Users who Dugg This
Nausheen Fida
288 Followers
Redsfaithful
5952 Followers
Black Sonia
854 Followers
Mark Thompson
742 Followers
naushi4uAug 9, 2010
great info
norrisobeAug 9, 2010
I'm stuck with an old Power PC G4 Quicksilver. I need an upgrade.
I'm looking for something for film editing. is this a good idea?
saikyanAug 9, 2010
If you're looking for absolute bang-for-the-buck you won't find it from Apple. But if you know you want to stick with the Mac OS, I would consider portability vs stationary. If mobility is really important to you, go Macbook Pro. If not, get a high-end iMac. The mini will be underpowered for your needs.
flbotavaraAug 9, 2010
I do not know which part got you dugged down. Apple products are premium items, aren't they.
charlotte_webAug 9, 2010
What kind of film editing are you talking about? Simple iMovie-type stuff or Final Cut Pro?
If you're just doing home movies, then you can get by with low-end hardware (even the iPhone does video editing now). For professional stuff, you need some big CPU iron to chop down the rendering times, as well as a RAID array.
jabbrwockeyAug 9, 2010
Why the f**k would you need a RAID?
danielwsmitheeAug 9, 2010
The High End iMac with a SSD+HD will work well.
caramba421Aug 9, 2010
"Why the f**k would you need a RAID?"
Because stripe sets offer better performance.
charlotte_webAug 9, 2010
^ This.
Because once you get that muticore/multi-CPU system, you're gonna want to keep the pipeline to it full of data. It would suck if you dropped tons of cash on a 12 core Mac Pro and the stock hard drive setup didn't come anywhere near close to saturating the pipeline.
fredfredricksonAug 9, 2010
iMacs aren't good for anything but light Photoshop work or web browsing. Same goes for MacBook Pro.
If you want to do film editing, either get a Mac Pro or (gasp) buy a PC.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bosskeyAug 9, 2010
You're saying even a Core i7 multicore iMac isn't good for anything but light Photoshop work? You're crazy
tehjabbaAug 9, 2010
Not sure why you're getting dugg down, imacs are pretty basic by modern standards and pretty low spec for the price. 'light' could probably be bumped up to 'moderate' photoshop work but otherwise you're spot on.
If i was looking to do film editing on a budget then the PC would be the only real choice.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
macparrotAug 9, 2010
MacBook Pros are pretty good mobile editing solutions and really last if taken care of. I'm still using a 3 year old 2.33 C2D 15-inch MBP with FCP and while certainly not a speed demon anymore, is fine for my needs. You didn't say what kind of editor you are or what your price range is, but consider the refurb market at the Apple Store website. 15-30% off. Grab an I5 quad-core with a 27-inch display for about $1500 or an I7 for $1700.
My real complaint about Apple's desktops (other than the Mac Pro) is the lack of internal storage options forcing editors on a budget to go to expensive external solutions.
hellicusAug 9, 2010
Get a real computer, kid.
falldogAug 9, 2010
People do don't use number pads anymore?
danormsbyAug 9, 2010
If you buy one of these... no.
paradiddler45Aug 9, 2010
I guess it doesn't fit the aesthetic...
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
You can choose to have a wired keyboard with a numeric keyboard instead of the default small wireless keyboard, if that's what you prefer.
phoenixgtrAug 10, 2010
There are wireless keyboard w num pad too.
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
@phoenixgtrphoenixgtr: got a link? I couldn't see one, unless it's not available in UK layout...
tape99Aug 21, 2010
@obobo
http://www.chinatraderonline.com/Files/Keyboard/Wireless-Keyboard-23013565032.jpg
kvachonAug 9, 2010
running out of complaints eh?
flbotavaraAug 9, 2010
He was wondering, not complaining, I think.
caramba421Aug 9, 2010
He was complundering.
rudegarAug 9, 2010
well laptops mostly got them as FN keys
bosskeyAug 9, 2010
They removed the virtual number pad from the MacBook Pros.
rudegarAug 9, 2010
well I like my numpad
but one think which bother me with most keyboards today is that they changed the insert, del, home, end, pgup pgdown setup
:S
kvachonAug 9, 2010
I will concede that, I miss home and end.
schoate09Aug 9, 2010
Not a bad price when you consider the form factor, screen quality,etc. I just wish Apple would include the choice for more power and a less "pretty" encasing with a screen that doesn't need to be photoshop quality.
You know, choice for different levels of quality. I'd love to have an affordable Core i7 OS X desktop, or laptop for that matter (quad core).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jabbrwockeyAug 9, 2010
Then why don't you just build an i7 desktop from scratch?
bosskeyAug 9, 2010
The vast, and by vast I mean almost all, people are no more interested in building their own computer from scratch than they are in building anything else in their lives from scratch. They want to bring home a cardboard box, take out what's inside, and plug it in.
jabbrwockeyAug 9, 2010
The "vast" majority of people don't know the difference between an i3 and an i7.
But I was talking about schoate, not this red herring.
caramba421Aug 9, 2010
" I just wish Apple would include the choice for more power and a less "pretty" encasing with a screen that doesn't need to be photoshop quality."
They have those. They're called Not Macs.
saikyanAug 9, 2010
Say what you will about iMacs and their lack of expandability, when you consider their target market they are a solid PC. They are simple and low maintenance with a particularly easy-to-learn OS.
I know the anti-Apple crowd will have some knee-jerk venom for me, but I'm speaking as a non-fanboy who supports (and enjoys) both the Mac and Windows platforms.
jabbrwockeyAug 9, 2010
Yes, their target market of teenage girls and grandparents.
bosskeyAug 9, 2010
You're leaving out all of the very credible tech people who own one, including folks at NASA. You're leaving out the many people I've seen post on forums who said "I am Windows IT at work and used to build my own PCs, but I'm through with that s**t and bought a Mac for myself."
You're leaving out everybody who brings a Mac laptop to a Unix conference...and there are a lot of those.
You're leaving out Kevin Rose who runs this web site, and all the folks at Digg who have a Mac on their desk, and taht seems to be practically all of them.
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
Most Digg users will have a Windows computer, the vast majority of people on the planet do.
bosskeyAug 10, 2010
No, I mean just about all the people who WORK at Digg have a Mac on their desk.
satirenineAug 9, 2010
And people who just want their s**t to work and then get out of the way?
jabbrwockeyAug 9, 2010
I thought we were talking about target markets, not outliers.
bartledooAug 9, 2010
I dunno. I find the UI on macs very counterintuitive most of the time. I once spent 5 minutes just trying to figure out how to maximize a window (apparently it can only be done manually since that damn green button thinks it's smarter than you).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
root45Aug 9, 2010
Why are PC users so obsessed with maximizing windows? It may have been useful when monitors were 14 and 15 inches, but today it's usually just inefficient. You end up with a ton of useless whitespace.
Also, people say OS X is broken because it "can't maximize windows", when in reality the the plus button is meant to resize a window to fit all the contents. This seems like a much nicer feature, but regardless, it doesn't mean the OS is "broken". It just works differently.
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
Because if you maximise a window you can focus on the foreground program easier.
bartledooAug 9, 2010
I'm not saying it's broken, just that it's not intuitive. The plus button is a cool feature which I like, but many times I want to actually maximize the window even if there is a bunch of white space so I can focus on one thing instead of being distracted by stuff that isn't in program I'm currently working with.
Keep the plus button, but give me a way to resize and maximize other than that tiny little gripper on the bottom right corner. Makes me feel handicapped.
That's just one example though. I'm not an idiot, but I sure feel like one sometimes trying to figure out a supposedly "intuitive" interface. If you are accustomed to it, I'm sure it does seem intuitive, but the test for that is how easily people who aren't used to the system figure things out.
oninboninAug 9, 2010
Sorry, you can't have what 'you' think would be intuitive. Psh! Why would you even want to maximize windows anyways??
/s kind of..I guess?
eadintAug 9, 2010
Os x is intuitive, windows users are not use to an intuitive os and that is the main problem, as far as performance the high end iMac is pretty awesome for an all in one. You can do some pretty good editing with them. Another thing is macs have longer lifetimes. You can easily get 4+ years from a Mac. After two years a pc is screaming to get upgraded.
mtaylor2k3Aug 9, 2010
At least they have the option to upgrade, rather than shell out $1200 minimum for a new mac.
kylesnodgrassAug 10, 2010
I just upgraded my memory, hdd and replaced my battery, what else would you be replacing on your pc laptop that I wouldn't be able to??
dnz64Aug 9, 2010
''You can easily get 4+ years from a Mac. After two years a pc is screaming to get upgraded.''
you mean my pc hardware with the same specification as a mac will perform less and less better than a mac as time goes by?
ridiculous.
you update a pc because you can, as for macs, you need to buy the entire thing again, so you wait longer.
tehjabbaAug 9, 2010
Crazy talk. So an underspecced overpriced mac will outlast a similar priced but far better specced PC?
What about the 2/3 pricey OSX updates you'll need to buy in those 3 years just to keep using the latest software.
PC users that do upgrade do so because they can, so that they can keep as close to the cutting edge as possible for the life of they're PC be that for games or work or simply to extend the life of their PC for a few more years. Mac users don't have that option and need to shell out a few grand for a new mac.
When i was an apple buyer i was spending at least 3 times much as i spend now to keep up to date. Stupid.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
@tehjabba: I know what you mean, that $30 Snow Leopard disc really broke the bank!
macparrotAug 9, 2010
@migitalwarfare
I've been a Mac user since 1987. I currently own a 4-year old 2.16GHz 24-inch iMac. Changing out the hard drive is a MAJOR pain in the ass on just about every iMac ever made. Why Apple refuses to make a Core 2 or I-Series tower is a constant source of frustration for me and why I'm contemplating going the Hackintosh route next time aroundComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 10, 2010
To that point though, there are thousands of external hard drive options, specifically marketed toward people who would rather not make the effort to change out an internal drive. It's still an upgrade, and it's still easy enough for most people to do it.
fredfredricksonAug 9, 2010
If you look at a product only in the context of what their target market is, the Shamwow, Snuggie, and Slap Chop are also top of the line products.
frankie4fingersAug 10, 2010
Well it is double the same PC but I guess and it is put together well at least.
pathouston22Aug 9, 2010
$1,000+ for a Core i3?
Does anybody have a life vest? I'm drowning in lawls.
kvachonAug 9, 2010
There is a bunch of stuff around the processor you know.
pathouston22Aug 9, 2010
Ooooh, you mean like cutting edge technology such as a platter hardrive? An enormous 4GB of ram? A massive 21" LCD screen? Or a Crysis dominating 4670?
mtaylor2k3Aug 9, 2010
$400-500 worth of computer components
$200-300 worth of monitor
$400 worth of apple logo.
The price makes perfect sense guys, quit whining.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
"Maybe the Apple logo is coated in gold?"
Coated? For that price I'd want a full 24 carat logo.
non00bAug 9, 2010
@mtaylor2k3 show me an ips 1080p monitor for 250..
danielwsmitheeAug 9, 2010
IPS??? you mean were supposed to pay attention to the entire specs of the computer.
spacemanspiff22Aug 9, 2010
@non00b
Dell has several 21.5, 22, and 23 inch ips monitors that are commonly on sale in the $230-250 range. That having been said, there are plenty of excellent tn monitors and average at best ips monitors. Looking at 1080p and ips as your only 2 factors for a monitor is silly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
beccabobAug 9, 2010
So, non00b, how about this, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824116421&cm_re=ips_monitor-_-24-116-421-_-Product
A 23" 1080P Viewsonic IPS monitor for $300??
So, only a $350 Apple logo??
Yes, they make nice stuff, with awesome aesthetics, and good support, but anyone denying the existence of a rather large price premium is delusional.
mtaylor2k3Aug 9, 2010
well, here's a 23" on amazon for 289. Its slightly larger, but slightly more. Alright, you got me. I gave those prices from my head, not thoroughly researched.
http://www.amazon.com/ViewSonic-VP2365WB-23-Inch-IPS-Monitor/dp/B002R0JJYO
tehjabbaAug 9, 2010
"Maybe the Apple logo is coated in gold?"
The one at Apple HQ is thanks to the twits that buy into this s**t.
captininsanityAug 9, 2010
You're gonna get buried to hell for saying that, but I've seen i7 systems for better prices! And no, I'm not just talking about the CPU. The machine is overpriced. Honestly, they couldn't afford to at least make it a quad core processor? wtf!
theungodAug 9, 2010
My 6 month old laptop has an i7, 4GB RAM, 500GB, GT230M...not the most amazing specs, but it was 999$. For a laptop! 6 months ago!
unforeseen123Aug 10, 2010
but it has hyperthreading that makes it work like a quad core ........................................... BHAHAHAHA /s
mojohacker2010Aug 9, 2010
I lawled as well...it's pretty weak stuff wrapped in fancy packaging.
non00bAug 9, 2010
dugg down for comparing an all-in-one to a build-it-yourself tower PC.
captininsanityAug 9, 2010
Here you go:
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/computer_can_series.do?storeName=computer_store&category=desktops&a1=Category&v1=High+performance&series_name=HPE380t_series&jumpid=in_R329_prodexp/hhoslp/psg/desktops/High_performance/HPE380t_series
I took 10 seconds on Google and grabbed the first all-in-one HP machine for $1100. Even at base configuration it blows that s**t out of the water, AND you can customized before its even shipped to you!
non00bAug 9, 2010
@captininsanity see above reply
konstantinoAug 9, 2010
I don't understand how the buries and diggs are being distributed, but that isn't an all-in-one machine, and you can customize Apple hardware before it's shipped to you as well.
jabbrwockeyAug 9, 2010
I bought an HP laptop core i7, 6GB ram, 500GB hard drive for $1040 with nvidia 210M, 1GB.
WTF Apple?!?
kvachonAug 9, 2010
Im assuming you had a 15" non LED Backlit LCD display? There's your price difference.
artworkz918Aug 9, 2010
but it was an HP......
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Your PC came filled with Ads, spam and trial software all built in. Other than the fact that your display was not 21.5 inch (the obvious) and probably of a lower resolution HP can reduce the price because you bought a PC but got a PC with ads all over it.
On average I spend 1 - 2 hours removing all that advertisment, spam and trial software crap. It's no biggie but there's why you paid less. It was basically subsidized. You can also think of it like this. Why is Google search free? Because they make money off of you on the ads on the side. HP doesn't make all of it's money off of the ads. Probably very little. The very little does help to subsidize your computer just enough to make it look better than the competition.
00sean00Aug 9, 2010
You do realize that the 310M (entry-level) is a far inferior card to the 4670 (mid-range)? The i7 is wasted for games as you have a massive bottleneck in the 310m. I would argue that the i3 iMac would have around double the frame rates in any modern game over your system. Additionally with applications like Photoshop making use of the graphics card as well, your system begins to look much less appealing.
A fair comparison would be your system to a mac mini. Slap in an i7m to the mini price and a low range LCD (which is what HP uses, apple uses e-IPS panels--much higher quality) and you'll find you're not that far off.
Not defending apple here (pc user here) but do some research first before making assumptions. The i3 iMac is a good value for most any general pc user.
jabbrwockeyAug 9, 2010
@KVachon. Yes, it was an LED backlit, 900 resolution. I passed on the 1080 resolution because it's nearly impossible to find a laptop under 15" with that resolution.
@thisthatwhat: Takes thirty minutes to remove, or you could do a fresh OS boot like I did (also takes thirty minutes).
@00Sean00: The laptop is an ultra portable laptop, not a gaming desktop. I went with the 310m because it was switchable, meaning you can turn it off to preserve laptop battery, and because I'm not looking for something to grind video games on. Sheesh.
00sean00Aug 9, 2010
Not sure why you are comparing an ultra portable to an all in one....Apples to oranges.
Your comment is invalid.
jabbrwockeyAug 10, 2010
Because it's not toasters and mopeds - it's computer hardware to computer hardware.
fredfredricksonAug 9, 2010
When the Apple fans roll in, you might drown in buries too.
I built an i7 tower with specs that trash the new iMac, a year ago, and for about $1,000.
root45Aug 9, 2010
It always annoys me when people compare two sets of hardware and use that as a basis to claim a computer is overpriced.
The biggest selling points of buying a Mac are ease-of-use. People like using OS X, and it's really difficult to use it without buying a Mac. Also, people like having good support and a unified computing experience.
Yes, I can find better hardware for cheaper prices, but it's expected that I run Windows. I hate Windows, I can't stand it. I like Linux enough, but I don't really trust it and I don't have time to fix it if something goes wrong. With a Mac, I get an easy-to-use, solid operating system with great support.
jabbrwockeyAug 9, 2010
The motorcycle vs. tricycle argument fails when the tricycle costs more.
root45Aug 9, 2010
The analogy is more like, "custom-built roadster" versus "a manufacturer's Porche". Sure, you can do whatever you want with the roadster, and it might even be cheaper, but when it breaks down, you have no one to blame and no one to help you.
jabbrwockeyAug 9, 2010
Which would be relevant if this new iMac was state of the art. But it's not, it's a year behind, which for something that is so hard to upgrade minimizes the return on investment.
New iMac: core i3, 4GB DDR3 RAM, mid range graphics card, platter HD
Should have been: core i7 quad / i5, 6-8 GB DDR3 RAM, high range graphics card, SSD
root45Aug 9, 2010
Not every computer needs to be state of the art. This is a consumer computer. It's marketed for students, families with children, elementary schools, etc.. The people who are looking to buy this kind of computer don't know the difference between a core i3 or i7 or a disk hard drive versus an SSD.
I realize that you think since it costs more, it should have the best hardware that money can buy, but my point here, and my original point above, is that not everyone buys computers for their hardware alone. People are buying this for the software, the support and the convenience. It's a price increase that lots of people are willing to pay for.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jabbrwockeyAug 9, 2010
Exactly, there is a niche market for tricycles and a demand for motorcycles.
Except since the win7 release there isn't a striking "safety" difference between the two operating systems.
root45Aug 9, 2010
You're tricycle-motorcycle analogy still doesn't make sense.
I wouldn't call it a niche market. Yes it's smaller, but is that a bad thing? There are lots of people who are interested in buying these, and for them, this is a great product.
I'm skeptical that Windows 7 is that much more secure than XP or Vista. But even so, people aren't buying Macs for the sole reason of security. It's largely about convenience, easy of use, support, a unified experience, less hassle, etc..Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
srk998Aug 9, 2010
Really? Haven't we seen all those statements by professional security consultants on digg already that say macs are way more vulnerable than others? Proportionally (market-share-wise) macs have more vulnerabilities and malware. And the number will keep increasing as we see increasing popularity. That's just how the world works, and no fanboy should be ignorant about it.
root45Aug 9, 2010
I'm well aware of the reports about security risks, and I'm not one to argue. But at the moment malware, spyware, adware and viruses all dominate on Windows. There are only a handful of viruses for OS X and all or nearly all of those have been proof-of-concept.
But this really isn't the point. JabbrWocky's original complaint was that Apple seems to be overcharging for hardware, while I countered that you shouldn't measure a computer just by its components. It's not just about more security.
jabbrwockeyAug 10, 2010
You're right, root, you should measure it by the color of the tassels on the handlebars.
root45Aug 11, 2010
Is it so hard to believe that a computer might be worth more than just the hardware? Or at least, is it possible for you to believe that other people might have this viewpoint?
If computers were only worth the cost of their hardware, there wouldn't be any computer companies as we know them. People would just buy parts from the manufacturer and cut out the middlemen.
Instead, consumers pay computer companies to make those parts usable and convenient. Some people are willing to pay more because they see the end product as more useful, for reasons I've already stated.
I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to grasp this concept.
brbybeeAug 9, 2010
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/apple-comparison?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
srk998Aug 9, 2010
Nice find. This should shut em up for a while. The only argument they have here is the OS, and may be the casing.
skeloothAug 9, 2010
lol what over priced rubbish.
kvachonAug 9, 2010
Yeah, the screen is the point.
n0diggityAug 9, 2010
21.5" is hardly monstrous.
solecizeAug 9, 2010
27 inch 2k monitors (just like the apple 27 inch iMac) go for at least 1 grand regardless of brand. the dell is over 1 grand and isn't even edge lit.
n0diggityAug 12, 2010
what's a 2k monitor? Are you talking about an 8-bit IPS panel? Yes they are expensive - about $600 for a 24" and 800 for an average 27". However, using a TN panel instead of IPS would have allowed Apple to price their iMac at $800 and widely expanded their customer base.
skeloothAug 9, 2010
compared to other laptops in its price range, yes, the screen is monstrous.
azadcreativeAug 9, 2010
No matter how much I love Ubuntu (for development) and Windows 7 (for light gaming) on my inexpensive Dell, I have to say the iMac creates one heck of a multimedia experience.
captininsanityAug 9, 2010
As far as media and such go Ubuntu does it fine, and Win7 does it while looking nice too. What's a "multimedia experience" outside of liking Mac because it's pretty and you like the idea you're using a Mac?
elvinuAug 9, 2010
what you call "multimedia experience" ??? please tell me!! no blue-ray, no HDMI, no e-sata, the screen is small. i3??? yes the dual core s**t can do the same things!!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
azadcreativeAug 9, 2010
Me and the Missus love it for music, internet browsing and watching tv online and DVD box sets. It's the screen that makes the difference.
tangytengAug 9, 2010
"music, internet browsing and watching tv online"
that's not a multimedia experience. even $500 Acers can do that stuff
bosskeyAug 9, 2010
@tangyteng - yeah, but with the crappiest screens in the universe. It's like loving music and buying crap speakers.
tangytengAug 10, 2010
something tells me that "real" video and audiophiles don't watch TV online or listen to music on a computer.
people like that tend to have nice, expensive home theater setups
jabbrwockeyAug 9, 2010
Guys, guys, he's referring to Apple TV, the closed HTPC.
mrpassionAug 9, 2010
I just hate that Apple doesnt offer a matte screen anymore because Steve Jobs knows nobody needs them. No photographer worth his salt will buy a glossy screen if matte was available to him as an option. If imac and the 13" macbook pro were to have matte screen options I would buy one of each.
rssejAug 9, 2010
glossy screens are actually more accurate since it doesnt disperse values. only problem with glossy is reflection but what photog is working in an overly lit room.
lebeagleAug 9, 2010
In any room actually, we trialed them last year and our studio uses diffused lighting throughout, no natural light whatsoever. They were unusable.
fredfredricksonAug 9, 2010
I'm working on one of Apple's glossy monitors right now and I would go back to matte if I could. It's awful.
Every light source creates a glare so bad that it's impossible to edit anything darker than 25% gray without having to move my head all over the place to see it from different angles and make sure I'm not screwing things up.
mrpassionAug 9, 2010
I love my eyesight more than I love Steve Jobs.
kvachonAug 9, 2010
http://www.photodon.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=P&Category_Code=AppleiMac&Product_Code=MXH-3200-01K
mrpassionAug 9, 2010
I know I could buy some anti glare addon or film to reduce the glare just like I can buy an adapter to have USB functionalty on an ipad or just as I can buy a strap on dildo for my aunt to have her an uncle like appearence. The thing is I do not love Steve Jobs so much.
kvachonAug 9, 2010
atleast you admit your irrational decision making.
valdevAug 9, 2010
Outdated technology for people who don't understand technology. Super overpriced also
elvinuAug 9, 2010
THIS s**t IS STILL EXPENSIVE!!!! and the article says:
"Editors' Choice for mainstream/multimedia-oriented all-in-one desktop PCs" Since when i3 and 4gigs of ram IS MAINSTREAM????
What makes i7????? Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
joemanmanAug 9, 2010
easy man, sheesh, it's a computer
elvinuAug 9, 2010
it's not about compuuter its about the article.
anthonyjrAug 9, 2010
LOLERCAKES
barneysposseAug 9, 2010
break*
or if you really did want someone to give you some brakes:
http://www.dplastina.com/gurch/site/images/brakes.jpg
theexitwoundAug 9, 2010
One of my biggest gripes is that the aesthetics has pushed things like USB ports to the BACK of the machine. I can't tell you how often I'm reaching behind and moving the machines here at work to install my flippin' flash drive on one of these. Luckily, one of the users adopted the extended keyboard with the numpad, which has a USB port on the side. I don't understand how this decision to move the USBs to the back is a good one.
danielwsmitheeAug 9, 2010
It doesn't matter on the iMac. A quick swivel of the iMac on your desk and you have easy access to the USB ports. I can see it being a problem for a bulky desktop. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fredfredricksonAug 9, 2010
You're actually saying that it was a good idea to move the USB ports to the back because it's easy to swivel the computer around? Honestly?
'Delusional' is probably the best way to describe people like you.
danielwsmitheeAug 9, 2010
What do you mean move them to the back?? The iMac has never had USB ports on the front. So nothing got moved.
I'm saying with the iMac's form factor it doesn't matter. It is not like you need a whole lot of strength to swivel an iMac.
theexitwoundAug 9, 2010
The issue is that ten years ago when USB devices weren't as prevalent, having them on the back might be fine. Never every camera, printer, and device that consumers buy are USB. It doesn't make ANY sense to leave them in the back. I shouldn't have to swivel the machine around. Period.
danielwsmitheeAug 9, 2010
If it bugs you that bad just order it with the wired keyboard. You'll get two USB ports right in front of you for easy access. They even give you options with or without the numeric keypad. The option is free complaining about something measly like that just seems silly to me.
jelloburnAug 9, 2010
@danielwsmithee The original iMacs had the USB ports on the keyboard, as well as on the side of the machine, which is a hell of a lot easier to access than the back.
I like my old Core Duo iMac, but it is a major pain to have to either feel my way around the back or lean over the top to try and plug in a device. This is about visual aesthetics, not functionality.
macparrotAug 9, 2010
@danielwsmithee
Those USB ports on the keyboard are USB 1.1. Slow
danielwsmitheeAug 10, 2010
Actually MacParrot that is not true. The new Aluminum keyboards are all USB 2.0, only the old white ones were 1.1.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB869LL/A?fnode=MTY1NDA1Mg&mco=MTA4Mzc5NDY
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB110LL/A?fnode=MTY1NDA1Mg&mco=MTA4NzM1Nzc
I wouldn't mind having a USB port right below the SD Card reader. Honestly I plug in USB devices about once per month. Both of my cameras Nikon and Cannon use SD Cards. So I was excited to see the reader on the new iMacs. I upgraded from a Core Duo to an i7 iMac.
theexitwoundAug 10, 2010
Why isn't the SD reader on the back?
danielwsmitheeAug 10, 2010
Because it is on the side. There is no question that it is a matter of Aesthetics. I just don't think it is that big of loss of functionality.
solecizeAug 9, 2010
so i guess you don't plug them into your keyboard usb slot then hunh?
chriscanadaAug 9, 2010
Besides malware issues, I have found OS X more buggy in general during two years where I heavily used it.
aronwyrthAug 9, 2010
What kind of bugs have you found? I've been using it heavily for four years and have found much of anything wrong with it, particularly compared to the XP I came from.
aronwyrthAug 9, 2010
Should have read "haven't found."
jelloburnAug 9, 2010
Since QuickLook was introduced in 10.5, I've had a lot of issues when it comes to PSD and video files freezing the Finder completely up, sometimes even warranting a complete reboot.
That and network shares causing Finder to freeze or bog down. Of course this isn't truly OS X, just the shoddy Finder.app
srk998Aug 9, 2010
I have the exact same configuration (with 1TB HDD, eSATA port on built-in on mobo, 5 sec Asus bootup option). I paid only $600 CAD for it. On top of that my one is expandable to 3 mode HDD, 12 GB more ram, and more.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
non00bAug 9, 2010
and you jammed all that hardware into a computer the size of an lcd screen?
srk998Aug 9, 2010
Did I mention the expandability?
I don't plan on buying a new PC as soon as something breaks down, or needs an upgrade.
I plan on taking advantage of the lower prices too in near or far future.
And I am not planning to carry my desktop around to Starbucks and/or to university.
So I think I am good for now with a roomy casing.
tangytengAug 9, 2010
because clearly form factor and stylistic design trumps price.
/s
srk998Aug 9, 2010
Did I mention the expandability?
I don't plan on buying a new PC as soon as something breaks down, or needs an upgrade.
I plan on taking advantage of the lower prices too in near or far future.
And I am not planning to carry my desktop around to Starbucks and/or to university.
So I think I am good for now with a roomy casing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kvachonAug 9, 2010
What are you using for a display? Is it a 21" LCD Backlit LCD Display with comparable Contrast, Response Time and Resolution?
Your post is incomplete without those specs and price
non00bAug 9, 2010
In a market of choices you have made yours. Other people will choose the imac since they don't need expandability, 3 HDs, 12gb of ram.
Also a 1080p IPS 21 inch LED backlit screen would probably cost 500$ on its own.. It's classed out of the league of anything they sell at the brick and mortar computer stores.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
People are buying the form factor and the OS. Since you're using Windows you will need the 12GB of RAM. 4GB is plenty of OS X.
mkautzAug 9, 2010
I'd bet my bottom dollar that you are in fact dumb as s**t.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Wow, I love a-o's like MKautz here. Have nothing to back his s**t but loves to call names because he thinks he's all that. Well, its best to call names when you don't have something smart to say. 12 year olds love that. Let's grow up now.
mkautzAug 9, 2010
Windows XP has been running comfortably on 256MB of RAM for some years and Windows 7 runs comfortably on workstation computers with 2GB of RAM, integrated graphics and budget processors. (See: Dell's modern Optiplex series) Now, implying that Windows requires "12GB of RAM" to run is at best, disingenuous. Meanwhile, the average Mac user is trying to compare a $450 workstation to a $1600 Macbook Pro, preaching to the average user that it runs so much better than the cheapest PC you can find, which is true, because you are comparing a $450 computer to a $1600 dollar computer.
The post I originally replied to doesn't deserve a proper response and explanation as the person who made it clearly knows almost nothing about OSes and the hardware required to run them well and is buried so deep in his own ignorance that anything I could bring to the table, even benchmarks, would fail to even phase the smug aura surrounding him.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
@MKautz:
You are arrogant to assume. It makes an ass out of u and me. Since we don't know each other no one cares less dude! :P
The first few versions of Windows XP did run on 256 MB of RAM. Just watch it crawl after a few processes start running. Add in a firewall and and virus scanner then try to run an app. You end up swapping madly after a couple of memory intensive apps. 256MB of RAM with a Linux system and you're still fine. Then again we're not talking about the same apps. The Linux kernel does take up a lot less memory. You can run it with X or with out X. You'd never do that with Windows. Windows 7 was quite a leap compared to Vista. Ever try to run Vista with 2GB of RAM. Expect a lot of waiting, 4GB was a minimum for any acceptable performance. There's a lot to say about Windows 7 though. It's just smooth. People like to say I have 12GB of RAM. Okay, great. That's because you do need it to run games mostly (and graphics, video editing, etc...). The extra RAM means less swapping. So some resource intensive games will eat up a lot of the memory. I can't say which ones will actually take up 12. Probably very few of them. On Mac OS X there's very little reason for 12GB of RAM. Maybe if you do video editing, intensive 3D or graphics editing.
If you're going to be talking about OSes you wise sir. Do you know the difference between system V and BSD? What's Linux? Linux is an UNIX like OS based on parts of BSD and System V. OS X on the other hand is a BSD based OS. You think there's smug aura I don't think so.
Have you written any kernel code? Drivers? You're just a user. You don't even know what's underneath the hood. What's a bus? You know what I2C, system bus, SPI, edge triggered interrupts, how your OS handles interrupts, how memory is managed, what the system heap is all about, how is memory allocated, how memory is shared between processes (FIFO's, sockets, ...), mutexes, etc...? Then you don't know an OS.
I don't know hardware? Then you're wrong. How does sound work? Written a sound driver before? Know about DMA? How about a flash driver? What's CFI? NAND? NOR? Ever read a schematic before? That's just touching the surface.
If you bet your bottom dollar I know less than you. Then you must be Linus Torvald, John Carmack or someone that's really famous. Otherwise, you need to tone it down. You ain't the s**tz you make yourself out to be.
jelloburnAug 9, 2010
@thisthatwhat
I easily ran Windows Vista on my 2006 1.83 GHz Core Duo iMac with 2GB RAM. I rarely, if ever, found myself waiting on the OS with that configuration. It was able to play the latest games (at the time) and is still running strong.
To an outside observer, you speak like somebody that doesn't know what they're talking about. It's great to act like you know all this obscure information, but to get wrong basic facts about how much RAM an OS need completely destroys your credibility.
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
@julloburn:
It all depends on which version of Vista you're running too buddy.
After all the service packs it did begin to run faster. The first version crawled with 2GB of RAM. That's no BS buddy. There's always going to be the guy who has no problems and others who run into all the problems. It's also very dependent on which programs your run.
I can show you many many original Vista PCs running with 2GB of RAM that is so slow that's unusable. This world is made of a collection of use cases. I speak for many Vista PCs when I say 2GB is just not enough.
aronwyrthAug 9, 2010
What kind of monitor came with the configuration?
anthonyjrAug 9, 2010
Maybe people aren't so indulged with their e-peen specs and just want something that works well for years to come?
Do you run tons of 64-bit apps on a super stable operating system that manages your cores for you?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mkautzAug 9, 2010
Site some examples of OSX being able to do something Windows cannot in the context of your argument. Any one thing will do.
srk998Aug 9, 2010
I don't even feel like replying to this thread anymore. It is so clouded by smug.
As my last thought here, given the same price you'll always get a better deal with a non-mac than with a mac.
non00bAug 9, 2010
Tip to all those about to post about how this computer is 'overly expensive'.
Unless you are comparing it to an all-in-one (in which is compares favourably), this computer is priced accordingly. Good design is expensive. It's regular hardware in a very well designed package (try building your own computer the size of an lcd screen and having it run stable, my imac has never overheated).
Obligatory car comparison: Bentley uses BMW motors, and the audio s8 uses a lamborghini engine... people still buy the respective high-end cars. A computer is more than the processor.
mkautzAug 9, 2010
Except it's not good design. It's pretty design. It's aesthetically pleasing. "Pretty" isn't the only qualifier of "good design". If you want an example of good design, you can take a look at the Dell Optiplex 980s (And really, the entire Optiplex series since the 520s has been rather good). The design is practical, functional, reliable and still maintains a aesthetically pleasing form. The iMacs are pretty, but are a pain to service, a particularly sensitive to heat and electrical abnormalities, and have non-standard hardware across the board. On top of their non-standard hardware, getting into the machine to actually replace the hardware is time consuming and tedious.
I work in IT and in an enviroment where we support both Macs and PCs and I love to get phone calls from people asking me for quotes on out-of-warrenty Mac hardware. Replacing an optical drive on a Dell desktop is about $20 and 3 minutes. Replacing an optical drive on a Mac is three figures and 45 minutes.
So, if you care about how shiny your computer is, then yes, the Apple offers the pinnacle of 'good design'. If you can't afford to wipe your ass with hundred dollar bills and want something practical that works for half the price, look elsewhere.
non00bAug 9, 2010
That's the price you pay for a small form factor system. The same thing applies to laptops, pc or mac (except the old thinkpads that were very modular, rip IBM thinkpads)..
kingnerdAug 9, 2010
Meh, pretty weak analogy.
Either way, Bentley's use VW engines, you may be thinking of Rolls Royce...but either way Audi, VW, Lambo and about 5 other companies are all part of the same auto group it would be dumb if they didn't use derivatives of the engines in their other cars elsewhere. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ninjasnowmanAug 9, 2010
HP has a pretty good all-in-one that has similar specs, and is a great iMac alternative for the person who prefers Windows.
frankie4fingersAug 10, 2010
A car and a computer aren't really the same thing. A car is half the actual performance and half the design and the arrangement of the interior and the flashiness around town. A computer is not really intended on being flashy around town and you don't do anything special with the Apple keyboard and monitor than you do with another cheaper computer.
Don't kid yourself. Overpriced hardware is still the same hardware, it is just packaged so that it seems better. Software doesn't know the difference.
pdaoust007Aug 9, 2010
Before you throw your vitriol at Apple consider this:
- This is an all in one computer so if you want to make comparisons, compare it with other all-in-ones that run Windows. If you don't like all-in-one's then more power to you, it doesn't mean that they are useless to everyone else.
- Apple doesn't cater to the low end, you should know this by now. Their computers are not made out of cheap plastic and are aesthetically pleasing. Of course, you may don't care or agree but again, some people do and are prepared to pay a premium for it.
mkautzAug 9, 2010
The only thing of exceptional quality in an Apple computer is the case. Everything else is made by the same manufacturers that make the cheapest crap on the planet and it's usually the same hardware or variations of the same hardware (Given that they have to put it in a compact form factor).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jelloburnAug 9, 2010
@pdaoust007
While I agree with your points, I disagree that they cater to the high-end. An i3 is hardly high-end today, nor is 500GB in storage in a closed system, where you will never replace the hard drive, and a 4670 is hardly impressive. Add in the lack of a Blu-ray drive and you aren't looking at a high-end system. In fact, the only thing truly high-end in this model is the display.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jabbrwockeyAug 9, 2010
A core i3 for over $1000?
A challenger has appeared!
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834114928
nathan43082Aug 9, 2010
I just tried customizing a 600t all-in-one series from HP with almost the same specs. Ended up being $1119.99 AFTER their $250 instant rebate. Apple's machine is not overpriced.
jabbrwockeyAug 9, 2010
Apple and Oranges. The HP600t, which is still less expensive, has a multi touch screen.
It has superior technology, was released before this iMac, and is STILL cheaper.
fredfredricksonAug 9, 2010
Haha, you're joking, right Nathan?
Intel's i3, i5, and i7 have been available for over a year now, and you can easily build a system around the i7 for around (or less than) $1,000 that blows the iMac out of the water.
Why do you people insist on convincing others to buy this over-priced dog s**t?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
nathan43082Aug 9, 2010
And run Mac OS X? without all the Windows viruses? I would pay double the price to NOT have to run Windows. That's how much I've grown to hate it since using every version since Windows 3.1.
jabbrwockeyAug 9, 2010
I would preferably take the slightly more dangerous motorcycle than pay "double the price" for a shiny tricycle, with tassels.
nathan43082Aug 9, 2010
I think the comparison is more crotch-rocket vs. a Harley Davidson. Why do people buy Harley's. They are too expensive, right? How can anyone in their right mind pay double to get the same thing?
jabbrwockeyAug 9, 2010
That would be an adept analogy, only if it wasn't already established above that the new iMac is technologically limited when stacked against comparable products released on the market a year ago.
For a new release, it should have SSD drives, an i7/i5 quad, more DDR3 memory, a better dedicated graphics card, and a multi-touch screen.
nathan43082Aug 9, 2010
Technologically limited? There's nothing this computer cannot do that one with all those upgrades you write about could do. Sure, something more cutting edge would be faster, but that's not the market for this computer. Also, the iMac can have its hard drive upgraded to SSD and have more memory put in. For its intended market, nothing more is required.
This is meant to be a general-purpose computer, not a gaming rig. It's also not designed to be a high-end workstation. It's meant to be the computer you bring home for the family, something everyone in the house can use for various things, including some gaming, some home video editing, some web and so forth. It's not meant to be all things to all people. Why can't you get that?
Because of all these things, it is intended to be visually minimalistic and aesthetically pleasing to the eye. Given Apple's track record, this iMac will serve its owners well for the next 3-5 years.
nathan43082Aug 9, 2010
You look at the iMac and the somewhat equivalent alternative and you see X dollars compared to Y dollars and you break the component inventory down so you can figure out how much Apple is marking up their product vs. the alternative.
Assume for the moment that are tech savvy enough to build your own box with X amount of power for $1000. You survey the landscape and see that you can get a computer matching X power for $1100 from Dell, so you know Dell must be making about $100 profit. That's a bit of an oversimplification, but stay with me. Dell's margin is pretty thin: 10% or so. That's just enough to cover their overhead, which includes hardware R&D.
Then you look at Apple's similar X-power machine, same build type, and see it's costing $1300. You think, holy crap! Apple's taking in $300 profit, or 30%. You decide that Apple's machine is way too expensive. Your conclusion would be true from one point of view, but false from another.
Part of what makes the Dell computer cheaper is that they are willing to make less money to move more boxes, hoping that one will compensate for the other. Another part of what makes it cheaper is that they are stuffing what is for them an inexpensive copy of Windows in there. It costs a lot less for Dell to do that than it does for Apple to do all the R&D on their own OS. They are also choosing cheaper housing materials, like cheap plastics instead of machine-milled aluminum and glass. Those aesthetic materials cost more, which translates to a more expensive computer. Some people think it's worth it so they buy it.
With Apple you are also getting an OS which is tailor-made to fit that specific hardware and hardware which is tailor-made to fit that specific OS. You can't measure or quantify the benefits of that, which is why it can be so difficult to justify a Macintosh purchase sometimes. I can leave you with a story about it though.
My wife was using her Dell Inspiron 6000 laptop for about two years. She has a projector that she would hook up to it to make presentations from time to time. She always had to call me to figure out how to get the computer to recognize the projector and for the screens to switch correctly. Windows had a devil of a time figuring how what the projector was and how to talk to it and so forth. Typical stuff.
I finally convinced her to switch to a MacBook Pro. She went kicking and screaming because of the unfamiliarity. The first time she went to set up the projector as a test at home, it just worked. I know it's cliché, but the "it just works" mantra is there for a reason. She was happily shocked.
After a couple months, I could not pry it out of her hands. Now she will fire up the laptop and say, "I love this computer." She was never passionate about the Dell. It and Windows acted as more of a barrier to her getting her work done than they ever should have. This unquantifiable "it just works" behavior is mostly why so many Macintosh users are as passionate as they are.
kevnacaAug 9, 2010
Multitouch screen right? Have fun with finger prints. I've tried with those HP models, the touch response is appallingly slow and counterintuitive to productivity. Also your arms will be very sore.
kvachonAug 9, 2010
This Just In: Mac's have a higher price tag! We'll be here all night reporting on the SHOCKED PC users, and highlighting the best of their 3.5" Bay Hacks and BIGGEST CRT Monitors
More at 11.
joemanmanAug 9, 2010
I loled, thank you.
ingramanAug 9, 2010
Some people play guitar, others play guitar hero. Nothing wrong with that.
itmovesAug 9, 2010
4GB of RAM is not enough. 21.5" is not that big. $1200 is expensive.
rudegarAug 9, 2010
not enough for what?
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
Yes, when you're using a Windows PC 4GB of RAM is not enough. A smart phone probably has 256 MB of RAM and that is plenty. A basic Linux web server/ftp server/... server that is not heavily used can run with 256MB of RAM on a Pentium. So 4GB is not enough on a Windows machine but with OS X 4GB is enough. You have to put things in perspective here.
$1200 is expensive. It's a combination of form factor, OS and acceptable performance. You can probably assemble a PC (which is a desktop configuration) for less but that's not a all-in-one now. For most people they'd really care less. I'd assemble my own PC to get exactly the parts I want if that's the case.
chukdAug 9, 2010
I have 2GB on a mac mini and it operates smoother than my 4GB Windows 7 laptop. 4GB is plenty.
itmovesAug 9, 2010
Does a mac use its RAM in a more efficient way? I would have no idea. On a Windows machine 4gb is meager.
balthisarAug 9, 2010
::sigh:: Young children with no disposable incomes just have no appreciation that sometimes money isn't everything. We're not talking several thousand dollars here.
billaeonAug 10, 2010
Ugh. Thanks for reminding me why I will never be a Mac owner. Just because something costs more money doesn't make it better. Assuming people in to the category of "young children" because they don't want to waste money on something that is clearly not worth the outrageous mark-up on components makes you sound like a conceited ass.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
balthisarAug 10, 2010
"Young children" meaning that you've just not made it in the world yet, and therefore the /only/ thing that matters to you is every nickel and dime.
I've been a Mac user since before it was cool, and before more Diggers were born.
spacemanspiff22Aug 9, 2010
For what it is, the imac is a nice machine. It is not overpriced compared to other similar form factor all-in-ones. The problem is that apple lacks any sort of low end traditional desktop, so naturally the imac is compared to those types of machines which are invariably cheaper. Most people don't need an all-in-one, they just need a computer, so comparing it to other form factors is only fair as long as apple doesn't release a true competing machine.
nathan43082Aug 9, 2010
Dude, a 5% price difference is somewhat irrelevant when people make serious decisions about what computer to buy. Show me 25% or more, then we'll talk. Don't forget that the iMac comes with iLife.
And multitouch? Where's all that Windows multitouch software?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mkautzAug 9, 2010
Yeah, uh multitouch is certainly a requirement of general computing.
No, actually, I'd file that under both "niche" and "gimmick", that is to say, 95% of consumers give zero s**ts about multitouch.
nathan43082Aug 9, 2010
I agree. I just purchased my daughter a MacBook Pro for college and she wasn't even interested in any of the multitouch capabilities of the trackpad. Someday maybe.
mkautzAug 9, 2010
My point is that making the argument that Windows is an inferior platform due to the lack of support of multitouch is rather silly. Multitouch is simply not something that a lot of people want, isn't that useful as compared to traditional Function keys and is limited only to notebooks. The reason then why Microsoft doesn't develop for it is because it's not worth developing for, not because Windows is an inferior platform.
nathan43082Aug 9, 2010
I was responding to his claim that one selling points of the comparison Windows box I linked was the multitouch screen. Whether Macintosh or Windows, there's not much software out there that makes use of multitouch or even makes it compelling unless you are building a kiosk.
mkautzAug 9, 2010
That's fair enough.
fredfredricksonAug 9, 2010
Mac fans wouldn't admit this was a bad deal even if it were priced twice as high.
I'm not particularly sure why you people believe consumers deserve to be ripped off at every turn, but hey, the Apple demographic is a strange one.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
peacefrogsAug 9, 2010
if you want to pay so much extra for a product design that add little function and in some cases takes away performance (sacrifices have been and will be made for a product whose sole purpose is looking good) then i say more power to you. my problem with apple is that the company s**ts on everyone and everything it touches. at&t's reputation is ruined thanks to apple. the iphone is giving them a lot of business but whenever theres a problem with the iphone jobs pushes the blame on at&t. even when its a hardware problem, which is only controlled by apple, the plan is to blame at&t. they also take their loyal fan base and take a nice steaming dump on them from time to time since plan B seems to be to blame the users. they also try to take everyone else in the market down to their level of fail as demonstrated when they tried to convince people that the iphone 4 is not at fault the whole smart phone world is at fault
my other problem is the mentality that comes with some of the people who own an apple product. not all are like this and some are just trying to pitch their favorite product with actual facts and reasons. the ones im talking about are the ones who respond with "macs are awesome simply because they are." you ask them why and to give more explanation and you get "macs are awesome simply because they are." this is the mentality that i run into with about 70% of the people i know who own a mac or other apple product. the other 30% are like most other users and love the product, know what its capabilities are, and can carry on a reasonable tech conversation. the whole deal with my stuff is better than yours will still go on but at least it can be intelligentComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
guybrush3000Aug 9, 2010
Alright this Mac vs PC s**t is retarded. I have both and I can tell you I love my windows 7 desktop for work since i need great 3d performance. But as a personal computer I would never think of recommending windows. The mac user experience is extremely superior. The included software is amazing and would cost a lot of money to replicate on the pc and be of poorer quality. Windows 7 is fast and smooth which is great to see after using the sluggish XP for so long. It's the obvious option right now for high end production work. But when i get back on my mac for "normal" tasks, it is always a refreshing experience.
So, in conclusion, no one is trying to take anything away from windows users. The reason you pay more for a mac is to get the mac experience with it's "stellar" set of built in software and intuitive design. Finder is much easier to organize than explorer, and the system preferences are a complete cluster f**k in windows (to change certain appearance settings you need to navigate thru several loosely related settings until you stumble into the old appearance settings from windows 3.1, are u serious?) No issues with viruses, and the OS doesn't act like it's afraid of everything you do. You also get top notch support and repair. No pc horror stories of sending it back and having parts not work. With a windows machine, you're granted the possibility to pick your components and thus you save money. Mac uses expensive components. They're top of the line but they wont be the best deal.
So if you're not a PC gamer or high end production professional an imac is a great computer that will give you a more pleasant, intuitive, and relaxed experience. and if you want, you can always put windows on it too for your games. Just wont be the cheapest gaming machine, but then again you'll really have 2 computers wrapped into 1.
jelloburnAug 9, 2010
In my office we had a MacBook Pro get sent in for a replacement optical drive on three separate occasions and each time it came back, the problem was not fixed. Everybody knows somebody with a horror story about a computer. You just hear a lot more about them on the PC end because there are more PCs out there. My mother's iMac had a faulty hard drive when she brought it home from the Apple Store. She had to get it replaced the next day. This doesn't mean that Macs are crap. It just means they are like every other computer and have problems.
I do agree with you on the Control Panel situation in Windows. That beast needs to get cleaned up.
guybrush3000Aug 10, 2010
yeah i suppose you're right that we are seeing a lot more mac malfunctions these days. but i have had good experiences bringing my computer to the mac store and that's a service that's pretty unique to apple. but i'll agree that there repair is not necessarily superior to a competent pc company's repair.
guybrush3000Aug 10, 2010
and i want to clarify about the claim of mac "intuitiveness". if you've been using a pc your whole life, there will be a learning curve. but it's once you get going with a mac, your hands will quickly guide through the shortcut commands breezing you through the os and an assortment of active applications for an experience i have never quite found on the somewhat more stilted windows experience. even though it has much improved with windows 7.
oninboninAug 9, 2010
I personally think it looks cool and am wanting to upgrade my G5 music production box but it's so damn expensive. Kids and kid on the way and just bought a house. Def cann't afford this :-P
soilAug 9, 2010
Once, these were NSFW. They've come a long way.
bosskeyAug 9, 2010
Despite all the Apple hate being thrown around, it's still interesting that PC Magazine rates this an Editor's Choice and doesn't complain about the price. I don't think they have any Apple advertisers to please, do they?
wildsheepAug 9, 2010
this is perfect image conscious teens, aging hipsters, wannabe screeenwriters, and grandpas!
not me - i'm anti-cool!!
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
No thank you for being part of the mac faithful if it means I must pay more and it means that if there is a problem apple will refuse to admit it until 2 or so years down the line. I just don't trust apple. It's done this too many times of refusing to acknowledge a legitimate problem with their products until many years down the line with their products. The exception being the iphone 4 but even then, their pathetic excuses of just don't hold it like that is aweful.
The only apple product I will buy is an iphone 4 however, as long as I get my free case with it however. I'm not about to buy something with a known problem and no solution.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
frylockthegreatAug 9, 2010
lol i could build a better PC for half the price and it would have twice the speed and graphics capabilities. ggmac
jtmedinaAug 10, 2010
Quote''The iMac's 1080p HD screen makes it a great PC for watching HD videos online and from the iTunes store. ''
So, it is a PC...
Before you all digg me down I have to say I am just quoting.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
Go ahead, and while you're there, build yourself an aluminium case that's barely bigger than the monitor you're using, cram all that super awesome hardware in behind it and make sure it doesn't overheat or cause any problems.
quambAug 9, 2010
Shoes, White Goods, Cars, Sport Equip, Clothes, Food etc etc all have huge ranges of prices and brand names. So do Computers. Get the f**k used to it.
Or are you anti-Apple nerds really that poor?
00sean00Aug 9, 2010
Okay, so I did a ROUGH (ie not checking for deals) breakdown. Here goes, prices in CDN (iMac $1299 CDN):
1) Core i3 540 3.06 - $163
2) Asus P7P55D-E LX - $165 (not exactly equal, though can't get iMac MB)
3) 21.5" IPS Display - $289 (from amazon Viewsonic link above)
4) 500GB 7200RPM 2.5" - $99.99 (65 for 3.5")
5) DVDR - $40 (not slot loading)
6) Webcam Microsoft H5D-00001 (1280 x 1024) - $75
7) Wireless n /Bluetooth Card - $100 (approx, couldn't find combo card)
8) Speakers - $40 (too generous?)
9) Case + Power Supply (Best guess, no real equal, 450W) - $150
10) 4GB (2 2GB SO-DIMMs, DDR3 1333) - $124
11) Win 7 Professional - $150 OEM
12) Radeon 4670 (512MB vs iMac's 256) - $80
Total Cost: $1475
Somebody help me out here, this doesn't make sense. Why is it more?
danielphermousAug 10, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
00sean00Aug 10, 2010
Strange how this costed out. I though I had spent less on my i5/Radeon 5870 build but when you factor in monitor and case/power and the fact that the i3/i5/i7 builds seem to be about 25% more expensive than the previous generation it adds up.
I think that's what a lot of people overlook in complete system prices. Usually you can carry over quite a bit from a previous build and save some money so prices on things like the iMac seem ridiculous at first, but when you dig deeper you realize how pricey it really can be. BTW all prices came from TigerDirect (Canada).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
magibegAug 11, 2010
Because you need to learn how to shop. :P All prices not on sale and CAD.
Well did a quick check and those prices are quite iffy.
For example you don't need 2.5 inch HD if you're using reguar PC (I realize mac uses it but that's by mac design)
1) Core i3 540 3.06 - $163
http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=48957&vpn=BX ...
$136.36
2) Asus P7P55D-E LX - $165 (not exactly equal, though can't get iMac MB)
http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=51257&vpn=P7 ...
$140.11
3) 21.5" IPS Display - $289 (from amazon Viewsonic link above)
Why not go for a bigger better, cheaper IPS display?
http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=42409&vpn=23 ...
23inch $199 Philips
4) 500GB 7200RPM 2.5" - $99.99 (65 for 3.5")
No need for a 2.5" with a regular PC.
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=36050&a ...
$59.99 seagate
5) DVDR - $40 (not slot loading)
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=46792&a ...
Why would you not get a slot loading one? that's just stupid. $29.89
6) Webcam Microsoft H5D-00001 (1280 x 1024) - $75
I'm not going to bother messing around with webcams.
7) Wireless n /Bluetooth Card - $100 (approx, couldn't find combo card)
http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=41177&vpn=TL ...
A wireless N card is only like $31.99, i guess bluetooth costs 70... *cough* I'll say 50 for kicks.
8) Speakers - $40 (too generous?)
i'll leave that.
9) Case + Power Supply (Best guess, no real equal, 450W) - $150
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=29812&a ...
69.99 for the antec 300
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=26884&a ...
59.99
so more like $130
10) 4GB (2 2GB SO-DIMMs, DDR3 1333) - $124
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=42870&a ...
$97.22 4GB
11) Win 7 Professional - $150 OEM
http://www.ncix.com/products/?sku=45271&vpn=GF ...
$123.05
12) Radeon 4670 (512MB vs iMac's 256) - $80
That one is about right.
So a total of: $1192.72 Assuming you search like crazy to NOT get any sales.
If you actually did sales and rebates it would probably be around $1000. So yea... Macs are a good 30% more expensive. I'm willing to bet that hardware is better than the macs as well (i didn't put in crap parts).
jtmedinaAug 10, 2010
Why can't I simply buy the Snow Leopard OS install it on my PC and enjoy it as I do with windows 7, ubuntu or opensuse?
balancedAug 10, 2010
Mac OS X is built to run on a specific and small list of hardware.
I don't know if the EULA specifically forbids this, but it's not so much that Apple stops you, but more that they won't offer support. And you'll need to deal with the general x86 world not being able to move beyond BIOS (to EFI) and similar.
danielphermousAug 10, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
commodusAug 10, 2010
Because Apple is a hardware company.
People think it's the software, and that's obviously a selling point, but it's the hardware where Apple makes its money. Since Apple wouldn't outsell Microsoft overnight (if at all), what money it gained in extra copies of Mac OS X wouldn't be compensated by the lost hardware sales.
Not to mention that much of what makes a Mac special is created by that hardware lock-in. Apple only has to target a small set of computers: its own. It knows what performance it can expect, which drivers it needs, and what features are coming down the line. If it had to write a generic install, you'd end up in Microsoft's boat: having to ask for, collect and sometimes write 30,000 device drivers. And the compatibility headaches that ensue.
Apple shouldn't have legal authority to stop you from running hacked Mac OS X (and it doesn't, really), but it does have the option of putting a basic check in place to steer people to the computers it's prepared to support.
jtmedinaAug 10, 2010
In short they don't sell the OS for PC because it would be a headache making it run with 1000.000.000 hardware combinations. They couldn't compete with the microsoft's OS. And they are happy selling only to 10% of the market for150% of the PC price.
But I disagree in that Apple is a hardware company. Apple don't develop hardware, in fact other company assemble PC components to make the IMac. Apple itself doesn't develop memory, HDD, graphic cards... They don't even assemble it. MSI, ASUS does it.
...In term of prices, look at what for example ACER sells, they have good laptops and desktops for a really good price. That's the future of PC . 15 years ago paying $2000 for a computer was normal and only 10 years ago if you wanted to have a good gaming rig you had to have at least $1000. Right now I can buy a decent pc that can run the main stream call of duty/battlefield badcompay 2 for $600( yes you heard it right) and for $1200 I can have a rig that can run ARMA 2 maxed out at 2560x1600 at 40+ FPS. If you wanted same equivalence on Imac you would have to expend $2000+ to have it.
Sorry but not worth it.
jtmedinaAug 10, 2010
Quote''The iMac's 1080p HD screen makes it a great PC for watching HD videos online and from the iTunes store. ''
So, it is a PC...
Before you all digg me down I have to say I am just quoting.
Closed AccountAug 11, 2010
No s**t. It's a Personal Computer.
jtmedinaAug 11, 2010
LOL
bdbelysianAug 30, 2010
A Core i3 on such an expensive machine? The lowest CPU Apple should offer on anything, even the Mini considering even that is expensive for what it is, is an i5 and nothing should sell with anything less than 4GB of RAM.