backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 118 comment(s) - last by GNStudios.. on Sep 15 at 7:40 AM
Merom-powered iMacs available for immediate purchase online

Apple fans have been waiting anxiously for news of new products on September 12th, including the long-awaited iTunes Movie Store. However, visitors to Apple's online store got a surprise today as the iMac lineup received a quiet but significant update.

Apple has added the Core 2 Duo chip to the entire iMac family while simultaneously lowering prices. The base-level iMac now comes with a 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo, and costs only $999.

The star of the show, naturally, is the brand-new 24" iMac, affectionately dubbed by some as the "iMac HD." Its 24" screen is up to 40% brighter than the previous iMac, and features a 1920x1200 resolution, and is able to show 1080p content with no scaling. The inclusion of a FireWire 800 port on the 24" iMac allows for high-speed video copying as well. Standard equipment on the 24" iMac includes a 2.13GHz Core 2 processor, 1GB of DDR2 (unfortunately for upgraders, it comes in a 2x512MB configuration), a 250GB SATA hard drive, a double-layer 8x SuperDrive, and an nVidia 7300GT graphics card. This base configuration costs $1999 and is upgradable with more RAM, up to a 2.33GHz CPU and an nVidia 7600GT with 256MB of GDDR3.

All new Core 2 Duo iMacs are available for purchase immediately, with shipping dates of "within 24 hours" for the base model and up to "2-4 business days" for the new 24" model.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
24"
By SLCentral on 9/6/2006 10:09:40 AM , Rating: 3
24" sounds pretty damn sexy, but it's unfortunate that once the computer gets too old for you, you have to give up a 24" screen as well.




RE: 24"
By headbox on 9/6/06, Rating: 0
RE: 24"
By michal1980 on 9/6/06, Rating: 0
RE: 24"
By bob661 on 9/6/2006 11:21:44 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you get a 24" iMac and want to sell it a year or two later, you will get close to retail price for it
That's because most Mac users are idiots. Pay too much when new and pay too much when old.


RE: 24"
By retrospooty on 9/6/2006 11:54:00 AM , Rating: 5
"That's because most Mac users are idiots. Pay too much when new and pay too much when old."

LOL ... A bit harsh, but alot of truth to it. I wouldnt call them all idiots, but a great deal of them are lets say "hardware/purchasing impaired"

Just swallowing what Steve Jobs tells you, and ignoring the rest of the info the world has to offer is probably not the best way to go. :D


RE: 24"
By akugami on 9/6/2006 3:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
Most Mac users are not idiots. I'll go out on a limb here and say there are more stupid PC users percentage wise than Mac users. Mac users are traditionally graphic artists and desktop publishers.

Macs originally were much easier to use due to it's superior GUI until after Win95. Now, I know Win95 is a decade and change old but that originally justified some of it's higher price. Even after Win95, the traditional publishing industry all used Macs which meant if you were a graphic artist or some publisher, your work better be done on some of the then, Mac only, software if you wanted it to come out right or done without a lot of hassle.

Also keep in mind the total cost of ownership was actually roughly on par between a Mac and PC most of the time. The traditional PC's in the early days required someone to be more knowledgeable about computers and there were a lot of hardware problems due to software and driver conflicts as well as hardware conflicts. If your PC was out of warranty or it's a hardware add-on that was causing the problem, you had to pay to get it fixed by someone. Macs, due to their tighter integration was for the most part not as troublesome.

The landscape is very different today and the prices for Macs have come way down, though they were still higher than PC's. However, with the coming of the Mactels, the prices between the two are not that great.

I know it's fashionable to bash the Mac's for being too expensive but calling Mac users idiots is just too far from the truth.


RE: 24"
By headbox on 9/6/06, Rating: -1
RE: 24"
By Roy2001 on 9/7/2006 7:15:02 PM , Rating: 2
If I got the money, I will get a iMac, just put it on desktop as a decoration :) I will still use my PC.


RE: 24"
By DallasTexas on 9/6/2006 11:44:10 AM , Rating: 1
"..You are speaking like a PC user that is used to having parts become practically worthless in a year..."

I agree most here are the typical nerdy 'PC user' and have difficulty relating to the reasons and objectives of the Apple user/buyer. I doubt Apple buyers factor in resale value as a primary criteria but rather a superior OS and simply better product to use for most if not all of their needs.

The 'PC users' in here are mostly hobbyists, gamers and overclockers. Basically, the young version of the nerdy dude in the Apple commercial but don't know it.

While a Windows user myself for many reasons, I am jealous of the Apple crowd as they really do have a better ergonomically built computer, better OS and better overall experience.


RE: 24"
By Pirks on 9/6/2006 1:18:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
While a Windows user myself for many reasons, I am jealous of the Apple crowd as they really do have a better ergonomically built computer, better OS and better overall experience.
That is true but only until November. When Vista's out in November (yeah, not retail, I know, but still you can grab it and pay in January, you know what I mean ;) you can then pick a nice mATX case or a Shuttle case, put some nice silicon inside, grab a nice LCD screen (NEC or Shuttle or Acer Ferrari would be my primary choices) and get a kind of self assembled Mac with all the goodies - small, portable so that you can carry it around your home like iMac, buy a remote and a monitor with web cam inside and your're all set - your mini PC can do everything iMac does, plus a LOT more, price is lower (for same hardware specs, and probably not for expensive Acer Ferrari), works faster (if you slap some fast CPU or GPU in there, not Apple 7300GT junk), fully upgradeable, heck you can even slap an OS X there if you wanna check it out - just buy LEGAL copy of OS X and then proceed with some patches from wiki.osx86project.org - and you conscience is clean too :P I mean any hobbist/hardware literate guy with a taste can easily beat any Mac since Vista is out in November. Yeah, I know it's not for dummies/Apple users but hey, electric cars also beat crap out of Toyota/GM/BMW/etc junk and they TOO can't be just bought, it's life, man - buy consumer crap from Apple or Dell or GM or [any brand here] or assemble a beauty - it's just sad, but it's what it is


RE: 24"
By ergle on 9/6/2006 3:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
I think claiming Vista to be on a par with OS X is rather humorous. In typical Microsoft style, it is in many ways a poor copy. Spme would argue it's not even an improvement over XP, but that could just be people's natural resistance to change talking.

Apart from that you're entire set of suggestions are fine for the geeks out there, but that's not the iMac's target market. Apple targets average consumers, the majority of whom are neither capable or interested in building their own systems or hacking around OSes to get them to work.

btw, buying OS X and installing it on a PC isn't legal, since Apple licenses it for Apple hardware only, though I would consider it ethically sound. The problem there is it's hard to keep it updated due to all the work-arounds required.


RE: 24"
By ergle on 9/6/2006 3:16:40 PM , Rating: 2
gah, your, not you're.


RE: 24"
By retrospooty on 9/6/2006 5:44:27 PM , Rating: 4
and some (like me) would argue that OSX is not at all superior to Win XP. I have used both, I see good and bad points in both and see why each is popular it users. In the end it is up to your own personal preference.

Lets just stop the OSX is superior claim right now. It isnt, it doesnt do anything significantly better then Win XP, and Win XP has to do it with 10's of thousands of different parts from different vendors and all using different drivers. Lest see Apple swallow that pill.


RE: 24"
By Pirks on 9/7/2006 2:57:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
it doesnt do anything significantly better then Win XP


"Significantly" is a key word here. The devil is in details. Such as:

1) OS X renders windows in textures and composes them using 3D hardware - there's no redrawing artefacts/delays, so 2D graphics is smoother than in XP

2) OS X has much better security ideology at home (not at enterprise) since unlike XP it does not encourage users to run as admins

3) OS X has powerful and very flexible BSD ipfw firewall while XP built-in firewall is a joke power and configurability-wise

4) OS X introduced many eye-candy and convenience features into the OS much earlier than XP or Vista - desktop search and translucency/eye candy come to mind immediately.

5) Tons of little neat features come to mind as well. Can you drag and drop objects between local and remote desktop in Windows? Nope. OS X? Yep. Does the date format in tables automatically change from February 7, 2006 to Feb 7, 2006 to Feb/7/06 to 2/7/06 when you sqeeze the table column in XP? Nope. OS X? Yep.

It's all the details, man, Da Polish as they say - Apple can afford it since they custom build their systems, don't spend years of man time to provide compatibility with zillions of chinese cards (a lot of that is done by chinese themselves but MS is pretty involved in that as well), don't spend years of man time to patch XP since they build their OS on top of already hardened BSD, and so on. Then as a result we get a universal ubermonster Widnows which is a jack of all trades, and this is precisely why I love it - it can do absolutely everything I want it to without the need to buy a dozen of separate boxes Apple-style. But jacks of all trades don't do things smooth - they do everything but so-so, while Apple is only focused on one market - home Joe Blow who knows nothing about computers, plus a bunch of creatuive types who also know next to noting about PC hardware, and because of this focus and attention to detail they get this polish... albeit at the expense of being universal (no games, no cheap powerful custom rigs, no freedom in that sense). So you always will be right that XP is not SIGNIFICANTLY worse than OS X, because it is not, obviously, but Mac whackos will continue to pick away at you babbling about that OS X polish - I mean, this discussion won't end ever ever.


RE: 24"
By retrospooty on 9/7/2006 9:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
Polish? I dont see it. That is a matter of opinion. I think both OS have good and bad points, and each person should use what they like, but to say OSX is superior is just not true if you look at it without a bias.

1. smoother? I dont see it (I have used both extensively)
2. I have never had a virus, or been hacked, nor do I know anyone that has.
3. see #2.
4. Eye candy? OSX's look and feel are one of the downsides in my opinion. That is totally subjective.
5. Works both ways my friend.

I could add a whole lot of good points abotu XP as well, but dont have the time, or inclination right now. BTW The fact that you can buy parts from thousands of competing vendors is a MAJOR good point, not a bad one. Its called "open architecture" and it promotes competition... It is also the #1 reason why MAC has 3% of the global marketshare while MS has 90%.


RE: 24"
By Pirks on 9/7/2006 10:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Works both ways my friend. I could add a whole lot of good points abotu XP as well, but dont have the time, or inclination right now


If you have time - please do so later. I'd be interested in counterexamples similar to my "variable date specification in table column" and "drag'n'drop between remote and local desktop" stuff, plus maybe "when Mac is connected to Internet Safari picks up all the pages that were open before connection was made and silently reloads them - no need to go and reload every page once you're connected, like you do it in IE" stuff - I'd say three nice usability/comfort counterexamples from XP (not present in OS X of course) would be great. Let's see what you got ;)


RE: 24"
By lopri on 9/11/2006 11:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
Umm.. How often do you use Windows? :~)
"when Mac is connected to Internet Safari picks up all the pages that were open before connection was made and silently reloads them.."
Apparently you know much more about OSX than you do about Windows. Firefox, Opera, and even IE7 can do that. I like OSX's simplicity (for people who like such) but the Safari is honestly a joke, a slow one in that, especially with one button mouse. (can you flip through the tabs with just mouse buttons without scrolling around?)

At least you're honest here. Your first try as a pretending-to-be-neutral Macster was somewhat pathetic.


RE: 24"
By retrospooty on 9/13/2006 1:00:54 AM , Rating: 3
OK... Top ten list

10. I can save a file and send it to people I work with in Mexico, Singapore, and China, or anywhere else worldwide and they can all read it, except for this clown in Finland that uises a MAC.

9. I can play games better than Xbox, playstation and Nintendo combined.

8. I can build my own system using my own components that I hand picked.

7. I can buy any case I like.

6. My 8 button mouse

5. Literally thousands of laptops to choose from.

4. OVERCLOCKING

3. Cheaper better hardware

2. In my opinion a better OS and better UI.

and the # 1 reason I like PC's.

None of my money goes to Steve Jobs. :D

Happy now? :P ;)



RE: 24"
By Hare on 9/13/2006 8:21:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
10. I can save a file and send it to people I work with in Mexico, Singapore, and China, or anywhere else worldwide and they can all read it, except for this clown in Finland that uises a MAC.
You need to develop your computer skills. Every MS office document is cross platform compatible. Same thing with just about anything. (.ps .pdf .rtf .xml yada yada). I'm curious to know what format is giving you problems? A propriety CAD program used by 5000 people around the world?
quote:
9. I can play games better than Xbox, playstation and Nintendo combined.
And since you can boot Windows on macs how are things different? Basic configurations have poor GPUs so I'm quessing this is what you are referring to. Valid point. Mac's aren't really gaming rigs.
quote:
8. I can build my own system using my own components that I hand picked.
This is a valid point.
quote:
7. I can buy any case I like.
Most cases are rubbish. Let's take the Mac Pro as an example. There are no similar cases around period! An Antec P180 or any Lian Li doesn't come even close. Not a very good point. Most people would take a Mac Pro etc case any day over their PC case.
quote:
6. My 8 button mouse
Eh. Just plug the same friggin mouse to a Mac and quess what. It just works.
quote:
5. Literally thousands of laptops to choose from.
Valid point.
quote:
4. OVERCLOCKING
What's stopping you doing the same thing with a mac? You can overclock your cpu and gpu. Macs just don't have bioses, so you do it with software from the OS.
quote:
3. Cheaper better hardware
The hardware is the same. Try to build a similar machine with support with OS included. Newsflash, Anandtech tried it. Mac Pro was cheaper than Dell or just the parts. Tje macbook, macbook pro, imac and the mac mini are very much competively priced. They really aren't expensive when you compare the specs, style and elegance (the whole experience).
quote:
2. In my opinion a better OS and better UI.
Most of the people who have experience from both actually prefer the MacOS, but that's just my experience. We all have different needs and for some Windows is better.
quote:
1 reason I like PC's.
That's fine...


RE: 24"
By retrospooty on 9/13/2006 10:16:11 AM , Rating: 3
Gee, thats for giving me a few valid's there.

Most cases are rubbish.

True, but the 5% that arent are 100x more selection than Apple offers. I can buy a case that I like, and suits my needs in size and functionality.

Eh. Just plug the same friggin mouse to a Mac and quess what. It just works.
If you can assign all 8 buttuns unique functions I will give you that, but it depends on the company making MAC drivers, most dont care to program for 3% of the population.

What's stopping you doing the same thing with a mac? You can overclock your cpu and gpu. Macs just don't have bioses, so you do it with software from the OS.

OK, can you show me a MAC that I can adjust the CPU voltage, RAM voltage, chipset voltage, PCI express voltage etc and individually OC each one? Also will need to have special power req's, to handle this, see DFI motherboards for instance. How about the ability to tweak ram settings for more performance, ist not just CAS, there are dozens of settings that you cant touch on a MAC (to be fair, most PC OEM's either, but if you want to on a PC you have the option to buy one that does)

The hardware is the same.

NO my hardware impaired MAC friend it is NOT. It is absolutly NOT the same. The CPU is the same if you bought an intel core due or C2D, but there is SOOOOO much more to it than that. You show me a MAC that has anything like this (my system specs below) The motherboard alone blowns any OEM (including Dell, Apple, gateway, even high end like Alienware (now bought by Dell) out of the water, no contest.

DFI LANPARTY UT nF4 SLI-D - BIOS 4/06/06 Bios
AMD A64 4600 at 2860 mhz 1.55v watercooled
Koolance PC2-601BW Watercool case
2x512meg Corsair pc3500 2-2-2-7@260 mhz 3.3v
EVGA 7900GT/OC @ 550/1700 watercooled
SB Audigy 2zs
150G WD Raptor HDD
Enermax EG565P-VE PSU (535 watt)
Win XP

Most of the people who have experience from both actually prefer the MacOS, but that's just my experience. We all have different needs and for some Windows is better.

90% of the world uses windows , 3% uses MAC. 'nuff said. Its not like Apple didnt used to have marketshare. It wasnt always 3%, it dwindled away as people bought windows based PC's.



RE: 24"
By Hare on 9/13/2006 10:43:42 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
NO my hardware impaired MAC friend it is NOT.
Good one. Made me smile. I have a seriously overclocked AMD gaming rig and I'm currently building my own C2D setup. Of course it's not the same, but for most people it's more than enough. People like you and me are a niché. Most mac users just take their E6400 and leave it alone. It's plenty fast already (faster than 5000+ amd on most tests). The overclocking options are a lot more limited compared to enthusiast boards like DFIs mobos but most people don't care.
quote:
90% of the world uses windows , 3% uses MAC. 'nuff said. Its not like Apple didnt used to have marketshare. It wasnt always 3%, it dwindled away as people bought windows based PC's.
90% of the lifeforms on planet earth eat shit (insects). Nuff said?

Some people prefer PCs others prefer Macs. There's no way one can say the other is better than the other. Let's all just buy and use a computer that suits our individual needs.


RE: 24"
By retrospooty on 9/13/2006 1:04:46 PM , Rating: 3
"Some people prefer PCs others prefer Macs. There's no way one can say the other is better than the other. Let's all just buy and use a computer that suits our individual needs."

Totally agreed. I myself would actually like to buy OSX if I could install it on my customer built PC as a dual boot. IF Apple would release it, I would seriosly pay plenty for it, just not on thier hardware.


RE: 24"
By Pirks on 9/13/2006 2:29:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I myself would actually like to buy OSX if I could install it on my customer built PC as a dual boot.
You know there are patches at wiki.osx86project.org so you can do that, just buy legal OS X DVD and off you go. Apple will get their well-deserved money and you get the stuff. Everyone's happy... well, except maybe Apple decides that you can't just pay for OS X, you MUST pay for their shitty hardware AS WELL - well, so if Hitler said "it's the law that Jews must live and die in concentration camps" you said what? Would you say standard Apple-defending phrase "law is law and if it says Jew should die in a camp or OS X must be run on Apple crapple PC - then so be it"? Or are you like a brave American who just says "fuck Nazi law!" 'cause he sees it's insane and kills fuhrer guns blazing style? You see I'm simplifying things a lot, don't blame me for overreaching analogy, but you can't disagree that there's a lot of food for thought, right?

Now, about your 10 top XP features - Hare debunked quite a bit, for the rest that are valid - they still missed my point. I was speaking of COMFORT - this AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDES any words like "overclocking" 'cause overclocking and comfort are two opposite things. You know that ideology "get PC outta the box plug it and do your home stuff" and ideology "spend time shopping for da best coolest looking case with LEDs on newegg and overclock it to death with a ton of aftetrmarket waterblocks" are VERY different things, dontcha? If I ask you about comfort for the common guy (you know that thing then common guy somehow decides to drag'n'drop some documents from his office remote desktop to his local home desktop and gets 'far queue' from Windows while OS X silently does exactly what he wants) and you are telling me about a comfort for the overclocker, which is VERY different thing. So, retro, try again, but maybe you just have to liove in a shoes of a common guy for a while, to understand what I'm talking about? If you cannot think as a common Joe would think, if you can ONLY think as a newegg self-assembling overclocker - then you won't be able to answer my questions. Got it?

btw retro - do you mind if I ask you to help me finding a slim thin case exactly like iMac's case for my PC? you said you have tons of nice cases for PCs, so where can I buy slim and thin case if I want my PC to be as compact and thin as the iMac?


RE: 24"
By retrospooty on 9/13/2006 5:31:02 PM , Rating: 3
OK, you win, you wore me out. I have no more energy for this, and I would never presume to pick a case for you, you have a MAC bias, and that is fine. If you are happy I am happy.

As for the common Joe, 90% of him uses a PC and only 3% use a Mac. So you tell me about what the common Joe wants. I give.


RE: 24"
By Pirks on 9/13/06, Rating: 0
RE: 24"
By JeffDM on 9/7/2006 3:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
OS X also doesn't have to deal with boneheaded software architecture such as the Windows Registry. Why anyone thought the registry was a good idea is beyond me, it may have been a good idea in the beginning, but that's quite a bear to keep going.


RE: 24"
By retrospooty on 9/8/2006 1:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
"OS X also doesn't have to deal with boneheaded software architecture such as the Windows Registry. Why anyone thought the registry was a good idea is beyond me, it may have been a good idea in the beginning, but that's quite a bear to keep going."

True. This is one REALLY big downside for Windows. The registry sucks, its far too corruptable, and .... cloggworthy for lack of a better term.


RE: 24"
By Visual on 9/14/2006 4:38:47 AM , Rating: 2
I assume you preffered hundreds of ini files in your windows folder, or even just lines in the win.ini file?

You can yap all you want but the registry is quite frankly a great idea.


RE: 24"
By bob661 on 9/6/2006 8:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think claiming Vista to be on a par with OS X is rather humorous.
I think claiming that Vista is not on par with OS X when it hasn't been released for public consumption is ignorant. Square peg, round hole son.


RE: 24"
By afkrotch on 9/9/2006 10:30:59 PM , Rating: 3
Ergonomically built computer? Such as? The keyboard is no different than ones you can get for PC and the mouse...well, the mouse is gay. It would serve better as a door stop than an actually mouse. Maybe when Apple learns to actually create the two buttons instead of the stupid single button roll around jump up and down, to try and get it to click the other way.

Better OS? Depends on who you talk with. Windows doesn't crash on me, I don't get malware, and it does everything I want. Last I checked, OSX sucked balls for gaming.

Overall experience? You mean the rings of fire you have to jump through to get the stupid box fixed, if you get an issue with it. My friend had a G4 Mac and we ended up having to drive 30 mph to get to a Mac store to get a replacement motherboard. I can walk less than 1/2 mile to get PC parts.

Now I'm located in Tokyo. The Apple Store is a 1 1/2 hour train ride, plus another 20 minute walk. That's a hell of a lot of computer carrying. That or I can hop in my car and drive less than 1/2 mile to get to a PC store here. Yep, that's a better overall experience.

Don't even get me started on the hardware that's not supported under OSX.


RE: 24"
By kmmatney on 9/12/2006 1:48:14 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure about the ergonomic part. I always think of the stupid "hockey puck" mouse which was painful for most people. The good thing about it: It spurred a market for iMac compatible mice from other companies.


RE: 24"
By volvox on 9/6/2006 1:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are speaking like a PC user that is used to having parts become practically worthless in a year. Macs hold their value for a long time.


Macs are now like PCs (except for the small detail of the BIOS/EFI issue), so those arguments don't work anymore.

Now, I can compare the specs between a Mac and a PC/WorkStation AND I can surely say that Macs are just too expensive.

(And, for the record, my PC is 6 years old, and I'm pretty happy with it: the only change I made was an upgrade with a WD RaptorX SATA disk and a SATA pci card, but I kept my old HDD!!)


RE: 24"
By headbox on 9/6/2006 3:15:53 PM , Rating: 1
WRONG. The argument still holds because the case and brand name are what hold the value, not the Core 2 Duo inside. The ability to run OS X is what holds the value. The fact that there are 500,000 wannabe film makers in Los Angeles who think they need Final Cut Pro to become Spielburg, but can't afford a new Mac, is what holds the value.

Just because both use intel chips doesn't change a thing.


RE: 24"
By saratoga on 9/6/2006 10:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
The name never held all the value. Much was in the hardware. Now that the hardware will be updated regularly, and incrementally, the value will follow a standard decay, much like PCs.

Of course they'll still be a premium, but people thinking that commodity hardware will be worth as much as rare custom PPC stuff are fooling themselves.


RE: 24"
By kamel5547 on 9/7/2006 2:09:20 PM , Rating: 2
Um... If you bought one of the older Mac's either based on Core Duo or the old IBM chip how much do you think your resale value went down when Apple released these new chips AND lowered the price? The hardware is a big part of the resale value, the more often Apple refreshes the hardware the quicker the value will drop for older machines. The truth is that Mac hardware in the apst has been refreshed at a slower cycle than msot PC's, this seems to be changing.

I will give you that the fact that it runs the OS gives it a certain value as Apple is not competing with anyone and thus prices on new machines stay artificailly high, however I think resale values are going to plunge if the refresh rate continues at the current pace.


RE: 24"
By saratoga on 9/6/2006 10:34:55 PM , Rating: 3
Macs are PCs now. They used to hold their value because they were made of specialty PPC parts. These days a Mac is just a PC with a license for a different operating system. Since they is a steady stream of updated PCs (and therefore updated Macs), expecting an Intel Mac to hold it's value like they did in the glacial days of PPC development is really unrealistic.



RE: 24"
By stubeck on 9/8/2006 7:31:35 AM , Rating: 1
I wish they had included a better video card in it, its clear they skimped out on it to make it for 2k with the bigger screen.


RE: 24"
By otispunkmeyer on 9/8/2006 7:44:51 AM , Rating: 2
oh my, 24 inch seems to go to be true

gig of ram, Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, 7600GT, 24in HD display, 250gb hard disk, iworks, wireless keyboard and mouse, mac OSX all for about £1500 ... i see that as barginous!

i mean im looking for a new computer and was eyeing up a dell XPS laptop and a 20-21inch TFT to go with it.

this is very very tempting, only thing is can i play XBOX 360 through it?


Expensive?
By Hare on 9/6/2006 12:51:58 PM , Rating: 4
I'm personally sick and tired of people moaning about how expensive Macs are. Wake up! I'd like to see an equivalent PC for a lot less. Anandtech just recently compared the new Mac Pro and found it to be cheap. Cheaper than Dell and plain components. The iMac is no exception.

People just don't seem to get that most people don't just buy parts from newegg and put them together themselves. It's stupid to compare something that you put together yourself, that has no support and has a pirated windows to save cost. Most people just want a functional computer without worries. The iMac is perfect for that.

What about price comparisons? How much is Mac OS X worth (no viruses, no spyware, just works)? How much is a 1920x1200 display worth? Wlan, webcam, bluetooth2, remote, etc.




RE: Expensive?
By CU on 9/6/2006 1:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
OSX doesn't just work always. Atleast not any better than XP. This is from experience at where I work with OSX and XP/Windows 2000 workstations, and OSX Server and Windows 2000 Server servers. Our OSX servers drop mounts, refuse to remount drives until restarted, just restart on their own, apps refuse to run correctly until a restart, etc. The few Windows 2000 server we run don't every need to be touched. I will say they don't run as much stuff as the OSX servers but still. Servers shouldn't have to be restarted unless it is to install updates. I have noticed that more people here are starting to notice OSX get more unstable with each release. And these people have used Macs since OS 9 and have always liked Macs.


RE: Expensive?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/6/2006 1:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
Not surprising, OSX was designed with a desktop in mind, I think server class was an afterthought they hit on since its basically a *nix variant.


RE: Expensive?
By Hare on 9/6/2006 1:45:55 PM , Rating: 4
Funny. Our X server's uptime was over a year but had to restart it due to some software updates. Granted it just handles databases and apache plus few other smaller apps (group calendar etc) but has always worked fine. No problems with mounts etc (mac and pc network).

My point was that most people just want to use the computer to get things done. They don't want to worry about virii, firewalls, spyware,constant security updates etc. That's what makes the Mac OS X better. It also has a lot easier learning curve. Of course there are also peole like me who just like tweaking and overclocking machines and getting the most performance per $. These people are not the target audience for the iMac.


RE: Expensive?
By michal1980 on 9/6/2006 3:12:22 PM , Rating: 1
If apple was at all popular then it would have its share of virii, and spyware.

thats just the way it is.

if you only have like 5% of the market then the amount of people after you is small.

Sure your new o.s. is more secure.
But lets not compare security of a 5+ year o.s. with one thats a year old.

Lets also not going on and on about how unstable, hard to use Windows is.

its not its learning curve for basic functions is probably as high as that of a Macs.

And even some of my hack job quick builds, never/hardly ever crash.

I see those mac commericals, and I want to beat up that apple guy.

If you want to 'think different' or whatever the slogan is. If you want to think different, why use years old sterotypes? hmm?


RE: Expensive?
By Hare on 9/6/2006 3:23:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
f apple was at all popular then it would have its share of virii, and spyware.
I have always found this argument to be extremely stupid. Who cares! The point is that the mac doesn't have virii or spyware. If my bike had two more wheels it would be a car, relevant? Nope...


RE: Expensive?
By Kraenar on 9/6/2006 9:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
That's a bad analogy. And who cares? Obviously a lot do. It's a numbers thing. Let's write it out to see it.

Lets just say we have 10 MAC users, and 90 Windows users. I don't know what the actual ratio is, nobody does, but you have to admit there are alot more Windows users than MAC. The Percentage that a Windows system is going to have virii or spyware is 90% greater.

How do I say this? Let's think about it.
And all of this purely hypothetical.
If Apple has a more secure platform, that's part of it. As was said somewhere else in this discussion, MAC's are easy to use. Let's use that and say because of that, old people, and non-tech savvy people like to use MAC's. There's not much of a challenge, or fun, in picking on people like that.

You have the zealots that don't like Microsoft, and will do whatever they can to hurt them or their reputation. If nothing else, just to pick on the big kid on the block. Or to cause the most havoc in one shot, and as easily as possible.
If you have 90% of the populace on Windows, Windows probably has at least 90% of the hackers, which in turn make all the viruses for windows. And these don't affect MAC OS's of course. (Most anyway)
If your a business, (Lets say a spyware firm) your going to target Windows OS's, because your going to reach more (90% more) people. They might not even worry about doing anything to, or for, MAC systems.
And of course you have the media, who blow everything up, in order to get headlines. All you ever hear is, "another Virus for Windows (not MAC) has been discovered." Why? Because 90% of the populace uses Windows, so they figure it's big news.

More people = more hackers,spyware firms = more virii,spyware = more problems

There are probably hundreds of other things and idea's, but that would be too much. It's a math equation. It's in the numbers.


RE: Expensive?
By akugami on 9/6/2006 3:33:04 PM , Rating: 3
You realize this argument has been stated before? Also, for hackers, while the Mac market is not as large, it's still a sizeable market that if it was easy to exploit, would be worth their while considering that most Mac users do not run any virii or spyware protection.

I mean, there are litterally millions of Mac users out there. Let's take a number out of our rear and say there are 10 million active Macs on the net. If you only infected 5% of that number, that'd still be 500,000 users to help you spread spam or ddos attacks.

There was also a few hack a Mac contests and it what they've shown is it's not that easy to expoit a Mac. Not to mention the notoriety of being able to expolit the fabled unassailable almighty Macintosh. This was evidenced by media coverage on the guy(s) who were able to hack a Macintosh through it's wireless network. Apparently the problem was an Intel driver that affected both the Mac and the PC.

The fact is that Macs have been built with an eye towards security and while it's not foolproof by any measure, it's way more secure than the swiss cheese wall that comprises Windows' security features. If there was an easy way to gain access to Macs it would have been done already.

I use a PC but I use a hardware firewall on my router, a software firewall on my PC as well as employ two different spyware and malware protection apps and an antivirus app. I'd love to not have to run all that crap on my system because the chances of being infected is so low.


RE: Expensive?
By lopri on 9/12/2006 12:02:09 AM , Rating: 2
Then what are you waiting for? Go get a Mac!


RE: Expensive?
By ergle on 9/6/2006 3:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
Your argument re: viruses makes no sense.

The point is that is has no virus problems. Buying a Mac makes you hugely less likely to have to deal with a major infection and thus much less likely to lose data.

The fact that it is more secure means this is true even if it does become a higher profile target.

As far as not comparing an older OS with a newer OS, why not? Why does MS get a break because they've not updated their OS in years (tho' I'd consider SP2 to be considered the latest update rather than the release of XP...)

Regardless of age, XP is the current option if you're buying a new PC, so that's the base of comparison.


RE: Expensive?
By vgermax on 9/6/2006 4:23:20 PM , Rating: 3
Tell Mr. Yager he should be having problems with his OS X Server and should switch instead to Server 2003. That OS X Server is an afterthought, and that Windows was built from the ground up as a server OS... He might have a leg up on a few of you with respect to server administration.

If I left my desktop on with little or nothing running on it, I'm pretty sure it would last indefinitely with no problems. That would, however, apply to my Latitude as well as my Mac. The question is once you start using either, which is most prone to becoming problematic?

http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisemac/archives...


RE: Expensive?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/2006 11:37:28 AM , Rating: 2
Aye, I'm running a boatload of 2003 Servers, but I'm dealing in the enterprise class arena, not small single server like Yager. For what he's doing, he makes a valid point, the level of effort he is having to put forth would suck with our arrays of servers. However, our team does a good job of keeping things up and our cisco firewall group keeps ports filtered and locked. All I can say is that for the enterprise class setup, we found Server 2003 to work fantastically, but the small exception of printservers, we agreed to manage the 700 network printers we have, a Red Hat printserver was the better bet.


RE: Expensive?
By vgermax on 9/7/2006 2:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
Not that I'm a Novell apologist, but I have to say the printer sharing implementation (from an end-user standpoint) is fantastic. The iPrint client set-up is clean, and the way we have it set-up allows for graphical ID of the printer via floorplan and physical location.


RE: Expensive?
By splines on 9/7/2006 5:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
We use iPrint here as well. 99% of the time, It Just Works(tm).

Mind you, it's been killing some workstations plugged into a particular printer. I've had to manually install them via NDPS. Pain the ass.


RE: Expensive?
By otispunkmeyer on 9/8/2006 8:50:14 AM , Rating: 2
te 24 incher looks like very decent value

i mean

2.16Ghz core 2 duo
gig of ram
7600GT
250Gb HD
24 inch 1920x1200 display
wireless KB and mouse
iWorks

and all the other gubbins, i think youd struggle to buy all that for an XP based machine.

i would actually buy one the minute i could afford it, its exactly what im after except for one thing.... no way to plug in a 360. thats what i want... to be able to use the big display for computing and console gaming.

i guess i may wait, see if they make core 2 duo mini's then i can get my own screen to go with it.


RE: Expensive?
By otispunkmeyer on 9/8/2006 12:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
sorry all thats for £1500.. missed that out. good price i say


RE: Expensive?
By JeffDM on 9/7/2006 3:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
If Apple has 5% of the market, shouldn't it at least be getting 0.5% of the virus writing? I mean, 20 million Macs is still a pretty significant installed base. I thought there were many virus written for smart phones and PDAs that have a lot smaller installed bases than the OS X platform.


Sour Apples
By Misty Dingos on 9/6/2006 11:37:12 AM , Rating: 1
So these "Apple" computers use lots of laptop parts and put them in the monitor case.

-Give up the mobility of a laptop.
-Use an OS very few people do.
-Provide no upgrade path.

My question is then; Why would anyone buy one at all?

Oh and one other thing. Apple owners sound a lot like another 'A' letter computer. The Amiga.




RE: Sour Apples
By psychobriggsy on 9/6/2006 11:50:37 AM , Rating: 2
Clearly people are buying them because they're no hassle, they just work, they do what they want their computer to do, they don't get slower over time because of spyware, they are far less prone to viruses, there's a single cable, it looks pretty, ...

Why is it that everytime that there's an Apple story on DailyTech all the rabid anti-Mac zealots come out in force repeating the same old mantras about Macs. If you don't want a Mac, then fine, stick with what you're using.


RE: Sour Apples
By CU on 9/6/2006 1:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
My Power book does get slower over time, but a restart usually fixes it. My finder runs away alot, eating all of my cpu. I have seen other Macs at my work get slower over time also. And I restart does not always fix it. They just appear to run slower, no extra process or anything. Strangest think I have every seen. The only think I can think it could be that a restart doesn't fix is harddrive fragmentation which is not suppose to be an issue with OSX but it can be or some hardware starting to go bad.


RE: Sour Apples
By assbataydas on 9/6/2006 6:57:23 PM , Rating: 3
quick, someone ban this poster... You cant say anything like that about MAC's, they are perfect, and OSX is impervious to problems like that. LOL



RE: Sour Apples
By ProfJohn on 9/6/2006 1:10:26 PM , Rating: 3
"-Use an OS very few people do. "

What a total Red Herring.

With Bootcamp you can install and use XP.
When crossover comes out you'll be able to run windows programs without even installing XP.
But that is irrelevent because most of the mainstream programs you want to use on your computer are available for the Mac. Office, Photoshop etc.

"My question is then; Why would anyone buy one at all? "
With a Mac right out of the box you can take photos and video and create a nice quality DVD of the kids that you can send to grandma. Try doing that on a PC without spending a ton of money on software.

If your goal is to play F.E.A.R. or BF 2 at 120FPS then a Mac isn't for you.
However, for most non-technophile home users a Mac makes more sense.


RE: Sour Apples
By CU on 9/6/2006 1:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
Unless your mac comes with an iSight you are not going to be taking many home movies or photos right out of the box. Plus a computer is alittle hard to take around and film with. Also if you buy a camera or camcorder it will come with software that will allow you manage your photos and videos on your computer it may only run on Windows though. There are also free programs out there to do these things anyway, so what does it matter. I will say iMovie does look pretty nice, however my panasonic camcorder isn't recognized as even connected to my firewire port, so I don't really use my Mac for that.


RE: Sour Apples
By Dantopia on 9/6/2006 4:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
I guess I should point out that all iMacs come with an iSight, right out of the box.


RE: Sour Apples
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/6/2006 1:42:34 PM , Rating: 3
Not really. Office is no longer being reployed to run natively on OSX, since Microsoft figures you will load a copy of XP or Vista.

Don't start with crossover, its still in design, and may never see the light of day. Granted when/if it does, you can bet on a nice performance hit.

I keep hearing from you guys about how you can do so much with a Mac. Now I'm going to give you the same reality check Apple got 10 years ago. 95% of people will use the same type of computer at home, that they use at work. If they have PC's at work, its a safe bet they will use a PC at home. Why? Because of familiarity, they only have to learn how to do it 1 way, and it works both at home and at work. Until Mac's become the dominant computer of the business world, Mac will never gain wide adoption. Even starting kids off with Mac's failed miserably, most schools have switched over to DELL or HP.

Mac's are all fine and dandy, but for the price, no business wants to overhaul their infrastructure because MAC is not the dominant player in the industry. Which is ironic since the only way for Mac to become the dominant player is for wide corporate adoption. It's a pickle, no doubt about it.


RE: Sour Apples
By ergle on 9/6/2006 2:50:48 PM , Rating: 2
You are lying.

From the Microsoft Mac Office FAQ:

Q. Will the next version of Office run on both PowerPC-based Macs and Intel-based Macs?

A. Yes. The next version of Office for Mac will be a Universal application. Universal applications will run on PowerPC-based Macs and Intel-based Macs without the need for Rosetta. For more information about Universal applications, visit the Apple Web site.

Seems pretty damn clear-cut to me.


RE: Sour Apples
By Hare on 9/6/2006 3:15:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't start with crossover, its still in design, and may never see the light of day. Granted when/if it does, you can bet on a nice performance hit.
Funny how respectable hardware sites have tested virtualization and seen around 80% of native performance. So a dual core Merom is damn even if the apps are ran over virtualization.

And I'd really like to see the source for your MS office "facts". You're just spreading BS FUD.


RE: Sour Apples
By Hare on 9/6/2006 3:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
eh, damn fast.


RE: Sour Apples
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/2006 11:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
20% is a real deterrent, we see hardware wars decided between manufacturers over less than 20%. Now since you wanted the linky to the Office Information.

They state Office will continue on Mac's, but it is not likely to be the same as the Windows version, not that it ever was.

http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/beta/sysre...
Office 2007 is Windows ONLY until further notice. No indication it will be ported to OSX.
(Yes I know that is the beta requirements but I have yet seen or heard about Office 2007 on OSX)


RE: Sour Apples
By Hare on 9/7/2006 12:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
You do know that separate teams develop mac and pc offices? The current mac office is newer than the current PC/Win office. It's not ported. When 2007 comes out Windows will have a newer version. Soon after that another mac version pops out and with your logic I could say that there won't be another windows-office ported from the Mac version... Office for mac is way too valuable for MS to be dropped.


RE: Sour Apples
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/2006 1:36:31 PM , Rating: 2
Seperate teams yes, but the same tech applies to both projects. The latest version of Mac Office is 2004 I believe(someone wants to double check that be my guest). However having seen both Mac Office 2k4 and Win Office 2k3, I see from a user perspective that Office 2k3 does more of what I want than MacOffice 2k4, but if you know about some added nifty features in MacOffice 2k4(or newer if there is one, last I saw was 2k4) do share.


RE: Sour Apples
By vgermax on 9/7/2006 2:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
Office for Windows and Mac have different release schedules, with differing feature sets and dictated by the schedule. The main effort put forth by MS is for file compatibility between the two concurrent versions. There are numerous features present in Office 2k4 that are not present in Office 2k3. There are, however, many features related to Outlook, Access (like Outlook and Access), and VB that are not present (nor will ever be present) on the Mac version. To state in a blanket statement that one version is markedly superior to the other (at least for the current 2k3/2k4 versions) is an overly simplified analysis of the two suites.

I use a Mac exclusively at home, but use Windows exclusively at work. Office 2k4 uses floating palettes for a significant number of formatting functions which may sit better with the Macintosh users as it superficially similar to most dtp/graphics packages in that regard. That would likely be the most marked difference upon first use.

As for the dev teams at MS. All Macintosh software comes out of the Mac BU, which is distinct from the other dev groups. As has been quoted various places around the web, MS has the largest Mac dev group outside of Apple proper. Considering the resources Adobe has to support CS, that should be considered significant. There was also a photo gallery showing the Mac hardware housed there for testing which was quite impressive. I can't recall where I ran across that however. Ars maybe?


RE: Sour Apples
By kelmon on 9/8/2006 3:57:48 AM , Rating: 2
The floating tool palette is the #1 reason why I use Office:mac 2004 despite having Office 2003 available to me. It's much handier than toolbars and Task Panes for me, particularly since it adapts itself to what I am doing as I am working. I kinda miss Outlook for full compatibility but in Word/Excel/PowerPoint I find Office:mac 2004 easier and faster to get my work done.


RE: Sour Apples
By AmbroseAthan on 9/6/2006 3:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With a Mac right out of the box you can take photos and video and create a nice quality DVD of the kids that you can send to grandma. Try doing that on a PC without spending a ton of money on software.


Software tends to come with your camera. So if you bought a digital camera, you can do this.

And Macs do not always make more sense for a "non-technophile home user." My mom, brother, or dad would likely lose their minds trying to navigate their way through OSX rather then Windows because they are not very technologically oriented and would hate learning a new system.


RE: Sour Apples
By JeffDM on 9/8/2006 8:44:18 AM , Rating: 2
Software tends to come with your camera. So if you bought a digital camera, you can do this.

As the case with most software thrown in with periperals, it's generally not very good software, I've tried. You would have had a better argument if you suggested Google Picasa. Picasa is comparable to iPhoto in ease of use.


value
By headbox on 9/6/2006 11:02:08 AM , Rating: 2
Macs hold their resale value incredibly well. Once it becomes too slow for you, some Mac zealot will pay close to the original price for it on eBay.




RE: value
By SLCentral on 9/6/2006 11:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
Say what? Here's a Sony all-in-one with a 19" screen for $2099:
http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity...

Of course building your own is cheaper. That's true in pretty much every computer OEM situation.


RE: value
By retrospooty on 9/6/2006 11:55:01 AM , Rating: 2
Sony is as badly overpriced as Apple.


RE: value
By ZmaxDP on 9/6/2006 11:58:09 AM , Rating: 2
Oops, I didn't even add in the 7300 GT. Add another 80 bucks to both totals...


RE: value
By ZmaxDP on 9/6/2006 11:52:42 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm,

Don't get me wrong, Macs used to be way overpriced, but take the Mac Pro for example, it is acutally cheaper than if you tried to buy all the goddies elsewhere (including internet sellers). That doesn't even take into account the cost of software and whatnot that the macs come with. Let's break it down boys and girls:

Decent motherboard for Core2: ~140 (ASUS P5B, GigaByte GA-965P-DS3, etc...)
Processor: ~430 (Intel C2D T7400 2.16GHz 667MHz 4MB)
Decent RAM: ~100 (Corsair XMS2 1GB PC2-5400 DDR2, etc...)
DVD-DL Burner: ~30 (You name it...)
24" Monitor: ~750 (Dell's, alternatively Apple sells a 23" for 850)
Hard Drive: ~70 (WD Caviar SE16 250GB Hard Drive, etc...)
OS: ~100 (OSX Tiger, Alternatively, XP Pro is about 200)
Productivity: ~60 (I-work suite, Alternatively you could buy Office 2003 SB for 230)
Add Ins: ~250 (Keyboards, Mice, Bluetooth, Wireless, Firewire 800 card, etc...)

For the products listed, I get about 1900 bucks. Sure, 1999 is a bit higher, but then there is a warranty, and you don't put it together.

If I put together a similar windows machine, it would actually cost more, about 2200.

All these prices came from PricGrabber, I didn't actually check sellers and listed the cheapest shipped price at the moment. Some things might actually be a bit pricier to get them from a decent seller. Point being, you try to put together a similar PC for the same price, and Apple just isn't overpriced any more. Deal with it. And that didn't even count that you'd have to make your own custom case for all the components. That should add some pocket change. Not to mention that a slot loading DVD burner costs more than what I listed, and the backlit keyboard they send is nicer than what I priced. (Offset of course by the fact that you'll have to buy a mouse anyway to replace that crappy "mighty mouse" thing it comes with.)

Anyway, if you're going to make claims, please research them first. At least a little bit...

Thanks.


RE: value
By rklaver on 9/6/2006 12:06:03 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, My MacPro arrived last week. On top of being a screaming OSX box, it's a screaming Windows Box as well. Not to mention the processors are on Sockets as well so upgrades are possible.

Also to add to the arguement. I sold my 7 year old G4 for $300. Not to shabby if you ask me.

But I will add to the otherside that Apple's pricing on upgrades are bit high (hard drives, RAM). But I bet the prices from similar companies like HP and Dell are no different.


RE: value
By retrospooty on 9/6/2006 12:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
True Apple prices are fairly competitive now when compared to major OEM's on the PC side, but you can slice it up any number of ways and come out with different price levels. To say "it is actually cheaper than if you tried to buy all the goodies elsewhere" is pointless.

In fact, it is actually both cheaper and more expensive to buy all the goodies elsewhere, depending on where you shop and what you get, and what you consider to be a "comparable" system. Here are a few examples.

"Add Ins: ~250 (Keyboards, Mice, Bluetooth, Wireless, Firewire 800 card, etc...) "
this is all useless to me, I can do it for $100 easy, and have no firewire 800 (400 is fine)

"Productivity: ~60 (I-work suite, Alternatively you could buy Office 2003 SB for 230)"
iwork is NOT MS office.

"24" Monitor: ~750 (Dell's, alternatively Apple sells a 23" for 850) "
You can often get a great deal on Dell goodies. no one pays $750 for one of these.

Processor: ~430 (Intel C2D T7400 2.16GHz 667MHz 4MB)
You can get a 2.4 ghz C2D for $330 at pricegrabber.com, an extra $100 dollars for a slower CPU (merom vs Conroe) is not something you have to deal with on the PC side.





RE: value
By NainoKami on 9/7/2006 8:46:30 AM , Rating: 3
You're not really comparing apples to apples (No pun intended).
Regardless if you need it or not, the Mac Pro comes with 2 Xeons... Not a Conroe.
Price wise, if you put together a matching system, it just doesn't pay to build it yourself compared to buying from Apple. The argument of not needing 4 cores is an entirely different story.


RE: value
By NainoKami on 9/7/2006 8:53:26 AM , Rating: 2
Disregard my comment, as I was confusing the talk of iMac, with the talk of the Mac Pro.


RE: value
By ZmaxDP on 9/7/2006 4:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm...

Given, you can always subjectively class things in terms of their value to you personally. As such, saying that Firewire 400 is sufficient for your needs and that therefore you wouldn't pay for an 800 card is perfectly reasonable. However, objectively the market value for the given parts and pieces isn't as subjective as you imply. There are always sales, clearances, coupons, etc... But these occur for all computers, Mac and PC.

I'm glad you're satisfied with sub-standard fare in terms of peripherals. Regardless, I seriously doubt you can acquire all the accessories (even cheap ones) that the Mac comes with for 100 dollars. To match quality and specs 250 is a very tight estimate. In addition to what I listed, don't forget a relatively high quality webcam. Seriously, go find some cheap prices on comparable accessories and if it is under 100 bucks, you're stealing something.

Given, I-work isn't MS Office. However, for the average consumer it is more than sufficient. But, in the sake of fairness, 2004 Office Standard for Mac is 169. Still less expensive.

As for the whole "no one pays $750 for one of these" on Dell Monitors, don't be silly. Most people pay the list price for them if they don't buy a Dell PC as well. The nature of coupons/deals is that a small percentage of the consumers get them to encourage sales but most people don't so that profits are maintained.

Ok, buy a different processor, a different motherboard, a different everything, and try to make a comparison. Oh wait, can't do that now can we. Certain people were trying to make the point that Macs overpriced everything they sell. The point of my response was to prove them wrong. I did. Sure, you could get a computer that would perform similarly using completely different components. Even then the cost is similar. Including the graphics card, which I forgot to even mention, the Mac came in at 2080 and the PC at 2280. Knock off your 100 dollars savings using Conroe and the 100 dollars added to install MS Office instead of I work and viola! You're even: 2180 and 2180. Your point is taken, but completely irrelevant to the argument I was making.

To knock it home:

Components
PROCESSOR:Intel ® Core™2 Duo Processor E6400 (2.13GHz, 1066 FSB)
OPERATING SYSTEM:Genuine Windows® XP Professional with re-installation CD
MEMORY:1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 DIMMs
HARD DRIVE:DataSafe 250GB
OPTICAL DRIVE:Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability
MONITORS:24 inch UltraSharp™ 2407FPW Widescreen Digital Flat Panel
VIDEO CARD:256MB ATI Radeon X1300 Pro

This with all the standard accessories equals to a nice 2164. At this price it lacks at least a webcam and wireless capabilities, though it does have one extra 250GB hard drive (data safe, ooooohhh) that you can't use. Oh, and Dell uses the Conroe while Mac uses Merom. Oh, and Dell's comes in a mid-tower. So, you pay $164 more and what do you get for it? Point made.

Thanks...


RE: value
By bob661 on 9/6/2006 8:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For the products listed, I get about 1900 bucks. Sure, 1999 is a bit higher, but then there is a warranty, and you don't put it together.
And PC's don't have warranties? Since when? Most people here are DIYers so not having to build a machine is a BIG negative! BTW, for $2000, I'd expect a much larger hard drive (or two), 2GB of DDR2-800, and a more featured filled motherboard than the Shittybyte DS3.


RE: value
By ZmaxDP on 9/7/2006 4:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
PC's don't have warranties when you put them together. They do when you buy them from Dell for instance. Or, was that a rhetorical question?

If you are considering a Mac then you have already made the enourmous leap of faith involved in letting someone else build your rig. If not, how is this topic relevant to you? If you answer: "It's not", please don't bother posting.

For 2000 dollars you could get a much bigger HDD, 2 Gigs of RAM, and a much smaller Monitor. Go price the 20 inch iMac and you'll feel better.

For 10 bucks I'd like to buy the whole world, but I don't think anyone is going to sell it to me. The "crappybyte DS3" isn't the ASUS P5W DH Delux or the like, but then I didn't price it in my comparison nor did I suggest that Mac's motherboard was a hot piece of tail in it's own right. If you'd like, you can add the additional 100 bucks to both products in your mind and complain that you can't get a bigger HDD and 2 Gigs of RAM for 2199 instead. Since most Mac users aren't going to crack the case and tinker, I don't think the MB missing features is critical seeing as how it does everthing the computer needs it to already.


RE: value
By drxploder on 9/8/2006 9:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
the individual parts have warranties man.


RE: value
By headbox on 9/6/2006 3:17:33 PM , Rating: 3
Take a reading comprehension course. Mentioning Sony makes an expensive computer means NOTHING. I am simply saying that paying $2,000 for a Mac now isn't a problem, because you'll probably get $1,800 for it in a year or more if you decide to upgrade.

English 101. Try it.


RE: value
By Doormat on 9/6/2006 5:58:05 PM , Rating: 2