In a few years you will understand. You'll start loving big pixels about at the time when you get your reading glasses.
Touché.
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.
Having a hard time justifying imac vs Dell
- Thread starter mjarema414
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Touché.Actually, HD 6670 is slower than 6970M (480 shader cores vs 960 shader cores).
I agree with the rest of your analysis though.
I'd also like to add that the iMac has much better energy efficiency and obviously smaller form factor than a Dell tower. IMHO, already these two things are worth few hundred for people who like their computers compact and silent.
Sorry, but this is simply not true. As much as I dislike Windows and its APIs, the modern generation of Microsoft OS is as efficient (and in some extent, even more efficient) than Macs. If your antivirus software slows you down, than its simply bad software.
It may be that the Mac "feels" a bit faster due to smoother animations, but try running some benchmarks.
They aren't the same thing at all. The design is much different than it looks on paper. If by some chance the OP uses it for photo work and intends to profile it, he should avoid LED backlit displays.
SL may very well have taken less ram, but those results sound a bit weird on systems with adequate ram. Adobe's support under OSX has been terrible the past few years (I wish they'd stop fighting). I would find it really surprising if Maya and Realflow ran faster under OSX. Maya especially is usually complained about on OSX (and the gpu options aren't necessarily ideal).
Isn't Asus one of the OEMs that actually does their own manufacturing as opposed to using an ODP?
This is a very old myth.
No longer the case, my first hand experience with my new MBP & ThinkPad of the exact same configuration as well as the same brand of memory hard drives etc reveal that Windows 7 has caught up to OS X. Equally fast & enjoyable, trouble free & full featured, it does come down to getting more value on the windows side. I gladly paid a full $1,000 more for the MBP, than the far lower priced yet equally premium quality ThinkPad. All because I have a need for both, and that makes it important to me.
That said, it's that heavy price of a Mac that makes Apple so wealthy.
1 cord is all you need to power the iMac. How many does the dell computer have connected to make it work as a unit? 'Nuff said.
2 - computer and display. The huge effort plugging in two cords vs one when setting up the computer is such a great argument for an iMac.
The same argument can go the other way, what's the point of getting a good ips panel if you have reflections all over the place? It comes down to personal preference. I have a 27" U2011 at home and a 30" ACD at work and wouldn't trade any of them for one of Apples mirrors.
I already have a mirror in the bathroom and it is even bigger than 27".
Last edited:
Read up on problems with HFS+ file systems. I can't believe after this many years, disk warrior still feels like a requirement. My point is that either one has its issues. I've spent a ton of time on both sides. Neither is problem free, although I primarily work in OSX.
It actually works well if it doesn't mean you'll then require external drive enclosures. If you buy an all in one but then require a bunch of extra items on your desk because of it, it kind of defeats the purpose of minimalist design (external drives are also way more noisy). The OP should also consider if thunderbolt matters to him.
2 - computer and display. The huge effort plugging in two cords vs one when setting up the computer is such a great argument for an iMac.
It actually works well if it doesn't mean you'll then require external drive enclosures. If you buy an all in one but then require a bunch of extra items on your desk because of it, it kind of defeats the purpose of minimalist design (external drives are also way more noisy). The OP should also consider if thunderbolt matters to him.
Last edited by a moderator:
That very well may be, but it still stands that if the OP wants 2560x1440 resolution like on the 27" iMac, he has to spend at least $1099 at Dell. Dell doesn't specify the backlight of their U2711, but I trust the above posts that it and the Apple display both use the same IPS panel at least which is mostly covers the use cases of a consumer.
The point is, comparing the price of a 27" iMac which includes a display, to a Dell which does not, makes no sense unless you add in a $1099 display with the Dell. Only then do you get a proper sense of which is cheaper in terms of what you get for your money.
Although it DOES make sense when like with the OP the purchaser already has a monitor they like, in which case the question because "Should I get the $1k more expensive but otherwise very similar computer that comes with a monitor that I don't want?" and the answer is "no, it's silly to spend a grand on a monitor you don't want."
I've actually had less issues with Adobe on Mac vs Windows (especially After Effects) on my personal machine but that is with CS 5. If it was CS4 or CS3 it would most certainly probably run better on Windows as the implementations for Mac were horrible. I was glad I got to test these since I rarely get to mess with the Macs at work, I'm always on the Win machines.
As for Maya, I never understood why people said Maya on Mac was bad, but then again I only switched from Maya from Windows with Maya 2011 so maybe there were big improvements with that version vs previous versions. I personally do not see a huge difference for my personal use (slightly faster render times on Mac which is what the CGSociety forums thread suggested) but nothing major. When we tested scenes the artists were using though we saw a difference, not a huge one buy any means but it was there. Sadly I wasn't the one to get to test Maya that much (I did the Adobe testing mostly).
For RealFlow, there was a decent sized difference in performance (performance meaning not only speed, but stability).
The art department switching to Mac is both good and bad. Bad because I rarely work with Macs at work so I won't get to go in and nose at all the cool stuff they are doing but on the plus side when their stuff goes down they get top priority (aside from some manager) so you have to drop what you are doing and rush to fix it and its often some weird complex problem with high end software.
As far as I know yes. I know they make their own motherboards for sure. They make great computers. We have a bunch at work and they have the absolute lowest component fail rate of any Win machine we have. If I had to get a Win machine again I'd get an Asus (I'm too lazy to build my own
). I really like their laptops as well (not the eeePC's but the real ones), you can usually get a lot for your money.
Last edited:
iMac = OS and it works.
Windows = OS + Virus scanners / filters + "bloat ware".
Remember that benchmarks doesn't include "in addition" to other stuff running at the same time. It only test raw CPU power. It like comparing a V8 vehicle engine in 2 different brands of vehile. However, one of them is pulling a weighted down trailer. Engine dyno test shows same benchmark results. But while driving each, one know which is more remaining availble power.
Like I said, the iMac "feels faster" compared to the Windows + its "other stuff" (like a loaded trailer behind a V8 auto) running in the background.
.
Mac = super high quality, well built, reliable computer.
Dell = low quality frustrating junk that will frustrate you repeatedly during the course of time you own it.
I've spent (too many) years being let down by Dell, Sony, HP..
There's more than money here that determines value and in my experience Mac's are much cheaper ... a true pleasure to use every time you turn it on, fun and reliable ...
Oh yes, the Mac is the better buy.
Dell = low quality frustrating junk that will frustrate you repeatedly during the course of time you own it.
I've spent (too many) years being let down by Dell, Sony, HP..
There's more than money here that determines value and in my experience Mac's are much cheaper ... a true pleasure to use every time you turn it on, fun and reliable ...
Oh yes, the Mac is the better buy.
It sounds to me like you are happy on the PC platform? So why spend the extra money moving to the expensive hardware? If I were you I would go for the Dell and save the cash. Obviously, if the look of the iMac sitting on your desk is worth the premium thats a different story.
At the end of the day, it should be about the user experience. If you want OS X then you have to suck up the price premium. Thats the way it is. If you are comfortable on Windows, then really why spend money you don't have to spend?
Have a nice day,
C
Sorry. It's been a while since I've spent time looking at GPU benchmarks in any sort of detail so I clearly got my facts a bit mixed-up about the GPU. To make my comparison more valid I guess you would have to add about $100 to the Dell to have a slightly faster GPU.
You can fact check me on this if you like, but LED displays are problematic to calibrate or profile. The only company I can think of that ever came up with a reference grade display using LED was NEC circa 2005 ish and they used a custom built colorimeter. Basically the color temps are a little off, and they do not profile well at all, as the colorimeters and software aren't balanced for it.
Wider gamut as in wider than sRGB produces other issues, but the best displays have methods of working around this either via custom firmware colorimeters, built in sensors, or software bound LUTs designed around whatever colorimeters the software supports.
In office lighting a hood cuts enough sparkle to make it tolerable. This is just an issue with the way LG designs their stupid coatings. Hitachi, NEC, Mitsubishi, etc. have put out displays based on IPS technology in the past but they all pretty much stopped due to falling prices. Panels made by these companies five years ago are better than much of what you see today, and the antiglare coatings were much less intrusive.
The same argument can go the other way, what's the point of getting a good ips panel if you have reflections all over the place? It comes down to personal preference. I have a 27" U2011 at home and a 30" ACD at work and wouldn't trade any of them for one of Apples mirrors.
I already have a mirror in the bathroom and it is even bigger than 27".
The anti-glare coating sparkle is just a stupid issue with LG, but I too prefer it to that high gloss crap. If you look at the Apple store, the number one complaint with that display is the glossy factor.
As far as I know yes. I know they make their own motherboards for sure. They make great computers. We have a bunch at work and they have the absolute lowest component fail rate of any Win machine we have. If I had to get a Win machine again I'd get an Asus (I'm too lazy to build my own
Companies that do their own manufacturing are great. CS3/4 did suck on OSX. They had to do that port to Cocoa with CS4. Maya is something where I always hear about the Windows side being better. One thing is that they definitely have a better range of gpus. In spite of the weird modeling workarounds in maya to make up for missing basic function tools, and the essentially unusable boolean functions, I like the way it deals with nurbs curves, creasing, and subdivisions better than almost any other program.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand but you just gave me a revelation! Maya's booleans are virtually unusable since if you deform the mesh they screw up, but now ZBrush supports booleans so I wonder if by using GoZ I can use the booleans in ZBrush to make a stable mesh for Maya...(sorry I know thats waaay off topic but it may help someone someday
)
I run MS Security Essentials on my Win7 box and you'd have to be a pretty careless and/or reckless user to need anything more. I never notice that it is running, unlike the bloat-ware from Norton, McAfee, etc.
Like I said earlier, if you're not a gamer and are seriously asking the Dell vs. Apple "hardware" question, then buy the Dell, there is something to be said about maintaining a state of blissful ignorance as long as possible. If you are a gamer, then you really should be building and upgrading your own boxes anyway.
Like I said earlier, if you're not a gamer and are seriously asking the Dell vs. Apple "hardware" question, then buy the Dell, there is something to be said about maintaining a state of blissful ignorance as long as possible. If you are a gamer, then you really should be building and upgrading your own boxes anyway.
I wish we'd use MS Security Essentials at work. It really is as good as people say it is. We've done a lot of testing with it but sadly the higher ups want to stick with the *****-ware that is Symantec.
The main problem most folks run into (myself as well in the past) is boiling your purchase decisions based on specs or price/spec comparisons...The lowest end Imac will perform better than a windows machine that has a spectacular looking spec sheet...I know it's hard not to look at the price and get excited by all the high end specifications...But in the end the performance still lags....I recently put off getting a new Imac and got a big ole hard drive and installing Windows 7 on my desktop (upgrade from the awful vista)....Don't get me wrong it's WAY better than what I was using and my computer felt like an entirely different machine...However, after only a few weeks It's crashing all the time...I just got two blue screens today..Not to mention, even after my upgrade and really liking the improved performance I go into an apple store and play with video editing on a little bitty Macbook air and the video editing and scrolling through photo albums, opening programs was FAR smoother, seamless, and quicker than my quad core desktop even with intensive applications such as video editing...You would never think that looking at the specs, but the operating system and software that comes on the Macs are THAT good..
If they're a decent sized shop with MS corporate licensing then try MS Forefront. My work replaced boated the pile of rubbish that is McAfee with it about 12 months ago. MSE is essentially the cut down Home version of Forefront.
Glad you can start to see it at this angle. Most newcomers to Macs that pose the comparison question are so overly obsessed with the specs game that they will never see that they are trying to class two differing operating systems that just as well, use the hardware differently.
This is true, buy the mac because you want to experience a different op, do not bet on the hardware fairing up, both the gpu and screen on mine went belly's up and had to be replaced and one stick of ram went to. On my old 24 iMac the hard drive failed, not apples fault as they don't make the hardware.
By "THAT good" I think you mean, that optimized. That's the secret sauce Apple has over Windows machines. It's also the same reason iOS is much smoother and more power efficient on slower hardware than it's competitors.
But as a buyer you are limited to what you can buy hardware wise with in a mac, and even optimised doesn't mean it will be fail proof as I have found out.
Help stop children from viewing internet pornography.....Don't let them go on a computer unsupervised??