Any interesting new retail desktop PCs these days?

[Palomine]

Taking an informal survey of friends and colleagues, it seems laptops have usurped desktops at some point... I must have been napping when it happened. Don't get me wrong: I like laptops for their portability as much as the next guy or gal, and have owned a few (I'm typing this in bed using an old ThinkPad running Linux). Conversely, I also dislike laptops for all the usual reasons: compared to desktops, they're usually more expensive (than a desktop with similar specs), they tend to be more fragile, parts for repair or upgrade (RAM) are more expensive and of course, they're less expandable which tends to shorten their effective lifespans vs. desktops with slots, bays, more ports, external keyboards/displays, etc...

My current 'main' computer is a hulking old Dell desktop with dual Xeon CPUs (also running Linux: a love of Ubuntu is the only thing Lady Gaga and I have in common ). It's about 5 years old and despite a few quirks (and some awful quality control on the part of Dell) it's easily got a few more years of use left in it. So, I'm not in the market for a new computer at the moment... but that doesn't mean I don't think about them of course.

I'm wondering if any of you (who, like me, just like computers for the productive, multi-function tools they can be) have seen/heard of any interesting desktop computers lately... and for the purposes of this inquiry, desktop means anything that's not a laptop or tablet. So, in addition to traditional 'tower' desktops, mini-towers, all-in-ones, compact computers, etc... are all fair game. CPU, internal storage capacity, operating system and price are moot: I'm interested in ANY current desktop computer that's interesting regardless of specs/particulars. So... make some suggestions and give me hope that desktops aren't going to be extinct anytime too soon.

I'll start by pointing out that Apple's got a new generation of Mac Minis:

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/mac_mini/select

Now BEFORE you Apple-haters moan about how a PC with comparable specs costs less, let me spare you the effort: we know. As mentioned, price is not germane to this discussion... I'm putting it forward (I've never owned a Mac Mini and no longer use any kind of Mac these days) simply because it's interesting. Minis are tiny (1.5" tall), nice to look at, are equipped with modern processors (finally! prior generation Minis weren't quite so up-to-date in that area) and a whole wonderful plethora of ports including Firewire 800 (my personal favorite for most of the past decade) and some newfangled thingy called Thunderbolt which looks like it could eventually make Firewire and their short-bus cousin USB obsolete. There's even an i7 quad-core server version (yes, it and the base Mini have modest graphics, but not everyone plays videogames) and the only (relatively minor) caveat is that Apple's decided to omit an internal optical drive. Of course, we all remember the fuss when they started selling computers without floppy drives (and later, SCSI ports) and we all survived.

So: IMHO the new/current Mac Mini is an interesting desktop computer. There must be a PC equivalent: some minimalist but still useful little Windows box perhaps? Or maybe some unusual tower PC that's caught your eye?

[Lightfoot]

I actually have a Mac mini, but an older (early 2009) model.  I'm using it right now.

There are some small PCs, but usually they have Atom processors.  Dell once sold a black computer that was a similar size and shape, but I don't see it on their site anymore.

Looking at the site, some of Dell's computers are attractive looking physically.  It's odd that Apple started the whole trend of offering computers in different colors, but now all of their computers are white or brushed metal.  I missed out on Apple's colored computers.  Despite owning a series of Macs, all of mine were gray/silver.

I can't imagine not having a desktop as my main computer.  I also can't imagine a tablet being my main computer.  I'll eventually grow old and be the guy who complains about the "kids" and their tablets and non-desktops...  "In my day you had to sit in one place to use your computer, and we liked it." 

[Bad Kitty]

Macs are not the greatest desktops. It's not just a matter of price point, it's a matter of quality of the hardware, quality and proprietary nonsense involved in peripherals, and how well a wide range of software can be run without problems. When I was in college, we had a computer lab with brand new iMacs to work on, but I would take my homework home to work on it on my 2 year older pc, because it worked better, caused less eye strain, and was just generally superior in every way. Mac's put style over substance.

Macs are user friendly, and relatively virus free. For typical laptop use (which traditionally means only light computing needs) a mac would probably be fine, and perhaps even slightly more secure to do your banking & whatnot on. If you're going to do gaming or design work or video editing, or any 'heavy lifting' type application, I can't imagine why you'd want either a laptop or the mac brand. Of course apple is one of several major companies which lately seem to have an enormous problem trying to grasp concepts like consumer privacy or consumer rights... so that's also a possible issue.

Not sure why you think that desktops are dead. To me that just seems like a very strange thing to say. Although, a majority of the 'good' desktops being made these days are home-built, as users have become more savvy with the internal workings of their computers. Laptops fundamentally lack the power and the heat dissipation necessary to do up to date gaming or resource-heavy computing. "mini" desktop computers are generally impossible to work on or upgrade, and while they get enough power from the wall socket, they generally lack the ability to dissipate heat very well. I mean my power supply alone would likely overheat the inside of a mini desktop (and take up nearly all of the space). If you want 'performance' for play or work (assuming your computing work requires some computing muscle), then you're looking at a mid or full tower, just like always.

Interesting desktops? I'd imagine mine qualifies (still need to replace my camera). Start with a computer armoire, then add in a black rosewill mid tower case. leave the side off the case for lower temperatures, cut a hole in the back of the armoire that snugly fits the back of the case, make sure the cooling tower on the cpu blows towards the back exhaust fan, then all your hot air is vented behind the armoire. You'll need to cut a couple more holes to let wires back inside the armoire. fill the face of the armoire with a 28" 1920x1200 monitor. that blocks access/view to the computer case though, so you'll want an external case power switch button, which you can velcro to the keyboard drawer. under the monitor on the right you'll want to put your primary optical drive, it just fits nicely in the space between the bottom of the monitor the side of the monitor stand, and the side of the armoire. it's an internal though, so it looks a little odd out there on it's own. I put it on a rubber pad so it doesn't slide around. there's hard drives on the other side, HD activity lights peeking out under the monitor on the left. no need really to physically mount a hard drive to the case, it's just a frame to hold the motherboard and power supply. speakers screwed into the inside top of the armoire at the corners, over the monitor, subwoofer around back. big ergo keyboard & gaming mouse on the keyboard drawer, which is modified to be an extra 10" wide to accommodate a game pad (nostromo n52). Huge UPS outside the armoire, powering pretty much everything and even offering battery backup to the table top alarm clock, and charging stations for cell, mp3 player, etc. laser printer under the keyboard shelf, on it's own slide out shelf, under that a scanner which needs replacing since it can't connect to this motherboard. It used to all be entangled with a secondary server computer on the right side of the armoire with a KVM switch, but that is currently defunct. Wires... 'everywhere'. I'm not sure what all the wires are anymore. I'm actually not sure what all of the hardware is anymore, there's a lot of it. This thing keeps growing, and mutating. There's a couple small tube lights mounted behind the monitor, to light things up for working on the computer, when it needs nurturing, or dusting. Basically it's a mass of wood, wires, more wires than you can imagine, wires that weave through each other like some madness inspired spider web, duct tape, sheet metal, plastic, cut holes, openings and ducting, etc. It has a definite cyberpunk feel to it, bordering on something out of a giger painting. There's always lights on somewhere within it's bowels, LED's letting out an eerie glow. it's cables and wires reach out all around it like unholy tendrils trying to assimilate more of the room. it's circuits bare, and strewn out all throughout it's husk, it looks almost like electronic gore.
Even if the power goes out, it never sleeps...
but I do
and I think it watches me...


if left unchecked, I could almost imagine it spreading throughout the bedroom, growing into something like this: (albeit with a much more massive screen)

[Palomine]

Interesting responses... thanks to both of you.

Though I liked hearing about your custom homebuilt computer-furniture hybrid (and would love to see a photo) Kitty, I probably should have specifically excluded home-built computers from my inquiry... I was asking more about machines people can just go out and buy. Like most 'power users' (I dislike the term) I've built a PC (detailed around here in a thread somewhere) and though it's a popular undertaking among a certain very small segment of users (compared to all computer users) it's more a subject for another thread (in fact, I think we had one around here someplace about the best custom PC & case mods that we've run across). I myself had a vaguely similar setup to yours at one point: though instead growing onto and around a piece of furniture, I built everything into a small closet complete with it's own UPS, AC, slide-out drawers for printer and scanner, remote power switch and more than a dozen peripherals and external drives, all shared by two linked workstations (one Mac, one Windows) which also both shared a pair of separate front-end setups (display, speakers, kbd/mouse) in two different rooms. In fact, it's only my change-over to Ubuntu within the past year that's simplified my personal computing environment down to a single OS, a lot less hardware and (finally) less than a linear mile of cables.

I posed the question because of what I've been seeing around me over the past few years: many home users (even sophisticated computer-savvy ones) and many business users (in smaller companies) seem to be favoring laptops overwhelmingly. An anecdotal impression on my part to be sure... I didn't google to compare actual laptop vs desktop sales historically, but I'd be a bit surprised if my impression were incorrect: I suspect desktop sales have been trending down and laptops up for a while now. (Added later: a very cursory skim of google indicates that depending on the metric used, laptops (all, including netbooks) have overtaken desktops in sales as far back as '05 and almost certainly by '08... some projections even show tablets outselling desktops by 2015... again, there's so much data on this I'm only relaying what seems to be the gist). Of course, I'm sure there are certain demographic exceptions: I expect that in large corporate environments it's still standard operating procedure to put a desktop on every desk, but in the sorts of companies I deal with (from a dozen to no more than a few thousand employees) you see several laptops for each desktop as you walk through the building (yes, I'm accounting for machine/server rooms too where applicable ).

Incidentally, I respectfully disagree with some of your other points: "Mac desktops having poor quality hardware, peripheral issues, unsuitability for 'heavy lifting' like video editing, etc..." ...in my many years of professional and personal computer use (since I was but a wee lad with an Apple ][+ in the late 1970s) I've used, owned, sold, fixed, supported and/or evangelized just about every kind of system out there (with the exception of a few exotics) including CP/M, DOS, Unix, Irix, Linux, MacOS, and a half-dozen different versions of Windows... and my personal experience (and years of objective data such as Consumer Reports surveys) runs contrary to those statements. But that's moot... I certainly wasn't looking for yet another Mac vs. PC debate anymore than I was asking about custom home-built computers.

I'm just curious about what passes for interesting these days as regards retail computers other than laptops/note-netbooks, tablets/smartphones... more traditional computers if you will. I know the considerable commercial success of four generations of iMacs over the years have spawned a variety of similar all-in-one designs from HP, Sony, Dell, etc... though I'm not too familiar with any of them myself. I'm also interested to hear from Lightfoot that Dell made something vaguely comparable to the Mini at some point... I'll be googling around for it.

I'm not suggesting that desktop computer design is completely stagnant, or that the entire format is going down an evolutionary dead-end with the shift to smaller, lighter computing 'devices' ...I'm just wondering what's interesting out there these days.

Edited to add photo of Dell 'Green Mini PC' aka? 'Studio Hybrid mini-PC' circa mid-2008 I found... is this what you were talking about Lightfoot? I haven't read much about it yet, but it sure is cute! As mentioned, it's no longer made (nor does Dell have anything like it anymore ) but when it was available, there was even a $140. option for a bamboo case.

ACH! foiled by the 1-1-1 rule! ...I'll put the photo back tonight, when my 24 hrs are up. In the meantime: here's a link for more info: http://www.gizmag.com/dells-499-studio-hybrid-mini-pc-is-their-smallest-greenest-pc-yet/9719/

[Bad Kitty]

compatibility.

it's not 'fair' in terms of business competitiveness, but this is the one thing that makes windows pc's 'better' for a wider range of uses. I'm no pc fangirl, I just like things that 'work'. I like not having to repetitively say "oh, I can't do that i have [whatever OS]", or fighting to make things work stably. I have a friend who swears by linux, but he says the "i can't do that" phrase almost daily, and spends long hours making things work that are plug & play for me.

as far as hardware quality. I have only used 4 macs total, ranging from the early 80's until 2001 or so. the apple II E was pretty good. the 90's model i used was very limited by having so many things all built into one case, in such a way that you were stuck with all the hardware components. the quality was pretty decent in terms of durability, but it was utterly in-upgradeable. the late 90's macs were the older machines in the computer lab at school, they were reasonably good, but compatibility complications made running many types of software into a buggy process, replete with crashes. Then I got to use the iMac's, with their brightly colored translucent cases... And honestly it was an all new low point for quality. Pretty yes, but the monitors had grainy resolution and flickered badly enough to cause headaches. the mouse was a round 'puck' with no tactile sense of position and a cord stiff enough to move it around when you let go. And again with the compatibility-based crashes on a routine basis, even more often than any previous model. They looked cool, but were technically inferior to my much older pc at home in every possible way. even having hypothetically twice the processor speed did nothing to make the end product actually 'work' better.

laptops are handy, and have always been a popular choice for many business uses, home uses, or 'passive' commuting (trains, busses, etc). I don't think anything has happened to make them 'more' attractive though (with the possible exception of the prevalence of mobil wifi access). They still fill the same mission role. And they still have the same sets of pros vs cons that they always did. And while wifi access is more readily available these days, I would think that the advantages of a portable computer are actually becoming largely offset by the increasing capabilities of modern smartphones. An increasing number of computing tasks which would be well suited to a laptop, are becoming the domain of the phone in your pocket. So while laptops are more capable than ever, and easier to get online anywhere... desktops are also more capable than ever in their own uses, and smart phones are more capable than ever and doing a lot of what a laptop can do. Likewise, tablets are furthering that trend of gobbling up the domain of laptops.

I have a laptop myself, it's not my main computer, but it's one of the two computers I use for banking & such (the other technically being a save-capable linux install on a flash drive). It's been handy on many occasions. But I find that since getting a smartphone, I use the laptop considerably less often.

bear in mind that with laptops you're stuck in a non-upgradeable situation in most cases. you're paying a large premium for the specs, and if anything breaks, like your monitor going out, it's going to potentially ruin your whole system as replacing the part will be almost as painful as getting a new laptop.

What's "interesting" about a computer? if it's a cool-looking case or being super small or anything like that, then I kinda feel like that's more a fashion issue, and doesn't have much substance. smaller is better for portable platforms, but the micro desktops are kind of an oxymoron of function and capability.

interesting... uh...
alienware has a new laptop out at around 20lbs. it's considered a 'gaming laptop', but would also be suitable for heavy design work. but then, technically it doesn't weigh any less than my desktop, and it needs to be plugged in often.

question: what do you want a computer for exactly? that will drastically affect what options are a good choice.

[Palomine]

compatibility.

it's not 'fair' in terms of business competitiveness, but this is the one thing that makes windows pc's 'better' for a wider range of uses. I'm no pc fangirl, I just like things that 'work'. I like not having to repetitively say "oh, I can't do that i have [whatever OS]", or fighting to make things work stably. I have a friend who swears by linux, but he says the "i can't do that" phrase almost daily, and spends long hours making things work that are plug & play for me.

as far as hardware quality. I have only used 4 macs total, ranging from the early 80's until 2001 or so. the apple II E was pretty good. the 90's model i used was very limited by having so many things all built into one case, in such a way that you were stuck with all the hardware components. the quality was pretty decent in terms of durability, but it was utterly in-upgradeable. the late 90's macs were the older machines in the computer lab at school, they were reasonably good, but compatibility complications made running many types of software into a buggy process, replete with crashes. Then I got to use the iMac's, with their brightly colored translucent cases... And honestly it was an all new low point for quality. Pretty yes, but the monitors had grainy resolution and flickered badly enough to cause headaches. the mouse was a round 'puck' with no tactile sense of position and a cord stiff enough to move it around when you let go. And again with the compatibility-based crashes on a routine basis, even more often than any previous model. They looked cool, but were technically inferior to my much older pc at home in every possible way. even having hypothetically twice the processor speed did nothing to make the end product actually 'work' better.

laptops are handy, and have always been a popular choice for many business uses, home uses, or 'passive' commuting (trains, busses, etc). I don't think anything has happened to make them 'more' attractive though (with the possible exception of the prevalence of mobil wifi access). They still fill the same mission role. And they still have the same sets of pros vs cons that they always did. And while wifi access is more readily available these days, I would think that the advantages of a portable computer are actually becoming largely offset by the increasing capabilities of modern smartphones. An increasing number of computing tasks which would be well suited to a laptop, are becoming the domain of the phone in your pocket. So while laptops are more capable than ever, and easier to get online anywhere... desktops are also more capable than ever in their own uses, and smart phones are more capable than ever and doing a lot of what a laptop can do. Likewise, tablets are furthering that trend of gobbling up the domain of laptops.

I have a laptop myself, it's not my main computer, but it's one of the two computers I use for banking & such (the other technically being a save-capable linux install on a flash drive). It's been handy on many occasions. But I find that since getting a smartphone, I use the laptop considerably less often.

bear in mind that with laptops you're stuck in a non-upgradeable situation in most cases. you're paying a large premium for the specs, and if anything breaks, like your monitor going out, it's going to potentially ruin your whole system as replacing the part will be almost as painful as getting a new laptop.

What's "interesting" about a computer? if it's a cool-looking case or being super small or anything like that, then I kinda feel like that's more a fashion issue, and doesn't have much substance. smaller is better for portable platforms, but the micro desktops are kind of an oxymoron of function and capability.

interesting... uh...
alienware has a new laptop out at around 20lbs. it's considered a 'gaming laptop', but would also be suitable for heavy design work. but then, technically it doesn't weigh any less than my desktop, and it needs to be plugged in often.

question: what do you want a computer for exactly? that will drastically affect what options are a good choice.

If I was unclear, I apologize... but you seem to have misunderstood my original question... I've got 30+ years of computer experience, so I'm well aware of the pros and cons of various platforms. Nor was I asking for purchase advice (I believe I said that too).

Perhaps I should've defined 'interesting' ...I assumed that my choice of the word and the context in which I used it sort of got my point across: what current retail desktop computers have caught people's attention? It could be features, or design, or value, or options... whatever makes it stand out from the sea of generic tower-type desktops. To me, a spray-painted case with a plexi window and colored lights inside isn't particularly interesting (though I know it's a gamer favorite) ...I was thinking of how a desktop computer can be packaged... how it's components have been integrated... whether skill and thought have gone into it by the manufacturer and how that improves its utility and (dare I say it?) the pleasure a user can derive from it. Hence my inclusion of the latest-gen Mini... it's interesting to me.

By the way: by your own admission your experience with Macs is more than a full decade out of date... it would seem to predate everything from the switch to Intel CPUs and other standardized components, to pretty much everything else that makes a Mac a Mac these days including (most importantly) OSX which is, after all, really what makes Macs strong, stable, simple to use and pleasureable. Given that your use of Macs ended around 2001, it's no suprise that you think they're so different, incompatible and generally inferior... you're missing 10 years of recent history, which is a long time in computers. 10 years ago, digital music players, cellphones, digital cameras, Korean cars and whole bunch of other things were so vastly different from how they are today that relying on the out-of-date as a reference is limiting. Heck, in 2001 Apple itself was on the ropes financially and looking like it'd be taken over by some larger firm. Today, it's stronger financially than Microsoft and Intel combined and briefly, it was even bigger than Exxon Mobil. A lot can change in a decade.

I liked the //e I had too (Z80 coprocessor, Novation Applecat and Videx Ultraterm for the win!). And as you're listing all the the laptop caveats and compromises I outlined in my original post, I of course agree with you on all of those points too. Your suggestion about the impact of the recent prevelance of wifi (and 3/4G access too) is well taken, and yes, just as laptops seem to have eclipsed/be eclipsing desktops as the personal computing appliance of choice by the masses, I've little doubt that smartphones and tablets will displace laptops before too long.

[Trace]

I'm starting to see interesting things with small-form-factor computers, what they term HTPC's - home theater PC's - things like the Mac mini.

The mini itself was very tempting to me as an HTPC until they went and removed the optical drive from the thing.  To me, that's a similar blunder to when they discontinued the floppy drive half a decade too early on the original iMacs - back when you might have an iMac with only a CD reader, no burner, no floppy drive - and this was before broadband was common, back when dialup was still in common use, and flash drives were beyond exotic.

Dell had a similar thing - the Zino - which could be had with a quad-core AMD processor and discrete graphics processor, plus a Blu-ray drive - but they just discontinued it earlier this fall.

I'm satisfied with my new PC - home-built from parts, case a little flashier than I'd normally choose, but it fits in my desk and runs everything I've thrown at it, probably quite future-proof for a while, too.

[Palomine]

The Dell Zino is very interesting... thanks Trace!

http://www.dell.com/us/p/inspiron-zino-hd-410/pd

One of those, running Ubuntu, would probably be a pleasure. I only found one 'fully loaded' Zino sold recently on eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dell-Zino-HD-AMD-X2-2-3GHz-6GB-1TB-Blu-Ray-Win7-64-/220875655210?pt=Desktop_PCs&hash=item336d37082a#ht_500wt_943) and it went for $567. used... which is just about $25. less than the entry Mini costs new (of course, the Zino includes more RAM and the Blueray drive... I don't know how their CPUs compare in terms of performance (Athlon X2 vs Intel i5). Other (lower spec) Zinos seem to sell used in the $250-450 range (omitting extra high and low examples) while the older Dell studio/hybrids seem to go for about $200-250 used. The Zino doesn't have Firewire let alone Thunderbolt, but there's eSata, so that helps a bit (though I gather those ports don't work for more than a few Zino owners). I mention this only because I've found USB 2.0 to be SO slow for large hard drive backups.

I suppose the Zino's a bit more comparable to a Mini than their Studio Hybrid PC from a few years ago (heck, it even looks like a Mini, even down to the brushed metal case and overall design). Yes, as mentioned, the omission of an optical drive in the new Mini is a potential cause for concern, but an external one is still an option at a very nominal cost (and with USB 2.0, Firewire 800 and Thunderbolt ports to choose from, external I/O shouldn't be an issue ). The lack of a DVD caught my eye immediately, but then again, thinking back: I don't believe that I've used either of the two optical drives in my PC all year. I certainly don't need them for making backups anymore (what with large external hard drives so cheap and fast) and for the kinds of things I might have burned a disk for in years past (to transfer more modest chunks of data) I tend to now use email attachments, file host sites and/or USB flashdrives. Of course, if the PC is to be part of a home theater (as it seems was the intent of the Zino) then a Blueray/DVD/CD drive is a necessity.

Dell released and then very quickly discontinued both the Studio Hybrid PC and then the (Inspiron) Zino... both designs seem to have had extremely brief lifespans (presumably due to poor sales, but I'm just making that assumption). I wonder what's next from them along these lines? Surely some other manufacturers must be dipping toes in these waters too?

[Palomine]

BTW Trace,

I was reading up a bit on the new Mini, and in addition to the usual download/install of apps sourced online, it apparently supports a function called "DVD or CD Sharing" which lets it wirelessly 'borrow' the DVD/CD drive of any nearby Mac or PC for 'traditional' software installations (and presumably the reading and writing of data from/to optical disks as well, since most OSes already support the access of networked drives). I was wondering about recovery of the hard drive and OS if necessary, and apparently the new version of the OS ("Lion") that ships with the new Minis includes something called "Lion Recovery" (http://www.apple.com/macosx/recovery/) ...I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but it seems that just by pressing Command-R during startup you get the option of using built-in Disk Tools, going online and even reinstalling Lion completely. Other options include "Internet Recovery" which uses an online connection to reinstall the OS on a new/blank drive and the option to create a USB flash drive with "Lion Recovery Disk Assistant" for worst-case scenarios/extra insurance.

I'm not quite clear on the details of all this (I'm assuming that the 'internal recovery' installer for Lion actually lives on the hard drive and not in a PROM or non-volatile storage or something like that) but it seems like they've done a lot of work to make the new Minis viable sans optical drive. The wireless 'borrowing' of any DVD/CD drive from a nearby computer would probably suffice 98% of the time (for me).

Of course, being a curmudgeon, I'd probably just spend the few bucks and plug an external DVD drive into the USB port and not worry about any of that other stuff.

[Bad Kitty]

My experience with macs doesn't end in 2000, I've just had the luxury of not having to use one "regularly" since then. The standardization of parts with pc's has done little to decrease the costs of a mac, because of ongoing efforts to keep things as proprietary as possible, essentially self defeating the whole purpose of standardizing in the first place. If you're using a mac, then much (perhaps 'most') of your software will be run in a windows emulator. And I don't think such a thing has ever existed (or will ever exist) as an OS emulator which works as well as the OS it's emulating.

If you do get a mac, or a laptop for that matter, then I'm assuming you're not interested in gaming or 'heavy resource usage' professional software (neither of which are particularly emulation friendly, nor laptop friendly) So a macbook would probably work just fine for what you're trying to get out of your computer. The reduced likelihood of malicious software probably counterbalances the excessive price premium. I have an HP laptop myself, it's not my primary computer, I got it second hand for a few hundred dollars, reformatted it & upgraded it to XP (it had vista from the factory but struggled to run it). It's kind of ideal for laptop use, email, browsing, light duty development tasks, outdated gaming, etc. Though I admit I do not have much of a need for portable computing, doubly so after getting a smartphone. Oh, one other 'pro' for laptops, it saves quite a bit on electricity (my desktop would suck a laptop's battery dry in a few minutes, if it would even run on it).

As for the observation about laptops dominating the industry... desktop sales show a stable market growth for many many years now, and no downtrend. Laptops are just up-trending faster. In other words, more people are getting computers, and more of the new users are getting laptops (which is probably more ideal for 'casual' computer use). But the desktop market isn't going away or anything. And really, home-building pc's is taking more of a bite out of retail desktop sales than anything. While smart phones and tablets are taking a bite out of laptop sales.

Anyway, "interesting" doesn't necessarily mean "capable, practical, upgradable, powerful, obsolescence resistant, compatible, etc." If you mean interesting in terms of capability, then really you'd need to look at individual hardware components, rather than desktops in general. If you mean interesting in terms of style... then yeah, mini/micro desktops look cool, but are really just a combination of all the 'cons' of laptops, with none of the portability. In other words, they're a niche market item which appeals to buyers as eye candy and little else.


At any rate, this is interesting:

take out the fans, and cool your computer case with cooking oil.
it's not very conductive, but it transmits heat well, like most fluids.
(yes, this really works, long term/stable. though personally I'd worry about making good contact with all the cpu pins)


this is also interesting:

it's a Dell 22" Crystal Display


this too:

display glasses, with 3D capability of course.
though they're not desktop specific, they're not even computer-specific.



a taste of things to come.

[Palomine]

Bumping to add a photo of the two now-discontinued Dell compact PCs mentioned earlier by Lightfoot and Trace.

[Lightfoot]

The Zino was the Dell computer I was talking about.  I didn't realize it came in colors other than black though.  I'd think that an AMD Athlon II x2 would be significantly weaker than an Intel i5.  The Athlon was AMD's cheapest desktop processor (although the Zino might be using a laptop version for heat/power restrictions) of at least the last generation, if not older.  The i5 is on the high end of Intel's newest processors (although again, the mini probably uses a laptop version).  I'd think the difference could be at least comparing the Core2duo in my mini to the i5 in the newest model.

My first computer was an Apple IIgs.

What I really hate in desktop computers are all-in-ons.  I like being able to pick the monitor I want.  I'd probably never buy an iMac (and their glossy screens).


I don't think Macs are as overpriced as people think.  They just in many cases use deluxe parts or have extras that many people don't need.  Most Macs have reasonably good built-in speakers (even back into the 90's), bluetooth, non-standard ports like Firewire and now Thunderbolt, slot-loaded DVD drives (which must cost more than tray drives), and you don't get an operating system that requires you to upgrade for things like writing in other languages, or using all of the features.  You could find something more powerful for cheaper, but not something identical.  Although I do think Apple should offer a more budget desktop option.

About Palomine's thoughts on laptops potentially replacing desktops for many people, I always see stories on computer sites predicting that desktop computers will be phased out in xx years.  i doubt many of these predictions end up being true.  Phones, tablets, and laptops haven't yet completely replaced cameras, wristwatches, MP3 players, video cameras, DVD players, or gaming systems.  Although on the other hand, many people I know use laptops or even tablets as their main or only computers.

[gonZo]

BTW Trace,

I was reading up a bit on the new Mini, and in addition to the usual download/install of apps sourced online, it apparently supports a function called "DVD or CD Sharing" which lets it wirelessly 'borrow' the DVD/CD drive of any nearby Mac or PC for 'traditional' software installations (and presumably the reading and writing of data from/to optical disks as well, since most OSes already support the access of networked drives). I was wondering about recovery of the hard drive and OS if necessary, and apparently the new version of the OS ("Lion") that ships with the new Minis includes something called "Lion Recovery" (http://www.apple.com/macosx/recovery/) ...I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but it seems that just by pressing Command-R during startup you get the option of using built-in Disk Tools, going online and even reinstalling Lion completely. Other options include "Internet Recovery" which uses an online connection to reinstall the OS on a new/blank drive and the option to create a USB flash drive with "Lion Recovery Disk Assistant" for worst-case scenarios/extra insurance.

I'm not quite clear on the details of all this (I'm assuming that the 'internal recovery' installer for Lion actually lives on the hard drive and not in a PROM or non-volatile storage or something like that) but it seems like they've done a lot of work to make the new Minis viable sans optical drive. The wireless 'borrowing' of any DVD/CD drive from a nearby computer would probably suffice 98% of the time (for me).

Of course, being a curmudgeon, I'd probably just spend the few bucks and plug an external DVD drive into the USB port and not worry about any of that other stuff.

Lion recovery stores a stripped-down OS (Disk Utility, etc.) in its own partition on the boot disk, so if you need to restore the OS, you boot into the partition (CMD-R, as you said) and it installs itself from there, then DLs everything else it needs from the iTunes servers.

Internet recovery is a bit different... if you lack a Lion Recovery partition (or that disk has died), but you have already purchased Lion, you can install the whole thing from the iTunes store (which remembers what software you've already bought or registered). Same process as when you buy Lion from the iTunes store: a full DL and install.

DVD/CD Sharing works as you described, but an OS install may take several hours at wireless speeds. You can directly connect the two machines with an ethernet cable, though, and the OS will choose the fastest connection by default.

[TheZookie007]

At one point in time, I'd wanted to get one of these computer-in-a-keyboards from Cybernet.

I'll start by pointing out that Apple's got a new generation of Mac Minis...

So: IMHO the new/current Mac Mini is an interesting desktop computer. There must be a PC equivalent: some minimalist but still useful little Windows box perhaps? Or maybe some unusual tower PC that's caught your eye?

I also purchased a 2009 Mac mini for iPhone development work. It hasn't gotten as much use as I thought it would, but it's a very cute little machine and packs quite a punch considering its size and form factor.

It's funny...although I know that Mac minis are desktop computers, I never picture them in my mind's eye when I think of "desktop computers"

[Palomine]

@Zookie:

That 'computer in a keyboard' IS interesting, thanks Zook! In the long run it's burdened by the same caveats as laptops (and to a lesser extent, some mini PCs) due to the small size (lack of expandability, etc...) but I could still see that being attractive to some folks for specific/finite applications or as a second computer (heck, you could just leave that in a desk drawer and pull it out when a guest wants to check their email). I know lots of netbook users use Atom processors without too much bitching about performance, so I assume it'd be adequate for modest tasks (email, light web, writing, etc...) in that regard, though I wouldn't want to try to use it for anything too demanding on a regular basis.

@Gonzo:

Thanks for elaborating on the whole Lion Recovery process: it is not something I was previously familiar with... I was just reading about it in response to Trace's concern about the lack of an optical drive in the new Apple Mini. I didn't know about the option to direct connect to another machine via an ethernet cable (as opposed to wireless)... that seems like it'd be a good approach among the available options. IIRC, I don't think I've ever had an entire hard drive OR the OS itself become unbootably corrupted in all the years (decade+) that OSX has been in use. Defragmentation also became a non issue with OSX (something I used to have to do back in the OS9 days given my archivist compulsions).

@Lightfoot:

Thanks for the clarification re: Athlon X2 vs i5... the last Athlon of any kind that I used was for a Windows 2K PC I built some years ago (thread around here called "Mac Guy Builds a PC) and that's the extent of my experience with Athlons. Of course, there are always variations of models and speeds within a CPU line.

The only all-in-one I ever owned was the original CRT iMac (the DV SE 'graphite' colored version, which came a bit better equipped than the original 'fruit flavored' iMacs at the time). Though mine was fine in this regard, I know that some other early first gen/CRT iMacs did suffer from slightly blurry screens like Bad Kitty experienced in her school's computer lab... I remember reading about this at the time... I forget whether the CRTs were made by Samsung or Hitachi ...some big-name supplier (btw, the round 'puck' mouse issue was easily solved for $5 via the addition of a snap-on plastic extension that gave it a more ergonomic mouse shape). I of course agree re: limitation of all-in-one computers (regardless of the mfgr. or OS)... despite this, I got many years of hard use out of that early iMac I had (it was the computer I used during my first few years here at the BEA) due in part to the fact that it was durable thanks in part to higher-quality components than some other mfgrs might have used in their cheaper entry-level computers at the time. Plus as you said, Apple tends to include features others omit, which can help extend the usable lifespan of a PC: that early CRT iMac had Firewire (my first machine to have it) and though it undoubtedly added some to the cost of the machine, I used the hell out of that particular feature (and still do, on other machines... though I usually have to add it myself even to recent PCs ). Incidentally, even though it would be years before Apple switched to Intel CPUs, even that first-gen iMac used standard PC-type IDE 3.5" hard drives... I upgraded mine and spent not a penny more than a Windows/PC user would have for the same upgrade.

I also agree with your appraisal of Apple pricing... anyone who's convinced that the company has become as finacially successful as it is merely as a result of the aesthetics of its products and hip advertising is fooling themselves IMO. Yes, they cost more than comparable non-Apple equivalents (though the delta is much smaller than it used to be 10+ years ago) but the customer gets value for that extra $ ...and judging by the millions of iMacs, iPhones, iPods, etc... they line up to buy, people seem to feel it's more than worth it.

I'd also suspect that OSX itself, along with the suite of Apple-authored software bundled with almost every Mac (iLife, etc...) accounts for at least $100 of the retail cost of each Mac... maybe as much as $150. IMO, that's fair given that OSX, iWeb, GarageBand, etc... are just really good software... they're worth what they cost. OTOH, every version of Windows that I've ever personally used (most recently XP, 2000 and Vista) felt as if Bill Gates should be paying me to use it. My current OS btw (Ubuntu Linux) feels like it's worth money, which is saying a lot considering it doesn't cost a penny.

Finally: yup... I agree re: it'd expand Apple's base if they offered a more affordable budget computer, though I don't think there'd be much point in them trying to compete at the ultra low-end of the market (the $300-400 range) since that'd probably just dilute the brand and the enlarged customer base wouldn't be worth that to them, especially given the razor thin profit margins down there. However, I've often thought that they should consider selling the prior-generation Mini for $499. for a while after the new generation Mini is released (which starts at $599)... not everyone looking for that kind of machine needs new technology like Thunderbolt.

[Bad Kitty]

Zino uses a laptop cpu basically. And not the best one, but a relatively cheap one which performs 'ok'. At that size it pretty much *has* to, as there isn't much room in there for anything, including power supply or airflow to cool components. Which means it's limited to low power parts that aren't particularly "high end", and overheating if you run it hard. It's just a non-portable laptop really.

ditto for other mini-micro desktops. Unless you have some kind of space premium in your home that dictates you need a destop that fits in a lunchbox... you're just crippling your performance and price point to get an expensive conversation piece for your computer desk.

Yet these do sell well... which kinda works against the theory that you get what you pay for, or that people wouldn't buy something without there being greater value in it. Consumer perception of value is not something which has a tremendously strong relationship with actual numbers. The luxury car market is predicated on this.

The 2000 iMac screen I used in college wasn't blurry. It had a shoddy resolution, 1024x768, with very wide dot pitch giving it a "looking through a screen door" appearance. Leaning back in your computer chair, you could still clearly see all the pixels that made up the screen. But worse than the eyestrain of working on a grainy screen was the issue that the screen's refresh rate was the worst I have ever used on a CRT, causing a barely perceptible "flicker" which would give everyone in the computer lab a headache within an hour of use. This was true for all 30 or so imacs in the lab, and is the result of very low quality design specs, not some obscure manufacturing problem. Putting a plastic piece on the puck mouse to give it a tactile sense of position would have helped, but it would still be the worse mouse I ever used (including $2 trackball mouses from back in the day). It's dpi precision was beyond poor, and the wire for the mouse was this really pretty clear cable that let you see the wrapped wires inside, it was very stylish and sexy looking, and stiff as a stick. it would constantly interfere with smooth mouse movement, and when you let go of the mouse the stiff wire would move the mouse several inches at minimum. At least apple discovered the right mouse button by then. In order to run the industry standard graphic design software, it had to run ported or emulated versions of the software to work on the mac. And the software (ALL of it) would crash regularly destroying any unsaved work. By "regularly" I mean it was a good idea to save your work every ten minutes, because it would likely crash more than once during any given lab session (3 hours). All 30+ machines did this, for all students, and they were brand new machines that year. These very machines, were the candy colored imacs that started apple's resurgence of popularity in the computer market. And it was based entirely on pretty colors and tons of advertising. So instead of using the imac's at school, i took every opportunity to do my design development at home on my 1996 homebuilt pc which cost a fraction of the imac's cost when i bought it.

Using entirely 'open' pc hardware now, the idea that a mac will have higher quality when it's sporting the same actual physical hardware as a pc, is kind of a non-argument. Currently, a mac is nothing more than a PC running OSX. Yet they still manage to impress 'quality' and 'style' onto consumers through advertising. But really, all of the mainstream pre-built destop makers provide a relatively shoddy product which cuts corners and bends over backwards to prevent you from upgrading the system yourself, apple being no exception.

I'm seriously looking at buying an iphone 4s, they make great phones, and I don't hate the brand at all. When it comes to computers though, they're simply charging a great deal for image. You can buy a pc with the same hardware for several hundred dollars less, and install OSX if you really like osx... that's a lot of pennies saved. Or build one yourself so that you're not double-spending on OS's, and you're getting generally superior hardware at a lower cost.

[Palomine]

Kitty, please allow me to respond to your points:

Comparing a Mac to a homebuilt PC was a spurious argument a two decades ago and remains so today... they're not equivalent in that you can't really make a home-made Mac, to say nothing of the fact that the vast majority of computer users don't have the time, knowledge or desire to build their own computers from scratch. If you must compare a Mac to a PC (which was most definitely not the point of my original post, but one you keep bringing up) at least do so fairly by comparing them to an equivalent name-brand retail PC, where the consumer is paying for an assembled machine (with properly integrated, quality parts) from a reputable manufacturer including a retail copy of an operating system, apps, a period of both warranty and tech support, etc...

Your 'several hundred dollar price difference' only holds water when 'comparing' specific (generally higher-end) Macs to generally lesser-quality retail PCs (or the horse-of-another-color homebuilt machines you keep referring to). Re: homebuilts, buy the identical components and construct a equivalent machine and pay for (a higher edition of) Windows 7 and apps roughly equivalent to OSX/iLife and you will save some money... not 'several hundred' in most cases, but some (i.e.: for the Zino vs the Mini, the price difference is just $150.). Of course, doing so requires time and expertise (both worth $) and of course, the result is a Windows computer without any warranty or tech support from a system manufacturer, so that probably has something to do with why everyone's not doing it. You've done it. I've done it. But not everyone can or will. Also, please note that no one here (myself included) has said that Macs don't cost more than comparable PCs... and your personal experiences notwithstanding, millions of users (including just under a third of all BEA users who responded last time we took a survey) seem to feel that they're worth it.

Though I haven't checked since my last attempt (about a year ago) to Hackintosh the Dell I'm currently using (with three different kernels) you generally can't simply install an actual kosher copy of OSX onto a Windows PC by inserting the original OSX DVD and running the installer. IIRC, doing so requires using a hacked aka significantly modified (also copyright infringed aka stolen) kernel with specific installation procedures, and the resulting system often involves some significant caveats (i.e.: you can't later install regular OSX updates from Apple, etc... and must wait for hacked versions to be released and hope that they work properly on your specific machine; certain parts of the system may not work properly or at all since OSX was designed to run on specific (Apple) hardware, etc...). The total pool of users running Hackintoshes is surely dwarfed by the total pool of people who built their own PCs, which in turn comprises just a tiny fraction of all computer users (the rest of whom buy computers already assembled). Finally (and of course) creating a Hackintosh means not paying for an operating system at all (same as building a homebuilt PC and not paying for Windows via one method or another) because the OS is essentially being stolen. So (again) comparing that to ANY retail computer purchase, where part of the price paid is for the OS... that's not quite a kosher comparison either.

Yes, I'm aware that compact PCs like Dell's Zino often use laptop components with all their inherent caveats. I didn't suggest that compact PCs were equivalent to traditional desktop PCs... of course they're not for all the obvious reasons. I simply consider them to be interesting, that's all.

Also: yes, I get the point and do understand that for you, a homebuilt PC running Windows is the ideal choice. You'll notice that I haven't suggested otherwise. However, what's best for you isn't necessarily what's best for every other person who might use computers: not everyone wants to/is able to build their own, not everyone plays video games, and not everyone necessarily wants a traditional tower-type computer or even Windows as their OS.

I like the iPhone 4s too, even though I don't personally need a smartphone. The image quality of the new camera sets a new benchmark for cell phone cameras, and the Siri 'intelligent assistant' seems very useful and appealing.

Perhaps I'm mistaken (and if so, I apologize) but I can't help but get the impression that you think my posts are some sort of attempt to change your mind about Macs Kitty, and believe me, I have no interest in doing so whatsoever: I was just asking about interesting desktop computers (not Macs in particular, though I used the new Mini as an example of one such computer) and while you're welcome to change the topic if you wish, perhaps you'll consider starting a separate thread in which to share your bad Mac experiences so I might learn about interesting desktop PCs in this one? Thanks!

[Lightfoot]

The only all-in-one I ever owned was the original CRT iMac (the DV SE 'graphite' colored version, which came a bit better equipped than the original 'fruit flavored' iMacs at the time). Though mine was fine in this regard, I know that some other early first gen/CRT iMacs did suffer from slightly blurry screens like Bad Kitty experienced in her school's computer lab... I remember reading about this at the time... I forget whether the CRTs were made by Samsung or Hitachi ...some big-name supplier

At the time, weren't the iMacs the cheapest (sub-$999) Mac?  I wouldn't be surprised that they might have had budget parts considering it was a small size with a screen.  Now they are the mid-range ($1000-$2000) options.

I think though that ALL computers crashed more decades ago.  It wasn't that likely to have a computer on for 24 hours a day for several days without it crashing, Mac or PC.  I remember playing Diablo II on a Windows98 PC and it would restart every hour or two.  Now I sometimes have my computer on for days at a time, and have a system crash about once a year.  Computers are just more reliable in general.

OTOH, every version of Windows that I've ever personally used (most recently XP, 2000 and Vista) felt as if Bill Gates should be paying me to use it.

Windows 7 is an improvement.  If Apple ever stopped selling a sub $1000 headless Mac I could use it.  A lot of the time it tries to help you too much, or it's always popping up with some message wanting you to do something.

Finally: yup... I agree re: it'd expand Apple's base if they offered a more affordable budget computer, though I don't think there'd be much point in them trying to compete at the ultra low-end of the market (the $300-400 range) since that'd probably just dilute the brand and the enlarged customer base wouldn't be worth that to them, especially given the razor thin profit margins down there. However, I've often thought that they should consider selling the prior-generation Mini for $499. for a while after the new generation Mini is released (which starts at $599)... not everyone looking for that kind of machine needs new technology like Thunderbolt.

I think there is room to lower the specs and have a cheaper model (the low end Macs come with Intel i5s), Intel i3, Pentiums, even some of the AMD Liano chips (assuming using AMD chips wouldn't require some kind of major code changes) could be cheaper alternatives.  A problem with a lower mini could just be the case and parts.  Apple would want to keep things like speakers and bluetooth, so going with a more simple (non-metal) case would be the way to go.  Kind of like how they had the white plastic Macbook.  They would have something a little larger than a mini with a plastic case and less expensive non-laptop parts (HD, Ram, etc).  The mini now doesn't have a DVD-drive, so this wouldn't need one either.  I'd also call it something else... the Macintosh?  Assuming they would want to keep it weaker than the cheapest mini (which again, comes with an i5), they might be able to get away with it being mostly passive cooling- like I think some of the last CRT iMacs?

[Bad Kitty]

Perhaps I'm mistaken (and if so, I apologize) but I can't help but get the impression that you think my posts are some sort of attempt to change your mind about Macs Kitty, and believe me, I have no interest in doing so whatsoever

it's just mac fanboyism clashing with uh... "other" fangirlism (I don't think i could honestly call myself a windows fangirl, and perhaps mac fanboy isn't a good label for you either, but it's something along these lines).
we're each perceiving some of the other's remarks as marginalizing our own opinions. and the cycle is self feeding.

side note: your information about installing osx on a pc is "very dated".

anyway, I will just move along. The thread title "Any interesting new (prebuilt) desktop PCs these days?" and/or any positive impressions of micro desktop pc's, probably should have been my cue to realize an insurmountable lack of common ground. So, i'll go work on a morph now

[Palomine]

@Lightfoot:

Yes, when it was released in the 1990s, the first (CRT) generation iMacs were Apple's least-expensive offering (this predates the Mini by many years of course). IIRC, the graphite DV/SE I had cost me $1249. which was actually a bit below MSRP (it was a demo)... it was priced a bit higher than the regular (colored) iMacs due to the fact it had more disk and RAM as well as the Firewire port lacking on the other iMacs.

A (very) brief google didn't turn up who made the iMac CRT for Apple but they could be their Achille's heel... similarly, I've read anecdotal complaints about the LCDs in some 2nd and even 3rd generation iMacs... and while some failures are inevitable (after all, when you sell millions of something, a few are going to fail prematurely) I don't think that more stringent quality control (by Apple of their parts suppliers) would make me feel any better about buying an all-in-one machine. I tend to use computers for as long as it's still practical to do so: I usually get about 7-8 years (with only adding storage) before it's time to change the box itself. IME, keyboards are only good for a couple years of heavy use (if that) and the display is the next most short-lived item... and to have that be PART of the system unit itself (as in iMacs) just seems like asking for trouble if you'd like to keep using the same computer for several years w/o major expenses.

Yes, I've heard that Windows 7 is better than prior versions (which is what I heard about each prior version too incidentally ). I'm sure it is, but now that I've converted to Linux I'll (happily) never have to find out. I can (and do!) install Ubuntu on pretty much ANY 5-to-8 year old PC that comes my way and the result is a very usable PC that's almost as enjoyable to use and stable as a Mac running OSX... and the OS is free (as are hand-me-down PCs sometimes ).

I agree completely that even the current $599 Mini is probably more computer than some users need (i5, Firewire and Thunderbolt, dual-display support, etc...) hence my wish that the prior Mini (with its Core 2 Duo chip and sans Thunderbolt) would remain available but with a lower price. For the reasons I listed earlier, I doubt Apple will do this, or release a plastic/i3-based Mini.

BTW, yes: AFAIR, all the first-gen iMacs were passively cooled (no fan). BTW#2: believe it or not, I've got a neighbor who STILL uses his CRT iMac (with OSX!) as his only computer. Obviously, he's not playing the latest fist-person shooters, but still, he surely got his money's worth on that machine.

@Kitty:

I'm not sure exactly how you define fanboy/girl Kitty, and it wasn't my intention to get into a dispute... but I never suggested that MY way is the best way for everyone... on the contrary: in this thread I've posited the opposite... that some kinds of computers (i.e.: compact PCs with their laptop-based handicaps) may be appealing/interesting to some users despite their limitations. And again: not everyone's going to build a PC from scratch. I just wanted to discuss/learn about what's up with desktop PCs these days, that's all.

You're correct in that I didn't explicitly exclude homebuilt options in the original thread title... I didn't see the need at the time. I've gone back and edited that to add the word 'retail' to the thread.

I'm looking into your suggestion that in the year since I got the Dell, it's now possible to hackintosh a PC by using regular OSX (as opposed to the hacked kernels with all their limitations and caveats). If this turns out to be the case... it's something I'd definitely consider.

[Trace]

My brother actually still has an old CRT iMac - he doesn't use it as much as he used to, though, and he ditched his iBook for a Win7 laptop about a year ago or so, when he hit the point that his laptop had become painfully obsolete.

One of the issues was that his iBook was a PowerPC machine, not an Intel rig; also, the hardware on the iBook was not nearly reliable enough for everyday use.  The most glaring issue was wi-fi connectivity; he ended up having to string Cat-5 cable from his router just to connect the laptop to the Internet.

A lot of Macs can be long-term good investments, but there are some clinkers in there as well.

Aside: when I built my new PC, it came with USB 3.0 ports - which work shockingly well with a USB 3.0 external hard drive I use for my data and image backups.  Something like ten times faster than a USB 2.0 drive - I think it's officially rated at 5GB/sec, in the same neighborhood as a current-generation SATA connection.

Seriously, I think that my weekly backups, which used to take the better part of an hour, are done in a few minutes.

[Palomine]

Not on-topic specifically, but since the topic of the improved camera in the iPhone 4s came up... I ran across this in google reader (a comparison of image quality between the various generations of iPhone) and thought it might interest some here. Kudos/credit to the original creators of the image(s).

Here's a more detailed article on the subject, with full size images and also comparing the iPhones to a point-and-shoot digicam and a high-end DSLR: http://campl.us/posts/iPhone-Camera-Comparison

And while I'm venturing off-topic, let me point out this $60. (expected overseas retail) Android tablet also spotted courtesy of google reader: http://venturebeat.com/2011/10/26/aakash-android-tablet-exclusive/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Venturebeat+%28VentureBeat%29

[Bad Kitty]

(running with the off topic)

The iphone 4S is really tempting. When it comes to phones, apple has an extremely high level of polish and fine tuning in their products. I have a smartphone which "on paper" is superior to the iphone which was available at the time I got it (almost 3 years ago), but in practice, the iphone is vastly superior due to having a much better user interface, better touch screen, less lag, better apps, etc.

I've been longing to replace my current phone, but kinda waiting to see what became available for 4g network connectivity. I'm sad to see that the iphone 4s doesn't have that. Meanwhile the Android phones seem to be growing in popularity and capability, and have numerous 4g phones out. I think the iphone 4S is probably the best phone out there which is non 4g. But the 4g android Galaxy 2S looks to be perhaps a slightly better phone overall, especially at the price point. Unfortunately it's not available on verizon and I'd kinda like to stick with verizon there's another galaxy phone coming out on verizon soon, but it's debatable whether it's actually better than the galaxy 2S. So, i'll likely get an iphone 4s. I'll just have to make sure I never drop it. Those scratch resistant glass plates front & back are not very impact resistant.
___

semi-on-topic: about the USB 3.0, it looks like that will become the primary standard for external devices for the foreseeable future. It's speed of 5gb/s is nearly as fast as SATA III (6gb/s), both of which are faster than any hard drive can actually spit out data anyway. I expect it will make ESATA or firewire really rare in newer external devices. When i had to rebuild my computer just over a year ago (I had a surge issue), I made sure to get a motherboard with a couple USB 3.0 ports, and internal SATA III ports for the hard drives.

Other tech's... 64bit OS is a must if you want to be able to utilize more than 3.5gb of ram, and 3.5gb is becoming kinda minimalistic for some computing tasks. Tri-Channel ram... I've yet to see this technology really catch on, dual channel still seems more popular (though i have tri-channel myself). sandybridge is really quick and solid for the "little brother" chip from intel. definitely closer to premium performance than celeron was compared to pentium. it overclocks wonderfully as well. what else... blue ray burners are getting affordable, but i've kinda switched over to external hard drives for most things, and flash drives for portable stuff. monitors are cheap now. get 1080p lcd, preferably in 22" or more, else text will look too small.

[BacE]

This link should fit nicely in this thread. Although the prices are a bit steep. The future amigas could be nice, but imho they should have the same case design if they are using the same original model numbers. The cool part is that they are compatible with their 80's/90's counterpart. 
http://www.commodoreusa.net/CUSA_Home.aspx
B"New old stuff"acE.

[TheZookie007]

Did you know that the camera in the iPhone 4s is actually made by Sony?

[TheZookie007]

Not a desktop, not a laptop -- it totally redefines "pocket computer".

Laptop Magazine: "USB Stick Contains Dual-Core Computer, Turns Any Screen Into an Android Station"

I am soooooo getting one of these!