Mac Marketshare Growth in High End Retail Market

[BenRoethig]

They've all been Jonathan Ive designs since the first iMac in 1998. His design input personifies what Steve's philosophy for Apple is all about, and has been since he returned.

And if you want to crack a current iMac, all you have to do is Google it. It's a fairly simple thing to upgrade the HDD.

But Apple have recently radically revised their pricing policy by reducing the difference between the standard 320GB and 500GB option to just $50, 750GB to $150 and 1TB to $300 on the 2.8GHz 24" model, therefore reducing our need to perform DIY jobs for at least the life of the first HDD.

It's the same story with the memory. If you compared Apple's RAM prices with those of Orca and Crucial only a month ago, Apple looked like a robber baron. Now, when you consider questions of possible 3rd party issues, it's worth telling Apple to fit the max 4GB when ordering.

But these are all marketing decisions. They help to push up the unit spend and keep more business in-house. That money was already being spent, often before the Mac shipped, but with Crucial etc. Now Apple is getting it. And as Apple's market share increases, you can bet that's hurting some people.

I've seen them too. From the marvel that was the PowerMac G3 to computer without a niche that was the Cube to the all in one for every one doesn't want one called the ALU iMac. They're gone from good looking machines that deliver to machines where design trumps usability.

As for the instructions for replacing the hard drive, I've seen them. It involves taking the machine completely apart. Since that would void the 3-year apple care I got to protect against the tendency for Ive systems to overheat, it isn't worth he effort. Its a amazing system as a family machine or as a business/education terminal, but it isn't for everyone as Jobs, Ive, and some people around here may believe.

[JoeDMD]

Wow!

When you failed psychology and started seeing the world in such narrow terms, did someone in a white coat hand you a small piece of paper that read: 'Prescription'? You should go find it. How can you make such ludicrously simplistic statements? :rolleyes:

I own a business that's giving EVERYONE a new iMac. And guess what? there's a suitable iMac for everyone, from secretary and receptionist to techie, sales and CEO. How democratic is that? And when we do press stuff, we don't hire some hotel function suite, we use the office - because it looks so good!:apple:

And here's another thing, all my employees friends want to work for us now! But of course, they're all mindless... what was the term?... oh yeah - mindless fools, just like us. But hey, do we make money and party? You bet.

Ouch! And I aced psych btw:)

I did oversimplify, but only to emphasize one point. I do not think that anyone or everyone that buys an iMac is a mindless fool or for that matter that everyone who buys a mac pro is a techno geek movie producer.

My point was that is seems that those are Apple's views of its customers.
Apple used to make relatively affordable upgradeable machines, but doesn't anymore.

Your particular case is, for lack of a better beaten to death metaphor, like comparing apples to oranges.
In the business world, computers are rarely upgraded with hardware, and usually use a narrow range of software, for which the hardware was originally speced to run. In my business, I have 4 dells which I will never foreseeably upgrade, and they will run as shipped until they die. I could have bought iMacs or Minis without concern.

For the home or home business user, with one or 2 machines, an iMac can be a problem. My G4 purchased in 2002 is still running my wife's design apps, imovie, iTunes for my ipod, etc.
If I had purchased an iMac at the time,
1) I would have been stuck with USB 1.1 which would have made my digital life miserable (slow transfer for digital cameras, memory card, ipod, etc.)
2) I would be stuck with a woefully inadequate HD
3) I would have had an ugly blue external ZIP drive like the one for my 8500

My G4 Quicksilver was and is a beautiful machine, but I think I really need an upgrade if I want to run 2008 versions of my applications.

What % of imacs purchased in 2002 are still used vs. % of G4 towers? I don't know, but its an interesting question.

In a business, there is an acceptable life and a defined purpose for computers. In a home environment that is necessarily true. As a home/ home business user, I want to be able to adapt my machine to changing technology
and needs. Who thought I would have tons of music, videos and digital pics to store when I bought my machine? But because it is upgradeable, it is still running. (Although that could be why Steve doesn't like it)

[AidenShaw]

Ouch! And I aced psych btw:)

I did a second major in Psych with a 3.8 GPA - don't let the amateurs get you down ;) !

In the early 20th century, we would have said that they had concerns about the size of certain body parts that were normally hidden in their pants.

Now, we might wonder if their uncertainty about their own sexual orientation was being expressed in seemingly random outlets.

Neither, of course, is true. It's simply an inability to accept that both Windows and OSX are reasonable choices depending on your requirements, and there's no need to denigrate or insult people who've chosen differently.

Maybe we need the California Supreme Court to rule that both Apple and Windows users must be given full and equal rights under the law.... ;)

[1dterbeest]

I recently got a Dell desktop with a 2.4ghz quad core intel processor, 250gb hard drive, 2gb ram, 256mb Nvidia 8600gts, and wireless card with a 24" LCD monitor.

For $750.

I've always bought apple computers in the past, but with the economy the way it is, I couldn't afford Apple's premium pricing. Even a base mini would have cost more once the keyboard, mouse, and monitor were figured in. Plus this Dell computer can be upgraded easily with inexpensive parts!

For the hundreds of dollars I saved, I can put up with windows vista until I can someday afford a nice mac again. I'm glad there are companies like Dell that will sell me high end hardware for almost no profit. It makes good business sense for Apple to focus on the high end customers, but it is also hard to imagine that market growing much in the next year or two.

Apples are nice computers for the upscale market, but that is exactly the reason I'm not buying one! Because I can't afford to be upscale right now!

[G58]

The G3 iMac that was around when you bought your G4 was a toy - a home tool really, even though some small businesses bought into the idea. But today's iMac is a very different machine altogether, and its place in the market is spread over a wider range that offers many different configuration options and two sizes.

Congratulations on the psych result btw. I like to bark nasty sometimes to be controversial, but no real insult is intended. Thank you for being decent and not flaming me;)


Ouch! And I aced psych btw:)

I did oversimplify, but only to emphasize one point. I do not think that anyone or everyone that buys an iMac is a mindless fool or for that matter that everyone who buys a mac pro is a techno geek movie producer.

My point was that is seems that those are Apple's views of its customers.
Apple used to make relatively affordable upgradeable machines, but doesn't anymore.

Your particular case is, for lack of a better beaten to death metaphor, like comparing apples to oranges.
In the business world, computers are rarely upgraded with hardware, and usually use a narrow range of software, for which the hardware was originally speced to run. In my business, I have 4 dells which I will never foreseeably upgrade, and they will run as shipped until they die. I could have bought iMacs or Minis without concern.

For the home or home business user, with one or 2 machines, an iMac can be a problem. My G4 purchased in 2002 is still running my wife's design apps, imovie, iTunes for my ipod, etc.
If I had purchased an iMac at the time,
1) I would have been stuck with USB 1.1 which would have made my digital life miserable (slow transfer for digital cameras, memory card, ipod, etc.)
2) I would be stuck with a woefully inadequate HD
3) I would have had an ugly blue external ZIP drive like the one for my 8500

My G4 Quicksilver was and is a beautiful machine, but I think I really need an upgrade if I want to run 2008 versions of my applications.

What % of imacs purchased in 2002 are still used vs. % of G4 towers? I don't know, but its an interesting question.

In a business, there is an acceptable life and a defined purpose for computers. In a home environment that is necessarily true. As a home/ home business user, I want to be able to adapt my machine to changing technology
and needs. Who thought I would have tons of music, videos and digital pics to store when I bought my machine? But because it is upgradeable, it is still running. (Although that could be why Steve doesn't like it)

[MagnusVonMagnum]

The old saw about building a PC is incredibly tiresome. Try building a laptop from scratch.

No, what is tiresome is the same old Mac Fanboys spouting the same old tired routines.


And your incredibly naive to think the hardware is the same. Yes, the mobo and cpu might be the same. But the case, screen, and testing to make sure it all works together are not. But whatever.

Screen = Purchase a monitor of your CHOICE in the PC World, not take what Apple gives you and oh gee, what do I do if the monitor breaks after the warranty is up and the computer is still working.... (plug in another monitor and watch the giant dead screen as a dongle, I suppose). Cases are $20-100 items in the PC world. You can get any case you want. And you don't have to build them yourself. Dell will build one for you. Any number of small computer shops (try going to a computer show once) will gladly build them for you with the case and hardware items of your choice (I actually DID put mine together; it was very simple to do, but for less than $50, most places will do it for you; some don't even charge to do it. The last PC I bought locally charged the same either way so I let them assemble it).

Testing? Do you think Dells are tested less than Apples? What about the yellow-screen LED problems on the laptops? What about the keyboards that won't type properly or that were missing the first letter of the first word typed (that bug took over 2 years to get a 'fix'). Paleeze. Apple's products are hardly bug or problem-free.


I could also build my own house and save a pile of money. Who the hell cares.


You're comparing connecting up a motherboard and plugging in a few cards to building a house??? And you expect me to take your comments as anything more than ludicrous nonsense? You're talking to someone that owns a PC and a Mac and AppleTV and an iPod Touch and knows how to run and administrate Linux (which I also have installed on the PC) and has two degrees in electronic engineering. You're not going get any BS past me.


Guess what, my time is money. While I can easily build a PC and have done so in the past when I had more time, I could care less about building one today.


So don't. Select what you want and let Dell or any other number of hardware vendors both on the Net and/or locally do it for you. What's the big deal? If you don't want to do that much work (i.e. pick out what YOU *want* in a computer), you can still go to somewhere like Best Buy and pick a price range and/or marquee that suits you and have a fully functional system in your hands as you walk out the door. You can also buy a Mac at Best Buy these days. What's the difference other than with the PC you tend to actually have a CHOICE what hardware you get whereas with Apple's offerings you're more or less stuck with what Steve wants to sell you at a given price point and too bad if the graphics suck on that model. Go buy the $2400+ Mac Pro or the $2200 24" iMac if you want to play games. The problem is that they're competing with $700-1200 systems in the PC world (i.e. you're pay 2x as much to play the SAME game using the SAME graphics card, etc.). And YET, the fanboys will still CLAIM that the current Macs are comparable to the same PCs at the same price range. The problem is that a Mac Pro is touted by Apple as their best game machine, yet it's NOT the kind of hardware a normal PC user would consider gaming hardware. It's complete and total OVERKILL and yet there is *NO* offering from Apple that CAN game that is NOT overkill. You either pay $2200 for a 'custom' 24" iMac or you pay $2400+ for a MacPro. Actually, that MacPro with the same gaming card will be a couple hundred more so more like $2600.


You might save a couple of hundred dollars, AT BEST, on component costs.


I'll buy that argument IF you'll explain then why the same components in a $800 PC are only found in a $2600 MacPro. That's a bit more than a "couple hundred dollars".


For me, those savings would be gone in about an hour and a half in time.


For me, I'd have the computer assembled in less than an hour. It's not rocket science. It's snap'n'screw.


Factor in build time (about 2 hours), shopping time (1-2 hours at least on the internet, longer going to a store). And hope that every piece works together the first time, with no driver issues, or else your looking at an even longer build time.


So you're saying you don't have to "shop" for a Mac? You just order the first one you happen to click on at the Apple store online or take the first one they hand you at a physical Apple store or Best Buy????

Driver issues, etc. are venturing into software. I maintain you can run OSX on cloneware PC. See Psycorp. They'll sell you a 2 choice pre-assembled OSX option that can also run Windows and Linux for under $1000 that gaming-wise will run circles around everything but the $2000+ Apple models.


99% of people that have a computer did NOT build it themselves. So pointing out that you could build one for less is worthless.


You're making an awful lot out of one little comment that I built MY PC last November. Nowhere did I say you had to build your own. The computer show I went to last year in Allentown PA next to the pinball show I was attending had numerous vendors that begging me to let them build any kind of machine I could want. You CAN still get what you want and NOT have to build it yourself you know. Or maybe you don't know that?


As for upgrading a Mac being cyclical thinking, you are misusing the term. However, I understand what you are saying. But you are wrong.

For one thing, because a Mac Pro or any other tower Mac typically is a fairly powerful system when bought, it has less need for upgrades to stay current.
A typical PC user that upgrades is cash poor and upgrading over time, typically because the PC is too slow at some task. Well guess what, as you


So I'm wrong because YOU think so? I used my last PC for 7 years, upgrading its processor once and its graphics card twice. I had to reinstall Windows98 *ONE* time in 7 years (and not when I upgraded the CPU or graphics cards). I had exactly ZERO viruses during that time too (and no I didn't leave a virus checker running 24/7 and yes it was on the Internet). You see HOW and WHOM uses a PC also factors into the experience. Any moron can get viruses and screw their system up. If you have a little bit of computer knowledge that doesn't have to happen.

The real point here is that the major applications that need ever faster speeds and graphics cards are GAMES. Your argument boils down to the fact that the Mac has very few games of its own that you don't NEED a new computer every few years. Yet if you don't play games on a PC, you don't NEED one every couple of years either (barring video work, etc. in which case you'd probably want a new Mac every couple of years too and invalidates your entire argument).

The CURRENT situation with Macs is that they use the SAME HARDWARE (save EFI versus BIOS) as generic PCs out there. Thus, your argument completely falls flat on its face no matter HOW you look at it. In fact, the Mac that isn't a MacPro isn't upgradeable in terms of graphics cards, etc., so it will need replaced *MORE* often than a PC for the same use.

Honestly, you don't seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to computer hardware (typical of fanboy types in my experience) and so I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your total lack of actual argument points.


I've owned 4 tower Macs, all bought new. The ONLY things I worked on on any of them were RAM, and hard drives. One, I added a new video card and one I added a $20 USB 2.0 card. And when they got too slow, I just bought a new computer. I could have replaced the CPU. Why bother.


Oh, I don't know. I bought a cheap used PowerMac G4 for a song and upgraded its CPU to 1.8GHz, added a Sata card and installed dual 500GB Sata drives, replaced the CDR with a modern DVD-R and added a USB 2.0 card, set up 1.5GB of ram and updated the Operating system, all for less than the cheapest iMac and while it doesn't contain the CPU power of said iMac (and was far less than half what a MacPro costs), it DOES achieve its desired function as a media center server without the freaking MESS of an iMac + *external* typically slower, more expensive hard drives. In fact, my hard drive speed tests faster than a default MacPro. It's connected via Gigabit to my router which then streams its contents all over my house to multiple AppleTV and Airport Express units. Why upgrade? I don't NEED a MacPro at $2400+ to do what I need this to do. I don't want a desk full of external components lying around, etc. Guess what? Not everyone's needs match YOUR needs.



Again, what you seem to be missing is that, in reality, NO ONE really is interested in doing any hardware work more complicated than installing RAM.


"NO ONE", eh? ROTFLMAO. I wonder why Best Buy sells components to upgrade computers at a retail store where space is a premium if NO ONE is really interested in doing anything with their computer. I find it funny you think they're willing to install ram, yet think installing something like a video card is "more complicated" when it's pretty much the same thing. Plug it in and maybe latch or turn a screw. Big deal. If they dont' want to install anything (computers are scary!), fine. But don't pretend they're scared YET are willing to install ram dimms.


As for the hardcore, who build gaming rigs, constantly upgrading, they are a dying breed, just like PC gaming. And a Mac user is NOT interested in finding what video card will actually work with Crysis and installing it. They will just have a 360 or PS3.

Some games will never work right on a console platform. And please don't speak for ALL Mac users ever again as it makes you look bad (some Mac users do use BootCamp for little more than gaming). Thanks so much.

[G58]

That's an interestingly relaxed outlook. I'm so glad you can afford the downtime that is such an integral part of the Windows experience.

My guys costed all the downtime, all the tech support and all the parts and repairs on the PCs and compared them with the Macs. I don't have the numbers to hand now, but it wasn't a small difference. In fact it was HUGE.

Just taking on one new member of staff who is fully trained on a PC and expecting them to get on with it turned into a hit and miss issue. So we did an experiment.

We asked who would be happy to use all Macs. Those who jumped at the idea kept their PCs. Those who were resistant, got Macs! And guess what? We had a 100% fully trained Mac team in 14 days! It was that easy.

I figured we already had a core of Mac receptive people we could rely on to take the Macs if the PC people hated them. So I gave the PC guys time to learn the new system. 100% - 14 days. I'll swap 14 days of learning curve and some initial doubt for 52 weeks of security, stability and peace of mind any day.

I'll tell you what's reasonable: When a computer company or a software company puts me, the user, first, develops a solution that I can rely on and doesn't lie to me. That stupid pair of fools at Redmond deserve to be **** on from a great height by their customers. I wouldn't trust them to clean my rest rooms.


I did a second major in Psych with a 3.8 GPA - don't let the amateurs get you down ;) !

In the early 20th century, we would have said that they had concerns about the size of certain body parts that were normally hidden in their pants.

Now, we might wonder if their uncertainty about their own sexual orientation was being expressed in seemingly random outlets.

Neither, of course, is true. It's simply an inability to accept that both Windows and OSX are reasonable choices depending on your requirements, and there's no need to denigrate or insult people who've chosen differently.

Maybe we need the California Supreme Court to rule that both Apple and Windows users must be given full and equal rights under the law.... ;)

[MagnusVonMagnum]

FYI, I happen to have a garage full of used Dell, HP, and Gateway boxes, all worthless bulky crap, cheap plastic dvd trays that snap easily, and flat screen monitors which suck in terms of clarity, depth, and color saturation. Windows cost me too much in terms of time re-starting and tweaking. If you prefer working with this utter crap, well then this is your choice.


FYI, I wanted to buy a Mac last year (looking up old posts of mine will prove it), but Apple REFUSED to offer anything with a DECENT (read usable for playing SOME current 3D games now and then, even if only through BootCamp) and when over 8 months went by and NOTHING came out (the MacPro finally offered a good card in early 2008 and now the $2200 iMac 24" in the past month or so), Apple lost a sale. I decided to buy a PC for running legacy software and for gaming (instead of using Boot Camp and Fusion) and to upgrade my PowerMac instead to run the Mac apps I use and to run my whole house audio system instead of buying a new Mac to do it on the side. Plus this way the two don't compete for resources). I plan to buy a Mac laptop later this year to use as a portable recording studio with my guitar and Roland synth sound rig (running Logic Pro).

But ultimately, WHAT I buy depends on my needs. I don't feel the need to act like a child and insult other platforms (that have their uses) just because I need to feel special. I make pinball games on the PC for a company that is making game room/bar/arcade type machines. It doesn't run the MacOS. And XP isn't nearly as bad as you make it sound. I do like MacOSX better, but unlike you, I can recognize parts for what they are. And there's NOTHING special about current Apple gear in terms of hardware. As for the iMac, I liked the previous "look" better, but looks have little to do with it. The last generation of Mac laptops had yellow-screen issues on the new LED models and until recently an unforgiveable keyboard issue (who wants the first letter of their sentence to not appear?). So don't tell me Apple's hardware is and has always been GOLD because it's just not true.

[DMann]

Perhaps. It's nice to see whatever the reason.

Agreed.

My mum knows nothing about computers and has had no issues with XP.

Ever.

What programs does she run regularly?

I'm sorry but that's not true. QDOS led to IBMDOS which led to IBMDOS and Windows Me was the last to use it. XP and Vista come from the NT family which only run a DOS emulator and are not based upon it. This has been the case since XP came out in 2001.

Regardless of running a DOS Emulator, Windows XP has more than twice the millions of lines of code it did when it was Win95. Vista has twice the millions of lines of code of XP. Windows has become far too big for MS to handle - Vista is now over 60 million lines of code, and all of them are maintained by MS. (no open source) Another problem involves backwards compatibility; this is difficult because the API's were poorly thought out to begin with, so programmers worked around them on the underlying implementation. The lack of a hardware platform - support for multiple platforms makes MS's task tons more difficult than Apple's.

Apple avoids these issues by choosing not to support third party platforms, it works on their computers, and that's it. Windows cannot ship PC's for anti-trust reasons, but could reduce its backward compatibility issues by using the second core of x86's to run a virtual PC containing a copy of whatever old OS was needed to run some old software, as Classic or Rosetta did for OS X. They could also offload some features by adopting open source solutions. Much of OS X is open sourced, which means Apple has a much larger pool of developers than simply those they employ. All in all, much less room for problems, incompatibility issues, etc. If a pesky app were to misbehave in OS X, force quitting releases that app and allows you to continue working and actually save your work, without bringing the entire system down. ("blue screan of death")

2010 actually.

I do recall Longhorn's release date was originally slated for 2003. I would say 2012 would be a safer bet.

This is a gross exaggeration. A more relevant analogy would be to wear a jacket in case it might rain.

Certainly not according to Vista's default security: "Need your permissions to continue-" prompts.

MS Access, Outlook, Visio, Picasa and most recent games.

Yes, MS converted Outlook to Entourage, and decided not to port Access, Visio, or Picasa to OS X. Oh well, they do seem to have enough on their hands with Office 2008, Windows 7, Zune 3, and Advertising, Advertising, Advertising: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTkA9L2J2gY

[SodiumBenzoate]

Is it? A BMW uses steel alloy just as a Ford Escort does, and uses rubber for the tires as well. It even uses glass for the windshield and plasic for the instrument panel. What you pay for when you purchase a BMW is design, style, and quality. The same is true of an iMac 24". (I've yet to see a PC built with the same solid and high quality aluminum structure and stellar design of an iMac)

BMWs and Ford Escorts have vastly different performance parts (whereas both Windows PCs and Macs generally use the same processors, GPUs, and RAM), that's a terrible analogy.

BMWs also have a not-insignificant amount of markup just from the name.

Personally, I think this entire debate is just stupid. Windows PCs and Macs have advantages and disadvantages. Pick your poison..

[DMann]

FYI, I wanted to buy a Mac last year (looking up old posts of mine will prove it), but Apple REFUSED to offer anything with a DECENT (read usable for playing SOME current 3D games now and then, even if only through BootCamp) and when over 8 months went by and NOTHING came out (the MacPro finally offered a good card in early 2008 and now the $2200 iMac 24" in the past month or so), Apple lost a sale. Too little, too late. They still haven't figured out gaming and open GL
I plan to buy a Mac laptop later this year to use as a portable recording studio with my guitar and Roland synth sound rig (running Logic Pro). Logic Pro 8.0.2 is awesome, revamped in a most brilliant layout.

But ultimately, WHAT I buy depends on my needs.
Agreed. Apple chooses not to offer solutions for those who would like to build their own workstation at consumer level prices. They figure that pros will splurge for workstations, consumers will go for the all-in-one or limited Mini, and there's nothing available in-between. It is a pity. Perhaps, once the sales begin to taper, and after the 3G iPhone is deployed, they might introduce a mini-tower for those who prefer to build to their needs. Unfortunately, who knows when and if this will ever happen.

The last generation of Mac laptops had yellow-screen issues on the new LED models and until recently an unforgiveable keyboard issue (who wants the first letter of their sentence to not appear?). So don't tell me Apple's hardware is and has always been GOLD because it's just not true.
I never claimed Apple hardware to be gold. I will say that when and if there is a problem, they're pretty good at swapping things out and/or fixing them. I did not have that experience with either Dell, Gateway, or HP's customer service in the past. Windows XP has issues which are stated in the previous post. For the most part, Apple's hardware integrity is quite decent, durable, and generally high quality. It's good to see other companies begin to follow suit.

[DMann]

BMWs and Ford Escorts have vastly different performance parts (whereas both Windows PCs and Macs generally use the same processors, GPUs, and RAM), that's a terrible analogy.

BMWs also have a not-insignificant amount of markup just from the name.

Personally, I think this entire debate is just stupid. Windows PCs and Macs have advantages and disadvantages. Pick your poison..

Are you saying the only thing that separates the Windows PC and Mac are the processors, GPUs, and RAM? How about the actual bodies (grades of plastic, metals, casing structure, plugs and connectors, and overall integrity?) I would think the entire package, apps running on OSX, on an elegant machine designed to run them fluently, without crashing, would define a user experience more than merely the processors, GPUs and RAM would. People also purchase the marked up BMW for its design, higher grade materials, reliability, responsiveness, and reputation.

[greekpaz22]

Are you saying the only thing that separates the Windows PC and Mac are the processors, GPUs, and RAM? How about the actual bodies (grades of plastic, metals, casing structure, plugs and connectors, and overall integrity?) I would think the entire package, apps running on OSX, on an elegant machine designed to run them fluently, without crashing, would define a user experience more than merely the processors, GPUs and RAM would. People also purchase the marked up BMW for its design, higher grade materials, reliability, responsiveness, and reputation.

Totally agree...Apple=BMW, Dell=Hyuandi...

[javierbds]

Being sustainable is sometimes too easily interpreted as a Cradle to Cradle decision in terms of materials when actually the core idea that should be upheld by companies like Apple should be about making things better and less often. Making things that will be able to evolve, be upgraded, be adaptable, hackable and more fun to use for longer so that as a customer I don’t think that I’m buying version 3.4 of something that will only be as good as it’s last press release. I want to buy “the” quintessential Apple product and cherish it for years, like people would cherish a vintage car.

Is it unreasonable to expect the designers of one of the best gadgets in the last few years to think about how they are serviced, refurbished and disposed of?, I think not.

We simply can’t go on forever buying stuff and dumping the old, unwanted broken stuff without regard. The designers have their part to play in this, as do the companies that sell us stuff.

We should not criticise Apple for anything other than a lack of hackability. Components need to be replaceable to extend the life of the devices we use. Throwaway electronics are by definition not sustainable.

(Those are not my words: mainly from redmonks, greenmonks)

[Rendwich]

"Consumers don't care about features," Stephen asserted. "People see a value proposition in an offering that gives them a great experience."

Killing me! This has to be an Onion article. Or a Microsoft PR.

[BenRoethig]

Are you saying the only thing that separates the Windows PC and Mac are the processors, GPUs, and RAM? How about the actual bodies (grades of plastic, metals, casing structure, plugs and connectors, and overall integrity?) I would think the entire package, apps running on OSX, on an elegant machine designed to run them fluently, without crashing, would define a user experience more than merely the processors, GPUs and RAM would. People also purchase the marked up BMW for its design, higher grade materials, reliability, responsiveness, and reputation.

The CPUs, GPUs, memory, display, and drives are the same. A ROM chip is different. What Apple does from there is put a laptop in back of a cheap 20" or decent 24" screen and calls it a desktop. Elegent? Yes. Extremely useful to medium to high end desktop (not workstation) users? Not so much. The Operating System IS the difference. If it wasn't there there is no way I would have spent $1700 on a computer that can't do out of the box what I ask of it.

[DMann]

The CPUs, GPUs, memory, display, and drives are the same. A ROM chip is different. What Apple does from there is put a laptop in back of a cheap 20" or decent 24" screen and calls it a desktop. Elegent? Yes. Extremely useful to medium to high end desktop (not workstation) users? Not so much. The Operating System IS the difference. If it wasn't there there is no way I would have spent $1700 on a computer that can't do out of the box what I ask of it.

If this is the case, at least they have the decency not to charge the full price of a Pro laptop.

[BenRoethig]

If this is the case, at least they have the decency not to charge the full price of a Pro laptop.

Its not a pro laptop in the DTR sense. What it is though is a premium thin and light and the pricing is pretty similar to the competition.

[JoeDMD]

The G3 iMac that was around when you bought your G4 was a toy - a home tool really, even though some small businesses bought into the idea. But today's iMac is a very different machine altogether, and its place in the market is spread over a wider range that offers many different configuration options and two sizes.

Actually, the iMac at the time was the Luxo G4


Congratulations on the psych result btw. I like to bark nasty sometimes to be controversial, but no real insult is intended. Thank you for being decent and not flaming me;)

No flames except for politics and religion, which is why I haven't discussed them on message boards in years.;)

[JoeDMD]

Oh, I don't know. I bought a cheap used PowerMac G4 for a song and upgraded its CPU to 1.8GHz, added a Sata card and installed dual 500GB Sata drives, replaced the CDR with a modern DVD-R and added a USB 2.0 card, set up 1.5GB of ram and updated the Operating system, all for less than the cheapest iMac and while it doesn't contain the CPU power of said iMac (and was far less than half what a MacPro costs), it DOES achieve its desired function as a media center server without the freaking MESS of an iMac + *external* typically slower, more expensive hard drives. In fact, my hard drive speed tests faster than a default MacPro. It's connected via Gigabit to my router which then streams its contents all over my house to multiple AppleTV and Airport Express units. Why upgrade? I don't NEED a MacPro at $2400+ to do what I need this to do. I don't want a desk full of external components lying around, etc. Guess what? Not everyone's needs match YOUR needs.

Why did you choose to spend $300 to upgrade the processor? What was the original speed? For a media server is processor speed that important?

At what point are the returns too low?
ie. I could buy a 1Ghz G4 upgrade card for my 8500 for $99, but that would be rediculous (slow ethernet, slow mobo, etc.) I could buy a used G4 for little more than that.

For what you spent to put a 1.8 G4 together, you probably could have gotten a used G5 that was more powerful.

You spent ~$750 I'm guessing for a machine that, although adequate for your current needs, has probably hit the wall. (At what point will new software be incompatible with PPC chips?)

I guess the real point here is that apple doesn't really offer anything right now to meet your needs. (And you would have bought an apple product if there was one.)

On a slightly different topic -is it possible to use a NAS as a media server?
It seems they would cost less to run.

[BongoBanger]

What programs does she run regularly?

Firefox, Word, Picasa and gmail.

Regardless of running a DOS Emulator, Windows XP has more than twice the millions of lines of code it did when it was Win95.

And? OSX Tiger has double that of XP according to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_lines_of_code

Vista has twice the millions of lines of code of XP. Windows has become far too big for MS to handle - Vista is now over 60 million lines of code, and all of them are maintained by MS.

Tiger has 86 million lines of code. I imagine Leopard has even more.

Another problem involves backwards compatibility; this is difficult because the API's were poorly thought out to begin with, so programmers worked around them on the underlying implementation.

And removed most of the clutter with XP. That's why you use DOSBOX as an emulator.

The lack of a hardware platform - support for multiple platforms makes MS's task tons more difficult than Apple's.

But one they accomplish quite well considering it'll run on everything - including Apple machines.

I'm goign to skip the rest because your argument is essentially flawed - firstly you didn't know that XP and Vista are NT based, not DOS based. Secondly OSX actually has a a higher SLOC count that either of them.

I don't mind people criticising OSs but I do expect them to know why their criticising them.

I would say 2012 would be a safer bet.

Let's split the difference at 2011 then? :D

Certainly not according to Vista's default security: "Need your permissions to continue-" prompts.

UAC can be disabled and, even if it's not, quickly settles down once you've used the program. It's not that much of an issue.

Yes, MS converted Outlook to Entourage, and decided not to port Access, Visio, or Picasa to OS X.

Well, fine. That's why OSX isn't really a lot of use to me just now though.

[IJ Reilly]

No, what is tiresome is the same old Mac Fanboys spouting the same old tired routines.

No, what is tiresome is hearing the "fanboy" cliche trotted out every time someone admits to appreciating something Apple is doing. Get a new word. Get a new argument.

[BenRoethig]

Its thrown when someone follows Apple's lead without question. There are some who seemingly think Apple is infallible. If we didn't appreciate Apple's deeds we wouldn't be here. Appreciation doesn't mean you have to be a mindless drone. This is a computer company, not a religon. You have to take take good with the bad, except Jobs for both his talents and his faults, and call them out when you think they're not doing something they should.

[ZombieSanta]

I heard that there are absolutely NNNOOO viruses that are made for the Mac. Is this really true. Or is this just what people think because Macs are used by very few people. (which shouldn't be).:confused:

[IJ Reilly]

Its thrown when someone follows Apple's lead without question. There are some who seemingly think Apple is infallible. If we didn't appreciate Apple's deeds we wouldn't be here. Appreciation doesn't mean you have to be a mindless drone. This is a computer company, not a religon. You have to take take good with the bad, except Jobs for both his talents and his faults, and call them out when you think they're not doing something they should.

No, it gets used far more often than that, as your post demonstrates. Terms such as "religion" and "infallible" and "mindless drone" should never appear in a serious discussion. This is an ad hominem, not an argument.

[SodiumBenzoate]

Are you saying the only thing that separates the Windows PC and Mac are the processors, GPUs, and RAM?

No... Those are the things that are the same.

How about the actual bodies (grades of plastic, metals, casing structure, plugs and connectors, and overall integrity?)

Yes, $1200+ Macs have nicer cases and use better materials than $600 Windows PCs. When you buy more expensive Windows PCs, you also get nicer cases and materials.

I would think the entire package, apps running on OSX, on an elegant machine designed to run them fluently, without crashing, would define a user experience more than merely the processors, GPUs and RAM would.

Depends on what you're doing. If you're doing very hardware-intensive activities, the CPU, GPU, RAM, etc are extremely important, and, depending on your budget, Macs may not be a realistic option.

Additionally, Macs don't make a lot of sense for some activities, mainly gaming. If you're playing games, you're running Windows anyway.

FWIW, my 7 month old Vista desktop has never crashed.

People also purchase the marked up BMW for its design, higher grade materials, reliability, responsiveness, and reputation.

Well, certainly not reliability, but that's neither here nor there in this debate. ;)

I'm not pro-Windows or pro-Mac, I like both and both have their place, even in the high-end retail market. When I bought my Dell desktop, I mainly bought it for gaming. At the time, the 8800GT/X was not offered on the Mac Pro, so I never considered it. If I'd been buying it for another purpose, I may have ended up with a Mac. I just think that saying Macs are objectively better or that Windows PCs are objectively better is wrong.

[JoeDMD]

It's the same story with the memory. If you compared Apple's RAM prices with those of Orca and Crucial only a month ago, Apple looked like a robber baron. Now, when you consider questions of possible 3rd party issues, it's worth telling Apple to fit the max 4GB when ordering.


For the low end iMac Apple charges $300 for 3 GB Ram $100 for 1 GB
Crucial - $28 a GB

For power mac, Apple charges $1500 for 4 x 2GB
crucial charges $460 and you get to keep the base memory.

its worth $1000 to get it from apple?

to get 4GB total (more realistic) apple charges $500
crucial will sell you an extra 2GB for $180

[SLC Flyfishing]

I'll tell you one thing, I love my Apple computers. But I have to say that if they had a notebook in the $800 range, I'd have been an Apple user a long time ago.

But they don't (and probably never will)

SLC

[macidiot]

No, what is tiresome is the same old Mac Fanboys spouting the same old tired routines.

Screen = Purchase a monitor of your CHOICE in the PC World, not take what Apple gives you and oh gee, what do I do if the monitor breaks after the warranty is up and the computer is still working.... (plug in another monitor and watch the giant dead screen as a dongle, I suppose). Cases are $20-100 items in the PC world. You can get any case you want. And you don't have to build them yourself. Dell will build one for you. Any number of small computer shops (try going to a computer show once) will gladly build them for you with the case and hardware items of your choice (I actually DID put mine together; it was very simple to do, but for less than $50, most places will do it for you; some don't even charge to do it. The last PC I bought locally charged the same either way so I let them assemble it).

Testing? Do you think Dells are tested less than Apples? What about the yellow-screen LED problems on the laptops? What about the keyboards that won't type properly or that were missing the first letter of the first word typed (that bug took over 2 years to get a 'fix'). Paleeze. Apple's products are hardly bug or problem-free.

You're comparing connecting up a motherboard and plugging in a few cards to building a house??? And you expect me to take your comments as anything more than ludicrous nonsense? You're talking to someone that owns a PC and a Mac and AppleTV and an iPod Touch and knows how to run and administrate Linux (which I also have installed on the PC) and has two degrees in electronic engineering. You're not going get any BS past me.

So don't. Select what you want and let Dell or any other number of hardware vendors both on the Net and/or locally do it for you. What's the big deal? If you don't want to do that much work (i.e. pick out what YOU *want* in a computer), you can still go to somewhere like Best Buy and pick a price range and/or marquee that suits you and have a fully functional system in your hands as you walk out the door. You can also buy a Mac at Best Buy these days. What's the difference other than with the PC you tend to actually have a CHOICE what hardware you get whereas with Apple's offerings you're more or less stuck with what Steve wants to sell you at a given price point and too bad if the graphics suck on that model. Go buy the $2400+ Mac Pro or the $2200 24" iMac if you want to play games. The problem is that they're competing with $700-1200 systems in the PC world (i.e. you're pay 2x as much to play the SAME game using the SAME graphics card, etc.). And YET, the fanboys will still CLAIM that the current Macs are comparable to the same PCs at the same price range. The problem is that a Mac Pro is touted by Apple as their best game machine, yet it's NOT the kind of hardware a normal PC user would consider gaming hardware. It's complete and total OVERKILL and yet there is *NO* offering from Apple that CAN game that is NOT overkill. You either pay $2200 for a 'custom' 24" iMac or you pay $2400+ for a MacPro. Actually, that MacPro with the same gaming card will be a couple hundred more so more like $2600.

I'll buy that argument IF you'll explain then why the same components in a $800 PC are only found in a $2600 MacPro. That's a bit more than a "couple hundred dollars".

For me, I'd have the computer assembled in less than an hour. It's not rocket science. It's snap'n'screw.

So you're saying you don't have to "shop" for a Mac? You just order the first one you happen to click on at the Apple store online or take the first one they hand you at a physical Apple store or Best Buy????

Driver issues, etc. are venturing into software. I maintain you can run OSX on cloneware PC. See Psycorp. They'll sell you a 2 choice pre-assembled OSX option that can also run Windows and Linux for under $1000 that gaming-wise will run circles around everything but the $2000+ Apple models.

You're making an awful lot out of one little comment that I built MY PC last November. Nowhere did I say you had to build your own. The computer show I went to last year in Allentown PA next to the pinball show I was attending had numerous vendors that begging me to let them build any kind of machine I could want. You CAN still get what you want and NOT have to build it yourself you know. Or maybe you don't know that?

So I'm wrong because YOU think so? I used my last PC for 7 years, upgrading its processor once and its graphics card twice. I had to reinstall Windows98 *ONE* time in 7 years (and not when I upgraded the CPU or graphics cards). I had exactly ZERO viruses during that time too (and no I didn't leave a virus checker running 24/7 and yes it was on the Internet). You see HOW and WHOM uses a PC also factors into the experience. Any moron can get viruses and screw their system up. If you have a little bit of computer knowledge that doesn't have to happen.

The real point here is that the major applications that need ever faster speeds and graphics cards are GAMES. Your argument boils down to the fact that the Mac has very few games of its own that you don't NEED a new computer every few years. Yet if you don't play games on a PC, you don't NEED one every couple of years either (barring video work, etc. in which case you'd probably want a new Mac every couple of years too and invalidates your entire argument).

The CURRENT situation with Macs is that they use the SAME HARDWARE (save EFI versus BIOS) as generic PCs out there. Thus, your argument completely falls flat on its face no matter HOW you look at it. In fact, the Mac that isn't a MacPro isn't upgradeable in terms of graphics cards, etc., so it will need replaced *MORE* often than a PC for the same use.

Honestly, you don't seem to know what you're talking about when it comes to computer hardware (typical of fanboy types in my experience) and so I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your total lack of actual argument points.

Oh, I don't know. I bought a cheap used PowerMac G4 for a song and upgraded its CPU to 1.8GHz, added a Sata card and installed dual 500GB Sata drives, replaced the CDR with a modern DVD-R and added a USB 2.0 card, set up 1.5GB of ram and updated the Operating system, all for less than the cheapest iMac and while it doesn't contain the CPU power of said iMac (and was far less than half what a MacPro costs), it DOES achieve its desired function as a media center server without the freaking MESS of an iMac + *external* typically slower, more expensive hard drives. In fact, my hard drive speed tests faster than a default MacPro. It's connected via Gigabit to my router which then streams its contents all over my house to multiple AppleTV and Airport Express units. Why upgrade? I don't NEED a MacPro at $2400+ to do what I need this to do. I don't want a desk full of external components lying around, etc. Guess what? Not everyone's needs match YOUR needs.

"NO ONE", eh? ROTFLMAO. I wonder why Best Buy sells components to upgrade computers at a retail store where space is a premium if NO ONE is really interested in doing anything with their computer. I find it funny you think they're willing to install ram, yet think installing something like a video card is "more complicated" when it's pretty much the same thing. Plug it in and maybe latch or turn a screw. Big deal. If they dont' want to install anything (computers are scary!), fine. But don't pretend they're scared YET are willing to install ram dimms.

Some games will never work right on a console platform. And please don't speak for ALL Mac users ever again as it makes you look bad (some Mac users do use BootCamp for little more than gaming). Thanks so much.

You really have no idea of what you are talking about do you. If you knew anything about the Macintosh life cycle and pricing, you'd know that when Apple first releases a product, there is a lot of price parity. However, unlike a PC maker, they do not refresh every month and fire sale the old inventory. So depending on where in the product cycle you bought, yes, it could be overpriced.

Apparently, from what I can tell in that rant was that you want good gpu options. The only reason to want those are for gaming. If so, why are you even interested in Macs? Why are you even in this forum, other than to flame? And seriously, you are blaming Apple for aftermarket GPU cards? How is that Apple's problem? Since when did Dell or HP start selling replacement GPUs at Best Buy? Blame 3rd party manufacturers. And nvidia and ati for not making drivers.

And you think all testing and hardware is the same. Then why does everyone invariably say that Dell enterprise computers have superior reliability to consumer Dells? They use the same hardware, according to you. Could it be that they spend more time sorting things out, partly because they have higher margins and can afford to do it? Oh, right, that would be testing... never would happen. Could it be that they use higher quality components? Oh right, you can buy the exact same stuff at Best Buy for half the price...

And again you go on and on about things like computer shows, how you upgraded your ancient mac, custom pcs and such. Yeah, EVERYONE goes to computer shows and buys their pc's there. Whatever.

So Best Buy sells components. Have you seen how much shelf space they allocate to that stuff? They stock a handful of GPUs, some hard drives(usually externals), and ram. Maybe an i/o card or two. They allocate more space to mice and keyboards.

It's quite obvious that you are a geek hobbyist. Which is fine. What you don't realize is that YOUR needs represent a minuscule segment of computing. And fyi, I design networks for a living, and have been working with computers for over 20 years. So, yeah, I don't know jack about hardware. Consumer level cheapass hardware, that is. I couldn't even tell you which home router to get, though I could hook you up with some big Cisco iron. At one point though, I did know about that stuff, but now have something called a job. Which pays me to get things done, not tinker with upgrading gpu so I can play Crysis. And which also pays me enough to not have to bother with that stuff. And takes up enough of my time that I have no desire to waste it on that.

Now of course, if you enjoy that stuff, as a hobby, knock yourself out. Its especially understandable considering you claim you are an EE. But don't pretend that it is anything other than that. Or that everyone should or even want to build their own pc to save a few bucks. I know plenty of EE that enjoy working on circuit boards. Guess what, most people don't.

And if you don't get the house analogy, I'm sorry. But I suppose I can try to explain it in SIMPLE terms. The point is, you can do anything cheaper by doing it yourself. And the point is, for a LOT of people, it isn't worth it. Maybe you have a lot of free time on your hands. If so, you definitely wouldn't get the "time is money" part.

You want another analogy? I could clean my house myself and save money. But I have a housekeeper.

Or how about this? I could take care of my landscaping, but I pay a gardener.

Or how about this? I could change the oil in my car myself and save some money, but why bother?

Or how about this one? I could stock up at the supermarket and make every meal from scratch and save a lot of money, but I usually either don't have the time or don't want to spend the time on it. Which is actually a bummer since I enjoy cooking.

So you can assemble a pc in 1 hour. So how long till it actually is up and running applications? Try 2 hours. And like I said, I hope it all works perfectly the first time, with no conflicts or driver issues.

And finally, regarding gaming, pc gaming is dying. Yes there are some great PC-only games available, mostly in the mmo genre. If that's your thing, then you are fully justified in your rant. Then again, why would you want a mac for gaming? And again, pc gaming is dying. If you want a roadmap of what is going to happen, just look at Mac gaming. In 3 years or less, it will all be delayed ports, if it isn't already.

And finally, I really have to LOL at you thinking I'm some sort of fanboy. I regularly criticize Apple and their products. And I really would never consider buying an iMac, so I really have to LOL at your implications. Actually I wouldn't mind a real headless iMac. In fact, if you search my old posts, there are many where I ask for just this thing. Thing is, I have, like the majority of Americans, moved away from desktops. In case you haven't noticed, more people buy laptops. As in over 50% of sales are laptops. Besides, I don't really pay a lot of attention to consumer level products like the iMac or Macbook, so ultimately I don't really care about those products or their value proposition.

But hey, keep on keepin' on. You already mentioned gaming and building your own pc for less. Feel free to start talking about the lack of right-click mousing on Macs to complete the triumvirate of fanboyism.

[G58]

And why are they still regarded as design classics by those with taste?

Old PCs don't just look old. They look ugly. But they looked ugly when they were new. And guess what? The new ones still look ugly - with their multiple surfaces and jarring shapes.

In PC boxes, I see the least competent examples of design anywhere on the planet. a small child with a wax crayon could do better. There's a trend in good design towards clean, simple, pleasing concepts. So what do the PC makers do? They create 17" laptops with black plastic Darth Vader masks melted onto the back of the screen and use that as its selling point!!:eek:

And this is a high end computer! The others are experimenting with clip-on plastic colour options in the hope that what turns on nine year old girls when buying a cell phone, will work with laptops. It's utterly laughable - pathetic.

Go to a design museum and spend some time studying what Design means. Then ask yourself if PC boxes even qualify as products of that term.


Scary, that idea is...


http://www.governmentauctions.org/uploaded_images/imacs-700084.jpg http://www.visuallee.com/weblog/images/new_imacs.jpg



Why is it that a 10 year old PC looks old, but a 10 year old Apple looks ridiculous?


Design? Or confusing style for design?

[Eidorian]

And why are they still regarded as design classics by those with taste?

Old PCs don't just look old. They look ugly. But they looked ugly when they were new. And guess what? The new ones still look ugly - with their multiple surfaces and jarring shapes.

In PC boxes, I see the least competent examples of design anywhere on the planet. a small child with a wax crayon could do better. There's a trend in good design towards clean, simple, pleasing concepts. So what do the PC makers do? They create 17" laptops with black plastic Darth Vader masks melted onto the back of the screen and use that as its selling point!!:eek:

And this is a high end computer! The others are experimenting with clip-on plastic colour options in the hope that what turns on nine year old girls when buying a cell phone, will work with laptops. It's utterly laughable - pathetic.

Go to a design museum and spend some time studying what Design means. Then ask yourself if PC boxes even qualify as products of that term.What does the exterior case design have to do with the internal hardware? :confused:

Is it going to make it a faster computer? Vroom?

[G58]

Someone is bound to dispute this, but there are about 30 or 31 Mac 'viruses' out there. None of them seems to be capable of doing anything to your Mac. There are many potentially exploitable opportunities for hackers, but apparently none that we actually need to worry about at the moment.

If you frequent some porn sites, apparently it's believed that there is something nasty you can catch disguised as something else. But that's porn for you. 'Twas ever thus. Stay away and you're not going to catch it.

There are about 440,000 pieces of malware in the wild designed to attack Windows. How many are still effective is academic. Just do the math. Anyone who uses the market share argument to explain the difference between the two, doesn't understand why people create viruses, why operating systems are vulnerable or how to count. There would be more than 40'000 mac viruses if they were right.

Using a PC on the net is like shagging your way though a red light district wearing three condoms. Sorry if this offends anyone, but it's true. You can use all the protection you like and install all the anti virus software on the planet, but sooner or later you're going to get the equivalent of herpes, or AIDS!


I heard that there are absolutely NNNOOO viruses that are made for the Mac. Is this really true. Or is this just what people think because Macs are used by very few people. (which shouldn't be).:confused:

[G58]

In terms of the subject of this thread? It makes people want to buy an Apple computer.

But in my many years experience, I've discovered that companies with good design as an ethos, tend to pay the same attention to what goes in the box as they do to what it looks like. And the reverse is the case with those who don't.

Interestingly, the same applies to logos. I used to earn my living designing corporate images, so I appreciate a really good one. The ones I really wish I could have designed are: Velocette (British motorcycle company formed in 1905) Apple and Google.

And guess what? I love the products from all these companies too. They built trust in what was inside with the name on the box. Each is also the most respected in their game.

So, you'd have to be a very wealthy, but totally stupid snake oil salesman to spend a fortune on a box that didn't contain a better whatever, because the rule are:

1. You always get caught out

2. And they never come back.

11 years of steady growth for Apple prove they've got both right. Does that answer your question?


What does the exterior case design have to do with the internal hardware? :confused:

Is it going to make it a faster computer? Vroom?

[Eidorian]

In terms of the subject of this thread? It makes people want to buy an Apple computer.

But in my many years experience, I've discovered that companies with good design as an ethos, tend to pay the same attention to what goes in the box as they do to what it looks like. And the reverse is the case with those who don't.

Interestingly, the same applies to logos. I used to earn my living designing corporate images, so I appreciate a really good one. The ones I really wish I could have designed are: Velocette (British motorcycle company formed in 1905) Apple and Google.

And guess what? I love the products from all these companies too. They built trust in what was inside with the name on the box. Each is also the most respected in their game.

So, you'd have to be a very wealthy, but totally stupid snake oil salesman to spend a fortune on a box that didn't contain a better whatever, because the rule are:

1. You always get caught out

2. And they never come back.

11 years of steady growth for Apple prove they've got both right. Does that answer your question?I'm sorry that you had to run into a Mac user that isn't an artist or graphic designer. Maybe I can't appreciate such things like you can?

I'm more fond of cheap and efficient hardware in general. I'm willing to settle for my Macbook's limitations since it was the cheapest portable Mac that Apple does offer. I'm not the first or last utilitarian Mac user.

[G58]

You haven't got that quite right. You don't fit 3GB of RAM to an iMac and that isn't what Apple are offering. There are only two memory slots btw.

On the 20" iMac the prices are:

2GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB [Add $100] which as you say is actually $100 for 1GB, since the first GB was already fitted, and Crucial's price for the one extra module is $28.

4GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x2GB [Add $300] which is actually two x 2GB modules at $300. Crucial's price for the same modules is $109.99

My quote was based on the 24" 2.8GHz iMac which comes with 2GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB, and adding 4GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM - 2x2GB is only an extra $200! Compared with Crucial's price, this one is still more, but I think we negotiated a deal!;)


For the low end iMac Apple charges $300 for 3 GB Ram $100 for 1 GB
Crucial - $28 a GB

For power mac, Apple charges $1500 for 4 x 2GB
crucial charges $460 and you get to keep the base memory.

its worth $1000 to get it from apple?

to get 4GB total (more realistic) apple charges $500
crucial will sell you an extra 2GB for $180

[DMann]

In terms of the subject of this thread? It makes people want to buy an Apple computer.

But in my many years experience, I've discovered that companies with good design as an ethos, tend to pay the same attention to what goes in the box as they do to what it looks like. And the reverse is the case with those who don't.

Interestingly, the same applies to logos. I used to earn my living designing corporate images, so I appreciate a really good one. The ones I really wish I could have designed are: Velocette (British motorcycle company formed in 1905) Apple and Google.

And guess what? I love the products from all these companies too. They built trust in what was inside with the name on the box. Each is also the most respected in their game.

So, you'd have to be a very wealthy, but totally stupid snake oil salesman to spend a fortune on a box that didn't contain a better whatever, because the rule are:

1. You always get caught out

2. And they never come back.

11 years of steady growth for Apple prove they've got both right. Does that answer your question?

Beautifully stated. It does not matter whether or not the meticulous attention to form and detail is appreciated or not - it is that it is congruous with the attention and detail applied to the inner workings, their compatibilities, and how they interact and respond within an environment called an Operating System, which reflects those same high standards. I'll leave the Quick and Dirty Operating System to those who would rather live life vigilantly.

[G58]

You don't need to be a graphic designer. You bought a MacBook which is a gorgeous computer. You could have bought a more powerful Lenovo for the same money. You didn't! Only you know why. But my guess is that your brain gave you happy signals when you saw the Mac.

Now you talk about what computer you have. I never met anyone who was happy to talk about their L e n o v o !! It sounds like B o n o b o!!:eek:

And here we have another image disaster. IBM [Not a bad logo] sold their laptop business just as the world was going out and buying laptops! Go figga! They gave away a profitable business and a top brand [Thinkpad]! I tell you, these people should get their asses kicked by their shareholders for these mistakes.


I'm sorry that you had to run into a Mac user that isn't an artist or graphic designer. Maybe I can't appreciate such things like you can?

I'm more fond of cheap and efficient hardware in general. I'm willing to settle for my Macbook's limitations since it was the cheapest portable Mac that Apple does offer. I'm not the first or last utilitarian Mac user.

[Eidorian]

Beautifully stated. It does not matter whether or not the meticulous attention to form and detail is appreciated or not - it is that it is congruous with the attention and detail applied to the inner workings, their compatibilities, and how they interact and respond within an environment called an Operating System, which reflects those same high standards. I'll leave the Quick and Dirty Operating System to those who would rather live life vigilantly.I hate to tell you this but I think this applies to operating systems that aren't OS X as well. ;)

You don't need to be a graphic designer. You bought a MacBook which is a gorgeous computer. You could have bought a more powerful Lenovo for the same money. You didn't! Only you know why. But my guess is that your brain gave you happy signals when you saw the Mac.I bought a Mac to run my OS X software. What's with the rest of your post? The Macbook looks just like every other laptop on the market. What's special about it besides it meets the requirements to run OS X within the binds of the EULA? It's x86/x64 processors and OEM components in a plastic shell wired together to run an operating system. It's a tool.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Why did you choose to spend $300 to upgrade the processor? What was the original speed? For a media server is processor speed that important?

It was originally a dual 553MHz Digital Audio. I use it for more than just a media server. I use it for web surfing, email, banking, word processing, etc. (i.e. for things like banking, I feel safer with MacOSX than Windows due to the extreme amount of spyware, viruses, etc. on that platform). Surfing was "ok" with Safari at the time (I expect Firefox3 would have been ok then too, but I didn't try that until later; Firefox2 was terrible). At 1.8GHz (7448 G4), surfing is plenty fast (Firefox3 is at least as fast as Firefox 2 is on the 2.8GHz PC). As for buying a G5, I had already had the PowerMac, didn't think I'd get much of anything to sell it and a G5 is still a dead end in that kind of thinking anyway.


On a slightly different topic -is it possible to use a NAS as a media server?
It seems they would cost less to run.

It is possible, but I think you'd need to run something like SqueezeCenter (formerly known as Slimserver). I have tried SqueezeCenter out (it's installed on both my Mac and PC) and ran a simulated version of a Squeezebox on both (and even one networking off the other) to get an idea of how it would respond speed wise and if I liked the interface, etc. It was SLOW, even on the 2.8GHz AMD dual-core. I mean slow as in it took a long time bring up searches, activate the songs, etc., through the internet interface and it was fairly unintuitive with the old Squeezebox interface. There is the new one with the LCD screen, but I've heard of problems (it's pretty new) with dropping connections, etc. It looked somewhat slow in the demo videos I saw too and its speed apparently is entirely dependent on the SqueezeCenter serving it (i.e. a NAS device would be MUCH slower than a high-end PC, for example).

I ended up going with iTunes serving two AppleTV units (Airtunes) and I also have a 802.11N Airport Express unit. The whole system is 802.11N (not G). The AppleTV I have downstairs is connected to my home theater running 6.1 sound and a 720P LCD projector onto a 93" screen, so I stream my photo collection to it (I used to be into amateur high-end photography in the '90s so the 93" high-def display looks really nice to show photos while music plays, etc. plus I can rent HD movies from AppleTV).

The upstairs unit is connected to my high-end stereo (6 foot ribbon speakers). I use an iPod Touch running both Remote Buddy and Signal software on the Mac to control iTunes with via the iPod Touch. In the future, I will add a flatscreen TV above my piano in that room as well, but for now it's audio only. At the moment, I use the Airport Express to run a 2nd 802.11N network which I let drop to G compatibility so the iPod Touch can connect without causing my N network (running off a Netgear router which gives me faster performance than the Apple one when talking to the AppleTV units). It might get moved to a 3rd room in the future once I get that room finished (I have an older B/G Netgear router I can use instead at that point if needed).

Overall, the iPod Touch interface is just plain AWESOME for controlling my iTunes collection (over 370 CDs dumped into Apple Lossless). I can't imagine even the new Squeezebox interface coming even close to a touchscreen one and both Remote Buddy and Signal have been improving in functionality and speed lately. Once there's a native app for the iPod Touch and iPhone, I would imagine it will run lightning fast just like the iPod Touch runs for its own stored music (i.e. it can buffer the entire collection easily then). iTunes runs much faster scrolling, searching, etc. with the 1.8GHz 7448 G4 than the dual 553MHz G4. Its interface actually feels comparable to the Windows version of iTunes on the AMD PC. I've got a backup on that computer as well and Signal also runs on the PC so I can run music off it if I need to use the Mac for something else or if there were a problem, etc.

Aesthetically (since so many Mac users on here seem to care so much about cases), I think the Powermac G4 Digital Audio LOOKS better than a G5 or even a new MacPro (that cheese grater look does nothing for me visually). If I get a MacPro at some point in the future, it'll be replacing the Windows box in my den, not the Powermac (as it'll be able to run MacOSX AND Windows) and I'd then move the PC to my future game room where I plan to install it in a gaming cabinet and use it to power a MAME arcade emulated system.

[DMann]

Yes, $1200+ Macs have nicer cases and use better materials than $600 Windows PCs. When you buy more expensive Windows PCs, you also get nicer cases and materials.

So then, the whole price/value debate can be settled now - you get what you pay for, and Apple chooses not to make cheap and flimsy machines. Too bad others would prefer to price compare the cheaper the low grade stuff to Macs and state that Apple is gouging its customers by overcharging for higher quality.

Depends on what you're doing. If you're doing very hardware-intensive activities, the CPU, GPU, RAM, etc are extremely important, and, depending on your budget, Macs may not be a realistic option.

Without question, I would never, ever attempt to edit or render HD films, mix and produce music with ProTools, edit high-end graphics, orchestrate musical scores, or create animations on a PC running XP or Vista. Productivity would be too highly compromised.

Additionally, Macs don't make a lot of sense for some activities, mainly gaming. If you're playing games, you're running Windows anyway.

As PC games are gradually phased out, gaming will no longer be an issue.

FWIW, my 7 month old Vista desktop has never crashed.

It all depends on which apps you choose, or not choose, to run, and how many processor intensive you need running at one time.

I'm not pro-Windows or pro-Mac, I like both and both have their place, even in the high-end retail market. When I bought my Dell desktop, I mainly bought it for gaming. At the time, the 8800GT/X was not offered on the Mac Pro, so I never considered it. If I'd been buying it for another purpose, I may have ended up with a Mac. I just think that saying Macs are objectively better or that Windows PCs are objectively better is wrong. As far as quality, design, integrity of parts, integration among apps, and depth and resilience of OS X, I do believe that Macs have an edge here.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

No, what is tiresome is hearing the "fanboy" cliche trotted out every time someone admits to appreciating something Apple is doing. Get a new word. Get a new argument.

What else would YOU call someone who simply thinks Apple rules the world without any particular logic, reason or thought put behind those statements? Some of us know there is more to the world than one's iMac and we appreciate those systems in addition to Macs. I get tired of hearing so-called 'arguments' that boil down to "Macs Rule! PCs suck!"

I appreciate MacOSX, Linux and even WindowsXP for what they are and the software they can run. I think MacOSX is best overall, but it doesn't cover everything and not all software is available for it. The new Intel machines offer a cool advantage (i.e. being able to run Windows through BootCamp and/or using something like Fusion), but the graphics hardware STILL gets in the way on all but the top of the line $2200+ Macs.

For one thing, gaming is weak on the Mac and always will be if Apple doesn't offer hardware CAPABLE of playing games to the masses. No market for games = no games for Mac. It's that simple. Some may not care about games, but some of us do. I'm not a hard-core gamer, BTW. I simply want to be able to play today's games once in awhile and given BootCamp, etc., I don't think I should HAVE to buy a 2nd computer just because Steve decided to only put something like Intel GMA motherboard graphics on their lower priced gear and laptop graphics cards on their mid-priced gear, neither of which even comes close to an DirectX9 only $120 7900GS. Apple should have something in the $1200 and under range that can at least handle TODAY's games. Given even something like a 7900GS is more than capable at playing such games and is pretty darn cheap, why is it they have cards that just plain SUCK in their iMacs? And the Intel GMA thing might float on a low-end laptop, but the MacMini should have something better OR they should have a mid-range ($800-1200) Mac that may have a lesser CPU but a "GOOD" graphics card. There are many graphics cards out there. It doesn't have to be top of the line to not be total crap.

[DMann]

I hate to tell you this but I think this applies to operating systems that aren't OS X as well. ;)

Linux Ubuntu? Not quite there yet. Amiga OS was tight for the time period it survived. Solaris? Still waiting........ UNIX? potentially yes. My point is that Windows couldn't possibly be streamlined designed to work seamlessly on any one particular machine the way that OS X can because the permutations of computer systems MS must cater to are too vast.

[SodiumBenzoate]

It all depends on which apps you choose, or not choose, to run, and how many processor intensive you need running at one time.

Sure, and it also depends on how informed the user is.. Macs tend to be more "idiot-proof" than a Windows PC, as there aren't the same malware, virus, etc issues. However, an informed Windows user can easily avoid viruses and quickly dispose of spyware when it's encountered. That's clearly a strength of Mac OS, but I also don't think it's nearly as big of an issue on Windows as it's sometimes made out to be. If you're smart about things, problems are, generally, easy to avoid.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

You really have no idea of what you are talking about do you.


All I can say about your pathetic rant is that your screenname REALLY does fit you, IMO. You clearly don't know anything about why someone would want to run Parallels or Fusion with a Mac and yet might still want to play a game or run ray-tracers or other 3D software on their Mac, even if through BootCamp or Fusion. You clearly think people only use Macs for something like iLife, I suppose and seem to think there is no other software out there. You're telling me all Mac users are social computer users and have NO need for GPUs, etc. You don't address any of my points at all, but rant on about disconnected tidbits. Nothing else in your message even bears a reply. You are clearly a 'fanboy' and have no knowledge of computer hardware or the current disconnect in hardware pricing. You don't even seem to realize that Macintosh 'history' has little bearing on Apple's new Intel policy of upgrading vastly more often as a result of not having remotely unique hardware anymore. In the past, you could not upgrade what did not yet exist due to low market volumes for such things as PowerPC processors.

Some of us care more about MacOSX than cutesy cases. Some of us don't care about the "old" Macs because before MacOSX, the MacOS wasn't very good. It was slow, buggy, bloated and had no hooks for power users whereas MacOSX is based on BSD Unix and is vastly more stable, powerful and capable than its predecessor.

If Apple itself could get beyond its own backward thinking, it would realize the time is ripe to take on Microsoft directly (given Vista is an abject failure and a bloated piece of crap) and stop producing product lines to milk a small user base when it SHOULD be trying hard to recruit a new larger user base of PC switchers. And guess what? PC users are used to having hardware choices and good GPUs. So while YOU may not give a crap about gaming or 3D, you do no represent the larger computing market. And THAT market is a gold mine for Apple. YOU are the past. General computing is the future. It's time Apple's product line reflected THAT market, not just the old way of thinking.

[DMann]

Firefox, Word, Picasa and gmail.
I suspected so. If you play it safe, (stick with MS for apps on XP) you should be fine, for a while.

And? OSX Tiger has double that of XP according to this:

That's correct. However, since most of the 86+ million lines of code are open source, Apple does not have to maintain and/or rewrite all of it.
Apple would never attempt to do all that maintenance in house - this would be insane.

But one they accomplish quite well considering it'll run on everything - including Apple machines. For this very reason: run, and stumble when running a large variety of processor intensive apps simultaneously. One misstep by either the OS, app, or processor, and the whole system comes crashing down.

I'm goign to skip the rest because your argument is essentially flawed - firstly you didn't know that XP and Vista are NT based, not DOS based. Secondly OSX actually has a a higher SLOC count that either of them. Firstly, NT based or not, MS cannot handle the 35 million lines of code in XP, nor the 60 lines of code in Vista with support for multiple platforms by themselves - way too big to do in house. Secondly, the 86+ million lines of code in Leopard are for the most part maintained by open source developers, so this is not such a daunting task for Apple.

I don't mind people criticising OSs but I do expect them to know why their criticising them. I find it hard to trust a company who's original OS was named Quick and Dirty Operating System. UNIX has been rock solid for over 37 years. During Longhorn's development in 2003-04, the entire thing was scrapped and started over, re-building upon the Windows Server 2003 codebase. Now, MS claims they'll be rewriting the entire OS for Win7 - not at all worthy of confidence. Since S. Ballmer makes it very clear that priorities are to be focused on competing with Google, Advertising, and indulging in other distractions related to Web apps and the mobile phone and MP3 arenas, I feel OS development will sooner than later be phased out by Microsoft.

Let's split the difference at 2011 then? :D With S. Ballmer in charge? I don't believe so.

UAC can be disabled and, even if it's not, quickly settles down once you've used the program. It's not that much of an issue. Viral vigilance is no longer necessary nor desirable in the 21st Century - I'll stay with OS X.

Well, fine. That's why OSX isn't really a lot of use to me just now though. Well fine, if you choose to run mostly MS apps, you ought to be ok, just watch your a**

[G58]

You may well be genetically predisposed to AAD [Aesthetic Appreciation Denial]. It's really your only excuse for making a comment like that and expecting ANYONE to believe you or take your comment seriously.

Apple computers don't look like any other computers. One only has to be shown a small area of any Mac to identify it as a Mac and not a PC.

Next you'll be telling us that daisies are just like roses!


I hate to tell you this but I think this applies to operating systems that aren't OS X as well. ;)

I bought a Mac to run my OS X software. What's with the rest of your post? The Macbook looks just like every other laptop on the market. What's special about it besides it meets the requirements to run OS X within the binds of the EULA? It's x86/x64 processors and OEM components in a plastic shell wired together to run an operating system. It's a tool.

[G58]

Another word on malware:

Think of your choice of operating system as you do your own health. You can guard against illness by eating healthily, and most of us do. You can guard against malware by choosing the best OS.

But if you had to take drugs every day, and renew your treatment on a monthly basis - without any guarantee that the new treatment will protect you from new variants of some 440,000 illnesses, you might be a bit upset.

Well, that's what running a PC is like. Sure, you may be used to it. People with long term illness get used to similar routines. But if you're actually healthy, and you have the choice to stay that way, why would you opt for the other way?

[SodiumBenzoate]

It's not nearly that bothersome, though. It's mostly automatic. My virus scan is set to scan every other day at 4am, and it updates automatically. That's about the extent of my anti-malware activities, and I've never had a virus in over a decade of using the internet.

[Roba]

Laptops that sell for <£600 are budget notebooks and notebooks that retail for £700-£900 are mid range notebooks and there are many competitors that compete in this market. Probably high end in the US starts at around $1,600 plus.
Samsung, Sony, Dell, Acer and Toshiba all compete in the mid range market. I find those results in the US a bit hard to believe. There is no way that the Sony CR model is a high end notebook and this competes with the MB.
The Toshiba U405 can also be bought for $1,149 and this also mid range notebook. I think that they need to look again at what they define as being high end.

The MBP/MBA is a high end computer but Sony, Dell and other companies also compete in this market as well. More PC high end notebooks are also sold to big companies. The Sony SZ and TZ are examples of high end PC notebooks. Dell also have some with the more expensive M1330 models and the Precision range of notebooks. The Panasonic Toughbooks are also high end notebooks. Lenovo and Asus also sell high end notebooks.

[Eidorian]

Linux Ubuntu? Not quite there yet. Amiga OS was tight for the time period it survived. Solaris? Still waiting........ UNIX? potentially yes. My point is that Windows couldn't possibly be streamlined designed to work seamlessly on any one particular machine the way that OS X can because the permutations of computer systems MS must cater to are too vast.You make it sound like no other operating system can interact with its hardware in the most efficient manner besides OS X.

You may well be genetically predisposed to AAD [Aesthetic Appreciation Denial]. It's really your only excuse for making a comment like that and expecting ANYONE to believe you or take your comment seriously.

Apple computers don't look like any other computers. One only has to be shown a small area of any Mac to identify it as a Mac and not a PC.

Next you'll be telling us that daisies are just like roses!They're both flowers.

The MacBook's design can trace itself back to the PowerBook 100 just like every laptop. There aren't many changes (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=481732) that you can make with the layout of a keyboard, trackpad, and display. Are you trying to tell me that Apple has done something special to make the Macbook something more then just a laptop? What is it then?

[squeeks]

Are you trying to tell me that Apple has done something special to make the Macbook something more then just a laptop? What is it then?

its definitely not the inclusion of a media card reader:D

could it be that it has a built in webcam? ...wait, every other brand can come with a built in web cam too... it is made of that revolutionary material called plastic, but i think everyone else is onboard with that one too, LED screen? nope...Multitouch! wait...thats not available on macbooks either

yeah i cant think of a single thing save the EFI to run OSX that sets it apart and makes it special

[BongoBanger]

I suspected so. If you play it safe, (stick with MS for apps on XP) you should be fine, for a while.

Which is rather the point and why most users never have any problems with Windows.

That's correct. However, since most of the 86+ million lines of code are open source, Apple does not have to maintain and/or rewrite all of it.
Apple would never attempt to do all that maintenance in house - this would be insane.

Hang on. Are you saying that Apple let random programmers design OSX variants? Because I don't think that's right. The fact remains that it's substantially bigger than its Windows equivalents.

For this very reason: run, and stumble when running a large variety of processor intensive apps simultaneously. One misstep by either the OS, app, or processor, and the whole system comes crashing down.

This applies to any OS.

Firstly, NT based or not, MS cannot handle the 35 million lines of code in XP, nor the 60 lines of code in Vista with support for multiple platforms by themselves - way too big to do in house.

Well obviously they can since they appear on the overwhelming majority of computers.

Secondly, the 86+ million lines of code in Leopard are for the most part maintained by open source developers, so this is not such a daunting task for Apple.

Not strictly true. Apple have their own framework which they do maintain.

I find it hard to trust a company who's original OS was named Quick and Dirty Operating System.

Good for you. Since, as I pointed out, Windows hasn't used DOS layering since 2001 it's hardly relevant though.

UNIX has been rock solid for over 37 years.

True, but OSX isn't Unix.

During Longhorn's development in 2003-04, the entire thing was scrapped and started over, re-building upon the Windows Server 2003 codebase. Now, MS claims they'll be rewriting the entire OS for Win7 - not at all worthy of confidence.

Perhaps. Time will tell although they did make a good job of XP (eventually) after the horror that was Me.

Since S. Ballmer makes it very clear that priorities are to be focused on competing with Google, Advertising, and indulging in other distractions related to Web apps and the mobile phone and MP3 arenas, I feel OS development will sooner than later be phased out by Microsoft.

Priorities are there because MS already overwhelmingly dominates the OS market. Other revenue streams are being exhausted because there's no room to expand in this one.

With S. Ballmer in charge? I don't believe so.

Maybe but see above.

Viral vigilance is no longer necessary nor desirable in the 21st Century - I'll stay with OS X.

Actually it is. OSX is more secure than Windows because of its build. That doesn't make it immune.

Well fine, if you choose to run mostly MS apps, you ought to be ok, just watch your a**

I will as I suspect the other 95% of all computer users who use Windows and MS apps will.

[AidenShaw]

Good for you. Since, as I pointed out, Windows hasn't used DOS layering since 2001 it's hardly relevant though.

If you count from the first public beta, Windows NT was ten years old in 2001, when XP released. The business version of Windows was pure 32-bit for 10 years before the consumer version jumped. (In fact, Windows 64-bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_2000) was already out around the time when XP shipped.)

Today, of course, there's no more DOS in Windows than there is OS7 in OSX.


For this very reason: run, and stumble when running a large variety of processor intensive apps simultaneously. One misstep by either the OS, app, or processor, and the whole system comes crashing down.

Actually, a modern OS will not do that - if a "misstep" occurs, the damage will be limited to the minimum impact possible.

In particular, an application error should *never* take the system down - *never*. The OS will first ask the application "why did you do this" (see exception handling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_handling)) and give the app a chance to fix the mistake. If the app doesn't, the app is killed - not the system.

Even if the OS code makes a mistake, damage control will be employed. If the mistake is within the user's logged in session, then the OS can kill the session. The system stays running, but you need to log back in.

Only if a serious mistake occurs in the kernel (or corruption of kernel data) does "the whole system come crashing down".

Similarly for hardware errors. A disk error doesn't crash the system, unless the disk IO was done by the kernel. Memory and CPU errors are usually very serious, because almost by definition it means that you can't trust what the CPU or memory are doing.

On a primitive OS such as DOS or Mac OS, the lack of memory protection means that an application mistake can easily corrupt kernel memory and crash the system or other applications. That's one of the main reasons that we no longer use those systems. ;)


UNIX has been rock solid for over 37 years.

LOL, this is one of the absurdly hyperbolic claims that you make that completely undermine your argument.

If you think that UNIX has been rock solid for 37 years, why don't you find a Solaris system from 15 years ago and suddenly pull out its power cord?

If the Solaris box is able to reboot, you'll be faced with hours of file system rebuilding, fixing corrupted files, restoring from backups, ....

Any appearance that UNIX is rock-solid is due to:

The simple fact that they'be been working on it for 37 years ;)
Most UNIX systems are servers that sit on the network and run a fixed set of applications - once they're installed and debugged, they'll be reliable.



During Longhorn's development in 2003-04, the entire thing was scrapped and started over, re-building upon the Windows Server 2003 codebase.

Here we go again, another absurd hyperbole.

Read about the Longhorn Reset (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Windows_Vista), and you'll realize that "the entire thing" was not scrapped.

The core kernel and services were reset to Windows Server 2003 SP1 (which, of course had 4 years of development and enhancement over the XP base underneath the old Vista work), and then the Vista features and enhancements were ported over to the new kernel.

If you've ever worked in multi-stream development, you'd realize that it's work to move code between code branches, but it's much easier than scrapping and starting over. By the way, did you know that Windows XP 64-bit Edition is also based on the Win2k3sp1 codebase? Merging branches of a development tree is not that uncommon....

If you had said that "much" was scrapped, you'd have a valid and hard to dispute argument. Saying "the entire thing" is easily shown to be wrong, and damages your position.

Anyway, this thread is degenerating into two sides that aren't going to convince each other of anything.

[IJ Reilly]

What else would YOU call someone who simply thinks Apple rules the world without any particular logic, reason or thought put behind those statements? Some of us know there is more to the world than one's iMac and we appreciate those systems in addition to Macs. I get tired of hearing so-called 'arguments' that boil down to "Macs Rule! PCs suck!"

I don't hear that kind of argument here even one tenth as much as I see the word "fanboy" trotted out in response. Not only is this the worst sort of cliche, which is to say, a thought and reasoning substitute, it's an ad hominem besides. If you don't agree with what someone is saying, refute the argument, don't attack the speaker. Using derogatory terms to characterize your opponent only serves to make your argument appear weak.

[AidenShaw]

If you don't agree with what someone is saying, refute the argument, don't attack the speaker.

Proper:
"That is a fanboi argument."


Improper:
"You are a fanboi."


:D

[IJ Reilly]

And that's a distinction without a difference. ;)

[AidenShaw]

Proper:
"That is a fanboi argument."

And that's a distinction without a difference. ;)

True. What I really mean is that one should say:

Proper:
"That is a fanboi argument, because <refute the argument>."


To me, a "fanboi argument" is one that is either blindly loyal to Apple, or is ignorant of things non-Apple.

For example:

Argument: "Apple invented multi-touch"

Counter: "That is a fanboi argument - multi-touch has been around for 25 years before the Iphone."

[IJ Reilly]

If an argument can be made without using derogatory terms, then it should be. If the argument can't be made without using derogatory terms, then it probably should not be made at all.

[bobertoq]

Apple should update the Mac mini so they can capture the sub-$1,000 market. :rolleyes:

Quad cores roll for $600 or less nowadays.What Apple needs to do is release a tower that uses flipping desktop parts. The price should range from $500ish - a lot more
I'd buy a quad core non pro mac anytime.

[AidenShaw]

If an argument can be made without using derogatory terms, then it should be. If the argument can't be made without using derogatory terms, then it probably should not be made at all.

Ideally, you're probably right.

On the other hand, there are times when people just aren't listening to each other (much of this thread, for example) and one needs to show one's frustration with the arguments.

In that case, a minor pejorative can add a little emphasis or emotion to the argument.

[AidenShaw]

The others are experimenting with clip-on plastic colour options in the hope that what turns on nine year old girls when buying a cell phone, will work with laptops. It's utterly laughable - pathetic.

http://www.macbook-case.com/image2/20070309/images/apple_m_07.jpg http://www.macbook-case.com/image2/20070309/images/apple_m_08.jpg

http://ftp.macbook-case.com/web/c_image/200803/macbook-pro-case--2d-17-inch-transparent-purple.gif http://ftp.macbook-case.com/web/c_image/200803/macbook-pro-case--2d-17-inch-transparent-red-1.gif

http://www.macbook-case.com/pd.asp?pi=54595&pn=MacBook-Pro-Case--2D-17-inch-Transparent-Red

[IJ Reilly]

Ideally, you're probably right.

On the other hand, there are times when people just aren't listening to each other (much of this thread, for example) and one needs to show one's frustration with the arguments.

In that case, a minor pejorative can add a little emphasis or emotion to the argument.

Emotion added to an argument is a good thing?

[alphaod]

Back to topic at hand...

I think the issue most people have with spending a lot of money on computers is they have no idea what they are buying; they walking to a store and it's all the crappy store management or idling salesreps. You walk into an Apple Store, everyone is happy, people want to help instead of just standing there talking to one another ignoring you; plus the place is nice and bright and it's clean. You walk in, you feel happier, you can see what you're getting ahead of time and boy you will spend money a lot faster.

[AidenShaw]

Emotion added to an argument is a good thing?

Sometimes emphatically saying that "I'm paying for this microphone" is better than being boring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHve9iQymqE

[DMann]

Actually, a modern OS will not do that - if a "misstep" occurs, the damage will be limited to the minimum impact possible. In particular, an application error should *never* take the system down - *never*. The OS will first ask the application "why did you do this"

You're right, a modern OS should never, ever do that, which furnishes no excuse for the frequent recurrences of the "blue-screen-of-death" which leaves no alternative other than to reboot. Force quitting has always been an option in OS X, and work is not lost.

If you think that UNIX has been rock solid for 37 years, why don't you find a Solaris system from 15 years ago and suddenly pull out its power cord?

Yes, UNIX has evolved for 37 years. With the development of NeXTSTEP's (OPENSTEP) BSD implementation of Unix, OS X was able to gain pre-emtive multitasking and memory protection.

Here we go again, another absurd hyperbole.

Yes. I realize that much of the error ridden code needed to be scrapped. An MS employee told me that it was more like 80%, exceeding the 60% mark reported by tech mags. They decided to use the Windows Server 2003 code, hence some features were cut. (WinFS) The only complete rewrites left in Vista are the UAC system, the DRM, and Aero interface. What was scary, he said, was how much needed to be abandoned so they could release SOMETHING.

[G58]

It works, it's desirable and there are subject threads all over the net dedicated to it. The same cannot be said for any Lenovo, Sony or Dell.

G


You make it sound like no other operating system can interact with its hardware in the most efficient manner besides OS X.

They're both flowers.

The MacBook's design can trace itself back to the PowerBook 100 just like every laptop. There aren't many changes (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=481732) that you can make with the layout of a keyboard, trackpad, and display. Are you trying to tell me that Apple has done something special to make the Macbook something more then just a laptop? What is it then?

[G58]

I remember when Sony first put a camera into one of their laptops, a friend of mine had one. It was in the lid, the logical place for a camera - but sadly it was on the the back of the lid, behind the screen, facing away from the user!

Well done Sony! Innovators? No.


its definitely not the inclusion of a media card reader:D

could it be that it has a built in webcam? ...wait, every other brand can come with a built in web cam too... it is made of that revolutionary material called plastic, but i think everyone else is onboard with that one too, LED screen? nope...Multitouch! wait...thats not available on macbooks either

yeah i cant think of a single thing save the EFI to run OSX that sets it apart and makes it special

[G58]

Available from...

a company called macbook-case.com

I rest my case!

Pun intended


http://www.macbook-case.com/image2/20070309/images/apple_m_07.jpg http://www.macbook-case.com/image2/20070309/images/apple_m_08.jpg

http://ftp.macbook-case.com/web/c_image/200803/macbook-pro-case--2d-17-inch-transparent-purple.gif http://ftp.macbook-case.com/web/c_image/200803/macbook-pro-case--2d-17-inch-transparent-red-1.gif

http://www.macbook-case.com/pd.asp?pi=54595&pn=MacBook-Pro-Case--2D-17-inch-Transparent-Red

[AidenShaw]

a company called macbook-case.com

...but the buyers are those supposedly design-conscious Apple users!


I know someone with a red one (not a 9 year old girl, but a 50-something senior s/w architect). He thinks that the MBP design is boring.

Some people like "minimalist", some don't. Some who liked it when the style was introduced over seven years ago are bored with it now.

[LCPGUY]

What does "Age" have to do with anything? Unix may be old, but so what, it is still better than anything M$ has come out with.

As far as age is concerned, how about MVS and VM on IBM mainframes. The last time I checked these operating systems still run America, and they are not new, except for being updated.

yes, UNIX may be 30+ years old, but what does M$ have to offer in an OS? Some crap based on an old version of NT?

I say, kudo's to Apple for picking the best underpinning for Mac OS/X going - UNIX!

[LCPGUY]

Sorry for the double post.

[LysaMydNyt]

For years I've watched all my nerd computer friends carry Macs, talk Mac, and look at me with those sad eyes when they realize I still owned a PC. Even when I was making good money, I couldn't seem to scrape enough together to buy a Mac.

I got broke, returned to school, and bought a used iBook from DV warehouse. This has been the best $300 investment ever. I'm still on the learning curve, but the writer that said sales people in the Mac market are nice, smiling, and answer questions, well they were right on the money. Except for the guy at the bookstore on my school campus - for a Mac rep he was a jerk. But everyone else seems to understand that students can't afford much, and the loyalty that is building is good.

When I sit at a library table with a dozen other iBook users, Wow. When I get to painlessly type papers and add in diagrams and pictures, Wow. If more people knew the value of the older Macs, I think the entry level computer buyer would try the Mac and graduate to more costly models.

[LysaMydNyt]

For years I've watched all my nerd computer friends carry Macs, talk Mac, and look at me with those sad eyes when they realize I still owned a PC. Even when I was making good money, I couldn't seem to scrape enough together to buy a Mac.

I got broke, returned to school, and bought a used iBook from DV warehouse. This has been the best $300 investment ever. I'm still on the learning curve, but the forum writer that said sales people in the Mac market are nice, smiling, and answer questions, well they were right on the money. Except for the guy at the bookstore on my school campus - for a Mac rep he was a jerk. But everyone else seems to understand that students can't afford much, and the loyalty that is building is good.

When I sit at a library table with a dozen other iBook users, Wow. When I get to painlessly type papers and add in diagrams and pictures, Wow. If more people knew the value of the older Macs, I think the entry level computer buyer would try the Mac and graduate to more costly models once they got spoiled.

[AidenShaw]

What does "Age" have to do with anything? Unix may be old, but so what,...

...what does M$ have to offer in an OS? Some crap based on an old version of NT?

So, it's good that Apple is using an "old" system like UNIX, but bad that Windows is based on the 16 year old NT kernel? Does "old" mean "well tested" for Apple and "decrepit" for Windows?

LOL, that's a fanbois argument if there ever was one.

(How's that for a suitable use of "fanbois", IJ?)

By the way, you realize that there are lots of different systems that are called "UNIX", right? "UNIX" is not what's inside an operating system or how or when it's built. "UNIX" is essentially a specification of what the system looks like to the programmer - the set of APIs.

Saying that the "rock solid" Solaris system is UNIX, and that OSX is based on UNIX - doesn't mean that Solaris and UNIX share any code, and does nothing to imply that OSX is rock solid.

[BongoBanger]

ITT: Many awful generalizations.

[IJ Reilly]

Since it seems this thread has now gone irretrievably OT, I might as well mention that OSX is not "real" Unix, it's based on Free BSD, which in essence is a derivative of Unix, among other things. It is Unix in much the same way that MS-DOS was CP/M. In fact we might remember a few years ago, Apple was challenged in court by The Open Group (the holder the Unix trademark) over Apple's use of the Unix name in their advertising. It passed without much notice last year when The Open Group certified OSX (Leopard/Intel) as meeting their specifications for how a Unix operating system should work. Of some interest, this was the first time that a BSD-based OS had ever been certified by The Open Group.

[G58]

Buyers? Are there any? If so, how many are there? I'm yet to meet one.

I think my point was, as yet Apple have resisted the temptation to add so-called 'design' gimmicks to their computers, preferring instead to rely on real design.

I know a man who paints his nails. And he isn't boring either.:)


...but the buyers are those supposedly design-conscious Apple users!


I know someone with a red one (not a 9 year old girl, but a 50-something senior s/w architect). He thinks that the MBP design is boring.

Some people like "minimalist", some don't. Some who liked it when the style was introduced over seven years ago are bored with it now.

[dops7107]

I haven't read all this thread, but there are reasons why it might be worth Apple tinkering with the sub-$1000 market. Primarily it's because once people switch and get hooked, they'll buy a whole load more. I started with a rock-bottom basic first gen mini. Now I have an iPod and Macbook Pro, and have convinced at least two other people to buy a Mac. Would probably not have bothered if my first Mac experience was not so easy to obtain.

So while the profit aint so good in the short term, paying attention to the lower end of the market will pay dividends to Apple.

[kamm]

I haven't read all this thread, but there are reasons why it might be worth Apple tinkering with the sub-$1000 market. Primarily it's because once people switch and get hooked, they'll buy a whole load more. I started with a rock-bottom basic first gen mini. Now I have an iPod and Macbook Pro, and have convinced at least two other people to buy a Mac. Would probably not have bothered if my first Mac experience was not so easy to obtain.

So while the profit aint so good in the short term, paying attention to the lower end of the market will pay dividends to Apple.

But again: this whole news is a pathetic spin as $1k+ machines are rarely available in retail outside of Apple stores.

People should stop parroting stupid marketing BS - over $1k the majority of sales are corporate/channels/online sales, NOT RETAIL.

[dops7107]

But again: this whole news is a pathetic spin as $1k+ machines are rarely available in retail outside of Apple stores.

People should stop parroting stupid marketing BS - over $1k the majority of sales are corporate/channels/online sales, NOT RETAIL.

That all sounds reasonable. But it doesn't explain why Apple has very little to offer sub-$1000 - and the arguments strewn out in this thread go along the lines of "Apple can't be bothered - too little money to make". My point is if they really do have a superior product, and people largely choose on price, it might be worth Apple's effort to tempt people with good, cheap(ish) computers.

On the other hand, why does any given company have to strive for world domination and constant growth? Can't they just be happy with the status quo?

[gnasher729]

That all sounds reasonable. But it doesn't explain why Apple has very little to offer sub-$1000 - and the arguments strewn out in this thread go along the lines of "Apple can't be bothered - too little money to make". My point is if they really do have a superior product, and people largely choose on price, it might be worth Apple's effort to tempt people with good, cheap(ish) computers.

People choose on price when there is nothing else to be able to choose on. If you see two computers doing exactly the same thing, no difference that you can see except the tag of the maker, you go by price. If there is a Dell for $699 and a HP for $698 and you can't see what would make the Dell or the HP a better buy, you buy the one that costs $698. That's the problem that the whole PC industry suffers from. Apple makes computers that are different, so that principle doesn't apply to Apple.

There is no reason at all for Apple to go for lower prices. There is a very small market for people who cannot afford a $1000 computer. But that market is very small. Most people buying for $600 could actually afford twice as much and would be willing to pay twice as much if you can show them that they get better value for their money. That is what Apple manages to do. Apple wouldn't gain much market share at all, and they would lose a lot of their profits, if they tried to go into cheaper markets.

[macidiot]

If Apple itself could get beyond its own backward thinking, it would realize the time is ripe to take on Microsoft directly (given Vista is an abject failure and a bloated piece of crap) and stop producing product lines to milk a small user base when it SHOULD be trying hard to recruit a new larger user base of PC switchers. And guess what? PC users are used to having hardware choices and good GPUs. So while YOU may not give a crap about gaming or 3D, you do no represent the larger computing market. And THAT market is a gold mine for Apple. YOU are the past. General computing is the future. It's time Apple's product line reflected THAT market, not just the old way of thinking.

lol. Thank goodness you aren't running Apple. You'd be running them like Dell. 100 slightly different models with 100 different options for each one and zero profit margin.

What you failed to see, in your myopic view of the world, is that I actually wouldn't mind a modestly priced headless Mac, that is expandable and more powerful than the mini. I stated that.

What you also fail to see, is that while I would like that, I also realize that is not necessarily what the general computer purchaser wants.

What you fail to see, is that your needs do not represent the needs of the general computing populace you mention. They could care less about UNIX/BSD underpinnings, other than it is more reliable for them. What the vast majority of consumers want is a machine that does email and internet and occasionally Office. And iLife, which you seem to think is beneath you.

What you fail to see, in making your arrogant assumptions, is that I have little interest in iLife other than to import iPhone pictures. I mostly use chat, browsing, and email for personal use, like everyone else. Terminal, console, networking tools, omnigraffle and office for work. And occasionally photoshop. But unlike you, I don't geek out over unix. I use it to get my work done.

What you fail to see, is that the people that are interested in running ray tracers or 3D modeling applications will typically be interested in a workstation, not an iMac. And not a $700 pc that they plan on upgrading later on. In other words, a Mac Pro.

What you fail to see, is that while PC users have GPU options, the MAJORITY of desktop sales are lower end PCs that do NOT come with decent gpu. Typically they come with integrated graphics.

What you fail to see, is that today, the majority of purchases today are for LAPTOPS. As in NOT $1000 desktops.

What you fail to see is that going forward, laptops will be what most consumers will buy.

What you fail to see is that Apple is growing it's PC business significantly faster than the overall market, taking share.

What you fail to see is that Apple's current strategy is working very well and the lack of a headless or upgradeable iMac hasn't hurt them at all.

What you fail to see is that Apple, about 10 years ago, decided to not compete in the commodity computer market or actively compete in the general business computing market. They positioned themselves somewhat upmarket, in order to preserve margins, by creating a value-added proposition. By using your so-called cutesy cases to differentiate. Oh, and things like iLife and osx. The fact that some pc geeks like yourself prefer osx's unix base over vista is a happy side effect. But not the primary strategy of Apple. They are happy to have your business. But they are not targeting your demographic as part of their corporate strategy. And frankly, not mine either.

What you fail to see is that Apple did at one time try to be all things to all people, creating many models, including expandable desktops.

What you fail to see is that Steve Jobs and Apple cut that matrix to essentially 3 models, the iMac, Mac tower and PowerBook. And two lines, consumer and professional. Anyone experienced in management would understand this strategy. As profitability increased, their product matrix increased, adding the MacBook, mini, and Air. But a key part of Apple's ongoing management strategy is a simple product matrix with little or no overlap.

What you fail to see is that with Apple's current strategy, they could easily be bigger than Microsoft in 3-5 years. WITHOUT an expandable headless iMac.

What you fail to see is that the majority of people do not game on computers anymore, other than casual games. They use a console. So they are not interested in a $300 gpu upgrade.

What you fail to see, ultimately, I actually understand what you are looking for in a Mac and agree on a personal level with a lot of the reasons. Unlike you, I don't let hate get in the way of rational thinking.

Seems like you fail to see a lot of things.

[Syrus28]

lol. Thank goodness you aren't running Apple. You'd be running them like Dell. 100 slightly different models with 100 different options for each one and zero profit margin.
What, you mean tailoring for the individual instead of trying to squeeze into Apple's model of "take what you get"?

What you fail to see, is that the people that are interested in running ray tracers or 3D modeling applications will typically be interested in a workstation, not an iMac. And not a $700 pc that they plan on upgrading later on. In other words, a Mac Pro.
Ahh, but the $2000 starting price for a MacBook Pro would be much further suited in a PC which could be configured for much less, or a competitive priced alternative, one which Apple does not offer.

What you fail to see, is that while PC users have GPU options, the MAJORITY of desktop sales are lower end PCs that do NOT come with decent gpu. Typically they come with integrated graphics.
Yes, but Apple can't have it both ways. They have the perception of being "upscale" and then offer integrated graphics, not much different from their PC counterparts.

What you fail to see, is that today, the majority of purchases today are for LAPTOPS. As in NOT $1000 desktops.
Actually, the majority of computer sales are desktops, but thats not to say it will be the same in the near future, with analysists expecting laptops to overtake them in 2011. Even then, it will be a long time before laptops ever outnumber desktops, especially in the workplace.

What you fail to see is that going forward, laptops will be what most consumers will buy.
Yes, but that does not make desktops any less important.

What you fail to see is that Apple is growing it's PC business significantly faster than the overall market, taking share.
Very little share. Apple is a small piece in the big computer business.

What you fail to see is that Apple's current strategy is working very well and the lack of a headless or upgradeable iMac hasn't hurt them at all.
I don't think any company settles for "good enough". If Apple wants to grow at a faster rate than now, they will have to make some changes, and a headless/upgradeable iMac may very well be that.

What you fail to see is that Apple did at one time try to be all things to all people, creating many models, including expandable desktops.
Yes, but this is a much different time for Apple. They are experiencing a break-out success and I don't understand how you can think offering more customized offers will do anything but help them.

What you fail to see is that Steve Jobs and Apple cut that matrix to essentially 3 models, the iMac, Mac tower and PowerBook. And two lines, consumer and professional. Anyone experienced in management would understand this strategy. As profitability increased, their product matrix increased, adding the MacBook, mini, and Air. But a key part of Apple's ongoing management strategy is a simple product matrix with little or no overlap.
Very true, but I can't help but think a sub-$100 laptop or a headless iMac would result in much higher sales than a niche market like the MacBook Air.

What you fail to see is that with Apple's current strategy, they could easily be bigger than Microsoft in 3-5 years. WITHOUT an expandable headless iMac.
Uhh... Not quite. Apple's market value is around $109 billion, a far distance from Microsoft's $253 billion.

What you fail to see is that the majority of people do not game on computers anymore, other than casual games. They use a console. So they are not interested in a $300 gpu upgrade.
However, the large majority of "big purchase" computers, which are a lot more profitable, are for gamers... Gaming computers are a very profitable business.

[IJ Reilly]

People choose on price when there is nothing else to be able to choose on. If you see two computers doing exactly the same thing, no difference that you can see except the tag of the maker, you go by price. If there is a Dell for $699 and a HP for $698 and you can't see what would make the Dell or the HP a better buy, you buy the one that costs $698. That's the problem that the whole PC industry suffers from. Apple makes computers that are different, so that principle doesn't apply to Apple.

There is no reason at all for Apple to go for lower prices. There is a very small market for people who cannot afford a $1000 computer. But that market is very small. Most people buying for $600 could actually afford twice as much and would be willing to pay twice as much if you can show them that they get better value for their money. That is what Apple manages to do. Apple wouldn't gain much market share at all, and they would lose a lot of their profits, if they tried to go into cheaper markets.

I think you have it right. Most if not all of the arguments in favor of Apple entering the low price end of the market and/or the sub-$1,000 tower market are supported by the assumption that Apple doesn't understand how to make money selling computers.

[DMann]

What, you mean tailoring for the individual instead of trying to squeeze into Apple's model of "take what you get"? Tailoring for the individual is not a bad thing - sure it would be great if Apple had more options for customization than they offer, but it does offer options, which increase as you move toward the more expensive pro models. Unfortunately, being steered into buying more expensive pro units will piss off those who want those options for less. The pro units, MacBook and MacPro, however, are not overpriced for what they offer. The premium is justified by the enhanced user experience and integration of OS and hardware. If the consumer models give you the sense of "take what you get," you do have the choice of spending more for more choices.

Ahh, but the $2000 starting price for a MacBook Pro would be much further suited in a PC which could be configured for much less, or a competitive priced alternative, one which Apple does not offer. True, but many graphic artists, recording studios, animation studios, and media companies do not mind shelling out the extra cash for a better CPU, graphics, storage capacity, etc. The MacPros will out perform MacBookPro's with 3D rendering, FCP, LogicPro, Photoshop, etc. and the increase in productivity in 2 weeks time will often justify the extra cost. These (expensive) workstations will likely be the last PCs they'll need to purchase for the next eight years. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to see a mid-range tower for $2,400 - until then, I have no problem shelling out the extra money for the work I do, and there seem to be others who feel the same.

Yes, but Apple can't have it both ways. They have the perception of being "upscale" and then offer integrated graphics, not much different from their PC counterparts. Yes, and that is how they stay competitive with in the PC world, while offering a superior integrated solution, OS X and pro apps being the major draw here. Integrated graphics are for consumer level laptops only, BTW. I have several clients who have started out with a Macbook, a Mini, and even an iMac, who have since upgraded to pro machines - and not one of them has griped about pricing. Their experience and productivity dramatically contrasts what they have had in the past, and to them, it is well worth it. The perception of upscale may have to do with actually being able to run apps like Motion using a Macbook, and in this respect, even functionality for the Macbook is slightly upscale. Those who are going for upscale will likely upgrade to a pro laptop down the road.


Actually, the majority of computer sales are desktops, but thats not to say it will be the same in the near future, with analysists expecting laptops to overtake them in 2011. Even then, it will be a long time before laptops ever outnumber desktops, especially in the workplace. Last I heard, laptops outsold desktops in 2007-now: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080103-2008-could-be-the-year-laptop-sales-eclipse-desktops-in-us.html


Yes, but that does not make desktops any less important. True


Very little share. Apple is a small piece in the big computer business. This, too is changing. However, 10% of the PC market would be optimum for Apple, and 10% would be nothing to sneeze at.


I don't think any company settles for "good enough".
MicroSoft.


Yes, but this is a much different time for Apple. They are experiencing a break-out success and I don't understand how you can think offering more customized offers will do anything but help them. They seem to be growing fast enough.


Very true, but I can't help but think a sub-$100 laptop or a headless iMac would result in much higher sales than a niche market like the MacBook Air. Ditto


Uhh... Not quite. Apple's market value is around $109 billion, a far distance from Microsoft's $253 billion.

And this is not impressive? At this rate of growth, it could happen.


However, the large majority of "big purchase" computers, which are a lot more profitable, are for gamers... Gaming computers are a very profitable business. And if Apple decides to join the gaming market, it would do well. Somehow, it seems they see gaming moving further into the console department, which is where I wish Apple TV would move into.

If Apple wants to grow at a faster rate than now, they will have to make some changes, and a headless/upgradeable iMac may very well be that. Perhaps they are growing at a fast enough rate as it is - regardless of >$1000 machines or not, they have created a market here nonetheless.