You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.
#21. Posted:
KiLlEr_McOwNeR
  • TTG Addict
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 31, 200914Year Member
Posts: 2,059
Reputation Power: 142
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 31, 200914Year Member
Posts: 2,059
Reputation Power: 142
9/10 bro looks good i think u need to clean
#22. Posted:
r00t
  • Administrator
Status: Offline
Joined: May 18, 201112Year Member
Posts: 16,361
Reputation Power: 24344
Status: Offline
Joined: May 18, 201112Year Member
Posts: 16,361
Reputation Power: 24344
EasyTizer wrote
r00t_b33r wrote Wow, isn't it just amazing how you can pay four times the price and still get a setup that's WORSE than what you could have gotten? Gets me every time.

Apple/10


I'd much rather have a Mac over a PC, I've never been interested in PC gaming, infatc the only games. I have on my mac is angry birds and age of empires.

+ I find them a lot better for day-to-day use, everything is simpler and there's non of this not responding crap all the time. If I was into pc gaming I wouldn't have a mac, but I like editing, photography and graphics. A mac was the obvious choice for me. After my 7 years using a Windows PC I decided to upgrade to a mac, ive never looked back. You get what you pay for.

I grew up on Macs exclusively. My first computer was a G4 that was given to me when my parents upgraded to a new iMac, which was followed a few years later by a Macbook Pro which I used until I bought my Thinkpad T500 in October.

I've never really been interested in PC gaming myself and never played games on my Mac or PC aside from a little experimentation. After using Apple computers for over a decade and being essentially held responsible for dozens at school and a few at home, I've been able to make a lot of conclusions. My $200 T500 is faster and more stable that my Macbook was. The only issues I have with it are from my own tweaking, which I was unable to even do on OSX. Even those I'm able to easily correct and learn more about the OS. The only application crashes I get are from a media hard drive with a few bad sectors. It causes any music player to get an I/O error and crash when certain songs are played and it's got nothing to do with Windows.

I find Windows far easier to use out of the box. Even with my extensive OSX experience, I'm much more efficient on a PC due to features like Window snapping and a more intuitive and customizable taskbar. The Thinkpad trackpoint is superior to any pointing device I've ever used on a laptop as well, regardless of how good the Mac trackpad is. I find all trackpads clunky and slow now and don't touch the one on my T500.

People say Macs are good investments in that they keep their value, but my laptop is not showing age like the Macbooks around it. I could sell it for ~$400 today and it's from 2008. The reason I'm using Thinkpads as a comparison is because they're the cream of the crop of PCs. You can't compare Macs to low-end Toshiba or Acer trash.

I'll stop talking now. Here's my Apple computer copypasta so far:


In this pasta, I will address the entire line. Macbooks, iMacs, the Mac Mini, and the Mac Pro.

Macbooks: As with all Macs, you'll get better performance per dollar out of another computer. But there's much more to a computer than just pure performance and specs mean much less for laptops than they do with desktops. Macbooks are remarkably good laptops, definitely some of the best. I'll give them this. I said they were bad laptops, I'd be full of crap. The problem with them is that they're just not as good as other offerings, and I'll explain why is as much detail as I can.

1. Glossy displays. There is no point in a glossy panel besides making the colors falsely appear more vivid. A glossy finish makes the screen much more prone to fingerprints and glare is a huge issue. In short, matte panels are far superior to glossy panels.

2. Build quality. They're built well in that they are well-assembled, but durability is awful. Aluminum dents extremely easily and the unibody design does not allow for easy replacement of parts of the enclosure. Warping frequently causes problems with the hinge, which frequently results in a broken display cable and/or a loose screen. I deal with a lot of Macbooks daily, and this is a disturbingly common problem. Much like the iPhone, the design does not allow for resistance to impact damage. Impacts will cause warping and cracked LCDs very easily.

3. Heat management. Using any Macbook for CPU-intensive tasks reveals this problem. The cooling design is not effective enough and temperatures skyrocket almost immediately, causing the fan(s) to ramp up to max speed. This becomes extremely loud, but it's still not enough. Temperatures stay dangerously high under load and because aluminum is a good conductor of heat, it goes right to whatever surface it is on, like your thigh. In theory, this should help with heat dissipation, but Macbooks still run too hot and that heat is transferred to places you notice it, like the keyboard, bottom, and palm rests. This is one of many examples of Apple's form-over-function design principles causing problems that could have been easily avoided.

4. The specs are not up to par with other similarly-priced laptops. Apple computers perform far worse than comparable PCs, and this is not limited to the Macbook line. Still, laptops in particular are much more than pure specs. Macbooks have some things that don't show up on a specs sheet, like solid trackpads, unibody construction, and a pretty design. A cheap Toshiba laptop with the same specs can't compare to the Macbook due to factors like build quality, design, size, weight, looks, and trackpad quality. Macbooks focus on the intangibles of the user experience, while many PC manufacturers strive for the best specs on paper. Still, that does not mean Macbooks are the only computers with these traits. Lenovo Thinkpads, for example, place less of an emphasis on raw horsepower in favor of quality, but in a completely different approach from Apple's. Thinkpads focus on user experience and prioritize things that make a laptop a good laptop, like ease of use, battery life, screen finish, keyboard quality, input, reliability, and durability. Given the specs compared to other computers, yes, you do pay a premium for both brands. What you get is a better user-experience, which is what laptops should be about. It explains the surge of Ultrabooks into the market with their reduced processing power but great storage speed, portability, battery life, weight, and size.


iMacs: This is where specs begin to make all the difference. You're no longer taking factors like portability, battery life, and durability (as much) into consideration as you're not lugging the thing with you or running it off a battery.

1. Performance. IMacs are more like big laptops than desktops. The AMD Radeon 6970 advertised in some higher-end iMacs is slower than the desktop AMD 6850, which is misleading to the average consumer and demonstrative of the inferiority of the iMac's performance. The CPUs used are also "mobile" revisions, which are equaled by desktop CPUs of less than half the price. An Intel 2600K will wipe the floor with the highest-end CPU available in an iMac in a system that can be a fraction of the price. User-service is almost impossible and advised against, even things that should be simple like removing and replacing the hard drive and RAM (204-Pin laptop RAM).

2. The competition. As previously mentioned, if one were to build a PC to equal any iMac in performance, the price would be a fraction of that of the iMac. Even one of the biggest and most valid selling points of the iMac, the display, can be easily acquired for around $300. The 27 inch iMac uses the same LG panel found in the Dell Ultrasharp U2711 ($800), but this S-IPS 2650x1440 panel is also available in the Yamakasi Catleap monitor ($310). For this price, the competition overwhelms the iMac on every front. One might argue for the quality of the aluminum casing and compact form factor, but high-quality aluminum cases are available in various sizes from a number of PC case manufacturers. The prospect of a custom-built PC also brings tons of extra features to the table, like far superior cooling, numerous drive bays and connections, superior I/O selection, infinitely more possible graphics configurations, much higher RAM capacity, expansion cards, user-serviceability, long individual part warranties, re-useability of components, overclocking, faster CPU options, and a specs sheet that can be molded to fit the needs of any user.

3.
#23. Posted:
r00t
  • Administrator
Status: Offline
Joined: May 18, 201112Year Member
Posts: 16,361
Reputation Power: 24344
Status: Offline
Joined: May 18, 201112Year Member
Posts: 16,361
Reputation Power: 24344
Intel_2500k wrote
XanderChaos wrote
Intel_2500k wrote
XanderChaos wrote
Intel_2500k wrote
EasyTizer wrote
Intel_2500k wrote Why did you get a Mac in the first place?


Im on a graphic course at college.


That doesn't matter, a PC with better specs can do editing faster and more efficiently than any mac.

In case you haven't noticed, many people don't care about that. Using Apple products is an experience, not specs on a piece of paper. I don't like Apple products (for several reasons), but that doesn't mean that others shouldn't. Stop being ****, guys. If the guy wanted to play the latest games on uber-high settings, he wouldn't (or shouldn't) have picked up a Mac. If he wanted a simple, elegant editing/browsing experience on good hardware, he picked the right machine.


I'm not being a ****, I'm stating facts. PC's are better than Macs for editing.

That's your opinion, not a fact. One is not better than the other. You can get better hardware for a lower price with Windows. That isn't the same as being better. It's the same exact software suites on both OSs (with OS X having a few more for video/audio editing). They're literally the exact same thing. The only difference is in the OSs, which means the user experience. People will pay for a higher quality experience, and that doesn't have to come from better hardware. OS X is able to deliver that at the cost of the Apple Tax.


Better hardware = Better performance in whatever you're doing most of the time. That mobile 6970 in the iMac will be outperformed by a superior 680 or 7970. You don't even know what CPU you're getting. Only the operating frequency and the core (i3, i5, i7). Also, that is not my opinion, that is fact.

The only difference is in the OSs, which means the user experience. People will pay for a higher quality experience, and that doesn't have to come from better hardware. OS X is able to deliver that at the cost of the Apple Tax.


The Apple tax isn't worth it, you're getting nothing for the insane price. People are paying a lot of money, they think they are getting a better quality experience, but in reality. They are not, you're paying money for the brand name and the apple logo.


The advertised 6970 in the iMac is inferior to the desktop 6850. No comparison to the 680 or 790 at all.
#24. Posted:
Overclocker
  • Powerhouse
Status: Offline
Joined: May 22, 201211Year Member
Posts: 475
Reputation Power: 35
Status: Offline
Joined: May 22, 201211Year Member
Posts: 475
Reputation Power: 35
XanderChaos wrote
Intel_2500k wrote
XanderChaos wrote
Intel_2500k wrote
EasyTizer wrote
Intel_2500k wrote Why did you get a Mac in the first place?


Im on a graphic course at college.


That doesn't matter, a PC with better specs can do editing faster and more efficiently than any mac.

In case you haven't noticed, many people don't care about that. Using Apple products is an experience, not specs on a piece of paper. I don't like Apple products (for several reasons), but that doesn't mean that others shouldn't. Stop being ****, guys. If the guy wanted to play the latest games on uber-high settings, he wouldn't (or shouldn't) have picked up a Mac. If he wanted a simple, elegant editing/browsing experience on good hardware, he picked the right machine.


I'm not being a ****, I'm stating facts. PC's are better than Macs for editing.

That's your opinion, not a fact. One is not better than the other. You can get better hardware for a lower price with Windows. That isn't the same as being better. It's the same exact software suites on both OSs (with OS X having a few more for video/audio editing). They're literally the exact same thing. The only difference is in the OSs, which means the user experience. People will pay for a higher quality experience, and that doesn't have to come from better hardware. OS X is able to deliver that at the cost of the Apple Tax.



You can always Dual-boot and have the best of both worlds.

inb4: If you build it yourself it's way better.

Mac price: Ok processor, Ok GPU, Ok RAM = 1.5k

Custom Built: i7 processor with hyper threading(useful with rendering), HD 6770 (you dont need more for editing, and 8gb 1600mhz ram (you wont use more) =

Note that the GPU with the mac is mobile version, the standard version is much better. (6770 and 6770M)

iMac: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

iMac specs: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Custom built:

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

This custom built computer has better RAM (8gb ram 1600mhz), Better Motherboard (With OC Potential too) Better CPU (i7 unlocked processor), Better Power supply (More wattage, 80+ Bronze certified) Better case (much more quality), Better Graphics card (Much better than the Mobile version).

iMac Price: $1597.99
Custom Built Price Shipped: $780

Price difference: $818

ON TOPIC:

For what you payed:

2.5/10


Last edited by Overclocker ; edited 1 time in total
#25. Posted:
Intel_2500k
  • Ladder Climber
Status: Offline
Joined: Mar 24, 201212Year Member
Posts: 388
Reputation Power: 17
Status: Offline
Joined: Mar 24, 201212Year Member
Posts: 388
Reputation Power: 17
r00t_b33r wrote
Intel_2500k wrote
XanderChaos wrote
Intel_2500k wrote
XanderChaos wrote
Intel_2500k wrote
EasyTizer wrote
Intel_2500k wrote Why did you get a Mac in the first place?


Im on a graphic course at college.


That doesn't matter, a PC with better specs can do editing faster and more efficiently than any mac.

In case you haven't noticed, many people don't care about that. Using Apple products is an experience, not specs on a piece of paper. I don't like Apple products (for several reasons), but that doesn't mean that others shouldn't. Stop being ****, guys. If the guy wanted to play the latest games on uber-high settings, he wouldn't (or shouldn't) have picked up a Mac. If he wanted a simple, elegant editing/browsing experience on good hardware, he picked the right machine.


I'm not being a ****, I'm stating facts. PC's are better than Macs for editing.

That's your opinion, not a fact. One is not better than the other. You can get better hardware for a lower price with Windows. That isn't the same as being better. It's the same exact software suites on both OSs (with OS X having a few more for video/audio editing). They're literally the exact same thing. The only difference is in the OSs, which means the user experience. People will pay for a higher quality experience, and that doesn't have to come from better hardware. OS X is able to deliver that at the cost of the Apple Tax.


Better hardware = Better performance in whatever you're doing most of the time. That mobile 6970 in the iMac will be outperformed by a superior 680 or 7970. You don't even know what CPU you're getting. Only the operating frequency and the core (i3, i5, i7). Also, that is not my opinion, that is fact.

The only difference is in the OSs, which means the user experience. People will pay for a higher quality experience, and that doesn't have to come from better hardware. OS X is able to deliver that at the cost of the Apple Tax.


The Apple tax isn't worth it, you're getting nothing for the insane price. People are paying a lot of money, they think they are getting a better quality experience, but in reality. They are not, you're paying money for the brand name and the apple logo.


The advertised 6970 in the iMac is inferior to the desktop 6850. No comparison to the 680 or 790 at all.


I was sort of trying to get my post done quick becuase I had to go brush my teeth. :/ 680 and 7970 was the first thing that popped in my head so I was like "Why the **** not?"
#26. Posted:
r00t
  • Administrator
Status: Offline
Joined: May 18, 201112Year Member
Posts: 16,361
Reputation Power: 24344
Status: Offline
Joined: May 18, 201112Year Member
Posts: 16,361
Reputation Power: 24344
Overclocker wrote
XanderChaos wrote
Intel_2500k wrote
XanderChaos wrote
Intel_2500k wrote
EasyTizer wrote
Intel_2500k wrote Why did you get a Mac in the first place?


Im on a graphic course at college.


That doesn't matter, a PC with better specs can do editing faster and more efficiently than any mac.

In case you haven't noticed, many people don't care about that. Using Apple products is an experience, not specs on a piece of paper. I don't like Apple products (for several reasons), but that doesn't mean that others shouldn't. Stop being ****, guys. If the guy wanted to play the latest games on uber-high settings, he wouldn't (or shouldn't) have picked up a Mac. If he wanted a simple, elegant editing/browsing experience on good hardware, he picked the right machine.


I'm not being a ****, I'm stating facts. PC's are better than Macs for editing.

That's your opinion, not a fact. One is not better than the other. You can get better hardware for a lower price with Windows. That isn't the same as being better. It's the same exact software suites on both OSs (with OS X having a few more for video/audio editing). They're literally the exact same thing. The only difference is in the OSs, which means the user experience. People will pay for a higher quality experience, and that doesn't have to come from better hardware. OS X is able to deliver that at the cost of the Apple Tax.



You can always Dual-boot and have the best of both worlds.

inb4: If you build it yourself it's way better.

Mac price: Ok processor, Ok GPU, Ok RAM = 1.5k

Custom Built: i7 processor with hyper threading(useful with rendering), HD 6770 (you dont need more for editing, and 8gb 1600mhz ram (you wont use more) =

Note that the GPU with the mac is mobile version, the standard version is much better. (6770 and 6770M)

iMac: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

iMac specs: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Custom built:

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

This custom built computer has better RAM (8gb ram 1600mhz), Better Motherboard (With OC Potential too) Better CPU (i7 unlocked processor), Better Power supply (More wattage, 80+ Bronze certified) Better case (much more quality), Better Graphics card (Much better than the Mobile version).

iMac Price: $1597.99
Custom Built Price Shipped: $780

Price difference: $818

This will destroy the highest-end iMac. I'm talking $2,300, you were being too nice, Overclocker. The 2600K outpaces the highest processor option. If you want to make things funny, start adding storage and RAM.

Also make sure you include a high-end IPS monitor like the Catleap as well as peripherals if you're going to compare to an all-in-one.
#27. Posted:
XanderChaos
  • Graphics King
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 22, 200914Year Member
Posts: 226
Reputation Power: 1023
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 22, 200914Year Member
Posts: 226
Reputation Power: 1023
r00t_b33r has everything pretty much covered. I wouldn't say it's all accurate (we're all subject to opinion), but I want to add a few things:

1. Drivers, drivers, drivers. Apple's drivers are custom made for each machine and set of hardware. They push out more and use less power. That is a fact. You can get the same hardware in an Mac laptop and a Windows laptop. The Mac one will likely last longer and crunch numbers slightly faster. NVIDIA makes one set of drivers for every Windows-based desktop GPU. Apple makes one set of drivers for one GPU. You really think the specialized one doesn't operate more effectively? That said, this isn't always the case. Apple didn't make the hardware most of the time, so they aren't always masters at it. However, specialized drivers are much more likely to squeeze out performance.

2. Consumers are stupid and lazy, and that includes most designers. They want everything to work and for it to come out of one box. That's what Apple does. They give you a machine and it's ready to go. It just works. Usually. And for those who are more educated on technology, they still get the ease-of-use. Like I've said over and over, people will pay for that. I don't care if you won't. Lots of people won't. But lots of people will.

EDIT:
And stop comparing one piece of hardware to a completely different one. Mobile and desktop GPUs under the same/similar names are not the same. You're comparing apples to oranges.
#28. Posted:
r00t
  • Administrator
Status: Offline
Joined: May 18, 201112Year Member
Posts: 16,361
Reputation Power: 24344
Status: Offline
Joined: May 18, 201112Year Member
Posts: 16,361
Reputation Power: 24344
XanderChaos wrote r00t_b33r has everything pretty much covered. I wouldn't say it's all accurate (we're all subject to opinion), but I want to add a few things:

1. Drivers, drivers, drivers. Apple's drivers are custom made for each machine and set of hardware. They push out more and use less power. That is a fact. You can get the same hardware in an Mac laptop and a Windows laptop. The Mac one will likely last longer and crunch numbers slightly faster. NVIDIA makes one set of drivers for every Windows-based desktop GPU. Apple makes one set of drivers for one GPU. You really think the specialized one doesn't operate more effectively? That said, this isn't always the case. Apple didn't make the hardware most of the time, so they aren't always masters at it. However, specialized drivers are much more likely to squeeze out performance.

2. Consumers are stupid and lazy, and that includes most designers. They want everything to work and for it to come out of one box. That's what Apple does. They give you a machine and it's ready to go. It just works. Usually. And for those who are more educated on technology, they still get the ease-of-use. Like I've said over and over, people will pay for that. I don't care if you won't. Lots of people won't. But lots of people will.

EDIT:
And stop comparing one piece of hardware to a completely different one. Mobile and desktop GPUs under the same/similar names are not the same. You're comparing apples to oranges.

All very valid points I plan to cover as I finish this pasta up. The mobile hardware part is more of a knock on all-in-ones in general, I find them completely ridiculous.

One thing that piqued my interest with the new Vizio laptops is the fact that they have Microsoft engineers on their payroll making the same kind of hardware and software marriage that Apple does. They're also completely bloat-free, can't wait to see if or how the industry responds to this.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
#29. Posted:
Intel_2500k
  • Ladder Climber
Status: Offline
Joined: Mar 24, 201212Year Member
Posts: 388
Reputation Power: 17
Status: Offline
Joined: Mar 24, 201212Year Member
Posts: 388
Reputation Power: 17
XanderChaos wrote
EDIT:
And stop comparing one piece of hardware to a completely different one. Mobile and desktop GPUs under the same/similar names are not the same. You're comparing apples to oranges.


We're comparing them becuase that's the only choice apple give you, a mobile GPU (6870M). Meanwhile, if you build your own PC you can get a 6970 or even a 6850, which is superior.
#30. Posted:
XanderChaos
  • Resident Elite
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 22, 200914Year Member
Posts: 226
Reputation Power: 1023
Status: Offline
Joined: Dec 22, 200914Year Member
Posts: 226
Reputation Power: 1023
XanderChaos wrote -snip-

All very valid points I plan to cover as I finish this pasta up. The mobile hardware part is more of a knock on all-in-ones in general, I find them completely ridiculous.

One thing that piqued my interest with the new Vizio laptops is the fact that they have Microsoft engineers on their payroll making the same kind of hardware and software marriage that Apple does. They're also completely bloat-free, can't wait to see if or how the industry responds to this.

-snip-

The Vizios are damn sexy, but without better GPUs they might as well just stick with the HD 4000 on the CPU. I'd rather wait for a Surface and have a laptop with meaty hardware. But in general, yeah, MS getting more control over each machine's configuration is a nice future.


Intel_2500k wrote
XanderChaos wrote
EDIT:
And stop comparing one piece of hardware to a completely different one. Mobile and desktop GPUs under the same/similar names are not the same. You're comparing apples to oranges.


We're comparing them becuase that's the only choice apple give you, a mobile GPU (6870M). Meanwhile, if you build your own PC you can get a 6970 or even a 6850, which is superior.

That doesn't mean you can go around comparing Macs with different hardware. There are tradeoffs for both. Look at consoles vs PCs. Consoles have abysmal hardware, but they're very specialized and easy for consumers to use. Sure, you can fill your rig with fantastic hardware, but you end up only receiving okay support and optimization for your set-up. Meanwhile the 360/PS3 get every ounce of hardware pushed to their limits. Neither option is better, just different.

EDIT:
Sorry r00t_b33r, I dun goofed your post for a minute there. (Stupid Edit and Quote are right next to each other.)


Last edited by XanderChaos ; edited 1 time in total
Jump to:
You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.