[discotronic]

Originally posted by ChasingApple:

Geforce FX 5200 Ultra - Nice upgrade from the GF MX and VERY good at games, UT2004 and everything run great on it, seriously, the Mac is better with this card the the PC's were.

I have a 1.25GHz iMac. Try playing Halo. The video card isn't even close to decent for the game.

[antizero]

Originally posted by discotronic:
Not everyone feels the need to upgrade every 2 years. What are you saying about the people still using the original iMac from 98-99? They are still running strong and they see no reason to upgrade right now. No offense, but some people don't need the latest and greatest.

I think the point being made was that we shouldn't be stuck with what comes with it - it should be an option to keep the display somehow (wouldn't THAT be great!). There are people who don't upgrade for several years, and there are people who do. Personally, I can't use a computer for more than two years - typically after that point, the most recent software applications (which I use for work 8-10 hours a day) are starting to lag on the old technology, and I need a boost in my hardware to stay as productive. However, I'm perfectly comfortable buying an iMac and selling the whole shebang when it comes time to upgrade. A two-year old iMac with a 20" LCD and Applecare will probably maintain value 10x better than any PC I've owned with no warranty or built-in display (another reason I'm making the switch). And even if it doesn't, I can cope.

But I certainly wouldn't complain if I had the option to keep that LCD with me as the rest of the hardware comes & goes.

[I Me Mine]

Originally posted by discotronic:
Not everyone feels the need to upgrade every 2 years.

Yes, that's fair enough.

What are you saying about the people still using the original iMac from 98-99?

I never even mentioned them.

They are still running strong and they see no reason to upgrade right now.

I wonder if they will ever upgrade then?

No offense

None taken

but some people don't need the latest and greatest.

Yep, I know, but a 1.25 Ghz G4 is neither the latest nor greatest in 2004.

Not every Mac user is rich.

Not that I said they were, of course, but the thought of using a 5 year old Mac nowadays horrifies me. I would consider selling a kidney if needs be, to upgrade. They are surely missing out on a large part of the whole "Mac Experience" I keep hearing about.

[diehlr]

Modular / upgradable video chip would make the iMac/eMac much more attractive to me. Some laptops these days have a mobile video slot, where the video card can be swapped out. So it's definitely possible. It's one of the only reasons I am in the market for a used G4 PowerMac right now rather than buying a new eMac. Inadequate video performance can be a real system killer.

[ChasingApple]

As far as I've seen HALO runs like dog **** on all computers, PC or Mac, and looks like it too...this is why I own an XBOX. But if there was a Demo of the POS I would try it out and tell you how it ran. I owned a GF FX 5200 on PC for a month or so (borrowed it during a GF4 meltdown) and it ran EVERYTHING like crap, shoot to the present with my G4 iMac and the same card whipping the crap out of games and looking awesome while doing it and I start to re-examine the card. GF FX 5200 on PC = more dog ****, GF FX 5200 on Mac = royal goodness.

UT2004 is not the only game that runs amazingly well with this card, all the games I have tried do. I will not bash the card on Mac, I will on PC cause lets face it...it sucked. But on Mac for some reason it is very well off. Maybe programmers are writing to it and taking advantage of it more so then the PC side does. Look at the XBOX, a 733mhz CPU with a GF3.5 in it and it will run circles around a P4 3.2ghz with Rady 9800XT all because the programmer is taking specific advantage of the XBOX

[mbryda]

Originally posted by diehlr:
MInadequate video performance can be a real system killer.

Only for those who game.

[I Me Mine]

Or want to use Expos� smoothly.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by I Me Mine:
Or want to use Expos� smoothly.

Smooth on my Gen1 15" iMac FP. Same on the wife's iBook G3/800.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by mbryda:
Smooth on my Gen1 15" iMac FP. Same on the wife's iBook G3/800.

For Expos� smoothness, video RAM is more important than GPU speed with current cards in current Macs, and that's only if you have a bazillion windows open.

For 15" iMac users, any recent reasonable 32 MB video card will do. OTOH, hard core pros running dual Cinema Displays need a 128 MB video card (ie. Radeon 9800 Pro).

[ChasingApple]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
hard core pros running dual Cinema Displays need a 128 MB video card (ie. Radeon 9800 Pro).

Ram has nothing to do with it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by ChasingApple:
Ram has nothing to do with it.

I await your reasoning as to why not.

[ChasingApple]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:


I await your reasoning as to why not.

Twinview display and dual ramdacs have been around alot longer then 128MB cards, try google.com if you need more.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by ChasingApple:
Twinview display and dual ramdacs have been around alot longer then 128MB cards, try google.com if you need more.

In case you've forgotten, we're talking dual-head Expos� on Mac OS X here, not running dual heads on OS 9 or Windows XP. It's a completely different kettle of fish. It's no surprise that Apple recommends 32 MB for a basic single-head setup. Try google.com if you need more.

[ChasingApple]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
In case you've forgotten, we're talking dual-head Expos� on Mac OS X here, not running dual heads on OS 9 or Windows XP. It's a completely different kettle of fish. It's no surprise that Apple recommends 32 MB for a basic single-head setup. Try google.com if you need more.

A 64MB card would be fine, I dont need the goolge.com though thanks

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by ChasingApple:
A 64MB card would be fine, I dont need the goolge.com though thanks

Real-life testing by some has already shown that 64 MB is insufficient for running dual large Cinema displays. Granted, there aren't that many people around with dual 23" widescreens or whatever, but nonetheless, 64 MB isn't fine for everyone.

[gunnar]

We're reaching the end of consumers upgrading all together. A G4 is more than capable for doing anything the average home user would ever want. We're not seeing new applications that are requiring massive horsepower, nor are games played on computers anymore (many console options). It's not just Apple that's seeing this market shift, the whole PC industry is barely eeking out any profits selling to the average home user. People simply don't need new computers.

The only driving force in computer sales is monitor real estate and replacement of CRTs. iMacs lose big time on this because they're all-in-ones. Sure, they're convenient to plug in, but who wants to make a huge investment in a monitor that's tied to one particular computer for its entire life. When the monitor component costs over half of the all-in-one it's a bad investment if either part fails. It was fine back with the cheap display on the original iMac but it doesn't make sense today with 20" LCDs.

Apple ironically needs to bring back the cube or some tiny CPU form factor and make a line of consumer LCDs that mirror the Studio Displays. The combination should be the same as the current iMac pricing but the ability to mix and match and upgrade will provide the selling incentive. I think they can even keep the G4 or go with the slowest G5. People don't really care and would much rather have a cost savings. I've been waiting for something like this since the cube came out. I don't need a G5 or a top of the line studio display but I'm not getting locked into an all-in-one. The iBook does more to fill any potential all-in-one demand than the iMac.

[klinux]

Originally posted by PowerMacMan:
If all it took to push the thought of switching from your mind was a few zealot posts, then maybe you shouldn't have considered switching in the first place.

And just so you know that there are two ends on every stick: One of the best things about being a Mac owner is the community of users. You will not find another group of more dedicated and helpful computer users that are willing to go out on a limb to assist other people than you will with the Mac community.

Also, you need to get out more man. The anti-Mac and anti-Linux zealotry in the PC world is far more extreme, common, heated and misinformed than anything you will see here.

That is such bullsh1t and highlights the how ignorant some zealots are. You are the reason is a reason why people label Mac fans as zealots.

First, the anti-Mac zealotry is neither extreme nor common. The large and growing # of Windows iTunes users and iPod users prove that. The many who praise Apple's design and form also prove that. The PC users who do criticize Apple do so mostly at its hardware for the fact it is 1) pricey and 2) less powerful than the PC counterparts. Both of which were absolutely true and echoed within the Mac community as well.

Second, saying there is an anti-Linux zealotry is just bizarre. When's the last time you see a PC user discussing the missing functionalities of the 2.6 kernel or declaring war on open source? Sure, there are MS whores out there like Thurotte or Enderle but they are the rare exceptions to the norm. Most of the PC world does not even know enough about Linux to be formulate an opinion either for or against it.

This brings us back to the anti-x86 community in the Mac world. Such community is alive and well. No one will deny they do not exist. That community is anti-Intel, AMD, Microsoft, and Linux (but are paradoxically friendlier to *BSD, since OS X is based on that, which makes me wonder if OS X had been based on Linux would people then diss *BSD?) or anything not Apple. Yet believe they are the most tolerant and enlightened people! And you wonder why the term zealot is oft-used?

Not all Mac users belong in that community. Some Mac users speak out against this snobbery and welcome Windows users. However, those in that community believe they are the best and friendliest computer users yet think all who do not uses Macs are extreme idiots. The irony.

OK, rant over. Back to the discussion! I like the iMac but it is overpriced. Factoring the price of Apple display does not make sense either. Who pays $800 for a 17" LCD?

[fr0d]

If Apple made some kind of 'iPowermac G5', a small unit which was as unupgradeable as the iMac (internally) but without a built in display I'd be there like a shot, and buying a 17" or 20" cinema display as well, but as it is, the cost of the iMac is too high bearing in mind the increased number of points of failure and that you lose the monitor investment once you require the ability to upgrade the computing side.

It seems entirely obvious to me that they should make a model like this, but maybe it would eat into Powermac sales, which is probably a pretty good cash cow right now. Maybe there's a sense of a fear of failure too.

This is why I have an eMac and a Powerbook. I think three years is a reasonable time to keep these - any time I get after the Applecare runs out will be a bonus, but I'm not sure if they'll be good enough for OS X 10.5 anyway. I think by then the CRT will be well and truly dead and there should be some better options anyway.

[Simon]

I think the iMac is a perfectly fine product. Maybe slightly overpriced, but overall one of the finest Macs Apple has ever made. Ask anybody who actually owns one. 99% of the owners love it. Which PC has that reputation?

The "small" sales numbers are part of its fate. The Mac market is small, the market between the expensive pro and the cheap consumer is even smaller. And that's where the iMac's music plays. It's not astonishing. If Apple would be so underwhelmed it would have dropped it a long time ago just like they dropped the Cube.

On the other hand quoting Fred's numbers and saying the iMac is performing badly is not very smart. Apple never states the iMac's numbers. All they do is mention the number of iMacs and eMacs sold together. So if this number slumps who's to blame? Is it the iMac selling badly or the eMac? Actually, outside of Apple we just don't really know and anybody trying to tell you otherwise is making things up.

IMHO they should drop the 15" model, give the 17" and 20" a single G5 1.6GHz and maybe drop the price. Other than that it's fine.

To those who want a headless iMac I offer my condolences. As much as I like the idea, it would eat into PowerMac sales and in order to be priced competitively enough it wouldn't give Apple a sufficiently high margin. Therefore it won't happen.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Simon:
On the other hand quoting Fred's numbers and saying the iMac is performing badly is not very smart. Apple never states the iMac's numbers.

I guess Fred Anderson is not very smart then:

Responding to a question about iMac sales that were lower than an analyst's expectations, Anderson said that the "sweet spot" of the consumer market is $1,000, and that the iMac, starting at $1,299, is priced above that spot.

All they do is mention the number of iMacs and eMacs sold together. So if this number slumps who's to blame?

Both?

[Simon]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I guess Fred Anderson is not very smart then

Flame bait?

I can't see any contradiction between Fred's quote and what I said. Actually, I agree with him. IMHO the iMac is slightly overpriced, exactly what he mentioned.

On his data sheets that show the numbers of sold Macs (the most recent one is here) you will however never find iMac or eMac sales alone. All you will see is the total.

[I Me Mine]

Originally posted by Simon:
Flame bait?

I can't see any contradiction between Fred's quote and what I said. Actually, I agree with him. IMHO the iMac is slightly overpriced, exactly what he mentioned.

Slightly? $299 overpriced according to Anderson's "sweet spot" figure.

[ChasingApple]

People are cheap, thats it. The types of people that shop and shop until the find the cheapest possible computers are the same morons that need tech support 24/7 cause they are too brainless to operate or figure out a computer. Then after they get thier el-cheapo they wonder why the hell it doesnt do everything they want to do then they blame the company that made the computer. Screw those people, Apple doesnt want them, you dont want them.

Its like Lexus, we all know they are really just fancier toyotas but only a certain consumer will opt to pay for them, and they appreciate what they bought, the guy hunting for the yugo, well......you can figure out the rest.

Apple keeps them just over the consumer average in price for a reason, if they wanted mass market share and to take over the computer world then could drop the iMac 15" to $999 and make a killing, that my friends is NOT what Apple wants to do, honestly figure it out already

[diehlr]

Originally posted by mbryda:
Only for those who game.

This is true currently, but try not to be short sighted. In a couple of years, who knows what Apple might have up their UI sleeves that might cause a 32 meg video card to choke.. Maybe their next UI will require hardware pixel shaders to run optimally? Anyway, my original point was to consider a few years down the road what will likely be a limitation in today's fixed-spec systems like the eMac. Chances are almost certainly it will be the onboard video.

[Eug Wanker]

Apple is now selling the 15" iMac refurb 1 GHz for $999 with combo drive.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by diehlr:
This is true currently, but try not to be short sighted. In a couple of years, who knows what Apple might have up their UI sleeves that might cause a 32 meg video card to choke.. Maybe their next UI will require hardware pixel shaders to run optimally? Anyway, my original point was to consider a few years down the road what will likely be a limitation in today's fixed-spec systems like the eMac. Chances are almost certainly it will be the onboard video.

So? I've been using PC's forever, and never upgrade the video card. Heck, on my PC box, I have a 32MB TNT2 on it and I have no need to upgrade. I've found the speed of the OSX GUI on the RevA 15" iMac/800 to be fine. And if Apple does upgrade the UI, they will have a "compatibility mode" just like they do with Quartz Extreme now. There is also the option not to upgrade the OS. A couple months ago I sold my copy of Jaguar on Ebay for someone looking to upgrade (since getting the full version of Panther, there was no need to keep it), so there will always be people who won't upgrade for a while. Not to mention, my 3 year anniversary with the iMac is next year. I'll probably be itching to upgrade shortly after that...

You don't need to be on the bleeding edge - I know plenty of people who are still on Win 98 because it works for them. They may or may not upgrade to WinXP because what they have works for them. As long as it works for you, that's whats important.

[Eug Wanker]

There's nothing wrong with low end machines, but the problem is paying mid-end prices for low end specs. An $1800 17" iMac comes with low end specs: slow CPU, slow GPU, slow memory, etc. The design is very nice, but not worth a 50% price premium.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
There's nothing wrong with low end machines, but the problem is paying mid-end prices for low end specs. An $1800 17" iMac comes with low end specs: slow CPU, slow GPU, slow memory, etc. The design is very nice, but not worth a 50% price premium.

How do you figure? The cheapest G5 tower + 17" LCD display is $2498 or $700 more than a 17" iMac....

[Simon]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
An $1800 17" iMac comes with low end specs: slow CPU, slow GPU, slow memory, etc. The design is very nice, but not worth a 50% price premium.

First of all, the 50% figure is made up. And for the rest...

It's all only true for geeks. It's just not relevant to the average Mac user.

Here's what they see: A machine that runs Panther, web, mail, Office, etc. like a champ. It's beautiful, well built and has a big and fancy screen. It's the perfect home machine.

To understand and appreciate the iMac you have to stop trying to judge it like some hacked together PC. It's an entirely different ball game.

You're not paying the price for a "slow" CPU or for a "slow" GPU, you're paying it for the entire Panther home user experience and to those who value that it's worth every penny.

To those who don't, tough luck.

Man, when I read some of the stuff some people here write, I'm really glad it's Steve that's running the joint.

[I Me Mine]

Originally posted by Simon:
Man, when I read some of the stuff some people here write, I'm really glad it's Steve that's running the joint.

Anyone of us here could lose marketshare as well as he has

[discotronic]

Originally posted by I Me Mine:
Anyone of us here could lose marketshare as well as he has

Apple may not have a large market share but I bet they aren't losing many long time customers.

[I Me Mine]

Well something's not working right is it? Why aren't more and more people buying Macs then?

This bollocks about the "Panther home user experience" isn't cutting it.
The prices are too high. It's as simple as that.

An iMac is too expensive. People aren't buying them no matter what they look like or whatever this magical "experience" is.

Please, no more apologism. The prices are too high.

[blindemboss]

1) Provide true monitor spanning (no hack required)
2) Update CDR-W drives to fastest possible i.e. at least 52x
3) G5
4) Lower price
5) Include at least 5 half decent games pre-loaded

That should do it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by mbryda:
How do you figure? The cheapest G5 tower + 17" LCD display is $2498 or $700 more than a 17" iMac....

The comparison is not with Power Macs. The comparison is with LCD PCs.

Anyways, the cheapest G5 tower is far too expensive too. It's a crippled machine (slower memory, only 4 memory slots) for no good reason, except to push the consumer to the mid-range or higher.

Originally posted by Simon:
First of all, the 50% figure is made up. And for the rest...

It's all only true for geeks. It's just not relevant to the average Mac user.

Here's what they see: A machine that runs Panther, web, mail, Office, etc. like a champ. It's beautiful, well built and has a big and fancy screen. It's the perfect home machine.

To understand and appreciate the iMac you have to stop trying to judge it like some hacked together PC. It's an entirely different ball game.

You're not paying the price for a "slow" CPU or for a "slow" GPU, you're paying it for the entire Panther home user experience and to those who value that it's worth every penny.

Just because you happen to like the machine doesn't mean everyone thinks like you. Indeed, despite it being the "perfect home machine" as you call it, the world is staying away from it in droves.

Like I said I think it IS a nice design, but with inferior specs. What I would respect would be a nice design with reasonable parts (ie. G5), and a reasonable price point. I DO think it merits a premium over the standard LCD PC, but not a 50% premium. And no, the number is not made up. You can go out and buy a reasonably spec'd fast 17" LCD PC for $1200 right now.

Originally posted by I Me Mine:
Well something's not working right is it? Why aren't more and more people buying Macs then?

This bollocks about the "Panther home user experience" isn't cutting it.
The prices are too high. It's as simple as that.

An iMac is too expensive. People aren't buying them no matter what they look like or whatever this magical "experience" is.

Please, no more apologism. The prices are too high.

Yup.

Originally posted by blindemboss:
1) Provide true monitor spanning (no hack required)
2) Update CDR-W drives to fastest possible i.e. at least 52x
3) G5
4) Lower price
5) Include at least 5 half decent games pre-loaded

That should do it.

I agree with 1, 3, and 4. I don't think 2 means much, and I don't think Apple should be spending money on 5 either for this market.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Just because you happen to like the machine doesn't mean everyone thinks like you.

Likewise. Just because you think it's too expensive, doesn't make it that for everybody. Can we agree on disagreeing?

Indeed, despite it being the "perfect home machine" as you call it, the world is staying away from it in droves.

The world as you put it, also eats **** if it's cheap enough. They drive Toyotas, not Mercedes, they eat McD, not gourmet and they use PCs not Macs. So what's new? I'm a Mac user, I give a rat's ass about what the rest of the world is using.

Like I said I think it IS a nice design, but with inferior specs. What I would respect would be a nice design with reasonable parts (ie. G5).

Me too. If it happens the iMac will not get cheaper, and if it's supposed to get cheaper, it will not get a G5. Does anybody here want to bet against that?

Again, it's Steve and free market enterprise that's running Apple, not a bunch of thirteen year old geeks. Stay real.

And btw, I'll take 1, 2, and 3. 4's fine, but it's not compatible with 1, 2, and 3. You can't have it all.

[discotronic]

Originally posted by I Me Mine:
Well something's not working right is it? Why aren't more and more people buying Macs then?

This bollocks about the "Panther home user experience" isn't cutting it.
The prices are too high. It's as simple as that.

An iMac is too expensive. People aren't buying them no matter what they look like or whatever this magical "experience" is.

Please, no more apologism. The prices are too high.

I agree that the prices are too high. Didn't stop me or alot of other people from buying one.

I think Apple's biggest problem is with advertising. I see tons of iPod commercials but that's about it. Every other commercial is a Dell or Gateway ad. They advertise how great their stuff is and people believe it.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Simon:
Likewise. Just because you think it's too expensive, doesn't make it that for everybody.

Ah, but there's the rub. It seems even Mac users (like me and half of this forum) think the iMac is too expensive.

The world as you put it, also eats **** if it's cheap enough. They drive Toyotas, not Mercedes, they eat McD, not gourmet and they use PCs not Macs. So what's new? I'm a Mac user, I give a rat's ass about what the rest of the world is using.

Hey I drive a Toyota.

Me too. If it happens the iMac will not get cheaper, and if it's supposed to get cheaper, it will not get a G5. Does anybody here want to bet against that?

Yes. I bet that if/when the iMac G5 is introduced it will be cheaper than the iMac G4 is now.

Again, it's Steve and free market enterprise that's running Apple, not a bunch of thirteen year old geeks. Stay real.

Indeed, and that's why it seems people like Fred Anderson are concerned with iMac sales. Anyways, who's 13?

[Simon]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Ah, but there's the rub. It seems even Mac users (like me and half of this forum) think the iMac is too expensive.

You and half the forum hu?

Well, that still gives me the other half. That half plus Steve is enough for me.

Try convincing him...

[ChasingApple]

Well, this is getting too funny in here, I already love this forum! lol. Ok, I have a 17" new iMac, and for those saying its crippled or slow, KISS MY ASS. It is slow at NOTHING and I have not even upgraded the ram on the thing yet! Of course I do plan on throwing another 512MB in it, but Jesus people its not being marketed as a Power Mac (think of what that name means...POWER mac). This is an iMac, meant to be a all-in-one solution at a cheaper price then a POWER mac and meant for the family at home running iLife apps and Internet. I even game on this thing just fine, UT2004 runs anywhere from 30-80 FPS depending on what levle im on, and there is another patch coming out soon that will take care of the sound bug thats in it right now.

G4's are fast people, they really are. At least we iMac people get a GOOD videocard for our money, looking at the low end PC lines and you start seeing Intel Extreme more and more, along with a POS Celeron and 128MB-256MB of 266mhz memory. The only thing manufacturers give you in those YUGO Cheapo PC's are larger harddrives but OOPS, they are slow ass drives. Never EVER compare an iMac to a low end PC, you should be shot if you do, and if you have a problem with it then go buy the PC! Have fun with your PC experience and YOUR crippled machine, I will be sitting right here laughing my ass off going nice and fast on my G4 coupled with my beautiful 17" Widescreen Cinema Display that rotates and adjusts perfectly.

Ok rant over, I hope the eMac get an upgrade to DDR memory, a larger HD and maybe a 1Ghz low end and 1.25-1.33Ghz higher end and at least a Geforce FX 5200 Ultra videocard, in other words make the current 17"-20" iMac specs the new eMac specs and upgrade the iMacs to higher end G4's on the low and G5's on the high. You know thats whats going to happen

[ChasingApple]

Oh, in the last 3 weeks I have spent around $3800 on my 2 new macs, and it was worth every penny, I love my new iMac and my wife loves her iBook (see sig), and now I find im jealous of the portability of her iBook and I want one too! You see, I dont mind paying good money out for something that is worth it, and every mac out right now is worth every penny of what it costs.

If you want low end, you will be dealing with a CRT and lower specs, but if WILL run everything you want it to run, upgrade the memory like ANY computer and it will run faster, nuff said.

If you want middle-line then get yourself an iMac, you get a beautiful LCD now and higher specs!

If you want top end, get a power mac and whatever screen your budget allows, CRT or LCD, your choice cause you got the top end! Upgrade it all you want, cause you CHOSE the top end.

Look at the whole ballgame here people and what each line of product represents. Figure it out and if you dont like a certain product (tell us about it, lol) DONT BUY IT!

[Simon]

Originally posted by ChasingApple:
Ok, I have a 17" new iMac, and for those saying its crippled or slow, KISS MY ASS. It is slow at NOTHING

Authentic iMac user comment. QED.

I'm tempted to use that quote as a sig.

[I Me Mine]

If I had shelled out that much cash for an iMac I'd be trying to convince myself it's fast too.

[tae667]

Originally posted by ChasingApple:

G4's are fast people, they really are. At least we iMac people get a GOOD videocard for our money, looking at the low end PC lines and you start seeing Intel Extreme more and more, along with a POS Celeron and 128MB-256MB of 266mhz memory. The only thing manufacturers give you in those YUGO Cheapo PC's are larger harddrives but OOPS, they are slow ass drives.

Let's compare my friends PC to 17" iMac. PC has 2x faster processor which beats G5 1.6MHz in video editing, over 2x faster graphics card with screen spanning, 17" LCD which beats 17" iMac in anything but resolution, 512Mb of memory, 120Gb 7200rpm harddrive, faster dvd�rw drive, 5.1 sound, 3x longer warranty and it was 700�(859.670 USD) cheaper than the 17" iMac.

No wonder anybody who's even remotely interested in Macs are considering iBook and nothing else. Apple has nothing else for consumers.

Just one more thing: iMac's videocard is far from good. It's not even decent.

[ChasingApple]

Originally posted by tae667:
Let's compare my friends PC to 17" iMac. PC has 2x faster processor which beats G5 1.6MHz in video editing, over 2x faster graphics card with screen spanning, 17" LCD which beats 17" iMac in anything but resolution, 512Mb of memory, 120Gb 7200rpm harddrive, faster dvd�rw drive, 5.1 sound, 3x longer warranty and it was 700�(859.670 USD) cheaper than the 17" iMac.

No wonder anybody who's even remotely interested in Macs are considering iBook and nothing else. Apple has nothing else for consumers.

Just one more thing: iMac's videocard is far from good. It's not even decent.

Ok here is the bottom line though, your friends PC is running Windows (we are sorry), he does not have the pleasure of iLife (sucks to be him), and his computer will be worth $50 in a month (them Yugos depreciate real fast). Your friends computer could have a 4Ghz CPU, 2GB of ram, Nvdia/ATI's latest, a 200GB HD, and I would still see it as a Piece of ****. Your forgetting one thing people, lower priced PC's (I call them yugos) DONT HAVE OSX, or iLife. When you buy a mac your money is going to the ENTIRE COMPUTER PACKAGE, not just the hardware, when will you people realize that?

[ChasingApple]

Originally posted by I Me Mine:
If I had shelled out that much cash for an iMac I'd be trying to convince myself it's fast too.

Difference betwen you and me is I can afford to shell out that much cash anytime I want, and I am happy with my purchases. I dont need to "justify" anything, if I wanted to get a Dual G5 I could have (I wanted a smaller footprint computer and I dont run things like photoshop where the G5 would be a better choice), if I wanted a top of the line Powerbook I could have got that too, lets just say me and my wife could have got any Mac we wanted but CHOSE the models we got.

That clear it up for you man?

[I Me Mine]

Originally posted by ChasingApple:
Difference betwen you and me is I can afford to shell out that much cash anytime I want

Oh, you know how much I'm worth do you?

if I wanted a top of the line Powerbook I could have got that too, lets just say me and my wife could have got any Mac we wanted but CHOSE the models we got.

Let's just say I could get any Mac I wanted. Many, many times over.

That clear it up for you man?

Clear as mud.

Don't try and brag about how much cash you have and how little you think others have. Seriously, it's a bad idea. Not everyone here is a 13 year old geek.

[Simon]

Originally posted by I Me Mine:
Don't try and brag about how much cash you have and how little you think others have. Seriously, it's a bad idea. Not everyone here is a 13 year old geek.

You need to chill buddy.

You started this whole mess because you had to allege that people who like an iMac only do so, because they spent too much money and now feel stupid about it.

How about you just take a deep breath and force into your mind that there are many happy owners of iMacs that feel quite fine about their purchase and would do it again. Take a look at my sig, I have quite a few Macs. If I say the iMac is one of my absolute favorites that has no other reason, than to say that it is IMHO really that good. If Chasing Apple says he loves his iMac, it's probably because he really does.

You should learn to accept those statements, even if you don't share the opinion.

If you can't do that, you should consider not participating in forum discussions where different opinions meet.

[I Me Mine]

Originally posted by Simon:
You need to chill buddy.

You started this whole mess because you had to allege that people who like an iMac only do so, because they spent too much money and now feel stupid about it.

You alleged that we're all "13 year old geeks" who don't know what we're on about.

How about you just take a deep breath and force into your mind that there are many happy owners of iMacs that feel quite fine about their purchase and would do it again.

Just think how many more there'd be if the price was reasonable.

Take a look at my sig,

Sorry, I have signatures turned off.

If Chasing Apple says he loves his iMac, it's probably because he really does.

Good for him. But because many others here think that they're not value for money it does not mean that they are kids who don't know what they're on about or that they can't afford them. Like he clearly can.

You should learn to accept those statements, even if you don't share the opinion.

But my opinion counts for nothing then?

If you can't do that, you should consider not participating in forum discussions where different opinions meet.

So, because I have a different opinion then I shouldn't take part. The Apple Way or the highway right?

[Simon]

Ah, baloney.

It's either the iMac with Apple's price tag or no iMac.

It's your decision. Just don't you dare tell people who have taken their decision that they should have taken yours.

I'm done.

[I Me Mine]

As long as people don't dare tell me what I can and can't afford.