Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Desktops (Apple) Apple

Apple Store Reopens With Many New Products 519

Posted by timothy
from the such-a-world-of-bounty dept.
An anonymous reader writes "After being down for a couple of hours, the Apple store reopened this morning. All of the speculation has turned out to be a reality with Apple dishing out many new products and among them are; iMac 20", three iMac 24" models, two Mac Mini models, and two Mac Pro models — with one including an ATI Radeon HD 4570 graphics card. Also as rumored, there was the new Airport Extreme, and Time Capsule in 1TB. The Mac Pro is the granddaddy of them all. The lower-end Quad Core system includes a 2.66Ghz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor, 3GB of memory, 640GB hard drive, 18x double-layer Superdrive, and a NVIDIA Geforce GT 120 with 512MB of memory priced at $2,499. Finally, we have the 8-core system which includes two 2.26Ghz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors, 6GB of memory, 640GB hard drive, the 18x double-layer Superdrive, and of course the NVIDIA Geforce GT 120 with 512MB of memory priced at $3,299."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Store Reopens With Many New Products

Comments Filter:
  • Eh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dreamchaser (49529) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @10:24AM (#27050661) Homepage Journal

    Wake me up when they make a nice, expandable, mid ranged desktop class Mac. I still think that's the big gap in their lineup.

    • How many people who would buy one would upgrade it? At the mid range you can get a pretty good (Windows or Linux) laptop, or iMac, or Mac Mini. High-end, sure, you want to put in the latest and greatest video card, or USB 3.0 card, without buying a new box. But any other expansion? Why not use USB? Or bluetooth? Most devices will work Well Enough that way. The EyeTV HDTV tuner is USB and works fine.

      A Mac Mini looks to be a decent media center if you get a wireless keyboard+mouse and download HandBrake+V

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @11:48AM (#27051683)
        The 24" iMac is Good Enough for anyone who isn't a media producer. It's certainly a decent software development machine, although a Mac Pro is better since it can do multiple screens

        The iMac supports video spanning [apple.com] - you just need to get the right video-out adpater. The new ones even allow dual-link DVI.
      • You can drive two screens with an iMac! Been done, and planning to do it with the latest crop. Slightly disappointing CPU specs, but at least the HD4850 is an upgrade option.

        • by MadCow42 (243108) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @12:48PM (#27052583) Homepage

          I've been doing that with my 24" white iMac for a couple years now. I have Windows running in Parallels full-screen on one monitor, and Mac OSX full-screen on the other. It's a great cross-platform development environment, as well as a home machine.

          Macs handle multi-screen pretty cleanly - no mucking about needed. Trying to get it to work well on my Dell laptop is another matter... every time you undock it it gets farked up and you have to re-set all the settings.

          MadCow.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by stewbacca (1033764)

        I have a 1999 G4 tower. I upgraded the CPU from 400mhz to 800mhz about 4-5 years ago and added some ram. But yeah, then I've purchased three Mac laptops and two iMacs since then, because frankly, I've never really needed to upgrade. /andecdote

        It would be nice to have a $500-ish tower with specs similar to a Dell Inspiron 530 though.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by gobbo (567674)

        The 24" iMac is Good Enough for anyone who isn't a media producer. It's certainly a decent software development machine, although a Mac Pro is better since it can do multiple screens.

        I'm a small-scale media producer (modest A/V projects, web, SOHO support, etc.) and after waiting for a couple of years for a headless mid range machine out of Apple (don't really need quad-core Xenons or 8GB RAM for video editing with basic effects), researched a hackintosh. By the time I'd priced out the components I wanted with reliable firewire and audio and a quality monitor, I was $180 short of a refurb 24" imac.

        Posting from it now, and yes it can drive a second monitor, so I can get 3840 x 1200 resol

    • Re:Eh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @11:13AM (#27051275)

      Expansion isn't as important these days. Most people will only want to upgrade the HDD and perhaps the RAM, both of which the iMac will do. You can also add a 2nd monitor to it, USB will do the rest. People who make their own computers or have some niche requirements may not like the all-in-one designs, but that's not the majority, and hardly a glaring gap in their line-up.

      • because it isn't even remotely easy for the average user. It isn't fun for those of us who don't mind ripping them apart.

        The iMac is not meant to be open, now replacing a drive in a notebook isn't that hard because even Apple has a hard time dictating what notebook layouts are like

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by RedBear (207369)

        Indeed, that's exactly what people want to do is upgrade the RAM and hard drive. Right now you still have a choice between A) a computer with a built-in (i.e. non-replaceable) screen, a desktop-size fast hard drive with plenty of space, easily accessible RAM slots, and a decent graphics card, or B) a tiny computer with a much slower notebook-size hard drive, RAM slots and small hard drive that are a royal pain to upgrade, and not-so-great integrated graphics.

        What a large swath of middle-of-the-road customer

    • Re:Eh (Score:4, Insightful)

      by drsmithy (35869) <drsmithy.gmail@com> on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @11:28AM (#27051443)

      Wake me up when they make a nice, expandable, mid ranged desktop class Mac.

      Amazingly, that now pretty much describes the bottom end Mac Pro...

      ...Except for the price tag.

      • Re:Eh (Score:4, Informative)

        by makomk (752139) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @01:13PM (#27052945) Journal

        Amazingly, that now pretty much describes the bottom end Mac Pro...

        ...Except for the price tag.

        Except for the price tag and the use of overpriced server-class components, yes. The really screwy thing, of course, is that the 24" iMacs all have 4GB of RAM, whereas the hideously expensive quad-core Mac Pro has only 3GB (and you can bet Apple will charge through the nose for more).

        • Re:Eh (Score:4, Insightful)

          by SeanMon (929653) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @04:03PM (#27055473) Homepage Journal

          Amazingly, that now pretty much describes the bottom end Mac Pro...

          ...Except for the price tag.

          Except for the price tag and the use of overpriced server-class components, yes. The really screwy thing, of course, is that the 24" iMacs all have 4GB of RAM, whereas the hideously expensive quad-core Mac Pro has only 3GB (and you can bet Apple will charge through the nose for more).

          And you can bet that it has 3GB because it's using triple-channel DDR3, which is required with the latest Core i7 processors and boards.

    • People have been saying this for years, and yet it doesn't seem to have hurt Apple's sales in all that time. Guess you'll probably be sleeping for a while, because you're just not the market segment they're going after. I'll nap with you while I wait for my tablet mac... though I might wake up just long enough to snag a new mini one of these days...
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Insightful? *rolls eyes*

      While I agree that it's a big gap (I've always hated iMacs, mainly because my monitors tend to have a much longer lifespan than the rest of the computer), who is an expandable mid-ranged desktop targeted at?

      Geeks and gamers.

      Who is Apple not targeting?

      See above.

      They have home user machines and workstations. All of these machines are capable of running World of Warcraft which is the only game anyone plays on the Mac anyway.

  • by Shivetya (243324) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @10:29AM (#27050723) Homepage Journal

    markets.

    Man are the fanbois belly aching on many of the bigger sites. What shocked most is that prices for the new machines went up and in some cases a lot. An example comparing old aussie prices to new http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7199753&postcount=164 [macrumors.com]

    What is missing is...

    LED screens on the iMacs
    Blu-Ray (of course no one really expects it)
    Quad Cores

    Mac Mini got its update but the price is absurd as well.

    For those of us who are still upgrading (I have an older 2.13c2d white model) some selected upgrades push ship times out four to six weeks (like buying an ati 4850 chipset)

    Amazing that what Apple considers affordable is getting more extreme. Consumer level goods are professional level pricing.

    • by tepples (727027)

      An example comparing old aussie prices to new

      Apple is an American company. How much of this price change is due to the fluctuations in exchange rates?

      • by realxmp (518717) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @10:50AM (#27050947)

        The majority of their Macs, iPhones and displays are manufactured, assembled and shipped straight to their destination from Asia. The only parts of Apple that is really American is their R&D and sales and marketing parts, the rest was outsourced years ago.

        Instead of looking at the Pound-Dollar relationship you probably want to take a closer look at the relationship between the pound and the currencies of South Korea, etc.

        • by tepples (727027) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .selppet.> on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @11:02AM (#27051137) Homepage Journal

          The only parts of Apple that is really American is their R&D and sales and marketing parts

          And the only parts of Apple that distinguish a Mac from any old Lenovo or Lenovo-compatible PC is their R&D and sales and marketing parts.

          • And the license for OS X!

            If you're buying a Mac to put Linux on it, you're probably wasting money. (Unless you're buying a zillion of them and getting a discount) OS X is like that Lenovo one, maybe... except for me the OS X vs Windows difference just dwarfs anything else.

      • Apple never dropped prices for the UK when the dollar tanked against the British Pound, but this rise is due to fluctuations in the exchange rate (which sees the British Pound more or less back to where it was against the dollar before the dollar tanked)? Hell, I'm a heavy Apple user and I'm not even that much of an apologist!

        The new Mini is expensive, and there's little justification for it at that spec level.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ogdenk (712300)

          The new Mini is expensive, and there's little justification for it at that spec level.

          It's a pretty pricey little box but show me a cheaper PC in that SAME small form factor w/ the same Core 2 Duo CPU w/ 1066mhz FSB, DDR3 RAM, Firewire 400 and 800, gigabit ethernet, SPDIF Audio In AND Out (24-bit 96khz at that), displayport, an IR reciever for the remote, and a DVD burner.

          Even if you found a mini-itx board with all of those goodies (you may but you most likely won't), by the time you got everything built, it would cost just as much if not more than the $600 mac mini. The new mini is not a w

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by BrokenHalo (565198)
        How much of this price change is due to the fluctuations in exchange rates?

        Well, I'm not sure how it works in other countries, but here in Australia the price seems to be pegged at an advantageous rate (for Apple) and that is that. There is no room for negotiation: you either want the product or you don't. This is IMO one of the more distasteful aspects of Apple's business model.

        Their model doesn't annoy me enough to stop me using my second-hand MacBook, since I find it complements my (linux) desktop ma
    • There's two Mac Mini's, one is more expensive ($800) but one is less expensive ($600), just to compare I spent $700 on mine about a year ago or so. Granted that it would be way more attractive and competitive (and reasonable) at $500 but its still not too bad if thats what you're looking for. As for me I'm just waiting till ASUS releases a $200 eeeBox as the ultimate XBMC/Boxee pc to hook up to my TV
    • by sbryant (93075) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @12:42PM (#27052493)

      Mac Mini got its update but the price is absurd as well.

      Too damn right!

      It's priced at 599 US dollars, and at 599 Euros (for the cheaper one)... except that 599 Euros is well over 750 dollars. I'm sure there will always be price differences, but this is just plain idiotic. That's a price increase of 25%. I think it would actually be cheaper to buy direct from the US and pay shipping and import taxes!

      -- Steve

  • I can't find out from Apple's page - do the new Mac Minis come with a bundled remote control? Because I'm thinking of putting one under the TV - especially with the low power draw at idle, the ability to do 1080p without breaking a sweat, and the firewire 800 port that will tell my external hard drives to spin down when not needed. Heck, this could probably handle my Time Machine backups for the other macs in the house while serving 1080p. Now if only Apple would rent HD Movies to this machine. Sadly, they
    • Heck, this could probably handle my Time Machine backups for the other macs in the house while serving 1080p.

      I don't think you'd want to use a computer with only a 120 or 360 GB HD for serving video & Time Machine backups...

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @11:02AM (#27051121)

        Heck, this could probably handle my Time Machine backups for the other macs in the house while serving 1080p.

        I don't think you'd want to use a computer with only a 120 or 360 GB HD for serving video & Time Machine backups...

        Someone should really create a port that would allow expansion via external storage devices. That would be the bee's knees.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by paulcone (1388145)
          It does have that port -- it's called FireWire. I have two drives strung off mine -- one 500 GB and one 1TB.
    • by Teese (89081)
      Apple Remote would cost you $20 extra.
    • It's on the check-out page.

      $19 extra for a remote, which seems reasonable enough.

    • by Chaos Incarnate (772793) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @11:01AM (#27051115) Homepage
      The remote isn't bundled; it's a $20 option. But if you already have a remote from another Mac in your house, it'll work just fine with the new Mini.
    • If you've bought an iPod touch or an iPhone in the past 2 years, apple has a free program called "Remote." It lets you browse all your music/movies from iTunes over wifi, do coverflow from your mini to the iWhatever, etc. Then you tap on your movie/music and it plays it through the computer.

      It absolutely love it; It can be found in the App Store.

    • by prelelat (201821)

      I'm in Canada so I can't benifit from it but if you really want a service that you can rent HD Movies from why not setup the obvious and just go with NetFlix? I do believe it works on OSX.

  • by walter_f (889353) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @10:53AM (#27051011)

    an increase in price, and not a minor one.

    The entry level Mini now has 128 MB of video RAM, but a shared one as before and with still 1 GB RAM total.

    Then again, you get even more of these USB ports than before - great, isn't it? Especially considering the price jump of 100 euros over here in Europe.

    But at least one good thing: Apple did not throw out Firewire from the Minis, so we should probably praise them for this, day and night...

    • I wonder if the old MacMinis will be available in the brick-'n-mortar stores against a reduced price?

      Anyone knows how Apple deals with oldish models?

    • The entry level mini now has

      NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics processor with 128MB of DDR3 SDRAM shared with main memory

      whereas the old one had

      Intel GMA 950 graphics processor using 64MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared by main memory

      So you're getting twice as much graphics memory that is also faster graphics memory. Also, the intel GMA is onboard video the same as the 9400M. As for the price increase, it's only overseas prices that have gone up, the american ones are the same. That means it's probably just the exchan

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Stormwatch (703920)
        At last! I don't suppose the mini is anything high-end, but the Intel GMA is pretty much WORTHLESS for gaming.
      • by MBGMorden (803437) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @12:10PM (#27051993)

        So you're getting twice as much graphics memory that is also faster graphics memory.

        Well, due note that SHARED BY MAIN MEMORY bit. It's important. Essentially, you're not really getting ANY graphics memory. You're just getting slightly faster main system memory, and the graphics chip is now willing to carve out twice as much of that main memory for it's own use.

        • Well, due note that SHARED BY MAIN MEMORY bit. It's important.

          Why is it important? Show me the benchmark that twice as much shared DDR3 memory is slower than dedicated DDR2.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by MBGMorden (803437)

            It's important because in both cases it's removing all that memory from your main memory.

            In a system with dedicated graphics RAM, if it says 1GB RAM with 256MB of graphics memory, then my system ram is 1GB, and they're providing me with an extra 256MB of graphics RAM.

            In a shared memory situation, if it's 1GB RAM with 64MB of "graphics memory", then my system ram isn't really 1GB anymore - it's 1GB - 64MB. If it's 1GB of RAM with 128MB of shared "graphics memory", then my system ram is now 1GB - 128MB. In

  • by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @10:55AM (#27051033)

    Weaker video all around next to the old systems and a even bigger mac pro rip off $2500 for a core i7 based system with ONLY ONE CPU and nvidia 9500 video as the GT 120 is a 9500. What a ati card pay $200 more for a 4870 512 makeing it cost $150 + $200 = $350 makeing it about $100 more then other places you can get core i7 systems with better base video and the same cpu speed FOR ABOUT $1000+ less some even with 6gb of DDR3 ram. And why mini DP on a full size video card why not full DP with a DP to mini DP cable?

    The old $1,199.00 $1,499.00 level imacs used to have ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB memory and ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB with a NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS with 512MB memory in the $2,199.00 one now they have slower and weaker NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics on board video in the $1,199.00 $1,499.00 ones and NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 with 512MB memory in the $2,199.00.

    The mac mini is still a ripoff $599.00 for 1 GB OF RAM? $50 more for 2gb and $150 more for 4gb?

    # [Add $150.00] for a 2.26 cpu

    120GB is still small.

    The $799.00 mini has the same 2.0 cpu but 2gb of ram and a 320gb hd. It should have at least 128 - 256 vram that does not come from system but it does not.

    For about $500 you can get a X2 7750 and 790gx board with 128 side port ram with 4gb of ram apple should of put more in to the mini.

    • by ifrag (984323) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @11:20AM (#27051355)

      This is exactly why I have not considered Mac as a viable option for me. The video card offerings are just not current enough. Why is it that everything else in the system is relatively high end and the video cards fall off the face of the planet on the low end or mid-range at best?

      Until they either offer a base system with either NO VIDEO CARD (choose your own later) or something in the GTX 200 series, I can see no point in buying one. And what's up with the single HD4870, why not at least offer an X2? High end everything else and then crap for video card makes a nice workstation, but it's an insanely underpowered gaming rig. And at the price range of the Mac Pro, the only reasonable thing to compare it to is gaming class systems.

    • by Spatial (1235392)

      Weaker video all around next to the old systems and a even bigger mac pro rip off $2500 for a core i7 based system with ONLY ONE CPU and nvidia 9500 video as the GT 120 is a 9500.

      God damn Nvidia and their stupid naming schemes. I thought it was a 9600GSO.

      Can't they just settle on one scheme? For anyone who doesn't follow GPU news closely it must be incomprehensible. Not to mention the irritating tendency to release the same GPU over and over again under different names. The 8800GT was also the 9800GT, and it'll soon be the GTS 240 as well. The 8800GTS 512 was the 9800GTX... Etc.

      AMD/ATi seem to have gotten the idea at least.

  • by bbasgen (165297) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @11:08AM (#27051219) Homepage
    I am disappointed to see that the new iMacs don't have quad cores, although I'm a bit heartened to see they at least support up to 8 GB RAM. An imac quad core would be a great virtualization machine. I think Apple has missed the mark to not go quad core -- at least in the high imacs -- considering these models will likely be out for 9 months to 12 months. I'm also disappointed that prices didn't drop a bit considering the current market conditions. To ask folks to put down $1200 to have an all in one solution may be a non-starter nowadays. If you want a Quad core mac, you have to pay $2500 -- and for that you get 3GB RAM. Wow. Anyway, I can understand why there isn't fan fair here -- these are pretty minor speed bumps. These were much needed so I'm glad to see them arrive, but in the absence of new innovation, these speed bumps are decent today, but in 6 months they are going to be quite far behind.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by pseudonomous (1389971)

      Well ... just buy two dual core mac-minis for $599 each, stack them on top of each other and, viola! there you have you're quad-core machine.
       

    • An imac quad core would be a great virtualization machine.

      First, I totally understand what you're saying. I'm one of the many who wish they had at least one mid-range hackable model because none of their offerings really match what I'd want.

      Having said that, I think their logic is this: iMacs are meant for regular desktop users. They're not supposed to be workstations or high-end systems, even the higher-end models. If you want to do stuff more advanced than the average person, you're supposed to get the Mac Pro.

      While I don't fully agree with them, I can unders

  • by Spatial (1235392) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @11:24AM (#27051405)

    The lower-end Quad Core system includes a 2.66Ghz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor, 3GB of memory, 640GB hard drive, 18x double-layer Superdrive, and a NVIDIA Geforce GT 120 with 512MB of memory priced at $2,499.

    Since they don't come with a monitor, the profit margin on these things must be around 50%. Wow!

    The hardware is typical mid-range stuff: decent hard disc, low-end GPU (renamed 9600GSO) and mid-high end CPU (renamed i7 920). Including a high quality motherboard and PSU, that would cost around 900 dollars at retail. That leaves a healthy 1,600 for the case, OS, software and peripherals.

    Honest question: Who buys these things?

    • even if apple wanted $500 for osx you can still build a better system for less.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @12:31PM (#27052323)

      After some customization, I can get a mac pro for $3,500 that is almost comparable (not quite) to the pc I just put together for $1,400.

      If people want to throw a dollar sign in the word "Micro$oft", then we need to through a couple in with Apple: "A$$le"

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by obijuanvaldez (924118)
      No kidding.
      The Mac Pro spec as priced out on newegg:

      Western Digital Caviar 640GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive $69.99
      Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz Quad-Core Processor $288.99
      EVGA 01G-P3-N959-TR GeForce 9500 GT 1GB Video Card $69.99
      ASUS P6T Deluxe Motherboard $289.99
      LG 22X DVD&#177;R DVD Burner Black SATA $22.99
      LIAN LI PC-60USB B2 Silver Aluminum Case $119.99
      G.SKILL Value 1GB 184-Pin DDR SDRAM $29.99 ea x 3 = $89.97
      Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 64-bit $179.99
      Rosewill RG530

      • by rsmith-mac (639075) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @01:32PM (#27053197)

        You're looking at the wrong CPU/Mobo combo. The Mac Pro would have a 2-way Xeon processor in it (you pay a premium for 2-way and higher) and an appropriate motherboard with two sockets, 8 DIMM slots, etc. It still doesn't add up to too much, but you would need to slap something around a few hundred dollars on to that price tag (exact value unknown, the Nehalem Xeons aren't for sale yet).

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by lmnfrs (829146)

          Yep, that's a vital point because Nehalem Xeons currently are not available anywhere else, and the Nehalem Core i7 is not comparable. They are newer than the Xeon platform that is available and support 3 channel memory. That sounds nice, but the _older_ Xeon platform supported 4 channel memory with RAID and sparing (just like hard drives) and ECC to mention only a couple things. Desktop and Workstation/Server hardware are not in the same world.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by UnknowingFool (672806)

        For this item, I am just not buying any argument that if you compare line by line that Apple products are reasonably priced. Literally.

        The main part of your argument and pricing is that you didn't spec out a Xeon processor and a matching 2 dual chip MB. That is a significant difference. While on the surface a Core i7 is similar to a Xeon, they are not the same in terms of performance and function. The MacPro is a workstation not a desktop. Ignoring that basic difference allows you to make your comparison

  • I like the new keyboard that ships with the iMac -- basically a wired version of the compact wireless keyboard.

  • by SoupIsGoodFood_42 (521389) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @11:37AM (#27051551)

    Looks like Apple has finally moved on from FireWire 400, as all the new products only have FireWire 800 ports. About time -- two different FireWire ports was starting to get annoying, although it does mean you'll need to get an adapter for old stuff.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I've been an Apple fan since my Apple ][+ when I was 9 years old. Throw in a 512ke, SE, 6100, iMac Rev B, and my iMac G5; along with my Dad & family's numerous machines, and I love it all.

    However, I probably won't be buying another Mac any time soon for a few reasons:
    * I live in a multi-computer home environment. I've got two Windows machines, an Ubuntu machine, a MythTV, and random stuff. The Mac works great *when you do everything the OSX way*. However, in a mixed environment, it doesn't. I'm thi

    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @01:51PM (#27053501)

      * I live in a multi-computer home environment. I've got two Windows machines, an Ubuntu machine, a MythTV, and random stuff. The Mac works great *when you do everything the OSX way*. However, in a mixed environment, it doesn't. I'm thinking of movies, pictures, address book, and things like that.

      This depends a lot in my experience based upon how you interoperate. OS X is very good at using open standards and file formats provided you pick decent software to run on top of it. It is less good at interoperating with Windows proprietary formats and protocols and if your servers or Windows machines are using them and you're set on them, Linux is often better at reverse engineered solutions. Example, if you standardized on Windows Media formats, OS X will play them, but not as well as Windows or even Linux. If you picked MP3, MP4, OGG, and the like, OS X is much better than Windows at interoperating.

      I bought my iMac G5 20" ALS, and it was a great machine for about 40 months. Then, it failed.

      Your anecdote certainly shows reason to be annoyed, but what could Apple the vendor do to prevent this? Extend their warranties to four years and then people complain when machines fail a month after that. Would you like more reliable hardware? Of course, we all always want more reliable hardware, but Apple already is the top rated among major vendors by consumer reports and other independent reviewers. Some people will always have hardware fail regardless. You're that person. And Apple is already taking flack for using more expensive and reliable components. Just look at all the comments here about how expensive Apple is compared not to the other top rated vendors, but ones with very poor reliability numbers. People don't look at reliability when buying.

      I hate backing up /home/username.

      Umm, you've heard of Time machine, right? You can apply it only to selected parts of your filesystem and it does versioning more smoothly and easily than almost anything. Or, use one of many third party backup solutions that handles them intelligently.

      * The hardware *is* expensive. And, in my experience, very proprietary to the point where a failure totals a machine. My x86 tower is nicely generic.

      Apple has custom motherboards, but other than that, everything is pretty much off the shelf. What are you looking to replace? I don't see how it is any harder than anything else (with the exception of the motherboard which you have to buy from Apple).

      * OSX isn't perfect. Neither is XP/Vista/Ubuntu.

      I don't really see how this is a challenge for Apple. You want them to be perfect? Not going to happen.

      Okay, I don't quite know what my rant is. I'm just in a small minority of "Mac Fanboy for ages, switching to Windows and living just fine."

      Hey, use what you like and what works for you. I use OS X, Linux, and Windows daily. On my laptop Linux and Windows live in VMs and OS X gets the most love because OS X handles migrations the best and because running OS X in a VM on top of Linux or Windows gives me more headaches. People get way to hung up an emotional about these things.

  • by sneakyimp (1161443) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @03:01PM (#27054579)

    * 2.66 GHZ Nehalem 920, overclocked to well over 3.2GHZ.
    * ASUS p6t6 mobo with LOTS of features like SAS ports, RAID 0/1/5/10, at least 3 PCI-X x16 slots, eSATA connectors, etc.
    * ATI 4870 with 1GB DDR5 RAM
    * 12 GB RAM capable of 1600 Mhz (rather than 1066 avail on the Mac)
    * 750 Watt Corsair PSU with gobs of connecting cables
    * not one but FOUR WD 640 GB drive configured as RAID 0/1/5/10
    * LG Bluray burner
    * Acer 23" monitor
    * Windows vista 64
    * mouse, keyboard

    Anyone know when Nehalem Xeon chips might be available for the rest of us? Then we'll compare apples to apples. Damn Mac tax!

    • by RedK (112790) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @06:18PM (#27057291)

      I'm pricing a Xeon Dell Precision workstation class machine on dell.ca, which is a better comparison to the Xeon based Workstation that is a Mac Pro, and I'm up to $2800 right now and guess what ? It has 2 GB DDR2 ECC ram vs the Mac's 3 GB DDR3 ECC (triple channel). It has an older, non-Nehalem Xeon processor, same ghz as the Mac but no 2 threads per core like the Mac. 1 SATA hard drive, 80 GB (WTF is this ?), same superdrive optical drive, etc...

      I think Apple nailed their market just right. This isn't a cobbled together gaming PC, it's a Professional Workstation with a certain grade of hardware you're not getting in your cobbled together PC.

  • by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @04:40PM (#27056041)

    You can get a DELL Studio XPS 435 about $1000 less with x2 ram then the mac pro.

    With the same cpu power.

    750GB 7200 RPM SATA Hard Drive vs 640GB

    a 640gb is $50 less on the dell

    Dell 24 inch S2409W Widescreen Flat Panel vs none

    ATI Radeon HD 4670 512MB vs # NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB

    can add ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB for $100 or ATI Radeon HD 4870 GDDR5 1024MB for $200 vs ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB for $200 more

    can also get a Studio XPS 435 with No Monitor for $1,299

    with x2 the ram or - $150 for the same ram

    ATI Radeon HD 3650 256MB
    ATI Radeon HD 4670 512MB [add $50]
    ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB [add $150]
    ATI Radeon HD 4870 GDDR5 1024MB [add $250]

    you can also find other dell core i7 deals as well.

  • *Yawn* ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by oblivionboy (181090) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @06:44PM (#27057621)

    ....I think what people are really wanting this year is an Apple netbook. Come on Apple, take some risks, surprise us a little.

  • I can't wait... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by caitsith01 (606117) on Tuesday March 03, 2009 @07:00PM (#27057815) Journal

    ...for the front page Slashdot stories when Dell, Lenovo and Sony modestly update their current lineup of computers!

    Oh wait...

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Working...