All-in-One Computers.

[Vince]

Okay, I did research for a person having a problem with his all-in-one, and I thought I'd post it here.

Cheap computers are often composed of left-over parts. An all-in-one gives a company the ability to build a cheap computer that blends left-over laptop parts with left-over desktop parts.

Like laptops, they have heat problems.

Like desktops, they are not portable--they're not really all-in-one. You have the computer attached to the screen. Then you have the keyboard. Then you have the stand. Then you have the power cord. Then you have the mouse. Then you have the mousepad.

The large screen requires a more powerful video card. If you're playing high-end games, you need an even more powerful video card. If you're playing high-end games on the web, you need a more powerful Wi-fi or modem.

Unlike desktops, you cannot replace the monitor easily. Unlike laptops, you cannot replace the monitor with difficulty.

So why would anybody want one? The larger screen makes it easier to read text, but you can do that with a desktop. The ONLY strong point of an all-in-one is that sometimes you can get a better low-end model than a laptop or desktop for the same price, because the all-in-one has a wider choice of cheap, left-over parts.

 

[Skillet]

Lately I've seen a lot of All-in-One computers who have touch screen capabilities as well, which makes it more attractive to certain users. I wouldn't want one with touch screen capabilities, let alone buying an All-in-One computer. I like choosing all the parts myself and then just buying a good monitor, and with the All-in-One changing hardware would be hard/not possible as well in most cases. The same goes for laptops, the only thing that you can really change is the HDD/SSD, RAM memory (often not more than 8GB unless it's a high-end gaming laptop), and the WiFi chip inside of the laptop.

 

[Vince]

Agreed, Skillet. All-in-one computers blend the worst of laptops and desktops more than they blend the benefits. As far as touchscreens go, you don't need one on a regular computer. Tablets and other small devices need them.

 

[Skillet]

Agreed, Skillet. All-in-one computers blend the worst of laptops and desktops more than they blend the benefits. As far as touchscreens go, you don't need one on a regular computer. Tablets and other small devices need them.

Exactly, the performance of All-in-one computers is quite low for the price that you pay for them as well. Same goes for the iMac, which is also an "all-in-one" but then an advanced form of those kinds of computers. Apple does make the price even higher than that the iMac is even worth, just because it's Apple.

 

[Nick]

Agreed, Skillet. All-in-one computers blend the worst of laptops and desktops more than they blend the benefits. As far as touchscreens go, you don't need one on a regular computer. Tablets and other small devices need them.

Exactly, the performance of All-in-one computers is quite low for the price that you pay for them as well. Same goes for the iMac, which is also an "all-in-one" but then an advanced form of those kinds of computers. Apple does make the price even higher than that the iMac is even worth, just because it's Apple.

I dunno, you can get an iMac with a 3.9 GHz processor, quad core i7 and 32GB of RAM.

Sent from my HTC One SV using Tapatalk 2

 

[Skillet]

Agreed, Skillet. All-in-one computers blend the worst of laptops and desktops more than they blend the benefits. As far as touchscreens go, you don't need one on a regular computer. Tablets and other small devices need them.

Exactly, the performance of All-in-one computers is quite low for the price that you pay for them as well. Same goes for the iMac, which is also an "all-in-one" but then an advanced form of those kinds of computers. Apple does make the price even higher than that the iMac is even worth, just because it's Apple.

I dunno, you can get an iMac with a 3.9 GHz processor, quad core i7 and 32GB of RAM.

Sent from my HTC One SV using Tapatalk 2

I meant that the price is too high for the hardware, and that iMac would probably cost around 2-5k, I reckon.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Nick]

I meant that the price is too high for the hardware, and that iMac would probably cost around 2-5k, I reckon.

About $2,500 in Australia, and it'll be cheaper in the US.

Too high? I dunno. They seem pretty good and run a more secure OS than Windows. To be honest I'm willing to pay the price, as soon as I save the money. I'm thoroughly sick of Windows machines.

Go to the Apple online store and check out the prices. They're not *too* bad.

 

[Skillet]

I meant that the price is too high for the hardware, and that iMac would probably cost around 2-5k, I reckon.

About $2,500 in Australia, and it'll be cheaper in the US.

Too high? I dunno. They seem pretty good and run a more secure OS than Windows. To be honest I'm willing to pay the price, as soon as I save the money. I'm thoroughly sick of Windows machines.

Go to the Apple online store and check out the prices. They're not *too* bad.

Yeah I just checked the prices out and they aren't THAT bad but for 2.5k you can get a better Windows computer, personally I don't have any problems with windows so that'd be my choice.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Nick]

Yeah I just checked the prices out and they aren't THAT bad but for 2.5k you can get a better Windows computer, personally I don't have any problems with windows so that'd be my choice.

Yeah, well there are multiple factors to consider.

I also believe (I could be wrong) that Macs don't need as high specs to run the same as Windows machines do.

 

[Skillet]

Yeah I just checked the prices out and they aren't THAT bad but for 2.5k you can get a better Windows computer, personally I don't have any problems with windows so that'd be my choice.

Yeah, well there are multiple factors to consider.

I also believe (I could be wrong) that Macs don't need as high specs to run the same as Windows machines do.

Yeah, that's because Apple optimises their OS to the hardware that they have so their Macs run the smoothest as possible, which is probably the reason that a lot of graphic designers, photographers etc. use Macs as well, because their (often) Adobe programs run smoother on OSX than on Windows. Personally I don't have any problems with using Photoshop in Windows, but I see why they would use Macs. Good quality, the price is just a bit too much.

 

[Brother Mike]

4.2 GHz 8x core Vishera w/ case blue light large 269.00
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1420795

Heat sink Coolmaster 35.00

ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 AM3+ AMD 990FX SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard with UEFI BIOS 144.00

G.SKILL Value 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800) 149.00

Case.......... 69.00

Hard drive 500 GB 50.00

Pwr 720W .......... 104.00

MSI Gaming N760 TF 2GD5/OC GeForce GTX 760 2GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0 SLI Support Video Card 259.00
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231637

Monitor..............
Acer H226HQLbid Black 21.5" 5ms (GTG) Widescreen LED Backlight LED Backlit LCD Monitor, IPS Panel 139.00


Total price: 1,218.00
I would put this against any MAC............................

just go grab a cheap keyboard and mouse.

I also believe (I could be wrong) that Macs don't need as high specs to run the same as Windows machines do.

A Pentium is a Pentium is a Pentium............... Because Apple has a closed hardware system and high price red tape for software makers all things are developed for a specific static system, so things can be optimized much like a video game console........... Ps3 or Xbox.

Apple LOGO.............................. Add another 1,500.00

Mike.

 

[Skillet]

[MENTION=24785]Mike[/MENTION] Exactly, that setup is much better.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Nick]

Whatever. For a higher price I'd rather leave Windows behind and have an OS optimised for the hardware. In my mind, it's a price worth paying.

 

[Skillet]

Whatever. For a higher price I'd rather leave Windows behind and have an OS optimised for the hardware. In my mind, it's a price worth paying.

Well it does depend on what you use the system for, if you like gaming more Windows would be better.

 

[Skillet]

Whatever. For a higher price I'd rather leave Windows behind and have an OS optimised for the hardware. In my mind, it's a price worth paying.

Well it does depend on what you use the system for, if you like gaming more Windows would be better.

 

[Vince]

Skillet, Old Buddy, you're talking sense. I really do believe that Macs are better, unless you're a big-time game player, and...Excuse me, but I need to get back to playing Titan Quest.

 

[Nick]

Whatever. For a higher price I'd rather leave Windows behind and have an OS optimised for the hardware. In my mind, it's a price worth paying.

Well it does depend on what you use the system for, if you like gaming more Windows would be better.

Indeed. I prefer gaming on an Xbox.

Sent from my HTC One SV using Tapatalk 2

 

[Skillet]

Indeed. I prefer gaming on an Xbox.

Sent from my HTC One SV using Tapatalk 2

Exactly, gaming on a console would also be cheaper than gaming on a PC since a PC would require you to update your graphics card etc. every few years which would cost a fair amount of money. Games (usually) do look better on the PC but the gameplay on a xbox/ps3 seems better to me even though I usually just game on my laptop (Battlefield 3, Metro : Last Light) which both run very well (no to barely visible lag) on Medium settings suprisingly!

 

[Nick]

Exactly, gaming on a console would also be cheaper than gaming on a PC since a PC would require you to update your graphics card etc. every few years which would cost a fair amount of money. Games (usually) do look better on the PC but the gameplay on a xbox/ps3 seems better to me even though I usually just game on my laptop (Battlefield 3, Metro : Last Light) which both run very well (no to barely visible lag) on Medium settings suprisingly!

From my experience, nothing beats the gameplay on a console such as Xbox 360, PS3 or Wii. That's what the consoles are designed for, same with the games. PC's - as you mentioned it can be costly with hardware upgrades, not to mention annoying.

I find it easier to game on a console. Despite what people say about the superior gaming graphics on a PC, it doesn't bother me at all. I still get full HD 1080p gaming on my TV with the Xbox 360. Not complaining there.

This is probably getting off topic though. I'm pretty sure there's a console thread in the gaming forum. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[Skillet]

From my experience, nothing beats the gameplay on a console such as Xbox 360, PS3 or Wii. That's what the consoles are designed for, same with the games. PC's - as you mentioned it can be costly with hardware upgrades, not to mention annoying.

I find it easier to game on a console. Despite what people say about the superior gaming graphics on a PC, it doesn't bother me at all. I still get full HD 1080p gaming on my TV with the Xbox 360. Not complaining there.

This is probably getting off topic though. I'm pretty sure there's a console thread in the gaming forum. I'll see if I can find it.

Yeah, or else we'll just make a topic for it if there isn't any ;)