Posted on 03/19/2019 1:09:34 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Two weeks ago I bought a Mac mini and teamed it with a great monitor. It works for my stuff, but those new iMacs are attractive.
None of the Windows compatible all-in-ones could be configured with a latest generation Coffee Lake Intel i9. They were all at best the last generation i7, and none had 5K monitors. No comparison possible. Closest with a 27” HD monitor, 4K, came in at $3897. . . But it lacked the Intel Coffee Lake 9900-i9, had only 32GB RAM max (compare 64Gb on the iMac), and maxed out with a 1TB SSD (2TB iMac). . .
The only way I could configure with identical/comparable components was a desktop Dell tower and since Dell has dropped their 27" 5K monitor, go with LG from another source. Wanna complain? Talk to Dell and HP, whose all-in-ones only go up to Intel i5s .. . .
Well, you don’t have to compare top of the line. Of course when you compare bits and hertz Apple always comes in high.
Besides, who wants an All-In-One anyway.
Dell was not offering ANY Coffee Lake Intel processors in their All-in-ones to cross compare at any level. . . And finding them even on desktop towers was difficult. They were available on some workstation and pro machines but nothing on consumer machines. On Apple, they were on everything except the entry level iMac.
My point was to show that Apple prices were competitive not “always come in high" as you claim. The facts are as anyone who has ever run a Total Cost of Ownership analysis between the two platforms (as IBM has done in an Enterprise level to the point of switch all 400,000 employees to all Apple) learns, Apple products are far less expensive to own over their useful life spans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.