You are all being silly!

[Pagga]

You should be thankful Apple is not rushing their upgrades.
Do you want the computer marked to be like the mobile marked?
Yesterdays purchase redundant tomorrow?

I´ve bought an Imac 2008 (specs listed below)
I´ve also bought a Macbook pro 17" (specs below also).

For the latter product I will be able to upgrade to Solid State and 8 GB RAM
in a year or two.
The Imac has already proven it´s worth after the last upgrade.

Ones of the reasons I´m sticking to Apple is the same reason many here are critizising them. Call it reliabilty, securing quality.

Can´t you see they are consolidating products that are allready great?

I have 4 words for you:
I LOVE THIS COMPANY!

[DarkRyan323i]

I'm actually very happy with the updates, although this is my first Mac. I was able to get a 24" cheaper than the pre-refresh 20" :D Can't beat that!

[jmpage2]

You love them for failing to provide the most value and best innovation to their customers? Simply because it makes you feel good that your own purchase is not hopelessly outdated?

Shame on you then.

[MasterNile]

I think you are being silly, Apple releasing new computers doesn't hurt anyone, (except for maybe resell of the older models, but that's bound to happen anyway as most people keep their computers 2-5 years) your computer is still just as functional as when you got it, but with the release of new computers they have a chance to release more up to date technology which is already starting to lag behind even with their current line up. With technology almost any computer you get is made redundant by the time you get it out of the box, it doesn't change what you can do with your computer.

So tell me again why you are defending the long time between upgrades from Apple? So you can feel like you have cutting edge technology that most Windows boxes have had for a while?

[Pagga]

"it doesn't change what you can do with your computer"

You are rather gullible if you think this. Your computer run programs that are bound to the technological race whether you like it or not. You may be able to hold onto your Tiger or XP at home, but your workplace and the rest of the world aren´t going to be that nostalgic!

[belvdr]

"it doesn't change what you can do with your computer"

You are rather gullible if you think this. Your computer run programs that are bound to the technological race whether you like it or not. You may be able to hold onto your Tiger or XP at home, but your workplace and the rest of the world aren´t going to be that nostalgic!

I know many companies not going to Vista, and sticking with XP. Where do you get your data?

[Pagga]

You love them for failing to provide the most value and best innovation to their customers? Simply because it makes you feel good that your own purchase is not hopelessly outdated?

Shame on you then.

No it is you who are failing to see I allready think Apple is providing me with both value and innovation. You are simply disagreeing with my point.

I know many companies not going to Vista, and sticking with XP. Where do you get your data?

I don´t think this is the history of computers. Rather, Windows Vista is a special and horrific case of misjudgement on Windows behalf. They will not make that mistake with Windows7 - which will make XP redundant in offices for sure.

[belvdr]

I don´t think this is the history of computers. Rather, Windows Vista is a special and horrific case of misjudgement on Windows behalf. They will not make that mistake with Windows7 - which will make XP redundant in offices for sure.

I'm not so sure about Win7 either. From a standpoint that XP is stable, many applications/packages have been made for it, and Win7 offers no real business features that customers are clamoring for, I think the resistance will continue.

Back on topic, the so-called upgrades that Apple did provide are minimal, to say the least. Take the Mini, and you'll notice there's hardly any difference between the old and new.

And the iMac? The upgrades there are minimal improvements too. At least they could have tried to get to the frontend on components for once.

[MasterNile]

"it doesn't change what you can do with your computer"

You are rather gullible if you think this. Your computer run programs that are bound to the technological race whether you like it or not. You may be able to hold onto your Tiger or XP at home, but your workplace and the rest of the world aren´t going to be that nostalgic!

But if you bought your computer to surf the web, use as a server, or do video editing, does Apple releasing a new computer stop your current computer from doing anything that you bought it for? Sure you may not get updates, but that doesn't force you to upgrade, otherwise there wouldn't be near as many PPCs in the wild as there are (yes even at workplaces) So what if you were wanting to buy a Mac Mini in Dec 08 for christmas for someone? You would be paying the same price for 1.5 year old technology for the same price that people were paying for it when it came out, where's the value and innovation in that?

[Pagga]

Back on topic, the so-called upgrades that Apple did provide are minimal, to say the least. Take the Mini, and you'll notice there's hardly any difference between the old and new.
And the iMac? The upgrades there are minimal improvements too. At least they could have tried to get to the frontend on components for once.


I´m not arguing about the upgrades being minimal or not.
I´m simply stating there´s a company here that are consolidating their products (because they are great) when everyone else is rushing for no other purpose than making money. That´s Vista is a failure

[Pagga]

(...) does Apple releasing a new computer stop your current computer from doing anything that you bought it for? Sure you may not get updates, but that doesn't force you to upgrade (...)

You are truly being sweet. I love that there are people like you who think they have options in what they chose to buy or not. You have the option to dwell, not to chose.
But there´s another point here: when people say a Nikon D200 is just as good as it was yesterday when faced with the next upgrade, Nikon D300 - they are actually wrong. Both the viewpoint and mentality change. If the new camera has 1600ISO without noice in pictures, they are soon enough going to think their old camera isn´t all that good.
Do you not agree that innovation changes our viewpoints?

[MasterNile]

I´m not arguing about the upgrades being minimal or not.
I´m simply stating there´s a company here that are consolidating their products (because they are great) when everyone else is rushing for no other purpose than making money. That´s Vista is a failure

Apple is not rushing not because they've got great hardware, they're not rushing because they've got most people that like OS X by the b*lls because they control hardware and software.

"you want to use our wonderful OS? sure but you have to pay out the @ss for outdated technology"

It's a completely different model for Windows boxes, if a company like HP or Dell was offering the same specs as Apple they would lose sales and the company would probably go bankrupt cause someone else will offer better and newer specs for the same price. But if someone tries to offer better specs with OS X then Apple sues them, sure Apple is smart when it comes to their business model, but value and innovation? far from it.

[MasterNile]

You are truly being sweet. I love that there are people like you who think they have options in what they chose to buy or not. You have the option to dwell, not to chose.
But there´s another point here: when people say a Nikon D200 is just as good as it was yesterday when faced with the next upgrade, Nikon D300 - they are actually wrong. Both the viewpoint and mentality change. If the new camera has 1600ISO without noice in pictures, they are soon enough going to think their old camera isn´t all that good.
Do you not agree that innovation changes our viewpoints?

Yes it may change our mentality, but doesn't that Nikon D200 take the same pictures it took when you bought it? So unless you need the latest and greatest or fall for marketing hype there is no reason to upgrade, and if you need the latest and greatest (speaking hardware wise and ignoring OS ATM) you either get a Mac Pro or a Windows box.

EDIT: So did the release of the new iMac change both the viewpoint and mentality on your iMac? Apparently not, why not? Maybe because Apple's new hardware isn't a great value or very innovative compared to your 1 year old computer?

[belvdr]

I´m not arguing about the upgrades being minimal or not.
I´m simply stating there´s a company here that are consolidating their products (because they are great) when everyone else is rushing for no other purpose than making money. That´s Vista is a failure

Who is consolidating? I see no consolidation of products. They simply put older tech in the same products and called it an upgrade.

[txnoob]

You are truly being sweet. I love that there are people like you who think they have options in what they chose to buy or not. You have the option to dwell, not to chose.
But there´s another point here: when people say a Nikon D200 is just as good as it was yesterday when faced with the next upgrade, Nikon D300 - they are actually wrong. Both the viewpoint and mentality change. If the new camera has 1600ISO without noice in pictures, they are soon enough going to think their old camera isn´t all that good.
Do you not agree that innovation changes our viewpoints?

You're assuming the update/upgrade is ACTUALLY better. I have seen countless "updates" to products that were actually inferior to their predecessor. In those instances, it made the previous model seem even better than the new model, and their value raise. I think this is becoming more and more common in a world where companies push cheap quantity over quality.

[clyde2801]

What attracted me to the platform in 03 was watching a lot of guys I know happily using 3 or 4 year old desktops and portables making a living (doing non-photo or video work) without a thought of upgrading. It made a nice contrast with the 'gotta buy a new pc every 6-18 months, faster, longer, harder' upgrade mentality.

Of course in the power pc days, spending 1.5-2.5K on a system that gave you half a ghz or less in processor power made little sense. Oooh, the powerbooks went from 1.5 to 1.67 ghz!

I think macs and mac users are slowly falling victim to that mindset with the intel processor development cycle. Every day on the boards there's postings about whether someone should sell their core duo whatever for a core 2 duo etc. Unless you're doing some high end, highly paid work where every lost processor cycle is costing you money, you should use what you've got until it no longer does what you need it to do, or it breaks.

OTOH, I think the specs on the mini are a bit on the paltry side for the price that's being charged for it.

[maccompaq]

It makes little or no difference for me to surf the web, use MS Office or touch up a few pictures with Photoshop using a 1.6GHz computer or a 3.2GHz computer.

[Pagga]

Yes it may change our mentality, but doesn't that Nikon D200 take the same pictures it took when you bought it?

No. The camera does not take the same pictures, because suddenly we are viewing them differently.

P

[belvdr]

No. The camera does not take the same pictures, because suddenly we are viewing them differently.

P

So say said camera took an 10mp picture. You are saying it no longer takes 10mp pictures, because a new camera came out. That makes absolutely no sense and I can't believe you're actually saying that.

People may like the better pictures of the new camera, but the camera is still taking photos just like it did yesterday.

Human perception does not equate to reality all the time.

[MasterNile]

No. The camera does not take the same pictures, because suddenly we are viewing them differently.

P

LOL, that's ridiculous, it is still the same picture, the quality did not degrade, just quality in the industry improved, your argument is about perspective on quality, while mine is one of actual quality.

[stevo8]

Sure it's nice to own the latest and greatest but I see your point as something that only applies to a very small amount of their customers.. Shoot I personally wish they would release stuff faster and offer better this and that blah blah blah cause it would allow me to upgrade to the "old" stuff cheaper. Fact of the matter is, is that a large majority of the people who "upgrade"really don't need to and that most people purchase a machine that's far beyond their needs.

Look at just the attitude towards the previous iMac. The 2.8GHz that sold for $1800+ two weeks ago is just as capable as the new 2.66 and in some aspects still scored higher then the 2.93 with the gt130 even, yet many people pay $700 more for it cause it's "new". I purchased my MBP a few years ago on clearance for $450 less then retail cause the new models were so great everyone had to have them. I walked into a apple store last week and picked up a iMac for $650 off retail for the same reason.. If it wasn't for all the "silly" people pushing one of the smartest computer companies to produce "better" stuff I might be stuck using a PowerBook that costs $2500..

So I say let all the silly people cry about needless crap, and upgrade premature your just saving me money.

[Pagga]

"So say said camera took an 10mp picture. You are saying it no longer takes 10mp pictures"

I am of course saying that a 10mp picture doesn´t mean the same anymore. Therefore, it is not the same equipment per say

[MasterNile]

"So say said camera took an 10mp picture. You are saying it no longer takes 10mp pictures"

I am of course saying that a 10mp picture doesn´t mean the same anymore. Therefore, it is not the same equipment per say

I've completely lost the point of this thread, so Apple shouldn't release new equipment as often so that we don't feel our equipment is outdated (even though it is)? You realize that us feeling our equipment is outdated causes us to update and them to make money, and what about new Mac users that are coming from Windows? you think they want year old technology from Apple or new technology from Windows when it comes to comparing the 2?

[txnoob]

"So say said camera took an 10mp picture. You are saying it no longer takes 10mp pictures"

I am of course saying that a 10mp picture doesn´t mean the same anymore. Therefore, it is not the same equipment per say

I've never really seen anyone take such a philosophical approach to technology before, but I see your point. When something knew comes out, that is indeed an improvement over the it's predecessor, then it devalues it the previous model, techonolgy, etc. Suddenly it's not as hip, hot, cool, good, or hold the same worth. But so what. Like the others are saying, that doesn't mean that what you had before doesn't do exactly what did before or as well. I mean that 10mp picture will still look as stunning and vibrant regardless of the replacement camera having a 14.2MP sensor. And the average human wouldn't even notice the the difference if the 2 cameras took the same picture other than you could probably repoduce the newer one to larger dimensions.

For years computer have been far more capable than any software that can run on them, asside from extreme games that often require technology no more than a year or 18 months old. Granted RAM and Multiple cores can increase the speed of applications and thus your productivity. But that doesn't mean the average user could not still be productive in advanced photoshop functions and the program would not still run as intended.

Thus I really don't see the significance of your point. LOL. Just to get people talking? If so it worked, and I'm humored. :) It would be different if applications were developed at the same rate as the hardware, but they aren't.

[maccompaq]

"So say said camera took an 10mp picture. You are saying it no longer takes 10mp pictures"

I am of course saying that a 10mp picture doesn´t mean the same anymore. Therefore, it is not the same equipment per say

Apparently many people are under the impression that a picture at 12 MP is better quality than 10 MP.

[txnoob]

Apparently many people are under the impression that a picture at 12 MP is better quality than 10 MP.

Apparently. Quality is in the optics. The MP rating only designates how large that image can become before degradation of quality. Other factors affect image quality as well, but trying to simplify.

For instance a 6.1MP image would most likley produce a higher quality 8x10 photo than a 3.0MP image. Assuming the specs were the same in every other way. More dots per inch the longer the quality of the image lasts as it gets larger. If you were printing 4x6 pictures for a photo album, you would most likely not notice the difference.

Same principle applies to a computer. If all your doing is browsing the net, cropping some pictures, and writing the latest term paper, then why would it matter if you had a 24" iMac CD2 2.8 w/ 8800GS or a 24" iMac C2D 3.06 w/ ATI 4850? Just because it came out? That's foolish. Most people would not do that. Espcially when most people know that whenever an electronics purchase is made, it's outdated in 6 months, maybe less.

[rich.smith]

Apple is not rushing not because they've got great hardware, they're not rushing because they've got most people that like OS X by the b*lls because they control hardware and software.

"you want to use our wonderful OS? sure but you have to pay out the @ss for outdated technology"

It's a completely different model for Windows boxes, if a company like HP or Dell was offering the same specs as Apple they would lose sales and the company would probably go bankrupt cause someone else will offer better and newer specs for the same price. But if someone tries to offer better specs with OS X then Apple sues them, sure Apple is smart when it comes to their business model, but value and innovation? far from it.

WTF? Dell is offering machines that are LOWER powered than the previous generation iMacs. Get your facts straight.

iMac: $1199

2.66 Core 2 duo
1066 MHz FSB
2 GB, 1066 MHz DDR3 RAM
320 GB HD
NVidia 9400M

Dell XPS One: $999

2.2 Core 2 Duo
800 Mhz FSB
2 GB, 667 MHZ DDR2 RAM
250 GB HD
Integrated Graphics


Also compare the Dell Studio Hybrid Desktop to the Mac mini. The mini has better graphics. The Dell has some nice features. They are similarly priced.

[MasterNile]

WTF? Dell is offering machines that are LOWER powered than the previous generation iMacs. Get your facts straight.

iMac: $1199

2.66 Core 2 duo
1066 MHz FSB
2 GB, 1066 MHz DDR3 RAM
320 GB HD
NVidia 9400M

Dell XPS One: $999

2.2 Core 2 Duo
800 Mhz FSB
2 GB, 667 MHZ DDR2 RAM
250 GB HD
Integrated Graphics


Also compare the Dell Studio Hybrid Desktop to the Mac mini. The mini has better graphics. The Dell has some nice features. They are similarly priced.

Well first off you're looking at the price for the product red version which is $200 more just for the red color, 2nd the 9400M is integrated graphics as well, so you're saying you can almost match the specs on the 2.66 iMac for $400 less....I don't see your point. The slight boost you'd get from the iMac vs the XPS one isn't worth $400 IMO. (I'm not taking into account any OS)

EDIT: oh and you didn't include the TV tuner in your comparison.

[rich.smith]

Well first off you're looking at the price for the product red version which is $200 more just for the red color, 2nd the 9400M is integrated graphics as well, so you're saying you can almost match the specs on the 2.66 iMac for $400 less....I don't see your point. The slight boost you'd get from the iMac vs the XPS one isn't worth $400 IMO. (I'm not taking into account any OS)

EDIT: oh and you didn't include the TV tuner in your comparison.

It's a $200 (1199 vs 999) difference for less power. The Dell is using OLDER technology than the Mac. Where is your outrage about the Dell? Why aren't they bankrupt?

You are welcome to your opinion about the difference between the entry level XPS One and the entry level iMac. You simply have to choose with your wallet. I would pick the Dell over the iMac. The iMac offers more value to me.

[m1stake]

good thread, would read again

[cold]

It's a $200 (1199 vs 999) difference for less power. The Dell is using OLDER technology than the Mac. Where is your outrage about the Dell? Why aren't they bankrupt?

You are welcome to your opinion about the difference between the entry level XPS One and the entry level iMac. You simply have to choose with your wallet. I would pick the Dell over the iMac. The iMac offers more value to me.

The Dell costs 799$, so it's a 400$ difference.

[rich.smith]

The Dell costs 799$, so it's a 400$ difference.

The model that I was comparing (because it has the full version of Vista) is $999.

My point remains. The bogus claim that I was responding to was that Apple was shipping outdated components and that if Dell did that, they would be bankrupt.

The fact is that the iMac has newer components and that the prices between comparable models are similar. When you add in OS X, iLife, and (for me at least) access to an Apple store, the iMac is a MUCH better value. The repetitive claims that Apple is ripping people off are old, annoying, and just plain wrong.

The legitimate complaint is that Apple does not offer a cheap, low-cost option in their lineup. What the average consumer fails to acknowledge is that the low-cost options from the PC vendors lineups are cheaply made. How else could Dell rationalize having desktops and laptops that vary in price by hundreds of dollars? Check the prices on Dell laptops and come up with another explanation for the price variation. Apple simply chooses to not play in the cheap, low-cost market segment.

Did you happen to notice that the person who made the bogus claim suddenly dropped that part of the argument?

[MH01]

I´m not arguing about the upgrades being minimal or not.
I´m simply stating there´s a company here that are consolidating their products (because they are great) when everyone else is rushing for no other purpose than making money. That´s Vista is a failure

Really glad that you love you mac and Apple, but your missing one really important point here.

Its called competition, everyone else is rushing to produce better and faster computers cause there is massive competition in the computer market. If it was not for OS X Apple hardware would be a failure in the market, most of us buy macs for OS X. And frankly i have no choice to but to wait until the next update, not do i have a choice in what i get, Apple dictates what the update is and i have to accept it. At least in the PC market u have a choice, Dell update is ******, get a HP or build your own.

Is this really great??? Personal choice I guess.

In regards to the Camera example, I am not a nikon user, but i use Canon bodies, and frankly a 1Dmark3 or 5DMark2 are more then upgrades over their previous bodies, the issues here is not 8MP v 10MP or 13MP v 21MP, its the ability capture the photo with improved AF and lowlight shooting ability, a the big bonus. If the new bodies allow me to capture twice as many photos, that is a huge improvement. Same goes for computers, if my livelyhood is processing Videos/music and apple does not upgrade the mac pro for 12 months (and does not say when they will), I may have to look at a PC to encode much faster ....that is a issue! Time = money

The thing is that alot of people who love thier Apples have really basic computer needs, and these updates mean little to them. Its actually an issue for power users.

[belvdr]

"So say said camera took an 10mp picture. You are saying it no longer takes 10mp pictures"

I am of course saying that a 10mp picture doesn´t mean the same anymore. Therefore, it is not the same equipment per say

It is the same equipment. It's just you may see better value in the new technology. The camera hasn't changed.

EDIT: just an FYI, it's "per se", not "per say". ;)