| | Re: More Droid love from real users
> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WindsorFox
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> the imac display is an ips panel and your unnamed display with the acer
>>> is more than likely a cheap tn panel.
>> It does not say more than Active Matrix WXGA but since 99% of LCDs
>> are then I'd say yes. But that's pointless to someone buying an entry
>> level machine.
> according to wikipedia, wxga is 1280 x 720:
> the imac is 1920x1080, ips, versus 1280x720 tn. that alone makes up
> much of the difference in price.
Not according to the Acer specs for the 20" monitor, and it still
wouldn't make up the difference.
>> You are comparing the current 21" iMac, one year+ ago the entry
>> level iMac was I believe a 20" and I can not find the specs for it.
>> Regardless more than 16x9 on a 20" WS is pretty useless.
> since we're discussing it today, i'm going by what's available today.
> the 20" imac prior to the current model had 1680 x 1050 pixels, still
> more than what the acer has:
vs 1600x 900.
>>> the imac can also drive a second
>>> external display, up to a 30" panel with 2560x1600 pixels, while the
>>> acer is limited to only one display.
>> Correct, the addition of a $20-$30 card would change that, assuming
>> any entry level user would want or understand that.
> an entry level user might not care for two displays but the imac is
> targeted at the midrange, not entry level. that's really the main flaw
> in your comparison.
Okay then you call this whole comparison a wash and say that Apple
has not entry level machines and basically caters to persnickety snobs.
I was trying very hard from just coming out and saying that, but since
you just pretty much did okay.
>> nVidia 9200 256MB. Otionally anything that you can plug into the PCI
> in other words, a less capable gpu than the imac. that's one more
> reason why the acer costs less.
Hardly. If there's a difference between to two then it's very
little, and again you are comparing a new machine to one 18 mos old.
>>> the imac also has firewire 800, gigabit ethernet, 802.11 a/b/g/n,
>>> bluetooth 2.1+edr, an isight camera, built-in stereo speakers, built-in
>>> microphone, sd card slot and optical digital audio in/out. i'm going to
>>> guess that the acer lacks most or all of that, and probably only has
>>> 100 base-t for networking and a single speaker.
>> You would be wrong. The only thing the Acer lacks is built in
>> wireless and camera. And I'll mention here that neither I nor anyone I
>> know has anything that will plug into Firewire. Not even my iPhone.
> it might have firewire 400, but i highly doubt it has firewire 800, and
> a lot of pcs have 4 pin firewire 400, which can't supply bus power.
> since firewire is faster than usb (especially fw800), it's great for
> external hard drives. it's also common on camcorders and some scanners
Says the Fanboi, but that I can't tell because nothing uses it.
>> Yes a USB mouse. If it had wireless that would have been a deal
>> breaker for that user, or I would have had to provide them. That's not
>> necessarily an upgrade to a lot of people. I can get a USB bluetooth
>> adapter for less than $5. And this one actually has 3 buttons, one on
>> the wheel.
> apple will substitute a wired mouse for those who prefer it, and if you
> get a bluetooth adapter you now have one less usb port. you can always
> get a hub, but then you have an even bigger jumble of wires.
>> Moot point. It came with Windows included and OO and Ubuntu are a
>> free DL.
> it's not moot at all. it came with windows home, not ultimate, and os x
> does a lot more than windows home does.
> the ilife suite is nothing at all like openoffice, but even if it was,
> is the typical entry level user actually going to download and install
> openoffice and ubuntu on their own?
>>> there are many differences, and that's why one is $500 and the other is
>> Sorry, not nearly as many differences as you assume. Nothing that
>> makes any difference to an entry level user looking for an entry level
>> machine to check email, write a report and look at avon.com. And I could
>> bring anything lacking up to equal or better for a lot less than more
>> than double the price.
> whether a person wants those features is not the issue. the fact
> remains that there are substantial differences in two machines, which
> is why one costs more than the other.
Only in the fanboi's eyes who refuses to admit Apple's stuff is
>>> and if that's not enough, i'll also point out that the mac mini server
>>> is just $999 for unlimited users, which is slightly less than what
>>> windows server costs *without* a computer at all, and limited to 5
>> Ubuntu server is free for the download.
> and it's not even close to the same.
To whom? It doesn't matter because it has nothing at all to do with
the subject, your just trying to add Window bashing to your fanboi
speech about expensive Apple hardware. You'll never see it but you've
completely failed to prove that the iMac is worth more than double other
entry level hardware or something I can build for a lot less.
"A smorgasbord of tomfoolery" - L0afy