The only thing that I personally do not like about PCs are all those cords. So when I saw that picture comparing the iMac and the Dell, I had to laugh!
When I had Winders boxes, it was always, fix this, defrag that, repair-registry, cancel/allow, drivers from somewhere, etc etc. Bleh it just sucked.
I never had those problems with my PCs. I defrag like once every 6 months .. even though it is better to defrag more, but even so my computer still runs smoothly. And as for the viruses, etc. I am pretty careful what I download from the internet and I haven't had any major problems.
The only thing that I personally do not like about PCs are all those cords.
What am I missing here? Macs don't need cords? I work at radio station and we use macs for all our servers and audio editing and in all the recording studios. I promise you-- macs require just as many cords as PCs!
I just ordered a new machine, so I have a bit of recent experience to add here. I was looking for a replacement for a six-year old, high-end Dell Latitude laptop (C-800), and only considered laptops. I looked at Apple, HP, Dell and Lenovo.
It is almost impossible to find models that have the exact same specs and I made no attempt to do so. Rather, I looked at the offerings from each manufacturer that seemed closest to my own needs. All of the machines I considered used Intel Core 2 Duo processors, 4MB cache, 800 MHz front side bus. They also all used 667 MHz memory chips.
The only Apple products that fit my requirements were the MacBook Pros. In both the 15" and 17" cases, Apple was quite a bit more expensive than comparable Windows machines:
MacBook Pro 17" $2800
HP DV9500t 17" $1350
Dell Vostro 1700 $1600
The Mac had a faster processor (2.4 GHz vs 2.2) and a beefier graphics card (NVidia GeoForce 8600, 256 MB vs 8400, 128MB) than the HP or Dell). Both the Dell and the HP had dual 120 MB hard drives vs one 160 MB for the Mac. The dual drives would be great for Photoshop. The Dell had a higher resolution screen (1920x1200) than the Mac or HP (1680x1050). There were other minor differences (usually favoring the Mac) that I won't list. None of them really mattered to me.
For 15" screens, the pattern was similar:
MacBook Pro 15" $2000
Dell Vostro 1500 15" $1100
HP DV6500t 15" $1100
Lenovo ThinkPad T61 $1500
The Lenovo had a slower processor (2 GHz) than the rest (2.2GHz) but has 3 GB of RAM at the price shown vs 2 GB for the others. The HP had the lowest screen resolution (1280x800) vs 1440x900 for the Mac and 1680x1050 for the Dell and Lenovo. The Lenovo had a 160GB disk vs 120 for the others. The Mac had the most powerful graphics card, but all had 128MB of dedicated video RAM. As above, there were other minor differences usually (but not always) favoring the Mac.
As for software, I am currently running CS2. Because of Adobe's policies, moving to OSX would force me to upgrade to CS3. Adobe also claims that CS2 is incompatible with Vista, though I have seen reports that contradict that. I have little doubt that OSX is superior to Windows. Moving to a Mac would force me to change my workflow completely and it would also force me to find a new catalog solution. On the other hand, all the Windows machines listed above except the ThinkPad are only available with Vista. I would prefer to wait another year or so for the kinks in Vista to be worked out.
In the end, I ordered the Lenovo ThinkPad T61 with XP. It's a boring machine compared to the others, but it will be by far the least disruptive move. With the money I saved by not buying the 17" MacBook Pro that I truly wanted, I could buy the Canon 100-400L that I also am lusting for.
So this is just one person's experience. Your mileage will certainly vary. The best hardware bang for the buck will always be home-built systems, but not everyone has the expertise to do that. And unfortunately, Apple will not sell OSX as a stand-alone product. Without having done any real research, I would say that the iMac is probably the most cost-effective machine in Apple's lineup. But I am hooked on laptops, and for me, Apple just didn't seem worth it this time.
What am I missing here? Macs don't need cords? I work at radio station and we use macs for all our servers and audio editing and in all the recording studios. I promise you-- macs require just as many cords as PCs!
Well for the general use of Macs, they do not need as many cords as a general use PC.
Built in monitor (-1 cord)
Built in webcam (-1 cord)
Built in IR Remote receiver (-1 cord)
1 power cord for monitor and PC (-1 cord)
Mouse plugs in to keyboard (sort of -1 cord)
Keyboard plugs in to monitor (much shorter cord)
They only cheated on one thing - audio. The Dell has a speaker attached to that monitor (under the screen) with an audio cable and a power cable required. I could be wrong, but I think that iMac would be soundless as is. [Correction: ivar pointed out that I was, in fact, wrong]
Still, if you use all of the stuff listed above, iMacs certainly use way fewer cords than normal PCs or Macs.
I've only seen one or two iMacs in person and both users had either the JBL Creature 2 speakers or the Harmon Kardon really tall ones. So I just assumed....
And I have to say I think it's a really, really cool thing. Especially if you got the bluetooth mouse and keyboard. Then get a bluetooth printer. I'd only have to plug in power, the scanner, and the iPod dock. Sweet.
Built in monitor (-1 cord)
Built in webcam (-1 cord)
Built in IR Remote receiver (-1 cord)
1 power cord for monitor and PC (-1 cord)
Mouse plugs in to keyboard (sort of -1 cord)
Keyboard plugs in to monitor (much shorter cord)
They only cheated on one thing - audio. The Dell has a speaker attached to that monitor (under the screen) with an audio cable and a power cable required. I could be wrong, but I think that iMac would be soundless as is. [Correction: ivar pointed out that I was, in fact, wrong]
Still, if you use all of the stuff listed above, iMacs certainly use way fewer cords than normal PCs or Macs.
Of course, this brings up one big disadvantage to the iMac, the mentioned built-in monitor that lowers the number of cords. While they are apparently good quality screens (never worked with one myself), it lowers your choices and upgrade possibilities somewhat (although I guess you can add a second monitor?) I like the ability to choose and upgrade monitors. With Apple, that either means a Mac mini (not really good for photo work) or a Mac Pro (very expensive, although great quality, systems). I'll stuck with PCs for now, although not another Dell like I have now, with Dell you have to be very careful or you get systems that are crippled for upgrades in small ways and have too many corners cut to lower the price $0.50.
Of course, this brings up one big disadvantage to the iMac, the mentioned built-in monitor that lowers the number of cords. While they are apparently good quality screens (never worked with one myself), it lowers your choices and upgrade possibilities somewhat (although I guess you can add a second monitor?) I like the ability to choose and upgrade monitors.
Yup. In my opinion thats a glaring hole in Apples product lineup. Not sure their reasoning behind it because for sure they'd sell a lot of them...of course at the sacrifice of the iMac and Mac Pros. :shrug
I'm sure you're not the only one that has avoided Apple for this reason though. Apple counts on you getting hooked on the Mac and buying more Apple products so it would seem that filling this hole would be a smart thing to do. Of course the same argument goes for having to replace the iMac as a whole so I pretty much have no point.
That (the glaring hole BWG mentioned, not the fact that he's a troublemaker) is the reason I don't have a Mac among my many computers. I don't want/need another notebook. I don't have room/want/need an iMac. I can't afford a Mac Pro.
Hmmmmm....(runs to scour Craigslist for a used Mini which may be perfect for my needs).
Well for the general use of Macs, they do not need as many cords as a general use PC.
Huh? Can you explain this please? What is something that doesn't require a cord on a mac but does on a PC?
I know some of the mini macs we use have wireless keyboards and mice, but those are available for PC's too (in fact I'm using a wireless mouse -- gasp -- right now on a PC).
Both Macs and PCs still require cords for printers, card readers, external speakers, monitors, graphics tablets, power supplies, external HDs, etc, etc. Of course, you can go wireless for this stuff if you want to pay extra (for both a mac and PC). In fact, my home PC actually uses less cords than my work mac because I use a wireless router at home but at work it has an ethernet cord plugged into it.
EDIT: if I had an iMac at work, the number of cords would be equal to my PC due to the built-in monitor. But I don't have an iMac, so there's actually one additional cord on my work mac than my PC.
Yeah, and how's the audio quality-- specifically the bass? Strange how folks who edit audio professionally still connect external speakers or studio quality headphones to their macs. What I'm trying to say is built-in speakers are a joke if you're still going to connect external speakers.
I can pull out a PC or Mac notebook and use it with no cords-- but once it comes time to download photos and do post production work and listen to music with any sort of quality, the cords start coming out for both.
The no cords thing is definitely more marketing than reality. Mac or PC, anybody in the target market of this forum is going to have a ton of stuff hanging off the machine. I have a USB hub for the tablet, printers, scanner, calibrator, UPS, card reader, etc. I've been thinkin' about a FireWire hub too.
Even if you get an iMac, well, you have to string cords for the second drive (so you can take advantage of Time Machine, since iMacs only have room for one drive, is that gonna change?) and the third drive (so you can have a decent Photoshop scratch disk), the second monitor, etc.
My beloved Mac Pro probably has more cords coming out of it than that Dell.
I must say this had been an interesting thread.
Okay, for anyone still interested in the original premise and not too concerned about the cable debate, let me put the question another way. In my research of the iMac (since Mac Pro is definitely outside the budget, if I want to stay married) and knowing basically what I wanted and needed the closest I came to the HP is this configuration: 20” Monitor (I have a very good 19” monitor) 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor (HP is 2.8GHz AMD 62 x2 Dual Core 5600+) 4 GB DDR2 SDRAM memory (HP has 3 GB) 500 GB SATA hard drive (HP has 560) ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro graphics card (HP has NVIDIA GeForce 6150, not as good) SuperDrive 8x DVD/CD burner (HP has 16x with LightScribe, for those who care) 2 USB ports in the keyboard (HP has 6 USB and @FireWire) iMac has no card readers, as far as I know which (HP has 15-in-1 reader) One other question is about the ports. Is that it for connectivity? What ever happened to FireWire? Anyway, this configuration is priced at $2,450.00. The HP is $720.00. Question remains, what do I get for the extra $1,730.00? Beyond the cool factor and the “experience”, as Sid and others have brought up, and which I acknowledge as appealing.
:deadhorse"Oh please, when will the beatings stop?"
So, hopefully without getting all worked up, it seems that particular comparison in the photo has been revealed as a fallacy. In order to use the same selection of peripherals unsurprisingly requires the same cables regardless of platform. The pictured Mac has traded fewer cables for an inflexible hardware arrangement--gotta make a compromise somewhere--which to some may be a big negative.
I really try to avoid these "debates" as everyone puts on both their blinders and flamethrowers and has at it. It's a stupid debate. Facts are both platforms are perfectly competent at the task we are asking them to do and each of us has a personal preference for which one fits better--an no amount of cajoling, arguing, belittling, etc. will change anyone's mind. All it does is piss us off & brings the whole forum down a notch. Pick your perferred platform & move on.
While I've been silly enough to fully engage in this old war, I have realized it's pointless & makes little difference. Too bad some here cannot make the same realization--it tarnishes my respect for you guys elsewhere in the forum. :cry
I must say this had been an interesting thread.
Okay, for anyone still interested in the original premise and not too concerned about the cable debate, let me put the question another way.
In my research of the iMac (since Mac Pro is definitely outside the budget, if I want to stay married) and knowing basically what I wanted and needed the closest I came to the HP is this configuration:
20” Monitor (I have a very good 19” monitor) 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor (HP is 2.8GHz AMD 62 x2 Dual Core 5600+) 4 GB DDR2 SDRAM memory (HP has 3 GB) 500 GB SATA hard drive (HP has 560) ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro graphics card (HP has NVIDIA GeForce 6150, not as good) SuperDrive 8x DVD/CD burner (HP has 16x with LightScribe, for those who care) 2 USB ports in the keyboard (HP has 6 USB and @FireWire) iMac has no card readers, as far as I know which (HP has 15-in-1 reader)
One other question is about the ports. Is that it for connectivity? What ever happened to FireWire?
Anyway, this configuration is priced at $2,450.00. The HP is $720.00.
Question remains, what do I get for the extra $1,730.00? Beyond the cool factor and the “experience”, as Sid and others have brought up, and which I acknowledge as appealing.
Admittedly the price difference is nuts, but - there's a huge difference between those two processors. Huge. I have AMD x2s and I have Intel Core 2 Duos and the Intels, for the first time in years for me, blow away the AMDs. Still, you could upgrade the processor youself and add an extra GB of RAM for about $400. That sill puts you $1300 ahead.
I must say this had been an interesting thread.
Okay, for anyone still interested in the original premise and not too concerned about the cable debate, let me put the question another way. In my research of the iMac (since Mac Pro is definitely outside the budget, if I want to stay married) and knowing basically what I wanted and needed the closest I came to the HP is this configuration: 20” Monitor (I have a very good 19” monitor) 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor (HP is 2.8GHz AMD 62 x2 Dual Core 5600+) 4 GB DDR2 SDRAM memory (HP has 3 GB) 500 GB SATA hard drive (HP has 560) ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro graphics card (HP has NVIDIA GeForce 6150, not as good) SuperDrive 8x DVD/CD burner (HP has 16x with LightScribe, for those who care) 2 USB ports in the keyboard (HP has 6 USB and @FireWire) iMac has no card readers, as far as I know which (HP has 15-in-1 reader) One other question is about the ports. Is that it for connectivity? What ever happened to FireWire? Anyway, this configuration is priced at $2,450.00. The HP is $720.00. Question remains, what do I get for the extra $1,730.00? Beyond the cool factor and the “experience”, as Sid and others have brought up, and which I acknowledge as appealing.
I'll never be able to justify Apple's RAM prices. You can get that configuration with RAM from Crucial for $1800. That's what I would be comparing, not the $2450 you got from Apple's site. Their RAM is overpriced, no doubt.
I really try to avoid these "debates" as everyone puts on both their blinders and flamethrowers and has at it. It's a stupid debate. Facts are both platforms are perfectly competent at the task we are asking them to do and each of us has a personal preference for which one fits better--an no amount of cajoling, arguing, belittling, etc. will change anyone's mind. All it does is piss us off & brings the whole forum down a notch. Pick your perferred platform & move on.
While I've been silly enough to fully engage in this old war, I have realized it's pointless & makes little difference. Too bad some here cannot make the same realization--it tarnishes my respect for you guys elsewhere in the forum. :cry
I mean this in all good humor, but apparently you aren’t trying hard enough, Chris. And it’s a shame that this pisses you off and colors you opinion of those involved. You shouldn’t take it personal. And I believe I am asking a legitimate question. Yes, I have my preference. But most of it is due to money and the return. But maybe I’m missing something and can learn by picking through the arguing, belittling and cajoling. Paul, for instance, points out that the processor in the HP is not as good as the Intel Core 2 Duos. I do agree with you that it is probably mostly a personal preference. I like Macs, have used them for years in the media field. But I can’t justify the cost to return – for me. Others are different and have different professional and personal needs. I’m the kind of person who if I had the money to buy a high-end Mercedes Benz would more likely buy a high-end Honda and use the extra money to travel through Europe (for several months, probably). And I can’t see myself on my deathbed, reminiscing about that trip to Europe and looking at the photos on the wall from the trip and saying “Darn, I wish I had a Mercedes Benz parked outside”. But that’s just me.
I like Macs, have used them for years in the media field. But I can’t justify the cost to return – for me. Others are different and have different professional and personal needs. I’m the kind of person who if I had the money to buy a high-end Mercedes Benz would more likely buy a high-end Honda and use the extra money to travel through Europe (for several months, probably).
Then Macs aren't for you. Most people who claim PC's are cheaper than Macs are looking at the cheapest PC versus the cheapest Mac. But that cheap Mac is a bit of a Cadillac and that cheap PC is a bit of a Chevy. You gotta compare Caddys to Caddys (as has been done in a few posts here). Comparing a cheap PC with a cheap monitor with a cheap motherboard, etc. You get the idea. Apple simply doesn't sell a low-end product. The exception would be the Mini.
But, if you're not wanting a Caddy in the first place and the Chevy is just fine, then why pay for a Caddy?
2 USB ports in the keyboard (HP has 6 USB and @FireWire) One other question is about the ports. Is that it for connectivity? What ever happened to FireWire?
The USB ports on the new keyboard are limited because they don't provide enough bus power for some peripherals. But you missed the ports built into the case itself: 1 FireWire 400, 1 FireWire 800, and 3 USB 2.0.
it seems that particular comparison in the photo has been revealed as a fallacy. In order to use the same selection of peripherals unsurprisingly requires the same cables regardless of platform. The pictured Mac has traded fewer cables for an inflexible hardware arrangement--gotta make a compromise somewhere--which to some may be a big negative.
The picture is not for us. It is for Joe Home User whose extent of peripherals are the P&S camera plugged in via USB every 3 weeks, and the iPod plugged into a USB port in the back. Although a lot of pros buy iMacs, I don't think that's what Apple wants. The glossy screen was probably a ploy to try and deflect this market to the tower.
It's a tough time to buy a Mac desktop for heavy photo use. I got my Mac Pro minimal and refurbished (i.e, cheaper than retail), and stuffed it with RAM and drives from cheaper places than Apple (and that's definitely the way to do it), but that tower is not the same value today because Apple hasn't changed the specs or price in the year since I bought it, so it's probably going to be replaced soon. That leaves the iMacs and mini...meh.
The USB ports on the new keyboard are limited because they don't provide enough bus power for some peripherals. But you missed the ports built into the case itself: 1 FireWire 400, 1 FireWire 800, and 3 USB 2.0.
Yea, I couldn't see them leaving off their own technology.
Admittedly the price difference is nuts, but - there's a huge difference between those two processors. Huge. I have AMD x2s and I have Intel Core 2 Duos and the Intels, for the first time in years for me, blow away the AMDs. Still, you could upgrade the processor youself and add an extra GB of RAM for about $400. That sill puts you $1300 ahead.
We're down to $500, and I'm not clear on the quality of the displays, which could narrow it further. Or the build quality. Or the resale value. I'm not up on this stuff much, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the difference in real dollars is under $200. Add in the difference in the user experience, and you're done, IMO.
We're down to $500, and I'm not clear on the quality of the displays, which could narrow it further. Or the build quality. Or the resale value. I'm not up on this stuff much, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the difference in real dollars is under $200. Add in the difference in the user experience, and you're done, IMO.
Pupator added $400 for the processor, and I knocked off $650 for Apple's ridiculous charge for RAM, and got it from another, reliable source. See posts above. Not a TKO, but the end result could be very close. Like I said, we need to look at the quality of the display and other components.
We're down to $500, and I'm not clear on the quality of the displays, which could narrow it further. Or the build quality. Or the resale value. I'm not up on this stuff much, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the difference in real dollars is under $200. Add in the difference in the user experience, and you're done, IMO.
quote from some article comparing olde iMacs to new iMacs. I show this to highlight the fact that the iMacs are using Intel's latest and greatest chipset. Pupator already touched on the cpu differences. Make sure you take that into account in any price/performance comparison.
The latest 24-inch iMacs have two major advantages over the older 24-inch iMacs; they have faster processors, and they use the new Santa Rosa chipset (instead of the Napa chipset used in the older 24-inch iMacs).
The faster processor helps increase both integer and floating point performance, while the faster front-side bus on the Santa Rosa chipset helps increase both memory and stream performance.
So if you’re running memory-intensive applications (like Aperture or Photoshop) you’ll certainly notice an increase in performance with the new 24-inch iMac.
Back story on the RAM: When Apple first started using that 2GB stick, they were in very short supply, and were extremely expensive everywhere. For some unknown reason, Apple has never dropped the price of that RAM. It was actually a decent deal when they first started shipping, and now that the prices have dropped, it's ridiculously overpriced. You could insist that we include that in the calculation, I suppose, but I think it's fair to allow the purchase of after market RAM? Crucial RAM is, from what I hear, what Apple uses in the first place.
Pupator added $400 for the processor, and I knocked off $650 for Apple's ridiculous charge for RAM, and got it from another, reliable source. See posts above. Not a TKO, but the end result could be very close. Like I said, we need to look at the quality of the display and other components.
While I'm happy with my current display, and technically it's fine, them Apples sure are purdy.
Comments
I never had those problems with my PCs. I defrag like once every 6 months .. even though it is better to defrag more, but even so my computer still runs smoothly. And as for the viruses, etc. I am pretty careful what I download from the internet and I haven't had any major problems.
www.tednghiem.com
What am I missing here? Macs don't need cords? I work at radio station and we use macs for all our servers and audio editing and in all the recording studios. I promise you-- macs require just as many cords as PCs!
Portland, Oregon Photographer Pete Springer
website blog instagram facebook g+
It is almost impossible to find models that have the exact same specs and I made no attempt to do so. Rather, I looked at the offerings from each manufacturer that seemed closest to my own needs. All of the machines I considered used Intel Core 2 Duo processors, 4MB cache, 800 MHz front side bus. They also all used 667 MHz memory chips.
The only Apple products that fit my requirements were the MacBook Pros. In both the 15" and 17" cases, Apple was quite a bit more expensive than comparable Windows machines:
MacBook Pro 17" $2800
HP DV9500t 17" $1350
Dell Vostro 1700 $1600
The Mac had a faster processor (2.4 GHz vs 2.2) and a beefier graphics card (NVidia GeoForce 8600, 256 MB vs 8400, 128MB) than the HP or Dell). Both the Dell and the HP had dual 120 MB hard drives vs one 160 MB for the Mac. The dual drives would be great for Photoshop. The Dell had a higher resolution screen (1920x1200) than the Mac or HP (1680x1050). There were other minor differences (usually favoring the Mac) that I won't list. None of them really mattered to me.
For 15" screens, the pattern was similar:
MacBook Pro 15" $2000
Dell Vostro 1500 15" $1100
HP DV6500t 15" $1100
Lenovo ThinkPad T61 $1500
The Lenovo had a slower processor (2 GHz) than the rest (2.2GHz) but has 3 GB of RAM at the price shown vs 2 GB for the others. The HP had the lowest screen resolution (1280x800) vs 1440x900 for the Mac and 1680x1050 for the Dell and Lenovo. The Lenovo had a 160GB disk vs 120 for the others. The Mac had the most powerful graphics card, but all had 128MB of dedicated video RAM. As above, there were other minor differences usually (but not always) favoring the Mac.
As for software, I am currently running CS2. Because of Adobe's policies, moving to OSX would force me to upgrade to CS3. Adobe also claims that CS2 is incompatible with Vista, though I have seen reports that contradict that. I have little doubt that OSX is superior to Windows. Moving to a Mac would force me to change my workflow completely and it would also force me to find a new catalog solution. On the other hand, all the Windows machines listed above except the ThinkPad are only available with Vista. I would prefer to wait another year or so for the kinks in Vista to be worked out.
In the end, I ordered the Lenovo ThinkPad T61 with XP. It's a boring machine compared to the others, but it will be by far the least disruptive move. With the money I saved by not buying the 17" MacBook Pro that I truly wanted, I could buy the Canon 100-400L that I also am lusting for.
So this is just one person's experience. Your mileage will certainly vary. The best hardware bang for the buck will always be home-built systems, but not everyone has the expertise to do that. And unfortunately, Apple will not sell OSX as a stand-alone product. Without having done any real research, I would say that the iMac is probably the most cost-effective machine in Apple's lineup. But I am hooked on laptops, and for me, Apple just didn't seem worth it this time.
Well for the general use of Macs, they do not need as many cords as a general use PC.
www.tednghiem.com
Built in monitor (-1 cord)
Built in webcam (-1 cord)
Built in IR Remote receiver (-1 cord)
1 power cord for monitor and PC (-1 cord)
Mouse plugs in to keyboard (sort of -1 cord)
Keyboard plugs in to monitor (much shorter cord)
They only cheated on one thing - audio. The Dell has a speaker attached to that monitor (under the screen) with an audio cable and a power cable required. I could be wrong, but I think that iMac would be soundless as is. [Correction: ivar pointed out that I was, in fact, wrong]
Still, if you use all of the stuff listed above, iMacs certainly use way fewer cords than normal PCs or Macs.
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
I stand corrected!
I've only seen one or two iMacs in person and both users had either the JBL Creature 2 speakers or the Harmon Kardon really tall ones. So I just assumed....
And I have to say I think it's a really, really cool thing. Especially if you got the bluetooth mouse and keyboard. Then get a bluetooth printer. I'd only have to plug in power, the scanner, and the iPod dock. Sweet.
Of course, this brings up one big disadvantage to the iMac, the mentioned built-in monitor that lowers the number of cords. While they are apparently good quality screens (never worked with one myself), it lowers your choices and upgrade possibilities somewhat (although I guess you can add a second monitor?) I like the ability to choose and upgrade monitors. With Apple, that either means a Mac mini (not really good for photo work) or a Mac Pro (very expensive, although great quality, systems). I'll stuck with PCs for now, although not another Dell like I have now, with Dell you have to be very careful or you get systems that are crippled for upgrades in small ways and have too many corners cut to lower the price $0.50.
http://jziegler.smugmug.com
I'm sure you're not the only one that has avoided Apple for this reason though. Apple counts on you getting hooked on the Mac and buying more Apple products so it would seem that filling this hole would be a smart thing to do. Of course the same argument goes for having to replace the iMac as a whole so I pretty much have no point.
A troublemaker.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Hmmmmm....(runs to scour Craigslist for a used Mini which may be perfect for my needs).
I know some of the mini macs we use have wireless keyboards and mice, but those are available for PC's too (in fact I'm using a wireless mouse -- gasp -- right now on a PC).
Both Macs and PCs still require cords for printers, card readers, external speakers, monitors, graphics tablets, power supplies, external HDs, etc, etc. Of course, you can go wireless for this stuff if you want to pay extra (for both a mac and PC). In fact, my home PC actually uses less cords than my work mac because I use a wireless router at home but at work it has an ethernet cord plugged into it.
EDIT: if I had an iMac at work, the number of cords would be equal to my PC due to the built-in monitor. But I don't have an iMac, so there's actually one additional cord on my work mac than my PC.
Portland, Oregon Photographer Pete Springer
website blog instagram facebook g+
Yeah, and how's the audio quality-- specifically the bass? Strange how folks who edit audio professionally still connect external speakers or studio quality headphones to their macs. What I'm trying to say is built-in speakers are a joke if you're still going to connect external speakers.
I can pull out a PC or Mac notebook and use it with no cords-- but once it comes time to download photos and do post production work and listen to music with any sort of quality, the cords start coming out for both.
Portland, Oregon Photographer Pete Springer
website blog instagram facebook g+
Even if you get an iMac, well, you have to string cords for the second drive (so you can take advantage of Time Machine, since iMacs only have room for one drive, is that gonna change?) and the third drive (so you can have a decent Photoshop scratch disk), the second monitor, etc.
My beloved Mac Pro probably has more cords coming out of it than that Dell.
Okay, for anyone still interested in the original premise and not too concerned about the cable debate, let me put the question another way.
In my research of the iMac (since Mac Pro is definitely outside the budget, if I want to stay married) and knowing basically what I wanted and needed the closest I came to the HP is this configuration:
20” Monitor (I have a very good 19” monitor)
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor (HP is 2.8GHz AMD 62 x2 Dual Core 5600+)
4 GB DDR2 SDRAM memory (HP has 3 GB)
500 GB SATA hard drive (HP has 560)
ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro graphics card (HP has NVIDIA GeForce 6150, not as good)
SuperDrive 8x DVD/CD burner (HP has 16x with LightScribe, for those who care)
2 USB ports in the keyboard (HP has 6 USB and @FireWire)
iMac has no card readers, as far as I know which (HP has 15-in-1 reader)
One other question is about the ports. Is that it for connectivity? What ever happened to FireWire?
Anyway, this configuration is priced at $2,450.00. The HP is $720.00.
Question remains, what do I get for the extra $1,730.00?
Beyond the cool factor and the “experience”, as Sid and others have brought up, and which I acknowledge as appealing.
Website
So, hopefully without getting all worked up, it seems that particular comparison in the photo has been revealed as a fallacy. In order to use the same selection of peripherals unsurprisingly requires the same cables regardless of platform. The pictured Mac has traded fewer cables for an inflexible hardware arrangement--gotta make a compromise somewhere--which to some may be a big negative.
I really try to avoid these "debates" as everyone puts on both their blinders and flamethrowers and has at it. It's a stupid debate. Facts are both platforms are perfectly competent at the task we are asking them to do and each of us has a personal preference for which one fits better--an no amount of cajoling, arguing, belittling, etc. will change anyone's mind. All it does is piss us off & brings the whole forum down a notch. Pick your perferred platform & move on.
While I've been silly enough to fully engage in this old war, I have realized it's pointless & makes little difference. Too bad some here cannot make the same realization--it tarnishes my respect for you guys elsewhere in the forum. :cry
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Admittedly the price difference is nuts, but - there's a huge difference between those two processors. Huge. I have AMD x2s and I have Intel Core 2 Duos and the Intels, for the first time in years for me, blow away the AMDs. Still, you could upgrade the processor youself and add an extra GB of RAM for about $400. That sill puts you $1300 ahead.
I'll never be able to justify Apple's RAM prices. You can get that configuration with RAM from Crucial for $1800. That's what I would be comparing, not the $2450 you got from Apple's site. Their RAM is overpriced, no doubt.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I mean this in all good humor, but apparently you aren’t trying hard enough, Chris. And it’s a shame that this pisses you off and colors you opinion of those involved. You shouldn’t take it personal. And I believe I am asking a legitimate question. Yes, I have my preference. But most of it is due to money and the return.
But maybe I’m missing something and can learn by picking through the arguing, belittling and cajoling. Paul, for instance, points out that the processor in the HP is not as good as the Intel Core 2 Duos.
I do agree with you that it is probably mostly a personal preference. I like Macs, have used them for years in the media field. But I can’t justify the cost to return – for me. Others are different and have different professional and personal needs. I’m the kind of person who if I had the money to buy a high-end Mercedes Benz would more likely buy a high-end Honda and use the extra money to travel through Europe (for several months, probably). And I can’t see myself on my deathbed, reminiscing about that trip to Europe and looking at the photos on the wall from the trip and saying “Darn, I wish I had a Mercedes Benz parked outside”.
But that’s just me.
Website
But, if you're not wanting a Caddy in the first place and the Chevy is just fine, then why pay for a Caddy?
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
The USB ports on the new keyboard are limited because they don't provide enough bus power for some peripherals. But you missed the ports built into the case itself: 1 FireWire 400, 1 FireWire 800, and 3 USB 2.0.
The picture is not for us. It is for Joe Home User whose extent of peripherals are the P&S camera plugged in via USB every 3 weeks, and the iPod plugged into a USB port in the back. Although a lot of pros buy iMacs, I don't think that's what Apple wants. The glossy screen was probably a ploy to try and deflect this market to the tower.
It's a tough time to buy a Mac desktop for heavy photo use. I got my Mac Pro minimal and refurbished (i.e, cheaper than retail), and stuffed it with RAM and drives from cheaper places than Apple (and that's definitely the way to do it), but that tower is not the same value today because Apple hasn't changed the specs or price in the year since I bought it, so it's probably going to be replaced soon. That leaves the iMacs and mini...meh.
It's a terrific time to buy a Mac laptop, though.
Yea, I couldn't see them leaving off their own technology.
Website
We're down to $500, and I'm not clear on the quality of the displays, which could narrow it further. Or the build quality. Or the resale value. I'm not up on this stuff much, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the difference in real dollars is under $200. Add in the difference in the user experience, and you're done, IMO.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
I missed the change from $1,300 to $500, but ...
are you calling it another TKO, David. :smack
Website
Pupator added $400 for the processor, and I knocked off $650 for Apple's ridiculous charge for RAM, and got it from another, reliable source. See posts above. Not a TKO, but the end result could be very close. Like I said, we need to look at the quality of the display and other components.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
While I'm happy with my current display, and technically it's fine, them Apples sure are purdy.
Website
See? In the end we're not that far off.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops