I prefer the integrated monitor. Sleek, looks clean and beautiful, and doesn't take up as much space. Also leaves a lower carbon footprint (I'm a green guy).
The pixel shrinkage and density leads to a sharper image, more vivid pictures, and all in all higher quality viewing. the 16:9 ratio they use is the same as HD TV's and computers.
The carbon footprint of a self-built PC is almost always going to be better than the Mac. First of all, you can decide what power supply you want, so it's not as if you're tied in to whatever goes into the actual machine. If you don't need a hog with a 1000W PSU, don't get one. It'll consume less power. From a recycling standpoint, you can reuse far more parts of a PC in a new build than a Mac--where you just have to buy a new one.
Regarding pixel density, let's compare, shall we?
26": maxres = 1920x1200 (2,304,000 pixels); screen area = 22.04x13.78 (303.71 sq. in); 0.000132 inches per pixel
27" iMac: maxres = 2560x1440 (3,686,400); s.a. = 13.24x23.53 (311.5372 sq. in); 0.0000845 in/px
30": maxres = 2560x1600 (4,096,000); s.a. = 15.90x25.44 (404.496 sq. in); 0.0000988 in/px
So the iMac does have the highest pixel density, but by how much? We're talking about thousandths to ten thousandths of an inch per pixel better than its competitors. If you can really tell the difference (and you'd require a "blind" testing in that you'd have to test the displays independent of being in an iMac) then I would seriously doubt you or any human could tell the difference. Certainly if you're a professional graphics artist, then its worth the difference. But for the every day user its just a brag point.
They usually don't, but you always have the few bad apples in the bunch (pardon my bad pun). My sister has a 2008 white macbook that she uses for college. The palmrest got slightly discolored so we took it in to the Chicago Apple store to see if they could give us a cleaning solution or something to get rid of some of the stains. We walked out with a brand new (FREE) laptop, palmgaurd, and all of her data transferred over withing 30 minutes. Apple's customer service can't be beat. Compare that to the crap HP service I got. The mother board busted (within 6 months of use), the power cord melted, we had to extend our warranty twice, they charged us $50 just for phone support, 100$ three separate times for powercord replacements, 200$ in repairs...over 500$ excess charges for a 650$ laptop. We trashed it and got a Vaio, and Sony's CS has been better so far, thankfully. My uncle actually works in the corporate sector of HP down in Austin/Houston, so we should have a partial bias
, but that isn't the case.
How old was your HP computer? I've never had to contact HP support and I've been buying HP machines since 1997. I suspect a great deal of it has to do with how a user uses it versus how good the hardware is. HP is known to use cheaper hardware than Dell, though, which is why Dell is far and away the preference for any business users. For example, one of my buddies in college had a Macbook that crept slower than a Windows ME. I suspect it had to do with how he used it rather than how solidly the computer was built.
You can call it whatever you want... It's sleek, innovative, and is a pleasure to use. I went and tried it out in the Ann Arbor Apple store, its fantastic. Swiping through windows and scrolling down is a breeze, and the whole mouse is a big button which is pretty cool. Though I might prefer an MX Revolution or something, its certainly not bad for a free (included) mouse compared to the crappy ones you get with PC's.
I haven't used it so I can't tell. My experiences with Apple mouses have been very unpleasant, though. I used an iMac at work for the last 4 years and every day after work my wrist would be sore. The 360 degree ball was an innovative idea, but I really, really prefer physical buttons any day of the week. My productivity on a computer would be extremely hampered by a mouse that didn't have at least 3 buttons and a scroller.
Not everyone is in your situation. Most are going to be forking over that extra 100-200$ for the Windows 7 Upgrade. And since we are comparing high end models it's obvious that we should compare the best OS's against each other.
You would have an argument if OSX made separate models for each of their releases. From a feature standpoint, you can get pretty much everything anyone needs with the Home Premium or Pro edition. In fact, the only big missing feature in Home Premium is backup and restore. And my point with OSX is that the fact that it only retails at $30 means that its not a major contributing factor to the price point. So you cannot say Windows 7 is $220 hence OSX is better--because you can only account for $30 in the price of an iMac, for Snow Leopard.
---> Let's take a slight detour into software here. Now, I have NOT tried Windows 7. I have Vista installed on my Vaio downstairs and XP on my 8 year old desktop that i'm currently using. I actually kind of like Vista, I don't have all the complaints that others do and i'm fine with it as an every day OS. Yes, it does get slightly redundant and irritating at times, but coming from using a beat up 8year old computer with 500megs of ram, it's pure heaven.
If you like Vista, then there's no doubt that you'll feel like you're in heaven with Windows 7.
But, using the iMac's in school with OSX and my sisters Macbook, there really isn't a comparison. It's fast, secure, and has a lot of innovative features that make it a breeze and joy to use. You could say that Windows has a lot more programs. True, but for every program I truly want there is a Mac alternative.
If that was the case then Apple would never release Bootcamp. Bootcamp enables users who are missing connectivity with Windows computers, precisely because the Mac alternatives don't exist or suck. Secondly, from a development standpoint, Windows is far and ahead of Apple. The Visual Studio IDE blows XCode out of the planet, although XCode is free and comes with the OS. The enabled technologies on Windows, specifically the .NET platform, are going to create a generation of software development that is going to result in pretty and powerful programs. Apple doesn't support this officially thus far, but the Mono project shows that most users are definitely interested in the development possibilities.
Mac's also have no/very few virus programs, compared to the thousands plaguing PC's everywhere. (Please note: I have been surfing the internet avidly on two separate machines (Windows) for the last two years with no virus protection whatsoever and have not had any problems at all. I believe it's more of a 'you asked for it' kind of thing.) But remember, I have NOT tried Win7, and from what I hear it's a pretty solid OS. Engadget, Gizmodo, Slashgear etc rate OSX slightly higher, but 7 is a big step forward from Vista.
What's the point of bringing up something and contradicting yourself? The Mac-virus fallacy is one of the oldest ones around. It doesn't make sense for an attacker to attack machines that are less than 5% of the market share when you have a pretty insecure OS to target (XP, 90% of market share). Botnets don't have a pride factor where they show that they can attack a Mac, they try to capture and control as many terminals as possible.
Again, not everyone is in the same situation. What if you have your rig isn't hooked up directly to your modem (ie, the second computer in your house)? A computer lab? These are the cases in which Wifi becomes essential. The $40 dongle's look stupid, take up a USB port, and get spotty reception (trust me, we've gone through like 4 of them on my sis's old [highschool] desktop)
You must not have understood my wording. I don't need to buy any USB attachments since I have more than enough PCI slots open in my motherboard. If tomorrow some brilliant new technology comes out, I can buy a card and install it in my box, not wait 2 years for Apple to charge me a premium rate for it. If you have more than one computer in your house, a router is a good idea anyway and those come with 4 ethernet ports. I mean... what else are you going to connect your Mac to?
Windows movie maker and iMove simply don't compare. I can't run WMM for 30 seconds on my Vaio without it crashing.
Windows Live Messenger is cool, but you don't get the versatility of iChat.
The toolbar basically sucks.
Outlook is terrible IMO.
I ran WMM on Windows ME fine.
I don't know why it doesn't work for you! When you end up getting employed, you will realize that an enterprise mail application is extremely necessary if you want to be even semi-productive. Regardless of whether I'm on a Mac/PC I'd be using Pidgin, Thunderbird and Firefox for my IM/email/internet needs. I'll concede that the Mail.app is pretty cool, though it doesn't compare to Thunderbird in my book.
You're right, there are plenty of freeware apps available that are better than the preinstalled options. But you've got to remember that OSX has them too
.
More, better available for Windows.
Even if you won't use some features or you already have something, you've got to still take it into account.
I don't have to take it into account if I'm building a computer for my personal needs. I'd argue that most everyday users on a computer don't have a need for the iLife application stack, for example.
That's because Apple can do that. Have you seen the value of it's share? It's skyrocketing, even coming off a recession. People aren't stupid, Mac's are becoming so popular today because they're fantastic machines, have a solid operating system and software, have less maintainence, are greener, and have ingenious marketing. PC companies simply can't compete.
Umm... in a time of economic recession, people should be realizing and being aware when companies are stealing money from them! Instead, you are applauding them for making prices higher. I'm confused... I always thought it was better to save money. Apple's "ingenious marketing" is nothing but bashing of Windows. It makes you wonder why they don't actually make advertising about what their product is good at, apart from looking good and having a dedicated fanbase of rich people.
You are also completely ignoring what has been driving the Apple share the last few months--the iPhone. The iPhone has certainly been a huge win for Apple and made them a lot of money in the form of sales (more than $200 a pop), licensing (contracts with only 1 telecommunications carrier in most countries) and application store royalties. To think that Apple is reporting huge earnings just because of Mac and Macbook sales would be extremely ignorant, especially in a quarter where the iPhone 3GS was released.
Personally, I don't mind Mac machines. If they were a few hundred dollars cheaper I'd save up for one and run Windows 7 off bootcamp. As it happens, Apple still feels the need to maintain their elitism by keeping their prices unneedingly high. As a company, I dislike Apple a lot. They are far too arrogant a company, which is evident in their bash-marketing. They don't care about what their users want (people have been asking for an open-development platform for the iPhone for ages, along with an actual checklist of what you need to get into the App Store instead of what Apple feels like on the day, as well as native Blu Ray support). Despite this, they've managed to maintain a veil over the large majority of their users, who still seem to be under the impression that they're getting a better product, whereas this cannot be quantified in the least bit.
