Think Secret Predicts Sub-$500 Headless Mac 922
eadint writes "I have just read an article posted on Think Secret that discusses a
confirmed $499
Apple box sans monitor. According to the article, this has been
under development for almost one year and may be available towards the
end of 2005Q1. The system is rumored to be based on a G4 with 256MB
of RAM , 40-80GB HD with a combo drive (sorry, no SuperDrive). Although Apple has stated in the past that they have no motivation to
compete in the sub-$600 PC market, this system was based on polls showing that more people would buy it after initial exposure
to the iPod." "Confirmed" seems a strong word, but I hope this is more than wishful thinking.
Finally - make it an impulse purchase (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, at $500, geeks can afford to buy it and find out if it's easy to get their work done on it. The easier it is to switch my day-to-day work over gradually to an Apple, the more likely I'd be to do it. I'm sure I'll have a couple/few apps that I have to run on Windows, but if you put them both on my desk and let me toy with both, I bet I'd be more likely to run my MS-only stuff on a virtual machine.
Could I get a $500 used Mac with a CRT monitor? Sure, but who wants that big bulky thing around? Instead, give me something I can use with a USB KVM switch, and then I can explore it on my own pace.
Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it'd be a great decision... lets see how much it canablizes on Power Macs though.
As long as it isn't crippled software wise... (Score:4, Insightful)
I would still keep my PC's, but I would love access to FCP and Motion.
Interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
Hell yes they would sell! (Score:5, Insightful)
Face it, geeks know the power of OSX but Apple hasn't done a great job of selling why a Mac today is differnet from the Macs of yesteryear. People either have ancidotal stories of how Macs don't play nice with Windows (which was never really true) or they have experiences with Mac-snobs or anti-Mac-snobs that have put them off even giving it a chance.
I recommended we look at replacing some of our desktop machines with eMacs or iMacs as a trial last year and senior management looked at me like I was nuts. "But...But...it's not a Dell! And it Doesn't-Run-Windows(tm)! How will anyone get any work done?"
It's harder to convince senior management to put out $20,000 for a ten box trial, but $5000 is much more palatable
So go Apple! Build your boxes; they'll sell like hotcakes (especially if you make a $700 headless mac / iPod bundle).
Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase (Score:1, Insightful)
Apple should do it befor x-mass...
About friggin time! (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest selling point is obviously security. EVERY average Joe computer user I know is compromised with spyware and viruses (especially those with kids). I tell everyone who'll listen to buy a Mac when they're looking for a new PC, because it'll actually work after two weeks of use. It's nice to see that Apple might actually have something affordable for these folks.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sources familiar with the product cautioned that the low-end Mac will be marketed towards a totally different audience than those who traditionally buy even a $799 eMac. "This product is not going to be about performance," said a source close to Apple. "This is going to be the basics, but with just as much of a focus on software as any Mac could ever be."
Entry-level Computer: The new MyMac (or whatever)
Workstation for Pros: The PowerMac G5
I don't see how hard it is to realize that they have two vastly different target markets that don't overlap that much; some people will want the experience of using Apple Mail and Safari while others need 8GB of RAM for Photoshop.
Home Entertainment Mac (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/29/sub-
Sounds sensible.
Hook it up to your TV and/or an airport express (or whatever that wireless streaming audio thingamajig is called) and go.
Of course, a standalone DVD player these days costs $50
Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, you can get linux for a mac and with a cleverly designed box. As this iBook gets older I might put linux on it, because at some point it isn't going to handle the newer os'es (Tiger already needs a 64meg gcard).
In anwser to your question, Linux at this stage doesn't have the more mainstream windows apps that the mac has. Thats an added bonus because you have that compatibility bonus without the day to day hassle of a windows machine..
Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase (Score:2, Insightful)
But for this price, sure I'd buy one, and like the parent post, use it with a KVM switch. My girlfriend's father uses a Mac (he's in graphics), and I've had a while to toy around with the interface. And I like it. It's like a classic martini joint compared to the sports bar that is WinXP.
Sub-$500 market (Score:5, Insightful)
- with
a monitor for $499. On ebay you can find some pretty nice used machines for under $100.Over $1000 these days is where you can find some really nice machines. But $1000 is no longer the entry point. If you were someone buying your first computer, would you want to plunge right in to a $1000+ Macintosh, or go for a sub $500 PC?
It took long enough for Apple to see this, but they would have to be stupid to ignore it forever. It makes perfect sense to offer an entry point into Apple at the sub-$500 mark. And with the massive amount of cashflow they are getting from the overpriced iPod, they can certainly afford to cut their margins a bit on the low end in order to get the "apple" brand into the hands of the PC using public.
I never really pay much attention to apples, but I love competition in the marketplace, so I hope this is true.
Re:If it has PCI-slots I might consider it. (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you want to use it for office work or internet surfing, it's hard to see why you'd want or need PCI anyway.
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)
What other software do you need if it is a secondary machine?
You won't need these for a start when buying a mac:
Mp3 player, dvd player, photo editor, movie editor, music editor, dvd burning software, internet browser, anti-spyware, anti-virus, word processor, email, instant messenger.
256mb RAM? (Score:3, Insightful)
If iPod users invest in this machine, they are quickly going to be disappointed in the lack of games (especially since the spec is relatively low), and find it struggles a bit when they start using large Garageband files. Still, only time will tell. We Slashdotters can, occasionally, be wrong.
Re:As long as it isn't crippled software wise... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
The next slide simply showed a class of 4-to-5 year olds sitting on the floor of a classroom learning how to use some new Macs, they all looked like they were having a great time.
The implication was very clear - either your employees are less capable than the average four-year old, or it's going to be a breeze to train them.
More seriously though, the whole training thing is a bit of a myth in itself - Microsoft has made a habit out of taking something they see on the Apple platform (in terms of GUI innovation) and breaking it just enough to make sure it doesn't look like a complete rip-off of the original. The consequence that I have found in training PC users to use OS X, is that they already understand how a feature is supposed to work except that in OS X, it actually WORKS like they expect it to finally.
Re:PowerBooks (Score:3, Insightful)
As for $400, man - will the whining never end? If this $500 machine isn't cheap enough for you, then I'm sorry it's very likely that Apple doesn't want you as a customer.
Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase (Score:5, Insightful)
I still have a Dull running Windows for games, but have pulled all my document, data, movie, and audio files to the Powerbook.
OS X has the most of the features of *nix yet it has very few of the down falls(drivers, okay that's all I can think of).
I bought a lightweight portable computer. It's now very common to see me next to the fire place listening to music and surfing the web for hours at a time. The 4-5 hours of battery life is great. I am getting roughly 4 hours of wireless web surfing. slightly less if I start playing videos. Of course I have also downloaded AND burned a knoppix disc wirelessly and still had two hours to go web surfing with. If Burning a CD isn't power intensive I don't know what else could drain the system.
Mom, there's your Apple! (Score:3, Insightful)
However, better late than never as they say...
Fool! Apple invented the PC market. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Better Prices? (Score:4, Insightful)
I do not believe it.
Apple does the unthinkable - something they have CATAGORICALLY STATED was something they had no interest in, Something that has been asked of them for years, Something that Slashdot users are especially good at complaining about.
They finally release a sub-$500 Mac.
What is the Slashdot response?
"Meh, well it's cheaper but you know... I can get a cheaper box from WalMart so blah blah blah"
Whinypants.
Re:As long as it isn't crippled software wise... (Score:5, Insightful)
Innocents Day? (Score:3, Insightful)
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
500 dollars isn't cheap-o. I'd guess it'll basically be an iBook in a desktop, which can't cost that much.
Don't underestimate how important Apple might view this computer for their business.
possible pandora's box (shameful pun) (Score:1, Insightful)
Did you hear that? (Score:3, Insightful)
A $500 Mac IMO would be a biggest thing since the introduction of the PowerPC, iMac or iPod. It will rip through the computer world like a wildfire. The unreal power of OS X and a Mac for the price of some nasty thing from Dell? Oh, it's too good to be true. The only thing that would make it better is if it was like the Mac Cube and silent. That would throw the computer world for a spin. Imagine all the uses: small web server farms, MS Windows owners buying one with a KVM to run along side their MS Windows box. Jobs has pull off some pretty stunts and this without a doubt would be in his top 10. I will buy three the first day they come out; one for my daughter (she loves my wife's Mac and hates to share), one for my folks (playing admin for their MS Window's box sucks and one for me to run Ubuntu and MOL (hey, I had a ton of great Classic apps that still do the job).
If someone says they're also bring back HyperCard I'll know it's a dream. If this new Mac is real Mac is back!
Re:possible pandora's box (shameful pun) (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't you let Apple release a 64-bit OS before you declare the 32-bit G4 and these new switchers "stuck with limited software choices". This is a freaking entry level Mac, not some pro-media editing workstation. It is for people who want to surf, email, IM, listen to music, and open a Word or Excel doc from work. What do they need 64-bit computing for in 2004?
Yeah, it will leave "headless switchers in the dust eventually", but so will a top of the line Apple, or for that matter any PC purchased today. That's just the marketspace.
I am using a 1st generation 400Mhz G4 PowerBook at home and while I wish it had a few of the bells and whistles of a newer system, this thing is totally capable for the tasks i described above. That said, it is my opnionion that the system described by ThinkSecret will not leave any Switcher disapointed in their investment.
RAM is the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
The starting RAM size should be 512, with room for expansion. One of the more annoying things they do is offer Powerbooks with 512, but with both slots full (256 in each), so expansion ability is stifled. It actually costs more to get the 512MB in ONE slot.
This is one of the few things that still pisses me off about Apple. The other thing is iBooks and iMacs needing a hack to do desktop spanning across two displays, but that's another rant. }:)
-Z
Re:Apple needs to rethink specifications (Score:5, Insightful)
But at a sub-$500 price point, every dollar matters. If these things do sell like hotcakes, Apple needs to squeeze out the biggest margin they possibly can in order to make any money on it. This computer isn't going to be meant for the type of person who reads specs before they buy, it's for the people who just want to try out the new "Internet thingy" they've been hearing about these days. Apple wants people like you to shell out a bit more cash for your computer. I think that in this case, "underspeccing" is the way to go, since they know plenty of people will buy it regardless of specs because they just want to try Apple (if they're high end users) or own any computer at all (if they're low end users).
A great example, have you heard of the low end Palm Zire series? Absurdly underspecced--they even decreased the number of hardware buttons--but they became Palm's best selling unit for over a year. And it's simply because the type of people who bought it weren't power users and didn't demand competitive specs, they just wanted any Palm. For many, it was perfectly adequate, and for others, it whetted their apetite for a more powerful unit (more dollars for Palm)
Re:PowerBooks (Score:1, Insightful)
Add a Built-in iPod Dock. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Insightful)
Bzzzzzt! False dichotomy. Users are very capable, they just aren't motivated. Learning a new system to them is work they can do, but they don't see themselves benefitting from it, thus they are not motivated and can be very difficult to train. If they don't see a clear benefit to using the new system, they probably won't give it a fair shake. The four year olds are probably quite a bit likely to have more curiosity and will likely be less set in their ways, so they'd probably make much better students.
I agree there shouldn't be any problem with the actual teaching, but getting everyone on board can be a real hassle. I'd say it depends alot on the group you are trying to teach.
-swc
Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple has never competed in PC market (Score:4, Insightful)
If you remember your geek history right, in the late 70s, early 80s the whole point of Apple was to produce computers normal people could afford. The mac and the snazziness came later, but the Apple Is and IIs were cheap compared to the alternatives (if there were any). Hell, the first apples sold for $666, I wouldn't advise using this price considering the current political climate, but something in that range would be very competitive.
I would love it if they would put out a nice little machine like this for the Web/Email crowd that will never produce a home movie, mix their own music, etc. A nicely priced secure box for the non savvy if you will. I've got a ton of people I know that ask me from time to time what computer to buy. The response after I mention a Mac is "they are so expensive, and I saw a dell in the paper for $400, the cheapest mac is like $1000." Believe me, these are people that will surf the web, play solitare, and write a letter or two. That's it.
Make a cheap mac for these folks. Be blunt about its limitations, but put it out there.
P
Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase (Score:5, Insightful)
This thing ain't no workstation. Most likely its a "Media Center" with PC capabilities, a place to centralize all your iPod songs, load your iPod, browse the web, edit a document in Office:Mac 2004, sync your cell phone via Bluetooth, etc. So few people really need the heavy lifting of a 3+ Ghz computer.
Heck, the lack of constant spyware invasions are enough to make me think I'd be ahead of the game replacing a few relatives PC's. Those 3-hour spyware removal missions get annoying every three months
Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Apple has long expressed no interest in selling such a machine.
2. A new G4 desktop system in Spring of 2005? No chance. Apple is moving away from the Motorola G4 archetecture, in favor of the IBM G5. The eMac and the current laptops will probably be the end of the line for the G4.
3. The current G4 eMac is $800, and their margin on it is thin (by Apple standards.) This rumored system is pretty much a G4 with the $100 monitor removed. No way Apple sells it for $500.
4. Everybody who says they would never buy one of the current Macs, but would buy this one for $500 out of impulse, is a damn liar. You can already buy a headless G4 Mac for under $600. Just go to eBay and buy an old G4 tower from about two years ago. Hell, for that matter, you can buy an old G3 tower which will run OS X just fine for about $300. Add a $100 CPU upgrade, and there's your G4 right there.
Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase (Score:2, Insightful)
When I'm using my XP laptop, I can't help shake the feeling that the OS wasn't designed for... well, me. It seems to have been designed for itself. Functions like networking are annoyingly cryptic but only because XP feels like a know-it-all that assumes you know exactly as much as it does at any given moment. Even making those stupid, egregiously annoying bubbles that pop up in the corner requires editing the registry and rebooting. XP is a brat.
OS X doesn't feel like that. It has a very sophisticated feature set as well as innumerable user-specifiable options that range from networking settings to desktop pictures and screensavers. Every last tweakable on my machine is laid out in a very clear and logical fashion and making changes is an exercise in reason -- not the guesswork and prayer that have marked my XP experiences.
Perhaps the best indication of OS X's effectiveness is the built-in Find tool. Invoking a single keystroke brings you to a powerful, logic-based search tool that can be customized quickly. Don't get me started on the mental retardation that was requisite in designing XP's search interface and that necessitates using Google Desktop on every installation.
Like I said. It just works.
Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you touched on an important point: provided that you know what you're doing and configure it . It's not that OSX is stylish and functional, it's that it's stylish and functional without having to mess with it. You can make other products work, but they don't come out of the box with the same level of functionality and polish that Apple (usually) provides.
Re:Here They Come (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I switched to a Mac when the two-button with scroll wheel mouse had already been burned into my brain and I work with it.
But, if you ever watch a Mac user, especially a professional, who uses a lot of keyboard shortcuts, that command key is the most used key on the keyboard and the left thumb is always posed above it.
A one-button mouse is not a detriment and is in fact a more efficient way to work if you have learned to work within the ergonomic environment that it was designed in.
Kinda like a Dvorak keyboard.
Smart move. This would cement... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly what Apple has to do in order to expand into the gap that MS is leaving behind by slowly but shurely trickeling out of the corporate workplaces. A Sub-500$, low power computer that comes shrinkwrapped with OS X is all it takes to migrate even more people who hate MS (everybody exept gamers) to their plattform. Right now the only alternative for modern micro systems is to get some cool Mini ITX or XPC and spend 20 days trying to get Linux running on it satisfactory.
With a move like this Apple would put it's foot down and make a clear statement for the 100% OSS-ready appliance market.
As I said earlier [slashdot.org], this is the next logical step needed to share he market between OSS and all-in-one-package providers. Which Apple essentially is. If this is going to happen, my next file-and-mail server is going to be a mac aswell.
The Cube reborn? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple has never competed in PC market (Score:2, Insightful)
There is a market for these, and you've spotted it - the teeming masses who will use it for email and nothing else.
But, the whole point of Apple's biggest marketshare success was that Steve Wozniak was a tinkerer, and made a box that was easy to tinker with! Do you remember when people made 3rd party cards for Apple IIs and Apple actually encouraged that? There were all kinds of cool hacks, alternate vendors for stuff, (hard drives! floppy disk controllers, RAM cards, modems, and so much more).
Moreover, businesses used them because they were capable of running spreadsheets, and there were no alternatives then (IBM's original PC wasn't even made yet!), and the Apple II kicked everyone's ass in terms of expandability and 3rd party software.
It was Steve Jobs who made the Macintosh into a strictly defined device (he often made the "toaster" analogy - computers would be consumer items like toasters - no need to tinker with it!). Jobs never really understood the psychological mindset of the folks who made the Apple II such a success (more successful in terms of business market penetration even than any Mac since) - that people WANT the ability to hack a computer, even if they never use that ability.
When presented with two computers - one with expandability, lots of 3rd party vendor accessories, and the second with limited hardware, only for use with the original vendor certified parts, then most (not all, but most) will choose one with the ABILITY to use more features, even if they NEVER ACTUALLY USE THAT ABILITY. That's the "consumer" hacker mindset, and Jobs never "got" it in the same way Wozniak instinctively did.
Just my two cents.
Joe G.
Bishop, CA
Re:I'll take four (Score:5, Insightful)
no way apple will lower prices, as they have highest margins in the PC world
That's not the concern it used to be. They have one of the hottest gadgets in recent memory with the iPod, and they make as much on that as they do with some of their computer line. They can afford to take a hit in profit to build up user base. It's called a "loss leader".
a clone mac was tried last year and it failed.If by "last year" you mean "1994", then you're correct. And they failed for a whole host of reasons, the least of which is that Apple killed OS licensing in 1996.
Besides,with bittorrent taking up 35% of net use,apple software would be canabalized and freeYou've never installed OS X, I take it. There is no serial number registration, there is no unique identifier for the disc. You can use the same disc to install OS X on any number of computers and they'll all work just fine. Illegally, but fine. :-) Apple doesn't think everyone in the world is a thief and lock you into DRM hell (okay, the iTMS is the exception. Compare their DRM to WindowsMCE, though). Look at the DRM that's packed with an iPod: a brief note exhorting you not to steal.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Here They Come (Score:2, Insightful)
How is it more convenient and efficient to use two hands to perform a task when I can just as easily use one?
Re:If it has PCI-slots I might consider it. (Score:5, Insightful)
To most people, PCI slots don't matter. To a minority, they do matter, and to that minority, the lack may prevent them from buying a Mac. In my case, I have a tendency to upgrade older machines and move them into a server role as I replace them on the desktop, and this is not possible with the inexpensive Macs being discussed in this article.
For example, consider my current firewall/server machine and the upgrades I have done, relative to an iMac from the same time period. It's a Pentium 2 400 mhz from 1997 or so.
-Add another NIC so I can use it as a firewall... impossible on the iMac.
-Add an SATA card... impossible on the iMac.
-Add a 160 gb hard drive... impossible on the iMac as the ATA controllers of the time could not handle drives bigger than 128 gb.
-Use the drive at full speed... impossible on the iMac because the ATA controllers of the time were limited to ATA-33.
-Now using 2 hard drives... impossible on the iMac.
-Upgrade the second NIC to gigabit... impossible on the iMac. Impossible on current iMacs too.
-Upgrade the USB to USB 2.0... impossible on the iMac.
It's not that Apple computers don't have all the spiffy ports, it's that they can't be upgraded later on when the definition of "spiffy port" changes.
People usually argue that enthusiasts like myself should be buying PowerMacs, but the whole point is that a $500 PC is just as capable of doing these things as a $2000 PowerMac. PowerMacs have many benefits, but you pay for a lot of benefits that you don't need to buy the one benefit that you do.
Hardware Subsidizes Software (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me know when Microsoft starts giving away Windows for free with a bundled software suite, because Apple subsidizes their sofware R&D from hardware sales, so if they drop their hardware margins you don't get software.
Would you really be happier if you could get an ATX Mac Board and then had to go to Staples to put down $129 for OSX and $49 for iLife, and whatever for Appleworks, Quicken and whatever else they're bundling these days?
Maybe if you were just building a linux system, but that's such a small market segment Apple can't orient their business around it.
Re:Not enough RAM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not for US Market (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple tried that sort of thing before; the eMac was originally supposed to be only for education, but popular demand forced them to sell to everyone. If they try to limit this Mac to specific countries, we'll see a huge gray market spring up in record time.
Hate to break it to you, but...no. (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Apple has long expressed no interest in selling such a machine.
The article mentions this and explains why Apple still may do it.
2. A new G4 desktop system in Spring of 2005? No chance. Apple is moving away from the Motorola G4 archetecture, in favor of the IBM G5. The eMac and the current laptops will probably be the end of the line for the G4.
INCORRECT! Motorola has announced that they are working on dual-core G4's that scale to 2 GHz, with 64-bit extensions, and only 25w power output. They've also announced single-core G4's with 10w power output. The G4 is not dead, and a dual core 64-bit G4 would be PERFECT for a PowerBook.
3. The current G4 eMac is $800, and their margin on it is thin (by Apple standards.) This rumored system is pretty much a G4 with the $100 monitor removed. No way Apple sells it for $500.
You're forgetting that the eMac is due for an upgrade soon. If they release an updated, faster eMac this January, then they could release this system for $500.
4. Everybody who says they would never buy one of the current Macs, but would buy this one for $500 out of impulse, is a damn liar. You can already buy a headless G4 Mac for under $600. Just go to eBay and buy an old G4 tower from about two years ago. Hell, for that matter, you can buy an old G3 tower which will run OS X just fine for about $300. Add a $100 CPU upgrade, and there's your G4 right there.
Not exactly. There's a few reasons not to do that. BTW, right now I have a PowerBook, but no Mac Desktop. If I could get one for $500, I'd seriously consider it.
Now, look at your suggestion. If I ran out and bought an old G3, then added a $100 CPU upgrade, bam, I have a good speed G4 system.
But wait! The system still has a sucky bus speed, slower RAM, and a small hard drive.
Oh well, I'll live. So NOW, because this computer is way older than Mac OS X, I have to go out and buy Mac OS X for $129. Oh, and don't forget, an extra $49 for iLife. AND some extra money on AppleWorks (don't remember the price!) Thats more than an extra $178 on the software I would get FREE with anything from Apple.
So now this system costs over $570, and still has slower memory and a smaller hard drive and lack of Airport Extreme support you'd get in a system from Apple. Plus the fact that it may have been abused since I would have bought it used, AND that there's no warranty...I'd take a $499 G4 from Apple, please.
Why are there some many anti mac comments here? (Score:3, Insightful)
While this article should've spawned positive discussions on this new Mac's possible uses, it pros and cons, it has partly turned into flamefest where people get trashed for say something less than "MS Windows XP is number one."
It's about a new Mac and a new direction for Apple, nothing more.
Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Finally - make it an impulse purchase (Score:3, Insightful)
Depends on who you buy it from. Were I currently selling one right now, I would probably have 10.3 loaded on it, because I tend to keep my Macs up-to-date.
For that matter, if you are a typical Slashdot DIY type, buy a stripped bare-bones G4 system from a repair shop, load it with whatever HD, memory, graphics card, and CD/DVD drive you like, pick up a copy of 10.3 for $120, and you will probably end up with a nicer machine than this imaginary system which Think Secret is talking about for about the same money.
You may sacrifice a small amount of CPU performance, but if you cared about that you would be looking at the G5 towers, not wishing you could buy a headless eMac.
Re:Here They Come (Score:1, Insightful)
What is more effecent, me having to have the keyboard near the mouse, both hands on the mouse and keyboard, or just using the mouse and right clicking to do what I wanted? What about all the commands I have to do from the keyboard/browser window when I want to scroll, go forward, go back, open a new tab without a menu(i.e. the 3rd mouse button on Firefox in Windows), and click links without resorting to holding the mouse button down for a few seconds?
Incase you haven't figured it out, the best one is the option that has more then one mouse button.
Re:Here They Come (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you've been doing what I've been doing for the last 30 minutes; browsing the web with my left arm comfortably under my chin, or in my lap half the time.
I'll give you usablity. But not ergonomics. Because in reality, people don't nessesarly sit with their spare hand over the keyboard all the time if they don't need to use it.
However, I agree that when you do have your other hand over the keyboard, it's better (or at least equal).
Re:reality check (Score:3, Insightful)
Not on that machine, not until a particular project is finished next month. Always update between major projects. It's a calculated risk, and easier to make when you're 'flying under the radar' on an alternative OS.
used the trademark phrase of "snappy"
OK, busted. The dual G4 is right at the edge of what I consider a responsive GUI, and not always snappy (eg. when rendering). The G5 is 'snappy.' Your 'greased-pig' dig is gratuitous: I make no silly speed claims for old gear, other than admiring the speed-up in 10.3 and the longevity of Apple's kit. For the record, I like working on Macs, but only in comparison to XP or a less-than-perfect Linux install, and I'd still be running W2K on my admin machine if it didn't require constant fiddling with security. Computers are a looong ways off from what I want, have wanted for 20 years, and Apple bears most of my ire in that respect since they lead the pack in many design directions.
To return to the point: a G4 will be fast enough for the average user if RAM is adequate.
Re:If it has PCI-slots I might consider it. (Score:3, Insightful)
-Add an SATA card... impossible on the iMac.
-Add a 160 gb hard drive... impossible on the iMac as the ATA controllers of the time could not handle drives bigger than 128 gb.
-Use the drive at full speed... impossible on the iMac because the ATA controllers of the time were limited to ATA-33.
-Now using 2 hard drives... impossible on the iMac.
-Upgrade the second NIC to gigabit... impossible on the iMac. Impossible on current iMacs too.
-Upgrade the USB to USB 2.0... impossible on the iMac.
It sounds suspisciously like you don't want a consumer machine... If you wanted all this, would you buy a low level $600 Dell machine *then* upgrade everything? If you want pro-level equipment, you probably want to *buy* pro-level equipment.
It's not that Apple computers don't have all the spiffy ports, it's that they can't be upgraded later on when the definition of "spiffy port" changes.
Very true. However, that hasn't ever presented a problem to me. By the time the "spiffy port" has changed, I'm buying a new computer anyways. But as always, YMMV.
People usually argue that enthusiasts like myself should be buying PowerMacs, but the whole point is that a $500 PC is just as capable of doing these things as a $2000 PowerMac. PowerMacs have many benefits, but you pay for a lot of benefits that you don't need to buy the one benefit that you do.
I can see your point, but realize, your strategy is not Apple's strategy. Because people who want fancy things buy the fancy computers, Apple is able to make a profit. Imagine if their $499 Mac was as expandable as their PowerMac- it would cannabalize their PowerMac sales. Apple's formula seems to work for them. I'm too lazy to see if it's cheaper to buy a bare-bones computer and upgrade it to the equivalent high-end specs of some other machine.
In the end, if you don't like it- you don't have to buy it. What works best for you, be it a Mac or PC or NeXT Cube or whatever, is what you should use.
Re:Why I doubt this is the whole story... (Score:1, Insightful)
Q: What is apple trying to do?
A: Switch windows users to mac.
Q: Where is the problem?
A: Prices for even a low end mac.
Q: Soulution?
A: Offer a cheap mac so those that want to switch can use their current monitor on this machine and get a decent taste of macs.
Target market is windows users -- built-in KVM (Score:3, Insightful)
Plug PC into mac. Plug mac into existing keyboard, mouse, monitor.
The pass-through should also include ethernet, just to cut down on cable clutter.
You could easily make a simple physical "mac/not mac" switch on the front of the machine (next to the drive & on/off buttons).
I would buy one. I might buy two.
One more thing.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Instant media centre, webtv, basic games box. Get MAME on it and your set.
Re:If it has PCI-slots I might consider it. (Score:2, Insightful)
5 Reasons for a successful $500 Mac (Score:3, Insightful)
Missing the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Consider it highly likely if not confirmed then (Score:3, Insightful)
AppleInsider also has their own version of this rumor with slightly different details, and MacOSRumors has been reporting tidbits for the last year. These three sites have a startlingly high degree of accuracy in their rumor reports. When these three sites all agree on the basic concept, you can pretty much consider it "confirmed."
Usually when they appear to be "wrong" about something, it's the result of Apple holding off on a product announcement for some unforeseen reason. Barring those cases, you can bet if these sites are reporting it, it's in the works.
Re:Consider it highly likely if not confirmed then (Score:3, Insightful)
Accessorize your iPod--with a computer! (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple shall nevah make a low-end product just as BMW shall nevah stoop to competing with Saturns
Or some such. You know what I'm talking about.
But the fact is, Apple's now an mp3 player company that happens to sell a tiny number of computers, too. And they're nice computers. I sure like ours. But if it or Wall Street thought iPods would translate into Powerbook or PowerMac sales, they were dreaming.
iPods might translate into sales of inexpensive headless boxes, though. They might if you can say, "Well, that cheap-ass Dell is no deal when I can get a decent machine for the same price." And it might work on impulse terms, too, especially if Apple builds on the kind of this-is-an-iPod-styled-computer metaphor it used in the introduction of the recent iMac. Oddly and ironically, you'd be accessorizing your iPod with a new computer. Hell, why not? Paradigms shift.
Then again, maybe the Pinth-Garnell set is right, and Apple will never stoop. But Jobs is shrewd, and the economic forecast for USA, Inc., is gloomy and getting gloomier. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to stoop!
Re:Would be great, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. In fact, if this isn't just a rumor, I'll buy one.
"As an Apple Store employee, this just doesn't make sense to me. Why would they want to sell a $500 computer when the extra cost of a monitor would nullify the fact that it is a cheap Mac?"
500$ + 100$ = 600$
Cheap emac = 800$
Is the savings of two hundred dollars that confusing to you?
It matters.