Serious Problem: Apple desktop computers are becoming more and more expensive... Advice?

[T Coma]

No. Would you like to own a ****** car next to your nice car?

Depends what "******" and "nice" mean. E.g., our nice family vehicle cost more than my first house, and it is parked next to my ****** DD truck (that's older than the average MR user) which still provides far more utility than I expected of it ages ago.

I'd prefer to not own a ****** analogy next to nice OP inquiry.

 

[Gudi]

Depends what "******" and "nice" mean.

We're not talking cars vs. trucks. Two cars both four-door sedans, one ugly and broken the other shiny and new. You don't keep both around in case you might want to drive around in the ugly one.

If you have to ask, is there any benefit to Linux or Windows, then you probably don't run any command line tools or enterprise software which require a specific OS. And if you don't need to run three different OS's, then you better cut loose two, just to reduce the mental overhead.

 

[theluggage]

So, I thought moving to Linux desktop computers would be the way to go. It's frustrating that I'm unable to access my Mac Mini mid2011's files because I only have one Mac desktop computer as iPad's are unable to access Time Machine.

Linux & Windows can access your Mac's files via SMB file sharing over a network.

If the Mac is defunct Linux & Windows can read Apple HFS+ drives directly. Linux has read-only HFS+ built in (enable write access at your own risk). On Windows there's a commercial implementation of HFS for Windows. Time Machine backups originally made to directly connected discs are perfectly readable (again, write at your own risk) without the flashy interface - if they were made to a NAS or networked Mac it's a bit harder (...which is why you shouldn't use Time Machine as your only backup).

Mac discs using the newer APFS filing system are a problem - but if you're working in a mixed-OS environment the message is "don't use APFS".

Otherwise, the "cheap" Mac desktop solution is a M1 Mac Mini and a 3rd party 4k display.

 

[theluggage]

I don't really see or understand where this "Apple desktops are more expensive" narrative at all. Acquisition costs for all Macs are much lower today than any other point in the time I've owned and purchased Macs.

More expensive than what? It's quite easy to defend the cost vs. quality of Macs c.f. "comparable" upmarket PCs like the MS Surface range, Razer or even Dell's "premium" XPS range - the problem is that Apple just don't make low-end PCs whereas you can get a reasonably capable Windows PC for $300. It may not be comparable with a $1000 MacBook on performance or quality but if it does the job you need to do, that's irrelevant.

Please provide a list of these mythical beasts. In particular I'm looking for a really nice 5K display that's 1/3 the cost of the Apple Studio Display.

Of course there are no 5k displays at 1/3 the cost of the Studio display - because Mac users are pretty much the only people who give a wet slap about 5k displays, and everybody else is happy with 4k or "5k2k ultrawide" until 8k comes along. Third Party 5120x2880 displays came and went 5 years ago - looks like nobody wanted them.

There are, however, any number of perfectly good 4k displays, 5k2k ultrawide displays and even 1440p displays at a fraction of the price of the Studio Display, and plenty of threads here that you can check to see if people have successfully used them on Macs. Unfortunately, there's a myth going round that using a 4k display on the Mac will make your eyes bleed.

There are a couple of minor compromises with using 4k rather than 5k: if you're ever trying to do pixel-accurate work at 1:1 scale using your better-than-20:20 vision (rather than availing yourself of the zoom function), or trying to run Blender at 5k-equivalent scaled resolution on a base M1 GPU then you may have to (oh, the humanity) temporarily switch into a screen mode where the UI size isn't quite in your goldilocks zone of perfection. Your mileage may very, but personally I've never found anything that outweighed the advantage of being able to get two matching 4k displays (with height-adjustable stands and detachable power cables!) and £1000 change c.f. the price of a single Studio Display with a comparable stand.

Personally, I've got a pair of Huawei Mateviews - it's a shame they are hard top get in the US - which are 4k+ 3:2 (3840x2560) 28.2" displays with the same pixel density as a 27" 4k, but about 2" of extra vertical space which, I find, makes up for the slightly bigger toolbars and dock you get in 2:1 mode, so non-integer scaled modes don't come into it (although scaled modes work fine and give insane real estate unless you climb on the desk with a loupe and do A/B comparisons with a 5k). Do they have the seam fit & finish as a Studio Display? Well, let's see, I paid £400 for one and £500 for the second one, so what are you expecting?

 

[TightLines]

Of course there are no 5k displays at 1/3 the cost of the Studio display - because Mac users are pretty much the only people who give a wet slap about 5k displays, and everybody else is happy with 4k or "5k2k ultrawide" until 8k comes along. Third Party 5120x2880 displays came and went 5 years ago - looks like nobody wanted them.

There are, however, any number of perfectly good 4k displays, 5k2k ultrawide displays and even 1440p displays at a fraction of the price of the Studio Display, and plenty of threads here that you can check to see if people have successfully used them on Macs. Unfortunately, there's a myth going round that using a 4k display on the Mac will make your eyes bleed.

I was wondering why i was having a hard time finding them to try and answer that question you just answered… so thank you. And i agree with your sentiment…

I have seen many monitors out there that range from $300 - $600 that seem to be just fine and have an output thats nice and bright, vibrant, and without jitter, etc… they don’t offer a lot of fancy marketing jargon in the industry as buzz words used for bamboozeling the easily wowed crowd, but they do have a lot of ports to help extend your computers expandability… thats got to be worth something, no? Oh, and for those few 5k monitors using the marketing buzz words that are out there, i presume they will soon come down with the sucker price… because it seems not many people are buying them. That’s with the exception of the Apple branded Samsungs… those will remain in the sucker price range until they have been discontinued.

 

[rpmurray]

Of course there are no 5k displays at 1/3 the cost of the Studio display - because Mac users are pretty much the only people who give a wet slap about 5k displays, and everybody else is happy with 4k or "5k2k ultrawide" until 8k comes along. Third Party 5120x2880 displays came and went 5 years ago - looks like nobody wanted them.

There are, however, any number of perfectly good 4k displays, 5k2k ultrawide displays and even 1440p displays at a fraction of the price of the Studio Display

Ah yes, the moving of the goalposts. A sure sign that someone has been writing fiction. I understand that trying to justify your acceptance of a substandard experience on the grounds that it's "almost as good" helps you sleep at night, but I am not among that group.

I am one of those that DOES want a 5K display (8K would be even better) but can not afford the price, except in the one instance where it comes bundled with the computer and IS priced reasonably, let's give that a catchy name, I know, we'll call it an iMac. Now all we need to do is wait until Apple gets its head out of its butt and delivers it (again).

"Third Party 5120x2880 displays came and went 5 years ago - looks like nobody wanted them". So, in your spin, what makes you think they'll want an 8K display that is MORE expensive than a 5K?

 

[rpmurray]

... i presume they will soon come down with the sucker price… because it seems not many people are buying them. That’s with the exception of the Apple branded Samsungs… those will remain in the sucker price range until they have been discontinued.

You may want to do a bit more research before you put your foot in your mouth. The 5K displays that Apple uses are LG, not Samsung.

 

[TightLines]

You may want to do a bit more research before you put your foot in your mouth. The 5K displays that Apple uses are LG, not Samsung.

Hey, thanks for the correction on that… i knew it was one of the big and prominent manufactures… Samsung has produced some stuff for Apple too, i just don’t keep up with who did what as much as i probably should… so that mistake is all on me for sure. Apologies to those where that mistake might have affected in their perception of things.

Of course that doesn’t change my point… the monitors are Apple branded, not designed or manufactured by them. I am sure they have a team of Apple employed collaborators signing off on this, that, or the other, but that’s about it… Since you know this, what does the LG branded model of the same display sell for? (The twin) I presume it is significantly less… oh, and probably has more relevant ports too…

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Thank you for your reply!

Is it really worth it to have your entire setup, all of your devices, made by Apple? Why is the benefit of having a 100% Apple environment?

Aren't there benefits to have a Windows or a Linux computer in the mix?

Preface: Asking such questions of a very biased crowd will overwhelmingly get you very biased answers. This is basically Appleville where Apple Inc is up to God for some people. So naturally, you are going to get 80+:20- passionate arguments why all Apple everything trumps anything else. If you went deep into an Androidville forum and basically asked Android vs. iOS, you'd get overwhelmingly passionate Android answers. If you went into Windowville forums, you would get overwhelmingly passionate Windows answers. In all my virtual travels through all such "villes", there are none as brand passionate as Apple fans... who seem to have some personal mandate to push Apple everything no matter what... and fault anything that competes with Apple no matter what.

That offered, let's get to your questions:

100% Apple generally delivers a "works well together" experience, strong compatibility, pretty good interoperability, shared services that work well across hardware, etc. Learning how to do things the Apple way will generally work the same/similarly across Apple hardware. Embracing the walled garden means that things that work in the garden will generally "just work" with other Apple products too.

Is it worth it? That's a personal decision. You have to define worth for yourself. There are some here who might trade a kidney for something from Apple. I suspect if it came down to food & shelter vs. new iPhone, a few would choose starving & homeless to get the phone. Etc. Is that "worth it?" For me, I'd say no. But worth is definately eye- or wallet- of the beholder.

Benefits of having a Windows or Linux computer in the mix comes down to what software you want/need to run. All it takes is ONE Windows-only piece of software that you need to run to rationalize having something that can run Windows. The vast majority of computing in the world is done on Windows computers. There are countless applications that only run on Windows. If you need 100% compatibility with Windows files, opening them in something on Mac- if that's even an option- and then exporting them back to a Windows format does not guarantee 100% compatibility. Even a same-name app available for BOTH Mac and Windows may not be 100% cross-platform compatible.

So to this Windows/Linux question, ask yourself a simple question: is there anything I want/need to do on computing technology that will require Windows/Linux? If yes, you have the answer to that question. If no, you might be able to get by with workarounds like using a public Windows computer for rare-need access, borrowing some time on one for free from a friend, work (Windows) computer, virtual Windows solution and/or something like Parallels using Windows for ARM.

In my own situation, I make my living with computers. I have clients who need me to be able to open Windows files and run niche Windows apps. I much prefer using Mac as much as possible but need is need. Until Silicon, Apple offered the ultimate solution of a single computer able to run BOTH platforms natively. With Silicon, that tremendous benefit is fading as the old Mac works toward its demise.

Windows for ARM is not full Windows, so the hope of a revived bootcamp option with Windows for ARM is not necessarily scratching all itches... IF it ever comes. Parallels type options are also leaning on Windows for ARM.

My solution was to recreate "bootcamp" the old fashioned way... with a dedicated Windows computer.

Since cost is a concern in your post, choose your key accessories carefully. For example, Apple's Studio monitor is high praised by Apple people but it is basically a one-input monitor. If you need a separate Windows computer, you might want to seek out a monitor with at least 2 inputs so you can easily switch out without all the unplugging-replugging.

For me, that meant Mac Studio + a Mac-mini-like PC + a Dell 5K2K ultra-wide monitor. This monitor has a KVM-like switch built into it so it can share keyboard and mouse (instead of needing 2 separates of each) and multiple inputs so I can simply leave the little Windows box and little Mac box hooked up. It can even split screen so I can have Windows and Mac running side by side at the same time.

If I also needed Linux running separately too, there's another input for that available. Nutshell: one monitor + keyboard + mouse to work with up to 4 different computers without unhooking/re-hooking cables.

Since Mac And PC tuck in behind the monitor, the only visible brand mark is on the monitor. Thus, others may assume I have a Dell iMac-like all-in-one, running something that looks like macOS (because it is macOS). But if the main decision is driven by what other people think, the "ville" in which those other people live will drive the decision. I don't care what other people think- I just want a great Mac and need a solid Windows system and this was a good way to get both without lots of hardware duplication.

All that offered: if you think through all of the stuff you want/need to do with a computer and Macs can cover ALL of those things well, then you probably can go "all Apple" and be fine. Yes, it will certainly feel more expensive (Apple's big fat margins are indisputable), but Apple stuff does tend to be well made and perform well for many years. However, if you know that you need at least ONE thing that is Windows or Linux only, you can't go all Apple. If most of your want/needs are Windows/Linux based, you might not need Apple at all... or perhaps make your purchases Windows/Linux focused with maybe an iPad to get a dose of Appleville too.

Lastly, Intel Macs are still for sale new and as refurbs... the latter at a modest discount. While Apple people would see them as the past, they still run latest macOS just fine and offer bootcamp for 100% Windows compatibility. So one option would be to buy one of those so you have "one computer to rule them all." Since Apple still sells Intel Macs as new, macOS will likely still be compatible with Intel Macs for the next 5+ years before "features only for Silicon" make them really feel old. This could be a way to see how much you can do with "100% Apple" while still having a cheap, very good fall-back to Windows & Linux when/if needed.

Since Windows is generally backwards compatible much longer than macOS, even if an Intel Mac purchase is macOS unsupported in 5+ years, it can become a dedicated Windows machine for probably another 5 and you can add about a M6 Mac if you are "mostly Apple" by then.

 

[theluggage]

I understand that trying to justify your acceptance of a substandard experience on the grounds that it's "almost as good" helps you sleep at night, but I am not among that group.

I don't feel the need to justify paying less than 2/3 the price of a Studio display for more than twice as much usable screen area at a resolution that is still "retina" class at viewing distances over 21" (i.e. about typical for desktop computers). Plus, unlike any Apple display, they have multiple inputs so I can use them with various other computers I own. They're actually replacing a 5k iMac partly because - although the iMac has a very nice display - having a huge display that could only be used by the computer it was welded to, and with no matching second display available, wasn't meeting my needs.

I am one of those that DOES want a 5K display (8K would be even better) but can not afford the price, except in the one instance where it comes bundled with the computer and IS priced reasonably, let's give that a catchy name, I know, we'll call it an iMac. Now all we need to do is wait until Apple gets its head out of its butt and delivers it (again).

If you want 5k, that's fine, but it's expensive because the only market for 5k panels today is a small subset of Mac users - so no competition or economies of scale to bring down prices.

No one really knows why Apple drops products - but it's a pretty good working theory that if a product were selling like hotcakes at a good profit they wouldn't cancel it. The low-end 5k iMac was always a bargain, and probably not Apple's biggest profit margin - but (a) the market for desktops is generally declining in favour of mobile (b) the "small" iMac now has a bigger, better screen and processor that will satisfy many potential 5k customers and (c) a lot of higher-end customers are delighted to be able to buy a Studio that lets them choose their own displays rather than be forced to buy an all-in-one and (c) a Mac Studio + Studio Display combo is a similar price to & worthy upgrade from the old top-end i9 iMac models and a lot cheaper than the iMac Pro was.

So, in your spin, what makes you think they'll want an 8K display that is MORE expensive than a 5K?

5k: barely distinguishable from 4k on PCs, some Mac users prefer it for 27" displays and, erm... you can edit 4k video at 1:1 without artefacts and still have space for a toolbar... (assuming your PC can smoothly edit 4k without compressing it to hell).

vs.

8k: already being hyped as the next video standard, and in time the industry will be hawking 8k TVs (which will work as "cheap" computer displays), the latest games and consoles will be touting 8k, Amazon will be streaming 8k movies and selling phones that shoot 8k and everybody will want their wedding videos produced in 8k... => mass production of 8k panels and falling prices.

I mean, I'm not betting my shirt on the 8k horse, which could easily go the way of 3D TV, but it's a better bet than a sudden 5k renaissance.

 

[HDFan]

only because it is unable to make the transitions to a newer cpu architecture

It has. I'm running Windows 11 experimental natively on my M1. A general release is evidently delayed due to a Qualcomm contract, exact expiration date unknown.

 

[darngooddesign]

The M1 Mac mini is pretty inexpensive.

A few benefits to all-Apple are Handoff, Continuity, Universal Clipboard (I use this a lot), and Sidecar.

 

[tstafford]

c) a lot of higher-end customers are delighted to be able to buy a Studio that lets them choose their own displays rather than be forced to buy an all-in-one and (c) a Mac Studio + Studio Display combo is a similar price to & worthy upgrade from the old top-end i9 iMac models and a lot cheaper than the iMac Pro was.

These are good points. I fall in to the first group - I don't have any legitimate business need for Studio/multiple ASD but I like the set-up, enjoy it every day and have zero regret about the cost.

And I think you make an interesting observation that the Studio plus ASD is essentially an iMac Pro with a starting price point of *only* $3600 which really isn't bad given the power - and it can be specced up to a ridiculous amount of storage/processing capacity.

 

[Gudi]

It has. I'm running Windows 11 experimental natively on my M1. A general release is evidently delayed due to a Qualcomm contract, exact expiration date unknown.

Where is the equivalent of Rosetta 2, where are the Universal Binaries? Apple is transitioning with its entire ecosystem and with all their developers. Soon they will stop selling and servicing Intel Macs at all.

For Microsoft Windows on ARM is only an addition to their ongoing WINTEL monopoly, which they can’t and don’t want to leave behind. So they’re signaling to all developers: there’s no rush, you can keep your code on x86, let others take the risk to be guinea pig testers for Win on ARM.

 

[theluggage]

Where is the equivalent of Rosetta 2, where are the Universal Binaries? Apple is transitioning with its entire ecosystem and with all their developers. Soon they will stop selling and servicing Intel Macs at all.

Windows 10/11 on ARM has always had 32 bit x86 emulation, and 64 bit support was added with (I think) Windows 11 (or around that time). Plus, MS's preferred modern development platform uses the "common language runtime" meaning CLR applications ship as processor-independent microcode - not a magic bullet that makes everything ARM compatible but it does help.

But, yes, MS's monopoly relies on lots of older, legacy x86 code and corporate customers that won't change their workflow any time soon. Apple has been able to get away with being much quicker to kill off "legacy" stuff, which made the ARM transition relatively easy - so on Mac you're lucky if a 10-year old app still runs on the latest OS whereas it's only with Windows 11 that MS has totally dropped support for DOS-era apps. Rosetta 2 is really for running otherwise up-to-date apps that have x86 binaries - it doesn't have to bother with supporting legacy APIs.

However, that "legacy: stuff won't last Microsoft forever (or, rather, the corporates that depend on it will have to bankroll the support while the rest of the world moves on) and clinging to it has already cost them the mobile market - Windows 11 showed clear signs of MS starting to move forward.

It's worth remembering that Microsofts PC business model is completely different from Apples - their "Surface" PC hardware business is small fry (less market share than Apple, and eye-wateringly expensive) and the vast majority of their PC revenue comes from licensing Windows, Office and other software for use on other manufacturer's (mainly) x86 machines. Apple can say "OK - we're going to stop making Intel Macs" because they're the only people making Macs - Microsoft couldn't do that even if they wanted to - they'd have to convince Dell, HP, Lenovo, Acer, etc. etc. etc... and all the no-names that make PC components to jump together. MS could produce "Microsoft Silicon" (they'd have to partner with/buy out someone with the capability, but then Tim and Craig didn't work out Apple Silicon themselves on the back of a napkin) but then they'd have to convince all the PC makers to adopt it.

 

[MajorFubar]

Mac Mini is not expensive though is it?
It's almost surely on the verge of being revamped with an M2 processor, and just like the M1 version, likely giving it more power than the 13" MB Pro due to being housed in a better form factor. For most users this will offer an insane amount of computing power (coupled with an ability to run multiple displays), the likes of which not long ago would have required them to invest in a Mac Pro.
Y'all never had it so good.

 

[ahurst]

Digging up a post I made a few months ago with some relevant charts (note that this data is from 2021 and is thus missing some newer Macs):

[W]hen adjusted for inflation, the base Mac mini is about the same low price point it always was during the Jobs era, except the current base Mini has the CPU/GPU equivalent of the top-tier Mac minis of the past:

The one exception is the base model 2014 Mac mini which sold for $499, but also came with a very weak 1.4 GHz CPU.

Likewise, looking at the same chart for iMac models, you can see that for less than used to get the base-model 21.5" 4K iMac (or a little more than the 1080p 21.5" iMacs making up that lowest row of green), you now get an iMac with a retina 24" display and a CPU that handily outclasses that base model's i3 (and even its top-range i7). Adjusted for inflation, the 24" iMac of today sits a little under the price point of the mid-range 17" iMac from 2006:

Same deal for Apple laptops, which have become increasingly budget-friendly over the past two decades:

Ignoring the loss of the unique value proposition of the 5K iMacs (offset a bit by the inability to re-use that display with other/future machines), the data suggests that a lot of the talk of Macs getting more expensive is just us underestimating how heavily inflation has picked up since the mid 2000's.

 

[monstermash]

Hey guys,

I've tried solving this problem myself for several months and I haven't found a solution yet...

I'm trying to find the best "home setup possible" as I'm the only person using these devices and I don't have anyone else that I can share costs with.

Do many people have setups with exclusively Apple products?

The best solution I could think of was a "mixed solution" with a Windows 10 PC, Mac desktop computer, my 9th gen iPad and a couple machines running Linux.

I'm starting to move away from Windows because there seems to be such a focus on taking as many user files as possible to the cloud. So, I thought moving to Linux desktop computers would be the way to go. It's frustrating that I'm unable to access my Mac Mini mid2011's files because I only have one Mac desktop computer as iPad's are unable to access Time Machine.

Thank you for any advice!

You don't have to buy the latest and greatest.

I use a 2014 Mac Mini for daily work. It works great and was CHEAP. Divide that cost over 8 years that I've had it so far and on a per year basis, it's practically free. I also don't see myself replacing it any time soon, so it's just getting cheaper every day.

Apple monitors on the other hand, offer no value and are ridiculously priced. I use two 32" Viewsonic monitors and couldn't be happier.

 

[tstafford]

Ignoring the loss of the unique value proposition of the 5K iMacs

Right. But the thing is a lot of us are owners of 5K iMacs and are commenting from that perspective.

We are still running our 2015 iMac 27" today. Basically anything I can buy and get seven plus years out of is a steal. Especially electronics. Apple offers nothing today that is a viable replacement. The M1 iMac is nowhere near as nice as the old 27" - I owned the 24" so I know exactly what it is (and isn't).

 

[4sallypat]

These are good points. I fall in to the first group - I don't have any legitimate business need for Studio/multiple ASD but I like the set-up, enjoy it every day and have zero regret about the cost.

And I think you make an interesting observation that the Studio plus ASD is essentially an iMac Pro with a starting price point of *only* $3600 which really isn't bad given the power - and it can be specced up to a ridiculous amount of storage/processing capacity.

I am in the same group as well.

I have the Studio Display and Mac Studio (base) and find it more than what I need to use it for.

Currently, I have a dual display setup: ASD + ATD and found the ASD is superior over the ATD.

I am now saving for the second ASD to replace my ATD which served well for over 11 years...

 

[Gudi]

A lot of us are owners of 5K iMacs and are commenting from that perspective.

We are still running our 2015 iMac 27" today. Basically anything I can buy and get seven plus years out of is a steal. Especially electronics. Apple offers nothing today that is a viable replacement. The M1 iMac is nowhere near as nice as the old 27" - I owned the 24" so I know exactly what it is (and isn't).

And some of us run 2009 iMacs 27" with 3.7K displays. Frankly the 5K display wasn't worth the upgrade for me. I use 1280×720 HiDPI mode. Everything is just a little bigger, but as sharp as on a Retina display.

The 24" iMac offers a lot of features no Intel Mac ever could.

• a TSMC 5nm chip with 16 billion transistors
• a new integrated SoC architecture
• unified memory fully available for CPU, GPU and Neural Engine
• a RISC based ARM instruction set
• compatibility with iOS apps
• an 8-core CPU (4 efficiency / 4 performance)
• a typical system temperature of 32°C
• power consumption 42W idle 84W max
• unmatched SSD speeds
• TouchID in the keyboard
• slim white bezels
• color matched peripherals and braided cables
• Ethernet in the power brick
• weight of less than 4.5 kg

Complaining that a larger iMac was not yet released ignores all of that.

 

[G5isAlive]

Hey, thanks for the correction on that… i knew it was one of the big and prominent manufactures… Samsung has produced some stuff for Apple too, i just don’t keep up with who did what as much as i probably should… so that mistake is all on me for sure. Apologies to those where that mistake might have affected in their perception of things.

Of course that doesn’t change my point… the monitors are Apple branded, not designed or manufactured by them. I am sure they have a team of Apple employed collaborators signing off on this, that, or the other, but that’s about it… Since you know this, what does the LG branded model of the same display sell for? (The twin) I presume it is significantly less… oh, and probably has more relevant ports too…

And you couldn't be more wrong about Apple just rubber stamping the Apple Studio Display and not having full design input. No one confuses the Apple Studio Display with the the LG 5K Ultrafine. But yes the ultra fine is cheaper, but no its not as bright nor does it have the aluminum case nor the 12 MP web cam design and 6 speakers giving you spatial audio. For those that accept quality costs, and apple quality costs more, we appreciate them over 4k designs. and you will find people saying the 27 inch iMacs have the same screen, and maybe they do, but I have both and they look significantly different. They clearly are not for everyone, especially those on a budget, but they are good 5k monitors.

 

[ArchEtech]

NEWS FLASH

Everything is more expensive by a significant margin over the last 2 years.

 

[monstermash]

Hell, I paid $5500 for my Mac IIci back in 1990...and that was buying it in a 0/0 configuration and getting the memory and hard drive (8mb, 170mb) and 14" CRT monitor from a paper MacWeek magazine. That's $12.5K today.

I would have been better off spending that same money on Apple's stock instead. That would be worth $3.1M right now....and that Mac IIci is long gone.

I'm so depressed ):

 

[darngooddesign]

Hell, I paid $5500 for my Mac IIci back in 1990...and that was buying it in a 0/0 configuration and getting the memory and hard drive (8mb, 170mb) and 14" CRT monitor from a paper MacWeek magazine. That's $12.5K today.

I would have been better off spending that same money on Apple's stock instead. That would be worth $3.1M right now....and that Mac IIci is long gone.

I'm so depressed ):

And the base II-fx was 9 grand back in 1990.