Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

supernature · Jun 13, 2002, 08:02 PM

$1188 - Dell 1.7Ghz Celeron
$1599 - iMac 700mhz G4

The Dell lacks Firewire (can't add it on - no room to expand).
Otherwise basic specs are similar.

JLFanboy · Jun 13, 2002, 08:28 PM

Do you think you could post the specific specs? Like, does the Dell have a 15" LCD? Or maybe a link.

Chimpmaster · Jun 13, 2002, 09:24 PM

A 1.7ghz celeron and a g4 700 are not comparable chips in the slightest.

Also I doubt the celeron has a gforce 2 mx video card or lcd sceen.

Ive priced dell machines and for the same $ as my imac fp cost, i could get

a 1.7 ghz P4, 256mb ram, 17inch crt screen, g force 3 ti 200, cdrw, integrated sound, hk 206 speakers etc.

I went with the imac anyway. And im damned glad i did now....

mbryda · Jun 13, 2002, 10:58 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by supernature:
$1188 - Dell 1.7Ghz Celeron
$1599 - iMac 700mhz G4

The Dell lacks Firewire (can't add it on - no room to expand).
Otherwise basic specs are similar.<hr /></blockquote>Does that include 15" LCD?
Does that include the iApps you get with the iMac?
Does that include a REAL video card, not the crap shared memory Intel junk on the motherboard?

Last time I priced Dulls (not that they I'd EVER buy one - they are PURE JUNK) the iMac was CHEAPER!!!

Mac Zealot · Jun 13, 2002, 11:34 PM

Apple r***s dell in prices.

EDIT:
PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE A PRICE WAR with a violent crime.

-- your mod, VMARKS.

For $1099 you can get a emac with 700mhz g4, cd-rw, decent amount of ram, geforce 2mx with 32mb ddr ram, and a 17" flat crt of very high quality.

For a bit more you get a crappy processor, shared memory graphics, no iapps, no OS X, and a cheap 15" SHADOW MASK monitor.

Shadow mask sucks, it's not even flat, and when they are they're usually just extra glass lol.

The emac has the snazzy wired apperature, the difference between a shadow mask and that is the shadow mask is like a coin in a bottle whereas the flat CRT is more like a ship in a bottle.

The emac is a real bargain, so is the imac. The imac is a much smaller machine and has a revolutionary (dare I say this sean) 15" LCD that's actually digital (not the DAC crap that dell uses)...

Plus both macs have something dell can never give, built in digital sound.

[ 06-15-2002, 06:44 AM: Message edited by: vmarks ]

Superchicken · Jun 13, 2002, 11:40 PM

if I EVER bought a PC, which I dout I will, It'd never be a Dull, granted the cases look... slightly... better than the ones for most oftheir competitors.
But... yeah, I'd either go Sony, or coustom built. I'd never buy form Compaq, HP, or Dull, or gateway.

ae77 · Jun 14, 2002, 07:39 PM

iMac runs macos... yum

dell runs windows... yuck

i'll go with iMac. thank you.

supernature · Jun 14, 2002, 08:47 PM

The Dell uses the built-in sloth - Intel graphics card. It's configured with a 15"LCD monitor. The 1.7 Celery stick is probably slower than the 800mhz G4, but the G4 in the iMac is nothing to get too excited about. Without the L3 cache, it performs as fast as a 667mhz G4 in the PowerBook.

I've had a Dell before (not by choice), and the novelty of having a Dell (or rather just having another computer) wore off in a couple of seconds.

My iMac DV SE 400mhz G3 with DVD was probably my favorite of any computer I've had.

NeoMac · Jun 14, 2002, 09:17 PM

You can be certain of one thing, the G4-800 in the iMac will beat the crap out of the Celeron doing MPEG2 encoding (for DVD making). ...hmmm, or would it? Curious.

Edit: statement adjusted for the sake of the Politically Correct police squad member SuperChic[k]en

[ 06-15-2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: NeoMac ]

Superchicken · Jun 14, 2002, 09:56 PM

OK guys, there are better ways of saying that something would beat something than likeining it to Rape.

I take it you've never known anyone who's been raped. I've known lots of people, and I'd have to say that you guys really just look obnoxious saying stuff like that. I understand that you don't really get what rape is. But please, that's like.. soo... insulting to people who have been raped.

kmkkid · Jun 15, 2002, 02:18 AM

Who are you people trying to kid? Honestly. In Canada I can get 2 TOP OF THE LINE PC's and 17" CRT monitors (which I like better then FP's) for the same price as the low end FP iMac. Now I'm not going to get into the debate of which has better hardware, or has the better OS, but PC's win in price. No question. Maybe it's different in the states, but $$ conversion tends to work out to around the same price, remember Dell is a very expensive company to deal with, so I wouldnt even go by what they charge. Try looking at the Good Compaq models.

Chris

mrgaskell · Jun 15, 2002, 04:47 AM

HA! He said good Compaq models! That's a good one...The fact that they sell Celeron systems for $1200 still blows me away. i work in a school where the district's IT person must be Gate's concubine, as he went away from Apple to pay $1300 a computer for PIII with 64 mb RAM and 30gb HDs (Like school computers on a network need big HDs). Anyways, Dells suck. PCs suck. Go with the Mac, unless you like the blue screen of death twice a day....

jimsmac · Jun 15, 2002, 05:43 AM

Macuser UK carries a good article on PC v Mac Pricing which is quite relevant to this thread.

<a href="http://www.macuser.co.uk/james" target="_blank">Macuser UK</a>

and look in the news section for an article dated 14th June.

kmkkid · Jun 15, 2002, 02:11 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mrgaskell:
HA! He said good Compaq models! That's a good one...The fact that they sell Celeron systems for $1200 still blows me away. i work in a school where the district's IT person must be Gate's concubine, as he went away from Apple to pay $1300 a computer for PIII with 64 mb RAM and 30gb HDs (Like school computers on a network need big HDs). Anyways, Dells suck. PCs suck. Go with the Mac, unless you like the blue screen of death twice a day....<hr /></blockquote>Your info seems outdated. I have owned 2 Compaq's and they have always been good machines. And having BSOD's twice a day hmmm maybe you should upgrade from 95/98/ME and quit your whining, this is the year 2002 you know. 2K and XP very rarely crash, if ever, Unless your a complete moron and screw something up yourself i.e. install wrong drivers or incompatable programs

And people from england seem to have alot of troubles. Something to do with the hardware I think....

And jimsmac, that article seems very biased, and I don't see any real statistics at all, it just claims macs to be eaiser to use and cheaper to use, and on a mac site no less lmao <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Sure macs are worth the price you pay, but I know for a fact buying and running a PC here in Canada at least, is alot cheaper. (Or I'd have a G4 tower sitting here right now)

Chris

[ 06-15-2002, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: kmkkid ]

rampant · Jun 15, 2002, 02:21 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by supernature:
The Dell uses the built-in sloth - Intel graphics card. It's configured with a 15"LCD monitor. The 1.7 Celery stick is probably slower than the 800mhz G4, but the G4 in the iMac is nothing to get too excited about. Without the L3 cache, it performs as fast as a 667mhz G4 in the PowerBook.

I've had a Dell before (not by choice), and the novelty of having a Dell (or rather just having another computer) wore off in a couple of seconds.

My iMac DV SE 400mhz G3 with DVD was probably my favorite of any computer I've had.<hr /></blockquote>The 1.7 Celery is on the P4 core, so it's a little slower than the normal P4. It's comparable to a 1.13/1.2 Ghz P3M, which beats the G4 800 in most everything, sans a couple very altivec'd things.

mbryda · Jun 15, 2002, 11:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rampant:
The 1.7 Celery is on the P4 core, so it's a little slower than the normal P4. It's comparable to a 1.13/1.2 Ghz P3M, which beats the G4 800 in most everything, sans a couple very altivec'd things.<hr /></blockquote>I dono - my work supplied IBM Thinkpad A30p (1.3Ghz P3M) seems about as fast as my new iMac G4-800. Actually they all seem as fast as my Duron 700 box...

Mac Zealot · Jun 16, 2002, 01:20 AM

*shrug*

only in certain places are macs good value, anyhoot, LCD vs CRT?

We're not there, we're at the price/value comparison, and CRT is not part of this, even if it's 'better' or not. I don't really care any more because in my case the LCD is far better since I'll walk away in 10 years with less eye problems then you CRT freaks.

Anyhoot, was about to say, they're totally different things, different technologies, the fact that the imac is about the same price and has much higher quality (as well as looks!) makes the choice obvious.

And it only continues, configure that machine with a 17" flat CRT and you'll get it for about the same price as an emac, probably more. *shrug*

apple knows what they're doing, or else I wouldn't see so many people wanting and buying macs. The imac is a bit expensive, but once the emac goes to stores big time it'll take off pretty well.

rampant · Jun 16, 2002, 01:57 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mbryda:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rampant:
The 1.7 Celery is on the P4 core, so it's a little slower than the normal P4. It's comparable to a 1.13/1.2 Ghz P3M, which beats the G4 800 in most everything, sans a couple very altivec'd things.<hr /></blockquote>I dono - my work supplied IBM Thinkpad A30p (1.3Ghz P3M) seems about as fast as my new iMac G4-800. Actually they all seem as fast as my Duron 700 box...<hr /></blockquote>Regular explorer stuff will seem just as fast on a 400mhz P3 as a 2.5 Ghz P4. It's the heavy office and graphics stuff that where it taxes.

mrgaskell · Jun 16, 2002, 02:38 AM

Actually, I am running XP on a 1ghz Athlon, 512RAM, 60 GB HD, HP P.O.S. and have a processor (maybe, MS can't figure it out)incompatability that MS tech support can't solve. So there's your year 2002 MS ****e! By the way, I'm from the states, so "bugger off"!

....always jumping to conclusions...tell Bill to get new MS whores....

mrgaskell · Jun 16, 2002, 02:40 AM

Also, if you want to find out how "stable" 2k and XP are, go to MS's newsgroup! You'll see how stable it is. Oh yeah, and XP forgets my IP proticol about every two months so I have to reinstall the driver to my wireless USB connector and re-configure my dial-up. It's a "bug" MS tells me...hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

TNproud2b · Jun 16, 2002, 04:02 AM

A "processor incompatibility"?

You called Microsoft because you think you have a "processor incompatibility"?

and they couldn't help you?

go figure.

vmarks · Jun 16, 2002, 06:03 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TNproud2b:
A "processor incompatibility"?

You called Microsoft because you think you have a "processor incompatibility"?

and they couldn't help you?

go figure.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, re-read his comment.

What I understood was this:
He called MS for help, and rather than help him, they decided he must have a processor incompatibility.

mbryda · Jun 17, 2002, 07:50 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rampant:
Regular explorer stuff will seem just as fast on a 400mhz P3 as a 2.5 Ghz P4. It's the heavy office and graphics stuff that where it taxes.<hr /></blockquote>It all seems the same - the graphics stuff (Photoshop), the Office stuff (although Office X seems a little slower - I havn't updated yet), etc....

I recently built an AthlonXP 1800 for a friend - whole deal, 256DDR, good video, etc. I was less than impressed with the speed - it seemed as fast as my Duron 700 box...

Sap · Jun 17, 2002, 02:39 PM

If you're going to do a price war, do it right!

<a href="http://www.apple.com/imac/" target="_blank">$1599 iMac</a>:

� RAM: 256MB PC133 SDRAM
� HD: 40GB ATA/66 drive
� CD-RW: 12x8x32x
� DVD: 8x
� Gfx Card: GeForce2 MX (32MB DDR)
� Keyboard: Apple Pro Keyboard
� Mouse: Apple Pro Mouse
� Monitor: 15" LCD
� Processor: 700 MHz G4
� OS: Mac OS X/9

<a href="http://arstechnica.com/guide/system/hotrod.html" target="_blank">$1469 PC</a>:

� RAM: 512MB PC2100 DDR-SDRAM
� HD: 80GB ATA/133 drive
� CD-RW: 32x12x40
� DVD: 16x
� Gfx Card: GeForce4 Ti4200 (64MB DDR)
� Keyboard: Microsoft Natural Keyboard Pro
� Mouse: Logitech Optical Wheel Mouse
� Monitor: 19" CRT
� OS: Windows XP
� Processor: Athlon XP 2000
* Sound Card: SoundBlaster Audigy
* Speakers: Logitech Z-560 4.1
* Floppy drive

So, the PC has twice as much faster RAM, twice as large faster HD, faster CD-RW, faster DVD, much faster graphics card, and much better sound (great sound card and speakers - iMac doesn't come with either.)

Both have FireWire (there goes that advantage...) but if you really want to get into that stuff, the PC has PS/2 and little mystery audio/video ports up the wazoo.

I'm not going to get into the processor because that is way too complicated. For the sake of this comparison, lets just assume that the chips are equivalent.

rampant · Jun 17, 2002, 02:42 PM

Sure, if it's a 1.3 Ghz P4. <img border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" title="" src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

mbryda · Jun 17, 2002, 03:13 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sap:
If you're going to do a price war, do it right!
So, the PC has twice as much faster RAM, twice as large faster HD, faster CD-RW, faster DVD, much faster graphics card, and much better sound (great sound card and speakers - iMac doesn't come with either.)
<hr /></blockquote>Plus the cost of overinflated shipping from various little companies, the hassle of DIY (even though it's not much of a hassle), no warranty, etc....

Apple isn't trying to convert thr DIY crowd (although they got me), but those who would buy a Compuke, emachines, Dull, etc.

[ 06-17-2002, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: mbryda ]

Mac Zealot · Jun 17, 2002, 05:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sap:

* Floppy drive

<hr /></blockquote>Equal assault:

You suck

Why do you need a device that's 10 years old? my 12 yr old 486 laptop has a 3.5" floppy drive, and you people use these things like it's for survival.

If you really need portable storage buy one of those fingerdrive USB things, plenty fast and much more compact.

Superchicken · Jun 17, 2002, 05:19 PM

Huston we have trolls

Compaq SUCKS! I have no idea why a certain poster here thinks compaqs are dcent. My family has one, it's a peice of GARBAGE!

Can't do crap and freezes twice a day, start talking about drivers, heck they're messed up of course my mom and dad and sister use it. They're part of the crowd that NEEDS a start button. I'ts a GARBAGE computer. It doesn't even wake up from sleep half the time. But you know, most programs won't run that much faster on a 1 Ghz to 2 Ghz. Once you hit 1Ghz, you're prolly not gona notice much of a difference weather it takes a quarter of a second or half a second to load a gygundo html file.

Photoshop sure, but that's why we've got AltiVec.

The 800Mhz iMac is fine, and best of all, unlike Dells, and Gateways, and Compaqs and HPs, they're EASY TO USE. For those of us who arn't comp lit! I bought an iMac. and at first I knew like SQUAT about the OS. I know tons now, but I never had near the troubles with my iMac that my family has had with the compaq.

By the way, you guys keep forgetting to factor in the price of anti virus software into those machines. you'll need it

Sap · Jun 17, 2002, 05:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sap:

* Floppy drive

<hr /></blockquote>Equal assault:

You suck

Why do you need a device that's 10 years old? my 12 yr old 486 laptop has a 3.5" floppy drive, and you people use these things like it's for survival.

If you really need portable storage buy one of those fingerdrive USB things, plenty fast and much more compact.<hr /></blockquote>The main point of the floppy is to do funky stuff with the bios (or so I'm told - never actually used mine.) You could easily get by without one, but honestly, they're only $9 and its nice to be able to maintain compatability, so what the heck.

CharlesS · Jun 17, 2002, 05:47 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
Apple r***s dell in prices.

EDIT:
PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE A PRICE WAR with a violent crime.

-- your mod, VMARKS.<hr /></blockquote><Applause>

About time people started getting called for this!

rampant · Jun 17, 2002, 06:12 PM

When will Mac Zealot learn and stop the Zealotry

.

rampant · Jun 17, 2002, 06:13 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Huston we have trolls

Compaq SUCKS! I have no idea why a certain poster here thinks compaqs are dcent. My family has one, it's a peice of GARBAGE!

Can't do crap and freezes twice a day, start talking about drivers, heck they're messed up of course my mom and dad and sister use it. They're part of the crowd that NEEDS a start button. I'ts a GARBAGE computer. It doesn't even wake up from sleep half the time. But you know, most programs won't run that much faster on a 1 Ghz to 2 Ghz. Once you hit 1Ghz, you're prolly not gona notice much of a difference weather it takes a quarter of a second or half a second to load a gygundo html file.

Photoshop sure, but that's why we've got AltiVec.

The 800Mhz iMac is fine, and best of all, unlike Dells, and Gateways, and Compaqs and HPs, they're EASY TO USE. For those of us who arn't comp lit! I bought an iMac. and at first I knew like SQUAT about the OS. I know tons now, but I never had near the troubles with my iMac that my family has had with the compaq.

By the way, you guys keep forgetting to factor in the price of anti virus software into those machines. you'll need it

<hr /></blockquote>I have a Compaq, it's the best laptop I've ever had, and I've owned about 8. Rock solid, fast, huge screen, and not a problem with it. You got a lemon.

Mac Zealot · Jun 18, 2002, 03:29 AM

Compaq makes the ugliest computers, no matter what series they are, they're all pretty ugly, even back to the 286 days.

And what's inside is usually not too much better, though I admit it's better than dell.

*shrug* I actually almost bought a blue/white one though, I kinda liked the way it looked.

But otherwise, in general, compaqs are butt ugly, especially the laptops.

rampant · Jun 18, 2002, 04:40 AM

Butt Ugly?

<img src="http://athome.compaq.com/images/8000carbon_family.gif" alt=" - " />

<img src="http://a.r.tv.com/cnet.1d/i/co/ps/200/9771839_200_1.gif" alt=" - " />

nope, I don't see the ugly.

vmarks · Jun 18, 2002, 05:19 AM

If you want to start a thread about Compaq, please post it in the Lounge, not eMac&iMac.

My own compaq experiences have been legion. I've had to work with many of the compaq towers, from 486 til present- invariably the drivers stink and the motherboards have had a poor interface for PCI- all cards go in a cage that then plugs to the motherboard, but it near impossible to fit properly. Why the annoyance? So they can have a case with the cards laid out vertically? For the towers, decisions were made that produced annoyance, with no benefit. They did get the idea of putting firewire on the front and covering it with a hinged black hood, but the ethernet drivers for that machine were near impossible to work with.

Speaking of compaq laptops, I'm glad that they've replaced the Armada series with the Evo. The Evo looks nice and is lightweight. Too bad that the ones I've dealt with had batteries that wouldn't take a charge, and wouldn't identify themselves to the bios or OS. The Armadas I've had to deal with were perfect junk, every one of them. Arguing with the compaq service representative that it needs a new motherboard because the thing stops working after 15 minutes of intensive use is not how I choose to spend my time. Repeating that experience with different model Armadas and with different representatives made it more distasteful.

Now, please keep in mind that these are my own personal experiences. If you have had a good experience, I'm glad to hear it. I'm certain they must have produced something of quality, and I'm certain that it is always easier to find the people with bad experiences than those who quietly enjoyed a peaceful existence.

As for eMac and PC Pricing, it is worth taking into account the difference you save on a PC, if any, versus the value of living a frustration-free (or diminished) existence with the eMac.

KellyHogan · Jun 18, 2002, 06:06 AM

My iMac is easy to use. My XP box is easy to use. I'm computer literate and can use a two button mouse.

But anyone who thinks an iMac compares to a similar price PeeCee is stupid. For the same price I could buy a PeeCee with double the ram, 5.1 channel sound, 160GB HD, DVD-RW (that supports packet writing), 17 inch TFT and Geforce 4Ti. But I prefer to build my PeeCees with bare minimum specs that serve my needs.

However, Doom III looks like it will tempt me into buying a Geforce 5 high-end card. Meanwhile I have had my eye on this Geforce 4Ti 4200 card which is a gold sample chipset and is dirt cheap:

Gainward Geforce 4 Ti 4200, Golden Sample Ultra/650
Price:�139 (�163 inc VAT)

Just when the dust seems to have settled after the recent launch of the GeForce4 graphics card family, Nvidia has thrown yet another spanner in the works. While the GeForce4 MX is a high-value proposition, it lacks the crucial Pixel and Vertex Shader support of the GeForce4 Ti. Striking a balance between the two is the new GeForce4 Ti 4200, boasting the full range of features found in the top-end cards, but costing around half the price.

In terms of performance, the Ti 4200 slots in between the MX 460 and Ti 4400, meaning this Gainward board offers the same 2D and 3D features as the Ultra/750 XP, but for a bargain price. This is achieved by reducing memory and core clock speeds and also, significantly, by reducing the amount of on-board memory from 128Mb to 64Mb. For most people, the drop will make absolutely no difference - the benefit of the 128Mb will only be realised at very high resolutions with anti-aliasing enabled.

The clocks speeds are the lowest of the Ti boards, running at 250MHz for the core and 500MHz for the memory. Even so, the GeForce4 Ti 4200 flew through our tests, scoring a mighty 2.2. This level of performance is unprecedented at this price point, beating the more expensive Radeon 8500-based cards.

Despite being the non-Golden Sample version of the Ultra/650, this Ti 4200 is fantastic value. It delivers near cutting-edge performance at an affordable price. Our advice is to buy one.

moss514 · Jun 18, 2002, 06:32 AM

No matter how much less a Dull might be IT DOES NOT RUN MAC OS!!!! This thread is so ridiculous! If you're more worried about saving a little money than you are about using a computer that actually works the buy a Dull. Enjoy it. Maybe with the money you have left over you can buy some anti-virus software and an ice cream cone to celebrate!

[ 06-18-2002, 06:33 AM: Message edited by: moss514 ]

PowerBub · Jun 18, 2002, 09:34 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mbryda:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rampant:
The 1.7 Celery is on the P4 core, so it's a little slower than the normal P4. It's comparable to a 1.13/1.2 Ghz P3M, which beats the G4 800 in most everything, sans a couple very altivec'd things.<hr /></blockquote>I dono - my work supplied IBM Thinkpad A30p (1.3Ghz P3M) seems about as fast as my new iMac G4-800. Actually they all seem as fast as my Duron 700 box...<hr /></blockquote>and this is the whole thing...people seem to like big numbers, and i don't know why! like 5% of the people who blab on about the g4 beating the p4 in this or the p4 beating the g4 in that will ever need all that power for anything worth while. for my normal stuff...which for me is web development, photoshop, playing/encoding mp3s, hell if i can tell the difference between a pentium III 1ghz or a p4 2.2 ghz, much less a g4!

i guess this is pretty off topic, but mbryda sure summed up a lot!

rampant · Jun 18, 2002, 01:42 PM

It's 'cause I like to waste my life with games! <img border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" title="" src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" />

Anand · Jun 18, 2002, 07:23 PM

You know, when I moved back to the states I bought a new Compaq PIII 500. When I got a job I got a G3 350. In academia people use macs and our center was mostly macs. I had used macs and PC but thought that they were a dying company and like everyone else should just go PC. At that time, there was surprisinly not much difference in price. What amazed me and made me a "Mac person" is how different those computers were. Initially, it was an older version of netscape that would freeze the window machine. Then it was the addition of a USB camera and the last straw was an attempt to do video editing (after installing a firewire card). Everything on that computer was a royal pain. Installing games sucked because half the time they did not work well. This computer now sits in our home for our kid to beat on. The mac at work has become my trusted tool. Did is crash. Yes at times,but never in OS X. We tried to install XP ($99 and a cheap camera when it came out - good deal) and that appears to have killed the compaq. The PC by all paper means was a better computer than my PIII. It had better everything. The computer equivelent to the St. Loius Rams. But it sucked. It just sucked. I wanted to like it. Boy did I. The thing cost lot of money and I wanted to like it. The apple just worked. That is the thing about the mac that I love, things just work. Even know, as I type this on my G3 350, things just work. I plug in a drive and it just works. I plug in a card reader and it just works. IT ALWAYS JUST WORKS. So when the time came to buy a new computer at home we looked at a whole bunch of computers. I thought about a Athlon XP 1800. They are really cheap and there are a lot of deals on them. However, I choose the new iMac. Why? The Athlon on paper has better everything. Better Ram, better HD, better video. But I can tell you that the iMac is a better computer. Simple as that.

And yes, the compaq is ugly. And K.H, why so bitter. If you don't like it don't buy it - and don't complain to us about it please.

TNproud2b · Jun 18, 2002, 07:32 PM

Putting cheap parts in a stylish case doesn't make them work any better or last any longer.

It might make you feel better, however, if you spent $3,000 on those $400 worth of parts...

Superchicken · Jun 18, 2002, 08:07 PM

Thing is, this low end market is designed for people who want to say "look I've got a computer with a nice case and I don't have to spend an hour with some sort of conclict"

Problems don't arise nearly as much on OS X as in Windows, as far as I've used.

My familys' compaq has neve rworked since we bought it, my friends PCs always have a problems, my iMac RARELY does.

Right now we have a bunch of computer geeks argueing about a computer for non computer geeks, and most of the geeks think they're soooooo smart on hard ware, but forget that this ain't a computer for the people with cash who have money to spend on high end graphics cards. They just want something to e-mail their friends on, and do their taxes.

mbryda · Jun 19, 2002, 06:34 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by TNproud2b:
Putting cheap parts in a stylish case doesn't make them work any better or last any longer.

It might make you feel better, however, if you spent $3,000 on those $400 worth of parts...<hr /></blockquote>I spent $1800 on probably $1200 worth of parts (iMac G4/800). Not too bad at all. Actually cheaper than a similar Dull or Compuke. Yeah I could have built it cheaper (probably closer to $900) but I fix computers all day and fixing my home PC is getting Old.

rootonimac · Jun 19, 2002, 10:37 PM

Well personally I feel I don't care how much better Dell's specs are, the iMac is a way better computer (to me atleast), you're getting a very inovative machine that's more portable then any dell, an LCD display that's easier on the eyes, and for one thing a way better operating system.

Mac Zealot · Jun 22, 2002, 05:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rampant:
Butt Ugly?

<img src="http://athome.compaq.com/images/8000carbon_family.gif" alt=" - " />

<img src="http://a.r.tv.com/cnet.1d/i/co/ps/200/9771839_200_1.gif" alt=" - " />

nope, I don't see the ugly.<hr /></blockquote>THen you're blind

ambush · Jun 22, 2002, 08:59 PM

Wait guys.

What *could* be *fun* in buying a PC if you buy a Dull, a eMachines, COMPAQ or whatever crappy ghetto clone company?

If I had to buy a PC, I'd rather build my own because when you buy Dell or COMPAQ or HP, you pay for the commercials they do, for the brand. If I had to buy a PC I would build my own case, mod it, shop for every little parts, know what inside of my comp, save LOTS OF CASH ( yes because you're not giving money to the young chinese people who build your PC ).

Anyways I'm like never going to buy a PC because it doesnt run OSX. I seriously fell in love with this OS and I don't wanna start using XP or even Linux.

my 0.02$. cant argue on that can you?

rampant · Jun 23, 2002, 02:37 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by rampant:
Butt Ugly?

<img src="http://athome.compaq.com/images/8000carbon_family.gif" alt=" - " />

<img src="http://a.r.tv.com/cnet.1d/i/co/ps/200/9771839_200_1.gif" alt=" - " />

nope, I don't see the ugly.<hr /></blockquote>THen you're blind

<hr /></blockquote>Being a fanboy is the only true blindness <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> .

Superchicken · Jun 23, 2002, 02:43 PM

Buddy there are lots of Comcraq lemons out there, like 2 out of every 3 are lemons. I was talking to an american recently who discribes his as a lemon too you're the only comcraq user I've ever met who acctually likes their PC.
Compaq is a TERRIBLE company, they have shotty parts, and can go so cheap because no one else wants the parts they're using.

By the way, that compaq you seem to think looks so nice, IS butt ugly, even beige is better than that. Sony's boxes look pretty good, HP's look like crap, Dull's look half decent.
Your econo PC brands are garbage

rampant · Jun 23, 2002, 04:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Buddy there are lots of Comcraq lemons out there, like 2 out of every 3 are lemons. I was talking to an american recently who discribes his as a lemon too you're the only comcraq user I've ever met who acctually likes their PC.
Compaq is a TERRIBLE company, they have shotty parts, and can go so cheap because no one else wants the parts they're using.

By the way, that compaq you seem to think looks so nice, IS butt ugly, even beige is better than that. Sony's boxes look pretty good, HP's look like crap, Dull's look half decent.
Your econo PC brands are garbage<hr /></blockquote>I've never heard of half the companies you're talking about, can you clarify?

vmarks · Jun 23, 2002, 05:32 PM

ok, gentle warning:

Return to topic, or it moves to the Lounge forum.