Apple brings back the PC jr keyboard to life (or the new iMac thread)

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Master Zen
The funny thing is that he "won" the previous price argument only because of Dell's absurdly ridiculous power supply prices ($470 for upgrading a 750W to a 1000W). Considering that a 750W was more than enough for the specs we were comparing and that a 1000W had no extra effect whatsoever on performance and features I find Apple's price advantage not exactly overwhelming.

So when an Apple machine is actually cheaper than the alternatives from other major manufacturers, the others are somehow absurdly expensive?

Perhaps the Apple machine is cheap.

[Agathon]

Seemingly everyone on a Newcastle United forum I have been going to for over ten years are now buying Macs.

Never thought that would happen.

[Aeson]

In my decade of PC ownership, I've had 0 viruses or worms infect my computer. I use free tools only. (The ones you'd have to pay for are usually as bad as viruses anyways.)

-------------------------

If you're paying for a monitor, at least get one that doesn't have a soon to be crappy computer stuck to it's backside. Then you can move it from box to box until the time comes for upgrading your monitor.

Definitely don't hook up a high end monitor to a POS graphics card, especially not one that's imbedded on the backside of the monitor. The 2400 XT or 2600 PRO both count as ****ty, and shouldn't be left within shouting distance of a $1k+ computer. In fact, the 2400 XT is so ****ty, it shouldn't have been in a $1k+ computer 2 years ago, if it had existed at that point in time.

If you're going to pay $1k+ for a computer, you should at least have 2GB of RAM. There's simply no reason not to. It barely adds to the cost... which makes it rather mindboggling that they wouldn't have just thrown another GB in there for the hell of it. Is this some sort of diabolical plot to just screw people over for the hell of it? More likely, it's to make PC (and game) enthusiasts laugh uncontrollably at people who think of buying this ****, thus triggering the (potential) buyers' defense instincts, at which point they will stubbornly insist on overpaying for some crap.

-------------------

The sad thing is I do like a lot of the aesthetics of Apple's designs. Too bad they don't design PC components.

[Agathon]

And you win ridiculous non sequitur of the week.

Who on earth is going to buy an iMac as a primary gaming machine? That's not the market it's aimed at. Apple does not sell machines that are intended for hardcore gamers. Windows is a hardcore gaming platform. Macintosh is not.

How many times does this have to be repeated before it penetrates the average Poly poster's thick skull.

[Aeson]

Where did I even mention gaming?

The video cards suck. The lack of memory sucks. If you want to pay $1k+ for a computer so that you can surf the web and watch some movies, feel free. Doesn't change the fact that you're paying high-end money for low-end performance.

[Nikolai]

You did mention gaming, but only in the passing.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Aeson
Where did I even mention gaming?

The video cards suck. The lack of memory sucks. If you want to pay $1k+ for a computer so that you can surf the web and watch some movies, feel free. Doesn't change the fact that you're paying high-end money for low-end performance.

It looks sexy to many people. Blowing an extra $600-700 for the look is up to each user and isn't your problem.

People waste a lot more money on aesthetics in other areas, too.Especially cars...this is nothing new.

Also, many find macs to be more reliable. I've seen an awful lot of Dells and HPs get hit by viruses or general hardware failures. Because apple standardizes its relatively few models, this isn't as big a deal with macs.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Nikolai
You did mention gaming, but only in the passing.

No, I mentioned "game enthusiasts"... in a parenthetical included in a tangent... that just happened to be a "conspiracy" joke. It had nothing to do with gaming, but rather with those who would stay current with computer components. (I originally just had "tech savy users", but replaced it 'cause all you have to do is say "game", regardless of the context, and Mac fanboys go into a hissy fit. )

My objections to the graphics card and RAM (thus the entirety of my objections to the iMac as offered) were based solely on the subpar (for the price) feature set, and offered without regards to what the user would apply them towards.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
It looks sexy to many people. Blowing an extra $600-700 for the look is up to each user and isn't your problem.

I never said they couldn't do as they wish. I offered my opinion, which by your reasoning isn't your problem.

It's funny that you go on to basically agree with me... that these are aimed at users who aren't tech savy (or at least are willing to sacrifice function for form), and are willing to pay extra for pretty shinies...

People waste a lot more money on aesthetics in other areas, too.Especially cars...this is nothing new.

I make fun of those people too... equal opportunity.

Also, many find macs to be more reliable. I've seen an awful lot of Dells and HPs get hit by viruses or general hardware failures. Because apple standardizes its relatively few models, this isn't as big a deal with macs.

Granted there are more viruses out there for PCs, but it's entirely possible to never get a virus if you know what you're doing. It's not foolproof, you can get unlucky... even on a Mac... but with proper care it's not really an issue. Those who don't know what they're doing might as well pay more than they should. Doesn't bother me, but I'll still make fun of them.

Since macs are now using the same hardware (for the most part) as any PC, there's really no sense in saying their hardware is more reliable. Limiting hardware may reduce driver/software conflicts, but carries with it the obvious point that it limits the range of choices consumers have.

[Whaleboy]

I think, to be fair, the idea that Apples are as a rule more expensive than the equivalent PC's simply doesn't apply any more. Sure you'll find instances where Apples are cheaper than Dells and vice versa, but you'll find the same about Dells vs. HP's / Acers, etc etc. One wouldn't go around saying that Dell is always cheaper than Acer.

Nevertheless, give me a choice between a Dell system that costs £800 and the cheapest £800 iMac, and you wouldn't need to be a genius to work out which one I'd rather use.

The operating system is in a class of its own in terms of ease of use, performance, security and just sheer easiness and from what I've seen of Leopard, it's going to get even better. iLife is excellent, the hardware/software integration is phenomenal, the industrial design is in a class of its own and should I need to run Windows I have options there too.

There's an awful lot more value added to a Mac these days than just the hardware - it seems to me that their whole design philosophy is about making hardware irrelevant to the whole user experience which, considering the appalling usability of an out-of-the-box PC you get from most vendors, can only be a good thing .

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Aeson
Where did I even mention gaming?

The video cards suck. The lack of memory sucks. If you want to pay $1k+ for a computer so that you can surf the web and watch some movies, feel free. Doesn't change the fact that you're paying high-end money for low-end performance.

Can you please tell me just why an iMac would require a high powered video card? Since it isn't a gaming machine, which programs would require it? Low performance my ass. You'll pay about the same for an equivalent machine from HP or Dell, or you can cripple an HP or Dell to get a much cheaper, but ****tier computer.

What would you know anyway? It's not as if you ever use Apple computers, or have any clue about them. All your posts seem to be yet another take on the "OMG APPLZ R TEH XPENSIV!" meme, which you have to be an out and out ****** to believe these days.

The card it's supplied with is perfectly adequate for the purpose it is designed for. What on earth do you think people will be doing with them?

And as for memory, any idiot can buy a $50 stick of RAM and install it in 5 minutes. Oh Noes... people might have to undo one screw to install the RAM.

[Whaleboy]

WRT gaming, how many units of the Geforce 8800GTS/GTX/Ultra do you think nVidia have sold in relation to the 8600GT/GTS?

I'm going to hazard a guess that the latter completely eclipse the much more powerful former. The iMacs have the new Radeon chips which, I'm told, are more or less on a par with the equivalent nVidia mid-range chips. Is the iMac therefore so severely deficient when it comes to gaming?

Granted you'll have to buy and install a copy of Windows and you may have issues running a modern game at the native resolution of any iMac with a midrange card but the fact is you're not being excluded for the same money as an equivalent PC.

I will grant that Macs aren't designed for gaming although would it be fair to say that the majority of PC shipments are non-gaming systems too?

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Agathon
And as for memory, any idiot can buy a $50 stick of RAM and install it in 5 minutes. Oh Noes... people might have to undo one screw to install the RAM.

And yet by your own admission, most people never upgrade their computers. :P

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Agathon


So when an Apple machine is actually cheaper than the alternatives from other major manufacturers, the others are somehow absurdly expensive?

Perhaps the Apple machine is cheap.

No, perhaps they're ALL absurdly expensive pieces of sh*t.

Why on earth would I pay $1K just to surf the net or write a document on Word? That's ridiculous, absurd, just plain stupid. Face it: both Apple, Dell, and all the major manufacturers cater to the stupid sheep crowd, the people who are going to walk into any store and go WOW!!! just because the silly overpriced hunk of junk can play a DVD.

You say Apple doesn't cater to the gaming crowd. So who does Apple cater to then? How can you think highly of someone who buys a $1K computer which can barely play a top of the line game from 2004? Or who's going to suffer from the eternal wait of loading Photoshop images, etc.?

If you want to surf the net and watch a DVD, you can do that with a $500 machine. Unless of course, you want a computer that just "looks nice". So it's all about aesthetics. "I need a computer that combines with the furniture, I'm getting a Mac!"

At least be honest with yourself and admit that anyone who walks into a Best Buy and gets the latest Dell or HP or adds a $300 stick of 1GB RAM in the Apple site for their iMac deserves a slap in the face.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Agathon
Low performance my ass. You'll pay about the same for an equivalent machine from HP or Dell, or you can cripple an HP or Dell to get a much cheaper, but ****tier computer.

And as for memory, any idiot can buy a $50 stick of RAM and install it in 5 minutes. Oh Noes... people might have to undo one screw to install the RAM.

In regards to the $1k+ pricetag. (Or just what MZ said.)