Apple isn't even "dumbing down for the consumer", unfortunately. They're just dumbing down period, IMO. By this I mean that a consumer wants a mid-range tower to compete with the most common PC configuration out there (i.e. a mini-tower or tower with a good GPU, reasonable expandability for more hard drives and a few cards and a price gamut between $800-1500). This market is just plain IGNORED by Apple. Their ONLY tower starts at $2500 these days. That's just plain ridiculous when you can get an Intel Quad-Core with 8GB of ram, a 1.5TB drive and a better graphics card (take your pick really including SLI for PCs) for $800-1200 (depending on GPU) that will run circles around that Mac Pro for most prosumer applications and gaming. Apple literally has *NOTHING* that can compete with such a PC. NOTHING.
So is it any wonder then that some of us are contemplating building or buying a Hackintosh for our next "Mac" ? Apple provides NO VALUE these days in its Mac lines. I only bought my MBP last fall because I saved $600 off retail when they had a clearance sale of the old models as the new ones came in (essentially getting me a MBP for the price of the new regular Macbook). Otherwise, $2000 isn't reasonable IMO for the MBP. It comes with a cheap webcam, small hard drive and you better buy your own memory and put it in yourself or you'll get ripped off royally. I continually have issues with my either my USB mouse or keyboard not working when waking from sleep (unless I pull the hub and plug it back in) and for all the talk about how reliable Unix/OS X is, I've had more than a few kernel panics on the thing after several wake/sleep cycles (I guess it's not just my old upgraded PowerMac that gets kernel panics). Kernel panics are EXACTLY the same thing as the blue screen of death on Windows. Apple pretending like they don't have them is utterly laughable. I almost never see kernel issues like that with Linux. X-Windows might crash itself silly, but to force a reboot? (i.e. some magic key combos will usually reset X without requiring a reboot) I've had to do it a few times over the years, but nothing like OS X. Frankly, XP Pro has been pretty reliable on my PC. I'm not sure it's any less reliable than OS X in that regard. Yes, Windows98 was a crash test dummy, but that's ages ago and more akin to OS9 which was no better, IMO.
The thing is Apple has continually ignored the gaming market segment and so you would think that would have meant that their operating system would be the most stable thing known to man by now. They don't have to support every hardware configuration out there and they don't have to support their own 3D gaming library like Microsoft does with DirectX and Direct3D. They use the open source (i.e. SLOW) OpenGL instead of smartly licensing DirectX from Microsoft (which would make porting games to OS X 100x easier and faster than something like Cider that has to convert everything to OpenGL, leaving the games running like molasses even on the same hardware, but it would never compare in terms of hardware since OS X doesn't support real gaming hardware like SLI or Crossfire in the first place). So in summary, Apple is not a gaming computer AT ALL but yet it's still got a long way to go to be a truly stable Unix platform. I was running Final Cut Pro on my MBP when it got those kernel panics, not Call Of Duty. Pro should mean that doesn't happen.
Don't even get me started about that mini-display port crap. The very idea that a Mac *PRO* would have a *MINI* display port instead of a full sized one (let alone the argument that DVI is entrenched right now and that HDMI options would be more usable for secondary ports) just smacks of the underlying causes of us even having a "Mini" display port in the first place. One would assume that Apple created it to save space on their notebook computers, but display port is ALREADY very small so this is hard to believe and clearly a Mac Pro has PLENTY of room for a full size display port. There is nothing professional about a mini-display port because no one but Apple uses the darn thing. It's clearly just another move to try and force people to buy Apple's overpriced monitors. The fact they'd do it on a Mac Pro is just unforgivable, IMO. The market is not even remotely the same as a Macbook. At the very least they should offer proper adapters for a reasonable price so you can connect what you WANT or NEED instead of what Apple wants you to buy. The fact they want $99 for something that would have cost NOTHING had they used the industry standard bears mentioning. The fact that they will go through several more GPUs before anyone else even begins to support mini-display port or provide a cheaper adapter just shows how Apple thumbs its nose at the consumer. I'm sure $99 for a $10 adapter helps pad those record breaking profits during a recession and increases their 22+ BILLION in cash reserves...all on the hands of the consumer who has limited choices and high prices to deal with if they want to run Mac software.
Yeah, I'm irked at Apple. I much prefer OS X to Windows, especially to Vista which is just awful, but Apple seems to be doing everything it can to ensure that if Windows7 is successful that it will go back to being a 4% player in the market. If rumors are true and Snow Leopard dumps PPC, there goes nearly half the Mac market share right there and Apple will be back to 4-5% because no one will release "Universal" software for Snow Leopard since it doesn't support Universal software. Thus, software for regular Leopard will dry up in less than a year, IMO since no developer in his right mind is going to want to maintain two separate builds just to support older PPC machines. Apple therefore thinks all those G4 and G5 users (including G5 Quads which still run circles around most Intel iMacs) will just give them MORE money to upgrade to a new Intel machine in order to get new software support. They better hope that doesn't backfire and those people buy new PCs instead.
Personally, I'll buy a Hackintosh the next time around and then I'll be covered on both ends. It'll be able to run Windows or Mac and if Apple screws it all up, I still have a usable machine. Yes, Apple's own computers can run Windows also, but only the Mac Pro supports better graphics cards, etc. that Windows can already use and that OS X will probably never support any time soon.
What's Pro about Macs these days? I'm not sure. The lack of viruses is the number 1 selling point to me followed by a better user interface. If the former ever changes (nothing is there to stop virus writers from attacking Macs in the future should their market share go up) that leaves OS X purely to the mercy of Microsoft NOT improving their OS and we all know that Microsoft is emulating the best features of the Mac as fast as it can script them. Call it copying, call it unfair, but regardless, it's what Microsoft does. They're very good at bullying their way to the top and shoving other computer companies out of business. That's what happened to the Commodore Amiga (which I used to love) and this idea that because iPods and iPhones are extremely popular right now that the Mac is somehow "safe" in the future is just absurd. Apple should have been competing and pushing for expanded market share all this time, not just milking consumers for the highest possible profits. It's market share that protects a computer from obsolescence not cash reserves (Look how fast GM burned through their billions in reserves when things went South). Apple once had almost 20% market share in the late '80s and early '90s and places like Best Buy had 2-3 rows of software for the Mac. Now they have 1/2 a row (and that's up from NONE just a few years ago). That 20% fell to 4% pretty fast. Imagine if it had been only 8-9% when it fell. Apple would be out of business right now. They came pretty close as it was.
Even with the DISASTER that is Vista, Microsoft is in no danger of going away because 90% means virtual invulnerability, especially when its competitor cares more about milking existing consumers that trying to attract new ones and would rather sue (litigate) companies that could help increase market share (like Psystar) than to actually COMPETE with them, which is what Capitalism is supposed to be about. To make matters worse, my 2001 era PowerMac was Made In the USA. Prices are actually HIGHER now for a Mac and they're all Made In China. Guess where the labor cost savings went? Right into Apple's cash reserves. Are Macs more reliable as a result? When 3 out of 4 MBPs have major defects as one poster in another thread mentioned happened to him, I'd have to say NO. My (since upgraded) PowerMac is 8 years old and runs perfectly fine. I'm typing on it right now with 10.5.7. and it doesn't feel any slower for typical day-to-day stuff than my brand new (as of last October) MBP. In fact, app tests show that the MBP is typically only 3-4x faster and that's with two cores. Comparing only one core (since I chose the single CPU G4 upgrade instead of the double), it's only 1.5-3x faster at most. For an eight year span, that's a much smaller difference than I would have expected. All this talk about how Snow Leopard should just dump all PPC support because they're completely outdated is ridiculous, IMO. A Quad G5 is faster than most Core2Duo Intel models with many applications. But Apple doesn't make "new sales" on them so force them all to upgrade or move on and reduce the market share to 5-6% in one fell swoop. Go for it Apple. You'll have even less room to fall when Windows7 comes out and people realize they can get a PC that costs 1/3 as much that is twice as fast as a comparably priced Mac and runs nearly or just as well.
I can easily prove already that a $900 Hackintosh Quad-Core can outrun a $2500 Mac Pro for most applications. Apple has nothing that could touch it. If the Mac Pro truly were a PRO computer, Apple would not be worrying about whether a reasonably priced mid-range tower would usurp some Mac Pro sales because those sales would be from CONSUMERS (not professionals) that are currently being forced to buy a professional machine because Apple's mid-range computers are JOKES (iMacs are SLOW laptop based machines, not true desktops; a $799 Dell can run much faster!) Apple has a huge hold in its lineup and if they don't want to fill it, they should let someone else like Dell or Psystar do it. I have no doubts that the Mac market share could be 50%-100% more than it is right now if they offered truly competitive hardware or opened their doors to clones. This market is nothing like the one in the late 1990s. Cloning could be a good thing long term for Apple, particularly if they had a good degree of control over it. It would let them focus on the odd machines like iMacs and professional machines like the Mac Pro and leave the consumer Macs to the PC switchers they claim they want to court. Jack up OS X by $200 and they could make $300 in pure profit from each clone sold just on the OS itself, let alone licensing costs. If that boosted market share by 50%, they'd be protecting their long term investments, increasing the software base and therefore the software offerings and all around improving the Mac's standing in the world. But no, they look to short term profit wind-falls instead of the long-term picture. It's the same mistake Detroit made with cars compared to the Japanese and look where it got them in the long run....
So then serious design industry offices should have very little if any light in their offices along with hoods on all their displays? Not exactly. Most have their displays in a fairly lit room, and most have hoods to compensate for any unnecessary glare. That's where it usually stops. Apple's new displays have so much glare it's not even funny. Let's not get off topic on a tangent of hypotheticals, the OP was referring to Apple's new glass displays. I've seen hoods on a few, and even the hoods don't deter glare on all of it.
