Plus the cpu pushing those frames was a 3.2 P4. a 1.6 or 1.8 G5 will not push frames as fast as that P4. bottom line is FX5200 will play it like a slide show. Fx5200 is ok for mailing grandma,reading the net and is cheap as can be for Apple. it is a sad stae of affairs at Apple. they seem to think everyone is a photoshop geek with no need for decent video card.\ I suggest everyone send Apple a email complaining about their use of the cheapist chip made. I did, its hurting their sales and they dont seem to get this.
See the main page to put to rest some of the Apple LCD-quality myths.
"Other people buy the panels we reject." HA!
Looks like Apple will accept as many as 8 faulty pixels on iMac size displays, and as many as 15 (FIFTEEN!) on a 23"
Again, affordable digital/analogue 3rd party displays are of excellent quality. Formac guarantees no more than two faulty pixels, and I have personally seen DELL replace a display with as few as ONE!
No one can argue that Apple purchases more costly components, that line of apology should be discarded outright. The overwhelming evidence is that they purchase the same stuff as everybody else.
Aurora lay off the melodrama please. The issue isn't about the 5200fx sucking it's about the inability to upgrade it that has people worried. PCs today are tiered generally with shared memory integrated systems at the low end and then the 5200 or 5500fx cards at the midrange space where the iMac competes. The iMacs 5200 is competitive with their offerings albeit shy by 64MB in my opionion.
Please don't write Apple. Hey you're probably a cool guy in person but you tend to be a little overly excitable. I shudder to think what you're saying.
Quote:
See the main page to put to rest some of the Apple LCD-quality myths.
Matsu come on. That article is about guidelines and not quality. You're reaching.....far.
Quote:
The overwhelming evidence is that they purchase the same stuff as everybody else.
Then explain how they look better. The iMac G4 LCD to these old eyes looked better than most of the displays coming with PC. You're trying to build an arguement for your weak thesis that Apple uses the same old panels as everyone but I remain wholly unconvinced.
Despite the fact that Apple requires more faulty pixels before they replace the LCD I can't remember the last time I heard someone actually use this feature. In fact the new Cinema LCDs have been shipping and I haven't heard a report from anyone with more than 2 and certainly not 8.
Aurora lay off the melodrama please. The issue isn't about the 5200fx sucking it's about the inability to upgrade it that has people worried. PCs today are tiered generally with shared memory integrated systems at the low end and then the 5200 or 5500fx cards at the midrange space where the iMac competes. The iMacs 5200 is competitive with their offerings albeit shy by 64MB in my opionion.
Please don't write Apple. Hey you're probably a cool guy in person but you tend to be a little overly excitable. I shudder to think what you're saying.
Matsu come on. That article is about guidelines and not quality. You're reaching.....far.
Then explain how they look better. The iMac G4 LCD to these old eyes looked better than most of the displays coming with PC. You're trying to build an arguement for your weak thesis that Apple uses the same old panels as everyone but I remain wholly unconvinced.
Despite the fact that Apple requires more faulty pixels before they replace the LCD I can't remember the last time I heard someone actually use this feature. In fact the new Cinema LCDs have been shipping and I haven't heard a report from anyone with more than 2 and certainly not 8.
I've noticed with Dell at least that they offer multiple 17" LCD options with their machines (in addition to all the CRTs). one is relatively inexpensive and one is quite a bit pricier. I'm certain the garden variety LCDs the other makers offer at their bargain prices are *not* the same quality as the ones Apple ships. The higher priced option is probably equal but then it ends up being 150 - 200 dollars more.
What I saw were the institutional prices on eMacs, and the a friend's screen grab of the iMac delay page in the Apple store, whcih had already been posted on AI. Doesn't mean I wasn't shown, just means it isn't as interesting as I tried to make it sound.
The only inside info I can scoop for ya relate to edu and urban planning. I can tell you where some Canadian Apple STores will land -- but most people know that already, and I can tell you if/when/how much the "real" edu dicounts are -- not what Apple posts on their site.
I've noticed with Dell at least that they offer multiple 17" LCD options with their machines (in addition to all the CRTs). one is relatively inexpensive and one is quite a bit pricier. I'm certain the garden variety LCDs the other makers offer at their bargain prices are *not* the same quality as the ones Apple ships. The higher priced option is probably equal but then it ends up being 150 - 200 dollars more.
I've noticed this as well and I always choose the higher quality option when comparing Dell against Apples. The iMac LCD quality is gorgeous, Bright and sharp, it is definitely top notch.
If Apple added upgradable graphics(yes I'm dreamin) then I think many of the fears would be muted somewhat. Funny though ...I can't remember a time when I've seen so many "budget" geeks. $1299 expensive for a computer? I believe the US median income is over 30K. You have a dual income family and brings in 60k or more. $1299 is not a big deal. Again many people will pay Time Warner, Comcast or Optima Online much more than that.
My computer has earned me money or at the least saved me money. My cable bill has never paid any dividends. It's money gone.
I'm buying the next revision of the iMac and I don't care how "slow" people think it is. I bet it earns me enough money over its lifespan to earn at least half of its cost back.
I've noticed this as well and I always choose the higher quality option when comparing Dell against Apples. The iMac LCD quality is gorgeous, Bright and sharp, it is definitely top notch.
If Apple added upgradable graphics(yes I'm dreamin) then I think many of the fears would be muted somewhat. Funny though ...I can't remember a time when I've seen so many "budget" geeks. $1299 expensive for a computer? I believe the US median income is over 30K. You have a dual income family and brings in 60k or more. $1299 is not a big deal. Again many people will pay Time Warner, Comcast or Optima Online much more than that.
please speak for yourself. for a family of 4 where 2 children are soon to be in colleges that cost upwards of 40,000 the median income means nothing.
i don't think you'll find any shortage of single apartment dwelling 20 somethings in Apple Stores. But I don't see many families.
And who exactly do you think uses these boards? The majority here are teens, children, college students or just out of college. 1300 is a big expense, especially when similar offerings can be had for less.
Of course there always seem to be the few here who have no spending limits, and get whatever they want or are in the industry and can justify spending 3000 on a powermac and then turn around and say everyone who wants to play a game should just suck it up and pay the same.
Concerning LCD quality , my father compared the quality of the screen of my powerbook 17 inch with his Dell inspiron 8200 P4 2,4 ghz. He came to the conclusion, that the one of the powerbook was better, and that it was unfortunate, that he did not went for the high quality screen option that dell offered.
Apple computers have good componements undoubtely, but it do not mean, that it make them 100 % proof. Failures occur even with IBM, but when you look at the quality of construction, you know what you pay for.
1300 is a big expense, especially when similar offerings can be had for less.
Really? You can get a system that has the same usability, stability, software packages that integrate well, and overall lack of fear of viruses, worms, and other nasty things, for less?
Point me to it, man.
FWIW, *I* certainly don't know of another system that provides the same level of security, usability, and breadth of integrating technologies. For me, the computer is a tool to do work, and if someone can point me to a serious contender to the Mac, for less, I'll jump on it. I just don't see one. Anywhere.
Now, if *all* you're looking at is the hardware specs... well... I have work to do.
Really? You can get a system that has the same usability, stability, software packages that integrate well, and overall lack of fear of viruses, worms, and other nasty things, for less?
Point me to it, man.
FWIW, *I* certainly don't know of another system that provides the same level of security, usability, and breadth of integrating technologies. For me, the computer is a tool to do work, and if someone can point me to a serious contender to the Mac, for less, I'll jump on it. I just don't see one. Anywhere.
Now, if *all* you're looking at is the hardware specs... well... I have work to do.
give me a fucking break. everywhere on this forum you've shown to be a well reasoned poster but in this thread you've just been a prick.
if i didn't recognize those advantages, the advantages of a mac, i wouldn't be a mac user. you're wasting your time preaching to the choir yet you keep doing it.
hmurchison said 1300 was cheap and "not a big deal" i was disputing that. 1300 is a big deal. you want to pick on one phrase in a post and ignore all the rest which I can only assume you can't dispute than fine.
You can get similar offerings for less. You can get a PC with a DVD burner for less. You can get a PC that will last longer than that iMac for less. No, things are as "secure, integrated, or have the same level of usability" yet 95% of the population uses them and doesn't use the solution that is all those things according to you.
You look at everything from a very bias point of view.
please speak for yourself. for a family of 4 where 2 children are soon to be in colleges that cost upwards of 40,000 the median income means nothing.
...
And who exactly do you think uses these boards? The majority here are teens, children, college students or just out of college. 1300 is a big expense, especially when similar offerings can be had for less.
hmurchison said 1300 was cheap and "not a big deal" i was disputing that. 1300 is a big deal. you want to pick on one phrase in a post and ignore all the rest which I can only assume you can't dispute than fine.
give me a fucking break. everywhere on this forum you've shown to be a well reasoned poster but in this thread you've just been a prick.
Yeah, whatever.
Quote:
if i didn't recognize those advantages, the advantages of a mac, i wouldn't be a mac user. you're wasting your time preaching to the choir yet you keep doing it.
Because the choir keeps veering off into this bizarre idea that 'a comparable machine' can be had for a lot less. The machine is more than the hardware. You *know* this... and yet you, and a lot of people in here, are going to keep making ridiculous statements about 'comparable' machines. Yeah, you *bet* I can go get comparable *hardware* for less. No dispute there. But the very advantages that make you a Mac user are the ones you're paying for, and you'd stop and think about it for a minute, you'd realize how silly the 'comparable machine for less' stance really is.
Quote:
hmurchison said 1300 was cheap and "not a big deal" i was disputing that. 1300 is a big deal. you want to pick on one phrase in a post and ignore all the rest which I can only assume you can't dispute than fine.
Ah, but that one phrase is the crux of your argument, isn't it?
If one could *not* find comparable *hardware* for less, then you wouldn't be even attempting the position. But the hardware *can* be had for less... it's just the most important bits that would be missing. There's where the argument breaks down. Price only matters in a relative manner... $1300 would be dirt cheap 10 years ago, but *today's* market, with *today's* machines make that look pricey, from a strictly hardware POV. Once you start considering the entire machine, which is, after all, what one buys, then the arguments starts to break down.
'A comparable machine' cannot be found for a lot less, once the entirety of hardware, OS, security, stability, apps, technologies and usability is taken into consideration. It's just that simple. I actually care much less about the platform brand than what it can do for me. If you can, seriously, point me to an alternative, I'll take a look. Nothing I've seen comes close.
As to $1300 (or any amount) being pricey, or not, for a given family and their financial situation, that's up to the family to decide. I'm certainly not going to make any blankets statements regarding the absolute value of a monetary amount to a particular situation. For *me* $1300 is over a month's wages, so yeah, it's pricey as hell. For others, not so much. *shrug*
Quote:
You can get similar offerings for less. You can get a PC with a DVD burner for less. You can get a PC that will last longer than that iMac for less. No, things are as "secure, integrated, or have the same level of usability" yet 95% of the population uses them and doesn't use the solution that is all those things according to you.
You look at everything from a very bias point of view.
You're right, I do. I look at the entire package for what it does for me, how it lets me work, and what I *don't* have to do to keep it running. You're absolutely right that that's a minority view... it's a more holistic and informed view than the majority of the population who are going to make ignorant choices based on what is shoved down their throat as 'necessary' by the specwhores of the world.
Simply put, I'll take a slower but more enabling machine any day. In the end, that's all that matters... what it can do for me. Not the specs in a vacuum.
Applenut has said it thanks, it now appears that at quakecon Carmack has stated there isnt going to be a mac version of doom3 for awhile. why? because the only thing Apple has to run the thing is probably a Powermac. take all the powermac users then take the ones that game and that makes about a hundred of us that can buy his game Doom3. There just isnt many macs that can run this thing. it wont run on any G4 iMac. thinking about cancelling my 2.5 thats late and getting alienware. not only will i save a grand but ill be able to play Doom3 this year. what does this have to do with imac? poor specs,slow cpu's and bottom videoChips dont sell computers and id knows this. why port to a platform that cant run what you are selling? This just pisses me off. i want to support Mac and Mac software but Apple isnt paying attention.
Applenut has said it thanks, it now appears that at quakecon Carmack has stated there isnt going to be a mac version of doom3 for awhile. why? because the only thing Apple has to run the thing is probably a Powermac. take all the powermac users then take the ones that game and that makes about a hundred of us that can buy his game Doom3. There just isnt many macs that can run this thing. it wont run on any G4 iMac. thinking about cancelling my 2.5 thats late and getting alienware. not only will i save a grand but ill be able to play Doom3 this year. what does this have to do with imac? poor specs,slow cpu's and bottom videoChips dont sell computers and id knows this. why port to a platform that cant run what you are selling? This just pisses me off. i want to support Mac and Mac software but Apple isnt paying attention.
It's not a secret, that the mac is not the perfect gaming machine. Even if the hardware was more performant and sell at a lesser price than the PC counterpart, it will still be behind them.
Why, because games are created for the biggest market : the PC one. When some game succeed, they are transposed for the mac to gain some more bucks.
If you are really interested by the perfect gaming machine, wait for the next PS3 or the next Xbox : lesser prices and stunning gaming performances.
please speak for yourself. for a family of 4 where 2 children are soon to be in colleges that cost upwards of 40,000 the median income means nothing.
Do you have a child? Didn't think so. You're are inexperienced in this area and frankly don't know what you're talking about. After the birth of my son two years ago my tax returns went from $900 childless to $1700. That's for one child. I'm sorry Applenut you don't what you're talking about here.
Quote:
i don't think you'll find any shortage of single apartment dwelling 20 somethings in Apple Stores.
Or in the Abacrombie & Fitch stores. Younger people has less bills older people have better tax breaks. You'll find out later...live a little.
Quote:
That's why God invented credit cards.
Truer words have never been spoken Outsider. This is a credit card nation.
Quote:
thinking about cancelling my 2.5 thats late and getting alienware. not only will i save a grand but ill be able to play Doom3 this year. what
Please do it. You'll be a credit to those forward thinking souls we call Peecee users. You'd really enjoy that "wicked fast" Alienware box so much more than the slovenly sluggish Powermac G5
I stand by my statement. A family of 4 with two working fulltime adults can afford a $1299 if they make near the median income and aren't dumb enough to blow their money on 60" Big Screens or SUVs or giving Comcast/Time Warner $80 bucks a month. If families cannot afford $1300 every 3 years for a computer there is finacial mismanagement going on generally.
What many on these boards are trying to do is devalue the computer. To turn it into a "commodity of conformity' just a like a TV. You guys desperately want to convince yourselve that Apple is just overcharging and their value is out of whack. I think the truth is closer to this.
"I want Apple to charge less for Macs so I don't have to worry about buying $5 drinks at the local pub. So I don't have to worry about spending $60 on a sweater at the Mall so I don't have to worry about spending $2000 on those rims for my car..etc etc etc"
No the iMac isn't expensive..but "your" other habits are and you are looking to shave money wherever you can to live your lifestyle. It's the American way..the vast majority of us are on budets.
Do you have a child? Didn't think so. You're are inexperienced in this area and frankly don't know what you're talking about. After the birth of my son two years ago my tax returns went from $900 childless to $1700. That's for one child. I'm sorry Applenut you don't what you're talking about here.
tax returns? you don't know what you're talking about.
no, im in a family of 4....where both parents work their ass off with multiple jobs to pay a mortgage, bills, expenses and tuitions.
you're an ignorant waste of life if you're using the logic of a 1700 dollar tax return to tell me i don't know what I'm talking about.
Do you have a child? Didn't think so. You're are inexperienced in this area and frankly don't know what you're talking about. After the birth of my son two years ago my tax returns went from $900 childless to $1700. That's for one child. I'm sorry Applenut you don't what you're talking about here.
how about you come back and make that same statement in 16 years.
I stand by my statement. A family of 4 with two working fulltime adults can afford a $1299 if they make near the median income and aren't dumb enough to blow their money on 60" Big Screens or SUVs or giving Comcast/Time Warner $80 bucks a month. If families cannot afford $1300 every 3 years for a computer there is finacial mismanagement going on generally.
What many on these boards are trying to do is devalue the computer. To turn it into a "commodity of conformity' just a like a TV. You guys desperately want to convince yourselve that Apple is just overcharging and their value is out of whack. I think the truth is closer to this.
"I want Apple to charge less for Macs so I don't have to worry about buying $5 drinks at the local pub. So I don't have to worry about spending $60 on a sweater at the Mall so I don't have to worry about spending $2000 on those rims for my car..etc etc etc"
No the iMac isn't expensive..but "your" other habits are and you are looking to shave money wherever you can to live your lifestyle. It's the American way..the vast majority of us are on budets.
how about you pay to replace my 25 inch tv with a 60 inch one, you pay for premium cable to replace my 29.99 a month satelite and you pay for the 60 dollar sweatshirt id never buy and 2000 for the rims that i could give a shit less about.
Comments
"Other people buy the panels we reject." HA!
Looks like Apple will accept as many as 8 faulty pixels on iMac size displays, and as many as 15 (FIFTEEN!) on a 23"
Again, affordable digital/analogue 3rd party displays are of excellent quality. Formac guarantees no more than two faulty pixels, and I have personally seen DELL replace a display with as few as ONE!
No one can argue that Apple purchases more costly components, that line of apology should be discarded outright. The overwhelming evidence is that they purchase the same stuff as everybody else.
Please don't write Apple. Hey you're probably a cool guy in person but you tend to be a little overly excitable. I shudder to think what you're saying.
See the main page to put to rest some of the Apple LCD-quality myths.
Matsu come on. That article is about guidelines and not quality. You're reaching.....far.
The overwhelming evidence is that they purchase the same stuff as everybody else.
Then explain how they look better. The iMac G4 LCD to these old eyes looked better than most of the displays coming with PC. You're trying to build an arguement for your weak thesis that Apple uses the same old panels as everyone but I remain wholly unconvinced.
Despite the fact that Apple requires more faulty pixels before they replace the LCD I can't remember the last time I heard someone actually use this feature. In fact the new Cinema LCDs have been shipping and I haven't heard a report from anyone with more than 2 and certainly not 8.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Aurora lay off the melodrama please. The issue isn't about the 5200fx sucking it's about the inability to upgrade it that has people worried. PCs today are tiered generally with shared memory integrated systems at the low end and then the 5200 or 5500fx cards at the midrange space where the iMac competes. The iMacs 5200 is competitive with their offerings albeit shy by 64MB in my opionion.
Please don't write Apple. Hey you're probably a cool guy in person but you tend to be a little overly excitable. I shudder to think what you're saying.
Matsu come on. That article is about guidelines and not quality. You're reaching.....far.
Then explain how they look better. The iMac G4 LCD to these old eyes looked better than most of the displays coming with PC. You're trying to build an arguement for your weak thesis that Apple uses the same old panels as everyone but I remain wholly unconvinced.
Despite the fact that Apple requires more faulty pixels before they replace the LCD I can't remember the last time I heard someone actually use this feature. In fact the new Cinema LCDs have been shipping and I haven't heard a report from anyone with more than 2 and certainly not 8.
I've noticed with Dell at least that they offer multiple 17" LCD options with their machines (in addition to all the CRTs). one is relatively inexpensive and one is quite a bit pricier. I'm certain the garden variety LCDs the other makers offer at their bargain prices are *not* the same quality as the ones Apple ships. The higher priced option is probably equal but then it ends up being 150 - 200 dollars more.
Originally posted by Matsu
Just fvcking with you, haha!
What I saw were the institutional prices on eMacs, and the a friend's screen grab of the iMac delay page in the Apple store, whcih had already been posted on AI. Doesn't mean I wasn't shown, just means it isn't as interesting as I tried to make it sound.
The only inside info I can scoop for ya relate to edu and urban planning. I can tell you where some Canadian Apple STores will land -- but most people know that already, and I can tell you if/when/how much the "real" edu dicounts are -- not what Apple posts on their site.
I've noticed with Dell at least that they offer multiple 17" LCD options with their machines (in addition to all the CRTs). one is relatively inexpensive and one is quite a bit pricier. I'm certain the garden variety LCDs the other makers offer at their bargain prices are *not* the same quality as the ones Apple ships. The higher priced option is probably equal but then it ends up being 150 - 200 dollars more.
I've noticed this as well and I always choose the higher quality option when comparing Dell against Apples. The iMac LCD quality is gorgeous, Bright and sharp, it is definitely top notch.
If Apple added upgradable graphics(yes I'm dreamin) then I think many of the fears would be muted somewhat. Funny though ...I can't remember a time when I've seen so many "budget" geeks. $1299 expensive for a computer? I believe the US median income is over 30K. You have a dual income family and brings in 60k or more. $1299 is not a big deal. Again many people will pay Time Warner, Comcast or Optima Online much more than that.
My computer has earned me money or at the least saved me money. My cable bill has never paid any dividends. It's money gone.
I'm buying the next revision of the iMac and I don't care how "slow" people think it is. I bet it earns me enough money over its lifespan to earn at least half of its cost back.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I've noticed this as well and I always choose the higher quality option when comparing Dell against Apples. The iMac LCD quality is gorgeous, Bright and sharp, it is definitely top notch.
If Apple added upgradable graphics(yes I'm dreamin) then I think many of the fears would be muted somewhat. Funny though ...I can't remember a time when I've seen so many "budget" geeks. $1299 expensive for a computer? I believe the US median income is over 30K. You have a dual income family and brings in 60k or more. $1299 is not a big deal. Again many people will pay Time Warner, Comcast or Optima Online much more than that.
please speak for yourself. for a family of 4 where 2 children are soon to be in colleges that cost upwards of 40,000 the median income means nothing.
i don't think you'll find any shortage of single apartment dwelling 20 somethings in Apple Stores. But I don't see many families.
And who exactly do you think uses these boards? The majority here are teens, children, college students or just out of college. 1300 is a big expense, especially when similar offerings can be had for less.
Of course there always seem to be the few here who have no spending limits, and get whatever they want or are in the industry and can justify spending 3000 on a powermac and then turn around and say everyone who wants to play a game should just suck it up and pay the same.
Apple computers have good componements undoubtely, but it do not mean, that it make them 100 % proof. Failures occur even with IBM, but when you look at the quality of construction, you know what you pay for.
Originally posted by applenut
1300 is a big expense, especially when similar offerings can be had for less.
Really? You can get a system that has the same usability, stability, software packages that integrate well, and overall lack of fear of viruses, worms, and other nasty things, for less?
Point me to it, man.
FWIW, *I* certainly don't know of another system that provides the same level of security, usability, and breadth of integrating technologies. For me, the computer is a tool to do work, and if someone can point me to a serious contender to the Mac, for less, I'll jump on it. I just don't see one. Anywhere.
Now, if *all* you're looking at is the hardware specs... well... I have work to do.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Really? You can get a system that has the same usability, stability, software packages that integrate well, and overall lack of fear of viruses, worms, and other nasty things, for less?
Point me to it, man.
FWIW, *I* certainly don't know of another system that provides the same level of security, usability, and breadth of integrating technologies. For me, the computer is a tool to do work, and if someone can point me to a serious contender to the Mac, for less, I'll jump on it. I just don't see one. Anywhere.
Now, if *all* you're looking at is the hardware specs... well... I have work to do.
give me a fucking break. everywhere on this forum you've shown to be a well reasoned poster but in this thread you've just been a prick.
if i didn't recognize those advantages, the advantages of a mac, i wouldn't be a mac user. you're wasting your time preaching to the choir yet you keep doing it.
hmurchison said 1300 was cheap and "not a big deal" i was disputing that. 1300 is a big deal. you want to pick on one phrase in a post and ignore all the rest which I can only assume you can't dispute than fine.
You can get similar offerings for less. You can get a PC with a DVD burner for less. You can get a PC that will last longer than that iMac for less. No, things are as "secure, integrated, or have the same level of usability" yet 95% of the population uses them and doesn't use the solution that is all those things according to you.
You look at everything from a very bias point of view.
Originally posted by applenut
please speak for yourself. for a family of 4 where 2 children are soon to be in colleges that cost upwards of 40,000 the median income means nothing.
...
And who exactly do you think uses these boards? The majority here are teens, children, college students or just out of college. 1300 is a big expense, especially when similar offerings can be had for less.
....
Well said.
Originally posted by applenut
hmurchison said 1300 was cheap and "not a big deal" i was disputing that. 1300 is a big deal. you want to pick on one phrase in a post and ignore all the rest which I can only assume you can't dispute than fine.
That's why God invented credit cards.
Originally posted by applenut
give me a fucking break. everywhere on this forum you've shown to be a well reasoned poster but in this thread you've just been a prick.
Yeah, whatever.
if i didn't recognize those advantages, the advantages of a mac, i wouldn't be a mac user. you're wasting your time preaching to the choir yet you keep doing it.
Because the choir keeps veering off into this bizarre idea that 'a comparable machine' can be had for a lot less. The machine is more than the hardware. You *know* this... and yet you, and a lot of people in here, are going to keep making ridiculous statements about 'comparable' machines. Yeah, you *bet* I can go get comparable *hardware* for less. No dispute there. But the very advantages that make you a Mac user are the ones you're paying for, and you'd stop and think about it for a minute, you'd realize how silly the 'comparable machine for less' stance really is.
hmurchison said 1300 was cheap and "not a big deal" i was disputing that. 1300 is a big deal. you want to pick on one phrase in a post and ignore all the rest which I can only assume you can't dispute than fine.
Ah, but that one phrase is the crux of your argument, isn't it?
If one could *not* find comparable *hardware* for less, then you wouldn't be even attempting the position. But the hardware *can* be had for less... it's just the most important bits that would be missing. There's where the argument breaks down. Price only matters in a relative manner... $1300 would be dirt cheap 10 years ago, but *today's* market, with *today's* machines make that look pricey, from a strictly hardware POV. Once you start considering the entire machine, which is, after all, what one buys, then the arguments starts to break down.
'A comparable machine' cannot be found for a lot less, once the entirety of hardware, OS, security, stability, apps, technologies and usability is taken into consideration. It's just that simple. I actually care much less about the platform brand than what it can do for me. If you can, seriously, point me to an alternative, I'll take a look. Nothing I've seen comes close.
As to $1300 (or any amount) being pricey, or not, for a given family and their financial situation, that's up to the family to decide. I'm certainly not going to make any blankets statements regarding the absolute value of a monetary amount to a particular situation. For *me* $1300 is over a month's wages, so yeah, it's pricey as hell. For others, not so much. *shrug*
You can get similar offerings for less. You can get a PC with a DVD burner for less. You can get a PC that will last longer than that iMac for less. No, things are as "secure, integrated, or have the same level of usability" yet 95% of the population uses them and doesn't use the solution that is all those things according to you.
You look at everything from a very bias point of view.
You're right, I do. I look at the entire package for what it does for me, how it lets me work, and what I *don't* have to do to keep it running. You're absolutely right that that's a minority view... it's a more holistic and informed view than the majority of the population who are going to make ignorant choices based on what is shoved down their throat as 'necessary' by the specwhores of the world.
Simply put, I'll take a slower but more enabling machine any day. In the end, that's all that matters... what it can do for me. Not the specs in a vacuum.
Originally posted by Aurora
Applenut has said it thanks, it now appears that at quakecon Carmack has stated there isnt going to be a mac version of doom3 for awhile. why? because the only thing Apple has to run the thing is probably a Powermac. take all the powermac users then take the ones that game and that makes about a hundred of us that can buy his game Doom3. There just isnt many macs that can run this thing. it wont run on any G4 iMac. thinking about cancelling my 2.5 thats late and getting alienware. not only will i save a grand but ill be able to play Doom3 this year. what does this have to do with imac? poor specs,slow cpu's and bottom videoChips dont sell computers and id knows this. why port to a platform that cant run what you are selling? This just pisses me off. i want to support Mac and Mac software but Apple isnt paying attention.
It's not a secret, that the mac is not the perfect gaming machine. Even if the hardware was more performant and sell at a lesser price than the PC counterpart, it will still be behind them.
Why, because games are created for the biggest market : the PC one. When some game succeed, they are transposed for the mac to gain some more bucks.
If you are really interested by the perfect gaming machine, wait for the next PS3 or the next Xbox : lesser prices and stunning gaming performances.
please speak for yourself. for a family of 4 where 2 children are soon to be in colleges that cost upwards of 40,000 the median income means nothing.
Do you have a child? Didn't think so. You're are inexperienced in this area and frankly don't know what you're talking about. After the birth of my son two years ago my tax returns went from $900 childless to $1700. That's for one child. I'm sorry Applenut you don't what you're talking about here.
i don't think you'll find any shortage of single apartment dwelling 20 somethings in Apple Stores.
Or in the Abacrombie & Fitch stores. Younger people has less bills older people have better tax breaks. You'll find out later...live a little.
That's why God invented credit cards.
Truer words have never been spoken Outsider. This is a credit card nation.
thinking about cancelling my 2.5 thats late and getting alienware. not only will i save a grand but ill be able to play Doom3 this year. what
Please do it. You'll be a credit to those forward thinking souls we call Peecee users. You'd really enjoy that "wicked fast" Alienware box so much more than the slovenly sluggish Powermac G5
I stand by my statement. A family of 4 with two working fulltime adults can afford a $1299 if they make near the median income and aren't dumb enough to blow their money on 60" Big Screens or SUVs or giving Comcast/Time Warner $80 bucks a month. If families cannot afford $1300 every 3 years for a computer there is finacial mismanagement going on generally.
What many on these boards are trying to do is devalue the computer. To turn it into a "commodity of conformity' just a like a TV. You guys desperately want to convince yourselve that Apple is just overcharging and their value is out of whack. I think the truth is closer to this.
"I want Apple to charge less for Macs so I don't have to worry about buying $5 drinks at the local pub. So I don't have to worry about spending $60 on a sweater at the Mall so I don't have to worry about spending $2000 on those rims for my car..etc etc etc"
No the iMac isn't expensive..but "your" other habits are and you are looking to shave money wherever you can to live your lifestyle. It's the American way..the vast majority of us are on budets.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Do you have a child? Didn't think so. You're are inexperienced in this area and frankly don't know what you're talking about. After the birth of my son two years ago my tax returns went from $900 childless to $1700. That's for one child. I'm sorry Applenut you don't what you're talking about here.
tax returns? you don't know what you're talking about.
no, im in a family of 4....where both parents work their ass off with multiple jobs to pay a mortgage, bills, expenses and tuitions.
you're an ignorant waste of life if you're using the logic of a 1700 dollar tax return to tell me i don't know what I'm talking about.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Do you have a child? Didn't think so. You're are inexperienced in this area and frankly don't know what you're talking about. After the birth of my son two years ago my tax returns went from $900 childless to $1700. That's for one child. I'm sorry Applenut you don't what you're talking about here.
how about you come back and make that same statement in 16 years.
or when you have child #2
Originally posted by hmurchison
I stand by my statement. A family of 4 with two working fulltime adults can afford a $1299 if they make near the median income and aren't dumb enough to blow their money on 60" Big Screens or SUVs or giving Comcast/Time Warner $80 bucks a month. If families cannot afford $1300 every 3 years for a computer there is finacial mismanagement going on generally.
What many on these boards are trying to do is devalue the computer. To turn it into a "commodity of conformity' just a like a TV. You guys desperately want to convince yourselve that Apple is just overcharging and their value is out of whack. I think the truth is closer to this.
"I want Apple to charge less for Macs so I don't have to worry about buying $5 drinks at the local pub. So I don't have to worry about spending $60 on a sweater at the Mall so I don't have to worry about spending $2000 on those rims for my car..etc etc etc"
No the iMac isn't expensive..but "your" other habits are and you are looking to shave money wherever you can to live your lifestyle. It's the American way..the vast majority of us are on budets.
how about you pay to replace my 25 inch tv with a 60 inch one, you pay for premium cable to replace my 29.99 a month satelite and you pay for the 60 dollar sweatshirt id never buy and 2000 for the rims that i could give a shit less about.
you have one seriously fucked up view.