Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Goodbye Mac
- Thread starter wawanarchist
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Although everyone has starting bashing the **** out of each other, the OP is expressing exactly how both a good friend and myself feel about the recent Apple releases.
We've both been delaying our purchases for the new hardware. We had money waiting, bank cards poised - and then stuck them right back in our wallets after the announcement. I wanted a 20" with a respectable GPU - they didn't provide. He wanted a top of the range 24", and then blanched when he saw the crazy price increase for no performance gain (on the 8800 / GT130 ).
The specs are mediocre compared to the whopping price increase - it was a no brainer to ignore this generation.
I keep almost buying a Dell / Sony, but I just can't give up OS X.
It was my understanding that the price went down on the 24".
It did for the bottom line 24"... I meant the GT130 / 8800 equipped 24".
The lowest end 24" is powered by a 9400M - I can't believe they decided to power a 24" screen with a 1920 x 1080 resolution with a low end integrated laptop GPU! Madness.
Why is the 9400 considered low end? I thought it was leaps and bounds better than that intel crap.
Because it's an integrated videochip sharing system RAM. Just completely unfitting in a desktop like the iMac.
I didn't want to get involved in this thread, but I have to say I 'm scratching my head at the amount of complaining about the update. First off, it was just a quiet update - it wasn't like Apple had a massive announcement promising next generation hardware, and then we should all be shocked to find... UPDATED hardware (likely poised to take advantage of Snow Leopard). Even if it were just a doubling of hard drive space and RAM for the same price, it would be an OK "update" IMHO. To me it's a prep for SL.
The OP's comments seem like a trite retread of everything that's always been said about Macs. Yes, they are more expensive when you compare price/performance from a spec only level. Is that suddenly a surprise after all these years? Was the iMac ever supposed to be a dominant gaming machine or a performance/graphics powerhouse?
If you are a hardcore gamer or a price/performance perfectionist, there have always been and always will be a ton of excellent PC options out there. More power to ya (and me)! With this update, Apple has basically just made sure the iMac is in line with the latest core GPU technology from nVidia (making it ready for Windows 7 and Snow Leopard), and brought it's drive space and RAM in line with what most users prefer these days.
And AFAIK, the price structure (in the US anyway) didn't change much, did it? For under $2000, you can get a beautiful 24" screen, excellent space saving all-in-one design, ample drive space and RAM, with the latest and greatest feature set from nVidia (including full DX10 support and presumably Snow Leopard). You get an Apple that can double as a full-on gaming PC without significant effort, basically the best of both worlds.
Vista has sold more Macs since its inception than all Apple advertising combined.
Fact.
The update wasn't as bad as most people suggest. The designs on all of the current Mac systems is quite similar and they make a pretty good "family". Everything is either aluminum or black and well it matches. There still is no point in Apple completely revolutionizing and creating new designs when what they have right now is absolutely fine.
There will always be complaints on what Apple did or didn't do. That's just life.
There will always be complaints on what Apple did or didn't do. That's just life.
It by far is better than the integrated Intel video chipsets
It runs a game like WoW at 1920x1200 fine, and it runs a movie while running XP in Fusion and WoW in a window on a second monitor fine also. I know because I have the 1499 Imac sitting here doing it .
Anyone who buys an Imac to be their main gaming rig for Crysis Warhead at 1920x1200 with 16xAA on is clueless to begin with.
Don't let the extreme whiners bother you , they are whining about a machine they don't have and spewing out their opinion on something they don't have any experience with.
I prefer an actual Apple machine with OS X as my work/secondary desktop and am quite happy with it.
Honestly I don't know what people were expecting Apple to do with the refresh. They are essentially stuck with the hardware that is currently available.
There are no mobile quad core chips that could have been put into the iMac even if Apple wanted to.
There aren't really drastically better video card options available that work for the iMac form factor either.
Basically they are stuck until better parts start to become available.
There are no mobile quad core chips that could have been put into the iMac even if Apple wanted to.
There aren't really drastically better video card options available that work for the iMac form factor either.
Basically they are stuck until better parts start to become available.
The OP fell into the spec peeper trap. You know those types. They only look at paper specs and price and not at anything else.
I think Macs have many advantages that aren't seen in paper specs.
Organization. Lack of spyware and viruses. Lack of bloatware. Intuitiveness. Software. Quiet design. Nice looking hardware. etc.
I think Macs have many advantages that aren't seen in paper specs.
Organization. Lack of spyware and viruses. Lack of bloatware. Intuitiveness. Software. Quiet design. Nice looking hardware. etc.
What's interesting is that I agree with the OP and others who have expressed some dissatisfaction with some of Apple's offerings. I also was somewhat disappointed immediately after the update. Towards the end of the day my opinion changed, and although not happy with the update, felt that it was just ok.
I haven't owned a Mac for a few years - but have been in the market for one since I sold my last one. Its not something I need - just something I want since I'm bored with Windows and feel that OS X is the best OS out there right now. So I don't think I can be called an Apple fanboy.
That being said I disagree with the thought that Apple is overpriced. I have compared the Mini to Dell, HP and other non-apple hardware, and the price and specs are not very different for the same type of machine (none of which actually comes close to Apple's size or design). At the premium level - I have configured Dell workstations with the same specs as Mac Pros, and they have mostly been within $100 of each other. I just don't see Apple as being extremely overpriced - as long as you don't buy into their ridiculous upgrades.
My problem with Apple is this. I don't want a Pro machine or an all in one, but for some reason Apple refuses to build a machine, other than the Mac Pros, that are made of Desktop hardware and resemble what 95% of desktop buyers purchase - a mid tower or desktop form factor. Now sure the mini and iMacs are considered desktops - but to me they really are more like laptops due to their lack of expansion and ability to upgrade. If you compare them to similar machines from other manufacturers they are competitive price wise and spec wise. The problem is, I don't think that most people who are shopping for computers are looking for all in ones, or laptops pretending to be desktops.
If Apple does not want to license other manufacturers to build hardware that runs OS X, then they should at least offer a desktop model that somewhat resembles what most desktop purchasers actually buy. Until they do that - I think that these types of topics will come up.
I truly don't think Apple is overpriced or offers bad value - it's just that they don't offer the hardware that a vast majority of consumers actually want. As for me, I guess I will settle for the new mini - but that is exactly what I will be doing - settling instead of getting what I actually want.
As for Dell, their low end $299 PCs are pretty bad - but what do you expect for $299 (especially in seeing how far $299 goes in Apple upgrades). But their business class hardware and servers, I think, are pretty well made. I have purchased many Power Edge servers - both Tower and Rackmount and have always been satisfied with build quality. Their T300 and T605 are almost as nice as the Mac Pros in some ways, and are very nice to work on inside...
Sorry to keep this going, but I needed to get my $.02 in!
Exactly why I didn't bother replying to the post.
Of corse, most Macs had the hardware to run Vista well, other than all the errors in the crappy OS.
I just think that it's funny that since Vista was released Apple has doubled their market share of the PC market from 5% to 10%.
The point is that despite all of the "problems" with Macs being overpriced, not as upgradeable, etc, they have still managed to sell very well.
The biggest challenge that Apple will be facing over the next year is the lack of his Jobsness at the helm and the fact that in a poor economy they are probably going to be selling far fewer machines.
P.S.
I'm in the market for a Mac, but I agree with some of the previous sentiments. It would be really nice if Apple would build something vaguely resembling a desktop that didn't sell for over $2000 and had upgradeable video, etc.
First off, vista has been around since 06, has apple really gone from 5% to 10% in just three years or was it part of a continuing trend?
Second, jobs is back in june, how that is a year without him ill never know.
GPUs do more than play games. You got the short end of the stick if you spent $1,500 for a desktop that has an integrated graphics chip.