: The incredible value of an iMac


mac_geek
Jul 31st, 2005, 12:20 AM
With the release of the newly updated iBooks, I started looking at the whole price/value relationship between the iBooks and Powerbooks.. when it struck me square in the face..

The base 17" iMac, at $1599, is an incredible bargain. If you don't need portability, it really is an awesome value for the money.

Think about it.. even the middle of the road Mac mini, with a keyboard, mouse and 20" widescreen display, will put you at $1826.. and doesn't give you half the computing power.

The 14" iBook, at $1649, and the 17" Powerbook, at a whopping $3399, simply can't compete.

I wonder if someone makes a padded case large enough to lug around a 17" iMac as a not-so-portable on the road computer?

CarbonJohn
Jul 31st, 2005, 12:30 AM
There's the iLugger (http://www.ilugger.com/)

http://luggerbags.com/new%20blue-300.jpg

DBerG
Jul 31st, 2005, 12:31 AM
There exists case for the iMac for you to carry it around. I just can't find the one I'm talking about. Hell, if the iMac would have a included keyboard, trackpad and power, I'd forget the iBook right away.

mac_geek
Jul 31st, 2005, 08:42 AM
There's the iLugger (http://www.ilugger.com/)

http://luggerbags.com/new%20blue-300.jpg

Awesome! There really is something for everyone in this world!

Klaatu
Jul 31st, 2005, 09:40 AM
Think about it.. even the middle of the road Mac mini, with a keyboard, mouse and 20" widescreen display, will put you at $1826.. and doesn't give you half the computing power.

I thought about it, and I think you're on drugs. Why make a comparison with a much cheaper Mac by adding on an overpriced display. A decent 17" LCD can be had for about $300 which can bring the Mac Mini cost to $1000 -- still significantly lower then the intro iMac. And besides, the Mac Mini is really meant for long-time pc user who already has a keyboard, monitor, printer, etc, is tired of Windows, but has been scared off of Mac because of its inflated price (a decently powered pc can be had for a few hundred -- far less then the LOW-end iMac)

mac_geek
Jul 31st, 2005, 11:19 AM
I thought about it, and I think you're on drugs.

Nice..

Anyway, drugs or not, I tried to look for a comparable 17" widescreen (not 4:3 ratio) monitor, but neither Apple nor Dell sell these anymore. So knock $200 off the $1826, and it's still out of range.

I don't buy the "low-cost to switch" argument.. value is value. Anyone who wants to get serious with a Mac hopefully won't settle with a paltry $300 monitor, and the resultant mismatch between beautiful hardware and a not-so-beautiful monitor.

My only point is this.. the base iMac is an incredible value relative to other Mac hardware offerings from a cost/value perspective.

DBerG
Jul 31st, 2005, 11:23 AM
Yep, but for those who need portability, the iBook is still a greater value for them. It always depends on your needs.

andrewenterprise
Jul 31st, 2005, 11:34 AM
It may not look like it, but after owning both iBook and Powerbook 12" I find the Powerbook to be way more portable than an iBook. Powerbook 12" is the ultimate, ultra-portable machine. Don't get me wrong here, I loved my iBook, but Powerbook is just sooo much more portable. I would kill for an iMac anyday, or even a Mac Mini to replace my dated 400mhz Powermac. Any way I must say, both iMac and Mac Mini are an excellent value, but I must agree with Klaatu, that the Mini is the "low cost switch" for computer users looking to get out of the dark side. Even so with the monitor thing, whos to say that these PC users don't already have themselves a decent monitor. A lot of them already have a somewhat of a decent LCD monitor for their Winblows system.

satchmo
Jul 31st, 2005, 11:46 AM
I just can't see someone opening up an iLugger and pulling out an iMac at the local Starbucks. ;)

But yes, the iMac not surprisingly with it's G5 processor outshines the laptops and mini in terms of power...but while it is luggable, portable it's not.

guytoronto
Jul 31st, 2005, 11:57 AM
I tried to look for a comparable 17" widescreen (not 4:3 ratio) monitor, but neither Apple nor Dell sell these anymore. So knock $200 off the $1826, and it's still out of range.

I don't buy the "low-cost to switch" argument.. value is value. Anyone who wants to get serious with a Mac hopefully won't settle with a paltry $300 monitor, and the resultant mismatch between beautiful hardware and a not-so-beautiful monitor.

My only point is this.. the base iMac is an incredible value relative to other Mac hardware offerings from a cost/value perspective.

You can't use a cost/value argument, and then dismiss something because it is low-cost. That just does not make sense. I've seen very nice DVI 17" LCDs for about $350.

And why the hangup on wide-screen?

17" iMac = 1440 x 900 = 1296000 pixels
17" LCD = 1280 x 1024 = 1310720 pixels

A standard 17" LCD has MORE desktop space than a 17" iMac. Add to that that for most purposes (word processing, e-mail, and web browsing), a landscape display is way more practical than a portrait display.

CN
Jul 31st, 2005, 01:02 PM
I just can't see someone opening up an iLugger and pulling out an iMac at the local Starbucks. ;)

"Umm do you have anywhere that I can plug this in" :D

Its not THAT portable...you can't do anything with it without a wall outlet...or I guess if you got a small generator or something :D Powerbooks/iBooks can be used where there is no outlet available making them much more portable and adding to their value.

Grunt
Jul 31st, 2005, 07:35 PM
So lug a UPS with you. :D

dona83
Jul 31st, 2005, 07:41 PM
for 15 minutes of battery life, woohoo!

Grunt
Jul 31st, 2005, 07:44 PM
Better than not having a portable at all. :) Maybe the new G5s will improve the battery life? :D

Jacklar
Jul 31st, 2005, 07:48 PM
iMac is alot more portable then its PC counterparts =D

Even a MicroATX or a Shuttle case still needs a monitor that needs to be lugged around with it. The iMac simply needs power/keyboard/and mouse.

=D

mac_geek
Jul 31st, 2005, 08:50 PM
General comments to all posts..

1. I'm being fecitious about portability.. just tying to point out the incredible value of the iMac relative to other Apple offerings. Of course you're not going to lug it around.. stylish case or not.

2. Why widescreen? A couple of reasons..

a) we're at the beginning of a worldwide migration to the 16:9 widescreen format, regardless of current pixel per $ equations;

b) points noted on why 4:3 may be more appropriate for some applications.. for me, I like a 16:9 aspect ratio for video editing and desktop publishing/word processing, where I can see two pages on the screen in portrait mode at a time.