kevmbpro
Jul 18, 02:35 PM
Bring on the PORN!!!
bwahahahahaa!!!
:p
bwahahahahaa!!!
:p
frankie
Sep 1, 03:02 PM
gah i love how mention of the merom rumor has to be thrown into every other rumor :(
There's a good and very simple reason Merom keeps showing up in speculation: Intel sells Merom at the same price as a Yonah of equal GHz. Do the math.
Any vendor still selling Yonahs (other than the Txx50 low-bus versions) after their current inventory runs out is ripping off their customers.
There's a good and very simple reason Merom keeps showing up in speculation: Intel sells Merom at the same price as a Yonah of equal GHz. Do the math.
Any vendor still selling Yonahs (other than the Txx50 low-bus versions) after their current inventory runs out is ripping off their customers.
Small White Car
Apr 12, 09:45 PM
Well I really can't judge it until I'm actually able to touch and use it myself, but from the looks, they've gone consumer. *here's hoping for the best* I really want it to work... but Adobe is looking better by the day.
Uh...so just being black and green means 'consumer' now? :confused:
Uh...so just being black and green means 'consumer' now? :confused:
lordonuthin
Feb 10, 04:47 PM
On a side note, I have reached #977 overall with 6.4 mio units! I didn't think it was possible before the bigadv units...
Speaking of bigadv units, I haven't gotten any in the last 2 or 3 days, just regular units on my mac pro?
Speaking of bigadv units, I haven't gotten any in the last 2 or 3 days, just regular units on my mac pro?
karsten
Mar 24, 01:18 PM
pleasegodpleasegodpleasegod
extenet
Apr 1, 02:12 PM
About this Mac or System Profiler? Refreshed About this Mac was already present in DP1. Post some screenshots.
Whoops! You were right. I assumed that when you click on more info... from about this mac it took you to system profiler like in previous OS. Didn't notice this system information app in DP1, pretty sweet :)
Whoops! You were right. I assumed that when you click on more info... from about this mac it took you to system profiler like in previous OS. Didn't notice this system information app in DP1, pretty sweet :)
citizenzen
Mar 20, 12:48 PM
Can you give me an example where the basic RIGHTS of a religious person was violated by upholding gay rights?
Or an example of ANY right given to gay people that aren't likewise extended to every other citizen?
Just one.
Give me just one.
I dare you.
Or an example of ANY right given to gay people that aren't likewise extended to every other citizen?
Just one.
Give me just one.
I dare you.
skunk
Mar 28, 11:43 AM
All I'm saying is that behind the scenes when you look at the facts, there's a different story and you can't take everything at face value...and you should know that about politicians too. I think some of you are "glad" that it's finally not purely lead by the US and this is like some "dream team" thing. But I'm just afraid that you are just in denial. :cool:What exactly are you trying to say? Iraq was a US war of choice, and Bush was fortunate to have an equally vainglorious partner-in-crime in Blair or he'd never have been able politically to do it. Afghanistan was also a US thing. Why would anybody else take a lead in those? Libya was a UN thing, and on Europe's border, so naturally the impetus came from Europe, and Europe is taking proportionately much more of the load.
Next you'll be saying that the US won WW1 and WW2.
Next you'll be saying that the US won WW1 and WW2.
lordonuthin
Apr 30, 02:51 PM
Congrats to 4JNA for 6 million points!
Rod Rod
Jul 14, 05:33 PM
I think it will be at least 12 more months before bluray shows up in an Apple machine - at least as a standard. The only real hint I have seen is that they already let you author HD video in DVD SP.
You appear to support Blu-Ray Disc, but your "evidence" is that today we can author HD-DVDs (onto red-laser DVDs) in DVD Studio Pro.
BTW, all Macs sold today, and many Macs going back the past few years, are HD-DVD players. They play HD-DVD from red-laser DVDs authored in DVD SP. DVD Player 4 (or maybe 4.1 or 4.6) in Tiger has the capability as long as your other hardware (G5[s] or Core Duo) is up to it.
You appear to support Blu-Ray Disc, but your "evidence" is that today we can author HD-DVDs (onto red-laser DVDs) in DVD Studio Pro.
BTW, all Macs sold today, and many Macs going back the past few years, are HD-DVD players. They play HD-DVD from red-laser DVDs authored in DVD SP. DVD Player 4 (or maybe 4.1 or 4.6) in Tiger has the capability as long as your other hardware (G5[s] or Core Duo) is up to it.
jav6454
Mar 25, 03:06 PM
The cpus used in the dual-cpu MP are 80-95W parts (top is the 95W Xeon X5670 right now), so it's give or take ~190W.
Only the single cpu MP uses a 130W part (Xeon W3500/3600 series).
So it's either 130W, 160W or 190W for the cpus in a MP.
Intel's TDPs are not actual power consumed. So yes, the 130 W scenario still kicks.
DDR3 DIMMs don't consume anything like 20W each. More like 20W for the whole 6 DIMMs you are talking about.
The 6970 uses around 190W at peak load from the reviews I've seen. People already have working 6970s, GTX 480s and GTX 580s on all models of Mac Pros - under windows, but that makes no difference. The power supply is enough to run these cards.
Anyway they still don't work in OS X on the Mac Pro, despite all these news stories: http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,804.0.html
Like I said, yes it is, but under a certain level of strain you do not want to run it. Also, we are not talking about a DIMM, we are talking about the capacity of RAM per module. It's a safe assumption to assume 20W per each 1GB of RAM. So if a module has 2GBs, then its 40 W. Now you can also say 10W, but 20W is much better for maximum scenarios. If your PSU can handle a maximum scenario it will not be strained.
Only the single cpu MP uses a 130W part (Xeon W3500/3600 series).
So it's either 130W, 160W or 190W for the cpus in a MP.
Intel's TDPs are not actual power consumed. So yes, the 130 W scenario still kicks.
DDR3 DIMMs don't consume anything like 20W each. More like 20W for the whole 6 DIMMs you are talking about.
The 6970 uses around 190W at peak load from the reviews I've seen. People already have working 6970s, GTX 480s and GTX 580s on all models of Mac Pros - under windows, but that makes no difference. The power supply is enough to run these cards.
Anyway they still don't work in OS X on the Mac Pro, despite all these news stories: http://forum.netkas.org/index.php/topic,804.0.html
Like I said, yes it is, but under a certain level of strain you do not want to run it. Also, we are not talking about a DIMM, we are talking about the capacity of RAM per module. It's a safe assumption to assume 20W per each 1GB of RAM. So if a module has 2GBs, then its 40 W. Now you can also say 10W, but 20W is much better for maximum scenarios. If your PSU can handle a maximum scenario it will not be strained.
EagerDragon
Nov 16, 12:21 PM
How can this get negative votes? In fact, how do a lot of perfectly benign threads get negative votes? Are there just members out there who vote negative on everything?
Redmond is doing the negative voting becuase their copy machines are in the fritz.
Redmond is doing the negative voting becuase their copy machines are in the fritz.
fblack
Oct 23, 10:30 AM
If this is true then...hallelujah! :)
diamond.g
Mar 27, 01:09 PM
All Intel machines going forward with the new Sandy Bridge CPU architecture will be EFI boot like Mac has been for some time. That probably explains why Apple will support off-the-shelf PC GPUs now. :apple:
Curious, where is that from?
Curious, where is that from?
Snowy_River
Nov 15, 07:08 PM
Im really looking forwards to this, if the 8-core 2.66 Macpro its going to cost just a little more than a quad 3ghz Macpro, im going to be buying as soon as it hits the website...
As a recent Mac switcher, coming straight in with a base spec macpro(4x2.66/4gb/1750gbHDD), im now happy to invest in a more powerful machine.
My only concern is the heat... my current Macpro runs 24/7 and 95% of the time is at full load across all 4 cores... and its still silent with temps never going over 52c... will these quad core chips run much hotter, meaning the front fans have to spin faster/noisier to keep the machine cool?
Given your current machine, you might consider just swapping in new CPUs. :)
As a recent Mac switcher, coming straight in with a base spec macpro(4x2.66/4gb/1750gbHDD), im now happy to invest in a more powerful machine.
My only concern is the heat... my current Macpro runs 24/7 and 95% of the time is at full load across all 4 cores... and its still silent with temps never going over 52c... will these quad core chips run much hotter, meaning the front fans have to spin faster/noisier to keep the machine cool?
Given your current machine, you might consider just swapping in new CPUs. :)
mwayne85
Apr 19, 10:57 AM
What are these "Macs" you speak of?
Lord Blackadder
Mar 2, 04:21 PM
Nope, the new Jetta is built in Mexico. Off the top of my head, I'd say that the only German-built Volkswagens you can buy in the USA are the GTI and Tiguan. The Phaeton and R32 are (or were) also German-made. The Touareg is built in Slovakia, the Routan is built by Chrysler, and the Jetta, non-GTI Golf (except the R32) and New Beetles are all made in Mexico. Not sure about the Eos.
My father bought a 1988 Jetta brand new and it was a lemon. It had every issue under the sun, not the least of which is that it rusted terribly in five years (big holes in the floor and wheelwells!). I agree that the Mexican-built Volksawgens have struggled with build quality at times over the years, but that sweet Audi 1.8 turbo was a great motor.
As for the Cruze, I'm not sure how GM would manage a US-market diesel version. My best guess is that the diesel model would be built alongside the other US-market Cruzes at the Lordstown, OH assembly plant using complete VM Motori engines shipped from Italy.
My father bought a 1988 Jetta brand new and it was a lemon. It had every issue under the sun, not the least of which is that it rusted terribly in five years (big holes in the floor and wheelwells!). I agree that the Mexican-built Volksawgens have struggled with build quality at times over the years, but that sweet Audi 1.8 turbo was a great motor.
As for the Cruze, I'm not sure how GM would manage a US-market diesel version. My best guess is that the diesel model would be built alongside the other US-market Cruzes at the Lordstown, OH assembly plant using complete VM Motori engines shipped from Italy.
Mr. Gates
Mar 23, 04:53 AM
I would need a 2.4 TB iPod to store all of my Music.
Right now I'm using an 80 gig and choosing different playlists on my monthly sync.
I only use it for the car so I'm not too concerned with upgrading.
With my iPhone I use the app "ORB (http://www.orb.com/en/orblive)" and have full access to the home server anytime but that depends on DATA and is sometimes slow or in bad coverage areas.
I only need this for the car, so no big deal.
But if they stop making the classic I would be bummed out
Right now I'm using an 80 gig and choosing different playlists on my monthly sync.
I only use it for the car so I'm not too concerned with upgrading.
With my iPhone I use the app "ORB (http://www.orb.com/en/orblive)" and have full access to the home server anytime but that depends on DATA and is sometimes slow or in bad coverage areas.
I only need this for the car, so no big deal.
But if they stop making the classic I would be bummed out
apb3
Aug 31, 10:12 AM
Blue sky on wireless? Think a device which works out presence of others, and can connect safely.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
Imagine being able to *share* (not stream, but share) your tunes with others on a "I'm interested in your... can I share/get that from you).
This goes beyond fair use and would not be legal. Just because I buy a song or CD, movie whatever does not mean I can give it to all my friends. I'm sure you didn't mean that
If you want to use up all your authorized machines (what is it? 5 now?) for a few friends to listen to a few songs every once in a while - I guess that would be arguably OK, but I think it would still go beyond fair use rules.
Being on the tube/commuting for ~ 1 1/2 hours a day or so and seeing >6 ipods through glancing for white buds alone, the possiblities are huge.
What are net connections used mostly for (in terms of Mb up/down) It's P2P. There wouldn't be any roaming charges, any peak rates. You could do it in a lecture room, whilst you were studying, or having coffee with friends (sharing tunes, rather than listening )
Think one big interacting social darknet :D Think virality without PC's needed.
Someone has a cool tune, and it could replicate exponentially!
For more benefits: Linking up to USB wireless receiver chips - you can wireless move files to/from PC.
Hands free driving - using changeable function paddles/butons on the steeering wheel. Hell - You could have a HUD of iTunes on a car soon (or at the very least, hook it up to those screens in the back of those orrible 4x4s )
In terms of illegal possibilities, think discogs. The amount of music you'll bump into increases a lot, so the rarer stuff might be out there. You could strike up a friendship with someone who had say, the entire back catalogue of (insert your fave band/movie/TV series). People could be walking lossless discographies of current artists. A discog of an artist is at most probably under 10Gig, so for a >60Gig player...
Who needs radio when you can stream? You could get it to actively hunt for a MP3 id tag genre - rock/pop, or highly rated artists. You could have the function to hunt for certain artists/songs...
That's another reason why I want wireless.
All this still does not tip the scales in terms of cost/benefit. Wireless will eat up your battery. It will be clumsy and frustrating (I would really hate for the new Streets single to break off midway through because iPod girl gets off at her stop or walks out of range). Also, I would not be thrilled adding drain to my battery by engaging sharing/wireless just so a bunch of strangers can mooch off of me. If my friend wants to listen to a song I have there are many ways he can do so without adding cost to the iPod and my time by having to charge the iPod all the time to make it possible in the first place
As for wireless sync... why? My god man, if we've come to the point where putting the iPod in its base is too difficult, we're screwed. Maybe there'd be the odd time when you forgot your cable or dock on a trip but that should be a rare enough occurence. If you find you always forget your cables, get an extra. You're also not addressing that you'd need that cable or dock for charging anyway (especially since you're going to be using that wireless feature to kill your battery much more quickly).
The chance that someone with an iPod (who also happens to be willing to kill their battery for my enjoyment) will be in range long enough for me to enjoy a few x-ray specks or spacemen 3 tracks are, in my opinion, close to nil.
The car options using wireless make some degree of sense (you'd be able to charge the unit by the cig lighter at least), but this seems better addressed by car/stereo makers. They're already doing it. Theree are also adapters for sale that do this.
I don't have all I need yet in this area but hooking my iPod up to the charger/FM transmitter I have let's me use the steering wheel controls for everything except the menu/scrolling bits (I know that's a big thing but I've got it set up so the iPod in it's charger/transmitter is right next to my knee and easier to manipulate than a cell phone and no harder than using the controls on the radio that are not available on the steering column). The HUD would be cool, though, and would make me a safer driver... I always wanted a HUD for my car. I think Cadillac actually had a model with an optional HUD for the main instrument panel items a while back. I wonder why more auto makers don't do this... or do they and I am just ignorant?
All in all, I just don't see enough good in adding wireless (of whatever kind) to the iPod to justify it. Now, a non-iPod (new) product that had wireless with a limited music/photo/video feature set (iPhone?, iBerry?) might be on the horizon. That wouldn't be bad as it would give those you feel the same as you the option to get their much needed "wireless," while letting others enjoy the most elegant, easy to use media player on the market without the bloat.
bdkennedy1
Apr 19, 11:02 AM
FINALLY! I've been holding off for over a year upgrading my 2007 iMac because of the ancient ports. Give me my Thunderbolt!
EagerDragon
Jul 19, 08:42 PM
Actually Vista is rather good in various areas in comparison to Windows XP SP2 and it is getting better as MS nears release (I use is it on various Windows developer systems I do work on and note my primary work is Mac development on Mac OS X). Don't discount Vista...
Of course with that said... even if Vista is amazing (in comparison to Tiger/Leopard) the fact that Vista will often require users to upgrade older computers to make it usable will play to Apple's advantage. The upgrade (hardware and software) disruption that Vista is going to cause is a perfect point for folks thinking about switching to a Mac to make the jump... they have to spend the money anyways so why not get a Mac (especially since if they don't like Mac OS X they can fallback on running Vista or XP on it).
Did you noticed you compared Vista to XP and said it was "rather good and getting better?
I agree with most of what you stated, but..... With all the carving that M$ performed on Vista, IMHO there is little reason to drive the current XP users to switch to Vista. Besides as you stated, it is likely to need a large numbers of users to upgrade in order to see some eye candy that looks cool.
You are using it, what will drive the sales?
Compare that to the % of users that upgraded to Tiger in the first and secon year and % wise Tiger was a lot more attractive that Vista will be to upgraders.
Leopard will be an even bigger hit.
But yes I agree with most of what you stated, but it sucks compared to Tiger and Leopard.
Of course with that said... even if Vista is amazing (in comparison to Tiger/Leopard) the fact that Vista will often require users to upgrade older computers to make it usable will play to Apple's advantage. The upgrade (hardware and software) disruption that Vista is going to cause is a perfect point for folks thinking about switching to a Mac to make the jump... they have to spend the money anyways so why not get a Mac (especially since if they don't like Mac OS X they can fallback on running Vista or XP on it).
Did you noticed you compared Vista to XP and said it was "rather good and getting better?
I agree with most of what you stated, but..... With all the carving that M$ performed on Vista, IMHO there is little reason to drive the current XP users to switch to Vista. Besides as you stated, it is likely to need a large numbers of users to upgrade in order to see some eye candy that looks cool.
You are using it, what will drive the sales?
Compare that to the % of users that upgraded to Tiger in the first and secon year and % wise Tiger was a lot more attractive that Vista will be to upgraders.
Leopard will be an even bigger hit.
But yes I agree with most of what you stated, but it sucks compared to Tiger and Leopard.
Cassie
Jan 23, 11:09 PM
Well, my last post in this thread was just about two weeks ago I suppose. And that truck already died, ha. But, new truck: :)
http://i55.tinypic.com/2lvbd07.jpg
http://i51.tinypic.com/w86qfd.jpg
http://i56.tinypic.com/wbe2qe.jpg
1988 Ford Ranger XLT Supercab. 2.0 l4, 5 spd manual. Few small issues with it, but it runs pretty well for its age and high mileage, plus only paid $1700 for it. :D Love it to death. :apple: (I admit it, I have some redneck in me :p)
http://i55.tinypic.com/2lvbd07.jpg
http://i51.tinypic.com/w86qfd.jpg
http://i56.tinypic.com/wbe2qe.jpg
1988 Ford Ranger XLT Supercab. 2.0 l4, 5 spd manual. Few small issues with it, but it runs pretty well for its age and high mileage, plus only paid $1700 for it. :D Love it to death. :apple: (I admit it, I have some redneck in me :p)
Stella
Jul 18, 09:58 AM
I like to know that I can listen to (or view) my music on my schedule, at my convenience, on my time. If someone's telling me that I've got to hew to THEIR schedule, then it's just ceased being convenient.
Thanks, but I'll pass.
Apple are allowed to change their minds about the purpose of iPod / iTunes ( just like a woman , as we keep on being reminded! ) :-)
When you rent a movie from Rogers, blockbusters etc, you watch the movie to their schedule...
Thanks, but I'll pass.
Apple are allowed to change their minds about the purpose of iPod / iTunes ( just like a woman , as we keep on being reminded! ) :-)
When you rent a movie from Rogers, blockbusters etc, you watch the movie to their schedule...
Leoff
Nov 27, 09:05 PM
IMAGINED?
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
Let's look at the facts.
20" Apple $699 - Dell $399
23" Apple $999 - Dell $799 (24")
30" Apple $1999 - Dell $1499
Those are real numbers. Dell has brighter specs, more connection options, and with the 23" they have a 24" that's still $200 cheaper.
What imaginary planet are you on? $300, $200, and $500 difference in price respectively. That's real money. And it pressures people into considering a Dell. (Bad Apple!) All you are really getting for those extra hundres of dollars is a display that looks nice with your mini, MBP, or MP.
You claim that Apple's monitors are selling well, but you have no facts to back that up. Apple doesn't post their sales numbers for products like this so you're just making it up. Those sales numbers could suck a$$ and you wouldn't know. And I believe they do suck, but Apple won't tell you that, it sucks because they want them to suck. Keep reading.
I believe Apple does this to encourage people to buy iMacs. If your willing to pony up $2400 or more on a Mac Pro then maybe an extra $500 doesn't bother you for the two 30" displays your going to use, and if all you can afford is mini Apple doesn't seem to mind you buying that Dell monitor. By pricing the monitors several hundred more than they are really worth, you are now in the iMac price range. I bet if you could see and add up the numbers, buying a mini and an over priced cinema display gives Apple the same profit margin as an iMac. Apple doesn't have a mid range tower. Again, because they want to sell you an iMac. By keeping their product line simple they reduce costs; making one widget as apposed to five different widgets is cheaper. But that limits choice.
I have an iMac, but I really don't want one. I want a mid-range tower and an external monitor. I'm not alone either. Apple's monitor price is a "choice incentive". It may help their bottom line, but it limits my choice. And since I hate Windows I'm forced into Apple's program. This is really what people are complaining about here. They want a mini and 20" cinema for under $1000, and I want a 23" and tower for under $2000, not a 24" iMac!
So, back to a 17" cinema. Why would Apple do this? I don't think they will. A 17" iMac is only $899. That's where they make their money, oh, and people like me willing to pay premium because we value esthetics.
Wow. For someone who seems to have all the answers, you're not reading the rest of this thread very well.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=252327
In short, Apple's monitors are for higher-end users. Anyone can go out and get a Dell. Most people do. If you want cheap and easy, you get a Dell monitor.
I noticed that you didn't mention any of the 20" NEC Displays that run much, MUCH higher in price than even Apple's. Now why are they so much more expensive? Are they too high-priced? Vastly overpriced?
There are differences. You'd know that if you took the time to look.
Yes, you are indeed correct. Those are "real" numbers. Numbers that are comparing two different types of monitors.
Next time you wish to present facts, try and present them all instead of just the ones that support your case.
No comments:
Post a Comment