Originally Posted by karlok
Okay well lets stop talking about build quality then and talk about what I meant in the first place; overall quality. There would be no use in arguing if our definitions are different.
There is one crucial concept you must first understand before my position on the matter is clear to you. The first concept is that hotter parts in a laptop or any electronic device actually do degrade the device and cause performance loss after time. Whether the temperature is within the range of acceptable temperatures given by the manufacture doesn't make a difference, that range is only there to give you an idea of the threshold, the maximum temperature a CPU can take before suffering serious degradation often resulting in the CPU ceasing to function normally. To expand on this, if I have one i5 running at say 30C, it will deteriorate faster than one running at 25C. This gradual deterioration of the CPU and other components within the device will contribute to performance loss, over time. This a fact of any electronic device. And as you said, when you make a laptop thinner, it WILL get hotter than a similar thicker laptop and so will indeed degrade faster. This is not just me talking out of my ass, this is a fact of life for ANY electronic device no matter how small. Similarly, hotter devices require more power to function and thus bring rise to battery problems, as I mentioned in my previous post.
Fair enough. I disagree about performance of the laptop suffering though, unless you're talking about throttling.
One thing I realized as well was that the iMac was not what I was thinking about when I compared it to custom built computers, I was thinking of a Mac Pro, it wouldn't really be fair to compare two different classes of computer.
Ah that makes more sense then.
Another thing is that although you say that the Mac Pro doesn't use parts from Foxconn, that is not true. The Mac Pro is likely manufactured in whole by some other company, but the computer components (such as motherboard, GPU, etc) are supplied by Foxconn. If you have a Mac Pro or iMac, open it up and take a look for yourself.
What proof do you have that the components in any Mac are made by Foxconn? I don't think you have any. I don't think anyone does.
Moreover, although Apple may have a team of engineers that designs the Mac Pro, do you think they really care to consider all the questions any serious computer enthusiasts considers? There is no benefit for a corporation like Apple to invest millions if not billions of dollars into designing the Mac Pro with the quality of an enthusiast in mind, take a look inside one and you will see its the same tired design that pre-built computers have had for decades.
I do think they design it with professionals in mind. I've had a look inside one before and it looks different to your average pre-built computer.
In addition, as a corporation, Apple's main concern in designing a computer like the Mac Pro is cost cutting. Do you think they will consider putting in 3 fans to keep the computer cool when they can use just one and still be within that ambiguous thermal spec you mentioned?
They don't need to worry about cutting costs. They have very healthy margins.
Lastly, even if Apple did take all these measures to ensure that there computers were on par with custom built computers, the cost of the Mac would explode and not be affordable for many people (it is already grossly overpriced in terms of the hardware and quality of said hardware), this deterrent of lost sales is what keeps them from designing a computer with quality of an enthusiast in mind. Reasons like these are why a Mac Pro, or even any prebuilt can never live up the likes of custom built computers.
The Mac Pro isn't very competitive in regard to price because it's been neglected, and I think it will be discontinued in the course of the next few years. Even the '2012' update wasn't even an update, just a very minor spec refresh.
I don't fail to see that distinction. And no of course I don't think it's better for cooling. But I just fail to see the problem with heat when the actual Mac itself will last for five to ten years? I'm sure there will be some models that fail, but overall they're very reliable.
This is also where I know you are duped by Apple because it "looks" more complete or more organized to you so you assume it really is higher quality, but any computer enthusiast or computer engineer will tell you right away that the Apple computer is much lower quality than the custom built. On the other hand, I can't blame you for you're mode of thought. Apple has very clever advertising and ridiculously high prices that make their devices seem higher quality and its very easy to be tricked into believing something that is simply not true. Apple is all about the perception of quality, that's the backbone of their business, its how they get sales from college arts students who want to fit in with their friends but hardly any sales from any engineer or scientist working in a professional field, such as scientific research, where quality is needed (for example the International Space Station has exclusively Thinkpads on board). This also ties in with aluminum unibody structure and glass covered screen of the MBPs. A lot of people point out that an aluminum unibody case has many benefits but ask them to name one and they won't give you answer. Similarly, the glass covered screen makes it terrible to look at the laptop in any light and makes it so much more prone to cracking, but it looks nicer than my Thinkpads anit-glare screen so of course it must be high quality. This is not true, drop my Thinkpad and it will be fine, drop the MBP and the screen will crack, guaranteed.
You're making a lot of assumptions about me, all of which are wrong. I'm not duped by anything, especially not Apple's marketing. And with the rMBP they've reduced reflection on the display by 75% so light is much less of a problem than before. I actually like the glass. Apple doesn't cater to the professional crowd primarily, but the consumer. That's why all their devices are incredibly easy to use, and work very well.
The Mac Pro may get hotter than a custom build, but it's of no less quality (not talking about in terms of layout). I'd expect one to last for at least five years, if not ten.
Another point for you to consider; have you ever tried purchasing a Mac Pro on the Apple website? They charge obscene prices for minor upgrades (ie a while back it cost IIRC something like $500 dollars to upgrade the GPU to a 5850 and another $400 for 12GB of RAM and let me tell you, this was obscenely over priced as buying the components themselves would have costed a fraction of the price). They can get away with this because, like I said before, there is an overwhelming perception that Apple makes quality products, the result of billions and billions of dollars spent on advertising.
I'm well aware of that. It was about $200 for the GPU, but the RAM sounds about right. It's only recently that Apple has started charging more reasonable prices, though they're still much more expensive than buying them yourself. The reason they get away with it is because your average consumer is uninformed -- they don't know they're getting overcharged for the upgrades, and they don't know they can do some of the upgrades themselves.
My only advice to you is please do some homework the next time you buy a computer/laptop and make a rational decision based on objective facts of the overall quality of both machines, and I'm not talking about aesthetics here.
I always do my homework, and I buy what suits me best. I buy Macs for OS X, and I buy the iMac because it's the best value Mac and I like the all-in-one form factor.
In the case you decide to buy one device over the other for an aesthetic reason, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, please accept and acknowledge that you have bought a lower quality machine (unless of course the aesthetics don't take away from the overall quality of the machine, but in the case of Mac Pro, iMac or Macbooks, it does) and don't irrationally make a list of reasons why your machine is objectively better and argue about it on a forum full of people who know much more about the world of computers than you do. Sorry if I come off as rude but it seems to be the only way to give people a real wake up call, if you have any further arguments or have been convinced and have questions that need answering, please PM me!
I still disagree that the aesthetics of Macs take away from the quality. I will agree that it makes them hotter, but they run for a long time so I don't see the problem.
No offense intended but your post sounds arrogant. I have nothing to wake up from. This is a technology forum full of members with varying degrees of knowledge about computers, I've never claimed to be an expert but I do know a fair amount. You seem to think I'm swayed by Apple's advertising and know little about computing, but that's not true. I use Macs because the software is brilliant and I can't stand Windows for anything but gaming where it is superior. The design is also nice and convenient.
Nevertheless thank you for the offer, but I will be fine.
Edit: Have to mention that I pulled that picture of the custom computer off Google. If you take a look around this forum you will see hundred of computers that make even the custom built PC that I linked above look a complete piece of ****.
I've had a look around plenty of times. I'm aware of what's been done. There's some impressive stuff here. Personally I'd choose the Silverstone FT02 (or is it 03?) if I was building my own rig.
Edit 2: Also let me mention that I think Apple does make some good devices (such as the iPhone and iPod Touch and iPad), but in the case of the iPad and iPhone, the phones are overpriced in terms of the hardware you get. Also, considering Android and iOS are pretty much the same (I've used both) I'd rather not buy an iPhone 5 if there are similar products with similar hardware available on the market for a smaller price. I know the argument here will be that the iPhone is "designed" better but apart from the exterior look of different phones, their insides are all designed in a very similar way. Combine that with the fact that I can't even replace the battery on iPhone (I have multiple batteries for my S2, not that I need them but just in the case of an emergency), the iPhone is definitely not something I would buy unless of course it was priced accordingly.
The iPhone 5 is more expensive than your equivalently spec'd Android, but you're paying for Apple's software and support too. I consider iOS to be much better, but that's subjective. The app ecosystem on the other hand is a much more pleasant experience on iOS. The iPad is not overpriced at all.
I'll also add that iOS and Android do the same basic job, but they aren't the same. The former emphasises easy of use and simplicity. Google emphasises customisation and flexibility.
Edit 3: In the post I quoted above, you stated "The iMac is manufactured at Foxconn, that doesn't mean it uses parts made by Foxconn." Then in one of your later posts, when arguing with someone else, you posted a link that shows Apple as a major customer of Foxconn. Let me also inform you that Foxconn only manufactures electronic components, nothing else. So next time, please do some research before making an argument, especially since that argument was formulated in denial of the fact that Apple uses the same low-quality components as any other given computer manufacturer (except of course Lenovo, which wasn't included in the list of major customers in your link). If you are going to use fiction to argue with me, please don't even reply to this post.
I've done plenty of research, and I'm not using fiction to argue with you. I should have said assembled, not manufactured. There's no evidence to support Apple using Foxconn hardware in any Mac or iDevice and there's none to support them not using it either. I don't think anyone knows.