Mac introduces new iMac models. Just to be clear, these are desktop models we're talking about.
The new iMacs are available immediately worldwide and come with Mac OS X Tiger. The 17-inch, 1.8GHz model will cost US$1,299, while the mid-range model, a 17-inch 2.0GHz will cost $1,499 and the high-end 20-inch iMac 2.0GHz will cost $1,799.Ah, Apple. Continuing their proud tradition of selling you half the computer at twice the price. Even with my most recent upgrade, my 2.4 ghz system has cost me less than $1,000. Plus I've got a bigger HD, better sound card, same network and graphics card, more RAM, though a smaller flatscreen monitor than is included in these iMacs.
Now, if you simply enjoy using Macs more, or need it for your occupation, fine. But please, please, please, don't tell me that Macs are just generally "better". Better for what, and better for what price?
Update: Adam calls it the most tiresome debate in the world, and he's right. There's no need for this to become a thing, but I had an unpleasant experience at my last class before leaving Ottawa, with a Mac partisan. So I saw this story, and got ahead of myself. No need to flame.
1 comment:
*sigh*
possibly the least interesting debate in the world... but...
part of the reason you're paying a higher price here is the engineering and design that go into the small form factor of the iMac - you may be getting a desktop, but it's still engineered like a portable. (which is no small feat, given the heat output of the CPU those are based on).
Subtract ~850 dollars for the price of a 20-inch flatscreen (I picked Dell - good price/quality balance), and the rest of the computer is sub $1000. ~$1350 if we're talking Canadian prices.
Can I ask you what kind of processor you're running John? If it's an AMD, then you are indeed getting a better deal than the 2.0 GHz G5. If it's Intel, though, I can assure you that either AMD or IBM outclass an Intel chip that runs at a 20% higher clock. (not that it really matters that much - these things are all far more powerful than any average user needs for most things.)
I could factor in a couple of less quantifiable things, like the fact that Macs often keep a much higher percentage of their orginal value when reselling, even three or four years later. Or the overall quality of parts that Apple uses (you can find cheaper LCDs, but I doubt you could at the same quality), which means higher overall reliabilty and longevity.
But the point stands - Apple is expensive. Not quite as outrageous as people would like to think, but expensive nonetheless. As for "better" - that's an argument that's subjective to a degree that debate is utterly pointless. Everyone uses what they like; nobody will ever detach their ego from it for the single second necessary to appreciate what someone else prefers.
So let's all go relax and play some games on whatever our preferred platform is...
Post a Comment