Why an iMac?

[harcosparky]

As a prospective new user (hopefully soon), I'm a bit worried Apples intention to make the Mac more like the iPad.
If people want an iPad, they buy an iPad.
Those that buy an iMac, want a desktop.

That and the (theoretical) step forward in making Mac OS a bit more closed in terms of what you run on it worries me. I know Gatekeeper doesn't close down the machine, but it seems a step towards that.

Seems to me like they are working towards a similar UI between devices. Nothing wrong with that at all. Even though the UI may be similar, trust me the iPad is no iMac and the iMac is no iPad.

We have iPad's, iPod Touch's, iPhones, iMac's, Mac Pro, here so that similar UI has its benefits. I do not see it as limiting the functionality. It changes how some things get done, but not that they can get done.

I guess for some it may be an issue, just depends on your usage.

You could alway stick with 10.6.x, we did with one of our systems. We even have a 10.5.x system here as well.

 

[wilsonjm]

Even though the UI may be similar, trust me the iPad is no iMac and the iMac is no iPad.

This is so true. I used an iPad as my sole computer for 8 months then bought an iMac. Any similarities are superficial. The experience is completely different.

And as far as I am concerned, I welcome the iOS attributes in Lion and look forward to Mountain Lion for this - and other - reasons.

 

[darknyt]

Originally Posted by lemanYou won't be able to build a custom PC with the same components on the same footprint.

Or for the same price for that matter!

You're right . . .. it would less. Hard to compare though since an iMac is basically a laptop slapped on the back of a screen. Not many custom PC builds follow that route.

I own a 24" 2.8ghz C2D iMac and a custom built PC. The iMac is great for basic chores but I don't rely on it for any heavy lifting or running my movie server. We love the iMac as a family computer and use it for a media hub for iPhoto etc, web browsing, Netflix for the kids, as a beater for the kids, etc. But the PC owns it for speed and cost. Built an Core i7 machine with an SSD and 10 tbs of deep storage for far far less than my iMac (yes including a good 24" screen).

Originally posted by ZMAN Z28. I want to get home, turn on my computer and be on the internet in less than 45 seconds. To accomplish this on my Windows machine, I have to wait over 5 minutes to be able to reliably get on the internet and click something.

I've been building for almost 20 years or so as well and for the love of all that is holy you have completely screwed something up on your windoze box for it to take that long. I'm into and on the internet in that 45 second window or less on my current PC.

Any box that takes 5 minutes to boot up and access does not begin to represent a competently configured build. Please don't compare oranges and rotten apples just to overstate your point.

I don't have to play around with, overclock, tweak, or jack with my PC to get it to perform well. Now granted you certainly had to do all of that in the 486 DX days, but we are long past that.

That said, since an iMac is basically a laptop slapped behind a nice big screen, it isn't really fair to compare to a full or even mid-tower PC for cost, efficiency or speed. They certainly are convenient and pretty though and we love ours.

I'd just never rely on it exclusively. Best of both worlds.

But to the OP's question - you just said notebook, you didn't specify Mac or PC. That is a bigger difference to me than whether you get a notebook/display or iMac. Assuming you meant a PC notebook (since if you meant Mac I assume you would say "Macbook" or "MBA" or similar), I would go for the iMac as it is a cleaner solution and for your parents they would probably enjoy the simplicity and accessibility of the Mac ecosystem.

Now that isn't very portable so if they are wanting that, a notebook could be the way to go. You could always do like my parents who have TWO 27" iMacs sitting next to each other (so one never has to wait for the other) and also TWO iPads so they can play/work remotely.

 

[lamboman]

*snip*

You're comparing a C2D machine against an i7 machine. Of course the i7 machine will be far faster. I'm not saying you're incorrect, however the price difference certainly isn't night and day. To build a PC with a 27" display, a GTX460 (a comparable card to the top-end iMac's 6970M), and i5 2400 or the like would be cheaper, but then you have to factor in labour costs, design costs (the PC has no design to be accounted for). The iMac is a complete system, and more to the point, and AIO, not a tower, or even a microATX system.

If you were to buy a system with similar performance to the iMac now, the difference wouldn't be quite as great as you'd expect.

As for why an iMac, you're paying for a complete package really. The AIO part is the appeal, and is certainly the reason I have mine.

 

[dreilly1982]

You're right . . .. it would less. Hard to compare though since an iMac is basically a laptop slapped on the back of a screen. Not many custom PC builds follow that route.

You're right. Not many custom PC's include a 27" 2560x1440 IPS display. That being figured in, you can't build a custom PC for less, I've tried. As for it being a notebook with a big screen, look again, their is only one component that is mobile quality in the entire build...the vid card. While not all features are useful for all people, and you can build a system more tailored for your needs for less money, apples to apples (no pun intended) you can NOT build an equivalent PC, that includes ALL the features (except TB and the OS obviously) for less.

 

[leman]

You're right . . .. it would less. Hard to compare though since an iMac is basically a laptop slapped on the back of a screen. Not many custom PC builds follow that route.

Well, the day you can build a PC with latest and fastest hardware, two HDDs, integrated speakers, a display and a decent PSU for less money the iMac costs— and all that with a footprint of a single monitor — you will surely become a well-known and successful person. So far, only Apple was able to do something like that.

 

[darknyt]

You're comparing a C2D machine against an i7 machine. Of course the i7 machine will be far faster. I'm not saying you're incorrect, however the price difference certainly isn't night and day. To build a PC with a 27" display, a GTX460 (a comparable card to the top-end iMac's 6970M), and i5 2400 or the like would be cheaper, but then you have to factor in labour costs, design costs (the PC has no design to be accounted for). The iMac is a complete system, and more to the point, and AIO, not a tower, or even a microATX system.

If you were to buy a system with similar performance to the iMac now, the difference wouldn't be quite as great as you'd expect.

As for why an iMac, you're paying for a complete package really. The AIO part is the appeal, and is certainly the reason I have mine.

Fair point on different specs. Let me say then that my Phenom II 2008 build could be inserted here and still make the same point in comparison to my 2008 iMac.

And btw, the 6970M is essentially a downclocked HD 6850 which sells for about $150 online. Although a 460 could be had for even a little bit less.

Why would you factor in design/.abor/etc costs? Isn't that point to avoid them? That's like telling someone if they buy store brand milk, they have to factor in the additional cost of marketing, packaging, etc for a national brand. It's the same point when someone builds vs buying a PC.

I'll definitely give you that the displays are now a great value and they've done a better job moving away from mobile parts. But they've still got it set so you can't easily upgrade them so that's a big advantage of desktop parts lost. But that's the sacrifice for an AIO.

Speaking of AIO, that def is a big part of the appeal and most of the difference. I wouldn't suggest I would build an AIO, it's part of the sacrifice (as well as that design/labor cost you speak of) of building your own.

I think I hit a nerve here with everybody, lol. Just keep in mind I have and enjoy both systems, I'm not trying to bash but pointing out that building is still a more economical path for those that choose, admitting you're not going to get an AIO design.

----------

Well, the day you can build a PC with latest and fastest hardware, two HDDs, integrated speakers, a display and a decent PSU for less money the iMac costs— and all that with a footprint of a single monitor — you will surely become a well-known and successful person. So far, only Apple was able to do something like that.

Sorry, I was more or less presuming that a custom PC build would sacrifice the AIO design. Once you do that, most of your argument falters.

Not sure why the reference to 2 HDD? For an iMac that will bump up your machine by $600 minimum and make it even more lopsided cost-wise. You can only go SSD/HDD which is pretty expensive.

 

[forty2j]

I think I hit a nerve here with everybody, lol. Just keep in mind I have and enjoy both systems, I'm not trying to bash but pointing out that building is still a more economical path for those that choose, admitting you're not going to get an AIO design.

I, for one, do get quite annoyed when someone compares the cost of a pre-built iMac with that of a build-your-own beige box, as though they both offered even remotely the same benefits and appeal.

Would you buy your own phone parts, install vanilla Android on it, and claim you built a cheaper iPhone? No, of course not. At some level it performs the same function, but one lets you swap out your battery and even the cell radio for new technology, and the other didn't take away 2 days of your time to assemble and get working correctly, and probably looks and feels better in the end.

 

[dreilly1982]

I'm not trying to bash but pointing out that building is still a more economical path for those that choose, admitting you're not going to get an AIO design.

How exactly is it more economical? Let's start from scratch, with no prior parts (as was the case for me when deciding whether my next computer was going to be a hackintosh, a pc or an iMac). I was comparing the current 27" 3.4 ghz with 4 gb ram and the 2 gb vid card and 1 tb hdd. After all was said and done I'm looking at spending $2169 parts alone (no web cam, Bluetooth, ODD or speakers) vs $2299 for a FULL iMac. Now, if we load the now built computer with OS X after building it, we now have to go the extra mile of getting all of the hardware that's "not supposed to work" to actually work, which may be easy, may be a headache, all depends on how well I chose my parts. To save $100 (took $30 out to pay for the OS). If we put Windows 7 on home premium costs $99 so now I have that $30 to pay for the ODD I'll need to install Win7. So, after the effort you put it to building it, is it REALLY more economical? Being AIO is a plus in my book, but it does make it a pain to upgrade, thankfully Macs hold their value much better so I can recoup a better portion of my investment to put towards a new model. Case closed.

 

[andy06]

Sorry guys, I should have provided more details in the original question. I've edited it now.

Windows 7 or OS X doesn't really matter to me (I have an MBA that I recently bought and also run Boot camp on it). I genuinely find Windows 7 just as seamless, easy and delightful to use as OS X Lion (and the Explorer better than Finder ) but I was indeed only considering Macbook Air or Pro for them (primarily for the great battery life and warranty).

My primary motivation in starting the thread was to gain an insight into the unique proposition of AIOs like iMac. In my mind, they are a logical fallacy but since they sell so well, clearly I missed something and people find something very alluring and compelling about them.

As is already obvious from the thread, a number of people tend to see them as perfect parent computers!
I'm just intrigued as to why I wouldn't get a Notebook instead (say a 1199 MBP13) which has more or less the same specs (which don't really matter) but what does matter (in my mind, but not necessarily for the people I'm buying) is the portability. I can't imagine being constrained to one place

Re: The ongoing discussion of price. When I said overpriced, I meant the 21.5" relative to both notebooks of Mac and PC lineage and also desktops offering similar functionality (including other AIOs). The 27" one is overpriced more in a OMG 2800K way, but on a relative scale if you can justify spending that much, it seems worth it since competing solutions are just as expensive. (Mainly its the fact that Apple's 27" screens are very price competitive in their resolution/price/quality matrix)

 

[karmamule]

Hi Andy06, like you I enjoy Windows 7 quite a bit, although I still would pick OS X over it. For me the 27" iMac's biggest advantage over notebooks is the screen size and higher resolution. I'm going to get an iPad 3 for my portability needs, since my "on the go" computing is mostly limited to e-mail, browsing, messaging, and rss/news aggregation.

I have a big home-built Windows-based gaming rig that has been going strong for over 3 years thanks to a couple video card upgrades, and still does quite well. So, I'm familiar with the benefits of that approach.

Having said that, I picked an iMac that's pretty much maxed out (i7 3.4ghz, 1tb hd/256gb ssd, 16gb memory) so it has great performance, and performance that'll most likely last several years, so upgrading is not an issue. At most I'd need more storage space which is easily resolved.

I'm very picky when it comes to screens, and the iMac gives me a superb screen, superb performance, AND at the same time is elegantly simple, is whisper quiet (something I appreciate after using my gaming PC that sounds like a 747 on final approach), and looks great with the minimum possible clutter.

I'm very happy with it.

 

[ct95]

For the AIO vs. notebook question, the AIO is better for older folks, since the screen is much bigger. They will be squinting over the tiny Macbook Air or Pro screens.

You could go with the Mac Mini + 20"-22" display option, which will save you a little and do everything your parents need.

One thing that gives me pause with the iMac is that the hard drive is not easily accessible or upgraded. Hard drive crashes happen from time to time, and I constantly run out of space. May be a non-issue for older people, who wouldn't perform a HD replacement themselves.

Also, check that the space for the computer can accommodate a glossy screen. The iMac screen will drive you nuts if you have sunlight streaming in from windows behind you. A generic matte screen may in fact be better, depending on the surroundings.

 

[lamboman]

Fair point on different specs. Let me say then that my Phenom II 2008 build could be inserted here and still make the same point in comparison to my 2008 iMac.

And btw, the 6970M is essentially a downclocked HD 6850 which sells for about $150 online. Although a 460 could be had for even a little bit less.

Why would you factor in design/.abor/etc costs? Isn't that point to avoid them? That's like telling someone if they buy store brand milk, they have to factor in the additional cost of marketing, packaging, etc for a national brand. It's the same point when someone builds vs buying a PC.

I'll definitely give you that the displays are now a great value and they've done a better job moving away from mobile parts. But they've still got it set so you can't easily upgrade them so that's a big advantage of desktop parts lost. But that's the sacrifice for an AIO.

Speaking of AIO, that def is a big part of the appeal and most of the difference. I wouldn't suggest I would build an AIO, it's part of the sacrifice (as well as that design/labor cost you speak of) of building your own.

I think I hit a nerve here with everybody, lol. Just keep in mind I have and enjoy both systems, I'm not trying to bash but pointing out that building is still a more economical path for those that choose, admitting you're not going to get an AIO design.

You would factor in design costs because they are required in order to make the iMac an AIO. If the iMac wasn't an AIO system, then we could begin to make a comparison. With a tower system, no design (as such) needs to be performed; you could stick an SLI/Crossfire setup on a test frame and it would function correctly. For such a system to be incorporated into an AIO, design and testing would need to be incorporated (and of course, in this scenario would probably be a massive AIO ).

Back to the OP's original question, the iMac is definitely not "OMG expensive" in comparison to the competition. If we take the iMac's biggest competitor, which would be the HP TouchSmart range, and compare them to the 21.5" models of the iMac, they're actually far, far worse value machines. They use the low-wattage processors, 35W TDP, compared to the 95W processors used in the iMac. Performance doesn't even come close, in any way, shape or form. Yes, the TouchSmarts have a touchscreen, but this alone doesn't make it a better value machine.

If we go for the Sony route...no need to bother.

As for the 27" iMac, there aren't really any competitors. The price of the panel alone is insane. The price for the 27" iMac, after you tally up the competition, is very reasonable, you'll find.

 

[moonbeep]

After being a Windows user for the past 14 years I slept on the idea of an iMac for 3 weeks to make sure it was definately what i wanted,have no regrets since getting my iMac at the end of last month,just wish i had of got one sooner....

 

[Rogue.]

Why an iMac?

Simply put, because it works so well.

 

[Bear]

...
The iMac removes all those things! Its neither cheap, not as configurable or modular (As say a Pro). So what is it exactly that got you to purchase one? And did you regret it or find something pleasantly surprising about it?

Do you think its worth purchasing as opposed to a Notebook+Display for primarily fixed location use?
...

With an iMac, you get less cables dangling. ALso, only your keyboard and mouse would be in the way of spilled drinks.

A NoteBook + Display adds cables, and adds an expensive item that could get liquid spilled on it. Also, you need to consider the keyboard at that point.

If you wanted to go separate computer and display for a fixed location, I think a Mini plus display could be a good compromise. However, if you need an optical drive, this option gets messy. This allows slightly modular upgrades. It all depends on what the computer needs to handle.

Now as for why I went with the iMac is that it's faster and has better graphics (usually) than the MacBook Pros. And I like full size keyboards, especially ones with mechanical switches.

 

[Unkei]

Why iMac?

I'm considering a gift for parents and was going to buy a Notebook without much thought to a desktop (last used a desktop half a decade ago) and so I thought they might worth a revisit.

Thing is, when I think of desktops, I think cheap(er), configurable (upgrades) and modular (change a screen without having to change the tower).

The iMac removes all those things! Its neither cheap, not as configurable or modular (As say a Pro). So what is it exactly that got you to purchase one? And did you regret it or find something pleasantly surprising about it?

Do you think its worth purchasing as opposed to a Notebook+Display for primarily fixed location use?

Thanks

I bought a 21.5 iMac, because even though I have a beautiful Oak Rolltop Desk, I almost never sit there. I sit in our 4 season room where Plasma TV is. Not that I watch it..I have an iMac!
I have the iMac on a wooden (Hospital Style) tray table on wheels. The weight of the 21.5 is not too much for the tray table. The main reason for iMac is visibility issues ( I am 65 and have cataracts.) So using the magic trackpad, I can zoom in to comfortably read the screen. 1 month now and loving it! Formerly a Windows guy! I'll never go back!
Unkei

 

[Spike88]

Andy06.

1st question is to answer "fixed destop?" or "portable?". If both, then get a portable with external attached monitor. If wondering, my work computer is a portable with external 24" monitor. And, it works great - in either full portable or fixed / connected mode.

For my next computer (for typical home user without games), I would get a portable. And, only a portable. And if wondering, I would get a Windows portable - like my current 17" portable Win7 laptop. Use it for 3 years, sell it and get another. And, end/end cost of ownership is a fraction of an Apple portable (of same CPU, HDD and screen size). Guess what I'm using now (to type this post)? My Win7 portable, on my lap, sitting in my sofa chair, rocking back and forth, watching TV and talking to my wife. Works great for me...

Note: If a "gift" for your parents, what do they want? Do they want portable or fixed desk position? Do they want MacOS or Win7? Each person wants their own flavour and often hate steep learning curves to "change". Best to ask before buying a computer system (for them).

Good luck - which ever you decide to pick...

 

[Wrathwitch]

Yeah I am curious about that as well.

I just bought a brand new 27" iMac two days ago and we have three separate Wi-Fi networks here. I can connect with any of the three, including the hokey experimental one with ZERO issues. Three different wireless routers, none of which are Apple.

My Guess: He is referring to something some were experiencing early on and is no longer a problem, or was not really one to begin with

OSX Lion did not support one of my LInksys routers which was ONLY ONE year old. I had to troubleshoot this issue by phone with my NON tech savvy parents only to have to use the Windows laptop I gave to my mom to set it up.

OP:

Since your parents are tech savvy as you say, the simplicity issue isn't a selling point for YOUR point of view. I tell you I used to waste hours with my parents with regards to Windows troubleshooting calls.

Why an iMac? Well seriously one bonus is not having to update a driver for every component that is housed in the box. iMac update = click on apple icon and Software update.

Less cables and clutter as well as nice asthetics.

I have had the top end iMac 27" quad core since Nov 2009 and must have pounded on that thing with an average of 4hours constant gaming per day (if you average the time out spent running the graphics etc). Other than an LCD smudge issue which was replaced by Applecare it still works like a dream. I have NOT had to reformat the hard drive once in those 3 years. Files just don't get corrupted the same way they do with Windows.

Apple may not put cutting edge components in their iMacs when they refresh but they do put in pretty solid components which should prove durable and reliable if this is a consideration.

So far I have heard no complaints from my father whom I have purchased a 21.5" 2011 iMac. The biggest issue we had was his wifi cutting in and out and that proved to be their router dying. Personally I don't like Lion so I will never upgrade from SNL if I can avoid it.

Let us know what you decide!

 

[forty2j]

OSX Lion did not support one of my LInksys routers which was ONLY ONE year old. I had to troubleshoot this issue by phone with my NON tech savvy parents only to have to use the Windows laptop I gave to my mom to set it up.

Since when does the OS matter? You go to http://192.168.1.1 and configure in the browser. All the CDs that have come with routers have gone in the trash or become coasters.

 

[kitsunestudios]

Ideally, I'd love something like the Shuttle PC: compact, basic expansion, energy efficiency and internal access.

The iMac might not be ideal, but it works perfectly for what I need; external monitor support, powerful enough GPU for personal 3d projects, video editing, animation and occasional games, powerful enough CPU for rendering 3d and video compositing. It manages to do so with a small desktop footprint, high energy efficiency, and a fair bit of style.

And yes, I'd strongly consider a Mac Pro instead if they came back down in price and got updated with 2012 components.

 

[Logos327]

After a lot of consideration over the last couple of days (and waiting for a refresh since last August!), I have decided not to buy an iMac.

I was looking at getting the top-end 27" mainly for the better video card. I enjoy moderate gaming (nothing too intensive) that the iMac would have been able to handle well. My problem is I need something portable for convenience and for lecturing at the University, and I am worried my late 2008 MBP won't be lasting too much longer.

The iMac came to ~$2600 after taxes (and an SSD upgrade). So I have decided to split that and buy the $1250 13" MBA when the 2012 model is released which will be an ~50-60% increase in speed over my current MBP and spend another ~$1100 on a gaming rig which will be spec for spec as powerful as the iMac except that it will run games even better.

The biggest problem for me with the iMac is the screen. It is huge, and beautiful, and great, but I just don't need it and it is easily the biggest thing driving the price up to $2600 for one computer.

This way, I'll end up saving some money and having a great desktop and ultra-portable. That doesn't mean I think the iMac is a bad choice, especially the 21.5" models. You just have to really feel that such a high quality 27" screen is worth the $700-1000 it adds to the price when you can buy a nice one at ~$300. For some people it will be, but for Mom and Dad, definitely not.

 

[Liquinn]

After a lot of consideration over the last couple of days (and waiting for a refresh since last August!), I have decided not to buy an iMac.

I was looking at getting the top-end 27" mainly for the better video card. I enjoy moderate gaming (nothing too intensive) that the iMac would have been able to handle well. My problem is I need something portable for convenience and for lecturing at the University, and I am worried my late 2008 MBP won't be lasting too much longer.

The iMac came to ~$2600 after taxes (and an SSD upgrade). So I have decided to split that and buy the $1250 13" MBA when the 2012 model is released which will be an ~50-60% increase in speed over my current MBP and spend another ~$1100 on a gaming rig which will be spec for spec as powerful as the iMac except that it will run games even better.

The biggest problem for me with the iMac is the screen. It is huge, and beautiful, and great, but I just don't need it and it is easily the biggest thing driving the price up to $2600 for one computer.

This way, I'll end up saving some money and having a great desktop and ultra-portable. That doesn't mean I think the iMac is a bad choice, especially the 21.5" models. You just have to really feel that such a high quality 27" screen is worth the $700-1000 it adds to the price when you can buy a nice one at ~$300. For some people it will be, but for Mom and Dad, definitely not.

Well, the 27" IPS display is gorgeous ;P

 

[Logos327]

Well, the 27" IPS display is gorgeous ;P

Haha, it is, and for professionals, I think it is great!

But, if you are on a budget (or should be lol) I think it is very hard to justify the price when you wouldn't notice much of a difference from a lower quality model for 30% of the price. Even for me who can tell a difference, it is still hard pay for a computer that ~40% of it's price comes from the screen. I was so looking forward to it though

 

[Wrathwitch]

Since when does the OS matter? You go to http://192.168.1.1 and configure in the browser. All the CDs that have come with routers have gone in the trash or become coasters.

ORLY???

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3301610?start=0&tstart=0

And THIS (from the Linksys support site)

http://homecommunity.cisco.com/t5/Cisco-Connect/E3000-Cisco-Connect-and-Mac-OS-X-Lion/td-p/501820

Oh and my phone support call with Linksys stating that a hardware update was NOT available for my router model but that the "non existent issue you speak of" was known and there were several flash updates for OSX Lion with their routers.

Oh and here! The acutal link that states from Linksys which routers aren't compatable with OSX Lion and which ones had firmware updates applied:

http://www6.nohold.net/Cisco2/ukp.a...&pid=80&respid=0&snid=4&dispid=0&cpage=search