Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Hardware Businesses Apple

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Think Secret Predicts Sub-$500 Headless Mac

Comments Filter:
  • by rseuhs ( 322520 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:08AM (#11208065)
    Also the G4-design suggests fanless (or at least very quiet) operation, so it would be a real nice machine for office work or internet surfing.

    But please add PCI-slots.

  • by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <jhummel.johnhummel@net> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:10AM (#11208068) Homepage
    I imagine this (if it will actually exist) would be like the eMac: base model low specs with the combo drive and 256 MB ram, but you can upgrade from there so a Superdrive will set you back an additional $100.

    Kind of like the Dell machines that start at $400 or so, then by the time you add on the usual needs (bump up the RAM to at least 512) they come out to $500 - $600.

    If this is the case, Apple now has a great chance to gain market share. I've wondered for years what would happen if a headless iMac comes out (since everybody already owns a monitor, why buy a machine with another one anyway?).

    If it becomes popular, I wonder if more game companies will go the Blizzard route and dual-release their software for both the PC and the Mac. Hm. Well, I've got an hour before I have to go to work - time for a little Warcraft ;).
  • by DaHat ( 247651 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:10AM (#11208070)
    Even $500 for a Mac is an awful lot just to see if it works.

    Don't get me wrong, if true it'd be a great deal, but not one my pocketbook would be very accommodating for. And yes... this is being said by someone who owns an iPod (of course at the time I was only an intern, now I have student loans to repay!).
  • by gilgongo ( 57446 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:13AM (#11208084) Homepage Journal
    I've been toying with the same idea or switching for a while. Of course this subject has been done to death on /. but heck, I'll do it some more:

    My main worry is that I'll switch, drink the Apple kool-aid, then wake up one morning and think "The novelty of the pretty eye-candy has worn off now. What do I have that I would not have with GNU/Linux with (say) KDE?"

    Apart from a hole in my bank balance, not much I would say.

    But then I'm not a graphics person, nor do I play games or have weird peripherals with unknown drivers.

    So sub-$500 or not, what would I really gain by switching to OSX as opposed to GNU/Linux (I'm a-liking Debian these days)? Speaking a member of the disgruntled-but-somehow-sticking-with-it Windoze community, that is.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:16AM (#11208093)
    the price difference between 40 and 80gb hdds is small. The price difference between 256mb and 512mb of RAM is not large.

    The average Joe's perception of difference between a computer with 40gb of hdd & 256mb of RAM vs one with 80gb of hdd and 512mb of RAM as huge as a "3 megapixel camera" vs a "5 megapixel camera".

    Apple needs to understand that underspeccing their computers to make a few dollars more per unit or to have the price slightly lower, actually costs them more than it makes. It furthermore makes people take Apple less seriously - they keep trying to push their out-of-date computers, *and* they're underspeccing them as if they're old stock or they're trying to cut every cent off of costs.

    I seem to remember Commodore having a similar over-priced highend + underspecced low-end strategy.
  • by CrackedButter ( 646746 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:18AM (#11208102) Homepage Journal

    It is also down to the ipod, apple wants the bigger marketshare and this could be the best way to do it. Since it is supposed to complement an existing system, power shouldn't be an issue either. However people will have a windows mentality and expect a $499 Mac to play DOOM 3 as does some PC's already do. This thing cannot be to slow or to fast.
    What might be nice is if this thing is upgradable (other than the usual HD and memory), if one can upgrade an Xserve Gcard then I see no reason for this to be able to. But then the other consumer machines would need this ability, which they won't get as you need to go higher than that and get a Powermac. It would look weird having your lowest and highest models with that capability. I only mention it because it is another feature a windows user might expect.
    They need to satisfy their intended market with more than just a low price (maybe?) if they want average pc users aboard the mac train.
  • iPod Dock built in (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mikeloader ( 590119 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:18AM (#11208106)
    It would be interesting if it had an iPod dock built in given the target market. I know you can connect a dock via a Firewire cable, but with a built-in dock, Apple could market this baby Mac as an iPod accessory.
  • by boaworm ( 180781 ) <boaworm@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:22AM (#11208128) Homepage Journal
    Just out of curiousity, what are you going to use those PCI slots for ?

    There is already NIC, Firewire, USB, Sound and Video cards onboard. I've had several macs, and i've never installed a single addon card in any of them.

    The only thing i've ever come up with was to use one as a firewall, in that case a second NIC would be desirable, but otherwise?
  • by IGnatius T Foobar ( 4328 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:33AM (#11208195) Homepage Journal
    This isn't necessarily the right approach. All the folks at Apple have to do is build complete Macintosh systems onto ATX form factor motherboards. System builders all over the world would buy them up and build Apple-compatible computers.

    What many people don't know is that Sun actually did this [link4pc.com] a while back. I have an ATX rack-mount server with a Sun AXi motherboard in it, and it acts exactly like a Sun machine -- because it is a Sun machine. I'd love to see Apple do this.
  • Not enough RAM (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Cow007 ( 735705 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:44AM (#11208258) Journal
    It is silly to think that 256 is enough RAM to run 10.3. This 12" came standard with that and I couldn't use it w/o dropping another 512 into it. I think that 512 standard is more logical.
  • Re:Interesting... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:53AM (#11208320)
    Hell yes people would switch! I know that my mother doesn't really need anything besides a word processor, web, and mail. She has some old Win98 box. This machine would be perfect for her. Small box, get a decent LCD that isn't fast enough for games and hence can be had cheap, and off she goes without fears of virusses and especaially with all the ease of use that Mac OS X brings.

    That said, hell, *I* would buy one myself as a secondary machine.
  • BRING IT ON!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by amichalo ( 132545 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @09:58AM (#11208357)
    Don't want to restate the obvious so I will restate what may not be so obvious:
    A 1" thick headless unit fits nicely in my A/V cabinet.

    Yeah, you heard me - network connection - audio line out (or atleast USB/Firewire for 3rd party)

    This is the new Media server for my den.
  • by red_dragon ( 1761 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:32AM (#11208590) Homepage

    More Firewire DV and audio stuff:

    ADS Pyro A/V Link [adstech.com]
    Avid Mojo [avid.com]
    MOTU 896HD 196kHz Firewire audio interface [motu.com]

  • by dafz1 ( 604262 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:42AM (#11208699)
    While I agree this probably won't happen, putting a G4 into an inexpensive box isn't too far fetched.

    1. They updated the iBook to a G4 recently.
    2. There is still a G4 in the Powerbook, and probably will be for another round of updates(watch Steve prove me wrong on Jan.11).
    3. The eMac is still selling relatively well.

    All of this means Apple is committed to supporting the G4 for at least two more OS updates after it stops shipping machines with that processor(based on past history). The 68040 chips were supported through OS 8.1(1998), though they stopped selling them in 1995(~ OS 7.5). PPC chips(60x series) were officially support through OS 9.1(Jan. 2001), though they were last shipped in 1998(OS 8.6).
  • Hummm (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PsychoSid ( 683168 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @10:46AM (#11208746)
    I imagine Apple will supply Tiger with this ?

    If so I can save myself the 129 bucks and use the normal Apple license model to put it on my G5 and use the headless box as a home/file/web server etc.

    This makes this all the more attractive if indeed it does exist.

  • by BlueDjinn ( 513272 ) <cgaba@NoSpAm.brainwrap.com> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @11:07AM (#11208963) Homepage
    OK, I know this is *incredibly* premature and *highly* speculative, but I was curious about just how this theoretical new "headless eMac" unit might stack up against one of Dell's bottom-of-the-barrel desktop system.

    http://www.systemshootouts.org/shootouts/desktop/2 004/1229_dt500.html [systemshootouts.org]

    It's important to note that all of the Dell Dimension 2400 specs are ACTUAL specs, taken just this morning.

    For the rumored Apple bottom-feeder CPU, I'm assuming that the hardware specs will be what ThinkSecret claims, that the graphics card will be a GeForce FX5200, and a few other items. I'm also assuming that the software will include Panther, an updated (finally!) version of AppleWorks (just for the heck of it), iLife (minus iDVD), and the other Apple-produced software which normally comes with eMacs/iMacs/iBooks. The major distinction software-wise is that, to keep costs down to a bare minimum, there would be NO third-party software included (ie, no Quicken, WorldBook, or 3rd-party games bundled).

    The thing which blew me away was this: The Dell machine--without a monitor--starts at $395. However, this is with a CD-ROM ONLY, and a 90-day warranty only! Adding a CD-RW, DVD, and 1-yr warranty tacks on another $88...except that the standard ground shipping is $99, even without a monitor!! Since $500 is the cut-off, and the system *has* to be shipped one way or another, that means I had to give up the CD-RW and DVD drive and *still* came in $11 over the mark.

    I was also surprised to find out the following about the Dell Dimension 2400:
    --It has a sucky, NON upgradable, integrated graphics card (though you could use a PCI graphics card instead, I suppose)
    --It maxes out at 512 MB RAM!

    In short, if TS is right about the specs and pricing, this could definitely stir things up!
  • by EinarH ( 583836 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @11:10AM (#11208990) Journal
    Could be many valid reasons for this.

    1. His employer is paying for the software but not a work at home box/extra computer at work.

    2. He has approx. $2000 to spend on a project that "needs" the above software.

    3. He thinks the advantages of the above software compared to Win/Linux software is worth ~$500 to him but not $1000+. So he can "justify" spending $500 to buy a box to run the software but not $1000.

  • iServe (Score:3, Interesting)

    by amper ( 33785 ) * on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @11:18AM (#11209051) Journal
    The most important thing Apple Computer needs to get to market is a small 1U rack-mountable server in the sub-$1000 price range.

    Like, say, if you took a 17" iMac G5, ripped out the display, put it on it's side and racked it...but reconfig'd it so that the ports and slots would be easy to access while in a rack. Give me a single-processor G5 mobo, 2 internal SATA drives, a CD-ROM, a single PCI slot, and a choice of Mac OS X or Mac OS X Server, and I'm good to go.

    I have visions of Apple Network Appliances dancing in my head..email, DNS, DHCP, Open Directory nodes, web servers, etc, etc. All that nifty infrastructure stuff that doesn't really require a full-blown XServe, but that works great on multiple cheap boxen.
  • by Snorklefish ( 639711 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @11:21AM (#11209066)
    As much as I love my mother, the cost of administering her PC-- whether in terms of my time or her money-- is outrageous. The value of a secure, stable computing platform was pushing me towards purchasing her a Powermac. If the $499 Mac shows up, I'll skip the Powermac. Instead, I'll buy her the new box and use the savings to buy myself Apple's Remote Desktop software.
  • by xjerky ( 128399 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @11:39AM (#11209243)
    Agreed. Like others have said this is supposed to be a cheap machine so of course it's underspecced, but that doesn't excuse/explain dual G5s selling with only 256MB of RAM. My work machine is a dual 1.8Ghz model, and I could barely run Safari and iTunes at the same time without getting the Spinning Beach Ball of Death. I wasn't going to play Apple's game and pay them 3x the normal price for expansion RAM - I bought it third party. Runs MUCH better now with 1.2GB RAM.

    Why sell a machine with so much CPU horsepower then don't expext anyone to run an app that could actually take advantage of it (like Photoshop)?
  • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @11:47AM (#11209322) Homepage Journal
    $500 sounds pretty reasonable for this....aside from the joke of 'wanting to see a Beowolf cluster of these'...at only $500 a pop...it might just be worth experimenting on hooking 3-4 of these things together....

    Could you cluster a few of these things together...and run the mac server version of OSX? Just thinking off the top of my head with no research yet...but, might be interesting. And at this price...easily affordable.

  • now's their chance? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by utexaspunk ( 527541 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @11:48AM (#11209345)
    this kinda reminds me of this story [folklore.org] about the pricing of the original mac. their initial target price was $500, but the final design ended up being around $1,500. Then due to incresed costs and a lame decision by the board, it ended up starting out at $2,500, which prevented them from ever gaining a huge marketshare, which led to all sorts of problems later on.

    maybe now with microsoft looking pretty weak with their security problems and continually delaying longhorn, and with the problems intel is having and the rest of the PC market is having Apple is seeing this as a chance to make up for past mistakes and finally sell the "computer for everyone" they originally intended.
  • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @11:50AM (#11209363) Homepage Journal
    Also...Gentoo works well with ppc.

    I've only run into a problem with Linux on ppc at this point...X locks up all the damned time. It seems a number of others are having this problem...seems to be Xorg related. However, working on this one...before the locks started, thing ran like a top. Nice to have the dual book choice. Mine is an older iBook 800Mhz.

    One note...the G4 and G5's sometimes aren't as fully supported at the G3's...especially with relation to the laptops. Not familiar how well everything works with the towers.

  • No discussion: Gimme (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Damocles666 ( 627561 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @12:10PM (#11209553)
    I've wanted to switch for 2 years now. I own an ipod, my sister too, my dad also. I spend 10 hours a month removing virii and adware from their windows laptops (I refuse to spend more time). I crave Apple's design, but 1300 USD just to "play around" was a bit steep. The only thing that was stopping me from buying a Mac was price, and the fact that I still play some games sometime (so I can't ditch my PC straight away). If Apple makes this baby, I will buy one, I'll buy one for my sister, one for my mother and I'll convince 3 friends (minimum) to buy one for themselves and their wives. Easily. That's 3000 USD next year on top of the 1000 or so I spent on iPods in 2004 and another 500 I'll spend buying a new iPod in 2005. And I know tons of people around me who are just "turned off" by computers and would welcome a Mac. Now Gimme Gimme Gimme.
  • by Catbeller ( 118204 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @12:22PM (#11209686) Homepage
    This box sounds like Apple's answer to small form factor PC's running Myth or Microsoft's media center software. It's a multimedia box.

    There's been a sea change in monitors. Back in ye Olden Days, you had a Commodore 64 using a TV for a display. Fuzzy.

    Then came RGB monitors, which cost more than a TV, couldn't be used as a TV, but made computer video output much more usable.

    Then the monitors developed into hi-rez monsters. They showed TV better than TV sets showed TV.

    But now, lookee: hi-end high def TV's can run 1080i, or even 1080p with a converter. We have consumer TV's that can handily act as a not-bad monitor for a PC.

    What's an Apple to do with the situation of Microsoft end-running the entire entertainment industry by making their DRM and Media Center the de facto standard? They take the guts of a iMac and make a cheap Small Form Factor computer for cheap. It doesn't have Bill's virus problem inherent in the OS, and, also, most importantly, it doesn't crash.

    Run, Steve, run!
  • by MikeXpop ( 614167 ) <mike@noSPAM.redcrowbar.com> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @12:37PM (#11209857) Journal
    I can tell you with quite certainty that your third potato is quite rotten. While Mandrake is a fine distrobution for x86, it is quite a different OS on PPC. There are power problems, graphic problems, and none of the function keys (brightness, sound) work.

    I haven't tried anything else, but that'll show you that just because distros are available for the mac doesn't mean they're worth using.
  • by Brento ( 26177 ) * <brento.brentozar@com> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @12:55PM (#11210067) Homepage
    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.

    The whole point of buying a Mac (in my opinion) is to get the software. An old G4 tower from about two years ago will have old software from about two years ago. That's not the way I want to get started on a Mac journey.
  • by Maserati ( 8679 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @01:15PM (#11210278) Homepage Journal
    I mentioned this upthread earlier, but I'll reply here as well. The G5 iMac with 256MB RAM performs remarkably well, very smooth transitioning between applications, navigating in the Finder etc. This is not how a 256MB Mac used to run, even under 10.3. We didn't try iMovie, but that can't possibly run well in 256MB, kind of proving the OP's point, but the bare-bones config is a lot more useful than it used to be. If enough of the speedup is in video and component updates rather than CPU, a headless G4 should be usable at 256MB.

    Pricewatch.com is listing PC3200 256MB at $24 and 512MB at $45. Assuming wholesale prices follow a similar ratio[1], Apple is adding $10-$15 to their margin per unit by including the smaller chip. Note that 1GB chips are at $104 and 2GB at $279. We'll start seeing Macs ship with a single 512MB standard soon, but there's too much margin to be had on the bigger RAM upgrades to change yet. Probably this year, but not necessarily.

    One other point to consider is that the laptops need the memory more, to save disk access and because swap space on laptop drives is horribly slow. But look at the prices [1] PC2700 memory is roughly $25 for 128MB, $35-$53 for 256MB and up around $80 minimum for a 512MB chip. As long as those ratios hold, PowerBooks will ship with 256MB standard. Don't look for that to change anytime soon, and don't expect a stable notebook with cheap RAM in it. Those $35 256s may not even be recognized by a PowerBook, let alone run without errors in one. Get Kingston, be happy.

    [1] If anyone knows a good site for checking actual wholesale prices rather than nitwits who like putting that on their page so Google returns them for searches on 'wholesale' I'd be grateful to see it.
  • by Goo.cc ( 687626 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @01:36PM (#11210490)
    "As much as I love my mother, the cost of administering her PC-- whether in terms of my time or her money-- is outrageous."

    I know what you mean. My wife is going to buy a laptop next month and if she decides to stay on a PC, I will no longer provide her with assistance. I simply am not interested in figuring out where all her spyware came from, or why Windows is suddenly crashing all the time.

    Life is too short to deal with Windows.

  • by AstroDrabb ( 534369 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @02:51PM (#11211357)
    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.
    That is just silly. If I am spending my money, I don't want some used crap with no warranty from eBay. At $500, I would probably buy one of these as a "just to have it" kind of thing. A 1.25 GHz G4 is a little slow for me, but I could let my wife do here simple stuff on it.

    Now, if Apple came out with a $600-$700 low-end G5, MS would really feel some heat. I think the iPod should have shown to Apple that people are willing to spend a _little_ more on features and looks. You can get plenty of good MP3 players for less. The iPod just seemed to have the right looks and features for a price that was acceptable. Obviously, 96% or so of the computer using population do not feel that the current Macs have hit that consumer "sweet-spot" yet. A 1.25G Hz G4 with the memory upgraded to 512MB should be plenty for Joe Six-pack. Though there would still be some software problems. However, I am sure if software companies start to see Mac market share going up, they would port in no time.

    If this product is true, it could be a big win for Apple. I want to kick the people in charge of Aple in the head sometimes. I think Apple is blind sometimes. There is a _huge_ demand for anything that is _not_ MS at the consumer level right now. Tons of home users are fed-up with viruses and spyware. There just isn't anything out there yet with the right features and price. Joe Six-pack walks into the store, all he sees are cheap WinXP boxes from $300 to about $1,000, with the most popular being somewhere in the middle. If Apple can get one or two decent products in the $500 - $600 range, they could clean house in no time. Now I doubt they could bring down the big 600 lb. gorrila, but I see no reason why Apple couldn't grab 10% - 20% of the desktop market. Then we could really see some good competition.

  • Sounds good! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @03:50PM (#11212077)
    Sounds great. Of course, I'll believe it when I see it. My main wish is that it includes an easy way to connect to a TV and run software at 640x480. That would turn it in to the ultimate media centric machine. Being able to browse my iTunes and iPhoto libraries on the living room TV would be nirvana. Add some TiVo like functionality software, and you've got a device that is attractive to several markets.

    I've been wanting such a device for awhile now, and just can't bring myself to use Windows Media Center or any of the freeware Linux solutions.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @04:48PM (#11212753)
    ehh. I have some buddies that use macs that call me when they get stuck. I still get silly questions from time to time. The biggest gripe? Applicatons that delete files instead of moving them to the trash can. Seriously. No questions on how to connect, no installation problems, no bluescreen equivalents (after they fixed iDVD), no spyware. Just "I think I told my FTP mirroring software to mirror to my desktop and just wiped out my designs. Can you get them back for me?"

    Fortunately, there's cron for tarzipping the home directory and transferring the result to a remote machine (Ok, so cable modem or DSL required). Silly, bandwidth intensive, easy solution. Someday I am going to read the man pages for rsync.
  • by Randy Wang ( 700248 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @07:29PM (#11214163)
    Cough [mklinux.org] bloody cough [sharklinux.com]. What's your point? Linux exists on the Mac.

    Hell: Linux.org [linux.org] is where you want to go if you're going to be pedantic.
  • by MeauxToo ( 644228 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @08:18PM (#11214494)

    I often go into the Apple Store at Tyson's here in DC. I oogle the 30" flat panel and dual 2.5 PowerMac. I have the means to buy it, if I could justify it. Alas, a Mac can't run a number of very important applications necessary for my work as a Software Architect (e.g. Rational Enterprise Studio). Therefore, my big computer dollars must be directed towards a PC. I notice on my visits that others are oogling the same way I am, but have the same frown -- too much money for a secondary machine. Lump those folks in with the hip younger crowd who really want the fanciness but can't afford it. Put a $500 machine in front of us and we will snatch it up. The luscious user interface and smooth integration with digital cameras and my iPod. Yummy. They are gonna sell like hot cakes even at $799.

    One might say this analysis is flawed due to the eMac, but let's face facts the eMac is ugly. It lacks the sexiness of the PowerMac or iMac. It is built for school children and lacks the sophistication that we all want as adults. A sleek, cost-effective Mac will sell very well. Furthermore, if they offer a few well targeted upgrades, they will lure folks like me to turn the little $500 computer into a $1200 souped up mini-workstation.

    Where can I place my pre-order?

  • Q88? Sounds fishy... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ThatsNotFunny ( 775189 ) on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @08:57PM (#11214734)
    Q-Eighty-Eight sounds a bit like "You Idiot"... perhaps that's the joke that's going over our heads?
  • by alizard ( 107678 ) <alizard&ecis,com> on Wednesday December 29, 2004 @11:50PM (#11215757) Homepage
    Everybody seems to be taking something for granted.

    The something is that Microsoft is the only target. While as described, only a drooling tard would pay twice as much for a Windows Media Center of inferior performance deliberately DRM broken with a G5 Mac pizzabox which Just Works as the other choice, I can think of a rapidly expanding niche market that this box would be ideally suited to attack.

    The market is, of course, the Linux desktop for the non ubergeek user.

    I've put the last year into learning the Linux desktop, and paid for it in part by writing Linux tutorials for publication. In part, I've been doing this because it looks like the market for people who know Linux is expanding rapidly in the places in the world I want to go. (the EU and Canada, the US politicians seem to be bent on destroying the ability for non-corporates to do technology R&D because the Hollywood content cartel wants it that way)

    The main advantages of desktop Linux for the non-fanatic are:

    • that it runs on cheap commodity x86 hardware. (which has its own problems neatly summarized by "cheap")
    • MS doesn't sell it
    • it's security doesn't suck shit, even right out of the box
    • it looks a lot like the future.

    The difference between cheap commodity x86 hardware and low cost high-quality Mac hardware is one most of us can probably live with.

    The difference between It Just Works and the fun and games involved with adding new hardware and software to a Linux box is also something all of us but the hard core fanatics can live with. While the automated installer tools like apt-get/synaptic are probably as good as anything Apple sells and far better than anything Redmond ever imagined, it's really too bad that outside of the apps bundled with distributions, there isn't a whole lot that you can install with them.

    Throw in the much larger number of applications which actually work and meet user needs available on the Mac platform and there aren't a whole lot of reasons to go with Linux as an alternative to Windows given a low-cost entry-level Mac platform which will probably physically break a lot less often than an eMachine or a Dell.

    Don't tell me about the wonders of Open Office Writer and other FOSS apps, since I live in the real world, the "minor compatibility issues" get a lot more serious when I'm submitting copy to editors who run MS Word on Windows boxes. GIMP vs PaintShopPro? The only reason I can run Linux on my primary workstation, i.e. the box that helps me make a living is that Win4Lin [netraverse.com](WHICH IS NOT FREE) works far better than WINE does, and therefore, I can run just about anything Windows in a Windows window over my copy of Fedora Core 2.

    So what would a Linux box on a cheap x86 platform do for a user that a low-cost Mac doesn't? Break more often? Cause a user trying to install something or make it work after installing to spend lots and lots of time on the Web?

    As for "looks a lot like the future", imagine yourself as an enterprise CIO who's sick of paying MS tax and paying to fix the endless series of major software security problems with MS and buying cheap commodity PCs that constantly break who gets pitched Apple quality, OSX, and a chance to reduce in-house support staff at the same time. With the other option being a consultant group pitching FOSS and saying "well, some of your boxes will support Linux, we'll have to see".

    I've been investing time in Linux because I see a world evolving beyond MS's product line and I want to be one of the people who can explain it and fix it for a world full of Linux newbies who just bought or had corporate get them Linux boxes to replace their aging XP machines. A *nix OS that does everything Linux does, only better, puts that plan in question.

    I'm putting my planned x86 hardware upgrade on hold until I find out if this is for real or not. If Apple can compete at the low end, Linux desktops may not have mu

  • by mojowantshappy ( 605815 ) on Thursday December 30, 2004 @03:14AM (#11216938)
    One thing I don't get is where are they going to get the head from? The Apple Store doesn't sell any low end monitors (the lowest end being the 1299 20" Cinema Display), and surely they don't expect the consumer to seek a different location for a monitor? So where are they going to get this head, and how much is it going to cost? Would a consumer rather buy a $500 headless Mac and a $100 CRT monitor then a $799 eMac? 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? Sure, customers could just use a monitor they already have, but most people when buying a computer expect to get the whole package, and generally have planned uses for older computers. Their planned uses may never come to fruitiion, but that doesn't matter at the time of purchase. I think the idea overall is pretty cool for the geek community, but for the consumer I don't see it. I could certainly imagine selling these at the Apple Store, but it would take up uneccessary space for what would probably be a redundant product.
  • by JPyObjC Dude ( 772176 ) on Thursday December 30, 2004 @12:00PM (#11219186)
    I'd love to have one of those babies to sneak into my employers network to host my development hacks and scm repositories. Being somewhat familiar with bsd roots of OSX, I am currently hacking on FreeBSD but there are much more binary distribs on OSX for app's I'd like to work with.

    I't would be great to have these boxes in other applications like at my family restaurant and bakery. I could build a very low cost Recipe, scheduling, POS... system and all running Obj-C, Python, Java, JavaScript ..... :]

    Let it be, let it be...

    JsD
  • by Jeff Jungblut ( 744824 ) on Saturday January 01, 2005 @06:01PM (#11235223)
    I've been egging my boss for two years to get new Macs for my department (weekly newspaper production) to replace our current setups (two PM G4 400Mhz, one PM G3 300MHz and one PM 6500 120MHz) and, being a traditional penny-pinching publisher, have gotten little more out of him than a pair of new mice and a smattering of software upgrades (Quark 6, FontAgent Pro).

    G5s are way out of his price range. Even the discounted PM G4 1.25s (while they were still available) were rejected because buying three meant spending in the neighborhood of $7K.

    As long as these $500 boxes can be upgraded to at least 1 GB RAM and can connect to a VGA monitor, my wish for new hardware this year may come true.

    I bought my home system in March '03 (dual 1.4GHz) and at the time that was the fastest Mac on the planet. A single 1.25GHz ain't no slouch if you have to work on a 400MHz G4 all day. I feel sorry for the guy running Quark 6 & Photoshop on the G3 300, that's cruel & unusual punishment.

Lots of folks confuse bad management with destiny. -- Frank Hubbard

Working...