$499 Mac?

[NoZed Avenger]

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0412expo2.html

With iPod-savvy Windows users clearly in its sights, Apple is expected to announce a bare bones, G4-based iMac without a display at Macworld Expo on January 11 that will retail for $499, highly reliable sources have confirmed to Think Secret.

The one thing that has always kept me from considering a mac is the price. Forcing you to buy a monitor never helped, either.

This is interesting.

[Theodore Kurita]

I love my MAC.

Trust me, once you start using mac's, you'll never want to go back. I absolutely love the command lin It is true that Mac's only have support for OpenGL, which means not a whole lot of gaming. Although, you can get World of Warcraft for it. :-)

There have been rumors of the $499.00 headless mac since last September on various Macintosh forums.

Apple is really REALLY wanting to gain more marketshare once again, and it looks like they are finally becoming competitive once again. :-)

Lets hope that Apple is able to gain at least 15% of the home computer market again. Since Apple has been able to redeem themselves as a viable competitor via ITunes and the IPod, it wouldn't suprise me at all if they did actually gain back more of the market.

[Ian Osborne]

Seconded. You pay for what you get, and Macs are a superior product. They're more stable, more user-friendly and suffer fewer hacker/virus attacks. I've had my iMac for around five years now, and am about to upgrade to a G5. I would never switch to a PC as a main machine.

[Theodore Kurita]

Also, if you do get a Mac, just do some poking around with it.

There are lots of fun things you can do with a Macintosh.

Also, if you download VLC media Player for your Apple, you will have no excuses left to not join in on the Mac revolution.

VLC media player is a completely open source project, that has produced amazing results. You can literally play any media file type with it, including things like OGG VORBIS formats, DivX, and various other media formats.

Mac is superior to the PC, ot doubt about it.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Also, if you do get a Mac, just do some poking around with it.

There are lots of fun things you can do with a Macintosh.

Also, if you download VLC media Player for your Apple, you will have no excuses left to not join in on the Mac revolution.

VLC media player is a completely open source project, that has produced amazing results. You can literally play any media file type with it, including things like OGG VORBIS formats, DivX, and various other media formats.

Mac is superior to the PC, ot doubt about it.

I could never live with a Mac. I like gaming too much. But I would love to set my parents up with one each. Maybe that way I'd get less emails about how to use their glorified typewriter/emailer properly. Oh, and VLC is cross platform. Available as precompiled binaries for Windows, MacOSX, and the main linuxes.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Mac is superior to the PC, ot doubt about it.
They seem to have a funny keyboard layout though...

[richardm]

... and not enough buttons on the mouse.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Mac is superior to the PC, ot doubt about it.

If the Mac is so superior, why does it have such a minuscule market share?

PC users are just stupid? Bill Gates is the Devil Incarnate? It's all a big conspiracy?

[Darat]

Always loved the design of Macs, otherwise never been that impressed with them.

The thing that always amazed me about Apple and Macs was the complete and utter incompetence they made of their OSs and especially their upgrades over the years. Considering it was a "closed shop" upgrades etc. should have been as smooth as a baby's bottom, instead they always ended up making a mess much like what comes out of a baby's bottom.

Is a $499 Mac (presumably cut down spec?) without a screen a competitive price in comparison to what $499 can buy you in the PC world?

[richardm]

.. On a slight derail, Santa left a nice new iPod for my wife this Christmas. We've actually discussed (once) the idea of having a little iBook running iTunes permanently connected to our stereo as a sort of jukebox. If this little cut-down version is as titchy as described it might actually be quite a neat solution.

If, that is, it was retailing at $499 properly converted to Pounds Sterling - i.e. about 260 of them. Unfortunately it seems highly probable that it'll be £499 quid, in which case it would be farcical.

Edited to add: Why an iBook rather than anything else? Well, simply because they look quite nice, and wouldn't be too out-of-place in my living room.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
If the Mac is so superior, why does it have such a minuscule market share?

PC users are just stupid? Bill Gates is the Devil Incarnate? It's all a big conspiracy?

The X86 (PC) format is liked much more by coders because the architecture makes up for small errors in programs.

I wouldn't call PC users stupid, especially if they are gamers, considering that Mac gaming isn't all that great because developers don't release alot of products for it.

Bill Gates basically got to the table first with IBM and that is why Microsoft did so well.

Also, PC's do well because it relies on 3rd Party Hardware, which is generally cheaper due to competition.

Apple would still have a dominant market share if they actually decided to sell individual components and begin 3rd party support.

Alas, they have not done so, hopefully they will change their ways at some point.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
The X86 (PC) format is liked much more by coders because the architecture makes up for small errors in programs.

So, the Mac has an inferior architecture. I agree.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
I wouldn't call PC users stupid, especially if they are gamers, considering that Mac gaming isn't all that great because developers don't release alot of products for it.

And the only reason is a low market share.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Bill Gates basically got to the table first with IBM and that is why Microsoft did so well.

That is a far too simplistic view. You cannot ignore that Microsoft is also a very clever and agressive company, extremely set on succeeding.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Also, PC's do well because it relies on 3rd Party Hardware, which is generally cheaper due to competition.

Very true. Having a Mac is equivalent to owning a car which you can only buy a certain kind of gas for.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Apple would still have a dominant market share if they actually decided to sell individual components and begin 3rd party support.

Perhaps. I have never understood this monolithic frame of mind within Apple. Despite their emphasis on "freedom for computer users", they have by far the least free platform I have ever seen.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Alas, they have not done so, hopefully they will change their ways at some point.

I honestly doubt that. They show no signs of that. They seem intent on maintaining the elitist image.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, the Mac has an inferior architecture. I agree.

No, I didn't say that. Macintosh architecture is superior because it preforms better. The only advantage the PC has is that it can allow incompetant Programmers to keep their jobs.



And the only reason is a low market share.

Obviously, and what would happen to that market if Mac's became cheaper and started accepting 3rd party companies making Mac motherboards.



That is a far too simplistic view. You cannot ignore that Microsoft is also a very clever and agressive company, extremely set on succeeding.

Obviously. There is no doubt that Microsofty wants to succeed at all costs.


Very true. Having a Mac is equivalent to owning a car which you can only buy a certain kind of gas for.

Yeah, it is really kind of like that. The only thing in Apple's that are third party products are the RAM and the Video Cards. Everything else is 1st party. Now that I am thinking about it, this in some strange way is kind of reminding me of the console wars, and Nintendo only recently starting to use 2nd and 3rd pary software support.



Perhaps. I have never understood this monolithic frame of mind within Apple. Despite their emphasis on "freedom for computer users", they have by far the least free platform I have ever seen.

True. But the reason they use that slogan is that it uses one of the most user friendly interfaces avaliable. Also, if you are a real geek, and start messin around with the Unix Command Prompt, you can do wondergful things with your Macintosh.


I honestly doubt that. They show no signs of that. They seem intent on maintaining the elitist image.

I know, it might take a new CEO, or even an outright overhaul of the company before what I saide earlier can occurr. Still, Apple will have to change at some point if they want a chunk of the market back.



Also, I have been doing some digging around, it looks like Apple right now has a Game Console that is ready to be produced. However, they said they won't enter until one of the big four companies drops their console, which isn't likely to happen.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
...snip...

Obviously, and what would happen to that market if Mac's became cheaper and started accepting 3rd party companies making Mac motherboards.



But Apple did go down the clone route for awhile and it wasn't very successful. (See: http://www.lowendmac.com/clones/index.shtml)

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


Obviously. There is no doubt that Microsofty wants to succeed at all costs.


And doesn't Apple?

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


Yeah, it is really kind of like that. The only thing in Apple's that are third party products are the RAM and the Video Cards. Everything else is 1st party. Now that I am thinking about it, this in some strange way is kind of reminding me of the console wars, and Nintendo only recently starting to use 2nd and 3rd pary software support.


Nintendo has always allowed (from the NES days onwards) third-party software. Apple on the other hand has become more and more "closed" over the years. It means they can squeeze more out of a given platform because they can fine tune it but it does limit consumer choice and even availability. Plus the PC platform isn’t just MS and Windows whilst the Mac platform is just Mac.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


True. But the reason they use that slogan is that it uses one of the most user friendly interfaces avaliable. Also, if you are a real geek, and start messin around with the Unix Command Prompt, you can do wondergful things with your Macintosh.


In my opinion only recently has the Mac acquired "one of the most user-friendly interface". Before then it was really a matter of good marketing and an established, "mainstream view" that it had the “most user friendly UI�. From my experience of training people on both Windows and Mac versions of Photoshop and PageMaker many, many, many years ago I found that people could become much more productive on the Window versions then on the Mac versions. (A lot was to do with the fact that on the Windows versions everything could be done with the mouse and clicking, on the Mac they had to learn almost from the start to use the keyboard shortcuts, along with the mouse.) What the Mac had from the start was a simple in appearance UI that made it look less intimidating then early Windows and certainly a better interface then the intimidating DOS prompt.

Also early on the Mac was very, very limited in what it could do (which isn’t a criticism but part of its original strength) and therefore didn’t seem as difficult to use. For instance in the training above for printers on the Mac there was really only two Apple printers I had to train people to use, whereas on the Windows versions there was already a myriad of different printers, each with their own features and strengths and subsequently the Windows UI had in certain areas apparently more complexity when in fact it was giving users more choices and more capabilities then the closed shop Mac. (Remember all this is totally my personal opinion.)


Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


I know, it might take a new CEO, or even an outright overhaul of the company before what I saide earlier can occurr. Still, Apple will have to change at some point if they want a chunk of the market back.


I agree, but I would be surprised to see this happening given MS’s commanding lead, it would require something truly revolutionary not just more of the best looking stuff!


Originally posted by Theodore Kurita


Also, I have been doing some digging around, it looks like Apple right now has a Game Console that is ready to be produced. However, they said they won't enter until one of the big four companies drops their console, which isn't likely to happen.

Which Big 4? There are only three aren’t there? Sony, Nintendo and MS. Plus how can they "wait", their technology will be outstripped by the next gen stuff. (And unless you hear they have the full support of EA forget it as being a truly commercial viable product.)

(Edited for stuff.)

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Darat
Nintendo has always allowed (from the NES days onwards) third-party software. Apple on the other hand has become more and more "closed" over the years.

Only under strict licensing conditions - in the NES days, they tried to sue companies for producing unlicensed product, most notably CodeMasters over the Game Genie cheat device. In the days of the SNES they sent legal threats to magazine publishers, attempting to prevent unofficial Nintendo magazines. Only recently, through lost lawsuits and falling market share, has Nintendo relaxed its corporate control over its consoles.

In contrast, anyone can produce and market a piece of Mac software...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
No, I didn't say that. Macintosh architecture is superior because it preforms better. The only advantage the PC has is that it can allow incompetant Programmers to keep their jobs.

By that, you are saying that programs for the PC platform are of poorer quality than on a Mac. That leads back to the question of why the Mac has such a minuscule market segment.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Obviously, and what would happen to that market if Mac's became cheaper and started accepting 3rd party companies making Mac motherboards.

Quite possibly. So, why doesn't Apple do that, if they are serious about gaining market shares?

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Obviously. There is no doubt that Microsofty wants to succeed at all costs.

Which has proven effective. Apple's strategy clearly hasn't paid off.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Yeah, it is really kind of like that. The only thing in Apple's that are third party products are the RAM and the Video Cards. Everything else is 1st party. Now that I am thinking about it, this in some strange way is kind of reminding me of the console wars, and Nintendo only recently starting to use 2nd and 3rd pary software support.

Try the video war. Betamax was clearly a better format, yet VHS won.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
True. But the reason they use that slogan is that it uses one of the most user friendly interfaces avaliable. Also, if you are a real geek, and start messin around with the Unix Command Prompt, you can do wondergful things with your Macintosh.

I design user interfaces for a living myself. I've looked at Apple's user interfaces, and the reason why users find it easy is because everything is done the same way. It's by far not the most intuitive way of doing it, but it is consistent. You can't get that on a PC platform - on the other hand, the UI on a PC has improved tremendously in the past 5 years, and it is because of the massive user feedback. You get a heck of a lot more feedback from the PC users than the Mac users.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
I know, it might take a new CEO, or even an outright overhaul of the company before what I saide earlier can occurr. Still, Apple will have to change at some point if they want a chunk of the market back.

Oh, yes. What they are doing now isn't working.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Also, I have been doing some digging around, it looks like Apple right now has a Game Console that is ready to be produced. However, they said they won't enter until one of the big four companies drops their console, which isn't likely to happen.

There is no sign of that, no. PS2 still sells like crazy, and that is by now an "old" console. Why? Because there's a looooot of games for it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Darat
And doesn't Apple?

That is a very good question. Why the heck doesn't Apple simply change course? Is it because of one man's (flawed) vision?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
That is a very good question. Why the heck doesn't Apple simply change course? Is it because of one man's (flawed) vision?

Why should they change their course? They've got a very sucessful product, a stable market niche (practically a monopoly), an excellent image (loved by Rush Limbaugh and Ralph Nader alike), a double fistful of loyal customers willing to pay a premium for a slightly inferior (IMO*) product.

And comparing them to microsoft isn't really fair. Microsoft doesn't sell computers.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Why should they change their course? They've got a very sucessful product, a stable market niche (practically a monopoly), an excellent image (loved by Rush Limbaugh and Ralph Nader alike), a double fistful of loyal customers willing to pay a premium for a slightly inferior (IMO*) product.

You may be right. That does make their own claims sound a bit shallow, though...

Originally posted by Rob Lister
And comparing them to microsoft isn't really fair. Microsoft doesn't sell computers.

Correct.

[Theodore Kurita]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
By that, you are saying that programs for the PC platform are of poorer quality than on a Mac. That leads back to the question of why the Mac has such a minuscule market segment.

It is because they are harder to program for. The best analogy I can come up for this is the Playstation 2. It is a bi*** to program for, yet it has the most, and it has the highest quality software avaliable. Also it's hardware is superior to the XBox and the Gamecube.

The reason why Mac has such a miniscule market segment, as in not as many programs avaliable, is that programmers in general don't like the fact that they have to spend more time debugging their programs before releasing it on the Mac. Fewer updates are needed for Mac software for that very reason, while more updates more frequently are needed for PC Software. Take a look at the amount of bug reports there are for Mac Programs.



Quite possibly. So, why doesn't Apple do that, if they are serious about gaining market shares?

Right now, I am thinking that the CEO of Apple is just wanting to stick with the nitch market. I think the $499.00 IMac is going to be an experiment into the market to see how it reacts.


Which has proven effective. Apple's strategy clearly hasn't paid off.

If you mean gaining most of the market, then yes, it hasn't paid off.


Try the video war. Betamax was clearly a better format, yet VHS won.

I've known about the video wars for some time. Now it looks like the audio wars will be coming up soon. Super Audio CD Vs. DVD-Audio



I design user interfaces for a living myself. I've looked at Apple's user interfaces, and the reason why users find it easy is because everything is done the same way. It's by far not the most intuitive way of doing it, but it is consistent. You can't get that on a PC platform - on the other hand, the UI on a PC has improved tremendously in the past 5 years, and it is because of the massive user feedback. You get a heck of a lot more feedback from the PC users than the Mac users.

I will give you that. In fact, there are mods and software avaliable that can make a windows or linux machine look and feel like a mac.




Oh, yes. What they are doing now isn't working.

Well, it works if they are still wanting to stick with their little nitch market of 3 - 5%, which would include me.


There is no sign of that, no. PS2 still sells like crazy, and that is by now an "old" console. Why? Because there's a looooot of games for it.

Obviously, Hardware that has alot of software avaliable is generally going to market better in the long run.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
It is because they are harder to program for. The best analogy I can come up for this is the Playstation 2. It is a bi*** to program for, yet it has the most, and it has the highest quality software avaliable. Also it's hardware is superior to the XBox and the Gamecube.

The reason why Mac has such a miniscule market segment, as in not as many programs avaliable, is that programmers in general don't like the fact that they have to spend more time debugging their programs before releasing it on the Mac. Fewer updates are needed for Mac software for that very reason, while more updates more frequently are needed for PC Software. Take a look at the amount of bug reports there are for Mac Programs.

Now, why would a Mac be harder to program for, if it was so well designed? If the architecture is so difficult to program for, and causes so many bug reports, what does that say about Apple's ability to construct a good computer?

Would I be far off, if I described the Mac as an expensive corpse with a lot of make-up, worshipped by necrophiliacs? :)

We are also not merely talking about minuscule market segments when it comes to program availability, we are also talking about hardware. Macs don't sell in large quantities, despite their proclaimed advantages. I still haven't seen any good reasons why Macs shouldn't sell well, if they are so superior.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Right now, I am thinking that the CEO of Apple is just wanting to stick with the nitch market. I think the $499.00 IMac is going to be an experiment into the market to see how it reacts.

I wonder how the stockholders see this "let's keep a low market share"-approach.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
If you mean gaining most of the market, then yes, it hasn't paid off.

Not just most of the market - Apple haven't been able to get just a recognizable market share. Apple computers are not a minority, they are a fraction of a minority.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
I've known about the video wars for some time. Now it looks like the audio wars will be coming up soon. Super Audio CD Vs. DVD-Audio

Yep. Bad for consumers, too.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
I will give you that. In fact, there are mods and software avaliable that can make a windows or linux machine look and feel like a mac.

So, why buy a Mac? You get a lower performing computer at a higher price, with an almost non-existent program catalogue. With B&O, at least you get a very good sound system.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Well, it works if they are still wanting to stick with their little nitch market of 3 - 5%, which would include me.

Which is fine - if you like living in a closed-off environment. But I have yet to see compelling arguments for buying a Mac.

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
Obviously, Hardware that has alot of software avaliable is generally going to market better in the long run.

Indeed. This is logic for retarded chickens, but Apple doesn't seem to catch on.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I still haven't seen any good reasons why Macs shouldn't sell well, if they are so superior.

Because there are a lot of stupid people around? :p

If you think popularity is an indication of quality, check out the singles charts. Or ask yourself what gets the most viewers, Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t or Crossing Over with Jonathan Edward.

[epepke]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Now, why would a Mac be harder to program for, if it was so well designed? If the architecture is so difficult to program for, and causes so many bug reports, what does that say about Apple's ability to construct a good computer?

It isn't.

I own two Windows PCs, two Macs (one broken), and a Linux PC. I've made actual money writing programs for the Mac, Windows, and Linux (plus Windows CE and Palm OS).

The best and easiest system to program for, assuming one is making programs with a GUI is Mac Cocoa. Palm OS is second. WIN32 for XP-line OS is third, tied with Windows CE. Mac Carbon is fourth. Linux with whatever is fifth. WIN32 for Windows 98, 95, ME, and earlier is sixth.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Because there are a lot of stupid people around? :p

If you think popularity is an indication of quality, check out the singles charts. Or ask yourself what gets the most viewers, Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t or Crossing Over with Jonathan Edward.

It's not that simple. The PC is also used in businesses, and there, they look at things in a less-than-emotional way. Program availability, data compatibility, price, maintenance....

I won't even call believers in John Edward stupid as such. It's more like a disturbing refusal to realize reality... ;)

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I won't even call believers in John Edward stupid as such. It's more like a disturbing refusal to realize reality... ;)

Just like PC owners! :p

Ok, ok, I'll shut up now...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Just like PC owners! :p

Ok, ok, I'll shut up now...

You better! :p

[Powa]

I'm a PC owner but I have to work on a mac at work (Mac OS 9.2). I didn't like macs before, but I absolutely hate them now. The OS is cumbersome and way inferior to Windows (IMHO). Granted, I've only tried Mac OS X for a few minutes so it may be better. I don't know. Anyway, I don't see a reason why I should pay more for a slower machine with FAR less software. Security? I maintain four computers at home (all connected to internet via adsl) practically without ever seeing a virus or malware. If you're sufficiently protected you have very little to worry about.
The only people using macs in my country are graphics professionals (designers, printers). This stems from the times when PC's were using monochrome graphics and the only computers suitable for designing and desktop publishing were macs. Something like 15 years ago PC's caught up with macs but by that time everybody in the industry was using macs so you had no choice but use a mac in order to be compatible with everybody else. There's absolutely nothing you can do on a mac that I can't do on my PC.

This was posted from a mac.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Powa
There's absolutely nothing you can do on a mac that I can't do on my PC.

Precisely.

[Kevin_Lowe]

OSX Macs are secure against all known viruses and worms straight out of the box. A Windows machine is lucky if it can connect to the internet long enough to dowload a security update without being compromised.

Macs are made from high-quality parts which are designed to work together. They don't cough and die because your motherboard doesn't like your sound board, or your graphics card doesn't like your monitor. They also last: my sweetie's Mac is about six years old and mine is five, and neither has ever seen the inside of a repair shop. No component has failed.

Apart from games, there is Mac software to do just about whatever you want. Unless you need a specific Windows app to do your job, you can probably do it on a Mac.

Setting up small networks, ethernet or wireless, is practically painless even for a layperson.

You can cut and paste just about anything into just about anything.

Multitasking works the way it damn well should.

Every application keeps its menus in the same place.

Whether those features are worth the extra money to you is a matter of taste.

(By the way, I'd just like to say that like everyone else here I could run Apple better than that silly Steve Jobs. I just don't understand why the shareholders don't dump that idiot and hire one of us. We see so much more clearly how to make Apple a success. We should email them or something).

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Powa
I'm a PC owner but I have to work on a mac at work (Mac OS 9.2). I didn't like macs before, but I absolutely hate them now. The OS is cumbersome and way inferior to Windows (IMHO). Granted, I've only tried Mac OS X for a few minutes so it may be better. I don't know. Anyway, I don't see a reason why I should pay more for a slower machine with FAR less software. Security? I maintain four computers at home (all connected to internet via adsl) practically without ever seeing a virus or malware. If you're sufficiently protected you have very little to worry about.
The only people using macs in my country are graphics professionals (designers, printers). This stems from the times when PC's were using monochrome graphics and the only computers suitable for designing and desktop publishing were macs. Something like 15 years ago PC's caught up with macs but by that time everybody in the industry was using macs so you had no choice but use a mac in order to be compatible with everybody else. There's absolutely nothing you can do on a mac that I can't do on my PC.

This was posted from a mac.

PCs had color graphics long before Macs did (at least on a large scale - granted, CGA was crap, but it was color). The reasons Macs were preferred for desktop publishing over PCs was all about the WYSIWYG ability of the Macs (and Amigas, which had the best graphics and color of the three back then), which PCs didn't start getting until Windows came along.

[Powa]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
OSX Macs are secure against all known viruses and worms straight out of the box. A Windows machine is lucky if it can connect to the internet long enough to dowload a security update without being compromised.
I agree that's a problem for a person who doesn't know much about online security.

Macs are made from high-quality parts which are designed to work together. They don't cough and die because your motherboard doesn't like your sound board, or your graphics card doesn't like your monitor. They also last: my sweetie's Mac is about six years old and mine is five, and neither has ever seen the inside of a repair shop. No component has failed.
One of the PCs in my house is a nine-year-old 90 MHz pentium that has never had a failure. In fact none of the four PCs have, other than one funky disk (eventualy replaced) and a lightning frying a NIC in one of them.
Apart from games, there is Mac software to do just about whatever you want. Unless you need a specific Windows app to do your job, you can probably do it on a Mac.
Sure, you can cut a tree with an axe, too, but why not take a chainsaw to do it. I'm just saying that you have broader choice of software on a PC. If you don't like a program just try next 50.

Setting up small networks, ethernet or wireless, is practically painless even for a layperson.
With Windows XP all you need is hardware and a Windows CD to do it. No experiense with LANs necessary (in theory anyway).
You can cut and paste just about anything into just about anything.
And on PCs you can't?
Multitasking works the way it damn well should.
And on PCs it doesn't? I sometimes work with 5 or 6 programs at the same time without problems (not counting things like antivirus software and ZoneAlarm running in the back).
Every application keeps its menus in the same place.
And this is my main problem with macs. Things are much more disorganized this way. I like my programs to be in one window with menus and all.
Whether those features are worth the extra money to you is a matter of taste.
What exactly is worth the extra money is beyond me but I admit I'm PC biased. ;)

[kookbreaker]

Regarding the "Anything you can do on a Mac, I can do on a PC" crowd, I will say this much. I have been in the catalog business for several years now. Everything in the catalog construction part of the business is Mac based. I've been hearing for years about how "Windows is gonna get that market" or "XPs coming and will totally knock Macs out of the Photo studios".

It hasn't happened yet. I cannot attribute this to intertia. While a PC can technically do the things a Mac can, it is sort of like saying I can ride my bike 10 miles or walk them. The end is the same, but one was much easier to do.

I have nothing against PCs, and I actually think XP is a darn good interface (when it works the way it is advertised). But I've never heard of an equivelant horror of "Service Pack 2" from the Mac camp.

The idea of $499 Mac is a good one since the iron is getting mighty hot for the computer market. The ipod has some people already gazing at Macs for the first time, and the misbehavior of PC manufacturers is starting to wear thin on some customers. Dell, once a paragon of customer service, has become a bunch of Indians reading from repair scripts. While I was between jobs earlier in 2004, I did some computer work for family friends. These were mostly older folks who had trashed their computers when they followed the instructions given to them by a person who could barely speak the language.

How bad is it? Consumer Reports actually discussed Macs for the first time in years. Until recently, the barely listed Macs as an "also ran", if they mentioned them at all, and they usually didn't. But the CS issue have become too much of an albatross. add to that the use of low quality parts to cut margins to the bone can come back to haunt them. However, int he past the tendancy was for a disgruntled PC owner was to move from the distressed brand to another PC manufacturer. That company would then rise int he ranks and start having the same problems. Look at the #1 PC manufacturer over the years and you'll see its like a syndrome... and we are running out of PC manufacturers to run to. HP, Gateway, Packard Bell, all were once the top dog.

Macs won't get the majority of the total market share. There are far too many 1-job computers in this world (warehouse computor, Order taking computer at McDonalds). There's no point to having a Mac in those positions, and there are a lot of them. Macs aim instead for the specialty market and they have done a mediocre to great job at that over the years. There is nothing wrong with aiming for speciality markets, something peopel who point to percentages seem to forget.

Macs, for the near future, will gain market share. If PC's lose any it will be due to the manufacturers faults rather than Microsoft's.

[rockoon]

Originally posted by DaveW
PCs had color graphics long before Macs did (at least on a large scale - granted, CGA was crap, but it was color). The reasons Macs were preferred for desktop publishing over PCs was all about the WYSIWYG ability of the Macs (and Amigas, which had the best graphics and color of the three back then), which PCs didn't start getting until Windows came along.

Actualy.. back then the "home machine" with the best graphics was the Apple IIgs which could display 3200 colors at once.

Their line of MAC's at the time could only do grayscale graphics so the IIgs was far far superior but Apple got into a bigtime lawsuit over the sound capabilities in the IIgs system and had to drop the line entirely. Seems they had had a deal with Apple Records where they could use the Apple name as long as they didnt dabble in the music industry. Woops!!

The Apple IIgs was the finest affordable system that could be purchased at the time. Better graphics and sound than an Amiga (tho the Atari ST was still the king of MIDI) and plenty of support.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Powa
Something like 15 years ago PC's caught up with macs but by that time everybody in the industry was using macs so you had no choice but use a mac in order to be compatible with everybody else. There's absolutely nothing you can do on a mac that I can't do on my PC.

Not really. There's nothing that you can do on a Mac that you can't do approximately on a Windows system, but a number of things are still superior for graphics on the Mac. (I'm talking OS X, now. 9.2 is approximately comparable to Windows 95 or 98.) Such as Pantone color matching, which is built into the OS and so is guaranteed available for all graphics programs. The kernal in OS X is much superior in multitasking to Windows XP. My 800 mHz Mac gives better multimedia performance than my 2.88 gig Windows PC.

As I said, I use and program both. Windows has some superiorities I could name, but it's ludicrous to say that Mac has no superiorities, either.

[Peskanov]

Claus,

Now, why would a Mac be harder to program for, if it was so well designed? If the architecture is so difficult to program for, and causes so many bug reports, what does that say about Apple's ability to construct a good computer?

This is because "Mac be harder to program" is a blatant lie. Obviously Theodore is not a programmer, or he is a very uninformed one.
Where is your famous skepticism Claus?
The PowerPC architecture is quite clean (although there are better ones like ARM imo) and certainly is miles away from the horrible, multi-layered mess called x86 (a design disaster area already in 1976).
And the Apple OS is in no way worse than the Windows nightmare to program.

Would I be far off, if I described the Mac as an expensive corpse with a lot of make-up, worshipped by necrophiliacs?

Yes you would, because you are assuming that because there exist blind Apple fanatics, there are not reasonable motives to like or even prefer this architecture.

We are also not merely talking about minuscule market segments when it comes to program availability, we are also talking about hardware. Macs don't sell in large quantities, despite their proclaimed advantages. I still haven't seen any good reasons why Macs shouldn't sell well, if they are so superior.

Well, they are not SO superior, although they were in it's time (until Windows 95).
Do you wants reasons about why a good product sells worse than a worse produt? Or maybe you are simply arguing that the product that sells better is the best product (a la Shanek)?

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Peskanov
The PowerPC architecture is quite clean (although there are better ones like ARM imo) and certainly is miles away from the horrible, multi-layered mess called x86 (a design disaster area already in 1976).
Indeed. I got flamed quite badly on Slashdot for pointing out the same...should've known better. It's amazing that AMD has been able to do so well with an aging mess of an architecture like x86. Intel can't even manage to design a good processor when they ditch x86 entirely (witness the disaster that was IA64). IBM makes good processors, and Apple knows it :)

That said, I don't care for OS X at all. It looks pretty, but it's a pain in the ass to use. But I'd gladly buy a sub-$700 small form-factor headless Mac and run Linux on it.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by epepke
Linux with whatever is fifth

Have you tried Qt? It's a little odd at first, but pretty neat once you get used to it.

Sadly, my only other real experience with APIs is Ye Olde Win32. Never had the opportunity to try .NET because everything I write for Windows has to be compatible with NT4. *shudder*

[epepke]

Originally posted by DaveW
PCs had color graphics long before Macs did (at least on a large scale - granted, CGA was crap, but it was color). The reasons Macs were preferred for desktop publishing over PCs was all about the WYSIWYG ability of the Macs (and Amigas, which had the best graphics and color of the three back then), which PCs didn't start getting until Windows came along.

Some other MS-DOS computers, such as the Z-100, had color that was much better than CGA. They failed, too.

In any event, the thing that made the Mac work with desktop publishing, apart from the square pixels, was the Apple LaserWriter. I worked with two laser printers that used the same engine a couple of years previously: the QMS and the Imagen. (The Imagen was better. I modified WordStar to print to it and even downloaded a Scharfes "S." I was teaching German at the time).

Melding this with PostScript and converting the Mac to do decent (though not perfect) WYSIWYG is what made the Mac take off for desktop publishing.

Oddly enough, desktop publishing is, in general, crappier now than it was back then. I see coarse bitmapped images all the time these days. Back then, there was a push for PostScript vector graphics, which looked really nice. Nowadays, nobody seems to care.

The Amiga was a superlative machine. It was cheap, and it worked great. However, it also failed. As did the BBC Color Computer, which was also pretty impressive for its time.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Nasarius
Have you tried Qt? It's a little odd at first, but pretty neat once you get used to it.

Sadly, my only other real experience with APIs is Ye Olde Win32. Never had the opportunity to try .NET because everything I write for Windows has to be compatible with NT4. *shudder*

Yes. I like Qt. I also like OpenStep.

I rate Linux fifth in terms of programmer experience because you basically have to connect all the dots, throw the pieces together yourself. This is doable but suboptimal. The documentation is all over the place, which is kind of annoying. Also, if one wants to sell one's software, one gets nickled and dimed to death.

I have so far managed to avoid touching .NET with a ten-foot pole or even an eight-foot Estonian. .NET is a good basic idea, but like many MS ideas, it's a bit like the scene in Theatre of Blood where Vincent Price kills a woman by mashing her cooked dogs into her gullet through a funnel. It's obvious that the corporate strategy is to have C# win, and everything else gets pooched.

[Nasarius]

For once, the rumors were 100% correct.
http://www.apple.com/macmini/

If I don't get a PowerBook (still not sure), I'll buy a Mac mini this year. Very nice.

[Peskanov]

Agree.
Small, silent, +good looking.
Nice in the inside (PowerPC, MacOSX) and the outside.

The kind of computer I like. Although I still miss computers using the clasic home computer shape (keyboard+board integrated like the amiga or the atari). All those damned cables and sepated pieces annoy me :)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Theodore Kurita
The X86 (PC) format is liked much more by coders because the architecture makes up for small errors in programs.


Care to explain that? I've been an X86 coder for as long as X86s have been on the market, and I've got no idea at all what you could be referring to.

[Yaotl]

I would have liked one except for the HDD size, the price of RAM on it (and that's it only one DIMM), the single optical drive, and that it's a G4. I was hoping for something comparable to a cheap Dell for Apple, but looks like it's going to be a long long time before I can afford a decent Mac system :(

[Darat]

Again fantastic styling but let down with some very strange choices for the hardware.

This would have been an ideal "living room" media PC, but with a harddisc size of 40Gb and no recordable DVD drive and no wireles connection it rules itself out from being a serious contender for media PC.

I think it’s another one of those Apple pyrrhic victories. It will cost Apple a fortune to advertise it, everyone will drool over it, it will be used in all the TV shows and all the ads but won’t make any significant inroads against x86 based PCs. It’s a shame as a bit of tweaking and it “could have been a contender�.

I know they are offering a "build to order" and then you can increase the hard disc size to a massive 80GB(!) and memory to 1Gb and add an wireless adapter and a recordable DVD, but then it stops being the fantastically designed "cheap" Mac.

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by Darat
Again fantastic styling but let down with some very strange choices for the hardware.

This would have been an ideal "living room" media PC, but with a harddisc size of 40Gb and no recordable DVD drive and no wireles connection it rules itself out from being a serious contender for media PC.

I think it’s another one of those Apple pyrrhic victories. It will cost Apple a fortune to advertise it, everyone will drool over it, it will be used in all the TV shows and all the ads but won’t make any significant inroads against x86 based PCs. It’s a shame as a bit of tweaking and it “could have been a contender�.

I know they are offering a "build to order" and then you can increase the hard disc size to a massive 80GB(!) and memory to 1Gb and add an wireless adapter and a recordable DVD, but then it stops being the fantastically designed "cheap" Mac.

And don't forget the 32mb non-upgradeable video card.

[coalesce]

But it depends on what you're buying the machine for.

Simple surfing and word processing? Then this machine is for you. High-end video editing? Move along, you, there's nothing to see here.

Personally, this would be a great machine for people like my mother, who wants a computer for email, shopping and listening to music. She's not interested in making CDs, DVDs or graphics (that's why she has me--to do all that stuff on my Mac). And there's a lot of people like her out there who's needs are limited in scope.

And don't discount the "drool factor," Darat. That's what made me--and tens of thousands of other people--buy the first 5GB iPod for $400. That's something that Apple can do better than anyone else.

Michael

P.S.

Try the Kool-Aid. There's plenty to go around.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by Darat
This would have been an ideal "living room" media PC, but with a harddisc size of 40Gb and no recordable DVD drive and no wireles connection it rules itself out from being a serious contender for media PC.
I don't really understand who this new Mac is aimed at.

Nevertheless, I have a been a DOS and Windows user for most of my life, and have spent the last few years using Linux, but I recently ordered an iBook, and now something strange has happened to me. I find myself being tempted, very tempted by the iPod shuffle. But that needs the new iTunes, so may was well get the new iLife. Which has Garageband 2. Hmm, those jam packs look tempting. And you wouldn't want the iPod shuffle without the armbands and the in-ear headphones would you? Etc.

Is this how the Mac-sickness begins? It has claimed at least three other people in the lab...

[Peskanov]

Darat,

I think it’s another one of those Apple pyrrhic victories. It will cost Apple a fortune to advertise it, everyone will drool over it, it will be used in all the TV shows and all the ads but won’t make any significant inroads against x86 based PCs. It’s a shame as a bit of tweaking and it “could have been a contender�.

I have a hard trying to understand your thinking. Most people seems to blame Apple about not being Compaq or Dell. Why does anybody care about Apple not being other PC company, is there not enough of them? :D
Apple is one of the really few companies which still have the capabilities to design a computer totally. They design the hardware and the OS, and I can only think of Sun and HP doing this right now. The rest died years ago.
Wintel (or "WinAMD", which is the same for this case) takes 99%of the computing world or something like that.
The miracle of Apple is not "making significant inroads against x86", it's just surviving. Apple pays their software engineers from selling Macs and Ipods and whatever. And yes, they charge you more than the koreans because they make their own software!
Those computer aficionados, like me, who enjoy diversity and/or innovation cross our fingers to see Apple survive a few years more.
If you want to taste how another computer experience can be, forget for a moment about having the last videocard and the hottest CPU (literally :) ) and the biggest harddrive to fill of pr0n, and test a Mac for a month or two. Enjoy it or not, it could be one of the last chances we all have to use a commercial computer platform aside from Wintel machines.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by JamesM
I don't really understand who this new Mac is aimed at.


No offense, but I heard the same thing about the iMac when it first came out.


Is this how the Mac-sickness begins? It has claimed at least three other people in the lab...

{Zombie Mode}
Maaaaacccccccssssssszzzzzzzzzz!
{/Zombie Mode}

[JamesM]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
No offense, but I heard the same thing about the iMac when it first came out.
I've been slightly convinced by a discussion with my Mac-obsessed colleagues.
{Zombie Mode}
Maaaaacccccccssssssszzzzzzzzzz!
{/Zombie Mode}
I just ordered the new iLife, iWork and an iPod Shuffle. It has begun. Note to self: get a better-paying job.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by JamesM
I've been slightly convinced by a discussion with my Mac-obsessed colleagues.


Not the folks to talk to, really. Some of the loudest initial critics of iMacs were the Apple faithful. Also, look at the Apple media's lackluster reaction to the iPods.

Of course it was amusing when the Apple bashers were using the same arguments long after the products had proven themselves.

For the record, I'd be interested in one of these. But I'd need the memory and DVD burning drive, so this woul dbe closer to a $750 Mac for me. Still a bargain from my perspective.


I just ordered the new iLife, iWork and an iPod Shuffle. It has begun. Note to self: get a better-paying job.

You're doomed. ;)

[Ian Osborne]

I just invested in a G5 Power Mac, with dual 1.8Ghz processors. Can't wait until it arrives, though I'd better invest in a monitor soon or it will gather dust. My trusty old (five years) G3 iMac will soon retire...

[cesium]

I think that apple is trying to appeal to people with a pc who
would like to switch to mac but dont want to buy a whole new
monitor with thier computer (imac and emac). Apple does need
to work on the price, a brand new midrange computer setup complete with monitor can be bought for this price from dell
or emachines. The pc option would be best for someone who wants to replace thier aging setup.

For the most part, apple desktops are more expensive then thier pc counterparts, but the laptops are a good buy.

[coalesce]

Originally posted by cesium
I think that apple is trying to appeal to people with a pc who
would like to switch to mac but dont want to buy a whole new
monitor with thier computer (imac and emac). Apple does need
to work on the price, a brand new midrange computer setup complete with monitor can be bought for this price from dell
or emachines. The pc option would be best for someone who wants to replace thier aging setup.

For the most part, apple desktops are more expensive then thier pc counterparts, but the laptops are a good buy.

First and foremost, welcome to the board and enjoy!

Secondly, it's unlikely that Apple will introduce a midrange model to rival a Dell or eMachine because Apple's profit margins are high (around 25 percent, I believe.) They maintain that high a margin to reinvest the extra money into R&D. Dell and eMachine don't have to worry about developing new software or an operating system. Apple does, which is why all their applications work so well together. And Steve Jobs also knows that his products must make a design statement because that's why the faithful expect and demand. We don't want just a bland beige box. We want something that looks as good as what we're creating on the machines. We even want the packaging to be different. Anyone's who ever opened an iPod box knows what I'm talking about.

Michael

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by cesium
Apple does need
to work on the price, a brand new midrange computer setup complete with monitor can be bought for this price from dell
or emachines. The pc option would be best for someone who wants to replace thier aging setup.

Compare the software you are going to get with each package, though. The Mac comes with OSX, iLife and iWork, which are non-trivial packages.

Of course you can pirate Windows software, but you can also heave a brick through and Apple Store window and run away with a Mac. I'm not sure it's a fair argument.

[webfusion]

I liked the new acronym Jobs has given us -- biodkim.
That's my new sig.


____________________________________
BYODKM
http://www.powermax.com/imagedata/image_50x50/appl_mac_mini.jpg