June 16, 2005: Michael Dell Says He Would Be Happy to Licens...

[MacBytes]

http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: History
Link: June 16, 2005: Michael Dell Says He Would Be Happy to License OS X (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20080616122338)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

[tgildred]

... and people in Hell would be happy to drink ice water.

Edit: I totally forgot that I kinda stole this line from Steve Jobs

[a104375]

wow that is old... june 16, 2005 i remember reading about that.. however thats a once in a blue moon thing for apple to do.. isnt part of the reason that apple makes there machines the way they do to make sure it is the optimal configuration for working with their OS.. which would not be possible if it was licensed for the pc

[UCLA-Bruin]

... and people in Hell would be happy to drink ice water.

lol. exactly! except that living in Hell is eternal, whereas an upgrade to a Mac mini is just $479.

[azentropy]

My opinion on this has changed greatly in the 3 years since he made that comment. I'm extremely frustrated by Apple's currently line of desktop hardware and have pretty much given up and may go a different route all together now.

The Mac mini is under powered, not expandable and Apple has treated it as the redheaded stepchild from the beginning with the lack of updates. The iMac is not an option for me as a) I don't like integrated monitors - I already have a great 24" LCD that doesn't need replacing, b) it is using laptop parts which mean we pay a premium for processors and it reduces what processors we can get - no quad core even though desktop quad core processors are under $200 now and c) even if I was ok with an integrated monitor I can't use the current iMacs because of the dang glossy screen - it literally gives me bad headaches. The Mac Pro is just too much. I can afford it, that isn't the issue, but in this day and age it doesn't make sense to pay that much for a workstation when you just need a desktop system. I could afford a $75K car and a million dollar house, but that doesn't make financial sense for me either!

Because of Apple not offering a product in the traditional desktop space, heck they don't even make a system using Intel's standard desktop processors which are by far the best bang for the buck, I'd really like to see them license the OS to other vendors for specific machines that would have to be "Apple Certified". Even if it added a $300-$500 premium to what it would cost over the similar version with Windows, it would be more than worth it to me.

Yeah, I know that isn't going to happen either...

[lilmike28]

My opinion on this has changed greatly in the 3 years since he made that comment. I'm extremely frustrated by Apple's currently line of desktop hardware and have pretty much given up and may go a different route all together now.

The Mac mini is under powered, not expandable and Apple has treated it as the redheaded stepchild from the beginning with the lack of updates. The iMac is not an option for me as 1) I don't like integrated monitors - I already have a great 24" LCD that doesn't need replacing, b) it is using laptop parts which mean we pay a premium for processors and it reduces what processors we can get - no quad core even though desktop quad core processors are under $200 now and c) even if I was ok with an integrated monitor I can't use the current iMacs because of the dang glossy screen - it literally gives me bad headaches. The Mac Pro is just too much. I can afford it, that isn't the issue, but in this day and age it doesn't make sense to pay that much for a workstation when you just need a desktop system. I could afford a $75K car and a million dollar house, but that doesn't make financial sense for me either!

Because of Apple not offering a product in the traditional desktop space, heck they don't even make a system using Intel's standard desktop processors which are by far the best bang for the buck, I'd really like to see them license the OS to other vendors for specific machines that would have to be "Apple Certified". Even if it added a $300-$500 premium to what it would cost over the similar version with Windows, it would be more than worth it to me.

Yeah, I know that isn't going to happen either...

I don't know how you go from 1) to b) but anyway, if you just need a "desktop system," the Mac Mini has recently been updated and will be just fine for basic use.

Thats fine if you don't want the glossy display if you get head aches from it, but you can always use the same display with the iMac, you just need a mini DVI to whatever output your display uses. Why would Apple want to manufacture a machine using Intel's "standard processors"? Why would you want a much slower machine to save a couple of bucks? The fact you believe that the iMac's use laptop parts which increases the price is absurd. If thats the case, why are the Mac Mini's starting at $599? They, if any, have more likeness to a laptop than any other model. The only thing I can think of that could possibly be used in a laptop out of an iMac is the optical drive and memory.

[MacfromPC]

The desktop form factor is pretty much going the way of the dinosaur. The setup of screaming fans and umpteen drive bays is being replaced by portability, PCI Express, Firewire and USB.

If you want to take the role systems integrator to build a machine on the cheap, then the PC world is your cup of tea. If you just want to use the machine, there's a Mac for you. More tend to be buying into the later.

I also laugh everytime I hear someone whine about the glossy Mac screens and the "reflection". Simply tilt the screen a tiny bit up or down and it's all gone. We actually did some comparisons between a Flat screen and a Glossy and agreed the Glossy was actually more readable in bright light and outdoor situations. The Flat screen just washes out.

A MBP 15" screen and a 24" together is an outstanding experience. I use it everyday.


My opinion on this has changed greatly in the 3 years since he made that comment. I'm extremely frustrated by Apple's currently line of desktop hardware and have pretty much given up and may go a different route all together now.

The Mac mini is under powered, not expandable and Apple has treated it as the redheaded stepchild from the beginning with the lack of updates. The iMac is not an option for me as 1) I don't like integrated monitors - I already have a great 24" LCD that doesn't need replacing, b) it is using laptop parts which mean we pay a premium for processors and it reduces what processors we can get - no quad core even though desktop quad core processors are under $200 now and c) even if I was ok with an integrated monitor I can't use the current iMacs because of the dang glossy screen - it literally gives me bad headaches. The Mac Pro is just too much. I can afford it, that isn't the issue, but in this day and age it doesn't make sense to pay that much for a workstation when you just need a desktop system. I could afford a $75K car and a million dollar house, but that doesn't make financial sense for me either!

Because of Apple not offering a product in the traditional desktop space, heck they don't even make a system using Intel's standard desktop processors which are by far the best bang for the buck, I'd really like to see them license the OS to other vendors for specific machines that would have to be "Apple Certified". Even if it added a $300-$500 premium to what it would cost over the similar version with Windows, it would be more than worth it to me.

Yeah, I know that isn't going to happen either...

[Eric S.]

My opinion on this has changed greatly in the 3 years since he made that comment. I'm extremely frustrated by Apple's currently line of desktop hardware and have pretty much given up and may go a different route all together now.

The Mac mini is under powered, not expandable and Apple has treated it as the redheaded stepchild from the beginning with the lack of updates. The iMac is not an option for me as 1) I don't like integrated monitors - I already have a great 24" LCD that doesn't need replacing, b) it is using laptop parts which mean we pay a premium for processors and it reduces what processors we can get - no quad core even though desktop quad core processors are under $200 now and c) even if I was ok with an integrated monitor I can't use the current iMacs because of the dang glossy screen - it literally gives me bad headaches. The Mac Pro is just too much. I can afford it, that isn't the issue, but in this day and age it doesn't make sense to pay that much for a workstation when you just need a desktop system. I could afford a $75K car and a million dollar house, but that doesn't make financial sense for me either!

Because of Apple not offering a product in the traditional desktop space, heck they don't even make a system using Intel's standard desktop processors which are by far the best bang for the buck, I'd really like to see them license the OS to other vendors for specific machines that would have to be "Apple Certified". Even if it added a $300-$500 premium to what it would cost over the similar version with Windows, it would be more than worth it to me.

Yeah, I know that isn't going to happen either...

You have stated my position precisely.

[OllyW]

I don't know how you go from 1) to b) but anyway, if you just need a "desktop system," the Mac Mini has recently been updated and will be just fine for basic use.

Do you class last August as recent? :confused:

The fact you won't buy an iMac because you don't want to replace a monitor tells me your cheap and idiotic. Thats fine if you don't want the glossy display if you get head aches from it, but you can always use the same display with the iMac, you just need a mini DVI to whatever output your display uses. Why would Apple want to manufacture a machine using Intel's "standard processors"? Why would you want a much slower machine to save a couple of bucks?

The mid to high end Core 2 desktop processors are faster than the laptop processors. Hackintosh systems built with the desktop quad processor fare well (http://www.s155158671.websitehome.co.uk/hackintoshquadco.html) when compared to Mac Pros.

The fact you believe that the iMac's use laptop parts which increases the price is absurd. If thats the case, why are the Mac Mini's starting at $599? They, if any, have more likeness to a laptop than any other model. The only thing I can think of that could possibly be used in a laptop out of an iMac is the optical drive and memory. Maybe you should think before you criticize something you clearly know nothing about dumbass.

The iMac uses laptop parts, it is common knowledge. You might want to check your facts next time. :rolleyes:

[ThePShot]

The iMac uses laptop parts, it is common knowledge. You might want to check your facts next time. :rolleyes:


Whoa?! You can get a laptop with a 1TB hard drive AND 24" display built in?

The iMac uses extremely zippy laptop class processors, which would run far to hot for most laptops anyway. I love my 24" iMac, it's perfect. I hated the glossy display at first, mainly because it gave me a headache. After about a day of use, I love it and matte displays give me a headache. You can't really complain about it until you actually go out and try it (for more than a few minutes at the store).

[Tallest Skil]

OS X running on the Dells in Best Buy? Over my dead pixels.

[KelchM]

Whoa?! You can get a laptop with a 1TB hard drive AND 24" display built in?

The iMac uses extremely zippy laptop class processors, which would run far to hot for most laptops anyway. I love my 24" iMac, it's perfect. I hated the glossy display at first, mainly because it gave me a headache. After about a day of use, I love it and matte displays give me a headache. You can't really complain about it until you actually go out and try it (for more than a few minutes at the store).

The fact remains that it is a desktop using laptop hardware. It just doesn't make sense to me why someone would pay for something like that. On top of that, integrated displays are one of the worst ideas ever. I don't want to have to pay for a new display every time I get a new system... It does not make economical or ecological sense to do that. Personally, I'll NEVER buy an all in one desktop system.

It seems to me there are a whoel lot of computer enthusiest that would love to see apple release a consumer level version of the Mac Pro.

[Concorde Rules]

The fact remains that it is a desktop using laptop hardware. It just doesn't make sense to me why someone would pay for something like that. On top of that, integrated displays are one of the worst ideas ever. I don't want to have to pay for a new display every time I get a new system... It does not make economical or ecological sense to do that. Personally, I'll NEVER buy an all in one desktop system.

It seems to me there are a whoel lot of computer enthusiest that would love to see apple release a consumer level version of the Mac Pro.

Thing is...

Quite alot of people buy iMacs... more than MacPros and MacMinis added together I would hazard a guess. Ok it doesn't suit your tastes, so why should you get so anti-iMac?

I would, however like a consumer MacPro. 3.2Ghz Penryn quad, DDR2, 8800GT/HD4870.

Lovely job.

[Eric S.]

Has anyone checked this out?

http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/efix-wants-to-bring-osx86-to-the-masses/

[Killyp]

Whoa?! You can get a laptop with a 1TB hard drive AND 24" display built in?

Evolution obviously isn't 100% effective - there's always one or two who slip through quality control...

[lilmike28]

I'm a certified Apple Technician. Tell me what components in the new iMacs are laptop based hardware? I stated it uses SO Dimms, which are used in laptops and it uses a slim line optical drive. The logic board is a custom fit to the iMac. The processors run too hot to put in a laptop. The hard drive is a 3.5", not a 2.5" used in portables. The video card isn't integrated anymore. So buddy, check your facts before you tell me whats up.

[azentropy]

I'm a certified Apple Technician. Tell me what components in the new iMacs are laptop based hardware? I stated it uses SO Dimms, which are used in laptops and it uses a slim line optical drive. The logic board is a custom fit to the iMac. The processors run too hot to put in a laptop. The hard drive is a 3.5", not a 2.5" used in portables. The video card isn't integrated anymore. So buddy, check your facts before you tell me whats up.

Why would Apple want to manufacture a machine using Intel's "standard processors"? Why would you want a much slower machine to save a couple of bucks? The fact you believe that the iMac's use laptop parts which increases the price is absurd.

The processor and motherboard chips are mobile based... Any certified Apple Technician should know that ;-)

Ever look at Intels price list? http://www.intc.com/priceList.cfm
The equivalent processors for the EXXXX (desktop) series and the TXXXX (mobile) are minimum $150 price difference and usually twice the price. Plus the mobile doesn't have an equivalent QXXXX series - which is what I really want.

[BongoBanger]

I'm a certified Apple Technician. Tell me what components in the new iMacs are laptop based hardware? I stated it uses SO Dimms, which are used in laptops and it uses a slim line optical drive. The logic board is a custom fit to the iMac. The processors run too hot to put in a laptop. The hard drive is a 3.5", not a 2.5" used in portables. The video card isn't integrated anymore. So buddy, check your facts before you tell me whats up.

Err... the GPU is a GeForce 8800M GTS. Which is a laptop GPU.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce_8800m.html

[azentropy]

The desktop form factor is pretty much going the way of the dinosaur.

That is what Apple would like you to believe... but look at the stats of what other computer manufactures sell who offer both. Standard desktops out sell all-in-ones by a HUGE margin.

I'd bet if Apple made one it would outsell the iMac as well, but since right now Apple is more about margins than marketshare (which I can't complain too much about because as a business it has worked really well and I appreciate what the stock has done for me). So as an investor I like that strategy, but as a consumer it sucks. :D


I also laugh everytime I hear someone whine about the glossy Mac screens and the "reflection".

And I laugh every time someone laughs at that. You have no idea the setup of my computer room or my lighting conditions. Getting rid of glossy screens was why I moved to LCD's in the first place 7+ years ago! I can get by with my Macbook because if the reflection is bad I can just move and sit somewhere else or tilt it. I don't like it, but I can live with it. "Tilting" an iMac isn't an option.

[OllyW]

Whoa?! You can get a laptop with a 1TB hard drive AND 24" display built in?

I didn't say it was a laptop, just that it used laptop parts.

The iMac uses extremely zippy laptop class processors, which would run far to hot for most laptops anyway. I love my 24" iMac, it's perfect. I hated the glossy display at first, mainly because it gave me a headache. After about a day of use, I love it and matte displays give me a headache. You can't really complain about it until you actually go out and try it (for more than a few minutes at the store).

I'm typing this on a 24" iMac. :p

[cwt1nospam]

That is what Apple would like you to believe... but look at the stats of what other computer manufactures sell who offer both. Standard desktops out sell all-in-ones by a HUGE margin.

That's because those others sell to IT departments. Those guys still think you need to be able to flip dip switches on every computer in the company. :eek:

[kabunaru]

Apple,
If you ever going to license OS X to another PC manufacturer, never do it to Dell.
Thank you.

[ckurowic]

Whoa?! You can get a laptop with a 1TB hard drive AND 24" display built in?

The iMac uses extremely zippy laptop class processors, which would run far to hot for most laptops anyway. I love my 24" iMac, it's perfect. I hated the glossy display at first, mainly because it gave me a headache. After about a day of use, I love it and matte displays give me a headache. You can't really complain about it until you actually go out and try it (for more than a few minutes at the store).

I was thinking the exact same thing. True the memory and optical drives are traditionally found in lap tops, but the iMacs have full 3.5 inch HDD's at 7200 RPM and up to 1TB. :)

[ckurowic]

That is what Apple would like you to believe... but look at the stats of what other computer manufactures sell who offer both. Standard desktops out sell all-in-ones by a HUGE margin.

I'd bet if Apple made one it would outsell the iMac as well, but since right now Apple is more about margins than marketshare (which I can't complain too much about because as a business it has worked really well and I appreciate what the stock has done for me). So as an investor I like that strategy, but as a consumer it sucks. :D



And I laugh every time someone laughs at that. You have no idea the setup of my computer room or my lighting conditions. Getting rid of glossy screens was why I moved to LCD's in the first place 7+ years ago! I can get by with my Macbook because if the reflection is bad I can just move and sit somewhere else or tilt it. I don't like it, but I can live with it. "Tilting" an iMac isn't an option.

Uhh....last time I checked on my iMac you can tilt it up or down quite a bit man....when was the last time you were in an Apple store??:confused:

[BongoBanger]

I was thinking the exact same thing. True the memory and optical drives are traditionally found in lap tops, but the iMacs have full 3.5 inch HDD's at 7200 RPM and up to 1TB. :)

Wel it's also the mainboard, CPU and GPU to be fair. iMacs are made of laptop components - they have to be because they don't have the cooling solutions required for full desktop capability.

[azentropy]

Uhh....last time I checked on my iMac you can tilt it up or down quite a bit man....when was the last time you were in an Apple store??:confused:

Sorry that you are confused... of course it tilts up and down - but to tilt down enough so the overhead lights do not reflect I would either have to sit on the floor or look at a distorted picture - and that still doesn't solve the light from the window behind me. So I'll clarify - "tilting" a glossy iMac isn't an option that works for me...

[BenRoethig]

I'm a certified Apple Technician. Tell me what components in the new iMacs are laptop based hardware? I stated it uses SO Dimms, which are used in laptops and it uses a slim line optical drive. The logic board is a custom fit to the iMac. The processors run too hot to put in a laptop. The hard drive is a 3.5", not a 2.5" used in portables. The video card isn't integrated anymore. So buddy, check your facts before you tell me whats up.

Mobile parts
DDR667 SO-DIMMS
Intel 965M Northbridge
ICH8M
Intel Socket P Penryn CPU
ATI M72 Radeon mobility 2400
ATI M76 Radeon Mobility 2600
Nvidia G84M GeForce 8800GTS
Pioneer K06A slot loading burner

Desktop Parts
western Digital hard drive
LG PHILIPS LM201WE3 20" display

[azentropy]

That's because those others sell to IT departments. Those guys still think you need to be able to flip dip switches on every computer in the company. :eek:

Well that isn't the only reason, but yeah a lot IT guys think that ;-).

Typically most IT departments prefer desktops with separate displays is for service. If a display goes out they can swap out a new one in a matter of minutes and they are back up and running. If a display goes out on an all-in-one then you have to replace (temporarily) the who system and swap out the HD.

Also in case of our company, they replace desktops every 2 or 3 years and displays every 4 or so years - or longer...

There are benefits of splitting up the desktop and display costs as well in some companies.

[cwt1nospam]

Also in case of our company, they replace desktops every 2 or 3 years and displays every 4 or so years - or longer...

Sure, but when's the last time you replaced a Mac in less than 4 years?

[BenRoethig]

Sure, but when's the last time you replaced a Mac in less than 4 years?

Until I got my iMac, 3-4 years was typical for my Mac life cycle. With this thing, 2 max.

[zap2]

Typically most IT departments prefer desktops with separate displays is for service. If a display goes out they can swap out a new one in a matter of minutes and they are back up and running. If a display goes out on an all-in-one then you have to replace (temporarily) the who system and swap out the HD.

Yes, but for many companies, users have "big" PCs with about 4 PCI slots, when something like the Mac Mini or Asus EEE Box would work just as well. These people(the ones I'm talking about) run IE/FF, MS/OO Office...thats about it.

Why get such a big PC, when small PC work?( Of course many people do use the PCI slots on there PCs, and need those desktops)

[Virgil-TB2]

... The mid to high end Core 2 desktop processors are faster than the laptop processors. Hackintosh systems built with the desktop quad processor fare well (http://www.s155158671.websitehome.co.uk/hackintoshquadco.html) when compared to Mac Pros....No offence in particular Ollie but I have seen this kind of statement a lot and it bugs the ***** out of me because it makes no sense.

Everyone who wants a headless Mac always seems to start out with dissing the iMac (usually for being an all-in-one), because they *claim* they just want a "regular desktop" that's cheaper or more upgradeable. They then proceed to back up their argument by comparing hackintoshes to the Mac Pro.

I'd just like to point out that this makes no sense at all, and indicates what people *really* want, which is a "cheap" Mac Pro. If you want a desktop class machine that will get the job done faster than an equivalent Windows machine for more or less the same cash, the iMac is an excellent choice and a fantastic value.

If you want a Mac Pro but don't want to spend on quality parts and service, then hack together whatever you want and good luck with that. I just wish people would stop saying they want a "desktop class" machine that Apple supposedly doesn't offer, and then when people point the the iMac, start raving about how this or that hackintosh is "almost as good as a Mac Pro."

A "real," average, consumer looking for a desktop machine would be, and generally is extremely satisfied with the iMac. A "real," pro user is more than happy with, and generally buys a Mac Pro. There just is not this mythical group of "average desktop users" looking for a hackintosh, the numbers speak for themselves. Those that want hackintoshes are more or less pro users that are too cheap to buy a Mac Pro.

[sushi]

Yes, but for many companies, users have "big" PCs with about 4 PCI slots, when something like the Mac Mini or Asus EEE Box would work just as well. These people(the ones I'm talking about) run IE/FF, MS/OO Office...thats about it.
True for the typical office environment. Most users spend their time running the typical office applications that you listed.

Using a small box provides many benefits in this environment.

Why get such a big PC, when small PC work?( Of course many people do use the PCI slots on there PCs, and need those desktops)
IMHO, this feature is becoming less critical in the office environment -- especially with USB and external hubs if you have many peripherals to connect.

[BenRoethig]

Yes, but for many companies, users have "big" PCs with about 4 PCI slots, when something like the Mac Mini or Asus EEE Box would work just as well. These people(the ones I'm talking about) run IE/FF, MS/OO Office...thats about it.

Why get such a big PC, when small PC work?( Of course many people do use the PCI slots on there PCs, and need those desktops)

Most business don't use the big towers. The most common machines I see in office environments over the last five years are low profile Dells.

[azentropy]

Sure, but when's the last time you replaced a Mac in less than 4 years?

My personal mac? Over the past 10 years or so I would generally replace my desktop every two years and my laptop every two years. I'd alternate years thereby getting a new Mac of some type every year.

However I skipped my last desktop update last year as I sold my G5 early and didn't get a replacement because I didn't like the choices as expanded on above... My Macbook is due to be replaced this year... I do have a Mac mini G4 that I use as a backup/personal server.

I've owned about a dozen and a half different Macs over the past 22+ years.

[MacfromPC]

This I believe gets to the root of the differences. I do not consider myself a computer enthusiast, rather a computer use. There was a day that building computers (and gaming) was very cool and my last FrankenPC is in the closet sharing to my AppleTV. It was quite the screamer in it's day and gave me that online advantage in games.

The point is that I "had" to build these PC's back in the day to achieve the levels of performance needed. You couldn't really buy it online or in a store as these used sub-par components.

You really don't have to do it anymore as most PC's have plenty of power unless you are really going cheap. That is a whole 'nother thread!

It seems to me there are a whoel lot of computer enthusiest that would love to see apple release a consumer level version of the Mac Pro.

[a104375]

OS X running on the Dells in Best Buy? Over my dead pixels.

wow in the wake of the FF3 download I am very tired for some reason... anyways I would like to thank you for giving me quite a good chuckle :D

[cherry su]

I don't know how you go from 1) to b) but anyway, if you just need a "desktop system," the Mac Mini has recently been updated and will be just fine for basic use.

Thats fine if you don't want the glossy display if you get head aches from it, but you can always use the same display with the iMac, you just need a mini DVI to whatever output your display uses. Why would Apple want to manufacture a machine using Intel's "standard processors"? Why would you want a much slower machine to save a couple of bucks? The fact you believe that the iMac's use laptop parts which increases the price is absurd. If thats the case, why are the Mac Mini's starting at $599? They, if any, have more likeness to a laptop than any other model. The only thing I can think of that could possibly be used in a laptop out of an iMac is the optical drive and memory.

Hackintosh FTW! It's quite unlikely Steve will let any other PC manufacturers get their hands on OS X

[sushi]

Most business don't use the big towers. The most common machines I see in office environments over the last five years are low profile Dells.
For most businesses, the iMac is plenty of power for the office environment.

[BongoBanger]

For most businesses, the iMac is plenty of power for the office environment.

But also completely impractical.

[BenRoethig]

For most businesses, the iMac is plenty of power for the office environment.

Its also too expensive in its current form and suffers from the many upgrade and maintenance deficiencies of the all in one form factor.

[BenRoethig]

Hackintosh FTW! It's quite unlikely Steve will let any other PC manufacturers get their hands on OS X

He has gotten progressively wiser and more aware of the big picture though. The Jobs of five years ago wouldn't have been able to fully realize of potential of either the iphone or gone with the necessary step of rentals with the AppleTV. He listens to the consumer now.

[cwt1nospam]

My personal mac? Over the past 10 years or so I would generally replace my desktop every two years and my laptop every two years. I'd alternate years thereby getting a new Mac of some type every year.

I think you're confusing your desires with your needs. I'd like to get a new Mac every year, but I can't justify it. I've got a four year old Dual G5, and I can't see a good reason to replace that yet. Fortunately for my wants, the switch to Intel will very likely be causing a legitimate need for me to buy when 10.6 comes out. By then, the G5 will be 5 years old.

[sushi]

But also completely impractical.
Why?

Its also too expensive in its current form and suffers from the many upgrade and maintenance deficiencies of the all in one form factor.
I would beg to differ, if you consider the total costs involved.

Sure the up front costs are more, but your support costs will be less running the Mac OS compared to Windows XP or Vista.

Bottom line is that businesses require reliable platforms that perform the required tasks (usually e-mail, web browsing, Word, Excel and PowerPoint) at a reasonable cost. ROI is important. Support costs can be significant -- especially in the Windows environment. Many business do fine without the latest and greatest hardware and software available on the market. That is why a computer like the Mac Mini or iMac can be very useful in the office environment and effectively last for many years.