Apple Some Mac Comparisons to Windows equivalents

Putting RAM in a modern iMac is just as easy if not easier than a standard desktop prebuilt. Yes I'm avoiding the fact that it's stupid expensive to by RAM from Apple. Any normal consumer getting an iMac and asking "gee, could I get some more RAM" would be recommended the exact same thing by their reseller (I know from experience). Then the reseller would even give you a link to an instructional video to do it yourself at no charge.

The x51 is equipped with a GTX 555m, which is way behind the 6970m in the iMac. It can't be upgraded from there, so it doesn't make the grade.

iMacs in darkrooms: Bad idea, the screens are much brighter than matte monitors. All the points here about "crap" feelings can be attributed to personal opinions. Mac Pro justification (or shooting down of) will be in the Mac Pro writeup. The Z1 will be added to the iMac Writeup when it gets released. Reason for this thread? Because I felt like it and because I can.

Your images are broken.

 

how unfortunate. i know the reason why too. il fix them in a bit gtg now

 

Yeh the SR2 works out more than the mac however it's dance all over it for professional applications like rendering. Then you should be comparing 2011. the above comparison isn't really relevant since your using different form factor, different cpu's and lian li one of the few companies known for astonishing prices. Atleast use the TJ11 it's nicer

 

And if the reseller is an Apple Store or store.apple.com? Which it most likely would be, most Apple products are sold through those two outlets.

Not a GTX 555m, a GTX 555 - There is a difference

 

My bad, I didn't know the GTX 555 actually existed, I'd only ever heard of the M version. I'll add the x51 to the writeup tomorrow, probably.

From the Apple Store, then I can't help ya. In that case getting an equivalent iMac to the Dell or HP desktops would add $200 for the dell (for 8gb RAM) and even more for the HP since it comes with a 2tb hard drive.

EDIT: Only benchmark I could find for the GTX 555 was Passmark, and it places it many notches below the 6970m (by nearly 700 points). I know it's not real world, but synthetic benchmarks (not baloney like WEI) tend to give you an idea of where a card is in the general scheme of power.

http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/video_lookup.php?gpu=GeForce+GTX+555

 

Matte vs glossy is not an opinion, it is a fact. Reflection on a display equals inacurate picture, because you don't see the picture, but yourself and stuff behind you. And inacurate picture means bad picture.

Yeah, this is a personal opinion ... of the sun :


The fact that you think glossy screen shows better colors doesn't mean they are more accurate colors.

 

Are you referring to my post? i am saying the windows build was better than mac not the other way round

 

fixed the mac pro comparison, see previous page for a 5k saving and an arguably better computer

 

Well you put in 64gb of APPLE ECC RAM and a 512GB APPLE SSD! Of course it's going to drive the cost through the roof and into the cockpit of the nearby airplane! Try it with getting those upgrades seperate. The Mac is still going to loose, but not by twice as much. Still a huge amount, though.

 

why should it drive the cost up though. a 512gb ssd is a 512gb ssd.

64gb ram is 64gb ram.

























isnt it..?

apple take advantage of people who dont know what they are doing. i have no other explanation for it. every manufacturer, if they gave the option for said ssd and said ram, would charge more for it. i do not debate that. but apple considerably more. and it puzzles and frustrates me

 

You can't remove the Apple SSD. Only Apple SSD has official TRIM support in OS X.

 

interesting i didnt know that. well, lol @ apple being so restrictive anyway.

muhahaha you must spend epic money because we are the only ones who will supply you with an ssd with trim capabilities muhaahaha (said in evil voice with much reverb)

 

Geee, taking advantage of people who don't know what they're doing?! How unlike a large company!!! (You have read and accepted to the terms and conditions, right?)

Anyways, if you're buying a Mac Pro, chances are you either know what you are doing or an idiot buying the shiniest toys. I'm not denying that it's a complete dick move to charge such a massively large amount upgrades, however.

 

Oh dear....

A screen is as bright as you need it to be. All the screens in the darkroom are calibrated to 120CD/m2. Matte screens are no less bright you know, and a matte screen calibrated correctly to 120CD/m2 for the same conditions will be... guess what... the same brightness.

They're crap because they're gamut is not very impressive, and they are GLOSSY!... always a crap idea that. The LED backlighting sucks too. They're fatiguing to work at for long periods. This is not personal opinion! This is fact.

Show me a proper professional high end monitor with a glossy screen.. go on... just one. No.. you can't.. because there are none. Eizo, NEC, LaCie.. you name it.. look at their range of high end panels. No gloss here. Why do you think that is if glossy screens produce better colour? The fact is, whether it is gloss or matte has no bearing whatsoever on colour... nothing.. nada.. zip. Glossy screens have ever so much more perceived sharpness as a result of no anti-glare coatings, but the price you pay is just soooo not worth it, as you'll only ever notice if you sit with your face pressed up against it.

Again... it's not my opinion that high end pro grade panels are never glossy... that's a fact too.

 

Any pro grade CRT!

Jokes aside, here's my $.02 on this subject.

The only people I know who own Mac desktops only do because their wives/mothers/etc won't let them have an 'ugly' PC tower sitting in the house.

I can't think of a practical reason to buy any desktop Mac over a PC aside from possibly the 27" iMac.

...And even that one will have some competition soon.

The Mini is overpriced. It doesn't even have an optical drive built in anymore, making it useless for me as an HTPC. The small iMac has many superior alternatives and is overpriced, the Pro is overpriced and outdated.

Plus, I like to play video games, so Macs aren't for me.

 

Ok, so the most basic 12 core MacPro, works out at £4309.01, lets take "my" system, and deduct £835 to downgrade the 2.93GHz chips to 2.66Ghz so that that one thing is matching. That makes "my" system, about £150 cheaper, gives it 56GB more memory, 4TB more storage, and a raid card, which nets me about, what, £2000 in extras over the Mac?

"Unfortunately, it comes with Quadro graphics" what's wrong with a Quadro in it? My boss's shiny new 27" Mac is no faster in our work environment than my (is it now 4 year old) home made which has a... FX4600 - that's a G80 chip, 3/4 generations old! The only unfortunate thing about the Quadro in the Z1 is that it's a mobile chip rather than a full blown card.

I use my PC as a CAAD design tool, so Mac's aren't for me.

 

I never said it was for professional use. I have also never gotten eye fatigue using a glossy display, and I use them every day for an embarassing number of hours at a stretch. I'm not saying the produce 'better' colors, I'm saying they produce 'prettier' colors. My glossy 1440x900 MacBook Pro display looks better to me than most of the laptops anyone at school has(mostly about the same age and resolution). I think the glossy display is more pleasing and colorful to look at, and I don't do any work on it that needs accurate color reproduction.

Don't quadros perform poorly in general use 3D? I'm not saying they're not incredibly useful(we still have some old Intellistations laying around with quadro Fx1500's or summat like that laying around), but I was always under the impression that they were gimped for games and the like?

As far as CAD work, you'd need a proper color representation, so a glossy screen isn't for you, as is the general lack of professional software for the Mac as Apple succeeds in driving professional users away (Final Cut Pro X )

 

You accused us of being opinionated before, and not presenting facts, then you say that you think glossy screens are prettier, and you don't care whether they're accurate. OK... fine.. but that sums up most Mac users for me... they buy it because it's pretty. Even that is a matter of opinion however is it not? Personally, I'd hate to own something that's exactly the same as everyone else's. How boring.

Gloss screens suck however. Start a poll if you don't believe me. Unless you're in a dark environment, or have no light sources behind you, they will reflect whatever is in front of it, and watching a dark movie, or editing a dark image is just so fatiguing. Your eyes are constantly adjusting focus between the screen and the object reflected in it. THis causes eye strain. Like I said earlier.. there is a reason all high end pro screens are matte with decent anti-glare coatings. It's not a fashion, it's a necessity.

I will say this again.. how glossy the screen is will have NO effect on colour fidelity. Seriously.. it just doesn't. Contrast? A small amount, yes. Sharpness, again, a small amount, yes, and I do mean a small amount. At working distances it's imperceptible; but colour is just not effected by whether the screen has an anti-glare coating.

Arrrgh! Glossy screens suck because they're like sitting in front of a damned mirror! It's nothing to do with colour reproduction. Where are you getting this from?

 

I always hear that everyone says "glossy screens make more colors worser! Hnng!" Maybe I should listen better. I almost never use monitors with light behind me. My room uses ambient lighting by having the curtain somewhat ahead of the window, the living room in my house is pretty much the same, the classroom at my school all have overhead florescents, but the angle is low enough that it never reflects into face, outside I definitely notice it, it's certainly at a disadvantage there. My mom's office is a big sunroom where her old matte iMac got completely washed out in the afternoon due to the sun, but we reoriented the desk around so the sun is behind the screen, and neither the old matte one or the new glossy one are affected. The only time I ever notice it is when for whatever reason there's a lamp right behind me, and even then the boosted brightness (that might cause eye fatigue but I honestly don't notice it,) cuts through most of it.

But I honestly thought that everyone was telling me that glossy screens cause flawed color reproduction back on Facepunch a while ago. So what you're saying is that glossy screens are bad simply because they reflect things and they can cause eye strain from viewing 2 images at once? That makes much more sense! So yeah if you ever have lights behind you, then glossy is a no-no. If you have some sort of ambient light, or are somewhere where the reflection isn't noticeable, then is there any other reason not to? I'm not saying that a huge amount of situations have bright lights behind you, they do, but if you aren't in one, then why not get a glossy screen?


Also this is just petty of me, but "start a poll if you don't believe me," really? Doing that would tell you that Justin Bieber is better than Aerosmith.

 

What does iMac have with professional mac graphics work ?