The eternal desktop dilemma....

Tony-S wrote in post #13129529
Apple doesn't play in the low-end market, thus your use of lesser parts (e.g., video card that's $200 cheaper than the iMac's) and leaving out other standard features of all iMacs (802.11n, bluetooth, keyboard, multitouch BT mouse, Thunderbolt, HDCP-compliant display that has an H-IPS panel instead of the lower performing S-IPS panel of your listed display, etc., etc.) contributes to the lower cost. You also don't have an OS on your list. Win 7 Ultimate ($180) is most similar to Lion. So while you can build a PC for less than a iMac, it usually doesn't have the same features, and when you add those features you get very close to the cost of an iMac.

What a ridiculous argument. Bluetooth and Wifi, and apple-brand mice are optional or inferior to a comparably-priced third party item respectively. That display is HDCP compliant, and thunderbolt is both pretty much useless, and (especially in the implementation used in that imac) very much slower than it's rated speed.

H-IPS is superior in some ways, but not all, and with the huge price difference between the PC and mac you could easily get multiple if it had value to you. Win7 ultimate is much more expensive than getting HP OEM for 99$. Basically your argument is facetious.

And why are you incorrectly comparing desktop and mobile video products? The 6790 is ~80-90% as fast the 6970M in 3D games, and identical for desktop and photo performance. If video performance mattered you could easily grab a much more powerful video card with the extra money saved.

It doesn't matter. The cost of those components add to the cost of the iMac. Not everyone needs them, but they are what they are. You can build a faster PC for less money, but it will have fewer features.

Tony-S wrote in post #13129908
It doesn't matter. The cost of those components add to the cost of the iMac. Not everyone needs them, but they are what they are. You can build a faster PC for less money, but it will have fewer features.

This makes me doubt whether you read my post or not.

Reading peoples arguments carefully makes it much more difficult to disagree with them, so it's not a widely adopted practice here on POTN

Sp1207 wrote in post #13130059
This makes me doubt whether you read my post or not.

Yes, I did.

tim wrote in post #13130093
Reading peoples arguments carefully makes it much more difficult to disagree with them, so it's not a widely adopted practice here on POTN

Yes, it seems so.

sbattey wrote in post #13128790
I notice you have compared a computer with no monitor to the iMac, which isn't a fair comparison when saying you can clearly get more power for the same price. With the iMac you really do need to consider the cost of a 27 inch IPS display, and subtract that from the price and then build a computer to the same spec as the iMac and compare the prices at that point. You will find it isn't too different. If you don't care about OS X vs Windows, get a windows machine, invest in a display, and be happy that you can upgrade for less in the future.

I don't think you can build a proper high quality box with a 27inch screen for less than the cost of the iMac.
I know I've tried here, and the iMac is usually a few hundred dollars cheaper.

Of course with a proper box and separate screen you don't have to throw away the whole lot and start again when it's time to upgrade.
I've been upgrading every 3 years just to keep up with increasing files sizes from new cameras, but have been able to keep using the same monitors.
Given the Monitors long out last the computers, over a long term it works out cheaper.

Moppie wrote in post #13131224
I don't think you can build a proper high quality box with a 27inch screen for less than the cost of the iMac.
I know I've tried here, and the iMac is usually a few hundred dollars cheaper.

Of course with a proper box and separate screen you don't have to throw away the whole lot and start again when it's time to upgrade.
I've been upgrading every 3 years just to keep up with increasing files sizes from new cameras, but have been able to keep using the same monitors.
Given the Monitors long out last the computers, over a long term it works out cheaper.

You can technically use the iMac as a monitor for another computer. However, the iMac has to be powered on, so it's not terribly ideal.

Moppie wrote in post #13131224
I don't think you can build a proper high quality box with a 27inch screen for less than the cost of the iMac.
I know I've tried here, and the iMac is usually a few hundred dollars cheaper.

Of course with a proper box and separate screen you don't have to throw away the whole lot and start again when it's time to upgrade.
I've been upgrading every 3 years just to keep up with increasing files sizes from new cameras, but have been able to keep using the same monitors.
Given the Monitors long out last the computers, over a long term it works out cheaper.

It looks as though I may go the iMac route all things considered. I may just look/wait for a decent refurbished model to be available from apples website. Anything I've ever owned that was refurbished has worked out just fine. Thank you all for the quality input. Potn is always a reliable source!!

I think the value of the iMac is in the space savings. That, plus build, is worth the difference in price vs a PC. Remember, you're comparing a compact all-in-one to a desktop tower; not a 1 to 1 comparison.

Eric Xu wrote in post #13136137
I think the value of the iMac is in the space savings. That, plus build, is worth the difference in price vs a PC. Remember, you're comparing a compact all-in-one to a desktop tower; not a 1 to 1 comparison.

This is also true. I do like the all-in-one wireless-ness of a clean desktop. That you usually can't get with a pc

You also have to take into consideration (depending on your skill with hardware) that PC's allow for upgrade path where as Macs, especially iMacs (all in 1's in general) do not. My main computer has been a desktop for 11 years that has evolved over time, never replacing the whole thing at once. It's always been a high end computer and although there are no original parts remaining at this time I probably have less than $5k into it. That's pretty good for 11 years.