not useless. It is a perfectly servicable lower end desktop (hell it could be portable given it's size and weight). It comes with a core 2 duo, and 1 gig of ram. The vast majority of computer users use e-mail, internet, and a smattering of word processing apps. It will handle any of those tasks without breaking a sweat even at the base configuration. Upgrading it is also dead simple. You can pop in 4 gigs for about 80 bucks minus the cost of a putty knife and a screwdriver. It litterally takes all of 10 minutes tops. It will easily handle Aero in Windows 7 and scores rather well with 4 GB (my 2009 scores 4.9 under Aero). Game performance should be adequate although I do very little on the Windows side. Anyone desiring more wouldn't be buying a Mac Mini to begin with.
As far as the iMac, my only wish would be to get actual desktop components for the Video card, larger SSD storage options, faster Optical drives (all of the mac drives suck for speed), and at least a BD-Rom. Not really interested in burning them.
Trying to turn the iMac into a desktop is kind of silly as it's not meant to replace a desktop. If anything, it's more of a hybrid between a desktop and a laptop. Self contained, but not portable in any typical sense. I do wonder if they will come up with a desktop counterpart to the iMac some day that is more midrange in design however. The desktop market is definitely on the downslide, but there will always be power users more interested in flat out performance at the expense of heat and noise.
Is this the REAL Al Bundy? Sounds like something he would say.
Agreed. That was a silly statement. There are all sorts of power users who require the extra hardware for something other than gaming. Mac's have never been huge gaming platforms. Boot Camp changes the picture somewhat. About the only thing I ever boot into Windows for is for video and audio editing as the tools on the Mac side are lacking or too expensive.
Agreed. That was a silly statement. There are all sorts of power users who require the extra hardware for something other than gaming. Mac's have never been huge gaming platforms. Boot Camp changes the picture somewhat. About the only thing I ever boot into Windows for is for video and audio editing as the tools on the Mac side are lacking or too expensive.
you can do it on a laptop unless the task specifically takes advantage of the GPU. but pretty much every mobile GPU these days supports the same feature set as desktop GPU's.
Like many other mac users, I really do want a mid-range Mac tower. That being said, as long as the performance per dollar increases, I'll be satisfied with a new iMac. I have a PCI-X G5 tower that needs replacing.
you can do it on a laptop unless the task specifically takes advantage of the GPU. but pretty much every mobile GPU these days supports the same feature set as desktop GPU's.
you can't run Boot Camp on a laptop?
No quadcores on apple laptops. Some people need those. They come in handy for any kind of video or photo work. Mobile GPU's lag behind discrete desktop GPU's.
You're going to pay more for a laptop and if you don't need the portability than way get it?
you can do it on a laptop unless the task specifically takes advantage of the GPU. but pretty much every mobile GPU these days supports the same feature set as desktop GPU's.
you can't run Boot Camp on a laptop?
I'm not interested in mobile features. That's not why I want desktop hardware. I want the freedom to install drivers on my schedule, rather than on Apple's. Not on the mac side but on the Windows side. I find it very irritating the vendors won't release Mobile drivers while anyone with a desktop video card is free to upgrade them as soon as they are available.
I'm just hoping this update of the iMac and MacBook Pro will see the matte, anti-glare option coming back to the full range of Macs. If this does not happen, the matte-loving crowd are going to go bananas, as you can see from the 500+ petition comments at the petition site http://macmatte.wordpress.com. I've got a good feeling about this. Apple's already re-introduced matte to the 17" and 15", and now the complete roll out just needs matte to come back to the iMac, and for the 13" as well. Then everything will be as it should be.
I'm with you there!
Apple should create computers with easy to switch matte/glossy screens, makes everyone happy.
Far as I know, the present iMac's glass/plastic screen can be removed and there is a matte LCD underneath. There is no reason why that concept can be advanced to make glare and reflections a issue for only those who desire it.
iMac's are used a lot in business/schools etc and the glossy screens are a real fscking pain in the ass, makes Mac's look like cheap PC crap machines of desperation.
Matte is more classy and practical, all it needs is the right hardware designed around it to make it look rich and lusty.
I say the new iMac's will be thin, quad core, aluminum with either matte or glossy screens.
Actually, I'm not sure what's been more painful... watching my MacBook Pro creep to a standstill while its exporting video, or watching other laptop brands adopt core 2 quads. A two core (four thread) Arrandale processor would be a big help!... and finally justify the "Pro" in MacBook Pro.
High-end PC notebooks will already have Clarksfield by then, so the MacBook Pro won't be any better off in the CPU area than now (maybe worse since there isn't a direct successor to the 3.07 GHz).
Why go back to the CRT "hood and glare screen days" of yesteryears when one can simply remove the iMac's glassy screen with a suction cup?
Underneath is a nice, cool to the eyes, matte screen.
The Lacie monitors look ugly, but functional for accurate color without stray light sources.
So stupid to have to buy something extra to fix a problem that wasn't a problem in the first place.
Matte is on all the best TV's, I can understand glossy being on small handheld touchscreen devices which one can quickly tilt to avoid the glare/reflections, but anything 13" or larger screen needs a matte option. You can have your glossy too, both can co-exist. PC's come with glossy or matte screens, it's just OS X won't run on them well or without hacking it somehow, that's the problem, lack of hardware choice with OS X.
Nothing looks worse than having a cheap ass PC matte monitor hooked up to your classy Mac. People automatically assume the name on the monitor is the type of computer you have.
Why go back to the CRT "hood and glare screen days" of yesteryears when one can simply remove the iMac's glassy screen with a suction cup?
Underneath is a nice, cool to the eyes, matte screen.
So stupid to have to buy something extra to fix a problem that wasn't a problem in the first place.
Matte is on all the best TV's, I can understand glossy being on small handheld touchscreen devices which one can quickly tilt to avoid the glare/reflections, but anything 13" or larger screen needs a matte option. You can have your glossy too, both can co-exist. PC's come with glossy or matte screens, it's just OS X won't run on them well or without hacking it somehow, that's the problem, lack of hardware choice with OS X.
Nothing looks worse than having a cheap ass PC matte monitor hooked up to your classy Mac. People automatically assume the name on the monitor is the type of computer you have.
In laptops I would agree with you. But in desktops it makes no difference. It's at a fixed place in your house and you can control the glare on it.
Hell when the light shines through my window it washes out my matte monitor. So it's no better.
Comments
The desktop market is DYING. It's in the basement. You honestly think shoving quad cores and big GPUs into iMacs will change anything? You honestly think shoving big specs in the consumer's face will do anything? It's hard enough for the generic box-makers to sell them at lower prices.
Spot-on. I have no need for the fastest CPU, nor do I want to pay more for it. All one needs to do to confirm Apple's strategy is look at the sales numbers and GP% vs. the Dells and white-box systems out there.. the numbers don't lie, the path that Apple has chosen is the right one.
Spot-on. I have no need for the fastest CPU, nor do I want to pay more for it. All one needs to do to confirm Apple's strategy is look at the sales numbers and GP% vs. the Dells and white-box systems out there.. the numbers don't lie, the path that Apple has chosen is the right one.
Notice where you said "I have no need". Don't start thinking you speak for everyone. Many people do have a need.
Just because apple is doing well with their current strategy doesn't mean that can't do better. And the PC market is VASTLY larger than the apple market. So obviously there is room for apple to improve. Competition is a good thing.
The fastest CPU is a desktop CPU. You would not be paying more for it, you would be paying less. The CPU's in imacs are laptops processors and are more expensive.
An imac with desktop parts would be alittle bit larger but it would also be cheaper. And more powerful for those who do need it.
I have a 24" iMac purchased in July '08 and I don't seem to have any problems. What problems are you referring to? Do you even own an iMac or do you just spout some drivel you read on the internet.
He might be referring the reported problems people had with condensation forming inside the glass screen they put on to make the display nice and glossy
He could also be speculating that if they make it thinner they'll have the same problems the air and some other macbooks had with overheating - where Apple's 'fix' was a firmware upgrade that merely made the system run slower.
As far as the iMac, my only wish would be to get actual desktop components for the Video card, larger SSD storage options, faster Optical drives (all of the mac drives suck for speed), and at least a BD-Rom. Not really interested in burning them.
Trying to turn the iMac into a desktop is kind of silly as it's not meant to replace a desktop. If anything, it's more of a hybrid between a desktop and a laptop. Self contained, but not portable in any typical sense. I do wonder if they will come up with a desktop counterpart to the iMac some day that is more midrange in design however. The desktop market is definitely on the downslide, but there will always be power users more interested in flat out performance at the expense of heat and noise.
only reason to own a desktop if to play games
C'mon Al, that's a laughable suggestion.
Is this the REAL Al Bundy? Sounds like something he would say.
C'mon Al, that's a laughable suggestion.
Is this the REAL Al Bundy? Sounds like something he would say.
Agreed. That was a silly statement. There are all sorts of power users who require the extra hardware for something other than gaming. Mac's have never been huge gaming platforms. Boot Camp changes the picture somewhat. About the only thing I ever boot into Windows for is for video and audio editing as the tools on the Mac side are lacking or too expensive.
my daddy always said you can never be too rich.. Or too thin..
Is your father Steve Jobs?
Agreed. That was a silly statement. There are all sorts of power users who require the extra hardware for something other than gaming. Mac's have never been huge gaming platforms. Boot Camp changes the picture somewhat. About the only thing I ever boot into Windows for is for video and audio editing as the tools on the Mac side are lacking or too expensive.
you can do it on a laptop unless the task specifically takes advantage of the GPU. but pretty much every mobile GPU these days supports the same feature set as desktop GPU's.
you can't run Boot Camp on a laptop?
you can do it on a laptop unless the task specifically takes advantage of the GPU. but pretty much every mobile GPU these days supports the same feature set as desktop GPU's.
you can't run Boot Camp on a laptop?
No quadcores on apple laptops. Some people need those. They come in handy for any kind of video or photo work. Mobile GPU's lag behind discrete desktop GPU's.
You're going to pay more for a laptop and if you don't need the portability than way get it?
you can do it on a laptop unless the task specifically takes advantage of the GPU. but pretty much every mobile GPU these days supports the same feature set as desktop GPU's.
you can't run Boot Camp on a laptop?
I'm not interested in mobile features. That's not why I want desktop hardware. I want the freedom to install drivers on my schedule, rather than on Apple's. Not on the mac side but on the Windows side. I find it very irritating the vendors won't release Mobile drivers while anyone with a desktop video card is free to upgrade them as soon as they are available.
...the previous and thicker one was able to fry eggs ...
I bet that use voids AppleCare.
I'm just hoping this update of the iMac and MacBook Pro will see the matte, anti-glare option coming back to the full range of Macs. If this does not happen, the matte-loving crowd are going to go bananas, as you can see from the 500+ petition comments at the petition site http://macmatte.wordpress.com. I've got a good feeling about this. Apple's already re-introduced matte to the 17" and 15", and now the complete roll out just needs matte to come back to the iMac, and for the 13" as well. Then everything will be as it should be.
I'm with you there!
Apple should create computers with easy to switch matte/glossy screens, makes everyone happy.
Far as I know, the present iMac's glass/plastic screen can be removed and there is a matte LCD underneath. There is no reason why that concept can be advanced to make glare and reflections a issue for only those who desire it.
iMac's are used a lot in business/schools etc and the glossy screens are a real fscking pain in the ass, makes Mac's look like cheap PC crap machines of desperation.
Matte is more classy and practical, all it needs is the right hardware designed around it to make it look rich and lusty.
I say the new iMac's will be thin, quad core, aluminum with either matte or glossy screens.
http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/backpack-imac-shelf-12-08-2009/
Nice, but it is in back? Somewhat of a pain to get to.
Skip
Skip
Actually, I'm not sure what's been more painful... watching my MacBook Pro creep to a standstill while its exporting video, or watching other laptop brands adopt core 2 quads. A two core (four thread) Arrandale processor would be a big help!... and finally justify the "Pro" in MacBook Pro.
High-end PC notebooks will already have Clarksfield by then, so the MacBook Pro won't be any better off in the CPU area than now (maybe worse since there isn't a direct successor to the 3.07 GHz).
I say the new iMac's will be thin, quad core, aluminum with either matte or glossy screens.
Anyone willing to go out on a limb and say "unibody"?
Glossy screens are fine. All that's needed is an available Monitor Hood that matches the iMac and allows a passthrough slot for the DVD on the side.
LaCie monitors have come with hoods for a long time.
Your joking right?
Why go back to the CRT "hood and glare screen days" of yesteryears when one can simply remove the iMac's glassy screen with a suction cup?
Underneath is a nice, cool to the eyes, matte screen.
The Lacie monitors look ugly, but functional for accurate color without stray light sources.
So stupid to have to buy something extra to fix a problem that wasn't a problem in the first place.
Matte is on all the best TV's, I can understand glossy being on small handheld touchscreen devices which one can quickly tilt to avoid the glare/reflections, but anything 13" or larger screen needs a matte option. You can have your glossy too, both can co-exist. PC's come with glossy or matte screens, it's just OS X won't run on them well or without hacking it somehow, that's the problem, lack of hardware choice with OS X.
Nothing looks worse than having a cheap ass PC matte monitor hooked up to your classy Mac. People automatically assume the name on the monitor is the type of computer you have.
Your joking right?
Why go back to the CRT "hood and glare screen days" of yesteryears when one can simply remove the iMac's glassy screen with a suction cup?
Underneath is a nice, cool to the eyes, matte screen.
So stupid to have to buy something extra to fix a problem that wasn't a problem in the first place.
Matte is on all the best TV's, I can understand glossy being on small handheld touchscreen devices which one can quickly tilt to avoid the glare/reflections, but anything 13" or larger screen needs a matte option. You can have your glossy too, both can co-exist. PC's come with glossy or matte screens, it's just OS X won't run on them well or without hacking it somehow, that's the problem, lack of hardware choice with OS X.
Nothing looks worse than having a cheap ass PC matte monitor hooked up to your classy Mac. People automatically assume the name on the monitor is the type of computer you have.
In laptops I would agree with you. But in desktops it makes no difference. It's at a fixed place in your house and you can control the glare on it.
Hell when the light shines through my window it washes out my matte monitor. So it's no better.
In the end I just end up closing the blinds.
So i'd still rather have a glossy on a desktop.