I have to hand it to ya -- you know how to get people talking. I start a thread and only two people write to it: you and me. Sigh.
Look, Stimuli just said what I wanted to say, far more compellingly than I could have said it. But I'll say my piece anyway.
I'd be really worried about Apple's PPC future if the only action we saw was with highly-designed consumer gizmos. But the BLAST project and Nothing Real purchase seem like the actions of a company that knows that it has some real kick-arse hardware in the pipeline.
You voiced a similar point in your remarks about Apple's renewed interest in 3D. So I'll say it again: if we only had iPods and iPhoto, I'd worry that the PPC is rapidly heading towards irrelevance. But Apple gives every appearance of wanting to own the high-end digital media creation market. They couldn't begin to contemplate such a strategy unless they had some impressive hardware coming up.
If Apple was able to release a machine that had a G5 at 1.5 GHz, you'd have more speed then you'd know what to do with.
Contrary to popular belief, the end is not near. The sales of iMacs, iBooks, and PowerBooks are terrific. Power Mac sales are down because of the speculation surrounding the new G5. I'll come out and say this: Apple hurt themselves with the hype they created about MWSF 2002. It made people believe that a G5 was due to arrive. When it didn't, a lot of people decided they could put off their next computer purchase. For the most part, even machines that are 2+ years old are still excellent machines! My PowerBook G3/500 is still fast enough for what I'm doing, and that includes a lot of VB work in Virtual PC.
If Apple releases the PowerMac G5 at Macworld NY, even if the benchmarks completely blow away the machines on the market now (including 2.4 GHz P4s, you're still going to get people on these boards saying, "Well, Intel is still 1 GHz ahead of the G5 in speed, I'm going to x86".
The sales charts show that Apple is selling machines at a great rate. The news of their death, as always, is premature.
For those of you who don't follow this board, JYD is constantly putting down the Mac and saying Apple is dead.
Look at some facts, he mentions the pro market. We already know that the G4 outperforms the P4 in the key areas G4's are used in the pro market (Video, Photo, Audio). Great strides are being made in the 3d Animation side on the Mac as well. All of these fields don't look for the most Mhz, they look for the fastest renderer, fastest encoder, the program that qets work done first. That machine is the Power Mac. Why do you think Apple boasts about Photoshop performance? It's because it's one of their more important professional apps. So you see, Apple is just fine at the moment in it's key Pro niche's.
In the consumer space speed doesn't matter as much. I really doubt that MS Office will be more responsive while typing that Resume, or using Quicken on a P4 2.4 than a G4 700. The consumer won't notice the .1 second difference that might occur on such mundane tasks. Your true hardcore gamer might be the only one who really takes advantage of the higher MHz, but as we've seen recently not only is the Mac getting more games, but the performance is on par with PC's.
So you tell me, is JYD just trying to get people all worked up as usual? Or do we really have a problem? I know the real answer, do you?
yeah there's more to a computer than megahertz, but there's also the money issue.
I run a business and I have to justify every penny I spend, if two items can do the same thing, I will ALWAYS buy the cheaper of the two.
I love Apple hardware and software, but there is no way, NO WAY I will spend 100% more for a computer because it's wrapped in pretty plastic. It goes under the desk for petes sake. I'd spend 10% more, but not 10 times that.
Apple has to wake up and smell the economics, sure they sell BMW's, but if they want to double the market share, they're going to have to do somethig about the price. If they don't want to, great for them, but I'm not spending $6,000 for a 1Ghz machine 1GB slow RAM and 1280x1024....
<strong>but I'm not spending $6,000 for a 1Ghz machine 1GB slow RAM and 1280x1024....</strong><hr></blockquote>
You DO know you are speaking out of your @SS when you say that right !? after going through Apple's website the most expensive configuration $4649 with a dual 1Ghz processor. with $6000 dollars you can get the 22 inch wide Screen apple Cinema Display with a dual 1Ghz PPC Mac already. And the resolution will be 1600X1024, and if you get the high Res 23-inch display the resolution will be 1920X1200.
<strong>yeah there's more to a computer than megahertz, but there's also the money issue.
I run a business and I have to justify every penny I spend, if two items can do the same thing, I will ALWAYS buy the cheaper of the two.
I love Apple hardware and software, but there is no way, NO WAY I will spend 100% more for a computer because it's wrapped in pretty plastic. It goes under the desk for petes sake. I'd spend 10% more, but not 10 times that.
Apple has to wake up and smell the economics, sure they sell BMW's, but if they want to double the market share, they're going to have to do somethig about the price. If they don't want to, great for them, but I'm not spending $6,000 for a 1Ghz machine 1GB slow RAM and 1280x1024....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wouldn't spend $6,000 on that either, and don't know who would. I could by the most awesome mac ever with a 23" cinema display and some other nice add-ons for that price.
I guess you don't factor in cost of ownership in your business model. Too bad, you're losing money because of it.
Some old and some new links show cost of ownership issues. On average you need 2 to 4 times as many people to support the same amount of PC's as Macs (large networks).
Apple should kick off Moto as soon as they can and went to IBM. The 1GHz G3 was out months before the 1GHz G4. Apple should buy AltiVec and then goodbye to Moto.
Sheesh!! How many times does someone have to bring up the issue of total cast of ownership to some people!! Especially for a small business that would not have the kind of budget to have three or four people constantly fixing computers 40 hours a week. I've seen it happen.
secondly I for one need a powerful machine. I do 3D, compositing and effects work. I won't get into the 64bitness debate again because it has been covered in these forums time and again by those that are closer to the chip fab process and the software dev side than I.
I also am forced to do a lot of it on a PC platfrom which trust me is a nightmare. I do as much of this work as I can on my Mac. My employer has gone to great lengths to purchase a top notch system to do all these things rathar then get a Macintosh (my recommendations be damned) and the thing is still crappy.
Though i know that MOSR has a bad rep on these boards I was interested in a story they have posted on the idea that the purchase of Racer is about to bear fruit in the form of a graphics and multimedia co-processor. This was supposed to happen already with the Philips Trimedia chip but apparently it did not live up to Apple's expectations. If you believe that Steve will do whatever it takes to keep the lack of progress at Mot's chip division from bringing the company down, this should make a lot of sense.
A specialized co-processor would make a big difference in performance when combined with all the other non CPU clock speed improvements all of us have been talking about (DDR, etc.). The point is Apple will find a way. Haven't you noticed that whatever is coming we have gotten probably less information about then any previous year?
This is not to say I don't feel the frustration but giving up is silly and I for one am going to be positive despite the large and growing wish list I have for Apple hardware and software. If the alternative for some is not that scary then fine go get a Wintel box but I won't be joining you.
Being involved in video, I have met a few Amiga users. We have nothing on them. They've been through the wringer for years. You may laugh but the Amiga was designed well enough to use a Mot 040 processor for a long time and still do some amazing work in broadcast and film. The same sort of work Macs do now. It all hinged on the chip set where the CPU only did some of the work not all of it. The Amiga still has some life in it with new PPC based hardware coming out. I think there is a lesson to be learned there.
I'm not being an appologist. Just saying based on my experience there is no way I'm jumping ship and I don't think I'm alone.
<strong>yeah there's more to a computer than megahertz, but there's also the money issue.
I run a business and I have to justify every penny I spend, if two items can do the same thing, I will ALWAYS buy the cheaper of the two.
I love Apple hardware and software, but there is no way, NO WAY I will spend 100% more for a computer because it's wrapped in pretty plastic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you submit bids for new equipment to companies?
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the deal Apple will offer if you do that instead of just going to the Apple Store and buying retail. It doesn't have to be a huge purchase, either.
Okay. Apple are doing fine with their consumer products...to say they are a lone company in the Wintel tide you could say they are doing miraculously.
imacs, ibooks. Great. Got PC converts tripping over themselves to join the Mac Church.
Great.
However. I think the Powermac hardware is overpriced. Vastly.
For the prices they're charging I would expect built in 3D apple branded acceleration graphic chips to boost OS, bandwidth, their i-apps strategy. For many a year the old Amiga had tech that blew away PCs for comparable or less prices.
With 30% pro mark up prices...Apple should be offering more. More ram, better cards, better processors.
Internally re: graphics cards, apple are better than they have been in years. The adoptionof Open Gl got them heading in the right direction.
But the G4 without altivec is a chip in dire need of being relegated to the consumer side of things.
Perhaps Pro users want to do more than surf the net and word process.
3D takes far to long as it is and even the G5 will have its power sucked up for most 3D tasks.
We need that kind of processor and in 2, 4 and 8 combo arrays to really get high end 3D moving on the Mac.
Apple are value added in terms of software and style. Great. But the internals, while improved...are merely satisfactory. A shame when the rest of the Mac set up is so well nailed down.
The G5. A value added processor for value added prices.
I don't think the future is as bad as you say in regards to chip speed because there was some news recently about how IBM had developed a new process that was going to greatly speed up chips. In the article, the person who worked at IBM said that it would speed up chips such as the ones that are used by Apple computer Co. Just be patient.
However. I think the Powermac hardware is overpriced. Vastly.
For the prices they're charging I would expect built in 3D apple branded acceleration graphic chips to boost OS, bandwidth, their i-apps strategy. For many a year the old Amiga had tech that blew away PCs for comparable or less prices.
With 30% pro mark up prices...Apple should be offering more. More ram, better cards, better processors.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Excellent point. I wonder if Apple has ever considered lowering their prices somewhat to see if that would sell more computers. If this worked, the increased volume might offset the profit loss per computer and they might end up with the same profit for a given quarter. It just seems to me that there might be a "sweetspot" somewhere in the pricing that would get more people to buy Macs and not adversely hurt their profits.
If lower prices did increase mac sales, another benefit to selling more computers is more software sales (and more importantly, more software development).
[quote] For the prices they're charging I would expect built in 3D apple branded acceleration graphic chips to boost OS, bandwidth, their i-apps strategy. For many a year the old Amiga had tech that blew away PCs for comparable or less prices. <hr></blockquote>
As I just posted, the Amiga at the time you speak of did not rely on the CPU for everything. It's design distributed the load to specailty chips on the Mobo. Apple could introduce a 2.4Ghz G5 tomorrow and not get the same result as using the Amiga hardware model. I don't buy the idea that a G5 machine is going to be in the SGI price range. A 4 or 8 processor system yes but there are no cush systems for under $4000 using any hardware.
yup, I was using Canadian dollars.. if you move your eyes to the left you'll see I'm in Toronto.
Are you a journalist?
All kidding aside I understand the argument of total costs, I've gone through the analysis dozens of time trying to figure out how I can justify an Apple machine. No dice.
And here's why.
I found the one of the fastest payback in IT expenditure is an increases in screen resolution. I have seen people double their productivity from a 1024x768 to 1600x1200 (mind you larger screens are used sometimes). It takes a hell of a lot longer to match this ROI with a 200Mhz clock speed increase or doubling of RAM. Wireless networking is an area I'm investigating now and it looks just as juicy. The ROI for it is amazing!! High speed Internet access in one as well.
Apple does not offer a compleling high resolution option. Sure yuo can get 1920x1200, but for $5600 (I'm using CDN $$ for those who still can't look left ) I can get 2 1280x1024 17" screens for just under $2000. Apple's 17"'s would cost $3600 (2 17" +DVIator and special vid card). Even better is a 17" + 2 15" which gives you over 3300 horizontal pixels still comes in at around $2200 including vid cards.
So for the price of 2 17" Apple LCD's I get 3 LCD screens and a computer.
I don't know about you, but the more desktop I have with Flash, Dreamweaver, Interdev, Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, Outlook, Trillian, and half a dozen browsers, the better.
<strong>yeah there's more to a computer than megahertz, but there's also the money issue.
I run a business and I have to justify every penny I spend, if two items can do the same thing, I will ALWAYS buy the cheaper of the two.
I love Apple hardware and software, but there is no way, NO WAY I will spend 100% more for a computer because it's wrapped in pretty plastic. It goes under the desk for petes sake. I'd spend 10% more, but not 10 times that.
Apple has to wake up and smell the economics, sure they sell BMW's, but if they want to double the market share, they're going to have to do somethig about the price. If they don't want to, great for them, but I'm not spending $6,000 for a 1Ghz machine 1GB slow RAM and 1280x1024....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I buy various types of equipment. However, I regret everytime I buy a cheap hand tool (and end up breaking my Knuckles) or a cheap mutlimeter, contoller or any other thing. I don't mind paying extra to get a quality tool. In a lot of cases the people that purchase the equipment are not the ones that use it. In these cases the end user usually laughs and makes sure he trashes the equipment and you end up buying stuff twice. Better to buy the best first and get something that lasts.
Comments
I have to hand it to ya -- you know how to get people talking. I start a thread and only two people write to it: you and me. Sigh.
Look, Stimuli just said what I wanted to say, far more compellingly than I could have said it. But I'll say my piece anyway.
I'd be really worried about Apple's PPC future if the only action we saw was with highly-designed consumer gizmos. But the BLAST project and Nothing Real purchase seem like the actions of a company that knows that it has some real kick-arse hardware in the pipeline.
You voiced a similar point in your remarks about Apple's renewed interest in 3D. So I'll say it again: if we only had iPods and iPhoto, I'd worry that the PPC is rapidly heading towards irrelevance. But Apple gives every appearance of wanting to own the high-end digital media creation market. They couldn't begin to contemplate such a strategy unless they had some impressive hardware coming up.
There. Feeling better now?
What about us academics ?
Contrary to popular belief, the end is not near. The sales of iMacs, iBooks, and PowerBooks are terrific. Power Mac sales are down because of the speculation surrounding the new G5. I'll come out and say this: Apple hurt themselves with the hype they created about MWSF 2002. It made people believe that a G5 was due to arrive. When it didn't, a lot of people decided they could put off their next computer purchase. For the most part, even machines that are 2+ years old are still excellent machines! My PowerBook G3/500 is still fast enough for what I'm doing, and that includes a lot of VB work in Virtual PC.
If Apple releases the PowerMac G5 at Macworld NY, even if the benchmarks completely blow away the machines on the market now (including 2.4 GHz P4s, you're still going to get people on these boards saying, "Well, Intel is still 1 GHz ahead of the G5 in speed, I'm going to x86".
The sales charts show that Apple is selling machines at a great rate. The news of their death, as always, is premature.
Look at some facts, he mentions the pro market. We already know that the G4 outperforms the P4 in the key areas G4's are used in the pro market (Video, Photo, Audio). Great strides are being made in the 3d Animation side on the Mac as well. All of these fields don't look for the most Mhz, they look for the fastest renderer, fastest encoder, the program that qets work done first. That machine is the Power Mac. Why do you think Apple boasts about Photoshop performance? It's because it's one of their more important professional apps. So you see, Apple is just fine at the moment in it's key Pro niche's.
In the consumer space speed doesn't matter as much. I really doubt that MS Office will be more responsive while typing that Resume, or using Quicken on a P4 2.4 than a G4 700. The consumer won't notice the .1 second difference that might occur on such mundane tasks. Your true hardcore gamer might be the only one who really takes advantage of the higher MHz, but as we've seen recently not only is the Mac getting more games, but the performance is on par with PC's.
So you tell me, is JYD just trying to get people all worked up as usual? Or do we really have a problem? I know the real answer, do you?
[ 04-03-2002: Message edited by: Slacker ]</p>
I run a business and I have to justify every penny I spend, if two items can do the same thing, I will ALWAYS buy the cheaper of the two.
I love Apple hardware and software, but there is no way, NO WAY I will spend 100% more for a computer because it's wrapped in pretty plastic. It goes under the desk for petes sake. I'd spend 10% more, but not 10 times that.
Apple has to wake up and smell the economics, sure they sell BMW's, but if they want to double the market share, they're going to have to do somethig about the price. If they don't want to, great for them, but I'm not spending $6,000 for a 1Ghz machine 1GB slow RAM and 1280x1024....
<strong>but I'm not spending $6,000 for a 1Ghz machine 1GB slow RAM and 1280x1024....</strong><hr></blockquote>
You DO know you are speaking out of your @SS when you say that right !? after going through Apple's website the most expensive configuration $4649 with a dual 1Ghz processor. with $6000 dollars you can get the 22 inch wide Screen apple Cinema Display with a dual 1Ghz PPC Mac already. And the resolution will be 1600X1024, and if you get the high Res 23-inch display the resolution will be 1920X1200.
<strong>yeah there's more to a computer than megahertz, but there's also the money issue.
I run a business and I have to justify every penny I spend, if two items can do the same thing, I will ALWAYS buy the cheaper of the two.
I love Apple hardware and software, but there is no way, NO WAY I will spend 100% more for a computer because it's wrapped in pretty plastic. It goes under the desk for petes sake. I'd spend 10% more, but not 10 times that.
Apple has to wake up and smell the economics, sure they sell BMW's, but if they want to double the market share, they're going to have to do somethig about the price. If they don't want to, great for them, but I'm not spending $6,000 for a 1Ghz machine 1GB slow RAM and 1280x1024....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wouldn't spend $6,000 on that either, and don't know who would. I could by the most awesome mac ever with a 23" cinema display and some other nice add-ons for that price.
I guess you don't factor in cost of ownership in your business model. Too bad, you're losing money because of it.
<a href="http://208.234.7.168/arnspub/Macintosh/Apple/ROITechBrief.pdf"; target="_blank">http://208.234.7.168/arnspub/Macintosh/Apple/ROITechBrief.pdf</a>;
<a href="http://www.hubster.com/apple/whymac/idc-tco-white-paper.pdf"; target="_blank">http://www.hubster.com/apple/whymac/idc-tco-white-paper.pdf</a>;
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010701024113/http://www.ecomstation.com.au/execgde.htm"; target="_blank">http://web.archive.org/web/20010701024113/http://www.ecomstation.com.au/execgde.htm</a>;
<a href="http://www.osdata.com/holistic/cost/cost.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.osdata.com/holistic/cost/cost.htm</a>;
<a href="http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2846571,00.html"; target="_blank">http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2846571,00.html</a>;
Some old and some new links show cost of ownership issues. On average you need 2 to 4 times as many people to support the same amount of PC's as Macs (large networks).
[quote]I believe Jason was using Canadian dollars. <hr></blockquote>
Okay, let's see. $6000 Canadian converted to American dollars ... carry the three ...
...
Wow! You can get that kind of a Mac for $100 US? I'm driving up to Canada!
[ 04-03-2002: Message edited by: Fran441 ]</p>
secondly I for one need a powerful machine. I do 3D, compositing and effects work. I won't get into the 64bitness debate again because it has been covered in these forums time and again by those that are closer to the chip fab process and the software dev side than I.
I also am forced to do a lot of it on a PC platfrom which trust me is a nightmare. I do as much of this work as I can on my Mac. My employer has gone to great lengths to purchase a top notch system to do all these things rathar then get a Macintosh (my recommendations be damned) and the thing is still crappy.
Though i know that MOSR has a bad rep on these boards I was interested in a story they have posted on the idea that the purchase of Racer is about to bear fruit in the form of a graphics and multimedia co-processor. This was supposed to happen already with the Philips Trimedia chip but apparently it did not live up to Apple's expectations. If you believe that Steve will do whatever it takes to keep the lack of progress at Mot's chip division from bringing the company down, this should make a lot of sense.
A specialized co-processor would make a big difference in performance when combined with all the other non CPU clock speed improvements all of us have been talking about (DDR, etc.). The point is Apple will find a way. Haven't you noticed that whatever is coming we have gotten probably less information about then any previous year?
This is not to say I don't feel the frustration but giving up is silly and I for one am going to be positive despite the large and growing wish list I have for Apple hardware and software. If the alternative for some is not that scary then fine go get a Wintel box but I won't be joining you.
Being involved in video, I have met a few Amiga users. We have nothing on them. They've been through the wringer for years. You may laugh but the Amiga was designed well enough to use a Mot 040 processor for a long time and still do some amazing work in broadcast and film. The same sort of work Macs do now. It all hinged on the chip set where the CPU only did some of the work not all of it. The Amiga still has some life in it with new PPC based hardware coming out. I think there is a lesson to be learned there.
I'm not being an appologist. Just saying based on my experience there is no way I'm jumping ship and I don't think I'm alone.
[ 04-03-2002: Message edited by: CCR65 ]</p>
<strong>yeah there's more to a computer than megahertz, but there's also the money issue.
I run a business and I have to justify every penny I spend, if two items can do the same thing, I will ALWAYS buy the cheaper of the two.
I love Apple hardware and software, but there is no way, NO WAY I will spend 100% more for a computer because it's wrapped in pretty plastic.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you submit bids for new equipment to companies?
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the deal Apple will offer if you do that instead of just going to the Apple Store and buying retail. It doesn't have to be a huge purchase, either.
I like it that way.
Keep up the posts JD.
Okay. Apple are doing fine with their consumer products...to say they are a lone company in the Wintel tide you could say they are doing miraculously.
imacs, ibooks. Great. Got PC converts tripping over themselves to join the Mac Church.
Great.
However. I think the Powermac hardware is overpriced. Vastly.
For the prices they're charging I would expect built in 3D apple branded acceleration graphic chips to boost OS, bandwidth, their i-apps strategy. For many a year the old Amiga had tech that blew away PCs for comparable or less prices.
With 30% pro mark up prices...Apple should be offering more. More ram, better cards, better processors.
Internally re: graphics cards, apple are better than they have been in years. The adoptionof Open Gl got them heading in the right direction.
But the G4 without altivec is a chip in dire need of being relegated to the consumer side of things.
Perhaps Pro users want to do more than surf the net and word process.
3D takes far to long as it is and even the G5 will have its power sucked up for most 3D tasks.
We need that kind of processor and in 2, 4 and 8 combo arrays to really get high end 3D moving on the Mac.
Apple are value added in terms of software and style. Great. But the internals, while improved...are merely satisfactory. A shame when the rest of the Mac set up is so well nailed down.
The G5. A value added processor for value added prices.
C'mon Apple and Moto.
Show us the money!
Lemon Bon Bon
I don't think the future is as bad as you say in regards to chip speed because there was some news recently about how IBM had developed a new process that was going to greatly speed up chips. In the article, the person who worked at IBM said that it would speed up chips such as the ones that are used by Apple computer Co. Just be patient.
<strong>
However. I think the Powermac hardware is overpriced. Vastly.
For the prices they're charging I would expect built in 3D apple branded acceleration graphic chips to boost OS, bandwidth, their i-apps strategy. For many a year the old Amiga had tech that blew away PCs for comparable or less prices.
With 30% pro mark up prices...Apple should be offering more. More ram, better cards, better processors.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Excellent point. I wonder if Apple has ever considered lowering their prices somewhat to see if that would sell more computers. If this worked, the increased volume might offset the profit loss per computer and they might end up with the same profit for a given quarter. It just seems to me that there might be a "sweetspot" somewhere in the pricing that would get more people to buy Macs and not adversely hurt their profits.
If lower prices did increase mac sales, another benefit to selling more computers is more software sales (and more importantly, more software development).
As I just posted, the Amiga at the time you speak of did not rely on the CPU for everything. It's design distributed the load to specailty chips on the Mobo. Apple could introduce a 2.4Ghz G5 tomorrow and not get the same result as using the Amiga hardware model. I don't buy the idea that a G5 machine is going to be in the SGI price range. A 4 or 8 processor system yes but there are no cush systems for under $4000 using any hardware.
Are you a journalist?
All kidding aside I understand the argument of total costs, I've gone through the analysis dozens of time trying to figure out how I can justify an Apple machine. No dice.
And here's why.
I found the one of the fastest payback in IT expenditure is an increases in screen resolution. I have seen people double their productivity from a 1024x768 to 1600x1200 (mind you larger screens are used sometimes). It takes a hell of a lot longer to match this ROI with a 200Mhz clock speed increase or doubling of RAM. Wireless networking is an area I'm investigating now and it looks just as juicy. The ROI for it is amazing!! High speed Internet access in one as well.
Apple does not offer a compleling high resolution option. Sure yuo can get 1920x1200, but for $5600 (I'm using CDN $$ for those who still can't look left
So for the price of 2 17" Apple LCD's I get 3 LCD screens and a computer.
I don't know about you, but the more desktop I have with Flash, Dreamweaver, Interdev, Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, Outlook, Trillian, and half a dozen browsers, the better.
<strong>yeah there's more to a computer than megahertz, but there's also the money issue.
I run a business and I have to justify every penny I spend, if two items can do the same thing, I will ALWAYS buy the cheaper of the two.
I love Apple hardware and software, but there is no way, NO WAY I will spend 100% more for a computer because it's wrapped in pretty plastic. It goes under the desk for petes sake. I'd spend 10% more, but not 10 times that.
Apple has to wake up and smell the economics, sure they sell BMW's, but if they want to double the market share, they're going to have to do somethig about the price. If they don't want to, great for them, but I'm not spending $6,000 for a 1Ghz machine 1GB slow RAM and 1280x1024....</strong><hr></blockquote>
I buy various types of equipment. However, I regret everytime I buy a cheap hand tool (and end up breaking my Knuckles) or a cheap mutlimeter, contoller or any other thing. I don't mind paying extra to get a quality tool. In a lot of cases the people that purchase the equipment are not the ones that use it. In these cases the end user usually laughs and makes sure he trashes the equipment and you end up buying stuff twice. Better to buy the best first and get something that lasts.