Old People and Computers

[zitothebrave]

I don't mean for this to be offensive to the folks here to whom it may offend. But all old people should have Chromebooks and that's it.

Just yesterday I formatted and reinstalled Windows for my parents. I found in under a day (we're talking less than like 12 hours) 2 programs that downloaded that were malware and 1300 files picked up by MalwareBytes including busted registries and more. All in that short period of time.

Whomever taught old people about internet porn also sucks as my dad seemingly on his own amassed 150 megs of cache and cookies.

[The Chosen One]

Like father like son.

[zitothebrave]

I don't have a cache problem! All my porn is flash

[Hawk]

I bought my grandfather a Chromebook earlier this year. He loves it (although it does not print), however I suspect he is one of the few geriatrics that could handle a more powerful piece of machinery.

MacOS is even easier to navigate than Chrome, IMO.

[zitothebrave]

I don't think Mac OS is easier. And me wanting to get my parents Chromebook because it's almost impossible to get junk programs and malware. Mac is ahrd but still possible. Macs are also wicked expensive and my parents are wicked cheap. Maybe next year for Christmas I'll buy them a Mac Mini but considering my dad is bitching about upgrading from XP to Vista I think a jump to Mac OS may cause him to explode.

[jpx7]

Oops: read this as Old People in Computers. Carry on.

[57Brave]

I don't mean for this to be offensive to the folks here to whom it may offend. But all old people should have Chromebooks and that's it.

Just yesterday I formatted and reinstalled Windows for my parents. I found in under a day (we're talking less than like 12 hours) 2 programs that downloaded that were malware and 1300 files picked up by MalwareBytes including busted registries and more. All in that short period of time.

Whomever taught old people about internet porn also sucks as my dad seemingly on his own amassed 150 megs of cache and cookies.

easy Big Guy

[Tapate50]

Just had an 89 yr old walk into my office saying she got a confirmation email from a payment she made a month ago. 89 and email... Who'd a thunk that?

[Tapate50]

Oops: read this as Old People in Computers. Carry on.

Damn. Don't scare me like that.

[The Chosen One]

Oops: read this as Old People in Computers. Carry on.

Don't give Rushbo another reason to bash Obamacare. Death Panel decides, Death via Digital Conversion or sentence to life in Clu's World.

[Oklahomahawk]

Hey Zeet, don't make me have to come up to Jersey and go medieval on your ass!!!!!!!!!!!

[zitothebrave]

You can come to Jersey. But you may not find me

[Oklahomahawk]

You can come to Jersey. But you may not find me

Yeah, I'd probably be out of breath by the time I got there. :facepalm:

[Metaphysicist]

I don't think Mac OS is easier.

Finally, an Apple product Zito doesn't love.

[zitothebrave]

Finally, an Apple product Zito doesn't love.
Macs are fine. I wouldn't own one because they're way overpriced. They function fine but they're not easier despite claims that they are

[Metaphysicist]

Macs aren't really overpriced compared to PCs with comparable hardware. If you buy extra upgrades, like more ram, from the Apple Store, then yeah, they are gouging you. But the baseline computers themselves are not generally overpriced, and you can make those basic upgrades yourself.

I'm sure you will now give me a very thorough explanation of why I am wrong, which will be very well sourced I'm sure.

[zitothebrave]

Lets compare the 600 dollar Mac Mini to a 600 dollar HP. I'll even give Apple the credit and only source from HPs website not Newegg or another source you can get it cheaper or taking advantage of sales on HPs site. I'm giving Apple every advantage here basically

The Mac Mini has a 2.5 GHz i5 dual core processor, 4 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 RAM, 500 Gig SATA Hard Drive 5400 RPM.

The HP Pavillion 500-210qe comes with a 3.0 GHz i5 quad core processor (4430, apple doesn't specify which one they have), 6GB of Ram, 1 TB 7200 RPM Sata, DVD Burner (not an option with the Mac Mini) and comes with mouse and keyboard (Mac Mini does not)

So to compare, the PC for the same price has a much faster processor, twice the hard drive that's faster, and 2 more gigs of RAM.

Compare All-in-Ones? iMacs start at 1300 bucks, HP I'm comparing it to is 1250.

iMac has a 2.7 GHz i5 quadcore processor, 8 GB ram, 1 TB 5400 RPM Sata, Intel Iris Graphics Apple Magic Mouse, and Keyboard with a 21.5 inch 1920x1080 resolution screen.

The HP Envy Recline has a 2.9GHz i5 quadcore processor, 8GB ram, 1 TB hybrid HD, nVidia GEForce GT730A, HP Wireless Keyboard and mouse 23 inch 1920x1080 resolution screen

To compare for 50 bucks less you get a bigger (though lower resolution screen) slightly faster processor, way faster hard drive (hybrids are estimated to be 4x faster than 7200) and better graphics card.

Of course the difference again, I can go to a site like newegg, and get cheaper better computers which isn't an option with Apple.

The one area they're close is high end laptops. And that's about it.

[Tapate50]

Our HP laptops didn't last two years here at the ofc. Garbahhhge.

[The Chosen One]

I used to be a mac hater but the imac I bought runs smoother and never crashes like my "value" hp laptop and computers did. I do so much multitasking that used to lag and make my pc slow. I'm someone who was huge on constantly doing cleaning on my pc to make it run efficiently. Have never had that problem with my imac

[Hawk]

Another point to mention is that Apple products have incredible resell value. I like to upgrade my equipment every year or so, and it's nice to have the purchase 65-75% paid for with a quick eBay auction.

I have a 2012 15' MBP Retina that I would like to sell high on, and have considered switching back to a PC (laptop), but I'm not really finding anything that tickles my fancy. Any suggestions?

[Metaphysicist]

iMac has a 2.7 GHz i5 quadcore processor, 8 GB ram, 1 TB 5400 RPM Sata, Intel Iris Graphics Apple Magic Mouse, and Keyboard with a 21.5 inch 1920x1080 resolution screen.

The HP Envy Recline has a 2.9GHz i5 quadcore processor, 8GB ram, 1 TB hybrid HD, nVidia GEForce GT730A, HP Wireless Keyboard and mouse 23 inch 1920x1080 resolution screen

So I looked this up, and the HP has a dualcore, not a quadcore. So... that's a pretty big difference and makes your argument terrible.

F+.

[Metaphysicist]

Lets compare the 600 dollar Mac Mini to a 600 dollar HP. I'll even give Apple the credit and only source from HPs website not Newegg or another source you can get it cheaper or taking advantage of sales on HPs site. I'm giving Apple every advantage here basically

The Mac Mini has a 2.5 GHz i5 dual core processor, 4 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 RAM, 500 Gig SATA Hard Drive 5400 RPM.

The HP Pavillion 500-210qe comes with a 3.0 GHz i5 quad core processor (4430, apple doesn't specify which one they have), 6GB of Ram, 1 TB 7200 RPM Sata, DVD Burner (not an option with the Mac Mini) and comes with mouse and keyboard (Mac Mini does not)

So to compare, the PC for the same price has a much faster processor, twice the hard drive that's faster, and 2 more gigs of RAM.

Looked this up, and you are comparing the itty-bitty Mac Mini to a tower. That doesn't even make sense.

F-.

[zitothebrave]

So I looked this up, and the HP has a dualcore, not a quadcore. So... that's a pretty big difference and makes your argument terrible.

F+.

Sorry i copied the the wrong one. I also neglected to mention that there was a touch screen on the HP so remove the difference in processor add bonus of touch screen if wanted. I mean I could compare it to a cheaper HP with a quadcore. Or a number of other computers on the market if you choose.

[zitothebrave]

Looked this up, and you are comparing the itty-bitty Mac Mini to a tower. That doesn't even make sense.

F-.

What PC comes in itty bitty form? And what other Mac desktop costs under a grand? Want me to compare the Mac Pro?

Why not, lets compare the Mac pro to the HP Envy Phoenix.

Mac ro costs 3000 bucks, 3.7 GHz quad core xeon, 12 GB DDR3 ram, dual AMD300 Firepro, 256 GB flash storage

The HP costs 1550 retail, 3.7 ghz i7 quad core, 24 gigs of ram, 2 TB Sata 7200 RPM hd, Blu ray player, Nvidia GeForce GT640

Macs and PCs don't compare in costs. And again I'm not even remotely bargain hunting which is an option for a PC but not a Mac.

[Metaphysicist]

Sorry i copied the the wrong one. I also neglected to mention that there was a touch screen on the HP so remove the difference in processor add bonus of touch screen if wanted. I mean I could compare it to a cheaper HP with a quadcore. Or a number of other computers on the market if you choose.

So, it's a tablet-hybrid with a much lesser processor. A very useful comparison. Please go ahead and compare it to this super cheap quadcore HP all-in-one you allude to. I would, in all honesty, be happy to be wrong. I'd like to know about any super good deals.

I would also very much love to see the laptops you think are superior to MacBooks.

[Metaphysicist]

What PC comes in itty bitty form? And what other Mac desktop costs under a grand?

That's the point... It's almost like... the form... is part of what you are paying for?

You are comparing apples to oranges and then claiming the oranges are overpriced. Apple doesn't make a discount line of towers; they have their own specific premium niches they do very well in. But being expensive isn't the same thing as being overpriced.


Want me to compare the Mac Pro?

Well, that would be kinda pointless. The Mac Pro looks to be a pretty niche machine for high end multimedia folks, and it isn't even available for purchase yet. It hardly qualifies as part of the normal Mac line anyone here would be considering. It also isn't really a tower in any real sense, and it would be very difficult to find a comparable machine that you didn't build yourself.


Why not, lets compare the Mac pro to the HP Envy Phoenix.

Mac ro costs 3000 bucks, 3.7 GHz quad core xeon, 12 GB DDR3 ram, dual AMD300 Firepro, 256 GB flash storage

The HP costs 1550 retail, 3.7 ghz i7 quad core, 24 gigs of ram, 2 TB Sata 7200 RPM hd, Blu ray player, Nvidia GeForce GT640

Macs and PCs don't compare in costs. And again I'm not even remotely bargain hunting which is an option for a PC but not a Mac.

This machine isn't even close to comparable. The graphics cards alone in the Mac Pro are worth almost as much as that whole HP rig. Not to mention it is still on disk storage.

[zitothebrave]

That's the point... It's almost like... the form... is part of what you are paying for?

You are comparing apples to oranges and then claiming the oranges are overpriced. Apple doesn't make a discount line of towers; they have their own specific premium niches they do very well in. But being expensive isn't the same thing as being overpriced.

Did you read what you just wrote?

So because HP gives you a computer with better specs in a different form factor than apple is not overpriced?

Think about it.

Mini PCs aren't more expensive to build. You can find a case with powersupply for 70, 50 bucks for a MB, 180 bucks for a quad core i5, 50 bucks for a graphics card, 10 bucks for a sound card, 60 bucks for 8 gigs of ram, then 100 bucks for either 2 TB 7200 RPM HD or 128 GB SSD. Bringing my PC cost up to about 520 for nearly all superior parts to the Mac Mini. Unsure about the graphics card as apple is pretty vague on the details.

Or you can buy one cheaper elsewhere.

[Krgrecw]

I think 90% of people who buy computers don't care about specs. It's about the ease to use and what you can do with them.

Here's three big points from the recent Black Friday:

A) InfoScout analyzed 3,000 Target Black Friday shopping receipts and determined that the iPad Air 16GB, iPad mini 16GB and iPad Air 32GB models were the number one, two and three sellers at Target, respectively, at $479, $299 and $599. They accounted for 8.2%, 7.5% and 2.4% of Target’s sales for a total of 18.1%. When you add in other Apple products they were 22% of Target’s sales on Black Friday.

B) InfoScout analyzed 5,000 Walmart Black Friday shopping receipts , both on-line and stores to determine the top seller was the iPad mini 16GB model for $299.91. The next best selling tablet was the RCA Android tablet at $48.86 which was in seventh place.

C) For the first time ever, more people have Mac desktops on their holiday wish lists than those made by Dell, according to one analytics firm that also has Apple leading in tablets and streaming set-top boxes.

So one out of every four/five products sold at target at Black Friday was an apple product. The number one item sold at walmart on Black Friday was the entry level ipad and for the first time ever, more people want mac desktops instead of much, much cheaper alternatives. Through in china on December 18 and to quote Tim cook 'it's going to be an ipad Christmas'


Not bad for a company that makes overpriced products

[zitothebrave]

Why are we comparing tablets to desktops?

Pointless points get no points.

[Metaphysicist]

Did you read what you just wrote?

So because HP gives you a computer with better specs in a different form factor than apple is not overpriced?

Think about it.

If you really think a portable, small computer weighing under 3 pounds (lighter than some MacBook Airs) is the same as a huge desktop tower (i.e., form is irrelevant), then I guess that goes a long way to explaining the things you think. Are you baffled by the price difference between desktops and laptops? I mean, laptops are computers with worse specs. So overpriced!


Mini PCs aren't more expensive to build. You can find a case with powersupply for 70, 50 bucks for a MB, 180 bucks for a quad core i5, 50 bucks for a graphics card, 10 bucks for a sound card, 60 bucks for 8 gigs of ram, then 100 bucks for either 2 TB 7200 RPM HD or 128 GB SSD. Bringing my PC cost up to about 520 for nearly all superior parts to the Mac Mini. Unsure about the graphics card as apple is pretty vague on the details.

If you are willing to build your own PC (which most people are not), then you are indeed likely to save money over not only Apple but any of the major PC manufacturers. Not sure how that's germane.

Even in this completely ass-pulled situation, you'd still have to buy a copy of Windows... so, not really that much of deal anyway.


Or you can buy one cheaper elsewhere.

I await your example. I'm sure it will be very enlightening and as on-point as the thing you compared the Mac Pro to.

[Tapate50]

I like where this thread has gone.

[ESP47]

Lets compare the 600 dollar Mac Mini to a 600 dollar HP. I'll even give Apple the credit and only source from HPs website not Newegg or another source you can get it cheaper or taking advantage of sales on HPs site. I'm giving Apple every advantage here basically

The Mac Mini has a 2.5 GHz i5 dual core processor, 4 GB 1600 MHz DDR3 RAM, 500 Gig SATA Hard Drive 5400 RPM.

The HP Pavillion 500-210qe comes with a 3.0 GHz i5 quad core processor (4430, apple doesn't specify which one they have), 6GB of Ram, 1 TB 7200 RPM Sata, DVD Burner (not an option with the Mac Mini) and comes with mouse and keyboard (Mac Mini does not)

So to compare, the PC for the same price has a much faster processor, twice the hard drive that's faster, and 2 more gigs of RAM.

Compare All-in-Ones? iMacs start at 1300 bucks, HP I'm comparing it to is 1250.

iMac has a 2.7 GHz i5 quadcore processor, 8 GB ram, 1 TB 5400 RPM Sata, Intel Iris Graphics Apple Magic Mouse, and Keyboard with a 21.5 inch 1920x1080 resolution screen.

The HP Envy Recline has a 2.9GHz i5 quadcore processor, 8GB ram, 1 TB hybrid HD, nVidia GEForce GT730A, HP Wireless Keyboard and mouse 23 inch 1920x1080 resolution screen

To compare for 50 bucks less you get a bigger (though lower resolution screen) slightly faster processor, way faster hard drive (hybrids are estimated to be 4x faster than 7200) and better graphics card.

Of course the difference again, I can go to a site like newegg, and get cheaper better computers which isn't an option with Apple.

The one area they're close is high end laptops. And that's about it.

Got dayum this has gotta be the biggest piece of pussy repellant I've ever seen.

Can we please go back to talking about your dad's porn addiction?

[zitothebrave]

If you really think a portable, small computer weighing under 3 pounds (lighter than some MacBook Airs) is the same as a huge desktop tower (i.e., form is irrelevant), then I guess that goes a long way to explaining the things you think. Are you baffled by the price difference between desktops and laptops? I mean, laptops are computers with worse specs. So overpriced!

If you are willing to build your own PC (which most people are not), then you are indeed likely to save money over not only Apple but any of the major PC manufacturers. Not sure how that's germane.

Even in this completely ass-pulled situation, you'd still have to buy a copy of Windows... so, not really that much of deal anyway.

I await your example. I'm sure it will be very enlightening and as on-point as the thing you compared the Mac Pro to.

Who the crap carries around their desktops? Do you also carry around a monitor, mouse and keyboard as well?

Also nice logic fail with Laptop vs desktop. When the MacMini doesn't require a mouse, keyboard,a nd monitor, let me know. As it stands you're comparing 2 devices that have the same functionality. If you believe that something weighing less is worth a massive amount of money that's cool

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?gclid=CPmdkvawn7sCFecRMwod5FEAtw&Item=N82E16856176041&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-_-pla-_-Mini+%2f+Booksize+Barebone+PCs-_-N82E16856176041&ef_id=UpjBSAAAALNc0Hlh:20131208003535:s

Under 500 bucks

While you bring up windows, who the hell pays for windows?

**** I'd rather have Linux 90% of the time. Or you can get windows for free with minimal effort. Or 90% of the time you can pop your own HD into it.

As far as comparing the Mac Pro I was just throwing **** out there. I could point to a number of better PCs, I was just comparing one that runs nearly everything as well except the graphics Another comparison for 2000 bucks I built a computer on iBuyPower with an i7 4770K, Liquid cooling, 16 GB of RAM NVIDEA GeForec GTX 780, 256 GB SSD, and plenty more. So for about a grand less you can get what may be a faster processor (hard to argue the advantages of 6 core vs 4) and equal or better across the line. Better Graphics, more ram, and rest of the specs are probably a wash.

People buy APple computers for a reason, cause they prefer the build quality, they prefer the OS, they like the look, whatever it may be. But being a good deal is not one of them, Apple computers are overpriced.

[zitothebrave]

For ****s another cheaper than Mac Mini one.

http://www.amazon.com/Acer-Revo-RL80-UR22-Desktop-Black/dp/B00CO2Z854/ref=sr_1_3?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1386470483&sr=1-3

[Metaphysicist]

Who the crap carries around their desktops? Do you also carry around a monitor, mouse and keyboard as well?

This may come as a shock to you out there in the fast-paced world of mustard and retail, but some people have a place they go called an "office." At this "office," they have access to monitors and keyboards. So they can bring their home computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bring_your_own_device) and use it at the "office." In this situation, if you are on a limited budget, you can get more bang for you buck with Mac Mini than a mac laptop (or a mini PC vs a comparable laptop, I guess). That is just one simple example of how an easily portable computer is beneficial. Some people also like to travel with them and travel keyboards/mice while using TVs as monitors.

No one would carry around a desktop tower. You are right. But people do carry around Mac Minis. Even if they did not, a mini PC is highly engineered to take up no space, which is in fact something that has value. That's why they are not comparable.


Also nice logic fail with Laptop vs desktop. When the MacMini doesn't require a mouse, keyboard,a nd monitor, let me know. As it stands you're comparing 2 devices that have the same functionality. If you believe that something weighing less is worth a massive amount of money that's cool

Yeah, you kinda missed the point there.


http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?gclid=CPmdkvawn7sCFecRMwod5FEAtw&Item=N82E16856176041&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-_-pla-_-Mini+%2f+Booksize+Barebone+PCs-_-N82E16856176041&ef_id=UpjBSAAAALNc0Hlh:20131208003535:s

Under 500 bucks

Under 500 bucks... because it has a crappier processor. 1.7 GHz for the Giada vs. 2.5 GHz for the Mac Mini.

Did you not understand my original statement about comparable hardware?


While you bring up windows, who the hell pays for windows?

People who don't have windows (i.e., those with machines built from scratch), who want windows, and who don't want to break the law?


**** I'd rather have Linux 90% of the time.

That's great, but most people don't want Linux.


As far as comparing the Mac Pro I was just throwing **** out there.

Shocking.


I could point to a number of better PCs

Maybe you should just do these things you claim to be capable of. Your "coulds" aren't turning out so reliable.


I was just comparing one that runs nearly everything as well except the graphics

So kinda the same, except for the most important and expensive part.


Another comparison for 2000 bucks I built a computer on iBuyPower with an i7 4770K, Liquid cooling, 16 GB of RAM NVIDEA GeForec GTX 780, 256 GB SSD, and plenty more. So for about a grand less you can get what may be a faster processor (hard to argue the advantages of 6 core vs 4) and equal or better across the line. Better Graphics, more ram, and rest of the specs are probably a wash.

Ignoring that I already admitted you can save money building your own, I'm not really inclined to take your word at this point that a crappier processor doesn't matter and that "everything else is kind of a wash." Why don't you give me something to actually look at.


People buy APple computers for a reason, cause they prefer the build quality, they prefer the OS, they like the look, whatever it may be. But being a good deal is not one of them, Apple computers are overpriced.

Are you seriously arguing that build quality and design are worth zero dollars? You are terrible at this.

[Metaphysicist]

For ****s another cheaper than Mac Mini one.

http://www.amazon.com/Acer-Revo-RL80-UR22-Desktop-Black/dp/B00CO2Z854/ref=sr_1_3?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1386470483&sr=1-3

1.9 GHz i3 processor vs. the Mac Mini's 2.5 GHz i5. Come on... YOU are the one arguing how "specs" are the end all of what makes a computer, and yet you don't even look at them!

[zitothebrave]

I don't get why you respond the way you do it takes too much time.

1. ANy job worth a damn wouldn't let a computer that's not secure hook up to their network. SO that limits your example to basically small business customers with that need which in reality is a submarket of a submarket. Great example. I happen to know that Latinos born in July also have a need for it,care to use that?

2. You cannot compare procesors simply on clock speed. Especially since overclockingthem is an option. Unfortunately we have no information readily available on which processor Apple uses in their device aside from their claimed clock speed. Which hell may be overclocked. At that, it's still 100 bucks cheaper and matches it on every other category. Is 100 bucks worth a faster processor? That's for the consumer to decide.(btw for under 100 bucks I found a faster i5 processor online, replace and sell your old one still making out)

3. You think a nyone who's interested in a Mini-PC is going to not know enough about computers to get free windows or linux? I mean I guess in your subsection of a subsection it's the case but who knows. I'll tell you what most likely the majority of folks who buy mac minis are. Folks who want a mac, but don't want to pay a grand. That's what it is and it's overpriced for that. Apple could easily make a desktop and sell it for 500 bucks, but that doesn't fit their branding.

4. You do know what the AMD Fire Pro is right? It's a mac branded processor. Basically they take 2 W5000 and make them work together. So 2 400 something dollar cards does not make an amazing computer. Especially since even with their combined mights many NVIDEA cards run faster.Such as the listed 780.

5. That was not a computer I would build. IT's a custom built computer. I know this is a foreign concept to Mac users because they're used to choosing only which overpriced HD or RAM upgrade they want to do and which Apple accessories they want to pay more for. But you can go to many places, usually places that build PCs, and custom taylor a computer. That's what I did and that company would ship that computer to me.

From what I've been able to research in quad vs hex core, the biggest hex advantage is for things like video editing adn audio production, but knowing real live people who work in those fields, and one who went to a demo of various computers for this software program, the difference isn't that large. A fast quad core for everyday usage is more important than a slower hex by most accounts. Not to say there isn't an advantage to the hex, but there's a reason why they're not out in most computers yet.

As far as more options, I haven't posted more because I'm lazy and i'd expect you to do a modicum of research into your statements.

But look up Alienware Aurora, hex core processor, 256 GB SSD+1TB HD, 16 GB Ram GeForce 780, all for 2400 bucks fromdell. That's Alienware as well, a brand recognized by nearly all gamers are being overpriced. I went on HP anc custom build a hex core computer, with all kinds of goodies for 2600. Minor research you'd find that you can easily get a better PC than Mac Pro for several hundred less.

6. There is something to be said about build quality but it's not a 20% markup. We see it in iPhones, apple builds a quality device but the actual cost to make isn't that much if at all higher to make than a lower quality phone but you're paying way more. I'm guessing the slightly more expensive build of the Mac is maybe 10-20 per unit max. Not the several hundred they're usually priced at differently than PCs.

[Oklahomahawk]

Well, it's now official, you guys can now carry on long drawn out conversations disagreeing on ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh and what's this about computers causing problems for us old people???

[zitothebrave]

Hawk you sound shocked. I could argue with meta about the detailed smell of farts. He's a heck of an internet arguer.

[Oklahomahawk]

Hawk you sound shocked. I could argue with meta about the detailed smell of farts. He's a heck of an internet arguer.

Nah, I don't have the energy to get shocked anymore. :icon_biggrin:

That said you guys are starting to remind me of Congress. You don't really have anything important to do so you spend your time and energy arguing about questions with no correct answers. I guess I can't throw rocks, I used to do that too. As smart as you guys are though why don't you put your heads together and solve some REAL problems??

You know, just axing...

[zitothebrave]

Well if the problem is needing more beer in this world I'm working on that today.

[Oklahomahawk]

Well if the problem is needing more beer in this world I'm working on that today.

That depends on the beer in question. What are you making today?

[zitothebrave]

Today I'm making a barleywine with some christmasy spices. I'm hoping it will be ready by mid January.

[Oklahomahawk]

Today I'm making a barleywine with some christmasy spices. I'm hoping it will be ready by mid January.

Too bad you didn't have this ready by pre-Christmas, huh? It sounds pretty much ideal for the season.

[Metaphysicist]

ANy job worth a damn wouldn't let a computer that's not secure hook up to their network.

Talkin' outta yer ass here Zito.


You cannot compare procesors simply on clock speed. Especially since overclockingthem is an option. Unfortunately we have no information readily available on which processor Apple uses in their device aside from their claimed clock speed. Which hell may be overclocked. At that, it's still 100 bucks cheaper and matches it on every other category. Is 100 bucks worth a faster processor? That's for the consumer to decide.(btw for under 100 bucks I found a faster i5 processor online, replace and sell your old one still making out)

Blah, blah, blah. This is irrelevant. You are linking to inferior hardware, which defeats the point. "Maybe apple is lying and maybe you could just replace the processor yourself"... this is proof you know you are wrong.


You do know what the AMD Fire Pro is right? It's a mac branded processor. Basically they take 2 W5000 and make them work together. So 2 400 something dollar cards does not make an amazing computer. Especially since even with their combined mights many NVIDEA cards run faster.Such as the listed 780.

Fire Pro is an existing workstation brand that has nothing to do with Mac. The D300, however, does appear to be an rebranded implementation of one of the existing cards, but we won't know anything for sure until it actually gets released. I've read that it is closer to the W7000 with the VRAM cut, and one of those retails for $600-700.

You are also missing the bigger point with the graphics cards. These are workstation cards, not gaming cards; yes, it would be cheaper to plug in a gaming card, but that's cheating. An Nvidia workstation card is gonna run you a pretty penny (http://www.amazon.com/NVIDIA-Quadro-K4000-Graphics-PNY/dp/B00BLTE7X0).


5. That was not a computer I would build. IT's a custom built computer. I know this is a foreign concept to Mac users because they're used to choosing only which overpriced HD or RAM upgrade they want to do and which Apple accessories they want to pay more for. But you can go to many places, usually places that build PCs, and custom taylor a computer. That's what I did and that company would ship that computer to me.

Just show me the specs rather than rambling them off incompletely and anecdotally. Again, your argument is all about specs but you never actually link to specs. Bad form.


As far as more options, I haven't posted more because I'm lazy and i'd expect you to do a modicum of research into your statements.

I'm gonna go ahead and call this one; Zito has reached the edge of obliviousness. I ask you to backup your own point, and you then provide terrible and incorrect examples. You then follow it up by accusing me of not doing research. Bravo.

I gave you a bunch of chances to provide any evidence that Macs are overpriced for their hardware, and you repeated failed. Literally, all you had to do is link me to a PC with a comparable (or better, since Macs or so overpriced) hardware set, and you could not do that. Your failure makes my point much better than I ever could.

Meta wins.

[zitothebrave]

I've talked about 2 PCs that can crush the Mac pro. Several desktops that crush the Mac mini. Your bias in the argument is cute but somewhat depressing. Your only argument is form factor. That's it. I'll link you to some later if you insist on being such a child.

[zitothebrave]

This is a computer you can buy for the same price as the Mac Pro

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229514

To compare, faster processor with more cache, Twice the ram, slightly smaller SSD but included 2TB HD, and a better graphics card.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8176882&CatId=114

That one is noticably cheaper, also comes with a Hex core processor, 33% more ram, maybe a slightly lesser graphics card, and like above slightly smaller SSB but 2 TB HD

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8573809&CatId=114

Another Hex Core, 33% more ram, better graphics card, same hard drive situation as above

Lets leave Newegg and tiger direct, what do we find?

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/business-acclaim-desktop-16gb-memory-2tb-hard-drive-120gb-solid-state-drive/1823185.p?id=1219065987017&skuId=1823185&st=categoryid$pcmcat212600050008&cp=1&lp=10#tab=specifications

Lets be honest, yeah they're not thousands overpriced, but Macs are overpriced, they may not be as bad at launch but that's their product for a year. So say Macbook launches in September, it's february you bust your Macbook you want a new one, you're overpaying for something.

You want to give all kinds of props for the Mac Mini but the only reason PCs aren't pricing them out of that market is that there isn't much of a market. Apple is in the Market for making cheaper iMacs because people don't want mini-desktops they'd rather have all-in-ones or towers. Afterall if space is a serious concern why not an All-in-one or a laptop? For the small number of worthless scenarios you can come up with where the Mac Mini can have an advantage over a tower I can show you a computer that's way cheaper. Hell for 500 bucks you can get this guy a laptop with similar specs and a screen

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230598

[Metaphysicist]

This is a computer you can buy for the same price as the Mac Pro

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229514

To compare, faster processor with more cache, Twice the ram, slightly smaller SSD but included 2TB HD, and a better graphics card.

Okay, see? Not so hard to link to things, is it? Now let's take a look at your claims:

- Processor? Definitely a win for the Hexcore PC over the quadcore baseline Mac Pro. Per Newegg, the PC processor retails for about $700 more. VERDICT: Big WIN - PC -- + $700
- Ram? Not twice the RAM as you claim, but 16 GB vs 12 GB. Not really a big deal, since RAM is cheap and the differenct between 12 and 16 isn't vast. VERDICT - Slight Win - PC -- +$60
- Storage? The extra HD is worth about $100. VERDICT - Slight Win - PC - +100
- GPU? The GTX 780 costs $520 at newegg (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130916). The W7000, which the D300 is supposedly based on, is $700 at newegg (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814195118). And the Mac Pro has two of those. VERDICT: Big Win - Mac Pro -- + $900

So just based on those factors, the hardware in the Mac Pro is ever slightly more expensive, give or take the final analysis of the Fire Pro that ends up in the Mac Pro. I'd call it a wash, or at best an ever so slight price advantage to the PC if the GPU ends up being a bit cheaper. And that is ignoring that the Mac Pro has a ton of value from form factor, build quality, etc. I see no evidence that the Mac is overpriced compared to this computer.

This goes back to the very first thing I said about the the Mac Pro, but which you continually ignore:

Well, that would be kinda pointless. The Mac Pro looks to be a pretty niche machine for high end multimedia folks, and it isn't even available for purchase yet. It hardly qualifies as part of the normal Mac line anyone here would be considering. It also isn't really a tower in any real sense, and it would be very difficult to find a comparable machine that you didn't build yourself.

Your mistake is comparing the Mac Pro, which is a professional workstation and has two workstation class graphics cards, to gaming rigs with a single, cheaper gaming card. Workstation cards are more expensive. Those are just facts. You can't just say "well this gaming card is better" because that isn't the point (nor is it necessarily true; workstation cards are designed specifically for workstation tasks; gaming cards are designed for awesome FPS). The price of the Mac Pro reflects the price of the hardware actually used, not the hardware you'd prefer they used.

And this is only for the baseline Mac Pro model. The upper tier model comes with the equivalent of two W9000 cards, which retail on newegg for $3,400 each. That's $6,800 dollars worth of graphics cards alone. Trying to compare these to gaming rigs is silly.

If you aren't going to acknowledge the cost difference between gaming and workstation GPUs then there's no point in having a conversation.

[Tapate50]

This is the new East coast vs West coast wars.

[zitothebrave]

Listing the retail component costs. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Yeah cause I'm sure Apple is paying 1500 bucks for their graphics card. You compare performance for a reason. Not to mention you don't know if it's the w7000 if it's the w5000 it's 300 bucks cheaper for the combined efforts. And even at that if yo can build a house for 1000 dollars or you can build a lesser house for 1200 dollars why spend more? I've yet to see any of the benchmarks on the new GPUs, but baseline setting basically configure that it's less than the w7000 which is a 4GB VRAM processor, so it's not the same price as the w7000 anyway.

Also the issue with your cost comparison is the cost of adding RAM to a Mac =/= cost of adding RAM to a PC, you of all people should know that. Too lazy to look it up and I'm not saying you can't get Mac RAM for 60 bucks, just point out that saying "RAM is cheap" isn't applying a fair analysis of the cost of computers.

And your point about workstations is silly. You can't up the processors, or do half of the things you can do on a PC Workstation. It's a gaming PC with a second video card. You can take my tgird link, drop a second 780 gtx into it and still save money.

You're right that workstations are different, but that Mac is a work station in the loosest sense.

[jpx7]

Can we please go back to talking about your dad's porn addiction?

Someone had to say it.

[jpx7]

the fast-paced world of mustard and retail

Now I really like where this thread has gone.

[Metaphysicist]

Listing the retail component costs. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Yeah cause I'm sure Apple is paying 1500 bucks for their graphics card.

I think you missed the point there. The retail costs are only there to show the relative value of the components in the computer. Which is what we are talking about. The components have the same value in both computers.


Not to mention you don't know if it's the w7000 if it's the w5000 it's 300 bucks cheaper for the combined efforts.

Look, it's not actually either; it's looks like a modified version of the W7000 rolled out for the Mac Pro, but it's really it's own thing. If you look at the specs (which you never do), the D300 matches up with a w7000 that has had the vRAM cut.

- 1280 stream (W7000: 1280; W5000: 768)
- 160 GB/s memory bandwidth (W7000: 154; W500: 102)
- 2 teraflops processing (W7000: 2.43; W5000: 1.26)

Probably slightly less "valuable" than the W7000, as I indicated before, but easily outclasses the W5000.


Also the issue with your cost comparison is the cost of adding RAM to a Mac =/= cost of adding RAM to a PC, you of all people should know that. Too lazy to look it up and I'm not saying you can't get Mac RAM for 60 bucks, just point out that saying "RAM is cheap" isn't applying a fair analysis of the cost of computers.

If this has been elaborate performance art to show how little you know about this topic, then: "Bravo." Macs don't use some special, magical RAM. RAM is RAM. Upgrading a Mac's RAM is no different than doing it on a PC. (unless you have one of the notebooks where the RAM is soldered on, then you are **** outta luck).

You are correct that I, of all people should know this. I managed to walk down to the local, dinky IT shop here in rural Thailand and buy some non-mystical RAM off the shelf to upgrade my Macbook Pro. Wasn't particularly expensive.

If you buy a RAM upgrade directly from Apple, then yes it will be expensive. That is clearly one area where the Apple Store does indeed gouge. You should never buy extra RAM (or expanded internal storage, really) from Apple directly.


And your point about workstations is silly. You can't up the processors, or do half of the things you can do on a PC Workstation. It's a gaming PC with a second video card. You can take my tgird link, drop a second 780 gtx into it and still save money.

You're right that workstations are different, but that Mac is a work station in the loosest sense.

I see the explanation about workstation GPUs vs gaming GPUs, how one costs more than the other, how they are tools for different tasks.... I see all this went right over your head, since you are still saying "throw another gaming card in there." The relevant NVIDIA comparison would be the Quadros (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814133485), not the consumer gaming line. If you try to do high-end, OpenCL work on a gaming card, you are going to have a bad time. Say it with me one more time: THEY ARE DIFFERENT KINDS OF CARDS.

The Mac Pro has workstation GPUs because it is designed for technical professionals who will be doing the tasks those cards support. Since it is a computer with a workstation-class Xeon processor, two workstation GPUs, and designed for/marketed to graphics and design professionals, it is, in fact, a workstation-class PC. The greater customization options for a PC do not negate that fact.

Calling a Mac Pro a "gaming PC" makes so little sense I have no response. You are truly are the king of nonsense; I dub thee Sir Flibbertigibbet

[zitothebrave]

Oh meta, you're so cute, it's sad that you're so wrong.

Ok the difference between a workplace GPU and a gaming gpu is almost 100% software. But when considered in a larger context you get results that are more than acceptable with a gaming GPU
w
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493.html

That's a massive amount of research done by Tom's Hardware. Notice in almost every test a gaming GPU wins or is close to the winning workstation. Of course I anticipate more BS from you, but that's what I've grown to love about you as a poster.

[Metaphysicist]

Oh meta, you're so cute, it's sad that you're so wrong.

Are you sure this isn't a comment about your belief that you need special magic RAM for you gaming Mac Pro?


Ok the difference between a workplace GPU and a gaming gpu is almost 100% software.

Yes, and? Gaming GPUs are basically the same cards, only nerfed in terms of firmware support for professional applications. That does not contradict what I said. It is, in fact, exactly the point I was making: AMD and NVIDIA deliberately make the gaming cards bad at workstation tasks. That they implement this difference through firmware is irrelevant: the difference is still real and has huge effects. How are you not getting this?


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...card,3493.html

That's a massive amount of research done by Tom's Hardware. Notice in almost every test a gaming GPU wins or is close to the winning workstation. Of course I anticipate more BS from you

Wow, every time I think you've made the worst argument ever, you come and surprise me by digging even deeper. You didn't even read the article you posted. Let's take a look at their page on a 3D graphics program (link (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493-8.html)). Direct quote, regarding their Maya OpenGL benchmarks:


The completion time for each benchmark is directly tied to each card's performance. And as we can see, the desktop cards don't stand a chance, regardless of how well they do under DirectX. Of course, this is a result of the drivers that accompany those workstation-class cards, which include optimizations that let them hardware-accelerate a great many functions in spite of the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM). The gaming cards have to make do with a universal software emulation instead.

And here is literally the first chart on that page. The red and green are the workstation cards, the dark grey are gaming/desktop cards, and lower is better:

http://media.bestofmicro.com/0/P/382345/original/02-Maya-2013-02-Hand.png

Wow, look at that: the workstation cards perform preposterously better at a thing I said they were needed for. Yeah, the gaming cards do great at plenty of stuff, but there are some pretty specific places where they sh*t the bed.

Look at another professional design program: SolidWorks, a 3D CAD program used by millions of people [thanks wikipedia!]. (link (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493-9.html))


SolidWorks 2013 is limited to workstation-class graphics cards. Unfortunately, the drivers we're using won't install on gaming boards, so we cannot include them. Additionally, if the software is run with non-certified drivers, there's supposed to be a quantifiable performance hit.

OOPS. The gaming cards can't even run this program. And here is the "Bottom Line" section of the article:


For the most part, gaming graphics cards don't work for professional applications, and increasingly, ISVs are requiring workstation-class hardware.

Let me repeat that. The conclusion of the article YOU posted:

For the most part, gaming graphics cards don't work for professional applications, and increasingly, ISVs are requiring workstation-class hardware.

I cannot wait to see the logical contortions you perform to somehow still pretend you are (a) correct and (b) have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I assume it will be something completely irrational, like professional engineers should buy the gaming cards (instead of the cards they actually need), and then try and install their own janky drivers. My breath is bated!

This is like sturg pretending he knows how the constitution works. You believe so hard, but you just can't quite find any "facts."

[jpx7]

I don't really give a **** about workstation graphics cards; but, as a fan of reading-comprehension, I really enjoyed that post, Meta.

[pfiggy]

Yeah Meta, I enjoyed it too, I think.....:winking0016:

[zitothebrave]

If you're not gonna read the whole article then don't bother trying to cite it. Especially since you said "If you try to do high-end, OpenCL work on a gaming card, you are going to have a bad time" one would say that processing video is pretty high end usually right?

http://media.bestofmicro.com/0/0/382320/original/10-OpenCL-Video-01-Blur.png

Also peachy keen you didn't post to literally the next down picture from yours

Will a gaming GPU do the job of a workstation GPU 100% of the time? of course not. But again if you really need that, why don't you just get a real workstation where you can get 12 cores, 2 higher end GPUs, etc. Who needs something that costs 3000 for workstation that's really only half workstation? You're missing out on storage space, Processor, RAM, etc. I could continue but I expect you to pick up on me.

[Metaphysicist]

AMAZING. THE CROWD GOES WILD. "I CALLED IT," SAYS CRITIC. "TRULY STUPENDOUS OBSTINACY," SAYS OTHER CRITIC. "JUST SAY YOU WERE WRONG," ADVISES THE VOICE OF REASON.

ZITO you are the most willfully ignorant man on the planet.


OpenCL

You caught me! I should have typed OpenGL (the chart I posted) but wrote OpenCL instead! I guess I lose the argument!


one would say that processing video is pretty high end usually right?

High end for computer processing, I reckon, not necessarily high end for graphical rendering. Just based on my extremely limited experience, using handbrake can seriously tax the CPU, but you aren't really displaying anything with the GPU. However, high-end OpenCL tasks are probably much different, and I have no experience with it, so I can't really say.


Also peachy keen you didn't post to literally the next down picture from yours

Why would I need to do that? Can you not read? Right under that picture I said: Yeah, the gaming cards do great at plenty of stuff, but there are some pretty specific places where they sh*t the bed. I was posting one of the specific tests that demonstrate the difference.


But again if you really need that, why don't you just get a real workstation where you can get 12 cores, 2 higher end GPUs, etc. Who needs something that costs 3000 for workstation that's really only half workstation

This is called "moving the goalpoasts." You can buy a Mac Pro with a 12 core processor and 2 FirePro W9000s, the highest rated card on the chart you just posted, if you so desire (and I'm sure that will be the preferred options for some professionals). It will obviously cost more, since that would be $7000 worth of GPUs and a $2600 processor. A PC with the same cards is not going to be $3000. Yet again you refuse to compare apples to apples.

However, we have been discussing the baseline Mac Pro model because that's the one you brought up. People would buy these because they need baseline workstation functionality, but they also have a budget. The same thought process goes for folks buying PC workstations.

I can only assume "Nobody would want to buy this anyway" is just New Jerseyian for "I am incredible wrong and completely uninformed."


I could continue

You could apparently continue to claim that the water is dry in the Mississippi while drowning in it. I have no doubts you could continue ad infinitum on this topic.

[zitothebrave]

So you want me to continue then? I was able to for about 3200 bucks design a PC running Windows 7 (would have saved 160 running linux), that computer included 2 quadro k4000 GPUs 16 gigs of RAM, and 2 Xeon 2.5 GHz processors,

Can't link you to the computer but you can see my build source

http://www.xicomputer.com/products/Configure_prof.asp?model=mtowerxeon&configid=

Want me to keep going on? That's a real workstation too. Not a regular computer witha workstation GPU.

[Metaphysicist]

Is that your way of admitting everything you've been saying about the GPUs is horse****?

[Metaphysicist]

So you want me to continue then? I was able to for about 3200 bucks design a PC running Windows 7 (would have saved 160 running linux), that computer included 2 quadro k4000 GPUs 16 gigs of RAM, and 2 Xeon 2.5 GHz processors,

Can't link you to the computer but you can see my build source

http://www.xicomputer.com/products/Configure_prof.asp?model=mtowerxeon&configid=

Want me to keep going on? That's a real workstation too. Not a regular computer witha workstation GPU.

So you found a more expensive computer with incredibly similar specs (and looking at the prices, no SDD)? That shows that Macs are overcharging for their hardware, how exactly? Are you trying to make my point for me?

Why don't we use this page to build a PC with as close to the exact parts of the Mac Pro as we can? Wouldn't you agree that the best way to see if the Mac Pro is overcharging for it's hardware?

Here you go. (link (http://i.imgur.com/tfKI6IK.png)).

- The exact same processor
- 2x quadro k4000 (about the same price as 2 W7000s)
- 250 GB SSD (Mac Pro has 256)
- 16 GB RAM (couldn't choose 12; shave off $~60 bucks or so)

$3,133. Give or take the RAM difference. Yeah, that's right, the same hardware in a custom-built, generic windows-PC tower is MORE EXPENSIVE than the Mac Pro. Are that's without even considering the form factor, build quality, yadda yadda. Your argument continues to be terrible.

[sturg33]

This is like sturg pretending he knows how the constitution works. You believe so hard, but you just can't quite find any "facts."

Words hurt you know...

When we had our argument about constitutional history, I provided you historical evidence of my opinion... You response was "I don't feel like fact checking"

I'm glad you didn't feel the same way about Zito, because this thread has been amazing.

[sturg33]

I think Meta's best point in the thread is "expensive" is not the same thing as "overpriced"

Everyone knows you can get a cheaper computer than a Mac. But they are almost ALWAYS worse. My dad has spent so much money trying to keep his Dell desktop alive and virus free, while my iMac continues to run perfectly.

But having said all that, even if you're right (doesn't look like you are), and you CAN build a comparable computer for cheaper, 95% of the population doesn't want to or is unwilling to do that. And that's not their fault. Why should anyone do all the research into matching the specs to save a few bucks? Not to mention that Mac's are generally beautiful, while every other machine is boring and ugly.

Now, I think you may have an argument if you wanted to talk about iPhones...

[sturg33]

Oh and lastly, there should be some value attributed to the fact that Mac's are much less likely to get a virus

[Metaphysicist]

Words hurt you know...

When we had our argument about constitutional history, I provided you historical evidence of my opinion... You response was "I don't feel like fact checking"

Tsk, tsk, there's no space in this thread for your selective-quoting trolling. I've got all the delusion I can handle with Zito here.

[zitothebrave]

So you found a more expensive computer with incredibly similar specs (and looking at the prices, no SDD)? That shows that Macs are overcharging for their hardware, how exactly? Are you trying to make my point for me?

Why don't we use this page to build a PC with as close to the exact parts of the Mac Pro as we can? Wouldn't you agree that the best way to see if the Mac Pro is overcharging for it's hardware?

Here you go. (link (http://i.imgur.com/tfKI6IK.png)).

- The exact same processor
- 2x quadro k4000 (about the same price as 2 W7000s)
- 250 GB SSD (Mac Pro has 256)
- 16 GB RAM (couldn't choose 12; shave off $~60 bucks or so)

$3,133. Give or take the RAM difference. Yeah, that's right, the same hardware in a custom-built, generic windows-PC tower is MORE EXPENSIVE than the Mac Pro. Are that's without even considering the form factor, build quality, yadda yadda. Your argument continues to be terrible.

For starters you don't know the Mac has the same processor since Apple doesn't release which build/model the processor is just it's speeds, which in all honesty means nothing.

And wouldn't a business rather have a much larger HD necessarily than the quicker fetch times of a SSD? I guess it depends on the business of course, but most I've dealt with wouldn't be able to function as comfortably with 250 gigs. Of course I could easily, and I'd love even a 64 gig SSD in my computer because I cloud just about everything. But that doesn't always work for a business. Of course Apple would just recommend an external HD but that's different.

And the computer I build was for a workstation a better computer since you have the ability of having an octocore computer which I believe means your beloved OpenGL would run even better since the additional threads traditionally lead to better graphic and video processing.

BTW since today is my first day off all week and I have an hour or 2 fo down time I'm gonna play around with the iMAC.

So the entry level iMac is 1300, comes with a 2.7 GHz Quad core i5 with 4MB L3 cache, 8 gigs of ram, 1 TB 5400 RPM, Intel Iris pro graphics card. 21.5 inch screen with 1920 by 1080 screen or a pixel density of 102.46 PPI.

Nor to compare to a few other All-in-ones, first HP ENVY 23-c210xt, which is 1,000. comes with seemingly the same processor, i5 2.7 GHz though it has 6MB of shared cache, Same 8 GB ram, 2 TB 7200 RPM HD, Intel HD Graphics, and a 23 inch screen 1920 by 1080 or a PPI of 95.78

So for 300 bucks more you get maybe a better graphics card, slighly higher PPI though on a smaller screen, and a much worse HD both in terms of size and Speed.

Considering for 300 bucks I'm sure you can easily find a better graphics card to replace the Intel one on the PC and that I'm not looking for the lowest price, which it seems like to me HP is running a sale now with 175 bucks off builds over 799 so that woudl fall under that category and drop the price further.

Next up the Dell Inspiron 23 All-in-One Touch Screen. Comes with i5 2.5 GHz 3MB L3 cache, same ram and same HD, same graphics card and screen specs as the HP. It's "market value" is 1218.99 but dell really sells it for 1100. Fully will admit for most PC users this computer isn't a real deal, as you're getting maybe a slightly worse processor, and maybe graphics card (Ihaven't done the research on the Iris vs HD, I'm assuming Iris is probably better but not by much) and you don't gain the better Harddrive you do with the HP, and all you really gain is a touch screen which honestly is that much better for typical users?

Onto Lenovo m93z all i one, for 1050 comes with an i5 2.9 GHz processor, same screen as the HP and Dell, 4 gigs of ram, 500 gig 7200 RPM HD, Integrated graphics (they don't specify but according to Intel the graphics for that processor are an Intel HD 4600). Not an amazing deal either, when compared to the HP. but still at 250 less than the Mac you're getting a faster but smaller HD, slightly faster processor, half the RAM, and same screen and graphic card stuff as before.

And lastly I'll pick on Sony and Samsung, I had to beef up Sony's all in one to make it an acceptably computer, their VAIO tap 21 that I tweaked comes in at the same 1300 as the iMac, it has an i7 1.8 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, same HD as Mac (though Sony includes 8GB of SSD in it for faster boots) same intel HD graphics, same screen size and resolution as an iMac but it's touch. So you get a worse graphics, but better processor, about the same HD, and it's touch for same price.

Last up is the Samsung ATIV One 7 (huh on the naming), that is coming in at 1100. Comes with an i5 2.9 GHz 3MB L3, 23.6 inch screen 1920 by 1080 resolution, It is touch screen, same HD as Mac. 6 GB ram, And it is touch screen. This computer is a decent deal if you really want a touch screen, as it packs a lesser RAM than the Dell but a a faster processor. Now one thing that sucks about this build of comuter though, is it's an 8GB ram max. Now for most people that's more than enough.

All these computers but the Sony come in at 200 bucks or less than the iMac, all have comparable or better features as well. Some other fun stuff, on the HP, you can bump your processor speed up to a 3.0 GHz for 35 bucks. Actually just for fun, I built up that HP to 1265b including the 50 dollar savings HP had. I wound up with an i5 3.0 GHz computer, 12 GB ram, upgrade to windows 8 pro, or for their current deal price (not including the better deal just the normal HP deal) for 1300 bucks I can get the ENVY Recline 27-k150xt which has an i5 2.9 GHz processor, 12 gigs of ram, a 1 TB hybrid, NVidea GEForce GT730A, 27 inch 1920 by 1080. Meaning compared to the same priced iMac it has a much larger though lower PPI screen, a faster processor, 4 more gigs of ram, a much much faster HD, and a much better graphics card.

If we wanted to compare as well the ultrabook style of computer, the Macbook Air vs a few other ultrabooks.

The air comes in at a grand with an 11 inch screen, a 128 GB SSD, 1.3 GHz dual core i5, 4 GB RAM, Intel HD Graphics,andhas a weight of 2.38 pounds.

For now I'll just do one Ultrabook as I have to run to work for a little bit, I'll come back later. But I'll compare it to the same priced HP Spectre 13t-3000. comes with 1.6 GHz dual core i5, a 13 inch screen same ram and HD is touchscreen, and weights 3.2 pounds. LAst comparison for the day is the ENVY 13-k010 us, which is selling for 780. Same processor as the Spectre, 8 GB ram, 750 GB 5200 RPM HD, and weighs 3.85 pounds.

To those 2 the Mac book is lighter, primarily because it has a smaller screen, one thing to weigh between these 3 computers is that, si the 13 or 14 inch screen of the Spectre or ENVY better for your usage or is the 1 pound or pound and a half weight that much more important? Spectre come with a larger screen that is touch and faster processor for the same price,or you lose the HD advantage but for much less you can get the ENVY with the biggest screen and most ram.

[Metaphysicist]

For starters you don't know the Mac has the same processor since Apple doesn't release which build/model the processor is just it's speeds, which in all honesty means nothing.

This is a truly absurd contention. Actually it's two absurd contentions: (1) Macs have mystery processors, and (2) Processor Speeds are meaningless. Anyway, here is the detailed spec page (link (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_pro/specs/mac-pro-quad-core-3.7-xeon-e5-d300-black-late-2013-specs.html)). CTRL-F "processor type". Now look at the @Xi build I linked to. Notice how they are the same? Yeah.


And wouldn't a business rather have a much larger HD necessarily than the quicker fetch times of a SSD?

No. Not any business interested in a graphic intensive workstation.

If you do any kind of intensive creative work, you (likely) want the speed of the SSD first and foremost. The creative content you produce would prboably go on a secondary drive or a server, since you don't need to access it very much. Extra storage space is good, of course, but fast response time (and faster RAM swapping, if necessary) is more important. And external storage is cheap. The same principal applies for basically any field using cumbersome software. Even in the engineering firm I worked in, SSDs were certainly preferred (as ArcGIS and ArcScene took forever to load sometimes, and this was especially obnoxious when they were needed for presentations), and projects were backed up to a server when not in active use.


most I've dealt with wouldn't be able to function as comfortably with 250 gigs.

I'll bite. What exactly is your "business" experience?


And the computer I build was for a workstation

Dude, what the **** are you talking about? Are you just trying to redefine the word "workstation" so that it magically doesn't include Macs? Cuz this sentence makes no sense. You built a desktop tower with workstation hardware, i.e., the exact same thing as a Mac Pro.

A computer is a workstation-class PC based on it's hardware and the software it is designed to run. The Mac Pro has a Xeon workstation-class processor and workstation-class graphics cards. It looks like a workstation-pc, it acts like a workstation-pc... it's a workstation-pc. Saying "but my computer is a workstation!!!!" is only emphasizing your own ignorance.


And the computer I build was for a workstation a better computer since you have the ability of having an octocore computer

The Mac Pro can have an octocore if you so desire, so if that is the "Zito" criteria for a workstation then you are still wrong. However, the computer you linked was not an octocore; it was 2 linked quadcores (each with 4 threads each). So, the end result is the exact same number of threads as the quadcore Mac Pro (8 threads), so wronger still on that point too.

Of course, THIS IS ALL IRRELEVANT. The question is not "could someone build a better computer than a Mac Pro." The question is "Are Mac Pros overpriced for their hardware?" You are being very transparent about deliberately avoiding that question.


BTW since today is my first day off all week and I have an hour or 2 fo down time I'm gonna play around with the iMAC.

Yeah, that's great, but I'm not gonna read any of that until we finish with the Mac Pro. No more of this randomly fluttering about. You are still denying this in the face of overwhelming evidence, and that's not gonna fly. Why are you ignoring the direct hardware price comparison? It's the only thing that is relevant. You need to explain why the same hardware costs MORE in your custom, PC tower than it does in a Mac Pro. We can talk about the iMac when this point is resolved.

You also need to admit that all that horsesh*t you spewed about graphics cards was, in fact, horsesh*t.

[The Chosen One]

Man I'm getting old. I remember when I had one of the first HP Laptops with a Duocore Processor, and I used to watch the processors work on the task manager and see how they split the processing and then I'd assign certain programs to be handled by that one particular processor only.

Now we have Octo. Holy ****.

[Metaphysicist]

Sheeeeeeeet, y'all can git you a dodecacore even.

[zitothebrave]

Yeah, that's great, but I'm not gonna read any of that until we finish with the Mac Pro. No more of this randomly fluttering about. You are still denying this in the face of overwhelming evidence, and that's not gonna fly. Why are you ignoring the direct hardware price comparison? It's the only thing that is relevant. You need to explain why the same hardware costs MORE in your custom, PC tower than it does in a Mac Pro. We can talk about the iMac when this point is resolved.

You also need to admit that all that horsesh*t you spewed about graphics cards was, in fact, horsesh*t.

That's one set of supplies from one supplier. Also there's the very real topic of the fact that the Mac Pro is not out yet. So you could be seeing a drop in cost to other computers because of updated stuff. And you build a computer that was more expensive with "the same specs" I build a computer that was a little more expensive (almost entirely because of windows) that had a better processor and the only knock would be the SSD. Which again, depending on what you're doing may not work.

I think it's fair to say that for some people the Mac Pro would be a better deal than many PCs out there, but for some people the PC would be a better deal. If you're in need of a more powerful computer, then the PC is usually a better cost option, or if you don't need as much the PC is a better option.

YOu're right you can build up the Mac all you want, but you also admitted further down that doing that comes with a cost as Apple addons to RAM, etc. are expensive.

Then there's the segment of buyers who'll be buying the Mac Pro for gaming because they want a better screen than the iMac offers, and the Mac Mini is pitiful. For them you certainly cannot argue that the Mac Pro isn't overpriced.

[Metaphysicist]

That's one set of supplies from one supplier.

It was the custom supplier you chose, after failing to find any prebuilt computers that were better deals. This is only a relevant criticism if you can show me that the same parts from a different supplier are cheaper.


Also there's the very real topic of the fact that the Mac Pro is not out yet. So you could be seeing a drop in cost to other computers because of updated stuff.

It comes out this month. This is not a relevant criticism.


And you build a computer that was more expensive with "the same specs" I build a computer that was a little more expensive (almost entirely because of windows) that had a better processor and the only knock would be the SSD.

Building a computer with different parts does not answer the question we are debating, which is whether the Mac Pro is overpriced for the hardware. The computer you built was irrelevant.


Which again, depending on what you're doing may not work.

The question is not whether the Mac is best for every single person on the planet. The question is whether the hardware is overpriced. This not a relevant criticism.


I think it's fair to say that for some people the Mac Pro would be a better deal than many PCs out there, but for some people the PC would be a better deal.

This is not the question. The question is how the Mac Pro compares to a PC with the same hardware. You have provided no evidence that you can get a "better deal" on that hardware in a PC.


If you're in need of a more powerful computer, then the PC is usually a better cost option

This is almost certainly not true, and you certainly provided no evidence to support it. Here's a recent Apple price quote on higher-end Mac Pro with two D500 graphics cards (the equivalent of two w8000s):

http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/12/mac_pro_2013_business_quote.jpg

I built those same specs on your @Xi builder and it was like $1000 more expensive, even with the Mac-priced RAM upgrade on the Mac Pro. The retail prices will probably be a little higher, but their's no way the PC is the "better cost option" for the same hardware.

This is not a relevant criticism.


YOu're right you can build up the Mac all you want, but you also admitted further down that doing that comes with a cost as Apple addons to RAM, etc. are expensive.

You are flagrantly distorting what I said about RAM. I said you should upgrade the RAM yourself. The "building up" I mentioned was in terms of the processor and GPU. This criticism is nonsense.


Then there's the segment of buyers who'll be buying the Mac Pro for gaming because they want a better screen than the iMac offers, and the Mac Mini is pitiful. For them you certainly cannot argue that the Mac Pro isn't overpriced.

That's like saying a car is "overpriced" because all you need is a skateboard. This is not a relevant criticism.

Just admit you are flatout wrong on this point. Maybe you will do better with the iMacs. Also, still mum on your GPU horsesh*t, eh?

[zitothebrave]

That whole post is pointless, I'm not gonna bother wasting my time on a response. I can't believe you're gonna try to pull up a hypothetical build. When the Mac Pro is out and we have benchmarks on the graphics card we'll revisit this. You're assuming you need 2 K4000s to meet the performance of the mac's GPU. Otherwise you're just whistling dixie on something Mac is trying to convince you is a better bargain than it really is. If it's not legit and a regular 7000 gets the same performance wouldn't that be dumb?

[Metaphysicist]

That whole post is pointless, I'm not gonna bother wasting my time on a response.

This sounds more convincing if you don't immediately follow it with a response. Also, my post was specific responses to your statements, so it is only as worthwhile as the stuff you originally wrote.


I can't believe you're gonna try to pull up a hypothetical build.

Which part was hypothetical? The @Xi build, or the quote from Apple? Both of those seem pretty tangible to me, regardless.


When the Mac Pro is out and we have benchmarks on the graphics card we'll revisit this.

It's pretty lame to talk a bunch of garbage about something, and then when called on it say "uh, it's impossible to know, so you are wrong."


You're assuming you need 2 K4000s to meet the performance of the mac's GPU.

I am also assuming NOTHING about the performance. I have no idea how these things will perform, and neither do you. The question we are debating is price, and whether the Mac Pro is overpriced compared to its constituent parts. I understand that you want to talk about other things, because you can't win the argument on this point, but that desire does not make those other things relevant.

Anyway, I guess I am making an assumption about the price of the GPUs, but's it more like an educated guess based on the specs of the card. The K4000 and the W7000 are peer cards that cost about the same, and the mac has effectively 2 modified W7000s. I only put 2 K4000s on the @Xi build because there was no option for adding dual W7000s, and since we were only talking about price, it doesn't matter. If you have any real evidence to suggest that I'm way off on my valuation of the cards, I'd be glad to listen to it. But I find that doubtful since everything you've said about GPUs in this thread has been less than worthless.


Otherwise you're just whistling dixie on something Mac is trying to convince you is a better bargain than it really is. If it's not legit and a regular 7000 gets the same performance wouldn't that be dumb?

No one is calling the Mac Pro a "bargain." I'm just saying it's not overpriced, which you keep claiming without any evidence.


If it's not legit and a regular 7000 gets the same performance wouldn't that be dumb?

I think it's pretty unlikely that 2 modified W7000s get the same performance as one unmodified card. I mean, AMD could have made them super sh*tty for some reason, but that would be a baseless assumption.

Still not admitting your GPU bullsh*t. Takes a special kind of oblivious to gloss over something that many times.

[Krgrecw]

Mac sales are only up 29% so far, for this period over last year. Not bad for an 'expensive' and 'overpriced' computer. I would bet apple will be the only PC company up over last year in PC sales.

Anxious to see what the forthcoming 12.9 inch Ipad Pro will do in sales.

You all see the Red Mac Pro did almost $1,000,000 in the Aids auction? Pretty incredible, especially since the dude who won the bidding for it already has the new Mac Pro.

[Tapate50]

Nerds everywhere have been jacking it to this thread.

[zitothebrave]

Mac sales are only up 29% so far, for this period over last year. Not bad for an 'expensive' and 'overpriced' computer. I would bet apple will be the only PC company up over last year in PC sales.

Anxious to see what the forthcoming 12.9 inch Ipad Pro will do in sales.

You all see the Red Mac Pro did almost $1,000,000 in the Aids auction? Pretty incredible, especially since the dude who won the bidding for it already has the new Mac Pro.

Did you read any of the articles about that?

Here's one writeup

"However, this quarter’s Mac sales gains mostly derive from iMac supply issues that Apple faced during the final quarter of 2012, when the company launched a much-slimmer redesign of the popular all-in-one machines, only to be unable to meet consumer demand. Production problems — especially with the 27-inch iMac — lead to a 700,000 unit shortfall, delaying shipments for more than a month and frustrating many potential buyers. "

Here's an article about Q3 sales

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/10/technology/mac-pc-sales/

[zitothebrave]

I think it's pretty unlikely that 2 modified W7000s get the same performance as one unmodified card. I mean, AMD could have made them super sh*tty for some reason, but that would be a baseless assumption.

Still not admitting your GPU bullsh*t. Takes a special kind of oblivious to gloss over something that many times.

Well those 2 modified units each have lower vRAM. So we'll see. I'm guessing for some processes it will be better for others it will be negligent to worse.

[Metaphysicist]

Well those 2 modified units each have lower vRAM. So we'll see. I'm guessing for some processes it will be better for others it will be negligent to worse.

Tell me more about GPUs. Your information on them in this thread has been golden thus far.

[zitothebrave]

Yeah you're not one to talk either bud. I guess going on Google solves all your problems.

[Tapate50]

Google doesn't solve all your problems? :Gasp:

[Metaphysicist]

Yeah you're not one to talk either bud. I guess going on Google solves all your problems.

So, your criticism is that I actually bother to google the information I need, whereas you just... what? Speak from the heart? Bizarre...

[zitothebrave]

I speak from my experience and what I'm told by my friends who do high level tech support. I only Google a few things as I need them. I don't start arguments then make a left hand turn because I uncovered something new on Google.

[Metaphysicist]

Zeets, I understand that you just took a pretty severe logical thrashing, and that must smart, but this petulant whininess is embarrassing for everyone.

There was no "left hand turn." The first thing I said in this thread: Macs aren't really overpriced compared to PCs with comparable hardware. That's the statement you took issue with. You'll notice that's also the same chorus I've repeated over and over. That's why I built you a PC with the exact same (internal) hardware, using your own site.

You are the dude who always tries to spin off to talk about something else completely irrelevant ("PEOPLE WHO BUY THE MAC PRO TO GAME ON WILL NOT GET GOOD VALUE" or "THE MAC PRO IS A GAMING MACHINE"), or who wastes both our times pointing out machines with non-comparable, cheaper hardware ("brah, I'll just throw a 780 on there, no prob, same diff"). I finally get you to focus on a PC (from a site you posted) with the EXACT SAME HARDWARE, and you throw up your hands like a baby, say it's pointless to talk about the thing you yourself brought up, and then you whine about me "googling" information.

I honestly don't know how this has been so difficult for you. Macs definitely aren't shy about the premium label, so I expected you to easily be able to build a PC with the same parts that was at least a little bit cheaper. I mean, I was just claiming that they aren't really overpriced, but I expect them to have a little bit of a price premium built in, especially against a custom build. But here we are...

[Metaphysicist]

Here, let me flesh out an argument you claimed you "could" do, but that you didn't ever follow up on:

Take an HP workstation with the same processor: (link (http://shopping1.hp.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/WW-USSMBPublicStore-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewProductDetail-Start?ProductUUID=KD4Q7EN5o0UAAAFB8AJNbJx1&CatalogCategoryID=rw8Q7habfzIAAAFCiLgtkXvl&JumpTo=OfferList))

HP Z420 Workstation - $1,829
- Same 1620v2 processor as Mac Pro
- 8 GB ECC RAM (vs 12 GB for MP)
- No graphics card (two D300s for MP)
- 128 SSD + 1 TB 7200RPM (256 SSD for MP)

So let's add 4 GB of ECC RAM from HP (link (http://h30094.www3.hp.com/product.aspx?sku=10722117&pagemode=ca)) - $145

I'd say the hard drives are a push. Just quickly eyeballing it, the difference in cost between a 256 SSD and a 128 SSD is roughly the same as the cost a 1 TB spinning drive.

Let's assume that the D300 graphics card will cost less than the W7000, due to the reduced vRAM. Basically it has the vRAM of the W5000, but everything else is comparable to the W7000. Newegg has the W7000 at $700 (link (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814195118)) and the noticeably lesser W5000 for $420 (link (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814195119)). Let's further assume the D300 get's priced at the midpoint between the two: $560.

Thus, the cost of adding two D300s: $1120

Total Cost: $3,094 (vs. $2999 for MP)

So here we have a machine that is almost identical internally, and the price is also almost identical.

Now, I could completely understand someone preferring the HP; it has definite advantages over the Mac Pro, with the big one being greater expandability. If you wanna pop a new GPU in there in a couple years, that's gonna be a heck of a lot easier in that big ol' tower. The form factor on the Mac Pro that will attract some people will drive just as many away.

But in terms of the actually hardware being overpriced... I just don't see it. Even if you assume the GPUs are $100 cheaper, the price is still basically the same.

[Mrs. Meta]

I'm going to be sad if this thread doesn't at least carry us into the new year. :Alone:

[zitothebrave]

Meta you don't realize sadly yet that your entire pricing is based off of a speculative cost for a graphics card. Only info I have been able to find on it's performance came from the gaming side. Which isn't your idea.

PErsonally I find your arguments amusing. Baically your Mac Pro is great for people who need a workstation, but never want to make changes to it because it's design is limited, which defeats one fo the key advantages to having a work station. Sub-market.

[Metaphysicist]

Meta you don't realize sadly yet that your entire pricing is based off of a speculative cost for a graphics card.

So? Just because we don't know the exact cost doesn't mean we know nothing. It is very easy to ballpark their value. I even deliberately lowballed it in that last price comparison. This is just you losing the argument and pretending it doesn't count based on a minor point.


Only info I have been able to find on it's performance came from the gaming side.

No you didn't. And for the 500th time, we aren't talking about the performance, we are talking about cost.


PErsonally I find your arguments amusing. Baically your Mac Pro is great for people who need a workstation, but never want to make changes to it because it's design is limited, which defeats one fo the key advantages to having a work station. Sub-market.

Sure, AS I JUST SAID the Mac Pro isn't for everyone. Obviously, if your main concern is rapidly upgrading your GPU every year, then you aren't going to buy this. That has nothing to do with my argument on cost, though.

[zitothebrave]

So wait one cotton pickin second. I cannot value a Mac Mini vs a desktop because of the Mac Mini's size and the potential benefit of needing to carry it around. But the ultimate real life application that comes way too often with a work station (need to upgrade to tinker with latest parts) is not viable in the argument on cost?

You do realize you can't have it both ways. You either have to admit the Mac Mini is way overpriced or have to give a phantom untainable value to PC workstations that can easily be upgraded.

[AerchAngel]

Mac vs PC interesting.

I see pros and cons on both since I have to deal with them in my field of work.

Macs are versatile on the software side and the PC is on the hardware side.

If it wasn't for the cost factor, we would be using macs because their virtual programs can mimic microsuck quite well, you can't the other way around.

I would love to have a mac so I can do web editing, then virtual to my Studio to do VB, .NET and SQL programming.

[Metaphysicist]

Zito, I'm not sure where to start with that. The point I made about the Mac Mini was threefold: (1) it is a completely different kind of thing than a desktop tower, so a direct internal hardware comparison is useless; (2) the miniPC machines you found were not even similar on the specs; and (3) there was real value in the actual engineering of the Mini's hardware. Anyway, I would readily admit there is a slight price premium on the Mac Mini, but I don't think it is by an unreasonable amount.

For the workstations, point #1 is moot, since we are now talking about two products in the same class. Point #2 is also moot, because we have found two incredibly similarly spec'd machines. But as to the third point, the engineering costs: when applied to the workstations, this would be added value to the Mac Pro, not a big ol' tower. I haven't bothered arguing that aspect because your original argument was so completely wrong that examining the design considerations was unnecessary. But put simply, the idea that a generic tower chassis has more "engineering value" than the Mac Pro is absurd.

Further, I'm not sure what you want me to admit? I've already said (multiple times) that if you put high value on rapidly switching out GPUs (which is something you greatly overestimate the prevalence of in the professional world), the Mac Pro is a bad match for you and you should put that money towards a customizable PC. Of course upgradeability has value, but that's not a hardware cost. We are in agreement that the Mac Pro is for a pretty limited client base, but that doesn't have anything to with the direct cost comparison of what parts are actually in the Mac Pro.

[AerchAngel]

Zito, I'm not sure where to start with that. The point I made about the Mac Mini was threefold: (1) it is a completely different kind of thing than a desktop tower, so a direct internal hardware comparison is useless; (2) the miniPC machines you found were not even similar on the specs; and (3) there was real value in the actual engineering of the Mini's hardware. Anyway, I would readily admit there is a slight price premium on the Mac Mini, but I don't think it is by an unreasonable amount.

For the workstations, point #1 is moot, since we are now talking about two products in the same class. Point #2 is also moot, because we have found two incredibly similarly spec'd machines. But as to the third point, the engineering costs: when applied to the workstations, this would be added value to the Mac Pro, not a big ol' tower. I haven't bothered arguing that aspect because your original argument was so completely wrong that examining the design considerations was unnecessary. But put simply, the idea that a generic tower chassis has more "engineering value" than the Mac Pro is absurd.

Further, I'm not sure what you want me to admit? I've already said (multiple times) that if you put high value on rapidly switching out GPUs (which is something you greatly overestimate the prevalence of in the professional world), the Mac Pro is a bad match for you and you should put that money towards a customizable PC. Of course upgradeability has value, but that's not a hardware cost. We are in agreement that the Mac Pro is for a pretty limited client base, but that doesn't have anything to with the direct cost comparison of what parts are actually in the Mac Pro.

Great post. You are correct.

I do not know what you all are using them for.

But Meta you nailed the pros of cons of each.

Fortunately my company is being budget minded, I personally can get a mac if I choose so. I have that power at work as a programmer, but for the other 50 pc users, they aren't programmers and only log into the network/web to run reports that my programs generate so a PC (Dell, boo) at $500 is feasible since it is web based and all the back-end is on the servers.

I just might ask for a mac for my needs when the next purge starts. Their virtual pc is awesome to use and I have equivalent processing power when crunching programs.

[zitothebrave]

If your company had a good IT person they could just build a simple linux OS to pull up the web based stuff. In my recent years of tinkering with computers for some of my SMB buddies and one of my programmer friends and I worked on an OS/program that basically was used to access a website POS for a mail order business. All it could run was an email client that was sandboxed to prevent viruses from infecting anything, that POS, UPS and a sandboxed web browser that only could go to certain sites (USPS, UPS, their site and maybe a few other)

What happened with them was people would look up things on the computer and it would infect their computers which they'd have to wipe, reload, etc. We went this route and it worked well for them. Haven't heard of any issues since then, but we'll see now that they will probably need the new UPS program may have to update it some fun back door way. We're hoping they do it automatically.

[zitothebrave]

Further, I'm not sure what you want me to admit? I've already said (multiple times) that if you put high value on rapidly switching out GPUs (which is something you greatly overestimate the prevalence of in the professional world), the Mac Pro is a bad match for you and you should put that money towards a customizable PC. Of course upgradeability has value, but that's not a hardware cost. We are in agreement that the Mac Pro is for a pretty limited client base, but that doesn't have anything to with the direct cost comparison of what parts are actually in the Mac Pro.

You think that people who need to have the high end graphics card, processors, etc. in their work computers won't want to upgrade when the new ones come out? Would they rather spend 1500 bucks to get a new GPU or 3000 for a whole new computer?

[zitothebrave]

BTW to the original topic. I stand by my assertion that old people should own chromebooks. I got one the other day from my girlfriend for christmas. It's good for email. internet and word processing. It maybe isn't the most user friendly because it requires some special clicking with the touchpad. But for someone who needs a mouse function you can get a bluetooth or USB mouse for it. Same if you don't like the screen or keyboard. You can chromecast your screen to a TV or attach via HDMI, you can do much more of course but I like it for what it is. I wanted a little comptuer I can take with me for web browsing primarily.

The one I got is super cheap 200 bucks, weighs about 3 pounds, screen is a little small 11.6" but is very nice. Boots in no time, setup literally takes a minute.

Overall I'm pretty impressed with the device. LG is building a Chrome All-in-One, if the price is right I'm thinking about getting my parents one so I never have to fix their computer again.

[AerchAngel]

If your company had a good IT person they could just build a simple linux OS to pull up the web based stuff. In my recent years of tinkering with computers for some of my SMB buddies and one of my programmer friends and I worked on an OS/program that basically was used to access a website POS for a mail order business. All it could run was an email client that was sandboxed to prevent viruses from infecting anything, that POS, UPS and a sandboxed web browser that only could go to certain sites (USPS, UPS, their site and maybe a few other)

What happened with them was people would look up things on the computer and it would infect their computers which they'd have to wipe, reload, etc. We went this route and it worked well for them. Haven't heard of any issues since then, but we'll see now that they will probably need the new UPS program may have to update it some fun back door way. We're hoping they do it automatically.

If something happened, there is no one to fix a Linux/Unix issue. The other programmer I work with is useless in Unix/Linux. My previous job I was in OS2/Linux/Unix. I am Oracle certified as well so it would not be an issue, but if I get ran over, car accident or what not, our company will be screwed if we use that platform. The old company I worked for ask for me to comeback at a much higher salary because of my cross the board credentials. I said no because the owner is an asshole, he told me as much.

I do not do all the web stuff, the contract programmer does and she is an expert. I am not. I just fix any issues that comes up because she trained me on it (she taught me VB, ASP, AJAX, CSS and how they all worked together, I learned C++ and C# in school). This is the reason why there are two of us. If I am on vacation, she takes the calls if something goes wrong.

[AerchAngel]

BTW to the original topic. I stand by my assertion that old people should own chromebooks. I got one the other day from my girlfriend for christmas. It's good for email. internet and word processing. It maybe isn't the most user friendly because it requires some special clicking with the touchpad. But for someone who needs a mouse function you can get a bluetooth or USB mouse for it. Same if you don't like the screen or keyboard. You can chromecast your screen to a TV or attach via HDMI, you can do much more of course but I like it for what it is. I wanted a little comptuer I can take with me for web browsing primarily.

The one I got is super cheap 200 bucks, weighs about 3 pounds, screen is a little small 11.6" but is very nice. Boots in no time, setup literally takes a minute.

Overall I'm pretty impressed with the device. LG is building a Chrome All-in-One, if the price is right I'm thinking about getting my parents one so I never have to fix their computer again.

One of the sups ask me what should he give for his wife for christmas. I told him a tablet for reading, Nook or Kindle.

In the end, she got a Surface and a IPad, and I looked at them both with envy. I wish I made his money. Been with the company over 40 years, insane. Great guy and business savvy.

[zitothebrave]

I'm debating what I want to do with as far as tablets go. I am fixing my old Xoom and selling it to my mom for a deal. I'm gonna repair as best I can my clunky laptop and hope that if I do I can sell if for a few hundred. Otherwise I should be able to get 200+ from parts alone. Has a 2.3 GHz Sandy Bridge i5, q NVidea GeForce GT540M and 6 gigs of Ram. Those alone are worth probably 200. Add in the dell backlit keyboard, camera, DVD burner, a decent hard drive (maybe 30 bucks for it)

[AerchAngel]

I'm debating what I want to do with as far as tablets go. I am fixing my old Xoom and selling it to my mom for a deal. I'm gonna repair as best I can my clunky laptop and hope that if I do I can sell if for a few hundred. Otherwise I should be able to get 200+ from parts alone. Has a 2.3 GHz Sandy Bridge i5, q NVidea GeForce GT540M and 6 gigs of Ram. Those alone are worth probably 200. Add in the dell backlit keyboard, camera, DVD burner, a decent hard drive (maybe 30 bucks for it)

Selling to a family member? A car I can see, but something like that.


Good God that is so wrong on many levels.

[zitothebrave]

BTW I really like the Nexus 7 for my tablet. I'm switching more of my stuff to be small and compact. I'll want a nice new desktop sometime next year. Mine is about 6 years old and functions fine. I want to switch to an all-in-one though.I'm thinking the ENVY Recline 23 with Beats. I'll take the stock with maybe the only change being going from the 1TB Hybrid to the 256 Solid state since I don't use too much storage. For 150 bucks the added speed may be worth it. Or I may decide not to go with a desktop though as they're much more cost effictive. I was considering the Envy 700-210xt which I can get much nicer features for around the same price. For example for 1234 I get an i7 3.4 GHz GeForce GT640, 256 GB SSD

[zitothebrave]

Selling to a family member? A car I can see, but something like that.


Good God that is so wrong on many levels.

My parents insist. We're very much that type of family who doesn't like taking things. Even if we buy on pennys on the dollar (which my mom is) that's just what we do.

[AerchAngel]

My parents insist. We're very much that type of family who doesn't like taking things. Even if we buy on pennys on the dollar (which my mom is) that's just what we do.

That's cool. My wife parents are the same.

[AerchAngel]

BTW I really like the Nexus 7 for my tablet. I'm switching more of my stuff to be small and compact. I'll want a nice new desktop sometime next year. Mine is about 6 years old and functions fine. I want to switch to an all-in-one though.I'm thinking the ENVY Recline 23 with Beats. I'll take the stock with maybe the only change being going from the 1TB Hybrid to the 256 Solid state since I don't use too much storage. For 150 bucks the added speed may be worth it. Or I may decide not to go with a desktop though as they're much more cost effictive. I was considering the Envy 700-210xt which I can get much nicer features for around the same price. For example for 1234 I get an i7 3.4 GHz GeForce GT640, 256 GB SSD

I didn't like the Nexus, does not have enough features. I need more room and HDMI output to the TV to show pictures to future clients. So we got something just as fast and had all the features of the Nexus.

I did upgrade my 6 year old pc and quite happy with my $400 dollar purchase. No lag anywhere.

[zitothebrave]

I don't really care about HDMI to be honest. It's got great features for it's size though. Great screen, quad core processor, adreno GPU, and it's tiny and light. That thing is like holding a handful of papers.

If you need HDMI you can get the Nexus 10. I love the Nexus series because they're so clean and they get Android updates the fastest. Before getting this chromebook I considered a surface pro type of tablet but I'm happy now with this that i want a smaller tablet. Either the Nexus 7 or LG Gpad 8.3

[AerchAngel]

I don't really care about HDMI to be honest. It's got great features for it's size though. Great screen, quad core processor, adreno GPU, and it's tiny and light. That thing is like holding a handful of papers.

If you need HDMI you can get the Nexus 10. I love the Nexus series because they're so clean and they get Android updates the fastest. Before getting this chromebook I considered a surface pro type of tablet but I'm happy now with this that i want a smaller tablet. Either the Nexus 7 or LG Gpad 8.3


HDMI is a must if photography is a side business. The wife can attach her tablet to the TV and show the pics and videos if they request since it can do those almost good as our handheld camcorder.


Nexus is light but limited on the space. We have a 32 GB micro card, it comes in handy for video and pictures. That was the ultimate deal breaker for us.

We don't use it for games so the GPU is something we don't care about.

[zitothebrave]

Yeah I guess for that it's limited, but I don't care about photography haha.

I want something that i can play games on, browse the web, and lasts a long time. It's basically if you would, what I'd use to go on th eweb while chilling on the couch. Or that I can take with me on road trips, etc. I am a google believer, I have google music for my music and so many other things so for me the integration into android rocks.

[AerchAngel]

Yeah I guess for that it's limited, but I don't care about photography haha.

I want something that i can play games on, browse the web, and lasts a long time. It's basically if you would, what I'd use to go on th eweb while chilling on the couch. Or that I can take with me on road trips, etc. I am a google believer, I have google music for my music and so many other things so for me the integration into android rocks.

The ASUS tablets are nice for the extra features, but if you want gaming, Nexus is your only choice, I agree with that.

But the only game I play and ever will play is WOW and occasional game of cards like pinochle on yahoo.

[zitothebrave]

For me I want something simple. Nexus fits that bill. It also is runs fast and many other things. Obviously it isn't perfect for like everyone. But for me and my wanting a cheap way to get good internet, mail, etc.

[Metaphysicist]

You think that people who need to have the high end graphics card, processors, etc. in their work computers won't want to upgrade when the new ones come out? Would they rather spend 1500 bucks to get a new GPU or 3000 for a whole new computer?

Some shops/studios/firms/whatever (and a number of solo pros) will surely want to do this, and for them there are plenty of better options. But many firms will likely buy a bunch of machines, use them each for a couplafew years (likely upgrading only the basics like RAM and storage, as needed), and then buy brand new machines. It is just not accurate that all these firms will need or want to buy new GPUs every year.

Regardless, given that you can get a Mac Pro with dual d700s that actually costs less than the two of the comparable w9000s alone, your upgrade costs for people who need the absolute top-of-the-line graphics hardware are not accurate.

[Krgrecw]

Other than gamers who wants or use suped up versions of non-macs?
I would think even the small niche that use mac pros would still be bigger than people that use same price comparable non-macs. Every animator and recording artist that I have seen use Pros. I imagine every popular magazine is made on an apple computer now if not a pro.

The recently released Pro already has a one month shipping wait.

[zitothebrave]

That's probably because most animators and recording tech you've seen is a hipster. I have a friend with a degree in record engineering or whatever that waste of a degree is called. He didn't go to a specific art school for it and learned from someone who worked at some label in NY (don't recall which one) that there's no advantage to having a Mac over PC. They use different programs but they both work totally fine. But people think Macs are better for some reason. Many art schools have deals with Apple, and they therefor teach Apple, pretty genius work by Apple if you think about it. If you go to a film school, and they teach you Final Cut, and you'll be familiar with Final Cut, and then you'll stay with it because of familiarity.

[Metaphysicist]

Excellent counterpoint, Zito. The only people who use Macs are hipsters (an enormous, ambiguously large subset of amateurs) and those who have actual professional training.

Apple has been throwing computers at every conceivable institution since the 80s, using basically the reasoning you espouse. This surely has helped their business, but it has hardly amounted to a dominant market share. The reasoning behind creative pros using Macs is a wee bit more complex than "it's what I used in school." These programs aren't just simple word processors, and the variations can be pretty noteworthy and severe.

[zitothebrave]

Some benchmarks out for Mac Pro. Basically the optimist conclusion is most major programs are not updated for multi-GPU and some programs have AMD support issues. If the software guys don't get on board, there will be many issues with the Mac Pro.

[Metaphysicist]

Sure, if there is no software to use the benefits of the hardware, then sure, the hardware is pointless. But that seems fairly unlikely...

The CPU also turned out to be user-replaceable, so that's a big boost in terms of upgradeability.

[zitothebrave]

Unlikely there's certainly the chance, but it will depend on how the Mac Pro sells. My girlfriend who went to film school and knows a lot of people who're already leaving FCP for Adobe pointed out that Mac (and she's a mac user, 100%) needs the Mac Pro to succeed to keep FCP to succeed or it could risk losing it's control over the arts sector. Music has already seen a shift. NOt totally of course but Mac exclusive software is losing and you may see people leaving Mac for PCs to save money if Mac doesn't redo their software or have a major hardware success.

Also it's fair to point out that the CPU is not easily user replaceable. I've read a few tear downs and they talk about it and they say you can do it, it's not hard but you have to be diligent with the wiring as it's tighter than a normal PC. Way tighter.

[Hawk]

I'm debating what I want to do with as far as tablets go. I am fixing my old Xoom and selling it to my mom for a deal. I'm gonna repair as best I can my clunky laptop and hope that if I do I can sell if for a few hundred. Otherwise I should be able to get 200+ from parts alone. Has a 2.3 GHz Sandy Bridge i5, q NVidea GeForce GT540M and 6 gigs of Ram. Those alone are worth probably 200. Add in the dell backlit keyboard, camera, DVD burner, a decent hard drive (maybe 30 bucks for it)

I bought a Kindle HDX 8.9" from Amazon (they were offering a 9-month interest free payment plan) and am absolutely loving the resolution, battery life (over a week in standby and battery has only dropped 10%), and speed. Obviously, Amazon OS sucks more than just balls, but I'm waiting for a legitimate root/ROM option to pop-up and will then go full Android.

I've owned the Sony Xperia Tablet Z, iPad 3/4 and Mini, Surface RT, Galaxy Tab in the past 1.5 years and this is actually the only one I've thought about keeping. I usually can't justify keeping a $400/$500 piece of equipment laying around for weeks unused because I take my laptop with me everywhere and it's better for virtually everything that I do. That being said, the price point for the HDX was just right, and selling my Xperia freed up the cash for me to buy both the HDX and a Kindle Paperwhite.

I'm bending over for Bezos.

[zitothebrave]

I don't want a large tablet. I have my Chromebook which is my go to thing for things that I'd need a larger screen. I want a smaller one for ereading and game playing. Question though being do I want to go 7" or 8" I think the largest I could go is the GPad.

But in the end I'm sure I'll stick with the Nexus. I may decide to break what I want and go larger when the new Nexus 10 comes out. But I doubt it.

[Hawk]

What games do you play on your tablet? I haven't found any that were remotely worthwhile, but haven't looked very hard either. I see Candy Crush Saga at the top of the download charts and eschew looking at the rest of the category.

If you want to stay small you are going to hard pressed to find anything better than the Nexus 7, especially if you are a compatriot in the Google ecosystem. I went a bit bigger because I didn't see much difference between the likes of the Nex7 and my Note 3.

[zitothebrave]

Nothing overly serious. Right now, Simpson's Tapped Out, Sonic 1 and 2 (got them for a buck each) Plants vs. Zombies 2, Battle Run. and Wordhero. Battle run and Simpsons Tapped Out are my go to right now. Tapped out is silly, basically farmville for Simpsons nerds, Battle Run is super addictive. But I basically pick up a few games every few months on tips from others.

Another thing I'll want my Tablet for is since my chromebook isn't Windows, Mac or Linux, I'd like a portable version of beersmith and I think it would work way better on a Tablet than my smart phone.

And I have the G2 right now, so I'm not overly in love with the size difference, but I don't really want anything bigger. Nexus 7 is almost for sure the one I'll go for. I really just want something for ereading primarily as I did use my old tablet for that. Maybe I'll do larger but I doubt it. And if I do it's 100% gonna be the Nexus 10. Other decision is I'm mulling over the idea of ditching the G2 for the Moto X since it's only 400 retail base (I want a wooden back and 32 gigs so it's a bit more) cause if I do that then I'll probably go with the Note 10.1 or the GPad 8.3 because I want an all in one remote. I use my G2 for that now (Only thing I can't turn on I think is my XBox)

[Metaphysicist]

My girlfriend who went to film school a [...] she's a mac user, 100%

I see now that Zito's Mac hate is actually just a passive-aggresive outlet against his girlfriend. It all comes together.

[zitothebrave]

I see now that Zito's Mac hate is actually just a passive-aggresive outlet against his girlfriend. It all comes together.

Haha nice try. I don't hate Macs. I just think they're overpriced. I talked about it in a thread last year when I used my girlfriends Mac that I didn't expressly hate it. I think that windows/linux is better but that's just me. Also never got used to (only used it for about 3 weeks) the close, max and min buttons being on the left. Same issues I had with a linux build i was using (forget which one it was based off)

[Metaphysicist]

What linux build do you normally use, Zito?

If you are trying to woo your Mac-loving paramour to a Linux lifestyle, you could try and get her using Elementary. It's got some OSX-ishness to it.

[zitothebrave]

What linux build do you normally use, Zito?

If you are trying to woo your Mac-loving paramour to a Linux lifestyle, you could try and get her using Elementary. It's got some OSX-ishness to it.

I was using, Ubuntu first, I think everyone starts out on Ubuntu, but I moved onto Mint after that, I want to say I was using the Cinnamon environment but I don't recall exactly.

Honestly she's sticking with Mac, she just bought an iMac 2 years ago so she'll have her desktop for a few more years. She may get a Chromebook, or a Macbook Air. She's a mac believer, I'm not trying to convert her. She's also not active in the film industry, she just has all her friends in it.