How switching to a Mac saved me $550 a year, for life!

[belvdr]

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=16288

Beautiful!

 

[Kan-O-Z]

I've never seen one of the new iMac systems, but the display seems like a fairly high-resolution display. I found several on Google around $200 with the same res and 5ms timing. Is there something else that distinguishes it's screen from the rest.

Yes, do a search of TN Panels and P-MVA/S-PVA Panels. TN Panels are usually the consumer grade and cheaper. Now the low end iMac I believe uses a high end TN Panel where the 24" iMac uses the even more expensive P-MVA/S-PVA Panels. Now resolution and timing are hardly the whole story to a monitor. There are so many other factors to list here. Read some reviews on monitors. Also if you haven't seen an iMac in person, please do see it. You'll notice right away that it's superior to most standard monitors.

Well, I don't consider any iMac high-end. There's nothing about it that seems high-end to me, and I doubt many others would look at it and declare it a high-end system. That said, overpriced is a relative term to one's budget for a system. It's a give and take.

Again it's high end not because of it's specs on it's processor or HD or video. Yes many systems can match it that are cheaper. But none of them offer all the things an iMac does which I listed in my last post. It's high end not for the specs but for the entire package, materials, engineering and features.

Kan-O-Z

 

[Kan-O-Z]

I just had to post this nice picture.

Kan-O-Z

 

[Eidorian]

I just had to post this nice picture.

Kan-O-Z

It's a desk bound laptop. What about it?

 

[sneezymarble]

That's not quite true. You can't build a true iMac comparable. For some people the form factor of an iMac all in one is more important than some big tower with 5 fans that sounds like a jet engine, a separate monitor, separate speakers, separate camera and mic, with wires going all over the place all of which consumes a lot of desk space. Some people want the sleek design that has a monitor, computer, camera, speakers, mic, bluetooth, wifi....all in one package all the while looking very expensive and cool. With an iMac or the Dell XPS One, you are paying for this engineering. Also don't forget that a 20" monitor that would rival the iMac alone would cost $400. The iMac has a very nice display which is better than most monitors. No part on the iMac is cheap.

People that seem to think they can really outdo an iMac fail to see all the goodies that come with it built in and the engineering costs that come into play to make it so sleek and compact and stylish. Something nice enough that you would want to display it in the main room of your house. With a wireless keyboard and mouse, it only requires 1 wire, the power

So no I don't think you can accomplish all that for much cheaper. Now if you really could care less about all this stuff, go for it and make your own tower. When people say it's overpriced, that statement is incorrect. It's better just to say it's a high end computer and you get what you pay for.

Kan-O-Z

What I said is only challenged if form factor is an important factor in what sort of computer I get. As you state it, a Mac Mini could be a great buy against a machine that performs 4x as well and costs half as much if what a person really wants is a tiny box. But I don't want a tiny box and I don't want my computers in a package that I cannot upgrade very much. Given that, what I said holds. The driving factor, for me, in the sort of computers I get is performance. Having said that, compared to what I can build, the iMac, or even a Dell, is overpriced. There's no way to get around it.

 

[illegallydead]

Exactly! I'm not saying the hardware will last longer. I'm just saying it will be usable longer. For example, the first Intel Macs (which are now several years old) run Leopard quite well and will most likely run Snow Leopard even better since it's rumored to be more lightweight and faster than Leopard

Many times on Windows, people have to upgrade their computer not because it stopped working. Because the requirements of newer OSes was just too much for the old computers to handle.

In the end this means that you will have to upgrade or buy a new computer less often with macs. Hence saving you money in the long run.

Kan-O-Z

But I think you forget the fact that the (stereo)typical Mac user cannot possibly stand to hold on to one machine for more than a year or two, especially when their is something even shinier/more aesthetically pleasing that just got released. MR is a perfect example of many such folks

Also, since Apple apparently would have a heart attack by just putting a few more points of ventilation than one (on the MB/MBP/MBA/iMac/Mini), an apple vs. a non-apple will run much hotter, thus reducing life span. My MB is usually @ 140F, my friend's HP is more along the lines of 120F maybe...

No let me state this again. Most macs use mobile processors, mobile video, mobile HDs, mobile power, etc. These draw a LOT less power than their desktop equivalents. No matter how you slice it, all desktops will use more power than a laptop. Now as for those power supplies, this is what I mean. If you have a 500W power supply, even though it doesn't draw 500W of power, it will have all the support structure like huge fans and components so that it is capable of doing so. Even running something like this on a light load will still draw a more power!
Kan-O-Z

Perhaps we need to look at Power vs. Performance. Yes, the iMac uses less power because it uses laptop components. Those also perform worse than desktop components. You cannot make something run on less power and cooler without sacrificing something (when comparing same generation chips of course, look at the Pentium 4 vs. Core2...) So, perhaps the non-apple (so as not to say Dell, as that has been shot at here already ) is indeed less power-hungry for it's end performance.

 

[Kan-O-Z]

Also, since Apple apparently would have a heart attack by just putting a few more points of ventilation than one (on the MB/MBP/MBA/iMac/Mini), an apple vs. a non-apple will run much hotter, thus reducing life span. My MB is usually @ 140F, my friend's HP is more along the lines of 120F maybe...

I'm not so sure that you can prove anything significant here. I don't think there is any data suggesting that Apple hardware does not last as long as PC hardware. I could counter your claim by stating that Apple tends to use higher grade components than Dell. Dell often times uses OEM components that are made specifically for them and are extremely cheap.

Perhaps we need to look at Power vs. Performance. Yes, the iMac uses less power because it uses laptop components. Those also perform worse than desktop components. You cannot make something run on less power and cooler without sacrificing something (when comparing same generation chips of course, look at the Pentium 4 vs. Core2...) So, perhaps the non-apple (so as not to say Dell, as that has been shot at here already ) is indeed less power-hungry for it's end performance.

I agree with you. The one nice thing that helps Apple out here is that the Mac OS/Mach Kernel can adapt to just about any system from Mac Pro to iPhone. One could make a claim that an Apple OS running on a mobile platform will outperform a desktop running Windows Vista. In the end the only performance that matters is the one you experience My 1.5 yr old Macbook Pro (with inferior specs) still seems to run circles around my friends powerhouse PC running Vista. Actually he was stating just the other day how quickly my machine boots up and how quickly it opens up programs. Sure when it comes to games, he wins, but the MBP can hold it's own. The same could be said of the iMac.

Kan-O-Z

 

[belvdr]

The same could be said of the iMac.

Except my old iMac 800 G4. That poor thing was may more slow than I could handle. Of course, it was about 7 years old too.