Oppenheimer: New iMac a better deal than Dell, HP
In reviewing Apple's (AAPL) new desktops Tuesday, some analysts chided the company for not setting "more aggressive price points," as Kaufman Bros.'s Shaw Wu put it, given today's "tough macroeconomic environment."
But not Oppenheimer's Yair Reiner. He did a spec-by-spec comparisons with comparable Dell (DEL) and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) machines. His surprising conclusion, given Apple's reputation for premium pricing: he found the new iMacs to be "a better value than competing Windows-based products." Specifically…
"A side-by-side comparison suggests the new iMacs match up favorably against Dell and HP's All-in-One's on a price-to-performance basis. For example, the $1,499 model has a faster CPU and RAM with better or comparable graphics, and is still $100-$250 cheaper (though it lacks a TV Tuner, ~$60-$100 upgrade)."
To get a feel for what he's seeing, I've pasted one of his charts below:
"Windows technologies are still the only software that is scalable in the Enterprise."
Ever heard of Unix? Seems like that technology scales pretty well in the enterprise. Might want to check it out…
What the heck is a "shaw wu" ??
Just another apple juice drinking idiot.
The comparison was totally biased, which can easily be seen on the chart in many areas. The other fact remains that you are comparing first iteration "all-in-one" boxes to Apples which they have been doing for decades..
If the fact is that Dell and HP can take a quick stab at it and still make something just as good with 1 try, that makes me a pretty solid beleiver in either of those two OEMs.
Oh, and you people can use whatever crap you want at home, but dont think any apple computer is worth its salt anywhere outside of the home. Windows technologies are still the only software that is scalable in the Enterprise.
ex ped: John, you've got your brokerage houses confused. Wu works for Kaufman Bros. The chart was done by Yair Reiner, who works for Oppenheimer.
What the heck is a "shaw wu" ??
Just another apple juice drinking idiot.
The comparison was totally biased, which can easily be seen on the chart in many areas. The other fact remains that you are comparing first iteration "all-in-one" boxes to Apples which they have been doing for decades..
If the fact is that Dell and HP can take a quick stab at it and still make something just as good with 1 try, that makes me a pretty solid beleiver in either of those two OEMs.
Oh, and you people can use whatever crap you want at home, but dont think any apple computer is worth its salt anywhere outside of the home. Windows technologies are still the only software that is scalable in the Enterprise.
ex ped: John, you've got your brokerage houses confused. Wu works for Kaufman Bros. The chart was done by Yair Reiner, who works for Oppenheimer.
Here is the bottom line on Mac vs PC:
Mac is such a better value from every angle.
1. side by side comparison proves that the Mac is more cost effective when compared to a pc. This is because by the time you upgrade the Pc to equal the power/ performance of a mac, the upgrades put the price higher than that of a Mac.
2. Mac is a better value because when you buy a Mac, you will be happily using it for at least 6 or 8 years before even considering upgrading to a new model. On a PC, most people upgrade after only 2 or 3 years. A much better ROI on the Mac.
3. I have heard thousands of people go from PC to Mac and every one of them has been nothing less than happy. I have NEVER heard one single person say I bought a mac and didnt like it so I went back to a PC. It just doesnt happen.
4. Lets see… Windows = Viruses, crashes, instability, security hacks, closed code OS….Not Cool
MAC= No Viruses, Stable platform, open source code OS…Very Cool.
5. Now with Virtualization, you can even run windows on a MAc and it runs beter than it does on the PC hardware. Thats a slap in the face to PC manufacturers.
Come on PC users, stop pretending that all the above doesnt exist. It is fact, indisputable fact that the better value, better performing computer is MAC hands down. You do look kind of foolish talking about how bad it is when all you keep doing is reinvesting in a system that spends more time developing solutions and patches for its flaws (Windows ME, Windows XP, Windows Vista) than spending the time developing a solid product.
Wake Up People, the hardest thing to do is Change, but if you want to truly buy a computer that has REAL value and will make you far more productive and keep you safe, Buy A MAC!
Here is the bottom line on Mac vs PC:
Mac is such a better value from every angle.
1. side by side comparison proves that the Mac is more cost effective when compared to a pc. This is because by the time you upgrade the Pc to equal the power/ performance of a mac, the upgrades put the price higher than that of a Mac.
2. Mac is a better value because when you buy a Mac, you will be happily using it for at least 6 or 8 years before even considering upgrading to a new model. On a PC, most people upgrade after only 2 or 3 years. A much better ROI on the Mac.
3. I have heard thousands of people go from PC to Mac and every one of them has been nothing less than happy. I have NEVER heard one single person say I bought a mac and didnt like it so I went back to a PC. It just doesnt happen.
4. Lets see… Windows = Viruses, crashes, instability, security hacks, closed code OS….Not Cool
MAC= No Viruses, Stable platform, open source code OS…Very Cool.
5. Now with Virtualization, you can even run windows on a MAc and it runs beter than it does on the PC hardware. Thats a slap in the face to PC manufacturers.
Come on PC users, stop pretending that all the above doesnt exist. It is fact, indisputable fact that the better value, better performing computer is MAC hands down. You do look kind of foolish talking about how bad it is when all you keep doing is reinvesting in a system that spends more time developing solutions and patches for its flaws (Windows ME, Windows XP, Windows Vista) than spending the time developing a solid product.
Wake Up People, the hardest thing to do is Change, but if you want to truly buy a computer that has REAL value and will make you far more productive and keep you safe, Buy A MAC!
"3. If you’re going to include iLife, why not include Windows Media Center and TV tuner support?"
Because that would be like comparing kindergarten art to the Mona Lisa?
Seriously, iLife is a full suite of best of class applications. Even if you could get this software for Windows, which you can't, it would cost hundreds of dollars. Windows media is just yet another an attempt to lock you into your OS. Quicktime is far better (and is the basis for windoze media, BTW). And the TV tuner? You can add that to any computer, if for some reason you want to record live TV. It's not exactly a software development or offering, more like a bundled piece of cheap hardware.
"3. If you’re going to include iLife, why not include Windows Media Center and TV tuner support?"
Because that would be like comparing kindergarten art to the Mona Lisa?
Seriously, iLife is a full suite of best of class applications. Even if you could get this software for Windows, which you can't, it would cost hundreds of dollars. Windows media is just yet another an attempt to lock you into your OS. Quicktime is far better (and is the basis for windoze media, BTW). And the TV tuner? You can add that to any computer, if for some reason you want to record live TV. It's not exactly a software development or offering, more like a bundled piece of cheap hardware.
I think the folks arguing processors are missing the point. Quad-core at 333Mhz faster is marginally better than Dual-core at 333 Mhz slower….BUT 6 MB L2 cache kills 4 MB L2 cache. That is partially made up in FSB speed, but not hardly.
And I LOVE how Windows is advertising things in its Media Center software that iLife has been doing for almost 10 years. I'm a PC and I'm 7 years old and just NOW being able to share photos with a single button click, whereas Macs have been doing that since before I was born! And iLife is doing things in the 2009 version that Windows Media Center will begin doing in 2013….
I think the folks arguing processors are missing the point. Quad-core at 333Mhz faster is marginally better than Dual-core at 333 Mhz slower….BUT 6 MB L2 cache kills 4 MB L2 cache. That is partially made up in FSB speed, but not hardly.
And I LOVE how Windows is advertising things in its Media Center software that iLife has been doing for almost 10 years. I'm a PC and I'm 7 years old and just NOW being able to share photos with a single button click, whereas Macs have been doing that since before I was born! And iLife is doing things in the 2009 version that Windows Media Center will begin doing in 2013….
Why are winners aren't lighted for the non-Mac desktops, but they're highlighted for the iMac? Examples:
1. Both iMac AND Dell have 6 USB ports. Why only the iMac highlighted? What's the reason for NOT highlighting the Dell since it has the same number. It's basic math. You know 6 = 6.
2. If you're going to compare the webcam by megapixel, then why the 2.0 MP of the Dell is not highlighted when it's in fact the largest? Really why?
3. If you're going to include iLife, why not include Windows Media Center and TV tuner support?
4. Why isn't the Quad core better than the Dual? For video and audio encoding, the Quad core will murder that dual. All modern encoders these days support Quad and 8-cores just fine. It's good that 1333 FSB is better than 1066 MHz and yet, 4 cores is not better 2 cores when it's only roughly 333 MHz difference.
The newer 45nm revisions of the Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad both have a 65W thermal design power. Thermal throttling is not an issue in desktop computers even if it's an AIO.
Why are winners aren't lighted for the non-Mac desktops, but they're highlighted for the iMac? Examples:
1. Both iMac AND Dell have 6 USB ports. Why only the iMac highlighted? What's the reason for NOT highlighting the Dell since it has the same number. It's basic math. You know 6 = 6.
2. If you're going to compare the webcam by megapixel, then why the 2.0 MP of the Dell is not highlighted when it's in fact the largest? Really why?
3. If you're going to include iLife, why not include Windows Media Center and TV tuner support?
4. Why isn't the Quad core better than the Dual? For video and audio encoding, the Quad core will murder that dual. All modern encoders these days support Quad and 8-cores just fine. It's good that 1333 FSB is better than 1066 MHz and yet, 4 cores is not better 2 cores when it's only roughly 333 MHz difference.
The newer 45nm revisions of the Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad both have a 65W thermal design power. Thermal throttling is not an issue in desktop computers even if it's an AIO.
The real question is who wants their desktop machine permanently attached to the monitor? Apple desktops don't compete at all on price due to their forced bundling and need to make their computers look pretty.
The real question is who wants their desktop machine permanently attached to the monitor? Apple desktops don't compete at all on price due to their forced bundling and need to make their computers look pretty.
I see the Mac Bashers are mostly saying that iLife should not even make the list. I have been using computers sense real computers sense 1895. I recently switched from the PC to the Mac and could not be happier. The last Dell I bought I spend several hundred dollars extra to equip it with Firewire and video editing software they never worked well at all. Dropping frames, crashing all the time. After playing with it for several months I just stopped using it. When I got my iMac I was up and running with iMovie in no time at all and that app outperformed any video software i ever used on the PC. I also am into photography and for managing and viewing content I far prefer iPhoto to Adobe Lightroom. WIth what most people want to do with computers today iLife fits the bill better then $500 worth of Windows software.
I see the Mac Bashers are mostly saying that iLife should not even make the list. I have been using computers sense real computers sense 1895. I recently switched from the PC to the Mac and could not be happier. The last Dell I bought I spend several hundred dollars extra to equip it with Firewire and video editing software they never worked well at all. Dropping frames, crashing all the time. After playing with it for several months I just stopped using it. When I got my iMac I was up and running with iMovie in no time at all and that app outperformed any video software i ever used on the PC. I also am into photography and for managing and viewing content I far prefer iPhoto to Adobe Lightroom. WIth what most people want to do with computers today iLife fits the bill better then $500 worth of Windows software.
Highly amused at those who profess to understand computer architectures and attempt to state that a dual core CPU is better than a quad core if it has a higher fsb and ram clock. Complete rubbish of course: a quad core cpu will run more applications, more efficiently simultaneously than a dual core regardless of whether they are multi-threaded or not. No need for specialist knowledge to understand that. Furthermore, what was that stuff about throttling back CPU speed when they get hot? How much intensive number crunching are folk going to do on their all-in-ones beyond a bit of gaming if that?
Why couldn't the author compare with a Dell containing a dual core? Could have been that much cheaper? Don't forget the haggle factor too. iMacs are not good value next to comparable Dells.
Highly amused at those who profess to understand computer architectures and attempt to state that a dual core CPU is better than a quad core if it has a higher fsb and ram clock. Complete rubbish of course: a quad core cpu will run more applications, more efficiently simultaneously than a dual core regardless of whether they are multi-threaded or not. No need for specialist knowledge to understand that. Furthermore, what was that stuff about throttling back CPU speed when they get hot? How much intensive number crunching are folk going to do on their all-in-ones beyond a bit of gaming if that?
Why couldn't the author compare with a Dell containing a dual core? Could have been that much cheaper? Don't forget the haggle factor too. iMacs are not good value next to comparable Dells.
The amount of stupidity being expressed here about multi-core processing is absolutely staggering. Yes, a Quad Core is better than a Dual Core processor, especially when you're using applications that are written to utilise the processing power. Going on about Grand Central is all very well but it's just a processing layer which Windows and Linux have had for years in the form of NUMA, CCR and others so if your talking about using multicore processing to applications writen for single core CPUs its already been done. Sure Grand Central is an elegant solution but it's about a decade late to the party.
Honestly, if you don't know what you're talking about then give it a rest.
The amount of stupidity being expressed here about multi-core processing is absolutely staggering. Yes, a Quad Core is better than a Dual Core processor, especially when you're using applications that are written to utilise the processing power. Going on about Grand Central is all very well but it's just a processing layer which Windows and Linux have had for years in the form of NUMA, CCR and others so if your talking about using multicore processing to applications writen for single core CPUs its already been done. Sure Grand Central is an elegant solution but it's about a decade late to the party.
Honestly, if you don't know what you're talking about then give it a rest.
one of the reasons why consumers switch from PC to Mac is because of iLife.
There is not comparable 'Office suite' for Consumers for managing your Digital Life.
iLife '09 , iMovie , Garage Band, iDVD, iWeb just offers consumers better integrated tools that are just not offered on Windows — and therefore makes value for money case less appealing for Dell and HP.
one of the reasons why consumers switch from PC to Mac is because of iLife.
There is not comparable 'Office suite' for Consumers for managing your Digital Life.
iLife '09 , iMovie , Garage Band, iDVD, iWeb just offers consumers better integrated tools that are just not offered on Windows — and therefore makes value for money case less appealing for Dell and HP.
I love the "iLife/No" on the Dell and HP TouchSmart. It should be an advantage of the HP and Dell that users don't have to deal with slow feature crippled bloatware such as iPhoto (i.e. wait 3 hours for it to import a folder full of photos that Vista displays automatically in half a second) Microsoft may get some things wrong but at least they have programmers who know how to code.
I love the "iLife/No" on the Dell and HP TouchSmart. It should be an advantage of the HP and Dell that users don't have to deal with slow feature crippled bloatware such as iPhoto (i.e. wait 3 hours for it to import a folder full of photos that Vista displays automatically in half a second) Microsoft may get some things wrong but at least they have programmers who know how to code.
Best deal is to get a dell mini and load OSX on it. That's the cheapest deal! Checkout hackaday on wordpress.
Best deal is to get a dell mini and load OSX on it. That's the cheapest deal! Checkout hackaday on wordpress.
1) Yes, Macdisser, the new Macs are better than your Vaio in so many ways, so give it a rest.
2) Tom, Netbooks are never going to take the place of real computers. They're underpowered, overpriced, undersized, and can't really do anything. I don't have a netbook – oh wait, I do – it's called an iPhone. And Apple isn't in trouble. It just posted a record quarter and has billions in the bank. It's making amazing,innovative new products that people actually want to buy.
1) Yes, Macdisser, the new Macs are better than your Vaio in so many ways, so give it a rest.
2) Tom, Netbooks are never going to take the place of real computers. They're underpowered, overpriced, undersized, and can't really do anything. I don't have a netbook – oh wait, I do – it's called an iPhone. And Apple isn't in trouble. It just posted a record quarter and has billions in the bank. It's making amazing,innovative new products that people actually want to buy.
Value is quality at a good price!
When money is dear, people buy quality!
If they cannot find quality, they do not buy poor products at a good price… they simply do not buy anything.
Value is quality at a good price!
When money is dear, people buy quality!
If they cannot find quality, they do not buy poor products at a good price… they simply do not buy anything.
The Imac got LED Backlight??? They only have it in their 24" LCD Panel but they forgot to upgrade the Imacs….
The Imac got LED Backlight??? They only have it in their 24" LCD Panel but they forgot to upgrade the Imacs….
I just purchased an HP TouchSmart for a co-worker. Honestly, I agree 100% with this article; the iMac is the better machine overall.
As someone else stated already, you won't really find reaching up to the screen (and getting fingerprints all over it constantly) a big advantage for any regular use of the computer. HP seems to primarily be focusing it as a quick way to glance at a weather forecast, or flip through digital photos, when you're casually walking past the machine. (It features "ambient mood lighting" too.) Fine, but that's a pretty weak reason to pick it over a competing computer product. Meanwhile, it does typical HP things that I can't stand, like not including any recovery/restore DVDs with the system. (They tell you to "make your own".) Even their extended service contracts are garbage. (They have limitations in them like "only 1 major parts replacement allowed per year".)
At least if you buy the Apple, you'll get technical support that's located right here in the USA — not someone with a thick accent pretending his name is "Steve" or "Paul". My experience with Apple is, their hold times are FAR shorter than HP or Dell's, too.
I just purchased an HP TouchSmart for a co-worker. Honestly, I agree 100% with this article; the iMac is the better machine overall.
As someone else stated already, you won't really find reaching up to the screen (and getting fingerprints all over it constantly) a big advantage for any regular use of the computer. HP seems to primarily be focusing it as a quick way to glance at a weather forecast, or flip through digital photos, when you're casually walking past the machine. (It features "ambient mood lighting" too.) Fine, but that's a pretty weak reason to pick it over a competing computer product. Meanwhile, it does typical HP things that I can't stand, like not including any recovery/restore DVDs with the system. (They tell you to "make your own".) Even their extended service contracts are garbage. (They have limitations in them like "only 1 major parts replacement allowed per year".)
At least if you buy the Apple, you'll get technical support that's located right here in the USA — not someone with a thick accent pretending his name is "Steve" or "Paul". My experience with Apple is, their hold times are FAR shorter than HP or Dell's, too.
When are people going to realize that simply putting a quad-core processor in a Dell does not make it superior to an iMac. Yes, it has twice the number of CPU's. So what? If Windows 7 (and all third party software) isn't configured to utilize them, it is just window dressing. Snow Leopard is actually going to make use of the Dual-Core CPU with which it is equipped. Come back in 6 months and run a similar comparison with any quad-core PC versus a mid-range iMac running Snow Leopard, and I will bet good money that the iMac beats the PC in every task hands-down. Dell thinks by promoting its more powerful CPU that people will equate that with better performance, but I sincerely hope the consumer is smarter than that. That is akin to somebody putting $2000 racing tires on a Civic, and suggesting that it can outrun a Porsche. The reality is that what makes a car fast is far more complex than one component, and a computer is no different. If you buy a quad-core and boast that your computer is twice as powerful than an iMac, fine, just realize that it won't run any faster.
When are people going to realize that simply putting a quad-core processor in a Dell does not make it superior to an iMac. Yes, it has twice the number of CPU's. So what? If Windows 7 (and all third party software) isn't configured to utilize them, it is just window dressing. Snow Leopard is actually going to make use of the Dual-Core CPU with which it is equipped. Come back in 6 months and run a similar comparison with any quad-core PC versus a mid-range iMac running Snow Leopard, and I will bet good money that the iMac beats the PC in every task hands-down. Dell thinks by promoting its more powerful CPU that people will equate that with better performance, but I sincerely hope the consumer is smarter than that. That is akin to somebody putting $2000 racing tires on a Civic, and suggesting that it can outrun a Porsche. The reality is that what makes a car fast is far more complex than one component, and a computer is no different. If you buy a quad-core and boast that your computer is twice as powerful than an iMac, fine, just realize that it won't run any faster.
QUOTE well as much as hate apple, jobs, itards and the whole mac experience it’s still nice to see an american company get something right and give us an export. But the new macs are not better than my Vaio.
Posted By Macdisser,Bronx,New York : March 3, 2009 5:19 pm END QUOTE
But the Macs and iPods are made in China…some in Taiwan…
QUOTE well as much as hate apple, jobs, itards and the whole mac experience it’s still nice to see an american company get something right and give us an export. But the new macs are not better than my Vaio.
Posted By Macdisser,Bronx,New York : March 3, 2009 5:19 pm END QUOTE
But the Macs and iPods are made in China…some in Taiwan…
One thing is missing here…
Do the HP and Dell units come with..
An super stable operating system that is easy to use and configure.. that also comes with some very cool and practical applications to manage photos, mail, and that allows kids to develop their musical creativity?
(and where the programs work very well with online services?)
Where the setup of a network is piece of cake and where printers and cameras work without hassle?
..And where the whole system and application interfaces are designed with a lot of thought to make it second nature?
If you say yes i will buy HP and/or Dell….
Put that under "true advantage" not "relative" please
One thing is missing here…
Do the HP and Dell units come with..
An super stable operating system that is easy to use and configure.. that also comes with some very cool and practical applications to manage photos, mail, and that allows kids to develop their musical creativity?
(and where the programs work very well with online services?)
Where the setup of a network is piece of cake and where printers and cameras work without hassle?
..And where the whole system and application interfaces are designed with a lot of thought to make it second nature?
If you say yes i will buy HP and/or Dell….
Put that under "true advantage" not "relative" please
@ Pete:
Apparently, you didn't own a touchscreen the last time that HP tried to mainstream it. That was the HP-150.
The general problem is that any UI that moves your hands off the keyboard is potentially a disadvantage. For general use, the mouse/trackpad adds enough to make it worth it. However, having to now reach *up* to the screen to functionally duplicate the existing UI isn't really a step forward.
This is part of the reason why the HP-150 product line failed. Maybe HP thinks that something is now profoundly different .. or maybe they've simply forgotten their own history. Either way, time will tell.
-hh
@ Pete:
Apparently, you didn't own a touchscreen the last time that HP tried to mainstream it. That was the HP-150.
The general problem is that any UI that moves your hands off the keyboard is potentially a disadvantage. For general use, the mouse/trackpad adds enough to make it worth it. However, having to now reach *up* to the screen to functionally duplicate the existing UI isn't really a step forward.
This is part of the reason why the HP-150 product line failed. Maybe HP thinks that something is now profoundly different .. or maybe they've simply forgotten their own history. Either way, time will tell.
-hh
"They want high margins at a time when most people are more interested in value."
Weird economic theory you employ here. Somehow high margins and value are mutually exclusive. By this reasoning, the way to get ahead in life is to buy always the article that has the smallest profit margin on it.
Anyway, I doubt many people think this way about their computers anymore. If people are buying dish rags to ash their dishes, OK. by the home brand cheapo article. You are going to dispose of it pretty soon, and who cares if it is "nice" to use, or looks good?
But computers have become almost like handbags. They are part of our lives. We spend a lot of time on them, and other people see us with our choice of article.
For that reason, price comparisons based on nerd specs are missing the boat. Imagine if Louis Vitton and Versache published comparative lists of their products, comparing the thickness of leather, the length of the strap and so on.
Forgive me for wanting a computer that looks good, feels good, and has software that is the same.
"They want high margins at a time when most people are more interested in value."
Weird economic theory you employ here. Somehow high margins and value are mutually exclusive. By this reasoning, the way to get ahead in life is to buy always the article that has the smallest profit margin on it.
Anyway, I doubt many people think this way about their computers anymore. If people are buying dish rags to ash their dishes, OK. by the home brand cheapo article. You are going to dispose of it pretty soon, and who cares if it is "nice" to use, or looks good?
But computers have become almost like handbags. They are part of our lives. We spend a lot of time on them, and other people see us with our choice of article.
For that reason, price comparisons based on nerd specs are missing the boat. Imagine if Louis Vitton and Versache published comparative lists of their products, comparing the thickness of leather, the length of the strap and so on.
Forgive me for wanting a computer that looks good, feels good, and has software that is the same.
HP's Touchsmart products are at a premium. They have many other new desktop products available that can beat the iMac in price per performance comparisons.
HP's Touchsmart products are at a premium. They have many other new desktop products available that can beat the iMac in price per performance comparisons.
Touchscreen on a hand-held like an iPhone is very useful. Touchscreen on a 25.5" widescreen is pure insanity. I'm so glad Apple didn't implement this. I'll give you a few months to get the hang of it on your HP, and will still blow you away in productivity with a keyboard and mouse.
Touchscreen on a hand-held like an iPhone is very useful. Touchscreen on a 25.5" widescreen is pure insanity. I'm so glad Apple didn't implement this. I'll give you a few months to get the hang of it on your HP, and will still blow you away in productivity with a keyboard and mouse.
The truly delicious irony about this article is that it completely ignores the fact that most people buy laptops — and, further, that the price point for the average machine is somewhere between $500 and $800, not the ridiculously overpriced machines cited in this article which serve as "competition" for Apple. Moreover, the market is increasingly toward so-called "Netbooks" which cost less than $500. Read this any way you want, but Apple is in trouble in today's computer market. They want high margins at a time when most people are more interested in value. I'm betting that Apple slashes prices drastically in the next 12 months. Either that, or they're not going to sell very many machines. Watch their financial reports for upcoming quarters carefully.
The truly delicious irony about this article is that it completely ignores the fact that most people buy laptops — and, further, that the price point for the average machine is somewhere between $500 and $800, not the ridiculously overpriced machines cited in this article which serve as "competition" for Apple. Moreover, the market is increasingly toward so-called "Netbooks" which cost less than $500. Read this any way you want, but Apple is in trouble in today's computer market. They want high margins at a time when most people are more interested in value. I'm betting that Apple slashes prices drastically in the next 12 months. Either that, or they're not going to sell very many machines. Watch their financial reports for upcoming quarters carefully.
well as much as hate apple, jobs, itards and the whole mac experience it's still nice to see an american company get something right and give us an export. But the new macs are not better than my Vaio.
well as much as hate apple, jobs, itards and the whole mac experience it's still nice to see an american company get something right and give us an export. But the new macs are not better than my Vaio.
1. Do Windows apps take advantage of quad cores? (Why did Dell so mismatch RAM speed with front bus speed!)
2. How useful is touching the screen on the TouchSmart? Does Windows and Windows apps take advantage of that?
3. The HP should've gotten a nod for not having to share graphics memory.
1. Do Windows apps take advantage of quad cores? (Why did Dell so mismatch RAM speed with front bus speed!)
2. How useful is touching the screen on the TouchSmart? Does Windows and Windows apps take advantage of that?
3. The HP should've gotten a nod for not having to share graphics memory.
I agree on the quad-core / touchscreen vs the iMac – of course for $250 you ought to get something!
For my money I'd get the iMac and add a tv tuner (which costs right around 100$ for the HD-compatible one that supports Dish).
I agree on the quad-core / touchscreen vs the iMac – of course for $250 you ought to get something!
For my money I'd get the iMac and add a tv tuner (which costs right around 100$ for the HD-compatible one that supports Dish).
Processor speed and cores don't mean diddly. First, the OS has to be able to recognize the cores (does Vista?) and then the app has to know what to do with them. Few apps are capable of dealing with more than one core at a time. Much of the time, those other cores just sit there idling.
Also, when four cores are operating simultaneously, they generate so much heat that they ALL have to be throttled back for thermal management, particularly in all-in-one enclosures. For all but the most computationally-intensive apps, a quad core machine is equivalent to putting a rear spoiler on a 4 cylinder car and calling it a racer.
Bus and memory speeds, graphics cards, and cache size, are far more important speed-determining parameters than cores and processor speed. Those who argue otherwise don't know the first thing about architectures.
And let's not forget memory size. The Apple OS is far more code-efficient than is Vista, and requires only half the memory that a Vista machine does. 1GB/2GB is the minimum size requirements for Apple/Wintel machines. 2GB/4GB is living large in this same comparison.
The point of including iLife in the comparison is simple: once I buy the all-in-one, what can I do with it? Apple gives you this versatile suite of apps called iLife, which includes iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iWeb, and Garage Band. What's Vista/Dell/HP include in their package that's comparable? Minesweeper? Please!
Processor speed and cores don't mean diddly. First, the OS has to be able to recognize the cores (does Vista?) and then the app has to know what to do with them. Few apps are capable of dealing with more than one core at a time. Much of the time, those other cores just sit there idling.
Also, when four cores are operating simultaneously, they generate so much heat that they ALL have to be throttled back for thermal management, particularly in all-in-one enclosures. For all but the most computationally-intensive apps, a quad core machine is equivalent to putting a rear spoiler on a 4 cylinder car and calling it a racer.
Bus and memory speeds, graphics cards, and cache size, are far more important speed-determining parameters than cores and processor speed. Those who argue otherwise don't know the first thing about architectures.
And let's not forget memory size. The Apple OS is far more code-efficient than is Vista, and requires only half the memory that a Vista machine does. 1GB/2GB is the minimum size requirements for Apple/Wintel machines. 2GB/4GB is living large in this same comparison.
The point of including iLife in the comparison is simple: once I buy the all-in-one, what can I do with it? Apple gives you this versatile suite of apps called iLife, which includes iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iWeb, and Garage Band. What's Vista/Dell/HP include in their package that's comparable? Minesweeper? Please!
freddy bee……I see iLife make the spec sheet often. As for the Apple Keys, would you rather have a windows logo on your keyboard like dell and others have on their keyboards? As a matter of fact the new keyboards from Apple don't have the Apple logo anymore. No one is missing or wanting the live apps on OS X….best to keep OS X secure as possible. Or would you rather spend $260 for Vista Home Premium or to add a couple of more games and sounds add another $60 for the Ultimate version. Or buy the basic version so you can't do anything or buy the business version so you can setup your network connection easier or protect yourself from hardware failure. I'll take my Apple Hardware and OS X over Windows and PC junk any day. I have had over 600 Macs over the past 6 years with very low failures. Anything that failed was a DVD drive or hard drive. The OS never crashes, Apps can crash, but its nice being able to select force quit once if needed, unlike windows. I have used both and I'm a Mac.
freddy bee……I see iLife make the spec sheet often. As for the Apple Keys, would you rather have a windows logo on your keyboard like dell and others have on their keyboards? As a matter of fact the new keyboards from Apple don't have the Apple logo anymore. No one is missing or wanting the live apps on OS X….best to keep OS X secure as possible. Or would you rather spend $260 for Vista Home Premium or to add a couple of more games and sounds add another $60 for the Ultimate version. Or buy the basic version so you can't do anything or buy the business version so you can setup your network connection easier or protect yourself from hardware failure. I'll take my Apple Hardware and OS X over Windows and PC junk any day. I have had over 600 Macs over the past 6 years with very low failures. Anything that failed was a DVD drive or hard drive. The OS never crashes, Apps can crash, but its nice being able to select force quit once if needed, unlike windows. I have used both and I'm a Mac.
u must be kidding… HP Touch is way too good, tv tuner with remote and a bigger screen…gives absolutely more value for money…all these are MUST HAVE features… which the IMAC doesn't, eventhough it was launched much later…
u must be kidding… HP Touch is way too good, tv tuner with remote and a bigger screen…gives absolutely more value for money…all these are MUST HAVE features… which the IMAC doesn't, eventhough it was launched much later…
Have you ever tried to use the HP TouchSmart? Nothing really great about the screen, I'd still rather use a mouse and keyboard. The TV tuner isn't no big issue, You can use the Apple Remote with any new Mac and use Front Row, just can't record or watch TV. Screen size is odd, why not just make it 26". I think its an ok comparison….atleast the differences are listed in the chart. Others wouldn't.
Have you ever tried to use the HP TouchSmart? Nothing really great about the screen, I'd still rather use a mouse and keyboard. The TV tuner isn't no big issue, You can use the Apple Remote with any new Mac and use Front Row, just can't record or watch TV. Screen size is odd, why not just make it 26". I think its an ok comparison….atleast the differences are listed in the chart. Others wouldn't.
The chart isn't as accurate as one would think.
The Dell actually has a better processor than the Apple. The Intel Core 2 Quad (Dell) is a quad core processor, while the Intel Core 2 Duo (Apple)is a dual core. The number of core's is effectively the number of CPU's the PC has. While the Apple might have a better speed the Dell will have better processing power.
The chart isn't as accurate as one would think.
The Dell actually has a better processor than the Apple. The Intel Core 2 Quad (Dell) is a quad core processor, while the Intel Core 2 Duo (Apple)is a dual core. The number of core's is effectively the number of CPU's the PC has. While the Apple might have a better speed the Dell will have better processing power.
I'm an Apple fan. But I'm seeing a couple of things not mentioned that stack heavily on the competitions favor. The Dell is Quad Core instead of Dual core although it is .33Ghz slower, the extra two cores should not be discounted that much giving Dell the processor win in my book. The HP screen is larger, but also has touch… Of course, I would still buy the iMac because it has OS X. Your not getting me to run windows. 
ex ped: The Quad Core seems like an oversight on Reiner's part. But he did give Dell the edge for the larger touch screen.
I'm an Apple fan. But I'm seeing a couple of things not mentioned that stack heavily on the competitions favor. The Dell is Quad Core instead of Dual core although it is .33Ghz slower, the extra two cores should not be discounted that much giving Dell the processor win in my book. The HP screen is larger, but also has touch… Of course, I would still buy the iMac because it has OS X. Your not getting me to run windows.
ex ped: The Quad Core seems like an oversight on Reiner's part. But he did give Dell the edge for the larger touch screen.
Are you kidding me?
The hp touchsmart offers many features over the Imac. How about touchscreen? TV tuner with remote? Screen size?
Terribly unrealistic comparison and very misleading.
Are you kidding me?
The hp touchsmart offers many features over the Imac. How about touchscreen? TV tuner with remote? Screen size?
Terribly unrealistic comparison and very misleading.
Yeah! Finally someone who actually compares relative products! Kudos to Yair Reiner! (OK and to you too PED for reprinting – you know we hate to give you any credit for anything!)
Yeah! Finally someone who actually compares relative products! Kudos to Yair Reiner! (OK and to you too PED for reprinting – you know we hate to give you any credit for anything!)
since when does ilife even make a spec sheet? too funny. maybe there should be another line item for 'apple logo', or 'funny apple keys on keyboards'… and then on the windows side – it should list 'minesweeper' as well as some of the Live apps – Live Messenger 9.0, etc.. which aren't yet shipping on the mac platform…
since when does ilife even make a spec sheet? too funny. maybe there should be another line item for 'apple logo', or 'funny apple keys on keyboards'… and then on the windows side – it should list 'minesweeper' as well as some of the Live apps – Live Messenger 9.0, etc.. which aren't yet shipping on the mac platform…
*Gasp* Oh noes, my MS fanboy argument just flew out the windows…..
Don't forget the relative advantage of not having to use any flavor of Windows for the iMac!
*Gasp* Oh noes, my MS fanboy argument just flew out the windows…..
Don't forget the relative advantage of not having to use any flavor of Windows for the iMac!
"Windows technologies are still the only software that is scalable in the Enterprise."
Ever heard of Unix? Seems like that technology scales pretty well in the enterprise. Might want to check it out…