The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.

In the 3 months ended 30 June 2012, Mac desktops were down 13% (units) 
over the prior year, same period.  (For the 9 months ending the same 
day, Mac desktop sales were up 9%)

Laptops were up 8% however showing that the power of laptops have now 
made them the first choice of people getting their first Mac or updating 
their system.  Portables are up 13% over the 9 month period.

Macs accounted for $4.933B in sales in the quarter - a 3% drop from last 
year's quarter.

And that accounts for 14% of Apple's business in the quarter down from 
nearly 18% a year ago.

Further, at this time last year, Mac's were a $20B+/year business and 
now it is on trend to be less than $20B / year.  Apple explain this away 
as 'general weakness in the market'.  The next quarters will tell.

Nearly $20B is nothing to sniff at to be sure but it appears that the 
Mac Summer is cooling.

(For comparison, hp's 6 months ending April was $18.325B or 
$9.162B/quarter for notebooks, desktops and workstations).

Of course other segments (iphone and ipad) continue their spectacular 
growth (while iPod continues to plunge).  iPad unit sales were up 84% 
for the quarter and 108% for the 9 months.  iPhone 28 and 78% 
respectively while iPod has slowed 10 and 17% resp.

-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

In article <Jq2dnV2GQYYjLLLNnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.

My first computer were not a desktop but a roomful: a CDC 6400 which I shared 
with a bunch of other people, sitting at the console with O26 and DIS in the 
middle of the night. Now I use a MacBook Pro. If I could do software development 
and everything else I do on an iPod, I would. And in a few years I likely will.

-- 
My name Indigo Montoya.      |            Die, Robbie Ferrier! Die!
You flamed my father.        |       I'm whoever you want me to be.
Prepare to be spanked.       |  Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Stop posting that!           |    At least I can stay in character.

On 2012-08-18 15:32:29 +0000, China Blue [Tor], Meersburg said:

> My first computer were not a desktop but a roomful: a CDC 6400 which I shared
> with a bunch of other people, sitting at the console with O26 and DIS in the
> middle of the night. Now I use a MacBook Pro. If I could do software 
> development
> and everything else I do on an iPod, I would. And in a few years I likely will.

The CDC 6400 was the third computer I worked with, being preceded by a 
Bendis G20 and an ANFSQ-7. I was a member of the CDC group iin Palo 
Alto and which were mplementing a COBOL compiler for the CDC 6400.

-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

On 2012-08-18 11:32 , China Blue [Tor], Meersburg wrote:
> In article <Jq2dnV2GQYYjLLLNnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>   Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.
>
> My first computer were not a desktop but a roomful: a CDC 6400 which I shared
> with a bunch of other people, sitting at the console with O26 and DIS in the
> middle of the night. Now I use a MacBook Pro. If I could do software development
> and everything else I do on an iPod, I would. And in a few years I likely will.

That would be nice.  I'd like a nice simple IDE without a monster 
framework to write Pascal, C and assembler and maybe Ada.  Stuff I used 
to do on a VAX and hp mini.

However for photography large screens are preferable to small so that 
detail can be seen and there is ample room for all the toolbars and 
palettes and such.  I guess it's the same for video, engineering (CAE, 
simulations, monitoring, etc), medicine (although that's beginning to 
have a huge iPad footprint as well for its portability).

The iPad size is not an endpoint.

-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

In article <a99rlmF2lbU1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On 2012-08-18 15:32:29 +0000, China Blue [Tor], Meersburg said:
> 
> > My first computer were not a desktop but a roomful: a CDC 6400 which I 
> > shared
> > with a bunch of other people, sitting at the console with O26 and DIS in 
> > the
> > middle of the night. Now I use a MacBook Pro. If I could do software 
> > development
> > and everything else I do on an iPod, I would. And in a few years I likely 
> > will.
> 
> The CDC 6400 was the third computer I worked with, being preceded by a 
> Bendis G20 and an ANFSQ-7. I was a member of the CDC group iin Palo 
> Alto and which were mplementing a COBOL compiler for the CDC 6400.

Third for me, being preceded by an Elliott 803B and an IBM 7094. Then I 
went to CERN where your job might be run on a 6400 or a 6600.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

In article <timstreater-F62FC2.16495318082012@news.individual.net>,
 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <a99rlmF2lbU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 2012-08-18 15:32:29 +0000, China Blue [Tor], Meersburg said:
> > 
> > > My first computer were not a desktop but a roomful: a CDC 6400 which I 
> > > shared
> > > with a bunch of other people, sitting at the console with O26 and DIS in 
> > > the
> > > middle of the night. Now I use a MacBook Pro. If I could do software 
> > > development
> > > and everything else I do on an iPod, I would. And in a few years I likely 
> > > will.
> > 
> > The CDC 6400 was the third computer I worked with, being preceded by a 
> > Bendis G20 and an ANFSQ-7. I was a member of the CDC group iin Palo 
> > Alto and which were mplementing a COBOL compiler for the CDC 6400.
> 
> Third for me, being preceded by an Elliott 803B and an IBM 7094. Then I 
> went to CERN where your job might be run on a 6400 or a 6600.

Truckin.......
What a long, strange trip it's been....

-- 
My name Indigo Montoya.      |            Die, Robbie Ferrier! Die!
You flamed my father.        |       I'm whoever you want me to be.
Prepare to be spanked.       |  Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Stop posting that!           |    At least I can stay in character.

Alan Browne wrote:
> The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.


In the case of Apple, sales have declined because apple added Autosave
and removed SaveAs in Lion.

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Sad. I still prefer desktops over portable devices for their speeds, 
powers, customizations (limited with Macs though), etc.


On 8/18/2012 8:16 AM PT, Alan Browne typed:

>
> The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.
>
> In the 3 months ended 30 June 2012, Mac desktops were down 13% (units)
> over the prior year, same period.  (For the 9 months ending the same
> day, Mac desktop sales were up 9%)
>
> Laptops were up 8% however showing that the power of laptops have now
> made them the first choice of people getting their first Mac or updating
> their system.  Portables are up 13% over the 9 month period.
>
> Macs accounted for $4.933B in sales in the quarter - a 3% drop from last
> year's quarter.
>
> And that accounts for 14% of Apple's business in the quarter down from
> nearly 18% a year ago.
>
> Further, at this time last year, Mac's were a $20B+/year business and
> now it is on trend to be less than $20B / year.  Apple explain this away
> as 'general weakness in the market'.  The next quarters will tell.
>
> Nearly $20B is nothing to sniff at to be sure but it appears that the
> Mac Summer is cooling.
>
> (For comparison, hp's 6 months ending April was $18.325B or
> $9.162B/quarter for notebooks, desktops and workstations).
>
> Of course other segments (iphone and ipad) continue their spectacular
> growth (while iPod continues to plunge).  iPad unit sales were up 84%
> for the quarter and 108% for the 9 months.  iPhone 28 and 78%
> respectively while iPod has slowed 10 and 17% resp.
-- 
"The ambitious one makes friends with the elephant, then tramples upon 
the ant." --Indian
    /\___/\         Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
   / /\ /\ \                Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
  | |o   o| |
     \ _ /        If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
      ( )         If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

In article <AsCdnQ0YFLLTRbLNnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Ant <ant@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> Sad. I still prefer desktops over portable devices for their speeds, 
> powers, customizations (limited with Macs though), etc.

one reason, maybe the major reason, for the decline in desktop Mac sales in 
the third quarter was that in 2011, a new iMac was released in early May, 
about 1/3 into the quarter, but in 2012, many people (such as myself) were 
holding off on buying a new iMac in the third quarter until the 2012 models 
were released.

I prefer a desktop to portable Macintosh for essentially the same reasons 
you do; there's more for the money in exchange for a lack of portability 
(which is a lack that doesn't bother me at all).

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

One aspect: People tend to keep desktops longer since they don't get
droppped, stolen and they batteries don't expire after a few years.

So once you have a dekstop with sufficient power, you don't needto
upgrade it as often. If you have enough CPU to run 1080P h.264 videos,
and those videos are still the current tech, then your CPU is still able
to do what you need it to do.

It is perhaps wrong to declare the end of the desktop simply by noticing
sales are dropping. It may simply mean that people are not replacing
their existing ones as often but still using their desktops plenty.

On 2012-08-18 13:24 , JF Mezei wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.
>
>
> In the case of Apple, sales have declined because apple added Autosave
> and removed SaveAs in Lion.

I knew you would write something like that as I wrote the post though I 
thought you'd be a little less specific.


-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

On 2012-08-18 14:00 , Ant wrote:
> Sad. I still prefer desktops over portable devices for their speeds,
> powers, customizations (limited with Macs though), etc.

Well the du/dt is pretty small but consistent with the slowdown for Mac 
desktops over the past couple quarters.

1.  Mac desktops are really good machines.  There's no urgency to 
upgrade.  Mine is 4.5 years old and serves me very well and is keeping 
my "new Mac" lust pretty low.  That will end one day.  For example a 
hex|oct-core i7 at 3 GHz with 1666 or 2000 MHz memory would be more than 
I could resist... ;-)

2. Apple identified "general weakness in the market" as a reason (didn't 
slow the laptops as much though) and also noted that they haven't done 
any major upgrades to the line in a while.  Could be that people are 
holding off for a really big improvement.  (Above).

The Mac Pro got hardly more than a makeover in its most recent version - 
though Apple seem to imply that an updated Mac Pro (really updates) is 
in the pipe.

3. It's still a $20B/yr business.  Magnificent in its own right.

Don't top post.


>
>
> On 8/18/2012 8:16 AM PT, Alan Browne typed:
>
>>
>> The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.
>>
>> In the 3 months ended 30 June 2012, Mac desktops were down 13% (units)
>> over the prior year, same period.  (For the 9 months ending the same
>> day, Mac desktop sales were up 9%)
>>
>> Laptops were up 8% however showing that the power of laptops have now
>> made them the first choice of people getting their first Mac or updating
>> their system.  Portables are up 13% over the 9 month period.
>>
>> Macs accounted for $4.933B in sales in the quarter - a 3% drop from last
>> year's quarter.
>>
>> And that accounts for 14% of Apple's business in the quarter down from
>> nearly 18% a year ago.
>>
>> Further, at this time last year, Mac's were a $20B+/year business and
>> now it is on trend to be less than $20B / year.  Apple explain this away
>> as 'general weakness in the market'.  The next quarters will tell.
>>
>> Nearly $20B is nothing to sniff at to be sure but it appears that the
>> Mac Summer is cooling.
>>
>> (For comparison, hp's 6 months ending April was $18.325B or
>> $9.162B/quarter for notebooks, desktops and workstations).
>>
>> Of course other segments (iphone and ipad) continue their spectacular
>> growth (while iPod continues to plunge).  iPad unit sales were up 84%
>> for the quarter and 108% for the 9 months.  iPhone 28 and 78%
>> respectively while iPod has slowed 10 and 17% resp.


-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

On 2012-08-18 15:52 , JF Mezei wrote:
> One aspect: People tend to keep desktops longer since they don't get
> droppped, stolen and they batteries don't expire after a few years.
>
> So once you have a dekstop with sufficient power, you don't needto
> upgrade it as often. If you have enough CPU to run 1080P h.264 videos,
> and those videos are still the current tech, then your CPU is still able
> to do what you need it to do.
>
> It is perhaps wrong to declare the end of the desktop simply by noticing
> sales are dropping. It may simply mean that people are not replacing
> their existing ones as often but still using their desktops plenty.

Who said "end"?


-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

In article <Jq2dnV2GQYYjLLLNnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> 
> The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.
> 
> In the 3 months ended 30 June 2012, Mac desktops were down 13% (units) 
> over the prior year, same period.  (For the 9 months ending the same 
> day, Mac desktop sales were up 9%)
> 
> Laptops were up 8% however showing that the power of laptops have now 
> made them the first choice of people getting their first Mac or updating 
> their system.  Portables are up 13% over the 9 month period.

Those figures are incredibly misleading, as they always are when taken out
of context. Many people are awaiting the new iMac release before buying,
while new laptops were released during that timeframe so were being
snapped up.

In reality, Mac computer sales have been and still are growing, just not
as massively fast as the iPad / iPhone figures - in fact Apple is one of
the few companies growing their sales during the "economic problems". The
"halo" effect is meaning more people are switching to Macs when it comes
time to upgrade their computers (which is currently less often then it
used to be).

Alan Browne:

> The trend continues whereby...

....you post the most inane, meaningless drivel imaginable.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:

> The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.
> 
> In the 3 months ended 30 June 2012, Mac desktops were down 13% (units)
> over the prior year, same period.  (For the 9 months ending the same
> day, Mac desktop sales were up 9%)

Is this part of a general trend in the industry where desktops are a
smaller percentage of units sold and laptops a higher one?

If so, it isn't surprising that Apple would see the same trend, right?

On 2012-08-18 20:05 , Doug Anderson wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>
>> The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.
>>
>> In the 3 months ended 30 June 2012, Mac desktops were down 13% (units)
>> over the prior year, same period.  (For the 9 months ending the same
>> day, Mac desktop sales were up 9%)
>
> Is this part of a general trend in the industry where desktops are a
> smaller percentage of units sold and laptops a higher one?
>
> If so, it isn't surprising that Apple would see the same trend, right?

Normally so.

But Apple were bucking that trend over the last many quarters - this has 
been attributed to the halo effect from their success with iDevices. 
That halo effect may be dimming now though with lesser impact on portables.

As I said in my prior post even Apple attribute the slight decline to 
'general weakness in the market'.  I think it's just that they've gotten 
all the 'halo' they'll get and now desktops will decline generally for 
Apple.

-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:52:36 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> One aspect: People tend to keep desktops longer since they don't get
> droppped, stolen and they batteries don't expire after a few years.
> 
> So once you have a dekstop with sufficient power, you don't needto
> upgrade it as often. If you have enough CPU to run 1080P h.264 videos,
> and those videos are still the current tech, then your CPU is still able
> to do what you need it to do.
> 
> It is perhaps wrong to declare the end of the desktop simply by noticing
> sales are dropping. It may simply mean that people are not replacing
> their existing ones as often but still using their desktops plenty.

Desktops are more upgradeable / expandable than laptops as well.

FWIW I managed to prolong the useful life of my iBook by several years 
because I was already using it in a desktop role.  It was my music centre 
so was plugged into other non-portable devices.

When the internal disk failed I simply started booting from an external 
Firewire disk with  no loss of functionality.  In fact this was an 
upgrade because I went from a 20 GB system disk to a 70 GB system disk.

When the battery reached end of life, I didn't care since I was no longer 
using the system as a portable device.

When the keyboard started getting flaky I simply plugged in an external 
one.  I was already using a mouse rather than the trackpad.

I never got around to using an external display on that system, but that 
would have represented an upgrade too.

-- 
Paul Sture

On 2012-08-18 19:10 , Davoud wrote:
> Alan Browne:
>
>> The trend continues whereby...
>
> ...you post the most inane, meaningless drivel imaginable.

It's all there in the 10-Q reports.  I'll go out on a limb here and 
suggest that even you can understand them.


-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

On 2012-08-18 18:15 , Your Name wrote:
> In article <Jq2dnV2GQYYjLLLNnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.
>>
>> In the 3 months ended 30 June 2012, Mac desktops were down 13% (units)
>> over the prior year, same period.  (For the 9 months ending the same
>> day, Mac desktop sales were up 9%)
>>
>> Laptops were up 8% however showing that the power of laptops have now
>> made them the first choice of people getting their first Mac or updating
>> their system.  Portables are up 13% over the 9 month period.
>
> Those figures are incredibly misleading, as they always are when taken out
> of context. Many people are awaiting the new iMac release before buying,
> while new laptops were released during that timeframe so were being
> snapped up.
>
> In reality, Mac computer sales have been and still are growing, just not
> as massively fast as the iPad / iPhone figures - in fact Apple is one of
> the few companies growing their sales during the "economic problems". The
> "halo" effect is meaning more people are switching to Macs when it comes
> time to upgrade their computers (which is currently less often then it
> used to be).

I've been watching these figures over the last several quarters. 
"Waiting for the next" goes 1 or maybe 2 quarters.  Mac sales have 
slowed abruptly over the passed 2 quarters and there's little chance 
that this quarter will see an improvement - we'll see the figures in 
October.

I have no doubt that if they really pump up the desktop line there will 
be a spike, but I think that will be transient for 1 or 2 quarters and 
then go back down.  The long term trend for Mac desktops is slowing - as 
it is for desktop PC's elsewhere.  IOW the iDevice halo effect has run 
its course where desktop is concerned.

It's also possible that the diminishing performance delta between 
desktops and laptops has more people opting for the best of both worlds 
(includes portability).  The explosion in serial interfaced devices has 
helped in the conversion.  Not everyone really needs a large screen desktop.

Another effect that can't be ignored is that even if Mac sales remain 
close to $20B/yr, they continue to be of lesser overall importance to 
Apple's bottom line.  I don't know how Macs fare on margin but I suspect 
they are less lucrative than iDevices.

With all that, despite $20B/yr being a very nice business in and of 
itself, Apple may focus more where the best returns occur.

-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

In article <j6GdnXh2ts-Ocq3NnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> I've been watching these figures over the last several quarters. 
> "Waiting for the next" goes 1 or maybe 2 quarters.  Mac sales have 
> slowed abruptly over the passed 2 quarters and there's little chance 
> that this quarter will see an improvement - we'll see the figures in 
> October.

Not really; the next iMac won't be released for sale until late September 
or early October at the earliest, so won't have much, if any, influence on 
this quarter.

> It's also possible that the diminishing performance delta between 
> desktops and laptops has more people opting for the best of both worlds 
> (includes portability). 

The delta is still significant.  Here's a comparison between the $1199 
models of the iMac and MacBook Pro:

Feature   iMac        MB Pro
display   21.5"       13"

CPU       2.5GHz      2.5 GHz
          quad core   dual core
          6MB cache   3MB cache

Storage   500GB       500GB
          7200 RPM    5400 RPM

Graphics  Radeon HD   Intel HD
          6750M       4000

The MB Pro does have faster RAM, Thunderbolt, and a better iSight camera.  
But it is a two-month old model, whereas the iMac is a 15-month old model, 
due for an update very soon.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

On 2012-08-19 10:04 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <j6GdnXh2ts-Ocq3NnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>   Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> I've been watching these figures over the last several quarters.
>> "Waiting for the next" goes 1 or maybe 2 quarters.  Mac sales have
>> slowed abruptly over the passed 2 quarters and there's little chance
>> that this quarter will see an improvement - we'll see the figures in
>> October.
>
> Not really; the next iMac won't be released for sale until late September
> or early October at the earliest, so won't have much, if any, influence on
> this quarter.
>
>> It's also possible that the diminishing performance delta between
>> desktops and laptops has more people opting for the best of both worlds
>> (includes portability).
>
> The delta is still significant.  Here's a comparison between the $1199
> models of the iMac and MacBook Pro:
>
> Feature   iMac        MB Pro
> display   21.5"       13"
>
> CPU       2.5GHz      2.5 GHz
>            quad core   dual core
>            6MB cache   3MB cache
>
> Storage   500GB       500GB
>            7200 RPM    5400 RPM
>
> Graphics  Radeon HD   Intel HD
>            6750M       4000
>
> The MB Pro does have faster RAM, Thunderbolt, and a better iSight camera.
> But it is a two-month old model, whereas the iMac is a 15-month old model,
> due for an update very soon.

For someone who values portability, those differences are of marginal 
importance.  For s/he who needs the quad core and portability, there is 
the 15" MBP.  Yes, it's more expensive but also has a larger, higher 
resolution display as well as an i7 processor in lieu of the i5 of the 
low end iMac.

The numbers speak for themselves.  Portable sales in the last quarter 
for Mac were 3646000 v 1287000 - nearly 3:1.

-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

In article <j6GdnXh2ts-Ocq3NnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2012-08-18 18:15 , Your Name wrote:
> > In article <Jq2dnV2GQYYjLLLNnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> > <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.
> >>
> >> In the 3 months ended 30 June 2012, Mac desktops were down 13% (units)
> >> over the prior year, same period.  (For the 9 months ending the same
> >> day, Mac desktop sales were up 9%)
> >>
> >> Laptops were up 8% however showing that the power of laptops have now
> >> made them the first choice of people getting their first Mac or updating
> >> their system.  Portables are up 13% over the 9 month period.
> >
> > Those figures are incredibly misleading, as they always are when taken out
> > of context. Many people are awaiting the new iMac release before buying,
> > while new laptops were released during that timeframe so were being
> > snapped up.
> >
> > In reality, Mac computer sales have been and still are growing, just not
> > as massively fast as the iPad / iPhone figures - in fact Apple is one of
> > the few companies growing their sales during the "economic problems". The
> > "halo" effect is meaning more people are switching to Macs when it comes
> > time to upgrade their computers (which is currently less often then it
> > used to be).
> 
> I've been watching these figures over the last several quarters. 
> "Waiting for the next" goes 1 or maybe 2 quarters.  Mac sales have 
> slowed abruptly over the passed 2 quarters and there's little chance 
> that this quarter will see an improvement - we'll see the figures in 
> October.
> 
> I have no doubt that if they really pump up the desktop line there will 
> be a spike, but I think that will be transient for 1 or 2 quarters and 
> then go back down.  The long term trend for Mac desktops is slowing - as 
> it is for desktop PC's elsewhere.  IOW the iDevice halo effect has run 
> its course where desktop is concerned.
> 
> It's also possible that the diminishing performance delta between 
> desktops and laptops has more people opting for the best of both worlds 
> (includes portability).  The explosion in serial interfaced devices has 
> helped in the conversion.  Not everyone really needs a large screen desktop.
> 
> Another effect that can't be ignored is that even if Mac sales remain 
> close to $20B/yr, they continue to be of lesser overall importance to 
> Apple's bottom line.  I don't know how Macs fare on margin but I suspect 
> they are less lucrative than iDevices.
> 
> With all that, despite $20B/yr being a very nice business in and of 
> itself, Apple may focus more where the best returns occur.

Yeah, the desktop is a bit of a dying market, or at best a good but not 
excellent growth market as people discover that for what they do, the 
smaller devices can perform well enough.

I've been considering selling off my 27" iMac and getting a MacBook or 
Air and a big monitor instead.  But I keep running up against the 
smaller size of the screen, the relatively poor keyboards and pointing 
device and the usually much slower HD in the MacBook and most other 
laptops.

In article <TfydnXZJnanqZK3NnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> For someone who values portability, those differences are of marginal 
> importance.

And for someone who has no need for portability, those differences are 
significant.

> For s/he who needs the quad core and portability, there is the 15" MBP.  
> Yes, it's more expensive but also has a larger, higher resolution 
> display as well as an i7 processor in lieu of the i5 of the low end 
> iMac.

True, but compare that 15" MBP with a similarly priced iMac, not with the 
base model iMac.

> The numbers speak for themselves.  Portable sales in the last quarter 
> for Mac were 3646000 v 1287000 - nearly 3:1.

All that shows is that more people prefer portability, and are willing to 
forego specs and/or are willing to pay more for that portability.

Fortunately, we all have those options so we can choose what's right for 
each of us.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

In article 
<lloydparsons-81CD3E.09413119082012@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Lloyd <lloydparsons@me.com> wrote:

> 
> I've been considering selling off my 27" iMac and getting a MacBook or 
> Air and a big monitor instead.  But I keep running up against the 
> smaller size of the screen, the relatively poor keyboards and pointing 
> device and the usually much slower HD in the MacBook and most other 
> laptops.

Unless on the road, I always run my MBP with a USB keyboard and mouse 
and a big monitor. Went years ago from a desk top and haven't had any 
problems with this set-up.
-- 
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

In article <Jq2dnV2GQYYjLLLNnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.

Reasons I would think this to be true:
1. My desktop is faster than I am, I simply have no need to get a faster 
one.
2. My desktop runs everything I need for work (software and hardware), 
and I don't plan to screw that up with an updated OS that potentially 
outdates my software and peripheral drivers.
3. I need fax capability and fax programs and modems are highly subject 
to getting messed up or deactivated with new OS's. 
4. Updating peripherals to new thunderbolt cable connections would 
probably be expensive. 
5. The trend is toward laptops and other portable devices, not just for 
leisure but for work and schools too. People are more "mobile-minded" 
than they've ever been before.
6. People and businesses often just don't have the discretionary 
financial funds to update every time something new comes out.
-- 
Good judgment results from experience, and experience results from bad judgment.

In article <JqidnXLfTeOpYa3NnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
 Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <lloydparsons-81CD3E.09413119082012@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Lloyd <lloydparsons@me.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I've been considering selling off my 27" iMac and getting a MacBook or 
> > Air and a big monitor instead.  But I keep running up against the 
> > smaller size of the screen, the relatively poor keyboards and pointing 
> > device and the usually much slower HD in the MacBook and most other 
> > laptops.
> 
> Unless on the road, I always run my MBP with a USB keyboard and mouse 
> and a big monitor. Went years ago from a desk top and haven't had any 
> problems with this set-up.

That's what I've been considering and may yet do.

Yesterday I got a 24" Sony PS3 3D display to use as a bedroom TV.  At 
the moment it is connected to my W7 laptop that I use for 
Playon/Playlater and my PS3.

I'm giving that a run for a bit and will use the W7 laptop for some of 
my music engraving with Sibelius which is what I do other than the usual 
internet stuff on the iMac.  I'll have a better idea if that is 
something I like well enough.

On 2012-08-19 10:41 , Lloyd wrote:
> In article <j6GdnXh2ts-Ocq3NnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>   Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>> Another effect that can't be ignored is that even if Mac sales remain
>> close to $20B/yr, they continue to be of lesser overall importance to
>> Apple's bottom line.  I don't know how Macs fare on margin but I suspect
>> they are less lucrative than iDevices.
>>
>> With all that, despite $20B/yr being a very nice business in and of
>> itself, Apple may focus more where the best returns occur.
>
> Yeah, the desktop is a bit of a dying market, or at best a good but not
> excellent growth market as people discover that for what they do, the
> smaller devices can perform well enough.
>
> I've been considering selling off my 27" iMac and getting a MacBook or
> Air and a big monitor instead.  But I keep running up against the
> smaller size of the screen, the relatively poor keyboards and pointing
> device and the usually much slower HD in the MacBook and most other
> laptops.

Everyone balances their needs.  Most people (almost 3:1 where Macs are 
concerned in the last quarter) seem to tip to the portables.  Portables 
don't suit my personal needs (display area in particular) but certainly 
suit my travel needs.

-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

On 2012-08-19 10:44 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <TfydnXZJnanqZK3NnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>   Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> For someone who values portability, those differences are of marginal
>> importance.
>
> And for someone who has no need for portability, those differences are
> significant.

No shit?

>
>> For s/he who needs the quad core and portability, there is the 15" MBP.
>> Yes, it's more expensive but also has a larger, higher resolution
>> display as well as an i7 processor in lieu of the i5 of the low end
>> iMac.
>
> True, but compare that 15" MBP with a similarly priced iMac, not with the
> base model iMac.

The real issue splits about portability, then performance and affordability.

>> The numbers speak for themselves.  Portable sales in the last quarter
>> for Mac were 3646000 v 1287000 - nearly 3:1.
>
> All that shows is that more people prefer portability, and are willing to
> forego specs and/or are willing to pay more for that portability.
>
> Fortunately, we all have those options so we can choose what's right for
> each of us.

No shit?



-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

On 2012-08-19 10:50 , Suze wrote:
> In article <Jq2dnV2GQYYjLLLNnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>   Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.
>
> Reasons I would think this to be true:
> 1. My desktop is faster than I am, I simply have no need to get a faster
> one.

Normally true here.  Except when converting 10 GB of raw images to DNG's 
and loading same into the raw converter.  Also running handbrake (the 
most efficient app I've ever seen: the CPU is always 100% when it runs). 
  I don't use HB that often but it can take 10 - 20 minutes to convert a 
short hi def clip.

So while my 4.5 YO iMac handles my needs well, an up to date iMac would 
handle them quicker.

> 2. My desktop runs everything I need for work (software and hardware),
> and I don't plan to screw that up with an updated OS that potentially
> outdates my software and peripheral drivers.

I've kept up with the OS X evolution with no particular problems to 
date.  This means foregoing the Nikon scan software and using Vuescan 
(for example).

> 3. I need fax capability and fax programs and modems are highly subject
> to getting messed up or deactivated with new OS's.

I have an external fax/modem (USB).  Works fine.

> 4. Updating peripherals to new thunderbolt cable connections would
> probably be expensive.

Evolution, not revolution.

> 5. The trend is toward laptops and other portable devices, not just for
> leisure but for work and schools too. People are more "mobile-minded"
> than they've ever been before.

Yep.

> 6. People and businesses often just don't have the discretionary
> financial funds to update every time something new comes out.

Yep.  Most people in an office environment could in fact use "thin 
client" type machines for their word processing, spreadsheets and 
preparing presentations and accessing databases and the web.  Or for 
that matter using web based apps for the same.

That could be a good market for Apple with an Apple TV based device - 
though it's already quite loaded with the likes of Wyse (recently 
purchased by Dell).

-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2012-08-19 10:41 , Lloyd wrote:
> > Yeah, the desktop is a bit of a dying market, or at best a good but not
> > excellent growth market as people discover that for what they do, the
> > smaller devices can perform well enough.
> >
> > I've been considering selling off my 27" iMac and getting a MacBook or
> > Air and a big monitor instead.  But I keep running up against the
> > smaller size of the screen, the relatively poor keyboards and pointing
> > device and the usually much slower HD in the MacBook and most other
> > laptops.

Seems to me like you just contradicted yourself, though perhaps I
overlooked intended sarcasm. I was going to reply to the first para
above with a list of reasons that the smaller devices don't perform well
enough, but then I saw that in the second para, you pretty much already
did a good start at that.

And even if you connect the laptop to an external monitor, keyboad, and
mouse, as I used to do at work when NASA would provide me with either a
laptop or a desktop, but not both, you still run into limitations like
the video cards in laptops. Depends on your particular use, of course. I
managed ok with that setup for what I needed in a work machine. But it
wasn't even close to adequate for my home use, where games were
important.

> Everyone balances their needs.  Most people (almost 3:1 where Macs are
> concerned in the last quarter) seem to tip to the portables.  Portables
> don't suit my personal needs (display area in particular) but certainly
> suit my travel needs.

Yep. And my Macbook pro reasonably suits my personal travel needs. I
just got back from a month-long European vacation, where it served fine.
(I did do some gaming on it, but the game I was playing is over a decade
old - from gog.com - and was well within the capabilities of bootcamp on
the laptop).

But at home - no way. Not even if I replaced it with the newest model
and tricked it out with external stuff. In fact, after fighting it for
many years, I've finally largely given up doing games on my iMac (which
I'm typing this on). I broke down and got a Windows 7 desktop machine,
which I use for nothing but games. It works much better for the purpose
than either this iMac or my laptop. (Yes, I have bootcamp on both the
Macs, but my separate Windows 7 box still works *MUCH* better for
games).

Once I take games out of my personal Mac picture, I do find that my
laptop with adequate peripherals could be adequate for the rest. I've
told my wife that she could have this 27" iMac instead of buying
something new if she wanted something better to replace her 6-year-old
iMac. I could make do with the laptop plus my Windows game machine.

So maybe Apple desktops are starting to move out of my personal picture.
Desktops aren't, but Apple desktops might be.

That's just me. I quite acknowledge that other people have other needs
and make other tradeoffs.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <1kp2fn4.9iks18xpym80N%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> 
> > On 2012-08-19 10:41 , Lloyd wrote:
> > > Yeah, the desktop is a bit of a dying market, or at best a good but not
> > > excellent growth market as people discover that for what they do, the
> > > smaller devices can perform well enough.
> > >
> > > I've been considering selling off my 27" iMac and getting a MacBook or
> > > Air and a big monitor instead.  But I keep running up against the
> > > smaller size of the screen, the relatively poor keyboards and pointing
> > > device and the usually much slower HD in the MacBook and most other
> > > laptops.
> 
> Seems to me like you just contradicted yourself, though perhaps I
> overlooked intended sarcasm. I was going to reply to the first para
> above with a list of reasons that the smaller devices don't perform well
> enough, but then I saw that in the second para, you pretty much already
> did a good start at that.
> 
> And even if you connect the laptop to an external monitor, keyboad, and
> mouse, as I used to do at work when NASA would provide me with either a
> laptop or a desktop, but not both, you still run into limitations like
> the video cards in laptops. Depends on your particular use, of course. I
> managed ok with that setup for what I needed in a work machine. But it
> wasn't even close to adequate for my home use, where games were
> important.
> 
For the most part, I use the iMac for the normal internet stuff.  Email, 
web surfing and online videos.

But I also use it for music engraving as a hobby.  I'm retired so don't 
do any actual work these days!  :)

You know, every day is a Saturday!!  :)

And I wasn't trying to be sarcastic in my post.  Yeah, the laptops all 
suffer from poor keyboards, pointing devices and screen size, which can 
be got around with external ones.  But that sort of defeats the purpose.

The hardest part for me is that I really don't have travel needs.  I'm 
at the point in my life where I don't enjoy travel much and often just 
make a trip or 3 a year to Kansas City area where most of my family is.  
But that is just a 6 hour drive away.  I don't fly anymore as I have 
much lesser tolerance for bullshit, and the airports and airlines are 
all about piling on bullshit these days!

So getting a MacBook or Air would be mostly about want...

snip
> > Everyone balances their needs.  Most people (almost 3:1 where Macs are
> > concerned in the last quarter) seem to tip to the portables.  Portables
> > don't suit my personal needs (display area in particular) but certainly
> > suit my travel needs.
snip

Yes I always have a Desktop and a portable. My Mac Pros or earlier 
desktops last about six years. My Portables I usually replace in about 
two years. As you say about 3:1.

In article
<lloydparsons-81CD3E.09413119082012@news.eternal-september.org>, Lloyd
<lloydparsons@me.com> wrote:
> 
> Yeah, the desktop is a bit of a dying market, or at best a good but not 
> excellent growth market as people discover that for what they do, the 
> smaller devices can perform well enough.
> 
> I've been considering selling off my 27" iMac and getting a MacBook or 
> Air and a big monitor instead.  But I keep running up against the 
> smaller size of the screen, the relatively poor keyboards and pointing 
> device and the usually much slower HD in the MacBook and most other 
> laptops.

Unless you actually need portability, getting a laptop is a rather silly
exercise in wasting money compared to an all-in-one like the iMac. 

A laptop with the equivalent power, storage space, etc. plus the extra
device like the larger display, external keyboard and mouse / trackpad
will cost you more to buy and use up more desk space. Many people buying a
laptop do so simply because it looks "cool" / as a trendy fashion
statment.

These days, even if you only need some degree of portability, you might
still be better off buying an iMac for "normal" use and an iPad for when
you want to be elsewhere.

In article <BI-dndMjj7YenqzNnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> 
> > 6. People and businesses often just don't have the discretionary
> > financial funds to update every time something new comes out.
> 
> Yep.  Most people in an office environment could in fact use "thin 
> client" type machines for their word processing, spreadsheets and 
> preparing presentations and accessing databases and the web.  Or for 
> that matter using web based apps for the same.
> 
> That could be a good market for Apple with an Apple TV based device - 
> though it's already quite loaded with the likes of Wyse (recently 
> purchased by Dell).

Apple already has an almost thin client-like desktop device: the Mac Mini.

On 2012-08-19 17:19 , Your Name wrote:

> A laptop with the equivalent power, storage space, etc. plus the extra
> device like the larger display, external keyboard and mouse / trackpad
> will cost you more to buy and use up more desk space. Many people buying a
> laptop do so simply because it looks "cool" / as a trendy fashion
> statment.

It looks really silly when you plug your 27" Mac in at Starbucks or put 
in the basket at the airport to go through the x-ray.

> These days, even if you only need some degree of portability, you might
> still be better off buying an iMac for "normal" use and an iPad for when
> you want to be elsewhere.

That was my hope but iPad falls short in a couple key areas for my 
travel needs.

-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

On 2012-08-19 17:21 , Your Name wrote:
> In article <BI-dndMjj7YenqzNnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Yep.  Most people in an office environment could in fact use "thin
>> client" type machines for their word processing, spreadsheets and
>> preparing presentations and accessing databases and the web.  Or for
>> that matter using web based apps for the same.
>>
>> That could be a good market for Apple with an Apple TV based device -
>> though it's already quite loaded with the likes of Wyse (recently
>> purchased by Dell).
>
> Apple already has an almost thin client-like desktop device: the Mac Mini.

It would need to be thinner.  No HD, very limited local storage.

       Ethernet 10/100/1000
       WiFi b/g/n
       SD
       2 or 3 USB ports
       DVI out
       Audio in/out.

With a retail price around $250.

-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

In article <a6GdnYv33Olx9qzNnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2012-08-19 17:21 , Your Name wrote:
> > In article <BI-dndMjj7YenqzNnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> > <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yep.  Most people in an office environment could in fact use "thin
> >> client" type machines for their word processing, spreadsheets and
> >> preparing presentations and accessing databases and the web.  Or for
> >> that matter using web based apps for the same.
> >>
> >> That could be a good market for Apple with an Apple TV based device -
> >> though it's already quite loaded with the likes of Wyse (recently
> >> purchased by Dell).
> >
> > Apple already has an almost thin client-like desktop device: the Mac Mini.
> 
> It would need to be thinner.  No HD, very limited local storage.
> 
>        Ethernet 10/100/1000
>        WiFi b/g/n
>        SD
>        2 or 3 USB ports
>        DVI out
>        Audio in/out.
> 
> With a retail price around $250.

I did say "almost".

In article <Yv-dnVIxgZqi96zNnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2012-08-19 17:19 , Your Name wrote:
> >
> > A laptop with the equivalent power, storage space, etc. plus the extra
> > device like the larger display, external keyboard and mouse / trackpad
> > will cost you more to buy and use up more desk space. Many people buying a
> > laptop do so simply because it looks "cool" / as a trendy fashion
> > statment.
> 
> It looks really silly when you plug your 27" Mac in at Starbucks or put 
> in the basket at the airport to go through the x-ray.

I did have a paragraph before that which said "Unless you actually need
portability ..."

Comment/question.

Laptops have traditionally (or perhaps historically) not been designed
for 24/7 use because it was assumed they would be used for a couple of
hours at a time. Ventilation and battery may not be suitable for
continuous use, especially if the CPU is constabtly being used (such as
Handbake etc).

Can anyone comment whether this is still applicable to Apple designed
laptops ?

Have CPU and GPUs gotten efficient enough that their heat production is
no longer an issue and allow continuuoius use without heat damage ?

In message <50318f2a$0$1936$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Have CPU and GPUs gotten efficient enough that their heat production is
> no longer an issue and allow continuuoius use without heat damage ?

To the computer or to your legs?

Laptops are still too hot for anyone in the industry to call them
"laptops", but I've never had any Apple "laptop" damage *itself* due to
heat. The very fact that they can be too hot to stick on your bare legs
is because they are quite efficient at expelling their heat.

-- 
IT DOES NOT SUCK TO BE YOU Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF13

Lewis wrote:

> To the computer or to your legs?

To the computer. I know that some models of laptops had been used as
consoles for x86 machines in computer rooms (which means on 7/24) and
experienced high failure rates and the vendor told the customer that
laptops had not been designed to be used 7/24.

This was a number of years ago and they weren't Apple ones. So I was
wondering if this would be an issue/concern with modern laptops,
specifically the oned designed by Jonathan Ives for Apple with the fancy
 but quiet ventilation.

On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:13:12 -0400, JF Mezei wrote:

> Comment/question.
> 
> Laptops have traditionally (or perhaps historically) not been designed
> for 24/7 use because it was assumed they would be used for a couple of
> hours at a time. Ventilation and battery may not be suitable for
> continuous use, especially if the CPU is constabtly being used (such as
> Handbake etc).
> 
> Can anyone comment whether this is still applicable to Apple designed
> laptops ?
> 
> Have CPU and GPUs gotten efficient enough that their heat production is
> no longer an issue and allow continuuoius use without heat damage ?

I ran my 2002 vintage iBook for 24 hours a day for several years.  I had 
to push it very hard on a hot day to make the fans kick in.  Yes the 
internal disk died at about 5 years old but I honestly cannot say that 
that was due to anything except its age.

The G4 PowerBook I have here is a different matter.  Although it still 
works fine, in the summer months it only needs to be switched on for 15 
minutes or less and the fans kick in full time.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <50318f2a$0$1936$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
>Comment/question.
>
>Laptops have traditionally (or perhaps historically) not been designed
>for 24/7 use because it was assumed they would be used for a couple of
>hours at a time. Ventilation and battery may not be suitable for
>continuous use, especially if the CPU is constabtly being used (such as
>Handbake etc).
>
>Can anyone comment whether this is still applicable to Apple designed
>laptops ?

I can't comment on the design but I can comment on how mine are being
used here.  My 17" PowerBook G4 -- several battery replacements over
the past decade -- sits on my desk running 24/7 serving my streaming
audio needs to my AirPort Express.  Save for an occasional "blast" of
compressed air to purge vents, this has been running 10 years without
an issue.  Yes, there was a time when I took this 17" PowerBook in the
road but it has been resigned to my desktop for many years now.

My 17" MacBook Pro, which I still do power down and take on the road
from time to time, spends most of its time atop my desk and running
24/7 as well.  The MBP feels much cooler to the touch than the Power-
Book and it doesn't have the venting slots of the PowerBook.



>Have CPU and GPUs gotten efficient enough that their heat production is
>no longer an issue and allow continuuoius use without heat damage ?

I hope so. :)  Especially, since Apple stopped making the 17" MacBook
Pros.  Mine has to last me for the rest of my days unless they recon-
sider.
-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

Well I speak to machines with the voice of humanity.

JF Mezei:
> Comment/question.
> 
> Laptops have traditionally (or perhaps historically) not been designed
> for 24/7 use because it was assumed they would be used for a couple of
> hours at a time. Ventilation and battery may not be suitable for
> continuous use, especially if the CPU is constabtly being used (such as
> Handbake etc).

Some people may have assumed that laptops were not designed for
continuous use, but I did not and I have been using laptops for long
workdays for many years.

> Can anyone comment whether this is still applicable to Apple designed
> laptops ?

N/A to me, as I never knew this to be applicable to Mac (or Windows)
laptops.

> Have CPU and GPUs gotten efficient enough that their heat production is
> no longer an issue and allow continuuoius use without heat damage ?

It has always been that way for me. I had an instance in which a MBPro
failed to sleep when closed, or perhaps woke up from sleep. It
overheated and the computer failed. This is not the same as operating
while closed with an external display, which I have done for years on
end with no problems. Apple replaced the main board under warranty. The
same result could be achieved by leaving a desktop computer running for
some hours in a tight-fitting, sealed box.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 2012-08-20 12:15:26 +0000, Davoud said:

> Some people may have assumed that laptops were not designed for
> continuous use, but I did not and I have been using laptops for long
> workdays for many years.

When my MacBook Pro (Apple doesn't use the term "laptop") is not "on 
the road" I keep it on a cooling stand which has several small fans for 
improving the circulation of air around the base of the computer. When 
my MacBook Pro was at home it was continuously on and I never 
experienced (at least to my awareness) any problem with overheating.

My iMac, current generation, is also on all the time and I don't feel 
any part of it that has any significant overheating.

-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

TaliesinSoft:
> My iMac, current generation, is also on all the time and I don't feel 
> any part of it that has any significant overheating.

Our two 27" iMacs add to our home air-conditioning load in summer and
reduce the heating load in winter, and they're not always rendering
video or the like.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Lloyd <lloydparsons@me.com> writes:

> In article <JqidnXLfTeOpYa3NnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article 
> > <lloydparsons-81CD3E.09413119082012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >  Lloyd <lloydparsons@me.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > I've been considering selling off my 27" iMac and getting a MacBook or 
> > > Air and a big monitor instead.  But I keep running up against the 
> > > smaller size of the screen, the relatively poor keyboards and pointing 
> > > device and the usually much slower HD in the MacBook and most other 
> > > laptops.
> > 
> > Unless on the road, I always run my MBP with a USB keyboard and mouse 
> > and a big monitor. Went years ago from a desk top and haven't had any 
> > problems with this set-up.
> 
> That's what I've been considering and may yet do.
> 
> Yesterday I got a 24" Sony PS3 3D display to use as a bedroom TV.  At 
> the moment it is connected to my W7 laptop that I use for 
> Playon/Playlater and my PS3.
> 
> I'm giving that a run for a bit and will use the W7 laptop for some of 
> my music engraving with Sibelius which is what I do other than the usual 
> internet stuff on the iMac.  I'll have a better idea if that is 
> something I like well enough.

A friend of mine has a MBA and one of these

http://hengedocks.com/order_mba.php

(together with external monitor, keyboard, mouse).

It works well for him.

On 2012-08-20 15:32:33 +0000, Davoud said:

[in response to my having stated]

> 
>> My iMac, current generation, is also on all the time and I don't feel
>> any part of it that has any significant overheating.
> 
> Our two 27" iMacs add to our home air-conditioning load in summer and
> reduce the heating load in winter, and they're not always rendering
> video or the like.

According to iStat the hottest part of my iMac is the power supply at 
160 degrees Farenheit. But when I'm using it I can't say I feel any 
heat increase.

-- 
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:45:58 UTC, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com>
wrote:

> The CDC 6400 was the third computer I worked with, being preceded by a 
> Bendis G20 and an ANFSQ-7.

A Q-7 was my second, the XD-1 machine at Lincoln Lab. The first was 
an IBM 704 at Chance Vought Aircraft.

-- 
John Varela

In message <5031e3a6$0$2473$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Lewis wrote:

>> To the computer or to your legs?

> To the computer. I know that some models of laptops had been used as
> consoles for x86 machines in computer rooms (which means on 7/24) and
> experienced high failure rates and the vendor told the customer that
> laptops had not been designed to be used 7/24.

We're not talking about Macs then, are we?

> This was a number of years ago and they weren't Apple ones. So I was
> wondering if this would be an issue/concern with modern laptops,
> specifically the oned designed by Jonathan Ives for Apple with the fancy
>  but quiet ventilation.

Well, I don't have any empirical evidence, but I know I've *used* this
MacBookPro, and the previous MacBook for stretches of 18 hours many
times, and I did have the MacBook setup as a TV computer for several
months (set up with an external display and told to never sleep), but I
stopped doing that when it couldn't play h.264 video well enough.

I do know that some people like to run their laptops with an external
display and the internal display off, but open due to heat issues, but I
don't know if that has any basis in fact. I expect APple does not think
so since they eliminated this feature in 10.8.

-- 
Transvestite: A guy who likes to eat, drink and be Mary.

In article <a9f1bvFdp2U1@mid.individual.net>,
 TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@me.com> wrote:

> On 2012-08-20 12:15:26 +0000, Davoud said:
> 
> > Some people may have assumed that laptops were not designed for
> > continuous use, but I did not and I have been using laptops for long
> > workdays for many years.
> 
> When my MacBook Pro (Apple doesn't use the term "laptop") is not "on 
> the road" I keep it on a cooling stand which has several small fans for 
> improving the circulation of air around the base of the computer. When 
> my MacBook Pro was at home it was continuously on and I never 
> experienced (at least to my awareness) any problem with overheating.
> 
> My iMac, current generation, is also on all the time and I don't feel 
> any part of it that has any significant overheating.

I have one of those plastic crystal cases on my MacBook Pro, which has 
little feet on the back of it (like keyboards have), so I open the feet 
up and set it on a laptop pad when I'm running video-- it gets pretty 
warm on my quads otherwise.
-- 
Good judgment results from experience, and experience results from bad judgment.

On 2012-08-19 21:11 , Your Name wrote:
> In article <a6GdnYv33Olx9qzNnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2012-08-19 17:21 , Your Name wrote:

>>> Apple already has an almost thin client-like desktop device: the Mac Mini.
>>
>> It would need to be thinner.  No HD, very limited local storage.
>>
>>         Ethernet 10/100/1000
>>         WiFi b/g/n
>>         SD
>>         2 or 3 USB ports
>>         DVI out
>>         Audio in/out.
>>
>> With a retail price around $250.
>
> I did say "almost".

I'm not griping at your post, just setting a closer target.

The Mac Mini is a potent little package.  Too much so to be a thin 
client and too expensive for companies to consider.

Indeed, many thin clients use ARM processors running Linux or other non 
Windows OS.  As I mentioned further up the Apple TV might be a better 
starting point.

-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

On 2012-08-19 21:13 , JF Mezei wrote:
> Comment/question.
>
> Laptops have traditionally (or perhaps historically) not been designed
> for 24/7 use because it was assumed they would be used for a couple of
> hours at a time. Ventilation and battery may not be suitable for
> continuous use, especially if the CPU is constabtly being used (such as
> Handbake etc).

We ran laptops continuously over many months at varying loads.  Some 
were doing the signal processing for up to 4 external systems at a time, 
24/7 with CPU loads in the 40 - 60% range.

Batteries were not an issue in this case though they may have suffered 
from the heat they were taking as opposed to making.  If this is a long 
term thing you can always remove the batteries and store them (at half 
charge for NiMH and Li-ion).

Keep it in an open area and it should not be an issue.

The metal enclosures (of most recent Macs) help bring the heat out. Just 
blow a small fan at each laptop if you want to keep them cooler.

The screen generates a lot of heat too.  Run the processes with the 
video off.

-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

On 2012-08-19 21:13 , Your Name wrote:
> In article <Yv-dnVIxgZqi96zNnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2012-08-19 17:19 , Your Name wrote:
>>>
>>> A laptop with the equivalent power, storage space, etc. plus the extra
>>> device like the larger display, external keyboard and mouse / trackpad
>>> will cost you more to buy and use up more desk space. Many people buying a
>>> laptop do so simply because it looks "cool" / as a trendy fashion
>>> statment.
>>
>> It looks really silly when you plug your 27" Mac in at Starbucks or put
>> in the basket at the airport to go through the x-ray.
>
> I did have a paragraph before that which said "Unless you actually need
> portability ..."

I was replying to your assertion that people buy laptops for appearances 
rather than function - I don't agree with that.

-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

On 2012-08-20 14:00 , TaliesinSoft wrote:
> On 2012-08-20 15:32:33 +0000, Davoud said:
>
> [in response to my having stated]
>
>>
>>> My iMac, current generation, is also on all the time and I don't feel
>>> any part of it that has any significant overheating.
>>
>> Our two 27" iMacs add to our home air-conditioning load in summer and
>> reduce the heating load in winter, and they're not always rendering
>> video or the like.
>
> According to iStat the hottest part of my iMac is the power supply at
> 160 degrees Farenheit. But when I'm using it I can't say I feel any heat
> increase.

Run handbrake for 30 minutes while doing other work (so the backlight 
stays on) and the top bezel can get very hot to the touch.

-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

On 2012-08-20 03:13 , JF Mezei wrote:
> Lewis wrote:
>
>> To the computer or to your legs?
>
> To the computer. I know that some models of laptops had been used as
> consoles for x86 machines in computer rooms (which means on 7/24) and
> experienced high failure rates and the vendor told the customer that
> laptops had not been designed to be used 7/24.

Horse apples.  The vendor was making excuses for a poor design in that 
model.  We ran Dell, hp and Toshiba laptops (and others too) 24/7 with 
good CPU loadings in the lab.  No failures at all.


-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

In article <692dnZ5JFpUqMa_NnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2012-08-19 21:13 , Your Name wrote:
> > In article <Yv-dnVIxgZqi96zNnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> > <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >> On 2012-08-19 17:19 , Your Name wrote:
> >>>
> >>> A laptop with the equivalent power, storage space, etc. plus the extra
> >>> device like the larger display, external keyboard and mouse / trackpad
> >>> will cost you more to buy and use up more desk space. Many people buying a
> >>> laptop do so simply because it looks "cool" / as a trendy fashion
> >>> statment.
> >>
> >> It looks really silly when you plug your 27" Mac in at Starbucks or put
> >> in the basket at the airport to go through the x-ray.
> >
> > I did have a paragraph before that which said "Unless you actually need
> > portability ..."
> 
> I was replying to your assertion that people buy laptops for appearances 
> rather than function - I don't agree with that.

I said MANY people, not ALL people (or even most people). 

Many people do buy a laptop / notebook simply to jump on the latest fad
bandwagon and then leave it sitting on their desk 24/7. "I've got a
laptop, ain't I cool."

These days the iPad has taken over largely as the latest "must have" fad,
but there are still people buying laptops when they don't actually need
them.

In article <PuidneN0mpC4N6_NnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2012-08-19 21:11 , Your Name wrote:
> > In article <a6GdnYv33Olx9qzNnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> > <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >> On 2012-08-19 17:21 , Your Name wrote:
> 
> >>> Apple already has an almost thin client-like desktop device: the Mac Mini.
> >>
> >> It would need to be thinner.  No HD, very limited local storage.
> >>
> >>         Ethernet 10/100/1000
> >>         WiFi b/g/n
> >>         SD
> >>         2 or 3 USB ports
> >>         DVI out
> >>         Audio in/out.
> >>
> >> With a retail price around $250.
> >
> > I did say "almost".
> 
> I'm not griping at your post, just setting a closer target.
> 
> The Mac Mini is a potent little package.  Too much so to be a thin 
> client and too expensive for companies to consider.
> 
> Indeed, many thin clients use ARM processors running Linux or other non 
> Windows OS.  As I mentioned further up the Apple TV might be a better 
> starting point.

If you want a really "thin" client, you could almost use an iPad. You can
already get apps that let you control a computer via wi-fi / Internet,
external keyboards, disply content on a bigger screen, and use the iPad
screen itself as a large trackpad.

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.

.... and I thought this post would be about technical ("Finder") issues -
silly me...

        hauke

-- 
Now without signature.

On 2012-08-20 21:22 , Your Name wrote:
> In article <692dnZ5JFpUqMa_NnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2012-08-19 21:13 , Your Name wrote:
>>> In article <Yv-dnVIxgZqi96zNnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>>> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2012-08-19 17:19 , Your Name wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> A laptop with the equivalent power, storage space, etc. plus the extra
>>>>> device like the larger display, external keyboard and mouse / trackpad
>>>>> will cost you more to buy and use up more desk space. Many people buying a
>>>>> laptop do so simply because it looks "cool" / as a trendy fashion
>>>>> statment.
>>>>
>>>> It looks really silly when you plug your 27" Mac in at Starbucks or put
>>>> in the basket at the airport to go through the x-ray.
>>>
>>> I did have a paragraph before that which said "Unless you actually need
>>> portability ..."
>>
>> I was replying to your assertion that people buy laptops for appearances
>> rather than function - I don't agree with that.
>
> I said MANY people, not ALL people (or even most people).
>
> Many people do buy a laptop / notebook simply to jump on the latest fad
> bandwagon and then leave it sitting on their desk 24/7. "I've got a
> laptop, ain't I cool."

Horsefeathers.


-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> Those figures are incredibly misleading, as they always are when taken out
> of context. Many people are awaiting the new iMac release before buying,
> while new laptops were released during that timeframe so were being
> snapped up.
> 
> In reality, Mac computer sales have been and still are growing, just not
> as massively fast as the iPad / iPhone figures - in fact Apple is one of
> the few companies growing their sales during the "economic problems". The
> "halo" effect is meaning more people are switching to Macs when it comes
> time to upgrade their computers (which is currently less often then it
> used to be).

100% right.

Howard

On 8/18/12 4:38 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> 1.  Mac desktops are really good machines.  There's no
> urgency to upgrade.  Mine is 4.5 years old and serves me
> very well and is keeping my "new Mac" lust pretty low.

I'm typing this on my 2004-vintage PowerMac g4/1.25dp MDD. 
It's had heavy usage (sometimes 12+ hours a day) for years, 
and still doing fine. I had to replace the 120mm fan a 
couple of times, easy repair.

It still does everything I need to do for "general 
home-office related stuff". Now and then I run into glitches 
with web content, because the version of Safari on it is 
dated and not upgradeable.

I'll replace it someday... perhaps when Apple finally gets 
around to issuing an update to the Mac Mini...

In article <5046384b$0$15530$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews.com>, John
Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> On 8/18/12 4:38 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> > 1.  Mac desktops are really good machines.  There's no
> > urgency to upgrade.  Mine is 4.5 years old and serves me
> > very well and is keeping my "new Mac" lust pretty low.
> 
> I'm typing this on my 2004-vintage PowerMac g4/1.25dp MDD. 
> It's had heavy usage (sometimes 12+ hours a day) for years, 
> and still doing fine. I had to replace the 120mm fan a 
> couple of times, easy repair.
> 
> It still does everything I need to do for "general 
> home-office related stuff". Now and then I run into glitches 
> with web content, because the version of Safari on it is 
> dated and not upgradeable.

Instead of Safari, you might want to try an older version of Firefox. I
run Firefox 1.0.7 under Mac OS X 10.1 and it copes with most websites, the
major exception is those that need a newer version of horrible Flash.



> I'll replace it someday... perhaps when Apple finally gets 
> around to issuing an update to the Mac Mini...

You guys are cutting-edge ... :-)

I've had my PowerMac G3 for about 14 years and it is used daily (including
running my own business). The Epson printer I use is that old too,
although I have to reboot into Mac OS 9 to print. The original Apple
display died, the bulb in the scanner bought at the same time died too
(thanks to the silly design not having an off switch on the case!), and
I've been through a few mice, but no major problems at all. I put in a
bigger hard drive, some extra RAM and upgraded it to both Mac OS 9.2 and X
10.1. I took out the floppy disk drive (which needs a good clean before it
will work again anyway) and used that space for the original hard drive.

In article <5046384b$0$15530$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews.com>,
 John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> On 8/18/12 4:38 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
> > 1.  Mac desktops are really good machines.  There's no
> > urgency to upgrade.  Mine is 4.5 years old and serves me
> > very well and is keeping my "new Mac" lust pretty low.
> 
> I'm typing this on my 2004-vintage PowerMac g4/1.25dp MDD. 
> It's had heavy usage (sometimes 12+ hours a day) for years, 
> and still doing fine. I had to replace the 120mm fan a 
> couple of times, easy repair.
> 
> It still does everything I need to do for "general 
> home-office related stuff". Now and then I run into glitches 
> with web content, because the version of Safari on it is 
> dated and not upgradeable.
> 
> I'll replace it someday... perhaps when Apple finally gets 
> around to issuing an update to the Mac Mini...

What's wrong with the existing model?

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

In article <5046384b$0$15530$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews.com>,
 John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> 2004-vintage PowerMac g4/1.25dp MDD. 
> It's had heavy usage (sometimes 12+ hours a day) for years, 
> and still doing fine. ...

> It still does everything I need to do for "general 
> home-office related stuff". Now and then I run into glitches 
> with web content, because the version of Safari on it is 
> dated and not upgradeable.

The pegging of browser developments for them is about the most serious 
downside. They were more than great machines for their time.

-- 
dorayme

On 9/4/12 5:32 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
> What's wrong with the existing model?

I'm holding out for USB3 instead of USB2.

Also, I expect the Mini's with Ivy Bridge will have the 
Intel 4000 integrated graphics, which is reported to be much 
better than the current Intel 3000 series.

Actually, the 2004 PowerMac g4 still works fine, just need a 
"good enough" excuse to spend the $$$ for something new.

In article <5048cb39$0$15487$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews.com>,
 John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> On 9/4/12 5:32 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
> > What's wrong with the existing model?
> 
> I'm holding out for USB3 instead of USB2.
> 
> Also, I expect the Mini's with Ivy Bridge will have the 
> Intel 4000 integrated graphics, which is reported to be much 
> better than the current Intel 3000 series.
> 
> Actually, the 2004 PowerMac g4 still works fine, just need a 
> "good enough" excuse to spend the $$$ for something new.

Righto. I found the mid-2011 a pretty good upgrade, even the low-end 
model, from a 1.8HGhz core 2 duo Mini, especially once I'd had an SSD 
fitted as a second drive and made it the boot device.

Doubtless I'll drool over whatever comes next though. One always does.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

In message <5048cb39$0$15487$a8266bb1@newsreader.readnews.com> 
  John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
> On 9/4/12 5:32 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
>> What's wrong with the existing model?

> I'm holding out for USB3 instead of USB2.

> Also, I expect the Mini's with Ivy Bridge will have the 
> Intel 4000 integrated graphics, which is reported to be much 
> better than the current Intel 3000 series.

Yeah, I'm looking to buy a mini and then either a new iMac or a new
MacPro. I'd prefer the Mac Pro, but I'm getting antsy to replace my
MacPro1,1 so I might not be able to wait.

-- 
I CAN BE ROBBED BUT NEVER DENIED, I TOLD MYSELF. WHY WORRY?  'I too
cannot be cheated,' snapped Fate.  SO I HAVE HEARD.

In article <Jq2dnV2GQYYjLLLNnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> The trend continues whereby Mac desktop sales are no longer growing.
> 
> In the 3 months ended 30 June 2012, Mac desktops were down 13% (units) 
> over the prior year, same period.  (For the 9 months ending the same 
> day, Mac desktop sales were up 9%)
> 
> Laptops were up 8% however showing that the power of laptops have now 
> made them the first choice of people getting their first Mac or updating 
> their system.  Portables are up 13% over the 9 month period.
> 
> Macs accounted for $4.933B in sales in the quarter - a 3% drop from last 
> year's quarter.
> 
> And that accounts for 14% of Apple's business in the quarter down from 
> nearly 18% a year ago.
> 
> Further, at this time last year, Mac's were a $20B+/year business and 
> now it is on trend to be less than $20B / year.  Apple explain this away 
> as 'general weakness in the market'.  The next quarters will tell.
> 
> Nearly $20B is nothing to sniff at to be sure but it appears that the 
> Mac Summer is cooling.
> 
> (For comparison, hp's 6 months ending April was $18.325B or 
> $9.162B/quarter for notebooks, desktops and workstations).
> 
> Of course other segments (iphone and ipad) continue their spectacular 
> growth (while iPod continues to plunge).  iPad unit sales were up 84% 
> for the quarter and 108% for the 9 months.  iPhone 28 and 78% 
> respectively while iPod has slowed 10 and 17% resp.


The Mac Pro hardware is aging and MacOS 10.7 launched with a huge step 
backwards in performance and usability for many people.  They're of poor 
value right now.

This is nothing new for Apple.  Remember the Power Mac G5?  Apple kept 
trying to sell the "world's fastest personal computer" of 2003 at 
premium prices well into 2006 when they had become embarrassingly slow, 
power hungry, and obsolete.
-- 
I will not see posts from Google because I must filter them as spam