[olePigeon]

So I'm setting up this $1500 HP Pavilion Elite computer for a customer. This is supposed to be their top of the line machine, with a big screen and everything. Gods I'm embarrassed I recommended it.

It's a festival of cheap plastic. The front is cheap plastic. The keyboard is cheap plastic. Even the monitor is cheap plastic. The case is a generic metal ATX case. The rear of the PC looks like every single other PC in the world. I feel like if I just look at it wrong, it's going to fall apart.

It has no less than 6 USB ports, but it ships with a PS2 keyboard and mouse. What the ?

Every single step in setting up this machine has made me appreciate Apple's attention to detail and quality of craftsmanship. I know that the Apple is $600 more expensive, but damn it, it's worth every penny.

What a piece of crap. Not sure what I was expecting, but I expected more for a $1500 PC.

[Eug]

Yeah, like the iBook G3. I wonder what proportion of those failed in the first 2 years. The MacBook palm rest stains weren't too impressive either.

I do think Apple hardware is in general better than the average PC, but it often costs significantly more, and it's probably quite easy to do hardware swaps and upgrades in that HP I'm guessing.

I like my iMac, but the fact that I can't get an inexpensive Mac tower pisses me off.

[olePigeon]

Yeah. They're definitely more expensive, but I feel like you get what you pay for. Apple has certainly had their ups and downs with their computers.

The Mac Pro, though, is just incredibly awesome. The actual computer hardware itself is ho hum, not top of the line anymore, but the general build quality just seems light years apart from this HP.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yeah, like the iBook G3. I wonder what proportion of those failed in the first 2 years. The MacBook palm rest stains weren't too impressive either.

I do think Apple hardware is in general better than the average PC, but it often costs significantly more, and it's probably quite easy to do hardware swaps and upgrades in that HP I'm guessing.

I like my iMac, but the fact that I can't get an inexpensive Mac tower pisses me off.

I don't think you ever will either, it makes no sense for Apple when they can make far more money forcing you to pay for a display in purchasing an iMac.

[Big Mac]

And lock you into a disposable computer with no expansion slots so that you have to buy a new iMac that much faster.

Apple sells boutique computers at premium and sometimes excessively premium prices. Their hardware build quality should be a lot better. It's nice to know that a top of the line PC is still a PC, though. I like my Inspiron. Its form factor is bulky and somewhat ugly, but even though it's mostly plastic at least it's much more functional than my Penryn MBP, which requires surgery to replace the HD instead of just a simple screw on the bottom as with my Dell. And at least with my Dell I can't peer within the case and see logic board chips like I can with my Penryn.

[besson3c]

Exactly. I'd buy myself another Macbook/MBP or a Mac Pro before I'd get an iMac, personally.

[Eug]

And they just updated the Mac Pros today. Now you have the option of spending $1200 more to upgrade the quad-core model to 3.33 GHz for a grand total of $3700, with only 3 GB RAM and a 640 GB hard drive.

The Mac Pro prices are insane. For 98% of the population, it makes no sense to buy the quad-core Mac Pro over the quad-core iMac, even with the crappy expandability of the iMac.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

And lock you into a disposable computer with no expansion slots so that you have to buy a new iMac that much faster.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Exactly. I'd buy myself another Macbook/MBP or a Mac Pro before I'd get an iMac, personally.

Uhm, the MBP (except 17") *is* a disposable computer with no expansion slots.
How excatly is that different from an iMac ?

-t

[The Final Dakar]

It's portable.

[Eug]

And it's slower, and more expensive too for what you get.

I have both the biggest & fastest iMac and the smallest most portable MacBook Pro. Best of both worlds.

[The Final Dakar]

The best part about the price as a barrier-for-entry on the desktops is its exacerbated if you don't already own a monitor. Buying a mini and a monitor doesn't feel better than an iMac. As for the Mac Pros, for most of us its complete overkill in terms of power. It's value is squandered.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Uhm, the MBP (except 17") *is* a disposable computer with no expansion slots.
How excatly is that different from an iMac ?

-t

Because this is reality with any laptop.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Because this is reality with any laptop.

Ok. But it's also reality with iMacs, always been. For some reason, some people just can't accept that w/o bitching about it.

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The best part about the price as a barrier-for-entry on the desktops is its exacerbated if you don't already own a monitor. Buying a mini and a monitor doesn't feel better than an iMac. As for the Mac Pros, for most of us its complete overkill in terms of power. It's value is squandered.

BTW, I think this is the main reason laptop sales have flourished. If you're going to pay a lot of money for something with an LCD attached, at least have it be portable. The difference in power between the laptops and imacs isn't crippling (for most people).

[Eug]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The best part about the price as a barrier-for-entry on the desktops is its exacerbated if you don't already own a monitor. Buying a mini and a monitor doesn't feel better than an iMac. As for the Mac Pros, for most of us its complete overkill in terms of power. It's value is squandered.

Yeah, everyone wanted a headless low end desktop, and Apple gave us a headless unexpandable laptop, in the mini.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

BTW, I think this is the main reason laptop sales have flourished. If you're going to pay a lot of money for something with an LCD attached, at least have it be portable. The difference in power between the laptops and imacs isn't crippling (for most people).

That first part doesn't make sense. Laptop sales have flourished on the PC side as well, even with the availability of cheap desktops with replaceable monitors.

Your second sentence makes more sense. As of a few years ago, laptops became powerful enough to be fine for almost all every day usage.

I have stuck with desktops though for speed, and partially for ergonomics. I hate working on laptops for extended periods of time. Mind you, the ergonomics of the 24" iMac leaves something to be desired, and it's even worse on the 27" iMac. Both the 24" and 27" are very tall, and the 27" has a high pixel density. However, the ergonomics with using a laptop all day long is often much worse, unless you use an external monitor and input devices.

[Spheric Harlot]

iMac sales have flourished, as well.

The iMac 21.5" is the best-selling computer in the U.S. in October (and even before, iMac sales have been steadily increasing - though not as strongly as the mac laptop sales).

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Except iMac sales have flourished, as well.

The iMac 21.5" is the best-selling computer in the U.S. in October (and even before, iMac sales have been steadily increasing - though not as strongly as the mac laptop sales).

I know. I would attribute that to the Mac Pro getting exceedingly more expensive. There's no way to prove this, but I think some creatives have decided to bite the bullet and opt for the much cheaper dead-end iMac over the expandable Mac Pro.

I'd really be curious if MP sales are in the gutter.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yeah, everyone wanted a headless low end desktop, and Apple gave us a headless unexpandable laptop, in the mini.

Ignoring the issue with expandability, after you add in the cost of purchasing a new monitor chances are you could buy a more powerful iMac for a similar price. Basically, it's an awful deal before you address its limitations.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I know. I would attribute that to the Mac Pro getting exceedingly more expensive. There's no way to prove this, but I think some creatives have decided to bite the bullet and opt for the much cheaper dead-end iMac over the expandable Mac Pro.

Like the laptops that have become desktop replacements in recent times, high end consumer Macs have become tower replacements.

There is little need for a Photoshop jockey to buy a Mac Pro. The iMac is more than fast enough, can run an external 30" monitor, and comes with a free monitor as well. These days there's even 4 memory slots, although previously even with 2 memory slots you could affordably get 4 GB in the iMac.

In fact, Apple now markets the higher end iMac as a pro machine at times, since they sometimes demo Aperture and Final Cut on the iMac.

I'd really be curious if MP sales are in the gutter.

They must be. Apple stopped reporting tower sales separately a while back. One reason for this is likely for competitive reasons, but I suspect the main reason is because the numbers were becoming embarrassing.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Like the laptops that have become desktop replacements in recent times, high end consumer Macs have become tower replacements.

There is little need for a Photoshop jockey to buy a Mac Pro. The iMac is more than fast enough, can run an external 30" monitor, and comes with a free monitor as well. These days there's even 4 memory slots, although previously even with 2 memory slots you could affordably get 4 GB in the iMac..

Look, I agree with you 100%, but the die hards still have the valid point that you don't get to keep that "free monitor" when the iMacs days have reached their end.

Originally Posted by Eug 

They must be. Apple stopped reporting tower sales separately a while back. One reason for this is likely for competitive reasons, but I suspect the main reason is because the numbers were becoming embarrassing.

But, they haven't done anything to rectify it. Which leads me to the conclusion that they either:
a. Must be still making great profits off low sales because the margin is insane
2. If the margin isn't great, then they think the higher price-point is fueling more sales of the higher-margin lower-lifespan iMac

[mduell]

What model and vintage year is the HP?

[macbones]

iBook G3- Hmmm. I don't know how many failed in the first 2 years, but we retired ours after 7 years of service.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's portable.

Dakar, such a poignant and curt response. "It's portable." This makes so much sense, it totally answers turtle's question, and I find your post full of value.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Dakar, such a poignant and curt response. "It's portable." This makes so much sense, it totally answers turtle's question, and I find your post full of value.

NO HOMO

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Look, I agree with you 100%, but the die hards still have the valid point that you don't get to keep that "free monitor" when the iMacs days have reached their end.

Yeah, but at that price point, is it really relevant once the machine is written off?

[Big Mac]

At what price point?

[Spheric Harlot]

€1800 for a quad-core machine including a 2560-wide 27" LED display.

That's half what you would have paid for a Pro workstation with a comparable display not long ago.

Once it's written off, does a "pro" care that the display might not last as long due to being attached to the machine? (That's the "pro" who can live without expansion slots and is fine with 16 GB RAM and FW for everything else.)

[CharlesS]

In the US, the quad-core iMac is $2,000. I just specced a Dell Studio XPS with the same 2.66 GHz Core i5 Quad that the $2000 iMac has, gave it 4 GB of RAM, a 1 TB hard drive, and an 802.11n card, and the total came out to $929. And that machine would be expandable, too (and it’d probably be even cheaper than $929 if you bought the extra hard drive and RAM separately and installed them yourself instead of letting Dell do it).

That monitor ain’t free.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Look, I agree with you 100%, but the die hards still have the valid point that you don't get to keep that "free monitor" when the iMacs days have reached their end.

Actually, now you do.

The 27" iMac can be used as an external monitor. I'll be ordering from Monoprice again soon. At that time I'll order a mini DisplayPort to mini-DisplayPort cable to check out how well it works. (The low end 13" MacBook Pro fully supports up to 30" monitors.)

But, they haven't done anything to rectify it. Which leads me to the conclusion that they either:
a. Must be still making great profits off low sales because the margin is insane
2. If the margin isn't great, then they think the higher price-point is fueling more sales of the higher-margin lower-lifespan iMac

I suspect the iMac is lower margin, but it still is likely a very good margin. It's interesting to note though that the Mac Pro is always priced several hundred higher than the iMac.

I figure Apple doesn't care so much about Mac Pro sales numbers, but keeps it around because there are some pros who really do need the power and expandability that the Pro can provide. It's both a marketing ploy (Apple plays in the high end) and a let's-soak-those-departmental-purchases ploy.

[besson3c]

I don't understand justifying to yourself that Mac desktops are worth it based on wishy washy ideas such as PCs using "cheap plastics", or "looking stupid". It's a desktop, it sits there. Unlike a laptop, you don't touch anything but the keyboard and mouse. If you don't like the cases made by HP or Dell or whatever, purchase your own, there are 20348209384 cases out there to choose from.

You pay a premium to use a Mac desktop, period. If you really want to justify the hardware premium based on these sorts of ideas, how "pretty" it looks, whatever, have at it, but the price difference does not begin to justify this for me. The price difference is justified by me for being able to run OS X, and in owning a lightweight, cool, energy efficient laptop. Once you move into the realm of desktops you are left with the advantage of OS X, and the disadvantage of needing a Mac Pro to be able to truly treat your computer as an investment that you can own for long time and upgrade as needed.

The advantage of being able to run OS X is a much better argument than how pretty a desktop case looks, IMHO.

[Doofy]

If Apple dropped the Mac Pro, I'd have to go PC.

And that'd be bad for the environment because I have to go have a shower every time I look at one of the horrendous things.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

If Apple dropped the Mac Pro, I'd have to go PC.

And that'd be bad for the environment because I have to go have a shower every time I look at one of the horrendous things.

You should use a PC then, because you could use a shower more often. You stink, you infidel hippy!

<-- this means don't infract my ass.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't understand justifying to yourself that Mac desktops are worth it based on wishy washy ideas such as PCs using "cheap plastics", or "looking stupid". It's a desktop, it sits there. Unlike a laptop, you don't touch anything but the keyboard and mouse. If you don't like the cases made by HP or Dell or whatever, purchase your own, there are 20348209384 cases out there to choose from.

You pay a premium to use a Mac desktop, period. If you really want to justify the hardware premium based on these sorts of ideas, how "pretty" it looks, whatever, have at it, but the price difference does not begin to justify this for me. The price difference is justified by me for being able to run OS X, and in owning a lightweight, cool, energy efficient laptop. Once you move into the realm of desktops you are left with the advantage of OS X, and the disadvantage of needing a Mac Pro to be able to truly treat your computer as an investment that you can own for long time and upgrade as needed.

The advantage of being able to run OS X is a much better argument than how pretty a desktop case looks, IMHO.

That sounds awfully close to Hackintosh territory.

Anyways, one of the reasons I like iMacs is actually because they look nicer. I despise most PC cases I've seen, even if I respect their expandability. I was a bit happier with the iMac G5, as it had things such as a user-replaceable hard drive.

BTW, iMacs retain their value much better than the Mac Pros. It turns out for me, I get better value selling my iMac every three years and buying a new one than I would get buying a much more expensive Mac Pro and keeping it 5 years and spending more money to upgrade it in the interim... esp. since Mac tower upgrades are often so expensive. Real non-flashed GPUs for Mac Pros are a good example.

Furthermore, since I get 3-year AppleCare on my iMacs, I'm rarely with a main machine that doesn't have full warranty coverage. That peace of mind alone is worth something to me.

[lpkmckenna]

Apple doesn't sell a consumer tower because expansion ports = potential hardware problems = support costs and driver development costs. Consumer towers are a very low margin product, sometimes even a loss leader for companies. IBM didn't sell off its PC division because they were rolling in money.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Apple doesn't sell a consumer tower because expansion ports = potential hardware problems = support costs and driver development costs. Consumer towers are a very low margin product, sometimes even a loss leader for companies. IBM didn't sell off its PC division because they were rolling in money.

Yep. There's little money to be made in fully expandable consumer Macs.

Still, it'd be awfully nice to at least have iMac G5-like hard drive upgradability or eSATA for example.

[shifuimam]

There are some prebuilt machines that do use lower quality parts than Apple (particularly since Apple uses all-metal enclosures for everything but the 13" white unibody MB), but it's not the case across the board. My Dell PowerEdge 400SC case and my GTX 240 case were both extremely well-built, as was the case of my Latitude C600 laptop. My Latitude D600 had some flex to it, but I didn't have issues with it cracking or falling apart or anything in the two years I had that laptop. My Acer Aspire One and HP Mini 1000 both have really nice cases, with sturdy hinges and no flex anywhere.

That being said, my clamshell iBook G3 is built like a tank. I've dropped it from several feet up and it's sustained not even a scratch. The white iBook G3s were similarly well-built, although the motherboards had their issues.

There are, however, many extremely well-built cases available to people who build machines. I know that this is in some ways an unfair argument since comparing prebuilts to Apple's machines is a more even matchup, but I don't think that every prebuilt machine is built like crap.

I've never been much impressed with HP's offerings. I have, however, really liked all of Dell's desktop cases I've dealt with.

I realize it's probably futile, but I still feel compelled to point out (again) that the internal components of Macs are no different than what you find in any other machine. The RAM, the motherboard, the processor, the video card or GPU, the optical drive...none of it is particularly remarkable or superior to what you find in a lot of machines, prebuilt or otherwise.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I realize it's probably futile, but I still feel compelled to point out (again) that the internal components of Macs are no different than what you find in any other machine. The RAM, the motherboard, the processor, the video card or GPU, the optical drive...none of it is particularly remarkable or superior to what you find in a lot of machines, prebuilt or otherwise.

THIS IS THE FIRST I'VE HEARD OF THIS. all caps

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Eug 

BTW, iMacs retain their value much better than the Mac Pros. It turns out for me, I get better value selling my iMac every three years and buying a new one than I would get buying a much more expensive Mac Pro and keeping it 5 years and spending more money to upgrade it in the interim... esp. since Mac tower upgrades are often so expensive. Real non-flashed GPUs for Mac Pros are a good example.

I'm curious how you know the 5-year resale value of a three year old item.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I realize it's probably futile, but I still feel compelled to point out (again) that the internal components of Macs are no different than what you find in any other machine. The RAM, the motherboard, the processor, the video card or GPU, the optical drive...none of it is particularly remarkable or superior to what you find in a lot of machines, prebuilt or otherwise.

Repeating this doesn't make it more true.

-t

[Eug]

Well, let's see:

Motherboard - Depends on who makes it.
Hard drive - Identical
Optical drive - Identical
RAM - Identical, for name brand PCs.
GPU - Different, but really just a different mix and max of differently binned components
CPU - Identical usually but not always.

The big difference is the other stuff. Apple does pay a lot more attention to internal design, as well as external design. I'm still impressed that my desktop Core i7... which actually sits on the desk, not under it... is near silent in such a thin iMac enclosure, which also happens to include the speakers as well.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, let's see:

Motherboard - Depends on who makes it.
Hard drive - Identical
Optical drive - Identical
RAM - Identical, for name brand PCs.
GPU - Different, but really just a different mix and max of differently binned components
CPU - Identical usually but not always.

The big difference is the other stuff. Apple does pay a lot more attention to internal design, as well as external design. I'm still impressed that my desktop Core i7... which actually sits on the desk, not under it... is near silent in such a thin iMac enclosure, which also happens to include the speakers as well.

Firewire?

[downinflames68]

Anybody check into how much a USED desktop PC is worth lately?

Jack. ****.

Wheras a used 24" iMac = $1000, at least.

Apple's stuff holds resale value FAR better than any PC, negating the increased purchase price.

[Doofy]

Plus, of course, if you buy a PC you have to go hang out with lesser individuals, while if you buy a Mac you'll end up in the company of superior, lovely MacNNers.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

Firewire?

It's nice that all Mac desktops (even the mini) come with FW800, whereas higher end PCs still only have FW400. However, it's damn annoying that no Macs have eSATA, and you can't add that either to the iMac or Mac mini.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That sounds awfully close to Hackintosh territory.

Anyways, one of the reasons I like iMacs is actually because they look nicer. I despise most PC cases I've seen, even if I respect their expandability. I was a bit happier with the iMac G5, as it had things such as a user-replaceable hard drive.

BTW, iMacs retain their value much better than the Mac Pros. It turns out for me, I get better value selling my iMac every three years and buying a new one than I would get buying a much more expensive Mac Pro and keeping it 5 years and spending more money to upgrade it in the interim... esp. since Mac tower upgrades are often so expensive. Real non-flashed GPUs for Mac Pros are a good example.

Furthermore, since I get 3-year AppleCare on my iMacs, I'm rarely with a main machine that doesn't have full warranty coverage. That peace of mind alone is worth something to me.

I don't get the case argument given the vast plethora of options out there, but certainly Applecare and retaining value are valid points - the former for not building your own PC, and the latter for justifying the price difference. I personally prefer to use my computers into the ground when they are left with little resale value (I keep a spare backup Mac around too).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by downinflames68 

Anybody check into how much a USED desktop PC is worth lately?

Jack. ****.

Wheras a used 24" iMac = $1000, at least.

Apple's stuff holds resale value FAR better than any PC, negating the increased purchase price.

If you plan to sell later on, sure...

[Eug]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't get the case argument given the vast plethora of options out there

Well, I used to build PCs for my own use (and still have one in the closet which I use once a year to configure some stuff), and I can assure you that almost all PC case design is uber-ugly. And even when it isn't that bad, the mismatch of colour with peripherals like optical drives can still make it ugly.

but certainly Applecare and retaining value are valid points - the former for not building your own PC, and the latter for justifying the price difference. I personally prefer to use my computers into the ground when they are left with little resale value (I keep a spare backup Mac around too).

How many tower Macs do you have sitting around collecting dust? I have several desktop Macs sitting around which I keep as extras for web surfing, but they're actually good looking small-footprint conversation pieces. eg. Lampshade iMac G4 in home theatre room, and Cube G4 in guest room. A tower Mac would look out of place and would take up too much room in those circumstances.

P.S. I just sold a used 24" iMac from 2006 (!) for around US$900, quick sale. It was the 24" 2.33 GHz, with 3 GB RAM (which was the maximum). However, I sold it after the 21.5" and 27" came out, and just after my 3-year warranty ran out.

I figure if I had sold it a month earlier, I could have gotten $1000+. However, I didn't feel like being iMac-less for 2-3 months or more.

Meanwhile, my local retail Mac store is selling a 5-year old dual G5 2.0 Power Mac with 2 GB RAM for CAD$599 (~US$565).

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Eug 

It's nice that all Mac desktops (even the mini) come with FW800, whereas higher end PCs still only have FW400. However, it's damn annoying that no Macs have eSATA, and you can't add that either to the iMac or Mac mini.

My MacBook Pro Rosetta has both FW 400 and Firewire 800. My PowerMac FW 800 dual 1.25 circa 2003 is still going strong with updated video card. Runs OSX 10.5.8 Flawlessly. Except for video editing, it's still a fast machine for most tasks. Seven years old and doesn't owe me a penny.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

My MacBook Pro Rosetta has both FW 400 and Firewire 800. My PowerMac FW 800 dual 1.25 circa 2003 is still going strong with updated video card. Runs OSX 10.5.8 Flawlessly. Except for video editing, it's still a fast machine for most tasks. Seven years old and doesn't owe me a penny.

Well, IMO, the dual G4 800 is slow as molasses in 2009 terms for desktop use. A dual 1.25 is better, but isn't fast either. And neither can run Snow Leopard of course.

I like old computers as much as the next guy, and have a tarted up Cube in my home office as my VPN machine. But fast it definitely is not.

I happen to do video encoding. This is Handbrake on some of my machines:



The MacBook Pro isn't in the same league as my iMac Core i7. However, my 1700 MHz G4 Cube isn't even in the same universe. It takes a little over 2 minutes to encode something that takes my Cube well over an hour.

In truth, if I were on a limited budget, I'd be able to get by on a G4 dual 1.25, as long as it had been upgraded with a decent GPU ($$$) and a decent hard drive ($$). However, I sure wouldn't want to, as a used iMac Core 2 Duo would be better in nearly every way. Luckily you have that MacBook Pro.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Gods I'm embarrassed I recommended it.

This begs the question, why on earth did you recommend it? HP? Really?

Even the monitor is cheap plastic. The case is a generic metal ATX case. The rear of the PC looks like every single other PC in the world. I feel like if I just look at it wrong, it's going to fall apart.

Dude... it's HP!
And why on earth wouldn't you buy a decent monitor rather some default pile of crap sold with the HP?

It has no less than 6 USB ports, but it ships with a PS2 keyboard and mouse. What the ?

You spent $1500 and didn't get the HP Wireless Elite keyboard and mouse (about the ONLY nice thing HP makes)?

This really isn't a matter of PC's being sh*ttier in gerneral, but of you seriously failing to make good use of $1500.

...but I expected more for a $1500 PC.

Whoever's money you spent should too. Then again, they should have hired someone without an 'Apple chip on their shoulder' who can make better use of a $1500 budget for hardware too.