[downunder]

"I use both Macs and PCs
at work, Macs ranging from 10.3 to 10.5 and PCs ranging from XP SP3 to
Vista SP1 and I have Windows 7 Beta running on a Tablet PC as well. We
purchase business-class PCs (OptiPlex and Latitude lines from Dell)."
So much for cheaper computers...

OptiPlex $1500 - $2000

Latitude $2000 - $4000

To get similar reliability (not functionality) you must pay similar prices to Apple, so thanks for clarifying this point.

[spinoza2]

" No, there is no need to purchase the software to match up with many of the iLife titles. All of the Windows Live Essentials are free, to anyone with XP, Vista, or Windows 7."

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone claim the included media software with Windows is comparable to iLife. I'm not sure what kind of media work you are doing, but for the kinds of images and video I work with, Windows media software has been absolutely useless for me. It's buggy, prone to crash, is non-intuitive, and woefully lacking in features. For most tasks I can complete them using iLife in a fraction of the time it would take to do with native Windows software, if at all. I admit I haven't used the latest version of Live Essentials, but considering my experiences with Vista, I have little confidence Microsoft can produce the kinds of polished media-editing software we take for granted with Apple. Besides, Adobe Photo Elements is not "professional" software, it's basic consumer software you can get at BestBuy (and still doesn't compare with iPhoto). Both Cakewalk and Steinberg also put out consumer versions of media editing software as well (audio and video), and they too cannot compare with iLife in terms of intuitive reliability and in feature set.

[spinoza2]

" No, there is no need to purchase the software to match up with many of the iLife titles. All of the Windows Live Essentials are free, to anyone with XP, Vista, or Windows 7."

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone claim the included media software with Windows is comparable to iLife. I'm not sure what kind of media work you are doing, but for the kinds of images and video I work with, Windows media software has been absolutely useless for me. It's buggy, prone to crash, is non-intuitive, and woefully lacking in features. For most tasks I can complete them using iLife in a fraction of the time it would take to do with native Windows software, if at all. I admit I haven't used the latest version of Live Essentials, but considering my experiences with Vista, I have little confidence Microsoft can produce the kinds of polished media-editing software we take for granted with Apple. Besides, Adobe Photo Elements is not "professional" software, it's basic consumer software you can get at BestBuy (and still doesn't compare with iPhoto). Both Cakewalk and Steinberg also put out consumer versions of media editing software as well (audio and video), and they too cannot compare with iLife in terms of intuitive reliability and in feature set.

[mrobertson]

Have you seen this posting on the BBC site:
http://news.bbc.co.u...ogy/7991708.stm
It seems that Windows 7 will be as bad as Vista.
Hey buy me and we will let you throw it away and replace it with old tech.
Or do you need to buy yet another new computer... how does that affect the 5 year cost of ownership.

[karlfranz]

There's another little fact that a lot of these "studies" fail to look at. In 2005 I bought a 20" iMac G5 with iSight for $1,499. Two months ago I sold that same iMac on eBay for $865. That money went straight into the purchase of a brand new MacBook Pro. Show me a Windows PC that will still hold more than 50% of its value after more than 3.5 years. It just doesn't happen. So when it comes time to upgrade your PC 4-5 years from now, any "Apple Tax" will completely disappear.

[Pascal007]

{quote:title="ndpta.com" was registered from whois.melbourneit.com :}
Domain Name.......... ndpta.com
Creation Date........ 2005-06-28
Registration Date.... 2005-06-28
Expiry Date.......... 2010-06-28
Organisation Name.... Roger Kay
Organisation Address. 139 Glezen Lane
Organisation Address.
Organisation Address. Wayland
Organisation Address. 01778
Organisation Address. MA
Organisation Address. UNITED STATES

Admin Name........... Roger Kay
Admin Address........ 139 Glezen Lane
Admin Address........
Admin Address........ Wayland
Admin Address........ 01778
Admin Address........ MA
Admin Address........ UNITED STATES
Admin Email.......... idcps@aol.com
Admin Phone.......... +1.5083587590
Admin Fax............

Tech Name............ YahooDomains TechContact
Tech Address......... 701 First Ave.
Tech Address.........
Tech Address......... Sunnyvale
Tech Address......... 94089
Tech Address......... CA
Tech Address......... UNITED STATES
Tech Email........... domain.tech@YAHOO-INC.COM
Tech Phone........... +1.6198813096
Tech Fax.............
Name Server.......... yns1.yahoo.com
Name Server.......... yns2.yahoo.com
{quote}

Interestingly, this very professional guy operates using an AOL address and his company is apparently located in his house found in the suburbs of Boston : Google Map of "139 Glezen Lane"

Here is his LinkedIn profile : Roger Kay in LinkedIn

He even got a Twitter account just in case we want to follow his delirious remarks : RogerKay on Twitter.

Problem is, I cannot find any old references about him on the Net earlier than October 2008 (CIO.com), even though this page says he is a pundit : Technologypundits.com

In each and every article I've found where he is quoted, he blabbers against Apple and/or vehemently insists on the virtues of Microsoft. It certainly smells fishy, if you ask me. This guy feels like a cloaked Microsoft spokesperson.

[JDW]

karlfranz said:

There's another little fact that a lot of these "studies" fail to look at.

Thank you for this, Karl. I considered your post to be very insightful, much more so than the 13 posts prior to yours, which basically sang to the choir without much substance. We all know the Mac OS is best, but to use that to charge "anything" for a Mac is silly. Karl, you properly point out that many Macs can be sold on EBAY at rather high prices. That is definitely something to consider for end users. Even so, here in Japan, we get hit with taxes on any single computer purchase that totals Y200,000 (US$2,000) or more. And no, the possibility of selling it in the future is not enough to cause most companies to just say, "okay, you can buy a computer over $2k and we'll live with the tax until it sells on EBAY." Hence, any Mac I buy for the office here needs to come in under $2,000. Of course, I could buy the monitor, RAM and other little things from a separate supplier to basically get a machine that costs more, in total, thatn $2,000 yet at the same time avoid the tax. But the point here is, it's not simply an "Apple tax" that some of us face when it comes to "Mac pricing." For that reason, my previous post in this thread speaks about the iMac and machines costing around $1,500 (like a mid-range tower). I would love to get a quadcore iMac with matte screen for just under Y200,000 here in Japan. I could then add RAM and a velociraptor from another source to avoid Japanese tax punishment. But when will Apple get on the ball and do that? That's the question. And my question in no way defends PCs or MS either. I'm a true Mac nut -- as true as they get (not a Windoze convert either).

[skmaxms]

I, too, worried about these "costs" when I made the switch. But because Apple has come up with complementary software for their hardware, I've found that running and starting up MS programs like Word (shudder) on a Mac is less efficient/slower than Pages or Numbers.
As for those "I'm a PC" ads?? Microsoft resolved to using children in their ads. CHILDREN. That's just sad, compared to the comedic nature of Apple's "I'm a PC, and I'm a Mac" ads. In my opinion, advertising price comparisons and children shows that your company's about to flop. And yet, the majority of computers I've seen in primary and secondary school are all from Apple: from the IIe, to the PowerMac, to the Bondi Blue iMac.
"Apple tax"? More like "Apple refund." It's more taxing to use a PC.

[mswebb]

I have friends with computers under 6 months old which are crippled with viruses. My mother-in-law is just in the process of upgrading her 10 year old iMac with my 5 year old PowerBook. Interesting that my 5 year old PowerBook runs more efficiently and effectively than our friends 6 month old PC. The 10 year old iMac will go an educational center as a edutainment terminal. Try that with a 10 year old PC. Real-world people using computers are completely destroyed by the Windows experience and spend years complaining. Eventually they turn to the Mac after witnessing friends or family who don't have issues.

I am absolutely dumbfounded when PC users, who suffer under the weight of their chosen system, buy into this crap.

[sporks]

JDW said:

Quote

Dan Moren and Roger Kay aside, where is the $1,500 Mac Pro? If impossible for Apple, then where's the "mid-range tower" for that price? That price point is important to many people.

No, it's not or Apple would make one. You and a few dozen people like you on a scattering of talkbacks shouting at each other about how much demand there is a for a $1,500 Mac Pro or mid-range tower does not make it so.

[JDW]

sporks said:

You and a few dozen people like you on a scattering of talkbacks shouting at each other about how much demand there is a for a $1,500 Mac Pro or mid-range tower does not make it so.

A perfect example of the cold "this is good enough for me, so it MUST be good enough for you" mentality I mentioned in the 6th paragraph of my opening post. (By the way, "shouting" in text forum is defined as putting all text in all caps, which I do not see anyone doing in this thread.)

Such statements do nothing but sing to the choir, defend the status quo, and insult many of your fellow Mac lovers want to put cold hard cash into Apple's hands for such a machine. Such statements also turn a blind eye to a particular market segment, which in this economy is rather silly to overlook (regardless of how small some of you personal want to believe it is).

So let us therefore cease with the bashing of others who put forth "ideas" or "request" intelligently and politely, start exercising a tiny bit brotherly love (which, sadly, is almost non-existent in the online world now days), and kindly consider the needs of others which perhaps we ourselves may not have. It is not "bashing Apple" or "defending MS and its nutty PC ads" or "shouting" to talk about a $1,500 tower or "quadcore iMac" or anything else that is not yet in Apple's product lineup. It is mere "dialog among Mac loving friends."

[spinoza2]

JDW: I didn't see sporks post as bashing, he's just disagreeing with you. I too see your original post, with a listing of what Apple should be offering and isn't, as sounding too much like the Apple of the 90s, when it frantically (to the point of near bankruptcy) attempted to cater to every computer geek's needs with every possible computer configuration and peripheral imaginable. I much prefer Apple the way it is today, lean and mean, with having an optimized range of well-defined models. Apple is basically saying, "We're building computers as tools to help people be more productive and to unleash creativity, as machines that are so reliable and intuitive we don't have to think about them anymore." Voila, the iMac, the creative professional's dream machine.

The Mac Pro is in reality an excellent buy for the computer power user, one that is ideal for the geek who wants to tweak and add cards and upgrade to his heart's content. I have a PC Magazine from 1992 that reviews a Mac comparable, in terms of model line-up, to the Mac Pro today. The cost? $8000+. Apple doesn't need a "mid-range" (i.e., cheaper) desktop computer, the Mac Pro is just fine.

[lwdesign]

[quote name='JDW']
>

sporks said:

> You and a few dozen people like you on a scattering of talkbacks shouting at each other about how much demand there is a for a $1,500 Mac Pro or mid-range tower does not make it so.

>So let us therefore cease with the bashing of others who put forth "ideas" or "request" intelligently and politely, start exercising a tiny bit brotherly love (which, sadly, is almost non-existent in the online world now days), and kindly consider the needs of others which perhaps we ourselves may not have. It is not "bashing Apple" or "defending MS and its nutty PC ads" or "shouting" to talk about a $1,500 tower or "quadcore iMac" or anything else that is not yet in Apple's product lineup. It is mere "dialog among Mac loving friends."

I'm in full agreement about the $1500 mid-tower Mac and have been requesting it of Apple for years, as have many people on Macworld forums for years. This is NOT a small market segment. Actually, Apple should work out how to make a Mac the same size as the old Mac IIci machines of old. I had one of them that lasted me for years and I loved it.

I also heartily agree with your earlier post about Apple's fixation on glossy glass screens, which for me are very difficult to work on. I actually returned a new 2.8GHz iMac this year and bought a used 2.16GHz from late 2006 white iMac with a smaller hard drive, simply because I can't abide working on those high-gloss glass screens.

A mid-tower Mac would allow me to buy the monitor of my choice with a matte screen, until Apple finally realizes that many Mac users want the matte option. I use a Mac Pro with a 30" matte Cinema Display at work. I won't be buying any new Macs until I can get a matte screen, even if I have to send it off to a company to get the screen replaced. I'll gladly pay the extra money to get a screen that doesn't hurt my eyes.

[JDW]

spinoza2 said:

I didn't see sporks post as bashing, he's just disagreeing with you.

You overlooked the overall tone of his post. "You and a few dozen people like you" is not a statement reflecting a well-mannered "disagreement." Then there is the use of the word "shouting" which I cannot understand at all. So if we shall not deem the post "bashing" let us then admit it is no rooted in brotherly love. :-)

As to your comments about "the Apple of the 90s," no one is asking for Apple to create another Performa line, and certainly not me. I thought Apple was nuts when that first came out back in the 1990's as it confused the heck out of people with so many different models. But one more machine (the missing mid-range tower) or a quadcore iMac (without gloss) is certainly not "the Performa line all over again." There is also the mistaken assumption that Apple would then be on the road to "catering to the needs of everyone" if it comes out with a mid-range tower (or beefier iMac). I see no logic whatsoever behind that thinking. You cannot please everyone, but why resist a few minor changes to please a few more people? What I have proposed (which is what many have also proposed) is actually a small set of changes while keeping the product line simple and lean. Such would ultimately bring more Mac users into the fold. And again, a matte screen and quadcore CPU on an iMac priced at $1,999 would do the trick quite nicely.

I am not sure what to make of your last paragraph with respect to discussions on a $1,500 mid-range tower or beefier iMac in that price range. Spending more than $2,700 on a Mac Pro setup is difficult if not impossible for many in the middle class, and even for some small businesses. In my case, I cannot purchase a business computer over $2,000 due to silly Japanese tax laws.

I'd love a Mac Pro. If you choose to donate one to me, even without a monitor, and I promise to sing your praises on the highest hill! ;-)


lwdesign, I am happy to see I am not alone in this thread. But there are more of us out there than some will admit. An expandable machine at $1,500 is really a sweet spot that Apple is missing now. I can only hope that Steve Jobs will return this June with a fresh look at what he's been missing!