iMac Prices?

[MacRumors]

MacNews.tc.net (http://macnews.net.tc) claims to have prices/specs for an upcoming iMac bump at MWSF, which basically represent iMac speed bumps with a corresponding price drop:

15", 800MHz, $999
17", 867MHz, $1199
17", 867 MHz, $1499
17", 1GHz, $1699

MacNews.net.tc is a relatively new site with an unknown rumor record, and this simply may represent educated speculation. Previously, it is the only site to claim a color iPod II with MPEG-4 Video and Color Screen (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/11/20021112071728.shtml) for MWSF.

[kwajo.com]

not bad, but 867 is not really worth the price increase from 800. a 933 and a 1.something would be better gaps. but at least my 800 iMac is not out of date for another little while. phew

[AssassinOfGates]

considering the 17" screen, i think it is. My guess is that a geforce 4 mx (32) will be in the entry level models, and maybe a radeon 9000 in the high end one.

[mmoin]

I'd be very happy if this were true, but it sounds like it's just someone making educated guesses. I'll definitely be the first in line to buy the 1ghz model if it comes out, though.

[lmalave]

If this is true, I think it's great that they kept the 15" and priced it under $1000. That's exactly what Apple needs to be doing: upgrading their lines but keeping their old models and lowering the prices on them. Apple won't lose prestige by releasing lower-priced models, since their products have the best designs anyway. The iBook didn't lose any prestige when the $999 model came out.

Besides, I don't see why everyone is so hot to discontinue the 15" displays. I use a 15" LCD display every day at work and not once thave I thought to myself "gee, this display is so small." Granted, I run my display at 1028x764 wether I'm on my 12.1" iBook, my 17" LCD display at home, or my 15" LCD display at work, so display size isn't a critical factor for me.

Also, I really hope they keep the CRT iMac and add the new 800MHz Sahara G3 and ATI Radeon 7500 to it. They could keep that price at $799 and then still sell the existing 600MHz model for $699 or even $599. This would be great for really budget-conscious buyers, like schools. At $599 (and less for education customers, especially buying in bulk) the 600MHz iMac would be more or less in the same price range as a low-end Dell desktop w/monitor, and would help Apple hold on to its rapidly diminishing education market share.

[richard5mith]

Originally posted by lmalave
If this is true, I think it's great that they kept the 15" and priced it under $1000. That's exactly what Apple needs to be doing: upgrading their lines but keeping their old models and lowering the prices on them.


You're exactly right. Unfortunately this is something Apple haven't realised themselves yet.

[strider42]

Originally posted by lmalave

Also, I really hope they keep the CRT iMac and add the new 800MHz Sahara G3 and ATI Radeon 7500 to it. They could keep that price at $799, and then still sell the 600MHz model for $699 or even $599. This would be great for really budget-conscious buyers, like schools. At $599 (and less for education customers, especially buying in bulk) the 600MHz iMac would be more or less in the same price range as a low-end Dell desktop w/monitor, and would help Apple hold on to its rapidly diminishing education market share.

if this rumor were true and apple could release an LCD iMac for sub 1000, then you would assume, since the components are very similar, that the eMac would be able to be lowered in price as well since it has a CRT monitor that shuold be substantially cheaper. given that they don't need has high a profit margin for educational machines, I would think they could sell the eMac in that kind of price range you are talking abuot, at least the high end of that range.

Thats assuming the rumor is true however.

I don't think you'll see any changes to the CRT iMac though, esoecially as far as video stuff. They might, but I'd be mildly surprised. It hasn't been updated in well over a year at this point. You get the feeling apple doens't relaly want to sell those machines.

[cubist]

... I just can't wait to watch "2001 A Space Odyssey" on a 2-inch diagonal screen!:p

[FattyMembrane]

the only way this rumor can be true is if powermacs are getting large speed bumps. although the powermacs have dual processors, i don't think that it's a very convincing factor for many people and if you see an imac with a 1ghz and a built in 17inch for the same price as a bare bones dual 867, you would probably have to think long and hard about which is the better deal (excluding the obvious condition that you are doing heavy media editing). it's the same reasoning behind not putting the 1ghz+ sahara g3s in the ibooks to prevent canibalizing the powerbook market.

therefore, i hope that this rumor (or educated guess) is true, as it would signal more powerful towers.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by strider42


if this rumor were true and apple could release an LCD iMac for sub 1000, then you would assume, since the components are very similar, that the eMac would be able to be lowered in price as well since it has a CRT monitor that shuold be substantially cheaper. given that they don't need has high a profit margin for educational machines, I would think they could sell the eMac in that kind of price range you are talking abuot, at least the high end of that range.

Thats assuming the rumor is true however.

I don't think you'll see any changes to the CRT iMac though, esoecially as far as video stuff. They might, but I'd be mildly surprised. It hasn't been updated in well over a year at this point. You get the feeling apple doens't relaly want to sell those machines.

Yeah, I though about lower eMac prices. They just fairly recently added the $100 rebate on the low-end eMac to bring it down to $999, so I see them lowering the price on the low-end eMac to maybe $899, no rebate needed (this is if they follow the strategy I'm advocating).

I see your point how they don't seem to want to sell the CRT iMacs - how else to justify the $799 price? Again though, if they followed my strategy they would sell an 800MHz model for something like $699 (based on an $899 eMac price), and keep a 600MHz model for $599. I agree, though, such a move seems doubtful given Apple's past history. But maybe Apple is seeing the light, given their recent moves to price the iBook and the eMac (and next possibly the LCD iMac) for under $1000? Maybe based on their recent success lowering the iBook prices, they would lower the price on the CRT iMac along with their (hopefull) upcoming price drop on the eMacs and FP iMacs.

[MacsRgr8]

Just a 100-200 Mhz speed bump? Come on, these new iMacs have been around for a whole year now.
OK, the $200 price drop is nice, but I doubt any switcher is going to buy a sub-1Ghz computer.
But it does look like 133 MHz busses... that's an improvement.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by FattyMembrane
the only way this rumor can be true is if powermacs are getting large speed bumps. although the powermacs have dual processors, i don't think that it's a very convincing factor for many people and if you see an imac with a 1ghz and a built in 17inch for the same price as a bare bones dual 867, you would probably have to think long and hard about which is the better deal (excluding the obvious condition that you are doing heavy media editing). it's the same reasoning behind not putting the 1ghz+ sahara g3s in the ibooks to prevent canibalizing the powerbook market.

therefore, i hope that this rumor (or educated guess) is true, as it would signal more powerful towers.

Or maybe Apple finally realized that they're so screwed in the pro market (thanks, Motorola :mad: ), that instead of doubling their losses by also being uncompetitive in the consumer market, they may as well just start making the best computers they can and forget about purposefully holding back the consumer lines just to keep an artificial separation between the consumer and pro lines. I really believe that if Apple forgot about cannibalizing sales and just put the best components they could in the iBooks and iMacs, their overall revenues would skyrocket and their profits would go up significantly.

Ok, I haven't seen anything from Apple that really makes me think that they are going to change their strategy in this regard, but I can still dream....

[lmalave]

Originally posted by MacsRgr8
Just a 100-200 Mhz speed bump? Come on, these new iMacs have been around for a whole year now.
OK, the $200 price drop is nice, but I doubt any switcher is going to buy a sub-1Ghz computer.
But it does look like 133 MHz busses... that's an improvement.

Ummm...I switched when they lowered the price on the Combo drive iBook. I think the same argument could apply to laptops, since for $1300 I could've gotten a 1.8GHz Pentium 4 or something laptop (which would've weighed 8 lbs. and had less than 2 hours battery life).

I think the average consumer is a lot more sensitive to price now than they are to MHz. Think about what percentage of consumers, most of them PC users, have looked longingly at the ultracool FP iMac. Any price drop will push just a few more consumers to go ahead and make the leap and buy a cool new toy for themselves and their family. Screw MHz, the big story here is the price drop below $1000.

Also, keep in mind that having lower-priced models means Apple can more effectively "upsell". By going under the magical $1000 barrier, Apple gets a lot more people interested in and actually looking at their computers. Then when they go to the store to take a look at it, they actually walk out with a more expensive model because they were sold on the SuperDrive and/or a larger display.

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by lmalave


I think the average consumer is a lot more sensitive to price now than they are to MHz. Think about what percentage of consumers, most of them PC users, have looked longingly at the ultracool FP iMac. Any price drop will push just a few more consumers to go ahead and make the leap and buy a cool new toy for themselves and their family. Screw MHz, the big story here is the price drop below $1000.



You could be right about that. But I personally feel that an 800 MHz G4 is really not fast enough. Mac OS X doesn't feel snappy running on this iMac. Just the cool looks of the FP iMac is not enough to sell it.
When consumers buy new computers, they expect them to be fast. And a snappy finder, or webbrowsing is what the average consumer experiences as "fast".

[Tom800]

They need to get Worms, the game, on OS X. that's the best game ever made, and is almost free (like $3), and is kid/family friendly. Get rid of the bugdom stuff, worms is it.

[Durandal7]

Let's all hope that this rumor is true because it would make my day along with a lot of other people. If this holds true then I would expect the eMacs to get no updates but have a $150 price drop across the line. I would also expect at least a $100 price drop on the iMac G3. These predictions sound reasonable with the exception of the iPod rumor.

[groundhog troll]

You don't have to worry cause you have no money, trolls on the river are happy to give.

trolling, trolling, trolling on the river

[Kid Red]

Originally posted by richard5mith



You're exactly right. Unfortunately this is something Apple haven't realised themselves yet.

Well, let's see, they lowered the iBook prices and the PB prices, so I'd tend to disagree with you on this issue.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by MacsRgr8


You could be right about that. But I personally feel that an 800 MHz G4 is really not fast enough. Mac OS X doesn't feel snappy running on this iMac. Just the cool looks of the FP iMac is not enough to sell it.
When consumers buy new computers, they expect them to be fast. And a snappy finder, or webbrowsing is what the average consumer experiences as "fast".

Hmmm...I guess it's all relative - I think Jaguar feels snappy on my 800MHz G3 iBook. Finder is snappy and so is browsing (with Chimera, anyway). And keep in mind, my mom is still happy with her 450MHz Pentium II and a 56K modem, running Win98, which is way slower in every respect than my iBook. I know my mom would definitely not think the G4 iMac was slow. I would consider my mom a typical non-techie mass-market user, and myself a power user, so I think an iMac running Jag is plenty fast enough for the vast majority of the market.

[TechKid]

a 200Mhz increase and a $300 price drop???? Get real... I call that an un-educated guess!

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by lmalave


Hmmm...I guess it's all relative - I think Jaguar feels snappy on my 800MHz G3 iBook. Finder is snappy and so is browsing (with Chimera, anyway). And keep in mind, my mom is still happy with her 450MHz Pentium II and a 56K modem, running Win98, which is way slower in every respect than my iBook. I know my mom would definitely not think the G4 iMac was slow. I would consider my mom a typical non-techie mass-market user, and myself a power user, so I think an iMac running Jag is plenty fast enough for the vast majority of the market.

Ofcourse, everything is relative. But honestly, have you ever tried to resize an Explorer window running Jaguar? I use Chimera too, but IE is the default browser, and currently the ONLY browser shipped with the Mac.
A new iMac doesn't "feel" fast running Jaguar.
Don't get me wrong: I love OS X but my mom would compare the two computers in a store, and she would definitely spot the speed difference.
But, my mom would fall in love with the looks of the Flat Panel.... ;)

[zulgand04]

all this talk about the 800FP not being snappy, i bought the 700FP and i love it, i have no problems with its speed, i was going to buy a dual 867 PM, but realized whats the point the 450 Compaq i had was fine for what iuse it for, MP3, Word, Video editing, Web design, and games. Im 16 i really don't care about haveing a 3ghz computer, all i wanted was a computer that was cheap, easy to use, nice, and did what i needed it to do. Most people peple who are like me feel the same. And for the people that are gonna dissagree with me because im 16, im not ignorant when it comes to computers. Price cuts is what apple needs, speed bumps are good to but the way moto has screwed apple, price is gonna be the selling point, for the short term.

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by zulgand04
And for the people that are gonna dissagree with me because im 16, im not ignorant when it comes to computers. Price cuts is what apple needs, speed bumps are good to but the way moto has screwed apple, price is gonna be the selling point, for the short term.

Good point:short term.
You sound a lot more mature than 16! :)

[lmalave]

Originally posted by MacsRgr8


Ofcourse, everything is relative. But honestly, have you ever tried to resize an Explorer window running Jaguar? I use Chimera too, but IE is the default browser, and currently the ONLY browser shipped with the Mac.
A new iMac doesn't "feel" fast running Jaguar.
Don't get me wrong: I love OS X but my mom would compare the two computers in a store, and she would definitely spot the speed difference.
But, my mom would fall in love with the looks of the Flat Panel.... ;)

Well, hopefully Apple will make Chimera the default soon enough. IE on OS X has other major problems, though, such as a delay of about a second or so just to check a freakin' checkbox on a form! That aside, I don't think a user would really tell the difference in speed in a store between a Mac and a PC, at least if all they were doing was poking around or surfing the web or whatever. It's not as if Windows Explorer is instantaneous! I often notice lags in Windows explorer when expanding a folder, clicking on a folder to rename it, etc., and I use a fairly recent model Pentium 4 desktop at work.

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by lmalave


Well, hopefully Apple will make Chimera the default soon enough. IE on OS X has other major problems, though, such as a delay of about a second or so just to check a freakin' checkbox on a form! That aside, I don't think a user would really tell the difference in speed in a store between a Mac and a PC, at least if all they were doing was poking around or surfing the web or whatever. It's not as if Windows Explorer is instantaneous! I often notice lags in Windows explorer when expanding a folder, clicking on a folder to rename it, etc., and I use a fairly recent model Pentium 4 desktop at work.

Well, it's like you said: everything is relative.
Let's hope Chimera will be it soon. It has been a long time since there were no M$ apps installed on a default Mac OS installation.

[MacKenzie999]

Originally posted by cubist
... I just can't wait to watch "2001 A Space Odyssey" on a 2-inch diagonal screen!:p

...and considering the battery life problems that seem inherent in iPods (sadly mine included) you could probably get through two hours of color video on your iPod with only ten or twelve recharges...

[chewbaccapits]

Originally posted by MacsRgr8


You could be right about that. But I personally feel that an 800 MHz G4 is really not fast enough. Mac OS X doesn't feel snappy running on this iMac. Just the cool looks of the FP iMac is not enough to sell it.



Uh...I have a 450 G4 sawtooth....And for it being an "OLD" computer it still rocks...Now, about the OS not being "SNAPPY" enough, it run good on mine...Now, its not as SNAPPY as I would like it but, I would ASSUME it runs WAY faster on that 800 G4 iMac...I mean come on!

[drastik]

if true...

This is fantastic news, mainly because of the price. I would love a FPiMac, and sub $1000 sounds great. To me this would be a third computer for my house, so it need not do all the heavy duty stuff that my tower handles.

I think most swichers are in the same boat. The problem with the Mhz battle is addressing peoples needs realistically. Most people are not power users. For the real powerusers, you're talking baout something like the Alienware systems on the PC side anyway, and outfited like a PowerMac, they actually cost more.

A lot of people talk a lot of crap about being pro users, but the money is in the consumer market now. Apple needs to sell loew end machines for cheap, more people will switch. Intel and AMd have had people convinced for years that they need the top of the range machine for what is essentialy there web browsing and games. Its ridiculous. Those that play games that need fast processors are a small market segment, really a bunch of children. Your average adult has no use for quake, they need only Office apps and a decent web browser. iMovie is great for most peoples movie editing, things like Final Cut are meant for Pros, not kids with an extra grand sitting around.

Take a look at your average end user, what you will find is a person who needs to do wsimpe tasks and wants everything to work correctly the first time. This is the Essence of the Switch campaign.

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by chewbaccapits




Uh...I have a 450 G4 sawtooth....And for it being an "OLD" computer it still rocks...Now, about the OS not being "SNAPPY" enough, it run good on mine...Now, its not as SNAPPY as I would like it but, I would ASSUME it runs WAY faster on that 800 G4 iMac...I mean come on!

I use a 400 MHz (sawtooth) at home, and at work we have many 800+ MHz Macs (both iMacs and dual G4s).
My G4 is OK, the iMacs are good, and the 1 GHz G4's are great!
I thougt (read: hope) that with so many 1 GHz G4 procs around (all the duals, TiBooks, upgrade procs), all iMacs would be 1 Ghz by now. Maybe a 15" 867 Mhz low-end....

[scem0]

If this is the update, then I can't wait for it, and every update
after that. This would be the second awesome update in a
row. It would be very good for apple to release these machines
at those prices :D.

[MacsRgr8]

I must admit that I forgot about the price drop.
Along with the faster bus and better grfx card, these new babies are a great bargain!

[zulgand04]

Originally posted by MacsRgr8


Good point:short term.
You sound a lot more mature than 16! :)

thanx

[JW Pepper]

Dammit I hope this is not true, I want 6 x 1ghz iMacs with just the CDRW, I have no use for either the combo or superdrive, but I do want the speed and neatness.

Pah

[Chomolungma]

Originally posted by MacKenzie999


...and considering the battery life problems that seem inherent in iPods (sadly mine included) you could probably get through two hours of color video on your iPod with only ten or twelve recharges...

Interesting point. I don't think anyone in here has ever address the battery wear on the iPod. If you listen to it a lot, you bound to wear it down within a year or two. Then what? Bring it back to Apple and have them charge you $100 to replace the battery? Keep doing this a couple of times, and the most expensive thing you'll ever buy from Apple is the iPod.:D

Cultural aside: I'm surprise Apple doesn't market the iPod as a portable storage solution. I'm sure a lot of people would want to get rid of their zip disks.

[ibookin']

FP iMac for under $1000? I like the idea, especially now that PC makers are selling machines with 15" LCDs for $699 (Gateway). Depending on the situation with the PPC 970, I may just buy an iMac at $999, especially if it has a 133Mhz bus. Regarding performance in Jaguar, the G4 700 iMac I use at work feels "snappy" except in IE, and it only has 256MB ram. Load an 800Mhz G4 iMac up at least 512MB ram and a good GPU and it would run Jag quite nicely. For graphics cards on the iMacs, I could see the GF4 MX 32MB at the low end, and the ATI Radeon 9000 64MB at the high end. Hard drives would probably be 60, 80, and 120GB. Pretty nice for a consumer machine.

As for the iPod, I could not see putting a color screen on it because of battery life problems. I also do not see a use for a color screen unless the iPod would be a different device meant for playing movies on the go, like a portable DVD player except with a hard drive and software to rip your DVDs to MPEG 4 format. This kind of thing would probably have a 6" or 7" widescreen and be like a laptop. Might sell for $599.

Just my 2 cents...

[vniow]

Only a Geforce4mx on the high end?

That's a little dissapointing considering that the higher end iMac is usually referred to as a 'prosumer' machine, I wouldn't put anyhing less than a Radeon 9000 in it.

[yosoyjay]

Originally posted by MacsRgr8


Ofcourse, everything is relative. But honestly, have you ever tried to resize an Explorer window running Jaguar? I use Chimera too, but IE is the default browser, and currently the ONLY browser shipped with the Mac.
A new iMac doesn't "feel" fast running Jaguar.
Don't get me wrong: I love OS X but my mom would compare the two computers in a store, and she would definitely spot the speed difference.
But, my mom would fall in love with the looks of the Flat Panel.... ;)

I've noticed this as well, especially when more than one application is open. The windowing is not as slow as it was and is adequate... but is def. slower than my PC boxes. And many non-mac folks notice this and comment indicating that it is significant to them.

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by yosoyjay


I've noticed this as well, especially when more than one application is open. The windowing is not as slow as it was and is adequate... but is def. slower than my PC boxes. And many non-mac folks notice this and comment indicating that it is significant to them.

Exactly.

[robguz]

Well the prices are right, but the specs are lame. GF4 MX? 867 MHz? a less than 10% speed bump after a year is just stupid. The news would be better if they were going to a 133MHz bus and adding an L3 cache to all but the low end machine.

However, these specs are pretty consistent with Apple's strategy of minimal speed bumps and falling further and further behind the wintel world. In the past year, low end wintels have gained 1GHz and cost a couple hundred less. iMacs simply cannot compete and it's getting depressing.

[MrMacMan]

Ech I better not tell my dad this rumor, I just got a new iMac 17". :eek:

Damnit, only after a month of getting it a Much better one comes out. :(
*cries*

[Ibjr]

Originally posted by Macrumors
MacNews.tc.net (http://macnews.net.tc) claims to have prices/specs for an upcoming iMac bump at MWSF, which basically represent iMac speed bumps with a corresponding price drop:

15", 800MHz, $999
17", 867MHz, $1199
17", 867 MHz, $1499
17", 1GHz, $1699

MacNews.net.tc is a relatively new site with an unknown rumor record, and this simply may represent educated speculation. Previously, it is the only site to claim a color iPod II with MPEG-4 Video and Color Screen (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/11/20021112071728.shtml) for MWSF.

At these prices MS Media PC’s prices look sane. I like Apple, but as long as Jobs touts the Imac as a digital hub and MS offers a Media PC w/ PVR functionality and lords more features (I didn’t say good features!) I do not see apple making leaps w/ their market share.

I would buy an Imac before a Media PC, but normal consumers do not understand DRM and will not be frightened off. Apple needs to begin hammering on DRM.

[IngoB]

Originally posted by drastik

Intel and AMd have had people convinced for years that they need the top of the range machine for what is essentialy there web browsing and games. Its ridiculous. Those that play games that need fast processors are a small market segment, really a bunch of children. Your average adult has no use for quake, they need only Office apps and a decent web browser. iMovie is great for most peoples movie editing, things like Final Cut are meant for Pros, not kids with an extra grand sitting around.


What a load of hogwash...

"According to the Interactive Digital Software Association, about 145 million people in the U.S. play computer and video games, and the average age of a game player is 28 years old. Video games have become one of the most popular forms of entertainment. In fact, market research firm NPD, reported that in 2001, total U.S. sales of games and game related hardware reached $9.4 billion, compared to total domestic box office receipts for Hollywood movies of $8.4 billion."

Computer games have been and will be one of the major driving forces in the development of personal computers. I'm pretty sure that the total computing time of home computers in this world consists of more than 50% gaming. Gaming has already become an integral part of the "digital lifestyle" in my generation (30+) and it will be as irreplacable as TV is now in the coming ones.

The good news for the "slow" Macs is that even most new games do not stretch the limits of what is possible with the current hardware anymore. Basically there is a limit to how far "special effects" of the graphics (which require massive computing time) can increase the interest of a game. Already content is taking over as the major fun factor. And content isn't produced in "real time"...

[lmalave]

Originally posted by IngoB


What a load of hogwash...

"According to the Interactive Digital Software Association, about 145 million people in the U.S. play computer and video games, and the average age of a game player is 28 years old. Video games have become one of the most popular forms of entertainment. In fact, market research firm NPD, reported that in 2001, total U.S. sales of games and game related hardware reached $9.4 billion, compared to total domestic box office receipts for Hollywood movies of $8.4 billion."

Computer games have been and will be one of the major driving forces in the development of personal computers. I'm pretty sure that the total computing time of home computers in this world consists of more than 50% gaming. Gaming has already become an integral part of the "digital lifestyle" in my generation (30+) and it will be as irreplacable as TV is now in the coming ones.

The good news for the "slow" Macs is that even most new games do not stretch the limits of what is possible with the current hardware anymore. Basically there is a limit to how far "special effects" of the graphics (which require massive computing time) can increase the interest of a game. Already content is taking over as the major fun factor. And content isn't produced in "real time"...

The PC game market is tiny compared to the console market. And though almost everyone in the U.S. knows about games like Quake and may have played them at one time, the percentage of people that actually make computer purchase decisions based on wether they can play the latest 3D games is a tiny fraction of the PC market. Among my friends and colleagues, many of whom are young software engineers, I can count maybe a half dozen that are serious gamers. And where would this put people like my mom, who I don't think has played a computer game on her PC other than Solitaire?

I would dispute your contention that the PC market is driven by gamers. Gamers are just a convenient early adopter market that helps computer makers sell new machines at premium prices until they can ramp up production enough to get economies of scale and bring prices down for the rest of the market. Intel's R&D development is driven by internal goals, not market goals. Intel engineers are told all the time they have to keep up with Moore's law, because after all, are they going to be the first engineers in 30 years to fail? So they develop the technology first and then try to find a market for it NOT the other way around.

I tend to agree with the previous poster - the WinTel axis has taken the average consumer for a ride up a largely needless upgrade spiral. Intel depends on Microsoft to come out with bloatware so that consumers feel that they have to upgrade their machines because they need to in order to run the latest Windows or Office.

[awinn233]

here's my 4 cents

the things apple does good: OS, software, iApps, and design! :)

the things they do horrible: hardware, updating products, adopting new technology, and pricing!:mad:

I do use a PC, but I'm saving up for a new (expensive) low-end iMac. It seems strange to see MHz when i look at apple computers, I'm used to seeing GHz in the PC world. And I'm hearing it's not apple's fault, motorola makes the chip. And I think maybe Apple should switch chips, it happens in the PC world all the time.

Also it takes apple 6 months to update their product lines, what? That's a long time! I wish they would speed up their CD/DVD burning drives! Their CD-RW drive all by itself is 24-10-32, TDK makes one that's 52-24-48! And if you get a SuperDrive or Combo it's even slower. And Apple still hasn't adopted USB 2. I'd like to see bluetooth wireless keyboard/mouse also.

What I'm trying to say is that Apple is going to have to make major leaps in a short amount of time if they want to catch up to PCs anytime soon.

I also know about the "MHz myth" but honestly if they want to make a dent in the large foaming at the mouth monster that is the PC market, they'll have to step it up and get PC users face about them switching.

Apple also needs to stop worrying about pro and consumer seperation, and just make the best and I mean best computers they possibley can, with an affordable price tag.