iMac v Pc

Buy a mac, and make my husband even richer!!!

and even more smug!!!

Once you go mac, you'll never go back!!
 
EdinburghGary said:
Avid fan of both Windows 7 and OSX here. My main workhorse is the 27" iMac. I love the screen, love the OS - my only gripe? It feels a TINY bit slow at times when dealing with larger photos or multitasking across a high number of hi res edits. My 64 bit DELL running Windows 7 (The machine is about 2 years old), feels much quicker.

If I were buying again, iMac 27" would still be my choice. I went for the better processer / memory. £1,600 approx.

Gary.
Click to expand...

You need a shiny new Mac Pro....... 12 cores and 64Gb of Ram (and a mortgage :LOL:)
 
stokes said:
Is that what made you choose the windows system over the Mac Mini?

taken from

http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-128519.../t-730799.html

Koolpc
Jul 25, 2009, 03:59 PM
"Quote"

I am at the same crossroads. Buy a Mac Mini or build a Windows PC!!

I quite like the idea of a small, silent but powerful Apple Computer on my desk!

Upgrading the ram to 4 gig and putting in a better Hard drive would make for an even better machine?

"UnQuote"
:LOL:
Click to expand...

OK, now upgrade the GPU. Go on, upgrade it! Oh wait :LOL:
 
Hehe, I love these threads. The voices of reason always try not to get drowned out (Cowasaki and Neil g- keep up the good work)! As to the guy who borked his PC and had to boot from services, that is not microsoft's fault, its yours!

So, it boils down to:

1) can you afford a mac;
2) do you like OSX or W7 (they do the same thing and both are very good and intuitive OSes)
3) do you like the apple asthetic?

As for software, most of us will use adobe software- its the same on both platforms! You might have to use slightly different key press combinations though!
 
Boopop said:
and there are cracks on the wrist rest :( Granted it's a 3 year old laptop, but these are the sort of problems you wouldn't expect from such a high end brand.
Click to expand...
I had that issue on my macbook, apple fixed it FOC outside of warranty. Give apple care a call and see if they will as it's a known hardware defect.
 
in conclusion;

having had a play with an IMac today at the Apple store in Meadowhall i can't say i was that blown away
they look good but this is pretty irrelevant for me as my computer is hidden away in the office which is usually chaotic and untidy anyway(would be a different story if it was going to live in my lounge)
the user interface seemed nice but i've always found Windows ok

i'm sure that Macs have less bugs/viruses but i've always been reasonably lucky with Winsdows so i think i'll be sticking with the 'PC'/Windows route and then at least i can specifify exactly what i want

thanks for all the opinions, it's been interesting
 
Is a 27" TFT really needed though? I currently have a 20" TFT. I would like a 24" TFT though!
 
Boopop said:
From what I've read here the 27" iMac is a steal considering the quality of the screen, other than that it's very much up for debate.

Oh and

I've had a Macbook for 3 years now, and my desktop has always seen FAR more use than my Macbook. If anything I'm wondering whether I should buy another Mac ever again as the build quality has been disappointing...The standby LED is broken, and there are cracks on the wrist rest :( Granted it's a 3 year old laptop, but these are the sort of problems you wouldn't expect from such a high end brand.
Click to expand...

Get thyself to a genius bar! I took in my wifes 3 yr old MacBook with the wrist rest issue- yes sir, 2 day turnaround ok for you? Free of charge. (did mine too, 2 hrs old) try that at pc world!

To the OP, I moved from pc to mac with a 24" iMac, I ended up selling it because The wife got fed up with me being in a separate room on the computer, so I got a MacBook. Now have sold that and have an iPad but got a mac mini attached to a Sony Bravia.

I will be getting the 27" iMac as soon as I get some more income from my events
 
Last edited:
ive used both but OSX is so much more stable, but hardware support is not quite so good as windows.
Im now using the best of both, a Self Built i7 powered SSD Machine and run OSX quite happy :D (And yes I did buy a full retail version of OSX).

Total cost was just under £800 for something that would have cost close to £1700 if I went through Apple, I can also get the parts a lot easier and for a lot less.
 
Isn't it against Apple to load their software onto a non-Apple machine?
 
This is a VERY grey area atm.
In the US it is illegal due to their laws, Within Europe is a grey area.

There is a well known company selling a device in europe that enables this out of the box. There are a few defenses that have not yet been tried in a court and as such no one can say yes or no.

The first one is that you cannot agree to the licensing agreement until you have already purchased the goods, its located within the packaging and cannot be read before hand.

The other major one is to do with the anti-monopoly laws and the way in which apple implements their agreement. it could be deemed that forcing people to use their hardware etc... is against these laws.

there are also a number of views on how the agreement can be read, you could read it that as long as your machine has an apple logo on then this could be classed a legal, the other side of the coin is that if you do this then you could be in breach of their copyright. why doe apple give out free apple stickers with every copy of their software if all their hardware already has them? what is the need for these stickers?

I am no lawyer and I can only go by what I have read, until this comes to court if ever, there will be a LOT of people doing this. this can be done without modifying any of the original software as well, at no point are you in breach or their licensing for altering their code afaik.

there are a lot of debates on this subject as a quick google search will reveal.

I will continue to use OSX this way until the law says that I cannot...
 
You say your 6 year old PC is obviously not up to scratch.

What is the spec of your PC?

My PC is about that age and runs editing software easily.

It may be that a bit more RAM and perhaps a new graphics card would do the trick.

Dave
 
I read the agreement and it would appear that sticking one of the free apple logos on would be enough!
 
grum said:
People always say Macs are expensive, but when challenged to come up with a PC with like for like spec for less money they always struggle.
Click to expand...
iMac 27":
2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
8GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4x2GB
1TB Serial ATA Drive
8x double-layer SuperDrive
ATI Radeon HD 5750 1GB GDDR5 SDRAM
Apple Wireless Keyboard (British) & User's Guide (English)
Magic Mouse
AppleCare Protection Plan for iMac/eMac
Total cost: £2,108.
Click to expand...

PC:
2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
8GB 1333MHz DDR3 SD RAM 4x 2GB
2TB Serial ATA II RAID 1 or 4TB non-RAID
CD/DVD-RW SATA II Drive
ATI Radeon HD 5950 2GB GDDR5
Microsoft Wireless Ergonomic Keyboard/Mouse
3 Year Manufacturer warranty on parts
Samsung 32" LCD Display
Windows 7 Professional 64Bit
Total Cost: £2013.11
Click to expand...

As you can see, the PC which has a larger screen, a better graphics card and either a RAID 1 2TB set up or 4TB of storage space and is less money. Saying that, everyone knows Macs are expensive, you pay for the brand, it's like Gucci or Calvin Klien. The only problem is that Apple use exactly the same hardware in their machines as in PCs. There used to be a difference, but Apple realised that their hardware was not keeping pace with PCs are so are now using the same stuff.

Out of my Mac Pro and my PC, I prefer my PC but it is simply each to their own. If you want an iMac go for one, if you don't care about having an iMac go with a PC.
 
Coldeh said:
iMac 27":


PC:


As you can see, the PC which has a larger screen, a better graphics card and either a RAID 1 2TB set up or 4TB of storage space and is less money. Saying that, everyone knows Macs are expensive, you pay for the brand, it's like Gucci or Calvin Klien. The only problem is that Apple use exactly the same hardware in their machines as in PCs. There used to be a difference, but Apple realised that their hardware was not keeping pace with PCs are so are now using the same stuff.

Out of my Mac Pro and my PC, I prefer my PC but it is simply each to their own. If you want an iMac go for one, if you don't care about having an iMac go with a PC.
Click to expand...

They are not quite like for like though. I doubt that the 32" display is as good as the Apple one try building the PC with a monitor that is actually the same as the Mac one. Also have you looked at upgrading the RAM on the iMac yourself to bring the price down?

Anyway it is also down to things like case quality and stuff like that. What your comparison does show though is that the Apple price is in the correct ball park.

Microsoft use intel processors because they chose them. Apple has chosen 3 different classes of processor as and when they have needed to. Intel/AMD make the fastest processors so why not use them, Microsoft don't make them!
 
Last edited:
Iv'e moved from Windows to Apple and purchased a 27" imac. Never looked back, love it.
 
Since the hardware is effectively the same it comes down to which OS you prefer, you will pay a premium for a decent spec regardless of the badge on the box. I love OSX on my mbp because 'stuff just works' but I find it a pain as a desktop option so use Win 7 on my main rig, personally I find it more intuitive for everyday use - which is odd since I use Unix at work.

Contrary to some reports you can stuff OSX up just as easily as a Windows machine, the difference is Apple just make it a little harder for user error...
 
Coldeh said:
iMac 27":


PC:


As you can see, the PC which has a larger screen, a better graphics card and either a RAID 1 2TB set up or 4TB of storage space and is less money. Saying that, everyone knows Macs are expensive, you pay for the brand, it's like Gucci or Calvin Klien. The only problem is that Apple use exactly the same hardware in their machines as in PCs. There used to be a difference, but Apple realised that their hardware was not keeping pace with PCs are so are now using the same stuff.

Out of my Mac Pro and my PC, I prefer my PC but it is simply each to their own. If you want an iMac go for one, if you don't care about having an iMac go with a PC.
Click to expand...


firsly pic a screen that matches the spec of the iMac, then recalculate.

also the premium thats paid on a mac isnt just a designer brand thing, its buying an os that wont clog up and crash on you, your buying the experience of a more efficient operating system that wont have you installing mcafee or norton
 
joescrivens said:
firsly pic a screen that matches the spec of the iMac, then recalculate.

also the premium thats paid on a mac isnt just a designer brand thing, its buying an os that wont clog up and crash on you, your buying the experience of a more efficient operating system that wont have you installing mcafee or norton
Click to expand...
Mac OS suffers from viruses, not Windows ones, but it still suffers from viruses. The best anti-malware system you can use is your own common sense, it's free and should be pre-installed... Macs are also not immune from freezing or crashing either. I've found, especially with corporate set ups which have them using networked user accounts, that they freeze and crash constantly.

The way the operating system is made is also completely different, Microsoft learnt from it's past security blunders and now has procedures to develop "secure software" from the beginning. Apple didn't have those procedures in place as of Snow Leopard, a basic security feature in all other Operating Systems which randomises core library memory addresses isn't complete in Snow Leopard. That opens a huge security hole in the software.

cowasaki said:
They are not quite like for like though. I doubt that the 32" display is as good as the Apple one try building the PC with a monitor that is actually the same as the Mac one. Also have you looked at upgrading the RAM on the iMac yourself to bring the price down?

Anyway it is also down to things like case quality and stuff like that. What your comparison does show though is that the Apple price is in the correct ball park.

Microsoft use intel processors because they chose them. Apple has chosen 3 different classes of processor as and when they have needed to. Intel/AMD make the fastest processors so why not use them, Microsoft don't make them!
Click to expand...

When I started I sourced like for like, where possible. Then I had a huge gap in price and decided to source better. The graphics card is a prime example, double the memory of the Apple set up and a much, much faster chipset. The Hard Drives are Western Digital Caviar Green (power saving) and it has 4 times the capacity of the Mac. The other point to add is that the PC has a sound card, the Apple uses on board sound. That means the processor in the PC doesn't work as hard and produces 7.1 surround sound.

The screen I couldn't source like for like on specification as Apple don't provide one that I could find, instead I compared on screen size.

I have nothing against Apple using Intel/AMD processors. They are the fastest consumer/server processors on the market as you say. Microsoft don't pick their processors though, the consumer does and I saw no option on the Apple store to have an AMD processor. The point I'm trying to make is that the hardware that goes into the PCs is exactly the same that goes into Macs, it's just you pay more.

It all boils down to one thing though. Which would you prefer? The Mac or the PC?
 
Last edited:
No one can tell you which is the best as you will form your own view. There are pro's and con's to both. I'm an iMac user but there are definitely some very good PC's out there for less than the cost of what I paid for my 27" i5. The monitor on the iMac is the high-quality IPS type of LCD which are great for us toggers who want colour accuracy (post calibration of course). The gloss screen looks beautiful but it's not the most practical option and if it was available I would have ordered a matt display. In terms of performance and reliability the new iMacs are superb. I also run Windows 7 in Parallels on the system for those rare occasions when I need to, but more because it shows as a host on my network and my kids can log in from their MBP and use Windows.

In short I would say that you will not be disappointed if you plump for a Mac but you probably would be just as happy with a PC and you would likely get a bit more technology for your money to boot (i5 versus i3).

As they say...pick your poison...
 
For sake of comparison, here's my system, built with a variety of new and old parts and the costs:

AMD Phenom II X6 1055T (6 core processor overclocked to 3.8ghz, at this speed much faster than the stock i5 you'll find in the £1649 spec of the 27" iMac) - £150

4gb Kingston DDR3 1600mhz (quicker than the iMacs ram) - £90

Asus M4A89GTD Pro (decent motherboard that allows decent overclocks) - £85

Nvidia 8800GTX (old, but plays all my games perfectly) - £20

Samsung Spinpoint 1TB - £45

DVD-RW - £15

Lian Li PC-P50B (really really nice fully aluminium case. Looks fantastic and very nice quality) - £110

LG 32" LCD (bought this Boxing Day 08. 1920x1080 resolution and a very very high quality panel. Would definitely match the 27" for visual quality) £350

7 Home Premium 64 - £50

Total price for all my stuff comes to 900 odd, in the range of half the price of the standard 27" iMac spec and would probably be even cheaper if I bought more stuff used, and I can guarantee that my computer would outperform the 27" standard i5 iMac spec in every single test you could throw at it. (y)
 
Last edited:
I bet it's as ugly as sin and sounds like a hair dryer though bwahahahaha







I joke...I joke..



You should post your Geekbench score. Interested to see what it is. Incidentally (and only as I understand it) only the LG 32" with their WQXGA+ technology out performs the iMacs 27" with QHD technology. The 27" is also capable of 2560 x 1440 (as is the WQXGA model of the 32") I think the 32" 1920 x 1200 is their 'FULLHD" model.
 
Last edited:
These like for like comparisons are quite amusing, here's another one to get my point:

Skoda Fabia 1.6 TDI - £11,840
VW Golf 1.6 TDU - £16,175

both have a VW engine
both get you from a to b (and c on a weekend)
both have 5 doors
4 wheels
a roof
glass

Which one would you rather have?

Yeah, me too, why? because it's just better! Same with a mac!
 
joescrivens said:
These like for like comparisons are quite amusing, here's another one to get my point:

Skoda Fabia 1.6 TDI - £11,840
VW Golf 1.6 TDU - £16,175

both have a VW engine
both get you from a to b (and c on a weekend)
both have 5 doors
4 wheels
a roof
glass

Which one would you rather have?

Yeah, me too, why? because it's just better! Same with a mac!
Click to expand...

fabia because i hate new macs i mean golfs..

anyway you do know that most of the components (not just the engine) are the same..

anyway the only way the golf is "better" is in the willy waving dept (look i could afford the extra money for the same car).
 
Last edited:
LJR said:
I bet it's as ugly as sin and sounds like a hair dryer though bwahahahaha







I joke...I joke..



You should post your Geekbench score. Interested to see what it is. Incidentally (and only as I understand it) only the LG 32" with their WQXGA+ technology out performs the iMacs 27" with QHD technology. The 27" is also capable of 2560 x 1440 (as is the WQXGA model of the 32") I think the 32" 1920 x 1200 is their 'FULLHD" model.
Click to expand...

:D I wouldn't say it's ugly:

CA-049-LL_400.jpg


And it's actually pretty quiet as well. The 8800GTX gets a bit loud when gaming, but when you're gaming you tend not to care too much and at least I can play games :D

Overall it's better in terms of performance than an iMac that is double the price, looks great, feels great and is very customisable and upgradable.
 
neil_g said:
fabia because i hate new macs i mean golfs..

anyway you do know that most of the components (not just the engine) are the same..
Click to expand...

why do you think I made that comparison?

neil_g said:
anyway the only way the golf is "better" is in the willy waving dept (look i could afford the extra money for the same car).
Click to expand...

The whole experience of owning a golf over the fabia is better. It looks nicer, it feels nicer, i bet I would pick up more hot chicks in it than you in your fabia - that kind of thing. My life would be better if I had a gold over a fabia - thats just the way it goes! :clap:
 
joescrivens said:
The whole experience of owning a golf over the fabia is better. It looks nicer, it feels nicer, i bet I would pick up more hot chicks in it than you in your fabia - that kind of thing. My life would be better if I had a gold over a fabia - thats just the way it goes! :clap:
Click to expand...

look and feel are totally subjective and personal opinions though.

edit - as you just proved comparing an all-in-one to a full ATX tower. personally i prefer the feel and look of my ITX box and twin matching 2209WAs.
 
Last edited:
neil_g said:
look and feel are totally subjective and personal opinions though.
Click to expand...

yeah but some things are just obvious,

this

fiatmultipla.jpg


is much uglier than this

800x600astonmartindb9.jpg


and if you found anyone who disagreed with that then I'd owe you a pint
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top