OSNews

Erm, I said: "NO word on faster harddrives".

Please remember, this is the $500 Mac that fits in your briefcase and is quiet....

I don't think Apple wants people to make mini-clusters and disk servers .

Exactly. This is considered to be an affordable Mac, with specs to be able to run most of the modern software rather well. But it will not be a speed daemon, There not designed for servers, they are designed as a small form factor computer that handles most of life's normal computing needs. e-Mail, Web Browsing, Writing Papers, Plugging in your ipod, Maybe a game or two. The basic stuff. If your are in that much of a need for a faster drive, perhaps you should get a PowerMac or something. The Mac Mini's are just affordable small form factor for normal use.

What's so terrible about the hard drive? Are you wanting more size, speed, both?

They're only 4800rpm. That's extremely slow. They need to be at least 5400rpm. It's a very common complaint about Mini Macs (you can even greatly improve the overall performance of your Mini by using an *external* FireWire harddrive!

Apple purposefully downgrades the mini so as to not cannibalize their higher-end hardware. The mini is an ideal machine for any sort of everyday work related task. Its when you deal with higher-end functions that it becomes less ideal... but thats what the powerMacs are for.

It seems that people will inevitably find reason to fault Apple's hardware lineup until they offer a machine in every configuration to accommodate every single want... even if it doesn't make business sense for Apple. The only other alternative people want is for the OS to operate on commodity x86 hardware sold by PC OEMs who can't profit from their PC divisions.

If taking these steps allows Apple to define specific market categories that don't cannibalize others while also selling allowing Apple to keep its hardware division profitable and still deliver computers for less money than x86 PC manufacturers do when equally comparably equipped (in both hardware software and OS) then more power to them.

Right on the money!

Apple offers a range of products to meet user's needs. The Mini is manifestly NOT intended for the guru who needs lots of raw horse power. And it is also not marketed that way [they'd have to be stoned out of their skull if they did]. It is a very nice way to introduce people to the platform who are cautious about committing themselves to a whole new world of computer weirdness.
The MacMini offers a great bundle as an introduction to the Apple platform. As time progresses the user will say: 'yeah, I can see where they are going with this. It's not too bad but I need more elbow room.' That's when they migrate to the iMac or the PowerMac.

The complaint about cost has to be taken for what it's worth. You can expect to pay the absolute-bottom-of-the-barrel cheap price for a commodity machine. At once you are assured of: zero innovation, the quality to be as good as what you pay, ie: nada, and you're also not going to compute the dance of the electrons inside a dying star with that puppy.
People's drive for the lowest-of-the-low is driving businesses over the edge. When the only differentiator is the price you know where you're headed. "I want a spanking new car, I don't want to pay more than $250 bucks for it, it has to run a 1,000 miles on a gallon of gas, it has to be outfitted like a Maybach and I want a Ferrari engine in it. 250 is a bit much for that, though. How about 200?"

To want Apple to follow the example of the people who only screw components into a box is a guarantee for destroying the brand.

I used to say that Apple's prices were about 15% over the sweet spot. Now, they're offering machines that are VERY affordable. Even the top-of-the-line PowerMac is very affordable. I'm not saying it's cheap, but they used to cost about $6,000 USD. THAT was outrageously expensive. Today the prices are very modest in comparrison. You're not paying the lowest prices, but you're not buying a cheap-ass machine either. They are a great value proposition.

If Apple sold machines they lost money on and it got them into trouble [and it would eventually], the same people who today claim they're too expensive would say that they also can't run a business.

The cost of Apple computers as a deciding factor for a buying decision is an obsolete argument. It's just not true anymore.

I have a Powerbook with a 4200rpm hard drive and it is perfectly fine. You make it sound like the end of the world or something. The fact that a Mac Mini has a 4200rpm hard drive really makes little difference in the overall user experience in the end. Now, the fact that it's been upgraded to 512mb standard does make a big difference.

I don't know about this refresh release, but the earlier Minis had hard drive speeds of 4200 RPM on the 80 GB model and 5400 RPM on the 40 GB model. Apple didn't like to make too much of an issue about hard drive speeds becuase the more expensive Mini actually had a slower hard drive.

From where did you get this information? Will that source also report about the "new" Minis?

Please provide references for statistics providing the total number of Macs in active use globally as a percentage of total personal computer use.

If you give me money to buy the data mentioned in the Piper Jaffray analysis I'd be happy to. The link I supplied references the data though.

If you aren't running antivirus software, how can you be sure you don't have any? Do they not currently exist for OS X? Do the older viruses not run on OS X? I haven't used a Mac since it ran OS 7.x so I'm just curious.

"If you aren't running antivirus software, how can you be sure you don't have any? Do they not currently exist for OS X?"

Currently there is not a single known virus for OS X.


"Do the older viruses not run on OS X?"

There were only approximately 60 viruses for Pre OS X OSes. Assuming you're not running the OS 9 compatibility layer, they don't affect OS X.

"I have the first generation Mac Mini and love it. It's runs whisper quiet, on all the time and connected 24/7.
No viruses, blue screens and I'm not running ant-virus softwares.
I will buy another mac. "
Hi Ken,
i have a centrino, inexpensive (499$ 6 months ago) notebook (so, there is the tft 15" in the price, unlike on the macmini or the 12"/14" ibook), whisper quiet, powerful, connected 24/7 with no blue screen nor viruses.
Ah, it's because I run Suse 9.2 personal, that's for free, it's very user friendly with KDE or Gnome
And in the price I, sure, have a license of XP that allow me to develope for the platform used by the 95% of people out ther that doesn't care (shame on them, but they exist) about viruses and bsod, and so when some propellerhead comes to me with latest geek hardware (with glowing Win-only drivers CD) I can install it (or find support about it) without even caring about running it under wine or for the unlikely evenience of ruining my *x box.
Forgive me Ken, another little thing, the notebook it's lighter than 14" ibook, the LCD is good, i've a real mic in and there are no scratches on my good quality case and panel.

polaris20 said:
The real improvement is the iBooks, who's graphics cards now support the video component of Tiger, which renders graphics using the GPU instead of the CPU.

I don't think the 9550 is core image compliant. It isn't listed as one of the core image compatible cards at Apple's site. But, I don't know for sure.

>> Market share is not a figure that determines the total
>> number of Macs in use. Mac install base is much larger
>> than 2.5%

> It references statistics generated by Piper Jaffray,
> which don't appear to be made available to the public.

Please tell me where in the Forbes article where what I asked for was provided. It isn't of course.

Its only available for sale from Piper Jaffray.

Does that mean that you'll continue to doubt it until you see it?

Also worth asking... are you going to continue referencing the incorrect 1.3 worldwide marketshare statistic.,.. and then also incorrectly use that number when referring to Mac install base?

How do you know what the global active install-base is if you don't have access to the data? Since you can't provide it, any references for it, any methodology used, or anything even remotely substantiating your claim that it's "much higher," then yes I do think that I'll doubt the veracity of your claim.

I'm honestly starting to think that you're a little crazed. Please point out where I have referred to a "1.3 worldwide marketshare."

Here's a means to generate desktop install base:

http://www.osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=articl...

I don't read osViews.

Perhaps you should. Up until recently, it was the only source to get balanced coverage of operating systems. Recent changes to OS News appear to have change the previous problems to the better.

No, I stopped reading osViews because of its low-quality content and I have no intention of changing that policy.

The problem with market share data is that people use it to reference the total number of computers in use. It doesn't accomidate computers that remain in use longer than others. Market share only references the sale of a product... not the number of products in use. Because of this... If I represented all the Macusers in the world and you represented all the PC users and I bought a million Macs one day and then you bought 1 PC the next day... as of the second day, PCs would have 100% marketshare and Macs would have zero. Obviously you can see why marketshare is a misleading statistic when people use it to gauge install base.

By referring to install base statistics as "educated wild ass guesses" you're diminishing the whole market research trade. Its all based on calculated analysis and will also reference a margin of error. In know way does it have to do with educated wild ass guessing.

It was a rhetorical question, because I suspected that Kelly doesn't actually know what the aforementioned figures are. She just wanted to chime in with her regularly scheduled cheerleading, despite no one talking about market share or the number of Macs in use as a percentage of total personal computer usage.

Your methodology is not useful for estimating even what you think, because it presumes that using Yahoo!, Google, CNN, and Amazon.com accounts for worldwide computer usage for machines with Internet access. That's not even slightly American of you, even with foreign usage. It also makes no attempt to differentiate between usage patterns. Do people that own Macs or run Linux use Google more often? You're not working with a random sampling of even networked personal computers.

"It was a rhetorical question, because I suspected that Kelly doesn't actually know what the aforementioned figures are."

It was a rhetorical question because you wanted to imply that there was reason to question the numbers and thus imply that they should be doubted. You have a vested interest in this because it contradicts recent FUD you've tried to spread in this discussion board.



"She just wanted to chime in with her regularly scheduled cheerleading"

Chearleading? I never chear-led. I do however sometimes have to go to the equally opposite end of the spectrum to counteract your FUD. If it sounds like chearleading its only because your comments were THAT much off the deep end. BTW, I'm not female.


"despite no one talking about market share or the number of Macs in use as a percentage of total personal computer usage."

Are you kidding? Market share is the statistic most often (incorrectly) used to discuss the total number of Macs in use.


"Your methodology is not useful for estimating even what you think, because it presumes that using Yahoo!, Google, CNN, and Amazon.com accounts for worldwide computer usage for machines with Internet access."

Not only that, but the statistics gathered from these search engines take a significant number of non windows users and regards them as "other" rather than associating them with a statistic. How much you ask? The "other" statistic is greater than the Windows 95, Macintosh, Linux and Unix statistics combined.

"You didn't provide any figures. Not a single one pertaining to this."

I pointed to a source that did have access to the stats and reported it. Yet you feel inclined to offer reason that we should doubt it because I didn't give you the statistics.



"It was a rhetorical question because I knew you don't actually know what you're talking about."

I don't know what I'm talking about because I referenced a reliable source that saw the PJ statistics? You're really reaching here.



"I also have spread any "FUD,"

Thank you for agreeing with me.



"You however regularly lie, make claims that aren't substantiated by facts, and invent straw men."

No, lies and no straw men here. Sounds like you have sour grapes to me.


"You hardly ever miss an opportunity to spam an Apple post on OSNews. It's almost like a victim mentality. "

I'm a Mac user. I prefer OS X. Naturally I would feel inclined to visit the Mac centric threads. I however have never spammed the discusson boards nor have I ever adopted a victim mentality. I have however seen you on these boards make false or misleading claims.


"Prior to your comment, please find a single comment referring to the global marketshare."

Not just in this thread.

> I pointed to a source that did have access to the stats
> and reported it. Yet you feel inclined to offer reason
> that we should doubt it because I didn't give you the
> statistics.

Find one sentence in the article on Forbes that refers to global install figures. Since it can't be articulated, verified, or explained, it should be accepted. Why is that again?


> I don't know what I'm talking about because I
> referenced a reliable source that saw the PJ
> statistics? You're really reaching here.

You haven't referenced anything at all.


> No, lies and no straw men here. Sounds like you have
> sour grapes to me.

I'm sorry, but you've claimed that I've referenced some "1.3 marketshare" just in this conversation. It never happened. You've lied about knowing about the global install figures being "much higher," since you don't even know what they are. That's just in this conversation.

> I however have never spammed the discusson boards nor
> have I ever adopted a victim mentality.

http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11208&threshold=-5&limit=...
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11208&threshold=-5&limit=...
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11208&threshold=-5&limit=...
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11208&threshold=-5&limit=...
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11208&threshold=-5&limit=...

No spam there.

> I have however seen you on these boards make false or
> misleading claims.

Please provide for me a verifiable false claim that I have made.

> Not just in this thread.

It's almost as if I specifically mentioned this thread.

"Find one sentence in the article on Forbes that refers to global install figures."

It doesn't... yet I never said it did. My origional comment was that Apple's worldwide market share increased.


"I'm sorry"

I forgive you.


"you've claimed that I've referenced some "1.3 marketshare" just in this conversation. It never happened."

Maybe someone else said and you agreed with it. Either way, I do recall you making such claims or being associated with it in some way. At this point, feel free to take on whatever stance you want because I don't care enough to look it up.


"You've lied about knowing about the global install figures being "much higher," since you don't even know what they are. That's just in this conversation. "

How do you know I don't know what they are. I'll have you know that I talk to gartner research on a regular basis and they tell me the statistics you claim I don't have. I'm legally not allowed to reference the data unless I pay for it.


"No spam there. "

Yes, there is no spam there.


"Please provide for me a verifiable false claim that I have made. "

http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11208&threshold=-5&limit=...

You said that an article appearing on osViews was full of speculation and that the article on Ars had none.

> It doesn't... yet I never said it did. My origional
> comment was that Apple's worldwide market share
> increased.

You:
(Lest the trolls continue to misunderstand... market share is not install base. Market share is not a figure that determines the total number of Macs in use. Mac install base is much larger than 2.5%)

Me:
Please provide references for statistics providing the total number of Macs in active use globally as a percentage of total personal computer use.

You:
There is a link right in the comment I made. I'll give it to you again:

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2005/07/25/apple-pc-market-0725market.....

It references statistics generated by Piper Jaffray, which don't appear to be made available to the public.




Did that provide me with the information that I asked for, contrary to what you kept insisting? No. Still. Here we go.

You:
It was a rhetorical question because you wanted to imply that there was reason to question the numbers and thus imply that they should be doubted. You have a vested interest in this because it contradicts recent FUD you've tried to spread in this discussion board.



It's really simple. You made a claim that Apple's global install base was much larger than its market share. I asked you to provide me with facts--since before you mistakenly claimed that Apple was the fifth largest personal computer manufacturer and continually lied about being mistaken--which you insisted were in that article, when they aren't even referred to in the article at all.

> Maybe someone else said and you agreed with it.
> Either way, I do recall you making such claims or
> being associated with it in some way.

Or maybe you just made it up out of nowhere and attributed to me, along with a host of other lies about me because I asked you to provide information about this "much higher" global install base.


> Yes, there is no spam there.

Ok...

> http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11208&threshold=-5&limit=...

So your comment is my false statement?
Excellent.

> You said that an article appearing on osViews was
> full of speculation and that the article on Ars had
> none.

I said that the article appearing on osViews was speculative flamebait, and that you were a hypocrite for claiming that it was factual while impugning the integrity of someone far more objective. I never stated anything about the correctness of the Ars article.

Here's the data referencing the "other" statistic.

http://www.osviews.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=articl...

Your methodology is not useful for estimating even what you think, because it presumes that using Yahoo!, Google, CNN, and Amazon.com accounts for worldwide computer usage for machines with Internet access. That's not even slightly American of you, even with foreign usage. It also makes no attempt to differentiate between usage patterns. Do people that own Macs or run Linux use Google more often? You're not working with a random sampling of even networked personal computers.

No, it's not an accurate reflection, and that was my point, it's nothing more than some foundation numbers for a WAG. I don't feel that you can accurately account actual usage numbers due to a number of variables, you've nailed on of the biggest in my opinion. Usage patterns.

People that buy Mac's aren't historically the same people that bought $499 eMachines. People that buy Mac's have historically been different types of users than the typical Windows clone buyer. Note I say historically here, because I also feel that the Mac's buying demographic has changed dramatically in the last 3 years, and it's not the Halo effect. The iPod has raised brand awareness, as have the Apple stores. These things have contributed to a changing demographic that buys Mac's.

One of the numbers that I'd love to see in association with market-share, is average purchase price per unit (comparison), and average peripherals purchased with the computer. These are both closely guarded numbers, but would certainly be interesting to see.

Based upon my own experience, the Mac average price per unit is significantly higher than the Windows Clone market, but the initial purchase peripherals would be more skewed towards the Windows market with Anti-Virus and Security software being sold with nearly every machine. I don't feel that that purchase cost would get the two evenly matched though.

Unit sales, we know that Apple's laptop shipments outpace the desktops, while I'm not certain that holds true industry wide, it certainly doesn't bode well for Apple's average prices. The other thing here is that Apple doesn't ship a monitor with their desktops (the iMac not included in that lump statement), and as such the additional cost of the monitor which I would include in the average price would push apple's average way way up.

Now, as you pointed out, I do have a fairly American view on these statistics, where we have one of the worst broadband ecosystems in the world. But in your haste to nail me on that (accurately), you overlooked the international versions of those sites. Today, these are among the highest trafficked sites that are not specific to a platform worldwide. These numbers should be good enough for a WAG, bearing in mind that it is just that, a WAG.

I specifically mentioned foreign usage, though I guess I wasn't particularly clear with what I said. I don't think that CNN, Amazon, and Google (in order of what I baselessly expect to be least-to-most used abroad) are sufficiently diverse to represent global patterns. Since Mac sales are considerably higher in the U.S. (rather than being a matter of broadband usage), we're setting ourselves up for useless statistics. Slightly less useless but still dubious would be to throw in things like the BBC's website, ebay, and popular Indian, Korean, Japanese, Mexican, ..., and Chinese equivalents. Even then we're setting ourselves up for biasing ourselves toward people that read news sites and have disposable income.

The worldwide market share is up to 2.5 not 2. and using logs from web sites is a very inacurate way to gauge install base and is VERY inacurate in calculating market share.

I agree with you that MS Windows isn't perfect, it has its problems and many people who like it a little too much like to pretend it doesn't, but at the same time it's really not as bad as I think you make it sound.

Mac OS X might not need anti-virus and malware removing software, and that's a real plus for it, but there is free software to do those jobs in Windows and as long as those are present and used properly (which really isn't that difficult) Windows is safe enough for most home users to feel comfortable with.

I use Linux so I think I can understand where you are comming from, from both your perspective and my own Windows isn't as safe. I also use Windows too though, so I haven't forgotten how easy it is to protect when you have a reasonable understanding of how to use anti-virus, malware removers, and firewall software. Most people using Windows will have that down within a year if they're legitimately interested in learning it, and then they are safe enough, even if the protection available for Windows isn't as comforting as using Linux or Mac OS X to some of us.

Celerate has a point that you can actually learn to protect your Windows machine.

I use Mac Os and Windows myself. People hear that you can type a line without a spelling error in it and you're a computer expert. So, in that capacity [and claiming no significant expertise whatsoever] I visit people's houses. They use Windows machines [although I tell them that they don't have to worry about running into problems when using a Mac because they won't be needing highly specialised apps. Mail and surfing. Looking at pics and listening to music. Windows and Mac [and undoubtedly Linux] are capable of that without blinking.
But: precisely these people are very susceptible to malware and viruses. Because they don't understand what's going on.
For them I would recommend the Mac. Of course you can shore up the defenses of your Windows computer. But it's what you're going to do for as long as you use the machine. It's part of your normal process of working with the computer. And tell me, be honest, is it really that much fun to have to jump through hoops all the time?
You then have to convince elder people that this is what they will have to do too. "But I only want to send email and surf a bit".

I managed to inspire affection for the Mac in those whom I love. They come and bother me to ask me what this little button does and where can I find soandso. They're not calling me in a fit of panic because all their vital data is on the hard drive, they have no backup [of course they don't] and 'my computer is doing some really weird shit, man'. 6 hours of troubleshooting ensues.

Guess which call I prefer to get.

"Me too, and running Windows XP since release date on the same PC, and without ever format it..."

Your the exception not the norm for a Windows user. Not a flame to your comment BTW. Take 10 Mac users and 10 PC users and over half of the PC users will have viruses, spyware and malware problems.

Just because by some miracle of God your XP computer has not required a reformat in 4 years, does NOT mean that you represent the vast, vast, vast majority of users.

Let me guess. Either you are not being truthful, or your XP machine isn't connected to the Internet!!!

"Let me guess. Either you are not being truthful, or your XP machine isn't connected to the Internet!!!"
Well, let me guess, you haven't read I usually works with Suse 9.2 (and if you care I do regular updates).
Well, wait, one time I was attacked by a virus for Linux, yes! It was when I was surfing on a WiteHat server that was said to be compromised! But that time since it was a *x server I expected that it could be compromised by one of the few viruses for *x, so I was visiting it from XP and the virus hadn't worked at all, but was recognized and removed by the (freeware) antivirus i was using for XP.
Not bad for a "world of bsod and viruses", na?

Ahhhh... I've been discovered!

"Why does Apple continue to cripple their hardware?"

As mentioned in an earlier post, Apple purposefully downgrades the mini so as to not cannibalize their higher-end hardware. The mini is an ideal machine for any sort of everyday work related task. Its when you deal with higher-end functions that it becomes less ideal... but thats what the powerMacs are for.

It seems that people will inevitably find reason to fault Apple's hardware lineup until they offer a machine in every configuration to accommodate every single want... even if it doesn't make business sense for Apple. The only other alternative people want is for the OS to operate on commodity x86 hardware sold by PC OEMs who can't profit from their PC divisions.

If taking these steps allows Apple to define specific market categories that don't cannibalize others while also selling allowing Apple to keep its hardware division profitable and still deliver computers for less money than x86 PC manufacturers do when equally comparably equipped (in both hardware software and OS) then more power to them.


"I do hope when Apple moves to Intel the company is not so greedy when it comes to hardware."

Wow... thats a loded statement. It would be like me saying... I hope next week you're not a child molestor. That stament, the same as yours implies that Apple is already being greedy and that you are already a child molestor. Thankfully Apple's hardware policies aren't greedy and there is no sign that will change. Similarly, thankfully (hopefully?) you're not a child molestor.


"For one day we know the fadPod will fade to nothing."

While nothing last forever, I think Apple's massive sales of the iPod has disproven any theory that it was just a FAD, yet I find it interesting that some still like to hope for that ending as if its continue sucess only shows how wrong they were about Apple.

Here is a little secret you can whisper in Steve's ear:

"Value addition is a lot more fun and profitable vs. value subtraction."

Not when its to the detriment of products that are more profitable for the company.

Is it really your position that adding a faster HDD to the Mini would harm Apple? Or is it just your position that it's unreasonable for them to do so, and consists of some secret ire the rest of the world has toward Apple for not providing every conceivable permutation of hardware?

"Is it really your position that adding a faster HDD to the Mini would harm Apple? Or is it just your position that it's unreasonable for them to do so"

If you were looking for a widget that had "A" "B" and "C" and the company you wanted to buy it from sold two products. One had "A" and "B" but not "C" and another that had "A" "B" "C" and "D" but for more money. You would have to buy the latter widget to get that. If however you were given the opportunity to by the "A" and "B" widget at a slightly increased price to also get "C" but at a less expensive price than to get the "A" B" "C" "D" widget... does would the widget company be getting less money?

No it wouldn't harm Apple. But would would restrict them from getting as much money as they can. Apple has set up varying types of computers to meet the needs of consumers of various needs in various price/feature categories. While they don't accomidate the very specific needs of some consumers like the x86 PC marketplace can, their business model allows them to address the needs of most consumers while keeping hardware expenses down.



"consists of some secret ire the rest of the world has toward Apple for not providing every conceivable permutation of hardware?"

huh?

So it is your opinion that it is unreasonable for Apple to ship the Mini with a faster HDD, because it wouldn't allow them to make as much money. See, you didn't even need the rest of that comment.

No, its not unreasonable. Its just illogical (from a business perspective).

I explained it the way I did so that there would not be any confusion for my response.

It isn't illogical, Apple just thinks that it can do better by providing less. That isn't necessarily true. You think that it's unreasonable ("illogical") for Apple to spend more per unit (an amount no one has bothered to attempt to define) because you don't believe that it will result in making more money. Either through no increase in sales, or because it would dissuade others from purchasing more expensive computers. Of course Apple has nothing else in the same market as the Mini, so whether this is true or not isn't obvious at all.

The reason why is because the eMac has a monitor. The mini does not. Apple is able to get the additional margins by also selling you a monitor... hence the slightly updated hardware spec. If you're in the market for a headless Mac with a certain minimum level of specifications, Apple would lose a sale of one of thir low-end towers. Someday they may update the mini to include the hard drive you're looking for, but only when it makes economical sense to do so... i.e. when you want an even faster hard drive beyond the one your currently asking for.

As with the HDD, it's probably a combination of heat and profit margins.

You're right.

The 12" powerbook has support for up to 1.25GB. The iBook only goes up to 1.5GB.

Let me put it this way... OS X makes the AMD laptop look like a rip off.

People on the Mac vs WIntel always fight on the hardware...well, the real difference is the OS. OS X is lightyears ahead of XP. I paid more for my ibook than I would have for a comparable intel/amd laptop and I'm happier than a kid in a candystore because of the OS.

.. and before being acused of being a fanboy, I switched 7 months ago after using Windows since 3.11.

"I paid more for my ibook than I would have for a comparable intel/amd laptop"

Then you got ripped off it was TRULEY comperable as Macs are less expensive than comperably equipped PCs (assuming hardware software and operating system are matched equally)

not really... I paid $1000 canadian for my iBook, at the time I calculated that a similar wintel laptop would run about $900. I think that the joy of using OS X was well worth $100. Heck, I would pay even a $300 premium not to have to deal with Windows.

Like I said, I've been using Windows since 3.11, my windows desktop runs just fine, unlike those of my friends which are not in IT (I've had to clean or repair an amazing half a dozen systems in the past 8 months) but even if I have the expertise to run a perfectly fit Windows system, OS X is superior.

Now Linux, that's another matter... :-) I still keep my desktop around to try distros from time to time...

I like this thread :-)

Now that I have a job, I'm saving up for a laptop, I've also taken the time to compare what wintel/amd laptops are available to me compared to what Appple iBooks cost.

Acer has some laptops available at TheSourceCC for $899, they have 256 Ram, 2.8 Ghz AMD sempron processors and some basic 3d graphics card as well as a 15" WXGA screen.

Staples has a Compaq which is comparable to the Acer but with a 12" screen on for $999, as well as a Toshiba which is almost identical to the Compaq including in price. All the the Intel/AMD laptops I've mentioned so far also had build in 802.11g wireless.

Apple iBooks are a little more expensive, the new 12" with 512 Mb of ram is $1249 CAD, but the graphics card is better and it has 802.11g and bluetooth as well as double the ram of the Intel/AMD laptops. The prices come pretty close, the main problem with the iBook is that most Intel and AMD laptops at that price have 15" screens or larger but aside from that the price is spot on for what the iBook has.

Of course there is still the issue of prices being lower at places like NewEgg no doubt, but I much preffer being able to buy things locally if I can help it. If you ask me the prices on the 12" iBooks as they are with no modifications are only a little bit higher, and those laptops have a few extras which sweeten the deal just enough to insure that it's worth the price imo.

BTW. I know Dell's are less expensive, but those aren't available locally, the only laptop brands available here are Acer, Toshiba, Compaq, and then the no-name Wintel ones which don't fair any better in price.

"Apple feels no need to discount their obsolete products"

They don't discount them because they were already less expensive then the comperably equipped PC.


"and the price of their Ram offerings is an absolute insult."

Not any more. They used to be REAL bad, now their prices are in line with companies like Crucial... because the ram (like crucial's) is very high quality. In any even, its no longer outrageous... just priced high, but at least now in accordance with industry standards for quality ram.

Geez, don't start bringing common sense into this argument - you'll ruin it!

"Our local Apple champion, Kelly, seems to think that adding a 7200rpm to the Mac mini and charging a premium for it will reduce profits. "

I was VERY specific in the way that I phrased my comment so that you can not spin what I said. I can only conclude now that you're out solely to confuse people.



"It does rather well explain the small (1% to 3% depending on how you measure it) market share."

It has nothing to do with how you measure it... Apple's market share is 2.5% World wide. And Apple's current market position has more to do with Microsoft using illegal business practices and extending its illegal monopoly than it does with the failings Apple has had in the past.

"It would be a waste of time trying to 'spin' something that is totally wrong to begin with...

Apple doesn't offer good drives with the Mac mini because Apple is fucked in the head."

Ya, I stand corrected. You're right.


"While Microsoft certainly has never 'competed' for anything in its life and certainly never 'innovated' or 'invented' anything but utter shit (Clippy, Bob, etc)"

I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but really... what have they invented?


"it will never change the fact that the ONE BIG REASON that Apple is such a fuckup company is because of ALL CONSUMING GREED."

Its actually a testament to how well run Apple actually is that they have not only survived but thrived despite having to work amongst an illegal anticompetitive monopoly.


"And this is what I mean by 'fuckup' company: No other company in computers has a track record of innovating and gaining tremendous market share and then pissing it all away because they are so BLINDLY AND STUPIDLY GREEDY."

When did Apple ever have tremendous market share? And when did they ever piss any of it away?


"So when Apple introduces these stupid value-subtracted shell game "new" computers, it is clear to see that the same genetic brain damage of BLIND GREED is alive and well at Apple."

The blind shell game as you so eloquently put it is what allows Apple to offer products that meet the needs of most consumers at a price that is less than PC manufacturers that offer the same equipment in software and hardware while also doing so at a profit at a time when every other PC manufacturer (except Dell) is selling their gear at a loss.


"Even the simplest improvement that would fit in the same form factor and require no other changes was not made."

Because it prevents them from making sales in other areas. Their pricing structure is very strategic. Its less expensive than the competition while also meeting the needs of most consumers and businesses.


"It is patheticly stupid."

Yet you think this successful business model is stupid. Thank you for your insight. Now drive through please...

When did Apple ever have tremendous market share? And when did they ever piss any of it away?

I guess you forgot about the "personal computer" and the "laser printer"??

I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but really... what have they invented?

Honestly, I don't know for a fact if Microsoft has ever invented anything. I do know for a fact that everything in Longhorn/Vista is stolen.

Ultimately, I would like to see Apple greater value to the consumer than they do today. I hope this will happen on Intel. And I would also like to see Apple get away from the fear or stupidity that says "a really good entry level computer is a threat to the profitability of the company". That is just plain nonsense.

>I guess you forgot about the "personal computer" and the "laser printer"??

Apple was roughly at 30% market share... and that was when they were selling a fraction of the computers they are today. They dominated the laser printer market until it... like computers became commodity items and people started giving them away to push computers. Thats not pissing anything away, thats market realities.


"And I would also like to see Apple get away from the fear or stupidity that says "a really good entry level computer is a threat to the profitability of the company"."

But they don't do that. They have several really good entry level computers each of which are not a threat to the profitability to the company. It sounds to me that you want Apple to get into the commodity PC business where margins are 1%. Notice all the companies that follow this business model (except for Dell) are losing money on their business. Apple found a way to stay price competative, (often times priced less) while selling computers in every major product category while also remaining profitable. Thats not stupidity, thats smart business.

Apple once upon a time had nearly 100% of the laser printer business. The Apple LaserWriter was synonymous with "laser printer".

To provide a flimsy excuse -- "market realities" -- for Apple pissing away their market share in this business does not bode well for your other rather non-sensical explanations of why Apple cannot offer a decent 2.5" *7200 rpm* notebook drive on their Mac mini.

The real reason that Apple pissed away the laser printer market is Apple told the customer that value was not important, only maximal Apple profits. So as technology improved and became less expensive, instead of pushing it down the line, Apple used their dipshit "value subtraction" strategy and ended up losing their entire laser printer business to HP and others.

The same thing could be said of Apple's share of "GUI-based personal computers". Which went from 100% to 2.5% (we'll be generous) at lightning speed because of Apple's tragic greed. Instead of pushing technology down the line, Apple again lorded it at the top and competition came in and swept away the market.

At the end of the day, Apple's belief that is a mere 1800rpm faster drive in the Mac mini will run the company into the ground proves to the world that Apple is "greatly insane".

To *not* provide the #1 requested feature of the Mac mini customer base is the the glorious triumph of Apple greed over business sense. Where does the mini customer then go if they want a performance boost for their mini?

Alas, there is no Mac model that provides mini-like form factor and a reasonable speed drive.

So the mini customer must go to Wintel. And this is how Apple takes their innovation and wastes it. But not giving it space to grow. It is the ultimate expression of "greatly insane".

I've looked into the 2.5" 7200 rpm drives, and though they are available, they aren't cheap, and in relatively low supply.
Apple has enough supply problems as it is, I serisouly doubt they want another one over hard drives.

Don't you EVER dare call my comments spam or trolls or any other pejorative term ever again. You just lost whatever micron semblance of legitimacy you might have possibly retained on these boards.

??? Huh ???

Leave it to you to not find fault with your troll comment:

http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11356&threshold=-5&limit=...

Get a grip, doofus! The Mac mini is what it is. Nothing less, nothing more. If you don't like it, don't buy it. People wanted a inexpensive Mac, Apple delivered. If you want more power, spend the dough, loser. Get an iMac G5 or Power Mac.

The mac mini is a nice form factor.

> The Mac mini is what it is. Nothing less, nothing more. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

But it could easily be so much more! I don't need the expandibility of a powermac and already have several monitors.

interesting opinion. I'd say that the iBook is in fact a pretty good machine, despite it's limitations. The FSB is an issue, I won't argue it, but it's the least of the concerns. For the market that the iBook is intended, it's a well designed and emminently usable design compromise, and for it's $1k price tag, it's competitive. Comparing it to other vendors, like say the Compaq R4000, when trimmed out with the same features you pay $943, you get a 1280x800 screen, a 14 inch form factor (instead of the compact 12 inch), and it weighs in at nearly 2 lb's heavier.

The Dell Inspiron 600m is $892, and it's also got a better screen larger footprint and weighs more. Oh yeah, they both run Windows, and neither are well suited as Linux boxes at the consumer level.

Both also use cases that lack the durability and robust hinges of the iBooks, which is a major issue considering the education and consumer market they target.

These are all things that add cost to manufacture. There are a lot of little details involved in the Mac experience that you have to touch and use before you appreciate them.

Let's talk about design elements. The iBook and PowerBook both sport hinges on the back of the case that are of a size and rigidity that they aren't prone to the breakage that the bulk of the Intel laptop suffer from (I'm going exclude Sony from this discussion, as they seem to get the industrial design aspects of the equation too, unfortunately thier products also have higher average price tags for that reason). Next, look at an iBook or PowrBook case, you'll notice that the design is such that there are no 'snag points'. No sharp edges, or hooks when closed, the lid closure has no exposed hooks during normal operation even the PC Card slot is design to minimize snag. Next look at an Apple laptop power brick. It's a well designed brick that is easily adapted to any plug in the world, it's also designed to manage your power cable when it's not disconnected, Toshiba's little Velcro wrap strap is not a solution. Little folding clips that you wrap the cable around makes sense. The plug prongs fold away to prevent snag or breakage. The light on the power cord is at the plug to the computer, not on the brick, so you can quickly see when you forgot to plug the other end in.

These are subtle details, but it's attention to details like this that turn Mac users into 'fanboys'. Hopefully you'll understand that I use, and have used virtually every brand out there. No one, with the possible exception of Sony, and they are not consistant about it, pays attention to these details like Apple.

How bad is it ? I bought 5 Toshbia laptops all the same model and revision, 3 direct from Toshiba, 2 from another vendor. All 5 broke hinges within 6 months, Toshiba would not replace the cases, stating that it was from normal usage and wear and tear. Meanwhile, my iBooks, & PowerBooks have been in higher wear and tear environments, and while they have had a couple of hinge related problems (the release clip spring became weak and brittle after 14 months of use and the latch no longer held, Apple replaced it free with a 72 hour turn around on a ship to the depot deal.

At the same time, Apple machines tend to hold up longer between replacement. Let's assume that you keep a machine 12 months. That's $2.74 / per day. Let's say that the Apple costs $100 more, which looking at the numbers above is reasonable. It only needs to last 32 days longer, to break even.

Let's say that you aren't as anal about new hardware as some of u and push that out to 2 years. The per diem drops to $1.37, it only takes 22 days to make up the difference now.

Of course if you are still concerned about the throughput of a 133mhz fsb, you really aren't the target user of the iBook, because the places you should be noticing that bottleneck are places that the iBook isn't designed to go, and yet that's probably the biggest real negative people like to bandy about these days, because the price certainly shouldn't be the core issu.

Durabillity is a strong argument.Indeed considering the prize an i-book isn't to expensive as one might think at first sight.

because the places you should be noticing that bottleneck are places that the iBook isn't designed to go, and yet that's probably the biggest real negative people like to bandy about these days

Yes.

because the price certainly shouldn't be the core issu.

It isn't.

What part of "Suse" you don't understand?

Please don't tell Kelly that the world wide market share of OS X machines is about 0.5%.

And never never tell Kelly this lack of market share is due to Steve's deeply repressed love of the "unwashed masses".

Maybe Steve can take the hard drive out of the Mac mini in the next release. I'm sure a machine with no hard drive and just a slow optical R/W drive will sell just fine...