| 11:44 pm on Nov 24, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I don't know why they did not introduce this a while back. That was all that was holding my back from getting one for the house.
| 12:31 am on Dec 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Yeah...they sure are nice. I'm guessing that they will up them to G5 pretty soon. Then I will definately think about getting one.
| 6:27 pm on Dec 6, 2003 (gmt 0)|
20" is nice, still a little slow for me than what is on the apple product line now. However it is great for the average user market...
G5 20 iMac" - would be great! Question is how cool would those processors stay in the dome? I would imagine to keep that all-in-one concept, I am betting the imac will evolve again.
| 7:39 am on Dec 7, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I dont want this to sound like a rant, but I just dont understand Apple strategy for consumer market. Popping a iMac with a 20 inch screen will probably not help on the price tag.
The only product they offer for entry level is still a 800 $ all in one, with almost no expansion capabilities...
If they could only make an entry level pizza box or baby AT cased G4, and let people chose what screen they want with it, I guess they could really gain on Mac market shares...
| 11:50 pm on Dec 8, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I am with you Macguru... There are a host of things Apple could do to make them selves more accessible to the market place. But, I think a lot of it is snobbery. They like the way things are.
| 5:31 pm on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
Hey, it has nothing to do with snobbery. Remember that mac only has 8% (and generous) percent of the market : ) Personally I think the 17" iMac was a mistake (artificially extended 15") so perhaps this is but a reparation for that error.
| 5:47 pm on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
If I could get a comprable mac for the price of the lowest price dell I would get one. There is no reason why there should not be a $500 mac wo monitor.
| 5:54 pm on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|Remember that mac only has 8% |
Talk about wishful thinking - I can't remember the last time Apple cracked 4% - even the most hardened zealots can't claim 8%:
| 5:57 pm on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
>There is no reason why there should not be a $500 mac wo monitor.
I dont know how feasible it is..But it's time they seriously thought about it. 95% of world runs on windooz is simply unbelieveable.
| 6:55 pm on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
I checked out the 20" iMac. Meh. I have a 17". I like it a lot. I frequently move it from room to room, which is why I went with the iMac instead of a tower. I was lugging my PC with 19" CRT from room to room on a more-than-weekly basis, and it just wasn't working out for me.
The 17" screen is a perfect size. I have enough space for everything, it's great for DVD's, I can adjust its position with my toe when I'm lying on the couch. It fills me with happiness. I've had it since June and my love for it hasn't cooled a bit.
The 20" weighs 40 pounds instead of 20, because they had to weight the base to counterbalance the huge screen.
No, thanks-- I am glad I bought my 17" and will stick happily with it. Bigger isn't always better.
| 7:22 pm on Dec 10, 2003 (gmt 0)|
|95% of world runs on windooz is simply unbelieveable. |
Because it's not true - the world is still predominantly being "run" by mainframes and true UNIX - the stats we're talking about here are consumer PCs, which are a mix of Apple, MS, *nix, and the rest.
| 8:02 pm on Dec 11, 2003 (gmt 0)|
bcolflesh, that's what i meant. Among the general desktop/notebook users, windooz is just about everywhere and my guess was around 95%+.