Will Apple ever make a "normal" Mac? (1 Viewer)

[Patrick Larkin]

Maybe the issue is with your computers?

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Yep. I was just thinking the other day that the affinity for "upgrading" computers is slowly dying off. Upgrading used to be important when computers cost $2500. Apple makes it easy to updgrade the RAM and add external peripherals. In the end, thats what consumers need.

 

[Carlo_M]

Are you talking about the MacPro?

Because if you are, you can easily upgrade the RAM and HD (and add HDs), but the CPUs are still difficult to upgrade (though it's doable) and your choice in video cards is still relatively limited to what Mac offers you.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

Just a tiny quibble -- Apple don't make or sell any of the upgrade video cards themselves (nor do they make what's in the towers). There are just fewer vendors selling Mac versions of their video cards. Again, this is following that same logic -- if they're only supporting ten cards from two vendors, it's much easier to make the experience a good one.

Dave, I think you're thinking that you can do things to the Pro tower that you can't really do. The only real advantage to my eyes is the ability to change the video card, and to add expansion cards for very specific uses. And even that is falling by the wayside -- you look at the audio cards that people used to add to their Macs to turn 'em into professional recording machines and compare that to what they come with, stock, and what you can get easily and inexpensively as a FireWire or USB 2.0 input -- what does it matter if these boxes are inside or outside of the computer?

 

[Ted Todorov]

The Mini & iMac, etc. aren't about cool. That completely misses the Steve Jobs/Jonathan Ive philosophy. They are designed above all to be functional -- to have what is required for their target audience and no more -- no loud fans, no waste of space, waste of power, nothing that doesn't have an indispensable practical purpose.

In that sense the MacPro is obviously not a "normal PC in a big boxy case". To say that is to admit that you have never actually used one. Place it side by side with the equivalent Dell or HP, open it, use it and you will understand. The MacPro is as big as it is because has to be. It has 4 processor cores (dual/dual core Xeons running at 3Ghz) and yet is AS QUIET AS A MINI! That can only be achieved with large, slow moving fans. It houses 4 disk drives for 3 TerraBytes, which are designed to be user installable with amazing ease and convenience. It has 8 slots for 16GB of memory. Etc, etc...

Sticking the guts of an iMac inside a MacPro case would make no sense, and would stop being a Jobs/Ive creation -- it may look good externally, but would be unforgivably wasteful inside. It would no longer be a true Mac.

Lastly, you say you want a Mac tower for $1500 to $2000. Well guess what, I went to the Apple Store and configured a MacPro for $2121. Try it yourself. If those $121 are so important to you, then find a friend who is a student or teacher and get the educational discount.

Ted

 

[MarkHastings]

LMAO! That's what I was thinking too. The only problem I've ever run into (with Mac files not working on a PC) is when the Mac applications are using the latest version of the software and the PC isn't. But that seems to be the case a lot. Most Mac offices are graphics offices and graphic artists ALWAYS want (and demand) the latest software. In fact, one of the BIGGEST reasons why I get to update my PC software is because an ad agency sends me a file that needs the latest program and I tell my boss "I can't use the files without upgrading"

Other than that, there really isn't a lot of issues.

 

[MarkHastings]

I don't know if they still do this, but I knew a guy (years ago) who used to order Mac stuff and he'd get the discount just by saying "I'm a student" (he really wasn't) and they'd give it to him without any proof.

 

[DaveF]

I just don't understand the idea of upgrading a G4. To what? A faster G4? I'd get a mini if I wanted a cheap system with no future hardware path. I want current hardware that can be upgraded in a couple of years when it's helpful.

Case in point: My wife has a dual G5 from two years ago, with 512MB RAM. This is now on the low side, running OSX 10.3. I think it would perk up nicely with 1GB, so it could be a good upgrade (Alas Apple sold it as 4x128MB, so it's an expensive upgrade.) This is much more sensible than buying a new machine for her.

As for external boxes: this is possible. But it seems in conflict with the "simplicity" design goal. I'd rather have upgrades "hidden" in the case than more boxes and cables in my office, as I would with with external hard-drives, external sound cards, etc.

I don't want to diminish the MacPro -- these seem built for scientists, developers, running the office intranet or database system. I hear they're priced well for their class. This would have killed when I was in Grad school. But, as such, it's not designed for the home-user (IMO).

And as for Ted's $2121 MacPro. It's $2820 with Apple's least expensive monitor. Nearly $3k for the cheapest complete MacPro system : too much for me. And I'm surprised to learn the MacPro CPU can't be easily upgraded.

And yes, it's a super-high-end system that kills any old Dell. But it's still in boxy box. Make a sexy, quiet, Ives-Jobs boxy box for my iMac.

I appreciate I'm asking for something that Apple won't make. What I don't understand is why it's viewed as a profane request: the beautiful OSX, an elegant Apple design made to allow easy internal upgrades (as with any old junky Dell), and with hardware for the mid-range home-user / gamer. Is it fundamentally wrong to desire the best of all worlds?

 

[Ted Todorov]

If you are on a budget, why do you need an Apple Cinema Display right away? Use your existing monitor or buy a cheap 3rd party LCD & upgrade when your finances allow.

Again, without knowing what you need your computer for it hard for me to speculate, but it seems to me that an iMac (or even a Mini!) would be perfect for you -- you just don't realize it. But if you simply don't want to buy a Mac, there is no need to justify yourself...

 

[MarkHastings]

I don't meant this to sound like a slam (it's not) , but most PC users are used to being able to upgrade. Again, that's also because in the PC realm, you're able to start cheap and add on as you go.

In the Mac world you're not really allowed to start off cheap and add-on (to an extent) as you go. Sure you can upgrade memory, HD's, and monitors, but most Mac users don't get into the "Modification/Upgraing" like most PC users do.

In my experience, a lot of my Mac friends go for the top models and never really need to worry about upgrading or replacing parts. And that's the point that Ted is getting at. Get the iMac (or mini) and don't worry about upgrading in the future because you probably won't need to.

It sounds like a lot of your frustration is coming from the fact that you are viewing the Mac like it was a PC. It's not. I can't say that (other than memory) I've ever had the need to add-on to any of my Macs in the 14 years I've been using them.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

If you're doing something where colour accuracy is a big deal, by all means go ahead and buy one of those monitors. If not, you can get an LG or something else for less than half the money that's still a good performer. It's not like they use a Mac-specific connector.

 

[Ken Chan]

There's certainly no room for an additional drive, but it can be replaced. Difficult, though. The wired network is already gigabit, no need to upgrade that for a while. (Unless you suspect like some built-in networking on PC motherboards, it could be better.) The wireless is on an proprietary expansion card. More info here.

 

[MarkHastings]

but when you buy a Mac, by the time you're ready to replace something, it's probably also time to get a new system.

 

[GloriaJeans]

Doubt it...we have top of the line computers and OS.

 

[MarkHastings]

That means absolutely nothing if you applications aren't up to date.

 

[Michael_K_Sr]

We have over 500 users on Macs and do a tremendous amount of business with large financial institutions, law firms, investment houses and government entities. We almost never have a problem. The only issue we occasionally deal with is converting documents from the (very) rare business that still uses WordPerfect. I'm not sure what kind of files this creative agency sends, but the idea that Macs can't work in a business environment without having to jump through a ton of hoops or making sacrifices is just a farce.

 

[MarkHastings]

and who ever said incompatibility is the fault of Mac? I have PC files that don't open on a Mac and Mac files that don't open on a PC. It goes both ways, but now a days, it's really rare that a file doesn't translate between the two.

And the funniest thing about this whole conversation is the fact that Gloria is blaming the Mac because her PC is having problems with the file.



p.s. she never said she was using PC, but I assume that's the case.

 

[GloriaJeans]

Hehe, that got a smile out of me

Although I wasn't blaming per se, just sharing my experience with the issue thus far.

 

[MarkHastings]

So what's the exact issue? I've been dealing with Mac/PC relations for over 10 years.

 

[GloriaJeans]

A few...

When they send us an e-mail with jpegs in attachment, they only download as gifs and then load into photoshop as "corrupted." So we have to have the agency send them zipped now.

Also, some of the Web code compiles differently on a Mac. Like flash file definitions don't compile correctly on a Mac but do on a PC, and then we find out that the reason was in the relativity of the URL - the folder needs to be specified for the Mac version of IE.

Just silly things like that...