I just had to talk my dad out of getting a $599 Dell. His Mac is getting old. He said to me that he doesn?t do a lot of graphics and doesn?t see the need to spend $1000. . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
My experience too. The only three people I know who owned older Macs all switched to Windows in the last 18 months. The last one got the $599 Dell a week or so ago.
<strong>All you cheap computer market share people have to remember some things. Apple (I believe) is not only looking to gain market share, but get a certain kind of Switcher. Apple consumers are smarter, better educated, and more wealthy. Selling an olf iMac to grandma for little to know profit, means she does not have a lot of money and will probably die before she would need to upgrade. What is the point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
apple needs to remember that the wealthy do not make up the majority in this world. the middleclass do. and the average middleclass blow joe will look at the price tag along with his 9 PC buddies behind him telling him what to get. if apple really wants 10% marketshare they NEED a sub $500 computer. even if they take a loss on profit it would be worth it. just to get the marketshare growth.
"Should Apple introduce a new Mac system for $399?"
No. This price is too low. Apple does not have the market share to properly counteract the monetary losses that will come from competing against Dell, Compaq, HP, and eMachines.
What should Apple's Pricing be?
eMac.......$799.99
iMac 15"...$999.99
iMac 17"...$1299.99
Where the %!@# did those numbers come from?
The eMac price is equivilent to the iMac price a couple of years ago. The G3 iMac is obselete, and is no longer advertised except on the Apple website. Moreover, most PCs advertised in the weekly Best Buy and Circuit City ads end up at around $600 - $800 when the cost of a monitor is added.
The iMacs contain many of the same internals as the eMac. The exception being the LCD screen. It is not unreasonable to assume that since (off the shelf, retail) 15" LCD monitors are selling for roughly $200 more than an (off the shelf, retail) 17" CRT, that Apple's profits would be consistent between the eMac and 15" iMac with this pricing scheme.
For the 17" iMac, see the above paragraph, but relate the 17" LCD to the 15" LCD.
About "Thin Clients"
Let's suppose that Apple created the $399.99 cMac. Go ahead and put whatever "low cost" hardware you want into it and hook a 1000 or so of them up to an XServe. Will a hospital buy the system? Will a university? Will Honeywell? How about a city planning agency?
Heck no. And here's why.
No matter HOW cheap you make the hardware, the simple fact is that Apple does not have enough of a development presence to convince business and industry that it can support their software needs.
Microsoft Office is a VERY MINOR piece of business software here in America. Most businesses and industries have thousands of "in-house" or "PC-only" custom software programs that they use on a daily basis.
Hospitals have specific RECORDS software. Libraries have specific INVENTORY software. Engineering firms have specific BOARD LAYOUT software. Et-cetera...
Um, so?
The point is that even IF industry made the shift to the cMac, there would be very FEW developers who could supply them with the necessary software to do their daily jobs.
You must fundamentally understand that the Macintosh is a very "developmentally-starved" platform. There are only a handful of custom development firms for OSX application software, and there are only TWO ways to learn how to program on the Macintosh:
1) Buy a book and "teach yourself"
2) Attend a "training session" at a faraway Ranch that costs over $1500 and requires you to spend a full week there and bring your own hardware.
The Alternative?
The reason why business and industry are so apt to choose the PC over the Macintosh is that there are Millions of developers and Thousands of private development firms that do nothing but make custom software solutions.
If Apple really wants to break into business and industry, they need to make sure that a Cocoa Programming Solution is taught at every major Community College and University in this country. They need to ENCOURAGE people to take the courses (re: discount on Hardware), and to become certified.
Market Share
To me, the whole point of the, "Should Macs be cheaper, " discussion is the impact on Market Share.
Would a less-expensive Macintosh be able to sell more easily to more consumers who would, in turn, purchase more Macintosh products in the future and "sell" the MacOS platform to others?
<strong>Microsoft Office is a VERY MINOR piece of business software here in America. Most businesses and industries have thousands of "in-house" or "PC-only" custom software programs that they use on a daily basis.
Hospitals have specific RECORDS software...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can certainly attest to this. We have over 200 applications that were written by almost as many vendors for DOS/Windows only. Trying to get a (non-profit) hospital to switch to an all Mac platform would be insanely difficult. All of those applications would have to be re-written or abandoned for something similar or Open (java-based, web-based, etc). I could only imagine the cost of this. :eek:
It would be good incentive and a smart decision to replace all of those applications with Open ones, however, and thus we come to a point that most people overlook. Convincing the people who are in charge of approving the task. More and more, IT people like myself are frustrated by the lack of solid understanding of direction of technology. They are overwhelmed and, more often than not, sold by a Microsoft Rep that switching all services to Windows xx (you pick a version) is the way to go. While I understand the market share and developer backing, it boggles my mind.
Case in point, our hospital is in the middle of such an undertaking. We are replacing a dozen or so Netware email/file/print/application servers with Windows versions of the same services. Our implementation is set to cost roughly $25 million dollars, corporate-wide, while our corporate spending on Novell services was $600,000 per year. Of course, we are WAY over budget, because the Microsoft Reps hide so many, many costs. Hardware they were more or less up front about, but training, extra staffing, and various XP bugs have led us to probably a $30 million dollar tag. That is going to take us 50 Years! to recoupe. Does that make sense?
The move toward Open systems is the only way out of the Microsoft (or insert the vendor you are smothered by) stranglehold! Why do you think their fight with Sun was the real key to Court battles over the past 3 years? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I think Stagflation Steve hit on a very good idea and price, using the iBook board with less expensive drives in a box without monitor. It would be a quick and easy way for Apple to try out the concept, with not too much engineering expense. If it works, they can start to knock out yet more costs, and refine the product.
My only concern is that the video may be too good, and it would take sales from the eMac and iMac. After all, just add a cheap LCD display and the customer almost has low price iMac capability. If Apple can keep it degraded just enough it would still be great in schools and to encourage enterprise to start using Macs. Also, those three former Mac users who now have a cheap Windows box would not have switched, I would bet. They all liked the Mac, but could not justify the cost for their limited needs. I am going to look at the $599 Dell the last one bought and see what I think. Once they switch, it is unlikely they will switch back sooner than 5 to 10 years. They kept their Macs a long time.
So, what do you think can promote the Mac platform, increase popularity and marketshare?
I'll answer first:
What makes the Mac popular amongst most consumers is its ease of use, the iApps, its simple connectivity concept - no legacy ports - and its beautiful design and love for the details - my the poweradapter currently shipped is the best one I know.
The shortcomings I encounter are lack of certain software products - an eDonkey-client for example - and the lack of support and interest on the hardware industries' side. It is hard to integrate OS X into existing infrastructure: Cisco for example provides its IPSec Client for OS X with out GUI and without an easy to use installer.
And sometimes it is Apple's fault because they cut features. Ever tried to use PPPoE on your Airport card (!) to access a wireless network? In Windows you just bind protocol to the network interface and there you go.
Or Mail's IMAP support.
And this annoyes schools and small businesses, too. They usually don't benefit from iApps in any way. Although this might change with iCal, iSync, Mac OS X Server and whether Apple is going to forge them together and make a decent easy-to-use-and-administer secure groupware - the killer app for businesses.
Businesses and educational institutions demand affordable solutions tailored to thier individual needs. This is what Apple needs to address.
Apple should seek cooperation with third parties the way they cooperate with Sony-Ericsson.
Concerning developer support, I think that Apple does fairly well with their ADC programm.
It loads down all of your mail off the server in a POP-style instead of just the headers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seriously? That sucks. I only had a very brief look at Mail.app up to now, but this would definitely be a complete show-stopper for me, as I do have some IMAP folders with several thousand mails in them.
With regard to IMAP functionality on OS X... I grabbed this off the O'Reilly Network. And this applied back in May. I'll assume that the support only got better.
To help keep things efficient, Mail.app keeps local caches of your IMAP accounts' content, even though the "real" messages reside on the server. By default, an account's cache lives in Library/Mail/IMAP within your Home folder, unless you specified a different folder when you created the account (see the section called "Account Directory"). Every account gets its own folder there, named IMAP/account name. Note the similarity between the structure of this folder on my Mac, and that of my actual, server-side IMAP mailboxes seen in Figure 4.
Through the Message caching: pull-down menu, you can specify how much of your incoming email Mail.app should cache, and when it should cache it:
-Cache all messages and attachments locally
This will direct Mail.app to download the entirety of every new message upon connection. This will allow you to read these messages and their attachments when offline, much as you can do through a POP account.
NOTE: This is the default selection for a new Mail.app IMAP account. **
-Cache messages bodies locally
When selected, Mail.app will cache all new messages' text bodies, as well as a list of any attachments for each, but not the attachments themselves (unless they're relatively small). If you specifically request to see a message's attachment (by clicking on the attachment's icon in the message view window), Mail.app will fetch a fresh copy from the server for you.
This is a good choice if you like the convenience that having all your textual email stored locally (which allows nice features like indexing and searching), but would like to avoid downloading large attachments you might not always want.
-Cache messages when read
This directs Mail.app to hold off on any message caching when fetching new mail. It will display new mail in the message list as usual, but doesn't actually fetch a message's content until you select one for reading. Once it loads a message, Mail.app places its body into the cache. Subsequent visits to this message will read from the cached copy (unless the server's version of the message changes).Like the previous menu choice, this does not cache large attachments.\t
-Don't cache any messages
Finally, this selection tells Mail.app to forget about caching entirely. Every time you access a message, Mail.app will fetch its contents from the server anew, regardless of whether you've read it before.\t]]]
<strong>So, what do you think can promote the Mac platform, increase popularity and marketshare?
I'll answer first:
What makes the Mac popular amongst most consumers is its ease of use, the iApps, its simple connectivity concept - no legacy ports - and its beautiful design and love for the details - my the poweradapter currently shipped is the best one I know.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
USB is turning into a legacy port - look at the PCs that have come out this year: USB2....
USB is turning into a legacy port - look at the PCs that have come out this year: USB2....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe USB 1 is getting a little old but USB 2 is backwards compatible and uses the same connectors... it is not really as much a legacy port as those big old Centronics - parallel -, PS/2 - mouse and keyboard - or RS 323 - serial - connectors. And there are no pins inside them to bend or break.
Many posts about somehow downgrading one or another Mac to make a low cost version that will not take sales away from the existing product line.
Will someone explain how this works in the wintel world? If you can buy a $399 or $599 or $x99 pc then why does anyone buy a pc for $1,500 or $2,500 or $3,500 or more?
Seems I recently saw a newspaper article saying that college kids were buying pcs in the $1,500 range because they wanted multimedia and gaming features and such. Can't you do that on a cheap pc?
[quote] Microsoft Office is a VERY MINOR piece of business software here in America. Most businesses and industries have thousands of "in-house" or "PC-only" custom software programs that they use on a daily basis.
Hospitals have specific RECORDS software. Libraries have specific INVENTORY software. Engineering firms have specific BOARD LAYOUT software. Et-cetera...
Um, so?
The point is that even IF industry made the shift to the cMac, there would be very FEW developers who could supply them with the necessary software to do their daily jobs.
<hr></blockquote>
I agree, for established businesses with PC-only software already establsihed as part of their business processes, it is going to take more than a cut-price desktop Mac to make them "switch". I don't expect all enterprise customers to suddenly come flocking. But then these people aren't going to be in the market for Xserves either.
The thrust of my argument in starting the discussion on an enterprise-focused cut-price Mac, rather than a cheap consumer offering, is that if Apple is serious about making some inroads into the enterprise market then I think it needs to offer a client machine attractive to businesses as well as the server.
If Apple were to do this, their target customers would clearly not be large enterprise with susbstantial investments in custom PC software, it is going to be start-up businesses or those with more limited requirements for very specialised software. Not everyone needs to run engineering design software.
And as for the records and inventory software you refer to, if you have read the whole of this thread, you will see that we have already discussed how much of this database-type software is moving towards server-fed systems feeding to a simple front-end application or even to just a web browser. This means that once you have your custom server software set-up to handle your central database, eg patient records in a hospital, then the client can be any platform that runs a web browser. This is the way that many developers are moving. I personally know two patient records products that are currently in the process of being re-written from the ground up to work cross-platform through a web-based interface.
It is much harder to make enterprises with huge investments switch - it is simply not feasible in the near future, but the market is much more than established enterprises. There are new businesses starting up every day. It would be nice to think that new businesses starting up with a simple-to-manage Apple server/client set-up would have enough competitive advantage to overtake their established PC-using competitors with their vast IT support requirements. If that was the case Apple wouldn't need anyone to switch to dominate the market, the PC-using companies would simply become extinct. But that would be to overestimate the importance of the desktop computer in delivering a successful business!
<strong>Will someone explain how this works in the wintel world? If you can buy a $399 or $599 or $x99 pc then why does anyone buy a pc for $1,500 or $2,500 or $3,500 or more?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, if you're a HARDCORE gamer, then you can very easily rack up some $$$ on your PC purchase.
Consider this. The ATI Radion 9700 Pro and the GeForce 4Ti video cards cost anywhere from $350 to $400. If a gamer were to purchase an entry-level eMachines or Dell for $450, the video card purchase alone would bring them up to around $800 to $850.
But many gamers are not content to settle for a 1.x GHz Pentium IV processor. They want the best. An upgraded chipset and motherboard can cost anywhere from $200 to $400 for the cutting edge 2.x GHz Pentium IV or Athlon. That brings the dollar amount up between $1000 and $1250.
And then, there's the Hard Drive equation. Bar none, the slowest internal device on ANY computer is the HD. So out come the default 40G drives with 2MB cache, and in goes a RAID card with two (or more) 100G drives with 8MB cache. This can cost anywhere from $250 to $400, depending on the HD maker and size. Now, the dollar amounts are $1250 and $1650.
But wait, there's more. You have to get the Dolby Digital 6.1 sound when you're gaming. Any less would be uncivilized. The best audio cards retail between $100 and $200. And the Satellite speaker systems that use them will run $75 to $175. So, upgrading to professional sound will raise the stakes to $1425 and $2025, respectively.
I could keep going, toying with CRT and LCD monitors and Ethernet cards, but you get the point. When it comes to PC technology, the sky's the limit.
And then, there's the Hard Drive equation. Bar none, the slowest internal device on ANY computer is the HD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Except for the optical drive(s).
[quote]<strong>So out come the default 40G drives with 2MB cache, and in goes a RAID card with two (or more) 100G drives with 8MB cache. This can cost anywhere from $250 to $400, depending on the HD maker and size. Now, the dollar amounts are $1250 and $1650.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's usually an inverse relationship between storage density and HDD speed, so it's probably a good thing that the really big drives have really big caches. For real speed, of course, you'd go to hardware RAID on Gb fiber channel with 8 or 16 15K drives, and that sends the price up into the tens of thousands of dollars.
I assume that most gamers accept a compromise there. Especially since it would be hard to hear the sound coming through your nice 6+1 speaker system with 16 15K drives roaring nearby.
I read about the EU's concern that Microsoft is trying to take over the cell phone market, by making cell phone hardware simply a channel for their software. If this happens, Microsoft controls the phones, and everyone else is in a rat race to build the cheapest hardware for Microsoft's system, just like the PC market today. This made me look at Apple's market share problem in a little different light. I guess Dell figured out how to be king of the cheap hardware rat race in the PC market. I wonder whether Dell even designs their own motherboards? They likely get XP Home Edition for about 40 dollars. With Microsoft's sales volume, they can sell if fairly cheap. Apple has a real problem selling against this kind of competition. The former Mac user I know who just switched to a cheap Dell is very happy with it.
Apple needs to offer something in this low end market but must charge more to stay profitable. Can Apple provide some obvious advantage to offset a slightly higher price tag? In the home market, possibly a cute design would attract enough buyers. In business, possibly something related to the way Microsoft charges fees provides an opportunity for Apple to compete. In education, I don't have any ideas, but Apple needs to find or make more advantages to having Macs in school. Even so, Apple still needs a low end Mac without a monitor.
Some of this discussion has been on dirt cheap computers for the home market, but others stress the need for low cost computers in business and schools. Here is Gateway's latest pitch to the business market.
"The version of the E-2000 with a small chassis starts at $889 and includes a 2GHz Intel Celeron chip, 128MB of RAM, a 40GB hard drive, a CD-ROM drive and a 15-inch monitor. The E-4000 with a small chassis features a 1.8GHz Intel Pentium 4 but not the monitor; otherwise, it is the same configuration. It starts at $739."
The prices are not that low, and the new.com article noted prices from other PC makers, and they are all in this same ballpark. Apple could easily build a Mac to compete with that $739 E-4000 without monitor, and it would likely sell in schools too.
Comments
<strong>
I just had to talk my dad out of getting a $599 Dell. His Mac is getting old. He said to me that he doesn?t do a lot of graphics and doesn?t see the need to spend $1000. . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
My experience too. The only three people I know who owned older Macs all switched to Windows in the last 18 months. The last one got the $599 Dell a week or so ago.
<strong>All you cheap computer market share people have to remember some things. Apple (I believe) is not only looking to gain market share, but get a certain kind of Switcher. Apple consumers are smarter, better educated, and more wealthy. Selling an olf iMac to grandma for little to know profit, means she does not have a lot of money and will probably die before she would need to upgrade. What is the point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
apple needs to remember that the wealthy do not make up the majority in this world. the middleclass do. and the average middleclass blow joe will look at the price tag along with his 9 PC buddies behind him telling him what to get. if apple really wants 10% marketshare they NEED a sub $500 computer. even if they take a loss on profit it would be worth it. just to get the marketshare growth.
"Should Apple introduce a new Mac system for $399?"
No. This price is too low. Apple does not have the market share to properly counteract the monetary losses that will come from competing against Dell, Compaq, HP, and eMachines.
What should Apple's Pricing be?
eMac.......$799.99
iMac 15"...$999.99
iMac 17"...$1299.99
Where the %!@# did those numbers come from?
The eMac price is equivilent to the iMac price a couple of years ago. The G3 iMac is obselete, and is no longer advertised except on the Apple website. Moreover, most PCs advertised in the weekly Best Buy and Circuit City ads end up at around $600 - $800 when the cost of a monitor is added.
The iMacs contain many of the same internals as the eMac. The exception being the LCD screen. It is not unreasonable to assume that since (off the shelf, retail) 15" LCD monitors are selling for roughly $200 more than an (off the shelf, retail) 17" CRT, that Apple's profits would be consistent between the eMac and 15" iMac with this pricing scheme.
For the 17" iMac, see the above paragraph, but relate the 17" LCD to the 15" LCD.
About "Thin Clients"
Let's suppose that Apple created the $399.99 cMac. Go ahead and put whatever "low cost" hardware you want into it and hook a 1000 or so of them up to an XServe. Will a hospital buy the system? Will a university? Will Honeywell? How about a city planning agency?
Heck no. And here's why.
No matter HOW cheap you make the hardware, the simple fact is that Apple does not have enough of a development presence to convince business and industry that it can support their software needs.
Microsoft Office is a VERY MINOR piece of business software here in America. Most businesses and industries have thousands of "in-house" or "PC-only" custom software programs that they use on a daily basis.
Hospitals have specific RECORDS software. Libraries have specific INVENTORY software. Engineering firms have specific BOARD LAYOUT software. Et-cetera...
Um, so?
The point is that even IF industry made the shift to the cMac, there would be very FEW developers who could supply them with the necessary software to do their daily jobs.
You must fundamentally understand that the Macintosh is a very "developmentally-starved" platform. There are only a handful of custom development firms for OSX application software, and there are only TWO ways to learn how to program on the Macintosh:
1) Buy a book and "teach yourself"
2) Attend a "training session" at a faraway Ranch that costs over $1500 and requires you to spend a full week there and bring your own hardware.
The Alternative?
The reason why business and industry are so apt to choose the PC over the Macintosh is that there are Millions of developers and Thousands of private development firms that do nothing but make custom software solutions.
If Apple really wants to break into business and industry, they need to make sure that a Cocoa Programming Solution is taught at every major Community College and University in this country. They need to ENCOURAGE people to take the courses (re: discount on Hardware), and to become certified.
Market Share
To me, the whole point of the, "Should Macs be cheaper, " discussion is the impact on Market Share.
Would a less-expensive Macintosh be able to sell more easily to more consumers who would, in turn, purchase more Macintosh products in the future and "sell" the MacOS platform to others?
Only Apple's accountants know for sure...
My $0.02,
-theMagius
<strong>Microsoft Office is a VERY MINOR piece of business software here in America. Most businesses and industries have thousands of "in-house" or "PC-only" custom software programs that they use on a daily basis.
Hospitals have specific RECORDS software...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can certainly attest to this. We have over 200 applications that were written by almost as many vendors for DOS/Windows only. Trying to get a (non-profit) hospital to switch to an all Mac platform would be insanely difficult. All of those applications would have to be re-written or abandoned for something similar or Open (java-based, web-based, etc). I could only imagine the cost of this. :eek:
It would be good incentive and a smart decision to replace all of those applications with Open ones, however, and thus we come to a point that most people overlook. Convincing the people who are in charge of approving the task. More and more, IT people like myself are frustrated by the lack of solid understanding of direction of technology. They are overwhelmed and, more often than not, sold by a Microsoft Rep that switching all services to Windows xx (you pick a version) is the way to go. While I understand the market share and developer backing, it boggles my mind.
Case in point, our hospital is in the middle of such an undertaking. We are replacing a dozen or so Netware email/file/print/application servers with Windows versions of the same services. Our implementation is set to cost roughly $25 million dollars, corporate-wide, while our corporate spending on Novell services was $600,000 per year. Of course, we are WAY over budget, because the Microsoft Reps hide so many, many costs. Hardware they were more or less up front about, but training, extra staffing, and various XP bugs have led us to probably a $30 million dollar tag. That is going to take us 50 Years! to recoupe. Does that make sense?
The move toward Open systems is the only way out of the Microsoft (or insert the vendor you are smothered by) stranglehold! Why do you think their fight with Sun was the real key to Court battles over the past 3 years? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>Will this improve over time, probably. But for the time being Mac OS X is an incredible burden on IT support.
...
Take the guts out of the iBook, stick it in a white box, sell it without a monitor for $599 and everyone is happy!</strong><hr></blockquote>
100% agree with both these points.
My only concern is that the video may be too good, and it would take sales from the eMac and iMac. After all, just add a cheap LCD display and the customer almost has low price iMac capability. If Apple can keep it degraded just enough it would still be great in schools and to encourage enterprise to start using Macs. Also, those three former Mac users who now have a cheap Windows box would not have switched, I would bet. They all liked the Mac, but could not justify the cost for their limited needs. I am going to look at the $599 Dell the last one bought and see what I think. Once they switch, it is unlikely they will switch back sooner than 5 to 10 years. They kept their Macs a long time.
I'll answer first:
What makes the Mac popular amongst most consumers is its ease of use, the iApps, its simple connectivity concept - no legacy ports - and its beautiful design and love for the details - my the poweradapter currently shipped is the best one I know.
The shortcomings I encounter are lack of certain software products - an eDonkey-client for example - and the lack of support and interest on the hardware industries' side. It is hard to integrate OS X into existing infrastructure: Cisco for example provides its IPSec Client for OS X with out GUI and without an easy to use installer.
And sometimes it is Apple's fault because they cut features. Ever tried to use PPPoE on your Airport card (!) to access a wireless network? In Windows you just bind protocol to the network interface and there you go.
Or Mail's IMAP support.
And this annoyes schools and small businesses, too. They usually don't benefit from iApps in any way. Although this might change with iCal, iSync, Mac OS X Server and whether Apple is going to forge them together and make a decent easy-to-use-and-administer secure groupware - the killer app for businesses.
Businesses and educational institutions demand affordable solutions tailored to thier individual needs. This is what Apple needs to address.
Apple should seek cooperation with third parties the way they cooperate with Sony-Ericsson.
Concerning developer support, I think that Apple does fairly well with their ADC programm.
<strong>Or Mail's IMAP support.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Curious, what kind of problems does Mail have with regards to IMAP?
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
Curious, what kind of problems does Mail have with regards to IMAP?
Bye,
RazzFazz</strong><hr></blockquote>
It loads down all of your mail off the server in a POP-style instead of just the headers.
By-the-way, where are you from and are you in anyway associated to <a href="http://www.ratz-fatz.net"; target="_blank">http://www.ratz-fatz.net</A>; ?
<strong>
It loads down all of your mail off the server in a POP-style instead of just the headers.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Seriously? That sucks. I only had a very brief look at Mail.app up to now, but this would definitely be a complete show-stopper for me, as I do have some IMAP folders with several thousand mails in them.
[quote]<strong>By-the-way, where are you from and are you in anyway associated to <a href="http://www.ratz-fatz.net"; target="_blank">http://www.ratz-fatz.net</a>; ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nope, not at all.
Bye,
RazzFazz
The following text taken from here:
<a href="http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2002/05/21/imap.html"; target="_blank">http://www.macdevcenter.com/pub/a/mac/2002/05/21/imap.html</a>;
[[[Message Caching
To help keep things efficient, Mail.app keeps local caches of your IMAP accounts' content, even though the "real" messages reside on the server. By default, an account's cache lives in Library/Mail/IMAP within your Home folder, unless you specified a different folder when you created the account (see the section called "Account Directory"). Every account gets its own folder there, named IMAP/account name. Note the similarity between the structure of this folder on my Mac, and that of my actual, server-side IMAP mailboxes seen in Figure 4.
Through the Message caching: pull-down menu, you can specify how much of your incoming email Mail.app should cache, and when it should cache it:
-Cache all messages and attachments locally
This will direct Mail.app to download the entirety of every new message upon connection. This will allow you to read these messages and their attachments when offline, much as you can do through a POP account.
NOTE: This is the default selection for a new Mail.app IMAP account. **
-Cache messages bodies locally
When selected, Mail.app will cache all new messages' text bodies, as well as a list of any attachments for each, but not the attachments themselves (unless they're relatively small). If you specifically request to see a message's attachment (by clicking on the attachment's icon in the message view window), Mail.app will fetch a fresh copy from the server for you.
This is a good choice if you like the convenience that having all your textual email stored locally (which allows nice features like indexing and searching), but would like to avoid downloading large attachments you might not always want.
-Cache messages when read
This directs Mail.app to hold off on any message caching when fetching new mail. It will display new mail in the message list as usual, but doesn't actually fetch a message's content until you select one for reading. Once it loads a message, Mail.app places its body into the cache. Subsequent visits to this message will read from the cached copy (unless the server's version of the message changes).Like the previous menu choice, this does not cache large attachments.\t
-Don't cache any messages
Finally, this selection tells Mail.app to forget about caching entirely. Every time you access a message, Mail.app will fetch its contents from the server anew, regardless of whether you've read it before.\t]]]
Have a nice day.
--
Ed M.
<strong>So, what do you think can promote the Mac platform, increase popularity and marketshare?
I'll answer first:
What makes the Mac popular amongst most consumers is its ease of use, the iApps, its simple connectivity concept - no legacy ports - and its beautiful design and love for the details - my the poweradapter currently shipped is the best one I know.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
USB is turning into a legacy port - look at the PCs that have come out this year: USB2....
engpjp
<strong>
USB is turning into a legacy port - look at the PCs that have come out this year: USB2....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe USB 1 is getting a little old but USB 2 is backwards compatible and uses the same connectors... it is not really as much a legacy port as those big old Centronics - parallel -, PS/2 - mouse and keyboard - or RS 323 - serial - connectors. And there are no pins inside them to bend or break.
Mr. Ed, you saved may day ;-)
[ 11-14-2002: Message edited by: RolandG ]</p>
Will someone explain how this works in the wintel world? If you can buy a $399 or $599 or $x99 pc then why does anyone buy a pc for $1,500 or $2,500 or $3,500 or more?
Seems I recently saw a newspaper article saying that college kids were buying pcs in the $1,500 range because they wanted multimedia and gaming features and such. Can't you do that on a cheap pc?
Hospitals have specific RECORDS software. Libraries have specific INVENTORY software. Engineering firms have specific BOARD LAYOUT software. Et-cetera...
Um, so?
The point is that even IF industry made the shift to the cMac, there would be very FEW developers who could supply them with the necessary software to do their daily jobs.
<hr></blockquote>
I agree, for established businesses with PC-only software already establsihed as part of their business processes, it is going to take more than a cut-price desktop Mac to make them "switch". I don't expect all enterprise customers to suddenly come flocking. But then these people aren't going to be in the market for Xserves either.
The thrust of my argument in starting the discussion on an enterprise-focused cut-price Mac, rather than a cheap consumer offering, is that if Apple is serious about making some inroads into the enterprise market then I think it needs to offer a client machine attractive to businesses as well as the server.
If Apple were to do this, their target customers would clearly not be large enterprise with susbstantial investments in custom PC software, it is going to be start-up businesses or those with more limited requirements for very specialised software. Not everyone needs to run engineering design software.
And as for the records and inventory software you refer to, if you have read the whole of this thread, you will see that we have already discussed how much of this database-type software is moving towards server-fed systems feeding to a simple front-end application or even to just a web browser. This means that once you have your custom server software set-up to handle your central database, eg patient records in a hospital, then the client can be any platform that runs a web browser. This is the way that many developers are moving. I personally know two patient records products that are currently in the process of being re-written from the ground up to work cross-platform through a web-based interface.
It is much harder to make enterprises with huge investments switch - it is simply not feasible in the near future, but the market is much more than established enterprises. There are new businesses starting up every day. It would be nice to think that new businesses starting up with a simple-to-manage Apple server/client set-up would have enough competitive advantage to overtake their established PC-using competitors with their vast IT support requirements. If that was the case Apple wouldn't need anyone to switch to dominate the market, the PC-using companies would simply become extinct. But that would be to overestimate the importance of the desktop computer in delivering a successful business!
<strong>Will someone explain how this works in the wintel world? If you can buy a $399 or $599 or $x99 pc then why does anyone buy a pc for $1,500 or $2,500 or $3,500 or more?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, if you're a HARDCORE gamer, then you can very easily rack up some $$$ on your PC purchase.
Consider this. The ATI Radion 9700 Pro and the GeForce 4Ti video cards cost anywhere from $350 to $400. If a gamer were to purchase an entry-level eMachines or Dell for $450, the video card purchase alone would bring them up to around $800 to $850.
But many gamers are not content to settle for a 1.x GHz Pentium IV processor. They want the best. An upgraded chipset and motherboard can cost anywhere from $200 to $400 for the cutting edge 2.x GHz Pentium IV or Athlon. That brings the dollar amount up between $1000 and $1250.
And then, there's the Hard Drive equation. Bar none, the slowest internal device on ANY computer is the HD. So out come the default 40G drives with 2MB cache, and in goes a RAID card with two (or more) 100G drives with 8MB cache. This can cost anywhere from $250 to $400, depending on the HD maker and size. Now, the dollar amounts are $1250 and $1650.
But wait, there's more. You have to get the Dolby Digital 6.1 sound when you're gaming. Any less would be uncivilized. The best audio cards retail between $100 and $200. And the Satellite speaker systems that use them will run $75 to $175. So, upgrading to professional sound will raise the stakes to $1425 and $2025, respectively.
I could keep going, toying with CRT and LCD monitors and Ethernet cards, but you get the point. When it comes to PC technology, the sky's the limit.
Regards,
-theMagius
<strong>
And then, there's the Hard Drive equation. Bar none, the slowest internal device on ANY computer is the HD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Except for the optical drive(s).
[quote]<strong>So out come the default 40G drives with 2MB cache, and in goes a RAID card with two (or more) 100G drives with 8MB cache. This can cost anywhere from $250 to $400, depending on the HD maker and size. Now, the dollar amounts are $1250 and $1650.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's usually an inverse relationship between storage density and HDD speed, so it's probably a good thing that the really big drives have really big caches. For real speed, of course, you'd go to hardware RAID on Gb fiber channel with 8 or 16 15K drives, and that sends the price up into the tens of thousands of dollars.
I assume that most gamers accept a compromise there. Especially since it would be hard to hear the sound coming through your nice 6+1 speaker system with 16 15K drives roaring nearby.
Apple needs to offer something in this low end market but must charge more to stay profitable. Can Apple provide some obvious advantage to offset a slightly higher price tag? In the home market, possibly a cute design would attract enough buyers. In business, possibly something related to the way Microsoft charges fees provides an opportunity for Apple to compete. In education, I don't have any ideas, but Apple needs to find or make more advantages to having Macs in school. Even so, Apple still needs a low end Mac without a monitor.
"The version of the E-2000 with a small chassis starts at $889 and includes a 2GHz Intel Celeron chip, 128MB of RAM, a 40GB hard drive, a CD-ROM drive and a 15-inch monitor. The E-4000 with a small chassis features a 1.8GHz Intel Pentium 4 but not the monitor; otherwise, it is the same configuration. It starts at $739."
The prices are not that low, and the new.com article noted prices from other PC makers, and they are all in this same ballpark. Apple could easily build a Mac to compete with that $739 E-4000 without monitor, and it would likely sell in schools too.
[ 11-20-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>