eMac and iMac EOL'd?

[maxterpiece]

I agree. Apple's desktop lineup doesn't get even slightly interesting until you get to the G5 PowerMacs...and then they ship the 1.6GHz G5 with only 256MB RAM, an 80GB hard drive and a GeForce FX5200 as standard. Come on...that kind of crap would barely make it into the cheapest PC you could buy from your local screwdriver shop. Thankfully, Apple appears to be willing to let you in on the joke, and they allow you to upgrade your FX5200 to a Radeon 9600 at ordering time for only AU$89 or AU$99 (can't remember, I bought mine about 7 months ago). But even so...a G5 which is upgraded to a decent level is still quite an expensive computer...without a screen.

The EOL rumour for iMac and eMac is a good one...because it hopefully means Apple will do something to address the complete lack of attractiveness of both of their consumer desktop machines. Nobody except the most hardened Apple zealot or willfully ignorant hardware moron would want to shell out a premium amount of cash for a desktop system which comes with a 32MB Radeon 7500, a 1GHz G4, USB 1.1...AND THEN CAN'T BE UPGRADED. The 128MB standard RAM is also disgraceful...Apple's minimum system requirement for iLife '04 are 256MB RAM!!! How can Apple sell a machine which doesn't even meet their own minimum specification for their bundled flagship consumer apps? Take a look at the calendar...it's 2004. Software evolves, and user's needs evolve. The entry-level systems Apple sells leave no room for growth at all.

Please please please don't let the updates just be a speed bump from 1GHz to 1.25GHz and changing the included DIMM from 128MB to 256MB (although that would be a start).[/QUOTE

Man - I agree. It's been 4 years since apple has had a desktop machine below the professional level that even resembled a PC in terms of price/performance. I know apple puts a lot more $ into software development but they also don't have to pay microsoft that licensing fee to put windows on every computer. The only person who's gonna buy an imac or an emac is someone who surfs the web and the internet. Anything more processor-intensive and it becomes obvious just how weak these computers are. The laptops, too, are getting to a point where PCs just are incomparable in terms of price/performance. To be perfectly honest, the G5 and the DP G4s are the only systems that make OS X not feel sluggish and that really bring out the power of OS X's multitasking capabilities. This is in part because the graphics cards in low end systems are so cheap. Apple software is worth paying a premium for, but right now you can pay $600 for PC that runs as smoothly as a low end G5.

 

[thatwendigo]

Man - I agree. It's been 4 years since apple has had a desktop machine below the professional level that even resembled a PC in terms of price/performance.

Actually, if you hit the lowend at most OEMs, the iMac/eMac are still reasonably price competitive (especially the eMac). I've covered this multiple times before, but what you get at $700-900 in many OEMs is shared RAM and integrated graphics (hint: worse than a Radeon 7500), 40 GB drives that might or might not be 7200 RPM PATA, low-speed RAM, second-rate parts, and crappy displays.

I know apple puts a lot more $ into software development but they also don't have to pay microsoft that licensing fee to put windows on every computer.

Microsoft bundle-prices for OEMs, and has been known to nearly give the software away, in order to leverage Office and other apps they actually charge for.

Also, unlike most PC OEMs, Apple has to do a lot of their own design work on motherboards, ASICs, and other components that their competitors just buy off the shelf. The R&D budget at Apple does a lot of things that you people who constantly snipe at them just never take into account.

The only person who's gonna buy an imac or an emac is someone who surfs the web and the internet. Anything more processor-intensive and it becomes obvious just how weak these computers are.

Or, you know, college students that don't have a lot of money. Like me.

I've found that I get around just fine for almost everything I do on this machine, and it's only on high-end games that I ever switch machines. My iBook G3 600 is also a damn fine machine, and a welcome upgrade from my iBook Tangerine (Rev A). Both run OS X acceptably, but it is noticeably faster in my RAM-maxed newer laptop than it was on the older portable.

The laptops, too, are getting to a point where PCs just are incomparable in terms of price/performance. To be perfectly honest, the G5 and the DP G4s are the only systems that make OS X not feel sluggish and that really bring out the power of OS X's multitasking capabilities.

What planet are you from? At the moment, my processor monitor is ticking over at 40%, with heavy disk access (active downloading of multiple files), and the actvity monitor shows me at 144 threads and 51 processes, with 324 MB of physical RAM currently tapped. Even like that, though, I can still Expose windows around, move them, get files, and do anything else I want to.

Sure it's not as fast as the G4 tower a few rooms away, but it also doesn't have SATA and a 1.4 G4 under the hood.

This is in part because the graphics cards in low end systems are so cheap. Apple software is worth paying a premium for, but right now you can pay $600 for PC that runs as smoothly as a low end G5.

Citation, please.

 

[paulsecic]

According to Appleinsider, the eMac and iMac have been "end of lifed" (EOL'd).

End of life status on products occurs when products are discontinued or about to be upgraded.

They're working on the G4 line. Why?

 

[glennherd]

iMac G5 possible

While registering my new Power Mac G 5 at apple Canada in mid March, one of the options was to register a iMac G5 also. So there is a possibility somebody let the mac out of the bag https://forums.macrumors.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=757193#

 

[mrpod]

fed up of waiting.

I am waiting impatiantly for the update of the 20inch imac.I am currently using a g3 cd ibook 600. I have saved up for the imac and now am told that there could be a upgrade on the cards so it might be worth waiting. Does anyone know for sure because my computers on its last legs.Also if the imac is eol ,does that mean all of them or just the 15 or 17? and how long have they got up to? Thanks.

 

[~Shard~]

Old News

While registering my new Power Mac G 5 at apple Canada in mid March, one of the options was to register a iMac G5 also. So there is a possibility somebody let the mac out of the bag https://forums.macrumors.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=757193#

This was commented on months ago, sometime before Christmas, so this is nothing new. I can't find the original MacRumors thread, otherwise I would post it here...

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

they had that on the registration process for about a year now. it allways pops up. a mistake by macworld or wishful thinking but meaningless as far as rumor goes.

 

[~Shard~]

Apple software is worth paying a premium for, but right now you can pay $600 for PC that runs as smoothly as a low end G5.

I tend to disagree with some of your comments, however I don't feel it necessary to comment on any of them except for the above. Please please PLEASE give me an example of a $600 PC that can run as smoothly as a G5. I realize there are PCs out there which can compete with the G5s, possibly for less $$$ than a G5, but $600 just seems unfounded. Please provide an example to back up this outrageous claim, otherwise your statement is exaggerated and simply false. If you can provide an example, I will gladly stand corrected, otherwise, please don't spread your incorrect and unsupported information on the MacRumors forums.

 

[Urdam]

It's about time

 

[jade]

I tend to disagree with some of your comments, however I don't feel it necessary to comment on any of them except for the above. Please please PLEASE give me an example of a $600 PC that can run as smoothly as a G5. I realize there are PCs out there which can compete with the G5s, possibly for less $$$ than a G5, but $600 just seems unfounded. Please provide an example to back up this outrageous claim, otherwise your statement is exaggerated and simply false. If you can provide an example, I will gladly stand corrected, otherwise, please don't spread your incorrect and unsupported information on the MacRumors forums.

Well i agree, $600 is somewhat exaggerated...but here are two I configured that are arguably equal to or better performers than the 1.6 g5, at significantly cheaper prices

HP a550e
3200 AMD 64 2.0ghz
xp pro
256 pc3200 RAm
120gb hard drive
8x DVD writer and 2nd bay with DVD-ROM
128MB DDR NVIDIA GeForceFX(TM) 5200XT, TV-out

$919.99 (customized at HP.com)


or
a530e
3000 AMD XP 2.16 ghz
xp home
256 PC2700 RAM
80 gb hard drive (7200 RPM)
4x DVDRW
128MB DDR NVIDIA GeForceFX(TM) 5200XT, TV-Out

$599.99 (also customized at HP.com)

The second system will offer very similar real world performance to the 1.6 g5 and the second offers the higher RAM ceiling of the g5 and the 64 bit processing power. But you can save either $1200 and skip the 64 bit, or save just under $900 getting more hard drive space, faster RAM, and more VRAM on a similar spec card.

Definitely not chump change. And it makes it painfully obvious why more PC desktop owners do not buy a powermac. And the price performance is worse for the imacs and emacs.

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Wow that really hits home doesnt it. whats amazing is that $919.00 simply woops the crap out of Powermac 1.6 in every aspect for $800 less???? really gets me thinking again. Plus you can find a zillion options,cards,games,programs anywhere. the 1.6 does have a nicer case and design so thats worth about $100 more and the OS is worth $100 more. That means that extra $600 goes into AppleCorps pockets. WoW! where is thatwendigo??? we need thatwendigo here to dissect your post Jade but i dont know how that could be done.

 

[jade]

Wow that really hits home doesnt it. whats amazing is that $919.00 simply woops the crap out of Powermac 1.6 in every aspect for $800 less???? really gets me thinking again. Plus you can find a zillion options,cards,games,programs anywhere. the 1.6 does have a nicer case and design so thats worth about $100 more and the OS is worth $100 more. That means that extra $600 goes into AppleCorps pockets. WoW! where is thatwendigo??? we need thatwendigo here to dissect your post Jade but i dont know how that could be done.

Well you would need to add a FW800 card if so inclined....so maybe we are down to $500 to Apple.

In this case the duals are no comparison, apple pricing matches up nicely... but non Apple users don't bother with dual processors...the computers are more than fast enough.

I'm sick of making apologies for Apple overcharging and under-spec-ing the computers. 90% of the parts are commodity, so we should see cheaper pricing. Personally I have met some "mac faithfuls" who are ready to move to PC for their graphic design... because the hardware is way cheaper. The price difference could cover an upgrade to Adobe CS or most of a nice 17" flat panel monitor.

 

[aswitcher]

I am waiting impatiantly for the update of the 20inch imac.I am currently using a g3 cd ibook 600. I have saved up for the imac and now am told that there could be a upgrade on the cards so it might be worth waiting. Does anyone know for sure because my computers on its last legs.Also if the imac is eol ,does that mean all of them or just the 15 or 17? and how long have they got up to? Thanks.

No one knows anything for sure.

I have my parents in the same boat and I am advising them to wait until the WWDC to see if we see a G5iMac then or at least an upgrade. This is the 20th anniversary year of the Mac after all so it would make allot of sense for them to refresh/revamp what I understand is now a poorly selling line.

If they redo the iMac they will redo all three models I hazard to say.

If not the WWDC then by years end, the iMac apparently has been slumping big time and needs something like a complete overhaul of formfactor and guts to put it back in play with consumer. I am hoping that this means putting a low to medium G5 processor in a slightly larger base, allowing for 4 sticks of ram (like the 1.6PM), and with a decent graphics card that would definetly be a step up. It would also be nice if they consider making it a little more friendly by making the disk slot cleaninly above the keyboard, putting ports for iPods, digi cameras etc at the front of the unit, and giving us new higher quality speakers. Options to come standard with a wireless mouse and keyboard would be appeciated...

 

[thatwendigo]

$919.99 (customized at HP.com)

Checking this out myself... Immediate impressions include the fact that it has a quarter the expansion of dualie macs (in RAM) and half of the single's (the HP has only 2 slots), no digital audio, no standard SATA...

AMD Athlon F64 3200+
Windows XP Pro
256MB PC3200
160GB SATA RAID (only SATA option)
4x DVD+RW/+R
2 USB 2.0 + 1 Firewire 400 + WinDVD
No floppy
128MB GeforceFX 5200XT
Soundblaster Audigy 2
No monitor
Microsoft Works 2004 (MS Works, Money, Encarta, Word)
Norton Antivirus 2004 (1 year subscription)
Total: $1,204

Cons: MicroATX! (low expandability), one firewire 400 port on front and back, one hard drive bay, two PCI slots open (no PCI X), 2 RAM slots, no gigabit ethernet, no iLife, no Panther.

I ran the parts on that, building it yourself, and it would cost around $900 for the cheapest components available, maybe a shade less if you caught specials or waited a little longer. There's no way they're making any money at all on those things, unless they've got some ridiculous cut rate on their supplies (something Apple doesn't have)

A more comparable machine looks something like this:
Intel Pentium 4 3ghz
Windows XP Pro with Plus! Digital Media Edition
256 MB PC3200 RAM
GeForce FX 5200 128MB (the new card, apparently)
Dell Optical Mouse
8x DVD+RW/+R with MyDVD Deluxe and RecordNow! Deluxe
120GB SATA
McAffee Security Center (virus, firewall, privacy for 1 year)
MS Works Suite 2004
SoundBlaster Audigy 2
Dell Jukebox PLUS (kind of like iTunes, but not really)
Dell Picture Studio Photo Album Premium (ditto, but for iPhoto)
RealOne Player PLUS
Dell Gigabit Ethernet
Total cost: $1,500

Pros: No Panther, but much closer to what a single G5 is in terms of options and expandability. Software is also closer. Better graphics cards and optical drives, but that's nothing new. Also comes from a company that is actually making a profit, like Apple is.

Cons: It's Windows.

The second system will offer very similar real world performance to the 1.6 g5 and the second offers the higher RAM ceiling of the g5 and the 64 bit processing power. But you can save either $1200 and skip the 64 bit, or save just under $900 getting more hard drive space, faster RAM, and more VRAM on a similar spec card.

Neither uses SATA drives (slower, but higher storage, and cheaper parts), and all three machines (your HPs and the G5 1.6) use the same RAM, but the G5 has four slots and the PCs have two. The HPs are slower networking (no gigabit), have one fewer PCI slot, are harder to get inside to work on, have no internal 802.11 antenna, and no Firewire 800.

At least one of your claims is completely fabricated. How many others are?

Definitely not chump change. And it makes it painfully obvious why more PC desktop owners do not buy a powermac. And the price performance is worse for the imacs and emacs.

When the truth is obfuscated, and companies like HP are essentially selling these things at cost or a small loss, then it is prety painful. Too bad Apple doesn't have a huge electronics arm to pull profits fro... Oh, wait, that's the iPods everyone complains that they focus too much on.



Next!

 

[thatwendigo]

No one knows anything for sure.

The one sensible thing said of late..

If not the WWDC then by years end, the iMac apparently has been slumping big time and needs something like a complete overhaul of formfactor and guts to put it back in play with consumer. I am hoping that this means putting a low to medium G5 processor in a slightly larger base, allowing for 4 sticks of ram (like the 1.6PM), and with a decent graphics card that would definetly be a step up. It would also be nice if they consider making it a little more friendly by making the disk slot cleaninly above the keyboard, putting ports for iPods, digi cameras etc at the front of the unit, and giving us new higher quality speakers. Options to come standard with a wireless mouse and keyboard would be appeciated...

The overhaul of form factor is going to be a necessity if they plan on shoehorning a G5 into the case. Even if the chip runs at 25watts at 2.0ghz, the other components are still hot. More cooling means more money, incidentally, so you can add that into the cost of the iMac... RAM takes up space, which is at a premium in a design like that, so I don't expect a break from the two-slot design, nor do I expect some terribly high graphics card (I'm going to go ahead and call 9600, at the highest). The point about keyboard height is a valid one, and I think they ought to be certain that their own keyboards fit beneath. Ports on the front disturb the clean lines, though, and that's one thing they seem to really be keen on. Maybe a good compromise would be to side-mount them, like the eMac and CRT iMac.

Also, how is an option standard? I'm just curious.

 

[jade]

Checking this out myself... Immediate impressions include the fact that it has a quarter the expansion of dualie macs (in RAM) and half of the single's (the HP has only 2 slots), no digital audio, no standard SATA...

AMD Athlon F64 3200+
Windows XP Pro
256MB PC3200
160GB SATA RAID (only SATA option)
4x DVD+RW/+R
2 USB 2.0 + 1 Firewire 400 + WinDVD
No floppy
128MB GeforceFX 5200XT
Soundblaster Audigy 2
No monitor
Microsoft Works 2004 (MS Works, Money, Encarta, Word)
Norton Antivirus 2004 (1 year subscription)
Total: $1,204

Cons: MicroATX! (low expandability), one firewire 400 port on front and back, one hard drive bay, two PCI slots open (no PCI X), 2 RAM slots, no gigabit ethernet, no iLife, no Panther.

I ran the parts on that, building it yourself, and it would cost around $900 for the cheapest components available, maybe a shade less if you caught specials or waited a little longer. There's no way they're making any money at all on those things, unless they've got some ridiculous cut rate on their supplies (something Apple doesn't have)

A more comparable machine looks something like this:
Intel Pentium 4 3ghz
Windows XP Pro with Plus! Digital Media Edition
256 MB PC3200 RAM
GeForce FX 5200 128MB (the new card, apparently)
Dell Optical Mouse
8x DVD+RW/+R with MyDVD Deluxe and RecordNow! Deluxe
120GB SATA
McAffee Security Center (virus, firewall, privacy for 1 year)
MS Works Suite 2004
SoundBlaster Audigy 2
Dell Jukebox PLUS (kind of like iTunes, but not really)
Dell Picture Studio Photo Album Premium (ditto, but for iPhoto)
RealOne Player PLUS
Dell Gigabit Ethernet
Total cost: $1,500

Pros: No Panther, but much closer to what a single G5 is in terms of options and expandability. Software is also closer. Better graphics cards and optical drives, but that's nothing new. Also comes from a company that is actually making a profit, like Apple is.

Cons: It's Windows.



Neither uses SATA drives (slower, but higher storage, and cheaper parts), and all three machines (your HPs and the G5 1.6) use the same RAM, but the G5 has four slots and the PCs have two. The HPs are slower networking (no gigabit), have one fewer PCI slot, are harder to get inside to work on, have no internal 802.11 antenna, and no Firewire 800.

At least one of your claims is completely fabricated. How many others are?




Next!

Please reread the beginning of my post this comparison is only for the single processor g5 not the duals....so the have absolutely no place in judging these other computers. They offer more interms of performance an expansion than the single g5.

Time and ime agin most everyone agrees the dual g5s are very price competitive with other machines in it's class, but the single g5 is not hte same animal.

Compared with th HP I configures it has more RAM slots, less optical drive slots, less video, less hard drive space, slower DVD writer, FW 800 gigabit ethernet, and perhaps a slower computer. But for half the price you get quite a bit......and that is the point.

With th HP you get less RAM expandability, 2 optical drives, similar wi-fi performance (the g5s also use an extenal antenna...but g5s have optional internal bluetooth), more VRAM, a bigger hard drive (not SATA), faster DVD writer.

Neither computer offers PCI-X (remember we are ONLY comparing the single g5...as the original poster said), And powermacs win in digital lifestyle software, but lose when it comes to basic productivity. I believe that that paticular video card only has one dvi-connector and one VGA...but as we know PC video cards are significantly cheaper and that would be easily remedied after spending about $200. Same with adding the fw800 maybe $100. Gigabit ethernet isn't really a must have for any home user...since the bottleneck isn't related to actual capacity at this point....pretend you needed to add it maybe $80. So net savings is about $520



And OS is not a factor in this comparison, as well as the HP software bundle is also pretty good: easy to organize photos and edit movies with the included software...hp doesn't hype it up tham much or try to charge extra for basic functions like Dell...and HP is bundling itunes...no need for Real Player plus. With the cost saving on the PC side, you could still buy Roxio's ilife wannabe for $100 and come out ahead.

So sorry, these are valid comparison computers. The comparative PCs are cheaper and faster ( I played around with another AMD 64 system...and it was a lot faster than the g5 in day to use. I didn't get to put it through is video paces..but itunes was faster, as well as the encoding. (marginally so... so overall performace should be very similar).

If you revamp your comparison to only include the specs of the single processor entry-level g5 you will come to similar conclusions as I did.....that it may not be worth that $600 premium for a lot of the prosumer customers.

 

[aswitcher]

The one sensible thing said of late..

SNIP

Also, how is an option standard? I'm just curious.

Ah, poor grammar on my part.

I think the BT keyboard and mouse should be options for all systems in the future...

 

[MarkCollette]

Please reread the beginning of my post this comparison is only for the single processor g5 not the duals....so the have absolutely no place in judging these other computers. They offer more interms of performance an expansion than the single g5.

I think that an important point one can infer from your argument is that if Apple simply makes their iMacs or eMacs have the same specs (or worse) than the intro 1.6 GHz PowerMac, then they will compare unfavorably to a PC.

Which is why many of us say that the iMac should have a 2 GHz processor in it, which some say would necessitate a PowerMac bump before an iMac bump. If the PowerMacs are being bumped at WWDC, then that's a little late, and some of us have pinned our hopes on an iMac bump in April. So, we're headed for a let-down.

Now, one way around this, that I can see, would be for Apple to either allow an overlap in their pro an consumer lines, or do a mini-update to their pro lines. So, first off, give us single processor 1.8 and 2.0 GHz G5s in the iMac, and then either drop or leave the 1.6 GHz PowerMac.

But on thing is for sure: do not give us 1.2 and 1.4 GHz G5s in the iMac.

 

[aswitcher]

Mac OS Rumors has some new stuff...

http://www.macosrumors.com/41104E.html

It will be interesting to see what else they put out before next weekend to see how good their information really is, so we can evaluate their info about the WWDC releases.

Looks like a big update at the WWDC

 

[thatwendigo]

Please reread the beginning of my post this comparison is only for the single processor g5 not the duals....so the have absolutely no place in judging these other computers. They offer more interms of performance an expansion than the single g5.

Aside from my accidental (and lack-of-sleep related) allusion to PCI-X, I was talking about the single 1.6 G5, not the duals. Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully, then?

Compared with th HP I configures it has more RAM slots, less optical drive slots, less video, less hard drive space, slower DVD writer, FW 800 gigabit ethernet, and perhaps a slower computer. But for half the price you get quite a bit......and that is the point.

Let's try stating this a little more clearly. The G5 has SATA hard drives, twice the RAM expandability, the same graphics capability whenever the cards are ported over, the same speed DVD writer that you have in the Athlon 64 system (4x), Firewire 800, gigabit ethernet, internal wireless with an antenna attached to the case where almost every PC OEM uses USB bridges (latency, anyone?), more expandability in everything but optical drives, and most importantly of all, you get Mac OS X.

And powermacs win in digital lifestyle software, but lose when it comes to basic productivity.

Come again? Both sides off Microsoft Office, which as much as I hate it, is the standard software package for "productivity," and the Apple iLife suite kicks the living hell out of the default software offered by other OEMs.

I believe that that paticular video card only has one dvi-connector and one VGA...but as we know PC video cards are significantly cheaper and that would be easily remedied after spending about $200. Same with adding the fw800 maybe $100. Gigabit ethernet isn't really a must have for any home user...since the bottleneck isn't related to actual capacity at this point....pretend you needed to add it maybe $80. So net savings is about $520

The "net savings" you speak of leaves out a number of important factors, one of which is Panther, another of which is how much you have to spend to equal iLife, and the final one being the fact that a lot of this stuff that you're adding aftermarket (gigabit, firewire 800, and so on) are taking up your PCI slots and thus keeping you from other things you might need. The HP only has two open slots to begin with, remember... Just adding those two capabilities kills all expansion. Major points off, there.

And OS is not a factor in this comparison, as well as the HP software bundle is also pretty good: easy to organize photos and edit movies with the included software...hp doesn't hype it up tham much or try to charge extra for basic functions like Dell...and HP is bundling itunes...no need for Real Player plus. With the cost saving on the PC side, you could still buy Roxio's ilife wannabe for $100 and come out ahead.

"Pretty good" is not the same as iLife, and OS is always a factor in cross-platform comparisons. Wannabes are wannabes, and you're just not getting the same quality. That's like saying that buying a Dell DJ and saving $50 over an iPod is just the same as owning an iPod... Ask anyone who's used the two, though, and see which one is more elegant and easier to use.

So sorry, these are valid comparison computers. The comparative PCs are cheaper and faster ( I played around with another AMD 64 system...and it was a lot faster than the g5 in day to use. I didn't get to put it through is video paces..but itunes was faster, as well as the encoding. (marginally so... so overall performace should be very similar).

No, they're not. They're cheaply put together and sold by a company that is making little to no money from anything on the desktop market, propped up by their sales of printers, electronics, and server hardware. I ran the parts myself, and the nearest figure I came up with was around $900 on the machine you were saying costs $919.

Quite aside from that, most of the PC OEMs just buy someone else's software and rebrand it (Dell Jukebox, powered by MusicMatch, and HP with iTunes and the iPod, anyone?). Apple is a research company that is involved in every aspect of their computers, from motherboards to processors to OS to end-user software. Their overhead is vastly higher than a company that just takes parts off the shelf and sells them.

These are not comparable machines because they're not even produced in the same sort of manner, or sold by a company that's turning a profit on the desktop market. Hate it all you want, but the only company that can be compared to Apple is Dell, because all the others have killed themselves on trying to out-Dell the master of the low price game.

 

[chaos86]

somebody just got schooled

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

I think that an important point one can infer from your argument is that if Apple simply makes their iMacs or eMacs have the same specs (or worse) than the intro 1.6 GHz PowerMac, then they will compare unfavorably to a PC.

Which is why many of us say that the iMac should have a 2 GHz processor in it, which some say would necessitate a PowerMac bump before an iMac bump. If the PowerMacs are being bumped at WWDC, then that's a little late, and some of us have pinned our hopes on an iMac bump in April. So, we're headed for a let-down.

Now, one way around this, that I can see, would be for Apple to either allow an overlap in their pro an consumer lines, or do a mini-update to their pro lines. So, first off, give us single processor 1.8 and 2.0 GHz G5s in the iMac, and then either drop or leave the 1.6 GHz PowerMac.

But on thing is for sure: do not give us 1.2 and 1.4 GHz G5s in the iMac.

wanted to delete this how the heck you delete a post?

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

I think that an important point one can infer from your argument is that if Apple simply makes their iMacs or eMacs have the same specs (or worse) than the intro 1.6 GHz PowerMac, then they will compare unfavorably to a PC.

Which is why many of us say that the iMac should have a 2 GHz processor in it, which some say would necessitate a PowerMac bump before an iMac bump. If the PowerMacs are being bumped at WWDC, then that's a little late, and some of us have pinned our hopes on an iMac bump in April. So, we're headed for a let-down.

Now, one way around this, that I can see, would be for Apple to either allow an overlap in their pro an consumer lines, or do a mini-update to their pro lines. So, first off, give us single processor 1.8 and 2.0 GHz G5s in the iMac, and then either drop or leave the 1.6 GHz PowerMac.

But on thing is for sure: do not give us 1.2 and 1.4 GHz G5s in the iMac.

I agree

 

[~Shard~]

Well i agree, $600 is somewhat exaggerated...but here are two I configured that are arguably equal to or better performers than the 1.6 g5, at significantly cheaper prices

<snipped due to length>

Fair enough jade, I appreciate your reply and in general agree with what you're saying. However, I still believe that there are a lot of other factors which offset these added costs. Not completely offset of course, but the old debates such as ease-of-use, which ties into Panther vs. Windows, iLife being a superior (and included) entry-level suite (if I may call it that), I believe account for something. I was about to go into more detail, however I appear to be a bit behind in this discussion now, as both yourself, and thatwendigo have touched on most of the other points I was going to bring up.

There is a definite cost differential, but I guess it again comes down to what you want, what you value, what you put a premium on, etc. etc. - along with the fact that Dell, et al, are a different beast than Apple, have different economic models, and then there's the whole economies of scale issue as well.

 

[~Shard~]

somebody just got schooled

Very true, yet it's nice to see intelligent debates on these forums, which don't eventually degrade into personal attacks, and people calling other people "MacAddicts" and "zealots", and resorting to the lowest common denominator. I personally enjoy contributing and reading through these discussions, as I am learning a great deal as a result.

On, and please note these comments are directed to posters like thatwendigo and jade. Not Dont Hurt Me.

For example:

WoW! where is thatwendigo??? we need thatwendigo here to dissect your post Jade but i dont know how that could be done.

So not only are you essentially "calling out" thatwendigo in an abrasive and psuedo-sarcastic tone, but you ultimately get proven wrong by his response, in which he did indeed address all of jade's comments (which jade then replied to quite appropriately). And consequentially, I did not see a thorough reply back from yourself on any of his material. Hmm, chaos86's comment applies to you as well it appears.

And then there's the thought-provoking:

I agree

<clap> <clap> <clap>