Apple to Introduce Cheaper Macs?

[NT1440]

It's called conservation of misery. Apple taxes my wallet and MS taxes my time and patience.

Well put! This is exactly how I feel. I hate windows, just do, but I dont care if anyone else uses it. Once I get my macbook, is OSX all the way for me with 7 on another partition just in case. I just cant stand the "windows way" of computing anymore, not after experiencing OSX (and it was Tiger that made me fall in love!).

 

[Compile 'em all]

<<raises hand>> There are still a few fans like me wondering where DELL is going. They were a great company, building great machines.

What is (Was) great about DELL machines if you don't mind me asking?

 

[VoR]

What is (Was) great about DELL machines if you don't mind me asking?

They (are) cheap compared to many, and have great warranty support?

 

[DELLsFan]

What is (Was) great about DELL machines if you don't mind me asking?

Well, in my experience, each of the 3 or 4 towers I've owned lasted 5+ years. Maybe that's no big deal by modern standards, but if you knew how often I've moved around and handed-me-down my DELLs to family, etc ... you'd know they needed to be pretty rugged. With just a few exceptions, I've had no significant problems with them.

Mom's still using the old Dimension I had laying around to play World of Warcraft (yes, I know ... my MOM, for God's sake ... what have I done????) I think that system is about 7 years old. I gave an older Pentium 4 machine to a friend and he still uses it. That's gotta be just as old if not older than Mom's. Pretty reliable record with me. <<shrug>>

Most recently, I owned a M1710 XPS laptop that just kicked ass. It was a HEAVY 17" desktop replacement that gamed very nicely. Not good for airplanes, but quite good to a friend. I sold it to him when his PC died so I could bolster up my Mac Pro fund.

I really liked the warranties with all my old DELL machines. 4 year complete care (includes accidental damage - like water). Never needed to really use them, but I was very glad to have them. And my friend is glad I transferred ownership of the XPS M1710's warranty to him conveniently at the website too. I always tease him ... recommending he "accidentally" drop the sucker before the term runs out. With any luck, they'll no longer have parts for the M1710 and he'll get a nice upgrade! ;p

 

[vstill]

Apple Store Offline

For about the past half-hour or so of this Sunday, May 3, 2009 the Apple Store has been offline with a "We'll be back soon!" message.

What's up!? Something new?

 

[conradzoo]

Apple Store is down. Maintenance for sure but one can dream...

(ah, too late...)

 

[zap2]

These people argueing Apple machines are more expensive because there parts are "better" clearly have not seen Apple profit ratio on Macs, its huge. I'm not saying thats bad, but Apple could lower prices(or up specs) or use lower end chips in a low end Mac. Something with an atom perhaps?


I hope this rumor is true, I really don't need a super fast laptop and I don't want a 13'' screen. It puts me in a rough spot

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

Well, in my experience, each of the 3 or 4 towers I've owned lasted 5+ years. Maybe that's no big deal by modern standards, but if you knew how often I've moved around and handed-me-down my DELLs to family, etc ... you'd know they needed to be pretty rugged. With just a few exceptions, I've had no significant problems with them.

I actually still have an old Smartstep 100n. Made in 2002 i think. Doesnt even have an ethernet port on it. Runs like it did 7 years ago though, no hardware issues at all. It was dropped once and a bit of the plastic around the screen broke off, but the screen still functions, as does everything else. I also have several Optiplex gx240's laying around that work like new.
I also have an XPS 420 that is having fan issues. Dell said they were going to send me a new temp sensor and i never heard from them again. If their support team was better, Dell would still be on top.

These people argueing Apple machines are more expensive because there parts are "better" clearly have not seen Apple profit ratio on Macs, its huge. I'm not saying thats bad, but Apple could lower prices(or up specs) or use lower end chips in a low end Mac. Something with an atom perhaps?

Lowering prices doesnt really solve the problem if they lower the specs as well. It will still be overpriced.

 

[IWantItThatWay]

This is getting ridiculous. MOST people do not get 15" for the sake of watching movies. There is a huge difference between watching movies on a TV that 32" and one that is 40". There is not much of a difference between a 13" & 15". LOL.

Actually a 13 inch and 15/16 inch may be that difference, which is why most people buy 15 (16) inch notebooks. 13 inch screens are way too small.

My hard drive uses firewire 800 and is far more faster than usb 2.0. There are digital cameras that still use FireWire. Both 400 & 800 are faster overall than USB 2.0. If you were so smart you would know that. iPods have USB because they had to when they offered iTunes for Windows. You should know that.

How many devices use firewire? 5, maybe 6? Apple should just replace their FireWire ports with more USB ports.

You say the 17" battery life is low. Most reports name it in the 4:30-5:30 range. Name me one 17" that comes even close in battery life. Just one. Like I said before go and read anandtech's review of the battery life of the 15" MBP. Here I'll help

Yeah and it costs you $179 to replace the battery (the same price for a 12-cell HP battery).

you:http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3435&p=13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DVD Playback
New MacBook Pro (OS X) 3.07 hours
New MacBook Pro (Vista) 1.5 hours

Wireless Internet Browsing DVD Playback Heavy Usage
MacBook Air (OS X) 4.98 hours 3.93 hours 2.7 hours
MacBook Air (Vista) 2.55 hours 2.05 hours 1.75 hours
Lenovo X300 (Vista) 2.82 hours 2.18 hours 1.68 hours

From Anandtech: "All I can do for now is report the numbers as is. An unexpected benefit of OS X appears to be better battery life. Go figure."

OS X has better battery life, this is true (I have said OS X is far superior to Windows). But your post shows that the Thinkpad does have better life under Vista.

And the T300 is outdated anyways, the T500 (15 inch, far better specs than the MacBook and is $100 cheaper) gets 6 hours battery life. http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4565

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Engadget: "Absent any mention of Hybrid SLI, we assumed that was all, but PC Mag has posted some eyebrow-raising benchmarks comparing the new MacBook Pro to HP's Pavilion HDX16t, which also features a 9600M GT. While the MacBook Pro test model fell behind the Pavilion in most benchmarks due to its slower processor, its Crysis framerate beat that of the Pavilion by 24.1 frames per second -- 41.9 over 17.3. "

HP uses GDDR2 RAM, but you can get a better laptop for the same price as a MBP anyways.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still think they make lousy computers?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overpriced for the specs, and lack of customization - yes.

From PC World:
Apple clobbers Windows PC makers in customer service survey
Apple Inc. beat rival computer makers such as Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Inc. by wide margins in a recent customer satisfaction survey, an analyst said today.

Of the five computer manufacturers that made it into Forrester Research Inc.'s Customer Experience Index top 114 firms, Apple scored 80%, enough for a label of "good" and 23rd place.

Gateway, HP and Compaq, meanwhile, scored 66%, 64% and 63%, respectively, taking places 64, 72 and 78. Only Gateway did well enough to sneak into the "okay" category; HP and Compaq dropped into the "poor" pigeonhole.

Dell was the lowest-scoring computer maker in the index, getting just 58% -- "poor" by Forrester's standards -- and holding down 93rd place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? A bottom of the line graphics card? Why does Dell & Alienware offer the same "old, outdated card". LOL. Still no comment though about the problems that Vista had with Nvidia cards when they it was launched. Huh.

What do you know about how and why people buy things? LOL. You're not very smart if you think that looks don't matter. There is a difference between a BMW and a Honda. There is a difference between a Corvette and a Ferrari. Just because they go as fast doesn't mean they're just as good. There's a difference between an ugly girl and a pretty girl. Who do you think the guys will ask out more? There is a difference between a Picasso and something you drew. You know nothing if you think that design doesn't have an impression on this world.

BTW, you want to know what build quality is: http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/26/macbook-pro-takes-bullet-like-a-champ/
That's the picture of a MBP taking a bullet and still working. That is build quality.

Unlike you I back up what I say. End of lesson.

Well yes, Apple would have better support (being they make the OS and hardware), but even then, reading the posts on here and seeing AppleCare (how expensive it is), Apple seems to hate helping people (see 4850 iMac issue). The report doesn't give enough information (such as how the issue of reliability, was it business or home users, etc. etc.) Seems more like fanboys replying to the survey (justifying paying premium for the same specs).

 

[zap2]

Lowering prices doesnt really solve the problem if they lower the specs as well. It will still be overpriced.

Yes, but if people needs are surfing, pages, iTunes and they want an Apple notebook, 999 seems steep. However 499, even for a 10'', Atom based laptop is more fitting. Over priced? Maybe compared to a EEE PC, but a great deal for an Apple fan.

 

[BJWanlund]

I think 's problem is that the perception that Macs aren't cheap is hurting them. Bad.

That being said, could we PUH-LEEZE torch the white plastic MB and shove the Aluminum unibody MB down to the $999 price point???

BJ

 

[Digital Skunk]

I think 's problem is that the perception that Macs aren't cheap is hurting them. Bad.

That being said, could we PUH-LEEZE torch the white plastic MB and shove the Aluminum unibody MB down to the $999 price point???

BJ

That won't happen. Let's just keep the white plastic MB and bring it down to $899 or $799.

Then put a new aluminum unibody in at $999 that has a lower clocked CPU and some other low end specs.

 

[DMann]

I'll stop when apple can offer competitive prices. They are kinda smart about their price scheme though. Its low enough that its affordable, but high enough that only a few dare spend that much on a computer. At this point Apple can pretty much do whatever they want because theres always that small amount of users who will buy apple products no matter what.

Quite ironic then, isn't it, that MS discovered the need to monetarily bribe consumers into purchasing the affordable products.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

Quite ironic then, isn't it, that MS discovered the need to monetarily bribe consumers into purchasing the affordable products.

Were you in the filming crew?

 

[AidenShaw]

Were you in the filming crew?

An important part of "denial" is to find and embrace an alternate reality that more-or-less fits with the facts.

 

[skaertus]

I think we will eventually see a Core i7 Mac Pro. Same-sized case as the current quad- and octo-core models.



Or it could be that many of us are f**king sick and tired of seeing the same old dead horse being dug up and flogged once again.

"Macs are overpriced". Seriously, it's been around since the 80's. PLEASE. STOP.

Yes, it's been around since the 80's. But at least Macs had a different processor and were faster than PCs. Since Macs and PCs are basically the same computers now, the "Apple tax" has become pretty obvious. I really don't care paying more for a faster computer. What I do care is paying more for a slower computer.

 

[IWantItThatWay]

Yes, it's been around since the 80's. But at least Macs had a different processor and were faster than PCs. Since Macs and PCs are basically the same computers now, the "Apple tax" has become pretty obvious. I really don't care paying more for a faster computer. What I do care is paying more for a slower computer.

The PowerPC was never faster than Wintel PCs.

 

[Digital Skunk]

How many devices use firewire? 5, maybe 6? Apple should just replace their FireWire ports with more USB ports.

NO!

More USB ports, sure why not. It's universal and everyone uses them, but there still needs to be at least that ONE FW800 port on the machine.

I just read the poster you quoted and yours, so if I've taken this outta context I am sorry.

 

[MikeTheC]

The PowerPC was never faster than Wintel PCs.

You've clearly never done desktop publishing and design work on systems of the era, or you would never even *think* of making such a comment.

PPC ruled the roost, in my experience, pretty much up to about 98-99. x86 was not even close until eventually they were putting out processors there were better than double the clock speed. And even then it's been a back-and-forth fight right up to about the time that Apple got sand-bagged with Motorola's lack of development on the G4s and G5s. Now, at this point and for the past several years, sure, x86 is faster. Much faster. You can thank Intel and AMD's back-and-forth competition and Intel's CoreDuo/Core2Duo and newer for that.

 

[MikeTheC]

NO!

More USB ports, sure why not. It's universal and everyone uses them, but there still needs to be at least that ONE FW800 port on the machine.

I just read the poster you quoted and yours, so if I've taken this outta context I am sorry.

I agree, Apple needs to keep FW800 on their line-up, particularly with an eye to multimedia production, much of which involves the use of FW400 and FW800 equipment. However, I am starting to wonder a bit about Apple any more. I guess we'll see how it goes.

 

[JBazz]

I would rather they not lower their prices if it means their support is going to be lowered also. I have always had excellent support and replacement/repair out of Apple. It is one of the reasons I will buy a more expensive product.

Personally, I am sick of the bottom basement business mode. I dont want to be treated like cattle. But thats just me.

 

[IWantItThatWay]

You've clearly never done desktop publishing and design work on systems of the era, or you would never even *think* of making such a comment.

PPC ruled the roost, in my experience, pretty much up to about 98-99. x86 was not even close until eventually they were putting out processors there were better than double the clock speed. And even then it's been a back-and-forth fight right up to about the time that Apple got sand-bagged with Motorola's lack of development on the G4s and G5s. Now, at this point and for the past several years, sure, x86 is faster. Much faster. You can thank Intel and AMD's back-and-forth competition and Intel's CoreDuo/Core2Duo and newer for that.

Well to be honest I don't know too much about the 90's CPUs (well at least with Apple, no one cared for them then). But I do remember the G5 being the "World's fastest PC" and getting shut down within a day of the claims. And the G4 was quickly outdone by Intel/AMD almost immediately as well.

 

[Digital Skunk]

You've clearly never done desktop publishing and design work on systems of the era, or you would never even *think* of making such a comment.

PPC ruled the roost, in my experience, pretty much up to about 98-99. x86 was not even close until eventually they were putting out processors there were better than double the clock speed. And even then it's been a back-and-forth fight right up to about the time that Apple got sand-bagged with Motorola's lack of development on the G4s and G5s. Now, at this point and for the past several years, sure, x86 is faster. Much faster. You can thank Intel and AMD's back-and-forth competition and Intel's CoreDuo/Core2Duo and newer for that.

True, but as you say it's a back and forth thing..... I personally would put the G5 chips surpassing the Wintels for months before Intel was able to catch surpass.

The only areas that Apple suffered from Motoral's/IBM's lack of development was in laptop and server class chips. The G4 was still in the mobile lineup almost three years after the initial G5. Apple just gave us speed bumps and Mac users SUFFERED underneath the heel of the Centrino and Xeon.

Apple switched to Intel at the RIGHT time. I couldn't imagine Mac users still using a 2GHz G4 Powerbook while the rest of the computing world is using the Core 2 Duo.

I agree, Apple needs to keep FW800 on their line-up, particularly with an eye to multimedia production, much of which involves the use of FW400 and FW800 equipment. However, I am starting to wonder a bit about Apple any more. I guess we'll see how it goes.

Same here. I am a little worried about Apple. It seems that they're tossing out more and more professional hardware and software.

 

[IWantItThatWay]

NO!

More USB ports, sure why not. It's universal and everyone uses them, but there still needs to be at least that ONE FW800 port on the machine.

I just read the poster you quoted and yours, so if I've taken this outta context I am sorry.

Okay then, Apple should just put a USB port on the side with the optical drive. They won't though, because it won't look as pretty, which to me, summarizes Apple's (hardware) philosophy - style over substance.

 

[str1f3]

Actually a 13 inch and 15/16 inch may be that difference, which is why most people buy 15 (16) inch notebooks. 13 inch screens are way too small.

How wold you know the reason people buy these laptops? You say that 13" is too small? Do you know what the most popular laptops are now? Netbooks. You cannot just say how you feel and back it up with nothing.

How many devices use firewire? 5, maybe 6? Apple should just replace their FireWire ports with more USB ports.

Why would Apple replace it with something that is more than twice as slow? You are all about specs. Well specs mean speed. LOL. You want it to be slower?

Yeah and it costs you $179 to replace the battery (the same price for a 12-cell HP battery).

The Macbook Pro 17" battery lasts 5 YEARS. You have not yet stated evidence (not from a manufacturer) that shows battery life of a 17" that approaches the MBP. BTW, who wants a makeshift battery that sticks out the back of the computer.

OS X has better battery life, this is true (I have said OS X is far superior to Windows). But your post shows that the Thinkpad does have better life under Vista.

Read it again. The battery life on average is double for OS X.

And the T300 is outdated anyways, the T500 (15 inch, far better specs than the MacBook and is $100 cheaper) gets 6 hours battery life. http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=4565

The tech specs I showed were for the X300 not T500. BTW the T500 that you pointed out has worse specs. The only thing that is superior is the processor and it is more expensive machine at $2300. The MBP has a larger hard drive, better graphics card, lighter, same amount of 2gb ddr3, and is less expensive. The reason that the thinkpad has longer battery life is because the reviewer opted for a 9-cell instead of the 6-cell that it came with. I could just get another battery for the MBP for $129 and have the same battery life with better specs at a cheaper price. The battery also doesn't stick out of the back of the machine like a sore thumb.

HP uses GDDR2 RAM, but you can get a better laptop for the same price as a MBP anyways.

DDR3 RAM does not acount for a 2.5x increase in graphics performance in crysis. It has been well known for some time that apple customizes the graphics cards they put in their machines. Chances are that is the reason for the leap in performance. When you control hardware and software, it gives you a greater edge. You just pointed out out the T500 which does not have superior specs, but rather inferior, and is more expensive.

Overpriced for the specs, and lack of customization - yes.

You just pointed out out the T500 which does not have superior specs, but rather inferior, and is more expensive. But Lenovo does have great build quality though! LOL

Well yes, Apple would have better support (being they make the OS and hardware), but even then, reading the posts on here and seeing AppleCare (how expensive it is), Apple seems to hate helping people (see 4850 iMac issue). The report doesn't give enough information (such as how the issue of reliability, was it business or home users, etc. etc.) Seems more like fanboys replying to the survey (justifying paying premium for the same specs).

You're making me dizzy. You just said in a previous post that Apple had lousy support. You point out lousy support but show no evidence. You cannot say that OS X is great and then complain about the 4850 (which was an OS X issue). If you had OS X on a Dell with a 4850, you would have had the same issue. There was still no mention of the problems of Vista initially having problems with Nvidia cards or the issues with laptops not being "Vista capable" when it said so on the box. The report I mentioned may not suit you. You can look at any report of support of the last 10 years and Apple would be at the top. This report comes as no surprise or shock to anyone. You cannot say simply fanboys upped the approval of support. Not every mac user hangs out at MacRumors.