11thIndian
Apr 9, 02:32 PM
11thindian, do you still think it's only professionals that I know?
Of course not. The proliferation of people who say that they have migrated to another platform indicates that for varying reasons, be they technical, workflow, or otherwise... some have left FCP. There are reasons to do that. I would just rather people state personal experience for what it is; rather than paint broad, unsubstantiated remarks like, "Apple is bleeding market share to Premier!". State what's happening for you in your neck of the woods. That's educational for everyone, rather than being combative.
Heck, my first 4 years in NLE was on AVID. Why did I switch? Primarily because that's where my market was going. I couldn't stick with FCP if all my clients decided they were going to make a switch to another platform now.
My biggest confustion is with people already labelling this iMovePro. There's no solid evidence of this. Apple hasn't let the product lay fallow, they've recovered from an internal crossed wires as to platform direction in which resulted in a modest update with FCS3, but have been working on a complete rewrite.
If Apple were just delivering a reheated 64bit FCP7 that could play DSLR footage natively, THEN I'd be worried! But by all accounts they've rewritten from scratch, and completely rethought the product, the goals, the interface. That takes a lot more time and effort.
Until the cat is out of the bag, I prefer to be more interested than worried.
Of course not. The proliferation of people who say that they have migrated to another platform indicates that for varying reasons, be they technical, workflow, or otherwise... some have left FCP. There are reasons to do that. I would just rather people state personal experience for what it is; rather than paint broad, unsubstantiated remarks like, "Apple is bleeding market share to Premier!". State what's happening for you in your neck of the woods. That's educational for everyone, rather than being combative.
Heck, my first 4 years in NLE was on AVID. Why did I switch? Primarily because that's where my market was going. I couldn't stick with FCP if all my clients decided they were going to make a switch to another platform now.
My biggest confustion is with people already labelling this iMovePro. There's no solid evidence of this. Apple hasn't let the product lay fallow, they've recovered from an internal crossed wires as to platform direction in which resulted in a modest update with FCS3, but have been working on a complete rewrite.
If Apple were just delivering a reheated 64bit FCP7 that could play DSLR footage natively, THEN I'd be worried! But by all accounts they've rewritten from scratch, and completely rethought the product, the goals, the interface. That takes a lot more time and effort.
Until the cat is out of the bag, I prefer to be more interested than worried.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 10:19 PM
The U.N. Security Council perhaps, but not the entire assembly. It would have been interesting to open that issue up to debate and seen how all the members would have voted.
The security council, not the general assembly, is the organ tasked with authorizing UN military action. The point of the security council is to enable the UN to make rapid strategic decisions without a general debate. It's an imperfect system to be sure, but I don't think requiring a full debate in the general assembly would be an efficient way to respond to this sort of situation.
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi. We didn't need to convince him to step dow. We simply needed to convince him that he needed to tone down, defend himself against the armed insurrection, but not cast a wider and violent campaign against innocent civilians.
We could have responded simply with economic sanctions.
Based on Gaddafi's treatment of the initial protests (not to mention his tendencies over 40 years of autocratic rule), I strongly question whether economic sanctions are going to apply sufficient pressure to Gaddafi to relinquish power. Like Mubarak, he is a political strongman who is not easily cowed by threats.
I need a clearer demonstration that serious steps were taken before resorting to war. War should be used as the last resort and only when it's clear that all other options have failed.
I agree that war should be considered a last resort. I also think that the US government is generally too quick to undertake armed intervention. But in this case we took sides in a war that was already in progress. The UN's choices were either non-intervention, non-military intervention, or direct military intervention in some form.
I suppose the point at which "all other options have failed" is a debatable one, since everyone has different opinions on what constitutes a valid option. There are many questions without simple answers. How do we judge failure? Is the purpose of the intervention (military or otherwise) to aid the rebels? Or is it merely to prevent Gaddafi killing civilians? If the latter is the case, does allowing him to remain in power serve that cause? If not, what should we do about it?
At the bottom of all this though, the goal of current foreign intervention (military or otherwise) is clear to me - to remove Gaddafi from power and recognize the rebel transitional government as the legitimate government of Libya.
The security council, not the general assembly, is the organ tasked with authorizing UN military action. The point of the security council is to enable the UN to make rapid strategic decisions without a general debate. It's an imperfect system to be sure, but I don't think requiring a full debate in the general assembly would be an efficient way to respond to this sort of situation.
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi. We didn't need to convince him to step dow. We simply needed to convince him that he needed to tone down, defend himself against the armed insurrection, but not cast a wider and violent campaign against innocent civilians.
We could have responded simply with economic sanctions.
Based on Gaddafi's treatment of the initial protests (not to mention his tendencies over 40 years of autocratic rule), I strongly question whether economic sanctions are going to apply sufficient pressure to Gaddafi to relinquish power. Like Mubarak, he is a political strongman who is not easily cowed by threats.
I need a clearer demonstration that serious steps were taken before resorting to war. War should be used as the last resort and only when it's clear that all other options have failed.
I agree that war should be considered a last resort. I also think that the US government is generally too quick to undertake armed intervention. But in this case we took sides in a war that was already in progress. The UN's choices were either non-intervention, non-military intervention, or direct military intervention in some form.
I suppose the point at which "all other options have failed" is a debatable one, since everyone has different opinions on what constitutes a valid option. There are many questions without simple answers. How do we judge failure? Is the purpose of the intervention (military or otherwise) to aid the rebels? Or is it merely to prevent Gaddafi killing civilians? If the latter is the case, does allowing him to remain in power serve that cause? If not, what should we do about it?
At the bottom of all this though, the goal of current foreign intervention (military or otherwise) is clear to me - to remove Gaddafi from power and recognize the rebel transitional government as the legitimate government of Libya.
magbarn
Apr 9, 09:23 AM
Intel did indeed force Apple to use their IGP by not licensing other vendors to provide IGPs. The reason the MBP 13" and MBA 13" use IGPs and not dedicated GPU is one of space. Apple can't magically conjure up space on the logic board.
I push the GPU more often than I push the CPU on my MBA. I doubt I'm in the minority, though I'm probably part of the minority that actual knows this little fact. ;)
No matter how much you try to spin this, Intel got greedy on this one and couldn't back their greed with competence. They have sucked at GPUs since they have been in the GPU game (Intel i740 anyone ?).
I don't think 2IS is getting that IF Intel allowed Nvidia to continue making sandy bridge chipsets, Nvidia could've easily integrated a 320m successor into the south bridge. This would give you the best of both worlds, the downclocked Low-voltage Intel HD graphics when on battery or basic surfing, or the 320m successor in the south bridge when playing games or aperture photo editing. All this WITHOUT raising the motherboard chip count that putting a separate discrete (on it's own, not integrated into the chipset like 320m) would entail.
I push the GPU more often than I push the CPU on my MBA. I doubt I'm in the minority, though I'm probably part of the minority that actual knows this little fact. ;)
No matter how much you try to spin this, Intel got greedy on this one and couldn't back their greed with competence. They have sucked at GPUs since they have been in the GPU game (Intel i740 anyone ?).
I don't think 2IS is getting that IF Intel allowed Nvidia to continue making sandy bridge chipsets, Nvidia could've easily integrated a 320m successor into the south bridge. This would give you the best of both worlds, the downclocked Low-voltage Intel HD graphics when on battery or basic surfing, or the 320m successor in the south bridge when playing games or aperture photo editing. All this WITHOUT raising the motherboard chip count that putting a separate discrete (on it's own, not integrated into the chipset like 320m) would entail.
dba7dba
Mar 22, 04:30 PM
i believe samsung manufactures a lot of their own hardware.. from the display panels to the chips. don't they provide apple with parts for the ipad too? i think this is how samsung is able to price match apple here
samsung designs and builds stuff in factories they OWN. Not all of their manufacturing is outsourced, unlike apple. Yes samsung provides ram, LCD (?), and A5 for apple's ipad. It was rumored that TSMC would also make A5 for apple so that apple is not so dependent on samsung but from what I saw in teardowns, samsung is still making some, if not all, of A5.
samsung designs and builds stuff in factories they OWN. Not all of their manufacturing is outsourced, unlike apple. Yes samsung provides ram, LCD (?), and A5 for apple's ipad. It was rumored that TSMC would also make A5 for apple so that apple is not so dependent on samsung but from what I saw in teardowns, samsung is still making some, if not all, of A5.
aristotle
Apr 6, 03:23 PM
It'll be 100,001 when it comes out in the UK when mine gets delivered..... Roll on Saturday!:D
Congrats, you will be able to play with the handful of apps designed for it.
;)
Congrats, you will be able to play with the handful of apps designed for it.
;)
asdf542
Apr 10, 10:49 PM
�and according to those close to FCP development, therein lies the issue...
Whether you think it's an issue or not is subjective. The guy I was replying to was implying that a different person worked on iMovie 08 and that same person was also behind the new Final Cut when in reality the lead architect has stayed the same throughout.
Whether you think it's an issue or not is subjective. The guy I was replying to was implying that a different person worked on iMovie 08 and that same person was also behind the new Final Cut when in reality the lead architect has stayed the same throughout.
macfan881
Aug 11, 12:29 AM
Just saw on the video preview for amazon.com that this will have the Top Gears track i thought that was pretty awesome cant wait for this to finally come out. Wasn't this game a original Launch game?
cult hero
Mar 26, 03:59 PM
Details found here :
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Ick. None of that is good news. Although their current implementation of Samba is old anyway. Things aren't going to get worse... they're just not going to get any better. That's a bummer.
Looks like I'll continue using Linux for my domain controllers then. (Not that I take issue with this.)
Personally, I think it's GPL3. Apple isn't the only company reacting negatively to it. Who knows though? I certainly don't.
On the upside that means Apple won't advertise that their server will work as a domain controller anymore which they do now despite the fact that nowhere do they say, "Hey, only old NT4 style domains that don't work for modern Windows clients."
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Apple-removes-Samba-from-Mac-OS-X-10-7-Server-1215179.html
Gist of it :
- less features than Samba
- no more Active Directory Services
- Just file sharing now.
Samba developers have also noted that the true motive behind this move might not be the GPLv3 per say, but a more global move away from the GPL. Is Apple moving to close the source on more and more of OS X ?
Anyway, Samba v4 could have given them all the "features" they implemented and much more. Their own in-house version won't necessarily be better just because it's written by Apple. The Samba team does a great job with what Microsoft puts out as documentation (if you can even call it that).
Note that from the article, this change only impacts OS X Server. The client was already an in-house solution.
Ick. None of that is good news. Although their current implementation of Samba is old anyway. Things aren't going to get worse... they're just not going to get any better. That's a bummer.
Looks like I'll continue using Linux for my domain controllers then. (Not that I take issue with this.)
Personally, I think it's GPL3. Apple isn't the only company reacting negatively to it. Who knows though? I certainly don't.
On the upside that means Apple won't advertise that their server will work as a domain controller anymore which they do now despite the fact that nowhere do they say, "Hey, only old NT4 style domains that don't work for modern Windows clients."
Bill McEnaney
Mar 1, 04:55 AM
Couldn't God just forgive everyone and make heaven bigger?
However many people go to heaven, it'll have plenty of room them. For God to forgive sinners, they need to repent first.
However many people go to heaven, it'll have plenty of room them. For God to forgive sinners, they need to repent first.
DoFoT9
Aug 18, 05:38 AM
A blue PS3 is a nice idea.
pretty darn cool! won't go very well with the black look that i am after though ;)
pretty darn cool! won't go very well with the black look that i am after though ;)
jclardy
Mar 26, 11:14 AM
This. Until this happens displays won't advance any further for actual computers (non-tablet) because there are so many form factors.
Apple can spend the time to make graphics for each flavor of iPhone or iPad because there aren't that many to deal with. It becomes a lot more difficult to do this across a large range of products. Besides, computers are getting to the point where they are too powerful for most users (hence the popularity of the iPad). A retina display option would give people more incentive to upgrade their desktops, laptops, etc. I think?
As a designer, I'd love a retina 27" ACD. 300dpi right on my screen, almost perfect. Now if we could just get the color/brightness a little more accurate...
I really don't see the point of a display anywhere near 300DPI for a desktop or laptop. My MBP 15" with the 1680x1050 display has a DPI of 128, and with this I can only see the pixels of the fonts if my face is 6" away from the screen, which is above the keyboard. If you have a monitor on a desk it is going to be at least a foot away, but probably more like 1.5-2 feet.
Some of Apples displays are still around 90-100 DPI which I could see upgrading from those to around 150 or so. The main reason they aren't doing it right now is because the menu bar and all other interface elements would be tiny. On my MBP they are already pretty small along with all the default fonts and that is only at 128DPI.
So some kind of resolution independence is necessary, I am hoping for a general fix and not just a retina display fix (2x) because there will be no in between. With a general fix they could implement a slider that allows you to resize everything to fit any resolution.
But back on topic, I am pretty surprised if this is true. I guess they are pushing for a summer release, but I guess they could be pretty much feature complete by now and just need to work out bugs.
Apple can spend the time to make graphics for each flavor of iPhone or iPad because there aren't that many to deal with. It becomes a lot more difficult to do this across a large range of products. Besides, computers are getting to the point where they are too powerful for most users (hence the popularity of the iPad). A retina display option would give people more incentive to upgrade their desktops, laptops, etc. I think?
As a designer, I'd love a retina 27" ACD. 300dpi right on my screen, almost perfect. Now if we could just get the color/brightness a little more accurate...
I really don't see the point of a display anywhere near 300DPI for a desktop or laptop. My MBP 15" with the 1680x1050 display has a DPI of 128, and with this I can only see the pixels of the fonts if my face is 6" away from the screen, which is above the keyboard. If you have a monitor on a desk it is going to be at least a foot away, but probably more like 1.5-2 feet.
Some of Apples displays are still around 90-100 DPI which I could see upgrading from those to around 150 or so. The main reason they aren't doing it right now is because the menu bar and all other interface elements would be tiny. On my MBP they are already pretty small along with all the default fonts and that is only at 128DPI.
So some kind of resolution independence is necessary, I am hoping for a general fix and not just a retina display fix (2x) because there will be no in between. With a general fix they could implement a slider that allows you to resize everything to fit any resolution.
But back on topic, I am pretty surprised if this is true. I guess they are pushing for a summer release, but I guess they could be pretty much feature complete by now and just need to work out bugs.
macfan881
Nov 12, 12:21 PM
http://www.viddler.com/explore/PSBlogEU/videos/858/
NAG
Mar 31, 03:14 PM
The real Android bait-and-switch is calling the platform "open" to consumers. Sure, there are a few "Google Experience" devices that have not been mutilated by handset makers, but even those often have closed hardware. The way I see it, Google uses this ruse of openness to get geek support. Geeks then advocate their platform, which is a great form of marketing.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
DeathChill
Apr 7, 10:29 PM
me too! I wanna learn!
How does withholding stock from the public aid a company? I can imagine holding them till everything is registered in their system and accounted for. But turning people away when they actually do have stock doesn't sound like a good business practice to me
I read over at TechCrunch that it was to meet daily sales quotas, which is to benefit the store manager, mostly. They look better for hitting/beating their quota everyday, regardless of whether or not it is actually at all helpful to Best Buy.
How does withholding stock from the public aid a company? I can imagine holding them till everything is registered in their system and accounted for. But turning people away when they actually do have stock doesn't sound like a good business practice to me
I read over at TechCrunch that it was to meet daily sales quotas, which is to benefit the store manager, mostly. They look better for hitting/beating their quota everyday, regardless of whether or not it is actually at all helpful to Best Buy.
bretm
Apr 11, 07:56 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Go get yourself an Atrix or HTC and see if you like it better. You won't. We have an Atrix in our house. And it's dual processor still is slower than the iPhone 4. Heck, just interface snappiness and smoothness is still a lesser experience to the original iPhone.
Go get yourself an Atrix or HTC and see if you like it better. You won't. We have an Atrix in our house. And it's dual processor still is slower than the iPhone 4. Heck, just interface snappiness and smoothness is still a lesser experience to the original iPhone.
4God
Jul 14, 02:30 PM
Dual optical drive slots are a must....<snip>.....
Maybe one of the drives will be Blu-Ray.
Maybe one of the drives will be Blu-Ray.
cmaier
Apr 19, 10:46 PM
But App Store is like Coke, right? Of course it's ok if Apple does it. They've becoming one of the most hypocritical companies on the planet. Maybe Steve suffers from extreme paranoia?
No. "App Store" wouldn't qualify as a famous mark, I should think.
Here's a website that lists some factors:
http://www.quizlaw.com/trademarks/what_is_a_famous_trademark.php
No. "App Store" wouldn't qualify as a famous mark, I should think.
Here's a website that lists some factors:
http://www.quizlaw.com/trademarks/what_is_a_famous_trademark.php
wtmcgee
Mar 26, 03:46 PM
Wouldn't surprise me if Lion and iOS 5 are one and the same... if that's the case, and since Apple really needs to get iOS in the 21st century, I can believe this...
So much hilarity in this comment.
So much hilarity in this comment.
thetexan
Apr 27, 08:46 AM
Didn't Google get in trouble for tagging SSIDs of hotspots when running their streetview vans through town? How is this any different, besides the fact you're the van instead of Google?
oldwatery
Apr 19, 02:09 PM
What annoys me even more is that Apple always seems to make these claims that they made such and such first, and that Windows is copying Mac OS.. What annoys me is if you know a bit of the history you'll find that Apple copied Xerox interface, with permission of course, but it's not like they came up with it first..
Now they are making another claim that Samsung is copying..
x2
Everything is just a development of something else.
There is no absolute originality.
This is a stupid waste of time and effort.
But I guess when you get all big and high and mighty then why not throw some of the spare cash at a silly law suit if for no other reason than getting more publicity.
Now they are making another claim that Samsung is copying..
x2
Everything is just a development of something else.
There is no absolute originality.
This is a stupid waste of time and effort.
But I guess when you get all big and high and mighty then why not throw some of the spare cash at a silly law suit if for no other reason than getting more publicity.
sjo
Aug 11, 03:34 PM
Well only about 1.25bil out of the +6 actually have cell service and I'd suspect only about 300mil in Eurpoe use cell phones (according to internetworldstats.com estimates 291mil in Europe use the internet... I'd assume cell usage is similiar).
And factor in that the US, Canada and many of the other countries with CDMA service are amongst the most wealthy in the world. Those +150mil customers are nothing to sneeze at.
Well now you ignorant yankie ;) Firstly the mobile phone penetration in Europe is about 99% or maybe slighly more. You should really travel a bit to get some perspective.
And secondly, GSM has user base of over 1 billion while CDMA as you said has some 60m users. Which one you think would be more interesting market to cover for a new mobile phone manufacturer? And there is really no question of "we'll see which one wins" because GSM won a long long time ago, hands down.
And factor in that the US, Canada and many of the other countries with CDMA service are amongst the most wealthy in the world. Those +150mil customers are nothing to sneeze at.
Well now you ignorant yankie ;) Firstly the mobile phone penetration in Europe is about 99% or maybe slighly more. You should really travel a bit to get some perspective.
And secondly, GSM has user base of over 1 billion while CDMA as you said has some 60m users. Which one you think would be more interesting market to cover for a new mobile phone manufacturer? And there is really no question of "we'll see which one wins" because GSM won a long long time ago, hands down.
spicyapple
Sep 12, 11:32 AM
I could do with multiple cores. I render HDV in the background, render projects in After Effects, compress videos in Compressor for DVDs, burn Toast images, download with BitTorrent, while surfing the web and watching 1080i H.264 material. Those extra cores would come in real handy. :)
BornAgainMac
Aug 11, 01:54 PM
Mac Mobile should be the name of the phone. Remember that Steve said he wants Mac in the name. Mac Mobile will be perfect. Complete with Pocket Photo, Pocket Movie, Pocket Tunes, and Pocket iChat.
~Shard~
Jul 15, 01:31 PM
The point is that Apple doesn't have an option for potential buyers that want a high performance, customisable and upgradable consumer level product (not all-in-one). There are no Apple product to compare those $1199 Conroe PCs to. The closest thing is the iMac.
Exactly. As I said above, a PowerMac is overkill (on both price and power) for many users. The iMac might suit their needs from this perspective, however many people do not like the fact that they are not upgradeable (apart from the RAM). What if I want a larger HDD in my iMac? What if I want two HDDs? What if I want to swap in a new burner? What if the HDD fails? It would be nice to pop a new one in, not have to buy a whole new machine. And then there's the display. If the HDD goes, as in my example above, how many people would like to throw away that nice 20" display which still works perfectly? Or, vice versa, what if the display goes? The rest of the computer is perfectly fine...
A Conroe mini-tower would be perfect for many people. The gap between Mac mini/iMac and PowerMac is simply too large for many people. :cool:
Exactly. As I said above, a PowerMac is overkill (on both price and power) for many users. The iMac might suit their needs from this perspective, however many people do not like the fact that they are not upgradeable (apart from the RAM). What if I want a larger HDD in my iMac? What if I want two HDDs? What if I want to swap in a new burner? What if the HDD fails? It would be nice to pop a new one in, not have to buy a whole new machine. And then there's the display. If the HDD goes, as in my example above, how many people would like to throw away that nice 20" display which still works perfectly? Or, vice versa, what if the display goes? The rest of the computer is perfectly fine...
A Conroe mini-tower would be perfect for many people. The gap between Mac mini/iMac and PowerMac is simply too large for many people. :cool: