[mdawson]

plentyofpaper654 said:

We really pay a lot for Machines that can run our OS of choice.

That is completely incorrect and the PC press has even had to eat crow on that argument in the past few years. It has been well established that any Wintel PC that is truly comparable to any given Mac will cost as much or more than that Mac when all factors are considered. On the extremes, the Mac mini on the low-end and the Mac Pro on the other, a truly equivalent Wintel PC costs more than a Mac. Mac mini clones typically cost anywhere from $100 to $200 more than an actual Mac mini and they do not include FireWire or Apple’s comprehensive pre-installed software bundle. Try configuring a Dell Precision to match as Mac Pro and just adding the second processor can put you $1000 over the top; in fact a similarly configured Dell Precision can cost upwards of twice as much as a Mac Pro.

plentyofpaper654 said:

Seems like you can build a Mac Mini equivalent for around $250.

No you cannot. You may be able to built a POS PC with a feature set similar to what the Mac mini offers, but there is no way on earth that you can build a Mac mini equivalent for $250 given that the custom motherboard alone would cost more than that. Simply piecing together a PC tower using cheap parts does not a Mac mini clone make as the whole point of that system is its non-intrusive design.

Aside from targeting Switchers with a Mac at a low(er) price point, the Mac mini is a consumer-level system for users with very modest needs. Such casual users are not going to want a device that they occasionally use having a domineering presence in their space and the Mac mini’s diminutive size makes it the ideal out-of-the-way computer. The $250 throw together you cite will be anything but that and you still have to add the price of the operating system and software for it to be truly comparable to the Mac mini or, for that matter, any Mac.

plentyofpaper654 said:

I'd gladly sacrifice Apple's nice looking hardware design for a couple hundred bucks.

Even if Mac looked like every other PC they would not be any cheaper. Apple does and has always built their computers from the ground up whereas the vast majority of Wintel OEMs piece together pre-fabricated motherboards and chassis that they purchase in bulk. When Macs were outwardly the same beige boxes as any given Wintel PC from the introduction of the Mac II though the pre-G3 systems, Macs cost substantially more than Wintel systems. The price of Macs has always been the result of Apple’s unique business model and not the Ive’s-inspired aesthetic of the past ten years over which time the price gap between any given Mac and comparable Wintel PC has either been substantially closed or reversed.

[dreyfus]

Hehe... I just located some info on that Compaq machine (it was actually 1991)...
"The processor in the base model is an Intel 486SX operating at 25 megahertz. The 486SX-25 chip is not going to leave scorch marks on your desk, but it is far more powerful than the anemic 386SX chips used in many home computers. For the types of tasks typically done in the home or in a home office, the 486SX is more than adequate. Users who want more raw horsepower can upgrade the Presario to an Intel 486DX/33, 486DX2/50 or even a 486DX2/66 chip.
The system comes with four megabytes of random access memory, which is sufficient to handle Microsoft Windows and Windows applications. The memory can be expanded to 20 megabytes for those who want to keep a variety of applications open at once."
Sorry for being completely off-topic - it just made me laugh, Office with 4MB RAM :-) How fun flies when your doing time.

[Jayzchang]

@ dreyfus
how does glossy screen effect one works. The glossy screens in my opinion actually produce sharper quality images and looks really good.
back on the topic
this mid range tower is a waste of money while I could get an iMac for cheaper and on top of that it looks much nicer. not to mention less wires!

[folklore]

Who really needs a new GPU every two years? Honestly now. You might want one, but you don't need it to remain productive. This isn't 1991. The differences in graphics performance just aren't that dramatic for everyday computing in a two year period. If you do actually need to upgrade your GPU every two years, chances are good you're making your living with your Mac. And if that's the case, pony up and buy a Mac Pro. It's worth the investment.

If you simply want a new GPU to play games at full rez with 100+ fps, then you should have bought a console or a Windows gaming rig. The Mac isn't the right platform for hard-core gamers, and it's unlikely to become a good platform for them in the near future. It might suck, but it's reality.

As far as the product lines go, the numbers don't support the argument for a mid-tower Mac. Apple's computer sales are through the freakin' roof, and it's due to laptop sales. Which, as another posted has pointed out, happen to be all-in-one designs.

[dreyfus]

@Jayzchang
Glossy screens DO effect the work. They are oversaturated (can be solved to some degree with hardware calibration) and show excessive contrast (and subsequently a level of sharpness and black clipping that will then miss from resulting printouts). They also cause CVS. They are also not allowed for workplaces in some countries - in our case they are not allowed in roughly 80% of our offices.
... not to even mention the 20" iMac scum with its "millions of colours" - the cheap panel cannot even display a gradient without banding. If you are happy with it, fine. It may look nice (that is subjective), but it is way overpriced for what it actually is.

[mdawson]

dreyfus said:

While I agree with you otherwise... If this would be true, why are some 99% of desktop computers not all-in-one?

Because 99% of Wintel PC OEMs do not design computers. Wintel OEMs chose to sell what they can build from prefabricated motherboards and chassis; there are few ?real? market-specific designs where Wintel PCs are concerned. The difference between a pro system and a low-end system in the Wintel camp is the difference between selling the box fully-loaded or stripped down. Apple designs and builds market-specific systems.

As to your point about older all-in-ones designs, computer technology is a far cry from what it was ten years ago let alone 15 to 20 years in the past. Apple is well known for taking that which has generally not been accepted and running with it. Remember a little something called USB. It stagnated on the Wintel platform until the iMac came along and pushed the market.

As to telling people what they want need or trust, it is the consumer that has opted to by more all-in-ones than component-based desktops. As I stated previously, laptops currently outsell desktops, so all-in-one designs obviously do not carry the stigma that they once did. The iMac has been at the forefront of changing that stigma. If that were not the case, Apple would not have successfully sold millions of iMacs for the past decade to Mac users let alone a growing number of Switchers. Perhaps the Wintel market need to stop thrusting ?more conventional hardware? on people that will never delve inside their computer cases.

[mdawson]

Jayzchang said:

@ dreyfus

this mid range tower is a waste of money while I could get an iMac for cheaper and on top of that it looks much nicer. not to mention less wires!

Just because such a system does not suit you does not make it a waste. I am a power user and I have already been burned on a non-expandable system when I purchased a Power Mac G4 Cube back in 2000. Despite its impressive performance specs, an iMac would put me in the same position. I love my Power Mac G5 but I could do without its girth. I need expandability, but not to the level that Apple towers offer. I am far from alone in that assessment.

The Mac Pro is an excellent pro system, but short of replacing the systems in my lab where we control custom instruments using PCI-based NI-DAQ boards and LabVIEW, but also need to be able to upgrade or add additional hardware over the life of the computer, such a system is overkill for me at home. Given my needs, I would have to replace an iMac every two to three years because it is in no way hardware upgradeable. Many, if not most, pro users and prosumers have hardware needs similar to mine, as the numerous posts on these boards would indicate. So the mid-range mini-tower is hardly a waste of money.

By your reasoning I should state that the Mac mini, iMac and MacBooks are all a waste of money, as none of them would ever suit my needs.

[dreyfus]

@folklore
Sorry, but I disagree completely. Under Panther no part of the OS or iLife did rely on the GPU for processing. Since then Aperture, Motion, FinalCut, iMovie and even Keynote have been added to the list of applications that offload computations to the GPU. By now (by making these calls available through the CoreImage API) even third party image and video editing shareware applications use the GPU for processing and this list is growing.
I do not play games at all - I edit videos and photos and write a lot of reports, do a lot of presentations and other "basic" stuff. I do not "simply want" something - I need a system that performs reasonably well and my pea counters want to keep each system in their books for between 3 and 5 years. I can buy GPUs, HDs, RAM etc to upgrade any conventional system out of the existing budget, but not an entire new iMac or Mini each time hardware requirements increase.
We do have over 30 Mac Pros - thanks for telling me... They do render video, do architectural drawings etc. Things that do require workstation power. I do not need a Mac Pro with eight cores, server grade CPUs and FB-DIMMs where Desktop class Core 2 Duos would suffice, etc. to run Keynote or Aperture. I do not need the power consumption, the footprint, the heat or the cost.
If I recall the last quarterly report correctly, desktop sales have increased as much as the laptop sales did. Apple needs more variety to gain more market share. The insistence on AIO designs and crippled Minis is a failure, not offering a conventional computer below 5,000 bucks (Mac Pro plus AppleCare plus sufficient HDs plus sufficient RAM plus GPU upgrade plus display) is a failure. It is as wrong as insisting on one-button mice for ages, as wrong as SJs comment that nobody wants video on a MP3 player and that nobody wants to rent movies. They (Apple) are good, yes, I fully agree. They are by no means error-free.

[esteban]

FFS, mobile computers are sold more because they're portable, have a built-in battery and NOW have a good enough performance for most users, not because they're all-in-one computers. This has being discussed at lenght in arstechnica's mac forums.
One of the computers best attributes is its modularity of components which adds flexibility. It is not technically impossible to replace the LCD of a mobile computer or add and old one to a new mobile computer that is sold with no LCD, but it goes against the growth at all costs (including environmental) crap ideas that the "industry" sells.
With that said, my next Mac will be a MacBook Air or Pro.

[dreyfus]

@mdawson
"As to telling people what they want need or trust, it is the consumer that has opted to by more all-in-ones than component-based desktops. As I stated previously, laptops currently outsell desktops, so all-in-one designs obviously do not carry the stigma that they once did."
I am not so sure. People buy laptops for mobility. People who actually do a lot of work with a computer (and can afford it) normally have a desktop and a laptop, because working on a laptop for extended periods of time is not exactly ergonomic (even if it has plenty of power). Laptop prices have come down a lot, nearly everybody has a wireless network at home and so: whoever must decide between laptop and desktop (because there is no money for both) will be tempted to buy a laptop. This is a decision for mobility, not a decision for AIO. I am in the fortunate situation to be able to afford both, but when I am at home I prefer a desktop over my MBP. I prefer my external DVD-burner, because if the built-in one fails I have to send my entire AIO away, I attach external speakers, because the built-in ones do not meet my expectations, I have 17 external hard disks, a Firewire audio interface, an USB Elgato TV-Receiver, an USB to Serial adaptor interfacing with my ISDN phone, an USB hub, a Firewire hub... etc ad lib. Comparing an AIO to a conventional desktop I might save 3 wires out of 20.

[mrbach]

I have a desktop Mac and desktop PC and a laptop because my work needs to be mobile. The AIO argument fails on the upgrade argument because many people use their machine to generate their income. A faster machine, a bigger screen, plus all the perks associated with writing it off.
This makes AIO's perfect for most designers like me, since I just buy another one in 2-3 years.
The performance gap between an iMac and a tower these days is unimpressive to say the least. Oooh, I get save 20 seconds on a render here or a minute on a render there.
I also wish we could get a PC review from someone that actually earned money for a change. If you are good at what you do and getting a decent computer will help you earn, then what's a couple of grand?
Do we hear reviews of Mercedes closing with the argument that the cost is ridiculous when there are so many affordable Hyundai's out there?

[MacTel]

Half of me would like to see Apple bring back clones and the other half says no thanks.
I have an work XP laptop and couldn't hate it anymore than I already do. Had Vista for a couple of months and hated that too before I downgraded (I blame the driver vendors mostly - Dell). It isn't the OS so much either. I love my Macbook keyboard over any Dell keyboard I've used and the trackpad scrolling is hard to get unused to when using the Dell (what in the world is that eraser for in my keyboard anyway? ;-) ).
So I'd imagine the clones would try to cut corners and release systems worse than the Dell offerings. Psystar looks to have a good start.

[dreyfus]

@MacTel
"Half of me would like to see Apple bring back clones and the other half says no thanks."
As much as I hate the gap in the Apple line-up, clones are not an answer and un-authorised clones are not even close. Worst case: You buy a clone with a "tweaked" EFI and 10.5.2. Next week there is an exploit for a security hole in 10.5.2 and Apple releases 10.5.3 with a fix and an updated hardware detection that will not install on the clone. Now your decision is: continue to work with an unpatched system or deliberately violate the EULA (no matter if it is "proven" to be legally important or not) and spend some fearful quality days following some dozens of conflicting instructions on hackintosh.org that you do not comprehend and that nobody does support. Great solution. If I want to work for my computer instead of with my computer, I buy a Windows computer in the first place... and such poor hardware can be found for a lot less then.

[lwdesign]

The thing that scares the heck out of me regarding Mac clones is exactly the same thing that's terrifying about Windows boxes: They're a collection of parts that are more or less built to certain specifications that may or may not work together properly for an unspecified time period on a machine that will require frequent tweaking and service to be workable on a day to day basis.
My Macs, however, just keep on working, without constant interference and babysitting. I know I can depend on my Macs, and that piece of mind is beyond priceless.
I have a Windows laptop that I used to use frequently. After it slowed to a crawl, I finally discovered 2 years later that I needed to remove a particular cache and clean out some other files. I discovered this on an online forum and was able to fix it myself. I've never had to do anything like that with my Macs since the advent of OS X--that's over 7 years.
Some people will gladly drive a 10-year old Yugo to save money. It will break down and give them constant trouble, but hey, they're saving money. I prefered to spend more on a Honda Accord that I bought new in 2000. It's still in nearly perfect shape, a joy to drive, reliable and nearly maintenance-free. Others with a similar philosophy will go even further and buy a Lexus or BMW for even more satisfaction.
I buy Macs because they're reliable and the OS allows me to get lots of work done without stress and downtime. Is that worth a bit more money? You betcha!
So, clones? Nah, give me the Apple original.
Of course, Mac clones might be a fun idea to keep Apple even more innovative, but even if there were clones I'd still buy Apple Macs because I know what I'll be getting. Security and predictability are priceless.