For the vast mojority of Mac consumers I think that the iMac is the perfect option. And now with 3 choices plus the mini, I think Apple has a great line up of computers for the average Joe.
Although, there is a percentage that is not happy with these computers and wantes a headless Mac, me included, I don't think Apple will or wants to add another computer to the line-up.
Maybe Apple, just wants to keep it simple with the iMac for the average consumer.
I agree. The ironic thing is that the only Mac that can take full advantage of OSX as sold is the Mac Pro. The rest had to make concessions due to their slim form factors.
Sorry, I call bullshitt here. My family's almost three-year old iBook 933mhz 640mb ram combo drive takes as full as an advantage of of OS 10.4.x and 10.3.9 as possible.
Talk about the now full-dualcore range across the entire Mac line, plus the quadcore MacPro and XServe, the *entire* new Mac lineup takes full advantage of OSX right now, right here.
To say you need a Quad-Xeon configuration to "take full advantage" of OSX is really quite a nonsensical proposition, I have to say.
If you are talking about PC gaming on the Mac, yes, the bottom half with Integrated Graphics won't cut it. And if you are talking about running Logic Pro or Shake then the iMac upwards would be what you need.
But OSX Tiger is very solid and offers a lot across the current Mac lineup and older Macs as well - what concessions - expandability? How often do you need that? DVD burning? No problem. Adding RAM? No problem. Hard drive? OK, but you need an external for decent backups anyway. FW400 and USB offers a lot of the expandability and counters the "concessions" you mentioned. Running Windows on Macs certainly reduces the "concessions" one has to make.
I've been reading these xMac threads here and at several other boards. You're wrong. The vast majority of people posting about an expansion of Apple's product mix use a price range of $899 - $1699+.
This is a market that Apple could compete in and also make a very respectable profit. Why Apple chooses not to is a mystery to me. The only thing I can come up with is that Steve Jobs believes the AIO is what consumers need and to heck with what any consumers mignt think they need. Then again, since someone posted that there are only 5 or 6 of us posting our desire for an xMac, Apple could easily ignore such a meager market.
My only hope is that Apple has not introduced a computer with a Conroe. I guess they could completely ignore this cpu line, but isn't it faster and cheaper than the Merom series?
Headless Mid-Tower, IMO is NOT part of Apple's strategy at this stage, no matter how loud we scream at Apple.
They do not want to play in this space. End of story. It's called targeted insertion and high-profit goals via market segmentation. In other words, you've got this space, where it's PCs, Linux, Windows, boxes, Dell, Compaq/HP, and a billion other beige-box manufacturers.
The energy, marketing, design, support, etc. is simply, in Apple's view, which I can understand, is not worth the slim profits at the end of the day. If you had the expandable mid-tower, shure you can fiddle with it and expand this and that, etc.
But Apple's product differentiation in the marketplace is what is keeping it's head above water, and very much so. OSX and a solid, verified hardware platform that's stable and secure is what makes Apple so attractive in the consumer space. Attractive enough for Apple's continual strong profits and increasing sales of Macs over the past 5 years.
The idea, you see, is to have a wide range of consumer offerings that is more appealing than the beige boxes and beige(well black) laptops, targeting the consumer willing to pay a slight [perceived] premium for a smooth, out-of-the-box, exciting and satisfying OSX experience. If you give these consumers a Mid-Tower to fiddle with and go down the driver-this, expand that, find another driver, oops, driver conflict, etc. it is not a space Apple wants to be in.
How many of the general population that buys a stock Dell and HP actually upgrade over time? By the time they've been using it for 2 years, either they hang on to it for another year and a half, or if they really need more power, they probably sell the old Dell or give it to their parents, and go buy a new shiny Dell.
Expandability, wide configurations, Quadro option for example, best left to the Pros that really need the power and can handle the hardware upgrades while harnessing the power of the MacPros to get their Pro challenging income-producing work done.
I understand a lot of y'all enjoy the Mac and would like more interaction with it to get a nice hardware mix. For that I say, enjoy your non-MacPro Mac as it is, upgrade what you can eg. RAM and OMFG the HARD DISK on the MacBook, and for really getting your hands dirty, go build and overclock your own PC system. That is IMO more satisfying than even getting a Mac Pro and messing with that.
Again, keep your non-Mid-Tower Mac, enjoy it, upgrade/ expand it as much you can to your hearts' delight. Then go out and build your own PC and overclock and tweak it. Get the best of both worlds that way. Rather than clamouring for some mythical Mid-Tower that is somewhat expandable which it won't be that much anyway because graphics card options will be limited. And what would you put in the PCI slots???
And I will not stop saying it: the Core 2 cheapest 1.86ghz chip can overclock easily on the right Gigabyte motherboard to OVER 3.0GHZ. And pretty much be on par or edge out the HIGHEST LEVEL Core 2 Extreme. You want Conroe? Go build a Core 2 1.86ghz PC and 7900GT/ 7900GTX/ X1900XTX/ X1900-something with 4 SATA drives, 2GB dual channel overclocker's RAM, etc...
One more thing (I will shut up soon, and do excuse my strong style of wording above)... I personally have gone through phases of owning Macs and really wanting to push it to do more, more, more... And then getting pissed off that three months later something even better comes out. Rather than selling the current Mac and buying the new one, yeah, I understand it would be great if I could expand my current Mac so it would bring it on par with the new ones. And have an excellent choice in the external screens, and not be so locked in with laptops, even PC laptops.
If you're talking about income-producing activities with the Mac you make the most of what you have, how you can, to make a living, then upgrade accordingly to what you need for your work and how much you can afford.
If you're talking about enthusiast-type activities with the Mac, again, I personally have found much more pleasure (despite the evils of Windows) building and tweaking and upgrading my own PC. Overclocking is the cream of the cake, when you can get 400mhz to 1000+mhz for FREE on the CPU side, and 50-100mhz on the GPU side.
Headless Mid-Tower, IMO is NOT part of Apple's strategy at this stage, no matter how loud we scream at Apple.
They do not want to play in this space. End of story. It's called targeted insertion and high-profit goals via market segmentation. In other words, you've got this space, where it's PCs, Linux, Windows, boxes, Dell, Compaq/HP, and a billion other beige-box manufacturers.
The energy, marketing, design, support, etc. is simply, in Apple's view, which I can understand, is not worth the slim profits at the end of the day. If you had the expandable mid-tower, shure you can fiddle with it and expand this and that, etc.
But Apple's product differentiation in the marketplace is what is keeping it's head above water, and very much so. OSX and a solid, verified hardware platform that's stable and secure is what makes Apple so attractive in the consumer space. Attractive enough for Apple's continual strong profits and increasing sales of Macs over the past 5 years.
The idea, you see, is to have a wide range of consumer offerings that is more appealing than the beige boxes and beige(well black) laptops, targeting the consumer willing to pay a slight [perceived] premium for a smooth, out-of-the-box, exciting and satisfying OSX experience. If you give these consumers a Mid-Tower to fiddle with and go down the driver-this, expand that, find another driver, oops, driver conflict, etc. it is not a space Apple wants to be in.
How many of the general population that buys a stock Dell and HP actually upgrade over time? By the time they've been using it for 2 years, either they hang on to it for another year and a half, or if they really need more power, they probably sell the old Dell or give it to their parents, and go buy a new shiny Dell.
Expandability, wide configurations, Quadro option for example, best left to the Pros that really need the power and can handle the hardware upgrades while harnessing the power of the MacPros to get their Pro challenging income-producing work done.
I understand a lot of y'all enjoy the Mac and would like more interaction with it to get a nice hardware mix. For that I say, enjoy your non-MacPro Mac as it is, upgrade what you can eg. RAM and OMFG the HARD DISK on the MacBook, and for really getting your hands dirty, go build and overclock your own PC system. That is IMO more satisfying than even getting a Mac Pro and messing with that.
Again, keep your non-Mid-Tower Mac, enjoy it, upgrade/ expand it as much you can to your hearts' delight. Then go out and build your own PC and overclock and tweak it. Get the best of both worlds that way. Rather than clamouring for some mythical Mid-Tower that is somewhat expandable which it won't be that much anyway because graphics card options will be limited. And what would you put in the PCI slots???
Funny, I've never had trouble doing any of that on the Mac platform with my G3. Admit it guys, you simply hate anything mainstream. Going with Apple makes you seem like your somehow better than everyone else.
Funny, I've never had trouble doing any of that on the Mac platform with my G3. Admit it guys, you simply hate anything mainstream. Going with Apple makes you seem like your somehow better than everyone else.
I used to be that way and I had a good time for a few years with my own Mac. I WAS happier and more confident and happy to not be with the sheep, particularly after 10 years of PC life. Windows98 was the worst OS ever. For the three+ years I used it, it crashed twice a day on average.
But a few years ago my Mac fandom got me into a position eventually that wasn't too great. I generally do Mac + Windows nowadays. But there is no doubt in my mind what is the better option for a lot of cases - OSX. Look at Vista - if the mainstream is bugginess, antivirus-spyware, wannabe-sexy user-interfaces, then F*CK the mainstream.
I'm not worried about being called a Mac Elitist. I can swim with the flow, but that doesn't mean I can't weave in an out of the other fishes, swim backwards for a while, or twist myself at different angles while still "going with the flow". At least that's where I'm at now. I've been out of touch with Windows/ Linux corporate server + desktop environment, so admittedly that will challenge my Mac sensibilities at some stage if I need to face it.
If Apple wants to attract "switchers" in a big way (not just the artsy girls from art history department), a mid-range tower with plenty of expansion is the key.
Not many PC users care if their computer matches their couch and Steve Job's opinion on that matter isn't going to change this fact.
Apple needs to show that they can bring all of the so-called "Apple/ OSX advantages" to a regular computer tower, then many more people will consider Apple.
Why would anyone even care that Apple expanded it's market share if all it did was to release shitty, shitty, computers? The whole reason anyone cares about Apple at all is because they're the one company that actually seems to do things right from time to time.
The same people railing against a reasonable midtower are pretty much the same ones who claimed Apple would never target the sub-$1000 segment and yet we have the Mac mini.
Keep ranting folks and don't forget to pretend you were right anyway somehow when Apple starts shipping a headless Mac, which is likely to be sooner than later.
I used to be that way and I had a good time for a few years with my own Mac. I WAS happier and more confident and happy to not be with the sheep, particularly after 10 years of PC life. Windows98 was the worst OS ever. For the three+ years I used it, it crashed twice a day on average.
But a few years ago my Mac fandom got me into a position eventually that wasn't too great. I generally do Mac + Windows nowadays. But there is no doubt in my mind what is the better option for a lot of cases - OSX. Look at Vista - if the mainstream is bugginess, antivirus-spyware, wannabe-sexy user-interfaces, then F*CK the mainstream.
I'm not worried about being called a Mac Elitist. I can swim with the flow, but that doesn't mean I can't weave in an out of the other fishes, swim backwards for a while, or twist myself at different angles while still "going with the flow". At least that's where I'm at now. I've been out of touch with Windows/ Linux corporate server + desktop environment, so admittedly that will challenge my Mac sensibilities at some stage if I need to face it.
But you don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Sure, Apple needs to be different, but if there are some things on the PC platform that are actually desirable, then it behooves Apple to incorporate those things if it can. Unless you actually miss the days of NuBus and ADB...
But you don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Sure, Apple needs to be different, but if there are some things on the PC platform that are actually desirable, then it behooves Apple to incorporate those things if it can. Unless you actually miss the days of NuBus and ADB...
Like what exactly?
Edit: edited smarta55 attitude
Edit2: I can see SLI/Crossfire as not something critical to incorporate, so curious as to what Apple needs to do in your view. If it is opening up it's offerings of graphics cards, I certainly agree. What else..??
Oh, NuBus and ADB were only relevant when I used the "special computers" at final year high school and university. So I didn't have much experience with them. Other than that, I only owned a PC myself 1990-1999. By 1999 onwards it was iMac, Cube, PowerG3 and PowerG4............. no more NuBus and ADB... Hmm... so guess I have no personal distaste for NuBus and ADB \
For the vast mojority of Mac consumers I think that the iMac is the perfect option. And now with 3 choices plus the mini, I think Apple has a great line up of computers for the average Joe.
But not for the ones that have a good monitor right now or the ones that what the 7600 but don?t need a 24? screen
Why would anyone even care that Apple expanded it's market share if all it did was to release shitty, shitty, computers? The whole reason anyone cares about Apple at all is because they're the one company that actually seems to do things right from time to time.
It is the OS: Few if any buy apple for the hardware; in most cases we deal with sub par, shitty hardware design like one button touch pads, cameras in every god-damed model, no expandability and so on just because we like OSX over windows and the sacrifice is worth it; but no that Mac is all intel, it is just a matter of time before you can run to an Apple store, grab a copy of OSX and install it on anything with great ease (It can alreasy be done, it is just a matter of time till Apple ships Intel OSX images on DVD and the tools to do this are built into a live CD enviornment)
To all of you "Its against the EULA holy crap the EULA" folks, I say I cant wait to see Apple loose in court: the OS is the engine that drives the computer so to speak; you can buy a Chevy Corvette engine and put it into a Ford Mustang, you can buy a Ford ngine and put it into a Cammero, you can install Windows on your Mac, so there is no reason that a EULA that is not agreed to before purchase can bind you not to use the OX with beige hardware -- Remember folks, unsupported != illegal, and if apple were to go after a paying customer who installed their copy of OSX on a beige box, it would be a PR disaster.
Apple could greatly reducethis whole forthcoming feasco by just offering a mid-tower with a decent proc for $799: desktop parts are way cheaper than laptop parts like are in the Mini and iMac.
It is the OS: Few if any buy apple for the hardware; in most cases we deal with sub par, shitty hardware design like one button touch pads, cameras in every god-damed model, no expandability and so on just because we like OSX over windows and the sacrifice is worth it; but no that Mac is all intel, it is just a matter of time before you can run to an Apple store, grab a copy of OSX and install it on anything with great ease (It can alreasy be done, it is just a matter of time till Apple ships Intel OSX images on DVD and the tools to do this are built into a live CD enviornment)
To all of you "Its against the EULA holy crap the EULA" folks, I say I cant wait to see Apple loose in court: the OS is the engine that drives the computer so to speak; you can buy a Chevy Corvette engine and put it into a Ford Mustang, you can buy a Ford ngine and put it into a Cammero, you can install Windows on your Mac, so there is no reason that a EULA that is not agreed to before purchase can bind you not to use the OX with beige hardware -- Remember folks, unsupported != illegal, and if apple were to go after a paying customer who installed their copy of OSX on a beige box, it would be a PR disaster.
Apple could greatly reducethis whole forthcoming feasco by just offering a mid-tower with a decent proc for $799: desktop parts are way cheaper than laptop parts like are in the Mini and iMac.
But surely the inherent stability of OS X is based on the fact that Apple only have a finite number of components to deal with. Once you get to a point where your install OS X on your beige box with nearly an infinite number of combinations of components and then install some iffy drivers on top you're practically at the point of instability where Windows is at.
OS X is only a part of the Mac platform. The choice of hardware components (and we will always contest whether Apple has chosen the right ones or not) is an important factor too.
iPod is a reasonable music player. iTunes is a good music library. iPod + iTunes = Killer Product & $$$.
Apple does the End-to-End service and gets it right. If it loses control of any part then the total outcome will be significantly less and the user experience would be much reduced.
It is the OS: Few if any buy apple for the hardware; in most cases we deal with sub par, shitty hardware design like one button touch pads, cameras in every god-damed model, no expandability and so on just because we like OSX over windows and the sacrifice is worth it;
I'm sure most of this has been rehashed in other threads, but
- hardly any Mac software has any need for right click anyway since up until recently Apple didn't ship a mouse that worked with it. Hardly anyone who uses a Mac really even notices, or cares.
- Cameras are only a problem in certain government areas, and occasionally some corporate areas. These places just won't use iMacs, if they use Macs at all. Big deal.
- It's generally not cost effective to upgrade most things anyway?processors at this point are mostly limited by the system bus, there pretty much are zero Mac games anymore, and FireWire drives are generally more convenient anyway. Also, 98% of people are scared to death of opening their computer. That's why when you call for support, they ALWAYS check to make sure you're comfortable opening up something.
Quote:
but no that Mac is all intel, it is just a matter of time before you can run to an Apple store, grab a copy of OSX and install it on anything with great ease (It can alreasy be done, it is just a matter of time till Apple ships Intel OSX images on DVD and the tools to do this are built into a live CD enviornment)
Um... I'm assuming you realize that all the Intel Macs released so far have software restore DVDs, right?
The reason why this won't happen is because Intel was nice enough to put a special ROM on the chipset. OS X knows if you're using a Mac or not, and won't run in the latter case.
Will it be hacked eventually? Probably. Will Apple fix that hack a few weeks later? Probably.
Quote:
To all of you "Its against the EULA holy crap the EULA" folks, I say I cant wait to see Apple loose in court: the OS is the engine that drives the computer so to speak; you can buy a Chevy Corvette engine and put it into a Ford Mustang, you can buy a Ford ngine and put it into a Cammero, you can install Windows on your Mac, so there is no reason that a EULA that is not agreed to before purchase can bind you not to use the OX with beige hardware -- Remember folks, unsupported != illegal, and if apple were to go after a paying customer who installed their copy of OSX on a beige box, it would be a PR disaster.
They won't sue anyone. They'll just find clever ways to make it not work.
Quote:
Apple could greatly reducethis whole forthcoming feasco by just offering a mid-tower with a decent proc for $799: desktop parts are way cheaper than laptop parts like are in the Mini and iMac.
Again, see post above. Would people buy it? Yes. Would people love it? You, and the five other people on that other thread.
Most people who buy iMacs love their iMacs. The same goes for just about every other computer that Apple currently makes. This is because Apple nails down exactly what specific demographics mean.
Apple makes computers for average people. If you're a computer geek, build your own from NewEgg. Yeah, you can't run OS X. Sucks a bit. Apple's not going to through money and cachet down the drain to please everyone.
Comments
Although, there is a percentage that is not happy with these computers and wantes a headless Mac, me included, I don't think Apple will or wants to add another computer to the line-up.
Maybe Apple, just wants to keep it simple with the iMac for the average consumer.
I agree. The ironic thing is that the only Mac that can take full advantage of OSX as sold is the Mac Pro. The rest had to make concessions due to their slim form factors.
Sorry, I call bullshitt here. My family's almost three-year old iBook 933mhz 640mb ram combo drive takes as full as an advantage of of OS 10.4.x and 10.3.9 as possible.
Talk about the now full-dualcore range across the entire Mac line, plus the quadcore MacPro and XServe, the *entire* new Mac lineup takes full advantage of OSX right now, right here.
To say you need a Quad-Xeon configuration to "take full advantage" of OSX is really quite a nonsensical proposition, I have to say.
If you are talking about PC gaming on the Mac, yes, the bottom half with Integrated Graphics won't cut it. And if you are talking about running Logic Pro or Shake then the iMac upwards would be what you need.
But OSX Tiger is very solid and offers a lot across the current Mac lineup and older Macs as well - what concessions - expandability? How often do you need that? DVD burning? No problem. Adding RAM? No problem. Hard drive? OK, but you need an external for decent backups anyway. FW400 and USB offers a lot of the expandability and counters the "concessions" you mentioned. Running Windows on Macs certainly reduces the "concessions" one has to make.
PS See my next post on this "headless Mid-Tower".
I've been reading these xMac threads here and at several other boards. You're wrong. The vast majority of people posting about an expansion of Apple's product mix use a price range of $899 - $1699+.
This is a market that Apple could compete in and also make a very respectable profit. Why Apple chooses not to is a mystery to me. The only thing I can come up with is that Steve Jobs believes the AIO is what consumers need and to heck with what any consumers mignt think they need. Then again, since someone posted that there are only 5 or 6 of us posting our desire for an xMac, Apple could easily ignore such a meager market.
My only hope is that Apple has not introduced a computer with a Conroe. I guess they could completely ignore this cpu line, but isn't it faster and cheaper than the Merom series?
Headless Mid-Tower, IMO is NOT part of Apple's strategy at this stage, no matter how loud we scream at Apple.
They do not want to play in this space. End of story. It's called targeted insertion and high-profit goals via market segmentation. In other words, you've got this space, where it's PCs, Linux, Windows, boxes, Dell, Compaq/HP, and a billion other beige-box manufacturers.
The energy, marketing, design, support, etc. is simply, in Apple's view, which I can understand, is not worth the slim profits at the end of the day. If you had the expandable mid-tower, shure you can fiddle with it and expand this and that, etc.
But Apple's product differentiation in the marketplace is what is keeping it's head above water, and very much so. OSX and a solid, verified hardware platform that's stable and secure is what makes Apple so attractive in the consumer space. Attractive enough for Apple's continual strong profits and increasing sales of Macs over the past 5 years.
The idea, you see, is to have a wide range of consumer offerings that is more appealing than the beige boxes and beige(well black) laptops, targeting the consumer willing to pay a slight [perceived] premium for a smooth, out-of-the-box, exciting and satisfying OSX experience. If you give these consumers a Mid-Tower to fiddle with and go down the driver-this, expand that, find another driver, oops, driver conflict, etc. it is not a space Apple wants to be in.
How many of the general population that buys a stock Dell and HP actually upgrade over time? By the time they've been using it for 2 years, either they hang on to it for another year and a half, or if they really need more power, they probably sell the old Dell or give it to their parents, and go buy a new shiny Dell.
Expandability, wide configurations, Quadro option for example, best left to the Pros that really need the power and can handle the hardware upgrades while harnessing the power of the MacPros to get their Pro challenging income-producing work done.
I understand a lot of y'all enjoy the Mac and would like more interaction with it to get a nice hardware mix. For that I say, enjoy your non-MacPro Mac as it is, upgrade what you can eg. RAM and OMFG the HARD DISK on the MacBook, and for really getting your hands dirty, go build and overclock your own PC system. That is IMO more satisfying than even getting a Mac Pro and messing with that.
Again, keep your non-Mid-Tower Mac, enjoy it, upgrade/ expand it as much you can to your hearts' delight. Then go out and build your own PC and overclock and tweak it. Get the best of both worlds that way. Rather than clamouring for some mythical Mid-Tower that is somewhat expandable which it won't be that much anyway because graphics card options will be limited. And what would you put in the PCI slots???
If you're talking about income-producing activities with the Mac you make the most of what you have, how you can, to make a living, then upgrade accordingly to what you need for your work and how much you can afford.
If you're talking about enthusiast-type activities with the Mac, again, I personally have found much more pleasure (despite the evils of Windows) building and tweaking and upgrading my own PC. Overclocking is the cream of the cake, when you can get 400mhz to 1000+mhz for FREE on the CPU side, and 50-100mhz on the GPU side.
^^ You hit the nail on the head. Nicely said
Thanks
Headless Mid-Tower, IMO is NOT part of Apple's strategy at this stage, no matter how loud we scream at Apple.
They do not want to play in this space. End of story. It's called targeted insertion and high-profit goals via market segmentation. In other words, you've got this space, where it's PCs, Linux, Windows, boxes, Dell, Compaq/HP, and a billion other beige-box manufacturers.
The energy, marketing, design, support, etc. is simply, in Apple's view, which I can understand, is not worth the slim profits at the end of the day. If you had the expandable mid-tower, shure you can fiddle with it and expand this and that, etc.
But Apple's product differentiation in the marketplace is what is keeping it's head above water, and very much so. OSX and a solid, verified hardware platform that's stable and secure is what makes Apple so attractive in the consumer space. Attractive enough for Apple's continual strong profits and increasing sales of Macs over the past 5 years.
The idea, you see, is to have a wide range of consumer offerings that is more appealing than the beige boxes and beige(well black) laptops, targeting the consumer willing to pay a slight [perceived] premium for a smooth, out-of-the-box, exciting and satisfying OSX experience. If you give these consumers a Mid-Tower to fiddle with and go down the driver-this, expand that, find another driver, oops, driver conflict, etc. it is not a space Apple wants to be in.
How many of the general population that buys a stock Dell and HP actually upgrade over time? By the time they've been using it for 2 years, either they hang on to it for another year and a half, or if they really need more power, they probably sell the old Dell or give it to their parents, and go buy a new shiny Dell.
Expandability, wide configurations, Quadro option for example, best left to the Pros that really need the power and can handle the hardware upgrades while harnessing the power of the MacPros to get their Pro challenging income-producing work done.
I understand a lot of y'all enjoy the Mac and would like more interaction with it to get a nice hardware mix. For that I say, enjoy your non-MacPro Mac as it is, upgrade what you can eg. RAM and OMFG the HARD DISK on the MacBook, and for really getting your hands dirty, go build and overclock your own PC system. That is IMO more satisfying than even getting a Mac Pro and messing with that.
Again, keep your non-Mid-Tower Mac, enjoy it, upgrade/ expand it as much you can to your hearts' delight. Then go out and build your own PC and overclock and tweak it. Get the best of both worlds that way. Rather than clamouring for some mythical Mid-Tower that is somewhat expandable which it won't be that much anyway because graphics card options will be limited. And what would you put in the PCI slots???
Funny, I've never had trouble doing any of that on the Mac platform with my G3. Admit it guys, you simply hate anything mainstream. Going with Apple makes you seem like your somehow better than everyone else.
Funny, I've never had trouble doing any of that on the Mac platform with my G3. Admit it guys, you simply hate anything mainstream. Going with Apple makes you seem like your somehow better than everyone else.
I used to be that way and I had a good time for a few years with my own Mac. I WAS happier and more confident and happy to not be with the sheep, particularly after 10 years of PC life. Windows98 was the worst OS ever. For the three+ years I used it, it crashed twice a day on average.
But a few years ago my Mac fandom got me into a position eventually that wasn't too great. I generally do Mac + Windows nowadays. But there is no doubt in my mind what is the better option for a lot of cases - OSX. Look at Vista - if the mainstream is bugginess, antivirus-spyware, wannabe-sexy user-interfaces, then F*CK the mainstream.
I'm not worried about being called a Mac Elitist. I can swim with the flow, but that doesn't mean I can't weave in an out of the other fishes, swim backwards for a while, or twist myself at different angles while still "going with the flow". At least that's where I'm at now. I've been out of touch with Windows/ Linux corporate server + desktop environment, so admittedly that will challenge my Mac sensibilities at some stage if I need to face it.
If Apple wants to attract "switchers" in a big way (not just the artsy girls from art history department), a mid-range tower with plenty of expansion is the key.
Not many PC users care if their computer matches their couch and Steve Job's opinion on that matter isn't going to change this fact.
Apple needs to show that they can bring all of the so-called "Apple/ OSX advantages" to a regular computer tower, then many more people will consider Apple.
Why would anyone even care that Apple expanded it's market share if all it did was to release shitty, shitty, computers? The whole reason anyone cares about Apple at all is because they're the one company that actually seems to do things right from time to time.
Keep ranting folks and don't forget to pretend you were right anyway somehow when Apple starts shipping a headless Mac, which is likely to be sooner than later.
I used to be that way and I had a good time for a few years with my own Mac. I WAS happier and more confident and happy to not be with the sheep, particularly after 10 years of PC life. Windows98 was the worst OS ever. For the three+ years I used it, it crashed twice a day on average.
But a few years ago my Mac fandom got me into a position eventually that wasn't too great. I generally do Mac + Windows nowadays. But there is no doubt in my mind what is the better option for a lot of cases - OSX. Look at Vista - if the mainstream is bugginess, antivirus-spyware, wannabe-sexy user-interfaces, then F*CK the mainstream.
I'm not worried about being called a Mac Elitist. I can swim with the flow, but that doesn't mean I can't weave in an out of the other fishes, swim backwards for a while, or twist myself at different angles while still "going with the flow". At least that's where I'm at now. I've been out of touch with Windows/ Linux corporate server + desktop environment, so admittedly that will challenge my Mac sensibilities at some stage if I need to face it.
But you don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Sure, Apple needs to be different, but if there are some things on the PC platform that are actually desirable, then it behooves Apple to incorporate those things if it can. Unless you actually miss the days of NuBus and ADB...
But you don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Sure, Apple needs to be different, but if there are some things on the PC platform that are actually desirable, then it behooves Apple to incorporate those things if it can. Unless you actually miss the days of NuBus and ADB...
Like what exactly?
Edit: edited smarta55 attitude
Edit2: I can see SLI/Crossfire as not something critical to incorporate, so curious as to what Apple needs to do in your view. If it is opening up it's offerings of graphics cards, I certainly agree. What else..??
Windows98 was the worst OS ever. For the three+ years I used it, it crashed twice a day on average.
What about 95?
For the vast mojority of Mac consumers I think that the iMac is the perfect option. And now with 3 choices plus the mini, I think Apple has a great line up of computers for the average Joe.
But not for the ones that have a good monitor right now or the ones that what the 7600 but don?t need a 24? screen
Why would anyone even care that Apple expanded it's market share if all it did was to release shitty, shitty, computers? The whole reason anyone cares about Apple at all is because they're the one company that actually seems to do things right from time to time.
It is the OS: Few if any buy apple for the hardware; in most cases we deal with sub par, shitty hardware design like one button touch pads, cameras in every god-damed model, no expandability and so on just because we like OSX over windows and the sacrifice is worth it; but no that Mac is all intel, it is just a matter of time before you can run to an Apple store, grab a copy of OSX and install it on anything with great ease (It can alreasy be done, it is just a matter of time till Apple ships Intel OSX images on DVD and the tools to do this are built into a live CD enviornment)
To all of you "Its against the EULA holy crap the EULA" folks, I say I cant wait to see Apple loose in court: the OS is the engine that drives the computer so to speak; you can buy a Chevy Corvette engine and put it into a Ford Mustang, you can buy a Ford ngine and put it into a Cammero, you can install Windows on your Mac, so there is no reason that a EULA that is not agreed to before purchase can bind you not to use the OX with beige hardware -- Remember folks, unsupported != illegal, and if apple were to go after a paying customer who installed their copy of OSX on a beige box, it would be a PR disaster.
Apple could greatly reducethis whole forthcoming feasco by just offering a mid-tower with a decent proc for $799: desktop parts are way cheaper than laptop parts like are in the Mini and iMac.
It is the OS: Few if any buy apple for the hardware; in most cases we deal with sub par, shitty hardware design like one button touch pads, cameras in every god-damed model, no expandability and so on just because we like OSX over windows and the sacrifice is worth it; but no that Mac is all intel, it is just a matter of time before you can run to an Apple store, grab a copy of OSX and install it on anything with great ease (It can alreasy be done, it is just a matter of time till Apple ships Intel OSX images on DVD and the tools to do this are built into a live CD enviornment)
To all of you "Its against the EULA holy crap the EULA" folks, I say I cant wait to see Apple loose in court: the OS is the engine that drives the computer so to speak; you can buy a Chevy Corvette engine and put it into a Ford Mustang, you can buy a Ford ngine and put it into a Cammero, you can install Windows on your Mac, so there is no reason that a EULA that is not agreed to before purchase can bind you not to use the OX with beige hardware -- Remember folks, unsupported != illegal, and if apple were to go after a paying customer who installed their copy of OSX on a beige box, it would be a PR disaster.
Apple could greatly reducethis whole forthcoming feasco by just offering a mid-tower with a decent proc for $799: desktop parts are way cheaper than laptop parts like are in the Mini and iMac.
But surely the inherent stability of OS X is based on the fact that Apple only have a finite number of components to deal with. Once you get to a point where your install OS X on your beige box with nearly an infinite number of combinations of components and then install some iffy drivers on top you're practically at the point of instability where Windows is at.
OS X is only a part of the Mac platform. The choice of hardware components (and we will always contest whether Apple has chosen the right ones or not) is an important factor too.
iPod is a reasonable music player. iTunes is a good music library. iPod + iTunes = Killer Product & $$$.
Apple does the End-to-End service and gets it right. If it loses control of any part then the total outcome will be significantly less and the user experience would be much reduced.
It is the OS: Few if any buy apple for the hardware; in most cases we deal with sub par, shitty hardware design like one button touch pads, cameras in every god-damed model, no expandability and so on just because we like OSX over windows and the sacrifice is worth it;
I'm sure most of this has been rehashed in other threads, but
- hardly any Mac software has any need for right click anyway since up until recently Apple didn't ship a mouse that worked with it. Hardly anyone who uses a Mac really even notices, or cares.
- Cameras are only a problem in certain government areas, and occasionally some corporate areas. These places just won't use iMacs, if they use Macs at all. Big deal.
- It's generally not cost effective to upgrade most things anyway?processors at this point are mostly limited by the system bus, there pretty much are zero Mac games anymore, and FireWire drives are generally more convenient anyway. Also, 98% of people are scared to death of opening their computer. That's why when you call for support, they ALWAYS check to make sure you're comfortable opening up something.
but no that Mac is all intel, it is just a matter of time before you can run to an Apple store, grab a copy of OSX and install it on anything with great ease (It can alreasy be done, it is just a matter of time till Apple ships Intel OSX images on DVD and the tools to do this are built into a live CD enviornment)
Um... I'm assuming you realize that all the Intel Macs released so far have software restore DVDs, right?
The reason why this won't happen is because Intel was nice enough to put a special ROM on the chipset. OS X knows if you're using a Mac or not, and won't run in the latter case.
Will it be hacked eventually? Probably. Will Apple fix that hack a few weeks later? Probably.
To all of you "Its against the EULA holy crap the EULA" folks, I say I cant wait to see Apple loose in court: the OS is the engine that drives the computer so to speak; you can buy a Chevy Corvette engine and put it into a Ford Mustang, you can buy a Ford ngine and put it into a Cammero, you can install Windows on your Mac, so there is no reason that a EULA that is not agreed to before purchase can bind you not to use the OX with beige hardware -- Remember folks, unsupported != illegal, and if apple were to go after a paying customer who installed their copy of OSX on a beige box, it would be a PR disaster.
They won't sue anyone. They'll just find clever ways to make it not work.
Apple could greatly reducethis whole forthcoming feasco by just offering a mid-tower with a decent proc for $799: desktop parts are way cheaper than laptop parts like are in the Mini and iMac.
Again, see post above. Would people buy it? Yes. Would people love it? You, and the five other people on that other thread.
Most people who buy iMacs love their iMacs. The same goes for just about every other computer that Apple currently makes. This is because Apple nails down exactly what specific demographics mean.
Apple makes computers for average people. If you're a computer geek, build your own from NewEgg. Yeah, you can't run OS X. Sucks a bit. Apple's not going to through money and cachet down the drain to please everyone.