Sunspot - Check the Apple site for technical specifications of late '06 iMac and this new '07 iMac.

Since I didn't discuss the tech specs of the '06 iMac, or compare it to the new iMac (apart from the graphics card, which in the high-end model is actually a downgrade), I fail to see how any of this is relevant. When you compare the new iMac to today's other desktop PCs - as I did in my post - it looks totally obsolete. Many of today's $1,000 PCs are shipping with a 1.3GHz system bus and with 800MHz RAM - both substantially faster than what you'll find even in the high-priced $2,200 iMac. These new desktop PCs from other vendors scream, and there's no excuse for Apple selling a $2,200 desktop - $200 to $400 more than comparable systems from other vendors (including a 24" monitor, and that come with far more expansion options) - that doesn't feature equally impressive performance. None.

The $2000 '07 iMac ships with 2GB RAM, has a 800Mhz system bus and is capable to taking 1TB internal drive. Where did you see the 1 GB '07 iMac at $2000?

Where did I say that the $2,200 iMac ships with 1GB of RAM? Oh yeah, that's right - I never said that. But the other iMacs only ship with 1GB, and they're both hundreds of dollars more expensive than PCs that ship standard with 2GB - 2GB of RAM that's often substantially faster than the RAM in the iMac.

Before you reply to someone's post, and accuse them of not "knowing the facts", it might do you well to brush up on your reading comprehension.

The late '06 iMac has 667 Mhz bus. Kindly explain how the '07 iMac's 800 Mhz bus is slower than the '06 iMac's 667 Mhz bus? My math must be really kindergarten.

I don't know if your math's "really kindergarten," but your reading comprehension certainly is. I never compared the bus speed of the '06 iMac to the '07 model's, although it certainly hasn't seen much of an improvement compared to what other vendors have done to their desktops over the same period.

RAM speed is 667 Mhz, the same as late '06 Macbook Pro, same as that of late '06 iMac.

Wow! What an upgrade! Guess Apple's been real busy not upgrading the RAM speed of the iMac over the past year. Guess they were too busy fugging up the case!

Can you specifically tell us which laptop you are using as a reference to claim that the current iMac is "slower"?

There's your inability to comprehend what you're reading coming back to bite you in the butt again. Never claimed that the new iMacs are "slower" than the current generation of laptops. But they're a lot slower than the current generation of desktops.

Regardless of whether you "like" or "dislke" a machine, you should know the facts before writing something in a blog or a forum. This is the simplest requirement any good writer should observe, even in the blog world where anyone can say anything without assuming any responsibility. It does not reflect well of a writer who simply writes something false and useless or simply pontificates from ignorance.

Given the fact you didn't seem to understand a word of what I wrote, I think you might want to refrain from handing out advice going forward, macfacts. I'd recommend you take a series of remedial reading classes at your local community college, and come back when you can actually understand what people are trying to tell you.

You know, people drag this argument out every time someone notes that Apple's systems are hideously overpriced - they claim that the OS X operating system is so wonderful, it doesn't matter that the hardware is a total rip off.

If hardware doesn't matter, why does Apple hype the hardware in their ads? And why so expensive? If hardware isn't important, why not produce a stripped-down iMac with really cheap hardware, and sell it for $699 instead of $1,200? They've actually exited the sub-$1000 market with these latest iMacs at a time when other vendors are offering PCs for less and less.

Apple also doesn't have to pad Microsoft's insane profits, the way Dell and HP are forced to do. Sure developing OS X costs a lot of money, but does it really cost $400-$600 more a machine than the Windows license costs HP and Dell?

I think Apple is making the same mistake it's been making for the past 30 years - sacrificing market share while trying to maintain their fat profit margins. Sooner or later there's gonna be another downturn and their computer business is going to be slammed, hard. Here's hoping they can continue to move enough iPods and iPhones to keep from going thru the same sort of financial drama they've faced in the past. With only a 6% market share (or whatever it is this week), they're as vulnerable to extinction in the computer marketplace as ever.

It's a little late now to complain that it was the purple, poison-laced variety.