Dell lets the place I work at (a university bookstore) sell it at around $650. I think it's fair to assume that there is a LOT of markup.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iMac is a RIP OFF
- Thread starter appleater
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Dell lets the place I work at (a university bookstore) sell it at around $650. I think it's fair to assume that there is a LOT of markup.
Thats a totally ignorant statement. A 60" tv "beats" a 27 inch monitor? Why, because it's bigger? I guess my 96" projector screen "beats" his 60" tv then right? Let's forget about contrast, brightness, color accuracy, viewing angles, heat & sound output, energy consumption and we'll focus on the most obvious number.
And that pretty much sums up the anti-iMac argument. People like you simply do not grasp the nuances involved. You shop based on how many gHz, gigs and inches the screen is, you see no further than that. And PC manufacturers (just like TV manufacturers) are more than happy to play that game, they can outdo each other by one-upping the CPU speed and screen size, undercut eachother by a couple bucks by cutting other corners, and you're happy with that.
With an attitude like that, you are perfect for the PC market. Go wallow in your mediocrity and stay off the Mac forums. Why are you even here? You are ignorant and have no appreciation of quality.
Rob
thats a totally ignorant post. You dont know me. I love macs, the layout and a lot about them. I edit video and have to use a mac. I just hate that I have to spend twice as much money on my mac as I would a pc to edit video at the same speed.
I wasn't even paying attention to the new iMacs until I saw the engadget review. $1,999 for a system with 4GB of RAM and a 1TB HDD? Wow.
First of all, let's tackle this monitor nonsense. $1,000 display? Not quite: http://www.amazon.com/Dell-UltraSharp-U2711-27-inch-Widescreen/dp/tech-data/B0039648BO/ref=de_a_smtd $899.
Apple doesn't post specs of the iMac display, so let's compare it to their overpriced Cinema Display http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html and http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&sku=224-8284&redirect=1
Do a google search for "Apple 27 inch cinema display color gamut" and you'll see that the Apple display only offers a 72% color gamut while the Dell display offers a nice 102% color gamut. Response time? Apple's display is twice as slow as the Dell display. Dell's display also offers HDMI, DVI, DisplayPort, VGA, Component, and Composite video inputs. As well as an 8 in 1 media card reader and multiple USB ports.
The biggest advantage the Dell display has? It's a MATTE display. Thats right, no glare!
When all the facts are taken into account, the display in the iMac or the 27" "Cinema Display" should really cost significantly less. Nowhere near $1,000. More like say.. $700. If that, when you take into account that Apple typically prices computers and computer components double what they should be.
Now look at specs. With a PC you have a choice. I see people here quoting $500 256GB SSD drives and $50 optical drives. $50 for a DVD writer? Try $20 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106333 For $70 you can get a blu-ray reader/DVD writer http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136232 If you do want to spend $500 on an SSD, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148349 355MB/sec read rates.
Going back a few pages and seeing things spec'ed out trying to make the prices even is hilarious. You basically spec things to Apple's limited choices. But the great thing about the PC world is you're not limited by those choices. Why do I need a 256GB SSD? I'd rather have a smaller, faster, cheaper, SSD for my OS and crucial apps. Then I can get a cheap $60 1TB drive for everything else. You can get a 128GB SSD with 280MB/sec read 270MB/sec write for $220 and a 1TB drive that will have real world speeds of over 100MB/sec read and write for $60. Less than half the cost of Apple's limited options for a standard drive + SSD. And why are they charging $150 for a 2TB HDD upgrade? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136514 When I built my PC a few months ago, my 1.5TB HDD only cost $60 on sale.
Now, let's go back to the issue of choice. With the iMac you only have the choice of Intel processors and AMD graphics. What if someone wants nvidia graphics or AMD processors? The GPU in the $2,000 iMac is supposedly "roughly equal" to a desktop GeForce GTX 460? Prove it. I have a GeForce GTX 460 1GB. I'd love to compare.
4GB of RAM and a 1TB HDD in a $2,000 machine? Really? A $400 Acer from Walmart has a 1TB HDD and 4GB of RAM. What if I want to put my own SSD or bigger HDD in an iMac? I have to remove the freakin screen! Why is it that a $2,000 machine needs a memory upgrade out of the box?
And why no blu-ray writer? Seriously? At $2,000 there is no excuse to not have a blu-ray writer in that machine.
There is no logical reason to own an iMac these days. Not if you care about system longevity. You can get far better displays for PCs, you can build significantly more powerful or significantly cheaper systems, and all of the components will be independent. If one part goes bad it can be swapped out in a matter of minutes and you're back up and running, where an iMac will require you to be without the entire system for possibly days or weeks at a time. If the HDD or ODD in a PC goes bad, or a cooling fan needs replaced, you can be back up and running in the time it takes you to run to the closest computer parts store. With your iMac you'll either have to lug the entire machine to an Apple store and leave it for days or call in and wait for them to send you a box (better hope it doesn't happen on a weekend!) and send it in and wait for it to come back.
First of all, let's tackle this monitor nonsense. $1,000 display? Not quite: http://www.amazon.com/Dell-UltraSharp-U2711-27-inch-Widescreen/dp/tech-data/B0039648BO/ref=de_a_smtd $899.
Apple doesn't post specs of the iMac display, so let's compare it to their overpriced Cinema Display http://www.apple.com/displays/specs.html and http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&sku=224-8284&redirect=1
Do a google search for "Apple 27 inch cinema display color gamut" and you'll see that the Apple display only offers a 72% color gamut while the Dell display offers a nice 102% color gamut. Response time? Apple's display is twice as slow as the Dell display. Dell's display also offers HDMI, DVI, DisplayPort, VGA, Component, and Composite video inputs. As well as an 8 in 1 media card reader and multiple USB ports.
The biggest advantage the Dell display has? It's a MATTE display. Thats right, no glare!
When all the facts are taken into account, the display in the iMac or the 27" "Cinema Display" should really cost significantly less. Nowhere near $1,000. More like say.. $700. If that, when you take into account that Apple typically prices computers and computer components double what they should be.
Now look at specs. With a PC you have a choice. I see people here quoting $500 256GB SSD drives and $50 optical drives. $50 for a DVD writer? Try $20 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106333 For $70 you can get a blu-ray reader/DVD writer http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827136232 If you do want to spend $500 on an SSD, http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148349 355MB/sec read rates.
Going back a few pages and seeing things spec'ed out trying to make the prices even is hilarious. You basically spec things to Apple's limited choices. But the great thing about the PC world is you're not limited by those choices. Why do I need a 256GB SSD? I'd rather have a smaller, faster, cheaper, SSD for my OS and crucial apps. Then I can get a cheap $60 1TB drive for everything else. You can get a 128GB SSD with 280MB/sec read 270MB/sec write for $220 and a 1TB drive that will have real world speeds of over 100MB/sec read and write for $60. Less than half the cost of Apple's limited options for a standard drive + SSD. And why are they charging $150 for a 2TB HDD upgrade? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136514 When I built my PC a few months ago, my 1.5TB HDD only cost $60 on sale.
Now, let's go back to the issue of choice. With the iMac you only have the choice of Intel processors and AMD graphics. What if someone wants nvidia graphics or AMD processors? The GPU in the $2,000 iMac is supposedly "roughly equal" to a desktop GeForce GTX 460? Prove it. I have a GeForce GTX 460 1GB. I'd love to compare.
4GB of RAM and a 1TB HDD in a $2,000 machine? Really? A $400 Acer from Walmart has a 1TB HDD and 4GB of RAM. What if I want to put my own SSD or bigger HDD in an iMac? I have to remove the freakin screen! Why is it that a $2,000 machine needs a memory upgrade out of the box?
And why no blu-ray writer? Seriously? At $2,000 there is no excuse to not have a blu-ray writer in that machine.
There is no logical reason to own an iMac these days. Not if you care about system longevity. You can get far better displays for PCs, you can build significantly more powerful or significantly cheaper systems, and all of the components will be independent. If one part goes bad it can be swapped out in a matter of minutes and you're back up and running, where an iMac will require you to be without the entire system for possibly days or weeks at a time. If the HDD or ODD in a PC goes bad, or a cooling fan needs replaced, you can be back up and running in the time it takes you to run to the closest computer parts store. With your iMac you'll either have to lug the entire machine to an Apple store and leave it for days or call in and wait for them to send you a box (better hope it doesn't happen on a weekend!) and send it in and wait for it to come back.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6970M.43077.0.html
The 6970m is listed as between the performance of hd5770 and gtx460 with 768mb of vram.
Also, you're just going in circles if you think you can provide a legitimate argument against an apple computer if you're only dumping specs and cost. People don't buy macs to buy powerful computers for the cost, they buy them because they like apple engineering and the osx operating system itself.
Different strokes for different folks.
The 6970m is listed as between the performance of hd5770 and gtx460 with 768mb of vram.
Also, you're just going in circles if you think you can provide a legitimate argument against an apple computer if you're only dumping specs and cost. People don't buy macs to buy powerful computers for the cost, they buy them because they like apple engineering and the osx operating system itself.
Different strokes for different folks.
Regardless if your arguments are valid or invalid, the fact remains that the majority of iMac owners are due to OS X which makes all of your arguments above a moot point.
If I live in China and the only pizza I can find is $10 a slice, I will pay that $10 if I want a slice of pizza regardless if I can get a hamburger for $2 or a hot dog for $1. You can argue until you are blue in the face about how I can be satiated with $5 worth of hamburgers and hot dogs but what if I just want a slice of pizza? Then I will pay that $10.
It's pretty ridiculous of people to compare an iMac all-in-one Desktop to any kind of home built tower system. People who try to do this just don't get the concept or understand the cost of designing and engineering the thing. That's not to say it isn't expensive and possibly overpriced...but Apple can get that price because there is nothing else out there that really compares. The Sony Vaio L Series can cost $2,000 or more for a 24" model. That is really the closest comparison and it's not even close. The iMac wins hands down except for the inclusion of Blu-ray which is hardly enough to make the Sony a winner.
Now, if people really want to complain about Apple pricing use the Mac Pro as an example against similarly spec'd out desktops. The Mac Pro is considerably more expensive in that arena but Mac Pro fans will argue that it's worth the extra cost.
Anyone who has ever taken an iMac apart would know that the manufacturing and assembly costs alone have to be 10 fold higher than any kind of boxed shape tower.
The fact is All-in-One systems are not for everyone. For people who need or desire such a system it's usually worth the extra money.
Now, if people really want to complain about Apple pricing use the Mac Pro as an example against similarly spec'd out desktops. The Mac Pro is considerably more expensive in that arena but Mac Pro fans will argue that it's worth the extra cost.
Anyone who has ever taken an iMac apart would know that the manufacturing and assembly costs alone have to be 10 fold higher than any kind of boxed shape tower.
The fact is All-in-One systems are not for everyone. For people who need or desire such a system it's usually worth the extra money.
Well, if you're going to play that game, here's the Cinema Display for $899 from an Amazon seller too: http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Cinema-...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1304980787&sr=1-1
But what's your point? The MSRP of the Cinema is $999 and the MSRP and Dell's price of the U2711 is $1099. Calling it a $1k monitor is pretty accurate. You're really nitpicking here.
More ignorant crap. Do you use either of these monitors, or do you just spout on and on about specs you read online with no understanding of what they actually do in the real world? The Dell is CCFL the Apple is LED backlit, each approach has a variety of pros and cons. If you cherrypick the advantages of one and ignore the other, you can make either monitor look better on paper - thats is your usual style, isn't it. This thread isn't about the U2711 vs the Cinema display, please note the forum we are in and the thread title.
Good for you, you pieced together a low end, low cost PC and didn't spend as much as you would have on an Apple. Congratulations! Well done. Enjoy your low cost PC and all the corners you had to cut, including your OS choice.
Well, I guess if someone wanted to do that, they could go build a PC. If someone wanted a high quality, well engineered all in one that is a beauty to work with, and holds it's resale better than pretty much any PC on the market, doesn't get viruses and actually works without countless driver headaches - and they don't mind paying for the quality they are getting - then they can get an Apple. You do what you want, we'll do what we want
Yeah - Acer's are cheap pieces of crap. Good point. Do you also go into BMW forums and tell them how much better Chevys are because they cost less?
Maybe because Blu Ray, and physical media as a whole, is becoming an obsolete format. Ask all the people with Macbook Airs how much they miss their DVD drives.
Sounds like the whole PC ethos works well for you. You don't mind cutting corners, engineering a system yourself, working with mediocre quality components and chassis, all to save a few bucks. That appeals to your personal sense of value. Good for you, you're not the target market of Apple.
What you are is a self righteous know it all who thinks that the choices he makes are the right ones for everyone else. And you're so insecure about yourself, you have to seek out others to argue with to validate yourself. Why else would you even be in this forum?
Rob
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Sorry, I don't know you and I'm not judging you, but I was judging what you wrote.
And what you wrote was ignorant. A 60" TV doesn't "beat" a 27" Monitor, they are completely different, each has it's own pros and cons, benefits and drawbacks. Thats called nuance. And when you completely miss the nuances of something, thats called ignorance.
Rob
yes how i said that was dumb, my bad... But i was replying to a self righteous know it all who's argument was a $1200 imac came with a $1000 27inch monitor, so i dumbed myself down in my response.
also, you shouldnt call a pc wiz a a self righteous know it all, when you are doing nothing but responding in the same type of way.
I wouldn't say their list is accurate. Putting it that high is giving it more credit than it deserves. I'll focus on the DiRT 2 test, since that was the easiest one for me to do quickly. The one review they link to runs the built-in benchmark. The other does not. Their result is 47.7 frames per second on the highest settings at 1080p. On my GeForce GTX 460 1GB running the latest driver, forced "quality" settings in the driver, but v-sync forced off, using the same settings, I averaged 70.5 frames per second. If I turn off 4x MSAA, I average about 105 frames per second, and bumping my GPU clocks up a little bit can take that to 120 frames at the same settings, just with no AA. The Radeon 6970m couldn't break 100 frames per second average at 800x600 using the low preset.
As a Mac owner myself (late 2008 unibody MacBook), I've never bought the argument of "engineering" or "build quality" (seeing as how the system I own was a replacement of a replacement due to poor build quality and even worse repair work), nor can I see how OS X would be an improvement when theres so many things it can't do compared to Windows, such as simple tasks like playing blu-ray discs.
Computers are not fashion accessories, they are tools. They are not meant to look pretty, they are meant to do what you want them to do in the fastest and most stable way possible.
Why spend $2,000 on a computer that looks pretty but is only half as fast as a $700 PC that isn't as pretty? Oh, and it won't last as long as that cheaper system either.
The problem is that there is no pizza worth $10 per slice. The same way an iMac isn't worth the 3x price premium because it isn't as capable.
If someone wants an iMac regardless of the facts, thats their choice. But there is no way at all to argue that the iMac is worth the price when it clearly isn't. And saying it's better than a similarly spec'ed PC that cost less than half as much is unrealistic.
Again, a computer is a tool. It's not a fashion accessory. And considering Apple has been using this same basic design for how long now? Not much goes into "engineering and design".
Who cares how pretty the thing is when you can't do half of what you could do with a cheaper and uglier PC?
Again, compare the specs. The Cinema DIsplay/iMac display isn't even close to the Dell display. It should be priced several hundred less.
Before calling my post "ignorant crap", you might want to actually read why I compared the Dell display versus the Apple Cinema Display. It's widely assumed that Apple uses the same display in the iMac. Apple doesn't release real specs for the iMac display so you have to go to the Cinema Display to compare.
Also, the Apple display is EDGE-LIT LED, meaning it offers no real world benefit other than "instant on" and possible power savings. Now if it was RGBLED backlit, then we could have a different discussion.
Oh yeah? Tell me something Windows 7 can't do that OS X can.
I'll tell you a couple of things that my desktop PC can do that your iMac can't. Play modern games at native resolution, play blu-ray discs with full HD audio output over one cable. If a specific part goes bad then I can replace that specific part within minutes, where you have to send out the entire machine and hope its still all under warranty. Oh, the best part? All of my components have 2, 3, and 5 year warranties at no extra cost.
What corners did I cut for the PC I'm using now? None.
Well engineered? Where should we start on that? How about all of those yellow screen issues last year? In fact, theres a post on the front page of this forum right now where someone said they had their iMac replaced half a dozen times because of the yellow screen issue. If my screen turned yellow
Why does a "well engineered" system require me to REMOVE THE SCREEN and perform entire system surgery for me to replace the HDD or optical drive?
Oh, again, a computer is a tool, not a fashion accessory.
Why would I want to sell a PC? You see, unlike Macs, PCs don't need to be completely replaced when they're due for an upgrade. As long as you make the right choices, your PC can remain "high end" for years to come either by cheap upgrades or overclocking.
If I want a new display I don't need to toss the entire computer, I can just get a new display. If I want a faster processor I can drop a faster CPU in, I don't need to toss the entire computer for a marginal CPU performance upgrade. If I want faster graphics I can just upgrade the GPU, no need to go out and buy a whole new system and sell the old one.
I don't need to worry about how much my PC will be worth in two years because I don't need to sell it. Even with small upgrades here and there, I will still have spent less money on my PC than I would have an iMac and it will still have been faster that entire time. And thanks to upgrades, a PC you buy now will be faster than an iMac now, faster than one next year, and still faster than one the year after that. All while costing less than buying just one of those iMacs.
So you see, I don't need to worry about resale value because theres no reason for me to sell it. Not when I can change it to fit my needs as time goes on. Right now my GeForce GTX 460 is a great GPU. But a year from now? All I'll need to do is replace that one part. But an iMac? You'd need to replace the entire system.
When was the last time I had a virus? Oh yeah, that would be never. This isn't 1995. By the way, you want to talk malware? http://www.macstories.net/news/new-macdefender-malware-targets-mac-users/ http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-20058847-263.html
Driver headaches? What driver headaches? I never even had "Driver headaches" in the Windows 3.1 days. When I built my new PC a few months ago, you know what I had to do? I put in the DVD that came with my systems motherboard, ran it. It detected all of my hardware and automatically installed the needed drivers and nothing more. Then I downloaded the GPU driver from nvidia's website. Thats it. Everything else like game controller, printer, external drives, etc. installed automatically with no additional drivers needed.
And what quality would that be? No modern video playback? No ability to play modern games? Not even the ability to run modern 3D applications of any type at native resolution? The lack of ability to upgrade anything beyond RAM without taking the entire system apart and possibly destroying it?
Oh, going to try the car analogy? See, that fails big time because BMW actually does use higher quality parts. While Apple uses the same Intel CPU, same Intel chipset, same WD/Samsung/Seagate/Hitachi HDDs, same LG/Panasonic DVD drives, same LG screens, same AMD or nvidia or Intel graphics, etc. as everyone else. The only real difference between a Mac and a PC, other than the price tag, is the logo.
Oh yeah? I think the sales of blu-ray discs continuing to outpace DVD at the same point in its life would like to have a word with you. And with more than half of US broadband connections capped http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/56-of-US-Connections-Now-Capped-114020 blu-ray and DVD are not going anywhere when it comes to video content delivery.
Plus theres the issue of quality. Show me ONE legitimate online movie service that comes close to blu-ray quality. That means full 1080p video encoded using H.264 or VC-1 encoded at 20-45Mbps and lossless or completely uncompressed multi-channel sound. iTunes 720p rentals can't even compare to a properly upscaled DVD, and iTunes uses lower bit-rate audio. Xbox 360 video rentals at 1080p look better than DVD, don't sound better, but require at least a 10Mbps connection to achieve better than DVD quality video, something most people still don't have.
And what about delivery of files? I bought Crysis Maximum Edition on Steam this weekend for $10. It took 2 and a half hours to download on my 20Mbps connection. It takes me 10 minutes to drive to Best Buy.
Even if you're in the lucky minority that doesn't have a capped connection, just has fast is it? Even with the fastest FiOS connection, it can still be faster to go to your local RedBox and rent a blu-ray disc than it would be to download a rental from iTunes or Xbox Live, and certainly higher quality than FiOS On Demand.
Can you please tell me what is "mediocre" about my system? What is "premium" about an iMac that uses the exact same parts you'd find in a pre-built PC?
Oh, and what corners did I cut as well? This should be interesting.
Save a few bucks? The system I have now cost less than 1/3 of the $2,000 iMac, yet it has double the RAM with a lifetime warranty, an extra 500GB of HDD space, significantly faster graphics as I proved earlier, and a CPU that is equal in some ways, better in others depending on the situation. A year and a half from now I'll be able to throw in an SSD, upgrade the graphics to something thats twice as fast as what I have now, overclock my CPU by a good 30%, and still have spent less than half of what I would have on that iMac and still have a faster system. And by the time this system is 4 years old, I'll be able to go and spend another $600-$700 and get something that is, again, overall faster than a $2,000 iMac at that time and I still still have spent less money on two computers, one with significant upgrades, than someone would have spent on one iMac years before me.
oooh personal attacks. Gotta love em.
I'm here because I do own a Mac, I do own an iPhone 4 (stood in line for 5 hours for it), an iPad (first gen, 32GB wifi, delivered April 3rd 2010), and a 6th generation iPod nano (POS replaced twice so far). I only make the posts I do so that way others don't make mistakes and they make the right choices when it comes to buying new computers. Mac uers have a way of sticking to things that aren't true, like "viruses" and "Driver headaches" and trying to use that to convince people to buy a Mac over a better equipped PC. They'll gloss over the facts or ignore reality and say things like "blu-ray is dying, you don't need to worry about it" when blu-ray is quickly becoming the dominant video delivery format. So someone needs to be here to make sure that the truth is told.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Why are you calling Zen0Jin a self righteous know it all? That's just out of line.
I've seen enough of mosx's posts to be able to label him pretty accurately. He's a "pc wiz" eh?
Rob
The old saying is still very real: You buy cheap price, you have cheap quality.
It is applied for many things: house, car, food...
It is applied for many things: house, car, food...
Holy cow, I see what your strategy is. You just overwhelm people with such a huge amount of BS that replying to it and pointing out all your inaccuracies becomes an overwhelming task and they give up. And you convince yourself that means you "won". Well, congratulations
My time is too valuable to waste with you.Rob
Nice... and that sums it up pretty well with Mac vs. PC. Nobody ever claimed Apple is cheap, but you get what you pay for. I've build and repaired enough PCs, Macs and UNIX systems in the last 20 years to gain an appreciation for Apple quality, both in the hardware and software. Everyones time has a different value, and everyone prioritizes things (like peace of mind, cost savings) differently.
Fortunately PCs exist to cater to people who want the false illusion of saving money, and Macs exist for those who don't mind paying for quality.
It's that simple.
Rob
Well .. good for mosx he can change his hardware each year, which I did and make me frustated so much
Yes iMac will outdate too, the GPU ... however we argue. It is still a mobile GPU designed for laptop.
I dread iMac for not trying to embed a user-replaceable desktop GPU inside. I don´t mind iMac was made a bit thicker to accomodate desktop GPU.
But really, beside GPU problem, I can´t think anything bad about an iMac, it has much better value than MacPro, but much more sexy, a bit less capable and a lot value in there. You may call it MacPro Air
Granted, you screw a lil component, the whole iMac is going back for warranty service, but so did PC
Not everybody know how to unplug CPU, RAM or even GPU. Not even everybody know what is broken inside a custom built CPU, is it the RAM? or GPU? or even tiny resistor on motherboard?
Hey, I know how to arrange custom built PC right from zero, but dang .. that was so exhausting
For many people, if their CPU stops working, it would be time to get their whole CPU chassis into the store. Even worse, if you chose the component by your own, which store? you don´t even know which was failing
Obviously a Kingston reseller won´t repair Asus motherboard or some Sapphire GPU
Yeah .. Mac is just a computer, like another computer .. but a unified computer. You can only compare it with another PC manufacturer like Dell, Acer etc for all - in aftersales service .. but they don´t do computer as good as
.. and they don´t cheap too when you look at their price tag
Yes iMac will outdate too, the GPU ... however we argue. It is still a mobile GPU designed for laptop.
I dread iMac for not trying to embed a user-replaceable desktop GPU inside. I don´t mind iMac was made a bit thicker to accomodate desktop GPU.
But really, beside GPU problem, I can´t think anything bad about an iMac, it has much better value than MacPro, but much more sexy, a bit less capable and a lot value in there. You may call it MacPro Air
Granted, you screw a lil component, the whole iMac is going back for warranty service, but so did PC
Not everybody know how to unplug CPU, RAM or even GPU. Not even everybody know what is broken inside a custom built CPU, is it the RAM? or GPU? or even tiny resistor on motherboard?
Hey, I know how to arrange custom built PC right from zero, but dang .. that was so exhausting
For many people, if their CPU stops working, it would be time to get their whole CPU chassis into the store. Even worse, if you chose the component by your own, which store? you don´t even know which was failing
Obviously a Kingston reseller won´t repair Asus motherboard or some Sapphire GPU
Yeah .. Mac is just a computer, like another computer .. but a unified computer. You can only compare it with another PC manufacturer like Dell, Acer etc for all - in aftersales service .. but they don´t do computer as good as
.. and they don´t cheap too when you look at their price tagJust wanted to add a couple more things here. This link http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6970M.43077.0.html was provided as proof that the Radeon 6970m was "roughly" as good as a desktop GeForce GTX 460.
I already stated my DiRT 2 performance above, but I'll repost:
"I wouldn't say their list is accurate. Putting it that high is giving it more credit than it deserves. I'll focus on the DiRT 2 test, since that was the easiest one for me to do quickly. The one review they link to runs the built-in benchmark. The other does not. Their result is 47.7 frames per second on the highest settings at 1080p. On my GeForce GTX 460 1GB running the latest driver, forced "quality" settings in the driver, but v-sync forced off, using the same settings, I averaged 70.5 frames per second. If I turn off 4x MSAA, I average about 105 frames per second, and bumping my GPU clocks up a little bit can take that to 120 frames at the same settings, just with no AA. The Radeon 6970m couldn't break 100 frames per second average at 800x600 using the low preset. "
I just ran the Crysis GPU benchmark. They averaged 25fps on the Radeon 6970m, I averaged 37fps with everything set to the absolute highest, at 1080p of course.
They don't explain how they got their Crysis 2 frame-rates, so I can't do a direct comparison, but on the "Extreme" setting under heavy action I average around 44 frames per second. Again, at 1080p.
I did the same thing they did for Bad Company 2. Averaged 68fps, minimum was 59, peak was 95. 1080p highest settings, 4x MSAA, 8x AF.
So putting the Radeon 6970m in the same bracket as the desktop GeForce GTX 460 isn't realistic.
The 6970m is good for a mobile GPU. Definitely. But shouldn't be anywhere near the likes of a $2,000 desktop.
As I've said many times before on this forum, if I'm wrong, it's easy to prove. So prove it.
What quality? I bought my first Mac in March of 2007. The plastic white MacBook. A few months later the case had suffered the known issues of cracking and discoloration and the optical drive had died. Had to send it in for repair. The repair center kept scratching the case and wouldn't replace the DVD drive, so it got replaced. A few months later, the new system had an issue with the case literally coming apart around the seems. Same issue, took several trips to the repair facility before they could finally "repair" my system without scratching it up. Several months after that, the case started to crack again. Again, several trips to the repair facility and finally them breaking my screen and rendering my DVD drive inaccessible caused Apple to replace that system with the one I have now. That one hasn't been problem free either. The DVD drive was killed by the 2009 firmware update and the battery swelled up like a balloon despite having hardly any use.
Number of problems I've had with PCs I've built myself: 0. Big fat zero. Amount of money I saved versus buying a new iMac yet having a faster overall system? Nearly $1,400.
Don't have to, but I can. It's called "having a choice", something Apple doesn't allow their users to have.
Custom built PCs are modular and whatever part is bad can be sent out for warranty or replaced on the spot.
Not to mention, for the same price as AppleCare, most major OEMs have onsite/in-home repair for desktops.
Every component comes with very specific instructions on how to do what. So theres no excuse for someone not to know how to build a PC when step by step instructions are given.
As far as diagnosing problems, the motherboard gives error warnings and a description of what is wrong in both the manual if it will not display and onscreen if it can display.
Again, the motherboard will tell you what is wrong. RAM failing? Motherboard will tell you. GPU failing? Motherboard will tell you. CPU dead? Motherboard will tell you. Motherboard dead? Well, it won't turn on.
Why do I need to go to a store and have someone else tell me what is wrong when the computer itself will tell me what is wrong?
They all use the same components. Same brand of CPU, chipset, HDD, ODD, RAM, displays, etc. The only difference is the price and logo. However, HP and Dell offer warranty plans that extend well beyond what Apple offers. They offer accidental damage, on site service, plans beyond 4 years. Those accidental and on site plans cover peripherals too.
Heh, thread won.
Steve Jobs is the ultimate self righteous jerk. He knows what everyone wants and thats that. No arguing. I like when iOS 4.2 came out for the iPad and people emailed him regarding whether or not we could have a choice for the physical switch on the side, either screen orientation lock or mute. His response "nope". Thankfully the jailbreak community took care of that until Apple backtracked thanks to consumer demand.
I already stated my DiRT 2 performance above, but I'll repost:
"I wouldn't say their list is accurate. Putting it that high is giving it more credit than it deserves. I'll focus on the DiRT 2 test, since that was the easiest one for me to do quickly. The one review they link to runs the built-in benchmark. The other does not. Their result is 47.7 frames per second on the highest settings at 1080p. On my GeForce GTX 460 1GB running the latest driver, forced "quality" settings in the driver, but v-sync forced off, using the same settings, I averaged 70.5 frames per second. If I turn off 4x MSAA, I average about 105 frames per second, and bumping my GPU clocks up a little bit can take that to 120 frames at the same settings, just with no AA. The Radeon 6970m couldn't break 100 frames per second average at 800x600 using the low preset. "
I just ran the Crysis GPU benchmark. They averaged 25fps on the Radeon 6970m, I averaged 37fps with everything set to the absolute highest, at 1080p of course.
They don't explain how they got their Crysis 2 frame-rates, so I can't do a direct comparison, but on the "Extreme" setting under heavy action I average around 44 frames per second. Again, at 1080p.
I did the same thing they did for Bad Company 2. Averaged 68fps, minimum was 59, peak was 95. 1080p highest settings, 4x MSAA, 8x AF.
So putting the Radeon 6970m in the same bracket as the desktop GeForce GTX 460 isn't realistic.
The 6970m is good for a mobile GPU. Definitely. But shouldn't be anywhere near the likes of a $2,000 desktop.
As I've said many times before on this forum, if I'm wrong, it's easy to prove. So prove it.
What quality? I bought my first Mac in March of 2007. The plastic white MacBook. A few months later the case had suffered the known issues of cracking and discoloration and the optical drive had died. Had to send it in for repair. The repair center kept scratching the case and wouldn't replace the DVD drive, so it got replaced. A few months later, the new system had an issue with the case literally coming apart around the seems. Same issue, took several trips to the repair facility before they could finally "repair" my system without scratching it up. Several months after that, the case started to crack again. Again, several trips to the repair facility and finally them breaking my screen and rendering my DVD drive inaccessible caused Apple to replace that system with the one I have now. That one hasn't been problem free either. The DVD drive was killed by the 2009 firmware update and the battery swelled up like a balloon despite having hardly any use.
Number of problems I've had with PCs I've built myself: 0. Big fat zero. Amount of money I saved versus buying a new iMac yet having a faster overall system? Nearly $1,400.
Don't have to, but I can. It's called "having a choice", something Apple doesn't allow their users to have.
Custom built PCs are modular and whatever part is bad can be sent out for warranty or replaced on the spot.
Not to mention, for the same price as AppleCare, most major OEMs have onsite/in-home repair for desktops.
Every component comes with very specific instructions on how to do what. So theres no excuse for someone not to know how to build a PC when step by step instructions are given.
As far as diagnosing problems, the motherboard gives error warnings and a description of what is wrong in both the manual if it will not display and onscreen if it can display.
Again, the motherboard will tell you what is wrong. RAM failing? Motherboard will tell you. GPU failing? Motherboard will tell you. CPU dead? Motherboard will tell you. Motherboard dead? Well, it won't turn on.
Why do I need to go to a store and have someone else tell me what is wrong when the computer itself will tell me what is wrong?
They all use the same components. Same brand of CPU, chipset, HDD, ODD, RAM, displays, etc. The only difference is the price and logo. However, HP and Dell offer warranty plans that extend well beyond what Apple offers. They offer accidental damage, on site service, plans beyond 4 years. Those accidental and on site plans cover peripherals too.
Heh, thread won.
Steve Jobs is the ultimate self righteous jerk. He knows what everyone wants and thats that. No arguing. I like when iOS 4.2 came out for the iPad and people emailed him regarding whether or not we could have a choice for the physical switch on the side, either screen orientation lock or mute. His response "nope". Thankfully the jailbreak community took care of that until Apple backtracked thanks to consumer demand.
That's ridiculous. The screen is a $1000 screen, it just offers something different than the Dell. Not sure where you're getting your information from, but according to the Anandtech article, the U2711 covers 95.69% of AdobeRGB whilst the ACD covers 83.16%.
The input lag from both displays should be the same. The Dell says it has 6ms Gray-To-Gray response time, whilst the Apple display simply says 12ms response time. There's very likely a difference between regular response time and gray to gray response time.
You should read that article thoroughly if you want to see the difference. The 27" ACD is actually pretty good, and $900-$1000 is the price you're looking at for a 27" IPS screen with a 2560x1440 resolution. And, just because gloss is a con for you doesn't mean it is for everyone. For me, it's a plus. As is the edge-to-edge glass, and incredibly bright LED-backlit display.
When you build yourself a PC you can build it how you want it. You might not want a 27" 2560x1440, etc., and you could also spend a bit more and get a more powerful machine. But, the iMac is priced very well. Spec for spec, you couldn't build a machine cheaper enough for it to be worth it. The base high end 27" iMac costs $1999, yet building it myself came to $1815. And that's using a $160 cheaper (and not as nice, in my opinion) screen and a rather cheap case, etc.
The 6970M is an underclocked desktop 6850. Compare your GTX 460 to it and take off about 10% from the 6850 to get a good idea of what the 6970M will be. Have a look here: link (and have a look at some of the other games benchmarked, too)
4GB of RAM costs $40 and a 1TB HDD $60, I'd hardly use those to compare the value of two machines. The CPU, GPU, screen, etc., are what holds the most value in the iMac, as is probably true of most machines.
The memory starts low because not everyone needs that much. I'm glad it does too, otherwise it would mean higher starting prices and I wouldn't get as much value from buying RAM from a third party. In fact, I'd like a 500GB HDD too, not a 1TB HDD. Don't have the choice though.
They're not going to offer a BluRay drive until they actually support it on the software side.
>>>
There's obvious cons to an all-in-one. Such as having to send the whole machine in for repairs of one component breaks, as you said. However, the form factor is very appealing. And I can say I've not had one problem with my 09 27" i7 iMac over the last two years despite constant gaming, they're built very well.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
- Status