Slashdot Mirror


Apple 27-inch iMac With Intel's Haswell Inside Tested

MojoKid writes "Apple's late 2013 edition iMacs are largely unchanged in external form, though they're upgraded in function with a revamped foundation that now pairs Intel's Haswell 4th Generation Core processors with NVIDIA's GeForce 700 Series graphics. The Cupertino company also outfitted these latest models with faster flash storage options, including support for PCI-E based storage, and 802.11ac Wi-Fi technology, all wrapped in a 21.5-inch (1920x1080) or 27-inch IPS displays with a 2560x1440 resolution. As configured, the 27-inch iMac reviewed here bolted through benchmarks with relative ease and posted especially solid figures in gaming tests, including a 3DMark 11 score of 3,068 in Windows 7 (via Boot Camp). Running Cinebench 11.5 in Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks also helped showcase the CPU and GPU combination. Storage benchmarks weren't nearly as impressive though, for iMacs based on standard spinning media. For real IO throughput, it's advisable to go with Apple's Flash storage options."

241 comments

  1. Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Hadlock · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    News at 11.
     
    Seriously how is this news?

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So "fast shiny expensive" new high-end graphic cards from nVidia or AMD cannot be news items, can they?

    2. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Must be one of those cheap Korean monitors from ebay inside. They aren't bad though.

    3. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by davester666 · · Score: 1

      because everyone else and their dog sells 27" monitors and AIO's with higher resolutions...

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re: Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You mad bro?
      Which 27" aio has a better res?

      TROLL!

    5. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fast?

      Seriously 3000 3d marks? My 16month old computer that i paid $900 for does 9000 3d marks.

    6. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With crappy resolution considering it's a 27" display.

      Amazing how this gets modded up as "insightful" when there isn't actually anyone selling a 27" display at higher resolution, at least not at a price exceeding the price of the complete iMac.

      Is "insightful" nowadays the same as "conforms to my baseless prejudices"?

    7. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by dfghjk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Is "insightful" nowadays the same as "conforms to my baseless prejudices"?"

      Not just nowadays.

      Democratic moderation, in all its forms, only furthers tribalism. It exists due to laziness and the desire to play to people's egos. It is rarely used as "intended".

    8. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's more a piece of furniture than a functional system. Not much better than a tablet really since it's using a mobile graphics processor as well (GT775M). This isn't a powerhouse system but you're paying a premium for it, especially in the 27" model (MSRP $2000) for a system that's great for doing spreadsheets or word docs. You may as well spend your money on an HP 20" Rove for half the cost and you get it to go with a touchscreen.

      That system that you recommend is a joke compared to the 21" iMac. It's a bit cheaper in price, and a lot cheaper in everything else. Comparing it to the 27" is plain ridiculous.

      You say "it's not a powerhouse". One has 3.2 GHz quad core i5, the other a cheap 1.7 GHz dual core i3. Apple doesn't even put those into their cheapest laptops.

    9. Re: Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please elaborate. Democratic vs what? What's the best form of moderation.

    10. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Times have changed. Seiki, a brand with a somewhat dubious reputation, has released a 39 inch 4k display that sells for $699. You may quibble about build quality, color rendition, viewing angle and a 30 Hz refresh rate, but "4k for seven hundred" is a powerful meme.

    11. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by sribe · · Score: 2

      With crappy resolution considering it's a 27" display.

      Bullshit. Find a 27" monitor with higher resolution and post a link.

    12. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      In both instances, a consequence of designing computers around the video chipset. The iMac still uses a mobile video chipset.

    13. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing! What mobile GPU did you buy that does 9000 3D marks? Oh, that's right, one doesn't exist. Just because a GPU is designed for a mobile platform (laptop, pad, netbook), doesn't make it 'cheap', nor does it validate comparing it to a truck sized GPU for a desktop which will obviously perform better than a mobile GPU.

      Awards to you for showing your ignorance. Next time troll harder, and understand why mobile components are smaller, power and heat efficient, and cost a shitload more money.

    14. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      iMacs are not mobile.

    15. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Not much better than a tablet really since it's using a mobile graphics processor as well

      How can the iMac possibly be as good as a tablet?. it's heavy. It's bulky. Battery life is abysmal/I€

    16. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      That system that you recommend is a joke compared to the 21" iMac. It's a bit cheaper in price, and a lot cheaper in everything else. Comparing it to the 27" is plain ridiculous.

      But both are similar in at least one respect--they cannot play the games he wants to play, at the level he expects. If you're going to waste money on a PC that fails to meet the required specs, you might as well waste less money.

    17. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which 3 inch thick desktop are you using then? I haven't seen many of those for sale at Best Buy.

      They are, and always will be equipped with mobile parts. If you are post pointless facts comparing a desktop component price to a mobile component price, all you are doing is showing your ignorance as to what such components cost and how they compare to each other.

      A laptop can also sit on a desk, does that make it a desktop?

    18. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "One has 3.2 GHz quad core i5, the other a cheap 1.7 GHz dual core i3. Apple doesn't even put those into their cheapest laptops."

      Umm, excuse me? The MacBook Air does include i3 processors.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    19. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "27-inch IPS displays with a 2560x1440 resolution."

      " there isn't actually anyone selling a 27" display at higher resolution, at least not at a price exceeding the price of the complete iMac. "

      Man, you must be really ignorant of places like Pricewatch or Newegg.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    20. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      A laptop can also sit on a desk, does that make it a desktop?

      It depends on the battery life. If it can't be used in the field for periods long enough to do useful work, the laptop might as well be just a desktop.

      Which 3 inch thick desktop are you using then? I haven't seen many of those for sale at Best Buy.

      I don't think best buy sells the hp z1. It may not be three inches thick, but why would that be important?

    21. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      hmm. nvidia 4000m graphics. Oh well.

      Has the new Mac Pro been benchmarked?

    22. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by dubbreak · · Score: 1

      Don't know what Apple store you're on but the US and Canadian store base model MBAs have an i5 processor.

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    23. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1280x1024 (720p, so can be said to be HD!) on a 17" display would be pretty crappy, even if that was what the majority of 17" displays were using. Enjoy your free insightful.

    24. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by kommakazi · · Score: 1

      Dead wrong. No MacBook Air has ever had an i3 processor. Apple did use i3's in some iMacs back in 2010...and again in 2011 and 2013 on cost consious education only iMac models.

    25. Re: Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What's the best form of moderation.

      A dictator called Steve.

    26. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by kommakazi · · Score: 2

      I did just as you suggested searching newegg & tried searching pricewatch (though I hope never to use pricewatch again their search and interface is simply awful - can't even search by specific product features? no thanks.) There are a few monitors a marginally bigger resolution (2560x1600), however that extra 160 pixels is pretty insignificant. There are some generics I wouldn't touch with a 10' pole for under $1000. The cheapest name brand one is a Dell coming in at $1050 (on closeout from $1500), and its reviews are lackluster at best. The next step up in resolution I found was 2560 x 2048, fairly significant, however there's only one NEC display and it's a medical display priced at a cool $12000. The next step up is an impressive 3840 x 2160, very significant, only a single monitor with this resolution from ASUS, will run you a cool $3500.

    27. Re: Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ on a cracker, do you remember the times when people used a PC for more than gaming?

      I guess all these desktop Linux users here on /. just browse the web all day. You'd think here of all places a high specced non-gaming PC would get some appreciation, all I'm saying.

    28. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by dwightk · · Score: 1

      Umm, excuse me? The MacBook Air does include i3 processors.

      No they don't

      --
      Like anyone can even know that
    29. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it my point is made? Intel HD mobile graphics. All upgrade options for graphics? Mobile cards only. Also note the cost, which is higher than the base iMac 27 by some $500 for the base Z1 workstation.

      In addition, the HP Z1 Workstation cheapest model comes with half the memory of the 27" iMac, A base Intel HD Graphics card, and no 802.11AC wireless.

    30. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liar.

      Newegg
      Monitors
      LCD
      Powersearch....

      Name brand HP: $600
      http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176242
      HP Smartbuy ZR2740w Black and Brushed Aluminum 27" 12 ms (GTG) WQHD IPS Panel Height & Pivot Adjustable Widescreen LED-Backlit LCD Monitor 380 cd/m2 1000:1

      Who-the-fuck-knows Brand: $333
      http://www.newegg.com/Product /Product.aspx?Item=9SIA2RY0ZG1007
      27" CROSSOVER 27QW IPS LED 2560 x1440 Slim AH-IPS Monitor Dual Link DVI

      With about a dozen choices inbetween including Acers and at least one Dell (may have been 'open box').

      What Apple does, when it isn't generating apologists, is what HP/Dell/dozens-of-extinct-companies OUGHT TO BE DOING: Simplifying, adding value, watching the trends (fewer cables/slots/disc-ks), *QUIETER*.

      I go to Dell and HP just to confirm that they are still overpriced for what I want. Or they have bloatware. Or they don't have SSDs (or not at a reasonable price). Or they want to push a million variants on a machine which looks ten years out of date.

      I build small form factor PCs that use the VESA mounts. I may start to spec in wireless keyboard/mouse just to eliminate those cables too.

      Yes, I hate Apple for a million reasons (and Microsoft). They deserve a premium so long as the competition sucks. But it is a fucking premium because a monitor like they have can be had for $400 easy.

    31. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lowest model is now an i5.

    32. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      I don't really care what resolution it's at; unless you write code or do print design work there's little advantage for the average user above 1080p*. It's pretty blatantly obvious that this device is marketed towards people who want shiny, fast high end stuff. Other than a single programmer in the UK, I don't know anyone who's bought a large format iMac in years, and he bought it primarily for the "shiny, fast, high end stuff" card, along with his vintage land rover. This device doesn't really bring anything to the table (no pun intended) for the average user.
       
      Would you have prefered I said "halo product is halo product"?
       
      *yes I totally did pull the "1080p is high enough resolution for anyone card, and I'd do it again

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    33. Re:Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by kommakazi · · Score: 1

      I used the power search, though I added in the resolution, guess those monitors didn't list that. Those monitors you listed are awful spec wise. 1000:1 contrast ratio on the HP? A fucking joke. The $333 one says right in the description "*This monitor may contain up to 3~5 dead pixels, if you want no dead pixel, Please order perfect pixel model" LOL get real.

    34. Re: Fast shiny expensive thin computer is fast by Optali · · Score: 1

      Hey, there's a typo in your post s/specced/priced/g

      We desktop Linux and or Windows users prefer something with more punch and lower price.

      If I want to code I can do it on any PC, even second hand ones from ebay and 50 Euros. And if I want to do graphics stuff I can get myself a monster of a system for half the price.

      --
      -- 29A the number of the Beast
  2. They are still damn overpriced by metrix007 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Let's let that dominate the discussion.

    There's always some Apple fanboys (jo_ham, where you at?), who insist the machines are higher quality etc etc, but this is mainly nonsense.

    They use almost the exact same components for PC's, and are ridiculous overpriced.

    Not to mention the barriers to self-repair, amping up the cost over the lifetime of the machine.

    The only value they have is in the aesthetics, or if you need OS X for some reason. Generally not worth the cost except to people who like to burn money.

    The same people who buy a $100 burger in a restaurant that costs $12 to make, cause it costs $100.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    1. Re:They are still damn overpriced by bemymonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It *is* pretty though. And that's what counts for many people... I'm currently sitting in front of three relatively cheap FullHD monitors hooked up to a monster PC with wired peripherals, a laptop, a pair of studio monitors, a small mixer, a mic preamp and a USB audio interface - lots of bang for my buck and it does a ton of shit that an iMac couldn't, but damn does it look cluttered. Some people just prefer a sleek all-in-one with brushed metal (no glossy fucking plastic like you'll find on many other all-in-ones) and wireless input devices...

    2. Re:They are still damn overpriced by tsa · · Score: 1

      And what's wrong with buying something expensive because you have the money and you like it?

      --

      -- Cheers!

    3. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Camembert · · Score: 5, Informative
      Sour grapes, much? Why does it get so much on your nerves that other people may buy something that not only works well with little headaches but is also a lot prettier than most computers on the market?

      I've left my ikea days long behind. Nowadays, when I buy something I want it to be good AND beautiful in my house. Yes it costs more than generic products, but I am happy with my previous gen iMac. And when whiners think that it costs too much, I won't lose sleep over it. My life quality is worth something.

      Similarly two years ago I bought my non techy parents a Macbook Pro. Since then I've had to do almost no interventions, what a change compared to their previous Windows on HP experience. Their life is better and I sacrifice less time. IT's worth something for me.

    4. Re:They are still damn overpriced by sydneyfong · · Score: 2

      You know, bourgeoisie capitalism and all that shit.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    5. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clutter, yes. Time-sink? Funny how I never seem to have these kinds of problems with my linux boxen. I must be pretty lucky.

    6. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol... anti-fan-boy :)

      It's more like buying a $20 burger in a restaurant that costs $12 to make, but tastes great and won't get you sick. Probably you've never touched Apple hardware (and that's fine), but just to let you know: you don't know what you're talking about.

      Have a nice day.

    7. Re:They are still damn overpriced by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Linux: Expect around 2-3 days of hunting for audio and display drivers and tweaking with the configs until it works

      Cool! So you were using linux in 1998! It's good to see somebody that gave it a go way back then but it's changed somewhat over the last decade and a bit.

      Now it's only MS Windows where you have to hunt around the net for drivers if you've lost your install CD.

    8. Re:They are still damn overpriced by gordo3000 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      yes, but monitor quality is a huge difference. I have a cheaper 25**x 1440 display and a 27 inch mac display, and without the doubt, while the apple display cost about 300 dollars more, the quality of the is far superior (and the cheaper display is being driven by a much more powerful machine).

      And if you work in a world where super high quality displays are in high demand, you pay up. there are other sellers of equivalent quality, but it turns out they price to within 5% of the apple display. I'm never certain where the talk of the apple tax comes from. For phones, mp3 players, monitors, and laptops I found them very competitively priced.

    9. Re:They are still damn overpriced by fatphil · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As someone who has bought a real DEC Alpha workstation for serious work, and who was given a high-end Mac, and has used so-called high-end pee-cees (branded HP and Dell boxes), but who has mostly owned cheap-arse no-name budget pee-cees, I can assure you that build quality was always directly related to the price. The Alpha was a bomb-proof brick, with beatiful damping that made it not even hum or whirr at all. The Mac was specced with enough cooling for worst-case and partitioned internally such that the components that were temperature sensitive got the lions share of the airflow, a very clever design. The HPs had the cooling, but sounded like a helicopter the whole time - they had over-specced cooling, but with braindead internal sensors, shitty bearings, and no damping. Dell was just an overpriced but lame HP-wannabee. And we all know how shitty shitty PCs are. Look at the benchmarks, and they were all pretty similar (the Alpha clearly blew any intel machines out of the water at the time for floating point stuff, but that didn't last for more than a few years), but there was an entire order of magnitude, between the most expensive and the cheapest. However, the build quality - which is not just the components, but has a purely mechanical aspect - was just as broad in range. People like you keep saying "but it's the same RAM, the same HDD, the same optical drive, the same processor, ...", but you completely overlook build quality. I'm no Apple fan-boi - I run linux on the Mac that Apple gave me (I was sworn into not insulting them as part of the agreement, which did mean I had to bite my lip a few times, as I hate OSX) - but I did, and still do, like their build quality. I also liked their choice of CPU - the POWER architecture - sigh.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    10. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now it's only MS Windows where you have to hunt around the net for drivers if you've lost your install CD.

      Wow! Still using Windows XP, are you? You're really on the cutting edge of technology.

    11. Re:They are still damn overpriced by smash · · Score: 1

      Maybe you're not tracking it.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    12. Re:They are still damn overpriced by smash · · Score: 1

      Funny how my WIFI card i bought last month with Linux support on the box breaks every kernel upgrade because i need to recompile the driver from source (Ubuntu doesn't do it automatically) and had to spend 4 hours hunting over the internet for patches to the supplied source driver because it was for kernel 2.6 only. It's an Asus PCE-N53 for those playing at home.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    13. Re:They are still damn overpriced by smash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. Build quality != component spec. Anyone who has opened up a Mac or other high end hardware and compared to home built PC from newegg knows this.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    14. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I bought a mac pro in 2008, in the 3 years of applecare, I had to repair it 4 times (every time drag that heavy thing, and loose it for 3 days), just for burn out nvidia card (2x), broken power supply (3x) and not working motherboard. Two months after the 3 year period it broke again, and has been sitting somewhere now for the last 2 years doing nothing anymore (repair costs would be over 750 euro's). Doing it yourself is almost no option, different connectors and too much packed away. Everytime they repaired it, the put in again something from 2008. Same shitty nvidia card (almost no ventilation), same shitty power supply (makes too much noise).

      I bought a new pc (just the parts and but it together), now 2,5 years ago. And it never has any problems. Makes a lot less noise, and is almost weightless in comparison.

      I will never ever try such a shitty apple hardware again...

    15. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those 2-3 days I get back, everytime I needed to bring that shit to applecare. Repairing a power supply costs me 15 min. and I can choose my self.

      Repairing an apple power supply (mac pro), costs me back pain, and 3-4 days lose of my pc.

    16. Re:They are still damn overpriced by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Check the cost of components on the apple store. Hard drives, memory. Official apple-endorsed upgrades are clearly overpriced.

    17. Re:They are still damn overpriced by smash · · Score: 2

      3 years ago I got my non-techy ex-GF to buy an MBA (2010 spec). About 12 months ago she ran out of SSD and needed help to relocate a few things to an external drive (60GB of raw photos on a 128GB SSD will do that). That is the sum total of maintenance that has been required, outside of automatic updates.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    18. Re:They are still damn overpriced by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Actually, as of 2013, Apple computers are generally cheaper than other companie's equivalents.
      I know that's why I got my MBA 2013.

    19. Re:They are still damn overpriced by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Don't post real world examples like that here. You'll only be described as an idiot/shill/computer illiterate caveman.

    20. Re: They are still damn overpriced by paulmacguyscott · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "Apple Tax" is totally outdated. Usually stated by people who haven't looked at Macs in more than a decade. If you build a machine spec for spec against a Mac prices are competitive. TCO for Windows is higher when you add in cost of antivirus, OS updates, and other software that just comes on the Mac. Why OS X? Unix under the hood and a nice OS. I have an imac with extra displays, mixer, studio monitors, all the goodies. The imac can do anything another PC can and then some. Some people just feel the need to be haters.

    21. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They use almost the exact same components for PC's, and are ridiculous overpriced.

      Products are priced according to their market value, not production costs.

      The only value they have is in the aesthetics, or if you need OS X for some reason. Generally not worth the cost except to people who like to burn money.

      You underestimate the value of subjective experience, and aesthetics is very expensive.

      The same people who buy a $100 burger in a restaurant that costs $12 to make, cause it costs $100.

      Almost every person i know, owns one Apple product or more, and none of them would buy a $100 dollar burger.

    22. Re:They are still damn overpriced by RedBear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's let that dominate the discussion.

      There's always some Apple fanboys (jo_ham, where you at?), who insist the machines are higher quality etc etc, but this is mainly nonsense.

      They use almost the exact same components for PC's, and are ridiculous overpriced.

      Not to mention the barriers to self-repair, amping up the cost over the lifetime of the machine.

      The only value they have is in the aesthetics, or if you need OS X for some reason. Generally not worth the cost except to people who like to burn money.

      The same people who buy a $100 burger in a restaurant that costs $12 to make, cause it costs $100.

      Wow. Full of yourself much? You just called tens of millions of people retards for daring to buy a computer brand you don't approve of.

      It is an oversimplification to simply state that Apple uses many of the same components as PCs. They do, but they also have a lot of custom engineering that goes into their products, good quality control, and their demonstrably lower incidence of returns and repairs puts the lie to your idea that there is no measureable difference between Macs and PCs just because they contain some of the same components. Apple has not been at the top of all the consumer satisfaction and quality surveys for the last decade merely because people like the company logo.

      You are welcome to your own opinion about the relative worth of any particular brand of computers, but get your facts straight or you just make yourself look silly and hateful. Just because other people have different criteria for buying computers does not make them all idiots buying $100 burgers. Apple's machines are more like the $18 burger from a local restaurant with great ambiance versus a $8 burger from a national chain restaurant with fluorescent lighting and plastic bench seating. Priced higher, perhaps even overpriced, but it all depends on your criteria and what you're looking for. But pretending there is no value in paying a bit more for nice ambiance is idiocy. The burger and the dining experience are both part of the price.

    23. Re: They are still damn overpriced by ameen.ross · · Score: 1

      You don't need to get an iMac to get a Unixy OS.

      --
      $(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
    24. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe he just installs whatever dist that has what he needs and doesn't spend days messing around with it just because he can.
      In my experience most of the timesink from Linux is self inflicted and the largest reason it doesn't happen as much on other operating systems is because they don't let you change everything.

      If you take the windows approach of just installing and then use it it will work just fine. If you want the latest greatest you can still do the windows way and re-install every year or the apple approach and buy a new computer every year.

    25. Re:They are still damn overpriced by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      In 1998 you spent two weeks to get it half working if there's actually a driver for your hardware -- or two months to write the damn driver yourself. These days you spend 2-3 days to find, install and config the latest kernel and drivers, because your 6 month old distro release (using a year old kernel) probably won't have the drivers for your newer hardware.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    26. Re: They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OS updates cost money with Windows? News to me. Antivirus costs money too? Shit what is that damn Microsoft security essentials doing on my computer. I didnt pay extra.

      How about the cost of repairing or upgrading computers. I can repair/replace any component in my windows computer, can you do the same thing in your mac?

      No, the prices are not competitive, but they have certainly done a good job convincing you that they are.

      Posting Anon because I really dont feel like arguing with ifanbois this morning.

    27. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... you trusted the manufacturer to not lie to you *and* are too incompetent to properly set up DKMS.
      In other news, I have a $3k printer here that "supports" OSX ... except the driver won't work on anything newer than 10.6.

    28. Re: They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think OS X is nice, you haven't looked at Macs in a decade.

    29. Re:They are still damn overpriced by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Look - the above was a polite alternative to calling you a lying sack of shit with a fanboy agenda. I suggest you leave it as it is instead of compounding it with more stupid lies that backfire and make it look as if you've never heard of google.

    30. Re:They are still damn overpriced by gordo3000 · · Score: 2

      agreed, but that is the exact same situation as any vendor. If I go to dell and try to buy a ram upgrade from them, it's super expensive. It's not a unique apple experience (at least for me). Anyways, I get my components from amazon for 1/4 the price and apple has never complained about non-apple sold parts in my computer when it goes in for work. So it hasn't caused me an issue yet.

    31. Re: They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out the prices in the Dell online store for replacement parts such as RAM, hard derives, etc. Well over priced and often older generations as well. I'm sure the others do it a as well.

    32. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      demonstrably lower incidence of returns and repairs?

      Source please. In fact I cannot think of a single person in my field of work (that I know) that would recommend a Mac over a PC due to the fact that you have to take them to a Mac certified tech if the darn thing burps.

    33. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Freultwah · · Score: 0

      Congrats! By using ‘overpriced’ and ‘fanboi’ (which you misspelled) in adjacent paragraphs, you have won the Mac Discussion Bullshit Bingo.

    34. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is winshit such a must?

    35. Re:They are still damn overpriced by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      However it's a bit hard to get an Apple laptop for £400, that's why I got my Dell.

    36. Re: They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You do if you want your Unixy OS to work worth a damn. Oh, or, rather, work worth a damn w/o twisting thousands of hard to find knobs.
      There.

    37. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's let that dominate the discussion.

      There's always some Apple fanboys (jo_ham, where you at?), who insist the machines are higher quality etc etc, but this is mainly nonsense.

      They use almost the exact same components for PC's, and are ridiculous overpriced.

      Not to mention the barriers to self-repair, amping up the cost over the lifetime of the machine.

      The only value they have is in the aesthetics, or if you need OS X for some reason. Generally not worth the cost except to people who like to burn money.

      The same people who buy a $100 burger in a restaurant that costs $12 to make, cause it costs $100.

      Ask the person who's identity was stolen due to their involuntary participation in a Windows botnet to discuss the true cost of that "bargain" $399 laptop running the "Everybody Does It" OS.

      They're easy to find. They work at the Apple store now.

    38. Re:They are still damn overpriced by zequav · · Score: 1

      This. I was trying to buy a <2kg, >=full hd, haswell laptop a week ago. My only options in Spain were: i) Sony Vaio Pro: 1370€, noisy, bad wifi (according to reviews) ii) Asus Zenbook Infinity: good, but >1750€!! iii) Macbook Pro 2013: Good, 1400€ (the 8GB version). The decision was clear.

    39. Re: They are still damn overpriced by teg · · Score: 3, Informative

      OS updates cost money with Windows? News to me.

      An OS update is free with Windows, but an OS upgrade will cost you. On Mac, both kinds are free now.

    40. Re:They are still damn overpriced by teg · · Score: 1

      Linux: Expect around 2-3 days of hunting for audio and display drivers and tweaking with the configs until it works

      Cool! So you were using linux in 1998! It's good to see somebody that gave it a go way back then but it's changed somewhat over the last decade and a bit. Now it's only MS Windows where you have to hunt around the net for drivers if you've lost your install CD.

      In '98, it wasn't as much spending 2-3 days for display drivers as spending that (and more) time upfront researching and buying the right components. Of course, afterwards you spent far more than that tweaking the configuration, compiling your own kernels etc. to eek out as much of the performance as possible. It was both fun and educational :) That said, there is something to be said for "unwrap, plug in, turn on - done"-Macs.

    41. Re:They are still damn overpriced by teg · · Score: 2

      However it's a bit hard to get an Apple laptop for £400, that's why I got my Dell.

      Indeed. Apple competes well in the segments they are, but they don't cover every segment. Cheap laptops, servers, gaming machines are just three of the segments they just aren't targeting.

    42. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've left my ikea days long behind. Nowadays, when I buy something I want it to be good AND beautiful in my house. Yes it costs more than generic products, but I am happy with my previous gen iMac. And when whiners think that it costs too much, I won't lose sleep over it. My life quality is worth something.

      It was a bigger issue 7-10 years ago when keeping a computer for longer than 3-4 years was, quite frankly, stupid. Build quality mattered less, and it was silly to pay extra for good looks because if you didn't replace your computer by year 3 and definitely by year 5, it was too slow to run any modern software. Heck, I occasionally run across a person using a computer from back then, and I implore them to upgrade because the extra electricity they burn in 2-3 years will be enough to pay for the new computer.

      Now that even low-end CPUs are "fast enough" for most people, keeping a computer for 5-7 years is a real possibility. That means paying an extra $500 for good looks or better build quality is cheaper because it'll be amortized over 6 years instead of 3 years.

      At least that's the viewpoint of the casual user. The hard core computer geek who insists on state of the art is probably still on a 3 year upgrade cycle. So for him, dropping an extra $500 for good looks or better build quality is still an extravagance.

      Similarly two years ago I bought my non techy parents a Macbook Pro. Since then I've had to do almost no interventions, what a change compared to their previous Windows on HP experience. Their life is better and I sacrifice less time. IT's worth something for me.

      5 years ago I bought my non-techy dad a Lenovo Thinkpad. Since then I've had to do almost no interventions. Anecdotes are a dime a dozen.

      And incidentally, Apple doesn't make the Macbooks. They're made by Quanta - they're the ODM (original design manufacturer) that Apple uses. Normally the ODM also designs the laptop while the vendor just provides the specs and requirements, so I'm not even sure if Apple even designs the Macbooks.

      Quanta also makes most of HP's laptops.

      That's the dirty little secret about the laptop industry - the vast majority of laptops aren't made by the brand they're sold under. So it's pointless arguing build quality or reliability based on brand name. To figure out some sort of correlation, you have to know which ODM made which particular model.

    43. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So...
      can you point me to the cheaper vendor that offer PCI-E attached storage for cheap? What about getting six lightpeak ports? I guess I only need three (monitors, storage). Hrm... No one else even bothers offering that? I GUESS I'LL JUST BITCH ABOUT THE PRICE HURR HURR HURR.

    44. Re: They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so fucking true... mac OS X is getting shittier and shittier every release, yet they fail to fix the most obvious things.

    45. Re:They are still damn overpriced by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

      The Apple approach is to buy a new phone every year. I know of no Apple users who've kept their Macs for less than 5 years (unless they dropped it down the stairs or let it soak in a coffee hot-tub). I've used plenty that were in the 8-10 range, and they were still kicking along just fine.

    46. Re: They are still damn overpriced by Geeky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the best way to get a unix OS that can run commercial software. I need to use Lightroom and Photoshop. I prefer to use unix. I like a very high res screen. So the 27" iMac is perfect for my needs. YMMV.

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    47. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it said printer supports OS X... not that OS X supports the printer.

    48. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back pain? Wow. A body at rest tends to stay at rest.

    49. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      If you have Windows, you have to wear a proletariat cap and carry a card or something.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    50. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds exactly like my argument regarding Toyota vs Lexus. I have an ES350, which a lot of people call a Camry.

      Have you test driven a Camry (PC) and then an ES350 (Mac)? Maybe it's not for everyone, but there IS a difference, from the car itself to the service you get post-sale.

    51. Re:They are still damn overpriced by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 0

      So, is she your ex-GF because you got her a MBA? I would understand that. Macs, eww.

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    52. Re: They are still damn overpriced by somersault · · Score: 1

      If the iMac doubled up as a standard monitor (ie without having to be actually running OSX to function as an external display), then it could be worth it.. it seems a bit of a waste to me to throw out such a nice display when you're getting a new desktop machine - or to be running two machines when you only need one.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    53. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Arkham · · Score: 5, Informative

      Let's let that dominate the discussion.

      There's always some Apple fanboys (jo_ham, where you at?), who insist the machines are higher quality etc etc, but this is mainly nonsense.

      They use almost the exact same components for PC's, and are ridiculous overpriced.

      Not to mention the barriers to self-repair, amping up the cost over the lifetime of the machine.

      The only value they have is in the aesthetics, or if you need OS X for some reason. Generally not worth the cost except to people who like to burn money.

      The same people who buy a $100 burger in a restaurant that costs $12 to make, cause it costs $100.

      1. I've got a degree in computer engineering. I have designed and built CPUs and motherboards. I don't repair my own computers. It's not worth my time.
      2. Aesthetics are important. Anyone who hasn't realized this is living in the past. There's a reason that Apple is the most valuable company in the world. The real genius in Apple's products isn't the performance and never has been; it's the fusion of design, style, and functionality.
      3. Need OS X for some reason? How about because it's the best OS on the market for nearly everyone? Linux is a great dev OS, but my mother could never use it. Windows is an adequate OS, and had gotten better with Windows 7, but it's still far, far more obtuse than OS X, and it's less powerful for a power user with a UNIX background too.
      4. A Mac is not a $100 burger. It's the $10 burger that's clearly better than the cheaper Big Mac. Both will fill you up, but there's no question in my mind which one I want to eat. You get what you pay for.
      --
      - Vincit qui patitur.
    54. Re:They are still damn overpriced by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      And incidentally, Apple doesn't make the Macbooks. They're made by Quanta [wikipedia.org] - they're the ODM (original design manufacturer) that Apple uses. Normally the ODM also designs the laptop while the vendor just provides the specs and requirements, so I'm not even sure if Apple even designs the Macbooks.

      Are you sure about that? So what you are saying is that Quanta designed the all aluminum chassis of the MacBook Pros and the thinness of the Air?

      That's the dirty little secret about the laptop industry - the vast majority of laptops aren't made by the brand they're sold under. So it's pointless arguing build quality or reliability based on brand name. To figure out some sort of correlation, you have to know which ODM made which particular model.

      So there's not difference between laptops at all? If you open up every laptop, they all look alike? They all source the exact same parts? One manufacturer cannot request Quanta to use different parts. Looking at Dell you can tell that's not true. Their business laptops are better built than their consumer line and that's within a company.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    55. Re: They are still damn overpriced by ameen.ross · · Score: 1

      Good point, I have actually refused to exchange my good ol' 19 inch 1920*1440 CRT screen for a flat panel. Only since AMOLED desktop screens have arrived to the consumer market have I started looking out for an upgrade.

      --
      $(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
    56. Re:They are still damn overpriced by nctritech · · Score: 1

      Windows up to 7 don't do the best job of automatically finding drivers. Windows 8 seems to fare better, but it's not worth the brain-dead UI design of 8 to have better automatic driver-finding capabilities. Driver installs are a one-shot deal per reinstall, and complaining about them is fairly ridiculous. People spend more time trying to learn pointers in C than they do finding an Elantech touchpad driver.

    57. Re:They are still damn overpriced by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      I'm no Apple fan-boi - I run linux on the Mac that Apple gave me (I was sworn into not insulting them as part of the agreement, which did mean I had to bite my lip a few times, as I hate OSX) - but I did, and still do, like their build quality. I also liked their choice of CPU - the POWER architecture - sigh.

      The problem with your idea is that Apple hasn't actually had superior build quality since the Macintosh II series. They're just the same Foxconn-built PC motherboards as everyone else's, with some slightly different components. They have slightly better cases. Big whoop. And POWER is gone, and it was a dumb idea to begin with. It was only because Apple couldn't figure out how to emulate 68k on x86, which others were already doing, and doing well.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    58. Re:They are still damn overpriced by aralin · · Score: 2

      I spend a lot of time at the computer. Well over 80 hours a week. So I did a lot of measurements with different configurations of HW/SW. And I found out that I spend at average two more hours a week doing non-productive stuff on PC/Win than on Mac/OSX. Those two hours a week are 150 hours over the amortized lifetime (3 years) of the computer. I don't know what is your hourly rate, but I cannot afford to use PC/Win even if they paid me $5000 to take it, I would not. It is just too expensive for me. So yeah, I need OSX for "some reason".

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    59. Re: They are still damn overpriced by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      No, prices are NOT competitive.

      It's not people who haven't looked who say the macs are expensive, it's people liek you who just assume they are not.

      For any model of macbook, you can get something almost twice as powerful for the same price.

      That's going off Newegg.

      How do you explain that?

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    60. Re:They are still damn overpriced by GauteL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Normally the ODM also designs the laptop while the vendor just provides the specs and requirements, so I'm not even sure if Apple even designs the Macbooks."

      You may not be sure, but the rest of us are. Like all Macs the Macbook carries the typical "Designed in California by Apple" tag. For all the faults of Apple, having "generic/beige box" design is not one of them. Also, I disagree that it is "pointless" arguing build quality based on brand name. Different brands spec different quality components to the ODMs and the spec is really quite detailed. Obviously some problems and merits are inherit in each ODM and clearly have a large impact on the outcome, but the Brand clearly has a say in quality.

    61. Re:They are still damn overpriced by nctritech · · Score: 1

      When it comes to desktop PCs, you're better off building everything custom, especially for higher-end workstations. I really don't understand why consumer PCs don't have things like quiet heatsinks, high airflow cases, water cooling (when necessary) etc. I built a six-core beast of a server with a RAID-5 in a high airflow case with a quiet heatsink, and I don't even know it's on the shelf behind me, whereas the Netgear 24-port gigabit switch sounds like a hand sticking out of a car window on the highway. I realize that quality custom builds aren't an option for average people, and also that most "computer techs" don't know the difference between quality and flashy. I saw a computer repair place's website somewhere that made a huge deal out of the fact that they zip-tie the wires inside more neatly than other places, along with all of the usual computer ricer rhetoric about how it improves airflow and prevents this-and-that. Face, meet desk. *sigh*

    62. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're either very lucky or lying.
      All G5 iMacs and most plastic case x86 iMacs suffer from chinese crapacitor plague. PSU and system board.

    63. Re:They are still damn overpriced by nctritech · · Score: 1

      MBA screens are disturbingly easy to bust, and replacement even with used parts costs half the price of the laptop. Oddly enough, most of my customers who bring in a smashed MBA and get the bad news just go out and buy ANOTHER BRAND NEW MAC. I'm happy for them that they have that kind of disposable income, I guess.

    64. Re:They are still damn overpriced by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Please, just say pc's. There is no need to expand it to pee-cees.

      That as dumb as people who say USians.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    65. Re:They are still damn overpriced by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Except dell will charge you about $200 to go from 8->32GB of ram versus 600 or so for a mac etc.They rape you a lot more when you don't buy the stock system. They also make it next to impossible for the normal person to upgrade anything other than ram on the iMac so you are stuck.

      I agree whole hardly with the screen though. It is about time for a 4k screen I guess they are still too pricey but my 3 year old iMac was kicking a 2560X1440 screen when you'd have to drop 7-800 or so then for an equivalent resolution screen ... and it would still look like crap next to the mac monitor. That said I can't really tell the difference between the iMac screen and a cinema one and my worked paid 1k euros for a 30" back in the day. So I think there is still maybe a bit of an Apple tax if you buy the monitor separately but I felt pretty good getting a quad i7 with one of the best 27" screens at the time for ~2500 or so (also had the upgraded graphics and disk on mine).

      The review has it right though usb on the back is a pain in the ass. Especially since the screen tilts easily so you are always bumping it. I have keyboard and mouse + and external drive always attached. I can't get enough juice out of the remaining port (might be better now with USB3) with a USB port expander so I'm stuck constantly swaping out my iPod, tablet, Kindle, etc to get them charged and since they all use a different connector (damn you both Apple and Amazon) I have to remove the cord from the back each time I switch.

    66. Re: They are still damn overpriced by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Informative

      For any model of macbook, you can get something almost twice as powerful for the same price.

      Find me a laptop twice as powerful as my quad core 2.3 GHz i7. For any money. Find something twice as powerful as a MacBook Air, with comparable battery life. For any money.

    67. Re:They are still damn overpriced by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      My point was that there really is no difference in quality from an Apple Macbook and say a Dell, or Lenovo, or even a high quality Asus.

      There are plenty of imagined differences however.

      A high quality PC laptop is the $8 burger. Apple is that same burger served on a distinctive plate with a huge markup for the privilege.

      And sure, I have no problem with paying more for aesthetics. Just...not that much. It's ridiculous.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    68. Re:They are still damn overpriced by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      And you've shown your ignorance. The word is fanboy. Fanboi is a modern derivative, not no more valid.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    69. Re: They are still damn overpriced by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      I agree. They should have a mode where you can slave the iMac screen to use it as a second monitor. Might get people to upgrade a bit more frequently if they didn't have to thing oh crap about $600 of that price tag is the screen I already own. Also would be good to plug iPad and the like into the mac and go full screen (yeah I know they have an app store for the mac) so you could use it for little meetings and such. We used a 27" iMac for standups at my last job and it was plenty big enough for 5-6 people to huddle around.

    70. Re: They are still damn overpriced by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      When I was looking for a computer ~Feb 2009 the iMac 27" was a good value for me at the time. I knew I'd likely be moving across the continent soon so wanted something I could throw in a "suitcase" and count as one bag. I checked out Dells and HPs all in ones at the time and they were crap. I think the largest was 19" with a 1920X1080 screen. Slower graphics, slower ram. ~$1800. I paid 2500 got 8" more screen, a quad i7 (versus an i5 I think it was in the HP) 2560X1400 res, 2X the graphics performance and a bigger harddrive. I paid $700 more but got a hell of a lot more of a computer. For the same price as the HP one I could have gotten a 21.5" mac with about similar (and crappy to me) specs.

      The Mac Pro and the Mac Book Pro are where they really rob you but for the Mac Book they still have the best or at least an extremely rare resolution for a laptop, Mac Pro no excuses, $4k for a pretty empty box then you are supposed to pay oddles to fill it up, um no.

    71. Re: They are still damn overpriced by Geeky · · Score: 1

      That's a good point, and one I had considered. I'd have preferred a separate screen, but the mini is underpowered and the pro is way over the top.

      I figure I won't be upgrading any time soon anyway. Hardware improvements have tailed off, and even my old PC was good enough for most of my needs. I got the Mac in part because I wanted the screen and in part because I wanted to switch.

      --
      Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
    72. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      it's pointless arguing build quality or reliability based on brand name

      Unless Quanta are building them to a price determined by the brand being represented.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    73. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The premium on cost, depending on what you're doing is easily offset by the OS X exclusive software.

      Logic Studio, which is really the best there is for audio production is priced at 500 less than the next best thing, Abletob's Live, asnd no, you can't do everything I can with Logic on Audacity or LMMS or whatever. It used to be the same case with Final Cut vis-a-vis Premiere Pro (still is if you factor in that you're paying for Premiere every month in perpetuity, and no, you can't do everything and more with Cinelerra, openshot or whatever else, either. I've tried them all, anyone who makes the claim has either very simple needs or is a liar).

      Paying a few hundred more for the hardware is easily offset by saving a grand or so on the software that's central to my workflow. There's the little things in OS X like how everything integrates with everything else, universal low-latency audio routing via CoreAudio/AU, and dead simple yet powerful automation via automator and (free, 3rd party) Quicksilver that add up and save countless man hours over the lifetime of the product that makes it so I'm far, far more productive with it.

      That, and there's the build quality, I still have PPC Macs from a decade ago that run fine, other than being too slow at this stage to do anything useful with current software, I really don't expect my Intel Macs to be much different. Yes, it's the same components as everyone else, but my MacBook Pro hasn't fallen apart like my previous HP Envy, nor the horror stories I've heard (and witnessed) with Dell's XPS line. The Retina displays are fantastic, too.

      If I didn't do any media production mind you, I wouldn't come out ahead with a Mac, and the niceties of OS X wouldn't be enough on their own, to warrant the premium, not for the non-media work I do, anyway (Java/web development).

      It's not so much like a $100 burger or even an $18 burger. It's more like an $12 burger made with fresh, whole grain bread and real, grade A+ meat vs McDonnald's.

    74. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Metrix still doesn't understand the difference between components and system design. He's that redneck you see on the street that insists that his souped up Scion is better than anything Mercedes or BMW can make. No fucking clue.

    75. Re:They are still damn overpriced by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You can buy monitors with the same LCD panels that Apple uses for less than 1/3rd the price. The only difference is that the hardware driving the panel is very basic, not having any controls except for brightness. However, the panel is 10 bit, so you can do all the correction in software on your PC. Tests show that when calibrate they produce an image every bit as good as Apple or Dell monitors, and even with the cost of a professional calibration tool they are still a fraction of the price.

      Apple is quite clever with its pricing. It tends to position its hardware such that making direct comparisons is hard, and other manufacturers then come in a little below them later which makes them seem more reasonable. Actually they and all the other people who copy their pricing are expensive. The next step up is a professional NEC or Eizo monitor which is much more, and then you have more reasonably prices stuff below the Apple level which is hit-and-miss. If you are willing to do the research you can get something as good or better for much less, but if you are not then paying more for something you know is probably good is a valid option.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    76. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      When people are unhappy with their choice of computers they make it their life's mission to make other people feel bad about their choice too. Just ignore him.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    77. Re:They are still damn overpriced by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Make that PowerPC, not POWER. But PowerPC was a great idea - only problem was Motorola not dedicating to it what Intel & AMD were doing on the x86. After the other OSs - BeOS, OS/2-PPC & NT-PPC fell by the wayside, Motorola simply gave up on building great CPUs for the Mac, leaving it all to an already overstretched IBM. Had Motorola focussed on giving Apple what it needed in terms of low power CPUs, as well as trying to proliferate the portable markets, PPC would have been the hit that ARM today is. Had Apple gotten a good low power PPC CPU, it would have made it the foundation of not just the Macbook Airs, but also the iPad, iPhone and various iPods, as it would likely have beat ARM on performance.

    78. Re:They are still damn overpriced by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Cool! So you were using linux in 1998! It's good to see somebody that gave it a go way back then but it's changed somewhat over the last decade and a bit.

      Now it's only MS Windows where you have to hunt around the net for drivers if you've lost your install CD.

      Cool! So you were using Windows in 1998! It's good to see somebody that gave it a go way back then but it's changed somewhat over the last decade and a bit.

      Now it's only Atari TOS where you have to hunt around the net for drivers if you've lost your install CD.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    79. Re: They are still damn overpriced by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      It does.

      Get yourself a Mini-DisplayPort cable and press a keyboard combination. Your 27" iMac just turned into a 27" Thunderbolt Cinema Display for another box that has DisplayPort output.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    80. Re:They are still damn overpriced by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure how Dell would charge $200 for going from 8 GB of RAM to 32 GB of RAM. Just doing some quick browsing on TigerDirect shows that 8 GB goes for about $65 while 32 GB goes for about $400. So that's a $335 upgrade. $600 doesn't even seem like that much of a stretch. A little padding added on for them doing the installation, but it's not that far out there. Just browsing around the Dell site for a price on speccing out a machine with 32 GB of RAM and I just gave up. XPS 8700 (which is supposed to be their performance machines, didn't even come with a RAM upgrade option. 12 GB is the only choice. Looked around on their business section a bit too. Optiplex and Precision work stations both had no memory upgrade options, and both were at 8 GB.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    81. Re:They are still damn overpriced by chrysrobyn · · Score: 1

      Let's walk through building a similarly speced Hackintosh and set aside the build quality and all-in-one arguments for the moment.

      (Massively cribbed from TonyMacx86.

      Let's get as 3.2 GHz i5 for $200 (Core i5-4570).

      We need a motherboard to plug it into. A Gigabyte for $142 will get us WiFi and some nice features (GA-Z87N).

      8 gigs of RAM for $85 seems reasonable and compares to the target too. (CMZ8GX3M2A1600C9)

      A Bitfenix Prodigy is a nice case for $90. Here, you may be able to go cheaper, but you can certainly go more expensive. (BFC-PRO-300-WWXKW-RP)

      A Corsair 500W power supply for $55 is pretty reasonable.

      Although I'd prefer an SSD, we're comparing to a system with a 7200 RPM spinner. A Seagate Barracuda for $79 seems appropriate. (ST31000524AS)

      I'm having trouble matching the GeForce 755M with my Wikipedia-Fu. A modest video card with twice the memory sets us back $100 (ASUS GT640). Hopefully the performance is similar, but I'm open to suggestions.

      The barebones system is $751.

      You can get a 27" IPS display from Monoprice, which Anandtech said badly needed calibration to be taken seriously (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7240/monoprice-zerog-slim-27-ips-monitor-review) for $390.

      You can get a decent keyboard for $50, and a decent mouse for $50 (here, you can beat both by downgrading, but I use a trackball that's closer to $100).

      The reference system excludes an optical drive, so we won't needlessly add one to compare, but includes an SDXC slot, whatever that is. Assembling all those spare parts above gets me to $1241, and excludes software (which is famously "free" now, but really is only free with the purchase of a licensed computer), but I can save $460 over the reference system.

      I cheaped out on the screen, but for another $100, I could get a Dell that's got decent factor calibration. I don't have speakers -- $50 may be a good budget for what's in the iMac, I don't have a camera, but a Logitec C920 for $75 seems equivalent. Adding those back in gets me closer to $235 under the reference system.

      My hand-built system isn't an all-in-one, which is a value to some. My hand-built system may not be as quiet, which is worth a premium too (I used higher-power desktop components instead of the laptop equivalents in the iMac), and I may use more electricity, increasing the TCO by as much as $0.05-$0.10 per day (wild guess) which adds up over a few years. All of this, the OS, iLife and iWork licenses plus the support of being able to walk into an Apple store is where the $235 goes toward. My iMac is 5.5 years old. I've replaced the hard drive 4 times (one died out of warranty, the replacement was slower than hell but free, replaced that with a faster spinner, replaced that with an SSD), and the number of Torx screws necessary to get to them is significant, but does not make it unserviceable. The memory in my wife's (same age) died at 5 years old, and that was a $40 replacement that took 5 minutes.

      It is unfair to say that this is a $12 burger selling for $100 (when I go to the local restaraunt, I pay $9-$10 for a burger, and it comes with fries... Are you overpaying for your hamburger?).

    82. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're fucking stupid.

    83. Re:They are still damn overpriced by fatphil · · Score: 1

      In 2006, the consortium rebranded the architecture, 32-bit instances and all, to just being the "Power architecture". I know this, as I worked for one of the companies that made the 32-bit members of the family. We were specifically told to stop using the terms "PowerPC" and "PPC", even when refering to legacy chips (we had a customer-facing office, this was important). Only people who didn't get the memo call it by the retired name.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    84. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      Being wealthy must be nice. You can't smugly buy expensive products without it.

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    85. Re:They are still damn overpriced by fatphil · · Score: 1

      I did say "PC's", look again. I deliberately chose the "pee-cee" expansion as a dumbification of the term in order to reinforce the payload in that part of the sentence.

      If choice of words was purely out of "need", there would be nothing that was interesting to read, no personal expression, no literature. I don't think that's a good thing.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    86. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously?
      Jokes aside I know people who say this and mean it.

      Time > Money
      I wish I could go 3 years without getting contacted by a current/ex *friend for tech support.

    87. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should strive to improve yourself instead of trying to bring down others.

    88. Re:They are still damn overpriced by hobarrera · · Score: 0

      Sure, you can get laptops for as low as 100USD.
      But, as of a month ago, the cheapest laptop with a Haswell CPU, an SSD and 8GB ram, was a MBA.

      We're talking about the same specs, if you lower the specs, of course you can get cheaper price elsewhere.

    89. Re:They are still damn overpriced by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

      You design an iMac with the exact same specs and tell me how much it costs. Nobody will deny that there are cheaper options but there is a cost to the design and materials they use. Keep in mind that their net profits last quarter were only 20%. Doesn't sound too crazy to me. Google's is 19.84, and Microsoft's net is over 28. I find it odd that those companies are never accused of ripping off consumers.

      --
      Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
    90. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple 27" iMac ($1799)

      Apple has a dedicated NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M with 1GB video memory GPU, slightly better CPU....

      Dell 27" All-in-One ($1599)

        Dell has as multitouch display, Intel HD graphics, probably plastic, certainly "thicker."

      All other specs are about the same.... I'd say the prices are within a reasonable range.

    91. Re:They are still damn overpriced by John+Bokma · · Score: 1

      I doubt Dell will charge that little. I once wanted to order 2 screws to add an additional hdd to a Dell Vostro 200 ST and they asked 25 USD for those... I was hoping I could get them for free if I ordered the hdd with them as well, but they wanted ~ 180 USD for a 1TB drive...

    92. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. You bought it for them and they no longer use it. Because the software they want to buy for it doesn't work. So sure, lower number of interventions.
      You could achieve the same thing by burying it in concrete too.

    93. Re: They are still damn overpriced by frinkster · · Score: 1

      It does.

      Get yourself a Mini-DisplayPort cable and press a keyboard combination. Your 27" iMac just turned into a 27" Thunderbolt Cinema Display for another box that has DisplayPort output.

      Sometimes Apple fails to properly advertise some nice features, such as this. Target Display Mode actually makes me more likely to buy an iMac the next time I need to buy a computer. If it can work with my wife's ThinkPad and an Intel NUC running Linux, I'm sold.

      I have used Target Disk Mode on a few Apple laptops in the past, which was also a very nice feature.

    94. Re: They are still damn overpriced by somersault · · Score: 1

      That's why I said "ie without having to be actually running OSX". It seems like an unnecessary waste to me to have to have the operating system running just to function as a display.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    95. Re:They are still damn overpriced by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Indeed, my mistake, and I do apologize sir.

      As to your point RE build quality....I don't believe it is a fair one.

      PC's are not just PC's...there are bad PC's and good PC's. Thinkpads were praised for their build quality for the longest time, and were certainly superior to Apple in that respect.

      Apple build quality may be better than cheap PC's, but not better than equivalent high end PC's.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    96. Re: They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      27" iMac can function as a display port monitor. This has been for a while

    97. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Had Motorola focussed on giving Apple what it needed in terms of low power CPUs, as well as trying to proliferate the portable markets

      On the plus side, now that Macs run on x86 code, a Mac can run just about any modern OS at full speed. That makes them work very well as development machines.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    98. Re:They are still damn overpriced by smash · · Score: 1

      Too incompetent? Maybe. Haven't hard of it. The point was that Linux doesn't need any maintenance with regards to drivers. My example using out of the box linux and vendor supplied drivers proves that to be false. However, lets assume your solution is legit: If there is a technology to resolve that, then WHY THE FUCK IS IT NOT ENABLED BY DEFAULT?

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    99. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      My point was that there really is no difference in quality from an Apple Macbook and say a Dell, or Lenovo, or even a high quality Asus.

      Probably the biggest difference is that you can run MacOS/X on an Apple MacBook. (No, "Hackintoshes" don't count; for serious work you can't rely on an unsupported/untested/illegal platform)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    100. Re:They are still damn overpriced by dbIII · · Score: 1

      And I thought my deliberately stupid little jab at the sack of shit lying mac fanboy was bad, but you not only didn't pick up on it - you supplied something even more pathetic!

    101. Re:They are still damn overpriced by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That does not change that the above poster was trying to mislead by exaggeration. He got a far more polite response than he deserved, and for some reason you didn't pick up on his deliberate attempt to mislead and my ridicule of it.

    102. Re: They are still damn overpriced by FearTheDonut · · Score: 1

      Not for Windows 8.1, if you own Windows 8. It is a free upgrade. Microsoft has apparently learned a lesson from Apple.

    103. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Quila · · Score: 1

      Normally the ODM also designs the laptop while the vendor just provides the specs and requirements, so I'm not even sure if Apple even designs the Macbooks.

      Normally. But Apple designed them inside and out to every last detail. Apple also designed the manufacturing process for the aluminum bodies. Apple also spent over a billion dollars working with their manufacturers to buy the CNC and other manufacturing equipment to be capable of producing Apple's designs.

      That's the dirty little secret of the laptop industry -- except for Apple. These manufacturers do have reference designs for any company to use, but Apple doesn't use those. Entirely separate production is set up for Apple.

    104. Re:They are still damn overpriced by bjb · · Score: 1

      The Macintosh II line (and by this I assume we're talking II / IIfx-type, not the smaller ones like the IIci) were tanks. While I won't really argue that the iMac line is necessarily good or bad quality (the 2005 iMac G5 a family member owns seems pretty good when I opened it for a RAM upgrade), the Mac Pro line (especially the aluminum ones; G5->Intel) seem very solid and well engineered.

      --
      Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
    105. Re: They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Powerful" can mean a lot of things. Since clock speeds have levelled off years ago, focus has been on throughput (HT, more cores, etc...). This level of parallelism means you have to keep a crapton more stuff in memory, and this is where Mac (and most other vendors as well), have fallen behind. Dell, Lenovo, Apple, and others all ship 8GB by default, and that's really only because of Windows bloat requirements.

      I purchased my Sager/Clevo for about $1600 CAD (after tax + shipping): i7-4700MQ, 24GB RAM, 2x750GB HDDs, NVidia G765M + Optimus, etc... I can run a half-dozen VMs concurrently, and I've never touched the swap space. Mac Pros start at this price, and that's with only 8GB RAM, one hard disk, and virtually no room for improvements. Battery life isn't much of an issue for me: I can get up to 2 hours with the graphics adapter running full AND they were nice enough to ship it with a spare battery pack.

    106. Re: They are still damn overpriced by teg · · Score: 1

      Not for Windows 8.1, if you own Windows 8. It is a free upgrade. Microsoft has apparently learned a lesson from Apple.

      Windows 8.1 is just an update. The upgrade would be from Windows 7 to Windows 8, and for that you have to pay. Given their different business models - Apple has a comfortable margin on their hardware allowing this pricing model, while Microsoft lives from software sales - that's understandable. But the cost of this should be taken into consideration, just as virus scanners - Microsoft recommends not using the free security essentials. This decreases the cost difference over the life of a system.

    107. Re: They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The statement you're replying to is absolutely overgeneralized, but a quick search found a comparable ASUS laptop (Non Haswell i7) to the new $2600 MacBook Pro. Its a full $1550 cheaper. That's a mortgage payment.

    108. Re: They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > of antivirus,

      Free.

      > OS updates, and

      Free.

      > other software that just comes on the Mac

      That I use... Free.

      So TOC is about equal.

      > The imac can do anything another PC

      Except play a chunk of the video games as most don't come out for OSX. Unless you install Windows on it.

      > PC can and then some

      Run Mac OS X and then what? What "some" does an iMac do that an equally spec'ed/priced PC does not? And no run a fancy OS is not enough, what FUNCTIONAL benefit does it have?

      I like macs too, but lets not call others out for bullshit then vomit some out as well.

    109. Re:They are still damn overpriced by WaroDaBeast · · Score: 1

      Yes, because you absolutely have to use Ubuntu. There are no other distros out there, no sir.

      --
      "The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
    110. Re:They are still damn overpriced by WaroDaBeast · · Score: 1

      (...) because your 6 month old distro release (using a year old kernel) probably won't have the drivers for your newer hardware.

      Ever heard of rolling release distros ?

      --
      "The body may heal, but the mind is not always so resilient." -- Deus Ex: Human Revolution
    111. Re: They are still damn overpriced by dwightk · · Score: 1

      For any model of macbook, you can get something almost twice as powerful for the same price.

      That's going off Newegg.

      How do you explain that?

      Your claim is false.

      How do you explain that?

      --
      Like anyone can even know that
    112. Re: They are still damn overpriced by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      I think mine is the one right before that was allowed: early 2009 27" :( On a happier note: time for an upgrade in a year or so and this time I'll probably go for a 2-3 24" setup of some generic PC :)

    113. Re:They are still damn overpriced by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      I checked the Dell UK site, and if it is possible to upgrade any of their computers to 32 GB then their website designers are better at hiding it than I am at finding it.

    114. Re:They are still damn overpriced by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Accepted. Even if they were made in China, thinkpads still fell into the "branded" category. Indeed they were good - pretty much best of the bunch. I've had Toshiba and HP laptops fail repeatedly, my (proper IBM-branded) thinkpad is still running well. I've never owned an apple laptop, I have heard good things about their build quality, but of course that would be from people who've invested their money in them. However, I've never seen anyone with an 8 year old Mac laptop (the age of my thinkpad, IIRC), so there's no way of judging what their longevity really is.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    115. Re: They are still damn overpriced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is twofold:

      First, Macs only fare well spec-for-spec if you take a default-spec model. Their upgrade costs have an infamous scale compared to the difference in the actual component prices.

      Second, they have a relatively small number of offerings. If what you want happens to exactly match a Mac, then great. Otherwise, to match your needs, you have to go a model higher and upgrade a bunch of components you don't need. So while it might do good on a spec-for-spec comparison against the Mac, the Mac is not a gold standard upon which other computers must be measured. Your needs are. And most of the time, your needs don't exactly match a Mac SKU. It's to be expected in a free market that even if Apple was undeniably the best, with a low number of SKUs there's a competitor who uses parts that are closer to your needs.

      The "spec for spec" analysis tends to work in favour of almost every company that sells a small set of hardware SKUs with limited upgrade options.

      So what you need to do is take random samples from other companies, then do a spec-for-spec comparison of the Mac against that item. Make sure every item is equal to *or greater than*, and you'll find the Apple price is higher. Is that a fair measure? Only when the non-Apple thing meets the consumer's need and the next step down from Apple does not, but the assertion is this is a thing that happens.

      A major difference is when you don't restrict yourself to Apple you have a lot more options (because there's a lot of companies, and a lot of those companies offer a wider range of SKUs) so you're more likely to nail your requirements at a lower price point even if it's true that no company can spec-for-spec beat Apple's prices.

      If your need is OSX, then fine, you need Apple and there is no non-Apple product that can match your requirements (hackintosh notwithstanding). And if a Mac suits your requirements, then it's a fine choice -- even with all else being equal, that's expected that to happen a number of times too.

      And yes, "requirements" is more nebulous than a firm set of spec lower bounds, and almost nobody seriously says "well I'll need 2.4GHz because 1.7GHz doesn't meet my 1.8GHz need" but spec for spec comparisons are kind of odd in the same way.

      A third problem is that their price point doesn't necessarily scale the same way in different countries compared to the competition, so I sometimes think we have an American and a person from _______ arguing, and both are completely correct in their own contexts and think the other is some wilfully blind moron.

    116. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Freultwah · · Score: 1

      Oh, the meta-irony and ‘whoosh!’.

    117. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The problem with your idea is that Apple hasn't actually had superior build quality since the Macintosh II series.

      Right. That's why they are always at the top or near it in hardware reliability. Because they don't have build quality, or something.

      They're just the same Foxconn-built PC motherboards as everyone else's, with some slightly different components.

      You want to build cheap ass computers, Foxconn will happily oblige. You want better computers and are willing to pay for it, they will happily oblige.

      Huh, it's almost like you get what you pay for. Shocking news at 11.

      And POWER is gone, and it was a dumb idea to begin with. It was only because Apple couldn't figure out how to emulate 68k on x86, which others were already doing, and doing well.

      Because IBM not delivering a 3ghz G5 chip three years after promising they'd have out in one year had nothing to do with it. Or IBM failing to come up with a mobile version of the G5, leaving Apple stuck with the increasingly embarrassing G4 for laptops.

      I see that like with politics, you pull your tech pronouncements out of your ass. Do you do the same for other subjects?

    118. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Being wealthy must be nice. You can't smugly buy expensive products without it.

      Do you make the same observations of those who buy an Ultrabook or Alienware, or are you a smug little snob?

    119. Re: They are still damn overpriced by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      but a quick search found a comparable ASUS laptop [laptopmag.com] (Non Haswell i7)

      Other than:

      Different processor
      1900x1080 screen vs 2880x1800 for the Macbook
      (this is where it gets pitiful)
      5400 rpm hard drive vs PCI-e flash storage
      Over 1 lbs heavier

      So, you're using this word, "comparable", but it does not mean what you think it means.

    120. Re: They are still damn overpriced by LDAPMAN · · Score: 1

      In target display mode OS X is not running. The key combination enables the display and port firmware...turning it into a monitor.

    121. Re:They are still damn overpriced by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Make that PowerPC, not POWER.

      Yes, that's true, but note that the PPC601 was fully instruction set-compatible with POWER. The very first PowerPCs really deserved the name. It went downhill from there. POWER is still around, but PowerPC is still a joke today.

      Had Motorola focussed on giving Apple what it needed in terms of low power CPUs, as well as trying to proliferate the portable markets, PPC would have been the hit that ARM today is.

      It's not clear that PPC could ever have been as good as ARM. Certainly when Motorola was making PPC-based phones, ARM was faster for the same power... because POWER ain't exactly svelte, and thus PowerPC is not POWER, and zzz. The real punch in the PPC chips was in the coprocessors, and those can be tied to most any ISA.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    122. Re:They are still damn overpriced by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      And I can't understand how that's a premium worth paying for, unless you actually need it for some reason.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    123. Re: They are still damn overpriced by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      You need to look at more than the specs - the cooling system is just as, if not much more important. That MacBook of yours is unlikely to be able to sustain maximum turbo boost clocks for more than a few minutes at a time... proper workstations (which is the only kind of laptop that should come with a quad-core i7) have sufficient cooling to do so for hours on end. So yeah, they're actually quite a bit faster :)

      It's always funny when one of the MacBook users at my uni (lots of programming classes) starts mouthing off about how his brand new Retina MBP must be so much faster than my Thinkpad because it looks newer... I've given up comparing compute times (Matlab and so on) - something I used to humor them with initially - because they always end up disappointed.

      I'm not saying an MBP isn't great for what it does - lots of power in a sleek package. But don't make the mistake of thinking it's the ultimate in processing power just because of the specs on the box.

    124. Re:They are still damn overpriced by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Personally, I think the alu ones are *very* well built, but that's the only one I've ever owned (dual G5, and likewise I've done HD and RAM upgrades). I thought the bubblegum-coloured plastic all-in-ones just looked as if they were cheap plastic, but am preparet to believe that the engineering inside them is just as good, even if the design is awful.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    125. Re: They are still damn overpriced by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      It works with anything that is DisplayPort compliant. I've personally plugged it into multiple ThinkPads.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    126. Re:They are still damn overpriced by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      And people wonder why Apple is doing so much better than everyone else. Dell used to be "the" place to go (at least among the major OEMs, other option is build it yourself) if you wanted to customized your system to your own specs. Now it seems like they've lost sight of that, and the only things you can customize on their site are value add-ons where they can make lots of money like printers and extended warranties.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    127. Re:They are still damn overpriced by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      And I can't understand how that's a premium worth paying for, unless you actually need it for some reason.

      The alternatives are Windows (which I can't stand), or some flavor of Linux/Unix/BSD, which work okay, but aren't particularly user-friendly, and don't have much commercial software support.

      Whether or not paying extra for MacOS/X is worth it will also depend on how much money you have available. If you're scraping by, it might be better to pay less up front, and put up with the shortcomings of an alternative. OTOH, if you've got enough money (or your employer is paying for it), then you may prefer to spring for 3-7 years of hassle-free computing experience, rather than a one-time savings of a few hundred dollars.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    128. Re:They are still damn overpriced by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Yeah, automatically accuse people of lying when their anecdotal experience does not match your ideological beliefs.

      Look, I've installed Linux on dozens of machines. The newer the hardware, the more cumbersome it is to get it working, unless you're using bleeding edge distros. I don't use bleeding edge distros, for my own sanity.

      If I'm a fanboy at all, I'd be a fanboy of Debian stable. Any time saved by using another disto would eventually be evened out by the "cost of maintenance" of using things like *Unity*, *GNOME 3*.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    129. Re:They are still damn overpriced by smash · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. She's an ex of 12 months. And yes, this is the exact reason that I've started buying macs for my personal machines. OS X generally does not need any particular maintenance. And if you DO somehow fuck it up, reinstalling OS X is entirely painless. Boot from USB/DVD/WIFI (depending on what your machine has available as boot media), select to install and by default it keeps your files. If you want to wipe it clean, restoring from time machine is painless.

      No driver issues, no license keys, no product activation. No need to compile drivers from source. It just works.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    130. Re: They are still damn overpriced by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      If the iMac doubled up as a standard monitor (ie without having to be actually running OSX to function as an external display), then it could be worth it.

      Target Display Mode supported over Thunderbolt. Also works with PCs that can hook up monitors over Thunderbolt (not Mini DisplayPort).

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    131. Re: They are still damn overpriced by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      I dunno, 10.9 fixed the most obvious, stupid thing that never got fixed in 10.8: multi-monitor support was atrocious.

      But ftr, I think Windows and all the *nix GUIs are even worse.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    132. Re:They are still damn overpriced by smash · · Score: 1

      Or maybe he just runs a very limited or old set of hardware. Yes there's a lot of self inflicted time-sink in Linux and I've been there, done that and got the t-shirt. That's not what I'm talking about. Driver support continues to be a problem. "Just buy compatible hardware!" I hear you say. Well, there's no reliable HCL - meaning you need to spend time (hence, time sink) browsing on-line or reading the source and obtaining chipset specs for potential hardware to determine compatibility.

      And even then, there's a decent chance you end up in my situation - the WIFI adapter I just bought which had Linux support listed on the box only shipped with driver source for kernel 2.6, has not been main-lined and no official patches exist for newer versions.

      I needed to obtain patches from some random guy on a forum on the internet (which could be a Trojan for all I know - learning kernel driver development and reading the source to check would be another time-sink), and every time my distribution does a kernel upgrade, the driver needs to be recompiled and will potentially also break if the kernel changes sufficiently to break the driver source.

      I.e., because there is no driver ABI, there is no guarantee that a security update I do today will break my WIFI in a way that I can not fix (without rolling back to a known-insecure kernel for example) without writing code myself.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    133. Re:They are still damn overpriced by smash · · Score: 1

      "I.e., because there is no driver ABI, there is no guarantee that a security update I do today will not break my WIFI in a way that I can not fix (without rolling back to a known-insecure kernel for example) without writing code myself."

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    134. Re:They are still damn overpriced by smash · · Score: 1

      Also - don't believe DKMS will fix my problem, as source changes were required to the driver to make it work with 3.8. No source changes required from 3.8.x to 3.8.y yet, but its only a matter of time, as the kernel has no driver ABI.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  3. 8 measly GB of RAM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are they so damn cheap they can't pop 2 x 8 GB in these things?

    1. Re:8 measly GB of RAM. by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      No, it would mess up the packaging and probably introduce an unsightly bulge somewhere.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re: 8 measly GB of RAM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can. Just pay a little bit more.
      Where is the problem?

      Are you one of those cheapskates that expects to pay cattle class but gets upgraded to first class for free? Or a bigger engine in your car for free? Or free food and bigger portions for free in a restaurant?

      You get what you pay for. It's that simple. Doubling the RAM might costs just 100 bucks extra. Multiplied by 5 million Macs and you suddenly asks a company to throw away half a billion.

      Tl;dr : nonsense.

    3. Re: 8 measly GB of RAM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is nonsense. In fact it is downright laughable. Why would an extra 4 GB of ram cost 100 dollars? You can get 2 x 4GB of ram on newegg for like 60 bucks. You mac fanbois do use regular DDR3 dont you?

    4. Re: 8 measly GB of RAM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and most people do just that. So your problem is?

      The New MacPro uses ECC DIMMS. Because of the error correction they are more expensive mostly because of the lower demand for them. AFAIK, this is a requirement when using XEON CPU's.

    5. Re: 8 measly GB of RAM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The New MacPro uses ECC DIMMS. Because of the error correction they are more expensive mostly because of the lower demand for them.

      Correct.

      AFAIK, this is a requirement when using XEON CPU's.

      Wrong.
      Xeons (at least E3, E5, E3v2, E5v2, E3v3) can run fine with non-ECC ram. It's up to the board BIOS to allow that or not.

      But if you don't need ECC... why the hell did you buy a xeon in the first place?

    6. Re: 8 measly GB of RAM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's completely irrelevant if new egg wants 40 bucks instead of 100. Apple still has to calculate a loss of 100 bucks. 'Cause that's the money they don't make in revenue.

      What you are applying is capitalism for dummy kids. Aka path to bankruptcy. It has nothing to do with fanboism or being laughable. It's just sound business calculation.

      They offer product A for a defined price point. If you want B pony up the difference. Very simple.
      Why do you expect something for free?

      You pay more at McDonalds for just a bit more coke in your cup and 5 extra fries. Have ever asked them why they have the audacity to ask for money for more stuff instead of giving it to you for free? No? Why? It's the exact same thing.

      Tl;dr : How old are you?

  4. If people pay more, it must be worth it to them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I spend a lot of my life sitting in front of my computer. Even if I pay $500 more for a nicer-looking machine, every five years, I'm paying $2 a week for nicer working conditions. I spend more than that for coffee.

  5. First hand experience by teg · · Score: 5, Informative

    I bought one - 27 inch, with all available upgrades except for the max memory. Memory is user replaceable, and it's cheaper to buy it elsewhere. Here are my impressions

    • Unpacking it and setting it up is, as always, a breeze. Take off the top lid, lift the surprisingly light computer to a desk, put in the power chord. Done. Initial setup of the computer is then done in a minute.
    • Restoring my user profile from a time machine hard drive, to get applications, user data etc. was fast and smooth
    • The high res screen is gorgeous. It's also very well calibrated out of the box - my calibration hardware hardly changed anything this time around. Compared to earlier iMacs -and most other screens today - there are no reflections, even though it is glossy.
    • Fusion drive - Apple's automated tiering solution - works very well. For most practical purposes, it worked just as well as my last SSD-based iMac - but this time, I don't have to do manual file management of SSD vs. HD.
    • The computer is noiseless
    • Performance is good (photo and movie editing), but that's obviously to be expected. My Linux VMs are very happy too.
    • The games I tried work well on high settings, but the Witcher 1 doesn't work at all - first, a bug causes it to believe that the system doesn't meet minimum requirements (the older, slower one did). Some editing of config files later, it starts - but videos don't display (sound only) and the 3D display have all objects except text rendered black.
    • While the sound coming out of the chassis sound surprisingly good, you really want separate speakers or good headphones if you are listening to music while you work.
    1. Re:First hand experience by smash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Price up a PC based system including monitor with equivalent resolution, ssd caching, etc. Now find that spec in an all in one.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    2. Re:First hand experience by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Getting a job at some place better paying than McDonalds.

    3. Re:First hand experience by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Interesting insight into the mind of an Apple buyer there. I note you use the word "surprising" a lot, as do Apple themselves in their marketing. You also don't quantify things like the time machine restore being "fast" - fast in comparison to what, and with how many apps and how much data? What does noiseless mean, presumably not 0db?

      What I'm getting at is your impression of the machine is based entirely on your expectation of it. I'm not saying it isn't nice hardware, it is, but that is also the very definition of the Reality Distortion Field. The brand, the shiny retail space, the reassuringly high price that must mean it's made of better quality materials.

      I'm not having a go at you personally, just pointing out how Apple operates, and why it's hard for the rest of us to take a "review"/anecdote like this too seriously.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:First hand experience by schnell · · Score: 1

      The brand, the shiny retail space, the reassuringly high price that must mean it's made of better quality materials.

      Where did he mention any of this? You seem to be stuck in some preconceived notions that everyone who buys a Mac is some kind of foppish dandy writing a screenplay at Starbucks who knows nothing about computers and hence buys it only because it's expensive and shiny. Do you actually know a significant number of people who use Macs, and are they all like that? Or are you just working from decade-old Penny Arcade tropes and second-hand Slashthink?

      I'm not having a go at your personally, just pointing out how stereotypes operate, and why it's hard for the rest of us to take your comment too seriously.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    5. Re:First hand experience by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      My deductions were based on the way he wrote his anecdote. He sounds like a lot of Apple's marketing, rather than an objective reviewer.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:First hand experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So because he cannot objectively quantify and his positive experience, it is not valid?

      Wow.

      What are you, a robot? A Vulcan? An actuary?

    7. Re:First hand experience by teg · · Score: 1

      Interesting insight into the mind of an Apple buyer there. I note you use the word "surprising" a lot, as do Apple themselves in their marketing. You also don't quantify things like the time machine restore being "fast" - fast in comparison to what, and with how many apps and how much data? What does noiseless mean, presumably not 0db?

      What I'm getting at is your impression of the machine is based entirely on your expectation of it. I'm not saying it isn't nice hardware, it is, but that is also the very definition of the Reality Distortion Field. The brand, the shiny retail space, the reassuringly high price that must mean it's made of better quality materials.

      I'm not having a go at you personally, just pointing out how Apple operates, and why it's hard for the rest of us to take a "review"/anecdote like this too seriously.

      First - this was not a review. This was list of impressions. For a review, I would need to compare it to something, go into technical details, measurements etc. This wasn't a review - and for what it was worth, I don't think the one in the original article was a good one either. I think this is a better example of a review, but it is of a different model. As of my use of "surprising", I used it twice. Once for the weight. Since I had just moved my old 27 inch iMac, I had a good comparison - and this was 1/3rd lighter for what is still basically a computer attached to a screen. Only the optical unit is really missing. This felt slightly surprising to my muscle memory. The second time was describing the sound, and my surprise there is that it is even coming close to "passable for some light use" given the speakers. This is hardly what Apple's marketing would aspire to ;) I would not consider using this without additional speakers.

      As for "quantify" that time machine being fast - it was a couple of clicks. After that, it took an hour or two - it was about a terrabyte of data (mostly RAW images and music files). I didn't hang around to find out, but the involvement for me was "fast". As for "noiseless", it means I have a really hard time hearing that it's one - I have to put my ear to the screen.

      As for "what you're getting at", you're wrong. I don't buy retail (there aren't even any Apple stores around here), and of course lower price is better. I just happen to look at what I get for my money rather than always choosing the lowest price, and previous experience (my own and people I trust) will have an influence on my decisions.

    8. Re:First hand experience by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      The games I tried work well on high settings

      You are either mistaken or lying. There is no way in hell you are playing games on high settings on a 2560x1440 display with a laptop graphics card.

    9. Re:First hand experience by teg · · Score: 1

      The games I tried work well on high settings

      You are either mistaken or lying. There is no way in hell you are playing games on high settings on a 2560x1440 display with a laptop graphics card.

      Or I don't play the same games you do - I don't play many FPSes, and the games used in benchmarks because they are the most demanding ones probably aren't available on the Mac. This is (Mac Pro excepted) the most powerful Mac ever released, so the "let's see what we can do with 2 780 GTX in SLI"-kind of games aren't what you'd be running here. They probably aren't even available.

      The games I ran were Civ 5 (with all expansions) and XCom: Enemy Unknown. The latter stopped working after the Mavericks upgrade, as it now believes the computer doesn't satisfy the minimum requirements and needs a patch.

    10. Re:First hand experience by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You sound like a dooshy Apple Hateboi projecting his preconceived ideas into random polite conversation.

      He sounds like a lot of Apple's marketing, rather than an objective reviewer.

      He also used the word "the" and said iMac, which is trademarked! What are you, five?

    11. Re:First hand experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your response sounds typical of a non-Apple buyer. Do you have first hand experience with owning, operating, upgrading or repairing Macs? I have used and serviced Windows PCs since version 3.0, Linux on the desktop since Redhat 6.0 and OS X since 10.1 and from my experience non-Mac users simply don't believe it is possible when you tell them some of the great advantages of using Apple products. If anyone is experiencing a reality distortion field here perhaps it is you? Maybe you question the user's experience because you don't think his claims are possible or accurate, simply because you have not experienced this yourself? Apple products are definitely not perfect but the overall user experience is designed to be as simple and effective as possible, and THAT is how Apple operates.

  6. Vesa Mount? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't support vesa mount?

    Why no USB on keyboard?

    Alas, nice package but more needed to be done to impress me...

    1. Re:Vesa Mount? by teg · · Score: 1

      Why don't support vesa mount?

      Why no USB on keyboard?

      Alas, nice package but more needed to be done to impress me...

      The previous version - this one only changes the internal hardware - offered a VESA mount, so this might be made available again. As for USB on the keyboard, you'll get that if you select the wired keyboard rather than the wireless one.

    2. Re:Vesa Mount? by smash · · Score: 1

      The wired keyboard has USB. The wireless one doesn't.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    3. Re: Vesa Mount? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/imac-vesa

      Apple got that covered.

    4. Re:Vesa Mount? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't support vesa mount?

      How is babby formed?

  7. Price not an Object? by tuppe666 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Price up a PC based system including monitor with equivalent resolution, ssd caching, etc. Now find that spec in an all in one.

    Moderation has modded down an 100% factual comment regarding Apple on Price. Ignoring that Apples PC continuing slump in sales because of this very fact. The bottom line is this iMac is a low resolution, small slow, and fast memory with the usual proprietary connection crap(Ironically lower specification than my old PC). The fact that it is non-upgradable as a justification is stupid; I personally plan throwing a high resolution 29" monitor or A Discrete graphics card or Another hard drive in...Depending on whether Linux gets android compatibility; or My games are struggling a little; Or I run out of space on my raid Array :). Ironically phone has equivalent resolution, ssd cashing etc.

    Apple sell standard components in an attractive package at a massive mark up. If Monopolists like Intel and Microsoft weren't sitting on their 60% gross profits too it would look more obscene; Post PC...hardly just sick of being gouged on price. The bottom line is "Apple Still Costs A Fortune"

    1. Re:Price not an Object? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Moderation has modded down an 100% factual comment regarding Apple on Price. Ignoring that Apples PC continuing slump in sales because of this very fact.

      According to Apple's earnings release, Mac market share among PC sales has been increasing in 29 of the 30 last quarters. In worldwide computer sales, they are around number six in unit sales, about number two in revenue, and clear leader with nobody anywhere near in profits.

  8. Hire Purchase. by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    I spend a lot of my life sitting in front of my computer. Even if I pay $500 more for a nicer-looking machine, every five years, I'm paying $2 a week for nicer working conditions. I spend more than that for coffee.

    No they are paring for an inferior hardware, that is upgradable so won't last five years...applying a salesman's hire purchase sell won't work especially when the competitors are $200 tablets. I drink tea :)

  9. Apple Cheap by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    Are you one of those cheapskates ...

    No its Apple that is the cheapskate.

    1. Re: Apple Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they are a for-profit company. Surprise surprise. That means they want to make profits. Giving away stuff that could be sold or otherwise monetised is nice but not in the interest of a for-profit company.

      That's capitalism. You don't want that? Fine. Socialism and communism are your alternative. You choose.

  10. Intel by tuppe666 · · Score: 0

    It is an oversimplification to simply state that Apple uses many of the same components as PCs.

    Apple *computers* use exactly the same hardware APU;Memory and Screen as I can get by walking into a high street the fact that they wrap it as an non-upgradeable electronics package to justify the price is insulting. Their selling point is the brand and the software...and they are worth nothing to me...and their sales are dropping.

    1. Re:Intel by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The person said components. Apple uses the same memory as most manufacturers because these are standard parts. Intel is only one of two CPU makers so who is Apple going to use for their computers? Qualcomm? As for screen, the last I checked high res displays are not common on PCs so that if you want to ignore this fact go ahead. Then's the rest of the computer like the case, the MB, and all the other components. But feel to ignore all of that.

      Their selling point is the brand and the software...and they are worth nothing to me...and their sales are dropping.

      We get it. You don't like Apple. You don't see the value. Millions of people do. Get over yourself.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  11. Smash by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    Funny how my WIFI card i bought last month with Linux support on the box breaks every kernel upgrade

    Lets get this right your prepared to argue the massive costs of $2000 for an iMac...but can't buy a $20 USB dongle that works. Ironically I have range of dongles that don't work on Vista+. Wireless under Linux is now second to none. Would you like me to give you a list :)

    1. Re:Smash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wireless under Linux is now second to none. Would you like me to give you a list :)

      Thanks for self [citation needed]-ing. Now, please put up or shut up. Real world examples, only.

    2. Re:Smash by smash · · Score: 1

      I bought a PCIe WIFI adapter that listed Linux on the box. This isn't about whether or not i CAN fix it. It's refuting the assertion that drivers are not a problem on Linux any more. That assertion is total bollocks.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    3. Re:Smash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't about whether or not i CAN fix it. It's refuting the assertion that drivers are not a problem on Linux any more.

      For tuppe666, drivers are not a problem. As a Linux zealot, he truly believes this. He's happy believing it. Doesn't matter if it's factually true in reality. Being a zealot is about believing something to the extreme and tuppe666 is definitely extreme.

  12. Macs are still pretty... by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I have owned Macs since 2000. They are generally well engineer machines from hardware to the software. I have always like the Unix underpinnings (I get nostalgic). However, lately, I can no justify spending much on a Macintosh. I feel that Apple just seems to be laser focused on the casual computing market. The processors haven't really change in the last few years. The systems now skimp on the GPUs meaning gaming is essentially pointless (a console would be a better choice for the money). Right now, I feel that I can only use Macs for word processing and internet. Well, a MacMini can do that. Pretty soon, I will only need an iPAD. Apple should rethink marketing strategy.

    --
    You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
    1. Re:Macs are still pretty... by SargentDU · · Score: 1

      Our work IMacs are pretty kicking machines. We have 2012 models with 3.4 GHz Intel Core I7s, 24 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 and 1 TB harddrives networked with Apple Servers and our up time is wonderful. Our support is a 3 person crew with only one really doing the hardware or software maintenance while the others keep the DBs and other special software going. Other agencies depend on the organizations ITD and they have windows machines but cannot boast of the uptime and productivity we have.

    2. Re:Macs are still pretty... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      Well they skimp out on discrete GPUs because an Intel GPU is more than adequate for the average consumer. Your use case of Macs for the internet and word processing only reinforces their strategy.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Macs are still pretty... by Bogtha · · Score: 1

      The systems now skimp on the GPUs meaning gaming is essentially pointless

      From the article summary:

      the 27-inch iMac reviewed here bolted through benchmarks with relative ease and posted especially solid figures in gaming tests

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    4. Re:Macs are still pretty... by Garisimo · · Score: 1

      I feel your pain. It's getting harder and harder for me to justify the purchase of a new desktop Mac. I've had Macs since 1987 (my SE/30 is in the corner gathering yellow) and have enjoyed the ride. While I understand the need for Apple's laptops (especially the Air) to be cramma-packed with glued in components that are nigh impossible to repair/replace, I cannot abide the same in a desktop unit. Users should be easily able to, at a minimum, replace their hard drives (ssd or traditional). If that means they are a bit thicker to allow for the access panel, so be it. If I need to bring my computer in for repair I want to be in charge of my data. While our company has spent roughly $50k on Apple products over the past 15 years my next Mac just might be a Hackintosh for a greener, more open solution.

      -g-

  13. Show Me by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    According to Apple's earnings release, Mac market share among PC sales has been increasing in 29 of the 30 last quarters.

    http://investor.apple.com/results.cfm These are Apple Earning Releases *Show Me* The only information is the "The Company sold 4.6 million Macs, compared to 4.9 million in the year-ago quarter." down 7% That is as I said *another drop in sales* The only increase has come from Chrome/Android/Linux.

    The fact that you are going back to a Apple makes lots of money, for a shareholder like yourself that might make sense but its shitty for customers.

    1. Re:Show Me by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The fact that you are going back to a Apple makes lots of money, for a shareholder like yourself that might make sense but its shitty for customers.

      If you want to ignore the fact that PC sales are slumping for all manufacturers, go ahead. Unfortunately here people have some common sense.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Show Me by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      If you want to ignore the fact that PC sales are slumping for all manufacturers, go ahead. Unfortunately here people have some common sense.

      And most people know that most of that slump is due to Apple selling iPads. So unlike everyone else, Apple isn't that sad about it. Because of iPad sales, Apple probably loses 500,000 Mac sales a quarter, while the PCs lose 10,000,000 PC sales.

    3. Re:Show Me by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      iPad sales are only one reason. Other reasons are that (1) older PCs are good enough for most people and (2) people hate Win 8.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Show Me by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      The fact that you are going back to a Apple makes lots of money, for a shareholder like yourself that might make sense but its shitty for customers.

      But the lack of profits is why PCs are shitty products for customers. PCs are sold by being $10 cheaper than the competitor, which is achieved by skimping on quality. The problem is that quality isn't visible, so anyone building a PC in Mac quality would go bankrupt.

    5. Re:Show Me by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

      If you want to ignore the fact that PC sales are slumping for all manufacturers, go ahead. Unfortunately here people have some common sense.

      Maybe because the facts are not so simple. PC shipments actually grew last quarter for both HP and Lenovo.

  14. Slink in iMac and iPads by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    And most people know that most of that slump is due to Apple selling iPads.

    Hilariously...and I do mean this Hilariously especially as you have quotes the Apples earnings. iPAD sales have dropped over the last few quarters with *cough* inventory shenanigans, and in the latest results http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q4fy13datasum.pdf show sales down sequentially and flat year on year. In a market *exploding*...here are IDC's figures http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24253413 to show how far Apple is falling behind the rest of the market with its market share *plummeting* from 60% to 30% Market Share.

    It just shows you most people don't know.

    1. Re:Slink in iMac and iPads by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Failing to use common sense. PC sales are slipping badly.

      Worldwide shipments of personal computers fell in the third quarter of the year, the sixth straight quarter of decline as cheaper tablet computers and smartphones cut into demand, according to market research firms IDC and Gartner. . . The top 3 PC sellers — Lenovo, HP and Dell — all grew shipments between zero and 3 percent during the quarter . . . Acer and Asus suffered steep declines.

      It just shows you most people don't know.

      It shows you people like you will twist facts whichever way they want. According to your own link, Apple is the #1 tablet maker by far and tablet sales have slowed for everyone. Yes Apple has dropped market share. For a long time they were the only ones making a compelling tablet that people wanted to buy. Now others are catching up. What isn't in your IDC numbers is how much profit Apple makes on their tablets. If it's anything like smartphones, they probably make more than their 30%.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Slink in iMac and iPads by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      And most people know that most of that slump is due to Apple selling iPads.

      Hilariously...and I do mean this Hilariously especially as you have quotes the Apples earnings. iPAD sales have dropped over the last few quarters with *cough* inventory shenanigans, and in the latest results http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q4fy13datasum.pdf show sales down sequentially and flat year on year. In a market *exploding*...here are IDC's figures http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24253413 to show how far Apple is falling behind the rest of the market with its market share *plummeting* from 60% to 30% Market Share.

      It just shows you most people don't know.

      Or could iPad sales drop because well, people are waiting for the new model?

      Apple's sales are VERY cyclical. Basically, there's an extremely strong spike in sales near release (oh wait, last quarter didn't bring in new iPads people were waiting for). Given the new iPads were just announced last week in time for the holiday season, you can expect a very robust quarter this time around because people waited.

      I don't particularly like the strategy, but Apple is highly predictable. I can say you'll see brand new iPads holiday season 2014, new iPhones just after Back to School, etc.

      Hell, you can say the Galaxy S4 outsold the iPhone 5S the first 6 months of the year!

  15. Irony by tuppe666 · · Score: 1

    iPad sales are only one reason. Other reasons are that (1) older PCs are good enough for most people and (2) people hate Win 8.

    iPad sales are down http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q4fy13datasum.pdf
    If Older PC's are competition, you compete. by price or specification, and fails in both
    Win 8 is not available for Apple...Chrome/Android/Linux continue to grow.

    1. Re:Irony by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      If Older PC's are competition, you compete. by price or specification, and fails in both

      Ignoring common sense and facts again. All PC manufacturers are slumping in computer sales. Yet they haven't been able to reverse the trend. By your definition, the PC manufacturers are failing harder than Apple as they don't have the tablet sales/revenue/profit that Apple has. Try again.

      Win 8 is not available for Apple...Chrome/Android/Linux continue to grow.

      Again failing to use common sense. Chrome/Android/Linux is not a PC manufacturer. On PCs Win 8 is basically the only OS available for most people. As for Chrome, when you start at 0%, you can only grow.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Irony by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Win 8 is not available for Apple...Chrome/Android/Linux continue to grow.

      If Macs shipped with Windows 8, I can guarantee that sales would drop very close to zero.

  16. Largely Unchanged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple's late 2013 edition iMacs are largely unchanged. STOP.

    That's all that needs to be said.

    1. Re: Largely Unchanged by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that it's wrong

  17. Minor refreshes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iMac's are just laptop hardware in a desktop "all in one". Nothing to see here. The put in ridiculously slow hard drives for such a device and brag about a mobile graphics GPU that does the basics just fine but you'll never find it enough for high resolution gaming. I never much cared for a all in one. Once the hardware has become out dated or failed. You left with a monitor that still probably works fine. I see a bit of a trend where people are looking beyond Mac's because of price.
    I think Apple has peaked and now more valued oriented products have attracted some consumers away from Apple. If your a hard core gamer, I hardly think your buying a iMac anyway and then buying a copy of Windows 7 to play mediocre 3D setting to get mediocre frame rates?

  18. Friction-stir welding is interesting by GlobalEcho · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's always interesting to hear of novel (to me) industrial processes Apple uses to make its product. Case in point: the article mentions Apple has switch to friction-stir welding.

  19. Power vs POWER by unixisc · · Score: 1

    The rebranding from PowerPC was done to Power, but the original RS/6000 architecture that ran in parallel was known by an all-caps POWER. So Power and POWER are different. Both are instruction set architectures, mostly overlapping, but w/ some instructions exclusive to one or the other.

  20. Youse guys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are a buncha hamburgers. With a soggy dill pickle on the side.

  21. Consider cars. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What always frustrates me about the "they're overpriced" crowd, aside from the failure to consider the whole experience of the options for the actual user instead of their autistic "it if works for me, it must for him/her" selves, is how willing too many of these folks would be to spend a hell of a lot of extra money [unnecessarily] on a fancy car.

    I keep expecting to see one of these guys sitting in a 2014 BMW outside an Apple Store telling the customers going in just how damn expensive those Macs are. To them I say, "Find something better to do."

  22. False equivalency! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple does design them. Apple still writes the specs; Apple decides what materials and parts are used.
    Mac OS X tends to be a less problematic experience for the novice than Windows.
    Your anecdote doesn't negate the value of his or anecdotes in general and I dare to suggest there are more like his than yours.

    That all said, I agree with most of what you said about build quality. It does make more sense now to spend some on it than it did in years past. However I still consider myself ever so slightly closer to hard core than an average user, and I left the upgrade treadmill some time ago.

  23. Stop the bluff by dbIII · · Score: 1

    I've installed a few more than "dozens" in this year alone so your bluff has failed.
    You are a lying sack of shit and you know it.

    1. Re:Stop the bluff by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      Get a life dude.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
  24. Cheerleading isn't much of a life by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Get a life? LOL - it's called a "job" and since it's so quick and easy to set up linux nodes, servers and desktops I've done a lot of them over the last decade and a half instead of the windows weenie way of getting things installed for me.
    The life experience I've got when I was getting a life has been plenty to show that your disgusting little fanboy slur on something that competes with the thing you are a fan of is a pile of lies and you are happy to cheapen yourself into utter worthlessness to do it.
    So, I'd say get a real life instead of your stupid cheerleading.