Why shouldn't I buy a 24" iMac?

[jdkick]

Any reasons I have not to buy a Mac are purely personal. I have thought of snagging a Mac Mini for secondary use but for my needs, having a Windows-based PC for primary use is preferable (Debian on my DVR and openSUSE on my notebook for the non-Windows stuff).

Based on your needs and that $$$ is not an object, go buy a Mac.

 

[Jeff7181]

Here's another question... how would that 8800 GS that's available in the iMac compare to a 7900GTX?

 

[NiKeFiDO]

a note about the macintoshes "right click" (unless they improved it, which of course is possible).

I have a PC and used to play WoW a lot - When I was home, I had WoW on our 24" iMac - (had a lot more screen real estate...that was cool) but the mouse drove me CRAZY.

The thing with the mouse is that when you right click, you can't have your finger on the left side bc the mouse mis-interprets this is a left click (for some ungodly stupid reason). This drove me CRAZY since I had my mouse on the standard settings of right clicking letting you direct your character while walking / running / swimming etc.

This isn't a huge deal, since any mac user should buy a 3rd party mouse anyway (IMO of course ). in fact, ill extend that to all computer users. who like's those Dell mouses anyway?

 

[Tbirdkid]

Here is my 2 cents regarding buying a mac.

Why pay the astronomical price to buy a mac, when 90% of the apps you can get on pc? Why pay more than you have to for a rig in this day and age? It doesnt make sense. If its the gui you are interested in, then load up bsd, and put the dock on it.

If you are buying a mac just to look cool, then i cant help you there. I would rather put my money into other things than looking cool with a mac. Things like rubbers, etc.

Sorry, but i have no use for a mac. Not a pc fanboy, but i can do just about everything on a pc that a mac can do.

 

[Winterpool]

I don't think this is the place for a religious war (Ars Technica's 'Battlefront' and other forums are more suitable), especially since I think the OP had legitimate concerns. But I felt compelled to respond, rationally, to Tbirdkid's post...

Not everything in life is about pure functionality. Do I dare ask with Wilde or Gautier whether Art is 'useful'? In almost all societies past the point of pure subsistence, 'luxury' becomes an increasingly powerful force. You probably find it silly that women covet $30,000 Birkin bags, or that gentlemen may actually spend 3000 pounds on a bespoke suit from Gieves & Hawkes. And this isn't merely about status (though even that shouldn't be discounted out of hand, we are social animals): the overpaid investment banker may spend $500 on a bottle of Musigny 'to look cool', to show others he can, but an oenophile may want it for very different reasons (and would be quite chuffed to get the bottle for fifty and appreciate it in the privacy of his cellar).

Aesthetics matter, else why spend all that cash on a GeForce 9800 GX2 and 2560x1600 display? Right, you just like to sight your enemies before they see you... But for some of us, aesthetics are a legitimate criterion, a real function or feature we look for in our desired goods. Many feel Mac OS X is one of those human inventions where form and function actually work together. Your mileage may vary, of course... (and I agree the official mouse is one place where form has roughly used function in the Apple world).

Let me put it another way, do you think there's any reason why the rich and mighty pay $5000 an hour rather than fifty for an evening's pleasure, why anyone would value the favours of a select demimondaine over a more common professional? If you can do just about anything with the one that you could do with the other...

 

[Roguestar]

tl;dr macs are pretty

 

[Winterpool]

Originally posted by: Roguestar
tl;dr macs are pretty

I probably could have said the whole thing with just my final paragraph.

 

[Winterpool]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Here's another question... how would that 8800 GS that's available in the iMac compare to a 7900GTX?

Getting back to technical criteria, TechPowerUp (a site I'd never heard of before today's Google search) ran some benchmarks of the (384 MB) 8800 GS this past winter. To take one example, it pretty much ran neck and neck with the 7900 GTX (512 MB) when playing FEAR. Mind you, the iMac's version has, I believe, 512 MB of GDDR3, so that might help it compete better with the 7900 GTX at higher resolutions (24-inch iMac is 1920x1200 native). At the graphics-crusher (ie Crysis), the 8800 GS actually outperformed the 7900 GTX by substantial margins (about 80 per cent, depending on res), probably owing to its superior architecture (G92).

Of course, no one should buy an iMac as a gaming platform!

Edited: iMacs generally use notebook kit. Apparently its 8800 GS would more accurately be described as an 8800M or 8700M GTS. No idea how these perform in real life, though I bet they don't outperform an actual desktop 8800 GS.

 

[ShawnD1]

1). An iMac is about 2-3x as expensive as a desktop PC with the same parts

2). iMacs cannot be turned into file servers at a later date because you can't just cram 6 hard drives in them like you can with a normal tower computer (comp I'm posting from has 6 internal, 2 external)

3). CPU, video card and PSU cannot be upgraded or replaced if broken

4). iMacs use laptop memory, which is more expensive than normal memory

5). The monitor cannot be used for other purposes

6). Mac OS has crappy software support. Windows and Linux have programs for every stupid thing you can think of, but on a Mac you're heavily restricted.

7). Apple computers cannot be overclocked

8). Software for Mac OS is generally more expensive than the PC counterpart. Sometimes it's just like $10, but sometimes there's things like Quake 3 for $80 and right next to it is the Windows version for $50.

9). Mac OS has fewer enthusiasts than Windows and Linux, so getting tech support may be difficult. Just look at how small the mac section is on Anandtech, compared to the other sections.

10). Stuff like your phone, gps, digital camera, pda, and printer might not be compatible. Check to make sure all of your hardware will actually work with your iMac.

11). Running Mac OS and Vista at the same time through parallels consumes an enormous amount of ram. You can get away with 1gb of ram on Vista, but you'll need 2gb if you want to run Vista through parallels.

 

[Tbirdkid]

I wasnt going to get into that depth with you winterpool, but the fact of reality is, that even though the OP said cost aside, you still have to consider the property to dollar ratio no matter what in todays world.

Just as was said, you can buy 2 to 3 times the hardware if you buy a pc instead of a mac. The inability to fix something without taking it directly to the manufacturer (and i might add get raped on the repairs) to get it fixed.

Hey, if the OP is interested in just throwing his or her money away, have at it. I hope the fact that they do it turns the economy around. Hell, if we all bought macs, it would turn the economy around simply from the pure price of them.

Good luck...

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Tbirdkid
Hell, if we all bought macs, it would turn the economy around simply from the pure price of them.

Or going by the Walmart Theory, spending less money at company A means you have more money left over to spend at company B.

Build your own PC and buy a hooker

 

[jdogg707]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
1). An iMac is about 2-3x as expensive as a desktop PC with the same parts

2). iMacs cannot be turned into file servers at a later date because you can't just cram 6 hard drives in them like you can with a normal tower computer (comp I'm posting from has 6 internal, 2 external)

3). CPU, video card and PSU cannot be upgraded or replaced if broken

4). iMacs use laptop memory, which is more expensive than normal memory

5). The monitor cannot be used for other purposes

6). Mac OS has crappy software support. Windows and Linux have programs for every stupid thing you can think of, but on a Mac you're heavily restricted.

7). Apple computers cannot be overclocked

8). Software for Mac OS is generally more expensive than the PC counterpart. Sometimes it's just like $10, but sometimes there's things like Quake 3 for $80 and right next to it is the Windows version for $50.

9). Mac OS has fewer enthusiasts than Windows and Linux, so getting tech support may be difficult. Just look at how small the mac section is on Anandtech, compared to the other sections.

10). Stuff like your phone, gps, digital camera, pda, and printer might not be compatible. Check to make sure all of your hardware will actually work with your iMac.

11). Running Mac OS and Vista at the same time through parallels consumes an enormous amount of ram. You can get away with 1gb of ram on Vista, but you'll need 2gb if you want to run Vista through parallels.

After your responses, I'm pretty sure you should be barred from ever replying to a post that is about Apple/Macs/OS X/etc.

2,3,5, and 7 have some merit. The rest are crap. Enjoy the rest of your Memorial Day!

To the OP, I would recommend doing some research on your own and try and balance out opinions from people on forums who have certain biases. I am admittedly bias towards Apple, so some of the information in this thread is helpful in balancing out my opinion. On the other hand, you should check out places like TUAW and Mac Rumors for other opinions that may help counter balance what you find here. Finally, I would suggest if you can, going to an Apple Store and talking with some of the folks there. Try out the machines and see what you think for yourself. Ultimately it's your computer and you're going to have to be happy with it!

 

[Tbirdkid]

If your going to go to a store and try out a 24 inch mac, make sure you go to a store and try out a maxxed out pc with a 24 inch monitor. I bet you its way cheaper, and I bet it looks as good.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: jdogg707
After your responses, I'm pretty sure you should be barred from ever replying to a post that is about Apple/Macs/OS X/etc.

2,3,4, and 5 have some merit. The rest are crap. Enjoy the rest of your Memorial Day!

1). An iMac is about 2-3x as expensive as a desktop PC with the same parts

---24 inch monitor - $330
---nForce 650i Ultra Socket 775, Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (this is actually better than what the imac has), 250GB SATA HD, 2GB DDR2 PC6400, ATX Mid-Tower Case, 650 Watt Power Supply - $400
---Radeon 2600 Pro - $74

Shawn's price: $804 Canadian
Apple's price: $1900 Canadian

Or you could just give me that extra $1100. I'm always down for donations.

6). Mac OS has crappy software support.
http://blogs.oreilly.com/digit...h-someone-microso.html
"My MS Office for the Mac has crashed so often that I have deleted it from my system. Alas, my Mac did not come with an adequate word processer. As a result, I will purchase a PC dedicated solely to word processing. That is the only reliable solution."

This applies to a lot of other things. Why do you think Parallels was developed in the first place? The lack of software support is bad to the point where you end up running the competitor's operating system on a virtual machine. Oh and did I mention you need to pay $80 for that ability?

7). Apple computers cannot be overclocked
I can't find anything showing how to overclock an iMac. A guy asked if this could be done in Sep 2006 when the intel processors were new to the mac, and it's mostly confusion across the board. Intel's website has no overclock utilities for a mac. Another thread on the Mac Forum reads "Its not that the processors are easily overclocked, its that custom PC's have BIOS's where you can change the frequencies easily....No way will apple allow anybody to mess with the FSB". And once again
"The Processor Clock, and FSB are auto-configured by the Processor, and are "Clock Clocked". Outside of hacking the EFI to manually change the FSB clock, you will not be overclocking an Intel Mac."

8). Software for Mac OS is generally more expensive than the PC counterpart
You need to go to an actual store to see this. Places like Best Buy and Compusmart charge slightly more for Mac OS software.

9). Mac OS has fewer enthusiasts than Windows and Linux, so getting tech support may be difficult
Apple computers are less than 10% of all computers. As of right now Anandtech's mac forum has 4 threads with posts dated 26May08. The Windows forum has 14, Linux also has 4. As for in-person help, I know literally zero people who own a mac. If I have a mac problem, there's nobody I can ask to come over and look at what's wrong. In contrast to that, everyone I know has Windows, and 2 of those people are well-experienced with Linux.

10). Stuff like your phone, gps, digital camera, pda, and printer might not be compatible.
Here is a tiny list of incompatible hardware. Forget all the hackintosh stuff, just look at printers, sound cards, capture card, certain webcams, a few keyboards, mice, etc. Last year my gf got a new phone where the software was incompatible with her mac; the workaround was to just take the card out of the phone and put it in a card reader every time you want to change files. Not all cameras are compatible with Mac OS.

11). Running Mac OS and Vista at the same time through parallels consumes an enormous amount of ram.
OS X 10.4 and Windows Vista each consume about 500mb. Looking at a 2gb iMac, you're talking about literally half of your memory going toward operating systems alone. There should be a shit war in the Windows forum if the OS alone was taking 1gb of ram, but that's exactly what you're suggesting someone do when you tell them to run Mac OS with Vista in Parallels.

 

[Winterpool]

As already mentioned, the 24-inch iMac has an LG Phillips S-IPS display. On Newegg, the NEC LCD2490WUXi (one of the few 24-inch S-IPS monitors available) currently costs $1140. To me the 24-inch iMac ($1700 with educational discount) seems a fairly compelling deal with that kind of display. Unfortunately there's no way to get rid of the glossy, ugh, else I might consider it myself.

One of the reasons I let myself rant for a few paragraphs above is because it's rather missing the point to compare Apples to commodity x86 computers based on just the 'components'. Obviously, if you're only keen on pure functionality (a la Tbirdkid), GHz and GB per $, you should not be shopping Apple (or Cartier or Prada or...). And obviously if you are concerned about lack of expandability, configurability, reusability, you should not be shopping for an all-in-one (Apple or other brand).

I presume the OP is intelligent enough to be aware of these differences already. I think he's someone who's already inclined towards Apple for whatever reason and was looking for experienced iMac users to report any positive or negative attributes that might not be immediately apparent. I don't think the OP was looking to ignite yet another religious war between Apple and 'PC' adherents about price v value, status and aesthetics v utility, etc.

Now the folks I don't quite understand are those (like Linus Torvalds, I believe) who use Mac hardware to run exclusively commodity x86 operating systems (Windows, Linux, etc). I guess they really like the physical aesthetics of Apple kit. I don't think they're fools; they've just somewhat different values (not to mention, probably much bigger wallets). But I don't know if I'd personally buy Apple kit without OS X even if I pulled six figures.

Edited: I guess ShawnD1 rather missed my point with his first item regarding the iMac monitor and comparing it to a $330 TN display. On the other hand, it's possible that the $600 Dell 2408WFP (PVA panel) is good enough that most of us needn't spend $1000+ on S-IPS.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Winterpool
Edited: I guess ShawnD1 rather missed my point with his first item regarding the iMac monitor and comparing it to a $330 TN display. On the other hand, it's possible that the $600 Dell 2408WFP (PVA panel) is good enough that most of us needn't spend $1000+ on S-IPS.

This still leaves the question of whether or not you would buy the $1000 monitor if you had the option of getting the $330 monitor. That cheap monitor is actually a very good monitor. 2ms response is ideal for games, video, and desktop animations since lcd monitors have a weird tearing look to them when the refresh latency is too high. Interestingly enough, the "motion blur" added to newer games is in there to make that lcd tearing less noticable.

What I think is strange is how some of the more expensive monitors have higher latencies, meaning they tear a lot more. $574 for a 6ms refresh. And another one, $705 for 6ms. High contrast is nice, but low contrast isn't as noticeable as tearing when you start moving windows around.
http://images.anandtech.com/re...us-mk241h-inputlag.jpg

 

[Winterpool]

Response times are measured differently for S-IPS, I believe, v other panel technologies (all S-IPS list 16ms grey-to-grey, I believe, which is supposed to be equivalent to TN 8ms?). In any case, for pure speed, jah, buy TN. Punters choose S-IPS and PVA for other things (colour gamut, viewing angle, etc).

Unfortunately, monitor specs are one of those areas where manufacturers lie, lie, and then lie some more, to the point where they are rarely useful. I generally don't look at the listed specs, only at trustworthy reviews. Helas, assessing displays is time-consuming (and can require special kit), so one rarely sees many comparative reviews. The AnandTech article I linked above does a good job of rating the various displays on different criteria and pointing out the advantages and disadvantages of different technologies.

Obviously buying Apple or any other kit, indeed, any other consumer good, is a matter not only of perceived value but also the consumer's budget. If you earn hedge-fund bucks, spending an extra several hundred for 'quality' may not seem a big deal. If you barely earn five figures like myself, it may simply be impossible, even if you'd like to do it (I personally won't buy an LCD monitor with a TN panel).

The reason I've gone on at some length on this thread is because I find these sorts of arguments immensely frustrating. What I'm trying to point out is that often we're not arguing about the same things. If I say 'AESTHETICS' and someone else says 'PRACTICALITY', then we're obviously not going to come to an agreement. Our criteria are different, just as they're different for a gamer buying a fast TN monitor v a graphics professional who wants S-IPS.

Here's a question that used to frustrate economists: why do diamonds cost more than water?

 

[Jeff7181]

Thanks for the input, all.

Just to clarify... I'm perfectly capable of building my own computer, I have been for years but I'm bored with it all. I've overclocked all my systems since my 333 MHz K6-2. I've had my fill, now I just want something that works, isn't an eye sore, is compact, etc. etc. Yeah I know... they make small form factor PC's that fit the bill... but the iMac fits the bill too.

As hard as it may be for some to believe, the cost really is not an issue. I'm not wealthy, but a $2000 computer vs. a $1200 is not going to hurt my pocket book.

 

[PeteRoy]

The best reason is not to support a company like Apple.

 

[Winterpool]

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
The best reason is not to support a company like Apple.

What? Haven't you heard? Apple is exempt from corporation-hate.

My friend's provided a useful reminder never to let oneself get bogged down in online debates. An oldie but a goodie..

 

[jdogg707]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: jdogg707
After your responses, I'm pretty sure you should be barred from ever replying to a post that is about Apple/Macs/OS X/etc.

2,3,4, and 5 have some merit. The rest are crap. Enjoy the rest of your Memorial Day!

1). An iMac is about 2-3x as expensive as a desktop PC with the same parts

---24 inch monitor - $330
---nForce 650i Ultra Socket 775, Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (this is actually better than what the imac has), 250GB SATA HD, 2GB DDR2 PC6400, ATX Mid-Tower Case, 650 Watt Power Supply - $400
---Radeon 2600 Pro - $74

Shawn's price: $804 Canadian
Apple's price: $1900 Canadian

Or you could just give me that extra $1100. I'm always down for donations.

6). Mac OS has crappy software support.
http://blogs.oreilly.com/digit...h-someone-microso.html
"My MS Office for the Mac has crashed so often that I have deleted it from my system. Alas, my Mac did not come with an adequate word processer. As a result, I will purchase a PC dedicated solely to word processing. That is the only reliable solution."

This applies to a lot of other things. Why do you think Parallels was developed in the first place? The lack of software support is bad to the point where you end up running the competitor's operating system on a virtual machine. Oh and did I mention you need to pay $80 for that ability?

7). Apple computers cannot be overclocked
I can't find anything showing how to overclock an iMac. A guy asked if this could be done in Sep 2006 when the intel processors were new to the mac, and it's mostly confusion across the board. Intel's website has no overclock utilities for a mac. Another thread on the Mac Forum reads "Its not that the processors are easily overclocked, its that custom PC's have BIOS's where you can change the frequencies easily....No way will apple allow anybody to mess with the FSB". And once again
"The Processor Clock, and FSB are auto-configured by the Processor, and are "Clock Clocked". Outside of hacking the EFI to manually change the FSB clock, you will not be overclocking an Intel Mac."

8). Software for Mac OS is generally more expensive than the PC counterpart
You need to go to an actual store to see this. Places like Best Buy and Compusmart charge slightly more for Mac OS software.

9). Mac OS has fewer enthusiasts than Windows and Linux, so getting tech support may be difficult
Apple computers are less than 10% of all computers. As of right now Anandtech's mac forum has 4 threads with posts dated 26May08. The Windows forum has 14, Linux also has 4. As for in-person help, I know literally zero people who own a mac. If I have a mac problem, there's nobody I can ask to come over and look at what's wrong. In contrast to that, everyone I know has Windows, and 2 of those people are well-experienced with Linux.

10). Stuff like your phone, gps, digital camera, pda, and printer might not be compatible.
Here is a tiny list of incompatible hardware. Forget all the hackintosh stuff, just look at printers, sound cards, capture card, certain webcams, a few keyboards, mice, etc. Last year my gf got a new phone where the software was incompatible with her mac; the workaround was to just take the card out of the phone and put it in a card reader every time you want to change files. Not all cameras are compatible with Mac OS.

11). Running Mac OS and Vista at the same time through parallels consumes an enormous amount of ram.
OS X 10.4 and Windows Vista each consume about 500mb. Looking at a 2gb iMac, you're talking about literally half of your memory going toward operating systems alone. There should be a shit war in the Windows forum if the OS alone was taking 1gb of ram, but that's exactly what you're suggesting someone do when you tell them to run Mac OS with Vista in Parallels.

1. You are comparing big box, PC parts to what is essentially a laptop. The iMac is basically a 24" monitor with laptop parts, enclosed in a compact form factor. You are trying to compare joe average homebrew machine to a carefully engineered design that you couldn't build with off the shelf components. You do pay for form factor, both in the PC world and on the Mac side.

4. Laptop memory is not that much more expensive if at all more expensive than desktop memory. 4GB of DDR2-667 laptop RAM costs around $70 bucks and even less if you find a deal.

6. You don't even want me to start posting the number of problems people have with PC's. Hell, half of this board and 90% of all other PC boards have people talking about their crappy support for Windows software. Have you ever tried to call Microsoft with a Windows problem, both at home and at work it is an expensive process that yields poor results. At least when I call Apple they don't charge me an arm and a leg for support and I generally get the answer to my question. Not to mention I find the quality of freeware/shareware on the Mac to be light years better than what is found on the PC.

7. I misspoke here, overclocking on the Mac is just like overclocking on 99.9% of all other off the shelf machines. But that is assuming someone wants to overclock in the first place.

8. Please tell me how you arrived at this conclusion. What piece of software for the Mac costs more than it's direct counterpart on Windows.

9. I'm sorry that you lack friends with Mac experience, but I know a lot of Mac users who are also PC and Linux users. Not to mention that the Mac has one of the most loyal and supportive fan bases of anny platform in exisistence. The internet is full of great places to go, a few of which I mentioned above. Not to mention that if you have a problem with the Mac or OS X, one call to Apple will troubleshoot everything.

10. I would say 90% of devices, especially newer devices will work without a problem under OS X. You may have to download a different software package to work with the device, but just because the crap that comes on the manufacturer's disc doesn't work isn't a reason to say it won't work period.

11. As someone who handles a virtualized environment at work, any virtualized OS will take up just as much RAM as it would in a non-virtualized space. And why am I telling someone to run Vista in parallels in the first place? Apple provides dual-boot support through Boot Camp, or you could just install Windows XP in Parallels/VMware Fusion. Or you could spend a few bucks, upgrade your RAM (which you would want to do if you were going to virtualize in the first place), and be done with it.


You are missing or ignoring several points made. An iMac cannot and should not be compared to either a DIY machine or an off the shelf PC from HP or Dell. Neither can match the form factor of the iMac, and should not be considered unless the individual doesn't care about form factor at all. The iMac also has a lower power output than most desktop PC's, which is also something that should be considered. As mentioned time and time again, this is not an enthusiast machine, but rather an all-in-one box theat looks great and is functional right out of the packaging. So all your points about upgrading processors, installing tons of hard drives and overclocking are not valid to this scenario. We can continue to mud sling and compare horror stories from both camps, but ultimately this is the OP's decision. Again, I cannot stress more to try both, see what is important to you and weigh the options available.

 

[Knavish]

Originally posted by: Winterpool
Here's a question that used to frustrate economists: why do diamonds cost more than water?

Monopoly, Marketing, Scarcity.

 

[NiKeFiDO]

get both, like me (MacBook Pro and a PC Desktop)

 

[PeteRoy]

Originally posted by: Winterpool

Originally posted by: PeteRoy
The best reason is not to support a company like Apple.

What? Haven't you heard? Apple is exempt from corporation-hate.

My friend's provided a useful reminder never to let oneself get bogged down in online debates. An oldie but a goodie..

I know many white people who hate Apple.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: NiKeFiDO
get both, like me (MacBook Pro and a PC Desktop)

Too late... already have a Lenovo laptop that I love. I actually thought about getting a Mac Book but after hearing about how hot my friend's gets and the limited battery life, I decided against it.