Apple Cancels its Cube....doesnt even make its first birthday.

[Flat]

<< Oh good grief Flat, do we have to go through this again?!

First of all, your so called cool looking computers are not cool looking at all, still hideous beige cadavir boxes.

The Compaq iPaq is not a beige &quot;cadavir&quot; (I think you mean cadaver) box. It's not even beige. Go here to see what one looks like. I'm not defending the machine -- I personally wouldn't want to own one -- but I'm just pointing out the error in your statement.

I think the price was not so much of an issue, because they dropped the price over 300 on the Cube shortly after its release.

Subtract $300 from way overpriced and you still have overpriced. Just because they dropped the price a couple months after it came out doesn't mean it still wasn't too expensive. Prices drop on computing equipment all the time; if Apple hadn't dropped its prices the machines would have been getting more and more overpriced over time as other manufacturers cut their prices.

On of the bigger problems, you had to buy speakers &amp; monitor sepratly

You're refuting your own point (with bad spelling too). Buying speakers and a monitor separately only adds tothe fact that the Cube was overpriced.

Also, with macs, you dont really pay that much more compared to a dell, with a monitor the Cube came to about $1800, not that bad acually.

WTH?! Not that bad?! I just built a 1.2GHz. PC with a Kyro II graphics card, 256MB of DDR, a nice DVD-ROM drive, a Santa Cruz sound card, a 40GB hard drive, and 2 NICs. This machine would run circles around the Cube. Granted, it may not have fashion sense, but neither do I.

Even buying a Dell, you could get a kick-butt 1.6GHz. P4 system that would also run circles around the Cube for less money. And who says you have to buy a Dell? My computer is just as (if not more) stable and reliable, and includes quality components, just like Dells.

sure you could build a 1.4 athlon for less, but that computer was certinetly not a competitor for the Cube.

Man, you're making this too easy. Of course you can build a 1.4GHz. Athlon system for less. And why is an Athlon 1.4GHz. not a competitor for the Cube? Probably because the Athlon is so far ahead of it it's not even funny!!

I own a cube, it is a wonderful computer for many things.

And what would these things be . . . ???

Nothing is much cooler than watching a DVD on it , on my IKEA furniture all around, eating sorbet .

Well, to each his own I guess.

Nick >>



What a poor flame. I do not think the average person who bought a Cube, would even be considering a PC. I do not think macs are a good value, but thats not the point with macs. It is a great computer for internet/dvd/just fcuking around on. Its not a great gaming machine, although it can play games decently. And yes I cant speel. Never have been able too. Not that that stopped me from going Cambridge &amp; UCLA, or even making an perfect SAT Verbal score (yes I no cambridge is in the UK), or even ranking in the top %.25 percent of the worlds IQs, or from getting into a field of work where practically none of my education helps me! (TV/Movie Lighting work, aspiring director/Learning Swedish) <--- this = dumb response to a dumb post

 

[Flat]

Im not saying you have to buy a dell... but I was coming from the point that both dell and Apple make complete assembled products. BTW, I think 90% of Apple is sh|te, and that for 85% of people PCs are a better choice.

 

[AppleTalking]

Flat, my post was not intended as a flame. You should know that from our discussions before. Flames typically include foul language (which you will never hear me use), personal insults (which I did not make), and ridiculous statements that have no evidence to back them up (which, again, I did not make). I never said that you were stupid, I only poked a little bit of fun at your spelling. There is no need to get all defensive and start posting your creditials. Again, my post was not intended as a flame, I was just trying to refute your points simply and logically. If you would like to see what a flame really looks like, I'm sure some of the more PC-biased members on this forum would be happy to oblige.

Nick

 

[spidey23]

Why is your name AppleTalking? Kinda weird no?

First of all, give Flat a break, he's from Sweden; and his written English is just fine, besides, who has time to spell check everything while posting? Maybe you do, I guess.

Overpriced?

This is the oldest excuse in the book. Compare what you REALLY get with a Mac then find a comparable pc (hopefully with Linux or Unix on it, otherwise you can't even compare Windows to it). You will then see that Macs aren't overpriced at all, you get what you pay for, and you get a lot. Sure, looks are definite plus but you also get other stuff that doesn't come standard on any pc (i.e. optical mouse, USB keyboard/hub, Harman Kardon speakers, and recently Mac OS X)

And yes, prices drop all the time but sometimes it's for the wrong reasons. Just because you can go buy an eMachine for acouple hundred bucks, doesn't make it a good deal. You get what you pay for, you want a Hyundai, get a pc - you want a BMW get a Mac - you want a BMW for the price
of a Hyundai, get real.

You built what? That will do what?

1.2 Ghz vs. 500 Mhz G4 = about the same except for Graphics programs where the G4 will toast it, but Games, the peecee will probably have the advantage on frame rate.

Kyro II vs. Ati Radeon or Nvidia Geforce 2or 3 = no contest, everyone here knows that ATI and Nvidia are always head to head.

256 DDR vs. 256 SDR = The benefits of DDR are still debateable but I really hope you bought generic RAM, otherwise you probably paid to much to notice a minuscule difference (unless of course you're doing something that takes hours to process, are you? didn't think so)

Santa Cruz sound card vs. Mac sound = Macs are used by most sound/Music professionals for a reason, 'nuff said!

40 GB hard drive and 2 NICS = hard drive, don't know what you what you have but if isn't scsi then there is no difference. As far as the 2 NICS are concerned.....why? You NEED 2 NICS, tell me why PLEASE!

Fashion Sense?

People make the mistake of not buying computers the way they buy everything else. Appearance makes a BIG difference. If you bought a car, would you really want it to look like your peecee...probably not. Appearance makes the mac nice to look at which, in turn, provides a more pleasant experience when you use your computer. A recent study showed that Mac users had a better overall experience using their puters than peecee users did (they measured stress levels), part of this was the OS and part of was the appearance.

If you want to be a number cruncher with your eyes glazed over the screen, then get a peecee; if you want to have fun using your puter, get a Mac.

You are right about one thing though.

Your peecee WOULD probably be running around in circles, round and round; I don't know about you but I don't like when my computer goes running around in circles, I keep it on a leash.


'tis all

 

[frankroh]

And yes I cant speel. Never have been able too. Not that that stopped me from going Cambridge &amp; UCLA, or even making an perfect SAT Verbal score (yes I no cambridge is in the UK), or even ranking in the top %.25 percent of the worlds IQs, or from getting into a field of work where practically none of my education helps me! (TV/Movie Lighting work, aspiring director/Learning Swedish) <--- this = dumb response to a dumb post

Man, I know know if I believe that fact that you can't spell better than a 12 year old or the fact that you brag with such bravado over what colleges you went to and how smart you are. AppleTalkin was too polite: Dude, you need to learn to write correctly using proper grammar and sentence structure or NO ONE is going to take you seriously. Get a f*cking clue and use your brain!

Now, regarding the Cube, it's just a pretty box that was obsolete even before the introduction. It came with 64MB of RAM originally before Apple realized people were expecting more in a $1800 box. Pathetic.

Even hardcore Apple users didn't know what to make of it; Expensive and even more expensive to upgrade any of the parts (if at all.) I've a Apple aficianado friend who works for Adobe and even he doesn't like the Cube.

Of course it didn't help Apple as Intel and AMD got into a war over MIPS and processor speed. Speaking of Intel and x86 architecture, Apple makes most of their money from their hardware sales. In fact, that's their livelihood. If they move to x86 architecture, nobody's going to buy their overpriced boxes. Anyone who wants to run Apple software will only need to buy OSX and dual boot it on their Athlon box.

I have nothing against Apple. In fact, I loved the classic IIe and the new graphically excellent G4s, but if they keep trying to peddle overpriced boxes and OSes that are 12 months late in development (and you think MSFT is bad with delays), they are going to be in the red for a long time.

That's it. I'm done and out of this thread.

 

[Fisher999]

Nothing like a &quot;Mac&quot; thread to start some heated debate!

 

[kylef]

Every time someone posts something about macs, it never fails to rile the Mac defenders, who seem to have a chip on their shoulder every time someone insults their hardware.

C'mon, people, they're just computers, not family members. We're not the Hatfields and the McCoys.

This thread reminds me of my favorite Dilbert strip:

Wally: &quot;Those overalls. That scruffy beard. I've got it! You're one of those condescending Linux computer users!&quot;
Bearded Guy: &quot;Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better computer.&quot;

I try to be objective about these matters. Although, I have to admit, why have Macs still not evolved past the one-button Mouse?

 

[AppleTalking]

spidey23:

Man, frankroh is right, I have been too polite. Okay, here goes:

Why is your name AppleTalking? Kinda weird no?
My name is AppleTalking because I used to own a Mac until about three weeks ago when I finally gave up and built myself a PC. I have been using Macs for about 10 years and have owned everything from a Mac Classic II to a Performa 550 to a PowerMac G3/300 desktop. However, I have also been reading PC hardware sites (including Anandtech) for several years, so I consider myself to be somewhat knowledgeable about both sides of the equation (or inequality in this case).

First of all, give Flat a break, he's from Sweden; and his written English is just fine, besides, who has time to spell check everything while posting? Maybe you do, I guess.

Geez, did you not read my post directly above yours? In that post I said that I was only casually poking fun at Flat for his spelling. I did not in any way mean to imply that he is dumb. Read before you post.

Compare what you REALLY get with a Mac then find a comparable pc (hopefully with Linux or Unix on it, otherwise you can't even compare Windows to it). You will then see that Macs aren't overpriced at all, you get what you pay for, and you get a lot.

Okay, let's take a little trip to Apple's web site. We'll compare what I built for myself with one of Apple's machines. Since we're talking about the Cube in this thread, and since you mentioned a 500MHz. machine in your post, we'll start there.

Processor:
Apple: PowerPC G4 processor @ 500MHz.
Me: AMD Athlon Tbird @ 1200MHz.

Now, you claim that a 500MHz. G4 processor is as fast as my 1.2GHz. Athlon. This is an argument that could go round and round for quite some time. I would certainly like to see some benchmarks that support this claim. And I don't mean benchmarks that are just running Word or browsing the Internet. I want to see multitasking benchmarks that definitively show that a 500MHz. G4 is as fast as my 1.2GHz. Athlon. Right now I'm running IE, Outlook is getting my e-mail, I've got MP3s playing in the background, McAfee VirusScan is running a routine virus check, and I'm downloading a couple of files in a separate window. I will concede that a 500MHz. G4 is as fast as a 1.2GHz. Athlon for Photoshop, but I don't use Photoshop. That's the only application that Apple ever uses when it does its benchmarks, and it looks awfully suspicious.

Advantage: Me (unless you can provide benchmarks to the contrary!)

RAM:

Apple: 256MB PC133 SDRAM
Me: 256MB PC2100 DDR SDRAM

If you don't think that DDR is faster than SDRAM, please just stop reading now.

Advantage: Me

Hard Drive:

Apple: 60GB 7200rpm drive, ATA/66
Me: 40GB 7200rpm drive, ATA/100

I am willing to concede that Apple includes a larger drive on its machine than I put in mine, so in this case . . .

Advantage: Apple

Displays:

Apple: None
Me: None

I already had my monitor when I bought this computer, so I did not configure the Cube with a display.

Advantage: Neither

Graphics Support:

Apple: GeForce2 MX with 32MB SDRAM
Me: Hercules 3D Prophet 4500 (Kyro II) with 64MB SDRAM

I think we all know that a Kyro II whoops a GeForce2 MX, no matter which platform you're running.

Advantage: Me

Optical Drive:

Apple: CD-RW Drive
Me: DVD-ROM and CD-RW Drive

Unfortunately, the Cube can't handle any more than 1 5.25&quot; drive. So it's impossible to put both a CD-RW and DVD-ROM in there.

Advantage: Me

Sound:
Apple: Built-in sound
Me: Turtle Beach Santa Cruz

My Turtle Beach Santa Cruz card supports up to 6 speakers. It does Dolby Digital Decoding. It has digital output for my Boston Acoustics speakers. It has a wide variety of special effects that it can apply to the sound. It can be configured to have 2 inputs. It has a 10-band equilizer. It supports EAX and A3D. Can the Mac's built-in sound do any of those things? NO!! It also produces the best sound I have ever heard out of any sound card, period. That includes my Mac's built-in sound.

Advantage: Me

Networking:
Apple: Built-in 10/100BaseT
Me: 2 10/100 BaseT NICs

Why do I need 2 NICs, you ask? Have you ever heard of a firewall? How about internet connection sharing? Windows has that built-in, you know. Hardware firewalls are so much better than software ones. I've got one connection my cable modem and one for my internal network. Keeps everything nice and safe. You can't add a second NIC to the Cube.

Advantage: Me

Keyboard:
Apple: Apple Pro USB Keyboard
Me: Microsoft Natural Elite USB Keyboard

Both are USB keyboards. I happen to prefer the ergonomic design of mine, but that's a personal choice. So in this case . . .

Advantage: Neither

Mouse:
Apple: Apple USB Optical Mouse (1 button)
Me: Kensington USB Optical Pro Mouse (5 buttons)

How you can play games on a mouse with only one button, I'll never know.

Advantage: Me

Operating System:
Apple: Mac OS 9.1
Me: Windows 98 Second Edition

Okay, I have to concede that the Mac looks better than Windows. However, Windows has a huge advantage in multitasking. With my Power Mac G3/300, I could not open an MP3 and browse the web at the same time. The MP3 would just skip all over the place. However, because I feel that the Mac OS is slightly better than Windows, I'm willing to concede this one.

Advantage: Apple

Expandability:
Apple: No drive bays, no PCI slots, AGP slot very limited.
Me: 4 open drive bays, 3 open PCI slots, full-length AGP slot.

Hmm, wonder who wins this one?

Advantage: Me

Price
Apple: $2199
Me: less than $900 (about $875)

Okay, now this is not even funny. My computer, with all the bells and whistles, costs less than half of the Apple machine.

Advantage: Me, big time

So, let's add up the scores and see what we get.

Final Score:
Me: 9
Apple: 2
Neither: 2

So, which is the better buy? There is something to be said for looking nice, but quite frankly, when I can get much better performance in every application, have a much greater library of software at my fingertips, and stay under half the cost of the Mac, the PC will win every time.

Thanks for reading!
Nick

 

[AppleTalking]

Now that's what I call a LONG post!!

I think I proved my point, though. PC wins. Case closed.

Nick

 

[EdipisReks]

<< quote from spidey23from You built what? That will do what?

1.2 Ghz vs. 500 Mhz G4 = about the same except for Graphics programs where the G4 will toast it, but Games, the peecee will probably have the advantage on frame rate.

Kyro II vs. Ati Radeon or Nvidia Geforce 2or 3 = no contest, everyone here knows that ATI and Nvidia are always head to head.

256 DDR vs. 256 SDR = The benefits of DDR are still debateable but I really hope you bought generic RAM, otherwise you probably paid to much to notice a minuscule difference (unless of course you're doing something that takes hours to process, are you? didn't think so)

Santa Cruz sound card vs. Mac sound = Macs are used by most sound/Music professionals for a reason, 'nuff said!

40 GB hard drive and 2 NICS = hard drive, don't know what you what you have but if isn't scsi then there is no difference. As far as the 2 NICS are concerned.....why? You NEED 2 NICS, tell me why PLEASE! >>



you have obviously not given thought to what you are saying. 1, the 1.2 gHz athlon will destory an apple in EVERYTHING. the mac advantage is only in pre 6.1 photoshop, and it was only a 100 mHz differece, i.e. a 500 mHz g4 is the same speed as a 600 mHz Pentium III in pre 6.1 photoshop. ati and nvidia are not head to head, as ati does not have a current product that matches a geforce 3. the kyro II is a great product for a low price (funny that you named it without addressing it). ddr ram on current systems gives a 10-15% speed boost. that fact that crucial (a major, major ram company) sells pc 2100 DDR and pc 133 sdr for the EXACT same price pretty much invalidates your statement about the ram. a santa cruz sounds much better than mac sound. the reason that pro audio users used macs was becasue, up until recently, software such as pro-tools only ran on macs. i know a lot of e-medial majors, and many of them bought pc's when pro-tools for windows came out because it sounds one hell of a lot better on a high end pc sound card than it does on modern macs. i don't know what you are trying to say about the hard drives, but you can have scsi on both platforms. 2 NIC cards is a VERY useful thing to have in certain networking situations. i'm going to ignore the rest of what you said, as it is more trite than what i quoted from your post.

have a nice day.
--jacob

 

[Sugadaddy]

<< Overpriced?

This is the oldest excuse in the book. Compare what you REALLY get with a Mac then find a comparable pc (hopefully with Linux or Unix on it, otherwise you can't even compare Windows to it). You will then see that Macs aren't overpriced at all, you get what you pay for, and you get a lot. Sure, looks are definite plus but you also get other stuff that doesn't come standard on any pc (i.e. optical mouse, USB keyboard/hub, Harman Kardon speakers, and recently Mac OS X)

And yes, prices drop all the time but sometimes it's for the wrong reasons. Just because you can go buy an eMachine for acouple hundred bucks, doesn't make it a good deal. You get what you pay for, you want a Hyundai, get a pc - you want a BMW get a Mac - you want a BMW for the price
of a Hyundai, get real. >>


Soory, but you don't get more for your money with a Mac. There's a reason everybody uses that excuse, it's a FACT. Paying 1000$ extra for a 1-BUTTON optical mouse without a wheel, a USB hub, shtty 2-piece HK speakers, and an unstable OS isn't a good deal. I can't believe you're disputing the price thing, try posting specs of a Mac, and I guarantee anyone can blow it away in price and features.



<< You built what? That will do what?

1.2 Ghz vs. 500 Mhz G4 = about the same except for Graphics programs where the G4 will toast it, but Games, the peecee will probably have the advantage on frame rate. >>


Nope. It's actually the opposite. A 1.2ghz Athlon smokes a 500mhz g4 in everything except a few highly Altivec optimized programs. (read: Photoshop, since it was designed from the beginning to run on Macs)



<< Kyro II vs. Ati Radeon or Nvidia Geforce 2or 3 = no contest, everyone here knows that ATI and Nvidia are always head to head. >>


Ever heard of something called a Geforce 3?



<< 256 DDR vs. 256 SDR = The benefits of DDR are still debateable but I really hope you bought generic RAM, otherwise you probably paid to much to notice a minuscule difference (unless of course you're doing something that takes hours to process, are you? didn't think so) >>


How much does a 128->256MB upgrade cost on a new Mac? I really doubt it's cheaper than a stick at Crucial.com



<< Santa Cruz sound card vs. Mac sound = Macs are used by most sound/Music professionals for a reason, 'nuff said! >>


Music professionals don't use Macs. And those who do surely don't use the sound card that comes with it. Musicians might use them a lot, but they're artists who care more about a good looking box, and know nothing of computers.



<< 40 GB hard drive and 2 NICS = hard drive, don't know what you what you have but if isn't scsi then there is no difference. As far as the 2 NICS are concerned.....why? You NEED 2 NICS, tell me why PLEASE! >>


Of course the hard drive is the same, Apple uses IDE PC drives... And you'd need 2 nics for sharing a cable/dsl connection without a router for example.



<< Fashion Sense?

People make the mistake of not buying computers the way they buy everything else. Appearance makes a BIG difference. If you bought a car, would you really want it to look like your peecee...probably not. Appearance makes the mac nice to look at which, in turn, provides a more pleasant experience when you use your computer. A recent study showed that Mac users had a better overall experience using their puters than peecee users did (they measured stress levels), part of this was the OS and part of was the appearance.

If you want to be a number cruncher with your eyes glazed over the screen, then get a peecee; if you want to have fun using your puter, get a Mac. >>


If you have fun looking at your fruity case, than more power to you. I know I use my computer to do real stuff. And I really pity someone who buys a computer only because it looks good. And to come back to your Hyundai/BMW analogy, it's more like the Mac is a good looking BMW with a 4 cylinder engine, and squeeky chassis, while the PC is a modded Hyundai with a V12, it might not look as good, but it will kick its ass for a lot less money.(and also have better reliability )



<< 'tis all >>


I agree.

 

[frizzlefry]

Ahhh what I wouldn't give for a dual G4 machine. The best advantage is for RC5
Hahaha. Damn. If they were cheaper I would get one just to have something to learn off of and also for cracking.

 

[OS]

<< 1.2 Ghz vs. 500 Mhz G4 = about the same except for Graphics programs where the G4 will toast it, but Games, the peecee will probably have the advantage on frame rate. >>



Let me ask you, have you used a 1.2 ghz athlon in photoshop? Cause I use a 500 mhz G4 in photoshop every day at work in a computer lab. And you know what, the performance advantage of the Mac in photoshop is HIDEOUSLY overrated. Basic operations like rotate canvas are easily matched, if not beaten, by my 2 year old dual celeron 400 system. No doubt you can dig up a handful of obscure filters that the G4 will consistently win, but that is not representative of the overall situation.

I swear that everytime I walk into that computer lab and use those G4/Mac OS 9 systems, I feel like I just walked back in time 5 years. What kind of a JOKE operating system doesn't let you do more than one thing at a time? If I need to copy a TIF file from a zip drive and it takes 5 minutes, I'm stuck watching the damn progress bar for 5 minutes! The operating system is so freaking horrible I can't even tell how good the hardware is.

I find it freaking hilarious that apple decided to release dual G4 systems with Mac OS 9 because one of the greatest strengths of SMP systems is their insane ability to multitask, something the Mac OS can't do!

 

[EdipisReks]

its no surprise that os 9 doesn't multi-task well in SMP, as os 9 doesn't support dual processors one just sits there collecting dust. i don't know about os X, though i doubt it has the smp capability that windows 2000 has. with the os 9/dual proc g4's, i think that the hardware people and the os people didn't talk much, or they would never have released the useless computer.

--jacob

 

[jonMEGA]

Look at this Cube

 

[bevancoleman]

Check this Seti@Home site, it shows the speed of compleating a WU over a large range of OSs and Processors.

http://www.teamlambchop.com/bench/index.htm (it seems to be gone try http://tlc.hagabard.com/)

It also shows up Motorola's major problem, floating point speed (this is why apple always use integer benchmarking to compare PC to Apples).

It also pays to remember that these benchmarks are running of overclocked machines, thus there an't to many macs.

I have seen of some site that Motorola does have faster CPUs than what Apple uses, but because they are based on the G3 chip Apple wont release them. I had a look at the IBM site and they do have a lot of very fast Gx platforms that Apple isn't using. Sounds like Apple is holding out on their own customers.