mdude85 wrote:
Why does the percentage of people who buy prebuilt computers have a bearing on the value of a prebuilt computer compared with a home-built computer?
Because, the value of prebuilt systems comes from not having to build it, having a comprehensive warranty, all from on source and tech support from the same.
You may want to save a few hundred bucks building your own system and enjoy the headaches it entails, but most do not and hence, the price difference is the value we/they place on the pre built system.
It's not a myth. It's faster, honestly, i'm using it now. I can compare it to home builds because a) I can build a computer, and b) I'm talking about me, and my money. There is no need for Apple to use expensive server components in their Quad Mac Pro, there is nothing offered (less infact, with only 4 ram dimms) a desktop i7 CPU and board don't offer. This new 27" iMac has only highlighted what a poor dear the quad MacPro actually is. Good use of the 99% statistic though.
*sigh*
To each their own. If you want to build your own system, then fine. But don't come on here and insist that anyone who doesn't is wasting money.
And don't come on here and insist that anyone who wants to pay for what Apple offers is wasting money.
If anything you are wasting your time building your own. I have better things to do than to fritter away hours and hours building, testing, configuring and warrantying a computer. Such as responding to all the "beating a dead horse" posts such as yours.
mdude85 wrote:
Basically no OEM except for Apple would bother to load up a Xeon processor with 8 GB of RAM and a really expensive graphics card. It just doesn't make sense because most of the EOM PC manufacturers only put their Xeon processors in servers where they belong. Maybe Apple just thinks that if they load up a bunch of top of the line products into a shiny case with a bunch of extra bays, that people will not even think twice about buying it, and maybe that has paid off for them, but it's not very economical for you and me. I just posted an example of how component for component, the Dell XPS 9000 matched the Mac Pro with a savings of $1500 by forgoing the "better" processor.
You can do the same with any of the other OEM PC manufacturers....Show more →
Again, you're not getting it. The Dell XPS 9000 is not the same. Price the Dell WS with identical components. It's more expensive. No one but you is mentioning performance/dollar.
It's still a free market economy (at least for now) so you buy what you want and I'll buy what I want. I'll place a dollar value on what I want and you do the same. Our values aren't going to match. Kind of the same reason some people are content to drive a Kia while others aren't happy with anything less than a new BMW every two years.
I was looking to make my own machine and use the x86 community forums and eFIX procedures to make a Hackintosh comp.
However, this iMac is the first Mac I would consider getting over building a Hackintosh. In fact, I think I'm going to buy the Apple.
Core i7 920
1 TB HD
6 GB Triple Channel DDR3 1600 RAM
NVidea GTX 260
Logitech mouse
Some Misc. Keyboard
HP LP2475w 24" H-IPS monitor
Gigabyte X58/CF Motherboard
Antec 1200 Case and Antec power supply
Comes out to be $1,9XX in Newegg with shipping.
Core i7 2.8 GHz
4GB DDR3 1066 RAM
1 TB drive
27" IPS LED backlit screen
Apple wireless keyboard and new awesome mouse
Comes out to be $1,9XX after 10% discount (Some family members qualify for Apple discounts) and NO TAX in Delaware (where said family members live)
While my would-be Hackintosh build would have FASTER RAM (1600 vs 1066) and a better dedicated videocard, the iMac has the better monitor, better peripherals, customer service/support, and faster processor. The RAM can always be added later and 16GB max upgradeable RAM on the iMac is MORE THAN enough for me. The Hackintosh can go up to 24GB, but I wasn't looking to upgrade either system past 12GB's, so whatever. The Hackintosh has hard drive expandability, but I'm working on a NAS system along with other external hard-drive bays so "inner-case HD expandability" isn't that big of a deal for me.
This leaves ONLY the videocard as a plus for the Hackintosh. The odds are, for once, in favor of the iMac. Slap on a non-glare screen shield and it is good to go.
Il Medico wrote:
Again, you're not getting it. The Dell XPS 9000 is not the same. Price the Dell WS with identical components. It's more expensive. No one but you is mentioning performance/dollar.
It's still a free market economy (at least for now) so you buy what you want and I'll buy what I want. I'll place a dollar value on what I want and you do the same. Our values aren't going to match. Kind of the same reason some people are content to drive a Kia while others aren't happy with anything less than a new BMW every two years.
I agree that it is important to compare the same parts when establishing a cost comparison. The choice of parts may not always translate to tangible performance gains, but that doesn't change the fact that more expensive parts are, in fact, being used.
On the other hand, I tend to agree with what many others have said; new MacPros are overpriced. The older Penryn systems were a great value, but the new Nehalems are hard to justify at their current price points. If I did not have access to some serious Apple discounts, I would not have bought one. My solace after spending all that money is (1) the computer's performance definitely meets my expectations, and (2) I've had a good personal history with Mac power-towers. My last Mac tower (PowerMac G5) delivered five years of faithful service, and would have delivered even more if Apple and software developers in general had not decided to dump PowerPC support. I only hope my current system will do as well or better.
balls wrote:
Unfortunately, that was not my experience. 4GB is just too little memory to handle large raw image files. I ran 4GB and the RAW files from my 5D2, and I was constantly having memory issues.
(...)
I bet for most the 27" IMac hits a sweet spot, but for large raw images, 4GB RAM has proven to be not enough memory.
I use a 2007 24" iMac, maxed out at a whopping 3 GB, shooting a 5D2 amongst others and have yet to run into problems with Lightroom 2.5... Granted, I don't switch back and forth between LR and PS. It's not perfect but it doesn't get close to being "proven not to be enough".
That said, I'd certainly get 8 GB when buying the new iMac which I probably will sometime next year. I think it's a wonderful offering and a big step forward. I'm only hesitant about the glossy screen...
To each their own. If you want to build your own system, then fine. But don't come on here and insist that anyone who doesn't is wasting money.
And don't come on here and insist that anyone who wants to pay for what Apple offers is wasting money.
If anything you are wasting your time building your own. I have better things to do than to fritter away hours and hours building, testing, configuring and warrantying a computer. Such as responding to all the "beating a dead horse" posts such as yours.
Gene
Now it just sounds like you're getting offended I said the price of Mac Pro's was ludicrous, and by most measures I can find they are (Specifically the Quad core tower which I should have added in at the start, granted). Want to pay the price? Fine. I passed comment on two things, price, and speed. Not value for money, not build quality, not after sales support, not any of the things you proceeded to use to validate your argument (Which are typically exagerated to make your point, I've hardly 'frittered away hours' on my computer, no more than I have taking my iMac or MBP back to the Apple store to get fixed ). My computer is cheaper, and for this price it's faster than a computer three times it's cost. These are facts. There are no dead horses. I doubt you would have been able to even comment if I hadn't used the word 'ludicrously' (Note, opinion, i'm hardly coming on here shouting the odds, If Apple made a sensibly priced mid range tower with suitable components I'd be first in line)
AdrianRogers wrote:
Now it just sounds like you're getting offended I said the price of Mac Pro's was ludicrous, and by most measures I can find they are (Specifically the Quad core tower which I should have added in at the start, granted). Want to pay the price? Fine. I passed comment on two things, price, and speed. Not value for money, not build quality, not after sales support, not any of the things you proceeded to use to validate your argument (Which are typically exagerated to make your point, I've hardly 'frittered away hours' on my computer, no more than I have taking my iMac or MBP back to the Apple store to get fixed ). My computer is cheaper, and for this price it's faster than a computer three times it's cost. These are facts. There are no dead horses. I doubt you would have been able to even comment if I hadn't used the word 'ludicrously' (Note, opinion, i'm hardly coming on here shouting the odds, If Apple made a sensibly priced mid range tower with suitable components I'd be first in line)...Show more →
The Mac mini is considered Apple's mid range tower with sensible components, although, it's a little higher priced than most computers in its range (like most Apple products aside from the iMac).
I still have to disagree that the Mac Pro is a good deal (and agree with you). I invite anyone to match component-for-component a Dell or HP or Acer desktop against a Mac Pro and see where the price comes out. Now ... if people want to say that the Mac OS, customer support, warranty and style are reasons to spend more on a Mac, then that's fine. Unfortunately you can't put a price on those add-ons. But it's fairly easy to price components.
Price, number-crunching performance, styling and customer support aside, as far as I can see this product either stands or falls with the implementation of the used screen.
Apple's screens for the last few years have sometimes used very competent innards - only to cripple them with truly sub-standard control electronics. It's been quite a while since an Apple screen could be said to be anything else than mediocre compared to the similarly priced "other-brand" screens, especially if you want accurate, calibrated/profiled images from your computer. Used in non-colour managed workflows like office use or such, they might be "ok" but not better. But still very expensive.
I've seen no reference of the control electronics in the screen yet, does anyone know?
Just bought the 27"Imac..screen is amazing....I am seeing detail in earlier images from my old 10D that I never knew existed..the 27" size is just spot on for editing images. I haven't sussed out screen calibration yet...except to say the images on screen are quite stunning in terms of colour, sharpness and depth from the standard profile.
Obviously there are issues a when compared to owning a desktop...but these can be easily overcome with today's external drives and hubs. Basically...I'm very pleased with my purchase.....I actually enjoy post processing images again!
I have my 27" i5 iMac with 8GB for three weeks now. Editing with this screen is very nice and performance is great. And I agree with anthonygh: the images look sooo nice
One small drawback: a certain amount of the new iMacs suffer from "yellow tinge", a sort of slight yellow cast on some places on the screen. Mine has it too I'm still thinking if I should exchange it as it is not too pronounced. I think I wait a few months till Apple has sorted it out.
New iMacs: glossy screens, but brightness is adjustable. Ars Technica has an article about it, but doesn't mention how it takes calibration. I hope someone who buys one will report in on that matter.
Just built an i7 PC setup and its speed is absolutely mind boggling!
i920 (at Microcenter) $199
Asus P6X58D (has usb 3.0 & Sata 6gb/s) $300
6gb Corsair PC1600CL8 memory $180
Intel 80gb SSD $240
Windows 7 Pro $140
NEC 2490WUXI (IPS 24" LCD refurbished) $650
Components from old PC (case, mouse, kb, speaker, drives, video card, ps) $0
Total around $1700 for a blazing fast system with top tier components (overclocked on air cooling to 4GZ) and I am very satisfied with the speed of this system. I have multiple internal drives to speed up my work flow but with USB 3.0 now out I'd me more comfortable using external backup storage to a greater degree (theoretical 10x USB 2.0 but practically speaking about 3-5x the speed based on recent reports which is comparable to some 7200 rpm internal drives).
But the iMac is still a great value for what you get IMHO and I'm sure anyone who wants one would be very happy with it. I plan on getting one for my son sometime in 2010.
I said the price of Mac Pro's was ludicrous, and by most measures I can find they are (Specifically the Quad core tower which I should have added in at the start, granted). Want to pay the price? Fine. I passed comment on two things, price, and speed. Not value for money, not build quality, not after sales support, not any of the things you proceeded to use to validate your argument (Which are typically exagerated to make your point, I've hardly 'frittered away hours' on my computer, no more than I have taking my iMac or MBP back to the Apple store to get fixed 
I'm still thinking if I should exchange it as it is not too pronounced. I think I wait a few months till Apple has sorted it out.