 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / General / June 2008I have to wonder though ...
I know that yugo and his socks come a trollin' with this stuff, but I still have to wonder: My local Future Shop will sell me an iMac: 2.66 Intel Core2 Duo 2 gigs RAM 320 gig HD 8x Superdrive ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT 128 megs 20 inch monitor (and they say it comes with OS X 10.4, not even Leopard, although that might be a mistake in the advertising) and they want 1599.99 On the very same page, they advertise an Acer: Intel Core2 Duo Quad Q6600 3 gigs RAM 500 gigs SATA drive "Super multi drive" (whatever that is) ATI Radeon HD 3450 256 megs 21.6 inch monitor [comes with Firewire and some card reader] (and they don't say, but it probably comes with Vista Halfway House, or crap like that, but what the hell, I could probably coax Leopard to run on it, but that would be against the EULA and I'd go to hell) and they only want 799.99 I mean, that's half price for quite a bit more than the same thing (I'm not sure how those processors compare -- they sound the same). You know me, I love my Macs, but we could use a Windows machine around here (I find myself booting Parallels a lot these days to check things out) and I've got the time to spare to try to install OS X into the thing.  SignatureW. Oates > On the very same page, they advertise an Acer: Do you have a model number? I wanted to compare, but I'm not having much luck matching those specs to a system on Acer's web site. SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002 http://www.atomicbird.com/ > Do you have a model number? I wanted to compare, but I'm not having > much luck matching those specs to a system on Acer's web site. It says AM5640-E5520A There's something similar here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4zKHHT_ePs Also says "limited quantities" and "only at Future Shop" (whatever that means). SignatureW. Oates > Also says "limited quantities" and "only at Future Shop" (whatever > that means). It means that that specific configuration of computer, monitor, video card, etc. is available only from them. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > > Do you have a model number? I wanted to compare, but I'm not having > > much luck matching those specs to a system on Acer's web site. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Also says "limited quantities" and "only at Future Shop" (whatever that > means). OK, the most similar one at their web site appears to be <http://us.acer.com/public/page9.do?sp=page4&dau34.oid=35794&UserCtxParam =0&GroupCtxParam=0&dctx1=25&CountryISOCtxParam=US&LanguageISOCtxParam=en& ctx3=-1&ctx4=United+States&crc=4003354361> The most obvious detail is that an iMac is an integrated all-in-one system not much bigger than the display on its own, while the Acer is a tower system you'll have to find room for. The convenience of the iMac is a big selling point. Comparing CPUs, the iMac's runs faster, has a faster FSB, and much, much more L2 cache (6MB vs. 1MB). It's going to be a noticeably faster system. Both systems have Firewire, but the iMac has two ports to the Acer's one. The iMac has one FW400 and one FW800; the Acer doesn't say which it has, but FW400 is most likely. So, extra speed and an extra port in the iMac's favor. The Acer does have PS/2 ports, which I'm sure will come in handy. The Acer appears to lack WiFi and Bluetooth, both standard on the iMac. Same for the built-in camera. And of course all this is before considering questions of manufacturing quality, and whether the displays are actually comparable in anything but size. SignatureTom "Tom" Harrington Independent Mac OS X developer since 2002 http://www.atomicbird.com/ > Comparing CPUs, the iMac's runs faster, has a faster FSB, and much, much > more L2 cache (6MB vs. 1MB). It's going to be a noticeably faster [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The Acer appears to lack WiFi and Bluetooth, both standard on the iMac. > Same for the built-in camera. S'all true .. SignatureW. Oates > I know that yugo and his socks come a trollin' with this stuff, but I > still have to wonder: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > out) and I've got the time to spare to try to install OS X into the > thing. Well, the "Super Multi Drive" is, essentially, a SuperDrive that also handles DVD-RAM format. While I don't have need for a DVD-RAM capability, the fact that it is tray-loading rather than a slot-loader is a big plus in my view. The Quad Q6600 is a 4-processor chip, somewhere between the Core2Duo with which we're familiar and the Xeon chips in the MacPro in performance. Without knowing the specific monitor, I can't make a strong case, but note that I haven't found a monitor in that size that matches the iMac screen's clarity for under $450 (although a few in the $350 range come close). As I noted in a previous post in response to one of the trolls/sock puppets, the fact that it is from Acer would nix it for me. While I know a lot of folks who have Acers without difficulties, I'm two-for-two on the lemon front with them and so they won't get any more of _my_ business. I keep between one and two Winboxes here for the writing/editing jobs where I have to run software for screenshots (cross-platform stuff where the Windows side is different from the Mac, like Open, Save, and Print dialogs) or verification of another author's work when performing a technical review. Every time I get done with such a job, I'm relieved to be getting back to my Macs -- they have their occasional problems, but I encounter far fewer difficulties in 100 hours on my Macs than I do in 10 hours on one of the Winboxes. YMMV (and the fact that I have Unix "under the hood" makes resolving those occasional issues easier than anything I encounter under Windows). SignatureSpenser > I keep between one and two Winboxes here for the writing/editing jobs > where I have to run software for screenshots (cross-platform stuff > where the Windows side is different from the Mac, like Open, Save, and > Print dialogs..... When I had to start developing GUI code for 'Doze, I noticed the APIs had two file selector dialogs. Unless the Microsoft doc writers are ignorant (which is admittedly highly probable), the only difference between the two is whether the button says "Save" or "Open." I thought, that's pretty stupid. Should have _one_ call with the button text as a parameter, so the user can choose "Select," "This One," or "Destroy," or whatever fits the app he's writing. In fairness, I have noticed "Open" in some third-party Mac apps where some other word would fit better. But other apps show that this is the developer's fault, not Apple's. SignatureWes Groleau Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ? > I know that yugo and his socks come a trollin' with this stuff Then why don't you post this where people love to discuss it - comp.sys.mac.advocacy?? > but I still have to wonder: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > and they only want 799.99 You do get what you pay for. Is the Acer an all-in-one computer-and-monitor? How many (and which kind of) Firewire ports does the Acer have? What kind of built-in web camera does it have? What kind of built-in microphone does it have? Does it have optical digital audio in and out? For the lower price, are you willing to accept the performance loss associated with it? I'm pretty sure the Q6600 is a 65 nanometer chip, has a slower FSB, and does not perform as well as the 45 nanometer E8335 chip in the iMac. Search for E8335 and Q6600 on this page to see an example of the real-life performance difference: <http://tinyurl.com/5n5grg> I'm sure if we only look, we can find other obvious omissions that make the Acer a lesser value... SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group rather than directly to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. You'll need to use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR > For the lower price, are you willing to accept the performance loss > associated with it? I'm pretty sure the Q6600 is a 65 nanometer chip, > has a slower FSB, and does not perform as well as the 45 nanometer E8335 > chip in the iMac. Search for E8335 and Q6600 on this page to see an > example of the real-life performance difference: Well, that's kind of what I was looking for. What I really want is something to put in the living room to hook up to my 37" tv, play 720p stuff. I've been looking at a Mac mini, but this thing will probably do the trick (once I put XP in it, or maybe some sort of Linux) and I get a "free" monitor. > I'm sure if we only look, we can find other obvious omissions that make > the Acer a lesser value... Well, someone has pointed out that the display probably doesn't match the iMac's for clarity and whatnot; I know that's true from my research into monitors when I bought the Benqs instead of Apple Cinema Displays. The main thing it -- it's not a Mac. Windows sucks. SignatureW. Oates > > For the lower price, are you willing to accept the performance loss > > associated with it? I'm pretty sure the Q6600 is a 65 nanometer chip, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > The main thing it -- it's not a Mac. Windows sucks. Yep. SignaturePlease send all responses to the relevant news group rather than directly to me, as E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. You'll need to use a real news reader if you want me to see your posts. JR > You do get what you pay for. and you might want to consider the "surcharge" of your time and stress level with each option. But IF you don't _need_ what makes the Mac worth more, ..... SignatureWes Groleau ----------- Curmudgeon's Complaints on Courtesy: http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html (Not necessarily my opinion, but worth reading) > I mean, that's half price for quite a bit more than the same thing (I'm > not sure how those processors compare -- they sound the same). It's not the same thing. Acers are close to the bottom of the pile in the PC world. There are some worse (e-Machines come to mind), but it's an unfair comparison to anything from Apple. > I know that yugo and his socks come a trollin' with this stuff, but I > still have to wonder: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > out) and I've got the time to spare to try to install OS X into the > thing. Try comparing the specs of the Acer to the $799 Mac Mini and you'll really understand how overpriced and underpowered the Mini is. One of these days Apple will smarten up and become competitive at that price point by selling a mini tower. They'd sell millions of them. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.