Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

How many went with a Windows rig?

A

Arfdog

macrumors 6502
Jan 25, 2013
377
0
Nightarchaon said:
I will probably never upgrade my iMac again (Unless the HDD fails, then ill swap it out for an SSD)

However, i like having a PC about, purely as a games console, and the ability to swap out the GPU cards (at close to the cost of a new iMac, for Exponentially more performance in the one area i want, is just the BIG problem with the iMac IMO)

i think the 2011 iMac was the ideal shape and size, all they needed to do was re-jig the internals a bit, keep the Ram in the middle at the bottom and have two extra doors either side with 2.5" slots for laptop sized HDDs, user replaceable ones.

Which is why my 2011 iMac will probably be the last apple product i buy (The new Pro is useless to me (because id be gaming on it under bootcamp and want to be able to upgrade the GPUs with off the shelf non-apple parts), and I'm loath to buy anything i cant replace the HDDs on myself in under five minutes, if i need to unseal, unglue and spend 30 minutes labelling screws to remember where they are going, all because Ive doesn't like things like access doors ruining HIS lines.. and apple want to sell you over priced proprietary components because , well, they need to keep that war chest stocked now that Jobs is gone and his reality distortion field is fading.

Love Mac OS, but it, not the hardware, was the reason i bought a Mac, Windows Vista moved me from PCs to Macs, Windows 8 is making sure i only use a PC for gaming, my work horse, my go to productivity machine, will be my 2011 iMac, and when it can no longer cut it, im hoping that Apples board sees that ives push for a thinner, unusable machine, is actually the WRONG way to go.
Click to expand...

I followed you until "unusable machine". A bit dramatic there? For me, I totally see the functionality behind thinner.... it's more energy efficient, more efficient with materials (hence being lighter), and quieter. Function dictates form here. I'm glad my Mac wastes less. I just wish Schiller pointed that out in his keynote instead of harping on "thinness" for its own sake. The point is efficiency, not thinness in a desktop.

I also wish Apple didn't overcharge for components. I'm sure its not a huge revenue stream anyway, so they should do the right thing and sell those at the same margins as their bread and butter devices. I am 100% sure people will buy Apple parts over aftermarket parts because they know Apples are better-engineered.
 
Nightarchaon

Nightarchaon

macrumors 65816
Sep 1, 2010
1,393
30
Arfdog said:
I followed you until "unusable machine". A bit dramatic there? For me, I totally see the functionality behind thinner.... it's more energy efficient, more efficient with materials (hence being lighter), and quieter. Function dictates form here. I'm glad my Mac wastes less. I just wish Schiller pointed that out in his keynote instead of harping on "thinness" for its own sake. The point is efficiency, not thinness in a desktop.

I also wish Apple didn't overcharge for components. I'm sure its not a huge revenue stream anyway, so they should do the right thing and sell those at the same margins as their bread and butter devices. I am 100% sure people will buy Apple parts over aftermarket parts because they know Apples are better-engineered.
Click to expand...

i mean "unusable" in the sense that its very good if all you do is web browse and use word/pages etc, its unusable for serious gaming, because the video cards are massively under-powered for the screen size, unless you spend a small fortune maxing out the BTO spec..and for that sort of money you could double your GPU performance with a PC at the same price.

I think a lot more of apples margins are in upgrades than you think, the entry level models tend to be under-powered, ,i would suspect most people upgrade at least once outside of educational purchases, then suddenly that +200% market price for 4 more GB ram or the +300% increase for 128GB SSD makes a lot of revenue boost when included with the shedding of discreet graphics with the embrace of intels on chip GPUs (no graphics Ram either, so cost saving bonus) or when they do have a discreet GPU they put in half the Ram of a PC equivalent saving money again.

Apple seems to be all about the Pretty case, and then the cheapest components they can get away with, cutting corners where ever possible to reduce cost to them, Thunderbolt = massive cost saving, 1 port, and then let the buyer purchase, at a profit to apple, the ports they need, rather than including the ports on the device.

from a sales perspective its beyond superb, money for nothing in fact... but it will only last so long, the shine from apple is already beginning to fade, and , if they don't listen to what the public want and bend a little to give them it, they are going to end up doing a Microsoft and producing things to put the public off the products they sell (Windows 8 touchscreen interface for PCs that have no touchscreens, Xbox Ones initial DRM announcement, the Windows 8 RT tablets OS takes up all the space fiasco)
 
A

Arfdog

macrumors 6502
Jan 25, 2013
377
0
Nightarchaon said:
i mean "unusable" in the sense that its very good if all you do is web browse and use word/pages etc, its unusable for serious gaming, because the video cards are massively under-powered for the screen size, unless you spend a small fortune maxing out the BTO spec..and for that sort of money you could double your GPU performance with a PC at the same price.

I think a lot more of apples margins are in upgrades than you think, the entry level models tend to be under-powered, ,i would suspect most people upgrade at least once outside of educational purchases, then suddenly that +200% market price for 4 more GB ram or the +300% increase for 128GB SSD makes a lot of revenue boost when included with the shedding of discreet graphics with the embrace of intels on chip GPUs (no graphics Ram either, so cost saving bonus) or when they do have a discreet GPU they put in half the Ram of a PC equivalent saving money again.

Apple seems to be all about the Pretty case, and then the cheapest components they can get away with, cutting corners where ever possible to reduce cost to them, Thunderbolt = massive cost saving, 1 port, and then let the buyer purchase, at a profit to apple, the ports they need, rather than including the ports on the device.

from a sales perspective its beyond superb, money for nothing in fact... but it will only last so long, the shine from apple is already beginning to fade, and , if they don't listen to what the public want and bend a little to give them it, they are going to end up doing a Microsoft and producing things to put the public off the products they sell (Windows 8 touchscreen interface for PCs that have no touchscreens, Xbox Ones initial DRM announcement, the Windows 8 RT tablets OS takes up all the space fiasco)
Click to expand...

What the public wants and what you want are totally different. The public doesn't game on a PC. They buy an Xbox or PS4. The public wants a computer that you buy, take it out, push the power button and is ready to go. The public wants a computer that doesn't constantly nag them with questions and updates, adware, setup of components, etc. They want something they don't have to touch for the life of the system. I haven't even talked about resale value.

The iMac and most other modern PC's all have enough horsepower to simulate airflow through a jet engine or the winds of a hurricane. So for what purpose you need a Cray supercomputer for just the GPU is beyond me.

Finally, spec out an iMac, see post above from glasgood. Macs are not overpriced and the engineering is top notch. Witness the teardown of even just a simple AC adapter.... Apple does not mess around when it comes to product engineering. And I know good engineering when I see it.
 
G

glasgood

macrumors member
Dec 18, 2012
46
0
cirus said:
You put a lot of premium things on that PC; keyboard, webcam, case are are quite pricey. And a $300 case (which is probably going to sit beneath the desk). (PSU could be dropped down to a 650 watt unit). Why windows Pro when 99% of the consumer population uses home premium and has no problem without the 'pro' features.

Plus the face that you are doing the classic thing of biasing the comparison towards the imac by requiring everything that the imac has be in the PC regardless of whether or not 99% of the population would ever use it (like a TB mobo).

And if you are going to put a 660 in the PC you better compare it to the 675mx upgraded version.

While the imac screen is very nice you must also consider that to many a 27" 1440p screen is seen as a plus, not a necessity. Given the choice many decide not to spend to money on a 27" 1440p display evidenced by the lack of 1440p displays in the consumer market.

Ultimately for this to be a fair comparison the basis must be on what is required to fulfill one's needs (OS agnostic). If one includes frills that will not be needed then these cannot be a required feature on the other system. Like how many people actually use TB for TB (not minidisplayport).
Click to expand...


I've listed some premium Pc parts, after all an iMac is a premium desktop computer. As for biasing the comparison, in my own opinion this is a very good comparison. The point being the PC components listed are average, chosen simply for the comparison against the entry level 27" iMac. I NEVER listed high end Intel Quad Core i7 cpu or top end NVIDIA GTX cards or expensive water cooling complainants.

Also had I used a cheaper case at half the price of the one I listed, then the sum of the components would still be around £1550.00. So the iMac is good value.

The 27 inch screen is a necessity given I'm comparing a 27" iMac with a PC with a same size screen.

As for Windows 8 premium, the saving of around £30 is not going to make that much a difference. The iMac would still offer better value.

Again each, to their own :)
 
Last edited:
G

gagecloutier

macrumors member
Sep 21, 2012
90
3
Not to sound like a snob, but who cares? This is MacRumors, not PCRumors. Go find another forum community for that. You're obviously regretting your decision if you're still lingering around MacRumors. I have a Late 2012 27" iMac maxed-out and absolutely nothing about it is "sub-optimal."
 
thejadedmonkey

thejadedmonkey

macrumors G3
May 28, 2005
9,180
3,323
Pennsylvania
I have a Windows rig, but not because of the 2012 iMac. Rather, I play games, and in 2009 I was too poor to afford an iMac, so I built a PC for $350.

4 years later, it has an SSD and AMD 7750.
 
drsox

drsox

macrumors 68000
Apr 29, 2011
1,706
201
Xhystos
gagecloutier said:
Not to sound like a snob, but who cares? This is MacRumors, not PCRumors. Go find another forum community for that. You're obviously regretting your decision if you're still lingering around MacRumors. I have a Late 2012 27" iMac maxed-out and absolutely nothing about it is "sub-optimal."
Click to expand...

Agree.
The only reason I still have a PC is for some things that I can't do on a Mac.
 
C

cirus

macrumors 6502a
Mar 15, 2011
582
0
glasgood said:
I've listed some premium Pc parts, after all an iMac is a premium desktop computer. As for biasing the comparison, in my own opinion this is a very good comparison. The point being the PC components listed are average, chosen simply for the comparison against the entry level 27" iMac. I NEVER listed high end Intel Quad Core i7 cpu or top end NVIDIA GTX cards or expensive water cooling complainants.

Also had I used a cheaper case at half the price of the one I listed, then the sum of the components would still be around £1550.00. So the iMac is good value.

The 27 inch screen is a necessity given I'm comparing a 27" iMac with a PC with a same size screen.

As for Windows 8 premium, the saving of around £30 is not going to make that much a difference. The iMac would still offer better value.

Again each, to their own :)
Click to expand...

Perfectly Reasonable.

I'm just saying that apple limits considerably what you can buy and that attempting to do a straight comparison isn't the way to go. Ultimately what must be done is a comparison between the utility and price of a similar system for pc (like if I want a strong CPU + 1GB Vram i'm stuck spending money on a 27" 1440p display).

If you make the comparison between what a consumer will actually use it doesn't turn out so well for the imac.
 
2

2IS

macrumors 68030
Jan 9, 2011
2,938
433
glasgood said:
iMac's do offer very good value for money in comparison to a PC.

Lets look at the entry level 27 inch iMac at a cost of £1499.00.

Specifications:

  • 2.9GHz Core i5 Intel 3470S
  • 8GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x4GB
  • 1TB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200 rpm
  • NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M 512MB GDDR5
  • FaceTime Camera
  • Apple Magic Mouse
  • Apple Wireless Keyboard
  • OSX Mountain Lion

Pro's: low power draw and small footprint, no noisy whirring fans, aesthetic design.
Con's: Aftermarket upgrades.


Now let's compare this to a PC with similar specifications.

( All prices taken from SCAN computers, 24 July 2013 ).

Cost of Parts to build a similar PC with a 27 inch Monitor is £1670.12

  • Dell UltraSharp LED 27" Monitor IPS U2713HM with 4 Port USB 3.0 = £419.12
  • Windows 8 Pro 64 Bit DVD FQC-05955 OEM = £105.36
  • Corsair Memory Vengeance Jet Black 8GB DDR3 PC3-12800 (1600)= £56.16
  • Intel CPU Core i5 3470S includes Heatsink and Fan - Retail = £152.58
  • EVGA GeForce GTX 660 NVIDIA Graphics Card - 2GB = £159.19
  • Asus P8Z77-V Premium Thunderbolt Motherboard Intel Z77 S1155 = £239.72
  • Hitachi HTS721010A9E630 2.5" 1TB SATA III 7200RPM 1TB = £62.52
  • Corsair Enthusiast TX V2 CP-9020042-UK 750W Power Supply = £89.94
  • Logitech K750 Wireless Solar Keyboard = £64.32
  • Microsoft Arc Mouse Wireless Black PC/MAC = £29.96
  • Logitech B910 HD Webcam 5Mpix HD 720P 30fps Carl Zeiss Optics £62.29
  • Corsair Obsidian 800D Black Tower Computer Case = £228.96

Pros: Slightly more powerfull graphics card. Aftermarket upgrades if needed.
Cons: Large footprint, larger power draw, noisy fans. MS Windows.



The pricing seems very very reasonable for an iMac. Each to their own :)
Click to expand...

I suppose the reason you'd need 750watt PSU in a system that will draw well under 300 watts is to try and pretend an equivalent PC would cost more? That's the same reason you chose an overly expensive case, memory, keyboard, webcam. And don't kid yourself, the GPU is way more powerful, not just a little. The only people you're fooling here are the ones that don't know any better and the ones who want to be fooled, but I'm sure you already knew that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom