Why iMac?

[EnderBeta]

Hi,

actually I have an iMac, but after that I see the price of the actual line of iMac... I'm asking:

- why buy an iMac when with less $$$ I can buy a Windows 10 computer (that is not bad as OS) with the same configuration? If I spent the same $$$ I will buy a super mega hardware configuration.

What do you think? Why continue to buy iMac or Mac product?

Bye Bye

I think you are ill informed.

Just because the machine has the same CPU and GPU, amount of RAM and drive space it doesn't mean the configuration is the same.

There is build quality. There are not many Windows computers that are built in a unibody like the Mac. Plastic computers with steel frames are a dime a dozen.

There is the logic board which on low end machines tends to use different chipsets depending on what is cheapest that week. That means that drivers for specific models of machines even with the same specs on paper need different drivers. Which means there is more work in maintaining the machine. Not to mention hidden quality issues if you get inferior parts compared to someone else last week.

The memory could be slower.

The drive speed is almost certainly slower unless you spend a comparable amount on the computer.

Loaded Windows computers especially AIO variants cost just as much as the iMac. However you still get the cheap body.

 

[576316]

It's a well known fact that PC hardware is cheaper than Mac hardware, and you could often build a far more powerful PC for the same or less money. But, Mac users (and Apple users in general) are paying for a certain experience, and Apple's second-to-none services. As well as compatibility with other devices (continuity, handoff etc). Ultimately, buy what you need for your own needs and don't worry about what other people are buying.

Bye bye

 

[throAU]

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/10/tec...dex.html?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool

Another reason to buy macs.

My experienced failure rate for surface pros was that I'd go through one every 12 months or less.

Had 2x Surface Pro 3s and 2x surface pro 4s fail on me as work machines (boot failures - system would not power on) before I gave up on them.

 

[mmomega]

The issue a lot of people run in to is trying to make a computer fit their needs rather than buying a computer that actually fits their needs.
This would solve a majority of complaints outside of failing hardware.

If you can figure out your highest value on what you use a computer for, and purchase one based on that highest value you won't dislike it.

If you make a purchase not based around what you value most you will pick and tear apart every little thing that doesn't fit into those values and you will second guess any reason you made up to get it and grow to hate it.

This doesn't only just work with a computer.

 

[old-wiz]

Hi,

actually I have an iMac, but after that I see the price of the actual line of iMac... I'm asking:

- why buy an iMac when with less $$$ I can buy a Windows 10 computer (that is not bad as OS) with the same configuration? If I spent the same $$$ I will buy a super mega hardware configuration.

What do you think? Why continue to buy iMac or Mac product?

Bye Bye

I have a 2008 iMac that has been on pretty much 24/7 except for vacations. There has never been a hardware issue and everything still runs fine. That is a good 9 years 24/7 so I would say it is very reliable. I use MBPs now but the iMac still has some tasks that the newer laptop cannot do.

 

[TheLimey]

I've been using Mac since 2007 when I switched from Windows Vista. Started with an iMac and then moved to a 15" MacBook Pro late 2013.

I do still run a windows 10 machine as I have some specialised software that I have to use for work which only runs on Windows, and it was easier to have a cheap Intel NUC running it.

I'm considering a new desktop. I actually don't mind Windows 10 (it's come a long way since the days of Windows XP and Vista), although there are pros and cons to both operating systems and a lot of what I use is cross platform these days.

I priced up a similar spec PC vs the iMac 27" 5K based on an i7, 1Tb SSD and 16Gb RAM. I can get a small discount through work on Apple hardware. The PC was actually more expensive with similar parts (i7-7700K, 16 RAM, 1Tb flash storage, 8Gb graphics) when you factor in the cost of the 5K display - the LG 5K display that Apple sells is nearly £1200 in the UK.

 

[villicodelirant]

- why buy an iMac when with less $$$ I can buy a Windows 10 computer (that is not bad as OS) with the same configuration? If I spent the same $$$ I will buy a super mega hardware configuration.

Jesus Christ, again with this **** in 2017?
"Why should I buy a Mac when Gateway makes cheaper towers?""

You buy a Mac if you like at least one of the following: the user interface, the third-party software, the form factor.
That's highly dependent on your industry and your personal preference.

There is about one use case in which you shouldn't buy an iMac (or any Mac) ever: if you want the most MIPS per dollar - say, if you are putting together a render farm or a mining rig.
In that case you buy the spare components and put together a "super mega hardware configuration" indeed - that's what Google does in its server farms.

But most people's CPUs are idle most of the time, waiting for user input, so beware of putting too much weight on MIPS per dollar.

Also, thank God, Windows 10 is not the only operating system you can put on a garden variety PC.
By now I would have hanged myself in the toilet at work if that were the case.

 

[theluggage]

"Why should I buy a Mac when Gateway makes cheaper towers?""

...of course, back then, Apple actually made towers too, so if you liked the OS/user interface/third-party software it was just a case of deciding whether to pay the premium for a Mac tower over a cheap Gateway PC tower.

The problem now is, as we speak, the iMac is Apple's only credible desktop system: so if you do like the OS/user interface/third-party software you are stuck with the choice of an ultraportable laptop or an all-in-one. The Mac Mini hasn't been updated for years, and the last update ditched the more powerful options. The Mac Pro - also 3 years old and even Apple have conceded that it is a dead end, while it sounds like the replacement is going to be $5000+ which is only good value if you have work that actually justifies Xeon/ECC workstation-class hardware. Even the Macbooks have got more expensive and prioritised form over function (E.g. what if you want a 15" screen for Office/DTP/light graphics but don't actually need a quad i7 and a dGPU?). The choice of form factor offered by Apple has narrowed badly in the last few years - and I'm comparing that with the Second Jobs Era, not the Time of the Performa Horror.

Consequence: people are having to consider iMacs vs. midrange PC desktops because they can't buy a midrange Mac desktop.

 

[jlseattle]

Since this thread won't die, I just want to note that the poster has never replied to this tread. It's almost like they were bating us into having this long drawn out conversation on how great the iMac is. BTW it's all that and a bag of chips. I'm keeping my 2017 27" for at least 7 years (2024 here I come!).

 

[sartrekid]

...and that's the rub - its only the 5k 27" display - and "true 4k" on the 21.5 - that make those machines good value. If you're prepared to slum it with, say, a mere "4k UHD" display then the PC world offers far more choice.

For example - on my previous Hackintosh I was using a 28" "4k UHD" as the main display, big enough to let you move a notch up on the "looks like" resolution (or drop the "magnification" a tad on Windows) and almost up to working in "native" 4k mode. A 30", in native 4k mode, would be really good for tasks like large spreadsheets or coding with lots of files open. The 5k on my iMac is lovely - but if I'd had the option of a modern quad-i7 Mac Mini that - plus a 28 or 30" 4k - likely the way I'd have gone, and yes, I had a real debate about whether to go Windows and pick exactly the hardware I wanted.

Of course you have more hardware configuration options outside the Mac world, that goes without saying. My only point is that the iMac IS actually priced quite fairly (in stark contrast to pretty much ALL other Apple products) and you will not get a significantly cheaper Windows setup.
If you put together your own Windows desktop computer and add a 5k or 4k good quality monitor, you'll be arriving at a similar price point. Again, this is considering you do NOT go with max. Apple RAM/SSD configs.

I completely understand that you were debating whether or not to go Windows. Thankfully, Windows has matured enough in the past few years that it's no longer a serious obstacle for people who love macOS. For me, however, it's the OS that is still keeping me in Apple land. I love it so much that I'm willing to carry the consequences of doing so.

 

[villicodelirant]

...of course, back then, Apple actually made towers too, so if you liked the OS/user interface/third-party software it was just a case of deciding whether to pay the premium for a Mac tower over a cheap Gateway PC tower.

The problem now is, as we speak, the iMac is Apple's only credible desktop system: so if you do like the OS/user interface/third-party software you are stuck with the choice of an ultraportable laptop or an all-in-one. The Mac Mini hasn't been updated for years, and the last update ditched the more powerful options. The Mac Pro - also 3 years old and even Apple have conceded that it is a dead end, while it sounds like the replacement is going to be $5000+ which is only good value if you have work that actually justifies Xeon/ECC workstation-class hardware. Even the Macbooks have got more expensive and prioritised form over function (E.g. what if you want a 15" screen for Office/DTP/light graphics but don't actually need a quad i7 and a dGPU?). The choice of form factor offered by Apple has narrowed badly in the last few years - and I'm comparing that with the Second Jobs Era, not the Time of the Performa Horror.

You're preaching to the choir here, sister (except that I have fond, fond memories of Performas and would trade you 20 MBAs for one Powerbook Duo).

Alas, I am afraid Apple might be on to something there.
Average computer users have the CPUs on their desks sitting idle most of the time, even more so than compared to the early 2000s.
Most of us do the real weight lifting on The Cloud (tm) or on some server, and existing processors are good enough for most multimedia tasks.

I remember vividly replacing my 5 year old computer because it wouldn't play Quicktime videos at a watchable rate.
These days, my 2011 machine is fast enough to play all content, and as I type I'm waiting for a huge job to finish on a 36 CPU cluster, looking at the web interface now and then to see the progress, while Dropbox syncs in the background.

I know fully well that some people have need for interactive and fast computations (Photoshop, audio production...), but... well yeah, I think at some point Apple thought "well, those guys will buy a tower from Dell".

Apple seems to have had a change of mind in that respect (they might have realized that the SDK for their whole ecosystem of consumer devices runs on the Mac only, for starters...), but let's not fool ourselves.
In the future, towers will be more and more niche, while most personal computers will prize energy efficiency and design - and whatever they put in them, it will be Good Enough (tm).

I completely understand that you were debating whether or not to go Windows. Thankfully, Windows has matured enough in the past few years that it's no longer a serious obstacle for people who love macOS. For me, however, it's the OS that is still keeping me in Apple land. I love it so much that I'm willing to carry the consequences of doing so.

Hah, I find that in the last 3 years Gnome, of all things, has matured far more, to the point that in my eyes it's the alternative to the Mac, with Windows coming second.
Those guys really care about design, and it's not even a clone of the Mac.
The mini pie chart for showing file copy progress is a stroke of genius, for example.

 

[thefriendshipmachine]

Hi,

actually I have an iMac, but after that I see the price of the actual line of iMac... I'm asking:

- why buy an iMac when with less $$$ I can buy a Windows 10 computer (that is not bad as OS) with the same configuration? If I spent the same $$$ I will buy a super mega hardware configuration.

What do you think? Why continue to buy iMac or Mac product?

Bye Bye

I have a Surface Pro 4 and Windows is fine but personally I prefer OS X. If you can get along with Windows and save money by buying a Windows machine instead of an iMac then go ahead.

 

[willmtaylor]

I have a Surface Pro 4 and Windows is fine but personally I prefer OS X. If you can get along with Windows and save money by buying a Windows machine instead of an iMac then go ahead.

But then again you have a 1 in 4 chance it’ll crap out within a year.

 

[thefriendshipmachine]

But then again you have a 1 in 4 chance it’ll crap out within a year.

That report; I've owned a SP2, SP3 and SP4 and have had some issues. They were all fixed by waiting for a new firmware update or just re-installing Windows. Some of the issues were very frustrating at the time and I had to wait weeks to months for a fix to come out (The worst was sleep was broken all of december in 2014 I think). I've never had a hardware issue with the machines so far. I'm guessing (and my sample size here is only n=3) that what happened was that Microsoft is new to this game and is still learning how to do it so the devices are getting better over time and there was a lot of early problems. I would probably still recommend the Surface Pro 4 to people who are into Windows.

 

[EnderBeta]

That report; I've owned a SP2, SP3 and SP4 and have had some issues. They were all fixed by waiting for a new firmware update or just re-installing Windows. Some of the issues were very frustrating at the time and I had to wait weeks to months for a fix to come out (The worst was sleep was broken all of december in 2014 I think). I've never had a hardware issue with the machines so far. I'm guessing (and my sample size here is only n=3) that what happened was that Microsoft is new to this game and is still learning how to do it so the devices are getting better over time and there was a lot of early problems. I would probably still recommend the Surface Pro 4 to people who are into Windows.

My Macs are used for work. Waiting for weeks let alone months with the machine down is unacceptable.

By the sound of it my overclocked Core 2 Quad Hackintosh is more reliable as a work machine.

 

[thefriendshipmachine]

My Macs are used for work. Waiting for weeks let alone months with the machine down is unacceptable.

By the sound of it my overclocked Core 2 Quad Hackintosh is more reliable as a work machine.

I have also had better experience with reliability and OS X. But as far as tablets go I just really like the Surface because I can run a virtual machine on it, run xcode or emacs on it and write software, whereas I sadly cannot on my iPad. I don't really use my Surface as a "full computer replacement" but more of a nice travel or coffee shop machine. It was also great during my degree for note taking with the stylus and OneNote.

I do all my heavy lifting on a maxed out rImac and MBP though, but I'm debating not buying another MBP in the future because the price is going up and repairability is going down.

 

[cptn.nemo]

It's the whole experience. I've used windows all my life and just bought my first iMac, I'd never go back. The price really isn't that bad considering the incredible display, you're not going to get a windows with that display for much cheaper. I installed windows for gaming on my top tier 27" and get the best of both worlds. The support is great for 3 years, and did anyone mention resale value? A 5 year old windows machine is almost worthless, but Macs retain their value much longer. In the end if you break it down, you're really not paying less for windows, and you get a cleaner better product. For general use that is, I can't speak for specific careers that work better on windows

 

[EnderBeta]

I have also had better experience with reliability and OS X. But as far as tablets go I just really like the Surface because I can run a virtual machine on it, run xcode or emacs on it and write software, whereas I sadly cannot on my iPad. I don't really use my Surface as a "full computer replacement" but more of a nice travel or coffee shop machine. It was also great during my degree for note taking with the stylus and OneNote.

I do all my heavy lifting on a maxed out rImac and MBP though, but I'm debating not buying another MBP in the future because the price is going up and repairability is going down.

Ok I can understand that. I have been tempted with a surface for similar reasons.

I can't disagree with your logic on the new MacBook Pros either. It's a sad state of affairs for sure.

 

[BlueTide]

- why buy an iMac when with less $$$ I can buy a Windows 10 computer (that is not bad as OS) with the same configuration? If I spent the same $$$ I will buy a super mega hardware configuration.

I know this is not full rational, but it's the OS. Really. Windows OS is really BAD. It would be a long article to justify that opinion, but Windows is rotten to the core. It's just human hostile. Sure, you CAN do what you want with it, but it has never internalized the human values of a good OS. As funny as it is, Linux has come closer - as have some other OSes. However, those other platforms do not have the app support the I need, so I am stuck with Apple. And iMac, since the Mac Pro lineup and the display line-up aren't there.

 

[villicodelirant]

But then again you have a 1 in 4 chance it’ll crap out within a year.

Where on God's green Earth do you get that from?
You'd need to show some data, otherwise it's hardly believable.

Dell and Apple both have their machines assembled in the same Foxconn or Pegatron Chinese factories, and the build is not unlike.
Of course, I'm talking about the "serious" machines, not the $300 toys where every corner has been cut.

I know this is not full rational, but it's the OS. Really. Windows OS is really BAD. It would be a long article to justify that opinion, but Windows is rotten to the core. It's just human hostile. Sure, you CAN do what you want with it, but it has never internalized the human values of a good OS.

You mean the shell sucks. Which is a valid point, and it's very rational to prioritize the shell in a personal computer, not irrational at all.

As funny as it is, Linux has come closer - as have some other OSes

Eh, Linux is just a kernel, folks put all sorts of shells on it (including good and godawful ones), you need to be more specific.

But yes, as I've been saying for years now, it's a fact that this is no longer 1999.
Gnome Shell (the one that you are welcomed with in a clean install of the Debian OS) is almost competitive with the Mac OS shell, if from a few releases ago.
The more people learn about that, the better for everyone (including Windows and Mac users: competition can do wonders, history shows).

 

[willmtaylor]

Where on God's green Earth do you get that from?
You'd need to show some data, otherwise it's hardly believable.

Dell and Apple both have their machines assembled in the same Foxconn or Pegatron Chinese factories, and the build is not unlike.
Of course, I'm talking about the "serious" machines, not the $300 toys where every corner has been cut.



You mean the shell sucks. Which is a valid point, and it's very rational to prioritize the shell in a personal computer, not irrational at all.



Eh, Linux is just a kernel, folks put all sorts of shells on it (including good and godawful ones), you need to be more specific.

But yes, as I've been saying for years now, it's a fact that this is no longer 1999.
Gnome Shell (the one that you are welcomed with in a clean install of the Debian OS) is almost competitive with the Mac OS shell, if from a few releases ago.
The more people learn about that, the better for everyone (including Windows and Mac users: competition can do wonders, history shows).

A bit behind on the news, are we?

Consumer Reports:
https://www.consumerreports.org/lap...-tablets-not-recommended-by-consumer-reports/

 

[villicodelirant]

A bit behind on the news, are we?

Consumer Reports:
https://www.consumerreports.org/lap...-tablets-not-recommended-by-consumer-reports/

I'm sorry, since OP said "If you can get along with Windows and save money by buying a Windows machine instead of an iMac then go ahead" I thought you referred to non-Apple personal computers in general, not the crapfest that is Surface.

 

[theluggage]

Of course you have more hardware configuration options outside the Mac world, that goes without saying. My only point is that the iMac IS actually priced quite fairly (in stark contrast to pretty much ALL other Apple products) and you will not get a significantly cheaper Windows setup.

But the problem is that Apple used to offer a better range of hardware configurations and form factors than they do now (including more powerful, for their time, Mac Minis and truly expandable Mac Pros) ... and the value-for-money of the iMacs is mainly contingent on the fact that you can count the number of competing 27" 5k or 21.5" true-4k displays on the market on the fingers of both feet. If what you actually want is a 32" 4k, or a matching pair of 28"ers, or an ultrawide display, or to keep using your old (and perfectly adequate) 27" cinema display then the iMac isn't such a bargain.

Average computer users have the CPUs on their desks sitting idle most of the time, even more so than compared to the early 2000s.

...but you're conflating desktops with super-powerful CPUs. If, say, you want to edit your home movies, then you'll benefit from a quad i7 without crippling thermal caps, and 1TB of cheap, SATA SSD. A 6 core Xeon with ECC RAM and top-of-the range superfast PCIe SSD, however, would be a total (and expensive) overkill, even if the price is competitive with a similarly-specced PC.

I think Apple's problem is that they can't help but have their perspective skewed by the size of the iPhone market, and see the entire Mac line as small beer rather than one of the top-5 selling PC brands (or the top-selling PC brand if you pick your stats carefully). Other computer makers apparently find it worthwhile to make a range of 'headless' desktops, towers, chunky gaming/desktop replacement laptops etc. alongside their premium ultrabooks and all-in-ones. Apple are, really, increasingly focussing on just the one or two most profitable lines, which is a rather short-term attitude: the people with non-average computing needs are also the ones advising their friends, families and colleagues on their computer purchases, evangelising Macs on the internet, keeping the writers of pro software interested in the platform and maybe even developers themselves.

That report; I've owned a SP2, SP3 and SP4 and have had some issues. They were all fixed by waiting for a new firmware update or just re-installing Windows.

Hmm. YMMV. When I briefly had a Surface Book, what started out as the (now) well-publicised "sleep of death" (sleepgate?) quickly escalated into the "shutdown/restart of death" (i.e. machine never properly shut down - it just hung until you did a forced power-down) and that resulted in the "botched windows update of death" (because the machine didn't reboot cleanly during the update) at which point, trying to update the firmware or re-install Windows (on a machine that wouldn't reboot cleanly) resulted in the "total bricking - and this time it's not coming back for the sequel - of death".

Pity, because apart from that (Mrs Lincoln) it was a cool machine.

 

[_Kiki_]

Why LG 5K? this model is overpriced

you can buy Dell 27" 5K for £600 but you need machine with 2x DisplayPorts

 

[villicodelirant]

...but you're conflating desktops with super-powerful CPUs. If, say, you want to edit your home movies, then you'll benefit from a quad i7 without crippling thermal caps, and 1TB of cheap, SATA SSD. A 6 core Xeon with ECC RAM and top-of-the range superfast PCIe SSD, however, would be a total (and expensive) overkill, even if the price is competitive with a similarly-specced PC.

Eh, I suppose average users don't edit their home movies - they spam them on Facebook as they are shot. (Sigh.)
But you get my gist, MIPS are by all means less relevant today than 15 years ago.

I think Apple's problem is that they can't help but have their perspective skewed by the size of the iPhone market, and see the entire Mac line as small beer rather than one of the top-5 selling PC brands (or the top-selling PC brand if you pick your stats carefully).

Yes.