Best monitor at that price and resolution is about $100 cheaper, although I've only checked that on PCPartPicker.
The lowest possible price would then be about $1678, which is quite a bit cheaper than the iMac, but keep in mind that's with rebates and all that.
The Cinema Display is the cheapest monitor meeting the required criteria for a 1:1 comparison, as of a few weeks ago when I made this comparison.
It's $300-400 for a Korean one.
And I dare say that the Catleaps are better quality than Apple cinema displays.
Looky here: http://www.overclock...nd-catleap-q270
Oh god. Do we really need to have this conversation? Here's what's wrong with those Korean monitors, and why they're nowhere near a 1:1 comparison.
Despite what everyone believes, they cannot be overclocked. This was only possible with an initial batch of them.
They are using factory reject panels, that failed quality control.
The panels used are usually rated A-. Apple/Dell use A+ panels.
The Korean monitors are usually badly calibrated, and there are often defects with color in general.
They have issues with backlight bleeding.
They are built extremely cheaply.
Up to 5 dead pixels is normal and allowed on most of them. Some sellers/brands do have a no dead pixels guarantee for extra money, but even that isn't guaranteed.
They do not have a scalar, making them useless for anything but 2560x1440
They do not have an OSD, making on-monitor color adjustments impossible.
They only have DVI-D inputs, reducing the amount of devices that can use them.
They come with no warranty at all, and nobody is sure if the $60 optional SquareTrade warranty would cover them.
They use cheap, wobbly stands.
They are shipped extremely badly, often arriving damaged.
Because no matter how good the os is (no opinion on this), there's no justification for charging $225 for an upgrade from 3 to 6 gb of ram.
Also, they put workstation processors with radeon hd 5000 series graphics cards (pick one or the other -- and update to hardware that's not 2 generations out of date). Not to mention that they're charging $250 for a 5770.
THAT is why macs (and prebuilts in general) fail.
It's using hardware that's two years old, and meant for professionals, not consumers.
Every pre-built company rips you off on upgrades. This is nothing surprising.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
As someone who actually dismantled pc's & macs for a living, the inside, is all slave labour. Foxconn, whether it's HP or apple, still has a lot of foxconn components in it.
I mean for all we know they failed because they had a habit of spontaneously combusting.
I'd guess so. They only cost the ebay sellers about $100/each from a wholesaler (although the min order is 1000), and even with $100 EMS shipping they're still making $100-$150 per panel of profit.
One thing that really annoys me is that Mac vs. PC thing. A Mac IS a PC.
Oh for pity's sake, the common usage of the term is Mac = Apple and PC = Windows. Sure, technically PC = personal computer, but it's very rarely used in that fashion.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
I have no problem with OSX. The only problem I have with Macs are the price. The OS itself, I believe, is around $40. If they were to make a non-hardware-locked version of OSX, with better support for windows emulators that's more expensive, say, $60-80, then they might have a better marketshare.
EDIT: OSX Lion is only $30 on the Mac Store. It's actually cheaper to buy their OS than their photo-editing software, which is $80. Their Logic Pro 9 is $199. Why Apple Why?
They can not multitask. On a windows/linux machine, I can multitask. Macs are just impossible to do anything with. With windows and linux, if it does not exist I can create it.
With mac, I have to play with in the box. Once I want outside the box, I have to go to another os.
Because they rip you off. Did you miss the part about charging ~$200 each for 3gb of ram and a 5770?
And don't say other prebuilt companies do this. It's not a discussion of mac vs prebuilt.
But, the point is, everyone rips you off for prebuilts. I don't know a single Mac owner that buys RAM from Apple, and I know quite a lot of people using Macs. The 5770 is an old GPU, because Apple hasn't updated their Mac Pros in years.
“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” — Albert Einstein
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
I'm indifferent towards OSX and later macs. I would never own one, however, simply because I don't feel they offer anything above what I can get via Windows or Linux that justifies the higher price point (if anything at all). My main problem comes with OSX apologists. For example- the Titlebar buttons are ****ing retarded. The colour-coded buttons that are indistinguishable to people with some common kinds of colour blindness, and even for those that aren't the colours have nothing but an arbitrary relationship to what they do; which doesn't even account for the cultural skew that could apply. These are legitimate problems, but you tell this to a Mac diehard and they never will admit that it's a flaw, they will either become an apologist and say something like "form over function is what it's about", "caption buttons aren't important". More often they will instead point to what they consider a flaw in Windows, completely missing the fact that when I described the issue with OSX's titlebar I also noted that the X button in windows is spatially too close to the other buttons given what it represents. Basically, I was saying they all have flaws; the Mac OS diehard will usually take the stance that "They all have flaws, but the only ones that matter are the ones that aren't in OSX".
Mac OS (Classic) was a damn fine OS; it didn't have the most solid kernel, and some of the down-level details were a bit funky, but that didn't matter. it's UX (User Experience) was far above ANYTHING that ever existed or has existed since. OSX was a step backwards from OS9 to everybody that cared about usability, but a step forward to everybody that didn't and cared more about being able to toss around pointless code names like "Darwin" or "Aqua".
Originally, Mac OS, and the hardware it came on, were a complete package. No other system could run mac OS, and Macintosh's couldn't run any other OS other than mac OS. Part of the OS was in ROM. This presented a consistency to people that you couldn't find on the other more open systems available at the time. Additionally the vastly superior hardware and graphics capabilities you got with the system (say a Mac IISE compared to the IBM PC) more than justified the price difference between it and a competing system.
Now- Mac OSX is a PC Operating System typically sold on PC systems that are loosely coupled with the OS (Mac computers can run Windows and other PC operating Systems); the OS has completely artificial checks to try to only run on Mac computers that can easily be worked around. Pretty much any PC can be made to run OSX; I have it running in VM-Ware, for example. Arguably, such usage is against the TOS, but the argument that there is added value is one that is becoming increasingly hollow. The Hardware itself, aside from an extra coat of shellac, doesn't necessarily fetch that higher price on it's own, since the components themselves are industry standard components.
Apple, is now a PC manufacturer whose PC systems are completely proprietary, subscribe to no standard, and is charging at least twice as much as their competitors. The only reason it is working for them is because they are Apple. Dell, HP, and others did this exact same thing (without the "cost twice as much" part) and consumers basically just told them to **** their hat.
But there's no guarantee nothing will conflict.
yes there is. It's called IRQ and DMA steering, and it was introduced alongside the PCI bus in ~1996. Unless you are using ISA hardware, a PC is going to work fine as long as the components meet the specs they claim to.
I'd rather not pull Windows into this, but there are a LOT of RATs for Windows that don't require UAC auth to install.
Not currently. The ones that did exist for Vista (and there were only a handful, none of which are virulent today) all exploited vulnerabilities in the implementation of UAC that allowed some dialogs to be avoided. I remember there was one in the Windows 7 beta that allowed code to change the UAC settings and then re-launch itself as an administrator without user intervention, but this was fixed before release. No doubt there are others that exploit security vulnerabilities in UAC that have not yet been discovered by the public. Basically, your argument rings hollow and the only real point seems to be that "all software has bugs/security problems" which is in fact the very point that you are supposed to be arguing against. The difference here is that Microsoft actually addresses the problem, rather than trying to pretend it doesn't exist- and they certainly don't advertise that their OS is "free from viruses" like Apple does. You know what they are saying when they say that? they are saying that their Software is free of security bugs. Which is ****ing impossible so they should shove those words up their ass where they came from. Apple needs to stop making **** up and misleading people about the security of their product, and stop misleading customers who get infected with things like that MacDefender thing with false information.
As to Mac OSX viruses. They exist. You know that vulnerability in the windows 7 beta that allowed applications to not show the UAC prompt? the same **** exists and still exists in OSX; each version seems to have a patch to try to fix what was being used to exploit it, without fixing the underlying problem (see Secunia's history for each case). It's been there since the first implementation, and each release Apple monkey-patches it badly, they are almost like MS back in 1997, like that attempt to prevent buffer-overflow exploits that could be exploited using a buffer overflow exploit (the irony...). More importantly, arguing technicality is ****ing pointless. Very few Windows machines get infected with what you could call a virus, either. nearly all of it is malware in the form of trojans.
Anyway, for the most part, we have three Operating Systems; Windows, OSX, and Linux. Adherents to OSX and Linux will often say that their systems are inherently safer, but they aren't.
A good analogy would be a small country with a racial makeup of 98% African Descent, 1% Caucasian, and 1% Asian. Let's say it has a Million people. And according to their Health Board, they find that 196000 Africans suffered from ear infections, while only 2000 Caucasians and 2000 Asians did.
This is pretty much what you get looking at Operating Systems. Linux machines get infected, and so do OSX machines. it doesn't matter if you can weasel-word what the machine is infected with as not being a virus or whatever, it's still unwanted software. That would be the equivalent of trying to say that none of the Asians really got sick because ear infections are caused by bacteria and not viruses. Nobody wants a ****ing ear infection. Also, notice the underlying point, which is that the amount infected above is exactly 2 percent of the total for each race. much of the misconceptions (much, but not all) surrounding Windows can be attributed to the Curse of the Majority. Whereby the larger portion of the total will naturally and unsurprisingly take a larger slice of the pie for any statistical data gathered about the whole. Another important stat to consider is the fact that we aren't really dealing with a single metric- the number of infections, but we should also consider that there is a statistical relevance to the number of viruses developed for each. In this case, what we would really be dealing with is not a single Ear infection that infects all three races, but instead we would have different strains that can only infect one race. By definition than the majority would evolve to infect Africans simply because there are more of them. The other strains would be less common by the same metric because most of them would end up in Africans and the bacteria is killed because of physiological incompatibilities.
Similarly, Viruses and other malware are written by somebody- who, much like a real virus or infectious bacteria, wants to be able to infect as many computers as possible. While some of them see a niche with Linux or Mac OSX to take advantage of the fact that the system has nothing more than sloppy security as it is currently implemented- most malware is designed to make the creator money and to do that they need to infect as many machines as possible, which means windows. In the analogy this would be a case where the country is made-up of the same people as before, but the total infection bacteria that causes ear infections is comprised of 98% that only infect Africans, and 1% each that infect the others. Than we have to understand that only 1% of 1% of those that infect Caucasians and Asians will actually end up in somebody they can infect, whereas 98% of 98% of those that infect Africans will end up in a person they can infect.
nearly all of it is malware in the form of trojans.
With the rest being things like fake AVs and really shitty keyloggers.
edit: and this is why you save things in notepad or something before posting. This was rather long but everything save for the last quote got cut off. z_z I should honestly know better.
Just wondering, where are the hundred-or-so cables from in that Dell pic?
@numbars; I don't think you know what computer components are or how they function together.
The Cinema Display is the cheapest monitor meeting the required criteria for a 1:1 comparison, as of a few weeks ago when I made this comparison.
Oh god. Do we really need to have this conversation? Here's what's wrong with those Korean monitors, and why they're nowhere near a 1:1 comparison.
It's using hardware that's two years old, and meant for professionals, not consumers.
Every pre-built company rips you off on upgrades. This is nothing surprising.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
i5 6600k 4.6ghz / MSI 280X / 8Gb 2666 DDR4 / Gigabyte Z170X-UD5 / TX550M / 500Gb 850 EVO / NZXT S340 / Corsair K65 / Corsair M60
I mean for all we know they failed because they had a habit of spontaneously combusting.
Hardware wise? You shouldn't. Ever.
Software/OS wise? Personal preference, but if you go down that route build a hackintosh.
One thing that really annoys me is that Mac vs. PC thing.
A Mac IS a PC.
I'm curious about the opposite — why should I get a PC instead of a Mac?
I'd guess so. They only cost the ebay sellers about $100/each from a wholesaler (although the min order is 1000), and even with $100 EMS shipping they're still making $100-$150 per panel of profit.
Oh for pity's sake, the common usage of the term is Mac = Apple and PC = Windows. Sure, technically PC = personal computer, but it's very rarely used in that fashion.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
EDIT: OSX Lion is only $30 on the Mac Store. It's actually cheaper to buy their OS than their photo-editing software, which is $80. Their Logic Pro 9 is $199. Why Apple Why?
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-microsoft-security-malware-virus,15462.html
Kaspersky just wants to sell more OSX AV licenses.
Security wise, maybe 2-4 years behind, but not anywhere near 10.
I just can not use a mac.
They can not multitask. On a windows/linux machine, I can multitask. Macs are just impossible to do anything with. With windows and linux, if it does not exist I can create it.
With mac, I have to play with in the box. Once I want outside the box, I have to go to another os.
ten years ago, i think i saw computers as those box thingys that play CD games XD
Because they rip you off. Did you miss the part about charging ~$200 each for 3gb of ram and a 5770?
And don't say other prebuilt companies do this. It's not a discussion of mac vs prebuilt.
But, the point is, everyone rips you off for prebuilts. I don't know a single Mac owner that buys RAM from Apple, and I know quite a lot of people using Macs. The 5770 is an old GPU, because Apple hasn't updated their Mac Pros in years.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." — Robert Heinlein
Mac OS (Classic) was a damn fine OS; it didn't have the most solid kernel, and some of the down-level details were a bit funky, but that didn't matter. it's UX (User Experience) was far above ANYTHING that ever existed or has existed since. OSX was a step backwards from OS9 to everybody that cared about usability, but a step forward to everybody that didn't and cared more about being able to toss around pointless code names like "Darwin" or "Aqua".
Originally, Mac OS, and the hardware it came on, were a complete package. No other system could run mac OS, and Macintosh's couldn't run any other OS other than mac OS. Part of the OS was in ROM. This presented a consistency to people that you couldn't find on the other more open systems available at the time. Additionally the vastly superior hardware and graphics capabilities you got with the system (say a Mac IISE compared to the IBM PC) more than justified the price difference between it and a competing system.
Now- Mac OSX is a PC Operating System typically sold on PC systems that are loosely coupled with the OS (Mac computers can run Windows and other PC operating Systems); the OS has completely artificial checks to try to only run on Mac computers that can easily be worked around. Pretty much any PC can be made to run OSX; I have it running in VM-Ware, for example. Arguably, such usage is against the TOS, but the argument that there is added value is one that is becoming increasingly hollow. The Hardware itself, aside from an extra coat of shellac, doesn't necessarily fetch that higher price on it's own, since the components themselves are industry standard components.
Apple, is now a PC manufacturer whose PC systems are completely proprietary, subscribe to no standard, and is charging at least twice as much as their competitors. The only reason it is working for them is because they are Apple. Dell, HP, and others did this exact same thing (without the "cost twice as much" part) and consumers basically just told them to **** their hat.
yes there is. It's called IRQ and DMA steering, and it was introduced alongside the PCI bus in ~1996. Unless you are using ISA hardware, a PC is going to work fine as long as the components meet the specs they claim to.
Not currently. The ones that did exist for Vista (and there were only a handful, none of which are virulent today) all exploited vulnerabilities in the implementation of UAC that allowed some dialogs to be avoided. I remember there was one in the Windows 7 beta that allowed code to change the UAC settings and then re-launch itself as an administrator without user intervention, but this was fixed before release. No doubt there are others that exploit security vulnerabilities in UAC that have not yet been discovered by the public. Basically, your argument rings hollow and the only real point seems to be that "all software has bugs/security problems" which is in fact the very point that you are supposed to be arguing against. The difference here is that Microsoft actually addresses the problem, rather than trying to pretend it doesn't exist- and they certainly don't advertise that their OS is "free from viruses" like Apple does. You know what they are saying when they say that? they are saying that their Software is free of security bugs. Which is ****ing impossible so they should shove those words up their ass where they came from. Apple needs to stop making **** up and misleading people about the security of their product, and stop misleading customers who get infected with things like that MacDefender thing with false information.
As to Mac OSX viruses. They exist. You know that vulnerability in the windows 7 beta that allowed applications to not show the UAC prompt? the same **** exists and still exists in OSX; each version seems to have a patch to try to fix what was being used to exploit it, without fixing the underlying problem (see Secunia's history for each case). It's been there since the first implementation, and each release Apple monkey-patches it badly, they are almost like MS back in 1997, like that attempt to prevent buffer-overflow exploits that could be exploited using a buffer overflow exploit (the irony...). More importantly, arguing technicality is ****ing pointless. Very few Windows machines get infected with what you could call a virus, either. nearly all of it is malware in the form of trojans.
Anyway, for the most part, we have three Operating Systems; Windows, OSX, and Linux. Adherents to OSX and Linux will often say that their systems are inherently safer, but they aren't.
A good analogy would be a small country with a racial makeup of 98% African Descent, 1% Caucasian, and 1% Asian. Let's say it has a Million people. And according to their Health Board, they find that 196000 Africans suffered from ear infections, while only 2000 Caucasians and 2000 Asians did.
This is pretty much what you get looking at Operating Systems. Linux machines get infected, and so do OSX machines. it doesn't matter if you can weasel-word what the machine is infected with as not being a virus or whatever, it's still unwanted software. That would be the equivalent of trying to say that none of the Asians really got sick because ear infections are caused by bacteria and not viruses. Nobody wants a ****ing ear infection. Also, notice the underlying point, which is that the amount infected above is exactly 2 percent of the total for each race. much of the misconceptions (much, but not all) surrounding Windows can be attributed to the Curse of the Majority. Whereby the larger portion of the total will naturally and unsurprisingly take a larger slice of the pie for any statistical data gathered about the whole. Another important stat to consider is the fact that we aren't really dealing with a single metric- the number of infections, but we should also consider that there is a statistical relevance to the number of viruses developed for each. In this case, what we would really be dealing with is not a single Ear infection that infects all three races, but instead we would have different strains that can only infect one race. By definition than the majority would evolve to infect Africans simply because there are more of them. The other strains would be less common by the same metric because most of them would end up in Africans and the bacteria is killed because of physiological incompatibilities.
Similarly, Viruses and other malware are written by somebody- who, much like a real virus or infectious bacteria, wants to be able to infect as many computers as possible. While some of them see a niche with Linux or Mac OSX to take advantage of the fact that the system has nothing more than sloppy security as it is currently implemented- most malware is designed to make the creator money and to do that they need to infect as many machines as possible, which means windows. In the analogy this would be a case where the country is made-up of the same people as before, but the total infection bacteria that causes ear infections is comprised of 98% that only infect Africans, and 1% each that infect the others. Than we have to understand that only 1% of 1% of those that infect Caucasians and Asians will actually end up in somebody they can infect, whereas 98% of 98% of those that infect Africans will end up in a person they can infect.
With the rest being things like fake AVs and really shitty keyloggers.
edit: and this is why you save things in notepad or something before posting. This was rather long but everything save for the last quote got cut off. z_z I should honestly know better.