Best bang for the buck desktop?

Charlie wrote in post #16984100
what's the point of a thunderbolt port? sounds proprietary as hell. usb3 seems like a good catchall, couldnt be bothered with anything else.

Thunderbolt is Intel technology that permits high bandwidth transmission of concurrent streams through a single cable. Copper is most common now, but optical transmission is on the near horizon. USB is good for single tasks but not concurrent and cannot be daisy chained.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Thunderbolt_(in​terface)

tony, the problem with a bundled prebuilt package is that it's meant for profit. Not everyone will need all the features of the bundle, in fact, it's a scheme to sell more than needed, kinda like bundled health insurance, life insurance, and cable packages.

Imaging if you can choose and only pay for certain cable channels.... that wouldnt be very profitable for the cable companies. That is why you will see comparisons that are not 100% in nature, because nobody wants that productivity software in the first place

with custom made pc's, you can really save a lot on frivolous stuff you dont want. Really dont want to pay a dime for that thunderbolt port that I have no clue what it does

Charlie wrote in post #16984120
with custom made pc's, you can really save a lot on frivolous stuff you dont want. Really dont want to pay a dime for that thunderbolt port that I have no clue what it does

Yes, I have said this many times in this thread and elsewhere on these forums. The reason Macs are expensive is because they come standard with a lot of features, and many of those features are not necessary for some people. If they aren't then you're better off building or having built a computer that doesn't have those features. Apple has made a business decision to only participate in the mid- and high-end computer markets. There are no "budget Macs." Never have been and I doubt there ever will be.

Tony-S wrote in post #16984112
Thunderbolt is Intel technology that permits high bandwidth transmission of concurrent streams through a single cable. Copper is most common now, but optical transmission is on the near horizon. USB is good for single tasks but not concurrent and cannot be daisy chained.

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Thunderbolt_(in​terface)

And its pretty useless until its widely adopted. Apple users are always thumping their chests over some "better" interface with a 5% market penetration. Its not better if you can't count on having access to it on every computer.

mike_d wrote in post #16984135
And its pretty useless until its widely adopted. Apple users are always thumping their chests over some "better" interface with a 5% market penetration. Its not better if you can't count on having access to it on every computer.

When I get to my office, I can plug my MacBook Air into my 27" Thunderbolt display with one cable. That one cable provides 2560x1440 display, HD video conferencing, audio, USB ports, gigabit ethernet, another Thunderbolt port, external hard drive Time Machine backup and access to an 8 TB RAID, power and keyboard (multitouch mouse is bluetooth) - and without even opening the MacBook Air. I don't know if it's better (your word), but it sure is convenient. (I don't do this often because I have a Mac Pro as my desktop. But it is nice to have when I need it.)

I think I will exit this discussion for now. I have other things to do.

Thunderbolt is only necessary because there's either there's not the space inside the computer to add things like drives, or because there are no other suitable ports. USB3 is good, but not quite good enough for internal / high speed drives.

tim wrote in post #16984248
USB3 is good, but not quite good enough for internal / high speed drives.

For hard drives, USB3.0 (5 Gb/sec) is as fast as SATA3 (6 Gb/sec), either of which is faster than the drive itself. SSDs are a different story though, at least for sequential transfers.

The big advantage USB 3.0 has is backwards compatibility with an installed base of millions of computers over the last 15+ years.

Tony-S wrote in post #16984080
Then please do so. That's all I'm asking. But remember to use the same components as Apple's, otherwise it's not the same.

All those "apple components" that you say we left out is like adding a flag, a horn, and baseball cards in your spokes to your bike... they're useless and people don't care... so yes I'm not going to build the same as the iMac because I don't want that extra JUNK. So therefore it it only has what I want and is cheaper, there for it is better than the iMac. Again, give up the petty "it's not 100%" the same crap... it doesn't work... never has... never will... I mean, do I have to go as far as a price add to have an etched in apple on my computer? Seriously, give it a break.

BobDawg wrote in post #16984349
All those "apple components" that you say we left out is like adding a flag, a horn, and baseball cards in your spokes to your bike... they're useless and people don't care...

I'm sure there are some people, such as you, who don't care, but there are many others who value those features.

They're not "junk" despite you saying so. They are usable features that provide value to the computer. For example, the use of the i5-4250U processor is probably attractive to those who are concerned about climate change. This new iMac is probably the greenest desktop ever made.

Yes, for you. But not for others.

Then don't say you can build a PC with the same specifications and features of a 27" iMac for $800, because that's flat-out not true.

tkbslc wrote in post #16983676
Please stop trying to teach me about the difference between servers and desktops, I promise I know already.

Well, frankly, it seems to me that you're the one claiming that we should all drive a VW instead of a Mercedes.

I'm talking about the difference between computers and toys; the difference between quality design and assembly and cheap junk. The difference, not between desktops and servers, but between finely engineered and thoughtfully designed equipment that provides long term quality and usefulness, not the practice of putting the cheapest components in a box and kicking it out the door.

And finally, I'm talking about academic knowledge and actual productive usefulness, and the difference between Personal Computers as sold for home use, which most folks here buy; and computers that are machines that are actually designed as systems to do real work efficiently; while you are talking about the difference between PC and Server.


When Hitachi made mainframes, they used the highest quality components in the world, most of them manufactured by Hitachi. Every transistor, every component was tested before assembly. After the chip was on a board, the board would be tested. Having passed that test, which consisted of being hooked up to an external system, and enclosed in a box, and placed on a rack that would cycle it from a heated environment to a frigid one, while it was cycling its logic. Then the unit would be assembled; perhaps the System Control Unit. Then that would be tested. Finally, the entire machine would be be assembled on the factory floor, a curtain would be dropped around it, and it would be IPL'd - (that stands for Initial Program Load), wIth an operating system, typically IBM's MVS-ESA. Then it would have to run non-stop, exercising each and every component, for a full month (720 hours) before it could leave the factory. If it failed anytime within that 720 hour period, the failing part would be replaced, and the 720 hours started again.

Once these machines arrived at their new home, they rarely failed. In Japan, if they did fail, the the CEO of Hitachi, then the 13th largest corporation in the world, called the owner person-to-person and apologised.

This sort of system design and implementation is much closer to the Apple paradigm than to Microsoft. For those of us who actually have made their living by designing, building or selling high end computers - (and I don't mean by being an IT guy), the PC model is a cheap-jack imitation of the computer world, and pretty amusing to boot. Try getting individual (not Enterprise) hardware support from Microsoft. Good luck.

Tony-S wrote in post #16985179
I'm sure there are some people, such as you, who don't care, but there are many others who value those features.

They're not "junk" despite you saying so. They are usable features that provide value to the computer. For example, the use of the i5-4250U processor is probably attractive to those who are concerned about climate change. This new iMac is probably the greenest desktop ever made.

Yes, for you. But not for others.

Then don't say you can build a PC with the same specifications and features of a 27" iMac for $800, because that's flat-out not true.

Wow.. you are getting desperate to defend your beloved iMac. Even taking about being green? ha

Bottom line and you can't say other wise, based on looking at just the core performance of a computer, PC will always be cheaper. Those extra features, are worthless to a majority of people and/or will become worthless. How many hours do you think someone plays with photobooth? or garage band? Saying those are "valueable" features are a joke because I'm sure someone doesn't buy a iMac just because those are on there. People will get bored, and rarely use those programs again.

Webcam, bluetooth, etc.. sure.. Slap another $50 or so onto the $800. Regardless, it's still cheaper than the iMac, potential better product than iMac, and may even be more useful than iMac.

From page 3

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16969808

- ONE POSTER TO THIS THREAD DID NOT RESPOND WELL TO BEING ASKED POLITELY TO DROP THIS KIND OF BRAND LOYAL FOOLISHNESS. HE WILL NO LONGER BE POSTING ON THIS FORUM -

In this thread the OP never asked for an advice re: PC Vs. Apple.

In this forum, it is not acceptable to hijack a thread to push your brand loyalty.

With so many participating, you can consider this your polite P.M. warning.