What type of computer do you have?
Apple

Which operating system do you use?
...Mac OS...

It all depends on what you are trying to do with the computer.

The reason that there are so many variants of Linux is that different people like different things. Wheras within Microsoft or Apple, if half the development team says they want everything to be installed out-of-the-box, and the other half wants to make it so that you set up the system, or one wants Gnome, the other wants KDE, one wants a fancy gimmicky system, the other wants pure speed, one want to use stable, highly tested software, the other wants cutting or bleeding edge, then either half the development team gets fired, forced to do something they don't agree with, comprimises are made, or middle-ground is reached. However, with Linux, the teams usually divide up. For example, Ubuntu is a system which generally is intended to work out of the box, uses Gnome, and tends to be on the more stable side, wheras Arch requires you to build your system from the ground up. There is no right answer - it's all up to the individual's personal preference, and Linux gives users the power to choose what kind of operating system they'd like.

Your lack of knowledge on what an all-in-one desktop is already shows how little you know of WHAT to compare to. Your iMac is not a regular desktop. It does not have a tower, it is small, etc. You are paying for this smaller design. Just as you pay for a laptop and it's form factor, you are paying for all in one and it's form factor. Whether YOU think an All in One formfactor is useless or not, does not matter. Whether you can piece together an ATX desktop or not for less than an All in One form factor PC, does not matter. What does matter is the fact that the iMac, an All in One desktop, is competitvely priced with other all in one desktops sold by Dell, Gateway, etc. It is also arguable that the iMac executes this formfactor much better than other companies, but we can argue later, but I have a feeling just based on what is obvious we won't have to.

The hardware is what I am referring to. Hardware that runs linux is not free.

When somebody is too attached to one thing to see the obvious benefits and uses of another thing, then whatever that is, that is what a majority if people are acting right now. I do not own a Mac. I own a PC running Windows, and have ran Linux in the past. I have used Mac, Windows, and Linux all together numerous times. I know that there are definitely pluses and minuses to each. Do you think this qualifies me to being a fanboy?

That's great. However, this is not important. Nobody is arguing about the practicallity or uses of an All in One desktop.
I would like you to keep in mind however that not everybody is worried about being upgradable. Although technology for things like games, etc, are expanding pretty quickly, making hardware obsolete rather quickly, Mac OS X does not really cater towards gamers for it's lack of 3rd party support. As of right now, the hardware that Macs use will be sufficient enough to do nearly anything non-gaming related for a long time. Although, with the 8800GS now being offered in the higher end models, even gaming is more than possible as the 8800GS is an above average video card. Look at previous generations. Right now, I'm using an Athlon 3700+. In gaming, I would say it's starting to show it's age, that's it. But for basic performance tasks, it actually runs great. So although an iMac may be a bit limited as far as upgrade options go, it should still perform very well for a long time to come.

To begin with, our interpretation of entry level is arguable. However, let's just say the iMac is what is considered the Entry level desktop. In that case, the Mac Mini is always offerable if you are interested in a Mac for cheaper. Next, the processor specs might be similar, the RAM might be similar, etc, but the formfactor is not. Your comparison of a regular desktop to an All in One desktop holds as much ground as a comparison between a laptop and a desktop. In other words, you cannot compare the pricing between the two. If you think the All in One formfactor is not worth that much money, that is totally your call, but I don't really care.
Yes, there are discounts for Dell. I am fully aware of discounts for other retail brands. Just take note that educational discounts are generally only through the actually company's store. Your education discount won't get you anywhere in Best Buy, to my knowledge.
You say you are comparing the same stuff, but you forget to take into consideration a lot of things, so your comparison is invalid.

The arguement of whether or not the All in One desktop is useful/useless doesn't really have anything to do with Mac vs PC vs Linux. Some people would like their computer to look like a piece of furnature rather than a big tangle of wires. Some people need the space. Some people like the lower power usage (Due to the iMac's use of mobile components often found in laptops which use less energy, run cooler, etc.) Whatever reason it is, there is definitely a reason, which is why JUST RECENTLY Gateway, Dell, etc, have released their own offerings of All in One home desktops. Also, keep in mind that the hardware on an iMac is just as locked as any other of the All in One from another company.

If you are interested in arguing about the iMac's quality against other SIMILAR desktops, I'd be more than happy to participate in it. But yes, in my opinion, the iMac executes the all in one form factor better than any other competitors. It makes sense too, the iMac has been an all in one PC for quite a while now.

Buying a Mac can also be viewed like buying a prebuilt computer from a retailer. A lot of the times, it is not in somebodys best interest to buy a Mac or a prebuilt computer. Mine included. I can definitely see situations where you would be better off buying your own pieces and putting together a computer. However, there are also very valid situations as to when you would want an iMac or something similar. And just so you know, a lot of things don't have to be purchased from Apple in order for them to work. Apple, just like any other company, makes a lot of it's money for upgrades. An additional 2gbs of RAM may cost 200$ more than without it, even when the RAM itself might only cost 40$. But it's how businesses work and make money. As long as people are willing to go out and spend $200 dollars extra because of their lack of knowledge, why would Apple, or anybody else for that matter, stop?

I would have to disagree with you here. It does not make sense for Linux to be faster, easier, better, cheaper(free), and more compativle than other operating systems yet be quite a bit behind as far as usage goes. Now obviously, I know there are other factors. The fact that 90% of PCs are shipped with Windows definitely contributes to Linux's lack of success. But with that being said, Linux definitely has it's faults. I would say it's arguable that mainstream Linux Operating systems (such as Ubuntu out of the box) does basic tasks any faster than Mac OS X does. Linux machines looking better is subjective. And EVEN THEN, not all Linux machines look alike. There are a number of GUIs to choose from. Some Linux machines lack GUIs, so you can't really say that anyway.. Personally, i prefer the look of Mac OS X over any other operating system. Easier to use? I previously linked this article to one of my other posts, but I insist that you read it.
http://contentconsumer.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/is-ubuntu-useable-enough-for-my-girlfriend/
Simple tasks are made much more difficult, especially to somebody who was new. Now then, take these same tasks and make somebody new to Mac do them, and I am more than CERTAIN that they would be more productive on the Mac OS X.
As far as the over 300 features crap, that's stupid. Who even counts features of an OS in the first place, lol? What is considered a feature and what isn't. It's just marketing.

You may think you have reasons, but hopefully after this post you see a little bit more clearly.

Now please, let's try to conduct this in an orderly manner. Thanks!

I guess I don't know much about why people would want an all-in-one desktop. If I want a bigger screen, I can get that. If I want a faster video card, I can get that. If I need anything upgraded, I can do it.

If you're saying it saves space on the desktop, then simply put the actual computer portion on the floor (which is what I do). You might as well get a laptop if you're thinking of an all in one, because at least the laptop will be far more portable.

Correct, but the operating system is included in the price of the hardware.

The only real useful thing I found Linux for is operating servers... or so my cousin said...

Well, I can tell you right now Laptops are more expensive and aren't going to be capable of running as high end hardware. But a few reasons would be wanting the computer to look like a piece of furnature, or fitting on a small table in the kitchen or something. All in ones generally are more visually appealing to people because there isn't such a mess of wires. I don't really know all the reasons why people prefer them, but there is a market for them, which is why the iMac has been sucessful for numerous generations and why other companies have recently released their own lines of all in one desktops.

What your describing however is extremely special circumstance, then. I could see how it might be a benifit to use it as a internet browing machine in certain areas, but for 98% of other cases there's no advantage.

I have a few things to say, none of them really contributing to the argument.

First of all, Deathhawk is the new Praetor!
Second, the $ sign goes to the LEFT of the number, not the right. $500, not 500$... See?
Third, the "300 features" thing is 300 features ADDED in OS X Leopard 10.5, not in total for OS X. Also, features are things like Time Machine or Spaces, and not like tiny little things, those don't count.

Personally, I like OS X more than windows, but I like the hardware of Windows/Unix/Linux machines more, because they are much cheaper, upgradeable and the like.

Then explain to me why there is and has been a market for them for a while now, and companies that previously haven't ventured in the area are now participating selling their own computers which follow the form factor. But whether there is a reason to buy all in ones or not doesn't matter in regards to Apple and it's products, really.

Let's not forget that the general user doesn't really want anything more than a computer that can play music, watch YouTube videos, type a paper, browse the internet, etc. Also, I think a lot of people would like a computer that looks good. These are two categories that the iMac exceeds in.

And no, I am definitley not the new Praetor. I am capable of spelling peoples names correctly, so I can't be Praetor.

???

Probably there has been a market because people don't really think about or know anything about upgrading their computer, and they think it "looks pretty". Thats my guess.

And people don't really need that good of computers if they are only doing simple tasks or playing games.

It all depends on what you want to do with the computer.

If you want to have a large choice of applications (most retail software is developed for Windows), you use Windows. If you have no problems using Windows, I don't see why you should switch to Linux. If you have no problems using Windows, the advantages of Linux won't help you at all, but if you are doing more advanced things (programming, web development, etc) then you will probably see the difference between Windows and Linux.

If you want your computer to look good (both the hardware and the software), you would use Mac OS X and an Apple computer. I can't really say much here, I've literally NEVER used OS X. (and I never plan to )

If you want an overall strong computer (that has software that looks good and a large selection of applications) and you are willing to do a little more work (maybe not if you are good with Linux) to get things started then other operating systems, you use Linux. Linux in my opinion is best for anyone who is good with computers and plans to program / develop things.

These are obviously really loose examples of why people would use what operating system they use.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on May 3 2008, 2:31 pm by Money.

Yes, they are very loose examples, but the point of different OS's / hardware (for Mac at least.) being for different people still stands. Thank you :0

And Praetor, what I meant by that is you spelt my name incorrectly, with two 'h's.

I'm my house PC, i have 2 winXP and 2 Linux SO (Guadalinex and Musix) in 2x150gb HD.

I'm my workzone at the recording studio where i'm working, I have a Mac G5 with Leopard. The leopard SO will be deleted for installing Tiger (problem with some programs requirements).

I'm developer of Musix GNU/Linux. My work is to test the SO, and manage the forum http://foros.musix.es/ <-- Forum // www.musix.es <-- Distro mainpage

If some of you are a multimedia man, i recommend Musix GNU/Linux

I use an iMac with Mac OS 1.5.2 Leopard.

*Mac OS X 10.5.2 Leopard

*Mac OS 10.5.2 Leopard.

*Mac OS X 10.5.2 Leopard is the correct name.

Wait, 10.2 is Jaguar. Leopard is 10.5.