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.
"New iMac" versus "The Competition" .....
- Thread starter Perfectionist
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thanks dude !! Couldn't find the info anywhere on the Apple website !!
OSX is definitely an advantage in how much nicer and easier it is to use ..... but at the same time it has disadvantages, like nowhere near the software available ..... overall, it's a tie .....
Actually since you can boot natively in XP or Vista, having a Mac gives you the best of both - and makes the "disadvantage" irrelevant...
Thanks dude !! Couldn't find the info anywhere on the Apple website !!
OSX is definitely an advantage in how much nicer and easier it is to use ..... but at the same time it has disadvantages, like nowhere near the software available ..... overall, it's a tie .....
Unless you talk about quality of software, where I for one don't think it is a tie. I think the quality bar is set much higher by independent Mac developers (Panic, Omni, Delicious Monster etc.) than it is on the PC side.
There are particular areas of strength for either platform. CAD and gaming for the Mac? Forget it.
This is more important to me than an extra watt from the built in speakers. Pay your money, take your choice. I agree that Dell, HP and particularly Sony are getting much closer to iMac.
Apart from having rounded corners ..... the iMac looks like a TV just like the others ..... the Dell however looks just plain fugly !!
Good point ..... however it would only be irrelevant if Windows was free instead of another added cost .....
I don't think so ..... Windows does have a lot of crappy software out there ..... but at the top of the field there are some great developers who make very solid applications as good as anything on OSX .....
True .....
The Sony offers a lot more than just slightly louder Speakers ..... Blu Ray, Media Reader, TV Tuner, 2nd HDD, HDMI and a faster CPU ..... all for about the same price as the base level iMac .....
We are looking at the same pictures right?
I guess they are both square shaped.....
Guess I got lucky being a "switcher" and having an old copy of XP laying around and not being used...
Same goes for 64-bit ..... yes it is faster in certain applications ..... but it also has disadvantages too ..... and is mainly of benefit when using more than 4Gb Ram, which none of the models in the Table do ..... again, tie .....
Besides, it's more of a Hardware comparison than anything to do with Software .....
Ok, but JFYI a 32-bit system can't use more than 3GB of RAM.
I agree !! But Sony make a copy just as pretty ..... if not prettier !! (and much cheaper!
) 
Thanks, although for future reference you may wish to know it can actually read up to 3.5Gb ..... and the remaining isn't quite wasted, it's just used for the System instead of the OS .....Ok, but JFYI a 32-bit system can't use more than 3GB of RAM.
Also you may want to to be aware that the RAM is used in 2 halves, 2Gb for applications and 2Gb for the OS ..... Windows usually only uses about 1Gb leaving apps comfortably running the rest .....
In short, there will be little performance degradation between 32-bit and 64 bit if using just 4Gb ..... price is not the only reason why manufacturers stick with 32-bit !!
Ok, but JFYI a 32-bit system can't use more than 3GB of RAM.
So the PPC G5 PowerMacs with all those RAM slots could only use 3 Gb ?, I'm assuming they were 32bit
Which is why Apple only has a tiny share of the Computer Market ..... but they will HAVE to compete now that other big players are seriously getting behind the AIO format ..... and don't forget, Windows 7 will definitely be ripping off ideas from OSX !!
Nah, this is much better ..... http://www.theipatch.com/
That's what they want you to believe !!
And I hope they never sink to Dell's standards to get that portion of the market.
They don't "have" to compete, Sony has been trying to copy Apple's all-in-one design for years and fails miserably and continues to.Dell's all in one is a joke is the only way to put it.
I'm glad Apple doesn't try to please the cheapo market buyers .
Dell's quality is good enough for Fortune 500 companies so it can't be that bad ..... it's design though will have to improve considerably if they want a bigger piece of the Home User market .....
If anything, it's the Windows suppliers that don't "have" to compete as they pretty much own the market !!
Sony's sales have been huge for their AIO lines ..... and each new revision takes another step closer to Apple sexiness ..... Dell are always slow off the mark, but will eventually produce a winning AIO device ..... Apple shouldn't be getting lazy with these guys on it's tail .....
The cheapo market is Tower buyers !! AIO's are significantly more expensive than those same specified machines !!
It's related to the OS...Generally programs which work with both Windows and OS X run better than OS X. And I believe it's because of things like "the horrible registry", massive malware etc.
Still of that 500MB 250-300 (Xp), 400 or more (Vista) and 350 or more (Windows 7) will be used for the OS alone (and not caching) so what remains is 3.2-3.1 GB and there are still unused 500 MB left...
For me it's wasted as long as it doesn't do what it's supposed to do...Let me run more applications. And I can think of a big bunch of applications which would take advantage of an additional 500 MB of RAM.
The RAM is for applications, Leopard just uses the unused RAM for caching. When an applications needs more RAM, Leopard releases it. I believe that Windows does pretty much the same thing. I don't know if Leopard assigns more RAM to the system, but that's not a bad thing since it speeds up access to cached information while not preventing apps from using the RAM they need.
Perfectionist: Your logical reasoning is faulty
Your logic is faulty:
As a current employee of a Fortune500 Company that exclusively uses Dell computers, I can tell you that quality is not a criterion in vendor selection. We use Dell solely for the reason that their Enterprise division will guarantee they will build identical models (exact same HD, CD/DVD, etc) for the entire life of the product...typically 9 months or so. Therefore, all computers in a given organization will be identical. This is crucial to minimizing IT support costs. Dell typically specifies better (i.e. more durable) components for their Enterprise products, since these products have to last throughout the entire product cycle. This indirectly improves Dell quality to Fortune500 companies.
This "higher quality" does not translate to standard Dell products. The normal Dell business (and most other computer manufacturers) purchases whatever HD, CD/DVD, video compents are the cheapest on any given day. If you buy 2 "identical" Dell computers a few weeks apart, you will likely find that some of the internal components will be different.
Do not assume that Fortune500 Dell quality will apply to anything you can purshase from them.
Your logic is faulty:
As a current employee of a Fortune500 Company that exclusively uses Dell computers, I can tell you that quality is not a criterion in vendor selection. We use Dell solely for the reason that their Enterprise division will guarantee they will build identical models (exact same HD, CD/DVD, etc) for the entire life of the product...typically 9 months or so. Therefore, all computers in a given organization will be identical. This is crucial to minimizing IT support costs. Dell typically specifies better (i.e. more durable) components for their Enterprise products, since these products have to last throughout the entire product cycle. This indirectly improves Dell quality to Fortune500 companies.
This "higher quality" does not translate to standard Dell products. The normal Dell business (and most other computer manufacturers) purchases whatever HD, CD/DVD, video compents are the cheapest on any given day. If you buy 2 "identical" Dell computers a few weeks apart, you will likely find that some of the internal components will be different.
Do not assume that Fortune500 Dell quality will apply to anything you can purshase from them.
The 500Mb remaining is used by the BIOS and other processes, but you're right it should be available for Apps ..... however it only makes a difference if you are running many programs concurrently ..... most people only have a few running at the same time .....
Dell uses componentry as defined by it's pricing structure for which each system is sold for ..... true, a small number of their internal parts may be different but they all reach a given standard .....
With Dell, you get what you pay for ..... a low end system will have low quality components and a more expensive system will have high quality components ..... whether it is purchased for an Enterprise or Home customer bares little relation .....
Why doesn't your company exclusively use Apple ??
That's true, but not everyone does that...as an example, myself, I run many programs at once. If I wanted to buy a PC I'd have to chose between a limited 32-bit OS and a still-buggy and unstable 64-bit OS..
I have Windows 7 64-bit beta in my laptop, it runs smoothly. It's laggy sometimes, because my laptop isn't the best (see specs below). Better than Vista but still 10 years behind OS X.
Why Microsoft even brings that crappy 32-bit OS? All processors are 64-bit nowadays.
Probably for the same reason we use IBM LotusNotes instead of Microsoft Outlook. It's what we started with and it would be too expensive to change. It would take some serious capital to replace 45,000 PCs.
Yes, however many apps and hardware require drivers and that is quite a big mess..
They can't because they can't make a 64-bit system which works with 32-bit drivers.
Ain't that the truth !! M$ love selling outdated software !!
Indeed !! Would a wholesale upgrade to Apple pay for itself by the increase in productivity ??
If M$ switched over to 64-bit ..... all the 3rd Party developers would build new drivers asap ..... it's not the drivers holding back better computing ..... it's Microsoft itself !!
What Microsoft does, 3rd party developers have to follow 'em. It just sucks, 32-bit is limited to 3GBs of RAM and can't take full advantage of the power inside. 64-bit is laggy and uncompatible with some programms. I also hate that Microsoft brings dozens of different type of OS eg Home Basic, Home Premium and Ultimate.
Well, either Apple is doing something right or MS is doing something very very wrong.
Because Apple market share in 2006 was 2.3% and today it's finally broken into double digits (10%).
They haven't had market share that good since the 80's.
Obviously they shouldn't rest on their laurels, but by the same token they also can't play the game of "let's try to flood the market with 100 systems so that anyone can find one that makes them happy".
If Apple did that they'd probably have all the problems that MS has.
Because Apple market share in 2006 was 2.3% and today it's finally broken into double digits (10%).
They haven't had market share that good since the 80's.
Obviously they shouldn't rest on their laurels, but by the same token they also can't play the game of "let's try to flood the market with 100 systems so that anyone can find one that makes them happy".
If Apple did that they'd probably have all the problems that MS has.
That's a hard thing to wrap figures around. Additionally, there's going to be an associated drop in productivity as they learn the new system.
Now, also, when you replace those client machines, you may also lose integration with such things as intranets and single sign-on.
You can't just say deploying Apple would gain productivity. It's just not that cut and dry.
Here is another "Competition" for the iMac
Made by Averatec it is a 22 inch model. I have seen in some places on the internet where users have upgraded this from the current dual core Intel CPU to a Intel Quad Core. Also people have upgraded the Nvidia 8400M GS graphics card to other MXM graphic cards. I have seen this model as low as $500 once in a while on EBAY and I believe at Tiger Direct sometimes has it on sale for $600.
Made by Averatec it is a 22 inch model. I have seen in some places on the internet where users have upgraded this from the current dual core Intel CPU to a Intel Quad Core. Also people have upgraded the Nvidia 8400M GS graphics card to other MXM graphic cards. I have seen this model as low as $500 once in a while on EBAY and I believe at Tiger Direct sometimes has it on sale for $600.
Made by Averatec it is a 22 inch model. I have seen in some places on the internet where users have upgraded this from the current dual core Intel CPU to a Intel Quad Core. Also people have upgraded the Nvidia 8400M GS graphics card to other MXM graphic cards. I have seen this model as low as $500 once in a while on EBAY and I believe at Tiger Direct sometimes has it on sale for $600.
Now that seems like a decent competitor, save for the OS and that pointless decal.