Can you find a better deal than this iMac?

[quraji]

I haven't used a Mac in a while...can they right-click yet?

Jokes aside, are you leaning towards a Mac for the OS or what?

 

[Icyculyr]

Also, buy a high end sdd in addition or instead of a traditional hdd. That's the best investment you could make in a computer today imo.

Right on! I own one myself, OSX boots in < 15 seconds and logs in and is fully usable after clicking log in button after 0.5-1 second.

I haven't used a Mac in a while...can they right-click yet?

Lolz, I think they've made a few improvements since you've last used one.
I've never used a Mac without a right click, you can customize it (I think it comes default as one though).

Jokes aside, are you leaning towards a Mac for the OS or what?

I already own one, in fact in my home we have 4
I prefer OSX, Spaces, Expose, Time Machine, Dashboard, and Quick Look are some features I love, but there are hundreds (approx) of little things OSX does differently that Win 7 does or doesn't do at all.
I've used Flip 3D on Windows 7, and although I think it's cool it's not Expose, I couldn't use it with more than 6-8 documents open to easily find what I want.
I'm on OSX 10.6.1 w/ Windows XP, Vista, 7 running side by side for development, installed 7 onto Boot Camp so I can Dual Boot into it for gaming when I want.

As for the actual question, yeah the iMac seems like a pretty decent alternative to the other setups presented so far. I would be pretty surprised if you can't find a cheaper alternative on the PC side though. The verdict is that custom built computers > all.

Hmmm, I semi agree, I'm not convinced yet, anyone want to post a few setups from NewEgg? I'm going to go have a look now

 

[InfectedWithDrew]

Actually no I didn't, 2.8GHz that turbo boosts up to 3.46GHz faster than the 3.2 when all cores aren't active iirc, and also it's a Core i7, that means it has 4 physical cores that can run two threads, OSX and Windows recognize 8 cores, that's better imo.

My CPU is a quad. It runs at 3.2GHz without an overclock. It can turbo to much much higher, but we all know that overclocking reduces the life of your chip, even with good cooling. You're not proving anything.

 

[Icyculyr]

My CPU is a quad. It runs at 3.2GHz without an overclock. It can turbo to much much higher, but we all know that overclocking reduces the life of your chip, even with good cooling. You're not proving anything.

Overclocking is not Turbo Boost, I'm pretty sure Turbo Boost OCs the processor depending on how many cores are in use and manages it. It's not constantly running @ 3.46GHz.
Disregarding the Turbo Boost, HT on the Core i7 is valuable, from what I've read it's not as good as having 8 physical cores but it's still better than a regular quad.

I use Intel, and so do a lot of people, nothing wrong with AMD from what I know, but I think Intel are better and will stick with them.
Also Apple only use Intel based Macs, I will probably never use a PC again, Windows is OK, but not a PC.

I thought PCs were a lot cheaper than they are (even to build), so I'm not that interested in a PC atm, not that I need to upgrade for a while anyway.

 

[InfectedWithDrew]

Overclocking is not Turbo Boost, I'm pretty sure Turbo Boost OCs the processor depending on how many cores are in use and manages it. It's not constantly running @ 3.46GHz.

My processor has turbo boost as well; you install a tray application and a driver, and then you can turbo boost. I choose not to run it, partially because the driver was written for Vista and I fear Win7 compatibility issues, and partially because I just do not need it.

As far as HT goes, I'm sure the technology helps. But I doubt it creates a simulated 8 core experience... seems like such a trick would be revolutionary - double computing power without adding any cores.

 

[Icyculyr]

My processor has turbo boost as well; you install a tray application and a driver, and then you can turbo boost. I choose not to run it, partially because the driver was written for Vista and I fear Win7 compatibility issues, and partially because I just do not need it.

Interesting, but I still prefer Intel.

As far as HT goes, I'm sure the technology helps. But I doubt it creates a simulated 8 core experience... seems like such a trick would be revolutionary - double computing power without adding any cores.

Like I said it's not the same as 8 physical cores but it still does help.