when was this iMac? cause even my laptop priced at $600 kicked its ass... (with the exception that that laptop has a 17 not a 20 inch screen, but I can always hook up another monitor and extend the display)
@PoliticalHell Well I dont have an i5 or i7 in mine, and a year ago O_o i seriously wouldn't think laptop technology reached desktop performance in 4 months (got this laptop in November) something was screwy with apple there
I'm a Mac guy, but even I have to admit something. This video isn't that old too me, and it stands as true in my mind. Mac just got owned! PC won this one.
Eve though this is an older video I honestly don't agree that Mac got owned here. The Dell featured here is nice but its a smaller system with a higher price tag. To me its 6 of one half a dozen of the other. Each has great things and each has not so great things. For me the larger screen is a contributing factor. To me this appears to be a draw.
Look at that iMac lol.... try putting a descent graphics card or extra hard drives in that one ha!ha!Ha!
Oh well, I guess it comes with a lot of cable hehe. Just imagine those people who need to bring the whole computer back just because of a deal pixel or other screen issue ha!ha!ha! Oh yeah, of course! Macs NEVER fail, all forgot about that, I'm sorry fanboys hehe
You INSTANTLY lose for having to run vista, which will only detect 3.5 out of the 4 gigs of shitty DDR2 RAM you "upgraded" to. Also vista has shit 64-bit and multicore support.... next time, you can use this to compare price, but not performance. Go get some real benchmarks done.
Are you stupid or something? 64-bit version of Vista recognizes way more then 4 gigs.
DDR3 is overrated. Not saying it's bad, but having DDR3 doesn't make your penis bigger, nor does it improve performance much.
This version of Vista IS 64-bit, stop talking out of your ass.
Here's your benchmark: try running an intensive application on a shitty Core2 duo Mac. Processors make a HUGE difference in performance; any computer can open a web browser, even the $200 PCs.
Do medium setting on crysis on a macbook count as an intensive application? DDR3 MAKE A HUGGGEEE difference as long as it's your bottle neck (most often the case). 64-BIT vista has shit driver support cuz the all the DRM policies they invented. And BTW at just about all times, i have these apps running: Finder, Mail, Safari, Address Book, iCal, The Hit List, iTunes, Pages, Adium (chat client) and DockSpaces, NO LAG, No processor usage over 5ish%
I've never played Crysis, so I have no idea what medium settings are or what framerate that gets... just on a side note, if it's under 30FPS it's garbage.
64bit Vista runs every single application that I ran on 32bit. No difference, just a more stable environment.
And BTW, opening multiple applications means you need a pat on the back for having more then 1gig of RAM. Processor usage happens during complex logic processing, i.e. rendering or if a game uses processor resources (like WOW).
Screen size has no relevance, but like I said, I never played Crysis, I have no idea its demands on specific settings. I know though, no matter how you want to talk through it, the video cards in Macs are pathetic.
LOL mac pro with 4 PCI 16x Slots? That's like 4 GTX 295s right there, The screen size is simply to show that it's not some giant thick piece of shit like an alienware 15 inch laptop. I think it is accurate to say the thickness is 15 inches on those things....
Mac Pro, not only is a workstation structure computer, but also comes with a maximum of 512mb cards x4 pre-built. Tower PCs often have 2 slots. Some gaming PCs I've seen with 2 2gb cards in there (4gb total).
And you can also compare the specs between your Mac and that alienware. My HP isn't much thicker than a Macbook (just wider) but it can have 2 500gb hard drives in it.
Graphics memory is completely minor when it comes to graphics processing. You need a good GPU. And the pre-bulilt is quite limited but that's not to say you can't add your own. You can have 4 cards with like 1780Megs each, 2 gpus per card and 2 monitors per card...
Depends on what game/app is using it, some are very graphics card intensive, but since so many people use integrated graphics, a lot of companies reverted to using the CPU, since a lot of people use quads.
Trust me, there's a HUGE difference between core2 and a quad or i7. My laptop has ddr3 memory, 64-bit Vista, better in every way than my desktop except the processor (core2 duo vs. my old quad) and I can tell the difference, it's much lower quality, especially if I run games.
There is a difference between Core 2 Duos and Quads and i7s DUH. But that processor upgrade won't help much if memory speed, hard drive access time, or graphics is your bottle neck. "a lot of companies reverted to using the CPU," Apple has been using the GPU for a long time to help run the system and it just works.
Well, DDR2-800 and DDR3-1000 is a very small difference. Macs typically have very bad video cards compared to PCs, and too many times I still see 5400RPM drives in Macbooks and other Macs too.
Imac is way better . But that is my opinion. I do not want to make people mad ,but i have had pcs all my life and most of them are slow or break. Macs are much better because people use pcs alot more so imacs dont get viruses because nobody trys to hack imacs or mac computers
The mac will be cheaper in the long run if you compare running costs etc and if Apple was so bad why have they scored the best consumer satisfaction rating for several years in a row beating competitors by miles. Apple's up there proudly at 85% Asus is second at 65% LOL, LOL LOL, an operating system can make or break a computer & apple have the hardware & software both spot on, gorgeous looking aluminium computers not made from cheap awful plastic like that HP,
I actually didn't spend anything on Vista. It comes with 11 free apps, but let's take in the reality. Apple gives you hardware AND software, so it's only fair to include what the OEM gives you as well (in this case HP). My HP came with video editors, DVD burners, webcam tools, basically all the crap your Mac came with. So it's a fair game. Windows is just one part of that package.
Also, only morons say Vista Ultimate is the only good version. Code-wise, there's NO difference in any of the...
versions. Read any reviews, check the features comparison... it literally makes no sense to buy Ultimate.
Oh, and there's like 10 different FREE antivirus clients out there.
You said it yourself, "an operating system can make or break a computer". 95% of bad reviews are mostly because people don't know the difference between OS and hardware. Vista wasn't that great, I'll admit, but with Windows 7 you'll have nothing to say.
Aesthetics aren't worth thousands, not to most people anyway.
I love how All PC morons say "yeah, vista sucked", but "windows 7 will be better, trust microsoft", like they were saying "yeah, XP Sucked, but Vista will solve everything". This goes back years really...
Yeah, need them all... or just one, since they all protect against the same things, but okay. Microsoft even made one for Windows, but weren't allowed to release it as a feature in the OS because of some monopoly issues.
In the beginning Vista wasn't so good, it improved; the 64-bit version runs like a charm. XP didn't suck, Vista just has more features, doesn't crash as much. Believe it or not, newer versions tend to be better then the old stuff. I know it's a hard concept to grasp.
XP was the worst thing to happen at the time. Microsoft has always been a company that fucks up, then makes a future release of what the original should have been years ago, charging full price. Smooooooth... "I know it's a hard concept to grasp." Really? Windows is the only product i ever worry about upgrading. For ubuntu and mac os x i get new versions the same day they come out... No problems there
Yeah, XP was the worst thing to happen at the time, only a majority of people, including a whole lot of Mac users, admit that XP was the possibly most revolutionary OS in computer history. It basically started the 21st century as far as computer technology goes.
It was unstable and slow like vista is today. It improved over time but it was released like 8 years ago... I would know, i was upgrading like 2 weeks after it's release from windows 2000. Yeah... I WAS a long time PC user.
also you forget to mention all the software Mac OS X comes with like iLife etc out of the box on a PC you get virtually nothing of any use a trail version of office and windows movie maker and a DVD player software, what 8/10 of the time you have to buy your own encoder for so you have to spend about $400 on Vista ultimate to get the full uncrippled version of Vista, then another 500-800 $ on software so the PC has similar functions to iLife and then every year an anti virus subscription etc.
Yes but that's your opinion. I prefer F@CKING WINDOWS and so do many other people. OS X can't run as much software, and most of it you have to buy from companies that partner with Apple (or the king Apple itself) to give them more profit. F@CKING WINDOWS is way more open and free then OS X, and while Vista may have flopped, 7 is hardly going to have issues- XP was great too.
Also, F@CKING WINDOWS is used by most businessmen due to its software availability.
to be honest your totally wrong, its windows what has the compatibility issues. I can run any windows application you can without even installing windows just use darwine or crossover works perfectly fine. I'd have a Macintosh 128k from 1984 over that HP Pointless Crap
Last time I checked, Windows was still compatible with thousands more titles then Mac OS (nativly anyway, I don't know about your hacks scheme, but I'm sure it doesn't work much better then WINE on Linux). There's also this thing called compatibility mode in Vista that lets you run old software, most people are too noob to realize this.
Good luck with your Macintosh 128k, I'll enjoy watching blue-ray movies and playing games with my 1gig video card.
Finally, a video that isn't JUST speculation. I've been trying to find a vid that proves it for a awhile now. PC's, obviously better, about 95% of people on the internet at any one time are PC and it's used by major corporations worldwide.
Well, I hate to say it. But you did prove a point that Macs are overpriced. I have the top of the line iMac I'm using right now myself. Except I upped the graphics card to the ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB card that Apple offers for greater performance than the Nvidia GT 130. But ultimately, you proved that the Dell all in one XPS is $400 less. Congrats on showing the truth, even though I'm not glad of it, but you made a good point non the less.
Yeah!Windows has a lot of programs but 2/10 are good and apple has not so many but very good ones.If WINDOWS is so good than why Microsoft use Final Cut Pro for their Ads?
First, do you realize that there is a reply button on individual comments?
Second, I don't know how intelligent you are, but Microsoft
A) doesn't make a high-level video editor.
B) doesn't make their own ads, but rather highers an advertisement company to make them. Why does the company use Final Cut? Because they don't use Premiere nor Avid, and Final Cut made its way to be the industry standard (most likely for certain simplicities of the interface).
And you're so blind that you don't see past the walls that Apple built around you. OS X is a platform that's closed off from any influence but Apple's. They own you, and you have to use THEIR software or their partners'. Do you think the OS is fool proof and perfect? It has a lot of nice hardcore features, I'll give it that, but looking at it from an open mind, Windows has so many more options, and in all reality it is a more advanced OS due to its customize-ability and versatility.
Wrong again my friend, of fucki9ng-course its there software. If you don't know what Apple is all about let me clarify; They Don't Sell Junk! thats why their products and their software is made by them and no other, so they can sell stuff they can be proud of and recommend to the world. Windows is decades behind OS X my friend, do your homework before you write something that foolish
Correction: Apple is about not letting anything that they don't profit from into the OS X world. They do it by making their own, unique software, that's very advanced but also priced accordingly. Basically, you have no option on a Mac. Usually your only choices are Apple or Adobe software. What if Sony makes something worth using and cheaper? Nope, Apple doesn't have partnerships with them, no money in it, so you can't use it on OS X.
Windows is decades behind? Really? So I'm surfing Youtube on a text-based DOS system right now?
What about DX10/11? The most advanced graphics engine on the planet?
What about how Aero and explorer on Win7 (and Vista, though not so smooth) are so graphically intensive, and still manages to run smoothly? OS X has one simple animation and window shadows.
What about being able to change operational values to configure the OS to however you need from the core system files?
typical PC fanboy propaganda, I feel sorry for u if u belive that bullshit u just wrote, it's empty words m8, wake up. Microsoft has no taste, they just want to make money, it's so damn clear for everyone to see, no options? a Mac can do everything a PC can and more while PC can't do 1 third of what a Mac can
cheaper? u do know that Snow Leopard is 29$ right? and only 1 version. but yeah ur right, Apple just want the money..! yeah! ffs 29$ is a gr8 price to get trucks of cash coming in
You're more blinded then me if you think Microsoft is the only company that just wants to make money. Do you honestly believe that Apple wants something more? Take an economics class, learn what corporations do.
What exactly can't a PC do that a Mac can?
You truly are economically retarded. You payed your price for using OS X when you bought an Apple computer. $29 will make more people switch, and everyone will buy it. They had no choice to compete against Windows 7.
=)) ur so fucking blind u don't eaven see that OS X had become better and better than any windows today?And Aluminium Looks,feels and it's more rezistent than cheap plastic.
You know why you're wrong dude? You compare just the specs and the price, u don't compare the construction ,the software.U know why iMac's are so expensive? Bk they are build from aluminum and not cheap plastic like others All-in-Ones.
So you're telling me aluminum is really worth that much? Really? Not only is it not an expensive material, but also it's pointless. There's absolutely no way a desktop computer needs to be aluminum besides tricking fools into buying it over another brand for the aesthetics. That being said, the Dells look very nice and have customizable colors and a glassy theme (goes well with Windows too).
As for software. Windows vs. OS X... yeah, I'll take Windows over that shit any day, thanks.
first of, let me say this video of yours is typical PC fanboy made, absolutly worthless and no solid argument. Second, your paying for the computer not the aluminum, but lets talk case, you prefer plastic pc laptops over a much more rigid and robust system, are u shiting me? You dont get it do u? the Mac is a professional machine, only high school kids want different colours and flashy lights on their computers, seriously, do you want a computer or a car?
Then give my videos a low rating and write what you think, and let me own you in the comments. That's my reason for making these vids.
You're the one who seemed to make the idea that Macs are aluminum such an important pricing factor. I personally don't give a !@#$, because they would both sit on my desk and look just fine.
Really, only high school kids? Is it not an advantage to chose a color of your liking? What if I hate white or silver colored things?
It's a choice, and if you really are that dry you can just keep it at its default black Dell theme. I want a computer that first and foremost can do everything I need it to, second I need it to be priced good. I don't really give a shit about what it looks like as long as it's not completely disgusting.
Its not made to "look fine" its made for a purpose. If something doesn't need to be there it's not there! thats something Microsoft can't say about their products.. the Unibody is great engeenering achivement, everyone knows that and everyone loves it because of it's strength, except you.. It's not an advantage to choose to make it pink or blue what are you talking about, no Mac user doesn't like the gray aluminum MBP because its not made to be flashy! its made to be long lasting.
If something doesn't need to be there (aluminum uni-body) it's not there (yes it is, and it increases the price).
Yeah, great engineering achievement. You can rank it right next to NASA's space shuttle.
So lastly, how the hell does being made of aluminum help you? You do realize that plastic can last for hundreds of years, yes? I don't mind that Macs are aluminum, but I do mind when fanboys think that it's marvelous and the one undeniable thing that makes their machine superior. Yeah, right.
And again, I'm not the one who started talking about looks. I'm all about the insides. But if I had a choice, in all honesty, the Dell does look better (even at default color white).
lmao, oh I see your all about the inside, if you know anything about computers then you must love the superior interior of a Mac right? cause looking at a PC's interior it looks like a homemade bomb
In the end you spend more on a laptop then on a MBP why? cause pc laptops need to be repaired, or they just break and u buy another one, you spend more money on buying a PC then a Mac and u get better resale value, how thick are u? they don't break into 2 pieces, the Unibody is there for a much more stronger robust case, far superior to any plastic laptop that generate unnessecary heat
You idiot, PCs don't just fall apart. Just because you have a Mac with a unibody build (aka an excuse to price it higher) doesn't make it better. Bullshit it will break, I've been using PCs since 1998 and I haven't yet had ANYTHING break on me.
Oh yeah, the interiors look like a homemade bomb, good job quoting Applesoldier. Of course so many people even open their computer, especially the morons that go out and buy Macs right? Because those people really know all the technical stuff, so they take their iMac apart. Oh, I'd love to see how crammed the iMac is on the inside. There's a reason all-in-ones don't have open-able cases.
Oh yeah because PC's are so enviomentally friendly with their plastic cases and power hungry systems right? Your a complete ass speaker. omfg a PC? u mean a stationary system right? cause unless your not banging the shit out of it nothing is going to happen it, it just sits there, laptops are a different story. and remove this video it's incorrect and your comparing the old iMacs
@joeldude76, your retarted... the mac mini is the world's most energy efficient desktop. and 2nd there is no PVC or BFR in the plastic that would of made it bad for the enviorment.
If you want to feed into Al Gore's bullshit, then be my guest, but don't base the general users' computer of choice on your dumb environment BS. The MOST you can do is say that the electric bill will go up, so having a PC is less efficient, but then I can say a Mac Pro is just as power hungry, especially with 2 processors, and if I wanted a useless piece of garbage like the Mini I could just get a cheap and small laptop and plug a monitor into it.
The difference in performance between the dual core and quad core is small, under 15%. For Example, a 2.4Ghz and a 2.6Ghz CPU difference is less than 2% in performance. People believe that the extra 200Mhz difference it big, when in reality it's not even close. Anyway, nice comparison here. I'm sure Mac users would of probably loved having quad core in iMacs, but I doubt Apple will do it since they reserve quads to Mac Pro's.
I think the Quads can pull through more multitasking even at slower clock speeds. I personally don't know as I've never used a dual core, but it's still a nice feature nonetheless even for 15%.
The Dell One is not a good machine compared to the iMac.
The iMac has better ram, much better displays (seriously who wants a touchscreen on a desktop computer anyway?) much better choices for graphic cards on the 24¨ models. more ports and and it looks better overall.
the only thing that is notably better on the Dell is that the processor has four cores. but that really doesnt make the Dell a better machine then the iMac.
Two iMac models have the integrated graphics like Dell does, the other two have similar setup to the XPS One (compared later in the video).
Beside the processor, keep in mind that the lower-end machines have a better hard drive and more RAM despite being 200Ghz slower.
The touch screen is nice considering the all-in-one models are more for home entertainment centers then computers. In the PC world, the real computers are usually towers, which Apple doesn't even make.
As for it looking better, that's arguable. The XPS one has features like motion censors to light up the on-board buttons when your hand comes near it, and the regular Ones have customizable color options for your liking.
The hardware architecture of a Mac Pro is more similar to a server then an Intel PC. Companies like Dell and HP call these machines workstations as opposed to home and office PCs. One major difference is that they all have Xeon processors instead of Core 2 or i7. They are built for heavy-duty multitasking and designed to be extremely expandable hardware-wise. A regularly built PC/Mac is for doing regular tasks, home or office, or in the case of some PCs, gaming.
When I say stuff like iMac sucks in the title, that pretty much is a way to get people to come and comment. I guess I am a PC fanboy, but I have no intention of putting down Apple as a company, I just want people to understand that they're not Gods among mortals.
I really admire their technology with the iPhone and iPod, and even their innovations to OS X are pretty damn great, but some people take that and use it as a reason to claim PCs are complete junk. :)
the ram should not be noted because ddr3 1066 is not much faster than ddr2 800 in laptop components. the dell is a faster machine if configured right.
i would have to diasagree on the last comparison because the imac is 3.06 processor and the dell is only 2.33 which is alot slower even if it is a quad core
and tow because the imac has a terabite of storage and the dell has only 750 gigs which is a whole 25% less
Well yes, the iMac has more HD space, which I couldn't upgrade on the Dell, but keep in mind the huge price gap between them.
Also, at least according to HP, the dual 3.06 processor is worth $400 less then a quad 2.26. That's just HP's ranking of them though, so I don't know for sure, not to mention it doesn't say how much the cache is.
when was this iMac? cause even my laptop priced at $600 kicked its ass... (with the exception that that laptop has a 17 not a 20 inch screen, but I can always hook up another monitor and extend the display)
Sypran 1 year ago
@Sypran This was almost a year ago, so the last generation of iMacs (before the o5/i7 models came out).
PoliticalHell 1 year ago
@PoliticalHell Well I dont have an i5 or i7 in mine, and a year ago O_o i seriously wouldn't think laptop technology reached desktop performance in 4 months (got this laptop in November) something was screwy with apple there
Sypran 1 year ago
I'm a Mac guy, but even I have to admit something. This video isn't that old too me, and it stands as true in my mind. Mac just got owned! PC won this one.
ViciousDave4Life 2 years ago
Eve though this is an older video I honestly don't agree that Mac got owned here. The Dell featured here is nice but its a smaller system with a higher price tag. To me its 6 of one half a dozen of the other. Each has great things and each has not so great things. For me the larger screen is a contributing factor. To me this appears to be a draw.
endlessdream94 2 years ago
PC are the bomb (except for crappy vista)
pikaperson67 2 years ago
New Imac is so much better then that dell.
alexxxdamasta187 2 years ago
This is an old video, the new iMacs are the best all-in-ones that I've seen.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Apple: sucking at making products since 1976.
ikilluish 2 years ago
Look at that iMac lol.... try putting a descent graphics card or extra hard drives in that one ha!ha!Ha!
Oh well, I guess it comes with a lot of cable hehe. Just imagine those people who need to bring the whole computer back just because of a deal pixel or other screen issue ha!ha!ha! Oh yeah, of course! Macs NEVER fail, all forgot about that, I'm sorry fanboys hehe
rwjbl 2 years ago
You INSTANTLY lose for having to run vista, which will only detect 3.5 out of the 4 gigs of shitty DDR2 RAM you "upgraded" to. Also vista has shit 64-bit and multicore support.... next time, you can use this to compare price, but not performance. Go get some real benchmarks done.
xsonicbladex 2 years ago
Are you stupid or something? 64-bit version of Vista recognizes way more then 4 gigs.
DDR3 is overrated. Not saying it's bad, but having DDR3 doesn't make your penis bigger, nor does it improve performance much.
This version of Vista IS 64-bit, stop talking out of your ass.
Here's your benchmark: try running an intensive application on a shitty Core2 duo Mac. Processors make a HUGE difference in performance; any computer can open a web browser, even the $200 PCs.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Do medium setting on crysis on a macbook count as an intensive application? DDR3 MAKE A HUGGGEEE difference as long as it's your bottle neck (most often the case). 64-BIT vista has shit driver support cuz the all the DRM policies they invented. And BTW at just about all times, i have these apps running: Finder, Mail, Safari, Address Book, iCal, The Hit List, iTunes, Pages, Adium (chat client) and DockSpaces, NO LAG, No processor usage over 5ish%
xsonicbladex 2 years ago
I've never played Crysis, so I have no idea what medium settings are or what framerate that gets... just on a side note, if it's under 30FPS it's garbage.
64bit Vista runs every single application that I ran on 32bit. No difference, just a more stable environment.
And BTW, opening multiple applications means you need a pat on the back for having more then 1gig of RAM. Processor usage happens during complex logic processing, i.e. rendering or if a game uses processor resources (like WOW).
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Crisys is the MOST demanding PC game by far. 37FPS on something that need sli to run above 10 fps on high... ON A LAPTOP ThAT"S 13.3" diagonally
xsonicbladex 2 years ago
Screen size has no relevance, but like I said, I never played Crysis, I have no idea its demands on specific settings. I know though, no matter how you want to talk through it, the video cards in Macs are pathetic.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
LOL mac pro with 4 PCI 16x Slots? That's like 4 GTX 295s right there, The screen size is simply to show that it's not some giant thick piece of shit like an alienware 15 inch laptop. I think it is accurate to say the thickness is 15 inches on those things....
xsonicbladex 2 years ago
Mac Pro, not only is a workstation structure computer, but also comes with a maximum of 512mb cards x4 pre-built. Tower PCs often have 2 slots. Some gaming PCs I've seen with 2 2gb cards in there (4gb total).
And you can also compare the specs between your Mac and that alienware. My HP isn't much thicker than a Macbook (just wider) but it can have 2 500gb hard drives in it.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Graphics memory is completely minor when it comes to graphics processing. You need a good GPU. And the pre-bulilt is quite limited but that's not to say you can't add your own. You can have 4 cards with like 1780Megs each, 2 gpus per card and 2 monitors per card...
xsonicbladex 2 years ago
Depends on what game/app is using it, some are very graphics card intensive, but since so many people use integrated graphics, a lot of companies reverted to using the CPU, since a lot of people use quads.
Trust me, there's a HUGE difference between core2 and a quad or i7. My laptop has ddr3 memory, 64-bit Vista, better in every way than my desktop except the processor (core2 duo vs. my old quad) and I can tell the difference, it's much lower quality, especially if I run games.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
There is a difference between Core 2 Duos and Quads and i7s DUH. But that processor upgrade won't help much if memory speed, hard drive access time, or graphics is your bottle neck. "a lot of companies reverted to using the CPU," Apple has been using the GPU for a long time to help run the system and it just works.
xsonicbladex 2 years ago
Well, DDR2-800 and DDR3-1000 is a very small difference. Macs typically have very bad video cards compared to PCs, and too many times I still see 5400RPM drives in Macbooks and other Macs too.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
ownage!!! i agree PC
narcis4none 2 years ago
Well... Its a DDR2 Ram. Something really expensive on a computer is the screen size. But quad core and 750 HHD...
JimmyJosafat 2 years ago
Imac is way better . But that is my opinion. I do not want to make people mad ,but i have had pcs all my life and most of them are slow or break. Macs are much better because people use pcs alot more so imacs dont get viruses because nobody trys to hack imacs or mac computers
webkinzlov10 2 years ago
Haha what a retard!!!
that core 2 duo it's more expensive than that quad core!!!!!! ROFL!
cyprusboy56 2 years ago
The mac will be cheaper in the long run if you compare running costs etc and if Apple was so bad why have they scored the best consumer satisfaction rating for several years in a row beating competitors by miles. Apple's up there proudly at 85% Asus is second at 65% LOL, LOL LOL, an operating system can make or break a computer & apple have the hardware & software both spot on, gorgeous looking aluminium computers not made from cheap awful plastic like that HP,
macnerd93 2 years ago
I actually didn't spend anything on Vista. It comes with 11 free apps, but let's take in the reality. Apple gives you hardware AND software, so it's only fair to include what the OEM gives you as well (in this case HP). My HP came with video editors, DVD burners, webcam tools, basically all the crap your Mac came with. So it's a fair game. Windows is just one part of that package.
Also, only morons say Vista Ultimate is the only good version. Code-wise, there's NO difference in any of the...
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
versions. Read any reviews, check the features comparison... it literally makes no sense to buy Ultimate.
Oh, and there's like 10 different FREE antivirus clients out there.
You said it yourself, "an operating system can make or break a computer". 95% of bad reviews are mostly because people don't know the difference between OS and hardware. Vista wasn't that great, I'll admit, but with Windows 7 you'll have nothing to say.
Aesthetics aren't worth thousands, not to most people anyway.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
"Oh, and there's like 10 different FREE antivirus clients out there." FOR A REASON. Your gonna need them all if you wanna be even remotely secure =)
xsonicbladex 2 years ago
I love how All PC morons say "yeah, vista sucked", but "windows 7 will be better, trust microsoft", like they were saying "yeah, XP Sucked, but Vista will solve everything". This goes back years really...
xsonicbladex 2 years ago
Yeah, need them all... or just one, since they all protect against the same things, but okay. Microsoft even made one for Windows, but weren't allowed to release it as a feature in the OS because of some monopoly issues.
In the beginning Vista wasn't so good, it improved; the 64-bit version runs like a charm. XP didn't suck, Vista just has more features, doesn't crash as much. Believe it or not, newer versions tend to be better then the old stuff. I know it's a hard concept to grasp.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
XP was the worst thing to happen at the time. Microsoft has always been a company that fucks up, then makes a future release of what the original should have been years ago, charging full price. Smooooooth... "I know it's a hard concept to grasp." Really? Windows is the only product i ever worry about upgrading. For ubuntu and mac os x i get new versions the same day they come out... No problems there
xsonicbladex 2 years ago
Yeah, XP was the worst thing to happen at the time, only a majority of people, including a whole lot of Mac users, admit that XP was the possibly most revolutionary OS in computer history. It basically started the 21st century as far as computer technology goes.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
So are you going to contradict yourself now and claim that XP was better then Vista? Oookay.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
It was unstable and slow like vista is today. It improved over time but it was released like 8 years ago... I would know, i was upgrading like 2 weeks after it's release from windows 2000. Yeah... I WAS a long time PC user.
xsonicbladex 2 years ago
also you forget to mention all the software Mac OS X comes with like iLife etc out of the box on a PC you get virtually nothing of any use a trail version of office and windows movie maker and a DVD player software, what 8/10 of the time you have to buy your own encoder for so you have to spend about $400 on Vista ultimate to get the full uncrippled version of Vista, then another 500-800 $ on software so the PC has similar functions to iLife and then every year an anti virus subscription etc.
macnerd93 2 years ago
Yes but dell runs F@CKING WINDOWS. Instead iMac runs Mac OS X far more advanced than windows.
petros4225 2 years ago
Yes but that's your opinion. I prefer F@CKING WINDOWS and so do many other people. OS X can't run as much software, and most of it you have to buy from companies that partner with Apple (or the king Apple itself) to give them more profit. F@CKING WINDOWS is way more open and free then OS X, and while Vista may have flopped, 7 is hardly going to have issues- XP was great too.
Also, F@CKING WINDOWS is used by most businessmen due to its software availability.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
to be honest your totally wrong, its windows what has the compatibility issues. I can run any windows application you can without even installing windows just use darwine or crossover works perfectly fine. I'd have a Macintosh 128k from 1984 over that HP Pointless Crap
macnerd93 2 years ago
Last time I checked, Windows was still compatible with thousands more titles then Mac OS (nativly anyway, I don't know about your hacks scheme, but I'm sure it doesn't work much better then WINE on Linux). There's also this thing called compatibility mode in Vista that lets you run old software, most people are too noob to realize this.
Good luck with your Macintosh 128k, I'll enjoy watching blue-ray movies and playing games with my 1gig video card.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
this proves fuck all
EdYoutubr 2 years ago
sucks if u dont wanna go all out on the price...im getting the 3.06 ghz with maxed out graphics card
EdYoutubr 2 years ago
cheaper means not as good
cyprusboy56 2 years ago
Usually. However, more expensive does not always mean better.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Apple = Think Different
Dell = Think =
WINDOWS SUX
commentary created natively on XP, but i want a Mac NOW!
11010neo01011 2 years ago
Apple = Think Our Way, Only Our Way, and Pay Us and Only Us to Do It.
Dell = crap.
Other PCs = get them cheap, get them good, and get them with an OS (Windows) that is actually useful!OS X sucks.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Finally, a video that isn't JUST speculation. I've been trying to find a vid that proves it for a awhile now. PC's, obviously better, about 95% of people on the internet at any one time are PC and it's used by major corporations worldwide.
rdsrds2121 2 years ago
dell runs windows therefore is shit.
aegnt09 2 years ago
Si, si.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Well, I hate to say it. But you did prove a point that Macs are overpriced. I have the top of the line iMac I'm using right now myself. Except I upped the graphics card to the ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB card that Apple offers for greater performance than the Nvidia GT 130. But ultimately, you proved that the Dell all in one XPS is $400 less. Congrats on showing the truth, even though I'm not glad of it, but you made a good point non the less.
ViciousDave4Life 2 years ago
FACT !!! vista crashes less than leopard..I work with macs own a tower and own a dell xps...Have had several kernel panics with the mac.
I use what works..older macs tiger and back were solid...now they suck !!!!!!! period
italianman2112 2 years ago
I totally agree with Nnemicvids :)
ComanLaurentiu92 2 years ago
Yeah!Windows has a lot of programs but 2/10 are good and apple has not so many but very good ones.If WINDOWS is so good than why Microsoft use Final Cut Pro for their Ads?
ComanLaurentiu92 2 years ago
First, do you realize that there is a reply button on individual comments?
Second, I don't know how intelligent you are, but Microsoft
A) doesn't make a high-level video editor.
B) doesn't make their own ads, but rather highers an advertisement company to make them. Why does the company use Final Cut? Because they don't use Premiere nor Avid, and Final Cut made its way to be the industry standard (most likely for certain simplicities of the interface).
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
The Microsoft uses Macs to create commercials.
11010neo01011 2 years ago
Might as well just re-read that comment.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Nnemicvids , i tottaly agree.
ComanLaurentiu92 2 years ago
And you're so blind that you don't see past the walls that Apple built around you. OS X is a platform that's closed off from any influence but Apple's. They own you, and you have to use THEIR software or their partners'. Do you think the OS is fool proof and perfect? It has a lot of nice hardcore features, I'll give it that, but looking at it from an open mind, Windows has so many more options, and in all reality it is a more advanced OS due to its customize-ability and versatility.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Wrong again my friend, of fucki9ng-course its there software. If you don't know what Apple is all about let me clarify; They Don't Sell Junk! thats why their products and their software is made by them and no other, so they can sell stuff they can be proud of and recommend to the world. Windows is decades behind OS X my friend, do your homework before you write something that foolish
Nnemicvids 2 years ago
Correction: Apple is about not letting anything that they don't profit from into the OS X world. They do it by making their own, unique software, that's very advanced but also priced accordingly. Basically, you have no option on a Mac. Usually your only choices are Apple or Adobe software. What if Sony makes something worth using and cheaper? Nope, Apple doesn't have partnerships with them, no money in it, so you can't use it on OS X.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Windows is decades behind? Really? So I'm surfing Youtube on a text-based DOS system right now?
What about DX10/11? The most advanced graphics engine on the planet?
What about how Aero and explorer on Win7 (and Vista, though not so smooth) are so graphically intensive, and still manages to run smoothly? OS X has one simple animation and window shadows.
What about being able to change operational values to configure the OS to however you need from the core system files?
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
What about the ability to run on thousands of hardware configurations and still manage to do it well?
What about being able to run thousands of different types of software titles from all different kinds of manufacturers?
OS X is nothing but a polished money machine for Apple that they subtly put into their computers which they sell for excessive amounts.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
typical PC fanboy propaganda, I feel sorry for u if u belive that bullshit u just wrote, it's empty words m8, wake up. Microsoft has no taste, they just want to make money, it's so damn clear for everyone to see, no options? a Mac can do everything a PC can and more while PC can't do 1 third of what a Mac can
cheaper? u do know that Snow Leopard is 29$ right? and only 1 version. but yeah ur right, Apple just want the money..! yeah! ffs 29$ is a gr8 price to get trucks of cash coming in
Nnemicvids 2 years ago
You're more blinded then me if you think Microsoft is the only company that just wants to make money. Do you honestly believe that Apple wants something more? Take an economics class, learn what corporations do.
What exactly can't a PC do that a Mac can?
You truly are economically retarded. You payed your price for using OS X when you bought an Apple computer. $29 will make more people switch, and everyone will buy it. They had no choice to compete against Windows 7.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
It's called free-market economy by the way.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Agreed
11010neo01011 2 years ago
=)) ur so fucking blind u don't eaven see that OS X had become better and better than any windows today?And Aluminium Looks,feels and it's more rezistent than cheap plastic.
ComanLaurentiu92 2 years ago
You know why you're wrong dude? You compare just the specs and the price, u don't compare the construction ,the software.U know why iMac's are so expensive? Bk they are build from aluminum and not cheap plastic like others All-in-Ones.
ComanLaurentiu92 2 years ago
So you're telling me aluminum is really worth that much? Really? Not only is it not an expensive material, but also it's pointless. There's absolutely no way a desktop computer needs to be aluminum besides tricking fools into buying it over another brand for the aesthetics. That being said, the Dells look very nice and have customizable colors and a glassy theme (goes well with Windows too).
As for software. Windows vs. OS X... yeah, I'll take Windows over that shit any day, thanks.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
first of, let me say this video of yours is typical PC fanboy made, absolutly worthless and no solid argument. Second, your paying for the computer not the aluminum, but lets talk case, you prefer plastic pc laptops over a much more rigid and robust system, are u shiting me? You dont get it do u? the Mac is a professional machine, only high school kids want different colours and flashy lights on their computers, seriously, do you want a computer or a car?
Nnemicvids 2 years ago
Then give my videos a low rating and write what you think, and let me own you in the comments. That's my reason for making these vids.
You're the one who seemed to make the idea that Macs are aluminum such an important pricing factor. I personally don't give a !@#$, because they would both sit on my desk and look just fine.
Really, only high school kids? Is it not an advantage to chose a color of your liking? What if I hate white or silver colored things?
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
It's a choice, and if you really are that dry you can just keep it at its default black Dell theme. I want a computer that first and foremost can do everything I need it to, second I need it to be priced good. I don't really give a shit about what it looks like as long as it's not completely disgusting.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
With that said, it's an OPTION and it's free, and I'm not the one who seems to care about looks so much.
Aluminum is nice, sure, but it makes a machine no more professional nor better inside.
Also, the old iMacs were plastic, I'm sure you didn't bitch about that back then.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Its not made to "look fine" its made for a purpose. If something doesn't need to be there it's not there! thats something Microsoft can't say about their products.. the Unibody is great engeenering achivement, everyone knows that and everyone loves it because of it's strength, except you.. It's not an advantage to choose to make it pink or blue what are you talking about, no Mac user doesn't like the gray aluminum MBP because its not made to be flashy! its made to be long lasting.
Nnemicvids 2 years ago
If something doesn't need to be there (aluminum uni-body) it's not there (yes it is, and it increases the price).
Yeah, great engineering achievement. You can rank it right next to NASA's space shuttle.
So lastly, how the hell does being made of aluminum help you? You do realize that plastic can last for hundreds of years, yes? I don't mind that Macs are aluminum, but I do mind when fanboys think that it's marvelous and the one undeniable thing that makes their machine superior. Yeah, right.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
And again, I'm not the one who started talking about looks. I'm all about the insides. But if I had a choice, in all honesty, the Dell does look better (even at default color white).
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
lmao, oh I see your all about the inside, if you know anything about computers then you must love the superior interior of a Mac right? cause looking at a PC's interior it looks like a homemade bomb
Nnemicvids 2 years ago
In the end you spend more on a laptop then on a MBP why? cause pc laptops need to be repaired, or they just break and u buy another one, you spend more money on buying a PC then a Mac and u get better resale value, how thick are u? they don't break into 2 pieces, the Unibody is there for a much more stronger robust case, far superior to any plastic laptop that generate unnessecary heat
Nnemicvids 2 years ago
You idiot, PCs don't just fall apart. Just because you have a Mac with a unibody build (aka an excuse to price it higher) doesn't make it better. Bullshit it will break, I've been using PCs since 1998 and I haven't yet had ANYTHING break on me.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Oh yeah, the interiors look like a homemade bomb, good job quoting Applesoldier. Of course so many people even open their computer, especially the morons that go out and buy Macs right? Because those people really know all the technical stuff, so they take their iMac apart. Oh, I'd love to see how crammed the iMac is on the inside. There's a reason all-in-ones don't have open-able cases.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
Oh yeah because PC's are so enviomentally friendly with their plastic cases and power hungry systems right? Your a complete ass speaker. omfg a PC? u mean a stationary system right? cause unless your not banging the shit out of it nothing is going to happen it, it just sits there, laptops are a different story. and remove this video it's incorrect and your comparing the old iMacs
Nnemicvids 2 years ago
huh thats wierd the mac mini is plastic new imacs are plastic all the pcs we have in our house and i have ever seen have all metal except the front
joeldude76 2 years ago
@joeldude76, your retarted... the mac mini is the world's most energy efficient desktop. and 2nd there is no PVC or BFR in the plastic that would of made it bad for the enviorment.
Punk1044 2 years ago
If you want to feed into Al Gore's bullshit, then be my guest, but don't base the general users' computer of choice on your dumb environment BS. The MOST you can do is say that the electric bill will go up, so having a PC is less efficient, but then I can say a Mac Pro is just as power hungry, especially with 2 processors, and if I wanted a useless piece of garbage like the Mini I could just get a cheap and small laptop and plug a monitor into it.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
i said that because somone said that all imacs are made of aluminum and pc are made of plastic and they arent
joeldude76 2 years ago
imacs are aluminum.
GoDieProductions 2 years ago
Ur wrong dude.If you get the cheapest iMac than get The cheapest One to compare not the best one.
ComanLaurentiu92 2 years ago
If you watched the video you would see I compared both... the cheapest models, then the best models.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
The difference in performance between the dual core and quad core is small, under 15%. For Example, a 2.4Ghz and a 2.6Ghz CPU difference is less than 2% in performance. People believe that the extra 200Mhz difference it big, when in reality it's not even close. Anyway, nice comparison here. I'm sure Mac users would of probably loved having quad core in iMacs, but I doubt Apple will do it since they reserve quads to Mac Pro's.
blacksteel25 2 years ago
I think the Quads can pull through more multitasking even at slower clock speeds. I personally don't know as I've never used a dual core, but it's still a nice feature nonetheless even for 15%.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
awesome video man
5 stars =]
FedoraFTW 2 years ago
The Dell One is not a good machine compared to the iMac.
The iMac has better ram, much better displays (seriously who wants a touchscreen on a desktop computer anyway?) much better choices for graphic cards on the 24¨ models. more ports and and it looks better overall.
the only thing that is notably better on the Dell is that the processor has four cores. but that really doesnt make the Dell a better machine then the iMac.
dannewashere 2 years ago
Two iMac models have the integrated graphics like Dell does, the other two have similar setup to the XPS One (compared later in the video).
Beside the processor, keep in mind that the lower-end machines have a better hard drive and more RAM despite being 200Ghz slower.
The touch screen is nice considering the all-in-one models are more for home entertainment centers then computers. In the PC world, the real computers are usually towers, which Apple doesn't even make.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
As for it looking better, that's arguable. The XPS one has features like motion censors to light up the on-board buttons when your hand comes near it, and the regular Ones have customizable color options for your liking.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
im sorry to correct you but apple does make towers
look at the mac pro
check out there website if you think im wrong
AppleKnowsBest 2 years ago
its not a mid-tower, its a pedestal server.
ASCII808 2 years ago
Pretty much what ASCII said. The Mac Pro isn't a regular computer, if anything, it would be a server or workstation.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
please explain to me how its not a regular computer
and apples server is Xserve
and by definition i think a computer is a workstation if used for work
AppleKnowsBest 2 years ago
The hardware architecture of a Mac Pro is more similar to a server then an Intel PC. Companies like Dell and HP call these machines workstations as opposed to home and office PCs. One major difference is that they all have Xeon processors instead of Core 2 or i7. They are built for heavy-duty multitasking and designed to be extremely expandable hardware-wise. A regularly built PC/Mac is for doing regular tasks, home or office, or in the case of some PCs, gaming.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
I will have to say that you have done alot of homework
so I will respect your opnion eventhough I do not agree with it
I'm not an apple fanboy which pretty much means that I don't go lalala everytime someone says something negative about apple
I'm open
so I will cotinue are little discussions and watch your vids
but could you please stop sayin that apple sucks just say ou think so in so is better for what ever reasons
just to keep it civilized
AppleKnowsBest 2 years ago
Well that's respectable.
When I say stuff like iMac sucks in the title, that pretty much is a way to get people to come and comment. I guess I am a PC fanboy, but I have no intention of putting down Apple as a company, I just want people to understand that they're not Gods among mortals.
I really admire their technology with the iPhone and iPod, and even their innovations to OS X are pretty damn great, but some people take that and use it as a reason to claim PCs are complete junk. :)
PoliticalHell 2 years ago
the ram should not be noted because ddr3 1066 is not much faster than ddr2 800 in laptop components. the dell is a faster machine if configured right.
ASCII808 2 years ago
i would have to diasagree on the last comparison because the imac is 3.06 processor and the dell is only 2.33 which is alot slower even if it is a quad core
and tow because the imac has a terabite of storage and the dell has only 750 gigs which is a whole 25% less
AppleKnowsBest 2 years ago
Well yes, the iMac has more HD space, which I couldn't upgrade on the Dell, but keep in mind the huge price gap between them.
Also, at least according to HP, the dual 3.06 processor is worth $400 less then a quad 2.26. That's just HP's ranking of them though, so I don't know for sure, not to mention it doesn't say how much the cache is.
PoliticalHell 2 years ago