Why buy a Mac?

[gctwnl]

Could we all stop feeding this troll please?

I think it is a legit question to ask. It is very difficult to answer, but the question is legit. I can understand that someone would want the answer to this question, because at first glance, it is indeed weird how expensive Macs are compared to PCs.

I recall building my own PC years ago. What I then noticed was that the cheaper components often were closer to the limits of their specs. All these edge-components together would create impossible to debug problems.

Comparing an iMac to a self-built PC is almost impossible. Because there is 4GB RAM and 4GB RAM, but it is not the same, even if it is both DDR3 etc. E.g. cheaper stuff may run a bit hotter, as a result your fans will be louder. Important? For some. Is it part of the superficial comparison of specs? No. And nor is panel quality when you say "full HD screen" (question: if it is 23" full HD, are your icons and stuff still readable?). A BluRay looks nice, but what if you cannot use it to display movies on your separate monitor because of DRM issues?

But it remains a legit question. The only thing I can say is that most serious analysts that I have read about this question have concluded that Apple hardware is not outrageously priced and that you get a comparable price/performance. Sometimes it even turned out Mac was the cheaper option. You may not need all the stuff Apple puts in (e.g. Firewire800), so you may pay for stuff you do not need. But IMO, you do not pay for the brand/image per se.

 

[Pnut13]

Gotta love fanboys. I'm not trolling, merely raising a question. I have not once bashed Macs, just asked if they are worth it compared to an alternative system and if so, why. Keeping in mind the uses that I mentioned.

Is that really too hard to grasp?

Okay, now back to the sensible debate please...

let me quote what you said

faced with these specs, why on earth choose the iMac?
My main reasons for buying a new computer is for 3D rendering, compositing, and HD video editing (including AVCHD).

Does OSX really justify the cost of such an outdated system in terms of technology?

you say "why on earth" which is a way of saying "I have chosen a PC already in my head, and it is my opinion that why would anybody not choose a PC over a Mac"
"outdated system"-says who? Outdated as far as the next 1st person shooter game that the Mac cant handle? You can do 3d rendering and HD video on a mac i do video myself.

(also)
Now you are coming on a Mac forum and you demand that there be no fanboys? or is it maybe that you are the fanboy deflecting your own indeficencies on us. Not everyone here is a fanboy but you make it seem like there is.

 

[Pnut13]

I think it is a legit question to ask. It is very difficult to answer, but the question is legit. I can understand that someone would want the answer to this question, because at first glance, it is indeed weird how expensive Macs are compared to PCs.

I recall building my own PC years ago. What I then noticed was that the cheaper components often were closer to the limits of their specs. All these edge-components together would create impossible to debug problems.

Comparing an iMac to a self-built PC is almost impossible. Because there is 4GB RAM and 4GB RAM, but it is not the same, even if it is both DDR3 etc. E.g. cheaper stuff may run a bit hotter, as a result your fans will be louder. Important? For some. Is it part of the superficial comparison of specs? No. And nor is panel quality when you say "full HD screen" (question: if it is 23" full HD, are your icons and stuff still readable?). A BluRay looks nice, but what if you cannot use it to display movies on your separate monitor because of DRM issues?

But it remains a legit question. The only thing I can say is that most serious analysts that I have read about this question have concluded that Apple hardware is not outrageously priced and that you get a comparable price/performance. Sometimes it even turned out Mac was the cheaper option. You may not need all the stuff Apple puts in (e.g. Firewire800), so you may pay for stuff you do not need. But IMO, you do not pay for the brand/image per se.

i have owned 3 computers
in 99 i bought a Dell Enspiron for $1000 plus a $800 monitor
in 04 i bought a HP MEdia Center m320n for $1200 with a $600 monitor
and thsi year i bought an iMac for $1400

It was cheaper priced for me but it has a better monitor and you can tell it is qualty made. I used to fix those previous 2 computers and you would be surprised what cheap crap no name HD and memory companies that they used.....and surprise, surprise i had to replace them

 

[nefan65]

This topic/argument will be going on well after we're all gone I'm sure.

I'm a 1 year convert, and only wished I had done it sooner. Did I pay more than a Windows based PC? Probably, if you look at systems with like spec's, etc. But in the end, it does "Just Work". You're up and running in minutes, not hours. Our iMac and Macbook's run as good now as they did a year ago when we bought them; no slow down, etc. All of the updates [thus far, knock on wood] applied have been easy, and seamless; no issues at all.

My job requires me to maintain Windows based servers/systems. But luckily I can do all this from my trusty white MB without issues. I'm so grateful I can do what I need, and chuckle when we have issues with any of our Windows based systems [lock ups, memory drains/dumps, et-al].

In the end, buy what you want and need. To me a system is a tool. I find that Apple makes a great system, and I actually enjoy using computing again.

 

[opinioncircle]

The systems in question are the Dell boxes at my school. The Adobe software suite is licensed and legal, of course...and as for drivers, the only devices connected to them AFAIK are our Wacom tablets. I honestly don't know why on earth it happens, either...but it does.

Not to mention that XP/Vista are unusable except on "epic hardware specs" as someone put it. Sure, I can see why the esteemed AidenShaw with his 256-core blade servers, with a half-terabyte of RAM must always think to himself, "Damn, I'm good!" But for us mere mortals stuck on Earth with dual-core Pentium Dell Optiplexes, Windows sucks, and is unusable. The fact remains.

I disagree with you. Regarding the systems, I think that Dell hasn't done a great job with them (the ones in schools). However, from what I've seen, students get crazy with these computers. I honestly think that some error would happen if you were to switch these computers with iMacs or minis.
That's a pretty strange occurrence nonetheless, I'll give you that

Vista requires a lot to run, sort of smoothly. On that we agree. However XP has been always pretty friendly to me on 1GB of ram. Sure you won't run tons of apps at the same time, but the OS is quite lightweight (compared to Vista).
Regarding Vista, I bought my parents a HP desktop computer. For very little money (less than $600), it features a 22inch screen, 4GB of RAM, 640 HDD, and some ATI HD video card. I think this is a fairly decent price, pretty far from "epic requirements", and it runs Vista Home quite well.

HAPPY TO DISAGREE then,

Note: I'm a future Mac user. Not because I hate Windows, just because I want something different.

 

[Doju]

The security flaws in Windows are exaggerated. I have 4 PCs running variously Vista, XP and Windows 7. I have never had a virus or malware problem that wasn't caught and dealt with by the (free) virus checker, and even those incidents are infrequent. There are numerous virus reports on Windows simply because there are numerous machines running it. And numerous idiots using them.

Windows Vista was clunky to begin with, but since Service Pack 1 its fine on 2GB of RAM and runs slightly sluggish on 1GB. This is because Windows has to support an immensely larger range of hardware than OSX, it would be impossible to optimize for every combination. I have an XP machine that has an Athlon 2000 in it and its running just as well as when I built it 4 years ago. Its had a motherboard and hard drive failure (neither are Windows fault), both of which were cheap to replace.

Get a life if you think OSX is so much better than Vista. You have been entirely brainwashed by Apple into believing there is only one way of doing things. I am still mystified by why maximise on OSX does not make a window fill the screen, and why closing the last window of an application doesn't exit that application. Double clicking an icon on a desktop in Windows is one click more than opening the same application off a dock, and Windows has quicklaunch if you want to save yourself one click.

So much is made of Expose in OSX, forgetting that Windows users don't need this feature because the Taskbar shows every application that is running. The Dock and Expose are very selective about what they show. Why does a style conscious company like Apple only allow me the choice of two colours for my windows? OSX is supposedly more consistent than Windows, but installing an application on OSX is sometimes an install routine, sometimes the app has a little applications folder and sometimes it doesn't. Getting both those Windows to the foreground on my 1024*768 desktop is pain in the arse with Expose.

OSX is nice for sure, and its nice not to have to install antivirus (though you really should, because even though Macs can't catch viruses they can pass them on through email), but to use it is to be entirely dictated to by Apple about which hardware you use, and how you use your OS. I like my G4 iBook very much, but I also have a 1.6Ghz Celeron laptop running Windows 7 that will do everything it can but it lets me choose what software I install and putting a new CD drive in it won't take me half a day.

Oh yeah, build your own, because if you want to play games, Apple are *****.

A well constructed post is instantly ruined by an immature, ignorant part. We lack lives because we think one type of software is a lot better than another? Exactly how old are you? I think OS X is a lot better than Vista, I'm not brainwashed, I see the faults, and I have an excellent life, thanks.

Expose is incomparable to the taskbar, by the way. Being able to see thumbnails of every single window open is infinitely more useful than seeing a small text title at the bottom of your screen.

 

[neiltc13]

Expose is incomparable to the taskbar, by the way. Being able to see thumbnails of every single window open is infinitely more useful than seeing a small text title at the bottom of your screen.

Which is why the Windows 7 taskbar includes the ability to view thumbnails of open applications, and significantly it allows you to "peek" at open windows by hovering over the thumbnail.

 

[Let's Sekuhara!]

I'm torn between two systems -
Refurb 24'' iMac, 2.8, 2GB Ram, 320GB, Superdrive, 2600 Pro - £949
Self-build PC, Q6600, 8GB Ram, Radeon 4850, 1TB Hard Drive, Blu-Ray writer, 23'' Full HD monitor - £949

Hackintosh gets my vote, if you want to stay exactly within budget.
You probably wouldn't even need to pay for OS X because...
(I'll hold my tongue about that)

However... if I were you I would look at the price of the current 24" iMac. It's pretty reasonable. £1,199.00 ($1,499.00)
You would double your RAM and your hard drive size. Better gfx card too. Some compromise in processor speed, but not much.

 

[djellison]

My main reasons for buying a new computer is for 3D rendering,

Get the PC. You need the power and the iMac will offer HALF the rendering power of the PC.

 

[EmperorDarius]

Get the PC. You need the power and the iMac will offer HALF the rendering power of the PC.

Yet the stability of the Mac programs is DOUBLE the stability of the Windows ones.

 

[neiltc13]

However... if I were you I would look at the price of the current 24" iMac. It's pretty reasonable. £1,199.00 ($1,499.00)
You would double your RAM and your hard drive size. Better gfx card too. Some compromise in processor speed, but not much.

Uh, no. The £1199 iMac has a worse GPU than the one in the refurbished iMac he is considering.

 

[throttlemeister]

Yet the stability of the Mac programs is DOUBLE the stability of the Windows ones.

How about substantiating that claim with reliable and verifiable test results (include links please)? If you cannot, your post is just another piece of FUD this thread is full with.