Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I really like them and buy all their products.

I like them and think they're a good company.

I like them.

I don't care either way.

I do not particularly like them.

I dislike them.

I detest Apple and go out of my way to tell people how terrible their products are.

Undecided.

Other.

Don't care. / View poll.

[Farseer]

The only reason I would ever buy Alienware is if I was absolutely crazy and REALLY wanted a watercooled rig for some reason. :p They're overclocked to perfection, but 10-20% difference doesn't mean much when it burns out twice as fast.

In all fairness, apples high end desktop computers are far superior to what PCs could deliver.

wat.

[Pwnzerfaust]

In all fairness, apples high end desktop computers are far superior to what PCs could deliver.

Dollar for dollar, you'll get much, much more bang for your buck with a PC than a Mac.

For instance, take the 27-inch iMac. 3.2 ghz Intel Core i3, 4 gb RAM, 1 TB HD, and an ATI HD 5670 1gb DDR3 GFX card. It costs $1,700.

I just bought a new PC (well, bought parts and assembled) for $1650. It has a 3.06 ghz Intel Core i7 950, 12 gb RAM, 1 TB HD, and an nVidia GTX 560 1gb GDDR5 GFX card.

More bang for hte buck.

[G-Flex]

In all fairness, apples high end desktop computers are far superior to what PCs could deliver.

Okay, here's the thing.

There is no fair comparison between "Mac" and "PC". There just isn't. "Mac" is a subset of "PC", albeit possibly with some very, very slightly nonstandard aspects to it.

Apple has engendered this perspective (that your choice is between "Mac" and "PC") in order to differentiate themselves from the competition, even long after the difference has become silly and moot.

So comparing "Apple" with "PC" is completely silly. Comparing Apple to Dell, or Apple to HP, fine. But not Apple to "PC". A "PC" (i.e. a non-Apple PC) can deliver whatever the hell you want it to, and at a variety of price points that vary depending on the manufacturer, if there indeed is a manufacturer at all who isn't you yourself.

But, the argument that apple only charges more money without delivering more performance is wrong there at least.

Not really, no. Apple has a history of being pricey for a given set of specs.

[Grimlocke]

I was refering to their mac pro computers, those are siginificantely faster than any desktop computer. Also comparing processor frequencies between apple and PC processors is meaniless, the chips architecture is quite different. A 3ghz mac processor will be a lot faster a 3ghz PC processor.

And than theres the models that use not one but two of those processors, and the ones that use 6 cored processors, etc etc.

Of course all that will cost you gobs of money, but that wasnt the point I was making there. What I was saying that these things may cost a ton, but at least perform in proportian to that. They fill a niche in between desktop PCs and full blown server grade computers (which in turn make mac pros look like a kiddy computers).


@ more recent post: You can definetely compare Apples and PCs. Apple desings its whole own computers, most of its hardware is incompatible with PCs. As such you can define both PC and Apple hardware as their own distinct appoaches to desktop computing, and compare their results.

Also please read my points more carefully. What I am saying is that it is untrue that all apple computers fail to deliver any kind of performance increase for their price increase. Im not trying to say they deliver performance in the same proportions to their cost as PC computers do.

[malimbar04]

In all fairness, apples high end desktop computers are far superior to what PCs could deliver.

Okay, here's the thing.

There is no fair comparison between "Mac" and "PC". There just isn't. "Mac" is a subset of "PC", albeit possibly with some very, very slightly nonstandard aspects to it.

Apple has engendered this perspective (that your choice is between "Mac" and "PC") in order to differentiate themselves from the competition, even long after the difference has become silly and moot.

So comparing "Apple" with "PC" is completely silly. Comparing Apple to Dell, or Apple to HP, fine. But not Apple to "PC". A "PC" (i.e. a non-Apple PC) can deliver whatever the hell you want it to, and at a variety of price points that vary depending on the manufacturer, if there indeed is a manufacturer at all who isn't you yourself.

completely agree.

But, the argument that apple only charges more money without delivering more performance is wrong there at least.

Not really, no. Apple has a history of being pricey for a given set of specs.

Read above the statement which I agreed with. Apple's pricing can be justified very easily if you compare it in a certain way, and that's even excluding the software. I have at several times compared apple pricing to high end windows-based pc's and found them comparable or cheaper for equal components. They force you to buy a certain level of product (like high end monitors and processors), and they bundle things you might never use (like a 6-button remote control, a fancy touch sensitive mouse, or a mid-to-high range webcam), but the prices are not that far off the market. For example, compare my favorite PC builder and a high end iMac (medium-high computer).

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC511LL/A?mco=MTg1ODA4MDM
http://www.pugetsystems.com/?u=57954

The prices are almost identical, I didn't include a webcam, and the keyboard isn't wireless. The graphics card isn't the exact same, but it's the closes I could get price wise (above the one that's lower, and below the one that's higher).

Also, never compare apple to self-built or bargain pc's. Self-built cut's out a HUGE part of the cost of building a pc. Bargain PC's are sold at very little to no profit, have notoriously poor quality componants, and often include crapware in order to drive down the cost more. A sly user can uninstall all the crapware, but people like my mother keep it on there thinking it's supposed to be there. Then people like me are forced to use it, and it is annoying as HFS and frame-rate deaths.

I was refering to their mac pro computers, those are siginificantely faster than any desktop computer. Also comparing processor frequencies between apple and PC processors is meaniless, the chips architecture is quite different. A 3ghz mac processor will be a lot faster a 3ghz PC processor.

you're still on the timeline when they used PowerPCs. With the switch to intel they are the exact same architecture. a 3Ghz core 2 duo mac processor is the exact same as the 3Ghz core 2 duo pc processor you get somewhere else. If you get a high end Xeon based computer from dell, the processor will be the same speed as that on the mac. If you get the same graphics card and a comparable speed motherboard, and run ubuntu or windows on either, the speed should be the exact same as well.

And than theres the models that use not one but two of those processors, and the ones that use 6 cored processors, etc etc.

Of course all that will cost you gobs of money, but that wasnt the point I was making there. What I was saying that these things may cost a ton, but at least perform in proportian to that. They fill a niche in between desktop PCs and full blown server grade computers (which in turn make mac pros look like a kiddy computers).


@ more recent post: You can definetely compare Apples and PCs. Apple desings its whole own computers, most of its hardware is incompatible with PCs. As such you can define both PC and Apple hardware as their own distinct appoaches to desktop computing, and compare their results.

most of it's hardware is compatible with PC's. With the mac pro, you can interchange ram, processor, graphics cards, webcams, monitors, mice, and keyboards, and almost all other peripherals. Anything you can't change in an iMac or laptop is because of form factor or security. where can you find a graphics card that fits into an iMac? or for that matter, a replacement motherboard that has the chip proving it's a mac, thus allowing Mac OSX to install?

[G-Flex]

I was refering to their mac pro computers, those are siginificantely faster than any desktop computer.

Bullshit. They don't pull the parts out their asses; show me the specs and I'll show you a comparable Windows/Linux PC.

Also comparing processor frequencies between apple and PC processors is meaniless, the chips architecture is quite different. A 3ghz mac processor will be a lot faster a 3ghz PC processor.

This doesn't even make sense. They use Intel x86(-64) CPUs. It's the same shit. I just checked their website, and the Mac Pros use Intel Xeon processors.

And than theres the models that use not one but two of those processors, and the ones that use 6 cored processors, etc etc.

You don't think you can stick two CPUs in any other PC (with a suitable motherboard)? Of course you can; that isn't new.

@ more recent post: You can definetely compare Apples and PCs. Apple desings its whole own computers, most of its hardware is incompatible with PCs. As such you can define both PC and Apple hardware as their own distinct appoaches to desktop computing, and compare their results.

If you think any of this is true, you obviously don't understand computer hardware. Unless you think that ATI Radeon graphics cards and Intel CPUs are "incompatible with PCs" or designed by Apple.

Also please read my points more carefully. What I am saying is that it is untrue that all apple computers fail to deliver any kind of performance increase for their price increase. Im not trying to say they deliver performance in the same proportions to their cost as PC computers do.

This doesn't even make sense. If you're arguing that a more expensive Apple computer performs better than a less expensive one, then of course they do. That's just obvious. However, you're clearly not arguing that an Apple computer is as cost-efficient as what you could get otherwise, as you say so yourself. So... what gives?

where can you find a graphics card that fits into an iMac? or for that matter, a replacement motherboard that has the chip proving it's a mac, thus allowing Mac OSX to install?

That's another thing; from what I've heard, Apple charges loads for upgrading/replacing components, even simple things like RAM.


Also, regarding your price comparison, one big thing there is the OS. Ordering a computer from a custom builder, or building one yourself, the OS is always going to be an insane factor in the cost, whereas when Apple sells you an Apple computer with an Apple OS, there isn't a third party making profit on it. For that matter, I'm sure even Dell gets much, much, better deals on Windows than, say, online custom shops. Of course, to the end user, this is all academic. There are, however, more abstract aspects to the value here, like how upgradable each unit is, the cost or feasibility of replacing parts in general, and so forth, where the desktop+monitor combo clearly wins out over the Mac.

[malimbar04]

<snip>

now now, don't be too harsh. A lot of his points were accurate once upon a time when they used PowerPC processors. They didn't get into the whole processor speed wars that intel did (and AMD partially did).

As for ram, you're absolutely correct. It's not uncommon for people to buy a mac and buy an extra stick of ram separately. I'd bitch and complain, but I don't know why they choose the pricing for their RAM. I never purchased an upgrade of such from them, and really, who needs more than the standard 4GB anyways?

[G-Flex]

Right now RAM upgrading isn't a huge deal, no, but it was in the past and probably will be again, and I meant it to illustrate a more general point.

Seriously though, I can't stand all-in-one style computers. It's a bitch to replace, repair, or upgrade anything on them, and because the monitor and computer aren't separate, if anything happens to either you're essentially fucked, as with a laptop. A friend of mine has an older iMac of that nature, and the screen has some problems, but what do you do about it?

I suppose that if it has a VGA/DVI-out port on it, you can use an external monitor, but the inverse is still true, where the monitor becomes useless if the computer ever does. Either way, it ends up costing you more if something happens, especially on all-in-ones where you can't use an external monitor (again, I'm not sure if this applies here to Macs).

now now, don't be too harsh. A lot of his points were accurate once upon a time when they used PowerPC processors.

Sure, but he was making references to modern product lines and technology, so I figured he wasn't completely stuck in 1998.

[fqllve]

portable music players suffer a similar fate. Without going into great detail (there are a lot of options and a huge lack of standardization), I haven't found a portable music player that is as intuitive to use and manage as the iPod/iTunes combo.

Except that they don't support FLAC, or any lossless codecs other than ALAC. Having to keep multiple lossless copies of files around isn't easy to manage.

Actually, iPods have pretty terrible codec support in general.

[Grimlocke]

@ G-Flex: Quite vehement about this stuff arnt you? I generally detest arguing with such attitutes, but for the sake of completeness heres a few last clarifications.

True, most of what I know from mac computers is from the older one someone I know owns. Comparing that to the PCs he has yields results in which the mac outperformed the PC that would actualy easily justify the macs costs. Most of these comparisons involved photoshop, which is what he used that mac for, and which is also tuned to run very well on macs.

Which also answers 'who needs more than 4gb ram', professional photographers do. Load up a raw, high resulition photo file in photoshop, edit away for a while so you have a good stack of layers and apply some complex filter and you can easily fill up a lot more than 4gb of memory.

[G-Flex]

True, most of what I know from mac computers is from the older one someone I know owns. Comparing that to the PCs he has yields results in which the mac outperformed the PC that would actualy easily justify the macs costs. Most of these comparisons involved photoshop, which is what he used that mac for, and which is also tuned to run very well on macs.

That's pretty anecdotal evidence, though. Even if two products cost the same, they aren't necessarily good at the same things, even if their overall worth in terms of function is equivalent.

[freeformschooler]

portable music players suffer a similar fate. Without going into great detail (there are a lot of options and a huge lack of standardization), I haven't found a portable music player that is as intuitive to use and manage as the iPod/iTunes combo.

Except that they don't support FLAC, or any lossless codecs other than ALAC. Having to keep multiple lossless copies of files around isn't easy to manage.

Actually, iPods have pretty terrible codec support in general.

Wait what? iPods don't support FLAC audio? I... but...
...
I just tried putting one of my compositions for class on there, and you're right, they don't. Huh.
Anyway you guys are gonna have some moderator come in here or something because emotions are being thrown around like monkeys slinging poo at each other, this has turned into something nearing a flame war (judging by the the 1tsp of venom mixed in with every other post, and then stirred lightly).

So instead of being all elitist about flame wars like usual I'm just gonna say I have both a PC (running winblows and linsucks) and a Slack -- wait, I mean a Mac. So no matter who you are, my 1's and 0's are better than your 0's and 1's.

[GTM]

Everyone knows Macs are fashion accessories- that's why they cost more.  You buy a MacBook so you can sit in a coffeeshop and be all like "I don't know whether to write a novel, work on my band's songs in GarageBand, or look up local tattoo artists right now..."

And if that's your personality, more power to you.  But if you're interested in a computer that is actually powerful/versatile/cheap/etc, apple is probably not the best choice.

You can buy a gucci jacket that looks great and makes you feel confident, or you can go to sears and get a hardcore industrial worker jacket that's twice as warm and half the price.  Different strokes for different folks.

[malimbar04]

Ohh, we're getting into the realm of valid points!
@ G-Flex
All valid, and all personal preference. low-end and medium-end Mac's weren't designed to be easily upgradable, since most of these users don't upgrade. For most of these users (like my brothers, parents, and most friends), upgrading would be a confusing ripoff (because by the time it's all upgraded, it's lower end than if you just bought everything new). Monitors last a long time too, so the rest of the computer will be obsolete long before this is a problem. This is particuarly true because they use high-end monitors almost exclusively.

@ fqlive
Not flac, but they do support wav, AIFF, and apple lossless audio codecs. Where do you find FLAC anyways? isn't it normally obtained through ripping and compressing wav files?

@ Grimlocke
Photoshop is the beauty of apple, although this has everything to do with programming. From asking a middle-aged and experienced artist in college, he said it had to do with the architecture of windows being crappy. Apparently it could run at a lower level or something on apple computers without the OS complaining or being affected.

It would be even better on a linux based computer btw if they properly ported it. I say this because you can stop a lot of other processes or use low resource alternatives to the default mac programs. The point is that it's not the hardware, it's the software.

@ GTM
you're trolling. "everybody knows" is completely wrong, and the stereotypes you present are disgusting, cookie-cutter, and just wrong.

[fqllve]

@ fqlive
Not flac, but they do support wav, AIFF, and apple lossless audio codecs. Where do you find FLAC anyways? isn't it normally obtained through ripping and compressing wav files?

Usually. It's pretty popular, as far as lossless compression goes. For example the Internet Archive has FLAC files for a lot of its audio.