What apple needs (from a pc user)
This isn't a troll, let me make that clear. I am heavily into watercooling and overclocking pc's. At school I have been involved in fixing both apples and pc laptops and desktops over the last 2 years. I also own a first gen iBook. I can pull an ibook apart perfectly, and install almost anything in an apple from past experiences. I am a complete computer fanatic. Still primarily a pc user. I had about 150 posts on the old AI boards.
The powermac g4 is simply overpriced. If you look at a dell, or if you look at <a href="http://www.pricewatch.com,"; target="_blank">www.pricewatch.com,</a> they are way overpriced. I know the G4 is faster per mhz, I have no problem saying that, but the dual G4 800 is not faster than a dual P3 1.26ghz, or a dual athlon system over 1.33ghz. For a much cheaper price than the dual 800 I can configure a dual athlon 1.6ghz system.
The mhz woes continue, staying at 500mhz for so long didn't help, but still, 867mhz is really not good enough. I know we can all blame moto here, but from a consumers point of view, apples are slow. Some consumers do realise apples are faster per mhz, and that the p4 is really quite slow per mhz.
The case on the powermac G4 is both good and bad. I like the 120mm fan blowing across the processors, and pci cards, and of course the wonderful hinged motherboard tray. Thats where the good ends. 3 hdd's are more than enough for a normal person, with a couple of pieces of Al you can easily have 6 or more hdd's in there. I have no problems with hdd space here. But 1x 5.25" drive is pathetic. We all know this. Personally I have one cd-rw and one dvd drive and a normal cd drive. Simply because I can copy from one disk to another. I could remove the cd drive and not have a problem at all though. But for me, I need at least two cd drives.
The powermac G4 case would allow me to have another drive sitting on the top, between the handles, but it is still a bit clumsy.
4 pci slots is more than enough, remembering it has firewire, usb, 10/100/1000 and sound onboard, but I can see people wanting a better sound card, a scsi or raid device, maybe usb2, another video card. I am sure there are many other cards people want as well. Most pc motherboards have 5 or 6 pci slots. One board I can think of has 6 pci, raid, usb2, 6 channel sound, 10/100, agp slot all on the motherboard itself. The only thing it is lacking is firewire.
More than 1.5gb ram would help too. 512mb - 1gb is becoming increasingly common now as specs of a normal system, while 2gb - 4gb is the limit of most motherboards. Personally I have 512mb ram and am perfectly happy with it, but many people want more ram than 1.5gb. Nothing wrong with 3 slots, most motherboards out there have 3.
On the other hand I love the 64bit pci slots, the only pc boards that are semi affordable with 64bit slots are the dual amd boards, who have 2x 64bit 66mhz slots. (as well as 3-4 32bit 33mhz slots)
basically, for the powermac g5, or g4 ver 4 I'd like to see another pci slot, or ide raid built on to the mobo. 2x or 3x 5.25" bays. Up to 4gb ram. Apple needs to break the 1ghz barrier and break it confidently, with 1.2-1.5ghz
Now onto the iMac
It serves a great purpose, it is completely all in one apart from the keyboard and mouse. Very easy for schools, and people who don't know much about computers. It is rugged too. One reason why I wouldn't like a fragile and thin iMac model. schools will trash it.
But for someone wanting a mac, if the iMac is too basic (no expansion whatsoever) they have no options until you get to the PM G4. How hard would it be for apple to have a pci slot? Or room for two hdds? I know 2x 5.25" wouldn't be appropriate here, it just takes up too much space.
As I see it, there is bottom range, iMac, then nothing until $1699 for the powermac (without monitor) There is surely a lot of people out there who have had a couple of computers before, can't afford to spend all the money on a PM G4, or mightn't want a PM G4, but feel they are limited too much by the iMac. The cube was supposed to fix this, but it was way too expensive, and offered very little over the iMac.
The other problem with the iMac is the monitor. If apple goes to 15" lcd it will be price bumbed again, the lowest option might end up being $900. At the same time, it is still 15". I know the current screen is only 13.8" viewable, while the lcd will have a 15" viewable area, but most people will still think 15", while most other pc's are coming with 17". I know there is a wow factor with any lcd screen, but I think most people would prefer the larger screen.
At the same time, there is no way apple can put in a 17" monitor, it'd just be too darned big and heavy. It is catch 22 no matter what they do. I think the 15" lcd is the better option, but apple should use a cheapish lcd screen, most end users won't care if the screen is average or high quality.
As far as speed goes, again 700mhz just isn't seen as enough. Remember most people who are looking at buying an iMac don't have a clue about anything other than 700mhz vs 1500mhz. The person at the shop might say the apple is faster per mhz, but I doubt anyone would claim the 700mhz apple is faster than a 1500mhz pc. Even is he/she said that, the buyer probably wouldn't listen. It just doesn't seem logical.
I really do think the iMac needs to break 1ghz, maybe as the top model only, but it does need to be up there. Apart from that, there is nothing really wrong with the iMac, but many people think they are 1998 technology, and haven't changed from there. The next iMac does need to be fairly revolutionary, and it needs to show to people it is an actual change, and does have new technology.
The bottom end does need to be cheaper though. Many people just want a computer, want it now, and want it very cheap. $800 is more than what most people can find a computer at, even if they hardly looked.
The iMac's main advantage in my opinion compared to most pc's is that it looks simple. Just one box, a keyboard and mouse. Everything you need is internal.
Onto the iBook
Probably apple's most competitive product, to configure a pc laptop to something similar you can't get much cheaper. There is still the 500/600mhz issue though, it is fairly hard now to find anything under 800mhz on the pc side. A 600mhz G3 is going to be about the same speed as an 800mhz P3, in some benchmarks the G3 will win, in others the G3 will, but to the average user there is 200mhz differance.
The only other weakness I see is screen size. I know the iBook is light, and small, but still I feel that the screen is the thing you look at afterall, and is the most important aspect of any computer to me. A big screen and low weight is possible, look at the PB G4. I think the iBook does need a 14" screen, just to at least look competitive to the pc laptops, most are shipping at 13", 14" or 15". There are few 12" pc laptops around now. I know the iBook is about the lightest and smallest laptop out there that has everything internal, but I'd sacrifice 1lb and an inch here or there to get to a 14" screen. It could also mean a bigger battery.
The other thing I want is two proper ram slots, instead of one that is semi permanent, and one that is user accessible. You are still limited to one slot + a base of 64/128mb.
The hdd sizes are good, but maybe there should be a 500mhz + cdrw or dvd option, many people want a cheap laptop, but like the cdrw idea.
The Powerbook G4
It still has no real competition. There are no other laptops which are light and small that have such a big screen. This is the main advantage I see of the PB G4. For people who want something this light on the pc side you are limited to a 12" or 13" screen.
Yet again speed is an issue. 667mhz in a $3k or $3.5k computer is really way too much. Almost all pc laptops offer up to 1.2ghz or 1.26ghz. This will beat the G4 in everything, and in many things by a long way. I remember someone mentioning dual G4's in a laptop, this would be one way around it, g4's don't produce too much heat. Bear in mind a 1.26ghz P3 consumes 22w, I think each G4 is 10w. It would also be a great marketing tool. Either way, apple needs to increase the speed in the PB G4's, and do it now.
The combo drive across the range is one of the better upgrades apple have done, this is truely the thing I hated in the PB G4 for a long time, no option to have both.
This brings me onto my next point about removable bays. I use my removable bay on my Inspiron for other batteries, a DVD, or a 6gb hdd. I really do consider this an important part of any large laptop. I know the combo drive means there is less of a need for this, but there is still other hdd's, batteries that could be swapped in or out, which would be a good thing overall. Even if the laptop ends up just a little heavier, I'd accept the weight addition happily.
Gigabit ethernet is a bit of a waste I think. So very few people have a use for it, and even fewer on a laptop with a slow hdd for one, and even just the number of people who have a gigabit network. Apple should have spent the money somewhere else I think.
Like the iBook the PB G4 has the slots people need, usb, firewire, 10/100/1000, 56k, but there will be no usb2 for quite sometime. Airport is also a worthy mention. Bear in mind though now there are many pc laptops which have onbuilt 10/100 and 56k, and can have a wireless network card built in, or in the pc card slot.
I like how apple kept the pc card slot, it's main use isn't to extend the laptops use now I think. it is more for the future, with usb2, or something completely new.
Overall I feel that all of the products apple makes now lack expansion options, from 2x 5.25" bays, no removable bay in the pbg4, no expansion in iBook/iMac.
The pricing on their desktop range and PB G4 could be improved by a long long way, while the iBook is just right. Maybe even a little low.
None of their products suck, but the only competitive compared to pc's is the iBook. I know I would recommend the iBook to someone looking for a small and light laptop, but anything else and I wouldn't consider it.
Any input would be appreciated.
The powermac g4 is simply overpriced. If you look at a dell, or if you look at <a href="http://www.pricewatch.com,"; target="_blank">www.pricewatch.com,</a> they are way overpriced. I know the G4 is faster per mhz, I have no problem saying that, but the dual G4 800 is not faster than a dual P3 1.26ghz, or a dual athlon system over 1.33ghz. For a much cheaper price than the dual 800 I can configure a dual athlon 1.6ghz system.
The mhz woes continue, staying at 500mhz for so long didn't help, but still, 867mhz is really not good enough. I know we can all blame moto here, but from a consumers point of view, apples are slow. Some consumers do realise apples are faster per mhz, and that the p4 is really quite slow per mhz.
The case on the powermac G4 is both good and bad. I like the 120mm fan blowing across the processors, and pci cards, and of course the wonderful hinged motherboard tray. Thats where the good ends. 3 hdd's are more than enough for a normal person, with a couple of pieces of Al you can easily have 6 or more hdd's in there. I have no problems with hdd space here. But 1x 5.25" drive is pathetic. We all know this. Personally I have one cd-rw and one dvd drive and a normal cd drive. Simply because I can copy from one disk to another. I could remove the cd drive and not have a problem at all though. But for me, I need at least two cd drives.
The powermac G4 case would allow me to have another drive sitting on the top, between the handles, but it is still a bit clumsy.
4 pci slots is more than enough, remembering it has firewire, usb, 10/100/1000 and sound onboard, but I can see people wanting a better sound card, a scsi or raid device, maybe usb2, another video card. I am sure there are many other cards people want as well. Most pc motherboards have 5 or 6 pci slots. One board I can think of has 6 pci, raid, usb2, 6 channel sound, 10/100, agp slot all on the motherboard itself. The only thing it is lacking is firewire.
More than 1.5gb ram would help too. 512mb - 1gb is becoming increasingly common now as specs of a normal system, while 2gb - 4gb is the limit of most motherboards. Personally I have 512mb ram and am perfectly happy with it, but many people want more ram than 1.5gb. Nothing wrong with 3 slots, most motherboards out there have 3.
On the other hand I love the 64bit pci slots, the only pc boards that are semi affordable with 64bit slots are the dual amd boards, who have 2x 64bit 66mhz slots. (as well as 3-4 32bit 33mhz slots)
basically, for the powermac g5, or g4 ver 4 I'd like to see another pci slot, or ide raid built on to the mobo. 2x or 3x 5.25" bays. Up to 4gb ram. Apple needs to break the 1ghz barrier and break it confidently, with 1.2-1.5ghz
Now onto the iMac
It serves a great purpose, it is completely all in one apart from the keyboard and mouse. Very easy for schools, and people who don't know much about computers. It is rugged too. One reason why I wouldn't like a fragile and thin iMac model. schools will trash it.
But for someone wanting a mac, if the iMac is too basic (no expansion whatsoever) they have no options until you get to the PM G4. How hard would it be for apple to have a pci slot? Or room for two hdds? I know 2x 5.25" wouldn't be appropriate here, it just takes up too much space.
As I see it, there is bottom range, iMac, then nothing until $1699 for the powermac (without monitor) There is surely a lot of people out there who have had a couple of computers before, can't afford to spend all the money on a PM G4, or mightn't want a PM G4, but feel they are limited too much by the iMac. The cube was supposed to fix this, but it was way too expensive, and offered very little over the iMac.
The other problem with the iMac is the monitor. If apple goes to 15" lcd it will be price bumbed again, the lowest option might end up being $900. At the same time, it is still 15". I know the current screen is only 13.8" viewable, while the lcd will have a 15" viewable area, but most people will still think 15", while most other pc's are coming with 17". I know there is a wow factor with any lcd screen, but I think most people would prefer the larger screen.
At the same time, there is no way apple can put in a 17" monitor, it'd just be too darned big and heavy. It is catch 22 no matter what they do. I think the 15" lcd is the better option, but apple should use a cheapish lcd screen, most end users won't care if the screen is average or high quality.
As far as speed goes, again 700mhz just isn't seen as enough. Remember most people who are looking at buying an iMac don't have a clue about anything other than 700mhz vs 1500mhz. The person at the shop might say the apple is faster per mhz, but I doubt anyone would claim the 700mhz apple is faster than a 1500mhz pc. Even is he/she said that, the buyer probably wouldn't listen. It just doesn't seem logical.
I really do think the iMac needs to break 1ghz, maybe as the top model only, but it does need to be up there. Apart from that, there is nothing really wrong with the iMac, but many people think they are 1998 technology, and haven't changed from there. The next iMac does need to be fairly revolutionary, and it needs to show to people it is an actual change, and does have new technology.
The bottom end does need to be cheaper though. Many people just want a computer, want it now, and want it very cheap. $800 is more than what most people can find a computer at, even if they hardly looked.
The iMac's main advantage in my opinion compared to most pc's is that it looks simple. Just one box, a keyboard and mouse. Everything you need is internal.
Onto the iBook
Probably apple's most competitive product, to configure a pc laptop to something similar you can't get much cheaper. There is still the 500/600mhz issue though, it is fairly hard now to find anything under 800mhz on the pc side. A 600mhz G3 is going to be about the same speed as an 800mhz P3, in some benchmarks the G3 will win, in others the G3 will, but to the average user there is 200mhz differance.
The only other weakness I see is screen size. I know the iBook is light, and small, but still I feel that the screen is the thing you look at afterall, and is the most important aspect of any computer to me. A big screen and low weight is possible, look at the PB G4. I think the iBook does need a 14" screen, just to at least look competitive to the pc laptops, most are shipping at 13", 14" or 15". There are few 12" pc laptops around now. I know the iBook is about the lightest and smallest laptop out there that has everything internal, but I'd sacrifice 1lb and an inch here or there to get to a 14" screen. It could also mean a bigger battery.
The other thing I want is two proper ram slots, instead of one that is semi permanent, and one that is user accessible. You are still limited to one slot + a base of 64/128mb.
The hdd sizes are good, but maybe there should be a 500mhz + cdrw or dvd option, many people want a cheap laptop, but like the cdrw idea.
The Powerbook G4
It still has no real competition. There are no other laptops which are light and small that have such a big screen. This is the main advantage I see of the PB G4. For people who want something this light on the pc side you are limited to a 12" or 13" screen.
Yet again speed is an issue. 667mhz in a $3k or $3.5k computer is really way too much. Almost all pc laptops offer up to 1.2ghz or 1.26ghz. This will beat the G4 in everything, and in many things by a long way. I remember someone mentioning dual G4's in a laptop, this would be one way around it, g4's don't produce too much heat. Bear in mind a 1.26ghz P3 consumes 22w, I think each G4 is 10w. It would also be a great marketing tool. Either way, apple needs to increase the speed in the PB G4's, and do it now.
The combo drive across the range is one of the better upgrades apple have done, this is truely the thing I hated in the PB G4 for a long time, no option to have both.
This brings me onto my next point about removable bays. I use my removable bay on my Inspiron for other batteries, a DVD, or a 6gb hdd. I really do consider this an important part of any large laptop. I know the combo drive means there is less of a need for this, but there is still other hdd's, batteries that could be swapped in or out, which would be a good thing overall. Even if the laptop ends up just a little heavier, I'd accept the weight addition happily.
Gigabit ethernet is a bit of a waste I think. So very few people have a use for it, and even fewer on a laptop with a slow hdd for one, and even just the number of people who have a gigabit network. Apple should have spent the money somewhere else I think.
Like the iBook the PB G4 has the slots people need, usb, firewire, 10/100/1000, 56k, but there will be no usb2 for quite sometime. Airport is also a worthy mention. Bear in mind though now there are many pc laptops which have onbuilt 10/100 and 56k, and can have a wireless network card built in, or in the pc card slot.
I like how apple kept the pc card slot, it's main use isn't to extend the laptops use now I think. it is more for the future, with usb2, or something completely new.
Overall I feel that all of the products apple makes now lack expansion options, from 2x 5.25" bays, no removable bay in the pbg4, no expansion in iBook/iMac.
The pricing on their desktop range and PB G4 could be improved by a long long way, while the iBook is just right. Maybe even a little low.
None of their products suck, but the only competitive compared to pc's is the iBook. I know I would recommend the iBook to someone looking for a small and light laptop, but anything else and I wouldn't consider it.
Any input would be appreciated.
Comments
I could wait to see if the new iMac is cute enough, but a G3 and a 1024x768 screen are not what I'd be happy with (working as a graphics artist) and for that money all the G4 I could get would be +450 mhz, which is slow. I've been working on beige G3, B&W G3, G4/450 and G4/733 machines in the last six months and apart from the nice case design I do not see much speaking for any Mac but the iBook.
I think Apple could drop it's profit margin from 30 to 20 or 15% per machine sold and make a lot of people happy, while still earning more than most PC makers per machine.
I don't need Firewire 2, no Gigabit ethernet and no GeForce2 MX gfx card (come on, it's old tech!). I want the option of upgrading ram and hdd in 10 months along with maybe a better gfx card. I am prepared to pay the extra brand bonus, but 1700 for the entry tower is too much. It seems like Apple has two lines - entry and pro. And I want a semi-pro computer.
*sigh*
It's really simple. AMD has to compete with Intel for control of the PC chip market, and they have very little profit margins whatsoever. AMD and Intel have to battle it out because they directly compete for the homebuilt market.
Meanwhile, you have Gateway almost out of business because they can't sell a quality machine for a profit; Dell taking losses on every consumer PC tower they sell (they make it up on laptops and servers); Compaq taking losses altogether; and HP thinking that they can start raising prices once they buy Compaq and take over the retail market (who will they compete with?).
Times aren't good in the PC market. They're competing each other to death, really. Apple doesn't have to compete with anyone because if you want a Mac, you have to go to them. No one else sells the Mac OS. While it might be nice to see them put out some very competitive prices on desktops, they see that they're going to need money in the long run, and it's better to have prices higher now- especially since tons of people are willing to shell out $400 for an iPod (I would too if I had the money).
[quote]More than 1.5gb ram would help too. 512mb - 1gb is becoming increasingly common now as specs of a normal system, while 2gb - 4gb is the limit of most motherboards. Personally I have 512mb ram and am perfectly happy with it, but many people want more ram than 1.5gb. Nothing wrong with 3 slots, most motherboards out there have 3.<hr></blockquote>
Have you tried to put 2 GB of RAM in a Mac? If you have, you'd know that the 1.5 GB RAM ceiling does not exist. My brother's G4 has more than 1.5 GB RAM in his Dual Processor G4/500 without a problem.
<strong>yea, the profit margins of PC manufacturers are about 5% whereas Apples profit margin is around 30%. this is all nice because it makes Apple live longer (they are rumored to have ~ $3 billion in cash right now) but I think that maybe a 20 or 25% profit margin would be acceptable as well. and 10% off $3500 is around $349.99 - which makes up for a nice difference.
its actually about 4billion in cash in reserves. And that also helps it round off the quarterly figures... you know how much interest you get off of 4 billion usd? I dont think they will be spending it much.
Anyway, regarding the original post, some good points price wise... but as Fran411 mentioned, if you want a Mac, there is only one place to get 'em.
That is also why one should ALWAYS get the must gutted PowerMac G4 / G5 and max it out with ordinary PC components. I always get the smallest HDs, stock Ram, etc... and then get the big stuff at a normal PC store where it will cost you about 50-60% less (or even more) than buying at AppleStore for example.
ZO
<strong>
... where it will cost you about 50-60% less (or even more) than buying at AppleStore for example.
ZO</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or 87.5% :eek: Its the difference between the $200 for 256 mb iMac ram at the Apple store and $35 at OWC. I think its okay for Apple to take premium on their systems but this is just plain silly. Why not provide the service of putting the components in the computer for the customers instead of them having the trouble of buying them seperat. Or putting larger HD and more ram in their computers. They would only loose a couple percent of their margin and people recieve a much faster machine = happy customers = returning customers = higher profit margins.
But then again: Apple current policy is keeping a lot of ram and HD dealers alive.
Price comparisons between Macs and Dells are fundamentally flawed and a waste of time.
And xype, if you make a living as a graphic artist... give your head a shake boy! What are you thinking? Think of color space handling! Think of preflighting! It WILL cost you more to buy a PC in the end in your wasted billable hours than you will make up in initial cost of ownership.
And xype, if you make a living as a graphic artist... give your head a shake boy! What are you thinking? Think of color space handling! Think of preflighting! It WILL cost you more to buy a PC in the end in your wasted billable hours than you will make up in initial cost of ownership.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am having macs at the place I am working at now, but I want to start it on my own and doing multimedia/3d/web design for a start (since it gives me a higher profit margin than print work, where there's the cost of print). And for such a start a PC is good enough, as it is for the occasional poster/flyer/letterhead design I do. If I get customers that care about the 100% exact colors I'll be able to afford a Mac as well. Until then the decision between iMac vs PC isn't a hard one...
Apple does have a huge R&D department, granted, but even so they didn't get 4 billions in cash from donations of Mac friendly customers but by having a bit of a higher price... I like Apples, but I can only afford an orange atm.
[quote]More than 1.5gb ram would help too. 512mb - 1gb is becoming increasingly common now as specs of a normal system, while 2gb - 4gb is the limit of most motherboards. Personally I have 512mb ram and am perfectly happy with it, but many people want more ram than 1.5gb. Nothing wrong with 3 slots, most motherboards out there have 3.<hr></blockquote>
What the heck are you talking about? powermacs have been able to take 4GB of RAM for the longest time.
[quote] But for someone wanting a mac, if the iMac is too basic <hr></blockquote>
It's designed for someone who wants a basic computer. That's the entire idea around the imac. You can pick up an older G4 model that's only slightly slower for around the price of an iMac.
[quote] but maybe there should be a 500mhz + cdrw or dvd option <hr></blockquote>
You can still find some for cheap if you wanted to.
[quote] I remember someone mentioning dual G4's in a laptop, this would be one way around it <hr></blockquote>
You read MOSR, hahahaha.
[quote] . I think the iBook does need a 14" screen, just to at least look competitive to the pc laptops <hr></blockquote>
Have you seen the screen before? Once people see it, they tend to stop complaining about the screen.
[quote] A big screen and low weight is possible, look at the PB G4. <hr></blockquote>
There's a reason why it uses Titanium and thus a reason why it costs so much.
As for bays, the Ti has a much longer battery life and has a hot swappable battery. Hot pluggable, chainable Firewire drives and a built in combo drive eliminate the need for swappable drives. Floppies are obsolete.
[quote] Gigabit ethernet is a bit of a waste I think. So very few people have a use for it, and even fewer on a laptop with a slow hdd for one, and even just the number of people who have a gigabit network. Apple should have spent the money somewhere else I think. <hr></blockquote>
For you it's a waste. This was put in for the people who truely use the powerbook; people who work with digital video and digital media. They buy the most powerbooks and use this feature constantly.
[quote] but there will be no usb2 for quite sometime. <hr></blockquote>
Firewire does the same thing better, and has been around longer. We don't need it unlike pc users which tend to have never heard of firewire.
[quote] yea, the profit margins of PC manufacturers are about 5% whereas Apples profit margin is around 30%. <hr></blockquote>
Any PC maker with a 5% profit margin is going bankrupt if not already. Dell has 15%. Huge difference is that Apple plows it's profits back into R&D while Dell puts it in the bank. Apple is not making money. Most of their profit has been from interest on their cash pile.
Important: Profit Margin is not equal to Cash in the bank.
If Apple REALLY wants to maintain leadership in the high end graphics communiy it simply must bring out new machines that breach a whole new standard of performance. If there are users willing to pay $3500 for a dual 800 with a 133Mhz bus and RAM, so be it. But it's a hard argument to make when Windows 2000 pro is, for the most part, very stable, and many important applications I use are available for Windows and pc hardware is so cheap.
Don't get me wrong. i will never cave in, but every month that Apple leaves the PowerMac line at the status quo, it's a month the evil Emplre out innovates us.
I think Apple should really start building a whole new level of computer. G5 on the top end - charge more for it - the people interested in this level of performance can afford to pay for it (production houses, etc...) Heck, they still pay 8,000 for a low end SGI workstation, they'll pay that much or more for a total killer mac os X dream machine.
I think Apple's focus on consumer products is goos, but they can't forget the top end. the top end will provide them with the big profits. And it will restore confidence in Apple as a serious machine for graphics professionals.
The current offering really is a joke. I'm sad to say it, but it's true. And this is coming from someone who's been a Mac user since the Apple II, if you know what I mean.
I really hope we're in for surprises this macworld. I think it's time for a whole new level of performance from Apple. iMac for the low end. Power Mac for the middle and some new g5 based machine for the high end.
that would make their lineup more palatable.
Comments?
[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: The Mactivist ]</p>
[quote]
The Powerbook G4
It still has no real competition. There are no other laptops which are light and small that have such a big screen. [...]
Yet again speed is an issue. 667mhz in a $3k or $3.5k computer is really way too much. <hr></blockquote>
You know, the prices on computers are not only (nor even mainly) determined by the CPU-price. I know this doesn't matter for the consumer, but you cannot just leave it out.
THERE ARE NO FASTER G4s. Moto ****ed up big time, and Apple cannot just slash the costs in half.
Yes, this will hurt Apple if this trend is not reversed, but I for once will not just jump ship and buy a laptop that has absolutely no advance over the TiBook except for CPU clock speed.
I believe they will somehow catch up speedwise.
Concerning your point "more HDs in the iMacs", I cannot disagree more. The iMac is for People who would not want another HD. Besides, whats so hard about adding devices via Firewire?
[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: jesperas ]</p>
As for your comments about the hardware, you are taking too much of a PC-centric view. I agree that the PM is a professional product and needs another bay for 5.25" drives.
The rest of your comments are highly subjective and, IMO, I think you are "wrong" on many counts -- if a subjective opinion can ever be called "wrong", that is.
<strong>Any PC maker with a 5% profit margin is going bankrupt if not already. Dell has 15%.</strong><hr></blockquote>
actually the 5% figure I have is the profit margin of the local built-to-order pc shops, of which most really only earn enough to survive and among which there is a constant rate of closing..
<strong>I really hope we're in for surprises this macworld. I think it's time for a whole new level of performance from Apple</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think they are too focused on the high end or else they wouldn't be promoting the digital hub and digital lifestyle that much - after all those are consumer oriented solutions. I think that good old Steve is well aware that he has lost the cutting edge and is also very pissed off about it. True, he can't do much about it since it's Motorolas fault, but heck - he wont cease to demand $3500 for a dual 800 either. Which is, considering the bus/hdd speed plain funny. Or sad.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
highest density sticks I know of are 1GB. 3 slots in a Quicksilver = 3GB -- at an extreme cost penalty. what are you whining about -- he was charitable enough NOT to mention lack of DDR RAM.
[quote]Have you seen the screen before? Once people see it, they tend to stop complaining about the screen.<hr></blockquote>
Have you tried using OSX on an iBook? Not enough screen for the OS.
[quote]This was put in for the people who truely use the powerbook; people who work with digital video and digital media. They buy the most powerbooks and use this feature constantly.<hr></blockquote>
Do you understand the point he was making? A HD on a laptop [5400rpm to be charitable] CANNOT saturate a 100bit ethernet connection. Not enough throughput. Gigabit on a laptop = marketing, or something Apple hasn't given us yet.
[quote]Price comparisons between Macs and Dells are fundamentally flawed and a waste of time.<hr></blockquote>
Nope, people that purchase equipment make these comparisons all the time. Unfortunately its a fact of life. Apple has managed to justify its price premiums overtime, but these days the performance differences are getting to be to great to ignore.
<strong>One thing hardware people overlook completely when comparing pricing of the Mac vs. PC is the user experience.
Mac OS.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sadly MS did it's homework with XP and MacOS X is said to be default from January on. As someone who used X11, KDE/Gnome(Linux), Win 3.11-XP and MacOS 8.5-X (X only a little) I can only say that though MacOS X looks nice the interface itself is inconsistent and unusable, plus the dock takes away more space than needed. And OS X is a resource hog, which doesn't help Apple if the new iMac is using a G3 still..
If you think Gigabit Ethernet is overkill, then please tell me what 64bit PCI slots are good for.
Personally I have not seen ONE PCI card that actually supported ie used the 64bit's extra pins.
Gigabit on the otherhand may well be very handy in the future. (Also a 5400RPM HD will saturate 100Mbit, it's mbit, not mbyte, remember? not even talking about the fact that HDs never go through Ethernet directly, adn I'm damn sure RAM can saturate it about 10 times)
The point why Apple is building Gigabit and 64bit PCI into its Macs is, that most certainly the price difference between gigabit and 100mbit and 64bit and 32bit is absolutely marginal these days for a big company. So they say "why not give the user the better option, if it doesn't cost us more?"
Apple is so good (and partially also so expensive) because they use QUALITY PRODUCTS, to build QUALITY MACS. If Apple used "cheapish screens" in a new iMac, you can be dead sure everyone would complain, simply because the press would...The user who has absolutely no clue about what is standard today does no longer exist. Everyone has a friend who knows things quite well.
And if you want more MHz, because that is better for penis comparisons, wait or get a PC.
G-News
<strong>And if you want more MHz, because that is better for penis comparisons, wait or get a PC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Maybe he just wants to render something fast or compose a movie or something that childish, where CPU speed is actually needed. Digital content creation anyone?
it's junk.
Given the G5 is all it's cracked up to be, I would just adore a decent enterprise rackmount server. Nothing revolutionary or groundbreaking (thought it would undoubtedly be announced as such), maybe something like the <a href="http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?cid=55844&parentId=48589"; target="_blank">Sun Fire 280R</a>.
A couple G5s at whatever speed they are able to get, two gigs of RAM, swappable drives, swappable power supply, backup management... you know, "normal" enterprise stuff. At ~$15-20k, they could probably rake in quite the margin while remaining competitive with other high-end companies.
The key here is that the software would make it as easy as possible to include Macs in your enterprise environment. No problems with networking, printing, or anything else. And maybe some special capabilities that only serve the Mac clients
Come on, they've got the OS. Time now for the hardware!
-- ShadyG