On Thu, 15 May 2008 13:23:15 -0700, Glorb wrote
(in article <c45e5$482c9bb3$19323@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
> George Graves wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 May 2008 08:57:36 -0700, Glorb wrote
>> (in article <6a253$482c5d70$17004@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>>
>>> George Graves wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 May 2008 08:27:19 -0700, Glorb wrote
>>>> (in article <c3e60$482b04d7$6599@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>>>>
>>>>> Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 22:30:08 GMT, me4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Wayne Stuart)
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ZnU <znu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article <r81i2493mg7ii0vqdtv8m1o2k08vko0vnp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>>>>>>> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.of.rlyeh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 14:57:49 -0700, George Graves
>>>>>>>>> <gmgraves2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 12 May 2008 13:18:23 -0700, ZnU wrote
>>>>>>>>>> (in article <znu-5B168E.16182312052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>>>>>>>>>>> Will they do it? I don't see them having much interest, at the
>>>>>>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>>>>>> But who anticipated the Mac mini, introduced as a $500 Mac
when the
>>>>>>>>>>> cheapest Mac was previously nearly twice that price, or the
>>>>>>>>>>> Xserve, a
>>>>>>>>>>> product targeted at a market in which Apple had previously
shown no
>>>>>>>>>>> interest at all?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The thing is that any computer designed to compete in that
space
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> have to be more computer than the Mini. Let's face it, for the
cost
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> a Mini one can buy or build a Windows box with near Mac tower
>>>>>>>>>> performance and capability. Not that the Mini isn't useful, it
>>>>>>>>>> certainly is, it just doesn't stack-up, hardware wise, very
well
>>>>>>>>>> against similar priced Winbox offerings. It's main appeal is
that it
>>>>>>>>>> runs OSX. This makes it worthwhile to those who value OSX, but
to
>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>> local Windroids and Wins*** here, many of which have never even
>>>>>>>>>> seen,
>>>>>>>>>> much less used OSX (Edwin), the Mini merely looks overpriced.
>>>>>>>>> Mac user (at work anyway) here to say that the Mini is grossly
>>>>>>>>> overpriced for what it is. If the higher end Mini were priced at
$500
>>>>>>>>> and the lower end one at $300 they'd be flying out the doors.
>>>>>>>> It's priced quite well for a small form-factor system, but many
buyers
>>>>>>>> probably don't care much about the form factor. Apple could make
the
>>>>>>>> thing a fair bit cheaper by just making it a bit larger, so it
>>>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>>>> have to use laptop RAM and optical & hard drives.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Though it's also worth noting the Mac mini hasn't seen an update
in
>>>>>>>> something like nine months -- it'll probably be much more
competitive
>>>>>>>> after the next update. Though that will probably take the form of
>>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>>> specs at the same price points. Unless it has been so long since
the
>>>>>>>> last update because Apple is up to something....)
>>>>>>> Maybe if the Mini had been a bigger seller, Apple would have put
more
>>>>>>> effort into keeping it fresh. But everything I've seen points to
the
>>>>>>> Mini has always been considerably outsold by the much more
expensive
>>>>>>> iMac.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You also have to wonder if this has been sending a message that
people
>>>>>>> aren't particularly interested in cheap Macs, so no point making
an
>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>> cheaper one.
>>>>>> What people are interested in is a $500 Mac that has the same
features
>>>>>> as a $500 PC, not a $500 Mac that matches the $198 PCs on
Wal-Mart's
>>>>>> website.
>>>>>> As I keep pointing out its not the price point, its the value.
>>>>> I agree.
>>>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com
**
>>>> Depends upon one's definition of value. I hate to resort to car
>>>> analogies,
>>> So lets get rid of your car analogy and stick to computers. :-)
>>>
>>>> The Mini
>>>> appeals to people who have no use for a Windows PC of the same price
or
>>>> less,
>>>> no matter how much better a processor, more memory, bigger hard drive
or
>>>> more
>>>> software it comes bundled with. That makes such comparisons moot.
>>> Since few people, if any, fall under such a category, the comparisons
>>> are far from "moot."
>>
>> Since Apple, being only one company, is only selling to a "few people"
in
>> the
>> larger scope of things, the comparison is absolutely moot.
>
> Apple's commercials disagree with you. They're trying to convince PC
> buyers to become Mac buyers. They're not aimed at the kind of people
> who will buy a Mac even if better PCs cost less.
SOME PC buyers, they couldn't handle a lot of PC buyers.
>>>> I might,
>>>> conceivably buy a Mini, I would never buy one of these similar priced
or
>>>> even
>>>> cheaper Windows machines even if it were faster and more fully loaded
>>>> than
>>>> the fastest Mac one can buy, because I have no use for a Windows
machine.
>>> Why do you feel your personal beliefs extend to the market as a whole?
>>
>> I don't. But they do extend to the Mac market, the only market of
interest
>> in
>> this discussion.
>
> You both said you don't and you do.
>
>>> Especially when you posted about occasions when you had to use a
Windows
>>> machine for your work.
>>
>> Even so, that's what Parallels is for.
>
> You didn't post about using Parallels, and "even so," it showed you had
> a use for Windows machines.
>> Those odd and rare occasions when one
>> just HAS to use a Windows program. There's no reason to buy a Winbox
for
>> that.
>
> Yet you wound up using a Windows machine.
I wound-up with a MacBook Pro running Parallels for ONE Windows program:
Visio. Now that Omnigraffle Pro 5.0 is fully compatible with Visio, I
don't
even need that any more.
|
