Cost of comparable PC to i5 iMac

[MacHamster68]

you cant just compare the iMac 27 i5 with a normal desktop pc with screen , you have to compare the price with other AIO systems
you dont compare a car with caravan with a motorhome

and you cant compare the imac with other AIO either because
they come all with different specs some even with blue ray writers ,
others processors some faster some slower and not all have 27" screens ..in fact i only know one other with 27 inch and thats from china the optronix 27 its a barbone system AIO for socket LGA755

its not about price its personal choice , you did not buy the imac because it was cheaper then any other AIO system or? or did you buy it because it was the cheapest computer with a i5 ?certainly none of it or?
you make a statement with displaying a mac on your desk , it shows you got taste

but i love my eMac more ,ideal size screen , perfect picture , processor fast enough and cost far less and i would still buy it new if apple would still build these little buggers , but for no logic reason they discontinued the emac in 2006 apple could have fitted a pentium 4 inside when they went intel

 

[carsonmd]

Anybody ever run the numbers? I have A LOT of friends at work riding me b/c I bought the iMac. They can't deter me, I love that thing. Does so much I can't begin to preach to them.

Anyway, their main argument is that I overspent saying I could get a comparable PC for much cheaper. I don't believe it but need some numbers. I saw Dell's 27" LED display today for $1100 and that's a good start... By the time you add WiFi, Bluetooth (receiver/keyboard/mouse), equivalent software,.... How much?

I'm not much of a build-it-yourself guy so I need your help!!!

You CAN get a comparable PC + quality display for the SAME cost. You have to buy a PC from a "boutique" PC builder. This does not include the usual suspects of Dell, HP, and whatever else you may find in bestbuy. Those are low-cost builders with out-sourced tech support. Building yourself is ALWAYS cheaper but can be fraught with major problems. Also realize that OS X has much nicer applications which come standard.

 

[alent1234]

the integration is about the same now between PC and Mac

in the 1990's you had 5 audio card makers, 5 or more graphics card markers, 4 or 5 motherboard chipset companies, etc. now it's one or two audio card makers and 3 graphics card companies. and all the companies use the same basic design for a generation of products, disable some circuits and charge you less for a "value" product.

back in the day if you bought a computer or built one than almost everything was a separate card. today only the graphics is a separate card and everything else is integrated on the motherboard.

this is why dell stopped growing. in the 1990's they had the best logistics when everything was a separate card. HP would buy in bulk and then write down the unsold inventory or price it at fire sale prices. with everything being integrated on the motherboard HP is more competitive now. used to be if you wanted a pre-built PC with nice graphics you would look at Dell since they would get it first. Now HP can do the same thing since nvidia or ATI are the only ones making the cards now

 

[Disc Golfer]

It's hard to look at the retail cost of a windows-PC computer and say "this is how much it costs" and be done with it. The sticker price of a windows computer is only accurate if you consider your time to be worth nothing ($0/hr). The time spent on trying to keep viruses off windows, then the inevitable time spent removing viruses from windows, requiring drivers for everything that only install properly one out of five attempts, the inevitable repeat reformats / reinstalls of the OS, all represent a huge amount of downtime that windows users simply accept as necessary to owning a computer. A friend of mine who is rabidly pro MSFT owns a windows desktop and laptop, and spends anywhere from 40-60 hours a year "keeping it snappy" (wiping and reinstalling os & apps mostly). Macs do not require this type of maintenance. When I spend that many hours working on something I get a thousand dollar paycheck at the end, which essentially translates to basic maintenance on a windows based computer increasing its cost to the user by $1000 per year owned.

 

[HLdan]

except that a Lexus/Acura will have a faster engine than a comparable Toyota/Honda


as of today Mac's have slower engines than a comparable PC

Not true for any of the iMacs when you compare them to other AIO's, which is what they should be compared to. And the i7 iMac is certainly more powerful than many comparable mini tower PC's.

 

[alent1234]

It's hard to look at the retail cost of a windows-PC computer and say "this is how much it costs" and be done with it. The sticker price of a windows computer is only accurate if you consider your time to be worth nothing ($0/hr). The time spent on trying to keep viruses off windows, then the inevitable time spent removing viruses from windows, requiring drivers for everything that only install properly one out of five attempts, the inevitable repeat reformats / reinstalls of the OS, all represent a huge amount of downtime that windows users simply accept as necessary to owning a computer. A friend of mine who is rabidly pro MSFT owns a windows desktop and laptop, and spends anywhere from 40-60 hours a year "keeping it snappy" (wiping and reinstalling os & apps mostly). Macs do not require this type of maintenance. When I spend that many hours working on something I get a thousand dollar paycheck at the end, which essentially translates to basic maintenance on a windows based computer increasing its cost to the user by $1000 per year owned.

that was true with Windows Me and earlier. Somewhat true with XP. Not true with 7.

Starting in 2003 MS has fixed most driver issue by developing a whole new driver model. used to be the manufacturer would write the entire driver. with the new model MS writes a basic driver for almost every device out there and a device manufacturer adds their custom extensions to it. and most of the crap device manufacturers have gone out of business as well. i used to fight with Windows 98 on an AMD system in the 1990's. after a few months it would self destruct. these days only AMD and nvidia make the motherboards for AMD based systems and they are very stable. same with ATI, their drivers used to be a joke. these days they are pretty good.

for spyware Google, MS and Yahoo have taken over from Alexa and all the old spyware programs from 10 years ago.

viruses are also overblown. we have over 1000 PC's where i work and a central virus scanning system and we don't get a lot of alerts. and at home you have to go out of your way to get infected.

i'm looking at an iMac later this year and maybe a MacBook Pro, but only because i want to teach my 2 year old UNIX as he learns about computers and i've wanted to learn unix for a while, but never have time due to work

 

[alent1234]

Not true for any of the iMacs when you compare them to other AIO's, which is what they should be compared to. And the i7 iMac is certainly more powerful than many comparable mini tower PC's.

with the mini towers you can put a faster graphics card in there than the iMac has

 

[Disc Golfer]

that was true with Windows Me and earlier. Somewhat true with XP. Not true with 7.

Every single windows user I know uses XP, and has the experience that I described. I installed 7 on my mbp this week and it's been much better than XP so far, despite applications constantly crashing. Windows may be "getting better" but the large majority of users are still dealing with the same issues as they were ten or more years ago. Hell just a few days ago a friend of mine bought a new windows (gateway) laptop that didn't have built in wireless, so he got a usb wireless adapter. He battled it for two days, never got online and finally just returned everything in favor for a mac mini.

 

[MacHamster68]

minitowers are upgradable, but you cant compare a AIO with a tower , the only thing screen size aside you could compare a imac with would be a laptop ,as most components in a imac are mobile versions

you cant compare a ford gt with a lightning pickup despite they share the same engine

 

[alent1234]

i've been running Windows 7 since before the retail release and the only apps that annoy me are IE and itunes. everything else is stable. i have a 5 year old PC at work that i also put 7 on and do a lot of work on and it never crashes either.

 

[Winni]

I like the support I get at Apple. I can always setup an appointment at the local Apple store if needed.

That's so nice for you. But what do you do when the next Apple store is 800 km away from you? Right: You're screwed, because Apple doesn't offer you any ON SITE warranty like, hm, everybody else in the industry.

Personally, I'd rather give Dell a phone call and have them send a technician to my office, and depending on the support option that I purchased, he'll be there within four hours or on the next day at the latest. That's what I call service.

When you folks start comparing prices, you should always keep in mind that companies like Dell offer a support level in the base price that you cannot buy from Apple even if you wanted to. In other words: For a fair comparison, you -have- to add the price of Apple Care to the product.

But then again, you folks are also right when you say you can only compare within the same product category. Sony and Dell have one or two all-in-ones in their product portfolio. If you compare towers, then you can only compare workstation class Dell Precisions with Mac Pros. Apple does not have regular desktop computers. (Only Hackintosh resellers like Psystar and PearC have.)

Also, you can only compare those machines when you count in what you actually want to do with them. A bare comparison of hardware specs and software bundles doesn't really serve a purpose, because a complete system consists of more than the stuff that comes in the box.

Will you be running Windows on the Mac to play games? Well, add a Windows license to your calculation - the PC already has one, the Mac needs one.

An anti-virus software suite like NOD32 won't cost you much for three years, but nevertheless you have to add it to the PC bundle. But, in all fairness, if you are exchanging Microsoft office documents with the rest of the world, you should also add an anti-virus package to Mac OS X.

Speaking of MS Office: Many PCs come with a version of that pre-installed. But you will definitely have to buy it for OS X. (Or iWork, if that's going to cut it for you.) You could also use OpenOffice for free on both platforms.

And now comes the part where it really matters: Your individual application needs. This can quickly make a Mac a useless investment, should you find out that the software that you need does not even exist for the Apple platform. In that case, you might have bought yourself a designer PC, and you have to buy a lot of software that usually comes bundled with any PC just to get started.

The other way around nobody usually has the problem, because all OS X software can be substituted with Windows software. There is -nothing- out there that does not exist in one form or the other for Windows. Windows has the largest software pool, end of discussion.

If you are really interested in TCO, then of course you should also add things like hardware upgrades into your calculation. You can upgrade a regular PC or replace it with another one WITHOUT having to also replace all existing peripherals. If you buy an iMac, you will always have to buy a full new computer - the damn thing is built into the display. PC owners can use their existing displays for years to come, usually for the life cycle of two or three PCs. So if you look at the TCO from a longer perspective than just one or two months, you will always be screwed with an All-in-one system like the iMac.

This list can go on forever.

If you could afford your Mac and like it, be happy with it. Just don't be religious about it. Apple is as much a greedy, customer hostile corporation as Microsoft and the rest of the PC industry are. They are not your friends or saviors. Like everybody else out there, they just want as much of your money as possible.

 

[Disc Golfer]

.
If you are really interested in TCO, then of course you should also add things like hardware upgrades into your calculation. You can upgrade a regular PC or replace it with another one WITHOUT having to also replace all existing peripherals. If you buy an iMac, you will always have to buy a full new computer - the damn thing is built into the display. PC owners can use their existing displays for years to come, usually for the life cycle of two or three PCs. So if you look at the TCO from a longer perspective than just one or two months, you will always be screwed with an All-in-one system like the iMac.

Apples to oranges. This thread is about all in one systems regardless of the operating system you prefer.

 

[alent1234]

the Dell at home support is only after a remote diagnosis. that means you have to run the crappy Dell diagnostics software. which means you have to run the PC with all the other crap ware it ships with or reinstall Windows and only install the selected Dell software.

on my work HP laptop i couldn't stand the HP software

and at least from my last experience with Dell, the laptop 3 year warranty does not include batteries. Apple Care does.

and at least for home use Mac's have ridiculous resale values. i don't know why, but they do. you can make the initial investment and pay it on a 0% card and then a year later upgrade to the newest Mac and you annual out of pocket expenses are $300 or $400 after you sell your old Mac

 

[HLdan]

with the mini towers you can put a faster graphics card in there than the iMac has

Oh Wowzee wowzee woo hoo! None of the computers will match up to each other, even PC's themselves can't match up perfectly company to company. So what, that you can put a better GPU in a mini tower. Is that all you got against the iMac? Find yourself a consumer 27" monitor with 2560X1440 native resolution. See, you can't compare them exactly side by side. The iMac WILL win regardless. This is why I said you can't compare an AIO with a tower, you have to compare AIO's with AIO's.

EDIT: Just saw the Dell 27" screen. Same resolution as the iMac.

 

[HLdan]

minitowers are upgradable, but you cant compare a AIO with a tower , the only thing screen size aside you could compare a imac with would be a laptop ,as most components in a imac are mobile versions

you cant compare a ford gt with a lightning pickup despite they share the same engine

That was true before the recent line up. Nearly everything in an iMac besides maybe the optical drive and the on board graphics is all desktop class.

 

[MacHamster68]

That was true before the recent line up. Nearly everything in an iMac besides maybe the optical drive and the on board graphics is all desktop class.

ok the processor is a desktop one but the rest is still mobile technology
i think the iMac would deserve a real desktop graphics card, ok the power consumption would go up a bit but hey i think the gain in performance would be worth it

 

[Spike88]

Hi Winni. I enjoyed reading your post and your PC/Mac comparison view from many different perspectives. Thank you for taking the time in posting your many different points. Good read.

I also like the previous post (forgot the guy's id) about the "often forgotten" time and hassles of Windows XX virus, driver updates an registry clean-up tasks. If I had to pay myself $5 (yea - cheap labour) for every hour I spend doing Windows XX cleanup tasks, I could easily afford a new iMac. This "area" of additional long term cost is often forgotten in the grand total TCO amount as well....

Which is really better? MMMM.... Sounds like a GM vs Ford comparison to me. Especially when one only takes H/W specs and purchase cost into consideration. It's too bad that "people comfort" for each product is often left out of spec/price comparisons reviews. For many, the "look, feel and usage comfort" is more important and pure dollar value (of buying the product).

.

 

[scroto]

The price of the Dell monitor will drop over the next few months the price of the imac will stay the same. You can't compare a PC to a Mac when it comes to bang for your buck, the Mac will lose every time.

 

[alent1234]

The price of the Dell monitor will drop over the next few months the price of the imac will stay the same. You can't compare a PC to a Mac when it comes to bang for your buck, the Mac will lose every time.

i still don't see any IPS LED backlit 27" monitors being sold at newegg.

 

[HLdan]

ok the processor is a desktop one but the rest is still mobile technology

Wrong, the iMac has always used desktop class hard drives as well. And I beg to differ the fans in the iMac could ever fit in a Macbook Pro. The GPU alone doesn't classify the iMac as using laptop parts.

 

[pionata]

As an artist myself, I never underestimated the actual value of a good design.
20% more, 30% more, that's nothing if you consider it's not an ugly box.

I have designed desk and living room lamps here; yes I paid 250% what I would have paid for the usual "crap" at IKEA everyone gets. Why? because I work with it every day and I like my environment to be as pleasing for the eyes as it can be.

The discussion should not only be about the components, there is far more to a mac than what's inside.

Anyway, even if you get a quad Dell for a few bucks less, look at how Os X destroys Windows in the 64bit benchmarks; The new Imac even beats some 16 cores boxes:

__PC: Intel Core i7 920, 16 cores @ 2670 MHz
RESULT: 7503

MAC: Intel Core i7 860 @ 2.80 GHz (1 processor, 4 cores, 8 threads)
RESULT: 9641

-

 

[bkspero]

Interesting thread

This has been an interesting thread. Let me summarize what I think I've read.

1) If an iMac is the only computer you will consider, then then there are no less expensive, comparable computers (duh!). Maybe its because of its appearance, or because of its brand new 27" very high resolution screen to which others are just getting access. Using that logic, a $10,000 Intel 80286 purple and brown striped computer is the cheapest "comparable" computer for anyone that must have a purple and brown striped computer (because...I hope....that no one else sells purple and brown striped computers).

2) If you are unfamiliar with an operating system, it is likely to seem unintuitive to you. "I ran Windows once in 1994 and it was terrible." It happens in both directions. I have been using OSX since Panther. The Finder was bad then, and it is still bad. You learn to use it as efficiently as possible, you install add-ins and alternatives, and wish for changes in the next OS update. Same for the Windows Control Panel. The Windows registry can be problematic, and so can digging thru the system trying to delete OSX plist files scattered around the system in an attempt to get some software to run properly. I used to feel that Apple was making more of an effort to improve things. Now I am feeling that Steve has shifted more of his resources into iPods, iPhones, and iPads, than he is to his computers, and Microsoft is the one making more effort to improve its OS (and you can argue that it had further to go). It's Steve Jobs' decision to make, and it could very well be the best one for Apple's bottom line, but it isn't be best for me as an OSX user.

3) Total cost of ownership involves more factors than just the initial purchase price, and it is there that the iMac shines. Someone should tell that to the 90% of the market that runs Windows, and to business users that I understand comprise an even greater percentage of Windows users. And if I had to bet, my bet would be that those business users have made more, and more detailed studies of the total cost of ownership than anyone has on this forum. And they have overwhelmingly chosen Windows. I cannot believe that they are all stupid...or that they have some inherent bias for Microsoft...ultimately their employment depends upon keeping their employer as productive and competitive as possible...whether its using Macs or PCs. And they have chosen PC's. So, either the PCs have a lower TCO, or they must be way, way more productive!

4) Windows users struggle with viruses and Mac users do not. This one worries me. I have always run antivirus on my Windows computers and haven't experienced any problems where I had to deal with a virus infection. I don't run anti-virus on my Macs, and also have never had a virus infection that I am aware of. Yet you know that there has to be vulnerabilities in OSX. Heck, like any OS, or any large piece of software, there have definitely been bugs of other types in OSX. And bugs in other Apple software. So there has to be security holes in OSX as well. I worry that one day someone is going to decide that even though OSX only has a ca. 4% market share, it will be worth their while to go after OSX. And when they do, it will not be pretty for us running without virus protection. Recall that Apple added rudimentary antivirus software to Snow Leopard....think Apple knows something?

5) iMacs are high quality, and PCs are garbage. Someone must have forgotten to tell that to all the people with yellow 27" iMac screens. Computers are complex devices. All brands break. Macs possibly at a lower rate than PCs, but look here and at the Apple.com forums. Just like on the HP and Dell forums. All brands break. If you buy a Mac, buy Applecare and you're protected until the computer is probably no longer useful. If you buy a PC...maybe extend the warranty...or maybe when it breaks in a couple of years just replace the part because you can get one inexpensively. Or, since it cost about half of the Mac, use the money you saved to buy a brand new, much faster PC.

6) Apple has great customer service. If you live near an Apple store, that is one that I agree with. As long as you pay the Applecare premium. If you don't have a store nearby, or if you're past your initial 90 days and don't have Applecare, then maybe not so much of a difference in customer service.

7) Finally, one question that was only touched upon. What have people done with their perfectly functional iMac displays when their logic boards eventually fail, or their processor, or their graphics card, or any of the parts that cost more to replace than buying a new computer? As one poster mentioned, I typically use my displays over 2 or 3 generations of computers. All in ones just seem so wasteful in this regard.

So, if you must have an iMac, then it is the least expensive computer for you. If you have some flexibility in your requirements (like you are only willing to run OSX, and you can accept a tower and a 27% Full HD display, or a smaller very high resolution display), then you can probably get a PC that meets your needs for about half the initial cost of an iMac.

In an earlier thread relating to the Mac Mini, I costed out an HP 2.5 GHz Core 2 Quad slim PC for the OP with 6 gigs of RAM, current vintage graphics card with dedicated video memory, 640 gig 7200 rpm hard drive, gigabit ethernet, wireless N, dual layer tray loading DVD with lightscribe, an empty PCIe slot for expansion, wireless keyboard and mouse for about $300 less than the cost of the 2.53 GHz mini. I saw a 27" 1920x1080 Samsung monitor at Costco yesterday for $350. So for less than half the price of the 27" iMac, one gets a computer that is competitive in speed, more RAM, a much better graphics card, a smaller hard drive, and an equal sized, lower resolution display.

Upgrade to an i7 for about $400, and to a 1 gig hard drive for $40, and for 25% less than the iMac you would get a computer that will blow the doors off of the Mac and have a very good, but still lower resolution monitor. Wait a couple of months, and the iMac's display will be available from 3 PC suppliers for another $150 over the cost of the lower res display, and the comparison will be more in favor of the PC.

 

[lilo777]

i still don't see any IPS LED backlit 27" monitors being sold at newegg.

Do you see any Apple computers there? You do not have to buy PCs from newegg. Someone posted in another thread, that he was able to buy U2711 from DELL at about $800 by simply calling in. In PC world advertised price and selling price are rarely the same thing.

As many people here already mentioned it is difficult to compare Apple computers with PCs. I suspect that Apple deliberately tries to make it so. Apple produces rather weird computers (laptops are the exception) to avoid any direct comparisons with PCs. In PC world, AIO are very unpopular. Few available PC AIOs are mostly "kitchen" computers with touch screens.

If you use $800 price for 27" display as a base price and add mini-tower components, you will probably get cheaper PC than iMac but that's not very indicative. Alternatively you may try to compare iMac with Sony AIO like this one. Sony has smaller screen 24") but it has BluRay and a touchscreen and costs $1300.

 

[iamthedudeman]

This has been an interesting thread. Let me summarize what I think I've read.

1) If an iMac is the only computer you will consider, then then there are no less expensive, comparable computers (duh!). Maybe its because of its appearance, or because of its brand new 27" very high resolution screen to which others are just getting access. Using that logic, a $10,000 Intel 80286 purple and brown striped computer is the cheapest "comparable" computer for anyone that must have a purple and brown striped computer (because...I hope....that no one else sells purple and brown striped computers).

2) If you are unfamiliar with an operating system, it is likely to seem unintuitive to you. "I ran Windows once in 1994 and it was terrible." It happens in both directions. I have been using OSX since Panther. The Finder was bad then, and it is still bad. You learn to use it as efficiently as possible, you install add-ins and alternatives, and wish for changes in the next OS update. Same for the Windows Control Panel. The Windows registry can be problematic, and so can digging thru the system trying to delete OSX plist files scattered around the system in an attempt to get some software to run properly. I used to feel that Apple was making more of an effort to improve things. Now I am feeling that Steve has shifted more of his resources into iPods, iPhones, and iPads, than he is to his computers, and Microsoft is the one making more effort to improve its OS (and you can argue that it had further to go). It's Steve Jobs' decision to make, and it could very well be the best one for Apple's bottom line, but it isn't be best for me as an OSX user.

3) Total cost of ownership involves more factors than just the initial purchase price, and it is there that the iMac shines. Someone should tell that to the 90% of the market that runs Windows, and to business users that I understand comprise an even greater percentage of Windows users. And if I had to bet, my bet would be that those business users have made more, and more detailed studies of the total cost of ownership than anyone has on this forum. And they have overwhelmingly chosen Windows. I cannot believe that they are all stupid...or that they have some inherent bias for Microsoft...ultimately their employment depends upon keeping their employer as productive and competitive as possible...whether its using Macs or PCs. And they have chosen PC's. So, either the PCs have a lower TCO, or they must be way, way more productive!

4) Windows users struggle with viruses and Mac users do not. This one worries me. I have always run antivirus on my Windows computers and haven't experienced any problems where I had to deal with a virus infection. I don't run anti-virus on my Macs, and also have never had a virus infection that I am aware of. Yet you know that there has to be vulnerabilities in OSX. Heck, like any OS, or any large piece of software, there have definitely been bugs of other types in OSX. And bugs in other Apple software. So there has to be security holes in OSX as well. I worry that one day someone is going to decide that even though OSX only has a ca. 4% market share, it will be worth their while to go after OSX. And when they do, it will not be pretty for us running without virus protection. Recall that Apple added rudimentary antivirus software to Snow Leopard....think Apple knows something?

5) iMacs are high quality, and PCs are garbage. Someone must have forgotten to tell that to all the people with yellow 27" iMac screens. Computers are complex devices. All brands break. Macs possibly at a lower rate than PCs, but look here and at the Apple.com forums. Just like on the HP and Dell forums. All brands break. If you buy a Mac, buy Applecare and you're protected until the computer is probably no longer useful. If you buy a PC...maybe extend the warranty...or maybe when it breaks in a couple of years just replace the part because you can get one inexpensively. Or, since it cost about half of the Mac, use the money you saved to buy a brand new, much faster PC.

6) Apple has great customer service. If you live near an Apple store, that is one that I agree with. As long as you pay the Applecare premium. If you don't have a store nearby, or if you're past your initial 90 days and don't have Applecare, then maybe not so much of a difference in customer service.

7) Finally, one question that was only touched upon. What have people done with their perfectly functional iMac displays when their logic boards eventually fail, or their processor, or their graphics card, or any of the parts that cost more to replace than buying a new computer? As one poster mentioned, I typically use my displays over 2 or 3 generations of computers. All in ones just seem so wasteful in this regard.

So, if you must have an iMac, then it is the least expensive computer for you. If you have some flexibility in your requirements (like you are only willing to run OSX, and you can accept a tower and a 27% Full HD display, or a smaller very high resolution display), then you can probably get a PC that meets your needs for about half the initial cost of an iMac.

In an earlier thread relating to the Mac Mini, I costed out an HP 2.5 GHz Core 2 Quad slim PC for the OP with 6 gigs of RAM, current vintage graphics card with dedicated video memory, 640 gig 7200 rpm hard drive, gigabit ethernet, wireless N, dual layer tray loading DVD with lightscribe, an empty PCIe slot for expansion, wireless keyboard and mouse for about $300 less than the cost of the 2.53 GHz mini. I saw a 27" 1920x1080 Samsung monitor at Costco yesterday for $350. So for less than half the price of the 27" iMac, one gets a computer that is competitive in speed, more RAM, a much better graphics card, a smaller hard drive, and an equal sized, lower resolution display.

Upgrade to an i7 for about $400, and to a 1 gig hard drive for $40, and for 25% less than the iMac you would get a computer that will blow the doors off of the Mac and have a very good, but still lower resolution monitor. Wait a couple of months, and the iMac's display will be available from 3 PC suppliers for another $150 over the cost of the lower res display, and the comparison will be more in favor of the PC.

1.) For most Mac purists, yes a Mac is all they will consider for many reasons said on this very thread. You can still get a Mac Mini for a very good price. And there are more expensive computers than a Mac Mini. But that is not the reason one buys a Mac

2.) To each his own, but that is just your opinion. As far as 64 bit goes, OSX destroys Windows in any flavor. There is more than file system and GUI changes going on or what you can see. There is alot going on "under the hood' so to speak. Can you say Open GL? Why does OSX start in 20 seconds and Windows takes two minutes? Why does a windows machine have a corrupt registry after a Windows update that was done by Windows itself?
Has Microsoft fixed these problems, no they have not, do they occur still yes they do. Does this happen on a Mac, no it does not. Do Macs have these problems, no they don't.

3.)Total cost of ownership involves more factors than just the initial purchase price, and it is there that the iMac shines. Someone should tell that to the 90% of the market that runs Windows, and to business users that I understand comprise an even greater percentage of Windows users. And if I had to bet, my bet would be that those business users have made more, and more detailed studies of the total cost of ownership than anyone has on this forum. And they have overwhelmingly chosen Windows.

Really? Having my own business now and previously working for a firm I got to see exactly where you are going with this.

Two main factors that play into this is Cost and Maintenance.

Business users don't really have allot of choice in what they use. Business "Owners' do. Not their workers. They can only choose what to do their presentations and spread sheets on, thats about it.

Most business have custom made software just for their business, and since PC's are half the price of Mac machines it all boils down to "Cost'. Cost of owner ship business comprises mostly maintenance costs and paying the people to run your servers and maintain them. Since they run a server and that server is usually a UNIX based machine in large corporations such as UNIX itself or Linux. Smaller business use Windows servers again because of the cost. You need someone trained in running that server and maintaining your PC's.

You have to maintain your business, and since Windows owns 87% of the current OS market. Try finding people as a reasonable wage who can maintain a OSX server or try to find anyone at all with the knowledge to work on OSX servers. The business market is a reflection of the realties of the commercial market. Not the other way around.

Why do most large corporations run UNIX and Linux based systems. Because they are more secure regardless of the cost of ownership, since UNIX based servers are more costly to maintain than Windows servers. Because they are more reliable. Why run a OSX server when you can run a UNIX server for cheaper than OSX?

http://www.iaps.com/2008-server-reliability-survey.html

Lets not forget OSX is based on BSD which is UNIX based. It is all cost, has nothing to do with being stupid or not knowing what is what.

4.) You never had a virus on your WM. Good for you. But millions of people have them and will keep on having them. And no OSX not having any virus infections in widespread use beyond the lab has nothing to do with how many OSX machines that are on the market or it's %5 market share as far as the OS goes. So your reasoning on this is obscured to say the least. OSX is a more secure OS. Period.

How do you explain that there are literally 75 million OSX users and you're trying to tell me that there are not enough OSX machines to have a virus? How does that even make sense? There are far less Linux machines out there but yet there are more viruses for it. How can that be by using your logic? Is it invulnerable, no OS is, is it much better secure than windows, yes.

First, look at the two factors that cause email viruses and worms to propagate: social engineering, and poorly designed software. Social engineering is the art of conning someone into doing something they shouldn't do, or revealing something that should be kept secret. Virus writers use social engineering to convince people to do stupid things, like open attachments that carry viruses and worms. Poorly designed software makes it easier for social engineering to take place, but such software can also subvert the efforts of a knowledgable, security-minded individual or organization. Together, the two factors can turn a single virus incident into a widespread disaster. And what OS has the highest percentage of poorly designed software?

Let's look further at social engineering. Windows software is either executable or not, depending on the file extension. So if a file ends with ".exe" or ".scr", it can be run as a program (yes, of course, if you change a text file's extension from ".txt" to ".exe", nothing will happen, because it's not magically an executable; I'm talking about real executable programs). It's easy to run executables in the Windows world, and users who get an email with a subject line like "Check out this wicked screensaver!" and an attachment, too often click on it without thinking first, and bang! we're off to the races and a new worm has taken over their systems.

Even worse, Microsoft's email software is able to infect a user's computer when they do something as innocuous as read an email!

This sort of social engineering, so easy to accomplish in Windows, requires far more steps and far greater effort on the part of the OSX user.

Mac OS X doesn't even allow users to use the root account unless they first enable the option, it's obvious the likelihood of email-driven viruses and worms lessens on those platforms.

Unfortunately, running as root (or Administrator) is common in the Windows world. In fact, Microsoft is still engaging in this risky behavior. Windows 7 , supposed Microsoft's most secure desktop operating system, automatically makes the first named user of the system an Administrator, with the power to do anything he wants to the computer. The reasons for this decision boggle the mind. With all the lost money and productivity over the last decade caused by countless Microsoft-borne viruses and worms, you'd think the company could have changed its procedures in this area, but no.

Even if the OS has been set up correctly, with an Administrator account and a non-privileged user account, things are still not copasetic. On a Windows system, programs installed by a non-Administrative user can still add DLLs and other system files that can be run at a level of permission that damages the system itself. Even worse, the collection of files on a Windows system - the operating system, the applications, and the user data - can't be kept apart from each other. Things are intermingled to a degree that makes it unlikely that they will ever be satisfactorily sorted out in any sensibly secure fashion.

Microsoft continually links together its software, often not for technical reasons, but instead for marketing or business development reasons, OSX does not. Even if a few individuals got infected with a virus due to extremely foolish behavior, it's unlikely the virus would spread to other machines. A OSX based Virus would fizzle out quickly because of OSX's file system in comparison to Windows. Windows is an inviting petri dish for viruses and worms, while OSX is a hostile environment for such nasties.

Mac OS X establishs a more secure footing than Microsoft Windows, one that makes it far harder for viruses to take hold in the first place, but if one does take hold, harder to damage the system, but if one succeeds in damaging the system, harder to spread to other machines and repeat the process.

When it comes to email-borne viruses and worms, OSX may not be completely immune - after all, nothing is immune to human gullibility and stupidity - but it is much more resistant. To mess up a OSX, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. I know which one I'll trust. How about you?


5) Are you kidding? You have to be? Do you really think that a Windows or "PC's is built as well or carry the same level of materials used in manufacturing? I will take aluminum and glass over plastic any day of the week. Thanks very much.

Are you forgetting that most on this forum are also PC users?
We know how they break, so stop the illusion.

I know people who had a Mac for more than 5 years and it still starts in about 30 seconds. Try that on a Windows machine that is 5 years old. You can get lunch, go to the bathroom and take nap when it finally starts up, if at all.
How many times in the last five years has this so called panel problem existed. Yes it is a problem, but it is a rare problem, with windows PC's it is expected. That is the difference.

With any new technology you will have problems, the use of a beyond 1080P HD 27 inch monitor all in one will have it's growing pains. The reason you will never see this on a PC is because most PC makers do not innovate and only follow. In following Apple and to copy. That is why there is not 27 inch all in one for any PC manufacturer. Why is that exactly?

Yes all brands break, just PCs break more often, and Macs don't break that often and run for way beyond the the Apple cares coverage. So yes you're wrong there. By a wide margin. Macs are better engineered and better made machines that work with a OS that was designed together. Windows machines use a OS that works with many different types of hardware, and most of it does not work well with one another let alone designed together. This isn't rocket science.

So the problems are expected, and that is why Windows machines are half the price. not the other way around. You can go through two PC's and still have one Mac that will still be running six years later or more. How is a PC more of a bargain exactly?

6.)Are you serious. If you cannot get to a Apple store or there is not one around than PC customer service is a wash? Apple care premium? Most PC makers or the lame Best Buy insurance is more expensive, and inferior.

I like talking to people that are in the USA that I can actually understand me. Apple will usually replace your machine if all else fails. Try that with a PC manufacturer and talking to Abib about your problems who is just reading off a script. Store or no store, Apple gives you the same service regardless. I have never been to a Apple store for service, ever. No problems that could not be handled over the phone. Do you really think that a PC maker would give you a full refund and 15% back for a bad screen? Lol.

7.) Well that is again your opinion. Most Mac users luckily have a good company when things like this happen and Apple will replace your computer and give you a new one or refurbished one under warranty. Thats how. And Most of us sell our three or four year fully functioning imacs for a large profit and buy a new one for a few hundred dollars more. Something you cannot do on a PC. You have to throw them away. How is that a bargain?

And your analogy goes for any all-in-one. The only difference is that Apple will actually replace your computer. Big difference.

As far as the mini thread. Lets turn this around a little bit. Try buying a PC not justa all-in-one with the same specs as a $2000 quad core imac.

Lets start off with the monitor. Dell is the only manufacturer that sells the same monitor and they sell it for $1100. Not some Samsung cheap o 27 monitor. Size and quality are not the same thing. One with the same resolution and of the same quality.

You have 900 more to work with. Go build me a 'much cheaper' PC with the same specs. With the same monitor of the same quality. Let alone with the all-in-one design, you will not find a PC with the same specs and design, because it doesn't exist. Sorry. Just build one with the same quality monitor and a tower that compares favorably for much cheaper. Shouldn't be hard for you.

Go ahead. And post back here with what you have found.

Take this in while your at it.

http://www.9to5mac.com/9-of-10-1000-computers-is-a-mac-3564331

 

[HLdan]

It's a good thing we're not required to read word for word on each persons post. There's only 24 hours in a day.