Apple Updates iMacs and eMacs

applematters writes "Apple has updated the iMacs, they are faster and incorporate AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth. There are two models, the 15-inch and 17-inch. For good measure the eMac has also been updated, and you can get it brand new for under a thousand bucks. Not bad."

Comments

Slight correction

[Anonymous Codger]

The eMacs have not been updated, only reduced in price. I'm not complaining - I may finally break down and order one at the new price

Sounds good

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds good for the education sector. 1ghz imac eh?

Re:"Under?"

[Anonymous Coward]

This is done ALL THE TIME, didn't you notice?

End of the G4?

[PsiFireWhite]

With the reduced pricing on the G4s lately it makes me wonder if Apple has finally picked a new flagship chip to use coming soon. It makes sense to get rid of as many G4s in stock if this is the case, and with the recent drops on the eMacs it's even more aparent.

All in all it seems a wise move to start the price dropping now when it is most needed. Hopefully an eMac that's both Classic and OS X bootable for under 1000 will be very appealing to schools. Apple needs to start clawing back it's Educational market share.

Re:End of the G4?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

With the reduced pricing on the G4s lately it makes me wonder if Apple has finally picked a new flagship chip to use coming soon.

Uh... no. There is talk about the PowerPC 970, but it's at least 6 months away from being available for testing, much less for production.

The price cuts are for one reason and one reason only: Apple wants to move more units. Last quarter was more or less a break-even for Apple, and the pace of sales has slowed as the economy has gotten steadily worse over the past two years. So Apple has revised (nearly) every product in the line over the past month, and is cutting prices across the low end to encourage people who were sitting on the fence to buy now.

Re:End of the G4?

[sweetooth]

I think it's more likely that they are just trying to show a profit next quarter. The price cuts look more like an attempt to sell more product. Hence we see new products with slightly lower prices, drastic price cuts on the cinema displays, price cuts on the eMac (which was overpriced before) and slight improvments to the iMac.

Of course I would love to believe that they have a new processor lined up, it just seems too soon for some reason.

Re:End of the G4?

[sweetooth]

Damnit you beat me to the punch by a few seconds ;)

Re:End of the G4?

[Alan Partridge]

maybe the last iteration of the Motorola G4? From great white hope to total embarrassment in 3 short years. Oh, the humanity!

Re:End of the G4?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think Apple has piles of G4 chips laying around. If they wanted to "get rid" of them they would just cut prices and not refresh the product line. They're just keeping interest high, stimulating sales, etc.

Re:End of the G4?

[Anonymous Coward]

3 yrs?? try 6 months...

Re:End of the G4?

[Alan Partridge]

what do you mean? We've got a Powermac G4 Yikes! 400 (the original 400, before the humiliating 50Mhz reduction) which dates from early '99. Our PCs at that time were Pentium III 500s - and the G4 showed them a clean pair of heels in video encoding. 30%, 50%, 100% faster depending on optimisation - and with the promise of rapid clock rate scaling to come - an exciting computer all round.

How far we've fallen...

Re:End of the G4?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Bwah-ha-ha-ha. ;-)

Re:End of the G4?

[gsfprez]

no. but it sure is a clear sign that its the end of the G3. When the iBook is updated with a G4 later this year - that will be the end of non-AltiVec Macs.

I wonder how much longer apps/Mac OS X will support non-G4 machines.

i'm glad i concidered my iBook basically a "use, abuse, throw away" machine when i bought it...

Re:End of the G4?

[King Babar]

Uh... no. There is talk about the PowerPC 970, but it's at least 6 months away from being available for testing, much less for production.

You're right in that I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for this chip, but I think you're being a bit pessimistic about the timing of its arrival. This page on the PowerPC 970 is decently informative and recent. It suggests sampling will start ti happen in the second quarter of 2003, and volume production will begin in the second half of 2003. Has the schedule already slipped this far? My impression was that IBM doesn't like to let these things slide.

There's no doubt that 2003 could be a pretty tricky year for Apple, but I think I like their roadmap leading to January 2004 *much* better than any other hardware vendor out there. Right now, Apple is basically in a position where they will make a little bit of money, and when their high-end hardware is actually really fast again...I don't think their sales are likely to go down.

Re:End of the G4?

[WatertonMan]

I believe that it will be available for significant testing within a couple of months. According to some people in the plant there are numerous PowerMac cases there, suggesting that significant testing is going on right now. That says nothing about it coming out in volume, of course. It does sound of late if the August-September date may be a tad optimistic. However I doubt it will ship much later than the Athalon-64. It may even beat AMD.

No one knows, of course. Anyone who claims to know much beyond the "second half 2003" statement is likely talking out their ass.

Re:End of the G4?

[addaon]

Um... personally, I wouldn't give up an hour of use on the iBook for altivec. (10W increase in processor usage at equal megahertz would be roughly a 20% decrease in battery life, if you tend to use low screen brightness.) And, of course, the G3 iMac is not only still selling, but still being manufactured. The G3 will end eventually, surely, but there's absolutely no compelling reason to get rid of it in the next year.

Re:End of the G4?

[jbolden]

Actually no. Its available for testing (i.e. motherboard ect..) and has been for several months. It will be produced in low quantities during the 2nd quarter. Somewhere during 3rd quarter it will be commercially sold.

This all comes from IBM's website.

Re:End of the G4?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't worry too much. The library used to program for the AltiVec is available on G3 processors aswell, it just isn't hardware accelerated.

Re:End of the G4?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno if the iBook will be updated with that G4. IBM has a 1 Ghz G3 already and the next rev is expected to go up to 1.8Ghz with significantly less power consumption than the G4.

The G3 is a simple, fast, and low voltage chip. I'm betting that it stays on the iBook for some time. We may also see this G3 coupled with an Altivec unit and IBM's 970 bus arch on the low-end desktop Macs once Apple is producing 970 based Powermacs.

Gobi G3 + 970 arch = a great way to reduce power consumption on the low end Macs, while increasing performance, and most importantly getting rid of Motorola! They are an embarrassment to the Mac world which should have been dropped long ago.

Re:"Under?"

[PsiFireWhite]

Technially if you don't live in a state with an acitve Apple retail presence you won't be charged tax. That's if you order it online. At least that's how it was a while ago, who knows if tax laws haven't flaked out yet again on internet sales with retail presences.

Re:"Under?"

[Anonymous Coward]

also a matter of where it is shipped from.

the tax free internet is almost over. :(

Post Tramatic Stress!

[jptechnical]

I used to sell Apples and now is the time all the stores freak out about overstock. If you are looking for a good deal, and you don't mind being a little behind the curve, hit some of your smaller shops and you can really save some money.

Re:"Under?"

[Llywelyn]

Pay attention next time you go shopping, even for something as simple as groceries. Things are never "$5" they are "$4.99".

This is for advertising purposes, someone is more likely to purchase something when it is "$999" than when it is "$1000" and it lets them advertise with keyphrases such as "under $1000!" which helps market their product.

iBooks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now how about some hot new G4 iBooks for $999 ?

Otherwise I will be forced to buy a 12-inch powerbook, which I don't have enough money for, and I will subsequently starve and die!

Apple, you don't want blood on your hands, do you? Release new iBooks! My very life depends on it!!

Re:iBooks?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Now how about some hot new G4 iBooks for $999? Otherwise I will be forced to buy a 12-inch powerbook

Dude, the 12" PowerBook is the G4 iBook. Asking for it for $999 amounts to nothing more than whining, and will gain you no sympathy here.

Re:iBooks?

[King Babar]

Now how about some hot new G4 iBooks for $999? Otherwise I will be forced to buy a 12-inch powerbook

Dude, the 12" PowerBook is the G4 iBook. Asking for it for $999 amounts to nothing more than whining, and will gain you no sympathy here.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple actually phased out the iBook name except for the $999 model. The PowerBook model has more cachet, and the new 12" Powerbook has some serious overlap with the more expensive models in the iBook line. I just saw the 12" Powerbook yesterday, and some of its best features aren't obvious until you play with one:

• The keyboard is much better than the iBook's (although the keys are a tad slick.
• The hinge is much better than the iBook's.
• The keyboard caps will never scrape the LCD screen.
• It is a slot-loading machine

And it's smaller and faster and just a very nice machine. At my place of business, departments can buy the 12" Powerbook for $1499, and I could get it for $1699. The only drawback I could see is that you really can't use one of the nice new LCD panels with it since it doesn't do DVI much less the hyperspecial Apple digital LCD connector thingie.

Re:iBooks?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Personally I'd like to see Apple put G3 processors in the refined 12" PowerBook enclosure-- trading aluminum for polycarbonate-- and continue the iBook line. The iBook is a great idea: a small, rugged laptop geared for consumers and students. I'd hate to see it go away. But the current iBook enclosure could be improved a bit, with the addition of things like the slot-loading CDROM and the new hinge.

Ideally, I'd like to see an iBook with about a 500 MHz IBM G3 processor and accelerated graphics-- a slower CPU plus hardware accelerated graphics adds up to a quite acceptable user experience with 10.2 and Quartz Extreme-- for about $799. But I don't know if there's enough market for a machine like that. I would hope that there is, but who knows.

Re:iBooks?

[Large Green Mallard]

The 15inch TiBook's dont scrape the screen, it only looks like it... you just need to clean the screen with a light solvent and it comes clean :)

Re:iBooks?

[King Babar]

The 15inch TiBook's dont scrape the screen, it only looks like it... you just need to clean the screen with a light solvent and it comes clean :)

That's probably true for the 15" TiBook, but I, alas, was talking about the 12" iBook (ice white models). It's true that most of the look is grime, but it's not all grime. :-(

Re:iBooks?

[King Babar]

Personally I'd like to see Apple put G3 processors in the refined 12" PowerBook enclosure-- trading aluminum for polycarbonate-- and continue the iBook line. The iBook is a great idea: a small, rugged laptop geared for consumers and students. I'd hate to see it go away.

I know what you mean here, but I think we're beginning to see less than a lot of room for an iBook line more than one model "deep". I think the $999 iBook right now is the lowest price you're likely to see for any Apple-made notebook. Maybe they could use the new enclosure (with anodized colors?), and put in a G3 and a less studly video chipset, but then I don't know if there would be enough "obvious" differentiation between the iBook and the PowerBook. It is, alas, a marketing question more than a technical one.

But the current iBook enclosure could be improved a bit, with the addition of things like the slot-loading CDROM and the new hinge.

New hinge is key; I know the failure rate on the tray-loading CD-ROMs is non-trivial, but are the slot-loading models more reliable overall?

Ideally, I'd like to see an iBook with about a 500 MHz IBM G3 processor and accelerated graphics-- a slower CPU plus hardware accelerated graphics adds up to a quite acceptable user experience with 10.2 and Quartz Extreme-- for about $799. But I don't know if there's enough market for a machine like that. I would hope that there is, but who knows.

I think there's a market for this, but Apple would probably have to do these themselves and/or through college bookstores only, since the big gripe about the $7XX iMac was that the retailer margin just wasn't big enough for anybody to bother keeping them in stock. In other words, if I'm selling 200 of these at the beginning of the semester, it might be worthwhile, but it might not be worth holding onto inventory or putting it on display given that I have better margins on (say) the 12 inch PowerBook. To my mind, that one *does* scream "iBook II" since it lacks the DVI connector of the rest of the PowerBooks.

Re:iBooks?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I know the failure rate on the tray-loading CD-ROMs is non-trivial, but are the slot-loading models more reliable overall?

I have no idea, but the tray-loading drives just feel flimsy. Not too long after I got my iBook, it took a slight bump, and after that the CDROM tray never fit right. I'd like to see slot-loaders for that reason alone.

the big gripe about the $7XX iMac was that the retailer margin just wasn't big enough for anybody to bother keeping them in stock.

I didn't know anybody bothered buying Macs through the non-Apple retail channel any more. Apple Stores are all over the place, and the Apple Store on the web is everywhere!

Re:iBooks?

[commodoresloat]

Those advantages are all nice and stuff, but what about that guy starving and dying? That's gonna suck.

Re:iBooks?

[King Babar]

the big gripe about the $7XX iMac was that the retailer margin just wasn't big enough for anybody to bother keeping them in stock.

I didn't know anybody bothered buying Macs through the non-Apple retail channel any more. Apple Stores are all over the place, and the Apple Store on the web is everywhere!

Uh...there are Apple stores "all over the place" IF you are talking about a selection of some of the very largest metro areas. Prominent metros that do not have Apple stores within dozens or hundreds of miles include:

• Seattle
• Portland
• Kansas City
• Pittsburgh
• New Orleans
• Nashville
• Salt Lake City
• Birmingham

...and all of the second-tier markets. I expect these top 8 and others will get "filled in" as time goes on, but right now probably the biggest local Apple presence most of these places have are college bookstores, which are (wait for it) where most of your $7XX iMacs are likely to get sold, if any do. Here in Columbia, MO (an oasis of civilization in the middle of nowhere), I think the majority of all Macs sold are through the college bookstore route.

The Apple Store on the web is always there, of course, but you're not going to find the $7XX iMac there, either, unless you can pull an educational ID out and look in the right place.

Re:iBooks?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The Apple Store on the web is always there, of course, but you're not going to find the $7XX iMac there, either, unless you can pull an educational ID out and look in the right place.

Uhh... it's right there on the front page. Look on the bottom. "iMac from $799. Great value on a classic design."

Re:iBooks?

[King Babar]

Uhh... it's right there on the front page. Look on the bottom. "iMac from $799. Great value on a classic design."

Interesting; it is on the front page of the Apple store page, but if you click the iMac pictures on the main Apple page, you really don't get anywhere near this model. Guess which one I did...

Re:"Under?"

[Viqsi]

Yeah, I know about that trick. I was commenting on the point that I wouldn't expect a fellow geek to buy into that to that depth. :)

decent thread

[BigBir3d]

can be seen here

The compulsary...

[Soul-Burn666]

eMacs?

I prefer Vi!

(Yes, I know what they meant)

Re:The compulsary...

[moosesocks]

I suppose it was only a matter of time until somebody figured out how to fit networking hardware into eMacs.

What's next, a dishwasher?

Re:The compulsary...

[InsaneCreator]

I prefer Vi!
br> Shouldn't that be iV? (or iVi) ?

Re:The compulsary...

[Large Green Mallard]

Apple eMacs actually ship with GNU/Emacs ;>

Not bad? Try really bad

[X_Caffeine]

There was one point in the last decade where more Macintoshes were being sold to Windows users than people who already owned Macs. That was when the iMac was first introduced, at a $1000 price point. For the first time, a low-end Mac cost as much as a low-end PC, and buyers flocked to them.

Today a low-end PC can be had for ~$500 (less if you're willing to go with Lindows). If Apple really wants "switchers," they need to have a low-end machine for $500. The eMac just isn't affordable enough. (and there's no doubt in my mind that 700mhz G3 iMacs, which are still available for $800, could be sold profitably for about $500)

btw, the low-end eMacs are still shipping with 128mb RAM. Has anyone here tried running Jag with 256mb? What's another 128mb SDR cost, $20?

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[Alex Thorpe]

I believe the first iMacs were sold for $1299, and the site www.everymac.com confirms it.

I don't pay any attention to PC prices(after all, I have no intention of ever buying one), but when the price of the complete system goes for less than what the CRT alone used to cost, it just sounds cheap and low quality.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[Twirlip of the Mists]

If Apple really wants "switchers," they need to have a low-end machine for $500.

A common fallacy. Apple doesn't build low-end machines. Every machine they ship, for example, includes a built-in AirPort antenna. Hell, I think you can still buy bargain-basement PC's that don't come with Ethernet in them! Although God knows why you'd want to...

Apple really doesn't care about the low-end market. They care about selling high-end machine for good profit margins.

Has anyone here tried running Jag with 256mb?

You mean Jaguar? Yes. It runs just fine. If you run too many memory-hungry programs at once, you'll start swapping, but that's to be expected.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the initial higher prices is due to tooling costs and R&D.

That is why almost anything plastic (injection molded) is made overseas. They can re-tool in a few days, for hundreds of dollars. Versus the USA where it takes months and costs thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, for the same result. Thus, your computer is now made in Taiwan, NOT the USA as before.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[Alex Thorpe]

Oh, about memory usage. I just downloaded a free utility that monitors memory usage to determine if having more memory would speed things up. I've 320MB, and have opened up my usual programs: Mail, Safari, iTunes(playing), and addtions like Watson and iCal. Not only is there zero disk swapping, but I've got 77MB of extra memory that hasn't been touched. I'm sure that I could push it further with a commercial game, but I'm not going to use any of the others at the same time, save the Mail app. No, I don't have MS-Office, and I don't need it.

I did used to run OS X with 192MB of memory, but slowdowns were few and far between, mainly when I was viewing dozens of full screen jpegs on a single web page.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[X_Caffeine]

Give me a break. Of course they have low-end machines -- the 700mhz iMac is low-end relative to the dual-proc 1.4ghz G4. It's based on a motherboard that hasn't seen a revision in over two years, and a processor that's just a faster version of a processor that's been for sale for 3+ years. The longer motherboards and processors are in production, the cheaper they get to make. The 700mhz iMac could be sold for $500 easy. (and those Airport antennas? it's just a cable whip, it couldn't cost more than a couple bucks)

But you're right, they do care about selling machines for high profit margins. They gave up on building computers "for the rest of us" a long time ago.

I find the idea that Jaguar can be effectively run on 128mb, even with only a single app active, laughable. And again, 128mb can be had for under $20, soon they'll be at the bottom of Cracker-Jack boxes. It's ridiculous for them to be shipping machines with 256mb, even on their low end.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[soupdevil]

btw, the low-end eMacs are still shipping with 128mb RAM. Has anyone here tried running Jag with 256mb? What's another 128mb SDR cost, $20?

The eMac is designed for the education market (hence the e). Most schools I've been to this year are still running OS9.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Of course they have low-end machines -- the 700mhz iMac is low-end relative to the dual-proc 1.4ghz G4.

Yes, the iMac is relatively inferior to the G4. But the iMac is not a low-end computer. It has built-in FireWire, wireless networking, and one of the best flat-panel displays I've ever seen, just to name three things. The most bare-bones, stripped-down computer Apple sells is equivalent to everybody else's mid-range machines.

and those Airport antennas? it's just a cable whip, it couldn't cost more than a couple bucks

Then why doesn't anybody else include them?

It's ridiculous for them to be shipping machines with 256mb, even on their low end.

Oh, great. Yet another Monday-morning CEO. Tell you what. When you start your computer company, you can ship machines with as much RAM as you like. Until then, kindly hush up.

(Incidentally, everybody knows that Apple sells computers with only the minimum amount of RAM because everybody buys less expensive third-party RAM to put in them. If Apple sold their machines with more RAM, Monday-morning CEO's like yourself would just bitch that you're being forced to buy overpriced memory. Yawn.)

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[drsmithy]

Hell, I think you can still buy bargain-basement PC's that don't come with Ethernet in them! Although God knows why you'd want to...

Er, have you considered some people might not have anything that might *use* that ethernet port ?

They care about selling high-end machine for good profit margins.

The trouble is that at the moment they're selling low-end machines for high profit margins and mid-range machines for even higher profit margins.

Apple don't *have* a high-end machine.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[kyrre]

What free utility utility would that be kind sir?

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[hobbit]

Er, have you considered some people might not have anything that might *use* that ethernet port ?

Some people might not need colour. Others might not need sound. Many PCs come with unneeded CD rewriters; those PCs certainly don't need floppy drives. What is this 'need' thing, exactly?

The trouble is that at the moment they're selling low-end machines for high profit margins and mid-range machines for even higher profit margins.

Whatever. That's like saying Intel don't make high-end processors because IBM don't use them in their server farms.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[Alex Thorpe]

The name of the program is "Do I Need More Memory?". That's the actual name. It's donationware from www.hillmanminx.com ; I happened to spot its listing on VersionTracker yesterday.

Oh, and I did get low memoy messages with it when I loaded LimeWire, which seemed to expand to take all availible physical memory, and stopped when the disk swapping started. So the program said I needed more memory, but 1MB more.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[jdebay]

Apple doesn't build low-end machines. Every machine they ship, for example, includes a built-in AirPort antenna.

Wrong. I own the dual G4 PowerMac for $1700 and did not get an AirPort card in it. Not only that, but you don't get AirPort in a PowerBook until you spend at least $2799.99. That is a joke.

Apple really doesn't care about the low-end market. They care about selling high-end machine for good profit margins.

This is a highly debatable point. But assuming you're correct, this is precisely the reason Apple's market share continues to fall. As the article points out, Apple has to refrain from "its policy of keeping prices high to boost margins." Apple's cheapest machine with a DVD burner is $1299. Sony's is $799. The article further states that Sony's machine "is priced at the sweet spot of the market, which at retail is around $750 right now."

PC companies like Dell sell their computers to consumers with tiny margins; they make their money with add-ons and warranties. Apple sells computers to consumers with a 20% profit margin. If you do that, people who buy your machines will get less computer while paying more money. Thus less people will buy your products. It's not rocket science.

I want Apple to succeed. I love the platform and would love to see their market share hit 5%. But they will not do that as long as they continue to charge too much for their hardware, especially in this economy.

> Has anyone here tried running Jag with 256mb?

You mean Jaguar? Yes. It runs just fine. If you run too many memory-hungry programs at once, you'll start swapping, but that's to be expected.

You completely missed his point. What he was trying to say was instead of offering up low end machines with only 128 MB of memory, why doesn't Apple just take a negligible ($20 I believe was the price quoted) hit on their inflated profit margins and sell the computer with 256 MB of memory. This way they make the machine more attractive, and in the process actually make their OS usable. At least that's what I think he was trying to say.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Wrong. I own the dual G4 PowerMac for $1700 and did not get an AirPort card in it. Not only that, but you don't get AirPort in a PowerBook until you spend at least $2799.99. That is a joke.

AirPort antenna, dude, AirPort antenna. Take any Mac currently available. You can add an AirPort card to it for $79, and it will attach to the built-in antenna that comes inside the computer. Nobody else-- well, somebody must, but not most other computer companies at least-- include a built-in antenna. They force you to use a PC card or PCI card with an external antenna, which (1) gets terrible reception, because it's so stubby, and (2) is awful for laptop users. Ever seen somebody snap their AirPort card in two by putting their laptop into a backpack too carelessly? It's a sad sight.

Every Mac comes with a built-in, internal, invisible AirPort antenna.

this is precisely the reason Apple's market share continues to fall

First, market share is irrelevant. Has been for years. Nobody cares what the ratio is of Macs to PC's in the world. Do you think Mercedes cares what their market share is? The statistic is simply not relevant. It mattered once, when PC's and Macs were incompatible, but Macs drop right in to Windows networks with no problems now, so market share doesn't matter one bit.

Second, and more important, Apple's market share continues to fall because more people buy PC's than Macs. That's all. Apple's total sales figures continue to climb, when normalized for the overall economic environment. Apple is a very healthy, successful company.

That wasn't always the case. Seven years ago or so, the future of Apple was very much in doubt. Not today, though.

Apple's cheapest machine with a DVD burner is $1299. Sony's is $799.

So? No Sony computer will run Mac OS X.

I don't know, maybe you're just not getting it. In terms of hardware alone, Macs are more expensive, all other things being equal, than PC's. People buy them anyway. This demonstrates that people are not price-shopping when they buy Macs. It also demonstrates that people don't buy Macs for the hardware alone. There's more value there than can be expressed in terms of megahertz and megabytes and megabits.

See?

Apple sells computers to consumers with a 20% profit margin.

On average, the number is somewhat higher than that. Which, as a shareholder, makes me very, very happy.

What he was trying to say was instead of offering up low end machines with only 128 MB of memory, why doesn't Apple just take a negligible ($20 I believe was the price quoted) hit on their inflated profit margins and sell the computer with 256 MB of memory.

I can't believe you just asked that. The answer is obvious. High profit margins are the key to corporate health. High margins means Apple can afford to spend money on their OS and their bundled-- and unbundled-- applications, which is the only competitive advantage Apple has. If Apple gave away RAM, they'd be doing themselves and their shareholders a disservice.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[X_Caffeine]

I'm not a Monday-morning CEO, I'm a critic. You, on the other hand, are an apologist.

I was referring to the $800 CRT iMac (there is no 700mhz flat panel iMac, to the best of my knowledge). It doesn't come with wireless networking, it doesn't have a flat-panel display, and calling it the equivalent of a mid-range PC (which will have a processor that's at least twice as fast, USB 2.0, triple HD capacity, and a GeForce-class video chip), is just absurd. It's a GREAT computer, and it's low-end, period.

Tell me to hush up? What makes your opinion any more valid than mine?

*( why doesn't anybody else include airport antennas? because they have their heads up their butts, it has nothing to do with price. )

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[drsmithy]

Some people might not need colour. Others might not need sound. Many PCs come with unneeded CD rewriters; those PCs certainly don't need floppy drives. What is this 'need' thing, exactly?

I would be willing to bet a lot more people want a colour screen than ethernet (let alone gigabit ethernet).
I didn't say anything about need. I was merely pointing out that there is most likely a significant chunk of the market that have no need for an ethernet port. For some reason you seem unable to grasp that.

Whatever. That's like saying Intel don't make high-end processors because IBM don't use them in their server farms.

Er, no. It's like saying they don't have a high end machine because they don't have anything that competes in terms of bang/buck with high end intel workstations. A dual 1.4GHz PowerMac is barely even playing the same game as a dual 3Ghz Xeon workstation w/hyperthreading, 4GB of RAM and some 15k RPM SCSI drives (unless you want to pick out the few corner cases like RC5). Particularly when that Xeon workstation doesn't cost much more.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[Twirlip of the Mists]

You, on the other hand, are an apologist.

I don't recall apologizing for anything.

I was referring to the $800 CRT iMac. It doesn't come with wireless networking

Yes, it does. You can add the card for $79. The hardware is already built-in.

it doesn't have a flat-panel display

True.

calling it the equivalent of a mid-range PC is just absurd

Okay, it's absurd. Find me a low-end PC that comes with two built-in FireWire 400 buses-- don't give me any of this USB 2.0 crap; only isochronous FireWire works for DV-- an AirPort antenna, and something equivalent to iLife, and I will admit, here in this public forum, that it's absurd.

What makes your opinion any more valid than mine?

I'm not the one who's trying to tell us about everything Apple is doing wrong. I'm telling you to hush up because you obviously don't know any more about running a computer company than the rest of us; if you did, you'd be out there running one. So your criticisms all come from a position of ignorance, making them of questionable value at best.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[TI-83]

(I ran 10.2 with 160mb, it wasn't bad. A hell of a lot faster then 10.1 &c. Though surely also handicapped by the processor, a G3 at 400mhz. It's definitely usable though, I'd still be using it had it not wiped itself off the face of my hd... +)

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[jdebay]

AirPort antenna, dude, AirPort antenna.

Okay point granted. But I contend then that including this antenna is useless because no one knows about it, and even if they do I highly doubt it's a compelling reason to shell out the price premium for a Mac.

First, market share is irrelevant. Has been for years. Nobody cares what the ratio is of Macs to PC's in the world.

Unless your name is Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. Apple's Switch campaign, plus their recent efforts to increase specs and lower prices (at the cost of profit margin) is directly targeted toward increasing market share. They are trying to hit 5%. Market share matters, my friend. If Apple's market share continues to decline, they are going to have trouble convincing vendors to write apps for their platform. The Mac versions of many popular programs are known to have less features, cost more, come out later, and have more bugs than their Windows counterparts. Patches are also released less often. There is a direct correlation between market share and vendor support for your platform.

Second, and more important, Apple's market share continues to fall because more people buy PC's than Macs.

This is true, the total pie of computer owners is getting bigger, but as Mac's share of that pie gets smaller, their relevance declines along with it.

This demonstrates that people are not price-shopping when they buy Macs.

Everyone price-shops when they buy anything. I would have loved to get the DP 1.25 Ghz machine with a 23" Cinema display, but I got the one I did because it was within my budget.

Which, as a shareholder, makes me very, very happy.

Didn't Merill Lynch just recommend you sell your Apple shares? ;)

The answer is obvious. High profit margins are the key to corporate health.

This is patently false. How does Dell make money? Their margins are crap. How do any of the thousands of companies with thin margins make money? They leverage economies of scale. Taking the previous example of the extra memory, if Apple makes $20 less per computer they sell, but the machine now has 256 MB of memory, they would end up making more money because at the end of the day they've sold more machines. I think part of the reason Apple's margin are so high is because they can't afford not to charge those margins because they don't move enough units.

High margins means Apple can afford to spend money on their OS and their bundled-- and unbundled-- applications

Making a profit means they can afford to do this, and they have reported losses the last two quarters.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[Twirlip of the Mists]

But I contend then that including this antenna is useless because no one knows about it

Okay, given that that's demonstrably false, my only response to this point is a resounding "whatever, dude."

Apple's Switch campaign, plus their recent efforts to increase specs and lower prices (at the cost of profit margin) is directly targeted toward increasing market share.

No. Apple's Switch campaign is directly targeted toward selling Macs. See, Macs have traditionally been thought of as computers for people who have never owned computers before. Well the number of people around the world who have never owned a computer before but who are interested in and/or financially capable of buying one is dwindling rapidly. Apple wants to keep selling Macs, and the traditional markets of people who have never owned a computer and people who own Macs and who want to upgrade are getting smaller.

So Apple's trying to open up a new market: people who have PC's, who aren't happy with them, and who are looking for something better. It's not about market share. It's about being able to sustain selling a million units a quarter-- you know, an ungodly sales target-- in the face of a dwindling market.

Same thing with price cuts. (Isn't that what started this thread?) Keep the Macs going out the door. Market share? Piss on it. It's about units, not ratios.

If Apple's market share continues to decline, they are going to have trouble convincing vendors to write apps for their platform.

Also wrong. Because, again, market share doesn't matter. Let's say there are 5 million users of Mac OS X. (I think that number is pretty close to accurate.) A company that's considering writing an application for OS X knows that there are 5 million potential customers out there. That's significant. That's worth going after.

Of course, the final analysis will depend on what kind of a program it is. A personal finance program, a la Quicken? You bet there's a strong market for that; you'll sell millions of copies to Mac owners. A game? Yeah... maybe. Mac users haven't traditionally been big gamers, but companies like Aspyr are making plenty of money porting and selling the best PC games to the Mac platform, so that market is worth going after, too, if your product is good enough. An enterprise-class relational database? Well... you wouldn't think so, but Oracle and Sybase have both released their flagship products for OS X.

See, it's about the size of the potential market, not the ratio of that market to another. As long as the total size of the Mac market is sufficient-- and right now it is-- the ports will be there.

The Mac versions of many popular programs are known to have less features, cost more, come out later, and have more bugs than their Windows counterparts.

If by "many popular programs" you mean QuickBooks, then yes. But for the core Mac apps-- Adobe's, Macromedia's, and so on-- just the opposite is true.

This is true, the total pie of computer owners is getting bigger, but as Mac's share of that pie gets smaller, their relevance declines along with it.

Heh heh. Yeah, people have been talking about how Apple is becoming less and less relevant since the mid-1990's. Funnily enough, though, the PC world is still chasing Apple's lead. Guess they're not quite irrelevant yet, huh?

Everyone price-shops when they buy anything.

Dude, that's just wrong. People who buy Mercedes could get around town just as easily in a Ford Festiva or whatever the hell. They don't, though. They buy the bigger-ticket item. Mac purchasers are, by and large, just exactly the same. They could get by with something cheaper, a laptop from China or a Fry's special PC or something. But they don't. Get it now?

How does Dell make money?

There's an old joke about a used car dealership. The salesman says to the customer, "Our prices are so low, we actually lose money on every car we sell!" The customer asks, "How do you make a profit?" The salesman says, "Volume."

You can either be a volume business or a margin business. Ford is a volume business, just like Dell. Mercedes is a margin business. And Apple is, you guessed it, a margin business.

if Apple makes $20 less per computer they sell, but the machine now has 256 MB of memory, they would end up making more money because at the end of the day they've sold more machines

How do you figure that more people are going to buy a Mac if it comes bundled with $20 worth of RAM? If you're going to buy a Mac, spending an extra $20 on RAM isn't going to stop you. And if you're not going to buy a Mac, the incentive of $20 in free RAM isn't going to change your mind.

I think part of the reason Apple's margin are so high is because they can't afford not to charge those margins because they don't move enough units.

Hey, check it out! He's starting to understand the economics of a margin-driven business model! ;-)

Making a profit means they can afford to do this, and they have reported losses the last two quarters.

Yeah, but prior to that they posted at least six consecutive quarters of significant profitability. (The report I've got handy only goes back to Q2FY01.) This past quarter's loss was so small as to be practically a wash-- a net loss of $8 million on net revenues of nearly $1.5 billion, or a net loss of about one half of one percent of net sales. Apple is doing very well in an extremely difficult economy.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[jdebay]

It's not about market share.

Yes it is. Market share does matter. It matters tremendously. It matters to software vendors, it matters to shareholders (well, maybe all of them except you), it matters to Microsoft, and it matters to Apple. If Apple went from selling 5 million to 10 million computers in a year, but their market share dropped from 10% to 3% in that same year, Microsoft would rejoice, and Apple would not. However, if Apple's market share increased from 3% to 10%, Microsoft would immediately begin their unholy crusade to drive Apple into the ground. Or at least back down to their safe corner of the market where they are unthreatening and largely harmless, like where they're at now. Market share is everything. Apple is probably starting to introduce new applications at a price point the average user can afford (Final Cut Express, Keynote, iLife) partly to diversify their revenue base so they don't have to depend so much on hardware sales. This will free them up to reduce their margins on new machines while not hurting their overall profitability because as a percentage the importance of hardware will decline somewhat.

Doubtless this will fail to convince you, but I did a quick Google search and came up with this article right away. Granted it's from 2001, but it clearly says Apple's retail stores are part of its drive to increase market share. Hell, it even quotes Steve Jobs saying as much. "5 down, 95 to go" I believe the slogan is.

A personal finance program, a la Quicken? You bet there's a strong market for that; you'll sell millions of copies to Mac owners.

I used Quicken on the Mac, and it lacks lots of features that the Windows version has (particularly in the online area), and is horribly buggy. I use Dreamweaver extensively on a PC at work and on a Mac at home, and the Mac version is buggier. You will doubtless deny this, but even if it is not the case, as the PC share of Dreamweaver users increases, Macromedia will shift more of their focus to the PC market. Yes, many core Dreamweaver users use it on a Mac, and the absolute numbers of Mac users may increase, but as a proportion they are declining. Which version came out first, the PC or the Mac? And as you correctly point out it is especially true for games. Almost all of the games come out for PCs first, and many never make it to the Mac. If they do, they simply do not get the performance tweaks, game balancing adjustments, etc. the PC version gets because even if they sell millions of titles to Mac users, it still only ads up to a tiny fraction of their total sales. Corporate managers notice that, and they go where the money is.

Stop and think about what you're saying. See, everything is percentages. Companies choose to support platforms or not based on the percentage of their total revenue they can gain from it. So many more applications are available for Windows only because the percentage of Windows users is so much larger than the percentage of Mac users. Even if there are 5 billion Mac users, why waste your money when there are 95 billion people you can nab in one shot? I can't believe I have to explain this. The large number in absolute terms of Mac users only means that the Mac platform is not ignored entirely. It does not mean it gets an equal seat at the table with the Windows version of the product in the vast majority of cases (not every app, but most). I can see the (admittedly oversimplified) conversation in the boardroom now. "Bob, our PC user base has increased from 75% to 93% over the last 3 years. As a result, our revenue generated from the PC section similarly increased from 75% to 93%. However, while the Mac user base plummeted as a percentage, in absolute terms they increased somewhat." Now, as a result of this conversation, do you believe this company will:

a.) shift development effort from the Windows version to the Mac version
b.) keep everything equal
c.) shift development effort from the Mac version to the Windows version as their user base moves in that direction.

I will leave answering this question as an excercise to the reader.

I don't mean to be insulting, but if you can't understand this you are simply not trying. I guarantee you that Steve Jobs and every other business owner and middle manager in the world understands this. And as far as Oracle and Sybase are concerned, if Apple fails to make a dent in terms of market share in the server space that support won't last. Right now their server OS is creating a bit of a critical mass and gaining some excitement, but we'll see if it lasts.

Now, at the end of the day you could say that Apple is like Rolex or Mercedes or whatever, and that they're content selling their products to the tiny segment of the market that can afford them. But I don't believe this is what Apple wants to do. Their market share has slipped almost every quarter consistently for years. They cannot afford to allow that trend to continue. They are getting pushed out of the education market, and they are getting pushed out of the high end graphics and audio market. I believe they want this to stop. I believe that they want their Mercedes to sit in the same dealer's lot as the Pinto and sell.

I will finish my involvement in this thread with one final point. At my job, one by one each Unix developer bought Macs, including myself. We sucked it up and paid the price because it was worth it to have a very usable, graphically appealing, non-Microsoft & Unix-based OS and access to commercial apps. But there are still some people who haven't made the move, and they've done it because they don't want to spend the money. This is Apple's prime market because they know what a good computer is and they have the money to spend. It's a tired argument that's been beaten to death (isn't that how this thread started?), but they look at what you can buy on a PC and what you can buy on a Mac, and they can't justify buying the Mac. It's not like they want to buy the PC, but they just can't bring themselves to cross that threshold and spend what seems to be too much money on too little computer. Since PCs are 95% of the market, they define what customers expect when they shop for a computer. People expect fast performance for very low prices. Apple is beginning to realise this through interviews with PC users that come into their stores. It's opening their eyes on what the customers they're trying to attract are looking for in a computer. Apple is adjusting itself accordingly.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[hobbit]

I was merely pointing out that there is most likely a significant chunk of the market that have no need for an ethernet port. For some reason you seem unable to grasp that.

Ok, sorry if I misunderstood you. I don't agree with you about ethernet ports; they're integral in Apple's vision of the digital hub, and more and more people have ethernet broadband modems these days. And I think that the reason people want colour displays is that they were given them (you don't need them for wordprocessing, spreadsheets, etc.)

Er, no. It's like saying they don't have a high end machine because they don't have anything that competes in terms of bang/buck with high end intel workstations. A dual 1.4GHz PowerMac is barely even playing the same game as a dual 3Ghz Xeon workstation w/hyperthreading, 4GB of RAM and some 15k RPM SCSI drives (unless you want to pick out the few corner cases like RC5).

Which in turn is as much less powerful than IBM's big iron.

Particularly when that Xeon workstation doesn't cost much more.

I don't think this is true.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[gunnk]

You already have a free memory monitoring utility. OS X *is* Unix-based, after all. Just open a terminal and type: top. You'll get memory stats, threads, processor usage, virtual memory stats and more!

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I don't mean to be insulting, but if you can't understand this you are simply not trying.

Are you speaking to me, or to yourself? ;-)

I've already explained my position at great length. Your post basically consists of, "nuh-uh, market share is everything!" This is despite the fact that I've already explained, in insultingly pedandtic detail, why this isn't so. This kind of discussion just doesn't engage me, sorry.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[Alex Thorpe]

I've seen 'top' before, and the Process Viewer utility does the same thing without the Terminal, but this program is designed expressly to run with your other apps, beep whenever VM is hit, and tell you how much memory you need to avoid VM slowdowns. It's a bit more specialized, less general purpose.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[Anonymous Coward]

".. The most bare-bones, stripped-down computer Apple sells is equivalent to everybody else's mid-range machines."

LOL!! you can't honestly believe that.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[drsmithy]

And I think that the reason people want colour displays is that they were given them

Colour can add a lot to UI. People want colour screens because they see in colour - also because the things that are being done most often by consumers benefit from colour screens.

Which in turn is as much less powerful than IBM's big iron.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you not realise that there are several market segments between "desktop PC" and "mainframe" ?

I don't think this is true.

Price it up. Certainly here in .au, a dual 3GHz Xeon would only cost about 10 - 15% more than a dual 1.4GHz G4.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[hobbit]

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you not realise that there are several market segments between "desktop PC" and "mainframe" ?

Yeah, one of them being 'workstation'. So if you're going to say that Apple doesn't have a high-end desktop PC (dual 1.4GHz PowerMac) because it is "barely even playing the same game as a dual 3Ghz Xeon workstation w/hyperthreading, 4GB of RAM and some 15k RPM SCSI drives", I can say that Intel doesn't have a high-end workstation (dual 3GHz Xeon) because it's not playing the same game as an IBM mainframe.

Certainly here in .au, a dual 3GHz Xeon would only cost about 10 - 15% more than a dual 1.4GHz G4.

Your mileage may vary. I reckon it costs about twice as much. Admittedly when you've kitted them both out with 4GB DDR memory and some 15kRPM drives the difference will not be so great.

Re:Not bad? Try really bad

[drsmithy]

So if you're going to say that Apple doesn't have a high-end desktop PC [...]

Trouble is Apple don't claim the PowerMac is a desktop PC, they say it's a workstation. They say the iMac is a desktop PC.
For a workstation, a top-end PowerMac barely qualifies as mid-range. Yet it carries a pricetag similar to much more powerful machines.

Your mileage may vary. I reckon it costs about twice as much.

Top end Power Mac ("Ultimate"): $8,000
Dell Precision 450, Dual 2.8Ghz Xeons, 2GB RAM, 120GB HDD, DVD+RW, Firewire, 128MB Nvidia Quadro4, Firewire: $9,500

Sorry, they're only 2.8GHz (give it a month or two for 3GHz) and the Firewire is only 400 (not that that's really important at this point in time). The Dell machine also has a better warranty (3 years) and can go to 4GB of RAM.

So, I was a bit out in my estimate (15 - 20% more for a dual 2.8GHz), but it's still a far cry from twice as much.

Don't forget about the new 1Ghz chip

[Anonymous Coward]

New price point and bringing 17 inch screens are nice. They also brought the 1Ghz chip to the new iMac. As an avid PC user, and never bought or used an iMac, I'm almosted tempted (even more so).

Silly thing has MS Office and iLife, which is pretty much what I use my winPC for. (Now if only I didn't have too many PCs lying around, it'd be easier to convince myself). Gah I'm so weak... purchase complete.

Re:Who cares?

[Draoi]

Apple sucks. It's not like they support Open Source.

*sigh* - trolling, I know ...

http://publicsource.apple.com

"We think Open Source is great!" - Steve Jobs

Why iMac?

[Lumpish Scholar]

Okay, an iMac is very cool looking, it's got an LCD screen (possibly 17") instead of a (flat 17") CRT, some models have a GeForce4 MX instead of a GeForce2 MX, the CPUs are usually faster (800 MHz or 1 GHz instead of 700 or 800 MHz) ... and, comparing (sorry) apples to apples, it's hundreds of dollars more expensive than a comparable eBook.

Am I missing something here?

Re:Why iMac?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing that the eBooks weren't Mac compatibles. They were more like overgrown PDAs in heavy-duty laptop-size cases, marketed for use by school kids, and Apple stopped making them long ago.

Assuming you meant to refer to the iBooks, an 800 MHz iBook with 128 MB RAM, 30 GB HD, and a Combo drive goes for $1299. That's the same as the new price of the 15" iMac (with Combo drive), which comes with twice the RAM and twice the HD space.

A 12" PowerBook with an 867 MHz G4, 256 MB RAM, 40 GB HD, and a SuperDrive goes for $1999. To get the equivalent of the display on the 17" iMac, you have to move up to the 17" PowerBook, which goes for $3299 (1 GHz CPU, 1 MB L3 cache, 512MB RAM, 60 GB HD, SuperDrive). Either costs more than the 17" iMac.

Re:Why iMac?

[funkhauser]

If you're comparing the new iMacs with iBooks, you must also consider that the iMac's processor is a G4 chip, while the iBook uses the G3 chip.

Re:Why iMac?

[King Babar]

A 12" PowerBook with an 867 MHz G4, 256 MB RAM, 40 GB HD, and a SuperDrive goes for $1999. To get the equivalent of the display on the 17" iMac, you have to move up to the 17" PowerBook, which goes for $3299 (1 GHz CPU, 1 MB L3 cache, 512MB RAM, 60 GB HD, SuperDrive).

That's, alas, pretty close to being true. Unfortunately, the 12" Powerbook lacks the DVI output that even the 15" Powerbook has, so you can't do the cute "$1800 Powerbook plus a 17" LCD trick". Otherwise, I bet that everybody would do this. :-)

Size matters?

[Lumpish Scholar]

For a minute there, I thought they'd announced a 17" iBook.

Dang.

Re:Size matters?

[avalys]

I really hope you're kidding, but I have to check...

Re:Size matters?

[quintessent]

Did you know about the 17" Powerbook?

Ok. Never mind, then.

Not bad?

[n-baxley]

you can get it brand new for under a thousand bucks. Not bad.

Not bad except that I can buy a PC for about $500 with twice the RAM. Slap in a wireless card for another $100 and I'm still $400 below the apple, granted, I won't get the cool new OS, but who has $400 to flush?

Re:Not bad?

[Zelet]

A PC with the lowest grade hardware you can find. Also you will not have an OS either. Yeah... if you pirate Windows, buy crappy hardware, don't care about noise then yeah... you have yourself a computer.
When you buy quality you pay a little bit more with the peace of mind that comes with it.

(recent Mac switcher)

Re:Not bad?

[Draoi]

Also you will not have an OS either. Yeah... if you pirate Windows [...]

Dude, don't tell the BSA, but I know where you can download an OS for free & run it on cheap x86 hardware. Click here to download. (Our secret, ok?)

Re:Not bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, will you people just give it up with the "PCs are cheaper" bullshit??

If you don't want a mac, don't fucking buy one - how hard is that? What are you doing reading the apple news if you are just going to spend your time complaining about how PCs are cheaper??

Re:Not bad?

[Zelet]

Wow, I have never heard of free software. And this "red hat" person... is that is hacker handle? He must be a criminal to have a handle.

I am kidding. Yes I know there is Linux and such for free but if you can show me a Linux box running X11 that is as stable as OS X I will submit and sell my iBook.

Re:Not bad?

[damiam]

but who has $400 to flush?

A lot of people.

Re:Not bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

$400 isn't alot of money to most people who

a) have a job and...
b) don't live with their parents

Re:Not bad?

[n-baxley]

Just to avoid retyping all this, I'll direct you here

Re:Not bad?

[Draoi]

Yes I know there is Linux and such for free but if you can show me a Linux box running X11 that is as stable as OS X I will submit and sell my iBook.

Ok, please package up your iBook and mail it on! :-) Right now, I'm typing this up on my TiBook running X.2.3. Every so often, I get a kernel panic. Very rarely, but it *does* happen! Here's one;

panic(cpu 0): getnewbuf: bp @ 0x109ee030 is LOCKED! (flags 0x60006220)

Latest stack backtrace for cpu 0:
Backtrace:
0x00084E9C 0x000852CC 0x00027F8C 0x000A8EC8 0x000A8098 0x000A7240 0x000A7318 0x1269B7F8
0x000BD248 0x001EB164 0x001EAFB8 0x0020D8CC 0x00091E90 0x00090009
Kernel loadable modules in backtrace (with dependencies):
com.symantec.kext.symfs(7.0.2)@0x12698000
dependency: com.symantec.kext.symdc(1.3)@0x1283c000
Proceedin g back via exception chain:
Exception state (sv=0x12424280)
PC=0x9000134C; MSR=0x0200F030; DAR=0x000FAA68; DSISR=0x0A000000; LR=0x00022B74; R1=0xBFFFF210; XCP=0x00000030 (0xC00 - System call)

Kernel version:
Darwin Kernel Version 6.2:
Tue Nov 5 22:00:03 PST 2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.12.2.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC

Oh look, It's Norton acting up - quelle surprise! I've other panics to show, but you get the idea ...

I've also got a Linux box running as a web/ssh/mail server on the 'net. Right now, the uptime is over 4 months. Every so often, I just get bored & reboot it but that machine just runs and runs. Yeah, it runs X11 too ...

Horses for courses and all that!

Re:Not bad?

[Zelet]

Okay, except in my experience of buying PC components - they don't last 3 years. They last 3 months with (my) normal use.

I have had my mac for well over 3 years and nothing has gone wrong. I built my pc for gaming 1.5 years ago and have replaced most of the components. I bought nVidia, SoundBlaster, Gigabyte Mobo. The best stuff you can for PC. The only thing I still have in there originally is one out of two hard drives and the mother board. Otherwise everything else had to go in for warrenty repair.

My Dell Laptop has had 4 service calls in the two years I have owned it. One mother board, one hard drive, two keyboards.

My iBook - nothing in 2 years. My tower? Nothing in 3. So don't tell me about components. Have you ever owned a Mac?

OS X is more than just a "pretty face." Do you use vim on a Windows box and compile your C++ code using GCC on the command line? no... why? Cause you can't. I use OS X because it is partially free (speech) and because it is the most useful OS on the planet right now. I have run Linux (many flavors) Windows XP and 2000 and they dont' come close. My 2000 box blue screens about once a week. My Linux laptop is unstable if I run X. OS X has never crashed for me.

Sorry for the long post but there are too many people who don't own Macs but love to criticize.

Re:Not bad?

[Zelet]

Do you use your server for everyday tasks, like StarOffice, email, and everything else.

Server software is stable because it has to be. Because Norton crashes your OS X box doesn't mean that OS X is more unstable than Linux - it means that norton sucks (big surprise).

Yes, if you run Linux as a server it is more stable. If you run it as an every-day machine it is not.

Re:Not bad?

[jweatherley]

Apple can hardly be responsible for third party kernel extensions causing havoc. I think Zelet can hold off packing his iBook for now!

Re:Not bad?

[Draoi]

... as opposed to Linux, where everything's "third party" :-) . I'm not holding Apple responsible for Symantec's dodgy kext, but merely pointing out that the stability of a machine can be largely down to its usage & the quality of software run upon it.

Anyone can easily write a bad kext; anyone can easily write a bad kernel module. Same difference.

Re:Not bad?

[Draoi]

Do you use your server for everyday tasks, like StarOffice, email, and everything else.

You run something like StarOffice, you take yer chances. I've not had a lot of luck running it. It crashes at whim on my box. Equally, there are MacOS X apps that misbehave equally.

(BTW - my box runs as an tunnelled X server but doesn't run any local client apps)

Server software is stable because it has to be. Because Norton crashes your OS X box doesn't mean that OS X is more unstable than Linux - it means that norton sucks (big surprise).

Indeed. I agree totally ....

Yes, if you run Linux as a server it is more stable. If you run it as an every-day machine it is not.

"Yes, if you run MacOS X as a server it is more stable. If you run it as an every-day machine it is not [as stable]." My point exactly. Third-party apps and their relative quality. Nothing to do with Linux or MacOS X directly ...

Re:Not bad?

[Lars T.]

So would you run Norton on your Linux box if you could?

Re:Not bad?

[Zelet]

Wow... so we agree. Yet you were disagreeing by giving those examples.

Re:Not bad?

[Draoi]

Nope.

Re:Not bad?

[Draoi]

Not quite. Your initial point was that Linux was less stable than OSX; "show me a Linux box running X11 that is as stable as OS X". My point was that it's all dependent upon context. Third-party apps can mess up OSX just as easily as an Linux apps can (Norton vs. StarOffice, for example).

Re:Not bad?

[Zelet]

Oh, sorry. I got lost between posts. I think what it comes down to is that we are both right.

Apple solutions have more value for me (because I don't like dealing with warranty issues). But an x86 (with Linux or Windows) might be better for somebody else.

I'm not saying that Apple has NO hardware issues because I am sure there are horror stories. But I have had MANY more x86 issues than I would like to remember. Either way for the geek in all of us... having a *nix box is wonderful isn't it?

Have a good day. If you would like to discuss further I am the same person on AOL.

Later,
zelet

Re:Not bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of Mac components are the same as the PC ones.

It's not necessary to upgrade your PC, if you choose to do so, that's your doing.

I've had a toshiba 3110CT (it's a laptop) for more than 4 years, not one problem, NOT ONE. ( I use it all the time - am using it now ).

My previous desktop PC, I owned for 2 years - sold it because I moved country, not one problem, NOT ONE.

I always code with g/vim, which is available for windows. I also use gcc through both cygwin and mingw.

I developed systems software under 2000 for 2 years, not one crash, NOT ONE. Looks like you are assembling the computers yourself I suggest you stop, you are obviously fscking something up.

The funny thing is; I don't really like windows, and if I had the money (or macs were a little cheaper) I'd buy one (for OS X). But I wouldn't go to the user groups, imagine meeting someone like you? I'd not like that.

Re:Not bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

I apologize for my last comment, while, in all honesty, I must admit it is true. It was not a necessary comment for me to make.

Balance your checkbook and keep recipes on it!

[Zhe Mappel]

Not to be too hard on Apple, but the iMac is a painfully underpowered product for the price. Admittedly, OS X's pretty and the digital lifestyle software is easy to use. If that's worth the $700-800 more that an Apple will cost you for a non-upgradeable machine, go for it. In some cases, it will be. I can see my retired parents enjoying this because it's much less complicated than a Windoze box, and the pivoting screen is probably a blessing to the tired-boned elderly.

However, maybe it's better to wait for later this year or early next when Apple's hardware is slated to enter the 21st century.

Re:Balance your checkbook and keep recipes on it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you balance your checkbook and keep recipes.

Some of us do more demanding tasks, such as taking family photos and videos and putting them onto DVD.

I just finished producing a wedding video for my sister on a SuperDrive-equipped iMac G4. iMovie, iDVD, USB, and FireWire made it easy. Now all that's left is to burn a few more copies so that my parents, the groom's parents, etc. can each have their own copy.

Re:Balance your checkbook and keep recipes on it!

[littleghoti]

So, I hate to feed the trolls, but 600-800$ more than a competing machine? Bollocks! The cheapest (old) imac is $799. And that is better than most wintel machines at everything, if you include the free software with the sticker price. If you truly believe what you say about 600-800 $ more than the equivalent PC, then you are talking shit. so there!

Re:Balance your checkbook and keep recipes on it!

[Anonymous Coward]

And uh, what do you on your computer that requires so much raw power? I use my 500 MHz iMac to surf the web and answer email.

I recently bought a P4 for the same price this iMac cost three years ago. It didn't even come with a monitor. Where are these $500 PCs everybody is talking about?

Re:Balance your checkbook and keep recipes on it!

[afantee]

>> but the iMac is a painfully underpowered product for the price.

Why don't you fuck off, idiot. I am using a 700 MHz G3 iBook with PC100 SDRAM and 16 MB VRAM and 4200 RPM hard drive, which can simultaneously run dozens programs for Java / C++ programming, graphics / Web design, browsing, emailing, playing music, watching and editing photos and movies, playing games, burning CDs, wireless networking, etc. How the hell the GHz G4 iMac with DDR and 7200 RPM drive can be painfully underpowered, and what are you going to use it for? Your P4 may idle at 3 Ghz and generate lots of heat and noise, but may fails miserably when handling real tasks.

>> If that's worth the $700-800 more that an Apple will cost you for a non-upgradeable machine, go for it.

Are you mad or just plain stupid, and may I ask where you could buy a Wintel machine (even for the same price) with all that power and elegance that is Bluetooth and 54 Mbps 802.11g ready and comes with 4x DVD buring Superdrive? And how about iLife and all the other best-of-breed bundled software and programming tools which are not even available for Windows or Linux? By the way, for more power and upgradability, there are those PowerMac G4 machines.

I really hope that those clueless cheap PC junkies would somehow grow up and figure out that a Mac offers so much more value than a Wintel PC for the same price. Even the top box makers like Dell or HP can't compare to Apple in terms of quality and design and innovation, so it's just plain silly to expect Apple to match the lowest prices on the market.

Interesting Note:

[Bob Wehadababyitsabo]

The top-end CRT iMac is $950 for a 600MHz G3 with a CD-ROM. For $50 more, you get the bottom end eMac, which is a 700MHz G4 with a Combo drive (not to mention the 17", 1280x960 display). Why doesn't Apple cut the G3 iMac's price to, say, $500? They'd move more units, and have a good bottom of the line machine for cheap.

PCs cheaper. Less expensive, too. :)

[Tumbleweed]

You could take the other meaning of 'cheaper', as in, 'crappier,' whenever you see that argument.

hehe

Not quite.

[jht]

The only model that was actually _updated_ was the 17" iMac, with a new DDR-based logic board, 1 GHz processor, built-in Bluetooth support, and AirPort Extreme support. The 15" iMac is just a price reduction on the previous Combo drive model (no new features, still SDRAM-based, same speed), and the eMac models were also reduced in price with no new features. That's all.

Of course, had my story submission about 10 hours ago been taken, the correct info would be up for this story already... (grumble)

I'm guessing that the new 17" iMac is based on the same logic board/chipset in the new PowerBooks. I wonder if they're using regular form factor DIMMs now for the user-installable slot or if they're still using SO-DIMMs. It'll make a big difference in memory upgrade prices between one and the other.

Re:Not quite.

[amigaluvr]

Remember that the imac 15 inch model was discontinued last september or october according to the eweek article

They're not manufacturing them anymore

So no wonder they haven't got the new features, these are old stock machines. Apple are dumping the machines that they haven't been able to sell since the middle of last year.

Remember this if you consider buying one.

Re:Not quite.

[quintessent]

Can someone please define Airport and Airport extreme?

Is Airport 802.11b?

Re:Not quite.

[jht]

AirPort is 802.11b (WiFi), and uses a modified PC Card form factor that attaches to the ATA bus on Macs with AirPort support built-in. Macs that lack AirPort support (older PowerBooks), can still live on AirPort networks using off-the-shelf WiFi cards with Mac drivers.

AirPort Extreme is the new, pre-standard 802.11g (not accepted yet but supposedly finalized) - it's backwards-compatible with 802.11b, and also supports 54 MBps operation when talking to 802.11g devices. Unlike 802.11a, it works in the 2.4 Gb range.

AirPort Extreme uses a new, mini-PCI form factor and the two card types are not interchangable. New Mac models introduced since January have the new AirPort Extreme card type, older ones still support AirPort-only. However, AirPort Extreme Macs can live on AirPort networks (albeit at the lower signal rate) and vice-versa.

Right now, Macs that support AirPort Extreme are:
PowerMac (all OS-X-only models)
12" and 17" Powerbooks (AlBooks)
iMac 17"

Macs with AirPort-only support are:
eMac
iMac G3
iMac 15"
iBook (all models)
PowerBook 15" (the TiBook)
MacOS 9-capable PowerMacs

The other thing is that all the AirPort Extreme-capable Macs also support built-in Bluetooth.

Re:Not quite.

[ahacop@wmuc.umd.edu]

Airport is 802.11b
Airport Extreme is 802.11g

Re:Not quite.

[Lars T.]

You mean the 15" modell which now has a 800 MHz processor and a faster CD-RW has been held back since september? You shouldn't believe everything you read.

Re:Not quite.

[Lars T.]

Yes, and AirPort Extreme is 802.11g.

Re:Not quite.

[amigaluvr]

Yes that is the one, with 15" display

Re:Not quite.

[Onan]

You mean that article that was completely wrong?

I can't believe how many people fell for that. LG Electronics announced that Apple had cancelled their contract to manufacture 15" imacs. The same day, Hon Hai Precision Industry happily announced that Apple had awarded the contract to them.

These machines are a huge success for Apple, and they're nowhere near cancelling the line. They simply switched from one Taiwanese supplier to another.

Re:Not quite.

[Onan]

You mean that article that was completely wrong? I can't believe how many people fell for that.

LG Electronics announced that Apple had cancelled their contract to manufacture 15" imacs. The same day, Hon Hai Precision Industry happily announced that Apple had awarded the contract to them.

These machines are a huge success for Apple, and they're nowhere near cancelling the line. They simply switched from one Taiwanese supplier to another.

Re:Not quite.

[cbuskirk]

Very informitive. You can also put 802.11g in any PowerMac with an open PCI slot. I belive that linksys has a compatable one out for 75 bucks.

You have some facts wrong....

[rollthelosindice]

I was just looking thru the apple store. Airport cards are options. You have to pay extra for them. I'm guessing many people have their macs shipped without a wireless card.

Apple doesnt care about the low-end market? Then why do they market there computers as quality at a low price so much?

You are correct that apple doesn't build "low end" machines, but they are getting close. A 600 Mhz G3 with 128 MB of ram isn't exactly a screamer.

Re:You have some facts wrong....

[elemental23]

Airport cards are options.

Yes, but many Apple machines have Airport antennas built in. That's what they mean by "Airport ready". The benefit of this is that the Airport card can be installed internally. This means that a) you don't use up a PCMCIA slot (or a PCI slot, for desktops), and b) you don't have the antenna sticking out of the side the way my Orinoco card sticks out of my Dell laptop (and let me tell you, it's really a pain in the ass).

Apple doesnt care about the low-end market? Then why do they market there computers as quality at a low price so much?

Low price != low end quality. If you want the cheapest computer you can buy, go ahead and get one of those $500 thing, but don't expect anything more than marginal (at best) quality. Or pick up a quality Mac for not too much more.

Re:You have some facts wrong....

[rollthelosindice]

Well, I guess that I had some of my facts wrong....

These eMacs are great for some people

[stefanlasiewski]

My non-computer-literate godmother just bought one of these $800 eMacs for her 10 year old daughter.

It's perfect for her: It's got MS Office & Claris(?) Office for writing papers, a DVD player for watching movies, and her mom can go out and get some decent educational software at a variety of computer stores.

They have a DSL connection and one Power Mac already. We went out and bought a LinkSys Cable/DSL router for $50 at CompUSA, came home, fiddled with some ethernet wire, changed some settings, and boom: Two computers, a networked house, & shared printers.

Running these things on Linux just isn't practical for a 10 year old with an artist Mom. They have better things to do then download and install new libraries to get Gnome2.2 to compile.

Now that I did the initial setup for them, I'm quite confident that my godmother and godsister can deal with 95% of their computer problems without my help.

Look, I'm a big Linux fan, and have been using RH & Debian for about 5 years, but throwing any Linux on a cheap PC and expecting my godmother do simple things like hook up her Palm organizer or installing updates is unrealistic.

This is really sweet

[Anonymous Coward]

I was planning on getting one of the eMacs with a superdrive when I get my tax return next month - now that one is 350$CDN less.

$400 to flush?

[snot whistle]

if i had $400 to flush, i'd buy a pc. then i'd buy a mac once i learned my lesson

pay less, get less.

you don't always get what you pay for, but you pay for what you get.

perhaps its a bad analogy

[protohiro1]

I don't think it is though:

A "low end" BMW (325i) is going to cost me $28,000 , and that's for a 185hp rear wheel drive car.

Instead I could throw down $18,000 for Hyundai Tiburon thats still going to be kind of fun to drive. Or if I really do want a fast car I could instead buy myself a Subaru WRX that's going to cost me $4,000 less and for that I'm getting all wheel drive, 40 more horse power and better acceleration. But if you get into a WRX, and then into a BMW...its not going to be the same experience. You get in WRX, its fast, its cool...but it is not a BMW. A BMW feels like a great car. Its the kind of car you can really fall in love with. Everything looks cool, the controls are all in the right place. The door makes the sweet thud of German engineering.

Its been said before, and I agree that Apple is really trying to be the BMW of computers (and consumer electronics with the ipod). A mac looks cool. You whip out your tibook and it STILL is going to turn heads. The keyboard feels good. The OS is rock solid. Its the same feeling as a BMW. If you just want a fast computer, sure, get a PC, its going to do the job. But if you want a computer that gives you that apple feeling, and you've got the dough to spend, well you will not be dissapointed.

Authors note: I drive a WRX and my desktop is a PIV 2.53ghz...but my other computer is a TiBook.

Re:perhaps its a bad analogy

[entrox]

That's exactly the point.

I drive a Mercedes C-Class with 122HP (which is rather low-end for a Mercedes) and would have never even thought about buying a Golf 3 VR6 with 174HP for a third of the price of the C-Class. People constantly tell me how stupid this is, how much faster and cheaper a Golf/Civic/Whatever is, how cheap a turbocharger for even more speed can be built into the Golf/Civic/Whatever and so on and so on.

It's exactly the same thing with the PC/Mac. Yes, they are slower than the fastest P4/Athlon you can get and yes, they cost more than the average PC, but it isn't the same. I usually don't have built-in Firewire and AirPort antennas, such a great case like the PowerMacs or smooth integration ala "It just works". And most importantly, there is no OS X for PCs.

After having bought my first Mac a few months ago (a MDD 2x1Ghz), I'd never go back to non-Apple hardware like I'd never buy a non-german car.

Note: I'm a student too, so please no "Too expensive for a poor student" flames. Thanks

Re:perhaps its a bad analogy

[n-baxley]

If you're a student who drives a Mercedes and has enough money for a new Mac, I highly doubt that you're in the same situation most students are. Those people telling you you're stupid for buyting the Mercedes...they're right. All the Mercedes tells people is that A) I have lots of money! or B) I'm in debt to my eyebrows. If you have the cash to burn, great for you. For those of us who live in the real world, we'll just get by with more preformance for less money and leave looking good to you rich guys.

Re:perhaps its a bad analogy

[Lars T.]

Most students don't even have enough money to buy a PC. Period. Nor have they the money to buy a Golf VR6, let alone new (or any new car for that matter).

More importantly, nobody can afford to buy something bad. If you don't have the money to buy something good, save up or forgett it.

Re:perhaps its a bad analogy

[entrox]

No - I took a semester off and worked full-time for that period. That's enough to get you a very good used Mercedes.

Re:perhaps its a bad analogy

[DeeKay]

's funny, you know, how people always keep touting the "less performance for more money" horn and gladly pay more for a sucking PC-Subnotebook like a Vaio, Evo, Omnibook etc with crappy AGP shared-memory graphics and often without an optical drive than for an iBook!

Look here if you don't believe me:

Okay, so it's in german, but i guess the numbers speak for themselves...

Re: AirPort Extreme

[bill_mcgonigle]

they are faster and incorporate AirPort Extreme

No, only the 17" incorporates Airport Extreme. The 15" hasn't changed. They have to clear out old inventory first.

I'm getting sick...

[Llywelyn]

...of ignorant comparisons.

Lets assume that you get a 40 GB HD with that, just to make things interesting.

Do you get:

*A Combo (DVD/CD-RW) drive.
*10/100 Base-T Ethernet
*2xFireWire Ports
*5xUSB Ports
*17" Flat CRT
*NVidia GeForce2 MX w/ 32 MB of VRAM
*Built-in Microphone

*90-days tech support and a 1-year warranty.
*MacOS X

Not even *mentioning* component quality in all of this.

Re:I'm getting sick...

[n-baxley]

*Ahem* allow me to direct your attention to Best Buy, hardley bargain shopping. This has a 40GB HD, DVD/CD-RW, 6xUSB ports. You will have to add in a monitor, I know these can be had cheaper elsewhere, and you won't have Firewire, WhoopEE! We throw in some more RAM for $20 and a microphone for $5 and we're done for under $700. Granted this is walking into BB with no sales. If you shop around even a little, you can knock off $100 easy. Yes, you don't have OSX. Damn, I want my screen to look pretty too, SKIN IT! Oh, and did I mention that there are about a trillion software packages that will run on this box, some are even free! And if you even bring up component quality, let me ask you how much you'll be using this machine of yours in 3 years when some of my parts just might start showing some wear?

Please, in a world where people have to look at the bottom line, buying a Mac is like buying a Jaguar delivery vehicle. It's just not neccesary.

Re:I'm getting sick...

[afantee]

How dare are you to compare the gorgeous iMac to the ugly eMachine with that crappy CRT monitor? If you really have to, at leat compare the iMac to an IBM or HP machine.

The iMac is designed to last for at least 5 years, and it's virtually silent and a pure pleasure for your eyes, while the eMachine is an eyesore and a regret every second you sit in front of it. Furthermore, think about the extra electricity bills you have to pay for your idling 2 GHz processor in the next few years (if it lasts that long).

And by the time you want a new computer, your eMachine is probably worth nothing, but the iMac can be sold on eBay to compensate for the initial cost difference.

If you really don't have money for a decent computer, get a cleaning job or something and don't waste your breath to tell us what to buy. Most people in the real world don't just chase the lowest price regardless quality and long term value.

Re:I'm getting sick...

[Lars T.]

So what motherboard does this thing have. Are the BIOS settings not too screwed up? It comes with Win XP Home Edition preinstalled (no comment) - does it come with real install CDs, just a restore CD or did they skip even that? And you better add RAM to it, 32 MB is already gone for the onboard GC. Which reminds me, can you even add another graphics card (it's not like that hasn't happened with integrated crap). It also doesn't mention a DVD player app.

Re:"Under?"

[ZxCv]

I don't know what is defined as "active retail presence", but Apple has been charging sales tax at their online store for all 50 states for at least over a year now. When I bought my iBook, I called to complain about the sales tax and was told that Apple has a presence in all 50 states and is therefore required to collect sales tax. At the time, there was no Apple retail store here and there were only 2 authorized resellers in this city of 1M+. Soooo, I'd be real interested to know exactly what Apple considers enough retail presence to charge sales tax (and no, the unlucky dolt that received my sales tax bitching couldn't give me this answer).

Re:Get something useful

[TonyMillion]

why do we need a WIN32 compatibility layer, you can get roughly the same effect by randomly dragging a piece of copper wire across the main circuit board.

You also avoid those nasty licencing issues.

I dunno...

[spreer]

I've only got 196 (64 orginal + 128 added) in my 450MHz cube, and Jag seems to run just fine. I don't do anything real high-test, though.

Now that I think about it, it really is time to upgrade, isn't it.

spreer

Wow, someone is misinformed...

[Llywelyn]

"Wrong. I own the dual G4 PowerMac for $1700 and did not get an AirPort card in it. Not only that, but you don't get AirPort in a PowerBook until you spend at least $2799.99. That is a joke."

As was already pointed out, you do have an *antenna* for a card, should you want to get the card later. Makes life a hell of a lot easier.

Also, as to this crap about "AirPort in a PowerBook":
You can get a 12" PowerBook with an AirPort 802.11g (yes, that's "g") for $1,898.00. If you simply want a portable with AirPort 802.11b we can pick you up an iBook for $1,078.00 (prices from the Apple Online Store).

btw, I would love to see *anyone* find a reliable means of gathering marketshare data, I have yet to see it done.

"Apple's cheapest machine with a DVD burner is $1299. Sony's is $799"

What DVD burning software comes with it? How easy is it to use? What are the other stats on the machine? Does it come with FireWire? How do you get Video onto it? An AirPort Antenna?

If you just want a DVD burner, buy a DVD Burner and skip the computer. If you want an actual system, then compare the *systems* and not whether they have one feature you want.

"If you do that, people who buy your machines will get less computer while paying more money. Thus less people will buy your products. It's not rocket science."

Evidently, someone here flunked economics and it wasn't me: Frankly, Apple's computers have certain features which set them apart from most PCs, these features are considered desireable and therefore people who want these features may find the Mac more to their liking and thus either purchase another Mac when it comes time to upgrade or Switch.

Mac TV -cards

[Anonymous Coward]

Could somebody enlighten me on expansions of the Apple computers: can you get TV cards (preferably digital TV) for the iMac?
More specifically I'm looking for the HMP standard cards (I live in Finland). Currently my PC doubles as a TV, and I think an iMac could be ideal for that (with the easily adjustable screen).

Re:Mac TV -cards

[rjung2k]

Anything with an "i" at the start of the name is not expandable, except for adding more RAM or an Airport (802.11) card.

That said, you can get external TV tuner boxes for the Macs -- most of the ones I've seen use USB, but there may be a few Firewire (IEEE 1394) options as well.

128 M

[commodoresloat]

I find the idea that Jaguar can be effectively run on 128mb, even with only a single app active, laughable.

Well then you're sure to get a chuckle out of this. I'm running Jaguar on a 700MHz iBook with 128 M Ram. Running now are Eudora, Chimera, Terminal, and Finder. I had MS Word running an hour ago. Yeah it swaps and yeah that sucks but until I get more RAM in here it does the trick, and it functions fine for my purposes. It does work, and it's not that funny.

Who cares what Apple does?

[Anonymous Coward]

ATA66 / 100, 1 BIG Ghz CPU, wow!!.. for ONLY $1000

I can see people lining up for these gems.. lol

Jokes are supposed to have a punchline ..wait, I found it at apple.com "It doesn't crash"..baaawaaahahaha!!! I'm laughing so hard my kernel is panicking (doh!)

Someone tell Apple it's 2003 and only 2% would ever buy under-powered & over-priced computers like this.

Then again 2% of American are stupid enough to join CULTS too.. humm, I'm on to something here... Apple should move to Waco Texas, I hear there's some slightly scorched land available cheap.

Macs suck and you know it, else you wouldn't spend so much time cheerleading for eachother and screaming your justification for why you spent more for less... I mean iLess.

"Think Slow"- Apple.com