Nickname: Nick

Review: My wish for Apple: reasonably-priced OS upgrades. All things considered, Macs are not much more expensive than Windows PCs, given the software included. But add in $130 every other year for the OS upgrade and it starts to add up. I bought my TiBook with OS 10.2. Buying all the OS upgrades (Panther and Tiger) would have cost me an additional $260. That's not chump change. Cutting the OS upgrades to, say, $50 would go a long way. And Apple's high profit margins would easily allow this. As it stands now, I have to warn people about this hidden cost. I still heartily recommend Macs, but I also believe in full disclosure. Buying a Mac means saving the costs of anti-virus and related security software. But spending $130 every other year nullfies the costs saved on security software.

Date reviewed: Jan 23, 2006 7:01 PM

Nickname: AVChamp

Review: Feature-length movie content for your video iPod and the "Media Center" Mac Mini is already available, just check out http://www.4Flix.Net. They have full movies for download (instead of just TV shows and music videos like iTunes), and the price is just $1.99 each. Plus they are DRM free, which allows them to be copied to other devices besides your iPod.

Date reviewed: Jan 2, 2006 2:13 AM

Nickname: Reza

Review: I think the unceasing debate about performance was settled when Apple switched to Intel chips. Intel is the best.

Date reviewed: Jan 1, 2006 12:49 AM

Nickname: cc

Review: 1) OS X Web version as a super layer on the $100 laptop 2) Mac Nano (pocket size) BYO keyboard, mouse, and powered monitor

Date reviewed: Dec 31, 2005 3:37 PM

Nickname: Larry

Review: Great article! 2005 was a great year, and it will be a difficult one to top. Must overcome my prejudice against Intel chips, too, because I may want to try out the new G5 when it comes out. Doug is right, the chip has nothing to do with viruses. The world has been going multi-platform, multi-operational system for several years now. And Apple, as always, is staying up with or ahead of its competition with quality personal computing. My own wish is that they can get a new desktop below the $999 price limit. Price is the last frontier for them.

Date reviewed: Dec 31, 2005 3:06 PM

Nickname: bsb

Review: The old adage goes if it ain't broke, don't fix it. MP3 players and consumer gadgets are great revenue generators, but reinventing an existing product like the Mac is a bigger risk. Then again, being a niche computer used primarily by creative types is risky, too. The switch to Intel chips may signal a more fundamental shift in Apple's strategy to not only enter the mainstream, but to redirect and lead the industry in a new direction. Who knows, maybe Apple's next big move will be a partnership with Google/AOL that would be a marriage of the Internet/hardware/media spaces (ie. iTunes integrated with Google search expanded to inlude the Time Warner library--seamlessly integrated into an Apple media center in your living room).

Date reviewed: Dec 31, 2005 2:52 PM

Nickname: Neil Fairbrother

Review: The biggest problem to getting the "typical" PC user to switch is lack of knowledge about the Mac. My most frequently asked question is" "But you don't have Office/Word/XL/Powerpoint on a Mac?" Duh! Second biggest issue is the percieved price question. My price comparisons 2.5 years ago: configs of PCs as close as possible to Powerbook, Dell £200 cheaper, Viao £500 more expensive. The third is availability. Wonderful Apple stores but limited in number. Some department stores such as John Lewis (this is UK), PC World but the staff haven't a clue and they never ever advertise Mac on TV. So the average punter follows the herd down the path of least effort. Finally, would love to see Apple start to reclaim the corporate desktop. Northern Telecom had 80,000 employees--all Macs! And Motorola with 180,000 employees--all Macs! A significant non-creative corporation switching to Apple servers and Apple desktops would make major headline news and pull through sales to the home.

Date reviewed: Dec 31, 2005 10:38 AM

Nickname: miditek

Review: I think the switch to the Intel platform for the Mac operating system is long overdue, but will be good for Apple in the long term. Unfortunately, Apple is still way too fanatical about controlling the hardware and manufacturing process. This belies the true genius of the company: the software. If Apple had realized this 15 years ago, their cash hoard would at least approach, if not rival, that of Microsoft.

Date reviewed: Dec 31, 2005 6:51 AM

Nickname: paulie

Review: People are excited about the switch to Intel in Mac. I feel it is a step backwards. Intel is such an outdated platform. If their x86 chips are so good show me a mission critical server that uses them. Most hospitals and inportant businesses use IBM servers with their architecture. You are downplaying the fact that Apple is not just innovative software, but also innovative and properly functional hardware. Intel chips are junk compared to a G5. Literally! The last good Mac computers are being built now. BTW who wants to run Windows on a MAC? You bought a MAC, not a PC. I love the RISC Macs, and--to me--they are the last ones made by Apple. RIP Apple. This will be the death finally. Why pay $2,000 for an x86 apple when you can get a Linux x86 for about $700? The OS? Apple is like Sony, they never license technology. They will die because nobody will pay 40% more for an x86, just because of OSX. Consumers are like that. So unless Apple lets Dell use OSX, they will not last until 2008.

Date reviewed: Dec 30, 2005 11:09 PM

Nickname: Doug

Review: The architectural shift to Intel does not and will not make the Intel-based Macs more vulnerable to viruses. The reason viruses are so prevalent on Intel-based PCs is because of the inherent security weaknesses of the Windows operating system, which still ships with many vulnerable services enabled. Mac OS X ships with no such "open ports" and is fundamentally more secure than Windows because of it's UNIX heritage and permissions structure. For example, applications on Mac OS X don't run at the highest level of permission, as do Windows applications. Apple already has an incredible operating system, Mac OS X. Moving to Intel finally gives them the twin benefits of commoditized, high performance chipsets and higher profit margins. The hardware has nothing to do with vulnerability to viruses.

Date reviewed: Dec 30, 2005 9:33 PM