101–110 of 122 posts
I've never lived without a laptop since 2002, and this year I'm going to get Razer Blade 14". Laptops are getting desktop like performance with the portability of a small backpack and the weight of under 2kg. Full HD with 14" laptop looks just right. With the human size not changing at all, I see that there's always a need for a PC.
- There are very few exclusives that matter anymore. The cost of making a AAA game is high enough that publishers can rarely afford to exclude a good part of their market. Of the two consoles that matter, many Xbox exclusives are coming to PC anyways.
- The quality of the PC versions of most games has gone up. There was a transitional period in the mid 2000s where gaming switched from being PC centric to console centric and the PC versions of many AAA games were awful. This has mostly passed. Even Japanese developers are releasing good stuff on PC now, and that group of developers have long seen the PC as alien.
- The digital download market is sane. Valve and Steam are a mostly benign monopoly, and Valve being privately held assures me this will remain true for a while. Problems down the line are problems for future Jake, though. Even so, the individual publisher stores are usually not too bad. Ubisoft's uPlay is fine and integrates with Steam pretty well, and EA's Origin has a big leg up on UI design and actually led the pack on refunds. GOG exists for people that want older games or draw a hard line on DRM.
- There is a range of hardware available for any budget, and the value and reliability of that hardware is the best it's ever been. You can get a $150 GTX 1050 Ti and have modest performance at 1080p on most modern games, or you can drop $650 on a GTX1080 and play most anything at 4K/Ultra, and there are many steps in between. As usual, the sweet spot of performance per dollar is somewhere around the $250 "mainstream" card, but the options exist.
- The Steam Controller and Steam Link are amazing. They open up a whole range of games that previously could only be played with a mouse and keyboard on your desk into your living room. Many games have native support for the XInput controller standard but the Steam Controller takes it even further. The Link steps in if your PC and TV are too far away for an HDMI cable.
- There are tons of games now in every niche. Consoles stay mostly to AAA games (which is fine, I love AAA games), but the range of AA and indie games on PC is amazing. If you want a simulator for something like farming, trains, or driving a truck - PC is your destination. How about managing a bloodline through medieval Europe? Tons of stuff that just isn't possible with a controller alone or that wouldn't be financially viable with the cost of console licensing is available, often with much more direct lines of communication to the developer.
- Digital distribution makes it simple to acquire any game you want at any time, often at a discount over physical stores. I can get a game in a few clicks on Steam and if it's on sale I may save anywhere from 50-90% off retail. I know that the modern consoles have this as well, but it is something I love about PC.
- eSports are fun and they are centered on the PC. I was initially skeptical, but I do enjoy watching some now, and it is undeniably a large market. But the related idea of streaming (Twitch, et al.) is also really cool. I like watching and interacting with some smaller streamers on Twitch, and it is a new way to be involved with gaming.
Like I said, I don't think there's ever been a better time to be a gamer and especially a PC gamer. With consoles taking a more PC-ish "upgradeable" route, I wonder how the market will change in the next decade.
So are suits. http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
I think people have finally figured out the scheme: 1. Make a product in the premium segment, that sends out signals of status and fashion. 2. Wear a turtle-neck to promote the product, as a cover-up. 3. Win over developers and designers. 4. Profit!
Are we in a time machine? Lenovo released the Yoga, the first convertible that you could put in tent mode or tablet mode, and Microsoft released the Surface, back in 2012 . Intel announced the Ultrabook in 2011 . Today you have the same things. They've been revised and improved in the areas of screen, battery life, graphics performance, switching from HDD to SSD, but it's all been incremental. >> 2-IN-1S SUCCEEDED BE…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to their Amazon product page, the XPS 13 has a 2.5Ghz i5 and 8GB of RAM. It has a 256GB SSD and a 3000x1800 screen. It's selling for $1,350, original price $1,799. The 13" MacBook with touchbar has a 2.9Ghz i5 with 8GB of RAM. It has a 256GB SSD and a 2560x1600 screen. It's selling for $1,699, original price $1,799. I know people love to complain about the new MacBook and believe me, I have some complaints…
You do realize that the Dell is 20% cheaper right? That is a large price difference.. perhaps the issue is that people seem to insinuate that 20% price difference isn't much for them so its not much for everyone. Also, the real value proposition for PC's is that they go on sale more than once a year and you can generally get discounts, replacement parts, upgrades, spares without that 20% premium again..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to their Amazon product page, the XPS 13 has a 2.5Ghz i5 and 8GB of RAM. It has a 256GB SSD and a 3000x1800 screen. It's selling for $1,350, original price $1,799. The 13" MacBook with touchbar has a 2.9Ghz i5 with 8GB of RAM. It has a 256GB SSD and a 2560x1600 screen. It's selling for $1,699, original price $1,799. I know people love to complain about the new MacBook and believe me, I have some complaints…
This thread was/is about desktop computers—workstations or gaming PCs, at least up to the root comment about an i7-6700K. Apple's workstation and gaming machine offerings are widely acknowledged to be significantly under-powered and over-priced.
There are no valid comparisons between the prices of a modern Windows desktop and a modern Mac desktop because there is no modern Mac desktop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah. In 2013, macs were slightly more expensive than a comparable PC spec-wise, but still a fairly good deal. In 2016, the prices appear to have almost doubled and is totally unreasonable, while the specs are... malnourished. They even took away the escape key and the magsafe port. :(
> They even took away the escape key Wait, really?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to their Amazon product page, the XPS 13 has a 2.5Ghz i5 and 8GB of RAM. It has a 256GB SSD and a 3000x1800 screen. It's selling for $1,350, original price $1,799. The 13" MacBook with touchbar has a 2.9Ghz i5 with 8GB of RAM. It has a 256GB SSD and a 2560x1600 screen. It's selling for $1,699, original price $1,799. I know people love to complain about the new MacBook and believe me, I have some complaints…
Because no one's actually buying the Dell ;). People complain about things they care about.
Honestly I would love if everyone switched away from Mac. Apple (like Intel) is at their best when their back is against the wall. When they're running the show, they get lazy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree with the config you recommend except the storage. Both HDD and SSD are IMO too small. For HDD, the 1TB is inefficient: €51 for 1TB, €98 for 3TB — that is more than 50% difference in cost/TB (both for WD blue desktop series as listed on computeruniverse.net). For the SSD, the 256 GB is just too small. Sure that’s enough to boot Windows, but not enough to fit more than a couple of modern games, they easily take 5…
You are right. The 1TB HDD is inefficient as price-per-gigabyte is a lot higher than 2 or 3 TB. On the other hand, almost always when I recommend bigger drives I get the feedback that 1TB is more than enough… Depends on the usage. Regarding the SSD, for Windows a 120GB or even a 60GB SSD would be enough (but those are also slower). 250GB is already a lot of additional space for games – again, it depends on the usage.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ridiculous argument. Macs have never been the value proposition, especially when they get fully loaded. Any literally any point in the history of the Mac, you could say "but you can get a comparable PC cheaper!" and it would be true. Macs have always been expensive, everyone has always complained that they're expensive, and they will continue to be expensive. This isn't new.
Your argument is also ridiculous. The biggest difference between a PC and an iMac is the form factor. An windows all-in-one pc with the mentioned specs is probably about as expensive as the iMac (if there even exists one). It would have been better to compare it to an Mac Pro, which probably would be even more expensive... As for the general price of apple products, Surface book, lenovo, dell xps (outside of USA) are…