Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Aug 2007 18:02 UTC
Apple Apple has released new iMacs, with a new interior (up to 2.8Ghz Core 2 Duo) as well as new exterior (thinner, with a black back, as well as black 'eyeliner' around the screen), including a new keyboard, during a press event in Cupertino today. Apple also released new version of its iLife and iWork suites. iLife has seen updates on all its applications, while iWork has also received a new spreadsheet application called Numbers. Update: The Mac Mini has been updated too.
Order by: Score:
and...
by poundsmack on Tue 7th Aug 2007 18:42 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

don't forget about the mac mini update and the still to be revield. "what's behind teh black sheet?" and "one more thing" comment ;)

on a side note was sad to see eSata was not included in the iMac line. oh well....

Edited 2007-08-07 18:42

Reply Score: 3

RE: and...
by tyrione on Wed 8th Aug 2007 01:03 UTC in reply to "and..."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Buy a Firewire 800 ready case for your external drive needs.

Reply Score: 1

yo
by predictor on Tue 7th Aug 2007 18:43 UTC
predictor
Member since:
2006-11-30

That iMac is one hell of a beauty.

Yummy.

Reply Score: 12

RE: yo
by henrikmk on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:05 UTC in reply to "yo"
henrikmk Member since:
2005-07-10

I'm a bit torn. On one half, the form factor is perfect, but they had that in place with the old model as well. It's so wonderfully simple, that I can't believe that others haven't copied this yet and done it well.

On the other half, I'm damn tired of the black/silver combination, as it's been beaten to death by many PC manufacturers, including Dell, who Apple seem to like making fun of:

http://images.apple.com/imac/images/gallery/imackeyboard_4_20070807...

From behind the thing looks like a Dell monitor with a bit of Apple design. Placing them next to eachother will make them less distinguishable from eachother. It's a taste thing: Some will like it. I happen to hate it. I surely hope it's more tolerable to look at in real life.

Edited 2007-08-07 19:06

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: yo
by TaterSalad on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE: yo"
TaterSalad Member since:
2005-07-06

Why is there a wireless box on top of the dell if the keyboard and mouse are plugged in to the PC?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: yo
by Kroc on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: yo"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It's the IR for MCE. There seems to be a COAX in the back for the TV in. So it is an exaggeration on Apple's part, as the Mac has no TV in or eyeTV shown.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: yo
by aliquis on Wed 8th Aug 2007 09:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: yo"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

The dell probably have printer or whatever connected aswell. And the XPS system probably have better hardware specs.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: yo
by henrikmk on Tue 7th Aug 2007 21:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: yo"
henrikmk Member since:
2005-07-10

Probably because the iMac has built in 802.11n. The Dell might not have that.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: yo
by Joe User on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:07 UTC in reply to "yo"
v RE[2]: yo
by Chicken Blood on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE: yo"
RE: yo
by renox on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:07 UTC in reply to "yo"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, but it's a pity for the glossy screen usually those type of display improves color but you can see your reflection in the screen..

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: yo
by Tuishimi on Tue 7th Aug 2007 21:22 UTC in reply to "RE: yo"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Are you saying I'm ugly?

J/K

My wife has the glossy display on her macbook and it is less annoying than I thought it would be. Not sure about actual glass... I know that I would be concerned that positioning it in a room with a window might be a pain.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: yo
by Moochman on Wed 8th Aug 2007 03:42 UTC in reply to "RE: yo"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

I wouldn't opt for a glossy screen for a laptop, since it makes trying to see the screen outdoors near-impossible. However, the iMac probably won't be going outdoors, so it seems like a fine choice.

Reply Score: 3

Finally
by rain on Tue 7th Aug 2007 18:53 UTC
rain
Member since:
2005-07-09

Ordering an iMac 24" tomorrow. Let's just hope it's as quiet as the previous model. The thin case is a bit worrying.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by Kroc on Tue 7th Aug 2007 18:59 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Someone please tell me any other manufacturer that is coming even close to this level of industrial design? This just floors me. Why don't other manufacturers get it? This is what consumers what from a computer.

Edit, the new 'hacking' keyboard is amazing. Please, please offer this without key markings! http://www.apple.com/keyboard/

Edited 2007-08-07 19:01

Reply Score: 7

RE
by steverez1 on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:05 UTC in reply to "RE"
steverez1 Member since:
2006-12-06

Kinda looks like my Gyration keyboard that came with my Gateway 901x that MS sent me to test MCE 2005 but its black (it has a mouse you can pick up use like a Wii remote)

Reply Score: 1

DOWN FANBOY, HEEL
by theGrump on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE"
theGrump Member since:
2005-11-11

the "revolutionary" keyboard is a near-perfect ripoff of the ultra-cheap small form factor usb keyboards fry's has stocked for ages. BTC 6100E is almost identical from the top and side.

otherwise wtf is so revolutionary about this approach?

i don't want my monitor in the same box as my cpu for a dozen obvious reasons.

what would really be great industrial design is for someone to come up with an "integrated" display that is easily removable. why can't i snap out the laptop display? how many monitor form factors are there?

Reply Score: 3

RE: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL
by Kroc on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:32 UTC in reply to "DOWN FANBOY, HEEL"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

It never ceases to amaze me just how hard it is for OSnews users to understand what a regular "consumer" is.

Am I the only one who can see what this computer design actually means in the real world? I'm surrounded by people so smart, they've forgotten how to be idiots :/

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL
by theGrump on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL"
theGrump Member since:
2005-11-11

haha, the archetype of the consumer...this platonic ideal exists only in your head.

if consumers want simple, no buttons, no options, why do all of the following products sell well?:

- manual shift sports cars
- high end audio
- high end video
- digital SLRs that do not just "point and shoot"
- high-end kitchen anything

etc etc etc

stop leaning on the "ideal" of the consumer

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL
by LobalSurgery on Tue 7th Aug 2007 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL"
LobalSurgery Member since:
2006-09-07

Well sure, those items sell, and there's a definite market for them, but they don't sell well compared to cheaper, more pedestrian products.

What percentage of new cars today (in the US, at least) are sold with a manual transmission, 10%? I would say that most cars (with the notable exceptions of compacts and sports cars) don't even offer one anymore. It's simply not justifiable for car manufacturers to go through the financial/developmental hurdles of such an option when so few people actually want it.

I love my stick shift car and Canon SLR, but for every high-end camera that's sold, probably twenty (or fifty!) point-and-shoot models fly off the shelves for $200.

I guess the average OSNews reader is not an average technology purchaser, and that's just fine.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL
by Chicken Blood on Tue 7th Aug 2007 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL"
Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

Fully agree. I lot of posters here are out of touch with the real world.

It's not an insult, just a reminder that we should all talk to our non-geek friends from time to time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL
by Moochman on Wed 8th Aug 2007 03:44 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Non-geek friends? What non-geek friends? ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL
by theGrump on Tue 7th Aug 2007 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL"
theGrump Member since:
2005-11-11

"Well sure, those items sell, and there's a definite market for them, but they don't sell well compared to cheaper, more pedestrian products."

want to compare profit margins on ferraris and toyota camrys? smaller audience does not mean smaller profit.

"What percentage of new cars today (in the US, at least) are sold with a manual transmission, 10%?"

but these models continue to sell well, as do the other "not simple" products i described, and they have sold well over decades...clearly people want these products. clearly some people will sacrifice simplicity for control in certain cases.

and really, are PCs that much more complex? or did you really believe the contrived comparison diagram with the dell?

the only difference between a standard desktop pc and the imac is two cords: monitor video input and monitor power cable. thats it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL
by LobalSurgery on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL"
LobalSurgery Member since:
2006-09-07

"want to compare profit margins on ferraris and toyota camrys? smaller audience does not mean smaller profit."


I can't argue with you there. But that's not the point I was trying to make.

And, no, I don't think a PC is that much more complex than a Mac, but I didn't make that argument either; I didn't even comment on computers. I was merely trying to reiterate Kroc's point that we, as OSNews readers, aren't very representative of technology buyers as a whole.

The average consumer isn't overly concerned about the specific kind or speed of processor (or any other nitty-gritty technical detail) a computer uses. "Can I use the internet, listen to MP3's and send email?" are more of concern to the typical consumer. And of course, no matter what the software or hardware platform today, the answer is yes to all three.

"the only difference between a standard desktop pc and the imac is two cords: monitor video input and monitor power cable. thats it."


Well, it does look different, has a few additional features (integrated video camera, for example) and runs OS X (legally) and iLife, which may or may not be important to you, but are certainly incentives to many (most?) Mac buyers. On the other hand, with exception to memory, it certainly lacks expandability. Back to my original argument, this probably isn't a huge deal to the average consumer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL
by dagw on Tue 7th Aug 2007 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

But why do $200 cameras sell more than SLRs? Is it because all the features on the big SLRs scare people is it because the $200 camera is much smaller, easier to carry and costs $200? I recently bought a $200 digital camera, not because I'm too stupid to use an SLR (I've used manual film SLRs all my life), but because $200 was what I had to spend on a digital camera.

As for manual transmissions, that's just a strange culture thing. I don't for a second believe that Europeans are in any way smarter or more technical than Americans, and here automatics are incredibly rare.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL
by LobalSurgery on Tue 7th Aug 2007 23:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: DOWN FANBOY, HEEL"
LobalSurgery Member since:
2006-09-07

But why do $200 cameras sell more than SLRs? Is it because all the features on the big SLRs scare people is it because the $200 camera is much smaller, easier to carry and costs $200?


All of the above, I'm sure. I think the middle ground would be the cheaper, smaller, lower-megapixel SLR's like the Nikon D40. I don't think this would sway the serious photographer that also totes around a cheaper point-and-shoot, but it's a step in the right direction for others.

As for manual transmissions, that's just a strange culture thing. I don't for a second believe that Europeans are in any way smarter or more technical than Americans, and here automatics are incredibly rare.


I'm not sure what it is either. Manuals are more fun, cheaper, easier to fix/maintain, and generally give better performance and fuel economy. But they take a bit of practice and additional effort. I guess we're just lazier ;)

Anyway, back on topic, I'd really like to try out one of those new keyboards. I think it would be great for my Cube, which is currently using an old white G5 keyboard that doesn't have the greatest feel.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by alcibiades on Tue 7th Aug 2007 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Kroc, I don't think its industrial design. Its marketing design. Its like the old Design Centre stuff in London, its designed to look a certain way. At that its brilliant. Whether it functions is another story (keeps cool, feels good to type on for a long time).

Good industrial design is something quite different. Kitchenaid mixers, for instance.

Not an accident that all the reviews are about how the keyboard looks. If it was great ID, they would be about how it feels. Note what Apple says: the Apple Keyboard looks equally at home in your living room or on your desk.

Yes, it looks great. How does it type though? And is it membrane? You bet it is.

Edited 2007-08-07 20:47

Reply Score: 4

RE
by The Baron on Tue 7th Aug 2007 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE"
The Baron Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, it looks great. How does it type though?


I would say that if it types as well as the keyboards on the MacBook then it types very well. I have found that I really enjoy the MacBook keyboard.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by Tuishimi on Tue 7th Aug 2007 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I wonder what it feels like too. I went the opposite direction and bought a Tactile Pro 2.0 keyboard for my mac... :/ I like clicky-clacky keys that fight back a little. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE
by alcibiades on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE"
alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

Agreed. My feeling is that all membrane keyboards by decent manufacturers are basically the same. Logitech OEM for instance, $5-10, no need to pay any more, if what interests you is functionality and industrial design. If you want really good keyboards, pay 50 plus and get real spring loaded contacts. As in the old IBMs or Apple Extended.

Of course, the keys are not mounted in a chunk of polished metal. But you don't type on the surround, but on the keys.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by Manik on Tue 7th Aug 2007 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE"
Manik Member since:
2005-07-06

Not an accident that all the reviews are about how the keyboard looks. If it was great ID, they would be about how it feels.


Given that nobody has put his hand on it yet, no one can say how it feels.

Reply Score: 2

Egonomics
by exigentsky on Wed 8th Aug 2007 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE"
exigentsky Member since:
2005-07-09

According to Steve Job's presentation, the keyboard is also an improvement in terms of ergonomics. More specifically, he mentioned the benefits of not having the front part of the keyboard and the touch area so far from the surface. There is also the helpful slant. Anyway, while I'm sure looks were the focus, ergonomics weren't an afterthought.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Egonomics
by Obscurus on Wed 8th Aug 2007 01:48 UTC in reply to "Egonomics"
Obscurus Member since:
2006-04-20

For me the ergonomics are crap (although still better than most standard keyboards) - there is no possibility of having it perfectly flat on the desktop, or even at a negative angle, which is what most occupational therapists recommend. I have an Evoluent keyboard, which is about 1cm thick and lies perfectly flat on the desk. It is fantastic, although the key layout took a while to get used to. Angled keyboards give me wrist strain, and I'm annoyed that apple ruined an otherwise perfectly good keyboard by making it impossible to lie flat on the desk.

A slant is anything but helpful if you understand the biomechanics of the arm and wrist(unless the slant is a negative one, ie, they keyboard slopes away from you).

If I could justify the expense, I would get the Logitech DeNovo Edge keyboard, by far the best keyboard ever designed, but damn that price tag!

Anyway, that is my rant for the day...

EDIT: don't get me started on the Mighty Mouse....

Edited 2007-08-08 01:54

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Egonomics
by Xaero_Vincent on Wed 8th Aug 2007 01:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Egonomics"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

Yeah... I was looking at the keyboard.

What happens if you drop it?

It looks very thin... almost like a foldable keyboard for PDAs and UMPCs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Egonomics
by Obscurus on Wed 8th Aug 2007 02:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Egonomics"
Obscurus Member since:
2006-04-20

What happens if you drop it?

Just... don't. They are too expensive to risk finding that out. Actually, they are built out of a single thick sheet of perspex with an aluminium backing, so would think they are pretty tough, but I would still not be letting my kids near it...

They are very thin, yet they have the key travel of a normal keyboard. They feel very nice, and the built in cursor controller is pretty nifty. If you need a number pad though, you might want to give it a miss, as it doesn't have one. Logitech make some good shit, even if it is a tad expensive. The MX revolution is a very nice mouse, and compliments the DeNovo edge nicely (combine the two of them and you are looking at over $500 AUD, which could get you a lot of cheaper keyboards, so you would want to have money to burn to justify the expense of it all).

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Egonomics
by Moochman on Wed 8th Aug 2007 03:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Egonomics"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Say all you want about the "biomechanics of my hand", a keyboard is just more comfortable for me to type on if it's slanting toward me. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

P.S. if what you say is true, then why did the supposedly well-researched MS natural keyboard still have the keys slanted toward the user at something of an angle?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Egonomics
by Obscurus on Wed 8th Aug 2007 09:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Egonomics"
Obscurus Member since:
2006-04-20

Microsoft's research was rubbish. Their so-called ergonomic keyboards are anything but - they have a steep angle, which require the user to bend their wrist up, which puts stress on the ligaments of the wrist after prolonged use, and the split keyboard designs cause the elbows to splay outward, placing stress on the shoulders. Most experts in the field of ergonomics regard Microsoft keyboards as horrible monstrosities of bad design, and I certainly share that view.

The only reason computer keyboards were ever designed with a tilt was because that is how typewriters were designed. Typewriters were built this way out of mechanical necessity (more expensive and advanced typewriters were flatter), not because it is good to type on this position. The first computer keyboards resembled typewriters, simply becasue that is what people were used to. The most ergonomic position for your hands is to be slightly curved inwards, as they are when relaxed. It is hard and expensive to design a desk and keyboard that allows for a negative tilt, so a flat, ultra-thin keyboard is the best compromise between ergonomics and practicality.

In my workplace, our occupational therapists recommend that the angle of the keyboard should be parallel to the angle of the forearm, which if your desk is the correct height, is either perfectly flat or as negative as your setup will comfortably allow. Obviously, if you can't touch type very well, a negatively angled keyboard will be quite difficult to use, for obvious reasons.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Egonomics
by JonathanBThompson on Wed 8th Aug 2007 22:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Egonomics"
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

The slant of the Microsoft Natural Keyboard may not be ideal for anyone, but that may be partially a matter of taste.

However, when it comes to the split keyboard issue, while for some people that may be a problem (those that are fairly narrow of shoulders) for those that are wider than the average person, that's actually an advantage because a straight keyboard makes us scrunch our shoulders in too tight, or bend our wrists too much, and thus cutting off the nerves through the wrist a bit, which becomes more noticeable over a long period of time.

The best solution would also be more expensive to make: one that can vary the split from a full, regular old-fashioned keyboard to that where it splits as wide open as you want, and also allows you to adjust the slant angle in any which way you want, since not all desks and users are created equal.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Egonomics
by Moochman on Fri 10th Aug 2007 02:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Egonomics"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

I guess that explains why I prefer the slant. Most of the desks I type with are high enough that my forarm is slanting down toward my elbows.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by Simba on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:32 UTC in reply to "RE"
Simba Member since:
2005-10-08

> Why don't other manufacturers get it? This is what consumers
> what from a computer.

It's not what I want from a computer. I want something that I can expand. I don't want an all in one system with a monitor built into it.

Apple still doesn't make the system I want. And I've given up that they ever will. I want an expandable Mac Pro type system, that doesn't cost $2499 because it has a quad Xeon processor (which I don't need). Why oh why can't Apple make a reasonably priced expandable system? With Apple it is either low end, or high end. There is no in between.

As far as the keyboard, if those keys have as little tactile feedback as it looks like they must have, considering that they hardly extend off the surface of the keyboard at all, than I don't think I would like it. And it would seem to be another example of Apple placing aesthetics over function.

Edited 2007-08-07 22:34

Reply Score: 4

RE
by VManOfMana on Wed 8th Aug 2007 00:00 UTC in reply to "RE"
VManOfMana Member since:
2006-11-01

[quote]
As far as the keyboard, if those keys have as little tactile feedback as it looks like they must have, considering that they hardly extend off the surface of the keyboard at all, than I don't think I would like it. And it would seem to be another example of Apple placing aesthetics over function.
[/quote]

If the keys of the new iMac keyboard are anything like the keys of the MacBook, yes, they do provide tactile feedback, and IMO, its very nice.

C'mon guys. At least let's not fall into prejudging things before even giving them a try.

Reply Score: 2

RE
by Moochman on Wed 8th Aug 2007 03:55 UTC in reply to "RE"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Yep, I think you should pretty much give up on your quest. It really is hopeless. But I don't blame Apple. Sure, one of their motivating factors is that you have to buy a new computer every time you want an upgrade (other than RAM). But it seems to me that the majority of (non-gamer) people already follow this buying model, regardless of whether they could theoretically upgrade their PC or not. So why not have a PC that takes up as little room and looks as sleek as possible?

Edited 2007-08-08 03:56

Reply Score: 3

RE
by tyrione on Wed 8th Aug 2007 01:06 UTC in reply to "RE"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

I'll buy 2 of the new wired keyboards.

One for a Mac and the other for a Linux Workstation.

Does anyone know how much time it will take for Xorg keymappings of this new keyboard to be added?

Reply Score: 2

RE
by kozo on Wed 8th Aug 2007 02:21 UTC in reply to "RE"
kozo Member since:
2006-02-02

because every damn IE grads are in Apple? Kidding.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by Soulbender on Wed 8th Aug 2007 06:17 UTC in reply to "RE"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"This just floors me. Why don't other manufacturers get it?"

You mean all those other manufacturers that sell much more of their designs than Apple does?

"This is what consumers what from a computer. "

Now, I'm not going to say it doesn't look good, because it does, but is it what people want?
If that really was true Apple would have a much larger market share. No doubt a lot of people like it but it's probably not for Joe Average. It's like saying that Bang & Olufsen is what people want out of audio/video equipment.

Reply Score: 3

RE
by Moulinneuf on Wed 8th Aug 2007 14:10 UTC in reply to "RE"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

"but is it what people want? "

Yes , the problem is the same with everything , the wallet don't meet what people want , that's why when they see 1200$ :

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/...

They go for the 500$ Laptop or desktop from Dell that is more in line with there budget in majority.

Apple as had this problem for years , there payment plan and special offer are not available and easy to get everywhere.

If your budget is tight witch one do you pick the 12$ -15$ monthly payment or the 29$ - 45$.

Go in a computer store that as Apple products , watch how a lot of people go and look at them , but watch what they buy in majority.

Reply Score: 1

RE
by Moochman on Fri 10th Aug 2007 02:11 UTC in reply to "RE"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually I know a lot of people that won't go with Apple simply because they don't want to adapt to a new OS, for whom price has nothing to do with it. They tend to agree that Apples look slick, but they insist that they want Windows. I've tried to persuade them against Vista, but alas, I feat it's a futile battle.

Reply Score: 2

in the ad
by YNOP on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:02 UTC
YNOP
Member since:
2005-07-02

did anyone notice that the mouse was on the left side in the ad.
would be happy to see lefties given some props. however i am assuming some graphic designer just mirrored the image without thinken ;)

im left handed .. but still use mouse on right side. it works out as use the tablet on the left side. we are always haven to adapt to this silly right handed world ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: in the ad
by hjeff on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:23 UTC in reply to "in the ad"
hjeff Member since:
2006-01-05

I try to divide the non-keyboard chores evenly and use a symmetric trackball (LogicTech Marble Mouse) and/or mouse (Apple Mighty Mouse). You can swap the left/right buttons on the Mighty Mouse so should be good for lefties, since it's otherwise left-right symmetric. (There is one subtle user-interface assymetry, a rule that if both left and right buttons are pressed, the left button activates.)

Reply Score: 2

RE: in the ad
by Twyst on Tue 7th Aug 2007 20:14 UTC in reply to "in the ad"
Twyst Member since:
2007-08-07

I always thought the original single click mice were designed to be used on either side. Even the Mighty Mouse is usable as a lefty. All you have to do is go into Keyboard/Mouse settings and change the left and right click buttons and wallah.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: in the ad
by bousozoku on Tue 7th Aug 2007 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE: in the ad"
bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

They were always designed that way and any mouse with multiple buttons can have the buttons logically swapped but you don't see the mouse on the left side of the keyboard in most cases.

Unfortunately, it's tough to find 3rd party mice that can be used with either hand. I stick with Logitech trackballs.

Reply Score: 1

RE: in the ad
by tyrione on Wed 8th Aug 2007 00:31 UTC in reply to "in the ad"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

I'm a Lefty and yet all mouse work is done in my right hand.

I also pitched Left and batted Right. I can bat Left but was taught to bat Right.

Us lefties always catch a baseball with our a mit on our Right hand. It was only natural for me to use the mouse in my Right hand.

Reply Score: 2

Is the "foot" removable?
by meianoite on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:04 UTC
meianoite
Member since:
2006-04-05

Sorry for the lacking vocabulary, I'm sure there's a proper name for it; but is the "foot" removable?

If so, I might just let go of my MacBook Pro lust (waiting for the 17" LED version and hoping that the cheaper dollar will make it easier for me to get myself one without giving up a kidney and half my liver) and get the 24" model.

It's only the ATI GPU that makes me not 100% enthusiastic about the new model. And the use of the SO-DIMM form factor for memory. And the lack of S/PDIF.

(which makes me wonder: I guess Apple decided to offer some pieces of hardware exclusively in the Pro line: S/PDIF, NVIDIA G8x. Thankfully, the embargo on bundling Firewire 800 on the consumer product line is lifted!)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Is the "foot" removable?
by Tyr. on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:04 UTC in reply to "Is the "foot" removable?"
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry for the lacking vocabulary, I'm sure there's a proper name for it; but is the "foot" removable?


I believe on the 24" model it is detachable to use the vesa mount :

"With a tool in this kit, you can remove the iMac stand and attach the VESA Mount Adapter to the computer"

( http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/... )

Of course that's the old model, but since the new one has a vesa mount adapter too I guess it will work in much the same way.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Is the "foot" removable?
by ernipiggy on Wed 8th Aug 2007 01:34 UTC in reply to "Is the "foot" removable?"
ernipiggy Member since:
2007-08-08

The "foot" is a VESA compatible foot, so you can replace it with any industry standard VESA support.

The digital audio in/out is still there.

Reply Score: 1

iLife
by Eugenia on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:05 UTC
Eugenia
Member since:
2005-06-28

Too bad that iLife requires 1.4.x to work, there are still lots of users with 1.3.9 Macs.

Reply Score: 1

RE: iLife
by Tom K on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:08 UTC in reply to "iLife"
Tom K Member since:
2005-07-06

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

And I think the correct notation is "10.4.X". :-P

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: iLife
by Eugenia on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:39 UTC in reply to "RE: iLife"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

> You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Why not? A lot of people still *have* to use OSX 10.3.9 in business because of hardware compatibility driver problems. Apple has a span of full driver compatibility only up to 2 years and so many in the prosumer or professional space has to stay put with older versions.

>And I think the correct notation is "10.4.X". :-P

No, it's not really. And, I don't really care.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: iLife
by henrikmk on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: iLife"
henrikmk Member since:
2005-07-10

Eugenia:

Why not? A lot of people still *have* to use OSX 10.3.9 in business because of hardware compatibility driver problems.


http://theocacao.com/document.page/397

Besides, I think they might have pulled some Leopard tech into Tiger to achieve iLife 08, and it's just too much work to get that further down the OS chain to Panther. Some things like Core Data apps, which is a basic development method for Tiger apps, is not possible under Panther, so the whole app must be rewritten to use older not-so-good methods. Similarly there will be a lot of things that are not possible under Tiger with Leopard.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: iLife
by Kroc on Tue 7th Aug 2007 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: iLife"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Core Data is just an API around SQLite; a 250Kb executable.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: iLife
by henrikmk on Tue 7th Aug 2007 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: iLife"
henrikmk Member since:
2005-07-10

That still doesn't make it work under Panther.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: iLife
by dagw on Tue 7th Aug 2007 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: iLife"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Well yes, but if apple wanted to make it work it would be trivial for them to do so. They are basically forcing OS upgrades on people for reasons that have nothing to with technical limitations.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: iLife
by wonea on Wed 8th Aug 2007 11:42 UTC in reply to "iLife"
wonea Member since:
2005-10-28

Your missing out running 10.3. Seriously 10.4 is much better! I ran 10.2 for years then made the jump, sorry I didn't keep pace of the upgrades. Sadly I think 10.5 will be the last upgrade my very old Quicksilver will hack.

Reply Score: 1

KB
by MattPie on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:07 UTC
MattPie
Member since:
2006-04-18

That Keyboard is so pretty I'm tempted to give up my trusty IBM Model M. I'll have to go tap away on it for a bit to decide if the keys are good.

Reply Score: 1

Nvidia
by poundsmack on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:09 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

what I dont understand is why AMD/ATI instead of nvidia. Apple went with intel and while currently intel is not offering anyhting but integrated graphics, it just seems more logical to go for Nvidia. Nvidia's product line is (debatibly) better acrosss the board and only keeps getting better. and there developers tools (though i am unaware of any for OSX) are amazing for optimizing things to there GPU's if all apples had NVIDIA these optimizations could make the Graphical aspect of teh OS (and graphical apps) fly!

Reply Score: 5

RE: Nvidia
by Mage66 on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:41 UTC in reply to "Nvidia"
Mage66 Member since:
2005-07-11

Probably because ATI gave Apple a better deal. Apple has supplied NVIDIA chips for the eMac line and other computers in the past.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Nvidia
by exigentsky on Tue 7th Aug 2007 21:43 UTC in reply to "Nvidia"
exigentsky Member since:
2005-07-09

I tend to agree. However, Apple is by no means only using Ati (AMD), they use Nvidia too. For example, the Macbook Pro has an Nvidia 8600M GT, which is the best when it comes to mobile graphics. Thus, this situation can always change.

Apple has a bigger problem when it comes to graphics cards. Apart from the 8600M GT in the Macbook Pro, Apple offers only mediocre graphics cards. Where is the Nvidia 8800 Ultra (or even GT) or the Ati 1950 XTX? Where are the graphics cards that gamers can actually use? Where are the cards for those who want great performance? Apple doesn't even offer them as options. I hope that this will change, especially now that more games are coming to the Mac. It's a serious gap in the product line. It's hard to imagine that the best card for the Mac Pro, a machine that when maxed out can exceed $15,000, is an Ati Radeon x1900 XT ($200), a card that just barely touches the high end. Of course this is still better than what's available for the iMac or Macbook, but it isn't enough for a company priding itself on having the best computers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nvidia
by Moochman on Wed 8th Aug 2007 04:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Nvidia"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, high performance graphics cards create a lot of heat, make a lot of noise with their fans, and take up a lot of space in the system casing. I think it's pretty clear why they're not available as options in the iMac.

As for the Mac Pro, what's to stop you from buying it with the lowest-priced option and upgrading it yourself?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Nvidia DRIVERS
by exigentsky on Wed 8th Aug 2007 07:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Nvidia"
exigentsky Member since:
2005-07-09

The heat issue is overblown. It's true that higher performance graphics cards are usually a bit hotter, unless you go for an overclocked one, the difference is marginal. In fact, the trend has been for cooler cards. The next Nvidia car, the 8800M is stated to use even less energy than the 8600M.

Secondly, why would I want to pay for a graphics card twice? But beyond that, it's not clear that an Nvidia 8800 Ultra (for a Mac Pro) would also have the appropriate drivers for OS X. In fact, it's not only unclear, it is very improbably that there would be the appropriate drivers.

BTW: Another thing that sort of bothers me is that the iMac is using laptop class processors. This means it's going to be slower but consume less power and generate less heat. However, if it isn't really faster than a Macbook Pro, why bother to even get a desktop. Of course there are some reasons: bigger screen, more hard disk space, better graphics etc., but to me, the greatest benefit of a desktop has always been better performance (and thus a better processor). Having the iMac use laptop processors blurs the line between desktops and laptops.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Nvidia
by tyrione on Wed 8th Aug 2007 00:34 UTC in reply to "Nvidia"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

It also keeps Apple viable within AMD as well.

Reply Score: 1

v BOORIING
by theGrump on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:12 UTC
RE: BOORIING
by henrikmk on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:16 UTC in reply to "BOORIING"
henrikmk Member since:
2005-07-10

otherwise, YAWN....its a...a...A..COMPUTER!!!! this changes everything!


Yes, I'm sure Apple are yawning all the way to the bank. :-)

Reply Score: 4

RE: BOORIING
by Duffman on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:21 UTC in reply to "BOORIING"
Duffman Member since:
2005-11-23

BOORIING
Well, not more than all the news on the last x.y.z release of an XXX linux distribution or the last beta of XXX window manager.

BOORIING
Ok, so just don't read it and don't waste your time commenting it (but it seems you don't have something better to do).

Edited 2007-08-07 19:22

Reply Score: 8

RE: BOORIING
by RGCook on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:44 UTC in reply to "BOORIING"
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

You're kidding right? Tell me the picture of the new iMac next to a "typical" Dell setup doesn't get to you. theGrump, you are indeed!

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: BOORIING
by theGrump on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE: BOORIING"
RE[3]: BOORIING
by RGCook on Wed 8th Aug 2007 01:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: BOORIING"
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

The iMac is not a laptop! But I like your attitude.

Reply Score: 2

Mini
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:25 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

The new keyboard will most certainly find its way into my household.

Eugenia has been pushing me a bit to replace my Cube with the new (Core 2 Duo!) Mac Mini, but the price here in The Netherlands of 599 EUR (that's 225 USD more expensive than the US version) just makes it almost impossible for me to justify. I don't care what all the Apple people scream - you cannot defend, with a straight face, the fact that Apple's low-end Mac Mini is almost 1.4 times as expensive in The Netherlands than it is in the US.

On top of that, the Mini is uglier than used toilet paper compared to the Cube. Then again, every other computer is.

Edited 2007-08-07 19:25 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mini
by Mage66 on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:40 UTC in reply to "Mini"
Mage66 Member since:
2005-07-11

Could part of the difference be due to shipping costs from the factory to the Netherlands and the need to pay import duties when they enter the country???

Bet if you bought one in the United States, after shipping and Duties, you wouldn't save much money...

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Mini
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Mini"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Could part of the difference be due to shipping costs from the factory to the Netherlands and the need to pay import duties when they enter the country???


Apple's factories aren't in the US. Apple needs to pay import duties and transport cots in/to the US too.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Mini
by Mage66 on Tue 7th Aug 2007 20:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mini"
Mage66 Member since:
2005-07-11

I believe Apple does final assembly of product in Mexico. And then imports the finished product from there.

And due to the Free Trade agreements between the U.S. and Mexico on such things... There are no duties.

I would complain to your local Government (or maybe the European Union) for slamming such high taxes on such items.

Not to mention, shipping items in by air or ship to the Netherlands HAS to cost more than a truck coming across the border from Mexico.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Mini
by Tuishimi on Tue 7th Aug 2007 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mini"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I tracked mine from China.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Mini
by aliquis on Wed 8th Aug 2007 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mini"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Machines going to europe ships from Singapore I think, but yes, they still fly. And EU might have some import duties except our higher taxes and (atleast in Sweden) better warranties.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Mini
by kaiwai on Wed 8th Aug 2007 16:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mini"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I believe Apple does final assembly of product in Mexico. And then imports the finished product from there.


Actually no. Apple's laptops are assembled by Quanta whose head off is in Taiwan but have assembling plants in China. All of Apple's products are outsourced and assembled by the same companies as HP, Lenovo etc.

Regarding the price; nothing to do with taxes, everything to do with currency fluctuations, Apple hedging foreign cash reserves against these swings - as well as local taxes, and extra costs.

An example of this would be computers sold in New Zealand - although in the US they can get alway with a 1 year warranty, in NZ fair 'wear and tear' for a computer means that Apple must provide atleast a 3 year warranty on their computers sold in NZ. This adds costs - at to the fact that NZ is down at the bottom of the world with a small population - it all ads up.

For me, I don't think that their prices are outrageous, considering what Apple are obliged to do under NZ law compared to the rather wishy-washy consumer protection that exists in the US when it comes to warranties.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mini
by Ralf. on Tue 7th Aug 2007 20:59 UTC in reply to "Mini"
Ralf. Member since:
2005-08-13

Thom,

the US price is without VAT!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mini
by The Baron on Tue 7th Aug 2007 21:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Mini"
The Baron Member since:
2005-07-06

Thom,

the US price is without VAT!


And it's before tax as well. We still have to pay taxes here in the US.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Mini
by Ralf. on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mini"
Ralf. Member since:
2005-08-13

VAT = Value Added Tax

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Mini
by mind!dagger on Wed 8th Aug 2007 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mini"
mind!dagger Member since:
2007-06-26

Well, maybe, just maybe, the people of our republic, will elect an official with a mind, jab intended. The elected official will work with our congress to do away with the personal income tax, totally unconstitutional, and all the other `pork barrel` taxes we pay here in the U.S.

You should see the horrendous taxes they take out of my paycheck every two weeks along with the cost of medical insurance premiums. I could afford a lot more `stuff` if wasn't `nickel and dimed` to death by our own federal government.

I realize a federal republic based on democratic principles is far from perfect and expensive - read as "I don't mind paying taxes as long as I can actually pay my own bills" - but funding an unpopular political regime and a war is not my idea of life.

What were we talking about - oh yeah - OS X and Macs.

Edited 2007-08-08 15:57

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Mini
by kaiwai on Wed 8th Aug 2007 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mini"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I realize a federal republic based on democratic principles is far from perfect and expensive - read as "I don't mind paying taxes as long as I can actually pay my own bills" - but funding an unpopular political regime and a war is not my idea of life.


Maybe you guys in the US need to decide whether you want a strong centralised government or more state power - if you want more centralisation, outlaw the right for states to tax, and you'll suddenly find more money in your cheque each week.

The US could easily be slimmed down by merging states into large provinces/counties and having a strong centralised government.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Mini
by mind!dagger on Wed 8th Aug 2007 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Mini"
mind!dagger Member since:
2007-06-26

You can't even get half the population of the to realize, "en alguna parte en Tejas una aldea está faltando a idiota".

Edited 2007-08-08 19:28

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Mini
by stestagg on Wed 8th Aug 2007 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mini"
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

What you should measure is your individual quality of life, and not the meaningless numbers handed to you every month. The average American has a far higher Quality of Living than most people around the world. This is because you have a government that (largely) works and is not corrupt. People always complain about their government, but I can guarantee that if yours broke down, you would be living in a far worse world.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mini
by Tuishimi on Tue 7th Aug 2007 21:44 UTC in reply to "Mini"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Aye... it would rock if they unveiled a beautiful, brushed aluminum cube.

How cool what that be?! I'd be all over that...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mini
by daveiler on Wed 8th Aug 2007 05:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Mini"
daveiler Member since:
2006-05-26

If you stacked three Mac Minis on top of each other it would be roughly a cube.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Mini
by ThunderBug on Wed 8th Aug 2007 22:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mini"
ThunderBug Member since:
2006-03-05

I have 4 minis and a drive case stacked on top of each other and it is almost a tower. :-))

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mini
by Tyr. on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:18 UTC in reply to "Mini"
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

but the price here in The Netherlands of 599 EUR (that's 225 USD more expensive than the US version) just makes it almost impossible for me to justify. I don't care what all the Apple people scream - you cannot defend, with a straight face, the fact that Apple's low-end Mac Mini is almost 1.4 times as expensive in The Netherlands than it is in the US.


This is not something exclusive to Apple

Dell Inspiron 531 :
US Price : 499 USD
NL Price : 679 EUR ( 933 USD )

And I like how my mini looks, so there.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Mini
by Xaero_Vincent on Wed 8th Aug 2007 00:12 UTC in reply to "Mini"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

The Mac Mini has a better value now but still...

$897 Mac mini has:

2.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Basic keyboard & mouse
128 MB Intel 950 GC
1 GB DDR2 SD-RAM
120 GB SATA HDD
8x SuperDrive
Mac OS X 10.4

$894 Dell Inspiron 530 has:

2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Premium keyboard & mouse
Sound Blaster Audicy HD
128 MB ATI Radeon X1300
13-1 media card reader
56K PCI Data/Fax modem
Win Vista Home Premium
16x DVD+/-RW Drive
2 GB DDR2 SD-RAM
500 GB SATA HDD

The PC is $3 less with that much more.

Edited 2007-08-08 00:13

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Mini
by Sabon on Wed 8th Aug 2007 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mini"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

The Mac Mini has a better value now but still...

$897 Mac mini has: ...
Mac OS X 10.4

$894 Dell Inspiron 530 has: ...
Windows whatever

The PC is $3 less with that much more.


The problem is that the Dell comes with any kind of Windows. I just won't put up with that MajorSuck series of OSs anymore.

Windows is like a 60s car that needs WAY too much maintenance.
OS X is like a new Toyota that needs little maintenance and lasts longer.

PS: You don't save $3 when you consider you still have to pay for AV software, Anti-Spam software, and other utilities that slow your Windows computer down and still don't protect it well enough.

My time is worth something. The more time I spend maintaining my computer the less time I'm working. So now matter how fast your Windows computer is, it's still slower than any Mac due to maintenance time.

Sorry but Linux takes too much maintenance time too. I don't buy a car so "I can have fun wrenching on it." I buy a car that needs little maintenance so I can get out in the world and have a life. Not a computerized life.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Mini
by Xaero_Vincent on Wed 8th Aug 2007 01:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mini"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

I've used OS X and haven't seen anything that might render it a better OS than Vista or the best desktop Linux distributions.

OS X is certainly more flashy than Windows but visual effects don't do an OS much justice, overall; besides Linux with Compiz Fusion puts them to shame anyway.

AV software, Anti-Spyware, etc. software are needed less with Vista because of all the built-in security features. Plus, there is always free alternatives to commercial ones.

Bottom line: OS X is not a valid reason to pay a lot more for a Mac PC; especially since you can *illegally* put OS X on a PC anyway.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Mini
by Arun on Wed 8th Aug 2007 04:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Mini"
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

Bottom line: OS X is not a valid reason to pay a lot more for a Mac PC; especially since you can *illegally* put OS X on a PC anyway.

May be not for you. For the millions that buy Macs every quarter it is most certainly. OS X for me is a very valid reason to buy at Mac, second it is Apple's attention to details in design and excellent customer service. Cheers!

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Mini
by Sabon on Wed 8th Aug 2007 06:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Mini"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

I've used OS X and haven't seen anything that might render it a better OS than Vista or the best desktop Linux distributions.

OS X is certainly more flashy than Windows but visual effects don't do an OS much justice, overall; besides Linux with Compiz Fusion puts them to shame anyway.


That statement right there tells you have taken a peek at OS X but you obviously have not "used" OS X. It's -not- about the flash. It's about the Mac OS X software (including the OS) works and how it is easier and takes less work to create a far better product. If you had really used it you would know that and realize it isn't about the flash of OS X. You appreciate it. But it isn't about that.

AV software, Anti-Spyware, etc. software are needed less with Vista because of all the built-in security features. Plus, there is always free alternatives to commercial ones.


Really? It would be really interesting hearing you talk to the security people where I work. They do not see one tiny bit less work for themselves because of Vista. Zero less work and they are MS fan boys and girls. You should hear them and how excited they are. But they admit -very- quickly there will be the same amount of work keeping Vista secure.

As for free. Free isn't free when you have to maintain it. It costs the company I work for a lot of money to maintain that stuff. The reason Linux is better than Windows in a lot of ways has nothing to do whether it is free or not. Free is only good when you have control over it. Without control nothing is free.

Bottom line: OS X is not a valid reason to pay a lot more for a Mac PC; especially since you can *illegally* put OS X on a PC anyway.


Go ahead and buy your cheap PC. And when you are done upgrading it to more ram, bigger hard drive, better video card, etc., you'll find out one thing. At -best- you have paid the same as you would have for a Mac. But more likely. After all that you're still stuck with Windows. Your are stick stuck with your ugly PC that is cobbled together with all the cables and wires.

Sure you got it for less ... in the beginning. But not in the end. Not in the end. Six versions of Windows from now they'll still be playing the marketing game of "This version of Windows is the most secure version of Windows we've ever released." Guess what. You'll still be buying AV software because you'll have to. And you'll have to spend the time maintaining it.

I quit that stupid merry-go-round. It made me sick. I got on a better ride. And it just -happens- to be flashy. Icing on the cake. Yummy cake. And I get to eat it too.

Reply Score: 8

RE[6]: Mini
by Xaero_Vincent on Wed 8th Aug 2007 15:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Mini"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

dup.

Edited 2007-08-08 16:06

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Mini
by Xaero_Vincent on Wed 8th Aug 2007 15:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Mini"
Xaero_Vincent Member since:
2006-08-18

That statement right there tells you have taken a peek at OS X but you obviously have not "used" OS X. It's -not- about the flash. It's about the Mac OS X software (including the OS) works and how it is easier and takes less work to create a far better product. If you had really used it you would know that and realize it isn't about the flash of OS X. You appreciate it. But it isn't about that.

I didn't see anything about the included Apple software that made it more productive. The only real advantage was how simple it was to install apps: dragging packages to the Applications folder. However, its not much less intuitive to use a installer in Windows or a package manager in Linux

Really? It would be really interesting hearing you talk to the security people where I work. They do not see one tiny bit less work for themselves because of Vista. Zero less work and they are MS fan boys and girls. You should hear them and how excited they are. But they admit -very- quickly there will be the same amount of work keeping Vista secure.

Actually, the security features in Vista surpass OS X 10.4. Vista has Mandatory Access Control, Address Space Randomization, full DEP, Protected mode IE, Windows Defender, and BitLocker.

That said, I'm more of a Linux guy now, who runs Fedora. Fedora has even more security features than Vista.

As for free. Free isn't free when you have to maintain it. It costs the company I work for a lot of money to maintain that stuff. The reason Linux is better than Windows in a lot of ways has nothing to do whether it is free or not. Free is only good when you have control over it. Without control nothing is free.

Free has different meanings. Of course Linux is free as in cost (for me) but its also freedom in that I have no restrictions how I can use the software it on my system; I must only abide by the four freedoms of the GPL when I wish to distribute free software.

Go ahead and buy your cheap PC. And when you are done upgrading it to more ram, bigger hard drive, better video card, etc., you'll find out one thing. At -best- you have paid the same as you would have for a Mac. But more likely. After all that you're still stuck with Windows. Your are stick stuck with your ugly PC that is cobbled together with all the cables and wires.

Sure you got it for less ... in the beginning. But not in the end. Not in the end. Six versions of Windows from now they'll still be playing the marketing game of "This version of Windows is the most secure version of Windows we've ever released." Guess what. You'll still be buying AV software because you'll have to. And you'll have to spend the time maintaining it.


An attack out of desperation... nods head.

In many cases, I can get better PC system (spec wise) for less money than a Mac system; I've demonstrated many examples on OSNews. A decent PC today wont need upgrades for awhile, same goes for your Mac PC.

The difference here is a non-Apple PC wont have the Apple form factor since Apple guards it's designs with force and litigation.

Edited 2007-08-08 16:05

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Mini
by Mellin on Thu 9th Aug 2007 11:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Mini"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06
RE[7]: Mini
by Sabon on Fri 10th Aug 2007 04:36 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Mini"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Again it's obvious that you haven't really used OS X. And you really think that security is better in Vista than OS X? What a laugh.

You can't look at an OS for five minutes and "get it." And obviously you are a looooong ways from getting OS X.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Mini
by kaiwai on Wed 8th Aug 2007 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mini"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Sorry but Linux takes too much maintenance time too. I don't buy a car so "I can have fun wrenching on it." I buy a car that needs little maintenance so I can get out in the world and have a life. Not a computerized life.


Pardon? I've got a dv6209tx from HP, installed Solaris - no 'maintenance' required - all worked nicely out of the box. I use StarOffice, surf the web, watch some movies - so where do you come off claiming that Linux/UNIX requires 'too much maintenance time'?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Mini
by TownDrunk on Wed 8th Aug 2007 03:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mini"
TownDrunk Member since:
2005-11-28


The Mac Mini has a better value now but still...

$897 Mac mini has:

2.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Basic keyboard & mouse
128 MB Intel 950 GC
1 GB DDR2 SD-RAM
120 GB SATA HDD
8x SuperDrive
Mac OS X 10.4

$894 Dell Inspiron 530 has:

2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
Premium keyboard & mouse
Sound Blaster Audicy HD
128 MB ATI Radeon X1300
13-1 media card reader
56K PCI Data/Fax modem
Win Vista Home Premium
16x DVD+/-RW Drive
2 GB DDR2 SD-RAM
500 GB SATA HDD

The PC is $3 less with that much more.


Doesn't the mini also come with a remote control, Bluetooth and Firewire??

Reply Score: 4

RE: Mini
by binarycrusader on Wed 8th Aug 2007 03:59 UTC in reply to "Mini"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't care what all the Apple people scream - you cannot defend, with a straight face, the fact that Apple's low-end Mac Mini is almost 1.4 times as expensive in The Netherlands than it is in the US.

On top of that, the Mini is uglier than used toilet paper compared to the Cube. Then again, every other computer is.


It doesn't need to be defended. That's pretty typical with most electronics. Do you have any idea how expensive it is for US businesses to do business in European countries given how pathetic our dollar is in value compared to yours? Yes, that's probably el-presidente-dictator Bush's fault, but I'm sick of hearing this lame complaint over and over again.

The cost of business is *NOT* equal in all countries. I can't even begin to understand why you would believe that an item should be the same price in all countries when it usually isn't the same price even in the same country in all areas (although it is in Apple's case for the US).

For the record, I don't own a Mac, and never have. The last Apple computer I owned was an Apple//C+.

It's just that as an employee of a company that does development in the Netherlands, Mexico, Australia, Germany, and the US, I have become *very* aware that things are a lot more expensive for us to do in some countries...

I agree that the price might be able to be lower, but I don't think it is reasonable to expect it to be the same, or be only a little more.

Edited 2007-08-08 04:06

Reply Score: 5

RE: Mini
by Moochman on Wed 8th Aug 2007 04:07 UTC in reply to "Mini"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Value added tax. Oh, and you are making more money, since you're EARNING EUROS (or at least, theoretically you are).

I have no sympathy for you. I'm an American living and studying in Europe but with most of my money earned in America, and due to the horrible exchange rate it's as if I pay an automatic 40% tax on everything I buy. You, on the other hand, probably make enough money to pay for your higher-priced goods. So deal with it.

Edited 2007-08-08 04:08

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mini
by memson on Thu 9th Aug 2007 08:04 UTC in reply to "Mini"
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

Okay.. so Thom compains about cost: yeah I do too, but you have to look at the bigger picture.

Economics: plain and simple.

(1) It costs money to import products in to Europe
- Transportation.
~ Fuel
~ Labour
~ Storage
~ Freight sosts
- Import duties.
- Cross border duties.
(2) It costs money to regionalize products (obviously excluding things like Labour, logistical and staffing costs here)
- PSU voltage and pins
~ European plugs
~ British/Irish plugs
- Keyboard decal
~ German
~ French
~ British
~ etc...
- Software
~ It costs money to do regression testing of the internationalization.
(3) VAT - as discussed
(4) Strength of currency.
- If the dollar was as strong as it was beofre 9/11 and the Irac War, we'd have a much better price. Because the dollar weakens even still today, things are getting more expensive over here and cheaper for us in the States. However, this is not a true picture - on an economical level, things cost more in the States to its residents *due* to the weakness of the dollar.

Reply Score: 3

Video option, good for video, poor for 3D
by Headrush on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:28 UTC
Headrush
Member since:
2006-01-03

Disappointed by the Radeon 2600 Pro video option.

Reply Score: 2

Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

A "good" comparison and benchmarch of the video card can be found here:

http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/ATI_Radeon_HD_2600_and_2400_Per...

Dunno how good the bechmark is, but all in all, these cards seem to lag a little bit behind nVidia. Although they seem to consume less power. I just hope that at least they didn't underclock these (like the MacBook Pro cards that are underclocked to generate less heat).

Reply Score: 1

iMac + Vista = love?
by Almafeta on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:29 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

I gotta find out if these iMacs can have OSX replaced with Vista. iMacs have the form factor I like (the monorail design, which I've wanted ever since I saw the original Monorails for sale), which would suit my space-restricted dorm room just fine... and Apple's signed an deal to sell to our school at a discount... and an aluminum case and keyboard just makes me drool. They're pretty much the only company selling the monorail design anywhere (and I've checked).

But if I wanted a BSD, I'd install PCBSD or FreeBSD... and just about every program I want or will need for class runs on Windows (sometimes exclusively)... and if Apple's proprietary hardware doesn't have Windows drivers, it won't matter anyways.

Too bad the Apple store seems to be down, I can't see if I can get it preinstalled...

Reply Score: 2

RE: iMac + Vista = love?
by Headrush on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:59 UTC in reply to "iMac + Vista = love?"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

You can't get it pre-installed but I'm sure you'll be able to install it yourself just like previous macs.

Reply Score: 2

RE: iMac + Vista = love?
by Tyr. on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:29 UTC in reply to "iMac + Vista = love?"
Tyr. Member since:
2005-07-06

But if I wanted a BSD, I'd install PCBSD or FreeBSD... and just about every program I want or will need for class runs on Windows (sometimes exclusively)... and if Apple's proprietary hardware doesn't have Windows drivers, it won't matter anyways.

Too bad the Apple store seems to be down, I can't see if I can get it preinstalled...


Apple Bootcamp (beta) ( http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ ) provides Windows drivers for the purpose of dual booting. Vista ran pretty well on the previous model imac. In fact so well MS Norway demoed Vista on an iMac :-) ( http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/29/microsoft-demoes-vista-on-an-ima... )

But it does not come preinstalled, and I suggest you don't boot into OS X before putting Vista on your iMac, people have been known to get hooked and convert :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: iMac + Vista = love?
by Almafeta on Tue 7th Aug 2007 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE: iMac + Vista = love?"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Apple Bootcamp (beta) ( http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/ ) provides Windows drivers for the purpose of dual booting.


Neat -- in one of the subpages, there's a list of what Apple hardware does and doesn't have drivers.

Thanks for pointing that out. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Amazing!
by Buck on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:31 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

The new iWork suite is amazing!! Check out the videos! Eat that Excel!
Also, this picture they have in the iMac gallery is hilarious and gets the right message across: http://images.apple.com/imac/images/gallery/imackeyboard_4_20070807...

Awesome updates all in all. Let's hope the displays are 8-bit.

Reply Score: 5

imovie 08
by sig33kde on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:34 UTC
sig33kde
Member since:
2006-04-04

is it just me or does imovie 08 seem to dumb down the movie making experience a little more? I was hoping for more features rather than less. Although I cant say much since i havent played with the software.

Reply Score: 1

Love the new iMac
by ronaldst on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:42 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

But the Keyboard is hideous. I've seen that design somewhere before. I just can't put my finger on it.

I wish they'd done something better with the Mac Mini. At least it's got 64-bit CPU now ready for Leopard's release. Intel GMA 950 graphics processor with 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory. Could have at least include a GMA X3100!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Love the new iMac
by tyrione on Wed 8th Aug 2007 01:04 UTC in reply to "Love the new iMac"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Which will be disabled since the ATi 2400 HD will be enabled.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Love the new iMac
by Moochman on Wed 8th Aug 2007 04:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Love the new iMac"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Huh? He's talking about the Mac Mini. ATI graphics do not seem to be an option...

Reply Score: 2

v
by tuzor on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:53 UTC
iWork
by ronaldst on Tue 7th Aug 2007 19:55 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

borrowed some concepts (Ribbon Bar) from MS Office I see... ;)

Reply Score: 2

Steve Jobs on market share:
by Matt24 on Tue 7th Aug 2007 20:31 UTC
Matt24
Member since:
2005-07-23

Is Apple’s goal to overtake the PC in market share? Jobs said, “Our goal is to make the best personal computers in the world and make products we are proud to sell and recommend to our family and friends. We want to do that at the lowest prices we can.

“But there’s some stuff in our industry that we wouldn’t be proud to ship. And we just can’t do it. We can’t ship junk,” said Jobs. “There are thresholds we can’t cross because of who we are. And we think that there’s a very significant slice of the [market] that wants that too. You’ll find that our products are not premium priced. You price out our competitors’ products, and add features that actually make them useful, and they’re the same or actually more expensive. We don’t offer stripped-down, lousy products.”

( macworld.com )

Reply Score: 1

RE: Steve Jobs on market share:
by aliquis on Wed 8th Aug 2007 14:58 UTC in reply to "Steve Jobs on market share:"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Oh, that explains why the graphics always sucks and why they are so expensive (if one doesn't count the software products included with the hardware.)

Reply Score: 1

MacTO
Member since:
2006-09-21

I seem to recall Steve Jobs giving a demo of Lotus Improv on his NeXT workstations. Improve, the program where you could store multi-dimensional datasets where everything was properly labelled (none of this A1, A2 nonsense), and equations used those human readable labels; you could then squeeze that dataset into a two-dimensional format (the spreadsheet part) with things arranged as you liked them. It was a truly beautiful program.

From the Numbers webpage, it looks like "Jobs" (or whoever was responsible for designing the product) remembered the human readable labels then forgot the rest. It kinda reminds me of the original Macintosh, where all they saw in its Xerox Parc predecessor was the GUI -- and forgot about that networking and object oriented programming bit.

Reply Score: 3

sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

150 posts and this is the only post on Numbers? Wow.

Reply Score: 3

disappointed
by FunkyELF on Tue 7th Aug 2007 20:51 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

No nVidia card?
I won't be buying one. I'd want to dual boot Linux.

Edit : Some more things that piss me off about it...

Can I hook up a laptop to it yet and use it as a monitor? If not...WHY THE HELL NOT? If so, ignore what follows.

If I'm buying a 24" iMac I better be able to dock something else there and use a screen.

This is almost as bad as DRM. You can only use this display with only one particular computer (the one inside it).

Edited 2007-08-07 20:57

Reply Score: 1

RE: disappointed
by Ralf. on Tue 7th Aug 2007 21:04 UTC in reply to "disappointed"
Ralf. Member since:
2005-08-13

The iMac is a Computer and not a Screen - and it never will be.
You want something to hook up your Notebook? Go and buy a TFT Screen.

Reply Score: 3

RE: disappointed
by rain on Tue 7th Aug 2007 21:37 UTC in reply to "disappointed"
rain Member since:
2005-07-09

I have to say that a DVI-in would be very nice. However, I understand why it's not there.

Complaining about the screen being tied to the computer in an all-in-one solution just doesn't make sense. If you don't like that then it's not an AIO you want.

I have a hard time understanding why they choose the ATI GPU though, seems like a really bad performer. But as long as it allows me to use Aperture and play some games at moderate settings I'm fine with it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: disappointed
by Moochman on Wed 8th Aug 2007 04:42 UTC in reply to "RE: disappointed"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Not just DVI-in, HDMI-in or component-in or even composite in would be really nice! Esp. considering the lack of TV tuner (yes yes I know that can be remedied via USB). The fact is, the iMac has a TV form factor, and some people may be tempted to use it in place of a TV. Of course, adding all those input ports wouldn't exactly be in keeping with Apple's minimalist design philosophy, so I guess I should forget it...

Edited 2007-08-08 04:43

Reply Score: 2

Mac pricing in europe.
by tuzor on Tue 7th Aug 2007 21:18 UTC
tuzor
Member since:
2007-08-07

First I have to admit that I often complain about Mac pricing in Europe.
Nevertheless it would be nice to get your facts straight first Thom.

First the US pricing is without VAT. It differs depending on every state and can become significant. Second, there's other factors coming in to place when it comes to selling products.

Take for example the Hitachi 7k1000.
Price at amazon.com: $402.95
Price at amazon.co.uk: £270.18 which is $545.91.
Thats almost a 40% increase in price (OR 1.4 as u put it).
Hmm... yeah Apple is evil. Thom and Eugenia, correct as usual.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mac pricing in europe.
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Aug 2007 21:38 UTC in reply to "Mac pricing in europe."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Please, don't make it seem as if I'm stupid. On average, VAT in the US is 8.5%, making the Mac Mini cost 650USD. That's still 175USD less than what I pay.

No matter how the Apple guys try to twist it, that's not in any way justifiable. Sure, this price has been established after market research in The Netherlands, and that's fine. But, in this day and age, people can check for worldwide prices, and these differences will be noted.

Maybe there's a reason why Apple's share in Europe is so low compared to its share in the US?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Mac pricing in europe.
by Kroc on Tue 7th Aug 2007 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac pricing in europe."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Apple's prices are good for the UK, it's just that they really don't compete in the average market. Curry's, PCWorld and Dixions (all owned by the same company) are common on every high street and shift millions of cheap PCs. Apple have only a handful of stores here in the UK, and all in more up-market areas. The reason the share is lower in Europe is because Apple are honestly not trying hard enough here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mac pricing in europe.
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac pricing in europe."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And in addition, even WITHOUT taxes (so prices leveled) the Mac Mini is still 1.3 times as expensive here as it is in the US.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Mac pricing in europe.
by The Baron on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mac pricing in europe."
The Baron Member since:
2005-07-06

Thom,

It sounds like you have an issue with VAT more than with Apple especially in light of what Tyr has shown.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Mac pricing in europe.
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mac pricing in europe."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thom,

It sounds like you have an issue with VAT more than with Apple especially in light of what Tyr has shown.


Like I said, even WITHOUT taxes, the Mac Mini is STILL 1.3 times as expensive here than it is in the US.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Mac pricing in europe.
by Moochman on Wed 8th Aug 2007 05:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Mac pricing in europe."
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Actually, it's only 1.16 times more expensive. See my comment below.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Mac pricing in europe.
by Mellin on Tue 7th Aug 2007 23:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mac pricing in europe."
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

the tax in sweden is 25%

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mac pricing in europe.
by tyrione on Wed 8th Aug 2007 04:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac pricing in europe."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

The only case you have is whether there is a price discrepancy between pre-tax prices.

Otherwise, call the EU and/or your local Country's representatives about the VAT and bitch.

Edited 2007-08-08 04:28

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Mac pricing in europe.
by Moochman on Wed 8th Aug 2007 05:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac pricing in europe."
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Let's take a look at all of the prices on both sides, WITHOUT TAX, and settle this once and for all.

Price of U.S. Mac mini in euros (excluding tax):
$599 = EUR 433.71

Price of Mac mini in the Netherlands excluding tax (VAT being 19%):
1.19x = 599
x = EUR 503.36

Difference: 503.36 - 433.71 = EUR 69.65 (aka $96.19)

...a hike of 16 percent, not too bad considering the strength of the euro against the dollar at the moment, if you ask me.

(And if you are thinking of complaining that, well, you normally don't count the VAT, just consider that you have free healthcare and education thanks in part to that. Don't like it, then why don't you move to America instead?)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Mac pricing in europe.
by Gryzor on Wed 8th Aug 2007 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac pricing in europe."
Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

Here's the price (tanken from Apple Spanish Store a few seconds ago) for the expensive 24'' model: (factory default, no BTO added)

Subtotal: Eur 1.861,22
Envío gratuito: Eur 0.00
IVA: Eur 297,80
Total del pedido: Eur 2.159,02

Note: IVA == VAT.

Reply Score: 1

PC equivalent?
by Joe User on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:07 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

Is there a PC manufacturor that sells very nice PCs like this iMac? I mean not just a cheap metalic white box...

Reply Score: 1

RE: PC equivalent?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:40 UTC in reply to "PC equivalent?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Is there a PC manufacturor that sells very nice PCs like this iMac? I mean not just a cheap metalic white box...

A Mac IS a PC.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: PC equivalent?
by Chicken Blood on Tue 7th Aug 2007 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE: PC equivalent?"
Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

Lets not get pedantic Thom. You know what he means.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: PC equivalent?
by Joe User on Wed 8th Aug 2007 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE: PC equivalent?"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

A Mac IS a PC.

Of course, but you know what I mean.

Reply Score: 1

RE: PC equivalent?
by Obscurus on Wed 8th Aug 2007 02:03 UTC in reply to "PC equivalent?"
Obscurus Member since:
2006-04-20

Aopen made a case that resembled the Mac Mini very closely, but it worked out much cheaper just to buy a Mac Mini once you added parts to it. They have since brought out a case that is similar in size to the Mac Mini, but looks much more distinctive (I suspect Apple made murmurings of a Trademark infringement lawsuit to Aopen).

If you have the money, there are a lot of PC case manufactures that sell very stylish, sleek PC cases and systems, but they are typically a lot more expensive than your run of the mill PC case.

Lian Li are well known for their brushed aluminium designs, and Silverstone make some pretty swish looking cases as well. I don't know how many people provide systems already built with such cases, they are mainly targeted at the enthusiast market who like to build their own PCs from scratch.

Do some googling, you will find a plethora of options out there, but you will probably find it is cheaper to just buy a Mac in most cases. If you can't stand OS X or just like building your own computer, the expense might be worth it, but given that you can install Windows on Intel Macs, buying a Mac and a Copy of windows may work out cheaper, depending on what specifications you want besides looks.

Reply Score: 3

by tuzor on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:29 UTC
tuzor
Member since:
2007-08-07

Tyr.
thanx for the reply. Its just comes to show how some people are short sighted.

Reply Score: 1

The iMac
by Dave_K on Tue 7th Aug 2007 22:45 UTC
Dave_K
Member since:
2005-11-16

I'm not exactly nuts about Apple's consumer hardware, but I have to admit after playing with an iMac for a while I'm highly tempted. This update makes them even more tempting and I'm not someone who buys a computer just because it'll look good on my desk.

You could argue about the spec and whether they're good value compared with a standard PC, but there's definitely something about the iMac that makes it worth a bit extra. It may not be a speed demon or gamers computer, but it's certainly fast enough for media centre or office use.

Apart from anything else they're surprisingly quiet machines. Even sitting on a desk in a quiet room they're a whisper rather than a roar. Quieter than most laptops I've used, and definitely better than most compact PCs. It's easy enough to build a quiet PC, but system noise is something that a lot of PC buiders pretty much ignore. It's particularly important if you want to use them as a media centre; there's not much point in hooking up expensive speakers if audio subtleties are drowned out by fan noise.

Reply Score: 3

airport
by SK8T on Wed 8th Aug 2007 04:32 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

btw the airport station has been updated, too. There is a now a gigabit ethernet connection.

(I find it very interessting that iMovie, iPhoto 08 still have aqua elements and iTunes doesnt.)

Reply Score: 2

Disappointed...
by Moochman on Wed 8th Aug 2007 05:27 UTC
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

...that there was no ultra-portable MacBook announced. Very sad. ;)

Reply Score: 2

MrSidecar
Member since:
2007-02-13

The keyboard seems, to me, a huge step forward in terms of everyday value. What Do I mean? Well, work on the white Apple Keyboard for 3 years and see for yourself. Apart from the usual hand-grease that´s of course also going to show up on the new model´s keys (although I figure it´s easier to wipe it off since the keys are not as high and the space between them is not as deep), there´s flocks of dust gathering in the case, and since the case is so beautifully transparent, one can clearly see the dirt piling up inside. Plus, it contrasts so well on white... I took the keys off my Apple Keyboard to get it clean twice in 3 years, and that certainly is not going to happen on the new keyboard. As for the membrane issue one comment brought up here: I might be totally wrong, but weren´t all Apple keyboards since the fantastic beige Pro model (ADB Apple Extended Keyboard II, that one was amazing and definately was NOT membrane) membrane ones? And aren´t most of them still working, and mor or less fine to type on? I think the membrane/switch controversy is overrated. Correct me if I´m wrong.

Edited 2007-08-08 09:27

Reply Score: 1

Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

Having Apple, IBM, DELL, and many other old and new keyboards, I gotta say that the Apple Keyboard is the worst keyboard I have ever used. Nice design, small, good key placement, etc. But the keys Get STUCK!!! (it happens always, it's not dirty, it's not that it's old!) It's just bad design.

I happens to many people. At least the new one doesn't seem to suffer from that.

A pity that they made the BlueTooth version, smaller. That should be an option in my opninion. I use BlueTooth, but I NEED/LIKE the numeric keypad and the "normal" keyboard size. If I wanted to use a "small" keyboard, I'd rather use the MacBook Pro keyboard directly.

Reply Score: 2

alcibiades Member since:
2005-10-12

weren´t all Apple keyboards since the fantastic beige Pro model (ADB Apple Extended Keyboard II, that one was amazing and definately was NOT membrane) membrane ones? And aren´t most of them still working, and mor or less fine to type on? I think the membrane/switch controversy is overrated.

Well, investigate, and you may come to feel you are wrong.

The way to find out is get a mechanical switch keyboard and type on it a lot. Also get a decent OEM membrane keyboard for under $10 and type on it a lot. Then compare both to the Apple keyboards. The old Apple Extended keyboards are good examples of the mechanical switch type. Not the Extended Keyboard II, which was horrible junk.

A modern version can be got from:

http://matias.ca/tactilepro/

and with usb, so you don't have to use a Griffin. Also, unless the old Extended is your own, its very hard to be sure what you are getting, buying used from ebay. The tactile pro is probably a better bet.

If you do this (I have, but not with the tactile pro, with Apple and IBM mechanicals) you'll find that the difference between Apple membrane keyboards and decent OEM membranes is first the looks, and second the price. But they are no better than any other membrane to type on. However, there is no comparison with the mechanical switch type. Another simple test you can make is if you know a secretary who has done a great deal of typing - someone who works in a law office is a good example. Have her test and get a view.

My experience is first personal: the mechanical is far less tiring and far less liable to give RSI. And second anecdotal - I've shown mechanical ones to two or three regular heavy typists. It only takes a few minutes for them to want them.

So, if you're buying a keyboard for $50+, make sure its mechanical. Or, make sure you know you are buying for appearance not typing. Which may be perfectly legitimate in some cases. However no-one should make the mistake of looking at the new Apple keyboard and thinking that what they are looking at is superb design for typing. If its membrane, that's not what you're getting. You are getting a reasonable quality OEM keyboard wrapped up very attractively and sold for a healthy markup over what it would cost you in a more conventional form factor.

Nothing wrong with it, if you know what you are getting and that's what you want.

Its not surprising by the way that they carry on working. Standard Compaq or Dell membrane keyboards from Win95 days work perfectly well still. They were about the same quality or better than the Extended II, contrary to the marketing myth. But they are not the equal of a proper mechanical spring keyboard. Its not about durability. Its about typing.

Edited 2007-08-08 17:31

Reply Score: 3

MrSidecar Member since:
2007-02-13

Thanks for the info on this. However, I meant the ADB Ext Keyboard I (the M0115 type). I had that one with my first mac, a beige G3 desktop. Those were the days... btw, the matias tactile pro looks great, seems very cool, but good heavens, $150 for a keyboard!

Edited 2007-08-08 21:38

Reply Score: 1

That is an awful lot of money for a mirror
by Googol on Wed 8th Aug 2007 09:35 UTC
Googol
Member since:
2006-11-24

especially since I have seen way larger ones ;)

http://tinyurl.com/2f9hvs

Seriously, this thing disqualifies itself for work on that basis alone. I am sure the crowd will love it though, I mean, it's an Apple !

Reply Score: 1

design and rational
by netpython on Wed 8th Aug 2007 12:44 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

If i didn't have a very good TFT monitor i would consider buying a new i-mac. I quite like the design and small things such as the cable hole on the back of the foot.

But wait a minute, let's say a good monitor costs €500 today, a Acer Aspire M5500 - Core 2 Quad Q6600 { 2GB RAM 500 GB - standard - Serial ATA-150 PCI Express x16 - NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT TurboCache supporting 1GB - 256 MB} costs €999. Which is a grand total of €1499

The nearest equivalent i-mac the 24-inch:2.8GHz intel core2extreme costs in its default config €2219

The € 720 extra is a lot for the design and OS. Especially when you know that in the last quarter this year and begin next year the new intel wolfdale 45nm CPU's will be launched who are on average 10% faster and consume a lot less power.There will also be launched a 3,33GHz quadcore Extreme Edition later this year as are the expectations.

http://tweakers.net/nieuws/48743/Test:-Wolfdale-10-procent-sneller-...
(sry dutch page)
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/hwdb.php?tid=837360&tp=Intel-Penryn-Previe...

Reply Score: 2

RE: design and rational
by netpython on Wed 8th Aug 2007 14:28 UTC in reply to "design and rational"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple is more than the rational sum of components, its design is unparalelled throughout history. And frankly there are more "old" mac's for sale on e-bay than PC's of the same age. The targeted community isn't likely one that has to turn every dime. It must be nice to have the luxury of being irrational or as another poster said it's not that apple aren't wanted but you can't buy everything you see.

Reply Score: 3

IMAC operating system
by LightRider on Wed 8th Aug 2007 14:40 UTC
LightRider
Member since:
2007-08-05

If they are not, APPLE should give a coupon with the
IMAC enabling the buyer to get a free copy of Leopard
when it comes out in october.

Reply Score: 3

iLife
by SK8T on Wed 8th Aug 2007 14:42 UTC
SK8T
Member since:
2006-06-01

iLife 08 is really stunning in my opinion. Never saw a comparable software bundle.

Reply Score: 2

Even if
by Xaero_Vincent on Wed 8th Aug 2007 15:33 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

Apple PCs were competitively priced with most other PC manufacturers there would still be a major issue:

Apple only offers high-end, expensive hardware. You cannot buy a baseline system without it being an old obsolete G3, G4, or G5 system.

Even the cheapest Mac costs $600, but if you add a keyboard and mouse the price quickly jumps to $700.

Reply Score: 2

"DOWN FANBOY, HEEL"
by tryphcycle on Wed 8th Aug 2007 16:56 UTC
tryphcycle
Member since:
2006-02-16

"DOWN FANBOY, HEEL"


i love the use of "Fanboy"!!!!! it usually used BY a fanboy of the opposite side!

Reply Score: 1

Phew.
by Tuishimi on Wed 8th Aug 2007 17:17 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Priced one out. Not bad except if you want 4 GB of ram... $850 more!!!!!!

I went to newegg.com and priced it out at $250 for a 4 GB (2 2GB sticks).

What the hell is Apple thinking? Anyway, I am tempted to pull the trigger, but in the end I cannot really justify it as my mini, with recent upgrades, is more than adequate for me. I just wish it could handle more than 2 GB of RAM.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Phew.
by Johann Chua on Wed 8th Aug 2007 17:36 UTC in reply to "Phew."
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Eh, anyone with any sense knows not to buy RAM from Apple.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Phew.
by tyrione on Wed 8th Aug 2007 17:39 UTC in reply to "Phew."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Buying RAM from Apple is right up there to buying it from HP.

You don't get a discount.

Reply Score: 2

Mixed feelings.
by Dark_Knight on Wed 8th Aug 2007 17:54 UTC
Dark_Knight
Member since:
2005-07-10

I have mixed feelings about the recent news. First why isn't Apple providing increased online storage at a lower cost to the customer instead of the current 1 GB storage which cost $99.00 for subscribers of the .Mac membership? After all consider that there are services like Mozy that provide 2GB backup storage for free and unlimited storage for $4.95/month. Even Google provides 2GB mail storage for free. Is Apple even listening to their customers who are mostly working professionals in video, animation, graphic design and photography?

Second, no changes to iChat AV. It's a nice chat messenger with the exception it doesn't support audio/video chat with MSN Messenger users. Since Microsoft has such a large install base globally I would think that by providing support for Mac users of username@mac.com to chat with MSN users of username@hotmail.com would improve Apple's market share. I know there's some that will say there's work arounds but none provide true audio/video with MSN Messenger users.

Third why isn't iLife 08 and iWork 08 available at a discounted price for current iLife 07 and iWork 07 users? I know $79.00 is not a huge price but why should customers have to pay full price buying the entire suite when there's only minor improvements from the previous version? Apple provided an upgrade for Final Cut Studio from version 1 to 2 so there's no reason why they couldn't of done this for customers using iLife and iWork.

Edited 2007-08-08 17:56

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mixed feelings.
by Kroc on Wed 8th Aug 2007 19:27 UTC in reply to "Mixed feelings."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

.Mac has been increased to 10GB.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Mixed feelings.
by Dark_Knight on Wed 8th Aug 2007 23:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Mixed feelings."
Dark_Knight Member since:
2005-07-10

Thanks Kroc,

When I was streaming the keynote presentation by Steve Jobs the other day it was skipping a little and possibly missed the notification of increase from 1 GB to 10 GB storage. I just logged in remotely to my .Mac account and confirmed the storage is now 10 GB.

A little confused why Apple is leaving the family pack at 10 GB total (2.5 GB each) unless that's a misprint. Due to it normally cost more for the family pack wouldn't the storage be slightly bigger for family/SOHO users?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Mixed feelings
by weckart on Thu 9th Aug 2007 06:52 UTC
weckart
Member since:
2006-01-11

"A little confused why Apple is leaving the family pack at 10 GB total (2.5 GB each) unless that's a misprint. Due to it normally cost more for the family pack wouldn't the storage be slightly bigger for family/SOHO users?"

It is 20GB - 10GB for the main account and 2.5GB for each family member.

Reply Score: 1

iWork '08 supports OOXML
by MollyC on Thu 9th Aug 2007 17:18 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

Looks like iWork '08 supports OOXML:
http://www.apple.com/iwork/pages/#compatible
http://www.apple.com/iwork/keynote/#share
http://www.apple.com/iwork/numbers/#compatibility
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/08/07/iwork-08-suppo...

So much for the anti-OOXML FUD that it's unimplementable and not cross-platform. :p

Anyway that will be cool for iWork users that have to deal with OOXML files.

Reply Score: 2