RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] reading through Apple's marketing speak...

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

OK, so let's get analytical.  I'm concentrating on the Gateway model 
here.

On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Ross, Matt wrote:

> Just noticed something on this.  

> 1.8ghz(the mac has two 867mhz), 
> 256mb(same as on the $1699 Mac),
> 40gb(20 less than the Mac), 
> 17" monitor(no monitor on the Mac)
>
> is only $829 from gateway; 

As it happens, the machine to compare with an entry-level Gateway
isn't a dual-processor server-wannabe but another entry-level
machine.  I'm not a fan of the Apple "we crush the opposition with
the PowerPC!" hype, but I suspect that are computational problems 
other than Photoshop where the PowerMac would crush the Gateway,
but I doubt the reverse ever happens.

I just checked the web-site, and I have the hunch that on the
Gateway you're talking about a lot of soldered on content and not as
much expandability.  So it has only 2 DIMM slots, only 10/100
built-in networking (PowerMac has 4 and 10/100/1000 respectively),
integrated video, no DVD, and no Firewire.  It *does*, however, have
6 USB2.0 ports.  The monitor that comes with the gateway is...well,
really cheap looking.  The OS is XP Home.  It does come with MS
Word.  If we believe the box to be reliable, I know people who could
really use this Gateway machine.  But don't even think about
upgrading the video card.

A much better comp for the Gateway would be the Apple eMac.  The
$1100 version of this has less CPU power than the Gateway, the same
hard drive, a CD-RW that reads DVDs too, a better monitor, the same
firewire/USB 2.0 trade-off is an all-in-one and $30 worth less
memory.  I don't really know what the Gateway video is like, so I'll
assume the 2 are comparable there. The Gateway is cheaper and
potentially takes more internal drives.  Is iTunes, iPhoto, Mac OS
X, the ability to play DVDs and probably better reliability worth
$270?  Almost certainly to some people, almost certainly not to 
others.

The entry-level iMac is basically the same as the eMac except that
it has a truly beautiful monitor, takes up even less desk space, but
inexplicably lacks the ability to play DVDs, and costs more.  I
think the iMac has a real problem here, and I expect this model will
be dead inside of 6 months.


> 1.6ghz AMD (1900) Athlon, 
> 256mb, 
> 80gb
> from compaq is $849;

I could only find Presario models easily, but then the website
crashed with an internal ASP error on me.  Run away! :-)

> and 1.8ghz, 
> 256mb, 
> 20gb, 
> speakers, 
> and 17" monitor from
> dell for $919.

When I just checked the Dell website, they were flogging the
Dimension 4500S (15" monitor, 128 MB RAM, otherwise the same) for
$699.  I upgraded the monitor to a 17" Diamondtron, the memory to
256 MB, the drive to 40 MB, the CD-RW to a CD-RW/DVD, added in the
sneakily absent ethernet card, and got a quote of $1078.  That's
eerily close to an eMac with 128 MB of memory added ($1129), and the
trade-off is essentially processor speed for one-pieceness and
Appleness.  Dell probably has no real worries here, but I'm sure
they wish that Apple had stuck with the low-end iMac as their 
low-end.

The dual processor G4s are not really intended to compete with this
group.  I suspect they will please their intended market for a
little while, but it looks like Apple is really banking on IBM's
64-bit POWER chips for PCs initiative to save their rear-ends on the
high end.  How well that will work we shall see in October, when IBM
says more about this and possibly announces availability, and then
after that when Apple starts producing those systems.  You never
know, but my suspicion is that the IBM PC versions of their 64-bit
Power chips will basically vaporize the G4 performance-wise and 
create another round of downard price pressure in the CPU 
price/performance area.

jking

--
To unsubscribe, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/