Apple's iMac to account for 25% of global desktop growth in 2010 - Page 4

Yes I heard you the first time. I am not saying that the Mac is doing well because it doesn't offer what you need.... I am saying it is doing well despite not offering what you (and many others here) say you need.

There have been many wise old armchair CEO's on these boards passing along their wisdom to the numbnut execs at Apple. "We need an xMac", matte screens, Blueray, licence Mac OS X, lower the prices, etc etc. Apple seems to have ignored most of this sage advice, and seems to be blissfully unaware that they are.... doomed.

There appears to be a common denominator amongst these armchair pundits. Their "advice" can normally just be boiled down to their own needs.

Yet nowhere did I imply that Apple would be doomed for not catering to prosumers... so what exactly are you implying?

All I'm saying is that there's a segment that Apple used to cater to and now they don't. These are easy sales for them if they just had the right hardware offerings.

That the iMac is an all in one is totally irrelevant to me, I just want a computer. I compared a Dell desktop to the iMac because the Mac Pro is so stupidly over priced I would have to be insane to ever buy one.

I also find it hard to take anything you say seriously with your childish comments about the appearance of the Dell, and about Windows. Grow up, you are (I assume) not a child.

So no, I'm not 'trolling' (whatever that means) just being sensible. The iMac is Apple's only consumer desktop offering with a modern CPU. Dell by comparison, have a large range of consumer desktop choices.

Call it not like for like if you wish, but I don't give a monkeys, I'm just comparing consumer desktops and Apple have chosen to offer an incredibly limited range.

I have a Mac AND a PC, so I feel quite qualified to comment.

I have no virii on either, no issues on either, and no complaints with either. I spend zero time looking after either other than 30 seconds installing Windows Security Essentials (a free download) on my Win 7 box when I got it. It handles everything automatically and never bothers me. It has never found a virus and I have never had any issues.

To achieve this I browse the web and download in a normal way using Chrome and Firefox.

Amazing, eh? But true.

As for Apple build quality, my MacBook has been repaired 4 times now (the case keeps cracking at the edges, and it's treated VERY carefully, plus the DVD drive died). My Airport Extreme drops all connections to the web about every 2 or 3 days and needs to be restarted. It's been replaced once and still does it. My iPhone has been replaced 3 times. The first had a weak 3G radio, the second was just poorly put together, and the third just flat out died. My Apple TV hasn't been replaced but loses it's connection to iTunes about once a week and needs to be restarted.

My PC (a Shuttle) has been replaced once when the motherboard died.

So nothing is perfect, especially Apple hardware.

So get a dell tower and not an iMac. Simple, no? I guess the hard part is not complaining about it.


Part of the price you don't want to pay is for better looks and OS X. You're on an Apple fan site. Deal.


So what? With the massive growth in iMac sales Apple is certainly serving the needs of many folks at such high prices. Don't like it...do what you did and buy a Dell. THEN MOVE ON.



And no one here cares other than trolls. The cost/spec ratio grossly favors Dell. No kidding. Pointing the obvious for the 10 billionth time on this forum isn't profound or useful and is pretty much trolling for the kind of reaction you got.

The difference in ease of use far outweighs the absolute cost delta (a few hundred bucks) for many many folks and that number is growing.

You need to (re)join the real world and stop watching those comedy fact free I'm a Mac/I'm a PC ads.

PC's only have virii if you are cluess. Harsh but true.

Quite.

And that's what I'll likely do. Much as I would like the iMac the lack of blu-ray and the crazy price (in the UK) is just an impossible barrier for me. I could buy a top end Dell, then have a nice holiday with all the money I'd save.

Easy decision really. Apple priced out a potential customer.

A lot of folks say this. I wonder how many have been rooted and don't know because their avs isn't reporting anything.


"We grabbed the next 10 unique samples that arrived in the SophosLabs feed to see how well the newer, more secure version of Windows and UAC held up. Unfortunately, despite Microsoft's claims, Windows 7 disappointed just like earlier versions of Windows. The good news is that, of the freshest 10 samples that arrived, 2 would not operate correctly under Windows 7."

http://www.sophos.com/blogs/chetw/g/...-8-10-viruses/

Yes, that's UACs and not the anti-virus in MSSE.

MSSE:

"The product's overall performance on the malware removal test was average, not outstanding. It detected 89 percent of the malware samples and scored 7.0 of 10 possible points for removal, the same score Prevx 3.0 attained. On a parallel test using commercial keyloggers, its scores were decidedly low: 30 percent detection and 1.8 points for removal. But that low detection rate indicates that Microsoft isn't really trying to remove most commercial keyloggers.

Although Microsoft touts the product's live kernel behavior monitoring and other features specific to rootkit removal, in practice the software detected only 67 percent of rootkit-type threats and scored just 4.9 points for removal, well below average. Hitman Pro detected 100 percent and scored 7.1 points."

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2348998,00.asp

Gee...I hope it does better than the beta. Yes, it does but not against the latest threats:

"To check dynamic malware, which is based on its behavior rather than static lists, AV-Test found that MSSE had no "dynamic detection" in place as the software failed to find any of the recently released malware used in the test. AV-Test noted that other standalone antivirus products don't include behavior-based detection either, although that feature is typically found in full security suites."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10366232-83.html

And of course this nice statistic that 32% of machines with up to date anti-virus software are still infected:

"Research Results

107,435 computer users have used the free version of Hitman Pro 3 for the first time in the period from October 10 to December 4.
78,828 users had an up-to-date antivirus program installed. 28,607 users had not.
25,038 (32%) of the 78,828 users with up-to-date antivirus program were infected with malware.
13,002 (46%) of the 28,607 users without up-to-date antivirus program were infected with malware."

http://www.surfright.nl/en/home/pres...pite-antivirus

This isn't to say that OS X is invulnerable. It sure isn't regardless of what Apple fans think.

But odds are 1 in 3 that you've got malware on your box without knowing about it.


You really need to stop buying Apple products because they suck. Then you should go to a windows site and proudly proclaim that.


Troll.

I guess you still need to board the clue train. Harsh but true.

Companies with hard core enterprise level security policies and software still get virus and successfully attacked. All it takes is one successful social engineering attack and boom...you're inside the firewall and rooted a machine.

You and your MSSE isn't even a challenge. If someone wanted your machines as part of a botnet it wouldn't be hard.

Win7 is a nice improvement over WinXP but as the actual security people show it's still not all that secure. Whether OSX is more secure or simply not worth the effort is immaterial. The odds that a OS X user is secretly rooted is a lower than a Windows user.

Me, I keep my financial crap on the OSX side and run Symantec anyway. If I were really paranoid I'd do all my surfing in a VM and nuke the VM every so often. Too lazy to do that.

Get thee hence...you are now more pwned than your Windows machine.

You know the interesting statistics regarding Win7 is in the white paper. It took me a rereading it to find it again:

On page 12 look at the Windows 32-bit versions:

Win XP SP2 45% infected
Win XP SP3 34% infected
Win Vista SP2 23% infected
Win7 RTM 33% infected

Nice 1% improvement over Xp there.

http://files.surfright.nl/reports/Hi...OctNov2009.pdf

The next page also has an important data point.

5915 machines had the TDSS/Alureon root kit.

Regardless of your platform choice, I call this error a id10t error.
Used this one as a codeword at work to describe a self inflicted problem by someone who could negatively effect my employment if they knew we were making fun of them.

So buy a Dell and spend that extra money on malware and viruse's!

As a member of mixed Mac & PC home, let me go on record as saying that malware claims on these boards are highly overstated.

Very sorry to hear about you financial predicament, based on what you've told me, I'd suggest buying a Dell tower. You can even use the fans to dry your washing and save a bit more. I hope things improve for you.

It's not a financial predicament. It's prudence. Why spend $3k on a tower that will do way more than you'd ever need... I wouldn't buy a semi if I just needed to move a couch.

Kotatsu, do what the intelligent, prudent, Mac-loving prosumers have been doing lately and build a hackitosh. There are a billion guides on the internet. Just be sure to buy a copy of Snow Leopard if your build requires downloading a modified DVD installation.

-Clive

The plural of virus is viruses.

But it sounds so... important!

I was making this same mistake up until just a couple months ago.

Virii sounds and looks much cooler. I mean, how often do you get to use a double-"i"?

Or viruse's.

A joke, I hope.

Apparently not.

I thought the plural of virus was Lady Gaga.

Windows cannot fail. It can only be failed.

Bonus points to Mr.Pedantic there. I award you a golden turnip for your efforts.

Ouch.


Double ouch.

I don't think pointing out a common but completely erroneous construction is really "pedantic."

Think of it this way: he's saved you from being beaten to death by an actual pedant with poor impulse control.

Actually I got it all the time in the past few years with XP, vista just went to a black screen, no message or anything. All from a faulty graphics card.

We are in violent agreement. 1mil more iMacs is still a rounding error to the overall market but amazing for Apple.

I wish Apple had its own trade-in policy for Macs. I feel they could offer the most value to someone who wants to buy a new Mac, but still has a relatively "new" Mac to get rid of first.

I was an early adopter of the first aluminum and glass iMacs, the 7,1 gen, and this gorgeous 20 incher is still my main machine. It's coming up on 3 years old now, and hasn't had but one harddrive corruption caused by (or rather, occurred during) the 10.6.2 update.

As much as I like the new iMacs, Apple really hasn't compelled me to upgrade. I'd love to have one of those 27" bad boys with the i5 or i7, but the price premium isn't what I expect to be paying right now. I paid $1500 for my iMac 3 years ago, and to do better than that today, I have to spend around $2000. That doesn't seem like progress to me.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe i'm being picky and selective with my configuration choices, but for me to upgrade an aging machine, I have to see the value in it. To get a better iMac than what I have now, I'd have to spend more than what I spent on this machine 3 years ago. I'm not ready for that at this time.
(granted, this is because of the dollar, not because of Apple price gouging, but some won't understand that)