ya know, although i wouldn't compare OSX to KDE, i can't exactly understand why any mac advocate would put down KDE. does nobody remember where Safari was born?
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.
Low End G4 Box?
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
ya know, although i wouldn't compare OSX to KDE, i can't exactly understand why any mac advocate would put down KDE. does nobody remember where Safari was born?
The localized OS alone doesn't make a summer. If you don't have enough software in your language the OS renders pretty useless for most people...
And fact is that the number of professionally developed software for the Mac declined massively the last few years. I always wonder what they are talking about when they claim thousands of software titles to be available. They just count in all the Shareware and UNIX-Software that can be recompiled under Mac OS X. Too bad that most of the stuff is pretty useless for most of the people. On top of that (as already mentioned before) that kind of software normally comes exclusively in English...
How many software titles are available in German and are not from Adobe, Macromedia or Microsoft? Maybe 20? It is soooo sad...
That .mac is still not available in a european version just fits into the big picture. Steve doesn't give a damn about the market outside the US more than just milking the Mac enthusiast that are still sticking with Apple there. And it starts to backfire, at least here in Germany... Apple is no consumer product at all (I don't know anybody who has a Mac just for private use at home, except my wife). Just a few pros still use Macs. And edcuation market is also almost not existant.
groovebuster
Re: Re: Sounds bogus to me...
Let me say that again. Apple typically works at a 50% margin against MSRP. The reported "gross sales margin" cited in their financial reports is a compsoite value drawn against all sales, both wholesale and retail. By revenue about 40% of Apple's computer selling is done directly, at MSRP, and about 60% of their selling is done at wholesale, with half of that going to Ingram Micro. Some of the higher volume models go to Ingram at as little as a 10% markup. I know CompUSA buys directly from Apple, and the average markup there is only about 14%.
And, the way Apple books sales made through both its online store and its retail stores is as a wholesale to the stores; and, the store divisions then book the profit from the retail markup... and, I have no clue what those pricing tiers might be. Although, looking at the resulting composite margins reported by Apple corporate, it seems the discount given its own retail divisions is pretty slim.
Apple's composite gross margin was at about 28% two years ago, and now runs about 24%, still pretty high for the industry.
Again, those numbers include mostly sales made at wholesale pricing, not MSRP.
I hope this helps you understand this a bit better.
Let me say that again. Apple typically works at a 50% margin against MSRP. The reported "gross sales margin" cited in their financial reports is a compsoite value drawn against all sales, both wholesale and retail. By revenue about 40% of Apple's computer selling is done directly, at MSRP, and about 60% of their selling is done at wholesale, with half of that going to Ingram Micro. Some of the higher volume models go to Ingram at as little as a 10% markup. I know CompUSA buys directly from Apple, and the average markup there is only about 14%.
And, the way Apple books sales made through both its online store and its retail stores is as a wholesale to the stores; and, the store divisions then book the profit from the retail markup... and, I have no clue what those pricing tiers might be. Although, looking at the resulting composite margins reported by Apple corporate, it seems the discount given its own retail divisions is pretty slim.
Apple's composite gross margin was at about 28% two years ago, and now runs about 24%, still pretty high for the industry.
Again, those numbers include mostly sales made at wholesale pricing, not MSRP.
I hope this helps you understand this a bit better.
Re: UMAX
Your comparing two completely different business models tho. UMAX isn't developing anything - they pretty much got everything from Apple and added mark up to make their profit. Whereas Apple making a $500 machine would also have to use it to pay for their development efforts. While they both may make $150 gross profit on the machine (i.e. cost over components) Apple would keep far less of that than a clone maker would because Apple's fixed costs per machine would be higher. Fixed costs keep certain products off the market.
If Apple did make a $500 tower, then you can bet it will basically be like the previous rev of an eMac - G4/700 max. It will not be anything close to a PowerMac in performance.
Your comparing two completely different business models tho. UMAX isn't developing anything - they pretty much got everything from Apple and added mark up to make their profit. Whereas Apple making a $500 machine would also have to use it to pay for their development efforts. While they both may make $150 gross profit on the machine (i.e. cost over components) Apple would keep far less of that than a clone maker would because Apple's fixed costs per machine would be higher. Fixed costs keep certain products off the market.
If Apple did make a $500 tower, then you can bet it will basically be like the previous rev of an eMac - G4/700 max. It will not be anything close to a PowerMac in performance.
Re: Not so Big Mac
Ermm... I think it was a joke "Big Mac" is a trademark of McDonald's, if I'm not mistaken...
"Mini Mac"! lol Shagalicious baby!
Ermm... I think it was a joke
"Big Mac" is a trademark of McDonald's, if I'm not mistaken... "Mini Mac"! lol Shagalicious baby!
Re: Re: UMAX
What?! Those eMacs are already at 1GHz max, exactly where iMacs are and where Power Macs begins. Except maybe for cache, I don't see your point...
Re: Re: UMAX
Actually, to be perfectly precise, it would be a 600$ mini-tower. If the processor is on a module (upgradeable), and it has AGP 2x, GigaBit Ethernet, at least 2 PCI slots, and 2 DIMM slots, I think it would be a great buy. Bundle it with OS X, iLife & AppleWorks (near-zero cost to Apple), and it's a bargain. I think a lot of wannabe Switchers would jump on it.
What does the average home PC owner do with their machine? Surf the Web, eMail, play Solitaire. Don't laugh. A fair portion of the people with PCs I know rarely do anything else with their's. Some will play a few games, and maybe do some Word sometimes. What is the average office PC used for? Surfing the Web, eMail, Word, occasional Excel. A 700 MHZ G4 would be overkill for these applications. And my guess is that Apple would be including an 800 MHz G4, or maybe more... Were talking a year from now here. This product is still at the concept phase.
At that price, I'd even consider it as a render farm unit. Just max the RAM (2 x 1 GiB modules) & upgrade the processor with a 1.33GHz/2MiB-L3 dual G4. Not including RAM, that works out to about 1,580$US. A stripped-down 1.25 GHz/1MiB-L3 dual costs 1,920$US. The new mini-tower would probably be smaller than the PowerMac, which also includes a bunch of stuff I don't need. A 340$US per (faster) machine saving is substantial for a small setup like mine. Multiplied by 4 (that's about how many I'd need), and that is a sweet deal. Of course, if Apple comes out with a 1.8 GHz dual PPC970 XServe Cluster Node, and keeps the price at 2,800$US, that would be an even sweeter deal! For me... But the mini-tower is just what the average home/SoHo/business needs right now, from Apple. A low-end upgradable Mac.
Actually, to be perfectly precise, it would be a 600$ mini-tower. If the processor is on a module (upgradeable), and it has AGP 2x, GigaBit Ethernet, at least 2 PCI slots, and 2 DIMM slots, I think it would be a great buy. Bundle it with OS X, iLife & AppleWorks (near-zero cost to Apple), and it's a bargain. I think a lot of wannabe Switchers would jump on it.
What does the average home PC owner do with their machine? Surf the Web, eMail, play Solitaire. Don't laugh. A fair portion of the people with PCs I know rarely do anything else with their's. Some will play a few games, and maybe do some Word sometimes. What is the average office PC used for? Surfing the Web, eMail, Word, occasional Excel. A 700 MHZ G4 would be overkill for these applications. And my guess is that Apple would be including an 800 MHz G4, or maybe more... Were talking a year from now here. This product is still at the concept phase.
At that price, I'd even consider it as a render farm unit. Just max the RAM (2 x 1 GiB modules) & upgrade the processor with a 1.33GHz/2MiB-L3 dual G4. Not including RAM, that works out to about 1,580$US. A stripped-down 1.25 GHz/1MiB-L3 dual costs 1,920$US. The new mini-tower would probably be smaller than the PowerMac, which also includes a bunch of stuff I don't need. A 340$US per (faster) machine saving is substantial for a small setup like mine. Multiplied by 4 (that's about how many I'd need), and that is a sweet deal. Of course, if Apple comes out with a 1.8 GHz dual PPC970 XServe Cluster Node, and keeps the price at 2,800$US, that would be an even sweeter deal!
For me... But the mini-tower is just what the average home/SoHo/business needs right now, from Apple. A low-end upgradable Mac.
$599 Mac at Fry's today
You can buy a Mac for $599 at Fry's today - snow iMacs are on sale for $599. ($200 off the normal $799 price)
Snow's specs are:
600 MHz G3
128 MiB 100 MHz SDRAM
40 GiB
CD-ROM
Modem
10/100 Ethernet
Rage 128 Graphics 16 MiB
OS X
There's also an HP mini-tower on the same ad for $599:
2.2 GHz Pentium 4
256 MiB 266 MHz DDR
16x DVD-ROM
40x10x40 CD-RW (two optical drives)
Intel Extreme (64 MiB shared)
6 USB 2.0 ports
3 PCI slots (2 open)
Modem
10/100 Ethernet
XP Home
WordPerfect, HP Picture Toolkit, WinDVD, MusicMatch Jukebox, Quicken
You can buy a Mac for $599 at Fry's today - snow iMacs are on sale for $599. ($200 off the normal $799 price)
Snow's specs are:
600 MHz G3
128 MiB 100 MHz SDRAM
40 GiB
CD-ROM
Modem
10/100 Ethernet
Rage 128 Graphics 16 MiB
OS X
There's also an HP mini-tower on the same ad for $599:
2.2 GHz Pentium 4
256 MiB 266 MHz DDR
16x DVD-ROM
40x10x40 CD-RW (two optical drives)
Intel Extreme (64 MiB shared)
6 USB 2.0 ports
3 PCI slots (2 open)
Modem
10/100 Ethernet
XP Home
WordPerfect, HP Picture Toolkit, WinDVD, MusicMatch Jukebox, Quicken
$600 buys...
Or you can get a Dell 4600. I hate Dell because ol' Mike Dell is such a @#&#@! with his public statements on Apple being better sold off as bits and pieces, but here's what they're offering, and others are selling similar machines soon. Mind, this is an $800 machine so maybe it's not a completely fair comparison, but their three-year on-site care is cheaper than AppleCare, so it may work out similarly for AppleCare buyers:
Gotta admit, tho, Apple's iApps are starting to be a real factor in my future thoughts. As is the 930. As is all my legacy software which I can still run under Classic, and the promise of future improvements to OS X 10.3 and beyond.
I was astonished at how easy it is to install Linux, though, and how it easily recognized all my hardware. Much better to install than Windows, and what's really funny is that it installed itself and KOffice (Word, Excel, PowerPoint equivalents along with QUicken equivalent), GIMP (Photoshop), and many other programs...in far less time than it takes ot install Win98 or WinXP. And no activation codes!!!! Took less time than installing OS X, too.
So it's nice to have an alternative, but my decision to stay with the Mac hurts my brain, and I really hope that they do something about their price/performance. I find the latency of OS X really annoying, and that's the main reason I'd like more power. A more efficiently coded interface might be a good substitute for fast chips...! I think a dual 1 GHz machine would do me just fine, but again, the $1,600 thing gets to me. The Fry's sale is starting to look good, but I guess I should wait three weeks and see if the rumors pan out!
Or you can get a Dell 4600. I hate Dell because ol' Mike Dell is such a @#&#@! with his public statements on Apple being better sold off as bits and pieces, but here's what they're offering, and others are selling similar machines soon. Mind, this is an $800 machine so maybe it's not a completely fair comparison, but their three-year on-site care is cheaper than AppleCare, so it may work out similarly for AppleCare buyers:
- "Up to" 3 GHz Pentium 4
- 8 USB ports (2 in front)
- Ultra ATA 100 HD
- 100 M-bps Etherent
- 800 MHz front side bus!!
- Hyperthreading FWIW
Gotta admit, tho, Apple's iApps are starting to be a real factor in my future thoughts. As is the 930. As is all my legacy software which I can still run under Classic, and the promise of future improvements to OS X 10.3 and beyond.
I was astonished at how easy it is to install Linux, though, and how it easily recognized all my hardware. Much better to install than Windows, and what's really funny is that it installed itself and KOffice (Word, Excel, PowerPoint equivalents along with QUicken equivalent), GIMP (Photoshop), and many other programs...in far less time than it takes ot install Win98 or WinXP. And no activation codes!!!! Took less time than installing OS X, too.
So it's nice to have an alternative, but my decision to stay with the Mac hurts my brain, and I really hope that they do something about their price/performance. I find the latency of OS X really annoying, and that's the main reason I'd like more power. A more efficiently coded interface might be a good substitute for fast chips...! I think a dual 1 GHz machine would do me just fine, but again, the $1,600 thing gets to me. The Fry's sale is starting to look good, but I guess I should wait three weeks and see if the rumors pan out!
Or...
Well, I see on the Apple Store a refurbished 1 GHz machine for $1,300.
Certainly makes me think. Power Mac G4 1Ghz 256MB/60GB/Combo/GigE/56K.
I might just go for that ... if the 970 doesn't show up.
I'd still prefer a non-refurb $700 machine with 800 MHz...
Well, I see on the Apple Store a refurbished 1 GHz machine for $1,300.
Certainly makes me think. Power Mac G4 1Ghz 256MB/60GB/Combo/GigE/56K.
I might just go for that ... if the 970 doesn't show up.
I'd still prefer a non-refurb $700 machine with 800 MHz...
Re: Re: Re: UMAX
Dropping the monitor from the $799 eMac (which is a G4/800) would drop the cost maybe as much as $150 (and I seriously doubt that much). That's still a $650 tower (vs the $500 proposed). The only way they are going to shave off the remaining $150 is to use cheaper parts, like a G4/700 or slower.
Dropping the monitor from the $799 eMac (which is a G4/800) would drop the cost maybe as much as $150 (and I seriously doubt that much). That's still a $650 tower (vs the $500 proposed). The only way they are going to shave off the remaining $150 is to use cheaper parts, like a G4/700 or slower.
here, here, here *cough*
I do, one of my friends does too...
but I agree with you on the other points you made! Apple HAS TO GET THEIR SHIZZNIT TOGETHER IN EUROPE!!! at this point in time, NOONE will switch...
vSpacken
Re: Re: Re: UMAX
You won't see it with upgradable CPUs, and you probably won't see it with Gigabit ethernet or PCI slots. If your going for absolute lowest price, these things will be absent (see the 12" PowerBook for examples of things that will be cut first for lower price).
I completely agree with you on how little typical home users actually use thier computer for. But I can also assure you that just cutting the monitor off the eMac isn't going to save enough from the price of the machine to give you a $600 tower. You may be able to squeeze $650 out, but you will have to cut out more if you wanna get beyond that. And you certainly won't be adding more. Prices simply aren't going to drop that much in a year (and I presume that G4/800s won't even be available in a year, regardless of Apple's relationship with Motorola, or if IBM makes a lower end Altivec enabled chip).
Apple doesn't want to sell this type of machine. They want you to buy the Xserve Cluster Node instead if you want a render farm. They are most certainly not going to risk canabalize this fledgeling market with a cheaper upgradeable tower (even if it isn't rack mounted).
In the end, there is a reason why the PowerMac starts at $1500 (even if the costs to Apple start at $1200ish). It is the fact that you get an upgradeable CPU, 4 PCI slots, 4XAGP slot, Gigabit Ethernet, a Dual Head video card, FireWire 800 (at least until it makes it to other models), and L3 cache.
Comparing the highend eMac to the lowend G4 gives a price difference of just over $400 (put PowerMac to 80GB HD and SuperDrive) and that still gets you 1MB of L3 cache, a better video card with twice as much VRAM, and all the other advantages that a PowerMac has over an eMac. That alone should say that a low-end expandable tower that Apple decides to make will cost at least half that difference more that a comparable eMac. Take away the expansion possibilities and you may be a contender for eMac prices or less with some of the PowerMac's advantages. Take away the PowerMac's advantages, and you'll get your $600 tower.
You won't see it with upgradable CPUs, and you probably won't see it with Gigabit ethernet or PCI slots. If your going for absolute lowest price, these things will be absent (see the 12" PowerBook for examples of things that will be cut first for lower price).
I completely agree with you on how little typical home users actually use thier computer for. But I can also assure you that just cutting the monitor off the eMac isn't going to save enough from the price of the machine to give you a $600 tower. You may be able to squeeze $650 out, but you will have to cut out more if you wanna get beyond that. And you certainly won't be adding more. Prices simply aren't going to drop that much in a year (and I presume that G4/800s won't even be available in a year, regardless of Apple's relationship with Motorola, or if IBM makes a lower end Altivec enabled chip).
At that price, I'd even consider it as a render farm unit. Just max the RAM (2 x 1 GiB modules) & upgrade the processor with a 1.33GHz/2MiB-L3 dual G4. Not including RAM, that works out to about 1,580$US. A stripped-down 1.25 GHz/1MiB-L3 dual costs 1,920$US. The new mini-tower would probably be smaller than the PowerMac, which also includes a bunch of stuff I don't need. A 340$US per (faster) machine saving is substantial for a small setup like mine. Multiplied by 4 (that's about how many I'd need), and that is a sweet deal. Of course, if Apple comes out with a 1.8 GHz dual PPC970 XServe Cluster Node, and keeps the price at 2,800$US, that would be an even sweeter deal!
Apple doesn't want to sell this type of machine. They want you to buy the Xserve Cluster Node instead if you want a render farm. They are most certainly not going to risk canabalize this fledgeling market with a cheaper upgradeable tower (even if it isn't rack mounted).
In the end, there is a reason why the PowerMac starts at $1500 (even if the costs to Apple start at $1200ish). It is the fact that you get an upgradeable CPU, 4 PCI slots, 4XAGP slot, Gigabit Ethernet, a Dual Head video card, FireWire 800 (at least until it makes it to other models), and L3 cache.
Comparing the highend eMac to the lowend G4 gives a price difference of just over $400 (put PowerMac to 80GB HD and SuperDrive) and that still gets you 1MB of L3 cache, a better video card with twice as much VRAM, and all the other advantages that a PowerMac has over an eMac. That alone should say that a low-end expandable tower that Apple decides to make will cost at least half that difference more that a comparable eMac. Take away the expansion possibilities and you may be a contender for eMac prices or less with some of the PowerMac's advantages. Take away the PowerMac's advantages, and you'll get your $600 tower.
Re: Re: Re: Re: UMAX
It's quite possible that the new machine wouldn't have the expandibilty I think it should have. I was looking at this from a pure marketing viewpoint. What are Apples two major problem's right now?
1) It's high-end machines are becoming the laughingstock of the computer industry, speed-wise. Their market-share in their traditional strongholds is slipping. Solution: PPC 970.
2) Their global market-share is too low. Not enough inertia. Solution: A low-end upgradeable Mac to attract PC switchers, both from the home and business markets. Why are there not more switchers? Mac OS X is way superior to Windows in most respects. Apple software is standardized, powerful and easy to use. Macs are truely plug & play. And, yes, they (and OS X) are pretty & fun. So why? Because there are no (low-end) upgradeable Macs. The eMac/iMac lines are great for certain niche markets. All-in-one is just what some people want. And they probably don't care so much about upgradeability. So, maybe you're right in saying that Apple doesn't want to sell this kind of machine. But I'm convinced that they're capable of doing it, and at a (albeit small) profit. So, if they choose to come out with just a headless eMac/iMac, I think that it will increase their market share very little. If they come out with what I suggested (OK, I'll settle for 100Mbps Ethernet), that would make their market-share skyrocket.
Just a side-note: another place where they could cut costs a little is to not bundle any non-Apple software. That's why I specified only including iLife and AppleWorks.
My idea was for my own personal use. I think this would be a viable alternative only for a micro-studio, like me. I only have 1 modeling workstation. It's a super-charged PowerMac G3 Blue & White. I'm an amateur moviemaker/animator, so my #1 priority is price. The XServe Cluster Node is for at least a medium sized studio with more than 1 animator. And I think the folks buying those are probably using more than 2 . Right now, that machine is way out of my means. I'd need at least 4 of them. That's 11,200$US, not even counting the rack. PowerMacs would cost 7,680$US, take up a lot more space, and be a bit slower. Using "xMacs" would total 6,320$US, faster than the PowerMacs, and a bit smaller. Of course, as I mentioned before, if Apple comes out with PPC 970 XServe Cluster Nodes soon, those I would snap up in an instant. Only 2 needed, 5,600$US + the rack. So if they don't come out with either a 970 XServe or an upgradeable "xMac", they're not going to sell me anything. I'll buy 8 used Blue & Whites, and outfit them with overclocked 900 MHz G3s, like my current workstation (1.8 GHz if the 750GX comes out soon, hehe). Total cost: about 6,400$US. I'm saving 1,300$US by not buying new PowerMacs. For a small operation like mine, that's mucho cash. And I'm sure I'm not the only person on this planet who has limited cash. That's why Apple's market share is still so low, even though they have a superior product. Rich people are a minority. Of course, if they enjoy having such a small market-share, that's their right.
It's quite possible that the new machine wouldn't have the expandibilty I think it should have. I was looking at this from a pure marketing viewpoint. What are Apples two major problem's right now?
1) It's high-end machines are becoming the laughingstock of the computer industry, speed-wise. Their market-share in their traditional strongholds is slipping. Solution: PPC 970.
2) Their global market-share is too low. Not enough inertia. Solution: A low-end upgradeable Mac to attract PC switchers, both from the home and business markets. Why are there not more switchers? Mac OS X is way superior to Windows in most respects. Apple software is standardized, powerful and easy to use. Macs are truely plug & play. And, yes, they (and OS X) are pretty & fun. So why? Because there are no (low-end) upgradeable Macs. The eMac/iMac lines are great for certain niche markets. All-in-one is just what some people want. And they probably don't care so much about upgradeability. So, maybe you're right in saying that Apple doesn't want to sell this kind of machine. But I'm convinced that they're capable of doing it, and at a (albeit small) profit. So, if they choose to come out with just a headless eMac/iMac, I think that it will increase their market share very little. If they come out with what I suggested (OK, I'll settle for 100Mbps Ethernet
), that would make their market-share skyrocket.Just a side-note: another place where they could cut costs a little is to not bundle any non-Apple software. That's why I specified only including iLife and AppleWorks.
My idea was for my own personal use. I think this would be a viable alternative only for a micro-studio, like me. I only have 1 modeling workstation. It's a super-charged PowerMac G3 Blue & White
. I'm an amateur moviemaker/animator, so my #1 priority is price. The XServe Cluster Node is for at least a medium sized studio with more than 1 animator. And I think the folks buying those are probably using more than 2 . Right now, that machine is way out of my means. I'd need at least 4 of them. That's 11,200$US, not even counting the rack. PowerMacs would cost 7,680$US, take up a lot more space, and be a bit slower. Using "xMacs" would total 6,320$US, faster than the PowerMacs, and a bit smaller. Of course, as I mentioned before, if Apple comes out with PPC 970 XServe Cluster Nodes soon, those I would snap up in an instant. Only 2 needed, 5,600$US + the rack. So if they don't come out with either a 970 XServe or an upgradeable "xMac", they're not going to sell me anything. I'll buy 8 used Blue & Whites, and outfit them with overclocked 900 MHz G3s, like my current workstation (1.8 GHz if the 750GX comes out soon, hehe). Total cost: about 6,400$US. I'm saving 1,300$US by not buying new PowerMacs. For a small operation like mine, that's mucho cash. And I'm sure I'm not the only person on this planet who has limited cash. That's why Apple's market share is still so low, even though they have a superior product. Rich people are a minority. Of course, if they enjoy having such a small market-share, that's their right.
here are the specs as i see it so far...
1Ghz G4
3 USB
1/2 FW 400
combo drive (cd-rw/dvd-rom)
that's pretty much all that needs to be included. no fw800. no superdrive. NOTE:the 970s will be in use by most of the product line at the time of this release, so it will be less $$ than what you people think.
1Ghz G4
3 USB
1/2 FW 400
combo drive (cd-rw/dvd-rom)
that's pretty much all that needs to be included. no fw800. no superdrive. NOTE:the 970s will be in use by most of the product line at the time of this release, so it will be less $$ than what you people think.
I'm pretty sure that if Apple switch from Motorola to IBM, they will switch for good. It would be better if they brought a new econo-Mac with a new CPU IMO...
dye?
Why do you want to 'dye' the eMac? Longing for colors from years gone by?
Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
dye eMac dye! make way for the Cube!
Why do you want to 'dye' the eMac? Longing for colors from years gone by?
Re: dye?
lol. sorry. typo. why don't we dye it a cool blue! that wold be cool. anyway, a re-do i think is suitable.
die eMac die! Make way for the cube!
Originally posted by primalman
Why do you want to 'dye' the eMac? Longing for colors from years gone by?
lol. sorry. typo. why don't we dye it a cool blue! that wold be cool. anyway, a re-do i think is suitable.
die eMac die! Make way for the cube!
Re: G4 box
Not on a low-end box. The people who buy this thing will have 1 priority: cheap. They're going to be hooking up a used PC monitor to this. They're very unlikely to own an LCD, and even less likely to buy an Apple Display. Who hooks up a 1,300$ monitor to a 600$ computer? Needs VGA out standard. If they want DVI/ADC, they can build-to-order a better graphics card. But I seriously doubt they would.
Not on a low-end box. The people who buy this thing will have 1 priority: cheap. They're going to be hooking up a used PC monitor to this. They're very unlikely to own an LCD, and even less likely to buy an Apple Display. Who hooks up a 1,300$ monitor to a 600$ computer? Needs VGA out standard. If they want DVI/ADC, they can build-to-order a better graphics card. But I seriously doubt they would.
No one will buy any computer if they think it is outdated technology. Anyone that hasn't been burnt by the mishaps of the past by IBM and all of the others, has certainly heard of the horror stories. Everyone wants a machine that won't be obsolete before they plug it in. The newest technology at the lowest price point would stand the computer industry on it's ear. I say give 'em a PPC970 DP something l ike 2ghz, at least 512 mb RAM, VGA output with upgrade cards available for those who can utilize them, no periphery, and the best OS on the planet (IMHO), Panther. 2 FW400 and 5 usb1 ports. Give the ability to obtain what has been up till now impossible... An affordable way for ANYONE to obtain the top technology in any machine out there for the lowest price on the market. Forget the G3-G4... whatever. Take it to the limit and go 64 bit computing for less than the average price of current PEECEE'S. I have seen the future and there is an Apple in every fruit basket! The best thing that could happen to Mike Dell is for him to sell his outfit off in bits and pieces. There is no need for a "cute" machine with cute hardware and uselessly cute software that doesn't work.
I will admit that my Wife forced me to by the iMac because of it's aesthetic value, and I was dragged kicking and screaming from the local Sears, hoping that no one would see me put the box in the car, or take it out, and into the house. After the first 10 minutes with OS9, I knew I would never go back. MS is going to have to do a lot to get me to turn my head back in their direction. I do more with my older iMac than any of the PEECEE acquaintances of mine can with their MS polluters, (except burning DVD's, but I can if I get the drive!) I am sure that there exists a statistic as to what the average peecee has as it's spec's. All Apple needs to do to get most of the market share is to wait until Longhorn, and then release a killer cube with all of the top internals for way less than the HP/COMDELL/ whatever peecee64bit machine costs, that will use all of the peecee's periphery. $599.00 seems to be the price of the year for some reason. The majority of people will not understand the importance of going with a 64 bit processor. If you are going to hit hard in main stream, you've gotta keep it too simple and make everyone believe they are getting the deal of a lifetime along with a giant hedge against obsolesence.
just my 2 cents...
Sorry if I bored you...
I will admit that my Wife forced me to by the iMac because of it's aesthetic value, and I was dragged kicking and screaming from the local Sears, hoping that no one would see me put the box in the car, or take it out, and into the house. After the first 10 minutes with OS9, I knew I would never go back. MS is going to have to do a lot to get me to turn my head back in their direction. I do more with my older iMac than any of the PEECEE acquaintances of mine can with their MS polluters, (except burning DVD's, but I can if I get the drive!) I am sure that there exists a statistic as to what the average peecee has as it's spec's. All Apple needs to do to get most of the market share is to wait until Longhorn, and then release a killer cube with all of the top internals for way less than the HP/COMDELL/ whatever peecee64bit machine costs, that will use all of the peecee's periphery. $599.00 seems to be the price of the year for some reason. The majority of people will not understand the importance of going with a 64 bit processor. If you are going to hit hard in main stream, you've gotta keep it too simple and make everyone believe they are getting the deal of a lifetime along with a giant hedge against obsolesence.
just my 2 cents...
Sorry if I bored you...