??? 04/12/12 00:31 Read: times |
#187104 - re: Apple may have a price match on the superluxourious Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
Joseph Hebert said:Apple, who still has their infamous "price doesn't matter, quality does" mantra (talk about whistling past the graveyard - tell it to BetaMax.)
That's completely utterly wrong. not really While Apple may have a price match on the superluxourious cadillac of all units, do show me where to buy a $300 Apple desktop good enough for most non-gaming activities. e.g. http://deals.bestbuy.com/desktops+...cd+monitor $380 including 20" monitor. The cheapest Apple desktop (again including monitor) is $1199 http://store.apple.com/us/browse...amily/imac . I, for one, do not want to pay 3 times the price to get a sleek design. Unfortunately, I can't find any technical specs on that system. Oh, wait, I had to "click to buy" to see the specs. It's got a 1.65 GHz AMD E-series processor. How many cores? Is it a 32-bit or 64-bit processor? It's pretty slow by modern standards. And it's got only 100Base-T networking (no Gigabit) and no WiFi. And the monitor is a 1600 x 900 (weird widescreen), which is pretty awful. Is this acceptable? Or are you buying three-year-old technology that you'll replace next year? So if you're comparing to a base $1199 iMac, that iMac gives you a 2.5 GHz quad-core I5, a 1980x1080 display, an HD webcam, gigabit ethernet, FireWire, USB and Thunderbolt and an SDXC card slot. So, sure, you pay more for the iMac, but it's a much better computer. Again, Apple doesn't play in the low end. Why should they? BTW I sometimes wonder why those that scream about the Windows monopoly happen to praise Apple which, if anything, is a more closed environment. At least with windows, you have a choice of hardware suppliers. Well, I suppose if you want to run Windows on the barest-minimum hardware, you're free to do so. Whether such hardware offers acceptable performance, that's a decision only you can make. -a |