Apple iMac Goes Core i5, i7; Mac Mini Updated

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]Regulas[/nom]Not true, the desktop space for one thing would be great and many to most cameras take pictures larger than that. If you bootcamped it or just Mac written games, there are some you know, you could down scale the game down to 1920 x1200 or less to make it playable.[/citation]

Desktop space? How much desktop space do we need? At that resolution font would be unbearably small! I understand the photo editing argument for professional photographers, but for the vast majority of people just printing out standard sized pictures 1440p is way over kill. If you are going to scaled down to 1080p, what is the point of having a 1440p monitor? Check the graphics benchmarks, the HD 4850 is not even playable at 1080p.

[citation][nom]luoluga[/nom]i tried working out a spec similar to the imac core i7 27" w newegg prices. you can config for only $1700 tax included. my appreciation for the imac 27 is the LCD, what what running inside is way behind what pc can offer. and i believe the corei7 is an i5-860 running at 2.8. what they have is not a triple channel system. its a good multi media for movies... but serious gaming, i doubt it. and with $2000 i can build a better spec plus 2 pieces 27" inches and the ati 5850.[/citation]

I can config for much less than $1700...(these are all very conservative prices, you could find a better deal) the i5 is roughly $200, motherboard $150, 4 GB RAM $150, CPU and Case $100, 1 TB Hard drive $100, OS $100, HD 4850 $100, 28" 1080p 3ms response monitor $300. Total = $1200. With a HD 5850 instead of HD 4850 it is $1350. Much better deal IMO considering usability of 1440p is rare, and my hardware config is better.
 
[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom]There's no way you can get a computer with a 21" 1080p LED based IPS display for $500-$600. Find me a 21" 1080p LED based IPS panel for that money and I'll take it back. Yes you can build a machine with a 1080p display for far less than the iMac 27" but you will not have a display of even remotely as good quality. LED TVs are a different ball game and fitting 1080p into 32" isn't exactly hard or expensive to do. 2560p is a tad harder.To give you an idea of the value of the display in the 27" iMac:LG do a 1920x1080 24" for $329.95. (LED TN panel)Apple do a 1920x1200 24" for $899.00. (LED IPS panel)LG do a 1920x1200 24" for ~$1600 (RGB LED IPS panel)HP do a 1920x1200 24" for $1919.99 (RGB LED IPS panel)LaCie do a 2560x1600 30" for $3399 (RGB LED IPS panel)Samsung do a 2560x1600 30" for $3345 (RGB LED IPS panel)As you can see, the jump up over single link DVI resolutions results in quite a price hike and the jump to IPS panels over Tn panels results in a hike in price too (as do RGB LED over LED). The word is that Apple's 24" display is very well priced for an RGB LED IPS display of its caliber. Since a non LED but still IPS panel still costs at least about $1049 for the two year old Dell model, you can do some pretty rough maths to see that a 27" LED IPS panel would cost somewhere around $1200-$1500 at a guess. I've even heard some people considering getting a 27" entry level iMac at $1699 and using it as a display for a workstation since its only $300 or so more than a Dell 3008WFP 30" display and yet has nearly the same resolution, nearly the same size, a far superior backlight, similar panel quality and yet comes with a whole computer inside which could always come in handy one day.[/citation]

I didn't read that the 21" screen is LED. I thought that was offered only on the 27". But that is beside the point. Does the average consumer even care about having an LED screen? Who is going to pay that much just to get an LED over an LCD monitor? The resolution is the same, the screen size is the same, the average consumer won't care. The extra $400 is pretty hefty for a very incremental upgrade.
 
[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom]Although things like heat dissipation will play a role the biggest factor will be that Apple wants the Mac Minis to be the entry level Mac. As such it has to be less powerful than all the other Macs. Apple would rather users buy an iMac than a Mac Mini + a third party display. Having a $799 Core i7 Mac Mini would also completely kill the entry level (and stupidly overpriced) Mac Pro.[/citation]


I disagree. As good as Intel's new Core i7 Mobile cpus are, they can not hold a candle to their desktop or workstation big brothers. Although, to most people, a 720QM would be far more than they need, which I assume would definitely eliminate most people's need for Apple's $2000+ quad core offerings.

Like I said above, I would absolutely love a that 27" iMac with the Core i7 cpu, but it's cost prohibitive. I am juggling a mortgage, car loan, bills, and my tuition for grad school. I haven't seen a pay increase in well over a year, and probably won't see one until late 2011 because of the budget issues and economy, unless I find another job before then (which is unlikely given how terrible economy is).

But, I would like an inexpensive quad core machine, which I can take to class in the evenings. Especially since I am going to be doing Parallel Computing course(s) in the Spring, which is what my planned focus is.
 
[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]Desktop space? How much desktop space do we need? At that resolution font would be unbearably small! I understand the photo editing argument for professional photographers, but for the vast majority of people just printing out standard sized pictures 1440p is way over kill. If you are going to scaled down to 1080p, what is the point of having a 1440p monitor? Check the graphics benchmarks, the HD 4850 is not even playable at 1080p.I can config for much less than $1700...(these are all very conservative prices, you could find a better deal) the i5 is roughly $200, motherboard $150, 4 GB RAM $150, CPU and Case $100, 1 TB Hard drive $100, OS $100, HD 4850 $100, 28" 1080p 3ms response monitor $300. Total = $1200. With a HD 5850 instead of HD 4850 it is $1350. Much better deal IMO considering usability of 1440p is rare, and my hardware config is better.[/citation]

1440p is overkill because?? 1920x1200 was considered overkill just a few years ago. 1280x1024 was considered overkill just a few years before.

2560x1440p is in no way overkill for normal users. You can have so much more stuff up at once. I've got loads of windows open on my display right now. When I work at writing reports or coding, its incredibly useful to have multiple windows open at once and being able to see them all. My productivity is definitely higher and using such a display is far more enjoyable. Think about it this way, would you rather work at a small classroom sized single person desk or would you rather work at a dining table?

As far as your specs go, your choice in monitor is seriously poor in comparison. Comparing a $300 monitor to a 2560x1440p LED display with an IPS panel is like comparing a Suzuki SX4 or a VW Passat Jetta S to a BMW M5 because "they're about the same size and have five seats".
 
Scratch $400, the price increase from LCD 1080p to LED 1080p is even greater than $400.
What it boils down to:

LCD 28" 1080p 3ms response for $300
or
LED (your specs and prices) 27" 1440p for $1200 to $1500.

Do you really think that is worth it?
 
[citation][nom]godwhomismike[/nom]I disagree. As good as Intel's new Core i7 Mobile cpus are, they can not hold a candle to their desktop or workstation big brothers. Although, to most people, a 720QM would be far more than they need, which I assume would definitely eliminate most people's need for Apple's $2000+ quad core offerings. Like I said above, I would absolutely love a that 27" iMac with the Core i7 cpu, but it's cost prohibitive. I am juggling a mortgage, car loan, bills, and my tuition for grad school. I haven't seen a pay increase in well over a year, and probably won't see one until late 2011 because of the budget issues and economy, unless I find another job before then (which is unlikely given how terrible economy is). But, I would like an inexpensive quad core machine, which I can take to class in the evenings. Especially since I am going to be doing Parallel Computing course(s) in the Spring, which is what my planned focus is.[/citation]

I feel what you're saying. I'm sure Core i5 chips will end up across Apple's line up but not until after the MacBook Pros have got them first. The non i7 iMacs and all the Mac Minis, MacBooks and MacBook Pros currently use pretty much the same internals, all based off an nForce chipset. Right now Apple doesn't have much choice in terms of i5/i7 mobile chipsets with semi-decent integrated graphic. NVidia's pulled out of the i5/i7 chipset development game and Intel's only mobile iX chipset available is the PM55 which doesn't have integrated graphics.

Unfortunately you fall into a small niche of users that need something quite specific at a budget. As a programmer who deals with parallel code in academia, I quite understand why you need an i5/i7 machine. Luckily I've had a quad Mac Pro for three years now so I can do a fair bit on that but I'd really like to get a Nehalem based 8 core machine soon but Apple's latest Mac Pro pricing is far too prohibitive and ridiculous.
 
[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom]1440p is overkill because?? 1920x1200 was considered overkill just a few years ago. 1280x1024 was considered overkill just a few years before.2560x1440p is in no way overkill for normal users. You can have so much more stuff up at once. I've got loads of windows open on my display right now. When I work at writing reports or coding, its incredibly useful to have multiple windows open at once and being able to see them all. My productivity is definitely higher and using such a display is far more enjoyable. Think about it this way, would you rather work at a small classroom sized single person desk or would you rather work at a dining table?As far as your specs go, your choice in monitor is seriously poor in comparison. Comparing a $300 monitor to a 2560x1440p LED display with an IPS panel is like comparing a Suzuki SX4 or a VW Passat Jetta S to a BMW M5 because "they're about the same size and have five seats".[/citation]

I use two monitors as well so I know what your talking about, having screen space is nice, but you do not need a 1440p display to do that! Most people at my office prefer using two 1280 x1024 monitors, and not a resolution higher than that because of the eye strain (reading font gets a lot harder at higher resolutions).

I am not saying my $300 monitor is better, in fact I agree that your $1200 is better, but considering the price I think it is too much! Sure a BMW is nicer than VW and Suzuki, but your average person who probably can't even drive manual will never notice the difference or drive the BMW in a way that would take advantage over the other cars.

It's about value, and I can guarantee you in this economy everything is about getting the most for your money. I don't see people spending $2000 on a computer that they will probably use just as effectively as a $1000 computer.
 
And yet.. many are still waiting for a middle road between mac mini and mac pro... Without a monitor (In a tower case)...

When are they going to release a tower with normal, decent components?
 
[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]Scratch $400, the price increase from LCD 1080p to LED 1080p is even greater than $400.What it boils down to:LCD 28" 1080p 3ms response for $300orLED (your specs and prices) 27" 1440p for $1200 to $1500.Do you really think that is worth it?[/citation]
[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]I didn't read that the 21" screen is LED. I thought that was offered only on the 27". But that is beside the point. Does the average consumer even care about having an LED screen? Who is going to pay that much just to get an LED over an LCD monitor? The resolution is the same, the screen size is the same, the average consumer won't care. The extra $400 is pretty hefty for a very incremental upgrade.[/citation]

Personally I do think that's worth that - then again I also thought it was worth paying more than double for a 30" display versus a 23/24" display three years ago. I still think it was worth every penny too.

In terms of internal costs value, the iMac is definitely worth it. Whether an end user cares about that or not is another matter. Hell, even an Apple user who doesn't think its worth it could buy a Mac Mini and a cheap $300 display.

Someone buying such an iMac would be getting a good deal and would be able to sell it on a year or three down the line for a very good price still. The average consumer has already shown that they're willing to spend the money on buying an iMac over a Dell. They've been voting with their wallets. Apple products may tend to be expensive but they're not necessarily bad value. Of course some are but even then a lot of the extra cost is made up with unusually high resale values
 
[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]It's about value, and I can guarantee you in this economy everything is about getting the most for your money. I don't see people spending $2000 on a computer that they will probably use just as effectively as a $1000 computer.[/citation]

I agree that that might be the case for makes other than Apple but people tend to be willing to spend more for an Apple product. Of course, if Apple sold an iMac identical to the 27" internally but with a cheapo display for $1000 then most consumer Apple buyers would opt for that instead. Dell couldn't get away with that. Apple uses its 'fashionable' status and (relatively) small product line up to its advantage. Its good business. I know what you mean about the economy but Apple's been relatively untouched by it. Apple had profits of $1.67 billion for Q4 2009. That's their most profitable quarter ever. Insane, I know!

[citation][nom]midnightgun[/nom]And yet.. many are still waiting for a middle road between mac mini and mac pro... Without a monitor (In a tower case)...When are they going to release a tower with normal, decent components?[/citation]

Alas I doubt this will happen anytime soon. From Apple's point of view, desktop or laptop gaming is largely a waste of time right now. They know that if they made a mid sized Mac then they'd lose customers from the entry level Mac Pro line and from the iMac line. These customers would likely not buy an accompanying Apple display and would instead spend money elsewhere. For your average consumer it makes sense anyway, most consumers don't upgrade graphics cards/hard drives/even memory. They tend instead to just buy a new computer when the last one gets slow or breaks.

Its certainly a void in their lineup but its such a small niche that its not worth losing iMac/Mac Pro sales over.
 
[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]Scratch $400, the price increase from LCD 1080p to LED 1080p is even greater than $400.What it boils down to:LCD 28" 1080p 3ms response for $300orLED (your specs and prices) 27" 1440p for $1200 to $1500.Do you really think that is worth it?[/citation]

If you are a simple gamer, no. If you do something in the graphics community (video, photo, graphic design, whatever), then maybe. The 27" iMac probably won't be targeted at the "average" customer. That is where the 21.5" will sit.

Of course I personally would rather them yank the whole computer out of the back and just sell the screen for like $1200. Nothing like having a computer screen 5 years from now that rocks, but has this annoying old hardware shoved in the back of it.

I will say Apple pissed off most of us graphics pros with the all glossy move when they came out with the new LEDs to replace the Cinema Displays. Same with the Mac Book Pros.

As a side note, I am a PCer, but one of the few left in the photographer world.
 
[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom]In terms of internal costs value, the iMac is definitely worth it. Whether an end user cares about that or not is another matter. Hell, even an Apple user who doesn't think its worth it could buy a Mac Mini and a cheap $300 display. Someone buying such an iMac would be getting a good deal and would be able to sell it on a year or three down the line for a very good price still.[/citation]

The internal costs value doesn't matter. The price is so much higher, and the benefit is not immediately apparent. Very few people could tell you the difference between LCD and LED. They will look at Apple's price, then look at the other prices, probably skip right over the part about the Apple being LED, and buy from somewhere else. And computers never have good resales values; the technology moves too fast, and people like having warranties. You would be lucky to get $500 for a used three year old laptop that was originally $2000.

[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom]The average consumer has already shown that they're willing to spend the money on buying an iMac over a Dell. They've been voting with their wallets. Apple products may tend to be expensive but they're not necessarily bad value. Of course some are but even then a lot of the extra cost is made up with unusually high resale values[/citation]

Absolutely not true. Apple sales have been rising, but as of September 2009 Windows still dominates with 90% market share.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_operating_systems

I agree people are voting with their wallets, which prevents Apple from really taking over. Most people don't think Apple is high enough value, and they are still buying Dell.
 
[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]I can config for much less than $1700...(these are all very conservative prices, you could find a better deal) the i5 is roughly $200, motherboard $150, 4 GB RAM $150, CPU and Case $100, 1 TB Hard drive $100, OS $100, HD 4850 $100, 28" 1080p 3ms response monitor $300. Total = $1200. With a HD 5850 instead of HD 4850 it is $1350. Much better deal IMO considering usability of 1440p is rare, and my hardware config is better.[/citation]

OS at $100? You would need the Win7 Ultimate to have an equal OS. Where is your Super Drive, your keyboard, mouse (you will not find one that can do what the new Super Mouse can do), dual 17 watt audio amps, and then all of the bundled software? $300 for a LED monitor and you are looking at a LG type of monitor that does not even come close to the quality of an Apple monitor. Also, you don't have your built-in: mic, camera, and speakers. Where is your SD card?

What you are describing is basically a bare bones system in comparison to the iMac. I would also question the quality of you monitor, PS and case ($100), not to mention that you need Win7 Ultimate to compare to the Mac OS, and that will cost you over $200. I also like the smaller footprint of an iMac.

Knock them all you want, but I think Apple has raised the standard here. Now let's wait and see how long it will take Dell, Sony, HP, and Gateway to follow their lead and start producing uni-body workstations for the audio/graphic artists.
 
[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom]I feel what you're saying. I'm sure Core i5 chips will end up across Apple's line up but not until after the MacBook Pros have got them first. The non i7 iMacs and all the Mac Minis, MacBooks and MacBook Pros currently use pretty much the same internals, all based off an nForce chipset. Right now Apple doesn't have much choice in terms of i5/i7 mobile chipsets with semi-decent integrated graphic. NVidia's pulled out of the i5/i7 chipset development game and Intel's only mobile iX chipset available is the PM55 which doesn't have integrated graphics.Unfortunately you fall into a small niche of users that need something quite specific at a budget. As a programmer who deals with parallel code in academia, I quite understand why you need an i5/i7 machine. Luckily I've had a quad Mac Pro for three years now so I can do a fair bit on that but I'd really like to get a Nehalem based 8 core machine soon but Apple's latest Mac Pro pricing is far too prohibitive and ridiculous.[/citation]


I am quite curious of what Apple will do with future Macbook Pro. I can't see them using a Core i5 desktop chip, I think the heat would be a major issue.

I am also dreading Intel's move to the Arrandale. Judging from their past integrated GPUs, they should never be allowed to make another one, much less incorporate it into their CPU. I much rather see the move to highly threaded applications running on multi-core machines.

 
Yep, apple has raised the standard, now you have to buy a new 1k$ laptop (or a very expensive battery replacement from apple) while the hardware is still useable because the battery is not user replaceable and has a finite number of charge cycles in its lifetime. Now you have to buy a new iMac when the drive, or the video, or the Nic or the dual 17Watt audio amps go belly up. I'll just replace mine and get on with it. C'mon, this is a computer, and it's prone to failures just like any computer (PC or Mac) building it all into the box with no hope of replacement, and charging a premium for the experience just seems silly to me. I hope no one follows Apple on this design cue - permanently building in the single largest failure point in any mobile computing platform (the battery) is insanity. Oh, yeah, sure you can send it back to apple for a battery replacement, but that's a huge hassle, and they charge an arm and a leg for it. It also makes it impossible to extend useful life by carrying multiple batteries. Spec is 7 hours, but i'm sure that's under highly idealized circumstances in a lab. I'd bet it only gets 3-4 hours in real life.

At the end of the day, the only value in apple products is in the massive profits back to apple, and how hard they can gouge customers to get those profits. The amazing thing is that those falling for the marketeering are grateful for the gouging! Apple is by no means a value proposition.
 
[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]OS at $100? You would need the Win7 Ultimate to have an equal OS.[/citation]

Do you even know what the Ultimate version includes?
BitLocker drive encryption, BranchCache Distributed Cache, Subsystem for Unix-based Applications, Virtual Hard Disk Booting

You probably have no idea what any of that stuff is. Ultimate is the same as the Enterprise version, but is also available as a retail to regular customers (not businesses.

[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]
Where is your Super Drive, your keyboard, mouse (you will not find one that can do what the new Super Mouse can do), dual 17 watt audio amps, and then all of the bundled software? $300 for a LED monitor and you are looking at a LG type of monitor that does not even come close to the quality of an Apple monitor. Also, you don't have your built-in: mic, camera, and speakers. Where is your SD card? [/citation]

Super drive? Are you serious? It's called a DVD drive, and it costs $20. Mouse and keyboard cost $20.

If you have been reading any of the comments, you can't get an LED monitor for $300, but that doesn't matter because the vast majority of people don't need a $1000 LED monitor. It's all smoke, mirrors and marketing Apple uses to sell more expensive parts that they can have a bigger profit margin on. It's like telling city commuters they need to buy a car with a V8 engine. Its just completely unnecessary for what they need to do. I'm all for profit, but in this case it's just ridiculous. SD add in cards are $10. That $300 monitor you think is crap happens to include a camera and mic. These $300 monitors you think are so terrible are made by good companies such as Asus, Acer, Hanns-G, etc.

[citation][nom]Yoder54[/nom]
What you are describing is basically a bare bones system in comparison to the iMac. I would also question the quality of you monitor, PS and case ($100), not to mention that you need Win7 Ultimate to compare to the Mac OS, and that will cost you over $200. I also like the smaller footprint of an iMac. Knock them all you want, but I think Apple has raised the standard here. Now let's wait and see how long it will take Dell, Sony, HP, and Gateway to follow their lead and start producing uni-body workstations for the audio/graphic artists.[/citation]

I'm really trying hard not to be disrespectful, but what you are doing is talking out of your ass. You are arguing over $50 worth of parts, as if that makes up for the $800 price difference from what I quoted. Read up on the Ultimate version. The Mac OS does not have those features, and it is irrelevant anyways since no consumer uses them anyways. It is intended for professional users. And don't give me that ridiculous software argument. Free and open source software exists everywhere and can do anything, and professionals don't use the garbage that comes with Windows or OSX.

The power supply I quoted is the Antec earthwatts EA500. Widely regarded as one of the most stable PSUs. Most computer vendors (including Apple) use crappy no name PSUs. If anything my PSU is better quality.

The case I quoted is the Antec 300, again widely regarded as an excellent case, plenty of ventilation and good dust filters. People overclock processors in these cases, they are definitely high quality.

Smaller footprint of a Mac? Now you are being ridiculous. BOTH PC AND MAC USE THE SAME PROCESSORS! Both use Intel processors and consume the same wattage! You are just plain dead wrong, and spitting out the same rhetoric from Apple's advertisements. This is a website for the empirically minded- get your facts straight!

One more thing, Apple does not offer computers with the latest graphics cards; so if you want the best graphics workstation...you need to use Linux or Windows!
 
[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom]Those tables don't mean much in relation to this. Apple's not about to take over Microsoft's market share. However, their share is growing. Apple is selling more and more computers year upon year so obviously people are willing to spend more on Apple products than Dells. It was reported in July that Apple has 91% of the market share for $1000+ PCs. http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ [...] 1248313624[/citation]

Considering the average computer costs around $500 (and this is really all that most people need), this makes sense, but has nothing to do with total market share and profit. In case you haven't noticed, Toyota makes more money than Aston Martin.

Also a part of the article you posted:

The Macolypse Hits Apple
From about November 2008 to April 2009, Mac year-over-year US retail sales declined, even as Windows PCs dramatically gained. There was kind of a numbers reversal, following the late-September stock market crash. For example, in October 2008, following release of new aluminum, unibody laptops, US retail Mac revenue grew 25.5 percent, while Windows PC sales fell 4.2 percent, according to NPD. By January 2009, Mac retail revenue was down 10.4 percent from a year earlier and Windows PC revenue was flat.

Apple isn't doing as well as you would like to think.

Anyways, you were saying most consumers are willing to pay for an expensive Mac:

[citation][nom]Spanky Deluxe[/nom] The average consumer has already shown that they're willing to spend the money on buying an iMac over a Dell. [/citation]

The market share reports says that you are dead wrong, and I caught you trying to fib information. No matter what way you try to spin it, Apple is too expensive and most consumers think so as well. If Apple wants to sell more laptops, including expensive LED screens is the wrong way to go.
 
Yoder...

You cant even bring Microsoft into a discussion of new hardware, lets at least try and stay relevant to the topic.

The average consumer is not going to buy the 27" model as the median household income is only $48K a year (go to census.gov if you don't believe my data). How many households are going to spend 1/24 of their income to get the new 27" LED IPS Mac so they can surf the web, use itunes, and check email? I agree the Monitor is excellent but lets go to reality and think of what a typical consumer will think when seeing the price tag and not knowing the difference between LED, LCD, or OLED. Why do you think Mac stores have so many "sales associates"?
 
This thread is on the right track as far as the real kick in iMacs. Yes, the computer components are average, but Apple has always had a great screen in it upper-line iMacs (and now they do in lower ones too). That 27" display alone would cost nearly as much as the entire iMac. And despite what Apple critics say, that screen makes a huge difference in image quality you're looking at when compared to the typical TN panel that most computers ship with. Moreover, over time, the components inside the mac have gotten better as well. Combined with the screen, they are definitely worth the price.

My only real gripe with the iMacs is that they have really poor video card options. If instead of using last-generation cards they had an option of 5850, or at least 4890, or even 4870, they would be a lot cooler since they would actually be able to play most of the games out there. I could even see more people who do light gaming picking a mac, which would in turn lead to further increasing market share and a bigger incentive for developers to write a version of software for Mac alongside the Windows version.

But I digress, basically, I think the new iMacs are a great update, but still wish for another step higher video card options. 4850 is not much improved from the 8800GT that they offered in the old line-up.

One other point for techy people to consider. Most people who buy Macs are just looking for a computer for home/student/casual use. Tech requirements for such machines do not really go up all that fast. A 5-year-old computer can do everything a person like that needs. Moreover, a computer like that does not really need a good graphics card. I got my gf a 24" iMac 1.5-2 years ago, and though it is outdate compared to the current generation (only 24" screen, 2GB RAM, 2.8GHz processor, 320GB hard drive, Radeon 2600) it will do everything she needs for years more with no noticeable difference from top of the line computers out there. And back when I got it, it was not nears as a good a deal as these new iMacs offer. I can definitely see paying the price for these computers and walking away feeling I got my moneys worth. Definitely a step in the right direction for Apple. I admit, I do value great screens. For my PC I use LG's 30" S-ISP.

Now just handle the video card issue, Apple, and you will really be able to compete with PCs on versatility of the computer.
 
[citation][nom]njalterio[/nom]Do you even know what the Ultimate version includes? BitLocker drive encryption, BranchCache Distributed Cache, Subsystem for Unix-based Applications, Virtual Hard Disk BootingYou probably have no idea what any of that stuff is. Ultimate is the same as the Enterprise version, but is also available as a retail to regular customers (not businesses.Super drive? Are you serious? It's called a DVD drive, and it costs $20. Mouse and keyboard cost $20.If you have been reading any of the comments, you can't get an LED monitor for $300, but that doesn't matter because the vast majority of people don't need a $1000 LED monitor. It's all smoke, mirrors and marketing Apple uses to sell more expensive parts that they can have a bigger profit margin on. It's like telling city commuters they need to buy a car with a V8 engine. Its just completely unnecessary for what they need to do. I'm all for profit, but in this case it's just ridiculous. SD add in cards are $10. That $300 monitor you think is crap happens to include a camera and mic. These $300 monitors you think are so terrible are made by good companies such as Asus, Acer, Hanns-G, etc.I'm really trying hard not to be disrespectful, but what you are doing is talking out of your ass. You are arguing over $50 worth of parts, as if that makes up for the $800 price difference from what I quoted. Read up on the Ultimate version. The Mac OS does not have those features, and it is irrelevant anyways since no consumer uses them anyways. It is intended for professional users. And don't give me that ridiculous software argument. Free and open source software exists everywhere and can do anything, and professionals don't use the garbage that comes with Windows or OSX.The power supply I quoted is the Antec earthwatts EA500. Widely regarded as one of the most stable PSUs. Most computer vendors (including Apple) use crappy no name PSUs. If anything my PSU is better quality.The case I quoted is the Antec 300, again widely regarded as an excellent case, plenty of ventilation and good dust filters. People overclock processors in these cases, they are definitely high quality.Smaller footprint of a Mac? Now you are being ridiculous. BOTH PC AND MAC USE THE SAME PROCESSORS! Both use Intel processors and consume the same wattage! You are just plain dead wrong, and spitting out the same rhetoric from Apple's advertisements. This is a website for the empirically minded- get your facts straight!One more thing, Apple does not offer computers with the latest graphics cards; so if you want the best graphics workstation...you need to use Linux or Windows![/citation]

Yea, it also has 35 languages something that comes with the Mac OS. Seems like you don't know all that it contains. But, we will let you drop down to the Pro version which sells for $200 instead of $219. Still not $100, unless you can get the Pro for $29 like a few of us can but that is not playing fair.

Actually the "Super Drive" is not "a DVD drive", it is a Slot-loading 8x SDVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW. Come on, you guys are saying consumers won't know the difference between LED and LCD, but the will know the difference between a DVD vs a DVD DL? Don't think so.

Keyboard and mouse for $20? A shit keyboard and mouse maybe. A good aluminum keyboard like the Mac's will cost about $75, and a good wireless about the same...I prefer the Logitech Revolution. So, there is $15o compared to your paltry and misleading $20.

You apparently know nothing of what you say about Mac software and how people don't use them. Garage Band, Quick Time (who MS stole the code from and settled in the 90's by paying Apple all of those millions,) iMovie, Time Machine (this backup is free, but you need the Pro version of Win7 to get the same), iPhoto, PDF conversion (has been around for years on the Mac OS), etc. There is a software argument and your Open Source alternative is pretty weak. Audacity instead of GB? No thanks.

Read some the recent Maximum PC and their monitor review section. Cheap monitors like LG and Viewsonic suck ass. Good monitors like Samsung, Dell, and HP will cost you some cash. Go with the shit, I like looking at quality graphics...not washed out screens.

Actually, I do use all of those Mac OS tools that you say only professionals use.

Ridiculous? You say "Smaller footprint of a Mac? Now you are being ridiculous. BOTH PC AND MAC USE THE SAME PROCESSORS!" Footprint in my dictionary means the amount of space the computer takes up on, below, or behind the desk. What does a CPU have to do with it? You seem confused by your anger.

You say: "This is a website for the empirically minded- get your facts straight!" This is a lie. When people trash Apple products or the OS simply because they are an Apple product has nothing to do with objective thought. Nor does an avoidance to look at the performance and accept the values of an Apple product simply because it is an Apple product empirical. But the biggest laugh is when you so called hobbyist try to compare your shoddy builds whose specs do not match the machine you are building against, and then boast how you can do it cheaper and better. Pretty sad state of affairs, and definitely kills your concept of this being a site for the empiricists. Do you know who makes Apples panels, psu, etc.? No, then how can you say they use inferior components? That is not empiricism.

You say that not all consumers need the new $2000 iMac. Yea, that is why Apple makes one for $1200. Also, how many PCers need those fancy rigs they build? Not many.

If you are talking tower cases, then you would be hard pressed to find one as nice as a Mac Pro. Have you looked at one up close. Zalman comes to mind when I think Mac Pro case.

If you want the best graphics workstation the get Linux or Windows. What? Who do you think uses Mac's? The graphics industry, movie industry, etc. For CAD, CAM, etc., they primarily use Windows because that is where the software is. You could do the same on a Mac Pro merely by dual booting...there is also a NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800 for Mac by PNY for $1800 if you want.

One last point, if you are going to do price comparisons then you should make identical machines, running comparable software and OSes, and you should include all of the components on both machines with the exact specs. That is how an empirical test is conducted. It is not empirical to just throw the major components in, assume that consumers are happy and content with inferior quality, that consumers are not tech savvy, or that a generic keyboard/mouse are the same as a wireless mouse and keyboard, etc. Empiricism is about being true with all of the test parameters, to do otherwise is to skew the data.

Those are my facts. Where are yours, or are you just going to accuse me of talking out of my ass? Sounds like you are the guilty one here.


 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom