IMac?


sister_in_faith
 Share

Recommended Posts

Buy yourself a new copy of the operating system you already paid for and then go to the time and trouble to install it yourself on top of what you already bought and paid for to restore the computer to the condition it should have been in when you bought it.

No, it shouldn't be like that when you buy it. There is a reason why manufacturers make their own images - drivers. If you install a clean version of windows, you can end up driverless for some devices (less so with windows 7 as previous versions, with it searching for drivers online and finding drivers for most devces).

This is an inherent problem due to having so many options available for hardware, and those people that don't even know what a driver is can start to have problems. So the people who built the system create their own windows image with drivers built in, especially if they know it contains hardware that needs drivers not in microsofts database. Sometimes they put additional software on top, and bear in mind that a lot of people find this software useful. HP put some tools in their images that non-IT folks would like incredibly useful. Bloatware isn't necessarily bloatware, depending on who you talk to. But generally, those who don't want it/need it/know it's there will know how to get rid of it.

... yeah, not something that Apple guys worry about.

Or don't think about. HFS+ is not too bad at defragmenting in real time for small files, although by doing so it's arguable that it can reduce performance in some of the methods it uses. It doesn't work that well all the time though, there are times where HFS+ will need defragmenting. Do you do a lot of video editing (most OSX folk do), then you will probably find yourself fragmented. So, how do you solve this? Well, apple sure as heck don't have a defragment tool - no, doing so would ruin the myth that OSX doesn't need to be defragmented.

NTFS is better than FAT32 as ensuring files don't end up fragmented, but not perfect by any means. At least MS admit this and include a defragmentation tool, which runs automatically in windows 7, to prevent the user having to worry about it.

.... uh, not interested. I have a Mac.

If OSX users had up-to-date anti-virus software installed, this would never have been an issue: How to avoid or remove Mac Defender malware

This certainly won't be the last time this happens, as OSX gets more and more common in business.

I suppose that it has some value but I certainly don't do it monthly. Maybe a couple times a year... but I own a Mac.

I never do it on my windows machines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My hubby says he wasn't talking/comparing about network management or infrastructure--that's (according to him) is a whole different ball game.

This is true, I was just pointing out that the vast majority of issues with OSX and windows alike in a corporate environment are caused by server/network config issues, although it's not obvious to the end user at times that this is the case. With the windows sysadmins looking after this part of the infrastructure, it'd explain why there is one guy needed for each school, as opposed to the 1 guy per 4 schools with the macs.

In our network, I'd say a good 90% of individual issues are still caused/solved by a network/server configuration rather than on the machine itself, as the machine depends so heavily on the backend infrastructure.

Edited by Mahone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link?

Highest quality compared to what? The cheapest phone on the market? How are they going to compare it to all the popular phones currently available?

Compared to the world's top phones. My post was about the iPhone 4 from a year ago and the comparisons were all over the place. Here's one:

iPhone 4 camera beats the smartphone competition | Phones | iOS Central | Macworld

Today, of course, the iPhone 4S camera is even better.

It's actually all about the specs. Everything is about the specs when it comes to hardware - speaking of "experience" instead of specs reminds me of a typical apple marketing speech. Most people focus on a few specs instead of all of them i.e. megapixels, frame rates and video resolution. There are plenty of specs to be taken into account.

Yeo - that's how the wintel world thinks - it's all about specs for them.

Speaking from personal experience though, I still have an iphone 3G and will keep it until after my wedding takes places later this year. I can't use it for taking photos at all due to the stupidly low quality of the results. Nothing can factor out the horrible 2MB camera, lack of optical zoom, lack of autofocus and lack of flash. And this phone was released in 2008, just three years ago - that's inexcusable, the expected specs from other phones was far higher at the time. I thought you were trying to give the impression that apple comes out with the latest technology? Maybe in one or two areas, but they neglect other areas.

I'm sorry you are unhappy with a phone that is now 4 generations old (3G, 3GS, 4, 4G). On the other hand, Apple leads ALL phones for customer satisfaction.

Well that's personal opinion. Thankfully, PC users have a vast range of exteriors to choose from. Besides, my personal preference is looking at what is inside the machine, not what it looks like on the exterior. I guess that stems from my IT background though.

Yes, PC vendors have copied Apple designs and now other knock-off of their iMac or Mac mini styles.

Having an IT background isn't all that impressive these days. It's the IT departments of the corporate world that are getting dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age by the corporate users that want their Apple products on the network.

Oh, you mean that software that you actually pay for, but bundled in with the price of the mac? That software you pay for, whether you are actually going to use it or not? Yeah, I have a preference for manufacturers to not do that kind of thing.

Okay - you have a point. Find any other comparable, fully integrated suite for music, movies and photos for $49

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like this:

You can buy Apple, or you can wait 18 months for someone to copy them and sell cheap copies.

Can revolutionizes. Others struggle to copy.

Apple revolutionized:

Personal Computers

Graphical User Interfaces

The Music Industry

Music Players

Phones

Tablets.

Looks like they are doing it again with Artificial Intelligence

What innovative revolutions has Microsoft, Dell, HP, Acer, Levono, whoever, started?

It's not just the revolutions, it so much more.

Apple brought the mouse to the mouses.

It is the most successful retailer in history.

It's doing away with cash registers

It got rid of the floppy disk

I think Apple products are now the single biggest picture taking devices in the world.

Light Peak (while everyone else is wasting their time on USB 3)

Whose model of the cloud do you think will prevail - Google's piece meal clumsy approach or Apple's elegant integrated model?

It may revolutionize the TV next .

Apple leads while other's copy and follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeo - that's how the wintel world thinks - it's all about specs for them.

Well, yeah? Because all devices have specifications. The better specifications lead to a better experience. I don't want to be told one device is better than another, I want to be told why. The only way to do that is through specifications. If you want to just trust someone who tells you a device is better, go for it.

I'm sorry you are unhappy with a phone that is now 4 generations old (3G, 3GS, 4, 4G).

Indeed. Although I was unhappy with the camera from day 1, as were most people. It was one of the most complained about problems, as the top phones back in 2008 had far better cameras. Not doing very well as the supposed market leader, they were definitely following here.

Having an IT background isn't all that impressive these days. It's the IT departments of the corporate world that are getting dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age by the corporate users that want their Apple products on the network.

We have no problems having apple products on our networks. They just don't work well on corporate networks, and this is no fault of the IT departments, but of apples. Let me give you a list of examples:

1. Do you know what a typical server room looks like? Most end users don't, so let me give you an example: Corporate server room | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Do you see how all the servers are in racks? The purpose of rack mounted servers is to conserve space - there simply wouldn't be enough room otherwise due to the amount of servers required. They are specially designed for this purpose, with the long thin exterior.

Those IT departments that are tasked with incorporating macs into their network will require one (very often many more) OSX servers. Until about a year back, you could purchase OSX server edition on a xserve, a specially designed rack mounted server by apple. Posted Image

But then apple, out of the blue, discontinued making the xserve, their only rack mountable server. The only options IT departments now have, is to install OSX server on a mac pro. And how the heck do you think they'll put one of those into a rack? The pure waste of space involved when you have multiple mac pros running with OSX server edition is crazy.

2. OSX is just not designed well enough to run on a network. I recently had 40 new mac pros arrive in my workplace, and all came with OSX lion. All well and good, except lion has a broken active directory plugin, meaning users cannot log on with their network based AD accounts. Thanks apple, yet another reason we don't like macs on our networks. I had to re-image all the machines with 10.6. Yes, they'll release an update that fixes it at some point, but I needed them right then...

3. Same reason as above, OSX doesn't work well on networks. Want your users documents to be saved to their network home? Yes, OSX can do that, but be aware that OSX also saves cache and other system files in the users home area, that programs access in the background on a regular basis. If the home is stored on a network, this causes slowdowns. It's very difficult to fix as well, because trying to redirect those files unnecessarily being located on the users home is like trying to redesign the operating system, most of the time the symlinks are completely ignored anyway. The most common workaround for this problem is simply to use local homes and get the user to copy stuff manually to their network home (yeah, like they'll do that), or use mobile homes - something that's not even designed for this purpose, but generally does a good job at solving the issue. Thanks once again, apple.

4. OSX doesn't work well on networks. The most common protocol for connecting to windows shared drives is SMB. In 10.6, apple broke their implementation of SMB with an update. Any users trying to connect to SMB shares from OSX had major problems for a while. Eventually they fixed it with another update. Not encouraging us much apple..

I have a tonne of these I can share, but this post is long enough as it is. In conclusion, IT departments will happily have macs on their network. They just don't work well on networks. Apple aren't interested in the corporate sector, and never really have been, preferring to focus on the domestic sector. Why do you think they got rid of their xserve?

I do wish you'd get your facts straight.

Edited by Mahone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing that absolutely amazes me is how many people still think Apple computers are comparatively overpriced. I agree that we'd need to see the specs on this machine to make an informed determination, but Apples really aren't that much more than comparable Windows PCs, and are often quite a bit less. Case in point: my main machine is a Power Macintosh G5, purchased by my Dell-loving then-employer because we could get the Mac (including 20" display, which was huge in 2003) for $4,300. A comparable Dell cost $6,600—over $2,200 more! Furthermore, it's been my experience that Dell computers will last anywhere from 2-4 years; my G5 is now over eight years old and still functioning perfectly.

Another problem people run into is that they look at specs that seem identical at first, but really aren't. For example: a new iMac has a 27", all-glass, 2560x1440, LED display with ColorSync technology (which gives you perfect color without ever needing adjustment). If you want to price a “comparable” PC from some other manufacturer, you probably shouldn't be looking at one with a TFT, 1920x1080, LCD display with a bunch of buttons and on-screen controls. Even if they're both 27" displays, they're not even vaguely comparable.

A lot of people also completely ignore certain specs when making comparisons. For example, you may be able to get an Acer all-in-one for less than a similar iMac, but how many FireWire ports will it have?(Hint: probably zero.) How many Thunderbolt ports will it have? (Hint: see number of FireWire ports.) The list goes on and on, but the point is you can't jut ignore specs and still claim that such-and-such is such a better deal. If those features don't matter to you personally, that's certainly your prerogative and you should make your purchasing decision accordingly. But since every spec adds value to the proposition, it should be reflected in the price; to claim otherwise is just ridiculous.

Finally, do keep in mind that Apple has what I can only describe as the best warranty on the planet. In the last seven years, I've had two Macs come down with minor problems, plus a third with major problems (which turned out to be some bad third-party RAM that I added myself). In all three cases, instead of fixing it, Apple gave me a brand new machine. And I don't mean an identical machine; I mean a current model. One of the three machines was even out of warranty, but they replaced it anyway. That's the kind of customer service that you just can't put a price tag on.

Now, all that having been said, let's talk down side: Apple computers really are going to be pricier than many cheap PCs. Apple doesn't make cheap PCs (see above), so they price them to fit in the appropriate markets (i.e. mid-range to lower high-end). You get what you pay for. And yet, I'll be honest: $3,300 sounds like a lot of money for an iMac. Your boyfriend has obviously added a lot of optional upgrades, the 16GB of RAM being one of them. Apple definitely overcharges for its non-stock options, especially RAM; it'll cost you $600 to get 16GB pre-installed, or you can go to RAMseeker and buy 16GB for $95.96 (as of this writing). It won't be quite the same quality, but even Crucial RAM (which is comparable) is only $103.98. Plus, you get to keep, sell, or perhaps even trade in the 4GB that comes with the iMac. For a few minutes removing and replacing a couple of sticks, it's definitely worth the $500 savings.

So, bottom line:

1. Yes, it's a great computer.

2. Comparable means comparable, not just “vaguely similar.”

3. Many options can be had for less, if you get them elsewhere.

HTH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, yeah? Because all devices have specifications. The better specifications lead to a better experience. I don't want to be told one device is better than another, I want to be told why. The only way to do that is through specifications. If you want to just trust someone who tells you a device is better, go for it.

I understand where you're coming from, Mahone, but the problem with specs is that they can't reasonably quantify user experience. This is why the iPad, for example, is outselling every Android tablet in the world combined, despite many Android tablets having some superior specs: the average user couldn't care less. They want a good user experience, and they'll flock to the manufacturer that can promise that.

On the flip side, some specs are also fairly meaningless or at least misleading. Remember back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when Intel kept making less and less efficient processors running at faster and faster speeds? My employer paid extra to get my predecessor a 1.7GHz Pentium 4–based machine while others at the company were settling for 1.0-1.2GHz Pentium III–based machines, only to discover that the PIIIs were actually faster. Meanwhile, the Apple/IBM/Motorola alliance was trying to build increasingly efficient processors, but they couldn't sell them because Intel spent billions teaching people to equate “megahertz” with “speed”—a not wholly inaccurate assessment, but one which requires considerable qualification.

The point is that while the rest of your post (regarding Apple and the business world) is definitely appropriate, I think your assessment of specs is rather wanting. Specs only matter when comparing extremely similar, even identical architectures. If you're comparing—pardon the pun—apples and oranges, the specs are often quite pointless.

My 2¢.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, it's been my experience that Dell computers will last anywhere from 2-4 years; my G5 is now over eight years old and still functioning perfectly.

My workplace up until recently still had a small amount of Dell Optiplex GX260s in use in corners of random offices. They were generally being used as dedicated machines connected to scanners. We'd tried to phase them out a couple of times, but one still popped up here and there, still being used. These machines are 9 years old, and the only reason we phased them out was due to their great age, they were working perfectly fine.

Another problem people run into is that they look at specs that seem identical at first, but really aren't. For example: a new iMac has a 27", all-glass, 2560x1440, LED display with ColorSync technology (which gives you perfect color without ever needing adjustment). If you want to price a “comparable” PC from some other manufacturer, you probably shouldn't be looking at one with a TFT, 1920x1080, LCD display with a bunch of buttons and on-screen controls. Even if they're both 27" displays, they're not even vaguely comparable.

The problem with that is not the specifications, but the user only paying attention to one specification. They specifications are always there to view in full detail if you want to.

A lot of people also completely ignore certain specs when making comparisons. For example, you may be able to get an Acer all-in-one for less than a similar iMac, but how many FireWire ports will it have?(Hint: probably zero.) How many Thunderbolt ports will it have? (Hint: see number of FireWire ports.) The list goes on and on, but the point is you can't jut ignore specs and still claim that such-and-such is such a better deal. If those features don't matter to you personally, that's certainly your prerogative and you should make your purchasing decision accordingly. But since every spec adds value to the proposition, it should be reflected in the price; to claim otherwise is just ridiculous.

I agree.

Finally, do keep in mind that Apple has what I can only describe as the best warranty on the planet. In the last seven years, I've had two Macs come down with minor problems, plus a third with major problems (which turned out to be some bad third-party RAM that I added myself). In all three cases, instead of fixing it, Apple gave me a brand new machine. And I don't mean an identical machine; I mean a current model. One of the three machines was even out of warranty, but they replaced it anyway. That's the kind of customer service that you just can't put a price tag on.

We purchased 10 imacs in early 2006. This predates my employment at my workplace, but I inherited their maintenance. 5 of these imacs ended up with pixel lines down the screens by 2010, steadily getting worse as time went on. I didn't expect apple to give us the screens for free as they were out of warranty, but I argued that it was a manufacturer defect as it had occurred on multiple machines. Eventually they admitted it was a known problem on the early 2006 imacs, and agreed to give me the C numbers for a free replacement of the screens. So I can kind of agree, although they weren't willing to submit easily to this, or easily admit it was a known problem. Had I accepted their initial response of "out of warranty, we can't do anything", we'd have ended up paying for the parts ourselves. As a business, this isn't a major issue, but if I was a domestic customer, this could have set me back a bit - as you've said, parts from apple don't come cheap.

Edited by Mahone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand where you're coming from, Mahone, but the problem with specs is that they can't reasonably quantify user experience. This is why the iPad, for example, is outselling every Android tablet in the world combined, despite many Android tablets having some superior specs: the average user couldn't care less. They want a good user experience, and they'll flock to the manufacturer that can promise that.

It doesn't help that a lot of people are gullible. Apple have a great marketing department, remember the phrase "it just works", that they pressed so hard? I so wish that was really the case... it really would make my working life so much easier. It's a good job grey hair isn't really caused by stress because mine would no longer be brown...

When I was a teenager in school, everyone wanted nike trainers (sneakers you call them there), because they were supposed to be of better quality. In reality, they were just average albeit expensive trainers, with a nike tick of them. But if you didn't have them, you weren't part of the "cool" crowd. This was ultimately due to several well known footballers paid by the nike marketing department to wear them. Pathetic...

The point is that while the rest of your post (regarding Apple and the business world) is definitely appropriate, I think your assessment of specs is rather wanting. Specs only matter when comparing extremely similar, even identical architectures. If you're comparing—pardon the pun—apples and oranges, the specs are often quite pointless.

My 2¢.

You assessment of specifications is largely based on the assumption that most people only pay attention to one or two of the specification. This is true, but the specifications are there in full for anyone who really wants to know. For hardware, I stand by my original statement, the specifications are vital.

Edited by Mahone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These machines are 9 years old, and the only reason we phased them out was due to their great age, they were working perfectly fine.

That’s awesome, Mahone. I am curious, though: since you mention these were “dedicated machines,” were they only used sparingly? I ask because as a former IT guy in a Dell-based company, my experience was markedly different—as, incidentally, were my brothers-in-law’s, each of whom recently replaced his broken Dell with an iMac. My G5, on the other hand, has been in full use at least 40 hours a week (and usually more) since 2003. The power consumption is pretty high by today’s standards, but that thing is a rock!

The problem with that is not the specifications, but the user only paying attention to one specification. The specifications are always there to view in full detail if you want to.

I agree somewhat, but most of the time the finer details aren’t readily available, especially in print ads. My point was mostly just that, right or wrong, the average consumer doesn’t look beyond what’s in the tag line and therefore forms an erroneous perception of inequity.

I can kind of agree, although they weren't willing to submit easily to this, or easily admit it was a known problem.

True enough. I, too, am a bit of a squeaky wheel. But after my experiences with several other companies (Samsung being the most abysmal; don’t EVER buy a Samsung!), my assessment of Apple has only improved.

My point is that I’m not one of those “Apple or nothing” purist fanboys, although I do own quite a few of their products. I use whatever it takes to get the job done, and if that isn’t an Apple, no problem. I just feel that Apple gets a majorly bum rep on its pricing structure, for the aforementioned reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s awesome, Mahone. I am curious, though: since you mention these were “dedicated machines,” were they only used sparingly? I ask because as a former IT guy in a Dell-based company, my experience was markedly different—as, incidentally, were my brothers-in-law’s, each of whom recently replaced his broken Dell with an iMac. My G5, on the other hand, has been in full use at least 40 hours a week (and usually more) since 2003. The power consumption is pretty high by today’s standards, but that thing is a rock!

They were used frequently, albeit not as much as standard office workstations. They were, however, left powered on 24 hours a day for long periods of time. The ones used as workstations were removed back in 2007/2008 I think.

I took one of them home as we were just going to dispose of them otherwise - I used it as a network linux firewall in my apartment for about 2 years (switched on 24 hours a day) until the hard drive failed because of overheating, but that was due to an excessively warm environment, the machine being stuffed in a cupboard, and I didn't have any IDE hard drives to replace it with :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having an IT background isn't all that impressive these days. It's the IT departments of the corporate world that are getting dragged kicking and screaming into the modern age by the corporate users that want their Apple products on the network.

This is an interesting forum thread on apple devices in corporate networks by IT Professionals in the UK: Apple Leadership Event 19th October : Questions please

Hopefully this situation will be improved over time, although I won't hold my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely, but as with any company, you have to watch pricing cycles and play the game a bit. There are two ways to pretty much assure that your Apple is competitively priced. Choose one or the other, because they very rarely intersect.

1) Apple, like any successful company, considers competitors’ pricing when determining its own. So if Apple is releasing a new computer and the competition is selling similar machines for $1,299, they’ll probably price it at $1,299 or, most likely, a little bit less.

The sword, however, cuts both ways: since Apple is an industry leader (and definitely the leader in mindshare), they’re also the ones to beat. Once they’ve released that $1,299 computer, you can bet that three, four months down the line, two or three other companies will offer a fairly similar one for $1,199 or even $1,099. (How similar—including specs—is another question and varies from model to model.) Ultimately, it’s not rocket science; it’s just the reality of a capitalist market.

The problem is once a particular Apple product has been on the market for eight, nine, ten months (as most eventually are). The machine is still just as good as it was at its launch, but its age means it’s probably fallen behind the curve. At that point, you should probably consider waiting for the new model, which will add new features, drop prices, or both. (Tip: to see how long a particular offering has been around and how often Apple tends to refresh that model, check out the MacRumors Buyer’s Guide.)

In short, the closer to release you buy it, the more price-competitive it will be.

2) This one is little known, but very powerful: buy from Apple’s “Special Deals” section. All you have to do is go to the online Apple Store, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and click on “Special Deals.” (As of this writing, it’s on the left side.) There, you’ll find close-out and refurbished models that are every bit as good as new, including an identical warranty—but for hundreds of dollars less.

So there are your tips. Buy early, buy refurbished, or, if you don’t care about getting the latest model, do both! Last year’s model—even if new—is usually significantly less than the current one.

Good luck! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share