[Mister_T]

You have missed the point.

I don't want to buy an HP. I have been using Macs since the Mac Plus. What I want is a
Mac with good graphics at a reasonable premium. The premium right now just isn't reasonable.
Yes I know imacs are mobile components in an all in one form. What if I want something better than the current models video card? SORRY!
What if I want to upgrade the video on my year old machine? SORRY!
What if I don't have $2499(cdn) to get a tower system/no monitor? SORRY!
Yes Apple makes a better machine, but TWICE AS GOOD??????

[Macalways]

Worth twice the difference?

Probably More.

HP is only 2.4 GHz, RAM is DD2 vs DD3, Optical drive 4 X; not a Superdrive, no Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, IR or Camera.

Upgrade Vista Office ($xxx) to come anywhere near Leopard, you will need Norton ($90) and what do you have to pay to get the functionality and quality of iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and Garage Band

It is important to note: Not that it is not so much what Apple puts into a machine, but whatever it is, the combination results in a superior experience for the user.

Overall quality just to look at or touch a Mac, is superior. Service superior. Support superior. Integration of hardware and software is superior. Ease of operation.

What I find disturbing is the notion that Apple doesn't offer enough configurations. What most of those who dis Apple for this, is the fact that most of the PC configurations often lack components that make computing worthwhile. Why, not matter what you intend to do with it, would you offer a PC computer without a Superdrive, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Norton, etc.? Why would you offer a computer with an OS that is incomplete? Why would you offer a computer that takes a Geek Squad @ $99 to help you set it up and a whole day to get it working when you get home?

Well, the only thing I can think of, is that it helps to maintain the perception that PCs are cheaper than Macs. But so is apple pie without ice cream.

[benroethig]

Macalways said:

Worth twice the difference?

Probably More.

HP is only 2.4 GHz, RAM is DD2 vs DD3, Optical drive 4 X; not a Superdrive, no Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, IR or Camera.

Upgrade Vista Office ($xxx) to come anywhere near Leopard, you will need Norton ($90) and what do you have to pay to get the functionality and quality of iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and Garage Band

It is important to note: Not that it is not so much what Apple puts into a machine, but whatever it is, the combination results in a superior experience for the user.

Overall quality just to look at or touch a Mac, is superior. Service superior. Support superior. Integration of hardware and software is superior. Ease of operation.

What I find disturbing is the notion that Apple doesn't offer enough configurations. What most of those who dis Apple for this, is the fact that most of the PC configurations often lack components that make computing worthwhile. Why, not matter what you intend to do with it, would you offer a PC computer without a Superdrive, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Norton, etc.? Why would you offer a computer with an OS that is incomplete? Why would you offer a computer that takes a Geek Squad @ $99 to help you set it up and a whole day to get it working when you get home?

Well, the only thing I can think of, is that it helps to maintain the perception that PCs are cheaper than Macs. But so is apple pie without ice cream.

You can bluetooth and wifi to a PC without it, you can't add a quad core, the 3/4th DIMM slots or a second internal hard drive bay to an iMac. Back as far as 2005 (the last upgrade cycle for many), Apple had a pretty full while compact lineup. Now you have to buy whatever machine Apple believes you need and if its unsuitable for your uses, you're supposed to either leave the platform or considerably increase your financial investment in this platform.

[BrianM]

Mister_T said:

Here is an example:

I'm in Canada so the references are Canadian

Bestbuy - current online price for a quad core - HP Core 2 Quad Q6600 and 24" LCD - $899.00 Canadian
has nVidia Geforce 9300GE onboard graphics
add Geforce 9600GT - 512 MB $144.99
Total 1043.99

That 24" will be the cheapest type of 24", which may work for what you want, but is no where near the same quality as the 24" panel in the iMac.

if you shop around for a 24" LCD with the IPS panel in it, the cheapest I could find was $800 (and it was from HP or Dell I think) this gets you the same 178 degree viewing angle, which also means you don't get distortion in colour or contrast when you aren't looking dead on. The cheap 24" panels will claim a viewing angle of about 160 degree, although if you move off centre by more than about 25-40 degrees you start to get shifts.

[BrianM]

benroethig said:

Quote

You can bluetooth and wifi to a PC without it, you can't add a quad core, the 3/4th DIMM slots or a second internal hard drive bay to an iMac. Back as far as 2005 (the last upgrade cycle for many), Apple had a pretty full while compact lineup. Now you have to buy whatever machine Apple believes you need and if its unsuitable for your uses, you're supposed to either leave the platform or considerably increase your financial investment in this platform.

the lineup in 2005 compared with now is pretty much the same, with the addition of the MacBook Air.

There was the Mac mini, the iMac, the Pro Tower, the iBook, the PowerBook, although there was the cheaper eMac mostly for schools but was popular, all in price ranges right around where they are now. I do think the pro tower might have had a "low-end" starting price of around $2,500 instead of $2,900 canadian though. (it was $1,999 USD, while the starting tower is $2,499 USD now, so price perceptions are different in the US vs Canada because our dollar has had some fluctuations that has made prices seem generally more stable in Canada)
The eMacs base price was $999 USD vs the 20" iMac now being $1,199.
The Mac mini sold now is much more capable than the Mac mini G4 sold in 2005 compared with the other models. although the price is up.
Compared with other years earlier on current prices could be much more in line. While Apple doesn't change prices much, there have been slight fluctuations.

[Biallystock]

JDW said:

I don't know precisely who MW spoke to at Apple who recommended anti-glare film, but that person is a complete lunatic.

Standard corporate reaction; cause an entirely unnecessary problem, then suggest a completely unworkable solution!

Problem gone.

So, unfortunately is the customer.

[Stephen123]

Anti glare screens are common and effective.

Apple shouldn't make gloss only. But antiglare screens are fine and the people saying otherwise are spreading FUD.

[Biallystock]

Stephen123 said:

Anti glare screens are common and effective.

Apple shouldn't make gloss only. Bbut antiglare screens are fine and the people saying otherwise are spreading FUD.

And I don't know what you are spreading, but I can smell it from here.

[hillstones]

jmincey said:

Glossy screen and 6-bit dithered display. Premium price. No thanks.

Jeff Mincey

The 24" doesn't have a 6-bit display and the glossy screen is gorgeous. A family member just bought one and the display has no glare, even with a sliding glass door 20 feet behind him. So the complaints against glossy are full of BS. People just think it is fun to complain. Seeing one in a store doesn't mean it will look the same at home. No one seemed to complain about glare on CRT monitors or TV's.

[agordona]

Apple is not famous for documenting the response time of it's diplays, An exception is the new Apple LED Cinema Display (24" flat panel) which they list as 14ms.
Does anybody know the response time of the new 24-inch iMac Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz display??

[agordona]

Apple is not famous for documenting the response time of it's diplays, An exception is the new Apple LED Cinema Display (24" flat panel) which they list as 14ms.
Does anybody know the response time of the new 24-inch iMac Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz display??

[DocNo]

Biallystock said:

So, unfortunately is the customer.

Ah, so this is why Apple is ramping up production. I was so confused until you explained it so succinctly.

[Mister_T]

It's the graphics lineup that has gone downhill.

History re Maya testing of graphcis on Mac.

No imacs were tested with Maya until the intel versions came out, but the cards were.

In August 2004 the imacs included an NVIDIA Geforce FX 5200 Ultra which passed Maya's 3D specs, but no imacs were tested only G4s and G5s.

May 2005 ATI Radeon 9600, passed Maya. No imacs tested.

Sept 2005 ATI Radeon X600 passes Maya testing, no imacs tested.

January 2006 ATI X1600 passes Maya no imacs tested.

Oct 2007 imacs pass Maya test with ATI Radeon X1600XT or Nvidia 7600 GT, cost of 17" with ATI card $1499.

April 08 20" 2.4 ghz imac for $1199 US had Radeon 2400XT which failed Maya testing, $1499 20" 2.6 ghz has Radeon HD 2600 Pro which passed Maya testing. Autodesk never tested a system with Intel shared video its not worth testing.

Autodesk is testing the MacBook Pro with 9400/9600 system now. Even this option is which is available on the MacBook Pro is not offered on the iMac. Too much heat perhaps??

Only mid range or high end 24" imacs have separate graphics cards which are priced on Apple store starting at $1799. No option on 20" model.

Current imacs aren't yet on testing schedule according to department manager.

[JDW]

hillstones said:

The 24" doesn't have a 6-bit display and the glossy screen is gorgeous. A family member just bought one and the display has no glare, even with a sliding glass door 20 feet behind him. So the complaints against glossy are full of BS.

If anything is to be so crudely deemed "BS" it most assuredly must be the above comments. This thinking is typical of the ignorance spread by selfish people (and Apple) who propagate the myth that says "If I don't have a problem, no one else on planet earth should either." Preposterous!

First of all, twenty feet is an enormous distance. And what direction does that door face anyway? And how much light enters the room through that door alone? Have you tried putting the iMac within 5 feet of a window with no curtains that faces South, with no light being obstructed from the outside at all? Some people work in just such an environment at home and at the office and your cold remarks turn a blind eye to that reality. And to say all Mac users should just "change their environment to mimic your own" is not realistic.

Even if you still try in vain to argue against this, the fact remains that we didn't have these sort of "glare" complaints when Apple produced matte LCDs (i.e., a screen that left most people happy and free of complaint). And no, not all glass CRTs had glare problems. Go on EBAY and purchase yourself a Mac Classic for $20 so you can see for yourself just how anti-glare those ancient glass CRT screens were. Yes, I have an SE/30 and a Mac 512k and a Mac 128k and I can assure you that I don't have glare problems despite the fact my Macs face the South with a large window less than 3 feet away. The screens diffuse the strong light very nicely and allows me to enjoy working on the Mac without distraction. In contrast, the glossy iMacs are often perfect for little more than ensuring your hair looks nice all day long. And no, I am not acting like you by saying that "all people see glare" either. But a "noticeable percentage" of Mac lovers experience eye strain and viewing problems due to glare therefore warranting a serious re-evaluation of screens by Apple.

As Apple lovers, it should be our aim to bring more people into the Mac fold, not turn them away. Offering both matte and glossy screens would certainly help to hook more Apple Mac buyers. One must also deeply consider that many are turning to Hackintoshes simply because they hate those reflective screens so much -- people who until now have been loyal Apple-branded Mac buyers since the 1980's. So while many of you view others (who dislike gloss in their work environment) with "utter contempt," you must realize that their comments are not mere complaints, but cries of help and of sorrow to Apple. Many of these folks want to put money into Apple's coffers, only to be turned away by gloss. As an AAPL shareholder, I find this very disturbing indeed that Apple would so willfully narrow its user base due to the narrow-sighted personal taste and ideology of Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive. Just because these men are highly respected due to their having made great product design decisions in the past doesn't mean they will always make great business decisions, as is evidenced by glossy screens.