linathael
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
panos.v wrote:
If you start thinking how you can get the same performance for less and the words "value", "cost", "benefit" and "ratio" turn up, you don't want the iMac. Nobody buys an iMac for the cost-to-performance benefit. You buy it because it looks nice and runs OS X (which is a personal taste). The fact that it is a pretty good machine too is a bonus. But Dell can most definately sell you something faster for less.
not necessarily with the same quality and reliability.
If Apple is first in customer satisfaction, and Dell way behind there is a reason, and it has a cost.
As a definition you should invest in a computer you feel confident and comfortable with.
After all, one should not restrict "faster" to the clock speed of your processor. In addition, the iMac 27" comes with core i5 or i7 (a quad core CPU unlike stated by the original poster).
Today, performance of a computer is drivent buy the best combination between CPU, RAM and HD (and of course GPU). In other words, it is useless to get a quad core GPU in a Dell if you get a slow HD, as it will be the bottle neck.
In addition multicore hardware are only usefull and user benefits from it when the OS and the application are coded to be multi-core-aware.
Windows XP and Vista are NOT particularly multicpre aware, Windows 7 should improve this topic, but one should be cautious between what Microsoft says and what is finally done.
Linux is multicore aware, and Mac OS X Snow Leopard is too. In other words, the stystem itself will run faster on multicore CPU hardware. If your favorite application is coded mono-threaded (so single core aware), then one one core of your quad core will be used. In this case it could be usefull to have a Core i5 or i7, or any CPU featuring the Turbo Boost mode, able to overclock its cores depending on load and threading of applications.
overall, if you feel that the Mac and its OS X would be nice as a try, then go for it, you will of course be able to sale your hardware at a good price if you change your mind. If you go for a PC, then carefull select a unit with the same specification (meaning true identical motherboard, CPU, HD RAM latency, etc...) than the iMac to really find simlar performance level.
I did the exercice recently, and the iMac or any other Mac hardware is only 10% more expensive than its "true" corresponding PC model. I know some people will argue I am wrong because they simply look at the CPU and its clock speed, and not beyond, but this is a mistake.
I might even think than the original poster might really improve its current hardware by purcahsing the Samsung 24" LED display + fast HD (WD velociraptor, or even SSD) + some RAM modules with low CL.
Have fun, and remember, the best computer is the one that can do the work you want to do without troubles and fights.
PS: If you want to switch to Mac, do it, maybe by step, get a MacBook Pro 13.3" and start discovering how Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard is a real advanced OS, even compared to Win7. Discover why it really matters to get a computer thought as a optimized unit and not assembled pieces. I use both mac and PC, and if you give me the choice, I go Mac as you can get access to plenty of features without the pain of looking for them, better GUI for both beginner and power user.
|
I guess it's the Ford vs Chevy vs Imports vs coke vs pepsie vs......