Yup, exactly why Apple fail in the enterprise environment. If I have a faulty Dell, I call Dell and have an engineer on site with a replacement part within 2 days. If one of our Macs fail, it has to go back to where we bought it from and I don't see it again for about 2 weeks, which then leaves one of our designers without his MBP, twiddling his thumbs. So what am I supposed to do, have a stock of 5 MBPs gathering dust and loosing value for when our issued ones fail?
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.
Apple to Introduce Cheaper Macs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've just learned to accept that Apple will always be behind when it comes to hardware. It's such a shame their great OS is trapped on their garbage machines - Apple needs to set OS X free.
Imagine OS X on a Core i7 920 machine, Radeon HD 4890 (or GeForce GTX 275), 8 gigs of RAM, TB hard drive.... for under $1200.
No no no, Apple's hardware is pretty much garbage. Overpriced and underpowered. It may not be garbage to people who only know Macs, but PC folk laugh at Mac hardware specs (and prices).
OS X deserves be on some real hardware. Or at least Apple should get its act together.
50,000 million iPhones = 50 billion iPhones, more than 9x the number of people in the world at the moment.
Don't even start on the lack of a quad-core option for the iMac. Some of the hardware on Macs are due to Apple's preference of thin designs (which is a whole another issue...), but even within the heat restrictions, there's still a lot of latitude. For example, there could be an option for a slow and cool CPU paired with a fast and hot GPU. The iMac CPUs are all 55 W so there's room for that.
I prefer a higher resolution over a bigger display, but Apple doesn't give that option either.
I don't really consider the MacBook Pro a "pro" computer.
Isn't there quad-core mobile CPUs, anyways? Dell also uses Quad Core for their ONE series of desktops. But I do think the iMac is fairly priced - one of the few things Apple prices right.
I think Apple should just totally get rid of the iMac design anyways, and turn it into a mid-range desktop/monitor combo.
I'd prefer both and a matte screen... i hate seeing my (and other things) reflection on the iMac.
And it's $2000... the 15 inch MacBook Pro is worth no more than $1400.
Yes (2.0/2.27/2.53 GHz). Plus there are 65 W desktop CPUs which Apple might have been able to use if they improved the cooling (both were rumored before the last update).
I´m surprised at all this venom (not only from you), my one year old MacPro holds up really well for my kind of work I think. I do not know Windows well so it could be that I´m completly lost.
Compressor renders well and fast, HD editing is a no problem. I have the basic video card and as I don´t do heavy motion graphics (only light) I have had no problems.
Do all of you that complain make a living out of your Macs, or do you want to play games?
No intension to offend anybody, I´m just curious
I agree. OK, there's Mac Pro, but it's very pricey. Why can't I have an affordable Core i7 920 desktop with a GeForce GTX 200-series running OS X? Why do I have to be happy with an underpowered iMac which uses laptop parts just to be slim and well-designed? I'd rather have an ugly box running OS X at dazzling speeds...
I use a Mac, I don't play games on it. I use it basically for Internet surfing, word processing, watching videos, and so on. Basic use. But I'm seriously disappointed with its performance. I want dazzling speeds, and all Apple provides is moderate speeds in a beautiful package (for a high price).
It's not only that, but the price and lack of configurations as well - for example, you said you have a basic video card but what if I want a top-of-the-line GPU like the GTX 295? Can't get it with a Mac. Not only that, even if Apple did offer it they would probably charge a hardcore premium for it anyways.
I was happy when Apple switched to Intel because the PPC CPUs were so weak it wasn't even funny, but even though Apple switched to Intel they are still behind. Far behind.
I´m surprised at all this venom (not only from you), my one year old MacPro holds up really well for my kind of work I think. I do not know Windows well so it could be that I´m completly lost.
Compressor renders well and fast, HD editing is a no problem. I have the basic video card and as I don´t do heavy motion graphics (only light) I have had no problems.
Do all of you that complain make a living out of your Macs, or do you want to play games?
No intension to offend anybody, I´m just curious
Sorry double post
I see where you´re coming from.
I have to agree with you, the options should be there as it seems possible now with Intel
Yup, when you pay premium you expect premium parts.
What PC manufacturers do is sell a Ferrari for the price of an 87 Toyota, Apple does the complete opposite. OS X is a great OS trapped inside expensive slow hardware.
I imagine that every time I remind myself that I need a new tower. Apple has excelled at getting many pros to adopt their software, and then leave them begging on their hands and knees for faster machines and more up-to-date hardware.
True, but what's gold to someone is garbage for someone else.
Makes perfect sense. Many iPhone users are on their third or fourth handset. After Apple tells you that the tiny crack in your screen will cost you $300 to fix, or loose their phones, or get them wet, or drop them one too many times, or etc, etc, etc.
The current X million iPhone users will equal X million (x) 5 by the time the 4G iPhone is around, simply because Apple just wants users to buy an entirely new phone for very small issues.
All too true. What you mention about the iMac is what Apple will never do, give customers a choice/ more options. The iMac is already near 25 lbs. making it a half an inch thicker to get quad core laptop chips, and better GPU inside isn't going to change much except Apple's margin.
I know many would prefer a larger 16" HD 16x9 screen just for watching movies and multitasking for $1000... but with Apple you have to pay 3 times as much.
And NO, I would never truly consider the MBP a PRO computer at all. Not after seeing the offerings by Dell and others.... never. Mid range at best.
heh...
You should get a PC then and stop complaining. I agree that all Macbook pro's should have 4GB RAM as standard but you are taking this way too far. You want multiple configurations, get a PC. You play games all day. Get a PC.
I went to alienware's website and similar configuration is $1449. That includes no LED display (w/glass screen instead of plastic), no DDR3 memory, and it's body is made of plastic, twice as thick and weighs more. I also didn't up the price when they asked for $100 upgrade for Vista SP1 (they recommended it),AV software, and a 9 cell battery (battery life is not listed on the page of tech specs conveniently). Not to mention it has the cheesy glowing alien head sticking out.
Go buy a PC. Meanwhile with the Unibody Macbook pro that I'll get during the refresh in June will more than likely have 4GB and I'll use Boot Camp and I'll have the ability play 99% of the games available.
Windows: More games!!!!! Lousy software!!! (Don't believe me? Go look at the early pics of the hideous beast that is Office 2010)
You should get a PC then and stop complaining. I agree that all Macbook pro's should have 4GB RAM as standard but you are taking this way too far. You want multiple configurations, get a PC. You play games all day. Get a PC.
I went to alienware's website and similar configuration is $1449. That includes no LED display (w/glass screen instead of plastic), no DDR3 memory, and it's body is made of plastic, twice as thick and weighs more. I also didn't up the price when they asked for $100 upgrade for Vista SP1 (they recommended it),AV software, and a 9 cell battery (battery life is not listed on the page of tech specs conveniently). Not to mention it has the cheesy glowing alien head sticking out.
Go buy a PC. Meanwhile with the Unibody Macbook pro that I'll get during the refresh in June will more than likely have 4GB and I'll use Boot Camp and I'll have the ability play 99% of the games available.
Windows: More games!!!!! Lousy software!!! (Don't believe me? Go look at the early pics of the hideous beast that is Office 2010)
Which is why 50 percent of people buying macs are coming from buying PCs.
To get OS X, not to get the hardware. OS X is the reason people get Macs - but if they could get OS X on a Dell or HP, they would prefer to go to them (most would, anyways). This is the main reason Apple will not license OS X. They know the first second people can get OS X on some good hardware no one will buy their hardware.
That's what is so great about PCs - don't like Alienware? Don't get it - tons of other options (literally). With Apple you get Apple's crap and only Apple's crap. I could get a 15 inch Dell (which owns AW lol) with a 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM and a 500GB hard drive for $100 less than the MacBook Pro 15inch standard... and if battery hurts you (MBP doesn't have much better battery anyways) simply get a better battery for $100 more.
It's weird Apple thinks bigger screen = more power. To get a 15 inch Mac laptop you have to spend $2000... that is unbelievable. There should be a 16 inch MacBook (for under $1000).
As I said, I am dissing Apple's hardware - not the OS. Read my posts. I have made it very very clear that OS X is great but the hardware is not. And refreshes, what, once a year? Maybe Apple will finally catch up to 2008 PC hardware in June, lol.
$348 (2.0 GHz), $851 (2.27 GHz), and $1038 (2.53 GHz). For comparison, the 3.07 GHz Core 2 Extreme is $851.
It doesn't even need to be thicker for quad-core.
Generally, bigger display = more room inside for hotter and faster components (and more stuff), but it doesn't have to be as linear as the Apple notebook lineup. For example, a 16" MacBook (as you say), or a 13" MacBook Pro with 2.53 GHz and 1440x900 (I would have got that instead of the 15" MacBook Pro).
Even then I doubt we will see quad-core in the iMac or the Mac Pro. I'm not even sure we will see the specs you posted earlier. Keep in mind that I am being pessimistic in my predictions though.
How is the performance? Is a 2.5ghz C2Q better than a 3GHz C2E and a 3GHz C2D? What about a 2GHz C2Q compared to a 2.66GHz C2D?
Apple should bring back the 12 inch Powerbook (12 inch MBP). But Apple (usually) equates bigger display with more power so I doubt we will ever see it again.
I also doubt it, Apple for some reason hates advanced hardware (I guess they like charging people premium for crap components instead).
That's funny. I mention a name that is synonymous with PC gaming that is owned by Dell no less and you gloss past it. Like I said you're a PC guy. Most people who are going to buy a laptop wantt a modest amount of power with portability in mind. That is why they offer the 13". Most people that use a larger screen are going to use it for photo editing, video editing, & gaming.
You keep trying to separate the software & hardware but when buying a computer you buy both. You're not even talking about hardware really. You're talking about specs. Apparently the specs on the MBP aren't so out of date because I had to upgrade some of them on Alienware's website from the base configuration. You mentioned games on some of your posts yet I priced out a laptop from a company that is the most well known in PC gaming machines.
There is more to hardware than specs. Go look at a MBP. The only one that comes close in quality is Lenovo and they make hideous machines. They also ask for a premium price on some of their machines. If you think build quality is not important, then you have been very lucky with your laptops.
BTW a previous poster mentioned how Dell has great business support and I'm sure that's true. But Dell in a recent survey has ranked the worst in support out of all hardware makers. Apple was at the top and has been for many years. In fact they were the only ones this year to receieve a passing grade over 80%.
Forgot to add the price for a multitouch trackpad which Alienware also does not have.