Why iMac?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by AGX, Aug 11, 2017.

  1. AGX macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2014
    #1
    Hi,

    actually I have an iMac, but after that I see the price of the actual line of iMac... I'm asking:

    - why buy an iMac when with less $$$ I can buy a Windows 10 computer (that is not bad as OS) with the same configuration? If I spent the same $$$ I will buy a super mega hardware configuration.

    What do you think? Why continue to buy iMac or Mac product?

    Bye Bye
     
  2. czacha macrumors member

    czacha

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2017
    #2
    Are you sure about that? Despite operating system which you can't install on Windows PC (hackintosh is the only way but it's not perfect and never will be) did you though about 5K monitor you get with iMac? ;)
     
  3. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #3
    So you don't have to run Windows and put up with the associated hassles, malware, crap software, etc.

    I have both, the only thing Windows is good for, for me, is games and niche software for work. As a platform it is a dumpster fire.

    I have and will continue to pay 1.5-2x the price for hardware to avoid that disaster on machines i actually want to do stuff other than gaming on.

    /end
     
  4. jrichards1408 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2016
    #4
    Sounds like you don't know how to use a PC lol
     
  5. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #5
    I get paid as #2 in the chain of command of an enterprise PC network for my day job (technical lead, only person above me is the CIO), so you would be incorrect.

    I know how to.

    I don't want to and am willing to pay the money to have my stuff at home not irritate the crap out of me. I use PCs a lot. I pay for Macs at home so i don't have to when not getting paid for it.
     
  6. jrichards1408 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2016
    #6
    So do I. And I've had more issues with macs then windows. Been working pro on it since Windows 3.1
     
  7. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #7
    So have i. Been working in this field since 1995.
     
  8. ChromeCloud macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2009
    Location:
    Italy
    #8
    You are asking the wrong question.

    You are starting off with a budget in your mind and you are asking yourself what kind of raw specs that budget can buy if you choose a PC versus a Mac.

    You should instead ask yourself: what do I want or need in a computer and how will it make my life easier and help me get my job done faster? Will it fit my needs and be fun to use?

    Ultimately it's all about what you are trying to accomplish with your computer and what kind of OS features and behaviors are going to make your life easier and help you get the job done faster.

    That's why everybody should basically try both platforms and decide by themselves.
     
  9. nambuccaheadsau macrumors 6502a

    nambuccaheadsau

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Location:
    Nambucca Heads Australia
    #9
    Give him a miss guys.

    It just don't pay to feed 'em.
     
  10. theluggage macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    #10
    First - if you don't prefer Mac OS over Windows then, fine, save money and get a Windows system. I've used Windows extensively and could work with it if I had to. I find MacOS better designed, with good attention to detail and more reliable. Also, the majority of software I use is cross-platform. For me, the killer is that I do some web development work targeting Linux servers and its really convenient to work in an environment that is close (admittedly not identical) to the target, but can still handle MS Office, Adobe etc. which are the formats the content tend to arrive in and, anyway, are essential to the day job. If you're more productive in MacOS it's easily worth paying a premium for the hardware (my last Mac lasted me 6 years so it's not hard to amortize...).

    Second, you need to check what you mean by "the same configuration". The "Apple Tax" exists, but is widely exaggerated.

    You can probably get a Windows mini-tower with a better CPU and GPU, and far more expansion potential for a significantly lower price than the iMac 27". If you want the maximum CPU power for the minimum cost, and don't mind using Windows then that probably is the best choice.

    However, adding a comparable display to that would narrow the gap quite a bit - there were two 5k displays on the market, from Dell and HP, each costing over $1000 but I'm not even sure those are still in production. Even the 21.5" iMac (apart from the cheapest) has a "proper 4k" 4096x2304 display rather than the "UHD" 3840x1260. Certainly, the iMac range is Apple's best value-for-money.

    For example, the Dell XPS 27 is a comparable, compact, all-in-one system with a UHD "4k" (but not 5k) screen. Entry is $1550 (currently on offer at $1400) but with no discrete GPU, next model up is $2149/$1900 (i7 and a RX 570 GPU). C.f. the entry 27" iMac at $1800 (i5 and a AMD Pro 570 GPU). You can't do a perfect comparison (the Dell i7 is not the same i7 as the Apple BTO option, and it's "AMD RX" vs "AMD Radeon Pro" which I know isn't quite the same thing). I'd actually concede that the Dell offers more bang-per-buck if you ignore the 5k screen but, overall, we are talking a few hundred bucks on a two thousand buck machine - not the 1.5-2x price difference that people imagine.

    It is a problem for consumers that Apple only make luxury sports saloons (and the forthcoming iMac Pro and Mac Pro sound like they're gonna be electric SUVs with gull-wing doors). If you want a pick-up truck then a Windows or Linux machine has to be a consideration.

    However, if the cheaper PCs look like someone's thrown together a bucketful of spare parts then that's because someone has - you can throw together a well-specced PC tower from whatever you can find in a liquidation sale this week because all the individual component makers, first and foremost, make sure their components work on Windows. The seller makes a profit if they can persuade you to buy an extended warranty and a $50 HDMI cable, and Microsoft gets their license fee every time. Apple doesn't have that advantage - they need premium-priced machines to cover the cost of maintaining their own OS (well, yes, OK, and to keep their Scrooge McDuck gold-filled swimming pool topped up...)
     
  11. pixelatedscraps macrumors regular

    pixelatedscraps

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2017
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #11
    You negate your first post about not knowing how to use a PC with this comment.

    Yet another thread for trolls. Who's got the popcorn?
     
  12. xWhiplash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    #12
    Exactly. If people say they need to develop using Visual Studio and .NET, I recommend Windows PCs. If people say they need to use CUDA for their software, I recommend Windows PCs. If people need Final Cut Pro/Logic Pro/GarageBand, or prefer macOS, I recommend Apple computers.

    I am so tired of these arguments like "X is not professional", or "Y can get better specs than X at a cheaper price", and on and on. This is just like complaining that a hammer will not screw in screws. You get the right tool for the job. Need CUDA? Get a system with a NVIDIA card. Need 128GB of RAM? Get a system that has 128GB of RAM. Primarily develop in .NET for windows development? Why get a mac in the first place? Need to use Final Cut Pro X? Why get a Windows PC instead?

    And people really need to take into account everything when comparing the pricing. Sure pure specs might be worse than a Dell or some other system. But a Dell also has worse specs than if I built my own system. So specs aside, what else do I get going with Apple? A very very good video editing software for only $300. Absolutely zero monthly charges to keep using that software. How do I get that in Windows? I need to get Premiere Pro CC on a monthly subscription basis for $20/month minimum (with one year commitment so you are committing to $240 right away and you can't keep using the software after that year unless you keep paying). There might be a paid update to FCPX in the future, but I can keep using my FCPX as it is right now without paying another dollar.

    I consider Macs similar to Microsoft Signature Edition PCs which cut out all the bloat from OEMs. These are a few hundred dollars more than getting it from OEMs directly.

    Garageband alone is worth at least $100 IMO. So I am happy to have that free* program included in my purchase.

    iWork, while still not as good as office on Windows, it is much much better than Libre Office or Open Office. Just like Garageband, getting those for free* is also nice.

    * Garageband and iWork being free is not really free, I add their value into my purchases for a mac system as to why the price is a bit higher.

    Again, this is all my opinion. Just like what I said before, your opinions or needs will be different. So you get what you want/need.
     
  13. propower macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    #13
    You pay the $$ for the 5K in particular
    - OSX with no hassles (ie hackintosh).
    - THe SW that only goes with OSX
    - The screen - just go try and buy an equal in the marketplace
    - The quality
    - The resale
     
  14. Foxglove9 macrumors 65816

    Foxglove9

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    Location:
    New York City
    #14
    There really isn't much cost saving if you compare spec by spec.
     
  15. willmtaylor macrumors G3

    willmtaylor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Location:
    A Natural State
    #15
    Several great responses above. Also don’t forget, that all RAM is not created equal and all SSDs are not created equal.
     
  16. theluggage macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    #16
    I agree up to a point, but life isn't always quite that simple.

    E.g. 1: Yes, Garageband is wonderful (iMovie isn't quite as wonderful as older versions were, but its still not bad) and better still there are nice, easy upgrade paths to Logic Pro and FCPX. That much is brilliant. However, you now have a pro application that could really use plenty of RAM and a fast CPU (from what I hear, Logic Pro is a leading culprit for people needing 32GB or more RAM). In the Windows world, your next step would either be an ATX tower with one of the faster i7s, easily upgradeable RAM, SSD and a full-length "prosumer" graphics card or a "desktop replacement" laptop that offered the necessary horsepower at the expense of being a bit chunky and battery-hungry. There's a big "prosumer mini-tower" shaped hole in the Apple range there - even when the iMac Pro and new Mac Pro appear, they will be workstation-class Xeon/ECC/Workstation-class GPU monsters with a price premium of $1000+ for people who might just need a high-end i7 and full-sized consumer/gaming GPU.

    E.g. 2: You want to run MS Office, Adobe CS, Ableton Live or Eclipse etc. (probably not all of them) - do you choose Mac or Windows? In that scenario, Garageband, iWork etc. are irrelevant to you. That's where the debate lies - and its hard to dismiss bangs-per-buck of the lack of a mini-tower, or the lack of a 32GB laptop in that scenario.

    Now, I worked with Windows for years, switched to Mac ~2006, and have just bought an iMac, so for me, Apple won - but just. I tried a MS Surface Book earlier this year and was getting along OK until it died on me (diagnosis: too much money to invest in a potential lemon) so going back to Windows (or, more likely, a mixture of machines) is not out of the question for me. I built a Hackintosh from an existing 2-3 year old PC + a new GPU and it was actually pretty good, but just flakey enough and fiddly to upgrade to put me off investing more money in newer hardware. So I got an iMac - it's good, I'm happy with it, the display is incredible - but the decision was a compromise. If Apple had done something silly with the iMac like dropping the expandable RAM or going USB-C only (which would have been quite consistent with what they did to the MBP) I'd probably be using Windows now.

    So, as I said, partially agree but the reality is not that Apple is selling screwdrivers and Microsoft is selling spanners. There is a big overlap.
     
  17. jjxt1 macrumors newbie

    jjxt1

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2017
    #17
    Can you really buy a similar spec PC with 5k 27 inch monitor with less price than a iMAC?????? Teach me pleaseeeeee.

     
  18. imanidiot Suspended

    Joined:
    May 1, 2011
    Location:
    Denver, CO
  19. Novus John, Aug 11, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017

    Novus John macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2015
    #19
    The standard configurations are very competitively priced compared to similarly specced PCs, especially the ones you get from Dell and HP. However, the costs quickly blow up if you decide to add more ram, or upgrade the graphics card, or get a faster processor.

    The choice always depends on your needs at work and home, and personal preferences. Imho, both platforms are fine, I've even used Linux for many years and that was also fine. So, yeah, the simple answer is that it depends.
     
  20. sartrekid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Location:
    Germany
    #20
    Why buy a Windows-based PC, when I can buy a Mac instead for the same $$? (see how that makes zero sense?)

    Silliness aside, I will always opt for a system that allows me to use macOS and macOS specific third-party applications that don't exist on Windows which I rely on for my workflow. It's as simple as that.

    Windows 10 is quite nice, too. It's not nearly as intuitive, however, and I am not having as much fun using it compared to macOS. It's called personal preference and is entirely subjective.
     
  21. svkaster macrumors newbie

    svkaster

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2017
    #21
    I just orderd my firs iMac 27" BTO after always have used Windows and all iOS devices. I do not agree with the statement same $$. Don't get me wrong the new iMac is great but it is criminal to charge 720€ for an upgrade of memory from 8 to 32Gb. Lucly we can now buy online for less than half price but why charge dubble? Same as Fusion drives. Cut out SSD to only have 24Gb left on a 1 TB disk/ remove 128Gb out of an 2 or 3 TB fusion drive...... i configered the 27" with an 512SSD but would like to add an extra internal SSD at the SATA disk location internaly but this cannot be done without the ifixit guids. Instead I now have an external SSD connected via tunderbold 3. So I love the design and "basic" but don't like the overpriced upgrades available for RAM and disk options.

    With Kind Regards

    Stefan
     
  22. sartrekid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2014
    Location:
    Germany
    #22
    Of course Apple charges ridiculous prices for RAM and SSD. I'd always get the minimal RAM possible and upgrade it at home, that's what most people on here do. And if you do that, then getting an equivalent custom-built PC WITH a 5K monitor of the same size and quality as the iMac's will not cost you much more, if not roughly the same.

    In fact, I'll go as far as to say that IMO the iMac is Apple's least overpriced product, if you go with third-party RAM and e.g. a 2TB Fusion drive and/or 512GB SSD. That's exclusively because of its great display, no more, no less.
     
  23. theluggage macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    #23
    ...and that's the rub - its only the 5k 27" display - and "true 4k" on the 21.5 - that make those machines good value. If you're prepared to slum it with, say, a mere "4k UHD" display then the PC world offers far more choice.

    For example - on my previous Hackintosh I was using a 28" "4k UHD" as the main display, big enough to let you move a notch up on the "looks like" resolution (or drop the "magnification" a tad on Windows) and almost up to working in "native" 4k mode. A 30", in native 4k mode, would be really good for tasks like large spreadsheets or coding with lots of files open. The 5k on my iMac is lovely - but if I'd had the option of a modern quad-i7 Mac Mini that - plus a 28 or 30" 4k - likely the way I'd have gone, and yes, I had a real debate about whether to go Windows and pick exactly the hardware I wanted.
     
  24. willmtaylor macrumors G3

    willmtaylor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2009
    Location:
    A Natural State
    #25

Share This Page