Many of the names are Greek in the Matrix, or of Greek inspiration. Morpheus was the God of Dreams. Persephone, companion to the lord of the underworld, is in Reloaded. Etc etc.
Neo, I think, is just an anagram of 'One'... as in He Is The One.
I just had this thought: imagine you bought 'private' subway cars like this, instead of regular automobiles?
The city provides a large infrastructure of rails, and a sophisticated switching system. Citizens pony up for their own (much smaller) 'cars'; they can do whatever they like with the interior of these cars, etc. You register your 'car' and have it installed in the rail system. Make a request and the car goes to the closest station that you're looking for. You give up the convenience of having the 'car' make 100% of the trip between points (i.e. you walk to and from whichever station) but you don't have to drive.
I know, I know... Minority Report. I just really liked the idea of intelligently switched rail traffic in-town, with more traditional free-roaming vehicles outside of urban areas. It makes so much sense.
I remember buying American Beauty last year on VHS, as a gift for my sister. The clerk asked me 3 times whether I was sure I wanted widescreen. When I assured her that I most definitely did and asked what the hell the problem was, she replied "We get at least 10 people a day in here returning widescreen movies because they think something is wrong with them. They say they 'don't fill up the TV screen.'"
I find, generally, that when you say 'aspect ratio' to your average layperson they say 'gesundheit'.
I use a G4/466, which should be the rough equivalent of the TiBook (if its old)... and I have no problems with jaguar. It's very snappy. I'm trying to troll you, I'm just saying. The only thing I would say that is slower than OS 9 is window resizing, which is sluggish. Everything else sings.
Want a real link? There you have it. Real facts, real commentary on why Michael Moore's movie is hack job.
Okay; I read that link. It's an interesting read, to be sure. I think the author is missing the point.
References to things like the the missile plant in Littleton are moot; I believe that there is no way of actually knowing what Lockheed Martin builds there, no matter what they - or Moore - says.
As for the Heston speech, the author of that site seems to think that the editing is some kind of trick. Moore did not re-construct sentences, as the author opines (in fact, one might point out that he starts to delve into the same kind of misinformation tactics that he is accusing Moore of); cutting to a picture, then cutting to a different sound byte does not constitute some sort of fraud. It was clear to me that these are snippets, in the way they were presented. Heston said all those things. Doesn't matter where he said them - remember the point of the film. The use of phrases like "my cold dead hands" were used at multiple points in the film, to illustrate a certain mind-set.
I surely think there were things exaggerated in Bowling for Columbine. I live in Toronto - I don't know many people who leave their doors unlocked. (I do know more people who do, to my surprise, after asking some friends when the film came out.)
But you are missing the point of the film. The point about the USA being a gun-crazed, fear-induced culture of what are probably honest people, whom are being manipulated in nasty ways. Do you dispute the gun death stats? That's the real point.
Michael Moore is one of the sleaziest documentary makers/authors around. Almost nothing he says is true.
Once again, prove it. Your silly stats - which vary only marginally from the actual atats in the movie - do not do the job.
Clearly Moore touched a nerve in the US populace, which is what the film was intended to do. Tell me, do you really think they'd give an Academy Award to such a 'blatantly obvious hack job'? Or a 10-minute standing ovation at Cannes?
Now add a high-rez screen at least one half-page in size and the ability to play shockwave, flash, small programs and scripts, and up-to-date eBooks/pdfs, and you have a do-all textbook. Add input and networking and you can take tests and do homework on it too.
I have no particular beef with AAC (yes, I have heard it, but not extensively); but I would like the option of a higher bit rate. Reviewers comments on ACC (the one in the WSJ article mentioned) lead me to believe AAC at 128kb is better than MP3, but not significantly better. I have more experience with MS's lossy compression, and I haven't found it to be better than MP3. RealAudio's claims of better lossy compression than MP3 are clearly false, so lets say I'm skeptical of someone making magic claims about lossy compression at 128kb.
Interesting. While I wouldn't rely too much on the Wall Street Journal for listening tests, I'm sure there will be a definitive battery of tests published soon (while there is info about AAC, Apple's particular implementation is brand new). You're right about the MP3 artifacts, they are distinctive, as you say, in the transients.
Do you think the lack of option of higher bit rates is due to technical limitations, or licensing limitations from the RIAA members? Or perhaps the feeling that most downloaders are going to be satisfied with what's offered?
I think its a couple of things.
First off, I think its bandwidth calculation for Apple's servers. Looks like the labels are getting approx. 65 per track with this setup - which is pretty damn good, for them - but that doesn't leave a whole lot of maneuvering room for Apple's servers. (At least, I don't think it does, I haven't really tried to calculate anything.)
Secondly, Apple's own promotional materials for the iPods would be kind of invalidated; they've invested heavily in this '1000/2000/4000 songs in your pocket' theme in their advertising. These still hold true as long as the bitrate stays the same as the benchmark they used, which is (I believe) typical 4-5 minute pop songs at 128kbps; that's how they arrived at those figures.
Also, I do think most people won't be able to tell the difference.. even between their old MP3s and the new AACs (placebo effect, maybe). Most people, safe to say, listen to digital music with some background noise present (car engine, computer fan).
Finally it may be the RIAA's (simplistic) stance that anything above 128kbps is 'studio quality'. Remember, they're running around howling about how people are making these so-called pristine digital copies of all their songs. Which of course isn't true to anyone who's used Kazaa for more than 5 minutes.
Just my guesses. It's a trial service too, so I expect Apple will be experimenting a bit, with single/album prices, and probably bitrates for slightly higher price if they're allowed.
I'll mention one last thing - the AAC encoder in iTunes lets you specify bitrates anywhere between 16 and 320 kbps, and between 44.1 and 48Khz. So you can still use it for your own discs at a higher bitrate... you might even get away with a slightly lower one than before.
Remember, I'm not comparing AAC to MP3 here, I'm comparing AAC to the original CD. Clearly. Clearly, the AAC is less quality than the original CD in any measurment. If you put it on a scale where FM is on one end, and CD is on the other, AAC at 128kb is close to FM than CD.
That's a fine statemtent to make considering there's no real scientific way to compare a frequency modulated audio signal with a digitally compressed audio signal. So you're saying you think its closer to FM than CD. Which really doesn't rebut the other poster.
It may have something to do with the kind of source material, as you said... but what are you listening to? I'm just curious. I've heard most people say they prefer the AAC vs anything but a 256kbit+ MP3, but you may be right. Maybe.
Pop and electronica have lesser range. Warm acoustic guitar, or classical music, would suffer more.
It may have a stunning architecture but until it starts following the Windows GUI guidelines
I'm sorry.. the what?
the Windows GUI guidelines
The what?!?
the Windows GUI guidelines
I can hear and understand the words, but I can find no meaning in them.
Joking aside, if you're looking for interface consistency then you are using the wrong OS. Windows is many things, but consistent is definitely not one of them. I mean, Microsoft's own media player looks absolutely crazy-like. Same with WinAmp, same with nearly every media player.
Yes I know about the classic skins. Besides, interface consistency is kind of a weak argument in this instance. I could understand that for something that needed you to do more than poke 'Play' and maybe adjust the volume.
A while ago (like, 2000) some of my friends were discussing the significance of QuickTime on Windows. I think it came out of Apple's testimony in the MS antitrust case about Windows appearing to "break" QuickTime. (A lot of Windows people tend to bash QuickTime on x86. I've played with it, and while I agree that it's somewhat clunkier - somewhat - than the Mac version, it works fine for everything I've thrown at it. I've often suspected that these people who hate Qt/Win are used to v3 or something.)
QuickTime is a truly remarkable system that has never been fully appreciated I feel. The scope and breadth - and elegance - of the QuickTime architecture is absolutely stunning. It can literally do anything (I used to joke that the cure for cancer was in QT if you knew the right keyboard shortcut.) I've seen people juggle dozens of disparate codecs, publish automated PDF spreadsheets, and control remote cameras and robots w/QT. (Okay, I like QT.)
Now, QT on Windows I've always regarded as a sort of Apple Secret Weapon. The original QT-Win port actually contained a really significant chunk of the Mac Toolbox API out of necessity. Don't know if that's still true. What my friends were discussing all that time ago was whether or not Apple could use this installed base of what amounts to a mini-OS against Microsoft, if the media wars every truly got nasty.
Think about it - you hook everyone on something like, say, movie trailers, get everyone to install it.
Now you roll out iTunes, which everyone loves, which relies on QT for many functions, not the least of which your new DRM (FairPlay - good name) for the Music Store you just launched. Hmm.
Nothing really insightful here but QuickTime could pose some major problems for Windows hegemony in media dominance. It's already captured the format for the MPEG4 spec (MS just howled bloody murder over that). It's been around since the dawn of time. iTunes for Windows is just the head of the spear. Apple has been playing defence for a long time but this is really significant, especially of consumers really glom onto Apple's method of DRM. Palladium, anyone? (I know its not the same, but do you think any typical users know that?)
Once upon a time, MS asked Apple to cede the authoring market for digital media in return for keeping playback. That's so fucking funny to me now, it hurts. Helloooo, iMovie.
Slightly OT: Two things Apple should do that would be incredibly simple and restore massive goodwill towards QuickTime; ditch the nag-dialogs for non-pro users entirely, and port to Linux. The port alone, while earning them no money, would be very strategic.
Often, I hear women say that something isn't blue, it's "navy blue" or "sky blue" or some other metaphor-laden color. My personal definition of a primary color (in this case, anyway) is one of the main 8 different colors. I probably wouldn't know the difference between "navy blue" and "dark navy blue", but I know the difference between purple and orange, and neither of those are "primary" colors.
Well now you're talking about the visible light spectrum, and orange + purple are indeed in there.
Red - Orage - Yellow - Green - Blue - Violet (purple), etc.
It's a bit silly to distunguish 'primary' colours out of this as its all just frequency range anyways.
Um, no. There are only 3 primary colors. Red, Blue and Yellow. In any case, I wholeheartedly agree....the PURPLE SUCKS! If it were perhaps a shade darker, it would be acceptable.
Pendant alert!
Red, Green, and Blue are the primary Additive colours that your monitor (and most video gear) uses.
In grade-school art class they teach you Red, Blue and Yellow, but that is actually a simple version of the typical Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black process that is used for printed or painted material (reflective light).
What you consider 'primary' colours largely depends on the medium you're using.
Nope, I wont be. The purple-white gradient with white text is rather painful on the eyes. After all the flak this site cops for the fugly, motherboard green layout of the main page this is not an improvement
That is correct, grasshopper. You must embrace the Light Mode. Only then can you withstand Slashdot's punishing interface without succumbing to madness.
It's only fair to point out that the current design is widely disliked, that the only reason that it is still in place is because there's a few high-up die-hard UI people who were originally sold on the one-button mouse, and it's their baby (Jobs is one).
It's also fair to point out that without a source on that observation, this is just your opinion. I know a ton of Mac people - practically all of my friends - and they love the optical mouse. There's more than a 'few high-up (?) die-hard UI (?!?) people' (that statement doesn't make any sense at all actually, it's not a UI issue, and who's high up? Some nameless Apple industrial designers?)
I've done extensive user testing for multi-button apps before. The earlier poster who mentioned the difficulties getting older computer-illiterate people to understand and adapt to these conventions is right - it is nearlyimpossible. It's very easy to forget, but when you've spent coutless hours in a UI lab watching Random Person stumble through what you consider to be the most trivial tasks... trust me. There's a very, very good reason for the 1 button mouse.
And not just one - an oft-overlooked fact is the right/left dominance thing. Lefties like to use their mice on the left side of the computer. It's important that your primary 'click' is your index finger. Swapping mouse sides can potentially swap your primary click - which you can re-map of course (computer expert that you are), but then your manuals are all wrong when they say left-click, right-click, etc.
Mac mice have never had an issue with left/right-handedness. (Also note that many creative types are right-brained, thus left-handed. This is important to some.)
The point is that you should *not* have to run out and drop *more* money to get another peripheral to make your spangling new Mac not suck. Apple had a (tenuous) reason to not include a second button...up until they introduced context menus triggered by *control-clicking*. At this point, they're just being stupid.
Oh spare me. The cost must be in the neighbourhood of $5, a vanishing percentage of the overall expense. The Apple keyboard is forced on you too, no one seems to complain about that. It makes more sense to me to include the simplest mouse by default from the original company, and people can drop the $30 for a multibutton mouse if they feel like it.
I didn't really get that you had incorporated the costs of the older parts, but they were minor as you said.
Also, I actually noticed the FireWire option after the fact, and tried to add a correction to my post - only to be stymied by the Lameness Filter, so I gave up. Sorry about that.
The mention of Apple RAM had nothing to do with capability btw, I was referring to the fact that Apple (like many other comapnies) charges a fortune for RAM compared to individual vendors, who don't have to pre-buy in huge batches.
I still maintain that the price disparity is not that great all things considered. Versus a beige box a Mac will never win of course on price, but I really don't think Apple is trying to compete there - those companies make no money. The consumer benefits if he/she's wise (as you are) but other than that it is not a sound business proposition.
Difference: $1070. That's enough to buy another kick-ass PC, or the lowest-end eMac plus tax.
Just so I'm clear, you scavenged the DVD drive, CD-RW drive, SCSI card, Firewire card, sound card, keyboard, and mouse from my old system
... which obviously saved a bit of money.
Then, on your AMD, you're likely missing FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet, probably wireless support (i.e. antennas built into the case)... and yes, the kick-ass enclosure which is definitely worth something in terms of design and functionality (drawbridge access). Oh, and you paid for 1 GB of Apple RAM.
I'm too lazy to calculate that out, but I'm guessing the real difference, for the same functionality, is less than $200.
Now, if you didn't need those extra things, then you have the right machine I suppose. Apple desktops are only competitive if you will really use all the niceties. Myself, I need FireWire for the iPod, and the GigE is great when doing Mac-to-Mac transfers (another nicety - you don't need crossover cables for Macs, they autonegotiate) for instance.
Slashdot Mirror
Neo, I think, is just an anagram of 'One'... as in He Is The One.
Ah, but you forgot the most hubristic - and funniest - ad that Apple ran.
At the launch of Windows 95, Apple ran a full-page ad (NYT?) that said:
C:/NGRDLTNS.W95
Priceless.
Your point is taken, though. Let's see if Apple is awake this time. Something tells me they are.
The city provides a large infrastructure of rails, and a sophisticated switching system. Citizens pony up for their own (much smaller) 'cars'; they can do whatever they like with the interior of these cars, etc. You register your 'car' and have it installed in the rail system. Make a request and the car goes to the closest station that you're looking for. You give up the convenience of having the 'car' make 100% of the trip between points (i.e. you walk to and from whichever station) but you don't have to drive.
I know, I know... Minority Report. I just really liked the idea of intelligently switched rail traffic in-town, with more traditional free-roaming vehicles outside of urban areas. It makes so much sense.
So to summarize: nothing illegal, no hole to patch, no piracy, nothing to see here. Apple knows what they are doing.
Blockbuster video, Toronto, Canada. I don't go in there anymore.
I find, generally, that when you say 'aspect ratio' to your average layperson they say 'gesundheit'.
Grub, my man, you must be the Slashdot master of one-liners. Your Karma-to-Words-Typed Ratio must be very impressive.
Okay; I read that link. It's an interesting read, to be sure. I think the author is missing the point.
References to things like the the missile plant in Littleton are moot; I believe that there is no way of actually knowing what Lockheed Martin builds there, no matter what they - or Moore - says.
As for the Heston speech, the author of that site seems to think that the editing is some kind of trick. Moore did not re-construct sentences, as the author opines (in fact, one might point out that he starts to delve into the same kind of misinformation tactics that he is accusing Moore of); cutting to a picture, then cutting to a different sound byte does not constitute some sort of fraud. It was clear to me that these are snippets, in the way they were presented. Heston said all those things. Doesn't matter where he said them - remember the point of the film. The use of phrases like "my cold dead hands" were used at multiple points in the film, to illustrate a certain mind-set.
I surely think there were things exaggerated in Bowling for Columbine. I live in Toronto - I don't know many people who leave their doors unlocked. (I do know more people who do, to my surprise, after asking some friends when the film came out.)
But you are missing the point of the film. The point about the USA being a gun-crazed, fear-induced culture of what are probably honest people, whom are being manipulated in nasty ways. Do you dispute the gun death stats? That's the real point.
Once again, prove it. Your silly stats - which vary only marginally from the actual atats in the movie - do not do the job.
Clearly Moore touched a nerve in the US populace, which is what the film was intended to do. Tell me, do you really think they'd give an Academy Award to such a 'blatantly obvious hack job'? Or a 10-minute standing ovation at Cannes?
Oh, right. You hate the French. Never mind.
That's called an iBook.
You're right, good idea though.
Interesting. While I wouldn't rely too much on the Wall Street Journal for listening tests, I'm sure there will be a definitive battery of tests published soon (while there is info about AAC, Apple's particular implementation is brand new). You're right about the MP3 artifacts, they are distinctive, as you say, in the transients.
Do you think the lack of option of higher bit rates is due to technical limitations, or licensing limitations from the RIAA members? Or perhaps the feeling that most downloaders are going to be satisfied with what's offered?
I think its a couple of things.
First off, I think its bandwidth calculation for Apple's servers. Looks like the labels are getting approx. 65 per track with this setup - which is pretty damn good, for them - but that doesn't leave a whole lot of maneuvering room for Apple's servers. (At least, I don't think it does, I haven't really tried to calculate anything.)
Secondly, Apple's own promotional materials for the iPods would be kind of invalidated; they've invested heavily in this '1000/2000/4000 songs in your pocket' theme in their advertising. These still hold true as long as the bitrate stays the same as the benchmark they used, which is (I believe) typical 4-5 minute pop songs at 128kbps; that's how they arrived at those figures.
Also, I do think most people won't be able to tell the difference.. even between their old MP3s and the new AACs (placebo effect, maybe). Most people, safe to say, listen to digital music with some background noise present (car engine, computer fan). Finally it may be the RIAA's (simplistic) stance that anything above 128kbps is 'studio quality'. Remember, they're running around howling about how people are making these so-called pristine digital copies of all their songs. Which of course isn't true to anyone who's used Kazaa for more than 5 minutes.
Just my guesses. It's a trial service too, so I expect Apple will be experimenting a bit, with single/album prices, and probably bitrates for slightly higher price if they're allowed.
I'll mention one last thing - the AAC encoder in iTunes lets you specify bitrates anywhere between 16 and 320 kbps, and between 44.1 and 48Khz. So you can still use it for your own discs at a higher bitrate... you might even get away with a slightly lower one than before.
That's a fine statemtent to make considering there's no real scientific way to compare a frequency modulated audio signal with a digitally compressed audio signal. So you're saying you think its closer to FM than CD. Which really doesn't rebut the other poster.
It may have something to do with the kind of source material, as you said... but what are you listening to? I'm just curious. I've heard most people say they prefer the AAC vs anything but a 256kbit+ MP3, but you may be right. Maybe.
Pop and electronica have lesser range. Warm acoustic guitar, or classical music, would suffer more.
Don't see the point of a pop-up. However I have set my Mac to emit a large belch every time it smacks down a popup for me. I like that.
I'm sorry.. the what?
the Windows GUI guidelines
The what?!?
the Windows GUI guidelines
I can hear and understand the words, but I can find no meaning in them.
Joking aside, if you're looking for interface consistency then you are using the wrong OS. Windows is many things, but consistent is definitely not one of them. I mean, Microsoft's own media player looks absolutely crazy-like. Same with WinAmp, same with nearly every media player.
Yes I know about the classic skins. Besides, interface consistency is kind of a weak argument in this instance. I could understand that for something that needed you to do more than poke 'Play' and maybe adjust the volume.
QuickTime is a truly remarkable system that has never been fully appreciated I feel. The scope and breadth - and elegance - of the QuickTime architecture is absolutely stunning. It can literally do anything (I used to joke that the cure for cancer was in QT if you knew the right keyboard shortcut.) I've seen people juggle dozens of disparate codecs, publish automated PDF spreadsheets, and control remote cameras and robots w/QT. (Okay, I like QT.)
Now, QT on Windows I've always regarded as a sort of Apple Secret Weapon. The original QT-Win port actually contained a really significant chunk of the Mac Toolbox API out of necessity. Don't know if that's still true. What my friends were discussing all that time ago was whether or not Apple could use this installed base of what amounts to a mini-OS against Microsoft, if the media wars every truly got nasty.
Think about it - you hook everyone on something like, say, movie trailers, get everyone to install it.
Now you roll out iTunes, which everyone loves, which relies on QT for many functions, not the least of which your new DRM (FairPlay - good name) for the Music Store you just launched. Hmm.
Nothing really insightful here but QuickTime could pose some major problems for Windows hegemony in media dominance. It's already captured the format for the MPEG4 spec (MS just howled bloody murder over that). It's been around since the dawn of time. iTunes for Windows is just the head of the spear. Apple has been playing defence for a long time but this is really significant, especially of consumers really glom onto Apple's method of DRM. Palladium, anyone? (I know its not the same, but do you think any typical users know that?)
Once upon a time, MS asked Apple to cede the authoring market for digital media in return for keeping playback. That's so fucking funny to me now, it hurts. Helloooo, iMovie. Slightly OT: Two things Apple should do that would be incredibly simple and restore massive goodwill towards QuickTime; ditch the nag-dialogs for non-pro users entirely, and port to Linux. The port alone, while earning them no money, would be very strategic.
Great post. Thanks very much.
While I admire your example, I fear you have used terms that most slashdotters might find just a little too removed to properly appreciate.
"Livestock? What, like Tucows?"
Well now you're talking about the visible light spectrum, and orange + purple are indeed in there.
Red - Orage - Yellow - Green - Blue - Violet (purple), etc.
It's a bit silly to distunguish 'primary' colours out of this as its all just frequency range anyways.
Pendant alert!
Red, Green, and Blue are the primary Additive colours that your monitor (and most video gear) uses.
In grade-school art class they teach you Red, Blue and Yellow, but that is actually a simple version of the typical Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black process that is used for printed or painted material (reflective light).
What you consider 'primary' colours largely depends on the medium you're using.
The moral of the story? The purple sucks. :)
That is correct, grasshopper. You must embrace the Light Mode. Only then can you withstand Slashdot's punishing interface without succumbing to madness.
It's also fair to point out that without a source on that observation, this is just your opinion. I know a ton of Mac people - practically all of my friends - and they love the optical mouse. There's more than a 'few high-up (?) die-hard UI (?!?) people' (that statement doesn't make any sense at all actually, it's not a UI issue, and who's high up? Some nameless Apple industrial designers?)
I've done extensive user testing for multi-button apps before. The earlier poster who mentioned the difficulties getting older computer-illiterate people to understand and adapt to these conventions is right - it is nearlyimpossible. It's very easy to forget, but when you've spent coutless hours in a UI lab watching Random Person stumble through what you consider to be the most trivial tasks... trust me. There's a very, very good reason for the 1 button mouse.
And not just one - an oft-overlooked fact is the right/left dominance thing. Lefties like to use their mice on the left side of the computer. It's important that your primary 'click' is your index finger. Swapping mouse sides can potentially swap your primary click - which you can re-map of course (computer expert that you are), but then your manuals are all wrong when they say left-click, right-click, etc.
Mac mice have never had an issue with left/right-handedness. (Also note that many creative types are right-brained, thus left-handed. This is important to some.)
The point is that you should *not* have to run out and drop *more* money to get another peripheral to make your spangling new Mac not suck. Apple had a (tenuous) reason to not include a second button...up until they introduced context menus triggered by *control-clicking*. At this point, they're just being stupid.
Oh spare me. The cost must be in the neighbourhood of $5, a vanishing percentage of the overall expense. The Apple keyboard is forced on you too, no one seems to complain about that. It makes more sense to me to include the simplest mouse by default from the original company, and people can drop the $30 for a multibutton mouse if they feel like it.
*ahem*Enron*ahem*
I didn't really get that you had incorporated the costs of the older parts, but they were minor as you said.
Also, I actually noticed the FireWire option after the fact, and tried to add a correction to my post - only to be stymied by the Lameness Filter, so I gave up. Sorry about that.
The mention of Apple RAM had nothing to do with capability btw, I was referring to the fact that Apple (like many other comapnies) charges a fortune for RAM compared to individual vendors, who don't have to pre-buy in huge batches.
I still maintain that the price disparity is not that great all things considered. Versus a beige box a Mac will never win of course on price, but I really don't think Apple is trying to compete there - those companies make no money. The consumer benefits if he/she's wise (as you are) but other than that it is not a sound business proposition.
Again, sorry for the confusion.
Just so I'm clear, you
scavenged the DVD drive, CD-RW drive, SCSI card, Firewire card, sound card, keyboard, and mouse from my old system
Then, on your AMD, you're likely missing FireWire, Gigabit Ethernet, probably wireless support (i.e. antennas built into the case)... and yes, the kick-ass enclosure which is definitely worth something in terms of design and functionality (drawbridge access). Oh, and you paid for 1 GB of Apple RAM.
I'm too lazy to calculate that out, but I'm guessing the real difference, for the same functionality, is less than $200.
Now, if you didn't need those extra things, then you have the right machine I suppose. Apple desktops are only competitive if you will really use all the niceties. Myself, I need FireWire for the iPod, and the GigE is great when doing Mac-to-Mac transfers (another nicety - you don't need crossover cables for Macs, they autonegotiate) for instance.