Alan Baker
In article <8b5af$482cb4fb$30979@news.teranews.com>, Glorb <Glorb@orb.com>wrote:

Glorb
George Graves wrote:

George Graves
On Thu, 15 May 2008 09:23:43 -0700, Glorb wrote (in article <1a69e$482c6390$19802@news.teranews.com>):

Glorb
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

Mayor Of R'lyeh
On Mon, 12 May 2008 14:57:49 -0700, George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net>wrote:

George Graves
On Mon, 12 May 2008 13:18:23 -0700, ZnU wrote (in article <znu-5B168E.16182312052008@news.individual.net>):

ZnU
In article <0001HW.C44DEAC5000BFDC2F01846D8@news.comcast.net>, George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net>wrote:

George Graves
On Sun, 11 May 2008 23:23:00 -0700, ZnU wrote (in article <znu-12A819.02230012052008@news.individual.net>):

ZnU
[snip]

I rather suspect most people who call for OS X on generic x86 hardware just haven't considered the logistics of supporting generic hardware vs. simply selling cheaper Macs. The rest are simply people who believe multi-vendor hardware platforms are inherently good, usually for some reason that isn't relevant to most users or to current market conditions.

George Graves
You're right. It would cost them a lot more to support OSX on generic Winboxes than it would probably cost them to make a really cheap Mac (and even sell it as a loss-leader). But I don't see them ever doing that, either. Its just not Apple's style and let's face it, they don't have to despite our resident Windroids' protestations to the contrary. But, certainly they could if they wanted to. Look at the Apple TV. Its "almost" a complete computer with HDD and memory, and it sells for less than US$250.

ZnU
Sure. Keep in mind, Apple already has relationships with the same Taiwanese manufacturing companies that make computers for companies like Dell -- in some cases Macs are already made in the very same factories. Apple might even be able to come in a little below Dell's prices, for equivalent hardware, because they wouldn't be paying an external supplier for their OS and because they'd probably focus on one or two models rather than having many models and a complex build-to-order system.

Will they do it? I don't see them having much interest, at the moment. But who anticipated the Mac mini, introduced as a $500 Mac when the cheapest Mac was previously nearly twice that price, or the Xserve, a product targeted at a market in which Apple had previously shown no interest at all?

George Graves
The thing is that any computer designed to compete in that space would have to be more computer than the Mini. Let's face it, for the cost of a Mini one can buy or build a Windows box with near Mac tower performance and capability. Not that the Mini isn't useful, it certainly is, it just doesn't stack-up, hardware wise, very well against similar priced Winbox offerings. It's main appeal is that it runs OSX. This makes it worthwhile to those who value OSX, but to our local Windroids and Winscum here, many of which have never even seen, much less used OSX (Edwin), the Mini merely looks overpriced.

Mayor Of R'lyeh
Mac user (at work anyway) here to say that the Mini is grossly overpriced for what it is. If the higher end Mini were priced at $500 and the lower end one at $300 they'd be flying out the doors.

Glorb
IOW, if Edwin had bought a Mac Mini, he would have found his assessment of it too generous. He would have had made a $600-$800 mistake.

George Graves
How do you know what Edwin's needs are (unless you ARE Edwin)? A Mini might be all the computer an Edwin needs.

Glorb
Let's review what was said above:

You told use Edwin doesn't have a Mac Mini, or use OSX, but he says it merely looks overpriced.

The Mayor uses OSX and Macs, and says the Mac Mini is GROSSLY OVERPRICED.

How do those two statements add up to Edwin being satisfied with a Mac Mini?

Alan Baker
It doesn't, but that's because it says nothing conclusive about whether or not you have a Mac Mini, Edwin.

Since you said something definitive...