The news that Apple is going to switch to Intel processors shook up the computing world. Many users and developers were eager to publish their opinions on the switch. However, one group of people were totally neglected during all this: resellers. Today, we feature an interview with Wim Schermer, first Dutchman to own a Mac (in 1984), and co-founder of one of the biggest Apple retail stores in The Netherlands, MacSupport. We discuss the switch to Intel, and much more.
1. First, tell us a bit about yourself and your company.
Wim: MacSupport was founded by Niels de Vos and me, Wim Schermer, in 1988. Before that, I was already busy with Apple and Mac. Together with Chriet Titulaer (Ed. note: don’t worry if you don’t know Chriet Titulaer, you must be Dutch to understand) I was the first to own a Mac in The Netherlands, in January 1984. That was the 128k Mac, which was expanded later to a Fat Mac, 512k, and again later to a Mac+, 1024k. But anyway, we started at Ganzerek 5, Castricum (in a bedroom and attic), but we soon after moved to Anna Pauwlona Street 14, where we got our first real office building. We started there with only two people, and we moved to our current location in December 1995, with 11 employees. And in September, when we open our store-in-store shop in De Bijenkorf, Amsterdam, we’ll have a total of 50 employees, spread over three shops (one in Uitgeest, and two in Amsterdam). The new department in De Bijenkorf is very attractive for us, as De Bijenkorf has 6 million visitors a year.
The Switch to Intel
2. What do you personally think about the switch? Can you understand Steve Jobs’ reasoning?
Wim: I think that it’s the only correct decision. Apple promised us that by the end of last year, we’d be at 3 Ghz. We’re now at 2.7 Ghz, and that inhibits Apple in its development towards the most modern computers with the speed that Apple wants, and that especially counts in the mobile segment. The PowerBook G4 is a great machine, but you know, it should be a G5. And, they won’t be able to make a G5 PowerBook, because it produces too much heat, and so Apple decided to bet on Intel because Intel can get the same speeds with about 5 to 7 times less the amount of heat. Then you’ve got access to greater performance, which you cannot get with the PowerPC. And Apple has always kept the possibility open by also working on a Intel version of OS X. It also makes the switch for current PC users easier, because Apple will not mangle the Intel processors that much that it won’t be able to run PC/x86 software. So all in all, I find this a clever move.
3. Has Apple already informed you about the upcoming changes?
Wim: No. We know as much as the normal audience does. We know that somewhere in May and June next year, the first machines supplied with Intel processors will be made available. And, we think that the first machine will be a PowerBook, because we’re most hell-bent to see that first.
4. Do you have a dev-transition kit here?
Wim: No, we don’t.
5. For a long time you have told your customers that PPC was better, and now you have to sell Intel. Do you think it’s going to be hard to sell the new Intel Macs?
Wim: I can assure you: the public doesn’t care one bit. They come for a Mac, for the machine, they come for the wonderful software, stability, but they do not come for the processor. They don’t care; as long as it runs, and preferably as fast as possible. But what type of processor? The customer doesn’t care.
6. Apple has stated that they will not stop people from running Windows on the new Intel Macs. Is there a chance that you, as an Apple reseller, might sell Windows and MS Office for Windows in the future?
Wim: Look, we already sell Office for the Mac. We’ve been selling Office for the Mac from our first day! Word and Excel were first introduced on the Mac, and not on Windows. As long as Apple can stimulate developers to write real Mac software, we of course won’t say “Hey, Macs have the possibility to run Windows, so go buy Office for Windows.” That’s not necessary, because we have Office:Mac. But, I admit, there are applications which a Mac user also sometimes needs, for instance a badly written website that requires Internet Explorer, or things written specifically for Windows. In that case, it’s quite handy to be able to boot into Windows without the need for emulation. And for switchers this is extremely handy; they buy a Mac, and have the beautiful machine, the stability. But, if they still decide they want to go back to Windows, they can, very easily.
7. Do you already notice any changes in buying behaviour? People postponing their Mac purchase until the new Intel Macs arrive?
Wim: No, not at all. I can imagine that somewhere next year, March, April, May, we might see this. There are a lot of people who just want to browse, they want to maintain a photo database; there are companies that just need an extra workplace; they’re not going to just wait. So, we’re really not afraid of this. We went through more transitions, like from 68k to PowerPC, and that didn’t give us this effect either. Also, bear in mind that a lot of customers want to be on the safe side; and they know for sure that the current systems work perfectly. And what the new systems will bring? Well, it will go okay, but, especially within companies, certainty is crucial. Companies won’t postpone their purchases. Only the real tech-freaks might postpone; but hey, then they’ll buy it two months later. No big deal. Whatever valley we might experience in purchases, will be countered by a spike a little later.
8. You already answered this question for 50%, but do you expect any problems to arise when trying to sell the stock of PPC Macs once the Intel Macs have arrived?
Wim: No, that won’t be a problem. Apple knows exactly what we and other resellers have in stock. Therefor, Apple knows exactly when the PPC Macs get sold out, and when to phase in the new Intel Macs. Apple checks our weekly status reports, they see which machines are getting sold out, and they say: “Here are our new machines.” On top of that, if we do have too much PPC machines left, we’ll offer them with discount pricing, and we’ll get rid of them easily. Also, Apple has no interest in leaving its biggest partners with large numbers of machines, because then those partners won’t buy Apple’s new machines.
9. MacSupport also sells second-hand Macs. Do you expect a larger supply in that market, due to people selling their old Macs in favor of the new Intel Macs? Will that larger supply lead to lower prices?
Wim: Across the line, prices have been going down for years. In the early days, we sold the IIfx for 20 000 Guilders (9 075 Euro / 11 000 US Dollars). Same for the IIci, and the IIcx for 15 000 Guilders (6 800 Euro / 8 200 US Dollars). The prices have dropped quite a bit since then. When someone buys a new computer for 1 500 Euros (1 800 US Dollars), and after three years they get 200 Euros (240 US Dollars) for it, they really don’t care. But, it does mean that someone else can get a usable machine for only 300 Euros (360 US Dollars).
Of course the pricing of our occasions is directly linked to the prices of new Macs. For instance, when the Mac Mini came, we had to drop prices on all the PowerMac G4 machines we had with about 200 Euros, because the Mini had the same speed, at 500 Euros (600 US Dollars).
10. About the Mini, does it sell well?
Wim: Yes. Well, it could have been a little bit better, but we still are satisfied about it. But, you know, the thing is, from a marketing point of view, customers come here knowing they can buy a Mac for 500 Euros, but when they’re here, they also see the beautiful iMac G5. So it’s of course also a marketing trick to get people to the store for a Mac Mini, and let them go home with an iMac G5. We obviously don’t want to discourage that. [chuckles]
11. A lot of people complain that Macs are too expensive (something that I disagree with). Do you expect any changes in pricing of the new Intel Macs?
Wim: No, I don’t think so. The cost-price per processor won’t rise, and Apple has only one mission: make sure they sell as many machines as possible. So they must be crazy if they were to use this opportunity to raise the prices. We also don’t expect any lower prices; only in the long term, but that’s because prices of computers have been going down for years. And if for instance Dell lowers their prices even more, Apple cannot stray too much. Apple is better, prettier, more reliable, but in the end it’s up to the customer. And if that customer is satisfied with a Windows computer for 800 Euro (970 US Dollars), and the price is his selling point, then he won’t buy a pretty iMac G5 for 1 500 Euro. So it’s in Apple’s own interest to keep prices as low as possible. The price/quality ratio must be similar to the rest of the market, and I think Apple is doing that quite well.
12. Apple has already seen two major transitions in its past. From 68k to PowerPC in 1993, and from OS9 to OS X in 2000/2001. Will the coming transition be easier or harder than those two?
Wim: I think it’s going to be easier. Why? Because Apple has been working on this for 5 years, so Apple has worked this change into its software for 5 years. So if Apple rolls out the new Macs next year, they’ll already have 6 years of experience with this. Everybody already knows that developers have ported their applications to Intel with a minor investment in time and thus a minor investment in money, so I’ll think the transition will be quite smooth.
Apple Stores and the iPod Halo Effect
13. You guys have been an Apple reseller for 17 years. How do you feel about Apple taking retail upon themselves with the Apple Stores? Do you expect any (un)fair competition when they open up stores in The Netherlands?
Wim: That’s of course a sensitive subject. [chuckles] Let me put it this way: if Apple plays fair with its dealers, then we barely have to compete with each other. But, it all depends on that fair play. There were occasions in America where Apple opened a retail store in a place where there also were successful dealers. And then Apple got critique on how they supplied their own stores in comparison to the independent dealers. And I think that that critique is founded.
Apple must play that game fair. If the game is played fair, and Apple supplies all stores equally, especially with new machines, then independant dealers can easily exist. The market is big enough. Look at Amsterdam. First there was only one small shop, now there are three bigger ones, and they all put food on the table.
14. I personally don’t expect this to happen, but do you think that the Apple Stores will try to compete on price?
Wim: No, Apple Stores don’t compete on price. However, sometimes we do think that Apple is pricing its accessories too low. But for the rest, prices are all equal, and you can’t compete on prices, because it will kill you. Again, if Apple plays it fair, then we can both earn a decent living. But, if they don’t, then we’ll have a new situation.
15. A lot of people are debating about wether or not the iPod Halo effect exists. Do you notice this effect on the shop floor?
Wim: Oh yes, definitely! Look at the American market, how the market share is rising over there. We also see this in our shops.
16. But do you see this Halo effect in your shops?
Wim: Of course! How else can we grow each year for about 40 to 50 percent? We can’t do that if the market isn’t growing. There however is a shift from the smaller dealers to the bigger ones, but the growth percentages we’ve been showing for years– in ten years time, we’ve become 7 times as big– that can’t be just us. We see a lot of Windows people who are fed up with viruses, trojans, spyware. And for those people, Apple is a healthy alternative.
Linux on the Mac
17. Linux is rising in popularity lately. Do you guys ever receive questions about Linux?
Wim: No, no. Not at all. Linux is a very good system, but let’s be honest, it’s a UNIX variant. And if you know that the base of OS X is FreeBSD, then there really aren’t many arguments left to also have Linux on your Mac. Of course, Linux is a good and especially compact system, there’s nothing wrong with it. But, there aren’t many good applications for the Linux desktop. You can’t really do anything with it as an individual or small company. For servers, yes, it’s very good for that. But that’s just a relatively small part of the market. And it’s also on solid ground in the scientific area. But the largest piece of the pie is the desktop segment; companies, individuals. Linux is on the rise, but mostly on servers.
18. The next question is an extension to the previous one, but have you ever considered selling for instance Yellow Dog Linux?
Wim: No, never. Linux doesn’t really add any possibilities. Tiger also has a decent webserver (we ourselves use Apache), but for the average Mac user, Linux doesn’t really add anything. If we run a server application on an Xserve, that’s pretty good too, you know! We are quite satisfied with that. You know, when you get an email at night telling you that one of the system fans is running too fast. [chuckles]
That was it! Thanks for taking the time to talk to us!
Wim: I’m glad to!
A few words
Again, a lot of thanks to Wim for taking the time to talk to us, and I wish MacSupport a lot of success in both Uitgeest and Amsterdam.
–Thom Holwerda
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
A good interview, very detailed, one question though… why drop prices of all G4’s because a Mac Mini was was the same CPU speed? Mac Mini has flaws such as its HD which is a 5400RPM Drive and in some cases it is a 4800RPM drive, also it has a very slow FSB by modern standards, it is the slowest FSB of all the G4’s (haven’t checked the iBook’s FSB mind).
the mac mini changed the resale value for a lot of macs i believe is the point.. granted it does have lower specs then some, it still has higher specs (in areas) then others.. pre mac mini i would bet you could get 6 or 700 for a dual 500 g4.. after the mac mini that dropped.. i know the value of mine dropped like 150
I wouldn’t call the speed of the drive a flaw… its running at full speed.
Its a slowish speed, but that was what helped define product categories. Bump up the speed too much and Apple runs the risk of canibalizing lower-end tower sales.
Its a slowish speed, but that was what helped define product categories. Bump up the speed too much and Apple runs the risk of canibalizing lower-end tower sales.
If a single processor G4 with a decent hard drive will cannibalize a dual G5 tower with slots and many other upgrades, Apple is in serious trouble.
Fortunately outside of Apple and its patented “Greatly Insane Management” protocols, such a risk does not exist.
As has been shown on many sites, the Mac mini with a 7200rpm 2.5″ drive is a much nicer computer to use. And it has been thoroughly shown that this mod does not enable the machine to compete with a G5 tower.
At the end of the day, Apple does not offer a 7200rpm Mac mini because Apple has a horrible problem delivering value to customers.
>If a single processor G4 with a decent hard drive will cannibalize a dual G5 tower with slots and many other upgrades, Apple is in serious trouble.
You’re over-generalizing. For most people, a Mac mini is all they need. Apple wants the people who want something in the middle to upgrade to the low-end towars… not simply be content with the Mac mini. It makes a lot of business sense
It’s “insanely great.” Get your RDF terminology right, for Steve’s sake.
At the end of the day, Apple does not offer a 7200rpm Mac mini because Apple has a horrible problem delivering value to customers.
Oh, come on, that is the biggest load of bullcrap I have ever heard; they probably didn’t use the 7200rpm, because they couldn’t get the number they wanted in volume; maybe they got a better deal by asking for more 5400rpm models rather than spliting their request, thus lowering their power to leverage during negotiations.
7200rpm 2.5inch hard disks aren’t the status quo, they aren’t being produced in volume, and it would be crazy for Apple to start demanding HDD manufacturers to start speeding up production of 7200rpm without an expected delay.
Its more likely a simple means off differentiating their hardware lineups in palatable means which affect most computer users.
A good interview, very detailed, one question though… why drop prices of all G4’s because a Mac Mini was was the same CPU speed? Mac Mini has flaws such as its HD which is a 5400RPM Drive and in some cases it is a 4800RPM drive, also it has a very slow FSB by modern standards, it is the slowest FSB of all the G4’s (haven’t checked the iBook’s FSB mind).
Its all about perception and marketing, you, I and a majority of OS news readers know how much things like harddrive,ram and video gpu speed effect the overall speed of a computer. However the umm unwashed masses don’t, most do know that cpu speed does efect it so when they see 2 computers on the shelf both are 1.5 ghz but one is 600-700$ more it becomes difficult for salesmen to explain why, so in the sales pitch after the techno jargon they mention they can get it it for 200$ less now
One of the most honest Linux positions I had read on a long time.
I think he’s just not very informed. Its also against his interest to say “Oh yes, Linux is very good, and it runs on commodity hardware!”. So of course he’s going to play it down.
I didn’t see his comments as “playing Linux down”. He’s right in the sense that “why dual boot if you already have a UNIX system”.
In the same machine, OS X “feels” faster than Linux.
“He’s right in the sense that “why dual boot if you already have a UNIX system”.”
Simply because not all “Unix” are the same. Example: install Debian and you have immediately up to 20.000 packages available for free.
So: Mac OS? Yes, of course, else why buy a Mac. Linux? Why not?
“Simply because not all “Unix” are the same. Example: install Debian and you have immediately up to 20.000 packages available for free.”
Well, install Fink on OS X and you have access to most of those packages anyway.
That said, I think there is certainly a place for GNU/Linux on Mac hardware, but the point Wim was making in the article is that your average user wouldn’t have a need for it (and would probably mess up their computers trying to install it), so he doesn’t market it at his stores, which is fair enough. If techies have a need for Debian, they can easily download the ISOs anyway.
XNU does not have identical performance characteristics to alternative PPC operating systems that some may desire to use for certain server applications. Yep, that matters about next to nil for the vast majority of people that are going to buy a Mac.
Mostly terrible packages from the standpoint of general usability, thats why.
On the desktop, Linux is still a hobbyist OS.
the difference is that with OS X the computer can be your hobby, with Linux the OS must be your hobby.
Mac OS X doesn’t always feel faster under Linux. On my machine, it typically feels much slower. But that was because I typically ran a leaner Linux installation which better suited my needs anyway.
The second point is that the typical Unix distribution will offer a greater number and more current packages than Mac OS X. Sure, stuff will compile and run under Mac OS X but I don’t want to waste time doing that.
“But, there aren’t many good applications for the Linux desktop. You can’t really do anything with it as an individual or small company.”
It sure sounds like he’s playing down desktop linux here, or just willfully ignorant.
No, I don’t agree. He’s right. I never found Linux to be useful. It’s fine to play around with. If you want to use the stuff available to have fun with as a hobby, it’s fine. But it’s just too much hassle for those of us who want to use our systems rather than play with them.
algarete
So he considers up to a point that customers might want to run Mac OS and Windows, but not at all linux?
Well, that is certainly not me. Mac and Linux, what a wonderful combination (and we all know that there is a very limited choice of distros for PPC)
But Mac OS and Windows? What a nonsense.
I agree with you. It’s Mac OS X only. It’s easier than Windows and solid as Linux. Why bother with dual boot?
you are by far in the minority. by far.
“you are by far in the minority. by far.”
Maybe. But clearly not among the people who post here (just read the other comments)
I just got my first Mac mini and I love it (the 1.42 GHz model). It currently only has 256 MB of ram, but for web browsing and simple work like web processing and listening to music it’s more than enough.
I am upgrading to 1GB of RAM, just didn’t want to pay Apple’s price on that.
I totally love it! Granted I was upgrading from a 450MHz machine.
He also gives a good explanation why Macs are more expensive than PC’s:
‘The price/quality ratio must be similar to the rest of the market, and I think Apple is doing that quite well.’
Actually, I think he got it wrong about the whole price issue. Sure, Macs typically are of higher quality but they don’t cost more. The problem the creates this illusion amongst most PC users is that Apple includes bundled software and additional hardware components in the computers which aren’t typically incorporated in what they believe are comparable PCs. If Apple costs more its because you’re getting more. It’s a hard point to illustrate because Apple limits the amount of selection that you can get. As a result, you are typically forced into buying more than what you may want. Regardless, the notion that Macs are more expensive is a false one. When a PC is equipped with the exact same components in hardware, software and operating system (and that means ALL the components no more no less) as that which come standard on any Mac the two computers will typically be the same price. Often times, the Mac will be less expensive.
“Apple includes bundled software”
My Sony Vaio desktop also included Windows XP and plenty of commercial software (I didn’t care for any of it), yet it was no more expensive than an equivalent PC sold without OS.
Ergo: that argument doesn’t stand.
“My Sony Vaio desktop also included Windows XP and plenty of commercial software (I didn’t care for any of it), yet it was no more expensive than an equivalent PC sold without OS.
Ergo: that argument doesn’t stand.”
How does it not stand? I was saying that the Mac doesn’t cost more than an equivalent PC.
“How does it not stand? I was saying that the Mac doesn’t cost more than an equivalent PC.”
Because when you Mac users say that, you put a very high price tag on the value of bundled software, something that PC users never do (I know, Mac software is better, but its cost to Apple isn’t higher than the cost of equivalent software to Dell or Sony)
“you put a very high price tag on the value of bundled software, “
No, only the price to an equivilent version of software to run on Windows. Windows equivilents for iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto and Garageband cost between $200 – $250. If you factor this in, and then match Windows XP Professional (not consumer) against OS X Tiger, then the Mac usually comes out about $50 – $100 less than a comperably equipped PC.
No, only the price to an equivilent version of software to run on Windows. Windows equivilents for iDVD, iMovie, iPhoto and Garageband cost between $200 – $250.
Yeah, right. You get Nero or EasyCD creator when you buy a burner. Movie Maker 2 is free, Picasa is free, iTunes is free, Acid XPress is free. Only an idiot would pay $200 for something like iLife.
“Yeah, right. You get Nero or EasyCD creator when you buy a burner.”
These are applications for Burning DVDs (and CDs) not making a DVD.
“Movie Maker 2”
Movie Maker’s video editing capeabilities are more akin to QuickTime Pro’s.
“Picasa is free”
You’re right. Now that its free… it does trump iPhoto for its freeness.
“iTunes is free”
I didn’t mention iTunes for that reason.
“Acid XPress is free”
Garageband is not a sequencer. Well, it can sequence audio, but its not a sequencer. An appropriate comparitive application is fruity loops.
“Only an idiot would pay $200 for something like iLife.”
Well, sure… if iLife was what you described it then ya. But you’re obviously not familair with iLife so your response isn’t accurate.
Kelly, please let’s not turn this thread into yet another boring “Macs are too expensive, no they’re not” back and forth. People have pretty much made up their minds on this particular issue, and there’s not much you or anyone else will be able to do to change that.
People used to complain that there was no sub $500 Mac, and then Apple came out with one, and it didn’t stop the “Macs are too much money” crowd, because they’re always going to look at the issue with different criteria than someone on your side of the issue. Let’s just let this one go and not rehash it every single time someone mentions Mac pricing.
LOL, i wanted to give you a + vote and then I noticed that you are the boss.
So what you’re saying is that people can continue making false commets and you would rather I not respond because they are already misinformed and are unlikely to change their mind?
David, I don’t mean to be rude, but are you going to pull a Eugenia and dictate what people can and can’t talk about now?
Kelly, Wim put the price issue really well when he said:
Apple is better, prettier, more reliable, but in the end it’s up to the customer. And if that customer is satisfied with a Windows computer for 800 Euro (970 US Dollars), and the price is his selling point, then he won’t buy a pretty iMac G5 for 1 500 Euro.
What is not expensive too you might be very expensive to someone else. The world isn’t as black and white as you always want it to be in these threads.
Look, if a user can do all he wants with a Windows PC for 800E, then to that user, a 1500E iMac, which doesn’t let him do more, is simply more expensive. Get over it. 1500E is more than 800E.
Does that mean that the iMac is *too* expensive? No! It simply means it’s *more* expensive.
If you believe that 1500E isn’t more than 800E, and if you also cannot understand that not everyone in this world is rich enough to spend 1500E on a new computer, than you’re simply a sad person.
“Kelly, Wim put the price issue really well when he said: “
Thats pretty good… but I think I can sum it up more simply…
—
PCs allow you to buy less and spend less. Macs require you to buy more so your spending more… even if the’re not more expensive than an equally equipped PC.
—
“Thats pretty good… but I think I can sum it up more simply…”
I think i can sum it up more simply…
—
Shut the fuck up you stupid ho, you’re giving us mac users a bad name
*sighs*
I think I need to find my asbestos underwear, because I’m carrying some gasoline in leaking containers.
We need to come to a couple of real quick understandings here. I am a Mac user. I am an Apple shareholder. I am also a Sun user and shareholder. (Come on at the current price, how can a geek *not* be a Sun shareholder). Now, with Disclaimer firmly in place.
A Mac is not a Whitebox PC as a Lamborghini Countach is not a Mitsubishi Galant. Lamborghini sells what? 10 cars a year? They have less than 1% of the total Car Market. Does your grandmother own a Lambo? Do you think Lambo cares about their position in the automotive food chain? No, because their cars are $150,000 + and they’ve been around long enough that they used to make farm equipment.
A Mac costs MORE than a Wintel PC. Please, embrace and accept this fact.
A Lambo is wicked fast, uses engine technology that is not broadly available in other makes and is sexy as all hell. Can I rice out my Mitsu to give supercar performance? Sure, look at the Evo. Is it as sexy? No. Is it as fun? In a lot of ways. If you offered me the keys to both and told me I could only have one, which one do you think I’d get into?
The simple fact of the matter is this: A Mac has a price premium in much the same way IBM used to have. An IBM PC almost always cost more than any other PC which at the time DID have the exact same parts.
IBM isn’t dead yet, either. Please, get over it.
Look, if a user can do all he wants with a Windows PC for 800E, then to that user, a 1500E iMac, which doesn’t let him do more, is simply more expensive. Get over it. 1500E is more than 800E.
Good Point.
However,
a Dell Inspiron xps gen 2 Notebook IS MORE EXPENSIVE then an Dell Inspiron 600 notebook. If these Smart Critics of Apple would apply the same ILLOGIC to Dell then there’d be No Argument.
But, someone Unwilling to pay 2200 dollars for a top end Powerbook will SIMPLY SAY APPLE’s are too expensive. On top of that they justifiy their criticism by doing a Half-Assed price comparison.
The problem boils down to people desperately trying to prove that a VW is a BMW. If a VW meets your needs then be Happy and leave us, that use computers hard and “Get” Apple’s Value, alone.
Kelly,
I’m a Mac user, and will counter the arguments where it reasonable. You’ve taken to doing so at the unreasonable level, and I agree wholeheartedly with David. Please let them have their say, anyone that has done some shopping lately, at the consumer level, not at the I can build it myself level, already knows that you can buy a WinTel for a little bit less money. Notice I didn’t say equivalent, because it doesn’t exist. The feature sets simply aren’t. An entry level Mac caters to a different need than an entry level WinTel, and that in and of itself is a large part of the issue, because you simply cannot compare true equals, and don’t expect the MacTel’s to change that.
An entry level WinTel is not going to have Digital Audio & Firewire 800 out of the box, because that’s not it’s market. An entry level Mac isn’t going to arrive with a PCCard slot, because it’s target market shouldn’t need it.
It’s not an argument that’s worth having, and it’s been had way too many times.
“anyone that has done some shopping lately, at the consumer level, not at the I can build it myself level, already knows that you can buy a WinTel for a little bit less money.”
I never said otherwise. Ofcourse you can build a PC for less money by equipping it with less. That’s what I’ve been saying all along.
“you simply cannot compare true equals”
Asside from the processor, (which we can find equivilents for) and software (which we can find equivilents for) and OS (which can be matched up) the two can be matched up equally.
“you simply cannot compare true equals, and don’t expect the MacTel’s to change that.”
As a poster mentioned (above), when Apple releases an x86 Mac, the two will be able to be compared more equally than ever before. Now, the Mac can have EXACTLY the same parts as a PC.
“An entry level WinTel is not going to have Digital Audio & Firewire 800 out of the box”
And yet it can.
“An entry level Mac isn’t going to arrive with a PCCard slot, because it’s target market shouldn’t need it.”
The PC’s advantage isn’t price like everyone says it is… its configurability. It allows you to buy less and pay less or buy more and pay more. Apple simply doesn’t have a match for that. If an entry level Mac doesn’t come with a a PCCard slot, thats a definate loss for Apple’s business model, but in response again to your comment above… An entry level WinTel can indeed (and sometimes does) have Digital Audio & Firewire 800 out of the box.
“It’s not an argument that’s worth having, and it’s been had way too many times.”
Its an argument worth having because there are many that may opt to not buy a Mac based solely on the misconception that Apple charges more for less… which is false. As a Mac user, I don’t like to see that happen, but as a multi-OS fan, its not like I wouldn’t (or don’t) do the same for any other OS that has a misconception freequently propigated about it. It’s just that the price misconception seems to be the most common one quoted, so I’ll respond to it and correct it whenever I see it.
“anyone that has done some shopping lately, at the consumer level, not at the I can build it myself level, already knows that you can buy a WinTel for a little bit less money.”
I never said otherwise. Ofcourse you can build a PC for less money by equipping it with less. That’s what I’ve been saying all along.
“you simply cannot compare true equals”
Asside from the processor, (which we can find equivilents for) and software (which we can find equivilents for) and OS (which can be matched up) the two can be matched up equally.
“you simply cannot compare true equals, and don’t expect the MacTel’s to change that.”
As a poster mentioned (above), when Apple releases an x86 Mac, the two will be able to be compared more equally than ever before. Now, the Mac can have EXACTLY the same parts as a PC.
“An entry level WinTel is not going to have Digital Audio & Firewire 800 out of the box”
And yet it can.
“An entry level Mac isn’t going to arrive with a PCCard slot, because it’s target market shouldn’t need it.”
The PC’s advantage isn’t price like everyone says it is… its configurability. It allows you to buy less and pay less or buy more and pay more. Apple simply doesn’t have a match for that. If an entry level Mac doesn’t come with a a PCCard slot, thats a definate loss for Apple’s business model, but in response again to your comment above… An entry level WinTel can indeed (and sometimes does) have Digital Audio & Firewire 800 out of the box.
“It’s not an argument that’s worth having, and it’s been had way too many times.”
Its an argument worth having because there are many that may opt to not buy a Mac based solely on the misconception that Apple charges more for less… which is false. As a Mac user, I don’t like to see that happen, but as a multi-OS fan, its not like I wouldn’t (or don’t) do the same for any other OS that has a misconception freequently propigated about it. It’s just that the price misconception seems to be the most common one quoted, so I’ll respond to it and correct it whenever I see it.
Defending Apple on hardware value is just dumb. A $40 Audigy Value includes both digital out and in (iMac has only digital out). A three port FW800 card costs $35 (iMac has only FW400). Gigabit ethernet cards go for less than $15. A DVD-RW drive costs $40 (how much to upgrade to a “Superdrive” in the Mini?). Many “high-end” features are actually pretty cheap.
Defending Apple on hardware value is just dumb. A $40 Audigy Value includes both digital out and in (iMac has only digital out). A three port FW800 card costs $35 (iMac has only FW400). Gigabit ethernet cards go for less than $15. A DVD-RW drive costs $40 (how much to upgrade to a “Superdrive” in the Mini?). Many “high-end” features are actually pretty cheap.
And yet, the vendors that do include these features, by default, are all priced on par with the Apple hardware, or, in many cases, higher. I point to AlienWare as an example, where you are paying a premium to get an excellently integrated and designed piece of hardware, that uses commodity x86 parts, and yet is price competitive, not with the Dell’s or DIY’s that people trot out as reasons why the Mac is too expensive, but with the Mac’s particularly the Professional Mac’s.
I’m not arguing that they aren’t cheap, or that they cannot be had, I’m arguing that the configurations that are trotted out in the price flamewars aren’t equal comparisons, and in most cases cannot be made to be equal without using third party or after market addons, and more importantly, that these products are not targeted at the same consumer.
A potential Mini customer isn’t shopping AlienWare, but then again, AlienWare is building workstation class PC’s and selling them to Gamers, while Apple is building Workstation class Mac’s and selling them to developer’s, artists and anyone else interested in Unix machines that just work. Again, different targets.
Of course. Alienware, Sony etc are in the market of premium computers, just like Apple. You do pay for the branding, and there is nothing wrong with that. Unlike Apple however, you don’t get hordes of Alienware or Sony fans jumping to their defense if you dare to mention that you can get better hardware for less money elsewhere.
“just like Apple. You do pay for the branding, and there is nothing wrong with that.”
Thats the misconception. You’re NOT baying more for branding. You’re paying more, for more product… and no I’m not referring to better design or anything else that might be regarded as subjective. I’m referring to you getting more… and so you pay more. When you look at it like that, you’re not actually paying more… you’re just getting fewer options to choose less and thus pay less. A PC equipped with the same specs in hardware software and operating system will cost the same (if not more) than any Macintosh.
I’m referring to you getting more… and so you pay more.
Kelly, Kelly, Kelly. I told you already in various threads, and even on AIM: this is a totallly subjective matter and not as black&white as you’re putting it here. *You* might find that you’re getting “more” when you buy a Mac, but for someone else, say a heavy gamer, that simply doesn’t go! That gamer will be a lot better off with an x86 machine, because we all know that most games are made for x86 first, and then for Mac (if at all).
You see? People like us, Mac users, we get “more” from our Mac and pay for that “more”. However, not everyone sees the things you get with a Mac as “more”. If Joe wants to play games, a Mac will be useless to him.
You get it now? I’m really starting to lose my patience here.
“That gamer will be a lot better off with an x86 machine, because we all know that most games are made for x86 first, and then for Mac (if at all).”
Thom, as I replied back to you… you are 100% correct but not for the reasons you’re eluding to. Yes, an x86 machine *IS* better for games, but not because of its better price but because of its adaptability and configurability. You’re able to buy the parts that are more specific to your needs. In essence, you can buy more and spend more or buy less and spend less. That doesn’t mean that PCs are less expensive, it simply means that they’re more configurable.
Somewhere along the line you seem to think that I’m of the mindset that a Mac is the most ideal solution for all purposes. I know thats not the case and thats not what I’ve been saying. Rather, I’m simply contesting the statement that a Mac is the more expensive machine. It *CAN* be if you want to only buy specific hardware and nothing more, but as I’ve been saying repeatedly over and over again… “A Mac is not more expensive than a comparably equipped PC.” And thats true.
I find it concerning that so many have such a hard time clinging to that concept.
Thom, as I replied back to you… you are 100% correct but not for the reasons you’re eluding to. Yes, an x86 machine *IS* better for games, but not because of its better price but because of its adaptability and configurability.
Doesn’t that configurability counts as a “more” for the x86?
Somewhere along the line you seem to think that I’m of the mindset that a Mac is the most ideal solution for all purposes.
Where did I say that?
Rather, I’m simply contesting the statement that a Mac is the more expensive machine.
You’ve been saying that a Mac isn’t expensive because of the “pay more, get more”. All I’ve been trying to do is expain to you (something tells me I’ll have more luck telling a floortile to flip), that not everyone regards the stuff you get with a Mac as “more”. The conclusion one can draw from that, is that for some people, a Mac is the more expensive machine, and for some (like me), it isn’t.
It’s similair to having a discussion over what you’ll do with a million Euros. My parents will say that they wanna add a new wing to their house. To which I will say, “damn, our house is big enough, a waste of money. I will buy myself an Aston Martin DB9” (202 000 Euros), to which my parents will say: “you already have a car, you’ll not be able to get any faster from A to B with an Aston!”
It’s all a matter of needs and wants, Kelly. As long as you don’t understand that, discussing this issue with you is a complete was of time (now, where’s that floortile?).
I find it concerning that so many have such a hard time clinging to that concept.
Maybe that’s because you’re not right? I’m sorry, but I have more faith in Wim Schermer, who has been leading a succesfull company that’s growing with 50% a year, then in you.
> Thats the misconception. You’re NOT baying more for branding. You’re paying more, for more product…
The real misconception is that things like FW800, GigE, optical digital IO etc that Apple users seem to think as high end features are actually quite cheap. Low end PCs don’t include them, so if you have no need for them anyway, you’re better off. If you do need them, adding them afterwards still does not raise the price very much.
Apple can only offer a limited set of configurations. If they happen to suit you, great, but PCs offer much more choice. Tell me, what are your options from Apple if you want a computer with a more powerful card than a Radeon 9600? What is the cheapest Apple computer with FW800? Can I equip any of them with two GigE ports besides the PMG5? Or RAID?
This isn’t necessarily a bad thing :-), it also means that the OS has fewer permutation of a configuration to support, and reduces the risk of the old Modem and COM port conflicts that plagued Windows until Windows 2000 :-), or the Network card driver stomping on Video card memory in ring 0 causing a kernel panic and BSOD in Windows XP, because they are trying to share an interupt or DMA channel. It’s the old trade off of control and consistancy versus freedom and inconsistancy. Both have pros and cons.
That would be because unlike Apple, they are just bit players in the saturated WinTel marketplace, so it’s not often you see a comparison of an AlienWare Area-51 to a Dell DImension 3100, because the aren’t targetted at the same users, which is in short, my point, and why I feel that it’s not relevant to argue price of computers with different target demographics.
And yet, I managed to get sucked into that very debate. Call me foolish…
Why wouldn’t a person make price comparisons of comperabley equipped PCs? Who cares who its targeted at?
I didn’t tell you that you couldn’t trot out the whole “Macs are too expensive no they’re not” issue. I said that you shouldn’t. You don’t have to obey me, and I won’t retaliate against you if you don’t.
And, like Eugenia, I read this site often enough to get a little tired of the same old flamewars. And, like Eugenia, I feel it’s my right to say so.
David, thanks for clearing that up.
>I read this site often enough to get a little tired of the same old flamewars.
May I ask why you don’t comment to those that insight the flame wars but instead only do so to those that correct them?
(In regards to Eugenia, I agree… it is yours (and was hers) to say so. I was Eluding to how she had freequently modded-down comments she disagreed with and sometimes ban those that would repeatedly make comments she disagreed with.)
> These are applications for Burning DVDs (and CDs) not making a DVD.
The part of Nero that does authoring is called NeroVision Express and is included in OEM bundles.
> Movie Maker’s video editing capeabilities are more akin to QuickTime Pro’s.
iMovie is a low end movie editor for home users. It’s not much more capable than WMM2.
> Garageband is not a sequencer. Well, it can sequence audio, but its not a sequencer. An appropriate comparitive application is fruity loops.
In Acid XPress you can also create tracks by painting prerecorded loops on a roll. Why do you suppose it’s so different from GB?
iMovie is much more capable than Movie Maker (I kanow, I have used both.)
GB has the capability to be used as a place to lay down midi tracks from your board. you canb then mix them and put nice effects on them.
a band could actualy use garageband to create an album (like you know, a highschool garageband)
Acid Xpress is NOT like garageband in almost every way.
We mac users are idiots in this respect. We pay more for what we think is worth it!
Yes, but Joe User *does not buy separate commercial software*, except maybe for MS Office, but tech savy friends are telling Joe User to download OpenOffice instead.
And the majority of us use OSS instead, unless we *really* need a commercial program.
“why Macs are more expensive than PC’s”
A Mac is a PC
Only in the most general sense of the word. Technically speaking, a Mac is a ‘Personal Computer’. However, it’s been many years since the Mac described itself that way. Some people would, and could make a case for modern Mac’s being ‘workstation’ class computers. I’m not one of them, I always felt that to be a misnomer anyways. For what’s it’s worth, IBM service marked the IBM PC, and the clones of the original 4.77 mhz 8086 based IBM PC used the term ‘PC’ (not the full Personal Computer as you are inferring it to be) as a general moniker for ‘x86 computer capable of running software designed for the IBM PC and compatable devices’. This general term does not therefore include the Mac, as it does not meet that criteria.
As an aside, it is called Virtual ‘PC’, not Virtual x86, though that is in fact what it is.
In short, while you may be technically correct on one level, you are incorrect on the more approriate social and conversational level.
A Mac may be a Personal Computer, it is not a PC, which in a nod to the evolution of spoken language may have started life as an acronym for Personal Computer, it has become through common usage a moniker that means x86 compatable computer.
“A Mac may be a Personal Computer, it is not a PC”
The x86 computer for Apple will be a Mac AND a PC. I think thats the point people are making. Essentially, Apple will have all the benefits of a Windows PC, all the benefits of a Macintosh will also being fully compatible with x86 Linux and BSD all without paying more than any other comperably equipped PC from any OEM or DIY config.
The x86 computer for Apple will be a Mac AND a PC. I think thats the point people are making. Essentially, Apple will have all the benefits of a Windows PC, all the benefits of a Macintosh will also being fully compatible with x86 Linux and BSD all without paying more than any other comperably equipped PC from any OEM or DIY config
I don’t think so. While it will share many of the same guts, most Macs today already do, the only real differences in what’s inside is a CPU and chipset, a Mac wll continue to differentiate itself by design and implementation. We already know that will happen with the first generation MacTel’s. We’ve already been told that Apple intends on using Intel’s new BIOS, which to this point none of the x86 vendors are doing. We also can be fairly certain that Apple will continue it’s emphasis on leveraging the hardware, and that means that they will continue to integrate the OS to the hardware to tweak performance and functions. This is probably the biggest reason _against_ opening the OS to any x86 box. Once you get into generic systems, and the general x86 ‘Reference Designs’ that make up the vast bulk of x86 hardware today, you get into Least Common Denominator territory.
LCD is the great weakness of all the x86 proponents. It means making sacrifices for non-optimized hardware, or worse, implementing a hundred little kludges around known LCD issues, sacrificing performance and stability. I don’t expect Apple to go down this path. While Windows and Linux will probably run on the hardware, don’t expect Apple to go out of their way to make that easier. Their only interest will lie in tweaking the Hardware and OS X to work together as smoothly as possible.
I do have a Transition Kit, and while I can’t say anything more than that about it, I can say with confidence that the next 5 years are going to be a hell of alot of fun for the entire IT industry as Intel, Microsoft, Apple and AMD lay waste to the stagnate rate of innovation in hardware and operating systems of the past 10 years.
Nice to hear from Wim, but when asked about Linux, he seemd like the Mac version of Martin Taylor, friendly but dismissive:
“…f you know that the base of OS X is FreeBSD, then there really aren’t many arguments left to also have Linux on your Mac”
“But, there aren’t many good applications for the Linux desktop.”
You might as well say that since Debian works, why have any other Linux distro-people like choice. Often, an older Mac may run better under Linux than under the latest OSX, I agree, users of new models will likely prefer OS X.
Linux will not give you MS OFfice Logic, or Final Cut Pro, but do most users use those programs? I don’t know about businesses and specialized software, like for dentists and small shops that like the point of sale hand holding, but how many mac users have super specialized commercial software on their macs that you won’t find in Linux? ( just asking ).
Linux will not give you MS OFfice Logic, or Final Cut Pro, but do most users use those programs? I don’t know about businesses and specialized software, like for dentists and small shops that like the point of sale hand holding, but how many mac users have super specialized commercial software on their macs that you won’t find in Linux? ( just asking ).
Probably more than you’d guess, particularly if they have existing Mac’s. There are several tools, like 4D and FileMaker that have quite a bit of custom development that’s specific to Mac’s. There is also a fair amount of veritcal market success that start life on NeXTstep that went to the Mac with OS X. These numbers certainly aren’t on the level of projects rooted in Platform specific technologies like MS Access, Visual Basic or Delphi (Kylix is a joke), but for existing Mac shops or shops looking to go Mac, there are few niche markets that don’t have Mac competitive products, and that includes the one that I work in (230 potential customers in the US, there are 5 competitors vending to them. There are 3 sites running Mac products written in 4D, some are using a product written in C#, others one in Basic, and others one in PRogress, the one I work on is in a mix of Delphi and C++).
For what it’s worth, I do my development on a Mac, and am doing Mac development in my spare time, and there is a growing marketplace for custom Mac development, so this trend is only likely to continue.
And if you know that the base of OS X is FreeBSD, then there really aren’t many arguments left to also have Linux on your Mac.
Wow, I didn’t know OS X is based on FreeBSD. Here I was deluded that it was based on Darwin, which considering it is a Mach-based microkernel, rather hard to mix up for FreeBSD.
FreeBSD isn’t synonymous to BSD.
Wow, I didn’t know OS X is based on FreeBSD. Here I was deluded that it was based on Darwin, which considering it is a Mach-based microkernel, rather hard to mix up for FreeBSD.
FreeBSD isn’t synonymous to BSD.
What? Next thing you know you’ll claim that Red Hat isn’t synonymous to Linux?
Yes, it is definitely amusing how people gloss over the details of XNU in order to refer to it as FreeBSD. Apple provides extensive documentations as well as public CVS access to the source code for anyone to peruse and see the myriad of sources various pieces of code come from, the fundamental differences in the underlying design, and where common code between original sources has since diverged. Despite all of this, the base of XNU is FreeBSD and that means it’s stable/fast/Real UNIX/a superhero.
“”why Macs are more expensive than PC’s”
A Mac is a PC”
Be-jaysus ! – Did it ever occur to you that some (actually quite a lot!) words have more than one notion..? Probably not. For the purpose of this discussion, a Mac is not a PC. Life is a lot easier if you get these little notions and don’t bug others with decade-old, and wrong comments.
Of course, he knows his business. But think what will be on the shelves a year from now. It will be products from Dell and from Apple whose sole difference will be the OS and bundled software. The punter will immediately be able to see processor speed, disk size, memory, graphics and know that these are or are not comparably spec’d at comparable prices. At the moment he really cannot make that comparison. because of all the FUD about processors. Now, the Apple loyalists would argue, this is fine. Macs are comparably priced now, and will still be comparably priced a year from now. We’ll see. I think there will turn out to be a 30% premium, at least, and I think it won’t fly. Or rather, it will fly for the loyalists, who will tell themselves the usual stories. But it won’t fly for the other 95% of the market. And in the end, as a strategy, this is the way to become the Amiga of this decade.
I agree. A company can’t advertise and comment in the news, seminars, etc that their processor is the most powerful, fastest on the planet then retract it later with out having significant impact on how consumers view the company. Especially when the company, in this case Apple switches to Intel who they have trashed publicly in recent history. In the process of switching to Intel I do believe Apple has a lot of damage control to worry about and resellers that believe it won’t be an issue seem to have their head stuck in the sand.
Now, I’m the first to admit I know nothing first-hand about the 900 series CPU’s, but knowing the thermal characteristics of Intel CPU’s (disregarding the M, which I think is the best CPU Intel ever created), does the following really rhyme?
And, they won’t be able to make a G5 PowerBook, because it produces too much heat, and so Apple decided to bet on Intel because Intel can get the same speeds with about 5 to 7 times less the amount of heat.
Assume we have a 3.x something GHz x86 from intel, and its thermal output is in the range 35W. How in the name of all evil can a G5 CPU emit 175-245W of thermal energy?
Assuming a somewhat similar efficiency as an Intel CPU, that wastes around 30% of the power it consumes as heat, it would mean the G5 would need about as much power as a household microwave oven, or a full-sized vacuum cleaner!
That can’t be right, can it?
Assume we have a 3.x something GHz x86 from intel, and its thermal output is in the range 35W. How in the name of all evil can a G5 CPU emit 175-245W of thermal energy?
Um, haven’t you heard of the Pentimu M?
Johann Chua wrote:
Um, haven’t you heard of the Pentimu M?
No, never. Could that be the reason I stated I think it’s the best CPU Intel ever created?
Sarcasm aside, you’ve got a point. He was talking about laptops, and obviously a P4 is not even on the radar while M is. Still, is the M really that more efficient than a G5? 5-7 times is … much.
Thank you for making the interview available. As a customer of Wim I
know he is a nice guy. But, even though I am probably not the “average” customer, my plans are definitely different from what Wim describes, because the main reason for not buying a PC still exist, the Intel processor, with its unbelievable way of processing bits (aka small-endian).
So what I’ll do is, switch the major part of my processing to Linux and just keep a system for iLife type applications. With G5 iMacs getting cheaper there must be a moment that I can buy such a beast and say Goodbye to Apple (and Wim).
—
Klaas.
Yes, it consumes less energy and produces less heat in average, but can it be honsetly compared with other CPU with same nominal clock speed?
I mean SpeedStep or alike.
If Pentium M runs permanently at its whole speed, e.g. while encoding DivX, i suspect it produces almost same heat as, to say, PIII. And maybe more than G4
Over all it was a good interview article to read. Though I did find it some what confusing regarding a few comments made by Mr. Schermer as pointed out below.
Re: “Linux is a very good system, but let’s be honest, it’s a UNIX variant. And if you know that the base of OS X is FreeBSD, then there really aren’t many arguments left to also have Linux on your Mac.”
The simple answer here is choice. In that the consumer should have the freedom to run on their hardware what ever software they want and not have it decided by someone else. Also most switchers to Linux that don’t choose OSX do so not because it’s a UNIX variant as Mr. Schermer commented but because they are in most cases coming from a Windows background where the desktop GUI is similar to what distributions such as SuSE Linux, Mandriva Linux, Linspire, etc provide. While OSX is a good OS and it can be a useful resource to consumers it’s apparent the GUI is not familiar to consumers (home, business, etc) that typically have used Windows for several years.
Re: “Of course, Linux is a good and especially compact system, there’s nothing wrong with it. But, there aren’t many good applications for the Linux desktop. You can’t really do anything with it as an individual or small company. For servers, yes, it’s very good for that. But that’s just a relatively small part of the market. And it’s also on solid ground in the scientific area. But the largest piece of the pie is the desktop segment; companies, individuals. Linux is on the rise, but mostly on servers.”
What applications is he referring to..Office applications, graphics, etc? Post-Production studios for example have used Linux for years and have several options between commerical and open source applications to choose from. They don’t just use Linux for servers or render farms but on their workstations as well. I could point out several distributions that not only offer just as much as OSX but in some cases would be easier for Windows users to transition to. This isn’t just for businesses but also home consumers too. Typically the arguement from non-Linux users is that a Linux user can’t buy products such as Photoshop for Linux. Well why should we when there’s viable alternatives for free (ie: Gimp and Cinepaint)? With a selection of several thousand open source software applications to choose from it’s hard to find reason to buy commercial software if there’s a viable alternative available for free. The only thing Linux doesn’t have going for it right now is mass marketing by distribution developers. It’s only until this past year that I’ve noticed SuSE Linux and Linspire being offered through distributor channels and retail outlets. I’m sure due to the issues being raised with Windows users upgrading to Windows Vista and Apple’s decision to switch to another architecture will provide increased interest in Linux. This would not only be due to what applications are available but also Linux increased support for new and legacy hardware.
The Mini Mac is a great value. I’m enjoying it and safari is cool.
Even though the hard drive speeds are lower. I have successfully loaded video in to Final Cut Pro through fire wire, no problems what so ever. The deck is Panasonic and it’s 2,000.00. That’s 4x as much as a paid for my Mini.
No viruses, I will buy another one when it has Intel in it. I never shut the mini off. I still want a G5 though.
ken
It would be interesting if someone wrote a hardware price comparison web page.
The user could select from a variety of weightings (based on usage of the machine) and then compare systems from different vendors.
I am surprised one of the shopping sites does not make such a thing.
With such a web page / app, it would make some of these comparisons less about viewpoints and more about numbers.
you people are a bunch of losers.. I spend a ton of time in various OSes but jeez, ive never sat and argued over a fscking price point.
and i thought i had no life…
No one, except for those who are trying to be sarcastic is suggesting that a faster Mini would compete with a Powermac. That’s just insane.
It would compete with the eMac, and the low end $1295 iMac G5.
The eMac is not much different except for the crt. The 17″ iMac is not too much more than a Mini with a 17″ LCD plus keyboard and mouse.