The increased price is partly just because it's Apple, yes, but partly because hand-in-hand with it being Apple is it being a beautifully designed product, in the fullest sense of that word.
I mean just for a start; the Inspiron 560 looks like this
On top of that is the fact that Apple cares about design at every stage of the process (in terms of usability and user experience) whereas for almost every other company it's an afterthought.
If - as nerds often are - you're not worried about user experience then it's not going to be worth it to you. If you do care, then there is simply no company that does it as well as Apple.
Stick the box under the desk and they're both basically a monitor, the PC just has more wires.
As for usability, I give you the mighty mouse.
A) No, it's a PC with the computer part under a desk. That still takes up space. For example, if my desktop was an iMac right now, I'd have a good chunk of space with which I could set up more shelving in the space my tower now occupies and thus be able to store more... well, stuff. Not to mention doing away with a large chunk of the ungodly amount of wires that are in my room.
I counter with 1) the Magic Mouse and 2) the fact you can hook just about, to my knowledge, any USB Mouse up to the thing.
I decided to try this, only not with laptops.
- 27" iMac, i5 processor, 4GB ram, ATI Radeon HD 4850 - $1999
- Inspiron 580 basic (i5 processor, same speed, 6GB ram, same speed, same HDD, ATI Radeon HD 5450 1GB) (799) + 27" monitor from dell (849) - $1648. And say $100 for some speakers - $1748
And does the $250 cheaper Dell have:
1. All-in-one design?
2. Web cam and microphone?
3. Multitouch mouse?
4. LED LCD?
5. Aluminum case and keyboard?
6. Remote control?
7. Energy star certified?
8. Slot loading DVD burner?
9. Resale value? (Look at eBay. Net of resale, the Mac is likely cheaper to own.)
10. A physical store, staffed by corporate employees, for tech support/warranty claims?
I have nothing against Dell and understand that these items may not be worth it to you. But they may well be worth it for others.
then again now that they use Xeons it's not such a bad comparison
Yeah, USED to be hilariously overpriced.
Now, they are pretty darn close to comparable workstations (note that I didn't say desktops).
In fact, the $3,299 Mac Pro offered by Apple has a 3600 dollar analog from HP.
Yeah, the pros are a completely different thing. At that level apple does have competitive pricing. It's at the consumer level where PCs are substantially cheaper
Compactness and ease of transport is less subjective--giving the iMac the upper hand, I'd say, since that bulk and clumsy extra-thick monitor contains the processor. In terms of cables, the iMac doesn't really have that much of an advantage--neither company will bother advertising it, but you're still going to have cables for power, ethernet (probably), a printer (almost certainly if you have a printer), and other USB devices. iMacs don't magically escape that issue by having a different layout (of course, nor does the Dell setup).
In a full-on apple household, you would wirelessly connect your iMac. Wireless N is more than enough for anything you are doing on the thing, so ethernet isn't needed. The iMacs come with wireless keyboards and mice now, so there are no cables on that front. Also, chances are your printer is connected to your Airport (Wireless router) so that everyone can use it.
really, the only wire coming off the back of the iMac is the power cord nowadays, and your ipod/camera sync cables as they are needed. It's pretty clean.
All right, while it's a valid case sort of, you're saying "In a full-on apple household". That by itself is kind of a specific (and costly in its own right) requirement. I could be crazy, but I'm guessing that not every iMac owner belongs to a "full-on apple household", just like not every person person who owns a PC manufactured by Dell, HP, Compaq, etc., owns a wireless router that covers both their printer and internet (though guess which one would have a much higher number of examples...).
For the sake of consistency, Dell computers (in fact, any major manufacturer) can come with wireless keyboards and mice. So no cables there either. And if you're willing to pay for it, you can connect a printer you get from HP or any company to a wireless router. In fact, you can even order that with your PC--as you can with your Mac.
Of course, everyone knows all of this. So if you wanted to, you could in effect that that Dell computer with a cable between the monitor and processor, and the processor and your power outlet. So, two versus one, if you take it to its extreme (as oppose to 9 versus 8).
Personally, I don't think that it's that huge of a difference. In fact, personally, I don't really like the aesthetic behind iMac all-in-one setup. Note, I'm speaking purely in terms of aesthetics--because that's a reasonable part of the Apple appeal, as this thread has established--and aesthetic wise, I'd rather have one extra cable and the processor box under my desk than the bulky iMac body monitor right in front of my face, where I see it all the time. I would personally even prefer that overall because I frequently deal with monitors with bad pixels and other damage. On a typical Dell machine, that means trading out the monitor, or sending it back to be replaced, while plugging the desktop into something else. For an iMac, that means sending your entire computer in to be fixed. The price of compactness--though I can appreciate that a lot of people would be willing to take that risk rather than deal with an extra, boxy processor. And if you never have any sort of display troubles, it becomes a hassle by comparison (unless you're like me, and think that an extra bulky display is kind of a hassle).
Of course, all of this is incredibly specific, totally ignoring things like the mouse and keyboard forms, operating system, et cetera, et cetera. And, of course, compactness is definitely swinging one way--just as you could say, without a shadow of a doubt, that my currently LCD is much, much easier to move than any iMac is...but, on the other hand, it definitely does not contain my liquid cooler, two video cards, et cetera.
I decided to try this, only not with laptops.
- 27" iMac, i5 processor, 4GB ram, ATI Radeon HD 4850 - $1999
- Inspiron 580 basic (i5 processor, same speed, 6GB ram, same speed, same HDD, ATI Radeon HD 5450 1GB) (799) + 27" monitor from dell (849) - $1648. And say $100 for some speakers - $1748
And does the $250 cheaper Dell have:
1. All-in-one design? Well, no
2. Web cam and microphone? No, I don't think dell offers a monitor of that size with integrated webcam. They do on smaller models.
3. Multitouch mouse? Multi-button mouse. And hey, you can probably use apple mice on it too
4. LED LCD? What does this even mean? Backlit? I will agree that the apple monitors are high quality, but afaik there's nothing preventing you from using one with a pc either
5. Aluminum case and keyboard? Case? Probably, though front may be plastic. Monitor? No. KB will be plastic of course. Naturally you can use the apple USB KBs if you want
6. Remote control? No, and the mac didn't have that in either
7. Energy star certified? Individual components, probably. I believe all monitors are anyway
8. Slot loading DVD burner? No, probably tray, but does anyone really care about that? I'm sure you could get a slot loader if that really matters
9. Resale value? (Look at eBay. Net of resale, the Mac is likely cheaper to own.) I imagine this may also have something to do with the relative difficulties in upgrading macs vs pcs
10. A physical store, staffed by corporate employees, for tech support/warranty claims? No, but depending on where you live this is also very true for apple. There are only 8 cities in Canada with apple stores, and only 41 states in the US. Europe? A handful
I have nothing against Dell and understand that these items may not be worth it to you. But they may well be worth it for others.
I have nothing against apple's systems really, and yes, some people really like the features that macs provide. If that's what you want, great.
What I dislike is their insistance that I am not allowed to go buy their software and install it on a system that I build from components, even if those are exactly the same components that would be in a normal mac, but instead have to get the hardware from them at a premium. Even if I'm willing to accept some degree of instability and no official support. So the software debate inevitably merges with the hardware debate as well.
What I dislike is their insistance that I am not allowed to go buy their software and install it on a system that I build from components, even if those are exactly the same components that would be in a normal mac, but instead have to get the hardware from them at a premium. Even if I'm willing to accept some degree of instability and no official support. So the software debate inevitably merges with the hardware debate as well.
Why should Apple be obligated to test their shit across all possible hardware configurations, taiwanese wifi cards, etc. for the incredibly small hobbyist community that would rather build their own mac?
Microsoft is much, MUCH larger company with the fiscal muscle to make everyone play nice and write WHQL compliant shit for their operating systems. Apple would have to do most of the gruntwork, or rely on the 3rd party open source community to fill in the gaps, and all of this would seriously hurt their brand image.
And it's all useless anyways, because you can buy a copy of snow leopard off the shelf, download a bootloader from the internets, and install it on your own custom-built machine outside of their auspice of support, and all you have done is violate their EULA, not broken any laws.
edit: also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that you simply CANNOT build a mac as-is with off the shelf components without some less-than-perfect software between the hardware and the OS. the underpinnings of a mac (EFI versus BIOS) have massive ramifications on the entire way the system works.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Well of course you can get it installed and it actually runs rather well, as long as you don't use shoddy hardware from manufacturers nobody's heard of. But you're technically not allowed to.
And until quite recently there was no hard requirement for WHQL certification either, so a company could do whatever the it wanted to and you'd just get a popup while installing drivers.
edit: I was under the impression that most intel chipset boards supported EFI
Well of course you can get it installed and it actually runs rather well, as long as you don't use shoddy hardware from manufacturers nobody's heard of. But you're technically not allowed to.
On the whole Wireless-N being good enough...well no, it really isn't. (1) you will never, ever get 111 mbps from wireless-N in practice. It is unlikely you will do much better then G once you're out of the same room, and even if you sit your laptop/PC atop the hub you'll probably not get 111 mbps.
Which brings me to point (2): 100 mbps isn't really fast enough for even the normal users applications these days. It's fast enough when it's all you have, and its fast enough for day-to-day activities, but anyone dealing with even a few gigabytes of files will start to miss a gigE connection. I mean, my regular work files are already 20-40 gigabytes in-size - my next laptop will have a gigE network port as a required feature.
More importantly, the prevalence of HD video is really what demands it - streaming even a compressed 720P video needs a sustained bandwidth of about 25 megabytes per second. Blu-Ray native needs more - about 45 megabytes per second.
None of this is really an Apple specific issue, but it's startled me lately how much bandwidth I really want (SATA2 isn't fast enough IMO, can't wait till 3 gets common place).
The wi-fi thing can be overcome, but the future is going to be limited to line-of-sight applications very soon in order to do so - wireless HDMI is a pretty good look of where we'll probably end up with home wi-fi technology.
EDIT: I am very very wrong in this post, subsequent replies show why. Needless to say, the minor distinctions of b and B were lost on me when I was diagnosing VLC player (that and the odd alignment of the numbers when I was copying files over that same network link).
On the whole Wireless-N being good enough...well no, it really isn't. (1) you will never, ever get 111 mbps from wireless-N in practice. It is unlikely you will do much better then G once you're out of the same room, and even if you sit your laptop/PC atop the hub you'll probably not get 111 mbps.
Which brings me to point (2): 100 mbps isn't really fast enough for even the normal users applications these days. It's fast enough when it's all you have, and its fast enough for day-to-day activities, but anyone dealing with even a few gigabytes of files will start to miss a gigE connection. I mean, my regular work files are already 20-40 gigabytes in-size - my next laptop will have a gigE network port as a required feature.
More importantly, the prevalence of HD video is really what demands it - streaming even a compressed 720P video needs a sustained bandwidth of about 25 megabytes per second. Blu-Ray native needs more - about 45 megabytes per second.
None of this is really an Apple specific issue, but it's startled me lately how much bandwidth I really want (SATA2 isn't fast enough IMO, can't wait till 3 gets common place).
The wi-fi thing can be overcome, but the future is going to be limited to line-of-sight applications very soon in order to do so - wireless HDMI is a pretty good look of where we'll probably end up with home wi-fi technology.
Your numbers about video bitrate are way off. At 25 MBps, 1 hour of compressed 720p video would be 90GB. It wouldn't even be close to fitting on a dual-layer bluray disc. You can get a very good quality 1-hr 720p video in 1.5 GB, or 3500 kbps (.4 MBps). And at 45 MBps, you'd get 19 minutes of video on a dual-layer BR.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
On the whole Wireless-N being good enough...well no, it really isn't. (1) you will never, ever get 111 mbps from wireless-N in practice. It is unlikely you will do much better then G once you're out of the same room, and even if you sit your laptop/PC atop the hub you'll probably not get 111 mbps.
Which brings me to point (2): 100 mbps isn't really fast enough for even the normal users applications these days. It's fast enough when it's all you have, and its fast enough for day-to-day activities, but anyone dealing with even a few gigabytes of files will start to miss a gigE connection. I mean, my regular work files are already 20-40 gigabytes in-size - my next laptop will have a gigE network port as a required feature.
More importantly, the prevalence of HD video is really what demands it - streaming even a compressed 720P video needs a sustained bandwidth of about 25 megabytes per second. Blu-Ray native needs more - about 45 megabytes per second.
None of this is really an Apple specific issue, but it's startled me lately how much bandwidth I really want (SATA2 isn't fast enough IMO, can't wait till 3 gets common place).
The wi-fi thing can be overcome, but the future is going to be limited to line-of-sight applications very soon in order to do so - wireless HDMI is a pretty good look of where we'll probably end up with home wi-fi technology.
Your numbers on streaming video bandwidth are insanely goosey.
On the apple store, a 720p compressed movie (Bad Lieutenant) is 3.83 GB, and 2:02min in length.
That comes out to 4.185 Mbit/s (0.52 MByte/s), which wireless B could handle.
Blu Ray: 36 Mbit/s (4.5 MByte/s)
this is the bitrate (max) that a blu ray movie can demand. Even with the overhead, wireless N can stream that without breaking a sweat. Wireless G can potentially pull it off in ideal conditions.
Also, your file sizes and speed demands do not make you a standard user. When you start saying stuff like "SATA 2 isn't fast enough" than honestly you shouldn't even be looking at an iMac anyways, you are a workstation user.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
4.5MB/s is 36mbps, which is typical of G performance. 54mbps would be ideal.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
Oh christ you're right. Well, the compressed 720P one anyway.
The Blu-Ray number is accurate though I don't know why. I'm playing one in VLC right now and my input bit-rate is hovering around 44,000 kb/s. That's disk reads. In fairness, there could be substantial readahead required to decode, but if I can't sustain that then I get buffering happening when I play the file.
EDIT: And nevermind, seems that's in bits per second anyway. I am a goose.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Oh christ you're right. Well, the compressed 720P one anyway.
The Blu-Ray number is accurate though I don't know why. I'm playing one in VLC right now and my input bit-rate is hovering around 44,000 kb/s. That's disk reads. In fairness, there could be substantial readahead required to decode, but if I can't sustain that then I get buffering happening when I play the file.
your blu ray number is not accurate. The Blu ray spec demands that all video-audio content can pass off the disc at 1x speed.
Most films are actually well under the 1x marker for audio/video output that I posted up there.
Maybe VLC is to blame here.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Actually I really don't know what was happening there then. Based on the sustained throughput I had it should've worked out. Could've been lossy I suppose.
EDIT: I would retain the point though, that G or N both would not really cut it for that application though - the bandwidth you get off those things is shared and never as high as the theoretical.
More importantly, the prevalence of HD video is really what demands it - streaming even a compressed 720P video needs a sustained bandwidth of about 25 megabytes per second. Blu-Ray native needs more - about 45 megabytes per second.
So KevinNash was correct in the net neutrality thread. You really do not know what you're talking about when it comes to matters Internet.
Protein Shakes on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Yeah, the pros are a completely different thing. At that level apple does have competitive pricing. It's at the consumer level where PCs are substantially cheaper
It depends on what you mean as "cheaper."
You can buy a well-functioning laptop or desktop for about half of what Apple charges for MacBooks and iMacs, true. It just won't have the same functionality, specs, design, utility, advanced standard proprietary hardware, or resale value.
Again, it's the Ford Taurus argument. If you're just trying to get from A to B, you can save a lot of money. But a car is capable of so much more than just rote functionality.
Yeah, the pros are a completely different thing. At that level apple does have competitive pricing. It's at the consumer level where PCs are substantially cheaper
It depends on what you mean as "cheaper."
You can buy a well-functioning laptop or desktop for about half of what Apple charges for MacBooks and iMacs, true. It just won't have the same functionality, specs, design, utility, advanced standard proprietary hardware, or resale value.
Again, it's the Ford Taurus argument. If you're just trying to get from A to B, you can save a lot of money. But a car is capable of so much more than just rote functionality.
It sounds like you want something pretty.
Personally, I try to avoid any computer with Intel chips, so Apple is a no-no.I suppose buying on morality is just as silly as buying for appearance, though.
Yeah, the pros are a completely different thing. At that level apple does have competitive pricing. It's at the consumer level where PCs are substantially cheaper
It depends on what you mean as "cheaper."
You can buy a well-functioning laptop or desktop for about half of what Apple charges for MacBooks and iMacs, true. It just won't have the same functionality, specs, design, utility, advanced standard proprietary hardware, or resale value.
Again, it's the Ford Taurus argument. If you're just trying to get from A to B, you can save a lot of money. But a car is capable of so much more than just rote functionality.
We probably went over this point a number of times: it all comes down to what you can afford and what you plan on using your computer for.
Outside of games, powerpoint, word, excel, JMP, photoshop, music, and streaming video, there isn't much else I NEED my computer for. That said, at least for my own purposes, a rig I put together myself totaling no more than 600 dollars (minus peripherals) is all I need. If I need a new monitor, I get a new monitor. If I need to upgrade my graphics card, I get a new graphics card, etc. Someone like me can't see the reasoning behind paying a premium price for something that they can build themselves for half as much.
So with the iPhone HD supposedly being 960x640, how much crossover are we going to get between iPad and iPhone HD-targeted apps? It's a shame there's that 64-pixel difference from 1024 (iPad) to 960 (iPhone HD), or they could just run letterboxed with no scaling.
PeregrineFalcon on
Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Yeah, the pros are a completely different thing. At that level apple does have competitive pricing. It's at the consumer level where PCs are substantially cheaper
It depends on what you mean as "cheaper."
You can buy a well-functioning laptop or desktop for about half of what Apple charges for MacBooks and iMacs, true. It just won't have the same functionality, specs, design, utility, advanced standard proprietary hardware, or resale value.
Again, it's the Ford Taurus argument. If you're just trying to get from A to B, you can save a lot of money. But a car is capable of so much more than just rote functionality.
First of all, I don't care about the aesthetic design of my computer. I don't sit there admiring it's sleek look and shiny surfaces. All-in-one is also overrated.
How will a mac have better specs and functionality? It's using the exact same guts as every other PC now that apple has switched to x86 so there's not a whole lot of "advanced proprietary hardware" either, a custom MB obviously for iMacs if only for the form factor, but still very few differences (okay, there's the whole EFI thing, but that's not mac-specific, that's more Intel-specific). I suppose you could argue that osx is faster than windows on equivalent hardware and thus macs outspec pcs in general, but I'm not going to start up that debate, it goes nowhere.
And do macs really have good resale? All the ones I saw on ebay in a quick search had no bids, super low prices or were from people with dozens of auctions.
And do macs really have good resale? All the ones I saw on ebay in a quick search had no bids, super low prices or were from people with dozens of auctions.
I've never understood resale for a computer either, but then again I have always cannibalized my old systems for parts.
eh windows 7 is good enough I think it's competitive with OSX
OS suitability really is too person-to-person, I think, to judge any other way.
For example, a major part of my needs in a PC is to be able to run programs from, say, 10 years ago in the same operating system. I can do that in Windows 7 (and I could do it in Vista and XP before that) reliably.
Apparently, OS 9 programs don't run with OSX. So...if I had been needing to do that, I'd have been in a predicament.
And that's just one circumstance. I have no doubt that OSX does certain things very well, but it has, in the past, not been able to do things I needed it to do. That gap is, thankfully, closing, but I don't really have time to wait for that to come along.
"Oh, but what about Boot Camp"? What about it? It works well, from what I've heard, but why wouldn't I just skipped the whole process, only purchase one OS instead of two (or use the OS I had on hand rather than buying another hand) to do the same thing? If you had to use both, I can't think of a many better ways, but if you were just going to use one, why bother with the other?
And this is completely ignoring the fact that the reason I was using Windows XP 10 years ago, instead of OS 9, is because Apple support overseas was really, really lousy back then, and still isn't very good compared to Microsoft. But in an American audience, that's not terribly relevant...
Macs have astonishing resale value - so much so that it is probably not due to their superior build quality alone, because Macs would have to be made solely out of magnesium, titanium, and orgasmium to justify the sort of resale prices I've been seeing on craigslist lately. There is definitely a public perception that the Mac is a more durable piece of hardware (in terms of the ability to survive bumps and falls, they often are), but they're on the exact same Intel motherboard as an equivalent PC and those motherboards' capacitors fail at the same rate for Macs as PCs. There is no justification for the apparent public belief that a three-year-old Mac will last longer than a one-year-old PC, and this is just one example among many where the consumer's failure to understand the product is to the distinct advantage of the product's manufacturer.
Macs have astonishing resale value - so much so that it is probably not due to their superior build quality alone, because Macs would have to be made solely out of magnesium, titanium, and orgasmium to justify the sort of resale prices I've been seeing on craigslist lately. There is definitely a public perception that the Mac is a more durable piece of hardware (in terms of the ability to survive bumps and falls, they often are), but they're on the exact same Intel motherboard as an equivalent PC and those motherboards' capacitors fail at the same rate for Macs as PCs. There is no justification for the apparent public belief that a three-year-old Mac will last longer than a one-year-old PC, and this is just one example among many where the consumer's failure to understand the product is to the distinct advantage of the product's manufacturer.
It is also because at least a fairly recent unibody iMac still looks great whereas a PC from as little as 1 year ago looks like an awful turd.
Macs have astonishing resale value - so much so that it is probably not due to their superior build quality alone, because Macs would have to be made solely out of magnesium, titanium, and orgasmium to justify the sort of resale prices I've been seeing on craigslist lately. There is definitely a public perception that the Mac is a more durable piece of hardware (in terms of the ability to survive bumps and falls, they often are), but they're on the exact same Intel motherboard as an equivalent PC and those motherboards' capacitors fail at the same rate for Macs as PCs. There is no justification for the apparent public belief that a three-year-old Mac will last longer than a one-year-old PC, and this is just one example among many where the consumer's failure to understand the product is to the distinct advantage of the product's manufacturer.
It is also because at least a fairly recent unibody iMac still looks great whereas a PC from as little as 1 year ago looks like an awful turd.
That depends on treatment. It's very, very possible to take a iMac and make it look like shit (and I'm not even talking about display quality).
Don't believe me? Come down to the University of Georgia. Every year, we get a small quantity of new iMacs. Within 12 months, they look like crap, consistently. The ones from earlier years look even worse. All wear and tear is concentrated in the exact same places--and it doesn't help that they're all white (I'm actually wondering when Apple will follow the general trend of delivering desktops in black, which seems to be more and more prevalent).
And that's purely aesthetic. Since you can't replace the displays without sending them back to Apple, any bad pixels, image corruption, color distortion has to be lived with. Of course, that'd be true for the Windows machines as well, if it weren't for the fact that low to medium-end LCDs are cheaply available to the school of design.
White was a unique design choice by Apple, because it added a sense of design aesthetic to the process. Everything until the iMac was done in grey or similar. Probably Apple's best contribution to the computing world has been to make the aesthetics of devices important - a minor touch maybe, but I'm glad it happened and others are following suit.
Macs have astonishing resale value - so much so that it is probably not due to their superior build quality alone, because Macs would have to be made solely out of magnesium, titanium, and orgasmium to justify the sort of resale prices I've been seeing on craigslist lately. There is definitely a public perception that the Mac is a more durable piece of hardware (in terms of the ability to survive bumps and falls, they often are), but they're on the exact same Intel motherboard as an equivalent PC and those motherboards' capacitors fail at the same rate for Macs as PCs. There is no justification for the apparent public belief that a three-year-old Mac will last longer than a one-year-old PC, and this is just one example among many where the consumer's failure to understand the product is to the distinct advantage of the product's manufacturer.
It is also because at least a fairly recent unibody iMac still looks great whereas a PC from as little as 1 year ago looks like an awful turd.
That depends on treatment. It's very, very possible to take a iMac and make it look like shit (and I'm not even talking about display quality).
Don't believe me? Come down to the University of Georgia. Every year, we get a small quantity of new iMacs. Within 12 months, they look like crap, consistently. The ones from earlier years look even worse. All wear and tear is concentrated in the exact same places--and it doesn't help that they're all white (I'm actually wondering when Apple will follow the general trend of delivering desktops in black, which seems to be more and more prevalent).
And that's purely aesthetic. Since you can't replace the displays without sending them back to Apple, any bad pixels, image corruption, color distortion has to be lived with. Of course, that'd be true for the Windows machines as well, if it weren't for the fact that low to medium-end LCDs are cheaply available to the school of design.
A friend of mine has an aluminum apple laptop that's not more then a year old and it already looks like someone sand blasted it.
Macs have astonishing resale value - so much so that it is probably not due to their superior build quality alone, because Macs would have to be made solely out of magnesium, titanium, and orgasmium to justify the sort of resale prices I've been seeing on craigslist lately. There is definitely a public perception that the Mac is a more durable piece of hardware (in terms of the ability to survive bumps and falls, they often are), but they're on the exact same Intel motherboard as an equivalent PC and those motherboards' capacitors fail at the same rate for Macs as PCs. There is no justification for the apparent public belief that a three-year-old Mac will last longer than a one-year-old PC, and this is just one example among many where the consumer's failure to understand the product is to the distinct advantage of the product's manufacturer.
It is also because at least a fairly recent unibody iMac still looks great whereas a PC from as little as 1 year ago looks like an awful turd.
That depends on treatment. It's very, very possible to take a iMac and make it look like shit (and I'm not even talking about display quality).
Don't believe me? Come down to the University of Georgia. Every year, we get a small quantity of new iMacs. Within 12 months, they look like crap, consistently. The ones from earlier years look even worse. All wear and tear is concentrated in the exact same places--and it doesn't help that they're all white (I'm actually wondering when Apple will follow the general trend of delivering desktops in black, which seems to be more and more prevalent).
And that's purely aesthetic. Since you can't replace the displays without sending them back to Apple, any bad pixels, image corruption, color distortion has to be lived with. Of course, that'd be true for the Windows machines as well, if it weren't for the fact that low to medium-end LCDs are cheaply available to the school of design.
A friend of mine has an aluminum apple laptop that's not more then a year old and it already looks like someone sand blasted it.
I was actually going to say that the aluminum (or whatever metal it is, probably an alloy) MacBook Pro was basically a case of "you pay what you get for", because every person I know who owns a white MacBook--including all of my students--has one that looks like crap. I imagine I might see someone who had one who didn't, but I'd guess they bought it a week ago.
HP Pavilions hide it much better. Emphasis on "hide" as well--their black surfaces are harder to stain with palms or general contact. And honestly, they seem studier--having held both, white MacBooks seem more likely to get warped. Granted, we're not the most sensitive audience--people using their laptops under trees on the grounds or on cramped buses.
The MacBook Pro is, from what I've heard, notably more expensive, but I've heard a lot of people say that it's entirely worth it, even just for the case. And the case, to be fair, looks much tougher than Apple's cheap-looking white plastic (probably not actually that cheap).
Honestly, I don't think white is a good color for computers, period.
Posts
A) No, it's a PC with the computer part under a desk. That still takes up space. For example, if my desktop was an iMac right now, I'd have a good chunk of space with which I could set up more shelving in the space my tower now occupies and thus be able to store more... well, stuff. Not to mention doing away with a large chunk of the ungodly amount of wires that are in my room.
And does the $250 cheaper Dell have:
1. All-in-one design?
2. Web cam and microphone?
3. Multitouch mouse?
4. LED LCD?
5. Aluminum case and keyboard?
6. Remote control?
7. Energy star certified?
8. Slot loading DVD burner?
9. Resale value? (Look at eBay. Net of resale, the Mac is likely cheaper to own.)
10. A physical store, staffed by corporate employees, for tech support/warranty claims?
I have nothing against Dell and understand that these items may not be worth it to you. But they may well be worth it for others.
Yeah, the pros are a completely different thing. At that level apple does have competitive pricing. It's at the consumer level where PCs are substantially cheaper
No, not really. Apple's concern about design translates into using the iPhone being a great experience for the user.
Microsoft do not care as much about design, and the result is Windows Mobile 6.5.
All right, while it's a valid case sort of, you're saying "In a full-on apple household". That by itself is kind of a specific (and costly in its own right) requirement. I could be crazy, but I'm guessing that not every iMac owner belongs to a "full-on apple household", just like not every person person who owns a PC manufactured by Dell, HP, Compaq, etc., owns a wireless router that covers both their printer and internet (though guess which one would have a much higher number of examples...).
For the sake of consistency, Dell computers (in fact, any major manufacturer) can come with wireless keyboards and mice. So no cables there either. And if you're willing to pay for it, you can connect a printer you get from HP or any company to a wireless router. In fact, you can even order that with your PC--as you can with your Mac.
Of course, everyone knows all of this. So if you wanted to, you could in effect that that Dell computer with a cable between the monitor and processor, and the processor and your power outlet. So, two versus one, if you take it to its extreme (as oppose to 9 versus 8).
Personally, I don't think that it's that huge of a difference. In fact, personally, I don't really like the aesthetic behind iMac all-in-one setup. Note, I'm speaking purely in terms of aesthetics--because that's a reasonable part of the Apple appeal, as this thread has established--and aesthetic wise, I'd rather have one extra cable and the processor box under my desk than the bulky iMac body monitor right in front of my face, where I see it all the time. I would personally even prefer that overall because I frequently deal with monitors with bad pixels and other damage. On a typical Dell machine, that means trading out the monitor, or sending it back to be replaced, while plugging the desktop into something else. For an iMac, that means sending your entire computer in to be fixed. The price of compactness--though I can appreciate that a lot of people would be willing to take that risk rather than deal with an extra, boxy processor. And if you never have any sort of display troubles, it becomes a hassle by comparison (unless you're like me, and think that an extra bulky display is kind of a hassle).
Of course, all of this is incredibly specific, totally ignoring things like the mouse and keyboard forms, operating system, et cetera, et cetera. And, of course, compactness is definitely swinging one way--just as you could say, without a shadow of a doubt, that my currently LCD is much, much easier to move than any iMac is...but, on the other hand, it definitely does not contain my liquid cooler, two video cards, et cetera.
I have nothing against apple's systems really, and yes, some people really like the features that macs provide. If that's what you want, great.
What I dislike is their insistance that I am not allowed to go buy their software and install it on a system that I build from components, even if those are exactly the same components that would be in a normal mac, but instead have to get the hardware from them at a premium. Even if I'm willing to accept some degree of instability and no official support. So the software debate inevitably merges with the hardware debate as well.
Why should Apple be obligated to test their shit across all possible hardware configurations, taiwanese wifi cards, etc. for the incredibly small hobbyist community that would rather build their own mac?
Microsoft is much, MUCH larger company with the fiscal muscle to make everyone play nice and write WHQL compliant shit for their operating systems. Apple would have to do most of the gruntwork, or rely on the 3rd party open source community to fill in the gaps, and all of this would seriously hurt their brand image.
And it's all useless anyways, because you can buy a copy of snow leopard off the shelf, download a bootloader from the internets, and install it on your own custom-built machine outside of their auspice of support, and all you have done is violate their EULA, not broken any laws.
edit: also, you seem to be ignoring the fact that you simply CANNOT build a mac as-is with off the shelf components without some less-than-perfect software between the hardware and the OS. the underpinnings of a mac (EFI versus BIOS) have massive ramifications on the entire way the system works.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
And until quite recently there was no hard requirement for WHQL certification either, so a company could do whatever the it wanted to and you'd just get a popup while installing drivers.
edit: I was under the impression that most intel chipset boards supported EFI
Isn't this the same thing? Apple hasn't shut down insanelyMac; just the people trying to make a buck off of their work.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Which brings me to point (2): 100 mbps isn't really fast enough for even the normal users applications these days. It's fast enough when it's all you have, and its fast enough for day-to-day activities, but anyone dealing with even a few gigabytes of files will start to miss a gigE connection. I mean, my regular work files are already 20-40 gigabytes in-size - my next laptop will have a gigE network port as a required feature.
More importantly, the prevalence of HD video is really what demands it - streaming even a compressed 720P video needs a sustained bandwidth of about 25 megabytes per second. Blu-Ray native needs more - about 45 megabytes per second.
None of this is really an Apple specific issue, but it's startled me lately how much bandwidth I really want (SATA2 isn't fast enough IMO, can't wait till 3 gets common place).
The wi-fi thing can be overcome, but the future is going to be limited to line-of-sight applications very soon in order to do so - wireless HDMI is a pretty good look of where we'll probably end up with home wi-fi technology.
EDIT: I am very very wrong in this post, subsequent replies show why. Needless to say, the minor distinctions of b and B were lost on me when I was diagnosing VLC player (that and the odd alignment of the numbers when I was copying files over that same network link).
Your numbers about video bitrate are way off. At 25 MBps, 1 hour of compressed 720p video would be 90GB. It wouldn't even be close to fitting on a dual-layer bluray disc. You can get a very good quality 1-hr 720p video in 1.5 GB, or 3500 kbps (.4 MBps). And at 45 MBps, you'd get 19 minutes of video on a dual-layer BR.
On the apple store, a 720p compressed movie (Bad Lieutenant) is 3.83 GB, and 2:02min in length.
That comes out to 4.185 Mbit/s (0.52 MByte/s), which wireless B could handle.
Blu Ray:
36 Mbit/s (4.5 MByte/s)
this is the bitrate (max) that a blu ray movie can demand. Even with the overhead, wireless N can stream that without breaking a sweat. Wireless G can potentially pull it off in ideal conditions.
Also, your file sizes and speed demands do not make you a standard user. When you start saying stuff like "SATA 2 isn't fast enough" than honestly you shouldn't even be looking at an iMac anyways, you are a workstation user.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
The Blu-Ray number is accurate though I don't know why. I'm playing one in VLC right now and my input bit-rate is hovering around 44,000 kb/s. That's disk reads. In fairness, there could be substantial readahead required to decode, but if I can't sustain that then I get buffering happening when I play the file.
EDIT: And nevermind, seems that's in bits per second anyway. I am a goose.
your blu ray number is not accurate. The Blu ray spec demands that all video-audio content can pass off the disc at 1x speed.
Most films are actually well under the 1x marker for audio/video output that I posted up there.
Maybe VLC is to blame here.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
EDIT: I would retain the point though, that G or N both would not really cut it for that application though - the bandwidth you get off those things is shared and never as high as the theoretical.
So KevinNash was correct in the net neutrality thread. You really do not know what you're talking about when it comes to matters Internet.
It depends on what you mean as "cheaper."
You can buy a well-functioning laptop or desktop for about half of what Apple charges for MacBooks and iMacs, true. It just won't have the same functionality, specs, design, utility, advanced standard proprietary hardware, or resale value.
Again, it's the Ford Taurus argument. If you're just trying to get from A to B, you can save a lot of money. But a car is capable of so much more than just rote functionality.
It sounds like you want something pretty.
Personally, I try to avoid any computer with Intel chips, so Apple is a no-no.I suppose buying on morality is just as silly as buying for appearance, though.
We probably went over this point a number of times: it all comes down to what you can afford and what you plan on using your computer for.
Outside of games, powerpoint, word, excel, JMP, photoshop, music, and streaming video, there isn't much else I NEED my computer for. That said, at least for my own purposes, a rig I put together myself totaling no more than 600 dollars (minus peripherals) is all I need. If I need a new monitor, I get a new monitor. If I need to upgrade my graphics card, I get a new graphics card, etc. Someone like me can't see the reasoning behind paying a premium price for something that they can build themselves for half as much.
So with the iPhone HD supposedly being 960x640, how much crossover are we going to get between iPad and iPhone HD-targeted apps? It's a shame there's that 64-pixel difference from 1024 (iPad) to 960 (iPhone HD), or they could just run letterboxed with no scaling.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
First of all, I don't care about the aesthetic design of my computer. I don't sit there admiring it's sleek look and shiny surfaces. All-in-one is also overrated.
How will a mac have better specs and functionality? It's using the exact same guts as every other PC now that apple has switched to x86 so there's not a whole lot of "advanced proprietary hardware" either, a custom MB obviously for iMacs if only for the form factor, but still very few differences (okay, there's the whole EFI thing, but that's not mac-specific, that's more Intel-specific). I suppose you could argue that osx is faster than windows on equivalent hardware and thus macs outspec pcs in general, but I'm not going to start up that debate, it goes nowhere.
And do macs really have good resale? All the ones I saw on ebay in a quick search had no bids, super low prices or were from people with dozens of auctions.
I've never understood resale for a computer either, but then again I have always cannibalized my old systems for parts.
OS suitability really is too person-to-person, I think, to judge any other way.
For example, a major part of my needs in a PC is to be able to run programs from, say, 10 years ago in the same operating system. I can do that in Windows 7 (and I could do it in Vista and XP before that) reliably.
Apparently, OS 9 programs don't run with OSX. So...if I had been needing to do that, I'd have been in a predicament.
And that's just one circumstance. I have no doubt that OSX does certain things very well, but it has, in the past, not been able to do things I needed it to do. That gap is, thankfully, closing, but I don't really have time to wait for that to come along.
"Oh, but what about Boot Camp"? What about it? It works well, from what I've heard, but why wouldn't I just skipped the whole process, only purchase one OS instead of two (or use the OS I had on hand rather than buying another hand) to do the same thing? If you had to use both, I can't think of a many better ways, but if you were just going to use one, why bother with the other?
And this is completely ignoring the fact that the reason I was using Windows XP 10 years ago, instead of OS 9, is because Apple support overseas was really, really lousy back then, and still isn't very good compared to Microsoft. But in an American audience, that's not terribly relevant...
It is also because at least a fairly recent unibody iMac still looks great whereas a PC from as little as 1 year ago looks like an awful turd.
That depends on treatment. It's very, very possible to take a iMac and make it look like shit (and I'm not even talking about display quality).
Don't believe me? Come down to the University of Georgia. Every year, we get a small quantity of new iMacs. Within 12 months, they look like crap, consistently. The ones from earlier years look even worse. All wear and tear is concentrated in the exact same places--and it doesn't help that they're all white (I'm actually wondering when Apple will follow the general trend of delivering desktops in black, which seems to be more and more prevalent).
And that's purely aesthetic. Since you can't replace the displays without sending them back to Apple, any bad pixels, image corruption, color distortion has to be lived with. Of course, that'd be true for the Windows machines as well, if it weren't for the fact that low to medium-end LCDs are cheaply available to the school of design.
A friend of mine has an aluminum apple laptop that's not more then a year old and it already looks like someone sand blasted it.
I was actually going to say that the aluminum (or whatever metal it is, probably an alloy) MacBook Pro was basically a case of "you pay what you get for", because every person I know who owns a white MacBook--including all of my students--has one that looks like crap. I imagine I might see someone who had one who didn't, but I'd guess they bought it a week ago.
HP Pavilions hide it much better. Emphasis on "hide" as well--their black surfaces are harder to stain with palms or general contact. And honestly, they seem studier--having held both, white MacBooks seem more likely to get warped. Granted, we're not the most sensitive audience--people using their laptops under trees on the grounds or on cramped buses.
The MacBook Pro is, from what I've heard, notably more expensive, but I've heard a lot of people say that it's entirely worth it, even just for the case. And the case, to be fair, looks much tougher than Apple's cheap-looking white plastic (probably not actually that cheap).
Honestly, I don't think white is a good color for computers, period.
Soo....aesthetics don't matter to you?