[Nobody]

Can't see how Apple will ever dig its way out of this hole of its own making.
Apple's customers are unaware of being short changed, or just don't care.
It does turn a lot of potential buyers away, which makes it even more exclusive for those who do buy, I guess.

[montgomery_burns]

I still remember people making these dismissive remarks a few years ago:
"Why do you need an internal CD writer- just buy an external firewire drive"
"Why do you need a dvd player in your computer- just watch it on your tv"
"Why do you want to listen to music on your computer- just play it on your home stereo"
And the list goes on...
Why are people so quick to dismiss requests for features that are not currently offered? How many times have these people been caught with egg on their face when computer companies start adding the features that they kept dismissing?
There are articles on the internet showing people how to retrieve recordings from a Tivo and play it back on your Mac.
I find myself watching fewer DVDs on my living room TV and using the computer more. The reason is those annoying FBI warnings and trailers that you are forced to sit through every time you insert a DVD in your player. So I decided to just insert the DVD and then watch TV or go do something else for a few minutes so I don't have to see all that forced nonsense. But guess what? The forced previews have started to get even longer! And I have seen some DVDs where you can't even use the Stop button!
At least some computer DVD players allow you to bypass all that forced nonsense and watch DVDs the way you want. Now, it's no surprise that some of these people would like to enjoy the use of their DVD player controls while also being able to watch the DVDs on a big screen TV with digital surround sound.

[mdawson]

Microsoft does not manufacture PCs, so how could they possibly cripple a computer. A feature either exists in Windows or it does not. Now if you want to talk about crippled hardware take a good look at the bargain basement PCs which are stripped down systems. You are complaining about the iMac lacking a feature that 99% of its intended audience will never use even if it were there.
I have to settle for an iMac G5 for my next computer because Apple does not offer what I need. The problem is not with the iMac G5, which is a great consumer machine, but with Apple not offering a desktop version of the PowerMac. In fact, there has not been a true desktop PowerMac since the days of the beige G3 PowerMacs. (The G4 Cube was dubbed a PowerMac, but its total lack of internal expandability really made it more of a headless iMac with a more powerful processor than the iMacs of its day.) If you want a computer that can run multiple displays, then you are not in the market for a consumer-level Mac. The problem here is that Apple does not offer a pro-level Mac that fits between the all-in-one design of the iMac G5 and the overkill tower design of the PowerMac G5.

[montgomery_burns]

In reply to:

---

The problem here is that Apple does not offer a pro-level Mac that fits between the all-in-one design of the iMac G5 and the overkill tower design of the PowerMac G5.

---

That is very true. And a lot of people were hoping the Mac Mini would be the computer that would fill this gap.

[Machound]

Well said, Montgomery!
Apple appears to be looking more toward the future of its CPU choices than seeing what can be done to appeal to new markets with currently available hardware. The Mac Mini is best described as a "near miss" for many of us. It wouldn't take much to make it a "hit" with the HTPC crowd. Meanwhile, the Windows people continue to look down their noses at the Mac as a HTPC. I'd love to show them how wrong they are.

[fluidinclusion]

<<Microsoft does not manufacture PCs, so how could they possibly cripple a computer. A feature either exists in Windows or it does not. Now if you want to talk about crippled hardware take a good look at the bargain basement PCs which are stripped down systems. You are complaining about the iMac lacking a feature that 99% of its intended audience will never use even if it were there.>>
I never said they did manufacture PCs. However, they nor their vendors that make PCs don't cripple the computers. If the video card has the capability, they let you use it, after all, you paid for it in the price of the PC.
If it is true that 99% of the audience will never use it, THEN WHY DOES APPLE GO OUT OF ITS WAY TO DISABLE THIS BASIC FUNCTIONALITY? PPC --> INTEL is the least of its worries.
I believe MANY people who bought the low end Powermacs do so NOT because of the PCI expandability (few use this), but rather because of the dual monitor possibility (VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY COMMON)!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a dishonest way of making you pay for hardware that you can't fully use. Pure crap.
The rest of your post seemed to complain about Mac hardware too. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

By the way, I WANT to buy a new iMac, but I won't until they change it. I haven't made up my mind yet what I'll do if they don't remove their restriction and allow me to use the hardware I've paid for in the machine. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[mdawson]

You wrote, Even Microsoft DOES NOT DO THIS, in reference to, Apple purposely CRIPPLES the computer to prevent functionality of hardware that is already there in the machine. That implies that Microsoft has the ability to cripple hardware which in turn implies that they produce hardware that they can cripple. Windows either does or does not have certain features so any said crippling on their part is de facto; e.g., the feature is not a part of the OS. On the other hand, PC OEMs do cripple and sell crippled hardware as bargain basement PCs. The reason they do not keep dual display card from running multiple display is because those systems do not come with such display capabilities. Most crippled PCs have on-board GPUs that share system RAM. If the user adds a graphics card then its capabilities are determined strictly by the drivers included with that graphics card, not the OEM. As most people in the market for cheap PCs are not the type to ever go inside their machines, this expansion capability is rarely utilized.
In order to keep the iMac marketable Apple needed to give it a more powerful GPU. The availability of GPUs that are compatible with Macs is not as extensive as that for Wintel systems, so Apple needed to go with the ATI Radeon 9600 to keep the iMac competitive. As it turns out, the Radeon 9600 has features that are not typically found in a consumer-level computer; one being the ability to run two displays. Personally, I am surprised that Apple put any type of video out on the iMac G5. The advantage is that is someone has a display lying around and the display on their iMac goes out they can connect the external display until they can get their iMac repaired.
Yes, the Radeon 9600 can drive two displays, but that is a pro-level feature not a consumer-level one. You are complaining about a mid-range car not having the same features as the high end luxury car just because some of the base hardware is in place. The intended iMac purchaser will neither miss nor care about the fact that the iMac cannot run an extended desktop on a second display. This is a feature that despite being a reality for over decade is near exclusively something that is only practiced by professional and power users with the need. That is not the iMacs target audience.
[indent]In reply to:

---

The rest of your post seemed to complain about Mac hardware too.

---

[/indent]No, the rest of my post was about a missed market segment. Apples hardware is across-the-board is excellent taking into consideration the target audience for a given system. Apple has fully expanded its consumer desktop line to cover everyone from the casual novice to the home power user. Its professional level PowerMacs are also excellent, but the form factor strictly caters to those professionals that need a full-sized tower with ample internal expansion. While any pro system should have degree of (easy) internal expansion, which is much less of an issue with consumer systems, not all, in fact most, professional users do not need a tower.
We have the same problem in our instrumentation lab. We need professional level systems, but we do not need towers. Unfortunately, Gateway, the company out department has a contract with, no longer offers any PCs in the desktop form factor with full-size PCI slots; the E-2300 series only have low-profile PCI slots which cannot handle the National Instruments cards that we use. Thus, Gateway, like Apple, forces us to upgrade to full-sized towers that have expansion features that we do not need. Also, as this is an academic lab, our machines will be replaced in a few years with little modification. Hardware modification is rare in academia.
If you really want an iMac then get one. But if you are adamant about waiting until Apple releases a consumer-level Mac that allows you to run multiple displays with an extended desktop, dont hold your breath. Until there is a great outcry across the board from average computer users for this feature, or everyday computing creates a need, there is no reason for Apple to add this capability to machines that target non-pro/non-techie users.

[Machound]

With all due respect to the reasoning outlined above, one of the features I find most enjoyable with my 17 inch PowerBook is the ability to run two monitors -- even though most of the time I only use my Sony LCD screen with the PB in clamshell mode. Still, for those occasions when I need more real estate the ability to have two fully operational screens is a plus. I don't see why the iMac should be any different in this regard.
People have been using dual-screens with iMac G5's via a software hack just as they have with iBooks. Why not open that feature up for the iMac and shout about it from every rooftop? It exists, so why not capitalize on this feature as an advantage over the Mac Mini and various Wintel systems.

[2muwmc9c]

[indent]In reply to:

---

heh heh...
i will happily buy the biggest baddest last of the PPC PowerMacs.

---

[/indent]
Me too! I'll bet anybody money that the first Mactels will be slower than it and cost about the same!

[2muwmc9c]

[indent]In reply to:

---

Like it or not, PPC is DEAD, unless you're a web surfer.

---

[/indent]
PowerPC is NOT dead and never ever will be! All of the next generation video game systems will be using PowerPC chips. IBM is selling servers that use PowerPC chips. Your TIVO uses a PowerPC chip! Your car might use a PowerPC chip and if it doesn't than the robots that made it do. Come on, PowerPC has not just been used in Macs and it is far from dead.

[mdawson]

[indent]In reply to:

---

Still, for those occasions when I need more real estate the ability to have two fully operational screens is a plus. I don't see why the iMac should be any different in this regard.

---

[/indent]The iMac in this regard from your PowerBook for the very reasons I stated above: The PowerBook is a professional-level laptop; the iMac is a consumer-level desktop. Yes, there are people that are hacking iBooks and iMacs to run a second display, but the very fact that these people are doing this means that they are not the target buyer for either of these systems. The intended user of an iBook or iMac is not looking for the ability to run multiple displays and they surely are not going to look for ways to hack their computers to do so.
Apple intended their consumer-level machines for a certain type of computer user. If someone outside that market with needs beyond that which is offered by these systems opts to buy such systems, then you do so knowing full well that you have purchased a system intended for someone with lesser needs. You dont buy a clock radio then b!^ch about it not having the features of a full-blown stereo system even if that clock radio happens to be a Bose Wave.
The iMac is what it is. It is not intended for nor marketed to people that want or need a multiple display setup. Sure it would be nice if Apple made the feature available and screamed from the mountain top about the fact that their top-of-the-line consumer desktop could do it, but the market indicates that there is no need or desire for this type of functionality in a consumer-level machine. Most pro users that I know do not talk about or have multiple displays on one machine let alone the vast majority of people that I know that are not pro/power users.
I have lost count of how many times I have seen these same types of gripes on these forums over the years of power users complaining about Macs that are not targeted toward the type of user that they are. Or even worse, complaining about professional systems not being maxed out to the hilt in their base configurations. It would be one thing if the iMacs did not have USB portsand the fact that nearly all Macs lack adequate base memory across the board is a real issue, but that is not what is being addressed here. Multiple display capabilities are a professional feature, period. There has been no overwhelming demand for this by the masses in over ten years and I see nothing changing that in the foreseeable future. Multiple display capability with a personal computer has been a reality since about 1990 and to this day it is a niche group of professional users that take advantage of this feature.
I mean think about it, most people are still getting by with 15 4:3 LCD displays and 17-inch LCD displays are just now starting to supplant those. The smallest display you can get with an iMac is a 17-inch widescreen. Even most of the PCs on this campus have 15 LCDs on them and many of the computers currently in the labs on campus have been purchased within the past two years. The only people complaining about the small screen sizes on the new machines are the power users who fall into the minority here, and just about anywhere else. Everyone else just happily goes along without complaint. I have yet to hear a single student, staff or faculty member that was not a technically inclined power user gripe about a screen being too small. Several of my friends were floored by my 22-inch Cinema Display when I got it along with my Cube in 2000. In five years, not a single one of them has run out get a large display, even as the prices for these displays have dropped significantly. (The 22-inch Cinema Display cost $4000 in 2000 and a 23-inch Cinema Display now costs a mere $1500 while 20-inch displays can be found for under $1000.)
All of Apples displays, separate or integrated, are larger than what most people used to. People who are content to work on 15-inch screens have little concern about adding a second display and those people make up the majority of potential customers. That majority is the consumer base that the iMac targets. Simply put, if the average consumer is obsessed with screen size it will apply to their television long before it trickles down to their computer.
Most of us that frequent these boards are far from average computer users. Sure, many of us could get by just fine with an iMac G5, but realistically, we are of the wanting the best-of-the-best camp, and therefore, the iMac is not the ideal machine for most of us. The average computer user would be quite content with the iMac G5 17. The iMac G5 20 is a status symbol for others, but the ability to add a second display is not even an afterthought to these people.

[minderbinder]

"Why are people so quick to dismiss requests for features that are not currently offered? How many times have these people been caught with egg on their face when computer companies start adding the features that they kept dismissing?"
I haven't dismissed features like extended AV options. As I've said, I'd LOVE to see a mini with those features. My point is simply that the mini is currently targeted as apple's cheapest system, and many consumers would rather have the box be cheaper and go without those features.
If apple can get those features in without increasing the price, then great, they should do that. And if that's not possible, I think it would be very cool to see a higher end (more expensive) version of the mini that has those features in addition to the current models. Also, I think it only makes sense to add AV features if they go all the way with it, I think it's pointless to add digital audio without things like video in (not to mention some kind of included PVR software). At this point I'm more likely to get a mini than any other mac, and my main interest in it is its potential as a digital jukebox. But digital audio wouldn't be enough to sell me on it, I'd still have to spend a bundle of money on video input encode.
"There are articles on the internet showing people how to retrieve recordings from a Tivo and play it back on your Mac."
Very cool. But if I'm going to spend a few hundred bucks putting together a PVR, I don't want a Tivo.
"those annoying FBI warnings and trailers that you are forced to sit through every time you insert a DVD in your player"
I'm not a fan of the warnings, but at least they're pretty short. I haven't come across any DVD's that don't allow skipping trailers, which do that? (and FYI, there are hardware DVD players that allow skipping warnings)
"a lot of people were hoping the Mac Mini would be the computer that would fill this gap. "
A lot of people think the mini DOES fill that gap. It looks like the only real complaint about the mini is lack of dual screen support. Other features would be a plus, but I think everything else mentioned can be added with external peripherals.

[Machound]

"I think it only makes sense to add AV features if they go all the way with it, I think it's pointless to add digital audio without things like video in."
The problem with this idea is that adding video input is a 100-times more complex proposition than perfecting AV output. For one thing, you have to support the regional variations in Europe, the U.S., Australia, Asia and elsewhere. PAL versus NTSC is only one part of this difference -- you've got video NTSC at 0 IRE in Japan versus 7.5 IRE in the U.S.; you've got all the PAL variations; and that's not even including the question of whether you want all-digital reception, all-analog, or analog-as-well-as-digital. Then they have to decide how to handle the encoding of analog or transcoding of digital sources: DV/HDV, MPEG-2, MPEG-4/H.264, XVID, and so forth. It's a hornet's nest you're poking that stick into.
Clearly, this is a tall order even for a company the stature of Apple. Far better from their perspective to let the specialty companies like ElGato, Canopus and others handle the input side. Apple can then focus its energies on a couple of relatively minor design changes to the Mini that will get the job done without need for additional audio and video output hardware. I believe Apple is up to the task if they concentrate on it. They're so close!
I'm afraid I won't be buying a Mini until it has digital audio output. Maybe that's just me, but I think others feel the same way. Many long threads at AVS Forums and elsewhere attest to the demand. Ultimately when there are enough of us who expect digital audio from a Mini, Apple will carry its audio technology over from the PowerBooks, PowerMacs and iMacs. I don't think it's a hopeless situation... Apple seems to be moving toward across-the-board digital audio. The question is when, not if, the Mini will have it.
"I haven't come across any DVD's that don't allow skipping trailers."
I've seen a number of these. At least several of the Disney movies prohibit skipping trailers. It's particularly aggregious since Disney has a captive audience -- kids. At one point I stopped buying Disney movies because of their overly aggressive marketing, but Disney seems to have backed off somewhat after Michael Eisner was criticized for his tactics.

[heisetax]

One decision that I have firmly made is that I will purchase no Intel CPU Mac. That one thing is an absolute. I will keep my present Macs until they will not work any more. The only decision is whether I will purchase a new PPC Mac. That will probably depend on whether I believe the lack of new PPC Macs will bring up the resale price of used PPC Macs like when the Cube was no longer being manufactured, or whether the price will drop as little or no new software for the PPC Mac or maybe just no support for the PPC Mac I'm talking about third party support as Steve Jobs will shortly be telling us that the PPC Mac is dead & that the transition to the Intel CPU Mac is complete (or that Apple got forced out of the hardware market & will only be selling iPods & the iTune Music Store. Any copies of OS 10.5 will only run on Intel Macs. No PPC Mac support beyond OS 10.4.
To keep my PPC Macs running longer I have stopped any plans for any software upgrades or new purchases. Unlike some I can do this as I write all of my business software in Excel. It will run only any version since Excel 8 (aka Excel 98). To me third party software developers will be the big losers in this CPU change. They will either have to support 2 platforms again, like the 68k PPC time or the next OS 9 to OS 10 transition. Many of my favorite programs did not make it through that last transition. I am not going to make a third software investment. What I have could run for 10 years or more.
As mentioned above I see software as the big loser. PPC hardware sales will be limited to those that are like me that will not transition again in the near (5-10 year) future. With a probable lack of software for the Intel cpu Macs, those sales will be slow or nonexistant. Only time will tell as to whether it will take a software or hardware hardware hack to run OS 10.4/10.5 on non-Mac Intel CPUs. Can Apple pull that one off. If they do it will probably be because the Mac market presence is so small by then that no onw wants to reverse engineer the now very small Mac ROMs. This could very well be the movement of Apple to just the iPos/iTunes Music Store company.
I've helped Apple out since 1984. That helping has now stopped. Plans for a new G5 Mac with 30" display has been cut from the budget.
It is time for the software developers to say that enough changes are enough changes. That they will not follow the Mac on another change. A shortage of sales even in the shot-term will help them cut Mac software production. I believe that many will be like Quark & take several years before they support the Intel cpu Mac. They'll say just a few more months or should we really say years for the new version. It seems that for even the programs that claimed that it only took a few lines of code & 10-15 minutes to bring their program up-to-date OS Xwise will be telling us the same thing. Only this time we will all notice the lack of programs that will do anything other than not crash on the new hardware. Hopefully they will be able to keep them running on the PPC Mac.
With the software developers having the most to lose, they will be the ones that really determine whether the Intel cpu Mac will live. Without this new software only the PPC Macs will be useful, but remember that Steve Jobs will have already declared the PPC Mac dead. To me it sounded like he already said that in his last keynote address. To me he admitted to not telling us the truth about how the Mac really stacked up against the Intelcpus in the Windows market.
I will be using my present Macs in 2014 on Apple's Mac 30 anniversary. Only time will tell if they are making any new Macs. I know that I won't be helping them out. Most of the Windows people I talk to believe that the Mac is now dead in the water. That the war is over & that they have won. The AMD Windows people will not say that the war is over, just a 3% skirmish that they sold bo CPUs to, but now have gone to the darkside. AMD supporters like Intel processors even less that Mac people do or should I say a selected did.
By making no hardware of software updates or upgrades only time & real computer life will determine how long the software will operate. The first thing I see braking will be the internet. Some of the taled about changes will happen & my old software will not be able to run the new.
Bill the TaxMan