<strong>Apple did use a cheapish screen in the iMac.
it's junk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just got one at school. The biggest problem is actually that I have 500MHZ one with only 128 RAM....it is a bit of a dog at OSX...adequate but bad in classic apps.
[quote]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.
<hr></blockquote>
Brad, you speak the truth!
I have been saying this for over a year! Apple has no midrange computer. It's either pay ~$2200 for a Powermac w/display (and that's a stripped down powermac in need of upgrades), or pay $1300 and get stuck with a dinky 15" CRT that's ugly and tiny. Smurf tiny.
The cube was the perfect computer to fill Apple's midrange. It had an expandable video card. You could choose your own display. It had a similar motherboard to the powermac, sans the PCI slots. It was perfect. But Apple got greedy, priced it HIGHER than the low end powermac, and it was a bust (well, duhhh).
If the Cube had been constructed out of cheaper materials, with cheaper manufacturing costs, ie, didn't look quite so Bang&Olufson, then it would have been a bitchin' success. Price it at $999, $1199, $1399, add a $500 display and the total for the system comes out to $1500, 1700, 1900, RIGHT IN THE GAPING HOLE IN APPLE'S LINEUP!
I still cannot fathom how the designers at Apple were so incredibly stupid that they couldn't figure this one out. It doesn't make ANY sense to me.
Meanwhile, we're left with a dismal desktop lineup for Apple.
Here are the primary problems as I see them:
Powermacs:
Case: needs 2 extra drive expansion bays.
Needs USB and Firewire ports on the front of the computer (hot swapable, anyone?).
Needs a flat-top so that peripherals can be stacked upon it.
Motherboard: Needs to be updated to 2001, from 1996. Needs a G5. Needs competitive speeds.
Cost: Needs to drop in price.
In summary, the Powermac needs more expandability, and less cost.
Vent: I KNOW the real reason for lack of expandable drive bay: Firewire. Apple gets royalties off Firewire, so for every Powermac owner who's forced to buy a Firewire peripheral, it's money in the bank for Apple. An extra drive bay in the Powermac would cut into Apple's Firewire royalties. So everytime you plug in a Firewire peripheral, think of the extra cash you blew on it because Apple could pony up an extra drive bay in their POWERmac, that is supposedly a computer made for POWERusers, graphicsPROS, and other PROPOWER types that typically would have the need for extra drive bays.
Next: iMac:
Where to start?!?!
The screen! It's sucks! The iMac has the most pitiful display of any computer for sale in America today! It sucks so hard that other companies don't even bother to try sucking harder! 13.8" viewable, on a convex, fuzzy, ugly-ass CRT. WTF!!!
And no, a 15" LCD isn't going to fix it. The iMac comes with only one display, there is no choice in the matter. As long as one is stuck with a display, it should be a GOOD display, meaning, at least 16" viewable, like a 17" CRT. Anything smaller is an insult to the consumer.
Let's think Apple: What do consumers like to do?
A. Play games.
B. Make iMovies
C. Sort their MP3s.
D. All of the above!!!
Yeah, it's D! And what do each of these choices need? Lots of display area. All of these tasks are more enjoyable on a larger display.
No matter how fucking good OS X is, nobody will want to use it if they have to play with it on some dinky 15" display. My cock is bigger than that!
New rule: no computer display should be smaller than my erect cock.
If Apple followed this rule, then everyone would be happy!
What else is wrong with the iMac?
No expandable video card! Yeah, Apple, get a clue. Offer it with some cheesy granny card, then when a gamer buys one, they rip it out and slip in something worthwhile. Otherwise, with lame video cards and no way to upgrade them, the iMac is merely a toy--not a gaming machine, a toy. It's not really good for anything.
And while they're at it, give it room for an extra HD. WTF, it's a desktop computer, not a lampshade. Extra HD, upgradeable video card, 16" viewable display...are these features gonna kill ya, Apple? 'Cause they would make the iMac a hell of a lot more competitive in the real world.
If Apple really wanted to make the next iMac a screaming success, this is what they would do:
Make a standard base unit. agp slot, room for one extra HD, G4, and lots of ports (don't forget the audio ports, Steve, not all of us went deaf listening to rock and roll while tripping acid.).
Now, here's the tricky part for Apple: Make two different displays for the standard base unit, and have them connect to it via a proprietary plug, like ADC, but it would be nice and sturdy, and swivel.
so here's the deal: The customer buys the base unit. They're all the same speed, 1 GHz, they just differ in drive configurations.
Then they select a display to plug into the base unit. It can be either a A)15" LCD display, or a B)17" LCD display.
Instant bonus!!! This not only superscedes the iMac, but it fills the hole in Apple's desktop lineup. Someone can get a nice, 17" display Mac system for around $1600, OR, they can be a panzy and get an iMac with the dinky 15" display, and spend only $999. It would be the perfect solution. And it would also be fun to pick and choose between different displays and base units. Sort of like a "choose your own adventure" book, but with computer hardware.
You can compare specs until you turn blue in the face. The truth is that Macintosh computers work. They don't need babysitting, or configuring, or optimizing. I was seriously pissed off when I blew CAN$420 on my ASUS Geforce Deluxe card, when the GPU was first released only to find my games worse off than before. When the card works, it rocks, but it's probably got bad memory or something. I replaced it once, the second time i went to replace it, the store had gone outta business. Capture video? Forget it. Pentiums drop frames like stink. Don't get me started on Windows. I can't transfer files back and forth from school (G4 867s) to home (PII450) because my USB digital camera conflicts with my PARRALLEL zip drive. I mean that is BS. I decided one day that I'd try and get the pics off my camera at school. Here's what happened: I plugged the camera into the KEYBOARD (no reaching behind), a little drive icon appears, and voila! Suddenly I have a portable crossplatform USB flash drive in addition to my camera.
2nd
DON'T TELL ME MY (dual-usb rev.B) IBOOK SCREEN IS TOO SMALL YOU KLUDGY SPEC-SHEET ELITIST! I bought it for the small footprint, compactness, and intuitiveness of the hardware design. Show me a 4.9lb, firewire-equipped, combo-drive, AV out PC notebook with the sub-notebook size of the ibook.
DON'T TELL ME MY (dual-usb rev.B) IBOOK SCREEN IS TOO SMALL YOU KLUDGY SPEC-SHEET ELITIST! I bought it for the small footprint, compactness, and intuitiveness of the hardware design. Show me a 4.9lb, firewire-equipped, combo-drive, AV out PC notebook with the sub-notebook size of the ibook.
sod off,
C</strong><hr></blockquote>
I tought we were complaining about iMac screen size, not iBook? iBook is a laptop computer and is perfectly fine, imho.
I'll beleive applenut on this, he seems to know what he is talking about
I also know if I was looking for a first computer that I wouldn't consider second hand. mainly due to warrenty issues.
For $1700 again you are right, 13" would be a good idea, but I wouldn't be too keen about increasing the resolution, a lot of people don't have perfect eyes
100mb/sec is not going to saturate the hdd. <a href="http://www.storagereview.com"; target="_blank">www.storagereview.com</a> shows that most desktop hdd's are peaking out at 30-35mb/sec, these are 7200rpm hdds that are full 3.5" drives. I doubt many laptop hdd's would go anywhere near 15mb/sec
The saving to a remote server is a good idea though.
$500 for an iMac would be great, it doesn't need to have firewire, or an lcd screen, cd-rw or dvd. How many first time users are going to need those. They might in a year or two's time, which is a perfect time to spend a bit more money and buy something a bit further up the line. Apple needs a product that will entice first time users, and will make them want to stay with apple. This means cheap.
As far as a top end tower goes, I can't see a reason why there shouldn't be a BTO high end expensive model that is $4500 or upwards that has very high specs to attract the professionals.
Again, I feel that both the iBook and the PB G4 need a little bit of expandability. The iBook just needs two proper ram slots, and maybe an internal battery that lasts 30min or so (so you can hot swap batteries). The PB G4 needs to have a removable expansion bay. I don't want to put a fdd in there, I mean to have another battery, or another hdd.
JYD is right, $2200 for a full powerful computer (that is marketed as both a server or a full powered professional computer with slight mods) or a small thing that basically can't be modified at all at $800 - $1500, nothing in the middle. The cube should have been bundled with a 17" crt at about the price it was at without monitor. IE there is $700, $1000, $1300 iMacs, then $1500, $1800, $2200 Cubes (or something), then $2000, $3000, $4000 for the PM G4's without monitor. I know $4k without monitor is a lot, but this would be a very high specced machine.
You are also right with the front USB and firewire ports. they should be hidden behind a panel so they don't look ugly when not needed. The PM G4 doesn't need to be reduced in price, it is the top of the line product, it just needs to have very high specs.
I had never thought of the royalties thing with the firewire thing. I'd never buy a case with less than 3x 5.25" bays, I prefer things to be internal rather than external.
The iMac's screen is it's main problem, but either way there are disadvantages and advantages
15" lcd viewable size, cost, looks damned cool, small footprint
17" crt weight, large footprint, cheap, big screen
I think the minimum should be 17" in a desktop, 13-14" in a laptop. Also a gf2 or faster is also a minimum.
And the rest of your rant JYD is damned right, I can't agree more.
preston, I generally disagree with your "macintosh works and pc's don't" statement. I haven't had an incompatibility problem for years. yes wintel's are harder to setup, but once they are setup I think they are a bit better overall with drivers and what not. I have found that win2k is just so damned stable and is basically perfect. I haven't found this yet in either 9 or X, X is close but all that carbon, classic, whatever stuff annoys the hell out of me.
I know in my laptop I can yank out my 2nd hdd, and push in the dvd drive, it sits there for about 10 seconds, then changes it in 'my computer' the opposite is true as well, same with changing out a battery for the hdd/dvd. I haven't done too much with USB so far and hot swapping they are almost always plugged in on my desktop and thats about it.
And no, I don't like the screen size on the iBook, it is too small in my opinion. Almost all laptops have video out, most can have firewire through a pc card, or have it built in anyway. Have a look at the Dell Inspiron 4100, it is a bit heavier, but has a proper expansion bay, and a 14" screen. It can have both 56k and 10/100 built in, and firewire through the pc card slot. As for 5hr battery life, give it up, I know the iBooks won't do that in real life. At school we find 3 - 3.5 hours is realistic when you are actually using it. Most pc laptops are 2-3 hours sure, but my laptop goes from 0 - 80% charge in about 45min, which is damned good, I would like more than 2 hours (what I typically get) but I have 4 batteries, 3 of which I bought off ebay for US$50. I'd like to see you buy even one iBook battery anywhere for US$50.
no they wouldn't be able to drop their margins 5-10%. they would be bleeding money if they did. they lose money selling computers as it is. Apple hasn't turned a profitable operating expense quarter in over a year now I believe. their profits come from the interest on their 4 billion dollar cash reserve and constantly selling off their never ending ARM supply</strong><hr></blockquote>
a profit margin, is by definition the difference between the cost of fabrication, the R&D investiment, the advertising, the cost of gestion and the prize Apple sell his products.
It means for each 100 $ of sales, Apple win 25 $ if is profit margin in 25 %.
After that apple has to pay tax (profit taxation, i suppose it exist in USA like in any other states) on it, the rest is divided between the owners (actions) of Apple and the future investissement.
[quote] DON'T TELL ME MY (dual-usb rev.B) IBOOK SCREEN IS TOO SMALL YOU KLUDGY SPEC-SHEET ELITIST! <hr></blockquote>
What a moron.
Screen size isn't a "spec-sheet" phenomenon, it's one of the most important things about a comptuer! You stupid dolt, if your iBook had a larger screen you would like it even more!
For $1700 again you are right, 13" would be a good idea, but I wouldn't be too keen about increasing the resolution, a lot of people don't have perfect eyes<hr></blockquote>
oh definitely. however, the Powerbooks should AT LEAST have equal DPI as the iBook standard. they don't now. the powerbooks should also have a higher rez screen for BTO. If people are willing to pay (which they seem to be) Apple should offer it.
[quote]
100mb/sec is not going to saturate the hdd. <a href="http://www.storagereview.com"; target="_blank">www.storagereview.com</a> shows that most desktop hdd's are peaking out at 30-35mb/sec, these are 7200rpm hdds that are full 3.5" drives. I doubt many laptop hdd's would go anywhere near 15mb/sec<hr></blockquote>
100mb/sec sure is going to saturate the drive. you are confusing units. 100mb/sec Ethernet is 100 megaBITS per second. Hard drives are measured in MegaBYTES. so 100mb/sec Ethernet is really around 12 Megabytes. Well within the range of modern hard drives
anyway, replying to applenut, yes the PB G4 does need a bigger res, many pc laptops have had 1600x1200 for quite some time in a 15" screen.
100/8 = 12.5mb/sec for ethernet. But you will find any normal transfer of files is going to be much less than that unless your file is perfectly organised right on the outer regions of your hdd. It can saturate it, but normally there isn't a chance of it happening
anyway, replying to applenut, yes the PB G4 does need a bigger res, many pc laptops have had 1600x1200 for quite some time in a 15" screen.
100/8 = 12.5mb/sec for ethernet. But you will find any normal transfer of files is going to be much less than that unless your file is perfectly organised right on the outer regions of your hdd. It can saturate it, but normally there isn't a chance of it happening</strong><hr></blockquote>
sorry, but I just don't see that. transfer speed is more limited by the software than the hard drive. the move from appletalk to IP drastically improved speeds and OS 9->10.1 did even bigger difference. Both my Powerbook G4 and PowerMac G4 have no problem surpassing 12.5 MB/sec writes.
not sure what the Powerbook exactly gets but I believe its in the 20s and the PowerMac gets 36mb/sec on 7200 RPM drive and 30 on the 5400 RPM
While OS X is definate resource hog, the 10.1.2 update should cut it resource usage by about 30% as it now compresses the backgroud window buffers. There was a conflict in this and some carbon appz apearently, so it was disabled until now. But there are many reports of 10.1.2 serving up an additional 30 Megs of free RAM on a 128 system.
Don't have an OS X box yet, however, so this is only going on other peoples say. [side note]I miss my old job; I got to use all of Apple latest and greatest, and report on how to use it, if it was worth the money, etc... Got to set up the first OS X server for QT streaming, then got to hack it to see what it's security was like. definatly the best job I've ever had. Oh, well, the one I have now pays better <sigh>. Damn economy.
Comments
<strong>Apple did use a cheapish screen in the iMac.
it's junk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just got one at school. The biggest problem is actually that I have 500MHZ one with only 128 RAM....it is a bit of a dog at OSX...adequate but bad in classic apps.
Screen is kinda crappy.....
[ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<hr></blockquote>
Brad, you speak the truth!
I have been saying this for over a year! Apple has no midrange computer. It's either pay ~$2200 for a Powermac w/display (and that's a stripped down powermac in need of upgrades), or pay $1300 and get stuck with a dinky 15" CRT that's ugly and tiny. Smurf tiny.
The cube was the perfect computer to fill Apple's midrange. It had an expandable video card. You could choose your own display. It had a similar motherboard to the powermac, sans the PCI slots. It was perfect. But Apple got greedy, priced it HIGHER than the low end powermac, and it was a bust (well, duhhh).
If the Cube had been constructed out of cheaper materials, with cheaper manufacturing costs, ie, didn't look quite so Bang&Olufson, then it would have been a bitchin' success. Price it at $999, $1199, $1399, add a $500 display and the total for the system comes out to $1500, 1700, 1900, RIGHT IN THE GAPING HOLE IN APPLE'S LINEUP!
I still cannot fathom how the designers at Apple were so incredibly stupid that they couldn't figure this one out. It doesn't make ANY sense to me.
Meanwhile, we're left with a dismal desktop lineup for Apple.
Here are the primary problems as I see them:
Powermacs:
Case: needs 2 extra drive expansion bays.
Needs USB and Firewire ports on the front of the computer (hot swapable, anyone?).
Needs a flat-top so that peripherals can be stacked upon it.
Motherboard: Needs to be updated to 2001, from 1996. Needs a G5. Needs competitive speeds.
Cost: Needs to drop in price.
In summary, the Powermac needs more expandability, and less cost.
Vent: I KNOW the real reason for lack of expandable drive bay: Firewire. Apple gets royalties off Firewire, so for every Powermac owner who's forced to buy a Firewire peripheral, it's money in the bank for Apple. An extra drive bay in the Powermac would cut into Apple's Firewire royalties. So everytime you plug in a Firewire peripheral, think of the extra cash you blew on it because Apple could pony up an extra drive bay in their POWERmac, that is supposedly a computer made for POWERusers, graphicsPROS, and other PROPOWER types that typically would have the need for extra drive bays.
Next: iMac:
Where to start?!?!
The screen! It's sucks! The iMac has the most pitiful display of any computer for sale in America today! It sucks so hard that other companies don't even bother to try sucking harder! 13.8" viewable, on a convex, fuzzy, ugly-ass CRT. WTF!!!
And no, a 15" LCD isn't going to fix it. The iMac comes with only one display, there is no choice in the matter. As long as one is stuck with a display, it should be a GOOD display, meaning, at least 16" viewable, like a 17" CRT. Anything smaller is an insult to the consumer.
Let's think Apple: What do consumers like to do?
A. Play games.
B. Make iMovies
C. Sort their MP3s.
D. All of the above!!!
Yeah, it's D! And what do each of these choices need? Lots of display area. All of these tasks are more enjoyable on a larger display.
No matter how fucking good OS X is, nobody will want to use it if they have to play with it on some dinky 15" display. My cock is bigger than that!
New rule: no computer display should be smaller than my erect cock.
If Apple followed this rule, then everyone would be happy!
What else is wrong with the iMac?
No expandable video card! Yeah, Apple, get a clue. Offer it with some cheesy granny card, then when a gamer buys one, they rip it out and slip in something worthwhile. Otherwise, with lame video cards and no way to upgrade them, the iMac is merely a toy--not a gaming machine, a toy. It's not really good for anything.
And while they're at it, give it room for an extra HD. WTF, it's a desktop computer, not a lampshade. Extra HD, upgradeable video card, 16" viewable display...are these features gonna kill ya, Apple? 'Cause they would make the iMac a hell of a lot more competitive in the real world.
If Apple really wanted to make the next iMac a screaming success, this is what they would do:
Make a standard base unit. agp slot, room for one extra HD, G4, and lots of ports (don't forget the audio ports, Steve, not all of us went deaf listening to rock and roll while tripping acid.).
Now, here's the tricky part for Apple: Make two different displays for the standard base unit, and have them connect to it via a proprietary plug, like ADC, but it would be nice and sturdy, and swivel.
so here's the deal: The customer buys the base unit. They're all the same speed, 1 GHz, they just differ in drive configurations.
Then they select a display to plug into the base unit. It can be either a A)15" LCD display, or a B)17" LCD display.
Instant bonus!!! This not only superscedes the iMac, but it fills the hole in Apple's desktop lineup. Someone can get a nice, 17" display Mac system for around $1600, OR, they can be a panzy and get an iMac with the dinky 15" display, and spend only $999. It would be the perfect solution. And it would also be fun to pick and choose between different displays and base units. Sort of like a "choose your own adventure" book, but with computer hardware.
so here's the deal: The customer buys the base unit. They're all the same speed, 1 GHz, they just differ in drive configurations.
Then they select a display to plug into the base unit. It can be either a A)15" LCD display, or a B)17" LCD display. <hr></blockquote>
Could you bring a bit more passion to your posts please?
Chris
You can compare specs until you turn blue in the face. The truth is that Macintosh computers work. They don't need babysitting, or configuring, or optimizing. I was seriously pissed off when I blew CAN$420 on my ASUS Geforce Deluxe card, when the GPU was first released only to find my games worse off than before. When the card works, it rocks, but it's probably got bad memory or something. I replaced it once, the second time i went to replace it, the store had gone outta business. Capture video? Forget it. Pentiums drop frames like stink. Don't get me started on Windows. I can't transfer files back and forth from school (G4 867s) to home (PII450) because my USB digital camera conflicts with my PARRALLEL zip drive. I mean that is BS. I decided one day that I'd try and get the pics off my camera at school. Here's what happened: I plugged the camera into the KEYBOARD (no reaching behind), a little drive icon appears, and voila! Suddenly I have a portable crossplatform USB flash drive in addition to my camera.
2nd
DON'T TELL ME MY (dual-usb rev.B) IBOOK SCREEN IS TOO SMALL YOU KLUDGY SPEC-SHEET ELITIST! I bought it for the small footprint, compactness, and intuitiveness of the hardware design. Show me a 4.9lb, firewire-equipped, combo-drive, AV out PC notebook with the sub-notebook size of the ibook.
oh yeah and 5h battery life too
sod off,
C
<strong>1st
2nd
DON'T TELL ME MY (dual-usb rev.B) IBOOK SCREEN IS TOO SMALL YOU KLUDGY SPEC-SHEET ELITIST! I bought it for the small footprint, compactness, and intuitiveness of the hardware design. Show me a 4.9lb, firewire-equipped, combo-drive, AV out PC notebook with the sub-notebook size of the ibook.
sod off,
C</strong><hr></blockquote>
I tought we were complaining about iMac screen size, not iBook? iBook is a laptop computer and is perfectly fine, imho.
I also know if I was looking for a first computer that I wouldn't consider second hand. mainly due to warrenty issues.
For $1700 again you are right, 13" would be a good idea, but I wouldn't be too keen about increasing the resolution, a lot of people don't have perfect eyes
100mb/sec is not going to saturate the hdd. <a href="http://www.storagereview.com"; target="_blank">www.storagereview.com</a> shows that most desktop hdd's are peaking out at 30-35mb/sec, these are 7200rpm hdds that are full 3.5" drives. I doubt many laptop hdd's would go anywhere near 15mb/sec
The saving to a remote server is a good idea though.
$500 for an iMac would be great, it doesn't need to have firewire, or an lcd screen, cd-rw or dvd. How many first time users are going to need those. They might in a year or two's time, which is a perfect time to spend a bit more money and buy something a bit further up the line. Apple needs a product that will entice first time users, and will make them want to stay with apple. This means cheap.
As far as a top end tower goes, I can't see a reason why there shouldn't be a BTO high end expensive model that is $4500 or upwards that has very high specs to attract the professionals.
Again, I feel that both the iBook and the PB G4 need a little bit of expandability. The iBook just needs two proper ram slots, and maybe an internal battery that lasts 30min or so (so you can hot swap batteries). The PB G4 needs to have a removable expansion bay. I don't want to put a fdd in there, I mean to have another battery, or another hdd.
JYD is right, $2200 for a full powerful computer (that is marketed as both a server or a full powered professional computer with slight mods) or a small thing that basically can't be modified at all at $800 - $1500, nothing in the middle. The cube should have been bundled with a 17" crt at about the price it was at without monitor. IE there is $700, $1000, $1300 iMacs, then $1500, $1800, $2200 Cubes (or something), then $2000, $3000, $4000 for the PM G4's without monitor. I know $4k without monitor is a lot, but this would be a very high specced machine.
You are also right with the front USB and firewire ports. they should be hidden behind a panel so they don't look ugly when not needed. The PM G4 doesn't need to be reduced in price, it is the top of the line product, it just needs to have very high specs.
I had never thought of the royalties thing with the firewire thing. I'd never buy a case with less than 3x 5.25" bays, I prefer things to be internal rather than external.
The iMac's screen is it's main problem, but either way there are disadvantages and advantages
15" lcd viewable size, cost, looks damned cool, small footprint
17" crt weight, large footprint, cheap, big screen
I think the minimum should be 17" in a desktop, 13-14" in a laptop. Also a gf2 or faster is also a minimum.
And the rest of your rant JYD is damned right, I can't agree more.
preston, I generally disagree with your "macintosh works and pc's don't" statement. I haven't had an incompatibility problem for years. yes wintel's are harder to setup, but once they are setup I think they are a bit better overall with drivers and what not. I have found that win2k is just so damned stable and is basically perfect. I haven't found this yet in either 9 or X, X is close but all that carbon, classic, whatever stuff annoys the hell out of me.
I know in my laptop I can yank out my 2nd hdd, and push in the dvd drive, it sits there for about 10 seconds, then changes it in 'my computer' the opposite is true as well, same with changing out a battery for the hdd/dvd. I haven't done too much with USB so far and hot swapping they are almost always plugged in on my desktop and thats about it.
And no, I don't like the screen size on the iBook, it is too small in my opinion. Almost all laptops have video out, most can have firewire through a pc card, or have it built in anyway. Have a look at the Dell Inspiron 4100, it is a bit heavier, but has a proper expansion bay, and a 14" screen. It can have both 56k and 10/100 built in, and firewire through the pc card slot. As for 5hr battery life, give it up, I know the iBooks won't do that in real life. At school we find 3 - 3.5 hours is realistic when you are actually using it. Most pc laptops are 2-3 hours sure, but my laptop goes from 0 - 80% charge in about 45min, which is damned good, I would like more than 2 hours (what I typically get) but I have 4 batteries, 3 of which I bought off ebay for US$50. I'd like to see you buy even one iBook battery anywhere for US$50.
<strong>
no they wouldn't be able to drop their margins 5-10%. they would be bleeding money if they did. they lose money selling computers as it is. Apple hasn't turned a profitable operating expense quarter in over a year now I believe. their profits come from the interest on their 4 billion dollar cash reserve and constantly selling off their never ending ARM supply</strong><hr></blockquote>
a profit margin, is by definition the difference between the cost of fabrication, the R&D investiment, the advertising, the cost of gestion and the prize Apple sell his products.
It means for each 100 $ of sales, Apple win 25 $ if is profit margin in 25 %.
After that apple has to pay tax (profit taxation, i suppose it exist in USA like in any other states) on it, the rest is divided between the owners (actions) of Apple and the future investissement.
in the mean time <a href="http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/akiba/hotline/20011222/etc_etw1.html"; target="_blank">http://www.watch.impress.co.jp/akiba/hotline/20011222/etc_etw1.html</a>;
What a moron.
Screen size isn't a "spec-sheet" phenomenon, it's one of the most important things about a comptuer! You stupid dolt, if your iBook had a larger screen you would like it even more!
For $1700 again you are right, 13" would be a good idea, but I wouldn't be too keen about increasing the resolution, a lot of people don't have perfect eyes<hr></blockquote>
oh definitely. however, the Powerbooks should AT LEAST have equal DPI as the iBook standard. they don't now. the powerbooks should also have a higher rez screen for BTO. If people are willing to pay (which they seem to be) Apple should offer it.
[quote]
100mb/sec is not going to saturate the hdd. <a href="http://www.storagereview.com"; target="_blank">www.storagereview.com</a> shows that most desktop hdd's are peaking out at 30-35mb/sec, these are 7200rpm hdds that are full 3.5" drives. I doubt many laptop hdd's would go anywhere near 15mb/sec<hr></blockquote>
100mb/sec sure is going to saturate the drive. you are confusing units. 100mb/sec Ethernet is 100 megaBITS per second. Hard drives are measured in MegaBYTES. so 100mb/sec Ethernet is really around 12 Megabytes. Well within the range of modern hard drives
<a href="http://store.apple.com/133-622/WebObjects/australiastore.woa/821/wo/bhHHh1iy7BSVPY4vi/1.3.0.3.30.29.1.2.19.3.0.1.3.1.1.0?29,21"; target="_blank">http://store.apple.com/133-622/WebObjects/australiastore.woa/821/wo/bhHHh1iy7BSVPY4vi/1.3.0.3.30.29.1.2.19.3.0.1.3.1.1.0?29,21</a>;
think carefully....
anyway, replying to applenut, yes the PB G4 does need a bigger res, many pc laptops have had 1600x1200 for quite some time in a 15" screen.
100/8 = 12.5mb/sec for ethernet. But you will find any normal transfer of files is going to be much less than that unless your file is perfectly organised right on the outer regions of your hdd. It can saturate it, but normally there isn't a chance of it happening
<strong><a href="http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/cart/product.asp?productid=1216"; target="_blank">http://www.pioneercomputers.com.au/cart/product.asp?productid=12 16</a>
<a href="http://store.apple.com/133-622/WebObjects/australiastore.woa/821/wo/bhHHh1iy7BSVPY4vi/1.3.0.3.30.29.1.2.19.3.0.1.3.1.1.0?29,21"; target="_blank">http://s tore.apple.com/133-622/WebObjects/australiastore.woa/821/wo/bhHHh1iy7BSVPY4vi/1.3.0.3.30.29.1.2.19.3.0.1.3.1.1.0?29,21</a>
think carefully....
anyway, replying to applenut, yes the PB G4 does need a bigger res, many pc laptops have had 1600x1200 for quite some time in a 15" screen.
100/8 = 12.5mb/sec for ethernet. But you will find any normal transfer of files is going to be much less than that unless your file is perfectly organised right on the outer regions of your hdd. It can saturate it, but normally there isn't a chance of it happening</strong><hr></blockquote>
sorry, but I just don't see that. transfer speed is more limited by the software than the hard drive. the move from appletalk to IP drastically improved speeds and OS 9->10.1 did even bigger difference. Both my Powerbook G4 and PowerMac G4 have no problem surpassing 12.5 MB/sec writes.
not sure what the Powerbook exactly gets but I believe its in the 20s and the PowerMac gets 36mb/sec on 7200 RPM drive and 30 on the 5400 RPM
Don't have an OS X box yet, however, so this is only going on other peoples say. [side note]I miss my old job; I got to use all of Apple latest and greatest, and report on how to use it, if it was worth the money, etc... Got to set up the first OS X server for QT streaming, then got to hack it to see what it's security was like. definatly the best job I've ever had. Oh, well, the one I have now pays better <sigh>. Damn economy.
I agree with lots of what JYD said except his assertion as to the minimum screen size for a desktop...a palm pilot is bigger than that.
Upgrades and reconfiguring are a necessity to get all of those unix geeks to jump on the OSX bandwagon. We are going to need them.
But a good crt at $500 is a good idea too.