Apple Set to Launch $500 Mac

[ViRaL1]

In a bid to take advantage of the success of the iPod music player, Apple Computer Inc. is set to release a Mac retailing at under $500....

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1747398,00.asp?kc=ewnws010405dtx1k0000599

[canadateck]

I will Get one very soon,Even if it cost more then 500$.

[Ripper2860]

Might be worth $500.00 to try OS X w/o an emulator.

[lordsmurf]

$500 for 40-80GB and no monitor?
No thanks. I take my "yes" vote back.

[tekkieman]

I've worked on Macs for years, and to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't mind having one. But that's too little machine for too much money still. Now if someone were to give me one. I would certainly use it.

[tgpo]

This may be the replacement for the cube. It's showing its age are to often these days.

[ViRaL1]

$500 for 40-80GB and no monitor?
No thanks. I take my "yes" vote back.

For a new computer user, how quickly are they really going to fill up 80GB on a Mac? I'll probably pick one up, but storage isn't a huge concern. I've got tons of space on the server (adding my 400GB soon), and I'm already running Mac Services. Besides, if it's powerful enough, we're still talking standard IDE / ATA drives, easily replaceable. As for monitors, used / refurb CRTs can be found for next to nothing if you know where to look. Then again, maybe I'm overestimating the starting price for Macs these days.

[disturbed1]

If it's marketed correctly, I think it will be pretty popular.

I don't believe the target market(s) are tech saavy www.vcdhelp.com forum members I see older people buying their first computer, and parents buying these for their kids to do school work on, and a few other first time PC, and 3rd/4th gen MAC buyers. Not people looking for power house video machines.

Interesting machine, but isn't anything that appeals to me.

[revo2001]

I've worked on Macs for years, and to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't mind having one. But that's too little machine for too much money still. Now if someone were to give me one. I would certainly use it.

If you go into a retail store, a brand name PC with specifications similar(and quality lower) to what the mac might be are relatively the same price.

I would definitely buy one as the MacOS is superior to any OS ive ever used.

[tekkieman]

I've worked on Macs for years, and to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't mind having one. But that's too little machine for too much money still. Now if someone were to give me one. I would certainly use it.

If you go into a retail store, a brand name PC with specifications similar(and quality lower) to what the mac might be are relatively the same price.

I would definitely buy one as the MacOS is superior to any OS ive ever used.

Until you've actually seen one (which noone has), that's a baseless statement and a bait as well.

[vitualis]

You are buying inferior hardware. Have you looked at the specs?

Can any PC user here honestly say that they would pay good money for a new Pentium III or P4 Willamette PC? Because that is about the hardware performance you are getting.

If you want a clean fresh cheap computer, then buy an AMD AthlonXP or Semptron based PC and install a new version of Linux. If you want to use a Mac, then fork out the money and get a good unit.

Regards.

[Capmaster]

Nothing against Mac users, but ...no ..not in this lifetime

[rumplestiltskin]

Apparently the "headless iMac" will be a Digital Media Center according to some rumor sites (and based upon the photos I've seen). Of course, this could all be a ruse; Apple's released misleading info prior to the MacWorld Expo before.

[ViRaL1]

I'd bet there's some truth to the rumors since Apple is suing the site that published the info over 'trade secrets.' As far as inferior hardware, is it that much different from the eMac, sans monitor? Not that it's the top of the line, but they're trying to gain market share. Your average PC user or new computer user doesn't have much interest in shelling out the cash for 'current line' Macs. This is also an opportunity for people (like me) to get their hands on a mac that's not someone else's hand me down LC II to really get a feel for what it's all about. Granted, Linux is cheaper but the support still isn't really comparable to the big boys like Apple and M$. You're also asking users to figure out which distro is right for them vs one (two if you count OS9) operating base for Apple. This will also appeal to those looking to get out from under M$, but not ready to venture out into Linux territory.

[rumplestiltskin]

If the rumors about it being basically an eMac without a monitor are true, this is really a fine machine. I install eMacs for many of my business clients and also for "home" clients who are working on a budget. It's plenty fast for anything in the iLife suite (iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto). If it truly is a Media Center box, then it most assuredly have some kind of hardware encoding/decoding.

Based upon the photos I've seen, there's a port unlike anything I've seen on a Mac before; I would guess that there's a multi-head cable that plugs into that (jnput) port and on the other end of that cable is composite & S-video and left/right audio.

At the price points ($500? $600?) mentioned in a number of the rumor stories, I can't imagine that this is simply a means of -playing- media stored on your Mac (or multiple Macs on the network). That's why I'm guessing that there's ENcoding as well as DEcoding.

However, given Apple's adoption of mpeg-4, will it play back mpeg-2? Mpeg-2 -is- part of the mpeg-4 standard (as embraced by Apple and the mpeg-la group) but it may be that mpeg-2 ENcoding would place Apple directly in the sights of the MPAA as the iHome would then be construed as a device intended to violate the digital rights of the movie copyright holders. So Apple's mpeg-4 implementation (which can DEcode mpeg-2) may indeed be using "real" mpeg-4 for recording to a hard disk but may have the means to DEcode the mpeg-2 media you might already have on your Mac.

That's a good solution that permits Apple to provide great functionality yet keep them out of court.

[rumplestiltskin]

...and now comes word that the iHome is, indeed, a hoax based upon some (very good) analysis of the photos: The labeling on the box is upside down when carried by the handle, the excessive labeling of the unit itself, logo misplacement, peeling paper labels on the box (Apple has the entire box printed and doesn't use paper labels except for the inventory control tag).

Nevertheless, it would be glorious if it was true, eh?

[IAIHMB]

I'd rather go with a Dell, they come with monitors. :P

[NightWing]

Be intesting to see if its true. Esp if its small and quite.

Saw in a weekly ad you can get a 15 inch LCD monitor for around 200.

[Conquest10]

If you go into a retail store, a brand name PC with specifications similar(and quality lower) to what the mac might be are relatively the same price.

What the f&^% have you been smokin', mate?

[ViRaL1]

Here's an HP around $499..
(534.99 after $50MIR)

Operating System Microsoft(R) Windows(R) XP Home Edition with SP2 edit
Processor AMD Sempron(TM) 3000+ operating at 2.0GHz edit
Memory 512 MB DDR / PC2700 (1 DIMM) edit
Hard Drive 80 GB 7200 rpm Ultra DMA Hard Drive edit
Primary CD/DVD Drive FREE UPGRADE! LightScribe DL 16X DVD +/-R/RW drive edit
Front Productivity Ports 3 USB 2.0, 1 Firewire, 9-in-1 card reader + WinDVD edit
Removable Storage 3.5 in. 1.44MB Floppy Drive edit
Graphics Card Integrated Via UniChrome Graphics edit
Sound Card Integrated 5.1 Capable Sound w/ front audio ports edit
Keyboard and Mouse HP Internet Keyboard, HP Scroller Mouse edit
Productivity Software Microsoft(R) Works Suite 2005 includes Word 2002 edit

Here's a DELL around $499
($508 after $50MIR)

Dimension 3000 - Celeron




Catalog Number / Description Product Code SKU Id



Dell Dimension 3000 Series:
Intel® Celeron® D Processor 320 (2.40GHz, 533 FSB) WC245H [221-6681] 1


Operating System:
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition WHXP [412-0721][412-0688][463-2282][420-4834][420-4927] 11


Choice of Mail-in Rebate or Dell Gift Card:
Save $50 with mail-in rebate. Price shown before rebate 50Q4 [463-4895] 237


Shipping Rebates:
Save $99 on shipping with mail-in rebate. Price shown before rebate. 99SHPQ4 [463-5136] 241


Limited Warranty, Services and Support Options:
1Yr Ltd Warranty, 1Yr At-Home Service, and 1Yr Technical Support S111OS [950-9797][950-3337][412-0360][902-9210][960-2800] 29


Memory:
FREE UPGRADE! 512MB Dual Channel DDR SDRAM at 400MHz 512M4P [463-2927] 3


Hard Drive:
80GB Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM Hard Drive 80 [340-3274] 8


CD or DVD Drive:
Single Drive: 48x CD-RW Drive 48CDRW [313-2237] 16


Floppy Drives and Additional Storage Devices:
No Floppy Drive Included NFD [340-8688] 10


Document Management:
Adobe® Acrobat® Reader 6.0 AAREAD [412-0705] 15


Monitors:
No Monitor N [320-3000] 5


Mouse:
Mouse included with Keyboard purchase NONE [310-5678] 12


Sound Card:
Integrated Audio IS [313-2758] 17


Video Editing:
IEEE 1394 Adapter 1394 [320-0169] 85


Speakers:
No Speaker Option N [313-2198] 18


Keyboard and Mouse Bundles:
Dell Quietkey Keyboard and Dell 2-button Scroll Mouse QKSM [310-1582][310-1871] 4


Video Card:
Integrated Intel® Extreme Graphics 2 IV [320-2870] 6


Network Interface:
Integrated 10/100 Ethernet IN [430-0412] 13


Modem:
56K PCI Data/Fax Modem DFAX [313-2279] 14


Dell Media Experience:
Dell Media Experience™ DMX [412-0660] 115


Productivity Software:
WordPerfect®, Powerful Word Processing CORELM [412-0701] 22


Security Software:
No Security Subscription NS2 [412-0754] 25


Tracer Skus:
Award Winning Service and Support D30CSAP [463-5384] 82


Digital Music:
Dell Jukebox - easy-to-use music player and CD burning software MMBASE [412-0741] 27


Digital Photography:
Paint Shop™ Pro® Studio trial, Photo Album™ Starter Edition DPS [412-0744] 28


Internet Access Services:
6 Months of America Online Membership Included AOLDHS [412-0585][412-0625][420-3224][412-0687] 37

I know that you can't really compare MHz to MHz between PCs and Macs, but feature wise. PCs still have the lead.

[rumplestiltskin]

I know that you can't really compare MHz to MHz between PCs and Macs, but feature wise. PCs still have the lead.

Well, as long as you don't consider that Macs have near-perfect integration of all multimedia (music/movies/photos/DVD burning) and are missing the 60,000+ vulnerabilities (viruses, trojan horses, Microsoft app rogue scripting).

I own both Macs and PCs. There are two things that PCs do better (for now):

1. DVD Ripping to SVCD (ripping to DVD is the same, SVCD is faster on the PC but that seems to be due to a difference in the available tools).

2. My PC is being setup to be a Digital Media Center for about $220 in equipment (over and above the cost of the PC) - Hauppauge PVR-250 and MediaMVP. The equivalent for my Mac would cost over $500 (plus the cost of the Mac).

[vitualis]

The new Mac will utilize a 1.25GHz G4 processor and will come in a small, flat enclosure similar to that of the popular LC series of Macs from the 1990s. Although the product will be priced at under $500, this will not include a monitor or DVD-R drive, and hard drive capacity will be between 40GB and 80GB.

I say this again, this is OLD technology and it is NOT comparable to any PC you can realistically get at that price. Even your brand name PCs can do better. Buy one from a smaller dealer or build one yourself, you can make a substantially superior machine.

I agree that Mac OS X is a pretty good OS. However, what is the point in paying $500 for OS X on inferior hardware?

Regards.

[ViRaL1]

Considering that the eMacs have similar specs, but with a built-in monitor for $800, and the next step up from there is the $1300 iMac, I honestly believe this will get a lot of people who were hesitant to switch over to the dark side...er, Apple.

[Conquest10]

I'm going to have to agree with Michael on this one. A G4 with no disc drive or monitor for $500?

[rumplestiltskin]

The new Mac will utilize a 1.25GHz G4 processor and will come in a small, flat enclosure similar to that of the popular LC series of Macs from the 1990s. Although the product will be priced at under $500, this will not include a monitor or DVD-R drive, and hard drive capacity will be between 40GB and 80GB.

I say this again, this is OLD technology and it is NOT comparable to any PC you can realistically get at that price. Even your brand name PCs can do better. Buy one from a smaller dealer or build one yourself, you can make a substantially superior machine.

I agree that Mac OS X is a pretty good OS. However, what is the point in paying $500 for OS X on inferior hardware?

Regards.

The 1.25GHz G4 eMac actually has performance quite similar to the 1.6GHz G5 iMac. The difference is with apps that would take advantage of the faster system bus on the m'boards where G5's are used. In most "real-world" apps, the difference isn't a large as you might think. Frankly, once you get up to 1GHz in a G4, the biggest difference going up to higher GHz or to the G5 is that the unit is spending more time waiting for you to press a key or move the mouse.

However, once you start doing things like mpeg-2 encoding, the system bus makes a big difference as data is getting thrashed around at quite a clip. I have a dual 1.8GHz G5 which replaced a dual 867MHz G4. The system bus comparison is 900MHz vs 167MHz (might have been 133 but I don't remember at this moment). Mpeg-2 encoding improvement from the G4 to the G5 is dramatic but the bulk of the improvement comes from the faster bus, not the CPU speed. Certain hardware was actually removed from the G5 when compared to the G4 (which is why VirtualPC6 did not run on the G5 and required a v7 upgrade).

As for the "$500 for inferior hardware" - I simply can't agree. I can buy an HP or similar unit but, frankly, any box running Windows is a house of cards so I'm looking at a potential $500 Mac as "$500 for an inexpensive OSX box that seamlessly integrates my multimedia apps". Now, would I buy one? No, my needs require more horsepower (I'm not talking "megahertz" here) so a G5 system fits the bill. However, the subject unit (sub-$500, etc.) is still a powerful machine.

Let's remember that the difference between a G4 and a G5 is nothing like the difference between a Celeron and a Pentium. The Celeron is a deliberately crippled CPU and certainly is a fine example of "inferior hardware".

Ciao!

[vitualis]

Sorry, but I cannot agree.

The difference between a G4 and G5 is similar between a P4 and P3 or at least P4 Northwood vs P4 Willamette.

It is an older generation of CPU.

With $US 500 in the PC world, there is absolutely no reason why you can't get a PC with the latest generation of CPU.

As for "any box running Windows being a house of cards"?? I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all. If you don't like Windows, there are a multitude of other operatings systems to choose from.

Although the full specs of the machine aren't being posted, I'm not holding my breath that it is going to spectacular. Of what we do know is that it has a relatively small HDD, no monitor and no DVD burner. Of this generation of Macs, I'm expecting a pretty ho-hum video card and probably somewhat meager amount of RAM as well. As I said before, Mac OS X is a good OS, but it isn't exactly light on its resource footprint. I doubt very much you are going to get particularly good performance out of this machine.

The PC analogy:
Would you buy a new HP PC running a P4 Willamette processor @ 1.6 GHz with an 80 Gb HDD with no DVD burner, no monitor, running WinXP SP2 with the full HP suite of media proggies for $US 500?

No.

Regards.

[rumplestiltskin]

Sorry, but I cannot agree.

The difference between a G4 and G5 is similar between a P4 and P3 or at least P4 Northwood vs P4 Willamette.

It is an older generation of CPU.

Well, I know we can agree to disagree which is why these forums are always interesting.

Given equal speeds (which is tough or impossible to demo), the G3 and G4 perform identically UNLESS the software calls for the AltiVec (Velocity Engine) graphics code. Database serving, for example, yields no improvement given equal system speeds with G3/G4 being the only difference. The same may be said about the G5. However, OSX's Quartz and newer versions of QuickTime -are- coded to take advantage of AltiVec (present in the G4 and G5) and provide hardware acceleration beyond what a dedicated graphics card may produce on its own.

Here's an interesting question (to which I do not have the answer): I recently replaced a RIP server. The old unit was an HP dual-700MHz P3 with 512MB of RAM and dual-SCSI HDs. The new unit is a single 3.2GHz P4 (HT) on an 800MHz FSB with 1.5GB DDR RAM and dual-SATA 120GB HDs in a RAID-0 configuration. The Postscript files generated by Macs and PCs were stored on the RIP server and, periodically, the server was called upon to convert the PS code into the native language of the connected platesetter.

So here's the question: How much faster should the new machine be? Let's say the old machine took 4 hours to RIP a set of PS files. How long should the new machine take for the same set of files?

3 hours? 2 hours? 1 hour? 30 minutes?
.
.
(answer below)
.
.
.
.
.
4 minutes!

Yeah, awesome performance. Which component in the new system provided the most help in reducing the time? I'm leaning toward the system bus and RAID as a RIP works by chewing into the PS file a small chunk at a time and writing the converted chunk of code back out to the disk. So data flow (IMHO) seems to be the bottleneck.

I'd be willing to bet that the old dual-700MHz HP, if given an 800MHz bus (instead of the 100MHz it has) would have been a real champ (although 3.2GHz is nothing to sneeze at!).

Of course, we'll never know and my client is ecstatic; we were only banking on a 30% improvement to justify the cost. By the way, that PC cost him about $1300. I'm even thinking of getting a similar unit to replace my old ShuttlePC (I could use more PCI slots than one).

The bottom line (to which I arrive after a circuitous route) is not whether you or I would buy the $500 iMac/eMac. Obviously, we both have needs that cannot be met by such a unit. It's whether Apple believes there are those who -would- purchase a unit backed by a first-class operation that runs a robust OS like OSX that has none of the downside of Windows. You may not believe there are downsides to using a Windows box but if I asked you to switch to an OS that had such vulnerabilities you'd refuse. You have been able to put up with the problems and work around them. There are many who are chomping at the bit and can't wait to switch but they are, frankly, cheap bastards 8) who are waiting for that "magic" price point. All those old eMachines and Acers and all the rest of those Celeron-equipped creakers will be punted; the only thing these folks will keep will be their monitors which will, of course, work on the new Mac.

Think of this Mac as the entry-level unit that will make converts. Certainly the Mac will have performance considerably better than what it is replacing (especially given the quality of the included applications).

Again, I know you won't agree but that's okay as that's the purpose of what we're doing here, eh?

g'day, mate!

[vitualis]

Here's an interesting question (to which I do not have the answer): I recently replaced a RIP server. The old unit was an HP dual-700MHz P3 with 512MB of RAM and dual-SCSI HDs. The new unit is a single 3.2GHz P4 (HT) on an 800MHz FSB with 1.5GB DDR RAM and dual-SATA 120GB HDs in a RAID-0 configuration. The Postscript files generated by Macs and PCs were stored on the RIP server and, periodically, the server was called upon to convert the PS code into the native language of the connected platesetter.

So here's the question: How much faster should the new machine be? Let's say the old machine took 4 hours to RIP a set of PS files. How long should the new machine take for the same set of files?

3 hours? 2 hours? 1 hour? 30 minutes?
.
.
(answer below)
.
.
.
.
.
4 minutes!

Yeah, awesome performance. Which component in the new system provided the most help in reducing the time? I'm leaning toward the system bus and RAID as a RIP works by chewing into the PS file a small chunk at a time and writing the converted chunk of code back out to the disk. So data flow (IMHO) seems to be the bottleneck.

Impossible to say, but I would think that the CPU has a big difference too. Your programs can probably take advantage of new instructions in the CPU too.

I'd be willing to bet that the old dual-700MHz HP, if given an 800MHz bus (instead of the 100MHz it has) would have been a real champ (although 3.2GHz is nothing to sneeze at!).

Yes, but the point is system architecture. A new P4 system CAN (and DOES) have a system bus of 800 MHz. You can do thought experiments until the cows come home with the P3, but the fact of the matter is, that sort of system configuration does not exist.

It's whether Apple believes there are those who -would- purchase a unit backed by a first-class operation that runs a robust OS like OSX that has none of the downside of Windows. You may not believe there are downsides to using a Windows box but if I asked you to switch to an OS that had such vulnerabilities you'd refuse. You have been able to put up with the problems and work around them. There are many who are chomping at the bit and can't wait to switch but they are, frankly, cheap bastards 8) who are waiting for that "magic" price point.

The flip side of couse is that all your existing software will no longer work. All the time investment you have put into learning how to use Windows and Windows proggies are lost.

I'm sure that Apple will sell this machine. I'm not sure how well it will do, but I'm damn sure that it is aimed at the PC newbie.

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050111_150123.html

$US 500 for a computer without a monitor, keyboard or mouse. At $500, it will be the lowest specs -- an inferior video card (important ++ for the Mac OS X GUI), inadequate amounts of system ram for Mac OS X. The only thing good about it is that it does come with Mac OS X and it has a ripping design. And when you come down to it... this is my beef with Apple. Design always comes ahead of performance.

For a $US 500 computer, the new "mini-iMac" is a very poor performer in terms of both features and price.

Note: look at the new iPod. 4 hours battery life? You've got to be kidding. New USB key based music players can run over 20 h on a single AAA battery or at least over 10 hours with an inbuilt rechargable WITH a screen.

Regards.

[NightWing]

Rather have my iRiver F390 over the new flash based iPod. Abit thicker but has a super user interface and 20+ hours of playback. Never could see a iPod.

Two aspects of the mini are intersting. One is the small size. Good luck on getting a cheep pc down to that size. And how quite is it. If just a whisper fan then this DOES beat a pc.

Most of the Micro/Pico ATX board use pretty low power cpu. Some are just geting beyond the 1ghz mark. Just a bare board is in the range of 160+. Cases are not cheep plus drive etc.

The Cube PC like Shuttle and other makes have faster cpu but just the MB/case can ruin you over 200+. Have not added in MS XP. { OEM is about 90 for home and about 140 for Pro }. Add CPU, Hard drive. etc. It starts adding up fast.

Its an intersting box.

[ViRaL1]

More here...

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71107/wo/Td1kyBhZZtRr2....3.1.0.0.0.1.0

and here...

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/71107/wo/Td1kyBhZZtRr2....0.1.0.0.0.1.0

12 hour life btw, not 4 (flash players usually require less power anyway).

Looking at the new hardware, I'd say Mac mini will be a bigger seller than the new iPod. Although the iPod shuffle is a lot cheaper than regular iPod or even the mini, I believe a large part of the draw (in addition to Mac compatibility) was the capacity and 512MB or even 1GB is a HUGE step down. There are several flash based players for less money. As far as the Mac mini goes it should do the same things the big boys do, albeit not as fast. I don't think this is generally aimed at all new computer buyers, but I actually see this drawing a lot of those tired of putting up with M$, those who'd like to develop for the Mac, and various others. I even see it as an option for Mac users buying (or coaxing into buying) for their family members, like students and grandparents. It's a great opportunity for Apple to increase their market share by taking away one of their biggest roadblocks, PRICE. A lot of new users don't choose not to shop apple because of ease of use or support, it's the fact that they could usually get a pretty decent PC for the cost of the basic Mac.