PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

Right, After browsing round the new Apple shop that's opened I quite fancy the look of the slim beautuful Imac's.
I've played around on a Mac before and like the interface and would like to get to know it more.

Does anyone here own an Imac and use it regularly. What do you think ?
Any advantages or dissadvantages to describe ?
If you were a PC user would you go over to Mac? What was it like ?

The only things I can currently see is that PC's tend to have more software freely available to use when compared to Mac. But I see now that you can run Windows on an Imac as well as OSX so that may solve that issue.

The thing which currently bugs me is the price. The 4GB RAM, 3.6Ghz Core Duo, 1TB HD, and 512mb Graphics comes in at £1800.
For a lot less than that price you can get a much better PC that will have a quad core processor . Why are they so expensive !!!

I really like these Mac's but the price really is the thing stopping me at the moment.

Do Mac owners tend to get a good lifespan out of their machines seeing as they arent upgradable except for the RAM?


The debate starts here...... Have your say and let me know what you think.

Re: PC Vs Imac (Which to go for?)
 

okay the price is steep but then the OS is more stable then a windows 1, also you can run a mac alot longer without noticing any slowdowns in functionality then with Windows.

also with the Imac you get the screen already and still to be honest its quite easy to change things on it you just have to look on google for hints and tips (i done a bit of upgrading on me mac mini)

Another thing with MAC OS is that it has bootcamp so if you want you can always run windows next to it which you cant do on a windows machine (okay before Zing says anything you can do it but its not legit)

Re: PC Vs Imac (Which to go for?)
 

I'd be extremely hesitant to spend £1800 on a desktop machine that is integrated into a monitor. I'd normally expect the monitor to last longer than the rest of the machine. Are you prepared to bin that 24" monitor you're buying when you want to upgrade the rest of the machine?

Re: PC Vs Imac (Which to go for?)
 

yeah thats the only issue with the Imac.... but why not go a mac pro also it depands on what you want to use the pc or mac for, if for graphics or anything in media related then deffo the mac programming as well as it has unix base around it.

Re: PC Vs Imac (Which to go for?)
 

Benefits of a Windows PC:

• Windows 7 is coming, much better than previous Windows Versions
• More software, more free software, more open source software.
• Slightly better supported on the Web due to some sites deploying windows only solutions for DRM. This is less common now.
• Plays more games!
• You have more control over the machine, You can install Linux, upgrade non-trivial hardware (processor, graphic card)
• Cheaper

Benefits of a Mac:

• Nicer day to day experence in using it. Generally has a superior interface and usablity. Difference is becoming smaller with Win7 but still exists
• Robustness and Reliability. This one causes friction but it is true that the Mac is more secure and has almost no viruses.
• Mac OS tends to be more innovative. There tend to be more OSX versions and each one tends to bring a least one really cool feature than you may well be dying to use
• Software Quality is slightly higher among the smaller amounts of applications. I believe is this simply because of a harder entry for developers which weeds out the poor programmers that make god awful VB 6 applications
• Better Design by Apple, and Third Parties. Overall I would say the design of Applications is much much better on the Mac. I think this is because the OS is better designed and developers tend to want/have to try and match this

Really there is little difference between the two. I am a Mac user, Have been for 5 years, and love my mac. But Windows isn't awful, I am a Windows Programmer and like to boot into it for Visual Studio. I do find that anything not game or programming related is better in OSX though. It's the usability and naturalness of it, It feels nice to use one, interacting with it is something of pleasure rather than something that you do purely to get and end result.

Hard to explain but it feels much nicer using a Mac.

You may have some issues at first in switching but not too much. The Main question for you is if it's worth the extra cost?

By the way Apple updated the iMacs and Mac Minis on Tuesday, If your worried you could get a Mac Mini and use an existing monitor? The cost is not as bad if you worried about the risk of investing in a unknown purchase?

Re: PC Vs Imac (Which to go for?)
 

off topic... with those new mini's out am very tempted to "chuck" the current mini down the stairs.

Re: PC Vs Imac (Which to go for?)
 

Quad core. What use is that? There are no applications to speak of that can utilise that. I was looking for a new mac for work (we budgeted for a Mac pro), and I ended up buying a Macbook pro, as I thought it provided best value for money (and it's portable).

Re: PC Vs Imac (Which to go for?)
 

Another couple of advantages of Mac Pro:

Multiple firewire ports (400 and 800)

PCIe slots (you never know when these might come in handy)

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

I see the advantages in the Mac Pro as of course you can add a lot more to it.
Though ofcourse you would also have to buy a monitor as it doesnt have one with it.

I really like the style of the Imac. I think that as a whole they would probably last a while.
I'm not a gamer but am more into using it for Internet, Graphics, Video, and music production.

I used to use a Mac mini a while ago when I was lent one from work. They are definately powerful for their size!

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

To be honest if those are the things you would do then a Mac is ideal. They already have technology to offload work to the idle GPU units, something Windows is still working on. Although I think it's in Windows 7.

Why not a Mac Mini and a Monitor?

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

If you're going to do music production then get ready to have things hanging off that single Firewire 800 port ;) If you're using outboard gear then I'd recommend a decent FW audio interface. Working with multitrack audio you'll also need an external HDD (7200RPM). The Mac Pro is handy because you have the option of using PCIe audio interfaces and DSP cards like the UAD1 plus support for multiple internal HDDs.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

I had another look at the Imac and from what I gather you cannot use the Imac as the monitor for another computer. This really means that you are buying a 24" screen that will be useless when the rest of the hardware is outdated. You should really view it as a 24" laptop. Which is ok if you want that, but to me it sounds incredibly wasteful. The Mac pro is overkill as I posted before. The Mac mini isn't very high specced.

I really think Apple should develop a headless model with specs somewhere between the Mac Pro and the Mac Mini. They probably think there is more money to be made by flogging people expensive 20-24" screens that need replacing every couple of years though :rolleyes:

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

This is one thing that gotme thinking. I currently use a PCI sound card in my PC. I realise I would need to get either a firewire or USB soundcard. It all adds to the price.
Software wise, Reason and Ableton will be fine. It's just some VST's that won't work on Mac from what I've read.

I don't tend to use external equipment at the moment apart from my midi keyboard which takes USB so not much of a problem.

Although it is true that the Imac would become redundant and out of date, I tend to keep my computers quite long. I had a 486 for about ten years and my Pentium4 3.2ghz has been going strong for the past 5 years.

I read about someone using his Mac to remote into his PC using a remote desktop. That was his way of controlling both PC and Mac at once.

Apple should really let people use the Imac as an external monitor. It would be very helpful indeed.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

Yeah if you want to run at decent resolution/depth like 24/96 then you'll need a decent audio interface. If you're not multitracking then an inexpensive USB2 one should be fine.

You do have to watch some of the VST/AU plugins for Leopard support. eg: I was going to buy Korg Legacy Collection Digital the other week (for the Wavestation) but it doesn't run on Intel Macs. Digidesign took an age to make Protools LE Leopard compliant to the point where I got fed up waiting and got Logic Studio instead.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

The thing I've found when looking at soundcards is there ar eplenty of professional ones in PCI form that are pretty decent and don't cost the earth.
External ones seem to eaither be cheap creative audio products or then expensive MOTU products.
Do you know anything half decent but that doesnt drain your wallet completly ?

Thanks.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

If you buy the right hardware you can have both in one

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

There are loads of decent USB audio interfaces available for a reasonable outlay. Couple of picks below. It's when you start wandering into Firewire territory that things start becoming a bit more expensive.

E-MU 0202

http://www.dv247.com/invt/35905/

Alesis IO|2

http://www.dv247.com/invt/30382/

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

The only question to be answered here is, what do you want your home computer to do for you?

I switched from PC to Mac about 10 years ago and now I wouldn't get a PC again. I have no interest in setting up, maintaining or upgrading a computer (I have upgraded the Mac's memory, but then that's simply a matter of opening a door, not unscrewing the casing). Some folks get pleasure out of tinkering with their computers and that's great, but I'm no more interested in self-building a computer than I am in self-building a TV, and to me, my iMac is every bit as much a piece of consumer electronics as my TV is.

The OS just works and there's more than enough software available for it (iLife, which is bundled with an iMac, is superb: Garageband for music making, iTunes for your record library, iPhoto for your photo albums and iMovie for your home videos, then there's tonnes of other stuff as well, chief among it probably is NeoOffice, a fully Mac ported version of OpenOffice). The open source community is more active in Mac OSX development than you might think. I'm spending hours and hours at the moment playing a superb re-invention of Elite for the Mac called Oolite, which was developed for Mac and then ported to PC and Linux. It is every bit as functional on the Mac as it is on the other OSes.

The PC is a bigger target for developers to aim at so naturally there's more software for it, but as I often say on this forum, quantity is not quality. Much of what you could buy, you never actually would buy. Mind you the PC is a bigger target for malware developers as well. ;) Similar goes for hardware spec; yes, you can find more and bigger and put it into a PC casing, but as long as the machine you own comfortably does what you ask of it, do you ever pay much attention to how much of this it has, how big that is and how fast the wotsit goes? Obviously some people do mind about that, and if that's interesting to you, great, but it's of no interest to me, again, I don't care what capacity my iMac's power supply unit has, any more than I care what's inside the casing of my TV set. The iMac is intended to be a simple, all-in-one, set-up-and-use piece of consumer electronics.

I have a small desk with no room for a separate box either on it or under it, but I don't want the compromise on ergonomics that a laptop would be, so the flat-panel, all in one iMac fits the bill for me perfectly.

Final point others have already made, if you do find you have to have access to Windows for any reason, the Mac is now fully able to be set up to dual-boot. I thought this might have been useful but to be honest I have never even come close to deciding to do it. There has always been a Mac-native solution waiting for me.

If you have any Mac-specific questions feel free to fire them at me. :)

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

Chris, do you use antivirus and firewall on your Mac ? I was looking for a version of Nod32 and couldnt find one....but at the end of the day maybe they arent even needed?

Also, I was just wondering, since you have been into Mac's for a long time, how long did each machine last you before upgrading to the next ?

Thanks.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

My understanding with Macs is that thay are less likely to be hit by viruses.

But the numbers are very slowly going up.

I was also told that a Mac is a poor mans PC by a PC user

I was also told that a PC is a poor mans Mac by a Mac user :)

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

You probably do not need an Anti-Virus on your Mac. The trust is there has only ever been one, maybe two, viruses in the wild on the mac and they did not spread that easily. One of them didn't even work and was treated more as a proof of concept than a virus. If an outbreak does occur you should have time to get an Anti-Virus as it would be big news, anything faster than that would reach your machine before the anti-virus company can deal with it anyway!

I don't know about Chris but I waited four years to upgrade my macbook pro, towards the end it was getting slow for my needs but that was with the old generation of processors. This one is a year and a half old and the technology has not really advanced that much (mine is a 2.4Ghz Dual Core Intel Processor).

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

as long as you intend not to interact with windows users at all or you on your lovely mac could send out infections to your friends ;)

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

Yah, But I don't think this is that common a problem. At least not for people who know what they are doing. If you only send out files you know are safe it would be ok.

Besides the Anti-Virus products for the mac are rubbish.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

how would you know they were safe if you do not have a virus scan though? unless you only send out things you create yourself perhaps

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

Well other than those bearshare or whatever crap, I imagine most Viruses are spread without the user's direct consent. This can't happen on the mac as the code cannot execute, and I can't imagine anyone sending files without knowing what they are. The only danger is files that appear ok which are hiding a malicious payload..

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

I find I have to. Ironically, it's to run Linux/Unix applications that aren't ported for Darwin, but run fine under Cygwin in Windows... ;)

And when you want to upgrade, you get to choose between a 20" and a 24" disposable screen :)

Don't get me wrong. I do like Macs. I've used them for work for years, but I wouldn't buy one for my home. Plus, as I've said earlier, their current offerings are pants in terms of choice. If I want any performance, Steve decides I need to either get four cores, get a laptop, or have my hardware built into a 24" disposable screen. Nice...

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

I have always been a PC guy but when I needed a new computer in Oct 07 I went for a shiny new Aluminium iMac(2.2Ghz, 1GB RAM, 320GB HDD, 20" Screen=£960) when they got released. Took a bit of getting used to first as the OS is so different, but now I wouldn't go PC again.

I just love the way it works without any hassle and out of the box it has decent software for basic photo editing, DVD creation, Music making and Movie editing.

However I do have a windows Laptop which gets used when I am out and about although am totally thinking of chucking it and getting a Macbook soon.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

I had my first iMac for about 6 years, and would probably have had it another couple of years but for the fact it was damaged in a thunderstorm and replaced new-for-old on the house insurance. Nice. :D

The one we have now must be about 3 years old IIRC ... still going strong except I recently upped its memory to the max it can cope with (2Gb) as the number of heavy apps we tend to have running concurrently these days was starting to have an impact on performance. Everything is back to a-ok now though.

I used AV on my original iMac under OS9 but didn't bother upgrading when I moved to OSX. Viruses are not a problem. The OS architecture makes it incredibly difficult for them to propogate on a Mac. There are also fewer Macs in the world so it would be harder for one to spread quickly.

As you would with a laptop, which as it happens is the only other option I would have in the space available. :shrug:

TBH I'm not expecting to waste anything, when this machine becomes underpowered for my needs (something I don't expect to happen for a long time by the way) I will pass it on to one of the children and buy another iMac for my desk.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

Having just had my PC laptop turned into an expensive paperweight after trying to install the grandson's latest PC football game, I'm even more convinced that I'll never buy another Windows computer. This Mac is quite wonderful, unless I wanted to play games on it...and as I don't...no problem :)
If i were looking at a desktop replacement, rather than a laptop, I would look at the Mac Mini first as we have the requisite monitors and keyboards already but the iMacs do look really good...

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

Mac=Doorstop :erm:

What I don't understand, and this may be my ignorance buy why pay twice the price for good styling? Is it really worth paying all that extra just to have something that looks nice sitting in your home rather than a grands worth of PC in a vanilla box
Look at the rip off prices at the apple store for component upgrades, they want to charge £240 for a 1tb SATA II drive, that's a whopping £160 more than the street price. 8gb ram is £200 extra over the 3gb installed and the street price is, £104. £80 for a slot loading dvd writer, that's £60 more than the street price.
I could go on but fear retribution from Mac fan-boys :D

In all honesty can anyone really warrant spending the best part of 2 grand on a mac?

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

Cost is my main limiter. If I had the money I'd buy one tomorrow as the OS is great and the design of having everything in one that works straight out the box is a good thing.

Sadly, I may have to put off this purchase and put the money towards a car instead.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

go for a mini and get a monitor cheaper that way

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

On the other hand, for the 98% of the population who wouldn't know were to start when upgrading, and have no interest in learning, Macs are perfect. As they are for people who want to edit video or sound/music.

It's swings and roundabouts. Yes, the PC is more readily and cheaply expandable, but depending on the quality of drivers, it may or may not be easy to upgrade. Even if the device is marked as Windows compatible, the drivers may not work reliably or be for a different version of Windows.

The mac on the other hand is a lot easier. Nine times out of ten, you just plug the device in and it works. OK, so you may need to run an installation program, but that can be a case of double clicking an icon and possibly going through a wizard.

And yes, I am an experienced user of *both* platforms. In fact, both desktops I have are entirely self built, and the one I am on now has been rebuilt several times (I actually don't know how many because I did it bit by bit, but I know it's had at lease two power supplies, 3 cpus, several memory upgrades, 3 graphics cards, 3 motherboards and God knows how many storage devices).

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

somewhat interesting article about the price difference between PC and mac
Analysts: Mac buyers still pay more than PC buyers for same hardware 'guts'
http://www.computerworld.com/action/...&taxonomyId=64

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

I find the accesibility in mac's much better than windows.

I tend to play my games on windows and use the mac for my surfing and text to speech / screen reading / zooming.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

Not a bad idea but the spec of Mac Mini's are pretty basic.

I think I will go for the option of upgrading my PC at the moment.
Going to save up for a Quadcore motherboard and new CPU and then maybe in the future have an IMac as some form of media system. But I'l have to pass on the great design for the moment and instead start looking for a nice new monitor for my PC.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

Get an imac - nothing wrong with 'em. You can even try installing windows on them :|

Love the new mac pros - 8 core i7 xeons. Nothing comes close as there appear to be no cheap dual i7 boards.... excellent value for money.

Only downside is that you can't overclock em

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

What software do you have that can actually utilise 8 cores?

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

Are you serious ? Don't waste my time, use google.

I don't have a single core that is not being used over any 24 hour period.

edit : ps Forgot to add that not only are the cores used, I ensure that the GPU is used too. Thanks

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

The OS can. It is perfectly well able to allocate different processes to different cores and keep all of them busy if required. The only limitation at the moment is that applications themselves can't split between the cores. But the notion that there's no benefit in having an 8-core Mac at the moment is just another piece of internet guff.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

Actually, most software doesn't use much more than 2 cores. Scaling software to 2 cores is difficult (especially for games which don't always adapt easily to the threading requirements). Scaling further is a *lot* harder. And that comes from a friend who designs massively parallel software for a living.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

Stu, you don't need software designed to run on multi-cores in order to keep all the cores busy. The OS does a lot of the work. There is a story floating about the 'net, enthusiastically spread by Mac hat3rz, that half the cores in an eight-core Mac are redundant due to lack of software. This is simply not true.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

Apparently GTAIV is multicore enabled. I haven't tried it though. Will google for you

What about 3d rendering using Maya, 3dsmax, Photoshop etc etc. All use the cores efficiently.

And we all know about BOINC right ?

Listen to Chris ... It appears he has more 'upto date' information for you as it appears he's using an OS that is more recent than windows 95. :D

---------- Post added at 09:37 ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 ----------

I take that back ... Apparently it is multicore enabled but doesn't appear to be very efficient. Either that or there is not enough work to offload on to the cpu.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

As am I... Currently using Windows 7 at home and Vista, OSX (both client and server), Windows Server and XP at work. Oh yes, and I also support Maya, 3ds Max (although these do not use multi cores if you use the wrong renderer) and photoshop.

I am not saying Multicore software doesn't exist: It does. I am just saying it is not as prevalent as you appear to think.

---------- Post added at 09:45 ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 ----------

Chris, I do know all that. I also understand that OSX actually makes more efficient use of multiple cores than some versions of Windows (don't know about Vista or 7).

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

True. But that's the issue. It is very unlikely that someone will be using 8 power-hungry applications at the same time, and therefore the benefits of having 8 cores are minimal (imo), unless you are lucky enough to use software that does support multiple cores. The real potential of multiple cores is in multi-threading. At present however, there are fewer applications that support multi-threading than there are cores in the top of the line Mac pro. I would be in the market for one if the software I use supported multi-threading. That's likely to remain a pipe dream for a couple of years though.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

3d guru huh ! Ever used smedge or created a render farm ? Again Smedge will load each cpu with a single renderer efficiently but is not a real SMP application ... I think I know what you're trying to say...

" There's very little in the way of real SMP software for day to day use then You're probably right ".

However effectively utilizing a multicore machine is easily done by other means.

btw I also scale one of the largest websites in the UK for a living and it's not as difficult as you think.

Re: PC Vs iMac (Which to go for?)
 

Incidentally the next version of OSX, Snow Leopard, is to concentrate on this multi-core problem. At the moment they have an technology (NSQueue or similar) to allow developers to very easily, more so than Windows, spilt workload across multiple cores. The limitation is at OS Level which cannot address more than 8(?) cores so removing this limit will allow OSX to scale very well with multiple cores, especially if the developers are generically assigning to cores (which OSX allows them to do) to carry on scaling up with the cores that are available.

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Central_(technology)
and here: http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/multicore.html