That would be awesome. I don't need a Xeon CPU or ECC RAM. It's a total overkill. What Apple completely misses is the desktop computer category. You know, desktop CPU, multiple drive (HDD + SSD) configuration, dedicated video card. I don't like the all-in-one iMac, it's extremely hard to replace the drive, and it's a major compromise because of the lack of space. Not to mention I use my monitors for 10-15 years, so the computer part should be separate. As an engineer, developer and photographer, I'll always need more high-end stuff than an internet browser. If the Mac Mini had a version that's 2-3 times larger, it would still fit in my backpack, and it could be made a serious desktop machine with dual drives and a good video card. (Let me explain: I always use external monitors, keyboard and mouse, I very rarely need a laptop, but I still need a machine I can easily carry.)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. Mac Sales Flat in April as iPod Sales Continue to Slide
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That would be awesome. I don't need a Xeon CPU or ECC RAM. It's a total overkill. What Apple completely misses is the desktop computer category. You know, desktop CPU, multiple drive (HDD + SSD) configuration, dedicated video card. I don't like the all-in-one iMac, it's extremely hard to replace the drive, and it's a major compromise because of the lack of space. Not to mention I use my monitors for 10-15 years, so the computer part should be separate. As an engineer, developer and photographer, I'll always need more high-end stuff than an internet browser. If the Mac Mini had a version that's 2-3 times larger, it would still fit in my backpack, and it could be made a serious desktop machine with dual drives and a good video card. (Let me explain: I always use external monitors, keyboard and mouse, I very rarely need a laptop, but I still need a machine I can easily carry.)
Demand may be waning, but Macs are the best they've ever been.
There may be a few faster and/or more powerful computers out there, but when it comes to specs or build quality, the top-of-the-line, late-2012 27" iMac is hardly "miles behind" anything.
There may be a few faster and/or more powerful computers out there, but when it comes to specs or build quality, the top-of-the-line, late-2012 27" iMac is hardly "miles behind" anything.
Are we really going to get into a benchmarks vs. total experience debate?
Total experience is paramount and for those of us who push hardware (gamers, multitrack musicians, video editors, etc.), benchmarks are a key part of the total experience. End of argument.
Now let's argue about whether hot or cold tap water is more important.
Total experience is paramount and for those of us who push hardware (gamers, multitrack musicians, video editors, etc.), benchmarks are a key part of the total experience. End of argument.
Now let's argue about whether hot or cold tap water is more important.
If you make a true comparison, i.e. Apple model to PC model the benchmark differences are not noticeable to the average consumer.
Spec hounds and people who put high processing demands onto laptops will disagree, but for my 2 cents the MacBook line is just fine and Haswell will
hopefully make the "benchmark" crowd happy.
It's a non issue for me.
There's nothing wrong with owning a faster computer. I have a 2011 dell studio that I bought just before getting a 2011 MBA with significantly lower specs. Haven't touched the dell since (which seems to have wrecked the battery as it lasts for 30 minutes), so your "thinking" does not seem to apply to everyone (I know, stating the obvious, but since you asked...)
Wow, you mean with only one iMac refresh in a span of 748 days (and counting, over two years) the consumer public doesn't feel any urgency to go out and shop Apple? Do tell!
Possibly, but before they can do that they have to solve the 'what is our development platform?' problem. If iOS gets to the point where there are iOS devices that developers want to use, then yeah, the Mac may be doomed.
Parents also buy them for themselves for the same reason. I bought an iPod touch 2 years ago. It does everything an iPhone can do except make calls (which I don't do very often), but it cost me a total of $300 (the price of the unit) instead of $150 + $75 * 24 = $1,950. So I'll stick with the iPod over the iPhone as long as it is an option.
Nice things cost money.
The "stigma" of being perceived as overpriced is not something Apple has ever concerned itself about, and never will. Computers so well-designed, that "just work," come at a premium, as they should. It's part of what sets the Apple brand apart. Consumers either understand and accept that, or they buy something else.
The "stigma" of being perceived as overpriced is not something Apple has ever concerned itself about, and never will. Computers so well-designed, that "just work," come at a premium, as they should. It's part of what sets the Apple brand apart. Consumers either understand and accept that, or they buy something else.
Not in my house! I'm not going to pay that kind of money just so my kids can send messages to their friends.
AMEN!
If there's one Achilles heel to the PC scene, it's the OEMs half assing their low end lines and loading down all their machines with crapware.
You could have the fastest, best built PC in the world, and it won't mean crap if you can barely use it because you have 40 redundant programs eating up all your ram in the task bar, with all of them forcing a deluge of harassment pop ups down your throat.
This is why I applaud MS making their own hardware. It's guaranteed to run well, and not come with any extraneous fluff that adds nothing and takes 4 hours to remove.
You thought wrong. So as long as the specs and benchmarks are good the whole experience will be better? Yeah.
. Windows brings down the curve. I would rather have a slower Mac than a faster PC with crap Windows OS on it. That would slow down my productivity.
I would rather have a slower Mac than a faster PC with crap Windows OS on it. That would slow down my productivity.
Yeah? How?
That's not "top of the line", that is computers with some seriously bad design compromises - tons of weight, no battery life, in exchange for a bit more power. And you are welcome to show evidence how they "easily beat" an MBP. They do indeed lose badly on three benchmarks that are most important to customers: 1. Weight. 2. Size. 3. Battery life.
college bound students
The timing on the MBP upgrades is great for those heading to college (including my youngest child).
Hope they are available immediately at WWDC and they don't have to wait until September/October.
The timing on the MBP upgrades is great for those heading to college (including my youngest child).
Hope they are available immediately at WWDC and they don't have to wait until September/October.
If you're buying a huge workstation laptop, weight, size, and battery life are secondary to power and performance. They're machines designed to be portable desktop replacements, not a laptop you can use in the car for 4 hours.
imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
funny how much that thing looks like a MBP
What about this one?
funny how much that thing looks like a MBP
You could open up a whole new can of worms with that statement. All down to opinion I'm afraid. But yes, a benchmark is more then just specs. Hence why I mentioned design in my post.
You've being sold that hook line and sinker. High end OS? Yes. High end industrial design (the aesthetics of their systems)? Yes. High end amounts of RAM, high end storage and prices that reflect it? Not a chance!
It's over £200 to trade a HDD for an SSD worth at most another £100. They don't ship with the most high end HDDs available which they should for the price. Anything with a laptop 2.5" drive should have those new Hitachi 7200rpm drives AS STANDARD with a fair build to order cost for trading up to an SSD when 500Gb SSDs with TLC flash (35 year lifespan, not 70) are around the £250 price bracket for consumers.
I agree with the "Just works" idea. My old G4 is still going strong after 11 years of use and I'm the second user it's had in it's lifetime, they build their Macs to last but the standard storage/RAM is not only lacking in capacity, in a lot of cases, it's lacking in performance.
Anything with 3.5" drives should be Caviar Black drives all the way as a minimum, 2.5" drives should be 6Gb/s SSDs of 250Gb+ or power efficient 7200rpm drives with large caches and 750Gb/1Tb capacities AS STANDARD.
That means no price increases, just across the board spec increases on the most basic of components all brands of computer come with. They're negligible costs compared with the overall prices of any system but would go a long way to actually getting the most out of them from the outset. There's no get out clause where they get to peddle cheaper, lower performing components for premium prices based on some percieved idea of "most consumers" they're high end priced, they should reflect that with the performance of the most basic of components. The move to 8Gb RAM as standard on some systems is positive but want any more and you better get saving for that 200%+ mark up Apple charge to swap out the standard RAM for double the density.
Last edited:
they are still profiting off the ipods. I can see development and innovation in them slowly die but I think they will keep producing them for a good long while.
My 2010 17" MBP runs about 4 hours on battery, maybe more if I'm careful as when on an airplane.