Apple's new iMac 24"

hawki18 said:
The should also make a dedicated video card a option for Mac Book since Apple is taking the cheap way out and using the Intel built in video option. I think a real video card should be the stanard not a option, but that is my opinion.
Click to expand...


Yep, but then… what would be the difference between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro?
It seems to me that people just want a MBP for the price of a MB ;)
 
Esquilinho said:
Yep, but then… what would be the difference between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro?
It seems to me that people just want a MBP for the price of a MB ;)
Click to expand...

Very true. The only difference between the MacBook and the Macbook Pro really is the aluminum casing, and the integrated video card. Right now, the performance of the two lines are so similar in everything apart from 3D, that it would be detrimental to the Macbook Pro if the Macbook had a dedicated 3D card. What would be the point of the Macbook Pro then? It's larger, costs more, and performs the same as the Macbook.
 
I don't mind the price, I'd just prefer a Pro machine in a small form factor as portability is key for me. That said for me a MacBook comes out more expensive than a a MacBookPro so it seems I will crumble and take the 15: beast.
 
Personally, the problem I have with the MacBook is that it offers too much standard (with pricing to match), not too little.
 
Viro said:
Too much? What would you remove from the Macbook?
Click to expand...
Definitely the iSight, probably the remote, and maybe Bluetooth, too. Even Airport is not needed by lots of people, so it shouldn't be standard on the cheapest machines. A Core Solo model at the bottom would be appropriate as well. If they took out all the non-essentials, they could offer a machine to compete with the low-end PC laptops, which are perfectly adequate for a large market.

The MacBook is, IMO, the most appealing machine on the market, but I still think it fills its role (as an entry-level notebook) very poorly. Same goes for the Mini.
 
I think Apple has always billed itself as being ahead of the technological curve. Macs were shipping with USB and Firewire ports long before such devices were common places. As such, I don't see the Macbook as deviating from this tradition. Does it have stuff that most entry level laptops do not have? Sure, like the iSight, remote control, and firewire port. However, most laptops these days do have wireless as standard, even the £350 ones in the UK (Macbooks cost £670 at the minimum).
 
I guesss it's just not that interesting for Apple to make a MacBook model without AirPort/Bluetooth/iSight and with a Core Solo processor. You'd have to actually create different bezels (no iSight), AirPort/Bluetooth are part of the standard platform Apple's using cheaply (and crippling the features off doesn't save money) and I'm not sure they'd save that much by going Core Solo as well. So the price difference between that (imagninary) low-cost model to the cheapest _available_ model would probably be too small. But that's _all_ off-topic imho.

Back on topic... I've said it when they released the 20" iMac first and I'll state it again: The CPU loses its worth _MUCH_ faster than the display does. Seriously: The upgrade path for a Mac mini with gorgeous Cinema Display is so much better... But I guess they _will_ actually sell quite a few of these monsters. I'm sure they're awesome desktop machines. (I'm just not a desktop-machine user...)

I still think for consumers and pros a higher end Mac mini (a "Mac", what a nice product name...) would make a better deal - and attract more switchers.
 
I agree completely about the iMac, Fryke. I've been saying that for years, actually, except that back in the CRT days, it was more because the CPU would outlive the monitor than the other way around! (In my experience, CRT iMac monitors started getting slightly "funky" in a year or two, and nearly unusable in 4-5.) I will probably never buy another all-in-one system, because there will always be some parts that are more valuable or live longer than others.

But man that 24-inch iMac looks nice! ;)

The Mini is perfect for me, except I would like more power, and would definitely be willing to pay a little more — just not quite as much as the Mac Pro. As a Mac user, I've always had to settle on hardware, because Apple has never offered a machine that fit me to a T. (Well, maybe in the 68k era, before I was really paying attention or making buying decisions.)

A consumer-level tower would probably shut me up for good, along with most people who don't like Apple's desktop offerings.

What would also be nice is a CPU that acted like a monitor "dock". It'd give you the elegance of an all-in-one design without all the drawbacks. But then, we don't want another non-standard monitor connector, that's for sure...
 
Mikuro said:
A consumer-level tower would probably shut me up for good, along with most people who don't like Apple's desktop offerings.
Click to expand...

I agree actually. At the movement I use my PowerBook much fo the time, and have an old sawtooth G4 with a few cards chucked in the back as a file/media server and to drive a decent sized display for movies. I'd like something like a not-quite-mini mac more along the size of some of the smaller atx cases. Some more ports, space for a second drive and maybe a couple of pci slots (I massively extended the life of my sawtooth with a 6 port usb2 card to drive some external burners and HDs etc). I'd also want to be able to open it up without a putty knife, but I understand that on the mini as its not means to be upgradeable.



The iMac's are great for some, often people who aren't regulars on boards like these ;). My mum has a G5 iMac and its pretty much perfect for her work. She spends all day at it so the screen quality is important. Its has enough ports for here limited needs, it has a small footprint. I guess what me and Mikuro would like is a low buget-prosumer machine :). I just can't justify all that money on a MacPro just to be a companion machine to a portable. Neither the iMac or mini fulfill that need for me but maybe its too small a niche for Apple to want to fill..
 
They could bring back the beautiful cube design and pack it full of expandable consumer desktop features, another problem presented by a consumer level desktop would be Apple's extremely high prices of the monitors themselves, sure, they are of great quality and look beautiful, but people buying a sub-$1000 machine are not going to want to pay $700 for a monitor. Perhaps a lower standard monitor in the $300-$500 price range.
 
Well, there's tons of monitors outside of Apple's for those. ;) ... By cube design, do you mean Apple's Cube or NeXT's Cube? Because Apple's wasn't really expandable. NeXT's had more space, I guess. ;) ... Hm. I'm thinking more of a wider mini, really. Space for a 3.5" harddrive inside as well as a real graphics card.
 
Apple's, but making more like a Shuttle PC in the way of expanding. Yes, other companies put out monitors, but do any in a cheaper price-range have the Apple name or aesthetically pleasing looks?
 
Esquilinho said:
Yep, but then… what would be the difference between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro?
It seems to me that people just want a MBP for the price of a MB ;)
Click to expand...

No not looking for a Mac Book Pro at a Mac Book price, I own a MBP. I saying for the price point of MB it should have video card. But for 1200 buck you can get win lap top with 100gb hd 128 ati 1600 video card which is the same card the MBP uses and a 15.4 inch wide screen. When I am working in photo shop with a few other apps open do not want my ram being used to do my video work but that is just me. also before you say it can't a dual core machine it has the same 1.83 ghz dual core my MBP has. So it shows Mac is really making a really good profit on the MB.
 
Viro said:
Very true. The only difference between the MacBook and the Macbook Pro really is the aluminum casing, and the integrated video card. Right now, the performance of the two lines are so similar in everything apart from 3D, that it would be detrimental to the Macbook Pro if the Macbook had a dedicated 3D card. What would be the point of the Macbook Pro then? It's larger, costs more, and performs the same as the Macbook.
Click to expand...

The point being leave the MB using dual core 32bit chips and the MBP upgrade to the 64bit chips and leave the price point alone and make the 256mb card standard on the MBP and only put a 64 bit card in the MB.
 
aww i just bought my 20" iMac like two or three weeks ago, if I would have known this was coming out I would have waited ... ah well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top